Al-Ahqaf: 10

Say: "Have you considered..."

"Say: Have you considered if it was" — meaning: what is revealed to me of the Quran. It is also said that the pronoun refers to the Messenger. In this [latter view], the apparent meaning would be "If he [the Messenger] was from Allah, and not a sorcerer or an inventor of falsehoods as you claim, and you disbelieved in him..."

The waw (and) is for the state (hal), and the sentence is a circumstantial clause implying "already" (qad), according to the well-known view. The pronoun in the predicate was placed between the parts of the conditional clause to emphasize the registration of their disbelief. Alternatively, it is for conjunction with "was" (kana), as in the words of the Almighty: "Say: Have you considered if it was from Allah, then you disbelieved in it." Similarly, the waw in the Almighty’s saying: "And a witness from the Children of Israel has testified," except that it connects what is joined to it to the sentence preceding it. The sentences mentioned after these waws are not conjoined in a single arrangement; rather, the sum of "testified, believed, and you grew arrogant" is conjoined to the sum of "was" and what accompanies it, similar to the singulars in: "He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden." The meaning is: "If his being from Allah combines with your disbelief, and the testimony of the witness and his belief combine with your arrogance against belief."

The discussion regarding the response to the conditional clause and the two objects of "Have you considered" (ara'aytum) will follow, if Allah wills. The pronoun in "in it" (bihi) refers to that to which the subject of kana refers, namely what is revealed of the Quran or the Messenger. Ash-Sha'bi holds that it refers to the Messenger, and perhaps he says the same regarding the pronoun in "was" (kana) and in "on a similar" ('ala mithlihi), so as not to necessitate inconsistency. You know that the most apparent view is that all pronouns refer to the Quran.

The tanwin in "a witness" (shahid) is for aggrandizement, as is its description with the prepositional phrase. That is: A witness of great stature from among the Children of Israel—those who are grounded in the matters of Allah and the secrets of revelation—testified based on that which they were given of the Torah, [testifying] to a [scripture] similar to the Quran in terms of the meanings contained in the Torah regarding monotheism, promise, threat, and so on. For, in reality, they are the same as what is in it, as indicated by the Almighty’s saying: "And indeed, it is in the scriptures of the former peoples," and likewise: "Indeed, this is in the former scriptures." The "similarity" (mithliyya) is in regard to its being conveyed in other expressions, or it is similar to what was mentioned of its being from Allah. Another view is that "on a similar" ('ala mithlihi) refers to his own testimony—meaning, he testifies to himself that it is from Allah, as if it testifies to itself by its inimitability. Others say "similar" is a metonym for the Quran itself for the sake of exaggeration. On the assumption that the pronoun refers to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "similar" is interpreted as Moses (peace be upon him).

The fa in the Almighty’s saying: "So he believed" (fa-amana)—meaning in the Quran—is for causality; thus, his belief is consequential to his testimony regarding its correspondence to the revelation. It is permissible for it to be explanatory, in which case his belief in it is the testimony itself. The meaning, on the assumption that it refers to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is apparent with minimal consideration.

His saying: "And you grew arrogant"—meaning against belief—is conjoined to what we indicated regarding "a witness testified." It is permitted that it be conjoined to "believed," because it is its counterpart, making the whole conjoined to the conditional clause. There is no redundancy in "you grew arrogant" because the arrogance occurs after the testimony, and the disbelief is before it.

His saying: "Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people" —meaning those marked by this description—is an expository commencement in the position of providing a cause for the arrogance against belief. Describing them as "wrongdoing" serves to signal the cause of the judgment. This sentence indicates that their disbelief in it is due to their misguidance, which is caused by their wrongdoing. It is the evidence for the response to the conditional clause, and for this reason, the response is omitted. The two objects of "Have you considered" are also omitted due to the meaning indicating them. The implication is: "Have you considered your state if it were thus, then you have done wrong? Are you not wrongdoers?" Thus, the first object is "your state," the second is "are you not wrongdoers," and the response is "then you have done wrong."

Ibn Atiyyah said: "Have you considered" may be for alerting; it is a word established for a question that does not require an object. It is also possible that the sentence "if it was..." etc., stands in the place of its two objects, which is contrary to what the verifiers among the grammarians established. Az-Zamakhshari estimated the response as "Are you not wrongdoers?" without the fa. Abu Hayyan rejected this, saying that if an interrogative sentence occurs as the response to a conditional clause, the fa is mandatory; if the particle is the hamza, it precedes the fa, otherwise it follows it. Perhaps this is an estimation of meaning, not an estimation of syntax.

Some estimated it as "Will you believe?" due to the indication of "so he believed." Al-Hasan estimated it as "Who is more astray than you?" due to the Almighty's saying: "Say: Have you considered if it was from Allah, then you disbelieved in it, who is more astray than one who is in a far-reaching dissension?" and the Almighty's saying: "Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people." Others said the estimation is: "Who is the truthful one among us and you, and who is the liar?" Some said: "You will perish." Others said: It is "So he believed and you grew arrogant," meaning: "Muhammad (peace be upon him) believed in it, or the witness, while you grew arrogant against belief." Most of these are as you see.

The witness is Abdullah ibn Salam (may Allah be pleased with him) according to the majority, Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Ibn Sirin, al-Dahhak, and Ikrimah, in a narration by Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Asakir. In Al-Kashf, regarding making him the witness while the Surah is Meccan, there is a contention. Therefore, this verse was excepted. The verification of it is that it was revealed for what is to come, in the position of a reality. Thus, "testified" and what follows it were conjoined to the Almighty’s saying: "It was from Allah and you disbelieved" so that it might be known that it is similar to it in reality. It is thus in the style of His saying: "Just as We revealed to the distributors," meaning: Warn the Quraish of the like of what We revealed to the Jews of Banu Qurayza, for it was revealed to them seven years after the revelation of the verse.

The focus of the challenge is in the Almighty’s saying: "So he believed," as if it were said: "Inform me, if a scholar from the Children of Israel believes in it—meaning a scholar because it was verified to him that it is like the Torah—are you not the most astray of people?" It contains evidence that it is like the Torah and that belief in it is mandatory, whether that witness testified or not, because that testimony is followed by belief without delay. If he did not believe, he would not be a scholar of what is in the Torah. This suffices as an independent response without looking at the first one; so understand.

The statement of those who said the witness is Abdullah [ibn Salam] is an explanation of the reality, and that he was among those who testified and believed, not that the term "Abdullah" specifically is intended. In both views, it is necessary to interpret the statement of Sa'd—which has preceded in the hadith of the Two Sheikhs and others—that it was revealed in his matter which is yet to happen (on the first view) or in him and those in his state. It is as if it were said: "He is among those for whom it was revealed," because he was among the witnesses.

The statement that it was revealed for what is to come was countered by the fact that there is no need for such an interpretation if it is considered Meccan and the witness is Ibn Salam, because of the conjunction to the conditional clause, which turns the past tense into the future. In that case, there is no harm in the witness's testimony occurring after its revelation. Despite this, the apparent meaning from the reports is that the revelation was in Medina and that it was after Ibn Salam’s testimony. Abu Ya'la, al-Tabarani, and al-Hakim recorded with a sahih chain from Awf ibn Malik al-Ashja'i: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out, and I was with him, until we entered the Jewish synagogue on their feast day. They disliked our entry, so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to them: "Show me twelve men from among you who testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah will remove from every Jew under the sky the wrath that is upon him." They fell silent, and not one of them answered him. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) repeated it, but no one answered. He said it a third time, but no one answered. He said: "You refuse? By Allah, I am the Gatherer (al-Hashir), I am the Successor (al-'Aqib), and I am the Follower (al-Muqaffi), whether you believe or disbelieve." Then he left (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and I was with him, until we were about to exit, when a man came from behind him and said: "Stay as you are, O Muhammad." He turned around, and that man said: "O assembly of Jews, what kind of man do you know me to be among you?" They said: "By Allah, we know no man among us more learned in the Book of Allah or more knowledgeable than you, nor from your father or grandfather." He said: "I testify by Allah that he is the Prophet whom you find in the Torah and the Gospel." They said: "You lie," and then they replied with evil words. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "I am Ibn Salam," and Allah the Almighty revealed: "Say: Have you considered if it was from Allah and you disbelieved in it, and a witness from the Children of Israel has testified" (the verse).

The story of his testimony and belief was narrated in another way, and the reconciliation between it and what was mentioned is not apparent to me. It is also apparent that the revelation was after the testimony. Abd ibn Humayd recorded from Sa'id ibn Jubayr: Maymun ibn Yamin came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—and he was the head of the Jews in Medina—and he embraced Islam. He said: "O Messenger of Allah, send for them [the Jews] and place between you and them a judge from among themselves, for they will be satisfied with me." So the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent for them and he was brought in. They came and debated him for a long time. He said to them: "Choose a man from among yourselves to be a judge between me and you." They said: "We are satisfied with Maymun ibn Yamin." He brought him out to them, and Maymun said to them: "Let us testify that he is the Messenger of Allah and that he is on the truth," but they refused to believe him. So Allah the Almighty revealed regarding him: "Say: Have you considered..." (the verse). This is apparent in the verse being Medinan and its revelation being before the testimony of the witness. However, it is apparent that the witness is someone other than Abdullah ibn Salam.

The fact that he was called that before, I have not seen, and no reason for expressing it without the one being testified about is apparent to me. What I saw in Al-Isti'ab in the biography of Abdullah is that he is Abdullah ibn Salam ibn al-Harith al-Isra'ili al-Ansari, known as Abu Yusuf; his name in the pre-Islamic era was al-Husayn, and when he embraced Islam, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) named him Abdullah. And Allah knows best.

Among the lies and historical ignorance of the Jews is what they believe regarding Abdullah ibn Salam: that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) traveled to the Levant in trade for Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her), he met with the Jewish scholars and told them his dreams, so they knew he would have a state. They sent Abdullah ibn Salam with him, and he remained with him for a period, and he learned the science of laws and former nations from him. They exceeded in lying to the point that they attributed the miraculous Quran to the composition of Abdullah ibn Salam! Yet this Abdullah had no residence in Mecca nor did he frequent it; he did not see the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) until he was in Medina, and he embraced Islam when he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) arrived there, or two years before his death, as narrated in al-Bahr from al-Sha'bi. How lying are the Jews! May Allah curse them. A group like those condemned in the Quran is enough for you, and another group like them.

Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Masruq that the witness is Moses son of Imran (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It has preceded that he used to call the verse Meccan and denied that it was revealed regarding Ibn Salam, saying: "It was only a dispute that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used." On this view, it seems he does not need to say that it was revealed specifically about one witness, and that the generality was intended, because "a witness" in the verse is indefinite, and the indefinite in the context of a condition implies generality.

I say: [The truth is] that the tanwin in "a witness" is for aggrandizement, that the verse is Medinan, that it was revealed regarding Ibn Salam, and that the addresses therein are universally for the disbelievers of Mecca. It is perhaps thought from some narrations that they are for the Jews, but that is not the case.