Tafsir of An-Najm 53:19-20

(19) Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza? (20) And Manat, the third, the other?

These were idols they possessed. As for Al-Lat, Qatadah said it belonged to the Thaqif tribe in Ta’if, and they recited: "Thaqif fled to their Lat at a place of disappointment and loss." Abu ‘Ubaydah and others said it was in the Ka’bah. Ibn Zayd said it was in Nakhlah, near the market of ‘Ukaz, worshiped by the Quraysh. Ibn ‘Atiyyah favored the statement of Qatadah. Abu Hayyan said it is possible to reconcile these views by suggesting that there were idols named by these names, and he informs about each idol according to its location.

The ta in it is said to be original, being the radical of the word (like the ba in ba), and its alif appears to be converted from a ya’, as the root (L-Y-T) exists; if the root (L-W-T) were found, it could be a conversion from a waw. It is also said to be a ta of compensation, with the original being Luwwah—on the measure of fu‘lah—from lawaytu, because they would congregate around it and seclude themselves for worship, or because they would circle around it. It was lightened by dropping the ya’, the waw was changed into an alif, and a ta was substituted for the ya’, becoming like the ta in ukht (sister) and bint (daughter); hence, it is stopped upon with a ta.

Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, Mansur ibn al-Mu‘tamir, Abu Salih, Talhah, Abu al-Jawza’, Ya‘qub, and in one narration Ibn Kathir, recited it with a doubled ta (Al-Latt), as an active participle from latta, meaning to knead/mix. It is said there was a man who used to mix sawiq (barley flour) for the pilgrims upon a rock; when he died, they sanctified that rock and named it after him. From Mujahid: he was on a rock in Ta’if making hais (a mixture of dates and ghee) and feeding the passing people; when he died, they worshiped him. Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduwayh narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that he used to mix sawiq on a rock, and no one would drink from it but that they became fat, so they worshiped it. Al-Fakihi narrated from him that when he died, ‘Amr ibn Luhayy said to them: "He has not died, but he has entered into the rock." So they worshiped it and built a house over it. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Jurayj: he was a man from Thaqif who used to mix sawiq with oil, and when he passed away, they turned his grave into an idol. People claimed it was ‘Amir ibn al-Zarb, one of the ‘Adwan. Other views exist.

Al-‘Uzza belonged to Ghatafan. According to the famous opinion, it was a samurah (acacia tree) in Nakhlah, as Qatadah said. Its origin is the feminine of al-‘izz (power). Al-Nasa’i and Ibn Marduwayh narrated from Al-Tufayl: When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) conquered Makkah, he sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to Nakhlah, where Al-‘Uzza was. Khalid went there—it was merely three trees—and he cut down the acacias and demolished the house that was over them. Then he came to the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) and informed him. He said: "Go back, for you have done nothing." Khalid returned, and when the custodians saw him, they fled, saying: "O ‘Uzza!" He approached it and found a naked woman with disheveled hair scattering dust upon her head. He began to strike her with his sword until he killed her. He returned to the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) and informed him; he said (upon him be peace and blessings): "That was Al-‘Uzza."

In another narration: The Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) sent Khalid to it. He cut it, and a devil with disheveled hair emerged from it, calling out in woe and placing her hand upon her head. He struck her with his sword until he killed her, saying: "O ‘Uzza, your disbelief, not your glorification! I have seen that Allah has humiliated you." He returned and informed the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings), who said: "That was Al-‘Uzza, and she will never be worshiped again." Ibn Zayd said Al-‘Uzza was in Ta’if. Abu ‘Ubaydah said it was in the Ka’bah, which was supported in Al-Bahr by the words of Abu Sufyan in some reports to the Muslims: "We have Al-‘Uzza, and you have no ‘Uzza." He mentioned there that it was an idol and reconciled the views as previously stated.

Manat is said to be a rock that belonged to Hudhayl and Khuza‘ah; according to Ibn ‘Abbas, it belonged to Thaqif; according to Qatadah, it belonged to the Ansar at Qadid. Abu ‘Ubaydah said it was also in the Ka’bah. Abu Hayyan considered it most likely that all three were in the Ka’bah, saying: "Because the addressee in His saying, 'Have you considered,' is the Quraysh." There is debate regarding this.

Manat is maqsurah (ending in an alif). It is said its measure is fa‘lah, named so because the blood of sacrifices (nasa’ik) used to be poured (tumna) upon it. Ibn Kathir—according to Al-Bahr—read it as Mana’ah with a madd (long vowel) and a hamzah, similar to the saying: "Does not the tale of Taym ibn ‘Abd Mana’ah reach you?" It is on the measure of maf‘alah, so the alif is converted from a waw (as in maqalah), and the hamzah is original. It is derived from nawn (rain), as if they used to seek the anwa’ (rain-giving stars) at it, seeking blessings from it.

The manifest meaning is that "the third, the other" are adjectives for Manat. They are, as some say, for emphasis, for the fact that it is the third and "another" distinct from what preceded it is known and needs no clarification. Some eminent scholars said "the third" is for emphasis, and "the other" is for disparagement, implying that it is late in rank and lowly in status. Abu Hayyan countered this, stating that akhar (and its feminine ukhra) was not coined for disparagement or praise, but indicates "something else." The truth is that this is based on the original concept; it also indicates the disparagement of the first two. It is stated in Al-Kashf: "It is a term of disparagement indicating the baseness of the previous two as well, because ukhra (the feminine of akhar) requires participation with the previous. When it is brought for the purpose of being late in rank, one acts upon its original concept—for it is not possible to act upon the customary concept, as the first two are not third—it necessitated participation to fulfill the right of the superlative. It is as if it were said: 'The other in lateness.'" This is excellent.

He mentioned that the witticism behind disparaging Manat in this way is that the infidels used to claim it was the greatest of the three, so Allah Almighty belied them in that. The Imam said: "The other is an adjective of disparagement, as if He—glory be to Him—said: 'And Manat, the third,' the lowly one. This is because Al-Lat was in the form of a human, Al-‘Uzza in the form of a plant, and Manat in the form of a rock. The human is nobler than the plant, and the plant is nobler than the inanimate. The inanimate is last, and Manat is inanimate; thus, it is in the lowest of ranks." You know that this does not hold up across all opinions.

It is said "the other" is an adjective for Al-‘Uzza, because it is the second after Al-Lat, and the second is called "the other," and it was delayed for the sake of the verse endings. Al-Hasan ibn al-Mufaddal said: "There is transposition in the speech, and the estimation is: 'And Al-‘Uzza, the other; and Manat, the third.'" By my life, this is nothing. The speech is an address to the worshipers of these mentioned things. Along with their worship of them, they used to say that the angels—upon them be peace—and these false deities were the daughters of Allah Almighty—exalted is He far above that. This is a rebuke and a shaming for them: Have you considered... and the hamzah is for denial, and the fa’ is for directing it to the ordering of the "seeing" based on what was mentioned of the affairs of Allah Almighty, which are completely contrary to them. It is an intellectual verb in the view of many, and its second object—according to the choice of some—is omitted because the situation indicates it. The meaning is: After you have heard of the traces of the perfection of Allah’s greatness, may He be glorified, in His dominion, His sovereignty, His majesty, His omnipotence, the soundness of His power, and the effectiveness of His command, have you considered these idols, despite their utmost insignificance, to be the daughters of Allah, the Glorious and Exalted?