Tafsir of Al-Mulk 67:22

"Is he who walks fallen upon his face more rightly guided, or he who walks erect on a straight path?"

This is a parable struck for the polytheist and the monotheist, illustrating their conditions in this world and establishing the nature of their respective creeds. The fa (in afaman) serves to sequence this statement with the previously manifested wretched state of the disbelievers, their falling into the abysses of delusion, and their riding the back of the blind camel of arrogance and aversion. Although the hamzah precedes the fa in the written form, this is only to satisfy the requirement of the hamzah to occupy the initial position; in terms of meaning, the order is the reverse, according to the well-known view. Indeed, if hal were used in place of the hamzah, one would say, "Fahal man yamshi..." (So is he who walks...).

Man is a relative noun serving as the subject, and yamshi is its relative clause. Mukibban is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) derived from the hidden pronoun within it, and ala wajhihi (upon his face) is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifier related to mukibban, or as a fixed state; the former is more appropriate. Ahda is the predicate of man, and the second man is a conjunction of the first—a case of conjoining a singular noun to another singular noun, as in the saying, "Is Zayd better, or 'Amr?" It is also said that it is a subject whose predicate is omitted because the predicate of the first has already indicated it, though there is no need for this given what you have heard.

Al-mukibb is one who falls upon his face. It is said, "Akabba—he fell upon his face," and it is from the form af'ala. It is well known that it is an intransitive verb, while its triliteral root is transitive, as in: "Allah the Exalted made him fall (kabbahu), so he fell (akabba)." This has occurred contrary to the standard morphological rule, yet it has a few precedents, such as amrat al-naqah (the she-camel gave much milk) and amartuha, ashnaqa al-ba'ir (the camel raised its head) and shanaqtuhu, aqsha'a al-ghaym (the clouds cleared away) and qasha'athu al-rih (the wind cleared it away/removed it), anzafat al-bi'r (the well ran dry) and nazaftuha (I exhausted its water), and ansalla rish al-ta'ir (the bird's feathers molted) and nasaltuhu.

Some scholars have stated that the truth of the matter is that the hamzah in this case denotes "becoming" (sayrurah); thus, the meaning of akabba is "he became possessor of a fall" and entered into it, just as in a'amma (he became a scoundrel) or anfada (he became one who has exhausted what is in his provisions). It is not for the sake of the passive reflexive (mutawa'ah); the reflexive of kabba is actually inkabba. Ibn Sidah adopted this view in Al-Muhkam, following Al-Jawhari and others, and he was followed by Ibn al-Hajib and most commentators of Al-Mufassal. However, the speech of some eminent scholars appears to equate the reflexive with the "becoming." Ibn al-A'rabi reported both kabbahu Allah and akabbahu as transitive. In the Qamus, there is a clear text supporting this, and according to it, there is no violation of the standard rule.

The meaning is: "Is he who walks while stumbling at every moment and falling upon his face at every step—due to the ruggedness of his path and the variation of its parts, with some low and others high—more rightly guided and directed toward the destination he seeks? Or he who walks upright, safe from stumbling and falling, on a path with level parts, containing no crookedness nor deviation?"

The path of the disbeliever was not explicitly described, but rather alluded to by what indicates its ruggedness and lack of straightness—namely mukibban—to imply that what he is upon does not deserve to be called a path at all. Some have interpreted "erect" (al-sawiyy) as "level of direction, with little deviation," on the basis that the mukibb is the one who wanders aimlessly, deviating this way and that. However, this is not appropriate here, because the phrase "on a straight path" would then become redundant. Af'al (comparative) here is like the saying, "Honey is sweeter than vinegar."

As narrated from Ibn Abbas, the verse was revealed concerning Abu Jahl (may he be cursed) and Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him), though the intent is universal, as has also been reported from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Al-Dahhak. Qatadah said it was revealed to inform of the state of the disbeliever and the believer in the Hereafter: the disbelievers will walk upon their faces, and the believers will walk upright. It is reported that the Prophet (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was asked, "How will the disbeliever walk upon his face?" He replied, "He who made him walk on his feet in this world is capable of making him walk upon his face in the Hereafter." Accordingly, there is no parable being made. It has also been said that the "fallen" refers to the blind, and "erect" refers to the sighted. This is either by way of metonymy or loose metaphor, and it does not prevent it from being a parable for those mentioned, as is known in its proper place.