Tafsir of Al-`Alaq 96:14

“Has he not known that Allah sees?” (Al-Alaq: 14). The first two [instances of] “Have you seen” are directed toward the Messenger, and the answer to them is omitted in both cases, as it is understood by them; its omission is for the sake of brevity. The analogy for this is saying: “Tell me about Zayd, did you visit him?” “Tell me about him, did you ask after him?” “Tell me about him, did you seek his intercession?” This does not constitute tanaazu‘ (contention for governance), because clauses cannot be elided as pronouns are; rather, it is a matter of semantic request. Deletion in contexts other than tanaazu‘—as well as the answer to the condition in both clauses—is omitted due to the indication of “Has he not known...” toward it, and it is estimated according to what the [grammatical] craft requires.

It is said that “Have you seen” indicates this, intending what will be mentioned shortly, if Allah Almighty wills, and it is estimated accordingly; the discourse regarding it is also analogous to what has passed just now. The hidden pronouns in “was” (kaana) and the verbs that follow refer to the one who forbids. The intent of “Have you seen” is “Tell me,” for since vision is a cause of knowledge, questioning about the former is treated as questioning about its object. The question occurring in the place of the second object is the object of the inquiry here. This treatment—according to what is understood from the words of some Imams—occurs with both visual sight and heart-sight, and grammarians hold two opinions regarding it.

The address in all instances, according to what a group has chosen, is to everyone capable of being addressed, from among those who possess understanding. It is also said that it is to man, like the address in “To your Lord.” The tanween (nunation) on ‘abdan (a servant), according to what is apparent in the speech of some, is for indefiniteness. Qualifying the prohibition with the circumstantial phrase indicates that the prohibition from prayer is while one is actively engaged in it.

The clauses are separated due to the concern for the matter of vilification and threat, as it implies that each clause is intended in its own right. The Almighty first vilified the prohibitor for his prohibiting prayer and threatened him absolutely by His saying: “Have you seen him who...?” i.e., Tell me, O you who possesses the slightest discernment, or O man, about the one who forbids some of the servants of Allah Almighty from prayer: Has he not known that Allah Almighty sees and observes, and will therefore recompense him for that prohibition?

The Almighty secondly vilified him for his prohibiting that, and threatened him for it as well, on the assumption that he—according to his own claim—is upon guidance and rectitude in the very act of prohibiting, or that he is one who commands piety through it, since forbidding a thing is a command for its opposite, or entails it. Thus, the Almighty said: “Have you seen if he were...” i.e., Tell me about that prohibitor, has he not known that Allah observes and will recompense him, if he were upon guidance and rectitude in the very act of prohibiting, or if he were a commander of piety through it, as he claims?

The Almighty thirdly vilified him for that and threatened him for it as well, on the assumption that he is, in reality—and in what He says, Almighty is He—one who denies the truth of prayer, turning away from it, shunning its performance, by His saying: “Have you seen if he denied...?” i.e., Tell me about that prohibitor, has he not known that Allah Almighty observes his states if he denies the truth of what he forbade and turns away from performing it, according to what we say?

The result is that the Almighty vilified and threatened for the prohibition of prayer without addressing the state of the prohibitor—whether claimed or real—then vilified and threatened him while addressing his claimed state, then vilified and threatened him while addressing his real state. This is like an escalation in vilification. The majority hold that what is contained within the two conditional clauses is not restricted to what we mentioned; rather, they said: “If he were upon a firm path” in what he forbids of the worship of Allah, “or were a commander of virtue and piety” in what he commands of the worship of idols, as he claims; and “If he denied the truth and turned away from the right,” as we say.

It was mentioned that the second condition is a repetition of the first, because the meaning of the first is that he is not upon guidance. It was clarified that inserting the conditional particle in the first is to give him rope in appearance while being mocking in reality, for there is no guidance at all in forbidding the worship of the Almighty and commanding the worship of idols. In the second, it is for the same, and the mockery is the reverse of the first, for there is no doubt that he is a denier who turns away, so the two amount to one thing.

It is said that vision in the first clause is visual, so it does not require a second object, while in the second and third it is heart-sight; the first object is as stated, and the second object is replaced by the conditional clause and its answer, which in the last instance is “Has he not known...”, while in the one before it, it is omitted, indicated by this. The last was not conjoined to the one before it to signal its independence in occurring in reality, and in being followed by the threat which the answer expresses. As for the one before it, the condition’s state is only for expanding the scope, which is the secret in stripping it of an answer and referring it to the answer of the subsequent condition.

The address in all of them is to whomsoever it is fit. The tanween in ‘abdan is for his glorification—peace be upon him—and to emphasize the enormity of the prohibition and the astonishment at it. The meaning is: Tell me about that prohibitor, if he were upon guidance in what he forbids of the worship of Allah Almighty, etc.—what was mentioned earlier—has he not known that Allah sees and observes his states, and will recompense him for them, that he dared to do what he did?

It is said that “Have you seen” in the three clauses is heart-sight. The first object of the first is the relative pronoun (alladhi), and its second object is the first conditional clause and its answer, which is omitted, being content instead with the answer of the second conditional clause, as it is known from the necessity of contrast. The second “Have you seen” is a repetition of the first. The third “Have you seen” has its first object omitted due to the context, and it is independent because it contrasts the first, due to the contrast between the two conditions—meaning His saying: “If he were...” and His saying, Exalted is He: “If he denied...” Bringing the last clause without conjunction acts as a seasoning for the rebuking speech and alerts one to the truth of the condition, which is why its answer is explicitly stated so that it becomes purely a threat.

The address is as previously stated, and the speech is of the nature of fair discourse and “giving rope,” which is why he said ‘abdan and did not say nabiyan mujtaban (chosen prophet). It is as if it were said: “Tell me, O you who possesses the slightest discernment, about the state of this one who forbids some of the servants of Allah—let alone a chosen Prophet—from his prayer, if that prohibitor were upon guidance in what he forbids of the worship of Allah Almighty, or if he were a commander of piety in what he commands of the worship of idols, as he claims. And likewise, if he were upon denial of the truth and turning away from the correct religion, as you say, has he not known...?”

It is said that “Have you seen” in the second and third clauses is a repetition of the first, and the two conditional clauses with their answers stand in the place of the second object of the first. “Has he not known...” is the answer to the second condition, while the answer to the first is omitted due to its being indicated by it. He did not say “or if he denied” because it is not a coordinate to what precedes it, as it is said. The meaning is according to what you have heard.

An objection was raised against all these opinions: that allowing the arrival of an interrogative in the reward of a condition without the fa—even if al-Zamakhshari stated it in his Kashshaf and al-Radhi approved of it, citing the verse: “Say, ‘Have you seen if the punishment of Allah comes to you... will anyone perish except the wrongdoing people?’”—is a matter of investigation. For the apparent import of al-Zamakhshari’s own transmission in al-Mufassal, and the transmission of others, is the necessity of the fa when the reward is an incipient (insha'i) sentence. Even if the interrogation does not remain in its reality, it does not depart from what is in the Kashf regarding the incipient. Abu Hayyan said: “I do not know anyone who permitted the occurrence of an interrogative sentence as an answer to a condition without a fa; rather, they asserted the necessity of the fa in everything that requires a request in any way, and it is not permissible to omit it except by necessity or in poetry.” Al-Damamini said in his Sharh al-Tashil: “Making ‘will anyone perish’ a reward is problematic because it is not coupled with the fa, and coupling it with the fa in such a case is obligatory.”

It was also objected that making the conditional clause the place of the second object of “Have you seen” is because its second object can only be an interrogative sentence, as Abu Hayyan and a group asserted, or an oath-based sentence, as in al-Irshad. Al-Khafaji said that making the condition in the place of the object and the interrogative sentence in the place of the answer to the condition is either according to its appearance, or because—due to their indication of that—they were treated as if they were so, for they fulfill the place of the object and the answer. With what was mentioned, al-Radhi and al-Damamini in Sharh al-Tashil asserted in the chapter of the demonstrative pronoun. So what was said that the second object of “Have you seen” cannot be anything but an interrogative sentence is contrary to what they asserted is the choice of Sibawayh, and thus it is not to be heeded.

They did not make the address in what was mentioned to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), nor to the disbelieving prohibitor, because the context necessitates the exit of the prohibitor and the one prohibited from the domain of the address. In al-Bahr, it was deemed more probable that it is to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), while others permitted making it to the disbeliever, and the intent is to portray the state with a universal title, which is as you see.

It is said the two pronouns in “if he were” and “commanding” refer to the praying servant, and the pronouns in “denied,” “turned away,” and “knows” refer to the one who forbids. The essence of the meaning, according to what al-Farra’ said: “Have you seen him who forbids a servant when he prays,” and the one prohibited is upon guidance and a commander of piety, and the prohibitor is a denier and a turner-away—how astonishing is this! It is apparent that the answer to the condition for him is omitted, which is: “How astonishing is this!” by the evidence of “Have you seen,” for it implies astonishment. Vision here is said to be intellectual, and the second object is omitted, like this answer; and it is said to be visual, and “Has he not known...” is an independent sentence to confirm what preceded it and emphasize it. The “wa” (and) is partitionary, meaning “and.”

It is said the address in the second “Have you seen” is to the disbeliever, and in the second [instance] to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Thus He, Mighty and Majestic, is like the judge who has attended the disputants, addressing this one at one time and the other at another; and it is as if He, Exalted is He, said: “O disbeliever, tell me if his prayer is guidance and his call to Allah is a command of piety, and tell me: do you forbid him?” and “Tell me, O Messenger, if the prohibitor is a denier of the truth, turning away from the correct religion: has he not known that Allah Almighty will recompense him?” This speaker remained silent about the address in the first “Have you seen,” so it was said: [it is addressed] to everyone who is fit for it, and it was said: to man, and it was said: to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), like the address in the third. His saying “forbid him” is susceptible to being made the object of “see” or the answer to the condition, or as in its predecessor.

Perhaps the mention of “commanding piety” in the second clause is because the prohibition, as it is said, was of prayer and commanding it. The apparent [logic] would have required him to mention it in the first clause as well, by saying: “Have you seen him who forbids a servant when he prays or commands piety?” But he omitted it, being content with its mention in the second, and confined himself to mentioning prayer and did not reverse it because commanding piety is a verbal call, and prayer is an active call, and the act is stronger than the word. It was a call and a command because when the one who takes him as a model performed an act, it was in the power of his saying: “Do this.”

It is said that what was mentioned first is not the prohibition of prayer, but rather the prohibition while in prayer, and it is possible that it is for it or for another. Since the general states of prayer were restricted to completing the praying person himself through worship and completing others through calling [to the faith], his forbidding [someone] in that state is [a prohibition] of prayer and calling together, and thus it was mentioned in the second clause. End of quote, so do not be heedless.

The Imam permitted the address in all of them to be to him—peace and blessings be upon him—and said in explaining the meaning of “Have you seen if he were...”: “Have you seen if he turned to guidance and busied himself with the affair of his soul, would that not have been appropriate for him, for he is a sensible man possessing wealth? If he chose the correct opinion, guidance, and the command of piety, would that not have been better for him than disbelief in Allah and forbidding His service, Exalted and Majestic is He?” It is as if He, Exalted is He, says: “Sigh for him, how he missed out on the high ranks and was content with the lowly ranks.”

‘Isam al-Din considered this clause a reprimand for missing what is beneficial, and what follows it a reprimand for gaining what is harmful. He said: “His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Have you seen him who...’ is a testimony to the tyranny of man when he sees himself independent. Vision is in the meaning of seeing: i.e., did you witness him who forbids a servant when he prays, and did you know the tyranny of the independent man, and that he is not satisfied with his own disbelief and proceeds to burden the servant who was sent to forbid disbelief with disbelief?” And His saying, Exalted is He: “Have you seen if he were...” is a reprimand for him for the loss of what its reality is not known due to the loss of guidance and the command of piety—i.e., did you know that he was upon any success: was he upon guidance or commanding piety? And His saying, Exalted is He: “Have you seen if he denied...” is a reprimand for him for what he gained of the entitlement to punishment and distance from the Lord of lords—i.e., did you know that he was upon punishment and reckoning? And His saying, Exalted is He: “Has he not known...” is a threat and a severe warning after the reprimand for gaining the state of the wretched and the loss of the state of the fortunate. End of quote, and it is as you see, so contemplate all that has preceded, and Allah Almighty is more knowing of His intent.

Furthermore, although the verse was revealed concerning Abu Jahl—upon whom is the curse—everyone who forbids prayer and prevents it is his partner in the threat. This does not necessitate the prohibition of prohibiting prayer in detested houses and at detested times, because what is actually forbidden is not the prayer itself, but rather its accompanying descriptor. The strictest precaution is that some of them avoided prohibiting altogether. It is narrated from the Commander of the Faithful—may Allah honor his countenance—that he saw in the prayer hall some people praying before the Eid prayer, and he said: “I have not seen the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) doing that.” It was said to him—may Allah be pleased with him—: “Will you not forbid them?” He replied—may Allah be pleased with him—: “I fear that I will enter under the threat of His saying, Exalted is He: ‘Have you seen him who forbids a servant when he prays?’” In another narration: “I do not like to forbid a servant when he prays, but I tell them what I saw from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).”

Abu Hanifa—upon him be mercy—followed a similar path; it is narrated that Abu Yusuf said to him: “Does the praying person say when he raises his head from bowing, ‘O Allah, forgive me’?” He replied: “He says: ‘Our Lord, to You is praise,’ and he prostrates,” and he did not explicitly prohibit it. Prohibiting other types of worship is measured against the prohibition of prayer, and there is no difference between a verbal prohibition and a circumstantial prohibition, among which is that one distracts a person from that, and many people have been afflicted by this.