Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:102-113

Surah As-Saffat (37): Verses 102–113

[37:102] Fa-lammā balagha ma‘ahu as-sa‘y

When he reached the age to work actively with him (Ibrahim)...

Know that when the Exalted and Sublime (Allah) said, {So We gave him tidings of a forbearing boy} (37:101), He followed it with what indicates the fulfillment of that promise. He said: {When he reached the age to work actively with him}.

This means: When he attained the age where he was capable of striving (sa‘y). The phrase {with him} (ma‘ahu) is in the state (ḥāl), meaning "while being with him (Ibrahim)." The benefit of mentioning this is that the father is the most compassionate person toward his son; others might be harsh in demanding effort (isti‘sā’), which the child might not endure because his strength is not yet fully established. Some scholars said that at this time, the boy was thirteen years old.

The purpose of this statement is that when Allah promised in the first verse that the boy would be forbearing (ḥalīm), this verse clarifies what indicates the perfection of his forbearance. This is because he possessed such complete forbearance and magnanimity that it empowered him to endure that immense trial and offer that excellent response.

There are several issues concerning this statement:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the Word "Dream" (Manām)

There are two views on interpreting this word:

1. View One (Al-Suddi): When Ibrahim was given the good news of Isaac (before he was born), he vowed, "He is indeed the one Allah has destined to be slaughtered." It was said to Ibrahim, "You made a vow, so fulfill it." When he woke up, he said: {O my son, indeed I see in a dream that I am slaughtering you}. Another narration states that on the Night of Tarwiyah (the Eighth of Dhul-Hijjah), he dreamt that a caller told him Allah commanded him to slaughter his son. When he woke up, he pondered this from morning till evening: Is this dream from Allah or from Satan? Hence, the day was named Yawm at-Tarwiyah (Day of Deliberation). When evening came, he saw the same thing, realizing it was from Allah, so it was named Yawm ‘Arafah (Day of Knowing). On the third night, he saw the same thing and resolved to perform the sacrifice, so it was named Yawm an-Naḥr (Day of Sacrifice). This is the view of the exegetes, indicating that he saw in the dream something that necessitated slaughtering his son while awake. Under this interpretation, the meaning is: "I see in a dream something that requires me to slaughter you."

2. View Two: He saw in the dream that he was slaughtering him. The dreams of the Prophets (peace be upon them) are a form of revelation (waḥy). According to this view, what was seen in the dream was merely the act of slaughtering.

• Objection: If the dream is revelation, then either it is established by proof for the Prophets that everything they see in a dream is true and binding, or it is not established. * If it is established (the first case), why did he consult his son in this incident? It would have been obligatory for him to proceed with the command without consulting the son or asking him, {So see what you think}, and not making the action dependent on the son saying, {Do what you are commanded}? Furthermore, you claim he remained contemplating on the first day; if it were established that everything seen in a dream is true, there would be no need for this deliberation. * If it is not established (the second case), how could he proceed to slaughter the child based merely on a vision for which there is no proof that it is binding?

• Answer: It is plausible that he was hesitant about the vision initially, but then the vision was confirmed by explicit revelation (waḥy ṣarīḥ). (And Allah knows best.)

Issue 2: Identity of the Sacrificed One

There is a difference of opinion on who the sacrificed one was:

• View A: It was Isaac (Isḥāq). This is the view of ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Al-‘Abbās ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ka‘b al-Aḥbār, Qatādah, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Masrūq, ‘Ikrimah, Al-Zuhrī, Al-Suddī, and Muqātil (may Allah be pleased with them).

• View B: It was Ishmael (Ismā‘īl). This is the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Al-Ḥasan, Al-Sha‘bī, Mujāhid, and Al-Kalbī.

Arguments for Ishmael:

1. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "I am the son of the two who were sacrificed." An Arab once addressed him, "O son of the two who were sacrificed," and the Prophet smiled. When asked why, he explained that when ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib dug the well of Zamzam, he vowed to Allah that if He facilitated the matter for him, he would sacrifice one of his sons. The lot fell upon ‘Abdullāh (the Prophet's father), but his maternal uncles prevented it, saying, "Ransom your son with one hundred camels." So he was ransomed with one hundred camels. The second one sacrificed was Ishmael.
2. It is narrated that Al-Aṣma‘ī asked Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ about the sacrificed one. He replied, "O Aṣma‘ī, where is your intellect? When was Isaac in Mecca? Only Ishmael was in Mecca, and he built the House with his father."
3. Allah described Ishmael with patience in {And Ishmael and Idrīs and Dhul-Kifl, all were among the patient} (21:85)—referring to his patience during the sacrifice. He also described him as true to his promise in {Indeed, he was true to the promise of what he would do} (19:54), because he promised his father patience regarding the sacrifice and fulfilled it.
4. Allah said: {And We gave him tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob} (11:71). If the sacrificed one were Isaac, the command to slaughter him would have occurred either before Jacob appeared from him or after. The first is false because Allah gave tidings of Isaac and Jacob through him; commanding the sacrifice before Jacob appeared would contradict the promise {and after Isaac, Jacob}. The second is false because {When he reached the age to work actively with him, he said, "O my son, indeed I see in a dream that I am slaughtering you"} indicates that the command came when the son reached the age of striving, which contradicts the story occurring at another time. Thus, it is established that the sacrificed one cannot be Isaac.
5. Allah recounts Ibrahim’s statement: {Indeed, I am going to my Lord; He will guide me} (37:99). Then he asked Allah for a son to keep him company in his exile: {My Lord, grant me [a child] from the righteous} (37:100). This request is only appropriate before one has a child, because if he already had one son, he would not ask for a son (the singular implies the first or only one, as min implies partiality, and the minimum of partiality is one). Thus, this request implies the absence of any children. It is agreed that Ishmael preceded Isaac in existence. Therefore, the one sought by this supplication is Ishmael. Allah then mentioned the story of the sacrificed one immediately after, so the sacrificed one must be Ishmael.
6. The numerous reports about the ram’s horns being hung in the Ka‘bah suggest the sacrifice occurred in Mecca. If it were Isaac, the sacrifice would have been in Syria.

Arguments for Isaac:

1. The beginning and end of the verses indicate this. At the beginning, Ibrahim said: {Indeed, I am going to my Lord; He will guide me} (37:99), which is agreed to mean his migration to Syria. Then Allah said: {So We gave him tidings of a forbearing boy} (37:101). This boy must be Isaac. Then: {When he reached the age to work actively with him} implies this son who reached the age of striving is that son born in Syria. Thus, the prelude to the verse indicates the sacrificed one is Isaac. At the end, after completing the story of the sacrifice, Allah says: {And We gave him tidings of Isaac, a prophet among the righteous} (37:112). This means Allah gave him the good news of Isaac becoming a Prophet among the righteous because he endured the hardships of the sacrifice story. Thus, the beginning and end indicate the sacrificed one is Isaac (peace be upon him).
2. What is famous in the letter from Jacob (Israel, Prophet of Allah, son of Isaac, the slaughtered of Allah, friend of Allah) to Joseph (peace be upon them) confirms this, as Jacob identifies Isaac as the "slaughtered of Allah."

Conclusion on the Identity: Al-Zajjāj said: "Allah knows best which one was sacrificed, and Allah knows best."

Related Issue: The difference in opinion regarding the sacrificed one leads to a difference in the location of the sacrifice. Those who say it was Ishmael say it was in Minā. Those who say it was Isaac say it was in Syria, or perhaps in Jerusalem. (And Allah knows best.)

Issue 3: Was Ibrahim Commanded to Perform the Slaughter?

People differed on whether Ibrahim (AS) was commanded to perform the actual slaughter based on what he saw. This hinges on an issue in Usul al-Fiqh: Can a ruling (ḥukm) be abrogated before the time for its fulfillment arrives?

• Majority View (Our Companions): Yes, it is permissible. Therefore, Allah commanded him to slaughter, and then abrogated this obligation before its time arrived.
• Mu‘tazilah and many Shāfi‘ī and Ḥanafī jurists: No, it is not permissible. Therefore, Allah did not command him to slaughter, but only commanded him the preliminaries of the slaughter.

This is a noble issue concerning abrogation:

Argument for Abrogation (Majority View): We argue that Allah commanded him to slaughter the son.

1. Ibrahim said to his son: {I see in a dream that I am slaughtering you}, and the son replied: {Do what you are commanded}. This indicates Ibrahim was commanded with the preliminaries of the slaughter, not the slaughter itself.
2. He performed the preliminaries. At this point, he had fulfilled what he was commanded, and no ransom would be needed.
3. However, he did need a ransom, evidenced by {And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice} (37:107). This proves he had completed what he was commanded (the preliminaries), which implies Allah had commanded him the actual slaughter.
4. Since the actual slaughter was commanded, and then Allah abrogated it before its occurrence (as evidenced by the need for ransom), this supports our position.

Argument Against Abrogation (Mu‘tazilah View): We do not concede that Allah commanded the slaughter; rather, He commanded the preliminaries.

1. He only performed the preliminaries, yet Allah informed him that he had fulfilled the command, evidenced by {O Ibrahim, you have certainly fulfilled the vision} (37:105). This indicates the command in the dream was only for the preliminaries: laying him down, placing the knife on his throat, and having the firm intention to perform the act.
2. Slaughter means cutting the throat. Perhaps Ibrahim cut the throat, but every time he cut a part, Allah restored the tissue, preventing death.
3. The decisive argument (upon which they rely): If Allah commands a specific person to perform a specific act at a specific time, this indicates that performing that act at that time is good (ḥasan). If He then forbids it, this prohibition indicates that performing the act at that time is ugly (qabīḥ). If this prohibition followed the command immediately, one of two things must occur: If Allah knew the nature of the act, then He commanded the ugly or forbade the good. If He did not know, then Allah is ignorant (which is impossible).

Rebuttal to the Mu‘tazilah:

1. Regarding the first point: We have already shown that Allah commanded him the slaughter itself.
2. Regarding {You have certainly fulfilled the vision}: This confirms he acknowledged the vision was binding, but it does not prove he completed everything he saw in the dream.
3. Regarding the second point (restoration of tissue): This is false. If Ibrahim had completed everything commanded, he would not have needed a ransom. Since he needed a ransom, we know he did not complete what was commanded.
4. Regarding the third point (commanding the ugly/forbidding the good): This is based on the premise that Allah only commands what is inherently good and only forbids what is inherently ugly—a premise based on rational judgment (taḥsīn wa taqbīḥ ‘aqlī), which is false. Even if we accept this, we ask: Is it not possible that commanding something is sometimes good because the commanded act is good, and sometimes good because the command serves a higher benefit, even if the act itself is not inherently good? For example, a master might command his slave to perform a difficult task on Friday, not because he wants the task done, but to train the slave in obedience. Once the master knows the slave is prepared for obedience, he might remove the difficulty. Similarly here. Until you prove this possibility invalid, your argument is incomplete.

Issue 4: Allah Commands What He Does Not Will to Occur

Our scholars use this verse as proof that Allah may command something He does not will to happen.

• Proof: He commanded the slaughter, but He did not will it to occur.
  • He commanded the slaughter (as established in Issue 1).
  • We hold that whatever Allah wills to occur, occurs. Since the slaughter did not occur, we know Allah did not will its occurrence.

• Mu‘tazilah View: Allah forbade the slaughter. Forbidding something implies the prohibitor does not will its occurrence. Thus, He commanded the slaughter, but He did not will it. This proves that command can exist without will.

The full discussion on whether Allah commanded the slaughter was covered in the previous issue. (And Allah knows best.)

Issue 5: Wisdom in the Command Being in a Dream, Not While Awake

This wisdom can be understood in several ways:

1. This command was the utmost difficulty for both the slaughterer and the slaughtered. It was revealed first in a dream to serve as a warning/prelude to the severe command, which was then confirmed in wakefulness. Thus, the command did not strike them all at once, but gradually.
2. Allah made the dreams of the Prophets true. Allah said regarding the Prophet (PBUH): {Allah has certainly fulfilled for His Messenger the vision in truth: "You will surely enter the Sacred Mosque..."} (48:27). He said of Joseph (AS): {I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me} (12:4). He said of Ibrahim (AS): {I see in a dream that I am slaughtering you} (37:102). The purpose is to strengthen the proof of their truthfulness. If both states—wakefulness and sleep—testify to truth, that is the ultimate proof of their veracity in all circumstances. (And Allah knows best.)

We then state that the stations of the Prophets (peace be upon them) fall into three categories regarding their visions:

1. What occurs exactly as seen (e.g., the Prophet Muhammad's entry into the Sacred Mosque).
2. What occurs contrary to the vision (e.g., Ibrahim saw slaughter, but the outcome was ransom and salvation).
3. What occurs through interpretation and analogy (e.g., Joseph's dream). This is why interpreters agree that dreams manifest in these three ways.

Issue 6: Recitation of {I see}

Ḥamzah and Al-Kisā’ī recited {tarā} (تَرَى) with a ḍammah on the tā’ and a kasrah on the rā’ (تُرِي), meaning: "What do you see of yourself in terms of patience and submission?" Or, "What do you indicate?" The rest recited it with a fatḥah on the tā’ (تَرَى). Among those who use fatḥah, some use imlāl (slight inclination) and some do not.

Issue 7: Wisdom in Consulting the Son

The wisdom in consulting the son was so that he might be informed of this event, revealing his patience in obedience to Allah. This would be a source of comfort (qurrat ‘ayn) for Ibrahim, seeing his son reach such a high degree of forbearance and patience under the severest hardship. Furthermore, the son would attain immense reward in the Hereafter and noble praise in this world.

Allah then recounts the son's response: {Do what you are commanded}. This means: "Do what you are commanded [to do]." The preposition bi (with/to) is omitted, similar to the phrase: "I commanded you the news, so act upon what you are commanded [with]."

Then he said: {You will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient}. He suspended this upon the will of Allah as a form of seeking blessing (tabarruk) and auspiciousness, acknowledging that there is no turning away from disobedience except through Allah's protection, and no strength for obedience except through Allah's success.

[37:106] Fa-lammā aslamā...

So when they had both submitted (to the Will of Allah)...

It is said that aslama (submitted) and aslamā (submitted completely) mean the same thing. Both readings are transmitted. It means he yielded to Allah's command and submitted. The root means "this thing belongs to so-and-so" (i.e., it is free from dispute). The meaning of aslama li-amrillāh (submitted to Allah's command) is that he dedicated his soul to Allah, making it safe and pure for Him. Similarly, istasslama means he purified his soul for Allah. Qatādah said regarding aslamā: "This is the son submitting, and this is his own soul submitting."

[37:103] ...wa-tajjahhu lil-jabīn

...and he laid him down upon his forehead...

This means he laid him on his side so that one of his two temples (jabīn) rested on the ground. A face has two temples and a forehead (jabhah) between them. Ibn al-A‘rābī said: Al-talīl and al-mutalwil mean the one thrown down, and al-matlūl is that by which one is thrown down. Thus, the meaning is: he threw him down onto his temple. Muqātil said: He turned him over onto his forehead. This is incorrect because the temple is not the forehead.

[37:104] Wa-nādaynāhu an yā Ibrāhīm

And We called to him, "O Ibrahim!"

There are two views regarding this:

1. Kufan and Al-Farrā’ View: This is the response (jawāb) to fa-lammā (when), and the wāw (and) is extra.
2. Baṣran View: This is not permissible. The response is implied: "When he did that, Allah called to him, 'O Ibrahim, you have certainly fulfilled the vision,' and he attained great happiness, and Allah granted him the prophethood of his son and immense reward." They say omitting the response is not strange in the Qur'an, and the benefit of omission is that the implied reward is greater and more magnificent. The exegetes said that when he laid him down for slaughter, a call came from the mountain: {O Ibrahim, you have certainly fulfilled the vision}.

The verified scholars state that the reason for this command was the perfection of Ibrahim’s obedience to Allah’s commands. When Allah tested him with this severe and difficult command, and the perfection of his obedience was manifest, and the perfection of his son's obedience and submission was manifest, it was inevitable that Allah would say: {You have certainly fulfilled the vision}, meaning: the purpose of that vision has been achieved.

[37:105] Inna hādhā la-huwa al-balā’u al-mubīn

Indeed, this was the clear trial.

This is a new statement from Allah, not connected to the preceding speech. It means: This was the clear test (ikhtibār) by which the sincere are distinguished from others, or the clear, severe ordeal, than which there is no harder trial.

[37:107] Wa-fadaynāhu bi-dhabīḥin ‘aẓīm

And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice.

Dhabīḥ is the verbal noun of dabaḥtu (I slaughtered), and dhabīḥ also means that which is slaughtered, which is the intended meaning here.

There are discussions related to the narrative:

1. The First Inquiry (Narrative Details): It is narrated that when Ibrahim intended to slaughter him, he said: "O my son, take this rope and the knife and let us go to the valley to gather firewood." When they were in the middle of the valley of Thabīr, he informed him of the command. The son replied: "O Father, tie my bonds tightly so I do not struggle. Keep your clothes away from me so that nothing of my blood stains them, lest my mother sees it and grieves. Sharpen your knife and hasten its passage over my throat to make death easier. Convey my greetings to my mother, and if you wish, return my shirt to her, as that might ease her sorrow." Ibrahim replied: "You are a great helper to me, O my son, in the matter of Allah." Then he turned to him, kissing him while he was tied up, and both were weeping. He placed the knife on his throat and said: "Turn onto your face, for if you look at my face, you will have mercy on me and be overcome by tenderness, which will come between you and the command of Allah, the Exalted and Sublime." So he did. Then he placed the knife on his nape, but the knife turned, and a voice called: {O Ibrahim, you have certainly fulfilled the vision}.

2. The Second Inquiry (The Ram): There is a difference of opinion regarding the ram:
   • It was the ram that Abel (Hābīl), son of Adam, offered to Allah, which was accepted. It remained in Paradise grazing until Allah ransomed Ishmael with it.
   • Allah sent a ram from Paradise that had grazed for forty years.
   • Al-Suddi narrated that Ibrahim was called, turned, and saw a white ram descending from the mountain. Ibrahim stood up, took it, slaughtered it, and released his son. Then he embraced his son and said: "Today, you have been gifted back to me."

Regarding {great} (‘aẓīm): It is said it was called great because of its size and fatness. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said it deserved to be great since it had grazed in Paradise for forty years. Others say it was called great because of the magnitude of its value, as Allah accepted it as a ransom for Ibrahim's son.

[37:111] Innahu min ‘ibādinā al-mu’minīn

Indeed, he was among Our believing servants.

The pronoun in {Indeed, he} refers to Ibrahim.

[37:112] Wa-bsharnāhu bi-Isḥāqa nabiyyan mina aṣ-ṣāliḥīn

And We gave him tidings of Isaac, a prophet among the righteous.

The word {a prophet} (nabiyyan) is a circumstantial clause (ḥāl), meaning: "We gave him tidings of Isaac, with the condition that he would be a prophet."

Those who hold that the sacrificed one was Ishmael can use this verse as proof. If {a prophet} is a ḥāl, the meaning cannot be: "We gave him tidings of Isaac while Isaac was a prophet," because the tidings of his existence preceded his prophethood. Therefore, the meaning must be: "We gave him tidings of Isaac while We had decreed his prophethood, and while We had judged him worthy of patience." If this is the case, this good news about Isaac came after the story of the sacrifice, so the sacrificed one must be someone other than Isaac. The most that can be argued is that this verse, though later in recitation, preceded the sacrifice in occurrence. However, we maintain that the principle is to observe the order of recitation and not alter the structure. (And Allah knows best the correct view.)

[37:113] Wa-bāraknā ‘alayhi wa-‘alā Isḥāq

And We blessed him and Isaac.

There are two interpretations of this blessing:

1. Allah brought forth all the Prophets of the Children of Israel from the loins of Isaac.
2. Allah preserved the noble praise for Ibrahim and Isaac until the Day of Resurrection, as blessing (barakah) signifies permanence and stability.

[37:113] Wa-min dhurriyyetihimā muḥsinun wa-ẓālimun li-nafsihi mubīn

And among their descendants were those who did good, and those who wronged themselves clearly.

This serves as a warning that the virtues of the father do not necessarily guarantee the virtue of the son, lest this notion becomes a source of boasting for the Jews. Included under {those who did good} are the Prophets and the believers, and under {those who wronged themselves} are the disbelievers and the wicked. (And Allah knows best.)

[37:114] Wa-laqad manannā ‘alā Mūsā wa-Hārūn

And certainly did We confer favor upon Moses and Aaron.

[37:115] Wa-najjaynāhumā wa-qawmahumā mina al-karbi al-‘aẓīm

And We saved them and their people from the great distress.

[37:116] Wa-naṣarnāhum fa-kānū hum al-ghālibīn

And We supported them, so they became the overcoming ones.

[37:117] Wa-ātaynāhumā al-kitāba al-mustabīn

And We gave them the clear Scripture.

[37:118] Wa-hodaynāhumā aṣ-ṣirāṭa al-mustaqīm

And We guided them to the straight path.

[37:119] Wa-taraknā ‘alayhimā fī al-ākhirīn

And We left for them among later generations [a good mention].

[37:120] Salāmun ‘alā Mūsā wa-Hārūn

Peace be upon Moses and Aaron.

[37:121] Innā kadhālika najzī al-muḥsinīn

Indeed, thus do We reward the doers of good.

[37:122] Innahumā min ‘ibādinā al-mu’minīn

Indeed, they both were of Our believing servants.