Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Ornaments): Verse 15

Introduction

After Allah Almighty stated: {And if you ask them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they will surely say, "Created them: the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing"} (Az-Zukhruf: 9), He pointed out that despite their admission, they made of His servants a part for Him. The purpose here is to highlight the deficiency and foolishness of their intellects.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

‘Asim, in the narration of Abu Bakr, recited {جزء} with a ḍammah (u) on the zāy and a hamza (ء) throughout the Qur'an. These are two valid linguistic forms. As for Hamza, when he pauses on the word, he recites it as جَزَا (jazā) with a fatḥa (a) on the zāy and without a hamza.

There are two main opinions regarding the intended meaning:

The First Opinion (The Famous One): It means they affirmed that He has a child (walad). The reasoning is that a man's child is a part of him. This is supported by the Prophet's saying: "Fatimah is a piece (biḍ‘a) of me." Furthermore, it is conceptually understood that a progenitor separates a part of himself, which then grows and develops into a person similar to him. Thus, the child is a part of the parent.

Therefore, {وجعلوا له من عباده جزءا} means: they ruled/affirmed/claimed that He has a part, and that part is one of His servants.

If the verse had said: {وجعلوا لعباده منه جزءا} (And they made for His servants a part of Him), it would imply they affirmed that a part of His essence ended up in some of His servants—which is the concept of a child. Similarly, {وجعلوا له من عباده جزءا} means they affirmed a part for Him, and that part is a servant of His. In essence, they affirmed a child for Allah.

Supporting Arguments for this Opinion:

1. They argued that in the Arabic language, الجزء (al-juz’) can mean the female (al-unthā). They cited two poetic verses as evidence for this linguistic usage:
   • If a free woman suffices one day, there is no wonder, The pure, refined free woman sometimes suffices.
   • He married her from the daughters of Aws, a sufficient one, For the soft, pliable branch in her dwellings.

2. However, Al-Zajjaj, Al-Azhari, and the author of Al-Kashshāf deemed this linguistic usage to be flawed and the verses cited as fabricated.

The Second Opinion: The intended meaning is the affirmation of partners (shurakā’) for Allah. This is because when they affirmed partners, they claimed that not all creation belongs to Allah; rather, some belongs to Allah and some belongs to others. Thus, they did not attribute all His servants to Him, but rather a portion or a part of them.

Proponents of this view argue that it is more appropriate because if we interpret this verse as a refutation of partners for Allah, and the following verse as a refutation of a child for Allah, the passage comprehensively addresses all falsehoods.

Verse 16: {أم اتخذ مما يخلق بنات وأصفاكم بالبنين}

Allah Almighty structured this debate in the most excellent manner. He first established that attributing a child to Allah is impossible. Then, assuming a child were established, attributing a daughter to Him is also impossible.

Why attributing a child is impossible: A child must be a part of the parent. Anything that has a part is composite (murakkab). Every composite thing is contingent (mumkin). Furthermore, such a being is subject to separation and connection, gathering and dispersal. Anything subject to this is a created servant (‘abd muḥdath), and thus cannot be an eternal, primordial Deity.

Why attributing a daughter is impossible (contingent upon having a child): The son is superior to the daughter. If we were to assume Allah took daughters for Himself and reserved sons for you (humans), it would imply that the status of the servant is more perfect and superior to the status of Allah. This is self-evidently refuted by reason.

The phrase {وأصفاكم} (wa-aṣfākum) means He preferred you with something, granting it to you purely, without sharing that preference with anyone else. This is like His statement: {Has then your Lord preferred you with sons and taken for Himself from among the angels daughters?} (Al-Isrā’: 40).

Allah then clarified the inferiority of daughters in two ways:

1. His statement: {وإذا بشر أحدهم بما ضرب للرحمن مثلا ظل وجهه مسودا وهو كظيم} (And when one of them is given tidings of that which he sets forth as a likeness for the Most Merciful, his face becomes darkened, and he is filled with suppressed anger.)

This means: How can a rational person attribute to Allah something whose status has reached such a level of deficiency that merely being informed of it causes such distress and darkening of the face?

It is narrated that when some Arabs had a female child, the father would abandon the house where the woman and child were. A woman lamented: Why does Abu Hamza not visit us? He remains in the house next to ours, angry that we did not bear sons. We have no say in what we are given, We only take what we are given.

The word {ظل} (ẓalla) here means "became," similar to how most imperfect verbs are used. The author of Al-Kashshāf noted that it was read as مسود (muswadd) or مسواد (muswād), meaning "he became darkened," making the clause a predicate.

2. His statement: {أو من ينشأ في الحلية وهو في الخصام غير مبين} (Or one who is brought up among ornaments, and who in dispute is not clear in speech?)

Hamza, Al-Kisā’ī, and Ḥafṣ from ‘Āṣim recited يُنْشَأُ (yunsha’u) with a ḍammah on the yā’, a fatḥa on the nūn, and a shadda on the shīn (passive voice, meaning "is raised/nurtured"). The rest recited يَنْشَأُ (yansha’u) with a ḍammah on the yā’, a sukūn on the nūn, and a fatḥa on the shīn. The author of Al-Kashshāf mentioned a reading يُنَاشَأُ (yunāsha’u), analogous to Mughālāh meaning Ighlā’ (exaggeration).

This points to the deficiency of females. The one who is raised among ornaments (ḥilya) is inherently deficient, because if she were not deficient in her essence, she would not need to adorn herself with jewelry.

Then, her deficient status is further clarified by: {وهو في الخصام غير مبين} (and who in dispute is not clear in speech). This means that when she needs to argue or dispute, she is incapable and unclear, due to the weakness of her tongue, the paucity of her intellect, and the dullness of her nature. It is often said that a woman rarely speaks to present her argument without saying something that becomes an argument against her. These points demonstrate her complete deficiency; how then can this be attributed to Allah as a child?

The verse indicates that adornment (taḥallī) is permissible for women and forbidden for men. This is because Allah made it a defect and a cause of deficiency. A man engaging in it would be subjecting himself to humiliation, which is forbidden based on the Prophet’s saying: "It is not for a believer to humiliate himself." The adornment of a man is patience in obedience to Allah and adorning oneself with the ornament of piety. Al-Shāfi‘ī said:

Verse 19: {وجعلوا الملائكة الذين هم عباد الرحمان إناثا}

The word {جعلوا} means "they ruled/decreed." Then Allah says: {أشهدوا خلقهم} (Did they witness their creation?). This is a rhetorical question expressing denial. It means they did not witness their creation. This matter cannot be known through rational proofs. As for transmitted proofs (dalā’il naqlīyah), they all depend on affirming Prophethood, which these disbelievers deny. Thus, they made this claim without knowing it by necessity or proof.

Allah then threatens them: {ستكتب شهادتهم ويسئلون} (Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned). This indicates that speaking without proof is reprehensible, and blind imitation (taqlīd) incurs severe blame and punishment.

The scholars of truth state that these disbelievers committed disbelief in this statement in three ways:

1. Affirming a child for Allah.
2. That child being a female.
3. Ruling that the angels are female.

Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr, and Ibn ‘Āmir recited {عند الرحمن} (‘inda ar-Raḥmān) with the letter nūn (i.e., ‘indana), which is preferred by Abu Hātim. Their evidence:

1. It aligns with {Indeed, those who are with your Lord} (Al-A‘rāf: 206) and {And to Him belong those who are with Him} (Al-Anbiyā’: 19).
2. All creation are His servants, so attributing servitude to the angels offers no special praise to them.
3. The implication is that the angels are with the Most Merciful, not with these disbelievers. How then did they know their gender?

The rest recited {عباد} (‘ibād), the plural of ‘abd (servant). Some say it is the plural of ābid (worshipper), like qā’im and qiyām. This reading is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās and preferred by Abu ‘Ubayd, because Allah refuted their claim that angels are daughters by informing them that they are servants (‘ibād). This reading is supported by {Nay, they are honored servants} (Al-Anbiyā’: 26).

Nāfi‘ alone recited {أَأَشْهَدُوا} with a hamza followed by a long alif and a soft hamza with a ḍammah (i.e., A’ashhadū), meaning "Did you bring them forth?" Nāfi‘ also read it without the madd (elongation) as an unspecified passive verb. The rest recited {أَشْهَدُوا} (ashhadū) with a fatḥa on the initial alif, meaning "Did you witness?"

Those who argue for the superiority of angels over humans use this verse as evidence:

1. If {عند} (‘inda) is read (with nūn), this proximity (‘indiyyah) is undoubtedly one of virtue and closeness to Allah due to obedience. The word {قرنهم} (their company/generation) implies restriction, meaning only they possess this proximity, necessitating their superiority.
2. If {عباد} (‘ibād) is read (plural of ‘abd), we have previously mentioned that the term ‘ibād in the Qur'an is often specific to the believers. Thus, {هم عباد الرحمان} (They are the servants of the Most Merciful) restricts servitude to them. If the term denoting servitude implies virtue and honor, then the term restricting that servitude implies the restriction of virtue, high rank, and honor to them, necessitating their superiority over others. And Allah knows best.

Verses 17–23: The Rebuttal of Blind Imitation

(Note: The provided Arabic text for verses 17-23 in the excerpt seems to be a mix-up or a summary of the context surrounding the core argument about imitation, rather than a direct translation of the verses as numbered in the standard Mushaf. The translation below follows the structure and argument presented in the Tafsir excerpt, which focuses on the disbelievers' reliance on ancestral tradition.)

The Disbelievers' Argument (Blind Imitation): They claim: "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them [the idols]." They have no knowledge of this; they are only guessing.

The Rebuttal:

1. Did We give them a Book before this, to which they hold fast? (No.)
2. Rather, they say, "Indeed, we found our fathers following a religion, and indeed we are, in their footsteps, guided."

This pattern is universal: "Likewise, We did not send before you any warner to a settlement except that its affluent ones said, 'Indeed, we found our fathers following a religion, and indeed we are, in their footsteps, following.'"

The Prophet's Challenge: Say: "Even if I brought you guidance more correct than that which you found your fathers following?" They replied: "Indeed, we are, in that which you were sent with, disbelievers."

The Consequence: "So We took revenge upon them, and see how was the end of the deniers."

This section strongly condemns the practice of following ancestral tradition (taqlīd) in matters of faith without proof, especially when presented with clear guidance.