Tafsir of An-Najm 53:22

Surah An-Najm (The Star): Verse 22

تلك إذا قسمة . . . . . (That, then, is an unfair division...)

The First Issue: What does "That" (تلك) refer to?

We say: It refers to an implied phrase, estimated as: "That division is an unfair division (قسمة ضيزى)."

• قسمة ضيزى means an unjust division.
• Alternatively, it could mean: "That attribution (نسبة) is an unfair division." This is because they did not actually divide (i.e., they didn't say, "To Him are the sons, and to you are the daughters"). Rather, they attributed daughters to God, while they themselves disliked them, as stated: {And they assign to Allah what they dislike} (An-Nahl: 62). When they attributed daughters to God, that attribution resulted in an unjust division. This difference in interpretation is not significant.

The Second Issue: What is the condition for the particle إذا (if/when)?

We say: It has several possible meanings:

1. Your attribution of daughters to God Almighty, if you are the ones who have sons, is an unfair division.
2. Your attribution of daughters to God Almighty, while believing them to be deficient, and your preference for sons while believing them to be perfect, if you are at the height of baseness while God Almighty is at the height of majesty, is an unfair division.

• Origin of إذا: We say it is the conditional إذا used for time, from which the annexation (to a noun/verb) has been cut off, resulting in its tanwin (nunation).
• Explanation: You say, "I will come to you if the sun rises" (إذا طلعت الشمس), as if you annexed إذا to the rising of the sun, meaning, "at the time of the sun's rising." If someone says, "I will come to you," and you reply, "Then I will honor you" (إذن أكرمك), meaning, "If you come to me, I will honor you." When the coming (the condition) is omitted due to its prior mention in the speaker's statement, إذن (with tanwin) is used instead, just as you say: {And We gave him a share of all things} (وكلا آتيناه).

The Third Issue: The reading of ضيزى

It has been read with and without the hamza (glottal stop).

1. With hamza (ضِئْزَى): It is on the pattern فُعْلَى (with a kasra on the fa), like ذِكْرَى (remembrance), functioning as a descriptive noun derived from a masdar (verbal noun), meaning an unfair division (قسمة ضائزة).
2. Without hamza (ضُوزَى): It is on the pattern فُعْلَى. Its origin was ضَوْزَى (with a waw), but the middle letter of the word was a ya (ي). The fa was given a kasra so that the middle letter (waw) would be safe from inversion. This is similar to what happens with أبيض (white); the plural of أفعل is فُعْل (e.g., أسود becomes سود, أحمر becomes حمر). For أبيض, the plural is بيض. The expected pattern would have been بيض (with an inverted middle letter), but the ba was given a kasra (بِـ) to keep the middle letter (ي) in its place.

• On this basis (ضوزى): It signifies intensification from ضائزة (unfair). Just as فاضل (superior) becomes أفضل (more superior) and فاضلة becomes فضلى, and كبير (big) becomes أكبر and كبيرة becomes كبرى, similarly, ضائز becomes أضوز and ضائزة becomes ضوزى. Thus, ضيزى (with kasra) is more intensive than ضائزة.

• Addressing a previous point: You might ask: Previously, we stated that {Does He have daughters while you have sons?} (At-Tur: 39) does not mean a denial of both matters, but rather a denial of the first (daughters for God) and an expression of disapproval for the second (sons for you), similar to saying: "Do you set up rivals for Allah while you know that He created everything else?"—where the second part is not denied. However, here, the statement {That, then, is an unfair division} implies a denial of both matters.

• Reconciliation: We mentioned there that both interpretations are possible. The denial of both is the famous view. The denial of the first (daughters for God) is established by several arguments. As for the second (sons for you), it is because God Almighty stated: {He grants females to whom He wills, and He grants males to whom He wills} (Ash-Shura: 49). Since He creates sons for you through His power, how can He have daughters?

• Regarding {That, then, is an unfair division}: We maintain that "That" refers to the attribution—your attribution of daughters to God Almighty while you possess sons—is an unfair division. Thus, the attribution is what is being condemned.

• Alternative interpretation of the condemnation: Even if the division itself is condemned, it is permissible to interpret the meaning as: Is it permissible to assign daughters to God, just as if someone has something jointly owned with a partner equally, takes half for himself (which is his right), and then gives half of the remaining half to an oppressor and half to his partner? He would say this is an unfair division, not because he took his half, but because he did not give the remaining half to the rightful owner.

{ إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنْتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُمْ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِنْ سُلْطَانٍ إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنْفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَهُمْ مِنْ رَبِّهِمُ الْهُدَى }

(They are nothing but names which you have named—you and your fathers—for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but conjecture and what the souls desire, and already has guidance come to them from their Lord.)