Al-Najm (The Star): (23) It is not but...

Then the Almighty said: {It is not but names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority.} (An-Najm: 23)

In this verse, there are subtle points that require deep linguistic understanding, especially for one who has a great share of knowledge. We will first mention what has been said about it.

It is said that the meaning is: {It is not but names}, meaning their being considered female deities and objects of worship are merely names without any substance (la musammā lahā). They are neither truly female nor true objects of worship.

Another opinion is that "names" means you named some of them 'Uzzā, but they possess no actual might ('izzah).

Another view is that you claimed they were gods (āilahah) when they are not gods.

What we hold to be correct is that this is a response to their speech. As we previously explained, they admitted that Allah Almighty neither begets like human procreation nor is begotten through sexual intercourse. However, they argued that the term walad (offspring) is used by the Arabs for anything caused or brought forth, such as saying bint al-jabal (daughter of the mountain) or bint al-shafah (daughter of the lip) for what appears from them. They claimed the angels are the "offspring of Allah" in the sense that they came into existence through Him without an intermediary. Since the angels have the feminine marker (tā’ al-ta’nīth), they concluded the "female offspring" (bint) of Allah must be the angels.

Therefore, Allah Almighty responded: These are merely names that you have derived based on your own desires, attributing to Allah what implies deficiency, which is impermissible. This is similar to the verse: {Lest a soul should say, "Oh, my regret for what I neglected concerning Allah"} (Az-Zumar: 56) and {and goodness is in His Hand}—these are suggestive names, yet Allah revealed them. He has the right to name Himself as He chooses, but no one has the right to name Him with terms that imply deficiency without divine sanction (shar') for it.

We will clarify the interpretation through several points:

We say the apparent reference is to the names themselves, as if He were saying, "What are these names that you have assigned?" This is the common view.

It is also possible that {هي} refers to the idols themselves. Thus, {It is not but names} means "These idols are nothing but names." In this case, it is an exaggeration and a metaphor used to belittle something. One might say about a person, "Zayd is nothing but a name," if he lacks any commendable attribute in human discourse. This interpretation is supported by the verse: {What do you worship besides Him except names you have named} (Yusuf: 40), meaning these idols are nothing but names.

This point is debated. The condemnation is fully realized only by His statement: {for which Allah has sent down no authority}.

The explanation is: If Allah had revealed these names, there would be no issue. If they were established for mutual understanding, there should not be a greater harm embedded within that utility. However, implying deficiency in Allah's attributes is the greatest harm. Allah Almighty only permits the naming of realities when the name is free from prohibition. Since these names lack any textual evidence (naql) or rational basis ('aql)—because committing a great harm for a small benefit is not permissible for a rational person—therefore, {Allah has sent down no authority} for them. Naming requires either textual evidence or a rational basis, which means it must be free from overriding harms.

There is a subtlety here. If they had argued, "We did not name them; they were established before us," the response would be: Everyone who utters these words is like the original originator of the name. This is because the first originator, lacking a rational basis for the naming, is not necessarily to be followed. Therefore, whoever utters the word simply because someone else uttered it is not justified, just as one cannot say, "The blind man led me astray." If he said that, it would be said to him: Rather, you led yourself astray by following someone you knew was not fit to be emulated.

There are two answers to this:

1. Linguistic: Tasmīyah (naming) is the act of establishing the name (waḍ' al-ism). So, {سميتموها} is used idiomatically to mean "you established names for them" (waḍa'tumūhā). It is used as a substitute for waḍa'tumūhā (you established them).
2. Semantic: If He had said, "names by which you named them" (asmā’ sammaytum bihā), there would need to be something other than the name itself to which the preposition bi (by/with) in {بها} refers. For example, one says, "I named my son Zayd," requiring a second object (my son). If that were the case here, it would imply that the idols have a reality beyond their names, which is what the verse intends to negate. By saying {It is not but names you have named them}, meaning "they are merely established names with no corresponding realities," this issue is avoided.

If one objects, saying this contradicts the verse: {And I have named her Mary} (Āl 'Imrān: 36), where He did not say, "I named her with Mary," and thus the intended meaning (negating reality) should not apply to Mary, as she was certainly attended to: We say there is a great difference. In the case of Mary, He said, {I have named her Mary}, mentioning both the verb and the name (the object named and the name itself), thus affirming the reality of Mary through the verb sammaytu and her name through Maryam. Here, however, He said, {It is not but names you have named them}, meaning "there are only established names," thus negating the reality (ḥaqīqah) here, whereas reality was affirmed for Mary.

It is used as one uses the phrase, "So-and-so departed with his family and belongings" (irtaḥala fulān bi-ahlīhi wa matā'ihi), meaning he departed along with his family and belongings. Similarly here, it means that the authority is not accompanying these names.

Then the Almighty said: {They follow nothing but conjecture and what the souls desire, and the guidance has certainly come to them from their Lord.} (An-Najm: 24)

In this verse, there are several issues:

It is read with a tā’ (as {إن تتبعون} - You follow), which is direct address. This suits the preceding phrase {you and your fathers} (addressing them), while the rest of the verse uses the third person (absence). There are two possibilities for this shift:

1. The address is directed to them, but it is a shift in discourse (iftitāt). It is as if Allah interrupted the direct conversation with them and said to His Prophet: "Indeed, they follow nothing but conjecture," so do not pay attention to their claims.
2. The intended subject is someone else, with two possibilities:
   • The intended subject is their fathers. The meaning would be: When He said {you yourselves named them}, they might have replied, "These names were not established by us; rather, we inherited them from our fathers." So Allah responds: "Your fathers named them, and they follow nothing but conjecture." If one objects that it should have been in the past tense, we say the future tense is also permissible, implying a continuous state, as in {and your dog is stretching out his forelegs} (Al-Kahf: 18).
   • The intended subject is all disbelievers in general, as if saying: "Indeed, the disbelievers follow nothing but conjecture."

Ẓann is the opposite of ‘Ilm (certain knowledge). It is used metaphorically to stand in place of knowledge, whose root is ẓuhūr (manifestation). This is seen in the root ‘-L-M in its various forms, all implying manifestation. We explained in the commentary on Al-‘Ālamīn that the letters ‘-L-M in their permutations carry the meaning of manifestation (e.g., the glimmer of a mirage, the swiftness of an ostrich). Ẓann, when contrasted with ‘Ilm, implies concealment. Hence, a bi’r ẓunūn (a well of uncertainty) is one where one does not know if water is present. Similarly, al-ẓanīn is the suspected person, whose state is unknown.

It is permissible to act upon the dominant assumption (al-ẓann al-ghālib) when certainty (yaqīn) is unattainable. However, acting upon assumption is not permissible when certainty is achievable. This is indicated by His statement: {and the guidance has certainly come to them from their Lord} (An-Najm: 23). This means: Follow conjecture when certainty is impossible, but here, certainty was accessible, yet they followed conjecture. This is also impermissible in action.

There are two views:

1. Verbal (Maṣdarīyah): It means "and the desire of the souls" (wa hawā al-anfus). If one asks about the benefit of using the verbal form with the added mā instead of the explicit maṣdar (which would be shorter), we say there is a benefit rooted in the original linguistic usage: When someone says, "Your making pleased me" (a'jabanī ṣun'uka), the structure implies the pleasure is related to a completed act. If he says, "What you are making pleases me" (a'jabanī mā taṣna'u), it implies the pleasure relates to an act in progress. If he said, "Your making pleased me," and he had a making yesterday and one today, it wouldn't be clear which making caused the pleasure. Knowing this, when Allah says {وما تهوى الأنفس}, it implies that they follow whatever their souls desire in the present and future. This indicates they are not fixed upon one error; rather, whatever their souls desired in the past regarding worship, they adhered to it, but every day they invent a new form of worship. If their idols are broken today, they bring others tomorrow, constantly changing their mode of worship according to the whim of the moment.
2. Nominal (Khabarīyah): The meaning is: "and that which their souls desire." The difference between the two readings is that in the first case (verbal), what is followed is the desire itself (al-hawā), whereas in the second case (nominal), what is followed is the consequence or manifestation of the desire (the object desired, muqtadā al-hawā), similar to saying, "Your product pleased me."

This is an example of plural corresponding to plural. It means: Each one of them follows what his own soul desires. It is like saying, "The people went out with their families" (kharaja al-nās bi-ahlihim), meaning each person went with his own family, not that each person went with the entire collective family.

We say that {They follow nothing but conjecture} and {and what the souls desire} are two mentioned matters. It is possible that they are mentioned for two separate domains:

1. They follow conjecture in belief (i'tiqād) and follow what their souls desire in action and worship (‘amal wa ‘ibādah). Both are corrupt: Belief should be founded on certainty, and how can conjecture be followed in such a grave matter? The more noble and critical the matter, the more obligatory caution becomes. As for action, worship is meant to oppose desire; how can it be built upon following desire?
2. It is possible that the statement refers to a single matter, descending in stages. He said: {They follow nothing but conjecture and what the souls desire}, meaning they follow conjecture, and even less than conjecture (i.e., what is lower than conjecture), because generations desire things for which there is no basis even for assumption.

His statement {and the guidance has certainly come to them from their Lord} indicates that they are in a state that is not excusable, because certainty was attainable and confirmed by the coming of the Messengers.

The {Guidance} (al-Hudā) here has three interpretations:

1. The Qur'an.
2. The Messengers.
3. The Miracles.

{Or does man have whatever he wishes?} (An-Najm: 29)

Then the Almighty said: {Or does man have whatever he wishes?}