Tafsir of An-Najm 53:27

Surah An-Najm (The Star): Verse 27

{إِنَّ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ لَيُسَمُّونَ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تَسْمِيَةَ الْأُنثَى} (Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter certainly name the angels with female names.)

We have previously explained this [concept] in Surah At-Tur, using this verse as evidence. Here, we mention what is close to it.

We say: {Those who do not believe in the Hereafter} are those who do not believe in the Messengers and do not follow the Law. Rather, they follow what they claim to be reason. They say that the names of God are not based on divine decree (tawqīfī). They claim that a child is what originates from another entity, citing linguistic usage where they say, "such-and-such is generated from such-and-such," meaning it exists from it (e.g., glass is generated from brick). Similarly, they speak of the "daughter of the vine" (bint al-karm) and the "daughter of the mountain" (bint al-jabal).

Furthermore, they said that the angels were created by God, so they are His "daughters" in the sense of creation. Then, they observed the feminine tā’ (تاء التأنيث) in the word al-malā’ikah (angels) and concluded that it is permissible to say sajadat al-malā’ikah (the angels prostrated—using the feminine singular verb form). Thus, they claimed: "They are the daughters of God."

Therefore, God said: {Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter certainly name the angels with female names}, meaning they name them as females are named (i.e., daughters).

There are several issues concerning this verse:

How can it be valid to say they do not believe in the Hereafter, when they used to say, "These are our intercessors with God," and it was their custom to tether a mount over the grave of the deceased, believing the deceased would be resurrected upon it?

The answer is twofold:

1. Since they lacked certainty, they would say there is no resurrection. If there were one, they claimed to have intercessors. This is supported by God’s saying: {And I do not think the Hour is coming, and even if I should be returned to my Lord, I will surely have a good return} (Fussilat: 50).
2. They did not acknowledge the Hereafter in the true manner brought by the Messengers.

Some people say that unthā (female) is the feminine form of af'al (masculine form, like aḥmar). They say its action is ānath (to become feminine) and its doer is anbath. They cite the example: ḥadīd dhakar (male iron) and ḥadīd anīth (female iron).

However, the truth is that the term unthā is generally used contrary to this, evidenced by its plural form being ināth (females).

There are two answers: one apparent and one subtle.

The Apparent Answer: It means specifying the gender (al-jins). This wording is more appropriate here as it aligns with the end of the verses.

The Subtle Answer: If He had said, "They name them with the naming of females (tasmiyat al-ināth)," it could imply two things:

1. Daughters (banāt).
2. Feminine proper names common to females, like 'A'ishah or Hafsah.

But by saying "the naming of the female" (tasmiyat al-unthā), it is specified that it refers to the gender itself, which is the female/daughter.

The relevance of this verse to the preceding one is that when they were told the idol is inanimate and cannot intercede, and it was clarified that even the greatest of created beings have no intercession except by permission, they replied: "We do not worship the idols because they are inanimate; rather, we worship the angels because they are in their forms, and we place them before us to remind the present and the absent. Thus, we glorify the Angel who is established as a great, high-ranking, and exalted near one."

In response, God said: How do you glorify them while you name them with the naming of the female? Then He mentioned their basis for this: the word al-malā’ikah. He did not say, "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter name the angels with the naming of females," but rather: {They name the angels}, implying they were deceived by the feminine tā’ in the word malā’ikah. Their deception is false because the tā’ comes for meanings other than true femininity. The word bint (daughter) is exclusively applied to the truly feminine. In malā’ikah, the tā’ serves to emphasize the meaning of the plural, similar to ṣayāqilah (sword polishers), which resembles that tā’.

This is because al-malā’ikah is commonly the plural of malak (angel). Malak is an abbreviation of mala’āk (by dropping the hamzah), and mala’āk is an inversion of ma’lāk derived from al-ulukah (the message/mission).

According to this view, al-malā’ikah is mufā'alah (a pattern indicating reciprocal action or intense action), and the original form was mufā'il (pattern for malā’ikah in the plural). It corresponds to patterns like fa'ā'il and fa'ā'ilah.

The apparent derivation is that malā’ikah is fa'ā'il, the plural of malīkī (attributable to Malīk—the King), supported by God’s saying regarding the promise to the believers: {with a Mighty King} (Malīk Muqtadir) (Sad: 25). Regarding the description of the angels, He says: {those who are with your Lord} (Al-A'rāf: 206). He also says regarding the promise: {And indeed, for him is nearness to Us} (Sad: 40), and describing the angels: {Nor the nearest angels} (An-Nisā’: 172).

Therefore, they are honored servants whom God has singled out with extreme closeness, {and they do what they are commanded} (An-Nahl: 50), like the command given to kings' attendants and servants waiting at their doors for an order. They are attributed to the Mighty King in their current state, so they are malīkiyyūn and malā’ikah. Thus, the tā’ here signifies attribution (nisbah) in the plural, like in ṣayārifah (money changers) and bayāṭirah (farriers).

Objection 1: This is false for several reasons. First, no one uses malīkī for a single one of them, as ṣayrafī is used. Second, if a person reaches God, they must be among the angels, which is not the case, as the concept of angels implies a non-human species. Third, fa'ā'ilah as a plural for fa'īl is unheard of; only fa'īlah is used, like tamīmah (amulet) and haqībah (bag). Fourth, if this were true, why is malak pluralized?

Response to Objection 1: The non-use of the singular (malīkī) is acknowledged, and the reason is that the greater the majesty of the King, the greater the number of His decrees and servants. When described with majesty, He is described in the plural (e.g., "the owner of a large army," not "the owner of the army" in a singular sense of glorification). As for that single one, if attributed to the King, it is a statement of fact: "This is malīkī," used when his identity is known, making him the subject and malīkī the predicate. Angels are rarely known by their individual names, except for a few like Gabriel and Michael. In such cases, saying "Gabriel is malīkī" is pointless, as the predicate is already known. Predication is only used to establish a predicate for a subject. One does not say, "Man is an animal or a body," because it is an obvious clarification. Such usage might occur only for an example or a rare instance for a specific purpose. However, attributing it to the King as the subject is not done. The majesty lies in saying "one of the angels," drawing attention to the multitude of those near Him, just as one says "one of the King's companions," not "the King's companion." If you desire extreme glorification for a single one, use the name of the King without attribution, as it is inherently indicative of strength and power, like {possessor of strength} (dhū mirrah) (An-Najm: 6) and {possessor of power} (dhī quwwah) (At-Takwīr: 20). God said: {mighty in strength} (shadīd al-quwā) (An-Najm: 5). The root M-L-K implies strength in its various forms. For the plural, al-malā’ikah is used for glorification, as God says: {And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him} (Al-Muddaththir: 31).

Response to Objection 2: A name might describe a quality specific to some who possess it, and others who acquire that quality are not called by that name. Like dābbah (creature that crawls), derived from dabba. A woman who crawls is not called a dābbah as a noun, though she might be described as such temporarily if she crawls in a specific manner. Alternatively, the angels were named malā’ikah because of their long duration of attribution preceding the creation of Adam by years known only to God. Whoever does not reach God and stand at His door does not attain that covenant and attribution, and thus is not called by that name.

Response to Objection 3: There is no prohibition against standard plural forms like fa'āl for fa'l (e.g., jāl and thimār), af'āl (e.g., athqāl and ashjār), and fa'lān, and others. As for what is heard infrequently, the glorification inherent in attributing the plural is sufficient, except for the case of God, which is like the case of al-mar'ah (woman) and al-nisā' (women).

Response to Objection 4: We deny this, or we say that fa'īlī is treated like fa'īl in the plural, just as fa'yal is treated like fa'īl in the plural (e.g., the plural of jayyid (good) is jiyād, and fa'ā'il is not used for fa'īl). What supports our view is that Iblīs, while standing at the door, was included among the angels. God says: {And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblīs} (Al-Kahf: 50). When he was turned away and expelled, he became one of the Jinn.

As for what some linguists said—that al-malā’ikah is the plural of mala’āk, and mala’āk originates from ma’lāk from al-ulukah (the message)—this involves far more forced interpretations than mentioned. For instance, malak should not be a fa'l (active participle) but a mufa''al (passive participle), which contradicts the apparent meaning. Why was ma’ālik not used, like ma’ārib and ma’ākil? Also, why was malak made mala’āk and not its counterparts? And why was the tā’ added to its plural when mala’ik was not used, as is the case with the plural of every mufa''al?

What refutes their claim is God’s saying: {Who made the angels messengers} (Fāṭir: 1). They are distinct from messengers; therefore, it is incorrect to say, "God made the angels messengers," just as it is incorrect to say, "God made the messengers messengers," or "God made the near one near." Divine decree (ja'l) requires a change. What indicates the contrary to their view is that all of them are attributed to Him, standing before Him, awaiting His command for orders to descend upon them.

Then God Almighty said:

{And they have no knowledge of it; they follow only conjecture. And indeed, conjecture is of no use whatever against the truth.} (An-Najm: 27)