Al-A'raf: (175-176) And recite to them the news...

Issues in the Verse:

Issue 1: Identity of the Person Mentioned

Several opinions exist regarding the identity of the person described in this verse:

1. Bala'am ibn Ba'ura: Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Mujahid held that this refers to Bala'am ibn Ba'ura. When Moses (عليه السلام) approached his land, whose people were disbelievers, they asked him (since his prayers were answered and he possessed the Greatest Name of God) to curse Moses and his people. He initially refused but eventually yielded to their persistent requests. Consequently, Moses and the Children of Israel fell into the wilderness due to his curse. Moses then asked God why they were afflicted, and God replied it was due to Bala'am's prayer. Moses then prayed against Bala'am, asking God to strip him of the Greatest Name and faith. God then removed the knowledge and faith from him, and it is said a white dove flew out of his chest. Another narration suggests he was a prophet whom God stripped of faith, turning him into a disbeliever.

2. Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt: Abdullah ibn Umar, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, Zayd ibn Aslam, and Abu Rawq held this referred to Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt. He had studied the scriptures and knew a messenger would be sent at that time, hoping it would be him. When God sent Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), he became envious, died a disbeliever, and never believed in the Prophet. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said of him: "His poetry believed, but his heart disbelieved," meaning his poetry affirmed God's oneness, creation, and the Hereafter, yet his heart rejected the Prophet.

3. Abu 'Amir al-Rahib (The Monk): This view, held by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, suggests it refers to Abu 'Amir, whom the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) named al-Fasiq (the Sinner). He practiced asceticism in the pre-Islamic era. When Islam came, he went to Syria, ordered the hypocrites to build the Masjid al-Dirar (Mosque of Harm), and sought aid from Caesar against the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), eventually dying there, rejected and alone.

4. Hypocrites among the People of the Book: Al-Hasan and Al-Asamm suggested it refers to the hypocrites among the People of the Book who recognized the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

5. General Application: Qatadah, 'Ikrimah, and Abu Muslim held that it is a general term for anyone to whom guidance was presented, yet they turned away from it.

Inquiry: Is it sound to say the person mentioned was a prophet who then became a disbeliever?

Response: This is unlikely. God states: {Allah knows best where to place His message} (Al-An'am: 124). This indicates that God only honors a servant with prophethood if He knows that servant possesses superior honor, high status, and great virtues. How fitting would it be for such a person to embrace disbelief?

Interpretation of the Verse:

Regarding the phrase {And recite to them the news of him to whom We gave Our signs...}:

First Opinion: "We gave him Our signs" means We taught him the proofs of monotheism and made him understand its evidence, so he became knowledgeable of it. {Then he slipped out of them} means he departed from the love of God towards disobedience, and from God's mercy towards His wrath. Insilakh (slipping out/shedding) means departing entirely from something.

Second Opinion (Abu Muslim): "We made the signs clear to him," but he refused to accept them and became stripped of them. Insilakh (slipping out), ’uriyy (being naked/stripped), and taba’ud (moving away) are synonymous here. This applies to every disbeliever who did not believe the evidence and persisted in disbelief. Similar verses include: {O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down confirming what is with you, before We efface faces and turn them backward} (An-Nisa: 47), and concerning Pharaoh: {And We certainly showed him all Our signs, but he denied and refused} (Taha: 56). It is possible this description refers to Pharaoh, as God sent Moses and Aaron to him, yet he turned away, refused, and was an arrogant strayer following Satan.

Summary of Difference: The first view holds that this man was knowledgeable of God's religion and monotheism and then departed from it. The second view holds that when God gave him the proofs and clear signs, he refused to accept them. The first view is stronger because the word insilakh (slipping out/shedding) implies he was in it and then left it. Furthermore, established reports indicate this verse concerns someone who was knowledgeable of God's religion and then departed from it into disbelief and misguidance.

Regarding the phrase {Then Satan followed him}:

There are several interpretations:

1. Satan caused the disbelievers among mankind and the misguiders to follow him; meaning Satan made the disbelievers his followers.
2. Abdullah ibn Muslim said: Fa-atba'ahu al-Shaytan means Satan overtook him (adrakahu). The Arabs say atba'tu al-qawm (I followed the people) when they have preceded you and you catch up to them.
3. {And he became of those who go astray} means he obeyed Satan and thus became one of the wrongdoers. The scholars of meaning state the purpose is to show that whoever is given guidance but slips away from it towards desire, blindness, and attachment to the world, such that Satan plays with him, his end will be ruin and destruction, failing in both this life and the next. God mentions his story to warn people against a similar state.

Regarding the phrase {And had We willed, We would have elevated him by it}:

• Our Companions (Ahl al-Sunnah): This means: Had We willed, We would have elevated him through acting upon the signs, so that his status would be raised by those righteous deeds. The particle law (if) implies the non-occurrence of one thing due to the non-occurrence of another. This suggests that God might will faith, or He might will disbelief.
• The Mu'tazilah: The verse allows for other interpretations:
  1. Al-Jubba'i: It means: Had We willed, We would have elevated him through his deeds by honoring him and removing the obligation (Taklif) from him before his disbelief, so that we would concede his high status. However, he refused to remain in faith, preferring the burden of increased obligation.
  2. Had We willed, We would have elevated him by preventing him from disbelief by force and compulsion. However, this contradicts accountability (Taklif), so He left him to his choice.

Response to the Mu'tazilah:

1. Interpreting elevation as causing death (amatatuhu) is far-fetched.
2. If God prevented him from disbelief by force, that action would not warrant reward or elevation.

Regarding the phrase {But he inclined toward the earth}:

The Arab linguists state that the root of Ikhlad (inclining/clinging) means permanent adherence. It is as if it means: He adhered to the inclination toward the earth. Hence, one says akhlad fulanun bil-makan if someone permanently settled in a place. Malik ibn Suwayd said:

By the sons of a tribe from the clans of Malik, And 'Amr ibn Yarbu', they settled and clung.

Ibn Abbas interpreted {But he inclined toward the earth} as: he inclined toward the world. Muqatil said: toward the world. Al-Zajjaj said: he settled in the world. Al-Wahidi noted that these scholars interpreted al-Ard (the earth) in this verse as the world, because everything in it—real estate, possessions, minerals, plants, and animals—is extracted from the earth, and it is strengthened and completed by it. Thus, the entire world can be referred to as the earth.

If the statement were taken literally, it would have been: "Had We willed, We would have elevated him, but We did not will it." However, the phrase {But he inclined toward the earth} implies this meaning, so it stands in place of saying: {And he followed his desire}. This means he turned away from adhering to the signs God gave him and followed his desire, thus falling into the abyss of ruin.

This verse is one of the sternest against scholars, because after God singled out this man with His signs and clear proofs, taught him the Greatest Name, and granted him answered prayers, he followed his desire, slipped out of religion, and descended to the level of a dog. This indicates that the greater God's blessings are upon someone, the greater his distance from God will be if he turns away from following guidance and embraces following desire. This is alluded to in the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): "Whoever increases in knowledge but does not increase in guidance, increases only in distance from God," or words to that effect.

Regarding the phrase {So his example is as the example of the dog: if you drive him away, he pants, or if you leave him, he pants}:

Al-Layth said: Panting (lahth) is when a dog sticks out its tongue due to thirst when exhausted from intense running or intense heat.

This analogy is not applied to all dogs, but specifically to the panting dog. The dog is the most contemptible of animals, and the panting dog is the most contemptible of dogs. Whoever God grants knowledge and religion, yet he inclines toward the world and clings to the earth, is likened to the most contemptible of animals, the panting dog.

There are several ways this analogy is established:

1. Everything pants due to exhaustion or thirst, except the panting dog, which pants whether exhausted or resting, thirsty or quenched. It is a habit and an inherent nature, a persistent original characteristic, not due to need or necessity. Similarly, the one given knowledge and religion who seeks the world and throws himself into it acts like that panting dog, persistently engaging in base actions and ugly deeds merely due to his wicked self and base nature, not due to need.
2. When a knowledgeable man uses his knowledge to seek the world, he does so by presenting various types of knowledge and displaying his virtues and merits. Undoubtedly, when uttering those words and presenting those arguments, he sticks out his tongue due to the heat of greed and intense thirst for worldly gain. His state resembles that dog whose tongue is always out without need or necessity, but merely due to base nature.
3. The panting dog is always panting, just as the greedy person is always greedy.

Regarding the phrase {If you drive him away, he pants, or if you leave him, he pants}: This means that if you urge this dog, it pants; and if you leave it alone, it still pants. This is because this ugly act is an inherent, original nature for it. Similarly, this misguided, greedy person is astray whether you admonish him or not, because that misguidance and loss is an inherent, essential nature for him.

Inquiry: What is the grammatical status of {If you drive him away, he pants, or if you leave him, he pants}?

Response: It is in the accusative case (Nasb) as a circumstantial clause (Hal), as if it means: "like the dog, debased and panting in all circumstances."

Regarding the phrase {That is the example of the people who denied Our signs}: This analogy encompasses all those who denied God's signs. Ibn Abbas said this refers to the people of Mecca. They used to wish for a guide and a caller to God's obedience. When someone came whom they had no doubt was truthful and pious, they denied him. Thus, the analogy applies to them and the dog: whether they were driven (admonished) or left alone, they did not receive guidance, remaining in misguidance in all states, just like the dog that remained panting in all states.

Regarding the phrase {So relate the stories}: This means relate the stories of those who disbelieved and denied their prophets, {so that they may reflect}, meaning they may take heed.

{Evil is the example of the people who denied Our signs, and it was themselves they wronged.}