Surah 'Abasa (He Frowned)

It has forty-two verses and is a Meccan Surah.

Surah 'Abasa: (1) He frowned and turned away.

Issue 1:

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was approached by Ibn Umm Maktum (whose father's name was Umm Maktum, and his name was 'Abdullah ibn Shurayh ibn Malik ibn Rabi'ah al-Fihri, from Banu 'Amir ibn Lu'ayy). Present with Ibn Umm Maktum were the chiefs of Quraysh: 'Utbah and Shaybah, the sons of Rabi'ah, Abu Jahl ibn Hisham, Al-'Abbas ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, and Al-Walid ibn Al-Mughirah. The Prophet (PBUH) was inviting them to Islam, hoping that their conversion would lead others to embrace Islam.

Ibn Umm Maktum said to the Prophet (PBUH), "Teach me, and instruct me from what Allah has taught you," and he repeated this request. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) disliked having his speech interrupted and frowned and turned away from him. This verse was then revealed.

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) used to honor him greatly, saying when he saw him, "Welcome to the one whom my Lord has admonished me concerning," and he would ask, "Do you have any need?" He also appointed him as governor over Medina twice.

Regarding this incident, there are several questions:

First Question: Did Ibn Umm Maktum deserve reprimand and admonishment? If so, how could Allah admonish His Messenger for admonishing and reprimanding Ibn Umm Maktum?

We argue that he deserved admonishment for several reasons:

1. Although he could not see the chiefs due to his blindness, he could hear the Prophet's (PBUH) address to the disbelievers, and he could hear their voices too. By listening to those words, he could discern the Prophet's intense focus on them. Therefore, his action of interrupting the Prophet's speech and inserting his own request before the Prophet completed his objective was an act of harm to the Prophet (PBUH), which is a grave sin.
2. The more important matter takes precedence over the less important one. Ibn Umm Maktum had already embraced Islam and learned what he needed of religious matters. As for those disbelievers, their conversion was a gateway to the conversion of a great multitude. Thus, Ibn Umm Maktum's interjection, which cut off that great good for a minor personal need, was forbidden.
3. Allah Almighty says: {Indeed, those who call you from behind the chambers, most of them do not reason} (Al-Hujurat: 4), forbidding them from merely calling out except at the proper time. Here, this call, which acted as a distraction preventing the disbelievers from accepting faith and interrupting the Prophet's most important task, is even more deserving of being considered a fault and a sin.

Based on this, it is established that what Ibn Umm Maktum did was a fault and a sin, and what the Prophet (PBUH) did was the required action. Given this, the question arises: Why did Allah admonish him for that action?

Second Question: Since Allah admonished him merely for frowning, this indicates a great honor bestowed by Allah upon Ibn Umm Maktum. If this is the case, how is it appropriate for Allah to mention him by the description "the blind one," when mentioning a person with such a description usually implies belittling his status?

Third Question: It is apparent that the Prophet (PBUH) was authorized to deal with his Companions according to what he deemed beneficial. He often admonished and reprimanded his Companions for various things. How could this frowning not fall under the permission granted to him by Allah to discipline his Companions? If he was authorized to do so, why was he admonished for it?

This summarizes the difficulties related to this point.

The Answer to the First Question is twofold:

1. Even if the situation was as you described (i.e., the Prophet was right to focus on the chiefs), the outward appearance of the incident suggested favoring the wealthy over the poor and hurting the feelings of the poor. For this reason, the admonishment occurred. This is analogous to His saying: {And do not drive away those who call upon their Lord morning and evening} (Al-An'am: 52).
2. Perhaps this reprimand was not for the outward action the Prophet (PBUH) performed, but rather for what was in his heart. His heart leaned towards the chiefs due to their kinship, high status, and noble position. His nature recoiled from the blind man because of his blindness, lack of kinship, and lower status. When the frowning and turning away occurred due to this inner inclination, the admonishment came—not for the act of discipline itself, but for disciplining because of this underlying inclination.

The Answer to the Second Question: Mentioning him as "the blind one" was not to belittle him. Rather, it was as if to say: Because of his blindness, he deserved greater gentleness and compassion. So, how was it fitting for you, O Muhammad, to treat him with harshness?

The Answer to the Third Question: He was authorized to discipline his Companions. However, in this instance, because the action implied favoring the wealthy over the poor, which suggests prioritizing the world over religion, this specific admonishment was issued.

Issue 2:

Those who maintain that Prophets (peace be upon them) can commit sins cite this verse, arguing that since Allah admonished him for that action, it proves that the action was a sin. This view is far-fetched. We have already explained that the action was obligatory, not based on the single consideration you mentioned (i.e., avoiding the appearance of favoring the rich over the poor), which is unbecoming of the Prophet's steadfastness. If this is the case, the action was akin to neglecting precaution or leaving the better option, and thus was not a sin at all.

Issue 3:

The exegetes are unanimous that the one who frowned and turned away was the Prophet (PBUH), and they are unanimous that the blind man was Ibn Umm Maktum.

The word 'Abasa (frowned) was read with a shaddah (doubling of the consonant) for emphasis, similar to kallaḥa (to frown intensely).

The phrase "wa tawallā" (and turned away) is in the accusative case, either dependent on 'abasa or on the preceding implied verb, depending on the grammatical school regarding whether the closer or farther governing word takes precedence.

Its meaning is: He frowned because the blind man came to him, and he turned away because of that.

It was also read with two hamzas (for a-a'basa) and with an alif between them, with a pause after "ʿabasa wa tawallā", and then starting anew: "An jā'ahu al-a'mā" (When the blind man came to him), implying censure: "When the blind man came to him, [you frowned]!"

Know that mentioning the Prophet's lapse first, and then addressing him directly, is evidence of increased censure. It is like someone complaining about an aggressor to others, and then turning directly to the aggressor while the complaint is still fresh, confronting him with rebuke and establishing the proof against him.

7 < {And what will make you know? Perhaps he will purify himself, *Or he will be reminded, and the reminder will benefit him.} > 7 !