Surah An-Naml 27:21
ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﲽ ﲾ ﲿ ﳀ
I will surely punish him with a severe punishment or slaughter him unless he brings me clear authorization."
Tafsir of An-Naml 27:20-21
Tafsir
Al-Kashshaf
Verse range: 27:20-21
{أَمْ} is the disjunctive particle: He looked at the hoopoe’s place and did not see it, so he said: {مَا لِيَ لَا أَرَى} (Why do I not see...), meaning he does not see it while it is present, due to some veil covering it or otherwise. Then it occurred to him that it was absent, so he turned away from that [initial thought] and began to say: "Is it absent?" as if questioning the truth of what had occurred to him. Similar to this is their saying: "Is it camels or sheep?"
The Story of the Hoopoe: When Solomon finished building the Temple (Bayt al-Maqdis), he prepared for the Hajj with his hosts. He arrived at the Sacred Precinct and stayed there as long as he wished. During his stay, he would sacrifice five thousand camels, five thousand cows, and twenty thousand sheep daily. Then he resolved to travel to Yemen. He left Mecca in the morning, heading toward the star Canopus, and arrived in Sana'a at midday—a month's journey. He saw a beautiful land whose greenery pleased him, so he descended to eat lunch and pray. However, they could not find water. The hoopoe was his water-finder; it could see water beneath the earth just as one sees water in a glass. The devils would come, skin the earth as one skins a hide, and extract the water. Solomon missed it for this reason.
When Solomon descended, the hoopoe circled and saw another hoopoe. It descended to it and described Solomon’s kingdom and everything subjected to him. It mentioned to its companion the kingdom of Bilqis, and that under her hand were twelve thousand commanders, each commanding one hundred thousand. It went with it to see, and did not return until after the afternoon.
Solomon noticed a patch of sunlight on his head, looked, and saw the hoopoe’s place was empty. He called the chief of the birds, the eagle, and asked about it, but it had no knowledge. He then said to the master of the birds, the vulture: "Bring it to me." It rose, looked, and saw the hoopoe approaching, so it headed toward it. The hoopoe adjured it by God, saying: "By the right of God who strengthened you and gave you power over me, have mercy on me." The vulture left it and said: "May your mother be bereaved of you! The Prophet of God has sworn to punish you." The hoopoe asked: "Did he make an exception?" It replied: "Yes, he said: 'Unless it brings me a clear authority.'"
When the hoopoe approached Solomon, it lowered its tail and wings, dragging them on the ground in humility. When it drew near, Solomon took its head and pulled it toward him. The hoopoe said: "O Prophet of God, remember your standing before God." Solomon trembled and pardoned it.
Regarding the Punishment: The punishment was to discipline it in a way its condition could bear, so that its peers might take heed. It is said: Solomon’s punishment for birds was to pluck their feathers and expose them to the sun. Others say: to coat them with tar and expose them to the sun; or to throw them to ants to be eaten; or to place them in a cage; or to separate it from its mate; or to force it to keep company with its opposites. Some say: "The narrowest of prisons is the company of opposites." Others say: "To force it to serve its peers."
If you ask: How was it lawful for him to punish the hoopoe? I say: It is permissible that God permitted this for him because of the benefit and interest He saw in it, just as He permitted the slaughter of cattle and birds for food and other benefits. When the birds were subjected to him, and the purpose for which they were subjected could not be fulfilled without discipline and governance, it was permissible for him to use what would rectify the situation.
Linguistic Notes: * *Li-ya'tiyanni* and *li-ya'tiyanna* are variant readings. * *Sultan* means proof and excuse.
If you ask: He swore to one of three things. His swearing to the two actions [punishment or slaughter] is not in dispute, but how was his swearing to the hoopoe’s action valid? How did he know it would bring an authority, such that he would say: "By God, it must bring me an authority"? I say: When he organized the three with "or" in the judgment of the oath, his speech amounted to saying: "One of these matters must occur." Meaning: If the bringing of the authority occurs, there will be no punishment or slaughter; if it does not occur, one of the two will happen. There is no claim of foreknowledge in this. Furthermore, it is possible that his oath regarding the two actions was followed by a revelation from God that it would indeed bring a clear authority, so he added the third: {أَوْ لَيَأْتِيَنِي بِسُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ} (or it must bring me a clear authority) based on knowledge and certainty.