Surah Az-Zumar 39:1
ﱤ ﱥ ﱦ ﱧ ﱨ ﱩ
The revelation of the Qur'an is from Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:1-4
Tafsir
Al-Kashshaf
Verse range: 39:1-4
Sūrat al-Zumar
Classification: Meccan, except for the verse: "Say, 'O My servants who have transgressed against themselves...'" (v. 53). It is also called Sūrat al-Ghuraf.
Verse Count: Seventy-five verses; it is also said to be seventy-two verses.
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
1. The revelation of the Book is from God, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
2. Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book in truth, so worship God, [being] sincere to Him in religion.
3. Unquestionably, for God is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say], "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to God in position." Indeed, God will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, God does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever.
4. If God had intended to take a son, He could have chosen what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is God, the One, the Prevailing.
{تنزيل الكتاب} It is read in the nominative case (*rafʿ*) as a subject (*mubtadaʾ*) whose predicate is the prepositional phrase (*al-ẓarf*). Or, it is the predicate of an omitted subject, with the prepositional phrase being connected to the act of revelation (*tanzīl*), as when you say: "It was sent down from God." Or, it is not connected, as in your saying: "This book is from so-and-so to so-and-so," making it a predicate after a predicate. Or, it is the predicate of an omitted subject, the estimation being: "This is the revelation of the Book; this is from God." Or, it is a state (*ḥāl*) of the revelation, influenced by the meaning of pointing (*ishārah*). It is also read in the accusative case (*naṣb*) by implying a verb, such as: "Read" or "Adhere to."
If you ask: "What is meant by 'the Book'?" I say: The apparent meaning in the first interpretation is the Quran, and in the second, it is the Surah.
{مخلصا له الدين} Meaning: Purifying the religion for Him from polytheism and hypocrisy through monotheism and the purification of the inner self. It is read as *al-dīn* in the nominative. Whoever reads it in the nominative should read *mukhlisan* with a *fatḥah* on the *lām*, as in His saying: {And they purified their religion for God} (An-Nisāʾ: 146), so that it corresponds to His saying: {Is it not to God that pure religion belongs?} (Az-Zumar: 3). *Al-khāliṣ* (pure) and *al-mukhliṣ* (the one who purifies) are the same, except that one describes the religion with the attribute of its possessor through metaphorical attribution, like their saying: "A poetic poem" (*shiʿr shāʿir*). As for those who make *mukhlisan* a state of the worshiper and {lahu al-dīn} a subject and predicate, they have provided a syntax that returns the speech to your saying: "To God belongs the religion," {Is it not to God that pure religion belongs?}. That is: He is the One who must be singled out so that obedience is purified for Him from every stain of impurity, because He knows the unseen and the secrets, and because He is worthy of that, as His grace is free from the extraction of benefit. Qatadah said: "Pure religion is the testimony that there is no god but God." Al-Hasan said: "It is Islam."
{والذين اتخذوا} It may refer to those who take [others as deities], namely the disbelievers; or those who are taken, namely the angels, Jesus, Al-Lāt, and Al-ʿUzzā (according to Ibn ʿAbbās). In the first case, the pronoun in {ittakhadhū} refers to "those who take," and in the second, to the polytheists (though they are not explicitly mentioned, it is understood). The reference to "those who are taken" is omitted; the meaning is: "And those whom the polytheists took as allies." {Wa-alladhīna ittakhadhū} is in the nominative position as a subject.
If you ask: "What is the predicate?" I say: In the first case, it is either {Indeed, God will judge between them} or the implied speech before His saying: {We do not worship them}. In the second case, it is {Indeed, God will judge between them}.
If you ask: "If {Indeed, God will judge between them} is the predicate, what is the position of the implied speech?" I say: It is permissible for it to be in the position of a state (ḥāl), meaning: "saying that." It is also permissible for it to be a substitute (badal) for the relative clause (ṣilah), thus having no position, just as the one it replaces has none. Ibn Masʿūd read it with the explicit speech: "They said: We do not worship them." In Ubayy’s reading: "We do not worship you except to bring us closer," using the second-person address, narrating what they said to their deities.
{Naʿbuduhum} is read with a ḍammah on the nūn following the ʿayn, just as the hamzah follows it in the imperative, and the tanwīn in {ʿadhābun * irkuḍ}. The pronoun in {baynahum} refers to them and their allies. The meaning is that God will judge between them by admitting the angels and Jesus to Paradise, and admitting the [polytheists] to the Fire along with the stones they carved and worshipped besides God, tormenting them with them by making them and the stones the fuel of Hell.
Their disagreement is that those who worship are polytheists, while those who are worshipped are monotheists who hate and curse them, yet the polytheists hope for their intercession and that they bring them closer to God. It is said: When the Muslims asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would admit, "God." When asked, "Why do you worship idols?" they said, "We do not worship them except to bring us closer to God." Thus, the pronoun in {baynahum} refers to them and the Muslims. The meaning is that God will judge on the Day of Resurrection between the two disputing parties.
The denial of guidance refers to the denial of divine grace (luṭf), recording against them that they have no grace and are among the doomed in God's knowledge.
{كذاب} It is read as *kadhdhāb* and *kadhūb*. Their lying is their saying regarding some of those they took as allies besides God: "They are the daughters of God." Therefore, He followed it by arguing against them: {If God had intended to take a son, He would have chosen from what He creates what He wills}. Meaning: If He had intended to take a son, it would have been impossible and invalid, as it is absurd. It would only be possible if He chose some of His creation, singled them out, and brought them near, just as a man singles out his son and brings him near. He has done this with the angels, so you were tempted by it, and His singling them out deceived you, so you claimed they were His children out of your ignorance of Him and His reality, which differs from the realities of bodies and accidents. It is as if He said: "If He had intended to take a son, He would not have exceeded what He did by choosing what He wills from His creation—the angels—except that you, in your ignorance of Him, thought their selection was taking them as children." Then you persisted in your ignorance and foolishness, making them daughters, thus becoming liars and disbelievers, extreme in your fabrication against God and His angels, and dominant in disbelief.
Then He said: {Exalted is He}, declaring His Essence free from having any of the children or allies they attributed to Him. He indicated this by what contradicts it: that He is One. It is not permissible for Him to have a consort, for if He had a consort, she would be of His kind, and He has no kind. Since it is not possible for Him to have a consort, it is not possible for Him to have a child. This is the meaning of His saying: {How could He have a son when He has no consort?} (Al-Anʿām: 101).
{Qahhār} (The Subduer): Overpowering everything, and among those things are their deities; He overpowers them, so how could they be His allies and partners?