An-Naml

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

As explained in the preceding discussion, when individuals persist in wrongdoing, the Qur’ān describes a process whereby their perception becomes gradually distorted. When a person repeatedly engages in incorrect actions, those actions slowly lose their apparent negativity in his view, and he becomes accustomed to them. With continued familiarity, he begins to justify them through various interpretations, and eventually those same wrongful acts appear to him as something commendable, even as a duty. Many individuals in history have reached a stage where they take pride in their reprehensible behavior and regard it as virtuous. When such transformation in values occurs, human life becomes directionless and confused, representing one of its most detrimental conditions. It is noteworthy that in this verse, as well as in Sūrat al‑Anʿām 6:108, the act of embellishment (tazyīn) is attributed to God, while in other verses it is attributed to Shayṭān, and in some instances it appears in the passive form. All these expressions describe the same reality from different perspectives. Its attribution to God relates to His being the ultimate cause (musabbib al‑asbāb), as the system of cause and effect operates under His will; repetition of actions naturally leads to habituation, and this transformation of perception is part of the created order. At the same time, the individual remains responsible, and no objection arises against Divine justice. Attributing this embellishment to Shayṭān or to human desires reflects the immediate and proximate causes that influence human behavior. The passive expression, on the other hand, indicates that the nature of repeated action itself leads to its becoming a fixed disposition, a sustained tendency, and ultimately a form of attachment within the individual. The result of this process is then described: “أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَهُمْ سُوءُ الْعَذَابِ” — such people are those for whom there is an evil and painful punishment. In this world, they remain in a state of confusion, anxiety, and misguidance, and in the Hereafter they will face severe punishment. Furthermore, “وَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ هُمُ الْأَخْسَرُونَ” — they are the greatest losers in the Hereafter. The reason for their ultimate loss is clarified in another passage: “قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِالْأَخْسَرِينَ أَعْمَالًا الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعًا” This signifies that the most deprived are those whose efforts in worldly life are wasted while they believe that they are performing righteous deeds. There can be no greater loss than that a person considers his evil actions to be good, expends all his energies upon them, and continues them under the assumption of virtue, only to find the outcome to be nothing but misery and punishment. The concluding verse of this passage, which serves both as a completion of the discussion regarding the Qur’ān’s majesty and as an introduction to the forthcoming narratives of the prophets, states: “وَإِنَّكَ لَتُلَقَّى الْقُرْآنَ مِنْ لَدُنْ حَكِيمٍ عَلِيمٍ” — indeed, you receive the Qur’ān from One who is Wise and All‑Knowing. Although both “حكيم” and “عليم” refer to Divine knowledge, “حكيم” emphasizes the purposeful and wise ordering of creation and revelation, while “عليم” denotes comprehensive and boundless knowledge. Accordingly, a revelation that proceeds from such attributes must necessarily be clear, manifest, and free from distortion, serving as guidance and glad tidings for the believers, and its narratives must remain entirely free from falsehood and fabrication.

The most important issue in human life is that one understands the realities exactly as they are and holds the correct stance regarding them. Ideologies, desires, deviant tendencies, and love or hatred should not prevent a person from seeing and understanding the facts correctly. The most important definition of philosophy is also this very thing, that is, "perception of realities as they are." This is why the Infallibles have made the most important supplication to the Lord of the Worlds as follows: اللهم ارني الاشياء كما هي O Allah! Show us the realities and existences as they truly are (so that we may comprehend the values correctly and fulfill their rights). And this state cannot be achieved without faith because rebellious carnal desires are a great obstacle on this path. These obstacles cannot be removed without piety and controlling the carnal desires. That is why, in the above-mentioned verses, we have read: Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, We give their evil deeds a fair seeming, and they wander blindly. The apparent example of this we see with our own eyes in the lives of the materialistic people of our time. They take pride in such things and count such matters as part of their civilization, which in reality are nothing but disgrace, sin, and shame. They consider license and impulsiveness as a symbol of "freedom," women’s nudity and obscenity as a sign of "civilization," beauty contests as a symbol of "personality," being stained with various sins as a sign of "liberty," murder, committing crimes, and destruction as evidence of "power," vandalism and looting others’ wealth as "colonialism," using media for obscenity and moral corruption as "respect for humanity," the violation of the rights of the oppressed as "respect for human rights," making people addicted to drugs, lust, and shame as "a form of freedom," lying, cheating, plundering, and acquiring wealth by lawful and unlawful means as a sign of "ability and competence," adherence to the principles of justice and respect for others’ rights as a "sign of incompetence and incapacity," and falsehood, breaking promises, duplicity, and deception as "politics." In summary, evil and disgraceful deeds are so beautified and presented in their eyes that not only do they not feel ashamed of them, but they also take pride in them. When the situation is such, it is clear what kind of face such a world should have, and it is also known where the path they have chosen is leading.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

As has already been explained, after describing the importance of the Qur’an, this sūrah presents the accounts of five great prophets and their communities, clearly indicating the success of the believers and the punishment of the disbelievers. The narrative begins with one of the great ulū al‑ʿazm prophets, namely Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), focusing on highly sensitive moments of his life. The account starts at the point when the first rays of revelation touched his heart and he became acquainted with the Divine message and speech. It is stated: “إِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِأَهْلِهِ إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا” — when Mūsā said to his family: I perceive a fire from a distance. The term “آنَسْتُ” from the root “ایناس” conveys the sense of perceiving something with reassurance and certainty. He then said: remain here; I shall bring you some news from it or bring you a flaming torch so that you may warm yourselves: “سَآتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ آتِيكُم بِشِهَابٍ قَبَسٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ”. This incident occurred during the night when Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), together with his wife (the daughter of Shuʿayb), was traveling toward Egypt. They lost their way in a dark desert, strong winds were blowing, and at that moment his wife experienced the pains of childbirth. In the severe cold, he urgently needed fire, and upon seeing a distant flame, he assumed it indicated human presence and thus moved toward it, hoping to bring back either guidance or warmth. When he approached it, a call was heard: “فَلَمَّا جَاءَهَا نُودِيَ أَنْ بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”. Regarding “مَن فِي النَّارِ” and “مَنْ حَوْلَهَا”, exegetes have offered several interpretations. The most plausible is that “مَن فِي النَّارِ” refers to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), as the flames appeared so near to him that he seemed enveloped within them, while “مَنْ حَوْلَهَا” refers to the angels surrounding that sacred place. Other interpretations reverse these meanings or attribute the expression to the manifestation of Divine light. In all cases, the concluding phrase “وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ” negates any misconception of corporeality for God, affirming His transcendence. A further call followed: “يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنَّهُ أَنَا اللَّهُ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ”. This declaration removes all doubt, making clear that the speaker is none other than God—“العزيز” and “الحكيم”. It prepares the ground for the subsequent miracles, as both Divine power and wisdom underlie miraculous acts. A question arises as to how Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) recognized this as a Divine voice. The answer lies in the accompanying signs: the extraordinary flame emerging from a green tree, followed immediately by the miracles of the staff and the “يد بيضاء”, all of which confirmed the authenticity of the call. Furthermore, the Divine voice itself has a distinctive quality that leaves no doubt in the heart of the listener regarding its origin. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was then commanded: “وَأَلْقِ عَصَاكَ”. When he cast down his staff, it became a moving serpent: “فَلَمَّا رَآهَا تَهْتَزُّ كَأَنَّهَا جَانٌّ وَلَّىٰ مُدْبِرًا وَلَمْ يُعَقِّبْ”. The term “جانّ” has been interpreted as a swift, subtle serpent. It is also possible that the transformation occurred in stages, from a smaller form to a great serpent. At this point, he was reassured: “يَا مُوسَىٰ لَا تَخَفْ إِنِّي لَا يَخَافُ لَدَيَّ الْمُرْسَلُونَ”. This indicates that the Divine presence is a realm of security, where fear has no place for the messengers. However, an exception is noted: “إِلَّا مَن ظَلَمَ ثُمَّ بَدَّلَ حُسْنًا بَعْدَ سُوءٍ فَإِنِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ”. Exegetes have explained this either as applying to non‑prophets who repent after wrongdoing, or as referring to instances of tark al‑awlā among prophets, which are immediately rectified through repentance and righteous action. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was then granted another sign: “وَأَدْخِلْ يَدَكَ فِي جَيْبِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَيْضَاءَ مِنْ غَيْرِ سُوءٍ”. This whiteness was not due to illness but was a luminous sign indicating miraculous power. These were not the only signs; rather, they formed part of nine signs sent to Pharaoh and his people: “فِي تِسْعِ آيَاتٍ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ وَقَوْمِهِ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ”. These signs—among them the flood, locusts, frogs, blood, drought, and scarcity—served as repeated warnings. When these manifest signs appeared, the reaction was: “فَلَمَّا جَاءَتْهُمْ آيَاتُنَا مُبْصِرَةً قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ”. Such accusations were not unique to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām); rather, they formed a consistent pattern among those who opposed the prophets. However, the Qur’an clarifies the true nature of their denial: “وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْ ظُلْمًا وَعُلُوًّا”. Their rejection was not due to doubt, but due to ظلم and arrogance. This highlights the distinction between knowledge and faith: knowledge does not necessarily lead to ایمان unless it is accompanied by submission. In conclusion, the fate of Pharaoh and his people is summarized: “فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ”. Their end serves as a comprehensive lesson, as the term “مفسدين” encapsulates all forms of فساد—both doctrinal and practical, individual and collective—demonstrating the cumulative consequence of persistent opposition to truth.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

After narrating a segment of the story of Prophet Musa (Moses, peace be upon him), Allah recounts incidents relating to two other great prophets, Dawud (David) and Sulaiman (Solomon). However, regarding Dawud, only a brief mention is made, whereas a detailed discussion is presented about Sulaiman. This part of the story of these two prophets appears here after the story of Prophet Musa because they were father and son among the prophets of Bani Israel. The distinction between their and other prophets’ histories is that they established a great kingdom in consideration of the intellectual and collective readiness of Bani Israel, and through this kingdom, the divine religion expanded. Therefore, the style of discourse here differs somewhat from that about other prophets. Regarding other prophets, it is said that they faced opposition from their people, and some were even driven out of their cities by their own people, but here no mention of such difficulties is made. The matter is entirely different. From this, it becomes clear that if those who invite to the way of Allah are granted the ability to establish governance, many difficulties can be resolved and conditions can improve significantly. In any case, here the discussion is about the knowledge of power and greatness. It mentions that all creatures, including jinn and humans, bow humbly before the divine dominion. Moreover, even birds are mentioned as being subject to this authority. In the end, there is mention of a powerful struggle against idolatry through logical and reasoned invitation, followed by the proper utilization of the strength of governance. These are the unique characteristics that distinguish these two prophets from others. It is noteworthy that the Holy Qur’an narrated the story of these prophets with the mention of the gift of knowledge, which is a fundamental element for any righteous and powerful government. It states: **"وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا دَاوُدَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ عِلْمًا"** ("And indeed, We gave Dawud and Sulaiman knowledge.") Some commentators have unnecessarily burdened themselves trying to identify the specific kind of knowledge granted to Dawud and Sulaiman here. Some commentators, referring to other related verses, interpret this knowledge as the knowledge of judgment and decision-making, as indicated in the verse: **"وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحِكْمَةَ وَفَصْلَ الْخِطَابِ"** ("And We gave him wisdom and sound judgment for disputes.") (Saad, 20) And: **"وَكُلًّا آتَيْنَا حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا"** ("And each [of them] We gave judgment and knowledge.") (Al-Anbiya, 79) Some commentators, considering the reference to the language of birds in these verses, interpret this knowledge as the ability to communicate with birds. Others, based on Qur’anic references, understand it as knowledge of the fabrication of armor and similar crafts. However, it is clear that here "knowledge" is in a broad sense, encompassing the knowledge of monotheism, religious beliefs, and divine laws, as well as the knowledge of judgment, and all other sciences necessary for such a vast and powerful kingdom. For the establishment of a divine governance based on justice and fairness and that is prosperous and free, comprehensive and devoted knowledge is essential. Thus, the Holy Qur’an, highlighting the role of knowledge in human society and governance, shows that the position of knowledge for society and governance is like the foundational stone of a building. After that, the words of Dawud and Sulaiman (peace be upon them) are quoted: **"وَقَالَا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي فَضَّلَنَا عَلَىٰ كَثِيرٍ مِّنْ عِبَادِهِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ"** ("And they said: All praise is for Allah, Who has favored us over many of His believing servants.") It is also interesting that immediately after the mention of the great blessing of knowledge, the subject of gratitude appears, to indicate that every blessing must be met with gratitude, and the reality of gratitude is that the blessing should be used for the purpose for which the one has been created. These two great prophets of Allah fully utilized their God-given knowledge in organizing a divine government. Incidentally, it should also be mentioned that they considered knowledge itself as the standard of all other virtues, not power or governance. They expressed gratitude particularly for the blessing of knowledge because a person’s worth and value stem from knowledge, and all power and strength come through knowledge. It is also worth noting that they expressed gratitude for ruling over a faithful nation because ruling over corrupt and faithless people is not something praiseworthy. Here a question arises: Why, at the moment of expressing gratitude, did they say that Allah had favored them over many believers, rather than over all believers, whereas they were superior to all people of their era? It may be that these words were said out of courtesy and humility, as such people never consider themselves superior to all others. Alternatively, it may be that they did not limit their reference to a particular time but had all times in view, bearing in mind that in the history of humankind, many prophets even greater than them have passed. In the following verse, an indication is given concerning the inheritance of Dawud by Sulaiman: **"وَوَرَثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُدَ"** ("And Sulaiman inherited Dawud.") Here, the question is: What is meant by "inheritance"?In this regard, there are differing opinions among the commentators: Some commentators consider it an inheritance of knowledge and wisdom, because according to their understanding, the Prophets do not leave an inheritance. Some have restricted it to inheritance of wealth and governance, as this is the meaning that first comes to mind from the phrase. Others have regarded the knowledge of speaking with birds (as in "Mantiq al-Tayr") as the inheritance. However, if attention is paid to the verse, it will be clear that this verse is absolute, and in the following sentences, mention is made of knowledge as well as other blessings ("awatina min kulli shay’"). Therefore, there is no reason to limit the meaning of the verse, and thus Prophet Sulaiman (peace be upon him) became the heir to everything of his father. The narrations transmitted to us from the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) also indicate that whenever anyone would say before them that Prophets do not leave an inheritance and would argue with "nahnu ma’asharat al-anbiya’ lanawris" (We, the group of Prophets, leave no inheritance), they would respond by reciting this verse and prove from it that since the mentioned hadith contradicts the Book of God, therefore it is absolutely not reliable. The hadith received from the Ahl al-Bayt is: When Abu Bakr firmly resolved to seize Fadak from Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her), and she became aware of this, she went to Abu Bakr and said: "Is it in the Book of Allah that you inherit from your father but I do not inherit from my father? This is a strange matter! Have you deliberately cast aside the Book of Allah, while Allah says, 'wa waratha Sulayman Dawood' (and Solomon inherited David)?" [Kitab al-Ihtijaj by Al-Tabrasi, quoted from Tafsir Nur al-Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 75] Then the Qur'an states: Sulaiman said, "O people! We have been taught the speech of birds (wa qul ya ayyuhal-nas 'allamna minathiq al-tayr)." "And we have been given from everything. Indeed, this is clear bounty (wa awatina min kulli shay’in inna hatha lahuwa al-fadlu al-mubeen)." Although some claim that the word "speech" (natiq) and "speaking" is applicable only to humans, and that the usage in other contexts is metaphorical, nonetheless, if non-human beings also emit such sounds and words from their mouths that express meanings and intentions, then there is no reason not to call it speech. Because "natiq" is any word that conveys a reality or concept. [Ibn al-Layth mentions in the book "Lisan al-Arab" that "natiq" means to converse. He further says: "wa kalam kull shay’in manṭiquhu wa minhu qawlu ta’ala ‘allamna manṭiq aṭ-ṭayr’" — the speech of everything is its articulation, and the verse 'we have been taught the speech of birds' belongs to this category. He then quotes from the literary scholars, including Ibn Sīda, that contrary to the claim that speech is exclusive to humans, "natiq" can also be used for non-human beings. It is necessary to note that among logicians and philosophers, "natiq" refers to the faculty of thought that enables humans to speak.] However, we do not say that those specific sounds which some animals utter in sorrow, anger, happiness, pain, or affection towards their young are "speech". Rather, those are sounds produced spontaneously in response to particular states. But as will be detailed further from the verses, Prophet Sulaiman (peace be upon him) was able to engage in meaningful and purposeful dialogue with the hoopoe, send messages through it, and command it to bring replies. This shows that besides those sounds animals make which reflect their states, by the will of the Almighty God, they are capable of conversing at special occasions. Likewise, in upcoming verses, there will be discussion about the speech of ants. However, in some places in the Glorious Qur’an, "speech" is used in its broad meaning, which embodies the spirit and outcome of "natiq," namely the expression of the contents of the conscience, and this expression may be in words and conversation or through other circumstances, such as this verse: "This is Our Book that speaks against you with the truth" (Al-Jathiyah, 29). But it is not necessary to interpret Prophet Sulaiman’s speech with birds in this broad sense, since according to the apparent meaning of the above verses, he could understand the specific words of birds which they used to express their intentions, and he could converse with them. Further details regarding this issue, Insha Allah, will be presented under a few important points. "awatina min kulli shay’" (we have been given from everything) rejects the narrow view held by some commentators. It has a broad meaning encompassing all the means necessary, materially and spiritually, for the establishment of Divine governance. Fundamentally, without this, the speech would be deficient and would have no clear connection with the previous verses. At this point, Fakhr al-Razi raised a question: whether "‘allamna" (We have been taught) and "awatina" (We have been given)...) Do not the arrogant have a word? Then they themselves have given the answer, which is that the plural pronoun here refers to Prophet Sulaiman himself and his father, or to Sulaiman and his government associates. It is customary that when the head of state speaks, the plural form is used.

It is a misconception held by some narrow‑minded individuals that religion consists merely of exhortation and moral preaching, or that it pertains only to the personal and private aspects of human life. This is fundamentally incorrect. Religion is, in reality, a comprehensive system encompassing all the laws of life, presenting a broad program that includes every dimension of human existence, particularly its collective and social aspects. The prophets were sent in order to establish justice: “لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ” (Ḥadīd / 25). Religion aims to break the chains of human bondage and safeguard the freedom of humanity (Aʿrāf / 157). It seeks to liberate the oppressed from the grip of the oppressors and to bring an end to tyranny. In brief, the purpose of religion is to cultivate human beings through moral purification and education, transforming them into perfected individuals (Jumuʿah / 2). It is evident that such profound objectives cannot be achieved without the establishment of governance. Who can establish justice and equity merely through moral advice? Who can prevent oppressors from trampling upon the rights of the oppressed through sermons alone? Who can break the chains of slavery without the support of power? In a society where communication systems and propaganda machinery are controlled by corrupt and corrupting individuals, who can implement proper systems of education and moral development? Who can nurture moral virtues in human beings without addressing such systemic realities? For this reason, it is asserted that religion cannot be separated from politics; rather, the two are intrinsically interconnected. If religion is divorced from politics, it loses its executive and administrative dimension. Conversely, if politics is separated from religion, it degenerates into a destructive force serving the interests of selfish and tyrannical individuals. The success achieved by the Prophet of Islam (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) in propagating his Divine message across the world was largely due to the establishment of a governing structure at the earliest opportunity, through which he implemented the objectives ordained by God in practical terms. Similarly, whenever other prophets were afforded such an opportunity, they presented their message effectively. However, those prophets who were constrained by adverse circumstances and were unable to establish governance could not achieve the same level of success in manifesting their mission.

It is strikingly compelling that Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and Dāwūd (ʿalayhi al‑salām) swiftly eradicated the remnants of shirk and idolatry and established a Divine system. Such a system whose fundamental and central element is knowledge and wisdom, and awareness across various domains. A system in which the name of God occupies the foremost position in every program and plan. A system in which all competent elements are utilized, to the extent that even a bird is employed as a means for achieving its objectives. A system in which rebellious forces are subdued and tyrannical elements are brought under control. In summary, a system that possessed considerable military strength as well as effective means of intelligence, and in which individuals skilled or experienced in economic and productive affairs were gathered under the banner of faith and توحید.

In the foregoing verses, as well as in the subsequent passages describing the account of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and the hoopoe, there are clear indications regarding the speech of birds and the comprehension of that speech. There is no doubt that, like other animals, birds produce different sounds under different conditions, and through careful observation, it is possible to discern their various states from these sounds. Certain sounds convey anger, others indicate joy; some reveal hunger, others express desire; some are used to call their young, while others warn them of impending danger. To this extent, there is no doubt about the meaningfulness of birds’ vocalizations, and it is commonly observable. However, the verses of this sūrah appear to suggest something beyond this. They refer to a particular manner of communication in which remarkable meanings are conveyed and a form of mutual understanding between humans and birds is indicated. While this may appear unusual, a careful examination of the observations recorded by scholars of animal behavior, as well as well‑attested human experiences, removes any element of strangeness from it. Indeed, knowledge concerning the awareness and perception of animals, particularly birds, includes phenomena that are even more extraordinary. Some animals and birds display exceptional skill in constructing their dwellings or nests, at times surpassing even trained engineers. Certain birds demonstrate a remarkable awareness of the future needs and challenges of their offspring and make elaborate preparations for them, which is astonishing. Their ability to anticipate climatic conditions is also noteworthy, with some reportedly indicating weather changes months in advance. There are even birds known to sense earthquakes before their occurrence, sometimes detecting subtle tremors earlier than mechanical instruments. In modern times, the training of animals for performances reveals further aspects of their capacities, with animals and birds performing extraordinary feats. The complex organization of ants, the remarkable life patterns of bees, and their highly developed communication systems, as well as the astonishing navigational abilities of migratory birds—capable of traversing vast distances between polar regions—are all widely recognized. Similarly, many species of fish possess extensive knowledge of oceanic environments, enabling them to travel collectively across great distances. These matters, which are scientifically acknowledged, indicate that animals possess levels of perception, instinct, and awareness that are significant, even if described by different conceptual terms. Some animals possess highly developed faculties, such as the bat’s radar‑like system, the acute olfactory senses of certain insects, or the sharp vision of particular birds. These capacities demonstrate that animals are not necessarily inferior to humans in every respect. In light of these considerations, it should not be regarded as implausible that animals, including birds, possess structured modes of communication, and that those familiar with these modes can understand them. The Qur’an also alludes to this reality in various passages, such as: “وَمَا مِن دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلَّا أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ” (Anʿām 38), indicating that all creatures are communities comparable in their own way. Numerous narrations also support the existence of structured communication among animals, particularly birds, even describing their vocal expressions as distinct forms of utterance. In one narration, it is reported that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām) stated to ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās: “إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَّمَنَا مَنْطِقَ الطَّيْرِ كَمَا عَلَّمَ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ دَاوُدَ وَمَنْطِقَ كُلِّ دَابَّةٍ فِي بَرٍّ وَبَحْرٍ” (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 77). Thus, the Qur’anic references and supporting narrations indicate that communication among animals, and even understanding between them and humans, is neither implausible nor contrary to observable realities.

In various books of Ahl al-Sunnah, there is a hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) which contains a similar subject matter: نحن معاشر الانبياء لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة "We, the community of the Prophets, do not leave inheritance; whatever we leave behind is spent as charity in the way of God." In some books, the phrase "لا نورث" is not present, and the narration appears simply as "ما تركناه صدقة" (what we leave behind is charity). The chain of transmission of this narration generally ends with Abu Bakr, who assumed leadership of the Muslims after the Prophet’s death. When Lady Fatimah Zahra (عليها السلام) or some wives of the Prophet demanded their inheritance from him, Abu Bakr used this hadith to deny them their share of the inheritance. This hadith has been recorded by Muslim in his Sahih (Vol. 3, Kitab al-Jihad wa al-Siyar, p. 1379), by Hanbali in the eighth part of Kitab al-Fara’id on page 185, and also by various other authors in their respective books. It is also noteworthy that among these books, Sahih al-Bukhari narrates from Lady Aisha that after the death of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Fatimah Zahra (عليها السلام) and Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib came to Abu Bakr to claim their inheritance. They demanded the estate of Fadak and the inheritance from Khyber, upon which Abu Bakr said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say: 'We do not leave anything as inheritance; whatever remains with us is charity.'" Upon hearing this, Lady Fatimah Zahra (عليها السلام) became upset and returned without speaking to him until her death. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 185] However, this hadith is subject to analysis and scrutiny in various respects, and in this exegesis, a few points will be addressed: 1- This hadith contradicts the Quranic text and therefore, according to the principle and general rule, a narration that contradicts the Book of Allah should not be accepted, nor can it be considered a statement of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or other Infallibles (عليهم السلام). We have read in the above verses that Prophet Solomon (عليه السلام) inherited from Prophet David (عليه السلام), and the apparent meaning of the verse is absolute, which includes wealth as well. Regarding Prophet Yahya and Prophet Zakariya (عليهم السلام), it is mentioned: يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ "O my Lord! Grant me from Yourself a successor who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob." (Maryam / 6) Many exegetes have emphasized financial inheritance with reference to Prophet Zakariya. Moreover, the apparent meaning of the verses about inheritance in the Glorious Quran is general and applies to all without exception. Perhaps this is why the famous scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah, Allama Qurtubi, reluctantly accepted this hadith as indicative of a predominating or frequent act, not as a general rule, and he gave this example that Arabs say: (أنا معشر العرب أقرى الناس للضيف) "We Arabs are the most generous to guests," although this is not a general rule. [Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 7, p. 4880] But clearly, this does not negate the importance of this hadith because if such an excuse is accepted regarding Prophets Solomon (عليه السلام) and Yahya (عليه السلام), then it loses its definiteness for others as well. 2- The above narration contradicts other narrations which indicate that Abu Bakr had a firm intention to return Fadak to Lady Fatimah, but others prevented this. In Seerah al-Halabi, it is stated: Fatimah bint Rasul (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) came to Abu Bakr when he was on the pulpit and said: "O Abu Bakr, is it in the Quran that your daughter takes your inheritance but I should not take the inheritance of my father?" Upon hearing this, Abu Bakr began to weep and tears flowed from his eyes. Then he descended from the pulpit and wrote a deed of return of Fadak to Fatimah. At that moment Umar arrived and asked what was happening. Abu Bakr said he had written a document to return the inheritance of the Prophet to Fatimah. Umar said, "If you do this, then where will the expenses of the war against the enemies be met, while the Arabs have revolted against you?" After saying this, he took the document and tore it to pieces. [Seerat Halabi, Vol. 3, p. 391] How is it possible that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) explicitly forbade this, but Abu Bakr dared to oppose it? Moreover, Umar justified his action by the need for war expenses but did not present the Prophet’s hadith. If one carefully reflects on the above narration, it becomes clear that there was no prohibition from Islam but rather political issues intervened. Such a situation brings to mind the discussion of the Mu'tazili scholar Ibn Abi al-Hadid, who said: I asked my teacher Ali ibn Farqi whether Fatimah was truthful in her claim. He answered yes! Then I asked why Abu Bakr did not give her Fadak if he also considered her truthful and rightful. At this point, my teacher made a meaningful comment...A very subtle and charming response was given to them along with a rebuke, although it was not their habit to mock. They said: لواعطاها اليوم فدك بمجرد دعواها لجائت اليه غدًا وادعت لزوجها الخلافۃ! و زحزحته عن مقامه ولم يمكنه الاعتذار والموافقة بشيء۔ If they had given them Fadak today merely on the basis of their claim, then tomorrow they would have come to claim the caliphate for their husband and would have shaken Abu Bakr from his position, leaving no room for apology or any agreement. [Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Vol. 16, p. 284]. 3- The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) has a famous hadith, recorded by both Shia and Sunni in their respective collections. The hadith is: العلماء ورثة الأنبياء "Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets." [Sahih Tirmidhi, Book of Knowledge, Hadith 19 and Sunan Ibn Majah, Introduction, Hadith 17]. Also, this saying is attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family): ان الانبياء لم يورثوا دينارًا ولا درهمًا "The Prophets do not leave Dinars or Dirhams as inheritance." [Usul al-Kafi, Volume 1, Chapter on the Attribute of Knowledge, Hadith 6]. By reading these two hadiths together, it becomes clear that the main purpose was to make people realize that the true pride of the Prophets is their knowledge, and the most important legacy they leave behind is their program of guidance and leadership. Those who benefit more from knowledge and wisdom will be the real inheritors of the Prophets, rather than focusing on material wealth and leaving that as their legacy. After this, the hadith was conveyed in paraphrase and misinterpreted, and perhaps some narrations of the phrase "ما تركناه صدقة" ("what we leave is charity") were added to it. At this point, we conclude this discussion with the words of the renowned Sunni exegete Fakhr al-Razi, who commented on Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 11, so as not to lengthen the matter unnecessarily. Fakhr al-Razi writes: "One of the general and particular conditions of this ayah (regarding the inheritance of offspring) is the thing upon which most mujtahids (Sunni scholars) agree, that the honorable Prophets do not leave material inheritance, but (generally) the Shia oppose this view. It is narrated that when Fatimah (peace be upon her) demanded her inheritance, those people deprived her of her legacy through this hadith: 'We, the community of Prophets, do not bequeath what we leave; it is charity.' At that time, Lady Fatimah argued from the general Quranic verse on inheritance, thus indicating that a general ruling in the Quran cannot be restricted by a single report. Fakhr al-Razi continues, saying that the Shia write: Even if it is accepted that the Quran can be restricted by a solitary tradition, here three reasons prevent such restriction. First, the Quran clearly states that Zakariya asked God to grant him a child who would be an heir to him and the family of Yaqub. Similarly, the Quran at another place says that Solomon inherited from David. These verses cannot be applied to inheritance of knowledge and religion, which is metaphorical inheritance, because those Prophets taught their children knowledge and religion instead of inheriting and bequeathing it to them. True inheritance can only be conceived in material wealth (which is obtained from someone and given to others). Second, how is it possible that Abu Bakr, who had no need of the matter, would be aware of it, while Fatimah, Ali, and Abbas, who were the greatest ascetics and scholars and who were involved in the inheritance from the Prophet, would be completely unaware? How can it be that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) teaches this hadith to a person who does not need it, while concealing it from those who do? Third, the phrase "ما تركناه صدقة" (what we leave is charity) comes after "لا نورث" (we do not leave inheritance), which means that the property which we have declared as charity does not come under inheritance because it is specifically designated as charity, not all property! Then, Fakhr al-Razi briefly replies to the above famous arguments, saying: "When Fatimah Zahra (peace be upon her) discussed this with Abu Bakr, she became satisfied with him." Besides, there is also consensus that Abu Bakr’s statement was correct. [Tafsir Fakhr al-Razi, Vol. 9, p. 210]. However, it is obvious that Fakhr al-Razi’s argument is not acceptable because, as we have just proven from the famous and reliable Sunni books, Fatimah Zahra (peace be upon her) was not only unsatisfied with Abu Bakr, but she was so angry at him that she did not speak to him until her death. Leaving that aside, how is it possible that consensus takes place on a matter in which persons raised under divine revelation, like Ali and Zahra (peace be upon them) and a figure like Abbas, are not only non-participants but are opposed?

See ayat 19 for tafseer.

See ayat 19 for tafseer.

As previously explained, this sūrah, after presenting the importance of the Qur’an, recounts the accounts of five great prophets and their communities, clearly indicating the ultimate success of the believers and the punishment of the disbelievers. The narrative begins with one of the ulū al‑ʿazm prophets, namely Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), by presenting a critical moment of his life. The account commences from the point at which the first manifestation of revelation reaches his heart and he becomes acquainted with the Divine message. It is stated: “إِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِأَهْلِهِ إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا” — when Mūsā said to his family that he perceived a fire in the distance. The term “آنَسْتُ” denotes perceiving something with a sense of reassurance and certainty. He further instructed them to remain where they were, stating that he would bring back either information or a burning brand so that they might warm themselves: “سَآتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ آتِيكُم بِشِهَابٍ قَبَسٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ”. This event occurred on a dark night when Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), accompanied by his wife (the daughter of Shuʿayb), was traveling toward Egypt, had lost the path, and was confronted with cold weather and difficult conditions. Upon seeing a distant flame, he assumed it indicated human presence and thus proceeded toward it in hope of assistance. Upon approaching, he heard the call: “فَلَمَّا جَاءَهَا نُودِيَ أَنْ بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”. Regarding “مَن فِي النَّارِ” and “مَنْ حَوْلَهَا”, several interpretations have been offered. The more plausible view is that “مَن فِي النَّارِ” refers to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), as the flame was so near that he appeared encompassed by it, while “مَنْ حَوْلَهَا” refers to the angels present in that sacred moment. In all interpretations, the conclusion “وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ” emphasizes the transcendence of God and negates any anthropomorphic misunderstanding. The address continues: “يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنَّهُ أَنَا اللَّهُ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ”, clarifying that the speaker is none other than God, characterized by power and wisdom. This statement also prepares the context for the forthcoming miracles, as these are manifestations of Divine قدرت and حکمت. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) is then commanded: “وَأَلْقِ عَصَاكَ”. When he cast down his staff, it transformed into a moving serpent: “فَلَمَّا رَآهَا تَهْتَزُّ كَأَنَّهَا جَانٌّ وَلَّىٰ مُدْبِرًا وَلَمْ يُعَقِّبْ”. The term “جانّ” has been interpreted as a small, swift serpent, suggesting the initial stage of transformation, possibly followed by a greater manifestation. Upon seeing this, he turned away in fear, whereupon he was reassured: “يَا مُوسَىٰ لَا تَخَفْ إِنِّي لَا يَخَافُ لَدَيَّ الْمُرْسَلُونَ”, indicating that the Divine presence is the realm of security, where fear is absent for the messengers. However, an exception is mentioned: “إِلَّا مَن ظَلَمَ ثُمَّ بَدَّلَ حُسْنًا بَعْدَ سُوءٍ فَإِنِّي غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ”. This has been interpreted either as referring to non‑prophets who repent after wrongdoing or to instances of tark al‑awlā among prophets, which are corrected through repentance and righteous conduct. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) is then granted another sign: “وَأَدْخِلْ يَدَكَ فِي جَيْبِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَيْضَاءَ مِنْ غَيْرِ سُوءٍ”, referring to the luminous manifestation of his hand, not arising from any illness but serving as a miraculous sign. These signs are part of the nine signs directed toward Pharaoh and his people: “فِي تِسْعِ آيَاتٍ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ وَقَوْمِهِ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ”. When these clear signs reached them, their response was: “هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ”. This accusation reflects a recurring pattern among those who opposed the prophets. Yet the Qur’an clarifies: “وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنْفُسُهُمْ ظُلْمًا وَعُلُوًّا”. Their denial was not based on doubt, but on ظلم and arrogance. Thus, knowledge alone does not constitute faith; rather, faith consists in submission to the truth in both outward and inward dimensions. A person may possess certainty yet deny it due to pride or self‑interest. This is identified in traditions as “كفر الجحود”, where one denies what is known to be true. Finally, the fate of Pharaoh and his people is summarized: “فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ”. This concise statement encompasses the totality of their فساد—doctrinal, ethical, individual, and collective—and presents their end as a comprehensive lesson of admonition.

We do not have much information about the world of animals, and despite all advancements, there still remain veils of doubt and ambiguity on this subject. However, we do observe signs of their understanding, intelligence, and skills in many activities. The bees building their hives, organizing and strengthening honeycombs, ants storing food for the necessities of winter, animals defending themselves against predators, their knowledge of treating many diseases, returning to their nests and dens from long distances, traveling long and arduous journeys to reach their destinations, anticipating future events—these are all matters that indicate many issues concerning the mysterious life of animals are yet solvable. Apart from these, many animals perform remarkable feats if trained and guided properly, feats that humans themselves cannot accomplish. Still, it remains unclear to what extent they are aware of the human world. Do they truly know who we (humans) are and what we do? It may be that we do not find clear signs of such consciousness and understanding in them, but this does not mean these qualities are entirely absent. On this basis, if we read in the above account that the ants received news of the arrival of Prophet Sulaiman in their land and were commanded to retreat into their nests to avoid being crushed underfoot by the army, and that Sulaiman himself became aware of this, it is not surprising. Moreover, as we have previously mentioned, the reign of Sulaiman was distinguished by extraordinary and miraculous phenomena. Therefore, some commentators have expressed the view that the awareness found in certain animals during the time of Sulaiman’s rule was a miraculous and extraordinary event, so if such accounts are not found in other eras, there is no objection to that. The purpose of their discourse is to emphasize that there is no need to interpret the story of Sulaiman and the ants, or Sulaiman and the hoopoe, as mere metaphor, allegory, or the language of signs, since it is possible to preserve the reality and literal meaning of these events. [We have also discussed this matter under verse 38 of Surah Al-An’am in volume five of Tafseer Namuna].

A fundamental distinction between divinely guided rulers and tyrannical and oppressive rulers lies in the fact that when tyrants attain power, they become immersed in arrogance and heedlessness, forgetting all human values and reverting to self‑will. In contrast, when divinely guided leaders attain authority, they regard it as a tremendous responsibility, turn more intensely toward God, and seek from Him the capacity to fulfill this weighty trust. As observed in the case of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), upon attaining sovereignty, the most significant matter he asked of God was the ability to express gratitude for His blessings and to utilize those blessings in the path of truth and for the welfare of humanity. It is also noteworthy that he began his supplication with the word “اوزعنی”, which conveys the meaning of inner inspiration and the gathering of all internal capacities for the realization of this great objective. In effect, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was supplicating: O Lord, grant me such power that I may concentrate all my inner energies in fulfilling my responsibilities, expressing gratitude, and carrying out my duties, and guide me continuously along this path, for it is a difficult, demanding, and prolonged journey, and within this vast governance lies the path of fulfilling the rights owed to all. Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) did not restrict his supplication to expressing gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon himself alone; rather, he also sought the capacity to give thanks for the blessings granted to his parents. This reflects the fact that many of the blessings a person receives come through inheritance from their parents, and it is undeniable that the means bestowed by God upon parents often serve as significant support for their children.

It is noteworthy that, despite the unparalleled power and authority granted to Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), he supplicated God for the continuous ability to express gratitude and, beyond that, to be counted among His righteous servants. This supplication highlights two essential points. First, the ultimate purpose of acquiring authority is the performance of righteous deeds; power, prestige, and sovereignty serve merely as means for their realization. Righteous actions themselves, in turn, are a means toward attaining Divine pleasure, which constitutes the ultimate objective and final end of all pursuits. Second, inclusion among the righteous represents a station even higher than the mere performance of righteous deeds. The former pertains to rectification of one’s inner self, while the latter pertains to rectification of outward action. In other words, a person may perform righteous deeds, yet those deeds may not become fully integrated into his inner being. For this reason, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) prayed that God grant him such favor that righteousness would permeate his very essence, becoming ingrained in his soul and disposition—something that is unattainable without Divine grace. Thus, to be counted among the righteous servants of God is an exceedingly precious and elevated state. Despite possessing immense authority, power, and dominion, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) sought nothing more than to be included, through Divine mercy, among God’s chosen servants and to remain protected from the lapses that may befall human beings, particularly those who occupy positions of leadership and authority.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

In this section of the verses, God points to another significant episode from the remarkable life of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and recounts the account of the hoopoe (hudhud) and the Queen of Sheba. It is stated: “وَتَفَقَّدَ الطَّيْرَ” — Sulaymān inspected the birds. This expression clearly indicates that Sulaymān maintained close oversight over the affairs of his kingdom, to the extent that even the absence of a single bird did not escape his attention. The reference to “الطير” here specifically denotes the hoopoe, as the continuation of the verse clarifies: “فَقَالَ مَا لِيَ لَا أَرَى الْهُدْهُدَ أَمْ كَانَ مِنَ الْغَائِبِينَ” — why do I not see the hoopoe, or is it among the absent? Exegetes have offered explanations as to how Sulaymān recognized its absence. Some have suggested that birds formed a canopy above him during travel, and the absence of the hoopoe was noticeable within that formation. Others maintain that the hoopoe was responsible for locating water, and its absence became apparent when it was needed. In any case, Sulaymān first expresses uncertainty (“مَا لِيَ لَا أَرَى”), and then raises the possibility that it is truly absent, suggesting that he was distinguishing between justified and unjustified absence. This reflects the nature of a disciplined and organized governance, in which even minor elements are accounted for. As a lesson in administration, it demonstrates that the leader of a structured system remains aware of all details, whether concerning individuals or functions. Sulaymān then issues a disciplinary warning: “لَاُعَذِّبَنَّهُ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا أَوْ لَاَذْبَحَنَّهُ أَوْ لَيَأْتِيَنِّي بِسُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ” — I will surely punish it severely, or kill it, unless it brings me a clear justification. The term “سلطان مبین” signifies a clear and compelling proof. This statement reflects procedural justice rather than arbitrary decision-making; punishment is conditional upon the absence of a valid justification. Even in authority, Sulaymān demonstrates readiness to accept a reasonable explanation, highlighting the absence of tyranny. The hoopoe’s absence did not persist long: “فَمَكَثَ غَيْرَ بَعِيدٍ”. It returned and addressed Sulaymān boldly: “أَحَطتُ بِمَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ” — I have come to know something which you do not know, and I bring you from Sheba a certain report: “وَجِئْتُكَ مِن سَبَإٍ بِنَبَإٍ يَقِينٍ”. This statement reflects the intellectual openness present in Sulaymān’s system; even a small bird could speak directly without fear. It also conveys a broader lesson: knowledge is not confined to rank, and even a minor being may possess information unknown to the greatest leaders. The hoopoe then describes the land of Sheba: “إِنِّي وَجَدْتُ امْرَأَةً تَمْلِكُهُمْ وَأُوتِيَتْ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَلَهَا عَرْشٌ عَظِيمٌ”. In three concise statements, it summarizes the essential features of that state: prosperity, a centralized monarchy led by a queen, and a magnificent throne indicating political power and material advancement. It further reports a critical observation: “وَجَدْتُهَا وَقَوْمَهَا يَسْجُدُونَ لِلشَّمْسِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ” — they prostrate to the sun instead of God. Their deviation is attributed to the influence of Shayṭān: “وَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فَصَدَّهُمْ عَنِ السَّبِيلِ”, leading them away from the path of guidance: “فَهُمْ لَا يَهْتَدُونَ”. The hoopoe then presents a theological reflection: “أَلَّا يَسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي يُخْرِجُ الْخَبْءَ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تُخْفُونَ وَمَا تُعْلِنُونَ”. The term “الخبء” refers to hidden realities, emphasizing Divine knowledge of all that is concealed in the heavens, the earth, and within human beings. The choice of this attribute is particularly appropriate, as it contrasts the limited awareness of Sulaymān—despite his vast power—with the absolute knowledge of God. The hoopoe concludes: “اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ”. In this final statement, it affirms both tawḥīd al‑ʿibādah and tawḥīd al‑rubūbiyyah, negating all forms of شرك and acknowledging God as the sole sovereign of existence. Thus, this narrative segment combines administrative principles, intellectual humility, and theological reflection, illustrating a model of governance rooted in knowledge, justice, and devotion to Divine truth.

The above-mentioned verses contain many points that can be beneficial for the lives of all people and for the running of governments. 1- The head of a government or the head of an institution should be so meticulous in their administrative affairs that they even notice the absence of an ordinary and common person. 2- The head of an institution should take note of even a single individual’s violation of the law so that such transgressions do not spread to others; therefore, they should prevent it rigorously. 3- No case should be tried against someone in their absence; rather, they should be given the opportunity to defend themselves as much as possible. 4- The punishment should be proportional to the crime committed. 5- Regardless of one’s status or power, a person should accept reason and logic, even if it comes from a person of lower rank. 6- There should be such freedom in the public environment that an ordinary person can freely say to their head of state, “I know something that you do not know.” 7- It is possible that an ordinary and humble person may be aware of issues unknown even to great scholars and powerful people, and a person should never be arrogant about their knowledge and wisdom. 8- The necessities of human collective life are so vast that sometimes even great individuals like Solomon (عليه السلام) may need something as small as a bird. 9- Although women possess many abilities, and this very narrative will later show that the Queen of Sheba was very intelligent and insightful, nevertheless, the leadership of the government is not quite compatible with her physical and spiritual nature; even the hoopoe bird was amazed and said, “I have seen a woman ruling over them.” 10- Generally, the religion of the people is the same as that of their kings; therefore, in this very story, we read that the hoopoe said, “I saw that this woman and her people were worshipping the sun” (referring first to the queen and then to her people).

Some exegetes have raised a number of questions in relation to this passage. One of these is why, despite possessing such extensive knowledge and resources, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was unaware of the existence of such a kingdom. Another question concerns how the hoopoe could traverse the considerable distance between Yemen and Sulaymān’s center of governance, which appears to have been located in the region of Syria. It is also asked whether the hoopoe reached that land accidentally or for some specific reason. In response to the first question, it may be suggested that Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was, in principle, aware of such a region but did not possess detailed knowledge of its conditions and particular features. Furthermore, there existed between the two regions the vast desert of the Ḥijāz, and the means of communication at that time were not comparable to modern systems (although matters of divine inspiration and knowledge of the unseen constitute a separate consideration). As for the second question, the traversal of such a distance by a bird is not implausible. There are known species of birds that migrate across vast distances, even between the northern and southern poles of the earth, distances far greater than that between Yemen and Syria. It is therefore entirely reasonable that the hoopoe could have covered this distance. It is also possible that the hoopoe entered that region under particular circumstances. Some narrations indicate that Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) had journeyed from Syria to Makkah in order to perform pilgrimage according to the rites established by Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al‑salām). From there, he proceeded southward, approaching the region of Yemen. During a period of rest, the hoopoe may have taken the opportunity to depart, eventually reaching the palace of the Queen of Sheba, where the remarkable conditions it encountered captured its attention (Dāʾirat al‑Maʿārif Farīd Wajdī, vol. 10, p. 470, entry “hudhud”).

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

In this portion of the verses, God recounts another significant episode from the extraordinary governance of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), namely the account of the hoopoe (hudhud) and the Queen of Sheba. It is stated: “وَتَفَقَّدَ الطَّيْرَ” — he inspected the birds. This expression indicates that Sulaymān exercised close supervision over the affairs of his realm to such an extent that even the absence of a single bird did not escape his attention. The reference to birds specifically concerns the hudhud, as the verse continues: “فَقَالَ مَا لِيَ لَا أَرَى الْهُدْهُدَ أَمْ كَانَ مِنَ الْغَائِبِينَ”. Exegetes have explained that Sulaymān recognized its absence either because birds typically formed a canopy above him during travel and its place appeared empty, or because the hoopoe had a specific administrative function, such as locating water resources, and its absence became noticeable when it was required. The phrasing also suggests that Sulaymān distinguished between justified and unjustified absence. He then issued a disciplinary warning: “لَاُعَذِّبَنَّهُ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا أَوْ لَاَذْبَحَنَّهُ أَوْ لَيَأْتِيَنِّي بِسُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ”. This statement demonstrates a structured approach to governance: punishment is not arbitrary but contingent upon verification of wrongdoing. The demand for “سُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ” highlights that even a subordinate is given the opportunity to present a clear and valid justification. The hoopoe soon returned: “فَمَكَثَ غَيْرَ بَعِيدٍ”, and addressed Sulaymān with remarkable boldness: “أَحَطتُ بِمَا لَمْ تُحِطْ بِهِ وَجِئْتُكَ مِن سَبَإٍ بِنَبَإٍ يَقِينٍ”. This expression reflects both the intellectual openness within Sulaymān’s administration and the broader principle that knowledge is not restricted to status or hierarchy. The hoopoe then described the land of Sheba: “إِنِّي وَجَدتُّ امْرَأَةً تَمْلِكُهُمْ وَأُوتِيَتْ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَلَهَا عَرْشٌ عَظِيمٌ”. This concise description highlights a prosperous kingdom, ruled by a queen, characterized by wealth and power. However, it also reported a critical flaw: “وَجَدتُّهَا وَقَوْمَهَا يَسْجُدُونَ لِلشَّمْسِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ”. Their deviation is attributed to Shayṭān, who “وَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فَصَدَّهُمْ عَنِ السَّبِيلِ”, leading them away from the path of guidance, so that “فَهُمْ لَا يَهْتَدُونَ”. The hoopoe further presented a theological reflection: “أَلَّا يَسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي يُخْرِجُ الْخَبْءَ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تُخْفُونَ وَمَا تُعْلِنُونَ”. The term “الخَبْء” signifies hidden realities, indicating God’s knowledge of all that is concealed in the heavens, the earth, and within human beings. It is also noteworthy that this attribute is particularly relevant in this context, since it contrasts with the limited human knowledge—even that of a great prophet such as Sulaymān—while affirming the comprehensiveness of Divine knowledge. The hoopoe concludes its report with the declaration: “اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ”. In this statement, both توحید عبادت and توحید ربوبیت are affirmed, and all forms of shirk are negated. Upon hearing this report, Sulaymān did not hastily accept or reject it. Instead, he adopted a method of verification: “سَنَنظُرُ أَصَدَقْتَ أَمْ كُنتَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ”. This reflects an important principle: significant and consequential matters require investigation, even when the information is conveyed by a seemingly minor source. Sulaymān then employed a strategic and measured approach by drafting a concise message and instructing the hoopoe: “اذْهَب بِّكِتَابِي هَٰذَا فَأَلْقِهْ إِلَيْهِمْ ثُمَّ تَوَلَّ عَنْهُمْ فَانظُرْ مَاذَا يَرْجِعُونَ”. The phrasing “فَأَلْقِهْ إِلَيْهِمْ” suggests that the message was delivered in a manner ensuring its reception in an official setting. The Queen of Sheba, upon receiving the letter, stated: “إِنِّي أُلْقِيَ إِلَيَّ كِتَابٌ كَرِيمٌ”. The description “كَرِيمٌ” indicates the dignity of the message, whether due to its content, its form, or the stature of its sender. She then conveyed its contents: “إِنَّهُ مِن سُلَيْمَانَ وَإِنَّهُ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ أَلَّا تَعْلُوا عَلَيَّ وَأْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ”. The message consists of three essential components: invocation of God’s name, prohibition of arrogance, and a call to submission to truth. These elements comprehensively summarize the central principles of دعوت. The Queen then consulted her advisors: “يَا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَأُ أَفْتُونِي فِي أَمْرِي”. The term “أَفْتُونِي” indicates a call for thoughtful deliberation in a complex matter. Her advisors responded by affirming both their military capability and their willingness to follow her decision: “نَحْنُ أُولُو قُوَّةٍ وَأُولُو بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ وَالْأَمْرُ إِلَيْكِ”. However, the Queen adopted a cautious and strategic approach, stating: “إِنَّ الْمُلُوكَ إِذَا دَخَلُوا قَرْيَةً أَفْسَدُوهَا”. She recognized the destructive consequences of warfare and proposed first testing Sulaymān’s intentions through the sending of gifts. Her strategy was to determine whether he was merely a worldly ruler or a prophet guided by Divine authority. Thus, this passage integrates principles of governance, verification, diplomacy, and theological insight, illustrating a model of leadership grounded in wisdom, deliberation, and commitment to truth.

In the above-mentioned verses, what is stated about the letter of the people of Saba’ sent to Prophet Solomon is a prime example of epistolary style, which carries important and far-reaching implications. Beginning with the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God, it succinctly summarizes the entire meaning in just two brief sentences. From Islamic history and events, it is clear that our great leaders always insisted that letters should be written in a concise and comprehensive manner, free from all irrelevant and useless matters, and that letters should always be written thoughtfully. Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) officially instructed his employees and representatives regarding letters in the following words: "ادقوا اقلامكم وقاربوا بین سطوركم، و احذفوا عني فضولكم، واقصدوا قصد المعاني، و ایاکم و الاكثار، فان اموال المسلمين لاتحتمل الاضرار" "Sharpen your pens, keep your lines close together, remove unnecessary words from the letters written for me, focus on the meanings, and beware of verbosity, for the wealth of the Muslims cannot bear damage." [Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 76, p. 49]. Sharpening the pen leads to writing words smaller; writing lines closely together and eliminating unnecessary and excessive content not only saves the Muslims’ treasury or personal affairs but also saves the time of both the writer and the reader. Indeed, sometimes overly elaborate writing causes the original purpose to be lost, benefiting neither the writer nor the reader in understanding. Recently, it had become common contrary to the early Islamic practice that people began writing letters filled with titles, words, and formalities, which wasted precious time and resources. It is specially noteworthy that in that era, when letters were sent through specific messengers, sometimes requiring many weeks and considerable expense to deliver, utmost brevity was still maintained. Examples of this can be seen in the letters of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Khosrow Parvez, Caesar of Rome, and others like them. The fundamental point is that a person’s letter reflects his personality in the same way as his envoy or messenger. As stated in Nahj al-Balagha: "رسولك ترجمان عقلك وكتابك ابلغ من ينطق عنك" "Your messenger is the interpreter of your intellect, and your letter is the most eloquent speaker on your behalf." [Nahj al-Balagha, Short Sayings, Saying 301]. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) says: "يستدل بكتاب الرجل على عقله، و موضع بصيرته، وبرسوله على فهمه وفطنته" "A man’s letter is evidence of his intellect and the place of his insight, and his messenger represents his understanding and sharpness." [Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 76, p. 50]. It is necessary to mention here that from the traditions it is evident that replying to a letter is obligatory just like responding to a greeting. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) states: "وجواب الكتب واجب کوجوب رد السلام" "Replying to letters is obligatory in the same way as replying to greetings." [Wasa’il al-Shi’a, vol. 8, p. 437 (Kitab al-Hajj, Chapter 10, Section 33)]. Since letters generally begin with greetings and blessings, it is not unlikely that the following noble verse also pertains to this matter: "واذ احييتم بتحية فحيوا باحسن منها او ردّوها" "When you are greeted with a greeting, greet with one better than it or return it." (An-Nisa 4:86)

Some exegetes have understood from the apparent wording of Sulaymān’s letter that he intended to persuade the people of Sheba to accept his invitation without presenting explicit supporting evidence. They themselves have also offered a response, namely that the miraculous arrival of the hoopoe to those people constituted, in itself, a sufficient proof of the truth of Sulaymān’s mission (Tafsīr Fakhr Rāzī, under these verses). However, in our view, there is no need for such an explanation. The role of the prophets is to convey the invitation, while it is the responsibility of others to investigate and verify it. In other words, the invitation itself serves as the impetus for inquiry. This is precisely what the Queen of Sheba undertook—she investigated Sulaymān’s message in order to determine whether he was merely a worldly ruler or a prophet of God.

In this part of the story of Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him), brief references are also made to some important points. 1- The call of the Prophets negates every kind of desire for superiority and arrogance, which in reality is the denial of all forms of domination and submitting to the law of truth. 2- When the companions of the Queen of Sheba declared their readiness for war, since her feminine nature was delicate and not in favor of war, she diverted their attention to other matters. 3- Moreover, had she accepted their war-based advice, she would have deviated from the path of truth. As we will read later, she tested Solomon by sending gifts through a messenger, and the best results of this test became evident, which proved immensely beneficial for her own self and for the people of the Kingdom of Sheba. This led them to find the path of truth and avoid bloodshed. 4- From this incident, it is also clear that it is not necessary that the system of consultation (shura) always results in the truth. Because here most of the Queen of Sheba’s companions believed that military power takes precedence over all other matters, whereas the Queen’s opinion was completely opposite. By the end of the story, it will become clear that truth was on the side of the Queen. Here it can be said that such types of consultations are completely different from those which have nowadays become our norm, because we often consider the opinion of the majority as the standard and give the right of decision-making to the majority. While in this kind of consultation, the right to make decisions lies with the leader of the people, and the advisors can only offer advice. The following verse points toward this other kind of consultation: شاورهم في الامر فاذا عزمت فتوكل علی الله “Consult them in matters, and when you have taken a decision, then put your trust in Allah.” (Al Imran / 159) Whereas verse 38 of Surah Ash-Shura apparently refers to the first kind of consultation. It says: و أمرهم شورى بینهم “The believers should conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.” [For a more detailed explanation of consultation, see Tafseer Namona, Volume 3, commentary on Al Imran 159.] 5- The Queen of Sheba’s counselors said to her: “We are powerful and warlike.” It may be that the difference between these two words is that "quwwah" (قوة) refers to the great number of the army, and "bās shadīd" (باس شدید) indicates familiarity with their war tactics and the courage of the troops; that is, they meant to say by this statement that they were fully prepared to fight the enemy both in terms of the army's size and its quality.

From these verses, it becomes clear that despotic rule and autocratic systems of governance are, in many instances, sources of corruption and destruction, as well as means of humiliating the honorable members of a society. Under such systems, capable and dignified individuals are often suppressed, while flatterers and sycophants are elevated. At every stage, personal interest becomes the primary concern, and attention is directed only toward those who offer gifts, bribes, and precious commodities. Consequently, individuals who possess such means naturally become favored and influential within these regimes. Rulers of this kind remain preoccupied with status, power, and material wealth, prioritizing these over the well‑being of society. In contrast, the prophets of God are concerned solely with the reform of the community, and their focus remains entirely upon the moral and spiritual improvement of humanity.

See ayat 37 for tafseer.

The envoys sent by the Queen of Sheba departed from the land of Yemen and proceeded toward the region of Syria, where the center of Sulaymān’s authority was located, with the expectation that he would accept their gifts and respond favorably. However, upon their arrival—“فَلَمَّا جَاءَ سُلَيْمَانَ”—they witnessed an entirely different scene. Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) not only refrained from warmly receiving them, but also addressed them in a manner that demonstrated complete disregard for material offerings: “أَتُمِدُّونَنِ بِمَالٍ فَمَا آتَانِيَ اللَّهُ خَيْرٌ مِّمَّا آتَاكُمْ”. He made it clear that what God had granted him—prophethood, knowledge, guidance, and piety—far surpassed any worldly wealth. He further declared: “بَلْ أَنتُم بِهَدِيَّتِكُمْ تَفْرَحُونَ”, indicating that such gifts hold value only for those who are attached to material considerations, whereas they carried no significance in his estimation. In this manner, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) rejected the prevailing standards of value and demonstrated that his criteria differed fundamentally from those of worldly rulers. To affirm his resolve in matters of truth, he instructed the envoys to return: “ارْجِعْ إِلَيْهِمْ”, and conveyed a decisive message—he would soon approach them with forces beyond their capacity to resist: “فَلَنَأْتِيَنَّهُم بِجُنُودٍ لَا قِبَلَ لَهُم بِهَا”. Furthermore, he stated that they would be expelled from their land in humiliation: “وَلَنُخْرِجَنَّهُم مِّنْهَا أَذِلَّةً وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ”. This implies not only expulsion, but also degradation and the loss of status, wealth, and power, should they persist in refusing to submit to truth. This response reveals that the refusal of the people of Sheba to accept the two fundamental conditions previously conveyed—namely abandoning arrogance (“أَلَّا تَعْلُوا عَلَيَّ”) and submitting to truth (“وَأْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ”)—constituted a rejection of the Divine message. Their attempt to influence the situation through gifts indicated a reliance on worldly strategies rather than a willingness to seek truth. Consequently, Sulaymān adopted a firm stance, combining invitation with decisive authority. It is evident that the underlying cause of his stern response lay in the deeper issue reported by the hoopoe, namely that the people of Sheba were engaged in sun‑worship and had turned away from the knowledge of God. Since idolatry represents a fundamental deviation from Divine truth, no revealed religion can remain indifferent to it. Thus, in such circumstances, the use of power to remove the manifestations of shirk and establish the truth does not contradict the principle of “لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ”, because idolatry is not recognized as a legitimate form of religion but as a deviation from the path of truth.

It is also noteworthy that, in no Divine religion, asceticism (zuhd) implies that a person should refrain from benefiting from wealth and worldly resources. Rather, the true meaning of asceticism is that one should not remain a captive (asir) of such things, but instead remain their master (amir). The great prophet Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), by rejecting the costly gifts of the Queen of Sheba, demonstrated that he was their master and not their captive. In a narration attributed to Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), it is stated: “الدنيا أصغر قدرًا عند الله وعند أنبيائه وأوليائه من أن يفرحوا بشيء منها ويحزنوا عليه فلا ينبغي لعالم ولا لعاقل أن يفرح بعرض الدنيا” — the world is of such little value in the sight of God, His prophets, and His saints that they neither rejoice in possessing it nor grieve over losing it. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a person of knowledge or reason to take delight in the transient possessions of this world (Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Bayān, under the relevant verse).

This part of the story also contains some instructive lessons found in meaningful verses, for example: A: The purpose of the military expedition was not to massacre people, rather its aim was to instill such fear in the enemy that they would not dare to confront (جنود لا قبل لهم بها). This expression is exactly equivalent to the verse in which Muslims are commanded: وَأَعِدُّوا لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ... تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ (Al-Anfal / 60). Prepare such strength that it causes fear in the enemy of Allah. B: Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) did not threaten his opponents with killing, but rather threatened to expel them from their palaces with humiliation and disgrace. C: Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) did not deceive his opponents, rather he clearly threatened them with attack. D: Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) did not covet others' wealth, rather he said: "What Allah has given me is better than that." He does not consider divine favor dependent on material and financial things, rather he prides himself on knowledge, faith, and spiritual gifts and blessings.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

Finally, the envoys of the Queen gathered all the gifts and provisions and returned to their land, where they reported the entire episode to the Queen and her advisors. They also described the extraordinary and miraculous nature of Sulaymān’s kingdom, each aspect of which indicated that he was neither an ordinary individual nor a conventional worldly ruler, but a true Prophet of God, and that his rule was divinely grounded. At this point, it became evident to them that not only did they lack the capacity to engage in military confrontation with Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), but even if they were to attempt such a confrontation, it would most likely involve opposition to a powerful Prophet of God. Consequently, after consultation with leading members of her court, the Queen of Sheba resolved to go personally to Sulaymān in order to investigate the matter and determine the nature of his mission. This development, in one form or another, reached Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), whereupon he determined that, since the Queen and her companions were on their way, it would be appropriate to demonstrate his power so that they might gain a clearer understanding of his extraordinary position and be inclined to accept his دعوت. Thus, he addressed his court, saying: “قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَأُ أَيُّكُمْ يَأْتِينِي بِعَرْشِهَا قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ”. Although some exegetes have engaged in elaborate discussions regarding the reasoning behind bringing the Queen’s throne in this manner, the purpose is evident: Sulaymān intended to demonstrate his authority and power, thereby achieving a significant objective—facilitating the unconditional submission of these people to the truth and strengthening their belief in Divine power, without resorting to warfare and bloodshed. His aim was that faith should become firmly established within the depths of the Queen and her companions, enabling them in turn to guide others. At this moment, two distinct individuals presented themselves for the task, one remarkable and the other even more extraordinary. First, an ‘ifrīt from among the jinn said: “قَالَ عِفْرِيتٌ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَقُومَ مِنْ مَقَامِكَ”. He asserted both his strength and reliability: “وَإِنِّي عَلَيْهِ لَقَوِيٌّ أَمِينٌ”. The term “عِفْرِيت” denotes a powerful, rebellious, and potentially untrustworthy being, which explains the emphasis he places on his trustworthiness. This proposal, however, was surpassed by another individual described by the Qur’an as “الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ”, who declared: “أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ”. Upon acceptance of this offer, he brought the throne in an instant. When Sulaymān saw it placed before him, he said: “هَٰذَا مِن فَضْلِ رَبِّي لِيَبْلُوَنِي أَأَشْكُرُ أَمْ أَكْفُرُ”، and further affirmed: “وَمَن شَكَرَ فَإِنَّمَا يَشْكُرُ لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ رَبِّي غَنِيٌّ كَرِيمٌ”. Regarding the identity of this individual, exegetes have differed, but the apparent view is that he was among the devoted and close companions of Sulaymān. Historical traditions name him Āṣif ibn Barkhiyā, described as his minister and relative. The expression “عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ” has been interpreted as a profound knowledge of Divine revelation, enabling him to perform such an extraordinary act. Some have suggested that it refers to knowledge derived from the preserved tablet (Lawḥ al‑Maḥfūẓ), while others have associated it with knowledge of the Divine Name (Ism al‑Aʿẓam), understood not as a mere utterance, but as a state of realization achieved through knowledge, ethics, piety, and faith. The phrase “قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ” indicates the shortest conceivable moment, that is, before the blink of an eye is completed. This is supported by the Qur’anic usage in “لَا يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ”, which denotes a state in which the eyes remain fixed without blinking due to extreme intensity. Thus, the meaning here is that the throne was brought in an instant, before the return of the glance.

Several questions arise from the content of the above verses. One is why Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), despite being a great prophet endowed with miracles, did not perform this extraordinary act himself, but instead entrusted it to Āṣif ibn Barkhiyā. It may be said in response that perhaps this was because Āṣif was his appointed وصی, and Sulaymān intended, through this act, to introduce his capable successor to the people. This explanation is reported in Tafsīr ʿAyyāshī from Imām ʿAlī al‑Naqī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), as cited in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 91. Moreover, it is a general pedagogical principle that a teacher tests his students on appropriate occasions in order to assess their abilities and competence. In fact, the competence of students is itself a reflection of the teacher’s capability; when a student accomplishes something remarkable, the teacher’s excellence becomes even more evident. A second question concerns the basis upon which Sulaymān had the throne of the Queen of Sheba brought without her permission. It may be answered that this action served a significant higher purpose—namely, the guidance of that people and the presentation of a sign. Furthermore, it is well known that the wealth of monarchs is often not entirely their own, but consists in large part of what has been taken from others. A third question pertains to how an ʿifrit among the jinn could possess the ability to perform such extraordinary acts. This issue has already been addressed in the broader discussion of miracles. It is sometimes possible for non‑believers, through intense discipline and effort, to attain abilities that appear extraordinary; however, there is a fundamental distinction between such abilities and prophetic miracles. The former are limited and dependent upon finite human effort, whereas miracles are grounded in the infinite and enduring power of God. Accordingly, the ʿifrit restricted his capacity to the duration of Sulaymān’s court session, whereas Āṣif ibn Barkhiyā did not confine his action within such limits. His reference to the moment “قبل أن يرتد إليك طرفك” indicates the shortest conceivable interval. It is also evident that Sulaymān would naturally support a righteous individual in the performance of such acts, since this would lead to recognition of that person and attract people toward him, rather than toward a rebellious being like the ʿifrit, which could cause confusion or misinterpretation among those of limited understanding. In any society, individuals who perform significant acts and gain the acceptance of people also acquire influence over their thinking. Hence, in Sulaymān’s Divine governance, the management of public affairs and guidance could not appropriately be entrusted to such a figure as an ʿifrit, but rather to those endowed with knowledge of the Divine Book.

In the above-mentioned verses and in Surah Al-Qasas, verse 26, two important conditions are described for a good and exemplary worker and doer: one is strength and ability, and the other is trustworthiness and honesty. However, sometimes a person's own intellectual and moral foundations demand that these conditions be present (as mentioned regarding Prophet Musa, peace be upon him, in Surah Al-Qasas), and other times the social system and righteous governance require that even individuals like Afreet (powerful beings) must be endowed with these two qualities. But whatever the situation, no small or large task can reach its completion unless these two fundamental conditions exist in society. These conditions may arise either from a person's personal piety or from the legal system of the society (reflect upon this).

In the verse under discussion, the individual who brought the throne of the Queen of Sheba to Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) within the brief interval of a blink is described as possessing “عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ” — a portion of knowledge from the Book. In contrast, Sūrat al‑Raʿd 43 states regarding the truth of the Prophet of Islam (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam): “قُلْ كَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ شَهِيدًا بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَمَنْ عِندَهُ عِلْمُ الْكِتَابِ” — say: God is sufficient as a witness between me and you, and also the one who possesses knowledge of the Book. A narration reported from Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī states that he asked the Prophet about “الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ”, to which the Prophet replied that this referred to the وصی of Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd. He then asked about “وَمَنْ عِندَهُ عِلْمُ الْكِتَابِ”, and the Prophet said: “ذَاكَ أَخِي عَلِيّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ”. This narration has been transmitted by numerous Sunni scholars in similar wording (Aḥqāq al‑Ḥaqq, vol. 3, pp. 280–281). The distinction between “عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ” (partial knowledge) and “عِلْمُ الْكِتَابِ” (comprehensive knowledge) illustrates a significant difference in degree. Accordingly, the knowledge attributed to Āṣif ibn Barkhiyā is regarded as partial, whereas the knowledge referred to in the latter expression is described as complete and all‑encompassing. On this basis, many narrations state that the Divine Ism al‑Aʿẓam consists of seventy‑three components, of which only one was known to Āṣif ibn Barkhiyā, enabling him to accomplish the extraordinary act of bringing the throne of Sheba in an instant. In contrast, the Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) are described as possessing seventy‑two of these components, while one remains exclusively with God (Uṣūl al‑Kāfī; Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn).

When arrogant, materialistic individuals attain power, they tend to forget everyone except themselves. Once they gain control over material resources, they attribute everything to their own ability in the manner of Qārūn, who declared: “إِنَّمَا أُوتِيتُهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍ عِندِي” (Qaṣaṣ / 78). In contrast, the righteous servants of God, even when they reach the highest ranks and positions, acknowledge: “هَٰذَا مِن فَضْلِ رَبِّي” — this is from the فضل of my Lord. It is noteworthy that upon witnessing the throne of the Queen of Sheba before him, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) not only expressed this acknowledgment but also stated that this favor was granted in order to test him, whether he would show gratitude or ingratitude. Earlier in this sūrah as well, it has been mentioned that Sulaymān regarded all his blessings as gifts from God and approached Him with humility, supplicating for the ability to offer proper gratitude and to attain His pleasure. This constitutes the essential distinction between arrogant world‑centered individuals and those who are sincerely devoted to توحید; it is likewise the difference between self‑absorbed personalities and those of true capacity and integrity. In contemporary contexts, it has become common for certain superficial or ostentatious individuals to inscribe the phrase “هَذَا مِن فَضْلِ رَبِّي” prominently upon the façades of their palaces and buildings, although they neither inwardly believe in it nor demonstrate its meaning through their conduct. The essential point, however, is that just as this expression is written externally, it should be inscribed upon the human heart and character. A person must reflect through conduct that whatever he possesses is a gift from God and should express gratitude not merely through words, but through actions and behavior.

This is not the first extraordinary act we encounter in the story of Prophet Sulaiman (peace be upon him), nor is it the first such event in the general narratives of the prophets. Those who attempt to justify such interpretations by altering their apparent meanings—turning them into metaphors or assigning other figurative meanings—should clearly state their views regarding the miracles of the prophets and explain their beliefs about these miracles. Do they consider the performance of extraordinary acts by the prophets or their successors impossible and completely deny their occurrence? If this is their belief, then such a view neither aligns with the principles of monotheism and the divine power governing the universe, which controls all laws of existence, nor does it accord with the very clear verses of the Quran. However, if they acknowledge the existence of miracles, then whether it is the raising of the dead by the hands of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), the healing of the congenital blind, or the throne of the Queen of Sheba brought by Asif bin Barkhiya, there is no difference among them. There is no doubt that here are hidden connections and unknown causes at work, which our limited knowledge is entirely unfamiliar with. We only know that such acts are by no means impossible. Did Asif bin Barkhiya transform the throne of the Queen of Sheba into waves of light and bring it to Sulaiman in a single moment and then return it to its original substance? We cannot say anything about this because we do not have complete knowledge of it. We only know that through the current progress of science, humans today are accomplishing such feats that if these had been mentioned two hundred years ago, people might have considered them impossible. For example, if centuries ago someone had said that a time would come when a person sitting in the East would speak, and simultaneously people in the West would hear his words and see his image, the people of that time would have considered it a case of a madman’s delusion. The reason is simply that humans want to measure everything by the limited standards of their knowledge, while there are countless secrets and mysteries beyond their understanding and power.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

In the verses under discussion, another instructive dimension of the narrative of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and the Queen of Sheba is presented. In order to test her intellect and discernment, and to pave the way for her acceptance of faith in God, Sulaymān commanded that certain alterations be made to her throne so that it would not be immediately recognizable. Thus, he said: “قَالَ نَكِّرُوا لَهَا عَرْشَهَا نَنظُرْ أَتَهْتَدِي أَمْ تَكُونُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَهْتَدُونَ”. Although the mere transfer of the throne from Sheba to Syria would have been sufficient to render it unrecognizable, Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) nonetheless ordered further modification. These alterations may have involved rearranging certain distinguishable features or changing ornamental elements. The purpose of this test has been interpreted in various ways: it may have been to assess the degree of her intelligence and determine the appropriate method of engagement; or to evaluate her suitability for a closer political or personal association; or to ascertain her capability for assuming responsibility following her potential acceptance of the truth. The phrase “أَتَهْتَدِي” has been explained either as referring to her recognition of the throne or to her guidance toward faith; however, the former interpretation appears more consistent with the immediate context, though the latter may follow as a consequence. When the Queen arrived, she was asked: “أَهَٰكَذَا عَرْشُكِ”. The wording suggests that the question was posed by someone other than Sulaymān himself. Her response was cautious and intelligent: “قَالَتْ كَأَنَّهُ هُوَ”. By neither affirming nor denying categorically, she demonstrated discernment and restraint, recognizing the resemblance while remaining aware of the extraordinary nature of its relocation. Historical reports indicate that her throne had been securely preserved, making its sudden presence even more remarkable. She then declared: “وَأُوتِينَا الْعِلْمَ مِن قَبْلِهَا وَكُنَّا مُسْلِمِينَ”, implying that she had already recognized the signs of truth and submitted prior to witnessing this particular event. Thus, her prior reflection upon earlier indications—such as the arrival of the hudhud, the return of her gifts, and the extraordinary manifestations of Sulaymān’s power—had led her toward belief even before this final demonstration. It is then stated: “وَصَدَّهَا مَا كَانَتْ تَعْبُدُ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ”, indicating that her previous practices had hindered her from recognizing the truth. However, “إِنَّهَا كَانَتْ مِن قَوْمٍ كَافِرِينَ”, and through these clear signs, she abandoned her former beliefs and entered a new stage characterized by faith and certainty. A subsequent scene presents her entering Sulaymān’s palace. She was instructed: “ادْخُلِي الصَّرْحَ”. The structure appeared to be a body of water due to its transparent crystalline surface, prompting her to lift her garments: “فَلَمَّا رَأَتْهُ حَسِبَتْهُ لُجَّةً وَكَشَفَتْ عَن سَاقَيْهَا”. Sulaymān clarified: “إِنَّهُ صَرْحٌ مُّمَرَّدٌ مِّن قَوَارِيرَ”. This architectural display has raised questions regarding its purpose. It may be understood as part of a strategic demonstration designed to reveal the magnitude of Sulaymān’s authority and to contrast it with the Queen’s own conception of power. Rather than engaging in destructive conflict, this approach served as a means of guiding her intellectual and spiritual transformation. In a context where magnificence and material display were highly valued, such a demonstration effectively altered her perception of power and reality. Upon witnessing these signs, she declared: “قَالَتْ رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي وَأَسْلَمْتُ مَعَ سُلَيْمَانَ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”. This statement signifies a complete transformation, acknowledging her previous error, renouncing her former beliefs, and affirming submission to God. The use of “مَعَ سُلَيْمَانَ” indicates equality in submission, emphasizing that before God, no hierarchical distinction exists once the truth is accepted. Although she had indicated earlier awareness and inclination toward acceptance, this stage represents the culmination and full realization of her ایمان. Thus, her transformation was the result of a series of encounters with clear signs: the extraordinary message of the hudhud, the rejection of material inducements, the miraculous transportation of her throne, and the ethical conduct of Sulaymān—each contributing to her ultimate recognition of truth.

The account presented in the Qur’an regarding the Queen of Sheba is limited to the details already outlined above: ultimately, she accepted faith and joined the community of the righteous. However, a question arises as to what occurred thereafter—whether, after embracing faith, she returned to her kingdom and continued to govern on behalf of Sulaymān, or remained with him and entered into marriage with him, or, alternatively, upon his counsel, married a ruler of Yemen known as Tubbaʿ. The Qur’an does not provide any explicit information on this matter. Since its primary objective is the presentation of moral and didactic themes, and this question bears no direct relevance to those aims, it has not been addressed. Exegetes and historians, however, have explored various possibilities, though determining these details is not essential. According to some, the more widely held view is that she married Sulaymān (Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī by Ālūsī). It is also necessary to note that numerous embellishments and legendary elements have been introduced into the accounts of Sulaymān, his kingdom, and the life of the Queen of Sheba. In certain instances, these additions create difficulty in distinguishing between authentic and fabricated elements, and at times they obscure the clarity of the historical narrative. Such distortions arise from the incorporation of unfounded material into otherwise reliable accounts. Therefore, it is essential to remain attentive and cautious with regard to such fabrications.

The portion of the narrative concerning Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), as presented in the preceding verses, conveys several important themes. Some of these have already been discussed in detail, while others may be briefly outlined as follows: 1. The account begins with the attribution of knowledge to Sulaymān and Dāwūd (ʿalayhimā al‑salām) as a Divine bestowal, and it concludes with submission to توحید. This توحید is not merely formal but is rooted in knowledge and understanding, indicating that true monotheism is intrinsically linked with intellectual awareness. 2. The narrative demonstrates that even the movement of a single bird and its journey to a distant land may alter the course of a nation’s history, transforming it from shirk to ایمان and from فساد to righteousness. This serves as a modest illustration of Divine power and the operation of a just order. 3. It also reveals that the light of توحید is reflected throughout creation. Even a seemingly insignificant creature such as a bird conveys profound truths regarding Divine unity, indicating that all existence bears testimony to hidden aspects of that reality. 4. In guiding an individual toward God and making them aware of their true worth, it is essential first to break their arrogance and pride. Only then can the veils obscuring perception be removed. Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām) accomplished this in the case of the Queen by two means: bringing her throne to his court and presenting her with a situation that challenged her assumptions, thereby dismantling her غرور. 5. The ultimate aim of prophetic governance is not territorial expansion or domination, but the realization shown at the conclusion of the narrative: that those who are rebellious come to acknowledge their errors and submit before God, “رب العالمين”. The Qur’anic presentation of the narrative concludes precisely on this foundation. 6. The essence of faith lies in submission (taslīm). This is why Sulaymān emphasized this principle in his message, and the Queen of Sheba ultimately affirmed it explicitly. 7. It may occur that an individual possesses immense worldly power, yet remains dependent upon seemingly insignificant beings, such as a bird, both in terms of knowledge and practical assistance. Conversely, even a small and weak creature such as an ant may serve as a source of admonition. 8. The revelation of these verses in Makkah, at a time when the believers were facing severe difficulties and isolation, served as a source of consolation and encouragement. It strengthened their resolve and instilled hope in the eventual تحقق of Divine support and success.

See ayat 47 for tafseer.

See ayat 47 for tafseer.

In the previous verses, mention was made of three prophets of the Lord of the worlds—Moses (Musa), David (Dawud), and Solomon (Sulaiman). Now, here the fourth prophet and his people are referred to, namely Prophet Saleh (عليه السلام) and his people, the Thamud. First, it is stated: We sent to the people of Thamud their brother Saleh and commanded him to invite them to the worship of Allah (وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَىٰ ثَمُودَ أَخَاهُمْ صَالِحًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ). ["An i’budu Allah" is governed by an implied preposition, and its original form is "وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَىٰ ثَمُودَ أَخَاهُمْ صَالِحًا بِعِبَادَةِ اللَّهِ"]. As we have already explained, the expression "akhahum" (their brother) in the stories of the prophets signifies the profound sympathy and love these prophets had for their own people, and in some places, it also points to kinship ties. In any case, the invitation and preaching of this great Prophet of Allah are summarized in a single sentence: "An i’budu Allah" (that you worship Allah). Indeed, the worship of God is the essence of the teachings of all the divine prophets. Then it is stated that the people were divided into two groups regarding Saleh’s invitation and began to dispute and quarrel (one group being believers and the other obstinate deniers)—(فَإِذَا هُمْ فِئَتَانِ يَخْتَصِمُونَ). ["Fi’atan" is dual, yet its verb "yakhtasimun" is in the plural form because each group consists of several members collectively forming two groups.] In verses 75 and 76 of Surah Al-A’raf, these two groups are referred to as "the arrogant" (mustakbirin) and "the weak" (mustad’afin). Observe: قَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَكْبَرُوٓا مِن قَوْمِهِۦ لِلَّذِينَ ٱسْتُضْعِفُوا۟ لَمَن ءَامَنَ مِنْهُمْ أَتَتَّخِذُونَ صَالِحًا مَّرْسَلًا مِّن رَّبِّهِۦٓ ۚ قَالُوٓا إِنَّا بِمَآ أُرْسِلَ بِهِۦ مُؤْمِنُونَ ۝ ٩٥ قَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَكْبَرُوٓا إِنَّا بِٱلَّذِىٓ ءَامَنتُم بِهِۦ كَـٰفِرُونَ The great arrogant ones among the people of Saleh said to the weak believers, "Do you really believe that Saleh is sent by his Lord?" They said, "Yes, indeed, we believe in what he has brought." The arrogant said, "Indeed, we disbelieve in what you have believed." Certainly, such conflict between the believers and disbelievers occurred frequently in the times of the prophets, although some prophets had so few supporters that almost the entire population joined the ranks of their deniers. Prophet Saleh (عليه السلام) began to warn them and tried to save them from a painful punishment, but they neither accepted the admonition nor awoke from their oblivion. Rather, they used this as a pretext for stubbornly insisting: If you are truthful, then why does the divine punishment not descend upon us? (This is clearly stated in Surah Al-A’raf, verse 77.) But Saleh said to them: O my people! Why do you hasten to commit evil before good? (قَالَ يَٰقَوْمِ لِمَ ٱسْتَعْجَلْتُم بِٱلْسَّيِّـَٔةِ قَبْلَ ٱلْحَسَنَةِ). Why do you concentrate all your concern on the coming of Allah’s punishment? If it comes upon you, your end will be sealed, and you will lose the opportunity to believe. Come and test my truthfulness under the shadow of God’s mercy and faith. Why do you not seek forgiveness from Allah for your sins so that you may be encompassed by His mercy? (لَوْلَا تَسْتَغْفِرُونَ ٱللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ). Why do you demand only evils and punishment? What is the purpose of such stubbornness and folly? It was not only the people of Saleh (عليه السلام) who, by rejecting his message, demanded the promised punishment, but similar events are found in the Qur’an with other nations, including the people of Hud. Observe Surah Al-A’raf, verse 70, which refers to the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the obstinate, tyrannical polytheists: وَإِذْ قَالُوا۟ ٱللَّهُمَّ إِن كَانَ هَٰذَا هُوَ ٱلْحَقُّ مِن عِندِكَ فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَاۥ حِجَارَةٗ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ أَوِ ٱئْتِنَا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ Remember when they said: "O Allah, if this is the truth from You, then rain stones upon us from the sky or bring us a painful punishment." (Al-Anfal / 32) It is indeed astonishing that a person tests the truthfulness of a claim of love by demanding destructive torment, instead of asking for mercy, even though inwardly they acknowledged the truthfulness of the noble prophets but verbally denied it. This is akin to someone claiming medical knowledge who knows that a certain medicine brings health and healing while another causes death, yet he seeks the medicine that is deadly rather than that which is beneficial and healing. This represents an exceedingly egregious example of ignorance, folly, and prejudice, of which many instances of oppression due to ignorance are found. Nevertheless, this rebellious people, instead of heeding the compassionate admonitions of the great prophet and implementing them, chose to confront him with absurd and worthless claims, among which they said: "We consider you and those with you to be a bad omen." (قَالُوا۟ أَطَيْرْنَا بِك وَبِمَن مَّعَكَ) It appears that they…It was a year of drought and famine, which is why they began to say to Salih (peace be upon him) that all this happened because of the unlucky steps of you and your companions. “You are cursed people; you have brought misfortune and ill omen to our society.” They used this bad omen as an excuse, which is actually a pretext used by worthless and wicked people, to weaken the strong arguments of Prophet Salih (peace be upon him). But Prophet Salih replied: “Bad omen (and your fate) is only with Allah (قال طائرکم عند الله).” It is He who, because of your deeds, has subjected you to these calamities, and your own actions are the cause of your punishment. Indeed, this is a great test from Allah for you. Yes! “You are indeed a people who will be tested” (بل أنتم قوم تفتنون). This is the divine test and a warning so that those who have the ability to mend themselves may do so; they may awake from the sleep of heedlessness, abandon the wrong path, and adopt the path of Allah.

"Tatayyur" (superstition) is derived from the root of "ṭayr," meaning bird. Since the Arabs used to take bad omens through birds, "tatayyur" came to mean bad omen (superstition), which is the opposite of "taffal," meaning good omen. In the Glorious Quran, it is repeatedly stated that vain polytheists employed this very tactic against the Prophets. For example, regarding Prophet Moses (Musa) عليه السلام and his companions it is said: وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَطِيرُوا بِمُوسَىٰ وَمَن مَّعَهُ Whenever the people of Pharaoh were afflicted by any hardship, they regarded it as the bad omen caused by Moses and those with him. (Al-A’raf, 7:131) According to the verses under consideration, the polytheists of the tribe of Thamud adopted the same logic about Prophet Salih عليه السلام. Likewise, according to Surah Yasin, the polytheists also used this reasoning against the representatives of Prophet Jesus (Isa) عليه السلام (from Antioch), accusing them of being bearers of bad omens. (Yasin, 36:18) The fundamental fact is that human beings cannot remain indifferent to causes and effects of events; they continuously seek to find reasons for every incident and occurrence. If a person is monotheistic and God-fearing, and understands that the ultimate center of causality is Allah, the Lord of Glory, and knows that under His wisdom every action is performed according to a divine order and that naturally causes and effects operate within the knowledge granted by Him, then his difficulty is resolved. Otherwise, a series of baseless and superstitious reasons begins to be fabricated, which has neither limit nor accountability; a clear example of this is the concept of superstition. Among the Arabs of the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic ignorance), it was common that if a bird passed by their right side, it was considered a good omen and a sign of success; but if it moved past them on the left side, it was regarded as a bad omen, a reason for failure and defeat. Many other such superstitions and false beliefs were present among them. Even in today’s advanced era, some people remain deeply attached to these superstitions and false beliefs. These are people who do not truly believe in God, despite holding high positions in terms of modern education. Even something as trivial as a saltshaker falling causes them great distress, and they become uneasy if a house, table, or chair is numbered 13. Still, the market for soothsayers and fortune-tellers is bustling, and this issue remains widespread. However, the Quran responds to this matter succinctly in a single sentence: "طائركم عند الله" — "Your fate and fortune, victory and defeat, success and failure, in short, everything is in the hands of Allah," the Wise Owner who bestows His favors, capacities, and abilities according to one’s faith, actions, speech, and conduct. Thus, Islam invites its followers from superstition to reality and from deviation to the straight path. (The tafseer of Taffal and Tatayyur is discussed in detail under verse 131 of Surah Al-A’raf in volume 4 of Tafseer-e-Namoona.)

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

In these verses, another segment of the account of Ṣāliḥ (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and his people is presented, which serves as the conclusion of the preceding narrative. It describes a conspiracy formulated by nine individuals among the disbelievers and hypocrites to assassinate Ṣāliḥ, a plan that was ultimately thwarted by Divine intervention. It is stated: “وَكَانَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ تِسْعَةُ رَهْطٍ” — in that city (Wādī al‑Qurā) there were nine groups who spread corruption in the land and did not bring about reform: “يُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا يُصْلِحُونَ”. The term “رهط” refers to a small group, typically numbering fewer than ten to forty individuals. These groups shared a common trait: the propagation of فساد and the destabilization of social and moral order. The phrase “لَا يُصْلِحُونَ” emphasizes that, unlike ordinary wrongdoers who may later repent, these individuals were persistent in corruption, as indicated by the continuous tense of “يُفْسِدُونَ”. Each of these groups had its own leader, and they appear to have been associated with different tribal affiliations. When Ṣāliḥ (ʿalayhi al‑salām) presented his reformative message, their interests were threatened. Consequently, they devised a plan, as expressed in: “تَقَاسَمُوا بِاللَّهِ لَنُبَيِّتَنَّهُ وَأَهْلَهُ ثُمَّ لَنَقُولَنَّ لِوَلِيِّهِ مَا شَهِدْنَا مَهْلِكَ أَهْلِهِ وَإِنَّا لَصَادِقُونَ”. They agreed, swearing by God, to attack Ṣāliḥ and his household by night and then deny any involvement. The use of “تَقَاسَمُوا” indicates a mutual oath-binding agreement, and the fact that they swore by God suggests that, despite their idolatrous practices, they still acknowledged God as creator. Their audacity reached such an extent that they invoked the Divine name while planning a grave crime. The term “لَنُبَيِّتَنَّهُ” refers to a surprise night attack, indicating their fear of retaliation from his supporters. Their intention was to eliminate him secretly and disclaim responsibility afterward. Historical accounts suggest that they planned to ambush Ṣāliḥ during his nocturnal acts of worship in a mountain cave, killing him and subsequently his family, and then deny their involvement. However, God foiled their plot in an extraordinary manner. While they lay in ambush, rocks fell from the mountain, crushing them instantly. Thus, the Qur’an states: “وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا وَمَكَرْنَا مَكْرًا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ”. The term “مكر” in Arabic literature refers broadly to planning or strategizing and is not restricted to negative connotations; when attributed to God, it signifies the nullification of harmful schemes. The verse continues: “فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ مَكْرِهِمْ أَنَّا دَمَّرْنَاهُمْ وَقَوْمَهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ”. The Qur’an then portrays the result: “فَتِلْكَ بُيُوتُهُمْ خَاوِيَةً بِمَا ظَلَمُوا” — their dwellings lay desolate due to their ظلم. This scene reflects utter destruction: silence replaces life, and the remnants of فساد stand as a warning. Finally, it is affirmed: “إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ”, indicating that this event serves as a clear sign for those endowed with knowledge. Yet, not all were destroyed: “وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ”. The believers, characterized by ایمان and تقویٰ, were saved from the collective punishment, demonstrating the distinction between the fate of the righteous and that of the corrupt.

1. What punishment befell the people of Thamud? Regarding this rebellious and unjust nation, the Quran at times states: فاخذتهم الرجفة A sudden earthquake seized them and destroyed them. (Al-A'raf 7:78) At other times it says: فاخذتهم الصاعقة A thunderbolt struck them. (Adh-Dhariyat 51:44) And sometimes: واخذ الذين ظلموا الصيحة The dreadful cry seized those who did wrong. (Hud 11:67) If considered carefully, there is no contradiction among these three expressions because "صاعقة" (thunderbolt) is also a great spark of lightning that moves between the clouds and the earth. It is accompanied by a magnificent and terrible sound and causes a severe earthquake across the land. (We have explained further details about the "dreadful cry" in Tafseer Namuna, Volume 5, under Surah Hud, verse 67.) 2. The survivors: Some exegetes say that the number of the friends of Prophet Salih (peace be upon him) was four thousand, who were saved with him from the punishment and, by the command of their Lord, migrated from this region filled with corruption and sin to Hadramaut. [This statement is recorded by Al-Tabarsi in Majma' al-Bayan, Al-Alusi in Ruh al-Ma'ani, and Al-Qurtubi in his famous tafseer, under the same verses.] 3. The meaning of "خاوية" (khaawiyah): "خاوية" derives from the root "خواء" (patterned like "هواء"), which means either to fall or to become desolate, or to be empty. This term is also used about shooting stars, as in the phrase "خوی النجم" meaning the star fell. Al-Raghib in his book Mufradat states that the original meaning of "خویٰ" is emptiness, and it applies to a hungry stomach, an empty walnut, and stars that are devoid of rain (The Arabs of the Jahiliyyah era believed that whenever a star appeared on the horizon, it brought rain with it). 4. The consequence of injustice: A narration from Ibn Abbas records: From the Holy Quran, I came to know clearly that injustice destroys homes. He then cited the verse as evidence for his argument: "فتلک بیوتھم خاویہ بما ظلموا" [This is mentioned in Tafseer Majma' al-Bayan under the same verse.] In reality, injustice is such a factor in the destruction of cities and the ruin of societies that it cannot be equated with any other element. Injustice is the thunderous lightning that kills. Injustice is the earthquake that ruins entirely. And injustice is the heavenly cry that destroys like a death sentence. History has repeatedly proven through experience that the world may endure with disbelief, but it cannot continue to exist alongside injustice. 5. When did the people of Thamud receive their punishment? There is no doubt that the people of Thamud were generally punished after they killed the she-camel of Salih, as indicated in Surah Hud, verses 65 to 67, where it states: When they killed the she-camel, Salih said: “Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days; thereafter, the punishment of your Lord will surely come upon you.” And when Our command came, We saved Salih and those who believed with him, and the cry seized the wrongdoers, who fell lifelessly upon the earth in their homes. Therefore, the punishment was not descended immediately after the conspiracy to kill Prophet Salih. There is a strong likelihood that only the conspiratorial group was destroyed in that event and the other wrongdoers were given respite to mend their ways. However, after the killing of the she-camel, all the wrongdoers and disbelieving sinners were annihilated. Hence, combining the verses of this Surah with those of Surah Hud and Surah Al-A'raf, this conclusion emerges. In other words, in the currently considered verses, the punishment resulting from the conspiracy to kill Prophet Salih and his family is mentioned, while the verses in Surah Al-A'raf and Hud refer to the punishment descending due to the killing of Salih’s she-camel. Combining these two cases leads to the conclusion that the oppressors first plotted to kill Prophet Salih; when they failed in that, they killed his great miracle, the she-camel, and after a grace period of three days, they were overwhelmed by a painful punishment. It is also possible that they first killed the she-camel, and when Prophet Salih warned them of the punishment that would come after three days, they resolved to kill him too, but failed in the devilish plan and were destroyed. [This is mentioned in Tafseer Ruh al-Bayan under the same verse.]

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

After recounting the narratives of Mūsā, Dāwūd, Sulaymān, and Ṣāliḥ (ʿalayhim al‑salām) and their respective communities, this sūrah proceeds to the account of the fifth prophet, namely Lūṭ (ʿalayhi al‑salām). The Qur’an does not restrict the mention of his account to this location alone; rather, his narrative has been presented in detail in several other places, including Sūrat al‑Ḥijr, Sūrat Hūd, Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, and Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf. The repetition of such narratives arises from the fact that the Qur’an is not merely a historical record that recounts an event once in full detail and then omits further reference to it. Rather, it is a text of moral formation and guidance. In pedagogical contexts, it is often necessary to revisit the same event multiple times, examining it from different perspectives and deriving varied lessons from it. The story of the people of Lūṭ, marked by moral deviation and other forms of corruption, is widely known, and their painful fate serves as a lesson for those who remain immersed in the excesses of desire and passion. Given the persistence of such moral deviations within human society, the repeated presentation of this narrative becomes necessary. In the verses under discussion, it is first stated: “وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ وَأَنتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ”. The term “الفاحشة” refers to an act whose فساد and abhorrence are manifest and evident. Here it refers to a morally reprehensible practice. The expression “وَأَنتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ” indicates that they were fully aware of the nature and consequences of their actions. They were able to observe the destructive effects of this behavior upon their social and moral fabric, yet remained heedless. Some exegetes have suggested that this phrase refers to the public commission of such acts; however, this interpretation does not align with the apparent meaning of the text. Rather, the emphasis is upon moral awareness and deliberate persistence in wrongdoing, despite clear recognition of its harmful consequences. The intent of Lūṭ (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was to awaken their inner moral consciousness, drawing attention to the destructive outcomes of their actions. The Qur’an further clarifies: “أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِّن دُونِ النِّسَاءِ”. Here, the earlier general reference to “الفاحشة” is explicated in clear terms, ensuring that no ambiguity remains. This method reflects a rhetorical approach in which a broad concept is first introduced and then specified for clarity. The continuation states: “بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ”. This characterization attributes their conduct to ignorance—not merely a lack of intellectual awareness, but a deeper ignorance of God, of the purpose of creation, of the natural order, and of the consequences of their actions. Through this rhetorical questioning, they are invited to reflect within themselves and confront the reality of their condition. Thus, the passage emphasizes that moral deviation, even when clearly recognized as harmful, may persist when individuals lack the will to respond to their own inner awareness. It is precisely this condition that the prophetic message seeks to transform through awakening conscience and reorienting human behavior toward truth.

See ayat 59 for tafseer.

See ayat 59 for tafseer.

See ayat 59 for tafseer.

In the previous discussion, we have observed the logical arguments of Allah’s great Prophet, Prophet Lut (peace be upon him), which he presented before the people engulfed in sinful waywardness. We have also seen how skillfully and rationally he tried to prevent them from the abominable act of sodomy (liwata) and how he explained to them that this act is a result of ignorance, foolishness, and a disregard for the laws of nature and all other human values. Now, it is necessary to see how that vile and corrupt nation responded to his logical speech. Listen to what the Qur’an says: The Qur’an states that they had no other answer except to say to one another, “Expel the family of Lut from your city and your region, for they are people who keep themselves pure and clean, and they are not in harmony with us” (فما كان جواب قومه الا ان قالوا اخرجوا آل لوط من قريتكم انهم اناس يتطهرون). This response reflects their intellectual degradation and extreme moral degeneration. Yes! In a sinful and corrupt environment, purity becomes a fault and a crime. A chaste person like Yusuf is imprisoned for his chastity and righteousness. The family of Allah’s great Prophet Lut was exiled from the city as a consequence of avoiding sins and maintaining distance from them, while the Zulaikhas lived freely and respected in that environment, and the people of Lut lived in comfort and luxury in their homes. Here, the reference of the Qur’an becomes clear, which says about the misguided people: We seal their hearts because of their sins, and their hearing is heavy, and their eyes are covered. It is also possible that they had sunk so deeply into the mire of sins that they mocked the family of Lut, saying that they considered us impure while they themselves consider themselves pure—what a strange joke is this? What else can be more astonishing than this: by becoming habituated to indecency and shamelessness, a person's sense of perception changes completely. It is exactly like the tanners who had become so accustomed to the foul smell that when he once passed by the perfume market, he fainted because of the unfamiliar scent. When he was taken to a physician, he ordered that he be taken back to the tanners' market, and upon returning, he regained consciousness and was saved from death. This is indeed an interesting and sensory example in this regard. It is reported in traditions that Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) preached to this nation for thirty years, but except for his family (and even excluding his wife, because she became united in belief with the polytheists), no one believed in him. [Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 2, p. 382]. And it is obvious that for those in whom all hope of reformation ends, they have absolutely no right to live in this world; rather, it is better to end their lives. For this reason, the Qur’an says in the next verse: We saved Lut and his family, except his wife, for We had destined that she remain with those who remained behind (فانجيناه واهله الا امراته قدرناها من الغابرين). ["Ghābir" refers to one who remained behind after his companions have left.] After their departure, and according to the appointed time, when the morning came while the city was entirely submerged in sins, We rained down upon them a shower of stones (and they were all buried in it after an earthquake completely turned them upside down) (وامطرنا عليهم مطرًا). “And how evil and harsh is the rain of stones upon the warned people” (فساء مطر المنذرين). We have already discussed in detail the fate of the people of Lut and the harmful effects of homosexuality in Tafseer-e-Namuna, Volume 5 (verses 77 to 83 of Surah Hud), so there is no need to repeat it here. Here, we consider it necessary to state only one point: The law of creation has indicated a path for us by following which we can pass evolutionary stages, and this path contains the secret of our life. Opposition to it causes our degradation and death. The law of creation has set sexual desire between two opposite sexes for the preservation of the human race and the spiritual satisfaction of mankind. If this path is diverted towards "homosexuality," not only is spiritual satisfaction lost but collective peace is also destroyed. Since social laws are connected with natural laws, opposing them adversely affects the physical structure of humans. The great Prophet of God, Prophet Lut (peace be upon him), drew the attention of his misguided and misguided nation to this natural truth and shook their conscience by saying: Are you pursuing such evil when you see its dangerous consequences? Your ignorance of the law of life is actually your foolishness, stupidity, and ignorance, which have led you to become so wayward and misguided. This is why, if other laws related to that misguided nation were also changed—There should be no cause for astonishment in this. If instead of water, which is the essence of life, stones were to fall, and the land that is a cradle of peace and tranquility were to be overturned by earthquakes, and not only were they destroyed but even their traces wiped away, then no surprise should be felt. In the last verse of this series, after detailing the circumstances of five great prophets and the fate of their nations, the discourse is turned towards the Prophet of Islam, صلی الله علیہ واله وسلم, as a consequence of previous events and as a prelude to addressing the polytheists. Say: Praise and gratitude are specific to God alone (قل الحمد لله). Praise and commendation are exclusively for that God who destroyed the indecent nation like the people of Lot, so that the rest of the world remains safe from the pollution of their vile act. Praise and gratitude are reserved for the God who sent the corrupt and rebellious nation of Thamud, the Pharaohs, and arrogant individuals like Pharaoh into the realm of non-existence, so that their behavior would not serve as an example or model for others. And all accolades belong solely to Him who bestowed every kind of blessing upon His faithful servants, such as David and Solomon, and through them, guided a misguided nation like the people of Sheba. Then it is stated: Blessings and peace be upon His chosen servants (وسلام على عبادہ الذین اصطفی). Peace be upon Moses, Salih, Lot, Solomon, and David, and peace be upon all the prophets and their truthful successors. Later, it is asked: Which is better, God, who has bestowed all this energy, power, strength, and bounty, or the idols that have no capacity for anything at all, yet these people ascribe partners to God? (آلله خير امّا یشرکون). ["آلله" was originally "الله," and by transforming one hamzah into an alif, it assumes the form of a madd. "ما يشركون" was originally "أم ما يشركون," where "أم" introduces a question and "ما" is the relative pronoun. Both meem letters were merged into one.] From the stories of the former prophets, we have understood that at the time of the punishment’s the background of the revelation of Ayat, the idols were not able to help even a tiny bit their worshippers. Whereas the Lord of the worlds never abandoned the believers in any difficult stage, and His boundless mercy was always there to assist them.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

In the final verse of the preceding series, after presenting striking narratives of five great prophets, a brief yet comprehensive question is posed: whether the All‑Powerful God is superior, or the powerless idols carved by human hands. The verses under consideration elaborate this statement, presenting five carefully framed questions and placing the مشرکین in a position akin to judicial accountability, demanding answers. Across these five verses, twelve major Divine blessings are mentioned as evidences of توحید. The first question concerns the creation of the heavens and the earth, the descent of life‑giving rain, and the blessings that arise from it. The Qur’an states: “أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ”. The term “حدائق” (plural of “حديقة”) refers to enclosed and well‑maintained gardens, rich in water and growth, while “بهجة” denotes a beauty and radiance that delights the observer. The verse emphasizes that human beings are incapable of producing such life; their role is limited to sowing and irrigation, whereas the infusion of life and growth proceeds from the Divine will. These are undeniable realities that cannot be attributed to anything other than God, who alone is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the source of all beauty and vitality in existence. Consequently, the verse concludes: “أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ … بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ يَعْدِلُونَ”. The second question addresses the earth as a place of stability and habitation: “أَمَّن جَعَلَ الْأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَجَعَلَ خِلَالَهَا أَنْهَارًا وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزًا”. It points to several blessings: the stability of the earth, the existence of rivers, the presence of firmly established mountains, and the barrier between different bodies of water. Despite its motion, the earth appears stable; mountains contribute to structural balance; and the separation of waters ensures ecological harmony. Such an ordered and precise system cannot be attributed to blind chance or powerless entities. Thus, once again, the question is raised: “أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ … بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ”. The third question relates to the removal of hardship and the acceptance of supplication: “أَمَّن يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ وَيَكْشِفُ السُّوءَ وَيَجْعَلُكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ الْأَرْضِ”. In moments of extreme distress, when all worldly means fail, it is God alone who provides relief, removes affliction, and restores hope. This reality is recognized even by those who associate partners with Him, as in such circumstances they instinctively turn to God alone: “فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ”. Furthermore, God grants human beings succession and stewardship upon the earth. Yet again, the question is posed: “أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ”. The fourth question concerns guidance: “أَمَّن يَهْدِيكُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَن يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ”. God is the One who guides human beings through the darkness of land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of rain. These winds carry moisture and clouds, bringing life to barren lands, while rain itself is rightly described as رحمة. Such phenomena again demonstrate Divine providence. The verse concludes: “أَإِلَٰهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ … وَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ”. The final question addresses both مبداء and معاد: “أَمَّن يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَمَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ”. The One who originates creation is also capable of restoring it, and He alone provides sustenance from both heavens and earth. The argument subtly shifts toward the doctrine of resurrection, indicating that the act of creation itself serves as a proof of re‑creation. The passage concludes with the decisive challenge: “قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ”. Thus, while the preceding verses primarily emphasize Divine power and نعمت within the created order, the concluding verse integrates these themes into an argument for معاد. If God is acknowledged as the Creator and Sustainer, then affirmation of resurrection follows naturally. The references to “رزق السماء” denote rain, sunlight, and related phenomena, while “رزق الارض” includes vegetation, crops, animals, minerals, and all forms of sustenance derived from the earth.

Although God, under appropriate conditions, responds to the supplication of every individual, in the verses under consideration the term “مضطر” (one in a state of extreme necessity) is mentioned specifically. This is because one of the essential conditions for the acceptance of supplication is that a person should completely withdraw his attention from the عالمِ اسباب and entrust his heart and soul entirely to God, recognizing everything as originating from Him and considering the solution to every difficulty to lie with Him alone. This state is most fully realized in a condition of اضطرار. It is true that this world operates within a system of causes, and a believer exerts all possible effort within this framework; however, he never becomes absorbed in causes themselves. Rather, he regards all means as Divine gifts and perceives, behind them, the reality of “مسبب الاسباب”, seeking everything from Him. It is also noteworthy that in some narrations this verse has been interpreted in relation to the ظهور of Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al‑salām). In a narration from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), it is stated: “و الله! كأني أنظر إلى القائم وقد أسند ظهره إلى الحجر ثم ينشد الله حقه... قال هو و الله المضطر في كتاب الله في قوله: اَمن یجیب المضطر اذا دعاه و يكشف السوء ويجعلکم خلفاء الارض”. By God, I see al‑Qāʾim leaning his back against the Stone and calling upon God by invoking his right… and he said: by God, he is the “مضطر” mentioned in the Book of God in the verse: “امن یجیب المضطر اذا دعاه و يكشف السوء ويجعلکم خلفاء الارض” (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 94). In another narration from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), it is stated: “نزلت في القائم من آل محمد... هو و الله المضطر اذا صلي في المقام رکعتین و دعا الى الله عزّوجلّ فاجابه و يكشف السوء و يجعله خليفة في الارض”. This verse was revealed concerning the Qāʾim from the family of Muḥammad; by God, he is the “مضطر”. When he performs two units of prayer at the Maqām and supplicates before God, God will respond to him, remove hardship, and appoint him as خليفة in the earth (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 94). As is evident from similar interpretations elsewhere, this does not imply that the verse is restricted solely to the blessed person of Imam Mahdi. Rather, the verse has a broad meaning, of which Imam Mahdi is one clear instance. In the period when disorder and فساد will have spread everywhere, when all avenues of hope will have been closed, and human suffering will have reached its peak—such that a state of universal اضطرار will prevail—he will raise his hands in supplication at the most sacred place on earth and pray for the removal of hardships. God will make this supplication the prelude to a blessed universal transformation, and in accordance with “ويجعلکم خلفاء الارض”, will appoint him and his companions as heirs and vicegerents upon the earth. It may also be noted that this discussion coincided, by a remarkable coincidence, with the date of 15 Shaʿbān 1403 AH, the birthday of Imam Mahdi. Furthermore, the importance of supplication, the conditions for its acceptance, and the reasons for its non‑acceptance have been discussed in detail in Tafsīr Namūnah, vol. 1, under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 186.

We have read repeatedly in the Qur’an that it calls upon its opponents to produce evidence, particularly through the expression “هاتوا برهانكم” (“bring your proof”), which is repeated in four places (Sūrat al‑Baqarah 111; Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ 24; Sūrat al‑Naml 64; and Sūrat al‑Qaṣaṣ 75). In addition, the term “برهان” is emphasized in several other passages. A برهان is defined as a firm and conclusive proof characterized by truth and certainty. This Qur’anic insistence upon proof reflects the intrinsic strength and independence of Islam. The Islamic approach consistently engages opponents through reasoned argumentation and logical discourse. When it demands evidence from others, it necessarily upholds the same standard for itself; thus, its teachings are suffused with logical demonstrations and intellectual arguments addressing different issues at various levels. This approach stands in contrast to tendencies within later, altered forms of Christianity, where religion is often regarded as a matter of sentiment detached from intellect, and reason is considered distant from faith. In such a framework, even apparent logical contradictions—such as doctrines like “توحید در تثلیث”—are accepted as elements of belief. This separation of religion from reason allows for the admission of various unfounded notions. However, if religion is divorced from rational inquiry, the basis for establishing its truth is undermined, and no clear distinction remains between religion and its negation. The importance of Islam’s method—its emphasis on برهان and its invitation to opponents to engage through rational argument—becomes particularly evident when we consider the context in which it emerged: an environment dominated by unfounded traditions, superstitions, and non‑rational concepts.

In the previous verses, the Qur'an emphasized the Oneness of the Worshipped by establishing the "Unity of the Creator" and the "Unity of the Lord" (the Oneness of creation and management), and mentioned twelve great signs of the Lord of the worlds in the universe. (The sky and the earth, the the background of the revelation of Ayat of rain, the life-giving effects of rain, the tranquility of the dwelling place of humans, flowing rivers, great and stationary mountains, the boundary between sweet and bitter water, the acceptance of the prayers of servants, guidance of humans in dryness and moisture, winds that bring the message of the the background of the revelation of Ayat of rain, renewal of life in creation, and provision of sustenance to humans from the earth and sky). These twelve blessings are presented in five verses within the framework of five questions, which sequentially address these five issues: creation, tranquility, solving difficulties, guidance, and return to life. Beneath each of these questions, the phrase is repeated: ءاله مع الله “Is there any deity along with Allah?” After this question, the first verse immediately points toward their deviation from the truth. The second verse refers to their ignorance and lack of awareness, the third to their failure to use reflection, the fourth to their intellectual baseness, and the fifth challenges their reasoning. Together, these form an integrated and systematic argument.

See ayat 68 for tafseer.

See ayat 68 for tafseer.

See ayat 68 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned the denial of معاد by obstinate disbelievers. Since rational argument proved ineffective with such a stubborn group—and given that the Qur’an has already presented numerous proofs of resurrection, including examples observable in everyday life such as phenomena in the vegetal world, embryonic development, and similar processes—the verses under consideration do not introduce further arguments. Instead, they warn such deniers of the Divine punishment that lies ahead. The Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) is instructed: “قل سيروا في الارض فانظروا كيف كان عاقبة المجرمين”. He is to tell them to travel through the earth and observe the آثار left by former peoples, to reflect upon the fate of sinners and wrongdoers. They claim that similar warnings were given to their forefathers without consequence; however, if they were to traverse the earth and observe the remnants of past civilizations—especially those scattered across the region of Ḥijāz—they would realize that the reality is otherwise. Soon their own turn will come; there is no need for impatience. If they persist in the same conduct, they too will meet a similar outcome. The Qur’an frequently invites reflection upon historical ruins and the destroyed settlements of earlier nations. These visible remnants, described as a living and observable form of history, awaken hearts and sharpen perception. Indeed, at times the observation of a single antiquity may produce a deeper impact than the reading of numerous volumes of historical narrative. It is noteworthy that the verse employs the term “المجرمين” rather than “المكذبين,” indicating that their denial did not result from an error in inquiry but from stubbornness, hostility, and involvement in wrongdoing. The Prophet experienced deep sorrow at their rejection, as he sincerely desired their guidance. At the same time, he faced their schemes and opposition. Thus, he is consoled: “ولا تحزن عليهم ولا تكن في ضيق مما يمكرون”. He is instructed not to grieve over their denial nor to be distressed by their plots, for Divine assistance remains with him. Yet, instead of heeding the call and learning from the fate of earlier peoples, these obstinate deniers resorted to mockery and said: “متى هذا الوعد إن كنتم صادقين”. If what you say is true, when will this promised punishment occur? In response, the Qur’an directs the Prophet to say: “قل عسى ان يكون ردف لكم بعض الذي تستعجلون”. Perhaps some part of that which you hasten has already drawn near. Why do they hasten what is inevitable? Why do they treat Divine punishment lightly? The expression “ردف” denotes something that follows closely behind, indicating that the punishment is imminent and may already be upon them. Their own words and attitudes have brought them to the brink of Divine retribution. Some exegetes interpret this as a reference to the blow inflicted upon them at Badr, where many of their leading figures were killed and others taken captive. Others understand it more generally as a warning of impending punishment, which was delayed due to the presence of the Prophet, as stated: “وما كان الله ليعذبهم وانت فيهم”. The Qur’an then clarifies that the delay in punishment is not due to negligence but to Divine grace: “وان ربك لذو فضل على الناس ولكن اكثرهم لايشكرون”. God grants respite so that they may reform and make amends, yet most fail to show gratitude. If they imagine that God refrains from punishing them because He is unaware of their intentions, this is a grave error. The Qur’an states: “وان ربك ليعلم ما تكن صدورهم وما يعلنون”. God has full knowledge of both what they conceal within their hearts and what they make manifest. The term “تكن” refers to that which is hidden, namely their inner thoughts, intentions, and schemes. Divine knowledge encompasses both the hidden and the apparent equally; for an infinite and unbounded being, distinctions such as concealed and manifest hold no limitation. Moreover, Divine knowledge extends universally: “وما من غائبة في السماء والارض الا في كتاب مبين”. There is nothing hidden in the heavens or the earth that is not contained within “كتاب مبين.” The term “غائبة” carries a broad meaning, encompassing all that lies beyond human perception—whether hidden actions, inner intentions, or the unseen realities of creation, including the timing of قیامت and the descent of punishment. “كتاب مبين” is interpreted as the manifestation of Divine knowledge, often identified with lawḥ maḥfūẓ. Thus, these verses emphasize that the denial of truth arises from arrogance rather than ignorance alone, that Divine punishment—though delayed—is inevitable, and that all actions, whether concealed or manifest, fall within the encompassing knowledge of God.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned the denial of معاد by the obstinate disbelievers. Since rational argument was unlikely to benefit such a stubborn group—and given that numerous other verses of the Qur’an had already provided proofs of resurrection, including examples observable in the natural world such as the revival of vegetation and stages of embryonic development—the present verses, rather than offering further argumentation, warn them of the Divine punishment that awaits them. The Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) is instructed: “قل سيروا في الارض فانظروا كيف كان عاقبة المجرمين”. He is to invite them to travel across the earth and observe the آثار of previous peoples, reflecting upon the fate of the wrongdoers. They claim that similar warnings had been given in the past without consequence, but close observation of the ruins, destroyed civilizations, and historical remnants—particularly those surrounding their own region—would reveal the reality of Divine retribution. The Qur’an repeatedly encourages such reflection upon historical remains, describing them as a living and perceptible form of history capable of awakening hearts and sharpening perception. Indeed, the observation of remnants of past civilizations often leaves a more profound impression than extensive historical writings. The use of the term “المجرمين” rather than “المكذبين” indicates that their denial was not due to intellectual error but arose from obstinacy, hostility, and involvement in wrongdoing. The Prophet’s sorrow at their rejection is acknowledged, and he is reassured: “ولا تحزن عليهم ولا تكن في ضيق مما يمكرون”. He is instructed not to grieve over their denial nor to be distressed by their schemes, for Divine support remains with him. Despite these warnings, the disbelievers persist in mockery and ask: “متى هذا الوعد إن كنتم صادقين”. They demand to know when the promised punishment will occur. In response, they are told: “قل عسى ان يكون ردف لكم بعض الذي تستعجلون”. It may well be that part of what they hasten has already drawn near. The term “ردف” conveys the idea of something closely following or impending, suggesting that the punishment is approaching swiftly. Some exegetes interpret this as a reference to the events of Badr, while others understand it more generally as impending Divine punishment restrained due to the presence of the Prophet, as indicated in: “وما كان الله ليعذبهم وانت فيهم” (Anfāl 33). The delay in punishment is attributed to Divine grace: “وان ربك لذو فضل على الناس ولكن اكثرهم لايشكرون”. It provides an opportunity for repentance and reform, though most people fail to show gratitude. The Qur’an then emphasizes Divine omniscience: “وان ربك ليعلم ما تكن صدورهم وما يعلنون”. God knows both what is concealed within their hearts and what they manifest openly. The term “تكن” derives from the meaning of concealment, referring to inner intentions, plans, and thoughts. Furthermore, this knowledge is all‑encompassing: “وما من غائبة في السماء والارض الا في كتاب مبين”. Nothing hidden in the heavens or the earth escapes Divine knowledge, all being encompassed within “كتاب مبين”, understood as the manifestation of that comprehensive and limitless knowledge. Thus, these verses collectively emphasize that denial rooted in stubbornness will lead to inevitable consequences, that Divine punishment may be delayed but is certain, and that God’s knowledge encompasses all hidden and manifest realities.

By examining the above verses, it becomes clear that the deniers of resurrection employed three types of arguments to avoid believing in the Day of Judgment and to escape the duties imposed by this belief. 1. They considered the revival after becoming dust to be unlikely because, according to their viewpoint, dust cannot be the source of life. 2. They claimed it is an old belief and there is nothing new in it. 3. They argued that the deniers of resurrection do not experience punishment because if the deniers of resurrection were truly subjected to torment, why would it not befall them? The Holy Qur'an left the answers to the first and second questions unaddressed because they are perfectly clear. For we always witness with our own eyes that dust becomes the source of life, since we ourselves were once dust and then took the form of a living being. Moreover, something being ancient does not lessen its importance, for the fundamental and original laws of this universe have been established, firm, and constant from eternity to eternity. Whether principles of philosophy, mathematical problems, or other sciences, most of them are fixed and undeniable. For example, does the impossibility of the coexistence of opposites or the Pythagorean multiplication table become unacceptable simply because they are ancient? Or if we observe that justice is a good thing and oppression is an evil thing, and that this goodness and evil have always existed and will continue forever, does this indicate their falsehood? Rather, fundamentally, the antiquity of something is an indication of its authenticity. The third objection has been answered as follows: Do not be hasty regarding the the background of the revelation of Ayat of punishment. It is out of God's mercy that He does not punish you immediately, so that you may be granted respite and understand. But keep firmly in mind that "Although divine punishment may be delayed, it will certainly come."

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion focused on مبداء and معاد, while in the verses under consideration the argument is completed by addressing the truth of نبوت and the authenticity of the Qur’an. At the same time, earlier verses emphasized the limitless and comprehensive knowledge of God, and here further elaboration of that knowledge is provided. Moreover, whereas the previous verses were addressed to مشرکین, these verses refer to other groups of disbelievers, particularly the People of the Book, and their internal disagreements. Thus, it is first stated: “إِنَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَقُصُّ عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَكْثَرَ الَّذِي هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ”. This Qur’an clarifies for Banī Isrāʾīl many of the matters concerning which they held اختلاف. They differed regarding figures such as Maryam and ʿĪsā, as well as regarding the identity of the promised prophet mentioned in the Torah, and they disagreed on numerous religious rulings. The Qur’an resolved these issues by presenting clear truth: for example, ʿĪsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) declared, “إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيًّا”, affirming his status as a servant of God, and it clarified his birth by comparing it with that of Ādam: “إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ”. Accordingly, one of the essential functions of the Qur’an—like that of all revealed guidance—is to remove distortions, correct misconceptions, and resolve disputes that arise from the mixture of truth with falsehood. Since such clarification was provided by one who had not studied under any human authority, it indicates that this knowledge originates from God. It is therefore declared as a general principle: “وَإِنَّهُ لَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ”. The Qur’an is guidance and mercy for the believers. It is guidance because it resolves اختلافات and refutes خرافات, and it is mercy because it provides both knowledge of the correct path and instruction on how to follow it. The specification of “المؤمنين” indicates that only those who possess readiness for truth benefit fully from it. However, some groups among Banī Isrāʾīl persisted in their denial despite these clarifications. Therefore it is said: “إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَقْضِي بَيْنَهُم بِحُكْمِهِ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْعَلِيمُ”. God will ultimately judge between them, and He possesses both knowledge and authority—qualities essential for true judgment. This implies that the final resolution of their disputes will occur on the Day of Resurrection, as indicated elsewhere: “إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَقْضِي بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِيمَا كَانُوا فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ”. In light of this, the Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) is instructed: “فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ”. He is to place his trust in God, the One who is powerful and all‑knowing, and who has revealed the Qur’an. Since he stands upon “الْحَقِّ الْمُبِينِ”, opposition should not cause fear or hesitation. A question then arises: if the truth of the Qur’an is so clear, why do some reject it? The answer is provided metaphorically: “إِنَّكَ لَا تُسْمِعُ الْمَوْتَىٰ” You cannot make the dead hear. “وَلَا تُسْمِعُ الصُّمَّ الدُّعَاءَ” Nor can you make the deaf hear the call. “وَمَا أَنتَ بِهَادِي الْعُمْيِ عَن ضَلَالَتِهِمْ” Nor can you guide the blind away from their error. These expressions indicate that those who persist in denial have lost the faculties of spiritual perception. Their دل, hearing, and vision have become ineffective due to stubbornness, prejudice, and sin. Consequently, guidance benefits only those who possess receptivity: “إِن تُسْمِعُ إِلَّا مَن يُؤْمِنُ بِآيَاتِنَا فَهُم مُّسْلِمُونَ”. Thus, these verses present a comprehensive framework of human cognition and guidance: - The living heart, capable of discernment; - The hearing ear, receptive to truth; - The seeing eye, capable of recognizing signs. When these faculties are impaired through persistent denial, guidance becomes ineffective. Conversely, those who possess humility and openness toward truth are able to benefit from Divine revelation. Finally, it is clarified that faith and submission do not imply prior acceptance of all doctrines, but rather an inner readiness to seek truth and to submit when it becomes manifest. Without this disposition, even the clearest evidence will fail to produce conviction.

“توکل” is derived from the root “وکالت,” and in Qur’anic terminology it signifies reliance, trust, and confidence in God—making Him one’s inner support and representative, while remaining undaunted by the many forms of difficulty and obstruction. It is one of the most significant manifestations of ایمان and one of the most important factors in attaining success when confronting challenges. An important point in the above verses is that two foundations are presented for توکل. The first is the Divine attributes of قدرت and علم؛ it is because God is all‑powerful and all‑knowing that human beings are able to place complete trust in Him. The second is the clarity and correctness of the path chosen by the believer. In essence, the meaning conveyed is that there is no need for fear or anxiety, because the foundation of one’s امید and the محور of one’s aspirations is a Lord who is “عزیز” (invincible, beyond subjugation) and “علیم” (all‑aware). Furthermore, the individual is walking on the path of “حق مبین.” One who defends truth that is clear and manifest has no reason to be overwhelmed by fear or hesitation. If there exist opponents and adversaries, their presence does not warrant concern. Their faculties of perception and understanding are described as ineffective—they neither truly see nor hear, nor do they possess awakened hearts. In a fundamental sense, they stand outside the sphere of meaningful invitation. Only those who genuinely seek truth, those who are devoted to God, and those who thirst for justice will be drawn toward the Qur’anic source of guidance and will seek to be nourished from it.

There are many words that take on different meanings depending on the perspective of thought, including the words "death" and "life." If viewed from a materialistic point of view, these words only have a physical meaning, that is, as long as the heart continues to function, blood circulates in the organs of the body, and the processes of sensation, movement, attraction, and repulsion continue, it is said that a person is alive. But when these processes stop, it becomes definitive proof of death, and this can be determined within a short time through good care. However, according to the Qur'anic logic, there are many individuals who are physically alive but are counted among the dead. These are the people referred to in the verses under discussion. Conversely, there are some individuals who appear outwardly dead but are in fact living eternally, such as the martyrs on the path of God. The reason for these different views is that Islam has based the standard of human life and personality on spiritual values, and it has associated beneficent existence with life and uselessness with non-existence. A person who is outwardly alive but so engrossed in psychological desires that he neither listens to the cry for help nor sees the face of any needy person, nor perceives the signs of God’s greatness in the universe, and cannot think even for a moment about his past or future, is considered dead according to Qur'anic logic. But those who leave behind traces after their death that spread in the world, whose thoughts and the paths they showed serve as exemplary models and guiding principles for the people of the world, such people are living eternally. [We have discussed spiritual life and death in detail in Tafseer Namunah, Volume 4, on Surah Al-Anfal, verse 24.] Besides all this, there is ample evidence indicating that Islam accepts the intermediary life (Barzakh) of human beings. It is astonishing that some uninformed “Wahhabis” deny life after death even for the Prophet of Islam himself, considering him dead and denying his role as an intercessor. Their reasoning for not accepting the Prophet as an intercessor is that the dead cannot be intermediaries; they argue that dead people cannot perform any action. What is more surprising is that they use the very verses under discussion to support this claim. However, some other Wahhabis have explicitly acknowledged that after death, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has a kind of intermediary life which exceeds even the life of martyrs, about which the Qur'an has made clear statements. They even accept that the Prophet hears the salutations of those who send peace upon him. [See the second treatise in Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s collection "Al-Hidya al-Sunniyya," p. 41.] In both Shia and Sunni texts, there are many authentic narrated verses indicating that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Pure Imams (peace be upon them) hear the salutations sent to them from near and far and respond to those greetings. Moreover, the deeds of the Ummah are presented before them. [For more details, see Sayyid Mohsin Amin Amili’s book "Kashf al-Irtibaat," p. 109.] Regarding the Battle of Badr, an authentic hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari states: After the defeat of the disbelievers and the end of the battle, the Messenger of Allah came to the well where the bodies of the polytheists had been thrown, along with some of his companions. He called each of them by name and said, “Would it not have been better for you to obey God and His Messenger? Indeed, we have fulfilled the promise God made to us; have you fulfilled the promise you made to your Lord?” At this point, when Hazrat Umar said, "O Messenger of Allah! You speak to bodies that have no souls," the Prophet replied: والذی نفس محمد بيده ما انتم باسمع لما اقول منهم “By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, you cannot hear what I say better than they do.” [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 97 (Chapter: The killing of Abu Jahl).] In the events of the Battle of Jamal, after the defeat of the companions of Jamal, when Hazrat Ali passed among the dead, he arrived at the corpse of the judge of Basra, Ka'b ibn Sur, and said that he should be seated, which was done. Then he addressed him: “Ka'b, woe upon you! You had the treasure of knowledge, but it did not benefit you even a bit, and Satan misled you and sent you to Hell.” [Sharh Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Vol. 1, p. 248.] In Nahj al-Balagha, it is mentioned that when Hazrat Ali (peace be upon him) was returning to Kufa from the Battle of Siffin, there was a cemetery on the other side of the city wall of Kufa. When he came near the cemetery, he addressed the dead, speaking about instability and impermanence: “This was the news from us; what news do you have?” Then he answered himself: أما لو اذن لهم في الكلام لاخبروكم ان خير الزاد التقوى “If they were permitted to speak, they would tell you that the best provision for the Hereafter is piety!” And this is in itself...This is evidence that the dead also hear speech and can respond to it, but they are not permitted to speak. [Nahj al-Balagha, Short Sayings, Sentence 130]. All these interpretations point towards the intermediate life of the human being.

See ayat 85 for tafseer.

See ayat 85 for tafseer.

See ayat 85 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the impatience of the disbelievers regarding the وقوع of punishment and the قيام of the Day of Resurrection was discussed. They would repeatedly ask the Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) why the promised punishment did not descend upon them and why the Final Hour had not yet arrived. The present verses refer to certain events that will occur near the time of قیامت and describe the severe fate awaiting the obstinate deniers. It is stated: “واذا وقع القول عليهم اخرجنا لهم دابة من الارض تكلمهم ان الناس كانوا بآياتنا لايوقنون”. When the decree is realized and they approach the threshold of the Final Hour, a being will be brought forth from the earth that will speak to them and declare that people did not have certainty in the signs of God. The expression “وقع القول عليهم” may refer either to the fulfillment of the Divine promise of punishment, or to the نزدیک آنے والے قیامت کے آثار, when such clear signs will manifest that all doubt will vanish and the reality of Divine وعدہ will become undeniable. At that stage, ایمان will no longer be a matter of voluntary choice but an اضطراری response, and therefore the door of repentance will be closed. These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, since the onset of the final signs and the وقوع of Divine punishment will coincide. The Qur’an mentions “دابة الارض” in an intentionally concise manner, describing only that it will appear, speak, and distinguish the unbelievers. The purpose appears to be to convey the seriousness of the event without elaborating on details that might reduce its rhetorical effect. Its essential function is to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to separate the صفوف of believers from those of deniers and hypocrites. The verses then introduce another sign: “ويوم نحشر من كل امة فوجًا ممن يكذب بآياتنا فهم يوزعون”. On that day, from every community a group of those who denied the Divine signs will be gathered and restrained so that they may be assembled together. The term “حشر” denotes bringing forth and assembling, while “فوج” refers to a group moving together. “يوزعون” indicates that these groups will be held back and organized until all are gathered. The verse suggests the selective gathering of representatives from each community for accountability. Some exegetes interpret this verse as referring to رجعت, arguing that the expression “من كل امة فوجًا” implies a partial return rather than the universal gathering of قیامت, which is described elsewhere as including all individuals: “وحشرناهم فلم نغادر منهم احدًا” (Kahf 47). They contend that the continuity with surrounding verses—dealing with pre‑Resurrection signs—supports this interpretation. In contrast, many Sunni exegetes understand the verse as referring to قیامت, interpreting “فوج” as the leaders or notable individuals of each community. To reconcile differences, some propose a rearrangement of narrative sequence, though such explanations rely on non‑literal readings of the text. The subsequent verse presents the scene of interrogation: “حتى اذا جاءوا قال اكذبتم بآياتي ولم تحيطوا بها علمًا اما ذاكنتم تعملون”. They will be asked whether they denied the Divine signs without knowledge and what their actions were. This questioning highlights both their rejection without investigation and their broader conduct. Finally, it is stated: “ووقع القول عليهم بما ظلموا فهم لاينطقون”. The decree of punishment will be realized upon them because of their ظلم, and they will have no response to offer. If the passage is understood in the context of قیامت, this punishment pertains to the Hereafter. If it is interpreted in relation to رجعت, then it refers to a form of worldly retribution preceding the final judgment. In either case, the outcome reflects the consequence of denial, injustice, and failure to recognize the Divine signs.

The term “دابة” means “a being that moves,” while “ارض” denotes “the earth.” Some have assumed that this expression applies exclusively to non‑human creatures; however, this is not correct, since it is also used in the Qur’an for human beings. For example, in Sūrat Hūd (11:6): “وما من دابة في الارض الا على الله رزقها”. There is no creature moving upon the earth whose provision is not the responsibility of God. Likewise, in Sūrat al‑Naḥl (16:61): “ولو يؤاخذ الله الناس بظلمهم ما ترك عليها من دابة”. If God were to take people to account for their ظلم, He would not leave a single living being upon it. And in Sūrat al‑Anfāl (8:22): “ان شرّ الدوآب عند الله الصم البكم الذين لايعقلون”. The worst of those who move upon the earth in the sight of God are the deaf and dumb who do not understand. With regard to the specific application of this term, the Qur’an itself presents the matter in a general and concise manner, mentioning only one defining feature—that it will speak to people and, in a general sense, identify those who lack faith. However, extensive discussion has taken place in the traditions and among exegetes. These discussions may be summarized in two principal views: First, some have interpreted it as referring to a remarkable and extraordinary living being, not belonging to the human species. They have transmitted a variety of descriptions characterized by unusual and miraculous attributes, resembling prophetic miracles. Second, others—based on numerous transmitted narrations—have understood it as referring to a human being, though not an ordinary one. Rather, it is described as an exceptional, active, and influential individual whose primary function will be to distinguish the صفوف of believers from those of hypocrites and disbelievers. Some narrations further indicate that he will possess the staff of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and the ring of Sulaymān (ʿalayhi al‑salām), which symbolize power, authority, and governance. In this sense, he represents a figure endowed with the ability to manifest truth and establish clear distinctions. A narration reported from Ḥudhayfah al‑Yamānī states that the Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) described “دابة الارض” as follows: “لا يدركها طالب ولا يفوتها هارب فتسم المؤمن بين عينيه، ویكتب بين عينيه مومن، وتسم الكافر بين عينيه وتكتب بين عينيه كافر و معها عصا موسی و خاتم سلیمان”. He will possess such power that no one will be able to overtake him, nor will anyone escape from him. He will mark the forehead of the believer with the word “مومن” and the forehead of the disbeliever with “کافر,” and with him will be the staff of Mūsā and the ring of Sulaymān (Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān). Several narrations apply these characteristics to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām). In Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, a report from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) relates that an individual approached ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir asking about the verse: “واذا وقع القول عليهم اخرجنا لهم دابة من الارض تكلمهم ان الناس كانوا باياتنا لا يوقنون”. ʿAmmār brought him to ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), indicating that if the questioner had true understanding, he had already been shown the referent. Similar reports are also found from Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī in Tafsīr ʿAyyāshī. In another narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), transmitted in Biḥār al‑Anwār, it is reported that the Prophet addressed ʿAlī with the expression: “قم يا دابة الله”، and explained that this designation corresponds to “دابة الارض” mentioned in the Qur’an, indicating a future manifestation associated with Divine signs. Abū al‑Futūḥ Rāzī, in his tafsīr, states that according to transmitted traditions, “دابة الارض” is understood as a reference to Imām al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām). On the basis of these narrations, it may be concluded that “دابة الارض” carries a broad conceptual meaning. It may apply to a عظیم leader who appears in the latter times, initiates a transformative movement, and distinguishes truth from falsehood and believers from disbelievers. The association with the staff of Mūsā and the ring of Sulaymān reinforces this understanding, since these symbols represent Divine authority and dominion. Furthermore, the Qur’anic attribute that it will speak to people aligns naturally with the interpretation of a human agent rather than a non‑human creature. In conclusion, although the term “دابة” is frequently used for non‑human beings, its Qur’anic usage encompasses both human and non‑human referents. Considering the contextual indicators and the relevant narrations, it appears that “دابة الارض” refers to an active and significant human figure possessing the described qualities, who will appear before the Day of Resurrection, distinguish between competing groups, and serve as one of the manifest signs of Divine power.

Among the issues raised in the above verses that require careful reflection and explanation is the doctrine of rajʿah. Rajʿah is considered one of the well‑known beliefs within Shiʿa theology. It may be concisely defined as follows: after the ظهور of Imām al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and prior to the قيام of the Day of Resurrection, certain “pure believers” and certain “extremely rebellious and disbelieving individuals” will be returned to this world. The first group will progress to higher درجات of perfection, while the second group will be subjected to severe punishment. The scholar al‑Sayyid al‑Murtaḍā, who is among the eminent authorities of Shiʿa thought, states that after the ظهور of Imām al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), God will return certain individuals who had previously died, so that they may attain the distinction and reward of supporting the Imām and witness the establishment of حق over the entire world. At the same time, some of the fiercest opponents will also be brought back so that retribution may be exacted from them (Safīnat al‑Biḥār, vol. 1, p. 511, root r‑j‑ʿ). He further argues that the possibility of this doctrine cannot be denied from the standpoint of reason, since Divine power encompasses such matters, and nothing in this concept entails impossibility. He also refers to the consensus of the Imāmī community as a basis for its affirmation. Although a very small number of earlier Shiʿa scholars—such as those indicated in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān—offered alternative interpretations, for example understanding rajʿah as the establishment of the rule of the Ahl al‑Bayt rather than literal return, such views do not undermine the overall consensus. From an analytical standpoint, several key points may be noted: 1. There is no rational basis to deny the revival of certain individuals in this world, since the greater event of resurrection (معاد), wherein all people will be revived, is already affirmed. Denial of rajʿah on grounds of impossibility parallels earlier objections raised by deniers of resurrection itself. 2. The Qur’an presents multiple instances in which revival after death has occurred within prior communities. Among them are: - The case described in Sūrat al‑Baqarah 2:259: “فَأَمَاتَهُ اللَّهُ مِائَةَ عَامٍ ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُ”, where a prophet-like figure was caused to die for one hundred years and then revived. - The account in Sūrat al‑Baqarah 2:243: “فَقَالَ لَهُمُ اللَّهُ مُوتُوا ثُمَّ أَحْيَاهُمْ”, referring to a group who fled and were then caused to die and be revived. - The episode in Sūrat al‑Baqarah 2:55–56, in which individuals among Banī Isrāʾīl were struck down and later revived: “ثُمَّ بَعَثْنَاكُم مِّن بَعْدِ مَوْتِكُمْ”. - The miracles of ʿĪsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “وَإِذْ تُخْرِجُ الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِي” (al‑Māʾidah 110), indicating repeated instances of bringing the dead to life. - The account in Sūrat al‑Baqarah 2:73 involving the revival of a slain individual to reveal the truth: “كَذَٰلِكَ يُحْيِي اللَّهُ الْمَوْتَىٰ”. In addition to these, narratives such as those of the Companions of the Cave and the episode of Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al‑salām) with the birds also illustrate forms of revival and restoration. From these examples, it becomes evident that the concept of returning certain individuals to life within this world is neither unprecedented nor inconceivable. If one accepts the broader doctrine of resurrection, then the notion of rajʿah represents a limited manifestation of the same principle. 3. Numerous narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) affirm this doctrine. As reported by al‑ʿAllāmah al‑Majlisī, there exist nearly two hundred explicit narrations transmitted through more than forty reliable authorities and recorded in over fifty works (Biḥār al‑Anwār, vol. 53, p. 122). In summary, the doctrine of rajʿah does not introduce an entirely new concept; rather, it reflects a particular application of the broader principle of revival already established in Qur’anic teachings. It serves to illustrate Divine قدرت, the fulfillment of وعدہ الہی, and the manifestation of justice, while remaining consistent with the overarching framework of faith in resurrection.

A commonly raised question regarding this doctrine is: what is the underlying rationale for the occurrence of rajʿah prior to the establishment of the Day of Resurrection? In light of Islamic traditions, rajʿah is not a general phenomenon applicable to all individuals. Rather, it is specific to certain distinguished groups: on the one hand, those righteous believers who have attained the highest درجات of faith, and on the other hand, those disbelievers and tyrants who have reached the utmost extremes of disbelief and oppression. From this perspective, the purpose of their return to worldly life becomes clear: the first group is enabled to attain the highest stages of spiritual perfection and completion, while the second group experiences a form of worldly punishment in addition to that which awaits them in the Hereafter. In other words, those sincere believers who, due to particular obstacles, were unable to complete their spiritual progression during their lifetime will, in accordance with Divine wisdom, return to this world to continue their path of perfection. They will also witness the establishment of a universal order based on truth and justice and participate in its realization, for such participation itself constitutes a significant honor. Conversely, the most obstinate disbelievers and oppressive individuals will, in addition to their punishment in the Hereafter, also taste the consequences of their deeds within this world, just as certain rebellious communities of earlier times—such as Firʿawn and his followers, ʿĀd, Thamūd, and the people of Lūṭ—were subjected to Divine punishment during their earthly existence. The mechanism through which this occurs is rajʿah. In a narration, Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “إن الرجعة ليست بعامة، وهي خاصة، لا يرجع إلا من محض الإيمان محضًا، أو محض الشرك محضًا” (Biḥār al‑Anwār, vol. 53, p. 39). Thus, rajʿah is not universal but specific, and only those who are purely faithful or purely immersed in disbelief will return. It is also possible that the verse “وَحَرَامٌ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ” (al‑Anbiyāʾ 95) alludes to this matter, indicating that those communities upon whom complete destruction has already been executed will not return. This suggests that those who did not undergo such definitive worldly punishment will be the ones to return and experience it. Furthermore, it may be considered that the return of such individuals at a critical juncture in human history serves as a profound lesson and a manifest sign of Divine power and the reality of the Hereafter. Through witnessing these events, individuals may attain the highest levels of spiritual development and completeness of faith, without any deficiency remaining in their conviction.

Some people assume that the doctrine of rajʿah conflicts with human freedom, will, and choice. However, as has already been explained, this is a misunderstanding. Their return to this world will occur under normal conditions, in which they will possess full freedom and the capacity to choose. It is also argued by some that if oppressive and disbelieving individuals return to this world, they may repent and adopt the path of truth. The response is that such individuals will have become so deeply immersed in ظلم and corruption that these tendencies will have become ingrained in their very being, permeating their entire existence to such an extent that separation from them is inconceivable. As God states concerning the inhabitants of Hell, who on the Day of Resurrection request to be returned to the world in order to rectify their deeds: “ولو ردوا لعادوا لما نهوا عنه” (Anʿām 28). Even if they were returned, they would revert to that from which they had been forbidden. It is also contended that the concept of rajʿah is inconsistent with the statement in Sūrat al‑Muʾminūn 100, where those who seek return to the world say: “رب ارجعون لعلی اعمل صالحا فيما تركت”. Our Lord, return us so that we may perform righteous deeds in what we neglected. They are given a negative response: “كلا إنها كلمة هو قائلها”. This is merely a statement they utter. The answer is that this verse expresses a general principle, whereas the concept of rajʿah pertains to a specific case.

As a concluding remark on this subject, it should be stated that although the Shiʿa have derived their belief from the teachings of the school of the Ahl al‑Bayt and the Imams, they do not consider those who deny the doctrine of rajʿah to be unbelievers. This is because rajʿah is essential from the perspective of Shiʿa doctrine, but it is not among the essential conditions of being a Muslim. Consequently, this belief does not sever the bonds of Islamic brotherhood among Muslims. However, adherents of the Shiʿa tradition do defend this belief through rational and logical argumentation. It is also important to note that, at times, various superstitious or unfounded elements are attached to the concept of rajʿah, which can obscure its true nature. Therefore, it is necessary that its foundation be established upon authentic traditions and that doubtful or unreliable reports be avoided. Here, a concise summary of the discussions concerning rajʿah has been presented. For further details, one may consult the specialized works that have been written on this subject. In light of the above explanations, it becomes possible to respond effectively to the criticisms raised by certain uninformed Sunni exegetes—such as al‑Ālūsī in his Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī under these very verses—because such critics have often treated the matter as a mere legend without a proper understanding of its reality.

See ayat 88 for tafseer.

See ayat 88 for tafseer.

In these verses, the Qur’an once again presents the principles of مبدء و معاد, the manifestations of Divine power in the cosmos, and certain events associated with the Day of Resurrection. It states: “أَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا جَعَلْنَا اللَّيْلَ لِيَسْكُنُوا فِيهِ وَالنَّهَارَ مُبْصِرًا”. Have they not observed that We made the night for their repose and the day as a source of illumination? Indeed, within these phenomena lie clear signs and evidences of Divine power and blessing for those who possess faith. This is neither the first nor the last instance in which the Qur’an addresses the life‑giving features of night and day and the system of light and darkness. The reason is that the Qur’an is a book of guidance and human formation, and effective education often requires repetition of central themes in varied contexts so that they may be firmly internalized. The tranquility derived from the darkness of night is an established empirical reality; it not only halts daily activities but also exerts a profound influence upon the human nervous system, enabling rest and deep sleep, which the Qur’an terms “سكون”. Likewise, the luminosity of the day is intrinsically linked with activity and motion; sunlight not only illuminates the environment but also energizes the human organism at all levels. This verse highlights an aspect of “توحید ربوبی”, emphasizing that the true object of worship is the One who regulates and administers the order of existence. It thereby calls for the rejection of false deities and invites reconsideration of polytheistic beliefs. It also implies that human beings should align their lives with this natural order—resting at night and engaging in activity during the day—to maintain well‑being. The expression “مبصرًا” is noteworthy, as it attributes visibility to the day itself rather than to the observer, thereby reinforcing the idea that daylight is a means through which perception and activity are enabled. Although this verse directly concerns توحید, it also alludes subtly to معاد, since sleep resembles death and awakening resembles revival after death. The subsequent verse explicitly addresses the events of resurrection: “وَيَوْمَ يُنفَخُ فِي الصُّورِ فَفَزِعَ...”. When the trumpet is blown, all beings in the heavens and the earth will be seized with terror, except those whom God wills to spare, and all will appear before Him in a state of submission. From the broader corpus of Qur’anic verses, it is understood that the blowing of the trumpet (نفخ صور) occurs in multiple stages—associated with the upheaval of the world, the cessation of life, and the resurrection of the dead. The term “فزع” denotes an overwhelming fear that shakes the entire being, and in this context it is associated with the initial stage of cosmic upheaval. The exception “إِلَّا مَن شَاءَ اللَّهُ” refers to purified beings—whether angels or believers—who remain secure under Divine protection. The following verse presents another sign of Divine power: “وَتَرَى الْجِبَالَ تَحْسَبُهَا جَامِدَةً وَهِيَ تَمُرُّ مَرَّ السَّحَابِ”. At first glance, mountains appear stationary, yet they are in motion like clouds. This is identified as “صُنْعَ اللَّهِ الَّذِي أَتْقَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ”, the precise and perfected creation of God, reflecting a system governed by exact order and awareness. Exegesis has offered two principal interpretations of this verse. One associates it with the transformations of the Day of Resurrection, when mountains will disintegrate and move. The other interprets it as a reference to phenomena within the present world, indicating the motion of the earth itself, which carries mountains along while they appear stationary to human perception. Several contextual indicators suggest that the latter interpretation is more consistent with the verse’s language: the comparison with cloud movement, the implication of subtle motion, and the use of “أَتْقَنَ”, which denotes order rather than destruction. Thus, the verse may be understood as pointing to the continuous motion of the earth, an insight later articulated in scientific discourse. Regardless of the interpretive perspective, the passage underscores Divine wisdom and the structured nature of creation. Consequently, the verses integrate themes of توحید and معاد: they call attention to observable signs in the natural order, affirm the reality of resurrection, and emphasize that God is fully aware of human actions. The concluding statement—“إِنَّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَفْعَلُونَ”—serves as both a reminder and a warning that no deed escapes Divine knowledge.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to the deeds of human beings and God’s awareness of those deeds. In the verses under consideration, the discussion begins with the reward for righteous actions and the security of the virtuous from the terrors of the Day of Resurrection. It is stated: “مَن جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ خَيْرٌ مِّنْهَا وَهُم مِّن فَزَعٍ يَوْمَئِذٍ آمِنُونَ”. Those who perform righteous deeds will receive a recompense better than their deeds, and on that day they will remain secure from fear. What is meant by “حسنة”? Exegetes have presented various interpretations. Some have held that it refers to the declaration of monotheism—“لا اله الا الله”—and faith in God. Others have interpreted it as an indication of the wilāyah of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām). In support of this view, a number of narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt are cited. Among these is a report from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), who stated: “الحسنه معرفة الولاية و حبنا أهل البيت و السیئة انكار الولایة و بغضنا اهل البیت”. Thus, “حسنة” signifies recognition of the wilāyah and love of the Ahl al‑Bayt, while “سیئة” signifies denial of that wilāyah and hostility toward them (Uṣūl al‑Kāfī, as cited in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 104). However, as has been repeatedly emphasized, the meanings of Qur’anic expressions are often expansive. Here, both “حسنة” and “سیئة” encompass all forms of good and evil, with recognition of Divine authority and loyalty to righteous leadership being among the foremost expressions of goodness. This does not preclude other righteous deeds from also being included within the scope of the verse. Some raise the question that the term “خير” appears to imply a reward greater than faith itself. The response is that Divine رضوان, that is, God’s pleasure, is superior even to the act of faith, since all acts of goodness serve as means toward attaining that ultimate رضى. Another question concerns verses which indicate that all people will be encompassed by fear on the Day of Resurrection. The response is provided in Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ 103, which clarifies that the righteous believers will be secure from the great terror of that day. This security pertains specifically to the ultimate dread associated with judgment and punishment. In contrast, the fate of evildoers is described: “وَمَن جَاءَ بِالسَّيِّئَةِ فَكُبَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ فِي النَّارِ”. They will be cast face‑down into the Fire. The phrase “كُبَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ” emphasizes the severity of the punishment, as being thrown down in such a manner signifies degradation. This corresponds to their conduct in worldly life, where they turned their faces away from truth and embraced wrongdoing. The statement: “هَلْ تُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ” indicates that this punishment is a direct outcome of their own actions. In the concluding verses, the address turns to the Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam), emphasizing that his duty is to fulfill his mission irrespective of whether people accept or reject the message. It is declared: “إِنَّمَا أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَعْبُدَ رَبَّ هَٰذِهِ الْبَلْدَةِ”. He is commanded to worship the Lord of this sacred city, Makkah, which has been endowed with sanctity. It is further stated: “وَأُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ”، indicating complete submission to Divine command. The means of fulfilling these responsibilities is also specified: “وَأَنْ أَتْلُوَ الْقُرْآنَ”. Through recitation and reflection upon the Qur’an, guidance is attained, and deviation is avoided. It is then clarified that guidance ultimately benefits the individual: “فَمَنِ اهْتَدَى فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ”. Conversely, deviation harms only the one who deviates: “وَمَن ضَلَّ فَقُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ”. The role of the Prophet is to convey warning, while accountability rests with each individual. The sūrah concludes with a call to praise God: “وَقُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ”. This praise may be understood as gratitude for the نعمة of guidance and revelation. It is followed by the assurance: “سَيُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ فَتَعْرِفُونَهَا”، indicating that Divine signs will continually be revealed, and human understanding of them will increase over time. Finally, the warning is given: “وَمَا رَبُّكَ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ”. God is never unaware of human actions, and any delay in punishment should not be interpreted as neglect or ignorance. This statement, repeated in multiple places in the Qur’an, serves as a comprehensive admonition to all humanity.