Surah As-Saffat 37:75-113 - Quran Translation Commentary

(37:102) Then, when he was of age of exertion with him, he said, ‘O my little son! I see indeed, in my sleep,⁷³ that I am slaughtering you.⁷⁴ So, consider, what is your view!’⁷⁵ He said, ‘O my father! Do as you are ordered. You shall find me, Allah willing, of the steadfast.‘

(37:103) So, when the two had submitted, and he had laid him down on his forehead,

(37:104) We called out to him, ‘O Ibrahim,

(37:105) You have fulfilled the (purpose of the) vision. Thus indeed We reward those who excel.

(37:106) Surely, this indeed was a clear test.’

(37:107) And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice.⁷⁶

(37:108) And left for him (a good word) among the later folk.

(37:109) Peace upon Ibrahim.

(37:110) Thus indeed We reward those who do excel.

(37:111) He was surely (one) of Our believing slaves.

(37:112) And We gave him the glad tiding of Is-haq: a Prophet, one of the righteous.

(37:113) And We blessed him and Is-haq; but of the progeny of the two (is one who is a) well-doer, and (another who is) a clear wrong-doer unto himself.⁷⁷

Commentary

59. So that, the whole of the humanity today can be traced back to Nuh (Ibn Jarir).

It is believed that the progeny of others that were with Nuh in the ship did not survive (Zamakhshari). This has been reported as a statement of Ibn `Abbas. However, others have thought that those others that were with Nuh in the boat also left behind their progeny. They based their opinion on (17: 3)".. progeny of those whom We carried in the boat” (Qurtubi).

Tirmidhi has a report (of Hasan status: Au.), as also Ahmad, that the Prophet said about the progeny of Nuh that they were Sam, Ham and Yafeth. According to another report, also in Tirmidhi, and narrated by Samurah b. Jundub (but weak: Au.), the Prophet said,“Sam is the progenitor of the Arabs, Yafeth of the Romans, and Ham of the Africans.” Yafeth is also pronounced Yafet as well as Yafeth (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir). Alusi points out that Hakim declared the above hadith as trustworthy.

It might be noted that the above report does not say anything about other sons of Nuh, nor about the progeny of others who were with him. Alusi accepts the notion that the Flood might not have been universal and hence, other races in other regions of the world could have remained unaffected (Au.).

60. The words in parenthesis reflect the understanding of Qatadah and Suddi as in Ibn Jarir; and of Ibn `Abbas as in Ibn Kathir.

61. Some commentators have understood the two verses in the following manner: And (We) left for him among the later folk: Peace upon Nuh in the worlds (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

62. The textual word “shi`a” has been understood by `Ibn `Abbas as “religion,” by Mujahid as “way,” and by Qatadah as “religion and nation” (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi and others).

The ayah expresses the same meaning as in the following (21: 92),“Surely, this religion of yours is one religion and I am your Lord, therefore, worship Me (alone)” – Shabbir.

63. Qatadah and Suddi (as also Muqatil and Kalbi: Razi) said that by a “sound heart” the allusion is to one free of Association (shirk). Mujahid however believed it meant free of doubts (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi). Scholars have said that Ibrahim (asws) lived and died with a clean heart, free of every contamination of sin which would include Association, doubts, dishonesty, deceit, hatred and envy (Razi, Alusi).

64. While most scholars have understood Ibrahim’s glance at the stars as something to do with his utterance thereafter, Alusi has the intelligence to point out that there is no reason to connect them. People do different things while thinking. (Some scratch their heads, another holds his beard, another looks deeply at an object: Au.). So, it is possible that Ibrahim was pondering over a proper answer, and in his deep thought looked at the stars. They assumed he was consulting them.

Alusi also devotes several pages to the question of effects brought by stars and planets on human beings, and the knowledge thereof. He concludes by quoting Sheikh al-Akbar, presenting his statements almost as the last word on the subject, and which, according to him, is in agreement with what star-gazers and astronomers have to say concerning the issue. Needless to say that what he quotes from “Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah,” demands a good amount of naivety for acceptance. One is amazed at the credulity he accords to the quoted passages, despite the fact that not a line of it was ever uttered by any of the Companions, not even by the architect of the “Futuhat `Umariyyah” whose “Ya Sariyatu: al-jabal” was instrumental, at the spiritual plane, in bringing about the “futuhat” that led millions to Islam. Do we have a better example of the immense spiritual and moral influence wielded by a single individual, which deserve that he be remembered by the appellation Sheikh al-Akbar, if such appellations have to be taken seriously? (Au.).

65. An alternative translation could be, as pointed out by Razi and others, “I am about to get sick.” The language supports this.

(Like pagans of all times, including quite a few with similar leanings in the modern West), Ibrahim’s people were firm believers in astrology. When he looked at them, they assumed he was consulting the stars and constellations, and had read his destiny that he was about to fall sick (Zamkhshari and others).

There have been differences in opinion among the ancient commentators over what Ibrahim meant by saying he was unwell; but they all agreed that consultation of the stars was a common practice among his people; and, therefore, he cast a glance at the stars, as if consulting, and declared that either he was sick or going to be so. What sickness was it that he meant? Neither the Qur’an nor prophetic traditions say anything about it. Ibn `Abbas, Dahhak, and Ibn Is-haq, perhaps influenced by the verse which follows, said that he meant he had plague, a fearful disease and hence they hastily retreated. Others however took the word in its general sense of being unwell. In any case, this was one of the three lies that Ibrahim had spoken, as confirmed by a hadith (Ibn Jarir).

Writes Ibn Kathir: This is one of those three lies that have been attributed to Ibrahim (asws), the reports about which are preserved in Sahih and Sunan compilations. However, they were not lies in the literal sense that draw people’s rebuke, but only metaphorically or figuratively so, for, they were in Allah’s cause, as in a hadith. “Surely, in indirect suggestions there is escape from lies.”

(Its authenticity could not be established. The author of Kanz traces it to Bayhaqi and ibn `Adiyy in his Kamil but without passing his judgment. Haythami traces it in Tabarani, but taking it up to `Imran b. Hussain only, and remarks that all the narrators up to him are those of the Sahih works: Au.).

Alusi points out that we have a comparable situation in the Qur’an, although not exactly the same, when the belongings of Yusuf’s brothers were searched earlier than Bin Yamin’s, although they knew that it could not be with his brothers. See Surah Yusuf, ayah 76.

Shabbir adds that we have another example in the hadith, of how in life-threatening situations, one could use what is known as “tawriyyah”, feigning to be speaking of one thing, but actually meaning another. E.g., during the Hijrah journey (when the Prophet carried the prize of a hundred camels on his head), whenever someone asked Abu Bakr as to who his companion was, he would say,“A man who will show me the way.” He meant to say that his companion was a religious guide while the listener thought he was a professional guide (through the deserts and mountains).

66. Ibrahim’s folk had come to take him along to celebrations of a day of feast, having known from past experience that Ibrahim stayed away from such festivals. Ibrahim pretended that he was unwell, and, from the words he used they assumed that it as one of the contagious diseases, and so retreated hastily. But of course, there could have been other reasons for a hasty retreat, one, e.g., that they were already late for the functions (Au.).

67. The pagan practice of food offerings to deities lasts to this day (Au.).

68. Ibrahim had a history of disparaging their deities. Therefore, when they saw them broken down, the first suspicion fell on him and so they went to him in haste to investigate the truth. Perhaps they would have met people on the way who would have told them (21: 60),“We have heard of a young man mentioning them (disparagingly). He is called Ibrahim” (Zamakhshari).

For those who have not seen the emotional attachment of idol-worshippers to their idols, it will be hard to imagine their chagrin at seeing them in a broken heap. They can be in tears - although they can buy another (sometimes a foreign made, better looking one). In contrast, when our neighborhood mosque was burnt down by a crowd of non-Muslim rioters (while Muslims were Praying inside), no Muslim, not even the regular worshippers, were in tears. Of course they were angry, but they said, “Well, we will build it again.” Of course, mosques are not idols, but one can imagine the emotional response to the destruction of a temple, instead of an idol. It finds its place in historical works. (Au.).

69. That is, what you make of the idols.

70. That is, “I shall migrate in obedience of my Lord’s command” (Razi, Qurtubi).

It is said that from Babylon he migrated to Palestine, perhaps halting for sometime at Harran (based on Qurtubi).

71. Ibrahim must have made this supplication several years later, perhaps when he was in Syria, for he was a mere youth when cast into the fire (Au.).

72. That is, Isma`il, who was Ibrahim’s first son, but whom the Israelites do not acknowledge as the “first-born” because, according to them, it is only the first son from a free wife that wins the title, while, and although Isma`il was the first son of Ibrahim, he was of a slave-girl Hajirah. Hence, according to the Israelites, Isaac was offered for sacrifice since the Bible speaks of the “first-born”, which could only have been Isaac – Isma`il being the elder but not the “first-born” of their Scriptures (Au.).

In fact, writes Shabbir, Isma`il was so named because he was bestowed when Ibrahim’s prayer was heard. In Hebrew, “sam`” means to hear, and “ail” means God. Says the Torah:

“And as for Ish’-ma-el, I have heard thee: Behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exeedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation (Gen. 17: 20).”

73. Dreams of the Prophets are true (Ibn Jarir), except that, Ibn Hajr adds in Fat-h, they need to be interpreted (Au.).

Ibn Kathir adds: Abu Hatim in fact has a hadith to this effect:“Dreams that Prophets see in sleep are revelations.”

The above hadith provides (Haythami said about a different version in Tabarani that it is weak), its own authenticity test. Had it been a fabricated one, the fabricator would have said:“Dream that Prophets see are revelations”

But the Prophetic statement above adds: “in the sleep.” That is, not those that all humans see – and Prophets are humans – while awake, i.e., “day-dreams” (Au.).

74. Despite the fact that after narrating the episode of sacrifice, the Qur’an says, in verse 112 below, “And We gave him the glad tiding of Is-haq,” Ibn Jarir held the opinion that the “offering” was Is-haq and reports about `Abdullah ibn Ma`ud, `Abbas ibn `Abdul Muttalib, his son `Abbas, Abu Hurayrah, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, Masruq, Ka`b al-Ahbar as of those who held the same opinion. But he also reports some of the above authorities as well as some others as of opinion that the one offered for slaughter was Isma`il. Ibn `Umar, Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Hasan, Muhammad b. Ka`b al-Qurazi, Sha`bi, Ibn Mahran and others figure here. He presents no less than 11 reports which say that it was Isma`il whom Ibrahim had intended to sacrifice. Muhammad b. Is-haq said that he heard Ka`b al-Qurazi (a former Jew) assert this several times. And, this is supported by ayah 112 of this Surah itself which says, “And We gave him the glad tiding of Is-haq: a Prophet, one of the righteous.” Ibn Jarir also reports that `Umar ibn `Abdul `Aziz was of some doubt regarding this until he heard that a learned Jew had converted to Islam in Syria. After conversion he had proven to be a true and punctilious Muslim. Ka`b al-Qurazi says he was present when `Umar ibn `Abdul `Aziz asked him about which of the two he thought was the one offered for sacrificed. He said, without any hesitation that it was Isma`il and that this was written in Tawrah but modified by the Jews out of jealousy. Ibn Jarir also reports the following hadith (as also in Kashshaf):Sunaabihi says we were with Mu`awiyyah b. Abu Sufyan when they mentioned the “offering,” whether it was Isma`il or Is-haq. Mu`awiyyah said, “You have fallen on the right man. We were with the Prophet when a man came in and said, ‘Give me some out of what Allah has bestowed on you, O son of the two slaughtered ones.’ The Prophet smiled broadly.” We asked (Mu`awiyyah), “O Leader of the faithful, what’s this son of the two slaughtered ones?” He replied, “When `Abd al-Muttalib was asked to dig up the Zamzam well, he vowed to Allah that if He made the affair easy for him, he would slaughter one of his sons. The draw fell on `Abdullah (the Prophet’s father). His uncles said no to the slaughter, telling him, ‘Offer instead 100 camels.’ So, he sacrificed 100 camels. (That was one). The second was Isma`il.”

(The report was preserved by Hakim also. But Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and Alusi [who quotes Iraqi] do not believe in its trustworthiness: Au.).

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the majority opinion, Ibn Jarir maintains the opinion that it was Is-haq who was offered for sacrifice, and the place of sacrifice was Palestine. With regard to the horns of the ram (bestowed on Ibrahim for sacrifice in lieu of his son), that had remained in the Ka`bah (“I saw the two hung near the Meezaab, gone pretty dry”: Ibn `Abbas – Tabari), he thinks it could have been brought here from Palestine. But this does not seem plausible. Jews would not have allowed the horns to be taken away from them. As for verse 112 which speaks of Is-haq only after the sacrifice affair is over (“and We gave him the glad tiding of Is-haq)”, meaning, he came later, Ibn Jarir has an explanation that does not sound too strong and hence we ignore it (Au.).

Razi is also unsure about the “offering” – especially in face of the authorities holding a different opinion – but seems inclined to believe that if we are to go by the apparent text, it could only have bee Isma`il. Qurtubi prefers to keep himself uncommitted. He presents arguments of both the sides and sees that both the arguments are inconclusive. Alusi quotes Jalaluddin Suyuti as saying that he was once inclined to believing that it was Is-haq who was offered for sacrifice until he looked into the arguments after which the inclination was gone and he came to conclude that it was Isma’il who was offered for sacrifice. Some scholars (as mentioned by Khifaji) have thought that a good ground for Is-haq being the person is established by the opinion held by the peoples of the Book who seem to be unanimous that it was Is-haq. In fact, moved by the evidences in favor of Is-haq, some have conjectured that the sacrifice could have been offered twice: once in Syria and a second time in Makkah. But this sounds like a far-fetched conjecture.

Ibn Kathir believes that those who identified the “offering” as Is-haq were influenced by Jewish reports that somehow spread among the Salaf. They did not have a hadith to this effect, but (unprejudiced as they were: Au.), they accepted the reports as plausible and circulated them among themselves without any reservation. Otherwise, the Qur’an is very clear about the identity of the “offering” by first mentioning the good news about a “forbearing” son, and then of a second son naming him as Is-haq. We have a report in Ahmed which says,The above can be summarized as: “The Prophet once told `Uthman b. Talha (who was handed over the keys of the Ka`ba at the fall of Makkah: Au.), ‘I saw two horns when I went inside the House (Ka`ba), but forgot to tell you to cover them up for it is not right that there should be anything in the House that distracts attention of the devotees.’” Sufyan (the narrator) added, “The two horns had remained hung in the House until the House once caught fire and burnt, along with the two horns which were also reduced to ashes.”

At all events, continues Ibn Kathir, although Abu Maysarah, Thawri, Abu Hudhayl, Ibn `Abbas, his father `Abbas, `Ali and `Umar b. al-Khattab have thought that it was Is-haq who was offered for sacrifice; and that a trustworthy report tells us that Ibn Mas`ud held the same opinion; which is also the reported opinion of `Ikrimah, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Sha`bi, Ibn `Umayr, Zayd b. Aslam, Zuhri, Ibn Abi Barzah, Mak-hul, Suddi, Hasan, Qatadah, Masruq, `Ata’, Muqatil and others; yet, it is very likely that these reports originated from Ka`b al-Ahbar and his kind of people, who picked them from Jewish scriptures, and which gained currency. There is in fact a hadith too to the effect that the “offering” was Is-haq. But it is untrustworthy. On the other hand, many of the authorities named above, as also several others, are reported to have said that the one offered for sacrifice was Isma’il. Ibn `Abbas for example has been severally reported that the Jews lied when they said Is-haq was the “offering;” it was rather Isma`il. Of the two conflicting reports from him, this one happens to be stronger in terms of chain of narrators. This was also the reported opinion of Mujahid, Sha`bi, Abu Saleh, Kalbi, Yusuf b. Mahran, Hasan al-Busri, Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, `Umar ibn `Abdul `Aziz (who inquired a newly converted Jew who said the Jews lied when they claimed that it was Is-haq), Ka`b al-Qurazi, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn `Umar and `Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Of the Hadith doctors Ibn Hanbal and Abu Hatim were of the opinion that the “offering” was Isma`il (Au.).

Shawkani, as also many other commentators see three Qur’anic verses as confirming that Isma`il was the offering. Allah said (21: 85):“And (remember) Isma`il, Idris and Dhu al-Kifl; they were all of the persevering ones.”

In this ayah he has been described as “persevering” which quality he manifested when taken for slaughter.

(In fact, “halim” was an outstanding quality of Ibrahim and Isma`il and have been employed in the Qur’an for none but the two: Shabbir).

He also said about him (19: 54) “He was true of promise,” which refers to his keeping of the promise which he made to his father when told that he wished to slaughter him. (This quality has also been reserved in the Qur’an for Isma`il: Au.).

A third Qur’anic verse supporting the view about Isma`il is in this chapter itself. The Qur’an says, after the affair of the slaughter (37: 112),“And We gave him the glad tiding of Is-haq: a Prophet, one of the righteous.” How could the good news about Is-haq come if he was already there at the time of sacrifice? Secondly, this verse says that he will be a Prophet. Now, if Ibrahim was already told that Isma`il would be a Prophet, how could he be asked to slaughter him? Surely, he would have asked, “Here I am my Lord! But, have you not promised that the lad will be a Prophet?”

Mufti Shafi` points to weakness in Jewish claims, in the light of nothing else but the Torah itself. It is said in Genesis (22: 1-2),

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, ‘Abraham’: and he said, ‘Behold, here I am.’ And he said, ‘Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and get you into the land of Mori‘ah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you of.’”

(The Jews have used considerable ingenuity to locate Mori’ah in Palestine but with little success. Marwah (the Mount) sounds closest to Mori’ah. It is at Marwah that Hajj sacrifices were offered, as stated by the Prophet in a tradition documented in Muwatta’. This is the hill at which the Sa`ee ends and the likely original place for offering the sacrifice. But, perhaps, because of crowds the place of sacrifice was shifted to nearby Mina (in whose valleys there is enough space for shepherds and goatherds to bring their flock for sale: Au.). Who knows there might be a hint to this in the preceding verse which says,“When he reached Sa`ee (spot) with him”).

In any case, it can be clearly seen in the above that Isaac is a later insertion since the first verse asserts, “thy only son;” since the Torah also tells us that Isma`il was born (14 years: ref. Gen., 16: 15 below) before Isaac, and hence Isaac was “not the only son.” In an earlier chapter Genesis it said (16: 1-2),

“Now Sar’ai Abrams wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sar’ai said unto Abram, ‘Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee go in unto my maid; It may be that I may obtain childeren by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sar’ai.’

Abram accepted the offer and so, the Torah continues,

“And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” (Gen., 16:4),

The Torah adds,

“And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.” (Gen., 16: 15)

However, Sarah was not deprived of blessing. Abraham received the following message after Isma`il’s birth:

“And God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sar’ai your wife, you shall not call her name Sar’ai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover give you a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.’ Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?’”

The Torah adds,

“And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed; and you shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” (Gen., 16: 19)

Mufti Shafi` has not been quicker than the Jews to discover the discripency. They say therefore (in the interest of a tribal religion: Yusuf Ali), that since Ishmael was not of a free woman, but a slave, he could not become the first-born. Isaac was the first son (although second by birth) because he was born of a free woman. The ingenuity does not solve the problem wholly in view of the words “the only son.” This problem can be solved by declaring Isaac not only the “first-born” but also “the only” son. But in that event, the Torah cannot be put to service because in several places it refers to Ishmael as a son of Abram. (After initially referring to Ibrahim as Abram, God commanded him to change his name to Abraham: ref. Gen., 17: 5). In fact, Isma`il was “the only son” at the time Ibrahim was ordered the slaughter. Thus, on close scrutiny, the theory that Is-haq was the offering – although supported by no less than seven of the Companions, albeit some of them reported as having a second opinion – fails to win approval.

The Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam, which blackens pages on articles of little or no interest and profit, completely ignores both the discrepecy in the Bible, as well as the arguments offered by the Muslim scholars. It quotes Ibn Jarir, but ignores Ibn Kathir. It accuses the Prophet of being initially ignorant of the father-son relationship between Ibrahim and Isma`il:

“These (Qur’anic: Au.) references to Isma`el and others are, in each case, part of a larger context in which more men of antiquity are mentioned. Each time, at either a lesser or greater distance before Isma`il, Abraham (Ibrahim) is also praised as one of the earlier men. Nowhere, however, is a direct link established between Abraham and Isma`il, so that it must be assumed that originally Muhammad was not well informed about the relationship between Abraham and Ishmael, as at that time he seems to have counted Jacob, not Isma`il as another son of Abrahm together with Isaac (XIX, 49; XXI, 72; XXIX, 27; VI, 84; XI, 71).” (Art.: Isma`il)

As if the above temerity is not enough, it gives a new twist to the issue. Discussing Ishak, it states:

“Actually the controversy came to be more concerned with Persian than with [IV:110a] Jewish rivalry for the Arabs (Goldziher, Muh. St., i, 144 f., Eng. tr., i, 135), since the Persians claimed descent from Ishak. Al-Mas`udi (Murudj, ii, 146 f.) quotes a Persian poet in 290/902 who boasted that his descent from Isaac the dhabih was superior to that of the Arabs.”

So, an unknown Persian poet’s boast (drunk on his words), 300 years after the Prophet was enough to prove, firstly, that the narrative is fully trustworthy, (as against the Hadith, which is always untrustworthy), and secondly, that the Persians now become cousins of the Jews. One wonders whether this was ever suggested, in any scholarly work, to the Jews, or, it has been manufactured for the consumption of Iranians alone (Au.).

75. He was perhaps not seeking his opinion, but rather informing him, in the Middle-eastern style, of his intention to slaughter him (Au., with a point from Zamakhshari).

76. The substitute was a ram (male sheep, which, as some thought, came from Paradise, which explains the qualification “great”) or perhaps a mountain goat. The earliest commentators said that when Ibrahim took Isma`il for sacrifice and headed towards Mina, Shaytan appeared before him at Jamarah al-`Aqabah (to dissuade him) but he waved him off. He reappeared at Jamarah al-Wusta and he waved him off again. Then, as he intended to proceed with the slaughter, Isma`il told him, “Father. I have no shirt other than this. I should rather remove it so that you can use it as my coffin.” As he was removing his shirt, (or, as Suddi said, Ibrahim was trying to run his knife over his neck) they heard (37: 104-05),“O Ibrahim, You have fulfilled the vision.” They turned to find a ram which was duly slaughtered.

The report about the knife not cutting, is in Ibn al-Mundhir and Hakim who declared it trustworthy (Alusi).

The above, it might be noted, is the Salaf’s own statements, which, although they are likely to have been heard from the Prophet, are not ahadith per se (Au.).

77. Thus writes Muhammad Asad, a former Jew, “With this prediction the Qur’an refutes, as in so many other places, the spurious contention of the Jews that they are ‘the chosen people’, by virtue of their descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and therefore, a priori ‘assured’, as it were, of God’s acceptance. In other words, God’s blessing a prophet or saint does not, by itself, imply the conferment of any special status on his descendants.”