Text copied Link copied

Al-Fatawa – home

﴿ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

Scholar
Search mode

Continuation of the explanation of the saying of Allah the Exalted: (( ... his staff devoured it, and when he fell, the jinn became aware that if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in the humiliating punishment

Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Allah the Exalted said:
his staff devoured it تأكله منسأته
with the hamzah and its omission as an alif, meaning there are two readings in it.
his term of respite منسأته
The second reading is to make the hamzah an alif, i.e.,
his staff (with alif) منساته
For this reason, he said: "with the hamzah and its omission" But if we omit it, it becomes an alif with an alif, because it is from *nasa'* (to drive away), to drive away and to deter with it.
The student : ......?

The Shaykh : I do not have it, and to deter.
Yes, it seems the author (may Allah have mercy on him) wants to clarify the derivation of this word and that it is from *nasa'* (driving away), i.e., driving away and deterring. For a person deters with his staff by striking with it the one to whom the address is directed, and drives away with it by hitting. This indicates that the word is Arabic, but some exegetes say that the word is not Arabic and that it is from speech that was Arabized. If the word is from Arabized speech, then it is not derived from Arabic. Every word that has a derivation from Arabic is Arabic. In any case, getting out of this is easy. The important thing is that the *mansa'ah* is the staff with which something is driven away and deterred.
and when he fell فَلَمَّا خَرّ
dead
the jinn became awareَ تَبَيَّنَتِ الْجِنُّ
The sentence, as you see, is a conditional sentence, and the conditional particle in it is
Lamma لما
. It has passed us that *lamma* comes with several meanings: it can be conditional, it can be for negation, it can mean "except," and the fourth is that it can be an adverb meaning "when." Here it is used conditionally, as evidenced by the fact that a condition and its answer followed it, which is
But when he fell, it became clear فلما خر تبين
[Saba 34:14]
. It is negative, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Rather, they have not yet tasted My punishment. بَلْ لَمَّا يَذُوقُوا عَذَابِ
[Sad: 8], meaning they have not tasted the punishment. It comes to mean "except" as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
There is no soul but that it has over it a protector. إِنْ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ لَمَّا عَلَيْهَا حَافِظٌ
[Al-Tariq: 4], meaning except that upon it is a guardian. It comes to mean "when," i.e., as an adverb, like if you say: "You honored me when you visited me," meaning when you visited me. So, it comes in four ways.
The jinn realized تبينت الجن
became apparent تبينت
meaning they knew and it became apparent to them, and the author explained it by his saying: "it was revealed to them".
that أَنْ
is a light *an*, meaning that they
if they had known the unseen لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ الْغَيْبَ
[Saba 34:14]
.
that أن
is a light form from which? From the heavy *an*. And when the heavy *an* is lightened, it is obligatory to delete its subject, and its predicate becomes a sentence. So here the predicate is
if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained in humiliating punishment. لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ الْغَيْبَ مَا لَبِثُوا فِي الْعَذَابِ الْمُهِينِ
[Saba 34:14]
, and its parsing is that you say:
that أن
is a light *an* from the heavy *an*, its subject is the hidden pronoun of the matter, and the sentence
if they had known the unseen لو كانوا يعلمون الغيب
[Saba 34:14]
is in the position of being raised as its predicate... And in the author's saying: "that they" is a reference to what we previously said that the pronoun of the matter should be appropriate to the context; it can be singular, it can be plural, it can be for the absent, and it can be for the addressed, contrary to what most grammarians are upon, where they estimate it as singular for the absent and say: "that he", i.e., the state. Yes.
if they had known the unseen, they would not have remained لو كانوا يعلمون الغيب ما لبثوا
[Saba 34:14]
if لو
is conditional, and its answer is
they would not have lingered ما لبثوا
. *Law* comes as conditional, it comes as nominal, and it comes to mean "as" (like *waw* of conjunction). It also comes as conditional like this verse and like if you say: "If you had visited me, I would have honored you." It comes as nominal when it comes after *waw* of conjunction, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
They wish that you would soften [in your position], so they would soften [toward you]. وَدُّوا لَوْ تُدْهِنُ فَيُدْهِنُونَ
[Al-Qalam: 9], meaning you are delaying. And this is only two meanings. So, here it is conditional, and the condition verb in it is...
The student: ....

The Shaykh : No, the condition verb is
they knew كانوا يعلمون
and its answer is
they would not have remained in humiliating punishment. ما لبثوا في العذاب المهين
[Saba 34:14]
.
if they had known the unseen لو كانوا يعلمون الغيب
[Saba 34:14]
And from it is what was hidden from them regarding the death of Sulayman.
they would not have remained in humiliating punishment. ما لبثوا في العذاب المهين
[Saba 34:14]
The hard labor for them due to their assumption of his life, contrary to their assumption of knowledge of the unseen. So, this is clear, because if they had known the unseen, they would have known that he died before he fell due to his staff being devoured. Perhaps they assumed or claimed that they knew the unseen, so Allah the Exalted wanted to clarify their state to them and to others, and that they do not know the unseen, even though the unseen that occurred here is not absolute unseen, but relative unseen, because one who was very close to Sulayman might know that he died. The author says: "And from it is what was hidden from them regarding the death of Sulayman
they would not have lingered ما لبثوا
, meaning they did not remain
humiliating punishment. في العذاب المهين
[Saba 34:14]
which brought upon them humiliation and disgrace. And the author said: "
The hard labor due to their assumption of his life, contrary to their assumption of knowledge of the unseen, meaning they assumed they knew the unseen, so when he fell dead, it became apparent to them that they did not know the unseen. He said: And knowledge of it being a year by calculating what the earth ate of the staff in a day and night, for example. This is an answer to what was said that he remained for a year dead and it was not known. It is as if someone said: What informed you that it was a year? They said: We knew that by calculation, because we calculated what the earth ate in a day and night of the staff, and we measured by it what had passed. For example, if it ate, say, a centimeter in a day and night, we knew that it ate three hundred and sixty centimeters in a year, and we knew this from the length of the staff. But this is not actually certain, because it may eat more today than it ate yesterday, or the opposite. And even to say: also, who said that it ate this amount in a day and night so that by it what had passed was known? It needs evidence. For this reason, the correct thing is what we previously said that we have no need to estimate the duration, what? The duration that Sulayman remained, and that such matters are not relied upon or depended upon unless it comes from the Lawgiver, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or it comes in the Book of Allah. As for what comes from the Children of Israel in such matters, we say we stand back from it; we do not affirm it and we do not deny it.
Source alathar.net

The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.

Similar fatwas