سَيَقولونَ ثَلاثَةٌ رابِعُهُم كَلبُهُم وَيَقولونَ خَمسَةٌ سادِسُهُم كَلبُهُم رَجمًا بِالغَيبِ ۖ وَيَقولونَ سَبعَةٌ وَثامِنُهُم كَلبُهُم ۚ قُل رَبّي أَعلَمُ بِعِدَّتِهِم ما يَعلَمُهُم إِلّا قَليلٌ ۗ فَلا تُمارِ فيهِم إِلّا مِراءً ظاهِرًا وَلا تَستَفتِ فيهِم مِنهُم أَحَدًا

They will say: ‘[They are] three, their dog is the fourth of them.’ They will say: ‘[They are] five, their dog is the sixth of them,’ taking a shot at the invisible. They will say: ‘[They are] seven, and their dog is the eighth of them.’ Say: ‘My Lord knows best their number, and none knows them except a few.’ So do not dispute concerning them, except for a seeming dispute, and do not question about them any of them.

EXEGESIS

Sayaqūlūna (they will say) is prefixed by the article sa, which indicates that something will happen in the near future. Only the first yaqūlūna is prefixed in such a manner, but the others are included in it by the article wa. In effect, God is declaring that shortly after the revelation of this surah, you will see the various factions of the People of the Book disagree amongst each other about the number of the People of the Cave.[1]

Rajman bil-ghayb (taking a shot at the invisible): rajm is to fling a stone[2] and ghayb is that which is hidden from a person.[3] It means guesswork, or to say with conviction about something of which you do not possess any actual knowledge,[4] like in the verse, They shoot at the invisible (yaqdhifūna bil-ghayb) from a far-off place (34:53), like a blindfolded man throwing a stone into a the dark, having no idea what he has hit, or if he has hit. Baseless speculation about matters of which one cannot hope to have any knowledge is considered rajman bil-ghayb. The English equivalent of this expression would be ‘a shot in the dark’.

Mirāʾan ẓāhiran (seeming dispute): mirāʾ is a verbal noun from miryah which literally means to stroke a camel’s udder in order to get milk out of it.[5] Thereafter, it is used for discussions from which one wishes to achieve a desired result. A more inclusive meaning is an exercise in something in order to extract something out it, materially or morally.[6] This is somewhat similar to the English expression ‘to milk something’. Miryah is also used for hesitation and is more specific in its meaning than shakk (doubt). Imtirāʾ and mumārāt is used for debate about an issue in which there is some miryah.[7]

As mentioned in verse 20, ẓāhir means that which is apparent. It can also have the meaning of overcoming, such as in the verse, He may make it prevail (yuẓhira) over all religions (61:9). Here it means that which God has made apparent to the Prophet through revelation;[8] do not add anything to that and do not delve into the issue more than that, going into unnecessary debates.[9] Since he is instructed to speak regarding that which has been revealed to him, unlike his opponents his arguments are based on evidence and thus will overcome. See also the commentary on verse 29:46.

Tastafti (question) comes from the same root as fatā, or young man, as explained in verse 10. An opinion is called a fatwā or futyā because it is expressing a view about something new, as if it is in the state of youthhood.[10] Tastafti is from istiftāʾ which means to ask about something that is new and difficult.[11]

EXPOSITION

After God has finished recounting the story of the People of the Cave, He turns His attention to review two issues: their number and the time they spent sleeping in the cave. The first issue reviewed is the various opinions that the People of the Book had mentioned regarding the number of the People of the Cave. This is meant to both give us the ‘true account’ of what actually happened, but also act as proof of Prophet Muhammad’s (s) prophethood for those who had wished to call it into question and undermine his knowledge, by displaying his breadth of awareness on the matter.[12] As one can notice, the various opinions are listed in an eloquent manner by adding the dog to each of the three counts, so that the numbers three to eight are all mentioned in order,[13] alternating between cardinal and ordinal numbers so as to not become cumbersome or tedious, but engaging.

They will say: ‘[They are] three, their dog is the fourth of them.’ They will say: ‘[They are] five, their dog is the sixth of them’: although it is not explicated here, the ones being referred to by They will say should be the People of the Book.[14] Apparently, according to the Jews and western Assyrians (Jacobites) and the people of Najrān, they numbered three; whilst eastern Assyrian (Nestorians) argued that they numbered five.[15] According to Horst, the more famous Christian account gives their number as seven.[16] In the writings of Jacob of Serugh and John of Ephesus they are numbered as eight, while Zacharias of Mitylene gives their number as seven.[17] Thaʿlabī reports that a Nestorian and a Jacobite from Najrān came to Mecca and argued with the Muslims about this issue in the presence of the Prophet, with the Jacobite saying they were three, the Nestorian they were five, and the Muslims saying they were seven, after which the Prophet confirmed the number seven.[18]

Taking a shot at the invisible: after listing the two options of three or five, God announces that those who have claimed these are speculating baselessly. It is evident that those two opinions are false.[19] Albeit the full purport of this announcement has a much wider scope. As we noted in some of the previous verses, unfortunately there is much baseless speculation about the story of the People of the Cave that even some Muslim exegetes became guilty of, debating matters such as the colour of the dog, or what kind of food they wished to buy, and so on. This practice can be witnessed in other verses and issues as well, regrettably. The reminder of this verse is an important one. Firstly, one should not speculate baselessly about things. Secondly, one should not waste their time in such aimless debates, which have no bearing on anything.

The choice of words is interesting, as it plays cleverly into the symbolism of the cave. It conjures for the reader the image of someone peering into a dark cave, trying to guess if someone is inside it, aimlessly throwing stones in hope of striking something.

They will say: ‘[They are] seven, and their dog is the eighth of them’: most of the exegetes have understood this final number to be the correct one, saying that they were in fact seven in number, their dog being the eighth. There is virtual unanimity amongst the exegetes about this.[20] They have brought various arguments in favour of why this should be the correct one, the most important of these is the contextual clues of the verse. This statement comes after the two which were discounted as being like a shot at the invisible, implying it is not like those and not just an erroneous and baseless guess. Moreover, the number seven is followed by the declaration, My Lord knows best their number, which also hints at it being the correct one.[21] Even though this is not followed by an explicit clarification that they were indeed seven, the listener will nevertheless understand that from what is being said.[22] It has also been argued that it is unlikely for God to have listed the different options without then mentioning the correct one.[23]

Although some have suggested that since the previous verse discussed the erection of a place of worship, perhaps God did not mention their exact number in order to prevent any sort of worship of these people or praying to them,[24] but this is unlikely.[25]

Say: ‘My Lord knows best their number, and none knows them except a few’: the address here is to the Prophet, commanding him to say this to those who dispute without any knowledge regarding their number. Few should here mean ‘few people’, although it could also mean ‘few of the People of the Book’.[26]

This is reminiscent of the earlier verse, your Lord knows best how long you have stayed (verse 19), which is again a reminder of the main theme of the ‘true account’. Whilst people may dispute about what is correct, the reality is that the truth is with God and He can give of that knowledge to whom He wills. Yet none but a few are worthy and capable of receiving such knowledge.

It is reported from Ibn Abbas that he said he is of those few who knows their number and that they were seven, with their dog being the eighth.[27] Presumably – if this is a correct report – he was taught this by the Prophet.[28]

Some have claimed that this statement is proof that the People of the Cave were not seven, since only a few should know their number. This has been replied to by saying the Muslims are few compared to non-Muslims. This should also be seen in the light of the fact that the surah was revealed in Mecca, when the Muslims were few in number. Hence, what is better to say is that at the time that the question was asked, only a few would have known the answer. However, after God has informed of it, it can be known to more than a few.[29] The usage of the future tense sayaqūlūna is also worth keeping in mind.

This is the nature of the ‘true account’ and the knowledge that comes to man through revelation. When God gives of it to one of His chosen servants, that person may then act as a conduit to impart that knowledge to others.

So do not dispute concerning them, except for a seeming dispute, and do not question about them any of them: about them means the People of the Cave,[30] and any of them the People of the Book.[31] The address here is still ostensibly to the Prophet, but should in actuality be meant for the Muslims to take heed, as the Prophet would have been given knowledge about them through revelation and would have no need to ask them concerning it. In addition to the order not to dispute with them based on anything other than revelation, the Muslims are also told to not ask them for information about it, as they do not possess any reliable information.

The end of this verse is unfortunately one that went woefully ignored in the critical first century of Islam. It declares that the Muslims should not rely on the People of the Book to try to fill in gaps in their understanding regarding the Quran. Regrettably, they did so anyway, and much of the Isrāʾīliyyāt literature and traditions crept in this way into Quranic exegesis, history, and other fields. The stories of this surah are no exception to that.

Another source of misinformation were the storytellers, who would weave fantastic tales to flesh out the Quranic stories, often basing it on seemingly nothing more than their own fancies, taking a shot at the invisible. A poignant example of this is found in Thaʿlabī’s work, where he relates that Muhammad ibn al-Musayyib stated the race of the dog that accompanied them to the cave was of qilṭī breed, which was apparently a type of Chinese dog. He then boasts that there was no muḥaddith (reporter of narrations) in Nishapur except that he had written this hadith from him.[32]

Finally, we may note that some have pointed to this verse as evidence that the Quran cannot be abrogated by narrations or claims based on historical sources.[33] Yes, those sources can and should be used to aid in the understanding of the Quran, but the loci and the central pillar of the faith should always be the Quran.

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

1. From Masʿadah ibn Ṣadaqah, that Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) reported Imam Ali (a) having said: ‘Keep away from dispute (mirāʾ) and argumentation (khuṣūmah), as they poison the hearts of brother against brother, and cause hypocrisy to spread its tendrils between the two of them.’[34]
2. With the same reporters from the Prophet: ‘The person who meets God – mighty and glorious – with three qualities will get to enter paradise from any door that he wishes: the one who has good manners, who fears God when alone or in company, and who forsakes dispute (mirāʾ), even if he be in the right.’[35]
3. From ʿAmmār ibn Marwān, that Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) said: ‘Do not argue with the forbearing one (ḥalīm) nor the ignorant one (safīh). The forbearing one will change your mind, and the ignorant one will harass you.’[36]

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Some have argued that the wa (and) in the final They will say: ‘[They are] seven, and their dog is the eighth of them’ is proof that they were actually seven (since it is not mentioned after the previous statements of three and five), saying that there should be a reason for mentioning it only here, and that reason should be to specify this as the correct option.[37] In other words, it implies confirmation of the number seven, and then adds their dog to that number. Many scholars have rejected that this is hard evidence of anything.[38]^, [39]

Ṭūsī relates that some have claimed the number seven could be used in this verse for hyperbole, meaning many;[40] in this sense they would have been more than seven, but this is quite inappropriate for the context of the verse.

The phrase taking a shot at the invisible has been seen by some as evidence that qiyās (analogical reasoning) is not allowed.[41] While use of analogical reasoning in jurisprudence may be questionable in many circumstances, the relevance of this verse to that issue is itself a questionable use of analogical reasoning.

The exegetes have proposed different options for the meaning of seeming dispute:

1. Do not dispute with them except in those things which are apparent. Tell them that some of you have claimed one number and others another number, and if you believe you are correct, you should present evidence for what you claim.[42] Or alternatively to tell them they have no evidence for what they say.[43]
2. A dispute which is held in the open so that it is witnessed by the people. This is because they might resort to underhanded means, and if you inform them of something that they did not know, they might later claim they knew, or twist the truth in other ways.[44]
3. A dispute that ends when one of the parties involved presents clear evidence. Ẓāhir would in this case have the meaning of dhāhib.[45]
4. Dispute in such a manner that your logic and strong arguments will overcome them and make your stance prevail. Ẓāhir would in this case have the meaning of ghālib (that which overcomes).[46]

While we may easily accommodate many meanings under the expanse of seeming dispute, what was mentioned earlier is the most suitable meaning.

Zamakhsharī considers and do not question about them any of them to mean that the Prophet should not ask any of them about it only then to tell them that they are wrong, as this is contrary to good manners.[47]

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

As noted under verse 18, none of the surviving Christian accounts make mention of a dog, however the fact that the verse mentions the differences of opinion serves as evidence that in the milieu of the time the dog was a known factor of the story.[48]

1. But avoid foolish and unlearned debates, knowing that they create strife. The servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but must be gentle toward all people, able to teach, patient.[49]
2. Remind them of these things, commanding them before the Lord that they not argue about words, which leads to nothing of value and to the destruction of those who hear them.[50]
3. But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, contentions, and arguments about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless.[51]

[1] Mizan, 13/269.
[2] As discussed in the commentary on verse 20.
[3] Razi, 21/449.
[4] Tibyan, 7/27.
[5] Alusi, 8/234.
[6] Tahqiq, 11/89.
[7] Raghib, p. 766.
[8] Tibyan, 7/27; Tabrisi; 6/711; Tabari, 15/150; Thalabi, 6/163; Mizan, 13/269.
[9] Zamakhshari, 2/714.
[10] Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī, al-Furūq fī al-Lughah (Beirut: Dār al-Ifāq al-Hadīthiyyah, 1980), p. 56.
[11] Raghib, p. 625.
[12] See the Introduction.
[13] Mizan, 13/268.
[14] Zamakhshari, 2/714.
[15] Tabrisi, 6/710; Bartlomiej Grysa, ‘The Legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in Syriac and Arab Sources’, in Orientalia Christiana Cracoviensia 2 (2010), pp. 45-59, accessed at: http://czasopisma.upjp2.edu.pl/orientalia/article/download/1011/895. Abū Ḥayyān differs slightly from most and says the Melkites claimed they were three, the Jacobites five, and the Nestorians seven. He also says this is reported from Ibn Abbas (Muhit, 7/159; Alusi, 8/233).
[16] Pieter W. Van der Horst, ‘Pious Long-Sleepers in Greek, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity’, in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity, ed. Menahem Kister et al. (Brill, 2015), pp. 1-19.
[17] Sydney Griffith, ‘Christian lore and the Arabic Qur’an: the “Companions of the Cave” in Sūrat al-Kahf and in Syriac Christian tradition’, in The Qur’ān and its Historical Context, ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds (Routledge, 2007), pp. 109-138.
[18] Thalabi, 6/162; Zamakhshari, 2/712; Baghawi, 3/185; Qurtubi, 10/382. As usual, Thaʿlabī does not give a chain of narration, unfortunately, and neither do the later scholars who have probably taken this from him.
[19] Mizan, 13/267.
[20] See for example Tabrisi, 6/710; Tarikh, 1/454; Tabari, 15/150; Thalabi, 6/162; Baghawi, 3/186; Mizan, 13/267-268; Nemuneh, 12/383.
[21] Nemuneh, 12/383.
[22] Tabari, 15/150.
[23] Razi, 21/448, who also adds that it is unlikely that others might have known the correct number while the Holy Prophet would be left uninformed of that. While that may be, it is not relevant here, since there is no problem in assuming that God would inform the Holy Prophet about something, but not the general body of Muslims.
[24] George Archer, ‘The Hellhound of the Qur’an’, in Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 18.3 (Edinburgh University Press, 2016), pp. 1-33.
[25] Having said that, there is for example a report attributed to Ibn Abbas that if one writes the names of the seven on a piece of paper and then throws that into fire then that fire would die down (Suyuti, 4/217). Suyūṭī considers the report to be authentic. Ālūsī attributes the same to Ibn Abbas, adding several other miraculous qualities as well, such as if one writes them on a piece of paper and puts it under an infant’s pillow it would cure them of colic; or if one puts the writing on a stick and in the midst of their farmland it would cause it to become more fertile. He mentions several other things as well (Alusi, 8/234; unlike Suyūṭī he rejects the reports as inauthentic). While such practices should definitely be avoided, this shows that some saintly qualities have been attributed to the seven.
[26] Tabrisi, 6/710; Thalabi, 6/163.
[27] Tibyan, 7/27; Zamakhshari, 2/712; Ibn Kathir, 5/134, who gives what he considers an authentic chain of narration for this report.
[28] Tabrisi, 6/711.
[29] See Alusi, 8/232-233; Tantawi, 8/497. Fadlallah, 14/299, proposes that only few have the capability to delve into the revelation and the reliable historical sources in order to analyse them and know how many they were.
[30] Qurtubi, 10/384.
[31] Tibyan, 7/28.
[32] Thalabi, 6/163; Qurtubi, 10/384.
[33] Mudarrisi, 6/393.
[34] Kafi, 2/300.
[35] Kafi, 2/300. For a somewhat similar hadith see Khisal, p. 144, h. 170.
[36] Kafi, 3/201.
[37] Baghawi, 3/186; Razi, 21/448; Mizan, 13/268-269. All scholars give different explanations as to why it is evidence, none of which are convincing.
[38] Tibyan, 7/26; Qurtubi, 10/383. See also the detailed discussion on this in Muhit, 160-161; Alusi, 8/229-231.



[40] Tibyan, 7/27.
[41] Razi, 21/449, who criticises this, naturally.
[42] Tabrisi, 6/711.
[43] Razi, 21/449.
[44] Tabrisi, 6/711.
[45] Mizan, 13/269-270.
[46] Nemuneh, 12/384.
[47] Zamakhshari, 2/714. Ālūsī says this is the meaning of seeming dispute (Alusi, 8/234).
[48] George Archer, ‘The Hellhound of the Qur’an’, in Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 18.3 (Edinburgh University Press, 2016), pp. 1-33.
[49] 2 Timothy 2:23-24.
[50] 2 Timothy 2:14.
[51] Titus 3:9.