أَن جاءَهُ الأَعمىٰ
When the blind man approached him.
EXEGESIS
The particle an – which has been translated as when – functions to explain causality here. In other words, He frowned and turned away, because the blind man approached him.
EXPOSITION
The surah begins with a declaration in the third person past tense to describe the actions of an unnamed individual. This powerful opening throws the reader into the midst of a scene of an ignored individual, as a blind man invites sympathy towards him. The third person past tense (ʿabasa) also universalises the reproach, while the passive construction (omitting the frowner’s name) invites us to introspection, as who among us has not frowned at an inconvenient interruption? The brief and abrupt verses also imitate the emotional terseness of the event.
The verses are clearly talking about some actual event that occurred during the time of the Prophet and are not just general exhortations. The exegetes are in agreement that the blind man spoken of in this surah is Ibn Umm Maktūm.
There is, however, debate about who the frowner is. Many have claimed that it was the Prophet who turned away from Ibn Umm Maktūm because he interrupted him while he was trying to invite some prominent members of the Quraysh to Islam. Others have challenged this, saying it could not have been the Prophet because of his impeccable character and his humble etiquette. There is nothing in the verses distinctly expressing that the Prophet is being referred to. We should keep in mind that the second person singular ‘you’ in the Quran is not always addressed to the Prophet, as is explicitly understood from verses 17:22-24.
Ṭūsī dismisses the claims that the frowner was the Prophet, as the assertions of the ahl al-ḥashw.
How could one describe the blessed Prophet of God, who was the best of creation in his qualities and attributes, in such a way? God has described him as And indeed you possess a great character (68:4), and said that It is by Allah’s mercy that you are gentle to them; and had you been harsh and hard-hearted, surely they would have scattered from around you (3:159). Furthermore, God has commanded his Prophet, Do not drive away those who supplicate their Lord morning and evening, desiring His face (6:52). Anyone who has studied the life of the Prophet and his manners knows that it is impossible to imagine that he should behave in such a fashion with a person who has come to him seeking Islam, just as it cannot be imagined about other prophets of God.
However we read it, these verses are unique. It is not too often that the Quran in so many verses uses the second person to address someone other than the Prophet. On the other hand, if we say that these are indeed addressed to the Prophet, that too would be unique as we do not find such harsh criticism of him anywhere else in the Quran, especially given the very severe and reprimanding tone of the surah. There is also a concern as to why the Prophet should be subject to such stern reprimands in a Meccan surah when his character was already constantly assaulted by the disbelievers and mockers, and while he was trying to invite people to Islam.
It should be kept in mind that even if we assume these verses were about the Prophet, this behaviour cannot be considered more than tark awlā,
and cannot have any impact on prophetic infallibility. The frowner neither expressed anything distasteful nor behaved in any untoward manner, he simply was frustrated or exasperated for a moment because he had been interrupted while trying to invite people to Islam, and his act of frowning was not something visible to the blind man.
There are also other verses of the Quran that are critical of the Prophet in situations that cannot be considered sins, such as, May Allah excuse you! Why did you grant them leave (9:43)? In the verse under discussion (if it is addressed to the Prophet), God is simply reminding His Prophet, albeit in a stern and firm manner, that he should never allow wealth and worldly status to sway his opinion and attention away from the pious believers. In that sense, it is similar to the verses, Content yourself with the company of those who supplicate their Lord morning and evening, desiring His face, and do not lose sight of them, desiring the glitter of the life of this world. And do not obey him whose heart We have made oblivious to Our remembrance, and who follows his own desires, and whose conduct is [mere] profligacy (18:28).
There is nothing in the verses that indicates the frowner behaved in any other way that was unbecoming. He was talking with someone else, was interrupted, frowned at the interruption, and likely told the blind man to wait a moment and he would get to him. Yet God was not pleased with even that frown. Even if the blind man did not see it, God did. In reality, the verses are aiming at elevating the frowner internally, not that he had committed some external mistake. Yet, if the frowner is someone other than the Prophet, and if the frowning was not for missing an opportunity to promote Islam – rather it was out of contempt for the blind, and humiliation for the poor – then the reprimand should be understood as a strong reproach.
Whoever the frowner was, the intention of the verses is clear; a believer should never place wealth or social status at a higher regard than faith and piety, and he should never allow such considerations to make him lean towards the disbeliever in favour of the believer.
This is the moral axis of the surah and speaks to its main theme: the true measure of human worth lies in one’s gratitude for divine blessings and how responsibly they are utilised.
For a more detailed discussion of these verses, see the forthcoming discussions.
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- Ṭabrisī reports without any chain of transmission that it has been said that these verses were revealed concerning ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Umm Maktūm. The incident reportedly occurred when he came to the Messenger of God while he was conversing with ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah, Abū Jahl ibn Hishām, Abbas ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, and Ubayy and Umayyah, the two sons of Khalaf, inviting them to God and hoping for their acceptance of Islam. Ibn Umm Maktūm said: ‘O Messenger of God, teach me and recite to me from what God has taught you.’ He kept calling out to him, repeating his request, unaware that the Prophet was occupied and engaged with others, until signs of displeasure appeared on the face of the Messenger of God – blessings be upon him and his family – due to the interruption. The Prophet thought to himself: ‘These men of influence will say: “His followers are only the blind and the slaves!” So, he turned away from him and focused on the men he was addressing. Then, the verses were revealed. After that, the Messenger of God – blessings be upon him and his family – would honour him greatly. Whenever he saw him, he would say: ‘Welcome to the one for whom my Lord reproached me!’ and would ask him: ‘Do you have any need?’ He also appointed him as his deputy over Medina during two military expeditions. Anas ibn Mālik said: ‘I saw him on the day of the Battle of Qādisiyyah wearing armour and holding a black banner.’
There are no extant reports from the Imams regarding the reason of revelation for this surah, save the following two conflicting reports mentioned without a chain of narration by Ṭabrisī from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a):
- ‘Whenever the Messenger of God saw ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Umm Maktūm, he would say: “Welcome! Welcome! By Allah, God will never reproach me concerning you again [referring to Sūrat ʿAbasa].” He would treat him with such kindness that Ibn Umm Maktūm would avoid visiting the Prophet out of consideration for the Prophet’s [excessive] generosity toward him.’
Note: Variants of this report from other than the Imam claim that he said: ‘Welcome to the one because of whom God reproached me!’
- It was revealed about a man from Banī Umayyah who was present with the Prophet when Ibn Umm Maktūm came to him, and when the man saw him, he turned away from him and frowned, and God revealed this surah.
Notes: 1. Ṭūsī also relates this report about the unnamed ‘man from Banī Umayyah’, but does not attribute it to any Imam, and simply says: ‘Some people say …’
Ṭabrisī also does not name the ‘man from Banī Umayyah’, but Tafsīr al-Qummī asserts that the frowner was ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān.
It does not however directly attribute this claim to any of the Imams.
As for non-Shia sources, it is uncontested that the frowner was the Prophet.
The general gist of the reports is identical or similar to what Ṭabrisī reported, that the Prophet was with some of the notables of Quraysh, hoping to convert them to Islam, when Ibn Umm Maktūm approached him, and as he was busy talking with the others, he did not reply to Ibn Umm Maktūm, and turned away from him, frowning. These verses were then revealed because of that.
2. There are various details mentioned for this event in the reports. In some versions, Ibn Umm Maktūm asks the Prophet: ‘Is there something wrong with what I said?’ to which the Prophet replies in the negative. Some emphasise how the Prophet was busy and was displeased that Ibn Umm Maktūm interrupted him. Others claim that the Prophet thought to himself: ‘If I reply to him, they will think that “only blind men and slaves follow him”.’ Some also mention how after this the Prophet would always show Ibn Umm Maktūm respect, asking him if he needed anything. 3. Some of these details, such as the Prophet thinking that he will be judged for his association with Ibn Umm Maktūm, should be rejected outright on theological grounds.
Moreover, it was well known that the majority of the Prophet’s followers were of the lower strata of society and it is preposterous to assume that he should fear others finding out what was already known. Other reports make little sense, such as Ibn Umm Maktūm asking if the Prophet was upset with him, since he was blind and would not have been able to see his reaction; unless we assume that the Prophet also retorted with something dismissive, but such an assumption is impossible, as we cannot imagine that he would then be criticised for the lesser act (frowning) but not for the greater act (retorting). Some other details are less problematic. 4. The reports in these sources have come through a variety of chains of narrations, many of which – in the fashion that is typical to such reports – end with the exegetes or notable figures of the second generation.
Those reports that do trace back to companions of the Prophet are reported mostly from ʿĀʾishah (questionably),
with one from Ibn Abbas,
and one from Anas ibn Mālik.
All three of them would have been unable to actually witness this event as they would not have been born or would have been far too young at that time. 5. Interestingly, none of the more famous hadith collections, either Shia or otherwise (with the exception of the one report in al-Tirmidhī), mention these verses being revealed about the Prophet. There is at least one report about the blind man being Ibn Umm Maktūm that traces back to the companion Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī, but that makes no mention of the frowner being the Prophet.
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Ṭabrisī relates the argument of Sharīf al-Murtaḍā that there is nothing in these verses that should lead us to assume that they are speaking about the Prophet or his (mis)conduct. We also know that the Prophet was not one to act frowningly with his enemies, let alone the believers.
He also argues that even if we accept the reports identifying the Prophet as the one who frowned, the act of frowning in itself, regardless of whether it displeased the blind man or not, cannot be considered a sin. It is possible that God nevertheless criticised His Prophet in this way so that he should elevate him to a higher station of good character, and to teach him that to be kind towards a believer so that he may remain steadfast in faith is more important than attending to a polytheist whom one hopes would convert.
Ṭabrisī further relates the argument of Jubbāʾī, that an action is not a sin until it has been prohibited by God and such a prohibition does not apply retroactively. Hence, the act of frowning could not be considered a sin before the revelation of these verses.
The weakness of this argument is obvious, as the commands and prohibitions in matters such as conduct are made in universal terms rather than exhaustive specifics. For example, God will command us not to disrespect or belittle others. This does not require Him to then separately command ‘do not publicly display displeasure towards disabled people’. It is our duty to apply those general principles and guidelines to their specific cases; although if we fail to do so, God may in certain cases point that out to us. Tabatabai also argues that the intellect itself understands the reprehensibility of such an action without recourse to revelation.
Makārim Shīrāzī on the other hand argues that if we carefully consider these verses in the light of manners and behaviour, we will realise that they actually reveal to us the almost miraculous nature of the Prophet’s good manners, whereby he was kept to such a strict and careful standard that even the smallest tark awlā, the smallest frown, was reason enough for a surah to be revealed in criticism. It is also evidence that he was not the author of the Quran and that it is divine revelation.
Rāzī poses three questions with regards to these verses:
- Why is it that the Prophet (s) should be criticised in the surah when it was Ibn Umm Maktūm who was acting incorrectly? While Ibn Umm Maktūm was blind, he was not deaf, and he could hear that the Prophet was speaking to someone else and he was not a fool, he could tell that they were speaking about something important, so why should he interject himself into the middle of the conversation? Rāzī also quotes the verse, Indeed those who call you from behind the apartments, most of them do not apply reason (49:4), which commands the believers not to address the Prophet at inappropriate times.
We may dismiss this latter verse as irrelevant here, since that is a Medinan verse and this is a Meccan surah, but the first point stands and it makes little sense why God should publicly disparage His Messenger for being displeased at being interrupted. In fact, the verses do not give the sense that God is criticising the frowner for being upset because they were interrupted, but rather that they disliked being addressed by a blind man. - If these verses are related to Ibn Umm Maktūm, then they are obviously praising him (verses 3-4, but especially verse 9), then why is he referred to as the blind man, which is a belittling manner of address?
- The Prophet was given much discretion on how to behave with his companions in order to teach them good manners and how they should behave. If so, why should his ignoring and turning away from Ibn Umm Maktūm not be considered the exercise of such discretion?
He answers the first of these by arguing that the Prophet’s behaviour could be misinterpreted as turning away from someone because of their poverty in favour of someone wealthy, and that is why the surah was revealed. Rāzī also answers the third question with this same answer.
As for the second one, Ibn Umm Maktūm is not referred to as blind in order to belittle him, but rather to point out how important it is to pay even more attention and care to such a person.
We can add to this that in certain situations there is nothing belittling about referring to someone as blind, and sometimes it is necessary. For example, if a colleague approaches you at work and tells you ‘there is a blind man here who needs your help’, there is nothing inherently demeaning about this statement, as it is simply providing relevant information. Furthermore, the Quran never speaks of any of the companions of the Prophet by name, with the exception of Zayd ibn Ḥārithah in verse 33:37.
Ṭabrisī and Qurṭubī claim that the third person is used in these two verses out of respect for the Prophet.
Tabatabai reaches the opposite understanding, saying the third person serves to make the criticism even harsher.
In some reports, the men of the Quraysh with whom the Prophet was conversing are named as ʿUtbah ibn Rabīʿah, Abū Jahl, and Abbas ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib; with some adding Ubayy and Umayyah, the sons of Khalaf, and al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah. Ibn al-ʿArabī criticises the latter two claims harshly, saying that Ibn Umm Maktūm was Medinan, and that Walīd died before the hijrah, and Umayyah died in Badr and never visited Medina.
This is a strange claim from Ibn al-ʿArabī since Ibn Umm Maktūm was definitely not a Medinan, but rather one of the early Meccan converts to Islam, and later performed hijrah to Medina.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- ‘My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favouritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?’
- ‘But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”’
- ‘As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more … Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him … Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”’
[1] See Tibyan, 10/268; Zamakhshari, 4/701. Similar to its usage in verse 68:14.
[2] Ṭabrisī gives his full name as ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Shurayḥ ibn Mālik ibn Rabīʿah al-Fihrī from the clan of Banī ʿĀmir ibn Luʾayy (Tabrisi, 10/664; Baghawi, 5/209). Ālūsī notes this name but says the more correct view is that his name was ʿAmr ibn Qays ibn Zāʾidah ibn Jundab ibn Haram ibn Rawwāḥah ibn Ḥajar ibn Muʿīṣ ibn ʿĀmir ibn Luʾayy al-Qarashī. He also adds that he was the son of Khadijah’s paternal uncle (Alusi, 15/241). Ṭabarī mentions that Ibn Umm Maktūm was given the authority to lead prayers in Medina in two separate occasions when the Prophet was away for battle. He also mentions from Anas ibn Mālik that Ibn Umm Maktūm was a standard-bearer in the Battle of Qādisiyyah (Tabari, 30/33). It is also mentioned that he was – alongside Bilāl – a muʾadhdhin at the time of the Prophet and that it was his responsibility to give the adhān before the morning in Ramadan (Faqih, 1/297, 905-906; Ahmad, 2/9; Bukhari, 1/153). It is not clear whether he died in Qādisiyyah or some time after that, he seems to have at least withdrawn from public life after that. See Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (Beirut: Muʾassisat al-Risālah, 1993), 1/364.
[3] The Prophet was an orphan and such commands are addressed to the general reader of the Quran.
[4] Ḥashawiyyah or ahl al-ḥashw was a general derogatory term used for Sunnis with extremist positions, much like ghulāt was comparably used for such Shias in an opposite sense.
[5] Tibyan, 10/268. Tabatabai echoes similar arguments (Mizan, 20/203-204), as does Subḥānī (Munyah, 30/48-49).
[6] Tark awlā is an act which cannot be considered a sin, but it would have been more preferable to act in another manner. It can be translated as ‘abandoning the optimal course of action’.
[7] Nemuneh, 26/125. Similar arguments are also made by Subḥānī in Munyah, 30/49-50, even though he concludes that it is unlikely that the verses should be about the Prophet.
[8] See Mizan, 20/199.
[9] See the Introduction.
[10] Tabrisi, 10/663-664.
[11] Tabrisi, 10/664.
[12] See for example Baghawi, 5/210; Zamakhshari, 4/701; Razi, 31/52.
[13] Tabrisi, 10/664.
[14] Tibyan, 10/269.
[15] Qummi, 2/404.
[16] There is a case of iḍmār here, where the tafsīr of Sūrat ʿAbasa begins simply with qāla nazalat fī ʿuthmān, and it is not clear who is being quoted.
[17] See Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, n.d.), 8/531.
[18] See for example Tabari, 30/32-34; Thalabi, 10/130-131; Baghawi, 5/209-210; Zamakhshari, 4/700; Razi, 31/52; Ahkam, 4/1905; Qurtubi, 19/211-213; Muhit, 10/406; Ibn Kathir, 8/320; Alusi, 15/242; Shawkani, 5/462.
[19] Fadlallah, 24/60. Subḥānī also points out that it is strange how the reporter should know what the Prophet was thinking at that time (Munyah, 30/49).
[20] Such as:
1. ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwām. See Muwatta, 1/203; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Andalusī, al-Istidhkār (Cairo: Dār al-Waʿī (1993)), 2/493-494.
2. Qatādah. See Tabari, 30/33; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Andalusī, al-Tamhīd (Morocco: Wizārat ʿUmūm al-Awqāf wa al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyyah, 1387 AH), 22/324.
3. Abū Mālik Ghazwān al-Ghifārī. See Suyuti, 6/315.
4. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk. See Tabari, 30/33; Suyuti, 6/315.
5. Mujāhid ibn Jabr. See Suyuti, 6/315.
6. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd. See Tabari, 30/33-34.
[21] Tabari, 30/32; Tirmidhi, 5/103-104; Muhammad ibn Ḥibbān, Ṣaḥīḥ (Np.: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1993), 2/294, h. 534; Mustadrak.S, 2/514; Suyuti, 6/314. The hadith from ʿĀʾishah is almost exactly the same as the one from ʿUrwah in al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. Al-Tirmidhī and Nayshābūrī both note that some have reported this hadith with the chain only extending to ʿUrwah. Indeed that seems to be the actual case. Suyūṭī reports another version from ʿĀʾishah, which he quotes from Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Mardawayh. I have not come across those, however that same text is quoted by Ibn Saʿd from ʿUrwah again, without mention of ʿĀʾishah. See Muhammad ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, n.d.), 4/208. Another claim is that ʿĀʾishah said in reference to Sūrat ʿAbasa: ‘If the Messenger of God – peace and blessings be upon him – had kept secret something of the book of God, he would have kept this secret.’ See Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Andalusī, al-Istidhkār (Cairo: Dār al-Waʿī (1993)), 2/494. However, this report from ʿĀʾishah is actually more accurately said to be about verse 33:37 (Tabarani, 24/41). Suyūṭī has another report that claims ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd said this about ʿAbasa (Suyuti, 6/315).
[22] Tabari, 30/32-33; Suyuti, 6/315.
[23] Abū Yaʿlā al-Mūṣilī, Musnad Abī Yaʿlā (Ḥusayn Salīm Asad ed.), Damascus: Dār al-Maʾmūn lil-Turāth (1988), 5/431, h. 3123; Suyuti, 6/314.
[24] See Haythami, 2/43; Tabarani, 8/224.
[25] Related in Tabrisi, 10/664.
[26] Tabrisi, 10/664.
[27] Related in Tabrisi, 10/664.
[28] Mizan, 20/204. This is the shared rational principle of al-ḥusn wa al-qubḥ al-ʿaqliyayn subscribed to by both Imāmīs and Mutazilites.
[29] Nemuneh, 26/126.
[30] Razi, 31/52.
[31] Razi, 31/53.
[32] Razi, 31/53.
[33] Razi, 31/53. He also offers a second possible answer, which is very problematic and not worth mentioning.
[34] Razi, 31/53. This same argument can also be found in Mizan, 20/200.
[35] Tabrisi, 10/664; Qurtubi, 10/406. See also Alusi, 15/242.
[36] Mizan, 20/200.
[37] Ahkam, 4/1905-1906. Unfortunately some later exegetes have quoted this opinion uncritically. See for example Mudarrisi, 17/318.
[38] See for example Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (Beirut: Muʾassisat al-Risālah, 1993), 1/360-361. See also Muhit, 10/407. Albeit Abū Ḥayyān accuses Qurṭubī of making a mistake here, but that is not fair, since Qurṭubī is simply relating the opinion of Ibn al-ʿArabī (Qurtubi, 19/212), and does not express his support for it. Admittedly, we do not know what exact text of Qurṭubī’s work Abū Ḥayyān had access to and perhaps the wording there was different.
[39] James 2:1-4.
[40] 1 Samuel 16:7.
[41] Luke 18:35-42.