At the beginning of Surah ʿAbasa, all exegetes regard the subject (faʿil) of Abasa wa tawalla as the Noble Prophet (PBUH). Among the later scholars, however, one hadith expert, Allamah Dawudi, considered the subject to be a disbeliever. This is most probably Shaykh Abu al-Hasan Abd al-Rahman bin Muzaffar al-Dawudi. Ibn Hajar has cited this opinion in Fath al-Bari. Throughout Fath al-Bari, he mentions Imam Dawudi on many occasions: sometimes he accepts his explanation, sometimes he refutes it, and sometimes he merely says, wa qad aghraba al-Dawudi wa qal … (Dawudi has here expressed a singular, isolated view) and moves on. From this one may infer that he was a hadith scholar and alim of considerable stature. In the present age, the same exegetical view has also been adopted by Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Azhar Mirathi. For discerning readers, we quote below the relevant passage from his tafsir. He writes:
“This surah is also Makkan. Its very first word has been taken as its title. It was most probably revealed after Surah al-Naziʿat. Its subject matter is the same as that of Surah al-Naziʿat and the general nature of its themes is also almost identical. In Surah al-Naziʿat, a past rebel—Pharaoh—has been mentioned, and it has been stated that the end of rebellion is Hell. At the beginning of this surah, one of the arrogant rebels of Makkah is mentioned.
Background: Ibn Umm Maktum was a noble, early convert among the blind Companions. His mother, whose laqab ‘Umm Maktum’ became attached to her, and whose actual name was Atika bint Abd Allah, belonged to the Banu Makhzum, and she was the maternal aunt of Khadija Siddiqah (RA). The name of Umm Maktum’s husband has been given by some as ʿAmr and by others as Abd Allah (Tafsir Khazin). It is likely that, owing to the relationship of first cousins, Khadija encouraged this righteous, blind young man to accept Islam. After embracing Islam, he would often be present in the service of the Prophet, occupied in memorizing and reciting the Quran, and he would also go out among his visitors, acquaintances and relatives to preach.
One day he went to meet a man from among the unbelievers of Makkah, a person accustomed to associating with the wealthy, who did not deign to attach any importance to the admonition of the caller to truth. Ibn Umm Maktum had, in all likelihood, gone to him for purposes of daʿwah. Because of his blindness, that man pulled a face when he arrived, showed great distaste, did not speak to him properly and turned his back on him. On this conduct, God condemned that arrogant man, exposed his lack of insight, and reproved his ingrained flattery of the rich and his worship of wealth. What was the name of that arrogant man? Neither the Quran mentions it, nor any sound hadith. There was no need to mention his name, nor are we required to investigate it. The Quran is a book of guidance and moral reform. The names of those individuals whom it does mention are given for that purpose, and where this purpose is not tied to a person’s name, the names are not provided. Rather, their praiseworthy qualities are described in a manner of commendation, or their blameworthy traits in a manner of censure. Thus it is said:
ٰعَبَسَ وَ تَوَلهّٰۤی. اَنۡ جَآءَهُ االَۡعۡمٰی. وَ مَا يُدۡرِيۡکَ لَعَلَّہٗ يَزَّکهّٰۤی. اَوۡ يَذَّکَّرُ فَتَنۡفَعَہُ الذِّکۡر ی. اَمَّا مَنِ اسۡتَغۡنٰی. فَاَنۡتَ لَہٗ تَصَدهی. وَ مَا ِعَلَيۡکَ اَالَّ يَزَّکهی. وَ اَمَّا مَنۡ جَآءَکَ يَسۡعٰی. وَ ہُوَ يَخۡشٰی. فَاَنۡتَ عَنۡہُ تَلَہهی. کَالَّّٰۤ اِنَّہَا تَذۡک ٗرَۃٌ. فَمَنۡ شَآءَ ذَکَرَه.
He scowled and turned away, because the blind man came to him. And what do you know? Perhaps he was seeking purification. Or that he might take heed, and the reminder would benefit him. As for him who deems himself self-sufficient, you attend to him. Yet it is no concern of yours if he does not seek purification. But as for him who comes to you striving, while he fears (God), you neglect him. Never so! Indeed, this is a reminder. So whoever wills may bear it in mind.” (Surah ʿAbasa, 80:1–12)
Consider now the following lines of commentary on these verses:
اَنۡ جَآءَهُ االَۡعۡمٰی
Since the words are ‘al-aʿma’ (“the blind man”), this indicates reference to a particular blind person, and among the emigrant Companions there was no other blind man apart from Ibn Umm Maktum (RA). Hence the exegetes have unanimously taken him to be the one meant in this verse.
A person who comes to meet you is, in effect, a guest. To treat a guest in this manner is gross discourtesy. Had the visitor been someone who had previously harmed him, or from whom harm was now feared, there might have been some excuse for such rudeness. But that arrogant man had committed this shameful baseness merely because the one who came to him was blind. A human being ought to seat the one who comes to him with dignity, inquire as to the purpose of his visit—especially when he already knows him—and listen to what he has to say, for it may be that by his presence some benefit comes to him, and that by listening to his words he gains some advantage. Thus, addressing that arrogant man, it was said:
وَ مَا يُدۡرِيۡکَ لَعَلَّہٗ يَزَّکهّٰۤی. اَوۡ يَذَّکَّرُ فَتَنۡفَعَہُ الذِّکۡرٰی
And what do you know? Perhaps he was seeking purification. Or that he might take heed, and the reminder would benefit him.
That is, since he had deliberately come to meet you, it was incumbent upon you to seat him honourably and to converse with him in a manner befitting humanity. You ought to have reflected that perhaps this person is of good character and upright conduct, and that his sitting with you would bring you benefit—for the company of a virtuous person is a mighty elixir—or that perhaps he possesses the capacity to accept admonition and to listen attentively to what is good. In that case, by virtue of your kinship you might have conveyed some beneficial counsel to him and he would have benefitted from your words. In short, by talking with him you would have discovered whether he was a source of benefit for others or himself benefited by others. But you saw that he was blind and turned away coldly from that poor man. Reflect on how deplorable your conduct was. As for the wealthy man, you are eager to meet him; you go to him, and his bad character and bad conduct cause you no concern. And yet when a person of good character, who fears God, comes to you seeking your well-being, you treat him with neglect! Thus it is said:
اَمَّا مَنِ اسۡتَغۡنٰی. فَاَنۡتَ لَہٗ تَصَدهی As for him who deems himself self-sufficient (and whose wealth prevents him from coming to you), you attend to him,… that is, you present yourself at his door, you are eager and keen to catch a glimpse of him in the marketplace, at gatherings or on social occasions, and you remain his ardent admirer.
وَ مَا عَلَيۡکَ اَالَّ يَزَّکهی. “Yet it is no concern of yours if he does not seek purification.”
That is, his wealth draws your attention away from his faults; his riches blind you to his moral defects.
وَ اَمَّا مَنۡ جَآءَکَ يَسۡعٰی. وَ ہُوَ يَخۡشٰی. فَاَنۡتَ عَنۡہُ تَلَہهی. “But as for him who comes to you striving, while he fears (God), you neglect him,”
That is, you turn your attention away from him and busy yourself with someone or something else!
ٗکَالَّّٰۤ اِنَّہَا تَذۡکِرَۃٌ. فَمَنۡ شَآءَ ذَکَرَه. “Never so! Indeed, this is a reminder. So whoever wills may bear it in mind.”
That is, God has sent down the Quran for all His servants, without distinction between rich and poor, disabled and able-bodied, male and female, young and old, Arab and non-Arabic This speech of the Lord of all worlds is for everyone. Whoever commits it to heart and acts upon it will become deserving of God’s mercy.
A few points of clarification:
1. In ‘laʿallahu yazzakka aw yadhakkaru’, the particle ‘aw’ (“or”) is for “preventing exclusion” (manʿ al- khuluw). When a person comes to meet you, there are three possible cases: (1) you derive moral benefit from him, which will be the case if he is of good character and noble disposition—for the company of a righteous and upright person is greatly beneficial; (2) he derives moral benefit from you, if he is receptive to admonition and inclined to listen with acceptance to what is good; (3) you suffer moral harm from him, if he is of bad character and satanic disposition. Now, that man knew full well that this blind person did not fall into the third category; he was of the first or the second kind. Rational propriety therefore required that he seat him honourably and converse with him.
2. The feminine pronoun in ‘innaha’ and the masculine object pronoun in ‘dhakarahu’ both refer to the Quran. The feminine pronoun is used because what is intended there are the verses (ayat) of the Quran. In contexts of admonition and counsel, it is not the whole Quran that is recited, but only those verses suited to the occasion. The masculine pronoun in ‘dhakarahu’ is used because here the reference is to the Quran as a whole, which is what must ultimately be remembered and internalised.
3. The majority of exegetes, both early and later, have taken the subject of ‘ʿabasa wa tawalla’ and the addressee of the subsequent second-person pronouns to be the Prophet himself (PBUH). This view rests on a mistaken narrative. They say that one day several noblemen of Quraysh were with the Messenger of God, and he was calling them to the truth, when the blind Companion Ibn Umm Maktum (RA) arrived and said: “O Messenger of Allah, teach me something” (ʿallimni mimma ʿallamaka Allah or he said: arshidni—guide me). The Prophet did not answer Ibn Umm Maktum, but continued speaking to those men. Ibn Umm Maktum repeated his request, but the Prophet did not respond and continued talking to them. When Ibn Umm Maktum again spoke, his interruption and insistence displeased the Prophet, and the effect of this displeasure showed on his blessed face. Thereupon this surah was revealed, and from ‘ʿabasa wa tawalla’ to ‘kalla innaha tadhkirah’ God reproached the Prophet, saying that he ought not to have acted thus. He should have broken off his conversation with the Quraysh nobles and reassured Ibn Umm Maktum, who was a sincere seeker and God-fearing—why had he preferred the chieftains of Quraysh over him? They go on to say that afterward, whenever Ibn Umm Maktum came into his presence, the Prophet honoured him and would say: “Marhaban bi-man ʿatabani fihi rabbi” (“Welcome to the one because of whom my Lord reproached me …”).
But this story is quite baseless. Neither al-Bukhari nor Muslim has transmitted it; nor even Abu Dawud, al-Nasaʾi or Ibn Majah. Only al-Tirmidhi has reported it, and he has made clear that its chains contain disagreement and disturbance. Some narrators have treated it as a statement of the Successor ʿUrwah bin al-Zubayr, while others as a statement of the Mother of the Believers, Ayeshah (RA). Al-Tirmidhi has transmitted it in the following wording:
“Aisha (RA) relates: ‘ʿAbasa wa tawalla was revealed concerning Ibn Umm Maktum, the blind man. He came to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and kept saying: “O Messenger of Allah, guide me,” while a man from among the great chiefs of the idolaters was sitting with the Messenger of Allah. So the Messenger of Allah turned away from him and turned towards the other and said to him: “Do you see any objection in what I am saying?” and he replied: “No.” It was in this connection that these verses were revealed.’ Al- Tirmidhi then says: ‘This hadith is hasan gharibin’ And some narrators have transmitted this hadith from Hisham bin ʿUrwah from his father, who said: ‘ʿAbasa wa tawalla was revealed concerning Ibn Umm Maktum,’ and in this version there is no mention of Aisha.” (Tirmidhi, Abwab al-Tafsir, Surah ʿAbasa)
As readers can see, this narration mentions that a wealthy and influential idolater was sitting with the Messenger of Allah and that the Prophet was engaged in addressing him, and it explicitly states that this idolater was being affected by his exhortation.
Now reflect carefully: if this incident had actually occurred, Ibn Umm Maktum would have been the one deserving rebuke and censure. Readers can see that in ‘ʿabasa wa tawalla. an jaʾahu al-aʿma’ God has mentioned a person who, because a blind man came to him, scowled and turned away. Then in ‘wa ma yudrika laʿallahu yazzakka aw yadhakkaru fa-tanfaʿahu al-dhikra’, He addresses this person who scowled and turned away and exposes his lack of insight. To fawn upon the wealthy and to interrupt the bearers of the call to truth while they are addressing you is blatant bad manners—especially when the Prophet was engaged in preaching and admonition. Ibn Umm Maktum ought to have exercised patience and, once the Prophet had finished, then asked for instruction and guidance.
Furthermore, the narration in Tirmidhi mentions only a single idolater present with the Prophet and the Prophet being occupied in advising him. Yet some have added that it was not one but several Quraysh notables: Abu Jahl, ʿUtbah bin Rabiʿah, Ubayy bin Khalaf, and some even included in that gathering the Prophet’s uncle, Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalibin Thus Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has recorded this story with the chain: haddathani Muhammad bin Saad qal: thani abi qal: thani ʿammi qal: thani abi ʿan abihi ʿan Ibn Abbas (Tafsir al-Tabari, Surah ʿAbasa). But for scholars this chain has always remained an unsolved puzzle. Ibn Jarir has transmitted many reports with this chain, and scholars have been able to call it nothing but an “obscure chain” (isnad muzlim).
The editor of Imam Abu Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabi’s well-known work al-ʿAwasim min al-Qawasim, Muhibb al-Din al- Khatib, writes:
Isnad: haddathani Muhammad bin Saad … ʿan Ibn Abbas, yajhal ʿulamaʾ al-jarh wa-l-taʿdil asmaʾ aktharihim fadlan ʿan an yaʿrifu shayʾan min ahwalihim.
That is, in this chain, the majority of the names are unknown to the critics of transmitters; to speak of their detailed states is out of the question.
I have consulted many learned men of my own time about this puzzle; none had a solution. The exegetes, however, have taken this baseless story and lavished their exegetical skill upon it. Truly:
Haqiqat ḵharafat meñ kho gaʾi (“Reality has been lost amid fables”)
Ye ummat rivayat meñ kho gaʾi (“This community has lost itself in tales and reports.”)
4. The meaning of ‘suhufin mukarramah’ and ‘bi-aydi safarah. kiramin bararah’ has also been explained in a strange and untenable fashion by some scholars. The most erroneous and far-fetched view is that of
Maulana Maududi, who writes that the ‘safarah’ are those angels who were writing down the Quranic scrolls in accordance with God’s direct instruction, safeguarding them and conveying them intact to the
Messenger of Allah (see Tafhim al-Quran, Surah ʿAbasa, vol. 6, Idarah Tarjuman al-Quran, Lahore).
Someone should explain: was the Quran revealed to the Prophet in the form of written scrolls? If so, what became of those scrolls which the angels supposedly brought to him? Where did they go? The Prophet never at any time showed anyone any such written scroll.
We see with our own eyes the transformative impact of the Quran: whoever truly believes in it becomes purified of sins, free of deviant thinking and unsound belief, and a doer of good. It is for such a person that reproof is directed if he shows aversion and neglect. How, then, can it be correct to treat the Prophet himself as the addressee of this condemnation? In reality, had it not been for that narration transmitted by Tirmidhi and Tabari, no one would even have thought of this misinterpretation. That very report has blocked the correct understanding of these verses.
5. As for the verb ‘ʿabasa wa tawalla’, I have taken its subject to be a disbeliever. It pleased me greatly to learn that centuries before me a renowned scholar had written the same in his commentary on Sahih al- Bukhari. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani writes in Fath al-Bari: “Lam yakhtalif al-salaf fi anna faʿil
‘ʿabasa’ huwa al-nabi (PBUH), wa aghraba al-Dawudi fa-qal: huwa al-kafir.” (9/521) “The early generations did not differ that the subject of ‘ʿabasa’ is the Prophet (PBUH), and al-Dawudi expressed a singular view, saying: ‘It is the disbeliever.’”