Tafseer of The Pilgrimage · Al-Hajj · 22:13
He invokes one whose harm is closer than his benefit - how wretched the protector and how wretched the associate.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
Allah, exalted be His mention, says: this apostate who turned back upon his face when a trial befell him calls upon gods whose harm to him in the Last World is nearer and swifter than their benefit. It has been transmitted that Ibn Masʿūd read this as: "he calls upon him whose (man) harm is nearer than his benefit."
The Arabic philologists differed over the syntactic position of "man." Some of the Baṣran grammarians said: it stands in the accusative as the object of "he calls upon," and they said: the meaning is "he calls upon gods (li-ālihatin) whose harm is nearer than their benefit" — and they said: it is anomalous, for in the language one does not find: "he calls upon li-Zaydā." Some of the Kūfan grammarians said: the lām belongs to "what" (mā) after "who" (man), as though the meaning of the words according to them is: "he calls upon him for whom — whose — harm is nearer than his benefit." From the Arabs there has been heard transmitted: "with me there is that (la-mā) something else is better than it for him" — with the meaning: with me there is something than which something else is better — and: "I gave you la-mā something else is better than it for him" — with the meaning: something than which something else is better. They said: in any case, where the inflection does not clearly appear it is permissible to place the lām without the noun.
Others among them said: it is permissible that the meaning is: "it is the far error — he calls upon," so that "he calls upon" is a qualification of "the far error," and in "he calls upon" a referring pronoun is omitted; then one begins a new sentence with the lām and says: "for him whose harm is nearer than his benefit — how evil is the patron!", just as one says in the conditional style: "la-mā faʿalta la-huwa khayrun lak." On the basis of this position, "man" stands in the nominative on account of the omitted reference in "his harm," for when "man" is a conditional particle, what follows it gives it its inflection. The second lām in "how evil is the patron" is the apodosis to the first lām. This second position is more correct linguistically; the first is closer to the position of the exegetes.
His word لَبِئْسَ الْمَوْلَى — he says: how evil a cousin is this one who worships Allah only upon the edge.
وَلَبِئْسَ الْعَشِيرُ — he says: how evil an intimate companion and friend! As Yūnus related to me, saying: Ibn Wahb informed us, saying: Ibn Zayd said concerning His word وَلَبِئْسَ الْعَشِيرُ : he said: the "ʿashīr" is the companion and friend.
It has also been said: by "mawlā" here is meant: the protecting ally (walī al-nāṣir).
Mujāhid used to say: by His word لَبِئْسَ الْمَوْلَى وَلَبِئْسَ الْعَشِيرُ the idol was meant.
Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr related to me, saying: Abū ʿĀṣim related to us, saying: ʿĪsā related to us; and al-Ḥārith related to me, saying: al-Ḥasan related to us, saying: Warqāʾ related to us — both together — on the authority of Ibn Abī Najīḥ, on the authority of Mujāhid, concerning the word of Allah وَلَبِئْسَ الْعَشِيرُ : he said: the idol.
