Appearance
Sūrah ʿAbasa, verses 1-4
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ أَن جَآءَهُ ٱلْأَعْمَىٰ وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُۥ يَزَّكَّىٰٓ أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ ٱلذِّكْرَىٰ
ʿAbasa wa tawallā An jā’ahu al-aʿmā Wa mā yudrīka laʿallahu yazzakkā Aw yadhdhakkaru fatanfaʿahu adh-dhikrā.
He frowned and turned away, because the blind man approached him. And do you know, maybe he seeks to purify himself, or take admonition, and the admonition may benefit him.
Context and significance
These opening verses of Sūrah ʿAbas have long drawn the attention of exegetes due to their sharp tone and the questions they raise about prophetic conduct, Qur’anic rhetoric, and the hierarchy of values in propagation.
The central question is: who is the subject of the reproach? Is it the Prophet Muḥammad (s.a.w.) himself, momentarily prioritizing the potential conversion of a Quraysh notable, or is it another figure whose behavior exposed misplaced values? This question is not merely historical; it touches on theological issues of prophetic infallibility, Qur’anic consistency, and the integrity of the Messenger’s character as described elsewhere in revelation.
Equally significant is the contrast drawn between the blind man, ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm, and the wealthy notables of Quraysh. What does the Qur’an intend by presenting the blind man as the symbol of sincerity and receptiveness, and by juxtaposing him with those who embodied arrogance and pride? The verses raise questions about how Islam evaluates worth: does social influence carry weight in propagation, or is purity of heart the only true measure?
The rhetorical structure itself invites reflection. Why does the Qur’an begin in the third person—“He frowned”—and then move to direct address? Does this shift indicate gentleness toward the Prophet, or distance him from the rebuke altogether? What does this teach us about Qur’anic style in correcting, guiding, or exposing human attitudes?
These verses are therefore pivotal for several reasons. They challenge the community to recognize sincerity over status, they demand careful attention to Qur’anic language when attributing actions, and they open the door to deeper questions of prophetic character, revelation’s rhetorical method, and the ethics of propagation. Above all, they serve as a reminder that in the sight of Allah (s.w.t.), humility and eagerness for guidance outweigh all worldly prestige.
What the exegetes say
At a glance
The question: Who frowned and turned away from the blind man: the Prophet himself, or another man present at the gathering?
Ibn KathīrTakes the Prophet as the one who frowned, intent on a Quraysh chief’s conversion; the reproach is a gentle correction teaching equal access to guidance, not a belittling of him.
Al-QurṭubīHolds, with the early exegetes, that the Prophet frowned; reads the third-person opening as preserving his dignity and the turn to direct address as consoling him within a gentle admonition.
Abul Aʿlā MawdūdīHolds the act was the Prophet’s, the third person being a refined way to rebuke without diminishing him; he overlooked Ibn Umm Maktūm hoping the chiefs’ conversion would strengthen Islam.
Al-ṬabarsīRecords the common account naming the Prophet and a narration from Imām al-Ṣādiq naming a Quraysh man, without deciding; either way, the verses teach daʿwah priorities and imply no sin.
ʿAllāmah ṬabāṭabāʾīDenies it was the Prophet: the verses never name him, and frowning on a poor believer contradicts his “great character” (68:4) and earlier commands to lower his wing to believers.
How each exegete answers the question, in one line. Click a name to read his reading in full.
Ibn Kathīr
Ibn Kathīr explains that the opening verses of Sūrah ʿAbas recount an episode in which the Prophet Muḥammad (s.a.w.) is gently reproached by Allah for frowning and turning away from a blind believer, ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm, while giving attention to a prominent leader of Quraysh. The context, as related by scholars of tafsīr, is that the Prophet was in deep conversation with one of the chiefs of the Quraysh, hoping to persuade him to embrace Islam. At that moment, Ibn Umm Maktūm approached, already a Muslim but eager to seek guidance and ask questions. Because of the urgency of his request, he pressed the Prophet persistently. The Prophet, desiring to complete his conversation with the Quraysh leader and hoping for his conversion, frowned and turned slightly away from Ibn Umm Maktūm. In response, Allah revealed the opening verses of the sūrah, highlighting the importance of treating the sincere seeker with dignity regardless of his social status.
The verses emphasize that Ibn Umm Maktūm, though blind and socially weak, was approaching out of sincerity and eagerness for purification and guidance. Ibn Kathīr notes that Allah pointed out the potential for his spiritual benefit, saying that perhaps the admonition would help him and bring him to greater purity. By contrast, the Prophet’s attention at that moment was focused on someone wealthy and self-sufficient, whose arrogance and lack of need made him unlikely to accept the message. Allah reminds His Messenger that he is not responsible for whether such a man purifies himself or not, and that giving priority to the sincere believer is more befitting.
Ibn Kathīr explains that the reprimand was not to belittle the Prophet but to demonstrate Allah’s perfect justice and His concern for the weak and humble. The Prophet’s slight frown was corrected by revelation to ensure that future generations understood the principle of equality in conveying the message. No one, whether noble or poor, should be singled out or excluded in receiving admonition. All people—men and women, rich and poor, strong and weak—are equally deserving of access to divine guidance, and it is Allah who guides whom He wills.
Through this commentary, Ibn Kathīr highlights two themes: the Qur’anic principle of valuing sincerity over status, and the exalted nature of revelation. The reproach directed at the Prophet is, in reality, a lesson for the ummah, teaching believers that the true measure of worth is the quest for guidance, not worldly power or wealth. At the same time, the sūrah elevates the Qur’an as the ultimate source of admonition, preserved in purity and carried by the most honored messengers among the angels
Source: Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged). Translated by Ṣafī al-Raḥmān. Vol. 10 (Chapter 80, Verses 1-4) Riyadh: Maktaba Dār-us-Salām, 2003.
Al-Qurṭubī
In his commentary, al-Qurṭubī outlines both the immediate historical context and the moral lessons embedded within the revelation. The verses()*—*are presented by al-Qurṭubī as a direct reproach from God to His Prophet (s.a.w.).
According to the consensus of early exegetes, the incident occurred when the Prophet was conversing with the leading figures of Quraysh, hopeful of their conversion, when ʿAbd Allāh ibn Umm Maktūm, a blind Companion, approached him repeatedly asking for guidance. The Prophet frowned, turned away, and continued addressing the Quraysh nobleman, an act which prompted this revelation. Reports vary as to the identity of the Quraysh leader*—*some naming al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīra, others Umayya ibn Khalaf, or even al-ʿAbbās. Ibn al-ʿArabī, however, dismisses the view that it was al-Walīd or Umayya, noting that Ibn Umm Maktūm’s interactions occurred in Madinah, while those men had died as disbelievers in Makkah.
Al-Qurṭubī stresses that the verses are not a condemnation of the Prophet in the ordinary sense but a gentle admonition, expressed in the third person*—“He frowned and turned away”* rather than *“You frowned”—to preserve his dignity. God then shifts to direct address—“And what makes you know? Perhaps he might purify himself …”—*as a way of consoling and honouring him. The reproach also teaches that the poor, the weak, and the marginalized believers should never be overlooked for the sake of the rich or powerful, even when their conversion seems strategically beneficial.
Al-Qurṭubī also records how, after this incident, the Prophet treated Ibn Umm Maktūm with particular honour: spreading his cloak for him and saying, “Welcome to the one on whose account my Lord reproached me.” Ibn Umm Maktūm would later be entrusted with leading the community in Madinah in the Prophet’s absence, and even carried a banner at al-Qādisiyyah. This reflects the principle that true worth lies not in status or wealth but in faith and sincerity.
The tafsīr notes variant readings of the phrase “an jāʾahu al-aʿmā” (“because the blind man came to him”), including a recitation that renders it interrogative: “Was it because the blind man came to him that he frowned and turned away?” Such variations reinforce the rhetorical rebuke embedded in the passage.
Al-Qurṭubī further parallels this passage with other Qur’anic verses of similar meaning, such as “Do not drive away those who call upon their Lord morning and evening” () and “Do not turn your eyes away from them, seeking the adornment of worldly life” (). These verses, together with ʿAbasa wa tawallā, highlight a consistent Qur’anic ethic: the priority of the sincere believer, however humble, over the worldly elite whose faith is uncertain.
Finally, al-Qurṭubī unpacks the wording: *“What makes you know? Perhaps he might purify himself”—the pronoun may refer to Ibn Umm Maktūm, who sought further purification through learning, or to the Quraysh noble, whose conversion the Prophet hoped for. The subsequent phrase—“or he may be reminded and the reminder benefit him”—*emphasizes the unpredictability of guidance, teaching the Prophet and the community that daʿwah must never exclude those who sincerely seek it.
Source: Al-Qurṭubī, Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī), vol. 22, under Chapter 80, Verses 1-4, Pub. by Al-Risalah Foundation, Beirut.
Abul Aʿlā Mawdūdī
Mawdūdī begins his discussion of the opening of Sūrah ʿAbas by highlighting the rhetorical elegance and subtlety with which the Qur’an addresses the Prophet (s.a.w.). The rebuke is introduced indirectly, as though the frowning and turning away were performed by someone else, even though subsequent verses clarify that the act came from the Prophet himself. This stylistic choice, Mawdūdī explains, reflects the Qur’an’s refined method of reminding the Prophet without diminishing his exalted character. The incident would appear so uncharacteristic of him that if someone acquainted with his noble conduct had witnessed it, he would have assumed it was another person who had acted in that manner.
The figure at the center of this episode is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Umm Maktūm, a well-known Companion of noble lineage and also a relative of Khadījah (r.a.), the Prophet’s wife. Mawdūdī stresses that the Prophet did not turn away from him out of disdain for his social status, as Ibn Umm Maktūm was of honorable descent and tied by family relations. Rather, the cause of the Prophet’s inattention lay in Ibn Umm Maktūm’s blindness. At that moment, the Prophet was engaged with prominent leaders of Quraysh, hoping that their acceptance of Islam would provide great strength to the new faith. A blind man, the Prophet thought, could not contribute in the same influential manner as these chiefs, and so Ibn Umm Maktūm’s interruption seemed untimely.
Mawdūdī explains that this reasoning, though understandable, overlooked a vital principle of the divine mission: the real measure of value in daʿwah is not social standing or perceived utility, but sincere receptiveness to truth. Allah therefore corrected the Prophet’s perspective by pointing out that Ibn Umm Maktūm represented the archetype of a true seeker—humble, fearful of straying, and eager to learn. Such a person, regardless of disability or worldly influence, is of immense worth to the preacher, for his readiness to accept guidance fulfills the very aim of the message. By contrast, those who consider themselves self-sufficient and show no inclination toward reform, no matter how influential, are not to be pursued solicitously, for their arrogance renders efforts upon them fruitless.
Thus, the lesson imparted to the Prophet was timeless: Islam’s invitation is not to be tailored for the pleasure of the proud and dismissive, nor should its presentation suggest dependency on their acceptance. The truth stands self-sufficient; it does not require validation from the arrogant. If they turn away, the loss is theirs alone.
In this way, Mawdūdī interprets the opening verses of Sūrah ʿAbas as a profound corrective for the Prophet’s momentary oversight and a declaration of principles for all future daʿwah: the measure of worth lies in openness to guidance, not worldly influence, and the Qur’an, in its purity and nobility, transcends the arrogance of those who spurn it.
Source: The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 15, trans. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, ed. A. A. Kamal (Lahore: Islamic Publications), commentary on Q. 80:1-4.
Al-Ṭabarsī
Al-Ṭabarsī begins his commentary on Sūrah ʿAbas by recounting the historical context of its opening verses (). According to the well-known account, the Prophet Muḥammad (s.a.w.) was engaged in earnest discussion with the Meccan notables, hoping to persuade them of Islam’s truth. At that moment, a blind man, ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm, approached, earnestly requesting guidance. The Prophet (s.a.w.), perceiving the interruption as poorly timed in the midst of an important dialogue with influential leaders, turned away and frowned. The Qur’an records this incident: “He frowned and turned away because the blind man came to him” ().
Al-Ṭabarsī, however, preserves another narration transmitted from Imām al-Ṣādiq (a.s.), which suggests that it was not the Prophet who frowned and turned away, but rather a man from Quraysh present at the gathering. This interpretation aims to safeguard the Prophet’s dignity, avoiding the implication that he slighted a seeker of truth. Whether the reproach is directed at the Prophet or at another, Al-Ṭabarsī emphasizes that the verses are not an indictment of sin, but rather a divine instruction highlighting the proper priorities of daʿwah: the seeker of sincerity, regardless of worldly rank, must not be overlooked for the sake of the powerful.
He explains that Allah’s correction—if directed at the Prophet—was not to suggest wrongdoing, but to elevate his station by modeling for the community the value of attending to the humble and marginalized. Indeed, later reports note that the Prophet honored Ibn Umm Maktūm, appointing him as a mu’adhdhin and even entrusting him with leadership of Madīnah in his absence. Thus, verses serve as a profound reminder that in the Qur’anic ethos, purity of intention outweighs social influence, and every soul who seeks guidance is worthy of full attention
Source: Majmaʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, vol. 10 (Qom: Dār al-ʿIlm), commentary on Q. 80:1-4.
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī
ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī explains that the surah opens with a narrative describing a man frowning and turning away when the blind believer Ibn Umm Maktūm sought his attention during a gathering. While many Sunni reports suggest these verses reprimanded the Prophet (s.a.w.), some Shīʿī accounts maintain that the one who frowned was an Umayyad man, not the Prophet. Ṭabāṭabāʾī stresses that the verses themselves never identify the Prophet as the subject. On the contrary, the textual and contextual evidence points away from him.
The Qur’an nowhere indicates that the Prophet possessed such traits. It was never his character to frown even at his enemies, let alone at sincere believers who approached him for guidance. Attending to the wealthy while neglecting the poor contradicts his noble manners, as al-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā observes. The Qur’an itself testifies to the Prophet’s exalted morality—and indeed you possess a great character ()—a verse revealed very early in his mission, even before this chapter. It is inconceivable that God would so unconditionally glorify the Prophet’s disposition at the outset, only to later reproach him for behavior incompatible with that very exalted character.
Other Qur’anic verses reinforce this. For example: Warn the nearest of your kinsfolk, and lower your wing to the believers who follow you (). This early Meccan instruction shows that the Prophet was commanded from the start to show humility before believers. Similarly, Do not extend your glance toward what We have provided to certain groups of them … and lower your wing to the believers () again orders him to turn away from the allure of the affluent and instead honor the faithful. How could he then be reproached for frowning upon a poor believer while seeking the company of the rich, when the Qur’an explicitly commanded the opposite from the beginning?
Ṭabāṭabāʾī also rejects the claim that such conduct was not sinful because it had not yet been prohibited. Firstly, Qur’anic verses already in circulation had prohibited such attitudes. Secondly, reason itself recognizes that scorning the poor while favoring the rich is inhumane and morally reprehensible. Thirdly, such an action is irreconcilable with the Prophet’s firmly established noble character—described by the Qur’an as khuluq (disposition), meaning a second nature so ingrained that one’s actions cannot contradict it.
Turning to the verses themselves, Ṭabāṭabāʾī highlights the rhetorical style. The passage begins in the third person—He frowned and turned away ()—then shifts to the second person—And how do you know, perhaps he might purify himself ()—to intensify the rebuke. This stylistic movement emphasizes the seriousness of disregarding a seeker of truth. The description of the blind man highlights the censure: he lacked sight, came with a sincere religious need, hastened eagerly to learn, and approached in fear of God. Such a person deserved attention and compassion, not resentment.
By contrast, the verses rebuke the attention given to the affluent and self-sufficient—those who, blinded by wealth, feel no need for truth. The Qur’an declares: Indeed, man becomes rebellious when he considers himself without need (). Yet the Prophet was not responsible for whether such people purified themselves; his duty was to convey the message. Ignoring the striving believer in favor of the arrogant elite, therefore, is sharply condemned.
In summary, these verses do not depict the Prophet but rather censure the attitude of preferring worldly elites over humble believers. The Qur’an makes clear that wealth carries no merit, while sincerity, striving for purification, and fear of God are the true measures of worth. The passage thus warns against honoring the powerful while neglecting the weak, and it elevates spiritual receptivity over material standing.
Source: Tafsir al-Mizan, Eng. vol. 40 under Chapter 80, Verses 1-4 (Tawheed Institute, Australia).
Read ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s full commentary in Tafsir al-Mizan: 80:1–16 on almizan.org ↗
Our reflection
This is our own reflection on the readings above. It is one way of reading the comparison, offered to encourage further thought rather than as the final word.
The opening of Sūrah ʿAbas (Chapter 80) is one of the most discussed passages in the Qur’an, and the way exegetes have treated it reveals significant differences in methodology and theology. The central question is whether the Prophet Muḥammad (s.a.w.) himself was the one who frowned and turned away, or whether the reproach falls upon another figure.
Ibn Kathīr, following the majority of early Sunni narrations, interprets the verses as a gentle reproach directed at the Prophet. He explains that the Prophet’s attention at that moment was devoted to a Quraysh notable, in the hope of winning his conversion, and that turning aside from the blind man ʿAbdullāh ibn Umm Maktūm was corrected by Allah as a lesson in valuing sincerity over social status. Ibn Kathīr stresses that this was not a sin, but a divine correction meant to highlight equality in daʿwah. The emphasis of his tafsīr falls on Allah’s justice and concern for the weak.
Al-Qurṭubī likewise sees the verses as a reproach to the Prophet, but he takes great care to stress the gentleness of the correction. He notes that the reproach is phrased in the third person (“He frowned and turned away”), preserving the Prophet’s dignity, and that Allah quickly shifted to second-person address to console him. He highlights the broader principle: that the poor and weak must never be excluded for the sake of the rich. He even records how the Prophet later honored Ibn Umm Maktūm as a result. In his framework, the lesson is less about blame and more about teaching the ummah to prioritize sincerity over status.
Maudūdī follows a similar reading, but with greater emphasis on rhetorical subtlety. He praises the Qur’an’s refined method of rebuke, introduced indirectly so as not to diminish the Prophet’s character. For him, the Prophet’s preference at that moment was understandable: he reasoned that the conversion of a Quraysh chief would strengthen Islam more than answering the queries of a blind man. Yet Allah corrected this reasoning, showing that the true measure of worth is humility and receptiveness to guidance, not worldly influence. Maudūdī thus frames the episode as a timeless corrective for all future daʿwah, reminding Muslims not to tailor the truth to win over the proud.
Against this near-consensus, Al-Ṭabarsī and Ṭabāṭabāʾī introduce a radically different approach. Both record alternative narrations that the one who frowned was not the Prophet at all, but a Quraysh notable present during the exchange. Al-Ṭabarsī stresses that even if it were the Prophet, the act was not sin but a momentary prioritization, immediately corrected to elevate the value of sincerity. Yet he also preserves the report from Imām al-Ṣādiq (a.s.) that firmly shifts the blame to someone else.
Ṭabāṭabāʾī develops this to its fullest theological and linguistic conclusion. He argues that attributing the frowning to the Prophet is intellectually impossible. First, the Qur’an itself testifies to his noble character: “Indeed, you are of a magnificent character” (). It is incoherent to say that the same Qur’an which glorified his nature would then accuse him of scorning a weak believer in favor of the rich. Second, the Prophet was commanded from the earliest days to “lower his wing to the believers” (; ) and not to drive away the humble (). To imagine that he would act in open contradiction to these instructions is untenable. Third, the stylistic choice of beginning in the third person (“He frowned and turned away”) is unlike the Qur’an’s direct addresses to the Prophet in genuine corrections (such as and ). This distancing strongly suggests that the reproach is directed at someone else.
The verses themselves confirm this. The one who is criticized is contrasted with the blind believer: the former attends to the wealthy elite, the latter represents purity, fear of God, and eagerness for admonition. Nothing in the Prophet’s life or Qur’anic testimony supports associating him with the former description; everything supports associating him with the latter. Thus, as Ṭabāṭabāʾī concludes, the Qur’an is not reproaching the Messenger but exposing the folly of honoring arrogance while neglecting the sincere.
Read comparatively, the contrast is sharp. Ibn Kathīr, al-Qurṭubī, and Maudūdī take the narration at face value, seeing the rebuke as directed at the Prophet but softened by divine gentleness. Al-Ṭabarsī allows for multiple readings but leans toward exonerating the Prophet, while Ṭabāṭabāʾī provides a systematic demonstration that the Prophet could not have been the subject at all. His tafsīr shows that to insist otherwise is not just an exegetical mistake but an assassination of prophetic character, one that the Qur’an itself prevents when studied carefully.
In the end, the true lesson of Sūrah ʿAbas is universal: Islam is not swayed by worldly hierarchies, and the weak seeker of truth is to be honored above the arrogant elite. But this lesson is not bought at the expense of the Prophet’s dignity. Rather, it reinforces his role as the flawless model of humility and mercy, while warning the community never to prefer the rich and powerful over those who come in sincerity and fear of God.
What is your reflection?
How do you read this comparison? Do you see it differently, or have other ideas to add? We would like to hear from you.
Email your reflectionor write to info@tafsircompare.com