One of the main arguments from naṣṣ khafī used by the Shīʿah is the ʾāyah known as ‘ʾĀyat al-Wilāyah’.

Allāh said in the Qurʾān:
اِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اُ۬للَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَالذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ اُ۬لذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ اَ۬لصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُوتُونَ اَ۬لزَّكَوٰةَ وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ (المائدة 55)
“Your only walī is Allāh, then His Messenger and those who believe, who establish Ṣalāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allāh.” (5:55)

The Shīʿah agreed among themselves that the phrase “those who believe, who establish Ṣalāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allāh” refers to and was revealed for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه giving a ring to a poor man while bowing in prayer, interpreting { وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ } to mean “while bowing” instead of “and bow,” and used narrations about this cause of revelation to support their claim, arguing that these narrations achieved tawātur or were agreed upon among the Muslims. They also agreed on the term “walī” in the ʾāyah entailing authority for those being referred to. Despite this, their methods of argument based on this ʾāyah differed due to their differing views on certain matters of ʾUṣūl al-Fiqh. The Zaydīs held not only that it is linguistically possible for a single word to be used with multiple of its meanings at once, but that the default status is for a word to be taken upon all of its possible literal meanings at once if the context does not indicate specifying one meaning.¹ On the other hand, Twelver scholars differed between this either being impossible according to the majority of them, or it being against the norm and only the case if established as such by the context according to a significant minority.² 

Thus, the Twelvers argued that “walī” here means ʾawlā (more/most worthy), or specifically one who is deserving and more/most worthy of being in charge of affairs, and to whom obedience is obligatory. They justified this by saying that the word {إنما}, translated here as “only,” entails exclusion, and that the other meanings of “walī” would not be exclusive to those mentioned, as they say that the only one to give Zakāh while bowing was ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. On the other hand, the Zaydīs said that “walī” here, in addition to other meanings, means the one who is in charge of the affairs of others, arguing that those being mentioned as the “walī” of those addressed cannot be the same as the ones being addressed, and that the common usage of the term “walī” is for the one in charge of affairs, adding that the term “walī” here must also be taken upon all of its possible meanings together until proven otherwise. 

The Sunnīs held that the term “walī” in the ʾāyah refers to those who are an ally of, love, and support those being addressed, and the vast majority of Sunnīs held that the phrase “those who believe, who establish Ṣalāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allāh” is general in meaning among the believers, with some difference of opinion on the meaning of { وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ }. The justification for this view and the response to the arguments used by the Shīʿah is as follows: 

1.

First, some of the most immediate problems are in the linguistic aspects of the core claims made by the Shīʿah here. Regarding the claim of the Twelvers that “walī” means ʾawlā, then the reality is that ʾawlā is not even among the literal meanings of “walī,” not in the language, Sharʿ (here referring to religious texts), or ʿUrf (common usage). This issue will be investigated in further detail in the context of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. For the Zaydī claim, the first thing to note is the falsehood of the baseless assertion that the common usage of the term “walī” is for the one in charge of others’ affairs; there is no evidence at all for this, and in fact it is likely the case that the term “walī” being used with the meaning of support, love, and alliance is more common, occurring unequivocally in the Qurʾān in ʾāyāt such as 62:6, 9:23, 60:1, 7:27&30, 17:111, 18:17, 9:71, 5:81, and most glaringly in the very ʾāyāt directly surrounding this one, in addition to many others. 

As for their argument that a term with multiple literal meanings must be taken to mean all of them at once until proven otherwise, then as will soon be observed, the context and wording preclude the meaning claimed by the Shīʿah, and clearly support the meaning held by the Sunnīs. Regardless, the use of this principle by the Zaydīs already has many issues; first of all, despite the fact that many and possibly even the majority of Sunnī scholars accepted this principle, there has still been wide disagreement on it. Many Sunnī scholars denied the possibility of a word being used with multiple of its meanings at once, and many others said it is only allowable if the context establishes it and/or that it is metaphorical, holding that the default is a word being used with only one meaning, while yet others said that it should only be taken on all its meanings when the context does not specify one out of precaution, and not out of actual affirmation of those meanings.³ Even under the view of taking all the meanings as the default and considering the usage literal, and taking this as a general affirmation and not a precautionary measure, this principle would still undoubtedly be ẓannī and would not provide any certainty. 

2.

The context before and after the ʾāyah all command against wilāyah of the Jews and Christians in the sense of alliance, support, love, and friendship. It would be ineloquent and strange if between these ʾāyāt, a lone practically unrelated ʾāyah talking about wilāyah in the sense of authority were placed. It is undeniable that if someone were to say, for example, “do not take ʿAmr as your walī, but rather take Zayd as your walī,” then no reasonable listener would doubt that the term walī is being used with the same meaning both times. Similarly, in these ʾāyāt, it must be the case that the wilāyah negated before and after is the same in meaning in as that which is affirmed in (5:55). 

• Allāh said { يَٰٓأَيُّهَا اَ۬لذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تَتَّخِذُواْ اُ۬لْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَٰر۪يٰٓ أَوْلِيَآءَۖ بَعْضُهُمُۥٓ أَوْلِيَآءُ بَعْضٖۖ وَمَنْ يَّتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُۥ مِنْهُمُۥٓۖ إِنَّ اَ۬للَّهَ لَا يَهْدِے اِ۬لْقَوْمَ اَ۬لظَّٰلِمِينَۖ } “O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for allies. They are allies to each other. Whoever takes them as allies is one of them. Surely, Allāh does not take the unjust people to the right path.” (5:51) It is known that this ʾāyah is not saying not to take the Jews and Christians as leaders who control your affairs, since it would have been obvious to all that this should not be done. Furthermore, the ʾāyah states that they are ʾawliyāʾ of each other, and we know they were not leaders of each other. This ʾāyah is rather commanding the believers to not take them as allies or beloved, and to not join or intermix with them. This interpretation of the term walī in the ʾāyah (5:51) is agreed on by the scholars of tafsīr of the Shīʿah, such as ash-Shaykh aṭ-Ṭūsī and aṭ-Ṭabrisī. ⁴ 
• Allāh also said { فَتَرَي اَ۬لذِينَ فِے قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٞ يُسَٰرِعُونَ فِيهِمْ يَقُولُونَ نَخْش۪يٰٓ أَن تُصِيبَنَا دَآئِرَةٞۖ فَعَسَي اَ۬للَّهُ أَنْ يَّاتِيَ بِالْفَتْحِ أَوَ اَمْرٖ مِّنْ عِندِهِۦ فَيُصْبِحُواْ عَلَيٰ مَآ أَسَرُّواْ فِےٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ نَٰدِمِينَۖ } “Now, you see those who have disease in their hearts race towards them saying, ‘We apprehend that some misfortune may overtake us.’ So, it is likely that Allāh may bring victory or something else from His own side, whereupon they will become regretful over what they concealed in their hearts.” (5:52) It is known and agreed upon that they were not racing to take them as leaders, as this would be a ridiculous act for anyone who is trying to pretend to be Muslim. It is clear that the hypocrites were trying to seek the support and help of the Jews and Christians, claiming fear of misfortune overtaking them, rather than trying to seek their leadership. This is agreed upon and confirmed by Shīʿī scholars of tafsīr like aṭ-Ṭabrisī. ⁵ 
• Allāh says in ʾāyah (5:53) { يَقُولُ اُ۬لذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ أَهَٰٓؤُلَآءِ اِ۬لذِينَ أَقْسَمُواْ بِاللَّهِ جَهْدَ أَيْمَٰنِهِمُۥٓ إِنَّهُمْ لَمَعَكُمْۖ حَبِطَتَ اَعْمَٰلُهُمْ فَأَصْبَحُواْ خَٰسِرِينَۖ } “Those who believe will say, ‘Are these the ones who swore their solemn oaths by Allāh that they were with you?’ Their deeds have gone to waste, and they became losers.” The state of being “with” in this ʾāyah can refer to nothing but support, alliance, and love, as confirmed by Shīʿī scholars of tafsīr like ash-Shaykh aṭ-Ṭūsī. ⁶ 
• Allāh praised the believers in the ʾāyah (5:54), saying { يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُۥٓ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَي اَ۬لْمُومِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَي اَ۬لْكٰ۪فِرِينَ } “a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble toward the believers, hard on the disbelievers.” This ʾāyah praises the believers for their love for Allāh and the love of Allāh for them, and for their softness with each other and harshness against the disbelievers. If we take the wilāyah in (5:55) to be about support and love, then this ʾāyah supports and agrees with its meaning. Furthermore, as will be discussed later on, this ʾāyah is an evidence for the ʾImāmah of ʾAbū Bakr رضي الله عنه, and the Qurʾān cannot contain contradictions. 
• Allāh said { وَمَنْ يَّتَوَلَّ اَ۬للَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ وَالذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اَ۬للَّهِ هُمُ اُ۬لْغَٰلِبُونَۖ } “Whoever maintains alliance with Allāh and His Messenger and those who believe (must know that) it is the (members of the) Party of Allāh that are the triumphant.” (5:56) The tawallī must refer to support here, just as it does in (5:51). The fact that the tawallī here includes support is accepted by Shīʿī scholars of tafsīr like ash-Shaykh aṭ-Ṭūsī and aṭ-Ṭabrisī, although they claim it also includes obedience.⁷ Furthermore, many scholars took the term “Party of Allāh” to mean the supporters and allies of Allāh. 
• Allāh said { يَٰٓأَيُّهَا اَ۬لذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تَتَّخِذُواْ اُ۬لذِينَ اَ۪تَّخَذُواْ دِينَكُمْ هُزُؤاً وَلَعِباً مِّنَ اَ۬لذِينَ أُوتُواْ اَ۬لْكِتَٰبَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَآءَۖ وَاتَّقُواْ اُ۬للَّهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّومِنِينَۖ } “O you who believe, do not take those who have taken your Faith in jest and fun for allies from those who have been given the Book prior to you, and the disbelievers. Fear Allāh, if you are believers.” (5:57) Allāh repeated the command against taking the disbelievers as allies, and there is no doubt that the wilāyah being commanded against here is that of support/alliance. Scholars of tafsīr of the Shīʿah like aṭ-Ṭabrisī also agree that this is not referring to authority.⁸ 

3.

This contextual point is confirmed by the fact that ʾāyah (5:55) begins with the word {إنما}, since this word is used in the Arabic language in the case of a dispute or confusion, to indicate exclusion of something which the dispute or confusion concerns. There was no dispute or confusion at all about the fact that believers cannot take disbelievers as leaders or authorities, and that Allāh and his Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are in charge of their affairs. The ʾāyah is essentially saying that, instead of the disbelievers being the ʾawliyāʾ of the believers, their walī is rather Allāh, his Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the other believers described in the end of the ʾāyah. Such speech would be utterly nonsensical if these two usages of wilāyah had different meanings, which is confirmed by the usage of {إنما}. 

4.

The contextual purpose and benefit of the ʾāyah cannot be achieved except through the Sunnī interpretation. There is no doubt that the words { اِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اُ۬للَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ } “Your only ally is Allāh, then His Messenger” are being spoken to the ʾUmmah, who already did not doubt that Allāh and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم led them and presided over their affairs. These words were rather said to soften the hearts of the believers and inform them that they have no need to take disbelievers as allies. This is because whoever has Allāh and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as their ally, supporter, and helper, will not need the support or love of Jews or Christians. On the other hand, the Shīʿī interpretation renders the statement of the ʾāyah essentially pointless with respect to the context. 

5.

The ʾāyah is speaking in the present tense, which means that those referred to must have the state of wilāyah at the present time of the ʾāyah being revealed. If we were to take the meaning of the wilāyah in the ʾāyah to be leadership and control over affairs, this would necessitate that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه was in charge of people’s affairs during the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, which we know to be false. If we take the wilāyah to refer to support/love, then the meaning becomes applicable and true for the present situation of the ʾāyah. This is confirmed by the context, because the surrounding ʾāyāt forbid wilāyah with the disbelievers for the believers in that present time, which would make it strange and highly unlikely for (5:55) to be inapplicable in the present. Furthermore, the wilāyah of Allāh and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was present at that time under both meanings, which would make it even more strange for the wilāyah of “those who believe” to be only for the future. 

To take the ʾāyah as a proof for the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, the only possible way would be for the ʾāyah to prove he would be an ʾimām in the future, which entails going against the ʾāyah’s apparent meaning and context. In any case, ʾAhl as-Sunnah already accept this belief, as we believe in the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī after ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān رضي الله عنهم, and the ʾāyah does not indicate a specific time for the wilāyah. The term walī cannot mean someone who is worthy of taking authority in the future without currently being in such a position, as this meaning has no presence or basis in the language, and would make the usage inconsistent in this context.

6.

Allāh spoke about the believers referred to in this ʾāyah using the grammatical plural 7 times (in 7 words). { وَالذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ اُ۬لذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ اَ۬لصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُوتُونَ اَ۬لزَّكَوٰةَ وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ } “and those who believe, who establish Salāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allāh.” Taking such a plural wording to refer to a singular person, although possible, is metaphorical and is abnormal in comparison to the literal apparent usage. With regards to the claim of some of the Shīʿah that this refers to all of their ʾimāms, then this is a baseless assertion with no independent evidence; a Sunnī can just as easily assert with no basis that the ʾāyah was revealed for all of al-Khulafāʾ ar-Rāshidūn. The Shīʿī claim would be even more farfetched in this case, as most of their ʾimāms were not even alive when it was revealed. 

7.

With regard to the arguments that whoever is described by { وَالذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ اُ۬لذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ اَ۬لصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُوتُونَ اَ۬لزَّكَوٰةَ وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ } “and those who believe, who establish Salāh and pay Zakāh and bow before Allāh” cannot be the same as those who are being addressed, and that {إنما} entails exclusivity of the wilāyah for those mentioned, then these can essentially be responded to together. 

First of all, there is no issue for Sunnīs in accepting that the wilāyah in this ʾāyah is exclusive. This is because Allāh would be verbally separating the believers into two groups, saying that the walī of the group being addressed is only Himself, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the rest of the believers. It is known that the disbelievers cannot be ʾawliyāʾ for the believers, and that people cannot be ʾawliyāʾ of their own selves, so the wilāyah here must be exclusive due to there being nobody else left. Consequently, the Qurʾān affirming wilāyah of all believers for each other in other ʾāyāt does not negate specifying some for the wilāyah of the rest, but rather reaffirms it. Likewise, Zayd and ʿAmr being brothers does not negate that the specific status of brotherhood of Zayd is not shared between them, since Zayd cannot be his own brother, even though they each share in the general status of brotherhood with the other. It is similarly known, for example, that if a speaker in a sermon said to the attendees (أيها الناس لا تغتابوا الناس) “Do not backbite people,” every listener would take it to mean not to backbite any others, and nobody would think they are being told not to backbite their own selves. Such is common in the speech of the Arabs, and even in English. 

Furthermore, it is not necessarily true that the word {اِنَّمَا} is being used for exclusivity. One such case is { إِنَّمَا مَثَلُ اُ۬لْحَيَوٰةِ اِ۬لدُّنْي۪ا كَمَآءٍ اَنزَلْنَٰهُ مِنَ اَ۬لسَّمَآءِ } “the example of worldly life is just like the water We sent down from the sky.” (10:24) There are undoubtedly other analogies for worldly life besides rain. Another is { إِنَّمَا اَ۬لْحَيَوٰةُ اُ۬لدُّنْي۪ا لَعِبٞ وَلَهْوٞۖ } “the worldly life is but play and pastime,” (47:36) and play and pastime can occur in other than it. As is clear in countless examples in the Qurʾān, the word {اِنَّمَا} can often be used for emphasis or for exclusivity that is metaphorical or not absolute. There is wide disagreement among Arabic grammarians regarding whether {اِنَّمَا} even entails exclusion by default,⁹ and even under the view that it does, it would not mean that the word entails exclusivity in all cases, but rather that this is the norm until evidence indicates otherwise. 

If the wording were taken to entail absolute exclusivity, and the wilāyah were taken to refer to authority and being in charge of affairs, then this ʾāyah would actually be a negation of the ʾImāmah of all the ʾimāms of the Shīʿah after ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, making the argument self-defeating. This entailment could only be avoided by saying that the exclusivity is limited only to the time period of the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and before the other ʾimāms, at which point the argument ceases to be about any matter of disagreement and becomes almost tautological, since Sunnīs already believe in the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه during the time in which he was an ʾimām after the first 3 Khulafāʾ. This issue cannot be solved by asserting that the ʾāyah applies to the rest of their ʾimāms, because even besides the fact that a Sunnī can assert the same thing without evidence about their Khulafāʾ, it would still remain the case that this ʾāyah would supposedly be exclusive at the time it was revealed, since none of the other ʾimāms were such a situation at that time; rather, most of them were not even born! 

8.

The claim that the ʾāyah is specific to ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is entirely unjustified. The narrations indicating that this ʾāyah was revealed when ʿAlī رضي الله عنه gave a ring to a poor man while bowing in prayer are a handful of ʾāḥād and come nowhere near tawātur, and there is most definitely no consensus on their acceptance. As noted by scholars like Ibn Kathīr, all of the chains of narration for this event have problems,¹⁰ and ar-Rāzī for example mentions that the majority of scholars of tafsīr held the ʾāyah to be general in meaning and not restricted to a specific individual.¹¹ Many scholars also note problems in the content of these narrations, which will soon be pointed out in more detail. There is not even any consensus among those who claimed the ʾāyah was revealed for a specific person, since ʿIkrimah claimed that it refers to ʾAbū Bakr رضي الله عنه. There are also stronger narrations indicating that the ʾāyah was revealed for ʿUbādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit رضي الله عنه instead, when he dissociated from the Jews and declared alliance with Allāh, his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the believers, and these narrations clearly indicate that the wilāyah is that which relates to support, alliance, and love.

Even if the ʾāyah had been revealed for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, scholars on all sides agree that a general statement in an ʾāyah or ḥadīth does not become specified in meaning solely by the fact that it was revealed or stated in relation to a specific event or person.¹² ʾAbū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir was asked about the ʾāyah: “Who are {الذين آمنوا} ‘those who believed’?” He responded: “They are those who believed.” He was then asked again, “It has reached us that it descended regarding ʿAlī ibn ʾAbī Ṭalib.” He responded: “ʿAlī is among those who believed.” This is narrated by ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd, Ibn Jarīr aṭ-Ṭabarī, Ibn ʾAbī Ḥātim, and Ibn al-Mundhir, and a very similar narration is also narrated by ʾAbū Nuʿaym in al-Ḥilyah.¹³ It is also narrated that as-Suddī believed the ʾāyah was revealed for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه while being general in meaning.¹⁴ Furthermore, the more full narrations about the ʾāyah being revealed for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه even indicate that the poor man had been ʿAbdullāh ibn Salām, and that this happened when he and his people abandoned the Jews and took Allāh, his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the believers as allies. 

9.

Regarding their claim about the ʾāyah being specific to the one who gives zakāh while in the state of rukūʿ (bowing), then it has many problems. If that interpretation were true, then this ʾāyah would be praising the act of giving charity while in prayer, and there is agreement of scholars that such a thing is not praiseworthy, as it distracts from prayer’s purpose. Furthermore, this interpretation also requires taking zakāh to refer to supererogatory charity (ṣadaqah) instead of its literal meaning, which is abandoning the apparent meaning of the text, making the claim more unlikely.

Those who said the ʾāyah is not restricted to a specific individual said the ʾāyah is indicating that praying ṣalāh, giving zakāh, and doing rukūʿ are in the nature of the believers being referred to. They differed on the intended meaning of rukūʿ (“bowing”) between multiple views. These views allow for both possible grammatical interpretations of { وَهُمْ رَٰكِعُونَۖ }, which can either mean “while they bow” (with wāw al-ḥāl), or “and they bow” (with wāw al-ʿaṭf):¹⁵

• What is intended by rukūʿ is submission, meaning that those being referred to are praying and giving zakāh while submitting to all of Allāh’s commands and prohibitions. This is a known literal usage for the term rukūʿ in the Arabic language,¹⁶ and taking rukūʿ to not refer to the common šarʿī meaning is no more far fetched than taking zakāh to refer to non-obligatory charity, which is the claim of those who say it refers to giving charity while bowing in prayer. 
• The Ṣaħābah were in different situations when the ʾāyah descended, with some of them completing ṣalāh and some of them completing zakāh, and some being in a state of rukūʿ, so Allāh mentioned all of the different traits together. 
• Rukūʿ here refers to supererogatory prayer while ṣalāh refers to obligatory prayer, with rukūʿ being mentioned as a way of honoring it, similar to { وَارْكَعُواْ مَعَ اَ۬لرَّٰكِعِينَۖ } “and bow with those who bow.” (2:43) 

Interestingly, some Zaydī ʾimāms admitted that the Sunnī interpretation is not far-fetched.¹⁷ 

1.  الدراري المضيئة الموصلة إلى الفصول اللؤلؤية لصلاح بن أحمد المؤيدي – ج1 ص111 
   ↩︎
2.  الموسوعة الفقهية الميسرة لمحمد علي الأنصاري – ج2 ص460 
   ↩︎
3.  البحر المحيط للزركشي – مسألة في حكم المشترك بالنسبة إلى معنييه أو معانيه , البحر المحيط للزركشي – تنبيه الخلاف في حمل المشترك على معانيه 
   ↩︎
4.  التبيان للطوسي , مجمع البيان للطبرسي 
   ↩︎
5.  مجمع البيان للطبرسي 
   ↩︎
6.  التبيان للطوسي 
   ↩︎
7.  مجمع البيان للطبرسي , التبيان للطوسي 
   ↩︎
8.  مجمع البيان للطبرسي 
   ↩︎
9.  البحر المحيط للزركشي – من أدوات المعاني إنما , شرح المحلي على جمع الجوامع مع حاشية العطار – ج1 ص339 
   ↩︎
10.  تفسير ابن كثير – ج3 ص139 
    ↩︎
11.  تفسير الرازي 
    ↩︎
12.  البحر المحيط للزركشي – الخطاب الوارد على سبب لواقعة وقعت , سلاسل الذهب للزركشي – ص270 
       الخدائق الناضرة للمحقق البحراني – ج13 ص333 , بحار الأنوار للمجلسي – ج63 ص122 , التبيان للشيخ الطوسي – ج9 ص585 
    ↩︎
13.  الدر المنثور للسيوطي 
    ↩︎
14.  تفسير الطبري 
    ↩︎
15.  تفسير الماوردي , البحر المحيط لأبي حيان , الكشاف للزمخشري , زاد المسير لابن الجوزي , تفسير الرازي  
    ↩︎
16.  http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/ركع/ 
    ↩︎
17.  الإيضاح شرح المصباح لأحمد بن يحيى حابس الصعدي – ص304 
    ↩︎