وَٱتَّبَعُوا۟ مَا تَتْلُوا۟ ٱلشَّيَٰطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَٰنَ وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَٰنُ وَلَٰكِنَّ ٱلشَّيَٰطِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ يُعَلِّمُونَ ٱلنَّاسَ ٱلسِّحْرَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ عَلَى ٱلْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَٰرُوتَ وَمَٰرُوتَ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَآ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِۦ بَيْنَ ٱلْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِۦ وَمَا هُم بِضَآرِّينَ بِهِۦ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ ٱللَّهِ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُوا۟ لَمَنِ ٱشْتَرَىٰهُ مَا لَهُۥ فِى ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ مِنْ خَلَٰقٍ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَوْا۟ بِهِۦٓ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُوا۟ يَعْلَمُونَ
“And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angles) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
This text passage contains excerpts from the exegesis of multiple verses; Taberî here explains in the context of Quran 2:102 the story of Hârût and Mârût regarding what was learned from the angels, the negative meaning of the particle 'mâ', and that the polytheists/People of the Book knew but did not act accordingly. Furthermore, in the discussion about whether the agent of the expression 'ma etlet-ş şeyâtîn' is humans or demons, he notes that all exegetes agree that this concerns the Jews. Finally, it is emphasized that sorcery can only occur with Allah's permission/divine decree and destiny.
وذلك قول لجميع أهل التأويل مخالف؛ وذلك أنهم مجمعون على أن قوله: معني به اليهود دون الشياطين.
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Zemahşerî, the phrase 'lev kânû ya'lemûn' in the verse explains that if the disbelievers, or according to some interpretations the emigrants, had known the balance between this world and the hereafter, they would have acted differently in their religion and effort. Furthermore, the spider's web parable is given to show that the religion which the polytheists relied upon was the weakest and most fragile form of belief, and that idolatry was as fragile as a spider's web in terms of solidity. The text states that this parable can be read both literally and metaphorically, and in both cases emphasizes the weakness of the polytheists' religion.
معناه لو كانوا يعلمون أن هذا مثلهم وأن أمر دينهم بالغ هذه الغاية من الوهن . ووجه آخر : وهو أنه إذا صح تشبيه ما اعتمدوه في دينهم ببيت العنكبوت ، وقد صح أن أوهن البيوت بيت العنكبوت ، فقد تبين أن دينهم أوهن الأديان لو كانوا يعملون
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
This text addresses, within the framework of Quran 2:102, the meaning of sorcery in linguistic and terminological terms, its relationship with Solomon's kingdom, and how the attribution of sorcery/disbelief to him is refuted. The report is transmitted that the Jews described Solomon as a sorcerer rather than a prophet, and it is stated that Allah distanced this attribution from Solomon, with the true fault belonging to the demons and those who taught sorcery. Furthermore, a distinction is made that the angels' (Harut and Marut's) teaching of sorcery does not constitute disbelief since the purpose was to warn people against it, while the demons' teaching constitutes disbelief because it aimed to make people believe it was truth.
وأيضا فبتقدير أن يقال : إنهما علما هذا النوع لكن تعليم هذا النوع إنما يكون كفرا إذا قصد المعلم أن يعتقد حقيقته وكونه صوابا ، فأما أن يعلمه ليحترز عنه فهذا التعليم لا يكون كفرا
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
Kurtubî points out that there is an inversion (fronting/postponement) in word order in the verse; it means that Solomon was not a disbeliever and sorcery was not revealed to the angels, but rather the demons taught sorcery in Babylon to people named Hârût and Mârût. Furthermore, he transmits the view that the verb 'yu'allimân' (they teach) has the meaning of 'yu'limân' (they inform/warn), and that the angels informed people about sorcery not to teach it but to warn/caution them against it. This is presented as a view transmitted from 'Ali and it is stated that the majority of linguists also hold this view.
وفي الكلام تقديم وتأخير التقدير وما كفر سليمان وما أنزل على الملكين ولكن الشياطين كفروا يعلمون الناس السحر ببابل هاروت وماروت فهاروت وماروت بدل من الشياطين في قوله ولكن الشياطين كفروا هذا أولى ما حملت عليه الآية من التأويل واصح ما قيل فيها ولا يلتفت إلى سواه
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Ibn Kesîr, the verse explains the reason people attributed sorcery to Solomon and the story of Hârût-Mârût; it is reported that the demons buried writings of sorcery and divination that Allah had sent down to Solomon, which he kept hidden, under his throne, and after his death they took them out and deceived people, presenting this as 'knowledge from Allah that came down to Solomon and which he concealed'. Hârût and Mârût were two angels sent down to test people, and they were required to say first to anyone they would teach: 'We are only a trial, so do not become disbelievers', but despite this, some people learned sorcery and fell into disbelief.
وإن الشياطين عمدوا إلى كتاب فكتبوا فيه السحر والكهانة وماشاء الله من ذلك فدفنوه تحت كرسي مجلس سليمان وكان عليه السلام لا يعلم الغيب فلما فارق سليمان الدنيا استخرجوا ذلك السحر وخدعوا الناس وقالوا هذا علم كان سليمان يكتمه ويحسد الناس عليه
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Beydâvî, Solomon cannot be accused of practicing sorcery; the term 'disbelief' in the verse points to the condition of those who use sorcery, namely the demons, and shows that the prophet Solomon was protected from such a thing. The Jews' claims that Solomon's kingdom was completed through sorcery and that the jinn knew the unseen are refuted. In the story of Hârût and Mârût, the angels' teaching of sorcery to people was done by Allah in order to test people and to distinguish sorcery from miracles; their saying 'we are only a trial, so do not become disbelievers' indicates that learning sorcery is permissible but its application is forbidden.
وما كفر سليمان تكذيب لمن زعم ذلك، وعبر عن السحر بالكفر ليدل على أنه كفر، وأن من كان نبيا كان معصوما منه. ولكن الشياطين كفروا باستعماله
Comparison
Common ground
All exegetes agree that Solomon cannot be accused of sorcery or disbelief, that this attribution properly belongs to the demons/those who teach sorcery, and that the story of Hârût-Mârût serves the purpose of testing people. Furthermore, a common axis is formed by the emphasis that sorcery occurs only with Allah's permission/decree and that the angels' teaching aims not to lead someone into disbelief but to warn them; reported materials (Suddî, Katâde, Ibn 'Abbâs, etc.) serve as a common source in nearly all of them.
Differences
While Taberî and Ibn Kesîr present a more report-oriented, transmissive reading, Zemahşerî, al-Râzî, Kurtubî and Beydâvî devote more attention to linguistic/rhetorical and grammatical analysis (inversion, the difference between 'yu'allimân/yu'limân', simile-metaphor). While Kurtubî and Beydâvî discuss the meaning of the verb 'to teach' from a linguistic perspective, al-Râzî adds a theological-juridical dimension to the matter (whether it constitutes disbelief according to intention). Zemahşerî's text offers a representative/metaphorical reading by focusing on a different verse (the spider parable), which also distinguishes it from the others in terms of subject matter.
Historical context
Taberî's early-period exegesis establishes the basic framework with emphasis on reports and consensus; subsequent exegetes maintained this framework while adding linguistic and theological layers on top of it. While linguistic and rational demonstration come to the fore in Zemahşerî and al-Râzî, Kurtubî and Beydâvî attempt to synthesize this accumulation and establish a balance between both language and reports; Ibn Kesîr returns to a more report-oriented style. This shows that the exegetical tradition was enriched over time by incorporating linguistic analysis, but the basic issue (Solomon's innocence, the testing theme) remained constant.