Verses 9–22
The previous group of verses stated how the divine custom guides man to the path of truth and the religion of monotheism, which brings about the happiness of both worlds to whoever answers the true call, and the punishment of both worlds for whoever disbelieves in the truth and disobeys the commandment [of God]. Reference to the revelation of the Torah and what happened thereafter to the Israelites was an example of a specific application of this general rule.
This set of verses states how the aforementioned custom applies to this nation just as it applied to Moses’ nation. The verses conclude the need to avoid attributing partners [to God] and the need to adhere to the path of monotheism as they will say: Do not associate with God any other god, lest you sit down despised, neglected ().
Commentary
إِنَّ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانَ يَهْدِى لِلَّتِى هِىَ أَقْوَمُ وَيُبَشِّرُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا كَبِيرًا ٩
(17:9) Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright (aqwam) and gives good news to the believers who do good (al-ṣāliḥāt) that they shall have a great reward.
That is, it guides to the religion that is the most upright, as He says: Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Abraham the upright one (6:171).
Aqwam is a superlative derived from qiyām, meaning the standing position as opposed to the sitting position (quʿūd). It is the most balanced state and posture of the body which gives the person control to do anything that he wants, unlike other positions like sitting or lying on the back or faced down. Standing up is used metaphorically to talk about having a good command and control over the affairs without any weakness or failure, and directing the affairs toward one’s objective. “He stood to such and such a matter” (qāma bi-amri kadhā) means that he took charge of that matter. “He stood over such and such a matter” (qām ʿalā amr kadhā) mean that he watched, guarded and looked after that matter as appropriate. God has described this upright religion with the quality of standing (qiyām) in the verses: Then set your face upright for religion in the right state–the nature made by God in which He has made men; there is no altering of God's creation; that is the upright religion (al-dīn al-qayyim) (); Then turn thy face straight to the upright religion ().
This is based on the fact that this religion embraces the good of both worlds for the people, and serves to improve their condition in this life and afterlife. This is because it conforms to the primary nature (fiṭrah) of mankind and the creation and means that God has given them accordingly so that they may achieve the goal that has been planned for them and the felicity that has been prepared for them.
Based on the [general discussion] above, if “the most upright” (in “to that which is most upright”) is relative to the other schools and ideologies. This implies that they have some share of uprightness—in the sense that they are living customs that people have adopted to benefit them in some aspects of their lives. Yet, even though they may benefit them in some aspects of life, they harm them in others. Even if they secure a share of what they desire, they make them lose a great share of what is good for them. It is only Islam that looks after their life and everything that matters to them in this world and the hereafter without missing anything. Thus, the upright (ḥanīfiyyah) religion takes better care of human life than any other alternative.
However, given the previous set of verses, “the most upright” is apparently relative to the previous religions like those of Noah, Moses and Jesus, because the previous verses talked about the Torah which was made a guidance for the Israelites. This upright religion [of Islam] is more complete than the previous religions that were established by the scriptures of the earlier prophets. It contains divine teachings to the highest degree that human capacity can bear and laws for all individual and societal activities of mankind without exception. He says: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it (). Thus, what the Qur’an guides toward is more upright than what other Books guide toward.
…and gives good news to the believers who do good (al-ṣāliḥāt) that they shall have a great reward: Al-ṣāliḥāt is an adjective for an implied noun that is omitted for the sake of brevity. What is implied is: “to the believers who do good [deeds].” The verse assigns a right for the believers who believe and do good deeds over God, as it is called a “reward.” This is confirmed by the verse: (As for) those who believe and do good, they shall surely have a reward never to be cut off (). There is nothing wrong with God owing them something if He has taken it on Himself. It is like: Then We deliver Our messengers and those who believe–even so (now), it is binding on Us (that) We deliver the believers ().
The verse is concerned with explaining the promise that will be kept just as the next verse is concerned with the threat that will be followed through—that is, punishment for whoever disbelieves in the hereafter. As for whoever believes but does not do good [deeds], he is not one of those who have a definite right over God and whom God will certainly reward. Rather, his case hinges on repentance or intercession, so that he may catch up with the company of pious believers. He says: And others have confessed their faults, they have mingled a good deed and an evil one; maybe God will turn to them (mercifully) (); And others are made to await God’s command, whether He chastise them or whether He turn to them (mercifully) (). True, they have a firm footing in the truth by virtue of their faith, as He says: and give good news to those who believe that theirs is a footing of firmness with their Lord (); and God confirms those who believe with the sure word in this world’s life and in the hereafter ().
وَأَنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ أَعْتَدْنَا لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا ١٠
(17:10) And that (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, We have prepared (aʿtadnā, from iʿtād) for them a painful chastisement.
Iʿtād means preparation (iʿdād) and furnishing (tahyiʾah). It comes from ʿatād, which according to al-Rāghib means saving something up before it is needed; it is synonymous with iʿdād (preparation). The apparent context of the verses suggests that this verse is added by conjunction to “they shall have” in the previous verse. That is: “And gives good news to the believers that those who do not believe…” This is good news for the believers because it is divine retribution against their enemies in religion.
Their view is specifically characterized by their lack of belief in the hereafter, even though it is possible that they also disbelieve in other matters such as monotheism and prophethood. This is because this entire discourse revolves around the consequence of the upright religion. There is no place for religion and no benefit in it if one denies the hereafter, even if the person admits the Oneness of the Lord and other facts. That is why He considers forgetting the Day of Reckoning to be the root of every error as per the verse: (as for) those who go astray from the path of God, they shall surely have a severe punishment because they forgot the day of reckoning ().
وَيَدْعُ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ بِٱلشَّرِّ دُعَآءَهُۥ بِٱلْخَيْرِ ۖ وَكَانَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ عَجُولًا ١١
(17:11) And man prays for evil (bi al-sharr) as he ought to pray (duʿāʾahu) for good (bi al-khayr), and man is ever hasty.
Based on the context, duʿāʾ here is any request or pursuit (ṭalab), whether worded as a prayer such as: “O, God, provide me with wealth and children,” or without verbal prayer but through seeking and striving. All of these are forms of prayer and request from God, whether a person is aware of it and believes in it or not, because there is in reality no giver or depriver apart from God. He says: All those who are in the heavens and the earth ask of Him (); And He gives you of all that you ask Him ().
Thus duʿāʾ means any pursuit (ṭalab). Then, letter bāʾ in bi al-sharr and bi al-khayr serves to connect the nouns to the verbs. That is: Man prays and asks for evil the same way as he prays for, asks for and seeks good.
Thus, describing the human being as hasty means that when he wants something, he does not take the time to pause and think about its benefit and harm in order to properly verify the goodness of what he wants and thus pursue and strive toward it. Instead, he is hasty in pursuing it as soon as he thinks of it and desires it while it could be either evil and harmful to him or good and beneficial.
This and the following verses involve a rebuke and criticism consequent to the previous talk of the divine favor of guiding to that which is most upright. It is effectively saying: Verily We have revealed a Book which guides to a religion which is most upright, driving those who adopt it toward happiness and heaven, steering them to a great reward and guiding them to all good. However, the human being, in his continuous haste, does not discriminate between good and evil, but pursues anything that occurs to him and asks for anything that springs to his mind. He desires things without differentiating between good and evil or truth and falsehood. So he comes to evil the same way that he comes to good, and rushes toward falsehood just as he rushes toward the truth.
But he should not be hasty and pursue whatever he desires and lusts for. He does not have the right to do whatever he is capable of doing and commit whatever God has put at his disposal and has enabled him with. He cannot do so on the grounds that it is a divine facilitation and that had He wished otherwise He would have prevented me. See how these two divine signs—the night and the day [as discussed in verse 12]—are not of the same kind. Rather, the sign of the night is faded and obscured; it is when movements are stilled and eyes are calmed. But the sign of the day is manifest; it is when faculties are alert, people seek the bounty of their Lord, and thereby they know the numbering of the years and the reckoning.
Similarly good and bad deeds are both existent entities at man’s disposal by God’s leave, under the power that God has invested him with. However, this does not prove that it is permissible for man to do both good and evil, or to be hasty, pursue anything that occurs to him, and thus come to evil just as he comes to good and commit disobedience just as he commits obedience. On the contrary, he must treat an evil deed as something that is faded and obscured [like the sign of the night] and thereby should not commit it. He must treat good deed as a manifest sign, and should perform it to seek the bounty of His Lord which comprises of happiness and noble provision in the hereafter. Indeed a person’s action is his omen and fate that directs him to his happiness or wretchedness, and is inseparable from him. Any good or evil that he does will not leave him for anyone else and will not point to anyone other than himself.
This is the meaning of the verse in the context. It shows the following:
Firstly: This verse and the following ones are threaded to rebuke and criticize. This is what connects these verses with what preceded them: Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright (), as we just discussed above. He is criticizing man for his propensity to hastiness, which causes him to not appreciate the blessing of divine guidance as he should, and to not discriminate between the religion which is most upright and others. He thus prays for and seeks evil the same way that he prays for and seeks good, and heads for misery the same way that he heads for happiness.
Secondly: What is meant by man in these verses is the genus [that is, all human beings], not specific groups such as the unbelievers and the polytheists as some exegetes have suggested. Likewise, it has been said that duʿāʾ (prayer, supplication) means any kind of pursuit, not the technical sense of the term. Furthermore, good and bad are what cause one’s real happiness or wretchedness in life, not absolutely everything that benefits or harms. Therefore, it does not include a person’s supplication for the success and prosperity of one whom he likes, or for the failure and loss of one whom he dislikes. Finally, haste means man’s love for the immediate realization of what he desires. It is not about one’s insistence and stubbornness in asking for punishment and calamity [as an act of challenging and disparaging the warnings of the prophets].
The exegetes disagree remarkably over the vocabulary of the verse and have disordered statements explaining how this verse and the ones that follow are connected to those preceding them. We have eschewed citing them and plunging into them because it is pointless to address them. Whoever wishes can refer to their books.
وَجَعَلْنَا ٱلَّيْلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ ءَايَتَيْنِ ۖ فَمَحَوْنَآ ءَايَةَ ٱلَّيْلِ وَجَعَلْنَآ ءَايَةَ ٱلنَّهَارِ مُبْصِرَةً لِّتَبْتَغُوا۟ فَضْلًا مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَلِتَعْلَمُوا۟ عَدَدَ ٱلسِّنِينَ وَٱلْحِسَابَ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَىْءٍ فَصَّلْنَـٰهُ تَفْصِيلًا ١٢
(17:12) And We have made the night and the day two signs, then We have made the sign–the night (ayat al-layl)–to pass away and We have made the sign–the day (ayat al-nahār)–manifest (mubṣiratan), so that you may seek grace from your Lord, and that you might know the numbering of years and the reckoning; and We have explained everything with distinctness.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Mubṣirah means shining, illuminating and glowing. According to Abū ʿAmr, the day is called mubṣirah in the sense that daylight enables one to see (baṣara yubṣiru). It is similar to the expressions “a sleeping night” (layl nāʾim) and “a concealing secret” (sirr kātim) [meaning “a night when one sleeps” and “a secret that one conceals”]. Al-Kisāʾī says: The Arabs say: “The day gave sight” (abṣar al-nahār) when it becomes bright.
Night and day are light and darkness that follow each other over the earth as it faces the sun upon sunrise and is hidden from it at sunset. Just like all other things in existence, their very reality and their [various] states are signs of God that suffice to show that He alone is the Lord.
Hence, their being made two signs is their being created this way. It is not that they were first created without being signs and then they were made signs that point to the Creator. All things, in their very essence and being, are His signs that point to their Creator, not because of any accidental or secondary attribute.
This also clarifies that āyat al-layl and āyat al-nahār mean the very night and day. In other words, the ascription [of layl and nahār to āyat] is explanatory, not possessive. Making the night pass away refers to its darkness, which makes it hidden from the eyes as opposed to the day.
Some exegetes have said that the sign of the night means the moon and its effacement is the dark spots on it; while the sign of the day is the sun and its being made manifest is the lack of any darkness or blackness on its disc . This is not a sound interpretation because the verse is talking about two signs [in total], not two signs of two signs. Furthermore, what can be inferred from “so that you may seek grace from your Lord…” follows consequentially from the light of the day versus the darkness of the night, not from the dark spots on the face of the moon versus the sun’s disc being free of that.
Similarly, others have claimed that the sign of the night means its darkness, the sign of the day means daylight, and the effacement of the sign of the night means the effacement of its darkness by the light of day. This also applies to daylight which is effaced by the night’s darkness, but it has not been mentioned as it is understood.
It should be clear that this is not a valid interpretation based on what we said above: The point of the verse is to show that there is a difference between the two signs, although they both serve as signs and indications. The above interpretation, however, nullifies the distinction.
…so that you may seek grace from your Lord …: This is consequential to “and We have made the sign–the day–manifest.” That is: We made it illuminating so that you can pursue your provision from your Lord during it, because provision is His grace and bounty.
Some say that the implied meaning is: So that you can rest at night and seek bounty from your Lord by day, where the first part (so that you can rest at night) is omitted because of what is said elsewhere [in the Qur’an]. The problem is that the verse is threaded to explain the results of only one of the two signs, even though they are both signs. But the presumably omitted part in this interpretation contradicts this idea.
…and that you might know the numbering of years and the reckoning;…: That is: The effacement of the night and the illumination of the day enable you to know the numbering of the years by setting some day as the initial point and counting from then onwards. This way you may keep track of the times and terms [of your affairs]. The context of the verse suggests that knowledge of years and the reckoning is consequential to the day being made manifest, just as seeking God’s grace was consequential to it. That is because we do not realize the non-existence or lack of something except by means of existence. Darkness is a lack of light; were it not for light we would neither realize light nor darkness. We apparently measure time based on both the night and the day, and we distinguish each based on the other. Yet, the existential (wujūdī) one—that is, the day—is what our perception grasps first, and then we realize the non-existential (ʿadamī) one—that is, the night—by a kind of comparison. The same applies to any existential reality in relation to a non-existential one in comparison to it.
Al-Rāzī says in his exegesis [summarized]:
It is most plausible to say that the sign of the night is the moon, and its effacement is what befalls it in terms of growing and shrinking night by night from wane to wane. This is a great sign due to its enormous effects on oceans, deserts and the people’s health.
This implicates, as he has indicated, that the subsequent inferences (so that you may seek grace from your Lord, and that you might know the numbering of years and the reckoning) are a result of both making the sign of the night to pass away and making the sign of the day manifest. The meaning would then be: We made it so that you can seek your provisions during sunlight and at different moon states, and know thereby the numbering of years and the reckoning because the sun is what separates day from night, the moon with its various forms marks the lunar months, and the months mark the years. Thus letter lām (lit. “so that”) in both phrases—li tabtaghū (so that you may seek) and li taʿlamū (so that you may know)—is dependent on both verbs maḥawnā (We have made…to pass away) and jaʿalnā (We made).
The problem with this is that the context of the verse does not fit the purpose mentioned in it being consequential to both signs—that is, the sign that is made passing (the night) and the one that is made staying (the day). You should know [based on our exposition of the previous verses] that the verses are on a thread of rebuke and criticism. The position of this verse (And We have made the night and the day two signs) in this context is that it is an answer to a potential justification that mankind may give to justify pursuing evil as they pursues good.
The line of meaning can be summarized as such: Because of man’s haste, he does not pay attention to the Book that God has revealed and the most upright religion that He has guided him toward. Instead, he hurtles into evil and pursues it as he should pursue good, without pausing in his action and pondering if it is correct or corrupt. Instead he hurtles right away toward whatever he desires and is capable of pursuing. In doing so he relies on his natural freedom to act and is effectively arguing that God has enabled him to do this act and has not stopped him from it; as God has quoted the polytheists saying: If God had pleased, we would not have served anything besides God, (neither) we nor our fathers ().
This is answered in a context of rebuke and criticism by saying that the mere ability to do an act does not necessarily mean that it is permissible to do it. The ability to do either good or evil does not mean that it is permissible to hurtle into evil as one would seek good. See how night and day are two of God’s signs in which man lives. God has made one of these signs—the night—to pass away and has decreed stillness and rest for it; but He has made the other sign—the day—manifest and conducive to seeing, when people can seek their sustenance, and by which people can keep track of the number of years and the reckoning.
The day and the night are both signs of God, but this does not necessarily mean that both are equally subject to motion and alternation. Rather, motion and alternation exclusively belong to the day. Likewise, good and evil deeds are common in the sense that they both occur by God’s leave, and that God has enabled mankind to commit both. Nonetheless, this does not necessitate that it is equally permissible to commit either of the two. Rather, the permissibility of performing or committing is exclusive to doing good, not doing evil. Man is thus not entitled to tread whatever path occurs to him or do whatever he desires or fancies, relying on the natural freedom and divine enablement as an excuse.
The above also shows the invalidity of what some have said, that the verse is threaded as an argument for monotheism, because night and day, the changes that occur to them, and the blessings that emanate from them are among the clearest signs of Divine Unity.
The problem with this claim is that even though they indicate Divine Unity, this is not necessarily the purpose of stating them here. They [that is, day and night and their changes and benefits] are not always intended to indicate this [Divine Unity] regardless of their context.
and We have explained everything with distinctness: This suggests that things are distinct from one another, and that nothing is left ambiguous or unexplained in creation.
وَكُلَّ إِنسَـٰنٍ أَلْزَمْنَـٰهُ طَـٰٓئِرَهُۥ فِى عُنُقِهِۦ ۖ وَنُخْرِجُ لَهُۥ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ كِتَـٰبًا يَلْقَىٰهُ مَنشُورًا ١٣
(17:13) And We have made every man’s bird of omen (ṭāʾirahu) to cling to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book which he will find wide open.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Ṭāʾir here means a person’s actions. It is likened to a bird that either lands and appears (yasnaḥu), foretelling the coming of blessings and good fortune, or a bird that flies away and disappears (yabraḥu), foreshadowing the coming of danger or calamity. Al-sāniḥ is what has its right facing your left, while al-bāriḥ is what has its left facing your right. The origin of this [naming and designation] was that in case of a sāniḥ an archer could shoot [it easily], but in case of a bāriḥ he could not. Abū Zayd says: Everything that moves—birds, gazelles, and so on— was considered a ṭāʾir (that is, omen) for them [that is, pre-Islamic Arabs].
Al-Kashshāf says:
They used to regard a bird (ṭayr) as an omen and call it zajr (repulsion). This naming was because when they traveled and a bird came by, they used to repel it and fend it away. If a sāniḥ bird passed them—that is, one that flies from left to right—then they augured well from it. On the other hand, if a bāriḥ bird passed them—that is, one that passes from right to left—they would augur ill. That is why it (seeing an [evil] omen) is called taṭayyur (lit. taking on a bird).
Al-Mufradāt says:
Taṭayyara and iṭṭayara originally referred to seeing an omen through birds, but then became used for any means of making good or bad omens. They said: Surely we augur evil from you (innā taṭayyarnā bikum; ). That is why it is said [in hadith and supplication to God]: “There is no evil fortune (ṭayr) except for Yours.”
when evil afflicted them, they attributed it to the ill-luck (yaṭṭayarū) of Moses and those with him (): That is, they view him as a bad omen. Surely their evil fortune (ṭāʾiruhum) is only from God (): That is, their misfortune is what God has prepared for them because of their bad deeds. They said: We have met with ill luck (iṭṭayyarnā) on account of you and on account of those with you. He said: The cause of your evil fortune (ṭāʾirukum) is with God… ()
And We have made every man's bird of omen (ṭāʾirahu) to cling to his neck (). One’s “bird of omen” is his actions, whether good or evil, which “flies” (ṭāra; that is, emanates) from him. Taṭāyarū is said when [people] hasten, or when they disperse.
In summary, the preceding and succeeding verses—especially verse 15 (Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright…)—show that ṭāʾir means what indicates good or bad fortune. It reveals a good or bad outcome. Every person has something linked to his ultimate fate that would indicate whether it will be good or bad. Making the ṭāʾir cling to a person means making one’s action inseperable from him. They are made to cling to the neck because it is a body part which a person cannot be separated from, and which cannot be separated from a person, unlike limbs such as arms or legs. It is the part of the body that links the head to the chest, and whatever is hung on it—such as a necklace, collar or fetter— is the first thing that one sees when he meets the person.
Therefore, what is meant by this sentence (And We have made every man’s bird of omen to cling to his neck) is: That which brings about every person’s ultimate fate—happiness or misery—is with him, not separating from him by a decree from God. God is the One Who has made it cling to him. Further, this [cause of one’s fate which is inseparable from the person] is the person’s actions, as He says: And that man shall have nothing but what he strives for–and that his striving shall soon be seen–then shall he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward ().
Hence, the ṭāʾir (augury, bird of omen or fate) that God has made to cling to a person’s neck is his actions. “Making it cling” means that God has decreed that every action depends on its actor in subsistence. Its good, bad, beneficial or harmful consequences do not leave him for anyone else, but they return to him. God’s definitive decree is that good fate is a result of faith and God-fearing, and bad fate is a result of disbelief and disobedience, as deduced from the verses: And surely Hell is the promised place of them all… Surely those who are God-fearing shall be in the midst of gardens and fountains ().
What this necessitates is that one’s actions that determine his end are attached to him. This is a binding attachment that can never be severed, and the actions determine the person’s fate precisely and without any error. This is because it has been decreed that every action belongs to its doer, the doer has nothing else but it, the fate of obedience is Paradise, and the fate of disobedience is hell.
Based on the above, the verse is saying that one’s ultimate happiness or misery hinges only upon the good or bad deeds that he earns through choice. This is exactly the opposite of what some exegetes have falsely claimed: that the verse is denying the effects of deeds on happiness or wretchedness, for it is asserting that one’s happiness or wretchedness is predestined, irrespective of one’s action and obedience.
…and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book which he will find wide open: This book is described by what follows: Read your book; your own self is sufficient as a reckoner against you this day (). It shows the following points:
i) The book which is brought forth to him is his own book, not anyone else’s.
ii) This, the book, contains the reality of his deeds which he has done in this world without missing anything, as per the verse: And they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but numbers them (all) ().
iii) The realities of one’s deeds that are enumerated in his book will be manifest and their good or bad results will be evident, be that happiness or wretchedness. They will be so patent that they cannot be cover by anything or redeemed by any excuse. He says: Certainly you were heedless of it, but now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight today is sharp. ().
On the day that every soul shall find present what it has done of good and what it has done of evil (): Based on this verse, that book contains the very reality of deeds, not written letters as is the case of books in this world. They are the very deeds which God makes one look at with his own eyes, and there is no proof like seeing with one’s own eyes.
That is why apparently omen (ṭāʾir) and book in the verse refer to the same thing: the deeds a person does. However, God makes a distinction between book and omen (ṭāʾir) by saying, “We will bring forth to him a book” instead of saying, “We will bring it forth to him as a book.” This is to avoid giving the impression that one’s deeds become his book only on the Day of Resurrection but they were an omen and not a book prior to that. It is also to avoid giving the impression that one’s omen is hidden, concealed and under cover prior to the Day of Resurrection, because this would contradict its “clinging to one’s neck.”
In short, “We will bring forth to him” suggests that the book of the reality of deeds is hidden from human perception and veiled behind a veil of heedlessness. God only brings it forth to the person on the Day of Resurrection, making him look at all its details. That is what is meant by: he will find it wide open.
This indicates that this [book] is something prepared for him, not something overlooked. This confirms His words: And We have made every man's bird of omen to cling to his neck. Overall, what is being said is that the consequence of one’s action will inevitably reach him, either sooner, as it clings to him without separation; or later, as it is recorded as a book which will appear to him and which he will find wide open.
ٱقْرَأْ كِتَـٰبَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ ٱلْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا ١٤
(17:14) Read your book; your own self (bi-nafsika) is sufficient (kafā) as a reckoner against you this day.
That is: He will be told, “Read your book…”
Kafā bi-nafsika (your own self is sufficient): The Letter bāʾ is an extra letter added for emphasis. The origin of the formulation is kafat nafsuka (your own self suffices), except that the verb is used in the masculine form [kafā, instead of the feminine kafat] because the subject [nafs] is only metaphorically feminine, whereby it can take either a masculine or feminine verb. It has also been said that it [the whole phrase kafā bi-nafsika] serves as a verbal noun that means iktafi (content yourself). If so, then the bāʾ would not be extra. There may also be other explanations for it.
The verse shows that the book’s proof is incontrovertible such that its reader will be in no doubt, even if he is the offender himself. How can there be any doubt when the very deeds are seen, and they [the very deeds] compose one’s retribution? He says: O you who disbelieve! do not urge excuses today; you shall be rewarded only according to what you did ().
The connection between these two verses () can be understood from our explanation about the connection between verse and its preceding verses. In brief, since these verses involve a context of rebuke and criticism, they mean: God revealed the Qur’an and made it a guide to the most upright religion, according to His divine custom of guiding people to monotheism and servitude, and His custom of giving salvation to whoever follows guidance and giving damnation to whoever goes astray. However, man does not distinguish good from evil and does not discriminate between what is beneficial and what is harmful. Instead, he hurries toward whatever he desires, and thus he pursues evil just as he pursues good.
The case is that deeds, whether good or bad, are bound to their doer, and they never leave him. They are also recorded against him in a book which will be brought forth to him on the Day of Resurrection and spread open in front of him, and he will be reckoned according to it. If that is so, then mankind must not launch straight into whatever they lust. They should not hasten to commit anything that they desire, but they should pause over the matters and ponder to discriminate between them and distinguish their good from their evil, so that they may take up the good and avoid the evil.
مَّنِ ٱهْتَدَىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِى لِنَفْسِهِۦ ۖ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا ۚ وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ ۗ وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا ١٥
(17:15) Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray: nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden (wizr) of another, and We have not been chastisers until We raise a messenger.
Al-Mufradāt says:
Wizr means burden, like the wazr (heavy rocks) of mountains. Sin is referred to as wizr as well as thiql (weight). He says:
That they may bear their burdens (awzārahum) entirely… (). And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens (athqālahum), and other burdens with their own burdens… ().
Nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden of another (): That is, one cannot bear the burden of another such that he [the other] is stripped of his load.
The verse is a conclusion of verse (And We have made every man’s bird of omen to cling to…). The third sentence (nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden of another) emphasizes the second sentence (and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray).
The implied meaning is: Given that one’s deeds—whether good or bad—cling to their doer without separating from him, and are recorded against him until he sees them at the time of reckoning, then it follows that whoever goes aright, goes aright for himself; its benefit will accrue to himself and no one else. Similarly, whoever strays from the path only strays to the detriment of himself; it will only harm himself, without leaving him and attaching to anyone else. No soul shall carry another soul’s burden. It is not like what some followers of error believe, that if they go astray then the burden of their error will be upon their leaders who led them astray. For example, those who emulated their fathers and ancestors mistakenly believed that they will not be responsible for their sins and burdens, but their fathers and ancestors will.
True, the leaders of error bear loads equivalent to those of [all] their followers, and whoever establishes an evil custom will bear the burdens of whoever acts upon it. Whoever says, “Follow us so that we can bear your sins,” will certainly bear as much sins as the followers’. However, all of this is the burden of their leadership (imāmah) and their innovation of [an evil] custom. It is not that these leaders will literally take away the very burden of the sinner such that the deed is separated from the doer and is transferred to the leader. If it were the exact same burden, then that would entail that two people would be punished for a single act.
and We have not been chastisers until We raise a messenger: Based on the context of this verse and the subsequent verses—and even the previous verses—what is meant by chastisement here is exterminatory punishment in this world. This is supported by how the verse’s negation is expressed: It does not merely say, “We do not punish” or “We will not punish,” but it says, “We have not been chastisers until We raise a messenger.” The past continuous tense of the verb indicates that God’s custom with past nations that were destroyed was not to punish them until He had sent a messenger to them to warn them of God’s punishment.
This is also supported by the fact that He refers to this envoy as a messenger (rasūl) as opposed to a prophet (nabī). He does not say: “… until We raise a prophet.” In our discussion about the difference between a messenger and a prophet in our discussion on prophethood in volume 2 [volume 3 of the English translation ], we stated that messengership is a special divine position which is followed by decisive judgment upon the nation to be either exterminated by punishment or to enjoy life until an appointed time. He says: And every nation had a messenger; so when their messenger came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly (); Their messengers said: Is there doubt about God, the Maker of the heavens and the earth? He invites you to forgive you your faults and to respite you till an appointed term ().
Hence, the use of the word “messenger” shows that what is being negated is punishment in this world, not punishment in the hereafter or punishment in an absolute and unconditional sense.
The clause, nor do We chastise until We raise a messenger is like a refutation of a potential misinterpretation of the previous verses, which talked about the consequence of deeds catching up with their doers, with great reward for good-doers and painful punishment for evildoers. The misinterpretation would be to assume that the consequences of bad deeds, including worldly and otherworldly punishment, will follow these deeds and encompass their doers unrestrictedly and unconditionally.
But here it says that God, out of His vast mercy and complete care, does not inflict exterminatory punishment in this world until He has sent a messenger to warn the sinners. He has the right to punish them right away, but through His mercy and compassion He gives plenty of warning and establishes proof after proof, and only then does He send punishment.
Thus, “and We have not been chastisers until We raise a messenger” negates the occurrence of punishment, not its justification.
Therefore, as you can see, the verse is not about establishing the intellect’s decree that it is wrong to punish someone without sending them clear guidance. Instead, it reveals what the divine care necessitates: that a group is not exterminated by punishment unless a messenger has been sent to them to emphasize His proof against them and to provide them with evidence after evidence.
As for prophethood [nubuwwah, as opposed to messengership, risālah], it is a role by which duties are communicated and religious laws are clarified. It determines one’s reward or punishment in the hereafter, and whether one qualifies for God’s punishment or forgiveness with regards to matters whose truth or falsehood can only be identified through prophethood, such as practical duties (furūʿ). As for the fundamentals of religion and beliefs, that the intellect can understand independently—such as God’s unity, prophethood and resurrection—the consequences of their acceptance or rejection are established rationally and independent of prophethood or messengership.
Overall, practical duties included in the prophetic call hinge upon the principles of the religion which reason can understand independently. The rejection of these principles despite the establishment of incontrovertible rational proof for them would be sufficient for the occurrence of divine punishment, without depending on the message of a prophet or messenger. This is because the very validity of a prophet’s or messenger’s message depends on these rational proofs; if they were to depend in turn on prophethood, that would be a vicious circle.
Meanwhile, accountability in the hereafter for practical duties depends on the prophetic message, as the proof for them is not established by the rule of the intellect alone. We discussed this in detail in the sections on prophethood in volume 2 [volume 3 of the English translation ], under Noah’s story in volume 10 [volume 20 of the English translation ], and elsewhere [in this work].
Nevertheless, exterminatory punishment in this world is meted out only after God sends a messenger. This is due to God’s care, not due to any rational necessity. There is no rational argument to show that the occurrence of this type of punishment is impossible before a messenger is sent, as you saw above.
Exegetes have long debates over this verse. We have eschewed addressing them because most of them are beyond the scope of exegetical discussions. What we have posited may not conform to what they have; however, the truth is worthier of being followed.
وَإِذَآ أَرَدْنَآ أَن نُّهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُوا۟ فِيهَا فَحَقَّ عَلَيْهَا ٱلْقَوْلُ فَدَمَّرْنَـٰهَا تَدْمِيرًا ١٦
(17:16) And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the affluent ones (mutrafīhā, from turfah), so they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction (dammārnāhā tadmīran).
Al-Rāghib says:
Turfah is abundance of [material] bounty. It is said: utrifa fulānun fa-huwa mutraf (someone is provided with opulent means and so he is living in luxury)… “We send Our commandment to the affluent ones” () refers to: And as for man, when his Lord tries him, then treats him with honor and provides him with bounty… ().
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Turfah means bounty. Ibn ʿArafah says: A mutraf is someone left to do what he pleases, without being stopped. Tadmīr means annihilation, and damār means ruin.
And when We wish to destroy a town…: That is: When the time for their ruin approaches. It is like when one says, “When the sick person wants to die” or “When the sky wants to rain,” meaning “When he is about to die” and “When it is about to rain.” Obviously wanting death and wanting to rain are not meant literally. The Qur’an says: Then they found in it a wall which wanted to fall (yurīdu an yanqaḍḍa) () [that is, it was on the verge of falling].
It could also be that “We wish” refers to God’s effective will (al-irādat al-fiʿliyyah), the reality of which is the cooperation and coming together of the necessary causes for a given result or event to happen. This is close to the first meaning, and it essentially means the occurrence of the causes of their destruction, which are their ingratitude for God’s bounties and their defiant disobedience. He says: If you are grateful, I would certainly give to you more, and if you are ungrateful, My chastisement is truly severe (); Who committed inordinacy in the cities, so they made great mischief therein? Therefore your Lord let down upon them a portion of the chastisement. Most surely your Lord is watching ().
…We send Our commandment to the affluent ones, so they transgress therein: We know from God’s words that He never commands disobedience legislatively (al-amr al-tashrīʿī). He it is Who says: Say: Surely God does not enjoin indecency (). As with existential command (al-amr al-takwīnī), it is even clearer that He does not command disobedience qua disobedience, because that would make the occurrence of the action necessary. Such an act will no longer be attributable to the person’s choice and hence it will no longer be “disobedience” because there is no disobedience without choice. He says: His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is ().
One possibility is that the object of commandment (in We send Our commandment) is obedience. Then, commandment would have its literal sense, which is a legislative command, and it would be directed at them by the tongue of the messenger who communicates their Lord’s commandment and warns them of His punishment if they disobey. It is the matter which is exclusive to the messenger as alluded to above [in verse ]. Then, when they disobey and deviate from the command of their Lord, “the word proves true against them,” meaning that they will be punished. That is, if they disobey, then they will be ruined and utterly destroyed.
A second possibility is that the object of commandment is deviation and disobedience. In this case, what is meant by sending commandment is pouring bounties upon them abundantly and profusely as a means of giving respite and gradually leading them to deviation, until they [actually] deviate. At that point, “the word proves true against” them and punishment would descend on them.
These are two possible explanations for “We send Our commandment to the affluent ones, so they transgress therein.” However the first of the two is unlikely due to the following reasons:
Firstly: When we say: “I commanded him and he did so,” or, “I commanded him and he disobeyed,” the apparent meaning is that the object of the command is the same as the subsequent part of the sentence [that is, what the person did].
Secondly: The subsequent disobedience is attributed to all of the people in the town; that is why they are all destroyed. Therefore, there is no apparent reason for why the commandment [to obedience] should be only directed at the affluent ones among them.
Al-Kashshāf says:
“Commandment” is used metaphorically here, because literal commandment to transgression would be to tell them: “Transgress!” This cannot be the case, which means that it must be metaphorical. The metaphorical connection is that they used the bounties that God poured upon them abundantly as a means of sinning and pursuing their selfish desires; as if they were told to do so because of the bounties bestowed upon them. They were given these bounties so that they would be grateful, righteous, generous and able to do good; just as He had created them healthy, strong and capable of doing good or evil, and then commanded them to favor obedience over disobedience. But they favored transgression. Once they transgressed, “the word proved true against them”—that is, the word of punishment—and so He destroyed them.
You may suggest: “Why do you not say that it means sending the commandment to them to obey but then they disobeyed?” I would reply: It is not permissible to omit something without some evidence to infer it, let alone omitting something while there is evidence to infer its opposite! The object of commandment is omitted because it can be inferred from “they transgressed” (fasaqū). This is a very common turn of phrase; for example one says: “I commanded him and he got up” or “I commanded him and he read.” What is understood from these is that the object of commandment is to get up or to read. If you were implying something else, then you would be expecting your audience to have knowledge of the unseen!
This inference, however, does not apply to when one says, “I commanded him and he disobeyed me” or “I commanded him but he did not to obey my command.” This is because it talks about the disobedience of the speaker’s command, and it does not make sense to command someone to disobey one’s very command! Such command cannot be intended to begin with, let alone serving as evidence to the object of command. Rather, the object of command in these cases is different from what is apparently implied or intended [because of the subsequent evidence]. One who says this [that is, “I commanded him and he disobeyed me” or “I commanded him but he did not obey my command”] is essentially not intending any specific object of commandment. Instead, it is as if he is saying, “There was some command that I made but he did not obey,” much like when one says, “So-and-so gives and restrains, and orders and forbids” without intending a specific object.
You might ask: “We know for certain that God does not enjoin indecencies, but He only commands good and rectitude. Is this not sufficient to infer that what is meant is that We commanded them to do good but they transgressed?”
I would reply: This is not the case because the verse says fa-fasaqū (“so they transgressed”). If your suggested interpretation were correct, it would be as if you explicitly state something but then you claim to have implied the opposite. Thus interpreting the word metaphorically is the [correct] explanation.
This explanation is effective in showing why the object of command in this verse (We send Our commandment to the affluent ones, so they transgress therein) is apparently transgression (fisq). However, unlike what he has said, it does not show that the object of command is explicitly transgression, in a way that would leave no other possible meaning. Why can the verse not be like our saying: “I commanded him but then he disobeyed me,” where disobedience (maʿṣiyah), which is contrary to the command, is a contextual indicator that the object of command was obedience? After all, transgression (fisq) and disobedience (maʿṣiyah) are the same thing, because fisq is to divest oneself of servitude and obedience, which is equivalent to disobedience. In that case, the meaning of the verse would be: We send Our commandment to the affluent ones to obey, but they disobey and transgress against Our commandment. Or perhaps the verb amarnā (lit. “We commanded”) is used in an intransitive sense, meaning: Our commandment was directed at the affluent ones among them, but they transgressed it.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with both explanations, although the second one is more apparent. Some exegetes have provided the following explanation for why the commandment is specifically given to the affluent ones: They were the chiefs, masters and leaders who were followed by others, and what is decreed for the followers follows what is decreed for the leaders. This explanation, however, is not free from flaw.
Some have suggested that “We send Our commandment to the affluent ones” (amarnā mutrafīhā) is a description of “a town” (qaryah), as opposed to being the complement or apodosis of “when” (idhā). They have added that the apodosis of idhā is omitted because it is implied, as in the verse: Until when (idhā) they come to it, and its doors shall be opened, and the keepers of it shall say to them (). It is omitted because it is understood from the verse.
Others say that some words are brought forward and others are put back [from their ordinary positions]. What is meant is: “When We command those of a town who are the affluent ones and they transgress therein, We want to destroy them.” That is because it makes no sense to want destruction before the occurrence of its cause—that is, transgression. Like the previous one, this is a baseless explanation.
All of the above is based on the universally accepted recitation of amarnā, derived from amr meaning command. But it might also be derived from amr meaning to provide in abundance. That is: We provided the affluent ones there with abundant wealth and children but then they transgressed therein.
The term has also been recited as āmarnā, attributed to ʿAlī, ʿĀṣim, Ibn Kathīr, Nāfiʿ and others. It means to provide with abundant wealth and children. It can also mean to impose a duty and prescribe an act.
It is also recited as ammarnā, derived from taʾmīr meaning to put someone in charge and command. This is attributed to ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, al-Bāqir, Ibn ʿAbbās, Zayd b. ʿAlī and others.
وَكَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنَ ٱلْقُرُونِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ نُوحٍ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ بِذُنُوبِ عِبَادِهِۦ خَبِيرًۢا بَصِيرًا ١٧
(17:17) And how many of the generations (al-qurūn) did We destroy after Noah! and your Lord is sufficient as Knowing and Seeing with regard to His servants’ faults.
Al-Mufradāt says:
Qarn means a people that live during the same time. The plural is qurūn. God says: And certainly We did destroy generations (al-qurūn) before you (); And how many of the generations (al-qurūn) did We destroy ().
The meaning of the verse is clear. There is in it reinforcement of what was said in the previous verse—that is, God’s custom of destroying towns—through reference to previous generations destroyed.
The verse involves some hint that the custom of destroying was only legislated in human generations following Noah. This is indeed the case. As we said above—in the exegesis of verse (People were a single nation; so Allah raised prophets…) in volume 2 [volume 3 of the English translation ]—before the time of Noah the human society was on its pure primary nature (fiṭrah), but they deviated from one another after that.
مَّن كَانَ يُرِيدُ ٱلْعَاجِلَةَ عَجَّلْنَا لَهُۥ فِيهَا مَا نَشَآءُ لِمَن نُّرِيدُ ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَا لَهُۥ جَهَنَّمَ يَصْلَىٰهَا مَذْمُومًا مَّدْحُورًا ١٨
(17:18) Whoever desires this hasty [life] (al-ʿājilah), We hasten to him therein what We please for whomsoever We desire, then We assign to him the hell; he shall enter it (yaṣlāhā, from ṣaly) despised, driven away (madḥūran, from daḥr).
Al-ʿājilah is an adjective describing an implied noun which may be life (al-ḥayāh), based on being contrasted with the hereafter (al-ākhirah) in the following verse, because what is meant there is the afterlife (al-ḥayāt al-ākhirah). It has also been suggested that it means present bounties and immediate comforts (al-niʿamt al-ʿājilah). Others have suggested present and immediate worldly possessions (al-aʿrāḍ al-dunyawiyyat al-ʿājilah).
Al-Mufradāt says:
The root meaning of ṣaly is used for lighting a fire… Al-Khalīl says that ṣalā al-kāfir al-nār means that “the unbeliever tastes the heat of the fire.” God says: They will endure (yaṣlawnaḥā) its heat, and evil is the resort ().
It is claimed that salā al-nār means “he entered hell.” Aṣlāhā means making another person enter it [that is, throwing someone in fire]. God says: We will soon cast him (nuṣlīhi) into fire ().
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Daḥr means to cast away. So madḥūr means one who has been sent, driven or cast away. Allāhumma idḥar ʿannā al-shayṭān means: O, God, drive the devil away from us.
The previous verses described God’s custom of punishing in this world after the apostolic mission. He states that He guides human nations to belief and good deeds, but if they turn to corruption [themselves] and corrupt others, then He sends them a messenger. Then, if they rebel and transgress, He punishes them by an exterminatory chastisement. That discussion is followed in this verse and the next two by explaining His custom of punishing or rewarding in the hereafter. He explains the condition for punishment in one verse, the condition for reward in another, and a summary as a general principle in the third.
Whoever desires this hasty [life]: What is meant is the hasty and immediate life; which is the life of [or in] this world. “Desiring” the life of this world means pursuing things that one’s nafs (self, soul, ego) finds pleasurable and one’s heart is attached to. Attachment to the hasty life and its pursuit would be a “desire” of this life is they are one’s objective in and of themselves, not as a means for otherworldly happiness. Otherwise, that would be a desire of the hereafter because one can reach the hereafter only through the passage of this world. Thus a person is considered an aspirant of this world if he turns away from and forgets the hereafter, restricting his desire to this world. The verse’s expression (Whoever desires) also confirms this notion because it indicates desire as a continuous quality.
This is he who sees for himself nothing but this worldly material life and denies the afterlife. Such a view essentially annuls one’s attestation to prophethood and monotheism, because belief in God and His messengers and subscribing to religion would be futile without belief in resurrection. He says: Therefore turn aside from him who turns his back upon Our reminder and does not desire anything but this world's life. That is the ultimate reach of their knowledge; surely your Lord knows best him who goes astray from His path… ().
…We hasten to him therein what We please for whomsoever We desire: That is: We do not hesitate to give him what he desires in this world, however not what [and/or how much] he wants, but what [and/or how much] We want. It is up to Us, not to him, and it is Our Will that will unfold, not his will. Moreover, We do not give to everyone who wants [the present life], but only to whomever We desire. We are not governed by the wills of individuals, but Our will governs them.
God’s will at the level of action (al-irādat al-fiʿliyyah, effective will) means the coming together of the causes and means of the object of His will so that it may come to existence. The verse is saying that the aspirant of this world will be provided as much as the causes and factors that God has enacted in the universe allow. Thus, one attains what he wants and asks for by his tongue of existence [that is, by his very existential state and capacity], but only as much as its means enable him. “And Allah encompasses them on every side” [].
God refers to this reality in another way in this verse: And were it not that all people had been a single nation, We would certainly have assigned to those who disbelieve in the Beneficent (to make) of silver the roofs of their houses and the stairs by which they ascend. And the doors of their houses and the couches on which they recline, And (other) embellishments of gold; and all this is naught but provision of this world’s life (). What is meant here [by “were it not that all people had been a single nation”] is: “Were it not that all people are a single nation that live under the same system of causes and means irrespective of being believers or unbelievers…” In other words, everyone is equal before the existential means in the universe: If the causes of wealth and richness are realized for anyone, then these causes will make that person wealthy and rich, whether he is a believer or an unbeliever; and if these causes are not realized then that will not happen. So the verse is saying that had it not been for this equality before Our system of causes and effects, We would have singled the unbelievers out for extra worldly blessings, because these blessings are worthless to Us and have no value in the marketplace of the hereafter.
Some say that “desiring the present” means desiring it through one’s [religious] action. In other words, the verse is talking about those who do [righteous] acts in desire for this world instead of the hereafter. Thus, they will be deprived of the [good and reward of the] hereafter. However, this is an unnecessary restriction [of the meaning]. They may have taken it from His words: Whoever desires this world's life and its finery, We will pay them in full their deeds therein, and they shall not be made to suffer loss in respect of them. These are they for whom there is nothing but fire in the hereafter (). Notwithstanding these two sets of verses have different purports. The purport of our current verses of discussion is to explain that someone who desires the world will attain nothing other than it. But the purport of the verse in Chapter 11 [] is that one will attain nothing but his deeds; if he wants the world, his deeds will be paid in full therein. There is a clear difference between the two purports, so understand that.
…then We assign to him the hell; he shall enter it despised, driven away: That is: We make him to suffer the heat of hell in the hereafter as his reward, while he will be driven away and kept away from Our mercy. The two adverbs (despised and driven away) show that he will be completely handed over to hell, deprived of forgiveness and mercy.
Even though the verse is about the fate of whoever clings to this world and forgets and denies the hereafter, there are different levels of pursuit [of this world] and denial [of the hereafter]. Some people pursue the world practically and justify it theoretically. Others pursue this world in practice even though they believe in the hereafter deep within. This gradation is confirmed by what is to follow: and certainly the hereafter is much superior… ().
وَمَنْ أَرَادَ ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةَ وَسَعَىٰ لَهَا سَعْيَهَا وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ كَانَ سَعْيُهُم مَّشْكُورًا ١٩
(17:19) And whoever desires the hereafter (al-ākhirah) and strives (saʿā, from saʿy) for it as he ought to strive and he is a believer; (as for) these, their striving shall surely be accepted.
Al-Rāghib says: “Saʿy means walking quickly but not running. It is used for earnestness in a matter, whether good or bad.”
Al-ākhirah (the other one, the hereafter) means the life of hereafter (that is, afterlife), in contrast to the previous verse: Whoever desires this hasty [life]. Just like the last verse, some exegetes have said that the verse is about those who seek the [good and reward of] the hereafter by their [righteous and religious] acts. This view was countered under the previous verse.
…and strives for it (lahā) as he ought to strive (saʿyahā)…: The letter lām in lahā (“for” in “for it”) indicates exclusivity [that is, possession]. The same applies to saʿyahā, where saʿy (effort, endeavour) is attached to the pronoun hā which indicates the hereafter. It means one who strives and exerted effort for the hereafter as he ought to strive for it. It can be inferred from it that his striving for it ought to be appropriate to it and as it deserves, as one would exert his utmost effort in righteous deeds that are deduced from incontrovertible reason or legal evidence.
…and he is a believer…: That is, one who believes in God, which entails accepting God’s unity, prophethood and resurrection. In His Book God does not count a person a believer if he does not accept any one of these three, as indicated by numerous verses.
Furthermore, the very appearance of this qualification (and he is a believer) indicates that it includes these aspects. This is because the verse is about those who desire the hereafter and strive for it, which means that the person certainly believes in God and in a life after this worldly life. Thus, the only justification for explicitly adding this qualification (and he is a believer) is to indicate the necessity of this belief being correct—part of which is that it should accompany belief in monotheism and prophethood. Hence, the very qualification of being a believer obviates the need to rely on other verses.
…(as for) these, their striving shall surely be accepted (mashkūran): That is, God will thank them (yashkuruhum) by accepting him well and lauding his efforts. His thanks to a servant for his work means His bestowal of grace upon His servant in addition to His initial grace. The basis of rewarding a servant for his work is an act of grace, for it is part of a servant’s duty to serve his Master without being entitled to any reward. Thus, His reward is a bestowal of grace. Then, lauding him in addition to His reward is bestowal of another grace on top of the first. “Indeed God is the Lord of mighty grace” [, , , , , ].
These two verses indicate a point about otherworldly means and causes: In the hereafter actions never fail to meet their ends and objectives, as opposed to worldly means and causes. Concerning one who works for the hereafter He says: (as for) these, their striving shall surely be accepted, but concerning one who works for this world He says: We hasten to him therein what We please for whomsoever We desire…
كُلًّا نُّمِدُّ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ وَهَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ مِنْ عَطَآءِ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا كَانَ عَطَآءُ رَبِّكَ مَحْظُورًا ٢٠
(17:20) All do We aid (numiddu, from madd)—these as well as those—out of the bounty of your Lord, and the bounty of your Lord is not confined.
Al-Mufradāt says [summarized]:
The root meaning of madda is to pull or extend by drawing. Some usages of this root are: muddah, meaning protracted time; middat al-jarḥ (the thick purulent matter that collects in a wound); madd al-nahr wa maddahu nahr ākhar (the river flowed and another river flowed into it); madadtu ʿaynī ilā kadhā (I stretched my eye to something)—likewise He says: And do not stretch (tamuddanna) your eyes (); madadtuhu fī ghayyihi (I made him continue in his error); amdadtu al-jaysh bi-madad (I provided the army with aid); [amdadtu] al-insān bi-ṭaʿām (I aided him with food). Imdād is mostly used for something which is liked, while madd is used for something that is hated. For example: And We will aid them (amdadnāhum) with fruit and flesh such as they desire (); and We will lengthen (namuddu) to him the length of the chastisement (); And their brethren increase them (yamuddūnahum) in error ().
Imdād and madd of something mean adding to it of its kind by which its survival is extended and its existence continues, such that without it that thing would be cut off, like a stream that is cut off from its fountainhead. A stream receives water continuously from its fountainhead and this is what makes it continue to flow.
God sustains humanity in their deeds—both those who desire the present life and those who desire the afterlife. This is because all things and factors that are needed for one’s actions—such as knowledge, will, bodily functions and faculties, external materials that are employed and used, the means and conditions to which all these physical matters are linked—are existential matters beyond the human power and making. If he is missing one or all of them, then he cannot act. It is God Who effuses them through His grace, and aids mankind with them through His bounty. If He withholds His bounty, then the doer is deprived of his deed.
Everyone sustains by God’s bounty—both the people of this world in their worldly life, and the people of the hereafter in their otherworldly life. Nothing but praise is due to Him for His bounty, because what He gives is a blessing to mankind to be used righteously, in a way that pleases one’s Lord. But if the person transgresses by not using them in what he should, and thus distorts the word [of God’s command] from its place, then he has no one to blame but himself. God still has to be praised for His beautiful work and He has the conclusive proof [against His servants].
“All” (in All do We aid) refers to the two abovementioned groups—that is, those to whom [what We please] is hastened [], and those whose striving is accepted []. “All” (kullan) is the object, which has comes before the verb because of a special attention to it in the verse. The intention is to explain that the aid is provided for both groups.
…these as well as those…: “These” and “those” refer to those to whom [what God pleases] is hastened and those whose striving is accepted, while each of the two [groups] has its own case. The meaning effectively is: Both groups are supported by God’s grace. God effuses His bounty upon them equally, except that one of them uses God’s blessings to pursue the hereafter, so God appreciates his striving, while the other uses it to pursue the present life and forgets the hereafter, and thus will be left with nothing in the hereafter but misery and disappointment.
…out of the bounty of your Lord…: Neither they nor any other creature has a hand in anything that they use in their actions, as stated above. Rather, God is the Creator and Owner of these [bounties]. That is why it is attributed to Him.
This qualification justifies the abovementioned reward and retribution of both groups, because they were sustained and assisted by God’s pure blessing in doing any action. Therefore, it is befitting for whoever uses His blessing in the way of disbelief and transgression to suffer hellfire while being despised and driven away. Similarly, it is befitting for whoever uses His blessing in the way of belief and obedience to have his striving recognized.
There is in “your Lord (Rabbika)” a shift of address from the majestic plural to the third person, and the term has appeared twice in the verse. Apparently it indicates that their being aided is a result of God’s attribute of Lordship (rubūbiyyah). Of course, there is only one lord and that is God, but since the idolaters have assumed other lords, the verse has described God as “your” Lord [that is, for distinction and clarification].
…and the bounty of your Lord is not confined (maḥẓūran, from ḥaẓr): Maḥẓūran means blocked and barred; ḥazr means block (manʿ). The people of this world and the people of the hereafter all derive assistance from His bounty, are blessed with His blessing, and are obliged [to Him] by His grace.
The verse also suggests that divine bounty is absolute and not confined by any limit, as the verse refers to “the bounty of your Lord” without any qualification and negates confinement. The limitations, measures and confinements that are found in various places are only on the part of the recipient and the extent of its capacity and potential to receive effusions, not on the part of the One effusing.
A rather strange interpretation has been attributed to al-Ḥasan and Qatādah: that bounty means worldly bounty because it is common to both believers and unbelievers, while bounty in the hereafter is exclusive to the believers. The suggested meaning according to this would be: We aid both groups with present bounties, not just the first group that desires the present life; His worldly bounty is not withdrawn from anyone.
The problem with this interpretation is that it qualifies an unqualified term while the context suits a lack of any qualification. As for what is said about bounty in the hereafter being exclusive to the believers without the unbelievers sharing it with them, it is beyond the remit of the verse. This verse is about the assistance that is given to people in doing deeds, which will in turn result in reward, not the reward that is given to them [either in this world or the hereafter]. The bounties that the believers receive in the hereafter are a form of reward and have nothing to do with deeds. The means and aids that sustain and assist both groups in their actions are what compose both worldly and otherworldly bounties. Furthermore, bounties in the hereafter are also for everyone; they are not blocked from anyone. The only restriction there is by the unbelievers [that is, on the recipient’s side], just as is the case with regard to bounties in this world. One may be deprived of God’s unqualified bounties in this world not because of any limit to God’s giving of bounty, but because of the unsuitability of the recipient.
Rūḥ al-maʿānī says that the classification seen here is not comprehensive, and there is no harm in that. A comprehensive classification would have been that a doer either
i) intends only the present life by his deed;
ii) intends only the hereafter by his deed;
iii) intends both of them by his deed; or
iv) intends neither of them by his deed.
The case of the first two classes is known from the verse. The third one divides into three further categories: the doer’s desire for the hereafter can be greater than, less than, or equal to his desire for the present.
He [Ālūsī, the author of Rūḥ al-maʿānī] then prolongs the discussion on those whose desire for the hereafter dominates their desire for the present life, and narrates the scholars’ disagreement over the acceptance of this kind of deed. He cites their agreement on the non-acceptance of deeds where the worldly incentive is greater or where the two incentives are equal.
He says:
The fourth category is impossible according to those who say that there is always an incentive behind the deed of a subject who is capable of acting. Those who say that actions do not necessarily depend on incentives hold that such action [without any incentive] is unlawful according to the apparent law, and has no impact inwardly.
There are other exegetes earlier to him who made and discussed such classification.
However, you know very well that the purpose of these noble verses is not to explain the rule for rejection or acceptance of every deed issued from a doer. Rather, they look at one’s purpose and specify it based on his preferred abode. This preferred abode could be the present life. If so, an implication of this is that the person would not desire anything but material and worldly prosperity, without any regard for the other life. Alternatively, one’s main abode could be the afterlife, which necessitates that the person sees an everlasting and eternal life for himself. A part of this eternal life—that is, one’s life in this world—prepares the grounds for another part—that is, one’s life after death. The intention behind his deeds in this world is happiness in the other.
Obviously this division produces only two categories. True, one of the two categories [the latter] divides into sub-categories that are not fully addressed in the verse, only because they fall outside the purpose of the verses. Those who desire the hereafter may strive for it as they should, or they may not strive for it as they should—such as sinners and innovators. Furthermore, either group may or may not be believers. His words only outline the rule for a particular group: whoever desires the hereafter, strives for it as he ought to strive, and is a believer. This is because the purpose here is to differentiate between the reason for happiness from the reason for wretchedness, not to give a detailed breakdown of all cases.
ٱنظُرْ كَيْفَ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ وَلَلْـَٔاخِرَةُ أَكْبَرُ دَرَجَـٰتٍ وَأَكْبَرُ تَفْضِيلًا ٢١
(17:21) See how We have made some of them to excel others, and verily the hereafter will be greater in degrees and greater in preferment.
This alludes to the different degrees of individuals according to their different amounts of striving, so as to avoid giving the mistaken impression that little work and much work are equal, or that there is no difference between slight striving and intense striving. Indeed, if good and bad are equally accepted, and if little and much are equally rewarded, then it means the rejection of the surplus by which the better exceeds others.
See how We have made some of them to excel others…: That is, see how We made some of them superior to others in this world. This qualification [of “this world”] is deduced from the context as He subsequently says: and verily the hereafter will be greater. What is meant by “excellence in this world” is what some of its inhabitants excel others at, including worldly possessions and endowments such as wealth, prestige, children, power, status, leadership, sovereignty and acceptance by the people.
…and verily the hereafter will be greater in degrees and greater in preferment: That is, it is greater than this world in degrees and preferment. Hence, no one should suppose that people will have equal lives in the hereafter, or that the differences between lives there will be like the differences between lives in this world. On the contrary, that abode is immeasurably vaster than this world. That is because the privileges in this world are due to material causes which are limited and this world is a realm of competition and mutual obstruction. But privileges and differences of levels in the hereafter are due to the differences of souls in terms of belief and sincerity, which are states of the heart, and the states of the heart differ far more greatly than the physical states. They are not even comparable. He says: and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, God will call you to account according to it (), and: The day on which property will not avail, nor sons except him who comes to Allah with a heart free (from evil) ().
The verse commands the Prophet to reflect on the differences of people in worldly merits and positions in order to understand their differences of levels and merits in the hereafter. The connection is that different [spiritual] conditions in this world lead to different understandings and intentions, which in turn cause different actions to be easier to perform. These different actions will then lead to the difference of levels in the hereafter.
لَّا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ ٱللَّهِ إِلَـٰهًا ءَاخَرَ فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُومًا مَّخْذُولًا ٢٢
(17:22) Do not associate with Allah any other god, lest you sit down (fa-taqʿuda, from quʿūd) despised, neglected (makhdhūlan, from khidhlān).
Al-Mufradāt says, “Khidhlān means lack of aid from someone who is expected to provide aid.”
The verse serves as a conclusion to the previous verses that discussed God’s custom concerning His servants. They ended by saying that whoever among them desires the present life will end up suffering hell, despised and neglected; while whoever among them desires the hereafter God will be grateful for his beautiful striving. The implied meaning here is: Do not associate [partners] with God, because that would lead you to sit down and be prevented from traveling to levels of nearness. You will be despised and unassisted by God or any other helper. It is said that quʿūd (sitting) is a metaphorical way of talking about humiliation and incapacity.
Examining Narrations
(1) Concerning verse (Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright), Imam al-Ṣādiq said:
It [that is, “guides”] means “calls.”
(2) Concerning the same verse, Imam al-Bāqir said:
It guides to [belief in] guardianship (wilāyah).
Author’s comment: This is an example of conformity (jary). It might mean guidance to the complete knowledge of the religion that the Imam has. This could be the intended meaning of some narrations that say: It [the Qur’an] guides to the Imam.
(3) Concerning verse (And We have made every man’s bird of omen to cling to his neck), Imam al-Bāqir said:
One’s good and evil are with him wherever he is. He is not able to leave them aside until he is given his record of deeds.
(4) Concerning the same verse, Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq said: He [God] is the One Who has given him [the human being] the power to do what he does.
(5) Concerning verse (Read your book; your own self is sufficient as a reckoner against you this day), Imam al-Ṣādiq said:
The servant remembers everything he has done and that is recorded against him as if he had done it that moment. That is why they say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but numbers them (all) ().
(6) Concerning verse (And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the affluent ones), Imam al-Bāqir said: “The word in verse is ammarnā, with a stress (shaddah). It means: We made them multiply.” The Imam also said: “I have not read it without a stress (that is, amarnā).”
(7) In another narration Imam al-Bāqir said:
It means We commanded its chieftains (akābirahā).
Author’s comment: There are some traditions that both Shias and Sunnis have narrated from the Prophet, ʿAlī, Salmān and others concerning verses (And man prays for evil…), , (And We have made the night and the day two signs…) and (And We have made every man's bird of omen to cling to his neck…), but we refrained from citing them because they are unsupported by the Book, the Sunnah or established rational principles, not to mention the weakness in their chains of narration.
Discourse
The discussions “A Discussion on Decree (qaḍāʾ)”; “Another Philosophical Discussion” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.
Or, innate disposition. (Ed.) ↩︎
Much like the night and the day that are signs, and this is a connection between verses 12 and 13. (Trans.) ↩︎
This complies with the above translation. So the verse is saying: We have created these two signs, and We have effaced the first sign—which is called the night—and We have manifested the second sign—which is called the day. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, “He will be told” is omitted as it is implied. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verse for evidence for this interpretation. (Trans.) ↩︎
What is meant by “So-and-so gives and restrains, and orders and forbids” is that so-and-so has absolute power to give or restrain whatever he wants, and he has full authority to order or forbid anything. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is a difference between the initial and primary sense of the verse, called the apparent meaning (ẓāhir), vs. a direct and definite sense of the text, called the explicit meaning (taṣrīḥ, naṣṣ). (Trans.) ↩︎
It is intransitive in the sense that no object of commandment is intended. (Trans.) ↩︎
The clause expressing the consequence in a conditional sentence. (Ed.) ↩︎
The implied meaning would be: When We wish to destroy a town where We sent Our commandment to the affluent ones, they transgress therein… (Trans.) ↩︎
Therefore the implied noun could be either life, bounty, or worldly possessions. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is because the verb “desires” is in present tense. (Trans.) ↩︎
Note that the translation of these verses () presented here is according to a slightly different meaning that has been suggested by many exegetes: We do not single out the unbelievers with blessings in order to prevent all of the people from becoming a single nation [of unbelief]. We wish to keep this world as an abode of test and trial, so that people do not choose either to believe or disbelieve because of anything other than genuine conviction. (Trans.) ↩︎
That is, the verse promises reward for those who work for the hereafter unconditionally. But the results of working for this world are subject to two conditions: 1. what or how much God wants; and 2. to whom He wants. (Trans.) ↩︎
That is, it qualifies “the bounty of your Lord” as “the worldly bounty of your Lord.” (Trans.) ↩︎
Outwardly unlawful means that one should not act with such intention. Inwardly ineffective means that there will be neither punishment nor reward for it in the hereafter. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū ʿAmr al-Zubayrī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of al-Fuḍayl b. Yasār. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Abū Jārūd ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Zurārah, Ḥamrān and Muḥammad b. Muslim. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Khālid b. Yaḥyā. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ḥumrān. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ḥumrān. ↩︎