Verses 32–46
Introduction
These verses contain two parables explaining the reality of wealth and children that human beings have in the life of this world. They are embellishments and adornments of this deceptive worldly life which quickly vanishes and is no more; this is what human beings adorn themselves with. These adornments distract people from remembering their Lord and seduce people into thinking they will live forever and can depend on these adornments. They are deluded into thinking that they possess and control these adornments until tragedy befalls them, and God makes these ornaments disappear and come to an end, and nothing remains of them except the like of a dream or false hope.
The verses return the discussion to explaining the truth God alluded to in the [previous] verses: Surely We have made whatever is on the earth. . . . surely We will make what is on it bare ground without herbage ().
Commentary
وَٱضۡرِبۡ لَهُم َّ َ ٗ رَّجُلَيۡنِ جَعَلۡنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيۡنِ مِنۡ أَعۡنَٰبٖ وَحَفَفۡنَٰهُمَا بِنَخۡلٖ وَجَعَلۡنَا بَيۡنَهُمَا زَرۡعٗا ٣٢
(18:32) And set forth to them a parable of two men; for one of them We made two gardens of grape vines, and We surrounded them both with palms, and in the midst of them We made fields.
This sets forth a parable to those infatuated with the embellishment of the worldly life, their backs turned from remembrance of God, to make it clear to them in that regard that they are only clinging to an illusion or a mirage which has no reality.
Some exegetes have stated that the story is hypothetical and that it did not actually happen. Others say that it really happened and have told a number of different stories in relation to it. There is no justification for doing so apart from the fact that the context of the story—such gardens being two, grape vines and palms being planted, and the land between them being cultivated supports the view that it is a true story.
Two gardens of grapes (aʿnab), refers to grape vines; trees are often referred to by the fruits they bear. The words, Wa ḥafafnāhumā bi nakhl, means, and We surrounded them both with palms. And in the midst of them, that is, in the middle, between the two gardens, We made fields. Thus the area of cultivation was connected and the land yielded produce or fruits.
كِلۡتَا ٱلۡجَنَّتَيۡنِ ءَاتَتۡ أُكُلَهَا وَلَمۡ تَظۡلِم مِّنۡهُ شَيۡٔٗاۚ وَفَجَّرۡنَا خِلَٰلَهُمَا نَهَرٗا٣٣
(18:33) Both these gardens yielded their fruits (atat ukulahā), and did not fall short thereof in anything, and We caused a river to gush forth in their midst,
Ukul means “that which is eaten.” Atat ukulahā means their trees—vines and palms—yielded their fruits.
And did not fall short thereof in anything (wa lam taẓlim minhu shayʾan): Ẓulm means “failure” and “thereof” refers back to the yield; that is, none of the yield was lost. Instead, the gardens yielded everything they could.
And We caused a river to gush forth in their midst, means: “We cleft a river full of water to irrigate (the two gardens) between them, satisfying their need for water by the easiest means, without any problem.”
وَكَانَ لَهُۥ ثَمَرٞ فَقَالَ لِصَٰحِبِهِۦ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُۥٓ أَنَا۠ أَكۡثَرُ مِنكَ مَالٗا وَأَعَزُّ نَفَرٗا ٣٤
(18:34) And he possessed much wealth (thamar); so he said to his companion, while he disputed with him (wa huwa yuḥāwiruhu), I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers (nafaran).
“He” refers to the man. Thamar, refers to various kinds of wealth according to al-Siḥāḥ and al-Qāmūs. Alternatively, it has been said that “he” refers back to the palms rendering a meaning of: “The palms bore much fruit.” It has also been said that the man had a lot of property apart from his garden.
The first explanation is the best, followed by the second. The gardens’ yielding their fruits without failure (ẓulm) could mean that the gardens were mature enough to bear fruit, and it was the right season. The clause, And he possessed much wealth (wa kāna lahu thamar), could mean that there actually was fruit on the trees; for instance, during the summer. This is the explanation which is most straightforward.
So he said to his companion, while he disputed with him . . . and am mightier in followers: Muḥāwara means holding an oral dialogue, returning answer for answer. Nafar means a person’s adherents who follow him in one manner or another. They are called nafar because they hasten with him (yanfarūn maʿahu). That is why some interpret it to mean servants or children, and others as a band or clan. The former conforms more to what his companion said to him, which will be discussed subsequently—if you consider me to be inferior to you in wealth and children, because he substitutes children for nafar. Together, it means: “He to whom We assigned two gardens said to his companion while disputing with him: I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in nafar—that is, children and servants.”
What he told his companion betrays his personal belief, which deviated from the truth—namely, that he thought he had free reign over the property and children God had given him, and no one could challenge his will regarding them. He thought that he owned them. This is true; however, he forgot that God was the one who had put him in possession of them. He forgot that he only owned and controlled what God had given him. He forgot that what God had given him were only worldly adornments which are a temptation and a trial, which God tests everyone with to separate the impure from the good. Instead, these adornments seduced him, until he thought that he was independent from his Lord and he himself controlled his possessions, and that all the effects transpired from their apparent causes (al-asbāb al-ẓāhira), which were assigned to them.
So he forgot God and relied on the causes—and this is polytheism—then turned to himself and thought that he could act without restriction upon and in control of the means. He thought that all he had was an honor for himself alone. Thus he became conceited and displayed arrogance toward his companion.
That is why the two descriptions differ—that is, He describes the man’s property by saying, “for one of them We made two gardens” instead of, “one of them had two gardens.” And, the man describes himself to his companion by saying, I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers. He only saw himself and forgot that it was his Lord who had put him in charge of the property he possessed and had strengthened him with his followers. So what he said to his companion, I have greater wealth than you, and mightier in followers, mirrored what Qārūn told those who advised him not to exult but to do good with the property God had given him as in the verse: He said: I have only been given this on account of the knowledge I have . . . ().
The clause, I have greater wealth than you, reveals a claim to being singled out for honor and personal entitlement, then attributing partners to God by not being duly attentive and relying on apparent causes, which he exhibited when he entered his garden, as God quotes him saying, I do not think that this will ever perish and I do not think that the hour will come.
وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُۥ وَهُوَ ظَالِمٞ لِّنَفۡسِهِۦ قَالَ مَآ أَظُنُّ أَن تَبِيدَ هَٰذِهِۦٓ أَبَدٗا ٣٥
(18:35) And he entered his garden while he was unjust to himself. He said: I do not think that this will ever perish.
The four pronouns (“he,” “his,” “he,” and “himself”) refer back to the man. Garden (janna) is not in the dual form here because it is referring to gardens in general. Alternatively it has been suggested that (it is in the singular) because it is impossible to enter both gardens at once; it is only possible to enter one after the other.
Al-Kashshāf says:
“If you were to ask, why does garden (janna) appear in the singular after having appeared in the dual form? My reply is that it means he entered what was heaven for him (jannatahu). He will have no heaven apart from it; that is, he will have no share of the heaven promised to the believers. What he owned in the world will be his only heaven. It does not mean the two (earthly) gardens or even one of them.”
This is a nice explanation.
While he was unjust to himself, means that he was only unjust because he displayed arrogance toward his companion when he said, I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers. It reveals his self-conceit and his association of partners with God by forgetting Him and relying on apparent causes. These are some of the worst perils.
He said: I do not think that this will ever perish (tabīd): Bayd and baydūda mean perishing and ending. The demonstrative pronoun “this” (hādhihi) refers to the garden. This sentence is separated from the previous sentence because it answers an implied question. It is as if someone asked, after he entered his garden, “What did he do?” And so the reply was, He said: I do not think that this will ever perish.
I do not think that this will ever perish, is what he says about his garden enduring forever. “Not thinking” is a rhetorical expression (kināya) for something which seems so hypothetical or theoretical that the possibility would never cross someone’s mind.
Also, I do not think that this will ever perish, means that he is completely certain that it would last forever; he cannot imagine that it would disappear or come to an end.
This is the human condition. The human soul does not cling to something ephemeral because it expects it to change or disappear. The human heart only clings to what seems eternal in it—in whatever form that appears—and that is what allures people; the heart does not incline toward a thing’s mortal aspects. You see that if the world comes toward a person, that person begins to rely on it and enjoy its adornments and then becomes engrossed in it. That person’s desires make him single-minded and his hopes high, as if he sees no end for himself. He cannot imagine that the blessing he has at his disposal would ever disappear or the means which helped him get it would ever be severed. You see that if the world moves away from him, despair and pessimism take hold of him, making him forget any hope of salvation. He becomes convinced that he will live forever, and that wretchedness and difficult circumstances will last forever.
The reason for this is that God made human nature (fiṭra) such that people are attached to these ephemeral adornments; he did this as a trial and a test. If people turn their backs on the remembrance of their Lord, they occupy themselves with the worldly adornments before them, and the apparent causes surrounding them; and they cling to the present situation which they perceive. Through their attraction, these embellishments and adornments engross people in them, until people forget their transient nature and believe they will be immortal. Whenever their instinctive sense of reason tries to warn them that time will betray them, that these causes will desert them, that life’s pleasure will also leave them, and their appointed lifetimes will reach their appointed ends, their pursuit of their desires and high hopes prevent them from listening or paying any attention to it.
This is the situation of worldly people (ahl al-dunyā) who carry on living a contradiction—acting on what they believe in, on their whims, and rejecting their power of reason. They rely on impulsive judgment which prevents them from paying any attention to the judgment of reason.
This is what is meant by believing that apparent causes are permanent and worldly embellishments are eternal. That is why—as God relates to us—the man says, I do not think that this will ever perish, as opposed to, “this will never perish.”
For the same reason, the man says, And I do not think the hour will come, based on the aforementioned belief that it will all last forever, as per the clause, I do not think this will ever perish. It creates belief that any change in the current situation through the coming of the Hour is a long way off. Everything cited by God are arguments put forth by the polytheists to refute the resurrection based on the belief that it is unlikely, as for example in the verses: . . . Who will give life to the bones when they are rotten? () and What! When we have become lost in the earth, shall we then certainly be in a new creation? . . . ().
وَمَآ أَظُنُّ ٱلسَّاعَةَ قَآئِمَةٗ وَلَئِن رُّدِدتُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّي لَأَجِدَنَّ خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهَا مُنقَلَبٗا٣٦
(18:36) And I do not think the hour will come, and even if I am returned to my Lord I will most certainly find a returning place better than this.
This is founded on the aforementioned pretentions—self-importance and feeling entitled to good things—which give rise to the false hope of acquiring all sorts of good things and happiness without doing any actual work. He [the man] says, and even if I am returned to my Lord I will most certainly find a returning place better than this [on account of my own nobility], but he does not say, “my Lord will give me something”, something better than this short-lived garden which will go back to Him.
A person who utters these words has deluded himself with regard to the nobility claimed by his soul to such an extent that he swears to his claim, as indicated by the lam used in oaths: wa la in rudidtu (and even if I am returned) as well as the lam and nun to indicate certainty: la ajidanna (I will most certainly find). He also says, I am returned (rudidtu), and not “my Lord returns me to it,” and, I will most certainly find (la ajidanna), instead of “My Lord will give me.”
The two verses are similar to: And if We make him taste mercy from Us after distress that has touched him, he would most certainly say: This is of me, and I do not think the hour will come to pass, and if I am sent back to my Lord, I shall have with Him sure good. . . . () and His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in He who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man? ()—the discussion of which will follow.
The four verses following this are a response by the man’s companion to the statement, I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers, and to what he said when he entered his garden, I do not think that this will ever perish. What the speaker was aiming at can be broken down into two points.
First, he is putting himself above God by claiming that he—and his wealth and his followers—are independent, and by thinking that his power and strength are exempt (from God’s control).
Second, he is putting himself above his companion and belittling him because of his paucity of wealth and followers. His companion then responds to both claims with arguments which cut short the claims at their roots. Do you disbelieve in Him. . . save in God, is a response to the first claim, and, If you consider me to be inferior. . . find it, is a response to the second.
While disputing with him, is repeated in the next verse to indicate that he did not lose his calm or sense of inner peace due to his belief by listening to what the man said. Instead, he maintained his etiquette throughout their dispute. For instance, he spoke gently, not roughly; and he avoided saying things which might seem ill-willed or offensive. Hence, he did not speak of catastrophe befalling his son, the way he did about the garden. Instead, he just implied that, when he said that the garden could turn into barren earth and the water could recede into the land.
قَالَ لَهُۥ صَاحِبُهُۥ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُۥٓ أَكَفَرۡتَ بِٱلَّذِي خَلَقَكَ مِن تُرَابٖ ثُمَّ مِن نُّطۡفَةٖ ثُمَّ سَوَّىٰكَ رَجُ ٗ ٣٧
(18:37) His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in He who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?
This is a rhetorical question condemning the association of partners to God in claiming his own autonomy and that of causes and effects, as referred to above. One aspect of his association of partners with God was to consider the coming of the Hour to be far off, and to doubt it.
This being the case, what is mentioned in al-Kashshāf to the effect that the man is regarded as an unbeliever and in denial of God’s blessings because of his doubt in the resurrection—just like someone who does not believe in the Messenger—is incorrect. How can it be, if in his retraction, he denies attributing associates to God? If it were as [the author of al-Kashshāf] says, [the man] would have referred to believing in the resurrection.
If you were to say that the verses explicitly state that the man was a polytheist and polytheists deny resurrection, then my reply would be that the man was not a polytheist in the sense of an idolater—he had acknowledged in his own words what the fundamentals of idolatry would not allow by referring to God as—My Lord, whereas idolaters do not believe Him to be man’s Lord or a god to be worshiped. They believe that He is just one of many lords and one of many gods. He did not deny resurrection outright, as alluded to above; rather, he had doubt about it and believed it to be a long way off by refusing to think about it. If he denied it outright he would have said, “And if I were to be returned” (wa law rudidtu)—as opposed to [what he said], “If I am returned to my Lord” (wa la in rudidtu ilā rabbī).
The evil consequence which the verse refers is on account of his associating partners to God in the sense of forgetting his Lord, believing himself and apparent causes to be autonomous. That constitutes denying His Lordship and giving the reins of dominion and disposal to someone else. This is the root of the rottenness out of which every rotten branch grows, irrespective of whether he confesses with his tongue to there only being God, denies it or believes in many gods. Al-Zamakhsharī says—admirably so—about the clause, He said: I do not think that this will ever perish: “You see that even if most rich Muslims do not actually say this out loud, the way they behave portrays this (same) belief.”
The believer refuted his companion’s claim by saying, Do you disbelieve in Him who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man? This draws his attention to his origin—dust, followed by small seed. For that is the basis of man. Anything beyond that, allowing a person to become a perfect man, with all his qualities and effects, is a gift from God alone. Neither his fundamental composition nor any other natural apparent causes are possessed of any of that. For like human beings all their existence and effects are gifts from God.
Everything the human being has as a perfect human being by way of humanity and every vestige of humanity—such as knowledge, life, ability, and power—with which he directs the creational causes to achieve his goals and desires—belongs to God alone. It is given to the human being and placed in his possession without ceasing to be God’s property or being cut off from Him. Rather, the human being clothes himself with whatever of that and these traits only belong to him through His will. If He does not please, the human being cannot be in possession of any of that, so he cannot be independent of Him with regard to any part of himself, the effects and qualities of his self, or any of the causes in the universe.
He (the companion) says (in other words): “You are dust, then a small seed which has no humanity, manliness, or the effects of that. It is God who gave them to you by His will and put you in possession of them. He is the owner of what He put you in possession of, so how can you not believe in Him and conceal His being the Lord? How far removed you are from being independent!”
لَّٰكِنَّا۠ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ رَبِّي وَلَآ أُشۡرِكُ بِرَبِّيٓ أَحَدٗا ٣٨
(18:38) But as for me (lākinna), He, God, is my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with my Lord.
The majority pronounce this word as lakinnā (but as for me)—without an alif in the middle where the two words are joined, but with the alif at the end retained.
The origin of it—as they say—is lakin anā (however, I). The hamza (first letter of anā) was omitted after its fatḥa got moved to the nūn and the two nūns were merged together, so they are joined together with a doubled nūn with a fatḥa, without an alif in the middle but with an alif at the end, as in the first person singular pronoun (anā; I).
The word rabbī (my Lord) is repeated. The second time is an instance of spelling out something normally expressed with a pronoun—normally in the context one would say, wa lā ushriku bihi aḥadan (“and I do not associate anyone with Him”). That is to indicate the reason for the predicate by making it contingent upon the attribute, as if to say: “I do not associate anyone with Him because He is my Lord, and associating anyone with Him is not allowed because of His being the Lord.”
This is a believer saying it, in the face of what an unbeliever has claimed for himself. The meaning is obvious.
وَلَوۡلَآ إِذۡ دَخَلۡتَ جَنَّتَكَ قُلۡتَ مَا شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِٱللَّهِۚ إِن تَرَنِ أَنَا۠ أَقَلَّ مِنكَ مَالٗا وَوَلَدٗا ٣٩
(18:39) And why did you not say when you entered your garden: It is as God has pleased; there is no power save in God? If you consider me to be inferior to you in wealth and children,
This concludes what the believer says to his unbelieving companion. He is inciting and reproaching him for saying when he entered his garden, I do not think that this will ever perish, when instead he should have said, “There is no power, save in God.” He should have attributed the entire matter to God’s will and said that all power is His, as he explained to him—that every blessing is by God’s will and there is no power save in Him.
The meaning to be inferred from the clause, it is as God has pleased, is either “the matter is as God has pleased” or “whatever God pleases will be.” Either way, it is a relative clause. Alternatively, it could possibly be a conditional clause, implying, “whatever God pleases, is.” (mā shāʾahu Allāh kān). The first of these inferred meanings is the most appropriate for the context because the intention is to explain all things being attributable to God’s will, contrary to anyone who claims to be autonomous and to have no need for Him.
There is no power save in God, means that all power subsists through Him. Saying that all power is His alone means that whatever power appears among His creations and subsists through them, the very same subsists through Him without whatever power He has given breaking away [from Him] and creation becoming independent through it. He said . . . that the power is wholly God’s . . . ().
The response to what the unbeliever had said to his companion and what he said when he entered his garden thereby ends.
فَعَسَىٰ رَبِّيٓ أَن يُؤۡتِيَنِ خَيۡرٗا مِّن جَنَّتِكَ وَيُرۡسِلَ عَلَيۡهَا حُسۡبَانٗا مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ فَتُصۡبِحَ صَعِيدٗا زَلَقًا ٤٠ أَوۡ يُصۡبِحَ مَآؤُهَا غَوۡرٗا فَلَن تَسۡتَطِيعَ لَهُۥ طَلَبٗا ٤١
(18:40–41) then maybe my Lord will give me what is better than your garden, and send on it a thunderbolt from heaven so that it shall become even ground without plant, or its waters should sink down into the ground so that you are unable to find it.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
“The root meaning of ḥusbān is arrows fired to rain down all at once. It is skilled [Persian] archery from horseback (ramy al-asāwira). The reason the arrows are called ḥusbān is because it causes a great reckoning (ḥisāb). Zalaq is smooth, even ground on which there is no herbage or anything else. The root meaning is that which the feet slip on because it does not offer a firm foothold.”
It was stated above that ṣaʿīd means the level surface of the earth on which there is no growth. The water becoming ghawran means becoming sunken, or sinking into the earth.
The two verses, as alluded to above, are a response by the believer to his unbelieving companion with respect to his considering himself superior because he has more wealth and followers. His response derives from his previous explanation. In summary, it says that because matters are as God pleases and by His power, and it was He who gave you more wealth and followers than me, it is up to Him and not up to you, such that you should brag and consider yourself to be superior to me. It is entirely possible that He could give me something better than your garden, destroy your garden, and turn my circumstances around to be better than your current circumstances and your circumstances around to be worse than my current circumstances, making me richer than you were in relation to me and you poorer than I was in relation to you.
It is likely that tarani (lit. “you see me”) in the clause, tarani anā aqall (if you consider me to be inferior) means “seeing” in the sense of believing, thus being an action of the heart; and anā (I) is a separating pronoun (ḍamīr faṣl) coming between its two objects which begin as subject and predicate. Alternatively it could mean literally “seeing,” in which case anā would be a subject pronoun by which the partially omitted object of tarani is emphasized.
The verses therefore mean: “If you consider me to be inferior to you in wealth and children there is no harm, given that it is up to my Lord—maybe my Lord will give me what is better than your garden and cast upon it (your garden) cold, wind, poison, lightning, or something similar as His divine punishment. It would then turn into smooth, empty land without any trees or crops upon it. Alternatively, its water would sink and you would not be able to find it because of the depth to which it has sunk.”
وَأُحِيطَ بِثَمَرِهِۦ فَأَصۡبَحَ يُقَلِّبُ كَفَّيۡهِ عَلَىٰ مَآ أَنفَقَ فِيهَا وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَىٰ عُرُوشِهَا وَيَقُولُ يَٰلَيۡتَنِي لَمۡ أُشۡرِكۡ بِرَبِّيٓ أَحَدٗا ٤٢
(18:42) And his wealth was destroyed (uḥīṭa); so he began to wring his hands (yuqallibu kaffayhi) for what he had spent on it, while it lay, having fallen down upon its roofs, and he said: Ah me! would that I had not associated anyone with my Lord.
Iḥāṭa bi- is a figure of speech (kināya) meaning destruction. It is derived from surrounding (iḥāṭa) and encircling the enemy from all sides so that the enemy is cut off from all helpers and assistants, which means doom. He said: . . .And they become certain that they are surrounded (uḥīṭa bihim) . . . ().
Fa aṣbaḥa yuqallibu kaffayhi (lit. “and he began to turn over his hands”) —is a figure of speech meaning regret; someone who regrets often wipes his palms together turning the top of each hand, in turn, toward the ground.
The clause, while it lay, having fallen down (khāwiyatun) upon its roofs (ʿurūshihā), is said to be a figure of speech for complete destruction. This is because the ʿurush (roofs) of ruined, collapsing houses normally fall to the ground first. Their walls then fall in on their fallen roofs. Al-khawī means “falling.” It is said that the root meaning is being empty (al-khuluw).
And he said: Ah me! would that I had not associated anyone with my Lord: It means, “I wish that I had not clung to what I had clung to, not relied on and been so sure of these means which I thought acted autonomously, and instead had referred the whole matter back to my Lord. My effort is lost and my soul has perished.”
In other words, his various kinds of wealth perished or the fruit of his garden was spoiled, and he began to regret spending money on the ruined garden. He said, Ah me! Would that I had not associated anyone with my Lord, and wished that he had not had faith in what he had believed in and was deceived by—himself and all the other causes which were of no use to him.
وَلَمۡ تَكُن لَّهُۥ فِئَةٞ يَنصُرُونَهُۥ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا كَانَ مُنتَصِرًا ٤٣
(18:43) And he had no host (fiʾa) to help him besides God nor could he defend himself (wa mā kāna muntaṣiran).
A fiʾa means a host. Muntaṣir means unassailable.
The first five verses (from, His companion said to him, up to, nor could he defend himself) are a practical demonstration of his error in depending on the world lasting forever and its embellishment remaining, as per, I do not think that this will ever perish, the error becoming clear when, his wealth was destroyed, and his garden, lay having fallen down upon its roofs. Similarly, the error in his trust in and reliance on causes—telling his companion, I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers, is explained by, and he had no host to help him besides God nor could he defend himself.
هُنَالِكَ ٱلۡوَلَٰيَةُ لِلَّهِ ٱلۡحَقِّۚ هُوَ خَيۡرٞ ثَوَابٗا وَخَيۡرٌ عُقۡبٗا ٤٤
(18:44) Here is protection (walāya) only God’s, the True One; He is best in (the giving) of reward and best in requiting.
The majority recite walāya (with a fatḥa above the wāw). An alternative recitation is wilāya, but they both mean the same thing. Some claim that walāya means assistance and wilāya means sovereignty, but this has not been established. Al-ḥaqq is in the genitive case because it follows a preposition. Thawāb means any kind of consequence but is predominantly used for a good and pleasant reward. ʿUqb (both ʿuqb and ʿuqub) means requital.
Exegetes say that hunālika (“here”) refers to the clause, his wealth was destroyed, namely, at that very place and moment when destruction came, and only God could have aided him. Walāya means assistance; that is, God is man’s helper when calamity surrounds him; when all means are cut off and there is no helper apart from Him.
In the abstract, this interpretation is correct. However, this does not fit the intent of the verses—to explain that everything belongs to God, and that He creates and directs everything. Anything else is just a mirage and a worldly embellishment to try and test people. If it were as they claim, instead of the clause, God’s, the True One, it would be more appropriate to describe Him as powerful, mighty, omnipotent, overpowering or something similar instead of “the True One” which is the opposite of “the false one.” Furthermore there would be no clear explanation or place for the clause, He is best in (the giving of) reward and best in requiting. The correct interpretation—though God knows best—is that walāya means directorial ownership (mālikiyya al-tadbīr). It is the meaning shared by all the derivatives of the word as discussed above in relation to the verse: Only God is your walī, and His Messenger . . . ().
The meaning is thus: “When doom is all around, when causes fail to exert their effects, it becomes clear that to man—who used to consider himself autonomous and independent—God alone is in charge of man and everything else; He has directorial ownership because He is the True God. In reality He is in charge of directing, and bringing about all effect. Any other apparent cause claimed to be His associate in directing and bringing about effect is powerless in itself, possessed only of whatever effect God has permitted and granted for it. Man thinks he has autonomy but his autonomy is only nominal. It is vain in itself, true only through God, whereas God is True in His Essence, autonomous and self-sufficient in Himself.”
Though He transcends comparison, compared to other causes that claim to be partners to Him in producing an effect, God is better at rewarding. He gives a true reward to whoever serves Him whereas they (that is, the causes) give a false, momentary reward—one which does not last—to whoever serves them and clings to them. Even so, it is still only with God’s permission and God gives better results because He is the everlasting truth which never ends, fades, or changes in terms of the glory and honor He has always had. They (, that is, the causes) are finite, changing matters which God has made as an embellishment for this world’s life, for man to become infatuated with and his heart to cling to until the decree reaches its appointed end and God turns it into bare ground without herbage.
If man cannot dispense with relying on someone to whom management is attributed and from whom he expects his well-being, then his Lord is better than anyone else, for, He is best in (the giving of) reward and best in requiting.
Some say that hunālika (“here”) refers to the Day of Resurrection and so what is meant by reward and punishment is on that day. As the reader will realize, the context does not support that interpretation.
وَٱضۡرِبۡ لَهُم مَّثَلَ ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا كَمَآءٍ أَنزَلۡنَٰهُ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ فَٱخۡتَلَطَ بِهِۦ نَبَاتُ ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَأَصۡبَحَ هَشِيمٗا تَذۡرُوهُ ٱلرِّيَٰحُۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ مُّقۡتَدِرًا ٤٥
(18:45) And set forth to them (the) parable of the life of this world: like water which We send down from the sky so the herbage of the earth becomes tangled on account of it, then it becomes dry broken into pieces which the winds scatter; and God is the holder of power over all things.
This is the second parable set forth to represent life in this world along with the rapidly disappearing embellishment which goes with it.
Hashīm (broken into pieces) is a verb of the faʿīl form meaning the object of hashm (breaking into pieces). According to al-Rāghib it means breaking something soft like herbage. Dharā; yadhrū; dharwan means, it scattered; it scatters; a scattering. Alternatively it is said to mean “it brought and took something away.” God says, and so the herbage of the earth becomes tangled on account of it, instead of “it becomes tangled with the herbage of the earth” to indicate its predominance over all the other parts in forming the herbage. Other sources of water, such as well water and river water were not referred to alongside rainwater because rainwater is the source of all of them. The word aṣbaḥa in fa aṣbaḥa hashīman (becomes tangled on account of it) is in the sense of aṣbaḥa fīhi (it became)—so they say—and so the predicate is not exclusive to the morning (ṣabāḥ).
Put together, it means: “And set forth to those infatuated with the world’s embellishment, their backs turned on remembering their Lord, the parable of the life of this world is like water which We sent down from the sky—that is, rain, the earth’s herbage mixed with it. It shone with blooms and joy and appeared in the most beautiful adornment but then it became fragile, broken, and cut up, strewn by the winds bringing it and taking it away. God is the holder of power over all things.”
ٱلۡمَالُ وَٱلۡبَنُونَ زِينَةُ ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَٱلۡبَٰقِيَٰتُ ٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ خَيۡرٌ عِندَ رَبِّكَ ثَوَابٗا وَخَيۡرٌ أَ َ ٗ ٤٦ ۖ
(18:46) Wealth and children are an adornment of the life of this world; and the ever abiding, the good works (al-bāqiyāt al-ṣāliḥāt) are better with your Lord in reward and better in expectation.
The verse is like the result of the aforementioned parable—even though hearts cling to wealth and children and souls yearn for them, expecting to benefit from them, and hopes surround them, they soon slip away, unable to reward or profit one with regard to everything one wanted from them, to confirm everything one hoped for or wished for or even most of it. There is in the verse—as you can see—a return to what was said originally—that is, the two verses beginning with, Surely We have made whatever is on the earth an embellishment for it . . .
Al-bāqiyāt al-ṣāliḥāt means good works. Humanity’s deeds are recorded with God as explicitly stated in the Qur’an, so they are ever-abiding. Thus if they are good, they are an ever-abiding good. With God, they are better in reward because God rewards a person who brings them with the best reward. They are better in expectation because God’s mercy and honor facilitated for people, expected on account of them, is a better hope than the world’s embellishments and trimmings which do not fulfil most of the promises they make to mankind. Hopes dependent on them are mostly false hopes and even those of them which are true are beguilement and delusion.
Many narrations from the Prophet by both Sunnī and Shī‘ah, and from the Imams from the People of the Household by the Shia alone, say that al-bāqiyāt al-ṣāliḥāt means the four glorifications (al-tasbīḥāt al-arbaʿ)—that is, subḥān Allāh (glory be to God), al-ḥamdu li-llāh (praise be to God), lā ilāha illā Allāh (there is no god but God), and Allāhu akbar (God is too great to be described). Others say that it means prayer, others say it means love for the People of the Household; but they are all along the lines of allegorical interpretation and the applicability of the Qur’an to different instances.
That is to say, the man viewed the relationship of cause-and-effect in the universe which God established as something independent from God, rather than recognizing that God employs cause-and-effect to carry out His will, and is subtle in that He does not bring about an effect without giving it an apparent cause—for instance, farming to obtain food instead of directly receiving food from God. (Ed.) ↩︎