Verses 47–59
Introduction
These verses are connected to the preceding ones, following as they do after the explanation that an end will soon come to these apparent causes and the trimmings of the beguiling world—and it will become clear to humanity that they neither benefitted nor harmed them. All that is left for or against human beings is what they have done, and they will be punished or rewarded for it.
The verses first mention the coming of the Hour and the coming of human beings alone with nothing but their deeds. They then mention Iblīs, his refusal to prostrate to Adam, and his transgressing the commandment of his Lord; the people take Iblīs and his offspring for friends rather than God, despite the fact that they are their enemy. The verses then refer to the Day of Resurrection, the summoning of the people and their associates, and the cutting off of the link between them. Other verses following that make promises and threats, but they are all connected thematically to the preceding ones.
Commentary
وَيَوۡمَ نُسَيِّرُ ٱلۡجِبَالَ وَتَرَى ٱلۡأَرۡضَ بَارِزَةٗ وَحَشَرۡنَٰهُمۡ فَلَمۡ نُغَادِرۡ مِنۡهُمۡ أَحَدٗا ٤٧
(18:47) And the day on which We will cause the mountains to pass away and you will see the earth a leveled plain, and We will gather them and leave not any one of them behind.
The adverbial phrase is connected to what is implied as: “And remember the day of which We cause. . .” The mountains are made to pass away, by leaving their resting places. God refers to this in different ways, such as: . . . and the mountains shall become (as) heaps of sand let loose (). And the mountains shall be as loosened wool (). So that they shall be as scattered dust (). And the mountains shall be moved off so that they shall remain a mere mirage ().
What can be inferred from the context is that the earth’s being seen (as a leveled plain) depends on the mountains’ being made to pass away. Once the mountains and hills pass away, one will see the earth clearly; one end not being out of the other’s sight on account of any impediment. No area of it will be covered from any other area. It is also possible that it may allude to what is meant in the clause, And the earth shall beam with the light of its Lord . . . ().
And We will gather them and leave not any one of them behind, means, “We will not omit any of them.” The gathering applies to everyone.
وَعُرِضُواْ عَلَىٰ رَبِّكَ صَفّٗا لَّقَدۡ جِئۡتُمُونَا كَمَا خَلَقۡنَٰكُمۡ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةِۢۚ بَلۡ زَعَمۡتُمۡ أَلَّن نَّجۡعَلَ لَكُم مَّوۡعِدٗا ٤٨
(18:48) And they shall be brought (ʿuriḍū) before your Lord, standing in a row: now certainly you have come to Us as We created you at first. Nay, you thought that We had not appointed to you a time of the fulfillment of the promise.
The context testifies to the fact that the plural pronoun (“they”) in ʿuriḍū and similarly the two plural pronouns in the previous verse, refer to the polytheists—those who are sure of themselves and the apparent causes which their life is linked to. They cling to life’s embellishments like someone clinging to something everlasting. That constitutes disconnecting themselves from their Lord, denying that they will return to Him and not caring whether what they do pleases or angers God.
This is the way they [the polytheists] are as long as the test lasts, the embellishment is offered and the apparent causes are around them and the matter has not yet come to its appointed end. Then, when it is time, the causes are cut off, hopes are lost and God turns everything on it into bare ground without herbage and they will be left with nothing but their Lord, themselves, and the book of their deeds recorded against them. They will be brought before their Lord—whom they did not believe to be their Lord, otherwise they would have worshiped Him—in a row without any space between them or superiority on the basis of lineage, wealth or worldly position, for decisive judgment. It will become clear to them at that point that God is the manifest truth and that what they called on instead of Him, the life’s embellishment they clung to, their autonomy and the causes prepared for them, were nothing but illusions—no substitute for God. They were wrong in clinging to them, turning their backs on the way of their Lord and not following what He wanted them to follow. Indeed, it was their idea because they mistakenly believed that there was no place where they would have to stand up and reckon with [their choices].
It will have become clear through this explanation that these four sentences: And they shall be brought . . .; Now certainly you have come to Us . . .; Nay you thought . . .; and, And the book shall be placed . . ., are fundamental points selected from the full account of what will happen that day between them and their Lord, from the time they are assembled to the time of their reckoning. I content myself with them for the sake of brevity in making the point.
And they shall be brought before your Lord, standing in a row, is an allusion first to the fact that they are given no recourse but to return to their Lord. Second, there is no honor for them at that meeting. It is the words, before your Lord, which gives that impression; if they had been honored, the wording would have been: “their Lord” as in the verses: Their reward with their Lord is gardens of perpetuity beneath which rivers flow . . . () and . . . surely they shall meet their Lord . . . ().
Alternatively, the verse would have said: “They shall be brought before Me,” following the paradigm of the previous verses. Third, the various forms of superiority and worldly marks of honor—lineage, wealth, and position in society—are gone. They are made to stand in a single row without distinguishing the high from the low, the rich from the poor, or the master from the slave. The only distinction on that day is based on deeds. At that point, it will become clear to them that they erred during their earthly life and lost their way, so they will be spoken to with words like, Now certainly you have come to Us . . .
Now certainly you have come to Us as We created you at first, is an expression of direct speech. It implies: “He will say to them. . .” or “We will say to them, ‘Now certainly you have come to Us. . .’” This points out their mistake and error in the world because they clung to its embellishment and ornamentation, and that distracted them from traversing God’s path and following His religion.
The clause, Nay you thought that We had not appointed to you a time, means the same as the verse: What! Did you then think that We had created you in vain and that you shall not be returned to Us? ().
Even though the sentence appears from the context to be a digression from the previous one, the implied meaning is: “The world’s embellishment, your attachment to your self, and the apparent causes distracted you from worshiping Us and traveling Our path. In fact, you thought that We would not appoint a time for you to meet Us and be reckoned with. In other words, even though your being distracted by the world and being attached to its embellishment was a reason for your turning your backs on Us and making numerous errors, there was a reason prior to that which is the source of it—that is, you thought that We would not make and appoint for you a time.” Forgetting the resurrection is the root (cause) of forgetting the path (of God) and evildoing. He says: those who go astray from the path of God, they shall surely have a severe punishment because they forgot the day of reckoning ().
The reason for attributing a mistaken belief to them—that there is no resurrection—is that their engrossment in the world and attachment to its embellishment and those they call upon instead of God is the action of those who think that they will live forever and that they will not return to God. Thus, it is the belief echoed by their condition and actions. Alternatively, it is possible that it is a figure of speech for their not caring about God’s commandment and disdaining what He warned about, as in (the verse): . . . but you thought that God did not know most of what you did ().
It is possible that the clause, Nay, you thought that We had not appointed to you a time, is a response to an implied excuse they made of not knowing or something similar, but God knows best.
وَوُضِعَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبُ فَتَرَى ٱلۡمُجۡرِمِينَ مُشۡفِقِينَ مِمَّا فِيهِ وَيَقُولُونَ يَٰوَيۡلَتَنَا مَالِ هَٰذَا ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيرَةٗ وَلَا كَبِيرَةً إِلَّآ أَحۡصَىٰهَاۚ وَوَجَدُواْ مَا عَمِلُواْ حَاضِرٗاۗ وَلَا يَظۡلِمُ رَبُّكَ أَحَدٗا ٤٩
(18:49) And the book shall be placed, then you will see the guilty fearing from what is in it, and they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one or a great one, but takes account of them (all); and what they had done they shall find present (there); and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone.
Waḍʿ al-kitāb means placing it in front of Him—for Him to judge on the basis of it. Mushfiqīn is derived from the word shafaqa, the root meaning of which is “gentleness.” Al-Rāghib says in Mufradāt al-Qurʾān:
Ishfāq means concern mixed with fear because the mushfiq loves the object of ishfāq (mushfaq ʿalayh) and fears what will befall him. God says: . . . and they are fearful (mushfiqūn) of the Hour (). If it is made transitive with the preposition min (from), the sense of concern is more pronounced. He says: Saying: Surely we feared (mushfiqīn) before on account of our families; () and . . . are in fear from it (mushfiqūna minhā) . . . ().
Wayl means perishing. It is called out in times of affliction—as is said—and is a figure of speech meaning that an affliction is worse than death, so a person pleads for the succor of death to escape from the affliction, just as one may wish for death when visited with a catastrophe. God says (quoting Maryam when she is undergoing the pain of childbirth): . . . Oh would that I had died before this . . . ().
And the book shall be placed: The context suggests that it is a single book placed to reckon everyone’s deeds. However, this does not contradict the idea of a separate book being placed for each person. Some Qur’anic verses say that each person has his own book, others that each nation (umma) has its own book, and a third group of verses say that there is one book for everyone. God says: And We have made every man’s actions cling to his neck, and We will bring forth to him on the resurrection day a book (), as discussed above; This is Our book that speaks against you with justice . . . ().
The latter two verses will be discussed later on, God willing.
Alternatively, it is said that “the book” means the books of deeds and that the definite article is used to indicate the entirety of the genus. However, the context does not support this interpretation.
Then you will see the guilty fearing from what is in it: Making the phrase consequential to the placing of the book and mentioning their fear of what it says is proof that it is the book of deeds or a book containing their deeds. Describing them as guilty alludes to the reason for the predicate and to the fact that their fear of what it says is because of their guilt. Thus the predicate (ḥukm) applies to every guilty person even if he is not a polytheist.
And they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small (saghīra) one or a great (kabīra) one, but takes account of them (all): Ṣaghīra (small) and kabīra (big) are two adjectives which take the place of the nouns they describe—such as a sin, an act of disobedience, a trifling error or something similar.
These words of theirs, in the form of an exclamatory rhetorical question, are an expression of astonishment at and terror of the authority of the book in recounting all their sins or all incidents including sins. Thus, one understands the reason for putting small before great in, a small one or a great one, even though the obvious thing to do would be to say that it does not omit a great one or a small one, based on the fact that the phrase has a positive meaning and hierarchically it would be correct to progress down from a great one to a small one. The reason for not doing so is that the intended meaning is—though God knows best—it does not omit a small one in spite of its insignificance or triviality or a great one in spite of its enormity and obviousness. The context is one of terror disguised as astonishment; taking into account a small one in spite of its insignificance and triviality is more befitting to that than anything else.
It appears from the context that the phrase, and what they had done they shall find present (there), begins a new idea (taʾsīs) and is not an explanation for, it does not omit a small one or a great one. Thus, that which will be present with them is their actual deeds, in forms appropriate to them, and not the book of deeds, as is obvious. It is similar to: O you who disbelieve! do not urge excuses today; you shall be rewarded only according to what you did ().
It is also supported by the clause, and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone. Based on the belief that all deeds will assume a corporeal form, the fact that there will be no injustice is easier to understand because what they will be rewarded or punished for will be their deeds. They will come back to them and catch up with them and no one can do anything about it. This is something the reader should understand.
وَإِذۡ قُلۡنَا لِلۡمَلَٰٓئِكَةِ ٱسۡجُدُواْ لِأٓدَمَ فَسَجَدُوٓاْ إِلَّآ إِبۡلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ ٱلۡجِنِّ فَفَسَقَ عَنۡ أَمۡرِ رَبِّهِۦٓۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُۥ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُۥٓ أَوۡلِيَآءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمۡ لَكُمۡ عَدُوُّۢۚ بِئۡسَ لِلظَّٰلِمِينَ بَدَلٗا ٥٠
(18:50) And when We said to the angels: Bow down before Adam; they all bowed down except Iblīs. He was of the jinn, so he transgressed the commandment of his Lord. What! would you then take him and his offspring for masters rather than Me, and they are your enemy? Evil is (this) change for the unjust.
This is a second reminder to them of what happened between Him and Iblīs when He commanded the angels to bow down before humanity’s forefather Adam; they all bowed down except Iblīs. He was one of the jinn and he rebelled against his Lord’s commandment.
It means remember this incident so that it will be clear to you that Iblīs—one of the jinn—and his progeny are your enemy. They do not want what is good for you. You should not be tempted by the pleasures and desires of the world that they make look good to you and (you should not) turn your backs on remembrance of God. You should not obey them with regard to the falsehood to which they invite you.
What! would you then take him and his offspring for masters rather than Me, and they are your enemy?: This follows from the brief summary of the incident. The question is rhetorical, expressing disapproval; that is, it follows logically from the incident that you should not take him and his progeny as friends when they are in fact your enemies, O humankind! Thus what is meant by wilāya (translated here as “mastership”) is the wilāya of obedience, such that they obey him and his progeny with regard to what they invite them to, their having taking him and his progeny as objects of obedience instead of God. That is how exegetes have explained it.
It would not be improbable for wilāya to mean possession of authority and management, that is, ownership (rubūbiyya), because just as idolaters worship angels desiring good from them, so, too, do they worship jinn to avoid harm from them. He explicitly states that Iblīs is of the jinn and has progeny, that man’s straying from the path of his happiness and the various kinds of misery which go with it are only on account of Satan’s leading him astray. Thus, all together, it means: What? Would you take him and his offspring for gods and lords instead of Me, to worship and endear yourselves to, though they are your enemy?
This explanation is supported by the verse that follows because their not being made witnesses to creation is only compatible with denial of their wilāya in the sense of their regulating, not in the sense of their being objects of obedience, as is obvious.
The verse ends by condemning them for taking masters instead of God, which means taking Iblīs instead of God: Evil is (this) change for the unjust. How repugnant that is! No one with any sense would do so. That is the secret in the grammatical shift for rhetorical purpose to the clause, the commandment of his Lord, as opposed to “Our commandment.”
Exegetes have various explanations for why the command to the angels was also addressed to Iblīs, what his being one of the jinn means, and what that in turn means. We have mentioned some of these viewpoints in the exegesis of Sūrat al-Aʿrāf [The Heights].
۞مَّآ أَشۡهَدتُّهُمۡ خَلۡقَ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَلَا خَلۡقَ أَنفُسِهِمۡ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ ٱلۡمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدٗا ٥١
(18:51) I did not make them witnesses (ashhadtuhum) of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own souls; nor would I take those who lead (others) astray for helpers (ʿaḍudan).
It is apparent from the context that the plural pronouns refer to Iblīs and his progeny. Ishhād (as in, ashhadtuhum) means summoning and declaring as witnesses the same way that shuhūd are eyewitnesses. An ʿaḍud means a person’s upper arm (between the elbow and the shoulder). It has been metaphorically borrowed because its meaning is similar to yad (hand or arm). That is what it means here—“to lend a hand.”
The verse makes two arguments refuting the idea that Iblīs and his progeny have been given control to regulate the universe (wilāyat al-tadbīr).
First, directing something means having comprehensive knowledge, in the full sense of the word, of those matters in respect to which they are directed and knowledge of whatever internal and external links that thing and those matters have—what they originate from, what is concomitant to them, and where they end up. There is an existential link between the constituent parts of the universe. God did not make Iblīs and his offspring witnesses to His creating the heavens and the earth or even of the creation of themselves. They were not witnesses when He said to the heavens and the earth: “Be!” and they came into being, or when He told Iblīs and his offspring: “Be!” and they came into being. Thus they are ignorant of the reality of the heavens and the earth, and of the secrets of creation inside the bounds of their individual existence. They are even ignorant of the reality of the fashioning of themselves, so how can they be in charge of regulating their affair or even part of it. How can they be gods or lords instead of God when they are ignorant of the reality of the creation of the heaven and earth, and even the creation of their own selves?
They did not witness the creation of the heavens and the earth because they are all limited, with no way of understanding what is beyond themselves. Anything else is hidden from them, with a veil cast over it. This is clear; God informed us of this in various parts of His revelation. Similarly, the matter of (causational) causes preceding his own existence and the consequences which will follow his existence are hidden from him.
For anyone who looks carefully and scrutinizes [the matter, they will see that] this is a rational proof as opposed to an argumentative one. [Scrutiny is necessary] so as not to confuse this game that we call planning with the cosmological planning [of God], which neither errs nor strays, and [not to confuse] conjecture and mistaken belief, which we circulate and rely on, with eyewitness knowledge, which is true knowledge. The careful investigator will also not confuse knowledge of unseen matters usually guessed by their signs and indications with true knowledge of the unseen through which the unseen becomes seen.
Second, every species of creation is directed through its instinct to strive toward a form of perfection specific to its species. This is elementary to anyone who researches and scrutinizes their condition. Divine guidance is available for everyone, as He says: He who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal) ().
The shayṭāns are evil mischief-makers who lead people astray, so their stepping up to regulate any of the affairs of the heavens, earth, or humankind—something that will never happen unless God so permits—would lead to a contradiction of the divine custom (sunna) of guidance for all, namely, (it would mean) steering people to what is good via something whose only purpose is troublemaking and toward guidance through something whose speciality is leading people astray. This is impossible.
This is what the clause, nor could I take those who lead (others) astray for helpers, means. The apparent meaning is that it is not His custom (sunna) to take those who lead others astray as helpers. Understand this!
His saying, I did not make them witnesses, and, nor would I, instead of “they were not witnesses” and “they were not”, is proof that He is the Subduer (al-Qāhir), the Master (al-Muhaymin) over them in any event. Those who say that devils, angels or others are partners with God in the matter of regulating affairs do not say that they are autonomous in that respect but rather that they are put in possession of the matter of God. (According to these people) it is delegated to them through delegation by Him—they are lords and gods and God is the Lord of lords and God of gods.
The above interpretation of the verse is based construing ishhād in the literal sense of the word and the two third person plural pronouns in, I did not make them witnesses, and, their own souls, as referring to Iblīs and his offspring—that which is apparent and suggests itself strongly from the context. Nevertheless, exegetes have expressed other opinions, including (the following).
Opinion 1: Making them witnesses to the creation of the heavens and the earth is a metaphor for consulting them. This is because the lowest level of putting someone in charge of something is to consult him about it. The denial of having their help means a denial of all other levels of getting help, and this leads to their becoming in charge of and having authority over their charges in some way. It is as if what was said was: “I did not consult them in the matter of the creation of the heavens and the earth and did not seek any kind of help from them, so where could their authority over them come from?”
Comment: There is no contextual support (qarīna) for this metaphorical meaning and there is nothing to prevent the words from being construed literally. Besides, there is no link between being consulted over something and being put in charge of it, such that consultation should constitute any level of putting the consultant in charge or being consulted should constitute any level of being put in charge.
Opinion 2: Some explain this by saying that making them witnesses is an allusion to consultation. An inevitable part of consultation means creating them as they wish—that is, creating them as they want; namely, creating them perfect. Not making the shayṭāns witnesses to their own creation means that they were not created perfect, and so they would not be able to be in charge of regulating affairs.
Comment: As well as having the same problem as the previous explanation, (note the following):
a) It boils down to saying something but meaning something separated by five levels of implication. Consultation is concomitant to making someone a witness according to the claim. Creating as per the consultant’s wishes is concomitant to making him a consultant. Creating what the consultant likes is concomitant to creating what is pleasing to the consultant. Creating the consultant perfect is concomitant to creating what is pleasing to the consultant. The propriety of the consultant’s being put in charge is concomitant to his being created perfect. The clear Book is too sublime for such riddles as saying “making witnesses” but actually meaning creating perfect, or the propriety of putting them in charge via allusion to what is concomitant to the meaning, four or five times removed.
b) Even if it is correct, it is only correct with regard to making them witnesses to their own creation and not to making them witnesses to the creation of the heavens and the earth. This would mean having to split “witness to their own creation” from “witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth.”
c) The inevitable implication of this explanation is that it would be correct for those who are created perfect, such as the favored angels, to be in charge. It contains a concession that it is possible for them to be in charge and possible for them to be lords. However, this is explicitly refuted by the Qur’an. A contingent being which in itself is in need of God is a far cry from being autonomous in regulating itself and others: Then those who regulate the affair (), the explanation of which will come (in that section), God willing.
Opinion 3: The literal meaning of making them witnesses is intended, and the two third-person plural pronouns refer to the satans. However, making them witnesses to the creation of their selves means making them witnesses to each other’s creation, not each individual’s being made witness to his own creation.
Comment: Negating their being made witness is the result of negating their being in charge. None of the polytheists has ever said that any of the satans are in charge of any of the others. The purpose is not to negate wilāya, such that the wording of the verse would be construed as referring to some of them as witnesses over the creation of others.
Opinion 4: The first pronoun refers to the satans and the second to the unbelievers alone, or to them and other people. The meaning thus rendered is: “I have not made the satans witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth, or to the creation of the unbelievers or people generally—which would have made them masters over them (if I had).”
Comment: This would require that the two pronouns refer to two different things.
Opinion 5: The two pronouns refer to the unbelievers. Imam al-Rāzī says in his exegesis:
“I think the most likely explanation is that they (the two pronouns) refer to the unbelievers who told the Messenger: If you do not cast those poor people from your seated gathering we will not believe in you. It is as if He is saying: ‘Those who came up with this invalid suggestion and pointless vexation were not My partners in regulating the world as evidenced by My not making them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or their own creation. I did not get their help in regulating the world or the hereafter. On the contrary, they are just the same as the rest of creation, so why did they have the audacity to come up with this invalid suggestion?’ It is similar to someone who makes mighty suggestions to you. You would tell him, ‘You are not the sultan of the land such that we should accept these enormous suggestions, so why are you making them to us?’”
This is supported by the fact that a pronoun should refer to the closest thing mentioned. In this verse this is those unbelievers because they are those who are meant by “the unjust” in the sentence, Evil is (this) change for the unjust.
Comment: It is a break in the context for the content of the verse to depend—by way of allusion—on what was dealt with in, and do not follow him whose heart We have made unmindful (twenty-three verses earlier), when the discourse is already referring back to the beginning of the chapter, time and again, with parable after parable, and reminder after reminder. The meaning he believes to be possible is extremely unlikely.
Furthermore, the aforementioned suggestion to the Prophet: “If you do not cast those poor people from your seated gathering we will not believe in you,” is a suggestion which has nothing to do with regulating the affairs of the world, such that, I did not make them witnesses, should be a reply to it. On the contrary, it just makes their becoming believers contingent upon his casting out those people without being based on any claim to be witnesses. Although, if they had contented themselves with just saying: “Cast those poor people out from your seated gathering,” there would have been some substance to Imam al-Rāzī’s explanation.
It is as if avoiding this point led some others to offer an alternative explanation for the verse also based on believing the two pronouns to refer to the unbelievers—it means that they were ignorant of what the Pen sempiternally wrote on the matter of happiness and misery because they did not witness creation. How can they then suggest your drawing them to you and casting out the poor.
Opinion 6: A similar explanation, it means: “I did not make them privy to the secrets of creation. They did not acquire anything exclusive from Me which singles them out from anyone else, such that their believing in you should be an example for people to follow. So, do not desire their assistance—it is not appropriate for Me to get help for My religion from those who lead others astray.”
Comment: Both explanations are even more unlikely than Imam al-Rāzī’s. How far removed the verse is from meaning what they have concocted!
Opinion 7: The two pronouns refer to the angels. Thus, it means: “I did not make the angels witnesses to the creation of the world or of themselves such that they be worshiped instead of Me.” It should be added to that, that, nor could I take those who lead (others) astray for helpers, addresses the refutation of the satans guardianship. Put together, the verse, beginning and end, refutes both groups’ guardianship. Otherwise, the end of the verse alone refutes it.
Comment: The previous verse only addressed the unbelievers with regard to their claim that the satans are guardians. It then refers to them with a plural pronoun in (the clause), and they are your enemies, but does not address any of the angels’ affairs. Thus claiming that the two pronouns refer to the angels and not the satans is a disruption to the logic. Busying itself with refuting a belief that the angels are in charge constitutes addressing something not required in the verbal context (siyāq) and not dictated by the purposive context (maqām).
وَيَوۡمَ يَقُولُ نَادُواْ شُرَكَآءِيَ ٱلَّذِينَ زَعَمۡتُمۡ فَدَعَوۡهُمۡ فَلَمۡ يَسۡتَجِيبُواْ لَهُمۡ وَجَعَلۡنَا بَيۡنَهُم مَّوۡبِقٗا ٥٢
(18:52) And on the day when He shall say: Call on those whom you considered to be My associates. So they shall call on them, but they shall not answer them, and We will cause a separation between them.
This is a third reminder. It refers to the manifestation of the refutation of the link between the polytheists and their associates on the Day of Resurrection. Thus it is confirmed that none of the claims the polytheists make about them is true.
And on the day when He shall say . . .: The subject of the verb is God, as evidenced by the context. It means: Mention to them the day on which God will tell them, “Call those My associates—those you claimed were My associates. Call on them, but they will not answer you. It will become clear that I do not have associates. If I did, they would respond.”
And We will cause a separation (mawbiqan) between them: Mawbiq is a noun derived from the verb wabaqa which means “he perished.” Together, it means “We will put a place of perishing between the polytheists and their associates.” People have explained this mawbiq or place of perishing as hell or a place in hell in which both groups—the polytheists and their associates alike—will perish. However, reflection on His words does not support this interpretation. This is because the verse also uses the word “associates” to refer to angels, some prophets, and some saints (awliyāʾ)—they may even be the ones who are mostly meant by “associates.” The pronoun used for beings with intellect is used to refer to them repeatedly, and there is no evidence that it only refers to jinn and human rebels in the context. It is argued that the separation made between them is evidence that it only refers to jinn and human rebels, but this is just the first of many flaws in the argument.
Making a, mawbiq between them, may mean nullifying and removing the link between them, their having believed there to be a proprietor to property link and cause to effect link between their associates and themselves. That is alluded to by making a mawbiq between them, in which the link and relationship perishes without either of the two parties to it perishing. He alludes to this nicely, first by referring to their call to them as nidā: Call on those (nādū) whom you considered to be My associates. Nidāʾ (calling) is only used when the other is far away, so it is evidence of the distance between them.
This same meaning is alluded to elsewhere [in the Qur'an]: And We do not see with you your intercessors about whom you asserted that they were (God’s) associates in respect to you; certainly the ties between you are now cut off and what you asserted is gone from you (). Then We will say to those who associated others (with God): Keep where you are, you and your associates; then We shall separate them widely one from another and their associates would say: It was not us that you served ().
وَرَءَا ٱلۡمُجۡرِمُونَ ٱلنَّارَ فَظَنُّوٓاْ أَنَّهُم مُّوَاقِعُوهَا وَلَمۡ يَجِدُواْ عَنۡهَا مَصۡرِفٗا ٥٣
(18:53) And the guilty shall see the fire; then they shall know (wa ẓannu) that they are going to fall into it (muwāqiʿuhā), and they shall not find a place to which to turn away from it.
The use of the word “guilty” instead of “those who associated others (with God)” means that it is a general rule which applies to all the guilty. Ẓannu means “they shall know”—so people say—and this interpretation is supported by the sentence, and they shall not find a place to which to turn away from it.
It is said that muwāqiʿuhā means that they are going to fall into the fire. However it would not be surprising if the falling will happen in two ways—they will fall into the fire when they enter it, and the fire will “fall” on them as it is fueled by them.
And they shall not find a place to which to turn away (maṣrifan) from it: Maṣrif is a noun of place derived from ṣarf which means turning; that is, they shall not find a place to turn toward away from the fire. There is no escape.
وَلَقَدۡ صَرَّفۡنَا فِي هَٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانِ لِلنَّاسِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٖۚ وَكَانَ ٱلۡإِنسَٰنُ أَكۡثَرَ شَيۡءٖ جَدَلٗا
(18:54) And certainly We have explained in this Qur’an every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention (jadalan).
Something similar was said in . Jadal means discourse by way of dispute and argument. Verses threaten punishment after previous reminders.
وَمَا مَنَعَ ٱلنَّاسَ أَن يُؤۡمِنُوٓاْ إِذۡ جَآءَهُمُ ٱلۡهُدَىٰ وَيَسۡتَغۡفِرُواْ رَبَّهُمۡ إِلَّآ أَن تَأۡتِيَهُمۡ سُنَّةُ ٱلۡأَوَّلِينَ أَوۡ يَأۡتِيَهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ قُ ُ ٗ ٥٥
(18:55) And nothing prevents men from believing (yuʾminū) when the guidance comes to them, and from asking forgiveness (yastaghfirū) of their Lord, except that there [must] befall them the [accustomed] precedent of the former peoples or that the punishment should come [directly] before them.
The word yastaghfirū (asking forgiveness) is linked with the conjunction to yuʾminū (believing) thus rendering a meaning of: “And nothing prevents men from believing and seeking forgiveness when the guidance comes.”
Except that there [must] befall them the [accustomed] precedent of the former peoples, means, unless they want what was done to the ancient peoples to be done to them—namely, to be destroyed by divine punishment.
The sentence, Or that the punishment should come [directly] before them, is joined with the conjunction to the previous phrase, which in turn was joined with a conjunction to yuʾminū. It means, “or wanting punishment to come face to face with them, their seeing it.” Becoming believers will not help them at that point because it would mean becoming believers after witnessing the divine retribution. As He says: But their belief was not going to profit them when they had seen Our punishment . . . ().
In brief, it means that people do not seek to have faith, which would benefit them. What they want is to be destroyed through the divine punishment just like the ancients. They will perish without becoming believers, or when they see the punishment, they will believe out of desperation, and their belief will not benefit them.
Their being prevented from believing, and the ensuing consequences (iqtiḍāʾ) as per the verse, is metaphorical. It means that they have their backs turned on the truth because of their ill intent. Thus the excessive lengths to which exegetes have gone to in explaining and appraising, raising contentions and refuting them is futile.
وَمَا نُرۡسِلُ ٱلۡمُرۡسَلِينَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَۚ وَيُجَٰدِلُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِٱلۡبَٰطِلِ لِيُدۡحِضُواْ بِهِ ٱلۡحَقَّۖ وَٱتَّخَذُوٓاْ ءَايَٰتِي وَمَآ أُنذِرُواْ هُزُوٗا ٥٦
(18:56) And We do not send messengers but as givers of good news and warning, and those who disbelieve make a false contention that they may render null thereby the truth, and they take My communications and that with which they are warned for a mockery.
This is a consolation to the Prophet so that he does not become distressed by people’s rejection and by their turning their backs on the remembrance of God. The messengers were only tasked with giving good news and warning. There is no harm in them not doing more than that. This verse is a return to what was said at the beginning of the chapter, Then maybe you will kill yourself with grief over them, if they do not believe in this announcement. The verse (under discussion) also contains a kind of threat to the unbelievers who mock.
Daḥḍ means perishing and idḥāḍ means causing to perish or subduing. Huzūʾ means mocking. The verbal noun means the same as the object (mockery). The meaning of the verse is clear.
وَمَنۡ أَظۡلَمُ مِمَّن ذُكِّرَ بَِٔايَٰتِ رَبِّهِۦ فَأَعۡرَضَ عَنۡهَا وَنَسِيَ مَا قَدَّمَتۡ يَدَاهُۚ إِنَّا جَعَلۡنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمۡ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفۡقَهُوهُ وَفِيٓ ءَاذَانِهِمۡ وَقۡرٗاۖ وَإِن تَدۡعُهُمۡ إِلَى ٱلۡهُدَىٰ فَلَن يَهۡتَدُوٓاْ إِذًا أَبَدٗا ٥٧ ُۚ
(18:57) And who is more unjust than the one who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent ahead? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case.
This is an expression of the might and enormity of their wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is said to be mighty or enormous, commensurate with whom it is done against. If it is done against God, along with His communications, it is greater than any other wrongdoing.
His words, forgets what his two hands have sent ahead, mean that the Prophet is not troubled by those that turn away from the truth and mock him, because he knows the communications are true.
The sentence, Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears, provides an explanation for why they turn their backs on God’s communications, or for that, along with why they forget what their two hands have sent ahead. What the Book means by placing veils over their hearts and heaviness in their ears has already been discussed several times (see above).
The words, And if you call them to guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case, is (an expression of) despair of their ever believing once God has placed a veil over their hearts and ears. After that they will not be able to be guided by themselves by comprehending the truth or being directed by the guidance of others through listening and following. The proof of this is in the sentence, and if you call them to guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case, because it emphasizes the negation and qualifies it with idhan (“in that case”) which is the consequence and the answer.
Rūḥ al-maʿānī says:
“Determinists (Jabriyya) rely on this verse as evidence for their beliefs, whereas believers in absolute freewill (qadariyya) rely on the previous one. [Al-ʿĀlūsī] says: ‘It is rare in the Qur’an to find a verse which supports one of these two group’s beliefs without a verse in support of the other group’s beliefs right beside it. That is nothing but a difficult test which God has cast over His servants to separate scholars firmly grounded in knowledge from followers.’”
Author’s comment: Both verses are the truth. The inevitable consequence of that is proof that the servants have freedom of choice in their actions while His proprietary authority stretches over everything, including the servants’ deeds. This is the doctrinal position taken by the People of the Household.
وَرَبُّكَ الْغَفُورُ ذُو الرَّحْمَةِ ۖ لَوْ يُؤَاخِذُهُمْ بِمَا كَسَبُوا لَعَجَّلَ لَهُمُ الْعَذَابَ ۚ بَلْ لَهُمْ مَوْعِدٌ لَنْ يَجِدُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ مَوْئِلًا ٥٨
(18:58) And your Lord is forgiving, the Lord of mercy; were He to punish them for what they earn, He would certainly have hastened the chastisement for them; [but] for them there is an appointed time from which they shall not find a refuge.
The verses, as the reader already knows, are presented to threaten the wrongdoers with punishment—their having acted corruptly with no hope of any good. This is a reason for punishment to come down, and for it to be immediate without giving them respite because the only result of their remaining would be further corruption. However, God did not make the punishment immediate even though He has decreed it. Instead He has postponed it until some time, the exact date of which only He knows.
The verse threatening them with certain punishment begins with, And your Lord is Forgiving, the Lord of mercy. This is to communicate—via the verse’s mention of two attributes (“Forgiving” and “the Lord of mercy”)—the immediate punishment which their actions dictate. Punishment per se is decreed and retained to give them what they deserve for what they have done, but it is delayed because God is Forgiving, the Lord of mercy.
The whole sentence, Forgiving, Lord of mercy, along with, were He to punish them for what they earn, He would certainly have hastened the chastisement for them, is like two litigants disputing before a judge. The sentence, for them there is an appointed time from which they shall not find a refuge, is like the judgment passed down which satisfies both parties and maintains both rights. It is given the attribute of divine retribution because what they have done calls for punishment. The judgment is also given the attribute of forgiveness and mercy, postponing and not making the punishment immediate. In so doing, the divine forgiveness erases one consequence of the action, namely “immediate” punishment, and the mercy floods them with life, for now.
In summary it means: “Were your Lord to call them to account He would hasten their punishment. However, He has not hastened it because He is Forgiving, the Lord of mercy. He has instead decreed punishment for them, setting an appointed time for them from which they have no refuge.”
The statement, for them there is an appointed time, is of decree and not a purely declaratory statement. Otherwise, He would have said: “Rather, He has appointed a time for them.” Understand this!
The word ghafūr is an intensive form, meaning Much-Forgiving. The definite article in Dhū l-Raḥma (lit. Possessor of mercy) means that the whole genus is intended. Thus it is an attribute indicating that the mercy applies to everything. It is a more comprehensive meaning than raḥmān or raḥīm which both mean having much mercy or always and eternally being merciful. The word ghafūr is like the phrase Dhū l-Raḥma’s servant. The term Dhū l-Raḥma can be used appropriately when any blemishes of impediment have been erased. Once it becomes an appropriate instance, Dhū l-Raḥma applies. The word ghafūr has to do all the hard work while the word Dhū l-Raḥma stretches out and covers wherever there is no impediment. This is why the intensive form ghafūr is used to talk about His Forgiveness and Dhū l-Raḥma—which refers to the whole genus of mercy (raḥma)—are used. So, understand this, and leave aside the excessively verbose discussions found elsewhere on the two names.
وَتِلۡكَ ٱلۡقُرَىٰٓ أَهۡلَكۡنَٰهُمۡ لَمَّا ظَلَمُواْ وَجَعَلۡنَا لِمَهۡلِكِهِم مَّوۡعِدٗا ٥٩
(18:59) And (as for) these towns, We destroyed them (ahlaknāhum) when they acted unjustly, and We have appointed a time for their destruction.
“Towns” is a metaphor for the inhabitants of the town, as evidenced by the pronouns and the verb form used to refer back to “towns.” Mahlik (lit. time of destruction) is a noun of time.
The meaning of the verse is clear. It explains: “Delaying and postponing their destruction is not a new thing for God. Rather, that was the divine custom with regard to previous nations whom God destroyed when they did wrong. God would destroy them, appointing a time for their destruction.”
Thus, it is clear that the punishment and destruction to which the verses refer are not punishment on the Day of Resurrection but instead punishment in this world, such as the punishment at the Battle of Badr, if what is meant is a threat against Quraysh’s elite, or punishment at the end of time if it is meant as a threat against the Muslim community. This was explained in the exegesis of Surat Yūnus.
Examining Narrations
- Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says regarding the words (of God), what a book is this!:
Khālid b. Najīḥ narrates on the authority of Abū ʿAbdullāh: “When it is the Day of Resurrection, every person will be given his book and told: ‘Read.’ I asked: ‘Will he recognize what is in it?’ He replied: ‘He will remember it.’ There will not be a single moment, word, movement of a foot, or anything he has done which is not mentioned, as if he has done it that very instant. That is why they will say, Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one or a great one, but takes account of them (all).”
Author’s comment: This narration—as you can see—makes what a person remembers identical to what he recognizes from that book. Thus what he remembers is what is written in it. If it was not for the presence of his very act, the case cannot be made against him, and he will be able to deny it.
- Tafsīr al-Qummī says regarding the words, and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone:
“They will find everything they have done written down.”
- Al-Burhān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān says on the authority of Ibn Bābawayh via his chain of narration on the authority of Abū Muʿammar al-Saʿdān on the authority of ʿAlī:
“And the guilty shall see the fire, then they shall know (ẓannū) that they are going to fall into it” means they are certain they are going to enter it.
- Al-Durr al-manthūr says that Aḥmad, Abū Yaʿla, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim (who says it is authentic), and Ibn Mardawayh relate from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī on the authority of God’s Messenger:
“On the Day of Resurrection, the unbeliever will be made to stand for fifty thousand years, as did not happen in the world. The unbeliever will see hell and think that it is falling on him from a distance it would take forty years to travel.”
Author’s comment: This supports the aforementioned interpretation of muwāqaʿa (falling) as meaning both the unbelievers falling into the hellfire and the hellfire falling onto them.