Verses 73–80
This is the second part of the words attributed to the unbelievers. It is their response to the Prophetic invitation where they claim that it does not call to anything that will better the lives of the believers in any way. They advanced that if the Prophetic call was of any substance it would draw to them the glamour of this life which brings with it the joy of life including magnificent buildings, precious possessions, beauty and adornment. All the while, whereas they took the position of disbelief, they continue, the goods of this world that are at their disposal far exceed the material possessions of the believers. During this time, the believers had been stricken with frailty of condition, loss of wealth and harsh circumstances. In light of this context, the disbelievers proclaimed that their disbelief was the truth and should be chosen over the faith held by the believers. God answers them by saying: And how many … have We destroyed … (), Say: As for him who remains in error … ().
He then proceeded to recount the reality of some of those who were misled by the said discourse.
Commentary
وَإِذَا تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَيُّ الْفَرِيقَيْنِ خَيْرٌ مَقَامًا وَأَحْسَنُ نَدِيًّا ٧٣
(19:73) And when Our clear communications are recited to them, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Which of the two parties is best in abiding (maqāman) and best in assembly (nadiyyan)?
Maqām is the adverbial noun of place derived from the gerund qiyām (standing) and it signifies abode. A nadiyy is a gathering. Some have said that it means specifically a consultative assembly.
The clause, those who disbelieve say to those who believe means that they spoke to them. [Some] claim that the lām (to) in lil-mu’minīn, to those who believe, is communicative. Alternatively, [some] claim that the lām is causal, meaning, so that or for the sake of. In other words, it is as if the verse read: “they said for the sake of those who believe, meaning for the sake of calling them to error and diverting from the path of faith”. Notwithstanding, the first interpretation fits the context better. Similarly, it is more befitting to interpret the objective personal pronoun them (ʿalayhim) as referring back to all people as a superset that includes disbelievers. Since believers are the group of people other than the disbelievers, the segment “those who disbelieve say” becomes an explicit reference to one of the subgroups implied by the superset, them (ʿalayhim).
The word “which” (ayy) in the phrase, which of the two parties is best in abiding and best in assembly? is a question in rhetorical form. The two parties are the unbelievers and the believers. The intent of the disbelievers was to assert their view that they live under superior living conditions and enjoy better social surroundings than the believers who were mostly slaves and under poverty. However, they presented their claim as a rhetorical question. To further make their point, they metonymically alluded to believers and the disbelievers as the two parties to give the impression that the believers knew very well what they are referring to and that, if asked, the believers would confirm their claim without hesitation or doubt.
In synthesis, it is as if the verse read as: “And when Our clearly probative and substantiating communications that leave no doubt are recited to the people, unbelievers and believers, the disbelieving party will say to the believing party: Which of these two parties is better in terms of living conditions and better in terms of company?” Clearly, the disbelievers, they believe. This necessarily follows, they continue, that they are the felicitous by virtue of their path and way of life being that there is no happiness beyond the enjoyment of the material goods of this worldly life. Thus, they conclude, it is they who are in the right.
وَكَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا قَبْلَهُمْ مِنْ قَرْنٍ هُمْ أَحْسَنُ أَثَاثًا وَرِئْيًا ٧٤
(19:74) And how many of the generations (qarn) have We destroyed before them who were better in respect of goods (athāthan) and outward appearance (riʾyan)!
Qarn are equals or likes that live in the same age or era of time. Athāth means household chattels. It is said that it cannot describe but the numerous and has no singular form to refer to a single chattel. Riʾy means that part of the outward appearance that was seen. It is narrated in Majmaʿ al-bayān that some have said that: It is a noun referring to that which is made apparent. However it is not considered a verbal noun. The verbal nouns are raʾy (view; opinion) and ruʾya (vision). This is indicated by: … whom they saw (yarawnahum) twice as many as themselves with the sight of the eye (raʾy al-ʿayn) ().
Thus raʾy refers to the act. It is a verbal noun that means [the act of seeing into something or forming an opinion]. On the other hand, riʾy refers to the object. It means that which is seen. Examples of this construct can be seen in taḥn (grinding) tiḥn (that which is ground), saqy (watering), siqy (that which is watered), ramy (throwing) and rimy (that which is thrown).
The unbelievers supported their proclamation of the superiority of their way of life and thus the invalidity of the Prophetic call adopted by the believers, based on the fact that they enjoyed superior living conditions and social surroundings, forgetting that the human being is destined for everlasting eternal life and that his felicity lies therein. The scant days lived in this world are worthless in comparison to that which is everlasting and can never be a substitute for it. More so, these worldly pleasures do not guarantee happiness to the human being nor provide him with any protection from God’s Wrath should it befall him. Indeed, the transgressors are never far or safe from God’s Wrath and Anger, and there is no enjoyment to a life threatened with doom nor is there fulfilment in any comfort that is conducive to divine retribution and personal despair.
The divine rebuttal to the discourse of the disbelievers is alluded to in the clause, And how many of the generations have We destroyed before them. It is apparent that the sentence is circumstantial (ḥāliyya). Kam (how) in “how many … have We destroyed” is enunciative and not interrogative. It is as if the verse means: “Mocking the believers, they utter this baseless objection: ‘We enjoy superior living conditions and social surroundings that you!’ However, the truth of the matter is that We have destroyed many generations before them who were better off in terms of possessions and appearances”.
In fact, God has recounted similar misconception being held by Pharaoh. He then followed Pharoah’s haughty declarations with descriptions of his drowning and downfall: And Pharaoh proclaimed among his people: O my people! is not the kingdom of Egypt mine? And these rivers flow beneath me; do you not then see? Nay! I am better than this fellow, who is contemptible, and who can hardly speak distinctly: But why have not bracelets of gold been put upon him, or why have there not come with him Angels as companions? So he incited his people to levity and they obeyed him: surely they were a transgressing people. Then when they displeased Us, We inflicted retribution on them, so We drowned them all together, And We made them a precedent and example to the later generations ().
قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ فِي الضَّلَالَةِ فَلْيَمْدُدْ لَهُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ مَدًّا ۚ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا رَأَوْا مَا يُوعَدُونَ إِمَّا الْعَذَابَ وَإِمَّا السَّاعَةَ فَسَيَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ هُوَ شَرٌّ مَكَانًا وَأَضْعَفُ جُنْدًا ٧٥
(19:75) Say: As for him who remains in error, the Beneficent will surely prolong his respite, until they see what they were threatened with, either the punishment or the hour; then they shall know who is in more evil plight and weaker in forces.
The word kāna in man kāna fi al-ḍalāla, literally “who was in error”, expresses the disbelievers’ persistence in error and not their mere falling into it. In the light of this reality, the threat is made to punish them by increasing their material provisions and luring them into deeper perdition, adding misguidance to their misguidance.
Fa l yamdud is a third person imperative form. It can be interpreted as meaning that it is “incumbent” upon the Beneficent to increase the persistent disbeliever in material abundance. The first person speaker ordered the second person to give him a command. This is tantamount to the first person speaker making the fulfilment of that command incumbent upon himself.
Madd and imdād mean the same thing, that is, stretching. Al-Rāghib says in his al-Mufradāt that ʿimdād is mostly used for the desirable happenings whereas madd is used for undesirable events. It is as if the verse is read as: “Indeed, as for the one who has become settled in error and persisted in it, metonymically referring to the disbelievers, God has made it incumbent upon Himself to increase him in the possession of the very cause of his misguidance including, by context, worldly lusters”. This is to divert him from the truth until the sudden and unexpected command of God sets in, be it either punishment [in this life] or the coming of the Hour, making the truth apparent to him after he wasted all chances of benefitting from it.
Consequently, the words, until they see what they were threatened with, either the punishment or the hour; then they shall know … prove that this provision (madd) is actually abandonment in the façade of privilege. It is designed to divert the persistent disbeliever from the truth and the adherence to it by busying him with the deceptive glamour of this worldly life. In turn, the truth will only become apparent to him when it can bring him no benefit. It will be at a time when divine wrath has descended or the Final Hour has come. As He says: But their belief was not going to profit them when they had seen Our punishment; (this is) God’s law, which has indeed obtained in the matter of His servants (); On the day when some of the signs of your Lord shall come, its faith shall not profit a soul which did not believe before, or earn good through its faith ().
The literal form (lafz) of the word ‘man’ is singular and means “him” in the verse. In terms of its meaning, man is plural and means “whoever has this quality”. The use of the plural pronoun in, they see what they were threatened with, even though “they” refers back to “him” (man), is in conformance with man by way of its meaning. The use of the singular pronoun in “will surely prolong his respite” is in conformance with the literal form of man.
The unbelievers’ previous statement—“Which of the two parties is best in abiding and best in assembly?”—is met with the response: then they shall know who is in more evil plight and weaker in forces.
As for the position of the disbelievers when they witness divine retribution which in its apparent meaning refers to punishment in this world, will be the position of a recipient of God’s chastisement. In fact, the position of the Quraysh’s elite upon whom these communications were recited was in the wells of Badr into which their bodies were thrown. As for their position when they see the Final Hour, it will be in perpetual Hell, the abode of perdition. As for the weakness of their forces it is because there is no protection for them today from God. All the numbers and gear that they had prepared for themselves will be in vain and of no consequence.
وَيَزِيدُ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ اهْتَدَوْا هُدًى ۗ وَالْبَاقِيَاتُ الصَّالِحَاتُ خَيْرٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ ثَوَابًا وَخَيْرٌ مَرَدًّا ٧٦
(19:76) And God increases in guidance those who go aright; and ever-abiding good works are with your Lord best in recompense and best in yielding fruit.
Al-bāqiyāt al-ṣāliḥat describes the good deeds which remain in God’s safe-keeping and elicit delightful gratitude and great reward. God has promised this in various places in the Qur’an.
Thawāb is the recompense for one’s deeds. Al-Rāghib said in his al-Mufradāt: “The root meaning of thawb is the return of a thing to its original state or to the state preconceived and desired by a thought”. “Thawāb is the recompense (jazāʾ) which comes back to a person for his deeds. Hence, recompense is called thawāb, based on the conception that they are one and the same”, he continues. Thawāb, he completes, “is used for both good and bad. However, it is mostly used for good”. Maradd is an adverbial noun of place (ʾism makān) derived from radd with means return. Here, maradd means Heaven.
The verse completes the line of reasoning that began in the previous verse. The preceding verse depicts the state of the people of error and reminds that God will prolong their respite. Meanwhile, they drift further in their delusion, diverted from the truth, their backs turned on belief, entertaining themselves with the distractions of this world until divine punishment or the Hour surprises them. In the end, the truth of the matter will be revealed to them without their benefiting from it. They are one of the two parties in the clause, “Which of the two parties is best … ?”
In turn, this verse explains how it will be for the other party—the believers. God will provide those who go aright, the believers, with further guidance. He increases them in guidance upon their guidance, granting them the success to perform the unperishing good works that earn the best recompense, lead to a final abode that is Paradise, and afford perpetual comfort. Hence, the joys of life that are with the believers which are everlasting bliss are superior to the ephemeral illusive lusters that the unbelievers possess.
There is in the clause “with your Lord” an allusion to the fact that the believers’ reward and outcome is a matter of divine reckoning that never falls into fault or error.
As the reader can see, these two verses [75-76] are a second response to the unbelievers’ argument, that is, “Which of the two parties is best in abiding and best in assembly?”
أَفَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ بِآيَاتِنَا وَقَالَ لَأُوتَيَنَّ مَالًا وَوَلَدًا ٧٧
(19:77) Have you, then, seen him who disbelieves in Our communications and says: I shall certainly be given wealth and children?
The context provided by the previous four verses [73–76], exposes the frail argument advanced by some of the unbelievers upon hearing the Qur’an and their attempt to refute the truth, seek to lead others astray and mock the believers. Likewise, the line of reasoning of these four verses which opens with an exclamation and deals with rhetoric similar to the preceding discourse. They conclude with an appropriate response that reveals that some people who believed in the Prophet or were considering to do so, after hearing what the unbelievers said, inclined toward them and joined them, saying, “I will be given wealth and offspring—in this world—by following the religion of polytheism”. It is as if believing in God brought misery and believing in many gods brought good fortune, or so they believed. God then responded to them by saying: Has he gained knowledge of the unseen …
Claim: The majority say—based on the reason for the revelation narrated—that is, that the sentence, I shall certainly be given wealth and children, is what a man of Quraysh, who was firmly rooted in polytheism, said to Khabbāb b. al-Aratt when the latter asked him to repay a debt he owed him. With this understanding, the sentence in question would mean: “I shall certainly be given wealth and children in Heaven and repay my debt”.
Reply: This does not match the context of the verses because it is well known that the polytheists did not believe in resurrection at all. Thus saying, I shall certainly be given wealth and children when I am resurrected and then repay my debt, could only have been mockingly and out of derision. However, it could not have been mockery or derision because there is no point in refuting mockery with reasoned argument, such as the explicit: Has he gained knowledge of the unseen, or made a covenant with the Beneficent?
Another claim: It is narrated on the authority of Abū Muslim al-Mufassir (‘the Exegete’) that the verse applies to everyone who has this characteristic.
Reply: This claim is similarly invalid.
The phrase, Have you, then, seen him who disbelieves in Our communications is an exclamation and the clause, Have you, then, seen (afa raʾayt) is exclamatory. He made it follow on logically from the sentence, Which of the two parties is best in abiding and best in assembly? with the conjunction fa which indicates logical consequence (fāʾ al-tafrīʿ) because the disbelief of this speaker and what he says: “I shall certainly be given wealth and children” is of the same category as their disbelief and is based on what they said to the believers: “There is no good, happiness in life, worldly power or blessing with that lot. There is only good with the unbelievers and in their religion”.
Thus it is clear that the clause, and says: I shall certainly be given wealth and children depicts a class from, those who disbelieve in Our communications. This class of disbelievers only disbelieved in God’s communications thinking that it is a fortuitous, blessed path that attracts strength and power for those that choose it and provides them with goodness and happiness in this world. He swears this, and [this oath] is evidenced by the lām that expresses an oath (jurative) and the emphatic nūn in la ūtayanna (I swear that I shall certainly be given).
أَطَّلَعَ الْغَيْبَ أَمِ اتَّخَذَ عِنْدَ الرَّحْمَٰنِ عَهْدًا ٧٨
(19:78) Has he gained knowledge of the unseen, or made a covenant with the Beneficent?
God responds by asserting that the line of reasoning that says: “I shall certainly be given wealth and children” by virtue of my disbelief is nothing more than conjecture about the unknown without access to any kind of knowledge. The disbeliever has not been apprised of the unseen such that he would be able to know that he will be given what he hopes for in exchange for his disbelief. He has not made any covenant with God that affords him any certainty about his claim. In essence, the negation of the disbeliever’s claim is presented in the form of a rhetorical question.
كَلَّا ۚ سَنَكْتُبُ مَا يَقُولُ وَنَمُدُّ لَهُ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ مَدًّا ٧٩
(19:79) By no means! We write down what he says, and We will lengthen to him the length of the chastisement.
Kallā which literally means ‘no’ acts as word of deterrence and rebuke. The end of the verse is an indication that God is using it to answer the speaker’s line of reasoning that he would be given wealth and children on account of denying God’s communications. In sum, the effect of the adherence to this line of reasoning is not being given wealth and children as it may seem. The bestowal of wealth and children actually has different causes. Instead, the consequence of adherence to this line of reasoning is lengthened chastisement on account of his disbelief and conjecture. Thus what the speaker was really evoking by his discourse was prolonged punishment, one following the other. That outcome is the true consequence of his words and not the bestowal of wealth and children. It is as if it was said: “We will record what he says and bring to pass its outcome: prolonged punishment”. The verse is similar to: Then let him summon his council, We too would summon the braves of the army ().
Thus, it is clear that the most likely meaning of writing down his deeds is letting them take root in the heart of the disbeliever so that their consequence can take effect, and not writing it on his scroll of deeds for him to be held to account for it on the Day of Resurrection, as some leading exegetes have interpreted it. This is supported by the fact that if we are to interpret, We write down what he says as being the writing of his words on his scroll of deeds, the subsequent words, And We will inherit of him what he says, would imply purposeless repetition.
وَنَرِثُهُ مَا يَقُولُ وَيَأْتِينَا فَرْدًا ٨٠
(19:80) And We will inherit of him what he says, and he shall come to Us alone.
The concept of ‘the inheritance of his words’ is employed to mean that when he will die and perish, he will leave behind the sin of what he had said and adhered to: “I will be given wealth and children on account of my disbelief”. This sin is bound to him just as wealth is bound to a person. Therefore, it becomes the custody of God after his death just like his wealth that He inherited after him. Hence, there is an elegant metaphor (istiʿāra) in these words.
The words, and he shall come to Us alone mean that he shall be on his own without anything to help him or to rely on as he imagines. Thus the verse means: “He will come to Him alone, with just what he said, which We recorded against him. We will hold him to account for what he said and lengthen for him the duration of the chastisement”.
Interpreting, I shall certainly be given wealth and children (verse 77) as being given wealth and children in this world dictates this explanation. However, if it is interpreted the way the majority do, that is, as being given them (that is, wealth and children) in the Hereafter, the verses 78-80 have an alternative interpretation.
The verses begin with an exclamation about an individual who disbelieved in His communications, namely as ʿĀs b. Wāʾil or Walīd b. al-Mughīra, but still said: “I swear that when I am resurrected, I will be given wealth and children in Heaven”. Next, the verses express a response to him that says: “Has he looked at the Guarded Tablet or made a covenant with the Beneficent by saying that there is no god but God such that he should enter Heaven?” Or alternatively, based on the interpretation of some exegetes, it was said: “Has he offered good works? Certainly not!” “The matter is not as he has claimed”, the verses continue, “We shall write down what he says by commanding the record keepers to record it on the scroll of his deeds, lengthen for him the duration of the chastisement and inherit of him what he is referring to, that is, the wealth and children he has, by causing him to perish and revoking his ownership. He will come to us, that is, he will come to the Hereafter alone without any wealth, children, gear or numbers”.
Examining Narrations
- al-Ṣādiq said regarding His words: Have you, then, seen him who disbelieves in Our communications and says: I shall certainly be given wealth and children?: It means al-ʿĀs b. Wāʾil b. Hishām al-Qarashī later al-Sahmī. He was a known mocker and sceptic [of the Prophetic message]. Al-‘Ās b. Wāʾil was indebted to Khabbāb b. al-Aratt and so [the latter] came to him to demand repayment. Al-ʿĀs then said to him: “Do you not claim that there is gold, silver and silk in Heaven?” He replied, “Yes”. He continued, “Then the time for what is between me and you is in Heaven. I swear by God, I will be given better there than what I have been given in this world”.
- Khabbāb b. al-Aratt said: I was a blacksmith and al-ʿĀs b. Wāʾil was indebted to me. I went to him to demand repayment but he said: “No, by God, I will not pay you until you disbelieve in Muḥammad”. I replied: “No, by God, I will not disbelieve in Muḥammad till you die and are resurrected”. He said: “Verily, when I die and am resurrected, you will come to me and I will have wealth and children. I’ll then give it to you”. Thereafter, God revealed:
Have you, then, seen him who disbelieves in Our communications … and he shall come to Us alone. (verses 77–80).
Author’s comment: Something similar to it is narrated on the authority of al-Ṭabarānī on the authority of Khabbāb and also on the authority of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr on the authority of al-Ḥasan on the authority of one of the Companions of God’s Messenger’s , without mentioning Khabbāb by name. It is also narrated on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Mardawayh on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās on the authority of a number of Companions.
It was stated above that the narrations do not fit the line of meaning of the verses because the narrations explicitly state that the words were uttered by al-ʿĀs b. Wāʾil by way of sarcastic derision.
Furthermore, incontrovertible evidence from hadith also supports the view that the polytheists did not believe in resurrection and revivification (al-baʿth wa al-nushūr). Next, the verses begin refuting what was said with reasoned argument. Had it been mockery—not meant in earnest—there would have been no point in reasoned argument. This is because reasoned argument is only appropriate in response to what is said in earnest—not that which is said by way of mockery. Thus the oral traditions which explicitly state that it was said in mockery do not fit the verse.
First point: If we consider the unlikely interpretation that, I shall certainly be given wealth and children is construed as reproaching Khabbāb and holding him to his own beliefs and not as mockery, there would have been no reason to refer to children along with wealth. It would have been sufficient to say: “I shall certainly be given wealth”. Furthermore, some of these oral traditions say that he told Khabbāb: “You claim that you will be brought back to wealth and children”. However, no early Muslims are ever known to have said that there is multiplication and procreation in Heaven, nor is there any reference to it in the Qur’an.
Second point: There would be no reason to swear and emphasize so strongly with an expression like la ʾūtayanna if the statement is expressed with intent of scolding Khabbāb and holding him to his belief.
Third point: The lack of qualifier to “I shall certainly be given” with either “in Heaven” or “in the Hereafter” is not to dispel any confusion for a point that is already very clear.
Fourth point: The Words, By no means! We write down what he says, and We will lengthen to him the length of the chastisement …(79–80) alone would be an appropriate response and refutation. Has he gained knowledge of the unseen, or made a covenant with the Beneficent does not answer it at all [if we accept that al-ʿĀs b. Wā’il was solely reproaching Khabbāb and holding him to his beliefs]. This is because reproaching an opponent and holding them to their belief does not necessitate one’s adherence to these beliefs such that one needs to verify them. On the contrary, most times, one partially concurs and partially disagrees with the opponents beliefs. Instead, reproaching an opponent and holding them to their belief only necessitates the opponent’s full adherence to it and its prerequisites.
The reader should note that there are oral traditions on the authority of the Prophet and the Imams—the People of the Household—about the segment of the verse, and ever-abiding good works … They were referred to in Ar. vol. 13 of this book, in the discussion of the relevant oral traditions at the end of verse 46 of Sūrah al-Kahf [The Cave].