Verses 99–118
These verses elaborate the discussion in the previous verses about the punishment of the hereafter, meant to threaten the polytheists. These punishments begin at the time of death, continue until the Day of Resurrection, and then persist forever. The verses remind them that the life of this world, which has deceived them and turned them away from the hereafter, is very insignificant; if only they knew. God ends the sūrah by ordering the Prophet to ask Him: O my Lord! Forgive and have mercy, and Thou art the best of the merciful (). This is the supplication that He narrates from the believers who will be felicitous in the hereafter, and it also links to the beginning of the sūrah, where it was said that the believers shall achieve salvation and inherit Paradise.
Commentary
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَ أَحَدَهُمُ الْمَوْتُ قَالَ رَبِّ ارْجِعُونِ ٩٩
(23:99) Until when death overtakes one of them, he says: My Lord, send me back;
In this verse, “Until” refers to the polytheists’ persistent association of partners with God and their descriptions of Him, from which He is clear and free. This was the main theme in the previous verses, while the other verses were presented as interjections, asides and parenthetical remarks. The implied meaning is: They will continue this—that is, associating partners with God and describing Him by attributes that do not befit Him [], while being deluded by the wealth and children that We have provided for them []—until when death overtakes one of them.
… he says: My Lord, send me back (irjiʿūni): Apparently he says “send me back” (irjiʿūni, in plural form) to the angels that are assigned to capture the soul [at the time of death]. Therefore, “my Lord” is an expression of appealing to God that is added as an aside in the sentence, with an implied interjection “O” which is omitted. The implied meaning is: He will say—while he pleads to God—“send me back.”
Here are two alternative explanations suggested by some exegetes:
(1) Irjiʿūni (“send me back,” in plural) is addressed to the Lord, and its plural form shows respect, glorification and high regard. It is similar to what God has narrated from Pharaoh’s wife: A refreshment of the eye to me and to you; do not slay him () [where lā taqtulūhu (do not slay him) is in plural form even though it is addressed only to Pharaoh].
(2) The plural form of the verb shows its repetition. The person will repeatedly address God: “My Lord, send me back, send me back, send me back (irjiʿnī).” This matches a common interpretation of the following poem:
قِفَا نَبْكِ من ذِكْرَى حَبِيْبٍ و مَنْزِلِ بسِقْطِ اللِّوَى بَيْن الدَّخُولِ فَحَوْمَل
Get up you two (qifā), so that we may cry
In remembrance of the beloved
And the stop we went by…
The verb qifā in dual form (lit. “get up you two”) has been interpreted as qif qif (“get up, get up,” in singular form).
The problem with the first interpretation is that even if we accept that sometimes [the second person] plural is used for honor and respect in Arabic, it is uncommon, and God’s speech cannot be interpreted according to such common usage. The problem with the second interpretation is that using a verb in plural form to indicate repetition is even more uncommon [than the suggested usage in the first interpretation].
عَلِّي أَعْمَلُ صَالِحًا فِيمَا تَرَكْتُ ۚ كَلَّا ۚ إِنَّهَا كَلِمَةٌ هُوَ قَائِلُهَا ۖ وَمِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ بَرْزَخٌ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ ١٠٠
(23:100) Haply I may (laʿallī) do good in that which I have left. By no means! It is a [mere] word that he speaks; and before them is a barrier until the day they are raised.
“Haply” (laʿalla) is an expression of hope. The polytheists would cling to such a hope due to witnessing the imminent punishment that overshadows them. Elsewhere in the Qur’an, they give the promise of doing righteous deeds: Therefore send us back, we will do good (). Similarly, they state the same in the form of a wish (tamannī, indicated by yā laytanā): Would that we were (yā laytanā) sent back, and we would not reject the communications of our Lord ().
…I may do good in that which I have left…: That is, so that I may do good deeds with the possessions that I left behind, by spending them in causes of good, charity, and things that would please God.
Some have interpreted it as follows: “So that I may do good in the world which I have left behind after death,” where “doing good” would include not only acts of charity and financial service, but any act of worship and obedience such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage.
This interpretation is acceptable, but the first one springs more readily to the mind.
…By no means! It is a [mere] word that he speaks…: He shall not return to the world, and what he says—“send me back, haply I may do good in that which I have left” ()—is only a word that he speaks, meaning a statement that is uttered without any effect or consequence. This is a way of saying that his request is rejected.
…and before them (warāʾihim) is a barrier (barzakh) until (ilā) the day they are raised: Barzakh means “a barrier between two things,” as in His words: Between them is a barrier (barzakh) which they cannot pass (). What is meant by “before them” is that it encompasses them from the front. It is “before them” in the sense that it seeks them. Before (warāʾ) in this verse means “ahead,” in the same sense that the future lies ahead and faces one from the front. It is said, “Such and such a day is warāʾaka (before you, ahead of you),” because it is as if the future time is seeking the person to reach and pass him. It is in this sense [of seeking and catching up with someone in time] that the word warāʾ involves an element of iḥāṭah (encompassment), as some exegetes have pointed out. He says: And there was before them (warāʾahum) a king who seized every boat by force ().
What is meant by this “barrier” (barzakh) is the realm of the grave, which is the same as the imaginal world (ʿālam al-mithāl). It is a plane of existence where one lives after death until the rise of the Hour. This is understood from the context of the verses, and referred to in other verses. There are abundant narrations about barzakh through Shia chains of transmission from the Prophet and the Imams of his Household, as well as through Sunni chains of narration. We discussed this in the first volume of this book.
Another suggested meaning is: “There is a barrier between them and this world that stops them from returning to it until the Day of Resurrection”—and it is already known that there will be no return after the Resurrection. Hence, this sentence emphasizes that they shall certainly not return, and disappoints them from coming back to this life altogether.
There are two problems with this interpretation: (1) The context suggests that the barrier is something that extend between this world and “the day they are raised” [indicated by the word ilā (until, up to)], not something that blocks them from returning to this world. If the latter were the intended meaning, then the following qualification would be meaningless: until the day they are raised. This qualification might implicitly suggest that there will be a return to this world after the Resurrection. However, this is not the main problem with this qualification. Instead, the qualification would be meaningless simply because it would be irrelevant and inapplicable to the intended meaning, even if we assume that they already know—from elsewhere or from the previous verses—that there shall be no return after the Resurrection.
(2) The above interpretation is somewhat self-contradictory: on the one hand it says, “this sentence emphasizes that they shall certainly not return, and disappoints them from coming back to this life altogether” and on the other hand it says, “it is already known that there will be no return after the Resurrection.” Instead, “until the day they are raised” does not disappoint them from coming back to this life altogether, but it disappoints them from it temporarily [because of the ilā (until, up to)]. The absolute negation of returning to this life is rather implied by His words: “By no means.” Hence, what the above interpretation entails is that a temporary negation is used to emphasize an unconditional—albeit implicit—negation. The reader should reflect on this.
فَإِذَا نُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَلَا أَنْسَابَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَلَا يَتَسَاءَلُونَ ١٠١
(23:101) So when the Trumpet is blown, there shall be no ties of relationship between them on that day, nor shall they ask of each other.
This verse refers to the second blow of the Trumpet, whereby the dead will rise to life. It is not about the first blow, where the living will die, as some exegetes have suggested. This is understood from the events that are discussed subsequently: annulment of ties, not asking each other, heaviness or lightness of the scale, and so on. All of these pertain to the second blow of the Trumpet.
…there shall be no ties of relationship between them…: What is meant here by negating the ties of relationship is to negate their effectiveness. These ties and social bonds are a result of our worldly needs, which drive humankind to have a social life based on families and households. This, in turn, leads the individuals to know and love one another, and to help and assist each other in various ways. These needs are the basis for all the means and connections that sustain worldly life. The hereafter, however, is a place where no means are effective anymore, including actions. Instead, it is a place for the rewards and results of actions. It is in this sense that the hereafter is no place for the worldly means, including ties of relationship and all of their implications, consequences and effects.
…nor shall they ask of each other: Here the verse mentions the most primary and apparent consequence of having ties and relationships, which is asking each other how the other person is doing. This question is the first step to give and get help in order to fulfill the needs of each other, make gains and avoid losses.
This verse does not contradict other verses that affirm questioning on that day, such as: And some of them shall advance toward others, questioning each other (). There is no contradiction because the current verse negates questioning at the stage of reckoning and judgment, while the other verses affirm questioning among the people of Paradise and among the people of hell after they enter their eternal abodes.
فَمَنْ ثَقُلَتْ مَوَازِينُهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ ١٠٢ وَمَنْ خَفَّتْ مَوَازِينُهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ فِي جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدُونَ ١٠٣
(23:102-103) Then as for him whose scales (mawāzinuhu) are heavy, these are the successful. And as for him whose scales are light, these are they who shall have lost their souls, abiding in hell.
Mawāzīn is either the plural of mīzān (scale) or the plural of mawzūn (that which is weighed). The latter would refer to the actions that shall be weighed on that day. We discussed the scale and its heaviness and lightness in our exposition of Sūrah al-Aʿrāf [under verses ].
تَلْفَحُ وُجُوهَهُمُ النَّارُ وَهُمْ فِيهَا كَالِحُونَ ١٠٤
(23:104) The fire shall scorch (talfaḥu, from lafḥ) their faces, and they therein shall be in severe affliction (kāliḥūna, from kulūḥ).
Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Lafḥ and nafḥ mean the same, except that the former is more intense and severe than the latter. Lafḥ is a strike of simoom (hot, dry, violent, and dust-laden wind) on the face, while nafḥ is a strike of gentle wind on the face. Kulūḥ is the contraction of the lips, such that the teeth become visible.
The meaning is: The flames of fire will hit their faces such that their lips will contract and shrink, revealing their teeth, as seen when sheep heads are roasted.
أَلَمْ تَكُنْ آيَاتِي تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فَكُنْتُمْ بِهَا تُكَذِّبُونَ ١٠٥
(23:105) Were not My communications recited to you? But you used to reject them.
This is what they will be told.
قَالُوا رَبَّنَا غَلَبَتْ عَلَيْنَا شِقْوَتُنَا وَكُنَّا قَوْمًا ضَالِّينَ ١٠٦
(23:106) They shall say: O our Lord! Our adversity (shiqwatunā) overcame us and we were an erring people.
Shiqwah, shaqāwah and shaqāʾ are the opposite of saʿādah (felicity, happiness, bliss). The saʿādah of anything is its unique and specific good. Shaqāwah is the lack of that. One can say that the shaqāwah of anything is an evil or misfortune that is unique and specific to that thing.
…Our adversity overcame us…: That is, “We were defeated and subdued by our wretchedness.” By saying “our adversity” the verse attributes “adversity” to themselves. This bears a subtle point: it alludes to their involvement and responsibility in causing their wretchedness. They acquired this state through their poor choices. This is confirmed by the next verse, where they effectively promise to do good deeds: O our Lord! Take us out of it; then if we return [to evil] surely we shall be unjust (). If they did not have free will to acquire good deeds voluntarily, then such a promise would be pointless, because they would still be in the same condition even if they were taken out of hell.
One may infer from “our adversity” [where they attribute adversity to “themselves”] that their souls necessitated adversity; that their souls are essentially wicked, and misfortune is an inseparable consequence of their essence. However, this is not true, because they say that they were “overcome” by adversity. By using this word, the verse shows that the human soul is simple and pure in and of itself. It is capable of accepting both felicity and adversity, except that in their case, the latter overcame and occupied the soul. Therefore, the correct interpretation for “our adversity” is that “adversity” is attributed to them on the basis of their bad choices and evil actions, not on the basis of having an evil soul and essence to begin with.
Overall, this statement [“our adversity overcame us”] conveys two points: (1) The polytheists acknowledge that they have no excuse [to justify their misdeeds and wretchedness]. (2) Adversity was something that occurred to them and caught up with them subsequently [that is, subsequent to their essence and existence, as opposed to being a necessary and concomitant aspect of their essence and existence]. Both points can be understood by noting that this verse is mentioned as a response to the last verse: Were not My communications recited to you? But you used to reject them ().
… and we were an erring people: This statement emphasizes their previous acknowledgement: our adversity overcame us. They admit to their sin as an attempt to be freed from the punishment and return to the world, so that they may acquire salvation. They had seen in the world that when sinners acknowledge to their sin and wrongdoing, it counts as repentance which clears them from their sin and saves them from its consequences. Yet, they know that repentance and acknowledgement to sin are actions, while that day [that is, the Day of Resurrection] is a day of retribution, not a day of action. Hence, their acknowledgement to wrongdoing is an expression of their deeply rooted traits and second natures. It is similar to their lying and denial of facts on that day, even though the truth will manifest to them and they will see it. They still lie and deny it because lying and denial have become their second nature, and are deeply established in their souls. He says: On the day that Allah will raise them up all, then they will swear to Him as they swear to you (), and: Then shall it be said to them: Where is that which you used to set up besides Allah? They shall say: They are gone away from us, nay, we used not to call upon anything before ().
رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْهَا فَإِنْ عُدْنَا فَإِنَّا ظَالِمُونَ ١٠٧
(23:107) O our Lord! Take us out of it; then if we return [to evil] surely we shall be unjust.
Given other similar verses, their real request here is to be returned to the world. They say, “Take us out of it” because it is the means to that ends. They want to return to the world in order to do good deeds. This way, given their abovementioned acknowledgement of their sins and repentance from wrongdoing, they would be among those “who repent and do good” [].
قَالَ اخْسَئُوا فِيهَا وَلَا تُكَلِّمُونِ ١٠٨
(23:108) He shall say: Go away (ikhsaʾū) into it and speak not to Me;
Al-Rāghib says: “Khasaʾtu al-kalba fa-khasaʾa means: I rebuffed and shooed the dog with disdain, and thus it retracted. It is when one says to a dog: ikhsaʾ (shoo, get lost).” Therefore, its usage here is metaphorical. What is meant is that they are driven away, distanced and not spoken to.
إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَرِيقٌ مِنْ عِبَادِي يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا آمَنَّا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَا وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الرَّاحِمِينَ١٠٩
(23:109) Surely there was a party of My servants who said: O our Lord! We believe, so do Thou forgive us and have mercy on us, and Thou art the best of the merciful.
This verse refers to those who were believers [in God and His religion] in this life. It relates to the previous verses because belief is a return and repentance to God, as God has sometimes used belief and repentance interchangeably in His Book. Clearly, their request for being shown mercy is a request for God’s special mercy which is for believers in particular. They want God to make them felicitous, which means that they want His assistance to do righteous deeds and thus enter Paradise.
… and Thou art the best of the merciful: Calling God by this name is a way of appealing to Him, so that their request may be granted.
The request of the believers (as mentioned in this verse) and the request of the disbelievers (as mentioned in the previous verses) are exactly the same. Both groups express their repentance and ask to be blessed with salvation. The only difference is when they make this prayer! The believers do it in this world, while the disbelievers postpone it to the hereafter.
فَاتَّخَذْتُمُوهُمْ سِخْرِيًّا حَتَّىٰ أَنْسَوْكُمْ ذِكْرِي وَكُنْتُمْ مِنْهُمْ تَضْحَكُونَ ١١٠
(23:110) But you took them for a mockery until they made you forget My remembrance and you used to laugh at them.
The second person pronouns [that is, “you”] refer to the disbelievers, and the third person pronouns [that is, “them, they”] refer to the believers. Given the context of the verses, “My remembrance” means remembering God by saying: O our Lord! We believe, so do Thou forgive us and have mercy on us… (). This is how the believers remember God in this world, which is also equivalent to how the disbelievers will remember Him in hell.
…until they made you forget My remembrance…: You were distracted from My remembrance because you were engaged and engrossed in mocking the believers. The subject of this sentence [that is, “they” in “they made you forget”] refers to the believers. What really made the disbelievers forget the remembrance of God was their act of mocking the believers, not the believers themselves. However, the verse uses “believers” instead of “mocking the believers” in order to show that the two were equal to the disbelievers. In other words, the disbelievers’ only interaction with the believers was to take them for mockery.
إِنِّي جَزَيْتُهُمُ الْيَوْمَ بِمَا صَبَرُوا أَنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ ١١١
(23:111) Surely I have rewarded them this day because they were patient, that they are the achievers.
“This day” refers to the Day of Retribution. What the believers were patient with is understood from the context. It is omitted for conciseness. The implied meaning is: They were patient in My remembrance despite your mocking of them for it.
…they are the achievers: Given the tone and context of the verse, this sentence implies exclusivity. It means: Only they—and not you—are the achievers.
These four verses—from “He shall say: Go away” () to “they are the achievers” ()—completely disappoint the disbelievers from achieving salvation by acknowledging to their sins and asking to be returned to the world. The effective meaning of the verses is: Despair of what you seek through your acknowledgement and request, because doing so was beneficial only in the abode of action, which was the material world. There were believers among My servants who took these as a means to salvation [in the world] while you used to mock and deride them, to the point that you neglected these acts and substituted them with your mocking of the believers. Now that is the day of retribution, they are achievers by gaining the reward of what they did in the abode of action, while you remain empty-handed. It is too late to resort to action on this day [to compensate for your misdeeds], because this is a day of retribution, not action.
قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ عَدَدَ سِنِينَ ١١٢
(23:112) He will say: How many years did you tarry in the earth?
One of the things that God will ask the people on the Day of Resurrection is how long they stayed in the earth, which means how long they stayed in the graves, as mentioned in other verses, such as: And at the time when the Hour shall come, the guilty shall swear [that] they did not tarry but an hour (), On the day that they shall see what they are promised, they shall be as if they had not tarried save an hour of the day () and other similar verses. Given these verses, we should dismiss the other interpretations suggested by the exegetes, such as: (1) The verse refers the time spent in this world. (2) It includes the total time spent in the world and the grave (barzakh).
قَالُوا لَبِثْنَا يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ فَاسْأَلِ الْعَادِّينَ ١١٣
(23:113) They will say: We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep account.
Given the context of the verse, “a day” means one day in this world [that is, 24 hours]. Their stay in the earth seems short to them because they compare it to the eternal life that they face on the Day of Resurrection. This interpretation is confirmed by other verses where they say that they tarried “an hour” [, , ]—or “a single afternoon or a morning” [].
…but ask those who keep account: That is, “We are not good in counting it, so ask those who have an account of it.” Exegetes have interpreted “those” as angels who keep account of the days, which is a likely interpretation.
قَالَ إِنْ لَبِثْتُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ۖ لَوْ أَنَّكُمْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ ١١٤
(23:114) He will say: You did tarry but a little—had (law) you but known [it]:
The speaker in this verse is God. The first part confirms the people’s assessment of how little they stayed in their graves. It is also a prelude to the subsequent part of the verse, “had you but known [it],” which involves a wishful tone [that is, “only if you knew”].
The meaning is: God will say: The matter is as you said. Indeed you did not stay but a short while. I wish when you were in the world, you had known that you shall not stay in your graves but a short while before being resurrected. That way you would not deny the resurrection, and would thus not be afflicted by everlasting punishment.
The statements of God’s wish (tamannī) in His Book are like the expressions of His hope (tarajjī), which show ignorance on the part of the audience or situation [not on God’s part].
Some exegetes have said that the Arabic particle law (if, had) introduces a conditional clause, where the apodosis (the main clause of a conditional sentence) is omitted. Then, in order to fix the meaning, they have offered a contrived explanation that is incompatible with the context of the verse and not approved by sound judgment. Another even more unlikely interpretation is that the particle law means “even if” or “although.” This is unacceptable because if that were the case, it should have been connected with the conjunction wāw (and) to the previous part.
أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لَا تُرْجَعُونَ ١١٥ فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ ۖ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْكَرِيمِ ١١٦
(23:115-116) What! Did you then think that We had created you in vain and that you shall not be returned to Us? So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the Honorable Throne.
The previous verses discussed the people’s encounter of death, their stay in barzakh, their resurrection, and their subsequent reckoning and retribution. The first verse here rebukes them for supposing that they will not be resurrected. This is an audacious insult against God because it implies that God’s act [of creation] is vain. The second verse complements this by referring to the “vanity argument” [in order to prove the resurrection].
The meaning of the first verse [] is: Given what We informed you—about your regret upon seeing death, your tarry in the graves, your resurrection, your reckoning and your retribution—do you still suppose that We have created you in vain, such that you just live and die without any eternal objective in your creation? Do you think that you shall not return to Us?
So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the Honorable Throne: This verse alludes to an argument which proves the resurrection and refutes its denial by the disbeliever. This argument is based on tanzīh (proclaiming God’s transcendence, purity and freedom of impurities and imperfections). Here God describes Himself by four qualities that show His purity and transcendence:
(1) He is a King.
(2) He is True.
(3) There is no god but He.
(4) He is the Lord of the Honorable Throne.
Given that He is a King, it is up to Him to rule as He wills in terms of life, death, sustenance, creation and resurrection. His rule is binding and His command is definite in His dominion. Given that He is True, what emanates from Him is naught but what is true. What emanates from the Truth qua being True is purely true, without any vanity or falsehood in it. Now, one might assume that there is another ruler in the universe who could rule against God’s will and annul His rule. That is why the verse next clarifies that there is no other god but Him, meaning no other deity to be worshiped. Finally, a god is worshiped because of his lordship. Given that there is no god but Him, He alone is the Lord of the Honorable Throne of the entire universe. “Throne” means the focal point of the reign of all affairs. It refers to the position of authority, from which issue the rules and commands that govern the universe.
In short: God is the One from Whom every rule issues and everything comes to existence. Anything that He rules [in terms of legislation and religious duties] is true, and anything that He does [in terms of creation and direction of affairs] is true. That is why all things will return to Him and will subsist eternally by Him, because otherwise they would be vain and false, while there is no vanity in the creation and no falsehood in the universe.
The verse mentions these four qualities after referring to Him as “Allah,” meaning One Who gives existence to others but Himself is self-existent. The four qualities are effectively deduced from the fact that He is Allah.
وَمَنْ يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ فَإِنَّمَا حِسَابُهُ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ١١٧
(23:117) And whoever invokes (yadʿu, from duʿāʾ) with Allah another god—he has no proof of this—his reckoning is only with his Lord; surely the disbelievers shall not be successful.
What is meant by “with Allah” in this verse is not to invoke both God and other gods, because most or all polytheists did not use to invoke Allah at all, but they used to only call and invoke the partners that they had assumed for Him. Instead, what is meant by “with Allah” is to invoke others given God’s existence [that is, calling other gods while God is also there]. Another possibility is that duʿāʾ (lit. call, supplication, invocation) in this verse means ithbāt (to affirm, to believe), because affirming something as a god goes hand-in-hand with invoking it.
…he has no proof of this…: This verse is a descriptive qualification for “another god.” It means: There is no other god for whom there is any proof. Instead, there is proof for the absolute non-existence of all other gods.
…he has no proof of this—his reckoning is only with his Lord…: This is a warning. It also restricts reckoning to be with one’s Lord, meaning that no one else can intervene and have a say in the person’s due retribution as dictated by God. His punishment—which is hell, as explicitly mentioned in the previous verses—will certainly befall him. This effectively means a negation of intercessors and disappointment of other means of deliverance. It is then complemented by: surely the disbelievers shall not be successful.
وَقُلْ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ وَارْحَمْ وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الرَّاحِمِينَ ١١٨
(23:118) And say: O my Lord! Forgive and have mercy, and Thou art the best of the merciful.
This verse ends the chapter. In it, the Prophet is ordered to say what the believers among God’s servants say in this world, which will be rewarded with salvation in the Day of Resurrection, as we saw in verses 109 and 111 above: Surely there was a party of My servants who said…
This way, the chapter ends by what it began with: Successful indeed are the believers (). We already discussed the meaning of the verse [under verse ].
Examining Narrations
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Whoever withholds a karat [that is, the smallest amount] of zakāh (alms, poor-rate) is neither a believer nor a Muslim. This is what is meant by His words: My Lord, send me back; haply I may do good in that which I have left ().
Author’s comment: This has also been narrated through another chain of narration from the Imam, and also from the Prophet. What is meant is to match the verse with one who withholds zakāh, not that the verse was originally revealed to describe this particular case only.
- Concerning verse (and before them is a barrier (barzakh) until the day they are raised) Tafsīr al-Qummī says: Barzakh is something that is situated between two things. Here it means the reward or punishment that one receives between the life of this world and the hereafter. This is seen in al-Ṣādiq’s words: “By God what I fear for you [O Shias] is only barzakh, because once the matter [of your reckoning and intercession] comes to us [on the Day of Judgment], we will be more caring for you [than anyone else].”
Author’s comment: The subsequent part [that is, the hadith] is also narrated in al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of ʿUmar b. Yazīd.
- ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn said: Indeed the grave is either a garden of the gardens of Paradise, or a pit of the pits of hell.
- Abū Wallād al-Ḥannāṭ said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “May I be your ransom! The people narrate that the souls of believers [after death] will be in the craws of green birds [flying] around the Throne.” He said, “That is not true. A believer is more honorable to God than having his soul placed in the craw of a bird. Rather, their souls will be in bodies similar to their bodies [in this world].”
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said: The souls of the believers will be in a tree in Paradise. They will eat and drink from its food and drink, and will say, “Our Lord! Raise the Hour for us! Fulfill what Thou hast promised us! And join our last with our first!”
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said: The souls of the believers will be like bodies [that is, with forms resembling bodies] in a tree in Paradise. They will recognize each other and ask about one another. Whenever a soul comes to them [from this world] they will say, “Leave him [to rest and recover], for indeed he is just arriving from a mighty terror.” Afterwards, they will start asking him [the newcomer], “What happened to so-and-so? What happened to so-and-so?” If he tells them, “He was alive when I left,” they will be hopeful for him [to join them]. If he says, “He died [before me],” they will conclude “So he failed! So he perished!”
Author’s comment: Narrations about barzakh, and the details of what will happen to the believers or the others in that realm are abundant and mutawātir (mass-transmitted, recurrent). We have presented some of them in our previous discussions.
- The Prophet said: Every lineage and filiation shall be cut on the Day of Resurrection except for my lineage and filiation.
Author’s comment: Apparently this narration is through Sunni chains of transmission, as seen in al-Durr al-manthūr:
- The Prophet said: All lineages shall indeed be cut on the Day of Resurrection except for my lineage, filiation and in-laws [that is, kinship through both blood and marriage].
- In another narration he said: Every lineage and filiation shall be cut on the Day of Resurrection except for my lineage and filiation.
- In another narration he said: Every blood and marital tie shall be cut on the Day of Resurrection except for my blood and marital ties.
- Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn said: God has created Paradise for anyone who obeys [Him], even if he is an Abyssinian slave; and He has created hell for anyone who disobeys [Him], even if he is a prince of Quraysh. Have you not heard the words of God: So when the Trumpet is blown, there shall be no ties of relationship between them on that day, nor shall they ask of each other ()? By God, nothing shall avail you tomorrow except some good deed that you send ahead for yourself.
Author’s comment: The verse’s context and tone is apparently not open to any exception. Perhaps what is meant [by the Prophetic narrations quoted above] is that one of the properties and results of the Prophet’s kinship is that his descendants will find [special] assistance and help to do righteous deeds [in this world] such that they will benefit from it on the Day of Resurrection.
- Concerning “The fire shall scorch (talfaḥu) their faces” () Tafsīr al-Qummī says: “[talfaḥu means that] the flames of fire will capture them and burn them.” Concerning “and they therein shall be in severe affliction (kāliḥūna)” (), it says: “It [kāliḥūna] means that their mouths will be rendered open and their faces will be deformed [due to the severity of punishment].”
- Concerning verse (O our Lord! our adversity overcame us) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: They become wretched and misfortunate due to their actions.
- Once a man told Imam Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad: “O Abā ʿAbd-Allāh! Indeed we have been created for a strange thing.” The Imam said, “And what is that, may God be with you?” He said, “We have been created for destruction.” The Imam said, “Don’t say that, my [dear] nephew! Rather, we are created for eternity. After all, how can there be destruction for a Garden that is never destroyed and a Fire that is never extinguished? Rather, we only move from one abode to another.”
- Concerning verses (He will say: How many years did you tarry…but ask those who keep account) Tafsīr al-Qummī says: [It means:] Ask the angels that used to count our days and record our moments and the actions that we committed in them.
- The Messenger of God said: When God lets the people of Paradise enter Paradise and the people of hell enter hell, He will ask the people of Paradise: “How many years did you tarry in the earth? []” They will reply: “We tarried a day or part of a day [].” He will say, “Such a good trade that you made in a day or part of a day: [You have acquired] My mercy, satisfaction and Paradise. Reside therein for ever and ever!” Then He will say, “O people of hell! How many years did you tarry in the earth? []” They will reply: “We tarried a day or part of a day [].” He will say, “Such a bad trade that you made in a day or part of a day: [You have acquired] My fire and wrath. Abide therein forever!”
Author’s comment: It is not clear how this hadith matches the verse given its context, and given evidence from other similar verses. We discussed the meaning of the verse based on the available evidence above.
That is, “send me back” in plural form (irjiʿūnī) implies multiple exclamations of “send me back” in singular form (irjiʿnī). (Trans.) ↩︎
This is the first line of the most famous of the “seven hung poems” on the door of the Kaʿbah, by Imraʾ al-Qays, a pre-Islamic Arab poet. Only the first hemistich which is relevant to this discussion is translated above. (Trans.) ↩︎
Warāʾ is one of those words in Arabic which have opposite meanings. It means both front and behind (spatially), before and after (temporally). The intended meaning should be inferred from the text or context. (Trans.) ↩︎
This is under verses , in volume 2, pp. 197ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎
The reason why this is inapplicable is because the word ilā (until, up to) refers to something ahead, while the barrier (barzakh) is assumed to be something behind. In other words, the above view interprets warāʾ as “behind,” as opposed to the author’s view which interprets warāʾ as “front or ahead.” (Trans.) ↩︎
Barzakh, as a term that specifically refers to a realm between this world and the hereafter, is used in hadith and discussed abundantly in Islamic theology and philosophy, but it is not used in the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, barzakh simply means “barrier,” but through analysis and given the context, this barrier as used in the current verse would match the above technical meaning which was developed later. The controversy between the author’s view and the suggested view is primarily on how to interpret the preposition warāʾ. The author’s interpretation is that the barrier lies ahead of them, while the suggested view says that it lies behind them. The author’s main evidence for his interpretation is the use of the preposition ilā (until, up to) in the verse. Perhaps we can combine both views and provide a more comprehensive interpretation as follows: “The barrier is that intermediate stage which lies ahead (warāʾ) of them until the day they are raise, and at the same time this barrier stops them from coming back (warāʾ) to this life because they are bound in another plane of existence.” A more accommodating and reconciling interpretation is intrinsically preferred in cases like this, when there is both textual and contextual evidence for it. One can plausibly argue that the first part of the verse suggests a context of returning to this world. Hence, we can complement the author’s first criticism by saying that the context of the verse fits both interpretations. As with his second point, the author himself admits that the absolute negation of return is only implicitly inferred from the word kallā (by no means). Therefore, there are grounds to affirm this explicitly by the subsequent part of the verse. Overall, the suggested view seems to be a self-consistent and plausible interpretation, although the author’s view is more preferred. The use of the word warāʾ in this verse could itself be one of the subtle miracles and mysteries of the Qur’an. (Trans.) ↩︎
Alternatively, “asking” in the current verse means “asking for help and assistance,” while “asking” in the other verses means “asking to know”—which is sometimes a means of rebuke. (Trans.) ↩︎
The key point here is that being “overcome or defeated” (ghalabah) is not used for an essential property of the subject. It rather implies that there is some external force and event—that is, external to its essence—which overcomes the subject. (Trans.) ↩︎
The trait relevant to the current verse would their habit of superficial and insincere expressions of remorse whenever they were caught for an error and/or faced the consequence of their misdeeds, only to get out of that trouble, but without real intention to repent. (Trans.) ↩︎
The meaning would be: You forgot to remember Me through faith and repentance. (Trans.) ↩︎
To see the author’s argument, the reader should read all of verses and . Overall, the topic of barzakh is not discussed anywhere in the Qur’an explicitly or elaborately, which leaves it open for multiple interpretations. The other verses in this regard are: , , , . Some of these verses could actually strengthen the suggested interpretations mentioned above. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, “a day” is not meant literally, but what is meant is the relative shortness of their stay. (Trans.) ↩︎
God does not anticipate anything because He is timeless, changeless and omniscient. When He ascribes hope or wish to Himself, it reduces to uncertainty and change on the part of the creatures or their circumstances. Tarajjī is to hope for some event that is possible and/or near. Tamannī is more comprehensive: it also includes events that are impossible and/or far, as used in this verse, where their chance of knowing the matter is over. Tarajjī is expressed by laʿalla and ʿasā. Tamannī is expressed by layta, hal, law and laʿalla. Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī), . (Trans.) ↩︎
Their suggested implied meaning is: “If you knew the truth, you would not have said that you stayed a day or part of a day,” where the second part is omitted. (Trans.) ↩︎
This interpretation cannot be expressed in a meaningful way. (Trans.) ↩︎
Another meaning of the root d-ʿ-w is “to claim.” The meaning would be: “Whoever claims another god with Allah,” where “with Allah” means “besides Allah.” This is compatible with the polytheists’ belief in hierarchy of lords, where they claimed the lordship of their gods above themselves, and the lordship of Allah above their gods. Claim (daʿwah, daʿwā) in this sense would again reduce to belief and affirmation (ithbāt). (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-bayān. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of several collections of hadith, on the authority of Miswar b. Makhramah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of several collections of hadith, on the authority of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn ʿAsākir, on the authority of Ibn ʿUmar. ↩︎
Al-Manāqib, on the authority of Ṭāwūs. ↩︎
As the author pointed out, these narrations are reported through Sunni chains of transmission, and as we saw above, they are narrated from Companions like ʿUmar and Ibn ʿUmar. These characters clearly did not narrate or interpret these narrations as primarily and specifically pertaining to the Prophet’s descendants that are esteemed by Shias. This further strengthens the author’s claim that these narrations are incompatible with the universal tone of the verse, which is also confirmed by other similar verses, as well as the last hadith from Imam Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎
ʿIlal al-sharāʾiʿ, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ziyād. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, on the authority of Ayfaʿ b. ʿAbd al-Kulāʿī. ↩︎