Verses 4–20
These verses narrate the polytheists’ criticisms of the Prophet with regards to the Noble Qur’an, and respond to them.
Commentary
وَ قالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَذا إِلاَّ إِفْكٌ افْتَراهُ وَ أَعانَهُ عَلَيْهِ قَوْمٌ آخَرُونَ فَقَدْ جاؤُ ظُلْماً وَ زُوراً ٤
(25:4) And those who disbelieve say: This is nothing but a lie (ifk) which he has forged, and other people have helped him at it; so indeed they have done injustice and (uttered) a falsehood.
There was a reference made to the pagans in general, in the last verse: And they have taken besides Him gods (). Yet, this verse does not simply say, “And they say,” but it explicitly describes them as: And those who disbelieve say. This suggests that the subject of this verse is not all polytheists, but it is specifically the disbelievers in Arabia.
The demonstrative pronoun, “this” [in “This is nothing but a lie”], refers to the Noble Qur’an. The disbelievers referred to the Qur’an simply as “this,” instead of mentioning its name or attribute, in order to belittle and downgrade it. Ifk means “diverted and distorted speech.” What they meant by “a forged lie” was that this book was a lie which the Prophet had made up and ascribed to God.
It can be inferred from the context that the “other people” [who are accused of helping the Prophet in apparently forging the Qur’an] in this verse refers to some of the People of the Book. According to some narrations, these “other people” were ʿAddās [and/or ʿĀbis], the Mawlā (client, freedman) of Ḥuwayṭib b. ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā, Yasār, the Mawlā of al-ʿAlāʾ b. al-Ḥaḍramī, and Jabr, the Mawlā of ʿAmir. They were among the People of the Book and had read the Torah. Later, they converted to Islam, and the Prophet used to visit them frequently. That is why the polytheists made these charges.
… so indeed they have done (jāʾū) injustice and (uttered) a falsehood: According to Majmaʿ al-bayān, the verbs jāʾa and atā (lit. “to come”) sometimes mean faʿala (to do), and are thus used transitively. Given this, the verse would mean: “So indeed they have done injustice and falsehood.”
Two alternative suggestions [for the verse’s ending] are:
(1) The verse involves an omitted preposition before “injustice” (called manṣūb bi-nazʿ al-khāfiḍ). The implied meaning is: “They have brought injustice (jāʿū bi-ẓulmin).”
(2) “Injustice” is an adverb that describes the state (hāl) in which “they came.” The meaning is: “They came while being unjust (jāʿū ẓālimīn).”
The second point, however, is an implausible interpretation. Majmaʿ al-bayān also says:
One might ask: How come the verse gives the disbelievers such a short answer? The answer is: They were already challenged to bring the like of the Qur’an and they could not do so; that is why a short answer here is sufficient, as it points to that.
However, as we shall discuss below, the answer to their claims in these two verses—“This is nothing but a lie which he has forged” () and “The myths of the ancients…” ()—is apparently given in the next verse, where God says: Say: He has revealed it Who knows the secret… (). Thus, the statement “so indeed they have done injustice and (uttered) a falsehood” is rather a general rejection of their stand [but not the end of God’s answer]. [Even if it is taken on its own,] it is equivalent to rejecting one’s view with evidence, and the evidence is the verses which challenge the disbelievers to bring the like of the Qur’an [as Majmaʿ al-bayān has observed correctly].
Overall, the meaning of the verse is: Those who disbelieve among the Arabs say, “This Qur’an is only a speech that has been distorted from its original and proper form, in the sense that it is Muḥammad’s speech but he ascribes it to God. Thus, he has attributed a lie to God, and in doing so he has been helped by other people, which are some of the People of the Book.” These disbelievers have therefore committed injustice and have lied by making these statements.
وَ قالُوا أَساطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ اكْتَتَبَها فَهِيَ تُمْلى عَلَيْهِ بُكْرَةً وَ أَصِيلاً ٥
(25:5) And they say: The myths (asāṭīr) of the ancients—he has got them written (iktatabahā)—so these are read out (tumlā, from imlāʾ) to him morning and evening (bukratan wa aṣīlan).
Asāṭīr is the plural of usṭūrah, which means “written news and reports.” However, it is mostly used for false and superstitious stories [that is, fables, legends, myths]. Iktitāb means “to write.” Since the Prophet was unlettered, the attribution of writing is metaphorical for him, not literal. It could mean that these “myths” were written by his request, much like when a ruler says, “I wrote such-and-such to so-and-so,” while the person who has actually done the writing is his scribe. This [non-literal usage of “writing”] is confirmed by the subsequent part of the verse: so these are read out to him morning and evening. If he were literally the writer, then it would not make sense to say that the myths are “read out to him.” It has also been said that iktitāb means istiktāb (asking for writing).
Imlāʾ means “conveying a speech verbally to either a listener—so that he may retain and remember it—or to a scribe—so that he may write it.” The first meaning is intended in this verse because it says: he has got them written—so these are read out to him. The context suggests that the writing has already been done in one shot, while reading out the myths occurs gradually. That is: “He already has the Book written and compiled with him, and it is read out to him in portions once a while. Thus he retains and remembers what is read to him, and then recites it for the people.”
Bukrah and aṣīl are the same as ghadāh (morning) and ʿashī (evening, late afternoon) respectively. What is meant by “morning and evening” in this verse is “time and again, repeatedly, continuously.”
Another suggested meaning by some exegetes for this expression is: It specifically refers to two times in the day: (1) the beginning of the day, when the people have not yet left their homes; and (2) the end of the day after they have returned home. Therefore, it is equivalent to saying: It is read to him privately, and in secret.
This verse serves as an elaboration and interpretation of the previous verse. It is as if they are clarifying their claim: This Book is a lie that he has fabricated, and other people have helped him in creating it by writing for him the fables of the ancient generations, and then reading them out to him piece by piece and repeatedly over time. Then he recites it to the people and attributes it to God.
Therefore, the entire verse is in the words of “those who disbelieve” (). One exegete has said: “The subsequent part of the verse—he has got them written…—is not the continuation of their words, but it is part of God’s speech. It is in the form of a rhetorical question in response to their claim: “The myths of the ancients.” However, the tone and theme of the verse does not agree with this interpretation.
قُلْ أَنْزَلَهُ الَّذِي يَعْلَمُ السِّرَّ فِي السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ إِنَّهُ كانَ غَفُوراً رَحِيماً٦
(25:6) Say: He has revealed it Who knows the secret in the heavens and the earth; surely He is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
This verse orders the Prophet to refute the claim and denial of the disbelievers [in the last verse], where they accused the Qur’an of being a fabricated lie, and being the myths of the ancients that has been written and is read out to the Prophet once a while.
“Secret,” in this verse, means “the hidden and unknown aspect of things.” Describing God as “One Who knows the secret in the heavens and the earth” indicates that this Book, which He has sent, comprises of certain secret realities that are hidden from the intellect of humankind. It also alludes to their transgressions, one of which was accusing the Qur’an of being a fabricated lie and a fable of the ancients. It says that God knows of these false claims and accusations of theirs.
… surely He is ever Forgiving, Merciful: According to most exegetes, this expression explains and justifies the respite that is evidently given to the disbelievers by God, as He has postponed and deferred the punishment which they rightfully deserve for their transgression, defiance, and denial of the truth.
The exegetes have thus interpreted the verse as follows: Say: The Qur’an is neither a fabricated lie, nor one of the fables of the ancient people—unlike what you claim. Rather, it is a Book sent from God which includes hidden secrets that your intellects cannot reach and your wits cannot comprehend. Your false accusations of this Book as a lie and fable, and your rejection of its truths, are heinous sins that qualify you for punishment. Yet, God gives you respite and postpones the punishment which is due for your sins, because He is characterized by forgiveness and mercy. The delay of your punishment is a consequence of these divine qualities.
However, the context and theme of the verse does not support the above interpretation offered by the exegetes. According to their interpretation, the verse is essentially refuting the disbelievers’ accusations—that the Qur’an is a fabricated lie and a fable—by saying that it is sent from God and comprises of hidden realities that they have no access to learn about. The problem is that this is not an appropriate answer in this debate, because it attempts to refute an unverifiable claim by another similarly unverifiable claim—if not more so!
Furthermore, the explanation given at the end of the verse—surely He is ever Forgiving, Merciful—is more compatible with God totally discharging their punishment altogether. In order to explain God’s respite and postponement, the verse should have stated other names like al-Ḥalīm (the Forbearing, the Clement, the Tolerant), al-ʿAlīm (the All-Knower) and al-Ḥakīm (the All-Wise), not al-Ghafūr (the All-Forgiver) and al-Raḥīm (the All-Merciful).
Given the context of argument and defense [in response to the polytheists’ accusations against the Qur’an] it is more plausible to say that the verse refers to God’s forgiveness and mercy in order to clarify, explain and justify why God has sent this Book. After all, it was already mentioned above [in verse ] that He has sent down the Book upon His servant—the Prophet—so that he may be a warner to all nations. This statement [in verse ] refers to nubuwwah (prophethood; lit. “giving news, of the unseen”). Given this background, describing God as “One Who knows the secret in the heavens and the earth” suggests that the innermost secret of the disbelievers calls for divine forgiveness and mercy. This is a genuine request that they express through their very state of being. Their innermost secret is their innate human nature, makeup and disposition (fiṭrah) which seeks human perfection, felicity and a happy ending. Despite this genuine inner drive, most of them err in applying it in practice, because they mistakenly assume that their happiness and perfection lie in enjoying the life of this world and in its adornments. Therefore, this verse is a demonstrative argument that proves the truth of the prophetic call which is found in the Qur’an, and disproves the claim that it is a lie which is pulled from the fables of the ancient people.
The verse’s argument can be elaborated as follows: God knows the secret in the heavens and the earth. Thus, He knows that deep inside you, within your innate nature and formation, there is a love and attraction toward felicity, and a pull toward having a good ending. In other words, what you want deep in your heart is your true happiness, both this world and the next. Then, since God is also Forgiving and Merciful, His responds to what you ask for in your inmost secrets, and by the tongue of your innate nature (fiṭrah). That is why He guides you to the path that ensures your felicity and happiness.
So here it is, a Book that outlines your path to happiness for you. Hence, it is not a fabricated lie that has been attributed to God; nor is it like the fables of the ancient societies. Rather, it is a Book that contains what you call for by your innate nature, and what you ask in your secret desires. If you respond positively to it, God’s forgiveness and mercy will embrace you; but if you turn away from it, you will be deprived of those bounties from God. This means that the Book is sent from God, because if it were not sent from Him as it claims so, then it would not guide to real happiness, it would not call to pure truth, and there would be discrepancy and disagreement in its content. In that case [that is, if it were not sent from God], it would sometimes call you to what is good and beneficial for you—meaning things that earn God’s forgiveness and mercy for you—and sometimes to what is bad and harmful for you—meaning things that stir God’s anger against you and cause His punishment to befall you.
وَ قالُوا ما لِهذَا الرَّسُولِ يَأْكُلُ الطَّعامَ وَ يَمْشِي فِي الْأَسْواقِ لَوْ لا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فَيَكُونَ مَعَهُ نَذِيراً ٧
(25:7) And they say: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food and goes about in the markets; why has not an angel been sent down to him, so that he should have been a warner with him?
This verse describes the disbelievers’ criticism against God’s Messenger, following the account of their claims and criticisms about the Qur’an: And those who disbelieve say: This is nothing but a lie which he has forged (). The title “this Messenger” implies scorn and derision, because the disbelievers who said this did not believe in the Prophet’s message and mission.
… What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food and goes about in the markets…: This question displays a tone of surprise. The idolaters believed that human beings are incapable of connecting to the unseen, because their existence is material, immersed in the darkness of this world, and tainted by its defilements. That is why they sought angels as means of connecting to the divine. They worshiped the angels so that the angels would intercede for them before God and take them closer to Him. According to the idolaters, only the angels had a position of proximity to God, and were connected to the unseen. Thus, if there were to be any mission or messengership, it should have been through an angel; no human being could have a share in that mission.
This should clarify what they meant by saying: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food and goes about in the markets? What they meant was that a divine mission is not compatible with normalcies such as eating food and going to the markets to earn a living. A divine mission is a transcendent connection which is incongruent with material attachments. That is why it can only be an angelic position. God has narrated this idea from them in several places in the Qur’an, such as: If Allah had pleased, He could certainly have sent down angels ().
The above explanation shows that the disbelievers’ next statement was a reduction of their request; a stepping down on their part: why has not an angel been sent down to him, so that he should have been a warner with him? That is: How can this claimant of messengership be a messenger, while he eats food and walks in the markets? A messenger can only be an angel who is free from such material qualities. Now, if we want to accept his messengership despite his human nature, then an angel must be sent upon him, to be a warner alongside him. This is necessary, so that the message and warning would be connected to the unseen via an angel.
أَوْ يُلْقى إِلَيْهِ كَنْزٌ أَوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يَأْكُلُ مِنْها وَ قالَ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً ٨
(25:8) Or (why is not) a treasure sent down to him, or he is made to have a garden from which he should eat? And the unjust say: You do not follow any but a man bewitched.
Similar to the last sentence, this is a further reduction of the disbelievers’ requests. That is: Even if no angel descends upon him and he is supposed to be an independent human messenger, then at least a treasure must be sent to him from the heaven. That would cover his material needs, so that he would not have to carry the burden of going to the markets in order to make a living. After all, sending a treasure to him is easier than sending an angel to him to help him convey God’s message.
… or he is made to have a garden from which he should eat?…: This is yet another stepping down in their request. The meaning is: If no treasure is sent down to him, then at least he should have a garden as a source of livelihood, so that he would not have to earn a living. This is easier than a treasure being sent to him from the heaven.
… And the unjust say: You do not follow any but a man bewitched: As the exegetes have said, “the unjust” people are those who made the above requests. This is an example of using an explicit noun instead of a pronoun. Describing the disbelievers by injustice is meant to indicate their extent of transgression and defiance against God and His Messenger.
… You do not follow…: The disbelievers said this to the believers in order to rebuke them and divert them from their true path. “A man bewitched” refers to the Prophet. What the disbelievers meant, was that some magicians had put a spell on the Prophet; that is why he thinks that he is a messenger, and imagines an angel of revelation coming to him with a book and a mission.
انْظُرْ كَيْفَ ضَرَبُوا لَكَ الْأَمْثالَ فَضَلُّوا فَلا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَبِيلاً ٩
(25:9) See what likenesses (al-amthāl) do they apply to you, so they have gone astray, therefore they shall not be able to find a way.
Amthāl (plural of mathal) is synonymous with ashbāh (similitudes, likenesses). Some have said that mathal in this verse means “description” (waṣf), as in the verse: A description (mathal) of the garden which those guarding (against evil) are promised: Therein are rivers of water that do not alter (). The gist of the verse is: See how they have described you and have thereby gone far astray with regards to you? Thus there is no hope in them finding the way to the truth.
Their descriptions of the Prophet were mentioned above: He eats food and walks in the markets, so he is not befitting for the divine mission, because a messenger should be a transcendent being that has no attachment to matter. At least he should be needless of using ordinary means in order to earn a living []. They also described him as someone who has been bewitched [].
… so they have gone astray, therefore they shall not be able to find a way: The result of their above descriptions of the Prophet is that they have gone far astray, such that they cannot return to the right path. That is why there is no hope that they will ever be guided. Sometimes a person deviates from the path only slightly; in such cases, there is hope that he may get back on track. However, sometimes a person completely turns his back from the path, and moves in the opposite direction. The more they move, the farther away they get from the path. Now, if people call the Book of God fables, describe His Messenger as being bewitched, and consistently add to their mischief, defiance and derision of the truth, how can there be any hope for their guidance while this is their condition?
تَبارَكَ الَّذِي إِنْ شاءَ جَعَلَ لَكَ خَيْراً مِنْ ذلِكَ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهارُ وَ يَجْعَلْ لَكَ قُصُوراً ١٠
(25:10) Blessed is He Who, if He will, shall give you what is better than this, gardens beneath which rivers flow, and He will give you palaces (quṣūran).
The demonstrative pronoun “this” in “better than this” refers to the disbelievers’ demand, where they said: or he is made to have a garden from which he should eat (). It can also refer to everything that they requested, including the treasure and the garden. The word quṣūr is the plural of qaṣr, meaning “tall and strong building.” The indefinite form of quṣūran indicates magnification and aggrandizement.
This verse serves as a response to the disbelievers’ criticism of the Prophet and their demands that an angel must be sent to him, that a treasure should be cast upon him, or that he must have a garden. Meanwhile, the verse involves a shift from the first person to the third person. That is, instead of saying, “Say: If my Lord wills, He shall give me…” it says, “Blessed is He Who, if He will, shall give you…” This transition indicates that they [the polytheists of Mecca] are not worthy of receiving an answer [from God and His Messenger], and neither are they qualified for being addressed [by God and His Messenger]. This is because they knew the invalidity and inappropriateness of what they were proposing to the Prophet, who had made it clear to them that he is only a mortal like them, except that he receives revelation. He had not claimed that he had supernatural powers and divine authority to do anything that he wanted to, or to do anything that is requested from him. This is seen in what God says in Sūrah al-Isrāʾ after narrating some of their demands: Say: Glory be to my Lord; am I aught but a mortal messenger? ().
That is why God refrains from addressing the polytheists and replying to their requests. Instead, He only says to His Prophet that his Lord—Who has chosen him as a messenger, and Who has sent the Furqān upon him that he may be a warner to all nations []—is capable of even greater things than what the polytheists proposed. If He wants, He can give the Prophet much better than that: gardens with rivers flowing underneath them, and palaces that are beyond the description of any speaker. These are much better than having a garden to eat from, or receiving a treasure to spend for his needs.
This interpretation answers the polytheists’ requests for seeing a treasure or a garden. But they also had another request: that an angel must be sent down to the Prophet to be a warner with him and to help him in the mission []. The verse has left this unanswered because its invalidity is evident. God has answered this expectation elsewhere in His Book, in different words, such as: And if We had made him [Our messenger] angel, We would certainly have made him a man, and We would certainly have made confused to them what they make confused (), Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them, from the heaven, an angel as a messenger (), and: We do not send the angels but with truth, and then they would not be respited (). We have already discussed and elaborated the argument involved in each of these verses under the exposition of each.
Given the above explanation, it should be clear that this verse is about giving gardens and palaces to the Prophet in this world. The verse is in a context of debate and argument, and is meant to answer what they said. The gist of the context is: “The polytheists demand this and that from you, and by these requests they want to defeat and overcome you. However, your Lord is capable of doing much greater than that. If He wills, He shall give you better than that, which would be gardens with rivers flowing underneath them…,” which would obviously have to be in this world; otherwise, it would not conclude the argument.
Some exegetes have said that the verse is about gardens and palaces in the hereafter. Our explanations above should show why this is not a plausible interpretation.
Worse than that is another suggested interpretation: Gardens with rivers flowing underneath them pertain to this world, while palaces pertain to the hereafter. This is deduced from the use of past tense about gardens—in shāʾa jaʿala (lit. “if He willed, He would have given”)—as opposed to the use of the present tense about palaces: yajʿal (and He will give you). The use of past tense suggests that the verb has already occurred, which is consistent with events in this world, while the use of present and future tense (mustaqbal) is appropriate for talking about the hereafter.
However, the entire verse is a conditional statement, and conditional statements are not bound by any time or tense. Using different wording here [that is, jaʿala and yajʿal] is meant for variation of expression (tafannun) and renewing the structure (tajdīd al-ṣūrah). God is the Knower.
بَلْ كَذَّبُوا بِالسَّاعَةِ وَ أَعْتَدْنا لِمَنْ كَذَّبَ بِالسَّاعَةِ سَعِيراً ١١
(25:11) Nay, they reject the Hour, and We have prepared a burning fire for him who rejects the Hour.
This verse involves a transition (indicated by “nay”) from the polytheists’ criticisms and objections against the Prophet for eating food and going to the markets (which implicitly show their rejection of him). The meaning is: They reject and deny your prophethood not because you eat food and go to the markets. They say that only as an excuse at the surface; but what has really caused them to reject your prophethood and criticize you is their rejection of the Hour and their denial of the hereafter. Clearly, if there is no Hour [that is, no resurrection], then prophethood would be pointless; and if there is no reckoning and retribution, then there is no place for religion and shariah (divine law).
What we see here is similar to what we saw in Sūrah al-Isrāʾ. There, too, the chapter first lists the demands of the polytheists, and then it states the real cause behind their excuses: Say: Glory be to my Lord; am I aught but a mortal messenger? And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! Has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger? ().
A group of exegetes have said: “Nay, they reject the Hour” states another false belief of theirs, just as there was mention of their other beliefs about monotheism, the Book, and messengership in the Qur’an: And they have taken besides Him gods (), And those who disbelieve say: This is nothing but a lie… (), and: And they say: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats… (). These exegetes have different views about why the verse involves a transition [indicated by bal, lit. “nay, rather”]. Here are some suggested explanations why a transition has been used here: (1) because the hereafter indubitable; (2) because the rejection of the hereafter is greater than their other false beliefs; and (3) because the rejection of the hereafter is stranger. And there is more to the list.
However, the context and theme of the verses do not support this view. The theme of these verses is to discuss the disbelievers’ criticisms against the Messenger and respond to them, and this theme is not yet finished because it continues below: And We have not sent before you any messengers but they most surely ate food and went about in the markets (), followed by the subsequent verses. It does not make sense to bring up their rejection of the Hour, in the midst of verses that narrate their rejection of the Messenger and respond to them. This is evident.
… and We have prepared a burning fire (saʿīran) for him who rejects the Hour: Saʿīr means “hot burning fire.” The verse has used a description here [that is, “him who rejects the Hour”] instead of using a pronoun [hat is, “them”]. This is to show that the punishment of the burning fire is fixed for anyone who rejects the Hour. It is not restricted to specific audience of these verses at the time, but it equally applies to anyone with the same qualities. It explains why a burning fire has been prepared for them: because of their rejection of the Hour.
The verse also names “the Hour” instead of using a pronoun. This makes the statement more direct and explicit, which complies with the verse’s context of threat and warning.
إِذا رَأَتْهُمْ مِنْ مَكانٍ بَعِيدٍ سَمِعُوا لَها تَغَيُّظاً وَ زَفِيراً ١٢
(25:12) When it shall see them from a distant place, they shall hear its vehement raging (taghayyuẓan) and roaring (zafīran).
Al-Mufradāt says:
Ghayẓ means “intense anger”… Taghayyuẓ is “to show ghayẓ.” Sometimes this is accompanied by a sound that is heard, as He says: they shall hear its vehement raging and roaring ()…
Zafīr is “inhalation and exhalation by which the ribs expand.”
This verse provides an analogy for the Fire when the disbelievers are exposed and presented to it on the Day of Retribution. It shall be like a ferocious lion that roars when it sees its prey.
وَ إِذا أُلْقُوا مِنْها مَكاناً ضَيِّقاً مُقَرَّنِينَ دَعَوْا هُنالِكَ ثُبُوراً ١٣
(25:13) And when they are cast into a narrow place (makānan) in it, bound (muqarranīn, from taqrīn), they shall there call out for [their own] destruction (thubūran).
Thubūr has two meanings: wayl (wow) and halāk (destruction, loss). Taqrīn means “to bind with chains and shackles.” Some have said that it means “being made companions (sing. qarīn) with devils.” However, this meaning cannot be easily inferred from the verse’s wording. There is an implied preposition, which is fī (lit. “in”), before makān (place) that is omitted. That is why makānan is manṣūb in terms of inflection.
The verse means: And when they are cast in a narrow place in the Fire, while being bound by chains, at that point they will yell a call of destruction that is indescribable. That will be a call of, “Woe! We are doomed!” (wā thubūrāh).
لا تَدْعُوا الْيَوْمَ ثُبُوراً واحِداً وَ ادْعُوا ثُبُوراً كَثِيراً ١٤
(25:14) Call not this day for one destruction, but call for destructions many.
Expressing one’s woe and misery [by saying wā thubūrāh] is a way of asking for help; it is an attempt to be rescued from difficulty. However, that shall be a day of retribution only, which means that it is no longer a time for actions that would help and benefit the person. Thus, the disbelievers’ call for destruction will certainly not benefit them whatsoever. That is why God says: Call not this day for one destruction. This implies that such call for woe and destruction will not benefit them, whether they say it much or little. It is equivalent to what they shall be told: Enter into it, then bear (it) patiently, or do not bear (it) patiently, it is the same to you (), and what they shall say themselves: It is the same to us whether we are impatient (now) or patient, there is no place for us to fly to ().
Some exegetes have said: “This is a way of saying that their punishment is long and everlasting, such that it does not finish by a single call for destruction, but it requires several calls of destruction.” However, this is an unlikely interpretation.
قُلْ أَ ذلِكَ خَيْرٌ أَمْ جَنَّةُ الْخُلْدِ الَّتِي وُعِدَ الْمُتَّقُونَ كانَتْ لَهُمْ جَزاءً وَ مَصِيراً ١٥ لَهُمْ فِيها ما يَشاؤُنَ خالِدِينَ كانَ عَلى رَبِّكَ وَعْداً مَسْؤُلاً ١٦
(25:15-16) Say: Is this better or the abiding garden (jannat al-khuld) which those who guard (against evil) are promised? That shall be a reward and a resort for them. They shall have therein what they wish abiding (in it); it is a promise upon your Lord, to be asked.
The demonstrative pronoun “this” in “Say: Is this” () refers to the “burning fire” (saʿīr) which was mentioned and described in the previous verses [ff]. God orders His Prophet to ask the disbelievers, “Which one is more preferred: the burning fire or the abiding garden?” This is a self-evident matter that does not require contemplation. In a context of debate and argument, such a question places the opponent between two options to choose from: one that is evidently true, and one that is evidently false. If he chooses the truth, then he must abandon his previous stance and admit defeat. If he chooses the false, then it is a shameless lie.
Khuld means dawām (continuity, abidance, eternity). The term jannat al-khuld (lit. “garden of eternity”) shows that the garden is itself eternal and unending. Similarly, “abiding” (khālidīn) in verse shows that the inhabitants of that garden will also be eternal and completely secure from perishing.
… those who guard (against evil) are promised (wuʿida, from waʿada)…: The verb waʿada (to promise) is ditransitive [that is, it takes two objects]. This means that its first object is omitted. What is meant is “those who guard (against evil) are promised it” (wuʿidahā al-muttaqūn), where the pronoun “it” (the suffix hā in wuʿidahā) is implied and omitted. The pronoun “it” would refer to the garden.
… That shall be a reward and a resort for them: The garden shall be the believers’ reward for their taqwā (guarding against evil, Godwariness, self-restraint). That is where they shall reside in the afterlife, for being muttaqūn (possessors of taqwā). God says: Surely those who guard (against evil) shall be in the midst of gardens and fountains… nor shall they be ever ejected from it (). This is one of the definite verdicts that God made when He created Adam and ordered the angels and Iblīs (Satan) to prostrate to him. At that point He determined the reward and fate of those who guard against evil, as we discussed in Chapter 15 (Sūrah al-Ḥijr).
They shall have therein what they wish abiding (in it)…: God will empower the believers and give them the authority to have everything that they wish in Paradise. This is unlike the inhabitants of hell, about whom God says: And a barrier shall be placed between them and that which they desire (). What the people of Paradise wish is what they like, and what they like is only that which, in reality, is worthy of being desired. That is what God likes and pleases for them. It is the good and happiness which they deserve. It is what makes them grow in perfection, without being of any harm to them or others.
Hence, even though the verse states “what they wish” in an absolute and unconditional form, we should bear in mind that they will only wish for what God pleases. This explanation should clarify the several questions that are raised concerning such verses that talk about unconditional fulfilment of wishes [in Paradise]. For example, it is said that if they can wish anything, then: (1) they might wish for some sin, evil, indecency or vanity; (2) they might wish for something that bothers the other inhabitants of Paradise; (3) they might wish for the deliverance of some of those who are sentenced to hell forever; (4) they might wish for the stations of the prophets and chosen saints that are above them in rank.
However, how can these ever occur? Because God says [about them]: O soul that art at rest! Return to your Lord, well-pleased (with him), well-pleasing (Him). So enter among My servants, and enter into My garden (). The believers are pleased with what God has endorsed, and they are pleasing to God, meaning that they do not want anything that God does not please. Hence, they will not wish for any sin, evil, indecency, vanity or lie. They will not want anything that will dissatisfy the other inhabitants of Paradise. They will not wish for the cancellation of punishment of those whom their Lord has decreed to be punished. Finally, they will not wish or desire the station of those who are above them, because their position is what their Lord has given them, and they are pleased with what He has done. They like what He likes.
… it is a promise upon your Lord, to be asked (masʾūlan): This promise that God has given, to those who guard themselves, is a promise that He must fulfil. God has taken this promise upon Himself when He decreed it upon the onset of creation. He has informed us of His decree in verses like: And most surely there is an excellent resort for those who guard (against evil): The gardens of perpetuity… This is what you are promised for the Day of Reckoning ().
There are a few possible explanations for why this promise is called masʾūlan (lit. “requested, asked for, prayed for”) is: (1) Those who guard themselves had asked for its fulfilment [implicitly] through their state of being and capacity. (2) They had asked for it [explicitly and verbally] through their supplications. (3) The angels had asked for it [to be given to the believers], as God narrates from them: Our Lord! And make them enter the gardens of perpetuity (). All of these points can be true.
As al-Ṭabrisī (r) has noted, “That shall be a reward and a resort for them” () is an adverbial clause which describes the condition (ḥāl) of the “garden”—the garden being is implied in: which those who guard (against evil) are promised (). Then “They shall have therein what they wish” () is an adverbial clause which describes the condition of: those who guard (against evil) (). This is more apparent than what others have said—that both sentences are independent statements that serve to explain and justify an implied question.
وَ يَوْمَ يَحْشُرُهُمْ وَ ما يَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ فَيَقُولُ أَ أَنْتُمْ أَضْلَلْتُمْ عِبادِي هؤُلاءِ أَمْ هُمْ ضَلُّوا السَّبِيلَ ١٧
(25:17) And on the day when He shall gather them, and whatever (mā) they serve besides Allah, He shall say: Was it you who led astray these My servants, or did they themselves go astray from the path?
The plural pronouns (them, they, these) and conjugations in the verse refer to the disbelievers. If we assume that the particle mā (lit. “what, that”) is used exclusively in reference to unintelligent beings, then “whatever they serve” would refer only to the idols; but if mā also includes intelligent beings, then the phrase would also include the angels and humans whom they worshiped. The demonstrative pronoun “these” in “these My servants” (that is, “these servants of Mine”) refers to the disbelievers. The meaning of the verse is clear.
قالُوا سُبْحانَكَ ما كانَ يَنْبَغِي لَنا أَنْ نَتَّخِذَ مِنْ دُونِكَ مِنْ أَوْلِياءَ وَ لكِنْ مَتَّعْتَهُمْ وَ آباءَهُمْ حَتَّى نَسُوا الذِّكْرَ وَ كانُوا قَوْماً بُوراً ١٨
(25:18) They shall say: Glory be to Thee; it was not beseeming for us that we should take any guardians besides Thee, but Thou didst make them and their fathers to enjoy until they forsook the reminder, and they were a people in perdition.
This verse narrates the answer of those whom the disbelievers served to the question in the last verse: Was it you who led astray these My servants…? Servitude to God dictates that whenever there is a mention of association and partnership with God, whether explicit or implicit, one would begin by glorifying God. That is why they will start their answer by glorification.
… it was not beseeming for us that we should take any guardians besides Thee…: That is to mean: It was not appropriate or befitting for us to leave You for someone else and adopt another guardian. It was they [the disbelievers] who started worshiping us and took us as guardians besides You.
… but Thou didst make them and their fathers to enjoy until they forsook the reminder, and they were a people in perdition (būrān): Būr is the plural of bāʾir, which means hālik (destroyed, lost) or fāsid (ruined, corrupt, decayed, wicked).
After avoiding to take responsibility for misleading their worshipers, the worshiped beings (who were asked why their servants went astray) attribute the error to the disbelievers themselves. They also say that what misled the worshipers was that they were a lost or corrupt people. They tell God: You bestowed the bounties and enjoyments of this worldly life upon them and their fathers, and extended their period of enjoyment. You did so only as a means of test and trial, but the worshipers plunged into this enjoyment and became totally engaged in worldly life, to the point that they forgot the reminder that was brought to them by the messengers. Thus they deviated from monotheism to polytheism.
In other words, being lost or corrupt caused the polytheists to dedicate themselves to this world, and to plunge into their desires. They become absorbed in worldly enjoyment and directed their attention solely to engagement with the apparent means and instruments [of this life], making them oblivious to the reminder of God. That is how they deviated from monotheism to polytheism. The above explanation should clarify that the last part of the verse—“and they were a people in perdition”—is a continuation of the response given by the worshiped beings.
Some have said: The last sentence is an extra statement that is mentioned at the end [by the worshiped beings] for clarification. It points to the real cause behind the straying of the polytheists. They went astray because they were inherently wretched and doomed, which can only be by a definite decree from God in His pre-eternal knowledge. This means that God is really the One Who misled the polytheists, although the verse attributes this to the polytheists themselves out of courtesy to God.
There are a few problems with this view:
(1) It ruins the meaning of the verse. If that were the real answer, then it would be unnecessary and pointless to say: but Thou didst make them and their fathers to enjoy until they forsook the reminder.
(2) Attributing perdition and wretchedness to the essence of things [for example, the polytheists] violates the effectiveness of education and discipline, which is agreed upon by all rational beings, complies with the innate human nature (fiṭrah), and is confirmed by empirical evidence. Moreover, the above interpretation contradicts both ikhtiyār (free will, choice) and jabr (compulsion, determinism). The way it contradicts ikhtiyār is obvious, but it also contradicts jabr because the advocates of jabr hold the Necessary Being as the only cause of all events. The above answer, however, attributes the cause of perdition and/or error to the essence and quiddity of things, which contradicts the exclusive view of jabr.
(3) It involves a confused application of God’s decree (qaḍāʾ). When God decrees an action, it does not necessarily mean that its actor is now forced to it without his own free will and choice. Rather, God’s decree also specifies how an action will materialize, part of which is that it emanates from the recipient’s free will. God decrees the act to occur through the means and channel of the person’s will. Hence, being an object of God’s decree actually reinforces the aspect of using one’s free will, as opposed to rendering it as without free will.
(4) Based on the above interpretation, the one who has really led the disbelievers astray is God, but this is attributed to the disbelievers themselves out of courtesy. Similarly, concerning the attribution of sins, evil acts, indecencies and heinous crimes to their subjects, it is said that such acts are all among God’s actions that have been attributed to others [that is, the sinners, evildoers and criminals] out of adab (courtesy, good manners). However, this is a self-contradictory statement. As we said in our elaborate discussion on good manners (adab) at the end of chapter 5, adab is a good and proper way that befits to be followed in performing some action. In other words, courtesy means “elegance of action” (ẓirāfat al-fiʿl). If the clear truth about an evil act is that it is caused by God without the involvement of anyone else in it in any perceivable way, then attributing the action to anyone other than God would be a false and invalid attribution. It would be a lie that does not match reality. I wish I could understand this: What kind of good manner would reject clear truth and replace it with falsehood? What elegance or courtesy exists in lie and libel? What is the beauty of accusing someone for an act that is done by someone else?
God is greater than being glorified through falsehood, through covering some of His actions, or through lie and libel by attributing His acts to others. If it is true that He is Beautiful and thus He does only that which is beautiful, then what does it mean to dissociate some of His actions from Him in order to be courteous?
فَقَدْ كَذَّبُوكُمْ بِما تَقُولُونَ فَما تَسْتَطِيعُونَ صَرْفاً وَ لا نَصْراً وَ مَنْ يَظْلِمْ مِنْكُمْ نُذِقْهُ عَذاباً كَبِيراً ١٩
(25:19) So they shall indeed deny you in what you say, then you shall not be able (fa-lā tastaṭīʿūna) to ward off (ṣarfan) or help (naṣran), and whoever among you is unjust, We will make him taste a great chastisement.
The speaker in this verse is God, where He addresses the polytheists once their gods dissociate themselves from them and leave them on their own. The last speech of the worshiped beings was: and they were a people in perdition ().
The meaning of the verse is: Those whom you used to serve shall indeed deny you—with regards to your claim that they are gods besides Allah, who can help their worshipers and ward off evil from them. Since they shall reject your claim and deny that they are gods or guardians, you shall not be able to ward off the punishment from yourselves for serving them, nor will you find any help for yourselves through their means.
Apparently, the uncertainty involved in “ward off or help” in the verse refers to two ways of protection against the punishment: one is when the gods protect their worshipers independently, which is called ṣarf (warding off); and the other is when the gods do so not independently, but only as part of the cause, which is called naṣr (helping).
The other reciters of the Qur’an—besides Ḥafṣ who has narrated from ʿĀṣim—have read the verse as: yastaṭīʿūna (they shall not be able) instead of tastaṭīʿūna (you shall not be able). This recitation makes sense in terms of meaning, and complies with the theme of the verse. The meaning of the verse would then be: Those whom you used to serve and worship shall indeed deny you with regards to your claim that they are gods who can help their worshipers and ward off evil from them. As a result, they shall not be able to ward off the punishment from you or help you whatsoever.
… and whoever among you is unjust, We will make him taste a great chastisement: This sentence involves a generalization of meaning, where “injustice” includes all forms of wrongdoing or disobedience, even though the previous verses were about polytheism as a specific type of injustice. The basis for this generalization is the universal tone of this expression. The audience of this verse on the Day of Resurrection will all be guilty of polytheism. Therefore, if the sentence were about their practice of polytheism in particular, the verse should have said, “and because of your injustice, We make you taste a great chastisement.” However, the expression is stated as a universal law instead of a particular one.
The point in having this statement in the verse is to indicate that God’s decree is binding, and is executed without being blocked or delayed by anything or anyone. It is as if the verse is saying: (1) Those whom you served will deny you and will not be able to defend or help you. (2) This proves that nothing can block or postpone the application and execution of God’s universal law, which is: whoever among you is unjust, We will make him taste a great chastisement. (3) Hence, you shall inevitably taste the punishment.
وَ ما أَرْسَلْنا قَبْلَكَ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلاَّ إِنَّهُمْ لَيَأْكُلُونَ الطَّعامَ وَ يَمْشُونَ فِي الْأَسْواقِ وَ جَعَلْنا بَعْضَكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ فِتْنَةً أَ تَصْبِرُونَ وَ كانَ رَبُّكَ بَصِيراً ٢٠
(25:20) And We have not sent before you any messengers but they most surely ate food and went about in the markets; and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently? And your Lord is ever Seeing.
This verse is God’s second response to the disbelievers’ objection of: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food and goes about in the markets… (). His first response was: Blessed is He Who, if He will, shall give you what is better than this… (), followed by: Nay, they reject the Hour… ().
This verse [] is effectively saying: This Messenger is not the first messenger that has been sent to the people. Rather, God sent a large number of messengers before him, and they were all characterized by every ordinary human quality and practice that is common among the people. They all used to eat food and go to the markets; God did not create a garden for them to eat from; neither did He cast a treasure upon them; nor did He send an angel with them. And this Messenger is just like them. He has not come with anything unprecedented, so that he may be expected to exhibit something that was not expected from the other prophets.
Therefore, this verse is equivalent in meaning to these verses: Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me (), and: Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me ().
One might object: Based on the above explanation, the verse [] responds to the disbelievers’ objection against the Prophet by referring to the case of all messengers in general. However, the disbelievers could then raise the same objection against all messengers. In fact, the disbelievers in the previous nations had the same objection against their prophets, as God narrates from them: but they said: Shall a mortal guide us? (), They said: You are nothing but mortals like us (), and: This is nothing but a mortal like yourselves, eating of what you eat from and drinking of what you drink (). Therefore, the above answer does not really solve the problem.
The answer to this objection is: The verse’s answer is in accordance with the disbelievers’ objection, because their criticism was particularly directed at the Prophet: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food… (). Now, if one wants to generalize the objection to others, then that can be answered by the verses discussed above: Nay, they reject the Hour… (), and: He has revealed it Who knows the secret… (), as we explained them.
Here are two other suggested interpretations by the exegetes:
(1) The purpose of the verse is to comfort the Prophet. It is as if the verse is saying: “The messengers before you were the same as you are, so there should be a good example for you in them.”
(2) The verse is a response to the disbelievers’ challenge and defiance.
The first interpretation is rather strange. The second one is not true either, as it is not supported by the theme of the verses. Their defiance was rather addressed and answered by the verse: See what likenesses do they apply to you… ().
… and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently?…: This sentence serves as an explanation and justification for the previous statement, which was about the messengers being like the rest of the people, having ordinary human qualities, and not having a different life from them. The messengers were not endowed with supernatural powers that would leave no doubt for the people about their divine mission; such as having an angel sent to them, a treasure cast upon them, or a garden created for them. Here, the verse is effectively saying: The reason why the messengers have the same life as the rest of the people is that We have made some of the people as a means of test for others, so that they may be tried. The messengers are a trial for the rest of the people, by which they are tested. This test separates between the skeptics and the believers. It distinguishes those who follow their own desires and are not patient with the bitterness of the truth, from those who seek the truth and are patient in the way of obeying God and pursuing His path.
Given the above explanation, the following points should be clear:
(1) Patience, in this verse, includes all types of patience, which are: (i) patience in obeying God; (ii) patience against disobeying Him; and (iii) patience in difficulties and calamities.
(2) The verse is about something particular, although it is expressed as a general rule: and We have made some of you a trial for others. The universal statement here refers particularly to God’s trial of the people through the messengers and their qualities.
… And your Lord is ever Seeing: God knows what is appropriate in every matter. Thus, He sets everything in its proper position and runs the most perfect system. The purpose of the system in governing the humans is that all individuals should achieve the perfection that they deserve and call for, by pursuing either the path of felicity or that of wretchedness. This requires a system of test and trial among them, which, in turn, requires the lifting of distinction between God’s messengers and others.
In this sentence, God is mentioned in third person, as opposed to first person in the previous parts. The shift is similar to what we saw above in the verse: Blessed is He Who, if He will, shall give you… ().
Examining Narrations
- Ibn ʿAbbās said: The chiefs of polytheists in Mecca gathered together and said among themselves, “Let us summon Muḥammad, to talk and debate with him, finish our argument against him, and leave him no excuse against us.” Thus, they sent someone to him with the message that “the chiefs of your tribe have gathered together and want to talk with you.”
When the Messenger of God went to them, they said, “O Muḥammad! We have summoned you here in order to leave you no excuse. If you have come up with this claim [of prophethood and receiving revelation] because you want money, then we will raise money for you. If you want a high position, then we will make you our leader. And if you want kingdom, then we will make you our king.”
The Messenger of God replied, “None of what you said is applicable to me. I have not brought what I have brought because I want your wealth, position, or kingdom. God has sent me as a messenger to you. He has sent a Book upon me, and has ordered me to be a bearer of glad tidings and warning to you. I have conveyed my Lord’s message to you and have advised you with sincerity. Now, if you accept what I have brought to you, then that shall be your [true and remaining] share in this world and the hereafter. And if you reject it back to me, then I shall wait for God’s decree—until God may judge between me and you.”
They said, “O Muḥammad! If you do not accept what we have offered you, then ask something for yourself: ask your Lord to send an angel with you that would confirm you in what you say, and would turn us away from [criticizing] you. Ask Him to make gardens and palaces of gold and silver for you, so that you will no longer need to go to the markets in order to make a living like us. This way we will realize your superiority and your position with your Lord—that is if you are a messenger as you claim to be.”
The Messenger of God replied, “I shall not do so. I am not someone who would ask his Lord for these things. I have not been sent to you with these things, but God has sent me as a bearer of glad tidings and warning.”
Thus, God revealed about their requests: And they say: What is the matter with this Messenger that he eats food () up to: and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently? And your Lord is ever Seeing (). It means: “I made some of you a trial for others so that you may bear patiently. Had I wanted to give this world to My Messenger so that you would not deviate from him, I would have done so.”
The Messenger of God said, “Whoever forges a lie against me should take their seat between the two eyes of hell.” They [the Companions] asked him, “O Messenger of God! Does hell have eyes?” He replied, “Have you not heard God saying: When it shall see them from a distant place ()? Does it see them with anything but with two eyes?”
Author’s comment: Al-Durr al-manthūr has also narrated this from a man among the Companions. However, the argument presented in this narration is not clear.
- Once the Messenger of God was asked about the verse: And when they are cast into a narrow place in it, bound (). He said: By the One Who holds my life in His hand, they shall be forced into hell [in a tight place] as a nail is forced into a wall.
In other words, the entire verse is apparently a uniform speech by a single speaker. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses and . (Trans.) ↩︎
This is in fact the primary meaning of the word mathal in the Qur’an. A common Qur’anic expression is “the mathal of A is like the mathal of B,” where mathal should not be translated as “likeness, parable, or similitude” but it should be translated as “description, quality, or attribute.” (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, the variation of tense in the verse is a literary art meant to avoid dullness and uniformity of speech. “God is the Knower” suggests that there are possibly other nuances and reasons for such usage of language, but there are no grounds for saying that gardens refer to this world while palaces refer to the hereafter. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, these exegetes claim that this verse adds to the list of the polytheists’ false beliefs discussed in verses , and . The objection is that if that were the case, then the verse should have begun with the conjunction “and” like those verses. Their explanations essentially say that since this false belief was more special, it is marked by a different beginning. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, the word “into” in “they are cast into a narrow place” is not really stated in the original Arabic, but the text implies it because otherwise the sentence would be disjointed. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Ṭabrisī’s point which the author has preferred can be summarized as follows: “Those who guard (against evil) are promised a garden, while that garden shall be a reward and a resort for them, and while those who guard themselves shall have therein what they wish.” The other view can be reduced to: “Those who guard (against evil) are promised a garden, because that shall be a reward and a resort for them. This is indeed better because they shall have therein what they wish.” (Trans.) ↩︎
That is: yaḥshuruhum (gather them), yaʿbudūna (they serve), hum (they) and ḍallū (they themselves went astray). (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, the last sentence adds to “until.” The meaning is: “You made them and their fathers to enjoy until they forsook the reminder, and until they ended up in perdition.” (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, our free will is decreed by God. We are compelled to have choice. Our volition is not parallel and a rival to God’s decree, but it is itself decreed by God and subject to it. (Trans.) ↩︎
See volume 12, pp. 76ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
This sentence, at the end of the verse, is effectively a conditional statement which is addressed to an audience who were all guilty of polytheism. Given its conditional import, the meaning of “injustice” cannot be restricted to polytheism. (Trans.) ↩︎
As the author explained under verse , this change of person shows the unworthiness of the polytheists for being addressed by God and His Messenger. (Trans.) ↩︎
The narration lists them all: ʿUtbah and Shaybah b. Rabīʿah, Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, Naḍ b. al-Ḥārith, Abū al-Bakhtarī, al-Aswad b. al-Muṭṭalib, Zamʿat b. al-Aswad, al-Walīd b. Mughīrah, Abū Jahl b. Hishām, ʿAbd-Allāh b. Umayyah, Umayyat b. Khalaf, al-ʿĀṣ b. Wāʾil, and Nabīh b. al-Ḥajjāj. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Jarīr and Ibn al-Mundhir. ↩︎
In other words, “whoever makes up a hadith and attributes it to me…” (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Ṭabarānī and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Makḥūl, on the authority of Abū Umāmah. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, on the authority of Yaḥyā b. Abī Usayd. ↩︎