Verses 57–75
These verses mention yet another excuse with which the polytheists of Mecca tried to excuse themselves from believing in the book of God, an excuse which these verses subsequently refute. The excuse in these verses comes about after the verses in the previous section had mentioned another excuse of the Meccan polytheists, which was: They say: Why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses? ()
The excuse of the Meccan polytheists to the Prophet Muḥammad in these verses is: “If we believed in what your book teaches of guidance, which is the religion of monotheism, then the Arab polytheists shall expel us from our land by means of murder, captivity, plunder, and rendering us bereft of peace and security.”
In turn, God responds to their excuse by refuting it, reiterating: “It is We who established a secure sanctuary for the Meccan polytheists, a sanctuary which the Arabs respect and esteem and to which abundant fruits arrive. Thus there is no need for the Meccan polytheists to fear being expelled from Mecca by the Arabs.”
In addition to this, the plenitude of wealth and offspring which the Meccan polytheists enjoyed, and their exultation in a life of ease and comfort, did not guarantee for them security and safety from destruction and ruin such that they should prefer these things to obeying and following the guidance. This is because how many a people there were who exulted in their life of ease and comfort but whom God destroyed and eradicated, and subsequently their land passed out of their ownership. Thus there lay their houses which were not inhabited after them save for a few [houses].
Furthermore, that which they preferred to following the guidance was the enjoyment of the temporal life of this world. An intelligent person would not choose it in preference to the eternal life of the hereafter, which lies with God, .
Moreover, the creation and the command belong solely to God. Thus if He chose something and commanded it, it was not for anyone to oppose Him in preference to what his own soul desired and coveted, subsequently choosing what his soul inclined to and desired!
Thereafter, God cites the story of Korah and how He made him and his house sink into the earth.
Commentary
وَقَالُوا إِنْ نَتَّبِعِ الْهُدَىٰ مَعَكَ نُتَخَطَّفْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا ۚ أَوَلَمْ نُمَكِّنْ لَهُمْ حَرَمًا آمِنًا يُجْبَىٰ إِلَيْهِ ثَمَرَاتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رِزْقًا مِنْ لَدُنَّا وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٥٧
(28:57) And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our land. What! Have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory to which fruits aplenty are drawn? Sustenance from Us, but most of them do not know.
The verbal noun al-takhaṭṭuf means “to steal and swipe something with speed,” “to carry away” or “to sweep away something with speed,” “to do away something with speed.” It is also suggested that the nouns al-khaṭf and al-takhaṭṭufu mean “to grab or take away” or “to loot and pillage from all directions,” “to deprive someone of something from all directions.”
The contention made by the polytheists that they would be expelled from their land, was one made in the manner of a figurative speech by which they meant murder, captivity, and the plundering of their wealth and property. This was as if they and what was related to them, with respect to family and wealth, would be snatched and taken away from them and consequently, their land would be rendered bereft of them. The identity of the land mentioned in the phrase “from our land” that occurs in this verse refers to the land of Mecca and its sanctuary. This identification is made on the basis of the words of God which immediately follow the contention: Have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory? This is while those making the statement If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country were some of the polytheists of Mecca.
This statement of the Meccan polytheists was made in the form of an excuse by which they wished to avoid belief. The excuse was that if they did believe then the Arabs would expel them from their land, which was the land of Mecca. This was because the Arabs were polytheists and would not tolerate accepting the faith and the rejection of their idols. Thus the statement of the Meccan polytheists was in the form of citing the obstacle responsible for preventing them from accepting the faith. However, their statement in and of itself contained an acknowledgment of the truth of the call and an acknowledgment that the book and what it contained was the truth. It was just the danger and risk of expulsion which prevented them from accepting the call and believing in it. This is the reason their statement is expressed as follows: And they say: If we follow the guidance with you rather than saying “if we follow your book or your religion” or words to that effect.
As for the part of this verse that reads: What! Have We not settled (numakkin, from al-tamkīn) them in a safe, sacred territory…, it has been suggested that the verbal noun al-tamkīn includes “to make or establish something for someone,” “to provide something for someone” (al-jaʿl). Hence the meaning is: “Did We (that is, God) not make or establish or provide for them a safe, sacred territory, settling them in it?” It has also been suggested that the word ḥaraman (“a sacred territory”) occurs in this verse in the grammatically accusative case in order to indicate that it is an adverb of place. Therefore the meaning (of this part of the verse) is: “Did We not settle them in a sacred territory”? This is while the word āminan (“secure”) occurs as an adjective describing and qualifying the word ḥaraman, thus conveying the meaning of: “a sacred territory that is safe and secure” or “a safe and secure sacred territory.” As for the description of the sacred territory as one that possessed safety and security, while it was its inhabitants who lived in peace and security, this is due to the consideration of the effects of the relational metaphor. This is while this statement in the verse is actually conjoined to an elision, the implication of which is: “Did We not protect and safeguard them and establish for them a sacred territory that is safe and secure, settling them in it?”
This verse is thus the first rebuttal from God to their excuse, which occurs in if we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country, where the meaning obtained is: “It is We who settled the Meccan polytheists in a land which We made a sacred territory, one that was safe and secure, and which the Arabs esteemed and revered. Thus there is no reason for the Meccan polytheists to fear that the polytheist Arabs would expel them from Mecca if they believed.”
As for the part of this verse that says to which fruits aplenty are drawn (yujbā, from al-jibāya), the verbal noun al-jibāya means “to gather,” “to assemble,” “to collect something as dues” while the word kull that occurs here denotes abundance and not generality, and this is because of the certain absence of the meaning of generality intended here. Hence the meaning obtained is that many and abundant fruits of various kinds are gathered or drawn to the sacred territory. This is while this part of the verse occurs as a qualifying description for the sacred territory. This description is employed here due to the possibility that the Meccan polytheists might imagine that they would suffer loss due to the discontinuation of the supplies and provisions if they believed.
A sustenance from Us: The end part of this verse that says but most of them do not know occurs in the form of providing additional information regarding all that has been said previously with the aim of removing any ambiguity or confusion, meaning: “It is We (that is, God) who preserved and safeguarded them in peace and security and sustained them with abundant fruits; however most of them are ignorant of all that and instead think that the thing that is protecting them from being expelled by (other) Arabs is their polytheism and their worship of the idols.”
وَكَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ بَطِرَتْ مَعِيشَتَهَا ۖ فَتِلْكَ مَسَاكِنُهُمْ لَمْ تُسْكَنْ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ۖ وَكُنَّا نَحْنُ الْوَارِثِينَ ٥٨
(28:58) And how many a town have We destroyed which exulted in its means of subsistence, so these are their abodes; they have not been dwelt in after them except for a few, and We are the inheritors.
The verbal noun al-baṭr means “arrogance, insolence, ingratitude, and exultation by reason of or due to material blessings.” Hence the meaning is: “How many a town have We destroyed which were arrogant, oppressive, and tyrannical, behaving with conceit in their lives?”
So these are their abodes; they have not been dwelt in after them except for a few: This means that their empty and ruined dwellings with their roofs falling in are observable to you before your eyes, subsisting in their ruined state not inhabited or populated after the destruction of their owners save for a few of the dwellings from them. Thus it becomes apparent that it is more suitable to interpret the exception phrase illā qalīlā (“except for a few”) as applying to the phrase masākinuhim (“their abodes or dwellings”) and not as applying to the phrase min baʿdihim (“after them”) where the latter application would have the meaning of the houses not being dwelt in after them save for a short period of time such as when a traveller passes by for a day or two.
And We are the inheritors means that the original owners who were destroyed owned their dwellings and then abandoned them while none other than God succeeded them, and therefore God inherited their dwellings. This sentence contains a pithy message which is that it is God who is the owner of everything—the true and absolute owner. Thus He is the true and real owner of their dwellings; however, He gave them possession of their dwellings, to own and to control, by allowing them authority over them. Thereafter, He took away their dwellings from them by destroying the rebellious owners while their dwellings continued to remain after the destruction of their owners, but bereft of their owners. Consequently, God named Himself their heir in the sense that He is the Enduring, Everlasting Being after them and He is the owner of that which was in their possession while their control and ownership was nominal and artificial. Thus their ownership and control moved over to God. However, in fact, there was actually no moving over of any control and ownership; rather God’s real and true sovereignty and ownership manifested and asserted itself by the eclipsing and vanishing of their nominal, artificial control and ownership.
This verse is the second rebuttal from God to their excuse cited in the verse: And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country () where the message intended to be conveyed is: “The mere excuse is your need for the protection of yourselves from being expelled by the Arabs from your land; however, your refusal does not guarantee continuity for you nor does it guarantee for you the protection of your land and your comfortable and easy lives in it as you wish, for how many a people there were who lived lives of excessive ease, joy, and comfort. They exulted in such a life and were vain and arrogant but We destroyed them, and after them their dwellings remained empty and uninhabited, having no one to inherit and take them over save God.”
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ مُهْلِكَ الْقُرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ يَبْعَثَ فِي أُمِّهَا رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِنَا ۚ وَمَا كُنَّا مُهْلِكِي الْقُرَىٰ إِلَّا وَأَهْلُهَا ظَالِمُونَ ٥٩
(28:59) And your Lord never destroyed towns until He raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our communications, and We never destroyed towns unless their people were unjust.
The possessive construct umm al-qurā (literally “mother of towns or villages”) refers to the source-town of a number of towns and villages of a certain area—the town that is the biggest of them all, their center and their capital, and the one to which the rest of the satellite towns turn. This verse mentions the divine modus operandi with respect to the punishment of the disobedient inhabitants of towns and cities by eradication and extirpation, which is that the punishment by extirpation and by being uprooted does not come forth from God unless two things happen first. First, the inhabitants of the towns and villages are given unarguable proof. This happens by God sending forth to them a messenger who recites divine messages to them and discusses the signs and messages of God with them. Second, those subjected to the punishment first prove themselves tyrannical by rejecting the signs of God and belying the messenger of God.
This verse, which explains and clarifies God’s modus operandi regarding the destruction of the disobedient inhabitants of towns and villages, and the verse’s occurrence in the narrative, coming as it does after the previous verse, is in order to frighten the polytheists of Mecca by pointing out to them that if they persist in their infidelity, they would qualify and be exposed to the punishment of God since God had sent forth a messenger to their central city, which was Mecca, who recited to them and discussed with them the signs and messages of God while they continued to be tyrannical by belying His messenger. In this way, the significance of the play of words in this verse becomes apparent where there is a sudden shift in the rhetorical style of the divine discourse from the previous verses. In the previous verses, God speaks to the Prophet in conversation, talking about Himself in the first person. Then in this verse, God speaks about Himself as if He is absent from the conversation. This is indicated by the part of the verse that says: And your Lord never destroyed towns until He raised… The significance of pointing out in this part of the verse that the Meccan polytheists would qualify for divine punishment if they belied the Prophet—since they would have acquired the qualities and conditions deserving of divine punishment—is that it contains a boost to the morale of the Prophet and an affirmation of his conclusive proof. The rhetorical style of the divine discourse shifting again in the latter part of this verse from speaking to the Prophet in the initial part of it as if He was absent from the conversation to that of speaking in the first person again, indicated in and We never destroyed towns…, serves to indicate a return to the previous context after having had accomplished the intended purpose.
وَمَا أُوتِيتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَمَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتُهَا ۚ وَمَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ خَيْرٌ وَأَبْقَىٰ ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ ٦٠
(28:60) And whatever things you have been given are only an enjoyment of this world’s life and its adornment, and whatever is with Allah is better and more lasting; do you not then understand?
The verbal noun al-ītāʾ means “to give,” “to grant,” “the act of giving (al-iʿṭāʾ),” while the phrase min shayʾin (literally “of things”) that occurs in this verse serves to suggest generality, meaning “everything which you have been given.” The noun al-matāʿ that occurs in this verse means “enjoyment, that by which a person enjoys” while the noun al-zīna means “that which is joined to another thing in order to give it beauty and adornment.” The phrase al-ḥayāt al-dunyā (“the lower or inferior life,” “the worldly life”) refers to the limited life which will be cut short and which is the closer of the two lives to us, its opposite being the al-ḥayāt al-ākhira (“the life hereafter”) which is eternal and everlasting. Hence what is meant by the phrase in this verse that says and whatever is with Allah refers to the blissful life of the hereafter which is with God and in His proximity and which is therefore considered better and more lasting.
Hence the meaning obtained is: “All the worldly boons and blessings which God has given you serve as enjoyment and adornment by which the life of this world is adorned and embellished, a life which is the closer of the two lives to you; however, it is one that is finite and ever-perishing while what is with God of His rewards in the life here-in-after, which rewards come about due to following and obeying God’s guidance, and due to faith in the signs of God, is better and everlasting. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to prefer the latter to the enjoyments and embellishments of this world. Do you not understand?”
This verse is the third rebuttal to their contention cited in And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country () where the intent is: “Let us suppose that you all did follow the guidance. The result would be that the Arabs would expel you from your land; however, that which you would lose and forfeit is the enjoyment of the life of this world and its transient embellishment! So what is the matter with you that you prefer it to what is with God of the rewards? These are rewards which you would obtain due to following the guidance, while the bliss of the life here-in-after is better and ever-lasting.”
أَفَمَنْ وَعَدْنَاهُ وَعْدًا حَسَنًا فَهُوَ لَاقِيهِ كَمَنْ مَتَّعْنَاهُ مَتَاعَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ثُمَّ هُوَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مِنَ الْمُحْضَرِينَ ٦١
(28:61) Is he to whom We have promised a goodly promise which he shall meet with, like him whom We have given the enjoyments of this world’s life, then on the day of resurrection he shall be of those who are brought up?
This verse, along with the next seven verses, serves as a clarification of the content of the previous verse. The message of the previous verse was that following the guidance is better than abandoning it and enjoying the embellishments of the life of this world. However, the clarification in this and the succeeding verses occurs in a different manner. It occurs in the form of a comparison of the state of one who follows the guidance and what such a person will meet of the goodly promise promised to him by God with the state of one who did not follow the guidance and confined himself to enjoying the embellishments of the life of this world. The latter shall face a summons on the Day of Resurrection, while those whom he worshiped shall dissociate themselves from him. They shall not respond to him when he calls out to them, in addition to which he shall witness the punishment and shall be questioned about his response to the call of the messengers. The interrogative in this verse Is he to whom We have promised a goodly promise which he shall meet is a rhetorical question which indicates a negation with a tone of rebuke. This is while the goodly promise is the promise of God of forgiveness and paradise as God says in: Allah has promised to those who believe and do good deeds [that] they shall have forgiveness and a mighty reward ().
The promise of God is never false as He says: Now Allah’s promise is true, but most of them do not know ().
The part of this verse which reads like him whom We have given the enjoyments of this world’s life refers to a person who will be deprived of that goodly promise due to having confined himself to enjoying the embellishments of this world. The evidence in favor of this meaning is the comparison in this verse between the goodly promise and the worldly enjoyment. As for the part of this verse which reads then on the day of resurrection he shall be of those who are brought up. It means he shall be summoned for the punishment or for questioning, censure, and reproach while the conjunctive particle thumma (“then”) which occurs in this part of the verse is in order to effectuate an orderly arrangement in speech and in order to complete this nominal sentence in symmetrical correspondence to the part which reads which he shall meet with. The terminating section of this verse—then on the day of resurrection he shall be of those who are brought up—is in obverse relationship to the phrase which reads which he shall meet with. This is in order to confirm the materialization of what the verse says.
وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنْتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ ٦٢
(28:62) And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you claimed to be My associates?
The term shurakāʾ (“associates”) mentioned in this verse refers to those deities which the Meccan polytheists worshiped in this world. The reason the Meccan polytheists considered these deities God’s associates and partners was because they granted or ascribed to them certain privileges that properly belong to God such as worship and the management of the universe.
قَالَ الَّذِينَ حَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقَوْلُ رَبَّنَا هَٰؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ أَغْوَيْنَا أَغْوَيْنَاهُمْ كَمَا غَوَيْنَا ۖ تَبَرَّأْنَا إِلَيْكَ ۖ مَا كَانُوا إِيَّانَا يَعْبُدُونَ ٦٣
(28:63) Those against whom the sentence has become confirmed will say: Our Lord! These are they whom we caused to err; we caused them to err as we ourselves did err; to Thee we declare ourselves to be clear [of them]; it was not us that they worshiped.
The deities which the polytheists considered associates of God were of two kinds. One kind was that of the honored and revered worshipers and creatures of God such as the angels brought close to God and Jesus the son of Mary. The other kind was that of the tyrannical and insolent beings such as the jinn and the false claimants to divinity from among humans such as the Pharaoh, Nimrūd and others like them. This is while God has included with the latter all those beings that were followed and obeyed in the path of falsehood such as Satan, Satan’s cohorts, and the leaders of misguidance. Thus God said: Did I not charge you, O children of Adam that you should not serve Satan? Surely he is your open enemy. And that you should serve Me; this is the right way. And certainly, he led astray numerous people from among you. What! Could you not then understand? (); Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his Allah…? (); They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah… ().
However, those against whom the sentence has become confirmed refers to the second category of false deities. This understanding is on the basis of the statement in this verse which describes the false deities as admitting that they had caused others to err, coupled with their statement of dissociation from the worship of those who took them as their deities and worshiped them—namely, the polytheists, even if they were themselves from among those against whom the sentence of damnation was confirmed as the following verse indicates: But the word [which had gone forth] from Me was just: I will certainly fill hell with the jinn and men together ().
However, the reference in the verse under discussion is to those who were worshiped and followed—those who were the object of polytheism and responsible for misguidance.
The citation in this verse, of the statement of those who were associated with God in worship despite the verse itself not suggesting that those questioned had pointed out to the former is perhaps due to those questioned having had lost those whom they used to worship and obey at that station as described in: And on the day when He shall call out to them, Where are [those whom you called] My associates? They shall say: We declare to Thee, none of us is a witness. And away from them shall go what they called upon before ().
With respect to the speech of those who led others astray cited in this verse that reads: Our Lord! These are they whom we caused to err…, the plural demonstrative pronoun hāʾulā that occurs in this verse (“these”) is a reference to the polytheists, that is, it is a reference to they whom we caused to err… This speech serves as a preliminary statement to the following one.
The following part of the speech of God says we caused them to err as we ourselves did err. It means: “Their error, which was due to us misguiding them, was akin to our own misguidance. Therefore just as we erred by our own free will without being coerced into it so similarly, they erred by their own free will without being coerced into it.” One piece of evidence in favor of this understanding is what God relates [from Satan]: And I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you obeyed me; therefore, do not blame me but blame yourselves, ). Another example is what God says in the context of narrating the dialogue of the tyrants and their cohorts (on the Day of Resurrection): And some of them shall advance towards others, questioning each other. They shall say: Surely you used to come to us from the right side. They shall say: Nay, you [yourselves] were not believers. And we had no authority over you, but you were an inordinate people. So the sentence of our Lord has come to pass against us: [now] we shall taste. So we led you astray, for we ourselves were erring ().
This means, “What can possibly reach you from us when we ourselves were lost and misguided, save misguidance?”
From here it becomes clear that there is another meaning to their statement we caused them to err as we ourselves did err. The meaning is: These people acquired the same characteristics as we did, just that we dissociate from them since we did not coerce them into error and misguidance. They did not worship us due to force and coercion while their statement to Thee we declare ourselves to be clear [of them] refers to absolute dissociation since it was not in the power of the former to coerce the latter and to take away their free will.
The speech of those who caused others to err as cited in this verse, which reads it was not us that they worshiped means “they never worshiped us by means of coercion” or “we certainly dissociate ourselves or absolve ourselves from their deeds.” Therefore, one who absolves himself from a deed does not have it subsequently imputed to him. This is the meaning which the Qur’an refers to in the context of describing this position, such as in: And that which they forged has passed away from them. () And away from them shall go what they called upon before (); And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others [with Allah]: Keep where you are, you and your associates; then We shall separate them widely one from another and their associates would say: It was not us that you served ();
There are other verses (like these); therefore, pay heed!
It is also suggested that the meaning is “we dissociate ourselves from their deeds; they were not worshiping us, but rather they were worshiping their own whims and fancies” or “they were worshiping the satans”; however, such understandings are not devoid of fatuousness!
وَقِيلَ ادْعُوا شُرَكَاءَكُمْ فَدَعَوْهُمْ فَلَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُمْ وَرَأَوُا الْعَذَابَ ۚ لَوْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَهْتَدُونَ ٦٤
(28:64) And it will be said: Call your associate-gods. So they will call upon them, but they will not answer them, and they shall see the punishment; would that they had followed the right way!
The mention of (the plural) term shurakāʾ in this verse refers to the deities of the polytheists, which the latter claimed to be the associates of God. This is the reason God attributes the deities in this verse to the polytheists, while the meaning of the imperative Call your associate-gods refers to their call to their associate-gods so that the latter may help them and repel from them the punishment of God. This is the reason the speech of God subsequently says and they [the polytheists] shall see the punishment (), which comes immediately after but they [their associate-gods] will not answer them…
As for the part of this verse that reads would that they had followed the right way, it has been suggested that the apodosis of the conditional particle law is elided because the speech indicates and points to it. Therefore the implication is: “If only they had followed the right way, they would have certainly seen the punishment,” meaning they would have certainly believed in the divine punishment as being true. It is also possible that the particle law indicates “wish and desire” (al-tamannī); that is, it aims to convey the expression of a wish or a desire, meaning thereby “would that they had followed the right way.”
وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أَجَبْتُمُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ ٦٥
(28:65) And on the day when He shall call them and say: What was the answer you gave to the messengers?
This verse needs to be understood as conjoined to the verse (), which reads: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates? So firstly, the polytheists were asked about those whom they had associated with God in divinity and were reproachingly asked to seek their help. Secondly, in this verse, they are asked about their answer to the messengers that had been sent to them by and from God. Hence the meaning of this verse is: “What did you say in your reply to the one who was sent to you from among the messengers of God who called out to you in favor of faith and virtuous deeds?”
فَعَمِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَنْبَاءُ يَوْمَئِذٍ فَهُمْ لَا يَتَسَاءَلُونَ ٦٦
(28:66) Then the discourse shall become obscure to them on that day, so they shall not ask each other.
The verbal noun al-ʿamā is a figure of speech meaning “rendering a person such that he does not arrive at or obtain news or information or is not guided aright to news or information.” What was apparently required was that the quality of al-ʿamā (“to become blind or obscure”) be attributed to the polytheists and not to the discourse; however, the contrary has taken place here where it is said Then the discourse shall become obscure to them. This expression is in order to indicate the polytheists being overwhelmed from all sides [on the Day of Resurrection], the blocking of all paths to them, and the cutting off of all means to them just as it is said elsewhere: and (all) their means are cut asunder or voided (). Thus due to the blocking off or the voiding of all paths and means of influence to them on the day of resurrection, the result would be that the discourse would appear obscure and confused to them and they would not find anything which they could use as an excuse in order to avoid or thwart the divine punishment.
The end part of this verse which reads so they shall not ask each other occurs as a concomitant to the obscurity of the discourse by way of mentioning one concomitant of the general phrase mentioned at the beginning of the verse, which is the obscurity of the discourse. Hence the meaning is: “They will not be able to ask or consult each other so that they may come up with an excuse which they could use in defence of their belying the messengers and rejecting their call.” The beginning and the end part of this verse have been given many diverse interpretations which are futile to present here; we considered ignoring them to be better.
فَأَمَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَعَسَىٰ أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُفْلِحِينَ ٦٧
(28:67) But as to him who repents and believes and does good, maybe he will be among the successful.
It means that the sorry description mentioned in the foregoing verses applies to those who disbelieved and did not turn repentantly to God ; however, as for one who did turn repentantly to God, believed in Him, and did virtuous deeds, it is hoped that he will be among the successful ones. The verb of anticipation ʿasā that occurs here is suggested to have the meaning of “the certain actualization and attainment (of that which is hoped for)” according to the custom and habit of the noble people (while God is the noblest of all beings), or it suggests hope and anticipation in favor of something from the repentant person. Hence the meaning is: “Let such a person anticipate and expect salvation or success.”
وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ ۗ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ۚ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ٦٨
(28:68) And your Lord creates and chooses what He pleases; to choose is not theirs. Glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate [with Him].
The word al-khiyara (“to choose”) has the meaning of the verbal noun al-takhayyur (“to choose,” “to select,” “to pick”), just as the word al-ṭiyara (“evil omen,” “foreboding”) has the meaning of the verbal noun al-taṭayyur (“to see an evil omen,” “to augur evil”).
This verse serves as the fourth rebuttal to the speech of the Meccan polytheists cited in: And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country (). What it contains is an incisive argument and proof. The explanation for this is as follows: the act of creation which refers to making, originating, and founding something belongs solely to God, just as He said in: Allah is the Creator of everything (). Thus there is no influencing or effectuating being in existence, in the real sense of the word, other than God. Hence there is nothing that can coerce God to an act. This is because such a supposed thing is either God’s creature or is not God’s creature. If such a supposed thing is God’s creature it means the granting of the grace of existence to it originated from God and is traceable to Him whereby the creature’s very existence and the effects of its existence are traceable to God. In such a case there is no meaning in saying that such a thing can have an effect or an influence on God or that what it does or effectuates can have an effect or influence on God. The alternative scenario is that such a supposed thing is not God’s creature and God has not granted it the grace of existence while it can influence God by force and coercion; however, that is impossible since there is no greater influencing and effectuating being in existence other than God, nor is there anything whose existence cannot be traced back to God. Thus nothing has an effect or influence on Him, nor can anything prevent Him from effectuating something, just as He says: And Allah pronounces a doom—there is no repeller of His decree (); And Allah is the master of His affair, but most people do not know ().
Since there is no powerful being that can coerce God to do something, nor is there a being powerful enough to stop God from doing something, then He is free to do what He wishes in the true and real sense of the word “free”! This is with respect to matters of creation; however, the same holds true for matters related to legislation of rules and regulations. This is because the reality of legislation is that God created human beings on a nature which does not become righteous save by accomplishing or executing matters which are obligatory and accomplishing those matters that are similar to it or fall within its purview, as well as refraining from matters that are prohibited as well as refraining from those matters that are similar to it or fall within its purview. Hence, that which a human being benefits from in his quest for perfection and happiness is what God has commanded and charged him with while that which harms him is what God has forbidden him from and cautioned him against.
Thus the prerogative to choose whatever He wills, at the level of the legislation of rules and regulations, belongs to God just as it belongs to Him to choose whatever He wills at the level of creation, planning, and measurement. This is the meaning of His speech in this verse that reads: And your Lord creates and chooses what He pleases which applies to Him absolutely.
It is clear that the part of this verse which reads And your Lord creates…what He pleases refers to His unrestricted choice in creation, while the significance of His unrestricted and absolute freedom to create is that His power does not fail in creating anything while nothing prevents Him from what He pleases. In other words, nothing restrains or inhibits His will, neither by itself and nor by means of an inhibiting factor which could prevent Him. This is the freedom to choose in the real sense of the word. As for the part of this verse that says And your Lord… chooses what He pleases, this refers to His free choice in the realm of moral legislation where the joining of the word “chooses” (yakhtār) to the word “creates” (yakhluqu) in this verse is a case of joining the effect to its cause since legislation and morals follow from and are subsequent to creation.
It may be possible to interpret the part of this verse that says And your Lord creates… what He pleases as referring to freedom in creation, and to interpret the part of the verse that says And your Lord… chooses what He pleases to have a meaning that is broader in scope to moral legislation; however, the first interpretation is better. The evidence for such a preference in interpretation is that the negation that immediately follows in this verse, to choose is not theirs, refers to legislative moral choices, while the establishment of choice for God in this verse, And your Lord… chooses what He pleases, is in the form of a contrasting juxtaposition. Hence the meaning intended to be conveyed is the affirmation of legislative moral choice for God and its negation for human beings.
Thereafter, there is no doubt that a human being possesses free will with respect to the actions that he carries out by his knowledge and volition even though he is not absolutely free. This is because external causes and factors have a bearing and an effect on his acts. So for example if he takes a morsel of food, that taking of the morsel of food is contingent on the availability of the morsel of food in the external world as well as his appetite for it, its agreeableness to him, its suitability for him, its proximity to him, and the availability and support of the means of taking, holding, chewing, and swallowing the food as well as a myriad of other factors. Therefore, the occurrence of a person’s free act is contingent on the availability of external factors and causes which have a bearing on the materialization of his act, while God is at the very apex of all these different causes and factors, and everything terminates at Him. He is the One who created the human being characterized by the attribute of free will and granted him choice just as He granted him creation, nature, and a character.
Thereafter the human being undoubtedly sees himself free with respect to the moral laws in the sense of intending to carry out an act or leaving it by his volition. Thus it rests with him to do what he wishes or to leave what he wishes without there being anyone from his kind coercing him in favor of something or preventing him from something. This is because all of them are similar to him, neither exceeding him in anything with respect to their state of being human beings nor exercising control over him. This is the meaning of the human being, being essentially free.
Thus the human being is a creature possessing volition and is essentially free unless he, of himself, allows another to possess and take control of his self, thereby consciously divesting himself of his freedom. An example is the human being living in civil society who divests himself of his personal freedom in favor of binding himself to the social legislations, norms, and customs prevalent in that society. This he does by entering into such a society and integrating into it, executing the laws and customs that apply there, desiring thereby to be accepted as a bona-fide member of such a civil society. This is irrespective of whether such laws and norms relate to religion or to society. Another example is that of two fighters who agree to assign to each other their selves if defeated in a fight. Consequently, the victor has the right to do whatever he desires with the one he vanquishes. This is similar to the employee who sells his work and hires himself out to his employer. In such a case he is no longer free with respect to his work since the state of being owned and that of being free do not combine with each other.
Therefore the human being with respect to all members of his species is free in his acts and possesses volition in his deeds unless he divests himself of something of his freedom, by his own free will, and allows another to take control of it. This is while God owns and possesses the human being in his self and with respect to his acts which he carries out—an ownership that is absolute and which is by means of His creative and legislative control and ownership. Consequently, the human being has no choice or freedom with respect to what God wants of him with respect to legal commands or prohibitions just as the human being has no choice or freedom with respect to what God wishes or intends for him with His creative will. Therefore this is the meaning of this part of this verse: to choose is not theirs. This means they have no choice if God chooses something for them with respect to performing a deed or abandoning it such that they may choose for themselves what they wish and want. This is even if what God has chosen is disagreeable to them. Thus this verse is very close in meaning to: And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter (). However, others have offered varying explanations for this verse which lack credibility, and as a result we have ignored them. Those who wish to know of them may refer to the relevant extensive literature.
The part of this verse that reads glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate [with Him] means that God is exalted and far above their association of the idols with Him—idols which they associate with God by their own free will, and which they worship as divine deities to the exclusion of God.
Here, there is another meaning to this speech that is more subtle and nuanced, which is: God is far exalted and far above their polytheism which includes the claim that they have a say and a choice with regards to accepting or rejecting what God has chosen. Choice in this sense is not complete or possible unless it is coupled with a claim to independence from God in existence, and a claim of being able to do without God, nor does it become complete save when another being is associated with God in His divinity and godhead.
The part of this verse that says and your Lord creates contains a shift in the rhetorical style of the divine discourse from the previous verse since here God speaks of Himself as if He is absent from the conversation. The significance of this is affirmation and support for the Prophet and a boost to his morale in the sense of strengthening his will and appeasing him. This is accomplished by appending the noun al-rabb to the -ka. The meaning therefore is: what God has sent forth of the command by the Prophet’s agency has already gone forth and is not subject to rejection. Thus they have no choice in accepting or rejecting it, and this is despite not accepting His Lordship.
The speech of God in this verse that says glory be to Allah is in the form of making explicit that which is implicit. The significance of these words is to attribute the matter to God’s transcendent being, which is the origin of everything. This is in order to emphasize the transcendence and exaltedness of God’s being from all that which does not behoove His sacred being for He is characterized with utmost perfection and is deemed far beyond all defects, and this is because He is God.
وَرَبُّكَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تُكِنُّ صُدُورُهُمْ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ ٦٩
(28:69) And your Lord knows what their breasts conceal and what they manifest.
The verbal noun al-iknān means “to conceal and to hide” just as the verbal noun al-iʾlān means “to make manifest, to reveal, to bring into the open.” The reason the act of hiding and concealing is attributed to the hearts is that hearts are considered repositories of secrets while the act of making manifest is attributed to the selves.
Perhaps the reason this verse comes after the one before it is in order to indicate that when God chose for them what He did choose, He did so due to His knowledge of what was in their outer and in their inner of the filth of polytheism and disobedience, and therefore He purified them from that by His wisdom.
وَهُوَ اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ لَهُ الْحَمْدُ فِي الْأُولَىٰ وَالْآخِرَةِ ۖ وَلَهُ الْحُكْمُ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ ٧٠
(28:70) And He is Allah; there is no Allah but He! All praise is due to Him in this [life] and the hereafter, and His is the judgment, and to Him you shall be brought back.
What comes across from the apparent context of this verse is that the pronoun huwa (“He”) at the beginning of this verse refers to the phrase “your Lord” that occurs in the previous verse and it is clear from this that the letter lām that forms part of God’s name “Allah,” is in order to indicate the meaning of the description, while the part of the verse that reads there is no Allah but He is in order to confirm and emphasize the restriction understood from His speech and He is Allah. This is as if it were said: “And He is the God, characterized and uniquely distinguished by divinity and godhead, and there is no god but He.”
Hence this verse serves as a complement to the meaning of the previous verse as if it were said: “God, has the freedom to choose for them that they should worship Him alone. He knows their outer and their inner and so, therefore, it is for Him to decree for them that they should worship Him alone. He is the God, singularly worthy and deserving of worship, and consequently, it is incumbent on them to worship Him alone.” This is while what is mentioned in the remaining part of this verse, beginning from All praise is due to Him in this [life] and the hereafter, and His is the judgment, and to Him you shall be brought back consists of three aspects which draw attention to God as being as “the One worshiped and singularly deserving of worship.”
As for the part of this verse that says: All praise is due to Him in this [life] and the hereafter, it can be elaborated as follows:
Premise 1. Every perfection that exists in the world and the hereafter is a blessing and a boon from God due to which He deserves the best of praise.
Premise 1. Every beautiful and excellent thing from these blessings and boons granted by God comes forth from the perfection of His being which is from the attributes of His essence due to which He deserves all praise.
Premise 3. Anything, apart from Him, that uniquely possesses a praiseworthy attribute due to which it is praised and extolled, is an attribute that is ultimately traced back to God.
Premise 4. Worship is a form of praise and extolment either by speech or by act.
Conclusion. God is the being singularly worthy of worship.
And His is the judgment means that since God is the absolute master and owner of everything such that no one owns anything without Him making him its master and owner and investing it with ownership, therefore He continues to be the master and owner of all that the others own, and He is the master at the level of legislation as He is the master at the level of creation. Consequently, it is from the corollary of His ownership and control that He decides and decrees for His slaves and for all that He owns that they should not worship save Him.
As for the speech of God that reads and to Him you shall be brought back, it means that (a) since the return is for the purpose of reckoning and reward and (b) since He is the One to whom the return is made and consequently He is the reckoner and the rewarder, and (c) since He is the singular reckoner and rewarder and to Him alone belongs the religion, it is incumbent that He alone be worshiped.
قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ اللَّيْلَ سَرْمَدًا إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ إِلَٰهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِضِيَاءٍ ۖ أَفَلَا تَسْمَعُونَ ٧١
(28:71) Say: Tell me, if Allah were to make the night to continue incessantly on you till the day of resurrection, who is the Allah besides Allah that could bring you light? Do you not then hear?
Some say that the word al-sarmad that occurs in this verse comes from a four-letter root, s-r-m-d, and means “endless,” “eternal.” However, some say that al-sarmad is derived from the noun al-sard and that the letter mīm has been added to it. In the latter case, the meaning of this word refers to something that occurs in a uniform continuous manner, endlessly; something that goes on perpetually. In this verse, it qualifies the word “night,” and the reason this word is applied to the night up until the Day of Resurrection is that there is no night after the Day of Resurrection. As for the part of this verse that reads who is the Allah besides Allah that could bring you light?, it means: “Which god is there who can defy the decision of God and bring you light by which you may seek illumination and endeavor to go about seeking livelihood?” This is the meaning that the context of this verse attests to, and it is similar to the argument that occurs in the following verse which reads: Say: …who is the Allah besides Allah that could bring you the night in which you take rest? Do you not then see? ()
This resolves the problem adduced in these two verses (), which is: if it is supposed that perpetual night till the Day of Resurrection is realized, then the bringing forth of light is completely inconceivable. This is because the one who can bring forth light is either God or a being other than Him; however, the incapability of the latter in bringing forth light is manifestly clear. As for God, then for Him to bring forth light would require combining light and day at the same time, which is impossible while impossibility has no relation with God’s power and will. The same argument would stand true if the day were made to exist perpetually.
Perhaps this may be responded to by saying that the meaning of the part of the verse that says: Say: Tell me, if Allah were to make the night to continue incessantly on you means “if God intended to make the night continue perpetually over you,” but it is as you can see.
The context seems to require that this verse should have said: “If God were to make the night to continue perpetually on you till the Day of Resurrection, who is the god besides Allah that could bring you day?” This is on the basis of the requirement of the context which is that of opposition, where night and day need to be juxtaposed in these verses; however, the comparison with light instead of day is from the perspective of the necessity, with respect to proof, of suggesting the easiest requirement, so that the falsity of the opposing claimant may become manifestly clear with the most complete manifestation. This is as if it were said: “If there were a god other than God who managed the universe, and if God had made the night perpetual while the other god was capable of bringing forth day then come, we have lowered the bar or the challenge. So let the other god bring forth light by which you may seek illumination; however, nothing has the power to do that since the entirety of power rests with God .”
The same argument is however not made in the next verse with respect to night such that it may be argued “who is the god other than Allah who can bring you darkness…?” This is because the thing brought forth is either darkness that is insufficient for rest or it is extensive darkness, in which case it is night.
The term for light in this verse (ḍiyāʾ) occurs in the indefinite form. Thus the indefinite form gives further credence to the perspective mentioned above. The scholars have mentioned many other perspectives which are not devoid of arbitrariness. As for the refrain in this verse that says Do you not then hear?, it refers to a hearing that involves reflection and understanding so that they may ponder and realize that there is no God other than God.
قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ النَّهَارَ سَرْمَدًا إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ إِلَٰهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِلَيْلٍ تَسْكُنُونَ فِيهِ ۖ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ ٧٢
(28:72) Say: Tell me, if Allah were to make the day to continue incessantly on you till the day of resurrection, who is the Allah besides Allah that could bring you the night in which you take rest? Do you not then see?
The latter part of the verse that speaks of rest during the night means relaxing during it in order to recover from the tiredness and exertion that afflicts a person during the daytime as she endeavors to earn a livelihood. The refrain Do you not then see? refers to a sight that involves understanding and recollection, for if they did not see and hear, then it means that they were blind and deaf. It is beautiful that both verses end with the refrain Do you not then hear? () and Do you not then see? (), and perhaps the verse which mentions perpetual daytime is specified with sight because of the appropriateness of coupling the light of day with sight while hearing remains for the verse that mentions perpetual night-time, a relationship which is also not devoid of appropriateness.
وَمِنْ رَحْمَتِهِ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ لِتَسْكُنُوا فِيهِ وَلِتَبْتَغُوا مِنْ فَضْلِهِ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ ٧٣
(28:73) And out of His mercy, He has made for you the night and the day, that you may rest therein, and that you may seek of His grace, and that you may give thanks.
This verse occurs in the form of a conclusion to the proof mentioned in the previous two verses. It is brought about after the nullification of the claim of the opponent in the form of initial information due to the indubitable truth and soundness of the content of the verse. Hence the meaning is: “God has made for you the night for the benefit of or for the sake of your relaxation, or, so that you may relax in it.” As for the speech of God that says and that you may seek of His grace…, it means: “God established the day for you so that you may seek His grace in it which is His gift to you.” Hence the reference of the two phrases that you may rest therein and and that you may seek of His grace () to the night and day respectively is by way of a successive winding and diffusing of the two phrases in relation to the day and night while the sentence and that you may give thanks is with respect to appreciating both the day and night.
As the very beginning of this verse that reads And out of His mercy He has made for you, it means: “God has made all that for you, which is a mercy from Him to you.” This contains an indication that the creation of such things as rest and seeking God’s grace and the creation of laws—which are for mankind’s guidance towards gratitude—all of this is from the effects of the attribute of His mercy. Understand that!
وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنْتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ ٧٤
(28:74) And on the day when He shall call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?
The explanation for this verse has already been made previously while this verse has been repeated here because the next verse needs the meaning and content of this verse.
وَنَزَعْنَا مِنْ كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا فَقُلْنَا هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ فَعَلِمُوا أَنَّ الْحَقَّ لِلَّهِ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ ٧٥
(28:75) And We will draw forth from among every nation a witness and say: Bring your proof; then shall they know that the truth is Allah’s, and that which they forged shall depart from them.
This verse manifests the falsity of the claim of the polytheists regarding their associate-gods. This will take place on the Day of Resurrection, while the term “witness” (al-shahīd) that occurs in this verse refers to the witness of deeds as has been repeatedly pointed out before. The verse, however, does not specify the identity of the “witness” as referring to the prophet sent to a particular community as an instance of such a witness. The verse mentions the word umma (“nation”) because the term umma refers to a group of people although there is no indication or textual evidence in the verse suggesting the group being one to which a prophet is sent even if such a group is an instance of this verse. The imperative in And We will…say: Bring your proof… means: “We shall challenge and demand of the polytheists to bring forth a decisive proof in favor of what they claimed, which was that God has associates.”
Then shall they know that the truth is Allah’s, and that which they forged shall depart from them: This means their false claim will disappear from them, which was the claim that God had associates, and they shall know that the truth with respect to divinity is that it solely belongs to God. Therefore the meaning of the verb ḍalla that occurs here is in reference to “that which they had forged.” This verb means “to go missing,” “to vanish,” “to disappear,” “to depart.” This verb is used here figuratively and means: “that which they had forged shall go missing or shall disappear.” This is how they (that is, the scholars) have explained it in which case the latter part of this speech contains an instance of the reversal of clauses (al-taqdīm wa al-taʾkhīr) such that the penultimate sentence should have followed the ultimate sentence. Hence, the latter part of this verse should read: that which they forged shall depart from them and then shall they know that the truth is Allah’s.
That the truth is Allah’s is akin to what is said in the case of a judgment made in the event of two quarreling factions who bring one another before a judge regarding a right which each claims for itself. This is as if God was contending with the polytheists when they claimed that divinity, in the sense of worship, is a right for their associate-gods while God claimed it to be His right. Consequently, He demands proof of them in favor of their claim at which point their proof will be lost to them and then they would know that the truth lies with God. Thus divinity is a right established and there is no doubt in it. Consequently, if it is not a right for other than God then it is a right for God alone.
This is a meaning that is apparently acceptable, plausible, and good; however, the reality that the speech of God offers here, especially with regards to the Day of Resurrection, is that the day of resurrection will be a day solely devoted to the manifestation of the truth, a manifestation that is witnessed without being veiled. Consequently every falsity due to which a matter was unclear and the truth was ambiguous will be removed. A necessary corollary of this is that the matter of divinity will become apparent and clearly manifest without any ambiguity such that the fabrication of the polytheists will certainly be removed as a consequence of it and not that the proof will be lost to the polytheists, and therefore the unity of God along with His divinity will consequently be concluded by way of intellectual or rational arguments. So take note!
Consequently the contention made in light of the previous perspective, which was that the meaning obtained from the text is that they have no intellectual or rational proof for their claim and therefore there is no requirement for the delay in their knowledge that the truth is solely for God until the Day of Resurrection, is refuted. Secondly, the matter of the reversal of clauses mentioned earlier is refuted and does not have any apparent significance save an appeal to the rhetorical style of sajʿ.
It is possible that the word al-ḥaqq that occurs in then shall they know that the truth (al-ḥaqq) is Allah’s is a verbal noun, in which case the meaning of the sentence is similar to and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth (). Thus the meaning of the truth being for God means that God is the Truth Himself if what is meant is that the truth is analogous with His very essence. Or, it could mean that the truth terminates with Him and is upheld and subsists by Him, if what is meant is that the truth is other than God, as God says in (This is] the truth from your Lord (), whereas He did not say the truth is “with your Lord.”
Examining Narrations
- ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī relates with respect to And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country… ():
This verse was revealed with respect to the Quraysh. This was when the Messenger of God called them to the faith of Islam and to migrate. They responded: “If we follow the guidance with you we shall be expelled from our country,” whereupon God said What! Have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory to which fruits aplenty are drawn? Sustenance from Us, but most of them do not know ().
Author’s comment: A tradition with this self-same meaning has been transmitted in Kashf al-Maḥajja and in Rawḍat al-Wāʾiẓīn while al-Suyūṭī has transmitted it in al-Durr al-Manthūr from Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Mardawayh from Ibn ʿAbbās.
- It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās:
Al-Ḥārith ibn ʿĀmir ibn Nawfil said: “If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country.”
- It is related from ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī with respect to And your Lord creates and chooses what He pleases. To choose is not theirs ():
God chooses the divine leader (imām) while it is not the people’s prerogative to choose (the divine leader).
Author’s comment: This quote is an instance of the application (al-jary) of the verse’s meaning to a valid instance of it. This is on the basis of the necessity of the appointment of an infallible divine leader by God just like His appointment of the prophet. An elaboration of this principle has already been made.
- ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī relates with respect to And We will draw forth from among every nation a witness… ():
It means We shall draw forth a divine leader (Imam) from this nation.
Author’s comment: This quote is an instance of the application (al-jary) of the verse’s meaning to a valid instance of it (which in this case relates to the drawing forth of the Imam).
An adverb of place (ẓarf al-makān) refers to a noun in the accusative case which clarifies the place where the action of the verb took place. (Trans.) ↩︎
A relational metaphor is one where a thing is metaphorically ascribed a quality that actually pertains to another where the ascription is made due to the relationship that exists between the two things. Thus in this verse the habitation (which is Mecca) is metaphorically described with the quality of safety or security which quality actually pertains to its inhabitants, and that is due to the relationship that exists between the two. (Trans.) ↩︎
The phrase rizqan min ladunnā (“a sustenance from Us”) occurs either in the grammatical sense of mafʿūl muṭlaq (the absolute object) or in the grammatical sense of al-ḥāl (denoting the state, condition or circumstance) of the term thamarāt (“fruits”). (Auth.)
Mafʿūl muṭlaq is a grammatical term which refers to a verbal noun [rizqan] in the accusative case, which comes after the verb (yujbā) and is used to add stress or a sense of finality to the meaning of the verb, or to clarify the kind or type of act expressed by the verb or to clarify the number of times the action of the verb occurred. Here, it is the first meaning of stress that is intended if the phrase is considered to be the “absolute object.” (Trans.) ↩︎
The word maʿīsha is in the accusative case due to the suppression or elision of the preposition. (Auth.) ↩︎
The focus of the first interpretation is on the few houses being inhabited while the focus of the second interpretation is on the short duration of time the houses were inhabited. (Trans.) ↩︎
This possessive construct—umm al-qurā—occurs in this verse slightly differently. It occurs in the genitive case due to the effect on it of the preposition fī while the term al-qurā occurs by means of the feminine pronominal suffix -hā, altogether becoming fi ummihā. (Trans.) ↩︎
That is: “No! The two are certainly not alike!” (Trans.) ↩︎
Thus the beginning part of this verse, which begins with the negative interrogative: Is he to whom We have promised a goodly promise which he shall meet with… () corresponds obversely when juxtaposed with the latter part of this verse which reads like him whom We have given the enjoyments of this world’s life, then on the day of resurrection he shall be of those who are brought up? (). (Trans.) ↩︎
The occurrence of the imperfect tense verb yunādi with its pronominal suffix -him indicates the polytheists’ distance from God in the sense of their having had been forsaken by God on the Day of Resurrection. (Auth.) The sense of distance and of having had been forsaken by God comes across from the use of the verb “to call” since one does not need to call out to one who is near but only to one who is far. Nevertheless, the meaning of “distance” here is metaphorical rather than literal since a literal understanding of spatial distance from God would suggest anthropomorphism, which is denied. (Trans.) ↩︎
As for to Thee we declare ourselves to be clear (of them) () and it was not us that they worshiped (), which occur in reference to we caused them to err as we ourselves did err (), these occur with a disconnect or a separation (as if there were full-stops between them) but without a conjunctive or coordinating particle (such as fa or wa joining them together); however, both are related to the part of this verse that reads we caused them to err as we ourselves did err (). (Auth.) ↩︎
See the translator’s note under verse . (Ed.) ↩︎
This actually consists of the combination of the definite particle al- and the noun ilāh thereby becoming al-ilāh, the initial hamza (“i”)—of ilāh subsequently being dropped due to frequent use, making the entire construction Allāh. (Trans.) ↩︎
The phrase in this verse that says li-taskunū fīhi (that you may rest therein, ) has the letter lām in it. This letter lām is known as lām al-taʿlīl [which serves to indicate that the speech following the particle explains the reason, purpose, and justification for the speech that preceded it], while the pronoun -hi which is suffixed to the preposition fī refers to the night. (Auth.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-Manthūr, on the authority of al-Nasāʾi and Ibn al-Mundhir. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎