Verses 13–32
These verses convey a parable giving both warnings and glad tidings. God sets it forth to all people. It mentions the divinely sent message and those things which accompany the call to truth, such as forgiveness and a great reward for whoever believes, follows the reminder [the Qur’an], and fears the Merciful unseen. Similarly, it warns of severe divine torment for those who reject and deny it, for the divine sentence shall be enacted upon them. It speaks of the oneness of God and the return of all people to God.
There is no contradiction between saying that they will not believe regardless of whether or not you warn them, and warning them, because in delivering the warning, proof is established, and it leads to the ultimate end of happiness or wretchedness. God says:
That he who would perish might perish by clear proof, and he who would live might live by clear proof. ()
And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust. ()
Commentary
وَاضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلاً أَصْحَابَ الْقَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَاءَهَا الْمُرْسَلُونَ ١٣
(36:13) Set forth for them a parable of the people of the town, when messengers came to it.
A parable (mathal) is a story or utterance aimed at conveying or illustrating a specific point to the listeners. This particular story, which the Prophet was instructed to tell, elucidates the concepts of divine reward and punishment.
Mathalan comes across as a second object of the verb set forth (iḍrib). The first object is the people of the town (aṣḥāb al-qaryah). It means, “Set forth for them a parable of the people of the town. They are in the same situation as the people in this parable.” The second object comes before the first object [whereas it would typically come after it] in order to avoid disrupting the meaning [due to the presence of intervening text].
إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ ١٤
(36:14) We sent them two, but they denied both of them, so we strengthened them with a third, and said, “We have been sent to you.”
Strengthened (ʿazzaznā) comes from the same root as ʿazīz (“mighty”, “strong”). And so we strengthened them with a third clarifies when messengers came to it.
It means: “Tell them a parable of the people of this town, when back in their day, We sent them two of our messengers. They denied the two messengers, and so We strengthened them with a third messenger. The messengers said, ‘We have been sent to you by God.’”
قَالُوا مَا أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا وَمَا أَنزَلَ الرَّحْمَن مِن شَيْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ تَكْذِبُونَ ١٥
(36:15) They said, “You are but mortals like us. The Merciful did not send anything. You do nothing but lie.”
They used to believe that human beings could not be prophets or receive divine revelation. They put themselves forward as evidence for that, in that they personally were not prophets and did not receive divine revelation. They then applied that conclusion to the prophets, assuming that what was true for one was true for all [that is, that all human beings were the same].
Based on this, the Merciful did not send anything means: “God did not send any revelation, and were he to send it to a person, then we would find it in ourselves, just as you claim to have received it.” They use the expression “the Merciful” (al-Raḥmān) for God because, like other polytheists, they knew God and described Him by His noble attributes, such as the Creator, the Merciful, the Owner, and so forth. However, they held that He had delegated control over creation to creations near to him such as the honorable angels. Thus, they acted as lords, administering creation, and were worshipped as gods. They saw God as the über-God: the Lord of Lords, or the God of Gods.
Possibly, the Merciful (al-Raḥmān) is used in the story, even if it wasn’t common parlance, to draw attention to the fact that God showed them forbearance and mercy before they disavowed and rejected the clear truth.
You do nothing but lie: This concludes the verse. Essentially, they are saying, “You are but men like us. We do not see any revelation coming down like you are claiming to receive, and you are human beings like us. Therefore, the Merciful did not send anything. Your claim is a lie, and if you have nothing but this claim, then you are nothing but liars.”
It says you do nothing but lie rather than you are nothing but liars to accuse them of lying at the moment [about receiving divine revelation] rather than to accuse them of being inherently or perpetually liars. That is, it is an exception to the norm rather than the norm.
قَالُوا رَبُّنَا يَعْلَمُ إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ لَمُرْسَلُونَ ١٦ وَمَا عَلَيْنَا إِلاَّ الْبَلاغُ الْمُبِينُ١٧
(36:16–17) They said, “Our Lord knows that we have been sent to you as messengers, and our only responsibility is to give the clear message.”
God did not tell of how the messengers answered their claim that “you are but men like us”.
Other parts of the Qur’an explain how the ancient messengers responded to similar objections from their people. For instance, when they were told you are but mortals like us, they replied:
Their messengers said to them: “We are nothing but mortals like yourselves, but Allah bestows [His] favors on whom He pleases of His servants, and it is not for us that we should bring you an authority except by Allah’s permission; and on Allah should the believers rely.” ()
Since these responses have already been presented [and one can deduce that these messengers would have replied with something similar], instead, here, the narrative tells of how they reminded their people that they had been sent to them and ordered to convey the message. That was their only responsibility. It was of no personal import to them whether or not they were believed; it was enough for them that their Lord knew that they had been sent as messengers. They needed nothing more than that.
They said, “Our Lord knows that we have been sent to you as messengers (innā ilaykum la-mursalūn): This is where they remind the people that they are messengers. The particles innā and la- in innā ilaykum la-mursalūn emphasize their words. Our Lord knows intervenes as an oath, meaning, “We really are messengers who have been sent to you. Our claim is true. It is enough for us that our Lord who sent us knows that. We do not personally need for you to believe in us. We would not gain any advantage or payment or reward from that. It is not our concern whether or not our message has an effect on you; our only concern is to deliver the message clearly and thereby offer a conclusive argument.”
And our only responsibility is to give the clear message (balāgh): Balāgh means tablīgh (“spreading the message”). By it is intended “the delivery of the message”. It means that their only job was to deliver the message and thereby provide conclusive proof.
قَالُوا إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهُوا لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِّنَّا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ١٨
(36:18) They said, “We augur an evil omen (taṭṭayarnā) from you. If you do not desist, we will stone you and afflict you with a painful torment.”
Here, the townspeople are speaking to the messengers. Taṭṭayyur means “to see as inauspicious” or “to take an evil omen”.
They are threatening the messengers. In other words, “The people of the town told the messengers, ‘We deem you an ill omen and swear that if you do not cease and desist from spreading your message, we will stone you or burn you, and severe torment will befall you from us.’”
قَالُوا طَائِرُكُمْ مَعَكُمْ أَئِن ذُكِّرْتُم بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ ١٩
(36:19) They said, “You augur evil omens about yourselves. What if you were reminded? You are a prodigal people!”
Here, the messengers are replying to the townspeople.
You augur evil omens about yourselves (ṭāʾirukum maʿakum): Ṭāʾir comes from the same root as ṭayr (bird). This is because people used to take omens from birds, and eventually the use of the word expanded from “inauspicious omens taken from birds” to mean “inauspicious omens in general”. It can be used for what happens to people as well as just plain bad luck—which is something people imagine at first when they are having a rough time.
In either case, the surface meaning of you augur evil omens about yourselves is that these people should really consider themselves to be the ones with an evil portent looming over them, since they are the ones who are rejecting the truth—that is, the oneness of God—and instead turning towards falsehood (namely, polytheism).
Some exegetes say that you augur evil omens about yourselves means that their lot of fate—good or bad—arises from their own deeds. If they do good, then they have good luck. If they do evil, then they have bad luck. This interpretation uses the latter meaning of ṭāʾir (namely, “luck”). However, the next part of the verse—What if you were reminded? You are a prodigal people!—fits better with the first meaning.
What if you were reminded? This question is meant as a rebuke. Reminded means “being reminded of the truth”; that is, being reminded of the oneness of God, the return of all things to Him, and so on. The predicate of the conditional sentence is left unstated to suggest that uttering it might be inappropriate. It can be gleaned that it means something along the lines of: “If you were reminded of the truth, you would accept it with the same obstinacy that you apply to your ardent atheism and your flagrant atrociousness in proffering these omens and threats”.
You are a prodigal people: Meaning, you cross the limits in your disobedience of God. This is an example of what came before. It means, “The main reason you are so stubborn in your rejection of the truth is that you are a people who are habitually immoderate and transgressive.”
وَجَاءَ مِنْ أَقْصَى الْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَى قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اتَّبِعُوا الْمُرْسَلِينَ ٢٠
(36:20) A man came running from the outskirts of the city (aqṣā al-madīna), saying, “O my people! Follow the messengers.”
Aqṣā al-madīna means “the outer edge of the city”. Although qarya was used before, now, the word madīna (city) is used instead to indicate its size and the man’s efforts in rushing over.
A similar use is found in the story of Moses and the Copt:
And a man came running from the outskirts of the city ().
In , the word man (rajul) comes first, whereas, in Sūrah Yā Sīn, it comes after the prepositional phrase. Perhaps this is because, in the story of Moses, the important point is that the man came and told Moses that the people were conspiring to kill him; this was why he was there. Therefore, man comes first, and running comes second. However, here, in Sūrah Yā Sīn, the order is reversed. That is, what is more important is that the man came from the edge of the city, for this shows that he and the messengers could not have been colluding on their message. Thus, from the outskirts of the city comes first, and then man and running come later.
Exegetes have contended vigorously over the name of the man, the name of his father, and his profession or job. However, this does not concern us here because it is irrelevant to the intent of the verse. If such details were necessary to understand the verse, they would not have been omitted.
What is important is pondering upon his share of faith in the stance he stood up for, in supporting and aiding the messengers. His speech reflects the light of God in his heart, preceded by the light of faith—to believe in God and sincerely worship him, not just out of a desire for Heaven or out of fear of Hell, but rather because He is worthy of being worshipped. For that reason, he was one of those who was honored. Elsewhere, God has only used honored to describe the angels which are near Him and His true servants. He stood up against his people and debunked their rationale that stopped them from worshipping God and made them think they should worship demigods instead. Instead, he proved that they should worship God alone, and that the messengers were speaking the truth; then, he believed in them.
اتَّبِعُوا مَن لاَّ يَسْأَلُكُمْ أَجْرًا وَهُم مُّهْتَدُونَ ٢١
(36:21) Follow those who do not ask you for anything, and they are guided.
This expounds upon follow the messengers. Those who do not ask you for anything, and they are guided is grammatically parallel to messengers in the previous verse (that is, it says whom they should follow). It explains why they should not listen to their townsman, either because: (a) their townsman was genuinely misguided, and it is not permissible to follow someone who is misguided, or (b) even if someone is telling the truth and it is necessary to follow the truth, one had ought not to heed someone with a corrupt agenda—for instance, someone seeking wealth or position. However, if someone is both speaking the truth and is absolved of any sort of corrupt agenda, plot, scheme, or treachery, then it is necessary to follow what that person says. And these messengers were guided by God in telling people to worship God alone. They did not seek any wealth or position in return. Therefore, it was necessary for the people to follow their words.
The fact that they put forward proof for their claim regarding divine unity shows that they were guided. This proof is given in these two verses, beginning with: Why should I not serve the One who created me? ()
Their words—Our Lord knows that we were sent to you as messengers ()—show that they did not seek anything in return; this has already been discussed. However, this point reinforces what we said earlier—that Our Lord knows that we were sent to you as messengers () indicates that they did not want anything in return from their people.
وَمَا لِي لاَ أَعْبُدُ الَّذِي فَطَرَنِي وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ ٢٢ أَأَتَّخِذُ مِن دُونِهِ آلِهَةً إِن يُرِدْنِ الرَّحْمَن بِضُرٍّ لاَّ تُغْنِ عَنِّي شَفَاعَتُهُمْ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يُنقِذُونِ ٢٣
(36:22–23) Why should I not serve the One who created me, and to whom you shall return? Shall I take gods other than Him? If the Merciful wished to harm me, none could prevent it through their intercession or save me.
These two verses deliver the proof of the oneness of God and the denial of other deities. The verses are phrased as a person speaking to himself except for the interjection in the last line (and to whom you [pl.] shall return). This is because it is calling upon their shared human condition. Like all human beings, the speaker was fashioned by God and given the same human nature (fiṭra) that all people share. Hence it says: Why should I not serve the one who created me? Shall I take gods other than Him? Rather than being specific to him personally, this has the universal meaning of, “And why should the human being not worship the one who created him? Should a human being take a god other than him?”
God is referred to as the One who created me to indicate causality; that is, because God has fashioned the human being out of nothingness, God has true ownership over the human being in all aspects—his person, characteristics, and deeds. The human being will return to Him. Therefore, the human being must necessarily and absolutely worship God. It is upon the human being to set himself to worshipping God and demonstrate it to God. This is worship in act—to worship God because He is worthy of it.
This is what we were alluding to earlier in saying that the man used to worship God sincerely, not seeking Heaven and not out of fear of Hell, but rather because He was worthy of worship.
Although faith and worship are for God alone, most people do not reach that level. Most of them worship out of fear or covetousness or for both reasons. After speaking from his own frame of reference, the man then addresses the people: And to Him you shall return. He does this to warn them about the day on which they will go back to Him, and that God shall take them to account for what they did and recompense them fairly for their deeds. And to Him you shall return is an interjection intervening in the main speech, or like an interjection.
Then the two verses offer proof that their arguments for polytheism were baseless, as was what they built atop those arguments such as their adoration of their idols and lords.
To explain further, they had maintained, “God, the Exalted, is above being perceived with the senses, imagination or intellect. None of your perceptive faculties can reach him. Therefore, it is impossible to worship Him. Therefore, we worship the nearest of His entourage and His mighty creatures like the honorable angels, the jinn, or the human saints so that they may intercede with us for God to bring about goodness and dispel misfortunes and adversities.”
The crux of their first response is that even if God is too exalted for His essence to be comprehended intellectually, He can be known through His attributes, which are specific to Him, such as being the one who gave everything being and fashioned it out of nothing. Therefore, they should approach Him through these attributes; denying this possibility is just being stubborn. This is what is alluded to in And why should I not worship the one who created me?
Second, even if these demigods could intercede for them, they would only be able to do that because God had gifted them with that ability. However, God would only grant them that capacity if it were part of His overarching will. They would also only be able to intercede in matters that God permits; as He says:
None can intercede without His permission ().
But if God wills something firmly, their intercession will be moot, and they would hold no sway in changing His decree. Their demigods are impotent; they can neither attract goodness nor repel misfortune. That is what is conveyed in: Shall I take gods other than Him? If the Merciful wished to harm me, none could prevent it through their intercession or save me.
God is referred to as the Merciful (al-Raḥmān) to elucidate the vast and myriad nature of His mercy, and that all blessings come from Him. The administration of both good and ill rests with Him. From this arises another proof of the oneness of God in His Lordship: if all blessings and the cosmic order they subsist in are manifestations of His mercy and are administered by Him—to the point that even if He orders the angels to deliver some manifestations of His mercy, the angels are still under His dominion. Therefore, lordship and divinity are truly His alone.
إِنِّي إِذًا لَّفِي ضَلالٍ مُّبِينٍ ٢٤
(36:24) “I would be in clear error.”
This evidences their error in taking other gods.
إِنِّي آمَنتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ فَاسْمَعُونِ ٢٥
(36:25) “I believe in your Lord, so hear me.”
Here, the man is speaking to the messengers. Hear me is a way of saying “bear witness”, as is I believe in your Lord.
This reaffirms his profession of the truth and emphasizes the matter of faith. He says I have believed in your Lord after putting forward his arguments to the messengers so that they could bear witness to his faith and so that he could back them in their faith vis-à-vis the people who were listening.
Some exegetes say that he is speaking to the people in support of the messengers. In this case, it could mean, “I believe in God, so listen to me, for it does not matter to me what will befall me from you due to that” or “I believe in God, so listen to me, and believe in Him”. He could also have been trying to make the people angry at him in order to distract them from the messengers since he saw that they were about swoop down on them.
However, the problem here is that he is speaking of God as your Lord, whereas the people took their demigods as lords. [Therefore, it wouldn’t make sense for him to tell the townspeople, “I believe in God, your lord” when they do not see God as their lord.] Some refute this objection by saying that what he really means is, “I believe in your Lord who established proof of His lordship for you, and He is God, exalted be He.” However, nothing in the text indicates that “your Lord” should be limited to that meaning.
قِيلَ ادْخُلِ الْجَنَّةَ قَالَ يَا لَيْتَ قَوْمِي يَعْلَمُونَ ٢٦ بِمَا غَفَرَ لِي رَبِّي وَجَعَلَنِي مِنَ الْمُكْرَمِينَ ٢٧
(36:26–27) It was said to him: “Enter the garden.” He said: “If only my people knew what my Lord has pardoned me for, and [how] my Lord has made me one of the honored (mukramīn).”
This is being said to the man. It hints that the people killed him, and so a voice from the heavens spoke to him and told him to enter the garden. This is supported by the succeeding text: After him, we did not send down hosts from heaven, nor shall We ever send. It was but a single cry, and they were still. (). The clause It was said to him: “Enter the garden” indicates that he had been killed. It also shows that there was no lapse in time between him being killed and his being told to enter the garden. It is as if to say that his being killed at their hands was what led him to the garden.
The garden (jannah) here is the garden in the intermediary world (barzakh), not the Heaven of the hereafter. Some exegetes do say that this garden refers to the eternal Paradise, in which case it would mean, “Enter the garden on the day of resurrection”, and that it was expressed in the past tense to show this will definitely happen. However, this is unfounded; there is no evidence for this. Some exegetes also say that God raised him to the heavens, and this is why it was said to him, “Enter the garden”. Therefore, he is alive, abiding a blessed existence in it until the final hour; this is similarly unfounded.
Some exegetes say that, actually, the townspeople mocked him with enter the garden when killing him; that is, they were the ones to say this. However, this is out of place with what comes next, namely, He said, “If only my people knew what my Lord has pardoned me for….” For, here, he is saying that he wished that his people knew what he had found after he was told “enter the garden”. If he were told “enter the garden” while he was being killed, his wish would be out of place, and there is nothing in the context that would justify that statement.
If only my people knew what my Lord has pardoned me for, and [how] my Lord has made me one of the honored: Like the previous sentence, this answers an implied question. It is as if the following dialogue were to take place: “What happened after he stood up for the messengers?” “It was said to him, ‘Enter the garden.’” “What next?” “He said, ‘If only my people knew….’” Here, he is advising his people in death, just as he advised them in life.
The pronoun mā in what (mā) my Lord has pardoned me for introduces a gerund phrase (mā maṣdariyyah). Has made me (jaʿalanī) is parallel to the verb pardoned (ghafara) and linked to it with a conjunction. It means, “If only they knew how He has forgiven me; if only they knew how He has honored me.”
God may grant honor to many, as in the following verses:
As for the human being, when his Lord tries him by granting him honor and blessings, he says, “My Lord has honored me.” ()
The most honorable of you before Allah are the ones who are most conscious of Allah. ()
For when a servant of God is honored before God [as in verse ], this is a form of honor from Him. However, only two groups of Gods creations can be said to be absolutely or unquestionably honored and be called mukramīn (“the honored ones”). The first group consists of the honored angels, as in:
Nay, they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech, and they do as they are told. ()
The second consists of those believers whose faith is complete, whether they are among the sincere (mukhliṣīn), as in:
They are in gardens, honored. ()
Or whether they are among the purified who have been made sincere (mukhlaṣīn), as in:
Except for His purified servants… they are honored. ()
This verse is also used as one of the proofs of the barzakh (the intermediary realm after death, before the final resurrection and entrance into Heaven or Hell).
وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَى قَوْمِهِ مِن بَعْدِهِ مِنْ جُندٍ مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَمَا كُنَّا مُنزِلِينَ ٢٨
(36:28) After him, we did not send down upon his people hosts from heaven (wa mā anzalnā ʿalā qawmihi min baʿdihi min jundin min al-samāʾi), nor shall We ever send.
The pronoun him/his refers to the man. After him means “after he was killed”. The first use of the pronoun min (often translated “from”) is to indicate starting points (ibtidāʾ al-ghāyah, that is, from when and from where). The second use of second use of min is to emphasise “no” (that is, to emphasise “We will not be sending them!”).
The verse paves the way for the next verse. It shows that divine vengeance was ordained for them and that God did not need any time to prepare angelic forces to assail them from the heavens. God neither did that then nor when He destroyed the ancient peoples. Instead, it was but a single cry that eradicated them.
إِن كَانَتْ إِلاَّ صَيْحَةً وَاحِدَةً فَإِذَا هُمْ خَامِدُونَ ٢٩
(36:29) It was (kānat) but a single cry (ṣayha wāḥida), and they were still (khāmidūn).
Meaning, “What caused their destruction was Our will, nothing but a single cry.”
The verb (kānat) is in the feminine form because the predicate (single cry/ṣayha wāḥida) is feminine. Cry (ṣayha) is indefinite and described as single to make it seem like a lone, insignificant thing. Khāmidūn means “to be at rest”. This verse is distinct from the previous (as opposed to being conjoined by a conjunction) because it acts a is a reply to an implied question, as if someone were to ask “what destroyed them?” and the response were “a single cry”.
It means, “The cause of their destruction was a simple matter—a single cry. Their sudden immobility took them by surprise. They fell still, neither hearing nor sensing; in the end, they were dead, unmoving.”
يَا حَسْرَةً عَلَى الْعِبَادِ مَا يَأْتِيهِم مِّن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِؤُون ٣٠
(36:30) Alas for [My] servants (yā ḥasratan ʿalā al-ʿibād)! Whenever a messenger comes to them, they mock him.
Meaning, “Such regret for My servants!” The vocative form yā ḥasratan ʿalā (lit. “O, regret for them!”) is more eloquent than just saying “it was regretful for them”. The reason for this regret is explained next: Whenever a messenger comes to them, they mock him.
It can be gleaned from the verse that the intent behind servants (al-ʿibād) is human beings in general. It is all the more regretful—hence, the emphasis on “regret”—because human beings are servants [of God], and it is worse for a servant to reject his master’s call and rebel against him than to just simply reject someone’s sincere advice.
For that reason, it is clear that the following exegetical views are, simply put, silly:
Servants (al-ʿibād) refers to the messengers, angels, or both.
Servants (al-ʿibād) refers to humanity, and the one doing the regretting is the man.
It is clear that Alas for [My] servants! are God’s words, not the man’s last words.
أَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا قَبْلَهُم مِّنْ الْقُرُونِ أَنَّهُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ لاَ يَرْجِعُونَ ٣١
(36:31) Do they not see how many generations before them We destroyed, such that they do not return to them?
This upbraids those whom, in the previous verse, woe is betiding. How many (kam) is elaborated on by generations (min al-qurūn). Qurūn is the plural of qarn, meaning “the people of a single era”.
That they do not return to them further explains Do they not see how many generations before them We destroyed (annahum ilayhim lā yarjiʿūn)? The first plural pronoun marker (-hum) refers to generations (al-qurūn), and the second (-him) and the third (-ūn) refer to servants (ʿibād). It means, “Do they not take heed of just how many past peoples were obliterated by divine punishment and could not go back to their luxurious ways?”
Exegetes have put forward other views regarding what the pronouns refer to, and what the verse means, but they have been omitted here because they are rather farfetched.
وَإِن كُلٌّ لَّمَّا جَمِيعٌ لَّدَيْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ ٣٢
(36:32) All of them shall surely be brought before Us (wa in kullun lammā jamīʿun ladayna muḥḍarūn).
The grammatical particle in [which introduces the verse but is not reflected in translation] is for negation. Kullun is the subject. It ends with the grammatical marker -un [that is, kullun] because no nouns are appended to it. Lammā has the same meaning as illā (“except”). Jamīʿ means majmūʿ (“gathered”, “altogether”). Ladaynā (“before Us”) is a prepositional phrase describing what will happen to those who are gathered. Muḥḍarūn is a second predicate, after jamīʿ, although some exegetes have put forward the possibility that it is an adjective describing jamīʿ.
It means, “They will all, without exception, be gathered before Us for reckoning and recompense on the day of resurrection.” The verse is similar in meaning to:
That is the day on which people will be gathered. That is the day which is witnessed. ()
Examining Narrations
- Majmaʿ al-Bayān says:
It is said that Jesus sent two of his disciples to Antioch. When they neared the city, they saw an old man herding his sheep. This was Ḥabīb, the man [who is mentioned in Sūrah] Yā Sīn. They greeted him, and he asked them, “Who are you?”
They said, “We are messengers from Jesus, to call you away from worshipping idols towards worshipping the Merciful.”
He asked, “Do you have any signs?”
They said, “Yes, we can heal the sick and cure the blind and the lepers, by the permission of God.”
The old man said, “I have a son who has been ill and bedridden for years.”
They said, “Take us to the house so we can examine him.”
So he took them to the house, and they laid their hands over his son, and he stood, at that moment, by the permission of God, cured.
News of this spread throughout the city, and God healed many of their sick through their hands.
They [the people of Antioch] had a king who used to worship idols. When he heard about what had happened, he summoned them and asked, “Who are you?”
They said, “Messengers of Jesus. We have come to call you away from worshipping that which neither sees nor hears to worshipping that which sees and hears.”
The king said, “We have a god other than the gods that we already have?”
They said, “Yes—the one who created you and your gods.”
He said, “Depart, so that I may give thought to this.” But the people seized them in the market and beat them.
Majmaʿ al-Bayān then relates from Wahab ibn Munabbih:
Jesus sent these two men to Antioch. They arrived but did not reach the king. Their wait grew long, until finally, one day, the king came out. They said, “God is great!” and remembered God. This angered the king, and he ordered that they be imprisoned and lashed a hundred lashes each.
After the two men were deemed as liars and beaten, Jesus sent Simon (Shimʿūn al-Ṣafā), the head of the disciples, after them to aid them. Simon arrived, disguised, and began to mingle with the king’s retinue until they recognized him and told the king, who summoned him. The king enjoyed Simon’s company, took him as a confidante, and honored him.
One day, Simon said to the king, “Your majesty! I have heard that you have imprisoned two men and beaten them for proselytizing a religion which is different from yours. Have you heard what they had to say?”
The king said, “Anger kept me from that.”
He said, “If Your Majesty sees fit, call them to us, so that we can see what they have to offer.”
So the king summoned them, and Simon asked them, “Who sent you two here?”
They said, “God, who is the creator of all things, and who has no partner.”
Simon asked, “What gifts do you have?”
They said, “Whatever you wish.”
So the king ordered that a blind boy be brought in. He was not just blind, but was completely eyeless and had nothing but a blank forehead. They kept praying to God until the place where his eyes should have been clove open, and then they took two little balls of clay and placed them in like irises. They became eyeballs that he could see with.
The king was amazed. Then Simon said to him, “Could you ask your god to craft a statue like this, so that it could bring honor to you and your people?”
The king said, “I have no secrets from you. The gods which we worship can bring no aid and no harm.”
Then the king said to the two men, “If your god can raise the dead, I will believe in him and you.”
They said, “Our God can do anything.”
So the king said, “Here is the body of someone who died seven days ago but was not buried yet so that his father could return first. He went missing, and the body was found. It has now turned and gives off a putrid scent.”
So they began praying aloud to their Lord, and Simon began to call upon his Lord silently. The dead person stood and said to them, “I died seven days ago and entered seven valleys of fire, and I warn you about what you are doing. Believe in God.”
The king marvelled at this, and when Simon realized that these words had had an effect on the king, he called him to God, and he believed and some of his subjects believed, whereas others did not.
Majmaʿ then says:
ʿAyyāshī relates a similar narration via al-Thumālī and others from Imām al-Bāqir and Imām al-Ṣādiq, except that some of the narrations say that God sent two men to Antioch and then sent a third. Some say that God revealed to Jesus that he should send them; then, after he sent them, he sent his legatee Simon to save them. Some say that the dead person who was raised was the king’s son, and that he climbed out of his grave, shaking off the dirt from his head. The king said to him, “My son, what is your condition now?” He said, “I was dead, and I saw two men prostrating and beseeching God to bring me back to life.” The king asked, “O my son, would you recognize them if you saw them?” He said, “Yes.” So the king took some people to the desert and brought man after man by, until the king’s son said, “This is one of them.” Then the other passed by and the king’s son recognized him and pointed to him. So the king and the people of his kingdom believed.
However, Ibn Isḥāq says, “The king did not believe and incited his people to kill the messengers. When Ḥabīb heard about that, he was at the farthest city gate, and so he came rushing to them advising them and urging them to obey the messengers.”
Author’s comments: Some of these narrations do not fit with the verses.
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is related that the Messenger of God said:
There were three truthful ones (ṣiddīqūn). One was Ḥabīb al-Najjār, the believer from the family of Yāsīn (muʾmin Āl Yāsīn). He is the one who said, “O my people! Follow the messengers” (). The second was Ḥizqīl, the believer from the people of the Pharaoh. He is the one who said, “Would you kill a man for saying ‘my Lord is Allah’?” () The third is ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and he was the best of them.
Author’s comments: Bukhārī relates this in his Tarīkh from Ibn ʿAbbās. In his words, “There were three truthful ones: Ḥizqīl, the believer from the people of the Pharaoh, Ḥabīb al-Najjār, the believer from the people of Yāsīn, and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.”
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is related from Tafsīr al-Thaʿlabī with a chain of narration leading to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā that the Prophet said:
There are three pioneers of the nations. They never disbelieved in God, even for the blink of an eye. They are ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the man of Yāsīn, and the believer from the people of the Pharaoh. They are the truthful ones, and ʿAlī is the best of them.
Author’s comments: Something to this effect is also related in al-Durr al-Manthūr from al-Ṭabarāni and Ibn Mardawayh, although he has deemed weak the narration from Ibn ʿAbbās. It says: “The forerunners are three: the one who preceded all in believing in Moses was Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn, the one who preceded all in believing in Jesus was the man from the people of Yāsīn, and the one who preceded all in believing in Muḥammad was ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.”
This meaning of the root of this word are discussed copiously in the exegesis of . [Trans.] ↩︎
However, they different in how they understood these names. For instance, the Sabians employed attributes of negation. That is, instead of saying “the Omniscient (al-ʿālim)”, they would say “the one who is not ignorant”; or, instead of saying "the Omnipotent (al-qādir)”, they would say, “the one who is not weak”. [Trans.] ↩︎
Taṭṭayyur shares same word root as “bird” because of the ancient Mediterranean practice of drawing omens from birds. A similar transmutation between words can be found between the English “augur” (meaning, “to engage in divination”) which comes from the Latin augur (originally meaning “to take an omen from birds”). [Trans.] ↩︎
That is, in literal translation, the two verses say:
Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ: And came a man from the outskirts of the city, running. ()
Sūrah Yā Sīn: And came from the outskirts of the city a man, running. ()
However, in translation, the words were rearranged for ease of reading. [Trans.] ↩︎
According to Ayatollah Nasser Makarim Shirazi in Tafsir Nemuneh, the related words mukhliṣ and mukhlaṣ are similar in sound but convey significantly different meanings. Mukhliṣ speaks of a person who is sincere or devoted, whereas mukhlaṣ applies to a person who is at a higher level whereby Shaytan has lost hope of deceiving him. Thus, such a person could be described as "saved", "purified", or "having been made sincere" (a literal translation of mukhlaṣ). [Trans.] ↩︎
This is because the man goes directly to an otherworldly garden prior to the Resurrection; therefore, it indicates that an otherworldly garden exists outside of the actual eternal Paradise which one enters after resurrection, judgment, and questioning. [Trans.] ↩︎
That is, it is not just a question of “how many?” “two or three” but rather “how many?” “generation after generation, era after era”. [Trans.] ↩︎
Also known as Saint Peter. [Trans.] ↩︎
Abū Dāwūd, Abū Nuʿaym, Ibn ʿAsākir, and al-Daylamī relate from this Abū Laylā. ↩︎