Verses 66–83
This wraps up the previous themes by reframing them in a different context. It warns of divine punishment and affirms that the Messenger was divinely sent. His book is a [divinely sent form of] remembrance and a recitation (qurʾān), not just poetry or a book of poetry. It attests to the creation of livestock as a sign of divine unity (tawḥīd) and argues for the reality of the resurrection.
Commentary
وَلَوْ نَشَاء لَطَمَسْنَا عَلَى أَعْيُنِهِمْ فَاسْتَبَقُوا الصِّرَاطَ فَأَنَّى يُبْصِرُونَ ٦٦
(36:66) And if We had willed, We could have put out (la-ṭamasnā) their eyes, and then they would have scrambled about, looking for the way, but how would they see?
Majmaʿ al-Bayān says:
[The verb] ṭamasa means to eradicate something such that no trace of it is left. “Putting out their eyes” here is similar in meaning to effacing a book, spending money, or destroying an object, such that it can never be regained. A blind person is called maṭmūs or ṭamīs when their eyelids have been sealed shut.
And if We had willed, We could have put out their eyes means that “if We had wanted to, We could have wiped out their eyes leaving no trace, and they would neither see nor have sight.”
And then they would have scrambled about, looking for the way: Meaning, the path is clear and easy to find; it does not lead its wayfarer astray. However, they would not be able to see it, now or ever; but how will they see? implies that they would never be able to see it. Therefore, they will rush about, to and fro.
Some exegetes hold that istabaqū (here, rendered “they would have scrambled about”) means that they will have set out towards the path of truth but will not have been guided towards it. However, this interpretation is unlikely.
وَلَوْ نَشَاء لَمَسَخْنَاهُمْ عَلَى مَكَانَتِهِمْ فَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا مُضِيًّا وَلا يَرْجِعُونَ٦٧
(36:67) And if We had willed, We could have transfigured them (la-masakhnā-hum) in their places (makānatihim), and they would not have been able to go or come back.
Majmaʿ al-Bayān says:
Maskh means to disfigure something, such as when a group of people were turned into monkeys or pigs. Makānah [in makānatihim] means the same thing as makān (“place”).
“Transfiguring them in their places” means to metamorphosize them right where they are sitting, without even making them get up. It would be done solely by an act of divine will without making any effort or seeking any means, which alludes to the fact that it is easy and undemanding on God.
And they would not have been able to go (muḍiyan) or come back: Meaning, they would not be able to move about in the torment or go back to their previous lives. Here, “going” and “coming” are figures of speech contrasting “being safe” versus “being transfigured and tormented”.
Some exegetes maintain that go (muḍiyan ) means “to go to their destinations” and come back means “to return to their homes and families”, but this is unlikely.
وَمَنْ نُعَمِّرْهُ نُنَكِّسْهُ فِي الْخَلْقِ أَفَلا يَعْقِلُونَ ٦٨
(36:68) And whenever We extend someone’s life (nuʿammirhu), we reverse (nunakkishu) his constitution. Will they not understand?
Nuʿammirhu means to lengthen someone’s life. Nunakkishu means to turn something upside down; here, it refers to turning strength into weakness, and abundance into deficiency. In old age, a human being’s strength reverts to weakness, intellect reverts to ignorance, and memory reverts to forgetfulness.
This verse—and possibly the two previous verses also—bears witness to how God reverts his human creation to an earlier phase of life once the human being reaches old age. He who can do this also has the ability to wipe out their eyes or transfigure them on the spot.
Will they not understand? This rebukes them for their brainlessness and prods them to think about these matters.
وَمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ الشِّعْرَ وَمَا يَنبَغِي لَهُ إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ ذِكْرٌ وَقُرْآنٌ مُّبِينٌ ٦٩
(36:69) And We have not taught him poetry, nor would this be suitable for him; it is but a reminder and a clear recitation.
This alludes back to what was said at the outset of the chapter, and affirms the veracity of the Prophet’s message and that his book was divinely sent from the environs of God.
Nor would this be suitable for him: The Prophet is most obliged, for no one can say he is just a poet or is just versifying. This sentence dispels any possible doubt that the Prophet is somehow deficient or incapable [of versifying] because God has not instructed him in poetry. Rather, God has elevated him above the level of a common bard who weaves beautiful webs of illusion and fantasy whenever the fit strikes him into musical meters that delight the ear. It would not behove the Prophet to be called but a poet when he is a messenger from God, and the sign of his messenger and the content of his call is the Qur’an—miraculous in its expression, a divine reminder, and a clear recitation.
... it is but a reminder and a clear recitation: This elaborates on We have not taught him poetry, nor would this be suitable for him. It means that the Qur’an is not poetry in any way, shape, or form; rather, it is a remembrance and a clear recitation. The word illā (“but”) addresses an audience believing the opposite [that is, that the Qur’an is not divine revelation] and emphasizes that, contrary to their view, it is nothing but a reminder and a clear recitation.
By describing the Qur’an as a reminder (dhikr) and recitation (qurʾān), the verse asserts that the Qur’an is a reminder recited from the divine precincts.
لِيُنذِرَ مَن كَانَ حَيًّا وَيَحِقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ ٧٠
(36:70) To warn those who would have life, and that the word may be proved true against those who deny it.
There are a couple possible meanings of this verse. One possibility is that this provides a reason for and We have not taught him poetry, thereby meaning, “We did not teach him poetry so that he might be absolved of the accusation that he is just a poet, thereby enabling him to warn whoever would truly live through the Qur’an.” Another possibility is that it provides a reason for it is but a reminder, thereby rendering the meaning, “What he recites to the people is naught but a reminder and a clear recitation which We have sent to him to warn whoever might truly live.” Or, both views can be fused.
As you see, the verse indicates that the goal of sending the messenger and the Qur’an is to warn whoever would truly be alive, and to establish the truth in the face of those who reject it. “Being alive” is a figure of speech for applying the intellect to truth and hearing the truth. Reading this verse alongside those at the beginning of this chapter shows that this is the clearest meaning.
أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا خَلَقْنَا لَهُمْ مِمَّا عَمِلَتْ أَيْدِينَا أَنْعَامًا فَهُمْ لَهَا مَالِكُونَ ٧١
(36:71) Do they not see that We created livestock for them—by Our own hands—and given them control over them?
This verse depicts one of the signs of divine oneness which illustrates God’s lordship and management over the human world. It is similar to those which came before regarding signs of divine oneness, such as the springing to life of the dead earth, the flowering of grains and fruits, and the gushing forth of springs.
Livestock are mentioned as something which the divine hand has wrought so that people will profess that God has fashioned things instead of assigning partners to God in His acts of creation. “Hand” is metaphorical and means that the creation of things is exclusive to Him.
And given them control over them (fa-hum lahā mālikūn): Following on from the previous phrase (We created livestock for them), this phrase means: We have created livestock for the sake of human beings, and this means exclusivity which indicates ownership. After all the conventional ownership in the society is an outcome of exclusivity [of use].
Some exegetes find it difficult to see that given them control over them branches off as a natural consequence of We have created for them. Therefore, because they reject this, they have to maintain that there is something elided which is We have created it for them. However, the problem with this view is evident; it is clear that the sentences flow naturally, one from another, as a consequence, and that there is no need to postulate something elided.
Some exegetes also hold that milk (ownership, control) here means “holding power over” and “subjugating”. However, the problem with this view is that it requires the next verse (and We have subjected them to them) to be construed as merely emphasizing this one, whereas it is better if the next verse introduces something new rather than repeating what the previous verse said.
وَذَلَّلْنَاهَا لَهُمْ فَمِنْهَا رَكُوبُهُمْ وَمِنْهَا يَأْكُلُونَ ٧٢
(36:72) And We have subjected them to them, so some of them, they ride; and others, they eat.
Subjecting (dhalalnāhum) here means that livestock were made docile and acquiescent to human beings so that human beings can control them. Ride (rakūb) refers to loading up beasts of burden, such as camels or cows. Others, they eat means eating their meat.
وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا مَنَافِعُ وَمَشَارِبُ أَفَلا يَشْكُرُونَ ٧٣
(36:73) And they find other advantages and milk in them—will they not be grateful?
Advantages here refers to whatever they can make use of, such as the animals’ wool, hair, or hides. Milk (mashārib, lit. “drinks”) is the plural of mashrab (“drink”). Mashrab is a verbal noun beginning with m- (maṣdar mīmī) denoting the object of its associated verb [sh-r-b, meaning “to drink”; therefore, mashrab, meaning, “what is drunk”]. By it is meant “milk”. Grateful here used in a similar manner to how it was used previously in So that they may eat of its fruits. And their hands did not make it. Will they then not give thanks? ().
Altogether, the three verses mean: “Do they not know that We created livestock—such as camels and cows—for their sake and as part of the way in which We manage the matter of their worldly life? Therefore, they exert control over them whereby they can make us of them without opposition. We have subjected them to them so that they may decide how to use their livestock, and their livestock accept this without rebelling. They carry loads on some and eat the meat of others. They glean other benefits from their livestock as well—for instance, their wool, hair, hides and milk. So will they not be grateful to God for how He has perfectly managed things—a divine plan which reveals His lordship? Will they not worship him out of gratitude for his blessings?”
وَاتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً لَعَلَّهُمْ يُنصَرُونَ ٧٤
(36:74) And they have taken gods other than Allah, seeking help from them.
They refers to the polytheists. By gods here is meant idols, lesser demons (shayāṭīn), or Pharaoh-like men who deify themselves, but not the angels near to God or human saints, because they do not meet the criteria mentioned at the end of the next verse: And they will be a host brought before them ().
They have taken them as gods hoping for their aid, for the masses held that their gods were delegated by God to manage the universe, in matters both benevolent and maleficent, and so they worshipped them to placate them so they would not get angry and cease blessing them or strike them down with their wrath.
لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ نَصْرَهُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُمْ جُندٌ مُّحْضَرُونَ ٧٥
(36:75) They shall not be able to assist them, and they will be a host brought before them.
Meaning, those whom the polytheists have taken as gods cannot assist them because they do not control anything, either for good or for ill.
They will be a host brought before them: The most ready interpretation is that the first pronoun they refers to the polytheists, and the second pronoun them refers to the deities other than God. The intent behind it is to say that the polytheists are their gods’ fighting forces, and soldiery necessitates obedience. Thus, the polytheists are the ones who are considered to be obedient to their gods, not the reverse. [That is, one cannot say that their gods are obedient to them.]
Brought before them (muḥḍarūn) refers to bringing them to account on the day of resurrection, as in the following verses:
And they have feigned a blood relationship between Him and the jinn, but the jinn know they will be brought forward [for accounting, muḥḍarūn]. ()
And were it not from the blessing of my Lord, you would have been brought forward [for accounting, muḥḍarūn] ().
The upshot of the verse is that the demigods whom the polytheists have turned to for help are impotent, and the polytheists are obedient followers of their demigods and will be brought forward with them on the day of resurrection.
What if someone were to argue that the verse means that the polytheists are the footsoldiers of their demigods, ready to slay on their behalf in this world? Or what if they were to argue that it means that the demigods are a ready fighting force to punish the polytheists on the day of resurrection? For they will be tossed into the Fire which will burn the polytheists. Or what if they were to argue that they will be brought forward to [witness] their punishment to show that they are unable to assist them, or to show that the polytheists will despair of their gods’ intercession?
These views may all be dispensed with.
فَلا يَحْزُنكَ قَوْلُهُمْ إِنَّا نَعْلَمُ مَا يُسِرُّونَ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ ٧٦
(36:76) So do not let their speech sadden you; We know what they hide and what they disclose.
The fa- at the beginning of the sentence (rendered as so) shows that the negation which begins the verse (do not let their speech sadden you) follows naturally from what was discussed previously about the polytheists taking deities other than God hoping for their aid. It means that “even if this is truly happening, those whom they are seeking aid from will not ever be able to help them; instead, they will be brought forward for punishment. So do not be sad over their idolatrous words. We are not heedless of this or crippled by it, nor does anything escape Our notice. Instead, We know what sentiments they hide inside themselves and what they speak openly.”
With respect to the composition of the verse, there are some unsubstantiated views which we have elected not to mention.
أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الإِنسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ ٧٧
(36:77) Does not man see that We created him from a droplet, and then he becomes an open adversary.
This hearkens back to what was discussed with respect to the resurrection and arguments for its reality in the wake of their denial. It is not farfetched to say that it is an elaboration on their words, alluded to [but left unspecified] in do not let their speech sadden you (). “Seeing” is used here to mean “certain knowledge”; that is, it is saying, does man not know with full certainty that We created him from a droplet? Droplet is in the indefinite to show what a mean, base thing it is. Adversary (khaṣīm) is a verbal noun from the root kh-ṣ-m (“to be an enemy”) and refers to being quarrelsome or adversarial.
It is phrased as a question to show wonder at such a thought, meaning, “How strange it is that the human being knows he was created from this despicable droplet, and yet he unexpectedly becomes a quarrelsome, open enemy towards his Creator.”
وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلا وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ ٧٨
(36:78) He has made a likeness for Us and forgotten [how he was] created. He said, “Who will resurrect these bones when they have rotted (ramīm)?”
Ramīm means “decomposed”. Forgets [how he was] created (nasiya khaqahu) is a clause (ḥāl) describing the subject of makes (ḍaraba). “Who will resurrect these bones when they have rotted?” explains the analogy that people are using; therefore, it is mentioned separately without a connecting conjunction. It is as if the verse is saying, “What kind of analogy (or likeness) are people putting forward? Say, ‘Who will revive these bones after they have rotted?’”
It means, “The human being has concocted these analogies for Us and has forgotten that he was first created from but a droplet. He argues ‘who will resurrect these bones when they have rotted?” If he thought about this, he would not make these analogies, and instead he would refute his own argument by looking at how he was first created—which is the argument this verse puts forward. Therefore, God dictated this answer to the Prophet.
قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا الَّذِي أَنشَأَهَا أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ ٧٩
(36:79) Say: “The one who will give life to them is the one who first brought them into existence (anshaʾaha), and He knows all the creations.”
Here, the response is dictated to the Prophet. The verb anshaʾa means “to first bring into existence” and is qualified by awwala marra (lit. “for the first time”, here rendered first). He knows all the creations points to the fact that God neither forgets nor is unaware of anything related to His creation. He is the one who first created these bones and is not unaware of anything that will have happened to them before or after the person’s death. Therefore, He can revive them, and is unhindered by unawareness or forgetfulness.
الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ الشَّجَرِ الأَخْضَرِ نَارًا فَإِذَا أَنتُم مِّنْهُ تُوقِدُونَ ٨٠
(36:80) He is the one who placed fire in the green tree, from which you kindle it (tūqidūn).
This further explains the one who first brought them into existence. Tūqidūn (from the verbal noun īqād) means “to light a fire”.
This verse aims to dispel the notion that it is impossible to bring life back to something lifeless. Life and death are two opposites. The response is that this is not possible because God has made green trees, which drip dewdrops, a source of fire which people light. Exegetes say that tree (shajar) refers to two specific types of dry, bushy, desert shade-trees called shajara al-markh and shajara al-ʿafār. Their wood is collected while still green. Then, the branch from the markh tree is struck atop the branch of the ʿafār tree, and fire is kindled, by the permission of God. Restoring life to the dead is no more wondrous than kindling fire from a green tree, for both examples involve opposites.
أَوَلَيْسَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ بِقَادِرٍ عَلَى أَنْ يَخْلُقَ مِثْلَهُم بَلَى وَهُوَ الْخَلاَّقُ الْعَلِيمُ ٨١
(36:81) Is not the one who created the heavens and the earth able to create something similar? Of course—He is the creator, the knower.
This is a rhetorical question. The verse puts forward the ramifications of the previous argument about taking fire from green trees and does so by presenting an argument that is easier for the human mind to grasp. That is, instead of mentioning their first creation, it puts forward the creation of the heavens and the earth, which is something much more magnificent than the creation of humankind. As this verse says:
The creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of the human. ()
The verse means, “How can someone say that God created the celestial and earthly realms—with all the many things in them and their wondrous, organized workings, creations beyond number whose intricate, amazing schemes that boggle the mind!—and then say that the same creator cannot revive the human being, while the human existence is but a tiny fragment of this enormous universe? Nay, He is the creator, the omniscient.”
Something similar (bi-mithlihim) means “creating their like”. According to lexicographers, mithil has a subtly different meaning than the related word mathal.
The view has been put forward that bi-mithlihim actually just means “themselves”. It is similar to how someone might politely say “someone like you does not need that” to mean “you do not need that”. This might be the case, were bi-mithlihim to be taken figuratively; however, nothing in the verse suggests that. Furthermore, it would then be necessary to read the previous verse as “is not the one who created the heavens and earth able create them?”. This does not work because the discussion here is about resurrection, not creation, and the polytheists already believed that God had created the universe.
Some exegetes say that the pronoun them in bi-mithlihim (lit. “similar to them”) refers to the heavens and the earth, for the phrase “the heavens and the earth” encompasses everything in it, including sentient beings. For that reason, a pronoun used for sentient beings (“them”) is used. The intent would be to show that since God was create the heavens and the earth once, He could create them again.
However, the problem here is that the verse is about resurrecting human beings, not resurrecting the entirety of the heavens and the earth. Additionally, creating is not the same thing as resurrecting, and the verse speaks of “creating the like of them”.
The truth is: “Creating the likeness of them (bi-mithlihim)” means returning them to life for recompense after death, as can be gleaned from what al-Ṭabrisī—may God have mercy upon his soul—says in Majmaʿ al-Bayān. He explains that the human being is composed of soul and body; in this world, the body is subject to continual change and decay. It and its parts do not stop changing. Once part of a compound being ends its lifespan, the entire compound being comes to rest. The personality of a human is preserved in his soul which is an independent, immaterial entity, unaffected by the vagaries of material existence, such as death or decay.
Therefore, it can be deduced from the verse that the soul does not die when the body dies. Instead, it is preserved, so that it can go back to God, as was mentioned with respect to this verse:
And they say, “What? After we have disappeared into the earth, will we then be reborn?” Nay, they deny their meeting with their Lord. Say, “The Angel of Death, who has been tasked with you, will take your souls, and then to your Lord you will return.” ()
In the afterlife, a person’s body will come across as a likeness of his former body, not as the same, exact body he had in this world. However, the human coming in that body in the afterlife is identical with the human in the previous body. This is because the identity of a person is determined by the soul which is the same [in both planes].
In saying “who will revive these bones when they have rotted?”, the polytheists are casting doubt on the idea of creating new bodies, not new souls. Therefore, God replies by affirming the possibility of creating the like of their former bodies. However, this does not mean that they will not return to the exact same bodies. Their souls will be preserved in the divine realm and then reaffixed to their recreated bodies, such that they will be the exact same people they were when alive. As God says:
Do they not see that Allah, who created the heavens and earth and did not fail in their creation, is able to give life to the dead? ()
Thus, the dead will be revived exactly as they were in this life, for verse says able to revive the dead, not “able to bring to life something similar to the dead”.
إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ ٨٢
(36:82) Whenever He wills something, he says to it “Be!” and it is.
This verse is one of the gems of the Qur’an. It tells of the creational word and clarifies that God does not need anything else when bringing anything He wills into being. No one and nothing but His exalted essence is necessary to bring something into being or to prevent something from existing.
The wording in this verse differs slightly from the word in similar verses:
Our word is such that when We will something, we but say to it “be!”. ()
When He has decreed something, He but says to it “be” and it is. ()
Whenever (innamā amruhu idhā) He wills something…: Amr means “matter”. Verse speaks of God’s word, rather than his “matter”; this could be taken to suggest that “matter” means “word”. Although this supports the view that the amr means qawl which is the creational word “be!”, however, after reflecting on the verses, it becomes clear that the intent behind this verse is to show how easy it is for God to create something, not to explain what word He uses to create with. Therefore, the correct interpretation is to take “word” to mean “matter” not to take “matter” to mean “word” and interpret it as command.
Whenever He wills something (idhā arāda shayʾan) means “whenever He wills to bring something into being’; this is what the context of the verses indicates. In some places, the verb decree (qaḍā, as opposed to arāda) is used to express the divine will:
If He decrees a matter, he but says to it “be” and it is. (, , and )
There is no harm in taking the word qaḍā to mean “divine decree”, because both qaḍā and ḥukm mean “decree” and hence may speak of the divine will to bring a thing into being. However, it should be noted that the creational will occurs when the object has no way except to come into being by God. So, the meaning of when We will it means when we place it under Our will.
He says to it “be”: This is the predicate of the sentence beginning with innamā amruhu (lit. “his will is such that if He wills something, He says to it ‘be’ and it is”). It means, He utters to it the word “be”. Clearly, this is not a physical utterance; otherwise, that would require another creational word [to create the apparatus necessary to speak the first word], and this would lead to endless regression. Also, the being which is about to created does not have hears or a hearing apparatus whereby it might hear the creational word “be!”; otherwise, if it had ears, it would already exist and would not be in need of the creational word “be!”. This verse is metaphorical, not literal, and means that the creation of things springs immediately from God’s essence, with no need for anyone or anything to intervene and no delay.
Some exegetes hold that the word “be!” is actually a spoken word; in fact, a great many of the early commentators inclined towards that view. However, from the above, it should be clear that this view is untenable. Furthermore, the argument has been made that since the inner workings of God are beyond the human mind, debates like this should be abandoned.
True, God is beyond the human intellect. However, if we are to discard all solid intellectual argumentation simply because the intellect cannot encompass God, then we may as well discard all religious knowledge. For instance, asserting the unblemished nature of the divine book is done via intellectual proof. Without the backing of intellectual proof, neither the Qur’an nor the Sunnah nor anything else could be used to prove anything. Therefore, that argument is facetious.
Doubtlessly, during the act of creation, there is nothing but God and the object being created; there is no third party. It is only after the object is created that divine will (as something identifiably different from the divine or the divine essence) can be treated as the cause. While the divine will is one of the attributes of act, it is above being an actual action. Otherwise, things would not be in need of God for their existence, and this is clearly incorrect.
Furthermore, there is nothing other than God called “existence” or “bringing into existence” by which the thing becomes “existent”. Bringing something into being is a matter between the thing and God without any intermediary.
Therefore, from this, it follows that the creational world “be!” is in fact the existence of a created thing. However, from that perspective which is linked to God and dependent on Him. Still, insofar as it is a discrete thing, it can be called a “being (mawjūd)” as opposed to “something currently being brought into being (ījād)”, and a “created thing (makhlūq)” instead of a “thing being created (khalq).”
From this, it can also be deduced that what is bestowed by Him is not described by pause or lapse and would not undergo change and variation. Nor does bringing something into being require stages. And if these things appear in the creation, they rest upon things that were brought into being not from how they are connected to their Lord. This is a door [of knowledge] that opens one thousand other doors.
These truths are hinted at in these verses:
Like Adam, He created him from dust then said to him “be!” and he was. ()
And our command is but a single command, like the blink of an eye. ()
And the command of Allah is a decree decreed. ()
Other verses could also be cited.
And it is: This shows how things immediately obey the divine command by cladding themselves with being.
فَسُبْحَانَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ ٨٣
(36:83) So glory be to the one in whose hands is dominion (malakūt) over all things, and to whom you shall return.
Malakūt here is an exaggerated or intensified form of the word mulk (ownership, dominion), similar to the words raḥmūt and rahbūt, which are intensified forms of the word “mercy” and “terror”, respectively.
Considering this verse with the previous verse gives the sense that the divine dominion (malakūt) is associated with that aspect of things which are facing God whereas divine kingdom (mulk) is associated with that aspect which is facing the creation, or both aspects together, as adduced from the following verses:
Thus We showed Abraham the dominion (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth, so that he could be among those who were certain ().
Do they not look to the dominion (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth? ()
Say: In whose hand is the dominion (malakūt) over all things? ()
He made the dominion (malakūt) with his hands to show that He has authority over it, and no one else has any share in it.
The slant of this verse—so glory be to the one in whose hands is dominion over all things—is that the polytheists doubted the possibility of the resurrection because they were heedless of the divine kingdom and divine authority over all things. However, God is above such objections.
And to whom you shall return: This is addressed to all people, believers or otherwise. Now that God has been absolved of such aspersions, it concludes the discussion.
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, it is related regarding And We have not taught him poetry, nor would this be suitable for him; it is but a reminder and a clear recitation ():
The Quraysh used to say, “Muḥammad is just speaking poetry.” So God refuted them with And We have not taught him poetry, nor would this be suitable for him; it is but a reminder and a clear recitation (). The Prophet never spoke in poetic verse.
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is related from al-Ḥasan:
There was a commonly known line of poetry that said “grey hair and Islam suffice as deterrents for a man”. The Messenger of God used to repeat it as a proverb [but swap the two nouns], saying: “Islam and grey hair suffice as deterrents for a man”.
One day, Abū Bakr said, “O Messenger of God! It is, ‘Grey hair and Islam suffice as deterrents for a man.’ I bear witness that you are the messenger of God and that God did not teach you poetry, and it would not be suitable for you.”
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is related that ʿĀʾishah said:
The Messenger of God used to cite an aphorism which my brother Banī Qays had put into verse: “The days will show you what you used to be unaware of. And news will come to you from whence it had not before.” However, he began to recite it the other way, as “And there will come to you from whence it had not, the news.”
When he did that, Abū Bakr would tell him, “It is not like this, O Messenger of God.”
The Prophet would reply, “I am not a poet, and it would not be suitable for me.”
Author’s comments: These two narrations and similar ones are related in al-Durr al-Manthūr from al-Ḥasan and ʿĀʾishah. al-Durr al-Manthūr also contains other narrations with aphorisms that the Prophet cited.
In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it is related that the Prophet said in a sort of semi-rhyming way, “I am a prophet, no lie. I am the son of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib.” Some people have maintained that this was not actually a poem; others have said that the words are harmonious but that the Prophet was not actually trying to compose poetry.
After investigating this account, many people have discarded this narration. It is easier to discard it than to argue that this wasn’t really poetry or that the Prophet wasn’t intentionally versifying.
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, it says regarding To warn those who would have life, and that the word may be proved true against those who deny it ():
Those who would have life may mean “those who would have a working intellect (ʿāqil)”. This is narrated from ʿAlī.
- In Ṭafsīr al-Qummī, regarding And they have taken gods other than Allah, seeking help from them. They shall not be able to assist them, and they will be a host brought before them (), Abū al-Jārūd relates from Imām al-Bāqir:
Their gods cannot help them, and they are as a readied army for their gods.
- In Tafṣīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is related from al-Ḥalabī that Imām al-Ṣādiq said:
Ubayy ibn Khalaf came and took an old bone from a wall and crumbled it, then said, “When we are bones and corpses, we will be raised again as a creation?”
So God revealed: He said, “Who will resurrect these bones when they have rotted?” Say: “The one who will give life to them is the one who first brought them into existence, and He knows all the creations.” ()
Author’s comments: Something similar is related in al-Durr al-Manthūr via numerous chains of narration from Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, Qatādah, al-Saddī, and ʿIkrimah. It is also narrated from Ibn ʿAbbas that the person speaking was al-ʿĀṣ ibn Wāʾil; another version says that the speaker was ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy.
- In al-Iḥtijāj, the following discussion with Imām al-Ṣādiq is related:
Someone asked, “Will the soul disappear after it leaves its container [that is, the body], or continue to live on?”
Imām al-Ṣādiq replied, “It will continue to live until the first trumpet is blown. At that time, all things will cease to exist. There will be nothing to sense and nothing to be sensed. Then things will be brought back just as their creator first created them. This will be done over a period of 400 years, between the two blows of the trumpet, during which time all of creation will be hibernating.”
The questioner asked, “How will things be resurrected, when bodies have decomposed and limbs scattered apart—one in one land, eaten by beasts of prey; another in another land, chewed apart by insects; and a third which has crumbled to dust and is scooped up with clay to build a wall?”
Imām al-Ṣādiq said, “The One who first fashioned them from nothing and formed them without any prior pattern is able to bring them back just as He brought the first into being.”
The questioner said, “Explain more.”
Imām al-Ṣādiq said, “Each soul will remain in its place. The good souls will be in light and an expansive space, and the evil souls will be in a constricted space and in darkness. Bodies will become dust, just as they were once created from dust, and whatever the animals eat or the insects chew—all of it will be preserved in the dust before One whose attention does not slip from a single grain in the darkness of the earth, the One who knows the number and weight of all things. The dust of animate beings will be in a house of gold in the dust. And when it is time for the resurrection, a resurrecting rain will rain down upon the earth. The earth will become muddy and will churn about until men are sifted from the dust. It will be as gold is separated from dirt when the dirt is washed with water, or when butter is churned from milk. The particles of dust will reunite with the various forms, by the power of God. Then the souls will be returned to their forms, which will look exactly like the originals. When the souls climb back in, nothing will seem different to them.
- In Nahj al-Balagha, it says [that Imam ʿAlī said]:
When He has willed a thing, He says to it “be” and it is, but not with a voice that is heard. Rather, His word is an act which originates from Him. Nothing like it [what was created] will have existed before; if it had, it would have been a second god.
- In Nahj al-Balagha, it says [that Imam ʿAlī said]:
He speaks, but not with a voice; and He wills, but not with a mind.
- In al-Kāfī, it is related via a chain of narration from Ṣafwān ibn Yaḥyā that Ṣafwān ibn Yaḥyā said:
I said to Abū al-Ḥasan [Imām al-Riḍā], “Tell me about the will (irāda)—does it come from God or is it a created being?”
He said: “When human beings will something, they do so in their minds; then, their will is expressed via their acts. However, God’s will is His creational act, for He does not talk, mull over things, or ruminate. For He is above doing such things; these are things that created beings do. God’s will is nothing but His act. That is what is meant by the verse “be” and it is. He does not speak with words or a tongue, nor does he consider or ponder. And there is no quality for that as there is no quality for Him.
Author’s comments: There are many narrations from the Imams identifying the divine will as an attribute of act (ṣifāt al-fiʿl).
Grammatically referred to as qaṣr al-qalb. [Trans.] ↩︎
Shajara al-markh: Leptadenia pyrotechnica, a brushy, short desert tree found from Senegal to India. Shajara al-ʿafār: A many-branched shade tree found in Ethiopia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, which can grow quite large. The name can be used for several species of tree including Tarchonanthus camphoratus. [Trans.] ↩︎
Lit. “indeed His matter is that if.” [Trans.] ↩︎