Verses 34–52
This section includes the tail end of the threat delivered those who denied the Prophet in the preceding verses. Chastisement has been decreed for them in the hereafter, whereas the reverent shall be in blissful gardens. It unilaterally establishes that the reverent and the rejectors are not equal. Therefore, the rejectors cannot hope to be received generously by God while they are guilty. The blessings they find in this world take them step by step to perdition, giving them time to dig their hole deeper.
In these verses, there is an emphasis on the command to the Prophet to be patient over the decree of his Lord.
Commentary
إِنَّ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ جَنَّاتِ النَّعِيمِ ٣٤
(68:34) Surely those who guard (against evil) shall have with their Lord (ʿinda rabbihim) gardens of bliss (jannāt-i naʿīm).
Herein lie glad tidings, and an explication of the situation of the reverent in the hereafter vis-à-vis the situation of the rejectors.
By saying with their Lord (ʿinda rabbihim) rather than “before God (ʿinda Allāh),” it expresses a bond between God and the reverent, centring on divine mercy and the divine administration of their affairs. They have that since they confined lordship to Him and worshipped Him sincerely.
Gardens of bliss (jannāt-i naʿim—naʿīm meaning niʿmah or “blessing”): Of bliss indicates that the joys found in these gardens are untainted by punishment or pain. God willing, it will be explained in the exegesis of (Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons [naʿīm]) that naʿīm means allegiance (to the Prophet and his family, wilāyah).
أَفَنَجْعَلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ كَالْمُجْرِمِينَ ٣٥
(68:35) What! Shall We then make (that is, treat) those who submit (al-muslimīn) as the guilty?
At first glance, this verse seems to offer a rational argument for the necessity of the resurrection, similar to: Shall We treat those who believe and do good like the mischief-makers in the earth? Or shall We make those who guard (against evil) like the wicked? () (This verse has been explained previously.)
It also seems like it could be a refutation of the claim (advanced by the rich and influential opponents of the Prophet) that even if they were to be resurrected, they would be well-off, because that is how they were when they were alive. God relates there claim in: And I do not think the hour will come to pass, and if I am sent back to my Lord, I shall have with Him sure good ().
A second possibility: Read alongside the succeeding verses, it refutes their claim that they will be equal to the reverent (in the hereafter). It is narrated that when the polytheists heard about the resurrection, they said, “If what Muḥammad and those who have believed alongside him say is true, we will be better off than them, just as it was in this life—or, at least, we will be equal.”
However, even if the verse were situated in the context of refuting their claim (that they would be better off than, or equal to, the believers in the hereafter, since that was their situation in this world), the verse would have said “shall We make the guilty like those who submit?” rather than the reverse.
A resolution: After pondering on the context, it becomes clear that, while the verse does reject the notion that the guilty are equal to those who submit, this is not only because their crimes sway the balance. Rather, it additionally demonstrates the honor that those who submit enjoy before God; this makes it impossible for those who submit to be equal to the guilty. It is as if it is saying: “You, the guilty, claim that you are equal to us, who submit. Your claim is wrong. This is because God would never be satisfied with making those who submit like to the guilty because of the honor that those who submit enjoy before God. And you are the guilty ones!”
Therefore, the verse proves that the two sides are unequal in the sense that those who submit enjoy honor before God (that the guilty lack). However, it does not assert that divine justice will differ between the guilty and those who will submit; it is not that type of inequity.
‘Submission’ (islām) means to submit to the command of God, only following His will, both in performing deeds and in refraining from committing crimes which oppose the divine command. That would be heinous, and is the antonym of “submission.”
A breakdown of the arguments underlying the rhetorical questions in verses 68:35-68:47, prior to the exegesis of these verses:
This verse and the next ones (up until or have they (the knowledge of) the unseen, so that they write (it) down?, ) refute the claim that the guilty will enjoy the same situation as those who submit on the day of resurrection. Through rhetorical questions, these verses explore various facets of that claim to refute it.
The verses establish the following argument: If, on the day of resurrection, the guilty enjoy the same situation as those who submit then, in their reckoning, this would either be from God—a gift or a mercy or from Him—or would not be from God.
If it is from God:
First possibility: If they argue this, they could only argue it rationally, since no existing scripture supports it. However, rational evidence does not support this. As God says: What has happened to you? How do you judge? ()
Second possibility: Possibly, this could have been argued on the basis of some sort of scripture. However, they do not have any scripture. God says: Or have you a book… ().
Third possibility: Or, they are advancing their claim neither on the basis of reason nor on the basis of scripture. Rather, God verbally promised to make both sides equal. However, this cannot be the case. (For instance, they are not prophets who can receive divine revelation.)
These are three possibilities.
If it is not from God: If they are seriously asserting this, there are three possibilities:
Fourth possibility: If they are seriously asserting this, they must have the ability to grant themselves an equal status to those who submit on the day of judgment, even against God’s will. This is clearly not the case. God says: Ask them which of them will vouch for that (). (That is, which of them will seriously say that they rule over what happens on the day of judgment?)
Fifth possibility: Or do they have partners who can do that for them? God says: Or have they associates? Let them bring their associates if they are truthful (). (Obviously, they do not.)
Sixth possibility: If they really could do this, then they could control the unseen and the future; people’s fates would unfold according to their decree. Since everything was vested in their will, they could deem themselves equal to those who submit on the day of judgment. However, this is not the case; they cannot control the unseen realms. This refuted in: Or have they (the knowledge of) the unseen, so that they write (it) down? ()
These are three more possibilities.
Seventh possibility: Or, maybe they are not serious when they say this; maybe they are just trying to brush off the Prophet and get out of following him because they think the Prophet will charge them for his services as a messenger and guide. Then, they would be burdened with a fee. However, this is not the case. God responds to this by saying: Or do you ask from them a reward, so that they are burdened with debt? ()
This now totals seven possibilities.
This is what can be understood from pondering on why these verses have been arranged repetitively (in the sense of “or this? or that? or maybe that?”). Other things have been said about the arrangement of these verses; whoever wants to read further about that can consult the voluminous exegeses.
مَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ ٣٦
(68:36) What has happened to you? How do you judge?
This expresses amazement at their claim that the guilty will be equal to those who submit on the day of resurrection. It indicates that a sound mind would balk at the idea that those two would be equal; therefore, this idea can be rejected on the grounds of rational proof. It means: What kind of delusion or confusion has beset you, in order to lead you to that conclusion?
أَمْ لَكُمْ كِتَابٌ فِيهِ تَدْرُسُونَ ٣٧ إِنَّ لَكُمْ فِيهِ لَمَا تَخَيَّرُونَ ٣٨
(68:37-38) Or have you a book (kitāb) wherein you read (tadrusūn), that you have surely therein what you choose (takhayyarūn)?
This indicates that they cannot support their claim (that the guilty and those who submit will be equal on the day of judgment) through revelation, just as the previous verse indicated that they could not support their claim through rational argumentation.
‘Book’ (kitāb) here refers to a divinely revealed scripture, which would act as proof. Tadrusūn means “reading it.” Takhayyarūn means “having a choice.”
That you have surely therein what you choose?: This acts as an object of the verb ‘read’ (tadrusūn). It is a rhetorical question.
It means: Do you have a scripture from God saying you can have whatever you want in the hereafter—or at any other time? Did you read that in your book, then choose heavenly bliss?
أَمْ لَكُمْ أَيْمَانٌ عَلَيْنَا بَالِغَةٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّ لَكُمْ لَمَا تَحْكُمُونَ ٣٩
(68:39) Or have you received from Us an agreement (aymān) confirmed by an oath extending (bālighah) to the day of resurrection that you shall surely have what you demand?
This denies that they have a verbal covenant with God.
Aymān is the plural of yamīn, which means “oath” (qasam). Bulūgh means “extending until it reaches fruition.” An oath extending, therefore, would be unquestionably fulfilled. Until the day of resurrection is an adverbial phrase, describing something elided, along the lines of: Do you have an incontrovertible oath from Us that will exist until the day of resurrection?
The clause, Until the day of resurrection can also be understood to be describing extending, in which case it would refer to the oath extending timewise until the day of resurrection.
Some exegetes say that aymān refers to pacts and covenants (ʿuhūd and mawāthīq). In this case, it would be a figure of speech whereby one thing necessitates another.
Possibly it could also be a construction in which the singular is used to express an entire category.
The phrase, That you shall surely have what you demand? is the response to the supposed oath. It is a rhetorical question. It means: Rather, do you believe there are covenants with Us, in which We have sworn definitive oaths lasting until the Day of Resurrection, as if We have conceded to you the right to decide whatever you wish?
سَلْهُم أَيُّهُم بِذَلِكَ زَعِيمٌ ٤٠
(68:40) Ask them which of them will vouch (zaʿīm) for that,
Although this continues to challenge their claim, it is addressed to the Prophet since they have devolved to the point where they are no longer worthy of a direct response. Therefore, the remaining four points are conveyed in the third person. The first is, ask them which of them will vouch for that. A zaʿīm is someone who oversees a matter. It is a rhetorical question.
It means: Ask the polytheists which of them will take responsibility for making them and those who submit to God equal on the day of judgment? Since it has already been established that there is no evidence that God will do this, will any of them take care of it? Who exactly will be doing this? Clearly, anyone who uttered such a fallacy would have to be out of their mind.
أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء فَلْيَأْتُوا بِشُرَكَائِهِمْ إِن كَانُوا صَادِقِينَ ٤١
(68:41) Or have they associates? Let them bring their associates if they are truthful.
Possibly, they could be claiming that they have partners to God—demigods—who can intercede with God for them on the day of judgment and make them equal to those who submit. (Exalted be God above having any partners!) This rhetorical question refutes that claim; that is, they do not have any partners.
Let them bring their associates…: This is a rhetorical device asserting that they have no partners. It emphasizes the first part of the verse—or do they have associates?—which also negates that they have any partners.
Further interpretations of ‘associates’:
Some exegetes say that associates means “people who say the same thing.” In this case, it would mean: Do you have any partners who share your belief? Let them bring them, if they are truthful. However, you can tell that this interpretation would not conclusively end the argument.
Some exegetes say that associates means “witnesses.” In this case, it would mean: Do they have any witnesses to what they say? Let them bring them, if they are truthful. However, there is no textual evidence to support this interpretation. Nevertheless, this could be rectified by saying that those witnesses would be the witnesses over a Book before God, or witnesses to an oath between them and God. Both possibilities have already been refuted.
Some exegetes say that associates means “those who share authority with God.” “Bring them” would mean “bring them on the day of resurrection to bear witness or intercede before God.” You can tell that this meaning also would not end the argument.
يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَن سَاقٍ وَيُدْعَوْنَ إِلَى السُّجُودِ فَلا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ ٤٢ خَاشِعَةً أَبْصَارُهُمْ تَرْهَقُهُمْ ذِلَّةٌ وَقَدْ كَانُوا يُدْعَوْنَ إِلَى السُّجُودِ وَهُمْ سَالِمُونَ ٤٣
(68:42-43) On the day when there shall be a severe affliction (yukshafu ʿan sāq), and they shall be called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be able, their looks cast down, abasement shall overtake them; and they were called upon to make obeisance indeed while yet they were safe.
Day is an adverb describing something elided, such as “keep in mind the day.” Yukshafu ʿan sāq (lit. “the shank is laid bare”) is a metaphor for severe difficulties. The image is that of a person rolling up their clothes to bare their legs (to move faster) in the face of fight or flight. Al-Kashshāf says:
Yamwa yukshafu ʿan sāq speaks of a heavy day which only grows worse, not of clothes and legs. It is similar to when you say about a miser who has lost his hand, “His hand is in chains.” There are no hands and no chains. Rather, it is just a metaphor for stinginess.
This and the next five verses are a parenthetical discussion in the middle of the discussion of their partners, whom they swore would bring them felicity if there were any kind of resurrection or accounting, and God reminds them that they have no partners or intercessors. Rather, the human being earns his own happiness in the hereafter through prostration—that is, humility—towards God, acknowledging Him alone as Lord in this world, until he acquires the trait of humility, which thereby brings him happiness on the day of resurrection.
Since these guilty rejectors did not prostrate to God in this world, they will be unable to do so in the hereafter. They will not be happy, and will not be equal to those who submit in any way. Rather, since they were too arrogant to prostrate to God in this world, God let them descend into perdition, step by step, until they sunk into utter wretchedness, passing into the painful torment in the hereafter.
On the day when there shall be a severe affliction (yukshafu ʿan sāq), and they shall be called upon to make obeisance: This means: Recollect that severe day when they will be called to prostrate humbly to God but will be unable, since they have firmly cultivated the trait of arrogance inside themselves—and, on that day, all that is hidden shall be laid bare.
Their looks cast down, abasement shall overtake them: These two phrases (ḥāl) are subjects of the passive verb they shall be called upon (yadʿūn), meaning that they shall be called upon while their eyes are lowered and humiliation descends upon them. Cast down is used to describe eyes since humiliation can be seen in the eyes.
And they were called upon to make obeisance indeed while yet they were safe: ‘While yet they were safe’ means either that they were secure from the travails that overtook them due to their arrogance towards the Truth, which stripped them of the ability to respond to the Truth; or that they were absolutely able to have made obedience while in this world. It means: In this world, they were called to prostrate to God, while they were safe and sound, fully able to do so, but they did not respond to that call.
Some exegetes say ‘obedience’ (sujūd) means “the ritual prayer” (ṣalāt), but this view is unsubstantiated, as you can see.
فَذَرْنِي وَمَن يُكَذِّبُ بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ سَنَسْتَدْرِجُهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ لا يَعْلَمُونَ ٤٤
(68:44) So leave Me and him who rejects this announcement (ḥadīth); We will overtake them by degrees, from whence they perceive not:
‘Announcement’ (ḥadīth) here means the Qur’an. When God says, “Leave Me and him who rejects…,” it is a way of saying that He will take care of them on His own; He will not leave them alone. It is a way of consoling the Prophet and warning the polytheists.
We will overtake them by degrees, from whence they perceive not: This resumes the explanation of how God shall seize and torment them. This can be understood from Leave me…
Istidrāj means to let them descend, step by step, until they wallow in the pit of wretchedness and destruction. God gave them blessing after blessing, but whenever they received something new, they became preoccupied with it and forgot to be grateful. They became more and more heedless, further and further from remembering God.
Therefore, istidrāj is when blessings are continually bestowed on people to destroy them, but they cannot see that, since they rejoice at what they perceive as good, rather than recognizing these gifts as destructive and evil.
وَأُمْلِي لَهُمْ إِنَّ كَيْدِي مَتِينٌ ٤٥
(68:45) And I do bear with (amlī) them, surely My plan (kaydī) is firm (matīn).
Imlāʾ means “to delay” or “to respite” (imhāl), and kayḍ is a type of plot or stratagem. Matīn means “strong.”
It means: Give them time, so they can make space for Our gifts through their wrongdoing, as they please; My scheme is firm.
The shift in person from We will overtake them to first-person singular (I do bear with them) to third-person (Do you ask from them a reward?) conveys grandeur and might. There are those responsible for those pouring down those blessings, drip by drip. Then, the shift in person in I do bear with them, it reflects that “bearing with them” means “extending their lifespans.” And, in the Qur’an, only God determines lifespans, no one else: Then He decreed a term; and there is a term named with Him ().
أَمْ تَسْأَلُهُمْ أَجْرًا فَهُم مِّن مَّغْرَمٍ مُّثْقَلُونَ ٤٦
(68:46) Or (am) do you ask from them a reward, so that they are burdened with debt (maghramin muthqalūn)?
Maghram comes from the word meaning “fee” or “debt,” and ithqāl means “to bear a burden.” This sentence is connected to or have they associates () though the conjunction am (or).
It means: Or are you asking those criminals—who thought that the guilty and those who submit would be equal on the day of resurrection—to pay you for being a prophet? Are telling you this to wriggle out of paying, and not because they really mean it?
أَمْ عِندَهُمُ الْغَيْبُ فَهُمْ يَكْتُبُونَ ٤٧
(68:47) Or have they (the knowledge of) the unseen, so that they write (it) down?
Here, the context indicates that the unseen refers to the divine mechanisms of destiny and the decree, which are enacted on the world’s stage. Writing means “destining” and “decreeing.” Therefore, “having the unseen” means “having control over destiny.”
It means: Do they hold the divine decree and destiny in their hands? Do they decree (“write”) for themselves whatever they want, and so will they decree that they and those who submit shall be equal?
Some exegetes say that unseen here just means that they know something special that other people do not know, and that writing just means “writing it down in the normal fashion.” In this case, it would mean: Is their claim based on some special knowledge which they alone have, which they have written down and passed on, and which it befits them to share? However, this view is farfetched and should not be pursued; the other possibilities which we have mentioned eliminate it.
This particular remonstration is mentioned last—even after do you ask from them a reward—even though it seems as if it should have been mentioned earlier—because it is the weakest argument they could produce.
فَاصْبِرْ لِحُكْمِ رَبِّكَ وَلا تَكُن كَصَاحِبِ الْحُوتِ إِذْ نَادَى وَهُوَ مَكْظُومٌ ٤٨
(68:48) So wait patiently for the judgment of your Lord, and be not like the companion of the fish, when he cried while he was in distress (makẓūm).
The companion of the fish was the prophet Jonah. Makzūm comes from kāẓim al-ghayẓ, meaning “swallowing anger.” It speaks of someone who is choked with sorrow and can find no way to heal his anger. Therefore, God tells the Prophet—who, when invoking God, was full of anguish—not to be like Jonah . That is, God is preventing the cause of this type of suffering, such as tightened circumstances or hastened torment.
It means: Patiently await the meeting with your Lord. Let them take their own steps into perdition. Give them time. Do not hasten punishment for these rejectors. Do not be like Jonah, who was filled with agony or anger when he implored God, praising Him and confessing to his wrongdoing. Rather, wait, and avoid being tried with what he was tried with. What Jonah said in the belly of the whale (or fish) is mentioned here: There is no god but Thou, glory be to Thee; surely I am of those who make themselves to suffer loss (), as is mentioned in Sūrah al-Anbiyāʾ.
Some exegetes say that the preposition li- in li-ḥukmi rabbika means ilā (“towards”). In this case, it would warn his people that God shall judge between him and them. However, the previous view fits the context of the preceding verses better.
لَوْلا أَن تَدَارَكَهُ نِعْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِ لَنُبِذَ بِالْعَرَاء وَهُوَ مَذْمُومٌ ٤٩
(68:49) Were it not that favor (niʿmah) from his Lord had overtaken him (tadārakahu), he would certainly have been cast down (nubidha) upon the naked ground (ʿarāʾ) while he was blamed (madhmūm).
This explains the reason behind the prohibition delivered to the Prophet in the previous verse (be not like the companion of the fish, ). Tadāruk means “reaching.” Favor (niʿmah) has been explained here to mean “accepted repentance.” Nubidha means “to cast forth.” ʿArāʾ is open ground, unsheltered by a roof or vegetation. Madhmūm is the opposite of “praised.”
It means: Had not his Lord blessed him through accepting his repentance, he would have been cast out onto the open ground, blamed for what he had done.
Reasons why verse 68:49 does not contradict 37:143-144.
One should not say that verse contradicts these verses in Sūrah al-Ṣaffāt: But had it not been that he was of those who glorify (Us), He would certainly have tarried in its belly to the day when they are raised ().
These verses lend the sense that his deeds required that he stay in the belly of the whale until the day of resurrection, whereas verse says that he would have been cast out onto barren ground, blamed. Therefore, these may seem like two conflicting possibilities.
However, that is not the case, since these two verses are speaking about different things, each of which has a different outcome. The verses in Sūrah al-Ṣaffāt () says that he would have perpetually remained glorifying God for the rest of his life in the face of his trial; that is reflected in he was of those who glorify. Were it not for that, he would have tarried in the belly of the whale until the day of resurrection. This verse which is currently under discussion is speaking of the blessing of an accepted repentance; since his repentance was accepted while he was in the belly of the whale, blessings surrounded him, and so he was not cast out onto the shore, blamed.
Taking these verses together, they indicate that he left angrily, which would have resulted in him lingering in the belly of the whale until the day of resurrection. However, this was offset due to his perpetual glorification of God, then and afterwards. Therefore, God decreed that he should be ejected out onto the shore. This means that the natural consequence of his actions should have been ejection and blame. However, divine grace intervened, leading to a different outcome. As a result, the whale released him, and he was not subjected to blame. Instead, God chose him and counted him among the righteous. Thus, there is no contradiction between these verses.
Previously, in this work, we established that the true niʿmah (“blessing”) is wilāyah (loyalty to God or the Prophet and his family). With this in mind, one can look at were it not that favor (niʿmah) from his Lord had overtaken him and understand a different meaning from it.
فَاجْتَبَاهُ رَبُّهُ فَجَعَلَهُ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ ٥٠
(68:50) Then his Lord chose him, and He made him of the good.
The meanings of ijtibāʾ (“choosing”) and ṣalāḥ (“goodness,” “righteousness”) have been explained previously.
وَإِن يَكَادُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَيُزْلِقُونَكَ بِأَبْصَارِهِمْ لَمَّا سَمِعُوا الذِّكْرَ وَيَقُولُونَ إِنَّهُ لَمَجْنُونٌ ٥١ وَمَا هُوَ إِلاَّ ذِكْرٌ لِّلْعَالَمِينَ ٥٢
(68:51-52) And those who disbelieve (wa in yakādu) would almost smite you (yuzliqūnaka) with their eyes when they hear the reminder, and they say: Most surely he is mad. And it is naught but a reminder to the nations.
The particle in is the lighter form of inna (often translated as “verily,” “indeed”). Zalq (the general root form of yuzliqūn) means “slipperiness,” whereas izlāq (from which the verb yuzliqūn comes) means “to fell.” It is a figurative way of saying “killing or destroying.”
It means: It is as if those who disbelieve are ready to strike you down with their eyes when they hear the Reminder.
Exegetes overwhelmingly say that “smiting with the eyes” means “striking someone with the evil eye.” The evil eye is a psychic capacity; rational argumentation cannot prove that it does not exist. Possibly, some people have seen some things that lend credence to it. It is described in narrations, and so there is no reason to deny it.
Some exegetes say that it means that they glare at you so hatefully and vehemently when they hear you reciting the Remembrance (the Qur’an), that it is as if they are about to kill you with the sharpness of their eyes.
And they say: Most surely he is mad (or possessed). And it is naught but a reminder to the nations: Their accusation is that the Qur’an was inspired by devils (not God); this is shown by the fact that they accuse the Prophet of being possessed while he is reciting the Qur’an. Therefore, the Qur’an refutes their accusation by saying that the Qur’an is nothing but a reminder to the nations.
And they say: Most surely he is mad: At the beginning of the chapter, God refuted their claim—most surely he (the Prophet) is mad—by saying by the grace of your Lord you are not mad (). Thus, the chapter closes as it opened.
Examining Narrations
- In Maʿānī (al-Akhbār), it is related via a chain of narration from al-Ḥusayn ibn Saʿīd from Abū al-Ḥasan (Imām al-Riḍā) regarding On the day when there shall be a severe affliction, and they shall be called upon to make obeisance ():
A veil of light shall be removed, and the faithful shall fall in obeisance, while the backbones of the hypocrites shall stiffen, and they will be unable to fall prostrate.
- In the same source, via a chain of narration from ʿUbayd ibn Zurārah, it is related from Imām al-Ṣādiq:
I (ʿUbayd ibn Zurārah) asked him (Imām al-Ṣādiq) about (the meaning of yukshafu ʿan sāq) in On the day when there shall be a severe affliction (or His shank shall be bared) (yukshafu ʿan sāq), and they shall be called upon to make obeisance ().
He said, “His loincloth shall be raised from his leg? Glory be to my Lord most High!”
Author’s comment: After relating this narration, al-Ṣadūq says, “Saying ‘Glory be to my Lord most High’ is a way of declaring God to be above having a leg (or any body part).” Al-Ḥalabī relates a similar narration from Imām al-Ṣādiq.
- In Maʿānī (al-Akhbār), it is related via a chain of narration from Muʿallā ibn Khanīs:
I (Muʿalla ibn Khanīs) asked Imām al-Ṣādiq, “What is the meaning of and they were called upon to make obeisance indeed while yet they were safe ()? He said, “While they were able to do so.”
- In Al-Durr al-manthūr, it is related from al-Bukhārī, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Mardawayh from Abū Saʿīd:
I heard the Prophet saying, “Our Lord shall bare His leg, and all the faithful men and women shall fall in obedience towards Him. Those who used to make a pretence of prostrating in this world shall try to fall prostrate, but their backs will not bend.”
- In the same source, it is related from Ibn Mandah, in refutation of the Jahmiyyah school of theology, from Abū Hurayrah:
The Messenger of God said, “On the day when there shall be a severe affliction, and they shall be called upon to make obeisance, but they shall not be able () (means that) God shall bare His leg.”
- In the same source, it is related from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd that the Prophet said:
On the day of resurrection, God shall gather the people and descend in the clouds. A caller shall cry out, “O people! Do you agree to your Lord—who created you, shaped you, and sustained you—bringing you towards whoever you worshipped and approached while alive? Is that not justice from your Lord?”
They will say, “Yes.”
Then, every person shall go towards whatever he used to worship, which will manifest in the form that they used to worship. So, a devil will take the form of Jesus for whoever used to worship Jesus, and a devil will take the form of ʿUzayr for whoever used to worship ʿUzayr. This will continue until devils appear as trees, sticks, and rocks. Only the people of Islam will remain standing, waiting for their Lord—the Mighty and Glorious—to manifest to them.
They will be asked, “What is wrong with you—why have you not moved along like the other people?”
They will say, “We have a Lord whom we not yet seen.”
“So how would you recognize your Lord if you saw him?”
They will say, “There is a sign through which we can know and recognize Him.”
“And what is that?”
“His shank shall be bared (yukshafu ʿan sāq).”
At that, (God’s) shank shall be bared, and they shall each fall down obediently in prostration, except for a group whose backs will be (stiff) like cow horns; they will want to fall prostrate but will be unable.”
Author’s comment: These three narrations, which indicate that God has a form, conflict with both reason and the Qur’an. Therefore, they should be rejected or taken metaphorically.
- In Al-Kāfī, it is related via a chain of narration from Sufyān ibn al-Samṭ that Imām al-Ṣādiq said:
When God wills good for a servant, He lets him sin, then follows it with retribution, and reminds him to seek forgiveness. And when God wants ill for a servant, he lets him sin, then follows it with a blessing so that the person forgets to seek repentance; this continues for a long time. This is what God says in: We will overtake them by degrees… ().
Author’s comment: Some narrations about being gradually led to perdition (istidrāj) were mentioned at the end of the exegesis of (We draw them near (to destruction) by degrees from whence they know not).
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, regarding when he cried while he was in distress (makẓūm) (), it is related from Abū al-Jārūd from Imām al-Bāqir: (Makẓūm means) “sad.”
- In the same source, it is related regarding Were it not that favor from his Lord had overtaken him (): ‘Favor’ (niʿmah) means “mercy.”
- In the same source, it is related regarding he would certainly have been cast down upon the naked ground ():
A place which has no roof.
- In Al-Durr al-manthūr, it is related from al-Bukhārī from Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet said regarding And those who disbelieve would almost smite you with their eyes (): The evil eye is a reality.
- In the same source, it is related from Abū Nuʿaym in al-Ḥilyah, from Jābir, that the Prophet said: The evil eye brings a man to his grave, and a camel to a pot.
Author’s comment: There are narrations which explain the previous verses in the context of wilāyah (allegiance to God or the Prophet and his family). They are applications of the verses but not general exegesis; for that reason, we have not mentioned them.
Translator’s note: That is, the addition of bliss to garden via the iḍāfah grammatical construction. ↩︎
Editor’s note: The gist of the author’s explanation is as follows: The verse rejects the notion of a verbal oath (‘aymān’) with God extending to the Day of Resurrection. It questions the absurdity of claiming such an eternal covenant with God that would grant any demand, using ‘aymān’ to possibly imply broader pacts or covenants. ↩︎
Translator’s note: That is, the preceding verses asserted that they neither have a scripture nor a special covenant with God. ↩︎
Translator’s note: Some Muslims take this verse literally to mean that, on the Day of Judgment, God will unclothe his leg. ʿAllāmah refutes this view in the section on narrations on the grounds that God has no body parts. ↩︎
Translator’s note: Keep in mind that ʿAllāmah was writing in a time when a secular worldview was dominant among some intellectual circles, and certain beliefs were treated as old-fashioned or superstitious. ↩︎
This is related from Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh in his Musnad, ʿAbd ibn Ḥamīd, Ibn Abī Dunyā, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ājurrī in al-Sharīʿah, al-Dāraqūṭnī in al-Ruʾyah, al-Ḥākim (who authenticated it), Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqī in al-Baʿth, from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās, from the Prophet. ↩︎