Tafsir of Yunus 10:21

(And when We give the people a taste of mercy) such as health and prosperity (after adversity that has touched them) meaning it has mingled with them until they perceived its evil effects upon them. Attributing the "touching" to adversity, while attributing the "tasting" to the Pronoun of Majesty, is among the Quranic etiquettes, as in His saying: "...and when I am ill, it is He who cures me" and similar examples. It is necessary to observe etiquette in this; thus, in the report: "O Allah, all good is in Your hands, and evil is not attributed to You."

The "people" here refers to the disbelievers of Mecca, according to one opinion, for it is narrated that Allah Almighty afflicted them with drought for seven years until they were nearly destroyed. They asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to pray to Allah for them for abundance, and they promised to believe. When he prayed for them and Allah Almighty showed them mercy through rain, they began to disparage His signs, show hostility toward the Prophet (peace be upon him), and plot against him. This is the meaning of His saying: (Behold, they have a plot against Our signs)—that is, by disparaging them, disregarding them, and devising ways to repel them.

The apparent meaning is that the "signs" are the Quranic verses. It is also said that they are the signs of creation, such as the sending down of rain, and their "plot" regarding them was attributing them to idols and stars. Another view is that "the people" is general for all disbelievers; it is not permissible to interpret it as including the sinful, as is evident.

The Arabs used to attribute rains, as well as winds, heat, and cold, to the Anwa’ (plural of Naw’). Naw’ is the verbal noun of na'a (yanu’u), meaning to rise with effort and difficulty; it is also said of falling, thus it is one of the addad (words with opposite meanings). It is also applied to the star which is one of the twenty-eight mansions we mentioned previously, and this is what is intended in their speech—except that the attribution to it is in consideration of its setting with the dawn and its disappearance, as is famous, or in consideration of its rising at that time, as Al-Asma’i said.

The one who claims the influence of the Anwa’ has been counted as a disbeliever. The Two Shaykhs [Al-Bukhari and Muslim], Abu Dawud, and Al-Nasa'i narrated from Zayd ibn Khalid that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Allah Almighty says: 'This morning, some of My servants became believers in Me and disbelievers in the star, and others became disbelievers in Me and believers in the star. As for the one who said, "We were given rain by the grace of Allah and His mercy," that is a believer in Me and a disbeliever in the star. As for the one who said, "We were given rain by such-and-such Naw’," that is a disbeliever in Me and a believer in the star.'"

Perhaps this being considered disbelief in Allah is based on the assumption that stars have an independent, elective, and intrinsic influence on these matters. Otherwise, the belief that the influence is at the stars, not by them—as is famously the doctrine of the Ash'aris regarding all causes—is not disbelief, as Imam Ibn Hajar has stated. Likewise is the belief that the influence is through them, in the sense that Allah Almighty deposited an influential power within them by His permission; so whenever He wishes, they have an effect, and whenever He does not wish, they do not. This is the doctrine of the Salaf regarding causes, as established by Shaykh Ibrahim al-Kurani in Maslak al-Sadad.

If attributing influence absolutely to the Anwa’ and similar celestial bodies were disbelief, the breach would be unrepairable, and it would necessitate declaring many people as disbelievers—including those of great excellence—for their attributing much of the world of generation and corruption to celestial bodies, which they call the "Celestial Fathers." The Greatest Shaykh [Ibn Arabi] has explicitly stated that the planets and others have an influence in this world, yet grasping the determination of its particulars is something known only to those of unveiling and spiritual observation. It is not the intent of the Shaykh, nor of those who speak of influence generally, to affirm anything other than what one of the two parties held regarding causes. Far be it, and far be it, that those men of excellence should be among those who believe there is an influencer in existence other than Allah Almighty. Rather, whoever examines the truth of the speech of the philosophers—who are distant from the brilliant Sharia—will find them in agreement that existence is caused by Him, the Almighty, absolutely.

Bahmanyar said in Al-Tahsil: "If you ask for the truth, it is not correct for the cause of existence to be anything other than that which is free in every respect from the meaning of 'potentiality.' This is the First Principle, and nothing else." What is narrated from Plato—that "the world is a sphere, the earth is the center, man is the target, the heavens are bows, events are arrows, and Allah Almighty is the Archer, so where is the escape?"—also suggests this. Yes, they did posit logical conditions, which are what some refer to as "intermediaries," and this is contrary to the true doctrine.

In summary, he is not a disbeliever who says that stars are influential in the sense that the effect occurs at them or by them by the permission of Allah Almighty. Rather, his ruling is the same as the one who says, "Fire burns" and "Water quenches," for example. There is no difference between the two statements except for what might be said: that influence in things like fire and water is sensed and witnessed, while influence in stars is not, and asserting it is "conjecturing about the unseen." However, even after conceding this, it does not necessitate that one of the two statements is disbelief while the other is not, as is clear to anyone fair-minded. Nevertheless, the safer course is not to use the term "influence" when referring to stars and to avoid uttering things such as that for which Allah Almighty has declared the speaker a disbeliever.

(And) the first is conditional, and the second is a sudden occurrence (mufaji’ah) connecting to the answer. The indefiniteness of (a plot) is for emphasis. (In) is connected to the stability to which it usually relates.

[Say, "Allah is swifter in plotting"]—that is, swifter than you. "Swifter" is a superlative, derived either from the triliteral sara’a (to be fast), as narrated by Al-Farisi, or from the augmented asra'a. However, there is a dispute regarding deriving a superlative from the augmented form; some forbid it absolutely, others allow it absolutely, and some say if the hamzah is for transitivity, it is forbidden. The permissibility of this and the building of the verb of wonder from it, and describing the one who is surpassed in speed with swiftness, indicates that the validity of using "swifter" is not dependent on the wording indicating what was mentioned, contrary to what the outward speech of Al-Zamakhshari implies. The root of makr (plot) is the concealment of deception and harm. Its meaning here is retribution and punishment for the plot, used as a general metaphor or for stylistic parallelism (mushakalah), which does not contradict it, as in the commentary of Al-Miftah. It is widely held that it is not used for Him, the Almighty, except as a mushakalah, but that is not entirely accurate, as has been established in its place.

(Indeed, Our messengers)—the guardians—(from before Us, write down what you plot)—that is, your plotting or what you plot. The manner of writing this is not something one is obligated to know, and there is no need to make this a metaphor for [divine] knowledge. This is a confirmation of the retribution against them and a notification that what they planned to conceal is not hidden from the writers, let alone the Sender of the Book, from Whom no hidden thing is concealed. In this, there is a belittling of them, as is evident.

The apparent meaning is that the sentence is not included in the commanded speech, as in His saying: "...and We had brought a similar [deed] in addition." It is a justification for why He is swifter in His plot. It is possible that it is included, and in (Indeed, Our messengers), there is a shift in address (iltifat), for if it had followed His saying (Allah is swifter), it would have been said "His messengers" [in the third person]. There is no difficulty in this, as there is no basis for commanding the Messenger (peace be upon him) to say to them "Our messengers," for the pronoun refers to Allah, not to him (peace be upon him), by implying an added word—that is, "the messengers of our Lord"—or by possessive relation through minimal connection. Some said in response that it is a narration of what Allah said, meaning the conveying of this meaning, not necessarily this exact phrasing.

Al-Hasan and Mujahid read it as (they plot) in the third-person form, and this is also narrated from Nafi' and Ya'qub. This conforms to what preceded in His saying: (touched them) and (for them). The address [in the second person] is more appropriate, as the others read, if the sentence is included within the scope of the command, for the meaning is "Say to them," and the appropriateness of the address is then clear. It also contains an emphasis in informing them of their plot. Some researchers considered that, on that reading [the third-person], if it is not included in the scope of the command, it is an explanation for the "swifter" or for the aforementioned command. The future tense in both verbs is to indicate continuity and renewal, as it is in His saying...