Tafsir of Yunus 10:37

(And it was not for this Quran to be forged by other than Allah): This is the commencement of an explanation of their condition regarding the Quran, following the explanation of their condition concerning the proofs interspersed throughout it. Alternatively, it is an inauguration to state what must be followed and what serves as evidence for it, after having prohibited following conjecture. Some say it is connected to what Allah the Exalted recounted of their statement: "Bring a Quran other than this." Others say it relates to His saying, Glorified is He: "And they say, 'Why is a sign not sent down to him from his Lord?'" The remoteness of the latter is self-evident.

"Was" (kana) here is deficient (naqisah) according to many of the accomplished grammarians, with "this" (hadha) being its subject, and "the Quran" being an adjective for it or an explanatory appositive (‘atf bayan). "To be forged" (an yuftara) is interpreted as a verbal noun (masdar), meaning: the act of forgery is the predicate of "was." It is in the sense of a passive participle (maf’ul), meaning: "forged," as Ibn Hisham mentioned regarding the rule that an expression may be understood as being in a state of estimation, and that estimation itself may be subject to another estimation. An example is the verse: "By your life, the youth is not that the beards grow."

Some grammarians held that "was" (ma kana) means "it was not valid," and that there is an elided lam (lam al-juhud) in the speech to emphasize the negation. The original form would be: "This Quran is not such that it should be forged," like the Almighty’s saying: "It was not for the believers to go forth all together." In this case, "to be forged" is the predicate of kana, and "by other than Allah" is a second predicate, serving as an explanation of the first. That is: It was neither valid nor upright for this Quran—which is filled with diverse forms of guidance that necessitate being followed, including those clear proofs that speak to the truth of monotheism and the falsehood of polytheism—to originate from other than Allah, the Exalted. Objections were raised against this, but one should not deviate from what was said in that context, and the meaning mentioned is acceptable, as is evident.

Al-Badr al-Damamini allowed for "was" (kana) to be complete (tammah), and "to be forged" to be a permutation of inclusion (badal ishtimal) for "this Quran." This was critiqued as being fundamentally unsound, because the existence of the Quran from the start makes the negation of its existence seem incongruous. Furthermore, a permutation of inclusion requires a connection between the substitute and that for which it is substituted; thus, the speech would have to be built upon a connection between the Great Quran and "forgery," which is an unacceptable implication. Responses to this have been provided that I do not see as establishing any validity at all. Some confined themselves to considering the verbal noun without interpreting it as a passive participle, out of consideration for hyperbole, similar to what is said of "Zayd is justice [itself]." The apparent meaning to me is that the hyperbole then returns to the negation, similar to what is said regarding the Almighty's statement: "And your Lord is not unjust to [His] servants," rather than the negation returning to the hyperbole, as is evident. From this, one knows the weakness in the statement of some researchers: that Al-Zamakhshari’s statement in explaining the meaning of the verse—"It is not valid and it is not upright, and it was impossible that its like in the loftiness of its matter and its inimitability be forged"—perhaps senses that it is based on the elision of the lam, since merely placing kana in the middle does not necessitate that. The expression using the verbal noun has no bearing on emphasizing the meaning of the negation.

Furthermore, we have seen that they only considered the verbal noun here as indefinite, yet it is famous that grammarians agree that "an" and the verb interpreted as a verbal noun function as a definite, which is why it is not used as a predicate for an indefinite subject. This seems to be based on what Ibn Jinni said in al-Khatiriyat: that it can be indefinite. He mentioned that he presented this to Abu Ali, who approved it.

Some have posed a problem regarding this verse: that "an" restricts the imperfect verb (mudari') to the future tense, as grammarians have stipulated, yet the polytheists claimed the Quran was forged in the past tense, as indicated by what will come, if Allah wills. How, then, is it appropriate for it to be "forged" in the future tense? The answer given is that the verb here is used for time in an absolute sense. Ibn al-Hajib and others have stipulated the permissibility of this regarding verbs, and Al-Badr al-Damamini reported it in his explanation of the meaning of al-Lubab. Perhaps this is a matter of metaphor. In that case, it is possible that the point of shifting away from the explicit verbal noun—even though it is what is used in their speech when no specific time is observed, such as "Your standing pleases me"—is that the metaphor is more eloquent than the literal.

It is also said: Perhaps the point is the correctness of the predication without interpretation, because of the difference between the explicit and interpreted verbal noun, as indicated by the commentator of al-Lubab and others. It is not hidden that this contradicts what was previously pointed out: that "an" and the verb are an interpretation of a verbal noun, which in turn is an interpretation of a passive participle. It is also answered regarding the original problem that what was negated in the past was the possibility of forgery being attached to it in the future, and its being a locus for that; therefore, the attachment of forgery to it is negated a fortiori. In this, the path of demonstration is followed. Thus, there is in the speech a primary or secondary metaphor. Abu al-Baqa’ stipulated the permissibility of the predicate being elided, with the estimate being: "And it was not possible for this Quran to be forged."

The scholar Ibn Hajar said: The verse is a response to their statement, "Bring a Quran other than this, or change it," which is a request for forgery in the future. As for the response to their claim that he—upon him be peace—forged it, God forbid, that will come when recounting their claim; so there is no problem. Moreover, the generalization that "an" with the imperfect verb is restricted to the future is a matter of dispute. Why is it not permitted that this be the case only where it is not the predicate of a negated kana? This is suggested by His, the Almighty’s, saying: "It was not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists," for it was revealed regarding asking for forgiveness that had already occurred from them for the polytheists, as stated by the imams of interpretation. He has spoken at length on this in the appendix to his Fatawa, so observe.

(But [it is] a confirmation of what is before it): That is, from the divine books such as the Torah and the Gospel. The definite article is of the generic type. By "confirmation" is meant the declaration of truth, which is correspondence to reality and the manifestation thereof. Its genitive construction is either to its doer or its receiver. The confirmation of the books for it is that what it contains of true doctrines corresponds to what is in them, which is accepted by the People of the Book—and as for others, if they confess it, well and good, otherwise there is no weight to them. Making the genitive construction to the receiver constitutes hyperbole in negating the forgery of it, for that which proves and manifests the truth of others is more entitled to truth. The aspect of it being a confirmation for them is that it indicates their descent from Allah the Exalted and contains the stories of the ancients as mentioned in them, while it is inimitable, unlike them. Therefore, it is fit to be an argument and proof for others, not the reverse.

Some have claimed that what is meant by "what is before it" is the news of the unseen, and that the genitive construction is to the doer, and their confirmation of it is their coming in accordance with what it foretold; but this is nothing. The accusative case of "confirmation" is due to being a conjunction to the predicate of an elided kana. It is also said it is in the accusative as an object for a purpose (maf'ul lahu) for an elided verb, meaning: "It was sent down for the confirmation of that." The cause here is made to be what was mentioned, even though it was sent down for matters, because it is appropriate for the context of refuting the claim of its forgery. Others say it is in the accusative as a verbal noun for an elided verb, meaning: "It confirms a confirmation."

Isa ibn Amr al-Thaqafi read it in the nominative as the predicate of an elided subject, meaning: "But it is a confirmation," etc. Likewise, he read with the nominative in the Almighty’s saying: (And an explanation of the Scripture): That is, what has been written and established of truths and laws. The conjunction—whether in the accusative or nominative—is to "confirmation." His saying, Glorified is He: (No doubt about it) is another predicate for "but" or for the elided subject. It is separated because it is a sentence emphasizing what preceded it. It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for "the Scripture," even though it is genitive, because it is a receiver in meaning. Or, it may be a grammatical inauguration with no place in syntax, or an explanatory one in response to a question about the state of the Scripture. The first is more apparent. The meaning is: It is not appropriate for any rational person to doubt it due to the clarity of its proof and the loftiness of its status.

(From the Lord of the worlds): This is another predicate for kana or the elided subject, as mentioned in what preceded it, or it is connected to "confirmation," or "explanation," or to the verb they are caused by. Or, it is connected to an elided phrase acting as a circumstantial qualifier for "the Scripture." "No doubt about it" is a parenthetical statement so that a separation by extraneous material between the connected and that which it is connected to—or between the circumstantial qualifier and the qualified—does not occur. It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in the genitive in "about it."