Yunus: (39) "Nay, they have denied that which they have not encompassed in knowledge..."

"Nay" is a particle of transition and displacement, shifting from demonstrating the invalidity of their claims regarding the Great Quran—through the challenge—to exposing their state, by clarifying that it is Our speech. They have denied it out of ignorance regarding the essence of its affair and a lack of insight into its majestic status. "That" refers to the Quran; this is narrated from al-Hasan, and it is the position of the verifying exegetes. Others have said it refers to what is mentioned within it that contradicts their religion, such as monotheism, resurrection, and recompense. However, that is not the case, regardless of whether the ba is for transitivity—as is the immediate impression—or for causation. The meaning is that they rushed to deny it without pondering what is within it, without stopping at the evidence contained in its folds indicating that it is as described earlier, and without knowing that it is not something of which a surah like it can be produced.

Expressing it with this title—rather than saying, "Nay, they denied it without having encompassed its knowledge"—is to signal the perfection of their ignorance of it, and that they did not know it except under the label of "lack of knowledge." It also signifies that their denial of it is caused solely by their failure to encompass its knowledge, for suspending a judgment upon a relative pronoun (ma) indicates that the content of the relative clause is the cause for it. The original construction was "what they have not encompassed in knowledge," yet it was changed to the structure found in the noble text because it is more eloquent.

"And its interpretation has not yet come to them" is a conjunction to the relative clause or a state (hal) of the relative pronoun. It means they have not yet grasped its literal and rational meanings, which signify its high status and the brilliance of its proof. Thus, "interpretation" (ta'wil) is a type of explanation (tafsir), and "coming" is a metaphor for knowledge and realization. Perhaps it was chosen to signify that those meanings are directed toward the minds and gravitate toward them of their own accord. It has been permitted that "interpretation" here refers to the realization of its signified meaning, which is its end result and what it leads to. This is the literal meaning according to some, so its "coming" is a metaphor for its clarification and unveiling. That is, the interpretation of the information regarding the Unseen contained within it has not yet come to them, until it is shown whether it is true or false.

The meaning is that the Quran is miraculous in its structure, its meaning, and its information regarding the Unseen. They were surprised by its denial before pondering its structure, reflecting on its meaning, or waiting for the occurrence of the future events it foretold. The negation of the arrival of the interpretation with the word lamma—which denotes the expectation of what is being negated—following the negation of encompassing its knowledge with the word lam, serves to confirm the blame and intensify the denunciation. For the scandal of denying something before knowing it—when its knowledge is expected to arrive—is more repulsive than denying it before knowing it absolutely.

Some have argued that the displacement (idrab) is from denying out of stubbornness—which is implied by His saying, "Say: Bring then..."—for the binding argument only comes after the appearance of incapacity. The meaning of the displacement is to blame them for imitation (taqlid) and abandoning consideration when they were capable of it; this is more effectively accusatory than stubbornness in one respect. This is because imitation is an admission by the one who does it of a deficiency in intelligence, and one is not excused for it. No person of intellect would be satisfied to imitate someone like himself without prior intelligence and experience. As for stubbornness, some arrogant souls might even praise it; indeed, their poetry contains what indicates that they pride themselves on it, such as their saying: "Be stubborn against those whom you have the power to be stubborn with."

It should not be said that since stubbornness occurs after knowledge, it is more blameworthy; rather, we do not concede that it is more blameworthy than imitation. Instead, it is the ignorance before pondering—without the accompaniment of imitation—that is the issue. Even if it is conceded, this is also more blameworthy from one perspective. The focus of the negation has been placed on their combining both matters, and combining them is, in any case, more blameworthy than being characterized by one alone. The displacement is correct, as if it were said: "Leave their challenge and their binding; they are not worthy of address because they are imitators, stumbling in the matter without knowledge or intellect."

Al-Zamakhshari mentioned three views in this context:

The first view is that the estimation is: "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it' after knowing its inimitability out of stubbornness? Nay, they denied it before knowledge of its inimitability came to them." Thus, they are persistent in denial in both states, blameworthy for it, marked by the vices of imitation and stubbornness, and combining both regarding two different times. The logic is that "Nay, they denied that which they have not encompassed in knowledge" is explicit in their denial before knowing the nature of its inimitability, and "and its interpretation has not yet come to them" indicates the extension of this denial until the arrival of the awaited interpretation regarding their earlier denial, not regarding the time of the information—since the interpretation is also a reality.

In this case, either the denial has ceased—in which case the blame for the initial denial does not apply—or it is persistent, which is necessary for it to be valid as a denunciation of their hastiness in denying, which is the literal wording of the text. Therefore, the conjunction must be to His saying, "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'" This is to clarify that they denied it after knowing it, and the former is to clarify that they also denied it before it. Both aspects are in view, and they are blameworthy for both. The conclusion is that "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'" is undoubtedly a denial after knowledge, due to the command that follows it. But since the expectation implied by lamma was made regarding the knowledge of inimitability, it must be regarding their first state—the denial before knowledge—for the Prophet (peace be upon him) was expecting its cessation through knowledge. The hyperbole in lamma serves to signal the exhaustion of the time for denial up until the time of the awaited, realized interpretation, in which they denied out of stubbornness and transgression.

The second view is interpreting "interpretation" in the second sense we mentioned. The meaning is: Nay, they rushed to denial before encompassing its knowledge so they would know the inimitability of its structure. It is said: The arrival of the awaited interpretation is what it leads to in terms of truthfulness in informing about the Unseen. The intention here is to blame them for rushing to denial from both perspectives. But since, with both aspects, knowledge of what is contained [in the Quran] would have been had they pondered, there was nothing awaited. In the second [case], since it was not so, there was an awaited matter. He brought the particle of expectation as proof that this awaited matter is coming and will show that they are invalid in it also, just as in the first. There is no consideration here of them being blameworthy in the states of stubbornness and imitation; rather, the intention is the complete exposure of the binding argument, as if it is a foregone conclusion with people like them, due to the aforementioned stumbling.

The third view is that "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'" is a blame for one group who denied out of knowledge, and this is a blame for another who denied out of doubt. Since both divisions existed among them, the whole is attributed to the whole, and there is no absurdity in the Quran. The purpose of the displacement is to generalize the denial and [to assert] that the duty of the doubter was to pause, not to rush to denial. The meaning of the expectation is that their doubt will cease; some of them will come to know, and some will remain as they are, and the verse is silent on the details, yet it speaks to the cessation of doubt. There is no ambiguity that the doubter waits, and so too was the Prophet (peace be upon him) expecting the cessation of their doubt.

It is not hidden that what we cited first is more worthy of acceptance by those with intellect.

It has been objected against the claim that "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it?'" is a denial after knowledge, that it stems from a lack of knowledge, and what was brought to prove it is in the position of being forbidden. For the binding argument comes after the challenge, and that saying comes before it. The fact that it is preceded by the challenge found in Surah al-Baqarah is refuted by the fact that it is Madani, while this [Surah] is Meccan.

Indeed, it might be said in demonstrating that this saying is after knowledge, that its report occurs in the noble structure after the report of the indication of its content, in His saying, "Those who do not expect to meet Us say, 'Bring a Quran other than this, or change it.'" It was refuted by what you heard there as the majority established it. The explanation is that they are reported to have first indicated the attribution of fabrication to the Master of the Truthful (peace be upon him), and then reported to have made it explicit. The appearance is that the matter is as reported, due to the frequency of explicit statements following indications, and the interpolation of the refutation of what they indicated in between. It is possible they understood it and knew the truth, but did not admit it out of stubbornness and transgression, so they stated what they stated. This would be after knowledge. Their escalation from indication to explicit statement is an escalation in binding them, for this challenge is more manifest in the binding than what preceded it, as is apparent. However, there is room for debate on this.

It occurs to the mind that it is possible the displacement is from blaming them for denying the Quran to blaming them for rushing to deny that which they have not encompassed in knowledge, and that waiting for the knowledge of them is an expectation, whether it is the Quran or otherwise. Thus, "that" is general for both matters, and the Quran enters into this generality as a primary entry. Perhaps this is better than what was said: that it is a displacement from an omitted [phrase]. This "Nay" (bal) should be called the "scandalous" (fadihah), for the meaning is: They did not answer, nor were they able to bring [anything like it]. Nay, they denied, etc.

"Likewise" means: like their denial without pondering and reflecting, "did those before them deny"—meaning they acted out denial, or they denied their prophets in what they brought. "So see how was the end of the wrongdoers (39)." This is an address to the Master of those being addressed (peace be upon him), and it is possible it is general for everyone for whom it is suitable. "The wrongdoers" refers to those before them. The explicit noun was placed in place of the pronoun to signal that denial is wrongdoing, that it is the cause for the evil end that befell them, and that those about whom it was reported [in this surah] enter into their group regarding the crime and the threat as a primary entry. The fa is for ordering what follows it upon an omitted [phrase] to which the speech gravitates; i.e., "So We destroyed them, so see, etc." "How" is in the position of the accusative as the predicate of "was." Sometimes it is treated as a verbal noun, meaning "the manner of," and the meaning of interrogation is stripped from it entirely. It admits that here, as does the saying of al-Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him): "How was the beginning of the revelation," as the al-Samin said. It is reported from him that the verb of "seeing" (nazr) is suspended from action because of "how," because they treated it in every place as a pure interrogation.