Tafsir of Yunus 10:49

(Say, "I possess for myself neither harm nor benefit")—meaning: I have no power over either of these in any way. The reason for prioritizing "harm" is that the context of the noble order is to demonstrate helplessness in preventing it. The mention of "benefit" serves as a generalization to manifest complete helplessness. It has been said that it is an incidental addition so that one does not assume the matter is restricted to harm alone, though the first [interpretation] is more appropriate. As for the priority given to "benefit" in Surah Al-A'raf, it is to draw attention to its importance, and the context there is appropriate for that. The meaning is: I possess nothing regarding my own affairs, neither to avert nor to bring about, even though that [the affair of oneself] is closer to realization; so how could I possess [the authority over] your affairs so as to cause the arrival of your promised punishment as you desire?

(Except what Allah wills)—This is a disconnected exception according to a group, meaning: "But what Allah Almighty wills shall come to pass." Others say it is connected, in the sense of: "Except for what Allah Almighty wills that I should possess." This has been countered by the argument that the context of clearing oneself of having any involvement in the arrival of the promised [punishment] rejects this; for that requires stating that the subject of dispute is something He (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) does not will to possess. The Mu'tazilah argued for the connection of the exception, using it to argue that the servant is independent in their actions of obedience and disobedience. You know that this is very far from proving their claim. Yes, some of those who hold the view of the Salaf have used this as evidence that the servant has an effective power by the permission of Allah Almighty—not that they have no power at all, as the Jabriyyah say; nor that they have power but it is ineffective, as is famous among the Ash'arites; nor that they have an effective power if Allah wills, even if He does not will [it], as is the opinion of the Mu'tazilah. He said: "The meaning is that I have no power over any harm or benefit except for what Allah Almighty wills that I have power over; thus, how could I have power over it [the punishment] without His will, Glory be to Him?" Some said: If "possessing" (mulk) is taken to mean "capability" (istita'ah), the exception is connected; if it is kept in its literal sense, disconnection becomes necessary. It is not hidden that the origin is connection, and one should not deviate from it when possible without straining. Regardless, the apparent meaning of their words is that the exception is from the object, but upon the assumption of disconnection, the meaning is not the exclusion of the excepted from the ruling of the one excepted from. Therefore, the ruling in that assumption is made that "it is," rather than "I possess," for instance. Thus, there is no contradiction in the words of one who ruled for disconnection and stated in explaining the meaning: "But what Allah Almighty wills of that is what will occur," pointing by that to benefit and harm, for it is explicit in the excepted being of the same genus as the one excepted from, which requires connection, as the criterion for the investigators in both cases is the exclusion from the ruling or the lack thereof.

Among the things that cause wonder is the claim that the exception is from the subject of "I possess," making the meaning: "I do not possess, but Allah Almighty is the Possessor of all that He wills; He does it by His will for every nation among those who persisted in belying their messengers."

(An appointed time)—for their punishment to descend upon them. When it arrives, it does not transcend to another nation.

(When their time arrives)—meaning the time of every nation, as is apparent. The manifest noun was used in place of the pronoun for the sake of increased affirmation, and the genitive construction (idafa) is to indicate complete specification. It is permissible that the pronoun refers to the nations indicated by "every nation," and the reason for expressing "time" as a genitive is to indicate the intended meaning: the reaching of each nation of its own specific time. Its coming to them—out of all nations—is by way of attributing the time to them generally, which provides the meaning of plurality. It is as if it were said: "When their times come to them" (using the plural, as Ibn Sirin read it), such that each one of those nations is reached by its own specific time. "Time" is interpreted as a specific limit of time, and its "arrival" is apparent, as is its extension. Thus, its coming is an expression of its expiration, for there its arrival is realized in its entirety. Meaning: When their specific time is completed and expired, they will not delay it (by a single moment)—that is, a small portion of time—(nor will they advance it)—ahead of it. The istif'al form, according to a group, is on its original [linguistic] root, and the negation of "seeking" delay and advancement is more eloquent. Others said it is in the meaning of tafa''ul (reflexive), meaning: they shall not delay, and they shall not advance. The second sentence is either an inception or conjoined to the condition and the qualified. They forbade linking it to "they shall not delay" so that it would not be objected that "advancement" is inconceivable after the arrival of the time, and thus there would be no benefit in negating it. Many others permitted it, and the benefit, according to them, lies in the exaggeration of the negation of delay; because when it is threaded in the same string, it indicates that it has reached the degree of impossibility just as the other [delay] is impossible due to the divine decree, even if it were possible in itself. It is said: This is the secret in using the istif'al form—that it has reached such a state of impossibility that it is not even "sought," for the impossible is not sought. Some countered this by saying that "came" means "approached arrival," like your saying: "If winter comes, then prepare for it." This was countered by the fact that there is no added benefit in restricting the non-delay to the "nearness" or "approach." Al-Zamakhshari pointed to another answer: that "not delay and not advance" is a metonymy for it having a specific limit and a fixed time that it does not transcend, regardless of advancement or delay—like the statement of the Hamasi poet: "Passion stopped me where you are, so I have no one to advance from it, nor to delay." He intended, as Al-Marzuqi said, "Passion detained me in a place where you reside, so it bound me to it, and I do not depart from it, and I am with you, remaining and departing; I do not swerve from you nor incline to any other." The reason for prioritizing the negation of delay over the negation of advancement has already been presented in the verse of Al-A'raf with an elaboration of the discussion therein.

Then, it is not hidden that this verse falls within the scope of the answer and was not conjoined to what preceded it, to signal its independence therein. The scholar Al-Tibi, may Allah Almighty purify his soul, said: "The answer with His saying: (Say, 'I possess nothing') etc., is rendered in the 'Wise Style' (uslub al-hakim), because they did not intend by their question anything but to deem it impossible that the promise was from Allah Almighty, and that he—the prayers of Allah Almighty and His peace be upon him—is the one who claims that it is from Him, so they asked him to specify the time out of mockery and derision. It was said in the answer: 'This mockery only holds if I claimed that I am the one bringing that promised thing.' When you are admitting that I am like you, in that I possess for myself neither harm nor benefit, how could I claim what is not mine by right?" Then he began the correct answer, and he—may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him—did not pay attention to their mockery and disbelief, saying: (For every nation is a time) etc. Its essence, according to what is in Al-Kashshaf, is: "Your punishment has an appointed time fixed with Allah Almighty, and a limited span of time; when that time arrives, your promise will be fulfilled without fail, so do not hasten." From this, the secret is known for dropping the fa (conjunction) in "If their time comes" and adding it in "So they will not delay" (a-fa-la), contrary to the verse of Al-A'raf, where it was brought in the first and not in the second. This is because, since the verse was presented as an answer to their hastening of the promised punishment, as you have known earlier, He cared for the conditionality and its necessity with complete care, so it was brought without being a consequence of anything, as if it were of the matters established in themselves, not consequential to another. And he strengthened the necessity of the consequent for the antecedent therein by adding the fa, which is brought for linking in such instances. The verse of Al-A'raf is not like that, as is not hidden to anyone but the heedless. So memorize it, for it is from the spoils.

Do not pay attention to what was mentioned in clarifying the questioning at the beginning of the speech, as it is apparent to those of understanding. Likewise, do not pay attention to what was said about linking this verse to what preceded it—that it is an explanation of what was ambiguous in the exception, and a restriction of what was in the previous decree of the absolute, which suggests that what was decreed was a finalized matter, not depending on anything other than the arrival of the Messenger and the belying of the nation. For, according to what is in it, it is a denial of involvement in the answer. Perhaps the purpose is fulfilled by just that, due to the occurrence of the difference between the contexts of the two verses by it as well. It may also be said: The omission of the fa initially is so that the sentence is in the position of an adjective for "time," to terrorize regarding its matter and to elevate its status as the context requires. Meaning: "For every nation is a time described as: when it comes, they will not delay from it and will not advance upon it at all." The expression of the manifest noun in the place of the pronoun is for increased affirmation, like what passed earlier—and it is not [as significant as all that]. Among the things that make the dead laugh is what one of the "greats" claimed—after almost killing himself in thought—that the secret in the difference between the two verses is an indication from Him, the Almighty, of the permissibility of both possibilities in Arabic. He did not know—may Allah Almighty grant him health—that the Noble Qur'an was not revealed to teach Arabic, to explain its rules, or to expound on what is permissible or impermissible in it; rather, it was revealed as a miracle in its eloquence and rhetoric, and what it contains of secrets, to a people each of whom was in that affair "a firmly rooted tree and a guarded palm."

Some of those who revived the dead of excellence with his knowledge, and purified his understanding from the confusion of the people of the age—Safa al-Din Isa al-Bandaniji—mentioned that the context of this verse is to affirm the Prophet—may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him—and to expand his breast—upon him be peace and blessings—against what might weigh upon him from a human perspective due to their saying: "When is this promise if you are truthful?" and to teach him—upon him be the prayers of Allah and His peace—to reject their saying, as the preceding context suggests. Thus, it was appropriate to sever each of the two sentences from the other so that each would be independent in providing affirmation and response, for emphasis and exaggeration therein. Therefore, the fa was not brought at the beginning of the condition, and it was brought in the answer, as an increase in that, to indicate the realization of what follows it immediately after what necessitates it without delay. The verse of Al-A'raf was presented as a threat to the people of Makkah, and it is clear that the center of the benefit is in signaling that it is a threat, and that what is most effective in causing fear is the conditional sentence, because it is the text on the descent of punishment upon the arrival of the time, and that there is no escape for them from that when it occurs, rather than "For every nation is a time" alone. Thus, the context was a context of linking and joining, so the fa was brought to indicate that and to signify the unity of the two sentences in that they are both threats. And because of His—the Almighty—forbearance in the threat, the fa was not brought in the answer. Finished. Perhaps what we have presented is not far from it in one aspect, even if it opposes it in another, and to each is a direction, and Allah Almighty knows best the secrets of His Book.