Tafsir of Yunus 10:74

"to their people" (It is said: meaning to their respective peoples, in the sense that We sent every messenger to a specific people, such as Hud to ‘Ad, Salih to Thamud, and others among those mentioned and those not mentioned; not in the sense that We sent every one of them to all peoples, or to any people whatsoever. In this is an indication that the universality of the message to mankind was not established for any of those messengers, peace and blessings be upon them. The apparent consensus among the scholars is that this is specific to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It was not established for any of those sent after Noah, while there is disagreement regarding Noah himself, peace be upon him: was he sent to all the people of the earth, or to the people of a specific region? Upon this is built the examination of the Flood: did it encompass all the people of the earth, or only some of them, namely those who were the people of his call and who belied him, as is apparent from many verses and hadiths? Ibn 'Atiyyah said: The most probable view among the verifiers is the second. Many of the people of the earth, such as the people of China and others, deny the universality of the Flood. The first [view] does not contradict the claim regarding the specificity of the universality of the message to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for it is intended for those after him until the Day of Resurrection. Some have claimed that the Flood was general while the mission was specific, and there is no impediment to Allah Almighty destroying those who have no crime alongside those who do, and there is no objection to Him, the Glorified, in what He does, for it is an action in His pure domain; He is not questioned about what He does. In His saying, the Exalted: "And fear a trial that will not strike those who have wronged among you specifically," there is a type of indication toward this. Yes, the universality of the message was established for Noah, peace be upon him, at the end [of his time], since no one remained on the face of the earth after the Flood except those who were with him, and they were all the people of the earth at that time. Thus, the difference between his message, peace be upon him, and the message of our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is clear; for the message of our Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is universal in the beginning and the end, while his message, peace be upon him, is universal in the end, not in the beginning—though this is not free from scrutiny. It is better to consider the specialty of the universality of the message of our Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as being for those who come after him until the Day of Resurrection, for the fact that this was not established for any of the messengers, peace be upon them, before or after Noah, is a matter not in dispute. All of this is if the Jinn and the angels are not considered within this universality; if they are considered, as indicated by His saying, the Exalted: "to be a warner to the worlds," then the matter of specificity is even more apparent.)

"So they came to them" (i.e., every messenger came to his specific people) "with clear signs" (i.e., with manifest miracles indicating the truthfulness of what they were saying. The 'ba' is either connected to what is implied, meaning it is for transitivity, or connected to an omitted element that serves as a state from the nominative pronoun, i.e., "adorned with clear signs." However, it is not that every messenger brought only one sign, but rather that he brought a sign or many signs specific to him, designated for him according to what wisdom dictates. The Shaykh al-Islam went toward denying the intention of bringing a single sign and toward the intention of bringing many signs, then he said: "The observance of the correspondence of individuals to individuals is only in the pronouns of 'they came to them,' as indicated." Perhaps our procedure is better than his. It is understood from the words of some verifiers that the implication of the sending of every messenger to his people is derived from the annexation of 'people' to the pronoun of 'messengers,' and this is not from the correspondence of a plural to a plural that requires the division of individuals to individuals. There is no doubt that the understanding of the coming of every messenger to his specific people is subsequent to that. After all this, if the correspondence of a plural to a plural in 'they came to them with clear signs' is considered, and it is said that there is a division of individuals to individuals, it does not necessitate that every messenger brought only one sign, just as 'the people sold their animals' does not necessitate that every individual of the people sold one single animal; for its meaning is that every person among the people sold what he had of animals, and this encompasses one animal or more. This is contrary to 'the people rode their animals,' for there, the intention of each one of the animals is determined due to the impossibility of one person riding two animals, for instance. The scholar Abu al-Qasim al-Samarqandi has explicitly stated in his footnotes on the Mutawwal that it is not a condition in the correspondence of a plural to a plural that there be a division of individuals to individuals, in the sense that for every individual of one of the plurals there is one of the other plural; this is apparent in what we have said. The reliance in considering the verse as an example of the first type is based on an external matter, for it is known that a single messenger from the messengers, peace be upon them, came to his people with signs more than one.)

"and they were not to believe" (i.e., for the persistence of their lack of belief in the past time; meaning, it was not valid nor did it stand firm at any time that they would believe, due to their hardness of heart and increased stubbornness. The plural pronoun here refers to the people to whom they were sent, as well as in His saying, the Exalted: "by what they had belied before." The 'ba' in it is connected to 'believe,' and 'ma' is a relative pronoun. The intention is all the laws that every messenger brought, their foundations and branches. The intention by their lack of belief in them is their persistence in that after everything. By 'their belying before' is their belying from the moment the messengers, peace be upon them, arrived until the time of persistence and stubbornness. This is based on the fact that what is narrated is the final state of their affairs, as indicated by the story of the people of Noah, peace be upon him. Belying was not made the essential purpose as was their lack of belief, as a sign that it is evident in itself and needs no clarification. What is needed is their lack of belief after the succession of clear signs and the manifestation of miracles which would have compelled them to accept had they been people of intellect. If what is narrated is all the conditions of those peoples, then the intention by their lack of belief, as implied by the previous negation, is their continuous disbelief from the moment the messengers arrived until the time of their persistence, and by their lack of belief, understood from the relative clause, is their disbelief before the arrival of the messengers. In this case, the relative pronoun refers to the foundations of the laws upon which all messengers agreed and invited their nations to, such as monotheism and its requirements, which are impossible to change or alter. The meaning of their belying that before the arrival of their messengers is that they were not in a state of ignorance such that they had never heard of it at all; rather, it is as if every people heard of it from the remnants of those before them and belied it. Then, their condition after the arrival of the messengers was like their condition before that, as if no one had been sent to them. It is said: The meaning is that they did not benefit from the mission, and their condition after the mission was like their condition before it, in that they were people of ignorance. The first is more appropriate. The specification of belying and lack of belief to the mentioned foundations is due to the manifest nature of the state of the rest by the indication of the text; for if they did not believe in what the whole [of the messengers] agreed upon, then that they would not believe in what some were uniquely given is even more certain. The reason this belying was not made the essential purpose is that what the matter of punishment revolves around when both types of belying meet is the belying that occurred after the mission and the call, as indicated by His saying, the Exalted: "And We never punish until We send a messenger." What occurred before was mentioned to explain their deep-rootedness in disbelief and belying.)

(Some have separated the pronouns, saying: the pronoun in 'were' and 'believe' refers to the people of the messengers, and the pronoun in 'belying' refers to the people of Noah, peace be upon him; i.e., the people of the messengers were not to believe in what the people of Noah belied, meaning something similar to it, and the intention is what the messengers, peace be upon them, were sent to convey.)

(It is permitted in this view that the relative pronoun refers to Noah himself, i.e., the people of the messengers were not to believe in Noah, peace be upon him, since they did not believe in their own prophets, peace be upon them; the issues with this are not hidden. Some people have made the 'ba' causal and 'ma' as a particle forming a masdar (infinitive), and the meaning is: they belied their messengers, so their punishment from Allah Almighty was that they would not believe because of their belying before. He supported this with the following verse. In this is a contradiction of the majority who make the masdari 'ma' a noun, as is the opinion of al-Akhfash and Ibn al-Siraj, so that the pronoun returns to it. In returning it to the truth by claiming it is fixed in the minds, there is an obvious affectation. It is said: 'ma' is descriptive, and the 'ba' is for causality as well, or for association with something they belied, which is stubbornness and rebellion, and this is as you see.)

"Thus" (i.e., like that confirmed sealing) "does Allah seal" (The indication is of the same nature as what was established in His saying, the Exalted: "And thus We have made you a just community," and its likes which have passed. Making the indication refer to the drowning, as al-Khazin did, is of no substance. 'Seal' (*tab') is used for the effect of the signet's impression and the effect resulting from that impression; 'stamping' (khatm) is the same in that regard, according to what al-Raghib mentioned. He mentioned that it is the forming of a thing in the image of something, like the stamping of coinage or the stamping of dirhams, and that it is more general than 'stamping' and more specific than 'engraving'. The majority interpret it as 'stamping' (khatm), intending by it prevention; i.e., we stamp) "on the hearts of the transgressors" (i.e., those who exceed the known limits in disbelief and stubbornness, and we prevent them on account of that from accepting the truth and following the path of guidance. 'Seal' has come with the meaning of filth, from which is the 'sealing' of a sword due to its rust and filth. Some have applied what is in the verse to that. The Mu'tazilah interpreted it, where it is attributed to Him, the Exalted, as 'abandonment' (khidhlan), applying it to their own school of thought. Hence, al-Zamakhshari said: "It follows the path of metonymy for their stubbornness and persistence, because whoever is stubborn and persists in obstinacy, Allah Almighty abandons him and denies him success and grace, so he remains in that state until darkness and the 'seal' accumulate upon his heart." His intention, as it is said, is that 'We seal' means 'We abandon' by way of metaphorical trope. However, since the 'seal' which is 'abandonment' is a consequence of their stubbornness and persistence, necessitated by them, it was treated as a metonymy for them. It is recited 'yatba'u' (He seals) with the 'ya,' so that the pronoun refers to Allah, the Exalted.)