Tafsir of Hud 11:107

"Abiding therein," except that if the occurrence of their existence in the Fire is intended, the state is estimated: "So long as the heavens and the earth endure," meaning the duration of their endurance. This is an expression of perpetuity and the negation of cessation, following the custom of the Arabs, such as saying: "I will not do such-and-such so long as a star glimmers, or the dawn shines, or the night and day alternate, or the sea wets a tuft of wool, or a dove sings," among other phrases of perpetuity they use. It is not an attachment of their remaining therein to the duration of these heavens and earth, for the decisive texts prove the perpetuity of their stay therein and the cessation of the heavens and earth. This has been narrated from Ibn Jarir.

It is permitted to interpret it as an attachment, where the "heavens and earth" refers to the heavens and earth of the Hereafter, which are eternal. Al-Zamakhshari said: "The proof that the Hereafter has heavens and an earth is His saying, exalted be He: 'On the day the earth is replaced with a different earth, and the heavens' (Ibrahim: 48), and His saying: 'And we have inherited the land; we settle in Paradise wherever we wish' (Az-Zumar: 74). Also, because the people of the Hereafter must have that which supports and shades them, either a heaven that Allah Almighty creates, or the Throne shades them; and everything that shades you is a heaven." This is the end of his statement.

The Judge (al-Qadi) said: "There is a scrutiny here, because it is a comparison to something whose existence and duration most of creation does not know. And those who know it, know it only through that which indicates the duration of reward and punishment; thus, the comparison is of no benefit to them."

The author of al-Kashf replied to this by stating: "If what is meant is that which shades them and supports them, its absurdity is manifest, because this amount is known to exist by every person of intellect. As for the duration, it is not derived from the evidence of the duration of reward and punishment, but rather from that which indicates the perpetuity of Paradise and the Fire, whether one knows that they are the abodes of reward and punishment, and that their inhabitants are the blessed and the wretched among people, or not. Furthermore, it is not a case of comparing what is known to what is unknown, but the opposite."

Al-Jalabi critiqued this, saying: "His statement 'to every person of intellect' is incorrect, for only those who believe in the Hereafter acknowledge that. And his statement 'the duration is derived from that which indicates the perpetuity of Paradise and the Fire' does not refute what the Judge mentioned, because the Judge means that the 'object of comparison' is not more known than the 'subject of comparison,' neither to the religious person—for he knows both through the Prophets (peace be upon them), and there is nothing in it necessitating the greater clarity of the duration of the heavens and earth of the Hereafter—nor is his aim that their duration is derived from the specific evidence pointing to reward and punishment, as that does not concern him to refute. Nor is it known to the non-religious, for he acknowledges neither. And his statement 'it is not a case of comparing, etc.' is based on the assumption that it is a comparison of that abode to this abode, which is not the case; rather, the intent is the implicit comparison of their duration to the duration of those heavens and earth."

This is a point of contention. The truth is that the validity of intending this is something which there should be no dispute over. There are reports from Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, al-Suddi, and others that necessitate this. Whoever reflects fairly, after conceding that there is a comparison, will see that the "object of comparison" is more known than the "subject of comparison" and closer to the mind, and the unity of the method of knowledge concerning them does not detract from this at all. It is self-evident that the existence of a container is more known and closer to the mind than the existence of what is contained therein, even if both came through audition (revelation). Furthermore, the condition that the "object of comparison" must be more known in every comparison is not universally accepted by those who study linguistics (al-ma'ani).

Indeed, what comes to mind regarding "the heavens and the earth" are these physical bodies known to us. Therefore, it is better to leave them upon their apparent meaning and consider the speech as being in the style to which the Arabs were accustomed in their dialogues when intending exaggeration and perpetuity, which is more frequent than can be counted. Perhaps this is also better than what is in Ibn Kathir’s commentary, which interprets "the heavens and the earth" as the category encompassing what is in this world and the Hereafter—meaning that which shades and supports in every abode.

In al-Durar, it is stated that it is possible the meaning is that they are abiding for the duration of the existence of the heavens and the earth, the cessation of which is known, and then the Almighty increases for them and makes their stay eternal. Perhaps he intended the duration of their existence from the time Allah Almighty created them until He replaces them, not the duration of their existence after their entry into the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, for they are replaced before their entry. According to this, the verse is like His saying: "Abiding therein for ages" (An-Naba: 23).

"Except what your Lord wills" is said to be an exception from the implicit pronoun in "Abiding therein." The word "ma" (what/who) pertains to a type of rational being, as in His saying: "Then marry those that please you of women" (An-Nisa: 3), or it pertains to a rational being according to the school of those who see its usage for them absolutely.

The meaning of "whom He wills" is the sinful monotheists, for they emerge from it, as the reports have stated. That is sufficient for the validity of the exception, for the cessation of the ruling for the whole is satisfied by its cessation for some. They are the ones intended by the second exception, for they are separated from Paradise during the days of their punishment. Perpetuity from a specific starting point is nullified considering the beginning, just as it is nullified considering the end. Do you not see that if you say: "I stayed on Thursday in the garden, except for three hours," it is permissible for that time in which the lack of staying occurred to be at the beginning or at the end. Although these people were wretched due to their disobedience, they were blessed due to their faith.

It cannot be said: "According to this, His saying, exalted be He, 'Some will be wretched and some blessed' (Hud: 105) would not be a correct classification," because a condition for that is that the attribute of each category must be negated from the other. This condition only applies where the separation is absolute or mutually exclusive. Here, the meaning is that the people of the Gathering do not fall outside these two categories, and their state is not free of happiness or wretchedness, and it is not impossible for both matters to be joined in one person from two different perspectives. This is what the Imam mentioned, and the Judge preferred it.

It was objected that there is no indication in the wording of a specific starting point. Even if conceded, the exception requires an exclusion from the ruling of eternity, which is necessarily after entry. How, then, can it be nullified by what preceded it? And how, when the verse 'in Paradise' has already preceded it? It was then said: "If you say: 'The time of their separation from the Gathering is the beginning, and it is the last day that arrives,' I would say: If it is claimed that the beginning is from the start of that time, the indication of the wording for it might be conceded, but it is of no use because all of them in both abodes are not 'abiding' according to this estimation. As for making the beginning of the period from its end, no." And the objection that the opposition of the two rulings indicates the opposition of the two categories, meaning total exclusion, was answered—after closing one's eyes to the departure from the etiquette of debate—by saying: The start of the time of the abiding of the people of Paradise is from the time of the entry of the people of the Fire into the Fire. This is indicated by the unity of the criterion for the two "abiding" instances, which is "So long as the heavens and the earth endure," for it indicates the time of their abiding. There is no unity with the difference in the starting point. The exception from the ruling of eternity from a specific starting point is done by excluding it from the ruling of entry, which is necessarily implied by the abiding therein. The summary of the meaning according to this is: all the blessed are abiding in Paradise from the time the people of the Fire enter the Fire, except for the sinners among them whom Allah Almighty intended to enter the Fire for a specific duration He knows with Him. As for the argument concerning the opposition of the two rulings, if it is intended as mutual exclusivity, then there is no opposition between them in this sense because they are joined in the sinners. If it is intended absolutely, then there is no indication of the opposition of the two categories in that sense.

It is not hidden from the fair-minded what is in this statement of artificiality and opposition to the apparent meaning, and supporting it with what has been mentioned does not benefit it.

It is also said: It is an exception from the pronoun mentioned before, except that the ruling of eternity is in the punishment of the Fire. The same is said regarding what follows: that the ruling in it is eternity in the bliss of Paradise, and the people of the Fire are moved from it to the Zamhareer (intense cold) and other punishments at times. Likewise, the people of Paradise are blessed with what is higher than that, such as connection to the Divine Presence and attaining the pleasure of Allah, which is greater, and what He bestows upon them beyond the reward of Paradise, the reality of which only He, the Exalted, knows. Al-Zamakhshari went to this, drawing the sword of aggression and I'tizal (Mutazilism), and the scholar al-Tibi refuted him and spoke at length about it.

The author of al-Kashf said: "This is manifest regarding the people of the Fire, because they are moved from the heat of the Fire to the cold of the Zamhareer." The refutation that "the Fire is the abode of punishment" is not valid, because we do not deny the use of the word "Fire" for it by way of predominance. As for claiming predominance to the point of abandoning the original meaning, that is not so. Do you not see His saying, exalted be He: "A Fire that blazes" (Al-Lail: 14), "A Fire whose fuel is people and stones" (Al-Baqarah: 24), and so on? As for the pleasure of Allah for the people of Paradise while they are therein, the exception resists it. How, when His saying, exalted be He, "Abiding therein" does not explicitly indicate that they are blessed by it, let alone that it is solely their blessedness, unless it is specified to the Paradise of reward, not mere grace. It is sufficiently void to specify it without evidence. It was objected that you can say: "Abandoning the original meaning in the two verses mentioned is known from the description, and in this verse, mentioning it in contrast to Paradise supports that it means the abode of punishment absolutely."

It is also said: The exception is mufarragh (vacant) from the most general of times, and "ma" is in its original sense for that which is not rational, which is time; and the ruling is the existence in the Fire. The meaning: As for those who were wretched, they are in the Fire at every time after the arrival of that day, except for a time Allah Almighty willed them not to be therein, which is the time of the Gathering for reckoning. It was objected that the sinful believers who enter the Fire are either blessed—in which case they must be abiding in Paradise during the time excluded, which is not the case—or they are wretched—in which case they must be abiding in the Fire, which is contrary to the doctrine of the People of the Sunnah. Also, its delay from the state (hal) which has no role in the exception is not clear. The ambiguity in His saying, exalted be He, "Except what your Lord wills" and the reverence it gives, loses its luster. It was answered that it may be said: "The one who says this restricts the wretched to the disbelievers and the blessed to the pious, and the sinners are not spoken of here, so nothing is held against him if he is Sunni." If he is a Mutazili, he has agreed with the traditions of his nature. As for what follows, it is answered by negation.

It is also said: The matter of the exception is as you know, except that the exception is the duration of their remaining in the world or the Barzakh (interval), and it disregards the phrase "The day it arrives." The meaning is that they are in the Fire during all times of their existence, except for a time Allah Almighty willed their remaining in the world or the Barzakh. The intent includes the time of the Gathering, as they are also not in the Fire during its time, unless by "Fire" the punishment is meant, so there is no need for accompaniment. But it is objected that they are also punished in the Barzakh, unless it is said: "That is not counted because it is incomplete punishment due to their life not being complete therein." It was objected to with what was objected to the previous one, and it was answered: "It would only be so if the exception in the second case were the same as the time excluded in the first exception, which is not conceded. Let the 'exception from' be their remaining in the Fire along with that time excluded in the first verse, for the 'exception' contains nothing indicating the determination of a time so that it cannot be increased." This is as you see.

It is also said: It is an exception from His saying, exalted be He: "For them therein is wailing and sobbing" (Hud: 106). It was refuted that this does not apply to the counterpart, and the problem remains. It was answered that the intent is to mention what the verse can bear, and consistency is not necessary. It was critiqued that the intent is only to demonstrate the weakness of this view, and the lack of consistency is sufficient weakness.

It is also said: "Except" means "other than," like saying: "You have two thousand from me, except for the thousand that were," meaning other than it. This was narrated from al-Zajjaj, al-Farra, and al-Sajawandi. The meaning is "other than what your Lord wills" of the increase that has no end beyond the duration of the existence of the heavens and earth. The exception in this is discontinuous (munqati'). It is possible they mean that "except" means "other than," an adjective for what precedes it, and the meaning: they abide therein for the duration of the heavens and earth, except for what Allah Almighty wills of that which is endless. This view was weakened because it necessitates interpreting "the heavens and the earth" as these two known bodies without looking at the meaning of perpetuity, which is corrupt.

It is also said: "Except" means "and," i.e., "and what your Lord wills in addition to that." It was cited as proof for its coming in the meaning of "and" with the saying: "And every other brother is a parting one, by your father's life, except (and) the two Farqadan (stars)." But this view is rejected by the grammarians.

The scholar al-Tibi said: "The truth, from which there is no escaping, is to interpret 'ma' as referring to the description, which is 'being shown mercy,' and 'abiding' as an estimated state from the pronoun of settlement, i.e., in the Fire. The meaning: As for those who were wretched, they are in the Fire, having the state of 'abiding' estimated, except for the one shown mercy whom Allah Almighty willed not to settle in an abiding state. This indicates that he will not settle therein absolutely, or he will settle but not in an abiding state." The conditions of the sinners are along these lines, as is known from the texts. In this is a notification that their removal is by the pure mercy of Allah Almighty, thus it aligns with His saying, exalted be He: "Indeed your Lord is a doer of what He wills" (Hud: 107).

It was critiqued that this does not suffice in the counterpart except through the Imam's interpretation, and what is in that has passed, or by making it from the basis of the ruling, which requires that they not enter at all. If it is interpreted as "estimated," then if it is made an exception from "estimated," it does not proceed. And from His saying, exalted be He, "In the Fire," so they would have no entry at all. And the indication of "ma" due to its ambiguity is either for reverence or belittlement, and it does not match the context.

It is said, and it is said: The most appropriate is to say that the exception in both places is based on hypothesis and estimation. The meaning of "except what your Lord wills" if He wills, is: "If it were hypothesized that Allah Almighty willed their removal from the Fire or Paradise at a time, it would have been excluded from the duration of their abiding, but that does not happen due to the indication of the decisive texts to its non-occurrence." This is, as al-Tibi said, from the style of "Until the camel enters the eye of a needle" (Al-A'raf: 40) and "They will not taste death therein except the first death" (Ad-Dukhan: 56). He mentioned that he encountered a text from before al-Zajjaj that agrees with this.

In al-Ma'alim, there is also from al-Farra what agrees with it, as he quoted him as saying: "This is an exception that the Almighty made an exception of, and He does not do it, like your saying: 'By Allah, I will hit you, except if I see otherwise,' and your determination is to hit him." It corresponds exactly to what was quoted before from some of them that the meaning is: "If He willed, He would remove them, but He does not will because He, the Exalted, has decreed eternity for them."

In al-Bahr, from Ibn Atiyyah, quoting from some what is of the same meaning, he said: "As for His saying, exalted be He: 'Except what your Lord wills,' it is said: It is on the path of the exception that the Sharia recommended to be used in all speech. It is like His saying, majestic is He: 'You will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills, in safety' (Al-Fath: 27), an exception in an imperative; and this exception is in the ruling of a condition, as if it were said: 'If your Lord wills.' Thus, it does not need to be described as connected or disconnected." Those who also went to this include the learned Mirza Jan al-Shirazi in his notes on the Judge's commentary, and he specified that it is of the category of "attaching to the impossible" until the impossibility of the attached is proven, and it is like claiming something with evidence. It is one of the aspects mentioned by Sayyid al-Murtada in his Durar. The interpretation of the first exception as a condition was brought out by Ibn Marduyah from Jabir from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as mentioned by al-Jalal al-Suyuti in al-Dur al-Manthur. Perhaps the point of this exception, as is said, is to guide the servants to delegate matters to Him, the Almighty, and to inform them that they are contingent upon His will, majestic is He; He does what He wills and decrees what He desires. No one has a right over Him, and nothing is incumbent upon Him, as He, the Blessed and Exalted, said: "Indeed, your Lord is a doer of what He wills."

Some scholars mentioned that its benefit is to repel the illusion that eternity is a matter incumbent upon the Almighty, which He cannot violate, as the Mutazila went to, since the Almighty informed of it emphatically. The meaning of "those who were wretched" according to this view is the disbelievers only, for they are the ones truly deserving of this name—and "those who were blessed" are all the believers, the obedient and the sinful. Thus, the classification in His saying, exalted be He, "Some will be wretched and some blessed" is for absolute separation, and it is not contradicted by His saying, exalted be He, "Then in the Fire..." because it is true upon entering the Fire.

In al-Kashf, after quoting that the exception is of the category of "until the camel enters," if you say: "Then the meaning of al-Zamakhshari regarding the eternity of the sinners has been obtained," I say: "Not so, because they are included among the 'blessed,' and the verse necessitates the eternity of the 'blessed,' and that is necessarily after his entry into it, and it does not negate his being in the Fire before his entry into Paradise. For the wording does not necessitate that they all—the blessed—enter Paradise together. How, when the decisive text indicates that they enter one after another according to their ranks?" This is the end. So reflect, for the verse is of the complex ones.

He did not use the pronoun in "Your Lord is..." as is the apparent requirement, to cultivate awe and increase confirmation. The 'lam' in "what He wills" is said to be for strengthening, meaning: He is the doer of what He desires, and nothing can defy Him in any way.