Tafsir of Hud 11:119

The exception in His saying, the Exalted, "Except those on whom your Lord has mercy," is connected according to the first view, which is what Abu Hayyan and a group chose. According to the second view, it is disjointed (munqati'), as those who are "differing" are not excluded from the mercy of Allah the Exalted, for even the leaders of the people of truth differ in the branches (furu') outside the fundamental principles of religion (usul al-din). Al-Hawfi and those who followed him held this view.

"And for that He created them": That is, mankind. The reference—as narrated from al-Hasan and 'Ata'—is to the verbal noun understood from "differing" (mukhtalifin). Its parallel is: “When the fool is rebuked, he runs toward it.” It is as if it were said: "And for the sake of difference, He created mankind," meaning that He created them for the fruit of that difference—that is, the reality that "a party is in Paradise and a party is in the Blazing Fire." The 'lam' is the lam of consequence (al-'aqibah) and outcome (al-sayrurah), because the wisdom of their creation is not this, according to His saying, the Exalted: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me." Furthermore, if He had created them for that [difference], He would not have punished them for committing falsehood. This is what many have stated, and it is what is implied by what is narrated from Imam Malik.

In my view, there is no harm in carrying it upon the apparent meaning, and there is no contradiction between this verse and the verse they mentioned, due to what you will learn—Allah willing—in the interpretation of [Surah] al-Dhariyat and the traditions narrated therein. The act of creation is one of the subordinates of the Will, which is subordinate to Knowledge, which is subordinate to the known entity in itself. Punishment or reward is nothing but a matter effused upon the punished or the rewarded according to their original disposition (al-isti'dad al-asli). This is perhaps strengthened by the final outcome: that punishment and reward are subordinates of that disposition which the punished or rewarded possesses in essence. From here they said: "Disobedience and obedience are signs (amarat) of wretchedness and happiness, not the causes (muqtadiyat) of them." By this, their objection—"If He had created them for it, He would not have punished them"—is repelled. There are many proofs in the Book and the Sunnah for what we have established, which are not hidden from those prepared to grasp the realities.

It is said: the pronoun in "created them" refers to those meant by the implication of "those on whom He had mercy," and the reference is to the mercy understood from "mercy" (rahima). The use of the masculine pronoun is due to interpreting the word as "a matter" (amr) or "an act" (fi'l), or because it is in the sense of "good" (khayr). This is narrated from Mujahid and Qatadah. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the pronoun refers to mankind and the reference is to both mercy and difference; meaning, He created them for the difference of the whole and the mercy of some. The reference is to two things, as in His saying, the Exalted: "between that". The lam in this view is, it is said, in a figurative sense general to the apparent meaning and outcome, and according to the previous view, it is in its literal sense. The most evident of the opinions regarding the reference and the pronoun is what we have presented, and the other two opinions are inferior to it.

As for the claim that the reference is to what follows, and there is a transposition (taqdim wa ta'khir) in the speech—meaning, "And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled: 'I will surely fill Hell,' etc., and for that—meaning for the filling of Hell—He created them"—this is very far from the structures of the speech of the Arabs. Of this style is the claim that "that" is a reference to the witnessing of that "witnessed day," or that it is a reference to His saying, the Exalted: "So among them are the wretched and the prosperous," or to the wretchedness and happiness understood from that, or to the fact that there is a party in Paradise and a party in the Blazing Fire, or to the prohibition understood from His saying, the Exalted: "they forbid corruption in the land," or to Paradise and Hell, or to worship, and other such opinions that one wonders at.

Some researchers in the meaning of the verse held that the intended meaning of "unity" is unity in the true religion, and that "difference" is difference within it, in the sense of opposition to it, as in His saying, the Exalted: "And none differed therein except those who were given it after the clear proofs had come to them, out of jealousy among themselves." The intent of "those on whom He had mercy" are those whom Allah the Exalted guided and who did not oppose the truth. The reference is to difference in the sense of opposition, and the pronoun in "He created them" refers to those who remained after the exception—those are the differing, opposing ones. The lam is one of consequence. It is as if it were said: "And if your Lord had willed, He would have made mankind upon the truth and the religion of Islam; however, He did not will, so He did not make them so, and they will continue to oppose the truth, except for a people whom He, the Exalted, guided by His grace, so they did not oppose the truth. And for the aforementioned difference, He created the differing, opposing ones." It is not hidden that this involves violating the apparent meaning, even if Ibn Jarir and Abu al-Shaykh extracted something from Mujahid that implies parts of it.

It is strange what is narrated from al-Hasan: that the intent of "difference" is difference in livelihoods and conditions, and the subjection of some to others. Ibn Bahr said: the intent is that some succeed (khalafa) others, so the newcomer is a successor (khalaf) to the one who passed. From this is "the two new ones differed" (ikhtalafa al-jadidan), meaning one succeeded the other. Abu Muslim went toward this, though he said: they succeed one another in disbelief through imitation, and there is much to be said about that. In any case, the apparent meaning of "mankind" is general. Let this verse be contemplated alongside His saying, the Exalted: "And mankind was not but one nation," and let the interpretation of that be reviewed.

The learned al-Jalabi said: There is nothing in this verse that indicates the generality of mankind such that it would contradict "And mankind was not..." etc. There is scrutiny in this. The prepositional phrase—"for that"—is connected to "created" which follows it. It is apparent that the exclusivity (hasr) derived from the fronting (taqdim) [is present] if we say the fronting is relative, and what is added to is different according to the variation of opinions in determining what is referred to. Regarding the first [interpretation], it is agreement; regarding others, it also appears with the slightest attention. By this verse, it has been argued that the command is other than the will, and that He, the Exalted, did not will faith from everyone, and that what He, the Exalted, brings about must occur.

Some of the Gnostics mentioned that the origin of the "graying" of Surah Hud for the Prophet, peace be upon him, is that it contains his being commanded to remain steadfast in the call, while being informed that He, the Exalted, only created people for difference, and that He does not will their gathering upon the true religion. It is as you can see.

"And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled": That is, His decree has been executed and His command has been established. The "Word" may be interpreted as the threat (wa'id) figuratively, and it may be intended as the speech delivered to the angels, peace be upon them. The first is more appropriate. The sentence contains the meaning of an oath, and this is why the lam is brought in His saying, the Exalted: "I will surely fill Hell with jinn and mankind all together."

"Jinn" and "Jannah" are synonymous. In the interpretation of Ibn 'Atiyyah, the ha in "Jannah" is for intensification. Even if "jinn" applies to the singular, "Jannah" is its plural. Thus, it is among the collections that are distinguished from their singulars by the ha, like kum' and kam'ah, as we have mentioned in our annotations on the Alfiyyah.

There is a famous question regarding the verse: that its apparent meaning necessitates the entry of both parties into Hell, while it is known from other verses and reports that this is not the case. The Qadi answered this with what amounts to: the intent by "jinn and mankind" is their sinners, as the definiteness (al-ta'rif) is for familiarity (li-l-'ahd), and the context is rational, since it is known from the Law (Shari'ah) that the punishment is specific to them, and the threat is only for them. Similar in meaning to this is what is said: the intent by "jinn and mankind" is the followers of Iblis, because of His saying, the Exalted, in al-A'raf and Sad: "I will surely fill Hell with you and with whoever follows you among them, all together." Thus, the necessity is the entry of all his followers into Hell, and there is no harm in that; the Quran interprets itself, and there is no need to estimate the word "sinners" added to the two parties. As for the "all together" (ajma'in), it is for the comprehensiveness of the individuals intended, as you have known. As for what occurs to the mind regarding them, the intent of the emphasis is the declaration that the filling of Hell is from both classes, not from one of them only. This does not necessitate the inclusion of every individual of both parties; those who enter it from them are passed over in silence and relegated to something else. The latter was objected to on the grounds that it is based on "ajma'in" occurring as an emphasis for a dual, which is contrary to what they [the grammarians] explicitly stated. But it is argued: that is only if it were a true dual, not when each individual is a collection; in that case, it is in truth an emphasis for the collection, so what was mentioned does not apply.

Yes, it is objected against the first view that emphasis necessitates the entry of all sinners into the Fire, and it is known from the texts that this is not the case, unless it is said: the intent is the sinners whom Allah the Exalted decreed would enter it. Some answered that this does not necessitate the entry of all, but rather the amount that fills Hell, as if it were said, "Fill the bag with coins," which does not necessitate the entry of all coins into the bag. Al-Jalal al-Dawani rejected this, saying that it is analogous to saying, "I filled the bag with all the coins," which, by its apparent meaning, necessitates the entry of all coins into it, and the question remains as it is. Then he said: "The truth in the answer is to say that the intent of the word 'ajma'in' is the generalization of the classes, and that does not necessitate the entry of all individuals. Just as if you said, 'I filled the pouch with all types of food,' it only necessitates that it contains something of each type, not that it contains all individuals of the food. Like saying, 'The assembly was filled with all types of people'; it does not necessitate that all individuals of the people are in the assembly, but rather that there is an individual from each type." This is apparent. According to this, the benefit of the word "ajma'in" is clear, for it is a refutation of the Jews and others who claimed they would not enter the Fire at all.

Ibn al-Sadr pursued this, saying: "There is a discussion here, for they explicitly stated that the benefit of emphasis with 'kull' and 'ajma'in' is to repel the illusion of a lack of inclusion and encompassing all individuals. And the two examples he mentioned—the inclusion of the types in them only arose from the addition of the word 'all' to the types. How is it that if one said: 'I filled the pouch with all the food,' omitting the word 'types,' the speech would be the same as the one we are discussing? Furthermore, what he mentioned—that it is a refutation of the Jews, etc.—is incorrect, because the Jews said, 'The Fire will not touch us except for a limited number of days,' so how could they claim they would not enter it at all?" Ponder that, and Allah, the Exalted, will take charge of your guidance.

Some answered with a Sufi approach: that the intent of "jinn and mankind" are those who remained in the rank of "jinn-ness" and "humanity," as they immersed themselves in the darkness of nature and stumbled in the abode of elemental bodies, and did not ascend to the higher world; they became content with the worldly life and were satisfied with it, and stripped themselves of the world of the abstract. They are the polytheists of whom it was said: "Indeed, the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque," etc., for they do not deserve the Abode of Allah and His proximity. Then he said: "For this reason, you see Allah, the Exalted, condemning the human and praying against him in more than one place."