Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:35

“The likeness of the Garden which…”

(The likeness of the Garden) implies its description and quality, as related by Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh from Ikrimah. This is based on what is found in al-Bahr regarding the root mathala al-shay’ (I likened the thing), meaning you described it and brought it closer to understanding. From this is [the verse]: “And to Him belongs the highest likeness,” meaning the highest attribute. Abu Ali rejected this, stating: “Interpreting mathal as attribute is linguistically unsound and not found therein; its meaning is exclusively ‘the similar.’”

Some investigators have said: It is used in three senses: it is used for resemblance in the root language, for a well-known proverb (mathal) in common usage, and for a strange or wondrous attribute—the latter being a metaphorical meaning derived from the idiomatic usage due to the relationship of strangeness, as a proverb only spreads among people because of its strangeness. Most commentators favor interpreting it here as "the strange attribute." In this case, it is a nominative subject (mubtada’), whose predicate, according to Sibawayh, is elided—that is, "Among that which is narrated and recited to you is the attribute of the Garden" (which the righteous have been promised). The word "righteous" is understood as those who guard against disbelief and sins. The predicate was advanced due to the length of the subject’s tail and so that it would not separate the subject from that which is linked to it in meaning.

His saying, “Rivers flow beneath it,” is a sentence that explains [the attribute], like "His creation from dust" in His, the Exalted’s, saying: “Indeed, the likeness of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust.” Or it is a new sentence (musta’nafa) serving as an explanatory commencement, or it is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the elided referent of the relative clause—that is, "which He has promised them." It is also said: It is the predicate, following the pattern of your saying, "The situation of Zayd: people come to him and honor him." This has been objected to as being semantically unsound, because it implies that the rivers are within the description of the Garden, whereas they are in the Garden itself, not in its description. Furthermore, it involves the feminization of the pronoun referring back to mathal (likeness) on the basis of its meaning, which some have deemed poor. This was answered by saying that this is based on the interpretation that "they flow," so the meaning is "The likeness of the Garden is the flowing of the rivers," or that the sentence is interpreted as a singular concept, so no pronoun returns to the subject. Or, the intent by "attribute" is that which is said about it; if one describes it, there is no need for a pronoun, as in the case of the damir al-sha’n (pronoun of state).

Al-Tayyibi said: The feminization of the pronoun is because it returns to the "Garden," not to the "likeness." This is permissible because the objective of the possessor is the essence of the possessed, and mentioning it is a preamble for it, not like "Zayd’s servant." Al-Shihab refuted all of this, calling it a weak and forced argument, because interpreting a sentence as a verbal noun without a transforming particle is anomalous, as is the interpretation that by "attribute" is meant the word itself—there is nothing in the wording to indicate this, and it is a metaphor upon a metaphor; its forced nature is obvious. Analogizing it to the damir al-sha’n is an analogy with a disparity. As for the pronoun returning to the possessed noun rather than the subject in such a construction, it is weaker than a spider's web. Therefore, caution dictates turning away from this interpretation.

Al-Zajjaj says the predicate is elided and the mentioned sentence is an attribute of it; the meaning being: "The likeness of the Garden is a Garden [in which] rivers flow..."—thus He, the Exalted, has made known to us the Garden we have not seen through the things of the world we have witnessed and beheld. Abu Ali refuted this in al-Bahr, stating it is incorrect whether interpreted as "attribute" or "resemblance," because the Garden He estimated is a corporeal body and cannot be an attribute, and because "resemblance" refers to the likeness between two things, which is an event (hadath), so it is not permissible to predicate the corporeal Garden of it. This was rebutted by saying the intent of mathal is the "likened" or the "similar," so there is no objection to the predication.

It is said: The simile here is an image taken from several matters, such as the observed states of gardens: the flow of their rivers, the freshness of their branches, the interlacing of their boughs, and the like. His saying, “Its fruit is everlasting and its shade,” is an explanation of the excellence of those gardens and distinguishes them from these observed gardens. Others said this describes the state of worldly gardens as a hypothetical premise, which would imply a scattering and mere sufficiency in the simile by the flowing of rivers, which does not suit the Quranic eloquence. It is as you see.

It is reported from al-Farra’ that the sentence is also the predicate, but mathal (likeness) is added as an expletive in the sense of "resemblance," with the estimation being: "The Garden which the righteous have been promised, rivers flow beneath it..."—and it is known that it is added in this sense, as in His saying: “There is nothing like unto Him.” Abu Hayyan refuted this by saying that the addition of nouns is not permitted. It was countered that it is frequent in their speech, such as tham (there) in "Peace be upon you both" and "There is no charity except from the surplus of wealth," and so on.

The first view is preferable after all the arguments, as it is free from forced interpretation and contains brevity, conciseness, and detail. The apparent meaning of "food" (akl) is that which is eaten therein, and its "everlasting" nature means it never ceases. Ibrahim al-Taymi said: Its pleasure is everlasting; it is not increased by hunger nor bored of by satiety—though this is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Some interpreted akl as "fruit," arguing that there is nothing in the worldly garden other than it, even if there are other foods in the promised one. It is suggested that this is because it is attributed to the pronoun of the Garden, and one does not speak of "the food of the Garden" regarding other edibles, though there is hesitation in this.

Zill (shade) is, in origin, the opposite of dahw (sunlight). According to al-Raghib, it is more general than fay’ (afternoon shade), for one says "the shade of the night," but not "its fay’," and "shade" is said for any place the sun does not reach, whereas fay’ is only said for that from which the sun has moved. In al-Qamus: It is the sunlight and the fay’, or it is in the morning and fay’ is in the evening. Its plurals are zilal, zulul, and azlal. It is also used metaphorically for power and protection, and for luxury. The popular view here is the first meaning. It is a subject whose predicate is elided—that is, "and its food is likewise," meaning everlasting. The sentence is conjoined to the preceding one. Its "everlasting" nature means it is not abrogated as it is in the world by the sun, since there is no sun there according to the majority of the narrators, or because it has no influence as has been said. In my view, it is permissible that zill (shade) refers to power or luxury, or that the first meaning is intended and the statement serves as a metonymy for everlasting comfort.

Kharijah ibn Mus’ab—as related from him by Ibn al-Mundhir and Abu al-Shaykh—disbelieved [in the eternity of the Garden], claiming it does not last, as is recounted regarding Hell. His followers used this verse to argue that it has not been created yet, for if it were created, it would have to perish and its food would have to cease, based on His saying: “Everything will perish except His Countenance.” But its food does not cease and does not perish, according to the aforementioned verse, so it must not have been created yet. He then said: We do not deny that there are now many gardens in the Heavens enjoyed by whom Allah wills, such as the Prophets, the martyrs, and others, but we say that the Garden of Eternity will only be created after the Resurrection.

The Imam answered this by stating that their argument is composed of two things: the verse “Everything will perish except His Countenance” and the verse “Its food is everlasting.” If we introduce specification (takhsis) into one of these two pillars, the argument falls. We specify one of them with the proofs indicating that the Garden is created, such as His saying: “And a Garden whose width is like the width of the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who believe.”

It is objected against this argument that it is a common requirement: "Thing" (shay’) in the verse “Everything will perish except His Countenance” refers to the existing, absolutely, as in His saying: “Creator of all things, and He is over all things Disposer of affairs.” The meaning is that everything that exists at any time becomes perishable after its existence. Thus, it is correct to say: "If the Garden existed at any time, its food would have to perish to fulfill the generality." But its perishing is false because of His saying “Its food is everlasting,” so its existence at any time is false.

It was answered that perhaps the "thing" refers to that which exists in this world, for it is the abode of perishing, not that which exists in the Hereafter, for it is the abode of eternity. This is sufficient to avoid the common requirement. The objection to this is that if the meaning of "thing" is "that which exists in the world," it is obviously false; and if the meaning is intended by the context of it being judged as perishable—which only happens in the world because it is the abode of perishing—then we say: this is specification by contextual evidence, so we specify it [to exclude] the Garden, based on His saying “prepared for the righteous” and “its food is everlasting.” Thus, the argument does not stand.

Others besides the Imam answered that the intended meaning is the customary duration—that is, the non-occurrence of non-existence for a time to which it is restricted. This does not contradict the occurrence of non-existence upon it or its cessation for a moment. Furthermore, "perishing" does not necessitate annihilation; it is sufficient for it to mean the loss of the intended benefit. Even if it were granted, it is possible that the meaning is that every possible thing is perishing in itself, in the sense that contingent existence relative to Necessary Existence is equivalent to non-existence.

It is also said in answer: The intended meaning of "everlasting" is the real meaning—that is, the non-occurrence of non-existence absolutely. The intended meaning of the "permanence of food" is the permanence of the species, and "perishing" refers to the perishing of individuals. It is possible that the species does not cease at all, even with the perishing of individuals, such that the perishing of each specific individual of food occurs after the existence of its like. This is based on what the majority have held, that the Garden does not experience non-existence even for a moment. As for the view that it passes over it for a moment, it does not hold, because it would necessarily result in the cessation of the species, as is not hidden.

Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—and Ibn Mas’ud—may Allah be pleased with him—read “Mathalu al-Jannah” (Likeness of the Garden). In al-Lawami’ from al-Sulami: “Amthalu al-Jannah” (Likenesses of the Garden)—meaning its attributes. “That”—the Garden described with what has been mentioned—“is the final outcome of those who guarded against”—disbelief and sins—meaning their destination and the end of their affair, “and the final outcome of the disbelievers is the Fire.”