ﲫ ﲬ ﲭ ﲮ ﲯ ﲰ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲴ ﲵ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﲽ ﲾ ﲿ ﳀ ﳁ ﳂ ﳃ ﳄ ﳅ ﳆ ﳇ ﳈ
And if you are astonished, [O Muhammad] - then astonishing is their saying, "When we are dust, will we indeed be [brought] into a new creation?" Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.
Tafsir
Verse range: 13:5
In Al-Bahr, it is noted that one must assume an adjective for "marvelous," as the meaning is not complete with the absolute noun. Thus, it is estimated as: "How marvelous a marvel" or "A marvelous strangeness." If we treat it as qualified, it is permissible to parse it as a subject due to the presence of a justifying factor, which is the qualification. It does not hinder the predicate from being definite; just as Sibawayh said regarding "How much is your wealth?" (kam maluka), that kam is a subject because of the justifying factor, which is the interrogation. Similarly, in phrases like "Intend a man better than him, his father," the word "better" is a predicate for a subject due to the justification, which is the operation.
Abu al-Baqa’ relayed the view that ‘ajab is in the meaning of "one who finds marvelous" (mu‘jib), and then said: "Based on this, it is permissible for 'their saying' to be in the nominative case governed by it." This was countered by the claim that this is not permitted, because just because one thing has the meaning of another does not mean it must share its grammatical rules. Mu‘jib is an active participle and governs, while ‘ajab does not. Do you not see that fi‘l (a killing) and fa‘lat (a seizing) and fu‘lat (a mouthful) are in the meaning of the passive participle, yet they do not function as such? You would not say, "I passed by a man [who had] his ram killed, his wealth seized, or his water gulped," in the sense of madhbuh (slaughtered), maqbud (seized), and maghruf (scooped). They have clearly stated that these substitute in meaning, not in grammatical operation, for the passive participle. Grammarians have limited the things that elevate a subject, and they have not included the verbal noun when it is in the meaning of an active participle.
The apparent meaning is that "When we are dust..." is in the position of the accusative as a quoted statement for a silent verb. The interrogation is one of denial, indicating complete aversion and rejection. It is permitted that it be in the nominative case as a substitute for "their saying," on the grounds that it is in the meaning of "the thing said." This, according to Abu Hayyan, is a strained parsing and a departure from the apparent. Based on this, the marvel is their speaking of that; based on the first, the marvel is the content of their speech.
The governing agent of "when" (idha) is what is indicated by His saying: "Indeed, we will be in a new creation," which is "we will be resurrected" or "we will be restored." "New" (jadid) is the opposite of worn or decayed. One says "a new garment," meaning as it was when finished from its weaving. It is an intensive form (fa‘il) in the meaning of a passive participle, as if it were cut from its loom. The fronting of the adverbial phrase is to strengthen the denial of resurrection by directing it toward it while in a state contradictory to it. The repetition of the hamza in "are we indeed" is to emphasize the denial. The basis of their denial is not that they are actually established in a new creation while they are dust, but rather their contingency upon it and their susceptibility to it. In this lies an indication of their arrogance and persistence in denial that is not hidden.
Abu al-Baqa’ said: It is not permitted for "when" to be governed by "we are," because it is an apposition to it, nor by "new," because what follows "that" does not govern what is before it, and likewise for the interrogation. The first was rejected in Al-Mughni by stating that "when," for those who hold that the governing agent for it is its condition—which is the popular view—is not an apposition, as everyone says when it acts as a jussive, as in the saying: "And if a necessity befalls you, then be patient." It is said: The way to refute this is that its operation is dependent upon the determination of its meaning, and its determination is only through its condition; thus, it is circular. Shihab examined this, noting that it is in their view equivalent to "when" (mata) and "whenever" (ayyana), not specific but rather indefinite, as those who hold this view have mentioned, and it is explicitly stated as such in Al-Mughni.
It is said: The meaning of the verse is, "If you marvel, O Muhammad, at their saying in denying resurrection, then their saying is marvelous and worthy of being marveled at." This was countered in Al-Bahr by stating that this is not the implication of the expression, for it makes the object of his, peace be upon him, marveling to be their saying in denial of resurrection, and the answer to the conditional is that same saying. Thus, the condition and the conclusion are identical, as the estimate is: "If you marvel at their denial of resurrection, then marvel at their saying regarding the denial of resurrection," which is incorrect. This was refuted by saying that this is a case where the condition and conclusion are identical in form but different in substance, as in the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "He whose emigration is to Allah and His Messenger, then his emigration is to Allah and His Messenger." It is a rhetorical superlative, meaning that it is a matter whose true nature cannot be fathomed, and it is a grave matter.
Some have gone to the view that the address in "If you marvel" is general, and the meaning is: If you, O you who look upon what is in these signs and know the power of the One whose actions these are, marvel, then increase your marveling at those who, despite this, deny His power to resurrect, even though it is the easiest of things for Him. It is said: The meaning is, if a sense of marveling renews within you because of their denial of resurrection, then persist in it, for their denial of that is among the most marvelous of things. It is also said: The intended meaning is, if you seek a marvel, O seeker, then come, for among the most marvelous of marvels is their denial of resurrection.
Reciters have differed regarding the two interrogations when they meet in eleven places... [Discussion of Qira'at omitted].
"Those are they" is a subject, and the relative pronoun is the predicate; that is, those deniers of resurrection—after they witnessed the greatest signs of their Lord which would guide them to faith if they were to see—"who disbelieved in their Lord" and persisted in that. For the denial of His power, the Almighty, is a denial of Him, the Sublime, because the Godhead cannot be associated with inability, along with the fact that it involves calling Him, the Majestic, a liar, and calling His messengers—who are in consensus upon it, peace be upon them—liars.
"And those" is a subject, and its predicate is the sentence of His saying: "The shackles are on their necks." There are two possibilities: First, that the intention is to describe them with this in the worldly life; it is a simile and representation of their state in their refusal of faith and lack of attention to the truth, like the state of a group who have shackles and chains on their necks, preventing them from turning, as in the saying: "How can there be guidance, when shackles and fetters have been left upon a group concerning guidance?" It is as if it were said: Those are shackled with the chains of misguidance, from which there is no hope of their escape. Second, that it is a description of them in the Hereafter, and the speech remains upon its literal meaning. The Almighty said: "When the shackles are on their necks and the chains." This is reported from Al-Hasan, who said: "The shackles were not placed on the necks of the people of the Fire because they rendered the Lord, the Sublime, unable, but rather they were placed on their necks so that when the flames flare up, they drag them into the Fire." Or it is expressed as a simile for the state of those brought for punishment.
It is said: The meaning of the shackles is their corrupt deeds which they have put upon themselves like shackles. This applies to both the possibility of this being in the worldly life or the Hereafter. The first considers the aforementioned, and the second considers His saying: "Those," meaning those described by what was mentioned, "are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally," never to be separated from it. It is said: The interposition of the separator is not to restrict eternity specifically to the deniers of resurrection, but to all those indicated by His saying: "Those who disbelieved in their Lord." It was objected that "they" (hum) is not a pronoun of separation (fasl), because its condition is to occur between a subject and a predicate that is a definite noun or something like a definite noun in that it does not accept the definite article, such as an elative noun, and this is not such. It was answered that the intention of the separator is the detached pronoun, and that he brought it and made the predicate a sentence—even though the original is to be a single term—for the sake of the aforementioned exclusivity and specification, just as in "He is knowing." Some have said: Perhaps the one who holds this view does not follow the grammarians in the aforementioned restriction, just as Al-Jurjani and Al-Suhayli permitted this if the predicate is an imperfect verb or an active participle like it.
