Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:21

(And they all will appear before Allah)—that is, they will appear on the Day of Resurrection. The choice of the past tense is to signify the certainty of its occurrence, or because there is neither past nor future for Him, the Exalted. Their "appearing" before Allah denotes their emergence from their graves to those who see them for the sake of Allah the Exalted’s reckoning; the lam (in li-Allah) is for causation, and there is an omission of a genitive construct (mudaf). It is also permitted that the lam be a connective for "appearing" and that there is no omitted mudaf. It is not intended that they appear before Him—the Almighty—according to their own selves and their own beliefs; for when they committed acts of indecency in secret, they thought they were hidden from Allah the Exalted. Thus, when the Day of Resurrection comes, they are exposed before Him in their own estimation, and they realize that nothing is hidden from Him—the Almighty.

Ibn Atiyyah said: The meaning of barazu is that they arrived at the baraz, which is the wide, open land; this is a metaphor for the gathering place of the Day of Resurrection. This leans toward the interpretation of causation and omission. The Imam transmitted from the philosophers regarding the interpretation of "appearing" that when the soul separates from the body, it is as if the veil is removed, and it remains abstracted in its essence, stripped of everything other than itself. That is the "appearing" before Allah the Exalted. This is speech that the Arabs would count among riddles, and therefore, the traditionists did not pay attention to it.

Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with both of them) recited it as wa-burrizu (passive, with the ra emphasized). The meaning is that Allah the Exalted made them appear and brought them out from their graves for His reckoning.

(Then the weak said)—the plural of "weak," and they are those weak in opinion, namely the followers. It was written in the Uthmanic codex with a waw before the hamza. The justification for this is that it follows the pronunciation of one who gives the alif before the hamza a heavy sound (tafkhim), thus inclining it toward a waw. An example of this is ‘alamu bani isra’il. Al-Ja‘bari rejected this, saying that it is not of the language of the Arabs, and there is no need for such a justification because the script is a followed tradition. Ibn Qutaybah claimed that it is a weak dialect. If it were justified as following its pronunciation during a pause—for there are reciters who pause on such words with a waw—that would be good and correct. This is what was mentioned, so let it be reviewed. Perhaps he who is fair-minded sees nothing better than abandoning such justifications.

(To those who were arrogant)—that is, to their leaders who led them to follow them and caused them to go astray. (Indeed, we were)—in the world—(followers of yours) in denying the messengers (peace be upon them) and turning away from their counsel. Taba‘ is the plural of tabi‘ (follower), like khadim (servant) and khadam, or gha’ib (absent) and ghuyyab, or it is a collective noun for that. It is not mentioned as a plural in Al-Bahr, or it is an infinitive used as a descriptor for emphasis, or through figurative interpretation, or by estimating an omitted mudaf—that is, tabi‘in (followers) or dhawi taba‘ (possessors of following). On all these possibilities, the prepositional phrase relates to it, and the fronting is for exclusivity: "Followers of you, and not of anyone else." It is also said: The meaning is that we were followers of you, not of our own judgment; hence, Allah the Exalted called them "weak." It does not necessitate that the leaders were strong in judgment, as they were misguided and led others astray. If "weakness" were interpreted as their being under their [the leaders'] authority and following them, it would be better, but it is not entirely certain.

(Can you then avert from us)—an interrogation intended for rebuke, scolding, and invalidation, to indicate the causality of the following in relation to the "aversion" (ighna'). It is from ghina', meaning utility, and it implies the meaning of "repelling"; hence it is constructed with ‘an (from). That is: We followed you in the misguidance you were in, so are you today repelling from us (any of the punishment of Allah?)—that is, some of the thing that is the punishment of Allah the Exalted. This is based on the claim that the second min is for partitive purposes and occupies the place of an object for the aforementioned description, while the first is for explanation (bayan) and occupies the place of an adverbial state (hal) of the second's genitive, because if it were delayed, it would be an attribute to it, and an attribute to an indefinite noun, if fronted, is parsed as an adverbial state. This view was challenged on the grounds that it involves fronting the explanatory min over what it explains, which is not permissible, nor is fronting the adverbial state over its genitive owner. It was replied that there is a disagreement regarding both these matters; a group permitted the fronting of the explanatory min and validated it, because what is lost by fronting is the attributive quality, not the explanatory one. Similarly, many, like Ibn Kaysan and others, permitted the fronting of the adverbial state over its genitive owner. Perhaps the one who adopts this view in the verse holds the opinion of those who permit both frontings.

Some of the researchers said: It is permitted to front this hal because it is, in reality, from what has taken the place of min shay’ (from a thing)—meaning "some," and not from the genitive alone. This involves a degree of remoteness that is not hidden. It was also permitted that both the first and second be partitive, and the meaning would be: Are you averting from us some of a thing, which is some of the punishment of Allah the Exalted? The parsing is as previously stated. Some chose for this that the hal is from what took the place of min shay’, for if it were made a hal from the genitive, the speech would lead to: "Are you averting from us some of some of the punishment of Allah?" which has no meaning. It is said that this implies intensification in the lack of "aversion," like their saying: "less than the least." Thus, denying the meaning while there is no meaning is not correct, and the cancellation [of the grammatical relationship] is not valid, as it is not correct for two adverbials of the same genus to relate to a verb without a connection between them to justify the dependency. Making the second a substitute (badal) for the first is rejected by the wording and the meaning, as is in Al-Kashshaf. Abu Hayyan scrutinized the suggestion of partitive usage in both places, as you have heard, saying that this necessitates a beginning, which would be a substitution of the general for the specific, because "from a thing" is more general than his saying "from the punishment." This is not said, because the partitive nature of a thing is absolute and thus cannot have a part. From what we have mentioned, what is in it is known.

It was permitted that the first be an object and the second an attribute of an infinitive that took its place, and "the thing" is an expression of "aversion of some kind." That is: Are you averting from us some of the punishment of Allah, some aversion? This was scrutinized on the grounds that it necessitates two adverbials relating to one agent, to the end of what you heard earlier. This is debatable because, as one is in the interpretation of a direct object and the other in the interpretation of a cognate accusative, the relation is valid, and they are not of the same genus. It may be said that the qualification of the second verb is after considering its qualification by the first, so the agent is not one.

Al-Hufi and Abu al-Baqa’ asserted that the second min is redundant for emphasis. Its redundancy is permitted by the preceding interrogation, which is here in the sense of negation. Min ‘adhabillah either relates to mughnun or relates to an omitted element that occurred as a hal from shay’—that is, "a thing existing from the punishment of Allah the Exalted"—or "averting from the punishment of Allah some aversion."

(They said)—that is, the arrogant ones, in response to the rebuke and scolding of the weak, and as an excuse for what they did to them: (If Allah had guided us)—to faith, and granted us success in it—(we would have guided you). (But)—page 206—we have gone astray, so we have caused you to go astray)—that is, we chose for you what we chose for ourselves. The gist of this, as it is said, is that what came from us regarding you was counsel, but we were deficient in our judgment. Al-Zamakhshari said: They cast the blame for their misguidance and for leading others astray upon Allah the Exalted, and they lied in that. That lying occurs from the likes of them on the Day of Resurrection is indicated by His saying, the Exalted, narrating about the hypocrites: (The Day when Allah will resurrect them all, then they will swear to Him as they swear to you, and they will think that they are on something). He [al-Zamakhshari] disagreed here with the principles of his teachers, for they do not permit the issuance of lies from the people of the Resurrection, so it would not be accepted from them. It was also permitted that the meaning be: If we were among the people of grace, and our Lord showed us grace and we were guided, we would have guided you to faith. The judge transmitted this and criticized it, as the Imam mentioned. It was said: The meaning is, if Allah the Exalted had guided us to the return to the world so we could rectify what we corrupted, we would have guided you. This is as you see. Al-Jayyani and Abu Muslim said: The intended meaning is: If Allah the Exalted had guided us to the path of salvation from punishment and attaining reward and grace, we would have guided you to that. The gist is: If we were saved, we would have saved you too; but there is no aspiration for that for us or for you. The Imam said: The proof that "guidance" here means this is that it is what they sought and requested.

(It is the same for us whether we panic)—at what we have encountered—(or we are patient)—with that. Sawa’ is a noun in the sense of "equality," in the nominative case as a predicate for the verb mentioned after it because it is stripped of relation and time, so its rule is the rule of an infinitive. The hamza and am have been stripped of the interrogation for the sake of mere equalization; hence, the sentence became declarative. It is as if it were said: "Our panicking and our patience are the same for us," that is, equal. The predicate was singularized because it is originally an infinitive. Al-Radi said in a similar case: Sawa’ is a predicate of an omitted subject, that is: "The two matters are equal," then he clarified the two matters by their saying: "whether we panic or are patient." What was said—that sawa’ is a predicate of an omitted subject and the sentence is a recompense for the sentence mentioned after it for its inclusion of the meaning of a condition and the interrogation hamza giving the meaning of "if" due to their sharing in the indication of the lack of certainty—is forced, as is not hidden. Jaza‘ (panic) is sorrow that turns one away from what is desired, so it is intense sorrow. In Al-Bahr, it is the inability to endure intensity, so it is the opposite of patience. They attributed both panic and patience and their equality to the pronoun of the speaker, which includes the addressees also, as an emphasis in forbidding the rebuke by informing them that they are partners with them in what they have been afflicted with, and as a consolation to them.

It was permitted that this be from the speech of both groups, so it is returned to what the speech was directed at, and they are the two groups. There is no consideration of proximity, as was said regarding His saying, the Exalted: (That is so he may know that I did not betray him in [his] absence). This was supported by what Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Tabarani, and Ibn Mardawayh brought out from Ka‘b ibn Malik, who attributed it to the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding what he thought he said: "The people of Hell will say: 'Come, let us be patient,' so they will be patient for five hundred years. When they see that it does not benefit them, they will say: 'Come, let us panic,' so they will weep for five hundred years. When they see that it does not benefit them, they will say: (It is the same for us whether we panic or are patient)." Some favored the view that this dialogue between the weak and the arrogant is in the Fire, leaning toward the apparent meanings of the reports.

Abu Hayyan suggested that it is in the place of the presentation before Allah the Exalted, and the saying of the followers: (Can you then avert from us) is a panic on their part, as is the answer of the leaders with their admission of misguidance. The possibility that it is from the speech of the first group only is very much against the apparent meaning. And His saying, the Exalted: (We have no place of escape)—is a sentence explaining the ambiguity of what is in it regarding the equality, so it has no place in the parsing, or it is an emphatic hal, or a substitute for it. Mahis is from hasa, meaning to turn aside and flee. It is either a noun of place, like mabit and masif, or a mim-infinitive, like maghib and mashib. The meaning is: We have no place in which we can be saved from His punishment, or we have no salvation from that.