Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:46

His saying—the Almighty—"And they have planned their plan" is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) related to the first pronoun in "We dealt with them," or to the second, or to both combined. The statement "And We have set forth for you the parables" has been placed before it due to its strong connection, as some have said, to what precedes it. That is: We dealt with them as We dealt with them, while they had already plotted—in order to nullify the truth and establish falsehood—their immense plot, in the execution of which they exhausted their efforts and exceeded every accustomed limit, to the extent that none other than them could accomplish it. The intent is to clarify the limit they reached in deserving what was done to them. Or, "they have planned their plan" [refers to what is] mentioned regarding the arrangement of the foundations of remaining and the warding off of the causes of decline. Thus, the purpose is to demonstrate their incapacity, the dissolution of their power, and its insignificance before the power of God—the Almighty. This was stated by Shaykh al-Islam, and it is apparent that this is a continuation of what is said to those who committed wrong. This is what is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurazi; for Ibn Jarir extracted from him that he said: "It reached me that the people of the Fire will call out, 'Our Lord, delay us for a short term,' [to the end of the verse]. Then He will respond to them with His saying—the Almighty—'Did you not swear?' up to the words, '...by which the mountains might be moved.'" Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned this as a possibility. Other things have been said which you will learn—God willing—soon.

It is apparent from the words of more than one [scholar] that the exaggeration in "they have planned their plan" is derived from the annexation (idafa). In the Hashiyah al-Shihabiyyah, it is stated that "their plan" (makrahum) is in the accusative case as an absolute object (maf‘ul mutlaq) because it is intransitive. Its indication of exaggeration is [evidenced] by His saying—the Almighty—coming later: "And if their plan..." etc., not because the annexation of the verbal noun implies generality—that is, they displayed every plan of theirs—or because its annexation, while its origin is indetermination (tankir), serves to indicate that they are well-known for that. There is room for investigation regarding this.

"And with God is their plan"—that is, the recompense for their plan—on the basis that the speech [is elliptical] due to the omission of a genitive qualifier (mudaf). It is also permitted that there is no omitted qualifier, and the meaning is: their plan is written with Him—the Almighty—and known to Him—the Almighty—and that is a metaphor for His—the Almighty's—recompensing them for it. However that may be, the annexation of "plan" to the agent—which is the apparent and immediate meaning—is accepted. It is said: It is annexed to its object, in the sense of: "with Him—the Almighty—is their plan which He plots against them." Abu Hayyan countered this by saying that the accepted rule is that "to plot" (makara) is intransitive and has not been heard [as] transitive. It was answered that it is permissible for "the plan" to be used metaphorically or to be imbued with the meaning of "deception" (kayd) or "recompense." The discussion regarding the attribution of the "plot" to Him—the Almighty—and whether it is by way of correspondence (mushakalah) or metaphor, is well-known.

Some investigators mentioned that the intent behind this "plan" is what His saying—the Almighty—indicates: "How We dealt with them," not that it is a new threat. The sentence is a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "they planned"—that is: they planned their plan, and with God—the Almighty—is its recompense; or it is that which is greater than it. The intent is to clarify the corruption of their opinion, as they embarked upon an action while that which necessitated its abandonment was present.

"And if their plan was such that the mountains could be moved by it" (14:46)—that is, even if their plan was at the peak of intensity and firmness. He expressed this by [saying] it was capable of moving mountains from their places, because it is a parable for that. "And" (in) is a conditional, concessive particle according to a group [of scholars]. The intent is that He—the Almighty—will recompense them for their plan and nullify it, whether it was of this intensity or not. On this interpretation, one must observe the [notion of] nullification; otherwise, a recompense devoid of that would hardly lead to the point upon which the rhetorical effect in the concessive "in" revolves, in terms of conceptual emphasis.

It is also permitted that the meaning is: He—the Almighty—confronts them with their plan, and the fact that their plan is at the peak of intensity does not prevent this, for He—the Almighty—is more intense in planning, and there is no need then to observe the [notion of] nullification. So reflect.

From al-Hasan and a group, it is said that "in" (in) is negative, and the lam is the lam of denial (juhud), and "was" (kana) is complete (intransitive). By "the mountains," the verses of God—the Almighty—are meant, as well as His laws and His miracles which were manifest at the hands of the past messengers—peace be upon them—which are like mountains in firmness and stability. The intention is to disparage their plan, [implying] that it was not such that the signs and prophecies could be moved by it. It is permitted that "was" is incomplete (transitive), and its predicate is either omitted or is the verb to which the lam is attached, according to the disagreement between the Basrans and the Kufans. This view was supported by what was narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud: that he recited it as "wa-ma kana" (And it was not) with the negative "ma." This was countered by the fact that it contradicts the recitation indicating the greatness of their plan, such as the recitation of the majority. It was answered that "the mountains" in that recitation refer to the truth they intended to nullify, as we have indicated, and in this [recitation], it refers to its literal meaning. Thus, there is no contradiction, as they did not refer to the same object [in terms of] negation and affirmation. This was refuted by [the argument that] when the truth is made similar to mountains in stability, it is like them—or even lower than them—in this respect. Thus, if its removal by worldly mountains is negated, then the problem arises.

Al-Shihab countered this by saying that this is not valid, because the thing likened does not have to be inferior to the thing it is likened to in the aspect of similarity; rather, it may be otherwise. Even if it were conceded, one who is brave might be able to kill a lion but not be able to kill a man likened to it, due to his protection by equipment or a fortress. And there is no fortress more fortified or protective than the support of God—His majesty—for the truth, such that mountains will disappear on the day they are blown away, yet it [the truth] will not disappear. End quote.

Shaykh al-Islam went to the interpretation of "the mountains" on this recitation as we have mentioned. Then he said: As for them being an expression for the affair of the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—and the affair of the Great Qur’an, as has been said, there is no room for that, since the planners are those who were destroyed, not those dwelling in their homes among the addressed, even if the address is restricted to those warned. It will become clear to you soon—God willing—the permissibility of that according to some opinions on the verse. The sentence is a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "they planned," not from His saying—the Almighty—"And with God is their plan."

Abu al-Baqa and others permitted that it is a lightened form of the heavy [particle] (inna), and the meaning is: "Indeed, their plan was [of a nature] that what is like mountains in stability—the signs, laws, and miracles—would be moved by it." The sentence is also a circumstantial qualifier for the aforementioned pronoun—that is: they planned their plan which is known, and the affair was that their plan was for the removal of the truth of the signs and laws, in the sense that it was not valid that there should be such a plan from them, and the affair of the truth was a deterrent against the embarking upon a plan to remove it.

Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, Ibn Wathab, and al-Kisa’i recited "li-tazula" (for it to move) with the opening of the first lam and the nominative case of the verb. "In" (in) on that basis is, according to the Basrans, a lightened form [of inna], and the lam is the separator (fariqah). According to the Kufans, it is a negative particle and the lam is in the meaning of "except." The intention is to magnify their plan. Thus, the sentence is a circumstantial qualifier from His saying—the Almighty—"And with God is their plan"—that is, with Him—the Almighty—is the recompense for their plan, or the plotting against them, while their plan was such that the mountains would be moved by it; that is, it was at the peak of intensity. It was also recited "li-tazula" with the opening [of the lam] and the accusative case, and that is explained based on a dialect that occurred in the opening of the lam of "kay" (in order to).

‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ubayy, ‘Abdullah, Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman, Abu Ishaq al-Sabi‘i, and Zayd ibn ‘Ali—may God be pleased with them and have mercy on them—recited: "wa-in kada" (And if it almost...) replacing kana (was), and "li-tazula" with the opening [of the lam] and the nominative case. This is also a narration from Ibn ‘Abbas—may God be pleased with them. Abu Hatim narrated from Ubayy—may God be pleased with him—that he recited: "Wa-lawla kalimatu Allahi la-zala min makrihimu al-jibal" (And had it not been for the word of God, the mountains would have been moved by their plan). Some carried this [meaning] as an interpretation because it differs from the script of the Mushaf in a clear difference.

Furthermore, some people said: The pronoun in "they planned" refers to those who are warned, and what is intended by their plan is what His saying—the Exalted—indicates: "And [remember] when those who disbelieved plotted against you to imprison you or kill you or evict you," and other types of their plotting against the Messenger of God—may God bless him and grant him peace. Shaykh al-Islam said: Perhaps the interpretation then is that His saying—the Almighty—"And they have planned..." etc., is a circumstantial qualifier for the [implied] statement; that is, it is said to them what is said, while they—despite what they did of the aforementioned swearing along with what contradicts it—plotted their immense plan. That is, what originated from them was not merely the swearing for which they were rebuked, but they dared to [commit] such a great [wrong]. His saying—the Almighty—"And with God is their plan" is a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "they planned," as was mentioned before. His saying—the Almighty—"And if their plan..." etc., is driven to clarify the lack of difference in the realization of the recompense between their plan being strong or weak, as was indicated earlier.

On the assumption that "in" is negative, it is a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "they planned," and the mountains are an expression for the affair of the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—that is: "And they planned, while their plan was not such that those laws and signs, which are like mountains in strength, would be moved by it." On the assumption that it is a lightened form of the heavy [particle] and the lam is with a kasra, it is also a circumstantial qualifier for it, in the sense that this great plan of theirs was for that goal/intention, meant to imply that it was not valid that there should be such a plan from them, for the affair of the laws is too great to be plotted against. On the assumption of the opening of the lam, it is a circumstantial qualifier from His saying—the Almighty—"And with God is their plan," as was mentioned previously.

It is permissible that "their plan" refers to their polytheism, as extracted by Ibn Jarir and others from Ibn ‘Abbas, and that the mountains are [taken] in their literal meaning. The affair of the sentence is [interpreted] according to what he said. The gist of the meaning is: What originated from them was not merely the swearing along with what contradicts it; rather, they dared [to commit] polytheism and said: "The Most Merciful has taken a son. You have come with something monstrous. The heavens almost rupture therefrom, the earth splits, and the mountains fall down in ruin." It has been narrated from al-Dahhak that he explicitly stated that what we are dealing with here is like this verse.

Furthermore, saying that the pronoun refers to those warned is a statement that this speech does not enter into the scope of what is said, and this is the apparent meaning as stated. Similarly, carrying "the mountains" upon their literal meaning [is the apparent meaning]. In al-Bahr, it appears that the moving of the mountains is a metaphor coined as a parable for the plan of Quraysh and its greatness, and the mountains do not [actually] move. In this, there is an exaggeration in condemning their plan which is not hidden.

As for what is narrated that a mountain moved by the oath of a woman accused by her husband, and that the mountain was such that whoever swore falsely upon it died—so she was brought to the mountain for the oath, and she plotted by throwing herself from the mount, and she had promised the one she was accused with that he would be in the place where she fell from the mount; so her husband and that man helped her mount [the animal], and she swore upon the mountain that no one had touched her except them, and she dismounted safely, and the mountain was found to have crumbled—and the woman was from ‘Adnan... And what is narrated from the story of Nimrod ibn Kush ibn Kan‘an or Nebuchadnezzar, and the taking of the eagles and their ascent to near the heavens in a long, famous story; and what some have done by carrying the mountains upon the religion of Islam and the Qur’an, and carrying the "plan" upon their disagreement regarding it—saying: "This is magic, this is poetry, this is a lie"—these are statements from which the apparent wording recoils, and the story of the eagles is very far-fetched.

This was also deemed unlikely as the Imam the Judge narrated, and he said: The danger in that is great, and a rational person would hardly venture into it, and no reliable authentic report has come [concerning it], and there is no need to interpret the verse with it. Well did he say regarding the report of the eagles.

It is also narrated from ‘Ali—may God ennoble his countenance—and from Mujahid, Ibn Jubayr, Abu ‘Ubaydah, al-Suddi, and others, although in the chains of transmission there is that which is not hidden to those who scrutinize. Such things have become common among the reports of the storytellers, and their reports are [far] from the degree of acceptance. Even if they flew to the soaring eagle—and such, in my view, is the report of the accused woman. So understand, and God—the Almighty—knows best.