Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:111

(On the day when every soul shall come) is in the accusative case as an adverb of time (dharf), and it is said that it is in the accusative as a direct object for an elided verb that is not mentioned. The former is preferred because of the logical consistency of the sequence and its correspondence to His saying: "In the Hereafter they are the losers." Restricting the mercy to that day does not pose a problem, because mercy on other than that day is established a fortiori (by a stronger argument). What is meant by "this day" is the Day of Resurrection.

(Arguing for itself) means defending itself and striving for its salvation through pleading, with no concern for the affair of anyone else, whether child, parent, or relative. Ahmad in al-Zuhd and others recorded from Ka‘b, who said: "I was with ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said: 'Exhort us to fear God (khawwifna), O Ka‘b.' I said: 'O Commander of the Faithful, is there not among you the Book of God Almighty and the wisdom of His Messenger?' He said: 'Yes, but exhort us.' I said: 'O Commander of the Faithful, if you were to meet the Day of Resurrection with the deeds of seventy prophets, you would still belittle your deeds because of what you would see.' He said: 'Tell us more.' I said: 'O Commander of the Faithful, Hell will surely emit a roar on the Day of Resurrection such that no angel brought near nor messenger sent would remain except that he would fall to his knees, even Abraham, His friend, would fall to his knees, saying: "O Lord, my own soul! I do not ask of You today except for my own soul."'" ‘Umar bowed his head for a long time. I then said: "O Commander of the Faithful, do you not find this in the Book of God?" He said: "How?" I said: "The saying of God Almighty in this verse: (On the day when every soul shall come)..."

Some consider this pleading to be the argument (jadal) mentioned, but Ibn ‘Atiyyah did not accept this. The truth is that it is nothing more than an indication of the lack of concern for the affair of another, which is part of what the verse indicates. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that this argument is between the soul (ruh) and the body (jasad). The body says: "By you my tongue spoke, my eye saw, and my foot walked; if not for you, I would have been like a discarded log." The soul says: "You earned and disobeyed, not I; you were the carrier and I was the carried." God Almighty will say: "I strike for you both an example: a blind man who carried a cripple to an orchard, and they ate of its fruit; therefore, the punishment is upon you both." However, the authenticity of this report from this learned scholar is suspect, as he is too exalted to interpret the argument in the verse in such a way.

The pronoun in "itself" (nafsihā) returns to the first "soul" (nafs), as if it were said: "about the soul of the soul." Its outward form suggests the attribution of a thing to itself, so it is explained that the first "soul" is the essence and the total sum—the person with all their parts—as in your saying "a noble soul" or "a blessed soul." The second is the thing itself, which serves as a reinforcement and indicates the reality of the thing and its identity according to the context. The difference between them is that the parts are contemplated in the first but not the second. Originally, the second is used, but because of the difference in reality between the essence and its possessor, it was used in the sense of "possessor," and then the essence was attributed to it. Thus, "every soul" is weighed like your saying "every individual." This is according to al-Kashshaf.

In al-Fara'id, it is stated that difference is a condition between the possessor and the possessed, as relation is impossible without two distinct entities; therefore, they say it is impossible to attribute a thing to itself, unless the difference prior to the attribution is sufficient. This is verified here because "absolute soul" does not necessitate "your soul," but "your soul" necessitates "absolute soul." Therefore, the attribution is valid, even if they become unified after the attribution. This is why "the thing itself," "the whole of it," and "the soul of it" are permissible, unlike "the lion of the lion" or "the restraint of the restraint" and their likes. Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: "The first soul is the known one, and the second is the body." Al-‘Askari said: "A human is called a 'soul'; the Arabs say, 'None came to me but one soul,' meaning one human." In reality, the soul does not "come," for it is the thing by which a person lives. Consider this, for there is some substance to what they have said. The well-known question and answer regarding "every man and his predicament" apply here, so understand.

In al-Bahr, it states that "arguing for it" (tujadilu ‘anha) was not used instead of "arguing for itself" (tujadilu ‘an nafsiha) because if the verb is not of the class of "to think" (zanna) and "to lose" (faqada), it does not explicitly take as an object a pronoun referring to its own subject. Thus, one does not say: "Hind hit her" (where "her" refers to Hind), but rather: "Hind hit herself." The feminine conjugation of "come" (ta’ti) while being attributed to "soul" (nafs), which is masculine, is for the sake of the meaning, and the same is said for what follows. Upon this came His saying: "Every pouring spring rained upon it, and every garden became like a coin."

(And every soul shall be paid in full) meaning, given in full and completely (what it has done), meaning the reward for its deeds—if good, then good, and if evil, then evil. This is by way of naming the cause with the name of the effect, signifying the perfection of the connection between the rewards and the deeds. The use of a noun in the place where a pronoun could have been used is for the sake of greater confirmation and to signal the difference in the timing of the arguing and the full payment, even if they occur on the same day.

(And they shall not be wronged) by the addition of punishment without a sin. It is also said: by the reduction of their rewards. This is objected to on the grounds that it was already known from the preceding. The response is that the one who says this perhaps meant by "reward for what it has done" the punishment. On the assumption of a broader meaning, this is a repetition for emphasis. The purpose of the plural pronoun is clear.