Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:28

(Those whom the angels take in death) — using the feminine form of the verb [tatawaffahum]. Hamzah and al-A’mash read it as (yatawaffahum) with the masculine form here and in what follows, God willing; both ways are common in such instances.

It has also been read with the assimilation of the present-tense prefix ‘ta’ into the subsequent ‘ta’ [ittawaffahum]. In such a case, a conjunctive hamza is brought at the beginning, which falls out in connected speech, even though a conjunctive hamza is not conventionally used at the beginning of a present-tense verb. In the codex of ‘Abd Allah, it is written with a single ‘ta’ in both instances.

Regarding the relative pronoun (the ‘alladhina’), there are three possible grammatical positions: genitive, as an adjective for the ‘disbelievers’ [al-kafirin], an appositive to it, or an explanation of it; and accusative or nominative, as a disconnection for censure. Ibn ‘Atiyyah permitted it to be in the nominative as an initial subject [mubtada’], with the sentence (they offered) as its predicate. Abu Hayyan countered this by stating that the addition of the ‘fa’ particle in the predicate is not permissible here except according to the school of al-Akhfash, who allows its addition to the predicate absolutely, such as in "Zayd, then he stood" (i.e., he stood). He then said: "One should not assume that this ‘fa’ is the one that enters the predicate of a subject when it is a relative pronoun that implies the meaning of a conditional, because it is not permissible for it to enter such a verb when the conditional particle is explicit, and thus it is not permissible when the meaning is implied." He stated this in his own words. Shihab reported from him that he said: "Prohibition when the meaning is implied is more appropriate." His counter-argument—that it being "more appropriate" is not conceded because the refusal of the ‘fa’ with it is due to its strength and lack of need for a connector when it directly precedes the verb, whereas that which implies its meaning is not so—does not support the claim of "appropriateness." Perhaps he found another statement of his that suggests it.

He [Abu Hayyan] preferred the genitive case as an adjective. He then said: "Thus, it is included in the speech." If the speech occurs on the Day of Resurrection, then (they take in death) is in the present tense as a narrative of a past event. If it is in this world—meaning, when He, glory be to Him, informed that He would humiliate them on the Day of Resurrection and says to them what He says—the scholars of knowledge said: "The humiliation of the Day that God Almighty informed He would humiliate them in, and the evil upon the disbelievers, makes (We take in death) in its literal sense." It encompasses, in terms of meaning, both the one whom He takes in death and the one whom the angels take in death. According to what Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned, it is possible that (Those whom...) and onwards is the speech of those who were given knowledge, or that it is a report from Him, the Exalted. The apparent meaning is that the speech is on the Day of Resurrection; thus, the present tense is for the purpose of presenting the image of the angels taking them in death, as was mentioned earlier, because of the terror contained therein. In specifying the humiliation and evil to those who persisted in their disbelief until the time of death—as opposed to those among them who believed, even if late in their lives—is a clear act of reprimand for them. That is: those disbelievers who persisted in disbelief until (the angels take them in death (wronging themselves)), meaning: while they were persisting in the polytheism that is a wrong they committed against themselves—and what a wrong it is, as they exposed themselves to the abiding punishment—(they offered the submission), meaning: the surrender, as al-Akhfash said. Qatadah said: "the submissiveness." There is no distance between the two opinions, and the intent for both is that they manifested surrender and submissiveness. The origin of "throwing/offering" [al-ilqa’] is for physical objects, but it was used for their manifestation of surrender to signify the extreme degree of their submissiveness and yielding, making it like a thing cast before a powerful conqueror.

It is said that the sentence is a conjunction to His saying, Glory be to Him: (And He says: "Where are My partners?"), with the intervening portion being a parenthetical clause brought to confirm the humiliation that has befallen them before the gathered witnesses. The apparent structure would be "they offer" [fayulqun] and so on, but it was expressed in the past tense to signify the certainty of the occurrence—meaning, the Exalted says that to them, and they surrender, yield, abandon the contention, and descend from the arrogance and intensity of temperament they held in the world. Perhaps this is the intent of one who said that the speech had concluded at His saying: (themselves), and then returned to narrating their state on the Day of Resurrection. It is also said that it is a conjunction to (Those who said). Abu al-Baqa’ and others allowed it to be a conjunction to (the angels take them in death), and Abu Hayyan favored this, but Shihab said: "This only holds if (they take in death) is in the meaning of the past." You have already seen the discussion that the sentence is the predicate of (Those whom...), along with what it entails. The first [view] was objected to by saying that His saying: (We were not doing any evil) is either in the accusative by an implied verb, and that speech is a state from the pronoun of (they offered)—meaning: they offered submission saying "We were not..."—or an explanation of the submission they offered, based on the fact that the intent is the speech indicated by it, as evidenced by the other verse: (And they offered the speech to them). In either case, that conjunction would necessitate that this speech occurs from them on the Day of Resurrection, which is an explicit lie, and it is not permissible for a lie to occur on that Day.

It was answered that the intent is: "We were not doing evil in our belief," meaning: our belief was that our action was not evil. This is similar to what was said in interpreting their saying: (By God, our Lord, we were not idolaters). It was countered that the response to them with (Nay, indeed God...) and onwards does not suit this, because it is apparent that it is for the refutation of the negation. It is not said: "The refutation of one who denies while his soul is certain is also a lie, so the interpretation is of no benefit." Some people say that it is permissible for a lie to occur on the Day of Resurrection, and according to this, there is no problem. It is not hidden that this inquiry applies to the assumption that it is a conjunction to (Those who said) as well, since it necessitates, like the first, the occurrence of the speech on the Day of Resurrection, which is the focus of the investigation.

The Shaykh al-Islam—may mercy be upon him—chose the former conjunction and said: "It is a response to His saying, glory be to Him: (Where are My partners?). By 'evil', they meant polytheism, denying its emanation from them. They only expressed it with what was mentioned as a confession of it being evil, while denying that it was so, despite confessing its emanation from them." He denied that it could be a response to the words of those who possess knowledge, claiming that they [the disbelievers] did not deserve what befell them of humiliation and evil. This is perhaps necessary upon the assumption of the conjunction to (Those who said...) and onwards. If the conjunction is to (the angels take them in death), the intent of this speech of theirs—emanating from them when they witness death—is to seek the compassion of the angels, peace be upon them, by denying the emanation of what would justify what they are experiencing at that moment. It is said: the intent by 'evil' is any evil action, broader than polytheism and others, and polytheism is included in it as a primary inclusion, meaning: "We were not doing any evil, let alone polytheism." The particle (min) is in all cases redundant, and (su’) is the object of "doing". (Nay) is a refutation of them from God Almighty, or from those who possess knowledge, or from the angels, peace be upon them. The latter is necessary upon the condition that the speech is at the moment of witnessing death and experiencing it, meaning: "Nay, you were doing what you were doing."

(Indeed, God is Knowing of what you were doing).