An-Nahl: (61) "And if Allah were to seize the people..."

(And if Allah were to seize the people)—those who are absolutely wrongdoers. It is said: [He seizes them] for their disbelief. "Seizing" (mu’akhadha) is a reciprocal form (mufa'ala) derived from "to act" (fa'ala), in the sense of "to act" itself; this is the manifest interpretation. Ibn ‘Atiyya said: It is a metaphor, as if the servant takes away the right of Allah Almighty by his disobedience, and Allah Almighty takes away from him by punishing him; the same situation applies when people seize one another.

(For their wrongdoing)—that is, because of their disbelief and their sins, based on the fact that wrongdoing (zulm) is performing an act that is not appropriate and placing it in a position other than its own. It is sometimes restricted to disbelief and aggression against others, and it includes everything that is counted among the vices. This is a clarification of what is implied by His saying: (He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise), and an indication that the vices committed by these disbelievers have reached an extreme for which there is no limit beyond.

(He would not leave upon it)—that is, upon the earth, which is indicated by "the people" and by His saying: (any creature), based on the well-known fact that movement (dabib) occurs on the earth. This means: He would not leave upon it a single creature at all, but rather He would annihilate them entirely. As for the wrongdoer, [he is destroyed] because of his wrongdoing; and as for others, they [are destroyed] due to the evil consequences of that [wrongdoing]. Allah, Glory be to Him, has said: (And fear a trial that will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively).

Al-Bayhaqi recorded in Ash-Shu'ab and others, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that he heard a man say: "The wrongdoer harms none but himself." He replied: "Nay, by Allah! The bustard bird dies of emaciation in its nest because of the wrongdoer’s wrongdoing." He [Al-Bayhaqi] also recorded therein and others, on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud, who said: "The dung beetle is nearly punished in its burrow for the sin of the son of Adam," then he recited the verse. Ahmad also recorded in Az-Zuhd on his authority that he said: "The sins of the son of Adam killed the dung beetle in its burrow," then he said: "Yes, by Allah, during the time of the drowning of the people of Noah (peace be upon him)."

It is said: The intent is "any wrong-doing creature," assuming the indefinite (tanwin) is for a type, and it is restricted to the disbelievers and the sinners among mankind. It is also said: [It refers to] them and the jinn. It is further said: The intent is the "wrong-doing creature"—the one that performs what is not appropriate according to the Law (shar') or custom ('urf), thus including some animals if they harm others. A group, including Ibn Abbas, said: The "creature" (dabba) refers to the polytheist, for Allah said: (Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved). Al-Jubba'i said: The word "creature" is in its general sense, so it includes all animals, and the intent is "the wrongdoers" absolutely.

The reasoning for the implication is: If Allah were to seize them for what they earned of disbelief or sin, He would hasten their destruction, and at that point, no offspring would remain for them. It is known that there is no one who does not have among his ancestors those who deserve punishment. If they all perished and their lineage was cut off, no human would remain, and then the [other] creatures would perish because they were created for the benefits and interests of the servants, as is suggested by His saying: (It is He who created for you all that is on the earth). By restricting it to "the people," the argument drawn from the verse against the infallibility of the Prophets (peace be upon them) is invalidated.

Some investigators have said: There is no need for such a restriction; the verse is of the category of "The tribe of Banu Tamim killed a person" [i.e., a general statement meant to be understood specifically due to context], because the proofs and texts regarding the infallibility of the Prophets are overwhelming, so one cannot say: "The principle is to interpret it according to its literal truth." Some used His saying: (Then we caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants; and among them is he who wrongs himself, and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds) as a proof for restriction, and [it is argued] that otherwise the categorization would be invalidated. It may be said that no one is free from being described as a wrongdoer, but the levels differ; the good deeds of the righteous are the "sins" of those drawn near [to Allah]. The infallibility claimed for the Prophets (peace be upon them) is only an infallibility from what is considered a sin relative to others. As for infallibility from what is considered a sin relative to their own station and rank, it is not claimed for them, for that has indeed occurred from them, as many verses bear witness. Ibn Mardawayh recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "If Allah Almighty were to seize me and 'Isa son of Maryam for our sins"—or in another wording: "for what these two thumbs and those following them have committed"—"He would punish us, and He would not be wronging us in anything."

Yes, a Prophet is not called "a wrongdoer," nor are the Prophets (peace be upon them) called "wrongdoers," yet "the people" are called "wrongdoers." This is similar to saying: It is not said to Allah, Glory be to Him, "Creator of apes and swine," yet it is said, "He is the Creator of all things." Something is permissible as a subordinate part, but not permissible independently. The matter of categorization is easy for the reflective person, so let him reflect.

Some people have argued from the verse that the origin of harms is prohibition. For if harm were legitimate, it would either be legitimate as a penalty for a crime or not, and both categories are invalid. As for the first, [it is invalid] because of the verse, and that is for two reasons: First, that "if" (law) implies that Allah did not seize the people for their wrongdoing and that He left creatures upon the earth. Second, that the implication of "seizing" is to leave no creature upon the earth, and we observe that He has left many creatures; therefore, we must be certain that Allah has not seized [them] for wrongdoing. As for the second [case], it is invalid by consensus. Thus, it is proven by the implication of the verse that harms are prohibited. This is confirmed by other verses and traditions. Hence, it is said: If an incident occurs involving harm from all aspects, if we find a text indicating its legitimacy, we rule accordingly—giving precedence to the specific over the general—otherwise, we rule for prohibition based on the established principle.

The Mu'tazilah used this verse as proof that the servants are the creators of their own actions, and the reasoning for this, along with its rebuttal, is self-evident.

(But He delays them until a specified term)—which He, Glory be to Him, has named and appointed for their lives or for their punishment, so that they may multiply or their punishment may increase. When their specified term comes, (they will not remain behind)—from it—(an hour)—the shortest duration—(nor will they precede it).