Al-Isra: (68) “Do you then feel secure that He will cause to swallow up...”

“Do you then feel secure...” The Hamza is for denunciation, in the sense that one ought not to feel secure. The Fa serves as a conjunction to a suppressed clause situated between it and the Hamza; that is: "Have you been saved, so you feel secure?" This is the position of some grammarians. Others have chosen the view that the Hamza is transposed from a later position due to its inherent entitlement to precedence, and the conjunction links to what precedes it, while the sentence "Man is ever..." is parenthetical between the two conjoined elements, with no suppression involved—this being the position of the majority. However, the causation of the denunciation of feeling secure does not appear, according to this view, to stem from what precedes it in the manner this doctrine implies; rather, it appears to be a consequence of the salvation alone, and the turning away [from God] has no role in the causation of the denunciation. The truth, in my view, regarding such matters is that which provides a sound meaning without artifice, and it is not obligatory to adhere to either of these two schools of thought if it leads to affectation, for that is sheer fanaticism. The address is to those mentioned previously: "Do you feel secure, O you who turn away upon your salvation, that He will cause to swallow up for you a portion of the land"—which is your place of security—that is, that God Almighty will cause it to vanish and take it away into the depths of the earth, while you are upon it, assuming the Ba denotes accompaniment, and the prepositional phrase is in the position of a state (hal). It is permissible that the Ba denotes causation, and the prepositional phrase is connected to "with Him" (‘indah), meaning: that He—glorified be He—will cause it to vanish on your account. This has been countered by the argument that it does not follow from the vanishing of the land on their account that they themselves must be destroyed or swallowed up with it. It has been answered that since the intent by "a portion of the land" is the portion they are currently occupying, its vanishing necessitates their destruction; were it not for this, there would be no benefit in the threat. The word "portion" (janb) is in the accusative case in both interpretations as the object of "swallow up." In al-Durr al-Masun, it is stated that it is in the accusative as an adverb of place, in which case the Ba may be for transitiveness, meaning: "Do you feel secure that He will cause you to vanish in that?"

In the Qamus: "God Almighty khasafa (swallowed up) the earth with such-and-such a person," meaning He caused him to vanish within it. It appears this is an explanation of the linguistic meaning of the term. The mention of the "portion" is an alert that when they reached the shore, they turned away, or it is to convey that all sides and directions are equal relative to His power, coercion, and authority. Thus, in every portion—be it land or sea—there is a prepared cause of destruction. Therefore, the sea is not uniquely characterized by this; rather, if drowning is the destruction in the sea, there is its equivalent in the land, which is being swallowed up, for it is a vanishing beneath the soil, just as drowning is a vanishing beneath the water. Consequently, a rational person must fear God Almighty in all directions.

The first [interpretation] is upon the assumption that "a portion of the land" refers to its edge bordering the sea, which is the shore, whereas this [latter view] is based on the possibility that it refers to what encompasses all its sides. Ibn Kathir and Abu ‘Amr recited "We cause to swallow up" (nakhsif) with the Nun of majesty, as is the case in the four [verbs] that follow it.

“...or send against you a storm of stones...” Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Abbas that he said: "It is a rain of stones," meaning a rain that pelted them, i.e., threw at them hasba—which is small pebbles. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Qatada that he interpreted al-hasib as the stones themselves, and perhaps it is then a derivative form, i.e., possessing stones, and the intended meaning is the throwing. Al-Farra’ said: "The hasib is the wind that throws pebbles." Al-Zajjaj said: "It is the dust which contains pebbles," and the form is also a derivative. It has also come to mean what is scattered of fine snow and hail, among which is the saying of al-Farazdaq: “Facing the north wind of Syria, it strikes them with a hasib, like carded wool scattered.” It also means the clouds that cast these things. Al-Zamakhshari and those who followed him chose the interpretation of al-Farra’. The apparent meaning is that the speech is to be taken in its literal sense; so the meaning is: if He does not strike you with destruction from beneath you by swallowing you up, He strikes you with it from above you with a wind He sends against you containing pebbles, pelting you with them, so it would be more severe for you than drowning in the sea. The like of this is said regarding all interpretations of al-hasib. Al-Khafaji said, concerning the description of the wind as throwing stones: "It is an expression of its intensity." Mentioning it is an indication that they feared the destruction of the wind while at sea, so it was said: if He wills, He can destroy you by the wind on land as well. I do not know what prevents taking it in its literal sense, for intensity habitually necessitates the aforementioned pelting, and this indication is indeed the indication.

“...then you will not find for yourselves a protector” to whom you entrust your affairs so that He may protect you from that or divert it from you, other than Him, Majestic and Exalted, for there is no repeller of His command, the Almighty—glorified be His majesty.