Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:99

"Do they not see that Allah, who created the heavens and the earth" (i.e., have they not reflected and realized that Allah the Exalted, who has the power to create these massive, majestic celestial bodies and physical forms—part of which includes human beings—is indeed) "capable of creating the like of them" (meaning from mankind). If He is capable of that, how could He not be capable of restoring them? Restoration is easier for Him, glory be to Him. Some investigators have said: "The 'like' (mithl) here is like the usage in the phrase 'your like does not behave stingily' (mithluka la yabkhal)," meaning He is capable of creating them. The intent of "creation" here is restoration, as previously expressed by the words, "a new creation." However, this interpretation is not without remoteness.

Some have claimed that the intent is that He is capable of creating other servants who will profess His oneness, acknowledge the perfection of His power and wisdom, and abandon the mention of these corrupt doubts—similar to His saying: "And He will bring a new creation," and His saying: "And He will replace you with a people other than you." But this does not fit the context, as is not hidden from those of refined taste.

Know that the apparent meaning of the verse is that the disbelievers denied their restoration on the Day of Resurrection, in the sense of reassembling their scattered parts, pulverized bones, and putting them together again, then restoring life to them as they were in this world. This is what they meant by their saying, "Shall we indeed be resurrected as a new creation?" following their previous statement, "Shall we be [resurrected when we are] bones and fragments?" Thus, He responded to them by proving this through a demonstrative path.

On this basis, the verse is one of the proofs for those who say that the gathering consists of the restoration of the exact parts of the bodies that scatter—except for the bodies of the prophets (peace be upon them), those who never committed a sin, the callers to prayer (mu'adhdhinun) who did so for the sake of Allah, and others whose bodies are forbidden to the earth, as stated in the reports. They meant by this the "original parts," which are those that existed at the beginning of creation at the moment the soul was breathed into them. They believe these are preserved from ever becoming a part of another body, let alone an "original part" of it.

Those who hold this view are in the minority. Al-Amidi narrated it in the form of "it is said," but Fakhr al-Razi favored it and noted that the majority hold that Allah the Exalted annihilates the essences entirely and then restores them. He said: "This is the correct view." Al-Badr al-Zarkashi said the same. Al-Laqani mentioned that this is the view of the Sunnis and the Mu'tazilah who believe in the possibility of annihilation and non-existence for bodies, or rather in its occurrence, even if they differ on whether this happens through the creation of an opposite, the absence of a condition, or without either.

The Qadi from among the Sunnis and Abu al-Hudhail from the Mu'tazilah chose the latter. They said: Allah annihilates what He wills to annihilate just as He brings it into existence. He says to it, according to Abu al-Hudhail, "Perish," and it perishes, just as He says to it "Be," and it is. The majority of the Mu'tazilah went to the first, saying: The annihilation of the substance occurs through the creation of an opposite for it, which is "annihilation." They then differed: Ibn al-Ikhshid held that Allah the Exalted creates annihilation in one of the directions of the substances, and all substances are annihilated. Ibn Shabib said: He the Exalted creates in every individual substance an annihilation that necessitates the non-existence of the substance in the second moment. Abu Ali and Abu Hashim and their followers held that Allah the Exalted annihilates the substance by creating an annihilation not in a specific location within it. They then differed: Abu Ali and his followers said that Allah the Exalted creates one annihilation—not in a location—by which He annihilates all substances. Abu Hashim and his followers said He the Exalted creates an annihilation for every substance, not in a location.

The Imam of the Two Holy Mosques (al-Haramain) and the majority of the Sunnis, as well as Bishr al-Marisi and al-Ka'bi from the Mu'tazilah, went to the second view [the absence of a condition]. They differed in defining the condition: Bishr said it is "permanence" (baqa') which He creates, not in a location; if He does not create it, the substance is annihilated. The majority and al-Ka'bi said: It is a "permanence" that subsists in the substance, which He the Exalted creates in it moment by moment; if He does not create it in it, the substance ceases to exist. The Imam of the Two Holy Mosques said: It is the accidents (a'rad) that the body must be characterized by; Allah the Exalted creates them in the body moment by moment, so whenever He does not create them in it, it ceases to exist. Al-Nazzam said: It is the creation of the substance by Allah the Exalted moment by moment; for him, substances have no "permanence," rather they are renewed with the renewal of the accidents. If He does not sustain the creation of the substance, it perishes.

You know that most of these claims are among the vanities, especially the saying that annihilation is a thing realized in the exterior, an opposite to permanence existing by itself or in the substance, and the claim that permanence exists not in a location. Perhaps the invalidity is self-evident. They argued for this school by citing His saying: "Everything will perish except His Face," and His saying: "Everyone upon the earth will perish." They answered the argument regarding the verse by saying the disbelievers sufficed with the "least of what is necessary" and intended hyperbole in their denial, because if resurrection after being bones and fragments is, in their estimation, impossible, then its impossibility after total annihilation is even more obvious. The response is that the "perishing" of everything is its departure from its required qualities; scattering is likewise called perishing, and it is also called annihilation in common parlance. Thus, using the two verses as proof is not complete, and what they said in response to the verse is contrary to the apparent meaning. The objection that "the restoration of the non-existent is impossible" does not hold against them, due to the proofs the philosophers mentioned—and which the Muslims mentioned in refuting them.

Some people have said that the coccyx ('ajb al-dhanab) does not perish, even if the rest of the body parts perish, based on the report in the two Sahihs: "Nothing of the human being will decay except one bone, which is the coccyx; from it, the creation will be formed on the Day of Resurrection." In Muslim's narration: "Every son of Adam is consumed by the earth except the coccyx; from it he was created, and from it he is reconstructed." Al-Muzani authenticated that it also perishes, interpreting the tradition to mean that the entire human being decays in the earth and is the cause of his own perishing, except the coccyx, which Allah the Exalted annihilates without earth—just as He causes the Angel of Death to die without an angel of death. Creation and reconstruction from it is possible after it is restored; thus, what is mentioned is not a definitive text for its permanence. Ibn Qutaybah agreed with this. You know that the apparent meanings of the reports indicate its absolute non-perishing. Some scholars refrained from being certain about either of the two previous schools regarding the manner of the gathering.

Al-Sa'd said: That is the truth, and it is the choice of the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques. In al-Mawaqif and its commentary by the Great Sayyid, it is asked: Does Allah the Exalted annihilate the bodily parts and then restore them, or does He scatter them and restore the composition in them? The truth is that nothing has been established regarding this, so there is no certainty in negation or affirmation, due to the lack of evidence for either side. Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali said in his book al-Iqtisad: "If it is said, what do you say—are the substances and accidents annihilated and both restored, or are the accidents annihilated without the substances and then only the accidents are restored? We say both are possible, and the truth is that there is no definitive evidence in the Sharia to specify one of the two possibilities." Some said: The truth is the occurrence of both—restoring that which was annihilated as it was, and restoring that which was scattered by its accidents. This is a good view. The discussion on this topic is very long, and perhaps Allah the Exalted will grace us with completing it, even if in multiple places.

"And He has appointed for them a term" (which is the appointed time for their restoration and gathering, or their death. Based on this, it is a generic noun, because everyone has a term for death that is specific to them. The application of "term" (ajal) to death has come [in the Quran]; the aspect is that it applies to the duration of life and its end, and death is adjacent to that) "about which there is no doubt" (i.e., there should be no doubt or denial about it for those who reflect, or the negation is according to its apparent meaning).

The sentence is conjoined to "Do they not see." Although it is creative/interrogative and there is some debate about conjoining an informative/declarative sentence to it, it is interpreted as declarative. Conjoining to the connective (sila) in what passed is difficult due to the separation by the predicate of anna. It is likewise for what is after the masdariyyah anna in wording and meaning. The meaning, as in al-Kashf and others, is that they have already known through the proof of reason that Allah the Exalted is capable of restoring them, and He has appointed a term for it about which there is no doubt, so it is inevitable. That is, if that is possible in itself and its occurrence is obligatory by the report of the Truthful One, denial has no meaning.

If "term" means the appointed time of their restoration—the Day of Resurrection—due to their statement, "Shall we indeed be resurrected as a new creation?", which is the apparent meaning, then it is clear. If it means death, the aspect is that they have known its possibility, that they are inevitably dying, that they will surely shed this life, and that there must be a reward for them; they were not created in vain and were not left to drift. So why the denial? It is as if He sufficed with death instead of what comes after it, because it is the beginning of the Resurrection; whoever dies, his resurrection has begun. The conjunction is, in estimation, to "have they known." It is understood from this explanation that the common link between the two sentences for the validity of the conjunction is very strong.

Al-Qutb claimed that the first is the conjunction to what is after the masdariyyah anna; as for the first, because it is closer; and as for the second, because the appointment of the term then enters under His power, the Exalted, and under their knowledge, unlike when conjoined to His saying, "Do they not see," etc. What is in this for one whose sphere of thought has rotated on the axis of investigation is not hidden.

"But the wrongdoers" (who disbelieved in the verses and said what they said; He put the explicit noun in place of their pronoun to record the injustice and transgression against them once and for all) "refused anything but disbelief" (i.e., denial).