Al-Kahf: (29) And say, "The truth is from..."

(And say) to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who have followed their desires, ("The truth is from your Lord.") The word "truth" (al-haqq) is the predicate of an omitted subject; i.e., "This which has been revealed to me is the truth." The phrase "from your Lord" is an emphatic circumstantial qualifier or a subsequent predicate, with the former being more appropriate. It is evident that His saying, ("So whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve") is a continuation of the command given to the Prophet. The fa (So) serves to sequence what follows it upon what precedes it by way of threat; that is, after confirming that this is the truth beyond any doubt and must be followed, "whoever wills to believe in it and follow it, let him do so, like the rest of the believers, and let him not offer excuses that are hardly suitable as excuses; and whoever wills to disbelieve in it and cast it behind his back, let him do so." This contains an evident threat and an expression of indifference regarding their following—which they promised conditioned upon the expulsion of the believers—and a lack of concern for them or their belief, whether it exists or not.

It is also permitted that "the truth" (al-haqq) be the subject and "from your Lord" be its predicate. Az-Zamakhshari chose the first opinion here, saying in al-Kashshaf: "The reason for preferring the omission is that the meaning is more coherent; for when the Exalted commanded him to persevere in the recitation of this magnificent Book among those who recite it with true recitation, desiring His Countenance—Blessed and Exalted be He—without turning to the adornments of this world, then he who is granted this great blessing is occupied by giving thanks for it, such that he is distracted from all else. This is to remove excuses and to inform him with the command 'And say,' etc., meaning: 'This which has been revealed is the truth; so whoever wills, let him enter into the ranks of those successful in this happiness, and whoever wills, let him be among the ruined, deeply immersed in error.'"

As for the first opinion, if the definite article is for a previously mentioned reference (al-ahd), it returns to the first interpretation while losing the rhetorical intensity. If it is for the generic (al-jins), implying "all truth is from your Lord and not from others," then it includes the Book in a primary sense; yet, it does not fit the context, for the speech was not led to prove that it is from God alone, but that it is the truth that must be followed and nothing else. This is a discourse upon which the marks of verification glisten. Its literal sense suggests interpreting the "saying" based on the second of these opinions, and that the reference is to the Book in an absolute sense, not the one encompassing the command to restrain one’s self with the believers and abandon obedience to the heedless, as was permitted by Ibn Atiyyah. Upon the assumption that "the truth" is the subject, it is said that the intended meaning is the Quran, as was intended by the reference upon the assumption that it is a predicate, which is the narration from Muqatil. Ad-Dahhak said: It is monotheism (tawhid). Al-Kirmani said: It is Islam and the Quran.

Makki said: The intent is divine success (tawfiq) and abandonment (khidhlan), meaning: "Say that success and abandonment are from God; He guides whom He wills, so He grants him success and he believes; and He leads astray whom He wills, so He abandons him and he disbelieves; no one has any part in that." But this is "not a thing" (i.e., incorrect), as is obvious.

It is also permitted that His saying ("So whoever wills - let him believe") is a threat from His side, not included in the command; thus, the fa is to sequence the threat after the command itself. Meaning: "Tell them that; and having told them, whoever wills to believe or accept you in it, let him do so; and whoever wills to disbelieve or deny you in it, let him do so." On both views, the intent is not actual command or choice, as is obvious. Al-Khafaji mentioned that the command to disbelieve is not intended; rather, it is a metaphor for abandonment and leaving one to their own devices, likening the state of the one who is thus to the state of one commanded to disagree. The aspect of resemblance is in the lack of concern and attention, similar to the saying of the poet Kuthayyir: "Do evil to us or do good; there is no blame."

The Mu'tazilah used this verse as proof that the servant is independent in his actions and is the creator of them, because the verse conditions the realization of belief and disbelief upon his sheer will, and the immediate understanding of a condition is that it is the complete cause of the consequence. Thus, it indicates that the servant is independent in creating them, and there is no difference between one action and another; he is the creator of all his actions. The answer given is that even if we assume the servant's will is influential and a creator of actions, the intended goal is not achieved, because reason and scripture demonstrate that it depends on the will and decree of God. As for the first: because they said, if it did not depend on that, it would lead to a circular argument or infinite regress. As for the second: because the Exalted says, "And you do not will except that Allah wills." With this dependency, the matter of independence is not achieved, and it is proven that the servant is compelled in the guise of one having choice, which is the doctrine of the Ash'arites.

In al-Ihya, the Proof of Islam (Al-Ghazali) states: "If you say: I find in myself a necessary awareness that if I will an action, I am capable of it, and if I will to leave it, I am capable of it; therefore, the action and the abstention are mine, not another's. I say: Grant that you find this meaning within yourself, but do you find within yourself that if you will the 'will' of the action, that 'will' is obtained, or if you do not will that 'will,' it is not obtained? For reason testifies that he wills the action not because of a preceding will for that will. And when he wills the action, the action must occur without capacity or choice. Thus, the occurrence of the will in the heart is a necessary matter, and the ordering of the action upon the occurrence of the will is also a necessary matter. This indicates that everything is from God, the Exalted." Some suffice in proving the lack of independence with the established dependency of the servant's will upon God's will and His enabling, as per the text, and they do not mention the necessity of circular argument or infinite regress due to the dialectic involved therein. The complete discussion on this is in the books of theology, and a suitable portion of it will be mentioned, God willing, in its appropriate place.

As-Suddi said: This verse is abrogated by His saying, ("And you do not will except that Allah wills"). Perhaps he meant that the literal, immediate understanding of the verse is not intended; otherwise, his statement would be void. Ibn Atiyyah related from a group that the actor (subject) of "wills" in both conditional clauses is the pronoun of the Exalted One, and they argued for it with what was narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both) that he said regarding the verse: "Whomever God wills faith for, he believes, and whomever He wills disbelief for, he disbelieves."

The truth is that the actor is the pronoun of "whoever" (man). The narration from the "Scholar" (Ibn Abbas) was extracted by Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa-s-Sifat. If it is authentic, it is possible that this statement is to clarify that "whoever wills faith" is "whoever God has willed faith for," and "whoever wills disbelief" is "whoever God has willed that for," not to explain the literal meaning of the verse or to define the reference of the pronoun. This is supported by what is in the end of the report extracted by the group (the collective narrators), which is the saying of the Exalted: ("And you do not will except that Allah wills, Lord of the worlds"). God, the Exalted, knows best.

Abu as-Samal Qa'nab recited "And say the truth" (wa quli l-haqqa) with a fatha on the lam wherever it occurs. Abu Hatim said: That is poor in Arabic. From him also is the damma of the lam wherever it occurs, as if it were assimilation to the vowel of the qaf. He also recited "the truth" (al-haqqa) in the accusative case; the author of al-Lawami' explained this by estimating [the phrase as] "Say the true word" (quli l-qawla l-haqqa). As for "from your Lord," it is said to be a circumstantial qualifier, i.e., "being from your Lord," or an adjective, i.e., "that which is from your Lord," though this is subject to debate.

Al-Hasan and Isa ath-Thaqafi recited "let him believe and let him disbelieve" (falyu'min wa-lyakfur) with a kasra on the command lam in both. ("We have prepared for the wrongdoers")—those who disbelieve in the truth after it has come from God, the Exalted. Expressing them as "wrongdoers" is to alert [the reader] that willing disbelief and choosing it is a transgression of the limit and a placing of things in their improper place. The sentence is an explanation for the command of the aforementioned threatening choice. Making it part of the "Whoever wills" [clause] constitutes a strengthening of the threat and an explanation for what it implies of warning against disbelief. It is also permitted that it be an explanation for what is understood from the outward appearance of the choice: the lack of concern for their disbelief and the lack of attention to their state.

"We have prepared" (a'tadna) comes from 'atad, which originally means preparing something before it is needed. It is said that its origin is a'dadna, where one of the two dals was replaced with a ta'; the meaning is the same, i.e., "We have readied for them a great, wondrous Fire." ("A pavilion of which surrounds them")—meaning its tent-like canopy. That which surrounds them from its flame spreading in all directions is likened to it; then it is a declared metaphor, and the genitive construction is the indication, while the surrounding is the reinforcement. It is said that the suradiq is the enclosure around a tent that prevents access to it; it is also applied to the rising smoke that surrounds something, and some have applied the meaning in the verse to this. This is also metaphorical, just like applying it to the flame. The Qamus implies it is literal. What is narrated from Qatada is interpreting it as the sum of both—flame and smoke.

Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Abbas that it is "a wall of fire." Al-Kalbi related that it is a neck [of flame] that emerges from the fire and surrounds the disbelievers. The Judge al-Mawardi related that it is the sea surrounding the world, which will be fire on the Day of Resurrection and will surround them. He argued for this with what was extracted by Ahmad, al-Bukhari in at-Tarikh, Ibn Abi Hatim—who authenticated it—al-Bayhaqi in al-Ba'th, and others from Ya'la bin Umayyah that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "The sea is from Hell." Then he recited: "A fire whose pavilion surrounds them."

Regarding the suradiq, Ar-Raghib said: It is a Persian loanword and not part of the [original] Arabic speech; there is no singular noun [in Arabic] whose third letter is alif followed by two letters. He is correct in the claim of it being a loanword, as the majority of philologists agree on that. As for his saying "not part of their speech," this is refuted by the arrival of 'alabit, qaramis, janadif, and halahil, all of which are on the pattern of suradiq, and similar examples are many. The oversight of this profusion by this distinguished scholar is strange, so one should look at what his intent was. Furthermore, it is a loanword from sarayardeh, i.e., the curtain of the court; it is also said saratagh, i.e., the arch of the court, which is closer phonetically, though taq is also a loanword. Abu Hayyan and others said: It is a loanword from sardad, meaning the vestibule. It appears in a verse by al-Farazdaq: "I wished for them, until when I met them, I left the suradiq for them before the battle." It is pluralized, as Sibawayh said, with alif and ta', even if it is masculine, so it is said suradiq-at. In an-Nihaya, it is explained as anything that surrounds a place, whether a wall, a tent, or a booth. Its application to the flame, smoke, or other things mentioned in light of this is evident.

("And if they call for help")—from thirst, by the indication of His saying ("they will be helped with water like molten copper"). It is said [they call for help] because of the types of torment that have befallen them. The muhl, according to what Ibn Jarir and others extracted from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Jubayr, is thick water like the dregs of oil. There is a marfu' (attributed) hadith regarding it; Ahmad, at-Tirmidhi, Ibn Hibban, al-Hakim—who authenticated it—al-Bayhaqi, and others extracted from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri from the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding His saying ("like molten copper") that he said: "Like the dregs of oil; when it is brought near his face, the skin of his face falls into it." Many others said: It is what is melted from the minerals of the earth. It is also said: What is melted from copper. At-Tabarani, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Mas'ud that he was asked about it, so he called for gold and silver, and when they melted, he said: "This is the most similar thing to the muhl which is the drink of the people of Fire, and its color is the color of the sky, except that the drink of the people of Fire is hotter than this."

Ibn Abi Hatim and others extracted from Mujahid that it is pus and black blood. It is also said that it is a type of tar. His saying ("they will be helped") is expressed as a form of mockery towards them, like the saying of Bishr bin Abi Hazim: "Tamim became angry that 'Amir was killed on the day of an-Nisar, so they were 'helped' with the salim (the sword)." ("It will scald the faces")—it will cook them when it is offered to drink, due to the intensity of its heat, such that their skin falls off, as you heard in the hadith. "Faces" (wujuh) is the plural of "face" (wajh), which is the well-known organ, and it is evident that this is what is intended and nothing else. It is said that "faces" is used to refer to their entire bodies. The sentence is a second adjective for "water," and the first is ("like molten copper"), or it is a circumstantial qualifier from it, as in al-Bahr, because it has been described, or a circumstantial qualifier from muhl, as Abu al-Baqa' said.

The appearance of some scholars' statements suggests that it is permissible for it to be in the place of a circumstantial qualifier for the hidden pronoun in al-kaf (in ka-l-muhl), because al-kaf is a noun meaning "similarity," so the pronoun is hidden within it just as it is hidden within [the noun it implies]. There is in this what is hidden of affectation, because it is not a derived adjective so that a pronoun would be hidden within it, and it is not known that a derived [noun] exists on a single letter; Al-Khafaji said this.

He mentioned that Abu Ali al-Farisi prohibited, in Sharh ash-Shawahid, making dhu'abati in the poet's saying: "My forelock saw me like the chest of a sandgrouse..." a subject in the nominative case due to al-kaf, because it is in the position of mithl. He said: "That is not easy because al-kaf is not among the forms of adjectives."

It is also permitted that it be in the place of a circumstantial qualifier for the hidden pronoun in the prepositional phrase. It is said: it is permissible that this was the intent of those who said so, but that they were being lenient. ("Wretched is the drink")—that water with which they are helped—("and evil is the Fire") ("as a resting place"). This means a place of reclining, as Abu Ubaidah said, and it is related from as-Suddi. The origin of irtifaq (resting place/leaning), as it is said, is leaning on the elbow (mirfaq). As-Sihah says: "It is said, 'So-and-so spent the night murtafiqan,' meaning leaning on the elbow of his arm." It is also said that it is the propping of the elbow under the cheek. So, murtafiqan is a noun of place, and its accusative case is as a specification (tamyiz). Az-Zamakhshari said: "This is for the sake of parallelism with His saying ('and beautiful as a resting place'), otherwise there is no resting or reclining for the people of Fire, unless it is from the saying: 'I was sleepless, and I spent the night murtafiqan [propping my head], as if the colocynth were slaughtered in my eyes.' In this case, it would not be from parallelism, and the speech would be taken in its literal sense, that the people of Fire have irtifaq—i.e., leaning on their elbows as one who is sorrowful and grieving does." It is mentioned in al-Kashshaf that leaning, in reality, just as it is for comfort, it is also for sorrow. This was followed up by saying that while that is intellectually possible, it is evident that the torment occupies them from it, so it cannot happen by them, unless the speech is literal and not parallel. It is permitted that this is mockery, or a metonymy for their lack of comfort. It is related from Ibn Abbas that the murtafaq is the "abode," and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted this from Qatada. In the same meaning is the saying of Ibn 'Ata: "The residence," and the saying of al-'Utbi: "The gathering place." It is also said it is a place of companionship, i.e., "evil as a place for companionship and association." This seems to be the intent of Mujahid in his interpretation of it as "the assembly," so the denial of at-Tabari that it has a meaning is mere stubbornness.

Ibn al-Anbari said: "The meaning is: 'Evil as a place for seeking comfort,' because whoever seeks comfort from Hell will not find it." Some permitted that murtafaq is a verbal noun with an initial mim, meaning resting and reclining.