Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:42

This refers to the destruction of the wealth associated with his two gardens and everything within them. It is derived from the "encompassing" (ihata) of an enemy, meaning to surround something from all sides; it was then used to signify overpowering and subjugation, and subsequently, it was applied to every form of destruction. Al-Khafaji mentioned that the expression contains a metaphorical analogy (isti'arah tamthiliyyah), likening the destruction of his two gardens and their contents to the destruction of a people surrounded by an enemy, who strikes them in such a way that no one among them escapes. It is also possible that the metaphor is dependent (taba'iyyah), and some allow for it to be a dependent-analogical metaphor.

The most evident interpretation is to treat it as a form of metonymy (kinayah). The conjunction here is connected to an implied passage, as if it were said: "Some of what he hoped for occurred, and [his fruits] were encompassed, etc." It was omitted due to the context of the preceding and succeeding verses pointing toward it. It is held that the destruction took place at night, based on the Almighty’s saying, "And he began to turn his hands over..." However, it is possible that "began" (asbaha) here means "became" (sara), and thus it does not necessarily imply restricting the news to the morning. These two interpretations apply equally to the preceding uses of tasbah and yusbih.

Regarding the meaning of "turning over his hands" (taqlib al-kaffayn), Abu Hayyan suggests it means to display the palm of each hand, then twist the hand until the back of each is shown, repeating this action. Others state that it is to place the palm of one hand upon the back of the other, then reverse the process, repeating it. In any case, it is a metonymy for regret and anguish. This is not the same as the usage in "turning the matter upside down" (qalabtu al-amra zahran li-batn), as in the saying of Amr ibn Rabi'ah: "And we turned the discourse inside out, and obtained from our affair what we desired," for that is a trope meaning to move from one topic to another.

Because it is a metonymy for regret, it is linked with 'ala (on/over) in the Almighty's saying, "over what he had spent in it." The prepositional phrase serves as an object for the verb, related to yulallibu (turning over), as if it were said: "And he began to regret what he had spent." From this, it is known that in metonymy, it is permissible to connect the verb with the preposition of the literal meaning—as in the expression "he built upon her" (bana 'alayha)—and with the preposition of the metaphorical meaning—as in "he built with her" (bana biha)—and the assertion that this is an error is itself an error.

It is also possible that the prepositional phrase is a stable circumstantial qualifier (zarf mustaqarr) related to a specific implied meaning, acting as a state (hal) for the pronoun in yulallibu, meaning "regretting what he had spent." Viewed through the lens of the metaphorical meaning, this is an emphatic state (hal mu'akkadah), because anguish and regret are synonymous. Some have argued that anguish is grief, which is more specific than regret; this requires investigation. In any case, there is no redundancy in the verse, as some have erroneously imagined. It has been recited as tuqallibu kaffahu ("his hands were being turned over"), meaning they were being flipped. The status of the prepositional phrase in this reading is clear. Ma (what) is either a verbal noun (masdariyyah)—i.e., over his spending on its cultivation—or a relative pronoun (mawsulah)—i.e., over that which he spent of wealth on its cultivation. In the latter case, a noun derived from voluntary actions must be implied for the relative clause, if the intent behind the prepositional phrase relating to "turning over" is "regret," because regret only occurs regarding voluntary actions.

From this, one understands the reason for specifying regret over what he had spent, rather than the destruction of the garden itself. It is said that the specification is because what he spent on its cultivation was something he believed could be protected from the vicissitudes of time; he had diverted his wealth toward its interests in the hope of enjoying it more than anything else, believing that the hands of destruction could never reach it—hence his saying, "I do not think that this will ever perish." When it became apparent to him that it was susceptible to destruction, he regretted what he had done, based on the corrupt assumption of spending that which could have been saved upon such a rapidly vanishing thing.

It is apparent that the destruction of the garden and the uprooting of its plants and trees was instantaneous, caused by a heavenly affliction, and not a gradual process of removing that which sustains growth (i.e., water). Al-Khafaji stated that the verse explicitly indicates the immediate uprooting of the plants and trees by a heavenly affliction, because of the Almighty’s use of the consecutive fa (fa-asbaha), and regret only occurs when something happens suddenly.

"And it was collapsed upon its trellises"—the garden, which was of grapevines surrounded by palm trees, was khawiyah, meaning fallen. The root of khawa is, as has been said, khala (emptiness/void). It is said of a stomach, "it became empty of food." In the Qamus, it says: "A house khawat means it fell into ruin, and khawat or khawiyat means it became devoid of its inhabitants." Here, the intent is "falling," because of the connection to the phrase "upon its trellises." Trellises ('urush) is the plural of 'arsh, which here refers to what is built from pillars for grapevines to be placed upon. The collapse of the garden upon its trellises is because the garden fell before them (the trellises). Perhaps this is because the garden was struck by such a punishment that it became a smooth, barren ground, where nothing standing could remain.

Perhaps the state of the grapevines is mentioned specifically, rather than the palm trees and the crops, either because they are the foundation while the others are mere accessories, or because the mention of their destruction makes it unnecessary to mention the rest—for if they were destroyed while supported by their trellises, the destruction of what was beside them follows a fortiori. Or perhaps it is because the spending on their cultivation was greater. Furthermore, this sentence makes it unlikely that God sent fire upon it which burnt it, and its water vanished, unless the intent is total ruin; in which case, "it" (hiya) can refer to the entire garden with everything it contained.

"And he says" is conjoined to "began to turn over." Abu al-Baqa and others allowed it to be a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun within the preceding verb, by implying "while he says," because the affirmative imperfect verb is not conjoined with the circumstantial waw except in rare cases.

"Oh, I wish I had not associated anyone with my Lord"—it is as if he remembered the admonition of his brother and realized that he was brought to this state only because of his polytheism; thus, he wished he had not been a polytheist so that what happened to him would not have befallen him. It is also said that it is possible this is an act of repentance from polytheism and regret over it, and thus a renewal of faith; for his regret over his past polytheism implies that he has believed in the present, as if he said, "I have believed in God now, and I wish this had been the case from the beginning." However, it is clear that mere regret over disbelief is not faith, even if regret over a sin may constitute repentance if one is determined not to return to it, and the regret is due to it being a sin—as explicitly stated in al-Mawaqif. Even assuming the validity of the analogy to it, the disbeliever here has not realized regret over polytheism as polytheism, but rather because of the destruction of his gardens. The subsequent verse is also clear that he did not repent from what he disbelieved in, which is the denial of resurrection. The reason his repentance was not accepted is that it occurred while witnessing the punishment; faith at such a time is not accepted, for the most that can be said is that it is faith after witnessing the destruction of his wealth. There is no negation of choice here, which is the basis of religious obligation, especially if that destruction was intended as a warning. Indeed, if it is said that this is an account of what the disbeliever says on the Day of Judgment, as some exegetes have maintained, the reason for the non-acceptance is manifest, for by consensus, the renewal of faith there is of no avail.