Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:49

“And the Book shall be placed” is a conjunction to [the earlier phrase] “they were presented,” falling under the scope of those harrowing events. The intent behind mentioning its time is to warn the polytheists, as has passed. The use of the past tense form is to signify certainty. The "Book" refers to the books of deeds, and the definite article (al) denotes encompassment. Its "placement" is either the placing of every book into the right or left hand of its owner, or the placing of each one upon the Scale. It has also been suggested that the intent is for the angels to place those books in the midst so that the accountable ones may be judged by what is within them. Based on this, it is permissible that "the Book" refers to a single book, such that the angels (peace be upon them) collect all the scrolls of deeds into one book and place it in the midst for the reckoning. However, I have not found any report regarding this. Indeed, al-Laqani stated in his commentary on the verse in Jawharat al-Tawhid: “It is mandatory that servants take their scrolls, as confirmed by the Quranic text and convention.”

Al-Ghazali was certain about what was said: that the scrolls of the servants are transcribed into one single scroll. The apparent reality is that the certainty of al-Ghazali and his likes in this cannot be but from a report, for the likes of this is not spoken from mere opinion, as is apparent. It has also been said that "the placing of the Book" is a metonymy for the exhibition of the reckoning of the creation and their interrogation; for when it is intended to call workers to account, ledgers are brought and placed before them, then they are judged. Thus, the container is mentioned, and what is contained is intended. It is not hidden that there is no need for this according to us, though the denial of the weighing of deeds may invite it.

Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) recited “wa waḍa‘a al-kitāb” (And [God] placed the Book), using the active voice and attributing the act to His Divine Self (Exalted is He) by way of iltifat (shift in mode of address), with "the Book" in the accusative case as the object—meaning: And God placed the Book.

“And you shall see the criminals”—all of them, and thus it includes the disbelievers who denied the Resurrection, as a primary inclusion. The address is similar to that which has passed.

“Apprehensive”—fearful.

“Of what is within it”—that is, the Book—of crimes and sins, because of their certainty regarding the punishment that will follow them.

“And they shall say”—upon standing before what is within its folds—“Woe to us!” This is a call to their destruction, which has befallen them among the many destructions. For waylat is like wayl (woe/destruction), and calling out to it is by likening it to a person whose arrival is sought, as if it were said: "O Destruction, come forth!" This, or it is a metaphorical, imaginary depiction. It contains a rebuke to them and an indication that they have no companion other than destruction, and they have sought it to destroy themselves and [so as not to] see the painful torment.

It is also said the intent is to call upon those in their presence, as if it were said: "O those in our presence, behold our destruction." This entails an estimation that misses the aforementioned nuance.

“What is with this Book?”—meaning, what is the matter with it? The interrogation is a metaphor for wonder at the state of the Book. The preposition lam in the Imam [copy of the Uthmani codex] is written separately. al-Tabarsi claimed there is no basis for that. al-Biqa'i said that its being written as such is an indication that the criminals, due to the intensity of their distress, pause at part of the word. In Lata'if al-Isharat, it is mentioned that Abu Amr, al-Kisa'i, and Ya'qub pause at ma, while the rest pause at the lam. The most correct view is to pause at ma because it is an independent word, and most of them do not mention anything regarding it. You know that the Uthmani orthography is followed and not analogized upon, and its rationale is scarcely known. As for the correct place to pause—between ma or the lam—I hold a position of restraint.

His saying (Exalted is He): “It leaves out neither a small one”—meaning a small matter—“nor a great one, but has enumerated them”—meaning it has counted them. This is a metonymy for total encompassment. It is a circumstantial sentence confirming the wonder in the interrogative sentence, or an initiation based on a question arising from that wonder, as if it were said: "What is the state of this Book such that one should wonder at it?" Thus, it was said: "It leaves out neither a small one," etc.

From Ibn Jubayr is the interpretation of "small" as touching [inappropriately] and "great" as adultery. Ibn Abi al-Dunya, in Dhamm al-Ghibah (Condemnation of Backbiting), and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding the verse: "The small is smiling in mockery of the believers, and the great is guffawing at that." Based on this, the blanket statement by Ibn Mardawayh in his report from him (may Allah be pleased with him) is interpreted as "small" being smiling and "great" being laughter. The difficulty raised by some scholars regarding this is thus averted, and it is known from it that laughing at people is among the sins.

It is reported from Abdullah ibn Zam'ah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) preaching and admonishing them for their laughing at the passing of wind with sound, saying: "Why does one of you laugh at what he himself does?" In fact, some of our scholars mentioned that there is laughter that causes the laugher to commit an act of disbelief, such as laughing at a word of disbelief. Some qualified this by saying it applies if he is able to restrain himself; otherwise, he does not commit an act of disbelief. The complete discussion on this is in its proper place.

The apparent construction would be "It leaves neither a great one nor a small one," based on what they said: that ascending in affirmation is from the lesser to the greater, and in negation, the reverse, since doing the lesser does not necessitate doing the greater, unlike negation. However, the verifying scholars said this is if it is taken at face value. If it is a metonymy for universality—as is the case here—and your saying, "He did not give me a little nor a lot," then it is permissible to place the lesser before the greater in negation, as detailed by Ibn al-Athir in al-Mathal al-Sa'ir. In al-Bahr, the "small" was placed first out of importance. It is narrated from al-Fudayl that when he read this verse, he said: "They will surely wail over the small sins before the great ones."

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Qatadah regarding the verse: "The people complained, as you hear, about the enumeration, but no one complained about injustice." Minor sins accumulate against their owner until they destroy him.

“And they found what they did”—in the world, of evil deeds or the recompense for that—“present”—written in the book of each of them, or ready before their hands, as immediate and not deferred. The latter meaning is preferred, even if it involves going against the apparent, because the discourse here is purely foundational.

“And your Lord wrongs no one”—by [punishing them for] what they did not do, whether they or others. The intent is that He (Exalted is He) does not overstep the boundary He set in reward and punishment, even if that is not obligatory upon Him (Exalted is He) intellectually. The verification of this is that He (Exalted is He) promised to reward the obedient and increase their reward, and to punish the disobedient according to the measure of their crime without addition, and that He may forgive them for what is other than disbelief, and that He does not punish without a crime. Thus, He (Glorified and Exalted is He) does not overstep the boundary He set, nor does He contradict the Divine custom that has occurred. He does not punish anyone for what he did not do, nor does He decrease the reward of anything they did which He commanded and approved of, nor does He add to the punishment of what He forbade and did not approve of. This is what the Muslims have reached consensus upon, even if they differed over whether the impossibility of the occurrence of what was negated is auditory or intellectual. The Sunnis went to the first, and the Mu'tazilah to the second.

As for whether naming that overstepping "injustice" is literal or not, al-Khafaji said: "The apparent is that it is literal, and upon this, there is no need to say: the intent of the verse is that He (Glorified be He) does not do to anyone what would be injustice if it originated from servants—such as punishing without a sin—for if it originated from servants, it would be injustice, while if it originated from Him (Glorified be He), it would not be so, because He (Majestic is His state) is the Owner of the Dominion, acting in His dominion as He wishes." Thus, injustice is not conceivable in the matter of Him (Exalted is His state) at all, in any way, according to the Sunnis. You know that this is what is famous among the majority, not what the investigation necessitates. So reflect, and Allah (Exalted is He) is the Guardian of success.

The generality of the verse was used as evidence that the children of the polytheists will not be punished. This is the supported view, and we have previously mentioned, and all praise is to Allah, the reports that support it.