Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:55

Some have claimed—and it is a matter of great strangeness—that it is interrogative, meaning: What thing prevented them from believing, i.e., from their belief in Allah the Exalted and abandoning the polytheism they are in, when guidance came to them, i.e., the Great Qur’an which guides to faith through the diverse meanings it contains that necessitate it, or the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), for al-huda (guidance) is attributed to everything for the sake of hyperbole; and asking forgiveness of their Lord, by repenting for the various sins they committed, among which is their arguing against the truth with falsehood. The benefit of mentioning this after faith is to indicate generalization, according to one opinion. Those who argue that faith, if not accompanied by seeking forgiveness, does not erase what preceded it, have cited this as evidence, which contradicts what the apparent meanings suggest.

Some have said: There is no doubt that faith accompanied by seeking forgiveness is more complete than faith alone, so it was mentioned with it so that the verse may signify what prevented them from attaining the most complete state desired of them. It is not hidden that this is of no weight. It is also said that seeking forgiveness was mentioned after faith to emphasize that the intended faith is that which is not tainted by hypocrisy; it is as if it were said: "What prevented them from believing with true faith... except that the way of the ancients should come upon them," these being the nations that were destroyed previously. Attribution of the "way" to them is said to be because it is what befalls them, while in reality, it is the way of Allah regarding them. The intended meaning is destruction by the punishment of total annihilation. If as-sunnah (the way) is interpreted as destruction, there is no need for what was mentioned [as a condition for faith], and the phrase an (that) and what follows it is a source interpretation (masdar) acting as the subject of mana'a (prevented), and the speech implies a genitive addition, meaning: "Nothing prevented them from that except the seeking of destruction in the world," as stated by al-Zajjaj. The author of al-Faynan permitted the interpretation of "anticipation," meaning: Nothing prevented them except the anticipation of destruction. Al-Wahidi estimated the meaning as: Nothing prevented them except Allah’s decree that destruction should come upon them. He said that the verse is about the polytheists who were killed at Badr and Uhud, though the apparent state of the Surah being Meccan—except for what was excepted—refutes this. The motivation for estimating the genitive addition is that if the barrier to their faith and seeking forgiveness were the arrival of destruction itself, they would be excused, while the punishment of the Hereafter prepared for the disbelievers—which is the meaning of His saying: “or that the punishment should come upon them face-to-face”—is certainly anticipated. It is also said: because the time of the arrival of the punishment is later than the time considered for their faith and seeking forgiveness, so it cannot be a barrier to them.

The estimation of "seeking" was objected to on the grounds that their seeking the way of the ancients is because of their lack of faith, and it is a barrier preventing them from faith, so if their prevention were caused by the seeking, it would lead to circular reasoning. This was refuted by stating that the intended meaning of "seeking" is its cause, which is their stubbornness and obstinacy that made them seek the punishment by saying: "O Allah, if this is the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky..." etc. This was countered by the fact that among them are those who deny the truthfulness of Islam just as there are those who are obstinate, and it is not apparent how "seeking" arises from the denial of truthfulness, nor how it arises from obstinacy. It was also objected that the lack of faith precedes the seeking and is continuous, so the seeking cannot be the preventer.

The response was that what precedes the seeking is the previous lack of faith, and the seeking is not the preventer of that, but rather it is a preventer of what was realized afterwards—and this, as you can see, is dubious. It is said that the "seeking" is merely a formal, verbal seeking, not a real, heart-felt one, for no one with the slightest intellect seeks destruction and punishment with true heart-felt desire. The formal seeking originates from, and is evidence of, the denial of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the promise of punishment and destruction for those who do not believe in Allah the Almighty. Thus, it is as if it were said: "What prevented them from believing in Allah, as commanded by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), was nothing but their denying him regarding what he promised as punishment for leaving it." This is not free from some fragility.

It is said that the truth is that the verse, under the estimation of "seeking," is like your saying to someone who disobeys you: "You want me to strike you," which is to treat the deservingness as if it were a desire. It is as if it were said: "Nothing prevented them from that except their deserving of worldly destruction or the punishment of the Hereafter." This was countered by the fact that the lack of faith and being characterized by disbelief is the cause of the aforementioned deservingness, so it would precede it, and when the deservingness is a barrier to it, the order of precedence and succession is reversed, necessitating that a single person be characterized by both precedence and succession, which is invalid. The answer was to deny that the lack of faith is the cause of the deservingness in reality; it is only a formal cause, while the true cause is their evil dispositions and the corruption of their essences in the actual state of affairs. This, just as it is a cause for the deservingness, is also a cause for the characterization of disbelief, or if you wish, say it is a barrier to faith. Hence, it was said that the intended meaning of "seeking" is the seeking by the tongue of disposition (istidad), and that the outcome of the verse is: "Nothing prevented them from that except their dispositions and the seeking of their essences for its opposite." This is because the seeking of their dispositions for destruction or the punishment resulting from the opposite is a disposition for the opposite and a seeking of it. Perhaps it can be said, based on this, that what is understood from the verses is that if the disbelievers did not have a messenger come to them to alert them from the slumber of heedlessness, they would argue, if punished, that no messenger came to them, saying: "We were prevented from faith because no messenger came to us," and the outcome would be: "We were prevented from that by heedlessness." They would find no argument more eloquent or useful for their salvation than that. As for evil disposition and the corruption of the essence, they are miles away from being able to use them as an argument or a barrier. Therefore, there is no remoteness in estimating "seeking" and intending its apparent meaning, and the verse would be of the category of: And there is no defect in them... [referring to a verse]. The intended meaning is to negate that they have any barrier to faith and seeking forgiveness after the arrival of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that could serve as a valid argument for them at all. It is as if it were said: "They have no barrier to believing or asking forgiveness of their Lord, and no argument after the arrival of the Messenger who conveyed the guidance, except the seeking of what they were promised of the arrival of worldly destruction or the punishment of the Hereafter." And since that, even assuming it occurs from them, does not serve as a valid barrier or argument, no barrier or argument remains for them at all. End quote.

It is not hidden that, after disregarding what can be objected to it, it is far-fetched, and denying this is mere obstinacy. The best approach is estimating the estimation, which is undoubtedly a barrier, except that those who believe in "disposition," as you have learned, make its origin the disposition itself, and in its meaning is the estimation of the Will, i.e., His, the Exalted's, will. Izz ibn Abd al-Salam limited himself to this. The contradiction between the exclusivity (hasr) derived from this verse and the exclusivity derived from His saying: “And what prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: 'Has Allah sent a human as a messenger?'” is resolved by the fact that the first exclusivity is regarding the real barrier, for the will of Allah is the barrier in reality, while the second is regarding the customary barrier, which is the amazement that a human should be sent as a messenger, for the meaning is: "Nothing prevented people from believing except the amazement at that." There has already preceded in [Surah] al-Isra what will benefit you in reconciling the two exclusivities, so remember it—the traditional covenant is not lacking in antiquity. The Imam claimed that the barriers are multiple and that the intent of the verse is the absence of a type of them, saying: "The scholars said that the knowledge of their not believing is contradictory to the existence of their belief, so if that knowledge is established, the barrier is established. Also, the occurrence of the motive for disbelief is established; otherwise, it would not have occurred, for the occurrence of a voluntary act without a motive is impossible, and the existence of a motive for disbelief is a barrier to the occurrence of faith. Thus, it must be said that the intended meaning is the absence of sensory barriers." End quote. Let this be contemplated.

Al-qubulan (with the damma on both letters) is the plural of qabil, meaning the type, i.e., "or that the punishment should come upon them in types and colors." Or it is in the meaning of qubulan (with a kasra on the qaf and fatha on the ba), as recited by more than one, i.e., "face-to-face" (ayyanan). Abu Ubaidah reported both with this meaning, and its origin is in the meaning of confrontation (muqabalah). If it denotes face-to-face, its accusative case is as a state (hal). If it is a state from the objective pronoun, its meaning is "they being face-to-face" (with the ya with kasra or fatha) or "they facing people to be disgraced." If it is from the punishment, its meaning is "it being face-to-face with them" or "with people." A group read qublan (with a kasra on the qaf and sukun on the ba), which is, as in al-Bahr, a lightening of qubul according to the dialect of Tamim. Ibn Qutaybah and al-Zamakhshari mentioned that it was read as qabalan (with two fathas), i.e., "in the future." Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Ghazwan from Talhah read qubylan (with a fatha on the qaf, a kasra on the ba, and a silent ya following it), i.e., "face-to-face" and "in confrontation."