Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:58

(And your Lord is the Forgiving): A subject and a predicate. His saying, the Exalted, (possessor of mercy)—that is, its owner and the one described by it—is a second predicate after the first. The Imam said: The form of intensification (mubalagha) was mentioned regarding forgiveness but not mercy because forgiveness is the abandonment of harm, while mercy is the bestowal of benefit. The power of Allah, the Exalted, relates to the former because it is the abandonment of harms that have no end, whereas it does not relate to the latter because performing an act that has no end is impossible.

Al-Naysaburi critiqued this, stating that it is a subtle distinction, provided that textual evidence supports it. However, the statement, "possessor of mercy," is not devoid of intensification. In the Quran, the phrase "Forgiving, Merciful" (Ghafur Rahim) employs intensification in both aspects frequently. Furthermore, there is a point of contention regarding power relating to the abandonment of the non-infinite, for the determined acts (maqdurat) of Allah, the Exalted, are finite; there is no difference between what is abandoned and what is not. End quote.

It was objected against this that scholars have interpreted "The Forgiving" (Al-Ghaffar) as the One who wills the removal of punishment from those deserving it, and "The Merciful" (Ar-Rahim) as the One who wills to bestow bounty upon the creation. The intention of intensification in one context does not negate its omission in another, as the situation does not necessitate it. They have explicitly stated that the determined acts of Allah are non-infinite, and that which enters into existence among them is finite by the "proof of application" (burhan al-tatbiq). This is a sound argument that repels the critique leveled against the Imam.

The philosophers claimed that what has entered into existence from the determined acts is also non-infinite, and the "proof of application" does not apply to them because they require togetherness and sequence. By my life, my hair stood on end at the apparent meaning of Al-Naysaburi’s statement that the determined acts of Allah are finite, for it appears to imply an inability (ta'jiz)—Allah, the Exalted, is far above what the unjust say with great exaltation—though it may be repelled by divine care ('inayah). Reflect upon this.

Furthermore, the exposition of the point of differentiation between the two predicates here, according to what Al-Khafaji said, is that what was mentioned prior was the non-punishment of them for the great crime they earned, which is a great forgiveness, and the abandonment of haste [in punishment] is a mercy from Him, the Exalted, preceding His wrath. Yet, He did not desire, may He be glorified, to complete His mercy upon them and reach the ultimate end of it; for if He had willed that, He would have guided them and saved them from the torment entirely. This point does not depend on the discourse regarding the infinite and the finite mentioned by the Imam, even if it is correct in itself.

As for the objection against it—that it necessitates the non-finitude of the objects related to everything attributed to Allah with forms of intensification—it is not necessarily so. It is possible to consider the intensification in the finite by an increase in quantity and the strength of quality. If what was mentioned were granted, it would necessitate that forms of intensification in affirmative matters, like Rahim (Merciful) and Rahman (Most Gracious), would not be correct, which has no merit. This is repelled by the fact that what he mentioned is a point for the occurrence of the differentiation here: that intensification was considered in the aspect of "abandonment" and not its opposite, because "abandonment" is privative ('adami), in which non-finitude is permissible, unlike the other. Do you not see that the abandonment of their punishment indicates the abandonment of all types of punishments in the immediate term, even if they were infinite? This is how it was said, though it is subject to scrutiny.

Perhaps it may be said in directing what Al-Naysaburi said—that "possessor of mercy" is not devoid of intensification—that this is either because the association of "mercy" with the definite article (al) denotes complete mercy, or the well-known mercy that encompassed everything; or it is because of "possessor" (dhu), for its indication of being characterized in such a construction is above the indication of derivative forms. He, the Exalted, does not indicate His being characterized by a trait with this expression unless that trait is intended in the most eloquent manner. Otherwise, what is the benefit in turning away from the more concise derivative that indicates the essence of the trait, such as Rahim (the Merciful) for example, to this?

It does not hinder this [argument] that if intensification were intended, why turn away from the more concise one that also provides it, like Rahim or Rahman, to what was mentioned? It may be said that it was intended that the intensified mercy not be restricted to being in the worldly life or in the Hereafter, and these two names (Rahman and Rahim) provide restriction according to the famous view; therefore, one turned away from them to "possessor of mercy." And if you say they are like it in the lack of restriction, it is said that its indication of intensification is stronger than their indication, as it is claimed that this indication occurs through two matters which are not matched in the strength of indication by what mediates the indication of those two majestic names. On this basis, "possessor of mercy" is more eloquent than each of Rahman and Rahim individually, even if both together are more eloquent than it—hence why they were brought in the Basmala without it. He who is fair will not doubt that saying "So-and-so is possessor of knowledge" is more eloquent than saying "So-and-so is knowledgeable," and even more than "So-and-so is the Knower," in that the first implies he is the owner of the essence of knowledge and possesses it, which is not the case for the latter two.

Thus, the differentiation between the two predicates in the verse is by the greater eloquence of the second. The reason for this is clear, for the circle of mercy is wider than that of forgiveness, as is not hidden. The point here is the increased comforting of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, after He, the Exalted, informed him of the sealing of the hearts of some of those to whom he was sent, and made him despair of their guidance, despite His knowledge, may He be glorified, of the Prophet's extreme eagerness for that. This is the secret in choosing the title of Lordship (Rububiyyah) added to the pronoun of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. End quote.

It is a discourse standing on the frontiers of acceptance and rejection in deep reflection. He who scrutinizes will know what is within it regarding the two matters. The first attribute was put first because "clearing" (takhliyah) precedes "adorning" (tahliyah), or because it is more important according to the situation and context, for the context, as the scholars have said, is the context of explaining the delay of punishment for them after they had deserved it, as indicated by His saying, (If He were to seize them)—that is, if He willed to seize them—(for what they earned)—that is, what they did. (The "earning" of the Ash'arite is not understood by the Arabs). "Ma" is either a source-noun (masdariyyah), meaning "for their earning," or a relative pronoun (mawsulah), meaning "for that which they earned" of sins, among which is the debating with falsehood and turning away from the signs of their Lord and lack of concern for the mortal sins they committed. (He would have hastened the punishment for them)—for their actions made them deserve it.

It is said that the preference for "seizing" (mu'akhadhah)—which indicates the intensity of the taking—over "tormenting" and "punishment" is to signal that the negation derived from the conditional antecedent relates to the description of "haste," as the consequent indicates. The preference for the future tense, even if the meaning is in the past, is to convey that the non-existence of hastening the punishment for them is due to the continued lack of will to seize them, for the imperfect verb occurring in the place of the perfect signifies the continuation of the action in the past. (Rather, they have an appointed time)—which is the Day of Badr or the Day of Resurrection, assuming "appointed time" (maw'id) is a noun of time. It is permitted that it be a noun of place, and the intended meaning is Hell. The sentence is conjoined to an implicit meaning, as if it were said: "But they are not being seized suddenly, rather they have an appointed time, (from which they will find no escape)."

Al-Farra' said: meaning a place of salvation. It is said, "The soul of so-and-so escaped" (wa'alat), meaning it was saved. Based on this is the saying of Al-A'sha: "I trick the master of the house in his negligence, and he may be wary of me, but he does not escape." Ibn Qutaybah said it is the "refuge" (malja'); it is said, "So-and-so took refuge in such-and-such," when he seeks shelter. The meaning is one; the difference is only in the transitivity using "to" (ila) or lack thereof. Interpreting it as "refuge" is narrated from Ibn Abbas; Mujahid interpreted it as "fortress," and Al-Dahhak as "deliverance." The matter in this is easy. According to Abu al-Baqa, it is possible for it to be a noun of time or a noun of place. The genitive pronoun returns to the "appointed time," as is the apparent meaning. It is also said it returns to the "torment," and it contains such intensification that it indicates they have no escape at all, for he whose refuge is the torment, how could he see a way of escape or salvation?

You know that the matter of intensification exists in the apparent meaning as well. It is said it returns to Allah, the Exalted, and this is contrary to the apparent meaning while being devoid of intensification. Al-Zuhri recited mawlan with the shaddah on the waw, without hamza or ya. Abu Ja'far narrated from Al-Hulwani on his authority, mulan, with the kasra on the waw, lightened, without hamza or ya as well.