Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:24

This is a conclusion (fadhla) to what preceded. Therefore, the connective Fa (so) is used. It means: If you have expended the utmost effort in your striving, exceeded every known limit in this pursuit, clung to every available means, and mounted every difficult and easy path, yet you remained incapable of producing the like [of the Quran] or anything approaching its style and superiority, then it is established that it is miraculous, and belief in it is obligatory. Thus, believe and fear the Fire.

The use of An (if) here—while the situation is one of inability—is, in the view of the All-Knowing, All-Aware, a form of mockery (tahakkum) towards them, similar to when one confident of victory says to his opponent: "If I defeat you, I will show you no mercy." It also serves to expose their foolishness for doubting that which is firmly established and blindingly clear. The verse contains an ironical, secondary, metaphorical usage, or it is a literal statement that acts as a metonymy, like everything else that deviates from the apparent meaning. It may also be said that it was expressed this way out of consideration for the state of the addressees, for their inability—before reflection—was like a matter of doubt for them, due to their reliance on their own eloquence.

Taf’alu (you do) is jussive due to lam. There is no conflict (tanaazu') between it and in (if), though one might imagine otherwise. Ibn Hisham explicitly stated that tanaazu' does not occur between particles (huruf) because they carry no meaning regarding the event itself that would require objects. However, Ibn al-'Ilj permitted it, using this verse as evidence. This was countered by the argument that in requires a positive context, while lam requires a negative one, and the condition for tanaazu' is unity of meaning. In this verse, in enters upon the entire construction and governs its state; it is as if it said: "If you cease the act." This implies a continuous state of not producing the like, which was already realized in the past; thus, their combination is permissible. Otherwise, the future orientation of the former and the past orientation of the latter would be mutually exclusive.

Indeed, there is a problematic aspect here that has yet to be resolved in a way that heals the ailment: if the place for the governing agent (mahall) is for the verb alone, it necessitates two agents operating on one form, as in in lam yaquma. If it is for the sentence, it is objected that grammarians do not assign the mahall to such a structure. If it is for the mahall along with the verb, there is no precedent for it. Perhaps they extract a verb from what follows and govern it, but this is as you see it.

The Exalted One expressed the specific act—whereas the apparent reading would be "If you do not bring a Surah like it"—with a general, absolute verb, to achieve concise brevity. This signals that the purpose of the obligation is the actual performance of the commanded act—to demonstrate their inability—rather than the attainment of the object, as that is impossible. The pivot of the response in this conditional sentence (the command to fear the Fire) is their inability to perform it, not the missed attainment of the intended result. It is said the verb was used generally and intended to mean "bringing [the Quran] along with its necessary corollaries," based on the principle of mentioning the necessary consequence (lazim) while intending the antecedent (malzum) due to their inseparable connection.

Lan serves to negate the future, though it differs from la in that it is restricted to the imperfect tense and functions as a grammatical marker of the accusative, except in rare instances of jussive usage as in the poet's words: "Lan fails not now one who hopes in you..." It does not necessitate negation for eternity, even if it denotes emphasis and intensification; nor does it imply a long or short duration, contrary to some. Its origin—as reported from al-Khalil—is la an; the hamza was dropped due to frequency, the alif fell away to avoid two quiescent letters, the rule changed, and lan plus the verb became a complete speech without the need for an and its companion. Others say it is derived from la an, citing the verse: "A man hopes for that which la an he meets..." The possibility that an is an additive particle weakens the argument. As for al-Farra's view that its alif was changed to a nun, there is no need for this, and it contradicts the norm.

The sentence [“and you will never do it”] is a parenthetical clause appearing between the two parts of the conditional sentence. It confirms the content of the protasis and emphasizes the necessity of acting upon the apodosis. This is a dazzling miracle, for it foretells the unseen which only He, the Exalted, knows, and it has occurred just as predicted. How could it be otherwise? Had they countered it with something even remotely similar, the narrators would have transmitted it, given all the motivations to do so. What was brought by the likes of Musaylimah the Liar—which would make a bereaved woman laugh—was not intended as a challenge; he claimed it as revelation.

His words, "So fear the Fire," are the response to the condition. Fearing the Fire is a metonymy for the manifestation of His miracle, which necessitates believing in Him, or it refers to faith itself. This resolves the doubt that "fearing the Fire" is a necessary consequence independent of this condition. Furthermore, a condition is either the cause or the malzum of the result; however, the non-performance of the act is neither the cause for fearing the Fire nor its malzum. So how did it become the result? Some estimated a response for it, and it is mandatory for it to be a declarative sentence, as an imperative/inchoative sentence cannot function as a result, just as it cannot be a predicate without interpretation. al-Zamakhshari does not deem this mandatory here, as there is no necessity for such construction.

Waqud (fuel) with a fatha, as recited by the majority, refers to that with which a fire is kindled. This is the case for anything on the pattern of fa'ul (the common noun for an instrument). Some consider it a verbal noun (masdar), citing wulu', qabul, wudu', tahur, wuzu', and luhub. Ubayd ibn Umayr, Qatada, Isa ibn Amr, and others recited wuqud with a damma. If it is a noun for that which is kindled, it is like the fatha version. If it is a masdar, as suggested for other words on the pattern of fa'ul, then attributing it to the "Fire" is for hyperbole, metaphor, or by estimating an omitted possessor—such as dhu wuqudiha (possessor of its fuel)—or ihtiraq (burning).

"And stones" refers to sulfurous stones, according to the authentic reports from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud. They possess intense heat, excessive inflammation, rapid ignition, and a unique ability to cling to the bodies of the inhabitants of the Fire. They are prepared to serve as firewood, along with their foul stench, thick smoke, and immense density—may God protect us from it. This is a terrifying depiction of the Fire's state, intended to repel people from whatever leads to it, using comparisons known in this world. Even if the matter is beyond this, there is a world beyond this world, and the vastness of the Almighty’s power renders this world's expanse insignificant.

Others say the "stones" refer to the idols they used to carve. Pairing them with the idols in the afterlife is an increase in their anguish, for the opposite of what they expected will appear to them. There, they will experience two types of suffering: spiritual and physical. This is supported by His saying: "Indeed, you and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell." Carrying it to mean gold and silver—as they are sometimes called "stones" in the dictionary—is less correct than these two views. The former is held by the Traditionists, the latter by al-Zamakhshari, and the words of the Great Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) point towards it.

The definite article (al) here is not for universality. Some scholars argued it is, meaning the Fire promised is capable of burning whatever is cast into it of these two classes. He expressed its readiness and capability through a confirmed factual statement. Mentioning "people and stones" is to magnify the affair of Hell and warn of the intensity of its fuel, so that it may have the greatest impact on souls and instill a level of fear not achieved otherwise. It does not refer to the literal truth of the matter; that would be contrary to the apparent meaning and the straightforward understanding of the verses. Indeed, such a view might lean towards a poor opinion of [Divine] power.

Do not suppose, from the restriction to these two classes, that there are not others in the Fire, given that it is mentioned in several places that the Jinn and devils are also there. Indeed, the Great Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) said: "They are its flame, and the others are its embers." The Exalted began with "people" because they are the ones who perceive the pain, or because they are more ignitable than inanimate objects due to their skins, flesh, and fat, and because there is greater fear in that.

The Fire was made definite [al-nar] and the sentence made as a relative clause (sila) because it must be a known story. Since the Surah of al-Tahrim was revealed first, they heard it described as such. When this verse was revealed later, it was already known; hence, it was made definite, and the description was made into the sila. The issue of the sila being such is trivial, since the addressees there are the believers, and it is apparent they heard it from the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace).

"Prepared for the disbelievers" is an independent statement, separate from what preceded, even though the apparent meaning would suggest it be joined to the previous sila to emphasize its state by making it a primary object of information. Making it an explanatory beginning (isti'naf)—by estimating [a question like] "For whom was it prepared?" or "Why was its fuel such and such?"—is difficult because the context does not necessitate it, and the purpose of the sila is to terrorize; thus, the question "Why was the state of the Fire so?" has no meaning, and the answer does not suffice.

To treat it as a state (hal) from "the Fire" while implying qad (has been), with the predicate (u'iddat) being one of the parts of the sila for the possessor of the state—not from the pronoun waquduha due to its rigidity or the interruption by an extraneous predicate—is weak, as restricting it to this state is not beautiful. Unless it is said that it is a necessary state, equivalent to an adjective, thus conveying the meaning that the sila conveys. Hence, it is said that it is a sila after a sila, and multiple sila clauses are like multiple adjectives and predicates.

"Prepared" (u'iddat) means made ready. Abdullah [ibn Mas'ud] recited a'tadat from al-'atad, meaning preparation. Ibn Abi 'Abla recited a'addaha Allah (Allah prepared it) for the disbelievers. The intent is either the generic class—with the addressees being included primarily—or they are the specific target. Placing the manifest noun [the disbelievers] in place of their pronoun is for the sake of blaming them and explaining the ruling by their disbelief. The fact that the preparation is for the disbelievers does not negate the entry of others into it as incidental cases. Thus, there is no need to say that the fire of the sinners is different from the fire of the disbelievers.

The noble verse implies that the Fire is currently created. And God knows best where it is in the vastness of His dominion. He used the future tense for the past, to emphasize its certainty, just like the "blowing of the Horn." The preparation is like that in "Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and reward." The Mu'tazilah's stance [that it is not yet created] is contrary to the apparent meaning. Those with spiritual insight hold that it is created but not yet completed. In their view, it is currently a realm—they describe it as burning air without embers whatsoever. The guardians within it are in the mercy of the Bestower, constantly glorifying God, never tiring. Pains are manifested within it as the deeds of the humans and jinn who will enter it occur. Thus, the torment of its inhabitants varies.

After the reckoning is completed and the people of Paradise enter Paradise—from the hollow of the Empyrean down to the lowest of the low—it will be increased to what it is now. This is why Abdullah ibn Umar (may God be pleased with both) would say when seeing the sea, "O sea, when will you return to be fire?" He disliked performing ablution with its water, saying, "Dry ablution is more beloved to me." And God says, "And when the seas are set on fire"—meaning, stoked. The disbelievers do not reside in it today; rather, they are exposed to it, as He said: "Morning and evening."

It is two fires: a sensory fire, applied to the exterior of the body and sensory perception; and an animalistic fire—or a conceptual one—which is "that which climbs upon the hearts." Through it, the spirit that governed the body (which was commanded and disobeyed) is tormented. Opposition is the very essence of ignorance of Him over whom one has shown arrogance—the most severe torment. They have spoken at length on this and brought forth wondrous things.

The truth of the matter, in my view, is known to none but God. There is nothing better than submission to what has come from the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace). The nature of what exists in that afterlife realm is something that cannot be grasped by one drowned in the seas of worldly attachments. What is it to me if I believe in what the Truthful One has reported regarding these unseen matters—things that are not impossible—and entrust the affair to the Creator of the earth and the heavens? I ask God, the Exalted, to steady our hearts upon His religion.