Al-Baqarah: (259) "Or like him who passed by a town..."

"Or like him who passed by a town" is a conjunction linked to the preceding verse. The Kaf (particle of comparison) is either a noun meaning "like," governed by an omitted verb "saw," such that the meaning is "Or have you seen the like of him who passed by..." This is the view held by Al-Kisa’i, Al-Farra, Abu Ali, and the majority of grammarians. It was omitted due to the indication provided by the preceding "Have you not seen." It has been said that in this type of syntax, the verb of vision is often omitted, as in the saying: "Her dogs said to her, 'Hurry! Like today [seeking, not sought].'" This Kaf was brought to alert the listener to the multiplicity of examples and that they are not limited to what was mentioned, similar to when you say, "The past tense [is] like: Nasara." The reason for specializing this instance—as it has been said—is that those who deny resurrection are many, and those ignorant of how it occurs are more numerous than can be counted, unlike those who claim divinity.

Some say the Kaf is redundant, a view held by Al-Akhfash; meaning, "Have you not seen [him who disputed with Abraham] or [him who passed by]..." It is also said that it is a conjunction based on meaning, as if it were said: "Have you not seen [like him who disputed] or [like him who passed by]?" Others say it is the speech of Abraham—peace be upon him—mentioned as a response to that disbeliever's contention, with the implication being: "If You bring the dead to life, then bring to life [someone] like the one who passed by." Its weakness is apparent due to the interruption and the excessive need for interpretation. The Kaf was not made original and joined to the "him" in the previous verse because it would necessitate the preposition ila entering upon the Kaf, which is problematic: if ila is a particle, its usage is apparent, but if it were a noun, it would be treated like a particle in its non-inflectability, and no particle enters upon it except what is established in their speech, which is 'an (from), and even that is rare.

Some say that both "Have you not seen" and "Have you seen" are used to express wonder, except that the first is linked to the object of wonder—it is said "Have you not seen the one who..." meaning "Look at him and wonder at his state"—while the second is linked to the like of the object of wonder—it is said "Have you seen the like of the one who..." meaning "It is of such strangeness that its like is not seen." It is not correct to say "Have you not seen [to] the like of him," as the meaning would be "Look at the likeness and wonder at the one who..." Therefore, the conjunction "the one who passed" to "the one who disputed" is not straight without interpreting the conjunction to be linked to an omitted verb—meaning, "Have you seen [one] like the one who passed"—making it a conjunction of a clause, or interpreting the antecedent based on the fact that its meaning is "Have you seen [one] like the one who disputed," thus making the conjunction valid. From this, it is known that the lack of straightness is not merely due to the impossibility of ila entering upon the Kaf, but rather, even if you said "Have you not seen the one who disputed" or "like the one who passed," the lack of straightness remains for one who has knowledge of stylistic methods. This is not a case of a redundant Kaf at all; rather, in expressing wonder with the word "Have you seen," one must establish a Kaf or that which conveys its meaning. It is not hidden that this is highly strange, for "Have you not seen" is used for wonder with comparison in the speech of the Arabs, as indicated by the words of Sibawayh. "Have you seen" is often used without the Kaf or that which conveys its meaning, and it is frequent in the Qur’an. How, then, can one differentiate between them by saying the first is linked to the object of wonder and the second to its likeness? The "likeness" comes solely from the mention of the Kaf. If it were mentioned in the first, it would be the same without difference; this is a circular argument. Therefore, there is nothing other than what was mentioned, or that the estimation of "Have you seen" with the Kaf is more appropriate because its usage with it is more frequent. Ponder this.

"Or" is for choice or for detail. "The one who passed" is Uzair bin Sharkhiya, as reported by Al-Hakim from Ali—may Allah honor his face—and Ishaq bin Bishr from Ibn Abbas and Abdullah bin Salam. This is the view of Qatadah, Ikrimah, Al-Rabi, Al-Dahhak, Al-Suddi, and a multitude of others. It is said that he is Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, from the lineage of Aaron—peace be upon him—which is narrated from Abu Ja'far—may Allah be pleased with him—and it is the view of Wahb. It is also said he is Al-Khidr—peace be upon him—a narrative attributed to Ibn Ishaq. Some claim these two sayings are one and the same, that Jeremiah is Al-Khidr himself. It is also said he is Isaiah, or a servant of Lot—peace be upon him. Mujahid said the passerby was a man who disbelieved in the Resurrection, and this is supported by his being joined with Nimrod in the same context, as the speech was intended to express wonder at their states, and because the word of impossibility in this context signifies denial in appearance, though it is not the same as in "How can I have a boy?" or "How can I have a son?" This is countered by the meaningful harmony between his story and the story of Abraham that follows, as both requested the witnessing of resurrection, whereas what happened to him in the story is something that would unlikely happen to a disbeliever. When to this is added the precaution of the apparent text to avoid falsehood in the statement issued before the clarification of the cause for his faith—according to the claim of those who assert his disbelief—the counter-argument becomes very strong. If we say that the indication of being in the same context as Nimrod is more deserving of denoting faith—to align with the previous detail in "Allah is the ally of those who believe," as we indicated before—the claim of disbelief would hardly be imagined.

"The town": Ibn Zayd said it is the one from which thousands emerged. Al-Kalbi said it is Deir Sayir Abad. Al-Suddi said it is Deir Salmabad. It is said to be Deir Heraclius, or Al-Mu'tafikah, or the Village of Grapes, two leagues from Jerusalem. Ikrimah, Al-Rabi, and Wahb said it is Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and this is the most famous view. Its derivation is from al-qary (gathering).

"Falling upon its roofs": meaning collapsing onto its ceilings, where the roof fell first and then the walls collapsed upon it. It is said the meaning is empty of its people, standing upon its roofs, meaning its houses are erect. The prepositional phrase in the first case is linked to "falling," and in the second to an omitted entity that serves as a predicate after a predicate for "it." The clause is said to be in the position of a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun in "passed," or from "town," and the state from an indefinite noun occurs rarely. It is also said to be in the position of an adjective for it, but the intervention of the Waw makes this unlikely. Some allow for "upon its roofs" to be a substitute for "town" by repeating the preposition, or to be an adjective for it, and the clause "while it was falling" being a state from the roofs, the town, or the pronoun, with the acting agent being the meaning of the annexation; all of this is what the Revelation should not be burdened with.

"He said" (in himself or with his tongue): "How will Allah bring this to life after its death?" The referent is either the town itself without estimation, as is the apparent meaning—so life and death are metaphors for prosperity and ruin—or with an estimated possessive, meaning the inhabitants of this town—so life and death are literal. Or, it refers to the decayed bones of the town and their scattered corpses, and the context indicates that, with life and death being literal. According to the metaphorical view, this statement is in the way of lamentation and longing for the prosperity of that town, but with a sense of despair regarding it in the most eloquent and emphatic way; thus, Allah showed him the most remote of two possibilities in his own soul, then in another, then showed him what he had deemed impossible explicitly, as an exaggeration in removing what might have crossed his mind. According to the second view, it is an acknowledgment of inability to know the method of resurrection and an exaltation of the Power of the Reviver, if we say the speaker was a believer, or a denial of the power to do so if he was a disbeliever.

The first of the three possibilities regarding the referent is preferred because the desire for the life of the inhabitants or their bones is rejected by the focus on the state of the town rather than the state of those mentioned, and by limiting the mention to their death rather than their being dust or decayed bones, despite that being more conducive to impossibility due to its extreme distance from life and its inability to accept it. Furthermore, Allah’s will did not attach to reviving them as it attached to the prosperity of the town and his own passing by it, as you will hear. The object is brought forward before the subject for emphasis, as the impossibility arises from its side, not the side of the subject.

"How" is in the accusative as an adverb if it means "when," and as a state if it means "how," and the operating agent in it is either way "bring to life." "Then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years": meaning He let him remain dead for a hundred years. This implication must be considered because death, in the sense of removing the soul and taking life, is not something that extends. "A year" is from al-'awm (swimming), named as such because the sun "swims" throughout it. "Then He resurrected him": meaning He brought him to life. From "I resurrected the she-camel" if you make it stand from its place. Perhaps it was chosen over "He brought him to life" to indicate its speed and the ease of the affair for the Creator—Mighty is His Name—and to signal that he rose in the same state as the day he died, rational, understanding, and ready to reflect and infer. This was after the prosperity of the town. In Al-Bahr, it is stated that when seventy years of his death had passed, and Allah had protected him from predators and birds, and prevented eyes from seeing him, He sent an angel to a great king of the Persians called Kusk, saying, "Allah commands you to set out with your people to restore Jerusalem, Elya, and its land until it returns better than it was." The king set out with three thousand overseers, each with a thousand workers, and they began to restore it. Allah destroyed Nebuchadnezzar with a gnat that entered his brain, and Allah saved those remaining of the Children of Israel and returned them to Jerusalem, and they restored it for thirty years, multiplying until they were in their best state. At that point, Allah brought him back to life.

"He said": a new beginning based on a question, as if it were said: "What did He say to him?" and it was said: "He said, 'How long have you remained?'" to show him the inability to comprehend the affairs of Allah in the most perfect way, and to completely cut off the root of his deeming it impossible. "How long" is in the accusative as an adverb, its classifier omitted, estimated as "How much time," and the one governing it is "remained." It is apparent that the Speaker is Allah, and it is said to be a caller from heaven, or Gabriel, or a prophet, or a believing man who witnessed him the day he died and lived until the time of his resurrection, so the attribution to Allah is metaphorical.

"He said, 'I have remained a day or part of a day'": He said this based on approximation and estimation, or considering his stay short. It is said he died at midday and was resurrected after the hundred years before sunset, so he said before looking at the sun, "A day," then looked and saw the remainder of it, so he said, "or part of a day," by way of correction. An objection is raised that there is no basis for being certain about the fullness of the day, even based on the calculation of the sunset, because the deficiency from its beginning is realized. "He said, 'Rather, you have remained a hundred years'": a conjunction to an omitted, meaning "You have not remained that amount, rather this amount."

"So look at your food and your drink": It is said his food was grapes or figs, and his drink was juice or milk. "Have not changed": meaning they did not change in this long duration. Its derivation is from sanah (year), and there is disagreement regarding its final letter: some say it is ha (h), evidenced by sanah-tu (I lived through a year with) such and such, so it is vowelled with the quiescence of the ha; others say it is waw (w), evidenced by the plural sanawat, so it is vowelled by the omission of the final letter, and the ha is the ha of silence, established in pausing and in continuation to treat it accordingly. It is permissible that tasannuh is an expression for the passing of years, as is the root, and the non-change is a metonymy for his remaining in his state, fresh and supple, not changing. It is said its root is lam yatasannan (did not become aged/smelly), from which comes "the altered mud," i.e., the changing mud. When three homogeneous letters gather, one is changed into a vowel letter, as they say in tazannub: tazannub, and in taqadad-tu: taqaday-tu. Here, the final nun was changed into a ya, then the ya was changed into an alif, then omitted for the jussive. The negated clause is a state, and its like has come without a Waw, contrary to those who hesitated regarding it, like His saying, "No evil touched them" and "It was revealed to me" and "And nothing was revealed to him." Its possessor is either the food and the drink—the singular pronoun used because they are treated as one thing, like nourishment—or the latter, and the state of the first is understood by the state of the second. This is supported by the reading of Abdullah: "This drink of yours, it has not changed." Ubayy read "lam yasannah" by assimilating the ta into the sin.

It is problematic that "So look" branches from "remaining a hundred years" with the Fa (so), which implies change. It is answered that the antecedent is not the remaining for a hundred years, but rather the remaining for a hundred years without change in his body, until he thought it a short time; so he branched off from it what is more apparent, which is the lack of change in the food and drink and the survival of the animal without nourishment. It is also said that the implication is: "If you have any lack of assurance regarding the Resurrection, then look at your food and drink, which are quick to change, until you know that He who did not change them is capable of Resurrection." This is scrutinized because, aside from being contrary to the apparent meaning, it is countered by His saying, "And look at your donkey," how its bones decayed and its parts separated. This is the apparent meaning, as it is more indicative of the state and more consistent with what follows. The idea that the meaning is to look at it safe in its place, as we preserved it without water and fodder just as we preserved the food and drink, is baseless and unsupported by the transmitted texts.

"And that We may make you": linked to an amount, meaning "We did that that We may make you." Some estimate it as following, and some say it is linked to what precedes it, and the Waw is redundant. Based on its estimation, it is a conjunction to "remained" or to an omitted entity by way of a new beginning, meaning "We did that so you may witness what you deemed impossible," or "so you may be guided and We may make you." It is also said it is a conjunction to "He said," thus it contains a shift. "A sign": meaning a lesson or a guide. "For the people": meaning their gender, or those remaining of his people, or for those present in this century to witness you while you are of the past centuries and take from you what had been hidden from them for ages regarding the knowledge of the Torah. This is evidence for what was mentioned of the long stay, and that is why he combined it with the command to look at his donkey.

"And look at the bones": meaning the bones of the donkey, as Al-Suddi said. The command was repeated because what is commanded first is to look at them in terms of their indication of the long stay, and second is to look at them in terms of them being struck by life and its beginnings. It is said they are the bones of the dead of the town, or from Qatadah, Al-Dahhak, and Al-Rabi, the bones of himself. They said: The first thing Allah brought to life from him was his eyes, while the rest of his body was dead and his bones decayed, so he was commanded to look at them. It is said they are his bones and the bones of his donkey, but all of this is not to be relied upon.

"How We raise them": with the zay (dotted), from al-inshaz (lifting), meaning how we lift them from the earth and return them to their places in the body. Al-Kisa’i said: We soften them and make them great. Ubayy read nunshi’uha (We construct them), and Ibn Kathir, Nafi, Abu Amr, and Ya'qub read nanshuruha (We spread/resurrect them) from "Allah resurrected the dead," meaning brought them to life. Perhaps the meaning of bringing to life is what preceded, not its literal meaning, because of His saying "then We clothe them with flesh," meaning we cover them with it as we cover the body with clothing. Aban from Asim read nanshuruha with a fatha on the nun and a damma on the shin and ra, which is from al-nashr (the opposite of folding), as Al-Farra said; the meaning is how we unfold them. The clause is said to be either a state from the bones—meaning look at them assembled, covered with flesh—or a substitute for inclusion—meaning "look at the bones [and] the method of their raising and the spreading of flesh over them." The state-based interpretation is challenged by the fact that the clause is interrogative, and it cannot occur as a state. It is answered that the interrogation is not literal, so what prevents it from being a state? Perhaps the lack of mention of how the soul is blown in is—as it is said—because it is among the things that wisdom does not require to be explained.

In some traditions, an angel called to the bones, and they answered and approached from every direction. Then He clothed them with veins and sinews, then clothed them with flesh, then grew skin and hair over it, then blew the soul into it, and the donkey stood, raising its head and ears to the heaven, braying.

"So when it became clear to him": meaning it became clarified, a complete clarification to him, what the command pointed to regarding the method of resurrection and its beginnings. The Fa is a conjunction to an omitted element necessitated by the mentioned command, and it was omitted to signal the clarity of its realization and its lack of need for mention, and to signal the speed of its occurrence, as if it were said: "So Allah raised them and clothed them with flesh, and he looked at them and it became clear to him how it happened. So when that became clear, 'He said: I know that Allah is powerful over everything'"—and among everything is what was witnessed.

It is said that the subject of "became clear" is hidden, interpreted by the object of "I know," so the speech is of the type of "contention" according to the school of the Basrans. It was objected that the condition for contention—as stated by the grammarians—is the sharing of the two agents by conjunction or the like, such that they are bound; so "He struck me, I insulted Zayd" is not permissible. It is said: This is nothing, as only Ibn Asfur stipulated it, and the masters of the discipline have clearly stated the contrary, such as Abu Ali and others, even though he did not limit it to conjunction, as it applies to His saying: "Take, read my record." The "when" is a connector for the two clauses, so its like is sufficient in connection even if they did not explicitly state it. Some have favored making it of the type where the intention of the verb is the occurrence itself, not the involvement of the agent, so the meaning is "When the clarification occurred for him, he said: I know..." This is supported by the reading of Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both—"When it was made clear to him" in the passive voice. The choice of the imperfect verb form is to indicate that his knowledge of that is continuous, considering that its origin did not change, but rather its attribute changed by witnessing. It contains an indication that he only said what he said based on ordinary impossibility and deeming the matter great. Ibn Mas'ud read "Know" in the form of a command. Said bin Mansur and Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Ibn Abbas that he used to read "He said: Know" and say: "He was no better than Abraham—peace be upon him—to whom Allah said: 'Know that Allah is powerful.'" This is how Hamza and Al-Kisa'i read, and the commander is Allah, the Prophet, or the angel. It is possible that the addressee is himself, by way of abstraction, rebuking it for the impossibility that had overcome it.

It is reported that after this statement, he stood up and rode his donkey until he reached his neighborhood, but the people did not recognize him, nor did he recognize them or their dwellings. He set off, assuming they were among them, until he reached his home, where he found an old, blind, paralyzed woman who had reached 120 years of age; she had been a slave-girl of his, and he had left Uzair when she was twenty. He said to her, "O you, is this the house of Uzair?" She wept and said, "I have not seen anyone for so-and-so years who remembers Uzair; people have forgotten him." He said, "I am Uzair!" She said, "Glory be to Allah! We lost Uzair a hundred years ago and he has not been heard of." He said, "I am Uzair; Allah caused me to die for a hundred years and then resurrected me." She said, "Uzair was a man whose prayers were answered; he would pray for the sick and the afflicted for recovery and healing. Pray to Allah to restore my sight so that I may see you; if you are Uzair, I will know you." He prayed to his Lord and wiped his hand over her eyes, and they were healed. He took her hand and said, "Rise by the permission of Allah!" And Allah released her legs, and she stood up, healthy as if she were released from a shackle. She looked and said, "I bear witness that you are Uzair!"

She went to the assembly of the Children of Israel, their clubs, and gatherings—Uzair's son was an old man of 118 years, and his grandsons were elders in the gathering—and she called to them, saying, "This is Uzair, he has come to you!" They denied her. She said, "I am so-and-so, your slave-girl; he prayed to his Lord and He restored my sight and released my legs, and he claims that Allah caused him to die for a hundred years then resurrected him." The people rose and approached him and looked at him. He said to his daughter, "My father had a black mole between his shoulders..." and he showed it to her, and indeed it was Uzair. The Children of Israel said, "There was no one among us who memorized the Torah, from what was told to us, except Uzair, and Nebuchadnezzar burned the Torah and nothing remained of it except what men had memorized. So write it for us." His father had buried the Torah during the days of Nebuchadnezzar in a place no one knew except Uzair, so he led them to that location, dug it up, and extracted the Torah; the paper had rotted and the writing had faded. He sat in the shade of a tree with the Children of Israel around him, and two flames descended from heaven until they entered his chest; he remembered the Torah and renewed it for the Children of Israel. In one narration, he recited it to them when they requested it from memory, without missing a letter. A man from the children of the captives who came to Jerusalem after the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar said, "My father told me from my grandfather that he buried the Torah on the day we were taken captive in a jar in a vineyard; if you show me my grandfather's vineyard, I will bring it out for you." They went to his grandfather's vineyard, searched, and found it. They compared it with what Uzair dictated to them from memory, and they did not differ by a single letter. At that point, they said, "Uzair is the son of Allah"—Exalted is Allah above that with great exaltation.