Surah al-Anbiya

Introduction

It was revealed in Mecca, as Ibn Marduyah extracted from Ibn Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with them both. In al-Bahr, it is stated that it is Meccan without dispute, and this is asserted generally regarding it. However, an exception is made to this consensus regarding the saying of the Almighty: "Do they not see that We come to the land..." [21:44]. It consists of one hundred and twelve verses according to the Kufan count, and one hundred and eleven according to the count of the others, as stated by al-Tabarsi and al-Dani. The mode of its connection to what precedes it is self-evident. It is a magnificent Surah containing profound exhortation; for Ibn Marduyah, Abu Nu'aym in al-Hilyah, and Ibn 'Asakir extracted from 'Amir ibn Rabi'ah that a man from the Arabs stayed with him. 'Amir treated him with great hospitality and spoke to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, regarding him. The man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and said, "I have been granted by the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, a valley, the like of which there is no better valley among the Arabs, and I wanted to grant you a piece of it so that it may be for you and your descendants after you." 'Amir replied, "I have no need of your grant; there has been revealed today a Surah which has made us heedless of the world: 'The time of reckoning has drawn near for mankind' [21:1], and so on."

The Prophets: (1) Their reckoning has drawn near for mankind . . . . .

(In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Their reckoning has drawn near for mankind). It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas—as Imam al-Qurtubi and al-Zamakhshari have stated—that the intent by "mankind" (al-nas) is the polytheists. This is evidenced by the verses you will hear hereafter, God willing, for they are manifest in describing the polytheists. Some eminent scholars have said that the usage here is of the category of attributing to the whole what belongs to a part; thus, it does not negate that the definite article (al) is for the genus. The appropriateness of this here is that those certain individuals are the majority, and in both religious law and custom, the majority takes the ruling of the whole. Some allow for the intent of the genus, and the pronouns therein still refer to the polytheists of the people of Mecca, even if their mention did not precede in this surah; this is no more remote than what has passed. Some have said: the indication of what was mentioned regarding specification is only upon the condition of interpreting the descriptions as they have interpreted them; it is possible to interpret each one in a sense in which the disobedient among the monotheists share. It is not hidden that this constitutes an extreme departure from the apparent meaning.

The lam (in lin-nas) is connected to iqtaraba (drew near), as is apparent, and it signifies either "to" (ila) or "from" (min), for iqtaraba is an ifta'ala form derived from qurb (nearness), the opposite of distance (bu'd), and it takes both ila and min. Some have restricted it to mean "to," and it has been said that this is arbitrary because of the evidence that qurb takes both. It has been replied that this is possible because both min and ila, which are the connectors of qurb, signify the termination of an end (intihai al-ghayah); however, ila is inherently established for this meaning, while min is inherently established for the beginning of an end (ibtida' al-ghayah). Therefore, preferring the expression that the aforementioned lam signifies the termination of an end—like the one in the saying of the Almighty, "That your Lord has inspired it" (awha laha)—is the saying that it means "to," and it has been restricted to that. In al-Kashf, the meaning—upon the assumption that it is connected to iqtaraba—is "from mankind" (min an-nas), because the meaning of specialization and the beginning of an end are both straight and achieve the purpose. This concludes the quote.

There is a point of contention here, for it is understood from this that the word min, with which the verb of drawing near is connected, means the beginning of an end, and this is not the case because that meaning is not suitable for the locations where that word is used. The truth is that it signifies the termination of an end, for they have mentioned that min comes for that. al-Shamni said: "In al-Jana al-Dani, there is something like Ibn Malik for the termination of an end in their saying taqarrabtu minhu (I drew near to him), for it is equal to taqarrabtu ilayhi." What bears witness to this is that the verb of drawing near, just as it is used with min, is also used with ila. It has been mentioned in the meanings of min that it signifies the termination of an end, as you have heard, and no one has mentioned in the meanings of ila that it signifies the beginning of an end. The principle is that the two connectors have the same meaning, so it is carried over to ila in that the intent of it is termination. The most that can be said in explaining this is that the author of al-Kashf construed it as the beginning of an end because it is its most famous meaning—to the point that some grammarians went so far as to trace all other meanings back to it—and he made its connection with it a matter of comparison to its opposite, which is connected with it, namely the verb of distance (bu'd), just as the verb "to sell" (bay') is connected with min by way of comparison to the verb "to buy" (shira') which is connected with it, as mentioned by Najm al-A'imma al-Radi in the discussion of prepositional particles.

It is well known that iqtaraba has the same meaning as qaruba, just as iqtaraba has the same meaning as raqaba. It is narrated in al-Bahr that it is more emphatic than it due to the increase in its morphological structure. The intent of the drawing near of the reckoning is the drawing near of its time, which is the Hour. The reason for preferring to express its drawing near—even though the discourse is with the polytheists who deny the very basis of the resurrection of the dead and the revival of decayed bones—is that what the context would ostensibly require is to bring forth that which signifies the origin of occurrence instead of drawing near, and to attribute that to the Hour itself rather than to the reckoning. This is to signal that the occurrence of the Standing (Resurrection) and the attainment of the resurrection of bodies and physical forms is a matter that is manifest without deception, a clear thing about which there is no doubt, and that it has reached such a state of clarity and majesty that it is almost never hidden from the intelligent. Furthermore, what is let loose in the expression of its declaration is some of the states and terrors that follow it, such as the reckoning that necessitates distress; indeed, the very occurrence of the reckoning itself is also in no need of declaration and should not be doubted by minds and thoughts. What is intended to be expressed here is that its time has approached and its era has drawn near. Thus, the discourse articulates the realization of the Standing—which is the requirement of the context—in a way that is noble, emphatic, and follows a path that is wonderful and sound, the subtlety of which is not hidden from one who lends an ear while being present.

It is permitted that the discourse is with the polytheists who ask about the time of the Hour and hasten it out of mockery, as in the saying of the Almighty, "They will shake their heads at you and say, 'When is it?' Say, 'Perhaps it is near.'" In that case, the information about the drawing near is according to the apparent meaning. Preferring to express the drawing near of the reckoning over the drawing near of all other occurrences that follow the resurrection, such as the types of torment and the griefs of punishment, is to intimate that the mere drawing near of the reckoning—which is one of the beginnings of punishment and its preliminaries—is sufficient to warn against the denial they are in, and is enough to deter them from the arrogance and haughtiness they are in; so how then would it be with the punishment and retribution itself?

Shaykh al-Islam, our master Abu al-Sa'ud—may mercy be upon him—mentioned that attributing this to the reckoning and not to the Hour is because the discourse is driven toward stating their heedlessness of it and their turning away from what reminds them of it. There is what there is in this. Then, the aspect that appears to the noble gaze for attributing the drawing near to the reckoning rather than to the people, despite the possibility of the reverse, is that if the drawing near occurs between two things, it is attributed to that which is approaching the other—moving and directed toward its direction, either in reality or in ruling—so that even if both are directed toward each other, it is correct to attribute it to either. You have heard that the intent of the drawing near of the reckoning is the drawing near of its time, and the eminent commentators have explicitly stated this. You are well aware that the common and widespread convention is to consider the movement and arrival from the time toward the possessor of time, not the reverse. Thus, time is described as "past" and "future." Therefore, it was appropriate to attribute the drawing near to the time of the reckoning and to make the people as those being drawn toward it. Shaykh al-Islam also mentioned that in this attribution there is a magnifying of the status of the thing to which it is attributed and a terrifying of its affair that is not hidden, because it presents it in the form of something approaching them, constantly seeking them until it hits them inevitably. This is an additional meaning beyond what we mentioned, the subtlety of which is not hidden from the insightful critic and the expert genius. The intent of the drawing near of that to the people, according to what the Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) chose, is its nearness to them after its distance from them, for in every hour it is nearer to them than it was in the preceding hour.

Al-Zamakhshari’s statement—that the intent is that what remains of the duration of the world is less and shorter than what has passed of it, just like the dregs of a vessel and the sediment of a container—was objected to on the grounds that it has no connection to what we are dealing with regarding the "drawing near" derived from the past tense form, and there is no need for it in realizing the basis of its meaning. Yes, it may be understood from it customarily that it is near in its benefit as well, so one turns then to this interpretation. Some of the learned ones commented on it by saying that the claim that there is no connection to the drawing near derived from the past tense form is outside the circle of fairness; for if he meant that it has no connection to the occurrence derived from it, there is no basis for this, as the drawing near in the mentioned sense is a matter that occurred with the passing of the majority of the world's duration. And if he meant that it has no connection to the past derived from it, there is also no basis for this, as the proofs have shown the attainment of this drawing near at the time of the mission of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who was promised in the end times, which precedes the revelation of the verse. Then he said: "I wish I knew what is the meaning of it having no connection to what we are dealing with; indeed, it is possible to argue for a lack of relevance in the meaning he himself chose, for the drawing near in that sense is continuous from the very beginning of the world until the day the verse was revealed, and even beyond. Thus, what is suitable for it is the form that signals continuity and permanence." Then, it is not hidden from those of understanding that this meaning, which he objected to, is more suitable to what the context requires in terms of frightening the wretched disbelievers who doubt the matter of the Standing, because it contains the statement of its nearness that is factual in the essence of the matter. Reflect on this, and do not be heedless.

It is said that the intent is its drawing near in the sight of Allah, the Almighty. This was objected to on the grounds that there is no "nearness" in the sight of Allah the Almighty, for there is no ratio for created beings to Him, the Almighty, in terms of nearness and distance. It was replied that this is heedlessness or feigned ignorance of the intent, for the intent of "in the sight of Allah" is in His eternal knowledge or in His judgment and decree, not the known proximity and drawing near. According to this, the intent of the nearness is its realization in His knowledge or decree. Some of the learned ones said: The intent of the nearness being "in the sight of Allah" is not its relation to Him, the Sublime, such that He, the Almighty, would be made as one being drawn near and approached—He is far above that in supreme loftiness—rather, the intent is the nearness of the reckoning to the people in the sight of Allah. The summary of this is that He, His Majesty, because His deliberation reaches the limit of perfection, considers the long periods to be short, so the reckoning becomes near to the people in the sight of His Sublime Presence, even if years and states exist between Him and them. Upon this, the saying of the Almighty is carried: "They see it as distant, and We see it as near." This meaning provides, beyond its provision of the verification of existence, that the remaining duration between them and the reckoning is inevitably something small in reality, and that what people are upon in terms of considering it long and vast is from the whispers of Satan. It is fitting for those of insight to count that duration as short, to gird their loins for a day when the shank shall be uncovered and the procession shall be to Allah, the Sublime.

The statement of Shaykh al-Islam in objecting to what was said—that there is no way to consider it here because its nearness in relation to Him, the Almighty, is a matter in which variation and difference cannot be conceived, and its consideration is only in the saying of the Almighty, "Perhaps the Hour is near," and its equivalents that have no indication of temporal occurrence—is based on carrying the nearness "in His sight" as the nearness to Him, the Almighty, in the sense of the presence of that in His eternal knowledge, for that is what variation does not affect. As for the nearness of things to one another in time or space, there is no doubt that the connections of His knowledge (the Sublime) to that are renewed, so He knows it as it is, while the attribute of knowledge itself is ancient, as has been established in its place. Some chose that the intent of "in the sight of" is what you heard first, which is a common meaning in usage, and he made the renewal to be in terms of connection, as was said regarding the saying of the Almighty, "And likewise We resurrected them so that We might know," and the verse. It is said the intent of its drawing near is the verification of its occurrence, inevitably, for every comer is near, and the distant is what has occurred and passed. Therefore, it was said: "May that which you desire not cease to be nearer than tomorrow, and may that which you fear not cease to be farther than yesterday." It is necessary that the intent of the verification of its occurrence be its verification in its essence, not its verification in the eternal knowledge, so that it may differ from the previous saying. Some of the learned ones said: Upon this approach, it has no connection to the "drawing near" derived from the past tense form unless one resorts to saying that the form is stripped of indicating occurrence, as in their saying: "Glory to Him who is sanctified above partners and exalted above opposites." Ponder this and do not be heedless.

Advancing the prepositional phrase before the subject—as Shaykh al-Islam explicitly stated—is to hasten the introduction of awe, for attributing the drawing near to the polytheists from the beginning of the matter distresses them and instills in them dread and agitation regarding that which is drawing near. It was objected that these polytheists do not experience the terror and agitation because of what you will hear regarding their heedlessness, their turning away, and their lack of concern for the verses revealed to them; so how can the hastening of the distress come about? It was replied that this does not necessitate that warning and reminding would not agitate them, nor that frightening and cautioning would not terrify them, for it is possible that the possibility of truth—even if unlikely—might flicker in their minds, and thus they would experience fear and anxiety. He supported this with what some commentators mentioned: that when "The Hour has drawn near" was revealed, the disbelievers said among themselves: "This one claims that the Resurrection has drawn near, so refrain from some of what you do until we see what will happen." When it was delayed, they said: "We do not see anything." Then, "Their reckoning has drawn near for mankind" was revealed, so they became anxious and waited for its nearness. When the days extended, they said: "O Muhammad, we do not see anything of what you frightened us with." This concludes the quote.

Some of them said in explaining this: The "drawing near" is an announcer of direction and approach toward something. When "it drew near" is said, it intimates that there is a matter approaching something and seeking it without an indication of the specialty of the one being approached. When it is said after that "for mankind," it indicates that the matter is seeking them and approaching them, while they are fleeing from it. Thus, it signified that the "drawn near" is something that distresses them, so fear and agitation occur to them. It is said that mentioning the reckoning is contrary to if it were said "The reckoning drew near for mankind," for the fact that the reckoning is approaching toward them is not understood upon that assumption except after mentioning "for mankind." Thus, the realization of the benefit of hastening in the advancement is beyond doubt; indeed, there is an additional benefit, which is the disappearance of the illusion in determining that terrifying matter in every direction until the subject is mentioned.

It is also possible to say in the aspect of hastening the terror: The running of his noble habit (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of warning the polytheists and cautioning them and stating what agitates them indicates that what is between its drawing near to them is something evil and terrifying. Thus, when the prepositional phrase is advanced, frightening occurs, as it is known from the beginning of the matter that the discourse is regarding the polytheists whose noble habit—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was to warn them, unlike if the subject were advanced, where the one being approached is not known until the prepositional phrase is mentioned. The mentioned context does not indicate the determination of the one drawing near as it indicates the determination of the one being approached, since it is known from his noble habit—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—that when he speaks of their affair, he mostly speaks of what distresses them, not that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) speaks in most of his states about what distresses them. There is a difference between the two habits, and the completeness of the goal is not undermined by the dependence of realizing the point of the advancement on the addition of the habit, for the intent is achieved by the advancement having an input in the attainment of that point, such that if the advancement were missed, the point would be missed. You have known that the matter is thus, and there is nothing in the speech of the Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) that indicates that the mentioned hastening is obtained from the advancement alone. This is what was said. You may say: The advancement is for hastening the frightening, and this does not negate the lack of its attainment, just as the lack of the attainment of the frightening does not negate that the revelation of the verses is for the sake of frightening. So understand.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that the lam is an affirmation for the attribution of the reckoning to them. He said in al-Kahf: The origin is "the reckoning of mankind has drawn near," because the one approached is known. Then "the reckoning has drawn near for mankind" upon the basis that it is a settled predicate advanced, not that it needs an implied construct that was deleted because the postponed element explains it—that is, "the reckoning has drawn near for mankind, the reckoning," as al-Tayyibi claimed. In the advancement and the explicit statement of the lam and the defining of the reckoning, there are hyperboles not in the original. Then "their reckoning has drawn near for mankind," so the lam became an affirmation of the meaning of possessive specialization, not for mere affirmation as in "not the father of Lahab," and what the predicate is doubled in, such as "in you is Zayd, desiring in you." This concludes the quote. Al-Zamakhshari claimed that this aspect is stranger based on the fact that it contains hyperboles and subtleties not in the first aspect. Shaykh al-Islam claimed that while it is a complete stretch, it is far from what the context requires, and Abu Hayyan and others also contended with it. Some people defended it and warded off the objections to it. In short, there is a great debate and a massive battle among the scholars regarding this, and the first [opinion] after every reckoning is to make the lam the connector of the drawing near.

The verse was used as evidence for the establishment of the reckoning. Al-Baydawi mentioned in the interpretation of the saying of the Almighty, "Whether you reveal what is in your souls or conceal it, Allah will reckon you for it," that the Mu'tazila and the Khawarij deny it. This is supported by what Imam al-Nasafi mentioned in some of his writings, where he said: "The Mu'tazila said: There is no balance, no reckoning, no bridge, no pool, and no intercession. Every place where Allah the Almighty mentioned the balance or the reckoning, He, the Sublime, meant justice." This concludes the quote. However, it is mentioned in most theological authorities that most of them deny the bridge and all of them deny the balance, and it was not mentioned in them that they deny the reckoning. The truth is that the reckoning, in the sense of requital, is something that only the polytheists deny.

(While they are in heedlessness) that is, in great heedlessness and immense ignorance of it. It is said that it is better to generalize, that is, in complete heedlessness and general ignorance of His oneness, the Almighty, and belief in His books and His messengers (peace be upon them), the occurrence of the reckoning, the existence of reward and punishment, and all that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought. Mentioning their heedlessness of that, following the statement of the drawing near of the reckoning, does not necessitate limiting the heedlessness to it, for the occurrence of their regret and remorse and the appearance of the trace of their ignorance and foolishness, since it was something that occurs on the day of reckoning, was a cause for the mentioned follow-up. This concludes the quote. It may be said that the manifest follow-up necessitates that. Whoever is heedless of the requital of Allah, the Almighty—which is the intent of the reckoning—every misguidance proceeds from him, and he rides the mount of every ignorance. The prepositional phrase is connected to an implied element functioning as a predicate for them, and His saying, the Sublime:

(Turning away)

(that is, from the verses and the warnings that speak of that, calling to belief in it, which saves from destruction, one after another). The meeting of heedlessness and turning away upon what we indicated is something against which there is no objection. The signal to their consolidation in the heedlessness that is the source of the continuous turning away is that the speech was brought as you have heard, and the sentence is in the place of a state (hal) from "mankind." Al-Zamakhshari said: He described them with heedlessness alongside turning away in the sense that they are heedless of their reckoning, distracted, not contemplating their end, not noticing what the conclusion of their affair will return to, despite their minds necessitating that there must be a reward for the doer of good and the evildoer. Therefore, if the staff is struck for them and they are alerted from the sleep of heedlessness and notice that through what is recited to them of the verses and warnings, they turn away, stop their ears, and flee—to the end of what he said.

Its summary contains the pushing away of the incompatibility between heedlessness, which is the lack of alertness, and turning away, which is from one who is alerted, by saying that the heedlessness regarding the reckoning is in the beginning of their affair and the turning away is after the striking of the staff of warning, or that the heedlessness is of the reckoning and the turning away is from contemplating their end and the matter of their conclusion. In al-Kashf, he meant that their continuous state is heedlessness of the requirement of the rational evidences, then when the auditory evidences supported it and they were guided to the path of reflection, they turned away. In it is an explanation of the benefit of bringing the first as a nominal sentence because of what the nominal structure contains of indication of stability, and bringing the second as a transient description indicating a type of renewal. From it, the weakness of the interpretation of the nominal status as a state from the hidden pronoun in "turning away" which precedes it becomes apparent. This concludes the quote.

It is not hidden that the statement about the minds necessitating that there must be a reward is not feasible except upon the acceptance of rational good and evil, and the Ash'arites deny this most vehemently. Some of the learned ones said: It is possible to carry "turning away" upon expansion, as in his saying: "A youth's bounty that became established in nobility, and he turned away in nobility and became long-lasting." Some commentators mentioned in the saying of the Almighty, "So when He saved you to the land, you turned away," that the meaning is that they are expanded in heedlessness, excessive in it. It is also possible that "heedlessness" is intended to mean the meaning of neglect, as in the saying of the Almighty, "And We were not heedless of the creation," so there is no contradiction between the two descriptions.