Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:104

"The day We shall fold the heaven"—the word is in the accusative case as a supplement to an implied verb (adhkur - mention/remember), though it is also said to be an adverbial of time for "he shall not grieve them," or for "the terror." Although the articulated verbal noun is considered weak in governing [the accusative case], especially as it is separated from it by extraneous material, the adverbial of time is a place of latitude, as stated in al-Kashf.

Al-Khafaji said: The described verbal noun does not govern [the accusative] according to the correct view, even if it is a case where latitude is granted to adverbials. It is also said that it is an adverbial for "they shall meet," or it is a substitute for the omitted referent in "you are promised," a substitute of the whole for the whole, though it was imagined to be a substitute of inclusion. It is also said to be a circumstantial qualifier (hal) of that referent, because the day of folding occurs after the promise.

Shaybah ibn Nassah and a group read it as yatwi (with a ya), making the verb active, and the doer is Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Abu Ja’far and others read it with a ta (tutwa), making it passive, with al-sama’ (the heaven) raised in the nominative as the deputy of the subject.

"Folding" (al-tayy) is the opposite of "spreading" (al-nashr). It is also said to mean annihilation and removal, from your saying: "Fold away from me this speech" (i.e., remove/stop it). Ibn al-Qayyim denied the annihilation of the heaven and its complete destruction, arguing that the texts only indicate its substitution and alteration from one state to another. The claim of annihilation is weakened by the explicit comparison in His saying, "like the folding of the scroll"—which means the document, according to what Ibn Jarir and others reported from Mujahid, and which is attributed in Majma' al-Bayan to Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, and al-Kalbi as well. Some specified it as the document of the covenant.

It is also said that it is originally a stone upon which one writes, then it came to be applied to everything written upon, whether parchment or otherwise. The prepositional phrase is in the place of a description for an implied verbal noun, i.e., "a folding like the folding of the scroll."

Abu Hurayrah and his companion Abu Zur’ah ibn ‘Amr ibn Jarir read it as al-sijill (with two dammahs and a shaddah on the lam); al-A'mash, Talhah, and Abu al-Summal read it as al-sajal (with a fathah on the sin); and al-Hasan and ‘Isa read it with a kasrah. In these two readings, the jim is quiescent and the lam is light. Abu ‘Amr said: The people of Makkah read it like al-Hasan.

The lam in His saying "for the books" (lil-kutub) is connected to an omitted word, being a circumstantial qualifier of "the scroll," or an attribute to it according to the opinion of one who allows the omission of the relative pronoun along with part of its relative clause, meaning: "like the folding of the scroll as it exists for the books," or "the one that is for the books." For "the books" refers to the sheets and what is written upon them, and the scroll is some of its parts; thus the "folding" is truly attached to it. Al-A'mash read lil-kutb (with the ta quiescent), and the majority read lil-kitab (singular). This is either a verbal noun and the lam is for causality, i.e., "as the scroll is folded for writing," meaning for it to be written upon—this is a metonymy for taking it and laying it aside, folded; when writing is needed, there is no need to flatten it. Thus, the objection that the custom is to spread the scroll for writing, not to fold it, is invalid. Or, it is a noun like al-imam, and the lam is as mentioned before.

‘Abd ibn Humayd reported from ‘Ali—may Allah honor his countenance—that al-sijill is the name of an angel. Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn ‘Asakir reported the same from al-Baqir—may Allah be pleased with him—and Ibn Jarir and others reported something similar from al-Suddi, but he said: "He is entrusted with the sheets; when a human dies, his record falls to him, and he folds it and raises it until the Day of Resurrection." The lam in this context is said to be connected to "folding," or it is a sword of a preacher, and for it to be in the sense of "on" (‘ala) is as you can see. This view was challenged on the grounds that comparison to it is not good, as the thing compared is neither stronger nor more famous. It was answered that it is stronger considering what is in the minds of the common people regarding the strength of the folder and the weakness of the folded object, and its small volume compared to the heaven—that is, considering the combination of both matters in their minds.

Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and a group including al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan reported—and authenticated it—from Ibn Abbas that al-sijill was a scribe for the Prophet (peace be upon him). A group reported the same from Ibn ‘Umar—may Allah be pleased with both. This is considered weak, or rather it is said to be a very frail opinion, because no one among the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—was known to be named al-Sijill, nor is the comparison apt for it. Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn ‘Asakir, and Ibn Mardawayh reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both—that it means "the man" (Ibn Mardawayh added: in the Abyssinian language), and this was reported from al-Zajjaj. Some said: It is possible to carry the previous report from Ibn Abbas on this interpretation. The majority, as is said, interpret al-sijill as the document. They differed on whether it is Arabic or Arabized; the Basrans held it to be Arabic, while Abu al-Fadl al-Razi said: The more correct view is that it is a Persian word that has been Arabized.

Furthermore, the verse is explicit regarding the destruction of the heaven, which is contrary to what is famous among the philosophers. Yes, Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi mentioned in his book al-Asfar that the doctrine of the senior early philosophers was the assertion of destruction, and that saying otherwise belongs to their later followers due to the limitation of their insights and the lack of purity in their inner selves. Among the masters was Anaximander of Miletus, who said: "The stability of this world is only to the extent of the small amount of light it contains from that world"—meaning the world of pure abstractions—"otherwise it would not have remained for the blink of an eye. Its stability remains until its mixed-part is purified from its mingled part; when both parts are purified, the parts of this world are destroyed and decayed, remaining dark, and the polluted souls remain in this darkness with no light, no joy, no rest, no tranquility, and no comfort."

Among them was Pythagoras; it was reported that when he was asked why he held the view of the world’s nullification, he replied: "Because it reaches the cause for which it was created, and when it reaches it, its motion ceases."

Among them was Plato; Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-‘Amiri mentioned in his book known as Timaeus that he stated the world is originated, and that the Creator—may He be exalted—turned it from disorder to order, and that all its substances are composed of matter and form, and every composite is subject to dissolution. Yes, he said in The Rules (i.e., the governance of the body) that the world is eternal, unoriginated, and permanent. Proclus clung to this, and there is a contradiction between his two statements. His student Aristotle reconciled them with a view that is open to debate. Perhaps the most appropriate thing to say according to their school is that by the "eternal world," he meant the world of pure detachments.

Among them was Aristotle, who said in the book Theology that intellectual things necessitate sensible things, but the Creator—glory be to Him—does not necessitate sensible or intellectual things; rather, He—glory be to Him—is the Sustainer of all things. However, intellectual things are "true beings" because they were originated by the First Cause without an intermediary, whereas sensible things are "circulating beings" because they are messengers of the true beings and their examples; their subsistence and continuity are through creation and procreation so that they might endure and remain, in imitation of the fixed and permanent intellectual things. He also said in the book Lordship: "The Intellect created the form of the Soul without moving, in imitation of the True One; for the Intellect was created by the True One while He was still, and the Soul was created by the Intellect while it was still. However, the True One created the essence of the Intellect, and the Intellect created the form of the Soul. Since it was an effect of an effect, it could not perform its action without motion, so it performed it with motion and created an 'idol' (sanam)." It is called an idol because it is a circulating action that is neither fixed nor lasting, because it was by motion, and motion does not bring something fixed and lasting; rather, it brings something circulating, otherwise its action would be more noble than itself, which is a highly abominable notion.

A Materialist asked him: "If the Creator has always existed and there was nothing else, then He originated the world, why did He originate it?" He replied: "The 'why' is not applicable to Him, for 'why' implies a cause, and the cause is borne in what it is a cause upon, from a cause above it, and He is not a composite that bears the causes of its essence; thus, the [question of] 'why' is negated from Him. He only did what He did because He is Generous." It was said: "Then He must be an acting agent who has always existed because He has always been Generous." He replied: "The meaning of 'has always existed' is that it has no beginning, and the act of an agent implies a beginning; the gathering of [a concept] having no beginning and having a beginning in speech and essence is purely contradictory." It was said: "Then shall this world be nullified?" He said: "Yes." It was said: "If He nullifies it, then Generosity is nullified." He said: "It is nullified so that He may forge it in a form that does not allow for corruption, because this form allows for corruption."

Among them was Porphyry, the author of the Isagoge, who said that all originated things come into being by the occurrence of the form by way of change, and decay through the absence of the form, and so on with the rest of the philosophers and their statements. Mentioning all of this leads to boredom; whoever wants it should return to al-Asfar and other books by Sadr [al-Din]. The truth is that there has occurred in the speech of the early philosophers much that is clearly contrary to the meaning of the noble verse, and it hardly bears any reinterpretation; it is what their foundations necessitate. Whatever appears to be in agreement is only an appearance of agreement in a general sense, and committing to reconcile what Muslims say regarding the entire affair of the world and what the philosophers say is like committing to reconcile a desert lizard and a whale—nay, it is like committing to gather motion and stillness.

O you who would marry the Pleiades to Canopus, may Allah prolong your life, how can they meet? It is northern when it rises, and Canopus, when it rises, is southern.

Therefore, adhere to what the Clear Book has uttered, or what has been authentically reported from the Truthful and Trustworthy (peace be upon him). What harm is it to you if you differ with the philosophers? Most of what they came with is ignorance and stupidity. By my life, many people have been led astray by their speech, and the whispering, retreating tempter has laid eggs and hatched in their chests. It is clamor without flour, and a rattling like the rattling of an empty skin. Were it not for a necessity I shall not reveal, and a cause I shall not discuss with those who treat it, I would not have wasted the prime of my youth studying and teaching it, nor would I have mentioned any of it between the lines of this book of mine. I ask Allah—the Exalted—for the success to hold fast to the firm rope of Truth.

Furthermore, the outward meaning of the authentic reports is that the Throne is not folded as the heaven is folded. If it is the limit of the universe, as the philosophers and their followers claim, then its non-destruction specifically is something stated by the philosophers, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, one of the great companions of Aristotle, even if he differed with him on some issues. Whoever interprets his speech otherwise has engaged in forced interpretation and brought forth what cannot be accepted from him. The outward meaning of the noble verse also gives the impression of its non-folding, by limiting the statement to the folding of the heaven, and it is common for it not to be applied to the Throne. Moreover, folding is not restricted to one heaven over another; rather, all of them shall be folded, due to His saying: "And the heavens shall be folded in His Right Hand."

"As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it." The outward meaning is that al-kaf is a preposition and ma is a particle of the infinitive, the infinitive phrase being in the genitive case after it. The prepositional phrase is an attribute of an implied verbal noun, and awwal is the direct object of bada’na (We began), meaning: "We shall repeat the first creation as a repetition like our beginning of it," i.e., in ease and the lack of impossibility. It is also said: i.e., in its being an act of bringing into existence after non-existence, or an assembly of scattered parts. It is not hidden that there is a debate regarding the repetition being an act of bringing into existence after non-existence absolutely. Yes, al-Laqani said: The doctrine of the majority is that Allah annihilates the substances entirely, then restores them; this is the statement of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah, who maintain the possibility of annihilation for bodies, or rather its occurrence.

Al-Badr al-Zarkashi and al-Amidi said: This is the correct view, and the saying that repetition is upon [re-assembling] scattered parts is the statement of the minority, which a group narrated using the formula of weakening. However, in al-Mawaqif and its commentary: Does Allah—the Exalted—annihilate the bodily parts and then restore them, or does He scatter them and restore the compounds within them? The truth is that nothing has been proven in this regard, so there is no certainty in it, neither in denial nor in affirmation, due to the lack of evidence for either side. In al-Iqtisad by the Proof of Islam al-Ghazali: If it is said, "Are the substances and accidents annihilated then restored together, or are the accidents annihilated without the substances and the accidents restored?" We say: All of that is possible, and the truth is that there is no decisive evidence in the Shari'ah for the determination of one of these possibilities.

Some said: The truth is the occurrence of both matters together: the repetition of what was annihilated in its essence, and the repetition of what was scattered by its accidents. You know that reports have been authenticated regarding the persistence of the coccyx of the human; thus, the repetition of the human is not like its beginning. Similarly, it is narrated that Allah—the Exalted and Majestic—has forbidden the earth to [consume] the bodies of the prophets—and it is a good (hasan) hadith according to Ibn al-‘Arabi, while others said: It is authentic. Something similar has come regarding the callers to prayer who do so seeking reward (the hadith is in al-Tabarani), regarding the bearers of the Qur'an (the hadith is with Ibn Mandah), and regarding those who have never committed a sin (the hadith is from al-Marwazi). So do not do [that which contradicts this]. Likewise, if "beginning" means gathering from scattered parts, if it is correct in the case of a composite of elements like a human, it is not correct in the case of the elements themselves, for instance, because they were not created first from scattered parts by the consensus of the Muslims. Perhaps what we have mentioned regarding the aspect of comparison is further from contention.

The interpretation of awwal as the object of bada’na was challenged on the grounds that the attachment of "beginning" to "the first of the thing" that is being started is weak; one does not say "I began the first of such-and-such," but rather "I began such-and-such." This is because the beginning of a thing is the thing itself that is started, and what is started necessarily encounters the first, so mentioning it is redundancy. This was considered, [but one can reply] that what is meant is "We began what was first, preceding in existence," and what is meant by "first" is not the first of the parts, so that one would imagine what was mentioned.

It is also said: awwal khalqin is the object of nu'iduhu (We shall repeat it), which is explained by "We shall repeat it," and the kaf is inhibited [from governing] by ma, i.e., "We shall repeat the first creation we repeated." The speech is completed with this, and "as We began" is a clause severed from that, meaning the realization of that is like the realization of this; it does not mean "a repetition like the beginning." The place of the kaf in such a case is in the nominative, as the predicate of an omitted subject, brought for emphasis, and the context demands it, as the suffix implies. Thus, one cannot say there is no reason to resort to other than the apparent. The indefiniteness of khalqin is for the purpose of detailing, and it stands in the place of the plural in indicating the inclusion of the collective; as if it were said: "We shall repeat the first created beings."

It is permitted that the kaf be in the accusative by an implied verb explained by nu'iduhu, and ma is a relative pronoun, and awwal is an adverb of time for bada’na, because the relative pronoun requires a referent; if it is estimated here, it would be the object, and awwal has the capacity for the accusative as an adverb of time, so it is placed in the accusative accordingly. It is permissible for it to be in the place of the circumstantial qualifier for that referent. The gist of the meaning is: "We shall repeat like what We began in the first creation, or existing as the first creation." Khalq (creation) on the first [interpretation] is a verbal noun, and on the second, it is in the sense of the "created." It is permissible for ma to be a relative pronoun, and the rest of the speech remains as it is.

Abu Hayyan criticized the accusative of the kaf, [stating] that it is an opinion of it being a noun, and it is not the school of the majority; rather, al-Akhfash held it, and the school of the Basrans is otherwise, [stating] that its being a noun is restricted to poetry. He raised the same against the opinion that its place is the nominative in the previous view. If it is said that the inhibited kaf has a complement, as chosen by some, like al-Radi and those with him, then its complement should be the predicate of an omitted subject there.

The interpretation that it means "We shall repeat like what We began in the first creation" is supported by what Ibn Jarir reported from ‘Aisha—may Allah be pleased with her—who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) entered upon me, and with me was an old woman from the Banu ‘Amir. He said: 'Who is this old woman, O ‘Aisha?' I said: 'One of my aunts.' She said: 'Pray to Allah—the Exalted—to enter me into Paradise.' The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Paradise is not entered by the elderly.' The old woman was affected by what she was affected by. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Allah—the Exalted—shall recreate them as a creation other than their creation.' Then he said: 'You shall be gathered barefoot, naked, and uncircumcised.' She said: 'Far be it from Allah—the Exalted—from that!' The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'Yes, Allah—the Exalted—said: "As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it."'" A similar meaning is attained based on what Ibn al-Hajib permitted: that "As We began" is in the place of the circumstantial qualifier of the pronoun in nu'iduhu, i.e., "We shall repeat the first creation similar to what We began." We do not overlook what the comparison requires in terms of the difference between the two sides. Regardless, the intent is to report the Resurrection, and ma is not specific to the heaven in any of the aspects, as it is not the meaning, nor does the wording support it.

Ibn Jarir reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both—that the meaning of the verse is: "We shall destroy everything as it was the first time," and that requires reflection.

"A promise"—it is a verbal noun in the accusative by its omitted verb, as an emphasis for it, and the clause emphasizes what precedes it; or it is in the accusative by nu'iduhu (We shall repeat it), because it is a promise of repetition. Al-Zajjaj went to this, and al-Tablasi considered the first [opinion] better because the reciters pause at nu'iduhu.

"Upon Us" is in the place of an attribute for wa’dan, i.e., "a promise incumbent upon Us." The intent is that its fulfillment is necessary without the need for the artificiality of istikhdam. "Indeed, We have been performers"—that is, [performing] the act without fail. Future actions that Allah—the Exalted—knows will occur are like the past in certainty; hence, He expressed the future with the past in many places of the Book of the العزيز (the Mighty/the Noble), or [it means] "Capable of performing that," which al-Zamakhshari chose. It was said against him that this is contrary to the outward meaning.