Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:35

His saying, the Exalted, "Every soul shall taste death," is a proof for what they denied regarding their immortality. It serves as an affirmation of His statement, the Sublime, "And We have not made..." and so on.

As for death, according to Shaykh al-Ash‘ari, it is an existential quality that opposes life. According to al-Isfarayini—and this is attributed to the majority—it is the privation of life from that which is by nature intended for life in actuality. Thus, it is the absence of that life, similar to the blindness that befalls sight, not absolute blindness. Therefore, it does not necessitate that the absence of life from an embryo, while it is prepared for life, constitutes death. Others have said it is the absence of life from that which is by nature intended for life in an absolute sense, which would necessitate that [consequence], but there is no harm in that, due to His saying, the Exalted, "How can you disbelieve in Allah, when you were dead and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you to life."

Al-Ash‘ari argued for its existential nature by citing the verse, "He who created death and life," for creation is bringing into existence and producing from nothingness. He also argued that it is a contingent matter, and a contingent matter must have a creator, whereas non-existence does not perform acts. To the first point, it was answered that "creation" may bear the meaning of "determining" (taqdir), which is broader than bringing into existence; and even if it were conceded to mean bringing into existence, it is possible that "creating death" means creating its causes, or that an omitted noun is implied—which is not rare in speech. To the second point, it was answered that the creator might intend non-existence just as he intends existence; thus, the creator causes the cessation of life just as he causes the cessation of sight, for example.

Al-Laqani said: The outward meaning dictates what al-Ash‘ari holds, and deviating from the outward meaning without a compelling reason is not an acceptable deviation. His speech is explicit that it is an accident (arad). Some scholars who hold it to be existential hesitated on whether it is a substance or an accident, because some traditions mention it as a meaning created by Allah, the Exalted, in the palm of the Angel of Death, while others state that Allah, the Exalted, created it in the form of a ram, which does not pass by anything and catch its scent without that thing dying. Most expressions, however, indicate that it is an accident that follows life or the corruption of the animal's physical composition. The first [view] is not preventive, and the second is a description by way of effect. Close to this is what some scholars have said: that it is the disabling of faculties due to the extinguishing of the innate heat that serves as their instrument. If this is due to the extinguishing of innate moisture, it is natural death; otherwise, it is non-natural. People know nothing of death except the cessation of the soul’s specific attachment to the body and its separation from it.

"Soul" (nafs) here refers to the animal soul, which is absolutely broader than the human soul, just as "animal" is absolutely broader than "human." According to the philosophers and those who follow their path, there are three types: vegetative, animal, and celestial. The term "soul" is applied to all three by homonymy, as the Imam narrated in al-Mulakhkhas from the verifiers, or by commonality of meaning, as implied by the Shaykh's words in al-Shifa. The detailed investigation of this is in its proper place, and the desire to include everyone here is something one should not pay attention to. Some have said: It means the human soul because the discourse is aimed at refuting the immortality of humans. Its generality was preferred so as to include the souls of humans, jinn, and all other types of animals; this does not harm the discourse, but rather makes it more beneficial. There is no doubt in the death of every individual of those species.

Yes, there is a difference of opinion on whether it is correct to intend its generality such that it includes the soul of every living being, like angels and others, based on the dispute regarding the death of the angels—peace be upon them—and the Houris. Some said: All of them die, even if for a moment, due to the Almighty's saying, "Everything is perishing except His Face." Others said: They do not die, due to the indication of some reports. The intention behind "every soul" is the earthly souls, and the verse cited as evidence is interpreted as will be explained, God willing. They are either included in the exception in His saying, the Exalted, "And the Trumpet will be blown, and all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth will swoon, except whom Allah wills," or it is not conceded that every "swooning" is death. Some said: The angels die, but the Houris do not. Others said: Some angels die, while others do not, such as Gabriel, Israfil, Mika'il, and ‘Azra'il—peace be upon them. The opinion of the latter was preferred. It cannot be objected that death necessitates the separation of the soul from the body and that the angels—peace be upon them—have no bodies, because he who holds that they die says that they do have bodies, but they are subtle, which is the truth indicated by the texts. Perhaps the requirement of a body for death is denied.

Some went to the extreme and claimed that the souls themselves die after their separation from the body, even if they do not possess a body after separation. He commits to interpreting death as non-existence and dissolution. The truth is that they do not die, regardless of whether it is interpreted as mentioned or not. Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Kindi alluded to this dispute by saying: "People disputed until they had no agreement except on 'shajb' (destruction), and the disagreement is about 'shajb.' It was said: The human soul departs safe, and it was said: It shares the human body in destruction."

The Imam tended toward generality in the verse, yet he said: "It is specified (makhsus), for He, the Exalted, has a soul as He said, the Sublime, narrating from ‘Isa—peace be upon him—'You know what is in my soul, and I do not know what is in Your soul,' even though death is impossible for Him, the Exalted. Likewise, inanimate objects have souls, and they do not die." He then said: "A general statement that has been specified is still proof, so it remains applicable to its outward meaning in whatever was not excluded from it." This invalidates the philosophers' position regarding human spirits, separated intellects, and celestial souls that they do not die. This is rejected in that if he intends by "soul" the substance attached to the body by the attachment of management and administration—as the philosophers and those who agree with them say—or the luminous, subtle, living, moving body that permeates the organs and flows through them like the flow of rosewater in a rose—as the majority of traditionists hold, for which Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned a hundred proofs—then Allah, the Exalted, is transcendent above that entirely. Likewise, inanimate objects are not described by it according to the common view. Furthermore, human spirits and separated intellects do not, according to the philosophers, have a soul in either of these two meanings, so how can their position be invalidated by this noble verse? If he intends by it the "Self" (dhat), as is one of its meanings, it is permissible to affirm it for Allah, the Exalted, and this has been said regarding the verse he mentioned. It is likewise established for inanimate objects. But it is objected against him that if he intends by "death" the separation of the spirit from the body or similar, his statement "and that invalidates..." is invalidated, because the aforementioned spirits and intellects have no bodies according to the philosophers, so death in that sense cannot be conceived for them. And if he intends by it non-existence and dissolution, it is objected against him that inanimate objects are described by it, so his saying "and they do not die" would not be correct. In short, it is not hidden from the one who remembers that the Imam stumbled in this place.

Furthermore, the meaning of the soul "tasting" death is that it experiences it in such a way that it feels pain, or experiences pleasure, in that it escapes through it from the constriction of this lowly world to the realm of the Kingdom (Malakut) and the enclosures of holiness. This is what was said. The apparent meaning is that every soul suffers from death, but that varies in intensity and weakness. In the hadith: "Indeed, for death there are agonies." The aforementioned escape for some people does not negate the feeling of pain. Perhaps the choice of "tasting" is an allusion to this for those who have "taste." For most of what has come [in the Quran] refers to punishment. The Imam said: Tasting is a specific perception, and here it is a metaphor for the principle of perception. It is impossible to apply it to its outward meaning because death is not of the category of food so that it might be tasted. He mentioned that what is meant by death are the precursors of great pains, because before its entry into existence, perception is impossible, and upon its existence, the person becomes dead, and the dead do not perceive. This was countered by the fact that the perceiver is the departing soul, and it perceives the pain of its separation from the body.

"And We test you" (wa nablukum): The address is either to all people by way of modulation (talwin), or to the disbelievers by way of turning (iltifat), meaning: We treat you with the treatment of one who tests you. "With evil and good" (bi al-sharr wa al-khayr): with the disliked and the beloved, to see whether you are patient and grateful or not. The interpretation of "evil and good" as mentioned is narrated from Ibn Zayd. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that they are hardship and prosperity. Al-Dahhak said: Poverty and sickness, and wealth and health. Generalization is better. "Evil" was mentioned first because it is what is fitting for those who deny [the resurrection] or because it is more attached to the death mentioned before it. Al-Raghib mentioned that Allah, the Exalted, tests His servants sometimes with favors so they may be grateful, and sometimes with harmful things so they may be patient. Thus, both trial (mihna) and trial (mihna) are a test; the trial of hardship requires patience, and the trial of ease requires gratitude. Fulfilling the rights of patience is easier than fulfilling the rights of gratitude, so the trial of hardship is the greater of the two. With this perspective, ‘Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—said: "We were tested with hardship and were patient, and we were tested with ease and were not patient." For this reason, ‘Ali—may Allah honor his face—said: "Whoever is given expanse in his worldly life and does not know that he has been plotted against is deceived regarding his intellect." Perhaps the reason for putting "evil" first is known from this.

"As a test" (fitnatan): i.e., a trial. It is an infinitive (masdar) emphasizing "We test you" (nablukum), even if it is not from the same root. It is permitted that it be a circumstantial qualifier (hal) or an object denoting purpose (maf'ul lahu), meaning: We test you with evil and good for the sake of manifesting your excellence and your foulness, or while manifesting that. So reflect and do not be heedless.

"And to Us you will be returned" (wa ilayna turja‘un) — not to anyone else, neither independently nor as associates, so We will recompense you according to what appears from you of deeds. According to the first of the two interpretations of the address, it is a promise and a threat; according to the second, it is a pure threat. The verse contains an allusion that the intention of this worldly life is testing and exposure to reward and punishment. It was read as "yurja‘un" (they will be returned) with the 'ya' of the third person, by way of turning (iltifat).