Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:19

(These are two adversaries who disputed regarding their Lord)—this is a determination of the two parties to the dispute and a clarification of its subject. By "these two" is meant the party of the believers and the party of the disbelievers—the latter being divided into the five groups. It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Mujahid, Ata ibn Abi Rabah, Al-Hasan, Asim, and Al-Kalbi what supports this. By this, it is determined that the previous separation [in the surah] was between the believers and the totality of those joined to them. Since each adversary is a faction comprising a group, the verb "disputed" (ikhtasamu) came in the plural form.

Ibn Abi Ablah recited it as ikhtasama (in the dual form), observing the literal grammatical form of "two adversaries" (khasman), which is the dual of khasm. They mentioned that, originally, it is a verbal noun (masdar) that applies equally to a single person mentioned and others. Abu al-Baqa said: "The most common usage is to use it in the singular." Whoever uses it in the dual or plural treats it as an adjective or a noun [of agent/patient]. Al-Kisa'i narrated that he recited khisman with a kasra on the kha.

The meaning of their dispute regarding their Lord is their dispute regarding His affair (Exalted is His affair). It is also said: regarding His religion; and it is said: regarding His Essence and His Attributes. All of these belong to His affairs (the Almighty’s). Each of the two parties believing in the validity of what they are upon and the falsehood of what their opponent is upon, and building their statements and actions upon that, is sufficient to establish their dispute with the other party; it does not depend on actual verbal debate.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: "The believers and the Jews disputed. The Jews said: 'We are closer to Allah and older than you in scripture, and our Prophet is before your Prophet.' The believers said: 'We are more rightful to Allah; we believed in Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), we believed in your Prophet, and in what Allah revealed of scripture, while you know our scripture and our Prophet, then you abandoned it and disbelieved in it out of envy.' Thus, [this verse] was revealed."

A group [of scholars] narrated something similar from Qatadah. This was objected to on the grounds that the dispute in this case is not regarding Allah (the Almighty), but rather as to which of them is closer to Him. The response given is that [the latter] necessitates the former, and it is as you can see. It was also objected that specifying the Jews contradicts the flow of the speech in this context. In al-Kashf, they said: "This does not contradict what was narrated from Ibn Abbas—that the verse refers to the people of the six religions—because in verifying [the meaning], the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause."

Al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani, and others narrated from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to swear an oath that this verse—"These are two adversaries"—until His saying, "Indeed, Allah does whatever He wills"—was revealed regarding the three and the three who engaged in single combat on the day of Badr: Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, Ubaydah ibn al-Harith, and Ali ibn Abi Talib; and Utbah, Shaybah, the sons of Rabi'ah, and al-Walid ibn Utbah. You know that this dispute is not a dispute in Allah, but rather its source is that [the struggle between faith and disbelief]. So contemplate and do not be heedless.

As for what has been said, that the intended meaning of these two adversaries is Paradise and Hell, there should be no disagreement regarding the inadmissibility of such a claim. It is [like saying] "two adversaries" or "two rams butting each other." In the discourse, as more than one has stated, there is division, collection, and separation. The division is: "Indeed, those who have believed..." until His saying, "and those who associated [partners with Allah]." The collection is: "Indeed, Allah will judge between them" until His saying, "These are two adversaries who disputed regarding their Lord." The separation is in His saying (Glory be to Him): "But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire..." i.e., prepared for them. It is as if He likened the preparation of the fire surrounding them to the cutting and tailoring of garments for them according to the size of their bodies. Thus, there is in the speech a satirical representational metaphor; there is no actual cutting or garments in reality. It is as if the plural "garments" is used to signify the accumulation of the fire surrounding them, with some of it being on top of others.

It is permissible that this is to correspond the plural with the plural; the first is more eloquent. He used the past tense because the preparation has occurred. It is not [merely] from the use of the past tense for something guaranteed to happen, as in "the Trumpet shall be blown."

A group narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that these garments are of molten copper, and there is nothing heated in the Fire that is more intense in heat than it. Thus, the garments are not of the fire itself, but of something resembling it, and these garments are clothing for them. What an ugly clothing that is! Therefore, Wahb said: "The people of Hell will be clothed, and nakedness would be better for them." Al-Za'farani recited in his selection qutti'at (with light emphasis), while the heavy emphasis [in the standard recitation] is more eloquent.

(Poured over their heads will be scalding water)—i.e., hot water whose heat has reached its limit. From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "If a drop of the scalding water were to fall upon the mountains of the world, it would dissolve them." Ibn Jubayr interpreted it as molten copper, but the well-known interpretation is the one mentioned previously. Perhaps the use of min (from) signifies the intensity of its occurrence. The sentence is either starting a new thought, a second predicate for the relative pronoun [in "those who disbelieved"], or in the position of a state (hal) estimated from the pronoun in "for them."