Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:10

[Meaning:] May the abundance of the One who, if He willed, could bestow upon you in this world something better for you than what they proposed; specifically, that He should grant you the likes of what He promised you in the Hereafter, namely gardens and palaces—and this is similarly stated in al-Kashshaf.

It is narrated from Mujahid that if He willed, He would grant you gardens in the Hereafter and palaces in the world—and the weakness in this view is evident. It has also been said that the meaning is: if He willed, He would grant that in the Hereafter, and the particle “in” (if) is attached to the verb of willing (mashi’ah) to alert one that this is not attained except by His grace, the Exalted, and that it is dependent upon the pure will of the Glorified; no servant possesses any right against Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, neither in this world nor in the Hereafter. The former [interpretation] is more effective in rebuking the disbelievers and refuting them. It is not refuted—contrary to what Ibn ‘Atiyyah claimed—by the Almighty’s saying: “Nay, they have denied the Hour,” as you shall learn, God willing, the Exalted.

The apparent [meaning] is that the reference is to what they proposed: treasures and a garden. The superiority of what is mentioned [in the verse] over what they proposed lies in the plurality of gardens, the flowing of rivers, and the lofty dwellings within those gardens (either a dwelling in each, or many dwellings in each). Regarding the treasure, [it is superior] because it is desired for its own sake, whereas treasure is sought only to acquire the likes of such things; it is also more manifest in grandeur and more gratifying to the eyes of men than mere treasure. The lack of response to the first proposal is due to its obvious contradiction of legislative wisdom, which is perhaps understood from many verses; this is how it is said.

In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, it is stated that the reference is to what they proposed: that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) should have a garden from which he eats. “Gardens” is an appositive (badal) to “better,” confirming its superiority over what they said, because their proposal was devoid of the qualifications of plurality and the flowing of rivers. Attaching this to His will, the Exalted, is to signal that the lack of [current] granting is due to the absence of a will [to do so], which is founded upon wisdom and interests. The failure to address the first two proposals is to alert one that they lie outside the realm of reason and are self-evidently invalid and contrary to legislative wisdom. The only proposal that possesses some merit is the last one, as it is not entirely contrary to wisdom; for some prophets, peace be upon them, were granted, along with prophethood, great dominion in this world—end quote.

This interpretation, which he mentions in reference, the Imam al-Razi attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both. The first view mentioned was preferred by Abu Hayyan, who related it from Mujahid. He also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that it is a reference to that for which they taunted him—eating food and walking in the marketplaces—but he stated: "This is far-fetched." The Imam also related this from ‘Ikrimah. It is as if you would choose what both he and the author of al-Irshad chose.

The apparent [grammatical state] is that “yaj’al” (He will make) is majzum (jussive), making it conjoined to the position of the jaza’ (result of the condition), which is “ja’ala” (He would grant). It is also a result [in meaning]. It has been brought here as a future-tense sentence, following the norm for the jaza’. The scholars of meanings have stated that the norm in the two clauses of the conditional “in” is that they both be verbal sentences, future in wording just as they are future in meaning; and that departing from this in wording occurs only for a [rhetorical] nuance. It is as if the expression here, using the two past-tense sentences in “if He willed, He would grant,” is for the sake of increasing the rebuke of the disbelievers regarding the [kind of] things they proposed. Since they did not propose anything of the nature of "granting palaces," this [past-tense] path was not taken there—so contemplate this.

It has been said: The apparent [norm], after expressing the result in the past tense first, was to express it likewise here, but it was shifted to the present tense because the granting of palaces in the gardens is future relative to the granting of the gardens. Furthermore, this conjunction necessitates that the palaces are not included in the "better" thing [which is] replaced by His saying, the Almighty, “gardens.” What was presented from al-Kashshaf is an explanation of the resulting meaning with the assistance of the context.

It is permitted that it [the verb] be marfu’ (indicative), with its lam assimilated into the lam of “laka.” However, the assimilation of two identical letters when the first is voweled is the school of Abu ‘Amr. Those among the Seven who recited with taskin (voweling the lam) are he, Hamzah, al-Kisa’i, and Nafi’. In a narration from Mahbub on his [authority], it is reported that he recited with raf’ (nominative) without assimilation; this is the recitation of Ibn ‘Amir, Ibn Kathir, Mujahid, Humayd, and Abu Bakr. The conjunction on this recitation, and the possibility of assimilation according to Ibn ‘Atiyyah, is based on the meaning of “ja’ala,” for the conditional result is a place of isti’naf (commencement/incipience); does one not see that the subject and predicate can occupy the place of the conditional result?

Al-Zamakhshari said: It is conjoined to “ja’ala” because if the condition is in the past tense, it is permissible for its result to be majzum or marfu’, as Zuhayr said in praise of Haram ibn Sinan: "And if a guest comes to him on a day of famine, he says: 'Neither my wealth is absent, nor is it forbidden.'" The school of Sibawayh is that the result in such cases is elided, and the marfu’ present tense is [placed] based on the intention of anticipation. The Kufans and al-Mubarrad held that it is the result itself, and that it is based on the elision of the fa. This construction, according to the majority, is eloquent and permissible in prose just as it is in poetry. Abu Hayyan related from some of his associates that it is not permissible except out of necessity, as it has not come except in poetry. The complete discussion on verifying these schools is in its proper place.

Al-Hawfi and Abu al-Baqa’ said: The raf’ is for isti’naf. It is said: This is a grammatical isti’naf, and the address to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is with the granting of those palaces in the Hereafter. Hence, [the speaker] shifted from the past tense to the present tense, which indicates the future. It is also said: It is an isti’naf bayani (explanatory commencement)—as if a speaker were asking, "How is the situation in the Hereafter?" and it was said: "He will grant you palaces in it." Some have made this isti’naf apply to the granting in this world as well, meaning: "If He willed, He would grant you gardens in this world, and He will [also] grant you palaces in those gardens," if the condition is realized—which is as you see. It is also said: The raf’ is by conjunction to “tajri”, as an adjective with the understanding of "and He will grant in them," i.e., in the gardens—but this is nothing [of value].

‘Ubayd Allah ibn Musa and Talhah ibn Sulayman recited “wa yaj’ala” in the nasb (accusative) case, based on the elision of “an” (that). Its justification, according to what is reported from al-Sirafi, is that when the condition is not majzum, it resembles an interrogation. It is also said: When it is not [realized in] the state of splitting [the condition], it resembles a negation. Sibawayh mentioned the nasb after it and said it is weak. It is also said that the verb is marfu’ and its lam is vowelled with fathah following the lam of “laka,” similar to what was said regarding the verse: "It was not prevented from drinking of it, except that a pigeon cooed in the branches of a thorny tree," in that the ra of “ghayra” was vowelled with fathah following the hamzah of “an.” This is one of two views on the line of poetry. Similar to the verse in these recitations is the [line of] al-Nabighah: "For if Abu Qabus dies, the spring of the people dies, and the Sacred Month; and we take after him the tail of a life, lacking a back, having no hump." It is transmitted that “na’khudhu” can be majzum, marfu’, and mansub.