Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:14

"Do not call today for one destruction"

Regarding the estimation of [the utterance], it is either in the accusative case as a state (hal) of the subject of [the verb] "they call out," meaning: they call out while this is said to them in reality, as is the apparent sense—that the angels address them to alert them to the eternity of their torment, and [to inform them] that their pleas will not be answered, nor will they attain the destruction they hope for as a means of salvation. Or, it is a representation and depiction of their state akin to one to whom this is said, without there being any actual speech or address, as it has been said, meaning: they call out while being deserving of this being said to them.

Alternatively, it has no place in inflection, being coordinated with what precedes it, meaning: "When they are cast into a narrow place thereof, bound together, they call out for destruction," then it is said to them: "Do not call today..." or it is an inaugural sentence serving as an answer to an implied question that runs through the discourse, as if it were said: "What happens when they call out as mentioned?" It is replied: "This is said to them." The intent is to cause them to despair of the destruction they had pinned their hopes on, and to alert them that the torment which drives them to this [hope for destruction] is eternal and that there is no escape from it, in the most eloquent manner. This indicates that the savior from the torment they are in is—by standard perception—not a savior, and that which saves is impossible. It is as if it were said: Do not call today for one destruction, for it shall not save you.

"And call for much destruction"—that is, destruction which has no limit to its magnitude so that you might be saved by it. And how could there be "much destruction"? [As the proverb goes:] "Whoever does not die by the sword, dies by something else; the causes are many, but death is one." This is a subtle meaning I have not known anyone else to mention.

It has been said: The description of destruction as "much" is with regard to the multitude of expressions that signify it, as if it were said: Do not say only "O destruction," but say "O destruction," "O ruin," "O woe," "O regret," and so on—as you can see.

The Sheikh al-Islam said: It is described as such according to the multiplicity of the supplications related to it, not according to its multiplicity in itself. For that which they call upon is one destruction in its essence, but whenever a supplication from those many supplications is attached to it, it becomes as if it were a destruction different from that to which another supplication was attached. The verification of this is: Do not call it once; rather, call it many times, for the torment you are in, due to its extreme severity and long duration, necessitates the repetition of the plea at every instant. He then said: This is more indicative of the horror and dread of the torment than [the view that] the multiplicity and renewal of the plea is due to the multiplicity of the torment itself through its various kinds and colors, or its multiplicity through the renewal of skins, as is not hidden.

As for what has been said—that the meaning is "you have fallen into that wherein your destruction is not one, but rather a many," either because the torment is of various types and colors, each type being a destruction due to its severity and horror, or because whenever their skins are roasted, they are replaced with other skins, so there is no limit to their destruction—this does not befit the context. How could it, when they are only calling for a destruction that ends their torment and saves them from it? Therefore, the response must be to cause them to despair of that by declaring its impossibility and the perpetuity of the torment that necessitates their summoning it.

The view that the description of destruction as "much" is based on the multiplicity of the plea is criticized in that it does not suit the [rhythmic] composition, and likewise is the view that it is based on the multiplicity of words signifying destruction, for it would have been more apparent to say "a great plea." As for his statement "As for what has been said..." it is not free from debate, so reflect upon it.

Ali ibn Isa narrated [the expression] "What thabara you from this matter?" meaning: what turned you away from it? It is permitted that "destruction" (thubur) in the verse is from this, as if they regretted what they had done and said: "O, our turning away from the obedience of Allah the Almighty," just as one says: "O our regret." Thus, they were answered as they were answered.

The restriction of the prohibition and the command to "today" is for further terror and horror, and to alert them that it is not like the other familiar days from whose torment one finds a single destruction [to end it]. It is also possible that this is to remind them of the Hour, the reason they were afflicted with what they were afflicted with because of their denial of it; thus, it contains increased pain for them.

Umar ibn Muhammad read thuburan with a fatha on the tha in all three instances; the form fu'ul with a fatha on the initial letter for verbal nouns is rare, like al-quful.