Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:15

(Say) as a form of rebuke and mockery towards them, and as a cause of regret for what they have missed.

(Is that better) – The demonstrative pronoun refers to the blazing fire mentioned previously, considering its description of the terrifying states that were detailed. It is the one that is frequently contrasted with Paradise. The meaning of remoteness in the word "that" (dhālika) serves to indicate that it is in the furthest extreme of horror and monstrosity. It has been said that it refers to Paradise and the treasure mentioned in their statement: "Or has a treasure been cast to him," etc. It has also been said that it refers to the Paradise and the palaces that would be made in this world, should He will. Neither of these two statements is reliable, especially the latter. The meaning is: Is that which has been mentioned of the blazing fire, which has been prepared for those who deny the Hour—whose affair is such and such, and the affair of its inhabitants is such and such—better, (or the Garden of Eternity which the righteous were promised)? That is, the Garden which the righteous were promised, because the verb "promised" (wa'ada) takes two objects, and this omitted object is the one to which the relative pronoun refers.

The genitive addition (idafa) of the "Garden" to "Eternity" (al-khuld), if the relationship of the addition is known, is for the purpose of praise, for praise is only through what is known. If it is not known, then the eternity of the Garden serves no benefit. This is not contradicted by His saying, Exalted is He: "Abiding therein," because that refers to the eternity of its inhabitants, not the eternity of the Garden itself, even if the two are inseparable. Or, it is to distinguish it from the gardens of the world. It is said that "Garden of Eternity" is a proper name, like "Garden of Eden," and the intended meaning of "the righteous" are those characterized by absolute piety, not merely the second or third rank thereof. This is indicated by their being contrasted with the disbelievers in the noble composition. It is also said that it may refer to those perfect in piety, and its being promised to them is a promise of entry from the beginning, without prior punishment, though this is exclusive to them and is not the strongest view.

The alternative questioning and preference in the word "better," despite there being no doubt that there is no goodness in the blazing fire, is for the sake of mockery and rebuke, as we have indicated. Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: Since the speech is an interrogative, it is permissible to use the comparative form between the Garden and the blazing fire in terms of "goodness," because in a state of confrontation, it is permissible for the speaker to confront his interlocutor with whatever he wishes to see if he answers him correctly or incorrectly. Sibawayh and others only forbade the comparative when the speech is declarative, because it involves a contradiction of reality. However, if it is an interrogative, it is permissible. Abu Hayyan said: "Better" (khayr) here is not for the purpose of indicating superiority, but rather it follows the custom of the Arabs in stating the merit of a thing and its exclusivity to merit over its opposite, such as the saying of Hassan: "The worst of you is the ransom for the best of you," and their saying, "Is recovery dearer to you or health?" and "Honey is sweeter than vinegar," and His saying, narrating from Joseph, peace be upon him: "The prison is dearer to me." This is not restricted to questions or declarations.

The examples mentioned regarding declarative statements refute Ibn ‘Atiyyah, unless the "goodness" in which Sibawayh claimed prohibition is restricted to that in which the judgment is not clear. As for when the judgment is clear to the listener, such that he does not waver in his mind or hesitate regarding the superior, then the comparative is permissible. Verification of the discussion in this station has preceded, and what we have indicated here is more worthy of consideration than what Ibn ‘Atiyyah and Abu Hayyan indicated.

(It is) — that Garden for them; that is, in the knowledge of Allah Almighty, or on the Preserved Tablet. Or, the meaning is that it will be, as it is a promise from the Most Generous of the generous, expressed in the past tense metaphorically to confirm its occurrence, for He, Glory be to Him, does not break the promise. It is permissible that this is in view of the fact that His promise has already been made in His books and upon the tongues of His messengers, blessings and peace be upon them. (A reward) for their deeds, according to the requirement of the promise, not by way of obligation. (And a destination) (they return to it).

It was not sufficient to say "It was for them a reward," because that does not necessitate this; a king might reward a person in this world with a garden, for example, but he may not see it, let alone dwell in it. The sentence "It was for them..." according to what al-Tabarsi mentioned, is in the place of a state (hal) from the omitted pronoun that returns to the relative pronoun in "the righteous were promised," with or without the particle "qad." It is also permissible for it to be a substitute for "the righteous were promised," acting as an explanation for it, or an initial sentence in the place of a justification.

Al-Zamakhshari mentioned what suggests that this sentence is an appendage to remind of the blessing through what Allah has granted them and the goodness of their living in that lofty place, in a way that includes the opposite of that for their adversaries. It is as if it were said: It was for them a reward, abundant and beyond description, and a destination—that is, a destination whose measure cannot be estimated, and it is not like the destination of the disbelievers indicated by His saying, Glory be to Him: "And when they are thrown into a narrow place thereof..." From this, one knows the benefit of mentioning the "destination" alongside the "reward." Contemplate this.