Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:16

"For them therein is whatever they wish."

It is said that this is an inception that serves as an answer to a question arising from what preceded it; for it established that Paradise is a dwelling place for them, and one who dwells in a house requires many things to delight their soul in residing there. It is as if a questioner asks: "What will they have once they arrive there and dwell within it?" Thus, it was said: "For them therein is whatever they wish."

Al-Tabarsi said: The sentence is in the state of being a hal (circumstantial qualifier) related to His saying (the Exalted), "The righteous." "Whatever" (ma) is a relative pronoun acting as the subject (mubtada), the pronoun referring back to it is omitted, "for them" (lahum) is its predicate, and "therein" (fiha) is connected to that which "for them" is connected to—meaning: there exists for them therein that which they wish for of all varieties of delights, objects of desire, and types of spiritual and physical bliss.

Perhaps each group among them is satisfied with the degrees of bliss permitted to them, viewing what they are in as the most delightful of things. Their ambitions do not reach for the high ranks above that, nor does it cross their minds to request what they cannot attain. Thus, the common believer does not wish for the rank of the Prophets (peace be upon them), nor do they seek intercession for those for whom eternal stay in the Fire has been decreed, for instance. Thus, there is no deprivation, nor is there a lack of distinction among the ranks of the people of Paradise.

Contrary to these are the people of the Fire, for He (the Exalted) said regarding them: "And it is placed as a barrier between them and what they desire."

"Abiding" (khalidina) is a state derived from one of the pronouns (in the verse), as has been said. Its surface meaning provides no clear preference. Some of the learned said: Making it a state derived from the first (the righteous) necessitates it being a prospective state (hal muqaddara), and making it derived from the third (the ma in "whatever they wish") implies that their wish is restricted to it. Therefore, the best of matters is the middle course. Some favored the third option due to its proximity; furthermore, the restriction is not a flaw, but rather an important point. It is also permitted that it be a state derived from "the righteous," though its condition in that case is not hidden. Some great scholars have discussed this at length, as mentioned by Al-Homsi in the margins of At-Tasrih, so let it be consulted.

"Was" (kana)—meaning: the promise of what was mentioned, or the promised thing understood from the speech. It thus encompasses the promise of Paradise, the attainment of what they wish therein, and eternity—according to the first interpretation—or Paradise, the attainment of objectives, and the eternity promised—according to the second. Some said: The pronoun refers to eternity, another said to the attainment of what they wish therein, or to the fact that Paradise is a reward and a destination. The use of the singular form to cover what they mentioned suffices without needing further explanation. The majority hold that it refers to "what they wish" (ma yasha’un), and it is the noun of kana.

His saying (the Exalted), "upon your Lord" (ala rabbika), is connected to it [the verb kana] or to an omitted element acting as a state from His saying (the Exalted), "a promise" (wa’dan), which is the predicate of kana. The connection of the prepositional phrase to the noun (wa’dan) was not permitted, whether it remains as a verbal noun (masdar) or is interpreted as a passive participle (ism maf’ul)—meaning "promised"—because of what you know regarding the dispute over the referent of the pronoun, based on the prohibition of placing the masdar's object before it, even if it is interpreted as something else, or if the preceding element is an adverb, concerning which there is disagreement. It is permitted that "upon your Lord" be connected to an omitted predicate, and "a promise" be an emphatic verbal noun. The most apparent meaning is to make [the omitted element] the predicate—meaning: that was a promise or a promised thing.

"Asked for" (mas’ulan): Meaning, it is a reality that is sought and requested, because it is something for which those who compete compete, or it is a cause for the attainment of that. Its being "asked for" is a metonymy for it being a magnificent matter. It is also permitted that the "promised thing" be "asked for" in the literal sense—meaning that people ask for it in their supplications by saying: "Our Lord, grant us what You promised us through Your messengers."

Sa’id ibn Abi Hilal said: I heard Abu Hazim (may Allah be pleased with him) say: When the Day of Resurrection comes, the believers will say: "Our Lord, we acted for You according to what You commanded us, so fulfill for us what You promised us." That is the meaning of His saying (the Exalted): "A promise asked for."

Ibn Abi Hatim extracted, via the path of this Sa’id from Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi, that he said regarding the verse: "The angels (peace be upon them) indeed ask for that in their saying: 'Our Lord, and admit them to gardens of perpetual residence which You have promised them.'"

The mention of the title of Lordship, coupled with the addition to the pronoun of him (upon him be peace), is to honor him (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and to signify that he (upon him be peace) is the one who triumphs with the spoils of this noble promise.

The verse was considered problematic according to the school of the Ash’arites, because it indicates an obligation upon Allah (the Exalted) due to the presence of "upon" (ala). According to them, nothing is obligatory upon Him (the Exalted), for that would necessitate the removal of His choice and the absence of deserved praise. The response is that the obligation indicated by the verse is an obligation necessitated by the promise. What is impossible is an obligation of compulsion and force from an external source, for that is what removes choice and results in corruption, not His (the Exalted's) obliging Himself to something by the necessity of His promise and His generosity. Indeed, it is preceded by His will, and an obligation arising from the will does not contradict choice. This is clear when the promise is contingent (hadith). As for when it is eternal (qadim), then the precedence and subsequence are in respect to the essence, and that does not necessitate occurrence in time. Or, it may be said: What is contingent by the will is its connection to the promised thing. So understand this.