Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:21

"And those who do not hope for our meeting" initiates the recounting of another set of their false assertions and clarifies their invalidity, following the previous account of the refutation of their absurdities and what pertains to it. This clause is conjoined to His saying, "And they say, 'What is this messenger...'" (v. 7).

The relative pronoun is placed in the position of the pronoun to draw attention—within the scope of the relative clause—to the fact that what is being narrated about them is of such infamy that it would not proceed from one who hopes for the meeting of Allah, the Exalted.

"Hope" (al-raja’), according to common usage, is "expectation" (al-amal). Most philologists have defined each by the other. In Furuq by Ibn Hilal, al-amal (aspiration) is a hope that persists; hence, looking at something persistently and for a long time is called ta’ammul (contemplation). It is said that al-amal applies to both the possible and the impossible, while al-raja’ is specific to the possible. In al-Misbah, al-amal is the opposite of despair, often used for things whose attainment is remote, whereas al-tama’ (greed/covetousness) is for what is close to attainment. Al-raja’ lies between al-amal and al-tama’, for the one who hopes fears that their desired object may not be attained; thus, it is sometimes used in the sense of al-tama’.

Abu Ubaydah and others interpreted it as "fear." Al-Farra’ states that this word is of the dialect of Tihamah and Hudhayl; when it is used in conjunction with a denial, they take it to mean "fear." They say: "So-and-so does not hope for his Lord," meaning he does not fear his Lord, the Exalted. From this is: "What is with you that you do not fear the majesty of Allah?" (Nuh: 13), i.e., you do not fear the greatness of Allah. If they say, "So-and-so hopes for his Lord," this is in the sense of hope, not fear.

The poet says: "When the bees stung him, he did not fear (hope for) their stinging, and he swore an alliance with them in a house of honey-making bees." Another says: "He does not hope for (fear) when he meets the brave ones, whether seven met him or one."

It is mentioned that the use of "hope" in the meaning of "fear" is metaphorical because one who hopes for a thing fears its loss.

The origin of liqa’ (meeting) is the confrontation and encounter of a thing. This is the intended meaning of those who say it signifies reaching something by touch. It is also applied to vision, as it is a reaching toward the seen. The "meeting of Allah" here is a metonymy for meeting His recompense on the Day of Resurrection, or the meaning is intended by estimating a genitive addition (i.e., meeting the decree of our Lord). According to the popular interpretation of al-raja’, the meaning is: "And those who do not aspire to encounter our recompense with goodness and reward for obedience, because they deny the Resurrection."

It is also said that what is meant is the vision of Allah in the Hereafter, and al-raja’ here is not in the sense of fear, as it makes no sense for the Vision to be feared. This is contrary to the apparent meaning, even if the following text does not reject it, for the meaning then would be: "Those who do not hope for our vision in the Hereafter, which is the locus of vision for many people, propose our vision in the worldly life, which is not a locus for it."

It is also said that the negation of the hope of meeting Him is a metonymy for denying the Resurrection and the Gathering, which is perhaps better than the preceding interpretation—meaning, those who deny the Resurrection and the Gathering say: "Why were the angels not sent down to us?"—that is, why were they not sent down to us so they could inform us of the truthfulness of Muhammad (peace be upon him)?—"Or we see our Lord," so He might inform us of that. This is as reported from Ibn Jurayj and others.

In demanding the sending down of "the angels" for confirmation, rather than "an angel," there is an indication that they reached such a degree of denial that the confirmation of a single angel would not suffice. If the article "al-" in "the angels" is considered for generic comprehensiveness, the indication of the intensity of their denial is stronger. This intensity increases if "us" is considered in the sense of "each one of us" without distribution.

It also indicates the intensity of this by their use of the imperfect verb, which signifies continuous renewal: "Or we see our Lord," as if they were not satisfied with His vision and His information regarding the truthfulness of His Messenger (peace be upon him) until they see Him and He informs them repeatedly. The intention of continuity from the imperfect does not reject the fact that lawla (why not/would that), when used for incitement or offer, is originally followed by the imperfect verb; anything not imperfect is interpreted as such. Perhaps their shift to the past tense in the case of "sending down the angels"—which is conjoined to it—is also interpreted in the manner of the imperfect, as we presented in the interpretation of His saying, "Why has an angel not been sent down to him?" (Al-An'am: 8).

It is also said: the meaning is "Why were the angels not sent down to us to convey the command and prohibition of Allah instead of Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Or [why] do we not see our Lord, and He informs us of that without the mediation of anyone?" The first is preferred because the context is the denial of him (peace be upon him)—far be he from falsehood—and their stubbornness in demanding a confirmer for him, not the request for someone other than him to convey commands and prohibitions. We do not accept that "Why were the angels not sent down to us?" is a repetition of the previous "Why was an angel not sent down to him?" because of the evident difference between the two requested items. Even if repetition were assumed, it would not be harmful, as is obvious.

The latter (interpretation) was defended by arguing that the station is only for mentioning the deniers and recounting their falsehoods stemming from their denial. Some of their contentions, including their stubbornness in demanding a confirmer for him (peace be upon him), were mentioned previously; therefore, it is better that what is here be a different type of their falsehood to be further removed from repetition and more indicative of obstinacy and arrogance. Perhaps His saying, "They have certainly become arrogant within themselves and have become insolent with great insolence" (v. 21), is more appropriate for what has been mentioned.

The meaning of "they became arrogant within themselves" is that they established arrogance regarding their own selves and considered themselves of great importance. This is an instance of treating a transitive verb as an intransitive one. "Insolence" (al-'utu) is exceeding the limit in wrongdoing, and it is the common verbal noun for 'ata. The lam is in the response to an oath, meaning: "By Allah, they have certainly become arrogant regarding their selves, and have exceeded the limit in injustice and tyranny with a great transgression, reaching the furthest extreme, as they denied the Messenger (peace be upon him) and did not submit to a human like them who receives revelation regarding their commands and prohibitions. They did not care for his overwhelming miracles and glaring signs, so they demanded what no eyes of any nations ever yearn for, and sought what none obtain except some of the Messengers of firm resolve (peace be upon them)."

"They became arrogant within themselves" has also been explained as "they concealed arrogance," i.e., disbelief and obstinacy in their hearts. This is more apparent than what preceded, but what preceded is more eloquent and more consistent with the defense offered. Likewise, "insolence" has been explained as "turning away from obedience," and again, what preceded is more eloquent and consistent with that.

The fact that the narrative of the falsehood of those disbelievers is followed by an oath-clause is an indication of the extreme ugliness of their state and an expression of astonishment at their arrogance and insolence. This is, in truth, an implication (fahwa). Such is common in speech; you say to someone who has committed an offense: "You did such and such," as a way of expressing gravity and astonishment.

The Ash'arites argued from His saying, "Those who do not hope for our meeting," that the vision of Allah is possible, while the Mu'tazilites argued from His saying, "They have certainly become arrogant and insolent," that it is impossible. Both arguments are clearly weak.