Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:40

"And they have surely passed by..."

This is an initiated sentence brought forth to clarify that the disbelievers of Quraysh witnessed the traces of the destruction of certain ruined nations, yet failed to take heed from them. It is introduced with an oath to affirm its content, as a matter of concern. The verb ata (they came) is imbued with the meaning of marra (they passed), because it is used with the preposition ‘ala (upon). The meaning is: By Allah, the Quraysh have passed by, in their merchant travels to the Levant, "the town that was rained upon with a rain of evil."

This town is Sodom, the greatest of the towns of the people of Lot. It was named after its judge, Sodom—with the undotted dhal—according to what al-Azhari deemed correct and what was relied upon in al-Kashf. It is said in the proverb: "More unjust than Sodom." Allah the Almighty destroyed it with stones, which is what is meant by "the rain of evil." The rest of their towns were destroyed in the same manner—they were five in total, except for one town called Zoar, which He did not destroy because its people did not commit the vile deed, as reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both. The singular mention of "the town" is due to the reason we have indicated.

The word mataran (rain) is in the accusative case as a second object of umtirat (was rained upon), in the sense of "given" or "bestowed upon," or it is an emphasizing verbal noun (masdar) with the omission of the superfluous elements—meaning imtar al-su’ (the raining of evil)—just as it is said: anbatakum min al-ardi nabata (He caused you to grow from the earth a growth). Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be an adjective for an omitted noun—meaning "a rain like the rain of evil"—but this holds no weight.

Zayd ibn Ali read mutirat as a trilateral verb in the passive voice, for matara is a verb that can take its object directly. Abu al-Sumal read matar al-su’ with a damma on the sin (al-su’).

"Do they not then see it?"

This is a rebuke for their failure to take heed upon witnessing that which necessitates it. The interrogative hamza is for denying their persistent lack of sight, and for affirming the persistence of their sight, according to the persistence of that which necessitates it—namely, their passing by it—not for denying the persistence of their lack of sight. The fa’ (then) links its entry to an implied segment necessitated by the context: i.e., "Did they not look at it, and yet they did not see it?" or "Were they looking at it, and yet they did not see it in their repeated passing, so that they might take heed from the traces of punishment they were witnessing?"

The object of negation in the first case is the looking, and in the second, the seeing. The second is more concise and clearer in its intent to convey the meaning of repetition alongside persistence. In the beginning of the verse, there was no explicit mention of this—i.e., by saying "And they used to pass by" instead of "And they have passed by"—in order to indicate that passing by, even once, is sufficient for a lesson. So ponder this.

His saying, Exalted is He: "Nay, but they do not expect a resurrection."

This is either a transition (idrab) from the previous statement regarding their failure to see the traces of the punishment that befell the people of the towns; this is because their lack of taking heed resulted from their denial that such events were punishments for their sins, not because they did not see the traces of those destructions. However, he sufficed from explicitly stating their denial of that by mentioning what it necessitates: the denial of the otherworldly recompense. This was alluded to by "not expecting a resurrection."

"Expectation" (raja') here is used metaphorically for "anticipation," as if it were said: "Nay, but they were not anticipating a resurrection that entails otherworldly recompense." They deny it and do not see for any of the souls any resurrection at all, despite its absolute certainty, its general encompassing of all humans, and its constant occurrence. How, then, could they acknowledge worldly recompense for a specific group, given the lack of consistency and necessity between it and sins, so that they might remember and take heed of what they witnessed of the traces of destruction? They merely attribute it to coincidence.

This is a transition from the rebuke regarding the aforementioned failure to take heed, to a rebuke of what is even greater: the lack of expectation of a resurrection. Interpreting "expectation" as "anticipation" and "resurrection" as general is more appropriate for the context. It has been said that it is in its literal sense—i.e., the expectation of goodness—and that what is meant by "resurrection" is a resurrection in which there is goodness, such as the resurrection of the believers.

It is also permitted that "expectation" means "fear," according to the dialect of Tihama, and that what is meant by "resurrection" is their own resurrection. All of this is as you see.