Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:72

"Say: 'Have you considered if Allah made the day for you perpetual until the Day of Resurrection'..."—that is, by keeping the sun at the center of the sky, for example—"...who is a god other than Allah who could bring you night wherein you rest?"—meaning, a respite from the burdens of labor.

"...So do you not see?"—the established proofs that point to perfect power, so that you may realize that other than Allah the Exalted, none has the power to do that. It is understood from what we have mentioned that both of the clauses "do you not hear?" and "do you not see?" serve as a postscript (tadhil) to the rebuke provided by His saying—may He be exalted—"Have you considered if Allah made..." and so on before it.

Al-Zamakhshari stated that the outward appearance of the antithesis requires the mention of the "day" and the ability to utilize it. However, the deviation from that to "the radiance" (diya')—which is the light of the sun—is to signify that it entails many benefits, among which is the ability to act. If the "day" were brought [into the text], the necessity of the antithesis would demand it be restricted to that specific benefit. Furthermore, the benefits belong to the radiance, not the day itself, though the day also has its own benefits. He then sensed an objection: "Why was 'darkness' not brought in place of 'night' in the second verse to complete the antithesis in this respect?" He answered that it does not hold that status; it is not intended in itself like the radiance, nor are the benefits its derivatives, along with the sensations of comfort and repulsion associated with them. Indeed, if one were to contemplate it truly, one would find a ruling that night is also among the benefits of radiance, and darkness is among the necessities of the sun—which is luminous—being under the earth and casting the shadow of night.

He then explained that the distinction—the mentioned postscript—is a guide to this subtle point. His saying—may He be exalted—"do you not hear?" indicates that the rebuke for lack of contemplation in the radiance is greater, given that the recipient of hearing is greater. The intention is what the intellect perceives by means of hearing; thus, the objection that the recipient of hearing is only sounds does not apply. The recipient of vision is more than that, for what is not perceived by any sense at all is perceived by means of hearing when expressed by an explainer in understandable terms. As for what is perceived by sight, it is through observing visible things, which are few. As for reading from books, its scope is narrower than that of hearing and its impression—so it is in al-Kashf.

The scholar al-Tibi corroborated the expression of al-Kashshaf in the way he decided, then said: "It is far-fetched from pretension to make 'do you not hear?' a postscript to the rebuke derived from 'Have you considered...' before it, and likewise 'do you not see?'" According to al-Ma'alim, "do you not hear?" means the hearing of understanding and acceptance; "do you not see?" means [what you are upon] of error, so that both deafness and blindness gather for them—from turning away from hearing the proofs and closing the eyes to seeing the signs.

Since the persistence of night is more difficult than the persistence of day—because sleep, which is the primary purpose of night, resembles death, whereas seeking the bounty of Allah, which is one of the benefits of day, resembles life—it was said in the first: "do you not hear?"—meaning the hearing of understanding. And in the second: "do you not see?"—meaning what you are upon of error—so that each of the two postscripts corresponds to the preceding speech in terms of severity and rebuke. He mentioned in the gist of the meaning what we mentioned first, then said: "In this is that the evidence of the text is more primary and ancient than the intellect." The author of al-Kashf settled the expression as you have heard, and mentioned that this does not contradict what is in al-Ma'alim, but rather confirms it and clarifies the benefit of the two rebukes.

Al-Tibi narrated from al-Raghib in Ghurrat al-Tanzil that he said: "Abrogating the night with the greatest luminary is more eloquent in benefits and more guaranteed for interests than abrogating the day with the night. Do you not see that Paradise has perpetual day, without night, because its people have no need for rest?" Thus, giving precedence to the mention of night—because it reveals the day, which is more useful than scattering, and the benefits of sunlight are more than can be counted—is more deserving and more primary. The meaning of His saying—may He be exalted—"do you not hear?" is: "Do you not hear with the hearing of one who contemplates the heard, to deduce from it the intent of the speaker and encompass most of what Allah the Exalted has placed in the day of benefits?" For following the hearing is the deduction of the intended meaning of what is heard, if there is contemplation and reflection upon it. The meaning of "do you not see?" is: "Do you deduce from that what must be deduced?"

It is stated in al-Kashf that this supports what the author of al-Kashshaf mentioned. It is sometimes said that He—glory be to Him—mentioned first the hypothesis of making the night perpetual, and second the hypothesis of making the day likewise, because the night, as they said, precedes the day in law and custom. Also, that is more consistent with His saying—may He be exalted—"And your Lord knows what their breasts conceal and what they declare," for the proverb says: "The night is more concealing for woe." Likewise, it is consistent with His saying—the Exalted—"To Him is the praise in the first and the last." In the tradition, it is said that creation was in darkness, and Allah the Exalted spread His light upon them. Perhaps, out of regard for primality and finality, the first verse was postscripted with His saying—may He be exalted—"do you not hear?" based on the meaning: "Do you not hear from those who passed before you among your fathers, or from what has passed from Us, that your deities cannot do the like of that?" And the second [was postscripted] with His saying—the Exalted—"do you not see?" based on the meaning: "Do you not see your own helplessness regarding the like of that?"

Radiance was brought without description in the first verse, and night with description in the second, due to what al-Zamakhshari explained. It is also said regarding the reason for postscripting the first verse with "do you not hear?" rather than "do you not see?" that if the hypothetical were realized, hearing would remain along with it, but not vision, since the darkness of the night does not obstruct hearing, but it does obstruct vision. And regarding the reason for postscripting the second with "do you not see?" and not "do you not hear?" that the realization of the hypothetical or its absence are equal regarding the matter of hearing, but not vision, since the radiance of the day has a role in vision and no role in hearing at all. This is as you see.

Know that there is a problem here: that if the making of the night perpetual until the Day of Resurrection were realized, it would not be conceivable to bring radiance at all; and similarly, if the making of the day perpetual until the Day of Resurrection were realized, it would not be conceivable to bring night. As for from other than Him—the Exalted—it is obvious, for it is the mine of incapacity for all things. As for from Him—the Might and Majestic—it would necessitate the gathering of night and day; for if they did not gather, the night would not be realized as continuous until the Day of Resurrection, and likewise the day. This is contrary to the hypothesis, and their gathering is impossible. The impossible has no potential for the connection of power, so it is not intended.

It is answered that the meaning is: "If His—the Exalted—will were such, then what god other than Him—the Exalted—could bring you the contrary of His will—the Exalted—by cutting off the continuity, thus bringing day after night and night after day?" It is objected that it is understood from the verse then that He—the Majestic and Exalted—is the one who, if He willed that, would bring them the contrary of His will—the Exalted—and thus cut off the continuity. This is also problematic, because His bringing the contrary of His will—the Majestic and Exalted—necessitates the failure of the willed object to conform to the will, which is impossible. Thus, if Allah—the Blessed and Exalted—wills a thing in a manner of willing that has no condition, it is impossible for Him to will it in a manner contrary to that.

It is answered that it is permissible that the meaning is: "If the will of Allah—the Exalted—for that is not conditioned upon His will—the Majestic—for the contrary, then no one other than Him—the Majestic—would bring you the contrary." The condition was not explicitly stated because the explicit intellect indicates that what is willed by an unconditional will cannot possibly have its opposite brought about at all. Some people have gone so far as to say that He—the Exalted—does not finalize His will, so all that He—the Majestic—wills is conditional. It is said: The best is to say that the meaning is only that their deities are not capable of bringing day after night or night after day when Allah—the Exalted—wills the continuity of one of them; and the only one capable of bringing that is Allah—the Exalted—alone, without looking into whether that bringing is a consequence of that will. So contemplate it.