Tafsir of Saba' 34:3

(And those who disbelieve say, "The Hour will not come to us.") They intended by the first-person plural pronoun the entire human race, not just themselves or their contemporaries. By denying its coming, they denied its existence entirely, not merely its arrival while it is deemed a reality in the nature of things. They expressed it in this way because they were being promised its arrival. It is said: because the existence of future temporal matters—especially segments of time—cannot be realized except through arrival and presence. It is also said: it is an expression of impatience regarding its promised arrival by way of mockery and sarcasm, like their saying, "When is this promise?" The first interpretation is more appropriate. The sentence is said to be conjoined to what precedes it, linking story to story; interpreting it as a circumstantial (haliyah) clause is not apparent.

(Say, "Yes, by my Lord, it will surely come to you.") This is a refutation of their statement and an affirmation of what they denied, with the meaning: "The matter is nothing but its arrival." The Almighty's saying, (by my Lord, it will surely come to you), is a confirmation of it in the most perfect and complete manner. The oath by the "Lord" was brought to indicate that its coming is among the matters of Lordship (Rububiyyah). It was brought as a construct with the pronoun of the Prophet (may the blessings of Allah be upon him) to indicate the intensity of the oath. Harun narrated, as Ibn Jinni said from Taliq, saying: "I heard our elders reading (la-ya'tiyannakum) with the yā' (third person)." It is explained by the fact that the subject is the pronoun of the Resurrection, as their intent behind denying the coming of the Hour is that they will not be resurrected. It is said: the subject is the pronoun of the "Hour," interpreting it as "the Day" or "the Time." Abu Hayyan criticized this as being far-fetched, as such a thing does not occur except in poetry, such as: "And no land brings forth its vegetation."

The Almighty's saying, (the Knower of the unseen), is a substitute for the object of the oath according to the view of al-Hufi and Abu al-Baqa'. It is permitted that it be an explanatory appositive ('atf bayan), and Abu al-Baqa' allowed it to be an adjective. It was criticized on the grounds that it is an intensive participle (sifah mushabbahah), and as Sibawayh mentioned in al-Kitab, it does not become definite by being added to a definite noun. However, the majority hold that it does become definite thereby; thus, a group of prominent scholars held that it is an adjective.

The Almighty was described with the encompassing nature of His knowledge to provide further confirmation and to intensify it, for the majesty of the state of the object sworn by implies the strength of the state of the matter sworn upon and its firmness and uprightness. This is because it serves as a form of citing evidence for the matter; the higher in rank, the clearer in virtue, and the loftier in status the witness is, the stronger and more confirmed the testimony becomes, and the more firmly established the matter being witnessed becomes. This specific attribute was mentioned among all other attributes—even though every attribute implying majesty could serve this purpose—because it has a special connection to the matter sworn upon; it is the most famous example of the "unseen" in terms of concealment. Thus, it contains both the observance of confirmation and the beauty of swearing in the manner of "your teeth are like pearls." It is as if it were said: "And by my Lord, the Knower of the time of its rising, it will surely come to you." It also incorporates the fact that there is no argument regarding its occurrence.

The author of al-Fara'id said: The aforementioned attribute was brought because their denial of the Resurrection is based on the idea that once the disparate, scattered parts exist, their reassembly as they were is impossible, as indicated by the Almighty's saying: (We know what the earth consumes of them). The description with these attributes is a refutation of their claim of impossibility, implying: how could such a thing be impossible for One whose knowledge is of this nature? This was approved by al-Tayyibi. In al-Bahr, it is said: The oath was followed by the Almighty's saying, (the Knower of the unseen), and what follows it, so that it may be known that its coming is of the unseen that belongs exclusively to the Almighty. What was mentioned earlier is more far-reaching in implication. The benefit of the order of this level of oath is that no excuse whatsoever remains for the obstinate, for they knew the integrity of the Prophet (may the blessings of Allah be upon him) and his purity from the stigma of lying, let alone a false oath. They did not believe him (peace and blessings be upon him) only out of arrogance. The author of al-Fara'id neglected this benefit and said: "The context necessitated an oath because whoever denies what is said to him—when it is required to repeat the statement to him—must have it accompanied by an oath; otherwise, it would be a mistake regarding the science of rhetoric ('ilm al-ma'ani), even if it were correct regarding Arabic grammar." Sometimes, the brilliant may be neglectful.

Nafi', Ibn 'Amir, Ruways, Salam, al-Jahdari, and Qa'nab read (‘alimun) in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "He is the Knower." Al-Hufi allowed it to be the subject with an omitted predicate, meaning: "The Knower of the unseen is He." He and Abu al-Baqa' allowed it to be the subject, with the following sentence being its predicate.

Ibn Wathab, al-A'mash, Hamzah, and al-Kisa'i read ('allam) in the form of an intensive exaggeration, in the genitive case. It was also read as ('alimun) in the nominative without exaggeration. (of the unseen)—plural. (not a weight... escapes Him), meaning: does not become distant; from this comes "a far meadow (rawd ‘azib)," far from people.

Al-Kisa'i read with a kasrah on the zā' (‘azib). (the weight of an atom), the size of the smallest ant. (in the heavens nor in the earth), meaning: existing within them. (nor smaller than that)—i.e., the weight of an atom—(nor larger)—than it. The speech is of the order of: "It leaves out no small thing nor a great thing." Their nominative status is as subject and predicate to the Almighty’s saying, (but is in a clear Book); this is the Preserved Tablet according to the majority.

The sentence confirms the denial of escape. Al-A'mash, Qatadah, Abu ‘Amr, and Nafi' (in one narration) read (nor smaller nor larger) in the accusative case, based on "la" being for the negation of the genus, operating like "inna," with what follows it as its noun, accusative because it resembles the genitive (shabih bi-al-mudaf). It is not nunated due to the adjective and the verbal weight. This is not like "there is no preventer for what you have given." The predicate is the predicate in the reading of the majority. Abu Hayyan said: "La" is for the negation of the genus, and what is built with it is the subject according to the view of Sibawayh, and the predicate is (except in a Book). What we mentioned regarding the interpretation of the two readings is what many prominent scholars have adopted. It is said: it is conjoined in the nominative reading to (weight), and in the other reading to (atom), and the fatha in it replaces the kasra due to the adjective and the weight. Abu al-Baqa' adopted this. It was questioned that if the exception were connected (muttasil), as is the original rule, the meaning would be: "Not a weight of an atom in the earth or heaven escapes His knowledge, nor smaller than that, nor larger, except in a clear Book"—implying that it does escape His knowledge within the Book. Its corruption is obvious. Al-Siraj al-Bulqini committed, under the assumption of the aforementioned conjunction, that the exception is from an omitted noun, the meaning being: "Nothing [escapes Him] except what is in a clear Book." Then he said: There is nothing strange in omitting what is estimated due to the indication of the speech thereof. From the sum of this, the affirmation of Allah’s knowledge of everything known is established, and that everything is written in the Book. It is said the conjunction is as mentioned and the exception is disjunctive (munqati'), the meaning being: nothing of that escapes Him, but it is in a Book. It is also said that it is like the verse: "And there is no defect in them, except that their swords have notches from the clashing of armies," the meaning being: if anything were to escape Him, it would be that which is in a clear Book, but that which is in the Book does not escape Him; therefore, nothing escapes Him. It has a far-fetched nature. It is said that the meaning of (does not escape) is that He is Knower of it, and the meaning of (except in a Book) is similar, as the Book is Allah's knowledge. The meaning: "Nothing of the weight of an atom in the earth or heaven escapes Him except that He knows it, nor smaller than that, nor larger except it is in His knowledge." It would be similar to His saying: "And not a leaf falls but He knows it, and no grain within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but is in a clear Book." It is even more far-fetched. It is said "escapes" means to appear and go away, and the conjunction is as you heard, the meaning being: nothing has appeared from Allah after He created it except that it is written in the Preserved Tablet. In summary: every creature is written. It is said that this meaning of "escape" is not known; the known is what preceded. Yes, al-Saghani said in al-'Ubab: Abu Sa'id al-Darir said: "It is said, 'He has no wife to ta'zubu,' i.e., to take away his isolation ('uzbah) through marriage," like your saying "you nurse him," i.e., take care of him during his illness. Then al-Saghani said: The structure indicates distance and removal, so interpreting it as "appearing" is far-fetched. Even if we concede its proximity, why combine "appearing" and "going away"?

It is said "except" (illa) has the meaning of "and" (waw), and it is implied in the speech, and the speech is complete at (larger). It is as if it were said: "That does not escape Him, and it is in a Book." The coming of "except" with the meaning of "and" was held by al-Akhfash of the Basrans and al-Farra' of the Kufans.

People have interpreted based on this: "They avoid the major sins and immoralities, except the minor faults," and "Abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except what your Lord wills." Makki related this view in a parallel verse, then said: "It is a good view, were it not that all the Basrans do not recognize 'except' as having the meaning of 'and'." It is as if he did not come across the view of al-Akhfash—who is one of the leaders of the Basran grammarians—or he did not consider it; that is why he said "all the Basrans." There has been much discussion on this point, and al-Siraj al-Bulqini approved it, but I do not see it as satisfactory, even if a thousand lamps were lit for it.

It is said that the conjunction is as you heard, and the pronoun in (from Him) refers to the "unseen." There is no problem, as the meaning then is: nothing is distant from His unseen except what was in the Tablet because it emerged from the unseen to the witnessed and the High Assembly was informed of it. It was criticized that the meaning does not support this, because when an unseen matter emerges to the witnessed, it does not "escape" from Him; rather, it remains in the unseen as it was along with its emergence. Its meaning is that its existence in the Preserved Tablet is a metonymy for it being among His knowledge, which is either hidden or manifest. Every hidden thing will eventually appear; otherwise, it would be non-existent, not hidden. Its appearance at the time of its appearance does not negate its status as hidden. Thus, it would not be a connected exception. Do you not see that if you said, "The knowledge of the Hour is hidden from the people, except their knowledge of it when it rises and they witness it," this exception would not be connected? This is what is said, so ponder and be not heedless.

You know that this view—on the assumption that what was mentioned against it does not apply—is weak, because the manifest meaning required by the Almighty's saying, (And there does not escape from your Lord [even] the weight of an atom...), is the return of the pronoun to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.

What Abu Hayyan held is that the "Book" is not the [Preserved] Tablet, and the speech is nothing but a metonymy for recording a thing and preserving it. Zayd ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) read (nor smaller than that nor larger) with a kasrah on both rā's.

It was explained as implying a genitive, the estimation being: "nor its smaller nor its larger." And (than that) is not connected to the comparative (af'al); rather, it is an explication, because when the genitive was omitted, the word became ambiguous, so he clarified it with the Almighty's saying "than that," meaning: I mean "than that." It is not hidden that this is a justification for an anomaly.