Tafsir of Ya seen 36:83

(So exalted is He in whose hand is the dominion of all things): This is a declaration of His transcendence—Mighty and Majestic is He—above what they have described Him with, and an expression of astonishment at what they have said concerning His affair. The Fa (the particle 'so') is either resultative—meaning, when this is known, then exalt Him—or causative, because what preceded it is a reason for His transcendence, Mighty is He.

Al-Malakūt (dominion) is an intensive form of al-mulk (kingdom/sovereignty), like al-raḥamūt and al-rahbūt; it denotes absolute sovereignty. Attributing "exalted is He" to that which is in its domain is an allusion to the fact that He, Exalted is He, is the Sovereign of all sovereignty, capable of all things, and that this necessitates glorification. Al-Malakūt has also been interpreted as the world of the command and the unseen (‘ālam al-amr wa al-ghayb). It is said that its mention is specified because the disposal of affairs therein belongs to Him, Exalted is He, without intermediary, unlike the world of the manifest (‘ālam al-shahādah).

Talḥah and al-A‘mash read it as (milkuh) on the pattern of shajarah (tree), meaning: in His hand is the governance of all things. It has also been read as (mamlakah) on the pattern of maf‘alah, and as (mulk).

(And to Him you will be returned): Not to other than Him, Exalted is He. This is a promise for those who affirm and a threat for those who deny. The address is general to both believers and polytheists. It has been said that it is a threat only, on the premise that the address is to the polytheists alone as a rebuke to them; hence, there was a departure from the apparent meaning—which would have been "and to Him the entire affair is returned"—so it contains an indication that they have incurred a great wrath. Zayd ibn ‘Alī read (turja‘ūn) in the active voice.

This is a summary of what has been said in these noble verses. They contain a clear indication of the bodily resurrection and an allusion to refuting some of the doubts surrounding it. This issue is among the most important matters of religion. Since this noble chapter contains such matters of His command that it has been considered by the eminent scholars as the "Heart of the Quran," there is no harm in mentioning, in completion of the discussion upon it, what the scholars have verified regarding this matter.

I say, seeking from God, Mighty and Majestic is He, the success to speak what is acceptable: Know first that Muslims have differed regarding what a human is. It is said that it is this perceptible physical frame (haykal) along with components permeating it, like the permeation of rosewater in a rose or fire in charcoal; it is a subtle, luminous body, differing in reality and essence from the bodies from which this frame is composed, even if, due to its permeation within it, it resembles its form. We do not know the reality of this body; it is the soul (al-rūḥ) referred to by His saying, Exalted is He: "Say, the soul is from the command of my Lord," according to the majority of the pious predecessors. Between it and the body is a connection expressed as the "animal spirit" (al-rūḥ al-ḥaywānī); it is a subtle vapor, and when it decays and loses the fitness to serve as a connection, the soul departs from the body by necessary departure, and life ceases. As long as it remains in the state that fits it to be a connection, the soul and life remain.

This body expressed as the "soul," according to Imam al-Qurṭubī in al-Tadhkirah, is something that has a beginning but no end—meaning it does not perish even if it parts from the perceptible body. He mentioned therein that whoever says it perishes is a heretic.

It is also said that it is this perceptible frame together with the "speaking soul" (al-nafs al-nāṭiqah), which is an abstract substance. Indeed, some have stated it is the human in reality. The view that this substance is proven was held by al-Ḥilmī, al-Ghazālī, al-Rāghib, Abū Zayd al-Dabbūsī, Ma‘mar from the early Mu‘tazilah, the majority of the later Imamiyyah, and many of the Sufis. This is the "Command Soul" (al-rūḥ al-amriyyah), and it is neither inside the body nor outside it; its relation to it is like the relation of God, Glorified and Exalted is He, to the world. According to them, after its temporal origination, it also does not perish. Ibn al-Qayyim refuted this view in Kitāb al-Rūḥ with what cannot be rebutted.

Just as they differed in that, they differed as to whether the body disintegrates only after death or if it disintegrates and its essence ceases entirely. Some said the latter, and perhaps those who said this exempted the tailbone (‘ajb al-dhanab) due to the soundness of the report of its exemption from decay. All of these differing parties agreed upon the doctrine of bodily resurrection, except that among them are those who said it is bodily resurrection only—meaning only a body is resurrected, for there is no abstract substance beyond the body in their view called the "speaking soul." Others said it is both bodily and spiritual resurrection—meaning a body is resurrected, connected to something which is not a body, namely the speaking soul.

Each of those holding these two views says that when the body is scattered, its parts are gathered on the Day of Resurrection, and the soul resides in it or connects to it, as in the world. Indeed, the residing or connection there is more complete, for there is no cessation to it at all once it is realized. Thus, resurrection, according to them, is by gathering the scattered parts and the return of the soul’s residence or connection to them.

The intended "original parts" are the parts of the body at the time the soul was blown into it in the world, not the "atom" (dharr) over which the covenant was taken on the day of "Am I not your Lord?" as is said. God, Exalted is He, is capable of preserving these from decomposition and alteration, and likewise capable of preserving them from becoming parts of another body, even if they have scattered to the corners of the earth and mixed with the elements.

It is said that it is permissible that the original parts are seized by the angel by the permission of God, Exalted is He, at the time of death, so they are not consumed, nor do they mix with the earth, nor does plant or animal growth result from them. This is merely a possibility for which there is no proof; indeed, it contradicts His saying, Glorified is He: "He said, 'Who will give life to these bones while they are decayed?' Say, 'He will give them life who produced them the first time.'" For it is apparent that the resurrected one consists of decayed parts mixed with earth.

It is also possible that the original parts are the earthy parts which the angel scatters in the womb upon the drop of semen, as has been related in the authentic hadith. He does not scatter one earth alone. The body is resurrected after being gathered in its most perfect state, as indicated by his, peace and blessings be upon him, saying: "The people will be resurrected barefoot, naked, and uncircumcised." Then the bodies of the people of Paradise are increased, so one of them will be like Adam, peace be upon him, in height and width. Likewise, the bodies of the people of the Fire are increased—contrary to the Mu‘tazilah—to the extent that the tooth of one of them will be like Mount Uḥud, and both increases have been mentioned in the hadith.

As for the one who was cut or maimed, for example, he is not resurrected except as he was before the cutting or maiming. And whoever was created in the world with four hands, for example, is resurrected in the state known and customary among his kind, and likewise whoever was created without a hand or leg, for example. The statement that this necessitates the punishment of a body that did not disobey and the failure to punish a body that did disobey stems from great negligence. For the one being punished is the soul, and it is that which disobeyed; it is inconceivable that the body itself is the one disobeying and being punished, and burning it with fire is not punishment of it itself—otherwise burning wood would be punishment for the wood—rather, it is a means to punish the soul. This is like if a person were placed in an iron box, for example, and put in the fire, or wrapped in a garment and struck with lashes until the garment is pierced; the soul is in the place of this person, and the body is in the place of the box or the garment.

And according to the view that for every thing there is a life appropriate to it, the necessity of punishment also does not apply, for not every living thing is pained by fire; consider this with the samand (salamander) and the ostrich, and likewise the keepers of Hell and its serpents and scorpions—we seek refuge in God, Mighty and Majestic is He.

Some say that the body ceases to exist, not that its parts merely scatter, and then it is restored for resurrection as it was. Others say it ceases and then a likeness of it is created on the Day of Resurrection, and the soul resides in it or connects to it. Evidence for the first view was taken from His saying, Exalted is He: "Say, 'He will give them life who produced them the first time,'" for it is apparent that the bones do not cease to exist in their essence externally, and one can hardly understand from "decayed" anything more than the scattering of parts. It is as if the deniers considered their gathering improbable, so the refutation of their improbability was indicated by the fact that the origination was more distant and yet it occurred. Then, the doubt—that the mixing of parts after their scattering and their return to their elements necessitates the inability to distinguish them, thus making their gathering unfeasible—was refuted by His saying, Glorified is He: "And He is, of all creation, Knowing."

Then, the refutation of the illusion that the origination was gradual—wherein the parts were transferred from state to state until their readiness for life and suitability for the soul was achieved, whereas that which will be on the Day of Resurrection is not like that, so there is no suitableness between the parts that are gathered and the soul and life, hence the soundness of origination does not necessitate the soundness of resurrection—was indicated by His saying, Exalted is He: "The one who made for you from the green tree, fire." Since this was known among them, witnessed by their old and young, the Glorified One indicated the refutation by it. Otherwise, His, Exalted is He, origination of what comes to be by generation from animals, like mice and flies, is a refutation of that.

Some have claimed that the earthquakes occurring just before the Hour, and the descent of rain like the semen of men and the like, are for the sake of achieving readiness for the soul in those parts—a matter which does not need to be asserted. Evidence for this view was also taken from what Abraham, peace be upon him, was guided to when he said: "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead," and by His saying, Exalted is He: "Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? Yes, [We are] Able to make proportioned his fingertips." And other such verses. In the reports, there is also what necessitates it.

The claim that the body ceases to exist in essence in the second view was supported by His saying, Exalted is He: "Everything will be destroyed except His Face," and His saying, Exalted is He: "Everyone upon it will perish." This was countered by the fact that scattering may be considered destruction. Indeed, some verifiers said that the meaning of the verse is that everything is not existing in the present in itself except the Essence of the Necessary Being, Exalted is He, based on the fact that the existence of the possible is derived from another, so there is no existence in it disregarding the other, unlike the existence of the Necessary Being, Exalted is He, for it is from His Essence, Glorified is He—indeed, it is identical to His Essence. A similar statement is made regarding the second verse if one concedes the entry of the body into the generality of "everyone."

The claim that a likeness of it is created on the Day of Resurrection in the third view was supported by His saying, Exalted is He: "Is not He who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yes." The response is that the intended meaning is the "like" in smallness and insignificance, as you heard previously. It is not intended that He, Exalted is He, is able to create on the Day of Resurrection a likeness of the bodies that were in the world and return their souls to them, for this is hardly understood from the verse, and there is no call to assert the statement that resurrection is by creating a likeness of the previous body, even if it is said that such body’s essence ceases to exist externally. Some people have deluded themselves into believing it is necessary to assert this if one says that, due to the impossibility of the "return of the non-existent" (i‘ādat al-ma‘dūm).

The impossibility was argued on the grounds that if it were necessary, it would imply the intervention of non-existence between a thing and itself, which is impossible. This was countered, on the basis that time is not among the characteristics considered in existence, by saying: We do not concede that the intervention here is impossible, because its meaning is that it existed for a time, then existence ceased for it in another time, then it was described by existence in a third time. This is, in reality, the intervention of non-existence and the severance of connection between the two times of existence, and there is no impossibility in it because the two sides differ in essence. The impossible is the intervention of non-existence between the essence of a thing and itself—meaning cutting the connection between the thing and itself—such that the thing is existing and its self is not existing, then it exists itself. Here, it is not so; for the thing existed with its self in the first time, then was described with its self by non-existence in the second time, then was described by existence with its self in the third time. Thus, no cutting of the connection between the thing and its self occurred in any of the times. And is this not like a person wearing a specific garment, then taking it off, then wearing it?

It was also argued that if the return of the non-existent in its very identity were permissible, it would be permissible to return it with a likeness of it in every respect. The necessary consequence is false, because if two identical things exist, either one of them is the returned and not the other—which is false, necessitating arbitrary determination and preference without a preference—or both are returned—which is also false, necessitating the unity of the two—or neither is returned—which is also false, necessitating the contradiction of the premise, since it was posited that one of them is returned. The response is that the proof does not hold because the loss of essence and the invalidity of identity between the previous and subsequent existences is the axis of the necessity of arbitrary determination.

It may be said: When a thing ceases to exist externally, it remains in the same matter according to its mental existence, so its personal unity is preserved according to that existence, as if it were distinct and fixed in non-existence, a fixity removed from external existence, as held by the Mu‘tazilah and those who agree with them. The claim that its personal unity is not preserved in the mind—since there is no unity without existence and no existence without individuation, whether it is external or mental existence—is that mental identity exists in the mind with its mental characteristics, and by those characteristics it is not an external identity, otherwise it would necessitate the description of the external identity by the accidents specific to mental existence, which is necessarily false. Rather, it is [preserved] on the condition of abstracting it from them. Their saying that it is identical to it—meaning that after abstracting it from them, it is not it absolutely in actuality—is countered by the fact that the meaning of abstracting the identity from its characteristics is not making it void of them in reality, but rather the meaning is disregarding them and not considering them. It does not necessitate from the non-consideration of them the consideration of their non-existence, let alone their non-existence in reality. Disregarding does not prevent unity in reality. The statement that our saying "this is the returned and this is the originated" is an external personal proposition whose truth depends on the existence of the subject externally—not a mental one, which is satisfied by the existence of the subject in the mind only—so there must be the preservation of unity externally and preservation in the mind is insufficient, is countered by the fact that the truth of the mental judgment is sufficient to ward off arbitrary determination. So reflect.

It is said: Just as the non-existent exists in the mind, the posited originated is also existing in it, so the relation of the second existent to the previous non-existent is no more appropriate than its relation to the posited originated. This has been pursued with some investigation. As for the school of the philosophers, it is because the image of the previous non-existent is impressed in the forces of the spheres in their view, based on their claim that the images of all bodily accidents are impressed therein; thus, it has a partial imaginary image whose personal unity is preserved after its non-existence, unlike the newly originated, for it does not have that image before its existence with its partial image. When it exists with that partial image, it is a "returned," and when it exists with the universal image, it is "newly originated."

As for the school of the Ash‘arites among the theologians, it is because the non-existent also has a partial image obtained by the attachment of the attribute of Sight of the Creator, Exalted is He, and that image does not have the existence of the "newly originated," for even though it is also a true partial image, it did not follow from the attachment of the attribute of Sight. There is no doubt that that which follows from the attachment of Sight is more complete than that which does not follow from it, so there is a clear distinction between the two images. If the unity of the external existent is preserved for us by the partial imaginary image, then its preservation by the partial image obtained for Him, Exalted is He, by means of the attachment of Sight is by a stronger reason. The statement that the relation of the imaginary image and what is in its position to both the "returned" and the "newly originated" is also the same, thus the preserved unity would be generic and not personal, is countered by the fact that the imaginary image would not be partial but universal, which is contrary to what they have stated.

It was also argued that if the return of the non-existent in its very identity were permissible, the certainty of the occurrence of anything would not be obtained, as it would be possible that everything we believe to be originated has a previous existence that ceases at one time and is returned at another. The necessary consequence is false by the agreement of the rational. This was countered by the fact that rational possibility is not denied, but the principle is the non-existence of previous existence, and by this a type of knowledge is obtained. Perhaps that is of the category of our knowledge that Mount Uḥud will not turn into gold, despite the rational possibility of it doing so. In short, the proofs for the impossibility of the "return of the non-existent" are not free from flaws, as is not hidden to one who reviews the extensive books of theology.

In the verses mentioned above, an indication was made to refute the doubt of the lack of preservation of personal unity by His saying, Exalted is He: "And He is, of all creation, Knowing." What is favored among these schools is that resurrection is by gathering the original parts remaining from the beginning of life to its end. These are either elemental parts—most of which return to the earth and mix with it just as other parts mix with their elements—or earthy parts only, as you heard previously, which is not far-fetched. This is what one should rely upon, as the hadith of the four elements and the composition of the body from them—especially the hadith of the element of fire—nothing authentic in it has been narrated from the Lawgiver, may God bless him and grant him peace, nor was it mentioned in the books of the predecessors. Rather, it is something the philosophers were infatuated with, and we hear the proponents of the "new philosophy" denying the sphere of fire which the ancients spoke of. The original parts, after they scatter and become earth, God, Exalted is He, gathers them wherever they were, and He, Exalted is He, is Knowing of them: "Does He not know, who created? And He is the Subtle, the Acquainted."

If the statement of returning the "form" (ṣūrah)—which is an essential part of the body according to those who believe in its composition from it and "prime matter" (hayūlā), or the accidents specific to the types which are part of the individuals of the type like the substantial specific form, as is the school of the theologians who deny the composition of the body from matter and form—is added to this, the statement regarding it depends on the permissibility of the return of the non-existent. If it is not added to it, but one suffices with the statement of gathering the original elemental parts, shaping them into a shape like the first shape, and adorning them with accidents similar to the previous accidents, the statement regarding it does not depend on that at all. The difference in shape and the lack of unity of the accidents in essence do not harm the status of the resurrected one being the "original" (mabda’) according to the Law and custom, and "reincarnation" (tanāsukh) in its technical sense is not necessitated, as is not hidden.

In Abkār al-Afkār, for the human after the satisfying detail mentioning the verses and hadiths indicating the occurrence of bodily resurrection and the auditory evidences therein—which no book can contain and no speech can limit—they are all manifest in indicating the gathering of bodies and their spreading, with the possibility of that in itself. Thus, it is not permissible to abandon them without proof. However, is the return of bodies by bringing them into existence after their non-existence, or by composing their parts after their scattering? They have differed in this, and the truth is the possibility of each of the two matters, and the auditory proof necessitates one of them without specification.

Assuming that the return of bodies is by composing their parts after their scattering, is it obligatory to return the very identity of what existed and passed in the world, or is it permissible for God, Exalted is He, to compose them with another composition? Abū Hishām went to the prohibition of returning them with another composition, proceeding from the view that the substances of individuals are identical, and each of the parts is distinguished only by its specific designation and composition; if that specific composition does not return, then that person is not the one who returns but another, which contradicts what has been related by the auditory evidence regarding the resurrection of the bodies of people upon their forms. The school of others among the People of Truth is that each of the two matters is rationally permissible, and there is no proof for specification from audition or otherwise. What was said—that the specification of each person is only by the specialty of his composition—is not conceded; rather, it is possible that it is by his color or another part of the composition. The school of Abū Hishām is that it is not obligatory to return other than the composition of the accidents. So whatever his answer is regarding other than the composition, it is our answer regarding the composition. What was related of the resurrection of people upon their forms contains nothing that indicates the return of the very identity of the composition that passed. There is no impediment to the return being by a likeness of that composition, not its very identity.

The Imam claimed the consensus of Muslims on the resurrection with all parts after their separation, but this is not so, due to the disagreement you heard regarding its manner, which is mentioned in al-Mawāqif and elsewhere. The issue of the return of accidents is more disputed than the issue of the return of substances. The majority of the People of Truth held the permissibility of returning them absolutely, to the extent that some of them permitted returning them in other than their places. The Mu‘tazilah agreed on the permissibility of returning those of them that were remaining according to their principles and not generated, but they differed on the permissibility of returning those that have no remaining existence, like heat, sounds, and intentions. Most of them went to the prohibition of returning them, while a minority, like al-Balkhī and others, permitted it. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and some of the Karramiyyah among the Muslims went to the inadmissibility of returning the non-existent absolutely. Some people specified the prohibition to what ceased in essence and existence, and permitted it for what ceased in existence.

The statement of bodily resurrection was held by the Jews and Christians, as stated by al-Dawwānī. However, the Imam mentioned in al-Maḥṣūl that all the prophets, except our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, spoke only of spiritual resurrection. The verifier al-Ṭūsī said in his Talkhīṣ: As for the prophets who preceded our Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, the apparent meaning of the speech of their nations is that Moses, peace be upon him, did not mention bodily resurrection, nor was it sent down upon him in the Torah, but it appeared in the books of the prophets who came after him, like Ezekiel and Isaiah, peace be upon them; hence the Jews affirmed it. As for the Gospel, the most apparent is that what is mentioned in it is spiritual resurrection, which contradicts what you heard from the Imam. Both are contradicted by what the Proof of Islam al-Ghazālī said in his book titled al-Maḍnūn bihi ‘alā Ghayr Ahlihi, that in the Torah it is said the people of Paradise remain in bliss for fifteen thousand years then become angels, and the people of the Fire remain therein for such and more then become devils. This is apparent in that Moses, peace be upon him, mentioned bodily resurrection and it was sent down upon him in the Torah. The truth is that the Gospels are full of what indicates, in an apparent way, that the human is resurrected as soul and body. As for the Torah, there is nothing mentioned in it by way of explicit statement, according to what was related to me by some of the informed Muslims among the People of the Book.

The divine philosophers denied this and spoke only of spiritual resurrection. This denial is based either on the claim of the impossibility of the return of the non-existent—which has what has been said about it—or on the impossibility of the non-finitude of dimensions; for some of them said: Man is eternal in kind, and the speaking souls are infinite like the bodies; if bodily resurrection is claimed, it necessitates the gathering of infinite bodies in existence, for every soul must have an independent body, so an infinite dimension is necessitated in which those infinite bodies would gather. Some of them said: Man has infinite individuals and the elements are finite, so their parts do not suffice for the bodies, so how can they be resurrected? This was countered by the fact that the specific eternity of man and the non-finitude of his individuals is something for which they have no proof.

Ibn al-Kamāl said: The foundation of the impossibility of bodily resurrection on the impossibility of the non-finitude of dimensions is an illusion that some eminent investigators fell into, and the matter is not as they deluded themselves. For the resurrection of bodies necessitated upon the assumption of the occurrence of bodily resurrection is the resurrection of those who are religiously accountable—from the obedient who deserves reward and the disobedient who deserves punishment—not the resurrection of all individuals of mankind, whether accountable or not, for it is not among the necessities of religion, as the reports on it have not reached the level of tawātur (mass-transmission) and no consensus has been formed on it. The verifier al-Ṭūsī alerted to this in al-Tajrīd where he said: "And the auditory evidence indicated it, and it includes the accountable person by separation." The commentator said: Meaning there is no difficulty regarding those who are not accountable, for it is permissible that they cease to exist entirely and are not returned. As for the accountable, the non-existence is interpreted as the separation of parts.

It also says in Talkhīṣ al-Maḥṣūl: And those who said the return of the non-existent is possible said that God, Exalted is He, causes the accountable to cease to exist then returns them. This was also pointed out by al-Āmidī in Abkār al-Afkār where he established the disagreement regarding the return of the accountable. There is no hiddenness in the fact that the non-finitude of all individuals of mankind does not necessitate the non-finitude of the accountable among them for their resurrection to require infinite dimensions.

The truth is the refutation of their statement regarding specific eternity and the non-finitude of the individuals of man. The proof of "application" (taṭbīq) is sufficient for us in nullifying the infinite, whether its parts gathered in existence or not, whether they were arranged or not. As for restricting the resurrection to the accountable to the exclusion of others—like the insane, the children, those to whom the call did not reach, and the like—it is nothing, and the reports on that are numerous, and perhaps they are of the category of thematic mass-transmission. Moreover, if they were not such, there is no call to not consider them and to state the opposite of what they indicate, as is not hidden.

The ancient natural philosophers went to the non-establishment of anything of bodily or spiritual resurrection, and this is narrated from the transmigrationists (tanāsukhiyyah) other than the Jews, and transmigration according to them is not continuous but happens to the soul thrice, as is said.

It is narrated from Galen that he stopped regarding the matter of resurrection, for he said: It has not become clear to me whether the soul is the "polish" (zāj) that ceases at death, so its return is impossible, or if it is a substance remaining after the corruption of the mixture, so resurrection is possible. The polytheists are in a suspicious doubt regarding it, and hence you see their speech about it in turmoil. The Muslims are agreed upon its occurrence, although they have differed—as you heard—in its manner. Likewise, they have differed in its necessity, whether by audition or by reason. The Sunnis hold it is necessary by audition absolutely, and the Mu‘tazilah hold it is rationally necessary for the accountable, because reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience are, according to them, necessary, and both depend on the resurrection. In this is an investigation, and God, Exalted is He, knows best.

(This noble chapter has comprised the establishment of high objectives and contained glorious, abundant proofs. Do you not see that He, Exalted is He, swore to the fact that he, may God bless him and grant him peace, is the most perfect of messengers and his path is the clearest of ways? And He, Exalted is He, indicated that the intent is what was mentioned by His saying, Exalted is He: "To warn..." etc., then clarified it in summary: that it is following the Reminder and fearing the Most Merciful in the unseen, and completed it by striking a parable, merging into it the incitement to hold fast to the rope of the Book and the one to whom it was sent down, and preferring them over books and messengers, and alerting to the objective by the fact that he is a worshipper of Him to whom is the return, alone. Then He began the clarification of the premises by mentioning signs and choosing the clear ones indicating knowledge, power, wisdom, and mercy, and included in it that worship is thanking the Bestower of blessing and receiving the blessing by spending it in His pleasure, and cautioning against leaning towards other than Him. Then He clarified the completion by mentioning the promise and threat regarding what is attained in the resurrection, and inserted into it the report of those who followed and those who abandoned, and mentioned the end of both, and summarized in it that the Straight Path is the worship of God, Exalted is He, with sincerity, free from the two taints of caprice and hypocrisy, where He preceded the command to worship Him, Exalted is He, with the avoidance of worshipping Satan. He included in it that its foundation is Monotheism. Just as He mentioned signs so that the speech in the premises would not be rhetorical, He concluded with the proof for the return so that it would be on its pattern in the completions. The Glorified One made the conclusion of the conclusion that He, Mighty and Majestic is He, is not overwhelmed by anything, nor does giving decrease His treasuries, and that nothing leaves His sovereignty whether it approaches by acceptance or distances by refusal, verifying all that preceded in the most perfect way. Since it was speech issued in the station of Grandeur and Majesty, it was necessary to observe in it the subtlety of the iltifāt (turning of the address) in His saying, Exalted is He: "And to Him you will be returned," to be a summary for the clarification of the detail. This is how the author of al-Kashshāf established it, and God, Exalted is He, speaks the truth and He guides to the way.)

(From the door of allusion): It is said that His saying, Glorified is He, (Yā Sīn) is an allusion to his, peace and blessings be upon him, being the master (sayyid) of all creatures; for the sayyid is the one who attends to the sawād—that is, the great multitude—and it is here all of creation; as if it were said: O Master of creation. And his, peace and blessings be upon him, mastership is the highest of them because he is the greatest intermediary in the pouring out of grace and support. In the report: "God, Exalted is He, is the Giver, and I am the Distributor." His, may God bless him and grant him peace, station in its entirety is in the place of the heart to the body. How subtle it is to open the "Heart of the Quran" with the "Heart of the Universes." In the Sīn and its evidence and writings are secrets that cannot be counted.

Likewise, in the whole of (Yā Sīn and the Quran), it may be an allusion to him, may God bless him and grant him peace. The Sufis have mentioned that it alludes to the "Perfect Human" (al-insān al-kāmil), and likewise the "Clear Book" (al-kitāb al-mubīn). According to that came the saying of the Greatest Shaykh, may his secret be sanctified: "I am the Quran and the Seven Oft-Repeated, and the spirit of the spirit, not the spirit of the vessels." No one is more perfect than the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Some have applied the story of the people of Antioch to what is in the souls, by making the "village" an allusion to the heart, its "people" an allusion to the soul and its attributes, the "two" an allusion to the Merciful prompting and divine inspiration, the "third" strengthened by it an allusion to the attraction (jadhbah), and the "man who came from the farthest end of the city" an allusion to the spirit. He applied many of the verses of this chapter in this style.

It is said: In His saying, Glorified is He: "Your bird is with you," it is an allusion to their readiness—the thing that flew with them [was] a remote ‘anqā’ (mythical bird).

To where it cast its burden, Umm Qash‘am.

It is said: Regarding the "people of Paradise" in His saying, Exalted is He: "Indeed, the people of Paradise, that Day, will be in amusement, occupied. They and their spouses, in shade, reclining on adorned couches," it is an allusion to a group of believers for whom the desire for Paradise was dominant in the world; hence they were attributed to it. They are below the People of God, Exalted is He, and His elect who did not turn to anything other than Him, Glorified is He. Those are occupied with the pleasures of what they sought, while these are the sitters of the Presence, occupied with their Master, Glorified is His Majesty, enjoying His union and the witnessing of His beauty. There is a difference between the two states, and great is the difference between the two groups. Hence it was said: "Most of the people of Paradise are the simple-minded." So understand the allusion.

Satan, in His saying, Exalted is He: "Did I not covenant with you, O children of Adam, that you should not worship Satan?" is an allusion to everything that is obeyed and to which one is humbled instead of God, Exalted is He, whatever it may be. Its enmity is because it is the cause of the veil from the Lord of Lords. In His saying, Exalted is He: "So let not their speech grieve you. Indeed, We know what they conceal and what they declare," is an allusion that one should not be concerned with the harm of enemies and paying attention to it, for God, Exalted is He, will reward them for it when He stands them before Him. This, and we ask God, Exalted is He, to protect us from the evil of the evil ones and to illuminate our hearts with His knowledge as He illuminated the hearts of His righteous servants. And we pray and send blessings upon His beloved, the heart of the body of existents, and upon his family and companions, as long as the chapter of Yā Sīn, the Heart of the Quran, lasts.