Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:56

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our signs, We will cast them into a fire." This is a resumption that functions as an explanation and confirmation of what preceded it. The "one who" (the relative pronoun) refers to those who disbelieved in the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or it may be general, including them and others who disbelieved in all the prophets (peace be upon them), and they are included therein. Regarding the second [interpretation], "signs" (ayat) refers to what includes the aforementioned signs and all the proofs that the prophets (peace be upon them and upon our Prophet) brought to support their claims.

As Sibawayh said, "sawfa" (will) is a particle used for threats and warnings; the particle "sa" (will) can substitute for it, as in His saying (exalted is He): "I will cast him into Saqar." It is also sometimes used for promises, as in His saying (exalted is He): "And your Lord will give you [that with which] you will be satisfied," and "And I will ask forgiveness for you from my Lord." Often, both "sawfa" and "sa" serve to emphasize a threat. The indefiniteness of "naran" (a fire) is for magnification; that is, they will inevitably enter a horrific fire.

"Every time their skins are scorched" — meaning burned, withered, and disintegrated; derived from the ripening (nuj) of fruit and meat, when it matures. "Kullama" (every time/whenever) is a temporal adverb, and the factor governing it is "We will replace them with other skins," meaning: We will give them, in place of every burned skin, at the time of its burning, a second skin.

[A Question and Answer]: How can the second skin be punished when it has not sinned? This is because it is the same sinner according to its essence, as only its attribute was changed. In my view, this is a question that hardly any sensible person, let alone a learned one, would ask. This is because the disobedience, obedience, pain, and pleasure of skin are inconceivable, as by its very nature, there is no difference between it and other inanimate objects in terms of lack of perception and consciousness. It is most akin to a tool; for instance, the hand that kills a soul unjustly is a tool for it, like the sword used in the killing, and there is no difference between them except that the hand carries the soul, while the sword does not. This alone does not serve as a cause for the hand itself to be restored and burned while the sword is not, for that "carrying" is not voluntary.

The truth is that the punishment is upon the sentient soul, in whichever body it resides and in whichever skin it may be. The same is said regarding bliss. This is supported by the fact that among the people of Hell are those who will fill a corner of Hell, and the molar of a person in Hell will be like Mount Uhud, and that the people of Paradise will enter it in the stature of Adam (peace be upon him), sixty cubits tall and seven cubits wide. There is no doubt that the two groups did not commit evil or good with those [current] bodies. Rather, whoever is fair-minded sees that the parts of the body in this world do not remain in their quantity through childhood, adulthood, and old age, and the fact that the essence is one does not help, for we do not claim here that the second skin differs from the first like an accident differs from a substance, or a human from a stone, but like Zayd the obedient differs from Amr the disobedient, for example. Furthermore, if it were said that a disbeliever is punished first with a body of iron that contains a soul, and second with a body of something else that also contains a soul, no one would be permitted to say: "The iron did not sin, so how can it be burned by fire?"

Were it not for what is known from the religion by necessity regarding bodily resurrection—such that its denial has become disbelief—it would not have been far-fetched rationally to argue for purely spiritual bliss and punishment. The matter does not depend rationally on proving the bodies as such. Let it not be imagined from this that I am claiming the impossibility of restoring the non-existent—God forbid—but I am saying there is no need to restore it, even if it were possible. The texts in this regard are contradictory; some indicate the restoration of the exact same bodies after they have been annihilated, and others indicate the creation of replicas while the first perish. I see no harm in believing either of the two, provided one accepts bodily resurrection.

If Allah (exalted is He) wills, there will be discussion regarding the verses whose outward meaning indicates the restoration of the exact same [body], such as His saying (Exalted is He): "On a Day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them as to what they used to do." As for what is in the commentary of al-Safiri on al-Bukhari—that the dispute between people will continue until the soul and the body dispute on the Day of Resurrection, and the soul says to the body: "You did it; I was but a spirit, and were it not for you, I could not have done anything," and the body says to the soul: "You commanded and you enticed; were it not for you, I would have been like a fallen stump, moving neither hand nor foot," so Allah sends an angel to judge between them, saying: "You are like a blind man who cannot walk and a lame man who can see, who entered a garden. The blind man said to the seeing man: 'I see fruits here but cannot reach them.' The seeing man said: 'Mount me,' and he reached them. Who is the transgressor?" They both say: "Both." The angel says: "You have judged against yourselves"—I do not see this as sound, because of the apparent difference between the parable and what is being parodied; for the "carrier" in our case has no choice or consciousness in any way whatsoever. Unless, of course, there is consciousness there of which we have no awareness. Perhaps we will have an opportunity, if Allah wills, to investigate this position.

Furthermore, this replacement, however it occurs, happens many times in a single hour. Ibn Mardawayh and Abu Nu'aym in al-Hilyah reported from Ibn Umar that he said: "This verse was recited in the presence of Umar." Ka'b said: "I have its explanation; I read it before Islam." Umar said: "Bring it, O Ka'b! If you bring it, we will believe you just as we heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)." He said: "I read before [in the ancient scriptures]: 'Every time their skins are scorched, We will replace them with other skins' twenty and one hundred times in a single hour." Umar said: "That is how I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)." Ibn Abi Shaybah and others reported from al-Hasan that he said: "It has reached me that one of them will be burned seventy thousand times in a day. Every time the fire scorches them and consumes their flesh, they are told: 'Return,' and they return."

"So that they may taste the punishment" — meaning, for the tasting to be continuous and not cease, just as you say to one you honor: "May Allah honor you." The expression of perceiving punishment as "tasting" is used because it admits no decrease through constant contact, or to signal the bitterness of the punishment along with its pain, or to warn of the intensity of its effect—since the sense of taste is the most impactful of the senses—or to indicate its permeation to the core. Perhaps the secret behind replacing the skins, despite Allah's power to maintain the perception of punishment and its taste even while burning, or while keeping their bodies in a state protected from burning, is that the soul might imagine that perception ceases with burning, and it would not find it entirely implausible that it could be protected from pain and punishment, just as its body is protected from burning. This was stated by our master, the Shaykh al-Islam. It is also said that the secret is that in the scorching and replacing, there is a kind of despair for them and a renewal of grief upon grief.

Some have denied the scorching of skins in the literal sense and their replacement, claiming that the replacement is only for the garments that Allah (exalted is He) mentioned: "Their garments of pitch." They claimed these garments were called "skins" due to proximity. The problem with this is that it abandons the apparent meaning, and it is likely contrary to what is known by necessity, and garments are not described as being "scorched." It seems nothing drove them to this claim except the finding of the literal interpretation implausible, though it is not far from the power of Allah (exalted is He).

"Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might" — meaning, He has always been invincible, neither opposed nor resisted. It is also said: He is powerful, and nothing He wills—of what He has threatened or promised—is beyond His reach.

"Wise" — in His governance, His decree, and the punishment of those whom He punishes. The sentence serves as a justification for the aforementioned "casting" and "replacing," and the mention of the Majestic Name is to justify the decree, along with what has passed repeatedly.