Tafsir of Ghafir 40:11

"They said, 'Our Lord, You caused us to die twice and granted us life twice'": These are two adjectives modifying the verbal nouns of the two verbs. The implied meaning is: "You caused us to die two deaths and You gave us life two lives."

It is also permissible that the two verbal nouns are "deaths" and "lives," and they are either verbal nouns for the two mentioned verbs—by deleting the redundant elements—or verbal nouns for two other verbs indicated by the ones mentioned. For "causing to die" and "giving life" inevitably imply "death" and "life." It is as if they said: "You caused us to die, so we died two deaths; and You gave us life, so we lived two lives," in the style of the poet's saying: "And time bit, O son of Marwan, even if he left nothing of wealth except a wipe or a scraping"—meaning: "He did not leave [anything], so nothing remained except a wipe, etc."

There is a difference of opinion regarding what is intended by this: It is said: By the first "causing to die," they meant creating them dead, and by the second, causing them to die upon the expiration of their appointed terms. By the first "granting of life," they meant giving them life by breathing the spirit into them while they were in the wombs, and by the second, giving them life by returning their spirits to their bodies for the resurrection. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Marduyah narrated this from Ibn Abbas and a group, including al-Hakim, who authenticated it from Ibn Mas‘ud, as well as ‘Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir from Qatadah; it was also narrated from al-Dahhak and Abu Malik. They cited as a parallel the verse in Al-Baqarah: "How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you to life."

If "causing to die" (imatah) is taken literally—as making a thing void of life, whether or not it was preceded by life—then the matter is clear. But if it is taken literally as making life non-existent after it had existed—as is the obvious implication of the words of the scholars, who state that the taf‘il form of verbs is meant for "rendering" (i.e., changing from one state to another)—then applying it to what is counted as the first death is problematic, as that would require a preceding life, which does not exist in the aforementioned case.

This has been addressed by saying it is a form of metaphor, as they have established regarding [the expressions] "tightening the opening of the water-skin" and "widening its neck." They say: When the Creator chooses one of two possibilities while being equally capable of both, He has "diverted" the created thing from the other. Thus, He made the diverting of it from one state as if it were a "transferring" from it. This means they used the taf‘il form, which denotes "rendering" (transferring from one state to another), as a metaphor for its implicative meaning: "diverting from the realm of possibility." This is followed by treating the possible thing—whose intent is permitted—as if it were already actualized. Similarly, the command regarding "tightening the opening of the water-skin," for example, is treated by creating it in the second state as if it were a command to transfer it from the other state. For this reason, some prominent scholars treated it as a metaphor by implication (isti‘arah bil-kinayah), thus making it a detached metaphor (majaz mursal) which necessitates a metaphor by implication. Therefore, the intent of "causing to die" here is "diverting" rather than "transferring." Some mentioned that one must adopt the generality of the metaphor to avoid the necessity of combining the literal and the metaphorical in the verse, or using a homonym in both its meanings, based on the assumption that the form is shared between "diverting" and "transferring." Those who allow the aforementioned [explanation] do not feel the need for this.

In al-Kashshaf, Jar-Allah [al-Zamakhshari] prefers that one of the two deaths is what is mentioned in His saying: "And you were lifeless and He brought you to life." Applying the term to it is a form of metaphor, which is a metaphor used in the Quran. He has mentioned the aspect of this metaphor, and the realization of this depends on a single point: the meaning of "giving life" is "making a thing alive." So, when life is poured upon the earthen or seminal matter, it is truthfully said to have become endowed with life in reality, as it does not require a preceding death in reality, but rather a preceding absence of life. Thus, there is a literal "giving of life." As for "causing to die," if the opposition between death and life is taken as the "popular" one, it would require being preceded by life; therefore, "causing to die" before it would not be literally correct. But if the "real" opposition is meant, then it would be correct. However, the apparent meaning in the usage according to the custom of the Arabs and non-Arabs is the "popular" one. (End quote.)

By "popular" and "real," he refers to what he mentioned regarding the opposition by "privation and possession." They have said: The two opposites by privation and possession are two things, one of which is existential and the other is the absence of that existential in a subject capable of it. If its capacity is considered according to its individual self at the time of its description by the privative state, then these are the "popular" privation and possession, such as being beardless (kawsajiyyah); for this is the absence of a beard in one who is expected to have one at that time, as a young boy is not called "beardless." But if its capacity is considered more generally—not restricted to that time, such as the absence of a beard in a child—or if its capacity is considered according to its species, such as blindness in one born blind, or its proximate genus, such as blindness in a scorpion, or its remote genus, such as the absence of voluntary movement in a mountain (since its remote genus, i.e., body, which is above inanimate matter, is capable of voluntary movement), then these are the "real" privation and possession. However, there is obscurity in basing the requirement of being preceded by life or its absence on this, especially if we add to it the expression in the past tense, as is not hidden from one who contemplates.

Then he explained the causation of the two deaths and two lives by His saying: "So we have confessed our sins." They had denied the resurrection and therefore disbelieved, and followed this with sins beyond count, for whoever does not fear the final outcome plunges into transgressions. When they saw that "causing to die" and "giving life" had been repeated upon them, they knew that Allah the Exalted is as capable of resurrection as He is of creation. Thus, they confessed their sins which they had committed, namely the denial of the resurrection and the subsequent transgressions.

Al-Suddi said: By the first "causing to die," they meant their death at the expiration of their appointed terms, and by the first "giving of life," they meant their being brought to life in the grave for questioning. By the second "causing to die," they meant their death after this life until the Day of Resurrection, and by the second "giving of life," they meant their being brought to life for the resurrection. This was countered by the claim that this necessitates three lives for this speaker, so he should have said: "You gave us life three times." If he claims that the "known" life—the one in the world—is not counted due to the speed of its passing and the cessation of its effects and rulings, then he would be required not to count the death after it.

Some investigators said in defense of this: The intent of the disbelievers in this statement is their confession of what they used to deny in the world and [how] they used to call the prophets liars when they invited them to belief in Allah and the Last Day. Their statement is like an answer to the call in His saying: "They are called, for the hatred of Allah..." It is as if they replied: "The prophets—peace and blessings be upon them—invited us, and we used to believe there was no life after death. Now we confess the two deaths and two lives, having suffered their severity and conditions." Thus, the sin being confessed is the denial of the resurrection. This is why it is mentioned as a consequence of the statement. They only mentioned the two deaths to mention the two lives, since both lives were denied by them, unlike the "known" life. The context of this verse is different from the context of His saying: "And you were lifeless and He brought you to life," for this is—as you have heard—for the manifestation of their acknowledgment and confession in the Hereafter of what they denied in the world, while that [other verse] is for the manifestation of the favor that necessitates thanking the Bestower, or for the manifestation of the proofs to turn them away from disbelief.

This view implies that the application of "causing to die" to both deaths is clear. It was tracked in al-Kashshaf by the observation that there is no indication in the wording that the first life is excluded, even though its application to it is more obvious, and the opposition cries out for its inclusion; it is sufficient in confession to prove one life other than the first. It is said: They only said, "You gave us life twice" because they are two types: the life of resurrection and a life before it. Then the life of resurrection is of two parts: life in the grave and life at the standing; and he did not mention its division because they were deniers of its division.

It was tracked that mentioning the second death—the one in the grave—is evidence that the division is noted, and the intent is personal plurality, not generic. Yes, this serves as support for what Jar-Allah chose. It is narrated from a group of the predecessors that even if the lives were three, the second was omitted because it is included in the life of resurrection. This was said by the author of al-Kashshaf, then he said: According to this, the "causing to die"—based on the choice of Jar-Allah—is a death before life and a death after it, and the death in the grave was folded [omitted], just as its life was folded. You may say that "causing to die" is one type, unlike "giving life," so plurality was observed in it personally, unlike the other. And the second death was mentioned because it is denied by them, like the two lives, and it is necessary to confess it; [it is] not [mentioned] to indicate that the plurality in the lives is personal. The truth is that this is a valid point, but His saying "twice" (ithnatayn) is apparent for the count, which is why some preferred the first view, even if the "causing to die" is not apparent in it, adopting the view that it is a metaphor used in the Quran. So contemplate.

The Imam said: Most scholars have used this verse as an argument for proving the torment of the grave. This is because they proved two deaths for themselves, and one of the two deaths is witnessed in the world, so there must be proof of another life in the grave so that the death which follows it becomes a second death, and that indicates the attainment of a life in the grave. He spoke at length in verifying this and defending it. The fair-minded person sees that the torment of the grave is established by authentic Hadiths rather than this verse, given the existence of the view narrated from those whom you heard first regarding it. It has been said that it is the [correct] view, but I suspect that al-Zamakhshari's choice of it is due to a Mu‘tazilite agenda. Ibn Zayd said in the verse: They meant their being brought to life as spirits when they took the covenant from them from the loins of Adam, then their death after that, then their being brought to life in the world, then their death, then their being brought to life. This is explicit that there are three lives. He used the term "giving life" for the third, and the prevailing suspicion is that he meant the life of the resurrection.

It is said: The dual in their speech is like its counterpart in His saying: "Then return the vision twice," meaning repetition and multiplication. It is as if they said: "You caused us to die time after time, and You gave us life time after time, so we knew of Your great power, and that nothing can resist it—just as nothing else can resist it—so we confessed our sins which we committed by denying that." In this case, there is no burden on you to count the death in the loins of Adam, then the life for taking the covenant, then the death, then the life by breathing the spirit in the wombs, then the death upon the expiration of the term in the world, then the life in the grave for questioning or otherwise, then the death in it, then the life for the resurrection. It is not hidden that what is in it only holds if the statement were: "You caused us to die two deaths or two times, and You gave us life two lives or two times," for example, rather than what is in the text; for "twice" therein is an adjective for two deaths and two lives, which repels the possibility of intending multiplication, as it is said regarding "two gods, two" (i.e., ilahayn ithnayn). And basing the matter on the principle that the number has no restrictive concept is not without debate.

Among the strange things said regarding this is what is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b: The disbeliever in the world is alive in body, dead in heart; so the two states are counted. Thus, there is a "causing to die" and "giving of life" for the heart and body in the world, then their death upon the expiration of their terms, then their being brought to life for the resurrection. Something like this is told so that its state may be known.

"So is there any way out": That is, any type of way out from the Fire; that is, is there a way out—whether fast or slow, or from one place in it to another, or to the world, or other than that—"to a path": any of the paths, so that we may take it? Such a construction is used for despair, and the intended meaning is not interrogation; they only said it out of the intensity of their despair, by way of making excuses or bewilderment. Therefore, they were answered by mentioning what led them into destruction, which is His saying: "..."