Tafsir of Fussilat 41:21

"(And they will say to their skins, 'Why have you testified against us?') It has been said that what is testified to regarding adultery is greater in criminality, obscenity, and brings more shame and punishment than the crimes testified to by hearing and sight, which are committed through their mediation. There is a critique of this; perhaps prioritizing the literal meaning is better. Perhaps the restriction of the question to the 'skins' is because they are in plain view of them, unlike hearing and sight, or because they are the perceivers of torment through the power deposited within them, as suggested by the words of the Almighty: 'Every time their skins are cooked, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment.' This was stated by al-Jalabi. He then relayed from the Second Scholar (al-‘Allama al-Thani) regarding this that the testimony from the skins is more astounding and far-fetched, since their nature is not perception, unlike hearing and sight. He countered this, saying: 'There is a critique of this; for the skin is the seat of the tactile power, which is the most important of the senses for an animal, just as hearing and sight are the seats of the auditory and visual powers, and the One who gives speech is the Entities, not the accidents.' He then said: 'A different aspect of the specificity becomes apparent from what we have established: that which is most important to a human and contains something more important than others is fit to be a specifier; for the overturning of that from which they hope for the most complete benefit is more astounding, and such a thing is more deserving of reproach than others.' He was objected to on the grounds that his rebuttal to the scholar hits its mark, for what was intended by what he mentioned—that it is not in their nature to perceive—is nothing but the perception of the types of sins which they testify to, such as disbelief, lying, murder, and adultery, for instance, and that perception is limited to hearing and sight.

You know, after folding the flank of the discussion on this answer, that what the scholar mentioned does not suit the literal meaning of the question—that is, 'Why have you testified against us?' The best of what has been said regarding the aspects of specificity is: that the defense of the skins is greater than the defense of hearing and sight; for the skin of a single human, if it were divided, would exceed a thousand instances of hearing and sight, and he defends every part and fears that what disgraces it will afflict him. Thus, the testimony from the skins against them was more astounding and further from the realm of expectation.

In the Hadith: 'The first thing to speak from a human is his left thigh, then the limbs speak, and it says: Woe to you! It was for you that I was defending.' The aspect of singling out 'hearing' was mentioned at the beginning of the commentary. The aspect of limiting it to hearing, sight, and skin was indicated by Abu Hayyan, who said: Since the senses are five—hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch—and taste is included in touch (for through the contact of the moist tongue skin with the tasted object, the perception of the flavor of the tasted object occurs), and the sense of smell has no obligation—neither command nor prohibition—and is weak, he restricted the senses to hearing, sight, and touch. There is room for discussion here. It is as if I see you choosing that 'skins' refers to everything other than hearing and sight, and that hearing is mentioned because it is the means of perceiving most of the revelatory signs, while sight is mentioned because it is the means of perceiving the formative signs.

It has been indicated that in His saying: 'As for Thamud, We guided them,' in one aspect: that their testimony is in regards to what relates to disbelief; so hearing testifies against them that they belied the revelatory signs which the messengers brought and which they heard from them, and sight testifies that they paid no heed to the formative signs which they saw and disbelieved in what they point to. Perhaps the testimony of the skins is in regards to what relates to sins other than disbelief which the messengers (peace be upon them) prohibited, such as adultery, for instance. It is permissible that the testimony of hearing is through the perception of revelatory signs, sight through the perception of formative signs, and the skins through the disbelief of what each implies and the other sins. There is nothing far-fetched in the inclusion of 'what they used to do' to cover the perception of the signs and the sensing of them in their two categories. So contemplate this.

Perhaps the saying of the Almighty: 'Why have you testified?' is a question regarding the necessitating cause. The plural form for rational beings in 'testified' (shahidtum) and what follows—even though the intended meaning is not those endowed with intellect—occurs because this is a site of question and answer, which are restricted to rational beings. Zayd ibn Ali recited it as 'shahittunna' with the feminine pronoun. 'They said: Allah, who gave speech to all things, has given us speech,' meaning: Allah the Almighty gave us speech and empowered us to state the reality, so we testified against you regarding the obscenities you knew and what you concealed. Since the meaning of the question was 'For what necessitating cause have you testified?', what was mentioned serves as an answer to it. It has been said: There is no intention of a question here at all; rather, the intention is to express amazement from the start, because amazement occurs in that whose cause and reason are unknown. Thus, the question about the cause, which necessitates a lack of knowledge of it, was made a metaphor or metonymy for amazement. It has been said: 'If the cause is revealed, the amazement ceases.' It is as if it were said: 'Our speaking is not a matter of amazement, given the power of Allah the Almighty who gave speech to all things.' Regardless, the speech is in its literal meaning, as is the appearance, and so is the testimony. It is not said: 'The witnesses are themselves, and the hearing, sight, and skin are instruments like the tongue, so what is the meaning of "You have testified against us?"' Because it is said: The intent is not this type of speech which is attributed literally to the entire person while the other is an instrument without power or will of its own such that if attributed to it, it would be a metaphor (like attributing writing to a pen). Rather, it is speech attributed to the limb literally, so it is itself a speaker by power and will which Allah the Almighty created within it, just as a person speaks with an instrument. How could it be otherwise when their own selves are averse to that and deny it? It is said: The speaker is them, using those limbs, except that they are unable to prevent them from being instruments, and therefore the testimony was attributed to them against them—but this is nothing. Some allowed that speech is a metaphor for 'indication', so the intent of the testimony is the appearance of signs on the limbs indicating what they were involved in during the world by the changing of their forms and the like, which Allah the Almighty inspires in those who see them as having been involved in that during the world, due to the lifting of the veil in the Hereafter. This is contrary to the apparent meaning of the verses and Hadiths, and there is no impetus for it. According to the literal meaning, it is necessary to restrict 'all things' to every living being that speaks, since not everything—nor every living thing—speaks with literal speech. Such restriction is common, and from it is what was said regarding 'And Allah is over all things competent' and 'Destroying everything.' It was allowed that the speech in 'gave us speech' is in its literal meaning, and the speech in 'gave speech to all things' is carried as 'indication', so the general remains on its generality and there is no need for the aforementioned restriction, and the expression 'speech' is for the sake of correspondence (mushakala), though this is contrary to the apparent meaning, and the relative pronoun which hints at causality refuses this strongly. And His saying: 'And He created you the first time, and to Him you will return.'

(It is possible that this is a continuation of the speech of the skins and the content of the statement, and it is possible that it is a new beginning from the speech of the Almighty, and the first is more apparent. The intent in any case is to confirm what came before it, that the One who is capable of creation the first time is capable of giving speech. The imperfect verb form is used even though the address is on the Day of Resurrection, whereas the return is realized and not in the future, because what is intended by the return is not merely the return to life by resurrection, but what it entails and what follows from the eternal punishment expected at the time of the address, adopting the mode of emphasizing the expected over the actual. It is allowed that it is for the sake of presenting the image, along with the regard for the verse endings.)"