Tafsir of Al-Jathiyah 45:21

"Or do those who commit evil deeds [think]..."—this is a resumption of speech initiated to explain the condition of the evildoers and the righteous, following the explanation of the oppressors and the pious.

The am (Or) is disjunctive (munqati’ah), and it carries the meaning of bal (nay/rather) for the purpose of transitioning from the first statement to the second. The hamza is for the negation of the supposition (hasban), in the sense that it is neither fitting nor appropriate, for the contrary is manifest.

Ijtirah means acquisition (iktisab). From this is the jariha (organ), referring to the limbs with which one acquires things, such as the hands. It is said, "He is the jariha of his family," meaning their earner. Al-Raghib said: Ijtirah is the acquisition of sin, and its root is from jaraha (wounding), just as iqtiraf (earning/committing) is from qarf (the scraping of a sore). It is apparent that it is to be interpreted here as "acquisition" due to the placement of "evil deeds." According to Al-Bahr, the intended meaning here is the evil deeds of disbelief.

His saying—Exalted is He—"that We will make them..." serves the place of the two objects of the verb "think" (hasban). The ja’l (making) is in the sense of tas’ir (rendering/treating). "Them" is its first object, and His saying—Glorified is He—"like those who have believed and done righteous deeds" is its second object.

His saying—Mighty and Majestic is He—"equal" is a substitute (badal) for the kaf (the "like" in "like those"), based on the premise that the kaf is a noun meaning "the like of" (mithl). His saying—Exalted is He—"their life and their death" is the agent (fa’il) of "equal" (sawa’), treated as if it were mustawan (evened), just as they say, "I passed by a man whose state and non-existence were sawa’ (equal)." The plural pronoun refers to the "evildoers."

The meaning, based on the negation of the supposition, is: that the life and death of the evildoers are equal to the life and death of the believers. The focus of the negation is this equality, for the conditions of the believers are consistent—they are recipients of mercy in life and death—whereas the conditions of those others are contradictory, for they are recipients of mercy in life but not in death.

It is permissible that "equal" (sawa’) is a state (hal) of the pronoun in the kaf, based on what you have heard regarding its meaning. However, this is countered by the fact that it is an indeclinable noun in the form of a particle, so a hidden pronoun cannot be attributed to it. Al-Farisi has explicitly forbidden this. Yes, it is permissible that "like those who have believed" be a prepositional phrase in the position of the second object, and "equal" be a state of the pronoun hidden within it. It is also said that it is permissible for it to be a state of the pronoun in "make them," or for it to be the second object while the kaf or the prepositional phrase is a state of that pronoun. What was mentioned first is more apparent and preferable.

It is also permissible that the plural pronoun in "their life and their death" refers to the believers; thus "equal" is a state of the second relative noun (al-mawsul). It is not permissible for it to be a state of the pronoun in "like those" because it would corrupt the meaning. If the pronoun refers to both groups, then "equal" is a state of the combination of the second relative noun and the pronoun of the first. The meaning is the negation of the supposition that the two groups would be equal after death in honor or in the absence of accountability, just as they are equal in outward appearance regarding provision and health in this life.

It is also permissible that the meaning is the negation of the supposition that the two lives are equal, because the believers are in obedience while the others are in disobedience; and similarly for the two deaths, because they [the believers] are met with glad tidings and contentment, while those others are met with evil and abandonment. It is said that this applies even if the pronoun refers to the evildoers. The meticulous scholar did not permit the substitution (badal) for the kaf if the pronoun is shared, because the mithl (like/example) is the likened-to, and "equal" applies to both the likened and the likener.

The majority of reciters read "equal" (sawa’un) and what follows it in the nominative case (raf’), such that "equal" is a fronted predicate and what follows it is the subject, not the other way around, because "equal" is indefinite and there is no justification for it to be the subject. The pronoun refers to the evildoers. It is said that this clause is a substitute for the second object of "make," whether a substitute of total for total, a substitute of inclusion, or a substitute of part for whole. In any case, it involves the substitution of a clause for a single noun, which Abu al-Fath permitted and Ibn Malik chose, citing evidence for it. Abu Hayyan said: The substitution is not definitive here. Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Ishbili, known as Ibn al-’Ilj, said in his book Al-Basit fi al-Nahw: "It is not correct for a clause governed by the first [verb] to be in the position of a substitute. If it is not governed, is it possible for a clause to be a substitute for a clause? It does not seem unlikely to me, like conjunction or verbal emphasis." Its surface meaning indicates that substitution is not allowed here. In Al-Bahr, it appears to me that it is not allowed to substitute this clause for that object because the ja’l is in the sense of "making/rendering," and one cannot say "I rendered Zayd his father is standing" or "I rendered Zayd his servant is departing," because that involves a transition from essence to essence, or from one attribute of the essence to another, and there is no such transition in that implied clause acting as a second object. There is a discussion on this which is not hidden.

Al-Zamakhshari explicitly insisted on making the clause a substitute for the kaf, and he is an authority in Arabic. However, the author of Al-Kashf stated that he intended substitution in terms of meaning, not that it is a literal substitute for the text. He said: Because it [the kaf] is a single word indicating an essence in terms of meaning, and this [the clause] indicates the meaning—even though the essence is necessarily entailed by it—unless a deleted qualified noun is implied, such as "men whose life and death are equal." The meaning remains as you heard regarding the accusative reading.

It is also permissible for the clause to be the second object, and "like those who have believed" to be a state of the pronoun in "make them." You know the status of this and its implications. If the pronoun refers to the believers, it is said the clause is a state of the second relative noun, not of the pronoun in the second object, due to the corruption of meaning. This is countered by the fact that it would be a reliance on the status of the noun as a state while using a pronoun, which is not considered eloquent. It is also said: It is a resumption of speech that explains the reason for the negation of the supposition of equivalence, which is that the believers' state is equal before Allah, the Exalted, in both abodes in terms of splendor and honor; so how could the evildoers be equivalent to them?

It is also permissible that it is an explanation of the implied aspect of similarity. If the pronoun refers to both parties, it is apparent that the clause is a resumed statement not included in the ruling of the negation. The equivalence here is between the condition of the believers specifically in relation to them, and the condition of the evildoers similarly. The clause becomes a justification for the negation in terms of meaning, indicating the absence of equivalence—not in the world, nor in the Hereafter—because the believers are equal in life and death in mercy, while those others are equal in life and death in affliction. Since they live, they die; so just as the condition of these and those differed in life, it likewise differs in death. As for substitution, its condition is known, so reflect.

Al-A’mash read "equal" (sawa’an) in the accusative, and "their life and their death" in the accusative as well. The first is explained as you heard, and the accusative of "their life and their death" is based on their being adverbial of time, for they are either two times or two verbal nouns standing in for time, and the agent is either "equal" or "make them."

This being said, the verse—even if it is about the disbelievers, according to what is reported from Al-Bahr and what is apparent from what is narrated from al-Kalbi that ‘Utbah, Shaybah, and al-Walid bin ‘Utbah said to ‘Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—and Hamzah—may Allah be pleased with him—and the believers: "By Allah, you are upon nothing, and if what you say is true, then our condition will be better than yours in the Hereafter, just as it is better in this world"—so the verse "Or do those who commit evil deeds [think]..." was revealed.

It contains the refutation of them in all its aspects, as is known by the slightest contemplation. From it, one extracts the divergence between the states of the believing sinner and the believing obedient one. For this reason, many of the devout would weep upon reciting it, to the extent that it is called "The Weeper of the Devout" for that reason. Abdullah bin Ahmad reported in Zawa’id al-Zuhd and al-Tabarani and a group from Abu al-Duha that he said: "I recited the Surah Al-Jathiyah, and when I reached His saying—Exalted is He—'Or do those who commit evil deeds,' he kept repeating it and weeping until morning while he was at the Maqam [of Ibrahim]." Ibn Abi Shaybah reported from Bashir, the freed slave of al-Rabi’ bin Khuthaym, that al-Rabi’ was praying and passed by this verse, "Or do those who commit evil deeds," and he kept repeating it until morning. Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyad used to say to himself when he recited it: "I wish I knew which of the two groups you are."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: Its wording indicates that the "acquisition of evil deeds" is the acquisition of disbelief, because of its equation with faith. It is also possible that the equation is between the acquisition [of evil] and the doing of righteous deeds, and that faith exists in both groups. This is why those who fear Allah wept upon reciting it. I have seen many of the deluded, engrossed in their night and day in immorality and wickedness, saying with the tongue of speech and the tongue of state: "On the Day of Resurrection, we will be in a better state than many of the devout." This is from them—and may Allah protect us—a far-reaching straying and a delusion to which there is no further addition.

"Evil is that which they judge."

Is their judgment evil? This is the judgment of equivalence. The ma (that which) is verbal (masdariyyah), and the speech is an informing of the ugliness of their customary judgment. It is also permissible that it is for the initiation of condemning them, in the sense that sa’a (evil is) means bi’sa (how wretched is). The ma in it is an indefinite noun described by an implicit quality, occurring as a specification (tamyiz) explaining the vague pronoun of the agent. The specific object of condemnation is omitted; meaning: "Wretched is that which they have judged."