{And no food except from ghaslin}

Linguists state that it is what flows from wounds when they are washed, derived from al-ghasl (washing). Ibn Abbas stated—in a narration by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn al-Mundhir via the path of Ikrimah—that it is the blood and water that flows from the flesh of the people of the Fire. Similar in meaning is his statement in their narration via the path of Ali ibn Abi Talhah, that it is the pus of the people of the Fire.

Ibn Abi Hatim extracted, via Mujahid, that he said: "I do not know what ghaslin is, but I think it is zaqqum (bitter fruit)." The majority, however, hold the first opinion. Al-Hakim extracted—and authenticated—from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, from the Prophet (may Allah the Exalted grant him peace and blessings), that he said: "If a bucket of ghaslin were poured into the world, it would cause all the people of the world to stink."

Some have considered it identical to dari’ (bitter thorny plant), while others say they are distinct; discussion on this will follow, Allah willing.

Regarding the phrase lahu khabarun laysa (to it is a predicate [for] 'is not'): Al-Mahdawi said it is not correct for it to be [referring to] huna (here), though he did not explain the prohibition of that. Al-Qurtubi followed him in this, stating: "Because the meaning would become 'There is no food here except from ghaslin', and this is incorrect, as there is other food besides it there; and 'here' relates to the meaning of the verb in 'to it'."

Abu Hayyan criticized this, saying: "If there is other food besides it, and the eating is a different kind of eating, then the restriction (exclusivity) is valid in relation to the difference between the two types of eating. As for if dari’ is ghaslin, as some have said, then there is no contradiction between this restriction and the restriction in His saying—Exalted is He—'They have no food except from dari’', since what is being restricted in both verses is of the same thing."

However, the prevention of this occurs from a facet other than what he mentioned: if we make huna (here) the predicate, then "to it" (lahu) and "today" (al-yawm) would be dependent upon what the predicate depends on, which is the agent operating in huna. This is an abstract (ma’nawi) agent, and its object cannot precede it. If the agent were verbal, it would be permissible, like His saying, "And there is not to Him any equivalent," where "to Him" relates to "equivalent," which is the predicate of yakun.

There is some contention regarding the classification of the agent governing the prepositional phrase and the omitted [predicate] as abstract.