Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:179

(And indeed, We have created): This is a fresh statement that confirms the content of what preceded it by way of being a tadhīl (a follow-up sentence that reinforces the meaning). Al-Dhar’ (with a hamza) means creation, and this is how Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) and others interpreted it; meaning: By Allah, We have created (for Hell many of the jinn and mankind), namely those who persist in disbelief in His—may He be exalted—eternal knowledge.

The lam (in li-jahannam) denotes the consequence (‘āqiba) according to many, as in His saying: “Our Lord, indeed You gave Pharaoh and his establishment splendor and wealth in the worldly life, our Lord, that [the result] would be that they lead astray from Your way,” and the words of the poet:

"It has a king who calls out every day: Give birth for death, and build for ruin."

In Al-Kashshaf, it is stated that they were created for it due to their immersion in disbelief and the stubbornness of their dispositions therein, and that it is not possible for them to perform anything but the actions of the people of the Fire. Thus, being "created for the Fire" serves as an indication of their depth in the causes [leading to it] and their proficiency in that which qualifies them for entering it. He indicated that this is a tadhīl to the story of the Jews—after enumerating their vile deeds—to console the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as if it were said: "They are among those for whom warnings are of no benefit, so leave them and busy yourself with your own affairs and those who follow your religion in adhering to monotheism."

According to the Qutb (may his secret be sanctified), the verse—based on what he stated—is of the category of kināya īmā’iyya (allusive metonymy). It is understood from his discourse that what led Al-Zamakhshari to this interpretation is the necessity—if taken literally—that disbelief would be something willed by Allah (Most High), which is contrary to his school of thought. You know that many of the Ahl al-Sunnah interpreted the verse by taking the lam to signify the consequence, as you have learned, because of His saying: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me," for the causal explanation of creation through worship precludes its causal explanation through Hell and entry into it.

Yes, Ibn ‘Atiyyah from among us leaned toward taking it literally, holding the lam to be for causality. Some people claimed that interpretation contradicts the hadiths transmitted on this subject, such as some of the preceding hadiths regarding the verse of the Covenant, and what Imam Ahmad recorded in his Musnad from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Qatadah, who said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: 'Allah created Adam, then took the progeny from his back and said: These are for Paradise, and I do not care, and these are for the Fire, and I do not care.' Someone asked: 'Then what is the point of action?' He said: 'To comply with the Decree.'" And what Muhyī al-Sunnah recorded from ‘A’ishah, the Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her), who said: "The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) attended the funeral of a boy from the Ansar, so I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, glad tidings to him! A bird from the birds of Paradise.' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'How do you know? Allah created Paradise and created inhabitants for it while they were in the loins of their fathers, and He created the Fire and created inhabitants for it while they were in the loins of their fathers'..." and other such narrations.

Al-Tayyibi inclined toward this and supported it, claiming that the benefit of the oath is to warn against uprooting the doubts of those who might attempt to interpret the verse and distort the definitive text. It was narrated from the Imam that the verse is an argument for the correctness of the school of the Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the issue of the creation of actions and the willing of existent beings, because He—Glory be to Him—explicitly stated that He created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell, and there is no greater clarity than the declaration of Allah (Most High). It is not hidden that taking it literally contradicts the outward appearance of the verse we mentioned, and in the Noble Book, there is much that agrees with [the interpretation of the lam as consequence]. Furthermore, the true causal explanation for His actions—may He be exalted—is rejected by Imam Al-Ash’ari and his companions in the popular view.

Some dignitaries said: The "many" refers to those against whom the eternal word of wretchedness has been established, but not by way of compulsion from them without there being anything from their side leading to it. Rather, it is because of His knowledge—May He be exalted—that they would never turn their choice toward the Truth, but would persist in falsehood without any factor to divert them or affection to turn them away from the signs and warnings. In this respect, their creation was made to terminate in Hell, just as the gathering of the two groups—in consideration of their perfect innate readiness for worship and their complete capability for it—resulted in their creation being directed toward that [paradise], as stated by His saying: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me."

In my view, there is no escape from interpretation in this context; so reflect and do not be heedless.

Furthermore, the first prepositional phrase is connected to "what is with Him," and its advancement over the explicit object is because its adjuncts contain a type of length that would lead to a lack of eloquence in the glorious structure if it were placed between them or delayed after them. The second prepositional phrase is connected to an omitted descriptor that functions as an adjective for "many." The jinn are mentioned first because they are more familiar than humans with being described by the aforementioned attributes, are greater in number, and were created earlier.

It does not pose a problem that they were created from fire and thus entering it would not be difficult for them or harm them at all, for we say—in refuting this despite its flaws—that their creation from fire means the fiery part is dominant in them; this does not preclude them being harmed by it. For humans were created from clay and they are harmed by it. This is clarified by the fact that the essence of fire did not remain in them as it was before they were created from it, just as the essence of clay did not remain in humans as it was before they were created from it. Moreover, what was created from fire is the body, while the one being punished is the soul, and it was not created from fire. The torment of a soul within a fiery mold is conceivable, just as its torment in a clay mold is.

His saying: (They have hearts) is in the accusative case as another adjective for "many." His saying—may He be exalted—(with which they do not understand) is in the nominative case as an adjective for "hearts," clarifying that they are not of the ordinary sort, but are contrary to the rest of the individuals of the species, lacking what they ought to possess; or it serves to emphasize the vagueness and ambiguity implied by their indefiniteness. "Heart" refers to the human subtle essence (latīfa), and "understanding" (fiqh) is the linguistic meaning of the word. It is said: faqiha (with a kasra), meaning he understood, and faqaha (with a damma), meaning he became a faqīh, i.e., insightful or knowledgeable in jurisprudence in the conventional sense explained in the books of Usul. The verb here is transitive, but its object is omitted for generalization. That is: They have hearts whose nature is not to understand anything that is meant to be understood; thus, the things befitting the context—the Truth and its proofs—enter into this primarily. The same discourse applies to His saying—may He be exalted—(and they have eyes with which they do not see), meaning they do not see any of the visible things with them; thus, the created evidences pointing to the Truth are primarily included. The same is said regarding His saying—Blessed and Exalted be He—(and they have ears with which they do not hear), where it is intended that they do not hear any of the audible things; thus, it encompasses the revealed signs in the manner previously mentioned. The state of descriptiveness in the latter two is like the first.

The seeing and hearing that are negated are those exclusive to the rational beings regarding the fulfillment of the duties of the two thaqalayn (jinn and mankind), not the mere sensory perception of shadows and sounds, which is the function of cattle. It is found in their language phrases like "So-and-so does not hear nonsense," meaning he does not pay attention to it, does not turn his hearing to it, and does not accept it. From this is the poet's saying:

"And I became deaf to the foulness of speech, and were I to wish, I could hear it."

Repeating the predicate in the two coordinated sentences—despite the speech being complete without it by saying "and eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear"—contains a manifest confirmation of their wretched state. Similarly, establishing the three faculties for them and then describing each with what it was described—rather than denying them outright by saying "they have no hearts... no eyes... no ears"—contains a confirmation of the complete firmness of their ignorance and misguidance. Interpreting the verse in this way, and considering the object to be omitted for the three verbs, is what some researchers have chosen, for it articulates the essence of their condition as hinted at. Others chose to specify the object: they do not understand the Truth and its proofs, they do not see what Allah created with the eyes of contemplation, and they do not hear the signs and admonitions with the hearing of reflection and thought.

In any case, the intent is that they did not employ what they were created with for the purpose they were created for, so it is as if they were not created with them at all. If the literal meaning were intended, the censure would not be applicable, nor would the argument be established. Those who claimed the literal meaning said: This is due to the emanation of the Wise according to the eternal, uncreated readiness; therefore, the censure is for this because it indicates a poor readiness, as it is like its effect. In short, the verse does not serve as proof for pure compulsion (jabr), even if the preceding [verses] are added to it. The intermediate compulsion advocated by the Ahl al-Haqq is pure milk drawn from between filth and blood. Its conclusion according to some scholars is that the servant is choosing, yet compelled in his choice. Perhaps the words of the Proof of Islam, Al-Ghazali—where he says, after a long discourse: "If you say: I find in myself that if I wish to act, I act, and if I wish to abstain, I abstain; therefore my action is achieved by me, not by another. We answer and say: Suppose you found that in yourself, but tell us: Do you find in yourself that if you wish to wish, you wish, and if you wish not to wish, you do not wish? I do not think you would say that, otherwise the matter would go on to infinity. So your will is not by you, and your action after your will is not achieved by you. You are compelled in the form of one who chooses"—returns to what we have mentioned. We have fully covered the discussion on this research in our book Al-Ajwibah al-‘Iraqiyyah ‘an al-As’ilah al-Iraniyyah, and it is, by my life, one of the thorny topics that the Iranians asked about.

(Those): i.e., those described with the aforementioned attributes, (are like cattle): i.e., in the negation of awareness in the aforementioned manner. It is said: because their faculties are directed toward the causes of subsistence, restricted to them. It is as if the aspect of the analogy is grasped from what preceded, so the sentence is like an affirmation of it, which is why it is separated from it. (Rather, they are more astray): than cattle, because cattle perceive what they are meant to perceive of benefits and harms, and they strive to attain and avoid them to the extent of their ability, whereas these [people] are not so, as they do not distinguish between benefits and harms. Rather, they invert the matter, leaving behind bliss and proceeding toward painful torment. It is said: [they are more astray] because if cattle are driven, they are driven, and if they are guided to a path, they are guided, while these do not find their way to any good. It is said: because they were not given the power to attain virtues, while these were given it but did not benefit from what they were given; and because cattle, even if they are not obedient, are not disobedient, while these are disobedient, so they are in a worse state than them. Some said: Because they know their owner, remember him, and obey him, while these do not know their Lord, do not remember Him, and do not obey Him. In short, that these are more astray is beyond doubt, and the aspects of this are many, and there is no contradiction between the explanations, as is not hidden.

(Those): i.e., those described with what was mentioned of being like cattle and more astray than them, (are the heedless), i.e., those complete in their heedlessness of that which contains their salvation. ‘Ata said: [heedless] of what Allah—may He be exalted—has prepared for His allies of reward, and for His enemies of punishment. Some made this sentence like an explanation for the sentence preceding it, which is why it was separated from it.