Surat al-Qiyamah

It is also called Surat La Uqsimu (The Chapter of "I Do Swear"). It is Meccan, without any disagreement or exception. There is a difference of opinion regarding the number of its verses: according to the Kufan count, it is forty, and according to others, it is thirty-nine, with the disagreement centering on [the verse] "that you may cause it to move" (li-tuḥarrika bihi).

When the Glorified and Exalted mentioned at the end of Surat al-Muddaththir: "Nay! But they do not fear the Hereafter," after mentioning Paradise and the Fire, and their lack of fear for it was due to their denial of the Resurrection, He—Majestic and Exalted—mentioned in this Surah the proof for it in the most perfect manner. He described the Day of Resurrection, its terrors, and its states. Then, He mentioned what precedes that—the exit of the soul from the body—and then what precedes that—the beginning of creation—in an order inverse to the actual chronological sequence. Thus, He said—the One who is Mighty in speech—:

Al-Qiyamah: (1) "Nay, I swear by the Day of Resurrection..."

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

"Nay, I swear by the Day of Resurrection" (Lā uqsimu bi-yawmi al-qiyāmah). The insertion of the negative particle lā (nay) onto the verb of swearing is widespread in their speech and poetry. Imru’ al-Qays said: “Nay, and your father, O daughter of al-‘Āmirī, you shall not see the people claiming that I flee.” And the saying of Ghuwayyah ibn Sulmā lamenting [his people].

The summary of what Jār Allāh [al-Zamakhsharī] held regarding this is that when this lā occurs in the midst of speech—such as in the words of the Exalted: "But no, by your Lord, they will not believe"—it is a supplementary particle (silah), added for the emphasis of the oath, just as it is in the words of the Exalted: "In order that [so that] they may know," for the emphasis of the knowledge. However, when it occurs at the beginning [of a statement], as in this Surah and Surat al-Balad, it is for negation, because a supplementary particle only exists in the middle of discourse.

The aspect [of this] is that the establishment of an oath implies an informing of the greatness of that which is sworn by; thus, it is a negation of that implied report by way of metonymy. The intended meaning is that it does not require magnification through an oath, for it is in itself great—[so] I swear by it, primarily. This progresses in this magnification to the emphasis of that which is sworn upon, since the hyperbole in magnifying that which is sworn by implies hyperbole regarding [the matter sworn upon].

As for what flickers in some minds—that it necessitates this being a report rather than an establishment [of an oath], and thus it would not merit a response, and that the meaning is the magnification of that which is sworn upon, not that which is sworn by—this is repelled [by the following]. Beyond that, there are [various] opinions: It is said that it is for the negation of oaths due to the clarity of the matter. Al-Farrā’ said it is for the negation of a known discourse prior to the oath, [the speaker] refuting it; as if they had denied the Resurrection, so it was said: "Nay," meaning the matter is as such, then it was said: "I swear by the Day of Resurrection." The Imām [al-Rāzī] critiqued this by the return of the negative particle after it. It is said that it is not lā, but rather the lām had its fatḥah lengthened, so an alif appeared, and the origin is la-uqsimu (I surely swear), as Qunbul recited it; it is also reported from al-Bazzī and al-Ḥasan.

It is the lām of incipience (al-ibtida’) according to some, and the origin is la-anā uqsimu (surely I swear), with the subject omitted due to it being known. The lām of emphasis entered upon the imperfect verb, as in: "Verily, your Lord will judge between them." According to some, the origin is annī la-uqsimu (verily I swear). It is the lām of the oath, and it did not take the nūn of emphasis because that is not strictly necessary; rather, it is [only] more common, based on what is narrated from Sībawayh, while relying on the meaning according to others.

The majority held that it is supplementary (silah), and Jār Allāh chose this in al-Mufaṣṣal. What was mentioned regarding the distinction [between its position at the beginning or middle] is not conceded, because if the addition [of the particle] is established in an oath, there is no difference between the beginning of speech and its middle. Unless it is conceded that the Quran is in the position of a single Surah, connected to one another, because its being such [is considered] regarding contradictions and the like, not regarding a ruling such as this. Furthermore, what he mentioned in directing the negation from the wording is far-fetched, and the state of the other opinions is not hidden. Some discussion on this has already passed, so remember it.