Tafsir of Al-Fajr 89:23

"And Hell is brought, that Day..."

It is said that this is similar to the words of the Exalted, "And Hellfire is brought forward for all to see" (50:23), implying that its being "brought" is a metaphor for its manifestation. However, it is preferred that it be taken in its literal sense. Indeed, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Ibn Mas‘ud that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Hell will be brought on that Day, having seventy thousand reins, with each rein held by seventy thousand angels dragging it." In one narration, there is the addition, "...until it is set up to the left of the Throne. It has rage and roaring."

It is mentioned in some reports that Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and spoke with him secretly. Then, the Prophet (peace be upon him) came out with a somber expression. Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) asked him about it, and he replied: "Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to me with this verse: 'Nay, when the earth is crushed...' (89:21). Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) asked him, 'How will it be brought?' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) replied, 'It is led by seventy thousand reins, each rein led by seventy thousand angels. While they are in that state, it will make a sudden movement, escaping from their hands. Were it not that they caught it and seized it, it would have burned those in the gathering.' In another narration, 'Were it not that Allah the Exalted restrained it, it would have burned the heavens and the earth.'"

The interpretation of all that has been mentioned and similar reports, and treating it as a metaphor, is not prompted by anything other than the perceived impossibility of the movement that a literal "bringing" of Hell necessitates. To my mind, this is not impossible; it is possible for it to emerge and move from its place at the gathering, then return to it. The state of affairs on that Day is beyond what the mind can conceive.

"That Day" is a substitute (badal) for "when the earth is crushed." The manifest implication of al-Zamakhshari’s statement is that the governing agent for it is the same as the governing agent of the substituted word—namely, the words of the Exalted, "man will remember." This is a position attributed to Sibawayh. In al-Bahr, the famous opposing view is that a substitute implies the repetition of the governing agent. The latter appears more evident to me.

"Man will remember"—al-tadhakkur is the opposite of forgetfulness. It means that man will recall the details of his shortcomings through witnessing their effects and decrees, or by Allah the Exalted bringing them to his mind and presenting them to him, even if he has not yet witnessed an effect, or by seeing them with his own eyes, based on the fact that deeds will take physical form in the afterlife, appearing in forms suitable to them, whether beautiful or ugly. Or, al-tadhakkur may mean "taking heed," i.e., he takes heed by what he sees of the effects of the power of Allah the Exalted, the greatness of His majesty, and His affairs.

His words, "and how can he have remembrance?" is an objection interjected to confirm that it is not true remembrance, as it is devoid of any benefit due to it not occurring at the proper time. "How" (anna) is a predicate put forward, and "remembrance" (al-dhikra) is the subject. The prepositional phrase "for him" (lahu) relates to that which the predicate relates to—meaning: "From where will he obtain remembrance, when its time has passed?" It is also said that there is a deleted genitive (mudaf), meaning "And how can he have the benefit of remembrance?" It is necessary to assume this so there is no contradiction. You have learned that this is realized by what was settled first, provided that the exclusivity of the lam (the 'l' in lahu) is restricted to "the beneficial." It would then be correct without any assumption, and the denial would be that remembrance could be for him, rather than against him. As for it being a narration of his state in the world regarding a lack of consideration and heeding, it is baseless.

The verse is used as evidence that repentance, as repentance, is not rationally obligatory to be accepted—contrary to what the Mu'tazilah claim, based on their belief in the "obligation of the most beneficial." It is said in this argument that if its acceptance were obligatory, then the acceptance of this "remembrance" would also be obligatory, for it is repentance. Repentance, as has been made clear in its proper place, consists of remorse for a sin as a sin, and a resolve not to return to it if one were able. No one has considered "being in this world" as a condition in its definition, even though the beneficial kind of repentance can only occur there. This "remembrance" is the aforementioned remorse. al-Dahhak explicitly stated, as recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim, that it is repentance, yet it is not accepted because the benefit—which is one of the requisites of acceptance—does not result from it. It is objected that the Mu'tazilah only advocate for the obligation of its acceptance on the condition that the time of obligation (taklif) has not passed. It is also said that his "remembrance" is not repentance in any sense, for he is aware that it [true repentance] only exists in this world, as is expressed by the Exalted...