Al-Hijr: (4-5) And We have not destroyed...

Issues in the Verse:

When God Almighty threatened those who denied the Messenger (peace be upon him) by saying: {Leave them to eat and enjoy themselves, and let hope beguile them; soon they will know} (Al-Hijr: 3), He followed it up with what reinforces the prohibition: {And We have not destroyed any town except that it had a known term [or decree]}.

This means that destruction and punishment occur according to a predetermined decree. For those who perished earlier, their time of destruction was hastened in the decree; for those who were delayed, their time of destruction was postponed. This serves as the ultimate deterrent and warning.

1. View 1: A group held that this destruction refers to the punishment of annihilation (Isti'ṣāl) that God used to send down upon obstinate deniers, as demonstrated with the people of Noah and the people of Hud, and others.
2. View 2: Others said that this destruction refers to death.
   • The Judge (Al-Qadi) stated that the former view (annihilation) is more probable because it is more effective as a deterrent. God clarifies that this respite should not deceive the intelligent person, because punishment is reserved. Every nation has a specific time for punishment to descend, which neither precedes nor is delayed from that time.
3. View 3: Another group held that this destruction encompasses both annihilation and death, as each is a form of destruction. Therefore, the term must be understood in its common denominator that includes both categories.

Al-Farrā’ stated that if the wāw (and) were not mentioned in the phrase {and it had a known term} (wa-lahā kitāb), it would still be correct, similar to another verse: {And We have not destroyed any town except that it had a warner} (Ash-Shu‘arā’: 208). This is like saying, "I did not see anyone except that he had clothes on" (illā wa-‘alayhi thiyāb), and you could also say, "except he had clothes on" (illā ‘alayhi thiyāb).

Regarding the phrase: {No nation precedes its term, nor do they delay it}

1. Al-Wāḥidī said that the min in {any nation} (min ummah) is superfluous and emphatic, like saying, "No one came to me" (mā jā’anī min aḥad).
2. Others argued that it is not superfluous, as it conveys partiality (tab‘īḍ). This means the ruling did not apply to some instances of that reality, which makes the negation more emphatic regarding universality.

The author of Al-Nathm explained that when sabq (preceding) applies to a person, it means surpassing and leaving behind, as in, "Zayd preceded ‘Amr," meaning he passed him and left him behind. When it applies to time, it is the opposite: "So-and-so preceded the year X," meaning that year passed before his arrival, and he did not reach it.

Therefore, {No nation precedes its term, nor do they delay it} means that the term does not occur before that specific time, nor after it, but only at that exact moment.

The reason for this is that the specification of every event to its precise time, to the exclusion of the time before or after, is not due to chance, nor is it without a determining factor or specifier. It is impossible for one possibility to be favored over the other without a determining factor. Its occurrence is specified to that exact time only because the Creator of the worlds specified it to that very time. Since this is the case, the Power and Will of God necessitated that specification, and His Knowledge and Wisdom were attached to that specific choice. Since changing God's attributes—namely Power, Will, Knowledge, and Wisdom—is impossible, changing that specification is also impossible.

Once this is established, we argue that this very proof applies to the actions of servants: that what issues from Zayd is faith and obedience, and what issues from ‘Amr is disbelief and disobedience. Therefore, change in these actions must be impossible.

If they argue: This only applies if the necessitating factor for the occurrence of disbelief and faith from Zayd and ‘Amr was the Power and Will of God. If we say the necessitating factor was the Power and Will of Zayd and ‘Amr, then the obligation ceases.

We reply: If the Power and Will of Zayd and ‘Amr necessitate that specific action, then the Creator of that necessitating Power and Will is the One who decreed that specific action, and the obligation returns. If their Power and Will are not necessitating, but merely capable of both the action and its opposite, then the preference of one side over the other occurred without a determining factor, which returns the matter to the occurrence of that specification without a specifier—which is false. If there was a specifier:

1. If that specifier was the servant himself, the inquiry returns, leading to infinite regress.
2. If that specifier was God Almighty, then the inquiry returns to the fact that the servant's action was specified and decreed by God’s specification. In this case, the obligation does not cease.

The verse proves that everyone who dies or is killed dies according to their appointed term, and whoever claims that one can die before their term is mistaken.

If they argue: This deduction is only valid if we interpret {And We have not destroyed} as referring to death. How does it apply if we interpret it as the punishment of annihilation?

We reply: Either death is included under {And We have not destroyed} or it is not.

1. If it is included, the deduction is clear and necessary.
2. If it is not included, we say that the principle that the term for annihilation cannot precede or be delayed from its appointed time also applies to death. Therefore, the ruling must be the same here. And God knows best.

{And they said, "O you upon whom the Reminder has been sent down! Indeed, you are mad. Why do you not bring the angels to us, if you are truthful?" We do not send down the angels except with the Truth, and then they would not be reprieved. Indeed, it is We Who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We are its guardians.}