Al-Kahf: (32 - 44) And present to them a parable...

Context and Purpose

It is known that the disbelievers boasted about their wealth and supporters over the poor Muslims. Therefore, Allah the Exalted clarified that this is not a basis for boasting, as the poor may become rich and the rich poor. That which truly deserves boasting is obedience and worship of Allah, which the poor believers possess. Allah clarified this by presenting the parable mentioned in the verse:

The Parable of the Two Garden Owners (Verses 32-34)

{And present to them a parable of two men} (18:32): This means a parable illustrating the state of the disbelievers and the believers.

It is narrated that these two men were brothers among the Children of Israel. One was a disbeliever named Barātūs, and the other a believer named Yūdhā. Some say they are the ones mentioned in Surah As-Saffat: {Said one of them, "Indeed, I had a companion..."} (37:51).

They inherited eight thousand dinars from their father, and each took half. The disbeliever bought land. The believer said, "O Allah, I buy from You a garden in Paradise for a thousand," and he gave it in charity. His brother then built a house for a thousand, and the believer said, "O Allah, I buy from You a house in Paradise for a thousand," and he gave it in charity. His brother then married a woman for a thousand, and the believer said, "O Allah, I make a thousand a dower for the Hūr al-'Ayn (fair-eyed maidens)." His brother then bought servants and estates for a thousand, and the believer said, "O Allah, I buy from You children for a thousand," and he gave it in charity. Then the disbeliever was afflicted with need and sat on the path of his brother. His brother passed by him with his retinue, confronted him, and rebuked him for giving away his wealth.

{We made for one of them two gardens} (18:34): Know that Allah described these gardens with several attributes:

1. The First Attribute: Being a Garden (Jannatayn): The term Jannah (garden) is used because what is concealed within it is covered by the shade of the trees. The root of the word relates to covering and concealment.
2. The Second Attribute: {And We surrounded them with palm trees} (wa-ḥafafnāhumā bi-nakhlin): This means We made the palm trees encompass the two gardens. This is similar to His saying: {And you will see the angels surrounding the Throne} (39:75), meaning standing around the Throne, encompassing it. Ḥāff refers to the side of a thing, and Aḥāff is the plural. Thus, the statement "The people surrounded him" (ḥaffū bihi) means they stood at his sides. The poet said:

   He has glances at the sides of his couch, When they are desired, there is swiftness and attainment.

The author of Al-Kashshāf said: Ḥaffūhu means they circled it. Ḥafaftuhu bihim means I made them surround it. It is transitive with one object, and the preposition bā' adds a second object, like saying ghashītuhu (I covered him) and ghashītuhu bihi (I covered him with it). This attribute is something cultivators appreciate in their vineyards: making them surrounded by fruit-bearing trees, which is also pleasing to the eye. 3. The Third Attribute: {And We placed between them crops} (wa-jaʿalnā baynahumā zarʿan): This implies several things: * That the land combined provisions and fruits. * That the land was expansive in its borders and distant in its expanses, yet nothing intersected it to divide it. * That such land yields another benefit—another fruit—at all times, so its benefits were continuous and flowing. 4. The Fourth Attribute: {Each of the two gardens yielded its produce and did not fall short thereof in anything} (kullatā al-jannatayni ātat ukulahā wa-lam taẓlim minhu shay’an): Kullatā is a definite singular noun used to emphasize two definite masculine nouns. Kullatā is a singular noun used to emphasize two definite feminine nouns. When they are added to an explicit noun, they remain with an alif in all three cases (nominative, accusative, genitive), like saying jā’anī kullā akhawayk (Your two brothers came to me). When added to a pronoun, they are with an alif in the nominative case, and with a yā’ in the accusative and genitive cases (though some maintain the alif in all three cases with pronouns). The phrase {yielded its produce} (ātat ukulahā) agrees with the word kullatā (singular form), although ātatā (dual form) based on meaning would also be permissible. {and did not fall short thereof in anything} (wa-lam taẓlim minhu shay’an) means it did not diminish anything. When a man says ẓalamnī ḥaqqī, he means "he diminished my right." 5. The Fifth Attribute: {And We caused a river to flow through them} (wa-fajjarnā khilālahumā nahran): Meaning the river flowed within those two gardens. In the recitation of Ya'qūb, it is fajjarnā (with a light shadda), and in the recitation of the rest, it is fajjarnā (with a heavy shadda). The light form is the origin because it is one river, while the heavy form emphasizes its abundance, as the river extends and appears like multiple rivers. {through them} (khilālahumā) means in their middle and between them, as in {and they would have thrown into your midst} (9:47). From this, one says khallaltu al-qawm (I entered among the people). 6. The Sixth Attribute: {And he had fruit} (wa-kāna lahu thamar): 'Āṣim recited it with fatḥa on the thā’ and mīm in both instances, which is the plural of thimār or thamrah. Abū ʿAmr recited it with ḍammah on the thā’ and sukūn on the mīm in both words. The rest recited it with ḍammah on both letters. Linguists mention that the ḍammah refers to types of wealth like gold, silver, and so on, while the fatḥa refers to the fruit of trees. Quṭrub said Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlā’ used to say: Thamar (with ḍammah) is wealth and offspring. He cited the poet Al-Ḥārith ibn Kaladah: > I have indeed seen companions > Who have yielded wealth and offspring. > Hold on, may my life be sacrificed for you, all people, > What they yielded—was it from wealth or from offspring?

The phrase {And he had fruit} (wa-kāna lahu thamar) means types of wealth from the yield of his property when it was abundant. Mujāhid interpreted it as gold and silver, meaning that alongside the two gardens, there was currency.

The Disbeliever's Boast and the Believer's Response (Verses 35-37)

After Allah mentioned these attributes, He said: {And he said to his companion while he was conversing with him, "I am greater than you in wealth and mightier in [numbers of] men"} (18:35).

This means the Muslim was advising him, calling him to belief in Allah and the Resurrection. Muḥāwarah means returning speech, from ḥāra (to return). Allah mentioned that during this conversation, the disbeliever said: {I am greater than you in wealth and mightier in [numbers of] men}. Nafar refers to a man's clan and his companions who defend him and rally with him.

The essence of the matter is that the disbeliever exalted himself over the believer based on his prestige and wealth. He then intended to show the Muslim the abundance of his wealth. Allah informed about this situation: {And he entered his garden} (18:36). He showed it to him in a state that evoked delight and joy, and informed him of the kinds of wealth he possessed.

If it is asked: Why is the garden mentioned singularly after being dual? We reply: It means he has no garden in the Hereafter, nor a share in the Garden promised to the pious believers. What he possessed in this world was his only garden, and he did not intend the two gardens or even one of them.

Then Allah said: {while he was unjust to himself} (18:36). This is an interjection inserted in the middle of the speech, intended to alert that when he took pride in those blessings and used them as a means for disbelief and denial of the power of resurrection, he was misplacing those blessings.

Then the Exalted narrated that the disbeliever said: {And I do not think that this will perish ever, nor do I think the Hour will occur} (18:38). He combined two denials: the first was his certainty that these things would never perish, even though they are subject to change; the second was his denial of the Hour.

If it is argued: Suppose he doubted the Resurrection, how could he say, "I do not think this will perish ever," when intuition suggests that all worldly conditions are fleeting and impermanent? We reply: He meant that it would not perish during his lifetime and existence.

Then he said: {And even if I should be returned to my Lord, I will surely find [something] better than it as a return} (18:38). Munqalab means return or outcome. Its accusative case is for specification (tamyīz). This is similar to His saying: {And if I am returned to my Lord, indeed, for me is [the best of] return} (41:60) and {I will surely be given wealth and children}. The reason for this misconception is that when Allah gave him wealth in this world, he thought he was given it because he deserved it, and that desert is permanent after death, thus necessitating the continuation of the giving. The first premise is false, as opening the door of this world to a person is often a means of gradual leading astray (istidrāj).

Nāfiʿ and Ibn Kathīr recited: {better than them} (khayran minhuma), intending the pronoun to refer back to the two gardens. The rest recited {better than it} (khayran minhā), intending the pronoun to refer back to the garden he entered.

Then the believer responded to the disbeliever: {His companion said to him while he was conversing with him, "Have you disbelieved in Him Who created you from dust and then from a sperm-drop and then fashioned you into a man?"} (18:39).

Then the believer said: {But as for me, He is Allah, my Lord} (18:40).

In {He is Allah, my Lord}, Huwa is the pronoun of the matter, and {Allah is my Lord} is a nominal sentence serving as the predicate for Huwa. If it is asked: Why is lakinnā used for correction (istidrāk)? We reply: It corrects his statement {Have you disbelieved}. It is as if he said to his brother: "Have you disbelieved in Allah? But I am a believer and a monotheist," similar to saying, "Zayd is absent, but Amr is present."

Then the believer said: {and I will not associate with my Lord anyone} (18:40). Al-Qaffāl mentioned several interpretations for this:

1. I see poverty and wealth only from Him; I praise Him when He gives and am patient when afflicted, and I am not arrogant when blessed, nor do I attribute the abundance of wealth and helpers to myself. This is because when the disbeliever boasted of wealth and prestige, it was as if he affirmed a partner to Allah in granting honor and wealth.
2. Perhaps that disbeliever, despite denying the Resurrection, was an idol worshipper. This believer clarified the falsehood of his statement by affirming the rejection of partners.
3. When the disbeliever claimed Allah was incapable of resurrection and gathering, he equated Him with creation in this inability. Affirming equality implies affirming a partner.

Then the believer said to the disbeliever: {And why did you not, when you entered your garden, say, "What Allah willed [has occurred]; there is no power except in Allah"} (18:41). He commanded him to say these two phrases.

The first phrase is {What Allah willed} (mā shā’a Allāh). There are two interpretations:

1. Mā is conditional, and the response is omitted. The meaning is: Whatever Allah wills, happens.
2. Mā is a relative pronoun, in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject. The meaning is: The matter is what Allah willed. Our scholars used this to argue that everything Allah wills occurs, and everything He does not will does not occur, which refutes the position of the Mu'tazila.

Al-Kaʿbī responded by saying that mā shā’a refers to what He commanded to be done, not what is the action of the servants, just as they say "There is no repelling Allah's decree" does not mean what He commanded His servants to do is repelled. He argued that what Allah wills to happen does not preclude what He has forbidden from occurring in His dominion.

Know that what Al-Kaʿbī mentioned is not a refutation of the argument but an admission of contradiction to the apparent meaning of the text, and equating will with command is false because this text indicates that nothing comes into existence except by Allah's will, and there is no text indicating that only what Allah commands enters existence. Thus, the difference is clear.

Al-Qaffāl responded by saying: Why didn't you say, "What Allah willed," when you entered your garden, similar to saying, "These things existing in this garden are what Allah willed"? This is like the verse {They will say, "Three, the fourth of them being their dog"} (18:22)—they are three—and {say, "Hittah"} (2:58), meaning "Say, 'This is Hittah.'" If this is the case, the meaning is that the thing existing in the garden is something Allah willed to create. Under this interpretation, it is not necessary to say everything Allah willed occurred, as this ruling is specific to the observed things in the garden. This interpretation by Al-Qaffāl is much better than that of Al-Jubbā’ī and Al-Kaʿbī.

I would add that based on his response, the ambiguity for the Mu'tazila is not resolved, because the cultivation of that garden might have occurred through usurpation and severe injustice, so it is not correct according to the Mu'tazila to say this occurred by the will of Allah, unless we specify that these fruits occurred by the will of Allah, which is a specialization of the apparent meaning without evidence.

The second statement the believer commanded the disbeliever to say is: {there is no power except in Allah} (18:41), meaning no one has power over any matter except through Allah's aid and enabling. The intent is that the believer told the disbeliever: Why didn't you say upon entering your garden, "What Allah willed," acknowledging that it and all good within it are by Allah's will and grace, for its affair is in His hand—if He wills, He leaves it; if He wills, He destroys it. And why didn't you say, "There is no power except in Allah," confessing that what strengthened you in cultivating and managing its affairs is by Allah's support and aid; no one has power in their body or in the possession of their hand except through Allah.

Then, when the believer explained the faith, the disbeliever responded to his boasting about wealth and men: {If you see me as less than you in wealth and children} (18:42). Whoever reads aqalla (less) with naṣb (accusative) made anā an emphatic pronoun and aqalla the second object. Whoever reads it with rafʿ (nominative) made anā the subject and aqalla the predicate, and the whole sentence is the second object of tarā.

Know that mentioning children here indicates that nafar (men) mentioned earlier refers to helpers and children, as if he were saying: If you see me {less than you in wealth and children} (18:42) and supporters in this fleeting world, {perhaps my Lord will give me [something] better than your garden} (18:40), either in this world or the Hereafter. {And He will send upon your garden a thunderbolt from the sky} (wa-yursila ʿalayhā ḥisbānan mina al-samā’) (18:40), meaning punishment and destruction. Ḥisbān is a verbal noun like ghufrān (forgiveness) and buṭlān (nullification), meaning calculation—that is, a measure determined and calculated by Allah, which is the decree of its ruin. Al-Zajjāj said: ʿaḏāb ḥisbān, meaning the retribution for what your hands have earned. Or ḥisbānan means missiles, one of which is a ḥasbānah, which are thunderbolts. {And it will become a barren waste} (fa-tuṣbiḥa ṣaʿīdan zalaqan) (18:40), meaning your garden will become a smooth, barren land with no vegetation. Ṣaʿīd is the face of the earth. Zalaqan means it becomes such that a foot slips upon it. {Or its water will sink into the earth} (aw yuṣbiḥa mā’uhā ghawran) (18:40), meaning it sinks deep into the earth, {so you will never be able to seek it} (18:40). Linguists say regarding {its water will sink} (mā’uhā ghawran): ghā’iran (sunk), which is an adjective in the form of a verbal noun, just as one says a person is zawr (deceitful) or ṣawm (fasting), applicable to singular/plural, masculine/feminine. They also say nisā’ nūḥ (women of Noah), meaning wailing women.

Then Allah informed that He realized what this believer predicted: {And his fruits were encompassed} (18:44). This is an expression for its complete destruction. Its origin is from the enemy surrounding, because when an enemy surrounds something, he possesses and takes control of it. It is then used for every destruction, like His saying: {unless you are encompassed} (12:66). Similarly, they say atā ʿalayhi (it came upon him) when something destroys him, or al-ʿaduww atā ʿalayhim (the enemy came upon them) when they come overpowering them.

Then the Exalted said: {So he began to turn his hands over his palms} (18:42). This is a metaphor for regret and sorrow, as one whose sorrow is intense claps one hand upon the other, or rubs one over the other. He does this out of regret for what he spent on the garden, about which his brother had advised and admonished him: {while it was collapsed upon its trellises} (18:42). This means it fell upon its supports (ʿurūsh). It is possible that ʿurūsh refers to the trellises of the vine, so these supports fell, and then the walls fell upon them. Or ʿurūsh could mean the roofs, which fell upon the walls. The essence of the phrase is a metaphor for its ruin and destruction.

Then the Exalted said: {And he said, "Oh, I wish I had not associated with my Lord anyone"} (18:42). This means that when the believer said: {But as for me, He is Allah, my Lord, and I will not associate with my Lord anyone}, this disbeliever remembered his words and said: {Oh, I wish I had not associated with my Lord anyone}.

If it is asked: This statement suggests that his garden was destroyed because of the sin of shirk (polytheism), but that is not the case, as various afflictions often befall believers. Allah says: {And if it were not that people would become one community, We would have made for those who disbelieve in the Most Merciful for their houses roofs of silver and stairs upon which they ascend} (43:33). The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Affliction is most severe for the Prophets, then the pious, then the best according to their rank." Furthermore, when he said: {Oh, I wish I had not associated with my Lord anyone}, he regretted shirk and desired monotheism, which should mean he became a believer. Why then does the verse continue: {And there was for him no company to aid him other than Allah, and he was not of those who could [save themselves]}?

The answer to the first question is that when his sorrow intensified because he spent his entire life acquiring the world and was heedless of seeking religion throughout his life, when the world was completely lost, he remained deprived of both the world and religion. This is why his sorrow was immense. The answer to the second question is that he regretted shirk because he believed that if he had been a monotheist and not a polytheist, his garden would have remained. Thus, his desire for monotheism and rejection of polytheism was only for the sake of seeking the world, which is why his monotheism was not accepted by Allah.

Then the Exalted said: {And there was for him no company to aid him other than Allah} (18:43).

Then the Exalted said: {Authority, that Day, belongs to Allah, the True. He is best in reward and best in outcome} (18:44).

Issues of Recitation and Meaning (Verse 44)

Parable of Worldly Life (Verse 45)

{And present to them the parable of the worldly life, like rain which We have sent down from the sky, and the vegetation of the earth mingles with it, then it becomes dry stubble that the winds scatter. And Allah is over all things competent} (18:45).