Al-Baqarah: (258 - 259) Have you not seen...

Know that the Almighty has mentioned three narratives here:

1. The first is to establish knowledge of the Creator.
2. The second is to establish the Resurrection, gathering, and revival. The first narrative concerns the debate of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) with the king of his time, which is this verse we are currently interpreting. We say:

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {أَلَمْ تَرَ} (Have you not seen)

This is an expression used to draw the attention of the addressee to something astonishing. Its form is interrogative, yet it functions like saying: "Have you not seen how so-and-so acts?" meaning, "Have you seen anyone acting like so-and-so?"

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ} (to him who disputed with Abraham concerning his Lord)

Mujahid said: He was Nimrod, son of Canaan, the first to become tyrannical and claim divinity. There is a difference of opinion regarding the timing of this dispute:

• It is said it occurred before Abraham broke the idols, prior to being cast into the fire (according to Muqatil).
• It is said it occurred after he was cast into the fire.

Hujjah (dispute/argument) means to overcome or overpower. It is said: Hajajtuhu fa-hajajtuhu, meaning, "I debated him, and I defeated him."

The pronoun in {فِي رَبِّهِ} (concerning his Lord) could refer back to Abraham, or it could refer back to the disputant. The former is more apparent, as in the verse: {وَحَاجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ قَالُوا أَتُحَاجُّونَنِي فِي اللَّهِ} (And his people disputed with him. He said, "Do you dispute with me concerning Allah?"). The meaning here is: "His people disputed with him concerning his Lord."

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {أَنْ آتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ} (that Allah had given him the dominion)

Know that there are two opinions regarding the pronoun hā (him) in ātāhu:

Opinion 1: The pronoun refers back to Abraham. They support this with several points:

1. The Almighty says: {فَقَدْ آتَيْنَا آلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَآتَيْنَاهُمْ مُلْكًا عَظِيمًا} (For We had certainly given to the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom and granted them a great dominion) (An-Nisa: 54), meaning authority through prophethood and establishment of God's religion.
2. It is not permissible for Allah to grant dominion to a disbeliever who claims divinity for himself.
3. The rule is that the pronoun refers to the nearest mentioned antecedent, and Abraham is the closest antecedent to this pronoun.

Opinion 2 (The view of the majority of commentators): The pronoun refers to the person who disputed with Abraham.

They respond to the arguments for Opinion 1:

1. Regarding the first argument: This verse indicates the dominion came to the family of Abraham, but it does not explicitly state it came to Abraham himself.
2. Regarding the second argument: The mulk (dominion) here means worldly power, capability, and expanse. Sensory evidence shows that Allah grants this to disbelievers. Furthermore, perhaps Allah granted him dominion while he was a believer, and he later disbelieved.
3. Regarding the third argument: Although Abraham is the closest, numerous narrations state that the one who disputed with Abraham was the king. Thus, referring the pronoun to him is preferable from this perspective.

Those holding Opinion 2 further argue their case:

1. The phrase {أَنْ آتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ} is open to three interpretations, all of which are sound only if the pronoun refers to the king, not Abraham:
   • Interpretation A: Abraham disputed with him because Allah gave him dominion, meaning the granting of dominion intoxicated him, leading to arrogance and rebellion, thus prompting the dispute. This suits an arrogant king.
   • Interpretation B: He disputed with Abraham as a form of thanks for the dominion Allah granted him, similar to saying, "So-and-so became my enemy because I treated him well," meaning he did the opposite of what was required (loyalty). This is like the verse: {وَتَجْعَلُونَ رِزْقَكُمْ أَنَّكُمْ تُكَذِّبُونَ} (And you make your provision [i.e., your gratitude] that you deny [Allah]) (Al-Waqi'ah: 82). This interpretation does not suit a Prophet, who must show the dispute both before and after receiving dominion. However, an arrogant king would only show such extreme defiance after receiving great dominion. Thus, this meaning only fits the arrogant king.

2. The purpose of this verse is to show the perfection of Abraham's stance in calling to the true religion. If the disbeliever was a fearsome sovereign while Abraham was not a king, this situation is more complete than if Abraham himself were the king. Since the disbeliever was a king, we must adopt the interpretation that the pronoun refers to him.

3. Abu Bakr al-Asamm argued that if Abraham were the king, the disbeliever would not have been able to kill one of the two men and spare the other; Abraham would have strongly prevented him, or the disbeliever would have been forced to seek refuge (from Abraham's power).
   • The Judge (Al-Qadi) finds this weak, arguing that Abraham might have been a king or authority in religion, capable of performing miracles, while the disbeliever was a tyrannical, powerful king, enabling him to kill one man. Alternatively, perhaps the king killed one man from a group of people, and the choice was his, or he paid blood money to spare the other.

Furthermore, the phrase {أَلَمْ تَرَ} is a report and a promise, and there is no evidence in the Quran that Abraham performed this action (i.e., being king). This concludes the discussion on this point.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ} (Have you not seen to him who disputed with Abraham concerning his Lord)

There are several issues here:

It appears this is the answer to a preceding, unmentioned question. Prophets were sent to call people to faith. When a messenger claims prophethood, the denier usually demands proof of the existence of a God. For instance, when Moses said, {إِنِّي رَسُولُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ} (Indeed, I am the messenger of the Lord of the worlds) (Az-Zukhruf: 46), Pharaoh asked, {وَمَا رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ} (And what is the Lord of the worlds?) (Ash-Shu'ara: 23). Moses then proved God's divinity by saying, {رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ} (Lord of the heavens and the earth). Similarly here, Abraham likely claimed prophethood, and Nimrod asked, "Who is your Lord?" Abraham replied, "My Lord is He who gives life and causes death." That initial premise was omitted because the context implies it.

Abraham's proof was extremely sound. Knowledge of God can only be attained through His actions, in which no created being shares. Life-giving and death-causing are beyond the capacity of creation. Knowledge following choice is necessary. Therefore, there must be another agent besides the visible capable beings—either a necessary agent (wajib) or a choosing agent (mukhtār).

• The necessary agent is false, as its permanence would imply the permanence of its effects; thus, life would never change to death, nor death to life.
• The choosing agent is correct. We observe in living creatures diverse organs in shape, quality, nature, and characteristic. The effect of a necessary agent cannot be like this. Therefore, we know that life-giving and death-causing require another agent acting through power and choice. This agent is Allah (SWT), and this is a strong, solid proof mentioned elsewhere in the Quran (e.g., creation of man, raising and lowering of status, creating death and life).

Someone might ask why death is mentioned before life in some verses (e.g., {كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنْتُمْ أَمْوَاتًا فَأَحْيَاكُمْ} (How do you disbelieve in Allah while you were dead and He gave you life?) (Al-Baqarah: 28), and {الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ} (Who created death and life) (Al-Mulk: 2)), and why Abraham praised God by saying: {وَالَّذِي يُمِيتُنِي ثُمَّ يُحْيِينِ} (And who will cause me to die and then bring me to life) (Ash-Shu'ara: 81), yet here life is mentioned before death: {رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ}.

Answer: When the purpose of mentioning the proof is to call to God, the proof must be maximally clear. The wonders of creation are more numerous and observable during life. Therefore, mentioning life first is necessary here.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي} (Abraham said, "My Lord is He who...)

It is narrated that when Abraham presented this proof, the disbelieving king summoned two men, killed one, and spared the other, claiming, "I too give life and cause death." I find this narration distant from the context. Abraham explained the true nature of life-giving and death-causing (as summarized in the proof above). If explained this way, it is impossible for an intelligent person to confuse God's creation of life/death with mere killing or sparing. It is unlikely the assembled crowd was so foolish as not to grasp this basic difference.

The intended meaning, Allah knows best, is something else. When Abraham proved life and death originate from God, the denier might have asked:

• Do you claim life and death originate from God without intermediary earthly or celestial causes? (This is impossible to prove.)
• Or do you claim they originate from God through intermediary causes (celestial or earthly)? (This does not prove your point, as humans can also cause life/death through intermediaries.) For example, sexual intercourse leads to a living child via earthly/celestial causes, and consuming poison leads to death.

When Nimrod posed this question in this manner, Abraham replied: Even if life and death occur through celestial conjunctions, those conjunctions require a directing agent. If the director of those celestial movements is Allah, then the life and death resulting from those movements are also from Allah. However, life and death caused by humans through celestial and elemental causes are not the same, because humans have no power over celestial conjunctions. Thus, the difference is clear.

If this is the case, the Almighty's saying: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ} (Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east) is not a second proof, but a completion of the first proof. Its meaning is: Even if life and death occur via the movements of the spheres, since the movements of the spheres are from Allah, life and death are also from Allah. As for humans, although life and death result from them via celestial and earthly means, these means are not within their power; therefore, the life and death resulting from humans are not of the same kind. This invalidates the objection against Abraham's proof. This is what I believe regarding the nature of this debate, not what is commonly known.

All reciters agree on omitting the alif of anā when connecting the word (in waṣl), except for what is narrated from Nafi' who affirms it before a hamza. The majority view is correct because the pronoun of the first person singular is anā (Hamza + Nūn). The alif is only added for the pause (waqf), just as the hā’ added for pause is dropped in waṣl. What follows in waṣl takes the place of the pause marker. Similarly, the alif of anā is dropped in waṣl because the following word connects to the preceding one, allowing pronunciation of what follows the initial hamza.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ} (Abraham said, "Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east; so bring it from the west.")

People have two approaches regarding this passage:

Approach 1 (The method of most commentators): When Abraham saw that Nimrod raised this doubt regarding the life/death proof, he shifted to another, clearer proof: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ}. They claim it is permissible for the arguer to shift from one proof to a clearer one.

• Objection: Why didn't Nimrod say, "Then let your Lord bring it from the west"?
  • Answer 1: This dispute occurred after Abraham survived the fire. Thus, it was known that He who could save Abraham from that great fire could bring the sun from the west.
  • Answer 2: Allah abandoned him and made him forget this objection to support His Prophet.

Approach 2 (The view of the verified scholars): This was not a shift from one proof to another, but the proof remained the same in both instances. The core proof is: We observe occurrences that creation cannot bring about, so there must be another agent—Allah (SWT). Examples of things creation cannot cause include: life/death, clouds, thunder, lightning, and the movements of the spheres and stars. An arguer should not shift from one proof to another, but if he uses an example to clarify his speech, he may shift from that example to another. What Abraham did was of the latter type: the proof was one, but the transition occurred when clarifying it, moving from one example to another. This view is better than the first and more fitting for the speech of the verified scholars.

However, both approaches face several objections:

Objection 1: If the challenger raises a doubt, the capable scholar must immediately answer to remove confusion. When the disbelieving king attacked the first proof/example, addressing that doubt became an immediate obligation. How could an infallible person neglect this duty?

Objection 2: When the opponent raises a question and the scholar shifts to another topic, it suggests the first argument was weak or invalid, and the scholar only realized its weakness when the opponent pointed it out. This might diminish the status of the Messenger.

Objection 3: Even if shifting from proof to proof, or example to example, is permissible, the subsequent point must be clearer and closer to the core issue. Here, creation has no power over life/death, but it has some power over moving bodies. It is not impossible to conceive of a great king whose body is greater than the heavens and who moves them. In this case, proving the Creator through life/death is clearer and stronger than proving Him through the rising of the sun. How could an infallible Prophet shift from the clearest proof to a hidden one that is inherently weaker?

Objection 4: The evidence of life/death for the Creator is stronger than the rising of the sun. We see changes and variations in the human being and his attributes; change strongly indicates the need for a powerful agent. The sun, however, shows no change in its essence, attributes, or path of movement. Thus, the evidence from life/death is stronger, and shifting from the stronger to the weaker is impermissible.

Objection 5: Since Nimrod did not hesitate to counter God's life/death with killing/sparing, how can we trust that when Abraham used the sun's rising as proof, Nimrod wouldn't say: "The sun rises from the east by my command. If you have a God, tell Him to make it rise from the west"? The verified scholars accepted this objection and stated that if Nimrod had asked this, it would have been obligatory for the sun to rise from the west. It is much easier to expose the flaw in his objection regarding life/death than to commit to making the sun rise from the west. If the sun rose from the west, the proof for the Creator would become the sun rising from the west, not its rising from the east, thus invalidating the second proof just as the first was invalidated. Furthermore, what evidence did Abraham have that abandoning the weak objection and admitting the need to shift to a second proof (which requires the sun rising from the west) was better? If the sun rose from the west, the second proof would also be lost. Committing to such pitfalls is unsuitable even for the least knowledgeable person, let alone the most learned scholar. Therefore, the interpretation agreed upon by the commentators is weak.

Our preferred explanation avoids all these objections: When Abraham used life and death as proof, the opponent raised a question unsuitable for the intelligent: If you claim life/death without intermediary causes, you have no way to prove it. If you claim it happens via celestial movements, humans experience something similar. Abraham replied that even if life/death occur via celestial movements, those movements are from Allah, so life/death are still from Allah. This differs from human action, as humans have no power over celestial movements. Under this interpretation, none of the aforementioned problems arise.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ} (So the one who disbelieved was utterly confounded)

This means he was overpowered, finding no speech or answer. It is like the verse: {بَلْ تَأْتِيهِمْ بَغْتَةً فَتَبْهَتُهُمْ فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ رَدَّهَا} (Rather, it will come upon them suddenly and bewilder them, and they will not be able to repel it) (Al-Anbiya: 40). Al-Wahidi mentioned three linguistic forms: bahata ar-rajul fa-huwa mabhūt, bahata, and bahut.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ} (And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people)

Our interpretation is clear based on the context. The Mu'tazilites, according to Al-Qadi, suggested several meanings:

1. He does not guide them to the proof or the truth because of their wrongdoing and disbelief, as He guides the believer. The disbeliever must inevitably be rendered helpless and silenced.
   • My comment: This is weak, as guidance to proof is only relevant where proof exists. There is no proof for disbelief itself.
2. He does not guide them to additional favors (altaf) because their disbelief and injustice have blocked their path to benefiting from them.
   • My comment: This is also weak. If those favors are rationally impossible for them, it is incorrect to say Allah does not guide them to them, just as one would not say Allah guides them to combine existence and non-existence.
3. He does not guide them to reward in the Hereafter or to Paradise.
   • My comment: This is also weak, as the context here concerns reasoning and acquiring knowledge, not Paradise.

I say: What suits the context is that since the proof reached such clarity that the opponent was confounded, yet Allah did not decree guidance for him, that clear proof benefited him nothing. This is similar to: {وَلَوْ أَنَّنَا نَزَّلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَكَلَّمَهُمُ الْمَوْتَى وَحَشَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ قُبُلًا مَا كَانُوا لِيُؤْمِنُوا إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ} (And even if We sent down the angels to them and the dead spoke to them and We gathered before them all things in front of them, they would not believe unless Allah willed) (Al-An'am: 111).

The Second Narrative

Its purpose is to establish the Resurrection. The Almighty's saying: {أَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَى قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} (Or like the one who passed by a town as it lay in ruins upon its roofs).

There are several issues in this verse:

Grammarians have three views on the inclusion of the kāf in {أَوْ كَالَّذِي}:

1. Meaning-based Conjunction: The preceding verse {أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ} (Have you not seen the one who disputed with Abraham) is understood in meaning as {أَلَمْ تَرَ كَالَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ} (Have you not seen like the one who disputed with Abraham). This verse is then conjoined based on meaning: "Have you seen like the one who disputed with Abraham, or like the one who passed by a town?" This is the view of Al-Kisa'i, Al-Farra', and Abu Ali al-Farisi. A parallel is {قُلْ لِمَنِ الْأَرْضُ وَمَنْ فِيهَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ * سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ} (Say, "To whom belongs the earth and whoever is in it, if you know?" * They will say, "To Allah."} followed by {مَنْ رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ * سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ} (Who is Lord of the seven heavens and Lord of the Great Throne? * They will say, "To Allah."). The meaning of the second question is "To whom belong the heavens?", so the answer is "To Allah."
2. Superfluous Kāf: The kāf is extra, and the meaning is: "Have you not seen the one who disputed with Abraham, and the one who passed by a town?" (The view of Al-Akhfash).
3. Implied Clause: We imply an extra clause: "Have you not seen the one who disputed with Abraham, and have you not seen one who was like the one who passed by a town?" (The view of Al-Mubarrad).

• View A (Majority of Mu'tazilite commentators, Mujahid): He was an infidel, doubting the Resurrection.
• View B (The rest): He was a Muslim. Some say he was Uzair (Ezra) (Qatadah, 'Ikrimah, Al-Dahhak, As-Suddi). Others say he was Armiya (Jeremiah) (Ata' from Ibn Abbas). Some identify Armiya as Al-Khidr (peace be upon him), a man from the lineage of Aaron (Muhammad ibn Ishaq). Wahb ibn Munabbih said Armiya was the Prophet sent when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Torah.

Arguments for him being a disbeliever (View A):

1. The Almighty recounts his words: {أَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَى قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ} (Or like the one who passed by a town as it lay in ruins). This implies he doubted God's power to revive after death, which is disbelief.
   • Rebuttal: Perhaps this occurred before he reached maturity. Counter-rebuttal: If so, God would not have made the Messenger wonder at his doubt, as a child's doubt is not worthy of astonishment. This doubt might not have been about God's power but about the usual course of habits (that such a ruined place rarely becomes inhabited again), similar to pointing at a mountain and asking when God will turn it to gold—not doubting God's power, but questioning the likelihood based on custom.
2. The Almighty said: {فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ} (And when it became clear to him). This implies clarity was absent before, which is weak, as clarity through reasoning might have been present, even if visual confirmation was not.
3. He said: {أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ} (I know that Allah is over all things competent). This suggests this knowledge only occurred at that time, which is weak; the observation only provided confirmation and certainty, not the origin of the knowledge.
4. He is grouped with Nimrod in sequence. This is weak, as the story of Abraham follows, suggesting he should be a Prophet like Abraham.

Arguments for him being a believer/Prophet (View B):

1. His statement {أَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَى قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ} implies he knew God and knew God can give life in principle. Singling out this specific instance for doubt only makes sense if he already admitted the general power to give life.
2. The question {كَمْ لَبِثْتَ} (How long did you stay?) must have a speaker. Since the preceding speaker was God, the implication is: God asked, "How long did you stay?" He replied, "A day or part of a day." Then God said, {بَلْ لَبِثْتَ مِائَةَ عَامٍ} (Nay, you have stayed one hundred years). This is confirmed by God saying: {وَلَنَجْعَلَكَ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ} (And We will surely make you a sign to the people). Only God can make someone a sign. Then God said: {وَانْظُرْ إِلَى الْحِمَارِ كَيْفَ نُنْشِزُهُ ثُمَّ نَكْسُوهُ لَحْمًا} (And look at your donkey; and We will make you a sign to the people). Clearly, God is the speaker here. This dialogue is not fitting for a disbeliever.
   • Rebuttal: Perhaps God sent an angel or messenger to speak on His behalf. Counter-rebuttal: The apparent meaning suggests the speaker is God Himself; diverting this to metaphor without evidence is impermissible.
3. His being restored alive, and his food and drink remaining unchanged, along with the donkey being restored to life after becoming dust, while he witnessed the reassembly of the donkey's parts—this is a great honor, unfitting for a disbeliever who died in doubt.
   • Rebuttal: Perhaps Allah brought these things into existence to honor another Prophet present at that time. Counter-rebuttal: No other Prophet is mentioned, and the story gives no indication of one. If the purpose was to honor and support another Prophet's message with a miracle, omitting the Prophet's name would be neglecting the main purpose of the speech, which is impermissible.
   • Further rebuttal: If he were a disbeliever, he would either have claimed prophethood before death (impossible, as prophethood serves a community, which is impossible after death) or after revival. If he claimed it after revival, the miracle preceded the claim, which is impermissible. Counter-rebuttal: Showing extraordinary acts through someone God knows will become a messenger is permissible in our view, resolving the question.
4. The Almighty said: {وَلَنَجْعَلَكَ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ} (And We will surely make you a sign to the people). This term is used for Prophets and Messengers (e.g., {وَجَعَلْنَاهُمَا وَابْنَهَا آيَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ} (And We made her and her son a sign for the worlds) (Al-Anbiya: 91)). This is a promise that he will become a Prophet. Moreover, this statement implies great honor, unfitting for one who died in disbelief and doubt about God's power.
   • Rebuttal: Perhaps being a sign means that people who knew him as a young man, seeing him after 100 years still young while his descendants aged, would recognize him as a sign of God's power and the prophethood of that era's messenger. Counter-rebuttal 1: The statement {وَلَنَجْعَلَكَ آيَةً} is a report that God will make him a sign, which occurred after He revived him and spoke to him. The one made a sign cannot be made a sign again. Thus, this must refer to an additional honor beyond the revival itself, invalidating their interpretation based on the revival alone. Counter-rebuttal 2: The phrase implies great honor, unfitting for one who died in disbelief and doubt.
5. Narration from Ibn Abbas regarding the reason for revelation: Nebuchadnezzar captured many Israelites, including Uzair, a scholar. Uzair entered the ruined town, tied his donkey, walked around, saw no one, and said, {أَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَى قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ} (not doubting God's power, but expressing astonishment based on custom). He ate fruit, drank juice, and slept. God caused him to die for 100 years while he remained young, unseen by humans, beasts, or birds. God revived him after 100 years, and a voice called from heaven: "O Uzair, how long did you stay?" He replied, "A day," then seeing the remaining sunlight, "or part of a day." God said, "Nay, you have stayed one hundred years. Look at your food and drink; they have not changed." He saw the figs and grapes as he left them. Then God said, "And look at your donkey." He saw it was white bones, scattered. He heard a voice: "O decaying bones, I am placing spirit into you." The bones joined, flesh grew, skin covered them, hair sprouted, and the spirit was blown in—and the donkey stood braying. Uzair prostrated, saying, {أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ} (I know that Allah is over all things competent). He returned to Jerusalem. The people said their fathers told them Uzair son of Sharhiya died in Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar had killed 40,000 Torah readers in Jerusalem, including Uzair. Since they didn't know he was a Torah reader, when he returned after 100 years, he re-taught them the Torah from memory, word for word. When compared to the buried Torah, they matched perfectly. At this, they said, "Uzair is the son of Allah." This narration is famous and indicates the passerby was a Prophet.

They differed on the village: Al-Iliya (Jerusalem) (Wahb, Qatadah, 'Ikrimah, Al-Rabi'), or the town from which thousands fled death (Ibn Zayd).

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} (as it lay in ruins upon its roofs)

Al-Asma'i said: Khawiya al-bayt means it became empty of its inhabitants. Al-Khawā is an empty stomach. The Prophet (PBUH) when prostrating, his sides would separate from his body (i.e., become empty). A collapsed house is called khawiya because it becomes empty of inhabitants. The stars khawat or akhawat if they fell without rain, meaning they became empty of rain. Al-'Arsh is the roof of the house, and al-'urūsh are the structures/roofs made of wood.

The meaning of {وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَى عُرُوشِهَا} is: collapsed, fallen, ruined (Ibn Abbas). There are interpretations:

1. Its walls were standing, but the roofs collapsed. Then the walls crumbled from their foundations and fell onto the collapsed roofs. Khāwiyah means uprooted, as in {أَعْجَازُ نَخْلٍ خَاوِيَةٍ} (trunks of palm trees, uprooted) (Al-Haqqah: 7). This is an excellent description of ruined dwellings.
2. It means it was empty of its roofs ({خَاوِيَةٌ عَنْ عُرُوشِهَا}), using ’alā to mean ’an (from), like {إِذَا اكْتَالُوا عَلَى النَّاسِ} (when they take by measure from people) (Al-Mutaffifin: 2), meaning from them.
3. It means the village was empty while its fruit-bearing structures (’urūsh) remained. This is more astonishing because usually, when a village is ruined, its fruit structures perish too.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {قَالَ أَنَّى يُحْيِي هَذِهِ اللَّهُ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا} (He said, "How will Allah give life to this after its death?")

As mentioned, if the passerby was a disbeliever, this implies doubt in God's power. If he was a Prophet, it implies astonishment based on custom, or a request for further proof for confirmation, like Abraham's request: "Show me how You give life to the dead." {أَنَّى} means "how," like {أَنَّى لَكَ هَذَا} (Whence is this for you?). Reviving the town means rebuilding it—when will Allah do that, implying He won't. So Allah showed him in his own person. The miracle of reviving the town was preceded by God causing him to die for 100 years (the story was mentioned).

• Objection: What is the benefit of God causing him to die for 100 years when proving revival after a day or part of a day would suffice?
  • Answer: Revival after a long interval is more intellectually distant than revival after a short interval. Furthermore, what is observed after a long interval is more astonishing than what is observed immediately.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُ} (Then He revived him)

This means He brought him back to life. The Day of Resurrection is called the Day of Ba'th (Resurrection/Sending forth) because people are sent forth from their graves. The root means to raise something from its place. He said {ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُ} and not {ثُمَّ أَحْيَاهُ} because ba'thahu implies he returned to his previous state—alive, rational, and ready for contemplation and reasoning about divine knowledge. If He had said aḥyāhu (revived him), these benefits would not have been achieved.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتَ} (He said, "How long did you stay?")

Abu Amr, Hamzah, and Al-Kisa'i recited it with idghām (merging the letters), while the rest recited it with iẓhār (clear pronunciation), due to the proximity or separation of the articulation points.

They all agree that the speaker was Allah (SWT). This was known because the address was accompanied by a miracle, and after revival, he witnessed the state of his donkey and the decay of its bones, realizing these extraordinary acts could only come from Allah.

There is a problem: Allah knew he was dead and knew that a revived person could not know the exact duration of his death (long or short). Why did He ask him the duration?

Answer: The purpose of the question was to draw attention to the occurrence of the miracles.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {لَبِثْتُ يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ} (I stayed a day or part of a day)

Whether the period of death was long or short, the situation was the same for him. He answered with the shortest possible duration, which was the certainty, or perhaps he died at the beginning of the day ("a day"), and upon seeing the remaining sunlight on the walls, he said, "or part of a day."

Answer: He answered based on his assumption (ẓann), and he is not held accountable for this "lie." This is similar to the Companions of the Cave who said, {لَبِثْنَا يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ} based on their perception, and Joseph's brothers who said, {فَقُولُوا ذَٰلِكَ وَمَا شَهِدْنَا إِلَّا بِمَا عَلِمْنَا} (So say that [we did not know], and we testify only to what we knew) (Yusuf: 81), based on the sign of the cup coming out of his sack.

The apparent view is that he knew the stay was due to death, because the primary purpose of his death and revival after 100 years was for him to witness revival after death, which requires knowing the stay was due to death. He also witnessed signs in himself or his donkey indicating this.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {قَالَ بَلْ لَبِثْتَ مِائَةَ عَامٍ} (He said, "Nay, you have stayed one hundred years")

The meaning is clear. It is said that ’ām (year) is derived from ’awm (swimming), because in it there is a long swimming where one cannot act.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {فَانْظُرْ إِلَى طَعَامِكَ وَشَرَابِكَ لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ} (And look at your food and drink; it has not changed)

Reciters differed on affirming the hā’ in waṣl for {لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ}, {اقْتَدِهْ}, {مَالِيَهْ}, {سُلْطَانِيَهْ}, and {مَاهِيَهْ}, despite agreeing on affirming it in waqf. Some affirm it in waṣl, others omit it.

Reasons for Omission (Hadhf):

1. Derivation from Sanah (year). Many say the root is sanwah. The hā’ is for pause (sakt) and not original.
2. Al-Farra' suggested the root of sanah is sanana. The nūn was dropped, and the hā’ of pause was added for waqf.
3. It is derived from {مِنْ حَمَإٍ مَسْنُونٍ} (from molded clay) (Al-Hijr: 26), where sann means pouring. The nūn was dropped, and the hā’ of pause was added.

Reasons for Affirmation (Ithbāt): The word is derived from sanah, whose root is sanahah, evidenced by the diminutive form sunayhiyyah. Thus, the hā’ in {لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ} is the lām (final letter) of the verb, and it is never dropped.

It means it has not changed. The meaning of lam yatassanah is that the years have not passed over it, so it is as if they never came. Al-Farisi suggested it means the drink did not evaporate (nadhb).

Two questions remain:

1. Since God said, "Nay, you have stayed one hundred years," He should have mentioned something confirming that long duration. {لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ} apparently confirms his claim of "a day or part of a day."
   • Answer: The stronger the doubt, the more impactful the removal of that doubt. God mentioned that the food and drink had not changed, which confirms his claim of a short stay. This increases his longing for the proof that resolves this confusion. Then God said, {وَانْظُرْ إِلَى حِمَارِكَ} (And look at your donkey), and he saw it was decayed bones. His astonishment at God's power increased: food and drink change quickly, while a donkey lasts long. He saw what should not last (food/drink) remaining, and what should last (the donkey) decayed. This solidified the argument in his mind and heart.
2. God mentioned food and drink, but the pronoun in {لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ} seems to refer only to the drink.
   • Answer: Food is described as unchanged just as drink is, especially if the food is delicate (like the figs and grapes mentioned). Ibn Mas'ud's recitation includes: {وَانْظُرْ إِلَى طَعَامِكَ وَهَذَا} (And look at your food, and this...).

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {وَشَرَابِكَ لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ وَانْظُرْ إِلَى حِمَارِكَ} (and your drink, it has not changed, and look at your donkey)

He learned the length of his stay by seeing his donkey's bones decayed and rotten. In reality, this does not prove the long duration by itself, because upon seeing the rotten bones instantly restored to life, he knew the Agent capable of that could instantly cause the donkey to die and its bones to decay. Thus, the donkey's bones cannot prove the long duration. Rather, the transformation of the donkey's bones back to life is a miracle proving the truth of what he heard: "Nay, you have stayed one hundred years." Al-Dahhak said the meaning is that his revival after death proved the truth of the Resurrection. Others said it was a sign because God revived him as a young man with a black head, while his descendants were old men with white beards.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {وَلَنَجْعَلَنَّكَ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ} (And We will surely make you a sign to the people)

We explained this means honor, veneration, and a promise of a high station in religion and the world, which is unfitting for one who died in disbelief and doubt about God's power.

• Objection: What is the benefit of the wāw (and) in {وَلَنَجْعَلَنَّكَ}?
  • Answer (Al-Farra'): The wāw is included because a verb with an implied subject follows. If He had said: "And look at your donkey, and We will make you a sign," looking at the donkey would be the condition, and making him a sign the consequence. This meaning is not intended. By saying {وَلَنَجْعَلَنَّكَ آيَةً}, the meaning is: We did what We did (causing death and revival) so that We might make you a sign. This is like: {وَكَذَلِكَ نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ وَلِيَقُولُوا دَرَسْتَ} (And thus do We present the signs so that they may say, "You have studied") (Al-An'am: 105), meaning: We presented the signs so that they might say you studied. Similarly: {وَكَذَلِكَ نُرِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ مَلَكُوتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلِيَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُوقِنِينَ} (And thus do We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he may be of those who are certain) (Al-An'am: 75), meaning: And We show him the kingdom so that he may be of those who are certain.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {وَانْظُرْ إِلَى الْعِظَامِ} (And look at the bones)

Most commentators agree the bones refer to his donkey's bones, the lām being a substitute for the pronoun (kināyah). Others say it refers to the bones of the man himself. They argue God revived his head and eyes, while the rest of his body was rotten bones, so he watched his own bones assemble. He also saw his donkey standing as he tied it, having eaten or drunk nothing for 100 years. The structure would be: "And look at your bones." This is the view of Qatadah, Al-Rabi', and Ibn Zayd, but I find it weak for several reasons:

1. His statement {لَبِثْتُ يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ} suits someone who sees no change in himself, thus thinking he slept for part of a day. It does not suit someone who saw his body parts scattered and his bones rotten.
2. Since God addressed him and he replied, the one revived must be the entire person. If the death applied to the whole, the revival must also apply to the whole.
3. The phrase {فَأَمَاتَهُ اللَّهُ مِائَةَ عَامٍ ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُ} indicates that the entirety of that being was revived and sent forth.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {كَيْفَ نُنْشِزُهَا} (How We raise them)

The meaning is: "How We revive them." It is said: Anshara Allah al-mayyit wa nasharahu (Allah revived the dead and spread him forth). God described bones as being revived in: {قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ * قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا} (He said, "Who will give life to bones while they are dust?" * Say, "He will give them life") (Ya-Sin: 78-79).

There are different readings:

• {نُنْشِزُهَا} (with zāy): Al-Farra' said this refers to spreading forth after folding. Life involves expansion of action, so while dead, he was folded; upon returning, he is spread out after folding.
• {نُنْشِزُهَا} (with zāy dotted above, read by Hamzah and Al-Kisa'i): Anshaza means to raise something. It means: How We raise them from the ground and return them to their places in the body, assembling some upon others.
• {نُنْشِزُهَا} (with zāy dotted above, read by Al-Nakh'i with fath on nūn and ḍamm on shīn and zāy): Al-Akhfash said this means to raise.

All readings converge on the meaning that Allah assembles the bones, attaches flesh, nerves, and skin, raising parts next to each other until they are properly structured.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ} (So when it became clear to him)

This refers back to the previous statement about passing by the ruined town. It means: When what he considered unlikely became evident. Al-Kashshaf suggested the implied subject of tabayyana (became clear) is the power of Allah, so the meaning is: When it became clear to him that Allah is over all things competent, he said: {أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ}. This deletion is forced, in my view. The correct view is that when the death and revival became evident through observation, he said: {أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ}, meaning: I have now witnessed what I previously knew through reasoning.

Hamzah and Al-Kisa'i read {قَالَ أَعْلَمْ} (Say: Know!) as a command. Two interpretations:

1. He commanded himself to know this.
2. Allah commanded him: "Know that Allah is over all things competent." This is supported by the reading of Abdullah and Al-A'mash: {قِيلَ أَعْلَمْ} (It was said: Know!). This is further supported by the parallel in Abraham's story where God concludes: {وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ} (And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise) (Al-Baqarah: 260). Al-Qadi preferred the first reading (as a statement), arguing that commanding something already known (since it became clear to him) is inappropriate, whereas reporting that knowledge was attained is permissible.

The Third Narrative

This also indicates the truth of the Resurrection:

{وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَى قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِنْ قَالَ بَلَى وَلَكِنْ لِيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَى كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ} (And [mention] when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." He said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask] so that my heart may be reassured." He said, "Then take four birds and tame them to yourself. Then place a part of them on every hill and summon them; they will come to you swiftly. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.")

This narrative is about Abraham's request for certainty regarding the Resurrection.