Surah Al-Qasas (The Stories): Verses 84–88

Translation and Exegesis

[84] Whoever brings a good deed will have [a reward] better than it,

[85] And whoever brings an evil deed, then those who did evil deeds will not be recompensed except for what they used to do.

It is known that after Allah (Exalted is He) clarified that the Hereafter is not for those who desire loftiness on earth or corruption, but rather for the pious, He then explained what they will attain, saying: {Whoever brings a good deed, he will have better than it}.

There are two interpretations for this:

1. The meaning is that whoever brings a good deed will receive something better than that word/deed itself.
2. He will receive something that is superior to that good deed, meaning they will be given an increase beyond their due reward. This has been previously explained at the end of Surah An-Naml.

As for His statement: {And whoever brings an evil deed, then those who did evil deeds will not be recompensed except for what they used to do}, its apparent meaning is that they will not be increased beyond what they deserve. If this is true for evil deeds, it indicates that what is meant by "better than it" for good deeds is the increase in favor over the reward, as we mentioned.

The author of Al-Kashshaf stated: The structure of the verse is as if it means: "And whoever brings an evil deed, they will not be recompensed except for what they used to do." However, this was repeated because attributing the commission of the evil deed to them twice serves to further shame their condition and increase the abhorrence of the evil deed in the hearts of the listeners. This is part of His great grace: He does not recompense an evil deed except with its like, but He recompenses a good deed tenfold.

Here are two questions regarding this:

Answer: This context is one of encouragement toward the Hereafter. Therefore, emphasizing the warning against disobedience is appropriate here, because emphasizing the warning against disobedience is an emphasis on inviting [people] to the Hereafter. As for the other verse (Al-Isra), it is an explanation of their state, so emphasizing the mention of their merits was more fitting.

Answer: This is because he was resolved that if he had lived forever, he would have continued saying that, so he was treated according to his resolve. Al-Jubba'i said: This indicates the falsehood of the doctrine of those who permit Allah (Exalted is He) to punish children eternally without any sin. We reply: He is not permitted to do that, and there is nothing in the verse that indicates it.

Then, after the Exalted and Sublime explained the matter of the Resurrection to His Messenger and elaborated on it, He explained what relates to his own circumstances, saying:

[86] Indeed, He who imposed the Qur'an upon you will surely return you to a place of return.

Abu Ali said: He who imposed its rulings and obligations upon you will surely return you after death to a place of return. The indefinite form of ma'ad (place of return) is used to magnify it, as if He said: "To a place of return—and what a place of return!" meaning, no other human being has one like it.

It is also said that it refers to Mecca. The reasoning is that His return to it on the Day of the Conquest (Fath) is intended. The reason for its indefiniteness is that on that day, it became a place of return for him of great significance due to the dominance of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) over it, his subjugation of its people, the manifestation of the glory of Islam, and the humiliation of the party of disbelief. Since the Surah is Meccan, it is as if Allah (Exalted is He) promised him, while he was in Mecca suffering harm and oppression from its people, that he would emigrate from it and would be returned to it openly, victorious.

Muqatil said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left the cave and traveled off the main road for fear of pursuit. When he felt safe, he returned to the road and stopped at Al-Juhfah, between Mecca and Medina. He recognized the road to Mecca and longed for it, mentioning his birthplace and his father's birthplace. Then Gabriel (peace be upon him) descended and said: "You long for your land and your birthplace?" He replied: "Yes." Gabriel (peace be upon him) said: "Indeed, Allah (Exalted is He) says: {Indeed, He who imposed the Qur'an upon you will surely return you to a place of return}, meaning to Mecca, victorious over them." This interpretation is closer because the apparent meaning of ma'ad is that he was there, departed from it, and then returned, which only fits Mecca. Although other interpretations are possible, this one is closer.

The people of realization said: This is one of the proofs of his prophethood, because he informed about the unseen, and it occurred exactly as he informed, thus being a miracle.

[87] Say, "My Lord is most knowing of who has brought guidance and who is in clear error."

The connection to the preceding verses is that Allah (Exalted is He) promised His Messenger the return to a place of return. He said: {Say} to the polytheists, {My Lord is most knowing of who has brought guidance}, meaning himself and what he deserves of reward in the Hereafter and the honor of being returned to Mecca, {and who is in clear error}, meaning them and what they deserve of punishment in their return.

[88] And you were not expecting that the Book would be conveyed to you except as a mercy from your Lord.

There are two interpretations for the word illa (except) here:

1. It is for exception. The author of Al-Kashshaf said: This statement is understood contextually, as if it means: "And the Book was not conveyed to you except as a mercy from your Lord." It is also possible to take it literally: "You were not expecting anything except that Allah would have mercy on you with His mercy, thus bestowing that upon you." Meaning, you were not expecting anything other than this.
2. Illa means lakin (but) for correction/stipulation. Meaning: "But it is a mercy from your Lord that He conveyed it to you." Similar to His saying: {Nor were you beside the Mount when We called, but [it is] a mercy from your Lord} (Al-Qasas: 46), He singled you out with it.

Furthermore, He tasked him with several matters:

1. He commanded him not to support the disbelievers: {So never be an assistant to the disbelievers}.
2. He commanded him: {And let them not turn you away from the verses of Allah after they have been revealed to you}. This refers to the inclination towards the polytheists. Al-Dahhak said this was when they invited him to their fathers' religion so they would marry him off and share half of their wealth with him. Meaning: Do not pay attention to them or lean towards their words, lest they turn you away from following the verses of Allah.
3. His saying: {And invite to your Lord}, meaning, to the religion of your Lord. This implies firmness in inviting the disbelievers and polytheists. Therefore, He said: {And never be among the polytheists}, because whoever is pleased with their way or inclines toward them becomes one of them.
4. His saying: {And do not invoke with Allah any other deity}. Although this is obligatory upon everyone, Allah (Exalted is He) addressed him specifically for the purpose of glorification.

If it is argued that the Messenger was known never to do any of these things, what is the purpose of this prohibition? We reply: Perhaps the address is to him, but the intended meaning is for others. Or, it could mean: Do not rely on anyone other than Allah, nor take anyone other than Him as a trustee in your affairs, for whoever trusts in other than Allah (Exalted is He) has not completed his path in monotheism.

Then He clarified that there is no god but Him, meaning: No one brings benefit or harm, nor gives or withholds, except Him, like His saying: {Lord of the East and the West; there is no deity except Him, so take Him as an agent} (Al-Muzzammil: 9). Therefore, it is not permissible to take any other deity.

Then He said:

[88] Everything will perish except His Face.

Regarding this, there are several issues:

Know that when the theologians sought to establish the proof that everything other than Allah (Exalted is He) is susceptible to non-existence and perishing, they argued: It is established that the universe is muhdath (created/originated). Everything that is muhdath has an essence susceptible to non-existence and existence. Everything that is like this must remain in this state forever, because possibility is inherent to the essence (māhiyyah), and the necessary consequence of the essence never ceases. However, when we examined this proof, we found it insufficient for this purpose, because they only established the origination of bodies and accidents. If they could prove that everything other than Allah is either a localized entity (mutaḥayyiz) or something subsisting in a localized entity, their goal would be achieved. But the opponent affirms entities that are neither localized nor subsisting in localized entities. Thus, the proof that establishes the origination of the localized and that which subsists in the localized does not establish the origination of everything other than Allah unless proof is established for the negation of that third category.

They have two ways to negate this third category:

1. Their saying: There is no proof for it, so it must be negated. This is a weak method whose downfall we have explained in the books of Kalam.
2. Their saying: If such an entity existed, it would share with Allah (Exalted is He) in the negation of space, time, and possibility. If so, it would become a peer to Allah (Exalted is He), which is weak, because it is possible to argue that even if they share in this negation, each one is distinguished from the other by a specific essence and reality.

If this is the case, it becomes clear that their rational proof is insufficient to establish that everything perishes except His Face. What should be relied upon in this matter is to say: It is established that the Creator of the universe is wājib al-wujūd (necessary in existence) in Himself. Therefore, the existence of another entity necessary in existence is impossible, otherwise, they would share in necessity and be distinguished from each other by a specific characteristic. That which is shared is different from that which distinguishes. Thus, each one would be composed of that which is shared and that which distinguishes. Every composite entity is possible and requires its parts. If the two parts were necessary, they would share in necessity and be distinguished by another consideration, leading to the composition of each part, resulting in an infinite regress, which is impossible. If they are not necessary, then the composite entity resulting from them, which requires them, is more likely not to be necessary. Thus, it is established that the Necessary in Existence is One, and everything else is possible. Every possible entity must have a determinant (murajjiḥ). Its need for a determinant is either in its state of non-existence or its state of existence. If it is the former, it is established that it is muhdath. If it is the latter, the dependence of the existing entity on the agent is either at the time of its origination or at the time of its subsistence. The latter is false because it implies bringing the existing into existence, which is impossible. Thus, it is established that the need occurs only at the time of origination. It is established that everything other than Allah (Exalted is He) is muhdath, whether it is localized, subsisting in a localized entity, or neither localized nor subsisting in a localized entity. If this proof is contrasted with the Essence and Attributes of Allah, know that there is a strong difference. Once the origination of everything other than Him is established, and it is established that everything that is muhdath is susceptible to non-existence, it is established by this clear proof that everything perishes except His Face, meaning its susceptibility to perishing and non-existence.

Those who interpreted the verse this way said this interpretation is superior because He ruled that they are perishing in the present, and according to our view, they are perishing in the present. According to your view (that they will perish), it means they will perish, not that they are perishing now. Thus, our view is superior.

Furthermore, when a possible entity exists as such, it does not inherently deserve existence or non-existence. This deserving quality belongs to it from itself. As for existence, it is conferred upon it from outside; existence is like a borrowed garment for it. As for the possible entity as such, it is like a poor person who borrowed a garment from a rich man; the poor person does not cease to be poor because of it. Similarly, possible entities are stripped of existence as such; existence is a garment obtained by loan, so it is correct to say they are eternally perishing as such.

As for those who interpreted it as meaning they will cease to exist, they argued that halāk in language has two meanings:

1. The exiting of a thing from being beneficial.
2. Annihilation and non-existence. They argued that the word cannot be applied to the first meaning because their perishing in the sense of exiting from the limit of benefit is impossible. Even if their parts scatter, they are still beneficial, because the required benefit is their being a sign from which the existence of the Ancient Creator can be inferred, and this benefit remains whether they remain scattered or gathered, or whether they remain existent or become non-existent. Since applying halāk in this sense is impossible, it must be applied to annihilation.

The one who interpreted halāk as scattering replied: The perishing of a thing is its exiting from the benefit for which the thing is sought. When a person dies, it is said he perished because the desired attribute was his life and intellect. When a garment is torn, it is said to have perished because the purpose was its suitability for wearing. Thus, when the parts of the universe scatter, the heavens, stars, mountains, and seas exit the attributes for which they were specifically beneficial. Therefore, it is correct to apply the name "perishing" to them. As for the validity of inferring the Creator from them, this benefit is not specific to the sun as the sun or the moon as the moon. Therefore, their remaining existence does not necessitate that the name "perishing" cannot be applied to them. They also used the verse {On the Day the earth will be changed to other than the earth} (Ibrahim: 48) as evidence that the parts of the universe remain, but they acquire a different attribute. This is what is in this section.

Their argument that He is not a shay' is based on His saying: {There is nothing like unto Him} (Ash-Shura: 11). The kāf (like) means "the like." The structure would mean: "There is nothing like His like." And the like of Allah's like is Allah. Therefore, Allah must not be a shay'. Reply: The kāf is an extra particle (ṣilah zā’idah).

And Allah knows best. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.