| Al 'Imran: (9) Our Lord, indeed You are the Gatherer...

Know that this supplication is part of the discourse of those firmly rooted in knowledge. This is because after they asked Allah Almighty to protect them from deviation and to single them out for guidance and mercy, it is as if they said: The purpose of this request is not related to worldly interests, for they are fleeting and perishable. Rather, the greatest purpose relates to the Hereafter. We know, O our God, that You will gather people for recompense on the Day of Resurrection, and we know that Your promise is never broken and Your word is never false. Whoever deviates in heart will remain there in eternal torment, and whoever You grant success, guidance, and mercy, and make one of the believers, will remain there in eternal bliss and honor. Thus, the greatest purpose of that supplication pertains to the Hereafter.

Several issues remain in the verse:

Issue 1: His saying {Our Lord, indeed You are the Gatherer of mankind for a Day}

The meaning is: Gatherer of mankind for recompense on a Day about which there is no doubt. The phrase "for recompense" is omitted because the intended meaning is clear.

Issue 2: Al-Jubba'i said that the believers' speech ended at {for a Day about which there is no doubt}.

As for His saying {Indeed, Allah does not fail in His promise}, this is the speech of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. It is as if when the people said {Indeed, You are the Gatherer of mankind for a Day about which there is no doubt}, Allah confirmed them in that and supported their statement by saying {Indeed, Allah does not fail in His promise}, just as He narrated from the believers at the end of this Surah: {Our Lord, and grant us what You promised us through Your messengers, and do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed, You do not fail in [Your] promise} (Al 'Imran: 194).

Some scholars say that it is not unlikely for this to occur in the style of shifting from the third person (absence) to the second person (presence) in speech, and there are many examples of this in the Book of Allah, such as: {Until, when you were in the ships and they sailed with them by a good wind} (Yunus: 22).

If it is asked: Why did they say in this verse {Indeed, Allah does not fail in His promise} (using the third person 'Allah'), but in that verse they said {Indeed, You do not fail in [Your] promise} (using the second person 'You')?

I say: The difference, and Allah knows best, is that this verse is in a station of awe and majesty. That is, Divinity necessitates resurrection and gathering so that the wronged may receive justice from the wrongdoers, so mentioning His most magnificent Name was more appropriate in this context. As for His saying at the end of the Surah {Indeed, You do not fail in [Your] promise} (Al 'Imran: 194), that is a station where the servant asks his Lord to bestow favor upon him and overlook his sins. Thus, it was not a station of awe, so naturally, he said: {Indeed, You do not fail in [Your] promise}.

Issue 3: Al-Jubba'i used this verse as proof for the certainty of the threat (wa'id) against the sinners.

He argued that the threat falls under the term 'promise' (wa'd), citing the verse: {Have you found what your Lord promised you to be true? Say, "Yes." And a caller cried out among them, "The curse of Allah be upon the wrongdoers"} (Al-A'raf: 44) [Note: The excerpt quotes a slightly different phrasing, but the intent is clear: linking promise and what the disbelievers found true]. He argued that wa'd (promise), maw'id (promised time), and mi'ad (appointed time) are all the same. Since the verse states that Allah does not fail in the mi'ad, this proves He does not fail in the wa'id (threat).

The response: We do not concede that Allah absolutely promises punishment for sinners. Rather, that threat, in our view, is conditional upon the absence of pardon, just as it is, by consensus, conditional upon the absence of repentance. Just as you established that condition by a separate proof, so too do we establish the condition of the absence of pardon by a separate proof.

We concede that He threatens them, but we do not concede that the threat is included under the term 'promise'. As for His saying {Have you found what your Lord promised you to be true?}:

We ask: Why can this not be interpreted as in His saying {So give good tidings to them of a painful punishment} (Al 'Imran: 21) and {Taste! Indeed, you are the mighty, the noble} (Ad-Dukhan: 49)? Furthermore, why can it not mean that they expected their idols to intercede for them with Allah? In that case, the 'promise' refers to those benefits. The full discussion on the issue of the threat has already passed in Surah Al-Baqarah, concerning His saying: {But whoever earns a sin or an iniquity and then attributes it to an innocent person has certainly borne a slander and a manifest sin} (Al-Baqarah: 81).

Al-Wahidi mentioned another approach in Al-Basit: Why can this not be interpreted as referring to the promise made to the allies (awliya'), rather than the threat against the enemies? This is because failing to fulfill a threat is considered generosity among the Arabs. He said the proof for this is that they praise this quality. The poet said:

The debate between Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' and 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd is narrated: Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' said to 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd: What do you say about those who commit major sins? He replied: I say that Allah made a promise (wa'ada) and issued a threat (aw'ada), and He will certainly execute His threat just as He will fulfill His promise. Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' replied: You are an a'jam, not one whose tongue is foreign, but one whose heart is foreign. The Arabs consider retracting a promise to be meanness, but retracting a threat to be generosity. He recited:

Know that the Mu'tazila narrated that when Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' said this, 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd said to him: O Abu 'Amr, does Allah call Himself a liar if He does not carry out the threat? He replied: No. Then 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd said: Then your argument has fallen, and they said Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' was silenced.

In my opinion, Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' could have responded to this question by saying: You equated the threat with the promise, whereas I only mentioned this to clarify the difference between the two categories. This is because the promise is a right due to Him (from His creation), while the threat is a right due to Him (from Himself against the sinners). Whoever waives his own right has performed generosity and nobility, but whoever waives the right of another person, that is meanness. Thus, the difference between the promise and the threat is clear, and your analogy is void. I only mentioned this poetry to clarify this difference. As for your statement: If He did not act, He would be considered a liar and calling Himself a liar, the answer is: This would only be necessary if the threat were established definitively without condition. In my view, all threats are conditional upon the absence of pardon. Therefore, His not carrying it out does not necessitate falsehood in Allah's speech. This is what relates to this narration, and Allah knows best.

! 7 < { Indeed, those who disbelieve—their wealth and their children will never avail them against Allah at all, and those are the fuel of the Fire. } > 7 !

<