Tafsir of Ya seen 36:76

Surah Ya-Sin (36): Verses 76 onwards

{فلا يحزنك قولهم} (So let not their saying grieve you)

This addresses the Prophet (peace be upon him) concerning his Message. The fact that the address includes consolation for his heart is evidence of his selection and election by God.

{إنا نعلم ما يسرون وما يعلنون} (Indeed, We know what they conceal and what they proclaim.)

This statement has several interpretations:

1. God knows what they conceal of hypocrisy (ما يسرون) and what they proclaim of polytheism (وما يعلنون) concerning their Lord.
2. God knows what they conceal of their knowledge about you (the Prophet) and what they proclaim of disbelief in you.
3. God knows what they conceal of corrupt beliefs (ما يسرون) and what they proclaim of ugly deeds (وما يعلنون).

Then, after mentioning the sign from the horizons regarding the obligation of worship—by saying: {أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا خَلَقْنَا لَهُم مِّمَّا عَمِلَتْ أَيْدِينَا أَنْعَامًا} (Have they not seen that We created for them from what Our hands have made—livestock...) (Ya-Sin: 71)—He mentioned the sign from the selves (human beings).

He said: {أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الْإِنسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ} (Has man not seen that We created him from a sperm-drop?)

It is narrated that the intended meaning of al-insan (man) here is Ubayy ibn Khalaf, as the verse was revealed concerning him. He took a decayed bone, came to the Prophet (PBUH), and said, "You claim that your Lord revives these bones?" The Messenger of God (PBUH) replied, "Yes, and He will admit you to Hellfire."

It is established in the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) that consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the occasion. Do you not see that His saying: {قَدْ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ قَوْلَ الَّتِي تُجَادِلُكَ فِي زَوْجِهَا} (Certainly has God heard the statement of her who argues with you concerning her husband...) (Al-Mujadilah: 1) is general?

In this context, there are subtle points:

The First Subtle Point: His saying: {أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا خَلَقْنَا لَهُم مِّمَّا عَمِلَتْ أَيْدِينَا} (Have they not seen that We created for them from what Our hands have made...) (Ya-Sin: 71) refers to the disbelievers who deny and abandon the worship of God and take others as deities besides Him. Or, have they not seen the creation of livestock for them?

In this case, His saying {أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الْإِنسَانُ} (Has man not seen) is more general than {أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا} (Have they not seen), because the former addresses the human species in general, while the latter addresses a specific group of them. The reason for this generality is that the sign derived from the self is more comprehensive, complete, perfect, and binding. A person might be heedless of the blessings of livestock and their creation when they are absent, but he is never heedless of his own self, wherever and whenever he is. If he is absent from the animal and its creation, he is not absent from his own self. So, why does he not see that We created him from a sperm-drop, which is the most complete blessing? All other blessings follow his existence.

His saying {مِن نُّطْفَةٍ} (from a sperm-drop) points to the evidence within it: If his creation had been from different, varied substances, one might argue that bone was created from a hard substance and flesh from a soft one, and similarly for every organ. However, since his creation arose from similar parts (نُطْفَةٍ), yet resulted in varied forms, this indicates choice and power. This is what He alluded to by His saying: {يُسْقَى بِمَاءٍ وَاحِدٍ} (Watered with one water) (Ar-Ra'd: 4).

{فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ} (And suddenly he becomes an open disputant.)

There is a strange subtle point here: God mentioned the difference in the shapes of his organs, despite the similarity of the parts from which he was created, as a clear sign. Yet, there is something even clearer: his speech and understanding.

The sperm-drop is a physical substance. Suppose an ignorant person claims that it transformed into another physical body—but where do the rational faculty (القوة الناطقة) and the faculty of understanding (القوة الفاهمة) come from the sperm-drop? The origination of speech and understanding is more astonishing and stranger than the origination of the body and form. This is closer to perceiving the Power and Choice of the Creator.

His saying {خَصِيمٌ} (disputant) means eloquent/speaking (ناطق). He used the term Khasim because it represents the highest state of a speaker. A speaker talking to himself does not articulate his speech as clearly as when he speaks to others. Furthermore, when speaking to others, if he is not in a dispute (خصم), he does not exert himself in explanation as much as he does when arguing with an opponent.

His saying {مُّبِينٌ} (clear/eloquent) points to the strength of his intellect. He chose Ibanah (clarity/making manifest) because the intelligent person, when conveying understanding, is at a higher degree than when he is not, as the one who makes something clear has already grasped the matter himself and then manifests it.

Thus, His saying {مِن نُّطْفَةٍ} points to the lowest state he was in, and {خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ} points to the highest state he attained. This is similar to His saying: {ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً} (Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump of flesh...) (Al-Mu'minun: 14). The preceding stages—creation from a sperm-drop to a clot, and from a clot to a lump of flesh—indicate changes in the physical body. However, the creation from a sperm-drop to a speaking, rational disputant (خصيم مبين) indicates the emergence of the spiritual/intellectual faculty.

{وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلًا وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ} (And he presents for Us an example and forgets his own creation.)

This points to the proof of the Resurrection. In these verses until the end of the Surah, there are wonders and marvels, which we will mention as much as possible, God willing.

The deniers of the Resurrection are of two types:

1. Those who offered no proof or even a semblance of an argument, relying only on deeming it improbable and asserting necessity. This is the majority, evidenced by God recounting their denial using terms of improbability in many places, such as: {وَقَالُوا أَإِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَإِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ} (And they say, "When we are lost in the earth, are we then to be re-created?") (As-Sajdah: 10), and similar verses. Here, they said: {قَالَ مَن يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ} (He said, "Who will give life to bones while they are decayed?"), expressing improbability.

God first refuted their improbability by saying: {وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ} (and forgets his own creation). He forgot that We created him from dust and from a sperm-drop with similar parts, and then made for him varied organs and forms from the crown of his head to his feet. We did not stop there; We deposited in him what is not of the category of physical matter: speech and intellect, through which he deserved honor. If they are satisfied with mere improbability, why do they not find it improbable that the speaking, rational being was created from a filthy drop that was not originally a locus for life? And why do they not find the return of speech and intellect to the place they were in improbable?

Their improbability stemmed from the disintegration and scattering involved in the Return, as they said: {مَن يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ}. They chose the bone for mention because it is furthest from life due to the lack of sensation in it, and they described it with decay and crumbling, which strengthens the side of improbability.

God refuted their improbability by pointing to the Power and Knowledge inherent in the One who brings back the dead: {وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلًا} (And he presents for Us an example). This means he equated Our Power with their power, while forgetting His own wondrous creation and strange beginning.

2. Those who mentioned a semblance of an argument, though it ultimately reverts to mere improbability. This argument has two aspects: a) After non-existence, nothing remains; so how can existence be affirmed for non-existence? God answered this by saying: {قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا الَّذِي أَنشَأَهَا أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ} (Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time"). Meaning, just as He created man when he was not a thing worth mentioning, He will bring him back even if nothing remains worth mentioning. b) If a person’s parts are scattered to the east and west of the world, some ending up in the bodies of beasts and some in the walls of buildings, how can they be gathered? Even more extreme is the case where one human eats another, and the parts of the eaten person become part of the eater’s body. If the eaten person is brought back, his parts must either return to the eater’s body (leaving nothing for the eaten person’s organs to be formed from) or return to the eaten person’s body (leaving nothing for the eater’s parts).

God refuted this doubt by saying: {وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ} (And He is All-Knowing of every creation).

The explanation is that in the eater, there are original parts and superfluous parts, and similarly in the eaten. When one human eats another, the original parts of the eaten become superfluous parts of the eater, and the original parts of the eater are those he possessed before the eating. {وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ} means He knows the original from the superfluous. Thus, He gathers the original parts of the eater and breathes life into them, and He gathers the original parts of the eaten and breathes life into them. Similarly, He gathers the scattered parts in the lands and dispersed in the regions through His encompassing Wisdom and perfect Power.

Then, God returned to confirming what preceded regarding refuting their improbability and invalidating their denial and obstinacy. He said:

{الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ الشَّجَرِ الْأَخْضَرِ نَارًا فَإِذَا أَنتُم مِّنْهُ تُوقِدُونَ} (Who made for you from the green tree fire, and behold, you kindle from it.) (Ya-Sin: 77)