| Q: (11) Sustenance for the Servants, and We Revived...

Then the Almighty said: {رزقا للعباد} (Sustenance for the servants). There are two possible interpretations for its grammatical case:

1. Accusative (Mansūb) as a Maṣdar (Verbal Noun): This implies that the act of causing growth (inbāt) is itself sustenance. It is as if He said: "We caused growth a growth as sustenance for the servants."
2. Accusative as Maf'ūl Lah (Object of Purpose): This means: "We caused growth for the purpose of providing sustenance to the servants."

Herein lie several issues:

Issue 1: Why specify "Sustenance" here, but "Admonition and Reminder" for the heavens and earth?

Regarding the creation of the heavens and the earth (Q: 8), He said: {تبصرة وذكرى} (Admonition and reminder). But concerning the fruits, He says: {رزقا} (Sustenance). Fruits certainly contain admonition and reminder, just as the heavens and earth contain benefits beyond mere admonition. What is the wisdom in choosing these two different descriptions?

We offer several perspectives:

1. Addressing Two Doubts: The disbelievers denied two things: Resurrection (the Afterlife) and Perpetuity after Resurrection.
   • Resurrection: God, capable of creating the heavens and earth, is capable of recreating beings after annihilation. This is covered by {تبصرة وذكرى} (Admonition/Proof of Creation).
   • Perpetuity: Sustenance in this world ensures continued existence. God, capable of bringing forth sustenance from stars and trees, is capable of sustaining people in Paradise eternally. Thus, the description of sustenance serves as a reminder of perpetuity through provision. This distinction is supported by the structure: He mentioned the heavens and earth first (proof of creation/resurrection), then began with water and its resulting growth (proof of sustenance/perpetuity).

2. Obvious vs. Hidden Benefits: The most apparent benefit of fruits is sustenance ({رزقا}). The apparent benefit of the heavens is less directly related to immediate human needs, as people might imagine their demise without crops but not necessarily without the sky above them, even though the sky is the primary cause of sustenance. Therefore, the most obvious benefit to the people in this context was mentioned. (Though fruits are not strictly necessary for life—as God sent manna and quails—their mention here highlights the immediate, tangible provision.)

3. Reference to the Denier: Stating {رزقا} (Sustenance) points to God being the Provider (Mun'im). Since their denial was extremely ugly, this description serves as a rebuke for denying the Benefactor, which is the ugliest form of denial.

Issue 2: The qualification of the recipient of the admonition vs. the recipient of sustenance.

He said regarding the heavens and earth: {تبصرة وذكرى لكل عبد منيب} (Admonition and reminder for every repentant servant) (Q: 8). He qualified the recipient of the admonition as munīb (repentant/turning back). However, regarding sustenance, He says: {رزقا للعباد} (Sustenance for the servants) absolutely, without qualification.

Answer: Sustenance reaches everyone. However, the munīb consumes it while remembering and thanking the Provider, whereas others consume it like cattle. Therefore, sustenance itself was not restricted by a qualifier.

Issue 3: The correspondence of the three elements mentioned.

In this verse, three things are mentioned: the growth of gardens, grains, and palm trees, just as three things were mentioned for the heavens and earth. We established that the three elements in the previous verses correspond to three categories. Do they correspond here as well?

Answer: We previously explained that the three elements refer to three categories of produce:

1. Those whose root remains for years without annual labor.
2. Those whose root does not remain and require annual labor.
3. Those combining both aspects.

No fruit or crop falls outside these categories, just as the benefits of the earth are categorized into three: the beginning (the flood/water), the middle (the growth of firm mountains/vegetation), and the culmination (growth and adornment with beauty).

Then the Almighty said: {وأحيينا به بلدة ميتا} (And We revived therewith a dead land), connecting it to {أنبتنا به} (And We caused to grow therewith) (Q: 9). This involves two discussions:

Discussion 1: The relationship between revival and growth.

If we hold that the evidence from rain and crop growth was for the possibility of perpetuity through sustenance, then {وأحيينا به} (And We revived therewith) should point to the evidence for Resurrection.

If someone argues: "How can you claim the rain/growth proves perpetuity when He immediately follows it with {وأحيينا به بلدة ميتا} (And We revived therewith a dead land) and then {كذالك الخروج} (Likewise will be the emergence)? This suggests the proof for perpetuity should come after the proof for resurrection, meaning He should explain revival first, then perpetuity."

Response: Since the evidence from the heavens and earth was sufficient proof for Resurrection, He mentioned the proof for perpetuity first. Then, He made a correction/addition: this proof that indicated perpetuity also indicates Resurrection, which is already strongly supported by two decisive proofs. Thus, He began by stating the proof for perpetuity ({وأنبتنا به جنات}), then reiterated the proof for revival ({وأحيينا به}).

Alternatively, if we argue that the rain/growth was not primarily for proving Resurrection: then {وأحيينا به} must be distinct from {فأنبتنا به} (And We caused to grow therewith). This distinction is valid because while both are related to water, they are different acts. One can say, "He went out for trade and went out for a visit." Similarly, revival is different from causing crops to grow. Revival (greening the earth and producing flowers) is broader than crops and trees, as it occurs everywhere, whereas crops are not universal.

If this is the case, why was revival mentioned after growth, when the greening of the earth precedes the appearance of crops?

Response: Because the growth of crops and fruits is a more complete blessing, it was mentioned first in the sequence.

Discussion 2: The use of the feminine tā’ in {بلدة ميتا} (a dead land).

Why is the tā’ (feminine marker) affirmed in maytatan (dead) when describing a feminine noun (baldah)?

Answer: Maytatan is a softening/abbreviation of mayyitah. Mayyit (with the tā’ omitted) is a fa'īl pattern, which can function as an active participle (fā'il). In this pattern, affirming the tā’ is permissible, similar to how the tā’ is sometimes omitted in the passive sense (maf'ūl), as in {ولا تفسدوا فى الارض بعد إصلاحها} (And do not cause corruption in the land after it has been set right) (Al-A'rāf: 56).

Why are the masculine and feminine treated equally in the fa'īl pattern when it means passive (maf'ūl)? Because the need to distinguish between the active (fā'il) and passive (maf'ūl) is stronger than distinguishing between a masculine passive and a feminine passive, both in meaning and form.

The fa'īl pattern, when meaning the active agent, does not inherently carry a distinguishing letter (like the tā’). Fa'īl can mean active (like naṣīr, helper) or passive (like kasīr, broken). It only gains a distinguishing letter in the stronger cases.

The deeper analysis is that fa'īl was originally established for a specific linguistic meaning, while maf'ūl was established for a concrete meaning. Fa'īl came to stand in place of maf'ūl. Since the change in form follows the change in meaning, maf'ūl changes because it corresponds to the meaning, but fa'īl did not change initially because it corresponded to the linguistic form.

If someone asks why this differs from {والأرض الميتة أحييناها} (And a sign for them is the dead earth; We revive it) (Yā Sīn: 33), where the tā’ is affirmed:

Response: In that verse, {الأرض} (the earth) is used primarily to denote the quality of being dead (maf'ūl), so the feminine marker is appropriate. However, in {بلدة ميتا}, the baldah (town/settlement) inherently implies life and habitation. Once the land becomes alive, people settle and build it up, making it a baldah. Since the meaning of active agency (life/habitation) is established, the tā’ is dropped because the fa'īl form meaning the active agent does not typically carry the tā’. This is confirmed by {بلدة طيبة} (a good land) (Saba': 15), where the tā’ is affirmed because the active meaning (goodness/suitability) is prominent. This is a subtle point.

Regarding the statement: {كذالك الخروج} (Likewise will be the emergence)

This means: Just as We revived the dead land, so too will be the emergence (Resurrection).

If someone objects: "Revival is analogous to bringing forth (ikhrāj), not emerging (khurūj)."

Response: The implied meaning is: "And We revived a dead land therewith, and plants split open and emerged from it; likewise, the dead will split open and emerge from the earth." This supports our earlier view that Rij'un (return) in {ذلك رجع بعيد} (That is a distant return) (Q: 3) means rujū' (returning/coming back). Since God explained what they found distant, if they denied the Rij'un (which implies a transitive action, ikhrāj), He should have said, "Likewise will be the ikhrāj (bringing forth)." By saying {كذالك الخروج} (Likewise the emergence), it confirms they denied the rujū' (the return/coming back).

There is a subtle point in the other view: They denied the Rij'un (transitive, meaning ikhrāj). God affirmed Khurūj (emergence). Both terms imply intensity, highlighting the eloquence of the Quran, even though it seems redundant. Rij'un and ikhrāj are like the cause of khurūj (emergence). If the cause is negated, the effect is certainly negated. If the cause exists, the effect might fail due to an impediment (e.g., "I struck it but it did not break"). If the effect exists, its cause must exist. If the cause is negated, the effect is certainly negated.

Since they denied the existence of the cause (the power to bring forth), they consequently denied the effect (the return/emergence). God affirmed both outcomes (khurūj) as they had denied both outcomes by negating the cause (ikhrāj).

! 7 < { Before them, the people of Noah, and the dwellers of the well, and Thamūd * and 'Ād, and Pharaoh, and the brethren of Lot * and the dwellers of the thicket, and the people of Tubba'—all denied the Messengers, so My threat was due.} > 7 !

<