Qāf: (2) Nay, they marveled that...

This means they were not content with mere doubt regarding the truthfulness of the command and discarding it as impossible; rather, they affirmed the opposite, considering it one of the astonishing matters.

If it is asked: What is the wisdom in this great conciseness in one place, where the object of the oath (the muqsam 'alayh) and the thing being turned away from (the muḍrab 'anhu) are omitted? And a matter is brought forth that is not understood except after great contemplation, and is not understood with contemplation except through rare divine guidance?

We say: The object of the oath is omitted because omitting it in some contexts implies a grandeur that is not conveyed by mentioning it. This is because if someone praises a great king in a gathering, he has magnified him. If another person then says that the king is not mentioned in this gathering, this indication to refrain from mentioning him points to a greatness surpassing what the first person achieved by mentioning him. Thus, Allah Almighty says this to indicate that your prophethood is too manifest to be mentioned.

As for omitting the thing being turned away from: When the thing being turned away from is mentioned and then abandoned in favor of something else, this is appropriate only if there is some degree of difference between the two mentioned things. If the difference is vast, it is not appropriate to mention both with abandonment. For example, it is appropriate to say, "The minister honors so-and-so; nay, the king honors him." It is not appropriate to say, "The doorkeeper honors so-and-so; nay, the king honors him," because the gap between them is too wide. Abandonment (the iḍrāb) is for gradation. When the speaker omits the thing being turned away from explicitly and uses the particle of abandonment, two things are inferred: First, it points to another matter preceding it. Second, it establishes a great disparity between the two, like the difference between something that is mentioned and something that is not. Here too, doubt after clear proof is remote, but affirming the opposite is the furthest possible degree of remoteness.

The particle an with a verb is equivalent to mentioning the verbal noun (the maṣdar). You say: "I commanded that I stand" (amartu bi-an aqūma) and "I commanded the standing" (amartu bi-l-qiyāmi). Similarly, you say: "His response was nothing other than that he said..." (mā kāna jawābuhu illā an qāla...) and "His response was nothing other than his saying..." (mā kāna jawābuhu illā qawluhu...).

If this is the case, why is it not reduced to bringing the verbal noun, as it is permissible to say, "I commanded that I stand" (amartu an aqūma) without the particle bi (the preposition lām), but it is not permissible to say, "I commanded the standing" (amartu al-qiyāma)? Rather, the bā’ is necessary.

Therefore, they say: They marveled at his coming (maji’uhu). We say: {an jā’ahum} (that he came to them), although in meaning it stands in place of the verbal noun, yet in form it is a verb and a particle. All transitive particles are prepositions (ḥurūf jārr), and a preposition cannot enter upon a verb. Thus, it was necessary that it not enter, or at least that its non-entry be permissible. So, it was permissible to say {ʿajībū an jā’ahum} (they marveled that he came to them), but it is not permissible to say ʿajībū majī’ahum (they marveled at his coming) because there is no impediment to introducing prepositions to the verbal noun.

As for affirmation: This is because they used to say: {Shall we follow a mere mortal from among us?} (Al-Qamar: 24) and {They said, 'You are naught but mortals like us'} (Yā-Sīn: 15), indicating: How is it permissible for you to be singled out for this high station while we share the same essential nature and consequences?

As for invalidation: If he was one of them, appearing among them, and demonstrated what they, and those after them, were incapable of, they ought to have said: "This is not from him, nor from anyone of our kind; it is from Allah." This is unlike if someone from a different species came to them and did what they were incapable of; then they would say, "We cannot do it, because every species has a specific characteristic." For instance, the ostrich’s characteristic is to belch fire, and birds’ characteristic is to fly in the air, which the son of Adam cannot do.

If it is argued: Invalidation is permissible because their statement was false. But how is it permissible to affirm falsehood? We reply: That which clarifies the falsehood of a statement must present it in the most eloquent manner possible, mentioning everything that might be imagined as proof for it, and then refuting it. Therefore, He said they marveled because he was from them. This is, in reality, the reason for this astonishment.

If it is argued: The Prophet (peace be upon him) was a bearer of good tidings and a warner. Allah Almighty in all instances presented his being a bearer of good tidings before his being a warner. Why was it not mentioned: "They marveled that a bearer of good tidings from among them came to them?" We reply: Since a specific occasion for bearing good tidings had not yet materialized, in their case, he was exclusively a warner.

Al-Zamakhshari said this is another astonishment regarding another matter, which is the Resurrection, alluded to by their statement: {When we die and become dust—that is a distant return} (Qāf: 3). Thus, they marveled at him being a warner about the occurrence of the Resurrection. This is supported by looking at the beginning of Sūrat Ṣād, where He says: {And they marveled that a warner had come to them} (Ṣād: 4), and {Shall he make the gods one God? Indeed, this is a marvelous thing!} (Ṣād: 5). He mentioned their astonishment regarding two matters.

The apparent meaning is that their statement {This is a strange thing!} refers to the coming of the warner, not the Resurrection. The reasons supporting this are:

1. There, {Indeed, this is a marvelous thing!} was mentioned after the denouncing question: {Shall he make the gods one God? Indeed, this is a marvelous thing!}. Here, He says {This is a strange thing!} (hādhā shay’un ʿajīb), and the thing referred to could only be the coming of the warner. Then they said: {When we die and become dust—that is a distant return}.
2. Here, after the rejection expressed through the question, there follows a statement conveying the meaning of astonishment: their saying {That is a distant return}. This is a rejection/disbelief, which is akin to astonishment. If the astonishment also referred to it (the Resurrection), it would be redundant repetition.

If it is argued: Explicit repetition results if we make {This is a strange thing!} refer to the coming of the warner, because their astonishment at it is already known from {Nay, they marveled}. Thus, {This is a strange thing!} would be repetition. We reply: That is not repetition, but rather affirmation (taqrīr). This is because when He said {Nay, they marveled} using the verb form, it is possible for a person to marvel at something that is not truly astonishing, as Allah Almighty said: {Do you marvel at the command of Allah?} (Hūd: 73). And conventionally, one might say, "There is no reason for your marveling at something that is not marvelous." So, when they marveled, they were told their action and marveling were baseless. They replied: {This is a strange thing!}—so how can we not marvel at it?

This is supported by the fact that Allah Almighty said here {So the disbelievers said} using the particle fā’ (so/then), whereas in Sūrat Ṣād He said {And the disbelievers said, "This is a sorcerer, a liar"} (Ṣād: 4). This is because their statement {sorcerer, a liar} was obstinacy, not directly resulting from what preceded it. However, {This is a strange thing!} is a matter resulting from what preceded it: they marveled and denied him, so they said, {This is a strange thing!}—so how can we not marvel at it?

This is also supported by Allah’s saying: {That is a distant return} (Qāf: 3), using the demonstrative pronoun dhālika (that), which points to something distant. {Hādhā} (this) points to something present and near. Therefore, the object pointed to by dhālika should be different from the object pointed to by hādhā, and this is only correct according to our view.