Qāf: (5) Nay, they denied the truth...

And His saying, the Exalted: {Nay, they denied the truth} (50:5).

This is a refutation against them. If it is asked: What is being denied? We have two views:

1. The meaning is: The warner did not lie; rather, they lied. This is because when He stated that they said, {This is a strange matter} (50:2), it implied that they considered the warner a liar. Thus, the Almighty said: The warner did not lie; rather, they lied.

If it is asked: What is "the Truth" (al-Ḥaqq)? It admits of several interpretations:

1. The clear proof (al-Burhān) establishing the truthfulness of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
2. The revealed Criterion (al-Furqān), which is close to the first, as it is proof.
3. The Prophethood (al-Nubuwwah) established by overwhelming miracles, for it is truth.
4. The Resurrection (al-Ḥashr), which must occur, for it is truth.

If it is asked: Explain the meaning of the preposition bā' (in bil-Ḥaqq - "with the truth") and what necessity there is for it, since the verb "to deny" (kadhaba) is transitive by itself. Is the bā' for a second object, or is it superfluous, as in His saying: {Soon you will see, and they too will see, by which of you is the afflicted?} (Al-Qalam: 5-6)?

We have a detailed discussion on this. In this context, the bā' is used to manifest the meaning of transitivity. This is because "denial" (takdhīb) is attributing falsehood. However, attribution can relate either to the speaker or to the statement. You say: "So-and-so called me a liar, and I was truthful," and you say: "So-and-so denied the statement of so-and-so." It is also said: kadhaba-hu, meaning "he made him a liar." You might say: "I told so-and-so, 'Zayd will come tomorrow,' and he deliberately delayed until he called me a liar and called my statement a lie."

Denying the speaker is used both with and without the bā'. Allah says: {Thamūd denied the Messengers} (Ash-Shu‘arā’: 141), and {Thamūd denied the warnings} (Al-Qamar: 23). Denying the statement is also used in both ways, but using the bā' is more common when denying the speaker. For example: {So they denied him} (Al-A‘rāf: 64), and {And if they deny you, then messengers before you were denied} (Fāṭir: 4), and so on. When denying the statement, using the bā' is more common: {They denied all Our signs} (Al-Qamar: 42), and {Nay, they denied the Truth}, and {And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allah or denies the truth when it has come to him?} (Az-Zumar: 32).

The precise analysis is that the direct object (maf‘ūl muṭlaq) is the verbal noun (the maṣdar), as it is what originates from the agent. If someone strikes, nothing originates from him except the striking, although it has a location where it falls, which is called the struck object. When the location is explicit, it dispenses with the preposition, and the verb is made transitive without a particle, e.g., ḍarabtu ‘amran (I struck Amr) and sharibtu khamran (I drank wine), because it is understood that striking requires a subject, and drinking requires a drink in which it occurs. However, if you say marartu (I passed by), the preposition is needed to show the meaning of transitivity because it is not inherent in the word itself. If you say marra as-saḥāb (the clouds passed), you understand passing, but not who or what they passed by.

A verb might be explicit enough (like striking or drinking) or less explicit (like passing by). If it is more explicit than "passing by," the preposition can be omitted. If it is less explicit than "striking," the preposition can be included. Therefore, you cannot say ḍarabtu bi-‘amrin unless you mean Amr was the instrument of striking (like striking with Amr). If you strike him with a whip (bi-sawṭ), you do not add the bā' to the direct object. Similarly, you cannot say marartu bihi (I passed by him) unless the context implies participation.

You say masaḥtuhu (I wiped him) and masaḥtu bihi (I wiped with it), and shakartuhu (I thanked him) and shakartu lahu (I gave thanks to him). Wiping involves moving the hand over something, making it similar to passing by. Gratitude (shukr) is a beautiful action, but it occurs to a benefactor. The root of gratitude is the beautiful action itself, and the fact that it relates to another party, unlike striking, which is the forceful contact of one body with another. The struck object is inherently part of the concept of striking, whereas the beneficiary is secondary to the concept of gratitude.

Knowing this, the denial directed at the speaker is explicit, as he is the one who is truthful or false. Denying the statement is less explicit, which is why using the bā' is more common in that case, and the bā' serves to manifest the meaning of transitivity.

And His saying {when it came to them} (lammā jā’ahum). There are two views regarding the subject (al-jā’ī):

1. It refers to the denier. The meaning is: They denied the Truth when the Truth came to them, meaning they did not postpone their denial for reflection and contemplation.
2. The one who came (al-jā’ī) here is the one who came in His saying: {Nay, they wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves} (50:2). The meaning is: They denied the Truth when the warner came to them.

The first view is incorrect if we hold that "the Truth" means the Resurrection, because they do not deny it at the moment it comes; rather, they say, {This is what the Most Merciful promised} (Yā-Sīn: 52).

And His saying: {so they are in a confused state} (fī amrin marīj), meaning mixed up or confused. Al-Zajjāj and others said this is because they sometimes call him a sorcerer, sometimes a poet, sometimes attribute it to soothsaying, and sometimes to madness.

The sounder view is that this describes the variation mentioned in the preceding verses. This is because His saying, {Nay, they wonder}, indicates a prior matter that was omitted, which we mentioned was doubt. The context is: "By the glorious Qur'an, indeed you are a warner, and they doubted you; nay, they wondered; nay, they denied." These are three stages: doubt, above that is wonder (because the doubter considers both possibilities equal, while the wonderer leans toward the non-occurrence of the astonishing thing but does not cut it off), and above that is denial (who asserts the opposite). It is as if they were doubtful, then became conjectural, then became certain. Thus, He said: {so they are in a confused state}.

The fā’ in {so they are} (fa-hum) indicates that their being in a confused state is consequent upon what preceded. In what they uttered, there was no such sequence.

If it is asked: Marīj means mixed up, but these matters (doubt, conjecture, certainty) are ordered and distinct according to reason, as the doubter eventually reaches the degree of conjecture, and the conjecturer reaches certainty, and certainty eliminates conjecture, and conjecture eliminates doubt. What they mentioned involves confusion because they had no order in this; rather, sometimes they said "soothsayer," sometimes "madman," then they would revert to attributing it to soothsaying after madness, and to poetry after sorcery, and to sorcery after poetry. This is the marīj.

We say: They ought to have moved from doubt to conjecture regarding his truthfulness, given their knowledge of his trustworthiness and avoidance of lying throughout his life among them. And from conjecture to certainty regarding his truthfulness, due to the manifestation of overwhelming miracles through his hands and tongue. Since they altered this sequence, confusion (marj) afflicted them, and they reached a low state along with confusion.

As for what they mentioned (calling him a sorcerer, poet, etc.), it is more appropriate to interpret His saying: {Indeed, you are in a divergent saying} (Adh-Dhāriyāt: 8), because what issued from them concerning him was divergent speech. Doubt, conjecture, and certainty are different matters.

There is a subtle point here: The use of the term marīj for their conjecture and certainty implies that this certainty was not sound, because sound certainty does not change. What they held was necessarily subject to change, so their state was turbulent. This is unlike the successful believer, in whose belief there is no hesitation, and whose conviction is not multiple.

7 < { Have they not looked at the heaven above them—how We constructed it and adorned it, and it has no cracks? } > 7 !