Surah At-Tur (The Mount): Verse 9

{The Day the heaven will be in turmoil (or move violently)...}

Issues Discussed Here:

Answer: The common view is that the accusative case is governed by an implied verb (فعل) that the context indicates. That is, the punishment will occur: {The Day the heaven will be in turmoil (or move violently)}.

However, what I believe is that it is governed by the verb implied in the statement: {And there is none to repel it} (At-Tur: 8). I say this because the punishment that occurs should happen on that Day. But the punishment that causes the terror is the one after the Resurrection. The turmoil of the heaven occurs before the Resurrection.

If we interpret it as: {There is none to repel it} on the Day the heaven is in turmoil, then it aligns with the meaning of: {But their faith was of no use to them when they saw Our punishment} (Ghafir: 85). It is as if Allah is saying: There is none to repel [the punishment] on that Day, which is when the heaven becomes turbulent in your sight, and the mountains move, and you realize that nothing will benefit or repel [the decree].

Answer: It means the heaven departing from its place, oscillating and surging.

You already know how weak the philosophers' view on this is, which we have refuted many times. The statement of Allah, {And the mountains will move with a movement}, indicates the opposite of their view. This is because they agree that the removal of a massive mountain from its place is permissible—and how could it not be, when they claim that the shaking of the earth, along with the mountains upon it, is caused by vapor accumulating beneath the earth, which moves it?

If that is the case, then we say: If the heaven is susceptible to motion by being moved out of its natural alignment, while the mountain is naturally stationary (as stillness is its disposition), and if a body accepts motion even though it is contrary to its nature, then it is more fitting that another body accepts motion even though it is in accordance with its nature.

Their claim that a body capable of circular motion cannot accept rectilinear motion is extremely weak.

The word {Mawr} (turmoil/surging) provides a significant benefit: the statement {And the mountains will move with a movement} might be an explanation of how the heaven is in turmoil. This is because when the mountains move and their inhabitants are moved with them, it becomes apparent that the heaven is moving in the opposite direction, similar to what a passenger on a ship observes: they see the stationary mountain appearing to move.

Thus, someone might say: The heaven appears to be in turmoil to the eye due to the movement of the mountains, just as the passenger on a ship sees the moon moving. If the heaven moves in this manner, there remains no escape or refuge, neither in the heaven nor on earth.

Answer: The cause is the power of Allah, the Exalted.

As for the wisdom behind it, it is to signal and announce that there will be no return to the worldly life. This is because the earth, the mountains, the heaven, and the stars are all for the inhabitation and benefit of humankind. If they are not to return [to this state], then there is no benefit left in them, so Allah destroys them.

Question: If someone asks: I was promised a discussion about Time from which the intelligent person can derive benefits in both wording and meaning, and this is the appropriate place for it. A verb is never connected to anything other than time; one says, "The day so-and-so leaves" (يوم يخرج فلان) and "The time so-and-so enters" (حين يدخل فلان). Allah says: {The Day the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness} (Al-Ma'idah: 119), and He says: {And the Day the heaven will be in turmoil}, and He says: {The Day He created the heavens and the earth} (At-Tawbah: 36). Furthermore, it is connected to a full sentence. What is the reason for this?

Answer: Time is the container for actions (الأفعال), just as place is the container for entities (الأعيان). Just as a substance (جوهر) cannot exist except in a place, an accident (عرض) cannot come into being except in time. Both concepts have caused great confusion among the created beings.

They argued concerning Place: If place is a substance, it must have another place, leading to an infinite regress. If it is an accident, an accident requires a substance, and a substance requires a place, leading to a cycle or regress. If it is neither substance nor accident, then the substance exists in something non-existent or something that cannot be pointed to, which is not the case.

They argued concerning Time: If time is not renewed, it is like continuous matters, and pastness and futureness cannot be established within it. If it is renewed, then every renewed thing is in time, so time must have another time, leading to infinite regress.

The philosophers committed to infinite regress in times, which led them to assert the eternity of the world. Yet, they did not commit to infinite regress in places, differentiating between them without a valid reason. Some committed to infinite regress in both, asserting eternity and infinite temporal extension, and infinite spatial dimensions. Although they disagree with us on both issues (while philosophers agree with us on one but not the other), they followed the path of illusion and did not leave themselves an escape route regarding the necessity of temporal limits.

If it is asked: What preceded the very first renewed thing? We say: Nothing preceded it. If it is asked: Did its non-existence precede it, or did its non-existence precede its non-existence? We say: Our statement, "Nothing preceded it," is more general than your statement, "Its non-existence preceded it." For if we say, "Before Adam, there was no animal with a thousand heads," we are truthful, but this does not imply that "Adam preceded an animal with a thousand heads" or "an animal with a thousand heads came after Adam," because that animal never existed, neither before nor after, and never came into existence eternally. The same applies to our statement.

If it is argued: This is not correct, because Allah is an existing thing and He preceded the world. We say: Our statement, "Nothing preceded the first renewed thing," means nothing preceded it temporally. As for Allah, nothing preceded Him temporally, because Allah existed when there was no time, and time came into existence with the first renewed thing.

If it is asked: What is the meaning of Allah existing before everything else? We say: It means Allah existed, and nothing else existed.

Do not say: What you mentioned proves one thing by another, and that thing is only proven by what you seek to prove. The beginning of time is your goal, and it is built upon the first renewed thing, and the dispute is about the first renewed thing. For the opponent claims there is no first renewed thing in existence; rather, before every renewed thing, there was something else. We say: We did not mention that as proof; rather, we mentioned it to clarify that no obligation is placed upon us if we assert creation and the finitude of dimensions, and thus the initial argument stands. Then they insist and say: Do you not say that we have a first renewed thing? So say to it, "Its non-existence"? We say: No, rather, nothing preceded it in time. This constitutes a general negation, which is only due to the non-existence of time, as we mentioned in the example.

Once you understand this, time sometimes exists concurrently with an accident, and sometimes it exists after an accident, because our day and other days are distinguished by the first renewed thing, and the first renewed thing has a time concurrent with it.

If you realize that time and place are problematic for some understandings, and that hidden matters are known through description and relation: If you say "a boy" (غلام), it is not fully understood. But if you describe him or relate him, saying "a young boy" or "an old boy," or "a white boy" or "a black boy," it becomes closer to understanding. Similarly, if you say "Zayd's boy," it becomes clearer.

It was necessary for time to be known by what is specific to it, because past, future, and present actions are specific to times, while the masdar (verbal noun/infinitive) has an absolute time. If you say "the time of leaving" (زمان الخروج), it is distinguished from "the time of entering" and others. If you say "the day he left" (يوم خرج), it conveys what "the day of leaving" conveys, with the added benefit that it is distinguished from "the day he is leaving" (يوم يخرج). Relating it to something that provides stronger distinction is preferable, just as if you say "a man's boy," you distinguish him from "a woman's boy," and if you say "Zayd's boy," you add more meaning, which is better. Similarly, our statement {the day he left} (يوم خرج) to define that specific day is better than saying "the day of leaving" (يوم الخروج).

From this discussion, it is clear that time is related to the verb, and other things are not related to it, except place in the statement "Sit where he sits" (اجلس حيث يجلس), because haythu (where) is related to sentences due to the similarity between the container of place and the container of time. Sentences are only valid through their inclusion of a verb; therefore, one does not say "The day of Zayd is your brother" (يوم زيد أخوك), but rather, "The day Zayd is in it, he is leaving" (يوم زيد فيه خارج).

The particle لات (Lāta) is exclusively used for time. Allah says: {And no time for escape} (وَلَاتَ حِينَ مَنَاصٍ) (Sad: 3). One does not say, "Lāta the man is bad" (لات الرجل سوء). This is because time is renewed after renewal; after annihilation, there is no other life, and after every motion, there is another motion, and after every time, there is another time. This is indicated by Allah's statement: {Every day He is in a new state} (Ar-Rahman: 29). Meaning, before creation, He did not create anything, but He continuously creates one thing after another. After our life comes death, after our death comes life, after our life comes reckoning, and after reckoning comes eternal reward or necessary punishment. Allah never ceases action. Since time is distant from negation (in the sense of being continuous), an extra letter (ت) was added to the negative particle (لا).

If it is argued: Allah is more distant from non-existence, so the ت should not have been added to لا in that word. We reply: {Lāta hīna manāṣin} is an interpretation (تأويل), and what you mentioned does not apply to it. The common interpretation is that لات is analogous to ليس (is not), meaning: "The time is not a time for escape." This is why it is specific to حين (a specific time/moment) rather than يوم (day) or ليل (night), because حين implies a longer duration than day and night, as day and night may cease, but حين (a moment) persists.

Verse 10:

{So woe, that Day, to the deniers,} {Who are in amusement, playing.}