Tafsir of An-Najm 53:25

Surah An-Najm (The Star): Verse 25

{فَلِلَّهِ الْآخِرَةُ وَالْأُولَى} (To Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life].)

There are several issues concerning this verse:

There are several interpretations regarding the connection implied by the particle Fa (then/so):

1. Consequence of Disbelief: It implies that if a person chooses a deity in this worldly life based on their desires and whims, then to Allah belong both the Hereafter and the first life. He will punish them for their actions in this world, and if not in this world, then in the Hereafter. The subsequent verse (mentioning the angels) confirms this, meaning their punishment will occur, and no intercession will benefit them.
2. Refutation of Shirk (Polytheism): Since Allah has established that taking Al-Lāt and Al-‘Uzzā as deities is based on mere conjecture and self-desire, He affirms: If you do not realize this truth, then know that the Hereafter and the first life belong solely to Allah. These idols have no authority whatsoever, so how can partnership (Shirk) be permissible? If they claim these idols are their intercessors because they resemble near angels, then Allah responds: {And how many an angel is in the heavens whose intercession is of no avail...} (An-Najm: 26).
3. Consolation for the Prophet (PBUH): This serves as consolation for the Prophet (PBUH). After establishing his prophethood and the Oneness of Allah, yet facing disbelief, Allah says: Do not grieve, {To Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life]}. Meaning, they cannot frustrate Allah’s plan.
4. Conclusion Following Proof: This verse presents a conclusion based on the preceding evidence. Since Allah demonstrated the truthfulness of the Prophet’s message (e.g., {He is naught but a revelation revealed} [An-Najm: 4]) and the principle of Tawhid (Oneness of God), He states: {To Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life]}. This is because the Prophet informed you about the Resurrection, proving his truthfulness.
5. Response to the Disbelievers' Claim: The disbelievers used to say to the believers, "Are these [believers] better guided than us?" and {If it had been good, they would not have preceded us to it} (Al-Ahqaf: 11). Allah responds: Allah chose for you the worldly life and granted you wealth, yet you complain that He did not grant the believers some of that. You even say, "If Allah had willed, He would have enriched them." You have confirmed this reality: {To Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life]}. Say regarding the Hereafter what you said regarding the world: Allah guides whom He wills, just as He enriches whom He wills.

What is the Sifah (adjective/attribute) for? We say it is an attribute of Al-Hayāh (life) or Ad-Dār (the abode). It is a Ism Fā’il (active participle) derived from a verb that is not in common use. One would say Akhartuhu fa-ta’akhkhara (I made him late, so he became late). It should grammatically be Fa-akhara (as in Ghabbartuhu fa-ghabara – I made him remain, so he remained), but it is restricted by auditory tradition (samā‘). This point has a significance that will be explained later, God willing.

Al-Ūlā is the feminine form of Af‘al (the superlative form). Thus, Al-Awwal (the first) is a superlative adjective (Ism Tafḍīl). This involves several discussions:

Discussion 1: The Root Verb

Every Af‘al (masculine superlative) and Fū‘lā (feminine superlative) must derive from a root, just as Al-Afdal (the best) derives from Al-Fāḍilah (the virtuous). What is the root here?

We say that here it is derived from a root that is not in use, just as we mentioned that Al-Ākhir (the last) is an active participle from an unused verb. The reason is that every used verb has an Ākhir (end/completion), because it has a past tense. Once its past tense is used, the action is considered complete; otherwise, the actor would still be engaged in the action, and it wouldn't be past tense. You only say someone Akal (ate) when little remains, indicating the remainder is negligible. Similarly, you say Farağtu (I finished) when little is left. True completion (Farāgh) only occurs when the thing is entirely finished.

If Al-Ākhir were on the pattern of Fā‘il (like Ākhir from Akhara), it would mean the action of 'lateness' was completed perfectly. Thus, if someone said, "So-and-so is Ākhir," it would mean he experienced the completion of lateness and there is nothing later than him. However, we established that every action has something following it.

The objection that Ta’akhkhara (to be late) exists is answered by saying that the pattern Fa‘ala (like Ta’akhkhara) implies effort or pretense when used for someone who is not truly the last, suggesting they see themselves as last when they are not truly so.

Given this, we state: Al-Ākhir is an active participle (Fā‘il) without a corresponding verb. Its superlative form, Af‘al (i.e., A’khar), was transformed by moving the hamza to the position of the alif and the alif to the position of the hamza, resulting in Al-Awwal (the first). This is supported by the meaning: the Ākhir (last) of something is a connected part of it, while Al-Ākhir (the ultimate last) is distinct and separate from it. The separate is after the connected. Al-Ākhir implies a greater degree of lateness than Ākhir.

As for Al-Awwal (the first), it is Af‘al but has no active participle (Fā‘il) and no verb. Al-Awwal is further removed from a verb than Al-Ākhir. This is because the past tense verb is defined by having an end (Ākhir); without that description, we wouldn't know it had an end. However, for an action to be considered an action, it must have a beginning, as an action requires an actor (Fā‘il) to perform it. Thus, the actor precedes the action. If the actor precedes the action, how can Al-Awwal be derived from an action that has no actor? Therefore, it has neither a verb nor an actor.

We cannot say that Āla means 'to precede' (like Qāla from Qawl or Nāla from Nayl). The objection that Sabaqa (to precede) is used to derive As-Sābiq (the preceding one) and Al-Aspaq (the foremost), even though the actor precedes the action, is answered by noting that precedence requires an action initiated by an actor. If As-Sābiq is used for the first, it is by analogy, not literally, because the actor and the action do not race each other; the actor cannot precede the action in a race.

What clarifies this is that Al-Ākhir is further removed from a verb than Al-Awwal is from an actor. The idea that Al-Awwal means 'making the last the first' to extract a meaning is far-fetched, as it would make Al-Ākhir less expressive. The derivation is closer to Āla shay’un (something returned/reverted), meaning it returned to the intended meaning. Al-Ākhir is more removed from the two words Qabl (before) and Ba‘d (after) than they are from each other. Al-Awwal implies 'before' but is not Qabl because Qabl implies 'firstness.' Al-Ākhir implies 'after' but is not Ba‘d because Ba‘d implies 'lastness.' You justify one by the other, but not vice versa (e.g., "He is the last of those who came because he came after everyone," but not "He came after everyone because he is the last of those who came").

This is supported by the fact that Al-Ākhir is only realized by a specific subsequent state that has no subsequent state after it. Ba‘d is only realized by the Ākhir; the intermediate state is after the first but is not the Ākhir.

This discussion relates to the concepts of Time. From this, we understand the Prophet's saying: "Do not revile Time (Dahr)," because Dahr is that from which we understand precedence (Qibliyyah) and subsequence (Bu‘diyyah). Allah is the one from whom these concepts are truly derived. Time has no meaning except through precedence and subsequence, which are established realities concerning Allah. Do not revile Time, for what you understand from it is only realized in and through Allah; without Him, there would be no before or after.

Discussion 2: Feminine Form of Al-Awwal

In Arabic usage, Al-Awlah is sometimes used as the feminine of Al-Awwal. This seems to contradict the correct usage of Al-Ūlā, which indicates that Al-Awwal is a superlative (Af‘al) form, and the superlative form does not typically take the feminine Tā’ (e.g., one does not say Zaynab A‘lamah for Zaynab A‘lam).

The answer is that since Al-Awwal is an Af‘al form without a corresponding actor (Fā‘il), it resembles words like Arba‘ (four) and Arnab (hare), allowing the feminine Tā’ to be attached, resulting in Awlah. However, because it is also an adjective of comparison (like Al-Akbar and Al-Asghar), Al-Ūlā is used.

The form Al-Ūlā suggests that Al-Awwal is non-diptotic (lā yanṣarif - does not take tanwīn). How then can we say Af‘alahu awwalan (He did it first) or Jā’a Zaydun awwalan wa ‘Amrun thāniyan (Zayd came first and Amr second)?

If we argue that both forms are permissible based on whether the feminine is Awlah or Ūlā: those who say the feminine is Awlah allow tanwīn (like Arba‘ah and Arba‘ah). Those who say the feminine is Ūlā forbid tanwīn.

If the latter is true, then abandoning tanwīn is more common because the most frequent feminine form is Al-Ūlā, which is used in the Qur'an. Therefore, the resolution is: when forming the feminine, Al-Ūlā is used based on meaning, while Awlah is used based on common Arabic usage, even if the evidence for it is weaker.

Alternatively, it might be argued that the non-diptotic nature of Af‘al only applies if its feminine form is Fū‘lā. If the feminine form uses the Tā’ (like Awlah), then tanwīn is permitted.

{وَكَمْ مِنْ مَلَكٍ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ لَا تُغْنِي شَفَاعَتُهُمْ شَيْئًا إِلَّا مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ يَأْذَنَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَرْضَى} (And how many an angel is in the heavens whose intercession is of no avail, except after Allah has given permission to whomever He wills and is pleased with.)