Tafsir of An-Najm 53:36

Surah An-Najm (The Star): Verses 36-39

Verse 36-38:

{ أم لم ينبأ بما فى صحف موسى * وإبراهيم الذى وفى * ألا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى } Or has he not been informed of what is in the scriptures of Moses, And of Abraham, who fulfilled [his obligations]? That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.

This section is presented in contrast to the preceding verses (30-31) which discussed the recompense for the polytheists. Both sections aim to clarify the principle of retribution.

Alternatively, after detailing the state of the obstinate polytheists who worshipped idols and claimed angels were God's daughters, the discourse shifts to the People of the Book. The text implies: After seeing the state of the polytheist who turned away from the Reminder, have you considered the state of one who turned away yet possessed a Scripture and received a portion of time, but then became barren (or failed) when the time of Muhammad arrived? Did he claim knowledge of the Unseen? He found nothing in their previous scriptures stating that every soul is accountable only for its own actions.

The verse, { أم لم ينبأ بما فى صحف موسى * وإبراهيم الذى وفى }, informs us that the one who turned away (mentioned previously) is from the People of the Book.

Issue 1: The Meaning of Akdā (This seems to be a reference to a preceding, unquoted word, likely related to the turning away mentioned above, perhaps akdā from verse 34, which is not fully present here but is referenced in the commentary.)

It is said that akdā derives from kadīyah, which is hard, unexcavatable ground. When a well-digger reaches it, digging becomes difficult or impossible; thus, the digger is said to have akdā. The more apparent meaning is refusal and prevention; one says, "I akdaytuhu" (I turned him back).

Issue 2: The Meaning of {فأعنده علم الغيب فهو يرى} (This phrase, likely from verse 34, is being interpreted here.)

Its meaning is clear: it refers to the ignorance and neediness of the one who turned away, highlighting the ugliness of turning away despite needing guidance and knowledge of the Unseen (that which is hidden from creation).

{فهو يرى} (and he sees) is a continuation, specifying the time when turning away becomes permissible: the time when vision (direct sight) occurs. At that point, following a guide based on hearing is no longer obligatory, as the seeker has seen the destination with his own eyes. The verse asks: Does he possess knowledge of the Unseen such that he sees it, making his knowledge observational rather than theoretical? If so, he sinned and turned away.

{فهو يرى} could also imply that the object of "seeing" is the burden of the individual, as if saying: He sees that his burden is being carried, yet he did not hear that his burden is not carried by another. Thus, he is knowledgeable about the carrying (of his own burden) but heedless of the non-carrying (of another's burden), which would excuse him. Alternatively, it might have no object, meaning: He holds a view based on his own observation, needing no guide or warner.

Verse 36-39 (Recited):

{ أم لم ينبأ بما فى صحف موسى * وإبراهيم الذى وفى * ألا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى * وأن ليس للإنسان إلا ما سعى }

This statement presents another state contrary to the first (the state of the heedless polytheist). In this state, the one who turned away might be excused due to absolute ignorance. If someone knows a matter completely, he is not commanded to learn it. If he is completely ignorant, like one who is utterly heedless (like a sleeper), he is also not commanded. The verse asks: Did this person know everything, thus justifying his turning away? Or did he hear nothing, receiving no message at all, thus being excused? The answer is neither is true; therefore, he is not excused in his turning away.

First Issue: {بما * وفى} (with what he fulfilled)

This has two interpretations:

1. The content itself: God is saying: Has he not been informed of Tawhid (monotheism), the Resurrection, and other matters that are mentioned in the scriptures of Moses? (Example: If someone performs ablution without water, one might say, "Perform ablution with what the Prophet performed ablution with.") In this case, the address is general (polytheists and People of the Book), as the Prophet informed both groups about the contents of Moses' scriptures.
2. The content as contained in the scriptures: Similar to the example, "Perform ablution with what is in the waterskin, not what is in the jar," meaning the specific source. In this case, the address is specifically to the People of the Book, as they were the ones informed of these scriptures.

Second Issue: The Scriptures of Moses and Abraham

Are the scriptures pluralized because they were many scrolls, or because they are attributed to two individuals (like {فقد صغت قلوبكما} - Surah At-Tahrim: 4)? The apparent meaning is that they were many scrolls, as God mentions {وأخذ * الالواح} (He took the Tablets) and {وألقى الالواح} (He cast down the Tablets); every tablet is a scripture (sahifa).

Third Issue: What is meant by "that which is in them"?

This refers to what follows: { ألا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى * وأن ليس للإنسان إلا ما سعى } (and that there is nothing for man except what he strives for). This holds true whether one reads anna (that) with a fathah (as a direct object) or inna (that) with a kasrah (as a statement).

1. The apparent meaning (if inna is read): It refers to the principle: "No bearer shall bear the burden of another." This is the most apparent, although other possibilities exist because the scriptures contained more than just this principle.
2. The Hereafter is better than the first life: Supported by {إن هاذا لفى الصحف الاولى * صحف إبراهيم وموسى} (Indeed, this is in the ancient scriptures, the scriptures of Abraham and Moses).
3. All fundamental principles of religion: God did not omit the core tenets of faith from any scripture. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) was commanded: {فبهداهم اقتده} (Follow their guidance). This does not apply to secondary rulings (furu') which differ between dispensations.

Fourth Issue: Why Moses is mentioned before Abraham here, contrary to Surah Al-A'la?

In eloquent speech, such ordering/reordering often has no specific significance. However, an explanation can be offered: In Al-A'la, the purpose was mere notification and warning, where the order of revelation (Abraham before Moses) was followed. Here, the purpose is to negate excuses for turning away. Since the address is to the People of the Book (Jews), Moses' scripture is mentioned first because it was widely present among them. The message is: Look into these scriptures; you will learn that the message is true, prophets preceded Moses, monotheism is true, and the Resurrection will occur. Abraham's scriptures were more distant and their admonitions less famous among them, so his mention was delayed.

Fifth Issue: The mention of Moses being often followed by Abraham, and the meaning of {وفى} (fulfilled/kept his promise)

God often mentioned Moses followed by Abraham because Moses faced more trials from his contemporaries (polytheists and Jews). Polytheists revered Abraham as their progenitor.

Regarding {وفى}:

1. Fulfilling covenants: This implies emphasis (like qaṭaʿa and qaṭṭaʿa). This is apparent because Abraham fulfilled the vow to sacrifice his son, as confirmed by {قد صدقت الرؤيا} (You have indeed confirmed the vision).
2. Completeness (Tawfiyah): Meaning he completed or perfected something. This aligns with {فأتمهن} (and completed them) in Surah Al-Baqarah (124). It is also said he gave God His due rights in his body.

This contrasts with the one who "gave little and became barren" (referencing a previous verse, likely about a disbeliever).

A subtlety regarding Abraham's fulfillment: He never made a covenant he did not keep. He promised his father, "I will ask forgiveness for you," and he did so, fulfilling his promise, even though God did not forgive the father. This demonstrates that {أن ليس للإنسان إلا ما سعى} (man only gets what he strives for) and that no soul bears another's burden.

The praise for Abraham is because his faithfulness was universally accepted by Jews, polytheists, and Muslims alike.

Then follows: { ألا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى }, which was previously explained in Surah Al-Mala'ikah (Fatir).

First Issue: We established that the apparent meaning of {بما فى صحف موسى} is what is explained by {ألا تزر}. Thus, this phrase acts as a badal (substitute) for "that which is in the scriptures." The meaning is: Has he not been informed that no soul bears another's burden? (As noted before, this implies either the superiority of the Hereafter or the fundamental principles.)

Second Issue: The grammar of {ألا تزر} The an (أ) is the lightened form of the heavy anna (أنّ). It is as if saying: Inna (that) no soul bears another's burden. The lightening of the heavy anna is permissible when followed by a verb or a particle acting upon a verb, as anna resembles a verb in form and meaning, and a verb cannot follow a verb directly. Thus, it is transformed into a particle resembling a verb, allowing it to precede the verb.

Third Issue: Addressing a potential objection If someone argues: This verse is meant to show that the evil-doer's burden is not carried by another. But if the bearer (wāzirah) is already weighed down by her own burden, it is understood she cannot carry another's. It would be more emphatic to say: "She does not carry an empty burden of another." The response is that the wāzirah referred to is the one expected to carry a burden, not one currently laden. Just as one says, "The load strained my back," even if the load is temporarily removed, the expectation of bearing remains. If the soul expected to bear is not bearing its own, how could it bear another's? Thus, the meaning is fully conveyed.

Verse 39:

{ وأن ليس للإنسان إلا ما سعى } And that there is nothing for man except what he strives for.

This completes the explanation of the accountable person's state. After clarifying that no one bears his bad deeds, it clarifies that the good deeds of others do not benefit him. If one does not strive in good works, he attains no good, thus completing the picture. The wrongdoer finds no reward due to the good deeds of others, nor is his punishment borne by anyone else.

First Issue: The scope of {لِلْإِنْسَانِ} (for man)

1. It is general (the correct view): An objection is raised: Reports state that charity, fasting, and supplication from relatives reach the deceased, meaning man receives something he did not strive for. Also, God promised the good-doer tenfold reward (Surah Al-An'am: 160), which is more than what he strove for.
   • Response: If the person did not strive through faith to have relatives perform charity for him, then the charity does not reach him; thus, he only gets what he strove for. Regarding the excess reward (tenfold or more), we say: When the benefactor performs a good deed hoping God will bestow excess favor, he has striven for that excess. If it is argued that this means striving means hastening towards something (as in sāʿā ilā shay’), we reply that sāʿā in {إلا ما سعى} means action (he acted). If the meaning were "what he strives towards," it would have been phrased differently.
   • Conclusion on both views: There must be an addition. The verse does not mean he receives the exact thing he strove for. It means he receives the reward for his striving, or the merit for his striving. Alternatively, it means what he strove for is preserved and protected from nullification, so he receives the result of his action on the Day of Judgment, as in {فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيرا يره}.
2. It refers only to the disbeliever: This view is weak.
3. It was abrogated in the Shari'ah of Muhammad (PBUH): It is claimed this was the law for previous nations, but God abrogated it, allowing man to receive reward for what others strive for. This is baseless, as the truth is already clear.

Based on the correct view, {ما سعى} retains its literal meaning: he receives the exact thing he strove for, preserved by God without diminution, and is recompensed for it, as in {فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيرا يره}.

Second Issue: Is mā (ما) relative or a maṣdar (verbal noun)?

The maṣdar interpretation is more apparent, supported by the following verse: {وأن سعيه سوف يرى} (And that his striving will be seen). The maṣdar can refer to the object; for example, Khalq Allāh (God's creation) means Makhluq Allāh (what God created).

Third Issue: Does the verse refer only to good deeds or all deeds?

The famous view is that it applies to all deeds: good deeds are rewarded, and bad deeds are punished. However, the apparent meaning suggests it refers to good deeds, indicated by the lām in {لِلْإِنْسَانِ} (for man), as the lām often denotes benefit accruing to someone ("This is for him"). If it denoted harm, one would say "against him" ('alayhi). Evidence for this is that when both benefit and harm are mentioned together, the superior aspect (benefit) often predominates, like when safety is mentioned alongside danger. Furthermore, the following verse mentions {الجزآء الأوفى} (the fullest recompense), which is typically associated with good deeds, whereas for evil, the recompense is the like, or complete forgiveness.

Fourth Issue: The use of the past tense {سعى} (strove) instead of the future tense {يسعى} (strives)

This is to strongly urge immediate action and establishment of good deeds. If God had said, "Man has only what he will strive for," the soul might say, "I will pray such and such tomorrow, and give such and such in charity, and it will be recorded in my ledger now, as it is something I will strive for." By saying, "He has only what he has striven for and completed," it confirms that only accomplished deeds count, not the temptations of Satan or future promises.

Verse 40-41:

{ وأن سعيه سوف يرى * ثم يجزاه الجزآء الأوفى } And that his striving will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with the fullest recompense.