Surah Al-Qamar (54): Verse 31

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Meaning of Fakānū (فَكَانُوا)

What is the grammatical function of kāna (كان) here?

The grammarians state that kāna sometimes comes with the meaning of "to become" (ṣāra). They cite the verse:

Here, it means "became." Some commentators suggest that kāna here also means "became."

However, the sound position is that kāna does not differ from other intransitive past-tense verbs. The distinction made between kāna being "complete" (tāmma), "incomplete" (nāqisa), "superfluous" (zā’ida), or meaning "to become" does not necessitate a difference in its fundamental state compared to other verbs.

The meaning of "to become" (i.e., wajada, ḥaṣala, or taḥaqqaqa—to be found, to occur, or to be realized) is such that what is found is sometimes the essence of a thing and sometimes one of its attributes.

1. When you say: Kānat al-kā’ina (The existent thing existed) or Kun fa-yakūn (Be, and it is), you establish existence and occurrence for the thing in itself. It is as if you said: The existent essence was found, and "Be" means "Occur," and thus it exists in itself.
2. When you say: Kāna Zaydun ‘āliman (Zayd was learned), you mean the knowledge of Zayd was found (wajada ‘ilmu Zayd). However, if we say Wajada Zaydun ‘āliman (Zayd was found learned), we imply that ‘āliman (learned) is a circumstantial state (ḥāl). But in Kāna Zaydun ‘āliman, we say it is the predicate (khabar), similar to saying Ḥaṣala Zaydun ‘āliman (Zayd attained the state of being learned).

Yet, saying Wajada Zaydun ‘āliman can sometimes imply that the existence and occurrence belong to Zayd in that state, similar to saying Qāma Zaydun muntaḥiyan (Zayd stood up while leaning over), where the standing belongs to Zayd in that state.

The phrase Kāna Zaydun ‘āliman does not mean Zayd existed, and in that state he was learned. This, however, does not mean kāna is fundamentally different from other intransitive verbs that have a strong connection to the circumstance. For instance, whoever understands from "Zayd was in the best state today" what is understood from "Zayd went out in the best attire today," there is no barrier preventing them from understanding from "Zayd was in the best state" what was understood in the previous case.

Knowing this, we say: The past tense verb is sometimes used for what occurs in the time contiguous to the present, like saying Qāma Zaydun fī ṣibāh (Zayd stood up in his youth). It is also sometimes used for what occurs in the present time, like saying Qāma Zaydun (Zayd stood up), and also Qum fa-inna Zaydan qāma (Stand up, for Zayd has stood up).

The same applies to kāna: sometimes it is said, Kāna Zaydun qā’iman ‘āma kadhā (Zayd was standing in such-and-such a year), and sometimes it is said, Kāna Zaydun qā’iman al-ān (Zayd was standing now), just as in Qāma Zaydun.

Therefore, in the Almighty's saying, {Fakānū} (So they became), the past tense is used for something connected to the present circumstance. It is like saying: A blast was sent upon them, and they died immediately following that circumstance.

Yes, if ṣāra (became) were used in this context, it would be permissible. However, kāna and ṣāra each have their own inherent meaning. It is only necessary to interpret kāna as ṣāra when it is impossible to say the alternative, as in the poetry example where saying "the shells became chicks" is impossible.

But here, it is possible to say they were like scattered refuse. If the particle kāf (like) were absent, it might be necessary to interpret kāna as ṣāra if the meaning intended was that they were transformed into scattered refuse, like the transformed being, but that is not the intention here.

Issue 2: What is Hashīm (الهشيم)?

Hashīm means that which is broken (mahmūm). It is called hāshim (breaker) because one breaks tharīd (soaked bread) in bowls. However, hashīm is frequently used for dry, broken firewood.

Therefore, the commentators said: They became like the grass that emerges from enclosures after decay, crumbling away. They supported this with the Almighty's saying: {Hashīman tadhūhū al-riyāḥ} (Dry refuse scattered by the winds) (Al-Kahf: 54). This is an instance of using the attribute in place of the described object (omitting the noun), similar to saying ra’aytu jarīḥan (I saw a wounded man [instead of a wounded person]). The word sa‘īr (blazing fire) is also similar in this regard.

Issue 3: Why were they likened to it?

This likeness is subject to several interpretations:

1. Dryness: The likeness might be due to their state of being dry, like dry grass among the dead who died long ago. It is as if the verse means: They heard the blast and immediately became as if they had been dead for days.
2. Clustering: It might be because they clustered together, just as companions huddle together in fear, mixing into one another. They gathered on top of each other like firewood that a collector piles up, waiting for someone to buy it. The woodcutter with much wood piles it up like a stack, awaiting a buyer.
3. Fuel for Hell: It might be to clarify their fate in Hellfire. They became like dry firewood intended only for burning. This confirms the Almighty's saying: {Indeed, you and that which you worship besides Allāh are fuel for Hell} (Al-Anbiyā’: 98), and {And they will be fuel for Hell} (Al-Jinn: 15), and {They were drowned and then admitted into a Fire} (Nūḥ: 25). Thus, they died and became like wood that serves no purpose except for burning, as hashīm is not suitable for construction.

Then the Almighty said: