Al-Rahman: (31) We shall soon attend to you, O...

We shall first mention what has been said regarding this, seeking blessing from the sayings of the scholars, and then we shall establish it with clarification.

The exegetes have differed concerning this. The majority hold that the meaning is: We shall certainly direct our action towards you.

Some others said that this expression carries the meaning of a threat, as is customary in people's usage. For instance, a master says to his slave in anger, "I will attend to you (or deal with you)." This might be said even if the master is currently free and not occupied by any task.

As for the definitive analysis, we say: Lack of being "free" (faraagh) is an expression indicating that the actor is engaged in an action that prevents him from performing another action. For example, someone who is sewing says, "I am not free to write."

However, the lack of freedom might be because one action prevents the actor from the other. It is said: "He is occupied with such-and-such from such-and-such," as in the saying: "I am occupied with sewing from writing."

Alternatively, the lack of freedom might be because the action itself prevents the other action, not because it prevents the actor. Consider someone moving an object during a time interval when it is impossible to keep it still during that same interval. He is not "free" to still it. However, in such a case, one would not say, "I am occupied with moving from stilling it." If, in this situation, he were not occupied with moving it, but there was simply a motion inherent in the location itself (not caused by his action), he still could not still it. Thus, his inability stems only from the impossibility due to the motion. In the first scenario (sewing), if he were not occupied with sewing, he would be able to write.

Once you understand this, the lack of freedom becomes two types: one due to occupation, and one not due to occupation.

We say: When God Almighty, by His choice, brought man into existence and sustained him for a duration He willed, purely by power and will, it is impossible for Him to annihilate him at that moment. Thus, He is engaged in an action that does not prevent the Actor (God) but prevents the action (annihilation). We have established that this is not "freedom" (faraagh), even if it implies an occupation.

If He first brings into existence what He wills, and then annihilation and increase become possible at that instant, then freedom is realized. However, since human perception is limited to their own actions and the actions of their peers, and they know that lack of freedom among them is due to occupation, they assume that God Almighty is also "free" (i.e., not occupied). They then project this onto creation, assuming that God is not "free" (i.e., He is occupied), which necessitates action. Yet, one affair does not distract Him from another. This requires interpreting the word [faraagh] outside its literal meaning.

Know that this is not a different opinion from that of the scholars; rather, it is an explanation of their saying, "We shall direct our action towards you." However, this explanation is more detailed. Praise be to God who guided us to this clarification without deviating from the usage of the eloquent speakers.

Know that the root of faraagh (freedom/emptiness) means khuluw (emptiness/vacancy). If this vacancy is in a place, it expands to allow another thing to enter. If it is in time, it expands to allow an action. The basis is that the actor's time is empty of his action, yet it is not empty [of potential]. However, the vacancy of a place is visible through its emptiness, so "freedom" is attributed to the vacancy of the place in a specific context. Time, however, is not visible, so its vacancy is not seen.

It is said: "So-and-so is free at such-and-such a time," because the person is visible, not the time. The basis is that this time is one of So-and-so's times, and it is free, allowing him to be described as capable of performing an action during it.

God Almighty's saying: {We shall soon attend to you} is an application based on observing the original meaning. When a place becomes empty, it is said: "It is for such-and-such," and not "to such-and-such." The same applies to time. However, when this concept is transferred to the actor, and since the actor, upon becoming free, directs himself toward something else, it is said of the actor: "He finished (faragha min) such-and-such to such-and-such." Regarding the object/place, it is said: "It became empty from such-and-such for such-and-such." Thus, {for you} (lakum) is used based on observing the original meaning. This strengthens what we mentioned: the preventing factor is not relative to the actor but relative to the action.

As for {O} (Ayya), we say: The wisdom in addressing an indefinite noun and following it with a description is that the caller wishes to preserve his speech from being lost. He first says, "O Ayya," which is a call to an indefinite entity, so that everyone who hears turns their attention to his speech, and those intended are alerted. Then, upon the listeners turning their attention, the intended party is specified by saying, "The man."

Two matters are incumbent upon this construction:

1. The description must be definite, either with the definite article (al-) or a demonstrative pronoun (e.g., hādhā). Thus, one says, "O Ayya al-rajul" (O you, the man) or "O Ayya hādhā" (O you, this one), but not the more definite form, which is the proper noun (Ism 'Alam). This is because there is a great distance between the indefinite term that covers all of a species and the proper noun that distinguishes every individual.
2. The particle hā (the warning particle) is inserted between Ayya and the description. This is because the basis of Ayya is annexation (idāfa), and since it is extremely indefinite, it requires specification. The basis for specification, as we have explained, is annexation. Therefore, hā is inserted between them to compensate for the missing annexation.

Also, the definite article lām is omitted when Ayya is removed. One does not say, "O al-rajul," because this involves unnecessary lengthening. The lām does not provide the warning function we mentioned, as saying, "O rajul" (O man) is already informative. Thus, the lām is dropped when the annexation (which implies definiteness) is removed, as including the lām would be redundant lengthening by combining two markers of definiteness.

Regarding {the two weighty things} (al-Thaqalayn), it is well-known that this refers to the Jinn and Mankind. There are several interpretations:

1. They are named thus because they are weighed down by sins.
2. They are named thus because they are heavy upon the face of the earth. Even though dust (earthly matter) was refined for Adam's creation, it did not cease to be heavy. As for fire, when the Jinn were created in it, it became slightly denser. Just as dust was slightly refined, fire became heavy. Thus, they are two weighty things (Thaqalayn).
3. One of them is truly heavy, and the other is named so by association and companionship, similar to saying al-'Umran (the two inhabited places) or al-Qamran (the two moons), where only one is truly 'Umran or Qamar.
4. Alternatively, it might refer to the totality of the two encompassing categories, as one might say, "O you, the weighty thing that is such, and the weighty thing that is not such," or al-Thaqal can mean a great matter. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (I am leaving behind among you the two weighty things.)

Then, God Almighty said: