Tafsir of Ar-Rahman 55:41

Surah Ar-Rahman (55): Verse 41

{يُعْرَفُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ بِسِيمَاهُمْ فَيُؤْخَذُ بِالنَّوَاصِي وَالْأَقْدَامِ} (The criminals will be recognized by their marks, and they will be seized by their forelocks and their feet.)

The connection of this verse to what precedes it is clear and requires no hidden explanation. The statement {يُعْرَفُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ} (The criminals will be recognized) serves as an explanation (Tafsir).

Regarding the second interpretation (that no one but the criminal will be questioned about his sin), this verse confirms it, as it states they are recognized and seized. Even under our primary view (that no one is questioned for pardon), the same applies.

This verse raises several issues:

Sīmā (mark/sign) is like ḍīzā (a type of garment) and originally stems from sawmah (sign/mark). It carries several possible meanings:

1. Branding on their foreheads: As stated in the verse: {يَوْمَ يُحْمَى عَلَيْهَا فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ فَتُكْوَى بِهَا جِبَاهُهُمْ} (The Day it will be heated in the fire of Hell and therewith their foreheads will be branded) (At-Tawbah: 35).
2. Blackness: As stated in the verse: {فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ اسْوَدَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ} (But as for those whose faces will turn black) (Al 'Imran: 106), and {وَوُجُوهُهُمْ مُسْوَدَّةٌ} (and their faces will be blackened) (Az-Zumar: 60).
3. Dustiness and Gloominess (Ghubrah wa Qatrah).

Why is the verb {يُؤْخَذُ} (is seized) singular when Al-Mujrimūn (the criminals) is plural, and they are the ones being seized?

We offer two explanations:

1. Attachment to Bi’n-Nawāṣī (by the forelocks): The verb yu’khadhu is related to the phrase {بِالنَّوَاصِي} (by the forelocks), similar to saying, "Zayd went with Amr" (where the action is linked to the accompanying element).
2. Implied Plurality: It relates to what is implied by the verb yu’khadhu itself. It is as if Allah said: "and they will be seized by the forelocks."

Objection: Why is the verb akhdh (seizing) connected with the preposition bā’ (bi-) when it is usually transitive (takes a direct object)? Allah says: {لَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنكُم فِدْيَةٌ} (No ransom will be accepted from you) (Al-Hadid: 15) and {خُذْهَا وَلَا تَخَفْ} (Take it and fear not) (Tā Hā: 21).

Response: As mentioned, akhdh is transitive, but it can also be used with bā’, as in: {لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي} (Seize me not by my beard nor by my head) (Tā Hā: 94).

There is a subtlety in usage:

• If the object seized is the primary focus of the action, the verb is transitive without a preposition.
• If the focus of the seizure is something other than the physical object seized, the verb takes a preposition (bā’), because the object itself is not the direct target, making the action seem indirect.

Evidence for this is found in the Quran:

• Allah uses the direct form when the object is the focus: {خُذْهَا} (Take it [the staff]), {وَلْيَأْخُذُوا أَسْلِحَتَهُمْ} (and let them take their weapons), {أَخْذَ الْأَلْوَاحِ} (the taking of the tablets).
• Allah uses the prepositional form when the focus is elsewhere: {لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي} (Seize me not by my beard nor by my head), and {فَيُؤْخَذُ بِالنَّوَاصِي وَالْأَقْدَامِ} (seized by the forelocks and the feet). Also, phrases like "Take my hand" (khudh bi-yadi) where the goal is assistance, not just grasping the hand itself.

Objection: What is the benefit of directing the verb yu’khadhu to something different from what yu’rafu (is recognized) was directed toward? Why say: {يُعْرَفُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ بِسِيمَاهُمْ فَيُؤْخَذُ بِالنَّوَاصِي}?

Response: This clarifies their punishment and miserable state. Consider the analogy: If someone says, "Zayd struck, and Amr was killed," the passive verb "was killed" implies that the killer is distinct from the one who struck (the initial actor). If yu’khadhu were directed to the same subject as yu’rafu, it would imply: "Every person who recognizes the criminal seizes him." However, everyone recognizes the criminal by his mark, but not everyone who recognizes him seizes him.

The meaning of {يُعْرَفُ} is that they become known to everyone (people and angels needing a sign). But the scribes of deeds and the stern angels know them intrinsically, without needing a sign. If the verse said {فَيُؤْخَذُونَ} (and they will be seized), it would imply they are seized by everyone who knows them.

Similarly, in the phrase, "A distraction occupied me, so Zayd was struck," the use of two objects (the distraction and Zayd) implies the striker is different from the distractor. If one says, "Zayd was distracted, so he was struck," it only implies one object, and the distinction is less clear.

Clarifying the Punishment: By saying {فَيُؤْخَذُ بِالنَّوَاصِي}, the manner of seizing is specified, making it the central point of the statement. If it said {فَيُؤْخَذُونَ}, the sentence would be complete, and {بِالنَّوَاصِي} would be an added detail, not the main intent. By using the passive form requiring a complement ({فَيُؤْخَذُ}), the listener anticipates what follows, and when {بِالنَّوَاصِي} is mentioned, it becomes the intended focus. Seizing by the forelock is inherently humiliating and degrading, as is seizing by the feet.

Objection: Didn't you just state that the preposition bā’ is used when the object seized is not the primary focus, yet now you claim seizing by the forelock is the focus?

Response: There is no contradiction. The seizing by the forelock is the focus of the statement (the manner of punishment), but the forelock itself is not seized for its own sake; it is seized so that its owner may be seized. There is a distinction between the focus of the statement and the direct object of the physical act.

Regarding {فَيُؤْخَذُ بِالنَّوَاصِي وَالْأَقْدَامِ} (seized by the forelocks and the feet):

There are two interpretations:

1. Combining both: Their forelocks and feet are bound together. This has two sub-possibilities:
   • Their feet are tied to their forelocks from the back, causing their chests to protrude forward.
   • Their heads are bent down so their foreheads touch their toes, and their forelocks are tied to their feet.
2. Sequential/Alternative Seizure: They are dragged violently; some are seized by the forelock, and others are dragged by the foot.

The first interpretation (combining both methods of binding) is considered sounder and clearer.

{هَٰذِهِ جَهَنَّمُ الَّتِي كَانُوا بِهَا يُكَذِّبُونَ} (This is Hell, which the criminals used to deny.)