Tafsir of Al-Waqi'ah 56:22

Surah Al-Waqi'ah (The Event) - Verse 22

وَحُورٌ عِينٌ (And wide-eyed Houris)

There are several readings for this phrase:

1. **Nominative (رفع - Raf')**: This is the most common reading.
   • It is taken as an apposition (عطف - ‘aṭf) to وَلْدَان (youths) mentioned earlier (v. 17).
   • Objection: It was previously stated: {حُورٌ مَّقْصُورَاتٌ فِي الْخِيَامِ} (Houris, restrained in pavilions) (Ar-Rahman: 72), suggesting they are secluded. How can this be an apposition to waladān (youths)?
   • Response (Twofold):
     • First (Most Common): The apposition is in wording, not necessarily in meaning, or it is based on implied meaning. Since {يَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ وِلْدَانٌ} (Youths will go around them) (v. 17) implies "they will have youths," similarly, {وَحُورٌ عِينٌ} means "and they will have wide-eyed Houris."
     • Second: The Houris are not limited to one category. The dwellers of Paradise have:
       • {حُورٌ مَّقْصُورَاتٌ} (restrained Houris) in honored enclosures.
       • They also have maidservants and attendants.
       • And there are Houris who circulate with the serving youths. Thus, the meaning is: Youths circulate around them, and [so do] women.

2. Genitive (جر - Jarr): This reading treats it as an apposition to أَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيقَ (cups and pitchers) (v. 18).
   • Objection: How can they be circulated around them?
   • Response: This was addressed previously regarding {وَلَحْمِ طَيْرٍ} (and fowl) (v. 21). Alternatively, it is an apposition to جَنَّاتٍ (Gardens) (v. 12): "Those nearest [to Allah] in the Gardens of Bliss, and Houris..."

3. Accusative (نصب - Naṣb): Read as وَحُورًا عِينًا (and wide-eyed Houris).
   • The reader who uses this must posit an implied verb in the accusative case, such as yu’taw (they will be given). However, if the preceding word is in the nominative case (like waladān), this reading avoids deviating from the structure of the preceding conjunctions.

This phrase involves several points of discussion:

First Point: The use of both Kāf (like) and Amthāl (examples/similitudes).

• The Kāf signifies comparison, and Amthāl itself means similitude. Why combine two terms of comparison?
• Common Answer: The combination of the two terms provides emphasis and intensification of the comparison.
• Objection: Does it truly add emphasis? If you say, "He is like a pearl," is that less emphatic than saying, "He is a pearl"?
• The Reality (Al-Rāzī's Analysis):
  • If a thing has a likeness, it is its likeness. Saying "He is like the moon" is less emphatic than saying "He is the moon." Similarly, "He is like a lion" is less emphatic than "He is a lion."
  • This distinction is relevant here, but not in the verse {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} (There is nothing like unto Him) (Ash-Shura: 11).
  • In {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ}, the negation stands against the assertion of those who claim "There is something like Him." If we interpret {كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} without the extra Kāf as "The likeness of His likeness is a thing," this implies He has a likeness. If He has a likeness, that likeness is a thing (as existence is implied by the term shay’). Negating this ("There is not the likeness of His likeness") refutes the claim that He has a likeness.
  • If we argue that negating "the likeness of His likeness" does not necessarily negate "His likeness" (just as negating "Zayd is a good scholar" doesn't negate that Zayd is a scholar), then the verse might fail to convey absolute Oneness (Tawḥīd).
  • Resolution: The phrase {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} does convey absolute Oneness. If "the likeness of His likeness is a thing," then He must have a likeness, because if He had a likeness, that likeness would itself be a thing (as existence is inherent in the concept of shay’). Since "the likeness of His likeness is a thing" is negated, it follows that He has no likeness. Thus, the statement remains one of absolute Oneness.
  • Conclusion for {كَأَمْثَالِ}: Applying the literal meaning (that the Kāf adds emphasis) is appropriate here, resulting in an intensified comparison.
  • Conclusion for {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ}: Omitting the literal emphasis (treating the Kāf as redundant) is more concise and avoids the implication of negation leading to Ta‘ṭīl (negating God's existence). The Kāf here serves a purpose: it signals the reason for the negation. God is Wājib al-Wujūd (Necessary Existent). If He had a likeness, they would be equal in essence, or the likeness would require a distinguishing feature, making it composite, and thus contingent (mumkin), not necessary. Therefore, affirming a likeness leads to negating His necessity. Stating {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} (There is nothing like unto Him) is Tawḥīd supported by evidence (the proof being that affirming a likeness negates His necessity). Stating "There is no likeness to Him" is Tawḥīd without explicit evidence.

(The translator notes that this detailed analysis regarding the Kāf and Amthāl aligns with the views of Imam Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, from whom the translator acknowledges gaining countless benefits.)

Second Point: {اللُّؤْلُؤِ الْمَكْنُونِ} (Untouched Pearls)

• This refers to the extreme purity of the Houris, like pearls whose color has not been altered by the sun or the air.

جَزَاءً بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ (As a recompense for what they used to do.)