The Event (Al-Wāqiʿah): (24) A recompense for what they used to do...

There are two possible interpretations for the grammatical position of the word جزاء (recompense):

1. It is an object of purpose (مفعول له): This is the apparent meaning, implying: "This is done to them so that it may be a recompense, and they will be recompensed for their deeds."
   • A subtle point here is that the meaning is: "All of this is the recompense for your deeds, but no one can grasp the surplus [reward]."

2. It is a verbal noun (مصدر): This implies that since everything God does is a recompense, it is as if He is saying: "You are recompensed with a recompense."

As for the phrase $\text{{بما كانوا}} (for what they used to do), we have previously explained its significance in Sūrat aṭ-Ṭūr. God stated regarding the believers: \text{{فينبئهم بما كانوا يعملون}} (And He will inform them of what they used to do) (Al-Wāqiʿah: 24). Regarding the disbelievers, He said: \text{{إنما تجزون ما كنتم تعملون}} (You are only recompensed for what you used to do) (At-Taḥrīm: 7). This indicates that the punishment is the exact recompense for their actions, with no addition.

However, regarding the reward, it is: \text{{جزاء مما كانوا يعملون}} (a recompense from what they used to do) (As-Sajdah: 17). This means God does not give them the exact equivalent of their deeds, but rather gives them what He gives because of their deeds. The disbeliever is given the exact equivalent of what he did. This aligns with the meaning of His saying: \text{{من جاء بالحسنة فله عشر أمثالها ومن جاء بالسيئة فلا يجزى إلا مثلها}} (Whoever brings a good deed will have ten times its like, and whoever brings an evil deed will not be recompensed except for the like of it) (Al-Anʿām: 160).

There are several related issues here:

Imam Fakhr al-Dīn (may God have mercy on him) mentioned fundamental principles in many places; we mention some here:

The Muʿtazilah argue: This verse indicates that reward is obligatory upon God, because a recompense cannot be demanded.

Imam Fakhr al-Dīn (may God have mercy on him) responded to this with many answers. I believe he did not mention what I will state here, which is what they (the orthodox scholars) mentioned:

If the obligation were true, then the promise of these things would be meaningless. This is because if reason dictates that withholding the recompense is ugly, and reason knows that ugliness does not proceed from God, then one would know that God gives these things because they are recompenses, and delivering the recompense is obligatory.

However, according to our doctrine (Ahl al-Sunnah), these verses are beneficial and bring glad tidings. Glad tidings are only given concerning something good that is not already known to be due. It cannot be argued that the recompense was already obligatory, and the mention of these things is merely informing, not giving glad tidings. We say: If the recompense itself is obligatory, then the blessings God grants us in this world are not a recompense, and the reward of the Hereafter is only by His grace.

The most that can be said is that God completed the favor by saying: "This is your recompense," meaning, "I have made it a recompense for you." It was not predetermined or obligatory. It is like when a generous person gives someone who brought a small thing a great deal, and the recipient thinks it is a deposit or that he is ordered to carry it somewhere. The generous person then says, "This is for you," and the recipient rejoices. Then the generous person says, "This is a great favor that requires much service." The recipient replies, "This is the recompense for what you brought, and I do not ask any service from you in return. If you perform service, it will have a new reward." This represents the utmost bounty.

We say this applies when the one bringing the thing is not a servant. But if the servant does what his master commanded, he deserves no wage, especially if he performs the command with some defect. What then do you think of our situation with God Almighty, when the master only owns the physical structure of his slave, whereas God Almighty owns our very selves and bodies?

Furthermore, if you reflect upon the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah, you find they have realized the meaning of servitude to the utmost degree, confessing that they are slaves who own nothing, and no debt is owed by the Master to the slave. The Muʿtazilah have not realized true servitude; they established a transaction between themselves and God that necessitates a claim.

We hope that God Almighty will realize the meaning of ownership (Mālikiyyah) for us to the utmost degree, satisfy our essential needs, and purify our deeds—just as a master satisfies his slave's needs by feeding and clothing him, and purifies his fast with the Zakāt al-Fiṭr, and if he commits a transgression, the injured party cannot hold him accountable but chooses to ransom him and free his neck from the transgression. Similarly, God satisfies our needs in the Hereafter. The most important need is that He have mercy on us, forgive us, and cover us with forgiveness and acceptance, having prevented others from owning our necks by choosing to ransom us instead. I hope God does not deal with our Muʿtazilah brethren as two business partners deal in accounting, down to the smallest detail (naqīr and qaṭmīr), demanding any small or large surplus owed.

They argue: If there were a vision [of God] in the Hereafter, it would be a recompense. God has restricted the recompense to what has been mentioned.

The response is: Why do you claim that if there were a vision, it would be a recompense? Rather, it would be a grace from Him, above the recompense. Even if it were a recompense, why do you claim that mentioning the recompense implies restriction? Saying, "I gave you X as a recompense for your deed," does not negate saying, "And I gave you something else, also as a recompense for it." Even if it is restrictive, why do you claim that proximity (qurbah) does not imply vision?

If it is argued that regarding the angels, God says: \text{{ولا الملائكة المقربون}} (Nor the nearest angels) (An-Nisā’: 172), and their proximity did not necessitate vision, we reply: We have already answered that their proximity is like the proximity of one who is near the King to carry out tasks, requiring obligation and standing before him at the door awaiting his commands, as He says: \text{{ويفعلون ما يؤمرون}} (And they do what they are commanded) (At-Taḥrīm: 6).

The proximity of the believer is the proximity of the one favored by the King, which in this world is only for conversation and sitting together. However, the obligated close one does not enter upon the King every time he goes to the door. But the favored one only goes to him to enter upon him. Thus, the difference is clear.

What indicates that the phrase \text{{أولئك المقربون}} (Those are the nearest) (Al-Wāqiʿah: 11) implies vision is that in Sūrat al-Muṭaffifīn, God mentions the righteous (abrār) and the wicked (fujjār). Then, regarding the wicked, He says: \text{{إنهم عن ربهم يومئذ لمحجوبون}} (Nay! Surely, they will be veiled from their Lord that Day) (Al-Muṭaffifīn: 15). Regarding the righteous, He says: \text{{يشرب بها المقربون}} (Drunk of by the nearest) (Al-Muṭaffifīn: 28).

God did not mention in contrast to the veiled ones (maḥjūbūn) anything indicating that the state of the righteous differs from the state of the wicked regarding veiling and proximity. This is because \text{{لفي عليين}} (truly they are in 'Illiyyīn) (Al-Muṭaffifīn: 18), although it indicates proximity and high station, is in contrast to \text{{لفي سجين}} (truly they are in Sijjīn) (Al-Muṭaffifīn: 7).

The statement about them: \text{{يشرب بها المقربون}} (Drunk of by the nearest), along with His saying: \text{{وسقاهم ربهم شرابا طهورا}} (And their Lord will give them a pure drink) (Al-Insān: 21), indicates that what is meant is the proximity of those who sit with the King near the King.

His statement about the angels in that Sūrah: \text{{يشهده المقربون}} (Witnessed by the nearest) (Al-Muṭaffifīn: 21), indicates that what is meant is the proximity related to recording and accounting near the King. In this world, one envies the other. If the proximity of the scribe is due to service, he would not choose the proximity of recording and accounting, but rather the proximity of a confidant. Furthermore, the difference between that type of proximity and the proximity due to writing is what would lead him to choose another.

In Sūrat al-Muṭaffifīn, the statement \text{{لمحجوبون}} (veiled) indicates that the nearest ones are not veiled from looking at God Almighty. We should not interpret "looking at God" as implying physical direction or location, which is what the common folk understand from proximity, except through the interpretation of the scholars and the wise transmitters of reports.

They argue that the phrase \text{{بما كانوا يعملون}} (for what they used to do) indicates that the action is their action and is accomplished by their doing.

We say: There is no dispute that in its linguistic reality, the term فعل (action/doing) is applied to movement, and it is applied to the insane person who lacks intellect, and to the rational person who has reached perfection in it. This is purely based on linguistic convention for what is perceived by the senses. Everyone sees movement from two bodies and says, "It moved" (taḥarrak) or "It rested" (taskan) as a literal statement, just as one says, "The millstone turns" or "The stone ascends." The debate is only about the power by which the action occurs in the perceived location, which is outside the scope of linguistic convention.

Then God Almighty said:

\text{{لا يسمعون فيها لغوا ولا تأثيما * إلا قيلا سلاما سلاما }}$

(They will not hear therein any idle talk or sinful discourse, Save only the saying: "Peace! Peace!".)