Surah Al-Waqi'ah 56:57
ﱟ ﱠ ﱡ ﱢ
We have created you, so why do you not believe?
Tafsir of Al-Waqi'ah 56:57
Tafsir
Mafatih al-Ghayb
Verse range: 56:57
The Incident: (57) We created you, so why don't you...
...provide evidence for their falsehood and the truthfulness of the Messengers regarding the Resurrection. This is because His saying: {Do you then not remember?}
is a logical argument based on their admission that God Almighty created them in the beginning. Since He was capable of creating them initially, He is capable of creating them a second time. There is no room to question His essence and attributes, exalted and sanctified is He, even if they do not acknowledge it, but rather doubt and say: The first creation is from semen according to nature. We say: Semen is among contingent matters, and nothing contingent exists by itself; rather, it exists through another, as is known. Therefore, semen comes from the All-Powerful, the Overpowering. Likewise, the creation of nature and other contingent things. So He said to them: Do you doubt that God created you first or not? If they say: We do not doubt that He is the Creator, then it is said: Do you also believe in your second creation? For the One who created you first from nothing is not incapable of creating you a second time from parts that are known to Him. If you doubt and say: Creation only happens from semen, and after death there is neither father nor semen, then it is said to them: Do you create this semen, or does God create it? If you confess to God, His power, His will, and His action, then this necessarily implies accepting the permissibility and validity of the Resurrection.
(Wa-lawlā) is a compound word of two elements, meaning exhortation and urging. Its origin is lim lā (why not?). When you say, Lim lā akalta (Why didn't you eat?) and Lim mā akalta (Why didn't you eat?), both interrogatives are permissible. The first means: There is no reason for not eating, and you cannot state a reason for it, just as you say, Lim fa'alta? (Why did you do it?) in reproach, meaning you did something that has no cause and you cannot mention a cause for it. Then, they abandoned the interrogative particle concerning the reason and used the interrogative particle concerning the judgment, so they said: Halā fa'alta? (Why didn't you do it?), as they say in a place where they mean: Why did you do this when you know its corruption? Are you doing this while you are rational? There is an added emphasis because the speaker's statement Lim fa'alta (Why did you do it?) is essentially an inquiry about the reason, meaning its reason is unknown and not apparent, so its existence should not be apparent. And His saying, A-fa'alta? (Did you do it?), is an inquiry about its reality, meaning it is impossible in its category. The one asking about the reason seems to have accepted its existence and made it known, asking only for the reason, as one says: Zayd came, so why did he come? The one asking about existence has not accepted it. And the statement Lim fa'alta wa anta ta'lamu fasādahu (Why did you do it when you know its corruption) is more emphatic than A-fa'alta wa anta ta'lamu fasādahu (Did you do it when you know its corruption), because in the first case, he treats him as if he acted for a hidden reason that needs to be sought from him, whereas in the second case, he treats him as making a mistake from the very beginning. When the difference between Lim fa'alta and A-fa'alta is known, the difference between Lim mā fa'alta (Why didn't you do it?) and Halā fa'alta (Why didn't you do it?) is also known.
As for (Lawlā), we say: It is originally a conditional particle, and the conditional sentence is not made definite by it, just as the interrogative sentence is not made definite by it. However, lawlā indicates deviation and adds the negation of consideration and hesitation. So He says: Lawlā tuṣaddiqūn (Why don't you believe?), instead of Lim lā (Why not?) or Halā (Why don't you?). This is because it is more indicative of the negation of what it enters upon, which is the lack of belief. There is a subtlety here: Lawlā enters upon a past tense verb referring to the future. The Almighty says: {And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. So why would not a contingent group from every division of them go forth...} (At-Tawbah: 122). What is the reason for specifying the future here, and why didn't He say: Falawlā ṣaddaqtum (Why didn't you believe)? We say: This discourse is with them in this world, and acceptance of Islam in it is obligatory, and what preceded it is required. So He said: Why don't you believe in your current moment? The proofs are clear and continuous, and the benefit is obtained. As for the verse {So why would not a contingent group...}, the benefit would not be obtained except after some time. So He said: If a group traveled, you would obtain the benefit immediately, but that has passed. If you do not travel now, you will miss the benefit in the future as well.
Then the Almighty said: {Have you then considered what you emit?} This is a confirmation of His saying: {We created you}. This is because when the Almighty said: {We created you}, the naturalists said: We exist from the semen of creation through latent essences, and before each one there is a single drop. So the Almighty responded to them: Have you seen this semen, which is a weak body of similar form, which must have a creator? Did you create the drop, or did someone else create it? It is necessary to confess to a Creator who was not created, absolutely, to avoid the invalid infinite regress, and the ultimate return is to our Lord. No one doubts this from the first moment God created the drop, formed it, gave it life, and illuminated it. Why do you not believe that He is One, Unique, Self-Sufficient, Capable of all things? For He will bring you back just as He initiated you in the beginning. The interrogative form implies an increase in confirmation, which you have learned many times.