The Incident (Al-Waqi'ah): (65) If We Willed, We Would Have Made It...

This verse represents a gradual progression in establishing the truth.

The explanation is that after Allah said: {Do you sow it, or are We the Sowers?} (Al-Waqi'ah: 64), a stubborn opponent might still claim: "We plow, and the seed itself becomes a crop, not through Our action or the action of anyone else."

Therefore, Allah Almighty responds: Even if we concede this false claim to you, what do you say about its safety from calamities that afflict it? These calamities might spoil it before the grain ripens, or before the grain appears. Can you protect it from these afflictions, or repel them from it? Or does this crop repel those calamities by itself, just as you claim it grows by itself? No one doubts that repelling calamities is by the permission of Allah Almighty, and protecting it from them is by the grace of Allah.

In this manner, Allah returns to this point to mention matters arranged sequentially. The first matter is for the guided, the second for the wrongdoers, and the third for the stubborn deniers. He mentions the matter about which there is no doubt at the end to establish the proof against the misguided denier.

A Question and Its Answer

There is a question here: Why does Allah say here: {We would have made it} (with the lām of the response) while in the context of water He said: {We made it bitter} (Al-Waqi'ah: 7) without the lām? What is the difference between them?

We say: Al-Zamakhshari mentioned two answers for this.

1. The First Answer (Weak): His statement, {If We willed, We would have made it chaff} (referring to the preceding context), was close in mention, so the lām was omitted in the second instance. This is weak because His statement {If We willed, We would have obliterated their sight} (Yā-Sīn: 66) and {If We willed, We would have transformed them} (Yā-Sīn: 67) are closer to each other than {We would have made it chaff} and {We made it bitter} (Al-Waqi'ah: 30). Unless we say that in the Yā-Sīn verses, one is close to the other in wording, but not in meaning, as obliterating sight does not necessitate transformation, nor vice versa. However, in the case of food and drink, they are consumed together over time, so the two matters are close in both wording and meaning.

2. The Second Answer: The lām imparts a degree of emphasis (ta'kīd). Thus, the lām was mentioned for the food to indicate that the matter of food is more important than the matter of drink, and its blessing is greater. What we mentioned earlier also applies here, as the matter of obliterating sight is less severe than transformation, yet the lām is included in both.

Another Answer Regarding the Function of Lām in Law (If) Clauses

There is another answer that requires an initial discussion about the benefit of the lām in the response to law.

We say: When the conditional particle enters a sentence, it removes it from being a complete sentence in meaning. Therefore, a sign is needed to indicate the intended meaning. They introduced jazm (jussive mood) for the future tense because a condition implies a consequence, and jazm (stillness) is more appropriate for the situation and has a correspondence with the meaning.

However, the particle law is specifically used for the past tense in meaning; when it enters the future, it renders it past. The reality is that the conditional sentence must fall into one of the categories. If it is mentioned, the condition must be known to have occurred, because if the condition is known to have occurred, the consequence is necessarily bound to occur. Thus, making the speech a conditional sentence is a deviation from a declarative sentence to a suspended sentence, which is an unnecessary lengthiness. For example, saying, "I will come to you if the sun rises," is verbose; it is better to say, "I will come to you decisively without condition."

Given this, the condition must either be known not to occur or be doubtful. The condition, therefore, falls into two categories, requiring two different words: in and law. In is specialized for doubt, and law is for what is known, for a reason we explained elsewhere.

What is known not to occur is treated as past or in its ruling, because knowledge of matters usually comes after their occurrence. What is doubted is future or in its meaning, as we doubt future matters regarding whether they will happen or not, whereas the past is free from doubt.

If this is established, we say: When law enters the past, and the consequence is modified by an operator (like lām), the grammatical inflection (i'rāb) is not apparent. When in enters the future, the inflection is apparent. The consequence follows the condition. In the case of law, the consequence is past, so its state is not apparent. Therefore, a particle indicating its removal from being a complete sentence and its entry into being part of a sentence is added—that is the lām.

If the consequence is explicit, it dispenses with the particle that shifts the meaning. However, the water mentioned in the verse—the drinkable water sent down from the clouds—being made bitter is not an established, actual event that one might assume is an independent report. This is supported by Allah saying: {We made it bitter} in the style of reporting.

The scorching of crops often occurs. If Allah had said, {If We willed, We would have made it chaff}, one might assume it was a report. Therefore, He said: {If We willed, We would have made it} to remove it from what it is suited for in reality—being chaff. As for the water sent down to be drunk from the clouds, {We made it bitter} because one would not assume that (i.e., that drinkable water would be made bitter), so it was dispensed with the lām.

A Subtle Grammatical Point

There is another subtle grammatical point: In the Qur'an, the lām is omitted from the consequence of law when law enters the future tense verbally. However, if what law enters is past, and the consequence is obligatory, the lām is not omitted, as in His saying: {And if We had willed, We would have brought} (Al-Kahf: 13) and {If Allah had guided us, We would have guided you} (Ibrāhīm: 21).

This is because when law enters a self-contained verb, as in {If We willed}, it is verbally removed from its domain (since law is for the past). When the condition is removed from its domain, it is permissible for the consequence to be removed from its domain verbally by omitting the lām. Similarly, if in (which is for the future) enters a future tense, and you make what in enters past, like saying, "If you come to me," it is permissible for the consequence to be removed from its domain and for jazm to be omitted, so you might say: Ukrīmuka (with raf') or Ukrīmuka (with jazm), just as you have {If We willed, We would have made it} and {If We willed, We made it} (Al-Waqi'ah: 70).

What we mentioned as an answer regarding {Shall we feed one whom, if Allah had willed, He would have fed?} (Yā-Sīn: 47) is sound when you consider it. Since He did not say, "If Allah had willed, He would have fed him," it is known that the latter part is the consequence, and there is no ambiguity remaining. This is because either the speaker intends it, which is impossible as the speaker knows the reality of his speech, or the audience intends it, which is also impossible here. Their statement, "If Allah had willed, He would have fed him," is a rebuttal to the believers, implying: "You say that if Allah willed, He would act, so we do not feed those whom Allah willed to feed, according to your assumption." Since "He would have fed him" (aṭ'amahu) was a consequence known to both the listener and the speaker, it was dispensed with the lām.

Meaning of Ḥaṭāman

Ḥaṭāman (chaff/broken pieces) is like fatāt (crumbs) and jidhādh (shreds), derived from ḥaṭm (breaking), just as fatāt and jidhādh are from fat and jadh. The pattern fa'āl often indicates something disliked or reprehensible.

In meanings: It is like sabāt (a type of illness), fuwāq (a short interval), zukām (a cold), duwār (dizziness), and ṣudā'** (headache)—these are illnesses and afflictions affecting people and plants.

In physical objects: It is like jidhādh, ḥaṭām, and fatāt. Similarly, when the feminine marker tā’ is added, like barādah (filings) and suḥālah (dross).

There is an added clarification: The ḍammah (vowel 'u') on the initial letter of the word indicates what we mentioned regarding verbs. We say fu'ila for the passive voice when the agent is unknown, because when the beginning of words lacks absolute lightness (which is sukūn), absolute heaviness (which is ḍammah) is not established. If it is established, it is due to an accident. If this accident is known, as mentioned, there is no issue. If it is unknown, as in burid (was cooled) and qufil (was locked), the matter is subtle and lengthy to discuss, but usage indicates it in the triliteral form.

The Statement: {Indeed, we are losers * Nay, we are deprived}

There are two interpretations for this:

1. First Interpretation: It is as if it is a presumed speech from them, as if saying: "At that time, it is right for you to say: 'Indeed, we are perpetually punished in the torment.'"

2. Second Interpretation: They say: "Indeed, we are punished due to the destruction of the crop, and we are deprived of replanting because water is absent." The second meaning for ghurm (loss/penalty) is that we are compelled by the fine imposed (ghāramah), derived from gharima al-rajul (the man incurred a debt/penalty). The origin of ghurm and ghurām is the necessity of something disliked.

Verse (66-68): {Have you seen the water that you drink? Do you send it down from the clouds, or are We the Senders? If We willed, We would make it bitter, so why do you not show gratitude?}

Then Allah Almighty said:

{Have you seen the water that you drink?} {Do you send it down from the clouds, or are We the Senders?} {If We willed, We would make it bitter, so why do you not show gratitude?}