The Event (Al-Wāqiʿah): (83) "But why not, when it reaches..."

Issues Discussed:

The word {لولا} (Lawlā) here means "Why not?" (or "Had it not been for..."), functioning as a word of incitement/urging (Taḥḍīḍ).

There are four such words: Lawlā, Lawmā, Halā, and Alā.

It can be argued that the origin of these words is "Why not?" (Lim lā?), used as a question, similar to saying: "If you are truthful, why don't you show your truthfulness?"

We assert the origin is Lim lā because it is an interrogative form similar to Halā. Interrogation (Istifhām) can be about:

1. The existence of something (e.g., Hal jā’a Zayd - Did Zayd come?).
2. The reason for its existence (e.g., Limādhā jā’a - Why did he come?).

The interrogative particle Hal precedes Limādhā. Furthermore, interrogation is often used for denial/reproach (Inkār), which is common. Examples include:

• {أبِهَٰذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنْتُمْ مُدْهِنُونَ} (The Event: 81) - "With this discourse are you being complacent?"
• {أَتَدْعُونَ بَعْلًا وَتَذَرُونَ} (As-Sāffāt: 125) - "Do you call upon Ba'l and forsake...?"
• {أَفَأَلِهَةٌ دُونَ اللَّهِ تُرِيدُونَ} (As-Sāffāt: 86) - "Do you desire gods other than Allah?"

We have previously explained the wisdom behind using interrogation for denial: the one who negates or forbids does not command the addressee to lie. Instead, denial is implied so that the negation does not require further explanation once the premise is established.

If this is established:

• Interrogation with {هل} (Hal) denies the act itself.
• Interrogation with {لم} (Lim) denies the cause of the act.

Explanation: When someone says, "Why did you do that?" (Lim fa'alta), they imply there is no cause for the act, suggesting the act occurred without a reason, which is impossible. When someone says, "Did you do that?" (Hal fa'alta), they deny the act itself, not the act occurring without a cause. In the first case, it is as if one says: "If a cause for the act existed, performing it would be more appropriate." In the second case, one says: "The act is inappropriate, even if a cause for it existed."

Each of these particles (Hal and Law) originally requires a compound statement consisting of two clauses.

1. For {هل} (Hal): It is used in two clauses, e.g., "Did Zayd come, or did he not come?" Often, one clause is omitted.
2. For {لو} (Law): It requires a conditional structure: "If X were true, then Y would happen." Sometimes the consequence (the jawāb) is omitted, as mentioned regarding {لَوْ تَعْلَمُونَ} (The Event: 76). This omission implies that the negation associated with Law has an underlying proof. If someone says, "If you knew," and is asked why they don't know, the response implies: "If they knew, they would do such-and-such." Their proof is ready if demanded.

Since negation with {لو} (Law) and {هل} (Hal) is more emphatic than negation with {لا} (Lā) or {لم} (Lim), even though they share meaning, wording, and ruling, the inciting particles (Lawmā, Lawlā, Halā, Alā) take on the force of **"Why not?" (Lim lā?)**.

• Saying, "Will you do it when you are self-sufficient?" (Hal taf'al wa anta 'anhu mustaghn) is like saying, "Why do you do it?" (Lim taf'al), which is blameworthy.
• Saying, "Why don't you do it when you need it?" (Wa halā taf'al wa anta ilayhi muḥtāj) or Alā taf'al is like saying, "Why don't you do it?" (Lim lā taf'al).
• {لولا} (Lawlā) and {لوما} (Lawmā) are like saying, "Why don't you do it?" (Lim lā taf'al) or "Why didn't you do it?" (Lim lā fa'alta).

Thus, {ألا} (Alā) carries an added textual specification because transferring the wording involves explicit textual confirmation, just as the meaning gains an addition beyond the original sense, as we explained.

The verse states: {فَلَوْلَا إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْحُلْقُومَ} (But why not, when it reaches the throat?). This means: Why do they not speak up at the moment of death—the time when realities become apparent and words converge? If what they claim were truly manifest, they should confess at the point of drawing breath. This implies that everyone believes at the moment of death, but faith is not accepted from one who did not believe before.

Objection: Did they not confess at the point of death, or did they say, "We deny the Messengers even when the soul reaches the throat, and we die upon that denial?"

Response: This verse is both an allusion (Ishārah) and good tidings (Bashārah).

1. The Allusion (to the Disbelievers): Allah mentions a state the disbelievers cannot deny: the state of death. Although they deny the Resurrection (life after death), they do not deny death itself, which is more evident than anything similar. They have no doubt during the agony of death, nor do they doubt that at that moment, they will lack the tongue to speak or the ability to act in denial. Their power to acquire faith is lost, and they cannot perform what is required. This serves as an exhortation for them to reconsider seeking the truth before that state arrives.
2. The Good Tidings (to the Messengers): Since the Messengers were denied, and their Sender was rejected, they are reassured that the deniers will eventually retract their statements. If this retraction occurs before death, it is accepted; otherwise, it occurs at death and is of no benefit.

The pronoun in {بَلَغَتْ} (balaghat) refers to the soul (Nafs), or life (Ḥayāh), or the spirit (Rūḥ).

The phrase {وَأَنْتُمْ حِينَئِذٍ تَنْظُرُونَ} (And you, at that time, are looking) is an emphasis confirming the truth: at that moment, matters become visible and witnessed, looked upon by everyone who reaches that stage. If what you claimed were true, it should manifest at that time. We have already detailed the precision of {حِينَئِذٍ} (ḥīna’idhin) in the commentary on {يَوْمَئِذٍ} (yawma’idhin) in Sūrat At-Ṭūr (52:11).

The wording and meaning align because they used to deny the Messengers and the Resurrection, which Allah explicitly states about them in this Sūrah: {وَكَانُوا يُصِرُّونَ عَلَى الْحِنْثِ الْعَظِيمِ * وَكَانُوا يَقُولُونَ * أَإِذَا مِتْنَا} (And they used to persist in the great sin, and they used to say, "When we die..."). This is tantamount to explicit denial, as they did not deny that Allah sends down rain; rather, they attributed the sending down to the stars as well.

Regarding the verse {أَفَرَأَيْتُمُ الْمَاءَ الَّذِي تَشْرَبُونَ * أَأَنْتُمْ أَنْزَلْتُمُوهُ مِنَ الْمُزْنِ أَمْ نَحْنُ الْمُنْزِلُونَ} (Have you seen the water that you drink? Is it you who sent it down from the clouds, or are We the senders?), they attributed the sending down either through intermediaries (as the polytheists or philosophers believed) or through delegation.

Also, the famous interpretation requires an implied meaning: "Do you make the gratitude for your provision [to yourselves]?" If provision (Rizq) is taken to mean livelihood (Ma'āsh), it is closer. It is said: "So-and-so's provision is in his tongue," or "in his leg and hand."

Furthermore, {فَلَوْلَا إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْحُلْقُومَ} is connected to what preceded it, based on our explanation: You deny the Messengers; why don't you deny them at the point of drawing breath? This connects to the verse: {وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ مَنْ نَزَّلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوْتِهَا لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ} (And if you asked them, "Who sends down rain from the sky and thereby revives the earth after its death?" they would surely say, "Allah").

This shows that they did deny [the Messengers]—as the Prophet (PBUH) said, "The astrologers lied, by the Lord of the Ka'bah"—if one reads {تُكَذِّبُونَ} (tukadhdhibūn) with Takhfīf (lightening the consonant). As for {مُدْهِنُونَ} (complacent/yielding), it remains as it was, consistent with {وَدُّوا لَوْ تُدْهِنُ فَيُدْهِنُونَ} (They wish that you would compromise [in religion] so they would compromise). The meaning there is not that they deny, but that they desired hypocrisy, not overt denial.

< {فَلَوْلَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ غَيْرَ مَدِينِينَ * تُرْجِعُونَهَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ} >

(84) "But why not, if you are not to be recompensed, [why do you not] return it [the soul], if you are truthful?"