Surah Al-Mursalat (The Emissaries): (16) Did We not destroy the former ones?

It should be known that the purpose of this Surah is to warn the disbelievers and admonish them against disbelief.

The first type of warning is His oath that the promised Day—the Day of Judgment—will indeed occur, followed by the description of its terror: {And what will make you know what the Day of Judgment is?} Then, He intensified the terror by saying: {Woe on that Day to the deniers!}

The second type of warning is what is mentioned in this verse: that He destroyed the previous disbelievers because of their disbelief. Therefore, if disbelief is present in these later people, they too must be destroyed. Then He says: {Woe on that Day to the deniers!} It is as if He is saying: As for this world, their outcome is destruction, and as for the Hereafter, they have severe punishment. This is alluded to by His saying: {They will have lost both this world and the Hereafter. That is the manifest loss.}

In this verse, there are two questions:

First Question: What is meant by "the former ones" (al-awwalīn) and "the latter ones" (al-ākhirīn)?

Answer: There are two opinions:

1. Opinion 1: He destroyed the former ones, such as the people of Noah, 'Ad, and Thamud, and then He followed them with the latter ones, such as the people of Shu'ayb, Lot, and Moses. Likewise, We will deal with the criminals, who are the disbelievers of Quraysh. This opinion is weak because His saying {Then We will follow them with the latter ones} uses the present tense (nattabi'uhum), which implies the present and future, and does not encompass the past at all.
2. Opinion 2: What is meant by "the former ones" is all the disbelievers who existed before the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). His saying {Then We will follow them with the latter ones} is an independent clause (isti'nāf) meaning: We will do that, and We will follow the first group with the last. Evidence for this independent clause is the reading of 'Abdullah: {We will follow them} (with the sīn prefix, indicating future). If it is argued that Al-A'raj recited {Then We follow them} with the jazm (jussive mood), which indicates participation in the affliction, then the meaning would be the past, not the future. We reply: The reading established by continuous transmission (tawātur) is {We follow them} (nattabi'uhum) with a vowel on the 'ayn, which necessitates the future tense. If the jazm reading implied the past, there would be a contradiction between the two readings, which is impermissible. Thus, we know that the quiescence of the 'ayn is not for jazm but for alleviation, as narrated in the verse by Imru' al-Qays:

   "And today I drink, not expecting [consequences]."

Then, after clarifying that He will do to these later people what He did to those former ones, the Almighty said: {Indeed, thus do We deal with the criminals}. Meaning, this destruction is only inflicted upon them because they are criminals. Therefore, it is inevitable for all criminals, because the generality of the cause implies the generality of the ruling.

Then the Almighty said: {Woe on that Day to the deniers!} Meaning, even if they are destroyed and punished in this world, the greatest calamity and the most severe disaster are prepared for them on the Day of Resurrection.

Second Question: What is meant by the destruction in His saying {Did We not destroy the former ones}? Is it general death, or death by punishment?

• If it means the former (general death), then it is not a warning to the disbelievers, because this is something that happens to both the believer and the disbeliever, so it cannot serve as a warning to the disbeliever.
• If it means the latter (death by punishment), then His saying {Then We will follow them with the latter ones Indeed, thus do We deal with the criminals} implies that Allah has already done the same to the disbelievers of Quraysh, which is known not to have occurred. Furthermore, Allah the Exalted said: {And Allah would not punish them while you were among them.}

Answer: Why should it not be permissible that what is meant is death by punishment, which did occur to Quraysh on the Day of Badr?

We concede that point. So why should it not be permissible that what is meant by "destruction" is a third meaning, different from the two mentioned—namely, death followed by blame and cursing? It is as if He is saying: Those former ones, due to their intense desire for the world, stubbornly opposed the Prophets and disputed with them, and then they died. Thus, they lost the world, and the curse upon them remains in this world, and the punishment in the Hereafter is eternal and everlasting. So, this will be the state of these existing disbelievers. It is known that such speech is one of the greatest means of deterrence.

7 < { Did We not create you from a lowly fluid? * Then We placed it in a firm resting place * Until a determined term * So We determined, and how excellent are We as determiners! * Woe on that Day to the deniers! } > 7 !