Tafsir of An-Naml 27:66

Readings: It is read as: bal idāraka, bal adraka, bal idrāk, bal tadāraka, bal a-adraka (with two hamzas), bal ā-adraka (with an alif between them), bal adraka (with takhfīf and naql), bal idraka (with a fatha on the lām and shadda on the dāl). Its origin is: bal adraka? (as an interrogation), balā adraka, balā a-adraka, am tadāraka, am adraka. These are twelve readings.

Idāraka originates from tadāraka, where the tā’ was assimilated into the dāl. Adraka is of the form ifta‘ala.

The Meaning: Adraka ‘ilmuhum means: it has ended and become complete. Idāraka means: it has followed in succession and become firm.

There are two interpretations:

First: The causes for the firmness and completion of knowledge—that the Resurrection is inevitable and without doubt—have been attained by them, and they have been empowered to know it, yet they remain doubting and ignorant. This is the meaning of: "Nay, they are in doubt about it; nay, they are blind to it." He refers to the polytheists among those in the heavens and the earth; for when they are mentioned as a group, the action is attributed to all, just as one says, "The tribe of so-and-so did such-and-such," even if only some of them did it.

If you ask: The verse was brought to establish that Allah alone possesses knowledge of the Unseen, and that servants have no knowledge of any part of it, and that the time of their resurrection is part of that Unseen of which they are unaware. How does this align with describing the polytheists as denying the Resurrection despite having the means to know it?

I say: When He mentioned that servants do not know the Unseen and are unaware of the coming Resurrection and its time—which is a statement of their incapacity and the limitation of their knowledge—He followed it with a description of a more severe incapacity: they claim that the inevitable event (the time of recompense) will not occur, despite possessing the means to know its reality and the firmness of that knowledge.

Second: Describing them as having "firm and complete knowledge" is a mockery of them, just as you might say to the most ignorant person, "How knowledgeable you are!" by way of sarcasm. This is because they doubted and were blind to the proof of it, for which the path to knowledge is clear, let alone knowing the time of its occurrence, for which there is no path to knowledge.

Regarding adraka ‘ilmuhum and idāraka ‘ilmuhum, there is another view: that adraka means "to end and perish," from the phrase "the fruit has ripened (adrakat)," because that is its final stage before it ceases to exist. Al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) interpreted it as "their knowledge has vanished." Tadāraka is from the phrase "the tribe of so-and-so tadārakū," meaning they followed one another in destruction.

If you ask: What is the basis for the reading bal a-adraka as an interrogation? I say: It is an interrogation by way of denial regarding the attainment of their knowledge. The same applies to am adraka and am tadāraka, because am here carries the meaning of bal (nay) and the hamza (interrogation).

If you ask: What of those who read balā adraka and balā a-adraka? I say: When He brought balā (nay/indeed) after saying "And they do not perceive," the meaning is: "Indeed, they do perceive." Then He explained this "perception" by saying adraka ‘ilmuhum regarding the Hereafter, by way of sarcasm, which signifies the absolute negation of knowledge. It is as if He said: "Their perception of the time of the Hereafter is that they do not know it will occur," which returns to the negation of perception in the most emphatic way. As for the one who reads balā a-adraka as an interrogation, the meaning is: "Do they indeed perceive when they will be resurrected?" Then He denies their knowledge of its occurrence. If their knowledge of its occurrence is denied, they cannot have any perception of the time of its occurrence, because knowledge of the time of an event is dependent upon knowledge of the event itself.

If you ask: What is the meaning of these three "nay" (bal) interruptions? I say: They are merely a breakdown of their states:

1. First, He describes them as not perceiving the time of the Resurrection.
2. Then, that they do not know the Resurrection will occur at all.
3. Then, that they flounder in doubt and uncertainty, failing to remove it despite the ability to do so. Consider that one who has not heard of the differences between sects is in a better state than one who has heard them and sits idle, not seeking to distinguish truth from falsehood.
4. Then, He describes them in an even worse state: blindness, like cattle, their concern limited to their bellies and private parts, with no thought of truth, falsehood, or the consequences of their actions. He made the Hereafter the object of their blindness (‘amūn ‘anhā), using ‘an (from) instead of min (of), because disbelief in the final outcome and the recompense is what made them like cattle, neither reflecting nor seeing.

"And those who disbelieve say: 'When we have become dust, we and our forefathers, shall we indeed be brought forth? We have been promised this, we and our forefathers, before; this is nothing but legends of the ancients.'"