Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Have they not looked at what is before them and what is behind them of the sky and the earth? If We will, We will sink them into the earth, or We will cause pieces to fall upon them from the sky…”

Then Allah the Exalted said: Do they not look at what is above them and what is beneath them to the end of it. The interrogative here is for the purpose of threat, meaning that Allah threatened these who lied to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his statement that they would be resurrected. He threatened them with one of two things: the sinking (of the earth) or the falling of a piece of punishment from above them. He mentioned "above" and "beneath" because it is not possible to escape from them. As for the right, the left, the back, and the front, escape is possible. If an enemy came to you from behind, you could run to the front. If he came from the front, you could run to the back. But if it comes from below, where do you go? You jump, but you cannot. And if it comes from above, where do you go? You cannot. Thus, Allah the Exalted threatened them with two things from which they cannot escape. And the author's statement: "Have they not looked" Yes, he explained to mean "look." It is better that it be comprehensive of visual sight, which means looking, and heart-sight, which means knowledge and reflection. Meaning that Allah the Glorious and Exalted urges them to reflect, with an urging intended as a threat. So the sight here is comprehensive of the sight of the eye by looking and the sight of the heart by reflection. And his statement which the author also explained "what is above them and what is beneath them" Good. What is between their hands? Based on the author's statement, assuming it is a combined and distributed expression (lawn wa nashr), what is above them is what is between their hands, and what is behind them is what is beneath them. But someone might say that this diverts the speech from its apparent meaning without evidence. Rather, we say what is in front of them what is behind their backs. It is possible that the intended meaning of in front of them is from the time, and it is possible that the intended meaning of is the place. Likewise, we say regarding what is behind them. Note that what is between the hands may be what is in front of you in time, and what is behind you is what you have left behind in time, as in His statement [al-Baqarah:255] meaning what is to come what has passed. And it may be by place, as when you say, "I passed between the hands of the one praying," meaning in front of him, and you say, "The follower stands behind the imam," meaning behind him in place, not in time? In place. Good. Here we say in it, it is possible that the intended meaning is place, and it is possible that the intended meaning is time. The intent is that they should reflect on the matter: Did anyone escape from the punishment of Allah? Look at what is between your hands in place, or what is between your hands in time, and what is behind you in place or time. Did anyone escape from the punishment of Allah? And the answer is no, no one escaped. So they also will not escape from the punishment of Allah. The sentence here is conditional, and the verb of the condition and its response are present tense and jussive. And his statement is conjoined to meaning, or if We will, We will cause a piece to fall upon them. The author said in the reading "with sukun on the sin and with fathah" a piece, meaning that there are two canonical readings: sukun on the sin or with fathah on the sin. It is permissible to read with both. We have previously said that when the readings are multiple, it is better to read with this one at times and that one at times, because they are all truth. And his adhering to one reading is a deficiency, except that the readings which you are not certain are established, it is not permissible for you to read with them, because you must read with what is established with you. He said And in a reading, the three verbs are with the yaa. Where are the three verbs? With the yaa, it is said and the actor in the pronouns here refers back to Allah the Glorious and Exalted. As for the reading with the noon the matter is clear, because the pronoun in it is a pronoun of the speaker. But in the reading with the yaa, the pronoun in it is a pronoun of the absent, and a pronoun of the absent must have a referent to which it refers, either previous or subsequent. Where is the referent of the pronoun? It is said that it is known from the context, as in His statement [al-Nisa:28] Who created it? Allah. So here everyone knows that no one from among humans or other than humans can sink the earth with people or cause a piece of punishment to fall upon them. So the referent of the pronoun is known by the context. And his statement the one who is seen returns to his Lord, indicates the power of Allah to resurrect, to the end of it, meaning that the verse indicates the resurrection. That is, in what is between their hands of the sky and the earth. We have mentioned that what is between their hands and what is behind them of the sky and the earth means it includes everything mentioned before, everything that has passed, everything in front of them in place, and everything that was a creation of that. That we see the verse in the sky: rain descends from the sky upon the barren, dry earth, so it returns green and alive. Is there not in that a proof of the possibility of recreating creation? The answer is yes. For this reason, he said That is, the one who is looked at from what is between our hands and what is behind us of the sky and the earth. That is, a sign of the power of Allah the Glorious and Exalted, and of His knowledge and wisdom. But this verse is not a verse for everyone, rather is taken from servitude, which is humility. And it has been mentioned to us before that humility is of two types: humility for the legislative matter and humility for the cosmic matter. And which of them is praiseworthy and rewarded? Humility for the legislative matter. As for humility for the cosmic matter, this is beyond the capacity of the human, and he is not praised for it. Is the human being humble for the cosmic command of Allah, such as illness, or poverty, or the death of a relative, or the like of that, is he praised for it? No, because it is not from his action. But his being humble for the legislative command of Allah, so he establishes the laws of Allah, this is what he is praised for. Here, the intended meaning of the servant, is the servant who is humble for the cosmic or the legislative? The legislative. Good, by the proof of his statement That is, referring back to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He.