Tafseer of Yaseen · Yaseen · 36:32
And indeed, all of them will yet be brought present before Us.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
His statement وَإِنْ كُلٌّ لَمَّا جَمِيعٌ لَدَيْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ ("And surely all of them together will be brought before Us"): the Exalted, whose mention is exalted, says: and all these generations whom We have destroyed, and those whom We have not destroyed, and all the others — all of them will, on the Day of Resurrection, be brought together before Us.
As Bishr related to us, saying: Yazīd related to us, saying: Saʿīd related to us, on the authority of Qatāda, concerning وَإِنْ كُلٌّ لَمَّا جَمِيعٌ لَدَيْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ : that is to say, they will be [brought forth] on the Day of Resurrection.
The Qurʾān reciters (qurrāʾ) differed concerning the reading of it. Most of the reciters of Medina and Basra, and some of the reciters of Kūfa, read it as (وَإنْ كُلٌّ لَمَا) with lightening (takhfīf, that is, a single mīm), taking it to mean that this "mā" is the particle to which the lām has been added that serves as the answer to "in," and that the meaning of the statement is: "and all of them have surely been brought together before Us." Most of the reciters of Kūfa, however, read it as (لَمَّا) with doubling of the mīm (tashdīd). For their doubling of it there are, in our view, two possible explanations. The first: that the statement was originally intended by them as "and all of them are surely, of what (la-mim-mā), together," after which one of the mīm letters was dropped because they had become numerous, as the poet said:
"In the morning when the tribe of Bakr ibn Wāʾil floated upon the surface of the water, and we turned the breasts of the horses toward Tamīm." (1)
And the second: that they intended (لَمَّا) to take on the meaning of "illā" ("except, only"), specifically in combination with "in," so that it corresponds to "innamā" when that is used in place of "illā." Some of the grammarians of Kūfa said: it is as though it were "lam" to which "mā" has been added, so that the two together form a particle of exception and pass beyond the scope of the negation. And some of the linguists said: I know of no justification for (لَمَّا) with doubling.
The correct judgment on this, in my view, is that they are two well-known readings that are close to one another in meaning; with whichever of the two the reciter recites, he does what is correct.
------------------------
The footnotes:
(1) This is a verse from a poetic fragment which al-Balādhurī, in "Ansāb al-Ashrāf," attributes to Ṣāliḥ ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAbshamī al-Khārijī, concerning the battle of Ḥāritha ibn Badr al-Ghudānī against the Azāriqa, before al-Muhallab fought them. Al-Mubarrad, in al-Kāmil, attributes it to Qaṭarī ibn al-Fujāʾa al-Khārijī on the day of Dawlāb. The transmission of al-Balādhurī reads "ṭafat fī l-māʾ" ("floated in the water"), and the transmission of al-Mubarrad: "ṭafat ʿalmāʾ." Its origin is "ʿalā l-māʾ" ("upon the water"), just as you say among the Banū al-Ḥārith: "bi-l-Ḥārith." The verse is among the testimonia of al-Farrāʾ in Maʿānī al-Qurʾān (folio 269), where he says: and his statement (وإن كل لما جميع): al-Aʿmash and ʿĀṣim doubled it (لما), while a large group of the reciters of Medina lightened it. It has reached me that ʿAlī lightened it, and that is the correct form; for it is "mā" to which a lām has been added that serves as the answer to "in," as if you said: "and all of them have surely been brought together before Us"; and he merely rightly transferred it from its strengthening. And if you wish, you may intend: "and all of them are, of what (la-min mā), together," after which one of the mīm letters was dropped because of their numerousness, as he said "in the morning when it floated upon the surface of the water ... the verse." The other explanation of the strengthening: that they make "lammā" take the place of "illā," as if it were "lam" to which "mā" has been added, so that the two together became a single particle and passed beyond the scope of the negation. Al-Kisāʾī rejected this statement and said: I know of no justification for "lammā" with doubling in the recitation. And Abū ʿUbayda said in Majāz al-Qurʾān (folio 204): "wa-in kull": when you lighten "in," you put it ("kull") in the nominative thereby, and when you strengthen it, you put it in the accusative. "Lammā jamīʿ," its explanation is: "and all of them are surely together." And "mā" here has the same function as in "mathalan mā baʿūḍatan" and in "ʿammā qalīlin."
