Tabari (1 passage)

1. Full Dutch translation of Tabari's text

   And His statement: ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ شَيْءٌ ) ("the Day when they come forth into the open; nothing of them is hidden from Allah"). By His statement ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ ) ("the Day when they come forth into the open") He means those who were warned, to whom Allah sent His messengers to warn them, while they are visible—that is, to the onlookers: no mountain and no tree comes between them and them, and no covering conceals one from another, but rather they are upon a plain, level and even, with no elevation or curvature in it. And the "hum" ("they") in His statement ( يَوْمَ هُمْ ) ("the Day when they") is in the nominative position by reason of what follows it, like the statement of someone: "I did that on the day al-Ḥajjāj was governor (amīr)."

   The grammarians differed concerning the reason why "hum" is not in the genitive by reason of "yawm" ("day"), even though it is annexed to it. Some of the grammarians of Basra said: "yawm" was annexed in meaning to "hum," and that is why "al-yawm" is not given nunation, as He said: يَوْمَ هُمْ عَلَى النَّارِ يُفْتَنُونَ ("the Day when they are tried over the Fire"), and He said: هَذَا يَوْمُ لا يَنْطِقُونَ ("this is the Day when they do not speak"), the meaning of which is: this is the day of their trial. But because one began with the noun and built upon it, one was not able to put it in the genitive, while the annexation in meaning was to "the trial." This applies only when "al-yawm" has the meaning of "idh" ("when"); otherwise it is ugly. Do you not see that you say: "Would that I had been in the time when Zayd was governor," that is: when Zayd was governor; but if you were to say: "I meet you in the time when Zayd is governor" (with the nominative), then that is not correct. Another said: the meaning of this is that the adverbs of time took on the meaning of "idh" and "idhā" ("when," "whenever"), and that is why they remain in the accusative, whether it be the nominative, genitive, or accusative position. Thus He said: وَمِنْ خِزْيِ يَوْمِئِذٍ ("and from the disgrace of that Day"), where one used the accusative (yawma-idhin) even though the position is genitive, and that is a proof that it takes the place of the particle; and it is permissible to inflect it with the various inflectional forms, because it manifests itself just like the nouns. Do you not see that the referring pronoun does not return to it as it returns to the nouns? And if the referring pronoun does return to it, then it is given nunation and inflected and not annexed, so that one says: "A day on which you speak pleased me," since, when it departed from the meaning of the particle and the referring pronoun returned to it, it became a full noun. And he said: it is permissible with "idh" to say: "I came to you when you are standing," just as you say: "I came to you on the day the judge holds session," so that it becomes a known time; but as for "I came to you on the day you are standing," there is no objection to it and it is permissible according to all of them. And he said: this which they call "annexation" is not a pure annexation.

   And the correct view of the matter, in my opinion, is that the accusative of "yawm" and the rest of the adverbs of time in such a place is comparable to the accusative of the particles, on account of their occurring in the place of the latter; and when they are inflected with the various inflectional forms, that is because they manifest themselves just like the nouns and are thus treated as such.

   And His statement: ( لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ ) ("nothing of them is hidden from Allah"), that is: nor anything of their deeds which they performed in the worldly life, ( شَيْءٌ ) ("anything").

   And Qatāda said concerning it what Bishr related to us, saying: Yazīd related to us, saying: Saʿīd related to us, on the authority of Qatāda, concerning His statement: ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ شَيْءٌ ) ("the Day when they come forth into the open; nothing of them is hidden from Allah"): but they will, on the Day of Resurrection, come forth into the open before Him, and they will not conceal themselves behind mountain or clay.

   And His statement: ( لِمَنِ الْمُلْكُ الْيَوْمَ ) ("To whom belongs the dominion this Day?"). By this He means: the Lord says: to whom belongs the dominion this Day? The mention of "He says" has been omitted, because the indication of the statement suffices for it. And His statement: ( لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ ) ("To Allah, the One, the Subduer"); we have already mentioned earlier the report transmitted concerning this. And the meaning of the statement is: the Lord says: to whom belongs the sovereignty this Day? And that is on the Day of Resurrection; then He Himself answers and says: ( لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ ) ("To Allah, the One"), who has no equal and no likeness, ( الْقَهَّارِ ) ("the Subduer") of all else besides Him by His might, the Victor by His omnipotence.

   Show original Arabic

   وقوله: ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ شَيْءٌ ) يعني بقوله ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ ) يعني المنذرين الذين أرسل الله إليهم رسله لينذروهم وهم ظاهرون يعني للناظرين لا يحول بينهم وبينهم جبل ولا شجر, ولا يستر بعضهم عن بعض ساتر, ولكنهم بقاع صفصف لا أمت فيه ولا عوج . و " هم " من قوله: ( يَوْمَ هُمْ ) في موضع رفع بما بعده, كقول القائل: فعلت ذلك يوم الحجاج أمير. واختلف أهل العربية في العلة التي من أجلها لم تخفض هم بيوم وقد أضيف إليه؟ فقال بعض نحويي البصرة: أضاف يوم إلى هم في المعنى, فلذلك لا ينوّن اليوم, كما قال: يَوْمَ هُمْ عَلَى النَّارِ يُفْتَنُونَ وقال: هَذَا يَوْمُ لا يَنْطِقُونَ ومعناه: هذا يوم فتنتهم, ولكن لما ابتدأ بالاسم, وبنى عليه لم يقدر على جرّه, وكانت الإضافة في المعنى إلى الفتنة, وهذا إنما يكون إذا كان اليوم في معنى إذ, وإلا فهو قبيح; ألا ترى أنك تقول: ليتك زمن زيد أمير: أي إذ زيد أمير, ولو قلت: ألقاك زمن زيدٌ أمير, لم يحسن. وقال غيره: معنى ذلك: أن الأوقات جعلت بمعنى إذ وإذا, فلذلك بقيت عل نصبها في الرفع والخفض والنصب, فقال: وَمِنْ خِزْيِ يَوْمِئِذٍ فنصبوا, والموضع خفض, وذلك دليل على أنه جعل موضعَ الأداة, ويجوز أن يعرب بوجوه الإعراب, لأنه ظهر ظهور الأسماء; ألا ترى أنه لا يعود عليه العائد كما يعود على الأسماء, فإن عاد العائد نوّن وأعرب ولم يضف, فقيل: أعجبني يوم فيه تقول, لما أن خرج من معنى الأداة, وعاد عليه الذكر صار اسما صحيحا. وقال: وجائز فى إذ أن تقول: أتيتك إذ تقوم, كما تقول: أتيتك يوم يجلس القاضي, فيكون زمنا معلوما, فأما أتيتك يوم تقوم فلا مؤنة فيه وهو جائز عند جميعهم, وقال: وهذه التي تسمى إضافة غير محضة. والصواب من القول عندي في ذلك, أن نصب يوم وسائر الأزمنة في مثل هذا الموضع نظير نصب الأدوات لوقوعها مواقعها, وإذا أعربت بوجوه الإعراب, فلأنها ظهرت ظهور الأسماء, فعوملت معاملتها. وقوله: (لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ) أي ولا من أعمالهم التي عملوها في الدنيا( شَيْءٌ ) . وكان قتادة يقول في ذلك ما حدثنا بشر, قال: ثنا يزيد, قال: ثنا سعيد, عن قتادة, قوله: ( يَوْمَ هُمْ بَارِزُونَ لا يَخْفَى عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ شَيْءٌ ) ولكنهم برزوا له يوم القيامة, فلا يستترون بجبل ولا مدر. وقوله: ( لِمَنِ الْمُلْكُ الْيَوْمَ ) يعني بذلك: يقول الربّ: لمن الملك اليوم; وترك ذكر " يقول " استغناء بدلالة الكلام عليه. وقوله: ( لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ ) وقد ذكرنا الرواية الواردة بذلك فيما مضى قبل. ومعنى الكلام: يقول الربّ: لمن السلطان اليوم؟ وذلك يوم القيامة, فيحيب نفسه فيقول: ( لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ ) الذي لا مثل له ولا شبيه ( القَهَّارِ ) لكلّ شيء سواه بقدرته, الغالب بعزّته.