75:34-35, Can someone help me understand these verses?

wa alaykum us-Salaam
try http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp

أولى is peril, i.e. the punishment of hell fire.

format_quote Originally Posted by

وۡلَىٰ لَكَ فَأَوۡلَىٰ (٣٤) ثُمَّ أَوۡلَىٰ لَكَ فَأَوۡلَىٰٓ (

75:34) This (attitude) is worthy of you, altogether worthy;

ثُمَّ أَوْلَى لَكَ فَأَوْلَى ﴿75:35﴾

(75:35) again, it is worthy of you, altogether worthy. *22

*22 The commentators have given several meanings of the word aufa laka: shame on you, may you perish, woe for you, may you hasten to your doom. But in our opinion, in view of the context, the most appropriate meaning is that which Hafiz Ibn Kathir has given in his commentary: "When you have had the boldness to disown your Creators then it only behoves a person like you to persist in the sort of conduct you display." This is the same sort of sarcastic remark as occurred in Surah Ad-Dukhan: 49 above. While meting out punishment to the culprit in Hell, it will be said: "Taste this: a mighty and honourable man that you are!"



أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنْسَانُ أَنْ يُتْرَكَ سُدًى ﴿75:36﴾

(75:36) Does man *23 think that he will be left alone, unquestioned? *24

*23 Now, in conclusion, the same theme is being repeated with which the discourse began Life-after-death is necessary as well as possible.

*24 The word suda when used with regard to a camel implies a camel who is wandering aimlessly, grazing at will, without there being anybody to look after him. Thus, the verse means
"Dces than think that he has been left to himself to wander at will as if his Creator had laid no responsibility on him, had imposed no duty on him, had forbidden nothing to him, that at no time in future he would be required to account for his deeds'?"

This same theme has been expressed in AlMu'minun: 115 thus: "On the Day of Resurrection, AIIah will ask the disbelievers: 'Did you think that We had created you without any purpose, and that you would never be brought back to Us?" At both these places the argument for the necessity of the life hereafter has been presented as a question. The question means: Do you really think that you are no more than mere animals? Don't you see the manifest difference between yourself and the animal? The animal has been created without the power of choice and authority, but you have been blessed with the power of choice and authority; there is no question of morality about what the animal does, but your acts are necessarily characterised by good and evil. Then, how did you take it into your head that you had been created irresponsible and unanswerable as the animal has been?

Why the animal will not be resurrected, is quite understandable

The animal only fulfilled the fixed demands of its instinct it did not use its intellect to propound a philosophy; it did not invent a religion; it did not make anyone its god nor became a god for others; it did nothing that could be called good or bad; it did not enforce a good or bad way of life, which would influence others, generation after generation, so that it should deserve a reward or punishment for it. Hence, if it perished to annihilation, it would be understandable, for it could not be held responsible for any of its acts to account for which it might treed to be resurrected. But how could you be excused from life after-death when right till the time of your death you continued to perform moral acts, which your own intellect judged as good or bad and worthy of reward or punishment? Should a man who killed an innocent person and then fell a victim to a sudden accident immediately after it, get off Scot-free and should never be punished for the crime of murder he committed? Do you really feel satisfied that a man, who sowed corruption and iniquity in the world, which entailed evil consequences for mankind for centuries after him, should himself perish like an insect; or a grasshopper, and should never be resurrected to account for his misdeeds, which corrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings after him? Do you think that the man, who struggled throughout his life for the cause of truth and justice, goodness and peace, and suffered hardships for their sake, was a creation of the kind of an insect, and had no right to be rewarded for his good acts?


أَلَمْ يَكُ نُطْفَةً مِنْ مَنِيٍّ يُمْنَى ﴿75:37﴾
(75:37) Was he not a drop of ejaculated semen,

ثُمَّ كَانَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقَ فَسَوَّى ﴿75:38﴾
(75:38) then he became a clot, and then Allah made it into a living body and proportioned its parts,

فَجَعَلَ مِنْهُ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنْثَى ﴿75:39﴾
(75:39) and then He made of him a pair, male and female?


أَلَيْسَ ذَلِكَ بِقَادِرٍ عَلَى أَنْ يُحْيِيَ الْمَوْتَى ﴿75:40﴾

(75:40) Does He, then, not have the power to bring back the dead to life? *25

*25 This is an argument for the possibility of life-after-death. As for the people who believe that the whole act of creation, starting from the emission of a sperm-drop till its development into a perfect tnan, is only a manifestation of the power and wisdom of Allah, they cannot in fact refute this argument in any way, for their intellect however shamelessly and stubbornly they might behave, cannot Refuse to admit that the God Who thus brings about man in the world, also has the power to bring the same man into being once again. As for those who regard this expressly wise act only as a result of accident, do not in fact have any explanation to offer, unless they are bent upon stubbornness, how in every part and in every nation of the world, from the beginning of creation till today, the birth of boys and girls has continuously been taking place in such proportion that at no time it has so happened that in some human population only males or only females might have been born and there might be no possibility of the continuation of the human race. Has this also been happening just accidentally? To make such an absurd claim one Should at least be so shameless as to come out one day with the claim that London and New York, Moscow and Peking, have come into existence just accidentally. (For further explanation, see E.N.'s 27 to 30 of Surah Ar-Rum, E.N. 77 of AshShura).
There are several traditions to show that whenever the Holy Prophet recited this verse, he would sometimes respond with bala (why not!), sometimes with Subhanaka Allahumma fa-bala (Glorified are You, O AIlah, why not!) and sometimes with Subhanaka fa-bala or Subhanaka wa-bala. (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Da'ud). Abu Da'ud contains a tradition from Hadrat Abu Hurairah, saying that the Holy Prophet said: "When in Surah At-Tin, you read the verse; Alais-Allahu bi-ahkam-il-Hakimin ("Is not Allah the greatest Ruler of all?"), you should respond to it, saying: Bala wa ana `ala dhalika min-ash-shahidin (Why not? I am of those who bear witness to this"). And when you read this verse of Surah AI-Qiyamah, say: Bald; and when you read verse: Fa-bi ayyi ,hadith-in ba `da hu yu minun ("Now, what message is there after this (Qur'an) in which they will believe?" of Surah Al-Mursalat, say: Amanna billah (We believed in Allah), Traditions on this subject have been related also by Imam Ahmad Tirmidhi, lbn al-Mundhir, lbn Marduyah, Baihaqi and Hakim.

http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem.html