al-Anbiyāʾ 21:104

Yawma naṭwi's-samāʾa ka-ṭayyi's-sijilli li'l-kutub, kamā badaʾnā awwala khalqin nuʿīduh, waʿdan ʿalaynā, innā kunnā fāʿilīn

"The day We roll up the sky as a scroll is rolled up over its writings. As We began the first creation, so shall We bring it back — a promise binding on Us. We shall surely do it."

Ṭayy — root ط-و-ي. Its sense: to fold a thing and wind it up, to roll it. Ṭawā'ṣ-ṣaḥīfa — he rolled up the sheet. Its opposite is nashr: to open, to spread out.

And the same root was treated at al-Zumar on 39/67: wa's-samāwātu maṭwiyyātun bi-yamīnih. I rely on that treatment.

And the note of transcendence set down there holds here too and must be repeated. The note at al-Zumar was this:

"These expressions cannot be understood in a way that ascribes an organ, a body or a place to God. […] Two positions are transmitted in the classical commentaries: accepting the wording as it stands and leaving its modality to God (tafwīḍ), or interpreting it in the sense of power and complete disposal (taʾwīl). I transmit both and impose no preference."

And the difference between the two verses must be recorded:

That is, al-Zumar sets a declaration of transcendence after the description, while al-Anbiyāʾ sets a rule after the comparison.

Sijill — root س-ج-ل. And there is a real disagreement in the classical commentaries about what the word is. I give it in a table:

All three explanations are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.

And there is disagreement about the lām in the phrase li'l-kutub as well:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

There is a note about this root at al-Muṭaffifīn: it was recorded there that some connect it with the word sijjīl, but that this is held weak and that the two words come from different roots. I rely on that treatment.

I draw the boundary here too, per the method (Method), because this verse as well has been matched with cosmological models.

I derive from the verse no physical model of the end of the universe. My reason is the same as the reasons I gave at the thirtieth verse, and one of them is particularly strong here:

The verse itself sets up a comparison: ka-ṭayyi… — "as … is rolled up". Kāf is the particle of comparison. That is, the sentence says not how the event will happen but what it is like. To derive physics from a simile is to fail to see what a simile is.

And the other side of the comparison is a piece of writing — not a heavenly body. The words are taken from the world of writing and paper.

I record this as my own reading.

There is disagreement about the parsing of the sentence:

I transmit the disagreement and do not impose a preference.

And what the sentence builds must be recorded: an analogy. The second creation is likened to the first. That is, the proof is taken not from the future but from the past.

وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا — waʿdan is in the accusative, an emphatic verbal noun. And there is a fine point in the preposition ʿalaynā: ʿalā in Arabic conveys obligation. That is, the word is not merely a promise — it is named as a burden taken on.

إِنَّا كُنَّا فَٰعِلِينَ — and this expression occurs for the fourth time in the sūra.

The same word in four places. It is a countable fact and will be tabulated at the end.