Tafsir of Yunus 10:11

"And if Allah were to hasten for the people..."

They are those who do not expect the meeting with Allah Almighty, mentioned in His saying: "Indeed, those who do not expect the meeting with Us..." (Yunus: 7). The verse is connected to that, indicating their deserving of punishment and that He, Almighty, only grants them respite as a form of gradual leading to ruin (istidraj). The mention of the believers occurred in the interim as a completion and contrast. The word "people" (al-nas) was brought in place of the pronoun referring to them to make the matter appear more heinous.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is noted that they were introduced by the generic noun because the hastening of good for them is not contingent upon their aforementioned attribute, as not all of that occurs by way of istidraj. The intended meaning is: "If Allah Almighty were to hasten for them the evil" which they were asking to be hastened—by way of denial and mockery. For they used to say: "O Allah, if this is the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful punishment," and they would say, "When is this promise, if you are truthful?" and the like.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Qatadah that he said: "It is a person’s prayer against himself and his wealth with what he dislikes to be answered for him." They also narrated from Mujahid that he said: "It is a person’s saying to his child and wealth when he is angry: 'O Allah, do not bless it; O Allah, curse it.'" This is an interpretation that applies the term "people" in a general sense, but the first choice is preferred. This is supported by what is said, that the verse was revealed concerning al-Nadr ibn al-Harith when he said: "O Allah, if this is the truth..." etc.

His saying, Almighty: "...their hastening of the good" (isti'jalahum bi-l-khayr) is in the accusative case as a verbal noun (masdar). The original, according to what Abu al-Baqa said, is ta'jilan mithla isti'jalihim (a hastening like their hastening). Then, the ta'jilan and its added adjective were omitted, and the possessive noun (mudaf ilayh) was elevated to its place.

In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that "their hastening of the good" was placed in the position of "His hastening for them" to signal the speed of His, Almighty’s, response to them and His fulfilling of their requests, such that their hastening of the good is as if it were a hastening of it [the evil]. This is a solid statement that indicates the precision of its author's insight, as Ibn al-Munir said, for a confirmatory verbal noun is rarely placed alongside something other than its own verb in the Book of Allah without such a noble benefit. Grammarians say regarding this: "The verbal noun is treated according to an implicit verb indicated by the one mentioned," and they add nothing further. If the intelligent person consults his own disposition and communes with his thoughts, he knows it was linked to other than its verb for a benefit. This is seen in His saying: "And Allah caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth" (nabatan)—alerting one to the efficacy of Power upon the destined and the speed of the execution of His decree, such that Allah’s causing them to grow is the very growth itself. That is, when the "causing to grow" exists, the "growth" exists inevitably, as if one were the identical twin of the other; thus, it was linked to it.

Al-Tayyibi said: "The original speech was, 'If Allah were to hasten for the people the evil, its hastening...' then 'the hastening' (al-isti'jal) was placed in its position, then attributed to them, so it was said 'their hastening of the good,' because the intention is that His mercy preceded His wrath." Thus, the intent was to increase the hyperbole; for their hastening of the good is faster than Allah Almighty’s hastening of that for them, for man was created hasty, while Allah Almighty is Patient, Forbearing, delaying for the immense interests which the human mind cannot grasp, and despite that, He fulfills their requests and hastens their answers.

Abu Hayyan deemed the estimate to be "a hastening like their hastening" or that there is an omitted particle indicated by the verbal noun, meaning: "If Allah were to hasten for people the evil when they hastened the good." He said: "Because the meaning of 'ajjala (hastened) is not the same as ista'jala (sought to hasten); for 'ajjala denotes the occurrence, while ista'jala denotes the request for haste," and that occurred from Allah Almighty, while this is attributed to them; thus, what al-Zamakhshari and his followers established is not permissible. Al-Safaqsi replied that istaf'ala here is for the purpose of indicating the occurrence of the action, not the request for it, just as istaqarra means aqarra (settled). His saying "and this is attributed to them" is based on the verbal noun being attributed to the doer, but it is possible that it is attributed to the object. It is not hidden that all of this stems from a lack of contemplation.

The meaning of His saying, Almighty: "...their term would have been decreed for them" (la-qudiya ilayhim ajaluhum) means: they would have been put to death and destroyed entirely. It is said: qudiya ilayhi ajaluhu, meaning his term in which his death was destined was completed for him, so he perished. In preferring the passive voice, it follows the path of Majesty, while also signaling the inevitability of the Doer. Ibn 'Amir and Ya'qub read la-qada (He would have decreed) as active voice. 'Abdullah read la-qadayna (We would have decreed), which contains an iltifat (shift in perspective).

Choosing the future tense (mudari') in the conditional sentence, even though the meaning is in the past, is to convey that the non-fulfillment of the term is due to the continuation of the "non-hastening." For the negated future tense occurring in the place of the past is not definitive. The researchers indicate that the subject here is not the hastening itself, but rather His will for it, which necessitates the aforementioned decree in both existence and non-existence. For the decree is not a matter distinct from the hastening of the evil in itself, but is either the same as it or a part of it, like its other parts, without any distinction over the rest, since there is no consideration in the concept of the "hastening of evil" regarding severity or terror. Therefore, there would be no added benefit in its sequence—whether in existence or non-existence—that would justify placing it after it. It is not like His saying: "If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would suffer," nor like His saying: "And if you could see when they are made to stand before their Lord," nor His saying: "And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for what they have earned, He would not leave upon the earth any creature," when the answer is interpreted as total annihilation. Furthermore, there is in the sequence of the consequent upon the will of the antecedent what is not found in its sequence upon the antecedent itself, namely the indication of hyperbole, the terrorizing of the matter, and the indication that affairs are contingent upon His, Almighty’s, will, which is built upon ultimate wisdom.

And His saying, Almighty: "...We leave those who do not expect the meeting with Us..." i.e., We abandon them, by way of respite and istidraj, "...in their transgression..." which is the lack of expectation of the meeting and the denial of the resurrection, recompense, and the evil deeds and abominable statements that branch off from that, "...wandering blindly." This cannot be correctly connected to the condition of law nor its answer, because of its non-existence, and that is what is intended to be proven. And law is not in the sense of an (that), as has been said. Rather, it is either connected to the totality of the conditional sentence, as it is in the sense of "He does not hasten for them," and in its force, as if it were said: "He does not hasten, but rather He leaves them." Or it is connected to an implicit [phrase] indicated by the conditional, i.e., "But He grants them respite," or "But He does not hasten and does not decree, so He leaves them." Every one of these has been stated by someone. It is also said that the sentence is an initiation, and the estimate is "So We leave them." It is also said that the fa is in the answer of an implicit condition, and the meaning is: "If Allah Almighty were to hasten what they sought to hasten, He would have destroyed them, but He grants them respite so they may increase in their transgression, then He will annihilate them. And if such is the case, then We leave those who do not expect the meeting with Us in their transgression wandering blindly, then We will cut off the roots of those who have done wrong."

The author of al-Kashf, after establishing that the connection of "And if Allah were to hasten..." etc., is to His saying, "Indeed, those who do not expect the meeting with Us," and that the mention of the believers only occurred in the middle as a completion and contrast, and is not extraneous, said: "There is no need to make this the answer of an implicit condition." And in placing the relative pronoun (al-mawsul) in the place of the pronoun, there is a type of clarification of the transgression by what is in the position of the relative clause, and a signal of its being the cause for the abandonment and the istidraj.