Tafsir of Yunus 10:12

There is disagreement regarding the possessor of this state (dhu al-hal): it is said to be the subject of (calls upon Us), and it is said to be the object of (touches). The latter is considered weak for two reasons: First, the postponement of the state from its proper place without necessity. Second, the meaning implies that he calls frequently in all his states, but the specific states were mentioned because man is typically never free from them, not because harm touches him in every state. To this, it is replied that it is acceptable, for if harm touches him in these states, his calling out in them necessarily follows—since a constraint in the conditional statement is a constraint in the response. If you say, "If Zayd comes while poor, we treat him with kindness," the meaning is that we treat him with kindness in the state of his poverty. You know that the first view is the most apparent. Some consider this distribution of states to apply to individual humans, meaning that among humans are those who call out in this state, and others who call out in that state. Many have mentioned that it is permissible for the intent behind these states to be the generalization of the types of harms, as they are either light—not preventing a person from standing—or moderate—preventing him from standing but not from sitting—or severe—preventing him from both. This is understood through the context.

As for (when), it is said to be in its original sense, and it is said to be for the past tense. (Then when We removed his harm) that touched him, after he called upon Us—as indicated by the letter fa—(he passed on), meaning he departed and continued upon his previous state, forgetting the time of exhaustion and trial; or he passed on from the station of supplication and entreaty, and turned away (far to his side). The "passing" in the first interpretation is metaphorical, while in the second it remains literal, and it is an allusion to the cessation of supplication, as if he had not called upon Us—meaning, as if he had not called upon Us. It is lightened, and the pronoun of state (the dameer al-sha'n) is elided. Similar to this is the verse: "And a face bright of the throat, as if her breasts were two caskets," for the origin of it is ka-annahu (as if it were), then ka-anna was lightened and the pronoun of state was elided. However, Ibn Hisham stated in his Shawahid that this is not definitive, for it is possible the pronoun refers to the "face" or the "chest," according to the variant reading wa-sadrun. It is also reported "as if her breasts" (ka-anna thadyayha), treating ka-anna as governing a visible noun, and it is not far-fetched that this is permissible in the first reading according to some dialects. The similetic clause is in the position of a state describing the subject of (passed on), meaning: he passed on resembling one who did not call upon Us (to the harm), meaning to its removal, because that is what was called upon. It is also said that there is no need for estimation, and (to) means (for), i.e., for the harm (that touched him). The apparent meaning is that this describes the genus of man absolutely, or the disbeliever among them, considering the state of some individuals who are characterized by these traits.

Al-Shihab mentioned that the commentators have three opinions regarding who is meant by "man" here: it is said to be the genus, it is said to be the disbeliever, and it is said to be a specific person; upon the last view, there is no need for the consideration [of the genus], but it has no weight. (Thus) meaning, like that astonishing beautification, (it was made fair-seeming to the extravagant) i.e., to those described with the aforementioned blameworthy traits, (that which they used to do) of turning away from the Reminder and supplication, and immersion in desires. Extravagance is exceeding the limit, and they were named "extravagant" because Allah, the Exalted, gave them strengths and senses to be spent in their proper channels and to be used for what they were created for—knowledge and righteous deeds—yet they spent them on what is not appropriate, even though it is their very capital. The agent of the beautification is either the Owner of the Dominion, glorious is His Majesty, or Satan—may he be cursed—and the verification of this has already passed.

As for the connection of the noble verse to what precedes it, it is said that in each of them there is a "granting of respite" (imla') to the disbelievers by way of gradual deception, after the salvation from the evil established in the first verse and from the harm established in the other. The Imam mentioned two ways regarding its connection to the first verse: First, that the Almighty explained in the first that if He were to send down the torment upon the servant in the world... and He confirmed this in this verse, as it indicates his extreme weakness and the end of his helplessness. Second, that He, the Glorified, indicated in the first that the disbelievers hasten the coming of the torment, and He clarified in this verse that they are liars in that request, as it conveys that if the slightest thing he hates touches man, he pleads to Allah, the Exalted, to remove it from him. And for everyone is a direction.

In the verse is a condemnation of one who abandons supplication in times of ease and rushes to it in times of distress. What befits the state of the perfect is entreaty to his Lord in ease and hardship, for that is more likely to be answered. In the Hadith: "Recognize Allah in ease, and He will recognize you in hardship." Abu al-Sheikh reported from Abu al-Darda' that he said: "Call upon Allah, the Exalted, on the day of your ease, and He will answer you on the day of your distress." And in a Hadith for Tirmidhi from Abu Hurairah—and al-Hakim narrated it from Salman and declared its chain of narration authentic: "Whoever is pleased that Allah, the Exalted, should answer him during hardships and distress, let him increase supplication in times of ease." The narrations regarding this are many.