Tafsir of Yunus 10:27

"And those who earned evil deeds"—meaning idolatry (shirk) and acts of disobedience. This is a subject (mubtada’) based on the estimation of an omitted noun. Its predicate (khabar) is His saying, the Exalted: "A recompense for an evil deed with its like." The letter ba is connected to "recompense," which is a verbal noun (masdar) of the passive voice, not a noun representing compensation—contrary to some of the views mentioned later, according to what has been said. That is: the recompense of those who earned evil deeds is that one single evil deed is requited with one similar evil deed, in the sense of not increasing [the punishment], according to the dictates of justice. Otherwise, there is no obstacle to [God] pardoning [them] by the dictates of generosity, but that applies to other than idolatry.

It is also permissible that "a recompense for an evil deed with its like" is a sentence composed of a subject and predicate, which serves as the predicate of the initial subject (al-ladhina). In that case, there is no need to estimate an omitted noun, but the pronoun referring back (al-‘a’id) is omitted; meaning: "the recompense of an evil deed from them [is] with its like," on the pattern of al-samnu manwani bi-dirham (Ghee is [measured in] two manns for a dirham). Abu al-Fath permitted that jaza’u be a subject whose predicate is omitted; meaning: "They have a recompense for an evil deed with its like," and the "for them" (lahum) was omitted due to the context of [the previous verse] "for those who did good." The [entire] sentence is then the predicate for "those who earned." In this case, there is no need to estimate a referring pronoun, just as there is no need to estimate an omitted noun.

More than one [scholar] permitted that "those" (al-ladhina) be a conjunction linked to the ladhina which is in the genitive case, which, along with its prepositional phrase, is the predicate. And "recompense for an evil deed" is a conjunction linked to "the best" (al-husna), which is the subject. In that, there is [the issue of] conjunction to the two requirements of two different governors. Regarding this, there are schools of thought: absolute prohibition (which is the view of Sibawayh), absolute permission (the view of al-Farra'), and distinction—where if the genitive phrase precedes, like "In the house is Zayd, and in the room is ‘Amr," it is permissible; otherwise, it is forbidden. Those who forbid it interpret such examples as the omission of the preposition, making it regular, like the saying: “Every man you think is a man, and a fire ignited at night is a fire.”

It is said: It is a subject and the predicate is the sentence "they have no protector from God" or "as if their faces had been covered" or "those are the companions of the Fire," and what is in between is a parenthetical clause, and there is disagreement among the grammarians regarding multiple parenthetical clauses. In this case, "a recompense for an evil deed" is the subject, and "with its like" is related to it, and the predicate is omitted, meaning: "is occurring/is established." Or, "with its like" is the predicate, on the basis that the ba is redundant, or that the prepositional phrase is in the place of the predicate on the basis that the ba is not redundant. The preferable view is to estimate the connection as specific, such as "established," though estimating it generally is also valid. The statement that it has no meaning is a visible error.

In any case, there is no indication in the verse that "the increase" (ziyada) is the "favor" (fadl) rather than the "vision" [of God]. You have already known that its interpretation as such is what has been narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and a group of the righteous predecessors, so one should not turn away from it due to what may appear to be a contradiction—especially since the Imam and others have brought numerous proofs that this is indeed the intended meaning. The two verses were not brought in the same style in order to observe the perfect distance and contrast between the two groups. The mention of "earning" (kasb) is to signify that this is only due to their own bad conduct and crimes against themselves.

"And humiliation will cover them"—meaning great disgrace. The tanwin here is for magnification, opposite to the tanwin in [the other verse], as we have indicated. The attribution of this "covering" (rahaq) to their own selves—overwhelming their faces—signifies that it encompasses them and envelops them.

It is read as yurhaquhum with the yā’ prefix, because the agent (fa’il) is explicit and its femininity is not true (biological). It is said: The masculine [verb] is used because the intent behind "humiliation" is its cause, metaphorically. This is not needed, as is obvious, because the masculine [used with] metaphorical feminine [nouns], especially when separated, is very frequent.

The waw (conjunction), as more than one has said, is for conjunction, and what follows is joined to "earned" (kasabu). Abu al-Baqa’ weakened this by arguing that the future tense cannot be joined to the past tense. The response was to deny this claim. There is an obvious emphasis in this conjunction, as it brings out the occurrence of the humiliation upon them on the Day of Resurrection as a known outcome by making it, through the conjunction, a part of the relative clause. It is also said that it is a conjunction to what precedes it based on the meaning; as if it were said: "And those who earned evil deeds, their evil will be requited with its like, and humiliation will cover them." Perhaps this is better than the first. As for making the waw denote a state (hal), and the sentence being in the place of the state for the pronoun in "earned," its condition is obvious.

"They have no protector from God"—meaning they have no one to protect them and prevent them from the wrath of God the Exalted and His punishment. The first min (from) is related to "protector" (‘asim), and the speech is based on the omission of a genitive, and the second min is redundant for the sake of generalizing the negation. Or: "they have no one from His side, and with God the Exalted, who would protect them," just as there is for the believers. Thus, the first min is related to an omitted element that serves as a state for "protector." It is also said it is related to the "existence" implied by the prepositional phrase, and there is no omitted genitive in the speech, and the second min is as it is. The sentence is either a new beginning or a state of the pronoun in "covers them." In the negation of a "protector," there is an obvious emphasis in the negation of protection.

"As if their faces had been covered with pieces of the night"—meaning as if they had been clothed with it due to the excess of its blackness and darkness. The prepositional phrase is an adjective for "pieces" (qita’). His saying, the Exalted: "dark" (muzliman) is a state of "the night" (al-layl), and its governor is the connection of the prepositional phrase, whether it is a verb or a noun.

Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be a state of "pieces" or an adjective for it. It was necessary for it to be plural [to match qita’], except that the state or adjective was made singular to signify "many." It is obvious that this is an affectation that is unnecessary. The apparent meaning is that min (of) is for partitivity (tab’id). Some investigators said: "Night" has two meanings: a time during which the sun is hidden, either little or much, as when it is said, "The night has entered," and "It is now night," or [the time] between sunset and sunrise, or its proximity to sunrise. Thus, min is either partitive in the first sense or explanatory in the second.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted that the governor of the state be "covered" (ughshiyat), based on the fact that "of the night" is an adjective for "pieces," so its reaching the noun it describes is like its reaching the adjective. The author of al-Taqrib said: This is questionable, because "of the night" is not a component of "covered" such that it would be a governor for the genitive; rather, the estimation is that it is an adjective, and the governor in it is the "existence" (al-istiqrar). Also, the adjective is "of the night," and the owner of the state is the night, so "covered" cannot be a governor for the owner of the state, even though that is the intent. It might be said: min is for clarification (tabyin), and the estimate is "existing of the night," so "covered" is the governor for the adjective, which is "existing," so it is as if it is a governor for "the night." This is based on the idea that the governor of a governor of a thing is a governor for it, which is false. Thus, the view is that min is partitive, meaning "some of the night," and it becomes a substitute (badal) for "pieces," and "dark" is made a state for the "part" and not for "the night," so the governor for the owner of the state is "covered." It is clear that this view of ughshiya qita’an min laylin muzliman is an affectation and forced.

The Imam Amin al-Din answered that the relation of "covered" to "pieces" is based on its vague essence which is explained by "the night," not based on the concept of "pieces" in itself. It was only mentioned to clarify the amount with which their faces were covered, which is "the night [being] dark." So the verb's reach to "pieces" is based on what the meaning does not complete without, just like the verb's reach to it when it is said: "I bought arṭāl (units of weight) of oil, pure." The object being bought is the oil, and the arṭāl is based on the amount of what he bought pure. So the governor of the state is the verbal governor, and the meaning of the verb is not observed in the prepositional phrase in terms of governance because the verbal governor overwhelms it by its appearance. The defect in this is obvious.

He said in al-Kashf: Al-Zamakhshari held that "covered" has a connection to His saying, the Exalted: "of the night," because the adjective and the noun are united, especially since the pieces are part of the night; thus, it is permissible for it to be a governor for the adjective in that respect. It is as if he said: "He covered the night [with] darkness." This is like what he permitted in [the verse] "And We removed whatever was in their chests of resentment [as] brothers," that it could be a state for the pronoun, based on its unity with the possessor (mudaf), as if it were said: "We removed their resentment [as] brothers." And like what was permitted in "The creed of Abraham, inclining [to truth]," because the creed is like a part [of him], as if it were said: "Follow Abraham, inclining [to truth]."

This which al-Zamakhshari held is the secret of this place, not what many have lengthened, especially the interpretation of min as "abstracting" (tajrid); for it is, despite the meaning being partitive rather than explanatory—and not every explanation is an abstraction—not completing its intent. Finished.

He has alluded in this to his teacher, the scholar al-Tayyibi, for he—may mercy be upon him—labored in what he labored [to explain]. The fairness is that what al-Zamakhshari permitted here is something that should not be done, and the effort to correct it, while there is a clear view that is not burdened by darkness, is close to being a futility.

Ibn Kathir, al-Kisa’i, Ya’qub, and Sahl read qita’an with a silent ta’, which is a singular noun meaning a group of the night, or the darkness of its end, or a collective noun for a piece. They cited the verse: "Open the door and look at the stars; how many pieces of dark night are upon us." According to this, it is permissible for "dark" to be an adjective for it or a state of it without the affectation of interpretation. It is read as ka’annama yughsha wujuhahum qita’un min al-layli muzlimun (as if there covers their faces a piece of the night, dark). The speech regarding this is evident, and the sentence, like the one before it, is either a new beginning or a state of the pronoun in "covers them."

"Those"—meaning those described with the aforementioned shameful characteristics—"are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally" (27), never to leave it ever. The Wa’idiyyah (those who threaten eternal punishment) argued with this verse for their false claim about the eternity of the major sinners [in Hell]. The response is that "evil deeds" includes idolatry and all other acts of disobedience, and evidence has been established that there is no eternal stay for those who commit acts of disobedience, so the verse is specific to those other than them. Also, it may be said that they are included in "those who did good," based on what Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others narrated from Ibn Abbas, and Abu al-Shaykh from Qatadah, that they are those who testified that there is no god but God—meaning believers in general—so they do not enter into the other category, due to the mutual exclusivity of the two judgments. It is also said that the al (definite article) in "evil deeds" is for exhaustive categorization, so it refers to one who has done all of that, and the saying regarding his eternity in the Fire is agreed upon, though that is not the case here.