Tafsir of Yunus 10:28

"And the Day We will gather them" is a resumed speech, presented to explain another of their horrific states. Its delay in mention, despite its occurrence prior to some of their previously narrated states—as some investigators have said—is to signal the independence of each preceding and succeeding state for the sake of consideration. If the external chronological order had been strictly observed, it might have been counted as a single thing; thus, it was separated from what preceded it. Al-Tabrisi claimed that since Allah the Exalted had preceded it with the mention of recompense, He explained here the timing of that. On this view, the verse is connected to what was mentioned just before, but it is not hidden that this did not come out as an explanation. More appropriate than this is to say: the aspect of its connection to what precedes it is that it contains an emphasis on His saying—Exalted is He—"they have no protector from Allah," in terms of its indication that their partners will be of no benefit to them.

"Day" is in the accusative case due to an implied verb, such as "remember" or "fear." The pronoun in "We will gather them" refers to both groups: those who did good (the best reward) and those who earned evil, because that is what is immediately understood from His saying—Exalted is He—"all together." Some of the second group are singled out for mention in His saying—Exalted is He—"then We will say to those who associated [partners]," meaning the polytheists among them. This is because their humiliation and threatening before the eyes of all witnesses is more horrific, and announcing the gathering of all is more profound in evoking the terror of that Day. Al-Qadi al-Baydawi and others adopted this view. To suggest that the two groups intended are the groups of disbelievers and polytheists is very contrary to the apparent meaning.

It is said that the pronoun refers specifically to the second group, so "those who associated" is a case of the noun acting in place of the pronoun. The subtlety in specifying the description of their shirk (associating partners) within the adjective clause, among all the other evils they earned, is that the rebuke and reprimand are built upon it, along with what it contains as an indication that it is the greatest of their crimes and the root of their evils. This is also the secret behind the manifestation [of the noun] in place of the pronoun according to the latter view.

"Stay in your place" is a phrase functioning as an adverb related to an omitted verb that this [expression] stands in for. It is in the genitive construct with the Kaf and Mim (the suffix), which is the sign of the plural; meaning, "Stay in your place." The intent is "wait until you see what will be done to you." According to Abu Ali al-Farsi, makan (place) is a verbal noun, and its vowel is one of indeclinability (bina). Is it an intransitive verbal noun or a transitive one? The apparent words of some suggest the former, while the report from the Sharh al-Tashil suggests the latter. This is because, according to the former, it would have to be transitive like ilzam (keep to), yet it is intransitive. The response given was to deny its intransitivity. Al-Safaqsi said: there is that in the speech of al-Jawhari which indicates that ilzam can be both intransitive and transitive, so perhaps that of which [this] is a noun is the intransitive. The Kufans mentioned that it can be transitive, and they heard from the Arabs, "Your place, Zayd," meaning "Wait for him." Al-Damamini chose in the Sharh al-Tashil that it is not a verbal noun, saying: I do not know the motivation for making this adverb a verbal noun, whether intransitive or transitive. Why not just let it be an adverb in its original state, without removing it from its origin? That is, "Hold your place" or "Wait in your place." Claiming it is a verbal noun is only appropriate where it is impossible to combine the noun and the verb, like Sah (hush) or Alayka (be upon you) or Ilayka (away with you). But when it is possible, as in "behind you" and "in front of you," it is not [a verbal noun]. There is an evident objection to this.

His saying—Exalted is He—"you" is an emphasis for the pronoun transferred to the adverb from its operator, according to the first view, or for the implicit pronoun in the verbal noun, according to the second view. His saying—Exalted is He—"and your partners" is a conjunction to that. It is said that "you" is a subject whose predicate is omitted—meaning, "you are disgraced" or "you are recompensed." This is contrary to the apparent meaning, along with the disjointedness of the structure it entails. It is also said that the reading of "and your partners" in the accusative (nasb) forbids this, for then it would become like "every man and his business," and in such a structure, that [interpretation] is not valid due to the lack of an operator for it. The operator according to the first interpretation is apparent because of "your place."

"Then We will separate them" means "We will divide them." It is from zaltu al-shay'a an makanihi aziluhu, meaning "I moved it away." The intensification (doubling of the root) is for multiplicity, not for transitivization. It is ya'i (its third root letter is ya) and its pattern is fa'ala, a substitute for zayala. It has been recited as such, and it carries the same meaning, like kallamtuhu and kalamtuhu (I spoke to him), and sa'ara khaddahu and sa'ara khaddahu (he turned his cheek). Abu al-Baqa' said: it is wawi (its root includes waw) because it is from zala yazulu (to cease/depart), and the waw was changed to ya because it is on the pattern of fi'ala. The first [view] is more correct, based on what you have learned, and because its verbal noun is tazyil (separation) not zuyula, and the fa'ala pattern is more common than fi'ala. The accusative of baina (between) is on the basis of it being an adverb, not that it is a direct object as some might imagine. The intent of the separation is to cut the ties and connections that existed between them and their partners in the world. It is said that it is a physical separation, but the evident nature of the majestic structure does not support this. It is a conjunction to "We will say," and the preference for the past tense is to signify certainty, for the sake of greater rebuke and frustration. The particle Fa (then/so) signifies the occurrence of the separation and its beginnings immediately following the address without delay, signaling the total looseness of the relationship and connection between the two groups.

His saying—Exalted is He—"And their partners will say" is a conjunction to what preceded it. It is permitted that it be in the place of a circumstantial state (hal), with the assumption of "had" or without it, according to the difference of opinion. The genitive construct is based on the fact that the disbelievers were the ones who took them as partners for Allah—Exalted is He. It is also said: because they made for them a share of their wealth, making them partners for themselves in that. It is said that these partners are the idols; for the people of Mecca used to worship them, and they are the ones intended in most of these verses. Attributing speech to them is not far from the power of Allah—Exalted is He; He makes them speak, He who makes all things speak in that situation. They will say to them: "It was not us you used to worship." The intent of that is their disavowal of their worship, and that in reality, they only worshipped their own desires that called them to it. How great a position this is for the intercession they expected from them!

It is said that they are the angels and the Messiah, peace be upon them, due to His saying—Exalted is He—"And the Day We will gather them all, then We will say to the angels, 'Is it you that these people used to worship?'" and His saying—Exalted is He—"Did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'" The intent of that statement is what was intended previously as well, for the negation of worship is not correct since it happened in reality, and lying does not occur on the Day of Resurrection from anyone. It is said that the statement of the partners is taken literally, based on the fact that that station is a station of astonishment and bewilderment; thus, that lie takes the course of the lies of children and bewildered madmen. It is also possible to say: they did not place any value on the deeds of the disbelievers, and because of their invalidity, they rendered them like non-existence, and therefore they denied their worship of them. Or, one could say: since the polytheists imagined in what they worshipped many attributes that did not exist in reality, they in fact only worshipped essences described with those attributes. Since the essences of the partners were devoid of those attributes, it is true to say: the polytheists did not worship the partners. This is better than the first two [interpretations]; indeed, one hardly pays attention to them. The essence of the meaning according to this is: "You worshipped those whom you claimed were capable of interceding for you and saving you from the torment, and that they were described as such and such; so seek them, for we are not like that." The intent is to cut the cords of their hopes and cause them to fall into total despair regarding the attainment of what they hoped for and believed in them. Perhaps despair had already been achieved for them from the moment of death and the affliction of torment, but through what is mentioned, a rank above that rank is attained.

It is said that they are the devils, and the cutting of ties in this case is from both sides, not just from the side of the worshippers, as what precedes it necessitates. The intent of their saying is in the same style as what preceded. An objection was raised to the view that the partners are the angels and the Messiah, peace be upon them, that it does not suit His saying—Exalted is He—"Stay in your place, you and your partners," as the intent of that is a threat and warning, and the apparent conjunction implies that this extends to the partners as well, and threatening those noble ones—peace be upon them—is something one would hardly presume to say.

It was objected that this is a shared requirement (an argument that cuts both ways), for it applies to the first view as well, since there is no meaning to a threat and warning against idols when no action requiring such has been issued from them, and there is no escape except by asserting that the threat and warning are for the addressees only, or for the whole group in consideration of them.

The response was the permissibility of the threat against the idols being akin to casting them into the Fire along with their worshippers, as indicated by His saying—Exalted is He—"Indeed, you and that which you worship besides Allah are the firewood of Hell," and likewise His saying—Exalted is He—"Then fear the Fire, whose fuel is people and stones," according to what a group of commentators hold. The claim of a distinction between threatening and casting into the Fire requires evidence. Yes, they said: it is necessary, according to the view that the [partners] intended are the angels—peace be upon them—that the "heedlessness" in His saying—Exalted is He—be interpreted...