Tafsir of Yunus 10:44

(Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people) meaning: He does not deprive them (of anything) of that which their interests and perfections are tethered to, such as the principles of perception, the causes of knowledge, and guidance to the Truth through the sending of messengers—peace be upon them—and the setting up of proofs. Rather, He grants them this in full, out of His grace and generosity—Glorified is His Majesty—(but the people wrong themselves) meaning: they deprive themselves of what they are deprived of because they do not utilize their faculties for that which they were created for, because they turn away from accepting the Truth, because they belie the messengers, and because they abandon contemplation of the proofs.

"Anything" (shay'an) is the second object of "wrong," based on the view that it carries the meaning of "deprive," as has been said, or that it is synonymous with it without the need for the claim of implicit meaning—just as we say that "deprivation" can take two objects, just as it can be intransitive or transitive to one object. The second object of the second verb is not mentioned because there is no purpose in referring to it. The precedence of the first object may be merely for the sake of emphasis, while observing the rhyme, without intending to restrict the "wronging" to them—according to the opinion of those who do not see precedence as necessitating restriction, such as Ibn al-Athir and his followers, as in His saying, Exalted is He: "And We did not wrong them, but they wronged themselves." It is also possible that it is for the sake of restricting the "wronging" to them, according to the opinion of those who see precedence as necessitating that, such as the majority and their followers. Perhaps the preference for restricting it [the people's wronging of themselves] over restricting the "wronging" by Allah is for the sake of hyperbole in demonstrating the invalidity of their actions and the foolishness of their minds; for the restriction of the first to them implies, as has been said, what the manifest state necessitates regarding the restriction of the second to them, so the first restriction suffices for the second while maintaining the aforementioned benefit.

Some have suggested that "themselves" (anfusahum) is an intensifier for "the people," and the object in that case is omitted, making it equivalent to the pronoun of separation in His saying, Exalted is He: "And We did not wrong them, but they were the ones who were wronging," in restricting the wronging to them. The expression of their action as "deprivation"—despite it being a total forfeiture—is to observe the aspect of its counterpart. The use of the imperfect tense denotes continuity, both in negation and affirmation. As for the latter, it is obvious, and as for the former, it is because if the particle of negation enters upon the imperfect, it indicates—according to the context—the continuity of negation, not the negation of continuity, as has been mentioned more than once.

It is said that the meaning is: Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people by punishing them on the Day of Resurrection with any injustice, but the people wrong themselves with a continuous wronging; for their constant engagement in evil deeds that necessitate punishment is the very essence of their wronging of themselves. Thus, "wronging" is used in its well-known sense, and "anything" is an adverbial object (maf'ul mutlaq). The negated imperfect verb indicates the future, while the affirmed one indicates continuity. The flow of the noble verse, according to the first interpretation, is for the sake of binding the argument, and according to the second, it is for the sake of warning. In both aspects, it is a submissive conclusion to what preceded. To treat it, according to the first view, as a conclusion to all the obligations and narratives mentioned from the beginning of the Surah—even if it is directed—is contrary to the manifest meaning, especially since what follows is not the beginning of the story of others.

It is also said that the meaning of the verse is: Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people by depriving them of their senses and intellects—if He were to deprive them of them—because it is an act of disposal over His own absolute dominion. But the people wrong themselves by corrupting those faculties and diverting them to that which is unfitting. This is a response to a question arising from the previous verse, and "wronging" here is also kept to its literal sense. It has been used as evidence that the servant possesses an acquisition (kasb) and is not completely devoid of choice, as the Jabriyyah sect held.

The preferred view among many researchers is that the negation of wronging the people from Him—Exalted is His Majesty—is because He is Generous and Wise; He overflows upon the receptacles according to their eternal preparedness established in [Divine] Knowledge. Thus, there is no perfection or deficiency in the servant except that it is the perfection or deficiency necessitated by his preparedness, as His saying, Glorified is He, guides to: "He gave everything its creation," and His saying, Exalted is He: "And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its righteousness." The affirmation of the people's wronging of themselves is based on the requirement of their preparedness—established in eternal knowledge—for what was overflowed upon them, by which they deserved punishment.

They have mentioned that this "preparedness" is not "created" (maj'ul), necessarily because "creation" is preceded by the attachment of Power, which is preceded by the attachment of Will, which is preceded by the attachment of Knowledge. Preparedness is not like that, for Knowledge is not established except as being attached to it, but also to all other things, because attachment to the known is among the necessities of knowledge. Attachment to that which has no existence at all is something inconceivable, necessarily because it is a relationship, and that cannot be realized without the existence of the two parties. It is not an objection to this that it necessitates that existents are independent of the Influencer (al-mu'athir), for we say: If what is meant is their independence from that in view of their eternal knowledge-based existence, then that is the case, and there is no harm in it. If what is meant is their independence from that in view of their contingent external existence, we do not concede the necessity. The verification of this, with its proofs and counter-arguments, is in its proper place.

In the verse, there is an indication that the state of those deniers—as they were described—originated from the requirement of their preparedness for it, and for that reason, they were blamed for it, not from His mere decreeing it upon them without there being a demand for it from them through their preparedness. Perhaps labeling the disposal [of affairs] contrary to what preparedness necessitates—if it were "wronging"—is metaphorical, treating the "required" as if it were a possession. Otherwise, the reality of wronging is something that cannot be validly attributed to any of His acts—Glory be to Him—in any case, since there is no true owner of anything other than Him. Putting the explicit noun in the adversative sentence in place of the pronoun is for the sake of greater specification and reinforcement. Hamza and al-Kisa'i recited [the word] lakinna with the lightening [of the nun] and the nominative case for an-nas [the people].