Tafsir of Yunus 10:45

"And on the day He will gather them," read with the ya [yaḥshuruhum]—which is the recitation of Hamzah and ‘Asim, while the others read it with the nun [naḥshuruhum]—based on the transition [from the third to the first person]. Regarding "on the day," for the majority it is in the accusative case governed by an implied verb, meaning: "Remind them of," or "Warn them of, the day We gather them for the station of judgment."

"As if they had not remained," meaning: as if they were people who had not tarried except for an hour of the day, meaning a small portion of it; for it is an analogy for the extreme limit of brevity. Its specification as "the day" is because its hours are more readily apparent in state than the hours of the night. The sentence occupies the position of a state (ḥāl) from the object of "We gather them," meaning: We gather them resembling those who did not remain in the world, or in the Barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection), except for that small amount. The intent of the simile is not its literal meaning, as has been said. It has been explicitly stated in the commentary of al-Miftāḥ that a simile is often mentioned when what is intended are other meanings that follow from it. Thus, the intent is either an expression of regret for their failure to benefit from their lifetimes, or a wish that their stay had been long before that, so that they would not witness the terrors they witnessed. The outcome of the sentence in the Hereafter is: "We gather them [in a state of] regret, or wishing for a longer stay before that."

It is also possible that it means: "resembling in their states for the people, those who did not remain in the world and did not turn about in its delights except briefly." For whoever resides in it for an era and enjoys its bounty cannot be free from some traces of blessing and signs of joy that are inconsistent with their current state of wretched appearance and evil condition. Some have adopted this view, but it appears to be an affectation [forced interpretation] to keep the simile upon its literal meaning, and the first [view] is more appropriate, as is not hidden. In any case, the benefit of the simile is like a beacon on a mountain, and it is a matter of wonder that anyone would fail to see it and say: "The apparent meaning is that 'as if' (ka'anna) is for doubt."

Some have claimed that the benefit of the restriction—on the assumption that it refers to the stay in the Barzakh—is to declare the perfect ease of the gathering relative to His Almighty power, even if the duration [of their death] is long, and to demonstrate the invalidity of their disparagement and denial in their saying: "When we have died and become dust and bones, are we [to be] resurrected?" and the like. Or, it is to clarify the complete correspondence between the two existences in terms of forms and appearances, for the brevity of the stay in the Barzakh is among the causes for the lack of alteration and change. Perhaps the meaning of the state, according to this, is: "On the day We gather them in their [original] forms and appearances, unchanged."

Abū ‘Alī permitted the sentence to be in the position of an adjective for "day," and the connector (‘ā'id) is omitted—the estimate being "as if they had not remained before it"—or as an adjective for an omitted verbal noun with a similar connector, meaning: "a gathering like that in which they had not remained before it." This was refuted on the grounds that such a connector is not permitted to be omitted. The first [was refuted] by the fact that the added temporal noun, which is the described [entity], is the Day of Resurrection, which is a specific day, and the estimate of the speech would be "the day of His gathering" or "the day of Our gathering." Thus, the described [entity] would be definite, and sentences are indefinite, and a definite [noun] is not described by an indefinite sentence. It was answered that the prohibition of omitting such a connector is itself subject to debate, and that sentences to which nouns of time are added may sometimes have their resolution estimated as a definite [noun], so that what they are added to is definite, and sometimes their resolution is estimated as an indefinite, so that it is indefinite. Perhaps Abū ‘Alī is straining to justify the resolution as an indefinite, and the described [entity] here is, in his view, indefinite, thus avoiding the impediment of describing a definite noun with an indefinite one. You know that the answer only defends against the invalidation and nothing more; therefore, the truth is to prefer the status of ḥāl (state).

His saying, the Almighty: "Knowing one another among themselves," meaning: some of them knowing others as if they had not parted except for a little while. It is possible that this is an inception [a new sentence] and that it is an explanation of the similic sentence and an argument for it, as has been said. That is because if the time were long, the mutual recognition would not remain, for the length of time is a forgetter [of memory] leading to mutual ignorance, but since recognition remains, the length of time is negated—which is the meaning of "they did not remain except for an hour." There is some weakness in this.

Abū al-Baqā' claimed it is a prospective state (ḥāl muqaddara), but there is no necessity to consider it prospective, as the appearance [of the verse] indicates that mutual recognition does not occur long after the gathering such that it would require this. They have explicitly stated that mutual recognition among them occurs at the beginning of their emergence from the graves, then it is interrupted due to the intensity of the staggering terrors and the onset of difficult conditions that alter their forms and appearances, changing them from one state to another. In my view, there is no certainty regarding this interruption; the stations are various and the conditions are disparate. They may recognize one another after mutual ignorance in one station and not another, and in one state and not another. In some traditions, there is that which supports this. Some have claimed a contradiction between what this verse indicates and what the Almighty's saying indicates: "There will be no lineages among them that day, nor will they ask about one another," and the Almighty's saying: "And no close friend will ask a friend [about his condition]," regarding the absence of recognition, were it not for the consideration of the two different times.

It has been said that there is no contradiction based on the premise that the [state of] recognition which is affirmed is that of reproach and censure, while the [state of] recognition which is negated is that of affiliation and affection. However, one could prevent the claim that the aforementioned verses indicate the negation of recognition; the most they indicate is the negation of the benefit of lineages and the questioning of one another. The recognition indicated by this verse does not contradict that. Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abū al-Shaykh extracted from al-Ḥasan that he said regarding it: "A man recognizes his companion beside him, but he cannot speak to him."

If the [term] "recognition" is carried to mean their knowing one another, this is what is known among the exegetes. It is said: the intent of it is "making known," meaning: some of them making others know what errors and disbelief they were in. In this, there is what there is.

Some have permitted that the previous temporal noun [in "on the day"] be related to "recognizing one another." It is said it is then conjoined to what preceded, but no aspect for that appears.

The Almighty’s saying: "Those who denied the meeting with Allah have indeed lost," is an independent sentence brought forth for the testimony from Him, the Almighty, regarding their loss and to express amazement at it. It is declarative in wording and performative in meaning. It is said: it is the content of an implied saying, occurring as a state from the pronoun in "recognizing one another," or from the pronoun in "We gather them," if the sentence "recognizing one another" is also a state, so that an extraneous [element] does not intervene between the state and its possessor. The inception [independent sentence] is more apparent. The expression of them through the relative pronoun [the ones who], despite the context being one of substitution [the use of pronouns], is to condemn them through what is within the scope of the relative clause and to signal that it is the cause for what has befallen them.

The apparent meaning is that the intent by the "meeting with Allah Almighty" is the absolute [day of] judgment and recompense, and by "loss" is the deficiency, meaning: they have indeed been diminished in their trade, their dealings, and their purchasing of disbelief in exchange for faith. It is permitted that the first means "the evil of the meeting" and the second "destruction and misguidance," meaning: they have gone astray and perished by their denial of that.

"And they were not guided," meaning: they were not knowledgeable of the paths of trade and their conditions, nor were they guided to the path of salvation. The sentence is conjoined to the sentence "have indeed lost," etc. It is also permitted that it be conjoined to the relative clause as an emphasis for it.