Tafsir of Yunus 10:50

(Say) to them, after I have clarified to you the nature of your state and the ongoing course of Allah the Almighty’s tradition regarding nations in absolute terms, and after I have alerted you that their punishment is a decided and inevitable matter that waits only for the arrival of its appointed time—signaling its complete proximity and treating it as though it has already arrived in reality:

(Tell me, if His punishment should come to you) which you seek to hasten. Perhaps the use of "if" (in) is by way of concession—(by night) meaning at the time of a night raid, (or by day) meaning when you are occupied with your affairs. It did not say "night and day" to show contrast, for the intent is to signal sleep and heedlessness; "night-raiding" (bayat) covers this because it is the time when an enemy raids, launches an attack, and takes advantage of [the victim's] heedlessness. The concept of "night" does not inherently possess this meaning, nor is it as famously associated with being occupied with worldly interests and livelihood as the "day" is, such that one could suffice with the implication (as in the case of the day). It is sometimes said: the entire day is a place of heedlessness, for it is either a time of preoccupation with livelihood or a time for a midday nap, unlike the night, where the place of heedlessness is only what is near the middle of it, which is the time of the night-raid; hence, it was specified by mention. Bayat has come to mean "spending the night" and also "the night-raid," just as "peace" (salam) can mean "delivering" (taslim). The meaning intended here is based on this.

(What is there of it that the criminals seek to hasten?) Meaning, what thing of the punishment are they seeking to hasten? There is nothing in it that warrants haste, for it is entirely detestable, bitter to the taste, and deserving of repulsion. "From" (min) is for partiality (tab’id), and the pronoun refers to the punishment. The indefinite form in "something" (shay’) is for [denoting] singularity. It has been permitted that the meaning is one of astonishment, which is derived from the context; as if it were said: "What extreme horror is it that they are seeking to hasten from?" In this case, "from" is for explanation (bayaniyah) or abstraction (tajridiyah), based on al-Zamakhshari counting it as such. It is also said that the pronoun refers to Allah the Almighty, and upon that, the meaning is based on the second view, though the benefit of ambiguity, interpretation, and the grandeur therein is lost.

Regarding the claim that it is more eloquent in the sense of: "Do you know who the One with whose punishment they are being punished is? It is Allah, Glorified be He," it is shared upon both assumptions. Do you not see His saying, "His punishment"? "What" (madha) in the sense of "which thing" is in the accusative position as a fronted object, which is preferable to making it a subject or assuming a returning pronoun from a verb. Whoever said that the pronoun in "of it" (minhu) is the connector, while interpreting it as "punishment," leaned towards the idea that what is being hastened is the punishment; it thus encompasses the subject and stands in place of its connector, because the generality of the predicate over the explicit noun acts as a connector according to the popular view, and it is even more appropriate for a pronoun. Abu al-Baqa’ claimed that the pronoun returns to the subject and is the connector, likening this to your saying, "Zayd, I took from him a dirham," but this is not sound, as is obvious.

The intended meaning of "the criminals" is those who are held accountable. The use of the noun instead of the pronoun is to indicate that, due to their crime, they ought to be terrified of the coming of the punishment, let alone seek to hasten it. It is said the point in this is to express their disparagement and blame them with this atrocious characteristic.

The sentence is connected to "Tell me" (ara'aytum) as a descriptive resumption or it is in the position of the accusative as an object, and the verb is suspended from acting upon it because of the interrogation. It is originally an interrogation about visual sight or knowledge, then used in the sense of "inform me" because of the causality and effect between seeing and informing in the sentence; thus, it is a metaphor for what was mentioned, and many have leaned toward this. Abu Hayyan leaned toward it being by way of inclusion (tadmin), and it is not used except in matters of wonder.

The answer to the condition is omitted: meaning, "If His punishment comes to you at one of those two times, you will regret it," or "you will recognize your error," or "inform me, what is it that the criminals seek to hasten from it?" Abu Hayyan claimed the latter is definitive because the answer is only estimated from what preceded it in wording or estimation, and he did not realize that estimating it from a category other than what is mentioned—when a signal for it exists—is not rare. If we concede the correctness of the restriction he claimed, what was mentioned does not fall outside of it, based on the fact that the intent of "Tell me" and "What is it they seek to hasten from it," etc., is to make them regret or to belittle them, as some of the investigators have stated.

In al-Kashf, regarding one of the views mentioned in al-Kashshaf, it is stated that "what" etc., is the object of the inquiry, and the condition with its omitted answer confirms the content of the inquiry; this is why it was placed in the middle of them. And since there is an intention of making them ignorant and regretful in the interrogation, the answer was estimated as "you will regret" or "you will recognize the error," and there is no obstacle to estimating both or that which conveys both meanings, and this is why the answer was omitted and inserted as an affirmation upon affirmation.

It has been permitted that "What is it they seek to hasten" is the answer to the condition, like your saying, "If I come to you, what will you feed me?" and the whole collection is connected to "Tell me." It was countered that if the answer to the condition is an interrogation, it must have the fa' (conjunction), as you say: "If so-and-so visits us, then what kind of man is he?" and it is not omitted except in necessity. It was stated clearly in al-Mufassal that if the sentence is creative (insha'i), it must have the fa' with it, and the interrogation, even if its literal meaning is not intended, does not depart from being creative; and the example is contrived, so it should not be relied upon.

It was answered that al-Radi clearly stated that the occurrence of an interrogative sentence as an answer without the fa' is established in much of the eloquent speech. Even if what was mentioned is conceded, then the [verb of] "saying" is estimated, and its omission is frequent and pervasive without dispute. It was also objected against this view that seeking to hasten the punishment occurs before it arrives, so how can it be ordered upon it and be its recompense? It was answered that it is a narration of a past state, meaning: "What were you seeking to hasten?" The explicit mention of "you were" (kuntum) afterward bears witness to this, for the Quran interprets itself. You know that merely that [the past] cannot be the answer because past haste is not ordered upon the arrival of the punishment; thus, one must estimate something like "you will know," meaning "you will know what, etc."

It is said "If His punishment should come to you" means "if its arrival near you happens," or the intent is "if the signs of His punishment come to you." It is also said that since the intent is the denial of haste in the sense of negating it entirely, it is correct for it to be the answer. The objection made against making the entirety of the conditional sentence connected to "Tell me" is that it is not correct for it to be an object for it, based on it meaning "inform me," which is transitive by 'an (about), and the sentence does not enter [as an object] unless it is joined with an interrogation, and we accept the possibility of its suspension—though there is a debate on this in Arabic. It was defended by the one claiming the connection that the linguistic connection is what is intended, because the meaning is "inform me about your doing if it comes to you," etc.