Tafsir of Yunus 10:53

"And they ask you to inform them" (that is, they seek news from you) "Is it true?" (meaning, is the threatened torment, as it is most appropriate to the context, true?).

Some have suggested it refers to a claim of prophethood, but it is argued against this that proving prophethood to its deniers by means of an oath is not effective. It has been countered that the intent is not to prove it, but to assert that such a claim is serious, not a jest, or that it is intended for someone who would be convinced by such a proof. It may be said that what has been mentioned is a shared obligation, for the threatened torment is not proven to those who claim it is a fabrication simply by an oath before its occurrence; thus, what has been mentioned does not serve as a definitive preference.

The truth is that the oath was not mentioned for the sake of forcing a concession, but as a confirmation of what they denied. The interrogation is for the purpose of denial, and the seeking of news is by way of mockery and ridicule, as is known from their situation; thus, it does not necessitate that the term remains upon its original meaning. Perhaps it may be said: "Seeking news" means seeking the truth, but not in terms of "truth" and its opposite in the common sense—for they are certain of the latter—but rather the intent is between "seriousness" and "jest." It is as if they said: "We are certain that what you say is a lie, but we are in doubt as to whether it is seriousness from you or jest, so inform us of the reality of that." Similar to this is their saying: "Has he invented a lie against Allah, or is there madness in him?" according to what the scholars have established, although that is contrary to the apparent meaning.

"True" (Haqq) is a predicate brought forward before the subject, which is "it" (huwa), to highlight the interrogative particle concerning which they are asking. It is permitted that it be the subject, with "true" being the predicate that is raised by it, acting in the place of the predicate because it carries the meaning of "established." In this case, it is an adjective that has occurred after an interrogation, so it performs the function of a verb and suffices with its raised noun instead of a predicate if it is an explicit noun or in the position of one, like the detached pronoun here.

The well-known position is that the verb "to ask to inform" (istabba’a) takes two objects, one without a preposition and the other via the preposition ‘an (about). On this basis, the first object for yastabbi’unaka is the kaf (you), and the second is this sentence, which has taken its place, in the sense of: "They ask you about the answer to this question," since one does not ask about an interrogation itself, but about its answer. Al-Zamakhshari, when he saw that the sentence here is not suitable to be a second object in terms of meaning—due to what has been known—and in terms of wording, because it is not correct for the preposition ‘an to enter upon it, made the verb imply the meaning of "saying," i.e., "They say to you this," and the sentence is in the place of an accusative object of the saying. Al-A’mash read it as "Is the truth it?" (al-haqqu huwa) with the definite article and interrogation, which supports the view that the interrogation is for denial, as it implies the falsehood of the opposite, which necessitates its denial, as the speech serves the purpose of restriction. It is a restriction of the predicate to the subject, according to the well-known view, and the meaning is: "Is the truth what you say, or its opposite?"

Al-Zamakhshari made it a restriction of the subject to the predicate, where he said it is as if it were said: "Is it the truth, not falsehood?" or "Is it that which you named the truth?" By using this alternation, he indicated that the purpose of this aspect does not differ, whether the limitation is real, mocking, or purely declarative. This was challenged on the grounds that it contradicts what the scholars of rhetoric hold regarding such a construction. It is stated in al-Kashf that one might imagine the restriction to be in the sense of "Is it the truth and nothing else?" and not in the sense of "Is it the truth and not falsehood," according to how they established it in their saying: "Zayd is the one who is departing" versus "The one who is departing is Zayd." Therefore, what Al-Zamakhshari mentioned does not hold, but it dissipates through what we have verified regarding the verse: "Its fuel is men and stones," and that the confinement of one of the two in the other is observed according to the context; in that case, it does not matter if it is placed first or last. Here, the meaning is on the restriction of the torment to being "true," not the restriction of "truth" to the torment.

He also said there: The investigation is that in a case like "Zayd is the one who is departing" and its reverse, it is judged that the second—namely, the act of departing—is restricted to the first, because it is appropriate to restrict the general to the specific. Likewise is the case of "The people are the scholars" and "The scholars are the people," even if there is a general-specific relationship between them from one perspective, because the intended meaning is clear. However, in our saying: "The humble are the scholars" and "The scholars are the humble," the judgment differs based on priority and posteriority, and one restriction is not the other. Thus, one must look to the requirements of the context; if one is determined for that, it is judged accordingly whether it is placed first or last. Otherwise, priority and posteriority are observed. The restriction may be reciprocal, such as "Zayd is the one who is departing," if the well-known individual is intended, and "this is that." Likewise, for two classes if they coincide in the same instance, such as your saying: "The laugher is the writer," to the end of what he said. The fact that the meaning here is the restriction of the torment to being "true" and not the reverse is what is appropriate. The disagreement of the scholars of rhetoric is not an innovation from the author of al-Kashshaf and his peers. The truth is not confined to what they hold, as is not hidden, so contemplate it.

"Say: Yes, by my Lord, it is the truth" (meaning, say to them, unconcerned by their mockery, disregarding what they intended, building the matter upon the foundation of wisdom: Yes, that threatened torment is indeed established). The pronoun in "it is" also refers to the torment. "Yes" (I) is a particle of response and affirmation, meaning "Yes." It is said that it is not used in this way except with an oath, just as "is" (hal) is in the sense of "already" (qad) in interrogations specifically. For this reason, it was heard in their speech connected with the oath particle of the oath, as the object of the oath was not mentioned, so they would say "Yes-by" (i-wa), and they would connect the silent ha to it as well, saying "Yes-o" (i-wah), and this term is common today in the speech of the Egyptians and the people of that region. Abu Hayyan claimed that it is permissible to use it with an oath and without it, but the former is more frequent. He said: "What was mentioned regarding what was heard is not an argument, because the language was corrupted by the mingling of non-Arabs, so there is no remaining confidence in what was heard." The omission of the object of the oath particle and being content with the particle itself has not been heard from a reliable source, and it contradicts the rules of the grammarians. He confirmed the answer with the most complete form of emphasis according to the intensity and strength of their denial. It was further increased in confirmation and verification by His saying, Glory be to Him: "And you will not be able to escape" (meaning, you will not escape the torment, as it is from "the matter passed him by" when it goes away from him. It is also correct to consider it as being from "to render someone helpless," meaning he found him unable—that is, you will not find the torment, or the One who inflicts it upon you, unable to reach you and inflict it upon you). In any case, the sentence is either conjoined to the answer of the oath or is an initiated sentence brought to clarify their inability to escape, along with what it contains of the aforementioned confirmation.