Tafsir of Yunus 10:54

(And if every soul that has wronged—meaning by disbelief, or by transgressing against others, or other categories of wrongdoing—it is said that perhaps it is restricted to the first, because it is the perfect instance, especially since the discourse concerns the disbelievers. The particle law (if) is said to be in the meaning of in (if), and it is also said to be in its literal sense, which I consider improbable, though I do not see it as far-fetched—) "had all that is in the earth"—that is, all that the world contains of treasures, wealth, and benefits—"it would surely offer it as a ransom for itself from the punishment." This is from iftada, meaning fada (to ransom); the object is omitted, meaning it would offer its self as a ransom by means of it.

It is permitted that iftada be intransitive, functioning as the mutawa' (reflexive) of the transitive fada. It is said, "He ransomed him (fadahu), so he ransomed himself (iftada)." This has been countered by the argument that it is inappropriate to the context, since what is implied is that someone else ransomed them, for its meaning is "the ransom was accepted," and the one who accepts is not the one who performs the act. This has been critiqued by noting that the acceptor and the actor may be the same, as in "he ransomed his self." Yes, the first [interpretation] is what is immediately understood.

"And they will conceal"—that is, the souls indicated by "every soul." The shift to the plural form is to convey the magnitude of the affair, as the concealment is by way of association and gathering. The reason this was not observed previously is to verify what is intended by the supposition that the totality of what is in the earth belongs to each one of these souls. The preference for the masculine plural form is for applying the word "soul" (nafs) to the person (shakhs), or to prioritize the masculine referent over the feminine.

Concealment (asrar) means to hide—that is, they will hide their remorse, meaning the sorrow and regret for the injustice they committed. The intent is the concealment of its traces, such as weeping and biting one's hand; otherwise, these are internal matters that exist only in secret. This is due to the intensity of their confusion and bewilderment when they see the punishment—meaning, at the moment of witnessing a reality of such horror and intensity that it never crossed their minds. Their state resembles that of a person brought to the crucifix, overcome by the calamity that has befallen him, until he is unable to utter a syllable, remaining frozen and stunned.

It is said: The intent behind "concealment" is sincerity—they will make their remorse sincere. This is either because to hide it is to make it sincere, or derived from the saying, "The secret (sirr) of a thing is its pure essence, which is by nature concealed, protected, and cherished." There is mockery of them in this.

Abu Ubaidah and al-Juba'i said: "Concealment" (asrar) here means "to manifest." In the Sahah, it is said: "I concealed the thing (asrartuhu)," and it also means "I made it public." It is among the addad (words with opposite meanings). Both interpretations are applied to the saying of the Exalted, "And they will conceal (wa asraru) their remorse," as well as the saying of Imru' al-Qais, "If they conceal (yusirruna) my killing"—meaning, if they reveal it. End quote.

In the Qamus, it is also stated: "He concealed it (asarrahu)" and "he revealed it (asarrahu)" are opposites. There is a disagreement among philologists regarding this; al-Azhari claimed that using asarra to mean "to reveal" is an error, and that the word used for that meaning is asharra (with a dotted shin), and nothing else. Perhaps he erred in his correction. Based on this, the "manifestation" would be with regard to the outward signs of what is hidden.

Some have permitted that the intent of "concealment" is to hide, but that the plural pronoun refers to the leaders—that is, their leaders hid their remorse from their followers whom they had misled, out of shame before them and fear of their rebuke. The objection to this is that the pronoun "they concealed" (asraru) is general, with no evidence for restricting it, and the terror of the situation is too intense to contemplate such matters.

The sentence "they concealed" is a new commencement, according to the apparent meaning. It is said to be a circumstantial clause (hal) with an implied "already," and "when" (lamma) in all views is in the meaning of "at the time of," governed by "they concealed." It is permitted that it be for a condition (shart), with the apodosis (jawab) being omitted—as is the correct view—due to the indication of what preceded it; that is, "when they saw the punishment, they concealed their remorse."

"And it was judged"—that is, ruled and decided—"between them"—that is, between the souls that have wronged—"with justice"—that is, with fairness—"and they will not be wronged" at all, because nothing is done to them except what their own predisposition necessitates. It is also said that "between them" refers to the wrongdoers previously mentioned in His saying, "And if every soul that has wronged," and those who were wronged, whom they oppressed, even if they were not mentioned by name; but the concept of "wronging" indicates them, and the specific application of wronging to transgression implies this. The meaning is that the judgment occurred between the oppressors and the oppressed, and each was treated in accordance with what is fitting for them. You know that the context does not support this, for even if it does not necessitate limiting "wrong" to its greatest instance—which is polytheism—at the very least, it necessitates limiting it to that which enters into it primarily. The apparent meaning is that the sentence "it was judged" is a new commencement, and it is permitted that it be conjoined to the sentence "they saw," thus falling within the scope of "when."