Tafsir of Yunus 10:88

"...and wealth..." Many types of wealth, as indicated by the plural form and the indefinite (tanwin) form. Mentioning this after 'ornaments' is an instance of mentioning the general after the specific for the purpose of inclusivity, though it may be interpreted as referring to things other than ornaments by way of the contrast implied. Some have interpreted 'ornaments' as beauty, physical health, tall stature, and the like.

"...in the life of this world, our Lord, that they may lead others astray from Your way." Meaning, so that they may lead others away from it. This is an explanation for the aforementioned 'giving.' The statement is an informative report from Moses, peace be upon him, that Allah the Exalted only granted them ornaments and wealth as a form of gradual enticement (istidraj), so that they might increase in sin and misguidance, just as He, the Glorified, informed about those like them by His saying: "We only grant them respite so that they may increase in sin."

Al-Farra holds that the 'lam' (in li-yudillu) is one of causation (ta’lil), and the apparent meaning is that this is its literal sense; thus, that misguidance is intended by Allah the Exalted. The objection raised by the Mu’tazila—that if it is intended, then they are effectively being obedient—does not hold, for the invalidity of this premise has already been clarified in the discourse. Some have estimated an implied word here to avoid this, as if to say "so that they may not lead others astray," just as they estimated in [the verse] "We bore witness so that you may not say" [meaning: so that you may not say]. However, there is no need for this.

It has been said that the causation is metaphorical; because they went astray due to those things, the act of giving them was treated as if it were for the purpose of misguidance. Thus, the 'lam' contains a dependent metaphor. Al-Akhfash said that the 'lam' is for the consequence (al-‘aqibah); thus, this is an informative statement from him, peace be upon him, based on his experience with them and his discernment of their nature, or based on his knowledge via revelation—that the end result of that granting was misguidance.

The difference between the metaphorical causation and this [consequence view], if we say that it is also a metaphorical meaning, is that in the causation, the cause is mentioned, but the act of giving was not done for it being a cause. In the 'lam' of consequence, no cause is mentioned at all, and it is like the metaphor of one of two opposites for the other.

Ibn al-Anbari said that it is for supplication (du’a). There is no reproach upon Moses, peace be upon him, for praying against them for misguidance, either because he knew—by experience or similar means—that it was inevitable, so he prayed for it; in essence, he prayed for what was inevitable by Allah’s decree, similar to the saying, "May Allah curse Satan." Or, because it is not a supplication in the literal sense, and the focus is not on the fulfillment of the request, but rather on describing their arrogance and excusing himself [before Allah] in the matter of his calling them. Thus, it is an evocative metonymy. As for what was said—that this is a testimony to their evil state by way of metonymy within a metonymy, because misguidance (idlal) is synonymous with preventing grace—this is unnecessary, because their state is explicitly stated thereafter. The focus here is on the essence and the summary of these points.

Al-Zamakhshari’s words suggest a preference for it being a supplication. In al-Intisaf, it is noted that this is a form of I’tizal (Mu'tazilite thought) more subtle than the creeping of an ant, which one can barely detect. The apparent meaning is that it is for causation. The author of al-Fara’id said that without causation, the saying "Indeed You have given Pharaoh and his assembly ornaments" would not be appropriate, nor would it be coherent. It was also objected that this contradicts the purpose of the mission, which is the call to faith and guidance. It is not hidden that the refutation of this is known from what we previously presented. As for the coherence of the speech, it is as many have said: Moses, peace be upon him, mentioned his saying "Indeed You have given" etc., as a preamble to transition into the supplication against them—meaning: You granted them this bounty so they might worship You and be grateful, but it only increased them in tyranny and disbelief. Since this is the case, then let them be led astray from Your way. Had he prayed from the beginning, it would not have been fitting, for perhaps his excuse would not have been established. So he presented the complaint about them and denounced their evil deeds to use it as a ladder to the supplication, while observing the sequence of speech by presenting the prayers in one consistent flow, and avoiding the need to apologize for the repetition of the address [calling on the Lord], as the causation theory required an apology that it was for emphasis and to signal that the purpose was to display their misguidance and disbelief as a prelude to the supplication against them afterward.

Al-Tayyibi claimed that there is no room for the claim of 'objection,' because it only fits if the soul finds pleasure in hearing it; that is why Al-Nabigha's verse was criticized: "Perhaps Ziyad, may I have no father for you, is heedless..." His speech leans towards the view that the 'lam' is for supplication, which to a fair mind is contrary to the apparent text, and what they offered for it does not grant it clarity.

It has been recited as li-yudallu (passive, "that they might be led astray") and li-yudillu (active, "that they might lead others astray").

"Our Lord, obliterate their wealth..." Meaning, destroy it, as Mujahid said. So al-tams is in the sense of destruction. Its verb follows the patterns of daraba and dakhala. This is supported by the recitation itmis (with a damma on the mim). It is used both transitively and intransitively. It has also come in the sense of effacing a trace or changing something. Most exegetes interpreted it this way, saying: "Our Lord, change it from a state of being useful to a state of being useless." You know that changing it from being useful is also a form of destruction, so it does not contradict what Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh recorded from al-Dahhak, that after this prayer, their dirhams, dinars, copper, and iron turned into engraved stones. From Muhammad al-Qurazi, it is narrated that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz asked him about this verse, and he informed him that Allah the Exalted obliterated the wealth of Pharaoh and his family until it became stones. Umar said, "Stay where you are until I come to you," and he called for a sealed bag, opened it, and found the [silver] egg cracked, and it was stone, as were the dirhams and dinars. In another narration from him, their sugar turned into stone, and a man would be with his family when they both turned into two stones, and a woman would be standing baking when she became the same. This is something that is not likely to be authentic at all, and there is nothing in the verse that points to it in any way. In my view, the reports about their wealth turning into stones are not free from weakness and should not be relied upon. Perhaps it is better to mean by 'obliterating' that it was destroyed for them in the most complete way. 'Wealth' here is meant to include ornaments, clothing, mounts, and others.

"...and harden their hearts..." Meaning, make them harsh and set a seal upon them so they do not open to faith, as is the nature of their affair.

"...so that they do not believe until they see the painful punishment." This is a response to the supplication, namely 'harden,' not 'obliterate,' so it is in the accusative case. It is possible that it is a supplication in the form of a prohibition, like "My Lord, do not punish me," so it would be jussive. It is also allowed that it is a conjunction connected to li-yudillu, with the words between them being an interjected supplication; in that case, it is either accusative or jussive, according to the difference regarding the 'lam' mentioned earlier.

"...until they see the painful punishment." Meaning, they witness it and are certain of it, at a time when that will no longer benefit them. The meaning of 'painful punishment' is the genus of painful punishment. Many have recorded from Ibn Abbas that it is interpreted as drowning.

Some have used this verse as evidence that praying for someone’s disbelief is not considered disbelief if it is not done by way of approving or favoring the disbelief, but rather by way of wishing that Allah the Exalted might take the most severe retribution from that person. This is the view held by the Shaykh al-Islam Khwaharzadeh. Their statement that "being content with the disbelief of another is not absolute" is, in his view, restricted to when it is by way of approval. However, the author of al-Dhakhira said: "We have stumbled upon a narration from Abu Hanifa, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him, that being content with the disbelief of another is disbelief without qualification." What is reported from the Guide of the Guided, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, is the distinction. Thus, there is a difference of opinion on the issue. It is said: The relied-upon view is that being content with disbelief inasmuch as it is disbelief is disbelief; but being content with it not in that capacity, but in the capacity of it being a cause for painful punishment, or an effect of Allah's decree and predestination, for example, is not disbelief. Through this, the contradiction between their saying "being content with disbelief is disbelief" and their saying "being content with the decree is mandatory" is resolved, based on interpreting 'the decree' as 'what has been decreed.' According to this, what was said—that the servant's being content with his own disbelief is absolutely disbelief without doubt—does not hold; rather, the aforementioned distinction regarding being content with the disbelief of others applies to it as well. From this analysis, one understands the flaw in their statement that if a disbeliever comes to accept Islam and one says to him, "Wait until I perform ablution," or delays him, he becomes a disbeliever for being content with his disbelief during the time of waiting. This is supported by the authentic hadith during the Conquest of Mecca, where Ibn Abi Sarh was brought by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who said, "O Messenger of Allah, accept his allegiance." The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, withheld his hand from his allegiance and looked at him three times, each time refusing to accept it. Then he accepted it after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said, "Was there not among you a rational man who would stand up to this [man] when he saw me withhold my hand from his allegiance and kill him?" They said, "What did we know, O Messenger of Allah, of what was in your heart? Had you only signaled to us with your eye!" The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, "It does not befit a prophet to have deceitful eyes." This was recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Mardawayh from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, and it is well-known in the biographies. It is evident that delaying [an action] absolutely is not, as they claimed, disbelief. So let this be reflected upon.