Tafsir of Hud 11:16

The best interpretation is that of the master, Abu al-Sa'ud—may mercy be upon him—where he construed "falsehood" as corruption in itself, and "what they used to do" as their deeds performed during the pursuit of worldly demands. Then he said: Because the first [deed] is characterized by the potential to entail reward and recompense—and its absence [of reward] is due to its lack of accompaniment by faith and correct intention—and because the second has no virtuous aspect whatsoever, he attached to the first the "nullification," which signals the loss of its reward, using a verbal form that indicates occurrence. To the second, he attached "falsehood," which expresses its being something of no substance at all, using a nominal form indicating that this is a description permanently fixed within it. The addition of "kana" (used to) in the second, but not the first, contains an allusion that the issuance of righteous deeds from them, even if for a corrupt purpose, is not of the same continuity and persistence as the issuance of deeds that are precursors to their base worldly demands.

It is possible in my view, though remotely, that what is meant by "what they used to do" is what they persisted in regarding the desire for the life of this world, which is different from what they wrought of deeds to which the nullification is attributed. Applying such a term to "desire" is acceptable because it is one of the actions of the heart. The reason for using "kana" in it corresponds to what he [Abu al-Sa'ud] alluded to. In sum, there is an explicit statement regarding the persistence of the falsehood of that desire and an explanation of its state after the explanation of the one who desires and the explanation of his deeds—that he desired thereby the life of this world and its adornment.

In any case, the apparent reading is that "batil" (false) is a predicate placed at the beginning, and "ma kanu" (what they used to) is the subject. In al-Bahr, it is permitted that "batil" be a predicate after a predicate, and "ma" is in the nominative case as the active agent. It has been recited as wa batala (and it became false) in the verbal form, meaning: its falsehood became apparent, as it was known there that that [worldly life] and what follows from it of worldly nullities is of no substance, or its worldly effect was severed, so it became nullified absolutely. Ubayy and Ibn Mas'ud recited it as wa batilan in the accusative. This is attributed to 'Asim, and the author of al-Lawami' explained it on the grounds that "ma" is a relative pronoun and "batilan" is the object of "ya'lamun" (they know), though this involves putting the object of "kana" before it, and putting the predicate before [the subject] is a matter of dispute; however, the most correct view is its permissibility, based on the apparent meaning of His, the Exalted's, saying: {Are these the ones you used to worship?}. Whoever prohibited it interpreted it otherwise. It is also possible that it is in the accusative [as a cognate accusative] of "ya'lamun," and "ma" is an indefinite adjective for it—meaning: a falsehood, a true falsehood. Similar to this is the saying: "What a Qasir," and "For a reason, Qasir cut off his nose." It is also possible that it is an infinitive on the scale of fa'il, and it is in the accusative due to an implicit verb, and "ma" is a relative pronoun whose active agent is the infinitive, meaning: "That which they used to do became false, a falsehood."

The apparent meaning is that the verse concerns all disbelievers who perform good deeds, but not in the manner that is required. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and others reported from Anas—may Allah be pleased with him—that it was revealed regarding the Jews and Christians. Perhaps the meaning is, as Ibn 'Atiyyah said, that they are the cause of the revelation, so they are included in it, not that it is exclusive to them and others are excluded. Al-Jubba'i said: It is about those of the hypocrites who fought alongside the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and Allah, the Exalted, made their portion of that their share in the spoils. The objection to this is that this only occurred after the Hijrah, while the verse is Meccan. It is also said: It is regarding those who show off. It is said to one of them who recites the Quran: "You wanted it to be said: 'So-and-so is a reciter,' and it has been said. Go, for you have nothing with us." The same applies to the giver of charity, the one killed in jihad, and others who performed good deeds not for the sake of Allah, the Exalted. This is perhaps supported by what was narrated from Mu'awiyah when Abu Hurairah told him what this entails, so he wept and said: "Allah and His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—spoke the truth: {Whoever desires the life of the world and its adornment...} up to His saying: {And false is what they used to do}."

Based on this, it is necessary to qualify His, the Exalted's, saying: {They have nothing in the Hereafter but the Fire} with the clause: "they have nothing due to their hypocritical deeds but that." This is contrary to the apparent meaning, and the context dictates that it is about disbelievers in general and their good deeds, as we have stated. Hence, it is commonly known that a disbeliever is granted the reward of his deeds in the world through the expansion of provision, health of the body, abundance of children, and the like, and they have no portion in the Hereafter. However, a group went to the view that the punishment of the Hereafter is lightened for him by these deeds; the story of Abu Talib is cited as evidence for this. Others held that deeds dependent upon intention do not benefit the disbeliever in the Hereafter at all, due to the lack of the condition [for them]—since he was not of the people of intention because of his disbelief—nor is the punishment lightened by them. Through this, the apparent meanings are reconciled—some of which necessitate benefit to an extent, and some of which necessitate no benefit at all. So, ponder this.