Tafsir of Maryam 19:70

Then We are surely most knowing of those who are most worthy to be burned therein.

The intended meaning of "those who are most worthy" is those extracted [from the groups] based on the sequential order. It is also possible that they refer to those groups in their entirety; as if it were said: "Then We are surely most knowing of the burning of these people, and they are the most worthy of the burning among all the transgressors, as their ranks in the Fire are the lowest and their punishment is the most severe." In this phrasing, the manifest noun is used in place of the pronoun.

Some have interpreted al-naz’ (extraction) as throwing, like the expression "I extracted the arrow from the bow," meaning I shot it. Thus, the meaning would be: We will cast into it the most rebellious from every sect among those sects, then We are surely most knowing of their burning. To construe the verse as beginning with the most severe of them is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him.

It is permissible that "the most severe of them in rebellion" refers to the leaders of the sects and their imams, because their crime is doubled by their being misguided and misguiding others. Allah the Exalted says: "Those who disbelieved and averted [people] from the way of Allah – We have increased them in punishment over [and above] the punishment for what they were causing of corruption. And they will surely bear their own burdens and [other] burdens along with their burdens." This was reported by Ibn Abi Hatim from Qatadah. According to this view, it is not necessary to imply continuity or total encompassment.

An objection was raised against the general interpretation, stating that His saying "most severe in rebellion" implies that all of them share in the rebellion—indeed, in the intensity of it—which does not befit the believers. The response is that this is a case of attributing what belongs to a part to the whole. Superiority over a group does not necessitate that every single individual possesses the trait. If you say, "He is the bravest of the Arabs," it does not necessitate the existence of bravery in every single one of them. In this, the verse contains an allusion to bypassing the majority by specifying the punishment for the most rebellious.

"Ayyuhum" (whichever of them) is the object of "nanza’anna" (We shall surely extract). It is a relative pronoun (mawsul) meaning "the one who," built upon the damma, in the position of an accusative. "Ashaddu" (is most severe) is the predicate of a deleted subject; that is, "he is most severe," and the clause is the silah (conjunctive clause) of the relative pronoun. The pronoun referring back to the subject is omitted. "’Ala al-Rahman" (against the Most Merciful) is connected to "ashaddu." "’Utiyyan" (in rebellion) is a tamyiz (specification) transformed from the subject. Those who claim it is a plural consider it a state (hal).

It is also permitted for the prepositional phrase ("’ala al-Rahman") to be explanatory (lil-bayan), in which case it is connected to a deleted element, as in "saqayaka" (your watering). It is also permissible for it to be connected to "’utiyyan." If "’utiyyan" is an adjective, this is agreed upon; if it is an infinitive (masdar), then it is according to the position of those who permit the advancement of the infinitive's complement, especially if it is an adverb. The same discussion applies to "biha" in His saying "most worthy to be burned therein." It is permitted that the prepositional phrase is explanatory, or connected to "awla," or connected to "saliyyan."

"Saliyyan" (in burning) has been read both with a damma and a kasra on the letter sad. It is permissible for it to be an infinitive or a description. If it is a description, it is a hal (state); if it is an infinitive, it is a tamyiz similar to what was said regarding "’utiyyan," except that here it is permitted to be a tamyiz regarding the relation between "awla" and the prepositional phrase. This has been alluded to previously.

Al-sala is from sala the fire, like ridan. It is analogized to its heat. Al-Raghib said: It is said "sala" with the fire and with such-and-such, meaning he suffered by it. From al-Kalbi, it is interpreted as entering, and from Ibn Jurayj as abiding eternally, though neither of these two meanings is its primary definition, as is not hidden.

Regarding the building (indeclinability) of "ayyu" here, this is the school of Sibawayh. It should have been indeclinable in every place, like other relative pronouns, due to its resemblance to particles because of its need for what follows it—the silah (conjunctive clause). However, because it became obligatory to add it to a singular noun, either in wording or meaning—which is one of the properties of nouns after its resemblance—it returned to the origin of nouns, which is declinability (i’rab). But when it is added to an indefinite noun, it means "all," and when added to a definite noun, it means "part." Thus, it was treated in its declinability according to the meaning it took.

Here, according to him, it returned to what is the right of the relative pronoun, which is indeclinability. This is because when the head of its silah was deleted, its semantic deficiency increased—namely, its ambiguity and need for the silah being diminished by the reduction of the silah itself, which is like a part of it. Thus, its resemblance to a particle became stronger. Many scholars did not approve of what he went to.

Abu ’Amr al-Jarmi said: "I left Basra, and from the time I departed the trench until Mecca, I never heard anyone say: 'La-adribanna ayyuhum qa’imun' (I will surely strike whichever of them is standing) with a damma." Abu Ja’far al-Nahhas said: "I know of no grammarian who did not find Sibawayh in error on this issue."

Al-Zajjaj said: "It has not become clear that Sibawayh was wrong in his book except in two places, and this is one of them. For he says that ayyu is declinable when it is not added; how then can he make it indeclinable when it is added?" Our sheikh, ’Ala al-Din—may Allah the Exalted elevate his station in the highest heavens—exerted himself to defend Sibawayh in this regard in a manner that does not suffice for the burden of what was reported against him. We have mentioned some of this in our annotations on the Sharh al-Qatr by the author.

Indeed, what supports Sibawayh’s view regarding the accusative case is the reading of Talha ibn Musarrif and Mu’adh ibn Muslim al-Harra’ (the teacher of al-Farra’) and Za’idah from al-A’mash: "Ayyahum" with the fatha (accusative). However, this refutes what was reported from him regarding the necessity of indeclinability when it is added and the head of its silah is deleted. If one were standing by this reading, it would be appropriate to say that both options are permissible in it in that instance.

Al-Khalil said: The object of "nanza’anna" is a relative pronoun that is deleted, and "ayyu" here is an interrogative pronoun acting as a subject, and "ashaddu" is its predicate. The clause is reported by a statement that acts as the silah for the deleted relative pronoun; that is, "We shall surely extract those about whom it is said: Which of them is the most severe?" This was critiqued by saying there is no meaning in applying the "extraction" to those who are asked about with this interrogation. It was answered that this is a metaphor for the proximity and similarity of their conditions in rebellion until they deserve to be asked about, or that it means those who are answered about in this question. The essence of it is: We shall surely extract the most rebellious. This is among the forced interpretations where the relative pronoun is deleted along with part of its silah, which is an affectation upon an affectation, and such [constructions] are not analogical.

Al-Kisa’i and al-Farra’ went along with what al-Khalil said, except that they placed the clause in the position of the accusative as the object of "nanza’anna." The intent is to extract those who occur in the answer to this question. The verb is "suspended" (mu’allaq) by the interrogation, and its suspension was permitted by them because the meaning is "We shall surely call out," and they—the two of them—view the suspension of "calling" as permissible even though it is not among the "verbs of the heart." Al-Mahdawi held this view as well.

It is also said: When the "extraction" contained the meaning of "separation" and "distinguishing"—which is something that requires knowledge—it was treated as "knowledge," and thus its suspension became permissible. Yunus does not view suspension as restricted to a category of verbs, but that all their categories are equal in the validity of suspension according to him. It is also said that the interrogative clause is an inception (isti’naf), and the verb applies to "every sect," with "min" (from) as an augmentative in a positive sentence—as al-Akhfash views it—or with the meaning of "We shall extract some of every sect," by making "min" an object because of its interpretation as a noun. Then, if the inception is explanatory, occurring in response to the question "Who are the extracted ones?", an interpretation is required, as if it were said: "The meaning is those who occur in the answer to 'Which of them is most severe?' or something similar." If "ayyu" is understood as an inception and the verb applying to what was mentioned as a relative pronoun, no interpretation is required. However, in the claim of inception, there is a deviation from the manifest (that the speech is a single clause) to the contrary of the manifest (that it is two clauses).

Some reported from al-Mubarrad that "ayyu" is the subject of "shi’ah" (sect), because its meaning is "to follow" (yushi’u), and the estimation is: "We shall surely extract from every party that follows, which of them is more severe." "Ayyu" here, according to what Abu al-Baqa’ stated and what was reported from al-Radi, is in the sense of "the one who." In al-Bahr, it says that al-Mubarrad said: "Ayyu" is connected to "shi’ah," and therefore it is in the nominative. The meaning is: "Of those who have taken sides, which of them is the most severe?" It is as if they were rushing to this. It requires one to posit a deleted object for "nanza’anna." In this view, they also estimated "of those who have taken sides, which of them is more severe," in the sense of "of those who have cooperated, they looked at which of them is the most severe." Al-Nahhas said: "This is a good opinion." This is contrary to what was reported first. By my life, attributing to al-Mubarrad both first and last is colder than winter.

It is also said that the interrogative clause is an adjective for "shi’ah," in the sense of: "We shall surely extract from every sect those about whom it is said: Which of them is more severe?" That is, from every sect of those with similar conditions. Abu Bakr ibn Shuqayr narrated that some Kufans say "ayyu" has the meaning of a condition. You say: "I struck the people, ayyahum (whichever of them) got angry." The meaning is: whether they got angry or did not get angry. Abu Hayyan said: "According to this, the estimate here would be: whether their rebellion intensified or did not intensify." This is as you see.

The approach to which the mind leans and which the wording and meaning support is what Sibawayh went to. The crux of what he went to regarding "ayyu" in declinability and indeclinability is, in reality, what has been heard (in usage). The reasonings of the grammarians, despite their complexity, only come after the occurrence [of the usage], and the non-hearing of the contrary does not invalidate what has been heard. So reflect.