Tafsir of Maryam 19:75

(Say, whoever is in error) – this is a command from Allah, Exalted is He, to His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to answer these people who boast of their worldly fortunes over the believers. He is to clarify the eventual outcome of both groups. This may be understood in a general sense, encompassing them and others who are immersed in and delighted by fleeting pleasures, assuming "whoever" (man) signifies generality. Or, it may be understood in a specific sense, referring to them in particular, describing them as being established in error to condemn them and to indicate the cause of the judgment.

That is: whoever is established in error, immersed in ignorance and heedlessness regarding the consequences of affairs, (let the Most Gracious extend for him an extension) – meaning: He, Glory be to Him, shall extend for him and grant him a long life, bestow wealth upon him, and enable him to act according to his desires. This is phrased as a statement of news, though it is chosen to signify that this is what must occur by the necessity of wisdom in order to remove all excuses, as indicated by His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Did We not give you lives long enough for whoever would remember to remember?). Thus, the meaning becomes: whoever is in error has no excuse, for the Most Gracious has indeed granted respite and extended it for him.

It is also possible that this is for the purpose of istidraj (gradual leading to ruin), as articulated by His, the Exalted’s, saying: (We only grant them respite so that they may increase in sin). The resulting meaning is: whoever is in error, it is the custom of Allah, the Exalted, to extend his time and lead him on gradually so that he may increase in sin. Others have said that it is a supplication for extension to demonstrate that no excuse remains after this clear explanation; thus, it follows the style of: (Our Lord, so that they may stray from Your path), if interpreted as a supplication. Al-Kashf states: "The first interpretation is more appropriate for this context, and the reference to the attribute of the 'Most Gracious' is because the extension is one of His decrees."

(Until, when they see that which they are promised) – this is the limit of the extension. The pronoun is plural in the two verbs ("they see") in consideration of the meaning of man ("whoever"), just as the two preceding pronouns were singular in consideration of its literal form. Ma ("that which") is a relative pronoun, and the sentence following it is a relative clause, with the implicit object omitted, meaning: alladhi yu‘adunahu (that which they are promised). Considering ma to be a verbal particle (masdariyyah) is contrary to the apparent meaning.

His, the Exalted's, saying: (Either the punishment or the Hour) is an appositive to ma and an elaboration of the promised event by way of exclusive disjunction. By "punishment" is meant the worldly punishment through the victory and dominance of the believers over them. By "the Hour," some say it is the Day of Resurrection, which is the apparent meaning. Others say it refers to what occurs at the moment of death and the witnessing of punishment; for whoever dies, his Resurrection has commenced. This is so that the limit may connect to the thing limited, as the extension cannot be connected to the Day of Resurrection. It is answered that the matter of the interval is trivial, as the affairs of this world, due to their transience and passing, are not considered an interval, as was said regarding His, the Exalted’s, saying: (They were drowned and admitted to a Fire).

His, the Exalted's, saying: (Then they will know) is the response to the condition, and both are, in reality, the limit—if we say that the whole is the speech or merely its concept if we say it is the speech and the condition is added to it. Hatta ("until"), according to Ibn Malik, is a preposition and is for the mere purpose of defining the limit, not a preposition of connection or a coordinating conjunction according to the majority. This is how it functions whenever it enters upon the conditional idha. It is governed in the accusative by the conditional or the response, according to the well-known dispute, and the sentence is an independent clause with no syntactical position.

The meaning is: until when they witness what they were promised of worldly or other-worldly punishment, they will then know (who is in a worse place) between the two groups, by observing the reality contrary to what they had estimated. Thus, they will know that he [the one in error] is in a worse place, not a better position. The expression here as "place" (makan) rather than "position" (maqam), used earlier, serves to exaggerate the exposure of their wretched state.

(And weaker in forces) – meaning: group and supporters. (Not better in assembly). The mode of opposition is that "better in assembly" refers to the gathering of the dignitaries and notables of the people, the display of their majesty, and their reliance upon one another. Others say the intent of "assembly" (nadi) there is those within it, as one says "the high council" for glorification; it does not mean he has a weak force there, but rather: "He had no group to help him besides Allah, nor was he among those who could help themselves." This was mentioned as a refutation of what they used to claim—that they had helpers among their partners.

The apparent view is that man is a relative pronoun in the accusative as the object of ya‘lamun ("they know"), and the verb is transitive to one object because "knowing" here signifies "becoming aware." The sentence (who is in a worse place) is the relative clause. Abu Hayyan permitted it to be an interrogative, with "knowing" in its literal sense, and the sentence occupies the position of an object, filling the place of two objects—this being, according to Abu al-Baqa', a separation, not a nominal sentence.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted—and his apparent approach suggests he preferred it—that the preceding [verse] be the limit for the statement of the disbelievers, i.e., which of the two groups is better, etc. And His, the Exalted's, saying: (How many have We destroyed...), etc., and (Say, whoever is in error...), etc., are two parenthetical sentences of denial against them. Meaning: they do not cease saying this statement and are obsessed with it, not desisting until they witness the promised [punishment] with their own eyes—either the punishment in this world at the hands of the believers, or on the Day of Resurrection and the disgrace and torment they will receive therein. Only then will they know, for the matter is the opposite of what they estimated. Al-Bahr criticized this as being extremely distant due to the long separation between the limit and the thing limited, despite the separation containing two parenthetical sentences, which is contrary to the view of Abu 'Ali, who does not permit it. You also know that after rectifying the matter of the interruption of speech at death and its non-extension to the Day of Resurrection, the consideration of the continuity and repetition of the statement cannot be valid without considering the continuity of the recitation, for the statement occurs within the scope of the answer to idha, and that is as you can see.