Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:10

{That is for what your two hands have put forth}

(That) – meaning what has been mentioned of the confirmation of disgrace for him in this world, and the tasting of the punishment of the burning fire in the other [world]. The demonstrative pronoun carries the significance of distance to signal that it is at the furthest extreme of horror and monstrosity. It is a subject, and its predicate is the saying of the Exalted: (for what your two hands have put forth), meaning because of what you acquired of disbelief and sins. Its attribution to his two hands is because acquisition is habitually performed by the hands. It is also permitted that (That) be the predicate of a deleted subject—meaning, "The matter is that"—or that it be the object of a deleted verb—meaning, "We did that." However, this is contrary to the apparent meaning, and the sentence is an initiation that has no place in grammatical inflection (i'rab). It is also permissible for it to be in the accusative position as the object of a deleted verb that serves as a state (hal)—meaning, "saying," or "it being said to him, 'That...'" In the first case, there is a shift (iltifat) in the speech to emphasize the threat and intensify the intimidation.

{And that Allah is not ever unjust to [His] servants}

The apparent meaning is that it is conjoined to the previous clause ("what"), and some have held this view. Its benefit is to indicate that the causality of what they fabricated of sins for their punishment is contingent upon the inclusion of the negation of His injustice, the Exalted; for were it not for that, it would have been possible for Him to punish them for things other than what they perpetrated—not that He punishes them for what they perpetrated. In summary, the punishing of sinners could be for their sins, and it could be for the mere intent to punish them without a sin. This [verse] lifts the second possibility and confirms the first for causality, not to lift the possibility that He might not punish them for their sins—for that is permissible, and some verses indeed indicate that it occurs in the case of some sinners. The reference for this in the Hereafter is to reproach the disbelievers and silence them, by indicating that there is no cause for the punishment except from their own side; it is as if it were said: "This punishment only arose from your sins which you acquired, not from anything else."

The scholar Abu al-Sa‘ud chose the view that the clause "that" and what follows it is in the nominative position as the predicate of a deleted subject—meaning, "And the matter is that He, the Exalted, is not one to punish His servants without a sin on their part." The sentence is a concluding interjection confirming the content of what preceded it. Regarding [the view that it is] a conjunction to show causality, he said it is unsound because the possibility of His punishing His servants without a sin—or rather, the occurrence of it—does not negate the fact that the punishment of these specific disbelievers is due to their sins, such that it would require the consideration of its absence alongside it. Indeed, if the claim were that all of His punishments are due to the punished, then such [a constraint] would be needed.

His statement—"the possibility of..."—was countered by the argument that the discussion is not about the contradiction of those two matters in their essence, but about the contradiction of the possibility of punishment without sin, in order to confirm the causality of sins. His statement—"if the claim were..."—was countered by the argument that the need for that constraint in both scenarios is merely to reproach the sinners by saying that there is no cause for their punishment except from their own side. Thus, the claim that there is a need for it in the general case and no need in the specific case is very weak. It was countered by other things as well.

The view of it being an interjection, even if it is not free from remoteness, is further from the interjection [of causality]. Expressing the negation of His punishing His servants without a sin as a "negation of injustice"—despite the fact that punishing them without a sin is not "injustice" according to the principles of the People of the Sunnah—is to demonstrate the perfection of His transcendence (Exalted be He) above that, by portraying it in the form of something whose emanation from Him is impossible, namely "injustice." The intensive form (mubalagha) is to emphasize this meaning by presenting the aforementioned punishment without sin in the form of an intensive injustice.

It is also said: It is to take into account the plurality of "the servants" (al-‘abid), so it is for multiplication (quantity), not for intensity (quality). It was countered that the negation of the intensive form, regardless of how it is viewed, implies the impossible. It is also said: It is permissible to consider the intensive form after the negation, so it would be an intensification of the negation, not a negation of the intensification. It was countered that this is not like a detached constraint whose deferment or precedence is permissible, as they have said regarding constraints occurring with negation. Making it a constraint in estimation—in the sense that it means "not a possessor of great or much injustice"—is an incomparable burden. It is also said: "Zallam" is for the relationship (nisba), meaning "not a possessor of injustice," and this is not exclusive to the fa‘il form, for it has come: [And you are not a possessor of a spear, nor am I a possessor of arrows]. And other things have been said.