Tafsir of Al-Mu'minoon 23:56

His saying, Exalted is He, {نسارع لهم في الخيرات} is the predicate of "that" (anna), and the pronoun returning to the noun (al-ladhina) is omitted. That is: Do they imagine that what We provide them with of wealth and children, We are hastening for them in that which contains their goodness and honor? This is on the basis that the interrogative hamza is for the denial of the reality and its condemnation. The omission of this referential pronoun is due to the length of the speech, alongside the precedent of its equivalent in the relative clause (silah), although the omission of the like of it is infrequent.

Hisham ibn Mu'awiyah said: The connector is the apparent noun, which is "the good things" (al-khayrat), as if the meaning were "We hasten for them in it," then it was manifested, so it was said "in the good things." This follows the school of al-Akhfash in his allowance of constructions like "Zayd stood up, Abu Abdullah," when Abu Abdullah is the kunya of Zayd.

It is said: It is not permissible for the predicate to be "of wealth and children," because Allah, the Exalted, has provided them with that, so the belief in the provision—as implied by the interrogative of denial—is neither faulted nor denied. This is countered by the argument that it is not far-fetched for the intended meaning to be that which We make a beneficial provision for them in the Hereafter, not wealth and children, but rather faith and righteous action, like His saying, "The day when wealth and children will not avail, except for one who comes to Allah with a sound heart." But there is much to be said about this.

What We have mentioned—that "what" (ma) is relative—is the most apparent. Whoever deems "ma" to be a particle (masdariyyah) and considers the source resultant after construction to be the noun of "that" (anna) and its predicate to be "We hasten" (nusari'u)—upon the estimation of "a hastening," based on the principle that the original was "that we hasten" (an nusari'a), so "an" was dropped and the verb was elevated—has not done justice to the Quran. The same applies to those who consider it a restrictive particle (kaffah), such as al-Kisa'i; Abu Hayyan narrated this from him and permitted, upon that basis, the pause at "children" (banin), reasoning that what follows "do they imagine" constitutes a predicate and a subject in terms of meaning, even if it is interpreted as a singular. It is as you see.

Ibn Wathab recited "inna ma namudduhum" with a kasra on the hamza of "inna." Ibn Kathir, in one narration, recited "yumidduhum" with a ya. Al-Sulami and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakrah recited "yusari'u" with a ya and a kasra on the ra. If its subject is His pronoun, Exalted is He, then the speech regarding the connector is as you have heard. If it is the pronoun of the relative noun, then it is the connector. It is reported from the aforementioned Ibn Abi Bakrah that he recited "yusara'u" with a ya and a fatha on the ra, in the passive voice. Al-Harr al-Nahwi recited "nusri'u" with a nun, the imperfect of "asra'a." It was also recited, as in al-Kashshaf, "yusri'u" with a ya, also the imperfect of "asra'a," and regarding its subject, the two possibilities mentioned earlier apply.

This is a conjunction to an implied [clause] upon which the speech is drawn. That is: Nay, We do not do that. "But they do not perceive," meaning: It is not in their nature to perceive; they are but like cattle, nay, even further astray, so that they might reflect and ponder that this is [either] a gradual deception or a hastening and initiation in goodness. Hence it was said: Whoever disobeys Allah, the Exalted, and does not see a decrease in what the Exalted has given him of this world, let him know that he is being gradually deceived and plotted against.

Qatadah said: Do not judge people by their wealth and children, but judge them by their faith and righteous deeds.