Tafsir of Al-`Ankabut 29:4

"Or do those who do evil deeds think that they can outstrip Us?" Mujahid said: "Meaning, that they can incapacitate Us, such that We are unable to recompense them for their deeds and take vengeance upon them." The origin of al-sabq (outstripping) is to escape or elude, and what has been mentioned is intended by it. It is also said: "It means that they can hasten Us," which implies a fixed decree; but the first interpretation is more appropriate.

Qatada—as recorded from him by Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn Jarir—interpreted "the evil deeds" (al-sayyi'at) as shirk (polytheism). The plural form is used in consideration of the multiplicity of those who possess this attribute. Attributing "deed" to shirk—whether we say it is something born of thought and reflection, as has been said, or of intention, as Al-Raghib said, or otherwise—contains no difficulty, for it occurs through the worship of idols and other things. It is also said that the intended meaning of "evil deeds" is sins other than disbelief (kufr). In this case, the verse is definitively regarding the believers; even if they do not think that they can elude Him, may He be exalted, and their souls do not covet such a thing, their persistence in ways contrary to the demands of knowledge—namely their heedlessness and persistence in sin—has been placed in the status of one who is not certain of the recompense and who thinks he can elude Allah, the Almighty and Majestic.

Some have generalized it, taking "evil deeds" to encompass both disbelief and sin. The attachment of "deed" to these is, upon accepting that it be restricted to what you have heard, potentially based on the principle of taghlib (predominance). The manifest sense of the traditions indicates that this verse was revealed regarding the disbelievers. It is related from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The Almighty intends by 'those who do evil deeds': Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl, al-Aswad, al-Asi ibn Hisham, Shaybah, Utbah, al-Walid ibn Utbah, Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt, Hanzalah ibn Wa'il, and their likes among the leaders of Quraysh." In al-Bahr, it is stated that even if the verse was revealed for a specific cause, it generalizes to everyone who does evil deeds, whether disbeliever or believer.

The manifest sense is that "Or" (Am) is disjunctive (munqati'ah), bearing the meaning of bal (nay/rather), which is used for idrab (reproach/avoidance) in the sense of transition. It is a transition from the denial of the assumption that there is no trial merely by belief, to the denial of the assumption that there is no recompense for doing evil deeds.

Ibn Atiyyah said: "Am is correlative (mu'adilah) to the hamzah in His saying, the Almighty: 'Do they think...' It is as if He, the Almighty, has confirmed both parties: He confirmed the believers in their assumption that they would not be tried, and He confirmed the disbelievers who do evil deeds in torturing the believers and otherwise, in their assumption that they would outstrip the vengeance of Allah, the Almighty, and incapacitate Him." This has been refuted by the fact that if it were correlative to the hamzah, it would be conjunctive (muttasilah). The latter is invalid because the condition for a conjunctive am is that what follows it must be a single term—such as "Is Zayd standing or Amr?"—or what is in the estimation of a single term—such as "Did Zayd stand or sit?"—and its answer must be the determination of one of the two things or matters. Here, however, it is a complete sentence, and it is impossible to answer here with one of the two things. Therefore, the truth is that it is disjunctive, and the interrogation it signifies is one of negation, which does not require an answer, as is not hidden.

The manifest sense is that the verb "to think" (al-husban) governs two objects, and "that they can outstrip Us" occupies the place of the two of them. Al-Zamakhshari permitted here that it be imbued with the meaning of "to estimate," becoming transitive to one object, with "that they can outstrip Us" being that single object. Abu Hayyan countered this by stating that imbuing with meaning is not an analogy (qiyas) and is not resorted to except in case of necessity, and there is no necessity here.

"Evil is what they judge!" That is: Wretched is that which they judge—their judgment of that [being the case]. This is on the basis that sa'a signifies "how evil" (bi'sa) and ma is a relative noun (mawsulah), and yahkumun (they judge) is its relative clause, with the referent pronoun being omitted; it is the subject of sa'a, and the specific object of dispraise is omitted. Or, it means "How evil a judgment is that which they judge—their judgment of that," on the basis that ma is an indefinite noun described by an adjective (mawsufah), and yahkumun is its descriptor, the connective pronoun being omitted, and it is a tamyiz (specifying noun), while the subject of sa'a is a pronoun explained by the tamyiz, and the specific object of dispraise is omitted.

Ibn Kaysan said: "Ma is a nominalizer (masdariyyah), and the nominalized source is the specific object of dispraise, so the tamyiz is omitted. It is permitted that sa'a signifies "it is ugly," and ma is either a nominalizer, a relative noun, or an indefinite noun described by an adjective. The imperfect tense is for continuity, indicating that this is their habit, or it stands in the place of the perfect tense out of consideration for the verse ending. Both views were narrated in al-Bahr, and the first is more appropriate. In my view, such a thing is only said regarding the disbelievers.