Tafsir of Ar-Rum 30:10

(Then was the end of those who did evil) — meaning those who committed bad deeds. The relative pronoun is used in place of their pronoun to record their evil-doing and to intimate the cause of the ruling. The particle (thumma) (then) is used for either actual sequence in time, or to denote remoteness and disparity in rank.

(The worst) — meaning the worst punishment, which is punishment by fire. It is either the feminine form of al-aswa' (the worse), just as al-husna is the feminine of al-ahsan (the better), or it is an infinitive noun, like al-bushra. It is used to describe the punishment as an intensifier, as if the punishment were the evil itself. It is in the nominative case as the noun of kana, while 'aqibatu (the end) is its predicate.

The two Haramis (Nafi' and Ibn Kathir) and Abu 'Amr read 'aqibatu in the nominative case as the noun of kana, and al-su'a in the accusative case as the predicate. Al-A'mash and al-Hasan read al-suwwa by changing the hamza into a waw and assimilating the waw into it. Ibn Mas'ud read al-su' in the masculine form.

(Because they denied the signs of Allah) — this is the cause for the aforementioned ruling; that is, "because" or "in that they denied." It is, in truth, an exposition of what the use of the relative pronoun instead of the personal pronoun intimated, for it was ambiguous.

His saying, Exalted be He, (And they used to mock them) is a conjunction joined to kadhdhabu (denied), entering with it into the ruling of causality. Using the verb in the imperfect tense (present/continuous) for "mocking" signifies its continuity and renewal.

It has been permitted that al-su'a could be a cognate object (maf'ul mutlaq) for asa'u (they did evil) though not from the same root, or a direct object (maf'ul bihi), since asa'u carries the meaning of "they committed" or "they acquired," and al-su'a means "sin," being an adjective or an infinitive interpreted as such. Regarding it as an adjective derived from the root of asa'u—that is, "the evil-doing that is the worst"—is remote in wording and redundant in meaning.

The clause (an kadhdhabu) could be the noun of kana. The consideration of denial as their "end," even though they were never free from it, is either in view of its continuation or that it refers to the "sealing" (of their hearts). It is also permitted that (an kadhdhabu) is a substitute (badal) for al-su'a (which is the noun of kana), or an explanatory apposition ('atf bayan) for it, or the predicate of an omitted subject—that is, "it [the end] is that they denied."

It is also possible that 'an is explanatory, meaning "that is to say," and what is being explained is either asa'u or al-su'a, since evil-doing can be verbal just as it can be practical. Thus, what precedes it implies the meaning of "speech" without using its letters, and this implication appears through the explanation. Since "And the chiefs among them departed, saying: Walk..." (wa-ntalaqa al-mala'u minhum an imshu) is permissible, then this usage is even more permissible; thus, this aspect is not forced, contrary to what Abu Hayyan claims.

Regarding the recitation of the two Haramis and Abu 'Amr, it has been permitted that al-su'a be the object of the verb, and (an kadhdhabu) be a dependent of it, or the predicate of an omitted subject, or on the basis of an omitted causal particle, with the predicate of kana being omitted—estimated as "dreadful" (wakhima) or similar. This was critiqued in al-Bahr, stating: "This is a non-Arab understanding, for the speech is independent and of the utmost beauty without any omission. They have troubled themselves to posit an omission for which there is no evidence, and our scholars do not permit the omission of the predicate of kana."