Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:12

(And if you could but see when the criminals)—the genus of criminals, those whom [their deeds] have burdened—(hanging their heads)—lowering them out of shame and humiliation—(before their Lord)—at the time of their reckoning, due to the appearance of the abominations they committed in the world. Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) recited nakkasū ru’ūsahum as a past-tense verb and a direct object. (Our Lord)—by estimating the implied utterance functioning as the state—the active agent of which is "hanging"—meaning: they say, "Our Lord..." and so on. This is preferable to estimating [the verb] "they are pleading" with the words: "Our Lord."

(We have seen and we have heard)—meaning: we have become of those who see and hear, and we have acquired the readiness to perceive the visible signs and the audible signs, whereas before, we were blind and deaf, perceiving nothing. (So return us)—to the world—(that we may do righteousness)—according to what those signs necessitate. This is, according to what has been said, a claim on their part of the soundness of their faculties of sight and hearing.

His saying, Exalted is He: (Indeed, we are [now] certain) is a new sentence explaining what preceded it. It is also said: it is a new sentence for which explanation was not intended. Under either estimation, it contains their claim of the soundness of their hearts and their capability of understanding the meanings of the signs and acting upon what they require. It holds within it an exhibition of steadfastness in their certainty and the perfection of their desire for it, as it is; perhaps for this reason, they did not say: "We have seen, heard, and attained certainty; so return us," etc. Perhaps the delaying of "hearing" [is because] most of the promised righteous deeds are dependent upon it rather than sight, so not separating the two by "sight" was more appropriate.

It is permissible to estimate for each of the two verbs a suitable object from what they see and hear, by saying: "We have seen the Resurrection which we used to deny and that which You promised us upon our denial of it; and we have heard from You what points to the verification of Your messengers (peace be upon them)." This is intended to mean something like His saying, Exalted is He: "O company of jinn and mankind, did there not come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My verses and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours?"—not an explicit news [of the form], "My messengers are truthful," for example. Or it may be said: "We have seen the Resurrection, and we have heard the speech of the messengers"—meaning we have heard it with the hearing of obedience and submission. Or it may be said: "We have seen the ugliness of our deeds, which we used to see as good in the world, and we have heard the statement of the angels to us: 'Your return is to the Fire.'" It is also said: they meant "We have seen Your messengers and heard their speech when we were in the world," or "We have seen Your creative signs and heard Your revealed signs in the world; therefore, You have the argument against us, and we have no argument; so return us," etc. The condition of this view is not hidden. Under all these estimates, the reason for placing seeing before hearing is evident.

"And if..."—Law is that which more than one has called the "impossible" [conditional], and its apodosis is omitted, its estimate being: "you would have seen a terrifying matter, the magnitude of which cannot be estimated."

The address in "see" is directed to everyone for whom seeing is possible, since the intent is to explain the perfection of their wretched state and that its reaches of horror are not exclusive to one seer over another among those accustomed to witnessing marvelous affairs and terrifying disasters; rather, everyone capable of sight wonders at its horror and abomination. It is also said: because the intent is to explain that their condition has reached such a level of clarity that its concealment is absolutely impossible, and thus its witnessing is not exclusive to one seer over another. The estimated apodosis is more consistent with what was mentioned first, and the verb is treated as intransitive, so no object is estimated for it; meaning: if there were a seeing on your part at that time, you would have seen a terrifying matter.

It is permitted that the address be specific to the Master of those addressed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and law being for wishing, as if it were said: "Would that you saw when the criminals are hanging their heads, that you might gloat over them." The judgment of "wishing" from Him, Exalted is He, is the same as the judgment of "hoping," which has already been discussed, and it has no apodosis in that case according to the majority. Abu Hayyan and Ibn Malik said: it must have an apodosis, inferring from the statement of Muhalhil in the War of Basus: "If the graves were to be dug up for Kulayb, and he were informed of the events... then he would be comforted." That is, law here is for wishing, evidenced by the accusative [in the verb] "he would be informed," and it has an apodosis, which is his saying "he would be comforted." This was refuted [by the argument] that it is conditional, and "he would be informed" is a conjunction to a verbal noun derived from "digging," as if it were said: "If a digging occurred, then an informing." The affectation in this is not hidden.

Al-Khafaji (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If it is said that it is for the estimate of wishing, then [when] it is used often, it is given its ruling and is dispensed from the estimate of an apodosis when it is not mentioned, as in the concessive [clause], and the accusative of its apodosis was easier than what was mentioned.

It is permitted to estimate an object for "see" indicated by what follows, meaning: "If you could see the criminals, or if you could see their hanging of their heads." The past tense in law (the impossible) and idha (when) is used because His informing, Exalted is He, about what is realized in His eternal knowledge is—due to its certainty—equivalent to the past; thus, that which indicates the past is used metaphorically therein, such as law and idha.

Among the strange [interpretations] is the statement of Abu al-Abbas regarding the verse: The meaning is, "Say, O Muhammad, to the criminal, 'And if you could see...'" Abu Hayyan reported this from him and then said: He saw that the sentence is a conjunction to "[He] takes you in death" (in the preceding verse), falling under the previous "Say," and therefore he did not make the address in it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). His words have ended; so do not be heedless.