Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:20

(Meaning: those who deviated from obedience, thus disbelieving and committing sins).

Their abode (Meaning: their dwelling and place of residence) is the Fire. Some have mentioned that the word "abode" (ma’wa) has become conventionally used for a place that serves as a refuge for a person, a place of rest where one finds comfort from heat and cold. If this meaning is intended here, the speech contains a sarcastic metaphor, as in His saying: "So give them tidings of a painful punishment." It is also permitted that this usage is for the sake of stylistic parallelism (mushakala), for when He mentioned in the one category, "for them are the Gardens of Abode," He mentioned in the other, "their abode is the Fire."

Every time they wish to exit from it, they are returned into it. This is a new beginning (isti'naf) to explain the manner in which the Fire is their abode. The speech is similar to the saying of the Exalted: "A wall that wants to collapse," according to what has been said. The meaning is: whenever they are on the verge of exiting it and come near to doing so, they are returned into it and cast back into its depths. It has been narrated that the flames of the Fire strike them, lifting them toward its summit, until, when they draw near to its gate and intend to exit, the flame strikes them and they plunge back into its depths—and thus it is done to them forever. It is also said: the speech is upon its literal meaning, except that there is an ellipsis, meaning: Every time they wish to exit from it, and they have exited from most of it, they are returned into it. The phrase "in it" (fiha)—rather than "to it" (ilayha)—indicates exiting from the majority of it. It is also permitted that this speech here is an expression of their eternal remaining within it. In any case, there is no contradiction between this verse and His saying: "And they will not be those who exit from the Fire."

And it is said to them (to increase their hardship and exacerbate their rage):

"Taste the punishment of the Fire which you used to deny" (meaning: deny the punishment of the Fire). The word "Fire" is explicitly mentioned, despite its prior mention, to increase the threat, the intimidation, and the magnification of the matter. Ibn al-Hajib mentioned in his Amali another angle for this explicit mention: the sentence occurring after "it is said" is a recounting of what will be said to them on the Day of Resurrection when they desire to exit the Fire. Thus, the use of a pronoun would not be appropriate, for the saying is not preceded by a mention of the Fire at that moment; rather, the Exalted mentioned it before as an account of their conditions. Al-Tibi—may mercy be upon him—critiqued this, stating that this saying is also included within the scope of the report, as it is joined to "they are returned," which occurs as the answer to "every time." Just as using a pronoun was permitted in the original clause, it is permitted here, unless the intention is an increase in threat and intimidation.

It was refuted that the obstacle is that it is a recounting of what will be said to them on the Day of Resurrection, and the basis of a recounting is that it should be in accordance with the recounted [event], without alteration or pronoun usage in the recounted part, due to the lack of a prior mention of the Fire within it. This was countered by the argument that one may challenge this by saying that the intent is that it is permissible to observe both the recounted [event] and the recounting; and just as the basis is observing the recounted [event], the basis is the use of a pronoun if the mention has preceded it, so there must be a factor of preference.

Some researchers have said: Ibn al-Hajib intended that the explicit mention is what is appropriate in this sentence, both in view of its essence and its context. As for the first, it is because it is said without a prior mention of the Fire. As for the second, the context of the verse is for threat, intimidation, and magnification of the matter, and the explicit mention contains this in a way that the pronoun does not. This is far from being invalidated by the critique of al-Tibi.

The fair view is that both pronoun usage and explicit mention are permissible, and that explicit mention is favored because the context requires it. It is reported from al-Raghib that which indicates that the station in this verse is a station for a pronoun, as he stated in Durrat al-Tanzil: "The Exalted said here, 'Taste the punishment of the Fire which you used to deny,' and He said in another verse, 'the punishment of the Fire which you used to deny' (using the feminine pronoun 'which'). He mentioned the Fire here and 'it' there. The secret is that the Fire here is in the position of a pronoun, and a pronoun cannot be described (adjectivally), so the description was applied to the 'punishment' which is added to it, and it (the punishment) is masculine. In that other verse, the Fire was not mentioned in its context, so the Fire did not fall into the position of a pronoun; thus, the description was applied to it, and it is feminine, not the punishment." Reflect upon this.