Tafsir of Al-Ahzab 33:14

"And if they had been entered upon" (meaning the houses, as is apparent) "from their quarters" (meaning upon those who say such things. The act of entering is attributed to their houses and directed at them, because the intended meaning is the hypothetical case of entering them while they are inside, not a general entry—which is what would be understood if the prepositional phrase were not mentioned—nor a general entry upon them, which is what would be understood if the verb were attributed solely to the prepositional phrase. The subject of the 'entry' is the intruder, anyone from the people of corruption who wished to enter). Meaning: If every person from the people of profligacy and corruption had entered their houses while they were inside them, "from their quarters" (the plural of qutr, meaning direction and side; qatr with a 'ta' is also a dialectical variant). This means from all their sides, such that they were completely surrounded; this is included in the hypothetical scenario and thus does not contradict His saying: "And they are not exposed."

"Then they would have been asked" (that is, requested by another faction during that calamity and terrible shaking) "for the fitna" (meaning fighting, as Al-Dahhak said), "they would have given it" (meaning they would have granted it to those who asked, as if the fitna which they were asked to follow were likened to a precious item they were requested to surrender, and their obedience and following were treated as the act of surrendering and giving what was asked of them). Nafi' and Ibn Kathir read la-atawha (with a shortened vowel), meaning they would have done it.

"And they would not have remained with it" (meaning the fitna; the 'ba' is for transitive use, i.e., they would not have delayed it and would not have procrastinated) "except for a little" (that is, a little while, or a brief time). It is said this is the amount of time it takes to grab their weapons, or the amount of time it takes to answer a request. To me, both are examples intended to show that if someone other than you had asked them to fight while they were in the most dire state and greatest anxiety, they would have rushed extremely quickly—let alone making excuses about their houses being vulnerable while they were actually safe, as they did now. The conclusion is that their seeking permission to return was not because their houses were vulnerable, but because of their hypocrisy and their hatred for supporting you.

Ibn Atiyyah said: The meaning is, if the city were entered from its quarters and the war became a reality, then they were asked by Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to engage in fitna (war), they would have flown to it and would not have remained in their houses to protect them except for a little while—it is said: the time it takes to take up their weapons. Thus, the pronoun in "entered upon" for him refers to the city, and the 'ba' in "with it" is for containerhood, as is apparent from his words. It is also permitted that it be causative, the meaning being on the estimation of an omitted word: "and they would not have remained because of protecting them." It is also said that it may be for accompaniment, and the pronoun in all cases refers to the houses, though this involves a dissociation of pronouns.

From Al-Hasan, Mujahid, and Qatadah: "The fitna" refers to shirk (polytheism), and similar to this is what was said: that it is apostasy and a return to manifesting disbelief. Some made the two pronouns in "entered" and "with it" refer to the city, suggesting the meaning: If the city were entered upon them from all its sides, then they were asked to return to manifesting disbelief and shirk, they would have done so and would not have remained in the city after manifesting their disbelief except for a little while, for Allah (the Exalted) would have destroyed them or cast them out through the believers.

It is also said: The pronoun of "entered" refers to the houses or the city, and the pronoun in "with it" refers to the fitna in the sense of shirk, and the 'ba' is for transitivity. The meaning is: If they were entered upon and then asked for shirk, they would have committed shirk and would not have delayed it except for a little. Similar to this is the statement of Qatadah: If they were entered upon and then asked for shirk, they would have given it willingly, and they would not have held back from it except for a little while. It is permitted that the 'ba' be for something else. It is also said: The subject of the entry is those confederate armies. The possible interpretations of the verse are many, as is not hidden from anyone with the slightest reflection, but what we mentioned first is the most apparent in my view.

Al-Hasan read suwlu with a silent 'waw' after the 'sin' with a damma. They said: It is from sa'ala-yas'alu like khafa-yakhafu, a dialectical variant of the hamza-containing sa'ala. Abu Zayd reported "they two tasaawalaan". Abu Hayyan said: It is permissible that its root has a hamza, because it is possible that suwlu is based on the speech of one who says durba (in the passive) for duriba, then facilitated the hamza by changing it into a 'waw' according to the speech of one who says bu's as buus by changing the hamza to a 'waw' due to the damma preceding it. Abd al-Warith from Abu 'Amr and Al-A'mash read siilu with a kasra on the 'sin' without a hamza, like qiila. Mujahid read suwilu with a silent 'waw' after the 'sin' with a damma and a 'ya' with a kasra in place of the hamza.