Tafsir of Fatir 35:18

Rather, every soul shall bear its own sin.

There is no contradiction between this and His, the Exalted’s, saying in Surah al-Ankabut: (But they will surely carry their own burdens, along with their burdens), for that refers to the misguiding deceivers; they carry the sin of their misguidance along with the sin of their own deviation, and all of those are their own sins, containing nothing of the sins of others. Nor does His saying, the Glorified, (along with their burdens) contradict it, because the meaning—according to their consensus—is that what occurred by their direct action and what accompanied it was what occurred through their incitement and cause; thus, it is attributed to the misguiders from one perspective and to the others from another.

The manifest view is that ( ولا تزر ) etc., is a negation of voluntary carrying as a favor from the soul of the one who would carry, in response to the saying of the misguiders: (and we will carry your sins). This is supported by the occasion of revelation, for it is narrated that al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah said to a group of believers, "Disbelieve in Muhammad, peace be upon him, and I will take your sin upon myself," and so this was revealed.

This is a negation of carrying after a request, and "the sinning soul" (al-wazirah) is more general, whether it be voluntary or forced. If no one is forced to carry after a request and a plea for help, it is known a fortiori that there is no compulsion without such a request. Thus, the negation encompasses all types of carrying. Similarly, the "carrier" is more general, whether he be a sinner (wazir) or not, and this generality is achieved by the omission of the one summoned in the text.

It may be said, notwithstanding this, that the first phrase negates the carrying of the entire burden such that the one who would have been relieved is stripped of it, while the second phrase negates lightening (the burden). Thus, there is no unity between the contents of the two sentences, as is not hidden.

It has been said regarding the difference between them: The first is a negation of carrying by compulsion, and the second is a negation of it by choice. This is countered by the argument that, based on this, it would have been appropriate to say: "And a sinning soul shall not be burdened by the sin of another, and if a burdened soul calls someone to its burden, he will not carry anything of it." Furthermore, the proper way to negate compulsion is to address it after negating choice.

It is also said that the first sentence, just as it indicates that a soul burdened with sins will have no one carry any of its sins, also indicates the perfection of His, the Exalted’s, justice. The second sentence indicates that there is no one to seek relief from the terror of that Day either. Both are the intended meanings of the two verses, so the distinction is based on that.

Perhaps what we mentioned first is superior. Some scholars mentioned three questions regarding the first sentence. Regarding the last two, they said: "I have not seen anyone who has grasped them," and they answered each.

1. The first: That the non-carrying of one by another is general for both the sinning soul and the non-sinning soul. Why, then, was it specified for the sinning soul, even though explicit generality is more perfect in justice, more eloquent in glad tidings, and more concise in wording? This could be achieved by saying: "And no soul shall carry the load of another." The answer is that the discussion concerns the possessors of sins who are being punished, to clarify that their punishment is only for the sins they committed, not for what others committed.
2. The second: That the meaning of wizar is the carrying of a burden, not "carrying" in an absolute sense, as stated in the Nihaya of al-Athir, where he says: "It is said wazara, yaziru, so he is a wazir (a sinning one) if he carries what weighs down his back of heavy things or sins." How, then, is the mention of wizr with yaziru sound? The answer is that it is a case of tajrid (abstraction).
3. The third: That wazirah (sinning soul) is understood from taziru (it carries), just as darib (striker) is understood from yadribu (he strikes), for example. So what is the benefit in mentioning it? The answer is: If it is said "the darib (striker) strikes Zayd," what is derived from "strikes" is the essence in which the act of striking subsists as a result of the connection of this action to that essence. When something is expressed with what contains the meaning of being a description, and a verbal meaning is attached to it in a verb form or otherwise, it is understood in the convention of the language that the thing is described by that attribute at the moment that meaning is attached to it, not because of it—as was established by some distinguished commentators of the Kashshaf. Therefore, the meaning of darib in the example must be "one described by striking" prior to the connection of the act of striking to him. The same is said for ( ولا تزر وازرة ). This is a profound benefit, and its profundity is increased by the derivation of generality when the active participle (ism al-fa'il) is mentioned in the indefinite form within the scope of a negation. By this, the statement of the scholar al-Taftazani falls away, that "the mention of the agent of a verb by the word of its active participle in the indefinite form is of very little use."

You know that from the combination of the two sentences, the generality mentioned in the first question is derived, and the mention of them both together provides a benefit that is not hidden. In the Qamus: Wazara, like wa'ada, means to carry a wizr (sin). In the Kashshaf: Wazara the thing means he carried it; and similarly in the Bahr. Based on this, there is no need for tajrid, so do not be heedless. The root of "carrying" is what is on the back regarding something heavy, then it was metaphorically applied to meanings like sins and crimes.

Abu al-Samal narrated from Talha and Ibrahim from al-Kisa'i: ( la tahmil )—with a fatha on the ta and a kasra on the mim. This reading necessitates the accusative case for shay'an (anything) as the object of tahmil, and its subject is a pronoun referring to the object of tad'u which is omitted—i.e., "If a burdened soul calls a soul to its burden, it shall not carry anything of it."

Ibn Atiyyah said: The pronoun in kana refers to the caller, meaning: even if the caller were a person of kinship to the one called. The first is better, because the caller is the "burdened soul" itself, so the appearance of the pronoun returning to it and its feminine gender [is consistent].

As for Abu Hayyan’s statement: "The pronoun is mentioned based on the meaning, because the saying of the Exalted (a burdened soul) does not just mean a grammatically feminine gender, but any person; so it is as if it were said: 'If a burdened person calls...'"—the weakness in this is not hidden. It has been read ( dhū qurbā ) in the nominative case, explained by kana being an incomplete verb, and dhū qurbā as the one being called. It is permitted that it be a complete verb. This has been countered by saying that the sublime structure does not harmonize with it, because the conditional sentence is like a completion and hyperbole to show that there is no relief at all. This requires the meaning to be: "If the burdened soul calls anyone to its burden, it does not answer to what it called him to, even if a possessor of kinship were called." If we were to say "If the burdened soul calls anyone to its burden, the one called will not carry anything, even if a possessor of kinship were present," that does not possess the same beauty. Observing that the possessor of kinship is the one called, by the indication of the context or the assumption "and it called him," as Abu Hayyan did, is contrary to the apparent meaning; thus, the order of the structure is hidden from him.

Al-Abbas narrated from Abu Amr: ( ومن يزكى فإنما يزكي )—with a ya and a shadda on the za in both, and they are imperfect verbs, their origin being yatazakka (purifies himself), but the ta was assimilated into the za, just as it was assimilated in yadhakkaron (they remember). Ibn Mas'ud and Talha read: ( ومن أزكى ) with the assimilation of the ta into the za and the bringing of a connecting hamza at the beginning. Talha also read: ( فإنما تزكى ) with the assimilation of the ta into the za.