Tafsir of Ya seen 36:59

That is, isolate yourselves from the believers toward your destination of the Fire. Abd ibn Humayd and others narrated from Qatadah that it means: "Be cut off from every good." Al-Dahhak said: "For every disbeliever, there is a house in the Fire where he will be, neither seeing nor being seen." This is in contrast to the gathering of the believers with those they love. Perhaps this occurs after some time has passed since their initial entry, so it does not contradict the mutual reproach mentioned in other verses, such as His saying: "...and when they argue with one another in the Fire." It is also possible that He meant for every class of disbeliever, such as the Jews and Christians.

The Imam permitted the possibility that the command is a command of creation (takwini), similar to "Be, and it is," meaning that Allah the Almighty says that to them, and signs appear upon them by which they are recognized, as the Exalted said: "The criminals will be known by their marks." Its remoteness is not hidden.

The sentence is a conjunction added to the previous sentence, which was presented to explain the conditions of the people of Paradise; it is the conjunction of one story with another. Therefore, the discrepancy between the interrogative/imperative (insha'i) and the declarative (khabari) does not matter. It is as if the change in structure is to represent the perfection of the contrast between the two groups and their respective states.

Alternatively, it is based on an implicit command to which the narration of the state of the people of Paradise leads. It is as if it were said: After the explanation of their being in a state of great importance and their winning eternal bliss that eludes description, let them be comforted by that, and—"Separate yourselves, O criminals!" This was stated by Abu al-Su'ud.

Al-Khafaji said: It is permissible that it is based on the estimation of "and it is said: separate," such that it is conjoined to the implied "said," which is the active agent in "they say." This is closer and less forced, because the omission of the verb "to say" and its object taking its place is frequent—so much so that it has been said regarding it: "He is the master, narrate from him and feel no shame," and its validity appears upon the slightest reflection.

It has been said: What is mentioned from His saying, “Indeed, the companions of Paradise...” up to here is a clarification of the previous summary, namely His saying: “And you will not be recompensed except for what you used to do.” Upon this, it was based that the coordinate conjunction contains a sense of request, with the meaning: "Let the believers be distinguished from you, O people of the Gathering, and you separate yourselves from them to the Fire." Al-Kashf refuted this, saying it is not apparent, as one of the two matters suffices for the other. Then he said: The aspect is that the intention is to conjoin the story of the people of the Fire to the sentence regarding the story of Paradise, and it was chosen here to increase the terror and the reproach. Do you not see His saying: “Burn in it today”? Even if implication (tadmin) is necessary, the coordinate is more appropriately placed in the meaning of the report, with the meaning: "And the criminals are indeed separated and alone."

The benefit of shifting to this address lies in the rhetorical point it contains. As for what he mentioned regarding one of the two matters sufficing for the other, it is simple because the command is estimative, even though the first separation is by way of honor and the fulfillment of a promise, and the second is by way of humiliation and the hastening of the threat. Thus, each of them provides what the other does not.

Indeed, the scholar Abu al-Su'ud said regarding this: "Considering 'let the believers be distinguished' and implying it is far from being sound, because what is narrated about them is not their transition to the mentioned pleasant state such that it would be possible to order the mentioned command upon it. Rather, it is their being established in it already, and that is treating the expected as if it were the existing reality—which is of no benefit, because the basis of consideration and implication is the flow of understanding toward it, arranging the speech upon it. After the mentioned treatment and dropping the expectation from the level of consideration, taking the effort to imply something related to it would take the noble arrangement out of its eloquence entirely." It appears there is no difference in this between implication and omission. What prevails in one's mind is that what was mentioned does not provide more than the priority of estimating "let them be comforted" over estimating "let them be separated."

Some intellectuals said: It is permissible that "am-tazu" (separate yourselves) is a past tense verb, and the pronoun refers to the believers. Meaning: "The believers have become distinct from you by winning Paradise and its bliss, O criminals." In this is a cause for their regret. The conjunction is then the conjunction of a verbal, declarative sentence to a nominal, declarative sentence, and there is no prohibition against that. This was refuted by noting that it contradicts the well-known style of the address occurring with the command, such as "O Yusuf, turn away from this," and it is of little benefit. What he mentioned regarding "regret" is sufficiently covered by what came before regarding the mention of the luxury they are in. Furthermore, the narrated tradition is most resistant to that, and it is like a text stating that "am-tazu" is an imperative verb, and it would hardly occur to the reader of that...