Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:32

"So we seduced you, indeed we were..."

The Fa in their saying: "So we seduced you" (fa-aghwaynakum)—meaning: "We invited you to error"—is for the purpose of making the aforementioned invitation a consequence (tafri’) of the truth of the threat upon them, not merely for sequential ordering as has been suggested. This is because the invitation, in regard to its existence in reality related to them, was a consequence of that [truth of the threat] in the nature of things, not because its issuance and execution by them upon the addressees was done with the contemplation of this [the threat]—the way final causes are contemplated in voluntary acts. For it is apparent that the heads of disbelief were not aware in the worldly life of the truth of the threat upon them. Yes, it is not improbable that the companions from among the devils were aware of this from their father.

Likewise, naming their invitation to them toward what they invited them to as "seduction" (ighwa')—that is, calling to error—is based on the fact that the aforementioned speech from the heads is in consideration of the state of reality as it appeared to them on the Day of Resurrection. Similar to this is said regarding their saying: "Indeed, we were seduced." This is based on the premise that they only knew this on the Day of questioning and dispute, and the sentence is an isti'naf (inaugural) for the explanation of what preceded it. It is as if what the consequence (tafri’) hinted at—in terms of the seduction being linked to the addressees—is one thing, and this [sentence] is in terms of the seduction itself being issued by them. This is an elaboration of what is derived from the previous consequence.

It is possible that it is an indication of the aspect of how their seduction of the addressees was predicated upon the truth of the threat against them: they loved for those addressees to be characterized by the same error they were characterized by and for them to be equal in it. The summary of their speech is that there was nothing opposing your truth in reality except the love for you to be like us. This does not harm you, for what is harmful is your own evil choice and the corruption of your aptitude; that is what resulted in the truth of the threat against you and the establishment of this torment for you.

It is also permitted to say: They negated from themselves faith and true belief, and established for them [the followers] tyranny and exceeding the limits in disobedience, since they did not pay heed to what necessitates correct belief despite its abundance and manifestation. They predicated upon this—as the discussion necessitates—the truth of the threat, and they derived from the sum of both matters that they invited them to error, intending by it disbelief, due to the belief in a corrupt matter, not merely the absence of faith (i.e., the absence of belief in what must be believed without the belief in another matter for which one is labeled a disbeliever). They indicated the aspect of this being predicated upon what was mentioned, which is the love for them to be like them. It is as if they said: "You were abandoning true belief, not paying attention to it despite the clarity and abundance of its proofs, and we had all been subject to the truth of the threat; so we invited you to what we were upon of corrupt belief, out of a desire for you to be like us." This is like their saying: "Our Lord, these are the ones whom we led astray; we led them astray just as we went astray."

Al-Raghib said: "It is a declaration from them that: 'We have done to them the utmost of what it was in the capacity of a human to do to a friend, [acting] as he desires for himself.' Meaning: We benefited them with what we had and made them equal to ourselves." According to this, then "So we seduced you, indeed we were seducers" stands. It is also permitted, according to this estimation, that "So we seduced you" is predicated upon the explanation of the state of the addressees—the negation of them being believers and the establishment of them being tyrants and turning away from the signs. Their saying "So the word became binding upon us," etc., is a parenthetical clause to hasten the clarification that what the two groups are in is a decreed matter in which neither speech, nor argument, nor dispute is of any benefit. It is also permissible for the plural pronoun in "So the word became binding upon us" to refer to the leaders or the companions, not what encompasses both them and the addressees, and they indicated by that that what they are in is sufficient to avert blame and hints at the increase of their torment. It is not hidden that permitting the parenthetical clause is not without objection, and permitting the pronoun in "upon us" to be for the leaders or the companions follows upon other than this possibility, so contemplate.

Regardless, their saying "Indeed, we are going to taste [the punishment]" is the saying of their Lord—the Mighty and Majestic—and the threat of the Exalted against them. Had it been a narration [of their own words], as has been said, it would have been said: "Indeed, you are going to taste." But the speech was shifted to the first person because they are the speakers of that from themselves. Similar to this is the saying of the poet: "Huwazin claimed, 'My wealth has decreased,' and do I have anything other than what I spent of wealth?" Had her speech been narrated, he would have said, "His wealth decreased." From this is also the saying of the one demanding an oath to the swearer: "Swear, 'I will certainly go out' and 'you will certainly go out'." The hamza is for narrating the word of the swearer, and the ta is for the attention of the one demanding the oath toward the swearer. Some of the great scholars said: The saying of the Lord—Mighty and Majestic—is His saying: "I will surely fill Hell with you and with those among them who follow you, all together." The connection, as mentioned above, is more evident.