Tafsir of Sad 38:63

"Did we take them for a mockery"—with an interrogative hamzah [at the beginning], because of which the conjunctive hamzah [of the verb ittakhadhnahum] is dropped. This is the reading of the two Hijazis, Ibn Amir, 'Asim, Abu Ja'far, al-A'raj, al-Hasan, and Qatadah. It is an incipit (isti'naf) that has no grammatical place in inflection. They said this when they did not see them with them [in the Fire], as a way of denying it to themselves and rebuking their souls for mocking them.

As for His saying, "Or have eyes turned away from them", it is connected to His saying, "Why do we not see..." and the am (or) therein is conjunctive. What has preceded regarding the meaning of the hamzah makes it unnecessary to repeat it, contrary to what al-Zamakhshari’s words might imply. The meaning is: "Why do we not see them in the Fire? Are they not in it, and that is why we do not see them? Or have our eyes turned away from them, so we do not see them even though they are therein?"

Alternatively, it is connected to His saying, "Did we take them...", and the am therein is either also conjunctive—with the correlation being considered based on the implication—meaning: "Which of the two matters did we commit regarding them? Mocking them, or scorning and belittling them? And [is it that] our eyes turn away from them and avert from them?" This is a way of denying both matters to themselves. According to al-Hasan, they did both: they took them for mockery and their eyes turned away from them, regarding them as contemptible.

Or, the am is disjunctive (munqati'ah), as if they turned away from denying the mockery and denied themselves something more severe, which is that they considered them so contemptible that they would not even look at them. In the word zaghat (turned away/deviated), rather than azaghna (we turned them away), there is great hyperbole, as if the eye itself rejects them due to the ugliness of their appearance [in their estimation]. And how far is this from mere mockery, for one who is mocked might still be beloved and honored! It is also permitted that the meaning of "or have eyes turned away" as a disjunctive is: "Rather, our eyes have deviated and our understandings have become weary, until their status was hidden from us, and [we failed to see] that they are upon the manifest truth."

The two Grammarians [al-Kisa'i and Yahya] and Hamzah read ittakhadhnahum without an interrogative hamzah. It is possible that it is implied due to the indication of am upon it, in which case the two readings are united. Or, it is not implied, and the speech is an assertion. Ibn al-Anbari said: The clause is an adverbial state (hal), meaning: "While we had taken them for a mockery." It is also permitted that it is an incipit explaining what preceded it. Al-Zamakhshari and a group said: It is a second adjective for "men" [rijalan in the previous verse].

"Or have eyes turned away..." is connected to His saying, "Why do we not see..." as you heard first. It is also permitted that the am therein is disjunctive, as if they turned away from what preceded and denied themselves something more severe, or turned away from that to an explanation that what occurred from them regarding them was due to their eyes deviating and their understandings failing to perceive that they were upon the truth due to their ragged state.

'Abd Allah and his companions, Mujahid, al-Dahhak, Abu Ja'far, Shaybah, al-A'raj, Nafi', Hamzah, and al-Kisa'i read sukhriyyan with a dammah on the sin. Its meaning, according to what is in al-Bahr, relates to subjugation and forced labor. The meaning of sikhriyyan with a kasrah [on the sin], according to the famous interpretation, relates to sakhr, which is mockery; this is the meaning narrated from Abu 'Amr. He said: "Whatever is in the category of servitude is sukhri (with dammah), and whatever is in the category of mockery is sikhri (with kasrah)." It is also said: [The form] with the kasrah is derived from taskhir (subjugation).