Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:35

{Liyukaffira Allahu 'anhum} – this is connected to an elided phrase, meaning: God will expiate for them and reward them. He, glory be to Him, specified what He specified, or [it is connected to] what preceded it, considering the implication of its meaning, as has been said. That is, God promised them all that they desire regarding the removal of harms and the attainment of delights, so that He might—by virtue of that promise—expiate for them the worst of what they did. This meaning is not far from the first.

It is also possible that it is connected to His, glory be to Him, saying: {That is the reward of the doers of good}, meaning: by what that [phrase] signifies of [divine] affirmation, or [it is connected] to the "doers of good" (al-muhsinin), as Abu Hayyan stated. It is as if it were said: That is the reward of those who perfected their deeds, that God may expiate for them the worst of what they did, {and reward them their due}—meaning: He gives them their recompense—{for the best of what they used to do}.

The advancement of expiation over the granting of reward is because repelling harms is more important than attracting delights. The Majestic Name (Allah) was placed in the stead of the pronoun referring back to "their Lord" to manifest the utmost concern for the content of the statement. The addition (idafa) of "worst" (aswa') and "best" (ahsan) to what follows them is an instance of adding the comparative adjective (af'al al-tafdil) to something other than that which is being compared, for the sake of clarification and elucidation, as in "[He is] the most just of the sons of Marwan" or "Joseph is the best of his brothers."

The superlative, according to Al-Zamakhshari, is to indicate that the lapse which is expiated for them is "the worst," because they regard disobedience as absolute, due to the intensity of their fear; and the good which they perform is, in the sight of God Almighty, "the best," due to the excellence of their sincerity within it. This is—according to what was settled in Al-Kashf—because the comparison here is a matter of absolute increase without looking at a [specific] thing being compared, in view of its reaching the extreme limit of perfection. Furthermore, since they were the God-fearing—those who possess complete God-fearingness—there was no "worst" in their deeds except by way of assumption and supposition.

His, glory be to Him, saying: {bi-ahsani alladhi}, rather than ahsana alladhi, indicates that their "good" in the sight of God Almighty is from [the category of] "the best," for it denotes that the entirety of their reward proceeds upon that basis. If they had done only the best, the comparative would be according to the matter itself; and if there were "good" and "better" in their deeds, and the reward were by the "best"—by looking to the best of deeds and then applying the rest of the reward according to that measure—it would indicate that the "good" in the sight of the Rewarder is like the "best." Thus, it is correct under both interpretations that their "good" in the sight of God Almighty is "the best." From this, one learns that there is no Mu'tazilite doctrine in what Al-Zamakhshari mentioned, as Abu Hayyan imagined. As for his objection to him—that he used "worst" as a comparative based on their belief, and "best" as a comparative based on what it is in the sight of God, and that this is a distribution of the superlative which is contrary to the apparent meaning—it would be valid if there were nothing in the speech that signifies a differentiation. Since such [differentiation] exists here, based on what has been established, it is not conceded that this distribution is contrary to the apparent meaning.

It has been said: "Worst" is according to what is common in comparative adjectives; it is not meant that they have a bad deed and a worse deed, and the expiation applies to the "worst." Rather, they are the God-fearing who, even if they have minor sins, these are not major sins; nor is it appropriate to address them in a context of praising them. Instead, the speech is a metonymy for the expiation of all their sins by way of logical demonstration—for if the "worst" is expiated, then the rest are more deserving of expiation—not that such [sins] were committed by them. We do not concede the necessity of the literal meaning being realized in a metonymy, and it is as you see.

Many have said: The comparative is according to the common usage, and "the worst" is the disbelief that preceded God-fearingness and excellence. The intention is the expiation of all the sins that preceded them before faith by way of logical demonstration. By this, the interpretation of {and he who has brought the truth} as referring to Ali—may God ennoble his countenance—is not forgotten, for he was not preceded by original disbelief, and secondary disbelief is hardly described as "the worst of deeds."

It has been said: The comparative adjective is not for comparison at all; rather, "worst" (aswa') means "bad," whether small or large, just as this is also a view regarding "the most just of the sons of Marwan." This is supported by the recitation of Ibn Muqsim and Hamid ibn Yahya from Ibn Kathir, as a narration from Al-Bazzi from him: {aswa'un} with the weight of af'al (plural of su'). "Best," according to most of those who hold these opinions, is [taken] literally, meaning that He, glory be to Him, looks to the best of their acts of obedience, and thus He, glory be to Him, applies the rest of the reward according to that measure, out of grace and generosity. Al-Tabrisi claimed that "the best" refers to the obligatory and recommended, and "good" refers to the permissible, and the reward is only for the first two, not the permissible.

It has been said: The meaning is "He rewards them with [something] better than their deeds," which is Paradise; in this [interpretation], there is what is in it. The combination of the past and future forms in the second relative clause, unlike the first, is to signify their persistence in performing righteous deeds, unlike the bad ones.