Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:9

"Or is he who is devoutly obedient during the hours of the night..." (to the end of the verse) is a continuation of the discourse commanded in the preceding statement.

The am (or) is connective (muttasilah), and its counterpart (mu'adil) has been omitted, relying on the flow of the discourse to indicate it. It is as if he were asked—by way of emphasizing the threat and mocking him—"Are you in a better state and outcome, or is he who stands firm in the obligations of obedience and remains constant in the duties of worship during the hours of the night, during which worship is closer to acceptance and further from ostentation, in both states of prosperity and adversity—not merely when touched by hardship, as is your habit—while he is 'prostrating and standing'?"

Al-Akhfash, followed by several others, held that the omitted counterpart is the first, and there is no harm in this given the clarity of the meaning. However, Abu Hayyan said that such a construction requires hearing it as such from the Arabs. The accusative case of "prostrating and standing" (sajidan wa qa'iman) is as a state (hal), as indicated, meaning he combines both praiseworthy qualities, and the possessor of the state (dhu al-hal) is the hidden pronoun in "devoutly obedient" (qanit). Some permitted the state to refer to the pronoun in "fears" (yahdharu) which comes later, but there is no necessity for that. Ad-Dahhak recited it as "prostrating and standing" (sajidun wa qa'imun) in the nominative, each being a predicate of an implied subject. Abu Hayyan permitted it to be an adjective for qanit, but that is not strong. The waw (and), as indicated, is for combining the two attributes. It is said that the conjunction was omitted after qanit because qunut (devout obedience) is absolute worship, so it does not differ from prostration and standing; thus, they were not conjoined to it. Conversely, prostration and standing are distinct attributes, and so one was conjoined to the other. Prostration is mentioned before standing because it is more ingrained in the meaning of worship, and it is held to be superior to standing, based on the hadith: "The closest a servant is to his Lord is while he is prostrating."

His saying, "fearing the Hereafter," is another state, whether overlapping, synonymous, or as an initiation acting as a response to what arose from the account of his state—as if it were said, "Why does he do that?" And it was said: "He fears the Hereafter," meaning the punishment of the Hereafter, as Ibn Jubayr read it, "and hopes for the mercy of his Lord." Thus, he attains salvation from what he fears and wins what he hopes for, as suggested by the mention of the title of Lordship, which implies reaching perfection alongside the addition to the pronoun of the one hoping, rather than merely fearing the harm of this world and hoping only for its good.

As for the disconnected am (munqati'ah), the disjunction therein is for shifting from the embarrassment of demanding a confession—which forces an acknowledgment of the clear disparity between the two—as if it were said: "Nay, but is he who is devoutly obedient, etc." Az-Zamakshari and others estimated [the omitted part] as "like you, O disbeliever." An-Nahhas said that am has the meaning of bal (nay/rather), and man (who) is the one who is..., so the estimation is "Rather, he who is devoutly obedient is better than the one before him." This was refuted in al-Bahr on the grounds that the one before him has no merit to make this one "better," but rather the predicate should be estimated as "from the people of Paradise," due to the indication of its counterpart, namely: "You are of the people of the Fire." It is not far-fetched to estimate it as "better than you," which would be a form of mockery.

Ibn Kathir, Nafi', Hamzah, al-A'mash, 'Isa, Shaybah, and al-Hasan (in one narration) read aman with a lightened mim. Al-Akhfash and Abu Hatim deemed it weak, but there is no attention paid to that. It is explained as the interrogative hamzah entering upon man, with the counterpart being omitted, meaning: "Is he who is devoutly obedient better, or you, O disbeliever?" An example of omitting the counterpart is the verse: "My heart called me toward her, for I am a listener to her command; I do not know if her pursuers are guided, for is it true intent, or misguidance?" Al-Farra' said the hamzah is for calling, as if it were said, "O you who are devoutly obedient," and he made the verse "Say" an address to him. Abu 'Ali al-Farisi weakened this view, and rightly so.

His saying, "Say," is meant as "Say to him also," as an explanation of the truth, a declaration of it, and an alerting to the nobility of knowledge and action: "Are those who know equal"—those who act according to their knowledge, and are devoutly obedient in the night, prostrating and standing, fearing the Hereafter, and hoping for the mercy of their Lord—"and those who do not know," who act according to their ignorance and misguidance, like your habit, O disbeliever, who makes equals unto Allah? The interrogation is to alert [the listener] that the first group is in the highest ranks of goodness and the others are in the lowest degrees of evil, a matter so apparent that it is hidden to no one, whether fair-minded or obstinate.

It is known from what we have mentioned that those intended by "those who know" are the practitioners among the scholars of religion. Some of the great authorities explicitly stated this intent, under both the interpretation of the [interrogative] being connective or disconnected, and that the discourse is a declaration of the negation of equality between the devoutly obedient and the other, which is implied by the two interrogative particles—the hamzah and am—if connective, or by analogy if disconnected. Regarding the lightened reading, he also said that the reason for turning to this expression is to indicate that this is what knowledge dictates, and that which is not followed by action is not "knowledge" in the sight of Allah. Whether it is considered a case of putting the manifest in place of the hidden for the aforementioned allusion, or an initiatory, embarrassing question to clarify the first [point]—by way of explicitness and by way of describing them with another attribute that necessitates their possessing those [previous] attributes and their distinctness from the class that is not so described—this is more eloquent in wording due to the command "Say."

It is permitted that the discourse is used by way of analogy, thus confirming the negation of equality rather than explicitly stating the requirement of the former. That is, just as there is no equality between the scholar and the other in your view, without doubt, likewise there should be no doubt for you in negating the equality between the mentioned devoutly obedient [person] and the other. The act of making it a declaration of the negation of equality, and interpreting "those who know" as the practitioners among the scholars of religion as you have heard, is not something that should be ignored, for it increases the benefit. As for one who doubts this manifest matter, it is not far-fetched that he would doubt this other manifest matter as well. The response to him is that the aversion to ignorance is ingrained in human nature, unlike the former [issue].

Many statements suggest that the verse "Or is he who is devoutly obedient..." is not included within the scope of the command "Say," the meaning being based on that, as in the first [case], with a slight change that is not hidden. From Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, it is reported that he recited: "Or is he who is devoutly obedient..." and said: "It was revealed regarding 'Uthman bin 'Affan." Ibn Sa'd in his Tabaqat, Ibn Marduwayh, and Ibn 'Asakir reported from Ibn 'Abbas that it was revealed regarding 'Ammar bin Yasir. Juwaybir reported from him that it was revealed regarding 'Ammar, Ibn Mas'ud, and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. From 'Ikrimah, it is limited to 'Ammar; from Muqatil, the meaning of "he who is devoutly obedient" is 'Ammar, Suhayb, Ibn Mas'ud, and Abu Dharr. In a narration by Ad-Dahhak from Ibn 'Abbas, it is Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Yahya bin Salam said: "The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him." The apparent meaning is that it refers to whoever possesses these traits, without specificity, and the revelation regarding those mentioned does not prevent this. It contains evidence of the virtue of fear and hope. At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah reported from Anas that he said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, entered upon a man who was dying and said, "How do you find yourself?" He said, "I hope and I fear." He, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "They do not gather in the heart of a servant in such a place except that Allah gives him what he hopes for and secures him from what he fears." It also contains a refutation of those who condemn worship performed out of fear of the Fire or hope for Paradise; this is Imam ar-Razi, as Jalal as-Suyuti said. Yes, worship [done] for that is nothing but blameworthy—indeed, some went as far as to say that one who says "If it were not for Paradise and the Fire, I would not have worshipped Allah" is a disbeliever, meaning the negation of intrinsic merit. It also contains evidence of the virtue of night prayer, and that it is better than day prayer. The verse "Are those who know equal..." indicates the virtue of knowledge and its high status, and that ignorance is the opposite. Some used this to argue that the ignorant person is not the equal of the scholar, just as he is not the equal of the daughter of the scholar. His saying: "Only those of understanding will take heed."

(9) This is an independent sentence, not included by the majority in the commanded speech. It is sent from His side, the Exalted, after the command containing the admonishing threats against disbelief and sin, to explain the lack of their effect on the hearts of the disbelievers due to the corruption of their minds, just as in the saying: "Turn aside and greet the ruins of the house—what will you greet of the trenches and stones?" It is also like a prelude to singling out the believers with the address and turning away from others. That is, only those whose intellects are pure from the impurities of defect take heed of these clear explanations; as for those [others], they are far removed from that. It was read as yadhakkaru with assimilation.