Tafsir of Ghafir 40:10

(Indeed, those who disbelieved...): This marks the beginning of an exposition regarding the states of the disbelievers after entering the Fire.

(They are called...): This occurs while they are in the Fire, having come to loathe their own souls—those souls that commanded them toward evil—which fell into the trap by following their base desires until they gnawed on their own fingertips out of self-loathing, as transmitted by ‘Abd ibn Humayd from al-Hasan.

In some narrations, it is mentioned that they loathe their own souls when Satan says to them: "So do not blame me, but blame yourselves" (14:22). It is also said that they loathe their own souls when they realize they are of the people of the Fire. The keepers or the believers say to them, magnifying their regret: ("The loathing of Allah is greater than your loathing of yourselves..."). This is a direct object for "called," as it implies the meaning of speech, as if it were said: "They are called, and it is said to them: 'The loathing of Allah...'" Or, it is a direct object for a hidden verb indicated by the fa of explanation, i.e., "They are called, and it is said to them: 'The loathing of Allah...'" Treating it as a direct object for "called" by assuming the omission of a preposition and connecting the verb directly to the sentence is weak.

(The loathing of Allah) is a verbal noun (masdar) attributed to the Majestic Name, an attribution of a verbal noun to its doer. The same applies to the second instance of "loathing" (your loathing of yourselves) being attributed to the pronoun of address. There is a conflict of governance (tanazu') in the speech, or the omission of the first object without a conflict of governance, meaning: "The loathing of Allah for you is greater than your loathing of your own selves." The lam is for initiation (ibtida’) or for an oath. Loathing (maqt) is the most intense form of hatred. The scholars of khalaf interpret it, when ascribed to the Exalted, in a way that avoids any resemblance to creation.

(...when you were called...): That is, when the prophets and their representatives called you (to faith, and you refused...) to accept it, (therefore you disbelieved...).

This serves as a justification for the judgment or for the object of the judgment. "When" (idh) is connected to "greater." The use of the imperfect tense (mudari') signals continuous renewal, as if it were said: "The loathing of Allah the Exalted for your own selves is greater than your loathing of them, because you were called time and time again to faith, and you repeatedly responded with disbelief." The time of the two loathings is one, according to the obvious interpretation, which is the time of their self-loathing that we recounted earlier.

It is also possible that it is a justification for their loathing of their own selves, in which case "when" (idh) is connected to the second "loathing." They loathe their own selves because they were called repeatedly to faith and yet disbelieved. The use of the imperfect tense is as in the previous interpretation, and the time of the two loathings is likewise. The true reason is their persistence in disbelief despite repeated invitations to faith.

It is also permitted that it is a justification for the "loathing of Allah," and "when" (idh) is connected to it. From what will be explained soon, if Allah wills, one will know its merits and drawbacks. It is apparent that a group of leading scholars chose "when" (idh) to be temporal rather than causal. Thus, it was said: It is a temporal adverb for the first "loathing," and the meaning is: "Your loathing of yourselves in the world when you were called to faith and disbelieved is greater than your loathing of them today while you are in the Fire," or while you are certain that you are among its inhabitants. Thus, the time of the two loathings differs: the time of the first is the world, and the time of the second is the Hereafter. This is reported from al-Hasan and was recorded by ‘Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir from Mujahid. Many have objected to this by citing the necessity of not separating the verbal noun and that which belongs to its construction with an extraneous element, which here is the predicate. In the Amali of Ibn al-Hajib, there is no harm in this, as temporal adverbs are flexible.

It is also said that it is an adverb for another verbal noun indicated by the first, or for a verb indicated by it, as is in al-Bahr. In al-Kashf, it states that the assumed word must have a conclusion if it is to stand alone, and the breach becomes wide. If it is treated as a substitute, then its omission and the operation of the omitted verbal noun do not preclude the separation by the predicate, and it is not extraneous in every sense. The estimation of the verb, i.e., "Allah's loathing of you when you were called is even more remote and severe," is possible.

Others said: It is an adverb for the second "loathing," but it was objected that they do not loathe themselves at the time of the invitation, but rather in the Resurrection. The reply to this is that the speech in this perspective is like the saying of the Commander [Ali], may Allah ennoble his countenance: "I was eaten on the day the red bull was eaten," and the saying of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ads al-Tamimi to his divorced wife, Dakhnus bint Laqit, when she asked him for milk and he was devoid of provisions: "Summer is weak in milk." This is achieved by it being a metaphor, placing the occurrence of the cause—their disbelief at the time of the invitation—in the position of the occurrence of the effect—their loathing of themselves when they witness what has befallen them because of it.

It is said that the meaning is "when it became clear that you were invited to the beneficial faith, the one worthy of acceptance, and you refused." Or that the meaning of "yourselves" is their kind from among the believers, for they used to loathe the believers in the world when they called them to faith—though this is the most remote of interpretations. Makki said: "When" (idh) is governed by an implied verb "remember." The intent is astonishment and regret, and some have favored this, though I see it as contrary to the obvious. The author of al-Kashf claimed there is a clear dissonance in it and justified it with reasons that did not appear valid to me; so reflect upon it.

Explaining "your loathing of yourselves" as each person loathing himself is what is apparent. It is also permissible that it intends their loathing of one another, where it is said that the followers loathe the leaders for leading them into disbelief, and the leaders loathe the followers for following them, thus bearing burdens similar to their own; so do not be heedless.