Tafsir of Ghafir 40:48

{Those who were arrogant said} to the weak, {"Indeed, we are all in it}—meaning, all of us—{we and you."} {Indeed, Allah has judged between the servants}.

Regarding the word kull (all) in the phrase inna kullan feeha: it is in the nominative case (rafa') as an initiating subject (mubtada')—it being implicitly genitive, as the intended meaning is "all of us"—and feeha (in it) is its predicate, with the sentence serving as the predicate of inna.

Ibn al-Samayqa' and 'Isa ibn 'Umar read it as kullan in the accusative case. Ibn 'Atiyyah and al-Zamakhshari explained this as an emphatic for the noun of inna. The notion that kull, when severed from the genitive construction, can function as an emphatic—sufficient by virtue of its meaning—is the school of al-Farra', and Abu Hayyan reported it from the Kufans. Ibn Malik refuted this in his commentary on al-Tashil.

It has also been said: It is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) to the implicit pronoun within the prepositional phrase (zarf). This has been countered by the fact that it retains the meaning of a genitive construction, which is why it is permissible to begin a sentence with it; how then could it be a circumstantial qualifier? Furthermore, even if one concedes that this degree of indefiniteness is sufficient for it to be a circumstantial qualifier, the prepositional phrase does not govern the preceding state as it governs the preceding prepositional phrase, such as in the example: kulla yawmin laka thawb (Every day, you have a garment).

To the issue of governance, it was answered that al-Akhfash permitted the prepositional phrase to govern the circumstantial qualifier if it stands between it and the subject, such as: Zaydun qa'iman fi al-dari 'indaka (Zayd, standing, is in the house with you). The structure in the noble verse is similar to this, and some have permitted it even if the circumstantial qualifier precedes the subject and the prepositional phrase. Yes, some rejected this entirely, but the commentator did not follow them. Ibn al-Hajib permitted it in some of his books and forbade it in others. It is said: One may reconcile the two by noting that the prohibition applies if the governance is attributed to the prepositional phrase itself because it is not its adjunct, while the permission applies if the governor is the implicit adjunct, rendering it grammatical rather than semantic. Ibn Malik inclined toward this explanation and cited as evidence the words of one of the Tayyi': Da'a fa-ajabna wa-huwa badi dhillatin / ladaykum fa-kana al-nasru ghayra qaribi (He called, and we answered while he was showing humility / before you, so victory was not near). He applied the interpretation of the Almighty’s saying, {and the heavens are folded in His right hand}, in the reading of the accusative, to this same principle.

Abu Hayyan said: The choice he prefers in explaining this reading is that kullan is a substitute (badal) for the noun of inna, because kull is flexible, allowing for initiation, its governors, and so forth; it is as if it were said: "Indeed, all are in it." If they have interpreted hawlan akta'a (a year entirely) and yawman ajma'a (a day collectively) as substitutes—despite them not being immediately followed by governors—then claiming it as a substitute for kull is more appropriate. Moreover, the indefiniteness of kull and its being in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier is extremely rare, as in marartu bihim kullan (I passed by them, all of them). Then he said: If you say, "How can you make it a substitute when it is a 'total-from-total' substitute for a first-person pronoun, which is not permissible according to the majority of grammarians?" I would say: The school of al-Akhfash and the Kufans is that it is permissible, and this is the correct view. Furthermore, this is not a matter where disagreement occurred; rather, if the substitute provides a sense of encompassing, it is permissible to substitute it from a first-person or second-person pronoun—we know of no disagreement in that—such as in the Almighty’s saying: {It will be for us a festival, for the first of us and the last of us}, and your saying: Marartu bikum saghirikum wa-kabirikum (I passed by you, your young and your old), meaning: "I passed by all of you," and "it will be a festival for all of us." If this is permissible in cases implying encompassing, then it is more appropriate in a case that explicitly denotes encompassing, namely kull. There is no regard for al-Mubarrad’s rejection of the substitute here on the grounds that it is a substitute for a first-person pronoun, because he did not accurately grasp the basis of the disagreement.

Perhaps the view that it is an emphatic is better than this and closer to the truth, and Ibn Malik’s refutation of it is not to be relied upon.

{Indeed, Allah has judged between the servants} {So He will cause the people of Paradise to enter Paradise, and the people of the Fire to enter the Fire, and He has ordained for each—from us and from you—a punishment that shall not be repelled from him, nor shall it be borne by anyone else on his behalf.}