Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:39
ﱶ ﱷ ﱸ ﱹ ﱺ ﱻ ﱼ ﱽ ﱾ
And never will it benefit you that Day, when you have wronged, that you are [all] sharing in the punishment.
Tafsir of Az-Zukhruf 43:39
Tafsir
Ruh al-Ma'ani
Verse range: 43:39
(And it will not benefit you) This is an account of what will be said to them at that time from Allah (the Exalted and Majestic) by way of rebuke and reproach. The subject of *yanfa‘ukum* (will benefit you) is a hidden pronoun referring to what is understood from the preceding context; that is: "It will not benefit you"—namely, your wishing for separation, your regret, or the aforementioned speech.
(This Day) That is, the Day of Resurrection.
(Since you have wronged) This is a substitute (*badal*) for "This Day," meaning: "Since it has become evident that you wronged [yourselves] in the world." Many have stated this and interpreted *idh* as "the becoming evident." It has been said that this poses a difficulty, as it is in the past tense, while it is used as a substitute for "This Day," which is future. The manifestation of their status as wrongdoers to themselves only occurs on the Day of Resurrection; thus, "this day" and the time of the manifestation are identical. This is like the saying: *If we were to trace our lineage, no base woman would have borne me.* It has been objected that the question remains because *idh* is a particle of time for the past and does not depart from that regarding the manifestation. Some have attempted to resolve this difficulty by stating that *idh* may depart from the past to the future—a view held by a group, including Ibn Malik, who argued using the verse: *(Soon they will know, when [idh] the shackles [are around their necks])*—or to the present, as some have held, arguing using the verse: *(And you do not perform any deed but that We are Witness over you when [idh] you are engaged in it)*. Therefore, let it be for the future here, although the scholars of Arabic grammar weaken the claim that it departs from the past.
Al-Jalabi said: Perhaps it is more apparent to interpret it as causative (ta‘lil), thus connecting it to the negation. Sibawayh said: It acts in the sense of causation, like the lam of cause. Indeed, the majority denied this category, but Sibawayh’s affirmation of it suffices as an argument, just as "the saying when Hudhama said..."
It has been countered that Sibawayh’s affirmation alone does not suffice for interpreting the speech of Allah (the Exalted), while all leading Arabists are in consensus to the contrary. Furthermore, the causation of the negation here is far-fetched.
Abu Hayyan said: Substitution is not permissible while maintaining idh in its original subject as a time particle for the past. If it is made to signify "absolute time," it is permissible—though it is not hidden that this is figurative. Does the substitution suffice as evidence for this? If it does, then so be it.
Ibn Jinni said: I consulted Abu ‘Ali on this issue—meaning the aforementioned substitution—several times, and the conclusion he reached was that the world and the Hereafter are connected, and they are the same in the judgment of Allah (the Exalted) and His knowledge, for time does not run upon Him (the Exalted and Majestic). Thus, it is as if idh were future or "this day" were past; hence, it is correct. This was refuted by noting that what matters is the state of the narration; the speech is addressed according to the conventions of the Arabs. Were it otherwise, the door to nuances would be shut, and considerations in expression would be meaningless—something self-evident.
Abu al-Baqa’ said: The implied meaning is "after [the time] when you wronged," so the noun was omitted because it is known.
Al-Khawfi said: Idh is connected to what the meaning indicates, as if it were said: "And it will not benefit you this day, your gathering, since [or when] you have wronged," for example.
Some people have found the verse problematic in that it involves the operation of yanfa‘ukum—which indicates the future, due to its association with lan—upon "this day," which is the present time, and idh, which is for the past. It was answered that the second is resolved by the [implied] "becoming evident," for the manifestation of the state occurs in the future. The first is resolved by the fact that the definition of "this day" is for reference to the event, not to the present, unlike the definition of "now," even if it is a type of it.
It has also been said: It is resolved by the fact that the future is relative to the time of the address, which is one of the times of the day. This is as you see, so reflect and be not heedless.
(That you are associates in the punishment) This is an explanation for the negation of the benefit. That is: because it is your right to be associates, you and your counterparts, in the punishment, just as you were associates in its cause in the world.
It is also permissible that the verb refers to them, meaning: "Your being associates in the punishment will not benefit you," just as it benefits those who fall into a difficult matter that their partnership helps them bear its burdens and divides its severity and hardship. This is because each of you has of the punishment that which is beyond your capacity.
Or, it will not benefit you in terms of consolation. For the distressed finds consolation and relief in finding a companion in suffering. This is what Al-Khansa’ meant by her saying: The rising of the sun reminds me of Sakhr, and I remember him at every setting of the sun. And were it not for the abundance of those weeping around me for their brothers, I would have killed myself. And they do not weep for one like my brother, but I console my soul through this consolation. So, these people are consoled by their association, but they are not relieved because of the magnitude of what they are in.
Or, it will not benefit them in terms of seeking satisfaction. That is: you will not obtain satisfaction from your counterparts being punished like you, since you used to pray against them, saying: (Our Lord, give them a double punishment and curse them with a great curse), and your saying: (So give them a double punishment from the Fire), in order to seek satisfaction thereby.
The first of these three views was objected to by saying that benefiting from cooperation in bearing the burdens of punishment is not something that would cross their minds such that it would be denied. It was answered that it is not far-fetched for it to cross their minds due to the proximity and companionship; the drowning man clings to straw, and the thirsty man thinks the mirage is water.
Ibn ‘Amir read innakum with a kasra on the hamza. This reinforces what was mentioned first regarding the concealment of the subject and the estimation of the lam in annakum in meaning and wording. Because it is impossible for it to be the subject, concealment is necessary. And because the sentence would then be an explanatory commencement, the estimation of the lam is appropriate so that the two readings conform.
His saying (the Exalted): (That you are associates...)