Tafsir of Ad-Dukhan 44:41

(The Day when no...) is in apposition (badal) to "the Day of Decision" (Yawm al-Fasl), or it is an explanatory apposition (‘atf bayan) according to those who do not require correspondence in definiteness and indefiniteness. It is also permissible for it to be accusative by an implied verb, or to be an adverb for what is indicated by "the Day of Decision"—not for the Day of Decision itself—because an extraneous element separates it from the latter. "Decision" (Fasl) is a verbal noun (masdar) that does not govern when separated because of its weakness; though some, such as Abu al-Baqa', allow it to govern when the operative element is an adverb, following the school of al-Hajib and al-Radi. Abu al-Baqa' also allowed it to be an adjective for "their appointed time" (miqatihim), but this is criticized on the grounds that it is an indefinite noun due to its being annexed to a sentence, so how could it be an adjective for a definite noun? Furthermore, it is not correct for it to be indeclinable (mabni) according to the Basrans when it is annexed to a sentence whose initial element is an inflected word, namely the present tense verb.

Meaning: The Day when no "master shall avail a master aught"—that is, in terms of compensation or benefit. "Aught" (shay'an) is accusative as an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq), though it is also permissible for it to be a direct object (maf'ul bihi). "Avail" (yughni) here means to repel [harm] or benefit. The indefiniteness of "aught" is for the purpose of minimization. A "master" (mawla) is a companion whose function is to undertake assistance in one's affairs, which includes the cousin, the ally, the freed slave, the master of a freed slave, and others. Al-Khafaji mentioned that it is derived from wilayah (authority/governance), which is the power to manage, thus including everyone who manages affairs for another due to kinship or friendship, which is close to what we have mentioned. Be that as it may, this is not a case of using a homonym (mushtarak) in more than one sense. Even if it were conceded that a homonym was used in more than one sense here, the verse would be evidence for Ibn al-Humam—may he be shown mercy—for the permissibility of this in negation. For he would say: "I did not see an 'ayn," intending both the seeing eye and a gold coin. The negation of the master’s ability to avail implies the negation of others' ability to avail a fortiori.

The pronoun [in "they"], according to a group, refers to the first "master." The use of the plural is based on the meaning, because it is an indefinite noun in the context of negation. The second view is that it refers to the second "master," as it is more beneficial and expressive of the state of the second master, since [his helplessness] is understood from the preceding negation of "availing." Furthermore, if one who relies on a master is not helped, how could the master himself be? The aspect of the plural pronoun being used here is more apparent. Others allowed it to refer to the second [master] to indicate that no one helps the master, and while this is in the context of negation, it does not reach the level of the first [interpretation]. Indeed, regarding the plural, it has been said concerning both: that an indefinite noun in a negative context signifies every individual, therefore the pronoun does not return to it in the plural.

It is answered that this is not a universal rule, for it may be construed as the totality due to the context of the plural pronoun returning to it. Perhaps it is more appropriate for the pronoun to return to the "master" understood from the negated indefinite noun. Some have said: If the pronoun were made to refer to the disbelievers, like the pronoun in "their appointed time," the benefit would be greater and the linguistic burden less. So reflect upon this.