Tafsir of Ad-Dukhan 44:45

"Like molten copper (al-muhl)": It is the dregs of oil, as narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them). It is also reported in a hadith narrated by al-Hakim and others from Abu Sa‘id, in a marfu’ form: "When it is brought near his face—meaning the dweller of Hell—the skin of his face will fall into it." This is perhaps supported by the words of Allah, the Exalted: "On the day when the sky shall be like molten copper" (al-muhl), and what is understood from His saying: "And it becomes rose-colored like oil/ointment" (al-dihan).

Some have said: It is the dregs of tar. In a narration from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them), it is pus (sadid). From this is what is in the hadith of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him): "Bury me in these two garments of mine, for they are only for the muhl (pus/molten discharge) and the dust." Another narration from him (may Allah be pleased with him) is that it is what has been melted of gold, silver, iron, or lead; this is also narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud. It is said: It is called muhl because it is left (yumhal) in the fire until it melts; thus, it is derived from al-muhl, meaning stillness/delay. Some have claimed it is an Arabicized word, yet its usage has come to encompass everything you have heard. Al-Hasan read it as kal-mahl (with a fatha on the mim), which is a dialectal variation.

The prepositional phrase (jar wa majrur)—or the kaf (particle of comparison)—is in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject. The sentence is an isti’naf (commencement/new statement) to describe the state of the food; that is: "It is like muhl" or "Similar to muhl."

"Boiling in the bellies": It is a second predicate for inna (referring to the food). It is also said: It is a state (hal) of the pronoun hidden within the prepositional phrase, and thus it remains a description of the food as well. Abu ‘Ubayd said: It is a state of al-muhl. Another view is that it is an adjective for it, because the al (definite article) within it denotes the genus (as in the expression, "Pass by the base person who curses me"), and it is considered included in the comparison. You know that the boiling of food in the belly involves hyperbole, whereas the comparison to muhl boiling in the belly does not.

It is said: Kal-muhl or the kaf is a second predicate for inna, and the sentence "boiling in the bellies" is a state of the Zaqqum tree, or the food. This is countered by the argument that it forbids the hal (state) from coming from the mudaf ilayh (possessor) in cases other than specific ones—of which this is not one—and it forbids it from the predicate and the subject. It is responded that this is based on the permissibility of the hal coming from the predicate and the subject, and that the mudaf (possessed) is in the position of the mudaf ilayh regarding the permissibility of its omission, and that the aforementioned cases are those where the hal comes from the mudaf ilayh because the mudaf is like a part of it in the permissibility of its omission. It is not hidden that this is based on a weak [grammatical] principle.

It is said: Kal-muhl is a second predicate, and the sentence is a state of the hidden pronoun within the tree; the masculine gender is used because it is the food of the sinner, or because it acquired [the gender] from that which it was appended to, similar to what you heard in the verse earlier. This is an unnecessary complication. It is said: The sentence in this case is the predicate of an omitted subject—the pronoun of the food or Zaqqum. If the sentence is an isti’naf (commencement), the discussion is easy; if it is a hal (state), then what passed earlier returns, and I do not consider you to think it is easy. It is said: Kal-muhl is a state of "food," and its state is known. In sum, the avenues for parsing this verse are many, and I choose from them what I mentioned first.

‘Amr ibn Maymun, Abu Razin, al-A‘raj, Abu Ja‘far, Shaybah, Ibn Muhaysin, Talhah, al-Hasan in one narration, and most of the seven [canonical reciters] read it as "taghli" (with the ta). Thus, kal-muhl is a second predicate for inna, and the sentence taghli is a third predicate. The unity of the subject and the predicate accounts for the unity of the two recitations in meaning. So understand, and do not be heedless.