Tafsir of Al-Ahqaf 46:5

(And who is further astray than he who calls upon, other than Allah, [those] who will not respond to him): This is a denial that there could be anyone further astray than the polytheists. Some distinguished scholars have stated that the intention is to negate the existence of anyone who could equal them in misguidance, even if the structure of the syntax is in the form of negating the comparative [i.e., "who is further astray"]. What relates to this has already passed, so remember it. That is, he is astray from every [source of] guidance, for he has abandoned the invocation of the Responder, the All-Powerful, who possesses all the attributes of perfection—as is indicated by the Majestic Name [Allah]—and has invoked one whose state is not to respond to him or to assist him with his request.

(Until the Day of Resurrection): That is, as long as the world exists. Its apparent meaning suggests that a response occurs after that [Day], but this is not intended, for the realization of evidence contrary to this is established. Thus, this limit—according to the Intisaf—is among those limits that imply that what follows them, even if it agrees with what precedes them, is yet an addition to it, a clear addition that attaches it to that which is contrary, such that even if the two states are of the same kind, due to the disparity between them, they are like a thing and its opposite. This is because the first state, the limit of which is set at the Resurrection, does not exceed [the state of] lack of response, whereas the second state, which occurs at the Resurrection, exceeds the lack of response by [adding] enmity and the denial of their [the invoked beings'] worship of them, as is explicitly stated by what follows [in the subsequent verses]. It is, therefore, in the vein of His saying in Surah Az-Zukhruf: "Nay, I have given these [people] and their fathers enjoyment" (43:29), and similar to His saying, the Almighty, regarding Iblis: "Indeed, upon you is My curse until the Day of Recompense" (38:78).

It is sometimes said that the intention of this limit is perpetuity, as is said regarding His saying: "...dwelling therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure" (11:107), and their saying: "As long as Thubayr remains." Some have said there is no problem in the verse because the limit is an implied concept (mafhum) and therefore does not contradict the literal text (mantuq). In this, there is debate; in Al-Durar wa al-Yanbu' from Al-Badi', it is stated that the limit, according to us, is of the category of Isharat al-Nass (allusion of the text), not the mafhum.

Al-Zarkashi said in his commentary on Jam' al-Jawami': Al-Qadi Abu Bakr held that the ruling in the limit is literal text (mantuq). He claimed that linguists have clarified that attaching a ruling to a limit is constructed upon the premise that what comes after it is contrary to what comes before it, because they agreed that it is not an independent statement. For instance, His saying: "...until she marries a husband other than him" (2:230) and His saying: "...until they have purified themselves" (2:222) necessitate an ellipsis for the sake of completing the meaning. That ellipsis is either the opposite of what precedes it or not. The second is invalid, for there is nothing in the speech that points to it. Thus, it is estimated: "until they have purified themselves, so approach them," and "until she marries a husband other than him, then she becomes lawful [to the first]." He said: The elliptical is like the uttered; it is only elided because it precedes the mind of one familiar with the language. The author of Al-Badi' among the Hanafis proceeded upon this, saying: It is, in our view, from the dalalat al-isharah (indication of allusion), not from the mafhum. However, the majority hold that it is a mafhum, and they denied that the language is structured for that. Ended. From this, it is known that his statement in Al-Talwih that the mafhum of the limit is agreed upon is not free from deficiency.

(And they are of their invocation): The first pronoun [in "invocation"] refers to the object of yad'u (invokes), meaning "those who do not respond," and the second refers to its subject. The pluralization in both is in consideration of the meaning of man (who/those), just as the singularization previously was in consideration of its wording. That is, "and those who invoke [those] who do not respond to their invocation of them..."

(Unaware): (They do not hear and do not know). If the invoked object is an inanimate thing, this is manifest. If it is among those endowed with intellect, then if it is among the accepted, favored ones near Allah, it is due to their preoccupation with the good they are in, or because they are in a realm where it is not the nature of one therein to hear the invocation of the caller due to the distance, like 'Isa (peace be upon him) today; or because Allah protects his hearing from that, for as it is something Allah does not approve of, it would pain him if he heard it.

If it is among the enemies of Allah, like the devils from jinn and humans who were worshipped besides Allah, then if it is dead, it is due to its preoccupation with the evil it is in. It is said: because it is not the nature of the dead to hear, and hearing is not realized from them except as a miracle, such as the hearing of the people of the pit (al-Qalib). Regarding this, there is discourse, some of which has preceded. If it is alive, and if it is distant, for example, the matter is manifest. If it is near and possesses sound senses, it is said: the speech is relative to him, after interpreting "unawareness" as "not hearing," and based on taghlib (dominance/generalization) because this type is rare.

Some people interpreted "unawareness" as "lack of benefit." This is challenged by the fact that, in that case, describing them as "unaware" after describing them as "not responding" would not have much benefit. Some considered the taghlib without interpretation, in the sense that those from whom unawareness can truly be imagined were made to dominate the others. This is like the taghlib in expressing those idols with that which is meant for the rational, even if the verse is [addressed] to idol-worshippers and similar non-rational beings; [the use of the term for rational beings] is metaphorical, and the expression used for the rational was utilized to treat those worshipped [idols] as if they were rational.

Some said: If it is placed [in the context of] idol-worshippers, describing them with what was mentioned—the abandonment of response and unawareness—despite the manifest nature of their state, is for the purpose of mockery of them. So reflect, and do not be heedless.