Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:36

(Indeed, those who disbelieve): A primary clause presented to emphasize the obligation of adhering to the preceding commandments, and to encourage the believers to hasten toward obtaining the means (wasilah) to Him—Exalted is His Majesty—before the end of their time. This is achieved by demonstrating the impossibility of the disbelievers utilizing, on the Day of Resurrection, that which is among the most potent means of escaping torment, let alone attaining reward.

(If they had): That is, each one of them, similar to His—the Almighty’s—saying: "And if every soul that has wronged had [everything] that is on earth..." In this phrasing, there is a magnification and horror of the situation that is not present in our saying: "for all of them."

(What is on earth): Meaning all varieties of its wealth, treasures, and other benefits collectively. It is the noun of anna (that), and lahum (for them) is its predicate, with the position of ma being nominative according to some. However, according to Sibawayh, it is nominative as an ibtida’ (subject) that does not require a predicate, because its relative clause (silah) contains both the musnad (predicate/verb) and musnad ilayh (subject). It is distinguished from all other things that are interpreted as nouns by occurring after law (if). It is said that the predicate is omitted, and there are two opinions regarding whether it is estimated as preceding or succeeding. According to Al-Zajjaj, Al-Mubarrad, and the Kufans, it is in the nominative case as the agent (fa’iliyyah), meaning: "If what is on earth were established for them."

His saying: (All of it): This is an emphasis for the relative pronoun or a state (hal) from it.

His saying: (And the like of it): In the accusative case, it is a conjunction to it.

His saying: (With it): A prepositional phrase occurring as a hal from the conjoined element, and the pronoun refers to the relative pronoun. The benefit of explicitly hypothesizing their possession of both through the manner of companionship (ma’iyyah), rather than succession, is to establish the complete horror of the matter.

The lam in His saying: (To ransom themselves with it): Is connected to that which the predicate of anna is connected—the stability estimated in lahum—or to the predicate estimated by those who hold that view, or to the verb estimated after law according to Al-Zajjaj and those who followed his path. It is said: There is no doubt that the orbit of the iqtida’ (ransom) mentioned is the fact that it is theirs, not the proof of its being theirs, even if the latter entails the former. The ba’ in bihi (with it) is connected to the act of ransoming, and the pronoun refers to the relative pronoun, while "the like of it with it" [is also part of the ransom]. Its singularization is due to the two being one thing through companionship, or treating the pronoun like a demonstrative noun, as has been indicated previously.

It is said: It refers to the relative pronoun, and the returner to the conjoined element—meaning mithlahu—is omitted, just as the predicate was omitted from Qayar in the saying: "And whoever spends the evening in the city [with] his luggage, while I and Qayar are strangers there." It has been permitted that wa-mithlahu is in the accusative as a maf’ul ma’ahu (comitative object), governed by the verb estimated after law, following the opinion of Al-Zajjaj and those who shared his view. The command to singularize the pronoun in that case is apparent, since the rule of the pronoun after the maf’ul ma’ahu is singularity. Al-Akhfash permitted it to be given the rule of conjoined elements, thus dualizing the pronoun. Some grammarians said: The correct view is that it is permissible, though rare. Abu Hayyan objected to this aspect, stating that the interpretation would be "with its like with it," and since if what is on earth is with its like, then its like is necessarily with it, there is no benefit in mentioning "with it" for the necessity of the companionship of each one to the other. Al-Tibi answered that ma’ahu in this case is for emphasis. Al-Safaqsi said: The answer is that the interpretation is not like the explicit phrasing, and the waw contains the meaning of "with." It only becomes ugly if one explicitly mentions ma’a. Often, interpretation differs from explicit phrasing, such as their saying: "How many a sheep and its kid," whereas if you were to express it with rubba (how many), saying "And rubba its kid," it would not be permissible. Al-Halabi answered that the pronoun in ma’ahu refers to mithlahu, and the meaning becomes "with two likes," which is more eloquent than being with one.

Indeed, that the governor is "established" is not correct, because the governor of the maf’ul ma’ahu is the governor of the one associated with it, as they have clarified, and it is here ma or its pronoun, and neither of them is a governor for it—[nor is] the estimated "established." As for its correctness based on the estimation of ja’alahum or muta’alliqan as was said, it is also impossible according to what is narrated from Sibawayh, who said: "As for 'this is for you and your father,' it is ugly, because no verb nor any particle containing the meaning of a verb was mentioned, such that it would be as if he had spoken the verb." This contains an explicit statement that the demonstrative noun, the preposition, and the adverb do not govern the maf’ul ma’ahu.

His saying: (From the torment of the Day of Resurrection): Is also connected to the ransoming—meaning: If what is on earth and the like of it were theirs to make as a ransom for their souls from the torment occurring on that day.

(It will not be accepted from them): That is, this [ransom]. This is the answer to law. Its arrangement, as the Sheikh al-Islam said, is based on that "for them" for the sake of their ransoming themselves with it, without mentioning the ransoming—such that it would be said: "And they ransomed themselves with it"—even though rejection and acceptance are contingent upon it, not upon its preliminaries. This is to signal that it is a matter of certain occurrence that needs no mention; the only thing needing the hypothesis is their capacity for what was mentioned, or for the sake of exaggeration in the certainty of the rejection, imagining that it happened before the ransoming, in the manner of His saying: "I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you," then he saw it settled before him, for he did not say "so he brought it, and when he saw it, etc." Likewise, in His saying: "And she said, 'Come out before them.' Then when they saw him, they greatly admired him," without mentioning his—peace be upon him—coming out before them and their seeing him.

Some scholars said: The reason it was not sufficient to say "Indeed, those who disbelieve, if they were to ransom themselves with all that is on earth from the torment of the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them" is that the noble phrasing indicates that if they had acquired what is on earth and its like for this purpose, and were fearing Allah the Almighty, and had preserved the ransom and contemplated the ransoming and the observance of its causes—as is the habit of one who is about to perform an act—it would not be accepted from them, let alone if they were heedless of obtaining the ransom and suddenly intended to ransom themselves. This is why He did not say: "If they had all that is on earth and the like of it with it, and they ransomed themselves with it, it would not be accepted, etc." The hypothetical sentence is in its state the predicate of "Indeed, those who disbelieve." It is a metonymy for the necessity of the torment for them and that there is no path for them to escape it, for the necessity of the torment is among its requirements. Since this sentence—rather, this necessary connection—is necessary for the necessity of the torment, He expressed it through it. Some applied the term "analogy" (tamthil) to this sentence, and perhaps his intent, according to what Al-Qutb mentioned, is what he mentioned. Some verifiers said: He does not intend by it an analogical metaphor, but the bringing of an example and a ruling from which the necessity of the torment for them is understood. That is, it was not intended by this speech to prove this conditional statement, but the transition of the mind from it to this meaning. In this respect, it is called a metonymy. It is possible to interpret it according to the terminological analogy by saying: Their state in the condition of escaping the torment is in the position of one who possesses that momentous matter and attempts with it to escape the torment, yet it is not accepted from him and he does not escape.

(And for them is a painful torment): It is said: Its position is the accusative as a state (hal), and it is said: The nominative as a conjunction to the predicate of inna. It is also said that it is conjoined to "Indeed, those who disbelieve," so it has no position in inflection, like it. The benefit of the sentence is the explicit statement of the intended meaning from the first sentence to increase its confirmation and clarify its horror and severity. It is said: The intent by it is to signal that just as their torment is not repelled by that, it is not lightened either; rather, they have, in addition, a torment in the perfection of pain. Likewise is His saying: "..."