Tafsir of Al-Qamar 54:3

{وَكَذَّبُوا} (the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and what Allah the Exalted manifested through his hands of signs) {وَاتَّبَعُوا أَهْوَاءَهُمْ} (which Satan adorned for them). It is said: They {كَذَّبُوا} the sign which is the splitting of the moon, {وَاتَّبَعُوا أَهْوَاءَهُمْ} and said: "A powerful magic" or "Our eyes have been bewitched," while the moon remained as it was. The conjunction is to the previous conditional clause, and the past tense form is used to indicate certainty. It is also said that the conjunction is to {اقْتَرَبَتْ}, and the conditional sentence is an interruption to explain their habit whenever they witness signs.

As for His saying, the Exalted: {وَكُلُّ أَمْرٍ مُّسْتَقِرٌّ}

This is an initiation (istīnaf) brought forth to refute the disbelievers in their denial, by clarifying that there is no benefit for them in it, nor does it hinder the affair of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Or, it is to cause them to despair of their empty hopes that his affair, peace and blessings be upon him, would not stabilize—as they said: "A continuous magic"—by clarifying its establishment and firmness.

Meaning: Every affair of all matters will inevitably reach an end upon which it will settle (become established). Among these is the affair of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace; it will reach an end at which its truthfulness and the loftiness of his status will become clear. To signal that this end to his affair is inevitable, the object of the "settling" was not explicitly mentioned.

In al-Kashshaf: Meaning, every affair must reach an end at which it settles, and his affair, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, will reach an end at which it will be clear whether it is truth or falsehood, and the consequence of those [disbelievers] will appear to them. Or, it means: Every affair of his, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and every affair of theirs is mustaqirr (settled), meaning it will be rewarded or fixed upon a state of victory or defeat in this world, or happiness or misery in the Hereafter.

The author of al-Kashf said: The speech, according to the first interpretation, is a tail-piece (tadhyīl) that functions as a proverb, and according to the second, it is a tail-piece that is not established.

Shaybah recited {مُسْتَقِرٌّ} with a fatha on the qaf (i.e., mustaqar), and it is narrated from Nafi’. Abu Hatim claimed it has no basis, but it is explained on the grounds that mustaqar is a verbal noun (masdar) meaning istiqrār (stability), and it is attributed to "every affair" with an implicit possessor, i.e., "possessor of stability." Even if one does not assume the possessor and intends hyperbole, it is valid. It is also permissible for it to be a noun of time or place, also with an implicit possessor, i.e., "possessor of a time of stability" or "possessor of a place of stability." This was critiqued by the fact that the existence of a time or place for every affair is a known fact, and there is no benefit in informing about it. The response is that it affirms its stability through metonymy, which is more eloquent than explicit statement.

Zayd ibn Ali recited {مُسْتَقِرٌّ} with a kasra on the qaf and a jarr (genitive case) on the following word. This is explained by it being an adjective for "affair," and that "every" is conjoined to "the Hour," i.e., "The Hour has drawn near, and every affair that settles and whose state becomes clear has drawn near" by its proximity. The author of al-Kashf said: It has a hint of tajrīd (abstraction) and great intimidation, for he included in the proximity of the Hour the proximity of every affair that has a settled state and a clear outcome. His saying, the Exalted: {وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ}, according to this, is either on the assumption of "has" (qad)—which is supported by reciting it as such—or it is placed in the position of a parenthetical clause because it emphasizes the proximity of the Hour. His saying, the Exalted: {وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً} etc., is a digression upon the mention of the splitting of the moon.

Abu Hayyan objected to this, arguing it is far-fetched due to the numerous interruptions between the conjoined and the conjunction, comparing it to saying: "I ate bread and I hit Khalid, and if Zayd comes, honor him, and I traveled to the tribe of so-and-so, and meat," by conjoining "meat" to "bread." He then said: Rather, there is nothing like it in the speech of the Arabs. He was critiqued by saying this is nothing, because if there is evidence indicating the conjunction, it is not considered an obstacle, and there is a difference between the verse and the example, which is not hidden.

The author of al-Lawami’ said that {مُسْتَقِرٌّ} is the predicate of "every," and the jarr (genitive) is for the sake of neighborhood (jiwar). Abu Hayyan also objected to this, saying it is not sound, because jarr for neighborhood is extremely rare in such cases, as it is not customary in the predicate of a subject, but rather only in an adjective, according to the difference among grammarians regarding its existence. He preferred that "every" is a subject, and its predicate is either implicit—such as "coming" or "being acted upon" or the like, which the speech suggests—or it is mentioned afterward, which is His saying, the Exalted: {حِكْمَةٌ بَالِغَةٌ}, and it was interrupted by His saying, the Exalted...