Tafsir of Al-Hashr 59:20

"The companions of the Fire (those who forgot Allah the Exalted, and thus deserved eternal dwelling in the Fire) and the companions of the Paradise (those who feared Allah, and thus deserved eternal dwelling in Paradise) are not equal."

Perhaps the mention of the companions of the Fire first is to signify from the outset that the deficiency which the non-equality implies arises from their side, not from the side of their counterparts. For while the concept of non-equality between two things that differ in increase and decrease may be considered in terms of the superiority of the superior one, the more immediate interpretation is in terms of the deficiency of the deficient one. To this point refers the saying of the Exalted: "Are the blind and the seeing equal?" and "Are the darkness and the light equal?" and so on.

As for the mention of the superior one first in the saying of the Exalted: "Are those who know and those who do not know equal?" it is because the attribute of the former is a faculty for the attribute of the latter, and non-existences are preceded by their faculties. The intent behind this non-equality is non-equality in the states of the Afterlife, as signified by describing the two groups as "companions of the Fire" and "companions of the Paradise," as well as the saying of the Exalted: "The companions of Paradise are the successful ones."

"For they are the successful ones"—this is a statement initiating an explanation of the nature of the non-equality between them; that is, they are the ones who achieve every desired goal and are saved from every disliked thing in the Afterlife. The verse serves as a warning to people, signaling that due to the intensity of their heedlessness, their lack of contemplation regarding the end, and their headlong rush toward preferring the immediate life and following fleeting desires, it is as if they do not recognize the difference between Paradise and Fire, nor the great gulf between their inhabitants, and that success lies with the companions of Paradise. Thus, it is their right that they should know this and be alerted to it. This is similar to your saying to someone who has been undutiful to his father: "He is your father," placing him in the position of one who does not recognize him, in order to alert him to the right of fatherhood which demands dutifulness and compassion.

From what has been mentioned, the weakness of the argument used by the followers of al-Shafi'i (may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him) becomes known, in which they use the verse to prove that a Muslim is not to be killed for a disbeliever, and that disbelievers cannot possess the wealth of Muslims through force. Their proponents defended them by saying: Since He (Glorified be He) urged toward piety—both in action and omission—and warned against the heedlessness that is the absolute opposite of it by mentioning its ultimate outcome (namely, the forgetting of Allah the Exalted), as a preparation for the decree, He followed it up by stating that the companions of piety and the companions of this heedlessness are not equal in anything whatsoever. He expressed this by calling them "companions of Paradise" and "companions of the Fire" to further illustrate and clarify the matter. Thus, the context demands a disparity in the rulings of the two abodes, even if the primary intent is their disparity in their path.

You know that the explanation of the context's demand is in response to the statement of the followers of Abu Hanifah, who argue that the context demands specification. Otherwise, the Shafi'is argue that generality is the implied meaning of the negation of equality linguistically, because the negation enters upon the concept of equality; therefore, it must be negated in all respects. For if it were found in one respect, its concept would not be negated, which contradicts what the wording demands. The Hanafis say: Equality in the absolute sense is more general than equality in every respect or in one respect without the other, and the negation only enters upon the more general equality, so it does not necessarily imply either of the two specific types.

In summary, the argument is that the general does not necessarily imply the specific. This is conceded in the case of affirmation, but forbidden in the case of negation. Do you not see that if someone says, "I did not see any animal," and he had seen a human, for example, he would be considered a liar? The completion of this discussion is in the books of Usul (legal theory). Fairness dictates that the intent here is clearly the negation of equality regarding affairs of the Afterlife, so it should not be used as an argument for what was mentioned.