(He said) i.e., Allah—Exalted and Majestic is He—to those liars who denied [the truth] on the Day of Resurrection, either directly or through an angel: (Enter among nations) meaning, along with nations. The prepositional phrase is in the place of a circumstantial qualifier, i.e., accompanying nations (that have passed away before you of jinn and mankind) meaning, the disbelievers of the nations of both species. The jinn are mentioned first due to their greater wickedness. (Into the Fire) is connected to "Enter." It is also permissible for it to be connected to "among nations," with "in the Fire" being an appositive or an adjective for "nations." Some exegetes suggested that this is an informational statement, meaning that He—Glory be to Him—placed them among those others without there being any speech at all; i.e., He caused them to be such. This is contrary to the apparent meaning, as is not hidden.
(Every time a nation enters) whether following or followed (into the Fire, it curses its sister) i.e., it calls down evil upon its counterpart in religion. The followers curse the leaders who led them astray, and the leaders curse the followers who increased them in error. According to Abu Muslim, the followers curse the leaders, saying: "You brought us to these places, so may Allah’s curse be upon you."
(Until, when they have all reached one another therein) This is the termination of what preceded; they enter group by group, cursing one another, until they have all caught up and gathered in the Fire. The root of idāraku is tadāraku; the tā was assimilated into the dāl after the former was changed into a dāl and vocalized [with a sukun], then an initial linking hamza was brought in. Regarding Ibn ‘Amr, it is reported that he recited idāraku with a cut (pronounced) hamza. As has been said, this is based on the assumption that he paused—like the pause of one attempting to recall—and then began [afresh], for otherwise, there is no justification for that in the speech of the Majestic Allah. Others recited idhā idarakū with a single static alif followed by a shaddah-bearing dāl. This involves the meeting of two static letters, which is permissible because the second is assimilated; there is no difference between [the meeting of two letters] in one word or two.
(The last of them will say) in rank—namely, the followers and the low-class—(to the first of them) in rank—namely, the leaders and the chiefs. Or, "the last" refers to those who entered last, speaking to those who entered first; the precedence of one group over the other in entry is narrated from Muqatil. The lam in li-awlāhum is for causality, not for delivery, as in your saying: "I said to Zayd, 'Do such and such,'" for their address is to Allah—Exalted is He—not to them, as indicated by His saying, narrating their words: (Our Lord, these led us astray) meaning, they invited us to error and commanded us to it, for they established it and we followed them. (So give them a double punishment) i.e., multiplied, as narrated from Mujahid (from the Fire).
"Double" (di‘f), according to what Abu ‘Ubayd stated—and what al-Shafi‘i specified in his Wasaaya—is the like of a thing one time. Al-Azhari stated that this is a conventional meaning, while "double" in the speech of the Arabs—and to this, the speech of Allah is returned—is the like [of a thing] and more. It is not limited to two likes, but is rather unlimited; many have chosen this view here. Al-Raghib said: "Di‘f" (with a fatḥah) is a verbal noun, while "du‘f" (with a kasrah) is a noun like "twofold" (thuny), and "twofold" is that which doubles something. Whenever it is annexed to a number, it necessitates the like of that number; for instance, to say "a double of ten" or "a double of a hundred," that is twenty or two hundred without dispute. To this effect is the poet's saying: "I recompensed you double the affection when you complained, and no one has ever recompensed you double before me." When it is said, "Give him two doubles of one," it necessitates that one and two likes of it. This is because its meaning is the one and the two that match it. This is when "double" is annexed. When it is not annexed and you say "the two doubles" (al-di‘fayn), it is said that it acts like "the couple" (al-zawjayn) in that each one of them matches the other, thus necessitating two, for each one of them doubles the other, and they do not exceed them.
(Double) is in the accusative case as an adjective for "punishment," or it may be an appositive. (From the Fire) is an adjective for "punishment" or "double." He—Sublime and Exalted is He—said: (For each) of you and of them (is a double) of punishment (from the Fire). As for the leaders, it is for their straying and leading others astray, which is the cause of the aforementioned prayer. As for the followers, it is also for that [reason], according to some. Their being astray is obvious; as for their being leaders of error, it is because their choosing them as chiefs who act upon their command increases their tyranny, just as He—Sublime and Exalted is He—said: (And there were men from mankind who sought refuge in men from the jinn, so they increased them in burden). This has been objected to on the grounds that it is not universal, for the following of many followers is unknown to the leaders, unless it is said that this is specific to some of them. It is said that it is better to say: the double for the followers is because of their turning away from the clear truth and following the chiefs in order to obtain the fleeting goods of the world in pursuit of desire. This is indicated by His saying: (And those who were arrogant will say to those who were oppressed, "Did we avert you from guidance after it had come to you? Rather, you were criminals.") There is much to be said about this, but it is better to say that this applies to the followers because of their disbelief and blind imitation. There is no doubt that blind imitation in guidance is error for which the doer deserves punishment. Al-Raghib narrated from some regarding the verse that the meaning is: for each of you and them is double what the other sees of the punishment; for there is punishment outwardly and inwardly, and each perceives the outward of the other but not the inward, so he assumes that [the other] does not have the inward punishment. He preferred that the meaning is: for each of them is double what you have of the punishment. The apparent meaning is what we have relied upon.
(But you do not know) the amount of your punishment, or the amount of the punishment of each group. That is why you spoke in a way that suggests your belief that the leaders deserve the double and not you. The address, on both interpretations, is to the followers, as is apparent. It is also said that on the first interpretation it is to the followers, and on the second to both groups, by giving precedence to the addressed (the followers) over the absent (the leaders). ‘Asim recited "they do not know" with the yā’ (third person), treating this statement as separate from what precedes it, serving as a coda not intended to be included in the answer. Whoever claims that the address is to both groups by way of predominance (taghlīb) says that this recitation implies the separation of the leaders from the followers, since on that reading, it is impossible to argue for predominance, as an absent party is not made to predominate over an addressed party.
