Tafsir of An-Naba' 78:40

{We have warned you}—meaning, by what was mentioned in the Surah regarding the verses that speak of resurrection, along with what it contains and what follows it of calamities, or by that and all the other striking events mentioned in the Great Quran—{of a near punishment.} This is the punishment of the Hereafter. Its proximity is due to the certainty of its arrival; for it has been said: "How distant is what has passed, and how near is what is coming!" Or it is because it is near in relation to Him, the Almighty and Exalted. Or, it is said that the Barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection) is included in the Hereafter, and its beginning is death, which is near in reality, as is not hidden from one who understands proximity and distance.

According to Qatadah, it is the punishment for sin, because it is the nearer of the two punishments. According to Muqatil, it refers to the killing of the Quraysh on the day of Badr. This is countered by the fact that the verse "the day when a person will observe what his hands have put forth" refutes it, for the apparent meaning is that [the day] is an adverbial modifier for a suppressed element which acts as an adjective for "punishment"—meaning: a punishment existing on that day—and that day is none other than the Day of Resurrection. Similarly, it is so according to the opinion that it is an appositive to "punishment" or an adverbial modifier for "near." Regarding this latter view, it is said that there is no need to justify the proximity, because the punishment on that day is near, with no barrier between it and the person. This has been critiqued by stating that the apparent meaning is to designate the thing warned against as near at the time of the warning, because that is what is appropriate for threats and intimidation, for there is no benefit in mentioning its proximity to them on the Day of Resurrection itself. If the proximity relates to it [the punishment], then the intent is to state the proximity of the day itself. So reflect on this.

The apparent meaning is that "the person" (al-mar' ) is general, including both the believer and the disbeliever. "What" (ma) is a relative pronoun, object of "observes," with the referent deleted. The meaning is: the day the accountable person—believer or disbeliever—witnesses what he has put forth of good or evil. It is also permissible that "what" (ma) is interrogative, governed by "put forth," meaning: "he observes what thing his hands have put forth." The clause is then suspended from [direct perception], because observation is a path to knowledge, and the speech is in the force of "he observes the answer to what his hands have put forth."

In the expression, according to what the scholar al-Taftazani mentioned, there is a "predominance" (taghlib) of what occurred in a specific manner over what occurred otherwise, as he mentioned the "two hands" because most actions are performed by them, so he made everything as if it were done by them by way of predominance. Ibn Abi Ishaq read al-mir' with a damma on the mim, and Abu Hatim deemed it weak. It should not be deemed weak, as it is a dialect of some Arabs; they follow the vowel of the hamza, so they say mir' and mur or mar' depending on the grammatical position.

{And the disbeliever says: "Oh, I wish I were dust!"}—this specifies one of the two groups encompassed by the term "person" previously mentioned. The statement of the disbeliever is specified, rather than the believer, to indicate the extremity of his disappointment and the finality of his regret, just as the omission of the believers' statement indicates the extremity of their exultation and the finality of their joy and happiness.

'Ata said: "The person here is the disbeliever," due to the Almighty's saying: {We have warned you}, and the apparent meaning would have been the pronoun thereafter, yet the explicit noun was placed in its stead to increase the blame. The counter-argument is that encompassing both groups is what matches the preceding description of the Day of Separation, as it comprises the state of both—which is the reason for the Almighty's saying: {So whoever wills may take to his Lord a way.} And "We have warned you" does not specify the disbeliever, for the warning is general to both groups as well, so there is no evidence for specification.

Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, and al-Hasan said: "The intent by it is the believer." The Imam said: "The statement of the disbeliever indicates this; for since this was an explanation of the state of the disbeliever, the first must be an explanation of the state of the believer." The weakness in this is not hidden, just as al-Riyashi's deduction from the verse that "person" is not used except for the believer [is weak].

The disbeliever intends by his saying, "I wish I were dust": "in this world, so I was not created and not burdened with duties," or "I wish I were dust on this day, so I was not resurrected." From Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, and Mujahid [it is reported] that Allah the Exalted will bring the beasts, and retribution will be taken for some from others. Then the Exalted will say to them: "Be dust," and they will all return to dust. When the disbeliever sees that, he wishes for the like of it. The majority have held the view of the gathering of beasts and the taking of retribution for some from others, and discussion on this will come in Surah al-Takwir, if Allah wills.

It is also said the disbeliever in the verse is Iblis, may the curse of Allah be upon him, for when he witnessed Adam, peace be upon him, and his believing descendants, and the reward they had, he wished to be dust, because he had despised him when he said: "You created me from fire and created him from clay." This is far from the context, even if it is conceptually sound.

"Dust" in all that has been mentioned is in its well-known sense, and the speech is upon its apparent meaning and reality. It is permissible—especially regarding the last view—that the intent of the saying "I wish I were" is: "I wish I had been in the world humble to the obedience of Allah, not a tyrant nor arrogant." The reliance is upon what preceded, as is not hidden.