Tafsir of An-Nazi'at 79:46

(As if they, on the day they see it, had not remained [in the world or in their graves] except for an evening or its morning.)

This is either a confirmation and emphasis of what the warning implies regarding the swift arrival of that which is warned about, especially in accordance with the second interpretation [that it is a refutation]. The meaning is: "As if they, on the day they see it, had not remained after the warning except for a little while."

As for it being a refutation of what they incorporated into their questioning, it is because they used to ask about it by way of considering it slow, hastening it—even if it was in the manner of mocking it—saying: “When is this promise, if you are truthful?” The meaning is: "As if they, on the day they see it, had not remained after being threatened with it except for an evening..." This interpretation, according to what has been transmitted from Al-Zamakhshari, has a basis; namely: "They did not remain except for an hour of the day, its evening or its morning," and this summary was placed in its stead.

The addition [the suffix "ha" in 'ashiyyaha and duhaha] only provides this meaning—as stated in al-Kashshaf—in that if you were to say, "They did not remain except for an evening or a morning," it would be possible that the evening belongs to one day and the morning to another, and one might imagine a continuation from that time to its equivalent in the next day. However, when you say "its evening or its morning," that is not possible at all. In your saying "the morning of that evening," there is that which makes it unnecessary to say "the evening of that day or its morning."

Al-Tayyibi said: It is possible that "the evening or the morning" is intended metaphorically to mean the whole day, and when it was attached [as a possessive], it provided emphasis and negated that possibility, making it of the category of your saying, "I saw him with my own eyes." This is good, but the former is further removed from affectation, and there is no prohibition against combining them. The addition adds beauty through the word being a definitive separator.

Opinions differed on whether this remaining is in the world, while others said it is in the graves, and some permitted both. In al-Irshad, the author chose what we have mentioned previously, saying that what the context requires is the consideration of it being after the warning or after the threat, as a verification of the warning and a refutation of their considering it slow.

On the first view, the sentence is a state (hal) from the conjunctive noun (al-mawsul), as if it were said: "You warn them while they are, on the day they see it, in their belief like those who did not remain after the warning of it except for that short duration." On the second view, it is a new sentence (musta’nafa) that has no place in grammatical inflection. It should not be hidden from you that although the second view is good in itself, it is not what immediately comes to mind. Based on it, it is appropriate to pause at “fima” and then begin anew with “anta min dhikraha” so as not to cause confusion.

It has been said that His saying, "In what [state] are you..." is connected to their questioning, acting as a substitute for the sentence "They ask you..." or as an elided verb of speech; meaning: "They ask you about the time of the Hour’s arrival, and they say to you, 'In what rank are you regarding its mention?'—that is, its knowledge, or what is the extent of your knowledge regarding it?" Or: "They ask you about that, saying to you, 'In what rank are you...'" and the answer to it is His saying: “To your Lord is its terminus.” This is known to be weak.

Al-Bazzar, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Marduyah, and al-Hakim—who authenticated it—narrated from ‘Aisha that she said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not cease to be asked about the Hour until Allah (the Exalted) revealed to him: "In what [state] are you regarding its mention? To your Lord is its terminus." So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ceased, and it was not asked about after that.

Al-Nasa’i and others narrated from Tariq ibn Shihab that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to frequently mention the Hour until it was revealed: "In what [state] are you regarding its mention? To your Lord is its terminus." So he refrained from it.

According to this, it is an expression of astonishment at the frequency of his (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioning it, as if it were said: "In what state of preoccupation and concern are you regarding its mention and the questioning about it?" The meaning is that they ask about it, and because of your eagerness to answer them, you continue to mention it and ask about it. Ibn al-Munir reflected on this, saying that His saying, "They ask you as if you were curious about it," refutes it, since the intent is that you are not curious about asking about it nor concerned with that, while they ask you as one who is hafi (inquisitive) about a thing—that is, one who asks about it frequently.

It was answered that it is possible that he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have that curiosity at first, and then it occurred later, and that their questioning occurred and the verse was revealed after the occurrence of the curiosity. You know the far-fetched nature of that.

Abu Ja’far, Shaybah, Khalid al-Hadhdha’, Ibn Hurmuz, ‘Isa, Talhah, Ibn Muhaysin, Ibn Miqsam, and Abu ‘Amr—in one transmission—recited “mundhir” with tanwin and active governance, which is the original in such cases after considering similarity. The addition [as a construct state] is for easing, so it does not contradict that the original in nouns is the lack of governance, and governance is an accidental attribute due to similarity. The participle (wasf), when governing and being added for easing, is appropriate for both the present and the future. If the past is intended, then it must be the possessive construction, as in your saying, "He is the warner (mundhir) of Zayd yesterday." Here, it is said to be for the present, due to the proximity of “yakhshawha” (they fear it), and it does not contradict that he (peace and blessings be upon him) is a warner in the past and future, such that one might say the appropriateness for the state of the messengership is continuity, and the like is permissible in it regarding governance and non-governance. Then, the intent by the "state" is the state of the ruling, not the state of the speaking. There is a discussion regarding this in the books of Usul, so do not be heedless. And Allah (the Exalted) knows best.