Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:50

"And if you could see" is an address to the Prophet (may Allah exalt his mention and grant him peace) or to anyone capable of receiving the address. The present tense here carries the meaning of the past, as the "conditional law" (implicating impossibility) turns the present tense into the past, just as "in" turns the past into the present. That is: "If you had seen when the angels were taking the souls of those who disbelieved..." you would have seen a terrible matter. According to the learned scholar, it is necessary to interpret the meaning of the past tense here as hypothetical and assumptive, not as a literal past. It has been said: the intent is to emphasize the continuous and renewed impossibility of the vision, though this is subject to discussion. "When" (idh) is an adverbial of time for "see," and the object is omitted—that is: "If you could see the disbelievers or their state at that time."

"The angels" is the subject of "taking the souls," and the object is placed before the subject to emphasize it. The verb was not feminized because the subject is not a feminine entity in reality, and the separation between them makes this acceptable. This view is supported by the recitation of Ibn Amir, "tatawaffa" (with a ta). Abu al-Baqa permitted the possibility that the subject is a pronoun referring to Allah the Exalted, and "the angels" in this reading is a subject of a nominal sentence whose predicate is the clause "they strike their faces," with the nominal sentence being an initiation. According to Abu al-Baqa, it is in the place of a circumstantial state (hal), and it does not require a waw due to the pronoun. Whoever believes that a waw is necessary, and that omitting it is weak, adheres to the first view.

Regarding the first view, it is possible that the clause "they strike" is an initiation, or that it is a circumstantial state (hal) from the subject, the object, or both, as it contains both their pronouns. Being a present-tense clause, the pronoun suffices in it, as is not hidden. The intent by "their faces" is what faces forward of them, and by His statement (the Exalted): "and their backs," is what faces backward, which is the entire rear. Mujahid said that the intent is their posteriors, but Allah the Exalted is Generous and uses metonymy. The first is more appropriate. Mentioning both might be for specification, as the disgrace and punishment in striking them is more severe. It is also possible that generalization is intended, similar to the Almighty's saying: "in the mornings and in the evenings," because it is more painful. The "those who disbelieved" refers to those killed at Badr, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) and others.

It is narrated from al-Hasan that a man said to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah exalt his mention and grant him peace): "I saw on the back of Abu Jahl something like a bridle," and he replied: "That was the striking of the angels." In a narration from Ibn Abbas, there is something that suggests generalization; Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from him that he said: "Two verses that deliver glad tidings of evil to the disbeliever at the time of his death," and he recited: "And if you could see..." However, it is possible that the narration from him (may Allah be pleased with him) is not authentic.

"And taste the punishment of the Burning Fire" is linked to "they strike" by the omission of a verb of speech; that is: "And they say: Taste..." or it is a circumstantial state (hal) from their pronouns in the same way—meaning: "striking their faces and saying: Taste..." According to both views, it is the angels who are speaking. The "punishment of the Burning Fire" refers to the punishment of the Fire in the Hereafter; thus, it is a piece of bad news from the angels regarding what is more grave and bitter than what they are currently in. It is said that the angels possessed iron maces on the day of Badr, and every time they struck the polytheists with them, fire would ignite in their wounds. Based on this, the speech is for reproach. Expressing it as "taste" is said to be for mockery, because tasting is usually associated with delightful foods. It contains another subtlety: it is a small portion of a great whole, and a prelude acting as a sample of what is to be tasted. In this regard, it holds hyperbole, as "tasting" implies a small amount.

Some mentioned—though it is contrary to the apparent meaning—that it is possible this speech is from Allah the Exalted, as in Surah Ali 'Imran: "And We shall say: Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire." The response to "if" (law) is omitted to emphasize the horror and magnitude of the matter, and its implication is what we previously pointed out. al-Tibi estimated it as: "You would have seen the power of His allies and their victory over His enemies."