Tafsir of Al-Ghashiyah 88:25

The saying of the Exalted: "Indeed, to Us is their return," is a justification for His punishing them with the greater punishment.

Iyāb (return) is the verbal noun (maṣdar) of āba, meaning rajaʿa (he returned). That is: their return through death and resurrection is to Us, not to anyone other than Us, neither independently nor by way of association. The pronoun is pluralized here and in what follows [in the verse] in consideration of the meaning of man (whoever), just as it was singularized previously in consideration of its wording.

Abu Ja’far and Shaybah recited iyyābahum with a doubled (tashdīd) ya. Al-Baṭlaymūsī said in his book Al-Muthallathāt: This recitation admits of two interpretations:

First, that iyyāb with doubling is a faʿʿāl form from awb on the paradigm of faʿʿāl like kidhāb from kadhaba. Its origin was awwāb; the first wāw was not considered a barrier because of its weakness due to its quiescence (sukūn). The second wāw was then changed into a yāʾ because of the kasrah on the hamzah, so it became, in estimation, uyāb. Then the first [wāw] was also changed into a yāʾ because of the meeting of a yāʾ and a wāw, one of which was quiescent, and because if the first wāw did not prevent the conversion of the second, it is more deserving of being converted itself.

Second, that it is a fiyʿāl form, its origin being iywāb, on the paradigm of fiyʿal—like ḥayqāl from ḥawqala—derived from al-ayāb, with its origin being aywāb on the paradigm of fāʿil as we mentioned. The first approach is more analogical, because they said in its verbal noun taʾawwub, and tafʿīl is the verbal noun of faʿʿala, not fiyʿala. Nevertheless, they have said: "He is swift in al-awbah (return) and al-aybah (return)," as if they preferred the yāʾ for its lightness.

Al-Zamakhsharī mentioned these two approaches, except that in the first of them, it is permissible that its origin was awwāban, a faʿʿāl form from awb, then it was said iywāban like dīwān in diwān, then the same was done to it as was done to the root of sayyid. The apparent meaning is that the first wāw is what was first changed into a yāʾ. This was objected to on the grounds that it is established that if the first wāw is positioned for assimilation and the letter before it is maksūr (vowelled with kasrah), it is not changed into a yāʾ for the sake of the kasrah, as in ukhrūṭ, the verbal noun of akhrūṭa. And dīwān, if mentioned for the sake of analogy, is not fit for that because they have stated it is irregular (shādh). It is as if Al-Baṭlaymūsī turned to what he turned to because of this.

In al-Kashf, it is stated: "If one were to make it the verbal noun of fāʿala from al-awb, then the fiyʿāl form has indeed occurred therein—to the extent that some said faʿʿāl is a lighter version of it—that would have been clearer, because fiyʿal is not established except by evidence, while the first is as if it were analogical." The meaning of the fāʿala form in that case is either intensity or the act of outstripping one another in returning. As for making it a faʿʿāl form according to what Al-Zamakhsharī established, it is more far-fetched.

Ibn ʿAṭiyyah also permitted it to be from fāʿala, but he said: "It is correct for it to be from āwaba, thus it comes as iywāban, its hamzah was facilitated, and the necessity in assimilation would have turned it back to awwāban, but the yāʾ was deemed better therein without analogy." Abū Ḥayyān objected to this, stating that his [Ibn ʿAṭiyyah's] saying "and the necessity..." is not correct. Rather, the necessity, if assimilation is considered, is that it should be iyāban, because a yāʾ—the one replaced from the hamzah through facilitation—and a wāw—the root letter—have met, and one of them is quiescent, so the wāw is changed into a yāʾ and the [first] yāʾ is assimilated into it, resulting in iyāban. So do not be heedless.