Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:63

Do they not know that…

(Meaning: those hypocrites. The interrogation is for the purpose of rebuking them for what they have undertaken of grave [actions], despite their knowledge of the dire consequences they heard from the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It has been recited as ta‘lamu [you—plural—do not know] with the letter ta, by way of shift [iltifat] to increase the censure and rebuke, assuming the address is directed at the hypocrites, not the believers, as has been stated. In the reading alam ta‘lam [do you—singular—not know], the address is either to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or to anyone who reflects upon it. ‘Ilm [knowledge] can be transitive to two objects or to one.)

that it is (meaning: the matter is that) whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger (that is, opposes the command of Allah and the command of His Messenger, upon him be prayer and peace. The root of muhadada [opposition] is a reciprocal action (mufa‘ala) derived from hadd [limit], meaning side and direction, just as mushaqqa [dispute] is from shaqq [split], and mu‘adat [hostility] is from ‘udwa [side], having the same meaning; for each of those engaged in the mentioned acts is on a limit, split, or side other than the one his opponent is on. It is also possible that it is derived from hadd in the sense of prevention. Man [whoever] is a conditional particle, and its response is His saying, Exalted is He: then indeed for him is the fire of Hell.)

The predicate [of the second anna] is omitted, meaning: "then it is the truth that for him is the fire of Hell." This is estimated because the response to a conditional sentence must be a complete clause, and the anna [in the accusative case] along with its subject and predicate serves as a single noun in interpretation. It is estimated as preceding because it cannot occur at the beginning of a sentence, unlike the anna [in the nominative case/clause starting]. It has also been permitted that the estimated element is the predicate, meaning: "The matter is that for him, etc."

It is said that the intention is "for him is the fire of Hell," and that the repetition of anna in His saying "that it is" is for emphasis. It is said: there is an objection to this, for if the intention were "for him," and anna were for emphasis, then naru jahannam would be in the nominative case, anna would not have exerted its grammatical influence upon it, there would not have been a separation between the emphasized element and the emphatic particle by the conditional clause, and no extrinsic element would have intervened between the fa of the response and its scope.

The response is that this is not of the category of verbal emphasis, but rather repetition due to the length of the interval, which is a form of amplification. Such [a construction] does not prevent [the particle] from exercising its influence or the entry of the fa. Similar to this is the saying of the Almighty: That your Lord, for those who did evil in ignorance then repented after that and corrected themselves, indeed your Lord thereafter is Forgiving, Merciful, and the saying: "The tribe of Yaman surely knew that I, when I said 'Amma Ba'd' [as for what follows], am their orator."

Sibawayh recorded the classification of the verse under this category in al-Kitab on the authority of al-Khalil, and that is sufficient. The use of "alleged" (za‘ama) in his discourse does not imply weakness or doubt, for that is his habit in all that he records, as his commentators have explained.

It is also permissible for it to be a conjunction to the first anna, with the response to the condition being omitted, meaning: "Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger shall perish, [and] that for him is, etc.?" The gist of this is: Do they not know this, and this [which occurs] thereafter? Its remoteness is not hidden, although Abu Hayyan said: It is not correct because they have established that the omission of the response [to a condition] only occurs if the conditional verb is in the past tense or a present tense verb made jussive by lam, and that is not the case here. Some have countered him by stating that what he mentioned is not a matter of consensus; Ibn Hisham has established the contrary, so it seems he made it a condition for the majority. Regarding the statement that the proper conjunction for what was mentioned should be with wa, al-Shihab said: "It is nothing," unless the necessity of the Fire due to opposition is understood without doubt.

It has been recited as fa-inna with a kasra [i.e., inna], and it requires no justification due to its clarity.

His saying, Exalted is He: abiding eternally therein is a future-oriented state [hal muqaddara] from the pronoun in the prepositional phrase if the initial or ongoing state of residence is considered in the prepositional phrase. If absolute residence is intended, the matter is clear.

That (meaning: what was mentioned of the punishment) is the great disgrace (meaning: the humiliation and ignominy coupled with scandal. The hidden intensity in this construction is evident). The sentence is a concluding suffix (tadhyil) to what preceded.