Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:82

This is a disclosure regarding their immediate state and their ultimate outcome, consisting of little laughter in this world and much weeping in the Hereafter. Expressing it in the imperative form signifies the inevitability of what is being disclosed; this is because the imperative form is, in its origin and most common usage, for obligation. It is used here for its necessary implication, or because the imperative—unlike the indicative—does not allow for the possibility of truth or falsehood [in the sense of being subject to contradiction].

Al-Shihab established this, then added: "If you say: 'Obligation does not necessitate existence,' and they have said: 'The imperative is often expressed through the indicative for the sake of hyperbole, as it implies the realization of the commanded action, thus making the indicative more emphatic'—and you have passed by a similar instance—then why is it reversed here?" I say: There is no contradiction between the two, as it is said that "every station has its discourse," and subtleties do not clash. When the imperative is expressed through the indicative, it conveys that the person commanded—due to the intensity of his compliance—has already performed the act, as if it occurred before the command, which is more eloquent. When the indicative is expressed through the imperative, it conveys its necessity and obligatory nature, as if it were a command, providing emphasis from a different perspective. It has also been said that the command here is ontological (takwini), as in His saying: "When He intends a thing, He says to it, 'Be,' and it is." The nuance in that is not hidden.

The fa (in falyadhaku) is for the causality of what preceded it to the disclosure of what has been mentioned regarding the laughter and weeping—not for the acts themselves, as the first is not even imaginable as a choice. To make that the cause for the gathering of both matters is far-fetched.

Qalilan (little) and kathiran (much) are in the accusative case as cognate objects (masdar) or adverbs of time; that is, a little laughter or for a little time, and much weeping or for much time. The intention of the expression in the first, as it is said, is the description of scarcity only, while in the second, it is the description of abundance along with the object described. It is narrated that the hypocrites will weep in the Fire for the duration of the world, their tears never ceasing, nor will they find sleep.

It is permitted that the laughter be a metonymy for joy, and the weeping a metonymy for grief; the first being in this world, and the second in the Hereafter as well. The scarcity is taken according to its prompt implication, and there is no need to interpret it as non-existence, just as "abundance" is interpreted as "permanence." Yes, if both were considered in the Hereafter, we would need that [interpretation], as there is no joy for them there at all.

It is understood from the words of Ibn Atiyyah that the weeping and laughter are in this world, as in the hadith of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) and others: "If you knew what I know, you would have laughed little and wept much." That is, they have reached such a state of wretchedness and danger with Allah, the Exalted, that their laughter ought to be little, and their weeping on account of that ought to be much.

That is, from the various types of sins. Combining the past and future tenses signifies continuous renewal. Jaza’an (as a recompense) is an object of cause (maf'ul lahu) for the second verb (the weeping). You may also consider it an object of cause for both verbs, or a masdar derived from a passive construction whose governing noun has been omitted; that is, "They are recompensed for what has been mentioned—the much weeping, or both the much weeping and little laughter—as a recompense for the sins they persisted in."