Tafseer of The Exile · Al-Hashr · 59:17
So the outcome for both of them is that they will be in the Fire, abiding eternally therein. And that is the recompense of the wrong-doers.
Important: The Arabic source text is always authoritative. This translation is a study aid and has not been verified by scholars — do not use it as a basis for religious proof or for deriving rulings (ahkam). When in doubt, always consult the Arabic text and a qualified scholar.
The explanation of the saying of the Exalted: فَكَانَ عَاقِبَتَهُمَا أَنَّهُمَا فِي النَّارِ خَالِدَيْنِ فِيهَا وَذَلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ ("So the end of them both was that they are in the Fire, abiding therein eternally, and that is the recompense of the wrongdoers") (59:17).
The Exalted, whose remembrance is exalted, says: thus was the end of the affair of Satan and of the human being who obeyed him and thereby became a disbeliever in Allāh, that they both abide eternally in the Fire, remaining therein forever. وَذَلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ ("and that is the recompense of the wrongdoers") — He says: and that is the reward of the Jews of the Banū al-Naḍīr and of the hypocrites who had promised them victory; and every disbeliever in Allāh is a wrongdoer against himself on account of his disbelief in Him, namely that they abide eternally in the Fire.
The linguists differ regarding the manner in which His saying خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ("abiding therein eternally") stands in the accusative (naṣb). Some of the grammarians of Basra said: it stands in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl), and فِي النَّارِ ("in the Fire") is the predicate. He said: were it [without that word] in the sentence, the nominative (rafʿ) would be better with "khālidīn." He said: and their claim that, when it occurs twice, it therefore stands in the accusative — that is not the case; therein is only an emphasis, whether you mention it or not, that is the same. Except that the Arabs often make it a circumstantial qualifier when it serves therein for emphasis and the like, in more than one place. He said [by way of example]: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ("Indeed, those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein eternally").
And some of the grammarians of Kufa said: in the reading of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd it reads فَكَانَ عَاقِبَتَهُمَا أَنَّهُمَا فِي النَّارِ خَالِدَانِ فِيهَا ("so the end of them both was that they are in the Fire, both abiding therein eternally") [with "khālidāni" in the nominative]. He said: and in أَنَّهُمَا فِي النَّارِ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا it stands in the accusative. He said: and I do not prefer the nominative, even though it is permissible. For when you see the verb between two qualifiers, and one of them has returned to the place of the other, then you put it in the accusative; and this is an example of that. He said: and like it in speech is your saying: "I passed by a man upon his riding-beast, bearing it" (marartu bi-rajulin ʿalā nābihi mutaḥammilan bihi). And like it is the saying of the poet:
"And the saffron upon her bosom (tarāʾib) — the throat-hollows (al-labbāt) and the upper chest (al-naḥr) suffused with it."
For the tarāʾib (the place of the necklace upon the chest) are here the labbāt (the places of the throat-hollow); thus the qualifier returned with the noun to which it applied. But when the two qualifiers differ, then both the nominative and the accusative are permissible on sound grounds; of this is your saying: "ʿAbd Allāh is in the house, desirous of you" (ʿAbd Allāh fī al-dāri rāghibun fīka). Do you not see that the "fī" in "fī al-dār" ("in the house") differs from the "fī" that occurs in "al-raghba" ("the desire")? He said: and the proof by which one distinguishes the accusative from the nominative is that you do not see the second qualifier placed before the first. Do you not see that you say: "this is your brother, in his hand a dirham, grasping it" (hādhā akhūka fī yadihi dirhamun qābiḍan ʿalayhi)? Now if you were to say: "this is your brother, grasping it, in his hand a dirham," that is not permissible. Do you not see that you say: "this is a man, standing, toward Zayd, in his hand a dirham" (hādhā rajulun qāʾimun ilā Zaydin fī yadihi dirhamun)? This indicates that in the accusative case the fronting of the latter part is prevented, and it indicates the nominative when the fronting of the latter part is easy.
---------------
Footnotes:
(1) This passage requires correction, for therein is a scribal error and corruption that does not remain hidden.
(2) The verse appears in (al-Lisān: trb) without attribution. The transmission therein is "sharq" with the nominative. The author, however, rendered it with the accusative and parsed it as a circumstantial qualifier. The saffron (al-zaʿfarān): something the Arabs use as a perfume and as an adornment for women. The tarāʾib: the place of the necklace upon the chest. The labāb: the plural of labba, which is the place of the throat-hollow. The thughra: the throat-hollow of the chest, which is the cavity between the two collarbones. And he said: "wa-al-zaʿfarān... [the verse]." The verse belongs to the evidentiary verses of al-Farrāʾ in Maʿānī al-Qurʾān (folio 330); he said concerning the saying of the Exalted "fakāna ʿāqibatahumā annahumā fī al-nāri khālidayni fīhā": "and it reads in the reading of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd 'khālidāni fī al-nār,' and in our reading 'khālidīna fīhā' in the accusative, and I do not prefer the nominative, even though it is permissible." The author took over the entire argument of al-Farrāʾ for the clarification of the issue, according to the school of the people of Kufa, so we suffice here with this reference.
