Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “So today, none of you can benefit or harm the other, and We say to those who wronged: ‘Taste the punishment of the Fire in which you used to deny.’”

The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: Yes, or the one who his statement: is conjoined to his statement: meaning, and today We say In language, *zulm* (wrongdoing) means deficiency; this is the original meaning. From this comes the saying of Allah the Exalted: [al-Kahf: 33], meaning it did not diminish. As for the technical or legal meaning, it is the deprivation of the right of those who have a right, either by delaying what is obligatory or by violating what is forbidden. The deprivation of the right of those who have a right is either by delaying what is obligatory, as in the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): or by encroaching upon their right, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: [al-Shura: 42]. So, *zulm* in its original sense is deficiency, and its evidence is As for the legal sense, it is the deprivation of the right of those who have a right, either by violating a prohibition regarding their right or by delaying an obligation. And his statement: The author interpreted it as: “They disbelieved” Is this an interpretation by meaning or by intended meaning? By intended meaning, because *zulm* in terms of meaning is broader than *kufr* (disbelief). But the author says: “The intended meaning of *zulm* here is the *zulm* of disbelief,” as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: [al-Baqarah: 254] and the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Luqman: 13] and his statement: [al-An'am: 82]. So *zulm* may be intended to mean *kufr*. It appears that the author (may Allah have mercy on him) specified *zulm* as *kufr* here based on the context of This indicates that the intended meaning of *zulm* here is the *zulm* of disbelief, because the one who denies the Fire is judged to be a disbeliever for denying the news of Allah and His Messenger. is an imperative verb, but it is intended to mean humiliation. That is, they are told in humiliation: “Taste the punishment of the Fire in which you used to deny,” meaning the Fire will strike you until you taste it, just as you taste food. And his statement: How did they deny the Fire? Because they denied the Resurrection, and the Fire only exists after the Resurrection, and they denied that. And a fortiori, they denied the punishment in the grave. They denied it completely and said: “When the soul leaves the body, it will not return to it.” Here he said: And in Surat al-Sajdah, he said: [al-Sajdah: 20]. So, based on these two verses, the description of denial is once regarding the Fire and once regarding its punishment. Sometimes they denied the Fire itself, saying there is no Fire, no Hereafter, and nothing. Sometimes they denied the punishment by the Fire, saying: “How will we be punished by the Fire? How will we remain for ages in the Fire?” When a person enters the Fire, he burns up and is finished, so they denied the punishment. And sometimes they denied the Fire itself. And his statement: The prepositional phrase here is connected to but it was placed first for restriction or for the rhyming couplets. Yes, for the rhyming couplets, undoubtedly this is from one aspect, and for restriction. But if we say it is for restriction, a problem arises: they denied the Fire and other things. It is said: Since the punishment by the Fire was mentioned, they were specifically reminded of their denial of it, because they were punished by it. It is as if they were told: “You were punished by something you used to deny; otherwise, you have other denials.”