Commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “(Can you save)” he goes out “(from within the Fire)” the answer to the condition, and the explicit is placed in the position of the implicit, and the hamzah

Allah the Mighty and Majestic said: I asked, to whom is the address? To the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). “Save” means “go out,” but interpreting “save” as “go out” is deficient because the word “go out” does not indicate that one is saved from destruction, whereas “save” indicates a meaning more specific than “go out,” is that not so? Therefore, it is not permissible to interpret the more specific with the more general, because if you interpret the more specific with the more general, you diminish the interpretation. Going out can be saving and can be not saving, but saving is from destruction. For this reason, if you interpreted “save” as “rescue,” it would be clearer, because rescue is also from destruction. “Can you save” means can you rescue the one within the Fire from its punishment. “From within the Fire”: “from” means “who,” and it is the object of “save.” “Within the Fire”: “in” and “the Fire” are a preposition and its object, connected to what? The estimation?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Who entered into the Fire
The student: ...entered into the punishment

The Shaykh : It is estimated with what is appropriate
The student: Inside
The Shaykh : No, “inside” is not suitable for the relative clause. Put down your pens.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : “Inside” is not valid in the relative clause because if you estimate “inside,” you need to estimate a subject to make it a sentence, but if you estimate a verb, we do not need anything else. For example, in all relative clauses, only a verb is estimated, because if you estimate a noun, you need to estimate a subject to complete the sentence, so the estimation would be twice. But if you estimate a verb, the estimation is once. Okay, meaning who settled in the Fire, or who entered the Fire, or who was in the Fire, according to the selected meaning. The author said, “the answer to the condition.” Where is the condition? The condition is “who” in his saying, and this is one of the two views regarding “who” being a conditional noun. Some scholars said that “who” is a relative pronoun, meaning, “Can you save the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding?” Meaning, the conditional noun and the relative pronoun are interchangeable, meaning one is used in place of the other. He says, “the answer to the condition, and the explicit is placed in the position of the implicit.” The explicit placed in the position of the implicit is “who” in place of the implicit “him,” which would be, if not for the explicit, in this manner: “Can you save him?” “Can you save the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding?” This is the author’s statement, which implies that the two sentences are connected, are they not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : They are connected to each other, and not each one is independent of the other. “Can you save him?” But we say there is another possibility contrary to what the author said, which is that the second is separate from the first, and the estimation of the first is “you ward off” or a word like it, meaning, “Can you ward off the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding?” Then he started anew and said, meaning, the first makes him a believer such that he does not deserve the Fire, and the second saves him from the Fire if he enters it. This is a view of the exegetes. The second view is that the two sentences are one, so the meaning of is that he is in the Fire, “Can you save him from it?” And this is what the author followed, and the implication of the two sentences is one in the end: that the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding, it is not possible for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or anyone else to save him from the Fire. Okay, the author says, “and the explicit is placed in the position of the implicit.” Placing the explicit in the position of the implicit here conveys meanings, among them that the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding is in the Fire, because if he said, “Can you save him?” a person would say, “From what do you save him?” So when he said, “Can you save the one within the Fire,” we know that this one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding is in the Fire. Okay, he says, “and the hamzah is for negation.” The hamzah in and in is one hamzah according to the view that the two are one, so the second is an emphasis of the first. The result is that Allah says to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): Is it possible for the one upon whom the word of punishment has become binding that you prevent him from deserving it? Is it possible for the one who entered the Fire that you save him? The answer is no, neither this nor that, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not have the power to guide anyone so that the word of punishment does not become binding upon him, and it is not possible for him to save anyone from the Fire.
He (peace and blessings be upon him) said when the saying of Allah the Exalted, , was revealed, he gathered his relatives and began to address them specifically: “O so-and-so son of so-and-so, I cannot benefit you from Allah with anything,” until he said, and she is his daughter. He says, “I can benefit you with wealth, but I cannot benefit you from Allah with anything.” And if he cannot benefit his daughter with anything, then those other than her are even more so. If someone asks, how do we reconcile this with the intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for his uncle Abu Talib, until he was in shallow water of Fire, with sandals of Fire on his feet from which his brain boils? How? Here he benefited, and here he interceded and the intercession was effective. It is said, first, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was not able to take him out of the Fire, and if he was not able to take him out of the Fire, it was not contrary to the verse, because Allah said, , “He did not save him.” Yes, He said that. Second, the alleviation for Abu Talib is not because he was the uncle of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), for this is Abu Lahab, his uncle, but he did not benefit him with anything. But it is because of the great defense he provided for Islam and for the Messenger of Islam. He defended him with a great defense, indeed, he used to praise the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in gatherings, and he testified to his messengership, saying: “They have certainly known that our son is not a liar with us, nor does he mean to speak falsehood”
This is a verse from the famous Lamiriyyah, about which Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said, “He said, this should be one of the Mu'allaqat, indeed it is more eloquent than the Mu'allaqat” The Mu'allaqat are poems chosen by the Arabs, they called them the Seven Mu'allaqat, and they added three to them, calling them the Ten Mu'allaqat. These poems were hung inside the Ka'bah to preserve them and honor them, but the Lamiriyyah of Abu Talib is stronger and stronger, meaning better and sweeter, so he testified for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that he is not a liar and that he does not mean to speak falsehood, the sorcerers, but indeed, he (peace and blessings be upon him) is the most truthful of people and the purest of people. Then he says in another poem:
“And you have certainly known that the religion of Muhammad is the best of the religions of the earth in religion
"Were it not for the blame or the fear of being reviled, you would have seen me lenient and clear about that."
Speech like this, if people heard it, they would believe. It is in reality a call to Islam, but he is not a Muslim. We ask Allah for well-being. So the alleviation for him is not because he was the uncle of the Messenger, but because he defended Islam and protected the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) completely, and he also supported him, for after the death of his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib, he was with his uncle Abu Talib, and this is well known. So from the justice of Allah the Mighty and Majestic is that Allah thanked him for his deed and alleviated for him by the intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), until he became, as you have heard, in shallow water of Fire, with sandals of Fire on his feet from which his brain boils. May Allah protect me and you from the Fire. Yes, He said: “And the meaning is that you are not able to guide him so that you save him from the Fire” This is the meaning, and true is Allah the Glorified and Exalted. A person cannot save anyone from the Fire ever. If the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) cannot do that, then those below him are even more so.