The Exegesis of the Saying of Allah the Exalted: “Indeed, those who love that immorality should spread among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and Allah knows, while you do not know.”

Then Allah the Exalted said: [Surat al-Nur: 19] “Indeed, those who love that immorality should spread by the tongue will have a painful punishment.” We said that this kind of construction, where it comes in the sentence as two clauses, serves to emphasize. “Indeed, those who love that immorality should spread” — they have, as He said, “for those who love that immorality should spread, a punishment.” So He made the matter two clauses, a minor and a major. The saying is the major, and His saying is the minor. It is called the minor because it stands in the place of a single noun, as it is the predicate, and the original form of the predicate is to be a single noun. I hope we pay attention, because yesterday I forgot to look into “those.” This is the first one. “Indeed, those” — what is its grammatical analysis? “Those” is the noun of “inna,” so it is in the position of the subject. “Who love” is the relative clause. “That immorality should spread among those who have believed” is the object of “love.” “For them” is the predicate placed before, and “punishment” is the subject placed after, and the sentence is the predicate of “inna.” So this sentence contains two clauses, a minor and a major. Now, the major is the combination and the minor is “for them a painful punishment.” We called it the minor, even though it consists of a subject and a predicate, because it is the predicate, so it is in the position of a single noun, as the original form of the predicate is to be a single noun. For example, you say “The student is intelligent,” where the predicate of the subject is a single noun. If you say “The student has intelligence,” it has now become a sentence. And the whole is two clauses: a major, which is their combination, and a minor, which is the sentence that became the predicate. And Allah knows best.
Because they are clear cosmic signs: the night and the day, the sun and the moon, and the legislative signs.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Did Allah the Exalted make them clear, and are they apparent to everyone, or not?
The student: He made them clear.

The Shaykh : But they are not apparent to one whom Allah has blinded in his insight, as Allah the Exalted said: So, the clarification of the signs and their distinctness: if they are cosmic, they are clear and no one doubts them. And if they are legislative, they are clear in themselves, but some people are blinded to them. It may also be said that even the cosmic signs, upon reflection, some people may be blinded to them, because some people think that these signs are not the work of the Creator, but rather natures that interact and some are generated from others, without there being a Manager or Creator for them. And in this case, the cosmic signs would be like the legislative signs, contrary to what we established previously.
Then Allah the Exalted said: “Indeed, those who love.” “Those” is one of the relative pronouns, and it is known in the science of principles that the relative pronoun implies generality. “Indeed, those who love” is general. And His saying “spread” means to disseminate and become apparent. And the author’s saying “by the tongue” is an explanation of the spreading, meaning it spreads by speech and people circulate it. But the more apparent view is that it is broader than spreading by the tongue, and that it spreads by action such that people see them, and by speech such that it is rumored about them. So these are those who love that immorality should spread, whether they love that it spreads by speech, as the author indicated by “by the tongue,” or they love that it spreads by action, meaning that their affair becomes apparent, clear, and witnessed. And their saying is a sentence we call a minor sentence. “Indeed, those” — “those” is the noun of “inna” and it is in the position of the subject, and “for them a painful punishment” is a predicative sentence, the predicate of “inna.” And this serves to emphasize, more emphatic than if it were said, for example, “Indeed, for those who love that immorality should spread is a painful punishment.” This is clearer because it would be two clauses as if they were repeated. And the author’s saying “in relation to them” is based on the idea that the intended meaning of spreading is spreading by the tongue. But the more correct view is that it is broader, meaning in relation to them in what is said about them, or by seeing it from them in what they did. And the author’s saying “and they are the group” is not correct, because he intended to explain the general with the specific. Is “those who love that immorality should spread” specific to the group who brought the slander, or general for everyone? It is general for everyone until the Day of Resurrection. For example, whoever intends or loves that immorality should spread among the believers in his time is included in this verse. And specifying the verse with something without evidence is not permissible. And the scholars have said that the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. But we must know that the image of the cause is certain in its inclusion. That is, if a general wording comes for a specific cause, the cause for which it came is certain in its inclusion in this generality, while the other individuals of the generality are not certain, but are apparent in it. The explanation of this is: is the indication of the general to each of its individuals certain or apparent? It is an apparent indication, meaning it is not certain, as it is possible that some individuals may be specified with a ruling that contradicts this generality. And for this reason, we say the indication of the generality, the indication of the general wording to its generality, is apparent. Did you understand? Why do we say it is apparent? Because of the possibility that some of its individuals may be specified. Except for the image of the cause, meaning the image that is the cause of this generality, it is certain in its inclusion, because it is not possible to exclude it from the generality, as it came for it. For example, if someone said regarding “Those who pronounce zihar from among you from their wives, they are not their mothers” and so on, if someone said that Aws ibn al-Samit, who pronounced zihar from his wife and was the cause of revelation, is not included in it, what do we say to him? We say this is definitely incorrect; he is included. If someone said that the man whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw, who fainted while standing and people were shading him, and he was fasting on a journey, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: If someone said that this man is not included in this hadith, we say it is incorrect and impossible, because the image that is the cause of revelation is certain in its inclusion, while the rest is not certain but apparent... To explain this generality with the specific, is it permissible or not? It is not permissible. If a general wording is found, its generality must be taken, even if its indication to all its individuals is apparent, but its generality must be taken until evidence comes for specification. So we say this verse is general for the group and others. by the limit, and... and in the Hereafter by the Fire. May Allah reward you. Yes. In this world, of the punishment, what the author mentioned, and it may be a more severe punishment. But now, what comes to mind for us is that the painful punishment in this world is the penalty, and punishment, as we indicated previously, means penalty, and painful means painful. And as for the punishment of the Hereafter, it is with Allah as well.
And the author’s saying that the limit of false accusation and the punishment of the Hereafter are in the right of Allah, this presents a difficulty for him, as it has been established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) And on this basis, they said that the limits are expiation for their owners, such as the limit of zina, the limit of theft, and others, are expiation for their owners, because Allah does not combine two punishments on one person. So on this basis, we say that this verse is for one who loves that immorality should spread. But if one spread it, if this is from the rumors, but if one spread it, is there a limit on him in this world? There is no limit. The mere love of a person for the spreading of immorality among the believers is not false accusation, so the limit is not established on him. But he is disciplined or punished with what the scholars call discretionary punishment, to deter him from his action, from this matter. And as for the punishment of the Hereafter, it is said that as long as the matter is not a limit, he may be excused, and in that case, the punishment will be on him in the Hereafter. And as for one on whom the limit is established in a sin among the sins, it will be expiation for him, as that was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Now, if this threat is for those who love that immorality should spread among the believers, how is the state of one who spread immorality... Mahmoud Abdullah? The student: ...

The Shaykh : The one who spreads is more severe than the one who loves that it should spread, because the one who spreads loves and acts, as he did not spread anything... so he has loved and acted. And the one who loves may not act, and yet he has a painful punishment. Then Allah the Exalted said: “And Allah knows, while you do not know.” Their absence from them, and you, O group, do not know their presence in them.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : You do not know their presence in them...
The student: ...