to be described or conceived merely by hearing words, for one who reports something is not like one who witnesses it firsthand. Hence He follows this with an oath affirming that they will see it: this is the certainty of sight, which surpasses a report that yields the knowledge of certainty. He says:

“You will surely see Hellfire.”

“Then you will surely see it with the certainty of sight.”

This statement refers to the future and is the response to an unstated oath, while the consequent of “if” is omitted, as explained above. This is one of the two interpretations.

According to the other, it is connected to “if.” But an objection is raised: the consequent of “if” must be in the past tense, so the wording would be: “You would have seen Hellfire.” This is like the Prophet’s saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“If you remained in the state you are in when you are with me, the angels would shake hands with you in your streets and on your beds.”

If it were in the past tense, it would not take an emphatic ending. Rather, one says: “If he were to come, I would come.” The answer to this objection is that it is the response to an unstated oath, standing in place of the consequent of “if.” This is like His saying:

“And if you obey them, you are surely polytheists.”

There are parallels to this in the Quran and in Arabic speech. When a statement contains both an oath and a condition, each requiring a response, the response is given to whichever comes first. Here, that is the oath, which is the intended emphasis.

According to this interpretation, the meaning would be: “By Allah, if you knew with the knowledge of certainty, you would surely see Hellfire with your hearts.”

The first interpretation, however, is the well-known one. Some Quran commentators mention no other, and it is the interpretation they transmitted from their predecessors. What demonstrates its soundness and establishes that it is correct is that His words,

“Then you will surely see it,”

and,

“Then you will surely be questioned,”

are conjoined to what precedes them and therefore fall within its scope. Thus, if the first statement were dependent on the condition, the statements conjoined to it would be