al-Muṭaffifīn 83:16-17

Thumma innahum la-ṣālu'l-jaḥīm • Thumma yuqālu hādha'lladhī kuntum bihī tukadhdhibūn "Then they will surely enter the blaze. Then it will be said: 'This is what you used to deny'."

The expression صَالُوا۟ ٱلْجَحِيمِ is the plural of the active participle ṣālūna (entering, burning) entered into a construct. Because of the construct the plural nūn has dropped: ṣālūna'l-jaḥīm → ṣālu'l-jaḥīm.

The analysis of the root was made at al-Infiṭār 82/15: ص-ل-ي, to enter the fire, to be roasted in the fire. And as was recorded there, this root must not be confused with ص-ل-و, the root of the prayer; the two roots part at the final letter.

There are again three reinforcements in the sentence: inna, the lām, and the active participle's conveying of fixity.

The word ٱلْجَحِيم was also taken up at al-Infiṭār 82/14: the root is ج-ح-م, the burning coals of a fire, the flame at its most intense.

The link between the two sūras appears here too: al-Infiṭār said "the fujjār are in the blaze"; al-Muṭaffifīn says "they will enter the blaze". The same word, for the same group.

The verses are joined twice with thumma, and a sequence of three stages is thereby set up:

Three stages, three separate channels. And the last stage is not physical; it is verbal.

The verb is passive: "it is said". Who says it is not stated.

In the section on al-Humaza this choice was dwelt on: "he will be flung" — who flings is not said; "it is closed over" — who closes is not said. The same manner works here.

The effect of the passive pattern is this: the one addressed falls into a wholly passive position. There is no one before him to speak to; there is only a word that is said.

The content of the sentence has to be dwelt on, because what is said is not a torment but a reminder.

What is said is: "This is the thing you denied."

There is no accusation, no explanation, no justification. Only a matching: the link set up between what was rejected and what is met.

And this is laid down as one layer of the punishment. That is, entering the fire is not counted enough; this sentence has also to be said.

Why? Because pain by itself carries no verdict. For pain to acquire a meaning its cause must be known. The sentence establishes that link.

This accords with the whole sūra. From the start the sūra has been relating a matter of knowing: in verse 4 "do they never consider?", in verses 8 and 19 "what will make you know?", in verse 14 the coating of the heart — that is, the ruin of the capacity to know.

The seventeenth verse is the outcome of that matter of knowing: in the end it is known.

And the tense of the verb is meaningful: kuntum bihī tukadhdhibūn — kāna + imperfect, that is, a continuing past. Not "which you denied" but "which you used to deny". The same structure as kānū yaksibūn in verse 14.

That is, both the earning and the denying are named as acts repeated and continuing. On neither side does the sūra describe a one-time act.