“The likeness of the worldly life is only...” This is a fresh statement (istinaf) to clarify the nature of worldly life and the brevity of the enjoyment within it. The root of al-mathal (likeness) is that which compares the point of departure to the point of arrival, and it is metaphorically applied to a strange and remarkable matter. That is, its state in the rapidity of its passing and the termination of its pleasures—following its arrival and the deception of people by it—is “like water We sent down from the sky, so the earth’s vegetation mingled with it.” That is, the vegetation of the earth increased due to it, until parts of it became intertwined with other parts. The ba (in bihi) indicates causality. Some, however, kept it in the sense of accompaniment, making the mingling occur with the water itself, for it acts as nourishment for the plant, flowing through it and intermingling with it; the first view is what the statement of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) necessitates. “...whereof men and cattle eat”—such as herbs, crops, grasses, and pastures. The prepositional phrase is in the position of a state (hal) from the vegetation.
“...until when the earth has taken”—that is, it has fulfilled and completed—“its adornment”—meaning its beauty and splendor—“and has decorated itself”—with various types of plants, shapes, and different colors: like the trains of a bride who has come forth in dyed garments, some shorter than others. Many have mentioned that the speech contains a metonymical metaphor (isti’arah bil-kinayah), where the earth is compared to a bride; the subject of the comparison (al-mushabbah bihi) is omitted, the subject (al-mushabbah) is put in its place, and affirming the "taking of the adornment" for it is an act of imagination (takhayyul), and what follows it is a reinforcement (tarshih). It is said that zukhruf (adornment) is gold, metaphorically used for freshness and delightful appearance. The original form of izayyanat was tazayyanat; the ta was assimilated into the zay, and it became quiescent, so an initial hamzat wasl was brought in to allow for starting with a consonant. Abd Allah read it based on the original form, while al-A’raj, al-Sha’bi, Abu al-Aliyah, Nasr ibn ‘Asim, and al-Hasan read it (differently)—“wa-urinat”—on the measure of af’alat like akramat. Analogy would dictate that it undergo a change by flipping the ya into an alif, so it would be said azanat, as that is the standard for the af’ala paradigm when the middle letter is a weak letter. However, it came contrary to that, like aghlait al-mar’ah (the woman gave her child ghail—which is the milk she suckles him with while pregnant), though aghalat has also come according to analogy. The meaning of these verbs here is "to become"—that is, it became possessor of adornment, or it made itself such. Abu Uthman al-Nahdi read izya’ant with a hamzat wasl followed by a quiescent zay, a fatha-voweled ya, a similar hamza, a shadda-voweled nun, and a feminine ta. Its root is izyayant on the measure of ihmarrat with an explicit alif; they disliked two quiescent letters meeting, so they changed the alif into a fatha-voweled hamza, just as al-dha’alin (the misguided) was read. Ihm’arat also appeared with a hamza, as in the verse: “When the camels’ heads became red with blood.” Awf ibn Jamil read it izayant with an alif without substitution, and it was read izayant with the intention of intensification.
“...and its people thought that they were capable over it”—that is, over the earth. What is meant is that they thought they were empowered to obtain its benefit, secure its fruits, and reap its harvest. It is said the pronoun refers to the crops, and it is said to the fruits, and it is said to the adornment, as this is understood from the context. “...Our command came to it”—the answer to idha—meaning the punishment we decreed descended upon it, which is the destruction of its crops. It refers to what ravages it of calamities and blights, such as hail, locusts, mice, the sarsar (cold wind), the samum (scorching wind), and others. “...by night or by day”—meaning in any night or day. Perhaps the intent is to indicate that there is no difference in the arrival of the punishment between the time of their heedlessness and the time of their wakefulness, for no restrainer can prevent it, and no repeller can push it away. “...and We made it”—meaning we made its vegetation—“a harvest”—that is, resembling what has been reaped from its root. It is apparent that this is from the category of simile, as both sides are mentioned in it, for the omitted (subject) is in the position of the mentioned. It is permitted that there is an explicit metaphor there: the original was "We made its vegetation perished," then the perished was compared to the hasid (harvest), and the name of the mushabbah bihi was put in its place. The estimation of a genitive noun does not contradict this, as some supposed, because the crops were not compared to the harvest, but rather the perished was. Al-Sakkaki held the view that the speech contains a metonymical metaphor, where the adorned and decorated earth is compared to the fresh, delighting vegetation that suffered something that removes and annihilates it, and he made the hasid an act of imagination; its remoteness is not hidden. “...as if it had not flourished yesterday”—that is, as if its vegetation had not flourished, meaning it did not linger or remain. Ghaniya by the place means to stay and remain in it; from this, a house is called a mughna. The genitive noun has been omitted here and previously, for the pronoun that was in the genitive case became accusative in the first two, and a hidden nominative in the second. Omission was chosen for emphasis, as the surface of the speech implies the earth itself was made a harvest, as if the earth itself had not existed, because of how it changed by the changing of what was in it. Some joined ‘alayha (upon it) to them, for the estimation is "upon its vegetation," so the genitive noun was omitted and the pronoun was genitive by ‘ala. This is not far-fetched, though there is hesitation as to whether the omission is for emphasis as well. It is said that the pronoun of taghna and what precedes it return to the crops, as was said regarding the pronoun in ‘alayha. It is said they return to the earth, and there is no omission, but rather metaphorical usage in the attribution. You know that returning all the pronouns to the earth, even if it requires metaphorical usage in the attribution, is better than returning them to anything else, whatever it may be. Yes, it is impossible to return the pronoun in ‘alayha in the reading of al-Hasan (yaghni with a ya) and make it of the category of "no land has sprouted its herbs," as you see. Therefore, it should return to the vegetation or the crops, for example, and the outcome of the meaning is: "as if it had not been growing yesterday"—that is, in a time shortly before the arrival of our command, for "yesterday" is a simile for that. The simile-clause is permitted to be in the place of an accusative state (hal), or it may be a fresh statement with no place in inflection, as an answer to an implied question. The object of the comparison in the verse is what is understood from the speech, which is the sudden disappearance of the plant’s greenery and its passing away into rubble, with no trace remaining after it had been lush and tender, its parts intertwined, and the earth decorated with its colors, until people grew greedy and thought it had been saved from calamities—not the water, even if the kaf of comparison enters it. It is a composite simile, while the speech itself contains literal and metaphorical matters, which hold a subtlety that is not hidden. From Ubayy, it is narrated that he read: "As if it had not flourished yesterday, and We did not destroy it except for the sins of its people." Likewise—that is, like that amazing, detailed exposition—“...We detail the verses”—the Quranic ones, among which is this verse of majestic status that alerts one to the states of worldly life—meaning we clarify and explain them—“...for a people who give thought”—to their meanings and grasp their realities. Specifying them is because they are the ones who benefit. It is permitted that the "verses" refer to the creatures and the perishables mentioned during the representation, and "detailing them" means turning them in the order narrated, in creation and annihilation, for they are signs and marks by which one who reflects upon them is guided to the states of worldly life, both presently and in the end. The first is the most apparent. From Abu Mijlaz, it is said: "It was written next to this verse, then erased: 'If the son of Adam had two valleys of wealth, he would wish for a third, and nothing fills the belly of the son of Adam but dust, and Allah turns in forgiveness to him who turns.'"
