Ibrāhīm: (2) Allah, to Whom belongs...

(Allah) - in the nominative case (rafʿ), according to the recitation of Nāfiʿ and Ibn ʿĀmir - is the predicate of a deleted subject, meaning: "He is Allah." The following relative pronoun (al-ladhī) is an attribute for it.

In the genitive case (jarr) - according to the recitation of the remaining seven, and al-Aṣmaʿī’s report from Nāfiʿ - it is a substitution (badal) for what precedes it, according to Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, al-Ḥūfī, and Abū al-Baqā’. It is an explanatory appositive (ʿaṭf bayān) according to al-Zamakhsharī, who said: "Because it is treated like a proper noun due to its prevalence and exclusivity in referring to the One who is worshipped by right, just as 'the star' (al-najm) became exclusively synonymous with the Pleiades (al-thurayyā)." Perhaps categorizing it as such is not because the explanatory appositive requires it, but because the condition for an explanatory appositive is to provide further clarification of its referent, which is achieved here by it being like a proper noun due to its exclusivity to the One worshipped by right. It has transcended being an attribute in that sense; thus, it is not an attribute like "the Exalted, the Praiseworthy."

Furthermore, it is not hidden from you that, according to the verifying Imams, it is a proper noun, not merely "like" a proper noun. Ibn ʿAṣfūr stated that an attribute does not precede the noun it describes (mawṣūf) except where it has been heard (in usage), and that is rare. For the Arabs, regarding what is found of this, there are two views: one is that the attribute precedes while remaining as it was. Regarding the syntax of such a construction, there are two views: one is to parse it as a pre-posed adjective (naʿt), and the second is to consider what follows the attribute as a substitute (badal). The second view is to make the attribute possessive to the noun it describes. Based on this, it is permissible for "the Exalted, the Praiseworthy" to be two pre-posed adjectives, with the Majestic Name parsed as the post-posed noun being described.

Among the examples of presenting what would be an attribute if delayed, and delaying what would be the described noun if presented, is the poet’s saying: "The believer, the refuge-seeker, the birds wipe it—the riders of Mecca, between al-Ghayl and al-Saʿd." If it had followed the common usage, the syntax would have been: "The believer, the birds, the refuge-seekers." Similar is his saying: "Had I been a possessor of prowess and a possessor of refinement, I would not have feared the intensity of the vicious wolf."

In the nominative recitation, it is permissible for the Majestic Name to be the subject (mubtada’), and the Almighty’s saying: "(to Whom belongs) - meaning in possession and dominion - (what is in the heavens and what is in the earth)" is its predicate. However, the former (treating it as an attribute) is preferable, for there is a perfection of grandeur regarding the status of the "Path," and a manifestation of the necessity of its traversal by people in the attribute construction, which is not found in the predicate construction.

The meaning of "what is in the heavens and what is in the earth" is that which is found within them or outside of them, yet established within them. Some people have used the generality of "what" (mā) as evidence that the actions of servants are created by Him (the Almighty), as mentioned by the Imam.

And the Almighty’s saying: (And woe to the disbelievers) is a threat to those who disbelieved in the Book and did not emerge through it from darkness into light. "Woe" (wayl) is, according to some, the opposite of "wa’l" (with a hamzah), meaning salvation; thus, its meaning is destruction. It is a verbal noun (maṣdar) from which no verb is derived. It is only said: "Waylan lahu" (Woe to him), using the accusative case typical of verbal nouns, then it is raised to the nominative case to indicate the meaning of permanence. So, it is said: "Waylun lahu" (Woe to him), like "Salāmun ʿalayka" (Peace be upon you).

Al-Rāghib said: Al-Aṣmaʿī said, "Wayl is disgrace." It is sometimes used for lamentation, "Wais" for belittlement, and "Wayḥ" for compassion. As for those who said: "It is a valley in Hell," they did not mean it is linguistically established for that; rather, they meant that whoever the Almighty says this about has deserved a place in the Fire, and that has been established for him.

His saying (the Almighty): (from a severe punishment) is in the position of an attribute to "Woe," and the separation by the predicate—according to what is in al-Baḥr and others—is not harmful. It is permissible for it to be in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl), according to what is in the al-Ḥawāshī al-Shihābiyyah. "Min" (from) is explanatory (bayāniyyah). It is also permitted that it be initial (ibtidā’iyyah), in the sense that the "woe" (meaning the absence of salvation) is connected to and arises from the severe punishment. It is said that the prepositional phrase is connected to "Woe," meaning that they will wail from the punishment and clamor from it, saying, "Oh, woe to us!" like His saying: "They will call out there for destruction." Abū Ḥayyān and Abū al-Baqā’ forbade this because it contains a separation between the verbal noun and its operative agent by the predicate, which is not permitted.

What relates to this has passed recently in (Sūrah) al-Raʿd, so remember it; what is in the covenant is from the past. In al-Kashshāf, it is stated that "from a severe punishment" and so on is connected to the "Woe," in the sense that they will wail... until the end of what we mentioned. This is plausible both as a connection to it and as a connection to a deleted element, and this was considered stronger in al-Baḥr.

In al-Kashf, it states that when al-Zamakhsharī saw that "Woe" is from the sins, not from the punishment—as indicated by His saying (the Almighty): "Woe to them for what their hands have written" and similar verses—he indicated here that the connection is semantic, not from that angle. For there, he treated the "Woe" as the punishment itself, while here he treated it as their utterance of the word of lamentation due to the severity of the punishment. Both are correct, and he did not mean that there is a separation there by a predicate, due to the proximity of what passed in His saying (the Almighty): "Peace be upon you for what you patiently endured."

It was objected to this by saying that there is no need for the mentioned fabrication, for its connection to it is manifest and does not need to be diverted to the utterance of that word. The "min" is explanatory, not initial, so there is no need for what was mentioned. The strength of this is not hidden, and it does not require such fabrication. If "min" is considered initial, then contemplate it. The manifest meaning is that what is intended by the "severe punishment" is the punishment of the Hereafter. It is also permissible that the intended meaning is a punishment that befalls them in this world.