{ وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ اللَّهَ غَافِلًا عَمَّا يَعْمَلُ الظَّالِمُونَ }

The address is directed to everyone who might imagine His Exaltedness’s heedlessness. It is also said that it is directed to the Prophet (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), as is the immediate implication. The intent behind the prohibition is to confirm him (upon him be peace and prayer) in the state he already holds—that is, not to suppose that heedlessness could ever emanate from His Almighty Essence—just as in the verse: "{And do not invoke with Allah another deity, and do not be among the polytheists}," meaning: persist in that state. This is a metaphorical expression, similar to the verse: "{O you who have believed, believe}," and it signals that this type of supposition is something one must avoid to the utmost degree, to the extent that it is forbidden even to one for whom it is impossible to commit it.

It is permitted that the intent here, by way of metonymy or a two-tiered metaphor, is that of warning and threatening. The meaning would be: "Do not suppose that Allah (Exalted is He) leaves off punishing them due to His gentleness and generosity; rather, He will punish them for both the small and the great." It may also be an illustrative metaphor: "Do not suppose that He (Exalted is He) treats them with the treatment of one heedless of what they do, but rather with the treatment of a Watchful One who holds them accountable for the slightest trifle." Al-Zamakhshari alluded to these possibilities. The first view was criticized as being inappropriate for the station of Prophethood, because it is not imagined that he (upon him be peace and prayer) would fail to persist in his state of not supposing such things, in order for him to be confirmed in it. Yet, there is room for debate here. In al-Kashf, the view adopted is the first one, for there is a crudeness in attributing "heedlessness" to Him (Glorified be He)—even if it be metaphorical—that the Speech of Allah (Exalted is He) should be protected from. Regarding the metonymical interpretation, it requires looking at the whole, and a rational person would not dare to apply it to Him (Exalted be He). It is permissible for the first view to be a metaphor for the second level, by making the "absence of heedlessness" a metaphor for "knowledge," and then making that a metaphor for "warning"; however, this is unsound, as there is no contradiction in intending the literal meaning.

The safest path from such contention is what we mentioned first: that the address is for everyone who might imagine His (Glorified and Exalted be He) heedlessness, without reference to a specific person. This is what Abu Hayyan chose. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Uyaynah that this is a consolation for the oppressed and a threat to the oppressor. It was said to him, "Who said this?" He became angry and said, "Only one who knows [the Quran] could say it." This was reported in al-Kashshaf, and the author of al-Kashf considered it support for the view that the address is for no one in particular. It is permitted that it follows all the aforementioned views, for even if we assume the address is restricted to him (upon him be peace and prayer), it is not devoid of consolation for both groups. Ponder this.

The "wrongdoers" (al-zalimun) refers to the people of Mecca whose evil deeds were enumerated previously, or it refers to the genus of wrongdoers, with the former being included as a primary concern. According to al-Tibi, the verse returns to the preceding statement: "{Say, 'Enjoy yourselves,' and 'Say to My servants...'}" He preferred that it be a consolation for him (upon him be peace and prayer) and a threat to the wrongdoers in a general sense. Talha read it as wa la tahsab without the nun of emphasis.

{إِنَّمَا يُؤَخِّرُهُمْ} (He only delays them): meaning He grants them respite while they enjoy worldly pleasures and does not hasten their punishment. This is an incipient sentence acting as a justification for the previous prohibition; that is, "Do not suppose Allah (Exalted is He) is heedless of punishing their deeds due to the delay you see; rather, it is only for this wisdom." Attributing the delay to them, despite the fact that it is their punishment that is delayed, is said to be for the purpose of alarming and highlighting the gravity of the situation—to declare that they are directed toward the punishment and marked for a specific outcome, not that they remain by their own volition. It also indicates that their rightful due of punishment is total extermination, leaving behind neither trace nor remainder of them in existence. It also signals that the delayed matter is not just a part of the punishment, but its very essence; for if it were said "He only delays their punishment," that meaning might not be conveyed.

Al-Sulami, al-Hasan, al-A'raj, al-Mufaddal from ‘Asim, Yunus bin Habib from Abu ‘Amr, and others read it as {nukh-khiruhum} (We delay them) with the nun of majesty, which constitutes a shift in person (iltifat).

{لِيَوْمٍ} (for a day): a horrific day, {تَشْخَصُ فِيهِ الْأَبْصَارُ} (in which the eyes will stare in horror).

That is, the eyes of the people at the gathering place will remain fixed—and the wrongdoers mentioned earlier are included in this group primarily—meaning they will remain open, not blinking, as al-Raghib said, due to the terror of what they see. In al-Bahr, it is stated that "to stare" (shakhusa) is to look intensely without the gaze shifting. The apparent meaning of this lack of shifting is that it stems from shakhusa in the sense of a man leaving his land; since leaving necessitates that he does not remain there, or from shakhusa in the sense of someone being overcome by something that unsettles him, as stated in al-Asas.

Some construed the definite article (al) as referring back to the previously mentioned people (the definite set), as that is appropriate for what follows. This is the apparent implication of what is narrated from Qatada; ‘Abd bin Humayd and others reported from him that he said regarding this verse: "Their eyes will stare, by Allah, and will not return to them." Others preferred to interpret the al as general, saying it is more eloquent in creating terror, and it does not necessitate redundancy with some of the later attributes. We shall, God willing, address what has been said about that shortly.