Tafsir of Al-Hijr 15:13

The pronoun [in bihi] refers back to the Dhikr (the Reminder/the Qur’an). The sentence occupies the position of a state (hal) of the object of naslukuhu (We insert it). That is, they do not believe in it. This state is either intended to be concurrent or simultaneous, in the sense that the insertion occurred after their disbelief without interruption, making them effectively simultaneous in common usage. It is also permissible for this to be an explanatory statement (bayan) for the preceding clause, in which case it has no grammatical position. The author of al-Kashf states: "This is the most sound view, because the method of obscuration followed by explanation—especially in this context—is what gives the speech its majestic impact."

In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, it is noted that the pronoun in naslukuhu has been assigned to "mockery" (istihza), which is understood from yastahzi’un (they mock). Consequently, the explanatory nature of the clause becomes definite. However, if the pronoun in bihi is also assigned to that same mockery—with the ba’ indicating concomitance—it would mean: "We insert mockery into their hearts while they are in a state of not believing, due to the presence of [that very] mockery."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah favored the permissibility of referring both pronouns to "mockery," though he interpreted the ba’ as indicating causality. The honorable al-Jalabi held the same view. It is evident that the former view renders the refutation of this unnecessary. Al-Baydawi held that the first pronoun refers to "mockery" while the pronoun in bihi refers to the Dhikr. Diversifying consecutive pronouns to refer to different things, when evidence points to it, is not unprecedented in the Qur’an. Under this interpretation, he permitted the sentence to be a state (hal) of the "criminals" (al-mujrimin), and it is not strictly required to be a state of the pronoun, thereby making its return to the Dhikr necessary. He argued that returning it to "mockery" does not contradict the clause being explanatory; rather, it strengthens it, as lack of belief in the Dhikr is more suited to the firm establishment of mockery in their hearts. He used the verse as evidence that Allah creates falsehood in their hearts, thereby refuting the Mu'tazila, who claimed that such an act is "ugly" (qabih) and therefore cannot proceed from Him, Exalted is He. It appears that he—may Allah have mercy on him—suspected that al-Zamakhshari’s act of assigning both pronouns to the Dhikr was to protect his own theological school, so he acted accordingly. It is not hidden that this strikes the heart of the matter, though he neglected the principle: "When a proof is visited by possibility, the demonstration is invalidated."

In al-Kashf, following a discussion, it is stated that if the pronoun refers to mockery or disbelief, then—notwithstanding the discordance in the structure—the Mu'tazila would not deny it, just as they do not deny the "insertion of the Dhikr with the attribute of denial and interpretation." They seem to have neglected what Jarallah [al-Zamakhshari] mentioned in [Surah] al-Shu'ara', where he answered the question regarding the attribution of the insertion of the Dhikr with that attribute to Himself, the Majestic and Exalted, by stating that it means its firm establishment in their hearts while they deny it—as if it were something they were fashioned upon. He summarized the meaning here as: Allah casts it into their hearts as a rejected thing, not that the denial itself is His action.

Indeed, Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Anas and al-Hasan the interpretation of the pronoun in naslukuhu as referring to shirk (polytheism). He and Ibn Jarir also recorded from Ibn Zayd that he said regarding the verse: "They are as Allah, the Exalted, said: 'He misguides them and prevents them.' But this is one matter, and what we are discussing is another."

Some objected to the pronoun returning to the Dhikr on the grounds that the "Nun of Majesty" (nun al-‘azamah) does not suit this, for it is only appropriate when the act of the Exalted One is one that shows a powerful effect, which is not the case here—as there is contention and dispute regarding it. The answer given is that when the context is one of rebuke, this is appropriate. It does not follow that the majesty must be based on coercion and subjugation; it may be based on gentleness and favor. Al-Shihab followed this up by saying: "It is not hidden that [interpreting it] based on coercion and subjugation requires that it effect their hearts, which is not the case, given their lack of belief in it. Similarly, based on gentleness and favor, it would require that inserting it into their hearts be a blessing upon them; thus, there is no blessing in what warrants wrath. Therefore, what was mentioned has no basis."

You know that if the intended meaning is the insertion and establishment of that into their hearts while they reject it, then the attribution being based on coercion and subjugation is something upon which no two rams should butt heads. The powerful, manifest effect of this is their remaining in disbelief and their insistence upon error, even if every sign were to come to them. It is not hidden that in kadhallika (thus) there is that which also suits the Nun of Majesty, and attention has been drawn to this more than once.

(And there has passed [khalat]—that is, departed—the way [sunnah] of the ancients [al-awwalin].)

The intended meaning is the habit of Allah, the Exalted, regarding them, based on the addition being for the closest connection, not that the addition implies "in." The intent of that habit—on the assumption that the pronoun in naslukuhu refers to mockery—is abandonment and the insertion of disbelief into their hearts. That is, His habit, may He be exalted and glorified, has already passed regarding the ancients to whom messengers were sent: that He abandons them and inserts disbelief and mockery into their hearts. On the assumption that it refers to the Dhikr, it refers to destruction.

This is the position of al-Zamakhshari, meaning: the path they followed, which Allah established in their destruction when they denied their messengers and what was sent down to them. He mentioned that this is a threat to the people of Mecca for their denial. Al-Zajjaj went toward the first [interpretation], and the Imam claimed it is the most appropriate for the literal wording. Al-Tibi explained this by saying: "The definite article in 'the criminals' is for remembrance, and it refers to the deniers from the people of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, because they are the ones mentioned afterward. That is: just like that insertion which We inserted into the hearts of those mockers who denied the past messengers, We insert it into the hearts of these criminals. You have an example in the past messengers with their denying nations, and you are not singular in this."

"And there has passed the way of the ancients"—the context requires confirmation and emphasis, so there is extra consolation for the Messenger, peace be upon him. The [interpretation of it as a] threat is remote because there has been no prior mention of the destruction of nations, and the preference for this [meaning] is because it is closer to the school of the Mu'tazila.

[He] is in a state of neglect regarding al-Zamakhshari’s intent. The author of al-Kashf has grasped this, and may Allah, the Exalted, reward him, where he said: "He intended that the position of 'And there has passed,' to the end, is the position of the goal in [Surah] al-Shu'ara', meaning the saying of the Exalted, there: 'Until they see the painful punishment.' For when they were likened to them, it was said: 'They do not believe,' and those before them had perished and did not believe, so likewise are these." From this, it appears that the speech according to this interpretation is highly consistent. As for [the claim] that the threat is remote due to the lack of prior mention of the destruction of nations, the word "way" (sunnah), when added to what it is added to, heralds that in the strongest manner. Furthermore, the intent is not a threat according to what we have established. Some eminent scholars have also stated that the sentence is an independent inception (isti’nafiyyah) brought to complete the consolation and to declare the threat and warning. Furthermore, what al-Zamakhshari held regarding the meaning of "way" is narrated from Qatada; Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others recorded from him that he said regarding the verse: "The acts of Allah, the Exalted, have passed regarding those who passed away of the nations." And from Ibn Abbas, that the meaning is their way in denial. Perhaps the addition, according to this, is upon its literal [meaning].