Tafsir of Al-Hijr 15:39

(He said, "My Lord, because You have misled me"): That is, by virtue of Your misleading me.

(I will surely make [wrongdoing] attractive to them"): That is, I swear that I will make [it] attractive to them. The word "them" refers to his descendants, which is understood from the context even if they were not explicitly mentioned; this has been stated explicitly in the Almighty’s saying regarding the accursed one: "I will surely bring his descendants under my sway [by destruction or temptation]." The object of "I will make attractive" is omitted, meaning: [I will make] sins attractive.

(In the earth): That is, this low-lying, solid mass. It is as if the accursed one pointed through this to the idea that: "If I was capable of deception against Adam and making the eating from the tree attractive to him in the heavens, then I am more capable of making things attractive to his descendants on the earth." It is also permissible that by "the earth" he meant the worldly life, because it is the location of its luxuries and its abode. Some have mentioned that this meaning is conventional for "the earth," and that it was mentioned with this term to belittle it. Perhaps the restriction—based on what has been said—is to indicate that temptation has a place that strengthens its acceptance; meaning, "I will surely make sins attractive to them in this world, which is the abode of delusion." It is also permitted that the preposition "in" bears this meaning, and the verb is treated as transitive, then coupled with "in." In this, there is an indication that the earth is the resting place of temptation, and that the object contained is firmly settled in its container, similar to the saying of Dhu al-Rummah: "If you offer an excuse by the place from which their udders are milked to the guest, it will wound his heels [as we slaughter them]." The meaning is: I will beautify the world and make it attractive to them so that they become preoccupied with it, away from the Hereafter.

It is also permitted to consider the "ba" (in "bima") as a particle of oath, and "ma" as a particle denoting the infinitive (masdariyyah); meaning: "I swear by Your misleading of me, I will surely make [sin] attractive." His swearing by the Might of Allah, which is interpreted as His authority and subdual, does not contradict his swearing by this, for [the misleading] is a branch of His branches and an effect of His effects; perhaps he swore by both, so at one time he narrated his oath by this, and at another by that. Some claimed that the causal meaning is more appropriate because it occurred in another place: "By Your Might," and the story is one, and there is no reason to assume two separate dialogues. Furthermore, swearing by "misleading" is not a conventional practice. End quote. There is an obvious flaw in this, for his saying "By Your Might" also admits to being an oath. Al-Tayyibi has explicitly stated that according to the Shafi'i school, swearing by Might and Majesty is legally an oath. Thus, the verse, according to the claimant, is not for him [to support his argument]. Yes, his claim that swearing by "misleading" is unconventional is accepted, and in my view, this is sufficient to prefer the causal interpretation. Because it is unconventional and devoid of any sign of glorification, swearing by it is not considered a legal oath; for those who say that an oath by one of His attributes is binding stipulate that it must imply glorification and be conventionally recognized as such.

Regarding the attribution of "misleading" to the Almighty without denial from Him—the Almighty—there is the position that evil, like good, is from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. The Mu'tazila interpreted this away, saying: The meaning is attribution to error, like "I called him corrupt" (fassaqtuhu), attributing him to corruption, not that I committed corruption. Or, the meaning is: "He performed a good action for him, which led him due to his own wickedness to error," as He commanded him to prostrate and he refused and grew arrogant, or that He led him astray from the path to Paradise and abandoned guiding him or showing him favor. They offered excuses for Allah giving him respite, even though it leads to ugly misleading, by stating that Allah knew he and those who followed him would die in disbelief and end up in the Fire, whether respite was granted or not, and that in granting respite, there is an opportunity for those who oppose him to deserve a greater reward.

And you know that in granting respite to Iblis—may he be cursed—and enabling him to mislead and giving him power over the majority of the children of Adam, there is that which rejects the principle of "the obligation of observing the most beneficial" (al-aslah), which is famous among the Mu'tazila. Furthermore, whoever claims that a wise man or anyone else would confine people in a house and send into it a great fire and many deadly snakes, and did not want to harm any of those people by burning or stinging, has departed from human nature. Consequently, what human nature dictates is that Allah, the Exalted, intended by granting respite to lead some people astray. So glorified is He, a God who does whatever He wills and judges whatever He desires.

Some Mu'tazila clung to interpreting the aforementioned as [an implication of] His saying: "I will surely mislead them," since it indicates that misleading is his act, so it should not be attributed to Allah. The reply is that the intended meaning here is "to incite toward error," not "to create it," and interpreting the subsequent based on the antecedent is more appropriate than the reverse. In summary, the weakness of the argument is evident, so it does not serve as a valid hold for them.

(All together): That is, all of them; it is solely for the purpose of encompassing [the entire group] here.