Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:112

"And Allah presents an example: a city" — meaning the people of a city. This is either by way of using the word 'city' to refer to its inhabitants, or by implying a genitive construction (i.e., ahlu qaryatin - inhabitants of a city). It is in the accusative case as the first object of the verb daraba (presents/strikes), based on the verb being imbued with the meaning of ja'ala (to make/designate). It was placed at the end so that the second object would not intervene between the described (the city) and its description, and what follows from it. Delaying it to the end is not detrimental; rather, it contributes to the symmetry and cohesion of the magnificent structure. Furthermore, delaying what should logically be presented creates a yearning in the soul for its arrival—especially when what precedes it invites such curiosity—so that its impact is maximized upon arrival.

Al-Zajjaj held that the accusative case is due to substitution (badal), whereby the original structure was daraba Allahu mathala qaryatin, then the genitive (mudaf) was omitted and the noun in the genitive case (mudaf ilayh) took its place. The "city" here refers either to a specific, actual city from the cities of those who came before, or a hypothetical one; the existence of the object being compared to is not strictly necessary. Abu Hayyan did not permit this interpretation because of the phrase "and there came to them a messenger from among them," though you are aware that this is not a preventive factor.

Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Abbas and Mujahid that it refers to Mecca. This has also been narrated from Ibn Zayd, Qatadah, and Atiyah. Ibn Abi Hatim and others extracted from Salim ibn Umar, who said: I reached Hafsa, the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), as she was leaving Mecca for Medina, and she was informed that Uthman had been killed. She returned and said, "Take me back! For by the One in Whose hand is my soul, it is the city of which Allah, the Exalted, spoke," and she recited the verse. Perhaps she meant that it is like that city. It is possible to interpret what was narrated from the "Sage of the Ummah" (Ibn Abbas) and those with him in this light. The meaning is that Allah, the Exalted, made it an example for the people of Mecca, or for every people whom Allah blessed, but they became insolent due to the blessing and committed what they committed, and thus were punished for what they did. The people of Mecca are included in this as a primary instance. This is perhaps the preferred interpretation.

(Kaanat aminatan): It is said: possessed of security, whereby that which necessitates fear does not befall it—as it befalls some other cities—such as the raiding of evildoers and the intent to afflict them. (Mutma'innatan): Calm, settled, and stable; nothing occurs therein that necessitates agitation, as happens in some cities where strife breaks out among their inhabitants and they turn against one another. Such places are rarely secure from the raids of a wicked person, and it is far-fetched to find two sincere friends therein: "A man fears his father and his son, and in it, his brother and neighbor betray him."

It is said that one understands from the words of some that "tranquility" (itmi'nan) is the effect and consequence of "security" (amn), in that fear necessitates agitation and contradicts tranquility. In Al-Bahr, it is stated that it is an intensification of security. (Ya'tiha rizquha): Its provisions. (Raghadan): Abundant. (Min kulli makan): From all its surroundings.

The style of this description changes from what preceded it to what you see, because the coming of provision is a renewable event, whereas its being "secure and tranquil" is a fixed and continuous state. The Imam mentioned that the verse includes three blessings, summarized by the saying: "Three things that have no end: security, health, and sufficiency." Aminatan points to security; mutma'innatan points to health; and ya'tiha rizquha points to sufficiency. He made the cause of tranquility the suitability of the land’s air to the temperaments of its inhabitants, though this is a point requiring reflection.

(Fakafarat bi-an'umi Allahi): The plural of ni'mah (blessing). It is like shiddah (severity) and ashudd (more severe) regarding the omission of the ta (feminine marker), because the standard rule for the plural of fi'lah is fi'al, not fi'al (without the ta). The learned Yemeni said: It is a collective noun for ni'mah. Qutrub considered it the plural of ni'am with a damma on the nun, like bu's and ab'us. Ni'am according to him means "bounties" (na'im). The saying "This is a day of tu'm and ni'am" (food and bounties) is interpreted in this way. According to others, it means "blessing." The intended meaning here is what the verse previously contained. Perhaps it is equivalent to "many blessings," or rather, it is exactly that. In choosing the plural of paucity (an'um), there is an indication that the rejection of few blessings necessitated this torment; what then would you think of the rejection of many blessings?

(Fa-adhaqaha Allahu libasa al-ju'i wa al-khawfi): He likened the effect of hunger and fear and the damage that overcomes them to a garment (libas), based on the commonality of encompassing and covering. Hence, its name was borrowed for them. He used the verb "made them taste" (adhaqaha), which is metaphorically used for "inflicting" (isabah). It was chosen to indicate the intensity of the effect, which would be lost if "inflicted" were used. They explained the relation by saying that the perception of the effect of the harm is likened to the perception of the taste of bitter, repulsive food—this being from the category of borrowing a sensory term for an intellectual one, since internal sensations are placed alongside intellectual ones. The same is said for the former (the garment). Because of the commonality of using "tasting" for this and its frequent flow upon tongues, it has come to function like a literal expression. For this reason, applying it to "garment" is considered tajrid (stripping). Indeed, tajrid only becomes elegant or valid with a literal meaning or a widespread metaphor attached to it. Therefore, there is no difference in this regard between "He made it taste it" and "He afflicted it with it." He did not say "He clothed it" in order to prefer the reinforcement (tarshih), so as not to lose the effect and perception—and the "tasting" of hunger—that the word idhaqah provides, due to the garment's indication of encompassment.

The author of Al-Miftah interpreted the garment as the alteration of color and the shabbiness of appearance that accompany hunger and fear. In this case, the metaphor is from the category of sensory for sensory. What was mentioned first is more appropriate, as "tasting" holds a position that "affliction" does not, and "affliction" is more eloquent in its position.

It is reported from the scholars that the word "garment" for them is takhayyul (imaginary metaphor). This is explained by likening hunger and fear in their impact to a wearer of a garment who intends to exert influence and overdoes it, thus an image is invented for it—like a garment—and its name is applied to it. This was objected to on the grounds that it does not align with the eloquence of the Great Qur'an, because when hunger is likened to an influencer who is intentional and perfect in what he undertakes, it is appropriate to invent an image that is an instrument for the influence, not the image of a garment that has no role in it. It was countered that the author of Al-Miftah holds that the imaginary metaphor is used for an imaginary matter that the speaker imagines to be similar to its literal meaning. Thus, if "garment" is an imaginary metaphor, it is permissible that the intended meaning is something that encompasses hunger just as a garment encompasses, such as drought, and encompasses fear, such as the surrounding of an enemy. Therefore, his statement regarding it being an image of a garment that has no role in the influence is groundless. The assertion that it is incompatible with the agent unless an instrument for the influence is mentioned is not something any of the scholars have stated, nor is it necessary to commit to it in every situation. Do you not see that if you said, "The distance of the poem—he kept traveling it until he descended at its door," likening praise to a traveler who has a distance fixed for him as an imaginary metaphor, and what follows is reinforcement—that would be a beautiful metaphor, and its companion is not an instrument for that agent, but rather one of its concomitants? Similar instances abound in the speech of the eloquent.

You know that this, despite what it contains, does not—according to correct imagination—yield a distinction between what was narrated from the scholars and what was mentioned first, nor does it equal it. It is well-known that in "garment," there are two metaphors: explicit (tasrihiyyah) and implied (makniyyah). This is explained by the fact that what overcomes a person during panic and fear, in terms of the impact of the harm, is likened to a garment in terms of encompassment, so its name is borrowed for it. In terms of aversion, it is likened to a bitter, repulsive taste. Thus, it is an explicit metaphor when looking at the former, and an implied metaphor when looking at the latter, with the "tasting" being the imaginary aspect. This is a well-known debate among students. It is permissible that "garment of hunger" is like "a garment of water" (i.e., a body of water), meaning Allah made them taste the hunger which, in its encompassment, is like a garment. The first interpretation is also more appropriate. Similar to this is the saying of Katheer: "He is generous of cloak (rida); when he smiles laughing, the necks of wealth are closed [by his spending]." He borrowed "cloak" for generosity because it protects the honor of its owner just as a cloak protects what is thrown over it, and he added "generous" to it, which in describing generosity is a metaphor that has come to function like a literal meaning, its origin being ghamrah—the depth and abundance of water.

The precedence of "hunger," which arises from the loss of provision, over "fear," which results from the loss of the security that was mentioned before the coming of provision, is because it is more appropriate for "tasting," or out of consideration for the comparison between that and the coming of provision.

In the codex of Ubayy, it is "garment of fear and hunger," with fear preceding it. Abdullah (Ibn Mas'ud) recited it similarly, though he did not mention the garment; Abu Hayyan considered this an exegesis, not a recitation. Al-Abbas narrated from Abu Amr that he recited "and fear" (wa al-khawfa) in the accusative case as a conjunction to "garment." Al-Zamakhshari made it based on the omission of a genitive, meaning: "the garment of fear."

The author of Al-Lawami' said: It is permissible for its accusative case to be due to an implied verb. In contrasting what preceded with hunger and fear alone, there is an indication that the loss of security and tranquility is like a single thing; otherwise, the explicit form would have been: "Allah made them taste the garment of hunger, fear, and agitation." (Bima kanu yasna'un): Concerning what they did before, or by way of continuity, meaning the disbelief mentioned. "Ma" is a relative pronoun with the referent omitted, meaning yasna'unahu (what they were doing). It is also permissible for it to be an infinitive particle, with the "ba" in both cases denoting causality. As for the two pronouns (in yadhua'un), it is said they refer to the "inhabitants" implied as the genitive to the city, after the previous pronouns had returned to the word "city" itself. It is also said they return to the city, intending its inhabitants.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, he attributed what was mentioned to the inhabitants of the city to confirm the matter, after attributing the disbelief to the city itself and directing the "tasting" to it for the sake of hyperbole. In this craftsmanship, there is an indication that the disbelief of the act was a deep-rooted habit for them and a practiced custom.