Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:64

The consistency of this interpretation with the statement of the Exalted—"That He may make clear to them that wherein they differ"—and with His saying—"And We revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to the people what was revealed to them"—is evident. In this lies the implication that whoever attains guidance through this clarification has no need of that [former] clarification, for it would not benefit him except through the knowledge of its falsehood; and this is more appropriate for the composition of the structure.

You know that the probability of it being a conjunction is remote. "The Book" refers to the Quran, for it is the one truly deserving of this name. The exception is mufarragh (vacant) from the most general of causes; meaning: We have not revealed it to you for any cause whatsoever, except that you may make clear to them that wherein they have differed regarding the Resurrection—for there were those among them who believed in it—as well as matters of lawfulness, affirmation, and denial. The necessity of the previous pronouns referring to the former nations suggests that the pronouns in "to them" and "they have differed" should also refer to them; however, the impossibility of clarifying what they differed about for them [the former nations] prevents this. Thus, some have made it refer to the Quraysh, since the discussion concerns them, while others have made it refer to all people, as it is not exclusive to the Quraysh, though they are included primarily.

He specified them by mention because they are the ones who benefit from its effects. Regarding the two nouns [guidance and mercy], Abu Hayyan said: They are in the position of the accusative as maf'ul li-ajlihi (objects for which an action is done), and the one causing the accusative is "We revealed." Since the actor in the cause and the effect were one, the verb connected to them directly; but since they were not one in "that you may make clear"—for the actor of the revealing is Allah, not the Messenger—the cause was connected via the preposition.

Al-Zamakhshari said: They are both conjoined to the position of "that you may make clear." This is not correct, because its position is not in the accusative so that an accusative could be conjoined to it; do you not see that if it were in the accusative, it would not be permissible due to the difference in the actors?

This was challenged by the argument that the meaning of it being in the position of the accusative is that it is in a position where, were it stripped of impediments, its accusative state would appear, and it is such here for one who contemplates. Thus, his saying "It is not correct because its position is not in the accusative" is not as it should be.

Al-Halabi said: That is forbidden, as there is no disagreement that the position of the prepositional phrase is the accusative. This is why they permitted "I passed by Zayd and [by] 'Amr," by conjoining to the position. Al-Khafaji has a discourse here, if you desire it, refer to it and review it. Perhaps the cause of clarification was placed before the causes of guidance and mercy because it precedes them in existence.