Tafsir of Al-Kahf 18:33

"Each of the two gardens brought forth its produce" (i.e., its fruits, and reached a level suitable for consumption).

"Kiltā" (كلتا) is a noun singular in wording and dual in meaning according to the Basrans—which is the well-known school of thought—and dual in both wording and meaning according to the Baghdadis. According to Sibawayh, its "tā" (ت) is a transformation of a "wāw" (و), such that its root is "kulwā" (كلوى), and the alif is for the feminine. It is argued against this that its declension by letters, under its conditions, poses a problem; the response to this is the same as the response to the difficulty regarding the five nouns.

According to al-Jarmi, the alif and lam are transformed from their origin, and the "tā" is an added feminine marker. It is objected that there is no morphological pattern of "fa‘tal" (فعتل), and that a "tā" does not occur as a middle radical nor after a sound quiescent consonant.

According to the famous view, it is permissible in its pronoun to observe either its wording or its meaning. The former has been observed here, and the latter will be observed subsequently. In the codex of ‘Abdullah, it reads: (Kullu al-jannatayn āta)—in the masculine form—because the feminine of "al-jannatayn" (the two gardens) is figurative. Then, it read (ātat), feminine, because it is a feminine pronoun, and there is no difference between real and figurative feminine here; the structure is analogous to your saying, "The sun rose (tala‘a) and shone (ashraqat)." It is said that ‘Abdullah read (Kullu al-jannatayn āta akalahu), using the masculine, and returned the pronoun to "kull" (each).

"And did not withhold" (i.e., did not diminish) "from it" (i.e., from its produce) "anything." This is contrary to what is customary in other gardens, for fruits often increase in one year and decrease in another, and likewise, some trees produce fruits in some years but not in others. It is permissible that "tazlim" (تظلم) be transitive, with "shay'an" (شيئا) as its direct object; the outcome is the same.

"And We caused to gush forth between them a river" (i.e., in between the two gardens) for the sake of the permanence of their irrigation and the increase of their splendor. Yahya ibn Abi ‘Amr al-Shaybani said: This river is that which is known as the River of Abi Furtus, and it is—according to what Ibn Abi Hatim said—a famous river in Ramla. It is said the meaning is: We caused to gush forth between each of the two gardens a river separately, so there are two rivers according to this view; it is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning.

The emphasis in "fajjarna" (فجرنا) is said to be for the exaggeration of the extent of the gushing. Al-Farra’ said: It is because the river is extended, as if it were multiple rivers. Al-A‘mash, Salam, Ya‘qub, and ‘Isa ibn ‘Umar read it as "fajarna" (فجرنا) with the light form, following the root. Abu al-Sumal, al-‘Ayyad ibn Ghazwan, and Talhah ibn Sulayman read "nahran" (نهرا) with the "hā" quiescent, which is an established dialect for it and its analogs.

Perhaps the mention of the gushing was delayed after the mention of the bringing forth of produce—even though the external order is the reverse—to signal the independence of each, the bringing forth of the produce and the gushing of the river, in perfecting the beauties of the gardens, as in the story of the cow and similar narratives. Had it been reversed, it would have been understood that the whole was a single trait, some parts of which are consequential to others, for the bringing forth of produce is usually derivative of irrigation. There is an intimation here that the bringing forth of produce is not dependent upon irrigation, as in His, the Exalted’s, saying: "Its oil would almost glow," as stated by Shaykh al-Islam.