Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:66

(So We made it a punishment/deterrent): meaning their state of being, or the transformation, or the punishment, or the sign indicated by His saying, the Almighty: "And you have certainly known." It is said that the pronoun refers to the village, and it is said that it refers to the fish. An-nakal (punishment/deterrent) is singular, as the term nukkila bihi means that something is done to him by which others take heed, so they refrain from the likes of it.

(For what was before them and what was after them): meaning for their contemporaries and those who came after them. This is what is narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and others. It is also narrated from him that “ma” refers to the villages in their presence—meaning their inhabitants—and those far from them, or for those who come and those who go. This is the preferred view among a group, as both spatial terms are metaphorical for time. “Ma” (what) is used in place of “man” (who), either to belittle them in a context of Majesty and Pride, or to emphasize the attribute; for “ma” is used for rational beings when an attribute is intended for glorification, as in His saying: "Exalted is He who subjected these to us."

The validity of it being a (punishment) for those of the past is that it was mentioned in the scriptures of the ancients, so they took heed of it. The fa (so) is valid because making this a (punishment) for both groups is only realized after the decree and the transformation, or because the fa only denotes that the designation of the punishment as a "deterrent" follows the decree and is caused by it—whether regarding the individual himself or the report of it. Thus, it does not contradict the fact that taking heed occurred before this event took place due to hearing this story.

It is said: the lam is the lam of causality, and “ma” is taken literally, with nakal meaning punishment, not a warning. By "what was before them" is meant the sins that preceded the taking of the fish, and by "what was after them" is meant what followed it. The claim that the meaning is "We made the transformation a punishment for their sins that preceded the transformation and those that followed it" necessitates that they remain under obligation after the transformation, and that is not apparent except according to the opinion of Mujahid. Attributing the sins after the transformation to evil deeds whose traces remain is groundless, as is obvious.

The statement of Abu al-Aliyah that the meaning of "what was before them" is past sins, and "what was after them" is those who come later—rendering the meaning: "We made it a punishment for their past sins and a warning for those who come after"—is a very low-quality interpretation due to the excessive breakdown of the structure and artificiality involved.

(And a lesson for the righteous): The maw’izah (lesson/exhortation) is that which is mentioned to soften the heart, whether it be a reward or a punishment. "The righteous" refers to every righteous person from every nation, and Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—held this view. It is also said: from the nation of Muhammad, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him; and it is said: [specifically] from among them. It is possible they took heed of it and feared committing the opposite of what they were commanded to do, and it is possible that they exhorted one another with this event.

The portion of the Gnostic in this story is to know that Allah, Glory be to Him, created people for His worship and fashioned them such that if they were neglected, left alone, and abandoned to their natural dispositions, they would sink and immerse themselves in bodily pleasures and dark veils due to their necessity for them and their childhood habituation to them. The soul is like a child: if you neglect it, it grows up loving suckling, and if you wean it, it is weaned.

Thus, Allah the Almighty established acts of worship and mandated their repetition at specific times so that the filth of natural dispositions, accumulated during times of negligence, and the darkness of preoccupations that arise during times of committing desires, might be removed from them. He designated one day of the week for gathering for worship, removing the alienation of separation, and repelling the darkness of engagement in worldly affairs.

He set (the Sabbath) for the Jews because the world of the senses, to which the Jews are summoned, is the last of the worlds, and (the Sabbath) is the last of the week. Sunday is for the Christians because the world of the intellect, to which they are summoned, is the first of the worlds, and Sunday is the first of the week. Friday is for the Muslims because it is the day of gathering and completion, and thus it is more appropriate for them and more fitting for their state. Whoever does not observe these regulations and guardings at all loses the light of his capacity and the lamp of his heart is extinguished; he is transformed just as the People of the Sabbath were transformed.

Whoever is overcome by one of the traits of animals, and it becomes deeply rooted in him to the point that it removes his capacity and takes hold of his nature, becoming an essential form for him—like water whose source is a sulfur mine, for example—is called by the name of that animal, as if his nature had become its nature and his soul its soul. Therefore, a person must strive to preserve his humanity and manage his health with the draughts of Sharia medicines and the medicinal pastes of wisdom. Let him urge his soul with the exhortations of promise and threat; for the soul, if neglected, persists in baseness, and if it is spurred toward virtues, it yearns.