Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:118-119

"And you shall not be afflicted by the sun." It is said: dahā (to be struck by the sun), like kasā (to clothe), and dahā like ridā (to be pleased)—they use the forms dahwā or dahyā when one is struck by the sun. It is also said dahā, dahwan, dahwan, and dahyan when one is exposed to it. Note the verse of ‘Amr ibn Abi Rabi‘ah: "She saw a man who, when the sun moved towards the meridian, is exposed to it (faydha)—but in the evening, he feels the cold (yakhasuru)." Some have interpreted the daha in the verse accordingly, and the first interpretation is narrated from ‘Ikrimah. In any case, the intent is the negation of being without shelter.

This sentence serves as a justification for what the prohibition (against eating from the tree) necessitates. Indeed, the gathering of the causes of comfort in the Garden is what necessitates the utmost concern in securing the elements of remaining there, and the diligence in refraining from that which leads to expulsion from it. The reason for departing from explicitly stating that he—peace be upon him—would enjoy the various pleasures of food and drink, and the delight of splendid garments and agreeable dwellings—despite the obvious enticement to remain there—to instead mention the negation of their opposites (hunger, thirst, nakedness, and exposure to the sun) is to remind one of those detested states and to alert one to the types of misery therein, which the Almighty warned him against, so that he might exert himself to the utmost in avoiding the cause that leads to them.

The meaning of "You shall not hunger," etc., is that none of the four things shall affect him at all. For satiety, hydration, clothing, and shelter might be obtained after the occurrence of their opposites, but the matter in the Garden is not so; rather, whenever a desire or inclination for any of these things arises, one enjoys it without it ever reaching the point of necessity. Furthermore, the enticement was already achieved by what was permitted to him—the enjoyment of everything in it except for the tree, as stated by the Almighty: "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in the Garden and eat from it in ease and abundance wherever you wish." Mention of this was omitted here, being satisfied with what was stated of the enticement which contains the warning.

Some said that the limitation to what was mentioned is because of what occurred in the question posed by Adam, peace be upon him. It is narrated that when the Almighty commanded him to dwell in the Garden, he said: "My Lord, shall I have in it what I may eat? Shall I have in it what I may wear? Shall I have in it what I may drink? Shall I have in it that which provides me shade?" And he was answered with what was mentioned—though there is doubt in the heart regarding the authenticity of this report.

The reason for specifying him, peace be upon him, with what was mentioned is what was passed earlier. It is said that it is because he was the one asking. While it appears that there should be no separation between hunger/thirst and nakedness/exposure (due to their homogeneity and proximity), one moved from the obvious association to a more perfect one: hunger is an emptiness of the interior, and nakedness is an emptiness of the exterior; so it is as if it were said: "Your interior and exterior shall not be devoid of what concerns them." He combined thama’ (thirst), which causes interior heat, and exposure to the sun (daha), which causes exterior heat; so it is as if it were said: "The heat of the interior and the exterior shall not afflict you." This is a subtle connection and one of the wonderful secrets of rhetoric.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that the shift to [the form] wa-annaka (and that you...) serves to alert one that satiety and clothing are foundational, while the other two are completions, in that order; thus, the grace is more apparent in this manner. For this reason, a distinction was made between the two pairs: it was said first "Indeed for you (inna laka)..." and secondly "Indeed you (innaka)..." This was also mentioned by the scholar al-Tayyibi, who then said: "In the arrangement of the four mentioned items, they are placed in order of importance, then in making them an elaboration of the Almighty’s words: 'So let them not drive you both out of the Garden, so that you suffer,' and the repetition of the word 'therein' (fihā)—while keeping it in the form of negation—is to allude to the conditions of the world and that one must inevitably endure them 'therein' (the world), for it was created for that, while the Garden was not created except for luxury, and nothing else can be conceived within it."

In al-Intisaf, it is mentioned that there is a wonderful secret of rhetoric in the verse called "cutting the similar from the similar" (qat‘ al-nazir ‘an al-nazir). The purpose is to verify the count of these favors; had each been paired with its like, the two paired items might have been imagined as a single favor. The scholars of rhetoric have observed this meaning anciently and recently. [The poet] al-Kindi the First said: "As if I had not ridden a stallion for pleasure, nor enjoyed a maid with anklets, nor sipped the overflowing wineskin, nor said to my horses: 'Attack, attack after a flight.'" He severed the riding of the stallion from his saying to his horses: "Attack," and he severed the intimacy with the maid from the sipping of the cup, despite the similarity, for his purpose was to count his delights and glories and to multiply them. Another Kindi followed him and said: "I stood—and there is no doubt in death if I stood—as if you were in the eyelid of doom while it is asleep. Heroes pass by you, wounded and defeated, while your face is smiling and your mouth is laughing." Sayf al-Dawla objected to him for cutting the thing from its like... and in the verse, there is a secret for that also, in addition to what was mentioned, which is the intention of the harmony of the endings (fawasil).

Regarding the first two verses, it might be said that he combined riding horses for pleasure and the park, and the intimacy of the maid for the pleasure obtained in them, and he combined the sipping of the wine and his saying to his horses "Attack" for the courage they contain. Then, the aforementioned intention of the harmony of the endings in the verse is apparent, for had he departed from this order, it would not have been achieved—and that is not conceded.

Shaybah, Nafi‘, Hafs, and Ibn Sa‘dan read annaka with a kasra on the hamza, while the majority read it with a fatha, based on it being a conjunction to an la taju‘a. It is in the interpretation of a source (masdar) as the noun of anna. The validity of the occurrence of that which is preceded by the fatha-anna as a noun for the kasra-anna—despite their sharing in conveying verification—exists because the impossibility of it occurring as its predicate is due to the fact that the warned-against gathering of two verification particles in one substance does not exist here, due to the difference in the basis of verification in their respective spheres. This is unlike if it were to occur as a predicate, for the unity of the basis of verification then is beyond doubt. He explained, according to what is in Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, that each of the two particles is set for verifying the content of the predicative sentence formed from its noun and predicate. It is not hidden that the reference of its predicativity is the ruling contained within it, and that its basis is the predicate, not the noun. Thus, the meaning of each of them is the verification of the establishment of its predicate for its noun, not the establishment of its noun in itself. Therefore, the necessity of the occurrence of the sentence beginning with the fatha-anna as a noun for the kasra-anna is the verification of the establishment of its predicate for that sentence interpreted as a source. As for the verification of its establishment in itself, that is the meaning of the fatha-anna. Thus, the gathering of two verification particles in one substance is not required at all. The reason it is not permitted to say 'inna anna zaydan qa'im haqqun' (Indeed that Zayd is standing is true), despite the difference in the basis, is because they conditioned the separation by the predicate... to avoid the appearance of the gathering. The conjunctive waw, even if it is a deputy for the kasra-anna (which is prevented from entering after the fatha-anna without separation), and stands in its place in conveying its meaning and applying its rulings to its object, yet since it is not a particle set for verification, no gathering of two verification particles is required at all. So the meaning is: "Indeed for you is the absence of hunger, the absence of nakedness, and the absence of thirst," except that he did not limit himself to stating that what is established for him is the absence of thirst absolutely, as he did with its conjoined equivalent, but he intended to state that what is established for him is the verification of the absence of them both. So he placed in the position of the purely source-oriented particle an that which is [the particle anna] which signifies it, as if it were said: "Indeed for you therein is the absence of your thirst, upon verification." This is the end.

And it requires, concerning this, an explanation of the point in not limiting [the expression] to stating that what is established for him is the absence of thirst absolutely, as he did for its conjoined equivalent. So reflect, and do not be heedless.

It is said that the waw, even if it is a deputy for an here, is observed after the laka which is present after the an for which it substituted, so there is a separator there, and entering is not prevented with it. It is as you see. It is not hidden from you that the conjunction upon the reading of the kasra is upon the first an with its components, not upon its noun, and there is no discussion in that.