Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:3

(Except as a reminder) is in the accusative case as an interrupted exception (isti thnā’ munqaṭiʿ). That is: We did not send it down for your misery, but [we sent it down] as a reminder (for whoever fears), meaning: for whoever is of the nature to fear Allah the Exalted and be affected by the warning due to the tenderness of his heart and the gentleness of his disposition, or for the one whom Allah the Exalted knew would fear through the act of intimidation. The prepositional phrase (jār wa majrūr) is connected to "reminder" or to an implied adjective describing it. The one who fears is singled out for mention—even though the Quran is a reminder for all people—because others are treated as non-existent, for he is the only one who benefits from it.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted "reminder" to be a direct object of cause (mafʿūl lahu) for "We sent down," even though it is in the accusative case, by fulfilling the conditions [required for such a construction], unlike the first direct object [in the phrase "to make you miserable"], due to the lack of unity of the agent therein. It is well-known among the majority that unity of the agent is a condition for the accusative, which is why it [the first] is governed by a preposition (jarr). It is permissible for the cause to be pluralized without conjunction or substitution if the aspect of the operation differs, as is the case here, because it is evident that the second is a clear direct object (mafʿūl ṣarīḥ) while the first is a prepositional phrase. The same applies if they are unified and one of the two causes is a cause for the verb, while the other is a cause for it after it has already been caused, such as "I honored him for being a stranger, in hope of reward," or if the second cause is a cause for the first, such as "Allah the Exalted does not punish the repentant due to His forgiveness of him, because of his Islam." Therefore, the criticism leveled against it—that it is not permissible to pluralize the cause without following [the rules of conjunction]—is not accepted.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that the meaning in this view is: We did not send it down upon you to bear its hardships and troubles, except so that it may be a reminder. The essence of it is that it is analogous to the saying: "I did not beat you for discipline, except out of compassion." The meaning reverts to: "I did not discipline you with beating except for compassion." Likewise, the meaning here: "We did not cause you misery by sending down the Quran, except for the purpose of a reminder." Its essence is: "What you have borne of the hardships of delivering the message is sufficient for you; do not exhaust your body, for in that is the transmission [of the message]."

This claim, which treats it as analogous to "I did not beat you for discipline except out of compassion," has been objected to, on the grounds that in such a construction, it is necessary for there to be a connection of causality between the two causes, as is the case in the aforementioned example and in your saying: "I did not confront him with evil to hurt him, except to deter others." For discipline in the first is caused by compassion, and being hurt in the second is a cause for deterring others. Between misery and a reminder, there is a manifest contradiction. It is of no avail to say it refers to "fatigue" in a general sense that coexists with the reminder, for it is apparent that there is no connection between them of the aforementioned causality. This is only conceivable if one were to say in place of "except as a reminder": "except to increase your reward," for the wage is commensurate with the fatigue, as in the Hadith.

Perhaps the proponent of that view denies the necessity of the aforementioned connection between the two causes, or claims it is realized between them in the verse based on the notion that the reminder—i.e., the act of reminding—is a cause of fatigue, as suggested by the latter summary of the scrutinizer: "What you have borne of the hardships of delivering the message is sufficient for you," etc.

The intent of the verse from this perspective was hidden from Ibn al-Munir, who said: "It contains remoteness, because then misery would be the cause of the revelation. And even if the lām were not causal but, for example, denoting the result (ṣayrūrah), it would not contain what has been the custom of Allah with His Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding His forbidding him from misery and grief over the disbelievers and the constriction of his chest because of them. The content of the verse would be contrary to His saying: 'So let not your soul perish in sorrow for them' (35:8)." You know, however, after grasping the intent, that there is no contradiction. Indeed, this view and the consideration of the verse as analogous to "I did not beat you for discipline except out of compassion" is something that refined taste testifies to.

It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) from the kāf [in ʿalayka] or from the Quran, with the exception being an elliptical one (mufarragh), and the verbal noun is interpreted as an adjective, or it is intended as hyperbole.

Al-Ḥūfī permitted it to be a substitute (badal) for "the Quran," and al-Zajjāj permitted it to be a substitute for the place of "that you might be miserable" (li-tashqā), because substitution is permissible in a non-positive exception (istithnā’ ghayr al-mūjab). This was challenged on the grounds that this only applies if it is a connected exception (muttaṣil), meaning the excepted is of the same genus as that from which it is excepted, and in this case, it is a partial substitution (badal baʿḍiyya) according to the majority; some say it is the substitution of the whole for the whole. It is not hidden that this is not realized between "reminder" and "misery." The claim of an ishtimāl (comprehensiveness) substitution in such a case to validate the substitution here—based on the idea that the reminder includes fatigue—is something no grammarian has said. Considering it of the same genus as misery, as if it were unified with it, does not make the exception connected, as has been said. You have heard that the condition [for such connection] is stipulated. In short, this view is not sound, and Abu Ali rejected it from al-Zajjāj.

It is also permitted to be a direct object of cause (mafʿūl lahu) for "We sent down," and "to be miserable" is a stationary phrase in the position of an adjective for "the Quran"—i.e., "We did not send down the Quran, [which is] intended or sent down for your fatigue, except as a reminder." This involves estimating the connector accompanied by the lām and omitting the relative pronoun along with part of its connective phrase, which some grammarians have refused. That the al is the definitive article is contrary to the apparent meaning. It is also said: it is in the accusative as a verbal noun for an implied verb, meaning: "But we have reminded him with it as a reminder."