Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:5

"And We desire to bestow favor" (meaning: to grant a bounty) "upon those who were oppressed in the land" (in the aforementioned manner, by saving them from his tyranny). The form of the present tense in nuridu (We desire) is used to narrate a past state, while namunna (bestow favor) is future in relation to the desire; thus, there is no need to reinterpret it. It is conjoined to His saying, "Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself," etc., because they both share the status of being part of the explanation of the "news" (al-naba'). This is the most apparent interpretation.

It has been permitted that the sentence serves as a state (hal) for the object of "oppress" (yastad'ifu), with the supposition of an implicit subject—meaning: Pharaoh oppresses them, and We desire to bestow favor upon them. The subject was made implicit to allow for the sentence to commence with the waw (conjunction). It was also permitted for it to be a state for the subject (Pharaoh), also with an implicit subject. The fact that it is devoid of a pronoun referring back to him or its substitute is not detrimental, because if a circumstantial sentence is nominal, the waw suffices to link it. This was weakened by the argument that there is no doubt in the impropriety of such a construction when the subject is deleted, and the assertion of the validity of it being a state absolutely was countered by the fact that the principle of the state is simultaneity, while the bestowing of favor occurs long after the oppression. It was answered that the state is not the "favor" itself, but rather the "desire" for it, which is simultaneous, and its attachment is to the occurrence of the favor in the future; therefore, its simultaneity does not necessitate the simultaneity of the favor. Furthermore, since God’s favoring them with salvation was on the verge of occurring, it was permissible to treat it as a simultaneous occurrence alongside the oppression. If the state is interpreted as "expected/destined," the controversy is resolved.

Some have permitted conjoining this to "We recite" and "oppress." Al-Zamakhshari stated that this is unsound, and it is explained in al-Kashf by saying: As for the first, it is because it would then fall outside the scope of what is being narrated, which is its most significant and important part. As for the second, it is because it would either be a state for the pronoun in "made," or for its object, or an adjective for "factions," or an initiating sentence. The first two are clearly impossible, and the third is more evident, for it has no place in answering the question implied by His saying, "He made its people into factions." Conjunction implies participation, yet there is room for conjunction with "oppress" if it is interpreted as a description: the meaning being "He made its people into factions, a faction of whom are oppressed, and We desire to bestow favor upon them from among them"—that is, upon the faction of the factions. Thus, the explicit noun was substituted for the pronoun referring back to the "faction," and the reference to the "factions" was omitted because it is known, as if it were said: "He oppresses them, and We desire to strengthen them," as Al-Zamakhshari claimed in the view where he made it a state for the object of "oppress." The conclusion is that "factions" are described by the oppression of a faction and the desire to bestow favor upon that faction among them by removing the weakness.

(If you say: It is invalidated by the knowledge that the second description was not present, unlike the first. We say: Likewise, it was not present through an oppression qualified by the state of desire.) The truth is that both views are weakened by this. We only cited them regarding Al-Zamakhshari because of his allowance of the state. It was argued against him that conjoining to it, assuming it is a state, also has room for the exact reason he mentioned, so there is no basis for restricting it to being a description. And that the lack of knowledge regarding the second description—after accepting the condition that the description must be known—is not conceded; for the cause of knowledge regarding the first, such as revelation or the reports of the People of the Book, could also be the cause of knowledge regarding the second. Furthermore, it is permissible to restrict the allowance of "We desire" being a state to the possibility of it being an initiation, and the possibility of it being a state being restricted to "oppress" rather than the description, so the obligation is not shared. The response to this is that the possibility of it being a state for the object was not mentioned by Al-Zamakhshari, which is why the author of al-Kashf did not pay attention to the fact that there is room for conjoining it. Moreover, the condition that the description must be known is something he explicitly stated in various places in al-Kashshaf, and the discussion remains with him. The knowledge of the description of oppression, because it is explained as "slaughtering and sparing," is something known by observation, and the cause of such knowledge is not what was mentioned regarding revelation or the reports of the People of the Book. In this there is scrutiny. The justice of the matter is that His saying, "Indeed, Pharaoh," etc., does not appear to be an explanation of the news of Moses (peace be upon him) and Pharaoh together under any of these possibilities as clearly as it does under the possibility of it being a conjunction to "Indeed, Pharaoh," and including it in the scope of the explanation. Otherwise, the apparent meaning of "Indeed, Pharaoh," etc., without this conjunction, is that it is an explanation of the news of Pharaoh only. So reflect.

"And We make them leaders" (those who are followed in religion and the worldly life, according to al-Bahr). Mujahid said: "Callers to goodness." Qatada said: "Rulers," like His saying, "And made you kings." Al-Dahhak said: "Prophets." Regardless, it involves attributing a part to the whole. "And We make them the inheritors" of everything that was organized within the order of the kingdom of Pharaoh and his people, in the most perfect manner, as the definite article implies; and this is such that no one would dispute their claim to it.