Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:2

(The revelation of the Book) is a predicate after a predicate. It is either an infinitive remaining in its verbal sense for the purpose of intensification, or there is an implicit genitive addition, or it is interpreted as a passive participle; meaning: "that which is revealed." Its attribution to "the Book" is an attribution of the attribute to the described, or it is an explanatory genitive (meaning "consisting of"). His words, the Exalted: (In which there is no doubt) is a third predicate, and His words: (From the Lord of the worlds) is a fourth predicate.

It has been permitted that (Alif-Lam-Mim) be an initial subject (mubtada') and what follows it be its predicates; meaning: that which is named by Alif-Lam-Mim is the revealed Book, in which there is no doubt, existing from the Lord of the worlds. This is critiqued by the fact that what is made a title for a subject ought to be known as being attributed to it beforehand, and since there is no prior knowledge of such attribution, the right of the following segments is to be predicates for it.

Abu al-Baqa’ said: It is permissible for (Alif-Lam-Mim) to be an initial subject, and (revelation)—in the sense of "that which is revealed"—to be its predicate. (In which there is no doubt) is a circumstantial clause (hal) derived from (the Book), and the agent of its state is the implicit genitive (the attribute), and it is a confirming state. (From the Lord) is attached to "revelation," or it is permissible for it to be attached to an implicit entity which is a circumstantial clause derived from the pronoun governed in the genitive in (in it), and the agent of the state is the adverb (the phrase "in it"). And in that is what you have heard. This attachment is also permissible on the premise that (Alif-Lam-Mim) is the predicate of an implicit subject, and what follows is a series of predicates for that implicit subject. If (Alif-Lam-Mim) is presented in the style of enumeration, it has no place in the inflection (i’rab).

Regarding the inflection of what follows, there are several perspectives. Abu al-Baqa’ said: It is permissible for (revelation) to be an initial subject, (in which there is no doubt) to be the predicate, and (from the Lord) to be a circumstantial clause as mentioned previously. It is not permissible, in this case, for it to be attached to "revelation" because the infinitive has already been predicated about. It is permissible for the predicate to be (from the Lord), and (no doubt) to be a circumstantial clause derived from (the Book), or for it to be a predicate after a predicate. End quote.

The reason for preventing attachment to the infinitive after it has been predicated about is that it is a weak operator, so its influence cannot reach beyond the predicate, and to avoid the commitment to the claim of "expansion" in the adverb—for there is latitude here—or that the object of attachment is part of its completeness, and a noun is not predicated about before it is complete.

Ibn Atiyyah permitted the attachment of (from the Lord) to (doubt), but in this is a remoteness from the intended meaning. Al-Hawfi permitted the possibility that (revelation) is the predicate of an implicit subject, meaning: "That which is composed of the kind mentioned is the revelation of the Book."

Abu Hayyan said: What I choose is that (revelation) is an initial subject, (in which there is no doubt) is a parenthetical clause with no place in the inflection, and (from the Lord of the worlds) is the predicate. The pronoun in (in it) refers to the content of the sentence—meaning: its being revealed from the Lord of the worlds—not to the "revelation" nor to the "Book." It is as if it were said: "There is no doubt in that," meaning: in its being revealed from the Lord of the worlds. This is what Al-Zamakhshari relied upon, mentioning that it is the [most appropriate] way, and its soundness is witnessed by His words, the Exalted...