Tafsir of Saba' 34:17

"That" (dhalika) is a demonstrative referring to what was mentioned regarding the substitution [of their gardens] and the distance implied by the [Arabic] particle for distal indication, either to signify the remoteness of its rank in heinousness, or to serve as an absolute object (masdar) for His saying: "We recompensed them," just as it is said in His exalted saying: "And thus We have made you a just community."

Its grammatical position, according to the first interpretation, is in the accusative as a second object. According to the second, it is in the accusative as an emphatic absolute object for the mentioned verb, with the fronting serving to aggrandize and terrify. It is also said it is for specification—that is, that specific substitution is what we recompensed them with, and nothing else; or that heinous recompense is what we subjected them to, and no other.

"Because they disbelieved"—due to their ingratitude for the bounty, for we stripped it from them and placed its opposite in its stead. It is also said it means because of their disbelief in the thirteen messengers who were sent to them. This has been raised as a problem, alongside the view that the "Flood of the Dam" (Sayl al-Arim) occurred during the period of the fatra (interregnum between prophets), as the majority of scholars stated there was no prophet between our Prophet and Jesus, peace be upon them. Some people have said there were four prophets between them: three from the Children of Israel and one from the Arabs, who is Khalid al-Absi. He was sent to his people, and the Children of Israel were not sent to the Arabs. It has been answered that what occurred during the fatra was the Flood of the Dam and nothing else, and that the thirteen messengers were the total of those who were among their people from Saba’ bin Yashjub until Allah, the Exalted, destroyed them all. Reflect upon this, and let us not be negligent.

"And do We recompense [any] except the ungrateful?"—that is, We do not recompense with such a severe, eradicating recompense except the one who is excessive in ingratitude or disbelief. Thus, the problem of exclusivity does not apply, namely that the believer might be punished in this life—for in al-Kashf, it is not intended that the believer is also punished [in this manner], as that is not punishment in reality, but rather a purification. Furthermore, it is intended as punishment for all the evil he performs, and that is not the case for the believer. There is no obstacle to the "recompense" being general in all retribution, and it is intended as punishment absolutely, without restriction to what preceded, by the contextual evidence of "We recompensed them because they disbelieved," which determines the punishment therein. Rather, al-Zamakhshari said: This is the correct view, because it avoids the need for ellipsis, and because the tailing clause (tadhyil) is more emphatic and firmer in its placement, and the problem mentioned in al-Kashf does not apply.

The majority read yujza (passive voice) with a damma on the ya and a fatha on the za, while al-kafūr is in the nominative as a deputy of the subject. It was also read yujāzī (active voice) with a damma on the ya and a kasra on the za, the subject being His own exalted essence alone, with al-kafūr in the accusative as the object. Muslim bin Jundab read it as yujzā (passive), with al-kafūr in the nominative as the deputy of the subject.

Regarding mujāzāt (retribution), based on what you have heard from al-Zamakhshari, it is equivalent to mukāfa'at (requital). However, al-Khafaji said: It has not occurred in the Qur'an except in the context of punishment, unlike jazā', which is general and may be specific to good. From Abu Ishaq: You say jazaytu the man in regard to good, and jāzaytuhu in regard to evil. Similar in meaning is the statement of Mujahid: It is said in the context of punishment yujāzī, and in the context of reward yujzī.

Some eminent scholars said: Abu Ishaq must have meant that if you leave the two verbs [untransitive] and do not link them to a second object, they are as such. But if you mention [the object], each of them is used for both good and evil. This is challenged by the statement "We recompensed them because they disbelieved," and likewise "And do We recompense [any]..." in the reading of Muslim, since jazā' in those is used for evil without the mention of a second object. [Consider also the verse]: "His sons requited Abu al-Ghaylan for his old age and good deeds, just as Sunmar was requited."

Al-Raghib said: It is said jazaytuhu and jāzaytuhu, but jāzā has not come in the Qur'an, only jazā, and this is because mujāzāt is mukāfa'at (requital), which is matching a bounty with a bounty that is its equal, and the bounty of Allah, the Exalted, is far above that. This is why the word mukāfa'at is not used for Him, the Exalted. There is an oversight in this regarding the current case, unless one says: He meant that jāzā did not occur in the Qur'an in a context of bounty when ascribed to Allah, the Exalted, for it has not occurred to me that such a thing exists. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

I find the statement of Abu Hayyan to be good: Jazā' is mostly used for good, and mujāzāt for evil; however, in the restriction of both, each may take the place of the other. In His exalted saying: "We recompensed them because they disbelieved"—rather than "We gave mujāzāt to them"—according to the second interpretation of the demonstrative pronoun, it recounts the people's enjoyment of what they were pleased with, and their subsequent fall into what they were displeased and harmed by. It is possible that the nuance of expressing with jazā' is because it is more frequently used for good. It is also possible that the expression with dhalika (distal) initially and yujāzī (recompense) subsequently is so that each is more fitting to its cause. This holds true regardless of both views regarding the demonstrative. So, ponder this deeply.