Tafsir of Fatir 35:8

"Is then he to whom the evil of his deed has been made fair-seeming..." (Meaning: he to whom his evil deed has been beautified) "...so he sees it..." (Meaning: he believes it—due to that beautification—to be good).

It is an instance of attributing the adjective to the noun. The word man (who) is a relative pronoun in the nominative case as an initial subject (mubtada'), the sentence following it is its relative clause (silah), and the predicate (khabar) is omitted. The fa (so) is for derivation (tafri’), and the hamza is for denial/reproach.

If this is a case of displacement (preposition of what should have been delayed), as Sibawayh and the majority hold regarding similar instances, then the meaning is a derivation of a reproach based on the two preceding judgments. That is: if the end of each of the two parties is as mentioned, then he to whom disbelief has been beautified by his enemy—the Devil—so he believes it to be good and persists in it, is not like one who considers it ugly, avoids it, and chooses faith and righteous deeds.

If it is in its original position and the conjunction is tied to an implied element, then it is part of it, as a group has held. The meaning is that which is within its scope, and the estimation is: "Are they equal?"—that is, those who disbelieved and those who believed and did righteous deeds. Thus, he to whom disbelief has been beautified by his enemy, the Devil, so he believes it is good and persists in it, is not like one who considers it ugly, avoids it, and chooses faith and righteous deeds. That is, they are not equal, such that he to whom disbelief was beautified would be like one who considers it ugly. This predicate is omitted due to the speech indicating it and the requirements of the majestic order. The two parts have been explicitly stated in the counterparts of this noble verse, such as His saying: "Is he who was on a clear proof from his Lord like him to whom the evil of his deed has been made fair-seeming?" And His saying, Exalted is He: "Is he who knows that what has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth like him who is blind?" And His saying, Almighty and Majestic is He: "Or is he who was dead and We gave him life and set for him a light by which he walks among the people like him whose likeness is in darkness?"

In describing the disbeliever as "he to whom the evil of his deed has been made fair-seeming so he sees it as good," there is an indication of the extremity of his misguidance, as if his intellect has been overcome and his discernment stripped away. The state of one whose intellect is overcome is as Abu Nuwas indicated: "Give me to drink until you see me... and the ugly appears beautiful to me."

Al-Zajjaj’s view suggests that man is conditional (shartiyyah), for he said: The response to the condition (jawab) is of two types. One is that which is indicated by His saying: "So do not let your soul perish..." etc., and the meaning would be: "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified—so God led him astray—your soul perishes in regret over them?" The second is what is indicated by His saying: "For indeed, God..." etc., and the meaning would be: "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified like him whom God Almighty has guided?" Ibn Malik also inclined toward this.

Ibn Hisham objected to the second estimation, arguing that a circumstantial phrase (zarf) cannot serve as a response to a condition, even if we say it is a sentence. He reasoned that Al-Radi declared it cannot be established as a predicate, adjective, relative clause, or state; he did not mention it as a response, and that is not because of the absence of the fa, for the estimation of it entering upon a subject whose predicate is a circumstantial phrase, and the entire sentence being the recompense, is not permissible due to the forced affectation involved, as has been said.

Some have claimed it is permissible that Al-Zajjaj regarded man as a relative pronoun and termed its predicate a "response" due to its similarity in meaning. Do you not see them prefixing the fa to the predicate of a relative pronoun whose relative clause is a verbal sentence, just as they prefix it to the response of a conditional sentence? They say: "He who comes to me, then he has a dirham." In this, it is against the apparent meaning, and there is no evidence for intending it other than the invalidity of it being a conditional recompense, the weakness of the first estimation regarding the separation between what is omitted and the evidence for the omission, and the obscurity of the connection of the sentence to what precedes it.

It is not appropriate for man to be conditional where its response is "so he sees it," due to the stylistic awkwardness involved, for the past tense in a response does not pair with the fa without qad, alongside the obscurity of the matter of denying the "seeing of evil as good" after beautification, and its derivation from the two preceding judgments. Furthermore, the fact that the beautifier is the Devil, the enemy, and its derivation from His saying: "Indeed, the Devil is an enemy to you, so take him as an enemy; he only invites his party to be among the companions of the Blaze," is a situation that does not escape notice. Therefore, the relied-upon view is what was previously stated.

His saying: "For indeed, God lets astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills" is an explanation for the causality of the beautification leading to the seeing of the ugly as beautiful. In this is a refutation of the improbability that a person would see the ugly as beautiful through the enemy’s beautification, by explaining that this is by the will of God Almighty, which follows the knowledge related to things as they are in themselves. It is an indication that those disbelievers who had their evil deeds beautified—so they saw them as good—are among those whom God Almighty willed to be misguided.

His saying: "So do not let your soul perish in regret over them" is a derivation from it. That is: if the matter is so, then do not let your soul perish, etc. The scholar Sa’di Chalabi mentioned that the hamza in Afaman (in the first of the two estimates reported from Al-Zajjaj) is to deny the Prophet's (peace be upon him) soul perishing in regret over them. The fa in His saying, Exalted is He: "For indeed, God..." etc., is a justification for what the majestic order implies, namely that there is no benefit in regret.

In Al-Kashshaf, it states that when He mentioned the two parties—those who disbelieved and those who believed—He said to His Prophet (peace be upon him): "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified, so he sees it as good?" Meaning: Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified among these two parties like him to whom it has not been beautified? It is as if the Messenger (peace be upon him) said "No." Then God said: "For indeed, God lets astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills, so do not let your soul perish in regret over them."

It is understood from the words of Al-Tibi that the fa in "so do not let your soul perish" is for recompense, and the fa in "For indeed, God..." is for justification, and that the sentence is a case of displacement. He said: He (peace be upon him) was eager for the people's faith and for the misguided to enter the company of the guided. So he was told (peace be upon him) by way of denial of that: "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified from these two parties like him to whom it has not been beautified?" He must acknowledge it in the negative and say "No." Then it is said to him: "If it is so, then do not let your soul perish in regret over them, for indeed God lets astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills." So it is a displacement.

The verses, according to the apparent meaning of Al-Zamakhshari’s words, contain a folding and unfolding (laff wa nashr), and Al-Tibi explicitly stated this. He then said: It is better to categorize the verses as a gathering, a division, and a differentiation. His saying: "O mankind, indeed the promise of God is truth" is a gathering of the two parties under the judgment of the address to mankind, a gathering of both their reward and punishment under the judgment of the promise, and a warning to both against being deceived by the world and the Devil. As for the division, it is His saying: "Those who disbelieved will have a severe punishment, and those who believed and did righteous deeds will have forgiveness and great reward." As for the differentiation, it is His saying: "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified," because He differentiates therein and clarifies the disparity between the two parties, as Al-Zamakhshari said: "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified among these two parties like him to whom it has not been beautified?" He derived from this that the fa in Afaman is for sequence, and the hamza entering between the conjoined and the conjoining is to deny equality and affirm the great chasm between the two parties. The most chosen of the views mentioned by Al-Sakkaki in Al-Miftah is the estimation of "like him whom God has guided," which was omitted due to the indication of "For indeed, God lets astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills."

They have lengthy discussions on the arrangement of the noble verses other than what we have mentioned; whoever wishes to know them should follow the books of tafsir and Arabic. Perhaps what we have mentioned is sufficient for one who has been given a sound mind and straight understanding.

Hasrat (regrets) is the plural of hasrah, which is the sorrow over what has passed and the remorse for it. It is as if the person has been stripped of what drove him to what he committed, or his strength has been stripped away due to extreme sorrow, or exhaustion has overtaken him regarding the correction of what he has neglected. It is in the accusative case as a maf’ul min ajlih (causal object); that is, do not cause your soul to perish due to regrets. The plural—even though hasrah is originally a noun denoting both little and much—is to indicate the multiplication of his (peace be upon him) grief over their states, or the multitude of their ugly deeds that necessitate sorrow and regret. "Over them" is a connection to tadhhab (perish), just as one says "he perished over him due to love" and "he died over him due to sorrow," or it is a clarification of what is being regretted, thus it would be an established circumstantial phrase, and its related element is implied, as if it were said: "Over whom do you perish?" and it was said: "Over them."

It is permitted that it relates to hasrat on the basis that it is permissible to precede the complement of a verbal noun if it is a circumstantial phrase; this is what I have chosen, though Al-Zamakhshari does not permit it. It is also permitted that hasrat is a hal (state) from "your soul," as if all of it became regrets due to the intensity of the sorrow, as Jarir said: "The heat of the scorching days consumed their flesh throughout the nocturnal journey, until they became [nothing but] chests and breasts." He meant their remains became chests and breasts—that is, nothing remained except their chests and breasts. This is what Sibawayh held regarding the line of poetry. Al-Mubarrad said: "Chests and breasts" is a tamyiz (specifier) transformed from the agent; that is, until their chests and breasts vanished. From this is his saying: "Thus, following them, my soul falls in regrets, and their memory is a sickness to me." There are three hyperboles in it.

Ubayd ibn Umayr read "zuyyina" (made fair-seeming) as passive, and su'a (evil) in the accusative. From him also is "aswa'a" (worse) on the scale of af'al; by "the worst of his deed," polytheism is intended. Talha read "Aman" without the fa. The author of Al-Lawamih said: The hamza is for inquiry and confirmation. It is permissible that it is for calling, and that which was called to is omitted; that is, "Reflect and return to God, for indeed God..." etc. The apparent meaning is that it is for denial, as in the reading of the majority. Abu Ja’far, Qatadah, ‘Isa, Al-Ashhab, Shaybah, Abu Haywah, Humayd, Al-A’mash, and Ibn Muhaysin read "tadhhab" (you perish) from adhhaba (to cause to perish), attributed to the pronoun of the addressee, with nafsaka (your soul) in the accusative as the direct object. This is also narrated from Nafi’.

"Indeed, God is Knowing of what they do." This is in the place of justification for what precedes it, and it contains a threat to the disbelievers—that is, God Almighty is Knowing of what they commit of ugly deeds, so He will punish them for it. The verses from His saying, Exalted is He, "Is he to whom the evil of his deed has been beautified..." to here, were revealed—as narrated from Ibn Abbas—concerning Abu Jahl and the polytheists of Mecca. Juwaybir reported from Al-Dahhak that they were revealed concerning ‘Umar (may God be pleased with him) and Abu Jahl, when God Almighty guided ‘Umar and led Abu Jahl astray.