Tafsir of Ya seen 36:34

“And We placed therein gardens of date palms” (plural of nakhl, like ‘abeed is plural of ‘abd, as the majority of Imams have gone with, and as stated explicitly in al-Qamus. It is also said that it is a collective noun. Al-Jawhari said: al-Nakhl and al-Nakheel carry the same meaning, and the former is what is relied upon) “and grapevines” (plural of ‘inab, and it is said to mean the vine itself, and also its fruit, as al-Raghib said; perhaps it is a homonym for both. It is said that it is literally the fruit and metaphorically the tree. In either case, the former is intended here by virtue of the conjunction with nakheel. They were put in the plural form, unlike ‘grain’ [al-habb], and it is said this is to signify the multiplicity of types, meaning types of date palms and types of grapes. This is because nakhl and ‘inab are names of specific types, and each is said of the individuals of a single reality; therefore, they do not indicate the difference of what is beneath them or the multiplicity of their types unless expressed in the plural form. This is unlike al-habb (grain), for it is a generic noun that implies the difference of what is beneath it, because it is said of a multitude of varying realities as an essential predication, so it does not require the plural form to signify difference. As for the claim that the plural was used for al-‘alamin in the words of the Almighty: “All praise is for Allah, Lord of all worlds,” even though it is a generic noun, to include the species beneath it, this does not contradict that; for it is said that the intent is to include them in an apparent and definite manner, even if the indication is achieved without it. Others say it is plural to signify an abundance of blessing, whereas al-habb provides the nourishment of the body, which is achieved through the genus).

He, the Exalted and Majestic, conferred a favor—in the context of providing evidence for the matter of the Resurrection—by creating gardens of date palms and grapevines, intending thereby the trees. He, the Glorified and Exalted, did not confer the favor by the creation of the fruits of these trees, such as the dates and grapes, as He conferred the favor by bringing forth the grain. This is to magnify the grace, for such favor implies, through the fruits and other benefits of these trees themselves in all their parts, a direct service to man without intermediary, especially the date palm. There is no evidence in the speech to limit the result of the creation to eating the fruit, and the implication of that from among the benefits is manifest. This is in contrast to the trees of grain, for they are not of this stature. Therefore, the style was changed, and the fruits thereof were not treated the same as grain. The words of al-Baydawi (may mercy be upon him) suggest that what is intended by al-a‘nab is the known fruits, not the vines. He reasoned that mentioning date palms rather than their fruits—despite it being more consistent with what precedes and follows—is due to their distinctive, abundant benefits and the traces of craftsmanship therein. Interpreting al-a‘nab as fruits rather than vines is, to me, far-fetched because of the conjunction, and because the prepositional phrase is in the place of an adjective for jannat, and it is well-known that they are gardens of trees, not fruits.

Al-Raghib said: Al-Jannah is any orchard possessing trees that covers the earth with its foliage. Sometimes the covering trees themselves are called jannah. Based on this, he interpreted the verse: “From the water-drawers, a jannah is irrigated…” However, there is in the verse what supports the intent of the fruits; so reflect upon this.

“And We caused to gush forth therein” (meaning: We split open in the earth; Janah ibn Hubaysh recited fajjarna with the takhfif [lightening], and the meaning is one, though the tashdid [strengthening] indicates intensity and abundance) “from the springs” (meaning: some of the springs, such that the prepositional phrase is in the place of an adjective for an omitted object, and min [from] is explanatory. It is permissible that it is partitive, though that is not strong. It is said the object is omitted and min al-‘uyun is connected to fajjarna, and min is initial, in the sense that "We caused to gush forth from the sources that which is benefited from of water." Al-Akhfash went with the view that min is an expletive and that al-‘uyun is the object of fajjarna, because he sees the permissibility of its being an expletive in positive sentences while its object is definite).