Tafsir of Ya seen 36:35

The phrase “to eat of its fruit” is connected to “We have made,” and its delay in mention after “causing gush forth [the springs]” is because springs are among the prerequisites for fruit. It implies: We have made therein gardens of date palms and grapevines, and we have established the prerequisites for their fruit so that they may eat. The pronoun in “its fruit” (thamarihi) refers to the object made, which is the “gardens,” and for this reason, it is singular and masculine. It does not say “from their fruit” (thamariha)—referring to the gardens—or “from their fruit” (thamarihima)—referring to the palms and grapevines.

Similar to this are instances where the pronoun is said to return to the mentioned noun, and the pronoun may function like a demonstrative noun, as in the statement of Ru’bah: “It has lines of black and white, as if it were on the skin, a variegated patch of vitiligo,” for he intended—as he said to Abu Ubaidah when he asked him—“as if that were it.” Others said it returns to the water due to the indication of the “springs” toward it, or because the speech involves an elided genitive (i.e., the water of the springs). It is also said it returns to the palms, being sufficient due to the knowledge that grapes share in this. Others say it returns to the “causing gush forth” (tafjir) understood from “We caused to gush forth” (fajjarna), with “its fruit” meaning its benefits, just as you say “the fruit of trade is profit.” Or, the pronoun is literal, and the attachment is for minimal association. All of these [interpretations] are as you see.

It is also permitted that the pronoun refers to Him, the Almighty, and the attachment of the fruit to Him—the Exalted—is because He, Glory be to Him, is its Creator. It is as if it were said: “To eat of the fruit which Allah the Exalted created.” The apparent wording would have been “of Our fruit” (thamarina), using the pronoun of Majesty according to the pattern of what preceded, but the style shifts from the first person to the third person because eating and living are activities that distract from Allah the Exalted, thus the third person is appropriate. The shift [of perspective] is within the narrative of the people.

Some claim that this is not its proper place, as it would be more fitting for the pronoun of the singular, the Obeyed, since He is the intended one in “reviving,” “making,” and “causing to gush forth,” and [these actions] have been attributed to Him. This is refuted by saying that what preceded is more majestic, for these are actions of general benefit that are manifest in the perfection of Power. Fruit is of a lower rank than grain; hence, it was not brought forth by way of specificity and does not deserve such magnification. Moreover, some have held that while fruit is the creation of Allah the Exalted, its perfection is through the action of the human being. By what has been mentioned [above], one can dispense with what was stated [by those objectors].

Talha, Abu Waathab, Hamzah, and al-Kisa'i read it as thumurihi (with two dammahs), which is a dialect for it, or it is the plural of thimar. Al-A’mash read it as thamrihi (dammah followed by sukun).

“What” (ma) is a relative pronoun in the genitive case, conjoined to “its fruit.” Making it accusative as a conjunction to the place [function] of “from its fruit” is contrary to the apparent meaning—that is: “and that they may eat from that which they have worked or fashioned with their strengths.” What is meant by this is what is derived from the fruit, such as syrup, molasses, and others. Al-Zamakhshari said: “Meaning from that which their hands have worked through planting, irrigation, and wells,” but this is not strong.

It is also permitted that “what” is a descriptive noun (indefinite), meaning: “And from something which their hands have worked.” The first view is more apparent.

It is also said that “what” is a negative particle, and the pronoun in “worked it” refers to the fruit. The sentence is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal). What is intended by denying that their hands worked it is that it is by the creation of Allah, not by their action, and the elders (in this context) do not perform generation. The view that it is a negative particle is narrated from Ibn Abbas and al-Dahhak. The apparent implication of the scholar’s speech is that the pronoun returns to the omitted described object (something), and the sentence is a circumstantial qualifier for it. It is narrated from Sa’id ibn Mansur and Ibn al-Mundhir from him that he said: “They found it already made; their hands did not make it,” meaning the Euphrates, the Tigris, the river of Balkh, and the like. This has a remoteness in meaning.

The view of the relative pronoun is supported by the reading of Talha, Isa, Hamzah, al-Kisa'i, and Abu Bakr: “and what they have worked” (wa-ma ‘amilat) without the ha (pronoun). The justification for this support is that the relative pronoun with its connecting clause is like a single noun, so it is appropriate for the waaw to connect to it due to its length and its requirement of it; its indication of it makes it like the mentioned. Estimating an explicit noun is not apparent.

Al-Tayyibi said: Making it a negative particle is better than making it a relative pronoun, so as not to suggest their independence in the work, because the mention of “hands” is for emphasis in this context, as in His saying, “Do they not see that We created for them from what Our hands have worked?” For the construction is of the class of “I took it with my hand” and “I saw it with my eye.” In that case, it is not appropriate for His saying, “We have revived it...” etc., to be an explanation of why the dead earth is a sign. This was critiqued in al-Kashf by stating that it is of no weight, because work by servants is in the sense of earning, and it has come as “what your hands have sent forth” and “what your two hands have sent forth.” Thus, this emphasis repels the suggestion [of independence].

On this reading, it is also permitted that “what” is an infinitive particle (masdariyyah), meaning: “and the working of their hands.” The infinitive is intended to mean the passive participle, i.e., “that which their hands have worked.” Thus, it returns to the meaning of the relative pronoun, and the weakness therein is not hidden.

This is an act of denial and disapproval regarding their failure to be grateful to the Bestower of blessings, which are negated by [their lack of] monotheism and worship. The fa is for the conjunction of an implied cause which the context requires, meaning: Do they see these blessings, or do they enjoy them, and yet they do not thank the One who bestowed them?