Tafsir of Ya seen 36:67

"And if We willed, We could have transformed them" (i.e., We would have altered their forms into other, ugly forms). Ibn Abbas stated: "We would have transformed them into apes and swine." It has been said: "We would have transformed them into stones," and this is narrated from Abu Salih. From this disagreement, it is understood that for the transformation of a specific animal, the persistence of an animal form is not a condition. Some have termed the turning of an animal into an inanimate object as raskh, and into a plant as faskh, while reserving the term maskh (transformation) for the turning of an animal into another animal. The object of the divine will—following the pattern of the preceding verse—is: "And if We willed to transform them right where they were, We would have transformed them."

"Right where they were" (i.e., in their places, like al-maqamah and al-maqam).

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding the meaning of the verse: "If We willed, We would have destroyed them in their dwellings."

Al-Hasan, Qatadah, and a group said the meaning is: "We would have paralyzed them, crippled them, and made them unable to stand." Al-Hasan and Abu Bakr read it as makanatihim (in their places, plural) because of their multiplicity.

"So they would not be able to" (because of that) "proceed" (i.e., go toward their destinations), "nor could they return."

It has been said that [the verb] "return" is a conjunction added to the verbal noun "proceed," which is the object of "able to." This is in the style of the saying: "To hear of Al-Mu'aydi is better than to see him." Thus, the estimation is: "They would not be able to proceed nor to return." Otherwise, the object of "able to" cannot be a sentence. The use of the verb here instead of the explicit noun is said to be for the sake of the verse endings, while also gesturing toward the difference between returning and proceeding. This is based on what the Imam said: that returning is easier than proceeding because it implies having traversed the path previously, whereas proceeding does not imply that. Others said it is for that reason, while also gesturing toward the continuity of the negation, considering the manifest form of the word; thus, there is an escalation from two aspects if one considers what the Imam gestured toward. It is also said that it is to gesture that the negated return is one that involves will and choice, as considering these in a verb attributed to a subject is more readily understood than considering them in a verbal noun.

Some restricted the subtlety to the observance of the verse endings, and the Imam, after restricting it to the observance of the verse endings in explaining the reason for departing from the apparent [syntax], considered that a shortcoming. It has been said that it is a conjunction to the sentence "they would not be able," and the intent is: "nor would they return from their denial," because their hearts have been sealed. Others said it is a conjunction to what was mentioned, but the meaning is: "nor would they return to what they were before the transformation," and this is not far-fetched.

According to both views, the intent of "proceed" is departing from the place, and the negation of the ability to do so suffices to negate the ability to return. Regardless, the manifest meaning is that this—as well as what preceded it—would have taken place in this world if it had occurred. Ibn Salam said: "This entire threat pertains to the Day of Resurrection," but this is contrary to the apparent meaning and is hardly correct according to several viewpoints.

The origin of mudiyan (proceeding) is mudwiyan; the waw met the ya while [the former was] quiescent, so the waw was changed into a ya as is the established rule, and the ya was assimilated into the ya. The damma of the dad was changed to a kasra to lighten [the pronunciation] and to harmonize with the ya. Abu Haywah and Ahmad ibn Jubayr al-Antaki read from al-Kisa’i midiyan with a kasra on the mim, following the vowel of the dad, like al-'iti with a damma on the 'ayn and al-'iti with a kasra on it. It was also read as madayan with a fatha on the mim, making it one of the verbal nouns that come in the form of fa'il, like al-rasim, al-wajif, and al-sa'i (with a fatha on the sad, followed by a hamza with a kasra, then a doubled ya), which is the verbal noun of sa'a (the cock or the chick) when it cries.