Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:62

This is from the speech of the Majestic and Exalted, according to the majority of scholars, and it is linked to His saying, the Exalted: "For them is a known provision." The narrative between them is mentioned by way of digression, and the demonstrative refers to the "known provision." Some have claimed it is permissible for this to be a continuation of the speech of the aforementioned speaker, but what is definitely the speech of the Almighty is what follows, God willing.

The root of nuzul (feast/reception) is the surplus and increase in food. It is used for that which is obtained from something; hence, it is said that honey is not from the inzal (produce) of the earth, meaning from what is obtained from it. Al-Shafi'i's statement that "tithing is not obligatory on honey because it is a winged nuzul (product/gift)" refers to this. It is also said of that which comes to a person of provision.

Zaqqum is the name of a tree with small leaves, bitter, with a repulsive odor, and containing a sap that causes swelling if it touches human skin. It is found in Tihama and in barren lands adjacent to the desert. The tree described in the verse was named after it. Both meanings of nuzul are possible here; however, based on the first meaning, its accusative case is determined to be a tamyiz (specification/distinction). That is: Is this "known provision," whose essence is pleasure and delight, better as a nuzul (feast/acquisition) and essence, or the tree of Zaqqum, whose essence is pain and grief? The meaning of comparing the two nuzuls is one of reproach and mockery, a style that appears frequently in the Quran. Interpretation based on mushakala (stylistic correspondence) is permissible.

Based on the second meaning, it is apparent that its accusative case is as a hal (state/circumstance). The meaning is that the "known provision" is the nuzul (provision) of the people of Paradise, while the nuzul of the people of Hell is the tree of Zaqqum, so which of the two is better in the state of being a nuzul? In this, there is the aforementioned mockery. Interpretation as tamyiz is not linguistically forbidden, as in the expression "they are sufficient as helpers," but the interpretation as hal is more robust. This is because the intended meaning is a comparison between those fruits and this food in this current state, not a comparison between them in their attributes, and that [the latter] is more deeply rooted in the concept of nuzul (provisional state) than the other. So understand this.