Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:49

(So when adversity touches man, he calls upon Us...) This is an informing of the human condition regarding that which predominates in him. It is said that "man" refers to Hudhayfah ibn al-Mughirah; others say it refers to the disbelievers.

(Then, when We bestow a favor upon him from Us...) Meaning: We gave it to him out of grace, for at-takhwil (bestowing), as it is said, is specific to that, and is not applied to what is given as recompense.

(He says, "I was only given it because of knowledge.") Meaning: Because of knowledge I possess regarding the methods of acquiring it, or because I knew I would be given it due to my entitlement, or because of Allah’s knowledge of me and my worthiness. The innama (only) is for restriction; meaning, I was not given it for any reason other than [my] knowledge.

The pronoun "it" (in utītu-hu) refers to the "favor" (ni'mah). It is masculine despite the noun being feminine, either by interpreting the favor as a "thing" (shay') from among favors—the indication for which is the indefiniteness—or it is said it is because the word is synonymous with in'ām (bestowing favor), or because the intended meaning is wealth, or because it encompasses what was mentioned and the masculine took precedence. It is also permitted that innama acts as a relative pronoun (mawsulah), meaning: "That which I was given exists because of knowledge." However, its being a relative pronoun is rendered unlikely by its being written as one connected word in the Mushafs.

(Rather, it is a trial...) This is a refutation of his statement. The pronoun refers to the favor in view of its literal wording, just as the first one referred to it in view of its meaning; and referring to the literal wording after referring to the meaning is permissible, even if the reverse is more common. It is also permitted that the feminine gender is due to the predicate, and it is said it refers to the "being given" (al-ityānah). It was also read in the masculine, in which case it refers to the favor as previously mentioned, or to the "giving" (al-ityān). Meaning: The matter is not as he says; rather, what he was given is a trial for him—will he be grateful or ungrateful? It is described as a "trial" (fitnah), despite the fact that it is a tool for it, for the purpose of hyperbole. Similar things are said assuming the pronoun refers to the "giving."

(But most of them do not know.) The matter is thus, and this makes it evident that "man" here refers to the genus. For if a specific person were intended, it would have been said "but he does not know" or "but they do not know." Intending a specific person there while referring the pronoun to the absolute genus here—on the basis of istikhdām (the use of a word in a specific sense and then referring to it via a pronoun in a general sense)—is forced.

The fa (so) is for conjunction, and what follows it is conjoined to the words of the Exalted: "And when Allah is mentioned alone..." and it is for the sequence [of events]. Its purpose is mockery and exposing foolishness, as it contains a condemnation of them for their contradiction and inversion; they show aversion when Allah is mentioned alone, and they rejoice when the gods are mentioned. Yet, when adversity touches them, they call upon the One whose mention they were averse to, rather than the one whose mention they rejoiced in. This is like saying: "Such-and-such person treats so-and-so badly, yet when he is in need, he asks of him and treats him well." Thus, the fa contains a metaphorical, mocking dependency.

It is also said that it is permissible for it to be for causality, entering upon the cause, because the mention of the effect necessitates the mention of its cause, for "the appearance of what they did not count on" is an effect of what follows the fa. However, this repeats the meaning of the upcoming words of the Exalted: "And those among them who have done wrong," etc., unless they are distinguished by one being in this world and the other in the Hereafter.

Al-Zamakhshari adopted the view we have presented, and the sentences occurring in between—meaning His words: "Say, 'O Allah...'" until "they mock"—are a parenthetical remark affirming the refutation against them. Abu Hayyan claimed that this is forced and constitutes an interruption of more than two sentences, and Abu Ali al-Farsi does not permit an interruption of two sentences, so how would he permit more? I say: There is no harm in that, especially since it contains a precise and subtle meaning, and al-Farsi is refuted by what has appeared in the speech of the Arabs regarding such matters.