"And when adversity touches man..."

(And when adversity touches man)—meaning illness or other forms of hardship—(he calls upon his Lord, turning to Him)—returning to Him, having abandoned those he used to invoke during times of ease besides Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, because he knows they are devoid of the power to remove his affliction. This is a description of the genus [of humanity] through the state of some of its individuals, similar to His saying: "Indeed, mankind is most unjust and ungrateful." Abu Hayyan held the view that "man" here refers to the genus of the disbeliever. Others have said it refers to a specific individual, such as Utbah ibn Rabi'ah.

(Then, when He bestows upon him a favor from Himself)—meaning, He gives him a great favor from His Presence. [The word] khawl (with two fathas) denotes looking after a thing, which is returning to it time and again. It is used metaphorically for "giving," because a generous giver looks after the one who is the protégé of his beneficence and the nursling of his favors by repeatedly bestowing gifts upon him.

Some say the meaning of khawl in its origin is "to give khawl," not with two fathas, meaning slaves and servants, or that He gives him that which requires care and maintenance, and then it was generalized to mean absolute giving. Al-Zamakhshari permitted the possibility that it is derived from khala-yakhulu-khawlan (without a sukoon on the waw), meaning "to boast." This was objected to on the grounds that Al-Sihah clearly states that khala—meaning "to boast"—comes from khuyala', meaning "arrogance," which is clearly indicated. Furthermore, khawl is a transitive verb that takes two objects, and its being derived from the latter would not require it to take a second object.

The response to the first objection is that Al-Zamakhshari is one of the masters of transmission, and it was established for him that its root is from khal (the mark/mole), and the waw and ya have been reported in it. Then, the term was used for the "mark" of beauty and goodness, from which khayal (imagination/likeness) was derived. As for ikhtiyal (arrogance), it is derived from khayal because the arrogant person imagines himself above his true worth, or creates an "image" (khayal) for himself, just as it is said: "The man was amazed by himself." Thus, it is clear that the derivation is appropriate for both, and the existence of the ya is not denied, as evidenced by khuyala'. However, there is nothing to prevent the existence of the ya [in the root]. Ikhtiyal is not derived from khuyala'; rather, khuyala' is the noun derived from it, so it does not serve as a refutation, but rather as proof of the ya.

The response to the second objection is that the intent is not that khawl is a strengthened form of khala (to boast) such that its taking a second object would be problematic; rather, it is a word established in the language for the meaning of "to give," and what was mentioned is an explanation of its derivation and the original meaning observed in its coining. Such instances are frequent. Thus, the root of khawwalahu is "to make him one who boasts of what has been bestowed upon him," then the focus on that was removed, and it came to mean "to give" absolutely.

(He forgets that for which he used to call upon Him)—meaning he forgets the adversity he used to call upon Allah, the Exalted, to remove and lift. (From before)—that is, from before the [aforementioned] bestowment. The ma (that) is relative to the "adversity," and da'a (calling) is from da'wah, which is linked with ila (to). It is said: "The caller to prayer calls the people to prayer," and "So-and-so called the people to his banquet." Da'wah is a metaphor for du'a (supplication), and the meaning stands upon the assumption of an omitted complement, as indicated. It is also possible that ma is used to denote the essence—indicating descriptive quality and aggrandizement—referring to the Exalted One, as in His saying: "And [by] what created the male and female," and His saying: "Nor are you worshippers of what I worship." The du'a is kept to its literal meaning, and its linkage with ila is to include the meaning of "turning back to" (inabah), "supplication," or "entreaty." The meaning is: he forgets his Lord whom he used to call upon, turning to Him or beseeching Him. This is an acceptable interpretation. The claim that this is forced, because one does not say "he called to Him" meaning "he called Him," and that there is no need to make ma mean "He who," is rejected because of the appropriateness of the inclusion and the use of ma for aggrandizement. In Al-Irshad, it is mentioned that this construction signals that his forgetting reached such a point that he does not recognize what he had invoked, let alone recognize Who it was. Others say ma is a verbal noun, meaning: he forgot his act of calling. Others say it is a negative particle, and the sentence is complete at His saying: "he forgets"—meaning he forgets the adversity he was in. Then, it negates that the invocation of this disbeliever was sincere to Allah, the Exalted, "from before," i.e., before the adversity. The flaw in that is not hidden.

(And he attributes to Allah equals)—partners in worship. The evident meaning in their usage is applying the term andad (equals/rivals) to partners in an absolute sense. In Al-Bahr, it is said: andad, meaning likenesses that do not oppose or contradict one another. Qatadah said: "It means men whom he obeys in disobedience." Others said: "It means idols." (To lead [others] astray)—by doing so—(from His way)—the Exalted and Majestic's way, which is Monotheism.

Ibn Kathir, Abu 'Amr, and 'Isa read it as li-yadillu (with a fatha on the ya), meaning: to increase in going astray, or to be established upon it. Otherwise, the [result of] going astray is not delayed from the aforementioned attribution, and the lam is the lam of consequence, as in His saying: "And the family of Pharaoh picked him up [out of the river] so that he would become to them an enemy and a cause of grief." However, this is closer to the literal reality, for the one who attributes [the equals] here intends by his aforementioned attribution the reality of misguidance and going astray, even if he does not know, due to his ignorance, that they are misguidance and error. As for the family of Pharaoh, they did not intend enmity at all by picking him up.

(Say)—as a threat to that person who attributes [equals] and as an exposition of his state and end: (Enjoy your disbelief for a little)—meaning, a little enjoyment or for a short while. (Indeed, you are of the companions of the Fire)—meaning, one who dwells therein and is punished therein perpetually. This is a justification for the [shortness] of the enjoyment, and it contains, as is evident, an exclusion from salvation and a condemnation of disbelief. It is as if it were said: Since you have refused what you were commanded of faith and obedience, it is your due to be ordered to abandon it [faith] so that you may taste its punishment.