Tafsir of Ghafir 40:3

(Ghafir al-dhanb wa Qabil al-tawb wa Dhi al-tawl) are mentioned to induce hope, and (Shadid al-iqab) is mentioned to induce fear. The totality of these attributes is for the purpose of urging the realization of the objective of "the revelation of the Book," which is what is mentioned after affirming Oneness and belief in the Resurrection—the latter necessitating belief in everything else—and turning towards Allah Almighty. Although the first two are in the form of active participles, they are not intended to signify renewal or restriction to a specific time; rather, they are intended to signify persistence and continuity. Thus, their annexation to the definite nouns following them is purely grammatical, granting them definiteness. Consequently, it is valid to describe the most definite of definite nouns with them. The situation regarding (Dhi al-tawl) is very clear.

Yes, the matter regarding (Shadid al-iqab) is problematic, for shadid is an anthropomorphic adjective (sifah mushabbahah). It has been established that while any annexation that is not purely grammatical becomes definite when annexed to a definite noun—allowing it to function as a description for a definite noun—the anthropomorphic adjective is an exception; it does not become definite. Hence, al-Zajjaj held that (Shadid al-iqab) is an appositive (badal). The objection to this is that interjecting an appositive between adjectives creates distinct disharmony, for an adjective implies that the described noun is the intended subject, whereas an appositive implies otherwise; this results in a sudden shift of intent after something has been marked as unintended. The response is that this is only problematic according to the school of Sibawayh and the Basrans, who argue that the anthropomorphic adjective never becomes definite through annexation to a definite noun. However, according to the Kufans, who argue that it, like other adjectives, may become definite through annexation—thus permitting the description of a definite noun with it, such as "I passed by Zayd, the handsome of face"—the problem vanishes.

Regarding the first school of thought, it may be said that shadid is interpreted as mushaddid (active participle), meaning "one who makes severe," as adhin (listener) is used for mudh'in (one who submits); thus, it is given the same ruling. Alternatively, it is said that it is defined by the definite article al, but the article was omitted because there is no danger of confusion with a non-adjective, given its placement between other adjectives. The possibility of it being merely an appositive is not to be considered, as mentioned, out of regard for the consistency of the accompanying adjectives which lack it (the al). A latent element is considered as existing; they have indeed altered many of their expressions from their established rules for the sake of consistency, to the point where they say: "He does not know his sahadilah from his anadilah" (intended: his male from his female), giving the dual form to what is singular for the sake of what is plural.

It is permissible for all the mentioned followers to be appositives, and the indefinite nature and ambiguity of (Shadid al-iqab) may be intentional to indicate extreme severity, and that there is nothing more devastating or bitter, for the sake of intensified warning. In al-Kashf, it is argued that making all of them appositives creates great disharmony, especially in making (Al-'Aziz) an appositive for (Allah)—the Name that encompasses all attributes—which is the firm text. How far this is from the excellence of a fitting opening!

Makki held that it is permissible for (Ghafir al-dhanb) and (Qabil al-tawb) to be appositives, but not what precedes them, and that in that case, they are indefinite nouns. You already know the issue with that from what preceded. Abu Hayyan stated: "The appositive of correction (badal al-bada'), for those who affirm it, may be repeated. As for the total appositive, the partial appositive, and the appositive of substitution (badal ishtimal), I know of no text from any grammarian that permits or forbids repetition. However, in the speech of some of our colleagues, there is evidence that an appositive of an appositive is permissible, provided the appositive itself is not multiplied while the subject remains one." The apparent meaning of al-Khafaji’s speech is that the grammarians explicitly allowed its multiplication, as he said: "The objection to the theory of apposition—regarding the scarcity of appositives in derivatives, the fact that an indefinite cannot be an appositive for a definite unless described, and the claim that grammarians did not mention the multiplication of appositives—is invalid, for the grammarians explicitly stated the opposite in all these points." Al-Damamini has a long discussion on this at the beginning of his commentary on al-Khazrajiyyah which this space cannot contain; if you desire it, consult it there.

In my view, the theory of apposition here is of no substance, whether total or partial. (Al-tawb) may be a verbal noun, like al-awb, meaning "return," or it may be a collective noun for tawbah (repentance), like tamr and tamrah. (Al-tawl) is the bounty of reward and favor, or that combined with the withholding of deserved punishment, as has been said. This is better than restricting it to merely withholding punishment, even if it comes after "Severe in punishment." The argument that reward is something promised—and therefore like a debt, thus not "bounty"—is invalid, for the fulfillment of the promise is not a duty [upon Allah]. Ibn Abbas interpreted it as vastness and wealth; Qatadah, as blessings; and Ibn Zayd, as power.

The insertion of the conjunction wa between "Forgiver of sin" and "Accepter of repentance" is to signify that the repentant sinner receives two mercies: first, that He, Glory be to Him, accepts his repentance and records it as one of the deeds of obedience; and second, that He makes it an eraser of the sin, as if he had not sinned. It is as if it were said: "He who combines forgiveness and acceptance." Al-Zamakhshari stated this, and it is clarified in al-Kashf that these are attributes that follow one another without wa when they denote a general collection [of attributes]. But when one of the connections is specified with wa, it indicates that the intended meaning is the combination of these specific attributes, to protect the speech of the eloquent from being redundant. Thus, the wa here signifies that He, Glory be to Him, combines forgiveness and the acceptance of repentance specifically for the one who repents. This does not contradict that He, the Almighty, may forgive someone who has not repented.

As for what is said—that the insertion indicates that forgiveness is for one who has not repented, while acceptance is for one who has—this is not accepted. The distinction they mention between the objects of the two verbs—the remaining sin in the records vs. the erased sin—is already achieved without the wa; thus, the wa has no role there. Furthermore, the previously mentioned interpretation follows the principles of both the Sunnis and the Mu'tazilah, so there is no basis for rejecting it with a faulty argument and preferring what is weaker. Placing the "Forgiver" before the "Accepter" follows the rule of placing the removal of impurity before the application of perfume; understand this. Regarding the absolute certainty of the acceptance of a sinner's repentance, there are two opinions among the Sunnis. In al-Bahr, the apparent meaning of the verse is that the repentance of a sinner [for sins] other than disbelief is, like the repentance of one who has committed disbelief, certainly accepted.

The inclusion of the attribute of punishment amidst His attributes that denote mercy is evidence of the abundance and precedence of mercy. So, Glory be to such a God, how Merciful and Generous He is! "(There is no god but He)," so total turning towards His obedience in His commands and prohibitions is mandatory, "(to Him is the final destination)," and to none other than Him, neither independently nor as a partner. He will recompense both the obedient and the disobedient. The sentence "(There is no god but He)" is either a new statement or an appositive of state. It has also been said: it is an attribute of Allah Almighty or of "Severe in punishment." In the verses, there is that which necessitates taking heed.

'Abd ibn Humayd extracted from Yazid ibn al-Asamm that a man of great might, from the people of Syria, was missed by 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him. He asked about him, and it was said to him: "He has persisted in drinking [wine]." 'Umar called his scribe and said: "Write from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab to so-and-so, son of so-and-so. Peace be upon you. I praise to you Allah, besides whom there is no god, Ha Mim... up to His saying: 'To Him is the final destination'." He sealed the letter and said to his messenger: "Do not give it to him until you find him sober." Then he ordered those with him to pray for his repentance. When the letter reached the man, he began reading it and saying: "My Lord has promised to forgive me and warned me of His punishment." He did not stop repeating it to himself until he wept, then he desisted and repented sincerely. When his repentance reached 'Umar, he said: "Do this; when you see your brother has slipped, strengthen him, steady him, and pray to Allah to accept his repentance, and do not be assistants to the devils against him."