Tafsir of Ghafir 40:5

(Belied before them the people of Nuh): The term taqallub (fluctuation/roaming) refers to traveling from one land to another. The "lands" intended are the lands of the Levant and Yemen, for the verse concerns the disbelievers of Quraysh, who used to roam for trade in those lands, having their winter journey to Yemen and their summer journey to the Levant. There is no harm in intending what includes this and other things.

Zayd ibn Ali and Ubayd ibn Umayr read fa-la yaghurranna-ka (so let it not deceive you) with idgham (assimilation) and the ra being fatha-voweled; this is the dialect of Tamim, whereas the fakk (disjoining) is the dialect of the Hijazis.

The mention began with the people of Nuh because he (upon him be peace and prayer), according to what is in al-Bahr, was the first messenger on earth, or because they were the first nation to belie their messenger and rebel with extreme rebellion.

(And the factions after them): That is, those who formed factions and gathered to show hostility toward the messengers (upon them be peace) after the people of Nuh, such as 'Ad, Thamud, and the people of Pharaoh.

(And every nation plotted against their messenger): Abdullah read it as bi-rasuli-ha (against its messenger), observing the grammatical gender of the word ummah (nation). [This means] to seize them so they could manage to inflict upon them what they desired, such as imprisonment, torture, killing, or other things. Thus, "seizing" (akhdh) is a metonym for the aforementioned ability to harm. Some interpreted it as taking captive, which is close to what has been mentioned. Qatadah said: "It means to kill him."

(And they disputed with falsehood): That is, with that which has no reality. It is said: this is their saying, "You are but humans like us." It is better to say it is everything they mention to deny the message and beautify what they are upon. Interpreting it as "the devil" is of no consequence.

(To refute with it): That is, to remove with it—meaning with the falsehood, though it is said: with their disputing by means of falsehood—(the truth): the established matter from which there is no escaping.

(So I seized them): With total annihilation. (How was My punishment!): In this is a confirmation that induces wonder in the listeners regarding what befell them. It is permitted that it [the punishment] comes from the lack of consideration shown by these [present] people. The kasra is used instead of the ya of attribution in ‘iqab (punishment) because it is a verse-ending.

There is a difference of opinion regarding what caused the aforementioned "seizing." Some said: the totality of belying, the plotting to seize, and the disputing with falsehood. Al-Zamakhshari chose the view that it is the plotting to seize. He said in al-Kashf: This is because His saying, "And they disputed with falsehood to refute," is belying itself, and "seizing" (akhdh) corresponds to "seized" (fa-akhadhtu-hum). Verily, belying is what makes one deserving of the otherworldly punishment referred to later. It is not denied that it requires both; however, since the suitability of "seizing" to "seized" is more complete, and [the suitability of] belying to the otherworldly punishment is more apparent, he held it to be linked to "seizing" as a reminder of perfect correspondence. Furthermore, contentious argumentation has no purpose other than to cause harm, so it reinforces the plotting in this respect; indeed, belying also reinforces it.

The intent behind establishing His saying, "None disputes... except those who disbelieve," and mentioning the factions, is to bring attention to this meaning. Then, the explicit statement of His glory, "And every nation plotted against their messenger," indicates what he chose with clear evidence. Therefore, there is no need to apologize by claiming he only considered this and not the false disputation for which the discourse was directed for the sake of consolation.

The fair view is that in what Jar Allah [al-Zamakhshari] did, there is an observance of the aspect of meaning and a verbal correspondence, but the apparent [truth] is that it is a derivative consequence of the totality, as is not hidden.