Tafsir of Fussilat 41:51

[The phrase] wa na'ā bi-jānibihi (and distances himself) implies arrogance and conceit. This is because "the side" (al-jānib) means the direction and place, then the place and direction of a thing are used metonymically in place of the thing itself. An example of this is the saying of the Exalted: "And for he who has feared the position (maqām) of his Lord," and the poet’s saying: "I terrified the sand grouse with it, and removed from it the 'place' (maqām) of the wolf, like a cursed man." Similarly, the scribes write "the presence (hadra) of so-and-so," "his high seat (majlis)," and "I wrote to his direction (jihah) and to his side (jānib)," intending by these his very self and essence. It is as if it were said: "He distanced his own self." Then, it is further metaphorized as "he went away with his own self" out of arrogance and conceit.

It is also permitted that "his side" (bi-jānibihi) refers to his flank, expressing deviation and turning away, as they say, "He turned away and retreated with his flank (bi-ruknihi)." The first interpretation contains two metonymies: replacing "the self" with "the side," and expressing extreme arrogance with the phrase "he went away with his self." Some contend that jānib (side) and janb (flank) are literal, like the "flank" of a limb or one of the two sides of the body, and are used metaphorically for a "direction." Do not overlook this.

According to Abu Ubaydah, na’ā bi-jānibihi means "he rose with it," which is an expression for arrogance, like "he lifted his nose." The letter bā is for transitivity. Furthermore, expressing a person’s essence through terms like "position" (maqām) and "seat" (majlis) is often done to show reverence and to refrain from explicitly naming them. Sometimes, one explicitly names the person when one intends to honor them. Zuhayr said: "If you approach the [mention of] the beloved and the Hima (sacred area), beware of forgetting so as to mention Zaynab; that which is named will suffice you as an allusion, so leave her preserved in majesty and veiled." From this, al-Tayyibi said that what is here is intended as mockery.

There is a recitation: wa na'ā with the imāla of the alif and the kasra of the nūn for assimilation, and wa nā’a by inversion, just as they say rā’a for ra’ā.

"And when evil touches him, then he is [a man] of extensive prayer."

This means: a frequent, continuous [prayer]. It is a metaphor taken from that which has a wide breadth (‘ard). Originally, this is something used to describe physical bodies, where it is the shorter of the two dimensions, while the longer is the length (tūl). In common parlance, "extensive" (‘arīd) implies breadth. The intensive form and the tanwīn of multiplication (in du‘ā’in ‘arīd) reinforce this. Describing "prayer" with the aforementioned term necessitates great length as well, for it must be greater than the breadth; otherwise, it would not be "length." The metaphor in both "prayer" and "extensive" is permissible, and the method of its execution is not hidden.

Some of the illustrious scholars have mentioned that these verses contain two types of the tyranny of the human species. The first is in describing the intensity of his greed for accumulation and the intensity of his anguish over loss, while implicitly accusing his Lord—Exalted is He—of injustice in his saying: "This is for me," embedding within it his corrupt belief in the Resurrection, which is the cause of all those evils.

The second is in describing his volatility, which results from his self-admiration and arrogance when blessings exist, and his dejection upon their loss. In this, he is censured for being occupied by the blessing to the exclusion of the Bestower in both states. As for the first, it is obvious. As for the second, it is because pleading out of anguish over a loss is not a return to the Bestower, but rather an expression of regret for the loss that preoccupies him from the Bestower in all respects.

It is mentioned that the mention of these two descriptions indicates that he lacks restraint—that is, intellect—and is of weak resolve—that is, strength. For despair and despondency contradict "extensive prayer," and in that state, he is like a drowning man clutching at everything. From this, one understands the answer to the objection: "His being a person who prays 'extensively' and repeatedly contradicts his being described as 'despairing and despondent,' since prayer is a branch of hope and expectation, and 'despondency' implies the manifestation of the traces of despair; thus, the appearance of what indicates hope rejects it."

Others answered that it may be said: the second state is the affair of some, not of those about whom despair and despondency were narrated, or it is the state of all [people] at certain times. Some have used the verse, "then he is a man of extensive prayer," as evidence that ījāz (conciseness) is not ikhtisār (abbreviation), interpreting this verse as the omission of repeating the words despite the unity of meaning, while ījāz is the omission of its length, which is itnāb (verbosity). This is an argument based on that which does not prove [the point], as there is no such omission of that breadth in it, let alone naming it as such.