Tafsir of Ash-Shura 42:48

This is a shift in address, turning away from addressing the people—after having commanded them to respond—toward the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It means: If they do not respond and turn away from what you call them to, do not be concerned with them, for We have not sent you as a watcher or accountant over them. "Upon you is only the notification," not the guardianship, and you have fulfilled that.

"And indeed, when We let man taste mercy from Us"—that is, a blessing of health, wealth, security, and the like—"he exults in it." The term "man" (al-insan) is intended as the genus encompassing everyone, and it is in the sense of 'humankind' or 'the people.' Hence, the pronoun is pluralized in His (exalted is He) saying, "If calamity befalls them." It is not for the sake of total inclusion (istighraq), nor does plurality depend upon it; it is as if it were said: "If calamity befalls the people or humankind." "A calamity"—a tribulation of illness, poverty, fear, and others—"due to what their hands have sent forth," meaning because of the sins that have proceeded from them. For man is extremely ungrateful (kafūr).

He is excessive in his disbelief, forgetting the blessing entirely while remembering the calamity and exaggerating its magnitude. He does not contemplate the cause of it; rather, he assumes that it befell him without him deserving it.

The definite article (al) in the first instance is also for the genus. It is said that in both instances it is for the sake of reference (al-ahd), implying that what is intended are the criminals. It is also said that it is for the genus in the first and for reference in the second. Al-Zamakhshari said: He intended by 'man' everyone, not the individual, because of the plural pronoun. He intended only the criminals, because [the statement that] the arrival of calamity is due to what their hands have sent forth only holds true for them. Then he said: He did not say "for he is ungrateful" (fa-innahu kafūr) [with the pronoun] in order to record that this genus is marked by the ingratitude of blessings, as He (exalted is He) says: "Indeed, man is most unjust and ungrateful," and "Indeed, man is to his Lord ungrateful."

From this, the scholar al-Tayyibi understood that in the first instance it is for reference, and that what is meant are the disbelievers addressed in His saying (the Exalted): "Respond to your Lord." The result of [the connection to] "But if they turn away" is [the use of] the explicit noun in place of the pronoun to indicate their persistence in disbelief and to signal that they will not refrain from what they are in. And that in the second instance, it is for the genus, so that the meaning is: It is not strange for this specific man—the one known for persistence—to act this way, because this genus is marked by the ingratitude of blessings. Thus, the condemnation of the absolute serves as proof for the condemnation of the particular.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that he intended by "man"—the first one—the genus which is applicable to all and to some. When evidence arises for intending the specific, it is determined, and [the evidence] has arisen [as shown] by the preceding: that the arrival of calamity upon those who are not criminals is for a sufficient compensation. He did not lean toward the article being for reference, and he made His saying (the Exalted): "Indeed, man is ungrateful" for the genus, so that it serves as an explanation for the particular by way of a fortiori (al-tariq al-awla), and conforms to what has come in numerous places in the Noble Book.

There is no harm in regarding "the preceding" (al-salif) as an indication that it is also for the genus, and that the noun is placed in the position of the pronoun for the benefit mentioned repeatedly; indeed, it is more indicative of the principle established in the fundamentals, and both instances being for the genus.

I say: Attributing ingratitude—which is a trait of the disbelievers—to the genus [of humanity] is due to the prevalence of that trait among them. It is a metaphorical attribution (majaz 'aqli), where it is attributed to the genus based on the state of the majority of its individuals, due to the prevalence of their involvement in it. It is permissible to consider the majority of individuals as synonymous with the genus due to their predominance over others, in which case the metaphor is linguistic. The same is said regarding the attribution of "exulting" (al-farah) when it means arrogance/vanity (al-batr), for it is also a trait of the disbelievers. Furthermore, if it is in its known sense—an expansion of the heart with immediate pleasure, which occurs most in bodily, worldly pleasures—even if it is not among the exclusive traits of disbelievers, but also occurs in believers out of necessity or gratitude, it does not encompass all individuals of the genus. If you argue for its universality, you do not need that, as in the case where you interpret it based on the intention of reference regarding 'man,' and the arrival of calamity due to sins is also not general to all individuals. The situation of its attribution is known from what we have mentioned.

The commencement of the first conditional sentence with idha (when), while attributing the "tasting" to the noun of majesty (We), serves to alert that the arrival of blessing is definitely real and occurs frequently, and that it is intended essentially by the Absolute Generous (He is exalted and high). Just as the commencement of the second with in (if), the attribution of the "arrival" [of calamity] to the calamity itself in the imperfect tense, and the justification of it by their deeds, serves to signal its rarity and that it is separate from being included in the chain of primary will and initial intent, and establishing the cause of the recompense in place of the recompense itself is an exaggeration in condemning them.