Tafsir of Az-Zukhruf 43:5

"Shall We then take away the Reminder from you..."

After He (the Exalted) clarified the lofty status of the Great Quran and established that its revelation in their language was intended so that they might understand it, believe in it, and act according to its requirements, He followed this by denying that the matter could be otherwise. He (the Exalted) said: "Shall We then take away the Reminder from you..."—meaning: shall We set it aside and remove it from you? This is by way of representational metaphor (isti'arah tamthiliyyah), derived from the Arabs' saying: "He drove the stray camels away from the watering trough." It likens the state of the Reminder and its removal to the state of stray camels that are driven away from the trough when they enter among the watering herd. He then utilized the imagery of that context here. This conveys that wisdom necessitates that the Reminder be directed toward them and remain with them, as if it were insistently pressing upon them. If it were taken as a simple metaphor—by considering the act of removal itself as "driving away"—it would be valid, similar to the saying of Tarafa: "I drive away from you the worries that come by night, just as you strike the crest of a horse with a sword." Or the saying of Al-Hajjaj in his sermon, threatening the people of Iraq: "I shall certainly drive you away as stray camels are driven."

As for the "Reminder" (al-dhikr), it is said that what is meant is the Quran; this is narrated from Al-Dahhak and Abu Salih. The speech implies an added term: "the revelation of the Reminder." In this, the explicit noun is placed in the position of the pronoun for the purpose of glorification. It is also said that it is the "reminder" of the servants regarding their own welfare, making it a source in its literal sense. Similar implications are found in narrations from Ibn Abbas and Mujahid.

The interrogative particle hamzah is for negation, and the fa is for conjunction to a deleted premise which this structure necessitates—that is: "You are as you are, so shall We remove the Reminder from you?" Ibn al-Hajib said: the fa serves to explain that what precedes it—the making of the Quran in Arabic—is the cause for what follows it, which is the denial that He (the Exalted) would remove the Reminder from them.

"(as) a turning away (safhan)"—meaning: an aversion. This is a verbal noun (masdar) from "We take away" (nadribu), though not from the same root; for the removal of the Reminder is indeed an aversion (safh). It is in the accusative case as an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq), following the pattern of qa'adtu julusan (I sat [a] sitting). It is as if it were said: "Shall We overlook you with an overlooking?" Or it is in the accusative as a causal object (maf'ul lahu), or a circumstantial qualifier (hal) interpreted as "averters" (safihin), meaning those who turn away. The root of safh is turning your neck away from something. It is also said to mean "the side," and thus it is in the accusative as an adverb of place; i.e., "Shall We cast it away from you to the side?" This is supported by the recitation of Hassan bin Abd al-Rahman al-Dab'i, al-Sumayt bin 'Umayr, and Shubayl bin 'Udhra: suhfan (with a damma on the sad). In that case, it may be a simplification of suhuf (as rusul is the plural of rasul), meaning "averters." Abu Hayyan chose the view that it is a singular noun meaning "the opened/spread out," like al-sudd and al-sud.

It is related from Ibn Atiyyah that it is in the accusative as a confirming source for the meaning of the preceding sentence, thus its operator is deleted. It is not hidden that this is not apparent. In any case, the intent is the denial that the matter is contrary to what has been mentioned regarding the revelation of a Book in their language so that they might understand it.

"...because you are a people who are excessive?" Meaning: because you are persistent in extravagance and insist upon it? The meaning is that wisdom necessitates your being reminded and the revelation of the Quran; therefore, We do not abandon that because you are excessive and pay no heed to it. Rather, We do it regardless of whether you pay heed or not.

It is also said: it is in the sense that your state—even if it necessitates leaving you to your own devices until you die in disbelief and misguidance and remain in eternal punishment—is not acted upon by Us due to the vastness of Our mercy. Instead, We guide you to the truth by sending the trustworthy Messenger and revealing the clear Book.

Nafi' and the two reciters from Kufa (Hamza and Al-Kisa'i) read: in kuntum (with a kasra on the hamzah), based on the sentence being conditional. Although "if" (in) is used for the doubtful, and their excessiveness is an established fact, it is used here to treat the addressee as if he were hesitant or doubting the condition—aiming to attribute to him the ignorance of committing excess, picturing him in the form of one for whom the condition is hypothesized, due to the necessity of its negation and its non-occurrence from one who possesses intellect. Others say there is no need for this, as the condition is "excess in the future," which is not yet realized. This was countered by the fact that in when entering upon kana does not shift it to the future according to the majority. Therefore, it was said: in here is in the sense of idh (since/when). This is supported by the fact that Ali bin Zayd recited it as such, and that it indicates causality, thus aligning with the meaning of the reading with fath (on the hamzah). Even if it were conceded, the apparent state of the excessive one who insists on his excess is his persistence in what he is upon; thus, it is established in the future as well, according to the view that it shifts kana just like other verbs. The response to the condition is deleted, trusting in the indication of what precedes it. It is also suggested that the condition is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier—i.e., "supposing your excess"—on the basis that it is a concessive statement, so there is no need to estimate a response. This was critiqued by stating that this only holds if one accepts that the "concessive in" occurs in their speech without the waw, while the known rule in Arabic is the opposite.