Tafsir of Muhammad 47:8

Ta'san is derived from the phrase "the man fell," meaning he tumbled onto his face. Its opposite is inta'asha, meaning he rose from his fall. Shamir, Ibn Shumayl, Abu al-Haytham, and others stated: Ta'asa (with a kasra on the 'ayn). It is said: Ta'san lahu and naksan; whereas the former, as Ibn al-Sikkit said, means falling on the face, and the latter means falling on the head. Al-Homsi mentioned in his annotations on al-Tasrih: Ta'asa ta'san means he does not rise from his stumble, and naksan (with a damma on the nun, though it may be opened either as a rare dialect or by assimilation to ta'san). Al-Naks (with a damma) is the return of an illness after recovery; it is intended as an invocation. It became frequent in invocations against someone who stumbles to say ta'san lahu, and in invocations for them to say inti'ashan (rising) and iqamatan (standing firm). They cite the words of al-A'sha describing a she-camel: "I burdened my soul with an unknown path, and my concern for her urged me on, when her arrival was obscured by one with strength and vigor; if she stumbles, ta's (ruin) is more fitting for her than for me to say la'an (may you rise)." Tha'lab and Ibn al-Sikkit also said: Al-Ta's is destruction. From this is the saying of Mujammi' ibn Hilal: "She says, while she is desolate, separated from her mate, 'May you meet with ta'san as you have brought ta'san upon me, O Mujammi'." In al-Qamus: Al-Ta's is destruction, stumbling, falling, evil, distancing, and degradation. The verb follows the pattern of mana'a (denoting ta'san) and sami'a (denoting ta'isa). If you are addressing someone, you say ta'ista (like mana'ta), and if you are reporting about someone, you say ta'isa (like sami'a). It is also said: "May Allah, the Exalted, cause him to fall" (ta'asahu and at'asahu). A man is ta'is or ta'is. Its accusative case is as a verbal noun (masdar) from a verb of its own root that must be implied because it is an invocation, like suqyan (a watering) and ra'yan (a guarding). Thus, the usage follows the manner of proverbs when that is intended. The prepositional phrase following it is attached to an implied word for clarification according to many, meaning: "I mean by it, for him," for instance. Thus, "ta'san lahu" consists of two sentences. The Kufans held that it is a single expression, and Ibn Hisham has a discussion on this particle in the research of the "Lam of Clarification," which should be consulted there.

Expressions vary in interpreting what is in the noble verse: Ibn Abbas said: "Meaning distance for them." Ibn Jurayj and al-Suddī said: "Meaning grief for them." Al-Hasan said: "Meaning curses for them." Ibn Zayd said: "Meaning misery for them." Al-Dahhak said: "Meaning humiliation for them." Al-Naqqash reported its interpretation as "disgrace for them." Others said: "Meaning stumbling and degradation for them." How subtle is the mention of this for them after mentioning the "firming of the feet" for the believers! In a narration from Ibn Abbas, he intends: in this world, slaughter; and in the Hereafter, plunging into the Fire. Most opinions revert to it being an invocation against them for destruction.

Al-Zamakhshari permitted two possibilities in its syntax: First, that it is an absolute object (maf'ul mutlaq) for an omitted verb, as previously stated. Second, that it is a direct object for an omitted verb, meaning: "And He decreed ruin (ta'san) for them." Regarding the first, he implied a verb of speech, meaning: "He said, 'Ruin to them.'" What drove him to this—as it is said—is making "those" (alladhina) a subject (mubtada') and the sentence joined by the fa a predicate for it; since it is for creating an invocation, and a creation (insha') cannot serve as a predicate without interpretation. Therefore, one must either imply a verb of speech with it or make it a predicate by implying "it was decreed" (qudiya), and linking His saying: "...and He led their deeds astray" as a conjunction to what was implied.

In al-Kashf: The intended meaning of "Ruin to them" is "May Allah destroy them," not that there is a speech act followed by an invocation. This is because one does not invoke against a person unless he deserves it; thus, when Allah informs that He is invoking against him, it indicates the certainty of the destruction, especially since the outward form of the text is that the invocation is from Him—Exalted is He. This is a metaphor upon a metaphor; meaning, the "speech" is a metaphor, as is the invocation of ta's. He did not make the conjunction follow ta'san because it is an invocation, while adalla (He led astray) is a report. If it were also made an invocation linked to ta'san via the aforementioned metaphorical usage, it would have a basis. End quote.

You know that what al-Zamakhshari considered is not merely for the sake of the conjunction, but also for the sake of it being a report. If it is said that reporting with an invocative sentence without interpretation is valid, then what he said is entirely unnecessary, and the fa is included in the predicate of the relative noun (al-mawsul) due to its containing the meaning of a condition.

It is also permitted that the relative noun be in the place of an accusative as the object of an implied verb clarified by the word causing ta'san to be in the accusative, meaning: "May Allah cause those who disbelieved to fall," or "Allah caused those who disbelieved to fall into ta'san," based on what you heard from al-Qamus. It has also been reported from Abu 'Ubaydah, and the fa is redundant in the speech, as in His saying: "And your Lord, glorify" (wa rabbaka fa-kabbir). The Arabs add it in such instances due to an imagined condition.

It is also said: The verb is implied in the present tense, linked to His saying: "He firms" (yuthabbitu), meaning: "And He causes those who disbelieved to fall..." and the fa is for conjunction. Thus, the meaning is "causing to fall after causing to fall." Its counterpart is His saying: "And fear Me" (wa iyyaya fa-arhabun), or because it is the right of the explainer to be mentioned after the explained, like detail after brevity. Regarding this, there is room for discussion.