Tafsir of Qaf 50:26

{Qaf: 26} "Who set up another god with Allah": It is an initial subject (mubtada’) containing the meaning of a condition, and its predicate is "Then cast him into the severe punishment."

Regarding the interpretation: It may be said that, regarding him, it implies "cast him both [into it]," or because it is in the meaning of the response to the condition, it does not require interpretation. Alternatively, it is a substitute (badal) for "every obstinate disbeliever," or for "disbeliever."

His saying, Exalted is He, "Then cast him" is a repetition for emphasis. It is analogous to "So do not think them" after His saying, Exalted is He, "And do not think those who rejoice." The "fa" (then/so) here serves to indicate that the casting is a consequence of the aforementioned traits. Or, it is like the expression "By your right, then by your right," where the difference between the emphasizing and the emphasized, or the explanatory and the explained, is treated as a difference between two distinct entities in a rhetorical sense; true difference is not claimed, for emphasis rejects that.

The assertion of the scholars of semantics—that between the emphatic and the emphasized there is a intensity of connection that prevents conjunction—is not absolute or sound, and the grammarians hold the opposite view. Ibn Malik said in al-Tashil: "Separating two sentences in emphasis with 'thumma' (then), if ambiguity is avoided, is better than joining them." Some grammarians mentioned the use of "fa," and al-Zamakhshari in al-Jathiyah mentioned "wa" (and) as well, classifying this as conventional emphasis.

If "the severe punishment" were considered a specific type of the punishment of Hell—the most terrifying of it—then it would be of the category of "His angels and Gabriel" (a specific mentioned after a general) rather than a repetition, which, as the author of al-Kashf said, would be excellent.

It has been permitted that it be an object of an implicit verb explained by "cast him both." Ibn Atiyyah said that it might be an adjective for "disbeliever," and it is permissible to describe it with a definite noun because it has become specific through the aforementioned attributes. Abu Hayyan critiqued this, arguing that it is not permissible to describe an indefinite noun with a definite one, even if it is described with many attributes.