Tafsir of Al-Waqi'ah 56:22

This is a conjunction referring back to {Wildān [youths]} or to the hidden pronoun in {Muttaki’īna [reclining]}, or it is a subject whose predicate is omitted—meaning "this is all [provided]"—or a subject whose predicate is omitted—meaning "for them," or "in it [the Garden], are Hūr."

The first viewpoint is critiqued on the grounds that it does not suit their state. It has been answered that it is not improbable that among the Hūr are those who are not "confined to pavilions" or kept behind veils; they may be like attendants to them, where their moving about is of no consequence, nor is it denied of them, and the "moving about" occurs within the pavilions themselves, which does not contradict their being confined therein. Or, the conjunction is to the meaning of "for them" (i.e., "for them are youths and Hūr").

The second viewpoint is critiqued as being extremely contrary to the manifest meaning. The third is critiqued for the excessive amount of ellipsis.

‘Īn (fair-eyed) is the plural of ‘Aynā’, the origin of which is ‘Ayn (pluralizing the form Fa‘lā’) just as one says Ḥamrā’ and Ḥumr. The ‘Ayn was broken [with a kasra] so that the yā’ would not be transformed into a wāw, for there is no yā’ with a sukūn preceded by a ḍamma in the speech of the Arabs, just as there is no wāw with a sukūn preceded by a kasra.

Al-Sulamī, Al-Ḥasan, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, Abū Ja‘far, Shaybah, Al-A‘mash, Ṭalḥah, Al-Mufaḍḍal, Abān, and ‘Aṣmah (on the authority of ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah, and Al-Kisā’ī) read it as {wa Ḥūrin ‘Īnin} in the genitive case (jarr). Al-Nakha‘ī read it similarly, except that he converted the wāw into a yā’—given the preceding kasra in Ḥūr—saying {wa Ḥīrin}, following the vocalization of the word ‘Īn.

It has been explained as a conjunction back to {Jannāti an-Na‘īm [Gardens of Bliss]}, with an implied genitive construct, as if it were said: "They are in Gardens, and [have] fruit, and meat, and the companionship of Hūr." This treats the companionship of the Hūr as analogous to a prepositional phrase, by way of metaphorical imagery (isti‘ārah makniyyah), with the "imaginary" component (takhayyuliyyah) being the assertion of the sense of containment via the particle {fī [in]}, which remains in its real sense, thereby avoiding the fallacy of combining the literal and the figurative. Al-Zamakhsharī opted for this conjunction, though Abū Ḥayyān critiqued it, saying: "There is far-fetchedness in it, and a dismantling of discourse that is connected to its parts," terming it a "non-Arab understanding." However, it is not as he claimed, as is obvious.

Alternatively, it may be a conjunction to {Akwāb [beakers]}, treating it as in the instance of "he walked while wearing a sword and [carrying] a spear," as previously mentioned. Thus, it is as if it were said: "They are bestowed with beakers and with Hūr." It is permitted that it remain in its well-known literal sense, suggesting that the youths circulate among them with the Hūr as well, to display to them all varieties of delights—from food, drink, and sexual intimacy—just as servants bring slave-girls to kings and present them to them. Abū ‘Umar and Quṭrub opted for this. The author of al-Kashshāf rejected this, saying: "As for the conjunction to the youths in the literal sense, no, because the youths do not circulate with them as they circulate with beakers." I am more inclined toward this [the literal sense], unless there is a report indicating otherwise. As for the genitive case being for the sake of proximity (jiwār), the separation [of the words] prevents that, or places it in doubt.

Ubayy and ‘Abd Allāh read {wa Ḥūran ‘Īnan} in the accusative case (naṣb). This is explained as a conjunction to the place of {bi-akwābin [with beakers]}, because the meaning is "they are given beakers and Hūr," or as a conjunction to an implied object of a deleted verb—i.e., "they are given all of this, and [also] Hūr."

Qatādah read {wa Ḥūru ‘Īnin} in the nominative case (raf‘), making Ḥūr a genitive construct to ‘Īn. Ibn Muqsim read {wa Ḥūra ‘Īnin} in the accusative, also as a genitive construct. ‘Ikrimah read {wa Ḥūrun ‘Aynā’u} in the singular, as a generic noun, with the hamza vocalized with fatḥa in both; thus, both the genitive and accusative cases are possible.