Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:104

(Certainly, insights have come to you from your Lord.) This is a resumption of speech articulated by the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—where a command such as "Say" is implied, as stated by some researchers.

Basa’ir (insights) is the plural of basirah, which is to the heart what sight is to the eye. What is intended by this are the verses mentioned here, or all the verses [of the Quran], and what was mentioned is included primarily.

(From) indicates the beginning of a source metaphorically, and it is linked to "has come" or to an implied element that serves as an adjective for "insights." Addressing the title of Lordship while attributing it to the pronoun of the addressees is intended to manifest complete kindness toward them. That is: "There has come to you from the side of your Owner and the One who brings you to your appropriate perfection—through the revelation that speaks of truth and correctness—that which is like sight for the hearts," or "There has come to you insights that are from your Lord."

(So whoever sees) —that is, the truth through those insights and believes in it— (is for himself) —meaning he sees for his own benefit, as transmitted from al-Kalbi and followed by al-Zamakhshari; or, "his seeing is for his own sake," as preferred by Abu Hayyan, for reasons you will know soon, if Allah the Exalted wills. The intent in both interpretations is that the benefit of that returns to him.

(And whoever is blind) —meaning whoever does not see the truth after it has appeared clearly to him through those insights, and strays from it—and it is expressed as "blindness" to alienate [the listener] from it— (is against himself) —or, "the harm is upon himself." These are two interpretations for those mentioned previously.

Abu Hayyan mentioned that estimating the verbal noun is better for two reasons: First, the omitted element would be a singular noun, not a sentence, and the prepositional phrase would be a principal element, not an adjunct. Second, if the implied element were a verb, the fa (particle) would not be used—whether the "who" (man) is conditional or relative—because it is prohibited with the past tense. This was countered by the claim that estimating a verb is superior because it follows a stated verb and is stronger in significance. Furthermore, estimating the verb involves putting the object before the verb, which signifies exclusivity. Additionally, what was mentioned in the second point is not necessary, as one does not estimate the verb following the response fa, but rather one estimates the object of the past verb placed at the beginning, in which case the fa is mandatory. If you were to say, "Whoever honored Zayd, for himself he honored him," the fa would be necessary. Yes, it is not customary to transit 'amiya (blind) with 'ala (against/upon), and it is necessary in the previous estimation in the second sentence. It seems that for this reason, some turned away from it after agreeing on the first, to the phrase: "The consequence of it is against him."

(And I am not a guardian over you.) I am only a warner, and Allah the Exalted is the One who guards your deeds and will recompense you for them.