Tafsir of Al-Qalam 68:15

{If Our verses are recited unto him, he says: Legends of the ancients.}

This is an initiation [of speech] that follows the course of providing a reason for the prohibition [mentioned previously]. It is permissible that "if" (idhā) relates to an implied verb such as "he denied," and the conditional clause indicates this. It is estimated to precede it to dispel the illusion of restriction, as if it were said: "He denied because he was a possessor of wealth," etc. The intent is that he showed insolence toward the blessing of Allah (Exalted is He) and did not recognize its right.

It is not permitted for it to relate to the aforementioned "he says" that follows, because that which follows a conditional [clause] cannot govern that which precedes it. Perhaps those who permit the consistent expansion of the usage of the adverbial phrase (ẓarf) might permit this, and likewise those who consider "if" (idhā) here to be purely adverbial. Abu Ali al-Farsi said it is permissible for it to relate to "coarse/cruel" (ʿutul), even though it is an adjective, but Abu Hayyan criticized this as being a Kufan school opinion, which is not permitted according to the Basrans. It has been said that it relates to "base-born" (zanīm), and this is plausible if it is interpreted as "one of ugly deeds."

Al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Ishaq, Abu Ja'far, Abu Bakr, Hamzah, and Ibn Amir read {A-an kāna} as an interrogative, and Hamzah verified both hamzas, while Sahl verified the second, with the rest [reading it] according to what is [mentioned] in al-Bahr. Some said Abu Bakr and Hamzah read it with two hamzas, and Ibn Amir with a hamza and a maddah (elongation). The meaning is: "Does he deny [the verses] because he is a possessor of wealth?" or "Shall I obey him because he is a possessor of wealth?" etc.

Nafi', in a narration by al-Yazidi from him, read {in kāna} with a kasrah, under the principle that the condition of wealth in the prohibition of obedience is like the [mention of] poverty in the prohibition of killing children, meaning that the prohibition in other cases is known by the priority of the argument (dalālat al-naṣṣ). The condition and the cause in such a context have no restrictive implication (mafhūm). Or, it is on the basis that the condition is for the addressee, and the essence of the meaning is: "Do not obey every habitual swearer, etc., while stipulating his wealth [as a condition for obedience]," because obeying a disbeliever for his wealth is equivalent to stipulating his wealth for obedience. In this there is the lowering of the addressee to the position of one who stipulates that, and its verification is for the purpose of stirring [zeal] and firmness, and an allusion to those who consider wealth a nobility.

The evident view is that the conditional clause [following] is an initiation. It has been said that this is from among the cases where two conditions have met, and they are not [two] sequential conditions in occurrence. Thus, the one that is delayed in wording is the one that precedes in meaning, and the one that precedes in wording is a condition for the second, as in his saying:

If I stumble after this, and my soul returns from this [predicament], then say: May you not rise again.

Al-Hasan read {A-idhā} as an interrogative, and it is an interrogation of reproach and rebuking regarding his saying: "Legends of the ancients."