Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:165

(So when they forgot that by which they had been reminded) — meaning: they abandoned that which their righteous ones reminded them of, with the abandonment of one who forgets a thing, and they turned away from it completely. "Ma" (that) is a relative pronoun (mawsula). It is also permitted that it be an infinitive particle (masdariya), though this is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Forgetfulness is a metaphor for abandonment, and it is most likely a metaphor where abandonment is likened to forgetfulness based on the shared quality of indifference. It is also permitted that it be a figurative extension (majaz mursal) based on the relationship of causality. Its literal meaning was not intended, as stated by some researchers, because it did not occur [as literal forgetfulness], because one is not held accountable for forgetfulness, and because it is the intentional abandonment upon which the salvation of the warners is predicated in His saying, the Almighty: "(We saved those who forbade evil)." This is because they did not comply with their [the warners'] command, unlike if they had forgotten it, for in that case, the duty to remind them would have remained. The apparent meaning of the verse suggests that salvation is contingent upon the forgetfulness [of the wrongdoers]; however, in reality, it is contingent upon the forgetfulness and the act of reminding, and that which is in the scope of the conditional clause points to both. It is as if it were said: "When the reminders reminded but the transgressors did not accept the reminder and turned away from that which they were reminded of, We saved the former and seized the latter."

The category of "forbidding evil" includes both those who said, "Why do you preach...?" and those to whom it was said. As for its inclusion of those to whom it was said, it is clear. As for its inclusion of those who spoke [the admonishers], it is because they also forbade [evil], except that they saw no benefit, so they refrained. That does not harm them; for it has been established that when the warner knows the state of the one being warned, and that the warning will have no effect, the obligation to warn falls away from him, and perhaps refraining becomes mandatory, according to what Al-Zamakhshari said, because it enters into the category of futility. Do you not see that if you were to go to the tax collectors sitting on the road to seize the wealth of the poor and others unjustly, in order to preach to them and stop them from what they are doing, that would be a futility on your part and would serve no purpose other than to be mocked? Those [who forbade evil] did not turn away as these [others] turned away, either because they had not reached the same level of despair as their brethren, or because of the intensity of their zeal and diligence in their affair, just as God Almighty described His Messenger (may God grant him peace and blessings) with His saying: "(Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them in their footsteps)."

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both) that he said: "I do not know what happened to the silent faction," meaning the ones who spoke [and then stopped]. The origin of his statement, as some narrations express, is that he heard His saying, the Almighty: "(We saved those who forbade evil)" and His saying, the Majestic: "(And We seized those who did wrong)," i.e., by transgression and disobedience to the command. He (may God be pleased with him) did not immediately perceive the implication, despite his deep insight. So Ikrimah said to him: "May God make me your ransom! Do you not see how they disapproved and hated what the people were doing, and said what they said? Even if God, the Almighty, did not say 'I saved them,' He did not say 'I destroyed them'." His statement pleased him, so he ordered two garments for him and said: "The silent faction has been saved." Al-Tabarsi attributed two other opinions to him (may God be pleased with him) regarding the silent faction: one, the opinion of withholding judgment (tawaqquf), and two, the opinion of destruction, which is what Ibn Zayd held. It is also narrated from Abu Abdullah (may God be pleased with him). The seized ones, in that case, are the silent ones and the wrongdoers.

(With a severe punishment) — meaning: intense. The "Hibr" (Ibn Abbas) interpreted it as that which has no mercy in it, which reverts to what has been mentioned. It is in the form fa'il, either as an adjective or an infinitive (like nakir), used as an adjective for intensification. Most scholars hold that it is an adjective from ba'usa-ya'basu-ba'san when it is intense.

Al-Raghib said: Al-bu's, al-ba's, and al-ba'sa' all mean intensity and adversity, except that al-bu's is more commonly used in the context of poverty and war, while al-ba's and al-ba'sa' are used for harm/affliction. Abu Bakr recited it as bi's on the pattern of fai'al like daygham, which is one of the patterns used for adjectives and nouns. When the ya is added to an infinitive in this way, it turns it into a noun or an adjective, like saql and sayqal. Its middle letter is open in sound roots and broken in weak roots, like sayyid. Hence, in the recitation of Asim (in one narration from him), bi'sin with a kasra on the hamza, it is considered weak in both transmission and reasoning. What lightens it is that the hamzated root is akin to the weak root. Ibn Amir recited it bi'sin with a kasra on the ba and a sukun on the hamza, on the basis that its origin is bi'sun with an open ba and a broken hamza, like hadhar, then it was made quiescent for the sake of lightness, as they said kabd for kabad and kalma for kalama. Nafi' recited it baysin by changing the hamza into a ya because of its sukun and the kasra preceding it, as was done in dhib. It is said that these two recitations are derived from the fact that the root of the word is bi'sa, which is a verb of condemnation, that was treated as a noun, as in qila and qala. The meaning is "a condemned, hateful punishment." It was also recited as baysin like rays and kays, by changing the hamza to a ya and then merging it into the [other] ya. It is said that it is from al-u's with a waw, its origin being bayusun like mayut, then it underwent the same morphological changes. And bays [recited] with lightening like hayyin, and ba'is on the pattern of the active participle, meaning "possessing intensity and severity." Other [recitations] have also been reported; some have brought the total number of recitations for it to twenty-six. The indefinite nature of the "punishment" is for the sake of glorification and terror.

(For what they were sinning) — connected to "We seized," like the first ba. There is no harm in this, despite the difference in meaning; that is, "We seized them with the aforementioned punishment because of their persistent sinning." There is no obstacle to this being a cause for the seizure, just as it was a cause for the initial [transgression]. Similarly, there is no obstacle to assigning it a cause with what was mentioned after assigning the cause as "wrongdoing," which is in the scope of the relative clause, for that is also "wrongdoing." The first [mention] was not deemed sufficient for reasons that are not hidden.