Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:176

"And if We had willed, We could have elevated him thereby" This is a resumed statement introduced to clarify what was previously mentioned regarding the insilakh (stripping away) and what follows it. The pronoun in "elevated him" refers to "the one" [mentioned previously], and the pronoun in "thereby" refers to the signs. The letter ba signifies causality. The object of the "willing" is omitted, as it is understood to be the content of the reward, according to the consistent rule; meaning: if We had willed his elevation, We would have elevated him to the stations of the righteous because of those signs and acting in accordance with them.

It is said that the accusative pronoun refers to the "disbelief" understood from the previous statement; meaning: if We had willed, We would have removed the disbelief through the signs. Thus, "elevation" here is taken from their saying "relieved (elevated) the oppression from us." This is highly contrary to the apparent meaning, even if it is narrated from Mujahid. Similar to this—or even more remote—is the view transmitted from Al-Balkhi and Al-Zajjaj that the pronoun in "thereby" refers to "the act of disobedience."

"But he clung to the earth" Meaning: he leaned toward the world and inclined toward it. This is how Al-Suddi and Ibn Jubayr interpreted it. The essence of ikhlad (clinging/adhering) is remaining in a place, derived from khulud (permanence). Because this implies an inclination, it is interpreted as such. "Earth" is interpreted as "the world" because it contains its pleasures and what is sought from it. Al-Raghib said: The meaning is that he leaned toward the earth, thinking he would remain in it forever. Many have interpreted "the earth" as "baseness."

"And followed his desire" In preferring the world, he turned away from the demands of those glorious signs. In tying the elevation to the "will" and then following it with a corrective clause (istidrak) regarding the slave’s action, there is a warning—as Nasir al-Din said—that the divine will is the cause of his action which leads to his elevation, and the absence of [the elevation] is proof of the absence of [the will], indicating that the negation of the caused effect is proof of the negation of its cause; that the true cause is the divine will, and that the causes we observe are considered intermediaries in the attainment of the effect insofar as the divine will was attached to them in that way.

It was fitting, as he said, for it to have been said: "But he turned away from them." Instead, what was mentioned was placed in its stead by way of exaggeration, as it is a metonymy (kinayah) for it, and metonymy is more eloquent than explicit statement, alerting one to what drove him to it—that love of the world is the head of every sin. How elegant is the attribution of the bringing of the signs and the elevation to Allah Almighty, while attributing the stripping away and the clinging to the slave, even though all is from Allah Almighty. For in this is the teaching of good manners to the servants. Hence, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "O Allah, all good is in Your hands, and evil is not attributed to You."

Al-Zamakhshari, seeing that the apparent meaning of the verse contradicted his school of thought—by indicating that occurrences happen by the will of Allah—clung to interpretation (ta’wil). He made "the will" a metaphor for its cause, which is "adhering to acting upon the signs," by the evidence of the corrective clause which is the slave’s action (clinging to the earth), which is the opposite of adhering to the signs. Meaning: "If he had adhered to them, We would have elevated him." This is of the category of taking off one's shoes before reaching the water, and resorting to metaphor before its time. It is permissible that "If We had willed" remains upon its literal truth, and "he clung to the earth" is a metaphor for its cause, which is that He did not will his elevation but rather [permitted] his clinging [to the earth]. He did not rely on his crutch, for the contrast would be lost then.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that burdening the "will" with what is caused by it in his [Al-Zamakhshari's] view is not more worthy than burdening "the clinging" with what is caused by it in our view. How could it be otherwise, when His saying—Exalted be He—"And if We had willed" is a corrective to His saying "so he stripped himself away from them"? Moreover, "clinging" is an inclination and desire, and inclination and its likes are not among the actions of the slaves by consensus. Yes, the accompanying resolution is an action of the heart; it is an action of the heart according to them. Furthermore, His saying—Exalted be He—"Whoever Allah guides" and His saying "And We have certainly created" confirm what the People of the Sunnah follow with the most eloquent confirmation, but Al-Zamakhshari pays no heed to that.

"So his description is like that of the dog" It is the well-known animal, and its plural is aklub, kilab, and kilabat, as Ibn Sidah said. Kulayb is like ‘ubayd, though it is rare. Aklub is also pluralized as akalib. It is used as a proverb for baseness because it eats filth, returns to its vomit, and carrion is dearer to it than fresh meat. Yes, it is better than an evil man. Among what is attributed to Al-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him): Would that the dogs were our neighbors, and would that we saw no one among those we see. Indeed, the dogs remain quiet in their lairs, whereas the evil of people never ceases. In Al-Bayhaqi’s Shu’ab al-Iman, from the jurist Mansur, it is narrated that he used to recite to himself: The dog is better in companionship—and it is the ultimate in baseness—than one who contends for leadership before the time of leadership.

"Example" (mathal) here means "description," as many have said; so his description is the description of the dog. It is also said the intent is that he is like the dog in baseness.

"If you attack it, it pants, or if you leave it, it pants" Meaning: if you pressure it and drive it away, it pants; or if you leave it in its state, it pants—meaning it is perpetually panting in any case. "Panting" (lahth) is the protruding of the tongue with heavy breathing. This is a nature in the dog; it cannot easily endure the intake of heated air and the drawing in of cold air due to the weakness of its heart and the fragility of its constitution, unlike other animals, for they do not require heavy breathing nor do they succumb to distress and constriction except when fatigued and exhausted. Preferring the nominal sentence over the verbal sentence (i.e., "it became like the dog") serves to signify the permanence of his being characterized by that base state and the perfection of his persistence in it. The address in the two conditional verbs is for anyone who has a share of address, for it is more effective in spreading the atrocity of his state.

The two conditional sentences, it is said, have no place in syntax because they are a detailing of what was summarized in the example and an interpretation of what was vague in it by clarifying the point of resemblance, following the method of His saying "He created him from dust, then said to him: Be! And he becomes" following His saying "The likeness of ‘Isa at Allah is as the likeness of Adam."

It is also said that they are in the place of an accusative state (hal) from the dog, based on their transformation into the meaning of equality, just as the interrogation transformed into that in His saying "It is the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them." It is as if it were said: "panting in both cases." The conditional sentence, as we have mentioned, occurs as a state absolutely. The author of al-Daw' said: It almost never occurs as such in its entirety; rather, if it is intended to be a state, it is made a predicate of the possessor of the state, such as "Zayd came to me, and it is that if you ask him, he will give you." You make it a nominal sentence with waw because the condition, due to its initial position, barely relates to what precedes it unless there is some extra strength. Yes, it is permissible if you remove it from its reality, whether the opposite is conjoined to it—in which case the waw must be dropped, as in our case—or it is not conjoined—in which case the waw is mandatory so that it does not get confused with a real condition, like "I will come to you, even if you do not come to me."

The similitude is said to be the comparison of a singular to a singular. It is also said—and many scholars follow this—that it is a comparison of the state extracted from what he experienced after his "stripping away"—of evil state, intense burning of the heart, constant anxiety and agitation, and lack of rest in any condition—with the state extracted from what was mentioned regarding the state of the dog. It has been narrated, and we pointed to it previously, that when Balaam cursed Musa (peace be upon him), his tongue came out and hung down upon his chest, and he began to pant like a dog until he perished. So, the point of resemblance is either intellectual or sensory.

"That is" An indication of the description of the dog or of the one stripped of the signs, with the inherent indication of distance, for reasons mentioned more than once.

"The example of the people who denied Our signs" It means, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), that the people of Makkah used to wish for a guide to guide them and a caller to call them to the obedience of Allah Almighty. Then, when there came to them one whose truthfulness and trustworthiness they did not doubt, they denied him, turned away from the signs, and did not believe in them. Or, [it refers to] the Jews, as many have said, for they read the description of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the Torah and the mention of the miraculous Qur’an and what it contained, so they believed in him and gave people glad tidings of the approach of his mission, and they used to seek victory through him. But when there came to them what they recognized, they disbelieved in it and stripped themselves of the rulings of the Torah. Or, [it refers to] the more general case of these and those—everyone who is characterized by this title, as in al-Khazin. And it is the view I hold, and the Jews enter into this primarily.

"So relate the stories" Al-qasas (the stories) is a verbal noun used to name the object, like al-salb (plunder). The al in it is for reference, and the fa is for ordering what follows it upon what preceded it; meaning: if it is established that the mentioned example is the example of these deniers, then relate that to them.

"That perhaps they might reflect" So they might desist from what they are upon of disbelief and misguidance. The sentence is in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun of the addressee or in the position of a causal object (maf’ul lahu); meaning: relate, hoping for their reflection, or as a hope for their reflection.