Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:2

His saying, the Almighty: (A Book revealed unto thee). "Book" is, according to some probabilities, the predicate of a deleted subject, meaning "It is a Book," or "That is a Book." His saying, the Almighty: (revealed unto thee)—that is, from His presence, the Almighty—is a description of it that honors its status and the status of the one to whom it was revealed, peace and blessings be upon him. The verb is put in the passive voice in adherence to the protocol of Majesty, and as an indication of the lack of need for explicitly stating the agent due to the utmost clarity of its being known; this is the secret behind omitting the mention of the origin of the revelation.

The description in the past tense, if "The Book" refers to the Qur'an, is clear regarding the common denominator between the whole and the part. If it refers to the totality, then due to its certain occurrence, it is made as the past. Al-Zamakhshari and those who agreed with him chose that what is meant by "Book" here is the Surah (chapter), and therein lies an exaggeration that is not hidden, if we say: it is not applied to the part. If we say it is applied to it, as in their saying: "This ruling was established by the Book," then the matter is clear. Among the people are those who permitted making "Book" a subject, and the sentence following it as its predicate, in the sense of: "A Book, what a Book, has been revealed unto thee." It is not hidden that the first is worthier, because this is contrary to the original principle, and the deletion of the subject is more numerous than can be counted.

(So let there not be) in your chest any haraj (narrowness/distress) from it—that is, doubt, as Ibn Abbas and others have said. Its original meaning is tightness, and its usage in that [sense of doubt] is metaphorical, as in al-Asas; its relationship is necessitation, for the doubter is overcome by the tightness of the chest, just as the certain is overcome by its expansion and breadth. The barrier [to the literal interpretation] is the impossibility of the reality of haraj (distress) from the Book; if you permit it [as a reality], it is a metonymy. According to both estimations, it has become a customary reality for that [doubt], as some of the investigators have said.

It is permitted that it remains on its literal meaning, but there is an implicit object in the speech, such as the fear of non-acceptance and denial, for he, peace and blessings be upon him, used to fear his people, their denial, their turning away from him, and their harming him. Witnessing to this interpretation is the saying of the Almighty: (Then perhaps you would leave out some of what is revealed to you, and your chest is distressed by it, [so] they say: "Why has not a treasure been sent down to him, or an angel come with him?") And witnessing to the first [interpretation of doubt] is the saying of the Almighty: (And be not of the doubters.) It may be said: it is a metonymy for fear, and fear, just as it happens regarding the hated thing, happens regarding its cause.

Directing the prohibition toward haraj in the sense of doubt—even though the intention is to forbid him, peace and blessings be upon him, from it—is said to be either for the sake of exaggeration in exonerating the presence of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, from doubt, for prohibiting a thing suggests the possibility of the occurrence of the prohibited thing; or for the sake of exaggeration in the prohibition, because the occurrence of doubt in his chest, peace and blessings be upon him, is a cause for him being characterized by it—far be it from him!—and the prohibition of the cause is a prohibition of the effect by demonstrative proof, and a negation of it altogether, as in His saying, the Almighty: (And do not let the hatred of a people...) This is not of the category of "Do not let me see you here," for the prohibition there is directed at the effect while intending the prohibition of the cause. Thus, the conclusion is his prohibition, peace and blessings be upon him, from engaging in what would inherit haraj. Contemplate this.

What some of the investigators have gone toward is that the meaning is to prohibit the addressee from exposing himself to haraj by way of metonymy, and that it is of the category of "Do not let me see you here," because the absence of haraj in his chest is one of the necessities of him not being exposed to haraj, just as the absence of seeing is one of the necessities of not being present here. If the one who denies it being of that category intends to differentiate between them—considering that the meaning in one of them is the prohibition of the cause and the intended is the effect, and in the other the opposite—then there is no harm in it; this is why some used "necessitation" instead of "causality." If he intends that it is not of metonymy at all, then it is void. Yes, it is permitted that it is of the metaphorical, and the famous view is that what prompted this interpretation is that the literal meaning demands the prohibition of haraj from existing in the chest, and haraj is not something that is forbidden. It has a valid aspect, so let it be understood.

The sentence, on the assumption that haraj is a reality—as the text of al-Kashshaf implies—is a metonymy for not being concerned with the enemies. Be that as it may, the tanwin in haraj is for belittlement. Its attachment [to a preceding word] is to what is near it, or to a deleted word serving as its adjective—that is, haraj existing from it. The Fa (so) permits conjunction: either to a deleted [preceding clause], meaning "You have been given a language, so let there not be in your chest, etc."; or to what precedes it by interpreting the informative as an optative, or vice-versa—meaning: "Realize its revelation from Allah, the Almighty, to you; therefore, haraj does not befit you." It also permits being a response [to a condition], as if it were said: "If it is revealed to you, then let there not be, etc." Al-Farra said it is a parenthetical clause. Some of the shaykhs said it is for the sequencing of the prohibition or the cessation upon the content of the sentence, if the intention is "Let there not be in your chest any doubt regarding its truth," for it is something that necessitates the negation of doubt regarding what was mentioned entirely, and the attainment of certainty in it definitively. And it is for the sequencing of what was mentioned upon informing of it—not upon itself—if the meaning is "Let there not be doubt in it being a book revealed to you." And it is for the sequencing upon the content of the sentence, or upon informing of it, if the meaning is "Let there not be tightness in your chest from conveying it, for fear they might deny you or that you might fall short in fulfilling its right," for each of these is a cause for embarking upon conveying and the removal of fear definitively, even if the causation of the second is by means of the first. The scrutiny in the middle of these divisions is not hidden, so ponder it.

(That you may warn therewith)—that is, with the revealed Book. It is said the verb is either placed in the position of an intransitive one, or its object has been deleted to imply generality. It may be said: the object was deleted due to the indication of what is to come upon it. The Lam (that/in order to) is attached to "revealed" according to Al-Farra, and the sentence of prohibition is parenthetical between the cause and its effect. This is the meaning according to what was reported from him that it is by way of precedence and subsequence. It is said: this is something that should be pointed out, for the predecessors make the [concept of] "parenthetical" [apply] to the precedence and subsequence because of its intercalation between the parts of a single speech; their intention is not that there is a reversal (qalb) in the speech. The aspect of placing it in the middle is either that the sequence is upon the revelation itself, not upon the revelation for the sake of warning, or it is to observe emphasis, along with what is in that—according to what is said—of the indication that each of the revelation and the warning is sufficient for the negation of haraj. As for the sufficiency of the second, it is manifest, for the one who is feared should not fear the one he warns so that he may be able to warn as required. As for the sufficiency of the first, it is because the fact that the Book reaching the ultimate perfection is revealed to him, peace and blessings be upon him, specifically among his brothers the prophets, peace be upon them, requires him to be broad-chested, not concerned with falsehood and its people. From Ibn al-Anbari, the Lam is attached to the attachment of the predicate—that is, "Let not the haraj be established in your chest for the sake of warning." It is said that it is attached to the verb of prohibition, which is "let be" (yakun), based on the permissibility of the prepositional phrase being attached to the incomplete kana because of its indication of the correct event. It is said that it is permissible to attach it to haraj in the sense that the haraj for the sake of warning and the tightness for it should not be. The second scholar said: it is governed by the demand or the demanded—that is, the negation of haraj. This is more apparent, not the prohibited—meaning the verb to which the prohibition is entered, as has been said—due to the corruption of the meaning. Al-Zamakhshari generalized its attachment to the prohibition, and it was objected that this does not hold up according to the first interpretation of haraj, because the causation of the prohibition of doubt by what was mentioned of warning and reminding—while it suggests the possibility of it occurring from him, peace and blessings be upon him—indicates that the prohibited is not to be feared for its own sake, but for its leading to the missing of warning and reminding, or at the very least, an indication that that is the greatest of its disasters; there is no doubt in the corruption of this. As for the second interpretation, the causation by warning only holds, not by the reminding of the believers, since there is no trace of fear in it to be made a goal for its negation. You are aware that the fact that the prohibition of it is to be feared for its own sake is as clear as the fire of the villages at night on a landmark; the opposite is not to be imagined. The saying that it is at least an indication that this is the greatest of its disasters does not have corruption in it, based on what the context requires, even if some of its disasters in the reality of the matter are greater than that, and that the verse is not a text for the causation of the prohibition by warning and reminding, as will become clear to you soon, God willing, so that the objection might stand regarding the second interpretation. Even if we concede that it is a text, we say: what prevents it from being of the category of the saying of the Almighty: (Indeed, We have given you a clear conquest, that Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow, and complete His favor upon you...)?

(And a reminder to the believers) is in the accusative case by the implication of its verb, as a conjunction to (that you may warn)—meaning: "and remind the believers [as a] reminding." Al-Zamakhshari prohibited, in what was reported from him, the conjunction in the accusative to the place of (that you may warn), arguing that the object for which a thing is done must have the same agent as the agent of the thing it is done for, so that the deletion of the Lam from it is permissible. It is possible, as in al-Kashf, to say there is no prohibition that reminding is the action of the One who revealed it, the Almighty, except that the parallelism between warning and reminding is missed. Yes, it permits the genitive case by conjunction to the place [of the preceding Lam phrase]—that is, "for warning and for reminding." And it permits the nominative case on the basis that it is a conjunction to "a Book" or the predicate of a deleted subject—meaning "It is a reminder to the believers." The difference between the two aspects, according to what is in al-Kashf, is that the first means that this [Book] combines both matters: its being a complete Book in its status, reaching the limit of inimitability in the beauty of its expression, and its being a reminder to the believers, reminding them of the origin and the return. The second [aspect] conveys that this [entity] which is qualified by being a Book whose status is such and such, is a reminder to the believers; it would be a conjunction of a sentence to a sentence, so it benefits its independence in each of the two matters. This is worthier in wording and meaning. The specialization of the reminder to the believers is because they are the ones who benefit from it, or to indicate the exclusive nature of the warning to the disbelievers. The warning is made lasting because it is more important according to the context.