Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:92

(Those who denied Shu‘ayb...) This is an initiation [of a new sentence] to clarify that they were afflicted by the evil omen of their own words: "We will surely evict you, O Shu‘ayb, and those who have believed with you from our town." The relative noun [Alladhina] is the subject, and its predicate is the saying of the Exalted: "As if they had not dwelt therein," meaning: as if they had not resided in their homes. Qatada said: The meaning is, as if they had not lived there in prosperity. More than one authority has mentioned that it is said: "Ghaniya bi-l-makan" (he resided in a place) with the meaning of "ghina" and "ghunyan" when one stays in a place for a long time. Some restricted this to residing in a life of ease. Ibn al-Anbari, like others, said: It is derived from "al-ghina" (wealth), the opposite of poverty, as in the saying of Hatim:

We were wealthy for a time, through wayfaring and affluence, And time gave us both to drink from its cup. Our wealth did not increase our insolence toward a relative, Nor did poverty belittle our honors.

Based on this is Qatada’s interpretation. Al-Raghib rejected the interpretation of "ghaniya" as "residing" in favor of this meaning, stating: "He stayed long in a place, independent of others." The statement of some in explaining the verse—that they were utterly annihilated—is an explanation of the resulting meaning. Building the predicate upon the relative clause provides a hint that the cause of the judgment is the connection [the action in the relative clause]; it is as if it were said: "Those who denied Shu‘ayb were destroyed for their denial of him with an everlasting destruction." This implies that those who believed in him, peace be upon him, were saved with an everlasting salvation, which is what is intended by those who advocate for exclusivity in the verse.

It has been said: It is based on the premise that such a structure, just as it conveys strengthening [of the meaning], may also convey exclusivity, as in: "Allah extends provision..." The evidence for this here is that the Exalted mentioned the believers and the disbelievers previously, yet He only mentioned the destruction of the deniers here. The gist of the meaning ultimately returns to the fact that they were punished by their own previous threat of eviction, and they themselves became the ones evicted from the town—an eviction with no return—unlike Shu‘ayb, peace be upon him, and those with him.

(Those who denied Shu‘ayb were the losers) This is another initiation to clarify that they were afflicted by the punishment for their latter statement. The benefit of exclusivity here is clearer than in the preceding phrase; meaning, those who denied him, peace be upon him, were punished by their own words: "If you follow Shu‘ayb, then you will indeed be losers," so they became the ones who lost both this world and the hereafter due to their denial, not those who followed him and believed in him. Through this restriction [exclusivity], there was no need to explicitly state the salvation, as occurred in Surah Hud with the saying of the Exalted: "So when Our command came, We saved Shu‘ayb and those who believed with him..." etc.

In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that in this initiation and the repetition of the relative noun and its clause, there is an exaggeration in refuting the statement of the prominent figures to their followers, a belittling of their opinion, mockery of their counsel to their people, and an intensification of what befell them. You know that deriving all of this from this very verse involves obscurity. It appears that the combination of the two initiations signals this. Al-Tayyibi clarified this by noting that when the Exalted decreed the punishment by the rajfa (the earthquake/blast) and left them motionless, with no movement, because of their denial and obstinacy, a questioner might ask: What was the outcome of their affairs after they lay prostrate? So it was said: "Those who denied Shu‘ayb [were] as if they had not dwelt therein," meaning they were eradicated and their bodies vanished as if they had never resided there. Then one might ask: Was the destruction specific to them, or did it extend to others? So it was said: "Those who denied Shu‘ayb were the losers," meaning the destruction was specific to them. Thus, the first relative clause was made a means to verify the report, like the saying: "She who struck a house, having migrated to Kufa al-Jund, was consumed by a ghul of her affection." Similarly, the report of the people's destruction was exaggerated, the strength of the judgment and the exclusivity were established, and the second relative clause was made the cause for the existence of the judgment. The belittling of their opinion came from refuting them with the very words they used in counseling their people, and the mockery came from pointing out that what they made into "counsel" became a "scandal," and the situation they imagined was reversed. The gravity of the loss is benefited from defining the predicate with the generic 'al' (the definite article). As for the intensification of what occurred, it is from the saying of the Exalted: "As if they had not..." etc., as well as from the total speech.

It is not hidden that the claim of "explanatory initiation" in both sentences and making the first relative clause a mere means to verify the report is unfounded. More than one authority has mentioned that this initiation without a conjunction follows the custom of the Arabs in such contexts; for it is their custom to initiate in this manner when rebuking and reproaching. They say: "Your brother is the one who plundered our wealth; your brother is the one who tore our veil; your brother is the one who oppressed us." Abu al-Baqa' permitted that the second relative noun be a substitution for the pronoun in yaghnu, or that it be in the accusative case due to an implied "I mean," or that the first be a subject and the predicate be "Those who denied Shu‘ayb were [the losers]", while "As if they had not dwelt therein" is a state (hal) from the pronoun of "denied". It may also be that the first is an adjective for "those who disbelieved" or a substitution for it. In both cases, "As if they had not" would be a state. What we have chosen is the most appropriate, as is evident, so reflect upon it.