Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:96

(And if the people of the towns): That is, the destroyed towns indicated by His, the Exalted’s, saying: (in a town). The definite article (al-) is for referential mention (the one previously mentioned). Although "town" is singular, it appears in the context of a negation, making it equivalent to the plural. It is also permissible for the article to be for external reference, pointing to Mecca and its surroundings, though this has been contested on the grounds that it is not apparent from the context. It is justified by the fact that since the Almighty informed [us] about the destroyed towns due to their rejection of the messengers—and that had they believed, they would have been safe and prosperous—He transitioned to warning the people of Mecca and its surroundings with what befell the previous nations and towns.

In Al-Kashshaf, it is permitted that [the article] denotes the genus. It is apparent then that what is meant is that which includes the towns to whose people a messenger was sent—both those mentioned and others—not those to which no messenger was sent, nor those whose people were seized in the manner they were seized, as has been said, due to the rejection of what is clearly in the istidrak (rectification) following it.

(Had believed): That is, in what was sent down to their prophets.

(And feared Allah): That is, [feared] what Allah has forbidden them, as Qatadah stated. This includes what they intended from their previous statement.

(We would have opened for them blessings from the heaven and the earth): That is, We would have made goodness easy for them from every side. It is said: The celestial blessings refer to rain, and the terrestrial blessings refer to vegetation. Regardless of which, in "We would have opened" there is a taba'iyyah (derivative) metaphor. The aspect of resemblance between the borrowed-from and the borrowed-for—which we have pointed out—is the ease of acquisition. It is also possible that it is a majaz mursal (synecdoche) where the relationship is that of necessity (luzum), and one could strive to construct a representational metaphor (tamthiliyyah).

There is an objection, as some have said, regarding this verse: it implies that He did not open blessings from the heaven and the earth for them, whereas in [Surah] Al-An’am [it is said]: (So when they forgot that by which they had been reminded, We opened to them the doors of everything). This indicates that He did open for them blessings from the heaven and the earth, for that is the meaning of His, the Exalted’s, saying: (the doors of everything)—as it refers to fertility, prosperity, health, and well-being, in contrast to [the statement] We seized them with adversity and hardship. To interpret the opening of blessings as meaning the continuation or increase of them is to turn away from the apparent meaning, and it does not align with their interpretation of "opening" as the facilitation of goodness, nor with [the interpretation of] rain and vegetation.

Al-Khayali answered this by stating that "blessings" should be understood as something other than the worldly [material] ones, or that "had believed" means from the very beginning, thus they were saved from adversity and hardship, as is apparent. The meaning of "opening" in Surah Al-An'am is what was intended by "goodness" here; thus, there is no room for the objection to be imagined. End quote.

You are aware that intending [the meaning of] "had they believed from the very beginning to the end" is not apparent. Rather, the apparent meaning is: had they believed after they had been afflicted, We would have facilitated for them [blessings] in place of what befell them of various punishments—some of which are from the heaven, like showers of stones, and some from the earth, like the earthquake (rajfah). With this, the objection is resolved, because the verse in Al-An’am does not indicate that He opened for them this [same] opening, as is apparent to those who follow it. As for what was mentioned—that "opening" there means what was intended by "goodness" here—if it is meant that the "opening" there occurred in the position of giving goodness in place of the evil here (since both are mentioned after the mention of seizing with adversity and hardship, and after that, the seizure suddenly), then perhaps there is merit to it, but it does not suffice on its own. If it is meant that the model of that general term—which is intended to signify multiplication—is the model of "goodness," then the flaw therein is not hidden. So reflect.

It is said: Celestial and terrestrial blessings refer to those things whose consequences are praised and whose possessor is made happy in both abodes. "Blessing" has come to mean happiness in their speech, so let it be carried here to mean the perfect [type] of that category. This is only opened for the believer, unlike rain, vegetation, health, and well-being, which are opened for both the believer and the disbeliever as a istidraj (gradual enticement) and a plot. This interpretation is mandatory, as some have said, if by "towns" one intends to include those to which a messenger was sent and whose people were seized in the manner they were seized, and others. It is also said: Celestial blessings refer to the answering of supplications, and terrestrial blessings to the fulfillment of needs. So understand.

Ibn ‘Amir recited (la-fatahna) with the shaddah (doubled 't').

(But they denied): That is, but they did not believe and did not fear. The first was mentioned as sufficient because it necessitates the second, and to indicate that it is the greater of the two matters.

(So We seized them for what they used to earn): [This refers to] the types of disbelief and sins, among which is their aforementioned statement. It is apparent that this seizure and the one preceding it in His, the Exalted’s, saying: (So We seized them while they were unaware) are the same. It does not refer to drought and famine, as has been said, because those were removed by the substitution of goodness in place of evil. Interpreting one of the two seizures as the eschatological seizure and the other as the worldly one is far-fetched. Whoever adopts the interpretation of the [definite article] al- as signifying the genus according to the latter view mentioned earlier is compelled to interpret "they denied, so We seized them" as the occurrence of denial and seizure among them, and the remoteness of this is not hidden.