Tafsir of Al-Ma'aarij 70:16

Meaning the extremities, such as the hand and the foot, as narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Humayd from Mujahid and Abu Salih, and as stated by al-Raghib and others. It is also said: the parts of the body that are not vital organs, which is why it is said, "He shot and hit the extremities" (rama fa-ashwā) when one does not kill the target. Or, it is the plural of shawāh, which is the skin of the head. In support of this, they cite the verse of al-A‘sha:

"Qatīlah said: What is wrong with him? His scalp (shawātuhu) has been covered with gray hair."

This is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, Qatadah, Qurrah ibn Khalid, and Ibn Jubayr. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Mujahid, and he also narrated from Abu Salih and al-Suddi, that it means the flesh of the shins. From Ibn Jubayr: the nerves and the heels. From Abu al-‘Aliyah: the beautiful parts of the face. The "stripping away" (naz‘) is explained by it consuming these parts; it eats them, then they return, and so on.

It is in the accusative case (nasb) based on an implied a‘nī (I mean) or akhassu (I specify). This is what is meant by those who say it is in the accusative for the sake of specialization (al-ikhtisās) for the purpose of intensification. It is also permitted that it be a state (hāl), and its operator (‘āmil) is Lazā (the Blazing Fire), even though it is a proper noun, because of the meaning of "blazing" within it, just as a proper noun can operate on an adverb in the saying:

"I am Abū al-Minhāl, at some times."

Meaning: the one known at some times, as stated by Abu Hayyan, and to this points the discourse in al-Kashf. Al-Khafaji said: Lazā carries the meaning of mutalazziyah (blazing), and the state is from the hidden pronoun within it, not from the noun itself in the previous sense, because it is an indefinite noun, or it is a predicate (khabar), though there is debate regarding the arrival of a state from such a source. It is also said it is an emphatic state (hāl mu’akkidah), as in the saying:

"I am the son of Darah, my lineage being known through her, and is there, O people, any shame in Darah?"

The operator is uhaqquhu (I verify it), or the predicate, given its interpretation as a noun; or the subject (mubtada’), as it contains the meaning of alert, or the meaning of the entire sentence—a view accepted by al-Radi. It is also said that it is a state from the pronoun in tad‘ū (it calls), placed before it. Al-Zamakhshari permitted that the pronoun in annahā (that it) be ambiguous, explained by the predicate, namely Lazā, though researchers have scrutinized and refuted this.

The majority recited nazāʿatun in the nominative case as a second predicate for annahā or as an adjective for Lazā. This is clear if one considers it an indefinite noun, and likewise if it is treated as a definite noun, as it acts like a noun defined by the al of generic essence in being treated like an indefinite noun. Alternatively, it is the predicate and Lazā is a substitute (badal) for the pronoun, even if it is considered indefinite, based on the fact that the substitution of an indefinite noun not described by an adjective for a definite noun has been permitted by Abu ‘Ali and other grammarians when it contains a benefit, as is the case here. On this recitation, it is also permitted that the pronoun in annahā refers to "the situation," Lazā is the subject based on it being a definite noun, and nazāʿatun is its predicate.