Tafsir of An-Naba' 78:22

"For the transgressors," meaning those who have exceeded the limits in tyranny. This is linked to an implicit term; it is either an adjective for mirṣādan (a place of ambush)—meaning a place existing for the transgressors—or it is a state (ḥāl) related to the Almighty’s saying ma'āban (a place of return). It was placed before it because it is an indefinite noun; had it been placed after, it would have been an adjective for it. That is, it is a point of return and a refuge existing for them, to which they shall inevitably return and find shelter.

It is also permitted that it be a second predicate for kānat (was), or linked to ma'āban or mirṣādan. Upon this view, it is said that the meaning of mirṣādan is "prepared for them," from the saying "I arṣadtu for him," meaning I prepared [something] for him, and requited him with good or evil.

As for ma'āban, it is said to be a substitute (badal) for mirṣādan in all the previously mentioned facets—a substitute of the whole for the whole (badal kull min kull). Others say it is a second predicate for kānat, or an adjective for mirṣādan, with li-ṭ-ṭāghīn linked to it, or a state derived from it, based on some of the aforementioned interpretations regarding kānat mirṣādan. Reflect on this.

Abu ‘Amr, al-Minqari, and Ibn Ya‘mur read anna jahannama with a fathah on the hamzah, based on an implicit preposition of causation (lām al-jar), to explain the establishment of the Hour which is understood from the discourse. The meaning is: "That was for the establishment of requital." This has been countered by the argument that, in that case, anna for the righteous (lil-muttaqīn) should also have been read with a fathah and been a conjunction to what is here, because the justification of establishing the requital is completed by both. Unless one argues that the conjunction was omitted to indicate that each of the two requitals is independent in necessitating the establishment of the Hour.

This view is subject to scrutiny, for the requital is completed by that [event], but as for the act of establishing it, what has already been mentioned is sufficient as a justification. Furthermore, if the intended meaning in the previous passage was that it was a place of ambush for both parties, as you have heard, this argument would not hold at all.