Tafsir of Abasa 80:12

{So whoever wills, let him remember it.}

The emphatic sentence serves as a justification for what the particle "Nay!" (kalla) conveys, by illustrating the high rank of the Magnificent Qur’an—a Qur’an which the one who turned away from it, peace and blessings be upon him, had sought to impart.

The second clause is a parenthetical insertion brought for the purpose of encouraging [people] toward the Qur’an, and urging them to memorize it or be admonished by it. That a parenthetical clause may be connected by the particle fa (so/then) has been explicitly stated by Ibn Malik in al-Tashil, with no reports of disagreement regarding it. The discourse of al-Zamakhshari in al-Kashshaf, when discussing the words of the Exalted, "So ask the people of the Reminder," is explicit on this point.

True, it has been said—in response to the claim that "So whoever wills, let him remember it" is a parenthetical insertion—that it is not, because the condition for a parenthetical clause is that it must be joined by waw (and) or remain without a conjunction; as for the fa, it is not permissible. This would imply it is a digression (istitrad). However, this has been critiqued by noting that reports confirming such a negation are not established. It is possible that there were those among the scholars who denied this, agreeing with it at times and disagreeing at others. How elegant is the statement of al-Sa'd in al-Talwih: "Parenthesis occurs with waw and fa—so know this, for the knowledge of a man benefits him."

Furthermore, it has been said that the first pronoun [in "remember it" (dhikruhu)] refers to the Surah or the preceding verses, while the second refers to "reminding" (tadhkir), because it [the root dh-k-r] can mean mention and admonition. Or perhaps both refer to the same antecedent, with the second [meaning] being "reminding" in view of the fact that it is the Qur’an. This [latter view] is preferred to avoid resorting to interpretation before it becomes necessary. This has been countered by noting that [this preference] is not entirely sound; for although the Surah or the verses possess the noble attributes that will be mentioned—God willing—they are not that which was presented to the one who turned away from it, and who deserved, because of that, the impending rebuke and the expression of wonder at his excessive turning away, since it [the revelation] descended after the incident.

It has also been suggested that both pronouns refer to the "reproach" that occurred, with the second being masculine because it is an act of reproach (itab). However, this is challenged by the fact that the subsequent attributes [of the Qur’an] do not fit this interpretation. Even if [one argues] that the reproach occurred through the aforementioned verses, and they possess the qualities mentioned, one arrives at what was heard previously. Finally, it has been said that you may regard them both as referring to the "call to Islam," with the second being masculine because it is a "supplication/invitation" (du'a). This, however, contains flaws that make the context reject it.