Tafsir of Ash-Shams 91:11

The Almighty’s saying, "Thamud denied by their transgression (bi-tughwayiha)," is an inaugurating statement brought to confirm the content of His saying, "And he who corrupts it has failed."

Al-Zamakhshari maintained that the Almighty’s saying, "He who purifies it has succeeded," is a continuation of the saying, "And He inspired it," by way of digression. He refused for it to be the answer to the oath (taf'al), instead claiming the answer is omitted and implied by what follows—as if it were said: "May Allah destroy the disbelievers of Mecca for their denial of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), just as He destroyed Thamud for their denial of Salih (peace be upon him)."

This is contested because it necessitates the omission of the [lam of oath], and it does not befit the miraculous order of the composition to prioritize the lesser of the two perfections—namely, purification (tazkiyah), which is restricted to the practical power—as the intended goal of the oaths, while turning away from the higher of the two—namely, adornment (tahliyah) with certain beliefs, which are the core of all hearts and the cream of what the ages have churned. Even if one were to concede that it is not restricted, it remains a prerequisite for adornment in both categories. As for the omission of the thing sworn upon, it is common and frequent, especially in the Noble Book.

It is further countered that the omission of the lam is frequent, especially with length, and is easier than omitting an entire sentence. He [Al-Zamakhshari] himself mentioned this in "The believers have succeeded" (Qad aflaha al-mu'minun); so what has changed from what was apparent? Furthermore, "purification" is intended as "growth" (inma'), and it is not restricted, nor is it a prerequisite, but rather it is an intended end in itself. Even if one were to concede it is a prerequisite, there is no prohibition against focusing on some prerequisites at times, as the ends depend upon them. Reflect upon this.

'Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that he said regarding "He inspired it": "He bound it to it." Al-Daylami recorded it from Anas as a marfu' narration. On that basis, Al-Wahidi and the author of al-Matla' said: Inspiration is when He casts into the heart both success (tawfiq) and abandonment (khidhlan). If the Glorified One casts one of these into the heart of a servant, He has bound the servant to that thing.

This is strengthened by what Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud recorded from 'Imran ibn Husayn, that two men from Muzaynah came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, do you see what people work and strive for? Is it a thing decreed for them and passed upon them from a predestination that has already preceded, or is it regarding what they will face from what their Prophet brought them and the proof was established against them?" He (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "No, but rather a thing decreed for them and passed upon them." And the confirmation of that is in the Book of Allah: "By the soul and He who proportioned it; then He inspired it with its corruption and its righteousness."

This does not entail that the servant's power and choice have no role at all in corruption and righteousness. If it is said, "What role does he have when Allah created both of them?", it is rejected by the Almighty's saying, "He who purifies it has succeeded," where the servant is made the agent of purification through righteousness, and corruption through wickedness. For the attribution (isnad) requires the existence of the one to whom the act is attributed, and the aforementioned role is sufficient for that. The validity of the attribution to the servant in reality does not depend on his action being the creation. Thus, deducing from this attribution that he is capable of choosing whatever he wishes of corruption and righteousness and creating it through an independent power—contrary to what the group [Ahl al-Sunnah] says—is baseless.

Moreover, the hidden pronoun in "purifies it" (zakkaha), and likewise in "corrupts it" (dassaha), refers to Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He), and the manifest [noun] for those who interpret it as the soul. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding this: "Allah the Almighty says: 'He who Allah the Almighty purifies has succeeded, so He guided him; and he who Allah the Almighty corrupts has failed, so He led him astray.'" Indeed, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn Marduyah, and Al-Daylami recorded from him that he said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say regarding the Almighty's saying 'He who purifies it has succeeded': 'A soul purified by Allah has succeeded, and a soul Allah has caused to fail has failed of all good.'"

Imam Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Muslim, and Al-Nasa'i recorded from Zayd ibn Arqam that he said: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to say: 'O Allah, give my soul its piety, and purify it, for You are the best of those who purify it; You are its Guardian and Master.'" In a narration by Al-Tabarani and others from Ibn Abbas, it is stated that when he (peace and blessings be upon him) recited the verse, he would pause and say that. Because of these reports and their likes, some said that this is the preferred view. The author of al-Intisaf preferred it because the pronouns in "By the sky and He who built it..." would be consistent, all returning to Allah the Almighty, and because the Almighty's saying "He who purifies himself (tazakka) has succeeded" is more in agreement with it, because tazakka is the reflexive form of zakka, so the meaning would be: "He who Allah purified, so he became purified, has succeeded."

Despite all this, one should not deny that the [first] meaning is the one that springs to mind, and the mentioned reports are not explicit in determining the other meaning. Yes, they are explicit in refuting Al-Zamakhshari's claim that it is a reversal by the Qadariyyah—meaning the people of Sunnah and the community. Reflect upon this.

Tughwa (transgression) is a verbal noun from tughyan, meaning exceeding the limit in disobedience. They differentiate between nouns and adjectives in the form fu'la from [roots ending in] ya' by changing the ya' to a waw in the noun while leaving it unchanged in the adjective. Thus, they say in the adjective amra'ah sadiya and kziya (thirsty/disgraced), and in the noun taqwa and tughwa. This is as stated in al-Kashshaf and elsewhere. The words of Al-Raghib indicate that tagha is waw-based, which he denies, as he said: "It is said taghawtu and taghaytu, taghwan and taghyanan," so do not be heedless.

The ba' [in bi-tughwayiha], according to the majority, is for causality; meaning, they performed the denial because of their transgression, just as you say, "The wicked one wronged me by his audacity against Allah the Almighty." Al-Zamakhshari considered it for "seeking aid" (isti'anah), and the matter is simple. It is also permissible that it is a connective for the denial, in the sense of "They denied what they were threatened with, on the tongue of their Prophet, of the punishment possessing tughwa," meaning exceeding the limit and excess. Punishment is described as tughyan in this sense, as in the Almighty's saying, "They were destroyed by the overwhelming blast (al-taghiyah)." It is sometimes described as tughwa as an intensive form, just as it is described with all other verbal nouns for that reason. Thus, there is no omitted possessor.

Al-Hasan, Muhammad ibn Ka'b, and Hammad ibn Salamah read it as tughwaha with a damma on the ta'. This is also a verbal noun, like ruj'a and husna in verbal nouns, except that it was said the analogy should be tughya, like suqya, because in fu'la with a damma, there is no distinction made between noun and adjective. It is as if they deviated in it and changed the ya' to a waw. You know that the waw, for those who say taghawtu, is original.