Tafsir of Al-`Alaq 96:7

His (glorified be He) statement: “In that he sees himself as self-sufficient” serves as a maf‘ul min ajlihi (an object denoting the cause), meaning: he transgresses because he sees himself as self-sufficient. This is based on the premise that the sentence "he is self-sufficient" is the second object of "saw" (ra’a), as it carries the meaning of "knew" (‘alima). Therefore, it is permissible for its subject and object to be the same pronoun, such as in "I knew myself" (‘alimtu-ni). Some have argued that this is not possible except with verbs of the heart (pertaining to cognition), but a group has maintained that the visual "saw" (ra’a al-basariyya) may be given the ruling of the heart-related verbs in this regard. They cite as evidence the statement of Aisha: "I saw us [i.e., I perceived myself/us] with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) and we had no food but the two black things." They also cited the line of poetry: "And indeed, I saw myself [i.e., perceived myself] as a target for the spears, now to my right, and now in front of me."

If the verb "saw" here is taken as visual, then the sentence is in the position of a hal (circumstantial qualifier). The reason for his transgression is his seeing (perceiving) himself as self-sufficient, not the self-sufficiency itself, as indicated by the Almighty’s saying: "And if Allah had extended [excessively] provision for His servants, they would have committed tyranny upon the earth." This signals that the axis of his transgression is his corrupt assumption in the first interpretation, and his mere perception of outward circumstances without consideration or reflection upon their reality in the second.

In both views, the intended meaning of "self-sufficiency" is wealth—that is, the opposite of the known state of poverty. It has been said that the meaning is that he saw himself as independent of his Lord (glorified be He) by means of his clan, his wealth, and his power, but this is contrary to the apparent meaning. It is rendered unlikely by the apparent sense of what has been narrated: that Abu Jahl said to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace): "Do you claim that whoever is self-sufficient transgresses? Then make the mountains of Makkah into gold and silver for us, that we might take from them and transgress, and thus abandon our religion and follow yours." Gabriel (peace be upon him) then descended and said: "If you wish, We shall do that; but then, if they do not believe, We shall do to them what We did to the companions of the Table." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) then refrained from invoking this out of mercy for them.

Qunbul recited, with a variant transmission from him, an ra-hu (أن رَه), by omitting the alif that follows the hamza, which is the final radical of the verb (lam al-fi‘l). Ibn Mujahid narrated this from him and criticized him for it, stating that such an omission is not permissible. In al-Bahr, it is suggested that one should not criticize him harshly, but rather seek a justification for him. The alif has been omitted in cases similar to this; one poet said: "Wasa-ni al-‘Ajaju fi-man wasani" (meaning wasa-ani), omitting the alif, which is the final radical of the verb. It has also been omitted in the present tense of ra’a in the saying: "The people were afflicted by hardship, if you but saw [ra’ta] the people of Makkah." This is an irregular omission, but once a narration is authenticated, it must be accepted, for the variant readings (qira'at) have come down according to the language of the Arabs, both its regular and its irregular forms.