Al-Qalam (The Pen): (14) That he was possessed of wealth...

There are two issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The grammatical connection of the phrase {إن كان} (if he was).

It is possible that this phrase relates to what precedes it, or to what follows it.

If it relates to what precedes it: The implied meaning is: "And do not obey every habitual swearer, the contemptible, if he was possessed of wealth and sons." That is, do not obey him despite these faults because of his affluence and numerous offspring.

If it relates to what follows it: The implied meaning is: "Because he was possessed of wealth and sons, when Our verses are recited to him, he says: 'These are but tales of the ancients.'" The meaning is that because God bestowed upon him wealth and sons, his recompense for these blessings was disbelief in His verses.

Regarding the operative verb for {إن كان}: Abu Ali al-Fassi stated that the operative element for {إن كان} could be:

1. The verb {تُتْلَى} (is recited). This is invalid because {تُتْلَى} is connected to {إِذَا} (when) as an idafa (possessive construction). The mudaf ilayh (the second term in an idafa) cannot govern what precedes it. For example, you cannot say: al-qitālu Zaydan hīna ya’tī (The fighting of Zayd when he comes), meaning hīna ya’tī Zaydan.
2. The verb {قَالَ} (he said). This is also invalid because {قَالَ} is the response to the conditional clause introduced by {إِذَا} (when). The response must follow the condition, not precede it.

Since these two possibilities are void, we know the operative element must be a third factor implied by the context, such as: he denies, or he disbelieves, or he refrains from accepting the truth, or something similar.

It is permissible for an implied meaning to operate on a preceding phrase like this because of its resemblance to an adverbial phrase (ẓarf). Meanings can govern adverbial phrases even if they precede them.

Evidence for its resemblance to an adverbial phrase is the possibility of adding the particle Lām (for/because) to it, making the verse mean: "Because he was possessed of wealth and sons..."

When it becomes like an adverbial phrase, the meaning is not prevented from operating on it, just as it is not prevented in the verse: "He will inform you when you are utterly crushed into pieces, that you are in a new creation" (Saba: 7). Here, the operative element is the oath implied by the context, "that you are in a new creation," because the preceding phrase is adverbial (indicating time/condition).

Similarly, in our verse, the meaning is: "He denies Our verses because he was possessed of wealth and sons," or "He disbelieves Our verses because he was possessed of wealth and sons."

Issue 2: The recitation of {أَإِنْ كَانَ} (A-in kāna).

It has been recited with an interrogative particle (أَإِنْ), meaning: "Is it because he was possessed of wealth that he lied?" or, "Do you obey him because he was possessed of wealth?"

Al-Zuhri narrated from Nafi' that it was recited with a kasra on in (إِنْ), making it a conditional particle directed at the addressee (the one being commanded not to obey). The meaning is: "Do not obey every habitual swearer, if [you obey him] based on his wealth." This implies that if one obeys a disbeliever due to his wealth, it is as if he stipulated wealth as a condition for obedience. This shifting of the conditional address to the addressee is similar to shifting the hope/expectation in the verse: {لَعَلَّهُ يَتَذَكَّرُ} (Perhaps he will remember) (Taha: 44).

After God recounted his ugly deeds and sayings, He threatened him, saying: