Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:7

"It has been read: (bi-shaqq al-anfus), with the shin kasrah and with its fatḥah." It is said that these are two dialects for the meaning of hardship, though there is a difference between them: the one with the fatḥah (shaqq) is the verbal noun of "the matter became difficult for him" (shaqqa al-amr), and its reality traces back to the shaqq (split/fissure). As for the shiq (with the kasrah), it means "half," as if the person loses half his strength due to the exertion he suffers.

If you ask: What is the meaning of His saying: {you would not have been able to reach it}? It is as if they were, for a time, enduring hardships to reach it until the camels carried their loads. I say: Its meaning is: "And they carry your heavy loads to a land you would not have been able to reach—in estimation—had the camels not been created, except with the exertion of your own selves," not that they were unable to reach it in reality.

If you ask: How does His saying {you would not have been able to reach it} correspond to His saying {and they carry your heavy loads}? Why was it not said: "You would not have been able to carry them to it"? I say: Its correspondence is that the meaning is: "And they carry your heavy loads to a distant land which you know you could not reach by yourselves except with exertion and hardship, let alone carrying your loads upon your own backs." It is also permissible that the meaning is: "You would not have been able to reach it by means of them except with the exertion of your own selves."

It is said: "Your heavy loads" refers to your own bodies. From ‘Ikrimah: "The land" is Makkah. {Indeed, your Lord is Kind, Merciful} in that He had mercy on you by creating these carriers and facilitating these interests.

{And the horses, mules, and donkeys} is a conjunction to "the livestock" (al-an‘ām), meaning: He created these for riding and adornment. It has been argued that eating their meat is forbidden because He justified their creation for riding and adornment, and did not mention eating them after having mentioned it regarding the livestock.

If you ask: Why is {and as adornment} in the accusative case? I say: Because it is a maf‘ūl lahu (an object for which an action is done), and it is conjoined to the position of {for you to ride}.

If you ask: Why did the conjunction and the conjoined not come in the same form? I say: Because "riding" is the action of the addressees, whereas "adornment" is the action of the Adorner, who is the Creator. It has been read: (li-tarkabūhā zinatan), without the wāw, meaning: "And He created them as an adornment for you to ride." Or, you may consider zinatan as a state (ḥāl) of them, meaning: "And He created them for you to ride while they are an adornment and beauty."

{And He creates that which you do not know} It is permissible that He intends by this: what He creates within us and for us, the essence and details of which we do not know, and He favors us by mentioning it just as He favored us with the known things, as a sign of His power. It is also permissible that He is informing us that He has creations of which we have no knowledge, to increase our evidence of His omnipotence by informing us of that, even if He has veiled the knowledge of it from us for a wisdom He has in veiling it. It has also been interpreted as what He creates in Paradise and Hell, which no one’s imagination has reached, nor has it crossed anyone’s heart.