Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:118

{إِنَّ لَكَ أَلَّا تَجُوعَ فِيهَا وَلَا تَعْرَى * وَأَنَّكَ لَا تَظْمَأُ فِيهَا وَلَا تَضْحَى}

It is recited as wa-innaka (with a kasra) and wa-annaka (with a fatḥa). The rationale for the fatḥa is that it is a conjunction linked to an lā tajūʿa (that you will not go hungry).

If you ask: "Indeed, in (the particle) does not enter upon anna (the particle); one does not say inna anna Zaydan munṭaliq. Since the wāw (conjunction) acts as a deputy for inna and stands in its place, why then is it allowed to enter upon it?"

I reply: The wāw was not established solely to be a deputy for inna; rather, it is a deputy for every operative agent (ʿāmil). Since it is not a particle specifically designated for affirmation (taḥqīq) like inna, its combination with anna is not prohibited, unlike the combination of inna and anna.

{إِنَّ لَكَ أَلَّا تَجُوعَ فِيهَا وَلَا تَعْرَى * وَأَنَّكَ لَا تَظْمَأُ فِيهَا وَلَا تَضْحَى}

Satiety, hydration, clothing, and shelter are the axes upon which human subsistence revolves. He mentioned them to signify that he [Adam] possessed them completely in Paradise, and that he was provided for, needing neither the provision of a provider nor the labor of a laborer, as the people of this world require.

He mentioned them using the phrasing of negating their opposites—which are hunger, nakedness, thirst, and sun-exposure—to strike his hearing with the names of the types of misery against which He warned him, so that he might avoid the cause that leads to them, out of aversion to them.

{فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَا يَبْلَى}