Tafsir of Saba' 34:15

"For Saba" (li-Saba’): Read with tanwin (indefinite) and without it (definite), with the hamza sometimes changed into an alif.

"Their dwelling" (maskanuhum): Read with both a fatha and a kasra on the kaf. It refers to the place where they lived—their country and the land they inhabited—or the individual dwelling of each of them. It is also read as masakinuhum (plural).

"Two gardens" (jannatan): This is a substitute (badal) for "a sign" (aya), or the predicate of an omitted subject (i.e., "The sign is two gardens"). The nominative case implies praise, supported by the reading jannatayn in the accusative, also for praise.

If you ask: What is the meaning of them being a "sign"? I say: The two gardens themselves were not the sign. Rather, the story of them—that their people turned away from thanking God for them, so He destroyed them and replaced them with khamt (bitter fruit) and athl (tamarisk)—is the sign and the lesson for them to take heed and not return to the disbelief and ingratitude they were in. It is also possible that the gardens themselves are the sign, meaning a mark indicating God, His power, His benevolence, and the obligation to thank Him.

If you ask: How did God magnify the two gardens of the people of Saba and make them a sign, when there are villages in Iraq surrounded by as many gardens as you wish? I say: He did not mean merely two orchards, but two groups of orchards: one group to the right of their country and another to the left. Each group, in its proximity and density, was as if it were a single garden, like the flourishing countryside and its orchards. Or, He meant the two gardens of every man among them, one to the right of his dwelling and one to the left, as He said: "We gave one of them two gardens of grapevines."

"Eat from the provision of your Lord": This is either a narration of what the prophets sent to them said, or what the "tongue of the state" (the situation itself) said, or they were worthy of being told this.

"A good land and a forgiving Lord": Meaning, this land in which your provision exists is a good land, and your Lord, who provided for you and sought your gratitude, is a Lord who forgives those who thank Him. Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them) said: It was the most fertile and pleasant of lands. A woman would go out with a basket on her head, and as she walked among the trees, the basket would fill with the fruit falling into it. "Good" (tayyiba) means it was not saline. It is said there were no mosquitoes, flies, fleas, scorpions, or snakes there. It is also read as baldatan tayyibatan wa-rabban ghafuran (in the accusative) for praise.

"The flood" (al-‘arim): The rat that dug through the dam for them. Queen Bilqis had built a dam between the two mountains with rock and bitumen, retaining the water of springs and rain, leaving openings for their irrigation. When they became arrogant, it is said God sent thirteen prophets to them, but they denied them and said, "We know of no blessing from God." So God unleashed the khuld (rat) upon their dam, which dug through it from the bottom and drowned them. It is also said ‘arim is the plural of ‘arma (heaps of stones), or the embankment they built as a dam, or the name of the valley, or a violent rain.

"Bitter fruit" (ukulin khamtin): Ukul is the fruit. Khamt is the arak tree; Abu Ubayda says it is any thorny tree. Al-Zajjaj says it is any plant that has become bitter so that it cannot be eaten. Athl is a tree resembling the tamarisk, but larger and with better wood.

"And tamarisk and something of a few lote trees": These are conjoined to ukul, not to khamt, because the tamarisk has no fruit. It is also read as wa-athlan wa-shay’an in the accusative, as a substitute for jannatayn. Calling the substitute "two gardens" is for the sake of parallelism (mushakala) and contains a form of mockery.

"And do We requite...": Read as hal yujaza (passive), hal nujazi (active, with nun), and hal yujza (passive). The meaning is that such a requital is only deserved by the disbeliever—it is the immediate punishment. It is said that the believer’s sins are expiated by his good deeds, while the disbeliever’s deeds are nullified, so he is requited for all the evil he did. The correct view is that "requital" here specifically means punishment. It is not valid to argue that "requital" is general for both believer and disbeliever, because the context here is specific to punishment.