Tafsir of Az-Zumar 39:49

"So when harm touches man..."

"Takhwil" (bestowal): Specifically refers to granting a favor. It is said, "He bestowed upon me" (khawwalani), meaning he gave you something without any prior merit or compensation.

"On account of knowledge" ('ala 'ilmin): Meaning, on account of my own knowledge that I would be given it, due to some merit or entitlement I possess. Or, it means on account of God’s knowledge of me and my entitlement. Or, it means on account of my knowledge of the ways of earning wealth, as Qarun said: "It was given to me on account of knowledge I possess."

If you ask: Why is the pronoun masculine in "I was given it" (utaytuhu), when it refers to "the blessing" (ni'mah—feminine)? I say: It refers to the meaning, because his saying "a blessing from Us" (ni'mah minna) implies "a thing" (shay') from the blessings, a portion of them. It is also possible that ma in innama is a relative pronoun, not a restrictive particle, so the pronoun refers back to it, meaning: "That which I was given is on account of knowledge."

"Nay, it is a trial" (bal hiya fitnah): This is a rejection of his statement. It is as if He said: "We did not bestow upon you the blessing for the reason you claim; rather, it is a trial," meaning: a test and an examination for you—will you be grateful or ungrateful?

If you ask: How is the pronoun masculine first, then feminine? I say: It is based on the meaning first, and the wording later. Also, because the predicate is feminine—namely "trial" (fitnah)—it is permissible for the subject to be feminine because it is in the same sense. Like their saying: "Has your need (hajah—fem.) come (ja'at—fem.)?" It is also recited as "Nay, it is (huwa—masc.) a trial," in accordance with "I was given it" (utaytuhu).

If you ask: What is the reason for connecting this verse with the fa' (conjunction of consequence), while a similar one at the beginning of the chapter was connected with wa (and)? I say: The reason is that this verse occurs as a consequence of His saying: "And when God is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion" (39:45). The meaning is that they shrink from the mention of God and rejoice at the mention of idols; so when harm touches one of them, he calls upon the One from whose mention he shrank, not the one at whose mention he rejoiced. The verses between them are an interruption (i'tirad).

If you ask: The nature of an interruption is that it should confirm what is between it and the main subject. I say: The interruption contains the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) supplication to his Lord by His command, and his saying: "You will judge between Your servants" (39:46), followed by the great threat. This confirms the rejection of their aversion and rejoicing, and their return to God in times of hardship rather than their idols. It is as if it were said: "Say, O Lord, none shall judge between me and these people who dare to act so boldly against You and commit such abominations, except You."

His saying: "And if those who did wrong had all that is in the earth..." (39:47) applies to them and to every wrongdoer if taken generally, or to them specifically if they are intended. It is as if it were said: "Even if these wrongdoers had all that is in the earth and the like of it with it, they would offer it as a ransom," at the time when I judge them with the worst of punishments. These secrets and subtleties are only brought to light by the science of composition ('ilm al-nazm); otherwise, they remain veiled in their husks.

As for the first verse, it did not occur as a consequence; it is merely a sentence that suited the one before it, so it was connected with wa, like saying: "Zayd stood and 'Amr sat."

If you ask: In what way is it a consequence? Aversion to the mention of God does not necessitate turning to Him; rather, it necessitates turning away from Him. I say: There is subtlety in this causality. Its explanation is: You say, "Zayd is a believer in God, so when harm touches him, he turns to Him." This is an obvious causality with no ambiguity. Then you say, "Zayd is a disbeliever in God, so when harm touches him, he turns to Him." You bring the fa' just as you did there, as if the disbeliever, when he turns to God, is turning to Him as a believer would. He puts his disbelief in the place of faith, treating it as the cause for turning to Him. You are narrating what the disbeliever has inverted. Do you not see that you intend by this speech to reject and express astonishment at his action?

"Those before them had already said it, but what they earned did not avail them. So the evil consequences of what they earned struck them. And those who have done wrong among these—the evil consequences of what they earned will strike them, and they will not be able to escape. Do they not know that God extends the provision for whom He wills and restricts it? Indeed, in that are signs for a people who believe."