ﲜ ﲝ ﲞ ﲟ ﲠ ﲡ ﲢ ﲣ ﲤ ﲥ ﲦ ﲧ ﲨ ﲩ ﲪ ﲫ ﲬ ﲭ ﲮ ﲯ ﲰ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲴ ﲵ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ
And We had certainly established them in such as We have not established you, and We made for them hearing and vision and hearts. But their hearing and vision and hearts availed them not from anything [of the punishment] when they were [continually] rejecting the signs of Allah; and they were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.
Tafsir
Verse range: 46:26
{وَلَقَدْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِيمَا إِن مَّكَّنَّاكُمْ فِيهِ}
{إِن} is a negative particle, meaning: "in that which We have not empowered you." However, {إِن} is linguistically superior here to avoid the repetition of {مَا}, which is considered aesthetically repulsive. Such repetition is generally avoided; do you not see that the original form of mahmā (whatever) was māmā? Because of the ugliness of the repetition, they changed the [second] alif into a hā’.
Abū al-Ṭayyib [al-Mutanabbī] was excessive in his use of this when he said: By your life, māmā (what) has departed from you is for a striker.
How much better it would have been had he followed the sweetness of the Quranic phrasing and said: la‘amruka mā in bāna minka...
I have treated {إِن} here as an expletive (a filler), similar to its usage in the verse cited by al-Akhfash: A man hopes for that which he does not see, while calamities stand before its attainment.
It may also be interpreted as: "We empowered them in the likes of that which We have empowered you." However, the first interpretation is the primary one, and several verses in the Quran support it, such as: {They are better in furnishings} (Maryam: 74) and {They were more numerous than them and mightier in strength and traces} (Ghāfir: 82). This is more eloquent in rebuke and more effective in urging [the listener] to take heed.
{مِن شَيْءٍ}: Meaning, not even a little bit of enrichment.
If you ask: What governs the accusative case of {إِذْ كَانُوا يَجْحَدُونَ}? I say: It is governed by His saying: {فَمَا أَغْنَى} (So it did not avail them).
If you ask: Why does it function as a causal explanation? I say: Because the result of a causal explanation and a temporal adverb are equivalent in your saying: "I struck him for his wrongdoing" and "I struck him when he did wrong." For when you strike him at the time of his wrongdoing, you are striking him because of the presence of his wrongdoing at that time. However, idh (when) and ḥaythu (where) have become more prevalent in this usage than other adverbs.
{وَلَقَدْ أَهْلَكْنَا مَا حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْقُرَىٰ وَصَرَّفْنَا الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ}
