Tafsir of Al-Fajr 89:15

Question: To what is the statement "As for man" connected?

Answer: It is connected to the statement: "Indeed, your Lord is in observation." It is as if it were said: God desires from man only obedience and striving for the Hereafter, and He is watching to punish the disobedient. As for man, he does not desire that; he cares only for the immediate life and what brings him pleasure and comfort in it.

Question: How do you balance the statement "As for man, when his Lord tests him" with the statement "And as for when He tests him," given that the rule of balance requires the two clauses following "as for" (ammā) to correspond? (e.g., "As for Zayd, if you treat him well, he is good to you; and as for if you treat him poorly, he is bad to you.")

Answer: They are balanced in the sense that the underlying structure is: "And as for him, when his Lord tests him." The statement "he says, 'My Lord has honored me'" is the predicate (khabar) of the subject (mubtada') which is "man." The entry of the fa is due to the conditional meaning inherent in ammā. The adverbial phrase situated between the subject and the predicate is understood to be delayed; it is as if it were said: "As for man, he is a sayer of 'My Lord has honored me' at the time of the test." Thus, it is necessary that the second "he says" be the predicate of a subject that is necessarily implied.

Question: How are both matters—the expansion of provision and its restriction—called a "test" (ibtila' )?

Answer: Because each of them is a trial for the servant. When He expands it for him, his state is tested: will he be grateful or ungrateful? When He restricts it for him, his state is tested: will he be patient or despair? The wisdom in both is the same, similar to the verse: "And We test you with evil and good as a trial" (Al-Anbiya: 35).

Question: Why did He not say "He humiliated him" (fa-ahānahu) and restricted his provision, just as He said "He honored him" (fa-akramahu) and blessed him?

Answer: Because expansion is an act of honoring from God to His servant by bestowing grace upon him as a favor without prior cause. As for restriction, it is not an act of humiliation (ihāna); for the withholding of a favor is not humiliation, but rather a cessation of honor. A master may honor his servant, humiliate him, or do neither. If Zayd gives you a gift, you say, "He honored me with the gift," but you do not say, "He humiliated me" if he does not give you a gift.

Question: But He said "He honored him," confirming and establishing His honor, yet He then rejected his saying "My Lord has honored me" and condemned him for it, just as He rejected his saying "He has humiliated me" and condemned him for it.

Answer: There are two responses:

1. The first: He only rejected his saying "My Lord has honored me" because he said it with an intent contrary to what God established. He intended that God gave him what He gave as an honor he deserved, based on their custom of boasting and their perceived high status—similar to his saying: "I was only given it because of knowledge I have" (Al-Qasas: 78). In reality, God gave it as a favor without any entitlement or prior merit from him. God only counts merit based on piety, not the lineages and status they boasted about.
2. The second: The rejection and condemnation apply to his saying "My Lord has humiliated me." It means that when God favors him with good and honors him, he acknowledges God's favor and honor; but when God does not favor him, he calls the withholding of favor "humiliation," when it is not humiliation. This view is supported by the mention of "honoring" in the statement "He honored him."

(Note: There are variant readings for "He restricted" (fa-qadara) with both light and heavy stress, and for "honored me" (akramani) and "humiliated me" (ahānani) with a quiescent 'nun' in pause, for those who omit the 'ya' in continuous speech, finding the kasra sufficient.)