Commentary on al-Jalalain’s Tafsir: “Forgiver of sin” for the believers, “and Acceptor of repentance” for them, the source of “Severe in punishment” for the disbelievers

“

Forgiver of sin

غافر الذنب

for the believers

and Acceptor of repentance

وقابل التوب

for them

Severe in punishment

شديد العقاب

for the disbelievers ” His statement: Forgiveness is covering along with protection, and from this comes the term *mighfar* (helmet), which is placed on the head in war to avoid arrows. As you see, the *mighfar* is a cover, so it combines covering and protection. Sin is disobedience; it is said, “The man sinned” when he disobeys. The meaning of “Forgiver of sin” is that He covers it and passes over it. The author’s statement: “ for the believers ” is clearly problematic, because the forgiveness of sin includes both believers and non-believers. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said: So He is the Forgiver of sin for everyone who repents to Allah and seeks forgiveness. “Acceptor of repentance” means that if one repents to Allah, Allah accepts his repentance. *Tawb* means returning to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, from His disobedience to His obedience. The author said: “ for them ” For whom? For the believers. This is also not correct, because repentance is accepted from both believers and disbelievers. Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said regarding the polytheists: And He, the Exalted, said: [Al-Nisa: 18] He said: So if they had repented before that, it would have been accepted. It is thus clear that the author’s (may Allah have mercy on him) position of restricting this to the believers is a deficiency. All right.
He said: “ source ” Which one, *qabil* or *tawb*? *Qabil* is an active participle, so the source is *tawb*. Yes.
“

Severe in punishment

شديد العقاب

for the disbelievers ” The author (may Allah have mercy on him) seems to have restricted the Forgiver and the Acceptor to the believers because of his statement: because the severity of punishment is only for the disbelievers. However, there is a problem with this, because the intent here is to mention the attribute of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, that He combines between mercy and justice: mercy in being the Forgiver of sin and the Acceptor of repentance, and justice in being Severe in punishment. Because the severity of punishment from Allah, Mighty and Majestic, for those who deserve it is justice, since Allah has informed us and made it clear to us that whoever does such-and-such will be punished with severe punishment. So if a person does what he was threatened with severe punishment for, then he has chosen this for himself, and Allah’s dealing with him in this way is justice.
And his statement: “ meaning intensified ” Pay attention to this interpretation: “meaning intensified.” Why did he deviate from the apparent meaning of the verse, which indicates that He Himself is Severe in punishment? Yes, because the Asha'irah deny the attributes, and intensification is an action distinct from Allah, Mighty and Majestic. So let us look now at the author’s statement: *shadid* means *mushaddid*. We are entitled to ask: Does *fa'il* come to mean *muf'il*? The answer is yes, *fa'il* comes to mean *muf'il*, as the poet said: “Is it the scent of the caller, the All-Hearing, that keeps me awake, while my companions are sleeping?”
Here, *al-Sami'* (the All-Hearing) means *al-Musmi'* (the one who is heard), the caller who is heard. It keeps me awake so I do not sleep, while my companions are sleeping. So in terms of wording, there is no objection to the author, meaning in terms of making *fa'il* mean *muf'il*, there is no objection to him, because that is found in the Arabic language. But in terms of meaning, there is a problem, because the apparent meaning of his statement: is that He Himself has severe punishment, and that is the case. If the punishment is severe, it follows that the pain of the one punished is also severe. And *'uqubah* (punishment) is derived from *mu'aqabah* (retribution), which is recompense. It is called *'uqubah* because it follows the deed, but it is usually mentioned in connection with what is unpleasant, not what is pleasant.