What exactly is the difference of meaning of nazzala and anzala in Qur'an verse 136?

Sources

• ✓ 2:90 · Al-Baqara

  2:90 · Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall

  بِئْسَمَا ٱشْتَرَوْا۟ بِهِۦٓ أَنفُسَهُمْ أَن يَكْفُرُوا۟ بِمَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بَغْيًا أَن يُنَزِّلَ ٱللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِۦ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَآءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِۦ ۖ فَبَآءُو بِغَضَبٍ عَلَىٰ غَضَبٍۢ ۚ وَلِلْكَٰفِرِينَ عَذَابٌۭ مُّهِينٌۭ

  Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.

• ✓ Majma al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an on 2:90

  Shia

  Majma al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an · 2:90

  Recitation Variants: Abu 'Amr recited this ayah with the phrase (an yanzil) lightly, as he did throughout the entire Qur'an except in Surah Al-An'am, where he pronounced (an yanzil ayah) with emphasis. Ibn Kathir recited with light pronunciation generally, but applied emphasis in Surah Saba’, in the phrase (wa nunazzilu min al-Qur'an) up to the verb (tanzil). Hamzah and Al-Kisai generally recited with emphasis throughout, except in the openings of Alif-Lam-Mim and the combinations Ham ‘Asq (in the phrase “yanzil al-ghayth”) which they vocalized lightly. The remaining reciters recited the whole Qur'an with emphasis, and they agreed in Surah Al-Hijr on the pronounced emphasis in (wa ma nunazziluhu). Grammatical Argument: The root verb نزل (nazala) is intransitive but can be used transitively by three linguistic operations: adding a hamza, doubling the middle letter, or attaching a preposition. There are two forms: ‘anzala and ‘nazala. The third form—’inzal—is seen in the phrase (nazala bihi ar-ruh al-amin) where the Spirit is the one descended. The frequent use of the verb forms strengthens the idea of ‘nazala’ (coming down) but ‘inzal’ (causing to come down) is not present here. Language Notes: The words بئس (bi'sa) and نعم (ni‘m) are past participles originally in the form of فعل with four morphological patterns, for example: نعم وبئس with sukun on their ‘ain’ or with kasra, and variations in their vowels. The word اشترو (ishtaraw - 'they bought') is a derived form from the root of buying; often, the same verb form also means 'they sold.' Yazid al-Himyari said: "I bought coldness, if only after coldness I were elevated." Sometimes it is used in the reverse direction. The term بغيا (baghyan) primarily means corruption. It derives from their saying: 'Baghiya al-jarh' (the wound became corrupted). Others say it originally meant 'seeking,' as the one who is a ‘baghi’ desires trespassing beyond what is rightful. A woman who commits adultery is called a baghiyah because she seeks forbidden desires. ‘Ihaneh’ (humiliation) means disgrace or abasement. Grammar Parsing: Az-Zajjaj says that the word بئس functions like a negated noun and only operates with a noun of common gender, not with a proper noun. This is also true for نعم. They function only with nouns that have the general meaning, either with or without the definite article (Al-). Such words express a totality of praise or blame respectively. For example, saying نعم الرجل زيد means “Zaid deserves all the praise that applies to the whole kind (humanity),” while بئس الرجل زيد means “Zaid deserves all blame that applies to the whole kind.” Therefore, when followed by a common noun without an article, it is accusative, and with the article, nominative. The embedded pronoun in نعم is implied and conditioned by context. Therefore, ما in نعم is never a relative pronoun but used subordinately; the purpose of نعم is to precede a common noun or a generic noun. Abu Ali considered that when ما follows نعم or بئس, if ما is relative, it is invalid to be the subject — instead, it must be indefinite. This is because ما is ambiguous and denotes multiplicity, not a determinate singular, similar to generic nouns that can be definite or indefinite. Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad allowed that ما can follow نعم or بئس, so long as it is general and not specific, like في قوله (والذي جاء بالصدق). Therefore the phrase بئس ما اشتروا به أنفسهم can be valid either with ما being relative, in apposition as the subject of بئس, or else indefinite, making اشتروا an adjective, not a relative clause. This is supported by poetic examples where an indefinite phrase functions as the subject of نعم, for example: "And how terrifying a matter, or grander to him, yet I preferred Zakah to Bishr..." where مزكأ acts as the subject of نعم in a genitive adjunct. As for the phrase أن يكفروا بما أنزل الله, the position of رفع (nominative) indicates it is the thing especially deserving blame. It can be taken either as the delayed subject (mubtada' mu'akhkhar) or the predicate to an omitted subject, i.e., “This blameworthy thing is their disbelief in what God sent down.” The word بغيا is accusative as an object of the verbal noun بغيا (acting like “because of,” “for the sake of”). This is shown by the example of Hatim’s poetic line: “I forgive the ungrateful for his hoarding, and turn from insult with generosity,” meaning “I forgive his ungratefulness (as a noun) for his hoarding.” Here, أن is in the accusative, its preposition omitted but understood, meaning “because God sends down.” Meaning: Then God blames the Jews for preferring this present life above faith and truth, saying بئس ما اشتروا به أنفسهم — “How evil is that which they have bought for themselves,” i.e., how evil the price they paid, their denial of what God has revealed in the Qur’an and Muslim religion sent by Muhammad (peace be upon him). If asked how they ‘bought’ themselves with unbelief, the answer is that buying/selling refers to the transfer of ownership from one to another in exchange for compensation; metaphorically, it applies wherever one exchanges some act or attribute for another, good or bad. The Jews ruined themselves by their denial of Muhammad, hence God addresses them with what they know: a negative trade, meaning they accepted an evil substitute in exchange for the divine reward they would have gained with faith. God has not revealed Hellfire as something He bestowed upon His Messenger, nor has He prepared it for the faithful; instead, it is for those rejecting faith. Similar verses occur in Surah An-Nisa beginning from “Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture and believe in sorcery and idolatry...” until “And We granted them a mighty dominion.” The phrase بغيا indicates envy or spite towards Muhammad (peace be upon him), as he was from the descendants of Ishmael and the previous messengers before were from the Children of Israel. Others say it means seeking what is not theirs. This is elucidated by (an yanzil Allah min fadlihi ‘ala man yasha’u min ‘ibadihi): the revelation and prophethood is described as God’s grace which He bestows upon whomever He wills. The phrase فَأَبَوْا بَغْضَبٍ عَلَىٰ غَضَبٍ means the Children of Israel, after initially recognizing Muhammad’s truth and being victorious, reverted back with anger upon anger from God due to their denial. Murraj explains that باؤوا بغضب means “they incurred punishment,” interpreting بغضب as curse. Abu ‘Ubaydah says the original root of بوء is to establish or confirm. The phrase على غضب is interpreted variously: one opinion says the first anger was due to their altering the Torah before the Prophet’s mission, and the second anger due to their disbelief in Muhammad. Another view says the first anger was due to their worship of the calf idol, and the second to the denial of Muhammad, as narrated by Al-Suddi. A third view is that the first was anger for rejecting Jesus (peace be upon him) and the second for rejecting Muhammad, as narrated by Al-Hasan, Ikrimah and Qatadah. A fourth is that the repetition signifies intensity and emphasis since the anger is inevitable upon them, as reported by Abu Muslim and Al-Asamm. Finally, (wa lil kafirin ‘adhabun muhiin) means for the deniers of Muhammad’s prophethood, a humiliating punishment appointed by God, either in this world or the hereafter. ‘Muhin’ implies something that disgraces, humiliates and imposes ignominy on its holder; it is the one that lowers and does not confer honor or status. Some say such punishment is not ‘muhin’ if it is a trial intended for purification leading to honor. Therefore, one who moves from Hellfire to Paradise is not considered humiliated by such punishment.