وَإِنَّهُ عَلىٰ ذٰلِكَ لَشَهيدٌ

And indeed he is [himself] witness to that!

EXEGESIS

Shahīd (witness) is an intensive form taken from the root sh-h-d which denotes knowledge received by means of sight, but can easily be applied to other senses.^{‎[1]Tahqiq, 6/155.} Shahādah, therefore, simply refers to the knowledge obtained by viewing or seeing something and can often be used to refer to giving testimony or bearing witness in a court of law.^{‎[2]Bahrayn, 3/86.} Moreover, shahīd is one of the names of God, denoting his omnipresence and omniscience that nothing is or can be hidden from Him.^{‎[3]Bahrayn, 3/86.}  The word itself is on the measure of faʿīl, which gives the meaning that one possesses the description of sh-h-d as a permanent and inseparable nature of his personality, a constant and repeated display of this attribute.

In the context of the verse, shahīd simply refers to the one who constantly bears witness and testifies his own ingratitude towards God’s infinite blessings, and not as a one-off occurrence.^{‎[4]Razi, 32/262.}

EXPOSITION

There is near consensus among commentators explaining the unappreciative nature of man, while deep down he is fully aware of this blameworthy trait but perhaps heedless of it.

Muhammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quraẓī and Qatādah, among others,^{‎[5]Andulusi, 5/515.} explain that man will testify against himself in the divine courtroom as seen in 75:14, 67:11, 41:20, and 24:24.^{‎[6]Mizan, 20/347.} However, some interpreters have broadened the reading of the verse, explaining that man accepts his ingratitude even in this earthly life, and to confine his testimony to the hereafter – such that man will only admit his ungratefulness on the Day of Judgement – requires further evidence.^{‎[7]Amthal, 20/396.}

Every individual has an insight into themselves, and although they can conceal their true character from others, they are not able to hide it from God, or from their inner conscience. The verse may imply the meaning that man will testify to his ungratefulness publicly on the Judgement Day. 

It goes without saying that many a times man is heedless in knowing himself, prone to deceiving his inner conscience, embracing and justifying blameworthy qualities which are often displayed as good and praiseworthy. However, the nature of ingratitude is so clear that there is no room to deceive or conceal, even from himself.^{‎[8]Amthal, 20/396.} Man’s lack of appreciation is wilful refusal in acknowledging his own flaws, which compliments his carnal self. To control and rise above such blameworthy traits – for instance miserliness – requires effort, and if a person is not willing to do so, they are without any excuse, too proud to admit it. Similar denotations can be found in 75:14-15.^{‎[9]Mudarrisi, 18/293.}

Therefore, whatever punishment is served on the Day of Resurrection is a fate that the individual is already aware of, and that is due to his own evil.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

Ḥāʾirī comments that the Quran speaks of three persons of the Age of Ignorance, all of whom were known for a specific trait. Ḥātam at-Ṭāʾī was known for his generosity; Ashʿab ibn Jubayr for his greed; and Hubāhib for his miserliness, to whom this verse refers.^{‎[10]Hairi, 12/210.}

However, this is outside the contextual understanding since man described in the verses must refer to those who were attacked in the raid. Otherwise, there would be no connection between the oaths and the predicate of the oaths.

Regarding the identity and reference of the witness, Qatādah reveals that the first person pronoun hu (innahu) refers to the Lord,^{‎[11]Andulusi, 5/515; Nawawi, 2/658.} inferring the meaning that God will testify to the ungrateful nature of man.^{‎[12]Dukhayyil, 1/823.} However, Tabatabai persists that this interpretation may not be accurate nor suitable after taking into consideration the overall narrative of the chapter, with the simple examination of the previous and succeeding verses. Since the pronouns in verses 6 and 8 refer to man, it is improbable for it to refer to God here,^{‎[13]Mizan, 20/347.} although prominent commentators, such as Rāzī, prefer this.^{‎[14]Razi, 32/262.}

Muṭahharī contextualises the verse historically, connecting the first set of verses (1-5) with the second (6-11), explaining that when the Holy Prophet approached his nation and engaged in the propagation of religion, the reaction of the opposition was such that they wished to suppress his message through insults, character assassination, and persecution, which eventually evolved into an assassination plot. This opposition itself is the manifestation of ungratefulness. It is known that the pronoun hu refers to man, meaning man is a witness to his own ungratefulness, and if his innate being (fiṭrah) were to be asked in regard to this ungratefulness, it will most certainly testify.^{‎[15]Ahsan al-Hadith, 12/327.}  

[1] Tahqiq, 6/155.
[2] Bahrayn, 3/86.
[3] Bahrayn, 3/86.
[4] Razi, 32/262.
[5] Andulusi, 5/515.
[6] Mizan, 20/347.
[7] Amthal, 20/396.
[8] Amthal, 20/396.
[9] Mudarrisi, 18/293.
[10] Hairi, 12/210.
[11] Andulusi, 5/515; Nawawi, 2/658.
[12] Dukhayyil, 1/823.
[13] Mizan, 20/347.
[14] Razi, 32/262.
[15] Ahsan al-Hadith, 12/327.