Synthesis: Sūrat Ṣād 41–64

Triangulating Ṭabarsī (Majmaʿ al-Bayān) [tabarsi_majma_al_bayan], al-Qummī [qummi], al-Ṭūsī (al-Tibyān) [tusi_al_tibyan], al-Baḥrānī (al-Burhān) [bahrani_al_burhan], al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (al-Mīzān) [tabatabai_al_mizan], and the published Enlightening Commentary [enlightening_commentary].

Human-review flags: al-Baḥrānī [bahrani_al_burhan] and al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī [tabatabai_al_mizan] were condensed heavily — al-Burhān carries an enormous folkloric Job/Dhū l-Kifl narrative (~45K chars) and al-Mīzān a long baḥth riwāʾī whose matns largely repeat reports rendered in full elsewhere; isnāds and load-bearing content are preserved, but the long qaṣaṣ runs are summarized. Verify the condensed passages against the verbatim original_ar.

What the passage says. The sūra's consolation-arc continues: Job (41–44), then the prophetic line Abraham–Isaac–Jacob and Ishmael–Elisha–Dhū l-Kifl (45–48), then the contrasted "returns" — the Gardens of Eden of the God-wary (49–54) and the Hell of the transgressors with its scalding ḥamīm, its ghassāq, and the recriminations of the throngs (55–64).

Job and prophetic ʿiṣma. All four classical/Shīʿī sources read Satan's "touch" (massaniya l-shayṭān) as bodily affliction, never power over Job's soul. Ṭabarsī [tabarsi_majma_al_bayan] gives the lexicon (al-naṣb = toil; four qirāʾāt of bi-nuṣb) and the ahl al-taḥqīq ruling that a prophet cannot be made physically repugnant. al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī [tabatabai_al_mizan] argues the point most fully: affliction may be ascribed to Satan as a vertical (not parallel) cause, and he explicitly rebuts al-Zamakhsharī's Kashshāf — infallibility secures the prophets against Satan's whispering, not against bodily harm permitted "for a beneficial end," citing Joshua's forgetting (Kahf 63). The strongest ʿiṣma statement is the ḥadīth of al-Ṣādiq/al-Bāqir carried by both al-Burhān [bahrani_al_burhan] (9116/[8]) and al-Mīzān: "the prophets do not sin… nothing of Job's body bred worms… none found him repugnant." Notably al-Mīzān then prints the graphic Qummī report (worms, the dunghill) and flags the tension itself: "some reports… negate that and deny it most vehemently." The ḍighth dispensation (44) is unanimous — Job swore to lash his wife (named Raḥma/Layyā), and God eased the oath with a single blow of a hundred-strand bunch; Ṭabarsī, al-Ṭūsī, and al-Burhān (9118/[10]) all anchor it in the Prophet's juristic precedent of the dropsical fornicator, and al-Ṭūsī draws the Imāmī fiqh ruling that such a blow discharges the oath.

The prophetic line. "Men of hands and eyes" (ulī l-aydī wa-l-abṣār, 45) is glossed by all as strength-in-worship + insight/understanding-in-religion (Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Qatāda), not literal limbs; al-Qummī [qummi] and al-Burhān add Abū l-Jārūd's "strength in worship and patience." al-Mīzān ties it to Anbiyāʾ 72–73 (leadership, revelation = the "eyes"; good deeds, prayer, zakāt = the "hands"). On Dhū l-Kifl the sources diverge: Ṭabarsī and al-Ṭūsī list options as-attributed (a double reward; a personal name; surety for prophets), while al-Mīzān cites Imam al-Jawād's reply to ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm — Dhū l-Kifl was a messenger after Solomon who judged like David and was never angry except for God, named ʿUwaydiyā (web-confirmed against the parallel "Owaidya" tradition). al-Burhān instead embeds a long qaṣaṣ identifying Dhū l-Kifl with Bashīr son of Job, named for the kifāla he undertook. The Enlightening Commentary [enlightening_commentary] surveys the same disputed identifications of al-Yasaʿ (Elisha) and Dhū l-Kifl.

The two returns. For Paradise, qāṣirāt al-ṭarf (52) is read by the lexical sources as chaste mates restricting their glance to their husbands; al-Qummī and al-Burhān gloss them as the ḥūr al-ʿīn. On ghassāq (57) the sources preserve the full lexical spread (web-confirmed): pus/exudation (Rāghib, Ibn ʿUmar, Qatāda), intense freezing-cold (zamharīr, Ibn Masʿūd/Ibn ʿAbbās), a venom-spring (Kaʿb), their tears (al-Suddī), or a punishment known only to God (al-Ḥasan) — Ṭabarsī and al-Ṭūsī both note its connotation of darkness/stench.

The decisive Shīʿī taʾwīl appears in the disputing of the Fire (59–64). al-Qummī and al-Burhān read the throngs politically as-attributed — the ṭāghūn as "Zurayq, Ḥabtar, and the Banū Umayya" (taqiyya code-names; web-confirmed: Zurayq = "the blue-eyed," Ḥabtar = "the fox"), the later throng as the Banū l-ʿAbbās/Banū Umayya "who usurped the right of the House of Muḥammad." Most striking, al-Burhān stacks five Kulaynī/Ṣadūq/Ṭūsī narrations (9127–9131) glossing "men we counted among the wicked" (62) as the Shīʿa of ʿAlī whom the damned vainly seek in the Fire — "by God, not one of you shall enter the Fire." Ṭabarsī and al-Ṭūsī report both the Sunnī sabab al-nuzūl (Abū Jahl/al-Walīd missing ʿAmmār, Khabbāb, Ṣuhayb, Bilāl) and "the exegesis of the People of the House." al-Mīzān, by contrast, reads the speakers as the people of the Fire generally and "the men" as the believers in Paradise, treating 64 as the externalizing of the worldly disposition to strife.

Sources present: tabarsi_majma_al_bayan, qummi, tusi_al_tibyan, bahrani_al_burhan, tabatabai_al_mizan, enlightening_commentary; silent: none.