Surah Ar-Ra'd

It has been narrated through the path of Mujahid from Ibn Abbas and Ali ibn Abi Talha that it is Meccan. This is also narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr. Sa'id ibn Mansur said in his Sunan: Abu Awanah narrated to us from Abu Bishr, who said: I asked Ibn Jubayr about the words of the Exalted: "And with Him is the Mother of the Book" (13:39), is it Abdullah ibn Salam? He replied: How can that be, when this Surah is Meccan?

Mujahid, Ibn al-Zubayr, and Ibn Marduyah (through the path of al-Awfi from Ibn Abbas, and through the path of Ibn Jurayj and Uthman from Ata’ from him), and Abu al-Shaykh from Qatadah, have extracted that it is Medinan. However, in the latter’s narration, there is an exception for the words of the Exalted: "And those who disbelieve will not cease to be struck by what they have done with a disaster" (13:31), stating that it is Meccan. It has been narrated that the beginning of it up to the end of the verse: "And if there were a Qur'an..." (13:31) is Medinan, and the rest of it is Meccan.

In al-Itqan, it is supported that it is Medinan based on what al-Tabarani and others extracted from Anas, that the words of the Exalted: "Allah knows what every female bears..." (13:8) up to His saying, glory be to Him: "And He is severe in punishment" (13:13), were revealed regarding the story of Arbad ibn Qays and Amir ibn al-Tufayl when they came to Medina to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Then it is said: What reconciles these differences is that it is Meccan, except for some verses of it—forty-three verses according to the Kufan count, forty-four according to the Medinan, forty-five according to the Basran, and forty-seven according to the Syrian.

The aspect of its connection to the preceding Surah is that He, the Exalted, said previously: "And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth do they pass by while they are thereof heedless" (12:105). Thus, He, the Exalted, summarized the heavenly and earthly signs, then He, the Majestic, detailed them here in the most complete detail. Furthermore, He, the Exalted, brought here proofs of His Oneness, may He be exalted and glorified, which serve as an explanation for what He recounted of Yusuf, peace be upon him: "Are separate lords better or Allah, the One, the Prevailing?" (12:39). Also, in both Surahs, there is consolation for him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This is in addition to the fact that the end of that Surah and the beginning of this one share a description of the Qur'an, as is not hidden.

Regarding its merit, it has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah and al-Marwazi in al-Jana'iz that it was recommended, when a dying person is present, to read Surah Ar-Ra'd in their presence, for that lightens the burden for the deceased, makes the extraction of the soul easier, and facilitates their affair. Other reports have also come down explicitly mentioning its recitation [at the time of death], and Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Alif-Lam-Mim-Ra. Ibn Jarir and Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Ibn Abbas that the meaning is: "I am Allah, I know, and I see." This is one of the well-known opinions regarding such [letters].

These are the verses of the Book. More than one authority has interpreted the "Book" here as the Surah, for it is the Maktub (the written thing), validated as such without the need for metaphor. The demonstrative "these" refers to the verses of the Surah, either because some have already been recited while the others are in the process of being recited, making them as if they were present; or because they are established in the Preserved Tablet; or because they are with the Angel. The meaning is: "These verses are the complete Surah, which is miraculous in its category."

It has been suggested that this is understood from the lam [of al-Kitab], in that the genitive construction is explanatory (bayaniyya). Thus, the outcome is: "That is the Book." When a predicate is identified with the generic lam, it implies exaggeration—that this subject has acquired such excellence that it justifies being considered the very essence of its genus, not merely a species among species. Since this appears impossible on the surface, the intention is [a superlative degree of] that.

It is also permitted that the intended meaning of "the Book" is the Quran. "These" is a demonstrative referring to the verses of the Surah, and the meaning is: "The verses of this Surah are the verses of the Quran, which is the Book—the miraculous, the complete, the one that stands in no need of description, the one recognized by this [quality] among all other books, and the one deserving of the exclusive title 'The Book'." The apparent meaning is that it refers to the entirety of the Quran. It is also permissible that it refers to what has been revealed [at that moment]. The preference for the interpretation of "the Quran" is based on it being the first thought that comes to mind when the word "Book" is mentioned absolutely, without qualification. Through this, all the descriptions of perfection attributed to the verses—by virtue of what they were added to—become manifest, unlike if it were made to refer [only] to the Surah, for it does not possess that same level of fame in possessing those attributes that would render explicit description unnecessary. There is some debate regarding this. In any case, there is no prohibition against applying "verses of the Book" to "these [verses]," as is not hidden.

It has also been said: The demonstrative "these" refers to what the Exalted has related to him—peace and blessings be upon him—of the accounts of the Messengers, peace be upon them, which are alluded to at the end of the preceding Surah by His words: "That is of the tidings of the unseen." Based on this, it is permissible for "the Book" to mean that which includes the Torah and the Gospel; Ibn Jarir and Qatadah narrated this from Mujahid. Ibn Atiyyah permitted this on the condition that the reference of "Alif-Lam-Mim-Ra" also includes the letters of the alphabet. He made "that" the first subject, "these" the second subject, and "verses" the predicate; the sentence [that follows] is the predicate of the first, with the demonstrative serving as the link.

As for His saying, Exalted is He: And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth. The apparent [meaning] is that the relative pronoun (alladhi) is the subject, and the sentence "has been revealed" (verb and its implied subject) is the relative clause. "From your Lord" is connected to "revealed," and "the truth" is the predicate. To many, the relative pronoun refers to the entire Quran. The discourse is a rectification (istidrak) following the description of [only] the Surah as perfect.

The style mirrors the statement of Fatimah al-Anmariyyah, who, when asked, "Which of your sons is best?", replied: "Rabee', then Umarah, then Qays, then Anas—may I be bereaved of them if I know which of them is best! By Allah, they are like a continuous ring; one does not know where its ends are." Just as she negated preference at the end by confirming the perfection of each to indicate that the perfection of each cannot be encompassed by description—this being a generalization after specification for this purpose—so too, when the Exalted confirmed perfection for this Surah in particular, He rectified it by [stating] that everything revealed is likewise; it is not exclusive to one Surah over another, for the aforementioned indication. This, as they say, is a wonderful meaning and an eloquent method mentioned by the author of al-Kashshaf.

It is also said: It is for confirming what preceded and providing evidence for it, because if all that was revealed to him is the truth, then this revealed [Surah] is also the truth, by necessity, as it is part of all that was revealed. It is perfect because there is nothing more perfect than truth and sincerity. Because this reasoning is somewhat subtle, the scholar al-Baydawi said: "It is like an argument for what preceded." Perhaps the first [interpretation] is more appropriate, though it is not free of subtlety either.

If it were said: The intent of "perfection" in what preceded is the perfection returning to eloquence and rhetoric, and this is a description of the object of the reference by virtue of its inimitability in that regard, and [the current verse] is a description of it specifically—assuming the manifest noun replaces the pronoun, or [referring to] what it includes and what is not in it if it does not contain that [inimitability], by being true and conforming to reality, since eloquence and rhetoric do not necessitate truthfulness, as evidenced by the Maqamat of al-Hariri—it would not be entirely far-fetched. So, reflect upon this.

Al-Hawfi permitted that "from your Lord" is the predicate, and "the truth" is the predicate of an omitted subject—i.e., "It is the truth"—or it is a predicate after a predicate, or both are a single predicate, as is said of "the pomegranate: sweet, sour," though this is a forced grammatical analysis. He also permitted that the relative pronoun is in the genitive case, coupled with "the Book," in which case "the truth" is the predicate of an omitted subject and nothing else.

It is said: The conjunction is of the general to the specific, or one attribute to another, as they said in his [the poet's] saying: "He is the King, the Qarm, and the Ibn al-Humam..." Some make it a conjunction of the whole to the part, or of one synonym to another, and each has its perspective. If "the Book" is intended to mean what was narrated from Mujahid and Qatadah, the matter of the conjunction is clear.

Abu al-Baqa' permitted that "which" (alladhi) is an epithet for "the Book" with the addition of waw in the descriptor, as in "The book of Abu Hafs, the Faruq, and the ones who descended, and the pure ones..." This has been countered by the fact that what was mentioned regarding the addition of waw for attachment (ilsaq) was restricted by the author of al-Mughni to cases where the epithet is a sentence; we have not seen anyone mention it for a singular [noun].

Al-Hawfi also permitted the relative pronoun to be a conjunction to "verses," making "the truth" an epithet for it, which is as you can see. Then, the intent—assuming "the truth" is the predicate of a mentioned or omitted subject—is to restrict truthfulness to what was revealed, due to its deep-rootedness therein. This does not imply that everything else is not "truth" in essence; rather, its truthfulness entails the truthfulness of the other revealed books, as it confirms what came before it and is a guardian over it.

Some of those who reject analogy cited this verse, based on its inclusion of restriction in the context of arguing against it, saying: "The ruling derived by analogy is not revealed by Allah, the Exalted; otherwise, he who rules by it would be a disbeliever, for His saying: 'And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then it is those who are the disbelievers.' Everything that is not revealed by Allah is not 'truth' according to this verse, for its indication that there is no truth except what Allah has revealed." The proponents of analogy refuted what they mentioned in the first premise by stating that "not judging" refers to denial and lack of belief, or it means "whoever does not judge by anything at all from what Allah has revealed," and there is no doubt that this is the affair of the disbelievers. Or, "what He has revealed" there refers to the Torah, by context of what preceded it, and we are not bound by it, so it is specific to the Jews, and the meaning is the ruling of their disbelief as they did not judge by their book. We agree with this, as explained in Sharh al-Mawaqif. Regarding their second premise, that "what is revealed by Allah" includes both the explicit and the implicit, analogy enters into the ruling of that which is analogous to the revealed, for it has come explicitly in what was revealed: "So take warning, O people of vision," which is indicative—as established in its place—of the soundness of following analogy. Furthermore, you have already known the intent of the restriction.

It is also possible, as has been said, that the meaning is "It is the truth, and nothing else among books that were not revealed, or those revealed to others, based on their corruption and abrogation." It is sometimes said that their evidence is invalidated by the Sunnah and Ijma' (consensus), and the answer is the answer. It is not hidden what the expression of the Quran by the relative pronoun, the attribution of revelation to it in the passive voice, and the mention of the attribute of Lordship added to the pronoun of him—peace and blessings be upon him—contains in terms of the majesty of what was revealed, the honor of the one to whom it was revealed, and the pointing toward the reason for the predicate's structure.

But most of the people do not believe. It is said they are the disbelievers of Mecca; it is also said they are the Jews and the Christians. The best [opinion] is that it refers to most of them absolutely. They do not believe in that clear truth because of their failure to reflect and contemplate upon it. Their lack of belief, as the Shaykh al-Islam said, is related to the title of its "truthfulness"—as it is the reference for belief and disbelief—not to the title of its "being revealed," as has been said, and because it is stated by way of description rather than reporting.