Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:10

“Whether any of you conceals his speech” (i.e., hides it within his soul without articulating it; it is also said: he articulates it in such a way that he does not let himself hear it, let alone anyone else), “or speaks openly with it” (i.e., whoever contrasts that in these two meanings), “and whoever is hidden” (exaggerating in concealment, as if he were vanishing) “by night” (seeking cover), “and walks forth by day.”

This means one who is manifest by day, as narrated by Ibn Abbas. This is what a group said regarding the origin of the term; it is an active participle derived from saraba, meaning he departed in his sarab (path). It can mean to move about as one pleases. The poet said: “I have walked forth, though I was not one to walk forth, And hopes draw near, though they were not near.”

Another said: “Every people have confined their tethered stallion, But we have broken its tether, so he is walking forth.”

This means he is moving about as he pleases, not repelled from any direction, boasting of the might of his people. What the scholar [Ibn Abbas] mentioned is necessitated by the meaning, and its context is its occurrence in contrast to “one who is hidden.” The view apparent from the speech of some is that it is literal in manifestation.

Sawa’un (It is the same) is raised as a fronted predicate, and man (whoever) is the postponed subject. The predicate was not dualized because, in origin, it is a verbal noun (masdar), and it now signifies “equal.” Its dual form did not occur in the most well-known dialects, though Abu Zayd reported: huma sawa’an (they two are equals). Minkum (among you) is a state (hal) from the pronoun concealed within it, not from [the verbs] asarra (concealed) or jahara (spoke openly), because what is within the scope of the silah (conjunctive clause) or the modifier does not precede the mausul (conjunctive noun) or the modified.

Abu Hayyan permitted sawa’un to be the subject because it is modified by minkum, with what follows it as the predicate. Sibawayh parsed the Arabs' saying: “Sawa’un ‘alayhi al-khayru wa al-sharru” (It is the same to him, good and evil) in this way. As for the claim of Ibn Atiyyah that Sibawayh weakened this on the grounds that it begins with an indefinite noun and is therefore invalid—[it is to be noted that] sarib (walking forth) is a conjunction attached to man. It is as if it were said: “It is the same among you, a person who is hidden and another who walks forth.” The point of the extra huwa (he) in the first instance is that it indicates the perfection of [God’s] knowledge, so the extra verification is appropriate. This is also the point of omitting the modified noun after sarib.

The reason for fronting “conceals” and its governance of explicit speech over “speaks openly” and its governance of the [implied] pronoun is to place the one who is “hidden” [first]. It was argued that sawa’un requires the mention of two things; thus, if sarib is a conjunction to a part of the silah or the modifier, there would be only one thing present. This does not occur in the first interpretation, because the meaning is what you have learned. It is answered that man is an expression for two [entities], as in the saying: “Come, if you covenant with me not to betray me, we shall be like the two who, O wolf, associate.” Thus, it is as if it were said: “It is the same among you two: one hidden by night, and one walking forth by day.”

It is stated in al-Kashf that, according to both views, man is a modified noun, not a conjunctive one, and so the first two [instances] are also interpreted as such so that the whole may be consistent. Preferring it over the conjunctive man indicates that the intention is the description (wasf), for that is the object of knowledge. Had one said, “Equal is he who concealed the speech and he who spoke openly,” and the [generic] category were intended—like the [verse]: “And I pass by the mean man, [who] insults me”—then it and the former are equal, but the first is definitive. If the specific [individual] is intended, either factually or conceptually, it necessitates a suggestion contrary to the intention, for reasons previously mentioned.

It is said that in the speech there is an omitted conjunctive noun, and the meaning is “and whoever is walking forth,” like the saying of Abu Firas: “I wish that which is between me and you were blooming, And between me and the worlds were ruined.”

And the saying of Hassan: “Whoever among you insults the Messenger of Allah, And praises him and aids him, is the same.”

This is very weak because it involves omitting the conjunctive noun along with the beginning of the conjunctive clause. Al-Zamakhshari claimed that one of the two omissions is permissible, but their combination is among the most denied of things, unlike in the two verses [cited]. Abu Hayyan said that the omission of man here, even if known, is not permissible according to the Basrans, but it is permissible according to the Kufans.

Some alleged that the intention is the equality of the two states, whether they belong to one person or two. The meaning is the equality of his concealment and his walking forth in relation to the knowledge of Allah Almighty; thus, there is no need to reconcile the verse through what has preceded, and likewise for the state of what preceded it. Thus, it is expressed in two styles while the intention is one.

This is countered by the fact that the Arabic language does not support it, because man cannot be a masdar (verbal noun), nor is there any [connecting element] in the speech. Ibn Atiyyah claimed it is possible that the verse contains three classes: one who conceals is one side, one who speaks openly is the side opposed to the first, and the third is the double-dealer who disobeys by night while hidden and displays innocence by day. And it is as you see. Among the strange things is what is reported from al-Akhfash and Qutrub regarding the interpretation of mustakhfin (the hidden one) as the manifest one. Although it exists in their speech with this meaning, what prevents it in the verse is what prevents it elsewhere. Furthermore, in the declaration of His Almighty’s knowledge of what was mentioned, after the declaration of the comprehensiveness of His knowledge over all things, there is an attention to that [matter] which is not hidden.