Ar-Ra'd: (12) He it is who shows you...

(He it is who shows you the lightning in fear) of the thunderbolt, (and in hope) of the rain. This was stated by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Abu al-Shaykh extracted from al-Hasan that he said: In fear for those at sea, and in hope for those on land. From Qatadah: In fear for the traveler regarding the harm of the rain, and in hope for the resident regarding its benefit. From al-Mawardi: In fear of the punishment and in hope of the reward. The intended meaning of "lightning" is its direct, common understanding. It is reported from Ibn Abbas that what is intended by it is the water; this is a metaphor from the category of applying a term to that which it frequently accompanies.

The accusative case of (fear and hope) is due to their being maf'ul lahu (objects for which the action is performed) for "shows you." The unity of the agent of the cause and the agent of the caused action is not a condition for the accusative case by consensus. In the Sharh al-Kafiyah by al-Radi, it is noted that some grammarians do not require them to share the same agent, and this is what seems most plausible in my estimation, even if the former is the most prevalent. Evidence for the permissibility of not sharing the same agent is what we mentioned in our marginalia on the author's Sharh al-Qatr.

In Ham' al-Hawami', it is noted that al-A'lam and the later scholars required the sharing of the time and the agent with the verb, yet neither Sibawayh nor any of the early scholars stipulated this. Those who did require it had to interpret this verse due to the difference in agency, for the agent of the "showing" is Allah (the Exalted), while the agent of the fear and hope is other than Him. Thus, it was said: There is an elliptical added noun in the speech, which is "desire"—meaning He shows you this with the desire that you might fear and hope; thus, the added noun is the maf'ul lahu, and its agent and the agent of the caused verb are one and the same.

It was also said: "Fear" and "hope" are placed in the position of "frightening" and "inducing hope," just as "plant" (nabat) is placed in the position of "causing to grow" (inbat) in His saying: "And Allah caused you to grow from the earth as a plant." Nouns may take the place of one another, or they are verbal nouns with their prefixes removed, as stated in Sharh al-Tashil.

It was further said: They are maf'ul lahu on the basis that the addressees are the ones seeing, because His showing them includes their seeing; fear and hope are from their actions, so they performed the caused action—which is the seeing—based on that. This reverts to the meaning of "I refrained from the war out of cowardice." This follows the method of the statement by al-Nabigha al-Dhubyani: “And my dwellings settled on a protected height, where the herder of the camels is thought to be flying, out of caution that my baggage and women might not be reached until they die as free women.” It is said that this is in the sense of "I caused my dwellings to settle out of caution." This was refuted by Mawla Abu al-Sa'ud, stating that there is no path to this, because what is placed in the context of a final cause—especially fear—is not suitable as a cause for their seeing. 'Azmi Zadeh and others scrutinized this, saying that his speech is weak, because the poet clarified that it is of the category of "I refrained from war out of cowardice," and he means that the maf'ul lahu is a motivation for the action and exists before it, and is not of the type placed in the context of a final cause, just as they say "I struck him for discipline"—so there is no ground for refuting him with what was mentioned.

It was also said: The causality here is like the lam of consequence (lam al-'aqibah), not that it is of the category of "I refrained from war out of cowardice" as was presumed; for cowardice is a motivator for refraining, whereas these are not motivators for the "seeing." This is invalid because it is undoubtedly a motivator. 'Azmi objected to this, saying that no one has claimed that the elliptical lam in the maf'ul lahu can be the lam of consequence, and usage does not support it. This is hollow; for grammarians have said, as in al-Durr al-Masun: It is like the aforementioned statement of al-Nabigha.

He also said: There remains a discussion here, which is that the requirement of making the verse like "I refrained..."—according to what that speaker said—is that fear and hope must exist prior to the seeing, and that is not the case; rather, they are obtained from it. It is possible to say: The intention behind both "fear" and "hope," according to what he said, is that which is of the psychological dispositions, like cowardice in the aforementioned example. It is valid to explain the seeing resulting from the showing through them; meaning that the seeing which occurs by the showing of Allah (the Exalted) only happened because of what was in them of fear and hope, for if that were not in their nature, there would be no benefit in that seeing.

The forced nature of this is not hidden, though you have known that it is invalid. It was also said: The accusative is as a state (hal) from the "lightning" or from the addressees, with the omission of an added noun, or interpreting the verbal noun as an active or passive participle, or keeping the verbal noun as it is for intensity, as is said of Zayd: "He is justice [itself]."

(And He originates the clouds) meaning the masses of vapor extending in the air, (the heavy) with water. It is the plural of "heavy" (thaqilah); the clouds are described with it because it is a generic noun in the meaning of a plural, and it is made masculine and feminine, so it is as if it is the plural of a "heavy cloud," not that it is a plural or a collective generic noun, due to its application to the singular and others.