Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:14

(To Him), meaning to Allah the Almighty, (the Call of Truth), meaning the supplication and entreaty which is firm, occurring in its proper place, and answered upon its occurrence. The genitive construction (idafa) is to signal the connection of the 'call' to the 'truth,' its exclusivity to Him, and its being far removed from the taint of falsehood, misguidance, and vanity—much like one says, "the word of truth." The intent is that the answering of such a call belongs to Him alone, to the exclusion of others, which is supported by what follows, as is not hidden.

It is said that the meaning of "the Call of Truth" is supplication in times of fear, for in such times, none is called upon except Allah the Almighty, as He, the Exalted, said: "Those you call upon besides Him have gone astray." Al-Mawardi claimed that this is most akin to the context of the verse. It is also said that "the call" (ad-da'wah) is in the sense of "supplication" (ad-du'a), meaning the seeking of approach, and that this refers to worship due to the comprehensiveness of the context, with the genitive construction following the pattern previously mentioned. Some say this genitive construction is of the type where the described is attributed to its attribute, a matter well-known in linguistics. The essence of the meaning is that the One who truly deserves to be worshipped is Allah the Almighty, not anyone else.

It is understood from the words of some, as has been said, that "the call" is in the sense of "supplication," and its object is omitted, meaning: "for the sake of worship." The meaning is that He is the One who is truly entitled to be called upon to be worshipped, to the exclusion of others. The necessity between these two meanings is evident; for if the call to His worship, the Exalted, is the truth, then His worship, the Majestic, is the truth, and vice versa.

From Al-Hasan, it is reported that the meaning of "the Truth" (al-haqq) is Allah the Almighty Himself. This, as stated in Al-Bahr, is the second of the two interpretations mentioned by Al-Zamakhshari. According to this, the meaning is: "To Him is the call of the Caller who is the Truth, who hears and answers." The first interpretation is what we alluded to initially, where 'the Truth' is contrasted with 'falsehood.' The author of Al-Kashf clarified the essence of both interpretations, stating that the discourse is aimed at His exclusivity, the Exalted, in being called upon and worshipped, as a rebuttal to those who dispute concerning Allah the Almighty and associate partners with Him. The genitive construction must contain an indication of this exclusivity. If 'the Truth' is placed in opposition to 'falsehood,' it is manifest. If it is taken as one of His names, the original would have been "To Allah is His call," emphasizing exclusivity through both the prepositional 'lam' and the genitive construction, then further strengthened by substituting the apparent noun for the pronoun, reinforced with an attribute denoting the utmost exclusivity. Thus, it is said: "To Him is the call of the Caller who is the Truth." 'The Truth' is one of His names, the Exalted, indicating that He is the one who is established in reality, while everything else is false in its essence, becoming 'true' only through His realization of it. Thus, it is restricted in every context to indicate that its opposite has no reality. Since the one called upon besides Him is false due to his lack of response, He is the Truth who hears and answers.

With this, the objection raised by Abu Hayyan against the second interpretation—that it leads to saying "To Allah is the call of Allah," which is like saying "To Zayd is the call of Zayd," which is invalid—is refuted. There is no need for what the scholar Al-Tayyibi said in his interpretation: that the meaning is "And to Allah the Almighty belongs the call that is worthy of being attributed and appended to His presence, the Majestic, because He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, Generous, who does not disappoint His supplicant and thus answers the supplication," for that, as you see, is of little benefit.

From what is in Al-Kashf, one learns the way this sentence relates to what preceded it. Some have said: The way this sentence and the one before it—namely His saying, "And He is severe in power"—relate is that if the occasion of revelation is the story of Arbad and 'Amir, then their destruction in a way they did not perceive is from the power of Allah the Almighty, and an answering of the call of His Messenger, peace be upon him. It is reported that he, peace be upon him, said: "O Allah, restrain them from me with whatever You will." Or, it indicates His Messenger, peace be upon him, being upon the truth. If this is not the occasion of revelation, then the view is that it is a warning to the disbelievers regarding their disputing with the Messenger, peace be upon him, through the descent of His severe power upon them, threatening them with the answering of the prayer of the Messenger, peace be upon him, should he pray against them, or a clarification of their misguidance and the corruption of their opinion in worshipping other than Allah. From what has been mentioned, the mode of connection is known according to other interpretations if we say the occasion of revelation is the story of the Jew or the tyrant. So reflect upon this.

(And those they call upon), meaning the idols which they—the polytheists—call upon. The omission of the pronoun referring back to the relative noun is common in such cases. It is also permitted that the relative noun refers to the polytheists, and the plural pronoun in the nominative refers back to them, with the object of "call upon" being omitted; meaning: the idols. It was omitted because of the indication of His saying, (besides Him), for its meaning is "passing beyond Him," and passing beyond Him is only by worshipping them. The first view is supported by the reading of Al-Bazdawiy from Abu 'Amr: "tad'una" (you call upon) with the address (second person). The pronoun in (they do not answer them) refers back to "those" (the idols). On the second view, it refers to the object of "call upon." In any case, the intent is that the idols do not answer (them), meaning the polytheists, (with anything) of their requests, (except like one who stretches forth his hands towards water), meaning they do not answer any part of an answer, except like the answering of water for someone who stretches his hands towards it from afar, seeking and calling it (to reach his mouth, and it), meaning the water, (will never reach it), meaning it will never reach his mouth, because it is inanimate and does not perceive his thirst or the stretching of his hands toward it.

Abu Hayyan suggested that "it" refers to the mouth, and the 'ha' in "reaches it" refers to the water, meaning: "and his mouth will not reach the water," for neither of them reaches the other in this state. Some suggested the first is the pronoun for the "stretcher" and the second for the water. Abu al-Baqa' said: It is not allowed for the first to return to the "stretcher" and the second to the "mouth," because when the active participle is used for someone other than the one it belongs to, the agent must be explicitly mentioned. Thus, it should have been said: "and it is not reaching the water with it." The majority hold the view mentioned first. The purpose, as some meticulous scholars have said, is to depict that in their time of greatest need for a response to achieve their desires, they are in the state of one most disappointed in his pursuit of what he is compelled to have.

The essence is that He likened their gods, when they seek their help for what concerns them with the tongue of necessity, regarding their lack of perception—let alone the ability to answer—and their remaining in loss, to the state of water in the sight of a thirsty man who stretches his hands towards it, calling it with words and gestures. He is thus in increased agony and ruin. The simile here is of a compound representational nature, originally highlighted in the context of mockery, as it established that both are "answers" that increase loss and regret. The exception is empty (istithna' mufarragh) from the most general of sources, as we pointed out. It is apparent that the "answering" there is a source (masdar) of the active verb, which is what the apparent verb necessitates. It is also permissible for it to be from the passive, and it is appended to the "stretcher" based on the fact that the source of the active verb necessitates the source of the passive verb in existence or non-existence. It is as if it were said: "They do not answer them with anything, so no answering occurs for them, an answering like that of one who stretches his hands towards water..."

...And the intent of stretching the hands toward the water may be the act of spreading the fingers and extending them to drink, not for supplication and gesturing, as we pointed out earlier. Based on this, it is said: The one who calls upon other than Allah is likened to one who wanted to take water with his hands, so he spread them, opening his fingers, in that both receive no gain. Some made the point of resemblance the "scarcity of benefit," but perhaps they meant the "absence of it," yet exaggerated by mentioning the scarcity to signify the absence, as a sign of understating the truth and preferring sincerity, and to contain a touch of mockery. The simile here is of the "restricted singular" type, like saying to one who gains nothing from his endeavor: "He is like the one writing on water." For the one being likened is the endeavorer, restricted by the fact that his endeavor is such, and the one being likened to is the writer, restricted by the fact that he is on water. It is not a compound rational simile at all, as some have imagined. Yes, the point of resemblance is rational and conceptual. The exception is empty (mufarragh) from the most general of circumstances; meaning: the idols do not answer these disbelieving callers except by being likened—that is, the callers—to one who stretches his hands and does not clench them, and keeps them out in such a state, thus obtaining nothing, because water is obtained by clenching, not by spreading.

It is reported from 'Ali—may Allah honor his face—that this is a simile for a thirsty man on the edge of a well without a rope or bucket; it does not reach the bottom of the well, nor does the water rise to him. This returns to the first view and is not different from it, as has been said. From Abu 'Ubaydah, it is that this is a simile for the one grasping at water in that he obtains nothing. He then said: The Arabs use this as a proverb for one who strives for what he cannot attain. He recited the poet's verse: 'I became, regarding what was between me and her of affection, like one grasping water in the hand.' And his saying: 'And I, with you, in longing for you, am like one grasping water which his fingertips could not contain.' This returns to the second view, except that the meaning of "grasping" does not appear from "stretcher." For spreading the hand is clearly the act of spreading fingers, extended, as in his saying: 'He was accustomed to spreading his palm, until if he wanted to clench it, his fingers would not obey him.' In any case, the intent of "stretcher" is a "person who stretches," whoever that may be.

(And the call of the disbelievers is in nothing but error), meaning in loss, ruin, and falsehood. If the intent of this "call" is the calling upon their idols, then it is clear that it is so, but it is understood from what preceded, and in that case, it is repeated for emphasis. If it is their calling upon Allah the Almighty, then they have questioned this, for the call of the disbeliever may be answered; this is explicitly stated in the Fatawa, and the answering of the call of Iblis, the leader of the disbelievers, is proof of that. The reply is that the intent is their calling upon Allah the Almighty regarding matters of the Hereafter. According to this, one interprets what is reported from Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the voices of the disbelievers are veiled from Allah the Almighty, and thus their call is not heard. It is also said: It is permissible that their call in general is intended, and it is not restricted to what they are answered for.