Ar-Ra‘d: (18) "For those who have responded to their Lord..."

After the Exalted—His glory be manifest—explained the state of both truth and falsehood, in terms of their condition and their ultimate outcome, He perfected the exposition by setting forth the state of the followers of each in terms of their final destiny, as a completion of the call—combining both encouragement and warning. Thus, the Exalted said:

"For those who have responded to their Lord" (when He called them to the Truth through various modes of invitation, among which is the striking of similitudes; for indeed, the presentation of an intelligible concept in the form of a sensory image has a profound effect on subjugating the souls). The prepositional phrase [for those] is a predicate placed at the beginning. And His saying, "the best" (meaning the best reward, which is Paradise, as stated by Qatadah and others). From Mujahid, it is [said to mean] the "good life"—the wholesome life that is not clouded by any impurity whatsoever. From Ibn Abbas, it is [said] that the intended meaning is the reward of the "Good Word," which is La ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah); though there is an obvious remoteness in this interpretation—it being a postponed subject.

"And those who have not responded to Him" (the Exalted) and have been obstinate toward the clear Truth, "if they had all that is in the earth" (of various types of wealth) "together" (such that not a single piece remained scattered in its regions, or aggregated and not dispersed throughout time), "and the like of it with it, they would surely offer it as a ransom" (i.e., [they would offer] the aforementioned things that are in the earth and the like of it together, to escape what befalls them). In this, there is a terrorizing of them regarding what they shall encounter, [a reality] which expression cannot encompass. The relative pronoun [those who] is the subject, and the conditional sentence is its predicate. It is, as they say, placed in the position of "the worst" (al-su’a), which contrasts with "the best" (al-husna) in the first clause. It is as if it were said: "And for those who have not responded to Him, [is] the worst."

It has been argued that even if the conditional sentence indicates their evil state, it is insufficient to take the place of the word al-su’a accompanied by the preposition lam attached to the relative pronoun or its pronoun, upon which the achievement of the objective turns. Therefore, what should be relied upon is that what occurs in this contrast is "the evil of reckoning" in His saying: "Those—for them is the evil of reckoning." Since the demonstrative pronoun serving as the subject in this sentence refers to the relative pronoun serving as the subject in the previous sentence, its predicate—the prepositional phrase—is, in reality, the predicate of the relative pronoun [in the first instance] and clarifies the ambiguity of the content of the conditional sentence which originally stood as the predicate for it. This is why the conjunction was omitted; it is as if it were said: "And those who have not responded to Him, for them is the evil of reckoning." This has the power of saying: "And for those who have not responded to Him, [is] the evil of reckoning," with added emphasis. Thus, the beauty of the contrast is achieved in the most eloquent and emphatic manner.

It has been excused that it is possible that "if they had all that is in the earth" to the end of the verse serves as a substitute for that [i.e., al-su’a], meaning that the preservation of the beauty of the contrast to His saying, "For those who have responded to their Lord, the best," dictates that it should be said: "And for those who have not responded to Him, the worst," and nothing more. However, He brought His saying, "if they had," etc., instead of what was mentioned. Perhaps there is something in the discourse of al-Tayyibi that provides solace for this. The author of al-Kashshaf also inclined toward the consideration of al-su’a in the contrast, saying: "His saying, 'if they had,' is in contrast to 'the best' in place of 'the worst,' with additional illustration and expression of regret. Brevity was preferred in the first [clause] as a sign that the reward of those who responded does not fall under description." So contemplate this.

The meaning of "the evil of reckoning," as narrated from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and al-Hasan, is that they shall be reckoned for all their sins, with none of them being forgiven; this is what is meant by "meticulous scrutiny" (munafasah). From Ibn Abbas, it is that they shall be reckoned, and their good deeds shall not be accepted, nor their evil deeds forgiven. "And their abode" (i.e., their place of return) "is Hell" (an explanation of the consequence of what preceded, and in it is a type of support for the interpretation of al-husna as Paradise). "And wretched is the bed" (i.e., the resting place, and the specific object of the blame is omitted; meaning: their bed, or Hell).

Al-Zamakhshari said: "The lam in His saying, 'For those who have responded,' relates to 'God strikes the similitudes,' and His saying, 'the best,' is a description of the infinitive, i.e., they responded with the best response. And His saying, 'And those who have not responded,' is conjoined to the first relative pronoun. And His saying, 'if they had,' etc., is an initiating clause, presented to clarify the punishment prepared for those who did not respond. The meaning [is]: Thus does God strike similitudes for the believers who respond and the disbelievers who are obstinate; i.e., they are the two similitudes of the two parties."

Abu Hayyan said: "The first interpretation is more appropriate, because in it the striking of similitudes is not restricted to these two, and God the Exalted has struck many similitudes concerning these and others. Also, because it includes mentioning the reward of those who respond, unlike this [interpretation]. Furthermore, the estimation of 'the best response' suggests a restriction on the response, whereas its opposite is not a negation of response absolutely; rather, it is the negation of the 'best' response, yet God the Exalted has negated the response absolutely. Moreover, [in the second interpretation], 'if they had,' etc., becomes a disconnected clause, or like one, since the meaning would become: 'Thus God strikes similitudes for the believers and the disbelievers: if they had,' etc. If there were a particle linking 'if' to what precedes it, the disconnection would be resolved. Also, it implies participation in the pronoun, even if the restriction of that to the disbelievers is known."

This was contested by the argument that there is no dispute about the appropriateness of the first interpretation, but that what was mentioned constitutes an objection is a matter of debate. For there is no compulsion in the second interpretation to restrict the general similitudes to such as these—do you not see His saying, "Thus"? Furthermore, it contains the understanding of the reward of those who respond as well—do you not see the restriction (qasr) derived from placing the prepositional phrase first? Also, His saying "the best" is an expository adjective that has no limiting concept, for the response to God the Exalted cannot be but "best." And how can His saying, "if they had," etc., be considered disconnected, when they have said it is an initiating clause to explain the state of those who did not respond? They mean it is a clarifying commencement, a response to a question about their outcome. Then, how can participation be imagined when its restriction to the disbelievers is known?

Some of the verifiers said: "What was mentioned is valid at first glance and initial observation. However, when viewed with the eye of fairness after conceding that the former is more appropriate and stronger, it is known that what Abu Hayyan said is valid. For His saying, 'Thus,' dictates that this is His state and habit—the Exalted—in striking similitudes, and it necessitates that what the Quranic custom has followed is restricted to these [two], which is not the case. What the objector mentioned, even if conceded, is contrary to the apparent meaning. As for his saying that [the state of] those who respond is known from what he mentioned, there is a difference between knowing by implication and knowing explicitly. As for [the claim that] the adjective is emphatic or has no limiting concept, that is also contrary to the origin. And the fact that the sentence is unrelated to what precedes it is apparent, as is the question regarding the state of one of the two parties while they are both mentioned."

After citing the latter interpretation and construing the similitudes therein as the preceding similitudes, you are aware that the title of "responding" and "not responding" has no relevance to the matter upon which the act of similitude revolves, and that the prevalent usage is the entry of the lam upon those intended to be reminded by the similitude. Indeed, it may be used in this meaning as well, as in His saying: "God strikes a similitude for those who believe: the wife of Pharaoh," and its counterparts. Furthermore, some of the similitudes struck, especially the last one linked to the discourse, is not a similitude of the two parties, but a similitude of truth and falsehood. There is no leeway to make the two parties the object for whom the similitude is struck by making it as if it were said: "Thus God strikes the similitudes for the people," for there is no reason then to categorize them into those who respond and those who do not.

This is supported by what is in al-Kashshaf, where he said: "Making 'For those who have responded' part of the completion of the similitudes, rather than a connection to 'strikes,' is labored, because they are the similitudes of Truth and Falsehood primarily; and making it a connection to 'strikes' is further removed, because similitudes are only struck for those who possess intellect." Moreover, the fact that what is meant by "the similitudes" are the preceding similitudes is based on the [assumption] that what preceded were [all] similitudes, whereas it is famous that there are two similitudes. Indeed, Ibn Jarir and others recorded from Qatadah that he said regarding the verse: "These are three similitudes that God the Exalted struck in a single similitude." After all this, there is no doubt that the first interpretation is safe from criticism and that it is what the majestic arrangement demands, for the perfection of the beauty of the verse-ending is that it should be like its name. Therefore, the statement of Imru' al-Qais—"O long night, will you not reveal yourself with morning? And the morning is no better than you"—falls short of the statement of al-Mutanabbi: "If it is praise, then the nasib (prelude) precedes."

Every eloquent person who speaks poetry is a captivated soul, and this is what the predecessors understood from the verse. Hence, most of the masters would pause at "the similitudes" and begin with His saying, "For those who have responded." The author of al-Murshid said: "It is a complete stop, and the pause at 'the best' is good, as is the one at 'they would surely offer it as a ransom'." It is astonishing how al-Zamakhshari chose the contrary despite its clarity. And God the Exalted knows best.