Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:25

"And those who break the covenant of Allah": Those intended here are the ones who oppose the former group and are antagonistic toward them by possessing the opposites of their qualities.

"After its binding": That is, the recognition of it. It is said: The "covenant" refers to His, the Almighty’s, saying: "Am I not your Lord?" The "binding" (mithaq)—which is a word indicating the instrument, meaning that with which a thing is made firm—refers to the affirmation by saying: "Yes." Sometimes a covenant between two parties is called a mithaq because it secures the agreement between them.

The Imam interpreted the covenant of Allah, the Exalted, as that which He has obligated upon His servants by means of rational evidences, for that is the most confirmed of all covenants and all faiths, since faith only provides confirmation through the evidences that demand fulfillment according to their requirements. He then said: The intent of "breaking" them is for a person to not examine these evidences, and thus he cannot act according to their requirements; or that he examines them and knows their truth but then acts with enmity and does not act upon his knowledge; or that he examines suspicions and does not believe in the truth.

The meaning of His, the Almighty’s, saying "after its binding" is: after He had bound those evidences and their rulings to him. For there is nothing stronger than that which Allah, the Exalted, has indicated as obligatory, in that acting upon it is beneficial and neglecting it is harmful.

It was objected: If a covenant cannot exist except with a binding (mithaq), what is the benefit of "after its binding"? He replied that it is not impossible that the intent is to distinguish between one who is enabled to know it through a solemn vow and one who is not. Or, it is not impossible that the intent is the confirming evidences, for it is said: "It has been confirmed for you with other evidences," whether they are rational or scriptural. It is not hidden that if the "covenant" is intended as that aforementioned statement and the "binding" as the affirmation of it, there is no need for this discourse. Some have interpreted the covenant here as all that Allah, the Exalted, has enjoined upon His servants—like the covenant mentioned previously—and the binding as the acknowledgement and acceptance. The verse, as narrated from Muqatil, was revealed regarding the People of the Scripture.

"And sever what Allah has ordered to be joined": This refers to the belief in all the Prophets (peace be upon them) who were united upon the truth, whereas they believe in some and disbelieve in others. It also includes the rights of kinship, maintaining ties with the believers, and other such things.

The reason why—as some researchers have said—there was no explicit mention of the negation of fear and dread from them is that the acts of "breaking" and "severing" already imply this. As for the lack of mention regarding the negation of the [praiseworthy] patience mentioned previously, it is because that patience was considered within the context of the enumerated good deeds so that they would be counted as such. Thus, there is no way to negate it from those who are as far from good deeds as the East is from the West, especially after it was restricted to being solely for the sake of His, the Exalted’s, Countenance. Likewise, there is no way to negate [from them] prayer and charity, based on the assumption that "charity" implies the giving of Zakat by those who do not even hover near faith in Allah, let alone the branches of the law. If by "charity" is intended that which includes that and other things, then its negation is already included under "severing what Allah has ordered to be joined." Indeed, it could be said that the negation of prayer is also included under that.

As for averting evil with good, its absence from them is apparent from what has preceded and what follows. For how can someone who repays His, the Exalted’s, grace by breaking His covenant and opposing His command, while committing corruption—"and cause corruption on earth" through oppression against themselves and others, stirring up discord by opposing the call of truth, and inciting war against the Muslims—how can the aforementioned "averting [of evil]" be conceived from him?

Furthermore, it is said that this implies that [their conduct] has a role in leading to the punishment indicated by His, the Almighty’s, saying: "For them"—i.e., those described with these vile acts—"is the curse"—meaning exclusion from the mercy of Allah, the Exalted—"and for them is the evil of the Home." That is, the evil consequence of the Home. The Home refers to the world, and the "evil consequence" of it is the torment of Hell, or Hell itself. He did not say "the evil consequence of the Home" in order to avoid designating the Home as the consequence, since the absolute consequence [of the righteous] is Paradise. It is permitted that the "Home" refers to Hell and its "evil" refers to its torment. The first interpretation is more appropriate to observe the contrast, because the mind hastens to understand "the Home" as the worldly life by virtue of the preceding context, because it is what is present in their minds, and because of the subtle point mentioned. This is because the assignment of a ruling to a relative pronoun (mausul) suggests that the subordinate clause (silah) is the cause for it.

It is not hidden that this [the previous point] has no relevance to this on most interpretations, for repaying a bad deed with its like is permitted, and repelling bad speech with good, as well as giving when denied, pardoning when wronged, and joining when severed, are not acts whose omission results in a consequence. As for what was considered included under the second "joining"—the neglect of some recommended rights—there is no harm in that, because its consideration is in terms of it being one of the consequences of failing in the matters of resolve, like disbelieving in some of the Prophets (peace be upon them), being undutiful to parents, and abandoning other obligatory rights. It was restricted to the "majority" because for most of what we mentioned in its interpretation, the relevance is apparent.

It is said: The style used in describing the disbelievers, condemning them, and mentioning their ultimate fate is different from the style used in describing the believers, praising them, and explaining what has been prepared for them and what their affair culminates in. He brought multiple relative pronouns and varied subordinate clauses for one, and did not do so for the other, as a sign of greater concern for the affairs of the believers, in word and deed, and a lack of concern for their opposites, for they are impure and one should rinse their mouth after mentioning them. This is while being certain that the requirement of the situation is this. It is also said that both approaches are effects of the vast mercy; therefore, reflect upon it. The repetition of "for them" is for emphasis and to signal their distinction and the independence of each in its realization.