Tafsir of Ar-Ra'd 13:36

{And those to whom We have given the Book} were revealed—as Al-Mawardi said—concerning the believers among the people of the two Books, such as Abdullah bin Salam, Ka'b, and their peers among the Jews, and those who embraced Islam from the Christians, such as the famous eighty: forty men from Najran, eight from Yemen, and thirty-two from Abyssinia. Thus, the meaning of "the Book" is the Torah and the Gospel.

{Rejoice in what has been revealed to you}, for it is the Book promised within what they were given.

{And among the factions [Al-Ahzab]}—that is, among their factions, who are their disbelievers who banded together against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, with hostility, such as Ka'b bin al-Ashraf and his companions, and al-Sayyid and al-'Aqib, the two bishops of Najran, and their followers. The root of the word is the gathering of a hizb (a group gathered for a specific matter, such as enmity, war, and the like), and the intent of a specific group is facilitated by the context.

{Are those who deny some of it}—that is, what does not agree with their books regarding the laws that emerged, whether by initiation or abrogation. As for what conforms to their books, they did not deny it, even if they did not rejoice in it. It is reported from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zayd that this was revealed specifically regarding the believers among the Jews, in which case "the Book" means the Torah and "the factions" means their disbelievers. From Mujahid, al-Hasan, and Qatada, the meaning of the relative pronoun [those to whom We have given] is all the People of the Book, for they would rejoice in what agreed with their books, and "what has been revealed to you" refers to some of it—namely, that which conforms. This was objected to on the grounds that the contrast in the words of the Exalted, {And among the factions are those who deny some of it}, resists this, because the denial of a portion is shared among them. This was answered by saying that the meaning is: among the factions are those whose share is only the denial of a portion, and they have no share of joy for any of it due to the intensity of their hatred and enmity, whereas those [believers] rejoice in the portion that conforms to their books.

It is also said: The apparent meaning is that among them are those who rejoice in a portion of it if it conforms to their books, and some of them do not rejoice in that portion but rather grieve over it, even if it conforms to them, and they deny the conformity so that none of them may follow his law, peace and blessings be upon him, as in the story of the stoning. You know that these two answers are of no account.

Regarding the interpretation of the relative pronoun as all the People of the Book, some have interpreted "the portion" as that which does not conform to what they have distorted, and clarified this by saying that among them are those who rejoice in what conforms, and among them are those who deny it due to their stubbornness and the intensity of their corruption. Their denial of the discrepancy of the distorted [text] is by speech, not by heart, due to their knowledge of it, or it is in relation to those who did not distort it. Perhaps describing the denial is more appropriate for the context than describing the distortion attributed to them, as is not hidden from the contemplative mind.

It is said: The relative pronoun refers to Muslims in general, and the "factions" refers to the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. Ibn Jarir narrated this from Qatada. Thus, "the Book" means the Quran, and the meaning of "rejoice" is the continuity and increase of their joy. A group said: "The factions" refers to the factions of the Jahiliyyah from the Arabs. Muqatil said: They are the Banu Umayya, the Banu al-Mughirah, and the family of Abu Talha.

{Say}, proclaiming the truth, unconcerned by those who deny some of what has been revealed to you, {I have only been commanded to worship Allah and not associate anything with Him}. Meaning: not to perform association with Him, the Exalted. The apparent meaning is the restriction of the command to His worship alone, and this is what the Imam's speech necessitates, where he said: "Innama" (only) is for restriction, and its meaning is: I have not been commanded except to worship Allah the Exalted. This indicates that there is no obligation, command, or prohibition except for that. It is also said: Its meaning is: I have only been commanded to worship and unify Him, not [to follow] what you are upon.

In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is stated that the meaning—as a binding argument against the deniers and a rebuttal of their denial—is "I have only been commanded..." to the end. The restriction is the restriction of the command to worship to Allah the Exalted, not the restriction of the command absolutely to His worship. That is, say to them: I have only been commanded in what has been revealed to me to worship and unify Allah, and it is apparent that you have no way to deny this because of the consensus of all the prophets, peace be upon them, and the Books upon it, based on His saying, {Come to a word that is equitable between us and you—that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him}. So why do you associate Ezra and the Messiah, peace be upon them, with Him? It is not hidden that this interpretation is based on the idea that "the factions" refers to the disbelievers of the two Books, and this speech is a binding argument against them. An objection was raised that among them are those who deny monotheism and the consensus of all prophets and Books upon it, such as the Trinitarians among the Christians.

It was answered that along with the Trinity, they claim monotheism and do not deny it, as is evidenced by their saying: "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God." You know that this is something that does not require [this explanation], and the objection arises from negligence regarding the intended meaning. It may be said that the meaning is: I have only been commanded to worship Allah and not associate with Him, and this is a matter that intellects approve and is evidenced by the signs in the horizons and in the souls: {And in everything there is a sign indicating that He is One}. Therefore, denying it is evidence of stupidity and a witness to ignorance; no rational person should pay heed to it. This applies to all interpretations of the "factions."

Abu Khulayd narrated from Nafi' the reading "wa la ushriku" (and I do not associate) in the nominative, as a break [from the previous sentence], meaning: "And I do not associate." It is also permitted that it be a circumstantial clause, meaning: that I worship Allah while not associating anything with Him. It is said: This is more appropriate, because the start of a new sentence lacks the indication of the speech that what is commanded is the singling out of worship to Him, the Exalted, though there is debate in this.

{To Him}, meaning to Allah the Exalted alone, in the mentioned manner of monotheism, or to what I have been commanded of monotheism, {I call} the people, not to anyone else, nor to anything else that the divine Books and prophets, peace be upon them, do not agree upon. So what is the basis of your denial? This was also said in al-Irshad. It is better that the pronoun refers to Allah the Exalted, as in its predecessor and the subsequent [pronoun] in His saying, {And to Him is the return}.

That is, my return for recompense. The scholar Al-Baydawi confined himself to this. He had previously added, "and your return," and it is not far-fetched. It was objected that he should have added it here as well; in fact, this context is more suitable for generalization to indicate the confirmation of resurrection generally, which is what is reported from Qatada. The Imam made this verse comprehensive of everything a person needs regarding the knowledge of the Origin and the Return. His saying, the Exalted, {Say, I have only been commanded to worship Allah and not associate anything with Him}, is comprehensive of all that revelation of obligation has brought. His saying, the Exalted, {To Him I call}, refers to his prophethood, peace and blessings be upon him, and His saying, the Glorious and Exalted, {And to Him is the return}, is an indication of the resurrection and the gathering.

Al-Shihab answered this by saying: Al-Zamakhshari’s statement "To Him, not to anyone else, is my return, and you say the same, so there is no meaning in your denial" contains the point of the specification, that they deny the reality or the judgment, so there is no need for what is said [about] there being no need to mention it because of the indication of His saying: {That is the final outcome of those who feared Allah, and the outcome of the disbelievers is the Fire}. This is as you see. Perhaps it is more apparent to say that the indication of the speech here is not like its indication there, for the flow of the verse there is for the warning appropriate for it to be considered, while its flow here is for another matter, and the restriction to that [the speaker's return] is sufficient for it.

You know that there is no obstacle to considering it, and the meaning of the verse would be: Say in response to them: I have only been commanded by Allah the Exalted with what is among the loftiest of matters, and to Him I call from time to time, and to Him is my return and your return, so He will reward me for what I am upon and take vengeance on you for your denial and your failure to follow my call, or then the truth of all that has been revealed to me will become apparent, and the corruption of your opinion in denying any part of it will become clear. It may be said, regarding not considering it, similar to what was said previously: the meaning is, say in opposition to their denial: I have only been commanded by Allah the Exalted with what I have been commanded, and to Him I call, and to Him is my return in what concerns me in the matter of the call and other things, so I do not care about your denial, for He, the Exalted, is sufficient for whoever returns to Him. Perhaps this meaning is [intended] here in the sense that it is a pure establishment [of truth] on his part, unlike there. Al-Irshad confined itself to making the speech a binding argument and made that the point of the command to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that he should address them with it.