| Al-Baqarah: (19) Or like a rainstorm from...

(Or like a rainstorm from the sky) This begins a new similitude for their condition, following the previous one, providing an explanation for every subtle and profound aspect of it. These are the leaders of disbelief who have become proficient in it and have cast the shadows of misguidance after having flown toward it with the primary feathers and secondary feathers of hypocrisy. It is, therefore, appropriate that the tent of parables be struck in the wilderness of explaining their dire circumstances, and that the ropes of prolixity be stretched in describing their actions, so that it may be a deterrent and an exemplary punishment after punishment for them. Every speech that possesses a share of eloquence and a portion of robustness and ingenuity must fulfill the requirements of both the style of elaboration and conciseness. What, then, could be said of that which has reached the highest peak of eloquence, ingenuity, and inimitability? Indeed, the Almighty has denounced in this parable the details of their unparalleled crimes.

It is conjoined to (The one who kindled a fire), and the structure becomes: "Like the similitude of those who are in a rainstorm." Thus, the referent of the plural pronoun appears later, and harmony is achieved with the conjoined element and the likened subject. "Or" (Aw), according to the investigators, serves one of two purposes: it creates doubt and ambiguity in the report, depending on the considerations of the speaker; and in construction, it signifies permission and option. In such a case, there is no necessity for ambiguity or a mixture of literal and figurative meanings. Some say that it is placed for equality in doubt based on its origin, then it was extended to signify equality without doubt, as is the case here in one view—meaning: "Likened them to whichever of the two stories you wish, for they are both equal in the similitude."

There is no harm if they are both represented, although the second similitude is more eloquent because it indicates excessive bewilderment, the severity of the situation, and its horror; therefore, it was delayed to progress from the less severe to the more horrifying. Some claimed that "or" here means "and," and that the two verses are one single similitude. Others said it means "rather," and others said it is for ambiguity; but all of these are baseless. Indeed, Abu Hayyan chose that it is for elaboration, as if one who looks at their state sees some who resemble the state of the fire-kindler, and others who resemble the state of those in a rainstorm, claiming that permission and options occur only in commands or what functions as such. But it is not hidden from those who examine its meaning that what we are dealing with falls into the second category. Moreover, the claim of exclusivity is not agreed upon by the experts. Ibn Malik mentioned that the most frequent occurrence of "or" for permission is in similitudes, such as ("...then they are like stones, or even harder in hardness"), and the estimation is like ("...and was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer").

Sayyib (rainstorm), according to the well-known opinion, is rain, from saba-yasubu, meaning "it descended." This is what has been narrated here from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Mujahid, Qatadah, Ata, and others—may Allah the Almighty be pleased with them. It also applies to the clouds, as in the saying: "Until a rainstorm erased it, its heavy, pouring, descending droplets...". Its weight is fay'al (with a kasrah under the ‘ayn) according to the Basrians, and it is among the patterns restricted to those with a weak letter as the middle root, except for the rare sayqal (with a kasrah under the qaf) as a proper name for a woman. The Baghdadians give the ‘ayn a fathah, which is a view that the ear rejects. Similar to it is the view of the Kufans: that its origin is fa'il, like tawil, then it was inverted. Whether it is a collective noun or an adjective meaning "descending" or "sending down," there are two views; the most famous of which is the former, and most of its counterparts in weight are from the latter. It was read as sa'ib, and sayyib is more eloquent. The indefiniteness here is for categorization and magnification.

Al-Sama' (the sky) is everything that is above you, such as a roof and the like. It is what is known to the experts of the Earth's inhabitants and what is visible to the commoners. Its root is waw from sumuw (height), and it is feminine, though it may be masculine, as in his saying: "If he raised the sky toward him..." It is linked to the sky with clouds. The feminine ta is attached to it, and the waw becomes correct then—as Abu Hayyan said—because the word was built upon it; so it is said samawah, and it is pluralized as samawat, asmiyah, and sama'i. All of these, as mentioned in al-Bahr, are anomalous because it is a collective noun, and its rule is not to be pluralized. Its pluralization with the alif and ta is devoid of the condition for what is normally pluralized in that manner, and its pluralization as af'ilah is not a standard rule for feminine nouns, nor is fa'a'il standard for fa'al. The intended meaning of "sky" here is the horizon, and the definite article is for all-encompassing, not for a mental convention, as some minds might be led to believe. It implies that the clouds cover all horizons, which suggests the intensity of the calamity, along with the preparation of darkness; this is why it was mentioned for this purpose. In my view, its mention may also be for intimidation and to indicate that what harms them comes from above their heads, and that is more effective in inflicting harm, as indicated by His saying: "Poured over their heads shall be boiling water." We often find that a person cares more about protecting their head than protecting the rest of their limbs, such that the one who is able among people takes a head covering for that. Observation and inner experience are the strongest witnesses to what we have said.

"Min" (from) is for the beginning of the end-point. It is said: it is possible that it is for partition, with a deleted genitive, meaning: "from the rains of the sky," but this is nothing. Some claimed that the verse refutes the claim that rain is from vapors rising from the earth; this is from the vapors of ignorance, for the verse only states that rain is from this direction, which does not contradict what was mentioned. How could it, when observation demands it? It has been narrated to me by someone who reached the level of continuous reporting that they witnessed while on high mountains clouds raining below them, and they witnessed at times vapors rising from the direction of the mountains, condensing into clouds and raining. So beware of turning toward the lightning of deceptive speech, and do not think that such is knowledge, for ignorance of it is more correct.

Then, carrying "sayyib" here to mean clouds—though possible—is far-fetched, as is carrying "sky" to mean it. "In it are darkness, thunder, and lightning," meaning: along with it, there is that, as in His saying: "Enter into nations." If "in" is taken as signifying container-hood, as is common in the words of the commentators, one needs to interpret the accompaniment required by container-hood as absolute association, including causality, proximity, and others. Thus, there are three darknesses in it: the darkness of its density due to its continuity, the darkness of its clouds, and the darkness of the night, which the taste senses from His saying: "Every time it illuminates for them, they walk in it." Likewise, there is thunder and lightning in it, because they are in its origin and the place from which it pours. It is said: "in it," and it is as the Shihab said, a delusion arising from a lack of contemplation. If "sayyib" is meant to be the clouds, the matter of container-hood is more apparent. The darknesses, then, are the darkness of the density and the intensity of the clouds with the darkness of the night.

The darknesses were pluralized in both interpretations, but thunder and lightning were not, even though they have been pluralized in the language of the Arabs. Through this, exaggeration increases, and correspondence with the darknesses and the thunderbolts is achieved, because they are verbal nouns in origin. If they were meant as concrete nouns here—as is the apparent meaning—the origin of the verbal noun is not to be pluralized. Moreover, if they were pluralized, it would apparently indicate a multiplicity of types, as in the conjoined element; and each of thunder and lightning is a single type. The Shihab mentioned—claiming it is among the flashes of guidance in the darkness of thoughts—a secret point in singularizing them here: that thunder, as stated in the hadith and as is the custom, drives the clouds from one place to another; if it were multiple, the clouds would not be dense, so the intensity of its darkness would disappear. Likewise, with lightning: if its flashing were frequent, the darkness would not cover, as indicated by His saying: "Every time it illuminates for them, they walk in it." So, singularizing them is definitive here.

In my view—and it is one of the lights of care shining upon the horizons of mysteries—since light was not pluralized in any verse of the Quran (for the reason previously mentioned), lightning was not pluralized for their purposes.

Some objected to the intent of preventing corruption by saying that it contains the ambiguity of what is barely so, since it is not far from it, as "Every time it illuminates for them" guides you, and thunder is its companion, so its rays are reflected upon it. Do you not see the lowly skin becoming eager with the mouth when it became a neighbor to the Mushaf? The elevation of "darkness" is either due to being the agent of the container-noun dependent on the described noun, or it is in the nominative case as an incipient, and the container-noun is its predicate. Making the container-noun a state of the specified indefinite noun, while "darkness" is its agent, is not free from the darkness of remoteness, as is not hidden.

People have various views on thunder and lightning. What is relied upon is that the first is the voice of the rebuke of the angel assigned to the clouds, and the second is the flashing of his whips which are of fire. What is famous among the philosophers is that when the sun shines upon dry earth, it analyzes fiery parts from it, mixed with earthy parts, and from them a smoke is composed which mixes with vapor—which is what happens due to heavenly heat when it affects moisture—and they both rise to the cold layer. There, a cloud condenses, the smoke is trapped within it, and it seeks to rise if it remains in its hot nature, or to descend if it becomes heavy and cold. In any case, it tears the clouds with its violence, and thunder occurs from it. Sometimes, fire ignites from it due to the intensity of its movement and friction, which is the lightning if it is light, or the thunderbolt if it is dense. Perhaps lightning is the cause of thunder, for the ignited smoke extinguishes in the cloud, and a sound is heard upon its extinguishment, just as when we extinguish fire before us. Thunder and lightning occur together, except that the lightning is seen immediately because sight does not need anything except alignment without a veil, while the thunder is heard later because hearing only occurs by the arrival of the ripple of the air to the hearing power, and that requires time. Thus they said.

Perhaps it occurs to your mind that this is close, and you do not know what to do with what has been reported from the Presence of the One who was taken by night without thunder or lightning on the back of al-Buraq, and ascended to the Possessor of the Ways of Ascent where there is no time or place; so he returned, and he is the most knowledgeable of all of Allah’s creation—may Allah the Almighty grant him peace and blessings. Therefore, by the power of Him whose power is mighty and the success of Him whose bounty has overwhelmed me, I will provide you with what removes the veil from the eye and reveals the secret of the "comprehensive words" that were given to the Master of the Two Worlds, may Allah the Almighty grant him peace and blessings. I say: It has been established among the masters of wisdom and prophecy—from what they witnessed in their spiritual observations in their secluded retreats and ascetic exercises, and likewise among all the Lordly seekers among the philosophers of Islam, the Persians, and others—that for every corporeal type of celestial spheres, stars, and elemental simples and their compounds, there is a lord that is a light abstracted from matter, existing by itself, managing it and preserving it. It is the grower, the nourisher, and the procreator in plants, animals, and humans, because of the impossibility of these various actions in plants and animals issuing from a simple force that has no consciousness, and in us from ourselves—otherwise we would have consciousness of them. So all these actions are from the lords. To those lords, the owner of the Great Message, may Allah the Almighty grant him peace and blessings, pointed with his saying: "And for every thing there is an angel," until he said: "Every drop of rain descends with an angel," and he said: "The angel of the mountains and the angel of the seas came to me." Plato narrated from himself that he stripped off the psychological darknesses and bodily attachments and witnessed them. Our Master, Sheikh Sadr al-Din al-Qunawi—may his secret be sanctified—mentioned in his commentary on Al-Fatihah that there is no form but has a spirit. The people of Allah—the Almighty—have elaborated on this.

When you know this, there is no remoteness in saying: The Prophet—may Allah the Almighty grant him peace and blessings—meant by the "angel assigned to the clouds" in explaining the thunder, this Lord, the manager and preserver. By "his rebuke," he meant his management of it according to its preparedness and receptivity. By "the voice of that rebuke," he meant what happens upon the splitting with vapors that this management necessitates. By "the whips" in the explanation of lightning—which is the plural of mikhraq, originally a cloth wrapped to beat one another—he meant the tool through which the splitting is achieved. There is no doubt that it is, as we have established, from fire ignited by the intensity of movement and friction, and so it appeared as you see. Since we have opened this door for you, you will be able to interpret much of what has been reported of this kind, even their saying: "Thunder is the speech of the angel, and lightning is his laughter," even if, according to the outward appearance, it is something to be laughed at. I have not seen anyone succeed and verify, and seek verification and succeed, and Allah the Almighty is the Grantor of success, and He is my sufficiency and the best Guardian.

"They put their fingers in their ears from the thunderbolts, in fear of death." The pronouns return to the deleted element known beforehand; it is often turned to, as in His saying: "And how many a city have We destroyed, and there came to it Our punishment at night or while they were sleeping." The sentence is an interruption with no place in syntax, based on a question arising from the speech, as if it were said when explaining their horrific circumstances: "So what do they do in the midst of that severity?" So He said: "(They put)..." and so on. Other possibilities were allowed, such as it being in the place of a genitive as an adjective for the deleted element. It was also allowed for it and for "it is near" to be an adjective for "rainstorm" by interpreting it as, for example, "what they cannot bear," or in the place of an accusative as a state from the pronoun in it, with the referent being deleted, or the "lam" is a substitute for it, meaning: "its thunderbolts."

"Al-Jal" (putting) is originally placing. "Al-Asabi'" (fingers) is the plural of usbu'. It has nine languages derived from multiplying the three conditions of the hamzah by the conditions of the ba'. They mentioned a tenth: usbu' with a dammah and a waw. It is feminine, as are all its names, except al-ibham (thumb); some of the Banu Asad treat it as masculine, but the feminine is better.

In the verse, there is exaggeration regarding the excess of their shock and the perfection of their bewilderment, as in al-Fara'id from several aspects: first, the attribution of putting to all fingers, whereas it is attributed to some of them—the fingertips. Second, regarding the thumb among the fingers, while the custom is to insert the index finger, so as if, from the excess of their shock, they insert whichever finger it may be and do not follow the customary way. Third, mentioning "putting" in the place of "inserting," for putting something into something is more indicative of the second encompassing the first than merely inserting it into it. Is this a linguistic metaphor for naming the whole by the name of its part, or metaphor in the "putting" itself, or is it a logical metaphor where "putting" is attributed to the fingers while it is actually for the fingertips? There is disagreement. The most famous is the first, and it is the view of the majority. Ibn Malik and a group are for the latter, thinking that the exaggeration in avoiding the hearing of the thunderbolt is only upon that. They were not satisfied with the mind’s haste to understand that the whole was inserted into the ear before looking at the context. It is said: there is no metaphor here at all because attributing some actions to a possessor of parts that divide is sufficient to be engaged with some of its parts, just as it is said: "I entered the city," "I came on Thursday night," and "I wiped with the handkerchief," for that is literal even though the entering, coming, and wiping are in part of the city, the night, and the handkerchief. It is not hidden that the state of such is not literal in an absolute sense, and the difference between it and what we are dealing with is apparent.

"Min" (from) is causal, serving the purpose of the "lam" in the object-for-which. It enters upon the preceding motive and the delayed goal, and it is connected to "they put." Its connection to "death" is far-fetched, meaning: they put them on account of the thunderbolts. "Thunderbolts" is the plural of sa'iqah, and there is no anomaly. The apparent meaning is that it is originally an adjective from al-sa'q, which is crying out. Its "ta" is for femininity if it is considered an adjective for a feminine, or for exaggeration if it is not considered, like rawiyah, or for transferring from the adjectival state to the nominal state, like haqiqah. It is said: it is a verbal noun like al-‘afiyah (health) and al-‘aqibah (the outcome), and it is a name for everything horrific that is heard or seen. The most famous is that it is the intense thunder with a piece of fire that does not pass by anything but it consumes it, and sometimes there may be a stony or iron mass with it. Plugging the ears is only useful in the first meaning. Sometimes the second meaning is intended, and there is a sign in the speech of another exaggeration in the excess of their shock, as they think that which is not useful is useful. Al-Hasan read it as al-sawaqi', which is a dialect of Banu Tamim, as in the saying: "Have you not seen that the criminals were struck by sawaqi'? No, rather they are above the sawaqi'." It is not from the chapter of inversion, according to the most correct opinion, since its sign is that one of the two constructions is superior to the other in some aspects of morphology, while here both constructions are equal in morphology.

"In fear of death" is an accusative of cause for "they put," even if "from the thunderbolts" is, in meaning, the object-for-which. There were two types: accusative and genitive. The necessity of conjunction in such is not conceded, contrary to those who claimed it. There is no obstacle to it being a cause for it along with its cause, just as "from the thunderbolts" is a cause for it itself. It was reported that the object-for-which comes definite even if it is rare, as in the saying: "I forgive the ugly speech of the generous one to store it, and I turn away from the cursing of the mean one as a favor." Making it an absolute object for a deleted element, i.e., "they fear," and "we fear death," is far-fetched. Qatadah, al-Dahhak, and Ibn Abi Layla read hadharan, and it is like hadhar (excessive fear).

"Death," in the well-known opinion, is the cessation of life from what is characterized by it in reality. Its application to the previous non-existence in His saying, the Almighty: "And you were dead, so He gave you life," is metaphorical. His saying, the Almighty: "Who created death," does not refute this, for the creation in it is in the meaning of estimation and determining the measure in a way; it is something that is characterized by the existing and the non-existent, because non-existence, like existence, has a duration and a determined measure with Him, the Almighty. It is said: the intended meaning of creating death is bringing about its causes. It is said: it is non-existence absolutely, even if it is not created; however, the annihilation of attributes is created because of the tinge of realization in them, in the sense that the preparedness of the subject is considered in its concept, and it is an existential matter, so it is permissible to consider the connection of creation and bringing into existence with respect to that. The verifiers of the Sunni scholars validated that death is an existential attribute that was created as an opposite to life, and this is why it appears, as in the hadith: "On the day when meanings are embodied," as the people of Allah the Almighty said, in the form of a white-and-black ram, and it becomes pure non-existence, for it is slaughtered with the blade of life that has no end.

"And Allah encompasses the disbelievers." Meaning: they do not escape Him, just as the encompassed does not escape the encompasser. Thus, the Almighty’s encompassing of them is a metaphor, likening the state of His complete power—which the determined element does not escape at all—to the encompassing of the encompasser with the encompassed such that it does not escape him. Thus, there is a derivative metaphor in encompassing. If He likened His state—the Almighty, and to Him belongs the highest attribute—with them to the state of the encompasser with the encompassed, by likening a form extracted from several things to its like, there would be a similitude-metaphor, with no disposal in its individual parts, except that he declared the principal one of them and estimated the rest, so it is understood.

Abu Ali allowed in "encompassing" that it be in the meaning of "destroying," as in His saying, the Almighty: "And his sin has encompassed him," or "knowing with the knowledge of requital," as in His saying, the Almighty: "And He has encompassed what is with them." All of this is from the outward appearance, and the people of witnessing have words beyond it. "Encompasses" is interruptive, not conjunctive, nor circumstantial; the sentence is parenthetical between two sentences of one story, and in it is the completion of the intended meaning of the similitude through what it provides of exaggeration. This is because "the disbelievers" was placed in the position of the pronoun, and it was expressed with it as an indication of the entitlement of the possessors of the rainstorm to that torment for their disbelief. Thus, the speech is on the limit of His saying, the Almighty: "The similitude of what they spend in this worldly life is like a wind containing frost that struck the harvest of a people who wronged themselves and destroyed it." The similitude to the harvest of such people is not hidden in its beauty, because destruction due to wrath is more severe and more eloquent. In it is an alert that what they did of plugging their ears with their fingers does not benefit them at all, and destruction has encompassed them. Caution does not repel fate, and what can human planning do against the Decree? Making the interruption part of the conditions of the likened subject—on the basis that "the disbelievers" means the hypocrites—and they have no escape from the torment of the two abodes, and it was placed in the midst of the conditions of the likened-to-subject to show the perfection of care for the matter of the likened subject and the warning of the intensity of the connection, is something that the sound taste rejects.