Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:23

When the Exalted One established the matter of His Oneness (Tawhid) in the most excellent manner, He followed it with what serves as evidence for the validation of His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Oneness and validation are twins that cannot be separated from one another. Thus, although the verse is presented to demonstrate the miraculous nature (of the Quran), its underlying purpose is the establishment of Prophethood.

In this sequence, there is an indication to refute the Ta’limiyyah, who claimed that the knowledge of the Exalted Allah is derived solely from the knowledge of the Messenger, as well as the Hashwiyyah, who asserted that the knowledge of the Exalted One cannot be attained except through the Quran and reports. The conjunction (in "And if you are in doubt") is either linked to His saying, "Worship your Lord," or to "Do not assign." The justification for this connection is that since the Exalted One mandated worship and the negation of idolatry alongside those (previous) signs, and because obedience to them is impossible without the firm conviction that they are from Him, He guided them with that which necessitates this certainty. Therefore, His saying "if you are in doubt regarding the message of Our servant" would be weak, as it would turn the rational proof into a merely auditory one; if that were intended, it would have been stated within "Worship" and "Do not associate partners," without the detailing of the internal and external evidences.

The apparent meaning is that the address here is to the disbelievers, which is narrated from Al-Hasan. It is also said to be to the Jews, for the cause of revelation—as reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both)—was their statement: "This which Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) brings to us does not resemble revelation, and we are in doubt concerning it." It is also said that it follows the style of address in "Worship."

The particle in (if) is either for reproaching them for their doubt—portraying it as something that should not be sustained except by way of assumption, since the situation contains that which removes it—or it is used to give precedence to those whose doubt is certain over those whose doubt is not. Alternatively, since some were doubtful and others were not, the address treats them all as if their doubt were not certain, nor was its absence. Regarding it as synonymous with idh (when), as some commentators have claimed, contradicts the school of the researchers. The inclusion of kana (were) is to preserve the meaning of the past tense; because it is purely for time, it does not change in to a future tense meaning, as Al-Mubarrad and those who agree with him—the majority—concluded, for it is like all other past verbs.

The indefiniteness of rayb (doubt) is to signal that, if it exists, it ought to be weak and slight, due to the brilliance of that which repels it and the strength of that which removes it. Treating it as a container (by treating abstract meanings as physical objects and implying they are settled within it) does not contradict the consideration of its weakness and scarcity; for that which that (container) necessitates is merely the persistence of their involvement with it, not its strength or abundance. The particle min (concerning/of) is primary and describes rayb; it is not permissible for it to be tab'idiyyah (partitive), and to interpret it as causal might suggest that the revealed matter is the location of the doubt, which is far from it.

Ma (that which), whether conjunctive or descriptive, refers to the Book. It is also said it refers to the common factor between the Book and its parts. The meaning of their being in doubt concerning it is their doubting that it is a revelation from the Exalted Allah. The doubling (tashdid) in nazzalna (We have sent down) denotes transference, synonymous with the hamza (in anzalna), which is supported by Zayd ibn Qutayb’s reading, anzalna. The doubling here does not denote gradual revelation, so that its preference over inzal would serve to remind them of the source of their doubt (for they said: "Why was the Quran not sent down to him all at once?"). Building the challenge upon it is to give them full latitude, as many who count the knuckles (in calculation) have held.

This is because the claim of the doubling denoting multiplication usually occurs in verbs that are transitive before the doubling (like fatahtu and qata'tu), whereas nazala was not transitive before. Furthermore, the doubling meant for multiplication denotes the frequency of the occurrence of the action, not the conversion of an intransitive verb to a transitive one; the verb here was intransitive. Thus, the fact that the transitivity is derived from the doubling is evidence that it is for transference, not multiplication. Furthermore, if nazzala indicated gradualness, then His saying, "Why was the Quran not sent down to him all at once?" would require interpretation, as it would contradict the challenge at the beginning. The same applies to such verses as "Why has a sign not been sent down to him?" and "We would have sent down for them an angel from heaven as a messenger." Often, both forms are read in contexts where neither gradualness nor multiplication is possible.

The preference of nazzala over anzala (in the sense of gradualness) as a separate category—meaning the act of bringing something bit by bit, as they described regarding tasallalu (they snuck away little by little)—is considered by them to be equivalent to tadarruja (gradual movement) or tadakhala (entering bit by bit), meaning "to arrange." This was not found otherwise, so the fa'ala form, after being for transference, would denote this meaning, either metaphorically or through shared usage. However, that it must apply universally is far-fetched, especially with the absence of supporting evidence.

In linking yunazzil with ‘ala (upon) is an indication of the exaltation of the Sender over the one to whom it is sent, and his capability (the recipient) being as if he were wearing it, unlike ila (to), which has no indication beyond arrival and reaching. In mentioning him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) by the title of servitude (‘ubudiyyah), combined with the addition to the pronoun of Majesty, is a warning of his great status, his devotion to Him, and his submissiveness to His commands. In this is the ultimate honor and promotion of his standing (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), for "Do not call me except by 'O My servant,' for it is the most honorable of my names." It is also read as ‘ibadina (Our servants); thus, it is possible that the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his nation are meant, because the benefit of what is sent down and the guidance obtained through it is not exclusive, but shared between the leader and the follower; thus, it is as if it were sent down upon them. It is also possible that the prophets are meant, to whom revelation was sent down, with the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) being the primary intended recipient and the first to enter therein, as he is the one whose adversaries demanded the challenge in his Book.

In this is a notification that the doubt regarding it is a doubt regarding what was sent down before it, because it validates and safeguards it. Some have directed the address here to those who deny prophethood, about whom Allah the Exalted spoke: "They did not appraise Allah with the appraisal He deserves, when they said, 'Allah has not sent down anything to any human.'" In the verse, there is a shift (iltifat) from the third person to the first person pronoun; otherwise, He would have said, "what was sent down to His servant." But the Exalted One turned to this (the first person) to aggrandize the sender or the recipient, especially since He brought the na (We) which denotes complete glorification and the magnification of the matter, in observance of the loftiness of his status (peace and blessings be upon him).

The fa (then) in fa'tu (then bring) is for the apodosis, and its causal implication is clear. The imperative is for the purpose of silencing them and striking them speechless, as in His saying, "Then bring it from the West." It comes from atyan (to come/bring) in the sense of bringing with ease, in any manner whatsoever; it is used for good, evil, objects, and attributes. Then it became synonymous with action and engagement, like "They do not perform the prayer except while lazy." The original of fa'tu is fa’tiwu, which underwent the well-known softening. In the reading a'tu, the fa was anomalously omitted, thus tutu (with a long vowel). The nunation in surah is for indefiniteness, meaning: bring a piece of Quranic text, the minimum of which is three verses. In this is a silencing and shaming for them in their doubt, which is not hidden.

Min mithlihi (of the like thereof) is either a settled adverbial phrase serving as an adjective for Surah, and the pronoun refers either to ma (which), which is the revelation, or to the servant. On the first (the revelation), it is possible that min is partitive or declarative (tabyin). Al-Akhfash permits its addition (as an expletive) in mithlihi. The meaning would be: "a Surah similar to the Quran in eloquence and the miraculous style." This is apparent on the latter two interpretations. As for the partitive (meaning), it is because no specific, concrete "equal" to the Quran was intended, but rather that which would hypothetically resemble it, as it is said: "In the like of you, (one) is not ignorant." There is no doubt that its partitiveness relative to the hypothetical equal is necessary for its likeness to the Quran; thus, the necessary condition is mentioned while the implied subject is intended, following the path of metonymy, along with the exaggeration in the partitive min (indicating scarcity) that is appropriate for the context of a challenge.

With this, some have preferred the partitive over the declarative—despite the declarative having the explicit meaning already known implicitly, since likeness to the Quran is understood from the expression "Surah"—because it is supported by what follows. On the second interpretation (the servant), it is necessary that min be for initiation, similar to min Sulayman (from Solomon), and partitive/declarative interpretations are impossible.

Whether it is a connective or a modifier of fa'tu, the common view is that the pronoun necessarily returns to the servant, because min cannot be declarative (as there is nothing vague to clarify), nor can it be settled (for it would not be a modifier to the command), nor partitive (otherwise the action would occur upon the part literally, as in "I took from the dirhams," and there is no meaning to "bringing a part," rather the intent is to bring something that is a part). There is no room for estimating the preposition bi (with) while min exists, and it would imply that bi-suratin (a Surah) is extraneous. Thus, it is determined to be initiatory, and consequently, the pronoun must be for the servant, not the revelation. Making the speaker the origin (the source) of the coming of the speech from him is a sound and acceptable meaning, unlike making the "whole" the origin for bringing a "part" of it, which no person of sound nature would accept. Furthermore, that which is considered in the origin of an action is the agent, the material, the final cause, or a state of association, and the "whole" is none of these in relation to the "part." Consequently, the consideration of the likeness of the brought matter to the Quran in eloquence is derived from the word Surah and the flow of the speech, aided by the context.

(It is objected that the meaning of min is not limited to what was mentioned; it may come for substitution, like "Are you satisfied with the life of this world instead of the Hereafter?" and "We have made from among you angels," or for separation, like "I sought refuge from him.") If min mithlihi were attached to fa'tu and min were taken as substitution or separation, and mithl as an expletive, and the pronoun returned to "what We have sent down," the meaning would be: "Bring—instead of this great Book, whose evidence is clear—a single Surah," or "Bring—surpassing this Book with its grandeur of effect and greatness of status—a unique Surah." This would be more eloquent in the challenge and clearer in the miracle.

Moreover, the claim that none of the conditions considered for the origin are valid is rejected. The involvement between the whole and the part is stronger than between the place and the inhabitant. Just as it is allowed to make the place the origin of the action of the inhabitant, it is allowed to make the whole the origin for bringing a part. Perhaps those who said that have not heard the saying of Sibawayh: "In the position of a place is that which is neither a place nor a time, such as 'I read from the beginning of the Surah to its end,' and 'I gave you from a dirham to a dinar.'" Furthermore, bringing a part of a thing is the separation of it from the whole, and there is no doubt that the whole is the origin of the separation of a part from it.

It is possible to say—and this is what our master Al-Shihab chose—that the meaning of the verse is the challenge and the silencing of the eloquent Arabs who are in doubt, preventing them from bringing what rivals it. The requirement of the context is to say to them: "O you eloquent ones who are in doubt that the Quran is from Allah, bring the amount of the shortest Surah from human speech, adorned with the pattern of the miraculous and its composition." What was mentioned indicates this if min mithlihi is an adjective for Surah, whether the pronoun is for "what" or for the "servant," for its meaning is: "Bring a Surah that resembles it in eloquence, originating from the speech of someone who is like this servant in humanity; thus, it is a miracle for humans to bring its like," or "Bring the amount of a Surah from speech that is like this revealed matter, and the likeness of a thing is another thing; thus, it is also from human speech." When it is attached and the pronoun returns to the servant, the meaning is also: "Bring from one like this servant in humanity an amount of a Surah that resembles it." This yields what we have mentioned. If it returned to "what" (the revelation) on this (interpretation), the meaning would not be "Bring from the like of this revelation a Surah."

There is no doubt that min is not declarative because it would not be extraneous, nor is it partitive because the meaning is not directed toward it. Thus, it is initiatory, and the origin is not the agent, but the material. In this case, the "like," of which the Surah is a part, has not been commanded to be brought, so it is either claimed to exist—which is contrary to reality—or its foundation is on a claim or assumption, which is arbitrary without necessity. It is not worthy of revelation, and how can they bring a part of something that does not exist? The truth in my view is that the return of the pronoun to both the servant and the "what" (revelation), under the estimates of the extraneous and the settled, is a possible matter, and the circle of interpretation is wide, and the preference is delegated to sound taste. What my own taste grasps—without elevating my own soul—is that under the assumption of attachment, the return of the pronoun to the servant is sweeter. The debate in this verse is famous; between Al-Adud and Al-Jarbaradi, it led to the writing of treatises in defense of each. I have been successful in viewing many of them, and praise be to Allah. I have transcribed a portion of them in the Iraqi Answers.

The most preferred of the interpretations here, absolutely, is to make the adverbial phrase an adjective for the Surah, the pronoun to the revelation, and min as declarative. Firstly, because it is the one consistent with its counterparts among the challenge verses, such as His saying: "Then bring a Surah like it," because the likeness there is an adjective for the thing being brought. Secondly, because the discussion is about the revealed matter, not the one to whom it is revealed, and his mention occurred only consequentially. If the pronoun returned to him, the explicit mention of the likeness of the Surah—which is the pillar of the challenge—would be abandoned, even if it is understood. Thirdly, because the command to a multitude to bring (something) from the like of what was brought by one of their own kind is more eloquent than commanding them to find someone who brings the like of what was brought by another man. Fourthly, because if the pronoun returned to the servant, it would suggest that his miraculous nature is due to his being one who has not studied or written, not that it is miraculous in itself—even though the reality is this.

Some have preferred the return of the pronoun to the servant (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) because it contains a marvelous, new meaning, and because the speech is directed toward the recipient, since Oneness and validation of prophethood are twins; thus, the intention is to establish prophethood, and the argument is a means. Therefore, starting with the mention of "what We have sent down" does not necessitate that the speech be directed toward it. Also, because the challenge is more eloquent in that way: "Gather yourselves, all of you, and see if it is easy for you to bring a Surah from one who has not practiced writing and has not studied sciences." Combining the thoughts of some of them against this argument is countered by this, and it is stronger in silencing, as it is not unlikely that they might oppose him with what issues from some of their scholars, which contains stories of past nations transferred from ancient books, even if there is a chasm between them. For the drowning man clings to the grass. But when he challenges (them) with a Surah from an unlettered person such and such, there is no room for counter-arguments. This, however, is polished pretense and gilded copper, and the appearance of the context supports what we have said and fits it apparently, as we will explain by the grace of Allah.

His saying: "And call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you are truthful." Du'a (calling) is invoking and seeking help. Perhaps the second is metaphorical or a metonymy based on invoking, because a person only calls out to be helped. From this is: "Do you invoke other than Allah?" Shuhada (witnesses) is the plural of shahid (witness). A shahid, as Al-Raghib said, is everyone whose presence is counted, from those who possess resolution and binding authority; thus, they were called "those who stay behind" (those who do not). It also comes in the meaning of "the present one," "the one established in testimony," "the helper," and "the leader."

Duna (other than) is a place adverb that is not inflected; it is used with min (from) often, and with bi (with). In Al-Bahr, it is specified with min. Its raising in his saying, "Did you not see that I defended my honor and engaged in the edge of death, and death is duna (before/near) it," is rare and not to be analogized. Its meaning is the closest place to a thing; it is like 'inda (at), but it indicates great nearness and slight inferiority. From it is dunaka (take this), an imperative noun—not the recording of books, contrary to Al-Baydawi, as it is said because it is from diwan (office/register), and its place is a Persian word Arabized from the statement of Khosrow when he saw the speed of the scribes in their writing and calculation. It might be said there is nothing far-fetched in what Al-Baydawi mentioned, and diwan is among the words shared by both languages. It has been used for sensible inferiority, not in "he is duna Zayd in height," then borrowed for variation in conceptual ranks, likening it to sensible ranks, like "less than Amru in honor." Due to its prevalence, this borrowed meaning was expanded and used for every crossing of a limit to a limit, even without variation or inferiority. In this meaning, it is close to "other than," as if it were a tool of exception. It is common to say duna meaning "vile," thus it exits from the state of an adverb and is defined by al and cut off from addition, as in his saying: "If a man rises, he desires elevation, and he is content with the 'vile' who was 'vile'."

What is in the Qamus—that it is said "a man of duna" but "it is not said duna"—is contrary to knowledge and report, and I have no sound way to direct it. The famous view is that it has no verb. It is said: dana yadin (to be near). Its use in the sense of "more than" (favor) is where the statement of Abu Tammam is placed: "Love is for the kin, but its recognition is for the most distant of homelands..."—this was not accepted by the experts of investigation. Yes, they said it could mean "behind you, in front of you," "above," or "its opposite." Min (from) is for the initiation of the limit, attached to id'u (call), and duna is used in the sense of "surpassing" in the position of the accusative as a state (hal). The meaning is: "Call upon—to contest—those who are present with you, or those who you claim will help you, bypassing Allah the Exalted in the call, such that you do not call Him." The imperative is for incapacitation and guidance.

Or, "Call upon, other than Allah, those who establish the testimony for you that what you have brought is its equal." They will not testify. And do not call Allah the Exalted for testimony by saying "Allah is a witness and He knows it is its equal," for that is a sign of helplessness and the severance of producing evidence; the imperative is then for shaming. The first shahid means "present," the second means "helper," and the third means "the one established in testimony." It is said it is not permissible for it to mean "leader" such that the witnesses are the false gods, because the command to call upon idols would only be for sarcasm. Even if it were said: "Call upon the idols and do not call upon Allah and do not seek help through Him," the command would turn from sarcasm to testing, since there is no involvement for excluding Allah from the call in sarcasm. The response is that what sarcasm and foolishness are stronger than saying to them: "Seek help from the inanimate and do not turn toward the Lord of the servants!" It is not permissible then to make duna mean "in front," because there is no meaning to saying "call them in front of Allah" (i.e., in the Resurrection) to seek help from them in the contest which is in the world.

They permitted min (from) to attach to shuhada'akum (your witnesses), and it is also for initiation, and duna in the meaning of "surpassing" is in the position of the accusative as a state, and the governing agent is the meaning of the verb derived from the addition of shuhada—that is, "taking." The meaning is: "Call upon those whom you took as allies other than Allah the Exalted and claimed that they would testify for you on the Day of Resurrection." It is possible that duna is in the meaning of "in front," literally or borrowed from its literal meaning which fits it—meaning the closest place to a thing—and it is a loose adverbial phrase acting as a modifier to shuhada, and it suffices with a scent of the verb, so there is no need for reliance nor for estimating "to testify." Min is for partitive, as they said regarding "from before them and from behind them," because the action occurs in one of the two directions. The apparent meaning of the speech of Al-Damamini in Sharh al-Tashil is that it is extraneous, which is the school of Ibn Malik; the majority are upon it being initiatory. The meaning is: "Call upon those who testify for you in front of Allah the Mighty and Majestic, according to your claim." The imperative is for sarcasm. In the expression for the idols as "witnesses" is a preparation for it by reminding them of what they believed: that they were of a status with Allah and that they would benefit them with their testimony, as if it were said: "These are your equipment and your refuge, so call upon them for this momentous event that has descended upon you."

And there is no perfume after the bride, and there is nothing beyond Abadan (a city)! Duna was not made to mean "surpassing" because they do not claim His partnership with the idols in testimony, so there is no aspect for the exclusion. It is said it is permissible that min is for initiation, the adverb is a state, and a noun is omitted from the speech; the meaning is: "Call upon your witnesses from the eloquent Arabs, and they are the allies of the idols, bypassing in that the allies of Allah, to testify for you that you have brought its equal." The purpose of the command then is giving latitude and leading (them) to the ultimate shaming. It is as if it were said: "We have left demanding you with the witnesses of the Truth in favor of your own witnesses who are known for defending you, for they also will not testify for you out of fear of blame and out of disdain for the testimony, for its falsehood is certain." How not, when the matter of the miracle has reached such clarity that no way remains to deny it? The exclusion of Allah in some of the views is for emphasizing the coverage of the excepted part by all that is other than it, not for demonstrating His sole possession of the power for that which they were tasked, for it suggests that if they called upon Allah the Exalted, He would have answered them in it. On some (other views), it is to clarify from the beginning of the matter their innocence of Allah the Exalted and that they are in the bond of opposition and enmity to Him, falling short in seeking help from anything other than Him. The shift (iltifat) is either to introduce awe and cultivate reverence, or to signal the complete absurdity of their minds, as they preferred the worship of one who is not more despicable over the worship of Him who has the encompassing Divinity.

"Truth" is the correspondence to reality, and the schools of thought on it are famous. The response to in (if) is omitted due to the indication of the first one, and it is not a response to both. The same is true for the object of "truthfulness," i.e., "If you are truthful in your claim that it is human speech, or in that you are able to contest it, then bring (it) and call (upon them)." The matter has reached its peak. This is like the repetition of the challenge and its confirmation, and therefore the conjunction was abandoned. The object was made "doubt" because of its precedence; what is in doubt is its lateness, because doubt is of the kind of conceptualization in which truth and falsehood do not run. The statement that the meaning is "if you are truthful in the possibility that it is so," with the affectation it contains, does not bring benefit, because the possibility is also doubt.

It is a great affectation, the saying of Al-Shihab: "The meaning of the noble arrangement is the progression in enforcing the argument and clarifying the path, so the meaning is: If you doubt, then bring its like so that your doubt will vanish and it will appear that you were correct in what crossed your mind. Consequently, if your statement is true—that it is fabricated—then reveal it and do not fear this." The way the verse fits what we said in the previous verse is that Allah, He is glorified and exalted, commanded them to seek help—either truly or sarcastically—with everything that concerns them in terms of aid in bringing the like or in witnessing that what was brought is an equal. There is no doubt that this is appropriate only if they were commanded to bring the equal, unlike if the one commanded was one of them, for they are the ones inciting him to bring it. The appropriate thing then is the attribution of the witnesses to him, because they are witnesses for him. If its attribution to them is correct, considering their participation with him in that claim by stirring and urging, and the saying that they are participants in the claim of likeness is nothing, because the testimony of likeness... then the preference of the return of the pronoun to the "revealed" necessitates the preference of the adverbial phrase being an adjective for the Surah also. Long matters have been mentioned here under which there is no benefit.