Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:25

(And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds): Since the Almighty had previously mentioned the disbelievers and the ultimate outcome of their condition in the Hereafter—a mention that contained the utmost intimidation and warning—He followed it with the believers and what is in store for them. This follows the divine tradition of alternating between encouragement and discouragement, and promise and threat, because among people are those whom intimidation does not benefit, while kindness and promise do, and vice versa. It is as if this verse and what follows are joined to the previous sections, a coupling of one narrative to another. The coherence between them lies in the fact that it is an exposition of the states of the two contrasting groups and an unveiling of their opposing descriptions.

There are two views regarding whether this is joined to "(And if you are...)" up to "(prepared for the disbelievers)" or to the verse "(But if you do not...)." The Sayyid opted for the former, and some claimed it is more fulfilling of the demands of rhetoric and more consistent with the structure. This is because "(O mankind, worship...)" is a general address encompassing both groups; "(And if you are...)" is specific to the deniers, and its content is a warning; and "(And give glad tidings...)" is specific to the believers, and its content is a promise. It is as if the Almighty inspired His Prophet (peace be upon him) to call people to His worship, then commanded him to warn those who obstinately oppose and give glad tidings to those who believe.

As-Sa’d opted for the second, because the discourse is aimed at describing the condition of the disbelievers and characterizing their punishment. It has also been said that it is joined to "(So fear the Fire...)," and the change in those addressed does not matter, similar to: "O Joseph, turn away from this, and you [O wife of the Aziz] ask forgiveness..." Its being contingent upon the condition is by virtue of the conjunction, considering that "fear [the Fire]" is a warning and intimidation to the disbelievers, and "give glad tidings" is a promise to the believers. Both are contingent upon the failure to provide a counter-challenge [to the Quran], because the failure to counter entails the manifestation of its inimitability, which necessitates punishment for its denier and reward for its believer, as the proof has been established and the invitation completed. Their respective obligation of these necessitates the warning and the glad tidings; thus, the second sentence is contingent upon the condition just as the first is. There is no difference.

It is also said that the result (apodosis) of "(If you do not...)" is omitted, and the mentioned phrase stands in its place. The meaning is: "If you do not bring something like it, then... [know that it is true] and give glad tidings to those who believe," meaning: "Let faith and glad tidings from you come into existence." The manifest noun [those who believe] is used in place of the pronoun to urge them toward faith, which perhaps carries less burden. The author of al-Idah chose to join it to "Warn" (if we estimate it after the phrase "prepared for the disbelievers"). Others said it is joined to the verse before "(But if you do not...)." Estimating it before "(O mankind...)" necessitates treating "(of what We have sent down upon Our servant)" according to the manner of the speech of the great, or estimating "God said" after "Say."

Bishara (glad tidings), with both the kasra and damma [on the ba], is a noun derived from bashara, bashran, and bushuran. If the ba is opened, it means beauty. In the verb, there are two dialects: intensification (tashdid), which is the superior one, and reduction (takhfif), which is the dialect of the people of Tihamah. Both are recited in the imperfect form in various places. The intensive form implies multiplication with respect to the object, as if one act [of grace] were sufficient to do the work of many. The famous interpretation, validated by reports, is: "The happy news of which the recipient had no prior knowledge." Some stipulated that it must be true. According to Sibawayh, it is news that affects the bashara (the outer skin) with sadness or joy, though its usage in goodness is more frequent—a view validated in al-Bahr. The phrase "(And give them glad tidings of a painful punishment)" is a manifest contradiction, or a form of sarcasm according to the first view. The one commanded to give glad tidings is the "Bringer of glad tidings and warner" (peace and blessings be upon him). It is also said that it applies to everyone capable of doing so, as in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "Give glad tidings to those who walk to the mosques [in the dark]..." This implies that the matter is so significant that it is fitting for anyone who is able to convey it to do so. There is a metaphor there if the pronoun is meant for the species in a general sense; otherwise, the discussion of reality and metaphor is in its proper place.

The believers were not addressed as the disbelievers were addressed, as an exaltation of their status and a complete signaling that they are worthy of being given glad tidings and congratulated for what has been prepared for them. It is also said that it is a change of style to imagine the complete contrast between the state of the two groups. In my view, when the Almighty clothed His Messenger (peace be upon him) in the garment of his servitude in the words: "(of what We have sent down upon Our servant)," it was fitting to embroider it with the embroidery of commissioning him with that which increases the love of His beloveds for Him, so that they might increase in faith upon their faith. In that, there is a kindness toward him (peace and blessings be upon him) and toward them, the likes of which is not hidden.

Zayd ibn Ali recited wa-bushshira in the passive voice, and it is joined to "(prepared)," as is commonly known. It is also said that it is a report in the sense of a command, so the two recitations agree in meaning and conjunction. Suspending the glad tidings upon the relative pronoun (those who...) is to indicate that it is caused by what is within the scope of the relative clause—namely, faith and righteous deeds—but not for their own sake, rather by the decree of the Lawgiver and the requirement of His promise. Making the relative clause a verb signifies occurrence after the mention of the disbelievers in the form of the agent, to urge those addressed with "fear [the Fire]" to initiate faith and to warn them against persisting in disbelief. It is not hidden that the fact that the object of the glad tidings is the combination of the two matters does not necessitate the negation of the glad tidings in the absence of one of them. Thus, it does not necessarily follow from this that the one who has mere faith will not enter Paradise, as is the view of the Mu’tazila. Moreover, the concept of implication (mafhum al-mukhalafa) is speculative and does not contradict the texts indicating that Paradise is the reward for mere faith. The object of "believe" is something that is not hidden; some estimated it here as: "what is revealed from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic."

Al-Salihat (righteous deeds) is the plural of saliha, which is originally the feminine of salih, the active participle from salaha, suluhan, and salah, the opposite of fasada (to be corrupt). It then became a term for what the Law deems permissible and good. It is treated like immutable nouns in that it is not used in the form of a participle for the described or others. Its feminization is based on the estimation of "the quality" (al-khalla) or due to common usage. The ta was not added for transposition since it did not become a noun, and the al denotes the genus—not in terms of its realization in every individual, for that is not within the capacity of the commissioned one. If distribution were intended, a single deed would suffice, but rather it refers to the portion that remains while intending its original meaning: genus combined with plurality, which is three or two, and the specifier is the state of the believer. Thus, whatever righteous deeds he is capable of after meeting its conditions is what is intended. The believer who did nothing at all or performed only one act is not included in the verse; his knowledge of being a recipient of glad tidings comes from other places.

Some consider it to have a nuance of distribution, meaning he performs all that is obligatory of righteous deeds, whether little or much. They included the one who embraced Islam and died before any duty was imposed upon him, or [only] one thing was imposed. This is not distribution in the famous sense, like "the people rode their mounts," as it may also be used for the matching of things to things, each taking its share, whether one to one (as in the example) or a group to one (as in "men entered their mosques"), or the opposite (as in "the people wore their garments"). From this is: "(and wash your faces and your hands)." The Sayyid calls this a nuance of distribution.

"(That for them are gardens beneath which rivers flow)": The Almighty intended "(that for them...)" etc., because the glad tidings require the particle ba. It was omitted due to the consistency of omitting the preposition with anna and anna without compensation, due to the length of their connection, though there is a famous disagreement regarding other cases. Regarding the location after the omission, there are two views: the genitive is in the accusative by removal of the preposition (as is known in such cases), or the genitive case, because the preposition after omission may retain its effect. The lam of preposition is for worthiness, and its mode is derived from external sources; there is no worthiness by essence, so it is by the requirement of the promise of the Lawgiver, who does not break it, out of bounty and generosity—but on the condition of dying in a state of faith.

Jannah (garden), originally, is a single instance of jann, which means to cover; the basis of the formation is covering. It was then used to name a garden that covers its land with its trees, or any land containing trees and palms. If it is a garden of palms, it is firdaws. It was also applied to the trees themselves, and it appeared in the poetry of al-A’sha meaning specifically palm trees. Then it was transferred and became a legal term for the abode of reward, for in it is the pleasure which is now hidden from us. It is pluralized in the famous form of jam’ qilla (plural of paucity) because of the paucity of the types of worship, but in each one are various ranks and differing degrees according to the variations of deeds and doers. What is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that they are seven [gardens] is a report whose authenticity has not been established by the memorizers. Its indefiniteness is either for diversification or for magnification. Placing the predicate first is because of the proximity of the reference of the pronoun, and it is more pleasing to the listener. It is common to place it first if the noun is indefinite, like "(Indeed, for us is a reward)."

"Beneath" (tahta) is a place that does not change except with min (from), as Abu al-Hasan specified. The pronoun refers to the gardens. If the trees are intended, that is fine, and it is close in terms of the whole. If the land is intended, it is said it means "from beneath their trees," or it returns to it considering the trees, by way of istikhdam (servitude). It is also said that tahta means "alongside," like "my house is beneath the house of so-and-so," but this is weak, like the statement "from beneath the orders of its people." It is also said it means "in the chambers of..." If the collection of land and trees is intended, the consideration of "beneath" is, as it is said, in regard to the visible part that justifies calling the whole jannah. In the authentic tradition from Masruq: "The rivers of Paradise flow in other than trenches, in land whose pebbles are pearls and chrysolites." This is more eloquent in beauty, sweeter in view, and more delightful to the soul. The talking of clear water with the pebbles, and the breeze blowing over it—one hears what transpired.

Anhar (rivers) is the plural of nahr, with the ha opened or quiescent; the open ha is more eloquent. Its root is "splitting," and the formation indicates wideness, even if metaphorical, like "a river of fluid." On the basis that it is a powerful suppression, it is applied to what is below the sea and above the stream. Whether it is the riverbed itself or the water in the widened bed are two views; the most famous is the first. On that basis, the meaning is its waters or its water. The feminine form of "flow" (tajri) is in consideration of the added-to noun or the wording of the plural. There is a metaphor in the sentence regarding omission or the container. The al is for mental reference; it is said it is external due to the prior mention of rivers in the Almighty's saying: "(in it are rivers of water...)"—that verse is Meccan according to the most correct view, and this is Medinan, revealed afterward. The Sayyid and As-Sa’d considered this far-fetched. It is also said it is a substitute for the added-to noun, i.e., "its rivers," which is a Kufan doctrine. Carrying it on the meaning of exhaustive inclusion—meaning all the rivers of Paradise flow beneath the trees—makes it a description of the abode of reward that its trees are on the banks of the rivers and its rivers are beneath the shades of the trees, colder than ice. The discussion on the plural of paucity is not hidden.

"Every time they are provided from it of fruit as provision, they say, 'This is what we were provided before'": This is a second description of the gardens, delayed from the first because the flow of rivers beneath them is a description of them in consideration of their essence, and this is in consideration of their inhabitants, or it is the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "They are..." The indication is its mention in the preceding and following parts, and the fact that the discourse is aimed at explaining the states of the believers. The benefit of omitting this subject is the realization of proportion between the three sentences in form (because they are nominal) and in meaning (because they are answers to a question). It is as if it were said: "What is their state in those gardens?" The answer is that they have in them delicious, wondrous fruits and pure spouses. "(And they are in them eternally)": And estimating the subject as "he" or "she" for the situation or the story is nothing, on the basis that it is not permissible to omit this pronoun. If the nawasikh (abrogating particles) do not enter it, its interpreter must be a nominal sentence. Yes, it is permissible to estimate "she" for the gardens and the sentence is the predicate, but proportion is more suitable, or it is an initiated sentence. As if, when he described the gardens with what he mentioned, it occurred to the mind whether their fruits are like the fruits of the gardens of the world or not, so he explained their state. "(And they have in them spouses)": an addition to the answer. If the question was estimated as "Do they have in the gardens things like what are in this house, or more and better?" it would be more correct and clear.

Abu al-Baqa’ allowed it to be a circumstantial clause from "those" or from "gardens" because of its description; it is then an expected state, and its original state is accompaniment. The statement that it is a cut-off description is a claim linked to ignorance of the condition of the break, which is the listener's knowledge of the described being characterized by that description; otherwise, it would be needed, and there is no break with need.

"Every time" (kullama) is in the accusative as an adverb for "they say," and "provision" (rizqan) is a second object for "provided" (ruziqu), like "He gave him wealth"—it is not an absolute object emphasizing its verb because "as a provision" implies the provided object, which is more well-known. Foundation is better than emphasis, with the explicit meaning of what follows it. Its indefiniteness is for diversification or magnification, i.e., a delicious type other than what you know.

The first and second "from" (min) are for initiation, intended to indicate merely that the object with them is the place from which the thing departed; thus, it is not appropriate to contrast them with "to." They are stable adverbs occurring as a state of "on top of each other" (intertwined). The possessor of the first is "provision," and the second is the pronoun concealed in the state. The meaning is: "Every time they are provided [they are provided] a provision starting from the gardens, starting from a fruit." It is common that they are redundant, and the provision has started from the gardens, and the provision from the gardens has started from a fruit. It is made in the position of saying: "So-and-so gave me [something]." It is said: "From where?" You say: "From his garden." He says: "From which fruit?" You say: "From the pomegranate." The elaboration of this is that "they were provided" is made an absolute beginning from the gardens, then it is made restricted by the initiation from that, as a beginning of the fruit. According to both views, the objection does not stand that they forbade the attachment of two prepositions of unified wording and meaning to a single agent; the verse differs from that. As for the first view, it is manifest; as for the second, it is because they attach to it from one direction as a beginning without dependency. In what we are discussing, this is not the case because of the absolute and the restricted.

The meaning of "fruit" in this case is the type, like apple and pomegranate, not the individual, because the initiation of provision from the garden from an individual would imply that the provided object is a piece of it, all of it, and that is very weak. It is possible that the second is explaining the provided object and the first adverb is redundant, while the second is stable—contrary to him who was deluded by it—occurring as a state of the indefinite noun because of its preceding it, and because of its preceding it in estimation, it is permissible to place the explained before the ambiguous. "Fruit" may be carried on the type or the single species. The verifiers did not turn to making the second partitive in the position of the object, and "provision" [as] an emphasizing source, or in the position of a state of "provision," due to its distance, while the principle is explanation and initiation. Thus, one does not deviate from them except for a reason—moreover, the implication of the partitive is that what is before it or after it is a part of its genitive, not a constituent of it; thus, the weakness would come here.

The Almighty combined "from it" and "from fruit" and did not say "from its fruit" instead, because the attachment of "from it" indicates that its inhabitants do not need anything else, for in it is everything the souls desire. The attachment of "from fruit" indicates that the intention is to explain the edible in a way that includes all fruits, not the rest of the pleasures known from the preceding and following. This is a sign of the type of what they were provided, and it is sufficient to feel its individuals. This is like your saying, pointing to a flowing river: "This water does not cease," or to his person. Reporting about it with "the which..." etc., is upon making it his essence for exaggeration or estimating "like that which We were provided before," i.e., in the world.

The wisdom in the resemblance is that the soul leans toward what is considered good and seeks its increase. "Repeat for us the mention of Nu’man, for its mention is musk; when you repeat it, it wafts." This varies according to states and situations, or to explain the amazement and the essence of the blessing in what they were provided there, for if it were a genus not known, it might be thought that it is only like that, or in Paradise. The resemblance in form is either with a difference in taste, as narrated from al-Hasan: "One of them is brought a dish, and he eats from it, then another is brought, and he sees it like the first. He says: 'This is that.' The angel says: 'Eat, for the color is one, but the taste is different.'" Or with resemblance in taste as well, as indicated by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the man of the people of Paradise reaches for the fruit to eat it, and it has not yet reached his mouth before Allah the Almighty replaces its place with its like." Perhaps if they see it in the first form, they say that, and the motive for them to make this statement is their excessive amazement and pride at what they found of the great disparity.

The famous view is that the meaning of "before" being in the world is more appropriate than what is provided in the Hereafter, because "every time" indicates generality, and it is not imaginable that they would say that the first time it was provided to them. It is said that the meaning being in the Hereafter is more appropriate so as not to necessitate the limitation of the fruits of Paradise to the types existing in the world, while in it is what you know and what you do not know—in addition to it having fulfillment of the meaning of the hadith of the resemblance of the fruits of Paradise, and its agreement with "resembling each other" afterward, for it is more manifest in the provision of Paradise. Returning the pronoun to the provision in both abodes is a burden, and you will hear it by His grace.

There is another interpretation in the verse to which the heart inclines, that what they were provided before is the acts of obedience and knowledge which those of pure instinct and sound intellects find delicious. This is a reward resembling them in what was mentioned of pleasure, like the reward which is in its opposite in the Almighty's saying: "(as a reward for what you used to do)." That is: "its reward." "That which We were provided" is a metaphorical metonymy for its reward, by applying the name of the effect to the cause. It does not harm that Paradise and what is in it of various kinds of honor is the reward. Or it is a borrowing, by likening fruits and produce to acts of obedience and knowledge in what was mentioned. It is said: the earth of Paradise is plains in which the deeds of the world appear, as some traditions indicate. So the fruit of the blessing is what they planted in the world; so reflect.

"And they were brought of it in resemblance" is a concluding remark to the preceding speech, emphasizing it with that which includes its meaning; it has no place in the inflection. It is possible it is an initiation or a circumstantial clause with the estimation of "already" (qad), which is common. The agent is omitted because it is known, and it is manifest that it is the servants and the youths, as indicated by the recitation of Harun and al-’Ati: "And they were brought" [with the ha] in the active voice; it has concealment due to the indication of the meaning to it, and this has been made manifest in the Almighty's saying: "(And there will circulate among them boys, made eternal)" up to His saying: "(And fruit of what they choose)."

The genitive pronoun, if estimated to mean "from before in the world," returns to the single concept that the two words included: "This and what We were provided from before," which is the provision in both abodes, i.e., they were brought a provision of both abodes, resembling each other. This method is called by the figurative metonymy. If it returned to the mentioned [in the text], it would have been said "with them." He expressed what some of which is past and some is future with the past tense for the certainty of its occurrence. In al-Kashf, it is said that the intention of the provision in the world and the Hereafter is the species fit for consumption by each, not restricted to them. Or, on the estimation that it means in Paradise, it returns to the provision, i.e., they were brought the provision in Paradise, of resembling individuals. Abu Hayyan said: "The manifest is this, because their provision in the Hereafter is the one spoken of and likened to what they were provided from before, and because this sentence came only as a narrative about Paradise and its states." The fact that he informs about the provision in the world and the Hereafter as being "resembling" is not from the narrative of Paradise except with effort. The claim of the resemblance of what is in both abodes is not countered by what al-Bayhaqi and others extracted from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "There is nothing in Paradise from the foods of the world except the names," because it is not stipulated in it that it be from all aspects, and this is realized in the form, which is the object of the name, even if it is not in amount and taste. Its elaboration is that applying the names to them, because they are on the borrowing, requires sharing in what is its basis—which is the form—and by that, the resemblance between them is realized. So the excepted in the tradition is the names and what is its basis by the indication of the intellect.

"(And they have therein pure spouses)": This is a third and fourth description of the gardens. The first two were brought with the verbal sentence to indicate renewal, and these two with the nominal [sentence] to indicate permanence. Leaving the conjunction in some while mentioning it in others is, it is said, to alert [the reader] to the permissibility of both in the descriptions, and each was specific to what it was specific to for a reason that is not hidden. Abu al-Baqa’ went to the view that these two sentences are initiated. It is permitted that the second is a circumstantial clause from the pronoun of the plural in "for them," and the agent in it is the meaning of stability.

Azwaj (spouses) is a plural of paucity, and the plural of multitude is zawja, like ’ud and ’uda, and it was not frequently used in speech. It is said: this is why it was dispensed with by the plural of paucity, out of breadth. It has appeared in traditions what indicates the multitude of spouses in Paradise, among the hur (houris) and others. It is said that zawj is for the male and female, and it may be for one of the pair and for both together. It is said for the female zawja in the dialect of Tamim and many of Qays. The intention here by spouses is the women who are exclusive to the man; no one else shares him in them. There is no consideration in the concept of reproduction, which is the orbit of the preservation of the species, so that it is not valid to apply it to the spouses of Paradise because of their eternity in it and their lack of need for children—though some validated reproduction in it and narrated traditions on that, but in a way befitting that station. Some mentioned that the children are spiritual, and Allah is capable of what He wills.

The meaning of their being "pure" (mutahhara) is that Allah the Almighty purified them from everything that disgraces them. If they are from the hur, as narrated from Abdullah, the meaning of purification is creating them upon purity; no intrinsic or extrinsic filth attaches to them. If they are from the children of Adam, as narrated from al-Hasan—from your elderly women who had rheum and eye-secretion—they become youthful. So the intention is the removal of every disgrace from them, from intrinsic defects and others. Purification, as al-Raghib said, is said for bodies, morals, and actions altogether. It is therefore general here by the standard of the place of praise, not absolute and turned to the perfect. The perfection of purification is only attained by the two sections, as is said, for the familiar from intending perfection is intending its highest instances, not all. Zayd ibn Ali recited mutahharat (pure), based on "they were purified" for "I purified you" in the first; perhaps it is more appropriate in usage, even if all are eloquent. Because they said: the plural of what does not have intellect is either a plural of paucity or multitude. If it is a plural of multitude, the coming of the pronoun on the scale of the pronoun of the singular is more appropriate than its coming on the scale of the pronoun of the absent females. If it is a plural of paucity, the opposite is true. Likewise, if it is a pronoun returning to the plural of those endowed with intellect, the "nun" is more appropriate in it than the "ta" (like "they reached their term" and "they nurse their children"). They did not differentiate in this between the plural of paucity and multitude. The coming of this description is passive, and it did not come as "pure" (tahira), a description from tahara (to be pure) with the fatha [on the ha] according to the most eloquent [usage], or tahura (to be pure) with the damma. On the first, it is analogical, and on the second, it is for magnification, because it is more understandable that it has a purifier, and there is none but Allah the Almighty. How can describers describe what the Lord the Almighty purified? Ubayd ibn Umayr recited mutahhara (purified), its root being mutatahira, so he assimilated it.

When the Almighty mentioned the dwellings of the believers, their food, and their marriage, and these pleasures do not reach the degree of perfection with the fear of passing away—and for this reason it was said: "The greatest of sorrows in my view is in a joy whose possessor is certain of its transition"—He followed it with that which removes what spoils its blessing, by mentioning eternity in the abode of honor. Eternity (khulud) according to the Mu’tazila is the permanent survival that does not cease, and according to us, it is long survival, whether it ceases or not. Its usage for permanent staying is because it is a long stay, not because of its particularity [as] a reality; it is what is intended here, and the verses and traditions have testified to it. The Jahmiyya claim that Paradise and its inhabitants will pass away, as will Hell and its inhabitants. What called them to this is that He Almighty described Himself as the First and the Last, and the Primacy is His precedence over all created things, and the Ultimacy is His being after, and it would not be but by the passing away of the other. If Paradise and its inhabitants remained, it would have in it a likeness to Him for Whom there is no likeness—Almighty is He—which is impossible. And because if He did not know the breaths of the people of Paradise, He Almighty would be exalted above that, and if He knew [them], it would necessitate an end, which is after passing away.

We have the texts indicating eternity, and the intellect is with them because it is an abode of peace and holiness; there is no fear or sorrow. A person does not find enjoyment in a life he fears will pass away; rather, it was said: "Misery is better than a passing bliss." Disbelief is a pure crime, so its reward is a pure punishment, not mixed with deficiency. The meaning of "the First and the Last" is not as in the visible, but in the sense of: "There is no beginning and no end for Him in His Essence without reliance upon another." He is the Necessarily Existent, the impossibly non-existent. The creation is not like that, so where is the likeness? Knowledge does not end, so it attaches to what does not end. The breaths of the people of Paradise are only like the ranks of numbers; is it said that Allah the Almighty does not know them? Or is it said they are finite? Woe to the Jahmiyya; how ignorant they are! More ignorant than them is he who said that bodies are composed of parts differing in quality, exposed to transformations leading to dissolution and disintegration, so how can eternity be possible? This is because the orbit of this is on measuring that [other] creation on this creation. Far, far away! How can that perfect world be measured on the world of being and corruption? Moreover, when it is proven that He the Almighty is capable, choosing, and there is no actor in existence but He, then why is it not permissible that He recreate the bodies such that they do not dissolve? Or if they dissolved, why is it not permissible that He create forever, always, in place of what dissolved? Glory to the Capable, the Wise, whom nothing renders helpless.

"(Indeed, Allah does not shy away from presenting an example—that of a mosquito)": Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and others said: This was revealed regarding the Jews. When Allah the Almighty struck examples in His Book—"(the spider and the fly)" and others of what is belittled—they said: "Allah the Almighty is too mighty and too great to strike examples by these belittled things." So Allah the Almighty responded to them with this verse. The direction of its connection to what preceded, on this [basis], would have been more suitable if it were placed in the Sura of the Spider, for example; that it is an answer to a doubt cast upon establishing the proof of the veracity of the Quran, that it is miraculous, so it is of the doubt which is at the utmost of dissipation. Thus, its mention here was more suitable.

Mujahid and others said: It was revealed regarding the hypocrites. They said, when Allah the Almighty struck the example "(of the kindler of fire and the downpour)": "Allah the Almighty is higher and greater than to strike examples by these things that have no worth." So Allah the Almighty responded to them. The direction of the connection, on this [basis], is manifest, for it is to defend the previous representations in the best and most eloquent way. It is also said that it is connected to His saying: "(Do not attribute to Allah equals)," i.e., "[Allah] does not shy away from striking an example" for these equals. It is also said this is an example struck for the world and its people, for the mosquito lives as long as it is hungry, and when it is satiated, it dies. Likewise, the people of the world: when they are filled with it, they perish. Or it is an example for the deeds of the servants, and that it is not forbidden to mention of them what is little or much, to reward for it with a reward or punishment. According to these two views, there is no connection of the verse to what precedes it, but it is the beginning of speech. And this, even if permitted, I do not say it; for the suitable [way] with every verse is that it be connected to what precedes it. In the verse, there is a sign of the beauty of the representation—how not, for Allah the Almighty, with His greatness and the perfection of His wisdom, did not leave it and did not shy away from it. "And examples among people have not ceased to be current."

Haya’ (shyness), as al-Raghib said, is the contraction of the soul from indecencies; it is composed of cowardice and chastity. It is not "shame" (khajal); rather, that is the bewilderment of the soul from excessive shyness, so they are differing even if they are associated. Some said: Khajal occurs only after the occurrence of an excessive matter that the one doing it does not want, unlike shyness, for it may be from something that has not happened, and one leaves [the action] because of it. What is in al-Qamus—that khajal is "he became shy"—is a looseness. It is derived from hayat (life) because it affects the power specific to the animal, which is the power of sensation and movement. The verse feels the correctness of the attribution of haya’ to Him Almighty, because in usage, haya’ is not negated except from him whose nature it is. Moreover, the negation is entered upon speech that has a restriction, so it returns to the restriction, thereby indicating the proof of the origin of the action or its possibility, at least. As for the hadiths, they have explicitly attributed it. People have two schools of thought regarding this: some say by interpretation, since psychological contraction is something that does not revolve around the courtyards of His holiness—Almighty is He—so the intention by haya’ in his view is the "abstention" necessitated by the contraction. He permitted making what is here, specifically, from the door of the "exchange" [of speech] for what happened in the speech of the disbelievers, based on what is narrated: that they said, "Does the Lord of Muhammad not shy away from striking examples by the fly and the spider?"

Some—and I, praise be to Allah, am one of them—do not say by interpretation, but pass this and its likes, of what has come from Him Almighty in the verses and hadiths, upon what they came as, and leave their knowledge—after transcendence from what is in the visible—to the Knower of the unseen and the seen.

The majority recited yastahyi with two yas, and the past is istahya. Istaf’ala came here to dispense with the simple, bare [verb], like ista’thara. Ibn Kathir, in one transmission, and a few others recited with one ya, which is the dialect of the Banu Tamim. Whether what is omitted is the lam, so the measure is yastaf’il, or the ’ayn, so the measure is yastafl, are two views; the most famous is the second. This verb is of those that are transitive by themselves and by the preposition, so it is said: istahyaytuhu (I made him shy) and istahaytu minhu (I was shy of him). The verse allows both.

Darb (striking) is the causing of something to fall upon something else. Striking an example is from "coining dirhams," which is the mention of something whose effect appears in another. So the meaning of "striking" here is "mentioning." It is said it is "explaining," and it is said it is "placing," from "(Humiliation was struck upon them)." Ma (what/an) is a noun meaning "a thing" by which the indefinite is described for further ambiguity; it blocks the paths of restriction. It may also indicate belittling, like "Give him a thing" (ma), or magnification, like the matter: "What! A short one—short his nose!" or diversification, like "Strike him a strike" (ma). It may be made [into] "a sword of an orator." The Quran is too glorious for anything to be redundant in it.

Ba’uda (mosquito) is either an adjective for "what," a substitute for it, or an explanatory apposition—if one says it is permissible in indefinite nouns—or a substitute for "example," or an explanatory apposition for it—if one says "what" is redundant—or a second object, and "example" is a state and is the intended one. Or [it is] in the accusative by the removal of the preposition, i.e., "[of] what [is] from a mosquito," "(and what is above it)," as narrated from al-Farra’. The fa is in the sense of "up to," or it is a second object, or a first [object] on the basis that "striking" includes the meaning of "making." It does not object to the intention of generality that the example of the meaning, according to the famous view, is that Allah does not leave any example that there is; it necessitates that all examples are struck in His speech. So where are they? For the negated is not absolute leaving, but leaving for the sake of shyness; the meaning is: He does not leave "[of] an example [of] what" out of shyness, even if He left it for another matter He intended. Ibn Abi ‘Abla and a group recited ba’udatan in the nominative. The common [understanding] is that it is a predicate. They differed in what it is a predicate of; it is said it is an omitted subject, i.e., "It is a mosquito" or "He is a mosquito," and the sentence is the relative clause [for "what"], on making it a relative noun, and this is a Kufan derivation for omitting the beginning of the relative clause without length. It is said "[what]" is an interrogative subject. He opted in al-Bahr that "what" is a relative [noun] or adjective, and it is a "mosquito," a sentence like an explanation for what the speech contained. It is said: "mosquito" is a subject, and "what" is negative, and the predicate is omitted, i.e., "abandoned," due to the indication of "does not shy away" to it.

The mosquito (ba’uda) is the singular of "gnats" (ba’ud), which is a well-known flyer. In it is from the precision of construction and the wonder of creation what man is unable to encompass in description, and none denies that except Nimrod. It is originally an adjective upon the form of fa’ul, like qatu’, and for this reason, it was named in the dialect of Hudhayl khumush. It became the dominant [word]. Its derivation is from "some" (ba’d) in the sense of cutting. "(And what is above it)": The fa is a conjunctive of sequence, and "[what]" is joined to "mosquito" or [the first] "[what]" if made a noun. The details and what is in them are not hidden. The intention by "above it" is either the increase in the size of the represented thing—it is a progression from the small to the large, and Ibn Abbas said this—or the increase in the meaning in which the representation occurred, which is smallness and worthlessness—it is a descent from the worthless to the more worthless. These two aspects are according to the famous recitation. As for the recitation of the nominative, they said: if "[what]" is made a relative, both aspects are in it. If it is made interrogative, the first is determined, because the magnitude is the subject [of discussion] from the mosquito, as that is the case. It is also said he meant "what is above it and what is below it," so he sufficed with one of the two things instead of the other, on the limit of "(garments that protect you from the heat)," so he made it understood.