Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:38

(We said: "Descend from it, all of you") The repetition is for emphasis. The separation (between the two verses) is for the perfection of connection, and the Fa in (Then he received/Fata-laqqa) is for the purpose of parenthetical intercalation, since it is not permissible for a conjoined element to precede that which it emphasizes. Its benefit is to signal an increased focus on the matter of repentance and that one must hasten toward it without delay; for delay is an additional sin, alongside what it contains of demonstrating the desire for the goodness of his state—peace be upon him—and the clearing of his mind, and the removal of what the angels—peace be upon them—might have clung to, given that he was preferred over them and they were ordered to prostrate to him. Or, it is repeated so that a different meaning may be attached to it than the first; for the first mention of their descent was due to enmity and the lack of remaining in eternity, and the command therein is existential (takwini). The second is so that whoever is to be guided may be guided, and whoever is to go astray may go astray, and the command therein is legislative (taklifi). This style in the science of rhetoric is called tardid (reiteration), and the separation in this case is due to the interruption caused by the difference between the two purposes.

It is said: The sending down of stories is for the sake of drawing lessons from the conditions of those who came before. Thus, in the repetition of the command, there is a warning that the fear resulting from contemplating Adam’s descent—associated with either of these two matters: enmity or legislation—is sufficient for anyone who possesses resolve and is free of an excuse to prevent him from opposing the command of the Most High. How much more so is the opposition that results from contemplating the descent associated with both together? If the command were not repeated to serve as a bridge for connecting (So if there comes to you from Me guidance) to the first, it would not be understood as a descent upon which all these matters follow.

It is possible, though remote, that the benefit of the repetition is to alert one that He, the Exalted, is the One who willed that, and had it not been for His will, it would not have been. For this reason, He attributed the descent to Himself, devoid of any attachment to a cause, after having attributed their expulsion to Satan. It is close to His saying—Glorified is His mention—: (And you threw not when you threw, but it was Allah who threw). Al-Jubba'i said: The first was from Paradise to the heavens, and the second was from there to the earth. However, the mention of (And for you on the earth is a place of settlement) immediately following the first invalidates this.

(All of you) is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from the subject of (Descend), meaning gathered together, whether it occurred at one time or not. The unity of time is sometimes understood from the context of speech, as has been said regarding (So the angels prostrated, all of them together). Ibn Atiyyah took a far-fetched view, making it an emphasis for a deleted verbal noun, meaning: a descent, all of you together.

(So if there comes to you from Me guidance, then whoever follows My guidance...) The discourse does not include those who are not legally responsible (mukallaf). Many included (Iblis) because he is addressed regarding faith. The Fa is for connecting what follows it to the descent understood from the command. (Ima) is composed of the conditional In and the Ma which is redundant for emphasis. It is common for the verb following it to be emphasized with the Nun, but it is not mandatory, as is indicated by Sibawayh’s statement: If you wish, you may not insert the Nun, just as if you wish, you may not bring the Ma. This has occurred in his saying: "O companion, do you not find me lacking wealth? For detachment from friends is not among my habits," and his saying: "Whether you stay or depart, Allah protects what remains and what you leave." Those who hold that it is mandatory interpreted these cases as poetic necessity, but this is something for which there is no necessity. The argument that the subordinate—which is the conditional particle—would then gain an advantage over the primary—which is the verb—is refuted by the fact that the subordinate and its emphasis are themselves subordinate, so there is no advantage. Alternatively, the Ma serves to emphasize the verb at its beginning, just as the Nun serves to emphasize it at its end.

The particle of doubt (In) was used because there is no certainty of occurrence; for the Most High, nothing is mandatory. Rather, if He wills, He guides, and if He wills, He leaves. It is said that there is certainty, and the use of (In) in its place is not without a point, such as treating the one who knows as one who does not, by not acting according to what the knowledge necessitates. It is improved by the fact that what has already occurred from Adam preceded it. It is said that the addition of (Ma) and the emphasis with the heavy Nun does not fall short of expressing certainty compared to "if" (idha). Indeed, in this case, one does not look to the time, but to the fact that it is guaranteed to happen, though its time is unspecified. You know that what we have chosen is safer and further from the affectation of what was mentioned, even if the one who said it is significant. So reflect.

(From Me) is connected to what precedes it, and it contains an allusion to iltifat (shift in perspective), as in Al-Bahr. The specific pronoun was brought here to symbolize that what is fitting for the one being guided is pure monotheism and not turning toward the multitude. (Guidance/Hudan) is indefinite because the intention is the absolute; there was no prior covenant concerning it so that it would be definite. There are various opinions regarding what is meant here: it is said to be the revealed Books, the Messengers, or Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Perhaps the intended meaning is his guidance which his deputies—peace be upon them—brought.

The Fa in (Then whoever) is for connection, and (Ma) following the conditional sentence has occurred as a response to the first condition, similar to "If you come to me, then if you have the power, I will do good to you." It is said that this is because of the relative pronoun (man) in the counterpart, and the Fa entered its predicate because it contains the meaning of a condition. Putting the explicit noun in place of the pronoun in (My guidance) is a signal of causality, because guidance, in view of its essence, is worthy of being followed, and in view of its being attributed to Him, the Most High, with an attribution of honor, it is more worthy and deserving of being followed. It is said: The pronoun was not used because it is more general than the first, as it includes what is obtained through reasoning and intellect. (Al-Huda) was not said to avoid the prompt suggestion of identity; for the indefinite, if repeated as a definite, is usually identical to the first. Moreover, the attribution to Himself, the Most High, contains an exaltation that would not exist if it were brought as definite with the Lam.

(Fear) is the dread of the future, and (Grief) is the opposite of joy, derived from al-hazn, which is the rugged part of the earth, as if it is the rugged part of distress. It only occurs regarding a past matter according to the well-known view. Thus, expressions like (It saddens me that you should take him) are interpreted as knowing that event. It is said that both it and fear are in the future, but fear is their sensing the loss of something desired, and grief is their sensing sorrow for the missing of a beloved.

Making the negation of fear here a metonymy for the negation of punishment, and the negation of grief a metonymy for the negation of reward, is more eloquent than explicit speech and more emphatic, because it is like claiming something with proof. The meaning is: no fear shall befall them—not to mention any harm befalling them—nor shall any beloved thing be missed by them so that they would grieve over it. Thus, what is negated for the allies (Awliya) is the fear of harm befalling them and grief in the Hereafter. In this, there is a sign that He will enter them into Paradise, which is the abode of joy and security, in which there is no fear and no grief. Thus, the opposition between the two classes in the two verses becomes apparent. Some of the great authorities said: The fear of harm is negated for them absolutely, but as for the fear of Majesty (Khawf al-Jalal), it is at the height of perfection, and the sincere are in great danger.

It is said: The meaning is that there is no fear for them of misguidance in the world, and no grief from wretchedness in the Hereafter. The negation of fear was brought forward because the negation of fear for what is coming is more significant than the negation of grief for what has passed. For this reason, it began with the indefinite, which is more effective in negation. The pronoun was brought forward as a signal of their exclusivity in the negation of grief, and that others will grieve. The intention is to state the permanence of the negation, not the negation of permanence, as might be imagined from the predicate in the second sentence being an imperfect verb; for it is established in its place that negation, even if it enters upon the imperfect verb, signifies permanence and continuity according to the context.

Some mentioned that turning away from "No fear for them" or "with them" to "no fear upon them" (alayhim) is to signal that their state has reached a point where it is not appropriate for anyone to fear for them. In Al-Bahr, it is said that He—Glory be to Him—used "upon them" (alayhim) as a metonymy for overpowering and encompassing, a signal that fear is not negated in its entirety. Do you not see that the negation applies to the state of fear being upon them? It does not necessarily follow from the negation of the state of fear overpowering them that it is negated in every condition. Thus, there is no evidence in the verse for the negation of the terrors of the Resurrection and its fear for the obedient. You know that what we have pointed to is a metonymy that dispenses with such a claim, as well as the claim that the negation of overpowering is to attack the disbelievers and signal that fear is overpowering them.

Al-A'raj recited (Hudaya) with the ya being quiescent, in which there is the combination of two quiescent letters, and that is from treating the connection like a pause. Al-Jahdari and others recited (Huda) by changing the alif into a ya and assimilating it into the ya, according to the dialect of Hudhayl. Az-Zuhri and others recited (no fear) with a fatha (fath), and Ibn Muhaisin, with a difference in reporting from him, with a rafa' without tanwin, as if he deleted it intending the genitive construction, or due to frequency of use, or observing the lam in the noun as in Al-Bahr, so that equality is achieved in that the "no" (la) entered upon a definite noun in both sentences. According to the reading of the majority, it is a subject (mubtada) and (upon them) is its predicate, or that the (la) acts like (laysa), as Ibn Atiyyah said, and the former is more preferred.