{And those who believe in what has been revealed to you, and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [4]}

This is a conjunction to the first relative pronoun [in the previous verse], both separated and connected. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas‘ud—may Allah be pleased with them—that they are the believers from among the People of the Book. Since the apparent implication of this conjunction is that belief in both revelations is performed independently, this was specific to them, whereas the belief of others in what was revealed before is only by way of generalization and as a consequence of their belief in the Quran, especially in a context of praise. Verses and Hadith have indicated that the People of the Book have two rewards by virtue of this; thus, they differ from those who preceded them.

It is also said that the distinction is because the first belief is by intellect and this one is by transmission, or that the former is of the Unseen and this is of what they know as they know their own sons.

{Those are upon guidance}—this refers to the first group, for their faith is purely by Divine guidance.

{And it is those who are the successful}—this refers to the second group, for their success in attaining what they were expecting, or because the former group as a whole contained polytheism, while the latter did not associate others with Allah nor did they deny [the truth].

Others say the distinction is one of generality and specificity, similar to the verse: {The angels and the Spirit descend}. The specification here after generalization is to indicate superiority, in the sense that they are given their reward twice; for sometimes there exists in the less excellent what is not in the more excellent, and in this is an encouragement for the People of the Book to enter into Islam.

Some said that these are the very same first ones, and the insertion of the conjunction is current in names and attributes by virtue of the difference in concepts. It occurs with waw, fa, and thumma based on the sequence of transition in states. The aggregation derived from the waw here takes place between the meanings of the attributes understood from the two conjoined parts. The belief associated with the first is general and intellectual, while with the second, it is detailed and transmitted. The repetition of the relative pronoun is to alert to the difference between the two groups and the divergence of their paths. It may also be conjoined to the muttaqin (the righteous), with the relative pronoun not being separated [from its antecedent], due to the necessity of avoiding the separation of the subject from its predicate, or the conjoined from its conjunction, by an extraneous element. The difference between the conjoined parts lies in that the one conjoined to refers to those who believed among the Arabs who are not People of the Book, and the conjoined part refers to those who believed in him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—from among the People of the Book.

Some investigators preferred the possibility that these are the same as the first ones, and the insertion of the waw between the attributes [is explained by] the fact that belief in both revelations is shared among all believers, so there is no basis to restrict it to the believers of the People of the Book. Singling them out for mention does not imply that belief in each is independent; for the previously revealed books were singled out in His saying: {Say, "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham"}, and it did not require belief in them separately. Furthermore, the People of the Book were not believers in all that was revealed before, because the Jews did not believe in the Gospel and their religion was abrogated by it. Also, the aforementioned attributes are established for those who believed from the People of the Book, so restricting it to those other than them is arbitrary. Treating the speech as a case of conjoining the specific to the general does not suit the context.

The answer to this is: Firstly, what is apparent from the context is belief by way of independence, especially in a place of praise, and this is indicated by what has been narrated: that they are given their reward twice. The address in the verse is to the Muslims that they should say [the creed] at once, and it does not contain the [repeated] belief or the believer, so it is not a refutation. Secondly, the belief of the People of the Book in every revelation is only with regard to them as a whole; the faith of the Jews encompassed the Quran and the Torah, and the faith of the Christians encompassed the Gospel as well. This suffices in justifying what was narrated from those who witnessed the revelation, and one should not turn away from it if it is possible to justify it. The fact that the apparent understanding is the establishment of the ruling for each individual, if conceded, does not refute it. Nor does it refute that the Jews who believed in the time of our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—did not believe before that in the Torah—otherwise they would have become Christians, as it contains the prophecy of Jesus just as it contains the prophecy of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. For it is reported in it: "Allah came from Mount Sinai, shone forth from Seir, and became manifest from Paran." Seir is the House of Jerusalem where Jesus appeared, and Paran are the mountains of Makkah which were the manifestation of the Chosen One—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We say that they did believe in the Torah and interpreted what it contained regarding the prophecy of the Messiah—peace be upon him. Some denied his prophecy entirely and accused him of what they accused him—and he is far above that—and they are the majority. Others, like the 'Ananiyya, said: "He is one of the sincere allies of Allah who knows the rulings of the Torah, but he is not a prophet." These are few and differ from the rest of the Jews regarding the Sabbath and festivals, and they limit themselves to eating birds, gazelles, fish, and locusts. Even if this belief is not beneficial for salvation from the Fire, it reduces the evil compared to disbelief in the Torah and total rejection of it, along with disbelief in Jesus—peace be upon him. They might be praised with regard to the principle of believing in it, even if they are blamed in another respect; and it seems that for this reason, the jizya was accepted from them and they were not delivered to the sword entirely.

The statement that they were praised after their belief in the Quran for their belief in the Torah with regard to their ancestors who were in the time of Moses—peace be upon him—for they were believers in it with a correct belief as it should be, just as they were blamed for what their fathers did in his time, as many verses testify—is baseless, for there is no meaning to giving them two rewards in that case, and the difference between the two cases is clear. Furthermore, the abrogation claimed by the preferrer is contrary to what Al-Shahrastani and others mentioned, namely that the Gospel did not explain rulings nor did it contain inner meanings of the lawful and the prohibited, but was rather symbols, parables, and admonitions, and the rulings were referred to the Torah. Christ said, "I did not come to abolish the Torah, but I came to fulfill it." This is contrary to what the apparent meanings require, and its verification will come, if Allah wills.

Thirdly, the fact that the attributes are established for those who believed from the People of the Book does not harm us, because they are mentioned in the first explicitly and in the second by implication. Fourthly, we do not concede that this conjunction does not suit the context; the subtleties of conjoining the specific to the general are not hidden to those with understanding. So leave aside what passed and take what is pleasant.

In my view, after all of this, the objection is masculine and the answer is feminine; but the narration invited this, and perhaps the people of Makkah know its paths best, and above every possessor of knowledge is one more learned. Moreover, scholarship might support it, as it is said, based on the fact that the repetition of the relative pronoun and characterizing it with belief in both revelations—despite it being shared among all believers—and the inclusion of belief in what was revealed to you [as implying] belief in what was revealed before you, demands that what is meant are those who have a kind of specialty with the connection: the believers of the People of the Book. Since they were specifically tasked with believing in the Quran, Allah the Exalted says: {And believe in what I have sent down, confirming that which is with you}, believing in the books independently in some sense, unlike other believers. Then, the most apparent meaning of "People of the Book" is the people of the Torah and the Gospel. To construe it as the people of the Gospel only—and forty-two of them came with Ja'far from the land of Abyssinia and eight from Al-Sham—is not supported by narration or scholarship, as is not hidden.

Inzal (revelation) is to cause to reach and to convey. It is not a condition that it be from above, contrary to those who claimed such, like in the verse: {Then it descended into their courtyard}, i.e., it reached and settled. The revelation of divine books has already been mentioned in the introductions in a way that informs you of its stages. It is mentioned that the meaning of the revelation of the Quran is that Gabriel heard the speech of Allah the Exalted as Allah willed, and he descended with it, or He manifested it in the Preserved Tablet as writing, so the angel memorized it. Some of the predecessors went to the view that it is among the ambiguous [matters] which we affirm without researching its modality. The philosophers said that the souls of the prophets—peace be upon them—are sanctified, so they have the strength to connect with the Higher Assembly; there are imprinted upon them images that are transferred to the imaginative faculty and the common sense, so it is seen as if it is being witnessed, and this is revelation. Sometimes it rises and hears composed speech. It resembles that the descent of the books is from this. In my view, this might be for those with sanctified souls and human spirits, yet the matter of prophecy is far beyond that—how far is the Pleiades from the hand of the one reaching for it!

The two verbs of inzal are constructed for the passive. Al-Nakha'i, Abu Haywah, and Yazid bin Qutaib read them as active. It was read as an anomaly as bima unzila ilayka with the lam emphasized; the reason is that the lam of unzila was made quiescent, then the hamzah of ila was deleted, and its vowel was transferred to the lam, so the two identical letters met and were assimilated.

As for the pronoun of the agent, some said Allah, and others said Gabriel—peace be upon him. In Al-Bahr, it is mentioned that there is a shift here because of the preceding {from what We have provided for them}, so it exited from the pronoun of the speaker to the pronoun of the absent. Had it followed the first, it would have come as "what We revealed to you and what We revealed before you." The Exalted brought the relative clause of "what" first as a past verb, even though the intended meaning of what was revealed is the whole, because the context and the preceding discourse require it due to the complete guidance and success resulting from it, and because it occurs in opposition to "what was revealed before." Also, because of the requirement of "they believe," which denotes continuity, and the whole had not been revealed at the time the verse was revealed. This is for two reasons: First, it is a dominance of what has been revealed over what has not been found, so it is of the category of applying the part to the whole. Second, it is a likening of all that is revealed to something that has descended in terms of the certainty of occurrence, because some of it has descended and some of it will certainly descend; thus, the revelation of the whole is likened to the revelation of that thing which has descended. Therefore, the past tense form of its revelation is used as a metaphor for the revelation of the whole. This is what was verified by those whom one relies upon, though there is great agitation in it. A simpler view than that is that the expression in the past here is for harmony, due to the occurrence of the unrealized in the company of the realized. Simpler than all of that is that it is intended as the literal past, and it indicates belief in the future by the implication of the text. What has been said—that belief in what will be revealed is not obligatory—even if taking it to mean the whole is more complete, so it was limited to it—has no merit; for there is no doubt that it is incumbent upon the believer to believe in what has been revealed and that all that will be revealed is truth, even if its detail and specification are not required. Scholars have stated that general belief in the revealed books as a whole is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), and detailed belief in the Quran, which is worshiped through its details, is a communal obligation (fard kifaya); for if it were an individual obligation, it would lead to hardship and difficulty, and the religion is ease, not hardship. This is something regarding which there is no doubt, to the point that Al-Dawani said: "It is required as a communal obligation [to know] the fundamental proofs in detail such that one is able to remove doubts, bind the stubborn, and guide the seekers." The jurists mentioned that there must be in every distance of a travel-shortening journey someone characterized by this attribute, and he is called the one appointed for defense, and it is prohibited for the Imam to leave it empty of that, just as it is prohibited to leave it empty of one who knows the rulings required by the common people. It is said there must be such a person in every region, and it is said that it is sufficient to have him in all the inhabited Islamic lands. Perhaps this descent is due to the descent of the affair, and the scarcity of religious scholars in the world in this age has become a wasteland, and its people have departed—may the one who destroyed the desert of Ludd destroy it. To Allah the Exalted is the complaint and to Him is the refuge. To Allah I complain that there is a need in the heart, as the days pass, and it remains as it is.

Al-Akhirah (the Hereafter) is the feminine of al-akhir, an active participle from the triliteral akhara in the sense of "being late," even if it is not used as such—just as al-akhar (the other), with the kha opened, is a comparative noun derived from it. It is an attribute in origin, as in "the final abode" (al-dar al-akhirah) and "He originates the final creation." Then it became dominant, like "the world" (al-dunya). The dominant attribute may be qualified, unlike the dominant noun. One does not say "a black adham," due to the necessity of repetition in the concept, and although it is from the dihmah (blackness), one who is not familiar with it at all might use it, so understand. It may also be annexed to it, as in His saying: {And the abode of the Hereafter}, meaning the abode of the final life. It is sometimes contrasted with "the first" (al-ula), as in His saying, the Exalted: {To Him is all praise in the first and the Hereafter}. The meaning here is the final abode or the final creation. The majority [of reciters] are on the quiescence of the lam of the definite article and keeping the hamzah which follows it for the glottal stop; Warsh deletes it and transfers the vowel to the lam.

Al-Iqan (certainty) is the verification of a thing, like its settling and clarity. It is said "the water settled (yaqana)" when it became still and what was beneath it appeared. It and al-yaqin have the same meaning, contrary to those who were mistaken about it. Al-Jawhari said: "Certainty is knowledge and the removal of doubt." It is said yaqinta (with a kasrah) meaning yaqinan, and ayqantu and ustayqantu, all of which carry the same meaning. Al-Wahidi and a group went to the view that it is what comes from contemplation and inference, so it is not attributed to the self-evident nor the knowledge of Allah the Exalted. Imam Al-Nasafi and some of the Imams went to the view that it is the knowledge that does not admit the opposite, and the lack of describing the Truth—glorified and exalted is He—with it is due to the lack of a stopping point [in revelation]. Others went to the view that it is knowledge of a thing after its possessor was doubting it, whether it is necessary or inferential. Al-Raghib mentioned that certainty is an attribute of knowledge above recognition (ma'rifa), understanding, and their likes; it is said "knowledge of certainty" and it is not said "recognition of certainty." It is the tranquility of the soul with the stability of a judgment. In Al-Ihya', it is leaned towards that certainty is shared between two meanings: First, the absence of doubt, so it is applied to everything that has no doubt in it, whether it was obtained by contemplation, sense, intellectual instinct, recurrence, or proof; this does not vary. Second, which is what the jurists, the Sufis, and many of the scholars stated, is that in which one does not look at possibility or doubt, but rather its dominance over the heart, to the point that it is said: "Such and such person has weak certainty of death and strong certainty of the provision of sustenance." So everything that dominates the heart and takes hold of it is certainty, and the variation in this is manifest.

The majority read yuqinun with a quiescent waw after the ya', and it is a substitute for it because it is from ayqana. Al-Numayri read it with a quiescent hamzah instead of the waw. It is widespread among them that when the waw is vowelized with a non-accidental dammah, as is detailed in grammar, it is permissible to replace it with a hamzah, as it is said in wujuh (faces), the plural of wajh, as ujuh. Perhaps the substitution here is for its proximity to the vowelized, so it was given its rule, and the neighbor might be taken for the injustice of the neighbor.

The Exalted distinguished between belief in the revealed and belief in the Hereafter; He did not say "and in the Hereafter they believe" to avoid the burden of repetition, or because of the abundance of the wonders related to the Hereafter and what is prepared therein of reward and punishment, and the detail of the types of bliss and torment, and the creation of their inhabitants—in contrast to the worldly creation—along with the proof of bodily resurrection, however it may be, and other things that are more wondrous than belief in the revealed Book, to the point that many people denied it. It is devoid of its details according to our Torah and Gospel; for in the first, according to what is in Sharh al-Tawali', bodily resurrection is not mentioned, but it is mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah. What is mentioned in the Gospel is only the spiritual resurrection. Thus, it was fitting to pair this important, strange matter—which the minds of many have been perplexed in proving and have fallen into denying, like moths falling into fire—with certainty (al-iqan), and this is it—an expression of the perfection of praise and a show of the utmost commendation. The advancement of the prepositional phrase is to indicate that their certainty is restricted to the reality of the Hereafter and does not exceed it to the contrary of its reality, such as what the Jews claim, for instance, when they said: {None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew} and {The Fire will never touch us except for a numbered number of days}. They claimed they enjoy the breeze and the spirits, as that is not of the Hereafter in any way. The construction of yuqinun upon {they} is an indication that the belief of their opponents regarding the Hereafter is pure ignorance and empty imagination, and they are not in the shadow or shade of certainty.