Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:5

The apparent grammatical structure is that it is a sentence elevated in place as a predicate.

If the first relative pronoun (alladhina - those who) is considered detached, according to most interpretations, the second follows it in detachment based on the appearance, as the conjoined cannot be severed without the conjunction. Thus, it is a predicate for it. If it is considered a relative pronoun and the second refers to a faction from what preceded it, and it is made detached, then the informing about it and the mention of the specific after the general is established. Just as it is permissible for it to be by way of sharing in the previous judgment—namely, "guidance for the God-fearing"—it is also permissible to be by way of isolating it with a judgment apart from the general. In that case, the sentence composed of the second relative pronoun and the predicate sentence is conjoined to the sentence "guidance for the God-fearing" (who are described as those who believe in the unseen). Although the first sentence is driven to praise the Book and the second to praise those described as believing in all the Books, their praise is only by virtue of their belief in that Book; thus, they are consistent in terms of conveying its praise.

The benefit of making the praise intended in essence is to encourage those like them and, as has been said, to allude to those who are not of their quality. The specificity derived from the conjoined in relation to those not characterized by their traits does not contradict what was derived from the conjoined-to, namely, the establishment of guidance for the God-fearing absolutely. Yes, this rhetorical approach is not at the rank of separating the first relative pronoun, so that is more primary. According to that, the sentence points to an answer to a question—either regarding the judgment, i.e., are the God-fearing entitled to what has been established for them of exclusivity to guidance? Or regarding the cause, as if it were said: "What is the cause of their exclusivity?" Or regarding both matters collectively: "Are they worthy of it, and what is the cause for it such that they should be so?"

The response is that these people, due to their possessing the mentioned attributes, are firmly established upon the complete guidance that their Lord, the Exalted, granted them through His Book. It is known that the cause is specific to them, so they are entitled to the exclusivity. Thus, the answer contains the required judgment with a summary of the premise, and the addition of the result of "guidance" strengthens the hyperbole contained in the indefiniteness of "guidance," or validates the judgment with the upcoming proof. Hence, there is no need for emphasis, or the nominal sentence is itself emphasizing.

It may be said that it clarifies the answer, arranged upon its consequences, namely guidance and success, because that is more conducive to knowing the cause, and there is no need for emphasis then. The matter regarding the third estimation is clear. Making the sentence point to the answer upon the possibility of connecting the first and separating the second is something whose removal from the arena of acceptance is not hidden. If the first is connected and the second is conjoined, then this sentence is initiated with a grammatical initiation, and the separation is for the perfection of connection, as it is like the result of the previous attributes, or expository, and the separation is because it is like the connected. It is as if an asker says: "Why are those described with these attributes singled out for guidance?" And the answer is given that the cause of their exclusivity is that He, the Sublime, decreed their happiness and guidance in eternity; thus, their nature is molded for guidance. The happy one is happy in his mother's womb, especially when conjoined to the otherworldly success, which is the greatest of goals.

Alternatively, it may be said that the answer is by explaining what their name contains, in summary, of the attributes of perfection, and clarifying what it requires of the result—meaning, "those whose affairs are such are worthy of what is greater than that." This path is traversed sometimes by repeating the one about whom the speech was initiated, as in "I did good to Zayd, Zayd is worthy of goodness," and other times by repeating his attribute, as in "I did good to your old friend, he is worthy of it." This is more eloquent because it contains the clarification of the cause for the judgment. The use of the demonstrative pronoun here is in the place of repeating the described with its mentioned attributes, along with what it contains of signaling the perfection of his distinction by them and his inclusion in the ranks of observable things, with an allusion to the remoteness of his station and the loftiness of his rank.

Making "those" alone the predicate and "upon guidance" a state (hal) is far-fetched, as is making it a substitute for "those who" while the prepositional phrase is the predicate. They wrote the waw in "those" (ula'ika) to distinguish it from "to you" (ilayka), the preposition and noun, as has been said. It is also said that since it is used to point to the plural of the masculine and is indeclinable, and deviates from the common forms of plurals, it was compensated in the sentence by writing a letter that is in the plural in some verses—and it is famous: "Repel the asker even if with a burnt hoof."

In His saying, "upon guidance," there is a metaphorical simile (isti'arah tamthiliyya tabi'iyya), where the state of those—their capability of guidance, their stability upon it, and their adherence to it—is likened to the state of one who has ascended a thing and mounted it. Then, the word of ascendancy, used in the object of comparison, is borrowed for the state, which is the unmentioned subject of comparison. To this went As-Sa'd, while As-Sayyid denied the gathering of the tamthiliyya and the tabi'iyya, because its being tabi'iyya requires that each of the two sides be a single meaning, as grammatical meanings are single, while its being tamthiliyya demands that they be extracted from multiple matters, which necessitates its being composite.

He, may his secret be sanctified, offered three perspectives in the verse: First, that it is a singular tabi'iyya metaphor, by likening the adherence of the God-fearing to guidance to the rider's ascendancy upon his mount in capability and stability, so the particle placed for ascendancy is borrowed for it. Second, that the form extracted from the God-fearing and the guidance and his adherence to it is likened to the form extracted from the rider and the mount and his ascendancy upon it, so there is a tamthiliyya metaphor where each of its sides is composite, but from the words corresponding to the object of comparison, only the word "upon" is expressed; for its meaning is the foundation of that form, and what is other than it is a follower of it, observed within intended words even if not estimated in the ordering of speech. Thus, there is no metaphor in "upon" at all; rather, it is in its original state before the metaphor, as if all those words were expressed. Third, that the guidance is likened to a mount by way of metonymical metaphor, and the word "upon" is made a signifier for it, contrary to the first view.

This disagreement between the two Sheikhs on this issue is something that travelers have spread, assemblies have been held for it, and treatises have been written about it. The first time it occurred between them was in the assembly of Timur, and the judge was Nu'man al-Khawarizmi, the Mu'tazili, and he ruled [in favor of As-Sa'd]. The appearance is that there is a reason for the honorable Sayyid, and scholars to this day are two factions in that, and they continue to differ about it. However, the majority are with As-Sa'd, and they answered the doubt of the Sayyid by stating that the extraction of a thing from multiple matters occurs in various ways: it may be from the sum of those matters, like a conceptual unity; it may be from a matter in relation to another, like additions; or some of it may be from one matter and some from another. According to the first two, it does not necessitate its composition, but rather a multiplicity of its source. Thus, it is permissible that the grammatical meaning, because it is an additional matter like ascendancy, is a state extracted from multiple matters. Therefore, for it to occur in a particle, it is tabi'iyya, and because each of the two sides is an additional state extracted from multiple matters, it is tamthiliyya. Perhaps the choice of the people in the definition of tamthiliyya of the word "extraction" rather than "composition" guides the fair-minded to the lack of requirement for composition in its sides; otherwise, the more apparent word would be "composition." We have satiated the discussion on this and mentioned what is for it and what is against it in our book The Iraqi Answers to the Iranian Questions, and this amount here is sufficient.

In the indefiniteness of "guidance," there is an indication of its greatness, so its reality and amount are known only to the Subtle, the Expert. The Lord is mentioned, even though guidance is only from Him, the Sublime, as an emphasis of that by attributing it to Him, the Glorified. There is a clear appropriateness here, for since He is their Lord, it is appropriate that He prepares the causes of the two happinesses for them and favors them with the interest of the two abodes.

It may be that there is an omitted adjective, i.e., "upon guidance," meaning a perfect guidance. The omission of the adjective because the meaning is understood is permissible. It is said that it is possible that the nunation is for singularization, i.e., upon a single guidance, for there is no guidance except the guidance of what was revealed to him, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, because it abrogated what came before it. The "from" (min) is for the beginning of the end or for partiality, based on the omission of a genitive, meaning: from the guidance of their Lord. The meaning of its being from Him, the Sublime, is that He is the one who grants them success and bestows upon them from the seas of His kindness and generosity, even if ordinary causes and formal intermediaries intervene there, provided that those intermediaries may disappear from the midst, and the morning of witnessing may dawn for the one who has eyes.

Ibn Hurmuz read "from their Lord" (min rabbi-him) with the damma on the ha, as well as all other ha's of the plural of the masculine and feminine according to the origin, without observing the precedence of a kasra or a ya. The majority assimilated the nun into the ra without nasality, and the work is based on this. Many of the experts of recitation went for assimilation with nasality and narrated it from Nafi', Ibn Kathir, Abu 'Amr, Ibn 'Amir, 'Asim, Abu Ja'far, and Ya'qub. Abu 'Awn narrated from Qalun and Abu Hatim from Ya'qub the manifestation of the nun. These views also apply to the nun and the nunation when they meet a lam.

"And those are the successful." Success is victory and triumph in attaining the objective. Its origin is splitting and cutting, and it shares in the meaning of splitting in the letters fa and ayn, such as fala (to split), falaq (daybreak), and faladh (steel). In the repetition of the demonstrative name, there is an indication that those described with those attributes are entitled thereby to independence in being established in guidance and monopolizing success, and to exclusivity in each of them. Were it not for this, their exclusivity to the collective might be understood, which would imply the realization of each of them individually in those other than them. The conjunction was entered between the two sentences because they occur between the perfection of connection and separation, because although they are consistent, they differ in concept and existence; for guidance is in the world and success is in the Hereafter, and the establishment of each of them is intended in itself. Thus, they differ from His saying, "Those are like cattle, nay, they are more astray. Those are the heedless." The second in that is an emphasis of the first, for there is no meaning to the likeness to cattle but the hyperbole in heedlessness, so there is no room for conjunction between them.

"They" (hum) may be a separator or a substitute; thus "the successful" would be a predicate of "those," or it would be a subject and "the successful" its predicate, and the sentence is the predicate of "those." This sentence does not lack the conveying of restriction, as is not hidden. More than one has mentioned that the lam in "the successful" is for definition, based on the fact that the intent is steadfastness upon success; it is then among what the nominality has prevailed over, or it is attached to the qualitative adjective. It is thus either for external reference, to indicate that the God-fearing are those who you have been told are successful in the aftermath, and the separator pronoun is either for restriction or merely to emphasize the relation—there is no improbability in the occurrence of restriction by inversion or specification, nay, even individualization—or it is for the genus, thus pointing to what everyone knows of this concept. If restriction is intended, then the separation is for emphasizing the relation and also for emphasizing the exclusivity. If union is intended, then it is merely to emphasize the relation.

The Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij clung to this verse for the eternity of the abandoner of the obligatory in punishment, because restricting the genus of success to those described necessitates the negation of success from the abandoner of prayer and zakat, and thus he would be eternal in the punishment. This is weaker than the house of a spider and is not suitable for argumentation, because success is not entering [the Fire], or because the negation of the perfection of success—as the context and the preceding text require—does not necessitate its negation absolutely. There is no need to carry "the God-fearing" to those who abstain from shirk so that the sinner enters among them, because the demonstrative is not to them only, so it does not yield benefit, such as the attribute being one of praise, as is not hidden.

Herein is a subtle secret: He, the Exalted and Almighty, recounted at the opening of His generous Book the praise of the servant for his Creator because of His kindness to him, and ascended in it; then the Creator here praised His servant because of His guidance for him, and ascended in it according to one style. So glory be to Him, what a generous Lord He is! He bestowed beauty and gave abundantly and thanked [even for] a little, so His is the grace without count and His is the praise without limit.