Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:63

(Do you not see that Allah has sent down from the sky)—meaning from the direction of height—(rain)—meaning: do you not know this? It is also permissible for the vision to be ocular, considering the rain that has been sent down, and the interrogation is for the purpose of confirmation.

(And the earth becomes green)—meaning: it turns so. It is said that "becomes" (tusbihu) is taken in its literal sense (to become in the morning), and the ruling is based on some places where it rains at night, so the earth becomes green in the morning. However, the first interpretation is better. It is a conjunction to "sent down" (anzala), and the fa (particle) suffices as a connector, so there is no need to assume a conditional construction. The sequence is either conventional or real; it is either considered in light of the readiness for greenness or in light of the greening itself, as you can see. It is also permitted that the fa is for mere causality, with no sequence intended.

The shift from the past tense (anzala) to the present tense (tusbihu) is to express the persistence of the effect of the rain over time, just as you might say: "He bestowed a favor upon so-and-so in such-and-such year, so I continue to praise him." If you were to say: "I praised and thanked him," it would not hold the same weight. It is also for the purpose of bringing a wondrous image to mind.

The verb here is not in the subjunctive mood (nasb) as a response to the interrogation in any of the recitations we know, and more than one scholar has stated that it is impossible. It is stated in al-Bahr that the subjunctive is impossible here because when an interrogation enters upon a negation, even if it implies confirmation in some speech, it is treated like a pure negation in terms of the answer. Do you not see the Almighty’s saying: "Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes"? Likewise, in answering with the fa, if you answer a negation, it carries two meanings, in both of which the answer is negated. If you say: "Do you not come to us, so that you might speak to us?" in the subjunctive, the meaning is: "You do not come to us as a speaker; you only come and do not speak." It is also permitted that the meaning is: "Do not come to us, so how could you speak to us?" Thus, the speaking is negated in both cases. Confirmation by an interrogative particle is like a pure negation; the answer confirms what the interrogative hamza entered upon and negates the answer. Thus, it would result in the confirmation of the vision and the negation of the greening, which is the opposite of what is intended. Furthermore, the answer to the interrogation would form a condition and consequence, and it is not valid to say here: "If you see the sending down of water, the earth becomes green," because its greening is not dependent upon your knowledge or your vision; it is dependent upon the sending down itself.

Regarding the reversal of meaning upon assuming the subjunctive, al-Zamakhshari went to the extent of saying: If the verb were in the subjunctive as a response to the interrogation, it would produce the opposite of the intended purpose, because its meaning would be the affirmation of the greening, and with the subjunctive, it would turn into the negation of the greening. However, the author of al-Fara'id refuted him, saying: There is no basis for what the author of al-Kashshaf mentioned. The meaning he described does not necessarily follow; rather, what would follow from its subjunctive state is that it would be a partner to the Almighty's saying "Do you not see" and subordinate to it, not subordinate to "sent down." It would be a verbal noun coupled with the verbal noun contained in "Do you not see," with the estimation: "Do you not have a vision of the sending down of water from the sky and the earth becoming green?" This is not what is intended by the verse. Instead, the earth becoming green must be a consequence of the sending down, and thus it is coupled with it. This, however, contains some scholarly debate.

The author of al-Taqrib said regarding this: The subjunctive is by estimation of an (to), which is a sign of the future, making the verb awaited, whereas the indicative (raf') is a certainty of its report. To summarize: the indicative is a certainty of its affirmation, and the subjunctive is not a certainty of its affirmation—it is not, however, a certainty of its negation. It is clear that even if this were valid in itself, it does not match the depth of al-Zamakhshari.

Abu al-Baqa attributed the impossibility of the subjunctive to two things: First, the negation of the causality of the interrogated subject for what follows the fa, as mentioned previously from al-Bahr. Second, that the mentioned interrogation is in the sense of a statement, so it has no answer. Al-Farra' went to this, saying: "Do you not see" is a report, as you say in speech: "I know that the Almighty does such and such, so such and such happens." Sibawayh said: I asked—meaning al-Khalil—about the Almighty’s saying: "Do you not see that Allah has sent down from the sky water, so the earth becomes green," and he said: This is necessary, and it is a notification as if you said: "Do you hear?" In the Eastern version of the book, it says: "Pay attention! Allah sent down water from the sky, so such and such happened."

Some later scholars have said: It is permissible to consider the causality of the verb from the negation, and then consider the entry of the confirming interrogation; the meaning would then be: "A vision of the sending down of water by the Almighty occurred from you, so the earth becomes green," because the mentioned interrogation entering upon the negation is in the sense of a double negative, which is an affirmation. If you say: Vision cannot be a cause, neither as a negation nor an affirmation for the greening, I say: Vision is inserted as a filler, and the intended meaning is the sending down, or it is a metonymy for it because it accompanies it. Furthermore, analogy to the cause is sufficient, as stated by al-Radi regarding "Do you not come to us, so that you might speak to us" in one of its two considerations. He chose this in arguing against the permissibility of the subjunctive, because the subjunctive makes the present tense specific to the future, which is appropriate for a conditional response as established in the science of grammar, and that is not possible in this noble verse, as you can see.

In short, the view held by the verifiers is that whoever permitted the subjunctive here is mistaken, and that the intended meaning would be reversed. It was recited as khadiratin with a fat-hah on the mim and a lightening of the dad, similar to muqbilah and mujzarah, meaning: possessing greenness.

(Indeed Allah is Subtle)—meaning: Beneficent to His servants by delivering their benefits to them with gentleness, and among that is sending down the water from the sky and the greening of the earth because of it—(All-Knowing)—meaning: Knowing the minute details of affairs, and among them are the measures of the interests of His servants.

Ibn Abbas said: Subtle with the provisions of His servants, All-Knowing of what is in their hearts of despair. Muqatil said: Subtle in extracting vegetation, All-Knowing of the manner of His creation. Al-Kalbi said: Subtle in His actions, All-Knowing of the deeds of His servants. Ibn Atiyyah said: The Subtle (al-Latif) is the One who perfects affairs with gentleness. Al-Adami reported that He is the Knower of the hidden things, and you know that this is the famous meaning of the All-Knowing (al-Khabir). Some interpreted it as the Informer, but this does not suit the context, just as interpreting "the Subtle" as something not perceived by the senses does not suit the context.