Tafsir of Ar-Rum 30:24

(And of His signs is that He shows you the lightning) Abu Ali maintained that it is based on the omission of the infinitive particle an. The origin is an yuriyakum (that He shows you), so an was omitted and the verb was raised (made indicative), which is common after such an omission. It is rare for the verb to remain in the accusative case after it, though both forms have been transmitted, such as the statement of Tarafa: "Will you not, O my censurer who keeps me from the battle, and from witnessing delights, grant me immortality?"

It is also permitted that the verb is treated as a noun (masdar), without requiring an, where the verb is used in a partial sense—denoting the action while abstracting it from time—becoming a noun in the form of a verb. Thus, yuriyakum means "vision." This is the interpretation often applied to the famous saying: "To hear of a Ma'adi (tribesman) is better than to see him." It is also permitted that it be a case of omitted an, supported by the fact that the accusative "to see him" (an tarahu) has also been transmitted in it. Some eminent scholars did not accept this because the meaning is not directed toward the future, whereas "seeing him" (an tarahu) entails the future relative to "hearing."

A similar case is: "They said, 'What do you desire?' I said, 'To play until the morning, selecting the chosen one.'" Preferring the interpretation of the verb as a noun is justified by the importance of the intended meaning, as indicated by "selecting the chosen one." The argument that "What do you desire?" is a question about what one desires in the present, while an (infinitive) is for the future, is not a valid objection, because desire always relates to the future.

Al-Isfahani the Collector said: The estimation of the verse is "And among His signs is a sign: He shows you the lightning," where yuriyakum is an adjective for an omitted noun, and the adjective took its place, as in the saying: "Wealth is but two times; in one I die, and in another I seek sustenance," meaning "in one time I die." It is said that there must be a referent (raji') for it, such as "in it" or "by it." Al-Rummani specified the latter, as noted in al-Bahr, but both fail to fully satisfy the meaning as noted in al-Kashf. It is also said: The estimation is "And of His signs is the lightning," then a new sentence begins, "He shows you the lightning." Another view is that "of His signs" is a state (hal) of the lightning—meaning, He shows you the lightning while it is among His signs. Abu Hayyan permitted its attachment to yuriyakum, with min denoting the beginning of the reach, though this contradicts its parallels.

In al-Kashf, it is suggested that the most appropriate view is that "of His signs" is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "Among His signs is what is mentioned or what is recited to you," and it is then said, "He shows you the lightning," as an explanation for that. He added: "This is less forced than all others." You know that the best interpretations are those which align the verse with its parallels.

(In fear)—that is, from the thunderbolts—(and in hope)—for rain. This was stated by al-Dahhak. Qatada said: "In fear" for the traveler, because it is a sign of rain which harms him as he has no shelter, and "in hope" for the resident. It is also said: "In fear" that it might be heat lightning, and "in hope" that it might bring rain. Ibn Salam said: "In fear" of the cold destroying crops, and "in hope" of rain. Al-Zajjaj held that they are in the accusative as a maf'ul lahu (causal object). This is consistent with the school of those who do not require the cause (the infinitive) and the acting verb to share the same agent. As for the majority who do require this, they explain it by assuming an added noun: "the desire for fear and hope," or by interpreting "fear" and "hope" as "causing fear" and "causing hope," either by claiming they are derived from these roots with the extra letters removed, or by treating them as metaphors for their causes.

It is also said that this is because their intent necessitates their seeing, so the objects are in meaning the agents, as if it were said: "to make you see, in fear and hope." This was objected to on the grounds that fear and hope are not the purposes of the vision, nor its motives, but rather follow it; how then could they be the cause? This was countered by stating that "vision" does not mean the mere occurrence of sight, but rather intentional, focused looking. It is like the saying, "I sat out of the war out of cowardice." Abu Hayyan did not accept this either, and then said: If one were to say, according to the school of those who require the same agent, that the estimation is "He shows you the lightning, so you see it in fear and hope," and the causative factor was omitted to indicate it, this would be a permissible parsing. It is said that the most apparent view is that they are in the accusative as a cause for the showing due to the existence of concomitance and unity in the agent, for Allah is the Creator of fear and hope. The assertion of grammarians that the maf'ul lahu must be the act of the agent means that the agent must be characterized by it, like "honoring" in "I came to you to honor you." If that is accepted, then there is no impediment to the accusative based on an analogy to this concomitance and unity.

This was challenged by stating that the meaning is indeed what was mentioned, as the author of al-Intisaf and others have stated, for the "grammatical agent" is not the "real agent." To hesitate regarding this and claim "there is no impediment" to the accusative via analogy is baseless. I lean toward not requiring unity in the agent, because of the frequency of the accusative occurring without unity, as established by investigation and reference to Sharh al-Kafiya by al-Radi. Resorting to interpretation when there is frequent usage is unnecessary. It is also permitted that the accusative here is for the source (al-masdar), meaning: "You fear with fear and you hope with hope," with the sentence acting as a state (hal). More appropriate than this is that they are both in the accusative as a state, meaning: "fearful and hoping."

(And He sends down from the sky rain)—others read it with takhfif (lightening the hamza)—(and gives life thereby)—that is, by means of the rain—(to the earth after its death)—its dryness—(Indeed in that are signs for a people who use reason)—who employ their intellects in deducing its causes and the manner of its formation, so that the perfection of the Creator’s power and His wisdom—glory be to Him—may be manifest to them. Al-Tibi said: Since what was mentioned is a representation of the resurrection of people and the bringing forth of the dead, and because representation brings the abstract concept near and displays the imagined in the form of the actual, it was appropriate that the concluding clause be "for a people who use reason."