Ar-Rum: (49) "And indeed, before it was sent down upon them—before it—they were, in despair."

"And indeed, before it was sent down upon them (the rain)—before it (i.e., the sending down)—they were, in despair (i.e., hopeless)." The repetition is for emphasis. As Ibn ‘Atiyyah stated, it conveys the rapid shifting of human hearts from despair to rejoicing. This is because "before it was sent down upon them" could imply a span of time, so "before it" was added to indicate immediate succession and to dispel that possibility. Al-Zamakhshari said: It is emphasized to indicate how long it had been since they had seen rain, from which one understands the intensity of their despair. What Ibn ‘Atiyyah mentioned is closer, because what is immediately understood from "before-ness" is succession, and the emphasis denotes its intensity. Abu Hayyan rejected both scholars, saying: The benefit of the emphasis that they mentioned is not apparent; to me, it is merely for emphasis and serves only to eliminate metaphor.

Qutrub said: The pronoun in "before it" refers to the rain, so there is no emphasis. You know that this would result in the interpretation "before the sending down of the rain, before the rain," which is a construction that is not permissible in eloquent speech, let alone the Quran.

It was said: The pronoun refers to the crops, which the rain indicates—meaning before the sending down of the rain, before they were sown. The issue here is that "before it was sent down" relates to "in despair," and it is impossible for "before it" to relate to the same [predicate] as well, because two prepositions with the same meaning cannot relate to a single agent unless there is an intervening conjunction or it is by way of substitution, and there is no conjunction here, nor is substitution apparently valid. Some permitted it as a substitution of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal), contenting themselves with the fact that crops arise from the rain, and thus the rain includes them—but this is as you see it.

Al-Mubarrad said: The pronoun refers to the clouds, because when they saw the clouds, they were hopeful for rain, and the meaning is "before the sight of the clouds." This also requires a conjunction for the two prepositions to correctly relate to "in despair."

‘Ali ibn ‘Isa said: The pronoun refers to the sending [of the wind].

Al-Kirmani said: It refers to the rejoicing, because it is paired with despair and the grace shown through it. The objection of the [necessity of the] relation without a conjunction was raised against both of them, just as it was raised against those before them. If they claim the elision of the conjunction, there is disagreement over its permissibility in such a position by analogy.

Some chose that it refers to the rejoicing, on the basis that the first "before" relates to "it was sent down" and the first "before" relates to "in despair," because it conveys the rapid shifting of their hearts from despair to rejoicing by indicating the extreme proximity of their two times, through the manifestation of the despair being connected to the sending down, which is connected to the rejoicing by the evidence of the sudden "if" (idha). So contemplate this.

The in is the reduced form of the heavy inna, and the lam in "they were, in despair" is the distinguishing lam (al-fariqah). There is no elided dameer al-sha’n (pronoun of state) estimated for in, because it is only estimated for the open anna; as for the broken inna, it must be treated as non-functioning (muhmala), as detailed in the meaning, although some eminent scholars argued for the estimation.