[Fussilat: 53] "We will show them Our signs in..."

"We will show them Our signs in the horizons..." and so on, is connected, according to the choice of the author of al-Kashshaf, to His saying, "Say, have you considered..." The aspect of completion and guidance relates to what is implied by the incitement to contemplate, so that the intended purpose is achieved—that they may be guided to its miraculous nature, believe in what he brought, act in accordance with its requirements, and attain success in its entirety.

The "signs" are interpreted as the conquests that God the Exalted brought about at the hands of His Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) and at the hands of his successors and their companions (may God be pleased with them)—conquests that demonstrate the strength of Islam and its people, and the weakness of falsehood and its partisans.

Al-Afaq (horizons) are the regions of the world, singular ufuq (with fat-hah on both the 'hamza' and 'fa'). It means: We will show them Our signs in the regions generally, from the east of the earth to its west, its north, and its south. This implies that the showing is bound to happen, a truth about which there is no doubt.

"...and in themselves..." specifically in the lands of the Arabs. This is a conjunction of the specific to the general. The shift from the specific to the general contains an obvious benefit regarding the consolidation of that victory and the realization of its indication toward the truth of what is required to be proven. It shows that it is a "sign" with respect to the self, even if it is a "conquest" with respect to the land and the region.

"...until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth..." that is, it becomes manifest to them that it—the Quran—is the Truth, which falsehood cannot approach from before it or from behind it. It is all the truth from God the Exalted, who is witness over every hidden and manifest thing. Therefore, those who carried it were granted victory and were shown to be upon the truth. In the definition ("the truth") there is an obvious grandeur and status.

In what is mentioned, there is an indication that He, the Exalted, continues to bring forth victory after victory and sign after sign until He causes it to prevail over all religions, even if the polytheists dislike it. Look at this comprehensive verse: how it points to the truth of the Quran in a way that includes the truth of its people and their victory over their opponents. How great a consolation this is for what the previous verse indicated regarding their persistence in falsehood to a degree bordering on despair.

It has been said: The pronoun [in "it is the truth"] refers to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or the religion, or Monotheism. Perhaps the first is more appropriate.

"Is it not sufficient concerning your Lord..." This is a new beginning introduced to rebuke them for their denial, confirming the intent. The hamza is for interrogation (denial), and the waw (and)—according to one of the two opinions—is for conjunction with an elided [phrase] that the context necessitates and upon which the hamza has entered. The ba (in bi-rabbika) is redundant for emphasis, and "your Lord" is the agent of kafa (sufficed). The redundancy of ba in the agent is the famous view acceptable to the grammarians. Some have also added it to the agent of the verb of wonder, such as ahsina bi-zayd (how good is Zayd), because ahsina is a past tense verb brought in the form of an imperative, and the ba is redundant, and Zayd is the agent according to a group of grammarians. It is rarely added to other than these two. The saying: "Did not the news reach you, and the news grows with what the sons of Ziyad encountered," is anomalous and poor, according to what al-Shihab said.

His saying: "...that He is, over all things, a Witness" [53] is a substitute for the agent—a substitute of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal). It is also said: It is in the estimation of a preposition, meaning: "Is it not sufficient for them that your Lord is, etc." What the grammarians have said regarding this structure of speech is well-known—that is, they denied the showing of that which indicates the truth of the Quran, and it did not suffice them as proof that He, the Almighty and Majestic, is cognizant of everything and all-knowing. Among these things are their state and your state, and the causes of the wisdom of your victory over them and their abandonment; it is as if, because of its clarity, it was treated as something already known to them.

In al-Kashf: That is, is it not sufficient for them that your Lord, Glorified be He, is cognizant of everything, for whom the unseen of things and their manifest state are equal? The meaning is: Is this showing not sufficient for them as a decisive proof? Since what He promised was unseen to them—how could it be otherwise, when it was revealed while they were in a state of weakness and scarcity, enduring what they endured from the polytheists of Mecca? It is said: Is it not sufficient for them that the Informer from this Truthful Book, who is from His presence, is Witness over every hidden and manifest thing, as proof of the occurrence of the showing and the bringing of that unseen to them? For there is no "unseen" with respect to Him, the Exalted.

In shifting to this expression, there are two benefits: The first is the realization of the fulfillment of that promise, as if it were witnessed by mentioning the decisive proof of its occurrence. The second is the indication that this showing—now, while they are in weakness and scarcity—has already been completed with respect to proving the truth of the Quran; for whoever knows that He, the Exalted, is Witness over all things and knows that the Quran is miraculous and from Him, knows that all that is in it is true and certain; thus, he knows that that victory is inevitable.

In summary: Just as one infers from those signs the truth of the Quran and the truth of its people, at other times one infers from the miraculous nature of the Quran the truth of those signs in their occurrence and the truth of the people of Islam. Thus, both meanings are led to in a comprehensive expression that serves both purposes in a way that could not be more perfect.

It is not hidden that there is a kind of riddle in the verse. It is said: That is, did it not suffice them instead of the promised signs that indicate the truth of the Quran? And did it not suffice them in that regard that He, the Exalted, is a witness over all things, and we have informed them of it from His presence, the Almighty and Majestic? And it is as you see. It is also said: The meaning is, is it not sufficient for you that He, the Exalted, is a witness over all things, confirming it, so He shall confirm your matter by revealing the promised signs, just as He confirmed all other promised things? This was challenged by the fact that it implies something unbecoming the majesty of his station (may God bless him and grant him peace), namely, hesitation regarding the realization of the promised, which does not befit His saying...