Tafsir of Ad-Dukhan 44:6

(A mercy from your Lord) is a justification for yufarriqu (He distinguishes/decrees) or for His saying: (An order from Us).

Rahmah (mercy) is the direct object of mursilin (senders), serving to highlight its grandeur, while the prepositional phrase serves as an adjective for it. The application of "sending" to mercy here is like its application in His saying (Exalted is He): "Whatever mercy Allah opens up for mankind, none can withhold; and whatever He withholds, none can send forth thereafter."

The meaning, according to what is in al-Kashshaf, is that every affair is distinguished during this night because it is Our habit to send down Our mercy, and the distinguishing of every affair—including the distribution of provisions and other matters—is a form of mercy. That is, the primary and essential intent of this is mercy, or that the commands are issued from Us because that is Our habit, and the commands issued from His presence (Exalted is He) are also a form of mercy, for the ultimate goal of burdening the servants [with obligations] is to expose them to benefits. It has been said that this implies that making it a justification for His saying "An order from Us" is only upon the estimation that "order" (amr) is meant as the opposite of "prohibition" (nahy), and this applies to both the [grammatical] status of the verbal noun and the state.

In al-Kashshaf, it is mentioned that his saying "He distinguishes..." or "The commands are issued..." is an exposition of the meaning of the justification regarding the interpretation of yufarriqu. For it is either in the sense of "distinction" in reality—such as the distribution of provisions and others—or in the sense of "commanded." Since the desired state of affairs must inevitably be commanded, the conclusion returns to his saying: "or the commands are issued from Us." This does not [conflict with] the two facets of justification regarding its attachment to yufarriqu or to amr. Its attachment to amr is only valid if it is focused on specification; and in that case, amr is not the opposite of prohibition, because if amr were the opposite, it would be a verbal noun, and its action would only be justified as a confirmatory state, thus returning to the justification of the specific sending down—which is not the intended meaning. The reason the meaning was not mentioned regarding its attachment to amr is that the first meaning suffices as an explanation for it as well. [End quote.]

It is apparent that this is an elucidation of the two facets of justification, and what was mentioned in refuting it is not free from debate, as becomes known through reflection. Regarding the reliance on "habit" in explaining the meaning, it comes from the word kana (we were/used to be), for it is said: "He used to do such-and-such" when it has occurred repeatedly and become a habit, as they have explicitly stated in books of Hadith and others. It is to convey this that they shifted from inna mursilin (we are senders) to inna kunna mursilin (we were/used to be senders).

His saying (Exalted is He): (from your Lord)—the explicit noun was placed in the stead of the pronoun. The original was "from Us," but the word "Lord" (Rabb) was brought, annexed to the pronoun of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as a means of specifying the address to him (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to honor him, and as an indication that His (Exalted is He) being "your Lord" and your being "a mercy to the worlds" necessitates that He sends mercy.

Al-Tibi said: The address is specified to His Messenger (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but the intent is general. The original was "from your [plural] Lord." The word "Lord" was brought to signify that Lordship necessitates mercy toward the subjects, and so that the premise upon which the subsequent justification is built—which contains an implication through exclusivity that their gods do not hear, do not see, and avail nothing—could be established. This was countered by the argument that if generalization were intended, the aforementioned subtlety would be lost, and it would necessitate that the believers enter into His saying (Exalted is He): "If you are those who possess certainty," and what follows it, and that is not the meaning. There is some doubt in the heart regarding this. Some have interpreted the "sent mercy" as our Prophet (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but it is not hidden that the validity of the justification refutes this.

It is permitted that His saying (Exalted is He): (We were senders) is a substitute for His saying (Exalted is He): "We were warners," which serves as the justification for sending down the Book, either as a substitute of the whole or a substitute of inclusion, considering the sending and the warning. In this case, (a mercy) would be an object for the sake of which [the action was done] (maf’ul lahu). That is, We sent down the Quran because it is Our habit to send messengers and books to the servants for the sake of mercy upon them. Choosing for rahmah to be an object for the sake of which [the action was done] is so that the substitute and the original for which it is substituted might correspond, since the meaning of the original is "the doer who attains warning," and it is matched by "the doer who attains sending." It was not permitted for it to be otherwise by way of justification, but it was made mandatory to be a direct object so that it would be valid; for if it were said: "In it is the distinguishing of every wise affair because We are the doers of sending for the sake of mercy," it would not convey that the distinguishing is mercy, nor that He (Exalted is He) is a sender, so the justification would not be sound.

It is said that the accusative case of rahmah is supported by the recitation of al-Hasan and Zayd ibn ‘Ali with its nominative case, because the speech upon that is a new sentence—that is, "It [the sending] is a mercy"—as a justification for the sending, so it aligns with the statement that in the accusative reading, it is an object for the sake of which [the action was done], and so that their recitation corresponds in that the meaning of (We were senders) is "We were the doers of sending." Some of the great investigators said: The statement that it is a justification is clearer than the statement that it is a substitute, so that the speech is in a sequence of justification following justification, and because of what was mentioned regarding the condition necessitating substitutes, and because of the occurrence of the separation, and he pointed—according to what is said—to what was mentioned in the condition necessitating substitutes, that the substituted [word] is not the primary intent and that it is in a state of exclusion here, which is not the case. This was countered by saying that this is the majority case, not a universal rule. His saying "due to the occurrence of the separation"—meaning between the substitute and the original—implies that the separator is foreign and therefore no harm comes from it. So reflect upon this.

It is permitted that rahmah is an infinitive of "Our mercy" [implied], or that it is a state (hal) from the pronoun of (senders), or that it is a substitute for (an order). So do not be heedless.

(Indeed, He is the Hearing) to every audible thing, hearing the statements of the servants, (the Knowing) to every known thing, knowing their states. The use of the pronoun [He] while both [the subject and the predicate] are definite is for the sake of exclusivity. The sentence is a verification of His Lordship (Glory be to Him) and that it is not valid except for the One who possesses these attributes. In the specification of (the Hearing, the Knowing), according to what al-Tibi said, is an inclusion of a threat to the disbelievers and a promise to the believers who received the mercy with various types of gratitude.