Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:32

The speaker of this statement was al-Nadr [ibn al-Harith], according to what has been narrated from Mujahid and Sa’id ibn Jubayr. It has come in a narration that when he said what he said, the Prophet (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) said to him: "Woe to you! It is the word of Allah, the Exalted." He then said that [the statement in the verse]. Al-Bukhari and al-Bayhaqi recorded in al-Dala’il from Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with them both) that it was Abu Jahl ibn Hisham. Ibn Jarir recorded from Yazid ibn Ruman and Muhammad ibn Qays that the Quraysh said to one another, "Has Allah, the Exalted, honored Muhammad (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) above us?" [Then they said], "O Allah, if this be the truth..." etc.

This is more eloquent in its denial than the first statement, for they regarded its being the truth as impossible. Thus, they conditioned it upon the request for punishment, which no rational person would seek. If it were possible [in their view], they would have avoided conditioning it upon that. As for what is said—that "if" (in) is used for the absence of certainty, so how is it used in a context of certainty?—al-Qutb answered that it is the absence of certainty regarding the occurrence of the condition; whenever one is certain of the non-occurrence, there is an absence of certainty regarding its occurrence. This is like the saying of the Exalted, "And if you are in doubt." There is a discussion regarding this which the second scholar mentioned.

The lam (the prefix "al-") in al-Haqq (the Truth) is said to be for reference (al-‘ahd). The meaning of the reference here is that it is the truth which the Prophet (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) claimed, which is that it is the word of Allah, the Exalted, revealed to him—upon him be prayer and peace—in the specific manner. And "from You"—if we concede its indication to it, then it is for emphasis. In this case, that which is conditioned is its being the truth in the manner the Prophet (may Allah exalt him and grant him peace) claims, not the truth absolutely, because they allowed for the possibility that it might correspond to reality but not be revealed, [viewing it] as "fables of the ancients."

In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that their saying "it is the truth" is mockery of those who say, by way of specification and identification, "This is the truth." Some have claimed that this statement implies the lam is for the genus, and pointed out that it is better to interpret it according to an external reference, in the sense of: "the known truth revealed from Allah, the Exalted, not the fables of the ancients." Thus, the structure is beneficial in specifying the subject to the predicate in the most emphatic way. Al-Baydawi’s statement was interpreted this way, and the approach of al-Kashshaf was criticized on the grounds that there is no established speaker who said it by way of specification to be mocked. It is not hidden that this [criticism] contains prohibition and forced interpretation.

"And rain down"—this is a metaphor or figurative expression for "send down." Discussion on rain (matar) and the act of sending rain (imtar) has preceded. His saying, the Transcendent, "from the sky," is an adjective for "stones," and its mention is to indicate that what is intended by it is al-Sijjil (hardened clay) and the stones marked for punishment. It is narrated that they were stones of clay baked in the fire of Hell, upon which were written the names of the people. It is permitted that the prepositional phrase be attached to the verb before it.

"The painful punishment" refers to something other than the raining of stones, by virtue of the contrast. It is also valid for it to be an instance of the general being conjoined to the specific. The attachment of "from You" is to an elided [element]; it is said: it is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from what is with Him, or an adjective for it. Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) and al-A’mash read al-Haqqu (the Truth) in the nominative case, as a subject, not as a pronoun of separation (fasl). The statement of al-Tabarsi—that it was not read in that manner—is not [accurate], and I see no difference between the two readings regarding the intended meaning of the definition, contrary to those who claimed otherwise.