“When you were on the near bank”—this is a substitute for “the day” (in the preceding verse: “If you have believed in Allah and that which We sent down... on the day of the criterion”), or it is governed by an implied “remember”. Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be an adverbial phrase for “might/capable” (in the verse “Allah is over all things capable”), but there is no substance to this.
Al-‘udwah (the bank), with the three vowel movements (fatḥa, ḍamma, kasra), refers to the side of the valley. Its root comes from al-‘adw, meaning to cross or go beyond. The famous recitation is with ḍamma and kasra, which is the recitation of Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Ya’qub. Al-Hasan, Zayd ibn Ali, and others recited it with fatḥa. All of these are linguistic variations carrying the same meaning, and the denial of some of these by others holds no weight.
Al-dunya (the near one) is the feminine form of al-adna, meaning: when you were stationed on the side of the valley closer to Medina.
“While they”—that is, the polytheists—“were on the far bank”—that is, the side further from Medina; it is the feminine of al-aqsa. Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) recited it as al-quṣya. One of their grammatical rules is that when a fu‘la form derived from a root ending in a waw is a noun, its final letter is changed to a ya’, as in dunya, because it is derived from dana-yadnu (to be near). It is not changed in quṣwa according to the popular view because, in origin, it is an adjective, and it was not changed so as to maintain a distinction between the adjective and the noun. If, however, its prevalence is considered, and it is treated as a solidified noun, it is said quṣya, which is the dialect of Tamim; the first is the dialect of the people of Hijaz. Some morphologists say that the dominant rule is the opposite: if it is an adjective, the final letter is changed (like al-‘ulya), and if it is a noun, it is kept as is (like ḥuzwa). They said: according to this, al-quṣwa is anomalous (shādh), and the regular form (qiyās) is quṣya. By "anomalous," they mean contrary to the qiyās (analogy), not contrary to usage, so it does not contradict eloquence. They mentioned as a justification for not changing it that the reason for not reversing the rule—even though the distinction would still be achieved—is that an adjective is heavier, so it was kept in its original, lighter form because of the burden of transitioning from a ḍamma to a ya’. Whoever reversed it gave the origin to the origin (the noun) and changed the branch (the adjective) to create a distinction.
“And the caravan”—meaning the trade caravan or its people, Abu Sufyan and his companions. It is a collective noun for riders, not a plural, according to the correct view.
“Was lower than you”—meaning in a place lower than your place, that is, the seashore. It is in the accusative case as an adverbial phrase. Originally, it is an adjective for the place, as we indicated, and that is why it takes the accusative case, standing in place of the omitted noun while not losing its adjectival nature—contrary to the opinion of some. It serves the function of a predicate. Al-Farra’ and al-Akhfash allowed it to be in the nominative case due to structural flexibility or assuming the location of the caravan was lower. The clause is coordinated with the object of “when” (i.e., “When you were... and when the caravan was...”). The majority opted for the view that it occupies the position of a state (ḥāl) relative to the hidden pronoun in the preposition and noun phrase mentioned before.
The reason for the elaboration in the verse, despite the purpose being achievable by saying “The day of the criterion was the day of victory and triumph over the enemies, for example,” is to portray what the Almighty planned regarding the affair of the Battle of Badr, to express gratitude, and to indicate that it is one of the clear, brilliant signs of Allah. This is what al-Zamakhshari meant when he said that the benefit of this timing, the mention of the positions of the two parties, and that the caravan was below them, is to report on the state of affairs indicating the strength of the enemy, their might, the perfection of their equipment, the ease of their logistical preparations, and conversely, the weakness of the Muslims and the entanglement of their affairs. It shows that their victory in such a state was only the handiwork of Allah Almighty, and a proof that this was a matter that could only have been made easy by His, the Almighty’s, might, power, and overwhelming ability. This is because the far bank, where the polytheists encamped, contained water and was suitable ground. There was no water at the near bank, and it was soft, marshy ground where feet would sink. The caravan was behind the enemy's back, and given their large numbers, their protection of it doubled their tenacity, sharpened their intentions for fighting to defend it, solidified their resolve not to depart from their positions, not to abandon their stations, and to expend the utmost of their valor and the limits of their intensity.
There is no questioning here as to the benefit of informing [the Prophet and the believers] of what is already known to the addressee—such that one would answer that its benefit is a necessity—as more than one has imagined, for reasons that are not hidden. In this same manner, the Almighty says: “And if you had made an appointment, you would have disagreed regarding the appointment.” That is, if you and they had scheduled a battle, and you knew their state and your own, you would have disagreed regarding the time out of fear of them and despair of overcoming them. Making the first pronoun inclusive of both groups is a form of dominance, and the second is for the Muslims specifically; this is appropriate for the context, as the intention is to show the weakness of the Muslims and the support of Allah Almighty for them despite that. Al-Zamakhshari made the pronouns inclusive of both parties in both instances so that they would follow the same pattern without fragmentation, meaning: if you and the people of Mecca had agreed to meet, you would have disagreed with one another; your paucity and their abundance would have discouraged you from fulfilling the appointment, and they would have been discouraged by the awe of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the believers in their hearts, so the meeting would not have come to pass. I say: its lack of appropriateness is obvious, and the matter of fragmentation is easy.
“But you met without an appointment, so that Allah might accomplish a matter”—which is the victory of the believers and the defeat of their enemies—“that was ordained”—that is, it was destined to be done due to the promise indicated by the Almighty's saying: “And it was incumbent upon Us to support the believers”—or it was decreed in pre-eternity. It is also said that “was” (kāna) here means “became,” indicating a transition; that is, it became an accomplished fact after it had not been.
His saying: “So that he who perished would perish upon evidence, and he who lived would live upon evidence”—is a substitute for “so that Allah might accomplish” by repeating the particle, or it relates to “ordained.” Abu al-Baqa’ also permitted it to relate to “accomplish,” though he preferred the first. The meaning of “evidence” is a clear argument; that is, so that he who dies may die upon an argument he has witnessed, and he who lives may live upon an argument he has seen, leaving no room for excuses. For the Battle of Badr is one of the clear, brilliant, manifest signs.
It is permissible that “life” here refers to faith and “death” to disbelief—as a metaphor or loose trope—and “evidence” refers to the manifestation of the perfection of power that points to the compelling proof. That is, so that the disbelief of him who disbelieves, and the faith of him who believes, may proceed from clear evidence. Qatada and Muhammad ibn Ishaq favored this. It is said: the intention behind “he who perished” and “he who lived” are those who were on the verge of destruction or life, or those whose state in the knowledge and decree of Allah is such. Being on the verge of destruction is evident; as for being on the verge of life, it is said that the meaning is to continue in life after the battle. It is only said so because “he who lives” is the counterpart to “he who perishes.”
It is apparent that “upon” (‘an) is in the sense of “after,” like the Almighty’s saying: “After a little while, they will surely become regretful.” It is said: since it is not conceivable that one who has already perished in the past could perish in the future, “he who perished” is interpreted as being on the verge of it, to shift it to the future tense. Likewise, since it is not conceivable for one who has already been described as having lived in the past to be described with future life, it is interpreted as such for that reason too. However, this necessitates that it be specific to one who was not yet alive at that time; thus, it is interpreted as the continuation of life rather than the possession of its origin. The meaning would then be: so that the life of one who was on the verge of continuing may endure. It is not permissible for the meaning to be “so that the life of one who lived in the past may endure,” because that would apply to one who perished, and the contrast would not be achieved unless it were specified by considering that. Some have labored to interpret the past and future tenses in ways other than what has been mentioned, which is not free from contemplation. Considering the past tense from the perspective of Allah’s knowledge and decree, and the future tense from the perspective of external existence, is something that leaves no room for dispute.
“‘An” does not necessarily have to mean “after”; it is possible to keep it in the meaning of “distancing/avoidance” (mujāwaza), which is the only meaning the Basrans mentioned. Similar to that is the Almighty’s saying: “And we are not those who will abandon our gods upon your word,” based on the idea that the meaning is that we will not abandon them proceeding from your word, as is the opinion of some. It is also possible that it is in the sense of “on”/“upon” (‘alā), as in the Almighty’s saying: “Whoever withholds, withholds only from (upon) himself,” and the saying of Dhu al-Isba‘: “O son of your uncle, do not favor [me] in lineage over me, nor are you my master so that you may coerce me.”
Al-A‘mash recited li-yahlik with a fatḥa on the lam (in the second root letter), and this is reported from ‘Asim. According to what Ibn Jinni said in al-Muḥtasib, it is anomalous and discarded because the past tense is halaka (with fatḥa), and fa‘ala-yaf‘alu does not occur unless there is a throat letter in the middle or final position, so it is from the overlapping languages. The Qamus states that halaka is like ḍaraba, mana‘a, and ‘alima, which is clear in permitting both kasra and fatḥa in the past and present tense. Yes, the famous form in the past is with fatḥa and in the present with kasra.
Ibn Kathir, Nafi‘, Abu Bakr, and Ya‘qub recited ḥayiya with the un-assimilation of the doubled letter. Abu al-Baqa’ said: There are two perspectives on this. One is that it is carried over to the future tense, which is yaḥyā; just as it is not assimilated there, it is not assimilated in the past. The second is that the vowels of the two letters are different; the first is kasra and the second is fatḥa, and the difference in vowels is like a difference in letters. For this reason, they allowed in speech ḍabiba al-balad (the land became infested with lizards) if there were many lizards. This is strengthened by the fact that the second vowel is accidental, as if the second ya’ were silent; if it were silent, assimilation would not be necessary, so it is the same when it is in the position of a silent letter. The ya’ is original and the second is not a substitute for a waw. As for ḥayawān (life), the waw in it is a substitute for a ya’. As for ḥawā’, it is not from the word ḥayyah (snake), but from ḥawā-yaḥwī (to gather).
“And that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing”—that is, of the disbelief of him who disbelieves and his punishment, and the faith of him who believes and his reward. Perhaps combining the two attributes is because disbelief and faith both encompass belief and speech. As for faith encompassing speech, it is evident because the execution of rulings is conditional upon the two testimonies of faith. As for disbelief encompassing speech, it is based on what is customary regarding it as well.
