Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:32

Extinguishing fire, according to the Qamus, is the removal of its flame which causes the removal of its light, not the removal of the light itself, as has been said. However, since the purpose of extinguishing a fire—unless it is a lamp—is nothing but to remove its light, the term "extinguishing" became an expression for that. It then became widespread until it was used for the absolute removal of light, even if it is not related to fire.

The "light of Allah" refers to His luminous, radiant proof that signifies His Oneness and His, the Exalted’s, transcendence above partners and offspring; or it refers to the Great Qur’an, which proclaims and broadcasts this. It has also been said that it refers to His Prophethood—upon him be blessings and peace—which appeared like a radiant morning after the darkness of disbelief had stretched long. In any case, "light" is an original, explicit metaphor for what has been mentioned, and its attribution to Allah, the Exalted, serves as a signifier. The intended meaning of "extinguishing" is rejection and denial; that is, the People of the Two Books wish to reject what points to the Oneness of Allah and His transcendence above what they have attributed to Him.

"...with their mouths..."—that is, with their false statements that issue from their mouths without having any reality to which they apply, nor a foundation upon which they rest; rather, they are most akin to meaningless talk.

It is said: It is permissible for the speech to contain a representative metaphor, in that their state—in attempting to invalidate his Prophethood, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, through denial—is likened to the state of one who wishes to blow with his mouth upon a great light spread across the horizons. His, the Exalted’s, saying: "...but Allah refuses except to perfect His light," is a tarshih (reinforcement) of the metaphor, for the perfection of light is an increase in its brilliance and the spreading of its rays; thus, it is a corollary (tafri') to the object being likened (al-mushabbah bihi). What follows from His, the Exalted’s, saying: "It is He who..." etc., is tajrid (abstraction) and a corollary to the branch.

In both the object being likened (al-mushabbah) and the object to which it is likened (al-mushabbah bihi), the meaning of excess and negligence has been observed, as invalidation has been likened to extinguishing with the mouth, and the light has been attributed to Allah—the One of Great Majesty. It is the nature of light attributed to Him, the Exalted, to be great; so how could it be extinguished by the blowing of a mouth? Each of the tarshih and tajrid was completed by what befits the relationship between disbelief—which is a covering and removal of manifestation—and extinguishing, and between the religion of truth—which is monotheism—and polytheism, in terms of contrast.

This is not without excellence. The apparent meaning is that the "light" here is the first interpretation, except that the explicit noun has been placed in the position of the pronoun and attributed to His, the Exalted’s, pronoun for greater concern for its status and to signal the cause of the ruling. The exception is mufarragh (hollow/empty), so the verbal noun (itmam) is in the accusative case as a direct object. The justification for the tafrigh according to a group is that yaba (refuses) is in the sense of negation. The intended meaning is either "He does not want," because it occurs in contrast to "they wish," as has been said, or "He is not pleased," as some researchers have settled upon, based on the fact that the intent of "willing the perfection of His light" is a specific will—that is, a will in the sense of pleasure—given the context of "...even if the disbelievers dislike it," not a will that coexists with displeasure, as is the doctrine of the People of Truth, contrary to those who equate the two.

Al-Zajjaj said: The justification for the tafrigh is the generality of the exception-from (mustathna minhu), which is omitted. It is not harmful that this is relative, as most generalities are as such; indeed, it has been said: "There is no general statement but that a part has been excluded from it." That is, He dislikes everything related to His light except for its perfection, and the context is the signifier for the specification.

It is not permissible to interpret the group according to his view, for there is no affirmation but that it could be interpreted as a negation, which would necessitate that tafrigh would apply to everything, and you see how that is. The truth is that there is no obstacle to interpretation if the context demands it. The perfection of the light is through the exalting of the word of monotheism and the strengthening of the religion of Islam.

"...even if the disbelievers dislike it"—the answer to "if" is omitted because what precedes it indicates it; that is, "He will perfect His light, even if the disbelievers dislike it." The sentence is coordinated with a preceding implicit sentence, i.e., "If the disbelievers did not dislike it, and even if they do dislike it," and both are in the position of a state (hal). The intended meaning is that He, the Exalted, will perfect His light, and it must be so.