Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:19-20

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:19-20)

Or like a rainstorm from the sky...

This is the second parable concerning the hypocrites and the ways in which they resemble the situation described.

1. Bewilderment in Darkness: When the clouds bring darkness, thunder, and lightning, combined with the darkness of night and the darkness of the rainstorm, they put their fingers in their ears against the thunderbolts for fear of death, as the lightning almost snatches away their sight. When the lightning illuminates for them, they walk in the light; but when it ceases, they remain in great darkness, standing still, bewildered. This is because whoever is struck by lightning in these three darknesses (clouds, night, rain) and then the light leaves him, his confusion intensifies, and the darkness seems greater to his eyes, giving him a false sense of distinction from those who remained in darkness. The hypocrites are likened to these people in their confusion and ignorance of religion, as they see no path and are not guided.
2. Nullified Benefit: Although rain is beneficial, when it appears in this harmful form with detrimental accompanying conditions, its benefit is nullified. Similarly, the outward display of faith is beneficial for the hypocrite if his inner state matched it, but when sincerity is absent and hypocrisy is present, it becomes a harm to his religion.
3. False Sense of Security: Those afflicted by these phenomena (thunder/lightning) who try to save themselves by putting their fingers in their ears believe this will save them from what God intends for them (destruction or death). God likens the hypocrites' belief that their outward display of faith benefits them—when in reality it does not—to this situation.
4. Evasion of Duty: The habit of the hypocrites was to lag behind in Jihad, fleeing from death and killing. God likens their state to that of one who, when these phenomena occur, tries to ward them off by putting his fingers in his ears.
5. Inevitable Doom: Even if those who put their fingers in their ears escape death at that moment, death and destruction await them afterward; they have no escape from it. Likewise, what the hypocrites are engaged in will not save them from the punishment of the Fire.
6. Ultimate Confusion and Fear: A person in this situation reaches the limit of bewilderment due to the convergence of all types of darkness and the presence of all types of fear. Similarly, the hypocrites reach the limit of confusion regarding religion and the limit of fear in this world, as the hypocrite constantly imagines that if his inner state were discovered, he would be killed, so fear never leaves his heart while he maintains his hypocrisy.
7. Interpretation of Elements: The Saib (heavy rain) refers to faith and the Qur'an. The darkness, thunder, and lightning refer to the difficult matters for the hypocrite: burdensome obligations like prayer and fasting, abandoning leadership positions, Jihad, leaving old religions, and submitting to the Prophet (PBUH), despite their extreme aversion to submission. Just as a person takes extreme precautions against the beneficial Saib because of the accompanying dangers, the hypocrites guard themselves against faith and the Qur'an because of these accompanying matters.
   • "Whenever it flashed for them, they walked therein": This means whenever they gained some worldly benefit—such as the safety of their wealth and lives, or acquiring spoils of war—they desired the religion.
   • "But when darkness fell upon them, they stood still": This means whenever they did not find such benefits, they disliked the faith and did not desire it.

These points clearly illustrate the analogy.

Q1: Which of the two parables is more eloquent? A: The second one (the rainstorm), as it indicates a greater degree of confusion and severe hardship. People naturally progress from easier to more severe situations, similar to this progression.

Q2: Why is the second parable connected to the first using the particle aw (or)? A: Several reasons:

1. Aw fundamentally implies equality between two or more things in doubt, but it has been extended to imply equality even when doubt is absent. For example, saying, "Sit with Al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin" means they are equal in worthiness for you to sit with. Similarly, "Or like a rainstorm..." means the state of the hypocrites resembles the state of the people in the first story or the state of the people in the second story; either analogy is correct, or both together.
2. God mentioned both because the hypocrites are of two types: some resemble the people of the Fire (first parable), and some resemble the people of the rainstorm (second parable). This is similar to His saying: "They say, 'Be Jews or Christians...'" (2:135).
3. Aw can mean "but" (or bal), as in: "And We sent him to one hundred thousand, or they exceed that number" (37:147).
4. Aw can mean "and" (waw), as if saying "and like a rainstorm from the sky."

These interpretations are consistent with His saying: "Then your hearts became hard after that, like stones or even harder" (2:74).

Q3: What is being likened to the rainstorm, darkness, thunder, lightning, and thunderbolts? A: Scholars of rhetoric have two views:

1. Dispersed Analogy (Tashbīh Mufrraq): The analogy is composed of elements, and the subject being likened is also composed of elements, where each element of the subject resembles each element of the analogy. Here, the religion of Islam is likened to the rainstorm (as it brings life to hearts like rain brings life to the earth). The doubts of the disbelievers are likened to the darkness, the promise and threat are likened to thunder and lightning, and the tribulations inflicted upon the disbelievers by the Muslims are likened to the thunderbolts. The meaning is: "Or like people who experienced a rainstorm with these characteristics."
2. Composite Analogy (Tashbīh Murakkab): One entire clause is likened to another clause in some respect, even if the individual components are not similar. Here, the confusion of the hypocrites in this world and in religion is likened to the confusion of someone whose fire has been extinguished after being lit, or the confusion of someone caught by the sky on a dark night with thunder and lightning.

If one asks if the implied possessive structure ("Or like the people of a rainstorm") applies to the composite analogy, the answer is that it is necessary only because of the pronoun reference in "they put their fingers in their ears," which requires an antecedent.

Q4: What is Saib (صيب)? A: It is rain that descends (yasūb), from the root sāba yasūbu (to descend). It is also said to come from sāba yasūbu (to intend). Saib is only used for abundant, heavy rain. The Prophet (PBUH) used to say: "O Allah, make it a beneficial Saib (abundant rain)." The cloud itself is sometimes called Saib. The term is indefinite because a severe, terrifying type of rain is intended, just as the Fire was indefinite in the first parable. It is also read as Sā'ib (صائب), but Saib is more eloquent. As-Samā' (the sky) refers to the encompassing cloud cover.

*Q5: What is the benefit of saying "from the sky" (min as-samā’) when rain only comes from the sky?* A: Two reasons:

1. If it were said, "Or like a rainstorm with darkness," it might imply the rain was falling from only one side of the sky. Saying "from the sky" indicates it is general, encompassing, and covers the horizons, reinforcing the intensity implied by the term Saib itself.
2. Some hold that rain results from moist vapors rising from the earth, condensing in the cold air, and then falling. God refutes this notion here by stating the Saib descends from the sky, as in: "And We send down from the sky water that is purifying" (25:48).

Q6: What are Ra'd (thunder) and Barq (lightning)? A: Ra'd is the sound heard from the clouds, as if the cloud masses are shaking, breaking apart, and trembling when caught by the wind—a sound resulting from that trembling. Barq is the flash seen from the clouds, from the root bariqa (to shine).

Q7: If Saib means both rain and cloud, what causes the darkness? A: The darkness of the cloud is its blackness and its encompassing nature, combined with the darkness of the night. The darkness of the rain is its density and continuous flow of drops, along with the obscuring cloud cover and the darkness of the night.

Q8: How can rain be the location for thunder and lightning when their location is the cloud? A: Because the connection between the cloud and the rain is so strong, it is permissible to use one term to refer to the ruling of the other.

Q9: Why were plural forms used for darknesses (ẓulumāt) but singular for thunder (ra'd) and lightning (barq)? A: Because various types of darkness converged simultaneously, necessitating the plural form. Thunder, however, is one type of sound, and lightning is one type of flash; different types of thunder and lightning cannot coexist in a single cloud, so the plural was not used.

Q10: Why are these terms indefinite (e.g., ẓulumāt, ra'd, barq)? A: Because various kinds of them are intended, as if saying: "There were deep darknesses, a shattering thunder, and a snatching lightning."

Q11: To whom does the pronoun in yaj'alūna (they put) refer? A: To the people of the rainstorm, even though they are omitted in wording, they remain in meaning. The phrase "they put their fingers in their ears" is a new, explanatory sentence (musta'naf). After mentioning the severity and terror of thunder and lightning, it is as if someone asked, "What is their state during such thunder?" The answer is: "They put their fingers in their ears." Then, regarding lightning: "The lightning almost snatches away their sight."

*Q12: Why are the tips of the fingers (aṣābi') mentioned, rather than the very tips (anāmil)?* A: Although the word refers to the finger, the intent is only a part of it, similar to when God says, "So cut off their hands" (5:38), meaning a part of the hand.

Q13: What is Ṣā'iqah (thunderbolt)? A: It is a violent crash of thunder from which a spark of fire descends. It is a subtle yet powerful fire that destroys whatever it passes over, though it is quick to extinguish despite its strength.

Q14: What does God's encompassing of the disbelievers mean? A: It is a metaphor meaning they cannot escape Him, just as the encompassed cannot escape the one encompassing them in reality. There are three interpretations:

1. He knows them completely: "And that Allah encompasses all things in knowledge" (65:12).
2. His power prevails over them: "And Allah is encompassing them from behind" (85:20).
3. He destroys them, derived from: "unless you are encompassed" (12:66).

Q15: What is Khaṭf (snatching)? A: It means taking something swiftly. There are various readings for the verb form, but the most common and eloquent is the active form (yakhṭifu).

Regarding: "Whenever it flashed for them, they walked therein, but when darkness fell upon them, they stood still." (2:20)

This is a third explanatory statement, answering how they behave when lightning appears and when it disappears. The purpose is to liken the severity of their situation to the severity experienced by the people of the rainstorm, showing their extreme confusion and ignorance regarding what they should do. When they encounter a brief flash of light amidst the fear of their sight being snatched, they seize that opportunity and take a few steps. When the light fades and weakens, they stop, constrained from movement. If God had willed, He would have increased the crash of thunder to deafen them, and the brightness of the lightning to blind them.

• "Whenever it flashed for them" (aḍā’a): It can be transitive, meaning: whenever a path became illuminated for them, they walked in it (the object is omitted). Or it can be intransitive, meaning: whenever light shone for them, they walked in the place of that light. This is supported by the reading "whenever it shone" (ḍā’a).
  • If one asks why kullamā (whenever) is used with illumination but idhā (when) with darkness, it is because they are eager for any possibility of movement, so they seize every opportunity (kullamā) for movement. Stopping (idhā) is not something they seek out. The most apparent meaning for "darkness fell" (aẓlama) is intransitive.
  • "They stood still" (qāmū): They stopped and remained fixed in their place (e.g., qāmat as-sūq - the market stood still).
  • The object of Shā’a (willed) is omitted because the response implies it: "If God had willed, He would have taken away their hearing and sight, and He would have taken them away."

A Theological Discussion on Law (If): There is a debate on whether the particle law (if) implies the negation of one thing due to the negation of another. Some deny this, arguing it only implies connection, citing two proofs:

1. The Verse: "And if Allah had known any good in them, He would have made them hear; and if He had made them hear, they would have turned away while they were turning aside" (8:23). If law implied negation of the consequence from the negation of the condition, this would lead to contradiction: the first part implies God did not know good in them and did not make them hear. The second part implies He did not make them hear, and they did not turn away. Since not turning away is good, it implies God did know good in them—a contradiction. Thus, law only implies connection.
2. The Hadith: "What an excellent man is Suhayb, if he had not feared Allah, he would not have disobeyed Him." If law implied negation of the consequence from the negation of the condition, it would imply he did fear Allah and did disobey Him, which is contradictory. Therefore, law only implies connection.

Issue 1: Does this verse prove that the non-existent (ma'dūm) is a thing? A: Some argue: God's power is affirmed over something. If that something were existent, power over it would be impossible (as existence cannot be created again). Therefore, what God has power over must be non-existent, meaning the non-existent is a thing. Rebuttal: If this were true, it would imply that whatever God does not have power over is not a thing. Since God does not have power over the existent (as it already exists), the existent would have to be considered not a thing, which is false.

Issue 2: Jahm used this verse to argue that God is not a thing. A: Jahm argued that since the verse states God is competent over every thing, and God Himself is not subject to His own power (as it is impossible to create Himself), He must not be a "thing." He also cited: "There is nothing like unto Him" (42:11). If God were a thing, He would be like Himself, contradicting the verse. Therefore, He must not be a thing. Clarification: This dispute is largely semantic, as there is no intermediate state between existent and non-existent. Our Companions' Proofs:

1. His saying: "Say, 'What is greatest in testimony?' Say, 'Allah'" (6:19).
2. His saying: "Everything will perish except His Face" (28:88). The exception must be included in the category from which it is excepted, meaning everything is a thing, except for the Face.

Issue 3: Proof that the servant's action (maqdūr al-'abd) is also God's power (maqdūr Allah). A: The servant's action is a thing, and the verse states God is competent over every thing; therefore, the servant's action must be subject to God's power, contrary to the views of Abu Ali and Abu Hashim.

Issue 4: Proof that the created thing (muḥdath) is subject to God's power at the moment of its creation, contrary to the Mu'tazila. A: The Mu'tazila claim that ability (istiṭā'ah) only exists before the act. Our proof is: The created thing, at the moment of its existence, is a thing, and God is competent over every thing. This implies God's power over it. If we apply this principle to the state of its continued existence (baqā’), it means God is capable of annihilating it. However, at the moment of creation (ḥudūth), it is impossible for God to be capable of annihilating it (as it would mean becoming non-existent at the very first moment of its existence). Therefore, the only remaining possibility is that God is capable of creating it.

Issue 5: The permissibility of specializing a general term (takhṣīṣ al-'āmm). A: Specialization is permissible in principle, and even by rational proof. The verse "Allah is competent over all things" implies He is competent over Himself. Reason dictates that this must be specialized (as He cannot create Himself). If one argues that applying the word "all" to everything and then restricting it constitutes a lie, thereby invalidating the Qur'an, we reply: The word "all" is used metaphorically in language to mean "most" or "the majority." If this metaphorical use is common in the language, using the word in that sense is not considered a lie.

Establishing Proofs for Monotheism, Prophethood, and the Hereafter

O mankind, worship your Lord, He who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous. He who made for you the earth a resting place and the heaven a canopy and sent down from the sky water and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not set up rivals to Allah while you know. (2:21-22)