Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:25

Al-Baqarah: (25) "And give glad tidings to those who believe..."

It is the custom of the Almighty in His Book to mention encouragement alongside intimidation, and to follow glad tidings with warnings. This is intended to stimulate the acquisition of that which brings one closer [to Him] and to discourage the commission of that which destroys. Thus, having mentioned the disbelievers and their deeds, and having threatened them with punishment, He followed it with glad tidings for His servants who combined belief with righteous deeds—performing acts of obedience and abandoning sins—and who protected these deeds from being nullified by disbelief and major sins through [the promise of] reward.

If you ask: Who is the one addressed by His saying, "And give glad tidings"? I say: It is permissible that it be the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or it may be everyone, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Give glad tidings to those who walk to the mosques in the darkness with perfect light on the Day of Resurrection." He did not command one specific person to do this; rather, everyone is commanded to do so. This interpretation is better and more eloquent, as it implies that the matter, due to its greatness and magnificence, is worthy of being proclaimed by anyone capable of delivering such glad tidings.

If you ask: To what is this command conjoined, given that no preceding command or prohibition exists to which it could be conjoined? I say: The focus of the conjunction is not the command itself, such that one would seek a similar command or prohibition to attach it to. Rather, the focus is the entire clause describing the reward of the believers; it is conjoined to the clause describing the punishment of the disbelievers. It is like saying: "Zayd is punished with shackles and confinement, and give glad tidings to Amr of pardon and release." You may also say it is conjoined to His saying, "So fear [the Fire]," as if saying: "O tribe of Tamim, beware the punishment of what you have committed, and give glad tidings, O so-and-so, to the tribe of Asad of my kindness toward them."

In the recitation of Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), it is "wa-bushshir" (and be given glad tidings) in the passive voice, conjoined to "u‘iddat" (prepared).

Bashara (glad tidings) is informing someone of something that causes the recipient to show joy. Hence, scholars say: If a man says to his slaves, "Whoever brings me glad tidings of so-and-so’s arrival is free," and they bring him the news one by one, the first one is freed because he is the one who manifested joy at the news, unlike the others. If he had said "inform me" instead of "bring me glad tidings," they would all be freed, as they all informed him. From this comes bashara (skin), the outer layer of the body, and tabashir (the first signs) of dawn, which is what appears of its initial light.

As for "Give them glad tidings of a painful punishment" (Al-Imran: 21), it is an inversion of speech intended for mockery, which increases the rage, pain, and grief of the one being mocked, just as a man says to his enemy: "Receive glad tidings of the slaughter of your offspring and the looting of your wealth."

Salihah (righteous) is like hasanah (good) in its usage as a noun. Salihat (righteous deeds) refers to all actions that are upright according to reason, the Book, and the Sunnah; the definite article al- denotes the genus.

If you ask: What is the difference between the generic al- when entering a singular noun versus a plural? I say: When it enters a singular, it is fit to mean the entire genus until it is encompassed, or to mean some of it, down to a single unit. When it enters a plural, it is fit to mean the entire genus or some of it, but not down to a single unit, because its weight in encompassing the plurality of the genus is like the singular in encompassing the generic nature—the plurality here refers to the types of the genus, not its individual units.

If you ask: What is meant by this plural with the al-? I say: The totality of righteous, upright deeds in religion, according to the state of the believer in the requirements of obligation.

Jannah (Garden) is an orchard of palms and trees, dense and shaded by the intertwining of its branches. The root revolves around the meaning of "covering." Because of their density and shade, they are called jannah—the singular form of the verbal noun janna (to cover)—as if they are a single covering due to their extreme density. The Abode of Reward is called Jannah because of the gardens within it.

If you ask: Is the Garden created or not? I say: There is disagreement on this. Those who say it is created argue from the residence of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and from its appearance in the Quran in the manner of dominant nouns that become proper names, like "the Prophet," "the Messenger," and "the Book."

If you ask: What is the meaning of the pluralization of "Gardens" and their indefiniteness? I say: Jannah is a name for the entire Abode of Reward, which contains many gardens arranged in ranks according to the merits of the workers; for every class of them are gardens from those gardens.

If you ask: Is it not a condition for the entitlement of reward through faith and righteous deeds that the accountable person does not nullify them through disbelief or major sins, and does not regret the acts of obedience he performed? Why was this not stipulated? I say: Because reward was made entitled by faith and righteous deeds, and the glad tidings are specific to those who possess them. It is ingrained in the intellects that a benefactor only deserves reward and praise if he does not follow his act with something that corrupts it and removes its goodness, and that an act of kindness does not remain as such if a corruptor exists. Know that by His saying to His Prophet (peace be upon him)—who is the most noble and dearest of people to Him—"If you associate others with Allah, your deeds will surely be nullified" (Az-Zumar: 65), and His saying to the believers, "Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet... lest your deeds be nullified" (Al-Hujurat: 2), the condition of preserving them from nullification and regret is as if it were included in the mention.

If you ask: What is the form of the rivers flowing "beneath them"? I say: Just as you see trees growing on the banks of flowing rivers. It is narrated from Masruq that the rivers of Paradise flow without a trench. The most pleasant and beautiful gardens are those whose trees are shaded and rivers flow through them. If it were not that flowing water is the greatest blessing and pleasure, and that gardens and meadows—even if they are the most beautiful things—do not delight the eyes, gladden the souls, or bring vitality and energy unless water flows through them (otherwise, the greatest comfort would be missing, the most abundant joy lost, and they would be like statues without souls and images without life), Allah would not have mentioned the Gardens followed by the mention of rivers flowing beneath them, presented together as two things that cannot be separated, and He would not have placed it before all their other descriptions.

Nahr (river) is a wide channel, larger than a stream and smaller than a sea. The high-level language is nahr with a fatha on the ha. The root revolves around breadth. Attributing the "flowing" to the rivers is a metaphorical attribution, like saying "the road treads them."

If you ask: Why are the Gardens indefinite and the rivers definite? I say: As for the indefiniteness of the Gardens, it has been mentioned. As for the definiteness of the rivers, it is to denote the genus, as when you say to someone, "So-and-so has an orchard in which there is the flowing water, the figs, the grapes, and various fruits," pointing to the genera known to the listener. Or, it means "their rivers," where the al- replaces the possessive genitive. Or, the al- points to the rivers mentioned in His saying: "In which are rivers of water unstagnant, and rivers of milk the taste of which does not change..." (Muhammad: 15).

His saying, "Whenever they are provided..." is either a second adjective for "Gardens," a predicate for a deleted subject, or an independent sentence. When it was said they have Gardens, the listener’s mind might wonder if the fruits of those Gardens are like the fruits of worldly gardens or other types that do not resemble them. So it was said that their fruits are like the fruits of worldly gardens—meaning their types are the same, even if they differ to an extent known only to Allah.

If you ask: What is the position of "from fruit" (min thamara)? I say: It is like saying, "Whenever you eat from your orchard some pomegranate, I will praise you." The position of "from fruit" is like saying "from the pomegranate." It is as if it were said: "Whenever they are provided from the Gardens—from any fruit whatsoever, whether apples, pomegranates, grapes, or otherwise—they say this." Both instances of min (from) are for the beginning of the limit (ibtida' al-ghayah), for the provision began from the Gardens, and the provision from the Gardens began from its fruit.

Another perspective is that "from fruit" is an explanation, in the manner of saying "I saw in you a lion," meaning "you are a lion." On this basis, it is correct for "fruit" to mean the type of fruit and "Gardens" to mean the singular.

If you ask: How is it said, "This is what we were provided with before," and how can the essence of what is present before them in Paradise be the essence of what they were provided with in the world? I say: It means this is like what we were provided with before. It is a similitude, as evidenced by His saying, "And they are brought [it] in likeness." This is like saying "Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifa," meaning that due to the strength of the resemblance, it is as if his essence is his essence.

If you ask: To what does the pronoun in "And they are brought [it]" refer? I say: To the provision in the world and the Hereafter together, because His saying "This is what we were provided with before" encompasses the mention of what they were provided with in both abodes.

If you ask: For what purpose do the fruits of the world and the fruits of Paradise resemble each other, and why are the fruits of Paradise not entirely different types? I say: Because a human is more familiar with the accustomed and more inclined toward the known. If he sees what he is not familiar with, his nature recoils and his soul finds it repulsive. Furthermore, when he attains something of the same type as what he had a previous acquaintance and familiarity with, and he sees in it a manifest excellence, a clear virtue, and a profound difference between it and what he knew, his joy and delight are excessive, his astonishment and wonder are prolonged, and the essence of the blessing becomes clear to him. If it were a type he did not know, even if it were superior, he might think that such a type is only like that, and the position of the blessing would not be truly realized.

When they see a pomegranate from the world—its size, where the largest does not exceed the size of a small melon—and then they see a pomegranate of Paradise that satisfies a whole household; or a nabq (lote fruit) of the world the size of a spindle whorl, and then they see the nabq of Paradise like the large water-jars of Hajar; or they see the shade of a worldly tree and its extent, and then they see a tree in Paradise in whose shade a rider travels for a hundred years without crossing it—this is clearer in excellence, more manifest in virtue, and more conducive to joy and astonishment than if they were surprised by that pomegranate and that nabq without a prior acquaintance with their types.

Their repetition of this statement and their utterance of it at every fruit they are provided with is evidence of the extremity of the matter and the continuity of the state in the manifestation of excellence and the perfection of virtue, and that this great disparity is what prompts their astonishment and calls for their exultation at every moment.

It is permissible for the pronoun in "they are brought [it]" to refer to the provision, as "this" points to it. The meaning would be that what they are provided with from the fruits of Paradise comes to them homogeneous in itself, as is narrated from al-Hasan: one of them is brought a dish and eats from it, then he is brought another, and he says, "This is what we were brought before." The angel says, "Eat, for the color is the same, but the taste is different."

The first interpretation is the correct one.

The meaning of "purified spouses" is that they are purified from what is specific to women, such as menstruation and post-natal bleeding, and from what is not specific to them, such as filth and impurities. It is also permissible, due to its absolute usage, to include purification from the filth of character and the nature of morals that worldly women possess—from what they acquire themselves, what they inherit from bad lineages, base positions, corrupt upbringings, and all their faults, ugliness, and deceit.

If you ask: Why did the adjective not come in the plural form as the noun described? I say: They are two eloquent linguistic forms. It is said "the women did (feminine plural)" and they are "doers (feminine plural)," and "the women did (feminine singular)" and she is "a doer (feminine singular)."

The meaning is "a group of purified spouses."

Khuld (eternity) is the permanent stability and necessary remaining that does not cease. Allah the Almighty says: "And We did not grant to any human before you eternity..." (Al-Anbiya: 34).