Tafsīr of Sūrat al-Baqarah, Verse 2
﴿ذَ ٰلِكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبُ لَا رَیۡبَۛ فِیهِۛ هُدࣰى لِّلۡمُتَّقِینَ﴾ [البقرة ٢]
dhālika l-kitābu lā rayba fīhi hudan lil-muttaqīn
“That is the Book, in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-fearing.”
﴿ذَلِكَ الكِتابُ﴾ — “That is the Book”
This is the opening of a fresh statement, having no syntactic connection in iʿrāb with the letters الم, as you have learned from what has preceded, on all the possible interpretations — as is the most apparent view.
The author of al-Kashshāf permitted — on the possibility that the letters الم are set forth in the manner of spelling out (tahajjī), so as to display the incapacity of the polytheists to produce the like of some portion of the Qur’an — that the demonstrative noun should point to الم in its character as letters intended for incapacitation. That is: that meaning which results from the spelling out, i.e., those letters, considered as being of the same kind as your own letters, are “the Book” — meaning, from them come its compositions; so what made you unable to oppose it? On this view الم would be an independent sentence set forth for oblique allusion (taʿrīḍ), the demonstrative noun being the subject (mubtadaʾ) and “al-kitāb” the predicate (khabar).
On the more apparent view, the demonstrative points to the Qur’an that was known to them at that time. The demonstrative noun is the subject, “al-kitāb” is an appositive substitute (badal), and its predicate is what follows. So the reference is to the Book actually sent down, namely the sūrahs preceding Sūrat al-Baqarah — because everything of the Qur’an that had been revealed is what is designated as “the Qur’an,” and whatever comes after is annexed to it. Thus “al-kitāb” on this interpretation is applied literally to what has in fact been written, and His words “al-kitāb” on this interpretation would be a predicate of the demonstrative noun.
It is also possible that the reference is to the whole of the Qur’an — what has been revealed of it and what will yet be revealed — because its revelation is awaited, so it is present in the minds and is therefore likened to what is present to the eye. On this view the definite article in it is for presumed familiarity (al-ʿahd at-taqdīrī) and the demonstrative reference is for presumed presence; so His words “al-kitāb” would then be an appositive substitute or an explication of dhālika, and the predicate is “lā rayba fīhi.”
On the choice of the far demonstrative
In such a case it is permissible to use both the demonstrative coined for the near and the one coined for the far.
Ar-Raḍī said: The demonstrative noun was coined for presence and nearness, because it is used for what is pointed to by sense-perception. Then it becomes valid to point by it to what is absent, so the wording of distance may validly be used, since what is spoken of is absent; and it is rare to mention it with the wording of the present and near. So you say: “A man came to me, and I said to that man,” and “I said to this man.” Likewise, with speech heard a short while ago, it is permissible for you to point to it with the wording of absence and distance, as you say: “By God — and that is a mighty oath” — because the hearing of the utterance has passed, so it has become like something absent. Yet the more frequent usage in this case is to point with the wording of presence, so you say: “and this is a mighty oath.” (End of his words.)
That is: the more common practice in the like of it is to bring the demonstrative of distance, while mention with the wording of the present is rare — and the reverse of that holds when pointing to speech (al-qawl).
Ibn Mālik, in at-Tashīl, made the two equal — the bringing of the near and of the far when pointing to speech already mentioned — for he said: “And the two may alternate,” i.e., the noun of nearness and the noun of distance, “being used to point to what they follow,” i.e., of speech. His commentator gave as an example God’s saying, after the story of ʿĪsā: ﴿That is what We recite to you of the signs and the wise remembrance﴾ [Āl ʿImrān: 58], and then His saying ﴿Indeed, this is surely the true narration﴾ [Āl ʿImrān: 62] — so He pointed once with the far and once with the near, the referent being one and the same. Ibn Mālik’s statement accords better with actual usage, since what has been transmitted of the two usages can scarcely be counted; so ar-Raḍī’s claim that mention with the wording of the present is rare is an overreaching claim.
If that is so, then the ruling for pointing to something absent that is not speech is like that for pointing to speech, in the permissibility of both ways, since both are likewise abundant. Thus in the Qur’an: ﴿And he found therein two men fighting — this one of his party and this one of his enemy﴾ [al-Qaṣaṣ: 15].
And if the two ways are equal, then that usage becomes an arena for the eloquent to compete in and to observe the requirements of the situation. We have indeed seen them selecting, in the places where a demonstrative is used, whatever is most fitting to that context — which has shown us that they acquaint their addressees with purposes that could not otherwise be recognized, except that the usage is equal in the original language, so that the preference for one of the two usages rests not upon a [lexical] meaning but upon something such as the added force of alerting in the demonstrative of distance, as here. So too Khufāf ibn Nadbah said:
I say to him, while the spear bends his back: “Look well at Khufāf — indeed, I am that one!”
And the near may be brought in order to display little concern, as in the words of Qays ibn al-Khaṭīm in al-Ḥamāsah:
Whenever this death comes, it will not find any need of my soul but that I have already discharged its due.
So without doubt, the demonstrative in the verse uses the noun of distance in order to display the loftiness of the standing of this Qur’an, by making it far in rank.
Why elevation implies honour
It has become widespread in eloquent speech to represent a noble matter by something raised high and hard to reach, because a precious thing is dear to its owners, and so it is their custom to place it in elevated positions to guard it from wearing away, from the handling of many hands, and from being made common.
“Al-kitāb” here, since it was mentioned in the context of the challenge to oppose it — as indicated by the spelled-out letters in الم — was like a thing hard to attain in relation to their laying hold of it by way of opposition; or else because, on account of the truthfulness of its meanings and the benefit of its guidance, it is far from anyone who handles it with foul speech, as in their saying “he fabricated it,” and their saying ﴿legends of the ancients﴾ [al-Anʿām: 25].
Nor is there any objection to this from His saying ﴿And this is a Book We have sent down﴾ [al-Anʿām: 92], for that is a pointing to a Book present before its own people, so as to encourage them to devote themselves to it and to take admonition from its commands and prohibitions.
Perhaps the author of al-Kashshāf built upon the like of what ar-Raḍī built upon, and so did not reckon “dhālika l-kitāb” as an alerting to magnification or to consideration. How excellent, then, is the author of al-Miftāḥ, for he did not overlook that; he said, in the requisites of defining the musnad ilayh by demonstration: “…or that by its distance one intends to magnify it, as you say in a context of magnification: that virtuous man, those great masters — and as in His saying, Mighty and Exalted: ﴿Alif Lām Mīm﴾ [al-Baqarah: 1] ﴿That is the Book﴾ — going to its distance in degree.”
The syntax and derivation of “al-kitāb”
His words “al-kitāb” may be an appositive substitute for the demonstrative noun, intended to clarify what is pointed to, since it is not being seen; so the definite article in it is then for specific familiarity (ʿahd), and the predicate is the sentence “lā rayba fīhi.”
It may also be that “al-kitāb” is the predicate of the demonstrative noun and the definite article is that of genus, so that the sentence conveys the restriction of the reality of “book” to the Qur’an by reason of both parts being definite. It is therefore a restriction by way of claim (qaṣr iddiʿāʾī), and its meaning is: that is the Book which gathers the attributes of perfection within the genus of books — on the basis that other books, when compared with it, are as though the very description “book” were absent from them, since they do not comprise the full perfections of books. This definite article is sometimes expressed by the grammarians, in enumerating the meanings of the lām of definition, as signifying perfection.
So no objection arises as to how “the Book” could be confined to being الم, or to the sūrah, or the like — for the context is not a context of restriction; it is only a context of definition, nothing more. The benefit of the definition and of the demonstration is therefore evident, and none of that is idle in any way, even though some fancies may have entertained a possibility to the contrary.
“Al-kitāb” is of the pattern fiʿāl with the sense of maktūb (that which is written). It is either the verbal noun of kātaba, formed to convey intensiveness in writing — for the verbal noun may come with the sense of the passive participle, as with al-khalq — or it is fiʿāl with the sense of mafʿūl, like libās meaning malbūs, and ʿimād meaning maʿmūd bihi.
Its derivation is from kataba, meaning to gather and join together, because a book’s pages and letters are gathered together. The Prophet ﷺ commanded that everything revealed be written down, and appointed scribes for the revelation; and the naming of the Qur’an as “kitāb” is an indication of the obligation of writing it down for its preservation.
The writing of the Qur’an is a communal obligation (farḍ kifāyah) upon the Muslims.
﴿لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ﴾ — “in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-fearing”
It is a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) from “al-kitāb,” or a first or second predicate, according to what has just been mentioned.
The root sense of rayb
Ar-rayb is doubt. The original sense of rayb is disquiet and agitation of the soul; and raybu z-zamān and raybu l-manūn are the calamities of that. God Exalted said: ﴿We await for him the calamity of death﴾ [aṭ-Ṭūr: 30].
Since doubt necessarily entails agitation and disquiet of the soul, rayb came to predominate for it and became a customary literal usage (ḥaqīqah ʿurfiyyah). One says rābahu sh-shayʾ when it makes him doubt — that is, by producing what necessitates doubt about its state — so it is transitive. One likewise says arābahu, since the hamzah did not confer upon it any additional transitivity; so it is like laḥiqa and alḥaqa, zalaqahu and azlaqahu. It has been said that arāba is weaker than rāba, arāba meaning his coming close to doubting — this was said by Abū Zayd. On the basis of the distinction between the two, Bashshār said:
Your [true] brother is he who, if you cast doubt upon him, says, “You have only made me suspect”; and if you reproach him, his side grows gentle.
And in the ḥadīth: “Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt” — that is, leave the act that brings you near to doubt as to its prohibition, for another act in whose doing no doubt as to its permissibility enters upon you.
The recitation and the negation of the genus
The transmitters of the mutawātir recitations did not differ over the fatḥah in “lā rayba,” as a negation of the genus by way of explicit statement; and that is the most emphatic form, because were it in the nominative it would admit of negating a single instance rather than the genus.
If the demonstrative in His words dhālika points to the letters gathered in الم, on the intent of oblique allusion to those who were challenged, and if His words “al-kitāb” are the predicate of the demonstrative noun as mentioned above, then His words “lā rayba” would be the negation of a particular doubt — namely the doubt that arises as to this Book’s being composed of the letters of their own speech; so how, then, were they unable to produce its like? On this view the negation of the genus in it is literal and not by way of claim, and the sentence “lā rayba” would be placed in the position of an emphasis of what the demonstration conveys in His words “dhālika l-kitāb.”
On this interpretation the prepositional phrase — His words “fīhi” — may be attached to “rayb” as a dependent adverbial (ẓarf laghw), so that the pause falls at His words “fīhi.” This is the choice of the majority, on the pattern of His saying ﴿and that you may warn of the Day of Gathering, about which there is no doubt﴾ [ash-Shūrā: 7], and His saying ﴿Our Lord, You are the Gatherer of mankind for a Day about which there is no doubt﴾ [Āl ʿImrān: 9].
It is also possible that His words “fīhi” are an independent adverbial (ẓarf mustaqirr) serving as the predicate of what follows, ﴿hudan lil-muttaqīn﴾. The sense of fī here is metaphorical, customary containment, likening the signification of the utterance to the containing of a vessel. It would then be a correction of those who turned away from listening to the Qur’an and said ﴿Do not listen to this Qur’an﴾ [Fuṣṣilat: 26] — as a way of coaxing down the bird of their aversion, as though it were said: this Book contains something of guidance, so listen to it. That is why hudā was made indefinite, i.e., in it is something of guidance — after the manner of the Prophet’s ﷺ words to Abū Dharr: “You are a man in whom there is jāhiliyyah.”
On this view the predicate of lā would be omitted for its obviousness, i.e., “no doubt exists.” The omission of the predicate is used frequently in the like of it, as in “they said: no harm,” and the Arabs’ saying “no harm,” and the words of Saʿd ibn Mālik:
Whoever turns away from her fires — I am the son of Qays; there is no departing.
That is, there is no remaining in that. This is a metaphorical usage. On this reading the pause would be at His words “lā rayba”; and in al-Kashshāf it is stated that Nāfiʿ and ʿĀṣim paused at His words “rayba.”
And if the demonstrative in His words dhālika points to the Book by way of its being like something present and witnessed, and His words “al-kitāb” are an appositive substitute for the demonstrative noun clarifying it, then the prepositional phrase in His words “fīhi” is a dependent adverbial attached to “rayba,” the predicate of lā is omitted in the manner frequent in the like of it, and the pause is at His words “fīhi.”
In it lies the sense of negating the occurrence of doubt in the Book — on this interpretation, the negation of doubt as to its being sent down from God Exalted, because the purpose is to address those who doubted the truthfulness of its ascription to God Exalted. Their address will come in His saying ﴿And if you are in doubt concerning what We have sent down upon Our servant, then bring a sūrah like it﴾ [al-Baqarah: 23]. So their doubting was an established and well-known fact; yet their doubting was placed in the position of nonexistence, because among the indications of the circumstances there was that which, had they pondered it, would have removed their doubt — so that doubting, together with the proofs of its falsity, was set in the position of nonexistence.
The author of al-Miftāḥ said: They invert the proposition with the denier when he has with him that which, if he pondered it, would restrain him; so they say to the denier of Islam, “Islam is true.” And His saying, Mighty and Majestic, concerning the Qur’an, “lā rayba fīhi” — while how many a wretched doubter there is concerning it! — falls under this. So the construction conveying emphatic negation of doubt is used in the sense of taking no account of that doubt, on account of the resemblance of the doubter’s state, in the feebleness of his doubt, to the state of one who does not doubt at all — by way of representational figure (tamthīl).
A second reading: nothing in it warrants doubt
Some of the exegetes explained His saying ﴿lā rayba fīhi﴾ as meaning that there is nothing in it that would necessitate doubt as to its soundness — that is, there is in it no inconsistency and no discrepancy. On this view rayb here is a metaphor for its cause, and the prepositional phrase is an independent adverbial serving as the predicate of lā. It then looks toward His saying ﴿Do they not ponder the Qur’an? Had it been from other than God, they would have found in it much discrepancy﴾ [an-Nisāʾ: 82] — that is, the Qur’an does not contain any speech that would necessitate suspicion as to its being from the Truth, the Lord of the worlds: no speech contradicting itself, no speech departing from truth and virtue, none commanding the perpetration of evil and corruption, and none turning away from noble character. The absence of that from it entails that whatever the Qur’an contains, when the one who ponders ponders it, he finds it yielding certainty that it is from God.
The verse here bears both meanings, so let us take both as intended by it, in accordance with the principle we established in the Ninth Introduction.
This negation involves no claim and no figurative positing, so this interpretation dispenses with positing the existent in the place of the nonexistent. It thereby conveys an oblique allusion to the scriptures that were in the hands of the People of the Book at that time, for their statements had grown confused and discrepant on account of the distortion that had befallen them. That is because the very undertaking to declare the negation of doubt concerning the Qur’an, when there was no one asserting doubt about what it contained — that is, a doubt resting upon some ground for doubting, since the utmost of what they said about it were summary statements such as “this is sorcery,” “this is legends of the ancients” — that challenge indicates that what is intended is oblique allusion, especially after His words “dhālika l-kitāb.” It is as when you say, to one who has spoken after a group of people who had spoken in a gathering while you remained silent, “This speech is correct,” thereby alluding to the other.
By this interpretation, too, unity of meaning is achieved both for the one who pauses at “fīhi” and for the one who pauses at “rayba”; because if the adverbial is taken as not being the predicate, and the predicate is omitted, then it becomes possible to dispense with this adverbial in this sentence.
Al-Kashshāf mentioned that the adverbial — His words “fīhi” — was not placed before the musnad ilayh, which is “rayb” (that is, on the possibility of its being the predicate of the noun of lā), as the adverbial was placed first in the saying “lā fīhā ghawl”; because had the adverbial been placed first here, it would have been intended that some other book contains doubt. (End of quotation.)
He means: because fronting, in the like of it, conveys exclusivity, so it would convey that the negation of doubt is restricted to it and that other books besides it do contain doubt — and that is not intended here. Restriction is not intended in His saying “lā rayba fīhi,” because the context is an address to the Arabs who were challenged by the Qur’an, and they are not a people of scripture such that they should be refuted. Rather, what is intended is that they have no excuse in denying that it is from God, since they were called to oppose it and proved unable.
Nevertheless, there is derived from it an oblique allusion to the People of the Book who backed the polytheists and encouraged them in denying it: namely that the Qur’an, on account of the loftiness of its standing among its peers of scriptures, contains nothing that calls for doubt as to its being sent down from God — this being a provocation to ponder it, as to whether they will find in it anything necessitating doubt. And that would scatter the settled mass of their conceit over their altered and distorted book — for doubt about realities is the herald of their emergence, and the dawn breaking forth before the rising of the sun is the harbinger of its unveiling.
He built his statement upon the premise that a sentence characterized by restriction in the affirmative case, if a negation entered upon it while it retained that character, would convey the restriction of the negation rather than the negation of the restriction. Yet the examples of the author of al-Miftāḥ concerning the fronting of the musnad for exclusivity treat alike what comes in the affirmative and what comes in the negative.
I have a reservation about this which I shall mention at His saying, Exalted: “You are not responsible for their guidance.” As for the ruling on the vowelling or quiescence of the hāʾ of the pronoun, it is settled in the science of the recitations, in the section on its principles.
﴿هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ﴾ — “a guidance for the God-fearing”
Al-hudā is the noun of the verbal noun of al-hady. It has no parallel in the speech of the Arabs except surā, tuqā, bukā, and lughā — the verbal noun of laghā in a rare dialect. Its verb is hadā, hadyan; it takes its second object by means of ilā, and it may sometimes take it directly, by the manner of expansive ellipsis already discussed at His saying ﴿Guide us to the straight path﴾ [al-Fātiḥah: 6].
Al-hudā, properly speaking, is the indication whose nature it is to convey to the goal. This is the apparent sense of its meaning, because the default is non-synonymity, so hadā would not be synonymous with dalla; and because what is understood from al-hudā is complete indication. This agrees with the meaning to which al-hudā was transferred in the technical usage of the Sharīʿah. It is also more felicitous with the principles of al-Ashʿarī, because the granting of success (tawfīq), which is the conveying [to the goal], is with al-Ashʿarī from God’s creating it in the heart of the one granted success; so it is fitting to explain guidance by what suits it, so that the one who guides may convey legal guidance. Thus the Qur’an is hudā, and describing it by the verbal noun is for intensification — that is, it is a guide.
Legal guidance is direction toward what contains the welfare of the present life that does not undo the welfare of the hereafter. The effect of this guidance is al-ihtidāʾ (being guided): the God-fearing are guided by its guidance, while the obstinate are not guided, because they do not ponder. This is a meaning over which there is no disagreement; the theologians differed only as to the source from which being guided comes about, and that is a question not needed for understanding the verse. The detailing of the kinds of guidance was given earlier at His saying ﴿Guide us to the path﴾ [al-Fātiḥah: 6].
As for the syntactic position of hudan: if it stands at the head of a sentence, then it is the predicate of an omitted subject, namely the pronoun referring to the Book; so the meaning would be a report about the Book that it is the guidance. In this there is such intensification concerning the realization of guidance through it as predicating by the verbal noun entails, indicating that it has reached the utmost limit in directing people, until it was as though it were guidance itself — thereby alerting to the superiority of its guidance over the guidance of the books before it.
But if the pause is at His words “lā rayba,” and the adverbial stands at the head of the following sentence, and His word hudan is a subject whose predicate is the adverbial preceding it, then it would be a report that in it is guidance; and the containment indicates the firm establishment of guidance within it — which is equal, in indicating firm establishment, to the preceding interpretation, namely reporting of it that it is guidance itself.
Al-muttaqī is one characterized by ittiqāʾ, which is the seeking of protection (wiqāyah); and wiqāyah is safeguarding and preserving from what is disliked. So al-muttaqī is the wary one who seeks deliverance from something disliked and harmful. What is intended here is those who fear God — that is, those who fear His wrath and have prepared themselves to seek His good pleasure and to answer His call; so that when the Qur’an is recited to them, they listen to it and ponder what it calls to, and thus are guided.
Legal taqwā is compliance with the commands and avoidance of the prohibitions — the major sins — and not persisting in the minor ones, outwardly and inwardly; that is, guarding against whatever God has made plunging into a cause of His wrath and His punishment. The major sins, all of them, are such that the one who commits them is threatened with punishment — unlike slight lapses (lamam).
What is intended by al-hudā and by al-muttaqīn in the verse is their linguistic meaning. So what is meant is that it is the nature of the Qur’an to convey to the goods that are sought, and that those prepared to reach them by means of it are the God-fearing — that is, those who have divested themselves of obstinacy, purified themselves from the low ground of imitating those who lead astray, feared the outcome, and safeguarded themselves from the danger of God’s wrath. This is the apparent sense. And what is meant by al-muttaqīn is the believers who believed in God and in Muḥammad and received the Qur’an with strength and resolve to act by it, as the descriptions to come will disclose about them in His saying ﴿those who believe in the unseen﴾ [al-Baqarah: 3] up to His saying ﴿before you﴾ [al-Baqarah: 4].
Three senses of “guidance” and “the God-fearing”
Concerning the explanation of the Qur’an’s being hudā and the manner of the description of al-muttaqī, there are three meanings:
The first: that the Qur’an is guidance in the present time, because description by the verbal noun stands in place of description by the active participle, and the present time is the original sense of the active participle; and what is meant is the time of utterance. The God-fearing likewise are those who are God-fearing at present, because the active participle is literal in the present, as we have said. That is: everyone who has purified himself and prepared himself to receive perfection, this Book guides him, or increases him in guidance, as in His saying ﴿And those who are guided, He increases them in guidance and grants them their piety﴾ [Muḥammad: 17].
The second: that it is guidance in the past — that is, guidance came about through it, namely through what had been revealed of the Book. So what is meant by al-muttaqīn would be those whose emblem taqwā was; that is, that the effect of the guidance appeared in them so that they became God-fearing. On this view it would be praise of the Book by the witnessing of its guidance, and commendation of the believers who were guided by it. Applying al-muttaqīn to those characterized by taqwā in the past — though this is not the predominant usage in description by the active participle — is an application relying on the contextual indicator of the context of praising the Book.
The third: that it is guidance in the future, for those who will be God-fearing in the future. What determines this here is the indicator of description by the verbal noun in hudan, because the verbal noun does not indicate any particular time.
From describing the Book by the verbal noun there resulted such an abundance of meanings as would not have resulted had it been described by the active participle, so that it were said “a guide for the God-fearing.” This is praise of the Qur’an and an extolling of it, and a transition to praising the believers who benefited from its guidance.
The Qur’an has never ceased, and will never cease, to be guidance for the God-fearing; for all the kinds of its guidance have benefited the God-fearing in all the degrees of taqwā, and in all its times and their times, according to their eagerness, the extents of their knowledge, and the difference of their pursuits. One benefits from its guidance in religion; another benefits in politics and the management of the community’s affairs; another benefits from it in morals and virtues; and another benefits from it in legislation and understanding of religion. All of those are among the God-fearing, and their benefit from it is according to the extents of their taqwā. The imams of legal theory counted ijtihād in jurisprudence as part of taqwā, and so they argued for the obligation of ijtihād from His saying ﴿So fear God as much as you are able﴾ [at-Taghābun: 16]. So if anyone’s striving falls short of complete benefit from it, that is only due to a deficiency in him, not in the guidance. And the people of knowledge and righteousness never cease to race one another in acquiring the utmost they are able of being guided by the Qur’an.
The coherence of the four sentences
The four sentences cohere in the most perfect coherence:
The sentence الم is a recording of the Qur’an’s inimitability and a censure upon the polytheists at large for their inability to oppose it, while it is composed of the letters of their own speech — and that suffices as a proclamation of their obstinacy.
The sentence “dhālika l-kitāb” is an extolling of its standing and a declaration that it has reached the limit of perfection among the states of books. This is directed to the elite among the people of intellect, as if to say to them: this is a book composed of the letters of your own speech, and it has reached the limit of perfection among books; so that would be something to multiply your motives for following it and for taking pride in having been granted it — for you reckon yourselves the best of nations, so how do you not hasten to follow a Book that was revealed among you and is the best of books? The parallel of this is the parallel of His saying ﴿lest you should say: “The Scripture was only sent down upon two groups before us”﴾ [al-Anʿām: 156] up to His saying “and mercy.” And it is directed also to the People of the Book, awakening them to the fact that it is superior to what they were given.
The sentence “lā rayba” — if the pause is at His words “lā rayba” — is an oblique allusion to all who doubt it, among the polytheists and the People of the Book: that is, that doubting about this Book arose from obstinacy, and that there is no doubt, for it is the perfect Book. And if the pause is at His words “fīhi,” it would be an oblique allusion to the People of the Book in their clinging to their two distorted books, along with what is in them of a source of doubt and uncertainty, from the evident inconsistency indicating that it is of people’s making. God Exalted said: ﴿Do they not ponder the Qur’an? Had it been from other than God, they would have found in it much discrepancy﴾ [an-Nisāʾ: 82].
And in al-Kashshāf he said: “Then none of these four was devoid, after being arranged in this mysterious arrangement, of a subtlety possessing excellence: in the first, the ellipsis and the hinting at the purpose in the subtlest manner; in the second, what the definition contains of grandeur; in the third, what lies in placing rayb before the adverbial; and in the fourth, the ellipsis, the placing of the verbal noun — which is al-hudā — in the position of the description, its being brought indefinite, and the concision in mentioning al-muttaqīn.” (End of quotation.)
Taqwā, then, in this sense is the foundation of good; and in the legal sense, which is the culmination of the linguistic sense, it is the sum of all goods. Ibn al-ʿArabī said: No word has been repeated in the Qur’an as the word taqwā has been repeated, out of concern for its importance.