Al-Fatihah: (7) The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor...

(The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor) is a substitute (badal) for "the path" mentioned first—specifically a substitute of the whole for the whole (badal al-kull min al-kull). This is what Ibn Malik calls the al-badal al-muwafiq or al-mutabiq (congruent substitute), avoiding the implication of the word "whole" when referring to Allah Almighty, as in the phrase: "The path of the Almighty, the Praiseworthy—Allah."

The benefit of this substitution is to emphasize the relationship, based on the principle that the substitute is equivalent to repeating the governing agent. It also serves as an indication that the "Straight Path" is clarified and interpreted as the path of the Muslims. Thus, this constitutes a testimony to the straightness of their path in the most eloquent and emphatic manner.

Some say it is an adjective for it. Among the strange reports is the claim that the second "path" is different from the first, as if the author intended a conjunction ('atf) particle there. There is disagreement regarding the specific meaning of this path: Ja'far ibn Muhammad stated it is the knowledge of Allah and understanding from Him. Others said it is the concordance of the inner state with the outward in the perfection of grace; others said it is adherence to the obligatory duties and the Sunnah. It is evident that this latter view deviates from the "Straight Path," so we shall not tire the pen over it.

Ibn Mas'ud and Zayd ibn Ali read: "Siraat man an'amta 'alayhim" (The path of him whom You have bestowed favor upon). This is also narrated from 'Umar and the Household of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them). Al-Shihab said: "Therein is evidence for the permissibility of using indefinite nouns like man (who/him whom) to refer to Allah Almighty." This is a manifest error, for the genitive construction (idafa) here is to the object, not the subject. Al-In'am (bestowal of favor) is the delivering of benevolence to others among the rational beings, as al-Raghib stated; therefore, one does not say "bestowed favor upon his horse." This is why it is said that "grace" (ni'mah) is the benefit brought to a human by one below him without a counter-value.

There is disagreement as to who these favored ones are. Some say: the believers absolutely. Others: the Prophets. Others: the companions of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both) before the corruption and abrogation of their scriptures. Others: the companions of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Others: Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both). Others: the most primary view is what Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), that those meant are the Prophets, the angels, the martyrs, the truthful, and those who obey Allah and worship Him. To this points the verse: "Those are the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favor from among the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous; and excellent are those as companions." Thus, the aforementioned opinions are mere limitations to certain individuals. The In'am was not restricted, so that it may be general: "And if you should count the favors of Allah, you could not enumerate them." Some say it refers to being favored by their creation for happiness; others, by being saved from destruction; others, by guidance.

The use of the active voice in an'amta (You have bestowed) serves as a means of seeking favor; it is as if the suppliant says: "I seek guidance from You, for Your favor has preceded; therefore, make the answering of our prayer and the granting of our request part of Your favor." How generous He is! He teaches us to ask so that He may bestow upon each what he asked for—for had He not desired that we attain what we hope for and request from the overflow of His bounty, He would not have taught us how to ask.

Linguists have reported ten dialects for 'alayhim (upon them):

1. Damma on the ha and sukun on the mim (the recitation of Hamzah).
2. Kasra on the ha and sukun on the mim (the recitation of the majority).
3. Kasra on the ha and mim, followed by a ya (the recitation of al-Hasan and 'Umar ibn Khalid).
4. The same, but without the ya (the recitation of 'Amr ibn Fā'id).
5. Kasra on the ha and damma on the mim, followed by a waw (the recitation of Ibn Kathir, with a differing report).
6. Damma on the ha and mim, followed by a waw (the recitation of al-A'raj, Muslim ibn Jundab, and a group).
7. Damma on both, without a waw (attributed to Ibn Hurmuz).
8. Kasra on the ha and damma on the mim, without a waw (attributed to al-A'raj and al-Khaffaf from Abu 'Amr).
9. Damma on the ha and kasra on the mim, followed by a ya.
10. The same, but without the ya. (Both readings exist). The essence of these is the damma of the ha with the sukun of the mim, or its damma with or without lengthening, or its kasra with or without lengthening; and the kasra of the ha with the sukun of the mim, or its kasra with or without lengthening, or its damma with or without lengthening. The arguments for each are in the books of Arabic grammar.

(Not of those who have evoked [Your] anger, or of those who are astray) is a substitute for "those" (the favored), a substitute of the whole for the whole. It is also said to be a substitute for the pronoun in 'alayhim. This does not lack weakness in terms of meaning, but the assertion that the antecedent would be left without a pronoun is incorrect because the substituted term is not intended to be discarded.

The claim that ghayr is originally an adjective meaning "differing," and that substitution by an adjective is weak, is itself weak, because the noun status has come to dominate it. That is why it does not, in most cases, follow a described noun. Sibawayh says it is an adjective for "those," clarifying or restricting. It is no objection to say that ghayr is among the nouns most deeply rooted in indefiniteness, and thus does not become definite by idafa, and cannot be used to describe a definite noun—nor can one be substituted from it according to the well-known rule—because we say: the described here is a meaning like an indefinite noun, so it is valid to describe it. This is because the relative pronoun (al-mawsul), after considering its definiteness through the relative clause, acts like the definite article al- in its usages. When it is used for some of those described by the relative clause, it is like the definite article used for mental reference. Just as the definite noun, when the article denotes the generic, is definite in view of its model but acts like an indefinite noun in view of the indefinite partiality, the mentioned relative pronoun is likewise treated.

If it is not intended to refer to a specific group, there is no validity in intending the genus of the favored ones as such, for there is no "path" for them, nor is there a purpose in requesting the path of those favored on the basis of totality—whether one intends the totality of individuals and groups or the collective as a collective. Rather, the request is for the path of a group from among those favored with the blessings of the Hereafter—that is, a faction of the believers, not their specific identities. If one looks at the indefinite partiality derived from the genitive construction of the path to them, it is like an indefinite noun; if one looks at its generic concept—meaning "the favored ones"—it is definite. This was said by al-'Allamah al-Siyalkuti and others, though it is not free from scrutiny. Or it may be said—and this is the reliance of those who are to be relied upon—that ghayr here is definite because the researchers among Arabic grammarians have said that it may become definite by idafa when it falls between two definite opposites, such as: "You must use motion, not rest" ('alayka bil-harakati ghayr al-sukuni). Ibn al-Sirri and others said: "If ghayr is added to a definite noun that has only one opposite, it becomes definite due to the restriction of 'otherness'." Here, "the favored" is the opposite of what follows.

It is no objection to cite the verse: "Our Lord, bring us out; if we return [to sin], then we will be wrongdoers [ghayr alladhi kunna na'mal]", because it is possible that "righteous" (salihan) is a state (hal) placed before its owner—which is the ghayr alladhi—or ghayr is a substitute for "righteous." Even if it is said that the opposite of "righteous" is "corrupt," and what they were doing is just one of its instances, it is not far-fetched.

'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) read ghayra in the accusative case, and it is narrated as a rare reading from Ibn Kathir. It is a state from the pronoun in 'alayhim, and the agent is an'amta. It is weak to suggest it is a state from "those" because it is a genitive construction, and "the path" cannot itself act upon the state. Some say it is possible, and the agent is the meaning of the genitive construction. Al-Akhfash permitted the accusative as a disconnected or connected exception if in'am is interpreted broadly. Al-Farra' prohibited this because it would then mean "other than," so it is not permissible to conjoin with la (not) because it is a negation and denial, and one does not conjoin a denial except to its like. This was answered by the presence of a redundant la as in the verse: "What prevented you that you did not prostrate?" and in the verse of al-Akhwas. Some reported from al-Akhfash that the exception is in the meaning of negation, so conjunction with la is permissible based on the meaning; in that case, the objection does not stand.

According to al-Khalil, the accusative is by a deleted verb, "I mean" (a'ni), and this is what I maintain, for the exception is as you see. The state requires indefiniteness, and this is only realized by the absence of opposition, or by making ghayr mean "differing" so that its genitive construction is purely verbal; both are unsatisfactory for reasons you know. Some said there is an ellipsis in the verse, the estimation being "not the path of those who have evoked anger," which is possible on this reading. Ghayr would then be either an adjective for "the path"—which is weak because the substitute precedes the adjective if we hold that view, while the origin is the reverse—or a substitute, or an adjective for the substitute, or a substitute for it, or a state of one of the two paths. The "straight path" remains without ellipsis.

Ghadab (anger) originally means intensity. From it comes ghadbah—the hard, solid rock embedded in a mountain; and ghadub—the malicious snake or the sullen camel. It is interpreted sometimes as a movement of the soul whose origin is the desire for revenge, as in the Sharh al-Miftah of al-Sa'd; sometimes as the desire for revenge, as in his Sharh al-Kashshaf; and sometimes as a quality that affects the soul, followed by a movement of the spirit outward in pursuit of revenge, as in Sharh al-Maqasid. Close to this is the claim that it is a change occurring during the boiling of the heart's blood. In the Hadith: "Beware of anger, for it is a burning coal in the heart of the son of Adam. Do you not see the swelling of his veins and the redness of his eyes?" In al-Kashshaf, the meaning of Allah's anger is the desire to take revenge upon the disobedient and to bring punishment upon them, and that He acts toward them as a king does when he is angry with his subjects. I say, as the predecessors of the nation have said, it is a quality of Allah Almighty befitting the majesty of His essence, the reality of which I do not know, nor how it is. Being incapable of perceiving perception is perception. The discussion on this is like the discussion on Mercy, perfectly matched; they are both ancient attributes of Him, Glory be to Him. The Hadith "My Mercy has preceded My Anger" is interpreted as an increase in the effects or the priority of its manifestation.

Dalal (astray) originally means destruction. From it is His saying: "When we are lost [dalalna] in the earth," meaning perished. And: "And He misled [adalla] their deeds," meaning destroyed them. Dalal in religion is departing from the truth. Abu Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani read wa la al-daallin by replacing the alif with a hamza to avoid two sukun-bearing letters meeting, even though in such a case it is permissible. Abu Zayd reported da'bah and sha'bah. According to this dialect is the reading of 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd: "On that day, no man nor jinn will be asked about his sin," and the saying: "The earth, as for its black parts, became covered in white, and as for its white parts, they became dark." Is this to be measured or not? There are two opinions. It is reported from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr that they used to read wa ghayri al-daallin. The alif in the standard codex is, as in al-Imam, a sword of the orator brought to emphasize the meaning of negation in ghayr. The Kufans make it here have its own meaning.

The meaning of "those who evoked anger" are the Jews, and "those who are astray" are the Christians. This has been narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad and Ibn Hibban graded it hasan in his Sahih as a marfu' report to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It was extracted by Ibn Jarir from Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them). Ibn Abi Hatim said: "I know of no disagreement among the commentators on this." Whoever claims that relying on this is weak because the deniers of the Creator and the polytheists are more evil in religion than the Jews and Christians—and thus avoiding them is more appropriate—is himself astray, and straying far, if the authentic report from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) has reached him. Otherwise, he has dared to interpret the Book of Allah Almighty while ignorant of the Hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). What he said regarding the deniers of the Creator is not to be counted, for whoever has no religion is not worth mentioning. It is astonishing that Imam al-Razi reported this and did not comment on it, except that he added a "mule to the chess set," saying: "It is possible to say that those who evoked anger are the disbelievers, and those astray are the hypocrites," justifying it by the mention of the believers, then the disbelievers, then the hypocrites at the beginning of al-Baqarah. He thus drew an analogy from there to here. But after the saying of the truthful and trusted Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), is there room for a speaker's word or a measurer's analogy? Far, far from it; there are terrors before that.

Some argued that those who evoked anger are the Jews based on the verse: "Whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs," and that those astray are the Christians based on the verse: "And do not follow the desires of a people who had gone astray." It is better to use the Hadith as proof, because both anger and straying are mentioned in the Quran for all disbelievers in general. Allah said: "But those who are [willingly] open to disbelief—upon them is anger from Allah," and: "Indeed, those who disbelieve and avert [people] from the way of Allah have certainly gone far astray." It also came for the Jews and Christians specifically, as the one who argued mentioned.

Allah the Exalted put "those who evoked anger" before "those who are astray"—even though, at first glance, straying is a cause for anger, as one says "he went astray so he became angry at him"—either because the time of those who evoked anger (the Jews) preceded the time of those astray (the Christians), or because "bestowal of favor" is countered by "retribution," and not countered by "straying." Thus, there is a conceptual opposition between them, based on the fact that the first is the delivery of good to the favored, and the second is the delivery of evil to the one who evoked anger. Or, it is because the Jews are more intense in disbelief and stubbornness and greater in malice and corruption, and "most intense in animosity toward those who believe." That is why humiliation and poverty were stamped upon them. It is mentioned in the Hadith: "Whoever has no charity, let him curse the Jews." The Christians are less than that and closer to Islam than them; that is why they are described as straying, for the straying may find guidance. Among what indicates that the Jews are in a worse state than the Christians is that they disbelieved in two Prophets: Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Jesus (peace be upon him), while the Christians disbelieved in one Prophet, our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Their scandals and atrocities are more than what is found with the Christians, as you will read and see, if Allah wills. The statement of the Christians regarding the Trinity is not more atrocious than the statement of the Jews that "Allah is poor and we are rich," or their saying: "The hand of Allah is chained," or their saying: "'Uzayr is the son of Allah." Whoever claims that the Christians are in a worse state, leaning on what is in Dala'il al-Asrar, does not know the secrets of the proofs; they are beyond him like the star 'Ayyuq. This is not a matter of secondary branches where one like us would be satisfied with mere imitation, especially since the grace of Allah Almighty is not limited to some.

Some said: the delay of "those who are astray" is for the sake of rhyme. There is no harm in adding this to those reasons; otherwise, limiting oneself to it is a sign of a narrow mind. The favor was attributed to Him (the Almighty) to draw near to Him, and the goal is to request guidance to the path of those upon whom the favor of Allah was proven and realized. That is why He used the verb in the past tense. He deviated from that when mentioning anger to the third person (ghaybah) as a matter of etiquette, and because he who requests guidance from Him and attributes favor to Him—it is not suitable to attribute anger to Him, for this is a position of gentleness, kindness, and humility to request benevolence; it does not befit confronting Him with the description of retribution.

Ibn Kathir in Kanz al-Balagha and al-Tanukhi in al-Aqsa lil-Qarib counted building the verb for the object after addressing its subject as a strange type of iltifat (shift). If iltifat is—as it is in the usage of literary figures and the ancients—in the sense of artistry, then there is no issue with it. If it is in the accepted meaning, then you may say—according to the opinion of al-Sakkaki, who does not stipulate the multiplicity of expression but only the opposition to the demand of the exterior—that if the addressee stops his address and builds what he attributed to the object as a third party, there is no obstacle to calling it iltifat. Just as it happens in shifting from the estimated to the realized, it happens in the reverse, which is a wonderful meaning, as al-Shihab said.

It is a Sunnah after finishing [the Surah] for the reciter to say "Amin." Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf and al-Bayhaqi in al-Dala'il narrated from Abu Maysarah that Gabriel taught the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) the Opening of the Book. When he said wa la al-daallin, he said to him: "Say Amin," so he said: "Amin." The follower in prayer should say it for the recitation of his Imam, for Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Abi Shaybah extracted from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "When the Imam reads ghayr al-maghdubi 'alayhim wa la al-daallin, say Amin, and Allah will love you."

Keeping it secret is the school of our masters the Hanafis, and it is the school of the Commander of the Faithful 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. According to the Shafi'is, it is to be said aloud. From al-Hasan, it is said that the Imam does not say it because he is the one who supplicated. From Abu Hanifah, in a not-so-famous report, is that he keeps it secret. Keeping it secret is also reported from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal, and Anas (may Allah be pleased with them), as in al-Kashshaf. The report of the majority is interpreted as being for the sake of teaching. The research is jurisprudential, and this amount is sufficient.

It is not from the Quran by consensus, which is why it is Sunnah to separate it from the Surah by a slight silence. What was said that it is part of the Surah according to Mujahid is not to be paid attention to, for it is in the extreme of invalidity; it was never written in the Imam (the Uthmanic codex) nor in any other codex at all. Many have mentioned that whoever says "Amin is from the Quran" has disbelieved. It is a verbal noun (ism fi'l) built on fath like ayna, due to the meeting of two sukun-bearing letters. The research on verbal nouns is concluded in the books of grammar. The correct view is that it is an Arabic word and its meaning is "Answer me." Others say it is coined for something broader than that and its synonyms. It is strange that it is said to be foreign, Arabicized from hamin, because fa'il like Qabil is not from the weights of the Arabs. It was rejected by stating that it would be a weight with no counterpart, yet it does have counterparts. That is why it is said that it is originally shortened, and its weight is fa'il, so it was lengthened.

Astonishing is the claim that it is a name of Allah Almighty. The justification for this is that since it includes the hidden pronoun returning to Him, it is said to be one of His names—which is more astonishing than that! Its alif may be lengthened or shortened, and for the originality of each, a group has gone. As for the doubling of its mim, al-Wahidi mentioned that it is a dialect. It is also said that it is the plural of amm (one who intends), in the accusative case, as in "Make us..." [understood]. Others say it is a mistake and a solecism (lahn). Since it is not from the Quran, but rather a supplication, and its meaning is correct, some say the prayer is not corrupted by it even if it were a solecism.

The merit of this Surah is not hidden; it is enough that it was narrated with authentic chains from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went out to Ubayy ibn Ka'b while he was praying. Ubayy turned but did not answer him. Ubayy finished his prayer quickly then went to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "What prevented you from answering me when I called you?" He said: "O Messenger of Allah, I was in prayer." He said: "Did you not find in what Allah revealed to me: 'Respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life'?" He said: "Yes, I will not do it again, if Allah wills." He said: "Would you like me to teach you a Surah the like of which was not revealed in the Torah, nor in the Gospel, nor in the Psalms, nor in the Criterion (Quran)?" He said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "How do you read in the prayer?" So he read the Mother of the Quran. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, nothing like it has been revealed in the Torah, nor in the Gospel, nor in the Psalms, nor in the Criterion. It is the seven oft-repeated verses, or the seven oft-repeated ones and the Great Quran which I have been given."

The Hadiths on this are many, and it is no wonder, for it is the Mother of the Book, containing the most wondrous of subtle secrets, so much so that some of the Rabbani scholars extracted from it cosmic events, the names of Islamic kings, the explanation of their conditions, and the statement of their ends. In short, it is the treasure of gnosis, nay, the Preserved Tablet for what shines in the world of possibility. We ask Allah the Exalted to favor us with the shining of its lights and the realization of its stored secrets; He is the Guardian of success and the Guide to the landmarks of truth.