Tafsir of Al-Quraish 106:2

"Their habituation" (īlāfihim) is a substitute (badal) for "the habituation of Quraish" (īlāfi quraysh), and "journey" (riḥla) is the direct object (mafʿūl bihi) of "habituation," assuming it is derived from "familiarity" (al-ulfa). However, if it is derived from "making an agreement" (muwālafa), meaning a covenant, then it is in the accusative case due to the omission of the preposition (nazʿ al-khāfiḍ); that is, "their agreement for the sake of, or regarding, the journey," and so forth. The mention of the general term "habituation" followed by the specific restriction is for the purpose of glorification.

It is narrated from al-Akhfash that the preposition is connected to an implied verb; that is, "We did what We did regarding the destruction of the companions of the Elephant for the sake of the habituation of Quraish." Al-Kisa'i and al-Farra' said the same, except that they estimated the verb based on the context to be "Marvel!" (iʿjabū). It is as if it were said: "Marvel at the habituation of Quraish to the winter and summer journey, and their abandonment of the worship of Allah the Exalted, who empowered them, provided for them, and secured them." Therefore, they were ordered to worship their Lord, the One who bestowed upon them provision and security, following this verse, connected by the connective fa (al-fa' al-tafrīʿiyya).

It is also narrated from al-Akhfash that it relates to "making them like chewed straw" in the [previous] surah. The entire Quran is like a single surah, so the separation by the Basmala does not cause harm, contrary to what a group has stated. The meaning is: He, the Almighty, destroyed those from Abyssinia who intended [harm] toward them and did not empower them over them, so that they might remain in the state they were in regarding their habituation to the winter and summer journey. Or, He, the Almighty, destroyed those who intended them harm so that people might take heed and no one would dare to attack them, thereby ensuring security for them in their journey. This does not conflict with the destruction being due to their [the Abyssinians'] disbelief and their disregard for the House, for it is permissible to attribute an action to two causes, as neither of these is a ḥaqīqī (exclusive ontological) cause that would prevent plurality.

Many have stated that the lam (the prefix "li-") indicates consequence (al-ʿāqiba). Quraish had two journeys: a winter journey to Yemen and a summer journey to Bosra in the land of Syria, as narrated from Ibn Abbas. In their two journeys, they were secure because they were the people of Allah’s sanctuary and the guardians of His noble House; thus, they were not molested, while others were preyed upon or robbed. It is also narrated from Ibn Abbas that they would travel in the summer to Ta'if, where there was water and shade, and in the winter to Mecca for trade and their other needs.

The journey (riḥla) is mentioned in the singular, even though the intended meaning is the two journeys of winter and summer, to avoid confusion and because the meaning is clear. A similar example is the poet’s saying: "O pigeon of the bottom of the two valleys, sing," where he did not say "bottoms of the two valleys." Another example is: "Eat from some of your belly, you will recover," where he did not say "bellies," even though it is plural. Sibawayh's assertion that this is only permissible out of poetic necessity is subject to scrutiny.

Al-Naqqash said they had four journeys, which Ibn Atiyyah refuted as a rejected opinion. In al-Baḥr, it is stated that it should not be rejected, for the masters of the habituation (īlāf) were four brothers:

1. Abd Manaf: Hashim, who made an agreement with the King of Syria and took horses from him, and thus felt secure in his trade to Syria.
2. Abd Shams: Made an agreement for Abyssinia.
3. al-Muṭṭalib: For Yemen.
4. Nawfal: For Persia. These were called "the merchants," and the merchandise of Quraish would travel with the protection of these brothers' horses, so they were not interfered with.

Al-Azhari said that īlāf is similar to leasing for protection (al-khifāra). If this is the case, it is possible they had four journeys based on these locations where trade was under the protection of these four brothers. Thus, "journey" (riḥla) here is a generic noun, suitable for one or more. It is about these brothers that the poet says: O you group who turn your journey, Why did you not alight with the tribe of Abd Manaf? They are the ones who take the covenant from its horizons, And the ones who travel for the journey of the covenant...

There is a contradiction here with what we quoted previously from al-Harawi. Furthermore, the intent of the four journeys mentioned is not apparent, as is clear.

Ibn Amir recited "Līlāf Quraish" without the ya (i.e., li-laf). The justification for this is what has already passed. The seven [canonical reciters] did not differ in the recitation of īlāfihim with the ya, even though they differed in the recitation of the first one. Despite this, the first one was written in the Uthmanic codices with a ya and the second without one, as al-Samin stated. He made this one of the proofs that the reciters are bound by oral transmission rather than the script of the codex. Concerning the reason for this, it is said it was written in the first according to the original, and omitted in the second as a sufficiency from the first; this is as you see, so reflect on it.

It is narrated from Abu Bakr on the authority of Asim that he recited it with two hamzas in both, the second being silent. This is irregular, even if it is the original; they only substituted the hamza which is the root letter of the word due to the heaviness of two hamzas coming together. Muhammad ibn Dawud al-Naqqar narrated from Asim "i'īlāfihim" with two kasra-voweled hamzas followed by a silent ya originating from the vowel of the second hamza when it was elongated. The correct view is that he retracted the recitation with two hamzas and recited it like the majority.

Abu Ja'far recited, as narrated by al-Zamakhshari, "li-laf Quraish." Ibn Atiyyah narrated that he recited "li-lafihim." This was also narrated from Ikrimah and Ibn Kathir, and they cited the verse: "You claimed that your brethren are Quraish... they have an ilf (covenant), while you have no ilāf." Also from Abu Ja'far and Ibn Amir is "lafuhum" on the pattern of fi'al. Also from Abu Ja'far is "liy-lāf" with a silent ya after the lam, justified by the fact that when the second [hamza] was changed to a ya, the first was deleted in a non-standard manner. From Ikrimah is "li-ya'lif Quraish" in the form of the imperfect verb in the accusative case due to an implied an after the lam, with Quraish in the nominative as the agent. Also from him is "li-ta'lif" as an imperative. From him and Hilal ibn Fityan is the fatha of the lam of the imperative.

The manifest conclusion is that īlāfihim in all these cases is in the accusative as a verbal noun (maṣdar). I have not seen anyone address this. Abu al-Summal recited riḥla with a ḍamma on the ra (ruḥla), in which case it means the destination to which one travels. As for the kasra on the ra (riḥla), it is a verbal noun (maṣdar), as specified in al-Baḥr.