Tafsir of Al-Kafiroun 109:2-5

It appears that there is repetition for the sake of emphasis. According to al-Bahr, the third clause (negative) is an emphasis of the first in a more eloquent manner, due to the nominal sentence structure—which is definitive—and the fourth is an emphasis of the second. This is what al-Tayyibi chose and what al-Farra’ inclined toward. He stated that the Quran was revealed in the language of the Arabs, and it is their custom to repeat speech for emphasis and clarification. Thus, the responder says, "Yes, yes," and the denier says, "No, no." In support of this is the Almighty’s saying: Nay, you shall know! Then, nay, you shall know! He also cited the verse: "How many and how many favors of theirs I have / My hands have wrought upon me, and they made obligatory," and the saying: "The crow cawed of Layla’s departure at dawn / How many, how many, and how many times it caws at the separation of Layla," and the saying: "Would you not ask the tribes of Kindah / On the day they turned back, 'Where, where?'" This is frequent in both poetry and prose. The benefit of emphasis here is to cut off the ambitions of the disbelievers and to confirm that they will remain in disbelief forever.

An objection was raised that the emphasis of clauses cannot occur with a conjunction except with thumma (then). It seems the one who said this measured wa (and) against thumma. However, the evident view is that whoever held the view of emphasis considered the fourth clause to be conjoined to the third, and the whole set conjoined to the set of the first two clauses. Thus, there are two conjoined sets, the second of which emphasizes the first. Because the second differs from the first by virtue of the continuity it contains, it is conjoined with wa; therefore, the aforementioned objection does not apply. This implies the emphasis of the first part of the second set upon the first part of the first, and the second part of the second upon the second part of the first. Otherwise, the apparent meaning in al-Bahr is almost inadmissible, as is not hidden.

The majority hold that there is no repetition, but they differed. Al-Zamakhshari said: "I do not worship" is intended to negate worship in the future, because la (no/not) only enters upon an imperfect verb (mudari') in the sense of the future, just as ma (not) only enters upon an imperfect verb in the sense of the present. The meaning is: I will not perform in the future what you demand of me regarding the worship of your gods, and you will not perform in it what I demand of you regarding the worship of my God, and I was never a worshiper in the past of what you worshiped, nor did you worship at any time what I am upon in worship. It is apparent that in the last clause, he considered the continuity of the negation—that he interpreted the imperfect verb there to denote continuity and portrayal—and in the second, he considered the negation as encompassing past times. Al-Tayyibi said that he assigned the first two couplets to the future and the last two to the past. He was challenged that the two restrictions he mentioned for la and ma are not correct, even if the apparent speech of Sibawayh suggests them.

Al-Khafaji said that what was mentioned is prevalent or restricted by the lack of context to the contrary, or it is general, and there is no constraint against metaphorical usage and applying it otherwise due to a necessity, such as repelling the repetition here. If it is said that the strangeness is realized based on the view that it is a condition in the narrative for the first "worshiper" and that there is no harm in its absence in the second because the accusative there is for assimilation (mushakala)...

It was said that the first two couplets are for the future as mentioned, and the last two are for the present, and Abu Hayyan chose this: "I am not, in the present, a worshiper of your object of worship, and you are not, in the present, worshipers of my object of worship." It was said to be the opposite, and the speech of al-Zajjaj and Muhyi al-Sunnah supports this. It was also said the first two are for the past and the last two for the future, which Ibn Kathir reported from the narrative of al-Bukhari and others. He also reported from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that the meaning of His saying, "I do not worship what you worship," is the negation of the act because it is a verbal sentence; and by His saying, "nor am I a worshiper of what you worshiped," is the negation of his (peace be upon him) acceptance of that entirely, because negation via a nominal sentence is more emphatic. It is as if he negated the act and his being—peace be upon him—an acceptor of it. Its meaning is the negation of occurrence and the negation of its legal possibility. This was challenged regarding the nominal sentence's ability to signify the negation of acceptance. It is not far-fetched to say that the meaning of the verbal sentence is the negation of the act in a specific time, and the nominal sentence means the negation of entering into this concept absolutely, without mentioning time, as if it were said: I am one to whom this concept does not apply at all, and you are those to whom this concept does not apply. Ponder this.

It was also said the first two are for the negation of the consideration that the disbelievers mentioned, and the last two are for the negation in general. That is: I do not worship what you worship in the hope that you might worship Allah the Exalted, and you are not worshipers of what I worship in the hope [of your idol]. Then it was said: "nor am I a worshiper of your idol" for any purpose among the purposes, in any way, and likewise you do not worship Allah the Exalted for any purpose.

Preferring ma (what) in "I worship" over man (who) is said—according to all the aforementioned views—to be because the intended meaning is the attribute. It is as if it were said: "what I worship" from the Great Object of Worship, the magnitude of Whose greatness cannot be estimated. It is permitted to say that because ma was applied to the idols first—which is an application in its appropriate place—it was applied to the Object of Worship in truth for the sake of assimilation. Whoever says that ma is permitted to be used for a rational being—and this is attributed to Sibawayh—has no need for what was mentioned.

Abu Muslim said that ma in the first two is relative, functioning as the object; the intended meaning is the object of worship, i.e., "I do not worship idols, and you do not worship Allah the Exalted." In the last two, it is masdariyyah (verbal noun), i.e., "nor am I a worshiper of the like of your worship," which is built upon doubt—or if you wish, say: upon shirk (polytheism), which removes it from being true worship—"nor are you worshipers of the like of my worship," which is built upon certainty—or if you wish, say: upon tawhid (monotheism) and sincerity. On this basis, there is also no repetition.

Some of the elite have stated in this station that the saying of the Almighty, "I do not worship what you worship," and His saying, "nor am I a worshiper of what you worshiped," are either both negations of the present, or both negations of the future, or one is for the present and the other for the future. Based on these premises, the word ma is either masdariyyah in both places, or relative in both, or masdariyyah in one and relative or qualitative in the other. These are six possibilities derived from multiplying three by two. Attention was not given to dividing the case of difference into the distinction between the first and the second, nor to the distinction between the relative and the qualitative to increase the categories, because the case of difference is equal in rank in repelling repetition, and the outcome of the relative and qualitative are close, so one of them suffices. The same is the case in His saying, "nor are you worshipers of what I worship" in both places.

It is known that there is no repetition in the case of difference, whether considered regarding the present and future or by ma being relative/qualitative in one and masdariyyah in the other, and the negation of their worship in the present or future of the object of worship of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is based on the non-recognition of their worship of Allah the Exalted due to the shirk that nullifies it, making it scattered dust—as it is said: "If your friend befriends your enemy, he has turned against you." Here the speech ends.

Hence, some of the scholars said in order to free the verse from repetition: it is possible that the intention of His saying, "I do not worship what you worship," is the negation of the worship of idols, and by His saying, "nor are you worshipers of what I worship," is the negation of the worship of Allah the Exalted without addressing anything else. Since there was a likelihood that they might say—out of heedlessness of the intended meaning or the like—"How is it permissible for you to negate from yourself the worship of what we worship while we also worship the God of the heavens? The only difference is that we worship others alongside Him," He followed that with His saying, "nor am I a worshiper of what you worshiped," etc., to indicate that they did not worship Allah in truth; rather, they worshiped something they claimed was Allah, while Allah the Exalted is beyond that. That is: "nor am I a worshiper, at any time, of the god that you worshiped—something you imagined—that is, by the title of what you imagined, not the God whom I worship, nor are you worshipers, at any time, of what I am upon in worship, because I only worship the God described with the attributes for which the proof has been established that they are the attributes of the God in reality."

From this, one learns a reason—other than what was mentioned—for the use of "The Disbelievers" instead of "The Polytheists." It seems the first two couplets were not presented with this meaning, and they suffice in place of the last two because they are more consistent with their response, even though this style is more stinging to them. So do not be heedless.

Some people have chosen the view that ma in the first two couplets is relative, acting as an object for what precedes it, and it refers first to their gods, and second to His (peace be upon him) God. The intent is the negation of worship, noting the attachment to the object it is attached to; rather, it is the intent and the focus of the gaze, as the occurrence of the two couplets in the response necessitates. The future is considered in observance of the prevalent usage of la entering upon the imperfect verb, while it is also more appropriate for the response. It is completed by them, as if it were said: "I will not worship in the future what you worship in the present from among the gods," i.e., I will not bring that about as you demand of me and invite me to. "Nor will you be worshipers in the future of what I worship in the present."

And that it is masdariyyah in the last two, interpreted with what follows as a verbal noun that acts as an absolute object (maful mutlaq) for what precedes it—as Abu Muslim did—so that the speech contains an indication of the state of worship in itself, without looking at its attachment to an object, even if it is not free from it in reality, after the indication of the state of its worship with the consideration of its attachment to an object. The continuity of negation is intended in both, as in His saying, "no fear shall be upon them, nor shall they grieve," and in that is an stinging [reproach] to them that is not in the limitation to what the response was completed by. As if it were said: "nor am I a worshiper, upon continuity, a worship like your worship which you have spent your lives upon, because my worship is commanded and your worship is forbidden. Nor are you worshipers, upon continuity, a worship like my worship which I am continuing upon, because you are those whom Allah has forsaken and sealed upon their hearts, and I am the Beloved sent with the Truth, so you shall not cease to be in a forbidden worship, and I shall not cease to be in a commanded worship." You may consider the difference between the two forms of worship in another way. The consideration of continuity in "what I worship" is indicated by the shift from "what you worshiped" (which is necessitated by "what you worshiped" before it) to it, and from the shift in the second to that, because the types of his (peace be upon him) worship were not yet complete, but other types were being renewed for him. So he brought what signifies continuous renewal to point to the truth of all that comes to him (peace be upon him) of that.

Al-Zamakhshari said: He did not say "what I worshiped" as "what you worshiped" was said, because they were worshiping idols before the mission, and he (peace be upon him) was not worshiping Allah the Exalted at that time. This was followed by the remark that there is a consideration in it, due to what is established that he (peace be upon him) used to seclude himself in the Cave of Hira before the mission. Abu al-Wafa ibn Aqil stated explicitly that he (peace be upon him) was observant of religion before he was sent, based on what is authentically reported that it was from the law of Abraham (peace be upon him). As for after the mission, Ibn al-Jawzi said in the book al-Wafa: there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad. One of them is that he was observant of what was proven of the laws of those before him by way of revelation, not from their direction, nor their transmission, nor their altered books—and Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi chose this, and it is the view of the companions of Abu Hanifah. The second: that he was not observant of anything except what was revealed to him of his own law—and this is the view of the Mu'tazilah and the Ash'aris. For the companions of al-Shafi'i, there are two views like the two narrations. Those who said that he (peace be upon him) was observant of the law of those before him differed in the designation; it was said he was observant of the law of Abraham (peace be upon him)—and this is the view of the companions of al-Shafi'i—and it was said the law of Moses (peace be upon him) except what was abrogated in our law. The apparent speech of Ahmad is that he (peace be upon him) was observant of everything proven to be a law for a prophet before him, as long as its abrogation was not proven, due to His saying, "Those are they whom Allah has guided, so follow their guidance."

Ibn Qutaybah said: The Arabs never ceased to be upon the remnants of the religion of Ishmael (peace be upon him), such as the pilgrimage, circumcision, the three pronouncements of divorce, blood money, washing after impurity, and the prohibition of marriage due to kinship and affinity. He (peace be upon him) was upon what they were upon in terms of belief in Allah the Exalted and acting upon their laws. The Mu'tazilah did not permit this, due to their claim that it contains corruption, which is the causing of aversion. Yes, one of their principles is the necessity of intellectual worship through looking into the signs of Allah the Exalted and the proofs of His Oneness, and knowing Him—and he (peace be upon him) could not have been devoid of that.

In al-Kashf: Worship may be applied to the actions of the limbs performed by way of seeking nearness; so faith, intention, and sincerity are conditions. From this: "A single jurist is more severe upon the devil than a thousand worshipers." They differed as to whether he (peace be upon him) was observant of this meaning before his prophethood via a law or not. The inclination of Imam Fakhr al-Din and a group of the Shafi'is, and Abu al-Husayn al-Basri and his followers, is that he (peace be upon him) was not observant. They answered concerning the circumambulation, the seclusion, and others of the noble deeds that they are not forbidden in a law such that it must be said the one who performs them must be observant of worship; rather, they are from the requirement of persistent customs and innate noble traits, without a view to seeking nearness. Al-Zamakhshari chose this view, and upon it he built his interpretation. He showed that he did not contradict his principle regarding the necessity of intellectual worship through looking into the signs and the proofs of Oneness and knowledge. Then he said: "And the apparent [meaning] is to carry 'what I worship' to signifying continuity and portrayal, on the basis that they did not deny what he (peace be upon him) was upon in the past—whether it was worship or not; rather, they used to exalt him and title him 'The Trustworthy.' The object of denial was only what he was upon after the prophethood, and for that it was said a second time: 'nor are you worshipers of what I worship.' If 'what I worshiped' were said, it would not have matched the station."

There is in this [an objection]: that what they imagined of his agreement (peace be upon him) before the prophethood was not correct; rather, that was only because he (peace be upon him) was not yet commanded to invite [to the faith]. Ponder this. Some claimed that the change of styles in this surah is due to the change of the conditions of the two parties, but this is nothing. Regarding the obligation of such addressees to what was mentioned—according to the view that it signifies continuity in disbelief by faith—there is a discussion mentioned in the books of usul, and if you desire it, return to it. There will come, if Allah the Exalted wills, in Surah Tabbat an indication of something to that effect. And His saying...