ﱁ ﱂ ﱃ ﱄ ﱅ ﱆ ﱇ ﱈ ﱉ ﱊ ﱋ ﱌ ﱍ ﱎ ﱏ ﱐ ﱑ ﱒ ﱓ ﱔ ﱕ ﱖ
So do not be in doubt, [O Muhammad], as to what these [polytheists] are worshipping. They worship not except as their fathers worshipped before. And indeed, We will give them their share undiminished.
Tafsir
Verse range: 11:109
"From" (min) is initiating; it is also permitted that it be in the sense of "in" (fi), and ma is either masdariyyah (forming an infinitive phrase) or mawṣūlah (relative pronoun). There is an implicit noun omitted in the speech, namely: [the state of] what they worship, [in that it] neither harms nor benefits, since there is no meaning to being in doubt about their own selves.
"What they worship is only like what their fathers worshipped before" This is an explanatory resumption acting as a rationale for the prohibition of doubt. The exception (istithnā’) is either from an implied verbal noun or an omitted object. That is, they and their fathers are equal in polytheism; "they do not worship [anything] except like the worship of their fathers," or "they do not worship anything except like that which they [the fathers] worshipped, namely the idols." It has reached you what befell their fathers on account of that, so the same will befall them, because equality in causes necessitates equality in effects. The meaning of "as they worshipped" (kamā ya‘budūna) is "as they used to worship," with the [verb denoting] the past omitted due to the presence of "before" as an indication of it. It is as if this choice [of wording] points to the fact that it was a continuous custom for them.
"And indeed, We will give them in full their portion" Meaning these disbelievers, "their portion," meaning their share of the punishment, just as We gave their fathers their shares. Or [it refers to] their share of sustenance, and thus it would be an excuse for the delay of punishment despite the presence of that which necessitates it. In this [latter interpretation] is an indication of the extent of Allah’s favor and generosity—which is not hidden—as He did not cut off their sustenance despite the worship of others [besides Him] that they are engaged in.
In the expression "portion" (naṣīb), according to the first interpretation [punishment], there is mockery, because [a portion] is something sought and desired, while punishment is far removed from that. Interpretation by what has been mentioned [punishment] is reported from Ibn Zayd, and by "sustenance" from Abu al-‘Aliyah. From Ibn Abbas, it is reported that what is intended by it is that which has been destined of good or evil.
Ibn Muḥayṣin recited la-mūfūhum (without the shadda), derived from awfā.
"Without diminution" This is a state (ḥāl) emphasizing the "portion," similar to His saying: "Then you turned your backs" (in flight). Its benefit is to repel the notion of metaphorical usage. Al-‘Allāmah al-Ṭībī adopted this view and said it is the truth.
In al-Kashshāf, it is stated that this state was brought for the "fully paid portion" because it is possible for a thing to be paid while being deficient, and paid while being complete. Do you not see that you say, "I paid him half his right," "a third of his right," "his right completely," and "his right deficiently?"
Abū Ḥayyān rebutted this, stating that this is a fallacy, because when it is said, "I paid him half his right," the payment/fulfillment (tawfiyah) only occurred in the half; likewise with the third. The meaning is: I gave him the half or the third completely, having not decreased anything from it. As for your saying, "I paid him his right completely," the state there is an emphatic one because tawfiyah necessitates completion. As for your saying, "I paid him his right deficiently," it is incorrect due to the contradiction.
Ibn al-Munayyir said that this is a delusion, because tawfiyah necessitates the non-diminution of what is paid, whether it is the whole or a part. So your saying, "I paid him half his right," necessitates the non-diminution of the half that was paid, so the question regarding the reason for the accusative case of this state remains. The most appropriate [answer] is to say that tawfiyah was used in the sense of "giving," just as tawaffī was used in the sense of "taking." Whoever says "I gave so-and-so his right" would be appropriate to emphasize it by saying "without diminution."
In al-Kashsh, I say: The attachment of tawfiyah to the "half"—even though the whole is his right—indicates [al-Zamakhsharī's] intended meaning, for there is no difference between saying "half his right" and "his right [given] in halves." Therefore, it is permissible to say "I paid him his portion in halves" and "his portion deficiently." The benefit of the emphasis is refined, and it becomes clear who is truly the one deluded. So reflect.
