Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:10

(Their messengers said) This is an inception built upon a question that the situation leads to, as if it were said: "What did their messengers say to them when they confronted them with what they did?" The response is that they spoke, denying and expressing astonishment at their foolish statement: (Is there any doubt about Allah?). The particle (hamza) is placed before the adverb to signal that the focus of the denial is not the doubt itself, but rather its occurrence regarding One who is hardly even imagined to be doubted in the first place. Had this intention not existed, it would have been permissible to place the subject first. To say that it is not so is incorrect, for the occurrence of an indefinite noun after an interrogative justifies beginning the sentence with it, and this is undoubtedly the case. That this delayed noun is the subject is not absolute; rather, it is more likely that it is an agent [in relation] to the adverb, which relies upon the interrogative, as you will know, if Allah the Exalted wills.

The statement is based on the estimation of an omitted genitive, as has been said: "Is there any doubt about the oneness of Allah?"—this is based on the fact that those to whom they were sent were not Dahriyyah (materialists) denying the Creator, but rather were idol worshippers. Others say it is estimated as "regarding the status of Allah," so as to encompass both His existence and His oneness, since there were both Dahriyyah and polytheists among them. Others say it is estimated according to the addressees, and the estimation of "status" absolutely is "possessing status."

In the failure to apply the answer directly to the disbelievers' speech—by saying "Are you in a suspicious doubt about Allah?"—there is a hyperbole in absolving the court of Majesty from the suspicion of doubt and recording against them the absurdity of their intellects. It means: "Is there any doubt about His status—His existence, His oneness, and the necessity of believing in Him alone—which is more apparent than anything apparent and clearer than anything clear, such that you should be in great, suspicious doubt regarding Him?" Since their ultimate goal was the call to faith and monotheism, and the showing of clear proofs was a means to that, they did not address their statement, "Indeed, we deny..." and so on, and confined themselves to stating the ultimate end. It may be said that they, peace be upon them, confined themselves to denying what was mentioned because the denial of the occurrence of certainty in disbelief in Him, the Exalted, is known from it a fortiori.

(The Originator of the heavens and the earth), meaning their Creator and the Creator of what is within them of manufactured things according to an elegant system that bears witness to the truth of what you are in doubt about. There is also, as has been said, an indication in the verse to the argument of mutual exclusion (al-tamānu‘). "Originator" (Fāṭir) is genitive as an appositive to the Majestic Name or as an attribute to it. Since "doubt" is the agent of the adverb, and it is like a part of its operator, it is not considered extraneous; thus, there is no separation between the follower and the followed by an extraneous element. By this, the [interpretation of] agency is preferred over the subjecthood, because the subject is not like that. Yes, Abu Hayyan favored subjecthood and said: "It does not harm to separate the described from its attribute with such a subject." Thus, it is permissible to say, "In the house is Zayd, the virtuous one," even if the origin of the structure is "In the house, the virtuous one is Zayd."

Zayd ibn Ali, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with both, read "Fāṭir" in the accusative case (naṣb) as a form of praise.

Then, after pointing to the evidence indicating the reality of what they are in doubt about, attention is drawn to the greatness of His generosity and mercy, the Exalted, so it is said: (He invites you), meaning to faith by sending us, not that we invite you to it of our own accord as your saying, "that to which you invite us," suggests, (that He may forgive you) by means of it. Thus, what is invited to is other than forgiveness, and the estimation is "faith," due to the context of what preceded. It is possible that what is invited to is forgiveness, not because the lam is in the sense of "to" (for that is narrow-minded), but because the meaning of specialization and the meaning of termination both occur at the very core of the position. As if it were said: "He invites you to forgiveness for the sake of it, not for any other purpose." The truth is that purposes are intended goals that provide the meaning of termination and more; this was stated in al-Kashshaf. This is like the saying: "I called for Maswar when I was afflicted, so he responded... so he responded to the hands of Maswar."

(Of your sins), meaning some of them—those other than injustices and the rights of the servants, as has been said. This is based on the idea that Islam only removes what belongs to the rights of Allah the Exalted, which are exclusively His, and not others. What the scholars of Hadith have confirmed in explaining the authentic saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "Islam destroys what came before it," is that it removes everything that came before it, even injustices and the rights of the servants. This is supported by the apparent meaning of the Almighty's words in another verse: "He will forgive you your sins," without "of" (min). As for "of" here, Abu Ubaydah and al-Akhfash held that it is an augmentation (ziyādah). The majority of the Basrans do not permit its augmentation in affirmative sentences, nor when it follows a definite noun as it does here, so reconciliation between the two verses is not achieved that way. al-Zajjaj made it for clarification (bayān), and with this, reconciliation is achieved.

It is also said that it is for substitution (badal), meaning: "He will forgive you in exchange for your sins," and this is attributed to al-Wahidi. It was also permitted to be for partitiveness (tab‘īḍ), and by "the part," the whole is intended, via figurative extension. The Imam rejected the first [substitution] by saying that min does not come for substitution, and the second by saying that it is exactly what was reported from Abu Ubaydah and al-Akhfash, which is rejected by Sibawayh and the majority. There is an obvious point to consider here. If he had said that the use of "the part" to mean "the whole" is accepted, while the use of the partitive min in that sense is not, that would have been better.

In al-Baḥr, it is stated that partitiveness is valid, and "the part" is intended as that which was before Islam. That does not contradict the Hadith; the verse becomes a promise to forgive what has passed, not what is to come. That [latter part] remains silent and subject to the Will in the verse and the Hadith. It is reported from al-Aṣamm that he also suggested partitiveness in the sense that if you believe, the sins which are major ones are forgiven, while as for minor ones, there is no need for their forgiveness because they are already forgiven in themselves. al-Ṭībi found this pleasant and said: "This is what the context demands, because the invitation is general," due to the Almighty's words: Their messengers said, "Is there any doubt about Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth? He invites you so that He may forgive you of your sins." As if it were said: "O you who doubt, stained with the filth of polytheism and disobedience, Allah invites you to faith and monotheism to cleanse you of the impurities of sins." Thus, there is no ground for specification, i.e., to the rights of Allah exclusively. It has been narrated: "If they desist, what has passed will be forgiven," and "what" (mā) is for generality, especially in a conditional clause, and the situation of the disbeliever when being encouraged toward Islam is one of expansion, not contraction. When disbelievers accept Islam, their concern is with polytheism and the like, not minor sins. This is supported by what is narrated: that the people of Mecca said: "Muhammad claims that whoever worshipped idols and killed a soul that Allah has forbidden will not be forgiven. How, then, when we migrated and worshipped idols and killed a soul that Allah has forbidden?" Then was revealed: Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves..."—the verse. The story of Wahshi is famous. The Judge rejected this and said: "al-Aṣamm has drifted far in this interpretation, because the minor sins of the disbelievers are like their major ones in that they are not forgiven. A minor sin is only 'forgiven' for the monotheists, in that their rewards outweigh their punishments. As for one who has no reward at all, none of his sins can be 'minor,' nor can any of them be 'forgiven'." Then he added: "There is another aspect to this, which is that a disbeliever might forget some of his sins at the time of his repentance and faith, so only what he mentioned and repented from is forgiven."

If al-Aṣamm had heard this justification, he would have taken his revenge on the Judge, for it is, by my life, a justification that is not justifiable. If someone were to blacken the Judge's face, I would blacken his. al-Zamakhshari said: "The inductive study among the disbelievers is that 'of your sins' (min dhunūbikum) comes, and among the believers, 'your sins' (dhunūbukum). That was to differentiate between the distinct errors and so as not to equate the two groups in the promise." The sum of it, according to al-Kashshaf, is that the forgiveness of some sins is not to indicate that some others are not forgiven, for that is of the category of the "concept of the title" (mafhūm al-laqab), which carries no weight. How could it? There is another benefit to the specification: differentiating between the two addresses by explicitly stating the forgiveness of the whole in one, and leaving the "part" silent in the case of the disbelievers, so that they do not rely [solely] on faith. There is also in this a good meaning that is not forced.

Ibn al-Kamal objected that the argument of differentiation only holds if a general address had not come, yet it has come in Surah al-Anfal in the Almighty's saying: Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven. It was answered that this is not a valid objection, because the intention is to differentiate in contexts where the formula "He will forgive your sins" occurs, not absolutely anything that has the same meaning. Therefore, he attributed the matter to inductive study. Someone like al-Zamakhshari would not be unaware of what was raised, and observing this subtlety is not necessary in all materials.

al-Baydawi mentioned in the aspect of differentiation between the two addresses what amounts to this: Perhaps the meaning is that when forgiveness was conditioned upon faith in the address to the disbelievers, the partitive min was required to exclude injustices, because they are not forgiven. As for the address to the believers, when it was conditioned upon obedience and avoiding acts of disobedience—among which are injustices—there was no need for min to exclude them, because they were excluded by what it was conditioned upon. This is built upon a premise contrary to what the scholars of Hadith have confirmed, and it contradicts what he mentioned in the interpretation of "of your sins" in the Surah of Nuh, peace be upon him. Despite this, his statement was countered by the Almighty's words: "O my people, indeed I am to you a clear warner, that you worship Allah and fear Him and obey me, He will forgive you of your sins," where min was mentioned along with conditioning forgiveness upon obedience and avoiding disobedience, which "fear Him" (ittaqū) implies. And the Almighty's saying: "O you who have believed, shall I guide you to a transaction..."—the verse—for the absence of min despite its conditioning upon faith. The answer is that there is no harm, as it suffices that the conditioning of it upon faith exists in some materials, so the like is carried over to mean that the intent is to condition it upon faith alone, by the indication of that specific instance. What is mentioned along with it is carried over to mean the command to do so after faith. This is weaker than saying there is nothing to it. In sum, al-Zamakhshari’s approach is more directed than what al-Baydawi mentioned. So reflect and remember.

(And defer you to a specified term), to a time that Allah has named and made the end of your lifespans based on the assumption of faith, and He does not hasten your punishment of annihilation. From Ibn Abbas, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with both, [it means]: "He lets you enjoy in the world with pleasures and delights until death." It does not follow from what has been mentioned that there is a multiplicity of terms as the Mu'tazilah claim, and the verification of that has already passed.

(They said), an inception as previously mentioned, (You are only humans like us), without any excellence that qualifies you for what you claim of messengership. al-Zamakhshari was so obsessed with his school of thought that he believed the disbelievers believed in the superiority of an angel. (You wish) is a second attribute of "humans," based on the meaning, as in the Almighty's saying: "Are we to believe two humans like us?" Or it is an inception, meaning: "Do you wish, by what you are upon of invitation and guidance, (to avert us) from what you invite us to of monotheism and dedicating worship to Allah the Exalted, (from what our fathers used to worship), from what our fathers continued to worship without anything necessitating it?"

Talha read "to avert us" (an taṣuddūnā) with a shaddah on the nun, which is explained by making an the lightened form of the heavy anna, and estimating an interval between it and the verb, i.e., "that [it is the case that] you avert us." Something similar has come in the saying: "They knew that they would be hoped for, so they gave generously before they were asked with the greatest request." The better interpretation is to make it the [particle] an that governs the subjunctive mood, but it did not operate [explicitly], as was said in the Almighty's words: "For whoever wishes to complete the nursing period" in the reading of the nominative, by treating it like its sister, the infinitive mā, just as mā was treated by analogy to it in what some mentioned regarding the saying: "That you recite to Asma'—woe to you—peace from me, and that you do not make anyone feel..."

(So bring us a clear authority), meaning: if the matter is not as we said, but rather you were messengers from Him, the Exalted, as you claim, then bring us what indicates the truth of what you claim of messengership, so that we may leave what we have not ceased to worship, father after grandfather, or [bring proof] of your excellence and your entitlement to that rank. Ibn Atiyyah said: They considered the sending of humans far-fetched, so they wanted proof for it. It is said, rather, they believed its impossibility and followed the path of the Brahmins and requested proof by way of incapacitation—meaning: "Your being sent is impossible; otherwise, bring a clear authority." This means: "You will never do that," and this is contrary to the apparent meaning. This request was made after they, peace be upon them, had brought them clear signs and overwhelming proofs at which the solid mountains would crumble, yet obstinacy and arrogance drove them to it.