Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:47

This is a confirmation for him—may Allah exalt and grant him peace—regarding his established state of trust in Allah (the Glorified) and his certainty in the fulfillment of His promise to punish the oppressors, which is coupled with the command to warn them, as the particle fa (So...) clarifies.

Al-Tibi—and the student favored it—said: It is permissible to interpret the "promise" as referring to what is meant by the Almighty’s saying, "And with Allah is their plot." He made this a separate interpretation from that which Al-Zamakhshari offered, explaining it through the Almighty’s saying, "Indeed, We will support Our messengers" and "Allah has written, 'I will surely overcome, I and My messengers.'" There is a critique of this, however, for there is no specificity—as has been said—to punishment, especially that of the Hereafter.

The genitive construction (idafa) of mukhlif (failing) to wa’d (promise) is, according to the majority, an example of a noun of agency added to its second object, like their saying: "This man is the giver of a dirham to Zayd." Since it takes two objects, its addition to either one is valid, while the other remains in the accusative case. Some have cited as a parallel the verse: "You see the bull in it [the forest], its head causing the shade to be entered, while the rest of it is entirely exposed to the sun."

Abu al-Baqa’ mentioned that this is similar to their saying: "O thief of the night, [O thief of] the people of the house."

In Al-Kashshaf, it is stated that placing "the promise" (before the messengers) is to indicate that He never fails a promise at all, like His saying (the Exalted), "He does not fail the appointment." Then, the Almighty said, "His messengers," to signal that if He does not fail anyone in His promise, and it is not His nature to fail appointments, how then could He fail His messengers, who are His chosen ones and His elite?

Ibn al-Munayyir critiqued this, arguing that when a verb is restricted by an object, the possibility of it being absolute is cut off, and this is the case here. Thus, the placement of "the promise" is not for the sake of the absoluteness of the promise, but rather for concern and emphasis upon it, because the verse was sent down to threaten the oppressors with what the Almighty promised through the tongues of His messengers (peace be upon them). Therefore, what is important is the mention of the promise, and the fact that it is through the tongues of the messengers (peace be upon them) is not essential to the threat and the warning.

The author of Al-Insaf said: This observation is strong, yet what he objected to is the established rule among the scholars of rhetoric. Just as Sheikh Abd al-Qahir said regarding the Almighty’s saying, "And they have attributed to Allah partners—the Jinn," that he brought "partners" forward to signify that one should not take partners for Allah, the Almighty, at all, and then mentioned "the Jinn" to disparage them; meaning, if partners are not to be taken from other than the Jinn, then the Jinn are even more deserving of not being taken as such.

This was countered by the claim that it does not refute the question but rather supports it. Likewise, what the learned Al-Tibi mentioned—despite its length—did not bring forth any benefit. Thus, the correct view is that which is in Al-Kashshaf: that this clarification arose from making the concern for the matter of the promise the very reason the speech was delivered, and everything else is secondary. The benefit of this style is in its progression, similar to the benefit of the summary followed by detail in "Expand for me my breast." Indeed, it is apparent from the state of the author of Al-Kashshaf that he implied an Mu'tazili stance in what he established, and that is a separate matter.

It has been said: Mukhlif here takes only one object, like the Almighty’s saying, "He does not fail the appointment." It is added to it, and "His messengers" is in the accusative case through "His promise," since it (the promise) is a verbal noun that decomposes into "that" and the verb. A variant reading is: mukhlifu wa’dihi rusulahu (failing His promise, [regarding] His messengers), with the accusative of "His promise" and the genitive of mukhlif to "His messengers," thus separating the possessor (mudaf) and the possessed (mudaf ilayh) by the object. This reading supports the parsing of the majority in the first reading, and that mukhlif here takes two objects.

"Indeed, Allah is Mighty"—the Overcomer who cannot be plotted against, and the Powerful who cannot be outmatched—"Owner of Retribution."

This is a justification for the aforementioned prohibition and a suffix to it. Since the promise was a specific reference to their punishment, as previously indicated, it was not suffixed—as some investigators have said—by saying "Indeed, Allah does not fail the appointment." Rather, He resorted to the description of Might and Retribution, which imply that. The intent by "retribution" is that which was indicated by the act, and it was expressed as "plotting."