Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:106

"Man" (whoever) is a relative noun, its place is nominative as an initial subject (mubtada'), and the predicate (khabar) is omitted because the subsequent "upon them is wrath" indicates it. Such omission is frequent in speech. Nominative case is also permitted, as is the accusative case as a cutting-off (qat') intended for condemnation—meaning: "They are," or "I condemn him who disbelieves." Cutting-off for condemnation or praise, even if conventionalized in adjectives, does not apply to "man" as a descriptor; however, there is no prohibition against considering it in other contexts, such as substitution (badal), as Sibawayh has explicitly stated. Yes, Abu Hayyan said: "Accusative for condemnation is far-fetched." Al-Hawfi and al-Zamakhshari permitted it to be a substitute for "those who do not believe in the verses of Allah," and His saying, "And those are the liars," is an interjection between them.

Abu Hayyan and others objected to this, arguing that it implies no one fabricates lies except after having believed, whereas reality suggests that he who fabricates lies is the one who does not believe at all, and they are the majority of fabricators. Furthermore, the substitute is the intended meaning, and the verse was brought forth as a rebuttal to the Quraysh, who were original disbelievers. Al-Tayyibi reconciled this by suggesting that "after his belief" means "after his capacity for it," like His saying: "Those are the ones who bought error for guidance." He mentioned that this contains a hint of the method of gradual seduction (istidraj), and serves to grieve them for what they missed of confirmation and what they perpetrated by attributing falsehood to the Prayer and Peace.

In al-Kashf, it is noted that His saying, the Sublimely Exalted, "except one who is compelled," does not support this, and carrying the capacity for it to be more general than the capacity for its inception or continuation is obviously problematic. The scrutinizer (al-mudaqqiq) said: "The best approach is to interpret the meaning as 'whoever is found to disbelieve among them,' also as an expression for apostasy, and that it is not unlikely for one who possesses this trait to also commit fabrication, using this as a pretext to denounce what they used to do to the believers by way of mutilation, while incorporating the license to utter the word of disbelief on the tongue under compulsion, noting the difference between the possessor of resolve and the possessor of the license." The flaws in this are also obvious, and it is inconsistent with the occasion of revelation.

Al-Khafaji said: "You may say: The most proximate interpretation is to keep the speech on its literal meaning without affectation, and that this is a refutation of them in the most eloquent way. Just as one might say to someone who says, 'The sun is not rising' on a clear day, 'This is not a lie,' because lying occurs in matters where minds might differ. This would be on the assumption that the meaning of 'Allah does not guide them' is 'He does not guide them to the truth.' So, since Allah, the Exalted, does not guide them to the truth and honesty, and has set a seal upon their senses, they are placed in the position of one who does not know it, so that his tongue helps him to pronounce it. Thus, their denial of it is too ugly to be called a lie, for one only lies when they do so intentionally and pronounce it. Thus, the first verse is an explicit rebuttal to the Quraysh, and the other is an implication in the most eloquent manner." I swear, this is the height of affectation.

Similar to this substitution is the substitution from "those" or from "the liars," both of which al-Zamakhshari permitted, while al-Hawfi permitted the latter, and al-Zajjaj permitted nothing else.

Many scholars have permitted "man" to be conditional (shartiyyah) in the nominative case as an initial subject, and this was deemed most likely in al-Bahr. The answer to the condition is omitted because the subsequent text indicates it, as you heard regarding the first view. The discourse on the predicate of the conditional "man" is well-known. Al-Zamakhshari’s practice outwardly favors substitution, which is strange to me. In al-Kashf, it states that the conditional "man" as an initial subject is a sound view, except that what led Jarullah to prefer substitution was the demand for consistency between the parts of the noble composition, rather than it being an initial statement of a ruling. The weakness of this excuse is clear.

The apparent meaning is that the exclusion of "(except one who is compelled)"—meaning to pronounce disbelief due to a matter for which he fears for his life or a limb—from "whoever disbelieves" is a connected exclusion, because disbelief is the utterance of that which indicates it, whether it matches the belief or not.

Al-Raghib said: "It is said 'he disbelieved' if he believes in disbelief, and it is said so if he shows disbelief, even if he does not believe it." Thus, this excluded person enters into the category of the one excluded from. It is said: It is an exclusion from the omitted answer (the response); it is also said: It is an advanced exclusion from His saying, "upon them is wrath," though this is weak. The intent is to remove him from the ruling of wrath, punishment, or condemnation.

His saying, the Sublimely Exalted, "(and his heart is tranquil with faith)" is a state (hal) of the excluded one. The acting agent ('amil), as in Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, is the disbelief occurring by compulsion, not the compulsion itself, because the companionship of the heart's tranquility with faith to the compulsion does not bring benefit; rather, it is its companionship with disbelief. The reality is "except one who disbelieves by compulsion" or "except one who is compelled so he disbelieves," while his heart remains tranquil with faith—his belief has not changed. The original meaning of tranquility is stillness after agitation; here, it means stillness and steadfastness upon what he was upon after the agitation of compulsion. The agent was not explicitly stated to hint that it is not disbelief in reality.

The verse is used as evidence that faith is the confirmation in the heart, and that the verbal confession is not a pillar of it, as some have claimed. This was objected to by saying that those who made it a pillar did not mean it is a physical pillar that never drops, but rather that it is an indicator of the reality which is the confirmation, since it is impossible to gain insight into it. Thus, it does not harm him when it drops for reasons like compulsion or incapacity. Reflect on this.

(But whoever opens his breast to disbelief), meaning: believes in it and is pleased with it. "Breast" is in the sense of "his breast," for humans are incapable of opening another’s. Its accusative case, as the Imam said, is because it is the object of "opens." Some permitted it to be a specifier (tamyiz). "Man" here is either conditional or relative. However, if made conditional, Abu Hayyan says one must estimate an initial subject before it because "but" (lakin) is not followed by conditional sentences. The estimation here is: "But they are those who open their breasts to disbelief"—meaning among them. Similar to this is the verse: "But whenever you seek help from the tribe, they help."

Meaning: "But I, whenever you seek help..." etc. This was followed up by stating that such estimation is not necessary. His saying, "upon them is wrath," is the answer to the condition assuming "man" is conditional; it is an initial subject, and this is its predicate, both in the case of it being relative or conditional, in one opinion. The disagreement is famous. Some made it a predicate for this "man" and for the first "man" due to unity in meaning, as the one who disbelieves is the one who opens his breast to disbelief. This was countered in al-Bahr by the fact that there are two conditional sentences here, and they are separated by an adversative particle; therefore, each must have a separate answer. Thus, estimating an omission is more appropriate in the craft of grammar.

They have weakened the position of Abu al-Hasan in his claim that His saying, "Then [for him is] rest for the People of the Right," and His saying, "Then [for him is] relief and fragrance," are the answers to "then," and because these two are conditional particles, one following the other. This makes me consider it unlikely to be a predicate assuming it is relative. The adversative use from the compulsion—as it is said—is explained by the fact that His saying, "except one who is compelled," creates the illusion that the compulsion is excluded from what preceded, and His saying, "and his heart is tranquil with faith," does not negate that illusion; thus, the adversative was needed to repel it. This has a clear discussion. It is said: The intent is mere emphasis, like in the saying: "If Zaid came, I would have honored you, but he did not come." You know the status of that, so reflect deeply.

The tanwin on "wrath" is for magnification, meaning: a great wrath, the essence of which cannot be fathomed, occurring from Allah, whose Majesty is Great, (and for them is a great punishment) because of the magnitude of their crime. They were rewarded with the kind of their action. In choosing the Majestic Name is that which pertains to cultivating awe and strengthening the magnification of the punishment. The plural in the two pronouns in the genitive case is to observe the aspect of meaning, just as the singular inherent in the relative clause is to observe the aspect of the word.

It is reported that the Quraysh compelled Ammar and his parents, Yasir and Sumayyah, to apostatize, but they refused. They tied Sumayyah between two camels and struck her in her private part with a spear, saying, "You only accepted Islam because of the men," and they killed her and killed Yasir, and they were the first two killed in Islam. As for Ammar, he gave them with his tongue what they compelled him to. It was said: "O Messenger of Allah, Ammar has disbelieved." The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "By no means! Ammar is filled with faith from his crown to his heels, and faith has mixed with his flesh and blood." Ammar came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, weeping. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, wiped his eyes and said: "What is wrong with you? If they return, then you return to them with what you said." In another narration, they seized him and did not leave him until he insulted the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and mentioned their idols with good, then they let him go. When he came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, he said: "What is behind you?" He said: "The worst of what I left, for I reached you and mentioned their idols with good." He said: "How do you find your heart?" He said: "Tranquil with faith." He said: "How do you find your heart?" He said: "Tranquil with faith." He said: "If they return, then return."

Then this verse was revealed. It is as if the command to return in the first narration is for the license, based on what al-Nasafi said, that it is the lowest of its levels. Similarly, the command in the second narration, if considered constrained by what it was constrained by in the first, is for the license. As for if it is considered constrained by the tranquility of the heart, as in al-Hidayah—meaning: return to keeping it before your eyes and remain steadfast upon it—then the command is for obligation. The verse is evidence for the permissibility of uttering the word of disbelief when compelled, though it is better to avoid that to honor the religion, even if death is certain, as Yasir and Sumayyah did. This is not throwing oneself into destruction; rather, it is like being killed in battle, as they have explicitly stated.

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from al-Hasan, and Abd al-Razzaq in his Tafsir from Ma'mar, that Musaylimah seized two men. He said to one of them: "What do you say about Muhammad?" He said: "The Messenger of Allah." He said: "And what do you say about me?" He said: "You too," so he released him. He said to the other: "What do you say about Muhammad?" He said: "The Messenger of Allah." He said: "And what do you say about me?" He said: "I am deaf." He repeated it to him three times, and he repeated that in his answer, so he killed him. The news of them reached the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said: "As for the first, he took the license of Allah, and as for the second, he spoke the truth, so congratulations to him."

In Ahkam al-Jassas, it is stated that it is obligatory for the one compelled to disbelief to have the intention that he does not mean it; if he does not have that in mind, he disbelieves. In Sharh al-Minhaj by Ibn Hajar, there is no apostasy for the one compelled to a disbelieving act whose heart is tranquil with faith, due to the verse. Likewise, if his heart is empty of both, in what appears to be the most sound view, because they state that the compelled person is not obligated to use equivocation (tawriyah), so understand this.

The Qadi said: "It is obligatory for the compelled person to expose his soul to death, and it is not permitted for him to utter disbelief because it is a lie, and it is ugly in itself, so it is ugly in all circumstances. If it were permissible for it to escape ugliness to observe some interests, it would not be impossible for Allah, the Exalted, to do the lie for them. In that case, there would remain no trust in His promise or threat, due to the possibility that He, the Exalted, did the lie to observe an interest that only He knows." Its rebuttal is obvious. This disagreement is regarding when the compelled person is limited to either committing the lie or exposing his soul to destruction. Otherwise, whenever it is possible for him to, for example, expose himself to something or utter the speech with the intention of an interrogative of denial, it is not obligatory for him to expose his soul to that by consensus.

The permissibility of uttering disbelief when compelled was used as evidence for the permissibility of all other sins as well. This has a discussion. The Imam mentioned that some sins are obligatory when compelled, such as drinking wine, eating carrion, and pork, because preserving the soul from loss is obligatory; so where eating is the only path and there is no harm in it to an animal nor humiliation to the right of Allah, the Exalted, it is obligatory due to His saying: "And do not throw [yourselves] into destruction." Among them are those that are forbidden, such as killing a respectable human or cutting off one of his limbs. Regarding the obligation of retaliation on the compelled person, there are two views for al-Shafi'i, may mercy be upon him. He mentioned that some actions do not accept compulsion and used fornication as an example, because compulsion requires extreme fear, and that prevents the erection of the organ. So, where fornication exists, we know it occurred by choice, not by way of compulsion. The full discussion of this topic is sought in its proper place.