(And if you punish) i.e., if you intend to punish, (then punish with the like of that with which you were punished) i.e., the like of what was done to you. It is expressed here as "punishment" (al-'iqab) by way of applying the name of the effect to the cause, similar to the saying, "As you judge, you shall be judged," following the method of mushakalah (correspondence in phrasing). Al-Khafaji said: Punishment in common usage is absolute torment, even if initiated, but in the origin of the language, it is requital for a previous torment. If the second meaning is considered, it is mushakalah; if the first is considered, there is no mushakalah. And upon that consideration, the reciprocal form (the mufa'ala pattern) does not imply mutual participation.

The verse was revealed regarding the mutilation of Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him, on the day of Uhud. It is authentically narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stood over Hamzah on the day he was martyred and saw a sight no one had ever seen that was more painful to his heart. He saw that he had been mutilated, so he said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon you, for you were, as far as I knew, one who maintains ties of kinship and does many good deeds. If it were not for the sadness of those after you, I would be pleased to leave you until Allah raises you from various spirits. But by Allah, I will surely mutilate seventy of them in your place." Then Gabriel (peace be upon him) descended while the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was standing, bringing the concluding verses of An-Nahl: "And if you punish..." to the end. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then made expiation for his oath, refrained from what he had intended, and remained patient. Thus, according to this, it is Medinan.

An-Nahhas held that it is Meccan and is not regarding the matter of the mutilation of Hamzah, may Allah be pleased with him. Some have chosen this view due to the lack of connection that would otherwise be required, which is far removed from the speech of the Lord of Glory—as there is no relevance between that incident and what preceded it. As for the view that it is Meccan, the aspect of the connection is that when He, the Almighty, commanded His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to preach and explained its path, He pointed to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and to those who follow him to observe justice with those who oppose them, and to observe equivalence. For the call to Islam can hardly be separated from such opposition. How could it be otherwise, when it necessitates turning faces away from worshipped idols, placing necks into a yoke previously unknown, judging them to be corrupt in all they do and leave, and invalidating the religion upon which their forefathers had persisted? Their stratagems became constricted, their excuses failed them, the paths of argumentation and debate became blocked, and the doors of discussion and dialogue were shut before them. Breath faltered in their chests; they fell into distress and perplexity, striking five against six, finding no vehicle but spear-points, and choosing the "red death" (the sword) over the religion of Islam as a path.

The majority of exegetes have taken the first view (the Medinan view), and this is what occurs in Sahih al-Bukhari. Indeed, al-Qurtubi said: "It is something upon which the exegetes have reached consensus." The claim of a lack of connection is invalid, for drawing attention to that incident is to point out that preaching is never free from such occurrences, and that argumentation often leads to physical confrontation. If that happens, then the proper course is what has been mentioned. Thus, there is no difference in the connection, regarding the ultimate outcome, between it being Meccan or Medinan. The specificity of the cause does not contradict the generality of the meaning. Therefore, relying upon the majority's opinion is the correct course, without deviating from what they have said.

Ibn Sirin recited: "Wa in 'aqabtum fa-'aqibu" (with the stress on the two Qafs), meaning: "And if you are followed (or chased) in retaliating, then follow by the like of what was done to you, without exceeding it." The verse has been used as evidence that one who is retaliating may do to the perpetrator the like of what was done to him, in both kind and degree. This is a matter over which there is no disagreement. As for the unity of the tool—that one should be killed with a stone if he killed with a stone, or a sword if he killed with a sword, for example—some Imams have held this view. The school of Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him, is that there is no qisas (retaliation) except by the sword. The basis for this, despite the verse seemingly appearing otherwise, is that killing with a stone or the like is something whose intensity and effect cannot be equated in magnitude; therefore, the equivalence is considered in the act of killing and the taking of the soul, and the standard for this is the sword, as al-Razi mentioned in his Ahkam. Some mentioned that there is a difference of opinion regarding this verse; al-Shafi'i adopted its apparent meaning, while the Hanafis answered that the equivalence is in the number—that one is killed for one—since it was revealed because of the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement, "I will surely mutilate seventy of them," after Hamzah was killed and mutilated as you heard; thus, it is not evidence for [the exact tool]. Al-Wahidi said that it is abrogated, like other verses regarding mutilation, though there is debate on this in the commentaries of al-Hidayah.

In limiting the command by His saying, "And if you punish," there is an incitement to pardon, by way of allusion in the conditional "in" (if) to the uncertainty of the occurrence of what is contained within it. It is as if it were said: "Do not punish; but if you do punish, then..." just as a doctor might say to a patient who asked about eating fruit: "Eat pears" (implying eat them if you must). This is expressed clearly in the most emphatic way, as it is said: (And if you are patient) i.e., from punishing with the like, (it is) i.e., that patience of yours is, on the model of "Be just, it is closer to piety," (better) than the victory gained through punishment, (for the patient) i.e., for you. However, it was shifted to what is in the sublime arrangement as a praise for them, commending their patience. It is an indication that if you are patient, it is your known character trait, so do not abandon it in this case. Or, it is a description of them with a quality they attain if they refrain from punishing; it is on the model of "Whoever kills a killer..." and this is the apparent meaning of the wording. In it is an extreme encouragement to patience. It is permissible for the pronoun to return to the absolute concept of patience indicated by the verb, and "the patient" refers to the category of them, so these people enter into it primarily. Furthermore, the Almighty explicitly commanded His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with that which He had encouraged others to do by way of allusion—namely, patience—because he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the most worthy of people to fulfill the matters of resolve, due to his increased knowledge of His (the Almighty’s) affairs and his trust in Him. Thus, the Almighty said: