Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:67

(And from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines...): This is attached to an omitted element, the estimation of which is: "And We give you to drink from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines"—meaning, from their juice. It was omitted due to the indication provided by "We give you to drink" (nasqikum) preceding it.

His saying, (You take from it intoxicants and good provision), is an explanation and clarification of the nature of this "giving to drink," or [it acts as] "they take." And "from it" (minhu) is a repetition of the circumstantial container for emphasis, as in your saying: "Zayd is in the house, in it." Or, it may be the predicate of an omitted subject whose description is "(you take)," meaning: "And from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines is fruit from which you take..." The pronoun in "from it" refers either to the estimated added noun [i.e., juice] or to the "fruits" interpreted as "fruit" (thamr), because it is a collective noun acting as a generic; the benefit of this form is to indicate the enumeration of types. Or, it refers to the estimated "fruit."

"Intoxicants" (sukr) refers to wine. Al-Akhtal said: "Woe to the sober, and woe to the drinkers, their drinking [is ruined] when the mixture flows among them, and [they are in a state of] sukr." It is originally a verbal noun (masdar) of sakara, sukran, and sukran, like rashada, rushdan, and rushdan. He cited as evidence for this the verse: "And they came to us with sukr upon us, so the day became clear." The intoxicated person is the one who is sober [afterward].

They interpreted "good provision" as vinegar, syrup, dates, raisins, and other things. The author of al-Kashshaf adhered to this, and he mentioned regarding the grammatical derivation of this phrase what we have already mentioned, prioritizing the first of his three proposed viewpoints, which is apparent in his preference for it. Al-Tayyibi explicitly stated this and explained it as he did, placing the third viewpoint last, which is evidently weaker than its counterparts. In al-Kashf, after quoting his [the author's] words regarding the first viewpoint—that it contains the ellipsis of "juice," and that it does not seem to function as a conjunction on the surface to the preceding segment because it does not serve as an explanation for the "lesson" (ibrah) in the cattle—he states: "And it contains [the issue] that 'you take' does not serve as a clarification of the essence of the 'giving to drink,' especially since 'good provision' has also been interpreted as dates and raisins; what entry does 'juice' have here? And where is this explanation compared to the explanation provided by His saying 'We give you to drink' to make it a basis for his preference?" Thus, this is a weak viewpoint, interpreted as being a conjunction to the sum of the preceding [segments], and the verbal form was preferred due to its proximity to "We give you to drink." His saying "you take from it intoxicants" is then the explanation in his view, and he then brought an additional benefit.

The most manifest of these viewpoints is what was mentioned last: meaning, "And from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines is fruit [that] you take," so that it serves as a conjunction of a nominal sentence to a nominal sentence, namely His saying: "And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson." And since the "lesson" in this is not like the first, he sufficed with it being a conjunction to that which is a "lesson" and did not make it explicit. It is indicated by the partitive (tab'id) [the preposition min] that from these fruits there are those which are eaten before ripening, those that spoil, those eaten by wild animals, and others.

What he mentioned in the interpretation regarding the "explanation of the explanation" at "intoxicants" necessitates making "provision" (rizq) governed by a different agent, and its remoteness is not hidden. It is apparent that he does not deny this. What he mentioned as the "most manifest" viewpoint was mentioned by al-Jawfi, like his companion. It is not an objection that it contains the ellipsis of the described noun [that is qualified] by the sentence, for this is standard when the described noun is a part of the noun preceded by the preposition min, such as: "Among us are those who stayed, and among us are those who departed," meaning a group. Sometimes the described noun is omitted in other contexts, such as the poet's saying: "You have nothing with me but a spear and a stone, and a bent one [a bow] with a strong string, which my palm gave away—it was from the best of men," meaning a man.

Al-Tabari said: "The estimation is: 'And from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines is that which you take from it...'" Abu Hayyan countered this by saying it is not permissible according to the school of the Basrans, as if he considered "that" (ma) as a relative pronoun, and the omission of the relative pronoun while keeping the relative clause is not permissible among them. Perhaps they differentiate between the relative pronoun and the described noun in what was mentioned.

The scholar Ibn Kamal said in some of his treatises: "There is no basis for what the author of al-Kashshaf chose, intending by it to attach the prepositional phrase to the omitted 'We give you to drink' and estimating the addition of 'juice,' because then it does not cover the edible fruit, which is the greater of the two categories of their fruits—meaning the palm trees and the grapevines—and the context is one of conferring a favor, and its requirement is the encompassment of both categories." Then he said: "And the wonder is at him and those who followed him, like al-Baydawi, how they agreed upon interpreting 'good provision' as that which encompasses dates and raisins, and yet they say: 'The meaning is: and from their juice you take intoxicants and good provision,' for there is no consistency between these two statements. Therefore, the way is for the prepositional phrase to be attached to 'you take,' and 'from it' would be a repetition of the circumstantial container for emphasis." This is what Abu Hayyan considered the strongest, and the indication of the objection to what he wondered at—along with the answer, which contains its own remoteness—has already passed. It was reported from him that he made it attached to the meaning of "feeding" contained within the "giving to drink," i.e., "We feed you from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines," so as to include the edible [fruit] from them and the drink taken from their juice. This contains a degree of remoteness.

You know that the estimation of "juice" on the first viewpoint is necessary for those who hold it, and its estimation on the second viewpoint is also permissible for that same person, but it is not permissible for the objector. Abu al-Baqa chose to attach it to "He created for you" or "He made," but that is not significant. It was said: It is a conjunction to "cattle," with the meaning: "And from the fruits of the palm trees and the grapevines is a lesson," and "you take" is an explanation of it. This is not the viewpoint that the author of al-Kashf considered strongest. The apparent [meaning] of "is" as a substitute for the pronoun in "from it" does not necessitate what you heard, as is not hidden from you after you have been informed of what was said regarding the pronoun in "their bellies."

The interpretation of "intoxicants" (sukr) as wine is what is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Umar, Abu Razin, al-Hasan, Mujahid, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Thawr, al-Kalbi, and Ibn Jubayr, along with a multitude of others. The verse was revealed in Mecca, and wine at that time was permissible, drunk by the righteous and the wicked. Its prohibition occurred in Medina by consensus; they differed as to whether it was before or after Uhud. The verse that prohibited it is: "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it," according to what a group has held. Thus, what is here is abrogated by that. This was narrated by more than one of the predecessors, such as al-Nakha'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn Jubayr.

It was also said: It was revealed before, and there is no abrogation, based on what was narrated from Ibn Abbas that "intoxicants" (sukr) means vinegar in the Abyssinian language, or based on what was reported from Abu Ubaydah that "intoxicants" refers to food that is enjoyed, like snacks. He recited: "I made the dishonoring of the noble [as] sukr." This was countered by saying that the meaning of sukr in that context as wine is more similar than [the meaning of] food, and the meaning is that because of his passion for backbiting and tearing apart honors, it became to him in the position of intoxicating wine. It seems that it is for this reason that al-Zajjaj said: "The statement of Abu Ubaydah is not correct." In this, it is noted that what is known regarding backbiting is to call it a "snack" (naql); hence it was said: "Backbiting is the fruit of the reciters." The Hanafis held the view that there is no abrogation, and they said: "The intended meaning of sukr is that which does not intoxicate from the fermented drinks." They proved this by noting that Allah Almighty conferred a favor upon His servants for what He created for them from it, and a favor is not realized except with that which is permissible; thus, this is evidence for the permissibility of drinking that which is below the level of intoxication from fermented drinks. When it reaches [the state of] sukr, it is not permissible. They supported this from the Sunnah with what was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "Allah Almighty has prohibited wine itself—the little of it and the much—and the sukr [intoxicating effect] of every drink," reported by al-Daraqutni. The view of the permissibility of drinking fermented drinks, as long as it does not reach the point of intoxication, was held by Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi—who was the Imam of the people of his time—and Sufyan al-Thawri, who was one of those who taught [it]. He—may Allah have mercy on him—used to drink it, as mentioned by al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir.

Al-Baydawi, after interpreting "intoxicants" as wine, hesitated regarding the matter of its revelation, saying: "Unless the verse was prior to the prohibition of wine, in which case it points to its detestability; otherwise, it combines both reproach and favor." The aspect of its pointing to detestability is that wine was placed in opposition to "good," and this requires its ugliness, and that which is ugly is not free from detestability, even if it is free from prohibition. He was objected to on the grounds that his hesitation here regarding its priority to the prohibition of wine contradicts what is in Surah al-Baqarah, where he presented the speech decisively, even though he affirmed at the beginning of this Surah that it is Meccan, except for three verses at the end. In al-Kashshaf, after he also interpreted "intoxicants" as mentioned, he said: "In it are two viewpoints: first, that it is abrogated; second, that it combines reproach and favor." Al-Kashf reported that the statement that it is abrogated is the best of opinions, then it said: "And in the verse is evidence for the ugliness of consuming it, by way of implication from qualifying its counterpart with 'good.' This is the viewpoint of one who holds that it combines reproach and favor. According to the first [viewpoint], it is a sign that while 'intoxicants' may be permissible, it is among those things which it is good to avoid."

Ibn Kamal argued for its revelation before the prohibition on the grounds that the context does not allow for reproach, for the flow of speech is directed—as its context and succession indicate—to the enumeration of great blessings. He mentioned that the speech of al-Zamakhshari and those who followed him stems from a lack of attention to this. Perhaps the lack of describing "intoxicants" with what was used to describe what follows it is because Allah knew it would become a defilement, which the Law would judge as prohibited. Al-Zamakhshari permitted making "intoxicants" a "good provision," as if it were said: "You take from it what is intoxicating and good provision," meaning that the conjunction is a conjunction of attributes. You know that the conjunction [in such a structure] makes difference [in meaning] apparent.

Furthermore, since milk is a great blessing in which the action of the creation has no input, the Almighty attributed it to Himself by His saying: "We give you to drink," unlike the taking of intoxicants, and this has been explicitly stated in al-Bahr. Reflect upon this.

(Indeed in that is a sign for a people who use reason): They employ their intellects by way of contemplation and reflection upon the signs. The verb is in the position of an intransitive one. Abu Hayyan said: "Since the beginning of the speech was 'And indeed for you in grazing livestock is a lesson,' it was appropriate to conclude with His saying [Almighty]: 'for a people who use reason,' because only those who possess intellects take heed." I say: If there is an indication in the verse of the downgrading of the affair of intoxicants, then in the mentioned conclusion is a strengthening of that. It has a position in the souls—and what a position—since intoxicants, as it is said, are a shackle for the intellects. If the cupbearers circulate it with their palms, for its discourse, they offer as a dowry [their] intellects. So understand that, and Allah Almighty takes charge of your guidance.