Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:91

Qatadah and Mujahid said: It was revealed regarding the alliances made during the Pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) concerning enjoining good or forbidding evil. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Mazidah ibn Jabir that it was revealed concerning the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him); whoever embraced Islam pledged allegiance to the religion. The apparent meaning is that it refers to the pledge of allegiance to Islam in an absolute sense, and thus the "covenant of Allah" signifies that pledge, as more than one scholar has stated.

It has been objected that the apparent meaning is general and applies to every binding agreement, which is what the words of Maymun ibn Mahran necessitate, and the occasion of revelation is not among the factors of specification (takhsis). For this reason, they say: "The consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause." It was responded that the context for specification is His (the Exalted) saying preceding this: "Indeed, those who disbelieve..." (16:92), though this view is debatable.

Al-Asamm said: It refers to Jihad and what has been obligated from wealth as a right, but His (the Exalted) saying, "When you have made a covenant," does not suit this.

It is also said: It refers to a vow (nadhr). And it is said: It refers to an oath (yamin). The Imam scrutinized this by noting that, in that case, His (the Exalted) saying, "And do not break oaths after their confirmation," would be redundant, because fulfilling a covenant and prohibiting its breach are closely related, for the command to perform an action implies the prohibition of omitting it. If "covenant" is interpreted in a general sense such that it includes oaths, then this would be an instance of mentioning specific examples out of concern for them. Some of those who interpreted the covenant as the pledge of allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) interpreted "oaths" as those made during that pledge, while others allowed for it to be interpreted as oaths in the absolute sense.

In the Sa’diyyah marginalia, it is stated that the apparent meaning is that it refers to the matters sworn upon, as in his (upon him be peace) saying: "Whoever swears an oath and then sees another as better, let him do that which is better and expiate for his oath." For if the intended meaning were the mention of the name of Allah, it would be the entity of the affirmation, not the affirmed matter, and thus there would be no place for the conjunction, as established in the science of Ma’ani. This was refuted by stating that what is meant is the contract itself, not the matter sworn upon, because a "breach" (naqd) only suits a contract. There is no contradiction in this with His (the Exalted) saying, "after their confirmation," because the intent is that the contract be confirmed by the mention of Allah (the Exalted), not by the mention of others, as the ignorant do. Thus, the meaning is that the prohibition is not against breaking an oath [made] by other than Allah.

Al-Wahidi said: His (the Exalted) saying, "after their confirmation," is to exclude the "vain" oath (laghw), such as "No, by Allah" and "Yes, by Allah," based on the fact that the meaning is "after confirmation by resolve and contract," and the vain oath is not such. Then, if "oaths" is interpreted in its absolute sense, it is as the Imam said—it is general, subject to the specification by the aforementioned Hadith, which indicates that whenever the benefit lies in breaking an oath, it is permissible to do so. This has been scrutinized, for if the prohibition were not still in effect, there would be no need for the expiation that serves as a remedy for the sin. It was answered that the obligation of expiation is by way of a deterrent, for the essence of oaths is binding, even if [they were] prohibited, so this does not contradict the necessity of its consequence. It is also permitted to say that this is because of the act of swearing by Allah (the Exalted) in an inappropriate place, so consider this.

Tawkid (confirmation) means tawthiq (strengthening). From this comes akid, with the waw changed to a hamzah, according to the view of Al-Zajjaj and other grammarians. Others held that wakada and akada are two original, distinct dialects, because both usages of the root are equal, so it is not appropriate to say that the waw is a substitute for the hamzah, as mentioned in Al-Durr al-Masun; this is the view chosen by Abu Hayyan.

Meaning: A witness and a watcher, for the guarantor (kafil) observes the state of the one guaranteed and watches over him. The usage of "guarantor" in this context is either metaphorical or a figurative extension (majaz mursal), where the relationship is that of necessity.

It is apparent that their "making" Him a guarantor is also metaphorical, because when they did that—and Allah (the Exalted) is observant of them—it is as if they had made Him (the Exalted) a witness; Al-Khafaji said this. Then he added: If one were to keep "guarantor" in its literal sense and treat it as a similitude for the fact that they cannot escape His punishment, and that He will deliver them to it just as a guarantor delivers the one he guaranteed—as one says, "Whoever commits oppression has set up a guarantor for his oppression," warning that he cannot escape punishment, as mentioned by Al-Raghib—then it would have a very eloquent meaning; so reflect upon this.

The apparent meaning is that the clause is in the state (hal) of the subject of "you break." It is also permissible for it to be the state of the subject of the verbal noun (masdar), even if it is elided. His (the Exalted) saying: "Indeed, Allah knows what you do,"—meaning, of the breach, so He will reward you for it—is in the position of providing the cause (ta’lil) for the preceding prohibition. Al-Khafaji said: It is like an explanation for what preceded it.