Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:23

"And your Lord has decreed" Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded via Ali ibn Abi Talhah from Ibn Abbas that he said: It means, "He commanded."

"That you not worship except Him" The particle an (that) is an infinitive marker (masdariyyah), with a preposition omitted before it. The la (not) is negative, and the intent is a prohibition. It is also permissible for it to be a prohibitive la, as previously mentioned; the interpretation as an infinitive does not contradict this, as we have already established. Alternatively, an is explanatory (mufassirah) because it is preceded by a verb that conveys the meaning of a statement, though not its literal letters, and the la is purely prohibitive.

Some have permitted that an is the "lightened" form of anna (that), with its subject being the implied "pronoun of state" (dhamir al-sha'n), and la is likewise prohibitive—though you can see the weakness of this view. Others permitted that an is the infinitive marker and la is an "extra" (za'idah) particle; the meaning would be: "Your Lord has obligated you to worship Him." However, the [subsequent] exception (istithna') rejects this.

In al-Kashshaf, qada (decreed) is interpreted as "commanded a definitive command," which many have treated as a case of tadmin (inclusion/implication), treating the included meaning as the root and the implied meaning as a constraint. Some said: The intent is that qada is a metaphor for an absolute, finalized command that admits no abrogation. If this were a matter of tadmin, the object of qada would be the "command" rather than the "commanded subject"; otherwise, it would necessitate that no one ever worships anyone other than Allah, requiring that the address be specified to the believers. This is countered by saying that all of Allah's commands are by His decree, so there is no basis for such specification.

This was countered by stating that the aforementioned argument is valid only if al-qada refers to the "decree" (qadar); however, if the intended meaning is the linguistic one—that is, finality and decisiveness—then the objection does not apply. Furthermore, the necessity that no one other than Allah be worshipped was claimed by Ibn Abbas in what has been narrated regarding al-qada, without further detail. Abu Ubayd, Ibn Muni', Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Marduyah recorded via Maymun ibn Mihran from him (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Allah revealed this letter on the tongue of your Prophet: wa-wassa rabbuka (and your Lord has enjoined), but one of the waws fused into the sad, so people read it wa-qada rabbuka (and your Lord has decreed). Had it been revealed as wasiyyah (enjoinment), no one would have associated partners with Him."

Similar accounts were recorded from a group via Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Ibn Abi Hatim via al-Dahhak. This reading was also narrated from Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b (may Allah be pleased with them). If authentic, this is strange coming from Ibn Abbas, for the problematic aspect is avoided by interpreting qada as "command," or even less than that, as has also been narrated from him.

Indeed, it has been said that this is a metaphorical meaning of qada, while others say it is the literal one. In Mufradat al-Raghib, qada is defined as the resolution of a matter, whether through speech or action, and both can be divine or human. Among the divine speech is His saying: "And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him," meaning: "Your Lord has commanded..."

This command, according to some, is in the sense of an absolute request, so as to include the request to abstain from worshipping other than Him. This obviates the need for such metaphor, as it is said that the meaning of "do not worship other than Him" is "worship Him alone," thus it is a command by virtue of its implication. This was chosen to signal that the "clearing away" (takhliyah) by abandoning what is other than Him is an important prerequisite here. He (Glorified be He) commanded that they not worship other than Him because worship is the ultimate form of veneration, and it is not appropriate except for the One who is in the pinnacle of greatness, the Bestower of immense blessings; and none besides Allah is such. This and what follows it of righteous deeds—such as the preference for striving for the Hereafter—are linked.

"And with parents, treat them with excellence" Meaning: And that you treat them with excellence, or "treat them with excellence, an excellence." Perhaps, when considering the singular address later on, one estimates [the verb] "and treat [the singular] with excellence" as well. The preposition and its object are connected to the implied verb, which is the view taken by al-Zamakhshari. He forbade connecting it to the [verbal] noun (masdar) because its complement cannot precede it. al-Wahidi connected it to the noun, to which al-Halabi said: If the noun is "dissolved" into an and the verb, then the view held by al-Zamakhshari is correct. If it is treated as a surrogate for the omitted verb, then the view held by al-Wahidi is correct. The position of many grammarians is the permissibility of placing its ma'mul (governed object) before it if it is an absolute adverb, due to their broadness regarding prepositions and their objects.

"If one or both of them reach old age while with you" Imma is composed of the conditional in and the ma added for emphasis. al-Zamakhshari said: "Therefore, it is correct to attach the emphatic nun to the verb; if in were used alone, it would not be correct to attach it." There is disagreement regarding the attachment of the nun after the addition [of ma]; Abu Ishaq claimed it is mandatory, whereas from Sibawayh comes the statement that it is not mandatory.

The meaning of "with you" is in your care and custody. Placing it before the object, despite the fact that its rightful place is after it, is to create anticipation for its arrival, as it is the pivot of redoubled care and excellence. "One of them" is the subject of the verb, and its delay after the adverb and the object is so that the speech is not unnecessarily lengthened by it and what is conjoined to it; "or both of them" is conjoined to it.

Hamzah and al-Kisa'i read imma yablughani (dual), then ahaduhuma (one of them). According to al-Kashshaf, ahaduhuma is a substitute (badal) for the dual pronoun, not the subject; the [alif] is a sign of duality according to the dialect of "the fleas ate me" (akaluni al-baraghit). This was refuted by noting that such is conditional upon the verb being attributed to a dual—like qama akhuwaka (your two brothers stood)—or separated by a conjunction, specifically with waw, upon which there is disagreement, like qama Zaydun wa-'Amrun. What we have here is not like that.

The start was criticized on the basis that ahaduhuma would then be a "part-of-a-whole" substitute (badal ba'd min kull), not a "whole-of-a-whole" (kull min kull), because it is not identical to it. Kilahuma (both of them) is conjoined to it, thus becoming a "whole-of-a-whole" substitute, but it would be devoid of benefit, in addition to the fact that we have not found the conjunction of a "whole" substitute to something else. It was answered that we concede the substitute did not provide additional information over what was substituted for, but this is not harmful as it is the nature of emphasis (ta'kid). If it were conceded that it must provide more, there is a benefit, for it is a "distributive substitute" (badal muqassam), as Ibn 'Atiyyah said.

This was criticized by saying it is not the aforementioned type of substitute because its condition is conjunction with waw and that the substituted-for noun does not apply to one of its parts, whereas here it has applied to one of them. In sum, this view is not free from debate.

From Abu Ali al-Farisi is the view that ahaduhuma is a substitute for the dual pronoun, and kilahuma is an emphasis for the pronoun. This was criticized by saying that an emphasis is not conjoined to a substitute, just as it is not conjoined to anything else, and that ahaduhuma is not fit as an emphasis for a dual or anything else. Hence, neither is what is conjoined to it, and that there is a contradiction between "substituting a part of it" and "emphasizing it," for emphasis repels the intent of "part of it." Hence, he said in al-Durr al-Masun: It must be corrected by making ahaduhuma a "part-of-a-whole" substitute, implying after it a verb that elevates the dual pronoun, and kilahuma is an emphasis for it. The meaning would be: "Or they both reach..." This would then be a case of conjoining sentences, but it involves deleting the emphasized [word] while retaining its emphasis, which some grammarians have forbidden.

Perhaps the preferred view is to imply a verb to which the dual pronoun is not attached, and making kilahuma the subject of it, for it is free from what you have heard in others. This is why it was chosen in al-Bahr. The singular address in "with you" and what follows, despite the fact that what was stated previously was in the plural, is to prevent ambiguity of the intent, which is to forbid everyone from saying "uff" to their parents or rebuking them. Had the plural been matched with the plural, or the dual with the dual, that would not have been achieved. It was mentioned that the address was singular in "do not make [with Allah another deity]" for the sake of hyperbole, and plural in "that you not worship except Him" because it is more in line with the grandeur of the decree.

"Do not say to them 'uff'" Meaning: To either one of them, in states of solitude or being together. "Uff" is an onomatopoeic word signifying annoyance, or a verbal noun meaning "I am annoyed." Verbal nouns meaning the present tense—and likewise the past—are rare; the most frequent are those meaning the imperative. There are about forty dialects for it, and what has come down in the recitations are seven: three mutawatir (consecutively narrated) and four shadhdh (irregular). Nafi' and Hafs read it with a kasra and tanwin, which is for indefiniteness, so the meaning is "I am annoyed with some sort of annoyance"; if it is not tanwin-ed, it indicates a specific annoyance. Ibn Kathir and Ibn 'Amir read it with a fatha without tanwin, and the rest with a kasra without tanwin, based on the principle of meeting two quiescent letters, and the fatha is for lightness. There is no disagreement among them on the doubling of the fa.

The essence of the meaning is: Do not show annoyance at what you deem repulsive from them, and do not find the burden of their care heavy. The prohibition of this indicates the prohibition of all other types of harm by clear analogy, because it is understood by the "prioritized" method (tariq al-awla), which is termed mafhum al-muwafaqah (concept of agreement), dalalat al-nass (indication of the text), and fahwa al-khitab (implication of the address). It has been said that it indicates this literally and through articulation in the custom of the language, like saying: "So-and-so does not own a naqir or a qitmir (tiny bits)," for this indicates as well that he owns nothing, little or much. Some types of harm were singled out by mention in His saying "and do not rebuke them" out of concern for their status. Nahr (rebuke), as al-Raghib said, is to repulse with harshness. In al-Kashshaf, the "prohibition," "rebuke," and "scolding" are siblings; meaning, do not repel them from what they engage in that you do not like.

The Imam said: The intent of His saying "do not say to them 'uff'" is to forbid the showing of annoyance, little or much. The intent of His saying "and do not rebuke them" is to forbid the showing of opposition in speech by way of retorting to them and belying them. Thus, this order was observed; otherwise, the prohibition of saying "uff" would indicate the prohibition of rebuking them by way of priority, so mentioning it afterward would be in vain—so reflect.

"And speak to them a noble word" Meaning: Beautiful, without harshness. al-Raghib said: Everything that is noble in its category is described as karam. Some verifiers have made this a case of describing a thing with the name of its possessor, meaning: speech originating from nobility and gentleness. It refers, ultimately, to the beautiful speech that manners require and that abandoning [the dictates of] chivalry demands, such as saying "O my father" and "O my mother," and not calling them by their names, for that is from cruelty and bad manners. "Noble word" is not restricted to that, as the limitation of al-Hasan—in what Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from him—might imply, for it is by way of illustration. Likewise is what was recorded from Zuhayr ibn Muhammad, who said about it: "If they call you, say 'At your service and your obedience'."

He, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Abu al-Haddaj that he said: I said to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, "Everything Allah mentioned in the Quran regarding dutifulness to parents I have understood, except His saying: 'And speak to them a noble word.' What is this noble word?" Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said: "The speech of a sinful servant to a harsh master."