Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:3

(ذرية) is in the accusative case (nasb) on the basis of ikhtisas (specification) or nida’ (vocative). The intention is to urge them toward monotheism by mentioning His Almighty’s favor upon them, which is encapsulated in the salvation of their ancestors from drowning in the Ark of Noah, peace be upon him, at a time when they had no protector to rely upon other than Him, the Exalted.

Makki specialized the nida’ (vocative) for the reading of the second-person address. He stated: "For whoever reads (يتخذوا - yattakhidhu) with the ya of the third-person, the nida’ is remote, because the ya is for the third-person and the nida’ is for the second-person address, so they do not combine except with remoteness." What he said is sound. As for the claim of some that "it is not as he alleged, because it is permissible for a person to call out to someone and inform about another, saying: 'O Zayd, Bakr is leaving,' and 'You have done such and such, O Zayd, may ‘Amr do this and that,'" this does not negate the remoteness that Makki claimed.

It is also possible that (ذرية) is one of the two objects of (تتخذوا), and (وكيلا) is the other. Because (وكيلا) is in the form of fa‘il in the sense of maf‘ul (passive participle), it applies equally to the masculine singular and others. Thus, it cannot be argued, "How can it be a second object when the second object is the predicate of the meaning, and it does not correspond here?" (ومن دوني) is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from it, and (من) can be taken as initiating the starting point (ibtida’iyyah).

It is also permissible for it to be a substitute (badal) for (وكيلا), because the object being substituted is not entirely dismissed in every respect. That is: "Do not take, instead of Me, the descendants of those whom We carried." The intention here is the prohibition against taking ‘Uzayr, ‘Isa, peace be upon them, and their likes as lords. In expressing it in the manner mentioned, there is an allusion to the reason for the prohibition from several perspectives:

1. Recalling the favor in saving their ancestors, as mentioned.
2. Recalling their own weakness and the state that necessitated being carried.
3. That they are weaker than them because they are born of them. In preferring the term "descendants" (dhurriyyah), which in common usage refers to children and women, there is a perfect appropriateness to what was mentioned.

Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be a substitute for (Musa), but this is very far-fetched. A group read (dhurriyyatan) in the nominative case (raf‘) on the basis that it is the predicate of a deleted subject—i.e., "He is a descendant"—and there is no remoteness in that, contrary to what some imagined. Or, it could be a substitute for the pronoun in (yattakhidhu). Abu al-Baqa’ said this regarding the reading with the ya of the third-person. Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: "This is not permissible in the reading with the ta of the second-person address, because the pronoun of the addressee is not substituted for a manifest noun." Abu Hayyan countered this in al-Bahr by stating that the issue requires detail: if it is a substitute of a part for the whole (badal ba‘d min kull) or a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal), it is permissible without dispute. If it is a substitute of a thing for a thing (badal shay’ min shay’) and they are one and the same entity, if it serves as a corroboration (tawkid), it is permissible without dispute, such as: "I passed by you, the young among you and the old among you." If it does not serve as a corroboration, the position of the majority of Basrans is prohibition, while the position of al-Akhfash and the Kufans is permission, which is the correct view due to its existence in the language of the Arabs. This has been proven correct in Sharh al-Tashil.

Zayd ibn Thabit, Aban ibn ‘Uthman, Zayd ibn ‘Ali, and Mujahid—in one narration—read (dhurriyyat) with a kasra on the dhal. In another narration from Mujahid, he read it with a fatha. It is also narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit that he read (dhurriyyat) with a fatha on the dhal, a light ra’, and a shadda on the ya, on the pattern of fa‘ilah like matiyyah.

{ إنه كان عبدا شكورا } Meaning: Noah, peace be upon him, was one who gave much thanks in all his circumstances.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu‘ab, and al-Hakim (who authenticated it) narrated from Salman al-Farisi, who said: "Whenever Noah, peace be upon him, wore a garment or ate food, he praised Allah the Exalted, so he was named 'a grateful servant'." ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad narrated in Zawa’id al-Zuhd from Ibrahim, who said: "His gratitude, peace be upon him, was that he would mention Allah’s name when he ate, and praise Allah the Exalted when he finished."

Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Mu‘adh ibn Anas al-Juhani from the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying: "Allah the Exalted only named Noah a grateful servant because whenever evening and morning came, he would say: 'So exalted is Allah when you reach the evening and when you reach the morning, and to Him is praise in the heavens and the earth, and at the time of your decline and when you reach the time of noon.'"

Al-Bayhaqi and others narrated from ‘A’ishah from the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying: "Noah never rose from the lavatory without saying: 'Praise be to Allah who made me taste its pleasure, kept its benefit within me, and removed its harm from me.'" This is part of his gratitude, peace be upon him. In this sentence, there is an allusion that the salvation of those with him, peace be upon him, was due to the blessing of his gratitude, an urging for the descendants to follow his example, and a warning to them against polytheism, which is the greatest level of disbelief. This is the aspect of its appropriateness to what preceded. Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is permissible to say that this is mentioned by way of digression, and in that case, one does not seek its appropriateness with what preceded the speech, except in that it was the affair of the one mentioned—namely, Noah, peace be upon him." It is also said that the pronoun in (innahu) returns to Moses, peace be upon him, and the sentence is brought as a justification, either for the giving of the Book, or for making him a guide, based on the fact that the pronoun "We made him" refers to him, or for the prohibition against taking others. But there is remoteness in that, so reflect.