Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:36

"And do not pursue [taqf]..."

It means: do not follow. The origin of the meaning of qafa is to follow the back of the neck (qafa), then it was used for following in a general sense, becoming a reality [a literal usage] in that. It has been recited as wala taqfu (with the retention of the vowel letter despite the jussive), which is irregular. It has also been recited as wala taquf with a damma on the qaf and a sukun on the fa, similar to taqul (you say), as a hollow verb rendered jussive by the sukun. Its past tense is qafa, and it is said: qafa atharahu yaqufuhu (he followed his trace) when he pursues and follows it. From this is al-qiyafah (physiognomy/tracking), the origin of which is what is known from footprints and traces. Abu Ubaidah stated that qafa is a transposition of faqa (like jadhaba and jabadha), but this has been refuted on the grounds that the correct view is the opposite.

"...that of which you have no knowledge." That is: do not follow anything regarding which you have no knowledge, whether it be a statement or an action. The essence of this returns to the prohibition of judging by that which is not known. This encompasses many matters, and each of the exegetes has limited it to a specific thing:

• It is said that the intent is to prohibit the polytheists from speaking about divinity and prophethood in imitation of their forefathers and following desires.
• Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah that the intent is the prohibition of false testimony.
• It is said that the intent is the prohibition of qadhf (slander) and accusing chaste men and women. Among this is the saying of Al-Kumayt: "I do not throw accusations at the innocent without a sin, nor do I pursue the chaste women if they are accused."
• Al-Bayhaqi recorded in Shu’ab al-Iman and Abu Nu’aym in Al-Hilyah, from the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Anas: "Whoever accuses a believer of that which is not in him, desiring to disgrace him, Allah Almighty will imprison him on the bridge of Hell until he emerges from what he said."
• It is said: The intent is the prohibition of lying. Ibn Jarir and others recorded from Qatadah that he said regarding this verse: "Do not say 'I heard' when you have not heard, and 'I saw' when you have not seen."

The Imam [Fakhr al-Din al-Razi] preferred the general interpretation, stating: "The wording is general and encompasses everything, so there is no meaning in restricting it." Those who deny Qiyas (analogy) used this verse as an argument, because it is following conjecture and judging by it.

The response to this is that they have reached a consensus on judging by conjecture and acting upon it in many instances. Among these are: praying over the deceased and burying them in the graveyards of Muslims, and inheriting from a Muslim based on the assumption that he is a Muslim (which is speculative); facing the Qiblah in prayer, which is based on Ijtihad (reasoning) via indicators that only yield conjecture; eating the slaughtered animal based on it being the slaughter of a Muslim (which is speculative); testimony, for it is speculative; compensation for destroyed property and blood money for injuries, for there is no way to reach them except through conjecture. Anyone who looks, even with the corner of their eye, will see that all actions considered in this world—from travel, seeking profit, and transactions for specific terms, to relying on the friendship of friends and the enmity of enemies—are all speculative. The Prophet ﷺ said: "We judge by the apparent, and Allah Almighty oversees the inner secrets."

Thus, the prohibition against following that which is not certain knowledge is specific to creeds (‘aqa’id). Furthermore, conjecture is sometimes called knowledge, as in His saying: “If they come to you as believing women, test them. Allah is most knowing of their faith. And if you know them to be believers, do not return them to the disbelievers.” The "knowledge" of their faith is only attained through their declaration, which yields nothing but conjecture. Moreover, since the definitive proof indicates the obligation of acting upon Qiyas, that proof is itself evidence that whenever a conjecture arises that the ruling of Allah Almighty in one case equals His ruling in the text-based case, you are tasked with acting in accordance with that conjecture. Here, the conjecture occurs in the pathway to the ruling, whereas the ruling itself is known and certain.

Those who deny [analogy] responded to the first point by saying: His saying "Do not pursue" is a general rule that has been restricted (takhsis) regarding the cases where they mention acting upon conjecture, so the generality remains in what is beyond it. Furthermore, there is a difference between the cases they mention and the point of contention; the rulings relating to the former are specific to certain individuals at certain times, so explicit designation is impossible, and conjecture is sufficient out of necessity. This is unlike the latter, where rulings established by analogy are universal and applicable to universal occurrences; they are controlled, and explicit designation is possible, so it is not permissible to suffice with conjecture.

To the second point, they respond that the distinction between knowledge and conjecture is beyond doubt, and this is evidenced by His saying: “Do you have any knowledge that you can bring forth for us? You follow only conjecture.” The "believer" is the one who confesses, and that confession is the knowledge; thus, there is no naming of conjecture as knowledge in the verse. To the third point, they say it only holds if the authority of Qiyas is proven by a definitive proof, and it is not.

The best answer that can be given to the Imam's claim is that relying on the verse is a reliance on a general [rule] that has been restricted, and this yields only conjecture. If it indicated that reliance on conjecture is not permissible, it would indicate that reliance upon it (the verse itself) is not permissible. Thus, the statement that it is an authority leads to the negation of it, which is false. The responder may say: We know through tawatur (mass transmission) that is apparent from the religion of the Prophet ﷺ that adhering to the verses of the Quran is an authority in Sharia. It is possible to respond to this that the fact that a "restricted general rule" is an authority is not known by tawatur. So contemplate this.

"Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart—all of those..." That is, all of these limbs. They are referred to with the pronoun ula’ika (those), based on the view that it is specific to rational beings, treating them as if they were rational because they are held accountable for their conditions and testify against their owners. Some say it is predominantly for rational beings but is used for others because it is a collective noun, and it encompasses both categories. Among this is the saying of Jarir: "Blame the abodes after the abode of Al-Liwa, and life after those days." On this view, there is no need for such treatment or resorting to metaphor.

"...will be questioned about that." All the pronouns are pronouns of "all" (kull). That is, each of them will be questioned about itself. It is said to it: "Did your owner use you for what you were created for, or not?" This is after making it fit for address and questioning. It is permissible that the pronoun in ‘anhu (about it) refers to "all," and everything else refers to the one who pursues; there is a shift here, as the literal expression would be kunta ‘anhu mas’ulan (you were questioned about it).

Al-Zamakhshari said: ‘anhu is a deputy subject (na’ib fa’il) for mas’ulan; it is that which is predicated, and there is no pronoun in it, like [the phrase] ghayr al-maghdubi ‘alayhim. Abu al-Baqa’ and others refuted this, saying that a deputy subject follows the same rule as a subject in that it is not permissible for it to precede its verb/agent, as is its origin. He stated that Ibn al-Nahhas reported a consensus that it is not permissible to move the deputy subject forward if it is a prepositional phrase, so it is not an analogy to ghayr al-maghdubi ‘alayhim. One cannot say it is according to the view of the Kufans in their permitting the advancement of the subject, unless one disputes the correctness of the report. It is reported from the author of Al-Taqrib that the advancement of ‘anhu was permitted, despite it being a subject, due to the originality of its status as a prepositional phrase, not because of its secondary status as a subject, and because the subject does not advance for fear of confusion with the predicate, and there is no confusion here; and because it is not a subject in reality. The fairness of the matter is that, despite this, it is not said to what the Shaykh of Arabic grammar reached that it is a mistake.

In the commentary on the grammar of the Miftah, it is mentioned that it is raised by an implicit pronoun which the explicit noun explains. He permitted the omission of the explainer from the subject if it is not a verb, arguing that the verb is the original in raising the subject, so it is not permissible for it to be empty of it, unlike the active and passive participles, which are equated to immutable nouns.

In Al-Kashf, this was refuted, stating that it contains scrutiny in transmission and analogy. As for the first, it is because he is unique in it. As for the second, it is because it is needed in that if it applies to something, there must be a referent (‘a’id) returning to it so that it may be linked to it, and that it be the essence with which it is established if it is an actor, or which is associated with that essence. It is not like immutable nouns in their connection to antecedents simply by predication, because they denote a meaning related to an essence. The correct view is to say that the preposition was omitted and the pronoun was hidden after it in the attribute; you have heard recently that this is from the category of omission and connection, and that it is common.

It is possible that the raised element for mas’ulan is the verbal noun—meaning the questioning—and ‘anhu is in the place of the accusative. Ibn Jinni asked Abu Ali about the saying: Fika yorghabu (In you, there is desire), and he said it is not raised by what is after it, so where is the nominative? He said: The verbal noun, meaning: "In you, desire occurs," in the sense of "you perform desire," as in their saying: "He gives and withholds," meaning he performs giving and withholding.

It is possible that the subject of kana (was) or its actor is a hidden pronoun of kull, with an omitted possessor; that is, "its owner was questioned about it." Or, "its owner was questioned about it," and it is said to him: "Why did you use hearing for what is unlawful, and why did you direct sight to such and such, and the heart to such and such?"

Al-Jarrah al-‘Uqayli recited wal-fu’adu with a fatha on the fa and by changing the hamza into a waw. The justification is that the hamza was changed into a waw due to its occurrence with a damma in the famous reading, then the fa was opened for lightening, and this is a dialect for that; there is no weight in Abu Hatim’s denial of it. The verse is used as evidence that the servant is held accountable for the action of the heart, such as designing to commit a sin, and heart-based ailments like hatred, envy, arrogance, and others. Yes, they explicitly stated that a mere thought of sin without design is not punished, according to the authentic hadith on that.

Finally, following conjecture is sometimes a major sin and sometimes a minor sin, depending on its types and categories; among it is that which is among the greatest of major sins, as is not hidden. We ask Allah Almighty to protect us from all of that.