Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:7

In Al-Kashshaf, it is stated that it denotes exclusivity/appropriation, but this is challenged on the grounds that it contradicts the reports that the harm of evil transcends the sinner. Unless it is said that the harm of these people, the Children of Israel, did not transcend them. The objection to this is that it is an unnecessary affectation, for the otherworldly rewards and punishments do not transcend, and these are what is intended here. It is also said that the lam denotes benefit, like the first, but by way of sarcasm. Some researchers have suggested that generalizing the acts of goodness and evil such that they include both the transitive and the obligatory is the most sound view. They defined goodness as doing what is considered good for oneself and for others, and evil as the opposite. They stated that this is more appropriate and complete. For this reason, it is said that repeating the word "goodness" in the noble rhythmic structure, while not repeating the word "evil," is an indication that the aspect of goodness is dominant, and that when it is performed, it should be repeated, unlike its opposite. It has been reported from Ali—may Allah, the Exalted, ennoble his countenance—that he said: "I have not done good to anyone, nor have I done evil to him," then he recited the verse. The appropriateness of this to what preceded it is, according to what Al-Qutb said: when they disobeyed, Allah, the Exalted, set upon them those who intended them for plunder and captivity, then when they repented and obeyed, their condition improved. Thus, it became clear that the goodness and evil of actions are specific to them. The verse includes encouragement towards goodness and warning against evil, as is self-evident. So reflect.

(So when the promise of the latter) of your two times of corruption (comes) (that they might grieve) — this is connected to a verb omitted due to the indication of what preceded it, which is the response to "when," i.e., "We sent them that they might grieve (your faces)," meaning that the servants who were sent might cause the traces of misery and distress to appear upon your faces. For psychological conditions manifest on the face; thus, joy produces radiance and brightness, while sadness and fear produce sullenness and darkness. So "faces" is meant in its literal sense. It is said it is possible that "face" is used to represent the whole person, for they grieved them through killing, looting, and captivity, so the evil reached their entire beings. This is supported by His saying: "And if you do evil, it is for it." It is also possible that "faces" refers to their leaders and elders; and this is as you see. This was preferred over "grieve you" (layasoo'akum) despite it being more concise, to indicate that He gathered upon them both mental and physical pain, as indicated by His saying, the Exalted: "and to destroy..." etc.

It is said that "So when the promise..." here, despite being part of the elaboration of the summary in His saying, the Exalted: "You will surely cause corruption in the land twice," the appearance of "So when the promise..." and "When the promise..." is to indicate that the arrival of the promise of punishment for the latter time did not lag behind their numbers and assembly, indicating the intensity of their obstinacy in ingratitude for blessings, and that whenever they increased in equipment and preparation, they increased in aggression and pride, until their means of wealth and abundance were complete; then Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, surprised them while they were heedless. We seek refuge in Allah, the Exalted, from the suddenness of His punishment.

Abu Bakr, Ibn Amir, and Hamza read "layasu'a" in the singular, and the pronoun refers to Allah, the Exalted, or to the promise, or to the sending indicated by the omitted consequence. The attribution is figurative in the latter two and literal in the first. This is supported by the reading of Ali—may Allah, the Exalted, ennoble his countenance—Zayd bin Ali, and Al-Kisa'i: "linasu'a" (We grieve) with the nun of majesty, for the pronoun referring to Allah does not admit any other interpretation. Ubayy read "linasu'anna" with the imperative lam, the nun of majesty at the beginning, and the light emphatic nun at the end. The imperative lam entered upon the verb of the first person, as in His saying, the Exalted: "And let us bear your sins." The answer to "when" in this reading is the prescriptive sentence based on the assumption of the fa (so), for it cannot occur as an answer without it. From Ali—may Allah, the Exalted, ennoble his countenance—it is also reported as "linasu'anna wa layasu'anna" with the nun and the ya at the beginning and the heavy emphatic nun at the end; the lam in this is the lam of oath, and the sentence is the answer to the oath serving in place of the answer to "when."

The lam in His saying, the Exalted: "and that they may enter the mosque" is the lam of causality (kay), and the prepositional phrase is coordinated with the prepositional phrase before it and is also connected to the omitted "We sent." It is permitted that it be connected to another omitted element, in which case the coordination is of one sentence to another. Based on the reading with the imperative lam or the lam of oath mentioned earlier, it is possible for the lam to be the lam of command or the lam of causality. "The mosque" refers to Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and it is the object of "they enter." In Al-Sihah, it is stated that what is correct in expressions like "I entered the house" is that you intend "I entered into the house," so the preposition is omitted, and "the house" becomes accusative as a direct object, and its verification is in its place. (As they entered it) i.e., an entry that is like their entry into it (the first time), so it is in the position of an adjective for an omitted verbal noun. It is also permitted that it be a state (hal), i.e., "being like their entry," and "first" is in the accusative as a temporal adverb. The intent of the comparison, according to what is in Al-Bahr, is that they enter it with the sword, force, dominance, and humiliation. It is also stated therein that this weakens the view of those who hold that in the first of the two times, there was neither fighting, nor killing, nor looting.

(And to destroy) i.e., to ruin. Qutrub said: "to demolish," and he cited the poet's saying: "People are but two types of workers: a worker who destroys what he builds, and another who is a builder." Some said: Demolition is also a form of destruction. Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Sa'id bin Jubayr that "tatbir" (destruction) in its entirety is Nabatean. (What they had gained) i.e., that which they overcame and seized; so ma is a relative noun, and the referent is omitted, which is either an object or governed by a preposition, as has been said. It is also permitted that ma be a temporal source, i.e., "to destroy for the duration of their being dominant and conquering" (a terrible destruction).

There is disagreement regarding the identity of these servants who were sent. After mentioning the killing of Yahya (John), peace be upon him, in the last corruption, many said: They are Nebuchadnezzar and his soldiers. Al-Suhayli refuted this, stating it is incorrect because the killing of Yahya was after the ascension of Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them, and Nebuchadnezzar was long before Isa, peace be upon him. It is said: Alexander and his soldiers; this was also refuted by the fact that there are about three hundred years between Alexander and Isa, peace be upon him. Then he said: But if it is said that their corruption in the latter time was the killing of Isaiah, it is permissible that the one sent against them was Nebuchadnezzar and those with him, for he was alive at that time. It is reported from Abdullah bin al-Zubayr—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the one who invaded them was King Khardush, and that the leader who carried out the killing on the blood of Yahya, peace be upon him, was his commander. It quieted down. In some reports, it is said that the owner of the army entered their place of sacrifice and found blood boiling in it. He asked them about it, and they said: "It is the blood of a sacrifice that was not accepted from us." He said: "You have not told me the truth," and he killed thousands of them upon it, but the blood did not stop. Then he said: "If you do not tell me the truth, I will not leave a single one of you." They said: "It is the blood of Yahya, peace be upon him." He said: "With this, your Lord takes vengeance upon you." Then he said: "O Yahya, my Lord and your Lord know what has befallen your people because of you, so be still by the permission of Allah before I leave not one of them," and it became still.

Al-Kashshi chose, and said it is the truth, that the one sent against them in the second time was Birdus, one of the kings of the regions (muluk al-tawa'if). It seems he is the same Khardush mentioned earlier, for it is mentioned that he was the king of Babylon among the kings of the regions. It is also said his name was Juzur. These kings appeared after the killing of Alexander to Darius and his seizure of the Persian kingdom. That was done by Alexander, following the opinion of his teacher Aristotle. Their number exceeds seventy kings, and the duration of their reign, according to some histories, was 512 years. The Persians gathered after this period under Ardashir bin Babak, willingly or unwillingly; he was one of the kings of the regions in Istakhr. According to this, the king sent for the corruption of the Children of Israel by the killing of Yahya, peace be upon him, was from the latter kings of the regions, as is clear. Between this sending and the first sending, on the view that the sender was Nebuchadnezzar and his followers, is a long period. In some histories, the killing of Darius by Alexander was 435 years after Nebuchadnezzar, and after about 300 years from the conquest of Alexander, the Messiah, peace be upon him, was born. There is no doubt that the killing of Yahya, peace be upon him, was after the birth by some time, and the sending after the killing likewise. Thus, there is more than 735 years between the two sendings.

The Jews' view is that the one sent first was Nebuchadnezzar, who was in the time of Jeremiah, peace be upon him, and he warned them of his coming explicitly after he forbade them from corruption and idol worship, as stated in his book. They imprisoned him in a well and wounded him. His destruction of the temple was in the nineteenth year of his reign. Between that and the descent of Adam were 3,338 years. It remained in ruins for 70 years. Then Vespasian, the Roman Caesar, sent his minister Titus to destroy it, and he destroyed it in the year 3,828. Thus, according to them, there are 490 years between the two sendings. The detailed discussion on this is in their books. Allah, the Exalted, knows the truth of the matter. How well it is said that knowing the exact identities of these people and the dates of the sending and the like is not of much importance, for the goal is that when their sins increased, Allah, the Exalted, empowered those who would take vengeance upon them time after time. The outward meaning of the verse suggests the unity of the senders, both first and second. Whoever does not say this treats the return of the pronouns to the "servants" as being like the return of the pronoun to the "dirham" in your saying: "I have a dirham and its half." So understand.