Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:124

(And when his Lord tested Abraham with words) There are several possibilities regarding what "when" (idh) is linked to, which have been previously indicated in similar verses. Abu Hayyan chose to link it to the coming "He said" (qala), while others link it to an implied verb placed later, meaning: "Such and such happened." The most famous opinion is that it is linked to an implied verb placed earlier, estimated as "Mention" (udhkur) or "Remember" (udhkuru) the time of such and such. In this case, the sentence is a conjunction added to the preceding text—a story added to a story. The unifying factor is the unity of purpose, for the purpose of reminding, warning, and inciting them to accept the religion of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), to follow the truth, and to abandon partisanship and the love of status, is the same as the purpose behind the story of Abraham (peace be upon him) and the explanation of his states, which is to invite them to the religion of Islam and to abandon religious fanaticism.

This is because when it is known that he attained leadership by submitting to the command of the Exalted, that his prayer was not answered for the "wrongdoers," that the Kaaba was a place of circumambulation and worship in his time which he was ordered to purify, that he used to perform Hajj to the House as a suppliant and a devotee—just as it is in the religion of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—and that our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is from his prayer, and that he prayed for himself and his descendants to be upon the religion of Islam, it becomes incumbent upon those who acknowledge his virtue, claim to be his descendants, profess to follow his creed, and boast of being residents of his sanctuary and defenders of his House, that their condition be like his.

‘Isam al-Millah wa al-Din held the view that it is permissible to connect it to "My favor" (ni'mati), meaning: "Remember the time of the testing of Abraham," for it contains what benefits you and refutes your false belief that your ancestors will be your intercessors on the Day of Resurrection, because He did not accept Abraham’s prayer for the wrongdoers, and it repels from you the love of status that prevents you from following the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as it is known from this that the "wrongdoers" do not attain leadership. This was objected to on the grounds that it deviates from the path of eloquence, necessitates restricting the address to the People of the Scripture, and interrupts the flow between the two conjoined parts with the command "fear [Me]" (ittaqūn).

Testing (ibtila’) in its origin is trial/examination, as we have mentioned. What is meant by it here is obligation, or treating him with the treatment of testing metaphorically, as literal testing is impossible for the Exalted because He is the Knower of the secret and the hidden.

Abraham (Ibrahim) is a foreign proper noun. It is said that its meaning before being transferred was "exalted father" (ab rahim). It is a fronted object because the actor (rabb) is attached to its pronoun. The exposure to the title of Lordship (rububiyya) is an honor for him (peace be upon him) and a notification that this test is a form of nurturing him and preparing him for a weighty matter.

Words (kalimat) is the plural of "word" (kalima). Its primary meaning is the singular utterance; it is used for meaningful sentences and applied to their meanings due to the intense connection between the utterance and the meaning. There is disagreement regarding them. Tawus narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that they are the ten things of the Fitra: rinsing the mouth, inhaling water into the nose, trimming the mustache, letting the beard grow, parting the hair, plucking the armpits, clipping the nails, shaving the pubic area, cleaning oneself with water, and circumcision. Ikrimah narrated from him also that no one was tested with this religion and upheld it entirely except Abraham. Allah (the Exalted) tested him with thirty traits of Islam: ten in Surat Bara’a ("The repentant..." etc.), ten in Al-Ahzab ("Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women..." etc.), and ten in Al-Mu'minun ("A questioner asked..." up to "And those who strictly maintain their prayers").

In a narration by Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, they are thirty, counting the first three surahs and not the last one. That which is in Bara’a is: repentance, worship, praise, fasting/traveling in the way of Allah, bowing, prostration, enjoining good, forbidding evil, observing the limits of Allah, and faith—derived from "and give glad tidings to the believers" or from "Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers." In Al-Ahzab: Islam, faith, devoutness, truthfulness, patience, humility, almsgiving, fasting, guarding the private parts, and remembrance. In Al-Mu'minun: faith, humility, turning away from idle talk, zakat, guarding the private parts (except from their wives or those their right hands possess), fulfilling trusts and covenants, and maintaining prayer. This is based on the idea that the recurrence of some traits after the groups of ten—such as faith and guarding private parts—does not negate them being thirty in count; it only negates them being different in essence. Hence, the surah was counted as having 113 verses by the Shafi'is, considering the repetition in each surah. What is in Ikrimah’s narration is based on considering the difference in essence and dropping repetitions, counting the tenth as the "glad tidings to the believers" in Bara’a, and considering the constancy in prayer and maintaining it as one. As for "And those in whose wealth is a known right for the beggar and the deprived," they are those who do not perform zakat because it includes voluntary charity and maintaining ties of kinship. What was narrated that they are forty, explained by what is in the four surahs, is also based on the first consideration, so there is no problem.

It is said: Allah tested him with the stars, the moon, the sun, circumcision in old age, the fire, the sacrifice of his son, and the migration from Kutha to Syria. This is narrated from Al-Hasan. It is also said: They are what the following verses contain regarding leadership, purifying the House, raising its foundations, and Islam.

It is said [multiple times]—up to thirteen opinions. Ibn Amir, Ibn al-Zubayr, and others recited it as Ibraham, and Abu Bakrah as Ibraham with a kasra on the ha and dropping the ya. Ibn Abbas, Abu al-Sha'tha, and Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with them) recited it with the nominative case for Ibrahim and the accusative for Rabbahu. Thus, ibtila' means testing in its literal sense, as it is valid from the servant. The meaning is: Abraham called upon his Lord with words, such as "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead" and "My Lord, make this a secure city," to see if He would answer him. There is no need to resort to metaphor. As for what is said—that even if it is valid from the servant, it is not valid or appropriate to attribute it to the Lord—its aspect is not apparent other than the mention of the word ibtila’. It is possible that this was in a state of intimacy (uns) and the station of friendship (khulla), which is not hidden.

The pronoun [in atammahunna] is for the words (kalimat) and nothing else. The hidden nominative pronoun could refer to Abraham or to his Lord in both readings (nominative and accusative). There are four possibilities:

1. The pronoun refers to Abraham (nominative). The meaning of "he completed them" is that he performed them in the most perfect way and fulfilled them as is fitting.
2. It refers to His Lord (nominative). The meaning is: He facilitated the action of them for him, strengthened him to complete them, perfected the rewards for them, or made them a lasting tradition for him and his descendants until the Day of Judgment.
3. It refers to Abraham (nominative), and the meaning is: Abraham completed the words he prayed with by observing the conditions of their acceptance and not committing anything afterward that would nullify them.
4. It refers to His Lord (accusative). The meaning is: He (the Glorified) gave Abraham everything he prayed for. The most apparent possibilities are the first and the fourth. The praise is not apparent in the second, along with the deletion of the genitive in one of its possibilities. The accustomed usage is not followed in the third, because the action occurring in response to the test must be the action of the one being tested.

"He said, 'Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.'" This is a clarifying resumption if the agent of "when" (idh) is implied, as if it were said: "What happened after that?" and was answered with this. Or it is an explanation of "tested" based on the opinion of those who consider the words to be that whose effect was mentioned. Some make it a clarification of the general by one of its particulars. If you put "when" in the accusative with "said," as Abu Hayyan went, the whole becomes a sentence conjoined to what precedes it in the manner detailed before. It is said: It is a digression or an interjection so that His saying, "Or were you witnesses?" (if it is made an address to the Jews) falls into its proper place, and it fits His saying, "They said, 'Be Jews or Christians.'"

"Maker" (ja’il) is from "making" (ja’ala) meaning to render, which takes two objects. The second [object] is either related to "maker," meaning "for them," or is in the position of a state (hal) because it is a description of an indefinite noun that preceded it, meaning "a leader existing for them." "Leader" (imam) is a name for a role model to be followed. From this, the builder’s plumb line is called an imam.

It is a singular on the measure of fi'al. Some make it a tool noun, as fi'al is among its patterns, like izar (a garment). This was objected to because an imam is one who is followed, and an izar is what one is wrapped in; both are objects, and the object of a verb is not a tool, because the tool is the medium between the actor and the object for the effect to reach it. If the object were a tool, the actor would be too, which is not the case. It is the plural of amm, an active participle from "he aimed, he led" (amma, ya'ummu), like ja'i' and jiya' (hungry), qa'im and qiyam (standing). In terms of concept, even if it includes the prophet, the caliph, and the prayer leader—indeed, anyone followed in something, even if it is false, as indicated by His saying, "And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire"—the intended meaning here is the Prophet who is followed, for the leadership of those other than him, because they are followers of the Prophet, is not like his leadership.

This leadership is either eternal, as is the requirement of "the people" and the participle pattern indicating continuity. It is not harmed by the coming of prophets after him, because no prophet was sent except that he was from his descendants and ordered to follow him in general, not in all rulings, due to the lack of agreement of the laws that came after him in everything. Thus, his leadership remains through the leadership of his children, who are his parts, by rotation. Or it is temporary, based on the fact that what is abrogated—even if partially—is not called eternal; otherwise, every prophet’s leadership would be eternal, and that is not common. The meaning of "the people" in this case is his nation who followed him. You may commit to the view of the eternalization of every prophet’s leadership, but in the creeds of monotheism, which were not abrogated—in fact, they are never abrogated, as indicated by His saying, "Those are the ones Allah has guided, so from their guidance take an example." The lack of commonality is not conceded, and even if it were, it would not be harmful. The favor upon Abraham (peace be upon him) with this, rather than others, is due to a peculiarity that necessitated it, which is hardly hidden. So reflect.

Then, it is not hidden that the manifest text indicates that the testing was before prophethood, because He (the Exalted) made the performance of those words a reason for making him a leader. It is said: It was after it, because it requires the precedence of revelation. It was answered that absolute revelation does not necessitate being sent to the creation. You know that the sacrifice of the son, the migration, and the fire—if they are from the words—complicate the matter, because these were after prophethood without doubt. The same applies to circumcision, based on what is narrated that when he (peace and blessings be upon him) circumcised himself, he was one hundred and twenty years old. In this case, it is necessary that the completion of the words be the cause of leadership, considering its generality to the people and the answering of his prayer for some of his descendants. Al-Razi quoted from the judge that, according to this, the meaning of His saying, "So he completed them," is that He (the Exalted and Most High) knew from his state that he would complete them and uphold them after prophethood, so He gave him the cloak of leadership and prophethood. It is not hidden that the fa (conjunction) rejects this interpretation.

"He said, 'And of my descendants...'" This is a clarifying resumption, and the pronoun refers to Abraham (peace be upon him). "And of my descendants" is conjoined to the ka (in ja'aluka). It is said "I will honor you," and you say "And Zayd." Making it follow the meaning of "What about my descendants?" is far-fetched. Abu Hayyan went to the view that it is related to an implied phrase, meaning "Will You make from my descendants a leader?" because he (peace be upon him) understood from "Indeed, I will make you" an exclusivity to him. Some chose this.

They objected to the above that a prepositional phrase cannot be a genitive, so how can it be conjoined to it? And that joining to a pronoun—how can it be valid without repeating the preposition? And how can the conjoined be the utterance of another speaker? The first two were answered by that the genitive construction is in the estimation of separation; "and of my descendants" is in the meaning of "some of my descendants," so it is as if he said, "And [I am] making some of my descendants," which is correct. Furthermore, joining to a genitive pronoun without repeating the preposition, even if most grammarians reject it, the authorities among Arab scholars and religious leaders permit it. Indeed, the author of al-'Ubab said: It is present in the seven mutawatir readings; whoever rejects that has rejected the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The third [objection] was answered that it is of the category of "suggestive conjunction," so it is a wish in the meaning of a request, as if its origin was "And make some of my descendants," as the objector estimated. But he turned away from it to the [current] phrasing due to the eloquence in making it part of the speaker's own speech, as if he is deserving of the like of the one conjoined to him, and he made himself as if he were a representative of the Speaker. Turning away from the imperative form is for the sake of exaggeration in steadfastness, and observing etiquette in avoiding the form of a command. In it is an abbreviation that is in its proper place, which pleases every beholder. An equivalent of this conjunction is what the two Shaykhs narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "O Allah, have mercy on those who shave." They said: "And those who shorten, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "O Allah, have mercy on those who shave." They said: "And those who shorten, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "And those who shorten."

The scholars of usul have mentioned that the suggestive conjunction came with wa and other letters, and that it occurred in exceptions, as in the hadith: "Indeed, Allah, the Exalted, has forbidden the tree of the sanctuary." They said: "Except the idhkhir, O Messenger of Allah." It was also objected that the masculine conjunction demands that the leadership of his descendants be general to all people, just as his leadership (peace be upon him) was general, as was said, and it is not so. It was answered that it is sufficient in conjunction to share in the original meaning. It is said: It is sufficient that it is accepted for our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

"Descendants" (dhurriyyah) is the offspring of a man; its origin is young children, then it encompassed adults and children, the individual, and others. It is said that it includes parents because of His saying, "We carried their descendants in the laden ship," meaning Noah and his sons. The correct view is the opposite. There are three dialects: dhurriyya (damma), dharriyya (fatha), and dhirriyya (kasra), and it has been recited with all of them. It is either fu'ula from dharawtu or dhariyatu, or fi'liyya from them. [Technical linguistic derivation omitted].

"My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." This is an answer to what he observed as etiquette in his request by making some of his descendants a prophet, just as he was made one, while specifying the category of "some" which was ambiguous in his prayer (peace be upon him) in the most eloquent and emphatic way, as He negated the ruling for one of the two opposites, with an indication of the reason for its negation from him, so that it might be a proof of the affirmation for the other.

What comes to mind from "covenant" ('ahd) is leadership, and it is here nothing but prophethood. It was expressed as "it" (bihi) to indicate that it is a trust of Allah, the Exalted, and His covenant, which no one carries out except whom Allah wills from His servants. He preferred "attain" (yanalu) over "making" (ja'l) as a gesture that the leadership of the prophets among his descendants (peace be upon them) is not by a separate making, but is attained within his leadership, reaching each of them at its allotted time. No deficiency returns from that to the rank of the prophethood of our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), because it runs the course of generalization. Furthermore, if such a thing lowered its status, our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have been addressed by His saying, "Follow the creed of Abraham."

What comes to mind from "wrongdoing" (zulm) is disbelief, because it is the complete individual among its types. This is supported by His saying, "And the disbelievers are the wrongdoers." Thus, the verse does not contain evidence for the infallibility of the prophets (peace be upon them) from major sins before prophethood, nor that a sinner is not fit for the caliphate. Indeed, it cuts the hopes of the disbelievers who wished for prophethood and closes the doors of their empty hopes of attaining it. Some Shi'a used it as evidence to negate the leadership of the Siddiq (Abu Bakr) and his two companions (may Allah be pleased with them), since they lived a long time in polytheism, and "Indeed, polytheism is a great wrong." According to the text of the verse, the wrongdoer does not attain leadership. It was answered that the utmost that is required is that the wrongdoer, in the state of wrongdoing, does not attain it; and leadership only attained them (may Allah be pleased with them) at the time of the perfection of their faith and the ultimate of their justice.

It was objected that "from" (min) is partitive, so Abraham's request for leadership was either for the just part of his descendants for the duration of his life, or the wrongdoer during the leadership, whether he was just in the rest of his life or not, or the just in part and wrongdoer in another, or the general. In the first case, it implies that the answer does not correspond. In the second, it implies the ignorance of the Friend (Abraham), and he is far from that. In the third, it is the desired, and in the fourth, either the desired or corruption. You are aware that the basis of the reasoning is to carry the "covenant" on the general meaning of prophethood and the leadership they claim, and without proving that, it is impossible. The explicit statement of some, like Al-Jassas, does not build upon it the compelling of all. Even if we descend [in argument], the answer is that we choose the request for leadership in the general sense for the ambiguous part without the presence of the description of justice or wrongdoing at the time of the request. The verse is an answer to his prayer with an addition to what we have indicated. The same applies if the first part is chosen, but the addition is greater. It is possible to answer by choosing the third part as well, by saying: it is of two types: one who is a wrongdoer before leadership and described by justice at its time—having repented from previous wrongs, thus being described by absolute justice at the time of leadership—and the second, one who is a wrongdoer before leadership and avoids wrongdoing at its time, but is not described by absolute justice due to lack of repentance. It is permissible that the request covers this type, and there is no harm in it, as the intent of corruption is fulfilled by it. The answer negates the attainment of leadership for this type, and the two Shaykhs and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) are not of it; rather, they are in the highest ranks of the first type, described by sincere repentance, absolute justice, and firm faith. A leader must be like that at the time of leadership. Whoever disbelieves or does wrong and then repents and corrects himself, it is not correct to call him a disbeliever or a wrongdoer in language, custom, or law, as it has been established in the usul that the derivative in which the principle exists at the present is literal, and in other cases it is metaphorical. The metaphor is not consistent, but where it is conventional; otherwise, a child could be called an elder, a sleeper a waker, a rich man a poor one, a hungry man a satisfied one, and a living person a dead one, and vice versa.

Furthermore, if that were consistent, it would necessitate that whoever swears not to greet a disbeliever, then greets a human who is a believer at the present, but who was a disbeliever years ago, would have broken his oath—and no one says that. Some of our colleagues made the verse evidence for the infallibility of the prophets from major sins before prophethood, and that the sinner is not fit for the caliphate. This is based on carrying "covenant" to mean leadership, making it include prophethood and the caliphate, and carrying "wrongdoer" to mean one who commits a sin that negates justice, based on the fact that wrongdoing is the opposite of justice. The evidence then is that the verse indicates that attaining leadership does not coincide with previous wrongdoing. When attainment is realized, as in the prophets, it is known that they were not described at the time of attainment by previous wrongdoing. That is either because they did not commit what necessitates it, or it was removed after it occurred by repentance. No one says the second, as the dispute is only whether the commission of a major sin is permissible before prophethood. Thus, the second is determined, which is infallibility, or the intended meaning is the non-occurrence of sin, not the faculty. Likewise, if the description of wrongdoing is realized, as in the sinner, it is known that leadership is not attained thereafter as long as he is described by that.

The inference of the unfitness of the sinner for leadership, according to our arrangement, is from the literal wording of the verse and its majority from the implication of the text or the analogy necessitating the statement of equality—or at least the commitment of a unifier. Both are the criteria for the outcome, but they only call for carrying leadership as prophethood. You have learned that the basis is to carry it on the general. It appeared that sudden wrongdoing and accidental sin prevent leadership in continuance just as they prevented it in the beginning, because the contradiction between the two descriptions is realized at every moment. Some of the predecessors said so, but the majority are against it, claiming that the contradiction in the beginning does not necessitate the contradiction in continuance, because preventing is easier than removing. They cited as evidence that if he said to a woman of unknown lineage, whose like is born to his like: "This is my daughter," he is not allowed to marry her. But if he said it to his wife described by that, the marriage is not annulled; however, if he persists in it, the judge separates them. What they said is only accepted if the wrongdoing does not reach the extent of disbelief. But if it reaches it, it contradicts leadership in continuance as well, without doubt, and the caliph is definitely dismissed by it. Some people used the verse as evidence that if a wrongdoer is promised, he is not obligated to fulfill his promise. They supported this with what is narrated from Al-Hasan, that he said: "Allah, the Exalted, did not make a covenant for the wrongdoer." And it is as you see. Abu al-Raja’, Qatadah, and Al-A'mash recited "wrongdoers" (al-zalimun) in the nominative case, so that "My covenant" ('ahdi) is a fronted object before the subject out of importance and regard for the [verse] endings.