Al-Baqarah: (126) And when Abraham said...

(And when Abraham said, "My Lord, make this a secure city") The reference is to the valley mentioned in the words of the Almighty: ("Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in a valley not suited for cultivation, near Your sacred House"). That is to say: "Make this barren place a city," etc. Thus, the request is for city status combined with security. This is different from the verse in Surah Ibrahim: (My Lord, make this city secure). Perhaps the request is repeated, and what is in that Surah was later. The security requested therein is either the first [instance], and he repeated the request without the "city" status due to his desire for its continuity, as it is the original intention, or because it is customary for city status to be continuous once established, unlike security. Alternatively, it is something else, such that the first request was for mere security that permits settlement, and the second was for the established [permanent] security. You may also consider ("this city") in that Surah as a reference to something intended in the mind, as indicated by (My Lord, I have settled), etc. In that case, the two supplications correspond. If the reference here is to the [already established] city, then the supplication is after it became a city, and what is sought is its security, matching what is in the Surah without affectation, except that it implies hyperbole—meaning: "Make it a city perfect in security." It is as if he said: "Make it a city known for being characterized by security and famous for it," just as you would say, "This day was a hot day." The description as "secure" is either in the sense of the relative adjective (i.e., possessing security), along the lines of the saying: (In a pleasing life), or it is by way of extension and metaphorical attribution. The original is "its people are secure," then it was attributed to the place instead of the state, because security and fear are attributes of sentient beings.

Whether the supplication to make it secure refers to [security] from tyrants and usurpers, or from its sanctuary becoming [permissible] as the profane, or from it being emptied of its people, or from being swallowed by the earth or pelted [with stones], or from famine and drought, or from the entry of the Dajjal, or from the entry of the People of the Elephant—these are all [different] opinions. Reality refutes some of them, for tyrants have entered it and killed therein, such as Amr bin Luhay al-Khuza'i, al-Hajjaj al-Thaqafi, the Qarmatians, and others. The fact that some did not enter it for destruction, but had another purpose, is of no benefit—like saying that no tyrant ever harmed its people except that God Almighty broke his back. As the proverb says: "If I die thirsty, may the rain never fall."

The call was by the name "Lord" (Rabb), added [to the vocative], because of the tenderness in requesting and calling by the attribute that indicates the acceptance of the requester and the answering of his plea. We have indicated before what is of benefit to you here, so remember it.

(And provide its people with fruits), meaning from all their varieties, by making near it villages where this occurs, or by having them come to it from distant regions. Both have occurred, such that spring, summer, and autumn fruits gather there in a single day. It is narrated that when Abraham prayed, God ordered Gabriel, who uprooted a plot of land from Palestine—it is said: from Jordan—and circled the House seven times with it, then placed it where he placed it as a provision for the Sanctuary. This is the land known today as Taif, named after that circumambulation. If this is considered authentic, it is not far from the power of the Sovereign, the All-Powerful, may His majesty be exalted. If you refuse to take it at its literal meaning, the door of interpretation is wide. The plural of paucity (fruits) is used to show contentment; we have indicated that it often takes the place of the plural of abundance. ("From") is for partitive meaning, and it is said: for clarification of the genus.

(Whoever among them believes in God and the Last Day) is a substitute for ("its people"), a substitute of the part for the whole, and it is a specification for what the replaced term indicated. He limited the object of faith to the mention of the Origin and the Return, because faith in them entails faith in everything that must be believed in.

He said, meaning God Almighty: (And whoever disbelieves), linked to ("Whoever believes")—that is, "And provide for whoever disbelieves also." Thus, the request is in the sense of a statement, contrary to the previous one. (And from my descendants): the benefit of this shift is to teach the generalization of the prayer for provision and not to restrict the request for grace. Abraham (peace be upon him) had analogized provision to the Imamate (leadership), so the Almighty alerted him that provision is a worldly mercy not restricted to the believer, unlike the Imamate. Or, perhaps when he (peace be upon him) heard (It does not attain), etc., he was cautious about praying for someone who is not pleasing to Him, the Almighty, so He guided him to His all-encompassing generosity. By what we have mentioned, the objection in al-Bahr is averted—that this conjunction is not valid because it requires sharing the [governing] agent, so it would become: "Abraham said: And provide," [which contradicts] what follows it. You may also make the conjunction on a deleted term, meaning: "Provide for whoever believes, and [do not provide for] whoever disbelieves," phrased as a statement. Those who do not believe in "suggestive conjunction" require this.

It is permissible for ("Whoever") to be an initial conditional or relative noun. His words, (Then I will let him enjoy a little), in the first case [conditional] is linked to ("disbelieves"), and in the second [relative] it is the predicate of the initial noun, the "fa" (then) being present because the initial noun implies the meaning of a condition. There is no need to estimate "I will," because Ibn al-Hajib established that the imperfect verb in a conditional sentence is validly accompanied by "fa," unless it is for the sake of excellence. Al-Mubarrad went toward not estimating [the pronoun], while the school of Sibawayh is the necessity of the estimate, supported by the fact that the imperfect verb is fit for the condition by itself, so if it were not a predicate of an initial noun, the "fa" would not enter upon it. Then, disbelief, even if it is not the cause for absolute enjoyment, it is fit as a cause for its limitation and its being connected to the punishment of the Fire. "Little" (Qalilan) is an adjective for a deleted term, meaning "enjoyment" or "time."

Ibn Amir read (Then I will let him enjoy) (fa-umatti'uhu) in the light [form], as a statement; likewise, Yahya bin Wathab read it, except that he broke the hamza (f'imatti'uhu). Ubayy read (fanumatti'uhu) with the "nun." Ibn Abbas and Mujahid read (Then let him enjoy) (fa-matti'hu) in the imperative form. According to this reading, it is necessary that the pronoun in ("said") refers to Abraham, and the repetition of ("said") is justified by the length of the speech and that he shifted from praying for one group to praying against others, as if he had begun a different speech. Its return to the Almighty—meaning: "God said: Then let him enjoy, O Powerful, O Provider," addressing Himself by way of tajrid (abstraction)—is very far-fetched and should not be paid attention to.

(Then I will force him to the punishment of the Fire). Compulsion (idtirar) is the opposite of choice. It is literal when the action proceeds from the person without his will being attached to it, such as someone thrown from a roof, for example. It is metaphorical when the action is by his choice but in such a way that he cannot avoid it because a circumstance arose that compelled him to that choice, like someone eating carrion during starvation. Some have spoken regarding both meanings. The first is supported by the words of the Almighty: (The day they are pushed into the Fire of Hell, a pushing) and (They will be dragged into the Fire on their faces) and (They will be seized by the forelocks and the feet). The second is supported by the words of the Almighty: (And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups, until when they reach it, its gates will be opened) and (And there is none of you who will not come to it)—the verse—and (Indeed, you and what you worship other than God are the fuel of Hell; you will come to it). The investigation is that the states of the disbelievers on the Day of Resurrection when being cast into the Fire are various, and through this, the harmonization between the verses is achieved. Or, the compulsion is a metaphor for the punishment occurring to him in a binding manner, as if he were tied to it.

It is said that this compulsion is in the world, and it is also a metaphor, as if the state of the disbeliever, upon whom God Almighty bestowed the favor by which he was led a little toward what destroys him, is likened to the state of one who cannot avoid that to which he is compelled. Thus, what was used for the thing likened is used for the thing it is likened to. This is a fine interpretation, were it not that it ostensibly requires taking "then" as a delay in rank, which is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Ibn Amir read idtirhu with a broken hamza, and Yazid bin Abi Habib read idtirhu with a damma on the ta'. Ubayy read nudtirihi with the "nun." Ibn Abbas and Mujahid read [the imperative]. Ibn Muhaisin read atruhu with the assimilation of the dad into the ta', as a statement. Al-Zamakhshari said this is a rejected dialect because letters of "damm shufr" (the letters of assimilation) are assimilated into what neighbors them, not the reverse. However, these letters have been assimilated into others: Abu Amr assimilated the ra into the lam in (We will forgive you), and the dad into the shin in fi-ba'd sha'nihim, and the shin into the sin in (the throne a way), and al-Kisa'i [assimilated] the fa into the ba in (We will cause the earth to swallow them). Sibawayh reported from the Arabs that they said mudtaji' and mutaji', though non-assimilation is more frequent. The root of idtara based on this—as is said—is istara, then the ta' was changed into a ta', then assimilation occurred.

(And evil is the destination). The object of condemnation is deleted because the meaning is understood, i.e., "And evil is the destination, [which is] the Fire," if "destination" is a noun of place. If it is an infinitive, for those who permit that, the estimation is: "And evil is the becoming, his becoming to the punishment."