(Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel) The mala’ (assembly) of a people are their notables and noblemen. It is a collective noun with no singular form from its own root. The origin of the word refers to gathering in a matter that cannot bear more [weight/additions]. The nobles are called such because their awe fills (tamla’u) the chests, or because they gather together (tatamala’un)—meaning they assist one another to the utmost degree. The min (from) is for partition, and the prepositional phrase is connected to a suppressed term acting as a hal (state) for the assembly.
(After Moses) That is, after his death, peace be upon him. The min is for inception, and it is connected to that to which the preceding phrase is connected; the identity of the two letters in articulation does not cause harm due to the difference in their meanings.
(When they said to a prophet of theirs) Abu Ubaydah said: He is Samuel bin Hanna bin Al-Aqar, and this is the view of the majority. It is narrated from Al-Suddi that he was Sham'un. Qatada said: He was Joshua bin Nun, due to the proximity of "after" to "before," and it is apparent in the connection. This was refuted by stating that this Joshua was the servant of Moses, peace be upon both of them, and there were many centuries between him and David, and connection is not necessary.
The idhh (when) is connected to a concealed element required by the context—that is, "Have you not considered" the story of the assembly or their discourse when they said: (Send for us a king) That is, appoint for us a commander. The root of ba’th (sending) is the dispatching of the sent one from the place where he is, though it varies according to its object. It is said: "He roused the camel from its resting place" if he stirred it; "I urged him in travel" if I goaded him; "Allah resurrected the dead" if He gave them life; and "the mobilization was ordered against the troops" if they were commanded to depart.
(That we may fight in the way of Allah) It is majzum (jussive) as a response to the command. It has also been read as marfu’ (nominative) on the basis that it is a potential state—meaning: "Send him to us, as we are those who intend to fight"—or as a starting point of bayan (explanation), as if it were said: "What will you do with a king?" and it was answered: "We will fight." It was also read as yuqatil (he fights) with a ya’, both jussive and nominative, as a response to the command and a description for the "king."
The reason for their request, according to some reports, is that when Moses died, he was succeeded by Joshua to uphold the command of Allah among them and judge by the Torah. He was succeeded by Kaleb, then Ezekiel, then Elias, then Elisha. Then an enemy appeared to them: the Amalekites, the people of Goliath. They were inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Palestine. They overcame them, dominated much of their land, took four hundred and forty of their princes captive, imposed tribute upon them, and seized their Torah. At that time, they had no prophet to manage their affairs. The tribe of prophecy had perished, except for one pregnant woman who gave birth to a boy and named him Samuel—which means "Ishmael"—though it is said "Sham'un." When he grew up, she entrusted him with the Torah, and he learned it in Jerusalem. A shaykh among their scholars took charge of him. When he grew old, Allah made him a prophet and sent him to them. They said: "If you are truthful, then send for us a king," [the verse]. The stability of the Children of Israel’s affairs was through gathering under kings and obeying their prophets. The king was the one who marched with the troops, while the prophet was the one who upheld the religious command, guided them, and advised them.
(He said: "Would you, if fighting were prescribed for you, not fight?") ’Asa (perhaps/would) is one of the nawasikh (abrogators/operators), and its predicate is "that you would not fight." It is separated by the conditional clause out of concern for it. The meaning is: "Have you come close to not fighting, as I anticipate of you?" The intent is to confirm that what is expected will indeed come to pass. It was objected that ‘asaytum (would you) means the anticipation of non-fighting, and that hal (questioning) is only used for that which enters into it, so the interrogation is about the anticipation, not the anticipated outcome, and it does not follow from confirming the interrogation that the anticipated outcome is fixed, only that the anticipation exists—and how different the two are! It was answered that the interrogation entered upon a sentence containing both an anticipation and an anticipated outcome. The first is impossible, for a man does not ask about his own anticipation; therefore, it must be about the anticipated outcome. Since the interrogation is by way of confirmation, the meaning is that the anticipated outcome will occur.
It is said: When ’asa (would) is used for establishing an anticipation and does not depart from it, the confirmative interrogation is directed toward the anticipated outcome, which is the predicate where the benefit lies; thus, he confirmed and established it. The fact that the object of the interrogation must immediately follow the hamza (interrogative particle) is not an absolute rule. Another view is that ’asa is not an operator and contains the meaning of "approached," and that the "that" clause is its object. This is what some meant by saying it is a statement, not a construction. They evidenced this by the entry of the interrogation upon it and its occurring as a predicate in the verse: "Do not break; indeed, I have approached, fasting." The implication of this is clear.
He mentioned the prescription of fighting in the form of a condition, rather than what they requested—despite that being more closely related to their speech—to emphasize their lagging behind. For if they do not fight when fighting is made mandatory by Allah’s command, then it is more fitting that they would not fight when it is not mandatory. It is also because what they mentioned might suggest that the cause of their lagging was the one sent, not the fighting itself. It is also possible that he put this in place of that to imply that once that "sending" (of a king) results in fighting, it will occur in a way that necessitates the obligation. ‘asaytum was also read with a kasrah on the sin, which is a rare dialect.
(They said: "And why should we not fight in the way of Allah?") Meaning, what is our motivation for not fighting—that is, for abandoning the fight? The prepositional phrase is connected to that to which "for us" is connected, or to it itself, and it is a predicate of ma (what). The waw (and) was introduced to show the connection of this speech to the previous one; if it were omitted, it could have been considered disjointed, as Abu al-Baqa said. It is permitted that it is a conjunction to a suppressed term, as if they said: "Non-fighting is not expected of us, and why should we not fight?" They did not state it explicitly to avoid confronting their prophet with what is apparent in the rejection of his speech. What is common in such a construction is "Why should we do or not do..." on the basis that the clause is a hal (state). Since the an (that) of the infinitive does not fit here, they were forced into what they were forced into. Al-Akhfash claimed that the an is redundant and that the operation does not contradict it, and the sentence is in the accusative as a hal as in the common usage. It is said that it is on the basis of an omitted waw and reverts to "What do we have to do with not fighting?" like your saying: "Beware of speaking," though one might say: "Beware that you speak," and the meaning is based on the waw. It is said that ma here is negative—i.e., "We have no [reason] to abandon fighting."
(When we have been driven out of our homes and our children?) This is in the place of a hal (state), and the operator is "we fight." The purpose is to inform that they will fight inevitably, as they have encountered that which necessitates fighting with strong necessity: expulsion from homelands and alienation from family and children. Singling out "children" for mention is to further strengthen the causes of fighting. It is conjoined to "homes," and there is an omission of a genitive according to Abu al-Baqa: "and from among our children." It is also said there is no omission, and the conjunction is on the pattern of: "I suspended it with dates and cold water." In the speech, there is an attribution of a trait of the part to the whole, for those driven out were some of them, not all.
(But when fighting was prescribed for them) After the request of the prophet and the sending of the king, (they turned away) They retreated and neglected the command of Allah, though not at the beginning, but after witnessing the numbers and power of the enemy, as will come. The end of their affair is mentioned here briefly to reveal the contradiction and disparity between their words and their deeds.
(Except for a few of them) These are those who crossed the river, and they were three hundred and thirteen, the number of the people of Badr, according to what Al-Bukhari extracted from Al-Bara', may Allah be pleased with him. The "few" is relative, so it does not contradict describing this number at times as a great throng.
(And Allah is All-Knowing of the wrongdoers) Among them are those who did wrong by turning away from fighting and abandoning jihad, and their words and deeds contradicted each other. The sentence is an epilogue intended as a threat regarding that.
