Al-Baqarah: (249) "So when Talut set forth..."
(So when Talut set forth with the soldiers): Meaning, he departed from Jerusalem accompanying them to fight the giants. The origin of the word faṣala (set forth) is faṣala nafsahu 'anhu (he separated himself from it). When the actor and the object are the same, it is common usage for the object to be omitted, to the point that it has reached the status of an intransitive verb, as if he separated [himself]. It is said: faṣala fuṣūlan (he separated a separation). It is also permissible for it to be a distinct root in its own right, unrelated to the transitive form by its verbal noun, similar to waqafa wuqūfan (to stand) vs. waqafahu waqfan (to cause to stand), or ṣadda 'anhu ṣudūdan (to turn away) vs. ṣaddahu ṣaddan (to turn someone away); this is a well-known category. Al-junūd are the aids and helpers; it is the plural of jund (soldier), and it carries the meaning of a collective. It is narrated that he said to his people: "No man shall go out with me who has built a structure but not finished it, nor a merchant occupied with trade, nor a man married to a woman but not yet consummated the marriage." He sought only the active, energetic, and unencumbered youth. There gathered to him from those he chose eighty thousand, and it is said: seventy thousand. The weather was extremely hot, and they traveled through a wilderness until they asked for a river.
(He said: "Indeed, Allah is testing you"): That is, He is treating you with the treatment of one who wishes to examine you, so that the truthful among you and the liar may be made manifest to the eye.
(With a river): With a fatḥah on the hā’ (nahar), and it is also recited with a sukūn (nahr), which is a dialect for it. This was the river of Palestine, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Qatadah, and Al-Rabi'. It is a river between Palestine and Jordan.
(So whoever drinks from it): That is, whoever begins his drinking due to excessive thirst from the river itself by lapping it up, for that is the act of drinking from it in reality, and this is frequently done by the thirsty person on the verge of death. It is said: the speech contains an elliptical noun, meaning "Whoever drinks [from its water] unconditionally."
(Then he is not of me): That is, not of my followers, or not connected to me and united with me. "From" (min) here signifies connection; it is not for partitive (tab'īḍīyah) according to some, but rather it is explicative (bayānīyah).
(And whoever does not taste it, then he is of me): Meaning, whoever does not taste it. "Taste" (ṭu'm) is used for the thing when one samples it, whether it is eaten or drunk; Al-Azhari narrated this from Al-Layth. Al-Jawhari mentioned that ṭu'm is what the tasting produces, not the act of tasting itself; whoever interprets it based on this has spoken broadly. In either interpretation, the use of ṭa'ima (to taste) for water in the sense of "tasting its flavor" is widespread and is not considered a fault among the pure Arabs. It is evidenced by the verse: "If you wish, I would forbid [other] women besides you / And if you wish, I would not taste (aṭ'am) either comfort or coolness." As for using it in the sense of drinking it and taking it as food, it is considered ugly unless the context necessitates it, as in the Hadith: "Zamzam is food that is tasted (ṭu'm) and a healing for sickness," for it is an alert that it nourishes, unlike other waters. This is not contradicted by the report that Khalid ibn Abdullah Al-Qasri said on the pulpit of Kufa, while Al-Mughirah ibn Sa'id had revolted against him: "Feed (aṭ'imūnī) me water," upon which the Arabs criticized him and mocked him for it, attributing it to his intense panic. It was said about him: "He is all pulpits of fear and trembling / He begged for water as food (istaṭ'ama al-mā') when he began to flee." The people ridiculed him—all of them—as he was prone to affectation in speeches. This was only criticized because it originated from panic, making it a site of confusion and a lack of intent for the correct meaning; otherwise, the occurrence of such usage in their speech is something that should not be doubted. Talut knew that whoever drank disobeyed him and whoever did not taste it obeyed him by way of revelation to the Prophet of the Children of Israel. The Prophet did not tell them that directly, but relayed it to Talut, who announced it as if from himself, so that it might have weight in their hearts. It is permitted that this was by way of a revelation to him, based on the view that he was a prophet after he became king, though this is a view without established proof. The opinion that it might have been by intuition (firāsah) and inspiration is far-fetched.
(Except the one who scoops a handful with his hand): This is an exception from the first relative pronoun or its pronoun in the predicate. If "drinking" is interpreted as lapping, the exception is disconnected; otherwise, it is connected. The benefit of placing the second sentence first is to signal that both are a completion of the first, that the intent is to emphasize and perfect it by forbidding lapping in every way, and to inform that the one who scoops is not considered as having "tasted" according to the ruling; thus, the permission to scoop is emphasized. If it had been delayed, these benefits would not have been achieved, and the structure would have been disrupted, because the exception would then imply that the one who scoops is united with him, and the second sentence would imply by its concept that he is not united with him. It is not correct for the exception to be from one of the two pronouns returning to the relative pronouns in the relative clause because of the separation between the parts of the clause by the predicate, and because the meaning would result in the first [part] implying that he who dares to drink a single handful is not connected to him nor united with him—for the estimation would be: "And those who drank, all of them—except the scooper—are not of me." Nor is it correct for it to be from the second relative pronoun or the pronoun returning to it in the predicate, contrary to some, because there is no difference; it would lead to the result that the one who dares to drink is excluded from the rule of union with him, because the estimation would be: "And those who did not taste it—they all, except the scooper among them, are connected to me and united with me," which is not the intended meaning at all.
Al-ghurfah is what one scoops. Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, and the people of Medina read ghurfah with a fatḥah on the ghayn as a verbal noun. It is said: ghurfah and ghurfah are two verbal nouns, and the ḍammah and fatḥah are two dialects. The bā’ is connected to ightirāf (scooping) or to ghurfah, or to an implied element that acts as its description.
(So they drank from it): This is a conjunction to an implied [verb] required by the context: "So they were tested by it and they drank." The intended meaning is either that they lapped—which is the most apparent, as narrated from Ibn Abbas—or that they drank to excess.
(Except a few of them): Who did not lap or did not drink to excess, but limited themselves to a scoop with the hand, and it was sufficient for them and their mounts, as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). It is also recorded from him that whoever drank [to excess] only increased in thirst. In another narration, those who drank had their lips turn black and were overcome by thirst; this was a type of miracle for that Prophet. Ubayy and Al-A'mash read illā qalīlun in the nominative, inclining toward the meaning; for the Almighty's saying (So they drank from it) is in the power of saying "So they did not obey him," so it is appropriate that the exception be nominative, as in the saying of Al-Farazdaq: "A time, O son of Marwan, did not leave of wealth / Except a patch or a remainder." For his saying "did not leave" is in the status of "did not remain." Abu Hayyan went to the view that there is no need for interpretation and permitted two aspects in the affirmative: the accusative, which is the most eloquent, and the following of what precedes it as a description or appositive. He cited for it his saying: "And every brother, his brother is separated from him, by the life of your father / Except the two stars (Al-Farqadan)," and what is in it is not hidden.
(So when he crossed it): That is, the river and passed beyond it.
(He and those who believed with him): This is a conjunction to the attached pronoun emphasized by the detached pronoun. Those intended are the few. Expressing them in this way is to highlight their status and to gesture that those other than them are far removed from faith. "With him" is connected to jāwazahū (crossed it), not to āmanū (believed). It is permissible for it to be a predicate for "those" based on the wāw being for the state (ḥāl), as if it were said: "So when he crossed it, and the state was that those who believed were with him."
(They said: "We have no power today against Jalut and his soldiers"): That is, we have no capacity to fight them and resist them, let alone overcome them. Jalut is like Talut. The speaker is some of the believers to others, and it is a manifestation of weakness—not cowardice—when they witnessed what they witnessed of the enemies' numbers and strength. It is said they were one hundred thousand armed combatants; it is said three hundred thousand.
(Those who realized that they were to meet Allah said): That is, they were certain that they were to meet Allah through resurrection and returning to what He has. These are the sincere ones among them and the highest in faith, so describing them as such does not contradict the faith of the others, for the levels of believers in that regard are varied. It is possible to keep "realized" (ẓann) on its meaning, and the intent is that they realized they would soon be martyred and meet Allah the Almighty. It is said the relative pronoun refers to all believers, and the pronoun "they said" refers to those who separated from them, as if they said that as an excuse for falling behind—and the river was between them. This is clearly remote, for the apparent meaning is that they said this statement upon encountering the enemy, and those who separated were not with them at that time. Furthermore, what need is there to provide an excuse for falling behind, given what preceded from Talut that those who drank were not of him in any way? If they had not separated, they would have been prevented from going.
(How many a small group): That is, a piece of people and a party—from fa'at ("split") his head when you split it, or from fā'a ("returned") when he returns. Its origin according to the first is fiwah, so its lām is deleted, making its measure fi'ah; according to the second, it is fī'ah, so its 'ayn is deleted, making its measure fulah. Kam here is declarative, and its meaning is "many." Min is redundant, and fi'ah is the specifier (tamyīz). Abu al-Baqa permitted min fi'ah to be in the place of a nominative as an adjective for kam, just as you say "I have a hundred of dirhams and dinars." Some permitted that kam be interrogative, and perhaps it is not in its literal sense. It is reported from Al-Radhi that min does not enter after an interrogative kam, so the view that it is declarative is more appropriate.
(Small): Adjective for fi'ah based on its wording.
(Overcame a large group): That is, defeated them in battle.
(By the permission of Allah): That is, by His decree and facilitation. They did not say "we have the power," as happened in the speech of their companions, as an exaggeration in encouraging them and calming their hearts. If the indefinite tanwīn in the first fi'ah is taken for denigration and in the second for exaltation, it is more eloquent in encouragement and more complete in calming. Such has appeared in his saying: "He has a veil from every matter that shames him / And he has no veil from one who seeks bounty." As you see, this arises from the perfection of their faith in Allah and the Last Day, and their belief that He, the Exalted, is not incapacitated by bringing the dead to life, just as He is not incapacitated by causing the living to die—let alone aiding the weak. There is no doubt that what is in the position of the relative clause is of what has perfect relevance to the ruling that has come upon the relative pronoun, especially since the permission and decree of Allah were taken into account in it. He who does not believe in the meeting of Allah barely gets even a span closer to this condition. Thus, what was said by our master, the Mufti of the Roman lands, is refuted—namely, that this answer, as you see, arises from the perfection of their reliance on the victory of Allah and His success, and that the "realization of meeting Allah" through resurrection and the expectation of His reward has no role in it. There is no doubt that what is mentioned in the position of the relative clause should be the basis for the ruling that came upon the relative pronoun, or at least a description suitable for it. The relevance, according to what this weary mind has yielded, has been obtained in the most perfect and complete manner, so there is no need to achieve it by what he—may Allah have mercy on him—mentioned later: moving the wording from its apparent, commonly used meaning to the day of meeting the Almighty, and interpreting the "meeting of the Almighty" as meeting His victory and support, making the expression an exaggeration. For it is far removed from the usage of that in the entire Glorious Book, and it is not of the class of the Almighty's saying (And Allah is with the patient ones)—where the intended meaning is the accompaniment of victory and favor—because in the rest of the Quran, its usage in such contexts is familiar, as is not hidden. It is possible that it is speech from the high-ranking ones, brought to complete the encouragement and entice patience by pointing to what is within it. It is also possible that it is the beginning of speech from the side of the Almighty, brought to affirm their speech and call the listeners to the likes of the state of these [believers] to whom their speech points.
