Tafsir of Al-Hajj 22:60

"That" refers to the settling of His command.

"And whoever punishes with the like of what he was punished with": Meaning, whoever recompenses the perpetrator with the like of the offense committed against him. The naming of what occurs initially as "punishment" (‘iqab), even though punishment—as more than one scholar has stated—is a recompense for an offense, is because it comes after (‘aqib) the offense; for "punishment" is, in its origin, something that follows something else, used here for the sake of parallelism (mushakala). Or, it may be because the initial act is the cause of the recompense, and thus the term is applied to it via a figurative metaphor (majaz mursal) based on the relation of causality. Some investigative scholars have said: It is permissible to say there is neither parallelism nor metaphor, based on the custom that it is applied to whatever one is tormented with, even if it is not a recompense for an offense.

"Whoever" (man) is a relative pronoun (mawsula). It is also permitted that it be conditional (shartiyya), with the response of an implied oath occupying the place of the response to the condition; the sentence is thus a new commencement (musta’nafa). Regarding the ba in both instances, it is said to denote the cause, not the instrument; Abu al-Baqa’ held this view. Al-Khafaji said: The ba in "with the like of" is instrumental, not causal, to avoid repetition with His saying "with it" (bihi). The thought that presents itself to my humble mind is that in both instances it is instrumental, and there is an objection to what al-Khafaji mentioned—so reflect upon this.

"Then is oppressed": Through a recurrence of punishment.

"God will surely aid him": Against the one who oppressed him, inevitably, when he intends to exact vengeance for it.

"Indeed, God is Pardoning, Forgiving."

This provides a justification for the aid, as it is granted to one who committed a breach of the better course—which is pardoning the offender—a course that is encouraged and earns praise from Him, the Exalted. One should not look at His saying, “But whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is [due] from God,” and “And that you pardon is closer to righteousness,” and “Whoever is patient and forgives—indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of resolve,” and conclude that God does not blame one for abandoning the better course, provided that the condition is observed, which is the absence of aggression. In this there is an allusion to the primacy of pardon, for the mention of the two attributes indicates that there was a semblance of an offense. The manifestation of the Exalted Name (Allah) in a place where a pronoun would suffice is to indicate that this is from the requirements of Divinity.

Carrying the sentence upon what has been mentioned is one of three viewpoints that al-Zamakhshari mentioned in explaining the conformity of mentioning "Pardoning, Forgiving" in this place. The second view is that He indicated by this that He, the Exalted, is capable of punishment, for one is not described as "Pardoning" unless he is capable of the opposite.

In al-Kashf, he said: Therefore, "Indeed, God," etc., according to this, is also a justification for the aid, implying that the avenger deserves more than that, but contentment with the "like" is due to the place of God's pardon and forgiveness. It also includes an encouragement to pardon; this is a sound view. The third view is that He indicated by this the negation of blame for abandoning the better course, as established earlier, except that the sentence is a second predicate for His saying, "whoever punishes with the like of what he was punished with," while the other predicate is His saying, "God will surely aid him." Thus, He has informed [us] about him that He does not blame him for abandoning pardon and that He is a guarantor of his aid if he is wronged a second time.

Some made this a case of advancement and postponement, but there is no necessity for that. It is also said that the pardon is not for having committed a breach of the better course, but because equivalence in all aspects is difficult, necessitating pardon for what occurred therein—but this view is weak.

Al-Tayyibi reported from the Imam that the verse was revealed regarding a group of polytheists who encountered a group of Muslims two nights before the end of Muharram. They said, "The companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him) dislike fighting in the Sacred Month; attack them." The Muslims pleaded with them to desist from fighting, but they refused, so the Muslims fought them and were granted victory. A concern fell into their hearts regarding fighting in the Sacred Month, so God revealed the verse. He then said: Based on this, the matter of conformity is apparent and more consistent with the structure of the arrangement. That is because the word "That" is a separator for the discourse, and His saying "And whoever punishes" is the commencement of another story regarding those masters, after His saying, “And those who emigrated...” for the two verses.

This has been countered by the claim that the verse necessitates an initiation, then a recompense, then oppression, then a recompense, and the story does not indicate that, unless one considers the hostility between them as the punishment with the like, and the oppression as their determination to fight the Muslims in the Sacred Month—which is contrary to the apparent meaning. As for the consistency with the arrangement, it is clearer according to what others mentioned: when He mentioned the state of those among them who were killed, it was said that the matter—regarding what pertains to the Hereafter and what pertains to the world—is that they are the ones who are aided, for they are between one who punishes and one who pardons, and both are aided. As for the first, it is by explicit text; as for the second, it is by the implication of the address—that is, the concept of conformity. In this is a severe threat to the oppressor, that he is abandoned in both abodes, joined in the company of those who were in doubt until the Hour or the punishment came to them. This is a robust statement, and the claim that He brought it for the sake of abrupt transition does not impede it—so reflect.

It is reported from al-Dahhak that the verse is Medinan and pertains to qisas (legal retribution) and wounds.

Al-Shafi’i used this as evidence for the obligation of observing equivalence in qisas. With us (the Hanafis), there is no retribution except by the sword, as mentioned in the report—and by it is meant any weapon. The report, "Whoever drowns, we drown him, and whoever burns, we burn him," is not authentic; and even if its authenticity were granted, it is interpreted as being a matter of policy (siyasa). It should be known that punishing with the like absolutely is not legislated; for a man might be punished for saying something like, "You adulterer." It is said: If he is told that and he says, "No, rather you are the adulterer," then he and the first speaker are both lashed. So, let this be guarded.