Tafsir of An-Nur 24:53

This is a narrative of another instance of the lies of the disbelieving hypocrites, emphasized by wicked oaths. It is a return to the beginning. Al-Qasam (the oath) is a synonym for al-hilf; its root originates from al-qasamah, which refers to oaths sworn against those accused of murder, as detailed in the books of jurisprudence. It then became a name for any oath.

His saying—the Almighty—{جهد أيمانهم} (the utmost of their oaths) is in the accusative case as a verbal noun (masdar) emphasizing its omitted verb. The sentence comprising the verb and its subject is in the state of being a circumstantial qualifier (hal), or it is in the accusative case as a hal itself—meaning: they swore by Him—the Almighty—exerting their oaths to the utmost degree, or being those who exert their oaths. The meaning of "the exertion of an oath" is reaching its limit, taken metaphorically from the saying: "He exerted himself" (jahada nafsahu) when one reaches the utmost of one's capacity and energy. The intent is: they swore, reaching the furthest stages of intensity and firmness in their swearing. It is permitted that it be a masdar emphasizing aqsamu (they swore), meaning: they swore oaths of intensity in swearing. Muqatil said: "Whoever swears by Allah—the Almighty—has exerted himself in the oath." The apparent meaning here is that they confirmed the oaths and reinforced them, not being satisfied with merely saying, "By Allah."

{لَئِنْ أَمَرْتَهُمْ} (If you command them), that is, to march forth, as is indicated by His saying—the Almighty—{لَيَخْرُجُنَّ} (they will surely march forth). The intent of this marching forth is for jihad, as Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Muqatil. Ibn Marduwayh recorded from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—that which indicates that the intent is marching forth from their wealth (i.e., expending it). In any case, the clause is the response to the oath, and the response to the conditional (the jawāb ash-shart) is omitted because this clause indicates it. It is a narrative of the meaning, and the origin is lanakhrujanna (we will surely march forth) in the first-person plural. It is said the origin was lakharajna (we would have marched forth), but since it was intended to narrate a past state, this form was used. This is countered by the argument that the timing of the ruling is what matters, which is future.

{قُلْ} (Say), that is, in response to them, restraining them from uttering those oaths and demonstrating that they are not accepted because they are liars.

{لَا تُقْسِمُوا} (Do not swear) regarding what your words suggest of obedience.

{طَاعَةٌ مَعْرُوفَةٌ} (Obedience that is known) is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning: "Your obedience is obedience..." The sentence serves as a justification for the prohibition, as if it were said: "Do not swear to the obedience you claim, because your obedience is known to be one that occurs only on the tongue, without the concurrence of the heart—something no one among the people is ignorant of." It is said the estimation is: "What is required of you is a known obedience, about which there is no doubt, like the obedience of the sincere believers." It is also said 'ta'ah' is the subject, and its predicate is omitted, meaning: "An obedience that is known, moderate, according to one's capacity, is better and more appropriate for you than your oath." Al-Zajjaj chose this. It is also said it is in the nominative case by an implied verb, meaning: "Let there be known obedience from you." All of these are weakened by the fact that the context does not support them, and the last is weakened because it involves deleting the verb in a place where it should not be deleted.

Al-Biqa'i said: There is no estimation in the speech, and 'ta'ah' is the subject, and 'ma'rufah' is the predicate. He justified starting with an indefinite noun because it was intended to denote the essence, thus encompassing the general sense among the justifications for starting with an indefinite. It was not made definite lest it be imagined that it refers to a specific covenant. The sentence justifies the prohibition, meaning: Do not swear, for the obedience is known from you and from others; it is not hidden. The way of Allah—the Almighty—has been that even if a servant strives to hide his obedience, He—the Almighty—must manifest its signs on his features, and likewise with disobedience. Therefore, there is no benefit in revealing what is feared to be reality. In the hadiths, there is evidence for what was mentioned; for instance, Al-Tabarani recorded from Jundub: "No servant hides a secret but that Allah—the Almighty—clothes him in its mantle." Al-Hakim recorded—and he said it has a sound chain of narration—from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that he said: "If one of you were to work inside a solid rock that has no door and no opening, his work would come out to the people, whoever they may be." This meaning, as it is said, is good, but it is contrary to the apparent text. Zayd ibn Ali and al-Zaydi recited ta'atan ma'rufatan in the accusative case, based on the estimation: "You obey a known hypocritical obedience," or "Obey a known, true obedience." Ta'ah is in the meaning of ita'ah (obedience), as in His saying—the Almighty—{وَأَنْبَتَكُم مِّنَ الْأَرْضِ نَبَاتًا} (And caused you to grow from the earth, a [progressive] growth).

{إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ} (Indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do) of the outward and inward deeds, among which are the lies you manifest that are emphasized by wicked oaths, and the disbelief and hypocrisy you harbor, and the determination to deceive the believers, and other arts of evil and corruption. The intent is a warning that He—the Almighty—will requite them for all their evil deeds, of which their hypocrisy is a part. In Al-Irshad, it is stated that the sentence is a justification for the ruling that their obedience is hypocritical obedience, indicating that the pivot of its reputation among the believers is His—the Almighty—informing them of that and threatening them with requital.