O you who have believed...
This address, according to the majority of scholars, serves as an explanation completing the preceding rulings, after establishing the grounds that necessitate compliance with the commands and prohibitions contained therein—and in the subsequent rulings—by way of allegories, encouragement, warnings, promises, and threats. In terms of investigative research, it may be said that this is a matter in which Allah the Exalted and His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) are to be obeyed. Its specific mention is intended because its inclusion under "obedience"—being a matter of etiquette—is more remote than other matters.
The address is either directed specifically toward men, with women included in the ruling by virtue of the text's implication, or it is directed to both groups through the linguistic principle of generalization (taghlib). The former view has been challenged on the basis that the verse was revealed specifically regarding women; it is reported that Asma bint Abi Murthad had a mature servant enter upon her at a time she disliked, so she went to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "Our servants and young boys enter upon us in a state we dislike," and thus this verse was revealed. It is mentioned in Al-Itqan that the inclusion of the sabab al-nuzul (occasion of revelation) in the ruling is definitive. To this, it is answered: what prevents the ruling regarding the occasion from being known via implication and clear analogy, such that it is legally equivalent to the inclusion? It is reported from Al-Subki that it is speculative (dhanni), thus its exclusion is permissible. The full discussion of this is found in the books of jurisprudence (Usul).
Furthermore, the account of the occasion of revelation is not unanimously agreed upon. It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent a young boy from the Ansar, called Mudlij, to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) during the afternoon. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was sleeping, and the boy knocked on the door and entered. Umar woke up, sat up, and became partially uncovered. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) then said, "I wish Allah the Exalted had forbidden our fathers, our sons, and our servants from entering upon us at this hour except with permission." He then went with him to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and found that this verse had already been revealed. He fell into prostration, and this is one of the instances where his sound opinion coincided with the Revelation.
Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Al-Suddi that he said: "Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) liked to have intercourse with their wives at these hours, then perform the ritual bath (ghusl), and then go out for prayer. So Allah the Exalted commanded them to order their slaves and young boys not to enter upon them at those hours except by permission." From this, it is known that the command in His saying—Exalted be He—"...let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not reached puberty among you ask permission..." (24:58), although appearing on the surface to be addressed to the servants and young boys, is in reality for the addressees themselves. It is as if they were commanded to command the aforementioned ones to ask permission.
This resolves the question raised: "How can Allah the Almighty command those who have not reached puberty to ask permission, when that constitutes a religious obligation (taklif), and there is no obligation before puberty?" The essence of the answer is that Allah the Exalted did not command them in the literal sense; rather, He—Exalted be He—commanded the adult to order them to do so, just as He commanded him to order them to perform prayer. It is reported that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Order your children to pray when they are seven years old, and discipline them for it when they are ten." His command regarding what is mentioned is of the nature of upbringing and instruction; there is no difficulty in it.
Others have said: the command is for the adults among those mentioned in the literal sense, and for the others by way of discipline. Others have said: it is for all in the literal sense, and taklif depends on discernment (tamyiz), not necessarily on reaching puberty. Thus, "those who have not reached puberty" refers to the discerning among the young. These are as you see.
There is a difference of opinion regarding this command: some hold it to be mandatory (wajib), while the majority hold it to be recommended (mandub). According to both opinions, it is a definitive ruling (muhkam) according to the sounder view. The full discussion will follow.
The majority hold that "those whom your right hands possess" is general, covering both male and female slaves, adults and children. It is reported from Ibn Umar and Mujahid that it is specific to males, as the outward form of the wording suggests. This is also reported from Abu Ja’far and Abu ‘Abdullah—may Allah be pleased with them. Al-Sulami said: it is specific to females—a strange opinion not to be relied upon. From Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with him—is the view of specification, which is the most apparent disagreement.
"Those who have not reached puberty" refers to children, both male and female, consistent with what passed from the majority, specifically the adolescent among them. The words "among you" (minkum) serve to restrict them to the freeborn, which the contrast also suggests.
In Al-Bahr, it is stated that it is general for children, whether they be slaves or free. The deficiency in reaching the stage of puberty is alluded to by what is mentioned, because wet dreams (ihtilam) are its strongest evidence. Jurists have agreed that if a boy has a wet dream, he has reached puberty. They differed regarding when one reaches fifteen years without having had a wet dream. Abu Hanifah held in the famous view: he does not reach puberty until he completes eighteen years. Likewise, the young girl, if she has not had a wet dream, menstruated, or become pregnant, she does not reach puberty in his view until she completes seventeen years. His evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And do not approach the wealth of the orphan, except in the way that is best, until he reaches his maturity" (6:152). The maturity of a boy, as reported from Ibn Abbas and followed by Al-Qutaybi, is eighteen years, which is the lowest age mentioned for it; thus the ruling is built upon it for certainty. However, the maturation of females is faster, so he reduced the age by one year for them, as a year contains the four seasons, one of which must inevitably align with her temperament.
His two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad), Al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad said: When the boy or girl reaches fifteen years, they have both reached puberty. This is also a report from the Imam—may Allah be pleased with him—and it is the basis for the fatwa. Their argument is that the prevalent custom is that puberty does not delay beyond this period. The custom is restricted to being "prevalent" because a boy may reach puberty at twelve, and a girl may reach it at nine. Some argued for the aforementioned based on the report that Ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—was presented to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the day of Uhud, and he was fourteen, and he did not permit him. He was presented on the day of the Trench (Al-Khandaq), and he was fifteen, and he permitted him. Abu Bakr Al-Razi objected to this, saying that Uhud was in the third year and the Trench was in the fifth year, so how can the report be correct? Furthermore, there is no evidence in it for the claim, because permission to fight is not dependent on puberty; a mature person might not be permitted due to weakness, and an immature person might be permitted due to strength and the ability to carry weapons.
Perhaps the lack of permission from him—peace be upon him—for Ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with them—the first time was only due to his weakness. This is suggested by the fact that he—peace be upon him—did not ask him about wet dreams or age. Among the things unique to Al-Shafi’i—may Allah be pleased with him—as is said, is making the growth of pubic hair evidence of puberty. He argued for it using the report from ‘Atiyyah al-Quradhi, that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered the killing of those from Banu Qurayzah who had grown hair, and sparing those who had not. He said: "They looked at me, and I had not grown hair, so the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) spared me."
Abu Bakr Al-Razi countered that one may not establish religious law with such a report, for this 'Atiyyah is unknown and known only from this report. Also, the wording varies; in some narrations, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered the killing of those who had reached the age of razors. Furthermore, it is possible the order to kill those who had grown hair was not because they were mature, but because they were strong, for hair growth indicates physical strength. The Shafi'is defended this by saying that the probability is rejected by the report from Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him—who was asked about a boy and said: "Has his waist-wrapper turned green?" This indicates it was like an agreed-upon matter among the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them. The famous view of Al-Shafi'i—may Allah have mercy on him—is that this is evidence of puberty regarding the children of disbelievers. The Shafi'is struggled in defending this and in refuting the attacks against it with what is not hidden to those who study it.
A strange report from some of the predecessors is that they considered the reaching of a height of five spans as puberty. It is reported from Ali—may Allah be pleased with his countenance—that he said: "When the boy reaches five spans, the hudud (legal punishments) are applied to him; he receives justice and is held to justice." From Ibn Sirin, from Anas, it is said: "Abu Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—was brought a boy who had stolen, so he ordered him to be measured by span; he was a finger-breadth short, so he released him." The poet Al-Farazdaq adopted this school of thought when praising Yazid ibn al-Muhallab: "Ever since his hands tied his waist-wrapper and he rose, reaching five spans, he brings armies of armies, meeting [the enemy] with thrusts on the day of struggle and raids."
Most jurists do not hold this, because a human might be below the age of puberty and be tall, or above the age and be short; therefore, it is of no account. Perhaps the previous reports are not authentic, and what is narrated from Al-Farazdaq does not necessitate the intent of puberty. Some people have said he meant the grave by "five spans," as another said: "I marvel at four cubits within five; in his interior is a great, towering mountain."
Al-Hasan and Abu ‘Amr read (in one report) al-hulm with a quiescent lam. This is the dialect of Tamim. Al-Raghib mentioned that al-hulm (with a damma on the ha) and al-hulm (with a sukun on the lam) are both verbal nouns of halama in his sleep... Al-hulm (damma) is what the sleeper sees. Al-hulam (kasra on the ha) is forbearance. In the Qamus, it is stated that al-hulm (damma) is a dream. Al-hulm and al-ihtilam refer to sexual intercourse in a dream... The apparent meaning is that which we are discussing, which is intercourse in a dream, i.e., the known wet dream. The way in which the previous metonymy applies to it is apparent. Al-Raghib said: "Al-Hulm is the time of puberty; it was named hulm because the one who attains it is worthy of hilm (forbearance), i.e., composure and restraining the self from the agitations of anger."
"Three times" (three times in the day and night). Expressing this as "times" is to indicate that the requirement of asking permission is linked to those times when those seeking permission pass by the addressees, not the times themselves. Thus, "three times" is in the accusative case as an adverb of time for asking permission. This is the view of the majority. The saying of Allah the Exalted, "Before the dawn prayer..." (etc.), supports what has been mentioned, for it is clearly in the accusative or genitive case, as it is said to be an appositive to "three" or "times"—an appositive of detail after a generalization.
It is also possible for it to be in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "One of them is before...". This also supports what we have said.
In Al-Bahr, it is preferred that the meaning is "three permissions," which is the obvious reading; for if you say "I struck three times," it is not understood as anything but three strikes. This is supported by the Prophet's saying: "Asking permission is three times." According to this, "three times" is a cognate accusative (maf'ul mutlaq) for "asking permission," and "before..." is an adverb of time for it.
Asking permission was ordained "before the dawn prayer" because it is clearly the time for rising from bedding, discarding sleep attire, and putting on daytime clothing—all of which are potential times for the exposure of the private parts. Furthermore, a person is often in a state of major ritual impurity (junub) at night, performing the ghusl at that time, and would be embarrassed to be seen in that state, even if his private parts were covered.
"And when you put aside your garments" (i.e., when you take off the garments you wear during the day and lay them down). "From the noonday" (min al-zahira) is an explanation of the "time." The zahira, as Al-Raghib said, is the time of noon. In the Qamus, it is the limit of midday, or it is specifically in the heat of summer.
It is also possible that min denotes a cause (ajliyyah), and the speech involves an omitted genitive, i.e., "when you put aside your garments because of the noonday." Some interpreted zahira as the intensity of heat at midday, so there is no need for omission. "Time" (hin) is conjoined to "before," which is clear if we assume it is in the accusative case. As for the other two assumptions, one must accept that hin is indeclinable on the fatha even if annexed to a present-tense verb.
The specific mention of the rationale for the command—putting aside garments at this time, rather than before or after—is because the stripping of garments at this time is for the qaylulah (midday nap), which is short, as indicated by the use of "time" added to a transient, completed action. Its occurrence in the daytime, which is a place where many enter and exit, and a probable time for the appearance of circumstances and the emergence of matters, does not reach the level of certainty and consistency as the two aforementioned times (dawn and night), for the rationale in those two is a well-known matter that does not require explicit mention.
"And after the night prayer." This is of necessity because it is the time for discarding daytime wear and draping oneself in sleepwear, and it is frequently a time when the preliminaries of intercourse are engaged in, although it is better for those who do not perform ghusl immediately to delay it until the end of the night. From what is mentioned in the statement of the wisdom behind the obligation of permission at the first and last times, it is known that the "beforeness" and "afterness" mentioned do not mean their absolute sense, occurring throughout the extended time between the dawn prayer and the night prayer; rather, it refers to the two ends of that extended time, connected in the customary sense to the two aforementioned prayers.
The lack of mention of the command to ask permission in the remainder is [as discussed] from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them. In Al-Bahr, it is said that it is Meccan without dispute. Excepted from it, as in Al-Anfal, is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Until when We seized them in luxury..." (23:64) to His saying—Exalted be He—"...in despair" (23:77).
The ruling on what is other than that being Meccan has been problematized by the mention of Zakat therein, while it was only made mandatory in Medina. It is answered that after conceding that what is mentioned therein indicates its obligatory nature, it is said: Zakat was mandatory in Mecca, and what was made mandatory in Medina was the specific amounts (nisab). You shall hear the full discussion on that, if Allah the Exalted wills. It consists of, as in Kitab al-'Adad by Al-Dani Al-Tabarsi, 118 verses in the Kufan [count] and 117 verses in others.
The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) praised the first ten verses of it. Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa’i, Al-Hakim (who authenticated it), Al-Diya in Al-Mukhtarah, and others reported from Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: "When revelation would descend upon the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), we would hear near his face something like the humming of bees. One day, revelation descended upon him, and we waited for a while. Then it was lifted from him, and he faced the Qiblah, raised his hands, and said: 'O Allah, increase us and do not decrease us; honor us and do not humiliate us; give us and do not deprive us; prefer us and do not prefer others over us; and be pleased with us and satisfy us.' Then he said: 'Ten verses have been revealed to me; whoever upholds them shall enter Paradise.' Then he recited: 'Certainly will the believers have succeeded...' until he completed the ten."
Its relevance to the preceding surahs is apparent, for He—Exalted be He—addressed the believers saying: "O you who have believed, bow and prostrate..." (22:77), which includes "that you may succeed." Thus, it was fitting for Him to affirm that, so He said—Almighty is the Speaker:
[1] In the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. Certainly will the believers have succeeded.
Al-Falah (success) is the attainment of one's goal. It is said: remaining in goodness. Al-Iflah is the entry into that, like al-ibshar (entry into glad tidings). It may sometimes be transitive. Based on this is the reading of Talha ibn Musarrif and ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd: ufliha (in the passive voice). Qad is for the fixity of an expected matter and its realization. The apparent meaning here is success, for qad has entered upon its verb, and it is expected to be realized from the state of the believers. Al-Zamakhshari made it an assertion of its fixity, because success is future, yet it is presented in the form of the past, confirmed with qad to indicate its realization. Thus, it conveys the certainty and fixity of the tidings, as if it were said: "It has been realized that the believers are among the people of success in the Hereafter." It is also possible that the sentence "Certainly will have succeeded" is the answer to an omitted oath. Al-Zajjaj mentioned regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted: "He has succeeded who purifies it" (91:9) that it is the answer to an oath mentioned before it, with the implication of the lam.
Warsh from Nafi' read qad aflaha by transferring the vowel of the hamza to the dal, then deleting it in pronunciation to avoid the meeting of two quiescent letters, as Abu al-Baqa’ said. They are the quiescent hamza (after the transfer) and the quiescent dal (in origin), for its accidental vowel is not counted.
Talha also read qad aflahu with a damma on the hamza, the ha, and the addition of the plural waw. This is explained by the dialect of "my bugs ate me" (akaluni al-baraghit). Ibn ‘Atiyyah’s statement that this is a rejected reading is itself rejected. It is related from ‘Isa ibn ‘Umar that he said: "I heard Talha read qad aflahu al-mu'minun, and I said to him, 'Are you committing a grammatical error?' He said, 'Yes, just as my companions committed an error.'" Perhaps he meant that the point of reference for my reading is the transmission (of the Arabs), and whenever it is authentically proven in any part of the language, it is accepted.
The lack of mention in the remainder of the extended time is either because it is understood after the command to ask permission in the aforementioned times as a matter of priority, or because occurrences during it are very rare. It is also said that it is because the custom prevails that whoever enters at that time does not do so without informing the people of the house, because of the suspicion that unavoidably arises from entering a house without informing its people.
His saying—Exalted be He—"...three times of privacy for you" is the predicate of an omitted subject. His saying—Exalted be He—"...for you" relates to an omitted element, acting as an adjective for it, i.e., "They are three times of privacy pertaining to you." ’Awrah (privacy/nakedness) is a deficiency; from this is "the horseman is a'war" and "the place is a'war" if its state is deficient. Al-a'war is the one with a deficient eye. Human ’awrah is their private parts. Its origin, as Al-Raghib said, is from al-'ar (shame/disgrace), because of the disgrace or blameworthiness that attaches to their exposure. The omitted pronoun "their" refers to the three times. The speech involves an omitted genitive, i.e., "They are times in which covering is usually deficient." Abu al-Baqa' estimated the genitive before "three," saying: "They are three times of 'awrah." There is no omission here, and the attribution of 'awrat to the times is for exaggeration, as if they were the very privacies themselves. The sentence is an isti'naf (initiation of speech) designed to explain the reason for requesting permission at those times.
Abu Bakr, Hamzah, and Al-Kisa’i read thalatha in the accusative case as an appositive to "three times." Abu al-Baqa' allowed it to be an appositive to the aforementioned times or to be in the accusative by the implication of "I mean." Al-A’mash read ‘awrat with a fatha on the waw, which is the dialect of Hudhail ibn Mudrikah and Banu Tamim.
"...there is no blame on you nor on them..."—that is, on those whom your right hands possess and those who have not reached puberty among you—"...after them" (i.e., after each one of those three private times, which are the times interspersed between each two of them). Its mention under the title of "afterness," even though each of those times is before one of the private times just as it is after another, is to fulfill the requirement of the obligation and the concession, which is the removal of the obligation. For a concession is only imagined in an act that occurs after the time of the obligated act—so it is in Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim. Its outward meaning is that there is no hardship in entering without permission in the time interspersed between what is after the night prayer and what is before the dawn prayer, according to the aforementioned sense of afterness and beforeness. The implication of what we presented is that there is hardship in that, so it is like an exception to what was mentioned.
It would have been more apparent to say: "There is no blame on them after them," without mentioning the negation of blame on the addressees, because those who are apparently commanded in the preceding text to ask permission during the three private times are the slaves and the adolescent freeborn, and no one else. Even if the addressees were considered in reality in the past, it would be more apparent here to say: "There is no blame on you after them," limiting it to that. Perhaps the choice of what is in the sublime composition is to observe the exaggeration in the permission to leave off asking permission in times other than those three, by negating blame from those commanded to do so during them, both apparently and in reality.
It is apparent that "blame" means religious sin. It has been problematized that it is understood from the verse that sin is established for the addressees if the slaves and those who have not reached puberty enter upon them without permission during those private times, even though "no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another" (6:164). And its establishment for the slaves and young ones is likewise, even though the young are not obligated, so religious sin cannot be imagined for them.
It is answered that its establishment for those mentioned is by way of implication (mafhum), and in our view, such implication is of no account. If one considers it, it is possible that its establishment for the addressees at that time is for their failure to teach them and for enabling them to enter upon them. The problem of its establishment for the young remains, and there is no way to repel it except by committing to the view that obligation depends on discernment and does not wait for puberty, which is contrary to what the majority of Imams hold.
A problem regarding the view that the establishment for those mentioned is by way of implication remains, and it is not hidden. It has been committed in Al-Jawahir that "blame" refers to customary sin, the reference point of which is the abandonment of the better course and a lack of propriety and etiquette. The permissibility of establishing this for the obligated and the non-obligated is a matter upon which there is no disagreement. So it is as if the meaning is: "There is no blame on you, O believers, for them entering upon you after them, because of your failure to teach them and enable them to do so, which leads to viewing what propriety and protective jealousy (ghirah) dictate should not be viewed." And there is no blame on them for that, for their lack of etiquette that leads to viewing what those of sound nature dislike to be viewed, and are repulsed by. This is not contradicted by the preceding command, nor by what is in Al-Irshad regarding the explanation of the subtlety of mentioning the three private times under the title of afterness, as you have heard. So reflect, for it is subtle.
Some have held that His saying—Exalted be He—"...do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission and greeted their inhabitants" (24:27) is abrogated by this verse, since it indicates the permissibility of entering without permission after the three times, while the former indicated the contrary. Those who do not hold this view say: the former is regarding children and slaves of the one being entered upon, and the verse of asking permission is for freeborn adults and the slaves of others who are in their ruling; thus there is no contradiction that would necessitate abrogation. Then, know that the negation of blame after them on those mentioned is not in its absolute sense; for whenever it is realized or suspected that the people of the house are in a state that they would dislike the slaves and the adolescents among the freeborn to witness—such as the exposure of one’s private parts, or sexual relations with one’s wife or slave-woman, etc.—it is not appropriate to enter upon them without permission, whether it be in one of the three private times or at other times. The command to ask permission during them and the negation of blame after them is based on the prevalent custom that the people of the house are in those three times in a state that requires permission, and are in a state that does not require it at other times.
There is another orientation to the verse mentioned by Abu Hayyan, and his apparent action is that he chose it, and Abu al-Baqa’ limited himself to it, which is: the implication is "There is no blame on you nor on them after their asking permission in them," so he omitted the agent and the preposition, leaving "their asking permission in them," then he omitted the verbal noun, so it became "after them." According to this, the complexity of the speech in the verse decreases, although it is contrary to the obvious meaning. The majority follow what you heard first regarding its meaning.
It is apparent that the sentence, according to the two previous readings of "three," is an isti'naf (initiation) intended to establish what preceded it. In Al-Kashshaf, it states that if "three" is in the nominative, it is in the position of the nominative as an attribute; the meaning is "They are three [times] specifically designated for asking permission." If it is in the accusative, it has no position, and it is speech confirming asking permission in those states specifically.
The author of Al-Taqrir said regarding this: the removal of hardship after the three times is intended in itself. If "three private times" is described by it in the accusative—as an appositive to "three times"—the meaning would be "Let them ask permission of you in three times specifically designated for asking permission." This is refuted by aspects derived from the science of Ma’ani (rhetoric): one is the condition that the listener must already know the description, which is absent if it is only known from this; the second is making the intended ruling an attribute of the adverb, so it becomes unintended; the third is that the command to ask permission in the three times is established, and whether it is described as having no hardship after it or not described, the description is lost. But if the nominative is described, the objections are removed because it is an initiation of instruction, i.e., "They are three [times] specifically designated for asking permission," an attribute of the intended predicate, and the command of asking permission is not restricted to it. So reflect, for it is subtle and sublime.
It was countered that the last two objections are fallen, having no weight. The first is the objection. If it is said: "It is a mutual obligation," it is said: it has been preceded in His saying—Exalted be He—"...let those who..." what guides to the knowledge of that, and the last sentence is not part of its parts, just as it is not on the assumption of making it an attribute for the appositive. And there is no need with this for the talk that the removal of hardship after the three times is intended in itself; rather, it is said that in itself, it is nothing.
Al-Tayyibi said: the intended objective is to ask permission during the specified times, and the removal of hardship in other times is subordinate to it, because of the saying of the narrator—may Allah be pleased with him—"I wish that Allah the Almighty had forbidden our fathers and servants from entering upon us at this hour except with permission," then he went to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the verse had been revealed. In Al-Kashf, it is mentioned that the speech indicating the removal of hardship—i.e., "There is no blame on you..."—was brought after the nominative of "three" to confirm what preceded it by way of consistency and reversal. Likewise if it is in the accusative and made an initiation. As for if it is made an attribute, this meaning is lost. This is also one of the objections. So reflect and do not be heedless.
His saying—Exalted be He—"...they are your servants" (lit: "they are rounders about you") is the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "They are rounders about you." The sentence is an isti'naf (initiation) explaining the excuse that permits leaving off asking permission, which is the necessary intermingling and the frequency of entry. In it is evidence for the ta'lil (providing reasons) of religious rulings, and likewise in the difference between the three times and others because they are times of privacy.
His saying—Almighty is He—"...some of you over others"—it is allowed for it to be a subject and predicate, and the relation of the preposition is a special existence omitted because of the indication of what preceded it, i.e., "Some of you are circling over others." It is also allowed for it to be governed by an omitted verb, i.e., "Some of you circle over others."
Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: "Some of you" is an appositive to "rounders." This was countered in Al-Bahr that if he meant it is an appositive to "rounders" itself, it is not permissible because the implication would be "They are some of you over others," which is a meaning that is not correct. If he meant it is an appositive to the pronoun in it, it is also not correct if the pronoun is estimated as third-person, because the implication would be "They circle, some of you over others." If the implication is made "You circle, some of you circle over others," it is refuted by "over you" (‘alaykum), which indicates that they are the ones circled over, and "you are rounders" indicates that they are the rounders, so they contradict.
It is said: "You are rounders" is estimated, and by "you," the addressees are intended, and the third person is intended from the slaves and the young. It is as you see. Abu al-Baqa’ allowed the sentence to be an appositive to the one before it and to be constructed as a confirmation. You see what it contains of comforting the hearts of the slaves by making them "some of" the addressees, and by this, the matter of the reason ('illiyyah) is strengthened. Ibn Abi ‘Ablah read tawwafina in the accusative as a state (hal) from the pronoun in "over you."
"...Likewise..." is an allusion to the source of the verb that follows, according to what has passed in detail in His saying—Exalted be He—"...And thus We have made you a just community..." (2:143), and in others also—that is, like this clarification.
"...Allah makes clear to you the signs..." (the signs indicating what contains your benefit and righteousness). That is, He reveals them clear and explicit in indication, not that He—Exalted be He—clarifies them after they were not so. The prepositional phrase is placed before the direct object for the reason mentioned more than once. It is also said: "He makes clear the reasons for the rulings," which was countered by saying it is not clear, and that it leads to restricting the signs to what is mentioned here.
[58] And Allah is Knowing (exaggerated in knowledge of all known things, so He knows your states) Wise (in all His actions, so He legislates for you what contains your righteousness in your living and your afterlife).
