Surah An-Nur: (63) "Do not make the calling of the Messenger..."

(Do not make the calling of the Messenger among you like the calling of one another.) This is an isti’naf (resumption/new sentence) meant to confirm the content of what preceded it. The shift in style (iltifat) serves to highlight the great care for his status, peace and blessings be upon him. That is: Do not measure his calling—peace and blessings be upon him—to you by the standard of your calling to one another in any situation or matter, among which are taking liberties with it or departing from his presence—peace and blessings be upon him—without permission; for that is among the forbidden acts. Abu Muslim tended toward something similar to this, and it was favored by Al-Mubarrad and Al-Qaffal.

It is said: The meaning is, do not consider his calling—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—to you (if he were to call against you) as the calling of one of you against another. Thus, do not expose yourselves to his displeasure and his calling against you—peace and blessings be upon him—by opposing his command and departing from his presence without permission, and the like. This is derived from what is mentioned in some reports from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and it is narrated from Al-Sha’bi. Ibn Abi ‘Atiyah criticized this, arguing that the wording of the verse rejects this meaning; it is as if he meant that the apparent meaning of "calling against" (du’a’ ‘ala) one another is hindered by "among you" (baynakum), which is in the realm of prohibition.

It is also said: The meaning is, do not treat his calling—peace and blessings be upon him—upon his Lord, the Almighty, like the calling of your low to your high, or your poor to your rich, where He might answer or He might reject. For his calling—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—is answered and cannot be rejected by Allah, the Almighty. Therefore, expose yourselves to his calling for you by complying with his order and seeking his permission when departing from him if you are with him for a collective matter, and be certain of the acceptance of his seeking forgiveness for you, and do not expose yourselves to his calling against you by doing the opposite.

The manner in which this sentence confirms the previous one according to these two views is not hidden. However, the claim that all of his calling—peace and blessings be upon him—is answered was scrutinized by the observation that it is authentically recorded that he—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—asked Allah the Almighty regarding his nation that He not let them taste the might of one another, and He denied him this. This is clear evidence that some of his calling—peace and blessings be upon him—may be rejected. This was countered by saying: How can it be rejected when Allah the Almighty said, "Call upon Me; I will answer you," and in the Hadith, "Indeed, Allah the Almighty does not reject the supplication of the believer, even if it is delayed"? Imam Al-Suhayli said in Al-Rawd: "Answered supplication is of categories: either hastening what was requested, storing for him something better than what he requested, or averting from him a calamity equivalent to the good he requested." He—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—was given, in exchange for not letting them taste the might of one another, the right of intercession. He said, "This nation of mine is a nation shown mercy; it has no punishment in the Hereafter; its punishment is in this world: earthquakes and tribulations," as stated in Abu Dawud. If tribulations are a cause for averting the punishment of the Hereafter from the nation, it cannot be said that his calling—peace and blessings be upon him—was not answered, because the lack of response here means not giving what was requested specifically, not the failure to answer the supplication in the sense previously mentioned. The full discussion of this topic is sought in its appropriate place.

It is also said: The meaning is, do not make your calling to him—peace and blessings be upon him—and naming him like your calling to one another by his name and raising your voices with it, or calling from behind the chambers; rather, use his exalted title: "O Prophet of Allah," "O Messenger of Allah," with humility and lowering the voice.

Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduyah, and Abu Nu'aym in Al-Dala'il narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: "They used to say: 'O Muhammad,' 'O Abu al-Qasim.' Then Allah the Almighty forbade them from that by His saying—Glory be to Him—(Do not make), the verse, to honor His Prophet—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. So they said: 'O Prophet of Allah,' 'O Messenger of Allah'." Similar to this is narrated from Qatadah, Al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and Mujahid. In Ahkam al-Qur'an by Al-Suyuti, it is stated that this prohibition implies the prohibition of calling him—peace and blessings be upon him—by his name.

The apparent meaning is that this continues even after his death until now. Al-Tabarsi mentioned that among the forbidden things is calling him "O son of Abdullah," for that is how the Arabs address one another. This view was countered by saying that the verse does not suit the context that precedes and follows it. Some said: The link to what preceded it is the guidance that requesting permission should be with the words: "O Messenger of Allah, we are asking your permission," and the like. Similarly, addressing him—peace and blessings be upon him—in a collective matter should be with phrases like "O Messenger of Allah," not "O Muhammad." This amount of linkage to the previous part is sufficient, and there is no need to show the relevance by saying that both contain something contrary to the respect befitting his great status—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. Yes, the most apparent meaning of the verse is what we mentioned first, as is not hidden. Al-Hasan and Ya'qub, in one narration, read it as "your Prophet" (nabiyyikum) instead of "among you" (baynakum), which is the word in the majority reading. It is explained as being a substitute for "the Messenger," not an adjective for him, because it is annexed to a pronoun, and the annexed is in the rank of a proper noun, and it is more specific than the noun with al- (the definite article). An adjective is required to be of the same level of specificity as the noun it describes, or lower. Abu Hayyan said: It should be permissible to consider it an adjective because "the Messenger" has become a proper noun by prevalence, like "the House" (al-bayt) for the Ka'bah; they have become equal in specificity.

(Allah already knows those of you who slip away stealthily) This is a threat to those who are the opposite of the believers who did not leave until they asked his permission—peace and blessings be upon him. "Slipping away" (tasallul) is leaving a group gradually and secretly. "Already" (qad) is for verification. It is also permitted that it is to diminish the number of those slipping away relative to what Allah knows, or to multiply them, either literally or as a metaphor of opposition. Abu Hayyan said: The statement of some grammarians that "qad" indicates multiplication when it enters the present tense is incorrect; rather, multiplication is understood from the context of the speech, as in the poem of Zuhayr: "A trustworthy brother who does not squander his wealth, but he does squander the wealth of his dispenser." Since the context of the speech is praise, this is understood from it. That is: Allah knows those who leave the group little by little secretly, (concealing themselves) by using one another as a screen until they leave. Abu Dawud recorded in his Marasil from Muqatil: "No one would leave for a nosebleed or to relieve themselves without asking the Prophet—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—for permission. He would signal with the finger next to the thumb, and the Prophet—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—would signal back. Among the hypocrites, the sermon and sitting in the mosque were heavy, so when a man from the Muslims would ask for permission, the hypocrite would stand next to him, using him as a screen to leave. So Allah the Almighty revealed: 'Allah already knows'..." It is also said that they "conceal themselves" by him, meaning he is one of their followers.

The accusative case of liwadhan is based on it being an infinitive or a state (hal), interpreted as "concealing themselves." It is the infinitive of la-wadha, for its waw was not turned into a ya in following its verb. If it were the infinitive of ladha, it would have been said liyadhan like qiyaman. Yazid ibn Qutayb read liwadhan with a fatha on the lam; it is possible it is the infinitive of ladha, and its waw was not turned into a ya because there is no kasra before it; it is like tawaf as an infinitive of tafa. It is also possible it is the infinitive of lawadha, and the fatha on the lam is because of the fatha of the waw.

And the fa in His saying: "So let those who oppose His command beware" (falyahdhar) is for ordering caution based on what preceded it regarding Allah’s knowledge of their conditions, for that is something that absolutely requires caution. "Opposition" (mukhalafah), as Al-Raghib said, is when each one takes a path different from the other in his condition or action. It is most commonly used without 'an (e.g., khalafa Zaydun 'Amran). If it is used with 'an, it implies the meaning of turning away.

It is said that "opposition" here means leaving, i.e., they oppose, turning away or going out of His command. Ibn al-Hajib said: "Oppose" is connected with 'an because opposition contains the meaning of distancing and avoiding, as if it were said: "Those who avoid His command by opposing it," which is more eloquent than saying: "They oppose His command." It is also said that it includes the meaning of "repelling." It is said that when it is connected with 'an, it means repelling without needing to include the meaning of opposition. It also takes a direct object: one says khalafa Zayd-an 'an al-amr, meaning he repelled him from the command. The object here is omitted; i.e., "they oppose the believers," meaning they repel them from His command. The object was omitted because the intent is to disparage the condition of the opposer and emphasize the greatness of the matter being opposed; thus, the most important part was mentioned, and what is not of importance was omitted. Sometimes it is connected to ila, as in khalafa ilayhi, meaning he advanced toward him.

Ibn 'Atiyah said: 'an here means "after." The meaning is: their opposition occurs after His command, as you say: "The rain was 'an (after) the wind," and "I fed him 'an (after) hunger." Abu 'Ubaydah and Al-Akhfash said: It is redundant; i.e., they oppose His command. The pronoun in "His command" refers to Allah the Almighty, for the command is His in reality, or to the Messenger—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—for he is the one intended by the mention, and the command is his—whether referring to the request, the matter, or both. It is not hidden that the permission of either interpretation for the pronoun requires consideration; so do not be heedless. It was read as yukhlifuna with a shadda, meaning they hold themselves back from His command (that a trial may strike them), i.e., an affliction and calamity in this world, as narrated from Mujahid. From Ibn Abbas, it is explained as killing, from Ja'far al-Sadiq—may Allah be pleased with him—as the empowerment of an oppressive ruler, and from Al-Suddi and Muqatil as disbelief. The first is more appropriate.

(Or an agonizing punishment) (i.e., in the Hereafter. It is also said: in this world). The "agonizing punishment" is interpreted as killing, and the "trial" as something less than that, but this is nothing. The word aw (or) is for excluding the void, not for combining. Repeating the verb explicitly is for the sake of emphasizing the threat and warning. It is common to use this verse as evidence that a command implies obligation, for Allah—Exalted is He—obligated caution against punishment for the one who opposes the command; this is a threat against opposing the command, which is proof that the command is for obligation, as there is no threat for neglecting something that is not obligatory. Furthermore, basing the ruling of "caution against punishment" on the "opposer" requires that his caution be on account of the opposition, and this only occurs if it leads to punishment, just as you say: "Let the one who insults the ruler beware that he might strike him." There is no such consequence in neglecting something non-obligatory.

This command—specifically "Let them beware"—is used for obligation, as there is no meaning in recommending caution against punishment or making it permissible. Also, the verse's indication of the obligation of caution is not hidden, by the evidence of it being in the context of a threat of the occurrence of punishment. Even if the mentioned command were interpreted as a recommendation, the desired goal is achieved, because warning against what is not known or not expected to happen, and the realization of what leads to its occurrence is not present at all, is foolishness, not permitted—meaning it is contrary to wisdom. This is why a person is blamed for warning against the collapse of a sturdy, non-leaning wall. In any case, what is said is refuted: "We do not admit that His saying 'Let them beware' is for obligation, for that is the very point of contention," since its use for recommendation is sufficient for the desired goal, as we have established. The claim that the meaning of opposing the command is not believing in its validity, or interpreting it as something other than what it is—such as being for obligation or recommendation—is very far-fetched. The apparent meaning, which immediately comes to mind, is the abandonment of compliance and failure to perform the commanded act; it should not be left to something else without evidence. It was objected that, after all the debate, this does not indicate that all commands are literally for obligation due to the generality of "the command."

It was answered that "His command" is an annexed infinitive, which implies generality where a contextual indicator of a specific covenant is missing. Furthermore, the generality is sufficient for the desired goal, which is that the absolute command is for obligation specifically; for if it were also literally for other than that, the threat would not have been linked to opposing the command in general. Some eminent scholars said: There is no one who separates the forms of command, saying that some are for obligation and others for something else. Some claimed that the argument is not completed if "the command" refers to the "request." And if it were interpreted as "the matter" (al-sha'n) and the pronoun were for the Messenger—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—it would necessitate, from the argument that it indicates obligation, that what he—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—does is obligatory upon us, and no one says that. Al-Zamakhshari interpreted it as religion and obedience.

The author of Al-Kashf said: The argument from the verse that the command is for obligation is well-known, regardless of whether it is interpreted as mentioned—since obedience is compliance with the verbal command—or whether it is interpreted literally. As for making it a reference to what preceded of the "collective matter" and the meaning of "oppose His command" as "turning away from it," it is not the case; it is not the preferred view, even if a group preferred it, because it loses the intensity, the primary applicability, and the shift from the literal meaning of the word "command" without necessity. This is what was preferred by a group, like Al-Tibi from Al-Baghawi. Then he said: This is the interpretation upon which one relies, and the composition and interpretation support it, because "the command" here is in the sense of "the matter" (al-sha'n), one of the affairs. Its explanation is that what precedes it is a discussion of the "collective matter," which is the matter upon which people gather; and it praises the one who remains in the presence of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—and does not go away from it; and it condemns the one who leaves it without permission; and it commands seeking forgiveness for the one who left with permission, because His saying, "so give permission to whom you will among them," implies that the group is three categories: the one permitted to leave after asking permission, the one who stays behind, and then the one who stays behind either remains in his presence—peace and blessings be upon him—and does not leave (these are the sincere believers), or slips away/conceals himself (these are the hypocrites). His saying, "So let them beware," etc., is linked to the third category by way of threat. The present tense verb provides the meaning of habit and practice. The apparent noun has been put in the place of the pronoun as a reason for their deserving the trial of the two abodes. This was clarified by the author of Al-Kashf. Yes, it was criticized by saying: The loss of intensity and applicability does not outweigh the covenant, nor is there a shift from the literal meaning, for "the command" is literal for the event, as is "opposition" in what was mentioned. If that were granted, it would be a shared constraint; for the command is not literal for the order. His saying, "without necessity," is denied, because the addition of the covenant is a factor that turns it away. It was countered that this is arrogance and a mere denial that is not heard, for the greater eloquence is not in doubt; the threat to the one who does not comply with his command—peace and blessings be upon him—is more severe than leaving without permission. That the command is literally for the "request" is the most correct position in the fundamentals, and the opposition that accompanies the command, there is no doubt that its reality is the lack of compliance. The shared constraint is complete, because his command, when it is general, also includes the collective matter in the sense of "request," and the covenant of annexation is not definite so as to be considered a factor turning it away. That is what was said, and it is open to debate.

It may be said, based on the command mentioned being a reference to the collective matter: "Or" was used in His saying (that a trial may strike them, or an agonizing punishment may strike them) because the collective matter is either a worldly affair, such as consulting on war matters—so turning away from it is a likelihood for the occurrence of worldly affliction for those who turned away—or it is a religious affair, such as establishing the Friday prayer, in which there is the glorification of the symbols of Islam—so turning away from it is a likelihood for the occurrence of the punishment of the Hereafter.

In short, there is no argument in the verse regarding the consideration of the covenant. As for when it is not considered, it has been used as an argument, and you have heard some of the discussion regarding that; its complete treatment—in terms of validation and invalidation and so on—is in the books of Usul.