Al-Ankabut: (2) Do people think...

Do people think—the address extends to the end of the Surah. It is sound, and it cannot be said that the hindrance to it is a lack of connection in meaning to what preceded it. Indeed, the connection is contrary to the apparent, and the interrogation is for denial. Al-Husban (the thinking/supposition) is a verbal noun, like al-ghufran (the forgiveness), which relates to the contents of the clauses because it is one of the verbs that enter upon the subject and the predicate to indicate the mode of their existence in the mind or in reality, whether they are supposed or certain. Thus, it requires two objects that were originally a subject and a predicate, or what serves the role of both.

Here, they are occupied—as stated by al-Hufi, Ibn Atiyyah, and Abu al-Baqa—by the saying of the Exalted: "that they will be left [alone]." The particle an (the masdariyyah/infinitive) along with the verb and its component parts acts as a substitute for both objects, as stated by Ibn Malik and reported from him by al-Damamini in Sharh al-Tashil. Some have claimed that this only applies when an is open-voweled with a shaddah and thickened, along with its component parts.

Al-Tark (leaving) here, according to what al-Zamakhshari mentioned, is in the sense of "making/rendering," which is transitive for two objects, as in the saying of the Exalted: "He left them in darkness, they do not see" (2:17), and the saying of the poet: "I left him [as] prey for the beasts, tearing at him / nibbling at the crown of his head and his wrist." The plural pronoun is the substitute for the first object, and the second object is elided based on the circumstantial clause that follows, meaning: "as they are" or "upon what they are," as in the saying of the Exalted: "Or do you think that you will be left [alone] while Allah has not yet known those who struggle among you and have not taken..." according to what al-Zamakhshari estimated regarding it.

His saying, the Exalted: "that they say, 'We believe,'" is in the sense of "because they say," and it is connected to yutrakū (they will be left) as an unstable element. His saying, the Exalted: "and they will not be tried/tested" (29:2) is in the position of a circumstantial clause (hal) from the pronoun of yutrakū. It is permissible not to consider the second object of yutrakū as elided, but rather to treat this circumstantial clause as the one occupying its place. Do you not see that if you said, "I knew my hitting Zayd [was] while standing," it is correct, given that "to leave" is not like the verbs of the heart in all its rulings? Rather, the analogy is that it is permissible to suffice with the circumstantial clause without considering it a substitute for the second [object], because your saying: "I left him [to] the beasts" is correct speech, just as you say, "I kept him in this state." It is similar to "I heard him talking," in that the circumstantial clause or description completes it. Here, it adds that it is also completed by what acts as a predicate.

It was permitted that this clause itself is the second object, not just occupying its place. The interposition of the waw between the two objects is permissible, as in the saying: "Your love rendered me—and I am in a state of distress—the subject of a proverb." The commentator on the verses of al-Mufassal has stated that it was reported from al-Akhfash that he permitted, "Zayd and his father were standing," regarding the deficiency of kana, making the clause a predicate with the waw, comparing the predicate of kana to the circumstantial clause in the predicate according to him; therefore, it is permitted for the second object. And it is as we see.

Al-Tibi favored that "to leave" here is transitive for one object, in the sense of "abandoning/vacating," but that is weak. Al-Hufi and Abu al-Baqa permitted that "that they say" be an appositive (badal) to "that they will be left." And it was permitted that "that they will be left" is the first object of hasaba (to think), and "they are not tested" is in the position of a circumstantial clause from the pronoun, and "that they say"—with the estimation of the lam (causality)—is the second object. Being a cause does not contradict that, as in your saying: "I thought his striking [was] for discipline." The estimate is: "Do people think their being left un-tested for their saying: 'We believe'?" The second object of "leaving" is elided based on the circumstantial clause.

The author of al-Taqrib objected to this by summarizing that al-husban (thinking), because it relates to the contents of sentences when denied, is based on the second object. So if you say, "I thought him standing," the denial is of the thinking of his standing. Likewise, if it is said, "Do people think their being left un-tested for this reason," this is not so; rather, it is for another reason, and it does not suit the occasion of the revelation or the purpose of the verse.

He chose for "that they will be left" to be the substitute for the two objects, and "that they say" to be the cause for the thinking, meaning: "Do they think because of their saying 'We believe' that they will be left [while] being tested?"

An answer was provided that the origin of the speech is: "Will they not be tested for their saying 'We believe'?"—based on the denial that it is a cause for not being tested. Then it was said: "Will they be left un-tested for their saying 'We believe'?" as an exaggeration in the denial that they remain without tests for that reason. Then the exaggeration was entered upon the husban of leaving. The objection is only valid if the origin of the speech is not observed and the focus of the denial is made the husban from the beginning of the matter.

It was said: That which was mentioned is only required if it is not estimated as "Do they think their being left un-tested merely by their saying: 'We believe,' without sincerity and righteous deeds?" As for if that is estimated, it becomes sound, as al-Zajjaj declared. This is based on considering the concept (mafhum). Some objected to this regarding the wording, that it involves the separation between the circumstantial clause and its referent by the second object of hasaba, and it is extraneous. It was answered that separation is not forbidden; rather, it is better that no separation occurs unless something that necessitates it intervenes. Here, the concern for the importance of the predicate justifies the advancement because that is the focus of the denial. It is not hidden that it requires an answer like this according to what the apparent requires of making "that they will be left" an infinitive interpretation acting as the first object, and "that they say" also an infinitive interpretation, genitive by an estimated lam, and the prepositional phrase in the position of the second object.

As for what some researchers mentioned, that they were not treated as such, but rather "that they say" was made governed by "to leave" with the estimation of the lam, and "that they will be left" was made to occupy the place of the two objects—the meaning required saying: "Do people think their being left un-tested for their saying: 'We believe'?" by making "their leaving" the first object and "for their saying" the second object—then it is not needed. Because if we proceed with the wording, "that they will be left" is a substitute for the two objects, so there is no second object separating the circumstantial clause from its referent. And if we proceed with the meaning and consider the speech stripped of the infinitive particle an and brought as you heard, the circumstantial clause would be connected to its referent.

It was said: It is permissible for the first object of hasaba to be elided, i.e., "Do people think themselves that they will be left," and "that they will be left" is in the position of the second object, as an infinitive interpretation, and it is in the interpretation of the passive participle, i.e., "left un-tested." And "they are not tested" is in the position of a circumstantial clause as mentioned before. And "that they believe"—with the estimation of "because they believe"—is connected to "to leave." It is as if it were said: "Do people think themselves to be left [as ones who are] not tested for their saying 'We believe'?"

It was said that this meaning is obtained even with the estimation of "that they will be left" occupying the place of the two objects. So reflect upon that and what preceded it. Perhaps the furthest from affectation is what we mentioned first. The intended meaning is to deny their thinking that they will be left without being tested merely by saying "We believe," and to deem it unlikely. The realization is that the Exalted tests them with the hardships of religious obligations, such as migration, struggle, the rejection of desires, the duties of obedience, and various types of calamities in their persons and wealth, so that the sincere might be distinguished from the hypocrite, and the firm in religion from the unsteady. Thus, He treats each according to what is required and rewards them, the Exalted, according to the ranks of their deeds. For mere faith, even if it is from sincerity, does not require anything other than salvation from eternity in the Fire.

Some mentioned that if He, the Exalted, were to reward the believer on the Day of Resurrection without testing him in the world, the tormented disbeliever would say: "My Lord, if You had tested him in the world, he would have disbelieved like me." So his faith, for which He rewards him, is something for which he would not deserve the reward [in the disbeliever's claim]. Through the test, the disbeliever is bridled from such a statement, and the believer is compensated for it with what he is compensated, such that he would wish his test had been greater than it was.

The verse, according to what Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim reported from al-Sha'bi, was revealed regarding people who were in Mecca and had acknowledged Islam. The companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, wrote to them from Medina when the verse of migration was revealed that their acknowledgement and Islam would not be accepted until they migrated. So they went out, intending to go to Medina, but the polytheists followed them and turned them back. So this verse was revealed regarding them. They wrote to them: "A verse such-and-such has been revealed regarding you." They said: "We will go out; if anyone follows us, we will fight him." So they went out, and the polytheists followed them and fought them. Some of them were killed and some escaped. Then Allah, the Exalted, revealed regarding them: "Then indeed your Lord, to those who emigrated after they were tested, then struggled and remained patient—indeed your Lord, after that, is Forgiving, Merciful" (16:110).

Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Ibn Jurayj, who said: I heard Ibn Umayr and others saying: Abu Jahl used to torture Ammar ibn Yasir and his mother, and would put an iron coat of mail on Ammar on a hot day, and he stabbed his mother in her private parts with a spear. It was regarding this that "Do people think..." etc., was revealed. It was said that it was revealed regarding Mahja', a freedman of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who was killed at Badr. His parents and wife grieved over him, and the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said regarding him: "The master of the martyrs is Mahja', and he is the first of those who will be called to the gate of Paradise." It was also said it was revealed regarding 'Ayyash, the brother of Abu Jahl, who was betrayed and tortured to make him apostatize, as the report of him will come, God willing. Al-Nas (people) was interpreted as those regarding whom the verse was revealed, and al-Hasan said: "People" here refers to the hypocrites.