{Wa mā kāna qawluhum}: This is like a completion (tatmīm) and an exaggeration of their firmness in the religion, indicating that weakness and frailty did not touch them at all. It is conjoined to what preceded it. It is also said: it is speech elucidating their verbal virtues, following the elucidation of their behavioral virtues.

{Qawluhum} (their speech), in the accusative, is the predicate of kāna, and its subject is the maṣdar (infinitive) derived from {an} and what follows it in the Almighty’s saying: {illā an qālū} (except that they said). The exception is "void" (mufarragh) from the most general of things; meaning, "whatever their speech was in that situation, and amidst the clashing of the spears of calamities and pains, it was nothing but that they said."

{Rabbanā ighfir lanā dhunūbanā} (Our Lord, forgive us our sins), meaning our minor sins. {Wa isrāfanā fī amrinā} (and our excess in our affair), meaning our exceeding of the limits, and the intended meaning is our major sins; this has been narrated from al-Ḍaḥḥāk. It is also said: Isrāf is exceeding in the performance of what is obligatory, while a "sin" is general to that and to falling short. It is said that isrāf is opposed to falling short, and both are blameworthy. It will appear later in this Sūrah, if Allah Almighty wills, that the term "sins" is applied to major sins; so understand this.

The adverbial phrase is connected to "what is with Him," or it is a state (ḥāl) from it. They attributed this to themselves—despite it being apparent that they were free from negligence regarding the right of Allah Almighty—out of self-abasement, viewing their efforts as insufficient, and attributing what befell them to their own deeds. Furthermore, it is not far-fetched that what is meant by those "sins" and that "excess" is what was truly a sin and an excess, but relative to their station; for the good deeds of the righteous are the evil deeds of those drawn near (to Allah). It is said: they intended by the request for forgiveness a request for the acceptance of their deeds, since nothing is incumbent upon Allah Almighty. There is that which is hidden in this.

They placed the supplication for forgiveness before what is more important according to the situation, which is the supplication in His saying, Exalted is He: {wa thabbit aqdāmanā} (and make our feet firm), meaning at the time of striving against Your enemies by strengthening our hearts and supporting us with spiritual aid from You. {Wa-nṣurnā ʿalā al-qawmi al-kāfirīn} (and grant us victory over the disbelieving people), to bring it closer to the realm of acceptance; for supplication coupled with humility, issuing from purity and cleanliness, is closer to being answered.

Some have said: The meaning of "make our feet firm" is "make us firm upon Your true religion." Thus, the prioritization of the request for forgiveness over this firmness is like the prioritization of purification (takhliyah) before adornment. Its priority over the request for victory is due to what has preceded. It is said: they requested forgiveness first so that they might deserve to request victory over the disbelievers, by distinguishing themselves through their purity from sins against them, while they (the disbelievers) are enveloped in sins. In their requesting victory despite their overwhelming number—which is indicated by what preceded—is a sign that they do not look at their numbers nor rely upon them; rather, they attribute the firmness of their feet to Allah Almighty and believe that victory comes from Him, Exalted and Almighty is He. In informing about them that their speech was nothing but this, without there being in it any trace of despair, weakness, or trembling, there is an implicit criticism of those who were defeated—that which is not hidden.

Ibn Kathīr and ‘Āṣim, in a narration from them, read {qawluhum} in the nominative case as the subject, and the predicate is {an} and what is contained within it; meaning, "Their speech was not anything among things except this speech, which tells of the best of virtues." Our master, the Shaykh al-Islām, said: "This, as you see, is more firmly grounded in terms of meaning and more in accordance with the demands of the situation. This is because informing that their absolute speech was specifically the speech narrated from them in detail—as their reading implies—is of greater benefit to the listener than informing that the specificity of the aforementioned speech was 'their speech.' This is because the focus of the benefit and the location of the exposition in declarative sentences is the predicate. Therefore, what is more beneficial and shows the occurrence more clearly, and contains more special relationships remote from occurring externally and in the mind of the listener, is more deserving of being the predicate. It is not hidden that this—here, in {an} and what is within it—is more complete and perfect. As for what the annexation (iḍāfah) implies of an absolute, general relationship, since it is easy to present externally and mentally, it ought to be viewed as a general observation and made the title of the subject, not the intended goal in the realm of exposition. The majority chose what they chose based on a technical rule: if two definite nouns meet, the more definite of the two is more deserving of being the subject. There is no doubt that {an qālū} is more definite because it indicates the aspect of the relationship and the time of the event, and because it resembles a pronoun in that it is not described, nor is it used as a description. {Qawluhum} is annexed to a pronoun, and it is in the position of a proper noun. So ponder this." End quote.

Abū al-Baqā’ said: "Making what is after {illā} the subject of {kāna} and the explicit source (maṣdar) its predicate is stronger than the opposite for two reasons: one of them is that {an qālū} resembles the pronoun in that it is not described, and it is more definite. The second is that what is after {illā} is positive, and the meaning is: 'Their habit in supplication was: O Lord, forgive us our sins,' etc."

The scholar al-Ṭībī said: "It is as if the meaning is: Nothing was correct or upright from the Godly ones (al-Rabbāniyyīn) in that situation except this speech, and as if other than this speech was contradictory to their state. This quality is indicated by making {an} with the verb the subject of {kāna}. Its verification is what the author of al-Inṣāf mentioned, that the benefit of {kāna} entering is the exaggeration in negating the verb that enters upon it by enumerating the aspect of its action—generally with regard to existence, and specifically with regard to the specificity of the discourse. Thus, it is a negation twice." He then said: "According to this, if you made the core of the sentence {an qālū} and relied upon it, and made {qawluhum} like an appendage, you would obtain what you intended. If you reversed it, you would fall into artificiality. Do you not see Abū al-Baqā’—how he made the predicate 'a forgotten thing' in the second aspect and relied upon what is after {illā}?" End quote.

From this, one knows what is in the words of our master, the Shaykh al-Islām, for whenever it is possible to consider the eloquence of the meaning while observing the technical rule, one should not turn away from it to something else—especially since they have explicitly stated that making the subject the "less definite" is weak. He said in al-Mughnī: "Know that they ruled that {an} and {anna}, when estimated as a definite maṣdar, are in the ruling of the pronoun because it is not described, just as the pronoun is likewise. For this reason, the seven (qurrā') read: {mā kāna ḥujjatuhum illā an qālū} and {famā kāna jawābu qawmihi illā an qālū}. The nominative is weak, as is the weakness of the predicate by a pronoun regarding what is below it in definiteness." End quote. Some have reasoned that the "more definite" nature of the interpreted maṣdar is because it is not denied (cannot be indefinite).

Objections have been raised against both of Ibn Hishām’s and the "some" (others') arguments. As for the objection to the first, it is that its being "not described" does not necessitate its being downgraded to the position of a pronoun; for how many nouns are not described, nor are they used to describe, and they are not in that position? It was answered that it is possible that in that noun there is an impediment to making it in the position of a pronoun, because the absence of an impediment is not a part of the requirement, nor a condition for its existence.

As for the objection to the second, it is that it is not accepted because it can be denied (indefinite), as in {wa mā kāna hādhā al-qur’ānu an yuftarā} (And it was not for this Qur’ān to be forged), meaning "a forgery." Al-Shihāb said this.

It was answered that the intention of the one who said "the interpreted maṣdar is not denied" is that in such a position it is not denied, not that the maṣdar-particle cannot be interpreted as an indefinite maṣdar at all. One finds support for this in the qualification of the maṣdar as "definite" in the expression of al-Mughnī, where it is understood from it that {an} and {anna} are sometimes estimated as a definite maṣdar and sometimes as an indefinite maṣdar, and that when they are estimated as a definite maṣdar, it has the ruling of a pronoun. Hence, the author of al-Maṭlaʿ said in the meaning of that reasoning: "The statement of the believers, if it is stripped of the annexation, remains indefinite, contrary to {an qālū}."

There remain in the words of al-Mughnī matters: First: Is the qualification by {an} and {anna} by agreement or a restrictive condition? Some of the verifiers have gone to the first, arguing that he stated generally in the sixth aspect of the fifth chapter that the maṣdar-particle and its link in such a case is definite, so it does not fall as an adjective for an indefinite noun, and he did not specify {an} and {anna}. To the one who goes to the second, it may be said: there is a difference between absolute definiteness and its being in the ruling of a pronoun, as is not hidden. Ibn Hishām took the absolute in the absolute and qualified the qualified by the qualified, so there is no harm in keeping both expressions as they appear.

Second: It is understood from his outward meaning that if the two particles were estimated as an indefinite maṣdar, it would not be in the ruling of the pronoun, and the outward meaning of this is that the description (adjectival) would be permissible then. There is hesitation in this, because it may be said: it does not follow from the non-establishment of the rank of the pronoun for that, that the description is permissible, because the impossibility of description is more general than the rank of the pronoun, and the negation of the specific does not necessitate the negation of the general.

Third: It is understood from his words that the definite maṣdar estimated by annexation—whether it is annexed to a pronoun or something else—is like the pronoun, and none of the Imams explicitly stated this. But since Ibn Hishām is a trustworthy authority and an Imam in the craft, and nothing contrary to him has been narrated from his Imams, what he says is accepted from him.

Fourth: That what he ruled—that the nominative is weak, as is the weakness of the predicate by a pronoun regarding what is below it in definiteness—has a great difference between it and what Ibn Mālik went to regarding the permissibility of the predicate being definite when the subject is purely indefinite in the chapter of the nawāsikh (abrogators). Ibn Mālik’s words are supported by the Almighty’s saying: {fa-inna ḥasbaka Allāhu} (then sufficient for you is Allah).

It seems that it is for the verification of this station, and for what we pointed out first in the verification of the meaning of the verse, that the Master—may his secret be sanctified—said: "So ponder, so ponder."