Ali 'Imran: (81) "And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets..."

(And [recall] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him.") The adverbial phrase is in the accusative case, governed by a verb addressed to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace; that is, "Recall the time of that." Al-Sameen chose the view that it is governed by the forthcoming [phrase] "(Have you affirmed?)," while Abd al-Baqi weakened this, arguing that the address of "(Have you affirmed?)" follows the fulfillment of taking the covenant and contains hesitation. Attaching it to the preceding [verse]—the words of the Exalted, "(And when the angels said)"—as was reported by al-Tabarsi, is far-fetched.

There is a difference of opinion regarding the intended meaning of the verse. It has been said: It is to be taken literally. This is supported by what Ibn Jarir narrated from Ali, may Allah honor his face, who said: Allah, the Exalted, did not send any prophet, from Adam onwards, without taking from him a covenant regarding Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: that if he were sent while he [the prophet] was alive, he would believe in him and support him, and he [Allah] commanded him to take this covenant from his people. Then he recited the verse. The omission of the mention of the nations in this case is either because they are known by the primary implication, or because the mention of the prophets sufficed for their mention; thus, the verse is a case of iktifa' (sufficiency of expression), and it does not involve the combining of contradictory things.

It is also said: The addition of the covenant to the prophets is an addition of the actor, meaning: "And when Allah took the covenant that the prophets bound their nations to." Ibn Abbas went toward this. Ibn al-Mundhir and others narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that he said: I said to Ibn Abbas, "The companions of Abdullah read: 'And when Allah took the covenant of those who were given the Scripture: Whatever I give you...' etc., while we read: 'covenant of the prophets'." Ibn Abbas replied, "Allah, the Exalted, only took the covenant of the prophets upon their people." By this, may Allah be pleased with him, he indicated that there is no contradiction between the two readings, contrary to the assumption that this was the origin of Mujahid's statement—as narrated from him by Ibn al-Mundhir and others—that "[covenant of the prophets]" is a mistake of the scribes and that the verse is as Abdullah read. That is not the case; that [reading] alone cannot serve as an origin, otherwise, it would necessitate preferring one without a preference-maker. Rather, the origin of this—if it is sound, though I do not think it is—is known after reflection upon what we have previously established in the introductions and elaborated upon in the Iraqi Answers to the Iranian Questions.

It is also said: The intent is the nations of the prophets, with the omission of the genitive. Al-Sadiq, may Allah be pleased with him, favored this. It is also said: The omitted genitive is "children," and by them, according to the correct view, is meant the Children of Israel, due to the abundance of prophets' children among them and because the context concerns them. This is supported by the reading of Abdullah, which is also the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka'b.

It is also said: The intent is "And when Allah took a covenant like the covenant of the prophets," meaning a grave covenant upon the nations, and then their covenant was made the very covenant of the prophets, omitting the instrument of comparison as a form of hyperbole.

It is also said: The intent of "the prophets" is the Children of Israel, and He named them as a form of sarcasm, because they used to say: "We are more entitled to prophethood than Muhammad because we are the People of the Scripture, and the prophets were from us." This is like saying to someone whom you entrusted with something, who then feared for it and later claimed [the status of] trustworthiness: "O trustworthy one, what have you done with my trust?" Al-Habi critiqued this, saying it is very far-fetched, as there is no context to clarify this. It was answered that perhaps the proponent of this view adopted their aforementioned saying as a situational context.

It is also said: The addition is for the sake of the instrumental cause (ta'lil), as if it were said: "And when Allah took the covenant upon the people for the sake of the prophets," and then He clarified it with His words, the Exalted: "Whatever I give you..." etc. It is not hidden that this is also quite far-fetched. Al-Shihab said: "We have not seen anyone claiming that addition denotes ta'lil in the speech of any but this proponent."

Many scholars chose the first view. The taking of the covenant from the prophets regarding him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—as indicated by the words of the Prince, may Allah honor his face—despite His, the Exalted, knowledge that they would not reach his time, is not prevented by that fact. For it contains, alongside what Allah, the Exalted, knew of the veneration for him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, his glorification, his raising of status, and the mention of his name, that which is not appropriate except for that high threshold. The benefit is magnified if this taking of the covenant from them was in their books, not in the world of the particles (dhar), for that is as far-fetched as that time [of the particle world], as some maintain. This view—that the taking of the covenant from the prophets requires the belief in him, peace and blessings be upon him, of those of them who caught up with him—is supported by what Abu Ya'la narrated from Jabir, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Do not ask the People of the Scripture about anything, for they will never guide you, having gone astray. You would either believe a falsehood or reject a truth. By Allah, if Moses were alive among you, it would not be lawful for him except to follow me." There are many reports to this effect, which in their literal sense support what we have said. Hence, the gnostics held that he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is the absolute Prophet, the true Messenger, and the independent legislating authority, and that whoever is other than him among the prophets, peace be upon them, is in the position of subordination to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

This verse has been counted among the "problems" of the Quran in terms of syntax. Grammarians have delved deeply into clarifying this and have worn themselves out. Let us mention some of the discussion regarding this:

Many have said: The lam in "Whatever I give you" (lama ataitukum)—according to the reading of the fathah and the takhfif (lightening), which is the reading of the majority—is the lam of initiation for the oath indicated by the taking of the covenant, for it is synonymous with asking for an oath. It is named as such because it facilitates the listener's understanding of the answer. Grammarians define it, as al-Shihab said, as the lam that enters the conditional clause, whether it is in or otherwise, though it is most frequent in in following an oath, whether expressed or implied. It signals that the answer is for the oath, not for the condition, like your saying, "If you honor me, I will certainly honor you." If you were to say "I honor you" or "For I honor you" or the like, it would not be permissible, as Ibn al-Hajib stated explicitly. Al-Farra' disagreed with him on this, permitting the condition to be answered even with an oath preceding it, but the first is the correct view. The necessity of its entering the condition is the famous view; some grammarians disagreed, saying it is permissible to enter that which is not a condition, either absolutely or on the condition of its similarity to a condition, like the conjunctive ma or the extra ma. Al-Zamakhshari said in Surah Hud: It is not mandatory for it to enter the clause of compensation (mujazah), and al-Azhari reported this from al-Akhfash and mentioned that Tha'lab debated him on it. Thus, it is a contested issue.

The ma is conditional, in the place of the accusative for ataitukum, and the second object is the pronominal suffix of the addressees, while min is an explicative (bayan) for ma. It has been objected that using min as an explicative is common after a conjunctive, but after a conditional, it requires transmission [of authority]. The same applies to the claim of its being "extra" (za'idah), because its being extra after a conjunctive also requires what was mentioned. The answer is that al-Sameen reported what indicates its occurrence among the leaders [of grammar], and in Jani al-Dani: Some people said that min is added under conditions, not in the category of specification (tamyiz), but in that category, it is added even if the conditions are not met, such as "To Allah belongs your effort as a man." Hence, our master Abd al-Baqi said: It is permissible for min to be partitive, mentioned to clarify the conditional ma, or extra, entering upon the specification.

The phrase "you must believe" (latu'minunna) is the answer to the oath alone, according to the correct view. Due to its signaling the answer to the condition, and their unified meaning, some were lenient and made it serve as the answer for both. It is not intended to be the answer to the oath and the answer to the condition, as they are mutually exclusive in that the former has no grammatical place and the latter does. The statement that one sentence may be judged by both aspects involves committing oneself to what is not necessary.

They permitted the ma to be a relative pronoun, and the lam entering upon it in that case is the lam of the beginning (lam al-ibtida'). The speech of some suggests that the lam here is the lam of initiation (muwati'ah), and it is as if it is built upon the doctrine of those among the grammarians who permitted the entry of the initiation lam upon non-conditions. Under this assumption, it is a subject, and the predicate is either implied or the sentence "you must believe" along with the implied oath; the discussion of such things is famous.

It was objected that if the pronoun in "in him" refers to the subject, as is apparent, then the covenant is their belief in what He gave them, and the goal of the verse is taking the covenant for belief in the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. If it refers to the Messenger—like the second accusative pronoun which refers to him absolutely—to avoid the necessity of disjunction, the sentence which is the predicate is devoid of a referent. It was answered that since the conjoined sentence contained what is synonymous with the subject—the conjunctive ma—it was dispensed with its pronoun therein, despite its necessity in the two conjoined conjuncts in the famous view. And as the pronoun "in him" refers to the Messenger, with consideration of "confirming what is with you" (which stands in place of the pronoun referring to ma), it sufficed with just that [to avoid] a pronoun in its predicate, due to the connection of the speech together. Imam al-Suhayli indicates this in al-Rawd al-Unuf. It is not hidden that, despite the difficulty therein, it is built upon the unity of what they were given and what is with them.

Therein lies a problem: Because "I have given you" and "there comes to you"—if both are in the future, then the apparent meaning is that what is intended by "what I give you" is the Quran, because that is what they are given in the future, considering its being given to the Messenger whom they are commanded to follow; and by "what is with them" are the scriptures which they were already given. But interpreting it as the Quran is rejected by refined taste, for despite it not being with them according to the outward sense, there is no apparent excellence in the Quran being a confirmer of the Quran, which is necessary under that assumption. If both were in the past, the corruption appears in that this Messenger, whom Allah decreed they must believe in and support, had not come then. If the first verb is past and the second is future, there appears a lack of correlation between the two conjoined clauses, as they are both past in wording, and there is a type of distance in that. Perhaps the responder chooses this split and bears this distance, because thumma (then)—despite its lack of weight in such cases due to its weakness—makes the matter easier.

Abu al-Baqa' permitted under that assumption that the predicate is from "Scripture," meaning: "that which I gave you of the Scripture," and he made the indefinite here like the definite. He permitted the referent to the conjunctive from the conjoined clause to be omitted, meaning: "he comes to you with it," even though the conditions for omitting such a pronoun are not fulfilled according to the majority; rather, there is a flaw in the meaning, because the one who is given the scripture is every prophet in his time of mission and law, and the one bringing it is the Messenger [himself]—meaning the Quran, according to the apparent sense—not the scripture of every prophet, and the return of the implied pronoun demands that. Upon the assumption of the obligation that what is given is also the Quran—as the interpretation of both verbs as future necessitates—it is objected that there is no meaning for the Messenger's coming to them with the Quran after they were given the Quran by an interval, and the conjunction with thumma is like an explicit text for this meaning. Upon the assumption of the obligation that the one bringing it is the Messenger with the scripture of every prophet, through a type of artificiality, the description of the Messenger as being "a confirmer of what is with you" becomes like something superfluous. So reflect on this.

Hamzah read lima ataitukum with a kasrah on the lam, on the basis that ma is the masdariyyah (source-based), and the lam is a preposition of cause, connected to "you must believe"—meaning: "for the sake of My giving you some of the Scripture, and then the coming of a messenger confirming it, Allah took the covenant that you will believe in him and support him." It was objected that this involves the acting of ma after the lam of the oath upon what precedes it, which is not permissible. It was answered that it is not agreed upon; the apparent speech of al-Zamakhshari suggests its permissibility. Perhaps the one who forbids it restricts it to when the preceding object is not an adverbial phrase, for there is a latitude in that which is not found elsewhere. Yes, the best [way] to resolve the dispute is its connection to an implied "I swear." It was also permitted for ma in this reading to be a conjunctive, and the preposition is connected to "took."

'Abd ibn Humayd narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr that he read lima ataitukum with a shaddah. In it, there are two possibilities: First, that it is adverbial, meaning "at the time when," as the majority said—contrary to Sibawayh—and its answer is implied and of the same nature as the answer to the oath, as al-Zamakhshari maintained; meaning: "When I gave you some of the Scripture and wisdom, and then a messenger came to you confirming it, it became incumbent upon you to believe in him and support him." Ibn 'Atiyyah estimated it to be of the nature of what preceded it, meaning: "When you were in this state as leaders of the people and their nobility, He took the covenant from you." This also occurred in the commentary of al-Zajjaj. The "outcome" of its meaning is ta'lil (causality).

Second, that it is originally from ma (what), but the nun was changed to a mim because of their similarity; three mims thus followed one another, so the second was omitted due to its weakness as a substitution and the occurrence of repetition through it. Abu Hayyan preferred this in al-Bahr. Ibn Jinni claimed that it is the first, but al-Halabi scrutinized this. Min is either extra in an affirmative sentence according to the view of al-Akhfash, or it is causal (ta'lil) according to what Ibn Jinni chose; it is said it is the most correct, due to the clarity of the meaning upon it and its agreement with the reading of takhfif. The lam is either extra or a lam of initiation, based on not requiring it to enter a conditional particle.

Nafi' read ataynakum as a plural form for glorification, while the rest read ataytukum in the singular. Each of the two readings has an excellence from a specific angle, so understand that, for it is far-fetched that your hands would grasp the like of it.

"(He said)"—that is, Allah, the Exalted, to the prophets, and this is a clarification of the taking of the covenant, or a statement after it for emphasis—"(Have you affirmed?)" to that which was mentioned, "(and have you taken)"—meaning accepted— "(upon that, My burden?)"—meaning upon the nations. "Burden" (isran)—with a kasrah on the hamzah—is the covenant, as Ibn Abbas said. Its origin is from isar, which is that with which something is bound and tightened; it is as if the covenant is called that because one is tightened by it. It was read with a dammah, which is either a dialectal variant, or it is a plural of isar (which was used metaphorically for the covenant). The plural is either because of the plurality of the covenanters (which is the apparent sense) or for hyperbole.

They said: An initiation built upon a question, as if it were said: "So what did they say?" at that point? So it was said: They said: "(We have affirmed)." It would have been apparent in the answer to say: "We have affirmed upon that Your burden," but the second was not mentioned, being sufficed by the first. "(He said)"—that is, Allah, the Exalted, to them—"(Then bear witness)"—meaning, let some of you bear witness against others regarding that affirmation, so the one affirming is considered a part, and the witness another part, so that the one testified against and the witness are not unified. It is also said that the address here is to the prophets, peace be upon them, alone, and they were commanded to bear witness against their nations; this was attributed to Ali, may Allah honor his face. It is also said that it is to the angels, and thus it would be a metonymy for something not mentioned; this was attributed to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib.

"(And I am with you among the witnesses)"—that is, to your affirmation and your bearing witness, according to what the meaning necessitates, because in bearing witness, there must be one testified against, and here what we mentioned is for the context. From Ibn Abbas, it is that the intent is: "Know, and I am with you among those who know." In any case, it contains emphasis and a great warning. The prepositional phrase is the predicate of "I," and "with you" is a circumstantial qualifier (hal), and the sentence is initial, having no place in syntax. It was permitted for it to be in the place of the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier from the pronoun in "Then bear witness."