Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:133

(O mankind, and bring others) means: He will bring into your place, at once, another group of human beings. The address is directed at a type of people. Sa’id bin Mansur and Ibn Jarir reported from the hadith of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that when the verse of the Almighty was revealed: "And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people," the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) struck the back of Salman al-Farisi (may Allah be pleased with him) with his hand and said: "They are the people of this man." There is a type of corroboration in this for what was mentioned in this verse. As for what was transmitted from al-Iraqi—that the striking occurred at the time of its revelation, and that what was mentioned is therefore necessary—it is a slip according to what al-Jalal al-Suyuti stated.

Al-Zamakhshari, Ibn Atiyyah, and their followers permitted that the meaning might be other creatures—that is, a genus other than the human genus. Abu Hayyan refuted this, stating it is an error, and that it being of the category of metaphor, as has been said, is not valid because it contradicts the usage of the Arabs. Ghayr (other/different) is applied to what differs in genus or attribute, while akhar (another) is only applied to differentiation between the parts of a single genus.

In Durrat al-Ghawwas fi Awham al-Khawass, it is stated that people say, "I bought a slave and another maidservant (ukhra)," and they delude the Arabs thereby, because the Arabs do not describe with the words akhar (masculine) and ukhra (feminine) and their plural, except for that which is of the same genus as what was mentioned before it. As the Almighty said: "Have you then considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other (al-ukhra)?" And His saying, the Glorified: "So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it, and whoever is ill or on a journey, then an equal number of other (ukhar) days." He, the Majestic is His name, described Manat as al-ukhra because it was of the same genus as al-Uzza, and He described the days as ukhar because they are of the same genus as the month. A maidservant is not of the same genus as a slave, because she is feminine and he is masculine; therefore, it is not permissible for her to be described with the word ukhra, just as one does not say: "Hind came, and another man (rajul akhar)." The basis for this is that akhar is of the category of af'al (comparative), which is accompanied by min (from) and is of the same genus as what is mentioned after it, as is evidenced by your saying: "The Fandi al-Zamani said, and another (akhar) said"—the estimation of the speech being "and another of the poets said"—but the word min was omitted due to the indication of the speech regarding it and the frequency of the use of akhar in speech.

In al-Durr al-Masun: This is not agreed upon; rather, many grammarians and linguists have held this view, and Najm al-A’immah al-Radi approved it. However, it is held against al-Zamakhshari and those with him that akharin is an adjective for an omitted noun, and an adjective does not stand in the place of its noun unless it is specific (like "I passed by a writer"), or if the evidence indicates the determination of the noun, and here it is not specific. Therefore, it must be of the genus of the first to indicate the omitted noun.

Ibn Yasa'un, al-Siqilli, and a group said: The Arabs do not say "I passed by two men and another," because akhar only corresponds to that which is of its own genus in duality, plurality, and singularity. Ibn Hisham said: This is incorrect because of the saying of Rabi'ah bin Yakdam: "And I have followed them with a third (akhar), and he refused to flee until the morning, my honor." And Abu Hayyah al-Numayri said: "I used to walk on two, balanced, and I became walking on another (ukhra) of wood."

They only mean by it being of the same genus as what precedes it, that the noun described by akhar should, in wording or estimation, be correctly applied to the predecessor which was corresponded to by akhar by way of congruence (tawati). Therefore, if you said, "Zayd came to me and another," it would be permissible, because the estimation is "and another man." Likewise, "Zayd came to me and another," meaning "another soul." Likewise, "I bought a horse and another mount," is permissible, even if the other mount is a camel, due to the application of the term "mount" to both by congruence. If the application of the noun to them is by way of pure shared meaning (ishtirak), and their reality is one, it is not permissible because it was not corresponded by what is of its same genus, such as "I saw the purchaser and the other purchaser," meaning by one of them the planet and by the other the seller. Is it a condition, along with congruence, that they agree in gender? There is disagreement. Al-Mubarrid went to the view that it is not a condition, so "Your maidservant came to me and another human (insan akhar)" is permissible. Ibn Jinni made it a condition. The correct view is what al-Mubarrid held, evidenced by the saying of Antarah: "And the horses charge into the dust, grim-faced, from among one arranged and another being arranged."

What was mentioned regarding akhar being corresponded by what preceded it of its own genus is the preferred view. Otherwise, they may use it without anything of its genus preceding it. Abu al-Hasan claimed that this is not permissible except in poetry. If you said, "Another came to me," without having spoken of anything of its category before it, it would not be permissible. If you said, "I ate a loaf, and this is another shirt," it would not be sound. As for the poet's saying: "Pray for 'Azzah, the Merciful, and her daughter, Layla, and pray for her neighbors, the others (al-ukhar)," it is construed as him making her daughter a neighbor to her so that the ukhra would be of her genus. Were it not for this estimation, it would not have been permissible to follow the mention of the daughter with neighbors; rather, he would have said, "And pray for her daughters, the others." Ukhar was also corresponded in the verse with her daughter, which is singular.

Al-Suhayli claimed that ukhra in the Almighty's saying, "And Manat, the third, the other (al-ukhra)," was used without anything of its category preceding it because it is other than the Manat of the tyranny [the idol] that they used to invoke at Qadid. He made it the third of al-Lat and al-Uzza, and ukhra for the Manat that 'Amr bin al-Jumuh and others of his people used to worship, even though no mention preceded it. The truth is that He made it ukhra with regard to al-Lat and al-Uzza, and that was permissible because the one described as ukhra—which is "the third"—allows for application to al-Lat and al-Uzza. Do you not see that each one of them is "the third" with regard to its companion? This all points to what Abu al-Hasan mentioned: that the use of akhar and ukhra without their category preceding them is not permissible except in poetry. This is a precious verification, though the verification of the discussion on the verse that follows will come, if Allah wills.

In al-Masa'il al-Sughra by al-Akhfash, in the chapter of the knot regarding the verification of this issue: The Arabs do not use akhar except in that which is of the category of what precedes it. If you said, "A friend of yours came to me and another enemy of yours," it would not be sound, because it is nonsensical speech. It resembles sa'ir (the rest), baqiyyah (the remainder), and ba'd (some) in that it is not used except in its [own] genus. If you said, "I struck a man and left the rest of the women," it would not be speech. Sometimes, what is forbidden may be permissible by interpretation, like "I saw a horse and another donkey," looking at it as being a beast. Imru' al-Qays said: "If I said, 'This is my companion and I was pleased with him and the eyes were cooled by him,' I would replace him with another." In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) felt a lightness in his illness and said: "Look for someone I can lean on." Barirah and another man came, and he leaned on both of them.

The conclusion of this is that nothing is described with akhar except what is of the genus of what preceded it, so that its differentiation becomes clear in a place where its unity might be imagined, even if by interpretation. In that case, what al-Zamakhshari mentioned is not a text for error and opposition to the usage of the Arabs relied upon by the majority.

(And Allah is, over that) meaning: over your annihilation completely and the creation of others (capable).

(Possessing great power), but He, the Glorified, did not do so and left you in the state you are in of disobedience, because His will was not attached to it due to a wisdom that necessitated that, not because of His inability—He, the Almighty, is far above that.