Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:140

(And has revealed to you): This is an address directed to the hypocrites by way of iltifat (shift in mode of address). It is intended to intensify the rebuke necessitated by the enumeration of their crimes.

Except for 'Asim and Ya'qub, [readers] have recited nuzzila (has been revealed) in the passive voice. The sentence acts as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the pronoun in "they take" (yattakhidhuna), serving further to demonstrate the extreme ugliness of their state by clarifying that they committed what they committed—the taking of the enemies of Allah as allies—while establishing what should have deterred them from doing so: the arrival of the prohibition against sitting with them, which entails the prohibition against taking them as allies in the most emphatic and eloquent manner. This follows the statement indicating the absence of that which would call them to [such actions] by way of the parenthetical sentence. It is as if it were said: "You take them as allies [while] He, the Exalted, has already revealed to you before this in Makkah..."

(In the Book): That is, the Qur'an of exalted status:

(That when you hear the verses of Allah being denied and mocked, do not sit with them until they engage in another conversation). This refers to His, the Exalted’s, saying: And when you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them... (the verse). This necessitates restraint from sitting with them in that ugly state; so how much more [is it forbidden] to take them as allies and seek honor through them?

An (that) is the mukhaffafa (lightened) form of the thaqila (heavy) form (anna), and its subject is an implicit pronoun of state (dhamir al-sha’n). That is: annah (it is that) when you hear. Some have estimated it as the pronoun of the addressees, meaning annakum (that you). Although Abu Hayyan held that the lightened an does not operate on anything other than the pronoun of state except by necessity, many others have verified the permissibility of this without necessity. The conditional sentence is the predicate, and it is common in the speech of the Arabs for a conditional sentence to serve as a predicate. An and what follows it are in the position of the accusative as the direct object of nuzzila (on the second reading), functioning as the deputy of the agent (na’ib al-fa’il). The possibility that alaykum (to you) is the deputy of the agent, with an being explanatory (mufassara), is rejected because tanzil (revelation) carries the meaning of qawl (speech).

"Being denied and mocked" (yukfaru biha wa yustahza’u) are in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from "the verses." They are brought here to qualify the prohibition of sitting [with them], for the restriction of a restriction is itself a restriction. The meaning is: Do not sit with them at the time of their denial and mockery of the verses. The attribution of the verses to the Glorious Name [Allah] is to honor them, demonstrate their gravity, and highlight the horror of denying them. The pronoun in "with them" refers to the disbelievers indicated by "denied" and "mocked." The pronoun in "other than it" refers to their conversation regarding denial and mockery, as they are considered as one thing.

His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Indeed, you would then be like them) is an explanation of the prohibition, not included under the revelation. Idha (then/in that case) is rendered ineffective (mulghah) because the condition for its operation—that it govern the verb [with an accusative]—is that it be at the beginning of the clause; thus, no verb follows it. Mithl (like) is the predicate of the plural pronoun. Its usage in the singular form is acceptable because it is an original verbal noun (masdar), which applies equally to the singular masculine and others. It is also said: because it is like a verbal noun in its application to the few and the many, or because it is a genitive construction attached to a plural, thus becoming general. Sometimes it agrees with what precedes it, as in His, the Exalted’s, saying: ...then they would not be like you.

The majority hold it to be in the nominative case. It has been read as an anomaly in the accusative. Some say it is in the accusative of time/place (zarfiyya), because the meaning of saying "Zayd is mithl (like) 'Amr" is that he exists in his likeness. It is also said that if it is genitive to an indeclinable word, it acquires indeclinability—and this is not restricted to ma al-masdariyya (the 'ma' of the verbal noun) as some have imagined, but occurs with mithl as well, such as mithl ma annakum tantiqun (like [the fact] that you speak), and in others, as in the poem: "...and [there is] no one like them among humans." Ibn Malik stipulates for the acquisition of indeclinability that the genitive noun must not accept dualization or pluralization, such as dun, ghayr, and bayn. This was not verified for mithl, and he parsed it as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) of the implicit pronoun in haqq (truth) in His, the Exalted's, saying: Indeed, it is the truth, just as [it is true] that you speak.

His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Indeed, Allah will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers in Hell all together) is an explanation of why they are "like them" in disbelief by stating what it entails: their association with them in punishment. By "hypocrites," [it means] either those addressed—where the manifest noun is used in place of the pronoun to register their hypocrisy and justify the ruling by the source of its derivation—or it refers to the genus, and those [addressed] are included in it as a primary inclusion. They are mentioned first to intensify the threat against those addressed. Its case as an accusative follows what was mentioned previously.

It has been questioned that the address being to the hypocrites is problematic, as they are "like" the disbelievers in disbelief without the causality of sitting with them, so there is no basis for ordering the consequence upon the condition. Moreover, shifting from the likeness in disbelief to the likeness in openly proclaiming it makes the sentence "Indeed, Allah will gather..." an invalid explanation for their being "like them" in that specific manner. Furthermore, those who were forbidden from sitting with the disbelievers and the mockers in Makkah were the sincere believers, not the hypocrites, because the star of hypocrisy only appeared in Madinah. How then could the hypocrites be mentioned there in a prohibition revealed in Makkah before they even existed?

This is answered by saying: if it is conceded that what was revealed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), even if specifically addressed, is revealed to the entire nation—the sincere and the hypocrite among them—until the Day of Resurrection, then the inclusion of the hypocrites is valid even if they did not exist at the time of revelation. If that is not conceded, then if one claims it is restricted to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the sincere believers would not be included either. If one claims they [the sincere] are included, but not the hypocrites (who are outwardly believers), then there is no evidence for this. Indeed, all rulings apply to the believers in whatever state they are. We are not charged with splitting open the hearts of people; rather, we have the outward, and Allah, the Exalted, manages the inner secrets. Moreover, proof has been established that the legal rulings which were from the beginning of Islam and were not abrogated are addressed to whoever pronounced the Good Word and to whom it reached before the Day of Resurrection, for Allah, the Exalted, said: "...to warn you therewith and whomever it reaches."

Because of this hesitation, some researchers have said: the intended meaning of the address here is the sincere believers, and "whoever denies and mocks" is more general than the hypocrites and disbelievers. The pronoun in "with them" refers to what is understood from the two verbs. This is supported by what is narrated from al-Wahidi, who said: "The hypocrites used to sit with the Jewish rabbis and mock the Qur'an, so Allah, the Exalted, forbade sitting with them." The "likeness" refers to the likeness in sin, because they are capable of turning away and denying, not incapable as they were in Makkah; or [it refers to] likeness in disbelief, in the sense of: "If you are pleased with that," which is based on the [principle] that being pleased with the disbelief of another is disbelief, without distinction—a view reported from Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, which the author of al-Dhakhira came across.

Shaykh al-Islam Khwahar Zada said: "Being pleased with the disbelief of another is only disbelief if one deems the disbelief permissible or considers it good. However, if one is not like that, but loves [that he meets] death or killing for his disbelief, or killing for disbelief for one who was harmful so that Allah might take vengeance on him, then this is not disbelief." Whoever reflects on His, the Exalted's, saying: Our Lord, obliterate [the wealth of their riches] (the verse) will see the validity of this claim; this is also what is reported from al-Maturidi. Some say that if a disbeliever comes to accept Islam and one says, "Wait until I make ablution," or delays him, he becomes a disbeliever for being pleased with his disbelief at that moment—a view which conforms to what is narrated from the Imam. However, the authentic hadith during the Conquest of Makkah indicates the contrary: when Ibn Abi Sarh was brought by 'Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and he said: "O Messenger of Allah, accept his pledge," he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) withheld his hand and looked at him three times. This is well-known in the biographies and indicates in its outward form that delaying [someone] in an absolute sense is not, as they claimed, disbelief.

Some have used the verse as evidence for the prohibition of sitting with the immoral (fussaq) and innovators (mubtadi'in), of whichever category they may be. Ibn Mas'ud, Ibrahim, and Abu Wa'il held this view, and 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz also followed it. It is reported from Hisham ibn 'Urwah that he struck a fasting man who was sitting with people drinking wine; when asked about it, he recited this verse. This is a foundational principle for what authors do in referring [a subject] to what was mentioned elsewhere and pointing toward it, relying upon the meaning.

Here it is said: the pivot of "turning away" from those who engage in discourse that is not pleasing to Allah is the knowledge of their engagement. That is why it is expressed sometimes by "seeing" and other times by "hearing." It is also said that the intended meaning of "turning away" is to show dissent by rising from their gathering, not mere aversion by heart or face only. From al-Jubba'i, it is held that the forbidden act is sitting with them without showing dislike for what one hears or sees. According to this [view], which some researchers have adopted, it is possible that "hypocrites and disbelievers" in the explanatory sentence refers to what was intended by the pronoun in "with them." It was mentioned by this title for the reason we indicated earlier. It is also possible that it refers to the genus, and those [mentioned before] are included in it as a primary inclusion.

The address in His, the Exalted's, saying: (Those who watch you) is to the sincere believers without doubt. The relative pronoun is either a substitute for "those who take" (alladhina yattakhidhuna) or an adjective for the hypocrites alone, since they are the ones who are watching, not the disbelievers.

Abu al-Baqa and others allowed it to be an adjective for both, or [in the nominative or accusative] as a censure (dhamm). To make it an initial (mubtada) whose predicate is the conditional sentence is not without complexity. Tarabbus is waiting. The outward meaning from some [scholars'] speech is that its object is implicit and the prepositional phrase is connected to it; meaning: they wait for a matter to befall you. The speech of al-Raghib implies that it is transitive via ba' because it is like "waiting with merchandise for the price to rise."

The fa' in His, the Exalted's, saying: (If there comes to you a victory from Allah) is to sequence its content to what precedes it, for the narration of their watching is followed by the narration of what occurs after that. That is: if a victory and triumph over the enemies happens to you, (they say) to you, (Were we not with you?) striving against your enemy, so give us a share of the spoils. (And if there is for the disbelievers a portion)—that is, a share of the war, for war turns back and forth—([the hypocrites] say) to the disbelievers, (Did we not prevail over you?)—that is, did we not overcome you and have the ability to kill or capture you, but spared you? Or: Did we not overcome you by showing favor, and disclose to you the secrets of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions, and write to you of their news until you overcame them, (and protect you from the believers?)—that is, did we not deflect from you the onslaught of the believers by letting them down, hindering them, and our lethargy in supporting them, and casting into their hearts that which weakened them from fighting you? So acknowledge this right for us, and bring us our share of what you attained.

It is also said: the meaning is, "Did we not overcome you [by our] siding with you, and prevent you from entering into the company of the believers?" This is contrary to the apparent meaning. The root of istihwadh is to seize. The rule would have been istahadh, yastahidhu, istihadhah by reversal, but the waw remained sound, and this became frequent in this and similar examples until it was attached to the regular [forms] and counted as eloquent. Abu Zayd said: "It is regular." In any case, it does not challenge the eloquence of the Qur'an, as has been established in its place.

It has been read as wa namna'akum in the accusative by omitting an (the particle), the estimate being: "There was no seizing and preventing from us," like saying: "Do not eat fish and [also] drink milk." The victory of the Muslims is called a "victory" (fath), and the disbelievers' [share] is called a "portion" (nasib) to exalt the status of the Muslims and debase the share of the disbelievers. It is also said: the former is called "victory" as a sign that it is an entry into the conquest of the Abode of Islam, unlike what the disbelievers had, for there is no "victory" for them in their seizure; rather, the light of what they attained will be extinguished.

(But Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection) by rewarding His loved ones and punishing His enemies. As for this world, you and they are equal in terms of immunity, based on the evidence of his saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "If they say it, they have protected their blood and wealth from me." In the speech, it is said: this is taghlib (dominance of one category), and it is said: [there is] an omission, meaning "between you and them."

(And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way)—that is, on the Day of Resurrection and at the time of judgment, although He may grant such in this world as a trial and an enticement. This is reported from 'Ali, may Allah honor his face, and Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both. Or [it refers to] this world, meaning: He has not given them complete authority over the believers by way of total destruction, or an established, silencing argument against them. This is narrated from al-Suddi. It is permissible to leave the statement in its absolute form to include both this world and the hereafter, and perhaps that is more appropriate.

The Shafi'is used the verse as evidence for the invalidity of a disbeliever purchasing a Muslim slave, because if it were valid, he would have power and a "way" over him through ownership. We [Hanafis] say: it is valid, but he is prevented from using him or disposing of him except by selling him and removing him from his ownership, so no "way" is established for him over him. Some of our school have argued from its apparent meaning for the occurrence of separation between husband and wife upon the husband's apostasy, because the marriage contract establishes for the husband a "way" to keep her in his house, discipline her, and prevent her from going out, and she owes him obedience in what the contract necessitates—and "the believers and disbelievers" includes females. Likewise [it applies to] the disbeliever if his wife becomes a Muslim. This was weakened by the argument that apostasy does not negate the marriage contract if he returns to faith before the waiting period ('idda) expires. It was objected that at the time of disbelief, there is no "way," and the negation of the "way" is by the occurrence of separation. After the occurrence of separation, a cause is necessary for the renewal of the bond, and this is apparent. If the return is like a revocable divorce and the return is like the reconciliation, then there is no weakness in it.

You know that if the negation of the "way" is in the Hereafter, or in this world by total destruction, or if "way" means "argument," there is no hold in the verse for either our school or the Shafi'is. So do not be negligent.