Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:48

(Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him) This is an inaugural statement, confirming the warning mentioned previously, and emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling the command to believe, for there is no forgiveness without it, contrary to what the Jews assumed. This is pointed to by His saying, Exalted is He: (Then there came after them successors who inherited the Book; they take the fleeting goods of this lower life and say, "It will be forgiven for us"). In this [verse] also lies the removal of their fear regarding the gravity of previous major sins, provided they believe.

Shirk (polytheism) is used in the sense of believing that Allah, the Exalted is His state, has a partner, whether in Divinity or in Lordship; and it is used in the sense of disbelief (Kufr) absolutely, which is what is intended here, as indicated by Ibn Abbas. Thus, the disbelief of the Jews falls under it primarily, for the Sharia has explicitly declared the polytheism of the People of the Book in its entirety and decreed the eternity of all types of disbelievers, whoever they may be. That the verse was revealed regarding the Jews, as narrated from Muqatil, does not necessitate an exclusivity to their disbelief; rather, it is sufficient that they fall under what is required by the generality of the expression. The well-known view is that it was revealed generally. Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Abu Mijlaz who said: When the verse, (Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves...") was revealed, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) stood on the pulpit and recited it to the people. A man stood up and said, "And association with Allah?" He remained silent. Then he stood up again and said, "O Messenger of Allah, and association with Allah the Exalted?" He remained silent two or three times, and then this verse was revealed: (Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him), etc.

The meaning is that Allah, the Exalted, does not forgive disbelief for one who is characterized by it without repentance and faith, because He, Subhanahu, has definitively judged its punishment to be eternal, and His judgment does not change. Furthermore, legislative wisdom requires the closing of the door to disbelief; for this reason, no prophet was sent except to close it, and allowing its forgiveness without faith would lead to opening it. It is said: because the trace of such a sin is not erased from the person, so they are not prepared for pardon, unlike others. It is not hidden that this is based on the premise that Allah’s action is subject to the preparedness of the locus—a view held by most Sufis and all philosophers.

(An yushraka) is in the accusative case as the object. It is also said that the object is omitted, and the meaning is: He does not forgive, for the sake of one associating something with Him, any sins—which implies the non-forgiveness of Shirk a fortiori. The view held by the investigative scholars is the first.

(And He forgives what is less than that) is a conjunction to the predicate of Inna, not an inaugural statement. Dhalika (that) refers to Shirk, and in this is a signaling of the remoteness of its degree in ugliness. That is, He forgives what is less than it of transgressions, even if they were great and like the sands of 'Alaj, if one has not repented for them, out of grace from Him and beneficence to whomever He wills to forgive among those who possess only what was mentioned. Thus, the prepositional phrase is connected to the confirmed yaghfiru (forgives).

The verse is clear in distinguishing between Shirk and what is less than it, in that Allah the Exalted does not forgive the former at all, and forgives the latter for whom He wills. The Jama'ah (the majority) say this applies in the absence of repentance, and they interpreted the verse in this light, based on verses and Hadith that indicate the acceptance of repentance for both, and that they are forgiven upon repentance without disagreement from anyone. The Mu'tazilah, however, maintained that there is no difference between Shirk and other major sins in that they are forgiven with repentance and not forgiven without it. They interpreted the verse—as it is said—to mean: "Indeed, Allah does not forgive the act of associating partners for him whom He wills not to forgive, which is the non-repentant, and He forgives what is less than it for him whom He wills to forgive, which is the repentant." They made (li-man yasha'u) connect to both verbs and restricted the negated to that which the affirmed is restricted to, based on the rule of tanaazu' (contention). However, (man yasha'u) in the first refers to the persistent ones, by consensus, and in the second to the repentant, to fulfill the requirement of contrast. This is not an instance of using a single word in two contradictory meanings because the mentioned [part] only connected to the second, and its equivalent was estimated in the first. The meaning is one, but the object of the will is estimated as "non-forgiveness" in the first and "forgiveness" in the second, by the cue of the preceding mention. It is not hidden that to consider this as tanaazu' with a difference in the object of the will is something a scholar would barely utter, nor would a perfect one approve of it. Furthermore, there is no basis for assigning each of the two conditions specifically as they did, because Shirk is also forgiven for the repentant, and what is less than it is not forgiven for the persistent, according to them, without difference between them. The flow of the verse calls for distinction, and restricting the forgiveness of (what is less than that) to repentance has no proof, as the generality of the verses of warning are not more worthy of being upheld than the verses of promise.

Al-Amidi mentioned in Abkar al-Afkar that [the verses of promise] take precedence over the verses of warning based on eight considerations he listed there. He claimed that if they were not restricted and it were said that forgiveness is permissible for one who has not repented, it would necessarily imply that Allah encourages the servant to commit sin due to its ease for him then, and encouraging such is ugly and impossible for Allah the Exalted. This is baseless: firstly, because it is built upon the doctrine of rational good and evil, which has been refuted in its place; secondly, because even if granted, it would necessitate the disparagement of pardon in common practice, which is contrary to the consensus of rational beings; thirdly, because it is invalidated by repentance itself, for they say that its acceptance is obligatory. It is not hidden that this is something that also facilitates the sinner's venturing into sin, relying on repentance just as he relies on forgiveness—nay, it is even more so, since repentance is within his power, unlike forgiveness. Thus, his repentance should not be accepted because of the encouragement [to sin] it contains, which is contrary to consensus. If they say: "He is not confident of being granted respite until repentance," we say: "He is not confident of forgiveness, due to the ambiguity of the relative noun." The saying: "If repentance were not a condition, it would imply favoritism from Allah the Exalted in forgiving some and not others, and favoritism is not permissible for Him" is a worthless argument, because Allah the Exalted bestows forgiveness as a grace, and the Bestower of Grace may show favor to one group over another, and one person over another; He is just in punishing whom He punishes. Neither reason nor Sharia forbids grace and justice, as is clear.

Some of the Mu'tazilah said: "Forgiveness has come in the sense of delaying punishment, not dropping it," as in His saying, Exalted is He: (They ask you to hasten the punishment before the good, while there have been before them the punishments [of the past]. And indeed, your Lord is full of forgiveness for the people despite their wrongdoing). It is not correct here to interpret it as dropping the punishment because the verse is about the disbelievers, and the punishment is not dropped from them by consensus. And His saying, Exalted is He: (And your Lord is the Forgiving, the Owner of Mercy. If He were to impose blame upon them for what they earned, He would have hastened for them the punishment), is explicit that forgiveness here means delaying the punishment. Thus, it should be interpreted in our context as such, by the cue that Allah the Exalted addressed the disbelievers and warned them of the hastening of punishment for abandoning faith, then He said, Subhanahu: (Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him), etc. So the meaning is: Allah the Exalted does not delay the punishment of Shirk but hastens it, and delays the punishment of what is less than it for whom He wills. The verse, therefore, does not stand as proof for what is the subject of contention. Furthermore, if it were granted that forgiveness here means dropping the punishment, the goal still is not achieved, because it either means dropping every single type of punishment, or dropping the totality of punishments, or dropping some types. There is no path to the first, as the expression does not indicate it. The other two possibilities remain, and on the first of them, it does not follow from the fact that He does not punish with all types of punishments that He does not punish with some of them. On the second, it does not follow from the dropping of some types that others are dropped.

The response given is that interpreting forgiveness as the dropping of punishment is more appropriate than interpreting it as delay for three reasons: First, it is the meaning that comes to mind upon the absolute usage of the word. Second, if the word "forgiveness" in the verse were interpreted as delay, it would necessitate specification [of the verse] in that "Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him," because the punishment for Shirk is delayed for many polytheists; they are often in the most luxurious and pleasant of lives compared to the lives of some believers. And it would mean there is no distinction in such a case between Shirk and what is less than it, unlike interpreting it as "dropping." Third, the Ummah from the predecessors, before the appearance of those who differed, have always been in consensus on interpreting the word "forgiveness" in the verse as the dropping of punishment, and what consensus has fallen upon is the truth, and its opposite cannot be the truth. Regarding their saying: "The goal is not achieved if interpreted as such because it either means... etc.," we say: Rather, the intended meaning is the dropping of every single one. Its explanation is that His saying, Subhanahu: (Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him) is a negation of forgiveness. If what is understood from forgiveness is the dropping of punishment, then the negation of forgiveness is the negation of a negation, which is an affirmation, meaning the establishment of punishment. At that point, it either means the establishment of all types of punishments or some of them. There is no path to the first due to the impossibility of combining contradictory punishments, and because that is not a condition for disbelievers by consensus. Nothing remains but the second. It follows from this that forgiveness in what is less than Shirk is by the dropping of every punishment, otherwise the distinction between Shirk and what is less than it would not be realized.

Some of them fell into a quandary over this verse, even claiming that (and He forgives) is a conjunction to the negated, and the negation applies to both, and the verse is for equating Shirk and what is less than it, not for distinguishing. It is not hidden that this is a distortion of the speech of Allah the Exalted and placing it in other than its proper place.

Among the Jama'ah, some said in response to the Mu'tazilah: "The restriction by 'the will' contradicts the necessity of punishing before repentance and the necessity of pardon after it." This was criticized by the author of al-Kashf as not having come from a firm [scholar], for the necessity based on wisdom confirms the will according to them. Also, al-Zamakhshari indicated in this place that the will is in the sense of entitlement, and it necessitates and confirms obligation, so what was mentioned does not apply at all.

Then, this verse, just as it is used against the Mu'tazilah, is also used against the Khawarij, who claimed that every sin is Shirk and that its perpetrator is eternal in the Fire. Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned that it also contains a refutation of the Murji'ah, who say that the perpetrators of major sins among the Muslims are not punished.

Ibn al-Durays and Ibn 'Adi recorded with a sound chain from Ibn 'Umar who said: "We used to refrain from seeking forgiveness for the perpetrators of major sins until we heard from our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): (Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him) the verse. And he said: 'I have saved my supplication and my intercession for the perpetrators of major sins among my Ummah.' So we refrained from much of what was in our hearts, then we spoke and hoped." The Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) greatly rejoiced at this verse, even that Ali, may Allah honor his countenance, said, in what was recorded from him by al-Tirmidhi who classified it as Hasan: "The most beloved verse to me in the Quran is: (Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, and He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills)."

(That he associates partners with Allah) is an inauguration signaling the cause for the non-forgiveness of Shirk. The Majestic Name is displayed in the place of the pronoun to introduce awe and to increase the ugliness of Shirk and the vilification of the state of one who is characterized by it. That is: And whoever associates with Allah—the One who gathers all attributes of perfection of Beauty and Majesty—any form of association, (has fabricated a great sin), meaning: he has committed that which makes other sins appear trivial compared to it, so forgiveness does not attach to it, certainly. The root of iftira' (fabrication) is from fary, which is cutting. Because cutting a thing is generally a corruption for it, it became prevalent for corruption and was used in the Quran in the sense of lying, polytheism, and injustice, as al-Raghib said. It is the commission of that which is not fit to be a statement or an action, so it applies to the fabrication of lies and the commission of sin, which is the intended meaning here. Whether it is a homonym for the fabrication of lies and the invention of what is not fit, or if it is literal in the first and a loose metaphor in the second, there are two opinions. The most apparent to some is the second, and there is no necessity to combine the literal and the metaphorical because Shirk is more general than the verbal and the practical; the intended meaning is a general concept, which is the commission of what is not fit. In Majma' al-Bayan, there is a distinction between faraytu and afraytu in the original meaning: it is said faraytu al-adeem if you cut it for the purpose of repair, and afraytu-hu if you cut it for the purpose of corruption.