An-Nisa: (66) "And if We had decreed upon them..."

(And if We had decreed upon them) meaning: if We had ordained and made obligatory, (that "Kill yourselves")—that is, just as We commanded the Children of Israel. Interpreting this as exposing oneself to Jihad is far-fetched—(or "Leave your homes") as We also commanded the Children of Israel to depart from Egypt. The intent is: We only decreed upon them the obedience to the Messenger, submission to his judgment, and contentment with it; yet if We had decreed upon them the killing [of themselves] and the leaving of homes, as We had decreed that for others, (they would not have done it, except for a few of them). These are the sincere ones among the believers, such as Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr that he said: When this verse was revealed, Abu Bakr said: "O Messenger of Allah, if you had ordered me to kill myself, I would have done it." He replied: "You have spoken the truth, O Abu Bakr." Similarly, concerning Abdullah ibn Rawaha, it is narrated from Shurayh ibn Ubayd that when it was revealed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) signaled to him with his hand and said: "If Allah the Exalted had decreed that, he would have been one of those few." And concerning Ibn Umm 'Abd [Ibn Mas'ud], it is recorded from Sufyan that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said of him: "Had it been revealed, he would have been one of them." It is also recorded from al-Hasan that he said: When this verse was revealed, some of the Companions said: "If our Lord had commanded us, we would have done it." This reached the Prophet (peace be upon him), who said: "Faith is more firmly rooted in the hearts of its people than the immovable mountains." It is reported that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "By Allah, had we been commanded, we would have done it. Praise be to Allah who has spared us." This reached the Prophet (peace be upon him), who said: "Indeed, among my nation are men whose faith is more firmly rooted in their hearts than the immovable mountains."

In some reports, it is stated that when al-Zubayr and his companion departed after the judgment from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), they passed by al-Miqdad. The Ansar [Miqdad] asked: "Who gave the judgment?" He [al-Zubayr] said: "The son of his maternal aunt," and twisted his mouth. A Jew who was with al-Miqdad noticed this and said: "May Allah destroy these people; they testify that he is the Messenger of Allah, yet they accuse him of bias in the judgment he makes between them! By Allah, we once committed a sin in the life of Musa (peace be upon him), so he called us to repent from it and said, 'Kill yourselves,' and we did so, until our dead reached seventy thousand in obedience to our Lord, until He was pleased with us." Thabit ibn Qays said: "As for me, by Allah, Allah the Exalted knows my sincerity; had Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered me to kill myself, I would have killed it." It is reported that the one who said this was he, along with Ibn Mas'ud and Ammar ibn Yasir, and that this reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) regarding them, and he said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, there are men in my nation whose faith is more firmly rooted in their hearts than the immovable mountains," and that the verse was revealed concerning them. In a narration by al-Baghawi, it is limited to Thabit ibn Qays. According to this report, the appropriateness of mentioning this verse is self-evident.

It seems that for this reason, the author of Al-Kashshaf stated regarding its meaning: "If We had made obligatory upon them what We made obligatory upon the Children of Israel—to kill themselves or leave their homes when they were asked to repent from worshipping the Calf—they would not have done it, except for a few." Some said: "The intent is that We have lightened the burden upon them, as We were satisfied with them in their repentance by their arbitration of you and their submission to you; had We made their repentance like the repentance of the Children of Israel, they would not have repented." What is understood from the gist of the reliable reports is that this 'decree' has no relation to the request for repentance. Perhaps the mention of this is merely to draw attention to the shortcomings of many people and the weakness of their Islam, following the statement that their faith is not complete unless they submit with absolute submission. The apparent meaning of what al-Zamakhshari mentioned—that the Children of Israel were ordered to leave their homes when they were asked to repent—is hardly correct if the Egyptian homes are intended, because the repentance from worshipping the Calf occurred only after leaving them and after the parting of the sea. This is something beyond dispute. Furthermore, we do not concede that they were ordered to leave as an act of repentance at any time, and interpreting the "humiliation" as leaving their homes—since the humiliation of displacement is a parable used in His saying: "Indeed, those who took the Calf will obtain anger from their Lord and humiliation"—is of no benefit, as the verse does not point to a command for it, and there is a dispute regarding it. Moreover, there is a dispute as to whether this verse refers to those who repented from Calf-worship; some researchers have established that it refers to those among the Egyptians who persisted in its worship, as you will know, God willing. It is astonishing how the author of Al-Kashf did not refute the author of Al-Kashshaf's statement further than saying it is not explicit in the Quran, then quoting his words on the verse.

This discourse—the use of "law" (if) here—is more famous than a fire on a mountain peak, and its rule, as they said, is that it is followed by a verb. Hence, al-Tabarsi said: "The estimation is 'If it had happened that We decreed upon them'." Al-Zajjaj said: "Even if that is its rule, the emphatic 'inna' occurs after it because it acts on behalf of the noun and its predicate. We say, 'I thought that you were knowledgeable' (Zanantu annaka 'alimun), just as you say, 'I thought you knowledgeable' (Zanantuka 'aliman), meaning: I thought your knowledge to be fixed. Thus, it acts here on behalf of the verb and the noun, just as it acts there on behalf of the noun and the predicate."

The plural pronoun in "upon them" and what follows is said to refer to the hypocrites, and this is attributed to Ibn Abbas and Mujahid. It was objected that the action of "a few" of them is inconceivable, as they are the hypocrites whose souls are not content with anything less than killing by many degrees; and since everything less than death is easy, how then would their souls be content with killing and complying with the command? It was answered that the intent is: "If We had decreed that upon the hypocrites, only a few of them would have done it out of hypocrisy and seeking reputation," and in that case, the matter would be difficult for them and their disbelief would be exposed. Since We did not do that to them, but rather burdened them with easy things, let them abandon hypocrisy and cling to sincerity. This is attributed to al-Balkhi. It is not hidden that the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding Abdullah ibn Rawaha—"If Allah the Exalted had decreed that, he would have been one of them"—applies to those few who would comply out of hypocrisy and reputation; rather, that is the ultimate in dispraising them, and far be it from them.

It is also said that it refers to people in general, and the "fewness" is relative, for the "few" refers to the believers; even if they are many, they are few compared to those other than them among the hypocrites, the disbelievers, and the defiant ("And most of the people, even if you strive, are not believers"). In this case, it does not follow from the verse that the Children of Israel were stronger in faith than the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), as they complied with the command of Allah to kill themselves until their dead reached seventy thousand, whereas among the first generation, only a few would comply.

Some have made the verse a manifestation of the perfect kindness toward this nation, in that He does not accept killing from them except for a few, for Allah the Exalted forgives them by the killing of a few and does not let many be killed as with the Children of Israel; it is not that they would not act as the Children of Israel acted due to the scarcity of sincere ones among them and the abundance of sincere ones among the Children of Israel, requiring a [preference of the latter]. It is also said that it is possible that many of the Children of Israel were killed because if they had not submitted, the punishment of Allah would have destroyed them, while this nation is secured until the Day of Resurrection, so they do not sacrifice themselves as they [the Israelites] did due to the lack of fear of annihilation, not because they are lesser and the Children of Israel were stronger in faith. You know that the verse is far from indicating perfect kindness, and the context (the preceding and following text) does not suggest it at all; and the fear of annihilation or its absence is something that hardly crosses the mind, as is not hidden to those who know men by the truth, not the truth by men.

The object pronoun in "would have done it" refers to the decreed action, encompassing the killing and the leaving [of homes] due to the verb indicating it, or it returns to the killing and the leaving; the conjunction with "or" necessitated the singular pronoun because it refers to one of the two matters. The statement of Imam al-Razi—that the pronoun refers to both together by interpretation—is rejected by linguistics. "Except a few" is a substitute for the subject pronoun in "would have done it" because the sentence is negative. Ibn Amir recited "except a few" (illa qalilan) in the accusative, which several have interpreted as an adjective for an elided verbal noun; the exception is mufarragh (unconnected), meaning "they would not have done it except for a 'little' doing." "Among them" then implies initiation, similar to "I did not strike him except for a harsh striking from you." Al-Tayyibi said: "It is an explanation of the pronoun in 'they did it,' similar to His saying: 'The punishment will touch those who disbelieved among them,' by way of abstraction," but this is nothing. It seems that what prompted them to this, and to turn away from the view of its being in the accusative as an exception, is that the accusative in a non-positive sentence is not preferred, so the Quran should not be construed with it, as indicated by the words of al-Zajjaj when he said: "The accusative is permissible in other than the Quran." But Ibn al-Hajib said: "There is nothing far-fetched about the minority of reciters being on the stronger view." Al-Humsi verified this. It is also said that their consensus is evidence that this is the strong view, because they are the experts drawing from the niche of prophecy, and the reasoning of the grammarians is not to be heeded. Some also favored the accusative as an exception here because it reconciles the two recitals in meaning—which is something to be cared for—and because constructing the speech otherwise is not free from affectation and doubt.

Abu Amr and Ya'qub recited "Kill" (in-qtulu) with a kasra on the nun as the original way to avoid two quiescent letters, and "or leave" (aw-ukhruju) with a damma on the waw for harmony and analogy to the plural waw in such cases as "Do not forget the grace between you." Hamzah and Asim recited both with a kasra based on the original, and the rest with a damma, which is apparent.

"That" (an), whatever its nun may be, is either explanatory of "We decreed" in the sense of "We commanded"; it is not harmed by it being transitive with 'ala (upon) because it does not depart from its meaning, and even if it did, its transitivity according to its original meaning is permissible, as in "the situation spoke with such-and-such," where the verb is transitive with ba even though they may mean "indicated," which is transitive with 'ala. If you reject this—and I do not think so—we say: It is in the sense of "We revealed." Or it is a masdariyah (infinitive) particle, which is the apparent meaning; the disappearance of the command through transformation does not matter because it is a hypothetical command.

(And if they had done what they were admonished to do)—that is, what they were commanded to do, coupled with promise and threat, such as following the Messenger (peace be upon him) and submitting to his judgment, outwardly and inwardly—(it would have been better for them) in the immediate and the distant future—(and more strengthening) for them, upon the right path; it is more prohibitive against them from misguidance and further from doubts, as He, the Glorified and Exalted, said: "And those who are guided, He increases them in guidance." It is said that its meaning is: "More beneficial," because the benefit of the truth is lasting and does not vanish, as it is connected to the reward of the Hereafter, whereas the benefit of falsehood vanishes, dissolves, and connects to the punishment of the Hereafter.