Tafsir of Ash-Shura 42:43

(And whoever is patient and forgives, indeed that is of the matters [worthy of] resolve.)

This is a warning against oppression, transgression, and what leads to painful punishment, in a sense. It contains an exhortation toward that which was exhorted previously, out of concern for it and as an increase in desire for it. Patience here refers to the act of setting things right, which was mentioned earlier and placed here; it is expressed as "patience" because it is a characteristic of those of firm resolve (Ulu al-Azm). It is an indication that setting things right through pardoning and overlooking is praiseworthy only when done from a position of power, not from weakness. That is a reference to the aforementioned patience and forgiveness.

“Azm al-umur” (matters of resolve) refers to matters that are determined and decisive, or the firm and sincere intentions. It is permitted that the min in li-man be taken as conjunctive (mawsula) or conditional (shartiyya). It is also permitted that the lam be taken as the lam of inception (ibtida’) or as the lam of an oath (qasam), where the answer to the oath suffices for the answer to the conditional clause. If the lam is taken as the lam of inception and man is conditional, then the sentence “inna dhalika...” is the answer to the condition, and the fa has been omitted from it; those who restrict such omission to poetry would not permit this interpretation.

A group of scholars mentioned that there is an ellipsis in the speech—i.e., “inna dhalika minhu la-min azm al-umur” (indeed, that from him is of the matters of resolve). They justified this by noting that the sentence is a predicate and must contain a link (rabit), and dhalika is not suitable for this because it is a reference to patience and forgiveness, and its being a self-sufficient reference is not valid because the intended meaning is "his patience." Alternatively, dhalika is the link, and the reference to "those of firm resolve" is a forced interpretation.

Al-Tayyibi chose the view that naming the second act—which is the retribution—an "evil" is by way of disparagement, not for the sake of formal correspondence (mushakala). He claimed that the one who retaliates is evil in that regard. He linked the sentence (Indeed, He does not love the wrongdoers) to what precedes it, saying: It can be said that since the retaliator was attributed with "evil" in His saying—(And the retribution for an evil deed is an evil one like it)—and the transgressor in this context is a corrupter of the situation between people (as evidenced by “Whoever pardons and makes reconciliation”), He explained the concept of this by saying: (Indeed, He does not love the wrongdoers). It is as if it were said: "Whoever removes himself from the attribution of evil and corruption through pardon and reconciliation is equitable, and Allah loves the equitable," so He placed in its stead: (His reward is upon Allah). As for one who occupies himself with retaliation, attributes himself to evil, corrupts the situation between people, and denies himself that great reward, he is one who wrongs himself—(Indeed, He does not love the wrongdoers). Thus, the verse is revealed as a guidance for the oppressed toward noble character and the preference for the path of the Messengers.

He [Al-Tayyibi] said: The verse (And for those who defend themselves after they have been wronged) is an address to governors and rulers, teaching them how to act as they ought, evidenced by His saying: (The cause is only against those who wrong people), where He repeats the definite al-sabil (the cause) and attaches “wronging people” to it, interpreting it with His saying: (a painful punishment). Similarly, His saying: (And whoever is patient and forgives...) is also a teaching for them regarding the method of governing. That is, if the owner of a right deviates from what is better and retaliates against the oppressor, there is no cause against him, for he has been permitted to do so. But if he chooses the better path, then there is no cause for you against the oppressor, because the pardon of the oppressed is of the matters of firm resolve. “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” This ends his view, and the issues within it are not hidden.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that treating what was mentioned as an address to governors and rulers necessitates complexity in the speech; therefore, the reliable interpretation is what we have presented earlier. Many reports have come down regarding the virtue of those who pardon those who have wronged them. Al-Bayhaqi recorded in Shu’ab al-Iman from Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Musa ibn ‘Imran (peace be upon him) said: "O Lord, who among Your servants is the dearest to You?" He replied: "The one who, when he has the power, forgives."

Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and Al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab recorded from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "When the servants are gathered for the reckoning, a caller will call out: 'Let those whose reward is upon Allah stand and enter Paradise.' Then he will call out a second time: 'Let those whose reward is upon Allah stand.' They will say: 'And who is it whose reward is upon Allah?' He will say: 'Those who pardon the people.' So such-and-such thousands will rise and enter Paradise without reckoning."

Ahmad and Abu Dawud recorded from Abu Hurayrah that a man insulted Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) while the Prophet (ﷺ) was sitting there. The Prophet (ﷺ) began to wonder and smile. When the man persisted, Abu Bakr retorted some of his words, so the Prophet (ﷺ) became angry and stood up. Abu Bakr followed him and said: "O Messenger of Allah, he was insulting me while you were sitting, but when I retorted some of his words, you became angry and stood up!" He said: "There was an angel with you replying on your behalf, but when you retorted some of his words, the Devil came, and I would not sit with the Devil." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Three things are [part of] the truth: No servant is wronged by an injustice and overlooks it for the sake of Allah but that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, increases his honor through it; no man opens a door of giving desiring by it [strengthening] ties but that Allah increases him in abundance; and no man opens a door of asking [begging] desiring by it abundance but that Allah increases him in scarcity."

This report has been found problematic in that it implies a reproach of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), which is a type of "cause" negated in the verse: (And for those who defend themselves after they have been wronged, there is no cause against them). The answer is that we do not concede this; it contains nothing more than cautioning him against leaving the more preferred action, and that is one thing, while reproach is another. Similarly, it is not considered blame, as is not hidden.

Some have restricted "the cause" (al-sabil) in the verse to sin and punishment, so there is no problem with it at all. It is also said that it remains general, but that the verse is regarding the common believers and those who have not reached the station of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), for one like him is blamed for retorting to an insult, even if it is truthful, in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) before he had given him permission—either by speech or state. Rather, the Prophet (ﷺ) indicated that which implied the praiseworthiness of remaining silent. Indeed, the good deeds of the righteous are the sins of those brought near (muqarrabun).

The Prophet (ﷺ) actually commanded some people to return insults to the insulter. Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Mardawayh recorded from ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "Zaynab entered upon me while the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was with me, and she began to insult me. The Prophet (ﷺ) checked her, but she did not stop. So he said to me: 'Insult her.' So I insulted her until her saliva dried up in her mouth, and the face of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was beaming with joy." Perhaps this was, from the Prophet (ﷺ), a disciplinary correction (ta’zir) for Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) through the tongue of ‘Aishah, since she had the right to respond and he saw the benefit in it. Their jurists have mentioned that a judge may discipline one deserving of ta’zir for insults that do not reach the level of qadhf (false accusation of adultery), and likewise, a husband may discipline his wife for insulting him, provided it is not regarding forbidden matters, among other things. Reflect upon this.

The literal meaning of His saying: (And the retribution for an evil deed is an evil one like it) necessitates observing equivalence absolutely. In the Imam’s [Al-Razi’s] Tafsir, it is stated that the verse necessitates the obligation of observing equivalence in all matters except where evidence specifies otherwise. For if equivalence were carried to mean equivalence in a specific matter, then that matter is not mentioned, leading to ambiguity (ijmal), whereas according to our view, it necessitates carrying the burden of specification (takhsis), and it is known that avoiding ambiguity is better than avoiding specification. The jurists have inserted specifications into it in many instances, sometimes based on another, more specific text, and sometimes based on analogy. There is no doubt that whoever claims specification bears the burden of proof, and for the duty-bound, it is sufficient to hold onto the verse in all matters.

Mujahid and al-Suddi said: "If he says to him, 'May Allah disgrace you,' then he may say, 'May Allah disgrace you.' But if he insults him with an insult that necessitates a legal penalty (hadd), then he does not have that right; rather, [it is] the penalty that Allah has commanded." Abu Hayyan reported from the majority that they said: "If a believer acts unjustly toward a believer, it is not permissible for him to retaliate himself; rather, he should refer the matter to the Imam or his deputy." In Majma’ al-Fatawa, it is permitted to retaliate with the like in matters not necessitating a hadd, due to His saying: (And for those who defend themselves after they have been wronged, there is no cause against them), and pardoning is better—(Whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is upon Allah).

Ibn al-Humam said: "It is better that if a person is told something that necessitates ta’zir, he does not reply to him." They said: "If he says to him, 'O wicked one,' the best [course] is to refrain and refer it to the judge so he may discipline him in his presence, and if he replies with this, saying: 'Nay, you are [the wicked one],' there is no harm." In al-Tanwir and its commentary, it is mentioned that if one strikes another unjustly and the one struck also strikes him back, both are disciplined (yu’azzaran), just as if they insulted one another in the presence of the judge and did not act with equivalence. You know what the literal meaning of the verse necessitates, and one should not deviate from it except for a text. The outward appearance of Al-Tayyibi's speech is that if the oppressed pardons, the discipline by striking, imprisonment, or the like is not required. Our jurists have mentioned that in ta’zir, the right of the servant predominates, so release, pardon, swearing, testimony upon testimony, the testimony of one man and two women, and other things are permitted in it. It is also the right of Allah, so there is no pardon in it unless the Imam knows that the deterrent of the perpetrator... [to the end of what they said].

It weighs heavier with me that whenever the Imam sees—after reflection and stripping away the whims of the self—that leaving the ta’zir for the sake of pardon is a cause for corruption and emboldening [others] toward aggression and overstepping the limits, he should discipline [the offender] with what the public interest necessitates. He should exert his effort in that which holds the reformation of the religion and the ordering of the affairs of the Muslims, and let him beware of following his whims, lest he stray from the straight path.