Tafsir of Muhammad 47:20

(And those who believe say)—out of eagerness for Jihad because of the immense reward it contains. The intended meaning is the sincere believers: "Would that a Surah were sent down," i.e., "Why has a Surah not been sent down in which fighting is commanded?" The particle lawla (would that) is for incitement (tahdid). According to Ibn Malik, the la is redundant, and the underlying meaning is "If a Surah were sent down," but this is not sound.

(But when a decisive Surah is sent down)—that is, by way of commanding it. "Decisive" (muhkama) means explicit, having no ambiguity or probability of any other meaning besides the obligation of fighting. Al-Zamakhshari interpreted it as "not abrogated in its rulings." Qatadah said, "Every Surah in which there is mention of fighting is muhkama," and this is the most difficult part of the Quran for the hypocrites. This is a generalization Qatadah derived from the Quran, not a specific property of this verse alone. The established reality is that the verses of fighting are not abrogated, and their ruling remains until the Day of Judgment. It is also said: it is muhkama (decisive) in matters of the lawful and unlawful.

It has been recited as (nuzzilat)—passive voice from the triliteral verb nazala—with Surah in the nominative case as the subject. Zayd ibn Ali recited it similarly, but he put Surah muhkama in the accusative case, taking the subject to be an implied pronoun referring to the Surah, while Surah muhkama acts as an adverbial state (hal). He and Ibn 'Umayr recited wa-dhukkira (and it was mentioned) in the active voice, with the subject being the pronoun of the Exalted One (Allah), and al-qital (fighting) in the accusative case as the object.

(You see those in whose hearts is a disease)—that is, hypocrisy, and it is said: weakness in religion—(looking at you with the look of one who is fainting unto death)—meaning the look of the one who is dying, whose eyes do not blink. The meaning is that their eyes are fixed in terror and alarm. It is also said: they do this out of the intensity of their hatred for him, upon him be prayer and peace. It is also said: out of fear of being exposed, for if they were to abstain from fighting, they would be exposed and their hypocrisy would become clear.

Al-Zamakhshari said: They used to claim eagerness for Jihad and wish for it with their tongues, saying, "Would that a Surah were sent down regarding Jihad." But when it was sent down and they were commanded with what they had wished and expressed eagerness for, they recoiled, it became difficult for them, and they were confounded, just as the Almighty said: "But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold, a party of them feared the people." The apparent meaning is what we mentioned first: that those speaking are those who are sincere in their faith, and the hypocrites were merely afflicted with what they were afflicted with upon the command for the believers to wage Jihad, because they were included among them by their apparent state. He (Al-Zamakhshari) also allowed for the possibility that the "sincere ones" among the believers were intended, but his own discourse indicates that he considers the first interpretation more probable.

The apparent meaning is that the speech uses the explicit in place of the implicit. It is permitted that the object desired in His saying "Would that a Surah were sent down" was the revelation of any Surah at all, since they found solace in revelation and felt lonely when it was delayed. Something similar was narrated from Ibn Jurayj; Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from him that he said regarding the verse: "The believers used to yearn for the Book of Allah and for the clarification of what was revealed to them therein. Then, when a Surah was revealed in which fighting was mentioned, you see, O Muhammad, the hypocrites looking at you..."

(So woe to them!)—a threat and warning, as narrated from more than one person. Abu Ali stated that awla here is a proper noun for "woe" (wayl), constructed on the pattern of af'al from the word wayl by way of metathesis (qalb), its origin being awlil. It is diptote (ghayr munsarif) due to being a proper noun and the pattern. Thus, the speech is a nominal sentence (subject and predicate).

This has been challenged on the grounds that wayl is not indeclinable, and analogies like yawm to aywum are not regular and never occur without the definite article. Furthermore, metathesis is contrary to the principle and should not be resorted to without evidence. The concept of a generic proper noun is something outside of analogy and difficult to comprehend, especially in this context.

Then it was said: the clear derivation from al-wali in the sense of "nearness"—as in the saying, "Layla burdens me, and her wali (closeness) has become distant"—suggests that it is originally a comparative, which then became predominant in the sense of the nearness of destruction and the invocation of evil. It is as if one said, "Destruction is more appropriate for them," meaning "May Allah destroy them with a destruction closer to them than any other evil or destruction." This is similar to how 'adaban and suhqan became predominant in the sense of destruction. In this view, it is in the accusative as an adjective for an implied verbal noun that has been replaced, and the prepositional phrase is connected to it.

In Al-Sihah, Al-Asma'i says: awla lahu means "that which destroys him has drawn near him," i.e., it has descended upon him. He recited: "And he alternated between two of her guides, and it was awla (nearly) that he exceed three." Tha'lab said: No one has said anything better about awla than what Al-Asma'i said. Based on this, it is a verb with an implied pronoun of destruction due to the context. Similar to this is the view that it is a past tense verb whose subject is the pronoun of the Exalted One, and the lam is redundant—meaning Allah has brought upon them what they dislike—or it is not redundant—meaning Allah brought destruction closer to them. The apparent view is that the lam is redundant, as heard from Al-Asma'i. Those who interpreted it as "nearness" allowed both possibilities.

It is also said to be a verbal noun, the meaning being "evil after evil has come upon them." It is also said to be a fa'la pattern from ala, meaning "to return," not a comparative of wali. Thus, it is originally a supplication against them that their affair might return to destruction, and the intended meaning is "May Allah destroy them," though the structure remains a nominal sentence.

Al-Radi said: It is a proper noun for warning, derived from "its evil has come upon him" (waliyahu), i.e., "brought it near him." The structure is also a nominal sentence. He used as evidence what Abu Zayd narrated of the expression awlat (with the feminine ta), arguing that it is neither a comparative (af'al tafdil) nor an af'al fa'la pattern, that it is a proper noun, and not a verb. Then he added: Rather, it is like armal and armala (widower and widow) when used as names, which is why it does not decline; nor is it a verbal noun, evidenced by awlat in its feminine form with the nominative case—meaning it is inflected, and if it were a verbal noun, it would be indeclinable. This was countered by the fact that there is no prevention against awlat being another word with the same meaning; therefore, this does not invalidate the arguments of those who held the previous views at all.

Awla has also come as a comparative and as an adverb like qablu (before), and awlat has been heard in it as well, as Al-Hayyan reported. It is said: The best view is that it is a comparative meaning "more worthy and more appropriate," and it is the predicate of an implied subject estimated in every context according to what is appropriate. The estimate here is: "The punishment is more worthy for them." This was narrated from Qatadah, and Ibn 'Atiyyah inclined toward this view. On all these positions, the Almighty's saying...