Tafsir of Al-Fath 48:12

"Nay, you thought..."

The Exalted concluded [the passage] by disclosing their hidden consciences and the stored knowledge of what He prepared for them in His presence, through His saying—Glorified is He: "Nay, you thought..." up to His saying: "Buran (ruined)."

It is stated in al-Insaf that His saying, "Who can protect you..." and so on, constitutes a Laff wa Nashr (folded and unfolded/distributed structure). The underlying meaning is: "Who can protect you from Allah anything if He intends harm for you, or who can withhold from you any benefit if He intends benefit for you?" This is because "who can protect" (man yamliku) is used regarding harm, as in His saying: "Who can protect you from Allah if He intends to destroy the Messiah?" and "Whoever Allah intends to try, you will never possess for him anything from Allah," and "You do not possess for me anything from Allah; He is most knowing of that in which you are engaged." From this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in one tradition: "I do not possess for you anything," addressing his kin; similar examples are many.

The secret of its specific usage for repelling harm is that "possession" (al-mulk) in these contexts is attached with the preposition lam (for/against), and the repelling of harm is a benefit to the one from whom it is repelled; this is not the case with withholding a benefit, as that is a harm returning upon the subject, not for him. Once this is clear, the verse is structured in this manner because both sections share the negation of repelling the divinely ordained [outcome], whether it be good or evil. Since they are close in meaning, they were included in one expression, and the expression of "repelling harm" was specifically used because it is what is expected for these [people], as the verse is in the context of threat and severe warning. It is similar to His saying: "Say, 'Who is it that can protect you from Allah if He intends for you ill, or if He intends for you mercy?'" For protection ('isma) is only against ill, not against mercy. Thus, these two verses are "twins" in the aforementioned explanation. End quote.

The [preferred] view is what we mentioned first regarding the verse and the designation of such a structure as Laff wa Nashr by consideration. Furthermore, the apparent meaning is the generality of harm and benefit. Sheikh al-Islam Abu al-Sa‘ud said: "The intent by 'harm' is what harms in terms of the destruction or loss of family and wealth, and by 'benefit' is what is beneficial in terms of preserving wealth and family." Limiting them to these [specifics] is refuted by His saying: "Nay, Allah has always been, with what you do, Acquainted." This is a rejection (idrab) of what they said and a declaration of its falsehood after declaring the corruption of its truthfulness. End quote. This statement—or the structure itself—is as frail as a spider's web, for in generalization there is an expression of what was mentioned plus more, which adds strength and eloquence. The apparent [meaning] is that each of the three rejections is intended.

Sheikh al-Islam said: "His saying, 'Nay, you thought...' is a substitute for 'Allah has always been...' and clarifies the ambiguity contained therein." In al-Bahr, it is stated that it is an explanation of the cause for their failure to depart—that is, "Nay, you thought that the Messenger and the believers would not return..." (i.e., would not return from that journey) "...to their families..." (i.e., their clans and kin) "...ever," because the polytheists would eradicate them entirely. So, you supposed, if you were with them, that what befalls them would befall you. Therefore, you failed to join them, not because of the false excuses you mentioned.

Al-ahlun is the plural of ahl. Its pluralization with the sound plural ending is contrary to the rule, because it is neither a proper noun nor an attribute of rational beings. It is pluralized as ahlat by considering the feminine ta' in its singular as implied, so it is pluralized like tamra and tamrat, and similarly ard and ardat. It has come as ahla with a ta' according to al-Kashshaf. It is also permissible to vocalize its middle [letter], so it is said ahlat with a fatha on the ha’. Likewise, it is pluralized as ahal like layal. Al-Zamakhshari gave it the name "collective plural." It is said that this is a generalization on his part regarding a plural that occurs contrary to the rule; otherwise, a collective plural's condition according to the grammarians is that it be on the scale of the singulars, whether it has a singular or not. ‘Abdullah [Ibn Mas‘ud] recited "to their ahl" without a ya'. The verse is clear that "lan" is not for eternity. Whoever claims it implies [eternity] makes "ever" (abadan) the [agent for] emphasis.

"And [that] was made pleasing..." (i.e., made fair) "...that..." (i.e., the thought understood from "you thought") "...in your hearts." So you did not strive to remove it, and it took root within you; thus you became occupied with your own affairs, indifferent to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the believers. It is said the reference is to what was thought—which is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the believers would never return to their families. So it was made fair in their hearts, and they loved it. The intent behind this is to rebuke them for their hatred of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the believers; what was mentioned earlier is more appropriate to the context. It has been read as zuyyina (passive), or zayyana (active, attributing it to Allah or to Satan).

"And you thought an evil thought." This is their aforementioned thought, so its determination by the definite article is for a prior mention, and it was repeated to intensify the rebuke and record it as evil. Or, it is general, including that thought and all their corrupt thoughts, among which is the thought regarding the lack of his (peace and blessings be upon him) prophethood; for one certain of its truth does not let his mind dwell on what he mentioned of eradication. So it was mentioned for generalization after specification.

"And you were..." in the eternal knowledge of Allah, the Exalted... "...a ruined people." (i.e., perished, because of the corruption of your creed and the wickedness of your intentions, deserving of His wrath and punishment, the Exalted is His Majesty). It is said: "i.e., corrupt in yourselves, your hearts, and your intentions; there is no good in you."

The apparent view, as stated in al-Bahr, is that buran is originally a verbal noun like al-halak (ruin/perishing). For this reason, it is used to describe the masculine singular in the saying of Ibn al-Ziba‘ra: "O Messenger of the King, my tongue is repairing what I have torn, for I am ruined (bur)." As for the feminine, Abu ‘Ubaydah reported imra’atun bur (a ruined woman). The dual and plural also occur. It is permissible that it is the plural of ba’ir, like ha’il and hawl, ‘a’id and ‘awdh, bazil and bazzal. According to its nature as a verbal noun, it is interpreted as an active participle. It is also permissible that kana (were) means "became," i.e., "and you became, by that thought, a ruined people deserving of wrath and punishment." The apparent view is to leave it on its primary meaning and the past tense in consideration of [divine] knowledge, as we pointed out. It is also said: "i.e., you were, before the thought, corrupt." And His saying...