Al-Fath: (25) "They are the ones who disbelieved..."
(They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from the Sacred Mosque), that is, from reaching it and performing Ṭawāf around it. (And the offering [al-hadī]), in the accusative case (naṣb), is a conjunction connected to the pronoun in the accusative (in ṣaddūkum), meaning: "and they obstructed the offering," which is that which is driven to the House. Al-Akhfash said: The singular is hadiyyah, and it is said for the feminine hadan, as if it were an infinitive used as a descriptor. In al-Baḥr, it is mentioned that the quiescence of its dāl is the dialect of Quraysh, and this is how the majority recited it. Ibn Hurmuz, al-Ḥasan, ‘Iṣmah from ‘Āṣim, al-Lu’lu’ī, and Khārijah from Abū ‘Amr recited it with a fatḥah on the dāl and a shaddah on the yā’. This is also a valid dialect, and it is a fa‘īl form in the sense of maf‘ūl (passive participle), as stated by more than one scholar. This offering consisted of seventy camels, according to the popular opinion; Muqātil said: It was one hundred camels. Al-Ju‘fī from Abū ‘Amr recited (al-hadī) in the genitive case (jarr) as a conjunction to "the Sacred Mosque" by omitting the genitive construct (muḍāf), meaning: "and the slaughtering of the offering." It was also recited in the nominative case (raf‘) assuming the ellipsis of "the obstructing of the offering" (wa-ṣadda al-hadī).
His saying, Exalted is He: (detained) is a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) for "the offering" according to all recitations. It is also said: According to the recitation in the nominative, it is permissible for "the offering" to be an initial (mubtada’), and the speech is like the construction "your command is fixed," and His saying, "And we are a band," according to the recitation in the accusative, which is as you see. Al-ma‘kūf is the restrained one; it is said: "I restrained (‘akaftu) the man from his need," meaning I held him back from it. Abū ‘Alī denied the transitivity of ‘akafa, but Ibn Sīdah, al-Azharī, and others reported it.
His saying, Exalted is He: (from reaching its place of sacrifice) is a substitution of inclusion (badal ishtimāl) for "the offering," as if it were said: "and they obstructed the reaching of the offering to its place," or "they were obstructed from reaching of the offering," or "the obstruction of the reaching of the offering," according to the differences in recitation. It is also permitted that it be a maf‘ūl li-ajlihi (causative object) for the obstruction, meaning: "out of dislike that it should reach its place." It may also be a maf‘ūl li-ajlihi governed by a hidden lām for "detained," meaning: "detained for the purpose that it should reach its place," and the detention is from the Muslims. It may also be in the accusative by removing the preposition (naz‘ al-khāfiḍ), which is min (from) or ‘an (away from), meaning "detained from reaching its place," in which case the detention is from the polytheists, which is the apparent meaning.
The "place of the offering" is the location where its slaughter is permissible, meaning where it is lawful, or the place of its becoming due/obligatory, as was narrated from al-Zamakhsharī. The intent is the customary place, which is Minā. As for the opinion of al-Shāfi‘ī, may God be pleased with him, it is because its place for the one who is prevented is where he was prevented; thus, it has reached its place relative to the Prophet ﷺ and those with him. This is why they slaughtered there, namely at al-Ḥudaybiyyah. As for the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah, may God be pleased with him, it is because its place is the Sacred Precinct (al-Ḥaram) absolutely, and some of al-Ḥudaybiyyah is within the Ḥaram according to him. They have reported that the Prophet’s ﷺ tents were in the Ḥill (non-sacred area) part of it, and his place of prayer was in the Ḥaram, and the slaughtering took place in what is Ḥaram; thus the offering reached its place without being detained from reaching it. Therefore, one must intend the "customary place" for that to be consistent. Al-Zamakhsharī claimed that the verse is evidence for Abū Ḥanīfah that the place of the offering for the one prevented is the Ḥaram, and then he spoke in a way whose state is not hidden to those who examine it. Some people have established the argument by saying that "the Sacred Mosque" is used in the sense of the "Sacred Precinct" (Ḥaram), and since they obstructed them from it and prevented their offering from entering so it could reach its place, it indicates—according to the outward meaning—that it is its place. Then he said: "It is not contradicted by the fact that he ﷺ slaughtered in a part of it, just as the fact that his place of prayer was inside it does not contradict the obstruction from it, because they prevented them, but they were not entirely prevented." This is as you see.
The truth is that the argument from the verse for this point does not hold at all. Some leading Shāfi‘ites criticized the claim that any part of al-Ḥudaybiyyah is in the Ḥaram, saying: "It is contrary to what the majority is upon, and the boundaries of the Ḥaram have been well-known since the time of Ibrāhīm, peace be upon him. The report with which al-Wāqidī stood alone is not relied upon, especially since al-Bukhārī stated the opposite in his Ṣaḥīḥ from the trustworthy narrators, and the narration from al-Zuhrī is not authentic." Perhaps those who said that some of it is in the Ḥaram relied upon an authentic report, and among their principles is that the one establishing a fact (the positive) takes precedence over the one denying it. And God knows best.
(And were it not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know): The adjective for "men and women," using the masculine to cover the feminine. They were—according to what Abū Nu‘aym reported with a good chain and others from Abū Jum‘ah Junbadh ibn Sabu‘—nine people, seven men, including him, and two women. His saying, Exalted is He: (lest you trample them) is a substitution of inclusion (badal ishtimāl) for them. It is also permitted that it be a substitution for the pronoun in the accusative in "you did not know them," though Abū Ḥayyān considered this far-fetched. Al-waṭ’ (trampling/treading) means to step upon; it is used here metaphorically for killing/destruction. It is an excellent metaphor used in their speech, both ancient and modern.
(So that there would befall you because of them)—meaning from their side—(a shame), meaning an unpleasant thing or hardship, taken from al-‘arr and al-‘arrah, which is the severe, persistent mange. Many have said: It is a derivation from ‘arra-hu if it afflicts him or causes him to fall into something unpleasant. The intent here, according to what is narrated from Mundhir ibn Tayyir, is the reproach of the disbelievers and their saying about the believers: "They killed the people of their own religion." It is also said: The grief over them and the pain of the soul for what befell them. Ibn Zayd said: The sin (ma’tham) of killing them. Ibn Isḥāq said: The blood money (diyah). Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said: Both these statements are weak, because there is no sin and no blood money in the killing of a believer whose faith is concealed among a people of war. Al-Ṭabarī said: It is the expiation (kaffārah). Some have criticized this as well, stating that there is a difference of opinion among the Imāms regarding the necessity of the expiation. In al-Fuṣūl al-‘Amādiyyah, it is mentioned in Ta’sīs al-Naẓā’ir in jurisprudence: Our companions said: The Abode of War prevents the necessity of what is averted by doubts (shubuhāt), because our rulings do not apply in their territory, and the rulings of their territory do not apply in ours. According to al-Shāfi‘ī, the Abode of War does not prevent the necessity of what is averted by doubts. The explanation is: A ḥarbī (alien combatant) who embraces Islam in the Abode of War and kills a Muslim who entered their territory with an amnesty—there is no qiṣāṣ (retribution) upon him according to us, nor blood money, while according to al-Shāfi‘ī, he is subject to qiṣāṣ. Based on this, if two Muslims who are safe in one another’s company entered the Abode of War and one killed his companion, there is no qiṣāṣ upon him, whereas according to al-Shāfi‘ī, there is. Then he mentioned an issue disputed between Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Yūsuf, and Muḥammad, saying: If one of the two captives kills his companion in the Abode of War, there is nothing upon him according to Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf except the expiation, because he has become a follower of them (the disbelievers), thus becoming like one of the people of the Abode of War. According to Muḥammad, the blood money is due because he holds his own status; therefore, his own status is considered separately. It is reported from al-Kāfī that whoever embraces Islam in the Abode of War and does not migrate to us, and a Muslim kills him intentionally or by mistake, and he has Muslim heirs, then there is no compensation if it was intentional, and if it was by mistake, he is liable for the expiation without the blood money. The complete discussion on this position should be sought in its proper place. Al-Zamakhsharī interpreted "shame" as the obligation of blood money, expiation, and the bad talk of the polytheists, and the sin if there occurred some negligence from them.
(Without your knowledge): in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) for the pronoun of the addressees in "you trample them." It is said: There is no repetition with His saying, "you did not know them," regardless of whether "lest you trample them" is a substitution of inclusion for "men and women" or a substitution for the accusative in "you did not know them." As for the second, the meaning is: "If not for believing men... whom you did not know, you would have trampled them—and you were unaware of their faith." Since the possibility that they would be destroyed without realization despite their faith is a reason for refraining, both forms of "knowing" must be considered. Thus, the object of knowledge in the first is the act of trampling, and in the second, it is their persons regarding their faith. As for the first, since His saying "without knowledge" is a circumstantial qualifier for the doer of "you trample," the knowledge of them refers to the knowledge regarding the destruction. As one would say, "I destroyed him without knowledge," meaning neither the destruction was done without awareness, nor was the knowledge of their faith attained. Both matters, being intended in essence, were explicitly mentioned, even if they are close or entail each other in the general sense. It is also permitted that "you did not know them" be an allusion to the intermingling, as is hinted at in the Kashshāf, and in that is what also refutes the repetition, though there is a subtle debate here that a careful study would resolve. It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in "from them," or for it to be connected to "befall you," or to be an adjective for "shame." It is said: It is according to the meaning "so there befalls you from them a shame without knowledge from those who would shame you and criticize you," meaning: "If you trample them while unaware, a stigma from the disbelievers will befall you without knowledge, meaning they do not know that you were excused in it." Or it is according to the meaning: "You did not know that you would trample them, so a shame would befall you from them without knowledge from you," meaning: "So you would kill them without your knowledge, or harm them without your knowledge." Understand this and do not be heedless.
The apodosis (jawab) of lawlā (if not for) is omitted because the speech indicates it. The meaning, as you heard earlier, is: If not for the dislike that you should destroy believing people among the disbelievers, unknowingly, and then a hardship should befall you because of their destruction, He would not have restrained your hands from them. The essence is that He, Exalted is He, states that had He not restrained your hands from them, the matter would have led to the destruction of believers living among them, and a hardship would have befallen you because of that, and He, Mighty and Majestic, dislikes that. Ibn Jurayj said: God Almighty protected the polytheists on the day of al-Ḥudaybiyyah by means of people from the Muslims who were among them. The outward meaning of the first, as has been said, is that the cause for the restraint is protecting the addressees from the shame befalling them. The outward meaning of this is that its cause is protecting those believers from being trampled. The matter is simple.
His saying, Exalted is He: (so that God may admit into His mercy) is a cause for what the omitted apodosis indicates, according to what was chosen in al-Irshād, as if it were said: "But He, Exalted is He, restrained them to admit, through this restraint which leads to the conquest without a drawback, into His vast mercy (whom He wills)." These are those believers, and that is through their security, the removal of their weakness under the hands of the polytheists, and by guiding them to perform the rituals of worship in the most perfect manner. Expressing them as "whom He wills" rather than the pronoun (i.e., "to admit them") is to signal that the cause of the admission is the Will, which is built upon immense wisdom and benefits. Some consider it the cause for what is understood from the protection of those of the believers who were in Mecca, and the "mercy" is guiding them to increased goodness and obedience by keeping them in their work and obedience. It is also permitted that "whom He wills" refers to some of the polytheists, and "mercy" refers to Islam, for if that restraint mentioned protects those believers, they will manifest their faith due to witnessing the strength of the religion, and those who turn toward Islam will follow their example. Some considered it the cause for the restraint, which itself is explained by the protection. It is also permitted that "whom He wills" refers to the believers (the mercy being guidance to increased goodness) and the polytheists (the mercy being Islam). He explained the causal link by saying that when they witnessed the prevention of their torture after being granted victory over them due to the intermingling of the believers with them, and the care for their status, they desired Islam and to enter the ranks of those favored. And that when the believers knew of the prevention of the torture of the polytheists after being granted victory over them due to their intermingling with them, they manifested their faith, and were followed in that. He said: "There is no justification for making the lām metaphorical for the meaning of causation for what follows after the thing, because that is turning away from the literal meaning without any necessity." As for what is thought—that explaining the restraint by what was mentioned while it is already explained by the protection is invalid—that is wrong, because it involves the gathering of two causes for one single effect, which is not invalid; because causes, if they are not truly complete, the multiplicity of them does not matter, and what is here is like that.
This being so, making that a cause for what the apodosis indicates, as you heard earlier, is more preferable in my view, due to the intense cohesion of the glorious structure. Carrying "whom He wills" to mean the weak believers, rather than some of the polytheists, is more in agreement with His saying: (Had they become distinct, We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with a painful punishment.)
(If they had become distinct): The descent of the revelation signifies separating and distinguishing. It is permitted regarding the pronoun in "they became distinct" that it refers to the believers mentioned previously, meaning: "If those believing men and women had separated and distinguished themselves from the disbelievers and left Mecca and had not remained among them, We would have punished, etc." It is also permitted that it refers to the believers and the disbelievers, meaning: "If some had separated from others and they had not remained intermingled, We would have punished, etc." Many chose the first. Thus, "among them" is for clarification, and the intent is punishing them in the world with killing and captivity, as Mujāhid and others said. Otherwise, the "if" (law) would have no location. The sentence is initial and affirms what is before it. Al-Zamakhsharī permitted that His saying, "If they had become distinct," be like a repetition of His saying, "Were it not for... men," because their meaning returns to one thing, and "We would have punished" would be the apodosis for the previous lawlā. Abū Ḥayyān objected to this, stating that the difference is apparent, so it is neither repetition nor similar. It was answered that the dislike of trampling them due to their lack of distinction from the disbelievers is what the second signifies, so it is like a substitution of inclusion, and that is sufficient for it to be like repetition. Ibn al-Munīr said: Their reference is one, even if lawlā indicates negation because of existence, and law indicates negation because of negation, and between these two there is an apparent contradiction. For lawlā here entered upon existence, and if law entered upon "distinct," which refers to their non-existence, and the negation of non-existence is existence, then it leads to one matter in this aspect. He said: "My grandfather used to choose this aspect and call it taṭriyah (embellishment), and it is most common when speech is prolonged, the beginning is forgotten, and there is a need to build the latter upon the former. Sometimes it is embellished with its own wording, and sometimes with other wording that leads to its intended meaning."
You know that in the omission of the apodosis there is evidence of the intense wrath of God Almighty, and that if not for the right of the believers, He would have done to them what does not enter under description and cannot be measured. From this, it is known that that aspect is more likely to be correct than making "if they had become distinct" as a substitute for repetition; rather, embellishing the apodosis and strengthening it is more worthy and more consistent with the requirements of the situation. Al-Ṭībī also chose the first, arguing that it then becomes close to the category of "exclusion and inclusion" (ṭard wa-‘aks), because the estimation is: "If it were not for the existence of believers intermingled with the polytheists, not distinct from them, what would have been the penalty for their disbelief would have occurred; and if the distinction had happened and was raised, the punishment would have occurred."
As for the estimation of the apodosis, what preceded for those who posit an omission is what many have followed. Some permitted the estimation: "He would have hastened to them what they deserved," and made His saying "They are the ones who disbelieved," etc., as if it were said: "They are the ones who disbelieved and deserved the hastening of their destruction, and if not for the believing men..., He would have hastened that to them." This is also more worthy than the talk of repetition. Ibn Abī ‘Ablah, Ibn Miqsam, Abū Ḥaywah, and Ibn ‘Awn recited it: law tazāyalū (on the pattern of tafā‘alū).
In the verse, according to what al-Kiyā said, is evidence that it is not permissible to breach the ship of the disbelievers if there are captives of the Muslims in it, and likewise shooting at fortresses if they are in them, and shooting at the disbelievers if they use them as human shields. There is debate on this in the books of jurisprudence (furū‘).
