Tafsir of Al-Hujurat 49:5

(And if they had been patient until you came out to them, it would have been better for them). That is, if their patience and waiting until you came out had remained constant, then patience would have been better for them than haste, due to what it contains of upholding etiquette and honoring the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), both of which necessitate praise and reward. Or, [it would be better] for that reason and for the granting of the request in the most appropriate and effective manner for them—based on the hadith regarding the captives—that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) release everyone without ransom.

The An (in annahum) is interpreted here as a verbal noun (masdar); it is the subject of a hidden verb, which is thabata (remained/held fast), as chosen by Al-Mubarrad. The evidence for this is the meaning of the speech, for An indicates establishment/fixity, which in reality occurs only in the past; hence, the verb is estimated as past tense. The pronoun in kāna (in lakāna) refers to the verbal noun indicated by ṣabarū (they were patient), similar to your saying: "Whoever lies, it (kāna) is evil for him," meaning the act of lying. The school of Sibawayh holds that the verbal noun is in the position of the subject (mubtada'), and thus its predicate (khabar) is hidden—i.e., "If their patience were firm." It is also said that it has no predicate. You know that in the estimation of the verb, there is the preservation of Law upon its apparent usage of entering upon a verb, for it is originally a conditional particle specific to it. It is permissible that the pronoun in kāna refers to the verbal noun of the estimated verb, meaning: "Then the firmness of their patience would have been better." The methodology of Al-Zamakhshari implies its superiority.

Ḥattā (until) was preferred here over ilā (to) because it is established for that which is an objective reality (ghāyah) in the nature of the matter, which is called the "fixed objective" (the intended one), whereas ilā is for that which is an objective reality either in the nature of the matter or by the decree of the one decreeing. To this return the statements of the Maghribi scholars and others: that the object of ḥattā, unlike the object of ilā, must be the final part (e.g., "I ate the fish, even its head") or contiguous to it (e.g., "Peace it is until the rising of the dawn"). It is not permissible to say: "I stayed up last night until two-thirds of it" or "half of it." Thus, the speech with ḥattā benefits that their waiting for his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) coming out is a binding matter; it is not for them to cut short a matter without reaching him. Since Allah the Exalted made his coming out the objective, it was as such in reality. To this, Al-Zamakhshari went, and Ibn Malik imagined that no one else had said it. He objected to him with his saying: "I appointed a night, and I continued until its half hopeful, then I returned despairing." It was answered that—even if we concede it is the speech of someone considered an authority, though it is rare and anomalous—it does not refute the likes of what was presented. The meaning of "I appointed a night" is "I appointed a time for the visit," and it is customary for the visitation of loved ones to occur at the beginning of the night; so his saying "until its half" is a clarification of the objective of the time customary for the visit, which is the first part of the night, and the half is contiguous to it. This is better than the saying of Ibn Hisham in Al-Mughni that this is not a place for conditions, as he did not say, "I continued in that night until its half," even if the meaning points to it. The conclusion is that the conditioning is specific to when the possessor of the objective is stated explicitly, as there is no proof for this restriction, and the lack of sufficiency is hidden by the advancement of "night" at the beginning of the verse. Yes, what was mentioned regarding its principle is not devoid of debate, as the speech of the author of Al-Kashf indicated.

Thus he said: The most apparent [view] is that ḥattā takhruja (until you come out) was preferred as an abbreviation for the obligation of deleting an and the obligation of explicit manifestation in ilā, even though ḥattā is more explicit in indicating the objective suitable for the ruling, and it differs from what is after it and what is before it. This is why it came for causality, unlike ilā. In His saying, "to them," there is an indication that if he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were to come out, it should not be for their sake [alone]; rather, they ought to be patient until he initiates speech with them or turns toward them. It is not superfluous, but a restriction that is necessary.

(And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful)—possessing extensive forgiveness and mercy. Therefore, He, the Sublime, limited Himself to advice and scolding these people who were deficient in etiquette and abandoned honoring His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The requirement of that [behavior] would have been that He punish them or destroy them, yet the expanse of His forgiveness and mercy (Mighty and Majestic is He) did not fail to encompass these people if they repented and reformed. Pointing to this is his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying to Al-Aqra', after he drew near to him and said: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah," [saying]: "What is before this does not harm you."

In the verses, there is an indication of the ugliness of poor etiquette with the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the likes of which is not hidden. From this and its likes, the fruits of etiquette are plucked and the virtues of manners are emulated. As is narrated about Abu Ubayd—and he is a man of merit—that he said: "I never knocked on a door of a scholar until he came out at his time of emerging." Some attributed this to Al-Qasim ibn Sallam Al-Kufi. I saw in some books that the scholar Ibn Abbas used to go to Ubayy in his house to acquire knowledge from him, and he would stand at the door and not knock on it until Ubayy came out. Ubayy found this behavior from him to be quite profound, so he said to him one day: "Why did you not knock on the door, O Ibn Abbas?" He replied: "The scholar among his people is like the Prophet among his nation, and Allah the Exalted has said regarding His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): 'And if they had been patient until you came out to them, it would have been better for them.'" I saw this story when I was young, and I acted in accordance with its requirement with my teachers, and praise be to Allah the Exalted for that.

(O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, then verify). Ahmad, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Mandah, and Ibn Mardawayh narrated with a good chain from Al-Harith ibn Abi Dirar Al-Khuza'i, who said: "I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he invited me to Islam, so I entered it and affirmed it. He invited me to Zakat, so I affirmed it and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I will return to my people and invite them to Islam and the payment of Zakat. Whoever responds to me, I will collect his Zakat, and you, O Messenger of Allah, send me a messenger at such-and-such time to bring you what I have collected of the Zakat.' When Al-Harith collected the Zakat from those who responded to him and reached the time that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) intended to send [his messenger] to him, the messenger was delayed and did not arrive. Al-Harith thought that there had occurred a displeasure from Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He called the leaders of his people and said to them: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had set a time for me to send his messenger to collect what we have of Zakat. It is not characteristic of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to break a promise, and I see the delay of his messenger as nothing but from his displeasure. So let us go and come to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had sent Al-Walid ibn Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt—who is the brother of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) through his mother—to Al-Harith to collect what he had of the gathered Zakat. When Al-Walid traveled until he reached the road, he became afraid and returned. He came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: 'Indeed, Al-Harith withheld the Zakat from me and intended to kill me.' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent a detachment to Al-Harith. Al-Harith approached with his companions until, when he met them and had separated from Medina, they said: 'This is Al-Harith.' When he approached them, he said: 'To whom were you sent?' They said: 'To you.' He said: 'Why?' They said: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent Al-Walid ibn Uqbah to you, and he claimed that you withheld the Zakat from him and intended to kill him.' He said: 'No, by the One who sent Muhammad with the Truth, I never saw him at all, nor did he come to me.' When Al-Harith entered upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he said: 'You withheld the Zakat and intended to kill my messenger?' He said: 'No, by the One who sent you with the Truth, I did not see him, and he did not see me, and I did not come except when he was delayed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) out of fear that it might be a displeasure from Allah the Exalted and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).' Then [this verse] was revealed..."