Al-Ma'idah: (101) O you who have believed...

(O you who have believed, do not ask about things) The apparent form of the word, as Ibn Ya‘ish stated, dictates that it is the plural of shay’ (thing). This is because fi‘l (when the middle letter is a vowel) is pluralized in the category of scarcity as af‘al, such as bayt (house) and abyat (houses), or shaykh (elder) and ashyakh (elders). However, they observed it to be diptote (non-declinable) in an indefinite state, as is the case here, which led to a divergence of opinions among the group.

Sibawayh and al-Khalil held that the hamza is for feminine marking and that the word is a singular noun intended to denote the plural, similar to al-hulafa’ and al-tarafa’. Thus, ashya’ was originally shay’a’, with two hamzas separated by an alif. The first hamza, which is the final radical of the root, was moved before the first radical because of the burden of having two hamzas separated by an alif and preceded by a weak letter (the ya’). The second hamza is an augmentative for feminine marking, which is why it does not decline; its measure is li‘a’. The utmost involved in this view is the inversion (metathesis), which is frequent in their speech. They committed to it even when there was no heaviness, as in ayniq, qasi, and their like; therefore, committing to it when there is heaviness is even more appropriate. Thus, the objection that this contradicts the original form is invalid.

Al-Farra’ held that it is the plural of shay’ with a doubled ya’ and a hamza, with the measure of hayyin and layyin, except that they lightened it, saying shay’ like mayyit (dead) in mayit. After the lightening, they pluralized it as ashya’, with two hamzas separated by an alif after a ya’, with the measure of af‘ila’. Thus, two hamzas gathered: one the final radical of the word and the other for feminine marking. They lightened this by changing the first hamza to a ya’, then deleted the first ya’ which is the middle radical, so its measure became af‘ila’. It is also said regarding the derivation of this view that they deleted the hamza which is the final radical because the heaviness occurred through it, so its measure is af‘a’, and it is prevented from declension due to the feminine hamza. This view would have been favored if there were evidence for the original form of shay’ being with lightening, given the [prevalence of] shay’ with doubling.

Al-Akhfash went to the view that it is the plural of shay’ with the measure of fals, and its origin is ashyi’a’ with two hamzas separated by an alif after a ya’, then the aforementioned process was applied to it. Al-Zajjaj rejected this, arguing that fi‘lan is not pluralized as af‘ila’. Abu Uthman al-Mazini debated al-Akhfash on this issue, as Abu ‘Ali stated in al-Takmila. He said: "How do you form the diminutive of ashya’?" He replied: "I say ushayya’." Al-Mazini said: "Why did you not return it to the singular and say shuyay’at, since af‘ila’ is not diminished?" He did not provide a convincing answer. End quote. He intended that af‘ila’ is one of the patterns of abundance, and the plurals of abundance are not diminished in their plural form; rather, their singulars are diminished, and then the singular is pluralized with the alif and ta’, just as you would say durayhimat (little dirhams) for the diminutive of dirham. The response to this, as Abu ‘Ali said, is that af‘ila’ here is permitted to be diminished in its plural form because it has become a substitute for af‘al, evidenced by their permitting the addition of numbers to it, just as numbers are added to af‘al. Also, their using the masculine number when adding it to it, such as their saying thalathatu ashya’ (three things), indicates it is a substitute. Just as it became in the status of af‘al in this position by the aforementioned evidence, it is likewise permissible to diminish it, since it is permissible to diminish af‘al. It is not forbidden to diminish it in the plural form as it is forbidden to diminish this pattern elsewhere, because the meaning that prevents such in other places—that it has become in the status of af‘al—is absent from ashya’. If this is the case, there is no contradiction in the word of the intent of minimization and maximization in one thing. End quote.

His intent, as Ibn al-Shajari said, regarding af‘ila’ in this position having become a substitute for af‘al, is that the analogy for the plural of shay’ would have been ashya’ (declinable), just as you say afya’ for the plural of fay’, on the basis that the hamza of the plural is the hamza of the singular. However, they placed ashya’—whose hamza is for feminine marking—in the place of ashya’ whose measure is af‘al. His reasoning in permitting the diminution of ashya’ in its plural form because it became a substitute for af‘al, evidenced by them adding a number to it and attaching the ha’ (feminine marker) so they said thalathatu ashya’, does not constitute evidence. This is because the patterns of scarcity and the patterns of abundance share this. Do you not see that they add a number to the structures of abundance when the structure of scarcity is absent? They say thalathatu shusu‘ (three roads) and khamsatu darahim (five dirhams). As for attaching the ha’ in our saying thalathatu ashya’, even though ashya’ is feminine, it is because the singular is masculine. Do you not see that you say thalathatu anbiya’ (three prophets), khamsatu asdiqa’ (five friends), and sab‘atu shu‘ara’ (seven poets)? You attach the ha’ even though the plural form is feminine, and that is because the singular is nabi, sadiq, and sha‘ir, just as the singular of ashya’ is shay’. So, what evidence is there in his saying: "And it is indicated by their being a substitute, their making the number added to it masculine, etc."? Then he said: "What can be argued for the view of al-Akhfash is to say: Diminution of af‘ila’ in its plural form was permitted, even though it is from the structures of abundance, because its measure was reduced by the deletion of its final radical, so it became af‘a’; thus, they likened it to af‘al and diminished it."

Al-Kisa’i went to the view that it is the plural of shay’ like dayf (guest) and adyaf (guests). An objection was raised against him regarding its being prevented from declension without a cause, which would require the declension of abna’ (sons) and asma’ (names). Al-Kisa’i sensed this objection and pointed to its refutation by saying it is on the pattern of af‘al, but it became frequent in speech and thus resembled fa‘la’, so it was not declined, just as hamra’ (red) is not declined. They have pluralized it as ashawi, like adhra’ and adhara, and ashyawat like hamra’ and hamrawat. So they treated ashya’, even though it is on af‘al, with the treatment of hamra’ and adhra’ in the broken and sound plurals. It was countered that abundance requires its lightening and declension. Some supported him by saying that the Arabs considered in the chapter of non-declinable words the phonetic resemblance, as it was said regarding sarawil (trousers) that it was prevented from declension due to its resemblance to masabih (lamps), and they treated the alif of attachment like the restricted feminine alif, but with the ‘amaliyya (active case). Thus, they considered mere form, so let this be of that category.

It is said that it is the plural of shay’ and its measure is af‘ila’, the plural of fa‘il like nasib and ansiba’, sadiq and asdiqa’, and the first hamza—which is the final radical—was deleted, and the ya’ was given a fatha so the alif would be preserved. Thus, it became ashya’ with the measure of af‘a’. Makki made its derivation like the view of al-Akhfash, if the hamza were substituted with a ya’ then one of the two ya’s were deleted. It is good to delete it from the plural as it is deleted from the singular due to the frequency of usage and the lack of declension due to the extended feminine hamza. This is good, except that objections are raised against it just as they were against al-Akhfash, along with other criticisms.

Others said: ashya’ is li‘a’ in measure, and they inverted a final radical of it—which, before the inversion, was shay’a’. It is also said it is af‘al not declined without a cause on their part, and this is a gesture toward the side of refutation; or ashya’ and the deletion of the final radical is from heaviness. Shay’ is the root of ashya’, and these are the opinions. The root of asma’ is asma’... and keep this and tell the one who forgets the height in foolishness: "You have memorized shay’ (a thing) while ashya’ (things) has departed from you."

The apparent intent of his work, like others, points to the choosing of the view of al-Khalil and Sibawayh. Many said that it is the most apparent because of their saying in its plural ashawi, so they pluralized it as they pluralized sahra’ (desert) into sahari. Its origin, as Ibn al-Shajari said, is ashaya with a ya’ due to its appearance in ashya’, but they substituted it with a waw not according to rule, like substituting it with a waw in their saying jabaytu al-kharaja jabawatan. Also, it indicates that it is singular: their saying in forming its diminutive ushayyi’a. If it were a plural, they would have said shay’at based on what was previously indicated. The complete discussion is in the Amali of Ibn al-Shajari.

(If they are shown to you, they will displease you) [It is] a sentence following ashya’, a call to refrain from asking about them. He followed it with His saying, Exalted is He: (And if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be shown to you), meaning through revelation, as indicated by the restriction of the question to the time of the Quran’s revelation. For the displeasure in the first conditional [clause] is tied to the showing of those things, not to the question about them. Therefore, He followed it with what declares that asking about them necessitates their showing, which causes the disliked outcome. The pronoun in (about them) refers to those things; it is not in the vein of "I have a dirham and its half" as some have erroneously thought.

The intent by them is what holds no benefit for them, such as difficult obligations they cannot bear, or hidden secrets by which they might be exposed. Just as asking about things that have already occurred entails their being shown, so too does asking about those obligations entail their imposition upon them as a way of severity, because they misused their etiquette and left what was more appropriate for them—submission to the command of Allah without research or exposing its "how" and "how much." In Sahih Muslim, from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) addressed us and said: "O people, Allah has prescribed the Hajj upon you, so perform the Hajj." A man said—and he is, as Ibn al-Humam said, al-Aqra’ ibn Habis, and Ahmad, al-Daraqutni, and al-Hakim stated this in a sahih hadith they narrated according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs—"Every year, O Messenger of Allah?" He (peace and blessings be upon him) remained silent until he said it three times. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Had I said 'Yes,' it would have become an obligation, and you would not have been able to bear it." Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Leave me as I have left you, for those before you perished due to their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their prophets. So if I command you with a thing, do from it what you are able, and if I forbid you from a thing, leave it." Ibn Hibban mentioned that the verse was revealed for that reason. Muslim and others narrated that they asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until they exhausted him with questions. One day he ascended the pulpit and said: "Do not ask me about a thing but that I will clarify it for you." When they heard that, they became silent and feared that something of the matter had arrived. Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "I began looking right and left, and every man was covering his head with his garment, weeping." Then a man stood up—who, when he disputed, was called by other than his father—and said: "O Messenger of Allah, who is my father?" He said: "Your father is Hudhafah." Then Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up and said: "We are satisfied with Allah as a Lord, with Islam as a religion, and with Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as a prophet; we seek refuge with Allah from trials." Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "I have never seen the like of today in good and evil; Paradise and Hell were presented to me until I saw them below the wall." Ibn Shihab mentioned that the mother of Ibn Hudhafah, whose name was Abdullah, said to him when he returned to her: "I have never heard anything more undutiful than you; you risked that your mother might have committed some of what the people of the Jahiliyyah committed, so you expose her before the eyes of the people." Ibn Hudhafah said: "If he had attached me to a black slave, I would have attached myself to him." More than one narrated from Qatadah that this verse was revealed on that day, and the face of its connection to what precedes it, according to the first narration, is very apparent, because the speech is about matters related to Hajj.

Al-Tabarsi mentioned three aspects regarding this: First, that it is connected to His saying, "Lest you might succeed," because from success is the abandonment of asking about what holds no good. Second, that it is connected to His saying, "The Messenger is not responsible except for the notification," meaning: He has already notified what contains benefit, so do not ask him about what does not concern you. Third, that it is connected to His saying, "And Allah knows what you show and what you conceal," meaning: Do not ask about those things, lest your inner secrets be shown.

(Allah has pardoned it), meaning the questioning indicated by "Do not ask." The sentence is an interruption (inceptive) aimed at clarifying that their prohibition was not merely for protecting them from displeasure, but because it is in itself a sin entailing punishment. And Allah, Exalted is He, has pardoned it. In this, there is an incitement for them to be diligent in desisting from it, which is not hidden, meaning: Allah, Exalted is He, has pardoned your past questioning, as He did not prescribe the Hajj every year as a penalty for your questioning; or the intent is [that He] overlooked your hereafter punishment, and some researchers chose this. More than one permitted the sentence to be another description of "things," and the genitive pronoun refers back to it and is the connector, with the meaning: "Do not ask about things that Allah, Exalted is He, has not obligated you with." It was objected that this would require that the Hajj was first obligated then abrogated by way of pardon, and that this be known to the addressees, as the right of a description is that it is known to be established for the described at the time of the addressee before it being made a description for it, and both are necessarily non-existent. Moreover, it requires the prohibition to be specific to the question of Hajj and its like, while the noble order is explicit that it is driven to prohibit asking about things that would displease them to have shown—whether they are from the category of rulings and obligations that cause their displeasure through their creation and obligation as a punishment for the questioning, as in the question of Hajj were it not for His pardon, or from the category of matters that occurred before the questioning, causing displeasure by informing them of them, as in the occasion of the revelation according to what was narrated by Ibn Jarir and others from Abu Hurayrah: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) went out angry, his face red, until he sat on the pulpit. A man stood up to him and said: 'Where is my father?' He said: 'In the Fire.'" Some interpreted the "pardon of it" as desisting from clarifying it and addressing its state. In that case, it is likely that this objection does not apply at all. To the first interpretation, the speech of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) points, for Mujahid narrated from him that when he was asked about a thing about which no report came, he would say: "It is from the pardon," then he would recite this verse.

What the Shaykh al-Islam (may he have mercy on him) went to is that it is an inception, nothing else, for the reasons you know, and the exclusion of some scholars is not in its place. Then he said: If you say, "Those things do not necessitate displeasure at all; rather, they are likely to necessitate joy as well, because their obligation for the primary [ruling], even if it is from the aspect of their existence, they are from the aspect of their absence, [are] causes for the other [joy] decisively, and one of the two aspects is not realized for the questioner. His purpose from the question is their emergence however they are, or their emergence in the aspect of their necessitating joy, so it was not expressed in the aspect of their necessitating displeasure." I say: To realize what is prohibited—as you will know it—along with what it contains of emphasizing and strengthening the prohibition, because that aspect is what necessitates desisting, not the [other] aspect, nor the aspect of hesitation between the two obligations.

If it is said: "The second conditional is explicit that the question about those things necessitates displeasure; therefore, the showing did not fail in the question of Hajj, and it was not prescribed every year." We say: Because the questioning occurred before the prohibition, and what is in the conditional is only the questioning that occurred after it, for it is what necessitates the aggravation and severity, and there is no failure in it. If it is said: "What was mentioned only works if the question is about matters hesitating between occurrence and non-occurrence, as was mentioned in the difficult obligations. As for it being about matters that occurred before it, it can hardly be possible, because what the showing is related to is what has occurred in reality, and there is no return for it, whether the question was before or after. And the reality might be what necessitates joy, as in the question of Ibn Hudhafah, so it is the object of the showing, not otherwise, and therefore the failure is inevitable." We say: It has no probability, let alone its being definite. For what is prohibited in reality is only the question about things that necessitate displeasure that occurred in reality before the question—like the question of the one who said: "Where is my father?"—not what encompasses them and others that did not occur but are likely to occur for the accountable ones, so that a failure would be required in the image of non-occurrence.

The summary of the speech is that the meaning of the noble order by way of phrasing is the prohibition of asking about things whose showing necessitates displeasure, either because those things are likely to occur, so they are shown upon questioning by way of creation as a punishment and severity, as in the case of them being of the category of difficult obligations, or because they occurred in reality before the question, so they are shown upon it by way of informing of them. Thus, failure is impossible in both images. The origin of the illusion of [failure] is the lack of difference between what is prohibited and other things, based on the lack of distinction of what is present or likely to exist from those things in reality and what is not so according to the accountable ones, and their observation of everything by the probability of existence and non-existence. The benefit of this ambiguity is to desist from those things absolutely for fear of showing the disliked. End quote. This is an elaboration to which no one has preceded.

(And Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing) (101), meaning: Exaggerated in forgiving sins and overlooking offenses; and for that, He, Exalted is He, pardoned you and did not punish you for what transpired from you. The sentence is an appended interruption confirming what preceded of His, Exalted is He, pardon.