Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:104

"And when it is said to them..." Meaning those who were referred to as "the majority of them" by way of guidance and direction toward the truth: "Come to what Allah has revealed"—from the Clear Book concerning the lawful, the unlawful, and belief therein—"and to the Messenger"—upon whom that was revealed, so that you may arrive at the reality of the matter and distinguish the unlawful from the lawful—"they say, 'Sufficient for us is that upon which we found our fathers.'"

This is an explanation of their obstinacy and refusal to follow the guide to the truth, and their submissiveness to the caller to misguidance. "What" (ma) is a conjunctive noun (mawsulah ismiyyah), though it is permitted that it be an indefinite noun qualified by a relative clause (nakirah mawsufah). "Finding" (al-wijdān) refers to encountering. "Upon which" ('alayhi) is connected to it, or it serves as a state (hal) of its object. It is also permissible that it means "knowledge," in which case it would occupy the position of the second object.

"Even if their fathers knew nothing and were not guided?"

Al-Raghib held that the waw is for conjunction, and more than one scholar has stated that it is connected to another conditional clause implied beforehand. The hamzah is for wonderment, and it enters upon an implied element in reality. That is: Would that suffice them if their fathers were not ignorant and misguided, or even if they were? Both sentences are in the position of a state (hal); that is, would what they found their fathers upon suffice them, existing in any hypothetical state? According to this, it is not required for the interrogative, performative sentence to be a hal in a way that necessitates subtle scrutiny for its justification. The first sentence was omitted because it is clearly indicated, a consistent omission in this context, just as in the saying: "Do good to Zayd, even if he treated you badly." For if a thing is realized when the obstacle exists, it is more fitting that it be realized when it does not.

The answer to law (if/even if), as Abu al-Baqa’ said, is omitted because it is self-evident from what preceded; he estimated it as "they follow them." It is also permissible to estimate it as "that is sufficient for them" or "they say." The meaning of impossibility and improbability inherent in law is only with respect to their claim, not in the objective reality. The benefit of this is an intensification of the denial and the expression of wonder.

It has been said: The waw is for the state (hal), and the hamzah is for denying the act in such a state. The intent is to negate the validity of imitating the ignorant and misguided, and the state is what is understood from the sentence—that is, "existing in this hypothetical state." As for what was said—that they made the waw for the state, while what the waw entered was not the state in terms of meaning, but rather what law entered—this means: "Would the state be that their fathers do not know, so they do what their knowledge dictates, and they are not guided by one who possesses knowledge?" This arises from a lack of contemplation, and it is a strange observation from that speaker. Even stranger is what was said: the meaning is, "Does what their fathers were upon suffice them even if their fathers were ignorant and misguided?" That is, "Does the ignorance and misguidance that their fathers were upon suffice them?" It is likely that this is among the ignorance and misguidance regarding what is befitting for the Revelation.

The verse is used as evidence that imitation is only valid when it is known that the one being imitated is learned and guided. This cannot be known except through proof, so blind imitation is not sufficient without knowing that the one being imitated has a valid argument for what he is being imitated in. To the extent that they said: The imitator has a summary proof, which is the proof of the one he is imitating. So, reflect upon this.