Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:117

His saying—Exalted is He—: {I said not to them except what You commanded me to do} is an inauguration, as the Sheikh al-Islam said, driven to state what proceeded from him—upon him be peace. It incorporates the negation of the issuance of the aforementioned statement from him in the most eloquent and emphatic manner, as he judged the non-existence of the issuance of all statements contrary to what was commanded. Thus, the negation of the issuance of the statement mentioned is included as a primary entry.

The intended meaning, according to some, is "I did not command them except with what You commanded me to do." However, it is said: "I said not to them..." as a descent into the matter of good etiquette, so that he would not make his Lord—Sublime is He—and himself both command, and out of observance for what occurred in the interrogation. This is indicated by the insertion of an (that), which is explanatory, in His saying—Exalted is He—: {that 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'}.

It is not a valid objection that the imperative verb (to command) does not usually transit to the thing commanded except rarely, as in the saying: I commanded you to do good, so do what you have been commanded. It is interpreted in this way because, as Ibn Hisham said, it does not follow from interpreting one thing with another that it must share its transitivity, for transitivity regards the word itself. Yes, it has been said in making an explanatory to the aforementioned verb of command—in the form of "I commanded you with this, that you stand"—that there is a defect. As for the path of analogy, it is that one is sufficient without the other; as for usage, it is that it has not been found. This has been critiqued regarding the path of analogy, because the first does not dispense with the second, nor the second with the first, and explanation after ambiguity has an apparent status. Ibn al-Munir claimed that interpreting this statement as "commanding" is a burden with no profit, but there is a critique in that.

Abu al-Baqa’ permitted taking the "saying" according to its literal meaning, and {that 'Worship...'} is either a predicate for a hidden subject (i.e., "It is that 'Worship...'") or in the accusative case as the object of a hidden "I mean." It is also said that it is an appositive (‘atf al-bayan) to the pronoun in {by it}. This was objected to on the grounds that it is stated in al-Mughni that appositive nouns in the case of rigid nouns are like adjectives in the case of derivative nouns, and just as a pronoun is not described, it does not have an appositive following it. It was answered that this is a matter of disagreement, and many grammarians allowed it; the commentators on al-Mughni have signaled its refutation.

It is also said to be an appositive in place of the pronoun—an appositive of "the whole for the whole." al-Zamakhshari rejected this in al-Kashshaf on the grounds that the replaced element (mubdal minhu) is in the position of being removed and discarded, so it would necessitate the lack of a resumptive pronoun (‘a’id) in the connecting clause (silah) upon its removal. This was answered by the position maintained that the replaced element is not in the position of being discarded absolutely; rather, its removal is sometimes considered in certain rulings, such as if it occurs as the subject (mubtada’), for the predicate is then for the substitute (badal), like "Zayd, his eye is beautiful," and one does not say "is beautiful" for Zayd. It may also be said that not every replaced element is like that, but that is specific to when the substitute is an error. Some answered that even if the lack of a resumptive pronoun were necessary upon removal, there is no harm in it because the noun itself stands in its place, as in the saying: And you are the one in the mercy of Allah I hope. It is not hidden that there is a difference of opinion regarding the validity of the noun standing here in the place of the pronoun.

It was also permitted to be a substitute for {what You commanded me with}. This was objected to on the grounds that "what" (ma) is the object of the "saying," and it is necessary for it to be a quoted sentence, or what carries its import, or what is intended by its wording. If "worship" (‘ibadah) were a substitute, it would be the object of the "saying," even though it is none of these things; thus, one does not say: "I did not say to them except worship." In al-Intisaf, it is stated that even if "worship" is not said, the command to perform it is said, and the relative pronoun followed by an imperative verb is estimated with the command; so it is said here: "I did not say to them except the command to worship." There is no doubt in its correctness because the command is spoken, rather it is a "saying"—based on the fact that making "worship" the spoken content is not far-fetched, in the manner of: "Then they return to what they said," meaning the homeland of which they said a statement related to it, and His saying—Exalted is He—: "And We shall inherit him what he says," and similar things.

In al-Fawa’id, it is stated that the intent is: "I did not say to them except 'worship'," meaning: "Adhere to His worship," so it is the intended meaning of {what You commanded me with}. It is correct for this sentence to be a substitute for "what You commanded me with" in that it is in the position of being intended because it is spoken, while "what You commanded me with" is singular in wording and a sentence in meaning, though it is not free from forced interpretation.

It was permitted to leave the "saying" on its literal meaning, and an is explanatory either to the verb of saying or to the verb of commanding. This was objected to on the grounds that the verb of saying is not explained, but rather the sentence or the like following it is narrated by it; and because the verb of command is attributed to Allah—Exalted is He—and it is not correct to explain it with "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord," but rather with "Worship Me" or "Worship Allah" and the like. This was answered by saying that it is permissible for it to be a narration in meaning, as if he—upon him be peace—narrated the meaning of the saying of Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—in another expression, as if Allah—Exalted is He—said to him: "Command them to worship Me," or said to them on the tongue of Jesus—upon him be peace—: "Worship Allah, the Lord of Jesus and your Lord." When Jesus—upon him be peace—narrated it, he said: {Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord}, substituting His manifest Name with His pronoun, just as Allah—Exalted is He—said in narration about Moses—upon him be peace—: {He said, "The knowledge thereof is with my Lord in a Record. My Lord neither errs nor forgets, He who has made for you the earth as a bed and has inserted for you therein pathways and has sent down rain from the sky, and We brought forth thereby pairs of plants of diverse kinds."} For Moses—upon him be peace—would not say "We brought forth," but rather "Allah brought forth." However, when Allah—Exalted is He—narrated it from him, He turned the speech to Himself—the Sublime—and attributed the bringing forth to His own Essence, in the manner of the speaker, not the narrator, even if the beginning of the speech is narration. Similar to this is His saying—Exalted is He—: {...they will surely say, "Who created them?"...} until His saying—the Sublime—: {...and We brought to life thereby a dead land...} and others besides that.

Abu Hayyan said: It is permissible for the explained part to be {Worship Allah}, and for "my Lord and your Lord" to be from the speech of Jesus—upon him be peace—with a hidden "I mean," not as a description for Allah—Mighty is His Name. Ibn al-Sa’igh relied upon this and made it similar to His saying—Exalted is He—: {...we killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah...} according to one opinion. In Amali Ibn al-Hajib, it is stated that when a narrator narrates speech, he may describe the one being informed about with what is not in the speech of the one being narrated from. al-Halabi and al-Safaqsi considered this far-fetched, and it is what fairness requires.

It was said regarding the first view: Some permitted the occurrence of the explanatory an after the word of saying and did not limit it to what is in its meaning; it would then occur as explaining it. But you know that there should be no disagreement that the quoted speech narrated does not combine with the letter of explanation, because the object of the saying is in the place of the accusative as the object, while the explanatory sentence has no place. Perhaps the intent of some is mere occurrence, and the obligation is that the object is omitted, and it is the narrated [statement], and this is an explanation of it, meaning "I did not say to them as a spoken statement." So reflect, for the words of the scholars here have spread.

{And I was a witness over them} means: a watcher, observing their conditions and urging them to act according to the requirements of Your command without intermediary, and an observer of their conditions of belief and disbelief. {Over them}, as Abu al-Baqa’ said, is related to "witness," and perhaps the precedence is for what has passed more than once. {As long as I remained among them} means: the duration of my remaining among them. {But when You took me up} means: took possession of me by raising me to the heaven, as it is said: "I took possession of the wealth" when you seize it. This was narrated from al-Hasan, and the majority are upon it. From al-Jubba’i is that the meaning is "caused me to die," and he claimed that his—upon him be peace—raising to the heaven was after his death; the Christians went to this, and the discussion on that has already passed. {You were the Watcher over them} means: the Preserver, the Watcher. So You prevented those whom You wished to protect from opposition by guiding them to the proofs and alerting them to them by sending the Messenger and sending down the signs, and You abandoned those whom You abandoned among the misguided, so they said what they said. It is said that the meaning of "Watcher" is the All-Seeing, the Observer. The meaning of the two sentences is: "As long as I was among them, I was observing their conditions, so it was possible for me to state them. But when You took me up, You were the Observer of that, and none other than You, so I do not know their condition and I cannot state it." It is not hidden that the first [interpretation] is more suitable to the context. Some researchers have stated that "Watcher" (raqib) and "Witness" (shahid) here have the same meaning, which is what the "Witness" was explained as first, but the expression was varied to distinguish between the two witnesses and the two watchers, because his—upon him be peace—being a watcher is not like the Watcher who prevents and compels, but rather like a witness over the one testified against, and his prevention is mere speech. And that He—Sublime is His state—is the One who prevents by a preventing of compulsion through proofs and clear signs. {You} is a pronoun of separation or emphasis. {The Watcher} is the predicate of "was" (kana). It was also recited as "the Watcher" in the nominative as the predicate of "You," and the sentence is the predicate of "was," and {over them} in both recitations is related to "the Watcher."

His saying—Sublime is He—: {And You are, over all things, a Witness} is a postscript confirming the content of what preceded it. In it, according to what is said, is an indication that He—Sublime is He—was in reality the Witness over all things at the time when he—upon him be peace—was among them. {Over} is related to "Witness," and the precedence is to observe the rhyme.