Al-Ma'idah: (2) O you who believe...
(O you who believe, do not violate the symbols of Allah). After the Glorified stated the sanctity of violating the Haram (Sacred Precinct), which is among the symbols of Hajj, He followed it by explaining the prohibition against violating the rest of the symbols (Sha'a'ir). Sha'a'ir is the plural of Sha'irah, which is a name for that which is made a symbol and a sign for the rites of Hajj, such as the stations of Hajj, the spots for stoning the pillars, the Tawaf (circumambulation), the Sa'y (walking between Safa and Marwa), and actions that serve as signs for the pilgrim by which he is identified, such as Ihram (consecration), Tawaf, Sa'y, shaving the head, and slaughtering the sacrificial animal. Attributing them to Allah the Almighty is to honor them and to emphasize the gravity of violating them; the intent is to warn against taking their sanctity lightly or allowing anything to come between them and those who are devoted to them.
It is narrated from 'Ata that he interpreted the "symbols" as the limits set by Allah, His commands, prohibitions, and obligations. Abu Ali al-Jubba'i stated that the intent is the markers erected to distinguish between the Hill (non-sacred area) and the Haram (sacred area), and that "violating them" means crossing into Mecca without Ihram. It is also said that they are Safa and Marwa, and the sacrificial animals of camels and others; this has been narrated from Mujahid.
(Nor the sacred month), meaning: do not violate it by fighting your enemies among the polytheists therein, as narrated from Ibn Abbas and Qatadah, or by Nasi' (postponement/intercalation), as conveyed from al-Qutaybi. The first interpretation is more appropriate for the state of the believers. There is a difference of opinion regarding what is intended by it: it is said to be Rajab; it is said to be Dhu al-Qa'dah (narrated from 'Ikrimah); and it is said to be the four sacred months. Al-Jubba'i and al-Balkhi favored this, noting that it is mentioned in the singular to denote the category (genus).
(Nor the sacrificial animals) by showing aggression toward them, or by preventing them from reaching their destination. The intended meaning is that which is offered to the Ka'bah, whether camels, cows, or sheep. It is the plural of Hadiyah, like Jady and Jadiyah (what is stuffed under a saddle or pack). It is specifically mentioned as it falls under the "symbols," as there is benefit in it for the people, because it is wealth that might be treated lightly, and to show its grandeur, as it is among the greatest of symbols.
(Nor the garlands). This is the plural of Qiladah, which is what the sacrificial animal is adorned with—such as a sandal, tree bark, or other things—so that it is known to be a sacrificial offering and is not harassed. The intent is to prohibit harassing those sacrificial animals that bear garlands, namely the camels (Budn). They are specifically mentioned to honor and pay attention to them, or to prohibit harassing the garlands themselves as a form of exaggeration in the prohibition of harassing the animals themselves—similar to the verse: "And let them not display their adornment." For if they are prohibited from showing the adornment like an anklet or bracelet, it is known that showing the place where it is worn is prohibited a fortiori. It is narrated from Abu Ali al-Jubba'i that the intent is to forbid the violation of the garlands themselves and to make it mandatory to give them as charity if they have value; this is also narrated from al-Hasan. It is narrated from al-Suddi that the intent of "the garlands" is the owners of the sacrificial animals. The Arabs would adorn themselves with the bark of the trees of Mecca; a man would stay in Mecca until the sacred months ended, and when he wanted to return to his family, he would place a garland of tree bark upon himself and his camel, thus remaining safe until he reached his people. Al-Farra' said: The people of the Haram would adorn themselves with tree bark, while those outside the Haram would adorn themselves with wool, hair, and other things. From al-Rabi' and 'Ata, it is said that the intent is to forbid the believers from removing any of the trees of the Haram to make garlands with them, as the polytheists used to do during their time of ignorance.
(Nor those proceeding to the Sacred House), meaning: do not violate the people intending the Sacred House by blocking them from it in any way whatsoever. It is permissible that it is elliptical, meaning: fighting a people or harming a people who are proceeding to the House. It is also read as ammi al-bayt al-haram (in the genitive construct), with al-bayt being the object of the active participle (and not a temporal/spatial adverb). The grammatical function of the active participle is evident.
His saying: (seeking bounty from their Lord and pleasure) is a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun in "proceeding" (ammin). It is permissible for it to be an adjective, though this is weakened because an active participle that is described does not function grammatically due to the weakness of its resemblance to the verb it carries—since the quality of being a description keeps it away from such resemblance, as it is a property of nouns. The response is that the description only prevents the grammatical function if the object precedes it; if it follows, it does not prevent it, as it comes after the fulfillment of its requirements, as stated by the author of al-Lubab and others. The indefiniteness of "bounty" and "pleasure" is for glorification. "From their Lord" is connected to the action itself or to an omitted part acting as an adjective for "bounty," rendering the description of what is conjoined to it unnecessary—meaning: bounty being from their Lord, and pleasure likewise. The exposure of the title of Lordship, along with the attribution to their pronoun, is to honor them and to signal the attainment of what they seek. The intent here is exclusively the Muslims. The verse is firm.
In the sentence, there is an indication of the rationale for the prohibition and the disapproval of violating it. This is what has been said, though it is objected that harassing Muslims is forbidden absolutely, whether they are "proceeding" or not, so there is no point in limiting the prohibition of violation to them. For this reason, al-Hasan and others said: The intent of those "proceeding" are the polytheists specifically, and the "bounty" then refers to profit in their trade, and the "pleasure" refers to what they claim. It is permissible to keep "bounty" in its literal sense if what is intended is also what they claim, but since it is possible to interpret it according to what is true in reality, interpreting it as such is more appropriate. This opinion is supported by the fact that the verse was revealed—as al-Suddi and others said—regarding a man from the tribe of Rabi'ah called al-Hatim ibn Hind. He came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) alone, having left his horses outside Medina, and said: "To what do you call people?" He replied: "To the testimony that there is no god but Allah, the establishment of prayer, and the giving of Zakat." He said: "Good, but I have a matter that I do not settle without them, and perhaps I will embrace Islam and bring them." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had said to his companions: "A man will enter upon you speaking with the tongue of a devil." When he left, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "He entered with the face of an infidel and left with the back of a traitor." The man was not a Muslim; he passed by the grazing livestock of Medina, drove them away, and departed, chanting: "The night has wrapped them with a driver who destroys; he is not a shepherd of camels or sheep, nor one who herds cattle. They spent the night sleeping, and Ibn Hind did not sleep; he spent the night enduring it, a youth like an arrow, with smooth legs and unblemished feet." The Muslims pursued him but failed. When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went out in the year of the Qada (compensatory) 'Umrah, from which he was blocked by the response of the Hajjis of Yamamah, he said: "There is al-Hatim and his companions, go and seize him." He had placed garlands on the livestock he had looted, making them sacrificial offerings. When they headed for that, the noble verse was revealed, and they desisted. It is narrated from Ibn Zayd that it was revealed on the day of the conquest of Mecca regarding cavalrymen who were heading to the House from among the polytheists, reciting the Talbiyah for 'Umrah. The Muslims said: "O Messenger of Allah, these polytheists are like those; let us raid them." Then Allah the Almighty revealed the verse. Those who held that the "proceeding" refers to polytheists differed on whether it is abrogated or not. From Ibn Jurayj, it is that there is no abrogation, because it is permissible for polytheists to be the ones who initiate fighting in the sacred months. You know that the verse is not a definitive text (nass) on fighting, even granting what is in the "reasoning" part. Abu Muslim said: The verse is abrogated by His saying: "So let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs," or it is said: by the "Verse of the Sword," or both. It is also said that nothing from this verse was abrogated except for the "garlands." This is narrated from Ibn Abi Najih from Mujahid. Some claim that "the proceeding" includes both Muslims and polytheists, and the specificity of the cause does not prevent the generality of the wording; in that case, the abrogation is specifically in regard to the polytheists.
Some Imams call such things "specification," as verified in the principles (Usul). According to this, it is necessary to interpret "bounty" and "pleasure" in a way that suits both groups. Humayd ibn Qays al-A'raj recited tabtaghuna (seeking, with a 'Ta') as an address to the believers; the sentence in that case is a state from the pronoun of those addressed in "do not violate," meaning the intent is to state the incompatibility of their state with what is forbidden, not to restrict the prohibition to them. It is objected that if the address to the believers were intended, it would be appropriate to say "your Lord and their Lord." The response is that omitting the expression as mentioned is to warn that their Lord protects them and is not pleased with what they did; it contains an eloquence that is not hidden, and a reference to what has passed: that Allah the Almighty is the Lord of all the worlds, not just the Muslims. The Shaykh al-Islam said: Adding the "Lord" to the pronoun of the "proceeding" in the reading of address is to signal the limitation of honor to them, and the exclusion of the addressees from it and from attaining the goal. In that, there is the rationale for the prohibition, its confirmation, and an exaggeration in disapproving the forbidden act that is not hidden.
(And when you have ended the state of Ihram), referred to by His saying: "while you are in the state of Haram," (then you may hunt), meaning: there is no sin upon you in hunting because the obstacle has been removed. The command is for permissibility after a prohibition. Similar is: "Do not enter this house until you pay its price; then when you have paid, enter it"—when you have paid, your entry is permitted. That the command is for permissibility after prohibition is frequent. The author of al-Qawati' said: This is the apparent view of al-Shafi'i in Ahkam al-Qur'an, and Ibn Burhan narrated it from most jurists and theologians, because the preceding prohibition is a contextual evidence (qarinah) that diverts the command. This is one of three schools of thought on the matter. The second is that it is for obligation, because the form requires it, and its occurrence after prohibition has no effect; this is the choice of Qadi Abu al-Tayyib, Shaykh Abu Ishaq, al-Sim'ani, and the Imam in al-Mahsul. Shaykh Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini narrated it in his book from most Shafi'is, then said: "It is the opinion of all jurists and most theologians." The third is to suspend judgment between the two; this is the opinion of the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, although he invalidated suspension in its wording initially without a preceding prohibition. It is not far-fetched, according to what al-Zarkashi said, to say here that the state returns to where it was before, as was said regarding the issue of a prohibition occurring after an obligation. Whoever said that the reality of the mentioned command is for obligation said that it is an exaggeration in the validity of the permissible act, as if it were an obligation. It is said that the command in such a case is for the obligation of believing in the permissibility, so the metaphorical usage is in the subject—as if it were said: "Believe in the permissibility of hunting," but this is baseless. It is read as ahlaltum, which is a dialect for halaltum. From al-Hasan, it is read as fastadu with a kasra on the Fa (the initial letter), by transferring the vowel of the connective hamza to it; this is weakened in terms of Arabic, as transferring to a vowelized letter is contrary to the rule. It is said that it was not read with a pure kasra, but rather imalah (inclination) for the imalah of the Ta, even if it is from the letters of elevation.
(And do not let the hatred of a people), meaning: do not let it cause you (as Qatadah interpreted it, and it is narrated from Tha'lab, al-Kisa'i, and others, who cited for it: "I stabbed Abu 'Uyaynah a stabbing that caused the tribe of Fazarah thereafter to become angry"). Jarama in this sense takes one object directly and another with 'ala. Al-Farra' and Abu 'Ubaydah said: The meaning is "do not let them earn for you," and jarama is treated in meaning and transitivity like kasaba (to earn), taking one or two objects. It is said: jarama dhanban (he committed a sin) like kasabahu, and jaramtuhu dhanban (I caused him to commit a sin) like kasabtuhu iyyahu, except that jarama is used mostly for earning what has no good in it, which is the reason for choosing it here over the latter; from it is al-jarimah (the crime). The root of the word relates to the meaning of "cutting," because the earner is cut off for his earning. It is sometimes said: ajramtuhu dhanban, transferring the transitive verb to an object by the hamza to two objects, just as it is said aksabtuhu dhanban. Based on this is the reading of Abdullah: la yajrimannakum with a damma on the Ya.
(Hatred of a people)—with a fatha on the Nun; Ibn Amir, Abu Bakr from 'Asim, and Isma'il from Nafi' read it with a sukun. In both, there are two possibilities: First, that they are verbal nouns meaning "hatred" or "its intensity," anomalously, because fa'lan with a fatha is a verbal noun for what indicates movement, like jawalan, and it is not for a transitive verb, as Sibawayh said. However, this is transitive, as he said: shani'tuhu (I hated him), and there is no indication of movement except in a far-fetched way. Fi'lan with sukun in verbal nouns is rare, like lawaytuhu layanan (I procrastinated with him). Second, that they are adjectives, because fa'lan in adjectives is frequent like sakran (drunk), and with fatha, it has been reported rarely, like himar qatwan (a camel difficult to drive) and tays 'adwan (a buck that runs much). If it is a verbal noun, the apparent meaning is that its addition is to the object, meaning: "that you hate a people." It is permissible that it is to the subject, meaning: "that a people hate you." The first is more apparent, as in al-Bahr. If it is an adjective, it means "hateful," and its addition is explanatory, and it is not added to its object or subject like the verbal noun; i.e., "the hateful one among them."
(That they stopped you)—with a fatha on the hamza, assuming the particle Lam (for), as the cause for the hatred, meaning: because they stopped you in the year of Hudaybiyah. Ibn Kathir and Abu 'Amr read with a kasra on the hamza, assuming an is conditional, and what precedes it is the evidence for the answer, or the answer according to the less preferred opinion of the permissibility of its precedence. It is objected to this that there was no "stopping" after the conquest of Mecca, and this is like His saying: "If you were a people of excess." It is permissible that it assumes "if they had stopped you," or to be taken literally, indicating that it does not behoove you that the hatred of a people should cause you to commit injustice because they stopped you after the emergence of Islam and its strength; the prohibition against that is known from the previous stopping a fortiori.
(From the Sacred Mosque), meaning: from visiting it and circumambulating it for 'Umrah. This is, as the Shaykh al-Islam said, a clear verse on the generality of "proceeding" to include polytheists definitively. Some made it evidence for specifying them to it.
(That you commit aggression), meaning: against them. It is omitted, relying on the obviousness, and signaling that the primary intent is to prevent the emergence of aggression from the addressees, to preserve the honoring of the symbols, not the prevention of its occurrence upon the people, observing their side. An (that) is assuming the omission of the preposition, meaning: "on that you commit aggression." The position after it is either genitive or accusative according to the two schools of thought, meaning: "Do not let the hatred of a people because of their stopping you from the Sacred Mosque cause you to commit aggression against them and take revenge on them to quench your thirst." Or there is no omission, and the nominalized clause is the second object of yajrimannakum, meaning: "Do not let that earn you your aggression." This, according to both assumptions, even if it is apparently a prohibition for the "hatred" from what is attributed to it, it is in reality a prohibition for them against aggression in the most eloquent and emphatic way; for the prohibition of the causes of a thing and its beginnings that lead to it is a prohibition of it by demonstrative proof, and an invalidation of causality. It is said: "Let me not see you here," and the intent is to prohibit the addressee from being present.
The scholar al-Tibi clarified the objection with His saying: "And when you have ended the state of Ihram, then you may hunt," between what preceded and this prohibition connected to it, so that it may be an indication and integration that the "proceeding" [pilgrims], as long as they are in Ihram and seeking bounty from their Lord, were like the prey near the Haram, so do not harass them; and when you have ended Ihram, they are your business and you are theirs, because they became like permissible prey; you are permitted to harass them then. The Shaykh al-Islam said: Perhaps the delaying of this prohibition after that, despite the obviousness of its connection to what preceded, is to signal that the sanctity of aggression does not end with the exit from Ihram as the sanctity of hunting ends; rather, it remains as long as their connection to the symbols has not been severed entirely. By that, the remaining sanctity of harassing other "proceeding" ones is known a fortiori. Perhaps the first is better.
(And cooperate in righteousness and piety) is a conjunction to "and do not let..." in terms of meaning, as if it were said: "Do not commit aggression against those proceeding to the Sacred Mosque because you were stopped from it, and cooperate in forgiveness and overlooking." Some said: It is an inception, and pausing on "that you commit aggression" is necessary. Many chose that the intent by "righteousness" is following the command absolutely, and by "piety" is avoiding desires, so that the verse becomes from the comprehensive words and a conclusion to the speech. Thus, all the rites of Hajj enter into "righteousness and piety," for Allah the Almighty said: "Indeed, it is from the piety of the hearts," and forgiveness and overlooking also enter primarily.
According to the general interpretation, His saying: (And do not cooperate in sin and aggression) is also interpreted; thus, the prohibition encompasses everything that is of the category of injustice and disobedience, and the prohibition against cooperating in aggression and revenge is included.
From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) and Abu al-'Aliyah, it is that they interpreted "sin" as abandoning what He commanded them to do and committing what He forbade them from, and "aggression" as exceeding what the Glorified set for His servants in their religion and what He imposed upon them regarding themselves. The adornment (the positive command) was placed before the evacuation (the prohibition) to hasten the obligation of what is the primary intent.
His saying: (And fear Allah) is a command to fear in all matters, among which is the violation of what was mentioned of commands and prohibitions; the obligation of fearing in them is established by demonstrative proof.
(Indeed, Allah is severe in punishment) for those who do not fear Him, and this is in the place of the rationale for what precedes it. The manifestation of the Glorious Name is for what has been mentioned more than once.
