Al-Hadid: (27) Then We followed up...
(Then We followed up on their footsteps with Our messengers) meaning: We sent after them one messenger after another. The root of tafiyah (following up) is to place something behind the nape of the neck (al-qafa). The pronoun in atharihim (their footsteps) refers to Noah and Abraham and those from their nations to whom they were sent. It has also been said: it refers to the messengers who were contemporary with them, peace be upon them.
This has been objected to, arguing that if a messenger were contemporary with Noah, he would either be sent to his own people—as Aaron was with Moses, peace be upon them—or to others—as Lot was with Abraham, peace be upon them. The first is not possible as it contradicts reality, and the second is not possible as there were no people on earth other than his own. It was answered that this is a way to justify the plural pronoun, and the fact that Lot was with Abraham is sufficient for this. Others said it refers to their descendants, but the objection to this is that the messengers who were "followed up" are from the descendants; if the pronoun returned to them, it would imply they are someone else, or that the one who follows up and the one being followed up are the same. Restricting the descendants—the referent of the pronoun—to the earliest among them is contrary to the apparent meaning without any evidence to support it.
(And We followed up with Jesus, son of Mary) meaning: We placed him after them. The result of the meaning is: We sent messenger after messenger until the sending ended with Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him. (And We gave him the Gospel) by revealing it to him. It is not the one in the hands of the Christians today, meaning that which contains the story of his birth and the fabricated story of his crucifixion. Al-Hasan read it as al-anjil with a fatha on the hamza. Abu al-Fath said: "This is a paradigm that has no parallel." Al-Zamakhshari said: "Its affair is easier than that of the bartil (bribe)—with a fatha on the ba, though a kasra is more common—which is an oblong stone; its usage in the sense of a bribe is a post-classical term derived from it by way of metaphor, because it is non-Arabic, and this is Arabic. They toy with non-Arabic words and do not hold them to their own scales." Some claimed that the word al-injil is Arabic, from najaltu meaning "I extracted," because the rulings were extracted from it.
(And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy) meaning: We created or made it so; fi qulubihim (in their hearts) is in the position of the second object. Regardless, the intent is that We placed that in their hearts so that they are compassionate and merciful toward one another. Its counterpart regarding the companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, is: "(Merciful among themselves)." Compassion (ra’fah) is famously defined as mercy, but some of the learned said that when mentioned together, ra’fah signifies that which wards off harm and mends the rift, while rahmah signifies that which brings about good. This is why you mostly see ra’fah placed before rahmah, for warding off corruption is more important than bringing about benefit. It has also been read as ra’afah, on the pattern of fa’alah like shaja’ah (courage).
(And monasticism) is in the accusative case due to an implied verb explained by the apparent one: "They innovated monasticism." It is a case of ishtighal (preoccupation/topicalization). It was objected that for this to be valid—as Ibn al-Shajari and Abu Hayyan stated—the preceding noun must be specific, allowing it to function as a subject (mubtada’), whereas what is mentioned here is an indefinite noun with no justification for it being a subject. It was refuted that even if this condition were accepted, the noun here is qualified in meaning by what is derived from the tanwin of exaltation (as was said regarding the phrase "the worst of what is bristled is fanged"), or it is supported by the context as you will hear, God willing. Or, it is in the accusative by way of conjunction to what was previously mentioned, and the sentence "(They innovated it)" is in the position of an adjective. The discourse implies a deleted genitive (mudaf): "And We placed in their hearts compassion, mercy, and love for a monasticism innovated by them."
Some joined it to what was mentioned without assuming a deletion, saying: "Monasticism is among the actions of the servants, for it is exaggeration in worship through asceticism and withdrawal from people." The root of its meaning is an act attributed to the ruhban (monks), who are the fearful ones (rahib), like khashyan (the fearful) from khashiya. Actions of the servants are connected to the decree of God Almighty according to the People of Truth; even in the very act of it being created by God Almighty, it is acquired by the servant. Al-Zamakhshari permitted the aforementioned conjunction and interpreted the "placing" as "granting success," as if it were said: "We granted them success in being merciful to one another and in innovating monasticism and originating it," based on his school of thought that monasticism is an action of the servant created by him through his own choice. The benefit of "in the hearts" according to this interpretation—as has been said—and the deviation from the apparent meaning in this exegesis is not hidden. However, fairness dictates that the conjunction does not sound correct without this interpretation, or by considering the deletion of a genitive and substituting it with the genitive-construct, as previously mentioned, or by interpreting monasticism as being from the actions of the heart—such as excessive fear that necessitates extreme asceticism—and committing a kind of metaphor in "They innovated it" and what follows, such that the intent is the innovation of its acts and effects. Or, one might commit a type of usage in speech whereby two meanings are considered for monasticism: excessive fear, for example, is intended in "We placed in their hearts monasticism," and the difficult devotional acts—like renouncing the world and its desires of women and others—are intended in "They innovated it" and what follows. The incentive for the interpretation is not (a desire to support) the Mu'tazila, but the fact that monasticism in the sense of physical acts is not something that is "placed" in the heart like compassion and mercy. So reflect on this.
It was read as ruhbanivah with a damma on the ra, and it is attributed to the ruhban (monk) with a damma; it is, as al-Raghib said, used for both singular and plural. The attribution is to it in consideration of it being a singular, or if one thinks the damma is specific to the plural, one says: "Since it was specific to a particular group, it was given the ruling of a proper noun, so it is attributed to it, just as they said ansar and ansari." Or, the attribution is to ruhban (with a fatha), and the damma on the ra in the attributed form is one of the variations of attribution, as in dahri (with a damma on the dal).
His saying, Exalted is He: (We did not write it upon them) is a new, inaugural sentence. His saying, Sublimated be He: (except to seek the pleasure of God) is an interrupted exception (istithna' munqati’), meaning: We did not prescribe it for them at all, but they innovated it and bound themselves to it to seek the pleasure of God Almighty. His saying, Exalted is He: (yet they did not observe it with the right of its observance) meaning: they did not maintain it with the right of maintenance. This is a condemnation of them because it is like a vow; it is a covenant with God Almighty that must be observed, especially if the intent behind it was His pleasure, may He be exalted. It has been inferred from this that whoever accustoms themselves to a voluntary act, it is disliked for them to abandon it.
It is permitted that His saying, "We did not write it," etc., is another adjective for monasticism, and the negation is directed to the condition of the action for themselves, as in the first view. His saying, "except to seek," etc., is a connected exception (istithna' muttasil) from the most general of causes, meaning: We did not prescribe it for them by making them innovate it for any reason, except that they might seek by it the pleasure of God Almighty and deserve reward for it. From the necessity of that is that they should observe it and maintain it with the right of its observance, yet they did not observe it as such.
The first view is narrated from Qatada and a group, and this is narrated from Mujahid. There is no contradiction between "They innovated it" and "We did not write it upon them," etc., for the former implies they were not commanded to do it at all, and the latter implies they were commanded to do it to seek His pleasure, as we pointed out regarding the meaning of "We did not write it upon them except to seek..." Some pushed away the contradiction by saying: the command came after they innovated it, or "They innovated it" is interpreted as "They were the first to do it after the command." What supports what he mentioned in the rebuttal, primarily, is what Abu Dawood, Abu Ya'la, and al-Diya' narrated from Anas that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: "Do not be harsh upon yourselves, lest it be made harsh upon you, for a people were harsh upon themselves and it was made harsh upon them; those are their remnants in the hermitages and monasteries—monasticism they innovated, We did not write it upon them." (Referring to the verse).
The apparent meaning is that the pronoun in "they did not observe it" refers to those who innovated the monasticism, and the intent is to negate the occurrence of observation by all of them; meaning: not all of them observed it, but only some. The relative pronoun (alladhina) in what preceded is not intended to be specific individuals, but it covers the Christians until the time of Islam. It does not harm that the innovation was by specific people, for attributing it is like the attribution in "The tribe of Tamim killed Zayd," while the killer was some of them. Al-Dahhak and others said: the pronoun in "they did not observe it" refers to the successors who came after the innovators. The first is more consistent with the craft (of grammar).
"Those who believed" in His saying: (So We gave those who believed among them their reward) are those who believed with a true faith—and that is for those who attained the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and believed in him, peace and blessings be upon him. Meaning: We gave those of them who believed with a true faith, after their observation of their monasticism, their reward; i.e., what is specific to them of the reward, which is the reward for what preceded from them and the reward for believing in him, peace and blessings be upon him. They are not those who remained observing the monasticism until the time of the mission and did not believe, for its observation is pure nonsense and absolute disbelief, and it only has the following of reward. It is permitted to say: those who did not observe the monasticism with the right of its observance are those who denied him, peace and blessings be upon him. Al-Zajjaj said: His saying: "yet they did not observe it with the right of its observance" is of two types: one is that they fell short in what they bound themselves to, and the other—and it is the better one—is that when the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was sent, they did not believe, so they were abandoners of the obedience of God Almighty; thus they did not observe that monasticism. The evidence for this is His saying: "So We gave those who believed among them their reward," etc.
(The end of the quote). Thus, he interpreted "those who believed" as those among them who reached his time, may God bless him and grant him peace, and believed in him. And "the wicked" in His saying: (And many of them are wicked) refers to those who did not believe in him, may God bless him and grant him peace. The requirement of interpreting "those who believed" as I heard first is to interpret it as general, including those who deviated from following Jesus, peace be upon him, before. Interpreting both parties as those who passed away—those who observed the rights of monasticism before the abrogation and those who fell short in it at that time through Trinity, the saying of incarnation, and the seeking of reputation, and so on—without mentioning their belief in the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, or their disbelief in him, is not supported by the context.
In the narrations, there is that which opposes this. In a long hadith narrated by a group, among them al-Hakim—who authenticated it—and al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Iman from multiple paths from Ibn Mas’ud: "Those who were before us split into seventy-two sects; three of them were saved and the rest perished. A sect stood against the kings and fought them for the religion of God and Jesus, son of Mary. A sect had no power to stand against the kings, so they remained among their people and invited them to the religion of God and Jesus, so the kings killed them and sawed them with saws. A sect had no power to stand against the kings, nor to remain with them, so they wandered in the mountains and became monks therein, and they are those of whom God said: '(And monasticism they innovated, We did not write it upon them, except to seek the pleasure of God, yet they did not observe it with the right of its observance, so We gave those who believed among them their reward).' Those who believed in me and confirmed me. '(And many of them are wicked)'—those who rejected me and disbelieved."
This report supports what al-Zajjaj deemed superior. From it, one also learns the reason for the innovation of monasticism. The verse does not imply the condemnation of "innovation" (bid'ah) absolutely. What it indicates, apparently, is the condemnation of not observing what they committed themselves to. The detailed discourse on innovation is what the Imam Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi mentioned in his commentary on Sahih Muslim. He said: "The scholars say: Innovation is of five categories: obligatory, recommended, prohibited, disliked, and permissible. Among the obligatory is learning the arguments of the dialecticians to refute the heretics and the innovators and similar things; among the recommended is compiling books of knowledge, building schools and hospices, and so on; among the permissible is the expansion in the colors of food and similar things; the forbidden and the disliked are apparent. Thus it is known that his saying, may God bless him and grant him peace, 'Every innovation is a misguidance' is a general term that has been specified."
The author of Jami' al-Usul said: "Innovation from the created beings, if it is in opposition to what God Almighty and His Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, commanded, then it is in the realm of condemnation and denial. If it falls under the generality of what God Almighty urged and encouraged, or His Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, then it is in the realm of praise, even if its example did not exist, like a type of generosity, munificence, and doing good." This is supported by the saying of Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, regarding the Tarawih prayer: "What a beautiful innovation this is."
