Al-Hashr: (2) "It is He who drove out..."
(It is He who drove out those who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture from their homes): This is an explanation of some of the effects of His Might, Exalted is He, and the rulings of His Wisdom, Glorified and Majestic is He, following the description of His Absolute, Overpowering Might and Stupendous Wisdom.
"Those who disbelieved" refers to the Banu Nadir. They were a great tribe from the Jews of Khaybar, like the Banu Qurayza. It is said of both tribes that they were "the two priests," because they were from the progeny of the two priests, Aaron, as stated in Al-Bahr. It is said that they descended near Medina from the Children of Israel, awaiting the emergence of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and then their affair unfolded as Allah the Exalted recounted.
It is also said that Moses (peace be upon him) had sent them to fight the Amalekites and told them, "Do not spare any of them." They went but did not do so; they disobeyed Moses (peace be upon him). When they returned to the Levant, they found that he (peace be upon him) had died. The Children of Israel said to them, "You have disobeyed Allah, so by Allah, you shall not enter our lands." Thus, they turned toward the Hijaz until what happened, happened. It is narrated from al-Hasan that they were the Banu Qurayza, but this is a mistake, as is obvious.
The first prepositional phrase (min ahl al-kitab) is attached to an elided state, meaning: "being from the People of the Scripture." The second is attached to "drove out." The attribution of the "homes" to them is valid because they had settled in a wilderness that had no habitation, so they built and lived in it.
The pronoun "He" refers to Him, Exalted is He, by way of Might and Wisdom, either based on the perfect manifestation of His being characterized by these two attributes—given the full assistance of the context—or by treating it as a substitute for a demonstrative pronoun, as in His saying, “Say, ‘Have you considered if Allah should take away your hearing and your sight and set a seal upon your hearts, which deity other than Allah could bring it [i.e., that] to you?’” That is, "the One described by Might and Wisdom who drove out..." There is in this an indication that there is a stupendous wisdom in the expulsion.
His saying, (at the first gathering) is attached to "drove out," and the lam is one of timing, like the one in their saying, "I wrote it for ten [days] having passed," and its outcome is the meaning of fi (in) as a container. Hence, they said here: "at the first gathering." However, they did not say it is in the sense of fi to indicate that it did not depart from its original meaning of specification, because what occurred in that time was specified by it, unlike other times. It is also said that it is for causation, but that is not well-supported.
The meaning of "the first gathering" is that this was their first gathering to the Levant, i.e., the first time they were gathered and expelled. He alerted to the "first" to indicate that they had not been afflicted by expulsion before; they were not expelled by Nebuchadnezzar when he expelled the Jews, on the grounds that they were not with them at that time, or that their migration from the lands of the Levant to the land of the Arabs was by their own choice, or that they were not afflicted by that during Islam, or that they were the first of the People of the Scripture to be gathered from the Arabian Peninsula to the Levant. There is no consideration here of contrasting the first with the last. Some consider it so, and the meaning of "the first gathering" is that this was their first gathering, and their last gathering was the expulsion of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) of them from Khaybar to the Levant. It is also said that their last gathering is their gathering on the Day of Resurrection, for the gathering place is in the Levant.
It is narrated from Ikrima, whoever doubts that the "gathering" here means the Levant should read this verse. It is as if he took this from the fact that the meaning is "at their first gathering to the Levant," so there would be a last gathering for them there as well to complete the contrast, which is the Day of Resurrection from the graves; yet it is not hidden that the evidence for this is weak.
In Al-Bahr, it is reported from Ikrima and al-Zuhri that they both said: The meaning is "at the first place of gathering," which is the Levant. In the hadith, it is said that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to them: "Leave." They asked, "To where?" He said, "To the land of the gathering." It is not hidden that the weakness of this meaning is also apparent. It is also said that their last gathering is that a fire will emerge before the Hour and gather them, like the rest of people, from the East to the West. From al-Hasan, it is said that the gathering of the Resurrection was intended—this being its beginning and the rising from the graves being its end, which is as you see.
It is also said the meaning is: He drove them out of their homes at the first assembly that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gathered, or that Allah the Exalted gathered for the sake of fighting them, because he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had not intended to fight them before. In this, there is an appropriateness to the description of Might that is not hidden; hence it was said: "This is the apparent meaning." It was objected to by saying that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had not gathered the Muslims to fight them on this occasion either; for this reason, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rode a donkey bridled with fiber due to his lack of concern for them. In this, there is also consideration. It is said [it refers to] the first time they gathered for combat with the Muslims, for they had not gathered for it before.
"Gathering" (al-hashr) is the expulsion of a group, whether of people for war or otherwise. Yes, it is stipulated that the gathered be a group of sentient beings, nothing else. The legality of expulsion was at the beginning of Islam; as for now, it has been abrogated, and nothing is permissible except killing, enslavement, or the levying of jizya.
(You did not think), O Muslims, (that they would leave) due to their intense prowess, their defensibility, the tightness of their fortresses, and the abundance of their numbers and equipment.
(And they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah)—meaning, they thought their fortresses protected them, or would protect them, from the Might of Allah the Exalted. Their fortresses are the subject (mubtada') and "would protect them" is the fronted predicate, and the sentence is the predicate of "that." The apparent construction—to match "You did not think they would leave"—would have been "and they thought they would not leave." The deviation to what is in the magnificent text is to indicate the disparity between the two thoughts; their thought approached certainty, so it was appropriate to bring that which indicates the extremity of their reliance on what they possessed. Thus, "their fortresses" was brought, with the predicate fronted over the subject. The basis of the indication of this fronting is the specificity it contains, as if no fortress was more protective than theirs, and [bringing] that which indicates their belief about themselves that they were in power and invincibility such that they did not care for anyone who might oppose them or covet their defiance. So, the pronoun "them" was brought and made a name for "that," and the predicate was stated as a sentence because of the strengthening it provides, as in al-Kashf and the commentary of al-Tayyibi. There is debate regarding this being in the category of strengthening, and some have disallowed the aforementioned parsing on the grounds that fronting a derivative predicate over a subject that is capable of being an agent is not permissible, unlike fronting the predicate if it were a verb. The permissibility in the derivative was affirmed, but not in the verb. Yes, the author of al-Fara’id preferred that "their fortresses" be the agent for "would protect them" because it relies on the subject.
It is permitted that "would protect them" be a subject whose predicate is "their fortresses." This was countered by saying that it entails predicating a known state about an unknown one—if the addition of the negation is literal—and that the meaning is not that if it were figurative, in that the persistence of protection was intended. Consider this.
Their fortresses were, as it is said: al-Katiba, al-Watih, al-Salalim, and al-Natah. Some added al-Wahida, and others Shaqq. What is in al-Qamus is that they are places in Khaybar, or a valley containing them.
(But Allah came upon them)—meaning His command, Exalted is He, and His decree, Glorified is He, which was allotted to them—(from where they had not anticipated) and had not crossed their minds. This is—as narrated from al-Suddi, Abu Salih, and Ibn Jurayj—the killing of their leader, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, for it was that which weakened their strength, diminished their power, and stripped their hearts of security and tranquility. It is also said that the pronoun in "came upon them" and "had not anticipated" refers to the believers, meaning "Allah's victory came to them from where they had not anticipated," but there is a fragmentation of pronouns in this.
It is read as fa-atahum Allah, and it is then transitive to two objects, the second of which is elided; meaning, "Allah brought them the punishment" or "the victory."
(And cast terror into their hearts): meaning extreme fear, from "I filled the cistern," because it is imagined that it filled the heart. The root of "casting" (qadhf) is throwing with force or from a distance; the intended meaning here by convention is the establishment and settling of that in their hearts.
(They destroyed their houses with their own hands) to block the mouths of the alleyways with the wood and stones they tore down, so that they would not remain fit for the habitation of the Muslims after their departure, and so that they could carry away some of their desirable fittings that were portable, such as wood, pillars, and doors. The hands of the believers were also involved, as they were destroying them from the outside to enter upon them, to remove their defensive fortifications, to broaden the field of battle, and to increase the damage done to them. Since the destruction by the hands of the believers was on account of those Jews, the destruction by the hands of the believers was as if it proceeded from them [the Jews]. With this consideration, "the hands of the believers" was conjoined to "their hands" and made an instrument of their destruction, even though the instrument was their own hands. Destruction, on this account, is either from the combination of literal and figurative meaning or from the generality of the metaphor. The sentence is either in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun "their hearts," or it has no grammatical position and is either a new start in response to a question—the estimate of which is "What was their state after the terror?"—or along with it, or it is an explanation of the terror by claiming unity, because what they did indicates their terror; for if not for it, they would not have destroyed them.
Qatada, al-Jahdari, Mujahid, Abu Haywa, Isa, and Abu Amr read "destroy" (yukhribuna) with a shadda, which is for intensification in the action or in the object; it is also permitted that it be in the subject. Abu Amr ibn al-Ala said: kharaba means to demolish and corrupt, while akhraaba means to leave the place a ruin and depart from it; thus, the destruction (ikhraab) is the effect of the demolition (takhrib). It is said they are both synonyms, with the intransitive kharaba made transitive through doubling once and through the hamza another time.
(So take warning, O you who have vision.)
(So take a lesson) from the terrifying matters that transpired to them in a way that thoughts can hardly find the path to, and fear direct engagement in what led them to disbelief and sins. Take a lesson from their state in their treachery and their reliance on other than Allah the Exalted, which resulted in the destruction of their houses by their own hands and the hands of their enemies, and their forced separation from their homelands—to your own state. Do not rely on the mutual support of causes and do not depend on other than Him, Glorified is He; rather, rely upon Him, the Exalted.
It is famous to use this verse as evidence for the legitimacy of practicing legal analogy (qiyas). They said: He, the Exalted, ordered in it to "take a lesson" (i'tibar), which is crossing and transitioning from one thing to another. This is realized in analogy because in it there is a transfer of the ruling from the origin (asl) to the branch (far'). Therefore, Ibn Abbas said regarding the [indemnity for] fingers: "Compare their ruling to the fingers," in that their blood money is equal. The origin of [the use of] absolute terms is the literal meaning. Since the command is established—and it is apparent in seeking, which does not depart from the requirement of obligation or recommendation—the legitimacy of practicing analogy is established.
It was objected—after conceding the apparent nature of the command in seeking—that we do not concede that "taking a lesson" is what was mentioned; rather, it is "taking a warning" (itti'az), as this is what comes to mind when it is used absolutely, and it is demanded in the verse by its arrangement with the fa (so) to what preceded it, as in His saying, “Indeed, in that is a lesson for those who have vision” and “Indeed, in the grazing livestock is a lesson for you.” Furthermore, because if the one performing analogy in the branch proceeds to sins and does not contemplate the matter of his afterlife, it is said that he is "not taking a lesson." If analogy were the lesson, this negation would not be valid.
Even if we concede that, the verse has no form of generality that requires acting upon every analogy; rather, it is absolute, so it is sufficient in acting upon it to act upon rational analogy. If we concede that, the general is specified by agreement, for you say: If someone says to his agent, "Free Ganim because of his blackness," it is not permitted to extend that to Salim even if he were black. After specification, it no longer remains a proof in what is beyond the place of specification. Even if we concede that, the address is to those present at the time, so it is specified to them.
It was answered: If "taking a lesson" meant "taking a warning" whenever it is used, it would not be sound to say "take a lesson, so take a warning" due to the necessity of a thing being arranged upon itself. Its arrangement in the verse to what precedes it does not prevent it from being in the sense of the aforementioned transition, because it is realized in "taking a warning," for the one who takes a warning from another transitions from knowledge of the state of that other to knowledge of the state of himself. Thus, he was ordered to do so from the perspective of what it contains of transitioning, which is analogy. Both verses are on that [principle]. It is not valid to say "not taking a lesson" regarding the sinner performing analogy, looking at him as performing analogy; rather, it is valid regarding the affair of the afterlife, and the negation was used absolutely as it is the greatest of purposes, and he has neglected it. If the verse indicates generality, then that is it; if it indicates the absolute, it must be carried to legal analogy, because the custom of the Lawgiver is to address us with legal matters, not others. It has been proven that the general [subject to] specification is a proof, and the consensus has been established on the inclusion of the ruling of the address to those present for others until the Day of Resurrection. The disagreement over the inclusion of the wording does not harm the argument, for whether it is general or not, it is against the opponents in some of the place of dispute, and it necessarily follows from that to rule on the remainder, as they do not distinguish.
This is so. Al-Khafaji said regarding the mode of argumentation: They said: We have been ordered in this verse to take a lesson, which is the returning of a thing to its equivalent by judging it according to its ruling. This includes both rational and legal warning. The verse is driven towards warning, so it indicates it by expression and [indicates] analogy by indication. The discussion on this is complete in the books of Usul.
