Al-Mumtahanah: (4) There has certainly been for you...
(There has certainly been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him) is a confirmation of the command to disavow and fault [the believers] for taking the disbelievers as allies, by citing the story of Abraham (peace be upon him) and those with him. This is so that it may be known that love for the sake of Allah and hatred for the sake of the Exalted is among the most reliable handholds of faith, and that one should not be neglectful of them.
Uswah (أسوة), with the hamzah vocalized with either damma or kasra—these are two dialects, and all reciters read it with kasra except for ‘Asim—means to emulate or imitate. It is applied to the quality that is worthy of being emulated or imitated, and also to the person himself who is being emulated. Thus, in the phrase "There is an uswah in Zayd," it is by way of abstraction (tajreed), like the saying:
And for the weak, there is a portion in the Merciful.
And in the egg [the yolk], there is iron.
Both [the quality and the person] are said to be possible in the verse, but the intention of the "quality" is preferred because the isti’naf (commencement/resumption) that follows it is clearer.
(For you) is for clarification and is connected to a hidden element, as in the phrase suqyan laka (may there be drink for you), or it is connected to kana (was), according to the view of those who permit the attachment of the adverbial phrase (zarf) to it. (Uswah) is its nominative subject (or noun), and (hasanah) is its adjective. (In Abraham) is its predicate; or (for you) is the predicate, and (in Abraham) is an adjective after an adjective for uswah, or a predicate after a predicate for kana, or a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the pronoun hidden in (for you)—as some have said—or in (hasanah). It is not permitted to be a relative clause (silah) for uswah, on the basis that it is a verbal noun (masdar) or its noun, and when such is qualified, it does not function [as a verb] at all, due to the weakness of its resemblance to the verb. It is said: if we say it is not a masdar nor its noun, or if we say that its functioning is forgiven even if qualified—before it functions—regarding the prepositional phrase due to the flexibility granted to it, then that is permissible.
The apparent meaning of (those with him) (peace be upon him) is his believing followers. However, al-Tabari and a group [of scholars] said: The intended meaning is the prophets who were close to his era (peace be upon him), because during the time of his struggle against his people and his disavowal of them, he (peace be upon him) did not have believing followers who struggled with him and disavowed them. It is narrated that he said to Sarah when he departed for the Levant as an emigrant from the land of Nimrod: "There is no one on earth who worships Allah the Exalted besides me and you." You know that the existence of believing followers at the very beginning of the struggle is not required; rather, what is required is their existence, even if it is later. There is no doubt that they existed later, so those with him should be attributed to them. The disavowal recounted in His saying: (When they said to their people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you," etc.) occurs at the time of their existence.
(When) is an adverbial for the predicate of (was), and the operative factor is the prepositional phrase or its attachment, or was itself, as previously mentioned, or it is a substitution for (uswah).
(Bura’) is the plural of bari’ (free/disassociated), like zarif (elegant) and zurafa’. Al-Jahdari read it as bara’ (براء), like ziraf (plural of zarif). Abu Ja’far read it as bura’ (براء) with the ba’ vocalized with damma, like tu’am (twins) and zu’ar (nurses); it is a collective noun whose singular is bari’, tu’am, and zi’r. Al-Zamakhshari said: That is based on changing the damma from the kasra, like rikhal (plural of rikhal), with the ra’ having damma. This was countered by the claim that it is an original damma, and the form is one of the patterns of collective nouns, not a broken plural, so the damma is not a substitute for the kasra. This reading is narrated from ‘Isa. Abu Hatim said: They claimed that it is ‘Isa al-Hamadani, and from him is (bara’) on the scale of fa’al, as in His saying: (Indeed, I am free from what you worship) in Surat al-Zukhruf. It is a masdar on the scale of fa’al used to describe the singular and others.
The emphasis of the sentence is for the sake of the increased concern for the matter, or because their polytheistic people considered that unlikely and were doubtful of it, as they imagined themselves to be upon something [truth]. It is as if they sensed this from them, so they said to them: (Indeed, we are disassociated from you, and from what you worship instead of Allah)—from the idols, stars, and others.
(We have disbelieved in you) is an explanation of His saying: (Indeed, we are disassociated from you) to the end. It is in the sense of: We have disbelieved in you and in what you worship instead of Allah. The meaning of (in you) refers to the people and their deities, by giving precedence to the addressees, and the "disbelief" in that is metaphorical or a metonymy for not valuing them. It is as if it were said: We do not value you nor your gods; you are of no account to us.
In al-Kashshaf, it states that the original was "We have disbelieved in what you worship," then "We have disbelieved in you and what you worship," because whoever disbelieves in what a person brings has disbelieved in him. Then, he sufficed with "We have disbelieved in you," as it entails disbelief in everything they brought and were involved in, especially since it was preceded by (Indeed, we are disassociated). It was interpreted as "We do not value you, etc.," as a warning that it is mockery of them, for that is not called "disbelief" in language or custom; rather, it is a term that falls upon the most extreme forms of disparagement and blame. What we have mentioned is closer, and it is the meaning of what is in al-Kashshaf, not otherwise. As for what was said—that there is a deleted coordinated term in the speech related to the prepositional phrase, meaning "in you and in what you worship," and it was deleted due to the sufficiency of the context—it is of no account.
(And there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever) means: this is our habit with you; we shall not abandon it (until you believe in Allah alone) and abandon the polytheism you are upon, for then the animosity will turn into alliance, and the hatred into love. Al-Fayruzabadi interpreted (hatred) as intense aversion, the opposite of love. He indicated that animosity is the opposite of friendship, and he interpreted friendship as love; thus, animosity and hatred are, in this sense, close to one another. Al-Raghib stated that animosity is a contradiction to harmony in the heart, and he said: It is the aversion of the soul toward the thing one desires to avoid, and it is the opposite of love. Then he said: It is said, "He hated the thing, hating it, with hatred and intense hatred." It is similar to the words of al-Fayruzabadi. What is understood from the words of more than one [scholar] is that often in animosity, mutual abandonment is considered, unlike hatred. So let this matter be examined.
(Except for the saying of Abraham to his father: "I will surely ask forgiveness for you") is an exception from His saying: (an excellent pattern), as al-Qatada and a group have said. It is based on the assumption of tajreed (abstraction), or it is an interpretation of uswah as "imitation," and is undoubtedly interrupted (munqati’). As for the assumption that it is intended as "that which is to be emulated," it is said: it is continuous (muttasil), and it is said: it is interrupted, which is the opinion of the majority. The direction of the exception is toward the promise of asking for forgiveness, not toward the act of asking for forgiveness itself, which is narrated from him (peace be upon him) in His saying: (And forgive my father)—the verse is the intended one. It is said: because that was what compelled him (peace be upon him) to it. From this, it is known that the act of asking forgiveness itself is excepted by way of priority (awla). Some made it a metonymy for asking for forgiveness, because the promise of the noble one, especially someone like Abraham (peace be upon him)—and especially when emphasized by an oath—necessitates its fulfillment. This is not strictly necessary, as is clear. It is as if this promise is other than the previous promise in Surat Maryam, in His saying, narrating from him (peace be upon him): (I will ask forgiveness for you of my Lord). Perhaps it occurred from him (peace be upon him) after that as a confirmation of it, and it is narrated here by way of exception.
In al-Irshad, it is singled out for mention rather than what occurred in Surat Maryam because it came by way of an oath of emphasis. Regarding the exception of that from the "excellent pattern," it is said: Because his (peace be upon him) asking for forgiveness for his polytheistic father, in the sense that Allah would grant him repentance and guide him to faith, although it is permissible rationally and legally because it occurred before it became clear that he was among the companions of the Blaze and that he would die in disbelief—as indicated by what is in Surat al-Tawbah—it is not something that should be emulated at all, for what is intended is what must be emulated out of necessity, due to the arrival of the threat upon turning away from it in His saying after: (And whoever turns away, then indeed, Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy). Thus, his exception from what conveys the lack of obligation to demand faith and forgiveness for a polytheist whose faith is hoped for is something that no rational person doubts. As for its non-permissibility, the exception does not provide any evidence for it at all. The Imam claimed, based on what was transmitted from him, that the verse indicates that. It does not necessarily follow that the asking for forgiveness by him (peace be upon him) was an act of disobedience, because many of the characteristics of the prophets (peace be upon them) cannot be emulated because they were permitted to them exclusively. It is as you see, for it is clear that if that asking for forgiveness which occurred from him (peace be upon him) were assumed to have been done by someone else, it would be an act of disobedience. But it is not so; rather, it is permissible from the one from whom it occurred.
From al-Tibi is the essence of: When Abraham (peace be upon him) answered the words of his father: (I will surely stone you, so leave me for a while) with his words: (I will ask forgiveness for you of my Lord), it was out of mercy and compassion for him, and he was not aware of his insistence on disbelief, and he was sincere in his promise. He said: (And forgive my father). When his insistence became clear to him, he ceased the supplication and disavowed him. Thus, it appeared that his asking for forgiveness was not objectionable, and that was while he was alive, unlike what we are concerned with here, for it separated their animosity and their eagerness to sever kinship with His saying: (They will not benefit you), etc., and consoled them regarding the severance with the story of Abraham (peace be upon him). Then He excepted from it what was mentioned, as if it were said: Do not be amicable to them and do not show them compassion as Abraham did, because it had not become clear to him as it has become clear to you. This is the end [of the quote]. In it is a hint at the possibility that the excepted thing is the promise itself, in terms of its indication of compassion and mercy; the result of this is the exception of compassion and mercy. Some distinguished scholars justified the fact that his (peace be upon him) asking for forgiveness for his polytheistic father was not something that should not be emulated, saying it was before the prohibition or due to a promise he had made to him. The second was countered by the fact that a promise of something prohibited does not lift its prohibition, and the first by the fact that it is based on the prohibition including his asking for forgiveness for him, whereas the prohibition only arrived regarding asking for forgiveness after the matter became clear. His asking for forgiveness (peace be upon him) was before that, and it is a sign that asking for forgiveness would be something to be emulated if it were not prohibited, even though what is to be emulated is what must be emulated, not what is permissible to do in general. A reply was given that does not lift the controversy. Therefore, it is better to provide the justification previously mentioned.
Abu Hayyan suggested that the exception is from a genitive construction added to Abraham, implied in the structure of the noble verse: "There has certainly been for you an excellent pattern in the statements of Abraham and his dialogues with his people—except for the saying of Abraham," etc. He asserted that the exception is continuous. Likewise, al-Tibi asserted its continuity according to the statement of al-Baghawi: "You have an excellent pattern in Abraham and his affairs, except in his asking for forgiveness for his polytheistic father." It is not hidden that the [implied] construction is contrary to the apparent. Whenever it is committed, it is better to imply "matters." It remains that it is said: The verse indicates the prohibition of emulating Abraham (peace be upon him) in asking for forgiveness for a living polytheist, even though in its meaning—that is, seeking faith for him—there is no prohibition.
It was replied that it only prohibited emulating its outward appearance, and the belief that it was absolutely permissible, as happened to some of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). In that is what was previously stated: that the indication of the verse regarding asking for forgiveness is not something that must be emulated out of necessity, nor is it about its prohibition or sanctity. Then, it should be known that the clarification that his father was among the companions of the Blaze, before which the asking for forgiveness occurred, was in the world [the Hereafter]. Likewise, the disavowal of him was after it. It has already been stated in Surat al-Tawbah that this is in the Hereafter, due to the indication of the outward appearance of some authentic reports. They indicate that he (peace be upon him) will intercede for his father on the Day of Resurrection, and that is asking for forgiveness—yes, asking for forgiveness therein. If it had become clear that he would die a disbeliever in this world, he would not have interceded and asked for forgiveness for him in the most perfect way, necessarily because he (peace be upon him) knows that Allah the Exalted does not forgive that partners be associated with Him. Denying this is something that no rational person would venture to do. Those who hold that the clarification was in the world—as is the position of the predecessors of the nation, and it is the correct [view] which I am certain of today—are troubled by those outward appearances in terms of their indication of the intercession, which is asking for forgiveness on that day. They were challenged and exerted themselves in answering them, and all that was found for them has been mentioned, so return to it and choose for yourself what is pleasing. Then I say: what prevails in my suspicion is that the asking for forgiveness that occurred from him (peace be upon him) before the clarification was in the well-known sense, not in the sense of [praying for] guidance to faith. The verses in Surat al-Tawbah and what was mentioned regarding the reason for their revelation support their outward meanings in that.
I maintained that the impossibility of the permissibility of asking for forgiveness was known by revelation, not by intellect, because it is permissible that Allah the Exalted might forgive the polytheist, and He, the Exalted, is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And that he (peace be upon him), when he asked for forgiveness, was not aware through revelation of its impossibility. The meaning of the verse, and Allah the Exalted knows best, is: You have the right to emulate Abraham (peace be upon him) and those with him in disavowing the disbelievers, but his asking for forgiveness for the polytheist is not something you are to emulate him in. The result is that you are obligated to disavow, and it is forbidden for you to ask for forgiveness and to manifest compassion. You do not have what we considered in the exception, which is in the category of His saying: (It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed with him to ask forgiveness for the polytheists), etc. Its indication of prohibition is clear, so reflect on everything we have presented. Behind it is a discussion based on the statement of the one who said: "Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, does not have a finalized decree." This was transmitted from the Pole, the Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (may his secret be sanctified), and some distinguished scholars reinforced its pillars in an independent treatise in which they expanded on the proofs for that, but it is not free from debate, and Allah the Exalted knows best.
His saying, the Exalted: (And I have no power for you against Allah of anything) is a continuation of the excepted speech. Its place is the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier from the agent of (I will surely ask for forgiveness). The subject of the exception is the act of asking for forgiveness itself, not its restriction, for it is in itself among the characteristics of good, as it is a manifestation of helplessness and delegating the matter to Allah the Exalted. Thus, the speech is of the category in which the negation returns to the restricted, not the restriction.
In al-Kashshaf, it states that even though it is in itself speech that matches reality and is good to be made an uswah, it was followed by his saying: (I will surely ask for forgiveness for you) to fulfill the promise. It is as if it were said: I will ask forgiveness for you, and there is nothing in my capacity except this, so it is granted, by all means. In that [objection] is that he had more than that to do, and based on this, it is worthy of the exception.
His saying, the Almighty and Majestic: (Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination) is a statement that is independent, having no place in the inflection, connected in meaning to the story of Abraham (peace be upon him) and those with him, as an explanation of their state in struggling against the enemies of Allah the Almighty and Majestic, and their reliance upon Allah the Exalted to suffice against their evil, and that that is [done] for Him, the Exalted, not for the sake of the soul. It is said: its connection to what preceded is literal, as it is based on an implied "saying" coordinated with (they said, "Indeed, we are disassociated"), meaning: And they said: "Our Lord, etc." It is permitted that the meaning is: "Say, our Lord," as a command from Him, the Exalted, to the believers that they should say it, as a teaching from Him, the Exalted, for them, and as a completion of what He, the Exalted, exhorted them to regarding severing the ties between them and the disbelievers, and emulating Abraham (peace be upon him) and his people in disavowing them, and as an alerting [themselves] to turning toward Allah the Exalted, seeking refuge with Him from the trial of the people of disbelief, and asking for forgiveness for what they have fallen short in. It is as it is said: a good angle that the noble composition does not reject, and in it is a scent of the style of (Stop [it]; it is better for you), because when He, the Exalted, encouraged them to emulate those who have heard in desisting from disbelief and taking its people as allies, then He, the Exalted, said what indicates taking refuge in Him—the Exalted—it becomes in meaning a prohibition of the first and a command of the second.
Some have made the "saying," according to this face, coordinated with (do not take), meaning: "And say, our Lord," etc. In any case, the precedence of the prepositional phrase in the three places is for restriction, as if it were said: Our Lord, upon You we have relied, not upon anyone else; and to You we have returned, not to anyone else; and to You is the destination, not to anyone else.
