At-Tahrim: (8) O you who...

(O you who have believed, repent to Allah) from sins (a sincere repentance).

This means "thoroughly sincere." It is one of the intensive forms like dharub (one who strikes often). It is attributed to repentance through metaphorical ascription, as it is actually a description of those who repent, meaning they should be sincere toward themselves in their repentance by performing it according to its prescribed way. Perhaps this is what is contained in the narration recorded by Ibn Marduyah from Ibn Abbas, who said: Mu'adh ibn Jabal asked, "O Messenger of Allah, what is sincere repentance?" He replied, "That the servant feels regret for the sin he committed, then apologizes to Allah, the Exalted, then does not return to it, just as milk does not return to the udder." Its interpretation has been narrated as mentioned from Umar, Ibn Mas'ud, Ubayy, Al-Hasan, Mujahid, and others. It is said that nasuh comes from nasahat al-thawb, meaning "the mending of a garment," meaning a repentance that mends the tears in your religion and patches your flaws. It is also said to mean "pure," from the expression "pure honey" (asal nasih) when it is free of wax. It is also permitted that it means repentance that advises people—that is, invites them to the like of it—due to its manifest effect upon its possessor, and the employment of resolve and determination in acting according to its requirements. Regarding what is meant, there are many statements; some have listed more than twenty, of which you have heard one.

Zayd ibn Ali read tawban without the ta [at the end]. Al-Hasan, Al-A'raj, Isa, Abu Bakr from Asim, and Kharijah from Nafi' read (nasuhan) with a damma on the nun, which is the verbal noun of nasaha, for nas'h and nasuh are like shukr and shukur, or kufr and kufur, meaning "possessing sincerity," or "you repent a sincere repentance," or "repent for the sake of the sincerity of yourselves," as a maf'ul lahu (an object for which the action is done).

Furthermore, discourse regarding repentance is extensive. Since it is the most important of Islamic commands, the first of the stations of faith, the beginning of the path for the wayfarers, and the key to the door for those reaching [Allah], there is no harm in mentioning something related to it. We say: Linguistically, it means returning. Technically, according to what Al-Sa'd said, it is the remorse for an act of disobedience because it is an act of disobedience. For regret over it due to its harm to the body, or its impairment of honor or wealth, for example, does not constitute repentance. As for regret due to fear of the Fire or greed for Paradise, there is hesitation regarding whether it constitutes repentance; this is based on whether that regret is for the sin due to its vileness and its status as an act of disobedience or not. Likewise, regret for it due to its vileness while accompanied by another purpose. The truth is that if the aspect of vileness is such that if it stood alone, regret would be realized, then it is repentance; otherwise, it is not, especially when the purpose is the combination of the two things, not each one of them separately. Similarly, repentance during a fatal illness is discussed based on whether that regret is for the vileness of the sin or rather due to fear. The apparent meaning of the reports is that repentance is accepted as long as the signs of death do not appear and its event is not practically realized. The meaning of regret is sadness and pain over what was done, and wishing that it had not been done. This is necessary to determine that mere abandonment—like that of a libertine when he tires of his libertinism and finds relief in some permitted things—is not repentance, based on his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: "Regret is repentance." Sometimes, the condition of the resolve to abandon the return to the sin is added. It has been objected that the act of disobedience in the future may not cross the mind due to distraction, insanity, or the like, and one may not be able to do it due to an unforeseen impairment, such as muteness regarding slander, or impotence regarding adultery, so resolve to abandon it cannot be conceived, as it implies the ability and choice [to do otherwise].

The answer is that what is intended is the resolve to abandon it contingent upon the thought crossing the mind and the ability [to perform it]. Even if the ability were removed, the resolve to abandon it would not be a condition. The words of the Imam of the Haramayn suggest this, as he said: "The resolve to abandon a recurrence only accompanies repentance in some circumstances, and it is not universally applicable in every case. For resolve is only valid from one who has the ability to do the likes of what he preceded with; it is not valid for the castrated to resolve to abandon adultery, nor for the mute to resolve to abandon slander." Some distinguished scholars said: The investigation is that the mention of resolve is for clarification and estimation, not for restriction and exclusion, for one who regrets an act of disobedience due to its vileness is never without that resolve contingent upon the thought crossing the mind and the ability [to perform it]. The sign of regret is prolonged sorrow, fear, and the shedding of tears. It is strange what has been said: that the sign of the sincerity of regret for a sin like adultery is that one does not see himself in a dream doing it voluntarily, as this suggests the persistence of his love for it and that its roots have not been entirely uprooted from his heart, which contradicts the sincerity of regret. The Mu'tazilah said: It is sufficient for repentance that one believes he did wrong and that if he were able to undo that sin, he would have done so; there is no need for sorrow and sadness, as that would lead to imposing that which is beyond one's capability.

Imam Al-Nawawi said: Repentance is that which gathers three matters: that he desists from the sin, that he regrets having done it, and that he resolves with firm determination never to return to the like of it forever. If it relates to a human, he must deliver the grievance to its owner or his heir, or obtain absolution from him. Its greatest pillar is regret.

In Sharh al-Maqasid, they said: If the sin is purely a right of Allah, the Exalted, then regret may suffice, as in the case of fleeing from the battlefield or neglecting the command to do good. At other times, it may require an additional matter, such as surrendering oneself for the punishment in the case of drinking, and delivering what became obligatory in the case of neglecting Zakat; the same applies to neglecting prayer. If it relates to the rights of the servants, it is necessary, along with regret and resolve, to deliver the servant's right or its substitute to him if the sin was an act of injustice, as in the case of assault and intentional murder. It is necessary to guide him if the sin was leading him astray, and to apologize to him if it was a grievance, as in the case of backbiting if it reached him. It is not necessary to detail what he backbit about him unless it reached him in an uglier manner. The truth is that this additional matter is another obligation distinct from repentance, according to what the Imam of the Haramayn said: that if a murderer regrets without surrendering himself for qisas (legal retaliation), his repentance is valid regarding the right of Allah, the Exalted, and his preventing the qisas from the one entitled to it is a renewed sin that requires repentance, and it does not invalidate the repentance for the murder. Then he said: Perhaps repentance is not valid without clearing the right of the servant, as in the case of assault. So, he distinguished between murder and assault, and the reason for this is not hidden to the contemplative. The Ahl al-Sunnah and others have not differed in the obligation of repentance for those who have committed major sins, but they differed on the proof. For us, it is scripture, such as this verse and others, and the command in it is interpreted as a concession and a notification by its existence, and to dispel despair, just as a human might allow for a possibility; that it is not rewarded is something that is hardly accepted. According to the Mu'tazilah, it is the intellect. The Jahmiyyah obligated repentance for minor sins by scripture, not by intellect, and the Ahl al-Sunnah hold to that. The implication of the words of Al-Nawawi, Al-Maziri, and others is that it is obligatory during the engagement in the sin. The phrasing of Al-Maziri is: "They agreed that repentance from all sins is obligatory and that it is obligatory immediately, and it is not permissible to delay it, whether the sin is minor or major."

In Sharh al-Jawhari, it is stated that persisting in a sin by delaying repentance from it is a single sin as long as he does not intend to repeat it. The Mu'tazilah explicitly stated that it is obligatory immediately, such that by delaying it for an hour, another sin is incurred for which repentance is required, and for two hours, two sins, and so on. In fact, they mentioned that by delaying repentance for a major sin for one hour, he has two major sins: the sin itself and the failure to repent; for two hours, four: the first two and the failure to repent for each of them; and for three hours, eight, and so on. It is valid for one sin without another due to the realization of regret and the resolve not to return. Abu Hashim disagreed, arguing that regret for a sin must be because of its vileness, which encompasses all of them; therefore, regret for one vile act cannot be realized while persisting in another.

The answer is that what encompasses all of them is vileness, not the specific vileness of that particular sin. This disagreement is regarding someone other than a disbeliever when he embraces Islam and repents from his disbelief while continuing in some sins. As for him, his repentance is valid, and his Islam is likewise by consensus, and he is not punished except for that sin. Yes, they disagreed on whether his mere belief counts as repentance or whether regret for his past disbelief is necessary. According to the majority, his mere belief is repentance. The Imam and Al-Qurtubi said: Regret for past disbelief is necessary. That good deeds are not a condition is agreed upon by the Imams, contrary to Ibn Hazm. Likewise, repentance for sins is valid in general without specifying what one is repenting for, even if specifying it is not burdensome for him. Some Malikis disagreed, saying: It is only valid in general for what is known in general, but as for what is known in detail, one must repent for it in detail. Legal repentance is not invalidated by a return [to the sin]; the sins for which he repented do not return upon him, rather the return and the breach is another sin for which he must repent.

The Mu'tazilah said that one of the conditions for its validity is that he does not repeat the sin; if he repeats it, his repentance is invalidated and his sins return because the regret considered in it cannot be realized without continuity. Judge Abu Bakr and the majority agreed with them that the continuation of the regret is not obligatory, but rather the condition is that nothing occurs that contradicts or dispels it, because in that case, it is continuous by ruling, like faith while sleeping. From the requirement of continuity, further hardship and difficulty would result. Al-Adami said: It would also require the variation of prayers and all acts of worship, and it would require that one who does not, by estimation, continue the regret and remember it, is not a penitent, and that he would have to renew the repentance, which is contrary to consensus. Yes, the scholars differed regarding one who remembers a sin after repenting for it: is he required to renew the regret? The judge [Al-Qadi] among us and Abu Ali from the Mu'tazilah inclined toward this, assuming that if he did not feel regret whenever he remembered it, he would be desiring it and rejoicing in it, and that would be a nullification of the regret and a return to persistence. The answer is to deny this, for he may turn away from it without regret for it, nor desire for it, nor joy in it. If the matter were as mentioned, it would be necessary that the previous repentance was not valid. The judge himself said: "If he does not renew the regret, that would be a new sin for which regret must be felt, and the first repentance passed while it was valid, for a completed act of worship is not invalidated by anything after its establishment," finished.

Regarding the obligation of renewal when remembering the sin, the Imam of the Haramayn explicitly stated—and it is understood from their words—that the scope of the disagreement is when he does not rejoice at the mention of the sin, nor feel joy or pleasure in its memory or hearing of it. If he does, then renewal is mandatory by consensus. Their words appear to mean that recurrence is not invalidating, even if it is in the session of repentance, indeed even if it is repeated to a degree that amounts to mockery. In this last point, there is a consideration. Judge Iyad has said: "What occurs regarding the right of Allah, the Exalted, which is disbelief, his repentance is of benefit to him, despite the severe punishment, so that this may be a warning to him and to his likes, except for one for whom this is repeated and whose contempt for what he has brought is known; this is evidence of his evil inner state and the falsehood of his repentance," finished. It should be constrained by the condition that it not be so frequent as to imply contempt and enter its possessor into the circle of madness. There is disagreement regarding the validity of temporary repentance without persistence, such as not engaging in sins for a year; it is said that it is valid, and it is said that it is not. In Sharh al-Jawhara, the analogy of its validity for some sins without others is the validity of it in what was mentioned. Furthermore, repentance has degrees; among the highest is what was narrated from the Leader of the Believers (may Allah, the Exalted, honor his face) that he heard a Bedouin say: "O Allah, I ask Your forgiveness and I repent to You." He said: "O man, the speed of the tongue in repentance is the repentance of liars." The Bedouin said: "And what is repentance?" He (may Allah, the Exalted, honor his face) said: "He makes it six things: remorse for past sins, repeating the obligatory acts [missed], returning the injustices, seeking pardon from adversaries, resolving not to return, and dissolving your soul in the obedience of Allah as you nourished it in disobedience, and making it taste the bitterness of obedience as you made it taste the sweetness of disobedience." By "repeating the obligatory acts," it is intended that he performs those that occurred during the time of his disobedience, like the drinker of wine repeating his prayers before the repentance due to his being commonly contaminated by impurity. This is the repentance of the elite, so there is no foundation in this report for Ibn Hazm and his likes, as is not hidden. Then, He, the Exalted, explained the benefit of repentance by His saying, the Exalted: (Perhaps your Lord will remove your misdeeds from you and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow). It is said: The meaning is that He, the Almighty, will do that, but the form of "hope" ('asa) was used to follow the custom of kings, for when they intend to do an action, they say, "Perhaps we will do such-and-such," and to notify that this is a grace from Him, the Exalted, and repentance does not make it obligatory, and that the servant should be between fear and hope, even if he is excessive in fulfilling the functions of worship. The verse was used as evidence for the non-obligation of the acceptance of repentance, because removal [of sins] is an effect of acceptance, and it was brought with the form of hope, not certainty. This issue is a matter of disagreement. The Mu'tazilah went to the view that it is obligatory upon Allah, the Exalted, to accept it by intellect, and they brought embellished premises for that. The Imam of the Haramayn and Judge Abu Bakr said: It is obligatory by scripture and promise, but through an indefinite proof, as there is no definitive text for that which does not allow for interpretation. Shaykh Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari said: Rather, it is through a definitive proof. The locus of the dispute between Al-Ash'ari and his student is everything except the repentance of the disbeliever; as for that, the consensus is on its acceptance definitely by scripture because of the existence of the transmitted text for that, such as His saying, the Exalted: (Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease, that which has preceded will be forgiven), unlike what came regarding the repentance of others, for it is apparent and not a text in the forgiveness of the sins of a Muslim through repentance, such as His saying, the Exalted: (Say, O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah). As for the hadith, "Repentance wipes out what preceded it," it is not transmitted [in a mass-transmitted chain]. And because if it were certain to accept the repentance of the disbeliever, that would be an opening of the door of faith and an urging toward it, and if it were not certain [to accept] the repentance of the believer, that would be a closing of the door of disobedience and a prevention of it. This and the former were mentioned by the judge when it was said to him that the proofs are with Shaykh Abu Al-Hasan.

Ibn Atiyyah said: The majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah are on the view of the judge, and the evidence for that is the supplication of every individual among the penitents for the acceptance of their repentance; if it were certain, the supplication would have no meaning. Similar to that is the obligation of gratitude for acceptance, for if it were necessary [by logical obligation], gratitude for it would not be necessary.

Al-Sa'd countered this by saying that it might be rebutted that what is requested in the supplication is the gathering of the conditions of acceptance, for the matter is dangerous, and the obligation of acceptance does not negate the obligation of gratitude, as it is a favor in itself, like the parent's raising of his child. Imam Al-Nawawi said: It is not obligatory upon Allah, the Exalted, to accept repentance when it is found with its conditions according to the Ahl al-Sunnah, but He, the Exalted, accepts it out of His generosity and grace, and we have known its acceptance through scripture and consensus, so do not be heedless. (Yudkhilukum) was read with a quiescent lam, and Abu Hayyan interpreted it as the removal of the vowel for lightening, comparing what is in two words to what is in a single word, for it is said in qim for quma, and in nit for nita. He said: It is more appropriate than it being for conjunction with the locus of (‘asa rabbukum an yukaffira). Al-Zamakhshari chose this, as if it were said: "Repent, [and] the removal of your misdeeds will be hoped for, or [He] will necessitate the removal of your misdeeds, and He will admit you." (A day on which Allah will not disgrace the Prophet) is an adverbial phrase for "He will admit you." The determination of (the Prophet) is for definition [referring to the known one], and what is meant is the Master of the Prophets, Muhammad, may Allah, the Exalted, bless him and grant him peace. The meaning of the negation of disgrace is the establishment of honor and might.

In Al-Qamus, it is said: akhza Allahu ta'ala fulanan, meaning He disgraced him. Al-Raghib said: It is said: khaziya al-rajulu, meaning he was struck by brokenness, either from himself, which is excessive shyness—its source is khazayah—or from another, which is a type of belittlement—its source is khizy. (A day on which Allah will not disgrace the Prophet) is closer to khizy. It is permitted that it is from both of them together. (And those who believed with him) is a conjunction to him (peace and blessings be upon him), and in it is a hint toward those whom Allah, the Exalted, has disgraced among the people of disbelief and wickedness, and a praising of the believers for the fact that He preserved them from the likes of their state. The meaning of faith here is its perfect level, according to what Al-Khafaji mentioned. His saying, the Exalted: (Their light will proceed before them and on their right), meaning on the Bridge (as it has been said, and the speech concerning it has passed), is an initiated sentence, and likewise His saying, the Exalted: (They will say...) etc. It is permitted that the two sentences are in the place of a circumstantial state (hal) from the relative pronoun, and that the first is a state from it and the second is a state from the pronoun in (proceeds), and that the first is initiated and the second is from the pronoun, and that the first is a state from the relative pronoun and the second is initiated or a state from the pronoun. It is permitted that the relative pronoun is a subject whose predicate is (with him), and the two sentences are predicates or initiated or states from the relative pronoun, or the first is a state from it and the second is a state from the pronoun, or the first is initiated and the second is a state from the pronoun, or the first is a state and the second is initiated, or the first is a predicate after a predicate and the second is a state from the pronoun, or initiated. It is permitted that the relative pronoun is a subject whose predicate is His saying, the Exalted: (Their light will proceed), etc., and the other sentence is initiated or a state or a predicate after a predicate. These are several possibilities, and what is the most apparent among them is not hidden.

The statement according to what was narrated from Ibn Abbas and Al-Hasan is: It will be when the light of the hypocrites is extinguished, meaning they will say when the light of the hypocrites is extinguished: (Our Lord, perfect for us our light and forgive us. Indeed, You are over all things competent).

In another narration from Al-Hasan: They call out, seeking nearness to Allah, the Exalted, along with the perfection of their light. It is said: This is said by those who pass over the Bridge crawling and creeping.

It is said: [It is said by] those who are given light only to the extent that they can see the place of their foot, and from it is known the non-determination of interpreting faith as its perfect level, as you heard from Al-Khafaji. Sahl ibn Shu'ayb Al-Sahmi and Abu Haywah read (wa bi-imanihim) with a kasra on the hamza, as a source [verbal noun] conjoined to the adverbial phrase, meaning "existing before them and existing by reason of their faith."