| Al-A'raf: (172) And when your Lord took...

(And when your Lord took)—it is in the accusative case by an implied verb, following the pattern of what preceded it in its counterparts. It is conjoined to what came before, intended to bind the Jews to the requirements of the general covenant, for among them were those who committed shirk, saying: "Uzair is the son of God," may His name be exalted, after having already bound them to the specific covenant and arguing against them with both auditory and rational proofs, and forbidding them from blind imitation (taqlid).

Some have permitted that this be an apposition (tadhyil) to generalize after specification, and to demonstrate the persistence of these Jews in error after the taking of the specific covenant indicated by His saying, the Almighty: (And when We raised the mountain over them) [al-A'raf: 171], referencing His saying, the Almighty: (And when We took your covenant and raised over you the Mount) [al-Baqarah: 63]. According to this, there is no conjunction, which is more apparent than it being an apposition given the outward appearance of the wording, and more appropriate than it if the general is specified by the polytheists, as has been said.

It is sometimes said: The verse is set forth to explain the taking of a prior covenant from all of creation—believer and disbeliever—before this current existence, concerning what is most important of all matters and the foundational origin of all obligations, in a manner devoid of anything resembling compulsion. It is inclusive of binding the polytheists contemporary to him, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him, and dismissing their excuses for what they were, after having alluded to the taking of a covenant from specific people in this current existence in a manner that is most akin to compulsion—with what is apparent in it being from the deeds—for the people at that time were confessing of Lordship, and indeed, of the Prophethood of Moses, peace be upon him; thus there was no need for raising the mountain over them for that purpose. If someone were to say that mentioning this amidst the verses relating to the Jews is by way of digression (istitrad) and that the suitability for it is manifest, it would not be far-fetched; however, the first view—which is what most of the later commentators have followed—is: And mention to them, or to the people, when your Lord took from the children of Adam—meaning those born to them, whether they were believers or disbelievers, generation after generation, excluding those who were not born for one reason or another. Singling them out as the ancestors of the Jews who associated others with God—in that they said—is something that is hardly given consideration.

The preference for "took" (akhdha) over "brought forth" (ikhraj) is to signal the status of the one taken at that time, for it contains an announcement of selection and choosing, which is the cause for attributing it to the name "Lord" (al-Rabb) by way of shifting the address (iltifat), along with what it contains as preparation for the coming interrogation. Its addition to His pronoun, may God bless him and grant him peace, is for honor. It is said: The preference for "taking" over "bringing forth" is for the suitability of what the verse contains regarding the covenant, for what suits it is taking, not bringing forth. The expression "Lord" is used because that taking is in consideration of the effects of Lordship that follow it.

Some have found reassurance in the change of style of this speech—with its iltifat—from what preceded it in His saying, the Almighty: (And when We raised the mountain), and from what follows it in His saying: (And recite to them the story of him to whom We gave Our signs), because it is digressive.

His saying: (from their loins) is a substitute (badal) for "the children of Adam," a substitution of a part for the whole (badal al-ba'd min al-kull), with the repetition of the preposition as in His saying: (for those who were oppressed, for those who believed). It is also said: It is a substitute of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal), and Abu al-Baqa' adhered to this. Some have explained it by saying that the substitute of inclusion is that which has a connection between it and the substituted-for noun such that it necessitates the attribution to the subordinate, in general, like "Zayd's knowledge amazed me," for it is known initially that Zayd is amazed in view of his qualities, not in view of his essence. The attribution of amazement to him contains the attribution to one of his qualities in general. The attribution of "taking"—which means "bringing forth" here—to the children of Adam is an attribution to their loins in general, because it is known initially that the children of Adam are not taken in view of their essences, but in view of their bodies and limbs; the attribution of taking to them contains the attribution to their limbs in general. He claimed that this view is more appropriate than the view of substitute-of-a-part, because the attribution to the substituted-for noun—the whole—is complete and the benefit is obtained without mentioning the substitute, such as "I ate half of the loaf," for the attribution is complete even if "half" were not mentioned. There is no doubt that the attribution here is not complete without mentioning the substitute. Furthermore, the loins are not truly a part of the children of Adam, but rather part of their limbs. It is not hidden that there is scrutiny in this.

The "from" (min) in both places denotes initiation (ibtida'iyyah), and in it is an increase in confirmation because it is built upon clarification after ambiguity and detail after generality. It is said: It is a notification that the covenant was taken from them while they were in the loins of their fathers, and they had not yet been deposited in the wombs of the mothers.

His saying: (their descendants) is the object of "took"; it was delayed from the object by the intervening preposition because it contains a pronoun referring back to it, so by advancing it, the pronoun would refer to something delayed both in wording and in rank, which is not permitted except in instances that this is not one of. [It was also delayed] in consideration of its originality and its being the origin, and for what has been mentioned more than once regarding the anticipation of the delayed element.

Nafi', Abu 'Amr, Ibn 'Amir, and Ya'qub read (their offspring) (dhurriyyatihim), and the intended meaning is their children, generally. Those who specified "children of Adam" as the ancestors of the Jews—according to what has passed—specified this as their descendants, and there is what there is in that. The famous problem is that "children of Adam" and "his offspring" apply to all people, so the one taken out and the one taken from are identical; this is refuted by the clarity that what is intended is bringing forth the branches from the roots according to the order of birth, and freedom from this [objection] does not depend on saying that specification.

(And made them witness over themselves)—that is, He made each one of those descendants taken from the loins of their fathers witness over themselves, not over others, as a confirmation to them of His complete Lordship, the Almighty, saying to them: (Am I not your Lord)—that is, the Owner of your affair and your Nurturer absolutely, without anyone having any input in any of your affairs? (They said)—in response to Him, the Almighty—(Yes, we have witnessed)—that is, we have witnessed over ourselves that You are our Lord, and there is no lord for us other than You. The meaning is: We have confessed to that. It has come down that Judge Shurayh said to someone making a confession before him: "Your cousin on your mother's side has witnessed against you." Hence, al-Jalal al-Suyuti said: This verse is a foundation for confession (iqrar).

"Yes" (bala) is a particle of response, and its alif is original according to the majority. A group said: The original is bal and the alif is extra. Some of them say: It is for the feminization of the word, like the ta in thammat and rubbat, because it is pronounced with imala. Even if it were not for feminization, it would be extra merely for augmentation, like the alif in qub'athra, and that [particle] is specifically for negation, so it does not occur except in response to it, thus it serves to invalidate it, whether it is bare or coupled with an interrogation, whether the latter is true or confirmatory. They have treated negation with confirmation as they have treated bare negation in refuting it with bala, as in this verse. Therefore, Ibn 'Abbas and others said: "If they had said 'Yes' (na'am), they would have disbelieved." The reason is that na'am is a confirmation of what is informed—whether by negation or affirmation. Therefore, a group of jurists said: If someone said, "Do I not have a thousand [owed] to me upon you?" and the other said, "Bala," he is bound by it, but not if he said "Na'am." Others said: He is bound by it in both cases, and they proceeded in this according to custom, not language.

Al-Suhayli and a group disputed what was narrated from the "Doctor" [Ibn 'Abbas] and others, holding that the confirmatory interrogation is an affirmation (ijab). Therefore, Sibawayh refused to make (am) conjunctive, as is said regarding His saying, the Almighty: (Do they not see, or am I better than...), for it does not occur after affirmation. Since it is established that it is an affirmation, na'am after an affirmation is a confirmation of it. Ibn Hisham said: The difficulty for them is that bala is not used to respond to an affirmation, and that is agreed upon. And (Bala! My signs did indeed come to you) [al-Zumar: 59] is preceded by that which indicates negation, although it has occurred in the Hadith that it is used to respond to a bare interrogation. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is mentioned that he, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him, said to his companions: "Are you pleased to be a quarter of the people of Paradise?" They said: "Bala." And in Sahih Muslim, he, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him, said: "Are you the one who met me in Makkah?" The respondent said: "Bala." It is not for these [the linguists] to argue with this, because it is rare and thus the revelation cannot be interpreted based on it. End quote.

Al-Badr al-Damamini answered that there is no difficulty in reality; these people observed the form of the negation uttered, so they responded with bala where it was intended to invalidate the negation occurring after the hamza. They permitted the response with na'am on the basis that it is a confirmation of the content of the entire speech—the hamza and its object—which is an affirmation, as has passed. His claim of consensus is disputed. As for if he intended the affirmation stripped of negation entirely, al-Radi narrated the disagreement regarding it and mentioned that some permitted its use after it, holding fast to the saying: "And she has moved away by union between me and her, bala, indeed, whoever visits the graves will move away." If he intended what is more general—even to include the confirmation accompanying negation—then the disagreement regarding it is known and existing, which he himself mentioned under the letter nun. End quote. It is not hidden that the poem is anomalous (shadh), as al-Radi stated clearly.

What is mentioned in the discussion of the nun is that a group of the predecessors and successors, among them al-Shalubin, said: If there is an interrogation before the negation, then if it is in its true sense, its response is like the response to bare negation. If it is intended as confirmation, the majority view is that it should be responded to with what would be used for negation, observing its wording. It is permissible, according to those familiar with usage, to respond with what one responds to an affirmation with, observing its meaning. According to this is the statement of the Helpers (Ansar) to the Prophet, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him: "Na'am," when he said to them: "Do you not see them as such?" And the saying of Jahdar: "Does not the night bring together Umm 'Amr and us, and through that we were drawn near? Na'am, and I see the crescent as you see it, and the day ascends upon her as it ascended upon me." According to this, the speech of Sibawayh proceeded.

Ibn 'Usfur said: The Arabs treated confirmation in the response like bare negation, even if it is an affirmation in meaning. So when it is said: "Did I not give you a dirham?" it is said in confirming it: "Na'am," and in denying it: "Bala." This is because the one being asked for confirmation might agree with you in what you claim, or might disagree with you. So when he says: "Na'am," it is not known whether he meant "Yes, you did not give me" [referring to the wording] or "Yes, you gave me" [referring to the meaning]. Therefore, they responded to the wording and did not pay attention to the meaning. As for "na'am" in the poem of Jahdar, it is a response to something not mentioned, which is his estimation of the belief that the night brings him together with Umm 'Amr; this was permissible because there was no danger of confusion, as he knew that everyone knows the night brings him together with Umm 'Amr, or it is a response to his saying: "And I see the crescent," which preceded it. As for the statement of the Helpers: It was permissible because there was no danger of confusion, as it was known that they meant "Yes, we see them as such." On this is the usage of Sibawayh after confirmation interpreted. End quote. It is better that na'am in the poem be a response to his saying: "And through that we were drawn near."

Then Ibn Hisham said: It is settled on this that if one were to respond to "Am I not your Lord?" with "Na'am," it would not suffice for confession, because He, the Almighty, made mandatory in the confession regarding what relates to Lordship that which does not admit any meaning other than what is intended by the confessor. For this reason, one does not enter into Islam by saying "There is no god except God" (la ilaha illa Allah) with an indefinite "god," because of its potential for denying unity. Perhaps Ibn 'Abbas, may God be pleased with them both, only said that if they had said "Na'am," it would not be a sufficient confession. Al-Shalubin permitted that his intention, may God be pleased with him, was that if they had said "Na'am" in response to what was uttered—according to what is most eloquent—it would be disbelief, for the foundation is the correspondence of question and answer in wording. There is scrutiny in this, for takfir [declaring someone a disbeliever] does not occur based on possibility.

The speech, according to a group, is a representation of His, the Almighty, creating all of creation at the beginning of their nature (fitra) prepared to infer from the celestial and terrestrial proofs leading to monotheism, as expressed by his saying, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him: "Every newborn is born upon the fitra..." The Hadith is built upon comparing the state derived from His, the Almighty, exposing them to the knowledge of His Lordship and His Unity after enabling them for it through the intellects and insights He implanted in them, and placing for them in the horizons and in themselves the signs, a complete enablement. And from their enablement of it—a full enablement—and their exposure to it—a strong exposure—is a state derived from His, the Almighty, driving them to confess it by way of command, and from their hastening to that without any hesitation at all, without there being any [actual] taking, witnessing, questioning, and answering. The like of this is in the saying, as in His saying, the Almighty: (Then He said to the heaven and the earth, "Come, both of you, willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly") [Fussilat: 11]. From this is all that is narrated about animals and inanimate objects, like His saying: "My camel complained of the length of the journey..." and His saying: "The basin became full and said: 'Enough of me,' wait slowly, you have filled my belly."

They made His saying, the Almighty: (That you might say)—a coloring of the address and turning it away from the Messenger of God, may the blessings and peace of God be upon him, to his contemporaries from the Jews as a hardening in the obligation, or to them and their predecessors by way of dominance (taghlib). It is the object of the reason for what preceded it of taking and witnessing, or for an implied verb indicated by that. The meaning, according to the Basrans, is: We did what we did for fear that you might say; and according to the Kufans: So that you would not say (on the Day of Resurrection) when the matter becomes apparent and the punishment surrounds those who associated others with God: (We were unaware of this)—that is, of the unity of Lordship.