Al-A‘raf: (88) The Eminent Among His People Said...

(The eminent among his people who were arrogant said): A resumption based on a question that the discourse naturally leads to, as if it were said to him, peace be upon him: "What did they say to him after they heard these exhortations from him?" It is said: The notables of his people, the arrogant ones, speaking haughtily to him—not content with mere defiance, but reaching an extreme level of insolence—said: "We will surely evict you, O Shu‘ayb, and those who have believed with you from our town" out of hatred for you and to repel the tribulation you cause, which results from living together and being neighbors. The categorical oath is used for emphasis and concern for the ruling. "(With you)" is connected to the eviction, not to the faith. Attributing the eviction to him, peace be upon him, first, and to the believers second, is to alert [the listener] that he, peace be upon him, is the primary target, while they are his followers in this. The interposition of the call by his noble name between the two joined parts is for the sake of increased confirmation and threatening, which arises from the peak of insolence and tyranny.

His saying, the Almighty: "Or you must return to our creed": This is a conjunction to the answer of the oath—meaning: "By Allah, one of two things must definitely occur: either the eviction or the return." The primary intended goal is the return, and the first [eviction] was mentioned merely for the sake of coercion and forcing. This is evidenced by the fact that he, peace be upon him, did not respond to the threat of eviction. What is immediately understood from "returning" is reverting to a previous state, and this is impossible in the case of Shu‘ayb, peace be upon him, because the prophets, upon them be peace, are infallible from anything less than disbelief by many degrees. Yes, it is possible for those who believed in him; thus, attributing it to him, peace be upon him, is a matter of taghlib (predominance). It is said: The believers have predominated in this instance, just as he predominated over them in the address, so there would be two instances of taghlib in the verse.

Many have said that ta‘udunna (you return) means "you become," as established by some grammarians and linguists, so it does not necessitate returning to a previous state. To this effect is the saying: "If the days did not do good, they have returned (become) to them as calamities." It is as if they said: "We will surely evict you, O Shu‘ayb, and those who believed with you from our town, or you shall become like us." In that case, there is no difficulty or need for taghlib. The same is said for what follows, and it is sound; the verse "(When Allah saved us from it)" does not reject this, due to the possibility of interpreting it via taghlib, or because salvation does not necessarily have to follow the occurrence of an evil. Do you not see His saying, the Sublime: "So We saved him and his family," and its likes?

Ibn al-Munir said, regarding the possibility of accepting the usage of "return" as reverting to a previous state, that it should be answered in the manner of His saying, the Almighty: "Allah is the ally of those who believe; He brings them out of darkness into the light. And those who disbelieve—their allies are Taghut; they bring them out of light into darkness." For "bringing out" necessitates a previous "entering" into that from which one is brought out, which is not realized in the case of those who were originally believers or disbelievers. But because faith and disbelief are voluntary acts for which Allah the Almighty created the servant, facilitating for him each and making him capable of it if he wills, He expressed the believer's ability to choose disbelief and then his turning away from it toward faith by his own choice as a "bringing out from darkness into light"—by way of Allah's granting success and grace—and vice versa in the case of the disbeliever. A similar example occurs in His saying, the Almighty: "Those are the ones who have exchanged guidance for error." This is a form of metaphor where the cause is expressed through the effect. The benefit of choosing it in these places is to establish the capacity and choice [of the individual] in order to establish the proof of Allah the Almighty against His servants.

It is said that this statement was made based on their assumption that he, peace be upon him, had been in their creed because of his silence before his mission regarding opposing them, or that it was issued by their leaders to deceive the people and confuse them, [implying] that he was on their religion, and what was issued by him, peace be upon him, during the dialogue occurred by way of mushakalah (counter-formulation).

Al-Shihab mentioned another possibility in the answer, which is that the apparent meaning is that the "return" is the counterpart to the "eviction" back to that from which he was evicted, which is the town. The prepositional phrase is in the position of a state (hal), meaning: "Let there be from you an eviction from our town or a return to it, while you are in our creed." Thus, the difficulty is resolved without the need for what preceded. Its remoteness is obvious.

They did not say "or we will return you" in the manner of what preceded, because their intent was that they should return by way of compliance, fearing eviction from the homeland by choosing the lesser of two evils, not [returning] them by other means of coercion and torture.

Some people claimed that ta‘udunna is not fit to be an answer to an oath because it is not the action of the one taking the oath. They made what we pointed to earlier more appropriate for clarifying the meaning, avoiding this [issue]. This is invalid because it would necessitate that an oath cannot be taken regarding the action of another, and no one has said this. It is common to say, "By Allah, Zayd will surely be beaten," without objection. "Return" is connected with "in" to hint that the creed is, for them, like a vessel surrounding them.

(He said): A resumption like its counterparts, meaning Shu‘ayb, peace be upon him, said in response to their false statement and falsifying their corrupt oaths: "Even if we were unwilling?" The hamza is for denying the occurrence and negating it, and the waw is for conjunction with an omitted element. It is sometimes said that it also carries the waw al-hal (waw of the state) in such a place. "If" (law) is brought to clarify the ruling—whether affirmed or negated—that the preceding discourse signifies inherently or indirectly. In any case, it is applied to the furthest and most contradictory condition, so that its establishment or negation with that [extreme] condition—by way of priority—demonstrates its establishment or negation with other conditions. The discourse here is estimating: "Shall we return to it if we were not unwilling? And if we were unwilling, indifferent to the coercion?" So the clause is in the position of a state relative to the pronoun of the implied verb. The outcome is: "Shall we return to it in a state of not being unwilling, or in a state of being unwilling?"—denying what their heinous word signifies in its absolute sense of returning under any condition. However, he sufficed by mentioning the condition that is most contradictory to the return and most distant from it, alerting that it is what is the reality, confident that it suffices [to prove the point] instead of mentioning the first, with a clear sufficiency. For the return to which the denial is attached, if it is realized while [one is] unwilling, according to what their speech necessitates, then realizing it while [one is] not unwilling is [all the more] prioritized.

This is some of what the Sheikh al-Islam mentioned in this place; he elaborated on it and engaged in refutation and affirmation, so refer back to him. He allowed the possibility that the interrogation remains as it is, and some made the hamza mean "how," and directed the wonder at the return: "How can we return to it while we are unwilling?" Estimating the verb of "returning" is more appropriate than estimating the verb of "restoring," as al-Zamakhshari did, due to the strength of the discourse's indication of it. In al-Taysir, [there is] an estimation of the verb of "eviction," meaning: "Do you evict us without guilt while we are unwilling to depart from our homelands?" This has been challenged by saying that the "return" is a settled matter that cannot be imagined from a rational person, so it can only be the eviction. The weakness of this estimation is not hidden.

Abu al-Baqa mentioned that "if" (law) here is in the sense of "that" (an) because it is for the future. He allowed the possibility that it is in its original [meaning]. What the Sheikh al-Islam pointed to in this place is of further significance, so let it be considered.