Tafsir of Nuh 71:4

The particle min (of/from) is in the accusative state as the answer to the imperative [command]. There is disagreement regarding [the function of] min:

• It is said to be ibtidā’iyyah (initiation): Although it does not fit here in the sense of comparison, it signifies that the act of forgiveness initiates from His side—Glory be to Him—as an act of benevolence and grace from Him, the Almighty. It is also permitted that it originates from their side, meaning the first thing they obtain due to their belief is the forgiveness of their sins, though this is not the preferred view.
• It is said to be bayāniyyah (explicative): Ar-Radi deemed its return to the meaning of ibtidā’iyyah unlikely. In this view, an indefinite noun is implied before it, explained by what follows: "He forgives you [regarding] your actions, which are the sins."
• It is said to be zā’idah (redundant/expletive): This follows the opinion of al-Akhfash, who permits its redundancy absolutely, and he confirmed this here.
• It is said to be tab’īdiyyah (partitive): Meaning, "He will forgive you [some] of your sins." The choice regarding which portion is forgiven varies; some suggest it refers only to the rights of Allah—Glorified is He—that preceded faith. Others argue it refers to whatever they committed before faith absolutely. The apparent [correct] view is what has been narrated, that faith wipes away what came before it.

Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam raised a difficulty regarding this in al-Fawā’id al-Muntasharah, questioning how this holds true according to the view of Sibawayh, who—unlike al-Akhfash—does not see it as zā’idah in positive sentences, but rather considers it tab’īdiyyah. Yet, Islam wipes away everything that preceded it, leaving nothing. The answer is that the attribution of "sins" to them is only truthfully applicable to what has actually occurred, for what has not occurred cannot be a sin for them. Attributing what has not occurred is done metaphorically, as in "Guard your oaths" (referring to future oaths). Since the attribution is sometimes literal and sometimes metaphorical, Sibawayh reconciles the two—which is permitted according to his Shafi'i followers—meaning the "some" of your sins refers to the "some" that actually occurred. There is no need for the discussion of gathering [evidence] for those who restricted the forgiven sins to the rights of Allah.

There is a point of contention here: interpreting it as tab’īdiyyah contradicts "He will forgive you your sins" and "Indeed, Allah forgives all sins." Al-Ba'li stated in his commentary on al-Jumal that this is what drove al-Akhfash to affirm it as zā’idah here, and Ibn al-Hajib adopted it as evidence for him. Some scholars rejected this, arguing that a particular positive statement is a requirement of a universal positive statement, and there is no contradiction between a requirement and the thing required. This objection stems from overlooking that the meaning of the partitive min is "partiality" stripped of universality, not partiality that is inclusive of the whole and consistent with it. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between it and the explicative min in terms of legal ruling, nor would it be possible to reconcile the disagreement between Imam Abu Hanifah and his two companions when one says, "Divorce yourself of three, as you wish," based on the fact that min is partitive to him and explicative to them. [The text continues with legal reasoning regarding this divorce scenario].

It is clear that the validity of the aforementioned answer—that min is partitive—only holds if its meaning is partiality stripped of universality. From here, one wonders at the author of at-Tawdīh in his presentation of this disagreement, as he argued for the primacy of the partitive sense based on its certainty, not realizing that the "part" intended in the case of the explicative [view] is the general part that includes the whole, not the stripped part intended here. Thus, the reasoning on the aforementioned basis is not complete.

Al-Allamah at-Taftazani was more accurate in his notes on at-Talwīh, arguing that the partiality indicated by the partitive min is indeed the stripped partiality that contradicts universality, not a partiality that is more general (i.e., whether inside or outside the whole). This is due to the consensus of grammarians on this, as they found it necessary to reconcile "He will forgive you of your sins" with "Indeed, Allah forgives all sins." They said it is not far-fetched that He—Glorified be He—forgives some sins for one group and others for another, or that the address to some [of the sins] was for the people of Noah (peace be upon him), and the address of the whole was for this Ummah. No one has taken the view that partitivity does not contradict universality. The Sharif [al-Jurjani] did not find this correct, saying there is a debate there, since Ar-Radi declared there is no contradiction between them... [The text concludes with a discussion of the context of these verses in the Surahs of Ibrahim, al-Ahqaf, and Nuh].