Tafsir of Al-Insan 76:24

"So wait patiently for the command of your Lord"—that is, for the delay of your victory over the disbelievers, for it has a praiseworthy outcome.

"And do not obey any one of them"—that is, anyone who is either a sinner (āthim) or a disbeliever (kafūr)—due to any weakness you might feel or distress over the delay of your victory over them.

It is said that "or" (aw) is primarily for choosing between two things in all its usages, though other meanings may be attributed to it, such as permission and others. Thus, the original meaning here would be: "Do not obey either of the two types." Since "or" generally implies non-assertion, and the probability of it meaning otherwise is weak, the meaning becomes a prohibition against obeying either one of them. The particle "and" (waw) was not used because of the possibility that the command entails the whole, or that the prohibition applies to the totality; in such a case, compliance would be achieved by refraining from one without the other. It should not be argued that "obeying one of the two types" is satisfied by refraining from one while obeying the other, for one who does that is said to have "not obeyed one of them." From this, it is said that "or" in positive statements signifies one of the two matters, whereas in negative statements, it signifies the negation of both.

This corresponds to what was mentioned regarding the view of Ibn al-Hajib, who stated that "or" is intended for establishing a ruling for one of two things; however, if there is context implying that one does not exclude the other—like saying, "Sit with al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin"—it is called "permission." If it excludes the other, it is for one of the two. Some have problematized its occurrence in prohibition—as in "Do not obey any of them [who is] a sinner or a disbeliever"—arguing that if one refrains from only one of them, they have not complied. Hence, some (like Abu Ubaidah) interpreted it as meaning "and."

However, it is better to keep it in its primary sense, as the generalization within it stems from the prohibition itself, which carries the meaning of negation. Before the prohibition, the meaning was "You obey a sinner or a disbeliever" (i.e., one of them). When the prohibition comes and applies to what was previously affirmed in meaning, the sense becomes "Do not obey one of them," and the generalization arises from the side of the prohibition. It remains in its primary sense because one cannot be considered to have refrained from "one of them" until one has refrained from both, unlike in positive statements where one might do one without the other. Based on this, it is said that the implication of generalization in negation and prohibition is because partial positive assertion is countered by total negation. Similar to this is the statement of al-Zajjaj, that "or" here is more emphatic than "and," because if you say, "Do not obey Zayd and Amr," and one obeys one of them, they have not disobeyed. But if you replace it with "or," you have indicated that each one of them is worthy of being disobeyed, from which it is known that obeying both is prohibited, as is clear.

Jar Allah stated that "or" remains on its literal meaning, and the prohibition against obeying both of them comes from the implication of the text—the so-called mafhum al-muwafaqa (concept of agreement), whether al-awla (the superior) or al-musawi (the equivalent). Reflect upon this.

The intended meaning of "sinner" (āthim) and "disbeliever" (kafūr) is their generic category. Attaching the prohibition to these traits suggests they are the cause of the prohibition; therefore, the prohibition must be against obedience in the sin and in the disbelief, not in matters that are neither sin nor disbelief. The meaning is: "Do not obey the perpetrator of sin who calls you to it, nor the perpetrator of disbelief who calls you to it." That is, do not follow any sinner if he calls you to sin, and do not follow any disbeliever if he calls you to disbelief. For when it is said, "Do not obey the oppressor," it is understood as "Do not follow him in oppression if he calls you to it." To deny this understanding is stubbornness; therefore, the verse cannot be used as an argument for the impermissibility of following a fasiq (transgressor) if he leads the prayer as an Imam.

Furthermore, the connection of these terms to what they call people to—disbelief and sin—is reciprocal, not by virtue of their persons, such that some are sinners and others are disbelievers; for how could that be when they are all disbelievers? The hyperbole in kafūr (disbeliever) is to match the reality, just like the Almighty’s saying: "And do not consume interest, doubled and multiplied." The consideration of it returning to the prohibition is like the consideration of it returning to negation in the Almighty's saying, "And your Lord is never unjust to [His] servants," as you can see.

It is said that the "sinner" is the hypocrite and the "disbeliever" is the public disbeliever. It is also said that the "sinner" is Utba ibn Rabi'a and the "disbeliever" is al-Walid ibn al-Mughira, because Utba was prone to sins and engaged in various types, while al-Walid was extreme in disbelief and severe in arrogance. It is reported from Muqatil that they both said to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), "Return from this matter, and we will satisfy you with wealth and marriage," and so this verse was revealed. It is also said that the "disbeliever" is Abu Jahl, and the verse was revealed concerning him. The first interpretation is superior.

In the prohibition alongside divine protection ('isma), there is guidance for those who are not infallible to beseech Allah the Exalted and to desire Him—glory be to Him—for preservation from falling into what is inappropriate.