Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:17

Then, the Exalted returned His speech to the explanation of the remaining rulings of the incident, its circumstances, and the confirmation of what preceded, where He, Glory be to Him, said: "You did not kill them"—the address is to the believers. It is said that the fa (in falam) is a response to a conditional particle [that is] implied, which is necessitated by what passed regarding the mention of His, the Exalted’s, aid, His command to stand firm, and so forth. It is as if it were said: If the matter is as such, then you did not kill them by your own strength and power, "but it was Allah who killed them"—by granting you victory, empowering you over them, and casting terror into their hearts. It is also permitted that the implication is: If you have come to know that, then you did not kill them—in the sense of "then know," or "I inform you that you did not kill them." It is also said the implication is: If you boast of killing them, you did not [truly] kill them; for it is related that when they returned from the battle victorious and laden with spoils, they began to boast, saying: "I killed such-and-such, I took captive such-and-such, I did this, and I left that," so this was revealed.

Abu Hayyan said: This fa is not the response to an omitted condition as they claimed; rather, it is for linking sentences. For He, the Exalted, had said: "So strike above the necks and strike from them every fingertip," and the fulfillment of what was commanded was a cause for the killing. So it was said, "You did not kill them," meaning: You are not the sole agents of this killing, for the enabling of it and the creation of it are only for Allah, the Exalted. Al-Sifsaqsi said: This is more appropriate than the claim of omission. Ibn Hisham said: The negated response does not take a fa.

Hence, along with the view that the speech is about the negation of the agent rather than the action—as was said—Al-Zamakhshari went towards the nominal nature of the sentence, where he estimated the subject (i.e., fa-antum lam taqtuluhum [then you did not kill them]). Some of them made the mentioned [verse] a cause for the recompense, placed in its stead, and said: The origin is "If you boast of killing them, do not boast of it, for you did not kill them," and its parallels are numerous. Perhaps the statement of Abu Hayyan, as Al-Sifsaqsi said, is more appropriate.

The address in His, the Exalted’s, saying: "And you threw not when you threw, but it was Allah who threw," is an address to His Prophet, peace be upon him, by way of talwin (shifting the mode of address). It is an allusion to his, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, throwing of pebbles on the day of Badr. It is narrated that he, peace be upon him, said when the Quraysh appeared from the ‘Aanqal (a valley path): "O Allah, this is Quraysh having come with its pride and arrogance; O Allah, I ask of You what You have promised me." Then Gabriel, peace be upon him, came to him and said: "Take a handful of dust and throw it at them." When the two hosts met, he said to Ali, may Allah honor his countenance: "Give me a handful of the valley's pebbles," and he threw them at their faces, saying: "May the faces be distorted." There remained no polytheist who was not preoccupied with his eyes, and they were routed, and the believers followed them, killing and capturing them.

It has come through several chains of narration, mentioned by Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, that this throwing was on the day of Badr. Al-Tayyibi claimed that it was only on the day of Hunayn, and that none of the Imams of Hadith mentioned that it was on the day of Badr. This, as Al-Hafiz Al-Suyuti said, stems from a lack of acquaintance, for he—may mercy be upon him—did not reach the degree of a Hafiz, and the extent of his examination was [limited to] the Six Books, the Musnad of Ahmad, and the Musnad of Al-Darimi. Otherwise, the traditionists have mentioned that the throwing occurred on both days; therefore, denying its occurrence on the day of Badr is not something that should be done. Mentioning what is in the story of Hunayn [to refute this] is very far-fetched, and what he mentioned to reconcile that is nothing, as is not hidden from one who has reviewed it and acted fairly.

Similar to this is what is narrated from Al-Zuhri and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, that the verse is an allusion to his throwing, peace be upon him, on the day of Uhud, when the cursed Ubayy ibn Khalaf sought him out, peace be upon him. Some of the Muslims intercepted him to kill him, but the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to them: "Let him be," so they stood back. He, peace be upon him, took his spear in his hand and threw it at him, breaking one of his ribs—in another narration, it scratched his collarbone. He returned to his companions heavily, saying: "Muhammad has killed me." They began saying: "There is no harm upon you," but he said: "By Allah, if this had been [inflicted] upon the people, it would have killed them." He began to gasp until he died on the way.

As for what Ibn Jarir brought out from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Jubayr, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the day of Ibn Abi al-Huqayq—which was in Khaybar—called for a bow. A long bow was brought to him, and he, peace be upon him, said: "Bring me a different bow." They brought him a curved bow (kabda'), and he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, shot at the fortress. The arrow came flying until it killed Ibn Abi al-Huqayq in his bed, and Allah, the Exalted, revealed the verse.

The truth to be relied upon is the first [opinion]. The stripping of the action from its object is because the intention is to state the condition of the throwing—negation and affirmation—since it is that from which that which appeared [manifestly] appeared. It is the origin of the change in that which was thrown, in its own nature, and its multiplication to the point where something of it struck the eyes of every one of that vast multitude.

The meaning, according to what has been said, is: You did not perform, O Muhammad, that throwing which entailed those great effects in reality, when you performed it in appearance; but Allah, the Exalted, performed it—meaning, He created it—when you undertook it in the most perfect manner, as He thereby caused the pebbles to reach all of their eyes.

The verse is used as evidence that the actions of the servants are by the creation of Allah, the Exalted, and that they only possess the kasb (acquisition) and undertaking of them. The Imam said: He, Glory be to Him, affirmed that he, peace be upon him, was a thrower, and negated that he was a thrower; therefore, it is necessary to interpret it such that he, peace be upon him, threw by way of kasb, and Allah, the Exalted, threw by way of creation. Ibn al-Munir said: The sign of a metaphor is that its negation is true where its affirmation is true. Do you not see that you say to a dullard, "He is a donkey," then you say, "He is not a donkey"? Thus, when He, the Exalted, affirmed the miraculous action and negated it from them, it indicates that its negation is in reality and its affirmation is in metaphor, without doubt. So the verse strikes—nay, it burns—the faces of the Qadariyyah with refutation.

If you say: The rhetoricians made this a case of "treating something as if it were non-existent," and explained it as: "You did not throw in reality, when you threw in appearance," and the apparent throwing exists while the real one did not exist, so there is no "treating as if it were non-existent." The answer is that the apparent, in the presence of the real, is like the non-existent, and it is nothing but like the light of a candle in the radiance of the sun. Therefore, He brought the negation of it absolutely, just as He brought the affirmation of it. What they mentioned is an explanation to correct the meaning in the essence of the matter, and it does not contradict the subtlety based on the apparent. Therefore, he said in the Sharh al-Miftah: "The negation and affirmation are applied to one thing from two perspectives; the negated is the throwing from the perspective of reality, just as the affirmed is the throwing from the perspective of appearance."

The well-known position is to interpret "the throwing" in the place of the istidrak (the "but" clause) as the perfect one, which is the throwing that produced that great effect. It was objected that the absolute applies to the perfect individual because it is the first to come to mind. As for what occurred contrary to custom and beyond the reach of humans, it does not come to mind so as to be applied to it; rather, it is not one of its members. The answer is given that we claim nothing but the perfect individual from that absolute, just as the rule necessitates, and that that individual was contrary to custom and beyond human reach came from an external factor. Describing the throwing with what was mentioned is an explanation of its perfection, and that does not necessitate that it not be one of the members of the absolute. Whoever claims that is being stubborn.

It was objected to the first explanation that it implies interpreting "threw" in the place of the istidrak as "created the throwing," and interpreting "you threw" in the place of the negation as "you created the throwing." The conclusion of the meaning then is: "And you did not create the throwing when it issued from you in appearance, but Allah, the Exalted, created it." It would follow from this that it is correct to say, for example: "You did not stand when you stood, but Allah, the Exalted, stood"—in the sense of "You did not create the standing when it issued from you in appearance, but Allah, Blessed and Exalted, created it." I do not think you are in any doubt as to the invalidity of that. The answer is that the analogy necessitates the correctness of that, but the matter revolves around tawqif (revelatory designation).

It was objected to what the statement of Ibn al-Munir implies—that the meaning is "You did not throw in reality when you threw metaphorically, but Allah, the Exalted, threw in reality"—that the negation of throwing in reality while affirming it metaphorically is among the most manifest of axioms; so what is the benefit in informing of that? It is said: The same objection applies to the statement of the Imam, because the servant's kasb of an action, according to the well-known view among them, is an expression of the servant's being a locus for the action without his power having an effect in creating it; this leads to his undertaking it without creating it, so the meaning becomes "You did not create the throwing when you undertook it and did not create it." It is as you see.

In summary, the speech of most of the People of Truth in interpreting the verse and using it as evidence—and likewise the verse before it—according to their school, is not free from some discussion, and perhaps the answer to it is attainable for those worthy of it.

Some investigators said: He affirmed for him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the throwing because it issued from him, peace be upon him, and negated it from him because its effect is not within human capacity. Therefore, it was counted as a miracle, such that it is as if he, peace be upon him, had no role in it. The basis of the speech is on hyperbole, and it does not necessitate that it not correspond to reality, because its literal meaning is not intended. It is not correct to interpret the verse as [a distinction between] "creation" and "undertaking," because all actions of the servants are by their undertaking and the creation of Allah, the Exalted, so there would be no meaning to specifying this throwing. This view has merit, even if what has been said against it has been said.

As for me, I say: The servant has a power which Allah, the Exalted, created for him, which is effective by His permission. What Allah, the Exalted, wills, happens, and what He does not will, does not happen—not that he has no power at all, as the Jabriyyah say, nor that he has an ineffective power, as is the well-known school of the Ash'arites, nor that he has an effective power by which he does what Allah does not will to be done, as the Mu'tazilah say. The evidences for this have been set out in their proper place, and treatises have been written on them that stop the opponent's mouth with a stone. Establishing the correctness of this view—as well as the well-known view among the Ash'arites—for one who sees it, is not dependent upon the proof of this verse; even if the verse did not stand as a proof, the subject remains without a [need for a] proof.

If the matter is as such, then I see no harm in the throwing affirmed for him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, being the specific throwing upon which resulted what resulted, which astounded minds and bewildered intellects. The affirmation of this for him, peace be upon him, is in reality, in the sense that he performed it by a power given to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which is effective by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. However, because what was mentioned is contrary to custom—since what is known regarding the power granted to humans is that it does not produce such an effect—He negated it from him and affirmed it for Allah, the Exalted, by way of hyperbole. It is as if it were said: That throwing, even if it issued from you in reality by the effective power with the permission of Allah, the Exalted, yet because of the greatness of the matter and its lack of resemblance to human actions, it is as if it did not issue from you, but issued from Allah, the Majestic, without an intermediary.

Likewise, it is permissible that the meaning is: You did not throw with terror when you threw with pebbles, but Allah, the Exalted, threw with terror. So the throwing negated at the beginning and affirmed at the end is different from what is affirmed in between. According to both ways, it appears with the least reflection why the styles of the two verses differ, in that He did not say, "You did not throw, but Allah threw," so as to be in the style of "You did not kill them, but Allah killed them," nor "You did not kill them when you killed them, but Allah killed them," so as to be in the style of "And you threw not when you threw, but it was Allah who threw." No subtlety appears to me in this difference according to the views mentioned by the majority. [The idea] that it is an allusion to the fact that the throwing did not happen in that battle, unlike the killing, but rather happened in Hunayn—in addition to its content—contradicts what is authentically established that both matters were in that battle, as you have known. So reflect, for the path of the intellect is vast.

It is recited "wa-lākin Allāhu" (but Allah) with the lightening [of the nun] and the nominative case of the Majestic Name in both places. "And that He might test the believers with a good test"—meaning that He, the Exalted, might give them from Himself a beautiful giving, untainted by hardships and adversities, on the premise that "trial" (balā') means "giving," as in the statement of Zuhayr: "May Allah reward with goodness what he did for you." He tested them both with the best of trials that one is tested with.

Some of them chose to interpret it as "testing" in war, by the evidence of what follows it. It is said: "So-and-so was tested with a good test," meaning he fought a severe fight and showed great patience. That action was named as such because it is that by which a person is tried, so his fortitude and good effect are revealed. The lam (in li-yubliya) is either for causality, attached to an omitted verb that is delayed, and the waw is for interruption (i.e., for the purpose of favoring them with victory and spoils, He did what He did, and for no other thing than that which would not profit them). Or it is attached to "throwing," and the waw is for conjunction to an omitted cause (i.e., but Allah threw to destroy the disbelievers and to test the believers, etc.).

His, the Exalted’s, saying: "Indeed, Allah is Hearing"—meaning to their supplication and their plea for aid, or to every audible thing, and what was mentioned is included in it—"Knowing"—meaning of their intentions and their circumstances that invite an answer, or to every knowable thing, and what was mentioned is included in it as well, as an explanation for the ruling.