Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:23

"any good" (Meaning: any particle of the genus of good, from which is the directing of their faculties toward seeking the truth and following guidance)

"He would have made them hear" (A hearing of contemplation and understanding; they would have grasped the truth, believed in the Messenger—peace and blessings be upon him—and obeyed him.)

"And if He had made them hear" (A hearing of understanding and contemplation)

"while He already knew there was no good in them"

"they would have turned away" (They would not have benefited from it, and they would have apostatized after confirming and accepting it)

"while they were averse" (Due to their obstinacy. The sentence is an emphatic state (hal) accompanied by the particle wa.)

From what has been mentioned, the answer is known to the claim that: "The verse constitutes a conjunctive syllogism composed of two conditionals whose conclusion is incorrect." This is addressed, firstly, by forbidding the intent toward a syllogism due to the absence of a universal major premise, and secondly, by denying the corruption of the result, for the necessary consequence is: "If Allah had known any good in them at a certain time, they would have turned away thereafter." This is what some investigators have stated.

In al-Mughni, the answer is provided in three ways: Two return to denying that the mentioned structure is a syllogism, due to the difference in the middle term. One is that the estimation is: "He would have made them hear with a beneficial hearing; and if He had made them hear with a non-beneficial hearing, they would have turned away." The second is to estimate: "And if He had made them hear upon the premise of knowing there was no good in them," as has been pointed out. The third pertains to denying the impossibility of the result assuming it is a syllogism with a unified middle term; for the estimation is: "If Allah had known any good in them at any time, they would have turned away after that."

The weakness of the first answer is not hidden, because there is no evidence to restrict "if He had made them hear" to "non-beneficial hearing," and because it verifies for them a non-beneficial hearing—unless it is restricted to hearing after the revelation of this verse. Likewise is the weakness of the third, because His knowing of good—even at a certain time—does not necessitate turning away, but rather the opposite. As for the second answer, it is strong, because the first conditional serves as a context for restricting the "hearing" in the second conditional to the premise of knowing that there is no good in them.

Some have mentioned in the answer that the two conditionals are muhmala (indefinite), while the major premise of the first figure must be universal. Even if granted, they only produce a result if they are lazumiyya (necessary) conditionals, which is denied. And even if granted, the impossibility of the result is denied; meaning: we do not concede the impossibility of judging the necessity (luzum) between the antecedent and the consequent, even if both sides are impossible. For it is impossible that Allah would know any good in them, and it is permissible for the impossible to entail the impossible, even if there is no rational relationship between them, according to the verification that a relationship is not required for the impossible to entail the impossible.

It has been objected to the original question that the word "if" (law) is not used in eloquent speech for a conjunctive syllogism; it is only used in a disjunctive syllogism in which the negation of the consequent is excepted, because it is for the impossibility of a thing due to the impossibility of another. Thus, one does not explicitly except the negation of the consequent. It was also objected to the answer that it concedes the aforementioned is a syllogism while denying it produces a result due to the absence of the conditions for production. How is it correct to believe that a syllogism occurred in the speech of the All-Wise—Exalted is He—in which the conditions of production were neglected, even if His intent was not its syllogistic nature?

It is stated that the truth is that His saying—Exalted is He—("If Allah had known in them any good") is set upon the rule of language, meaning that the cause for the lack of hearing is the lack of knowledge of any good in them. Then, He began His saying—Exalted is He—("And if He had made them hear, they would have turned away") as a separate statement, following the method of "If God did not fear, He would not be disobeyed." The conclusion is that it is a statement disconnected from what preceded it, and its intent is to affirm their state in all times, as it claims the necessity of that which contradicts it, to convey its establishment upon the assumption of the condition and its absence. The meaning of the verse is then that hearing was negated due to the negation of the knowledge of good, and that they are persistent in turning away. In the first conditional, the necessity (luzum) is in objective reality, and in the second, it is idda'i (declarative/rhetorical); thus, it is not in the form of a syllogism.

The second scholar said: It is permissible for "turning away" to be negated due to the negation of "hearing," as is the requirement of the original usage of "if" (law), because "turning away" signifies aversion from a thing—as is the origin of its meaning—not the absolute meaning of denial and rejection. Upon the estimation of not making them hear that thing, "turning away" and "aversion" are not realized, because aversion from a thing is a branch of its realization. It does not follow from this the realization of "submission" to it, because submission to a thing and non-submission are not at the two ends of a contradiction, but rather both may be absent due to the absence of that thing. The gist of it, as has been said, is that when "turning away" means aversion, it is permissible for "if" to be in its well-known sense, and the intent is to inform that the negation of the second in external reality is due to the negation of the first in it, just like the first conditional. A syllogism is not formed from them, as the intent is not to show that the first entails the second in objective reality in order to deduce a result, but rather to consider the causality and necessity between them so that the causality between the two negations—known in external reality—is understood.

As for what is said: "The negation of turning away is good, and it was mentioned that there is no good in them," the answer is that we do not concede that the negation of turning away due to the negation of hearing is "good." It is not permissible for that to be due to the lack of capacity for hearing, for that is a chronic disease and a great evil. It would only be "good" if they were of those capable of it, such that they were made to hear a thing and then they submitted to it and did not turn away. This is like saying: "There is no good in so-and-so if he had the strength to kill the Muslims," for the lack of killing the Muslims based on the lack of strength and power is not a "good" in him, even if it is a "good" for him.

Al-Sharif—may his secret be sanctified—refuted this with what al-Salkuti—may mercy be upon him—followed up on. Yes, our master Muhammad Amin ibn Sadr al-Din said: "Carrying 'turning away' here to mean 'aversion' is impossible due to His—Exalted is He—saying: 'while they were averse.' It necessitates that it be carried either to the logical consequence of its meaning—which is the lack of reception because aversion follows it—or to its prerequisite, which is apostasy, because aversion follows from it. So understand."

From al-Jubba'i: They used to say to the Messenger of Allah—may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him: "Bring to us Qusayy, for he was a blessed elder, so that he may testify for you and we will believe in you." So the meaning is: "And if He had made them hear the speech of Qusayy..."

It is said: They are the Banu 'Abd al-Dar ibn Qusayy; none of them embraced Islam except Mus'ab ibn 'Umayr and Suwayd ibn Harmala. They used to say: "We are deaf, dumb, and blind to what Muhammad has brought; we do not hear it and we do not answer him." May Allah fight them! They were all killed at Uhud, and they were the standard-bearers. From Ibn Jurayj: They are the hypocrites. From al-Hasan: They are the People of the Scripture. The nominal sentence is in the place of a state (hal) from the pronoun in "they turned away." It is permissible that it be a parenthetical tadhyil (appended clause), meaning: they are a people whose habit is aversion.