Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:25

That is, its striking shall not be limited to those among you who actively commit the wrong, but rather it shall encompass them and others besides them. The fitnah (trial/tribulation) is intended here as sin. It has been interpreted as the likes of tacitly approving of evil, being compromising in enjoining good and forbidding evil, the division of the word [unity], the emergence of innovations, and laziness in Jihad, as the meaning dictates.

The one struck in this interpretation is the athar (consequence), such as the shāmah (mark/blemish) and the wabāl (heinous consequence). In this case, one must either posit an omitted term or use a metaphorical application in the term "striking." It has been permitted that the meaning intended is "the torment," so there is no need for positing or metaphor in what was mentioned, as its striking occurs by itself. Likewise, there is no need to commit to positing something on the side of the command, nor to commit to istikhdām (using a word in two senses).

The lām is negative, and the negative sentence is said to be the response to the command, in the sense that your being struck will not strike those who have wronged among you [exclusively]. This has been objected to on the grounds that the response to a command can only be evaluated by a verb of the same genus as the command being expressed, not the genus of the response. Even if that were posited to satisfy the rule, the meaning would be corrupted, for it would mean: "If you fear the trial, its striking will encompass you and will not be limited to the wrongdoers among you." As you can see, this is [unacceptable].

It was answered that the original speech is: "Fear a trial; and it shall not strike you. But if it strikes you, it will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively; rather, it will encompass you all." Thus, the response to the second conditional was placed in the position of the response to the implicit condition in the response to the command, because it is caused by it; and it is named the response to the command because the transaction with it is verbal.

However, it is clear that the generality of the striking is not caused by the absence of the striking, nor by the command, while the outward form of the expression necessitates it.

Some investigators said: This is according to the view of the Kufans regarding the positing of what suits the speech, without committing to the posited element being of the same genus as the expressed word (negation or affirmation). Thus, in expressions like "Do not draw near the lion, it will eat you," they posit affirmation: "If you draw near, it will eat you." And in expressions like "Fear a trial," they posit negation: "If you do not fear it, it will strike you."

It was objected to this that the speaker did not posit this or that, but rather posited what makes the meaning upright without looking at the content of the command or its opposite. It was answered that his intent is: "If you do not fear it, it will strike you; and if it strikes you, it will not be limited to the wrongdoers." Thus, the response to the second conditional was placed in the position of the response to the implicit conditional which is the opposite of the command, because it is caused by it. The objection raised against this—that there is no need to consider the intermediary, as it suffices to say: "If you do not fear [it], it will not strike the wrongdoers exclusively"—is, aside from being a verbal debate, refuted by the slightest reflection; for the fact that the striking of the trial is not limited to the wrongdoers can be due to its generality to them and others, just as it can be due to it not striking them at all. Therefore, the consideration of the intermediary is absolutely necessary.

Some later scholars said: The intent of those who posited "If it strikes you" is "If you do not fear [it]," following the school of those who see the positing of negation, but he expressed it with "striking" due to their correlation. Thus, the issue of the intermediary does not arise.

Yes, it has been said that the response to the conditional is hesitant, so it is not appropriate to emphasize it with the nūn (emphatic), as emphasis requires the removal of hesitation. It was answered that here it is ṭalabī (solicitous) in meaning, so it is emphasized just as the ṭalabī is emphasized; and this does not contradict the hesitation in its occurrence, because there is no hesitation in the request for it. Furthermore, it has been said that even if it is hesitant in itself for being suspended upon that which is hesitant—which is the condition—it is not hesitant according to the condition. And upon the supposition of its occurrence, it is appropriate to emphasize it with that consideration.

You know that Ibn Jinni preferred that the negative not be emphasized in broad usage due to its resemblance to prohibition, as in His saying—Exalted is He—: "Enter your dwellings; let not Solomon crush you." Nasir al-Din said: Since this response includes the meaning of prohibition, its emphasis is permissible. The aspect of this is that if the negation is requested, it is in the meaning of prohibition and in its ruling, so emphasis is permissible in it, just as in explicit prohibition. It is not hidden that their not being in a state where the trial strikes them is requested, just as their not being crushed by Solomon and his armies is likewise [requested].

It was permitted that the negative sentence be in the position of an accusative acting as an adjective for "trial." It was objected that this contains irregularity because the nūn does not enter the negative outside of an oath. It may be answered that you have known that Ibn Jinni, as well as some grammarians, permitted that, and Ibn Malik approved it in at-Tashīl. Yes, what was mentioned is the speech of the majority.

Abu al-Baqa and others said: It is possible that lā is prohibitive, and the sentence is in the position of an adjective also, but upon the intention of "the saying," like his saying: "Even when the darkness covered and mixed, they brought some milk; have you ever seen the wolf?" Because it is well-known that the inshā’ī (non-declarative) sentence, whether prohibitive or otherwise, does not function as an adjective and the like except by positing "the saying." They have explicitly stated that your saying: "I passed by a man, may I strike him," is with the positing of "said about him: may I strike him." The intent of the "saying" is not narration, but rather his deserving of that, as if it were said about him. Some people have permitted the description with it considering its interpretation as "one whose striking is requested," so the positing of "the saying" is not determined.

It is also possible that the sentence is the response to an implicit oath, i.e., "By Allah, it shall not strike the wrongdoers exclusively, but it shall encompass [others]." In this case, the matter of emphasis becomes apparent. This is supported by the recitation of Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ubayy, Ibn Mas’ud, al-Baqir, al-Rabi’, and Abu al-‘Aliyah: "li-tuṣībanna" (for it will surely strike), for the oath-like nature is apparent in it. It is said that the original is lā (no), but the alif was dropped for lightness, as they said "am wa-llāh" (or by Allah). Some said that the lā in the mutawātir (widely transmitted) recitation is the lām (emphasis), and the alif was generated from the saturation of the fatḥah, as in his saying: "For you are one of the ‘Awatik when you throw, and from the disparagement of men in a remote place." Neither of these two sayings can be relied upon.

It is possible that it is a prohibitive [sentence] initiated to confirm the command and emphasize it; and it is from the category of metonymy, because the trial is not prohibited from striking, as the carrying out of the [prohibition] by it is not imaginable in any state. The meaning then is: "Do not expose yourselves to wrong-doing, lest the trial strike you exclusively."

The min (in "among you"), upon the supposition that lā is prohibitive—whether the sentence is made an adjective or an emphasis of the command—is explicative (bayāniyyah), not partitive (tab’īḍiyyah). For if it were considered as such, the prohibition against exposing oneself to wrong-doing would be limited to the wrongdoers among them, not others, and the non-wrongdoer would not be prohibited from exposing himself to it by the literal wording of the verse; and that is something not intended.

As for the other aspects—that lā is negative, not prohibitive, whether His saying—Exalted is He—"la-tuṣībanna" is an adjective for "trial," as is apparent, or a response to the command, or a response to an oath—it is certainly partitive, because the verse, in all these suppositions, is reporting that the striking of the trial is not limited to the wrongdoers, but encompasses others besides them. If "those who have wronged" were explained as the addressees, it would imply that the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—were all wrongdoers, and far be it from them.

Furthermore, it is not hidden that when the address is general to the Ummah and the trial is interpreted as the tacit approval of evil, the difficulty regarding the generality of the striking does not arise from His saying—Exalted is He—: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another," because just as it is obligatory upon the perpetrator of the sin to desist from it, it is obligatory upon the remainder to remove it; and if they do not do so, they are sinful, so what strikes them strikes them because of their own sin.

And replacing the [need for] the requirement is what was narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—: Allah—Exalted is He—commanded the believers not to tacitly approve of evil in their midst, lest Allah—Exalted is He—encompass them with a torment that strikes the wrongdoer and the one who is not a wrongdoer. Al-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud narrated from Qays ibn Hazim from Abu Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah—may Allah be pleased with him—saying: "Indeed, if people see the wrongdoer and do not take him by the hand, it is likely that Allah will encompass them with a punishment." Al-Tirmidhi also narrated from Ibn Mas’ud who said: The Messenger of Allah—may Allah be pleased with him—said: "When the Children of Israel fell into sins, their scholars forbade them, but they did not desist; so they sat with them in their gatherings, ate with them, and drank with them. Consequently, Allah struck the hearts of some of them with others and cursed them by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary. That is because they disobeyed and used to transgress."

Whoever held that the address is specific interpreted the trial as the division of the word, and made that a reference to what happened between the companions of Badr on the Day of the Camel. Among those who held that they are the ones meant are al-Suddi and others. Many narrated from al-Zubayr who said: "We recited this verse for a time, not seeing that we were among its people, until we became the ones meant by it." And their prohibition from that was narrated in the most eloquent way, and the wrongdoers were put in the place of their pronoun to warn that the exposure to the trial—which is the division of the word—is among the gravest of wrongs, especially from these exalted ones. Then it was explained with their pronoun as an indication of the specificity, and it was emphasized with "exclusively." Often, the matter is sternly emphasized upon the elite. "And know that Allah is severe in punishment" for whoever opposes His command, and likewise [for] whoever tacitly approves of one who violates His sanctuaries.