Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:67

(It is not for a prophet...) Abu al-Darda’ and Abu Haywah read it as lil-nabi (for the Prophet) with the definite article. The one intended is our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He, upon him be peace and prayer, is also the one intended according to the reading of the majority, according to some. The expression was used in this manner as a courtesy toward him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so that he would not be directly confronted with censure. Thus, it is said: that is based on the assumption of an omitted possessor—that is, for the companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—evidenced by the Almighty’s saying that follows: "(You desire)..." Had it been intended for him specifically, may peace and blessings be upon him, it would have been said: "You [singular] desire." Furthermore, the events that took place in the story originated from them, not from him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. There is an obvious consideration here, but the apparent meaning according to the majority’s reading is generality. It is not unlikely to consider it as such even according to the other reading, and it is more eloquent, as it serves to explain that what is mentioned is a standard tradition among the prophets, peace be upon them. That is, it was not valid or straightforward for any prophet among the prophets, may peace and blessings be upon them, (that he should have captives). Abu ‘Amr and Ya’qub read takun (feminine) taking into account the feminine plural. It is narrated from Abu Ja’far that he read asara (instead of asra). Abu ‘Ali said: The reading of the group is more analogical because asir (captive) is a fa’il form in the sense of maf’ul (passive participle), and the standard rule for its plural is fa’la, like jarih (wounded) and jarha, or qatil (killed) and qatla. Thus, they said regarding its pluralization as asara: it is based on assimilating the fa’il form to fa’lan, like kaslan (lazy) and kasala. This is as they said kasla by assimilating fa’lan to fa’il. This is attributed to al-Khalil. Al-Azhari said: It is a plural of asra, making it a plural of a plural, and al-Zajjaj chose this. He said: fa’la is a plural for anyone afflicted in their body or mind, such as marid (sick) and marda, or ahmaq (foolish) and hamqa. (Until he dominates in the land)—that is, until he acts excessively in killing and increases it, until disbelief is humbled, its party diminished, and Islam is fortified and its people take control. The root meaning of thakhana is thickness and density in objects, then it was metaphorically applied to the intensity of killing and wounding, because by preventing movement, it renders the subject like something thickened that does not flow. It is said that the metaphor is based on comparing the aforementioned intensity to thickness in that each of them possesses, in some measure, severity. Mentioning "in the land" is for generalization. It was also read yuthkhin with tashdid (doubling the letter) to signify an intensification of intensity. (You desire the vanities of this world)—this is a new beginning (isti’naf) directed toward censure. ’Arad is that which has no stability, even if it has a physical form. In the hadith: "The world is a present ’arad," meaning it has no stability. From this, they derived the ’arad (accident) that stands in contrast to the jawhar (substance), meaning: you desire the wreckage of this world by taking the ransom. It was also read yuriduna (they desire) with the ya'. The apparent meaning is that the plural pronoun refers to the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. (And Allah desires the Hereafter)—that is, He desires for you the reward of the Hereafter, or the cause for attaining the Hereafter through obedience by strengthening His religion and suppressing His enemies. Therefore, the speech involves an omitted possessor, with the possessive noun taking its place. The mention of "attainment" in the second interpretation is said to be for clarification, not for assuming two omitted possessors. "Desire" here means pleasure (rida); it was expressed this way for mushakala (stylistic likeness). Thus, there is no proof in the verse for the non-occurrence of what Allah desires, as the Mu’tazila claim; and the addition of "for you" is because that is what is intended. Sulayman ibn Jammaz al-Madani read al-akhirati (the Hereafter) in the genitive case (al-jarr). This is explained as omitting the possessor and keeping the possessive noun in its genitive state. Abu al-Baqa’ estimated it as: "the vanities of the Hereafter." This is a case of mushakala, otherwise it would not be sound because the affairs of the Hereafter are eternal. If it were said that the omitted possessor in the first reading is that (vanity) for that (Hereafter), it would not be far-fetched. Some estimated here, as we estimated there, the reward or the cause. A parallel to what is mentioned is the verse: "Every man you deem a man, and fire burning in the night [as] fire." And in a transmission where the first "fire" is genitive, Abu al-Hasan attributes it to the conjunction of the two objects of two different agents. (And Allah is Exalted in Might)—He overcomes His allies over His enemies—(All-Wise)—He knows what is appropriate for every situation and assigns it to it, just as He commanded the domination (ithkhan) and forbade taking ransom when Islam was still delicate and the power of its enemies was strong. He gave [the Prophet] the choice between grace or ransom with the Almighty’s saying: "(Then either grace afterward or ransom)" when the situation changed, the plantation of Islam grew strong, and it stood straight upon its stalks.

[The narration of Ibn Mas’ud follows regarding the captives of Badr, including al-Abbas, the diverse counsel of the companions, the Prophet’s comparison of them to the prophets (Abraham, Jesus, Moses, and Noah), and the revelation of the verse following the acceptance of ransom.]

The verse is used as evidence that the prophets, peace be upon them, may practice ijtihad (independent reasoning), and that revelation may come contrary to it, and they are not confirmed in error. This has been countered by saying that it only indicates that if an omitted possessor is not assumed in "It is not for a prophet..."—for the companions of the prophet—and it is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning. Furthermore, permitting them in what they exercised ijtihad is an ijtihad from him, upon him be peace and prayer, since it is not possible that it be imitation (taqlid), as imitation is not permissible for him. As for the claim that it only indicates the ijtihad of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and not the ijtihad of other prophets, peace be upon them, it is invalid because if it is permissible for him, it is permissible for others by way of priority (tariq al-awla). The complete discussion is in the books of usul. However, one thing remains here: it has been narrated that "whoever exercises ijtihad and is mistaken has one reward, and whoever exercises ijtihad and is correct has ten rewards." Is there a contradiction between what the report necessitates regarding the confirmation of a single reward for the mistaken mujtahid and his censure for what occurs from him, or not? I have not seen anyone who has dealt with verifying this. And if it is said that it is the former, the evidence from the verse does not hold, as is not hidden.