Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:68

It is said: It means had it not been for a ruling from Him, the Exalted, the establishment of which had preceded in the Preserved Tablet, which is that He does not punish a people before providing them with what clarifies a command or prohibition for them. This has been narrated by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat and a group [of scholars] on the authority of Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and Abu al-Shaykh narrated it from Mujahid. Or [it refers to] the one who erred in such an act of ijtihad (independent reasoning).

It is also said: It is that He would not punish them while the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is among them, or that He would not punish the people of Badr—may Allah be pleased with them. Indeed, the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) and others have narrated that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—in the story of Hatib, who had witnessed Badr: "What do you know? Perhaps Allah, the Exalted, looked upon the people of Badr and said: 'Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you.'" Similar to this is what was also narrated from Mujahid and Ibn Jubayr. It is claimed that this is a statement regarding the lifting of religious obligations (taklif), which would not be issued except by one from whom obligation has been lifted. It is astonishing how Imam al-Razi uttered this, for the intent is that whoever among the believers attended Badr, Allah, the Exalted, will grant him success in His obedience, forgive him any sin should it occur, and keep him steadfast upon the faith with which He filled his chest until his meeting [with Him], due to the greatness of that battle; for it was the first battle through which Allah, the Exalted, honored Islam and was the opener of conquests and victory from Allah, the Almighty. The matter in the hadith is not to be taken literally, as is not hidden [to the intelligent].

It is also said: It is that the ransom which they took would eventually become lawful for them. This was countered by the fact that this is not suitable to be counted among the preventions of being touched by punishment; for a subsequent lawfulness does not abrogate the ruling of a previous prohibition, just as a subsequent prohibition—as in the case of alcohol, for example—does not abrogate the ruling of previous permissibility. Furthermore, it is a criticism of the severity of the rebuke regarding their taking of the ransom, as indicated by His, the Glorified, saying: "would have touched you" (meaning: would have afflicted you) "for what you took" (meaning: because of your taking, or for that which you took of the ransom) "a great punishment" (the magnitude of which cannot be estimated). It was answered that there is no impediment to considering the fact that it would eventually be lawful as a cause for pardon and a prevention against the occurrence of worldly punishment, which is what is intended by the verse—even if it is not considered at any point that what is permissible would become prohibited as a cause for retribution and a prevention of pardon, due to favoring the aspect of mercy over the other aspect. The substance of the meaning is: What you did is a grave matter in itself, necessitating a great punishment, but the very thing that caused the pardon—the fact that I will soon make it lawful for you—prevented the consequences of the punishment from attaching to it. And such a thing, in view of My mercy that preceded My wrath, becomes a cause for pardon and a prevention of punishment. It seems the motive for resorting to this answer is that what was mentioned was recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduwayh on the authority of Abu Hurayrah—may Allah be pleased with him—and both al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded it on the authority of Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—as well.

It does not seem far-fetched to me that the prevention of the touch of punishment is the sum of all that preceded. In that, there is a magnifying of the matter for which He rebuked them, as multiple barriers prevented the consequences of the touch of punishment from attaching to it; and were it not for those multiple barriers, it would have attached. The multiplicity of causes for a single thing is permissible, and it is not like the multiplicity of causes and their conjunction upon a single personal effect, as has been explained in its place. Through this, one can reconcile the different narrations from the 'Scholar' (Ibn Abbas) in explaining this 'Book' (decree): that in each instance, he mentioned one of those matters, and the specification of a thing by mention does not imply the negation of what is other than it. There is nothing in any of the narrations that implies restriction, so understand.

Some said: The meaning is, "Had it not been for the ruling of Allah, the Exalted, regarding your victory and triumph, a great punishment would have touched you from your enemies," through them prevailing over you and being empowered against you, killing, capturing, and plundering. In this, there is a scrutiny, because if this supposed victory is intended as the victory at Badr, the taking [of the ransom], which is the cause of it, only occurred after the end of the battle. At that point, the outcome of the meaning would be: "Had it not been for the ruling of Allah, the Exalted, regarding your victory, the disbelievers would have defeated you beforehand because of what you did later," and this is [incoherent], as you see. If the victory after that is intended, it did indeed touch the people at Uhud, for their enemies killed seventy of them—the number of the captives—and what happened, happened; so denying the 'touch' at that time is not correct. Yes, Ibn Jarir recorded from Muhammad ibn Ishaq that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said upon the revelation of this verse: "Had a punishment been sent down from the heaven, none would have been saved from it except Umar ibn al-Khattab and Sa'd ibn Mu'adh," because of his saying: "The slaughter in killing was more beloved to me." And Ibn Marduwayh recorded it from Ibn Umar, but he did not mention Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. That indicates that what is meant by the punishment is a worldly punishment other than killing, which was not known [to them], because it was a descent from the heaven. At that point, the objection that many of them were martyred does not apply, because martyrdom is not considered a punishment. However, this does not benefit that speaker, because he did not interpret the punishment as anything other than 'victory' (defeat), and that is true in the case of martyrdom.