Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:15

(And He shall remove the rage of their hearts) due to the harm that befell them, which they were unable to repel. It is also said that the meaning is the removal of their rage caused by the violation of the sanctities of Allah (Exalted be He), the disbelief in Him, and the denial of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The apparent implication of the conjunction is that removing the rage is distinct from "healing the breasts." This is explained by saying that "healing" occurs through the killing and humiliation of the enemies, while "removing the rage" occurs through granting victory over them entirely. It is also said that removing the rage is like an emphasis for the healing of the breasts, and its benefit lies in the intensification of their joy at the blessing Allah (Exalted be He) bestows upon them by punishing their enemies, disgracing them, and granting them—the believers—victory over them. Perhaps removing the rage from the heart is more profound than that which it is conjoined to, thus its mention serves as an escalation, which is not without merit.

It is also said that the healing of the breasts occurs merely by the promise of victory, while the removal of the rage occurs upon the actual occurrence of the victory. This is not sound, as Allah (Exalted be He) has fulfilled all that He promised them in the most beautiful manner. Therefore, the verse is among the miracles, for it contains information about the unseen and the occurrence of what was foretold.

It has been inferred from this verse that the actions of servants are created by Allah (Exalted be He). It is said that attributing the punishment to Him (Exalted be He) is metaphorical, in the sense that He empowered them to perform it and enabled them to do so. In the Hawashi al-Shihabiyyah, it is stated that His saying (Exalted be He), "by your hands," is like an explicit declaration that such actions, which are befitting the Creator, are His actions (Exalted be He), while the servant has only the kasb (acquisition) through the application of faculties and tools.

To interpret this as a metaphorical attribution is not favored by those well-versed in the styles of speech. Nor is the argument that one must accept the impossibility of saying "Allah wrote with your hands" or "Allah lied with the tongues of the disbelievers" a valid objection; for the mere creation of an act does not justify attributing it to the Creator unless it is a suitable site for it. The impossibility of what was mentioned is to avoid the ugliness of the phrasing, as one does not say: "O Creator of filth," nor "the ordainer of adultery," nor "the one who enables it."

Then he (the author of the marginalia) said: "The deficiency in this is clear, for He (Exalted be He) is not a suitable site for killing, striking, or the like, which are intended to humiliate; rather, He is their Creator. The action is not attributed truly to its Creator, even if He is the true agent, due to the difference between Him and the linguistic agent." For it is not said that "Allah wrote with Zayd's hand" as a literal truth without doubt, despite there being no ugliness in it, due to His saying (Exalted be He): "Allah wrote." Therefore, what he mentioned is not accepted.

I say: The scholars of investigation have already satisfied the need regarding the issue of the creation of actions, so there is no need to expand the discussion upon it. They have spoken about this verse as they have spoken, but one thing remains: the secret in attributing the punishment to Him (Exalted be He) and mentioning the hands. Perhaps in this attribution, the intent is intensification, for it is the punishment of Allah, the Mighty, the Wise, even if it is by the hands of the servants. As for mentioning the hands, it is either to specify that this occurs in this world and not in the Hereafter, or so that the good news of the punishment is in the most perfect form—the form upon which the healing of the breasts and the like are realized in the most complete manner. For there is a difference between the enemy being punished by the hand of his enemy and being punished not by his hand. By my life, the former is sweeter and more impactful upon the soul. So understand.

It is clear how much harmony the verse contains, as a complete line of poetry can be derived from it.

(And He accepts repentance from whom He wills): This is an initial notification that some of those whom they were ordered to fight will repent from their disbelief, and so Allah (Exalted be He) will accept their repentance. This indeed happened, as people among them accepted Islam, and their Islam was sincere. Al-A'raj, Ibn Abi Ishaq, Isa al-Thaqafi, and Amr ibn Ubayd read it as (wa-yatuba) in the accusative case (nasb), which has also been narrated from Abu Amr and Ya'qub. Al-Zajjaj found this problematic, arguing that Allah’s acceptance of repentance from whom He wills is a reality whether they fought or did not fight, and what is in the accusative case as a response to a command is caused by it; thus, there is no justification for including repentance in its response.

Ibn Jinni said: "This is like your saying: 'If you visit me, I will do good to you, and give Zayd such and such,' on the condition that the result of the visit is both things together, not that each is a result independently." They have said the like of this regarding His saying (Exalted be He): "Indeed, We have given you a clear conquest, that Allah may forgive you what preceded of your sin and what followed," etc. In this, there is artificiality.

Some said that when He (Exalted be He) commanded them to fight, it was burdensome for some. If they fought, their fighting would count as repentance from that aversion. Thus the meaning becomes: "If you fight them, Allah will punish them and accept your repentance from the aversion to fighting them." It is clear that the apparent meaning is that the repentance is for the disbelievers. Some researchers mentioned that the inclusion of repentance in the sentence which responds to the command is from the perspective of meaning, because it is considered to be in the accusative by the fa (particle), which is the reverse of "speak truthfully, and I shall be..." and this is what is called "conjunction by delusion." The basis for this is that the fighting is a cause for the shattering of their power and the removal of their arrogance, and thus, it results in their contemplation and return from disbelief, as happened with Abu Sufyan, Ikrimah, and others. The qualification "from whom He wills" is to point out that it is the primary cause, while the former is a customary cause, and to alert that the leading of fighting to repentance is not the same as its leading to the remaining outcomes.

Some of the eminent scholars claimed that the reading in the nominative case is based on regard for the meaning, since a nominative imperfect verb is mentioned after a jussive, which is a response to a command. From this, it is understood that the meaning is "and He accepts the repentance of whom He wills" as a presupposition of contrast to what they see of your steadfastness and their own weakness. As for the reading in the accusative, it is a regard for the wording, as it is conjoined to the jussive [and interpreted as] being in the accusative with a presupposed accusative marker. But this is of no substance. The truth is that, in the nominative, it is an independent commencement, as we have already presented.

(And Allah is All-Knowing): Nothing is hidden from Him. (Wise): He does not act nor command except with that which contains wisdom and benefit. So comply with His command (Exalted be He). The preference for manifesting the Majestic Name over using a pronoun is to foster awe and instill reverence.