Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:6

(And if anyone) This is a commencement of the clarification regarding the ruling for those who approach the initial stages of repentance—by listening to the word of Allah, the Exalted, and reflecting upon the rites of the religion—following the exposition of the ruling for those who have repented from disbelief and those who persist in it. Therein lies the removal of what might be erroneously imagined from His saying, the Almighty: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists," for the proof has been established against them, and the arguments and clear signs which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, mentioned before are sufficient to negate their excuse; asking for further evidence is no longer to be heeded.

(And) is conditional, and the noun is in the nominative case due to a latent condition, which is explained by the overt noun, not by virtue of being an initial subject (ibtida'). Whoever claims the latter has erred, as Al-Zajjaj said, because 'In' (if), due to the fact that it governs an action specific to verbs—either in pronunciation or in implication—is specific to them; thus, it is not correct for it to enter upon nouns. That is: If one (of the polytheists) seeks your protection—meaning, asks you for security and requests to be in your vicinity after the expiration of the stipulated term—(then grant him protection) meaning, grant him security (so that he may hear the word of Allah) and reflect upon it, and gain insight into the truth of what you invite to. The limitation to mentioning 'hearing' is because there is no need for anything else for the sake of understanding, as they are a people of eloquence and proficiency. The intended meaning of "the word of Allah, the Exalted" is the verses that contain what points to monotheism and the negation of likenesses and resemblances. It has been said: It means Surah Bara'ah. It has also been said: It means the entire Quran, because the completion of the arguments and clear signs is within it.

(So that) is for the purpose of causal explanation, connected to what precedes it. The verse is not an instance of tanaazu' (contention between two verbs over a single object), as stated explicitly by the learned Ibn al-Adil, where he said: "This is not permissible according to the majority due to a technical, linguistic requirement. For if we were to treat it as that category and let the first verb govern—meaning, 'istajaraka'—it would necessitate affirming what is impossible according to them, which is the governing of 'hatta' (so that) over a pronoun." They have said that this is not committed except in cases of necessity, as in the saying: "No, by Allah, no youth will be found... up to you (hatta-ka), O son of Abi Ziyad." The necessity being that those who permit the second verb to govern concede that the first requires what was mentioned, especially according to the school of the Kufans, which is built upon the preference for the first verb's governance. Whoever permits the second to govern a pronoun considers it correct because the impediment is removed in that case.

The literal wording of some scholars suggests the permissibility of connecting it to 'istajaraka', where one said: "There is no motive for connecting it to 'ajirhu' (grant him protection) except the suspicion that it necessitates a specific estimation." If we assume the connection to the first verb: "And if one of the polytheists seeks your protection until he hears the word of Allah, then grant him protection hatta-hu (until he hears it),"—would any rational person say that the completion of your statement, "If Zayd asks you for security for such-and-such a matter, then grant him security," depends upon you saying for that matter—even if we assumed the necessity and the requirement of an estimation—but what is the necessity of the estimation "hatta-hu," which is impossible outside of necessity? And why is it not permitted to estimate the first part, or "hatta yasma'ahu" (until he hears it), or something else with the same meaning?

Another said: The necessity of an impossible ellipsis upon estimating the governance of the first does not determine the governance of the second; the construction does not leave the category of tanaazu', but rather, in that case, one resorts to omission. If that is also impossible, then a manifest noun is mentioned, as is gathered from the words of Najm al-A'immah and other researchers.

It may be said that the factor preventing it from being of the tanaazu' category is that the intention is not to explain the "seeking of protection" by what is mentioned, just as the intention is to explain the "granting of protection" by it. Indeed, the Shaykh al-Islam said that connecting the granting of protection to hearing the word of Allah, the Exalted, necessitates that the seeking of protection also be related to that, or to matters of religion of a similar nature. Regarding what was narrated from Ali—may Allah, the Exalted, ennoble his countenance—that a man from the polytheists came to him and said: "If a man among us wants to come to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, after the expiration of this term to hear the word of Allah, or for a need, will he be killed?" He replied: "No, because Allah, the Exalted, says: 'And if one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection,' etc." The intended meaning of the "need" mentioned therein is the need related to religion, not that which includes it and other worldly needs, as indicated by his saying "that he come to Muhammad." For whoever comes to him, peace and blessings be upon him, only comes for matters related to religion. This is the end of his words, but it is unsubstantial because the apparent meaning of that speaker's words is generality, and thus the reply of the Commander—may Allah, the Exalted, ennoble his countenance—is a support for what we have said. The claim that "whoever comes to him, peace and blessings be upon him, only comes for matters related to religion" is a manifest denial, so the structure of the deduction is not sound.

More than one scholar permitted 'hatta' to be for the sake of the limit (ending point), and the aforementioned report and the elegance of the meaning bear witness to it being for the purpose of causal explanation. Indeed, Mawla Sari al-Din al-Misri said: If one makes it for the limit, it is rejected by His saying, the Almighty: "Then deliver him to his place of safety" after his hearing. And if he does not believe, (his place of safety) means his residence where he is safe, or the location of his security, which is the dwellings of his people; on the basis that ma'man is a noun of place or a verbal noun with the estimation of a genitive, and the first is more preferable for being free from the burden of estimation.

The conditional sentence, according to what he explained in al-Kashshaf, is a conjunction to His saying, the Almighty: "Kill the polytheists." There is no proof in the verse for the Mu'tazilah regarding the negation of the "Inner Speech" (Al-Kalam al-Nafsi), because "hearing" may be attributed to it by consideration of that which indicates it, or it may be said that "speech" is a homonym, or spoken of through truth and metaphor regarding the "Inner Speech" and "Spoken Speech." It does not necessarily follow from the determination of one in a specific context that the other is negated in reality. What relates to this context has already preceded in the introductions, so remember that.

(That is, the security or the command) (Because they are a people who do not know) the nature of Islam or the truth of what you invite them to; or they are an ignorant people. Therefore, it is necessary to grant security until they understand that, and no excuse whatsoever remains for them. The verse, as Al-Hasan said, is decisive. Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Sa'id ibn Abi 'Arubah that it is abrogated by the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "And fight the polytheists collectively as they fight you collectively." This has also been narrated from Al-Suddi and Al-Dahhak. What Al-Hasan said is better. There is a difference of opinion regarding the duration of the respite; it is said: four months, and Al-Naysaburi mentioned that this is the correct view in the Shafi'i school. It is also said: It is delegated to the discretion of the Imam, and perhaps that is the most plausible.