Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:7

"How can there be for the polytheists a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger?" is an elucidation of the wisdom necessitating what preceded regarding the disavowal (bara'ah) and its consequences. The "polytheists" refers to those who breached the covenant, for the disavowal pertains specifically to their situation. The interrogative is for the denial of the occurrence [of such a covenant]. "How" (kayfa) is in the position of the accusative, acting as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) or a substitute for a predicate.

Many have stated that the verb (yakun) is incomplete, and "how" (kayfa) is its predicate, which is necessarily placed at the beginning because the interrogative must occupy the initial position in a sentence. "For the polytheists" (lil-mushrikin) is connected to yakun—for those who permit incomplete verbs to be governed by prepositional phrases—or it is an adjective for "covenant" (‘ahd) that was placed before it, thus becoming a circumstantial qualifier (hal).

"With" (‘inda) is connected either to yakun according to what has passed, or to "covenant" because it is a verbal noun (masdar), or to an implied term that serves as an adjective for it. It is also permissible for the predicate to be "for the polytheists," while "with" follows the previously mentioned possibilities. It is also permissible to connect it to the stability (istiqrar) to which "for the polytheists" is connected, or that the predicate is "with Allah," and "for the polytheists" is an elucidation—like in the phrase "a pouring for you" (suqya laka)—thus connecting it to an implied verb such as "I say this denial is for them," or connecting it to yakun. It may also be a circumstantial qualifier for "covenant" or connected to the stability to which the predicate is connected. The precedence of the predicate’s operator is excused due to it being a prepositional phrase. "How," under the latter two possibilities, is akin to an adverb or a circumstantial qualifier.

This assumes the verb is complete. According to what the Sheikh al-Islam stated, this is preferable, because denying the existence of the covenant itself contains a level of hyperbole not present in denying its existence for the polytheists. This is because the existence of the relational covenant is a consequence of the existence of the covenant in essence; thus, the negation of the root necessitates the negation of the branch entirely. This has been countered by the claim that this is incorrect, because it is established that the negation of the origin of the predicate in external reality does not necessitate the negation of the external predication, due to substances being characterized by abstract and negative concepts. Indeed, they have even stated that "Zaid is blind" is an external proposition, despite the fact that blindness has no objective existence. They have also stated that the existence of a thing for a thing, even if it does not necessitate the existence of the attributed thing in the realm of characterization, it necessitates its existence in itself, even if only in the place of its derivation—the verification of which is in its proper place.

Yes, directing the denial toward the manner of the covenant's existence contains a degree of hyperbole not present in directing it toward its existence [altogether]. This is because if all modes of a thing's existence are negated—and every existing thing must exist in a certain state—then its existence is negated demonstratively. That is: In what state can they possess a covenant worthy of consideration with Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), such that its rights must be observed, maintained until the end of the term, and they remain unharmed in terms of killing or seizure?

The word "with" (‘inda) is repeated to signal the lack of consideration at each of them—Allah the Almighty and His Messenger (peace be upon him)—separately.

"Except those with whom you made a treaty" refers to those excluded previously. The disagreement is the same disagreement, and the relied-upon interpretation is the relied-upon one. Addressing the fact that the treaty was "at the Sacred Mosque" is to further clarify those who hold it and to signify the cause and its situation.

The exception is "disjointed" (munqati‘), meaning it is a rectification of the negation understood from the interrogative of denial, which conventionally implies the inclusion of all those under treaty. The position of the relative pronoun (alladhina) is nominative as the beginning of a sentence (mubtada'), and its predicate is implied, or the predicate is "So as long as they are straight with you, be straight with them." The fa' particle is included because it contains the meaning of a condition, as previously stated. "As long as" (ma), as many have said, is either a masdariyyah (verbalizing) particle in the accusative position due to its adverbial nature with an implied noun—i.e., "be straight with them for the duration of their straightness with you"—or it is conditional in the accusative position due to its temporal adverbial nature—i.e., "at whatever time they are straight with you, be straight with them."

It is also possible that it is in the nominative position as the beginning of a sentence, with the disagreement regarding its predicate being famous, while "be straight" (istaqimu) is the response to the condition, and the fa' particle occurs in the response. Under the possibility of it being a masdariyyah particle, it is added for emphasis.

It is permitted that the exception be "connected" (muttasil), and the position of the relative pronoun is accusative or genitive as a substitution for "the polytheists," because the interrogative is in the sense of a negation, and the intent by "polytheists" is the genus, not the specific individuals previously known. In any case, the ruling of the command to be straight ends with the end of the treaty period. Thus, this returns to the command to complete the term mentioned [previously], except that here it is explicitly stated, whereas there it was implied—though definitely considered—which is the restriction of the completion of the term to their remaining upon what they were of fulfillment. Allah the Almighty provided the reason for this by saying: "Indeed, Allah loves the righteous."