At-Tawbah: (8) How can [there be a treaty], when if they prevail over you...

"How" (kayfa) is a repetition to express disapproval of what has passed—that the polytheists should have a treaty worthy of observance before Allah Almighty and His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is also said: it is to dismiss the possibility of their remaining true to a treaty. The benefit of the repetition is for emphasis and as a preamble to enumerating the causes necessitating what has been mentioned, preventing any interruption in the connection and proximity of the discourse. The verb disapproved of is omitted to signal that the soul is already focused on it, awaiting the arrival of what necessitates such disapproval. It is common for the questioned verb to be omitted along with "how," being indicated by a circumstantial (hal) clause that follows it. Among such instances is the statement of Ka'b al-Ghanawi, lamenting his brother Abu al-Mighwar: "He sought news of tamanna (a place), that death is only in the villages; but how [could he die in the villages], while this is a rocky plateau and a well?" He means: "How could he have died, given the state that has been mentioned?" The meaning here is: How can they have a treaty that is considered valid before Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), while their state is that if they prevail over you—meaning, if they gain the upper hand over you—they would not observe any ill (kinship) or dhimmah (covenant) regarding you? That is, they would not regard those matters concerning you. The root of ruqub (observance) is looking by way of guarding and care, from which raqib (observer) is derived. Then, it was used for absolute care, and muraqabah (vigilance) is more emphatic than it, just as mura'ah (regard) is. In the negation of ruqub, there is an intensity not found in the negation of the other two. How elegant is the mention of ruqub alongside al-dhuhur (prevailing).

Al-ill (kinship)—with a kasrah on the hamzah, though it may be opened—is, according to what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, rahm (kinship) and qarabah (ties of blood). He cited the verse of Hassan: "By your life, the ill of the Quraysh is like the saqb (young camel) to the ra'l (young ostrich)." Al-Dahhak leaned towards this view. It is narrated from al-Suddi that it means a pact and a treaty. It is said: perhaps in this sense it is derived from al-all, meaning neighborhood/neighboring, because when they formed a pact, they would raise their voices. Then it was metaphorically applied to kinship because between two relatives there is a bond stronger than that of a pact. That it is a tashbih (simile) does not contradict it being stronger, for a pact is explicitly stated and articulated, so it is stronger from another perspective. The comparison is not inverted, as some have assumed. It is also said: it is derived from allaltu al-shay’, if you delimit it, or from alla al-barq (the lightning shone and appeared), and the appropriateness is evident.

Ibn al-Mundhir and Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Ikrimah and Mujahid that al-ill means Allah the Exalted. From this is what is narrated: that when the words of Musaylimah were read to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), he said, "This did not issue from al-ill (the Divine); where are you being led?" It is said: the ill meaning kinship is derived from this, just as rahm (womb/kinship) is derived from al-Rahman (The Most Merciful). The apparent truth is that it is not Arabic, as al meaning God was not heard in the speech of the Arabs. From here, some said it is Hebrew, and from it is Jibra'il (Gabriel). They supported this by noting it was read as Ila, which in their language means Allah or the deity. Meaning: They do not fear Allah and do not observe Him regarding you.

Al-dhimmah is the right that one is blamed and condemned for neglecting, or it is the treaty. It is named so because its violation necessitates blame. It is in their saying, "In my dhimmah (responsibility) is such and such," meaning the place of obligation. Some jurists have said: It is a meaning by which a person specifically becomes qualified for rights to be binding upon him. It may also be interpreted as security (aman) and guarantee (daman), and these are close in meaning. Some claimed that both ill and dhimmah here mean a treaty, and the conjunction is for explanation (tafsir). However, the repetition of "no" (la) makes this apparent, for it is not like the saying: "And she said lies and falsehood." Thus, the truth is the distinction between the two.

The meaning of the verse is, it is said: an explanation that they are hunters of opportunity, so they have no treaty. It is also said: guidance that the obligation of observing the rights of a treaty upon each of the contracting parties is conditional upon the other party observing them. So, if the polytheists do not observe them, how can you be expected to observe them? It is on the same pattern as the saying: "Why should a ransom be accepted from them, while they accepted from us neither silver nor gold?" I have not found for these people any example from this perspective pointed to by His saying (Exalted is He): "And if they prevail over you," etc., except for people who adorn themselves with the guise of scholars while they are not of them—not even the clipping of a fingernail. They are with me, and Allah suffices me, and He is sufficient for this style. Allah (Exalted is He) raised them not in rank, and He cast them down, and He did not lift any burden from them.

His saying (Exalted is He): "They satisfy you with their mouths, while their hearts refuse," is an inception to reveal the reality of their apparent and hidden affairs. It is a rebuttal to what might be assumed from the suspension of the non-observance of the treaty upon prevailing—that they would observe it when there is no prevailing. For it clarifies that even in a state of weakness, they are not of those who fulfill anything. And that which they show you, Allah (Exalted is He) has concealed its extent: it is hypocrisy, not peaceful coexistence. The manner of their satisfying the believers is that they show them fulfillment and affection, promise them faith and obedience, and confirm that with false oaths. The believer is deceived and noble; when he is spoken to, he believes, and when it is said to him, he believes. When the opposite appears, they make excuses with lying pretexts. Restricting the satisfaction to "their mouths" is to signal that their speech is merely words they utter without having any reality in their hearts. This is emphasized by the content of the second clause.

Some claimed that the sentence is a circumstantial clause for the subject of "observe" (yarqubu), not an inception. This was refuted by the fact that a circumstantial clause requires simultaneity, and "satisfaction" happens before the "prevailing" which occurs as the penalty [of the condition]; so where is the simultaneity? Furthermore, there is an evident contradiction between the two states: satisfaction with the mouths is a state of concealing disbelief and hatred as a form of appeasement to the believers, while the state of non-observance is a state of open hostility toward them. Since they contradict each other, there is no meaning in restricting one by the other.

"And most of them are fasiqun (disobedient)": those who have exited from obedience, rebellious, having no creed to restrain them and no sense of honor (muru'ah) to deter them. The specification of "most of them" is because among some of the disbelievers, there is a protective concern against disgrace and a refusal of what would bring about a bad reputation. Describing the disbelievers as fasiq is the ultimate form of condemnation.