Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:92

Nor on those who, when they came to you so that you might provide them with mounts, this is a conjunction to [the phrase] "the doers of good," as is indicated by the coming verse of the Exalted—if Allah wills—There is no blame on those who... and so on. It is an example of conjoining the specific to the general out of concern for their status, making them appear as if they were a separate category due to their distinction. It is said: it is a conjunction to [the category of] "the weak."

They are, as Ibn Ishaq and others said, "the Weepers" (al-Bukka’un). They were seven men from the Ansar and others from the Banu ‘Amr bin ‘Awf: Salim bin ‘Umayr, ‘Ullayyah bin Zayd (brother of the Banu Harith), Abu Layla ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Ka‘b (brother of the Banu Mazin bin al-Najjar), ‘Amr bin al-Humam bin al-Jamuh (brother of the Banu Salamah), ‘Abdullah bin Ma‘qil al-Muzani, Harmi bin ‘Abdullah (brother of the Banu Waqif), and ‘Urbad bin Sariyah al-Fazari. They came to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and requested mounts of him, as they were in need. He, upon him be peace and blessings, said to them what Allah the Exalted related with His words: “I find nothing upon which to mount you.” So they turned away, while their eyes flowed with tears, as He, the Exalted, informed.

The apparent meaning is that none of them went out for the campaign with the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. However, Ibn Ishaq said: It reached me that Ibn Yamin bin ‘Umayr bin Ka‘b al-Nadri met Abu Layla and Ibn Ma‘qil while they were weeping and said, “What makes you weep?” They replied, “We came to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—so he could provide us mounts, but we found nothing with him to mount us upon, nor do we possess the means to strengthen ourselves for going out with him.” So he gave them a water-carrying camel he possessed, and they set out, and he provided them with some dates, and they went out with the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In some narrations, it is said that the others were assisted in their departure and went out. According to Mujahid, they were the sons of Muqrin: Ma‘qil, Suwayd, and al-Nu‘man. It is also said: They were Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari and his companions from the people of Yemen.

The literal meaning of the verse suggests that they requested the beasts to ride upon, which is what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from ‘Ali bin Salih, saying: A group of elders from Juhaynah told me: “We encountered those who asked the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—for mounts, and they said: ‘We did not ask him for anything but mounts for our sandals.’” Similar to this is what Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ibrahim bin Adham, from one who narrated to him that he said: “They did not ask him for beasts; they only asked him for sandals.”

It came in some narrations that they said: “Provide us with mended khuffs (leather socks) and patched sandals, so we may fight alongside you.” The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said what he said. The one who leans toward the literal meaning—supported by what is narrated from the "Scholar" (Ibn ‘Abbas)—says: "They were content with mended khuffs and patched sandals instead of beasts of burden." It is as if they were saying: "Provide us with whatever is available," or the intent is: "Provide us with whatever we can ride, even if it is our sandals and khuffs," as a hyperbole in contentment and a display of their desire to depart with him, upon him be peace and blessings. You know that the literal meaning of the two aforementioned reports makes this unlikely, furthermore, it is in itself contrary to the apparent meaning. Yes, the reports that contradict the apparent meaning of the verse—those who have knowledge of the terminology of Hadith will not be unaware of their status.

The distinction of this group—based on the apparent meaning that they possessed everything except the mount—from those who "find nothing to spend" (if those are intended to be the poor who lack provisions, mounts, and other things) is clear; there is a relationship of general and specific between them if "the one who does not find the means to spend" is taken to mean someone who lacks something and thus cannot bear the journey. The Imam adopted the former, and many of the verifying scholars chose it.

There is a disagreement regarding the answer to “If” (idha). Some verifying scholars chose “I find nothing...” as the answer; thus, His saying: “They turned away...” is an independent sentence serving as an explanatory commencement. Others said: It is the answer, and “I find nothing” is the commencement, or [the conjunction is omitted], meaning "And I said" or "So I said," and it is conjoined to “they came to you,” or it is in the position of a state (hal) for the [suffix] kaf in “they came to you” with a hidden qad (as in: “they come to you with their chests restricted”). The time of coming is considered broad, such as the day or the month, so it can occur in the same time as the turning away, and it suffices that the coming was the cause of it, even if their times differ, as al-Radi mentioned in your saying: "If you come to me today, I will honor you tomorrow," meaning your coming was the cause of your honoring tomorrow.

In the preference of “I do not find” over "I do not have," there is a refinement of speech and a comforting of the hearts of those who asked that is not hidden. It is as if he—upon him be peace and blessings—is seeking that which they asked for continuously but does not find it, and this is what befits the one who is "kind and merciful to the believers," may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

His saying—the Exalted—“and their eyes overflowing with tears” is in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun in “they turned away.” Fayd (overflowing) is a pouring out due to being full, and here it is a metaphor for being full, based on the relationship of causality. Dam‘ (tears) is the specific water. It is permissible to keep fayd in its literal sense, and attributing it to the eye is a metaphor, like "the river flowed." Dam‘ is the verbal noun from "the eye shed tears." The min (of/from) is for causality and reason. It is said: It is for explication (bayan), and it is with the genitive in the position of an accusative as a specifier (tamyiz), which is transformed from the agent. Abu Hayyan countered this by saying that a specifier which originates as an agent cannot be preceded by min, and also that only the Kufans allow a defined specifier. It was answered regarding the first that it is refuted by [verses] such as the word of the Almighty, and regarding the second, that the permission of the Kufans is sufficient. Al-Qutb mentioned that the original speech was: "their eyes flow with their tears," then "their eyes flow with tears," which is more eloquent because the action is attributed to something other than the agent, and he made it a specifier to follow the path of clarification after ambiguity, and because the eye was made as if it were the flowing tear itself. Then, “their eyes flow with tears” is more eloquent than what preceded it by virtue of the min of abstraction (tajridiyyah), for he made their eyes flowing, then abstracted the flowing eyes from the tears in consideration of the flow. This was countered by the fact that min here is for explanation of what has been made ambiguous, which is clarified by mere specification, because the meaning of "the eye flows" is that something of the eye's things flows, just as the meaning of your saying "Zayd is good" is "something of Zayd's things is good," and the specifier removes the ambiguity of that thing. So it is the same with “with tears”; it is in the position of accusative as a specifier. The talk of abstraction should not proceed from someone who has knowledge of the styles of speech. Some of the talk regarding this sentence has already passed in [Surat] al-Ma’idah, so remember it.

His saying—the Exalted—“out of sorrow” is in the accusative as a cause (‘illah). Sorrow is attributed to the eye just as the flowing is, so it is not asked: "How is that when the agent of flowing is different from the agent of sorrow?" With the difference of the agent, there is no accusative [for the object]. It is said: It is permissible due to the meaning, as the sum of it is: "they turned away while they were weeping out of sorrow." It is also permissible for it to be in the accusative as a state (hal) from the pronoun in “they flow”, meaning "sorrowful," or as a verbal noun (masdar) for a verb indicated by what precedes it, meaning "they do not sorrow out of sorrow." The clause is also a state from the aforementioned pronoun. It could also be that this depends on the possibilities of “they turned away,” meaning they turned away because of sorrow, or sorrowing, or they are sorrowing out of sorrow.

“That they do not find” is with the omission of the lam (the reason), and the omission of the preposition in such cases is standard. It is linked to “out of sorrow,” whatever the case may be. It is said: It is not permissible to link it to it if it is an accusative verbal noun, because the emphatic verbal noun does not govern. Perhaps those who said the first [view] reject that and say: one expands upon an adverb in a way that is not expanded upon in others. It is also permissible to link it to “flow.” It is said: This is if “out of sorrow” is not a cause for it, otherwise it is not permissible, because a single verb cannot have two objects for the sake of which it is performed, and substitution is contrary to the apparent meaning—meaning, "so that they do not find."

“What they might spend” in purchasing what they need to go out with you, if they do not find it with you. This, according to the apparent meaning, supports this category being included under His saying—the Exalted—“nor on those who do not find what they might spend.”