Tafsir of Al-Lail 92:20

{ إلا ابتغاء وجه ربه الأعلى } is in the accusative case as a disjunctive exception (istithna' munqati') from "ni'mah" (a favor), because seeking [the countenance of God] is not included within it. The meaning is: "However, he did that for the sake of seeking the countenance of his Lord, the Exalted, and His pleasure, the Mighty and Majestic, not to recompense a favor."

Yahya ibn Wathab read "ibtigha'u" in the nominative case, as a substitute (badal) for the position of "min ni'mah." For its case is nominative, either by virtue of being a subject (fa'iliyyah) or an initial noun (ibtida'), and the "min" is extra (za'idah). The nominative in such instances is the dialect of Tamim, upon which is the poet’s saying: And a land where there is no companion / Except the wild goats and the camels.

It has also been narrated in both the nominative and accusative—based on what is in al-Bahr—regarding the saying of Bishr ibn Abi Hazim: It became desolate and barren, with no companion in it / Except the gazelles and the ostriches, coming and going.

It is permissible for its accusative case to be as an object for which an action is performed (ma'ful lahu) based on the meaning, because the meaning of the speech is: "His wealth is not given for the sake of any thing, except for the sake of seeking the pleasure of his Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, not to recompense a favor." Thus, it is an empty exception (istithna' mufarragh) from the most general of causes and reasons. It is only interpreted as such because the statement—namely, "he gives his wealth"—is positive, and an empty exception is restricted to negation according to the majority. However, when it was followed by the Almighty’s saying, "And no one has," and He, the Exalted, also said, "Or does he not seek purification?", containing a negation of showing off and seeking reputation, it pointed to the mentioned meaning.

Ibn Abi 'Ablah read "illa ibtagha" (shortened/maqsur), and it holds the possibility of both the accusative and the nominative.

These verses, according to what you have heard, were revealed regarding Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him), when he used to free weak slaves, and his father said to him what he said, and he answered him with what he answered. I have clarified what was ambiguous in his (may God be pleased with him) statement in it: "I only intend..." In a narration by Ibn Jarir and Ibn 'Asakir, he said: "O my father, I only intend what is with God Almighty." In a narration by 'Ata' and al-Dahhak, on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, he (may God be pleased with him) bought Bilal, who was a slave to Umayyah ibn Khalaf—who was torturing him for his Islam—for an ounce of gold and freed him. The polytheists said: "Abu Bakr did not free him except for a hand [favor] he had with him," so this was revealed.

He (may God be pleased with him) was one of those who were tortured for their Islam, so the Siddiq bought them and freed them. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from 'Urwah that Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) freed seven, all of whom were being tortured for God Almighty: Bilal, 'Amir ibn Fuhayrah, al-Nahdiyyah and her daughter, Zunayrah, Umm 'Ubays, and the slave woman of Banu al-Mu'ammil. Concerning him was revealed: {But the most righteous will avoid it} [92:17] to the end of the surah.

The Imam inferred from this that he (may God be pleased with him) is the best of the Ummah, and he mentioned that there is in the verses that which rejects the claim of the Shia that it was revealed regarding 'Ali (may God honor his face), and he prolonged the discourse on that and brought forth arguments that are not free from debate and counter-debate.