Al-Fath: (25) They are those who disbelieved...

And His saying, the Exalted: {They are those who disbelieved and barred you from the Sacred Mosque, and the sacrificial offering detained from reaching its destination.}

This indicates that the restraint (from entering Mecca) was not due to any fault in them (the Muslims), because they (the disbelievers) disbelieved, barred (the Muslims), and prevented them. All of this necessitates fighting them. Thus, no one should assume that the two parties agreed, that the disagreement between them ceased, that they reconciled, or that the dispute ended. Rather, the difference remains, and the dispute is ongoing, because they are the ones who disbelieved, barred, and prevented, thereby increasing in disbelief and enmity. This applies to the believing men and believing women.

The word {والهدى} (and the offering) is in the accusative case, either by being conjoined to the object pronoun in {صدوكم} (barred you), or it is permissible to be in the genitive case, conjoined to Al-Masjid (the Mosque), meaning: and from the offering.

{معكوفا} (detained/prevented) is a circumstantial adverb (Hāl). {أن يبلغ} (from reaching) is interpreted as ‘alā an yablugha (on the condition that it reaches). It is also possible that {أن يبلغ محله} (reaching its destination) is in the nominative case, meaning: ma‘kūfan bulūghuhu maḥallah (detained in its reaching its destination), similar to saying ra’aytu Zaydan shadīdan ba’sahu (I saw Zayd whose might was severe), and ma‘kūfan (detained) means prevented, and in this interpretation, it does not require the preposition ‘an (from).

And His saying, the Exalted: {And were it not for men and women believers whom you did not know you might tread upon and thus incur blame from them unknowingly}.

This describes the men and women: meaning, were it not for men and women believers who were unknown. His saying, the Exalted: {أن تطئوهم} (that you might tread upon them) is an explanatory apposition (badal ishtimāl), as if He meant: unknown men, upon whom you tread, and thus {فتصيبكم منهم معرة} (and thus blame/reproach befall you from them). Ma‘rah means defect or sin. This is because you might kill them, making expiation incumbent upon you, which is evidence of sin, or the disbelievers might reproach you by saying that you did to their brethren what you did to their enemies.

His saying, the Exalted: {بغير علم} (unknowingly/without knowledge). Al-Zamakhshari said it is related to {أن تطئوهم} (that you might tread upon them), meaning: you tread upon them without knowledge. It is also possible that it is an apposition to the accusative pronoun in {لم تعلموهم} (whom you did not know). Someone might argue that this results in repetition, because if it is an apposition to the pronoun, the meaning is: you did not know that you would tread upon them without knowledge. Thus, the phrase bi-ghayri ‘ilmin (without knowledge) is necessitated by {لم تعلموهم} (you did not know them). Therefore, it is better to say that {بغير علم} is in its proper place, meaning: you did not know that you would tread upon them, and thus {فتصيبكم منهم معرة بغير علم} (and thus blame befalls you from them without knowledge), meaning: they would reproach you and criticize you. That is, if you tread upon them without knowing, the reproach of the disbelievers will befall you {بغير علم} (without knowledge), meaning: out of ignorance, where they do not know that you are excused for it. Or we can say the meaning is: you did not know that you would tread upon them, and thus {فتصيبكم منهم معرة بغير علم} (and thus blame befalls you from them without knowledge), meaning: you kill them without knowledge, or harm them without knowledge. In this case, treading becomes the cause of killing, and the treading itself is unknown to you, and the killing, which causes the blame, occurs without knowledge. Or we can say: Blame is of two types: one that results from intentional killing by someone unaware of the status of the person killed, and the second is that which results from accidental killing, which is not the absence of knowledge. So He said: blame befalls you from them that is unknown (i.e., not resulting from knowledge).

The response to the conditional lawlā (were it not for) is omitted. It is estimated as: Were it not for that, your hands would not have been restrained from them. This is what Al-Zamakhshari said, and it is sound.

It is also possible that the response is indicated by His saying, the Exalted: {They are those who disbelieved and barred you from the Sacred Mosque}, meaning: they deserved not to be left alone. Were it not for believing men, what they deserved would have occurred. This is like someone saying: He is a thief, and were it not for so-and-so, his hand would have been cut off. This is because lawlā is only used to indicate the prevention of something due to the existence of something else. The prevention of something only occurs if the necessitating factor exists and is then prevented by another. So, Allah, the Exalted, first mentioned the complete, ultimate necessitating factor, which is disbelief, barring, and prevention, and then mentioned what its consequence was prevented from occurring due to: the existence of the believing men.

And His saying, the Exalted: {That Allah may admit into His Mercy whom He wills. If they had separated, We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with a painful punishment.} There are discussions regarding this:

The First: Regarding the action that necessitates the lām (the particle indicating purpose) by which admission into Mercy occurs. There are several views:

1. It is His saying: {restrain your hands from them} so that He may admit. One might object: You mentioned that the prevention was due to the existence of believing men, so it is as if you said: Restrain your hands so that you do not tread upon them, in order to admit them. How can it be for something else? We reply in two ways: a. We say: Restrain your hands so that you do not tread upon them, so that you may be admitted, just as one says: I fed him so that he might be satiated, so that Allah may forgive me—meaning the feeding for the satiation was for the sake of forgiveness. b. We stated that the response to lawlā is indicated by His saying: {They are those who disbelieved}. So it is as if He said: They are those who disbelieved and deserved immediate destruction. Were it not for the men, they would have been hastened (to destruction). But restrain your hands so that Allah may admit whom He wills into His Mercy.

2. It is said that the action performed was so that He may admit because there are actions of grace, guidance, and others. His saying: {That Allah may admit into His Mercy whom He wills} means so that those whom Allah knew would believe in that year might believe, or so that they might leave Mecca and emigrate, and thus He admits them into His Mercy.

His saying, the Exalted: {لو تزيلوا} (If they had separated), meaning: if they had distinguished themselves. The pronoun here can refer to the believing men and believing women. If it is asked: How is this valid when you said the response to lawlā is omitted (i.e., if they had not been there, your hands would not have been restrained)? If {لو تزيلوا} referred to the men, then {لعذبنا} (We would have punished) would be the response to lawlā? We reply, and Al-Zamakhshari held this view: {لو تزيلوا} implies the mention of lawlā, so it is possible that {لعذبنا} is the response to lawlā. Alternatively, the pronoun refers to man yashā’ (whom He wills), as if He said: So that Allah may admit whom He wills into His Mercy, if they (those whom He wills to believe) had separated (from the disbelievers) and believed, We would have punished those whom Allah decreed would not believe.

Regarding this, there are discussions:

The First Discussion: Assuming this interpretation, the statement implies that the painful punishment was averted, either due to the lack of separation, or due to the existence of the men. If the existence of the men is assumed, the painful punishment is never averted from the disbeliever. We say that what is meant is an immediate punishment by your hands, starting with the category (of disbelievers), as they were neither firmly established nor returning to you (in Mecca) so they could show themselves and gain power; thus, it would be painful.

The Second Discussion: What is the wisdom in mentioning believing men and believing women, when the feminine is included in the masculine when they are gathered? We answer in two ways:

1. What was previously mentioned: that the context requires specifying the men because {تطئوهم فتصيبكم} (you tread upon them and thus blame befalls you) means you destroy them, and the intent is: do not fight and do not kill. Thus, the barrier was the existence of believing men, so He also mentioned believing women because the destruction of their homes and the completion of their children would be severe due to the treading upon their men.
2. In a context of compassion, mentioning the categories softens the heart. One tells someone restraining another: Do not torture him, and have mercy on his lowliness, poverty, and weakness, and mention his children, the young ones, and his weak, incapable family. Similarly here, He said: {Were it not for believing men and believing women} to soften the hearts of the believing women and make them content with the restraint that occurred after the potential for victory.

{When those who disbelieved set in their hearts zealotry, the zealotry of ignorance, so Allah sent down His tranquility upon His Messenger and upon the believers and imposed upon them the word of righteousness, and they were more worthy of it and its people. And Allah is Knower of all things.}