Al-Hujurat (The Chambers): (10) The believers are but brothers...

Then the Almighty said: {The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your two brothers} (49:10). This is a completion of the guidance, because when He said: {And if two factions of the believers fall to fighting} (49:9), one might think, or imagine, that this applies only when the strife is widespread among groups.

However, if the fighting is between just two individuals, the corruption is not general, so the command to make peace might not be necessary. Similarly, the command for reconciliation there was for fighting. But here, even if the matter is less than fighting—such as mutual cursing or foolish talk—reconciliation is still required. Thus, He said: {between your two brothers}, even if the sedition is not general, and even if the matter is not as grave as fighting, but rather the slightest disagreement between two Muslims; strive for reconciliation.

And concerning His saying: {And fear Allah, that you may receive mercy}, there are several issues:

The Almighty's saying: {The believers are but brothers}. Some linguists say that Ikhwah (plural of Akh) is the plural for a brother by lineage, while Ikhwan is the plural for a brother by friendship. Allah Almighty said: {The believers are but brothers} to emphasize the command and to indicate that what exists between them is like the brotherhood of lineage, and Islam is like the father. As one poet said:

When reconciling between two factions or two groups, He did not say "Fear Allah" (Ittaqū). Yet, He says it here, even though the former situation (fighting between groups) is more significant.

The benefit here is that fighting between two factions leads to widespread corruption, affecting every believer, and everyone strives for reconciliation for their own sake, so the command for piety was not emphasized. However, when two individuals quarrel, people do not fear that the corruption will spread. Some might even exacerbate the dispute between the quarreling parties for a corrupt purpose. Therefore, He said: {so make peace between your two brothers, and fear Allah}.

Alternatively, we can say that {so make peace} refers to the act of reconciliation, and {and fear Allah} refers to what restrains them from quarreling. This is because whoever fears Allah is occupied by his piety from engaging with others. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslim is he from whom the people are safe from his tongue and his hand." This is because the Muslim is obedient to Allah's command and focused on serving Allah's servants, so his own shortcomings occupy him, preventing him from focusing on the faults of others and preventing him from intimidating his believing brother. The Prophet (peace be upon him) alluded to this when he said: "The believer is he whose neighbor is safe from his mischief," meaning: Fear Allah, and do not devote yourself to anything else.

{The believers are but brothers}—the particle Innamā (Indeed/Only) implies restriction. There is no brotherhood except between believers. There is no brotherhood between a believer and a disbeliever because Islam is the unifying bond. This is why if a Muslim dies and has a disbelieving brother, his wealth goes to the Muslims and not to his disbelieving brother. The same applies conversely: if a disbeliever dies and has a Muslim brother but no inheritors by lineage, his wealth is not given to the disbelievers. If religion were the unifying factor, the disbeliever's wealth would go to the disbelievers, just as the Muslim's wealth goes to the Muslims in the absence of lineage heirs.

If one argues that the brotherhood of Islam is stronger than the brotherhood of lineage, citing the evidence that Muslims inherit from a Muslim while the disbelieving brother by lineage does not, then why is the brotherhood of Islam not prioritized absolutely, such that the Muslim's wealth goes only to the Muslims and not to his lineage brothers?

We reply that this is a flawed question. This is because if the Muslim brother is also a brother by lineage, both bonds of brotherhood are combined, making him stronger. Authority/preference belongs to the one with greater strength. Do you not see that a brother from both parents inherits, while a brother from the father alone does not inherit alongside him? Similarly, the Muslim brother by lineage possesses two bonds of brotherhood, so he is prioritized over other Muslims. And Allah knows best.

The grammarians state that the Mā in this position is the Kāffah (the restraining particle), preventing Inna from operating (i.e., from causing the following noun to be in the accusative case). If it were not restraining, it would have been said: Inna al-mu'minīna ikhwatun.

In the Almighty's saying: {So by the mercy of Allah you were lenient with them} (3:159) and {After a short while} (23:4), the Mā is not restraining.

The stronger question is why Mā is restraining in Rubbamā (sometimes) and Innamā, but not in Bimā (by what) or Cammā (after a short while). The reality is that the speech following Rubbamā and Innamā is complete and can stand on its own even if Rubbamā and Innamā were removed. For example, "Perhaps the leader stood, and perhaps Zayd is in the house." If you remove Rubbamā and say, "Zayd is in the house, and the leader stood," it is correct. The same applies to Innamā and Lākimā.

However, this is not the case for Cammā and Bimā. If you remove Bimā from {So by the mercy of Allah you were lenient with them} and say, "By the mercy of Allah you were lenient with them," it is not a complete sentence; the Bā' (preposition) requires attachment to what follows it, so it remains functionally present. But since Lākimā and Innamā become dispensable, their grammatical function ceases as if they did not exist.

If one argues that if Mā does not restrain Inna, then what follows Inna is a complete sentence, so it should not require the accusative case (as in Inna Zaydan Qā'imun vs. Zaydun Qā'imun), we reply: This is not so, because what follows Inna can be indefinite. You can say, "Indeed, a man came to me and told me such and such, and told me the opposite," and "A man came to me and told me." But it is not appropriate to say, {Indeed, only a man came to me} (Innamā rajulun jā'anī) as if Innamā were not there. The same applies to Baynamā and Aynamā; if you remove them and only keep what follows, the sentence is not complete, so the Mā is not restraining. The discussion regarding La'alla has been covered previously many times.

7 < { O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule another people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not defame one another and do not insult each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of "Fussūq" (wickedness) after [one has achieved] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. } > 7 !