Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread): Verse 69

The interpretation of this verse has already been covered in Surah Al-Baqarah. However, several issues remain here:

Issue 1: The Grammatical Case of "Al-Sābi'ūn" (The Sabians)

The apparent structure of the sentence suggests that the word should be in the nominative case: "Wa-l-Sābi'ūna" (والصائبون). This reading is attested by Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ibn Mas'ud, and Ibn Kathir.

Grammarians offer several justifications for the commonly recited reading (which is in the accusative case, Al-Sābi'īna):

First View (The view of Al-Khalil and Sibawayh): The word Al-Sābi'ūna (nominative) is treated as an independent subject (mubtada') with its predicate (khabar) being implicitly delayed. It is as if the verse meant: "Indeed, those who believed, and those who became Jews, and the Christians—whoever among them believes in Allah, the Last Day, and does righteous deeds, there will be no fear upon them, nor will they grieve. And the Sabians [are likewise]." Their predicate is omitted.

The benefit of not conjoining them with those preceding them is that the Sabians were considered the most misguided among the mentioned groups. Thus, the meaning is: Even if all these groups repent and perform righteous deeds, Allah will accept their repentance and forgive their sins—even the Sabians, if they believe, will be treated the same way.

Second View (The view of Al-Farrā'): The particle 'Inna' (إِنَّ) is weak in its grammatical operation ('amal) here. This is explained in several ways:

1. Weak Resemblance to Verbs: 'Inna' operates because it resembles a verb, but the resemblance between a particle (harf) and a verb is inherently weak.
2. Operation Limited to the Subject: Even if it operates, it only affects the subject (ism). The predicate (khabar) remains in the nominative case because it is the predicate of the original subject (before 'Inna' entered), not because 'Inna' raises it. This is the view of the Kufans, which we detailed in Surah Al-Baqarah regarding the verse: {إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ} (Indeed, those who disbelieve, it is all the same whether you warn them or do not warn them).
3. Operation on Mutable Nouns: 'Inna' only shows its effect on nouns whose case endings change based on grammatical factors. Here, the noun is "Alladhīna" (الَّذِينَ), which does not show signs of nominative, accusative, or genitive cases.

If we establish this point (that the noun of 'Inna' does not show case inflection), then what is conjoined to it may take the accusative case (by operating 'Inna') or the nominative case (by dropping the operation of 'Inna').

It is impermissible to say: "Indeed, Zayd and 'Amr are standing" (Inna Zaydan wa 'Amrun qā'imūn) because Zayd shows case inflection. However, it is permissible to say: "Indeed, these people and your brothers are honoring us" (Inna hā'ulā'i wa ikhwatuka yukrimūnanā), or "Indeed, this one himself is brave" (Inna hādhā nafsahu shujā'un), or "Indeed, Quṭām and Hind are with us" (Inna Quṭāmun wa Hindun 'indana).

The reason for this permissibility is that 'Inna' was originally weak in operation. When its effect becomes invisible in its subject, it becomes extremely weak. Thus, the nominative case is permitted based on the ruling established before 'Inna' entered—that of being an independent subject. This is Al-Farrā’s position, which is sound and preferable to the Basrans' view, because the Basrans' view implies that the structure of God's speech, as it appears, is incorrect, and correctness is only achieved by dismantling this structure. Al-Farrā’s view requires no such dismantling, making it superior.

Issue 2: Further Grammatical Discussion on Conjunction

Some grammarians state that 'Inna' is undeniably a particle that affects the subject and predicate. The status of being a subject (requiring the nominative) and a predicate (requiring the nominative) is an inherent quality that remains even when 'Inna' enters.

Therefore, the word conjoined to the subject of 'Inna' may take the accusative case (by operating 'Inna') or the nominative case (by being treated as an independent subject being spoken about).

The Critique by the Author of Al-Kashshāf (Al-Zamakhshari): He objected, stating that the nominative case for the conjoined word is only permissible if it is conjoined to the position (maḥall) of ('Inna' + its subject) after the predicate has been mentioned. For example: "Indeed, Zayd is setting out, and 'Amr (accusative) and 'Amr (nominative)." The accusative is based on the pronunciation (lafẓ), and the nominative is based on the position of ('Inna' + its subject) because the predicate has already preceded.

However, he argues that raising the conjoined word before the predicate is impermissible. If we raise it based on the position of ('Inna' + its subject), then the operative factor for the predicate of both would be the subject itself. If that were the case, the operative factor for both the subject and the predicate would be the original state of Ibtidā' (initial predication), as Ibtidā' is what affects both the subject and the predicate. Consequently, the delayed predicate would be raised by the particle 'Inna' and by the meaning of Ibtidā', resulting in two different operative factors raising a single noun, which is impossible.

Refutation of Al-Zamakhshari's Critique: This argument is weak for several reasons:

1. Nature of Grammatical Operators: The terms grammarians use—"raising factor" (rāfi') or "making accusative factor" (nāṣib)—do not mean these factors inherently possess that power in their essence. Rather, they are signs designated by convention and usage for these specific case endings. Accumulating multiple designated signs upon one thing is not impossible. Consider how all parts of created beings point to the existence of God.
2. Dispute over 'Inna's Operation: This response relies on the premise that 'Inna' affects the subject (accusative) and the predicate (nominative). The Kufans deny that 'Inna' affects the predicate at all, a point we established in Surah Al-Baqarah.
3. The Nature of the Predicate: When multiple items are conjoined, a single predicate cannot truly be the predicate for all of them, because a predicate defines the state or attribute of the subject. It is impossible for the state/attribute of one entity to be identical to the state/attribute of another, as a single attribute cannot belong simultaneously to different distinct entities.

If this is established, it becomes clear that although the predicate appears singular in pronunciation, it is multiple in estimation (taqdīr). This multiplicity necessarily exists in estimation and intention. If multiplicity exists in reality, it is not impossible for some parts to be raised by the particle ('Inna') and others by the original state of Ibtidā'. Under this estimation, the accumulation of two operative factors on one raised noun is not required.

What confirms this is the consensus that after the subject and its predicate are mentioned, both the accusative and nominative cases are permissible for the conjoined word. This permissibility is due to our assuming an implicit predicate for the conjoined word, and we rule that this implicit predicate is raised by Ibtidā'.

If this is true, then before the predicate is mentioned, when we conjoin a noun, it is a matter of clear reason that an implicit predicate must be assumed. This requires assuming multiple implicit predicates. Under this estimation, the objection raised about accumulating operative factors collapses. (And Allah knows best.)

Issue 3: The Comprehensive Nature of the Condition for Salvation

After establishing that the People of the Book have no standing unless they believe, the verse shows that this ruling is universal: no one achieves virtue or merit unless they believe in Allah, the Last Day, and perform righteous deeds.

This is because humanity possesses two powers: the theoretical power (intellect) and the practical power (action).

• The perfection of the theoretical power lies only in knowing the Truth.
• The perfection of the practical power lies only in doing good.

The most noble of all knowledge is knowing the noblest of beings, which is Allah (SWT). The perfection of this knowledge is achieved by believing that He is capable of resurrection and gathering (the Last Day). Therefore, the noblest knowledge is belief in Allah and the Last Day.

The noblest of good deeds are two things:

1. Perseverance in acts that signify the glorification of the Worshipped (Allah).
2. Striving to benefit creation, as the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Glorifying the command of Allah and showing compassion to the creation of Allah."

Then, the Almighty stated that whoever fulfills this belief and this action will come to the Resurrection without fear or grief. The benefit of mentioning both is that fear relates to the future, and grief relates to the past.

• "No fear will come upon them" because of the terrors they witness on the Day of Resurrection.
• "Nor will they grieve" because of the worldly pleasures they missed, as they have attained things far nobler and sweeter than what they possessed in the world. Whoever is like this will not grieve over worldly delights.

Objection: How can a responsible person, who is not infallible, be free from the terrors of the Resurrection?

Answer (Two ways):

1. Allah conditioned this freedom upon righteous action, and one who performs righteous action must necessarily abstain from all sins.
2. If any fear occurs, it will be a fleeting, minor incident that is not counted.

Issue 4: The Mu'tazilite Argument Regarding Sinners

The Mu'tazilites argue: Allah conditioned the absence of fear and grief upon belief and righteous action. If the condition is absent, the result must be absent. Therefore, whoever combines belief but lacks righteous action will experience fear and grief, which prevents the pardon of the perpetrator of a major sin (ṣāḥib al-kabīrah).

The Answer: The perpetrator of a major sin is not guaranteed immediate pardon by Allah. Therefore, fear and grief will naturally be present until the pardon is manifested.

Issue 5: The Repetition of the Term "Belief" (Imān)

The verse begins with {إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا} (Indeed, those who have believed) and ends with {مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ} (whoever believes in Allah). This repetition serves two purposes:

1. Excluding Hypocrites: The hypocrites claimed to be believers. This repetition serves to exclude them from the promise of no fear or grief.
2. Highlighting the Noblest Form of Belief: The word Imān (belief) is general and includes various categories. The noblest category is belief in Allah and the Last Day. The repetition serves to emphasize that these two components are the most sublime aspects of Imān. (We have already provided many justifications for the repetition in the context of {ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} [That is because those who disbelieved], and all those justifications apply here as well.)

Issue 6: The Omitted Word Related to 'Inna'

There is an omitted word related to the particle 'Inna' (إِنَّ). The implied meaning is: "Indeed, those among them who believed..." The omission is elegant because the meaning is understood. (And Allah knows best.)

Verse 70