Tafsir of Al-Hashr 59:2

Surah Al-Hashr (59): Verse 2

{He it is Who brought out those who disbelieved...}

Ibn Abbas said: The Muslims thought that, due to their honor and strength, the Jews would not need to leave their homes. Allah mentioned this to magnify this blessing. When a blessing comes to a person when the expectation was the opposite, the blessing becomes greater. The Muslims did not think they would achieve their goal of these Jews leaving, thus being rid of the harm of their plots. When this was made easy for them, the anticipation of this blessing became greater.

It is said that their fortresses were impregnable, so they thought these would protect them from the Messenger of Allah. In this verse is a great honor for the Messenger of Allah, as it indicates that their dealings with the Messenger of Allah were precisely the same as their dealings with Allah.

If it is asked: What is the difference between saying, "They thought their fortresses would prevent them" (tamna'uhum) and the structure used, "They thought their fortresses would be the preventers" (māni'atuhum)?

We reply: The precedence of the predicate (خبر) over the subject (مبتدأ) in the latter structure indicates their extreme confidence in their fortifications and their ability to prevent harm. Furthermore, making their pronoun the subject and attributing the whole sentence to it indicates their self-belief that they were in such might and security that they did not care about anyone aspiring to challenge them. These meanings are not fully conveyed in the phrase, "They thought their fortresses would prevent them."

There are several issues in this verse:

Issue 1: The Pronoun Reference There are two interpretations:

1. The pronoun in {So Allah came to them} refers to the Jews: meaning, the punishment of Allah came to them from where they did not expect.
2. The pronoun refers to the Believers: meaning, the victory and strengthening from Allah came to them from where they did not expect.

The meaning of {where they did not expect} is what did not cross their minds, due to two factors:

1. The killing of their chief, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, at the hands of his brother secretly (ghilah), which weakened their power, shattered their resolve, and diminished their influence.
2. The terror that was cast into their hearts.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Divine Action The phrase {So Allah came to them} cannot be taken literally, by the consensus of rational scholars. This proves that the door to interpretation (ta'wil) is open, and that diverting verses from their literal meanings based on rational evidence is permissible.

Issue 3: Variant Reading The author of Al-Kashshaf mentioned a reading: {So Allah brought them} (fa-ātāhum Allāh), meaning He brought them destruction. We must note that this reading does not negate the interpretive paths we have established, because this reading does not invalidate the first reading, which is established by continuous transmission (tawatur). When a reading is established by tawatur, it cannot be rejected; rather, interpretation becomes necessary for it.

Linguists state that Ru'b (terror) is the fear that fills the chest (sadr), and Qadhf (casting) means establishing it therein. Regarding the description of a lion, they say it is muqdhāf (compact/dense), as if it were "cast with flesh," due to its compactness and the intermingling of its parts.

This verse proves our assertion that all matters belong to Allah. The verse indicates that the occurrence of this terror in their hearts was from Allah, and it indicates that this terror was the cause leading them to certain actions. In summary, an action does not occur except upon the presence of a confirmed incentive (dā'iyah) in the heart, and the presence of that incentive can only be from Allah. Thus, all actions are attributed to Allah through this path.

There are several issues here:

Issue 1: The Verb Form Abu Ali stated that Abu 'Amr alone recited {yukharrabūna} (with tashdīd - emphasis/doubling), while the rest recited {yukhribūna} (with takhfīf - lightening). Abu 'Amr used to say that Ikhraab (with tashdīd) means leaving something ruined, while Takhreeb (with takhfīf) means demolition. The Banu Nadir both ruined and demolished. Al-Mubarrad said he does not know a basis for this distinction. Yukhribūna (lightened) is the origin, as the house is ruined (kharaba), and the tashdīd implies intensification, as it refers to houses that could accommodate few or many. Sibawayh claimed that the two forms are interchangeable in speech, each taking the place of the other, like farihtuhu and afrahtuhu (I made him happy), or hassana-hu Allāh and ahassana-hu (Allah made him good). Al-A'mash said:

Al-Farrā' said: {yukharrabūna} (with tashdīd) means they demolish, and with takhfīf it means they ruin parts of it and leave the rest.

Issue 2: How they destroyed their homes Exegetes mentioned several ways they destroyed their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers:

1. When they became certain of expulsion, they envied the Muslims inhabiting their homes and dwellings. So, they began destroying them from the inside, while the Muslims destroyed them from the outside.
2. Muqatil said: The hypocrites secretly advised them not to leave, and they fortified the alleys and passages. So, the Jews dismantled their houses and turned them into fortifications at the entrances of the alleys, while the Muslims destroyed the surrounding areas.
3. When the Muslims gained control over one of their alleys, they would destroy it, and the Jews would retreat behind their houses, digging holes in the back of them.
4. The Muslims were destroying the exterior of the town. When the Jews became certain of expulsion, they would look for wood in their houses that they admired, or doors, and they would demolish their houses, extract these items, and carry them on their camels.

If it is asked: What is the meaning of destroying them by the hands of the believers? Al-Zajjaj replied: Since the believers exposed them to this situation and were the cause of it, it is as if the Jews commanded them to do it and tasked them with it.

We have relied on this verse in our book Al-Maḥṣūl fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh to prove that Analogy (Qiyās) is evidence, so we will not mention that here. However, it is necessary here to clarify the reason why Allah commanded taking heed (i'tibār). There are possibilities:

1. They relied on their fortresses, their strength, and their might. Allah destroyed their might and removed their power, then said: {So take heed, O people of insight} and do not rely on anything other than Allah. The ascetic should not rely on his asceticism, for his asceticism will not exceed that of Balaam. The scholar should not rely on his knowledge—look at Ibn al-Rawandi despite his extensive practice, how he ended up. Rather, no one should rely on anything except the grace and mercy of Allah.
2. Al-Qadi said: It means that a person should recognize the consequence of treachery, disbelief, and impugning prophethood. Those Jews fell into tribulation and expulsion due to the evil of treachery and disbelief. The believers should also take heed from this and turn away from sins.

If it is argued: This heedfulness is only valid if we say that they were treacherous and disbelieving, and thus were punished, and that treachery and disbelief were the cause of that punishment. However, this statement is flawed both ways (ṭard and ʿaks):

• Flaw in Ṭard (Direct): Because there are people who were treacherous and disbelieving but were not punished in this world.
• Flaw in ʿAks (Inverse): Because trials like these, or even more severe ones, befell the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions, and this did not indicate the badness of their religions or deeds. If this reason is invalid, then this heedfulness is void.
• Furthermore, the third ruling in the original context is that they {destroy their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers}. If we attribute this to disbelief and treachery, it necessitates that everyone who is treacherous and disbelieving must have their house destroyed by their own hands and the hands of the believers, which is clearly not the case. Therefore, this heedfulness is incorrect.

The Reply: The established ruling in the original context has three levels:

1. Being the destruction of the house by their hands and the hands of the believers.
2. Which is more general than the first: being a punishment in this world.
3. Which is more general than the second: being an absolute punishment.

Treachery and disbelief are only appropriate for punishment in general, not for the specificity of it being destruction or killing, either in this world or the Hereafter. Thus, the essence of the analogy reverts to: those who were treacherous, disbelieving, and lying were punished, without specifying whether that punishment was in this world or the Hereafter. Treachery and disbelief are suitable causes for punishment, so wherever they occur, punishment occurs, without specifying whether that punishment is in this world or the Hereafter. When we establish the analogy and heedfulness on this basis, the objections and counter-arguments are removed, and the analogy is soundly established.

Issue 2: The Meaning of Heedfulness I'tibār (heedfulness) is derived from ʿubūr (crossing over) and passing from one thing to another. This is why a tear is called ʿibrah (a lesson/tear) because it moves from the eye to the cheek. A bridge is called muʿabbar because it facilitates crossing. Specialized knowledge (ʿilm) is called taʿbīr (interpretation/expression) because its possessor moves from the imagined (mutakhayyal) to the rational (maʿqūl). Words are called ʿibārāt (expressions) because they transfer meanings from the speaker's tongue to the listener's mind. It is said: The fortunate one is he who takes heed from others, because his mind passes from the state of that other person to his own state.

For this reason, the exegetes said that I'tibār is looking into the realities of things and their indicative aspects to know something else of the same kind through that observation.

Regarding the phrase: {a lesson for those with insight}, there are two interpretations:

1. Ibn Abbas said: It means O people of intellect, reason, and insight.
2. Al-Farrā' said: {a lesson for those with insight} means O those who witnessed the mentioned event.

Surah Al-Hashr (59): Verse 7

{And had it not been that Allah had decreed for them the exile, He would have punished them in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is the punishment of the Fire.}