Surah At-Tawbah 9:45
ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌ ﲍ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﲔ ﲕ ﲖ
Only those would ask permission of you who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating.
Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:45
Tafsir
Al-Kashshaf
Verse range: 9:45
{إنما يستأذنك} Meaning the hypocrites, who were thirty-nine men.
{يترددون} An expression for hesitation, for hesitation is the habit of the hesitant, just as steadfastness and stability are the habit of the insightful. It is also read as *‘iddah* (عِدَّة), meaning their preparation; the same is done with *‘iddah* as is done with *‘udda* (عُدَّة), as the poet said: "And they broke their promise of the matter they promised." This involves the omission of the feminine *ta* and the substitution of the genitive for it. It is also read as *‘iddah* with a *kasra* on the *‘ayn* without a genitive, and with a genitive.
If you ask: What is the position of the particle of rectification (istidrak)? I say: Since his saying {If they had intended to go forth} gives the meaning of negating their departure and their preparation for the expedition, it is said: {But Allah disliked their being sent forth}. It is as if it were said: "They did not go forth, but rather they were held back from going forth because their being sent forth was disliked," just as you say: "Zayd did not do good to me, but he did evil to me."
{فثبطهم} He made them lazy, abandoned them, and weakened their desire to go forth.
{وقيل اقعدوا} It is said that Allah casting the dislike of going forth into their hearts was a command to sit. It is also said: It is the speech of Satan through whispering. It is also said: It is them saying it to themselves. It is also said: It is the permission of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for them to sit.
If you ask: How is it permissible for Allah Almighty to cast into their souls a dislike for going to the expedition when it is something ugly, and Allah is exalted above inspiring the ugly? I say: Their going forth was a corruption, according to His saying: {If they had gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion}. Thus, casting the dislike of that departure into their souls was good and a benefit.
If you ask: Then why did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) err in giving them permission for what is a benefit? I say: Because the permission of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to them was not based on considering this benefit, nor did he know it until after the return, through Allah’s informing him. Rather, it was because they asked his permission for it and offered excuses to him, so it was upon him to investigate the essence of their excuses and not be lenient in accepting them; hence the rebuke came to him. It is also possible that there was another benefit in the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) withholding permission while Allah held them back; by his giving them permission, that benefit was lost. That is, if Allah had held them back and they did not go forth, and their sitting was without permission from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), the argument would have been established against them and no excuse would remain for them. Allah rectified that by tearing away their veils, revealing their secrets, and testifying against them regarding their hypocrisy, and that they do not believe in Allah and the Last Day.
{مع القاعدين} It is a disparagement of them, a rendering of them incapable, and an equating of them with women, children, and the infirm whose habit is sitting and remaining in the houses. They are the "sitters," the "remainers," and the "women who stay behind." This is clarified by His saying: {They were pleased to be with those who stay behind} (At-Tawbah: 87, 93).
{إلا خبالا} It is not from the "disjointed exception" (*istithna' munqati'*) at all, as some say. For the disjointed exception is when the excepted is of a different genus than that from which it is excepted, like your saying: "They did not increase you in good, except in corruption." The thing from which it is excepted is not mentioned in this speech. When it is not mentioned, the exception falls upon the most general of the general, which is "the thing." Thus, it is a connected exception, because *khabal* (corruption) is a part of the most general of the general. It is as if it were said: "They did not increase you in anything except corruption." *Khabal* is corruption and evil.
{ولأوضعوا خلالكم} They would have scurried among you with incitement, slander, and sowing discord. It is said: "The camel *awda'a* (put forth) if it speeds up," and I made it speed up. The meaning is: They would have spurred their mounts among you, and the intent is haste in slander, for the rider is faster than the walker. Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) read: {And they would have danced} (*la-raqasu*), from "the she-camel danced" if it sped up. It is also read: {And they would have hastened} (*la-awfadu*).
If you ask: How is it written in the Mushaf: {ولا أوضعوا} with an extra alif? I say: The fatha used to be written as an alif before Arabic orthography. Arabic orthography was invented close to the time of the revelation of the Quran, and a trace of that alif remained in the habits, so they wrote the form of the hamza as an alif, and its fatha as another alif, like: {أو لا أذبحنه}.