Tabari (1 passage)

1. Full Dutch translation of Tabari's text

   The explanation of the saying of the Exalted: وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ (68) ("And your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no choice. Glorified is Allah and exalted high above what they associate as partners") (28:68).

   The Exalted, exalted is His mention, says: وَرَبُّكَ ("And your Lord"), O Muḥammad, يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ("creates what He wills") to create, وَيَخْتَارُ ("and chooses") for His patronage (wilāya) the elect from among His creation, and those for whom felicity has been preordained from Him. And He, exalted is His praise, said only: وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ("and chooses; they have no choice"), while the meaning is as I have described, because the polytheists — according to what is related about them — would choose their possessions and assign them to their idols. Therefore Allah said to His Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ: and your Lord, O Muḥammad, creates what He wills to create, and chooses for guidance, faith, and good deeds from among His creation the one who, in His foreknowledge, is established to be their choicest — just as these polytheists chose the best of their possessions for their idols. Likewise is My choosing for Myself, My electing for My patronage, and My selecting for My service and obedience, the choicest of My dominion and My creation.

   And in accordance with what we have said about this, the exegetes spoke.

   * Mention of who said that:

   Muḥammad ibn Saʿd related to me, saying: my father related to me, saying: my uncle related to me, saying: my father related to me, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, concerning His saying: وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ("And your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no choice"); he said: in the time of ignorance (al-jāhiliyya) they used to designate the best of their possessions for their idols. If the meaning of this is so, then there is no doubt that "mā" in His saying: وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ stands in the position of the accusative (naṣb), through "yakhtāru" (chooses) governing it, and that it has the meaning of "that which" (the relative pronoun).

   If someone says: if the matter is as you have described — that "mā" is a noun standing in the accusative through His saying يَخْتَارُ governing it — then where is the predicate (khabar) of "kāna"? For you know that this is as I said: that within "kāna" there is a reference back to "mā," and that "kāna" in that case necessarily requires a complement (tamām) — so where is that complement? The answer is: the Arabs sometimes make the particles of the adverbial relation (ḥurūf al-ṣifāt), when predicates follow them, into predicates, just as they do with nouns when their predicates follow them. Al-Farrāʾ has mentioned that al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn recited to him the saying of ʿAntara:

   Is it over Sumayya that the tear of the eye is shed?

   Would that this had been known with you before this day! (2)

   He put "maʿrūf" (known) in the nominative by means of the adverbial particle, while it is without doubt the predicate of "dhā" (this). And it has been reported that al-Mufaḍḍal recited it thus:

   Would that this had been known with you before this day!

   And to this also belongs the saying of ʿUmar ibn Abī Rabīʿa:

   I said: "Give answer to a lover,

   burdened (mukallaf) by your love,

   Therein three like statues,

   and a girl with swelling breast, and a mature woman (muslif)." (3)

   "Mukallaf" is a descriptive qualifier of "ʿāshiq" (lover), and he put it in the nominative by means of the adverbial particle, namely the bāʾ, in cases similar to those we have mentioned, with numerous attestations. Likewise is His saying: وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ : "al-khiyara" (the choice) is put in the nominative by means of the adverbial relation, namely "lahum" (for them) — if it is a predicate of "mā" — because it came after the adverbial relation, and the adverbial relation took the place of the predicate. It was thus like the saying of one who says: "kāna ʿUmar wa-abūhu qāʾim" ("ʿUmar and his father was standing"); there is no doubt that if "qāʾim" had stood in the place of "the father," and the father were the one following after it, it would have stood in the accusative. Likewise is the manner in which "al-khiyara" stands in the nominative, while it is the predicate of "mā."

   If someone says: is it permissible that "mā" in this place is a negation (jaḥd), and that the meaning of the saying is: and your Lord creates what He wills to create, and chooses what He wills to choose — such that His saying وَيَخْتَارُ forms the end of the report about creating and choosing — and that the saying thereafter forms a new beginning with the meaning: they have no choice, that is to say: creation has no choice, and the choice belongs to Allah alone?

   The answer is: this is a saying whose untenability is not hidden from one who possesses reason, for several reasons — even if there were no saying of the exegetes against it. How then, when the exegesis of those whom we have mentioned goes against it? As for one of the reasons of its untenability: if His saying مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ were as the one who supposed it thus imagined — namely that "mā" has the meaning of negation, in the manner of the exegesis I have mentioned — then He, exalted is His mention, would only be negating that they had a choice in the past, before the revelation of this āyah, but as for the future they would indeed have a choice; for the saying of one who says: "this did not belong to you" is without doubt only a report that this did not belong to him in the past, and it could be permissible that it belongs to him in the future. And that is without doubt incorrect in speech, because what did not belong to creation thereof from of old never belongs to them. Moreover: if that meaning were intended, the saying would read "fa-laysa" (so it is not), and it would have been said: "and your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no choice (laysa lahum al-khiyara)," so that it would be a negation that this belonged to them both in the past and in the future.

   The second reason: the Book of Allah is the clearest exposition and the most lucid speech, and it is impossible that there be in it anything whose meaning is incomprehensible. And it is not permissible in speech to say, by way of beginning: "so-and-so had no choice," while no speech has preceded it that necessitates that. Likewise is His saying: وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ; before it no report from Allah, exalted is His mention, has preceded concerning anyone that he claimed he had a choice, so that it would be said to him: "you had no choice." What preceded it was only the report about that to which the matter comes for the one who turns away from his shirk and believes and performs good deeds; and He, exalted is His praise, followed that with the report about the cause of the faith of whoever among them believed and performed good deeds, namely that it is only because of His electing him for faith, and because of His foreknowledge concerning him that he would follow guidance. And what we have said is further clarified by His saying: وَرَبُّكَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تُكِنُّ صُدُورُهُمْ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ ("And your Lord knows what their breasts conceal and what they make public"); He reported that He knows of His servants the hidden and the visible, and that He elects for Himself and chooses for His obedience the one whose sincere inner state and pleasing outward conduct He has known.

   The third reason: the meaning of "al-khiyara" in this place is only "the chosen one" (al-khiyara), and that is what is selected out from the cattle, the herd animals, the men, and the women. One says of that: "uʿṭiya al-khiyara wa-l-khayra" ("he was given the best"), like "al-ṭiyara wa-l-ṭayra" — and it is not "the act of choosing" (al-ikhtiyār). And if "al-khiyara" is as we have described, then it is known that it belongs to the most excellent speech that it be said: and your Lord creates what He wills and chooses what He wills; they did not have the best cattle, or the best food, or the best man or woman.

   If he says: is it permissible that it has the meaning of a verbal noun (maṣdar)? The answer is: no. And that is because, if it were a verbal noun, the meaning of the saying would be: and your Lord creates what He wills and chooses that the choice belong to them. If that were its meaning, it would necessarily follow that the worst cattle and the worst herd animals would not belong to them; and if the worst of them did not belong to them, it would necessarily follow that it would have no owner — and that is something whose falsity is not hidden, for both the best and the worst of it have owners who possess it through Allah having given it into their possession. And that this is so renders untenable the attribution of it to the meaning of a verbal noun.

   And His saying, glorified and exalted is He: عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ("above what they associate as partners"). The Exalted, exalted is His mention, says this as a glorification of Allah and as declaring Him free and exalting Him above the shirk that the polytheists ascribed to Him, and above the lie and falsehood that they invented about Him.

   And the explanation of the saying is: glorified is Allah and exalted high above their shirk. And some of the grammarians construe it in the meaning of: and exalted above that to which they associate Him as partner.

   ------------------------

   Footnotes:

   (2) The verse is from the poetry of ʿAntara ibn ʿAmr ibn Shaddād al-ʿAbsī (Mukhtār al-shiʿr al-jāhilī, with commentary by Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā, edition of Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī and Sons, p. 394). The reading therein is the reading of al-Mufaḍḍal to which the author referred:

   Is it over Suhayya that the tear of the eye is shed?

   Would that it had been known with you before this day!

   The commentator said: Suhayya — and some say Sumayya — was the wife of his father. The author of al-Aghānī has related, with his isnād, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān al-Akhfash al-Aṣghar; he said: Abū Saʿīd al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Sukkarī informed us, on the authority of Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb. Abū Saʿīd said: and that was mentioned by Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī; both of them said: before his father acknowledged him as a son, the wife of his father incited against ʿAntara and said: "He approached me for myself." At that Shaddād (Shaddād, in some narrations, is his father) became severely enraged, and he beat him harshly and struck him with the sword. Then the wife of his father threw herself over him and held him back from him. And when she saw the wounds he had, she wept. And his word "madhrūf" comes from: "dharafat ʿalayhi ʿaynuhu tadhrifu dharīfan wa-dharafānan," and that is a tear-drop that flows almost continuously. And his word "would that this had been known with you before this day" means: I disowned this affection and this compassion from you, for if it had been known before that, he would not have disowned it. End of quotation. And according to this reading there is no attestation in the verse. But according to the reading of the author, which al-Farrāʾ related from al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn the judge, he put his word "law kāna dhā minka qabla al-yawmi maʿrūf" with "maʿrūf" in the nominative, as a predicate after the adverbial relation, that is to say after the preposition with noun "minka," which is the predicate of "dhā." He said: "because the Arabs make of the adverbial particles, when predicates follow them, predicates, just as they do with nouns when their predicates follow them"... and then he recited the verse and said: "he put maʿrūf in the nominative by means of the adverbial particle, while it is without doubt a predicate of dhā." I (the annotator) say: it appears that his intention is that the adverbial particle stands in the place of the pronoun of a subject (mubtadaʾ), and that "maʿrūf" is its predicate, as though he said: "law kāna dhā huwa maʿrūf" or something of the sort. And in this expression there is the contortion that is in it. And had he said that "maʿrūf" is a predicate of an omitted subject, estimated as: "huwa minka maʿrūf," and that the sentence is the predicate of "kāna," then that would have been clearer in expression. And I have found neither the verse nor the explanation of its parsing in the Maʿānī al-Qurʾān of al-Farrāʾ.

   (3) The two verses are by ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Rabīʿa al-Makhzūmī, the poet of love-verse in the time of the Umayyads, as the author said. "Mukallaf" comes from "al-kalaf" with something, and that is love and passion for something; one says "kalifa bi-l-shayʾi kalafan," and then he is "kalif" and "mukallaf": attached to it. And "thalāth" means: girls or women. And "al-dumā" is the plural of "dumya," and that is the figure of ivory, marble, or the like. And "al-kāʿib" is the young girl whose breast swells and protrudes. And "al-muslif": in (al-Lisān: salaf) it states: "al-muslif" among women is the woman of middle age. And it is said: it is she who has reached forty-five or thereabouts, and it is a quality used exclusively for women. ʿUmar ibn Abī Rabīʿa said "fīhā thalāth..." etc., and the point of attestation in the verse is that his word "mukallaf" stands in the nominative as a predicate, because it came after the preposition that is set in the place of the subject, as though he said: "ajībī ʿāshiqan huwa mukallaf." And it lies, in meaning, on a par with the attestation that preceded it, from the word of ʿAntara: "law kāna dhā minka qabla al-yawmi maʿrūf." End of quotation.

   Show original Arabic

   القول في تأويل قوله تعالى : وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ (68) يقول تعالى ذكره: ( وَرَبُّكَ ) يا محمد ( يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ) أن يخلقه ( وَيَخْتَارُ ) لولايته الخيرة من خلْقه, ومن سبقت له منه السعادة. وإنما قال جلّ ثناؤه: ( وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) والمعنى: ما وصفت, لأن المشركين كانوا فيما ذكر عنهم يختارون أموالهم, فيجعلونها لآلهتهم, فقال الله لنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: وربك يا محمد يخلق ما يشاء أن يخلقه, ويختار للهداية والإيمان والعمل الصالح من خلْقه, ما هو في سابق علمه أنه خيرتهم, نظير ما كان من هؤلاء المشركين لآلهتهم خيار أموالهم, فكذلك اختياري لنفسي. واجتبائي لولايتي, واصطفائي لخدمتي وطاعتي, خيار مملكتي وخلقي. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل. * ذكر من قال ذلك: حدثني محمد بن سعد, قال: ثني أبي, قال: ثني عمي, قال: ثني أبي, عن أبيه, عن ابن عباس, قوله: ( وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) قال: كانوا يجعلون خير أموالهم لآلهتهم في الجاهلية. فإذا كان معنى ذلك كذلك, فلا شكّ أن " ما " من قوله: ( وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) في موضع نصب, بوقوع يختار عليها, وأنها بمعنى الذي. فإن قال قائل: فإن كان الأمر كما وصفت, من أن " ما " اسم منصوب بوقوع قوله: ( يَخْتَارُ ) عليها, فأين خبر كان؟ فقد علمت ذلك كان كما قلت, أن في كان ذكرا من ما, ولا بد لكان إذا كان كذلك من تمام, وأين التمام؟ قيل: إن العرب تجعل لحروف الصفات إذا جاءت الأخبار بعدها، أحيانا, أخبارا, كفعلها بالأسماء إذا جاءت بعدها أخبارها، ذكر الفرَّاء أن القاسم بن معن أنشده قول عنترة: أمِــنْ سُـمَيَّةَ دَمْـعُ العَيْـنِ تَـذْرِيفُ لَـوْ كَـانَ ذَا مِنْـكَ قَبْلَ اليَوْمِ مَعْرُوفُ (2) فرفع معروفا بحرف الصفة, وهو لا شك خبر لذا, وذُكر أن المفضل أنشده ذلك: لوْ أَنَّ ذَا مِنْكَ قبلَ اليوْمِ مَعْرُوفُ ومنه أيضا قول عمر بن أبي ربيعة: قُلْــــتُ أَجِــــيبِي عَاشِـــقًا بِحُـــــــبِّكُمْ مُكَـــــــلَّفُ فيهَــــا ثَــــلاث كـــالدُّمَى وكــــــاعِبٌ وَمُسْــــــلِفُ (3) فمكلَّف من نعت عاشق, وقد رفعه بحرف الصفة, وهو الباء, في أشباه لما ذكرنا بكثير من الشواهد, فكذلك قوله: ( وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) رُفعت الخيرة بالصفة, وهي لهم, إن كانت خبرا لما, لما جاءت بعد الصفة, ووقعت الصفة موقع الخبر, فصار كقول القائل: كان عمر وأبوه قائم, لا شكّ أن قائما لو كان مكان الأب, وكان الأب هو المتأخر بعده, كان منصوبا, فكذلك وجه رفع الخيرة, وهو خبر لما. فإن قال قائل: فهل يجوز أن تكون " ما " في هذا الموضع جحدا, ويكون معنى الكلام: وربك يخلق ما يشاء أن يخلقه, ويختار ما يشاء أن يختاره, فيكون قوله: ( وَيَخْتَارُ ) نهاية الخبر عن الخلق والاختيار, ثم يكون الكلام بعد ذلك مبتدأ بمعنى: لم تكن لهم الخيرة: أي لم يكن للخلق الخيرة, وإنما الخيرة لله وحده؟ قيل: هذا قول لا يخفي فساده على ذي حجا, من وجوه, لو لم يكن بخلافه لأهل التأويل قول, فكيف والتأويل عمن ذكرنا بخلافه; فأما أحد وجوه فساده, فهو أن قوله: ( مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) لو كان كما ظنه من ظنه, من أن " ما " بمعنى الجحد, على نحو التأويل الذي ذكرت, كان إنما جحد تعالى ذكره, أن تكون لهم الخيرة فيما مضى قبل نـزول هذه الآية, فأما فيما يستقبلونه فلهم الخيرة, لأن قول القائل: ما كان لك هذا, لا شكّ إنما هو خبر عن أنه لم يكن له ذلك فيما مضى. وقد يجوز أن يكون له فيما يستقبل, وذلك من الكلام لا شكّ خلف. لأن ما لم يكن للخلق من ذلك قديما, فليس ذلك لهم أبدا. وبعد, لو أريد ذلك المعنى, لكان الكلام: فليس. وقيل: وربك يخلق ما يشاء ويختار, ليس لهم الخيرة, ليكون نفيا عن أن يكون ذلك لهم فيما قبل وفيما بعد. والثاني: أن كتاب الله أبين البيان, وأوضح الكلام, ومحال أن يوجد فيه شيء غير مفهوم المعنى, وغير جائز في الكلام أن يقال ابتداء: ما كان لفلان الخيرة, ولما يتقدم قبل ذلك كلام يقتضي ذلك; فكذلك قوله: ( وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ ) ولم يتقدم قبله من الله تعالى ذكره خبر عن أحد, أنه ادعى أنه كان له الخيرة, فيقال له: ما كان لك الخيرة, وإنما جرى قبله الخبر عما هو صائر إليه أمر من تاب من شركه, وآمن وعمل صالحا, وأتبع ذلك جلّ ثناؤه الخبر عن سبب إيمان من آمن وعمل صالحا منهم, وأن ذلك إنما هو لاختياره إياه للإيمان, وللسابق من علمه فيه اهتدى. ويزيد ما قلنا من ذلك إبانة قوله: وَرَبُّكَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تُكِنُّ صُدُورُهُمْ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ فأخبر أنه يعلم من عباده السرائر والظواهر, ويصطفى لنفسه ويختار لطاعته من قد علم منه السريرة الصالحة, والعلانية الرضية. والثالث: أن معنى الخيرة في هذا الموضع: إنما هو الخيرة, وهو الشيء الذي يختار من البهائم والأنعام والرجال والنساء, يقال منه: أُعطي الخِيَرة والخَيْرة, مثل الطِّيرة والطّيْرة, وليس بالاختيار, وإذا كانت الخيرة ما وصفنا, فمعلوم أن من أجود الكلام أن يقال: وربك يخلق ما يشاء, ويختار ما يشاء, لم يكن لهم خير بهيمة أو خير طعام, أو خير رجل أو امرأة. فإن قال: فهل يجوز أن تكون بمعنى المصدر؟ قيل: لا وذلك أنها إذا كانت مصدرا كان معنى الكلام: وربك يخلق ما يشاء ويختار كون الخيرة لهم. إذا كان ذلك معناه, وجب ألا تكن الشرار لهم من البهائم والأنعام; إذا لم يكن لهم شرار ذلك وجب ألا يكون لها مالك, وذلك ما لا يخفى خطؤه, لأن لخيارها ولشرارها أربابا يملكونها بتمليك الله إياهم ذلك, وفي كون ذلك كذلك فساد توجيه ذلك إلى معنى المصدر. وقوله:سبحانه وتعالى: ( عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ) يقول تعالى ذكره تنـزيها لله وتبرئة له, وعلوا عما أضاف إليه المشركون من الشرك, وما تخرّصوه من الكذب والباطل عليه. وتأويل الكلام: سبحان الله وتعالى عن شركهم. وقد كان بعض أهل العربية يوجهه إلى أنه بمعنى: وتعالى عن الذي يشركون به. ------------------------ الهوامش: (2) البيت من شعر عنترة بن عمرو بن شداد العبسي (مختار الشعر الجاهلي، بشرح مصطفى السقا، طبعة مصطفى البابي الحلبي وأولاده ص 394) والرواية فيه رواية المفضل التي أشار إليها المؤلف: أَمِــنْ سُـهَيَّةَ دَمْـعُ الْعَيْـنِ تَـذْرِيفُ لَـوْ كَـانَ مِنـكِ قَبْـلَ الْيَومِ مَعْرُوفُ قال شارحه: سهية، وقيل سمية: امرأة أبيه. روى صاحب الأغاني بسنده عن علي بن سليمان الأخفش الأصغر قال: أخبرنا أبو سعيد الحسن بن الحسين السكري، عن محمد بن حبيب، قال أبو سعيد: وذكر ذلك أبو عمرو الشيباني، قالا: كان عنترة قبل أن يدعيه أبوه، حرشت عليه امرأة أبيه. وقالت إنه... عن نفسي، فغضب من ذلك شداد (شداد أبوه في بعض الروايات) غضبًا شديدًا. وضربه ضربًا مبرحًا، وضربه بالسيف، فوقعت عليه امرأة أبيه، وكفته عنه، فلما رأت ما به من الجراح بكت، وقوله "مذروف": من ذرفت عليه عينه تذرف ذريفًا، وذرفانًا: وهو قطر يكاد يتصل. وقوله "لو أن ذا منك قبل اليوم معروف": أي قد أنكرت هذا الحنو والإشفاق منك؛ لأنه لو كان معروفًا قبل ذلك لم ينكره اه. وعلى هذه الرواية لا شاهد في البيت. أما على رواية المؤلف، وهي التي نقلها الفراء عن القاسم بن معن القاضي، فإنه جعل قوله "لو كان ذا منك قبل اليوم معروف" برفع معروف على أنه خبر بعد الصفة. أي الجار والمجرور "منك"، التي هي خبر عن ذا، قال: "لأن العرب تجعل لحروف الصفات إذا جاءت الأخبار بعدها أخبارًا، كفعلها بالأسماء إذا جاءت بعدها أخبارها"... ثم أنشد البيت وقال: "فرفع معروفًا بحرف الصفة وهو لا شك خبر لذا" اه. قلت: وكأن مراده أن حرف الصفة موضوع موضع ضمير مبتدأ، ومعروف: خبره، وكأنه قال: لو كان ذا هو معروف أو نحو ذلك. وفي هذا التعبير من التعسف ما فيه. ولو قال إن "معروف" خبر عن مبتدأ محذوف تقديره: هو منك معروف، والجملة خبر كان، لكان أوضح تعبيرًا ولم أجد البيت ولا توجيه إعرابه في معاني القرآن للفراء. (3) البيتان لعمر بن عبد الله بن أبي ربيعة المخزومي شاعر الغزل زمن بني أمية، كما قال المؤلف. ومكلف: من الكلف بالشيء وهو الحب والولوع بالشيء، كلف بالشيء كلفًا فهو كلف ومكلف: لهج به. وثلاث أي جوار أو نساء. والدمى: جمع دمية، وهي التمثال من العاج أو الرخام أو نحوهما. والكاعب: الفتاة التي تكعب ثديها وبرر والمسلف: قال في (اللسان: سلف): المسلف من النساء: النصف. وقيل: هي التي بلغت خمسًا وأربعين ونحوها، وهو وصف خص به الإناث، قال عمر بن أبي ربيعة "فيها ثلاث..." إلخ البيت: ومحل الشاهد في البيت أن قوله: مكلف بالرفع على أنه خبر، لأنه وقع بعد حرف الجر الذي وضع موضع المبتدأ، كأنه قال: أجيبي عاشقًا هو مكلف. وهو في معنى الشاهد الذي قبله من قول عنترة "لو كان ذا منك قبل اليوم معروف". اه.