But, Dr. Al-Qattaan agrees with this claim. Even though the reason for 8:65 is given in it, namely steadfastness/endurance, and the reason for 8:66 is also given in it, namely weakness.
There are four combinations that can result from having two contingencies, so let's examine them:
- The Muslim army is strong and the soldiers are steadfast. In this case, the assurance of 8:65 applies. That is, a Muslim army should be confident that it can, in this situation, beat an enemy army ten times their number. I call this the 10-to-1 assurance. It is an assurance, rather than a command, since no command was given in 8:65 other than urging believers to fight their attackers.
- The Muslim army is strong but the soldiers are not steadfast. This can happen, for example, when the soldiers are depending more on weapons and technology than on faith. In this case, 8:65 does not apply, because it is contingent on steadfastness. But, does 8:66 apply? I don't think so, because it is contingent on weakness, which is not the case here. Furthermore, steadfastness is also mentioned in it as a qualifier.
Thus, the only thing I can think of that applies in this case is that neither the 10-to-1 assurance nor the 2-to-1 assurance can be given here.
- The Muslim army has weakness, but its soldiers are steadfast. This is where 8:66 comes in. The 2-to-1 assurance applies.
- The Muslim army has weakness and the soldiers are not steadfast. In this situation, no assurance can be given and neither 8:65 nor 8:66 apply.
Thus, 8:65-66 handle only two out of four combinations of strength and steadfastness. The other two combinations are not mentioned, because the assurances in these two verses cannot be given.