Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:10

"In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they used to lie."

(10) The Disease (al-maraḍ): It is read with a fatḥah on the rāʾ as the majority read it, and with a sukūn as al-Aṣmaʿī narrated from Abū ʿAmr. According to linguists, it is a state outside of nature that is effectively harmful. According to physicians, it is the antithesis of health—health being that state from which proper actions emerge. Actions here refer to those that are customary, whether natural (like growth), animalistic (like breathing), or psychic (like the quality of thought). For example, al-ḥawl (strabismus) and al-ḥadab (humpback) are considered diseases by physicians but not by linguists.

Linguistically, "disease" is sometimes used to denote its effect, which is pain—as stated by a group of reliable authorities—or darkness, as in the saying: "In a night that was 'diseased' (dark) from every side, such that neither star nor moon could perceive it." It is also used to denote weakness and slackness of the heart, as stated by more than one scholar. Metaphorically, it is applied to whatever afflicts a person and impairs the perfection of his soul, such as hatred, negligence, corrupt belief, envy, and other obstacles to perfection—similar to how bodily dysfunction prevents the enjoyment of pleasures and leads to spiritual destruction, which is greater than physical destruction.

It is narrated from Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Qatādah, and the rest of the righteous predecessors that "disease" in this verse is interpreted according to its metaphorical meaning. There is no doubt that the hearts of the hypocrites were filled with those impurities that held them back from what they were held back from and led them to the lowest depths of the Fire. Some find no objection to interpreting the disease in its literal sense as well, which is "darkness" ("Whoever Allah has not given light, for him there is no light" and "Those who disbelieve, their allies are the Ṭāghūt, taking them out of the light into the darkness"), and also as "pain," for there is great pain in the hearts of those people due to the thorn of Islam and the established order of its affairs. Thus, the verse, under this view, is potentially inclusive of both meanings. The stipulation of a barrier to a metaphorical interpretation is only required for its determination, not for its possibility. If it includes a subtle point (nuktah), it equals the reality; therefore, one may carry it to both meanings, considering both the literal and the subtle point.

However, it is objected here that pain absolutely is not the reality of the disease; rather, its reality is pain resulting from a bad temperament (sūʾ al-mizāj), which is absent in the hypocrites. To say that their state, which they are upon, necessarily leads to it is extremely flimsy. Moreover, if the hearts of those people were literally diseased, their bodies would be so as well, or death would have hastened them. The Prophetic tradition and medical law bear witness to this. As for the first, it is the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): "Indeed, there is a piece of flesh in the body..." [and the rest of the hadith]. As for the second, the sages, after explaining the anatomy of the heart, said: "If a thick substance develops in it, and it takes hold of it and its covering, or one of them, it hastens the death of its owner; if it does not take hold, life is delayed for a short time." There is no path for life to remain with a [literal] disease of the heart. Therefore, it is better in terms of transmission and narrations to interpret it according to its metaphorical meaning, including cowardice and weakness of spirit; such sentiments filled the hearts of the hypocrites when they witnessed what they witnessed from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and the believers.

The tanwīn (indefiniteness) denotes that it is a type of disease different from those commonly known to people. It was not pluralized, unlike "hearts," because the plurality of the loci implies the plurality of the state rationally, so the pluralization of the former sufficed for the latter.

The first sentence is either a new beginning (mustaʾnafah) to explain the cause of their deception and the hypocrisy they are in, or it is a confirmation of what the phrase "and they are not believers" implies—the continuity of their lack of faith—or it is an explanation for it. It is as if it were said: "What is the matter with them that they do not believe?" And he replied: "In their hearts is a disease" that prevents it. Or, it is a confirmation of their lack of perception, even if the path of the phrase "and they do not perceive" is the path of the parenthetical clause, as has been said.

The sentence "so Allah has increased their disease" is either a prayer (duʿāʾ) parenthetically inserted between the coordinated and the coordinate; parenthetical clauses may be joined by the fāʾ, as in the statement: "Know—for the knowledge of a person benefits him—that every destined matter shall come," as has been clarified in al-Talwīḥ and others, citing the grammarians. Or, it is an informative statement coordinated to the first. The coordination of the past tense to the nominal sentence is for a subtle point: if the intention in the first is that this [disease] remained fresh and moist until the time of the report, then the second implies that this is a cause for the increase of their disease—which is confirmed—because if their nature were not corrupted, they would have increased in healing through what Allah (the Exalted) bestowed upon the believers. This does not repeat the meaning of His saying: "He prolongs them in their transgression," for there is a difference between the increase of disease and the increase of transgression; furthermore, there is no prohibition against emphatic reinforcement despite the distance [between the verses].

Furthermore, if the prayer is not running on the tongues of the servants or intended merely as an insult and belittlement, it is an affirmation (ījāb) from Him (the Exalted), thus resulting in the same outcome as an informative statement. Allah (the Exalted) increasing their disease is either through the doubling of their envy due to the increase of Allah's blessings upon His Messenger (ﷺ) and the believers, or the darkening of their hearts by the renewal of their disbelief through the verses and the Wise Remembrance that He (the Exalted) sends down little by little—so they are in darkness, some of it above the other—or by multiplying their fear and terror, which results in their abandoning open disbelief due to Allah’s (the Exalted) support of Islam and the raising of its banners above the banners of honor and respect. Or [it is] by intensifying their pain through an increase of grief and the kindling of the fires of sorrow. Grief wears down the soul, turns the hair of a youth grey, and causes premature aging. This comes about through the ever-renewing religious obligations imposed by Allah (the Exalted) and their actions of these [obligations] while they disbelieve in them, and through the Prophet’s (ﷺ) commissioning them for certain tasks while they lag behind, which brings upon them the reproach and ill-opinion they loathe, so they grieve whether they act or refrain.

Attributing the increase to Allah (the Exalted) is [true] in reality, even if interpreted by [the law of] nature, for He (the Exalted) is the true agent through causes and without them, and nothing shameful comes from Him. Some have made this attribution metaphorical in some respects, perhaps leaning towards Muʿtazilite thought. Some have gone further, stating the attribution is metaphorical regardless of the nature of the disease, interpreting it to mean that there is no one here who increases them in disease in reality—according to the opinion of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qāhir that it is not necessary for a metaphorical attribution to have an agent for the action that is literal, such as "his face increases you in beauty" if you increase in looking at it. So reflect on this.

He (the Exalted) attributed the increase to "them" and not to "the hearts"—he did not say "so He increased them (their hearts) in disease"—either as an ellipsis of the genitive, i.e., "so Allah increased their hearts in disease," or as an indication that the disease of the heart is a disease for the entire body, or as a symbol that the heart is the rational soul (al-nafs al-nāṭiqah), and without it, a human would not be human. The repetition of "disease" as an indefinite noun is because it is different from the first, since that which is added to differs from that which is added. The claim of those who believe it is a case of placing the manifest in the position of the pronoun is a delusion; rather, the indefiniteness is for intensification (tafkhīm).

Al-alīm (the painful) is of the form faʿīl derived from al-alam (pain) in the sense of mufʿil (causing pain), like samīʿ (hearer) in the sense of musmiʿ (causing to hear). According to what al-Zamakhsharī held, the faʿīl of a triliteral root is like wajīʿ (painful); its attribution to "punishment" is metaphorical, similar to "his grandfather's grandfather." He does not accept faʿīl in the sense of mufʿil, and he considers "the Originator (badīʿ) of the heavens" as a type of the stable participle (ṣifah mushabbahah), meaning "His heavens are originated," and samīʿ in the saying: "Is there from Rayḥāna a hearer (samīʿ) of the caller..." as meaning "listener" (sāmiʿ), i.e., "Is there a caller from my heart who is listening to the call of its caller?" based on the evidence of what follows; for most anxiety and sleeplessness come from the motives of the self and its thoughts. Thus, its explanation as "painful" (muʾlim) is an active participle explaining the intended meaning. Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with them both): "Every 'painful' (alīm) in the Qurʾan means 'causing pain' (mūjiʿ)." Two types of punishment were gathered for the hypocrites: "great" and "painful." This is due to the specification here and their inclusion with the disbelievers there. It is said: This sentence is parenthetical to explain the threat of hypocrisy and deception.

The bāʾ (in bimā) is either for causality or substitution. Mā is either a masdar particle interpreted as a masdar (e.g., "because of their lying" li-kidhbihim), or a masdar derived from the predicate—like the lie—or it is a relative pronoun. Abū al-Baqāʾ considers it most likely that the estimated pronoun refers to what he presented in al-Baḥr—that there is no need for an estimation there. Those who read yukadhdhibūn (they deny) with light dhāl—the Kufans—the verb is intransitive. Those who read it with heavy dhāl—like Nāfiʿ, Ibn Kathīr, and Abū ʿAmr—the object is deleted because the meaning is understood; the estimation is "because they deny the Prophet (ﷺ) in what he brought." It is possible that the heavy form has the same meaning as the light form for the sake of hyperbole, just as they said bayyana (made clear) and bāna (was clear), and ṣadaqa and ṣaddaqa. The doubling might also be for quantitative increase, like mawwata al-ibil (the camels died in large numbers). It is also possible that it is from kadhaba al-waḥsh (the wild animal turned and stopped to look behind it), and that is the state of the bewildered, which is the state of the hypocrite; the speech then contains a derivative metaphorical analogy (istiʿārah tabaʿiyyah tamthīliyyah). This meaning is supported by his (ﷺ) saying: "The example of the hypocrite is like the sheep hesitating between two flocks; it runs to this one once, and to that one once."

The prepositional phrase is an adjective for "punishment," not for "painful," as Abū al-Baqāʾ said, because the base principle in an adjective is that it is not described.

Lying (al-kidhb) is reporting about a thing, in its relation or subject, contrary to what it is in the essence of the matter—according to us—or in belief—according to al-Nazzām—or in both—according to al-Jāḥiẓ. Every intended, praiseworthy goal that can be achieved through both truth and lies—lying is forbidden in it due to the lack of need. If it cannot be achieved except through lying, then lying in it is permissible if the attainment of that goal is permissible, and obligatory if it is obligatory. The hadith explicitly states its permissibility in three situations: in war, in reconciling people, and a man's lying to his wife to please her. There is no restriction [to these three]. For this reason, it is permissible to prompt those who have confessed to crimes requiring legal punishment to recant their confession. Therefore, one must weigh the corruption of the lie against the corruption resulting from the truth; if the corruption in the truth is more harmful, then lying is permitted for him. If the opposite is the case, or if there is doubt, it is forbidden for him. What Imam al-Bayḍāwī (may Allah have mercy on him) said, that all lying is forbidden, is something in which he stumbled. In the verse, there is an incitement for the believers toward the truth and confirmation they are upon; for when the believer hears that punishment results from lying—not hypocrisy, which is what it is—he imagines in himself the hardening of the name of lying and conceives its ugliness, so he is deterred from it with the greatest deterrence. This is apparent based on the light reading, and it is possible in others as well, for the relation of the truthful one to lying is a lie, and so is its frequency, even if there is strain in the latter meaning.

It is said: It is taken from the transitive kadhaba, as if he lies about his opinion, so he stops to look. But when its usage in this meaning became frequent, and the state of the hypocrite was similar to this, it was permissible to borrow it for it—though this is a far-fetched interpretation. That incitement does not contradict the prohibition of lying. In some of their versions, it is narrated in the hadith of intercession that Ibrahim (peace be upon him) will say: "I am not fit for it; I told three lies," meaning what is in the narration of Aḥmad: ("I am sick"), ("Rather, the big one did it"), and his saying to the king when asked about his wife Sarah: "She is my sister," when he wanted to seize her. It was the policy [of the tyrant] to harass only married women without their consent. If these were from forbidden lies, where is the infallibility? And he is the Father of the Prophets. If they were not such, he reported on the Day of Resurrection something contrary to reality—and far be it from him! Since what is understood from that speech is "I have sinned, so I am shy to intercede," and would one be shy of something in which there is no sin? Due to the strength of this doubt, al-Rāzī was certain of the falsity of the narration to protect the status of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). We say: These were maʿārīḍ (equivocations), and in them there is room to avoid lying. They were issued by the Master of the Infallible (ﷺ), such as his saying in the story of the migration. Naming them as "lies" is by way of metaphor for sharing the form; they are truthful equivocations, as you will see, God willing, in their proper place. However, because they were based on leniency with enemies, and one like him, whom Allah has guaranteed to protect, should show fortitude, he considered his deviation from the former as a sin in that position and called it a lie because of its form. What happened to our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of that nature did not occur in such a position as to make him shy of it. For every position, there is a statement. Furthermore, we say: even if they were lies in reality, there is no harm in them and no shame. How could there be, when the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "There is no lie among them except that he debated through it for the religion of Allah (the Exalted)"? Thus, they are among the permissible lies. But since the position of intercession is the "Praiseworthy Station" reserved for the Beloved, not the Friend (Khalīl), he manifested shyness to defend himself with what is thought to cause that, while it does not. In that is a kind of humility, the display of incapacity, and defending with that which is better—which is not hidden. It is as if he said: "I do not feel safe from reproach for a permissible lie, so how can I intercede for you in this position?" So let this be remembered.

Furthermore, the bringing of imperfect verbs (al-afʿāl al-muḍāriʿah) in the reports of the past imperfect verbs (al-afʿāl al-māḍiyah al-nāqiṣah) is common, such as "he began to say (aṣbaḥa yaqūl) such and such," and "the hearts of a party of them almost swerved (kādat tazīgh)." Its meaning is that in the past, it was continuous and renewed by the succession of similar events. The past and future are relative to the time of the judgment. Continuity is counted as one of the meanings of kāna (to be), so there is no problem in "because they used to lie (kānū yakdhibūn)," as kāna indicates the attribution of lying to them in the past, and yakdhibūn indicates its attribution in the present and future. The time in both is different. Defending it by saying kāna indicates continuity in all times and yakdhibu indicates renewed continuity entering all times, with its faults, is sufficient for Allah (the Exalted).

Ḥamzah read with imālah (inclination) for "he increased them (zādahum)" in ten verbs. Ibn Dhakwān agreed with him in the imālah of jāʾa (came) and shāʾa (willed), and he added this one. From him, there is a difference regarding zāda besides this. The imālah is for Tamīm, and the fullness (tafkhīm) is for the Hijāz. Abū Ḥayyān organized those ten verbs, saying: "Ten verbs are inclined for Ḥamzah: jāʾa, shāʾa, ḍāqa, rāna, kamma, lā, zāda, khāba, ṭāba, khāfa, and likewise ḥāqa and zāgha, except in al-Aḥzāb along with ṣād."