Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:108

(Or do you intend to question your Messenger as Moses was questioned before?)

Regarding the particle Am (Or) here, it is permissible for it to be connective (muttasilah) or disjunctive (munqati'ah). If one assumes the presence of "do you know" before "intend"—based on the indication of the preceding context, which is "Did you not know," and the surrounding context, which is the act of making a demand (for a miracle), an act that occurs only out of stubbornness and defiance—then it is connective. It is as if it were said: "Which of the two matters—knowledge of what has preceded, or knowledge combined with such a demand—is actually taking place?" The interrogation in this case is one of denunciation, meaning that neither should occur. If one does not assume this, it is disjunctive, serving to turn away from the mention of their lack of knowledge regarding the previous verses to interrogate their demand—much like the demands of the Jews—denouncing them as acts that should not occur.

Some have asserted it is disjunctive based on whether the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is included in the address. He is not included here because he is the one to whom the demand is made, not the one making it, which would disrupt the continuity. It is answered that this does not disrupt it, as the intended purpose is achieved. The "willingness" (iradah) attributed to the Messenger in the text is merely for illustration and transition, as we have mentioned that it is metaphorical.

The intent, on both interpretations, is to counsel the Muslims to trust the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and to abandon such demands after having refuted the objections of the polytheists or the Jews regarding abrogation (naskh). It is as if it were said: "Do not be like the Jews regarding what has been sent down to you from the Quran, by abandoning trust in the clear signs and demanding others instead, lest you go astray and disbelieve after having believed." In this counsel lies the pinnacle of eloquence and exaggeration, to the point that it is as if they were on the verge of wanting such things, so they were forbidden from it, let alone forbidden from the actual questioning. This implies that it is the nature of a rational person not to undertake the willingness for such a thing.

The Almighty did not say, "as the nation of Moses or the Jews questioned," to indicate that whoever asks such a thing deserves to have one’s tongue shielded from even mentioning them. The previous [demand] does not require that they had actually made such a request, nor is the meaning of the verse dependent on it, for the counsel does not necessitate that it had occurred previously. How could it, when it constitutes disbelief, as indicated by the subsequent verse, and such a thing is unlikely to occur from a believer?

From what we have mentioned, the reason for this verse following "Whatever sign We abrogate..." becomes clear, for the purpose of both is to confirm their faith in the signs and counsel them to trust in them. As for the explanation that they might have been asking him—peace and blessings be upon him—to explain the details of the ruling that necessitated the abrogation, and that the verse of abrogation was thus followed by this, it leans closer to mere wishful thinking. Some exegetes have mentioned that during the Battle of Khaybar, they demanded that the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—designate for them a "Dhat Anwat" (a tree to hang weapons on) just as the polytheists had. The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said: "SubhanAllah! This is as the people of Moses said: 'Make for us a god as they have gods.' By Him in whose hand is my soul, you will follow the traditions of those before you, step by step, just as one arrow feather follows another. If among them there was one who slept with his mother, it will be among you. I do not know if you will worship the calf or not." While this event is relevant, it implies that the addressees in these verses are the believers, and the preceding and succeeding contexts, as well as the concluding sentence, bear witness to this. On this basis, the connectivity (ittisal) is preferred, according to what is reported from Al-Radi: that when two verbal sentences share the same subject, such as "Did you stand or did you sit," the Am is connective.

Some claim that the addressees are the Jews, and that the verse was revealed concerning them when they asked that a book be sent down to them from heaven in its entirety, as the Torah was sent to Moses—peace be upon him. He addressed them with this after refuting their objections as a threat to them. In this case, the present tense is used in the sense of the past, but it is expressed this way to bring the heinous image to mind. Imam Al-Razi chose this, saying it is the most correct, because this chapter, from the beginning of His saying, "O Children of Israel, remember My favor," is a narrative about the Jews and an argument with them; and because their mention was ongoing, whereas others were not mentioned; and because a believer in the Messenger would hardly ask for something that would be a substitute for "disbelief for faith." The fault in his argument is not hidden, as he seemingly forgot the Almighty’s saying: "O you who have believed, do not say 'Ra'ina,' but say 'Unzurna'."

It is said that the addressees are the people of Mecca, which is the opinion of Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. It is reported from him that the verse was revealed concerning Abdullah ibn Umayyah and a group of the Quraysh, who said: "O Muhammad, make the Safa for us into gold, expand the land of Mecca for us, and cause rivers to gush forth through it, and we will believe you." Other reasons for revelation have been mentioned. There is no obstacle—as is the case in Al-Bahr—to considering all of them as reasons. Based on the disagreement regarding the addressees, the discussion on "your Messenger" follows: if they are the believers, the attribution is based on the reality of the matter and what they have affirmed regarding his message; if they are others, it is based on the reality of the matter, not their affirmation.

The "ma" is a verbal particle (masdariyyah). It is commonly held that the genitive phrase is an adjective for a deleted verbal noun, meaning "a questioning as...". Sibawayh held that it is in the position of an accusative for the state (hal), and the estimation for him is "that you question him, i.e., the questioning as...". Al-Hufi permitted the "ma" to be a relative pronoun (mawsulah) in the position of an object for "question," meaning "like the things that Moses—peace be upon him—questioned before." This is the most appropriate because the denunciation of them is only because their demands are corrupt and ultimately disastrous for them. There is a critique here, however: the object of the comparison is "to question," which is a verbal noun, so it is apparent that the thing it is compared to should also be one. The ugliness of the question is due to the ugliness of what is being requested; indeed, the act of questioning itself can be ugly in some cases. Furthermore, the verbal particle (masdariyyah) does not require a linking pronoun, so it is preferable. "Before" (min qabl) relates to "questioned," and it is brought for emphasis.

"And whoever exchanges disbelief for faith has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way."

This is an independent sentence containing a general ruling, presented in the form of a proverb. It is brought to emphasize the prohibition against making demands, which is understood from His saying, "Or do you intend...", and is linked to it. It is a conclusion (tadhil) based on the fact that those who make demands while in doubt are among the astray, those who have exchanged the straight path. "Sawa" (sawa') means the middle or the level. The annexation is of the type of adding a description to the described, for the sake of emphasizing the intensity of the attribution, as if he is the very middle of the path. The "Fa" is a linking particle, and what follows it cannot be the response to the condition (jaza') because straying from the straight path precedes the exchange, and apostasy does not result from it. Moreover, if the response is in the past tense with "qad," it remains in the past, for "qad" is for affirmation, and that which is confirmed and established does not change, and the past is not consequent to the future. Furthermore, for the condition to be present tense and the response past tense is a weak construction that has not appeared in the Book of Allah, as Al-Radi and others have stated. Thus, it must be estimated by saying: "Whoever exchanges... then the cause for that is that he has abandoned [the truth]." The meaning leads to the fact that straying from the straight path—which is open disbelief in the signs—is the cause of the exchange and apostasy.

Some interpreted the aforementioned "exchange" as abandoning trust in the signs, considering it a necessary implication, and thus it is a metaphor for it. The conclusion of the verse is then: Whoever abandons trust in the clear, revealed signs—in accordance with the interests, among which are the abrogating verses which are pure good and truth—and demands others instead, has indeed deviated and transgressed, without realizing, from the straight path that leads to the landmarks of truth and guidance, wandering in the wilderness of caprice and falling into the pits of ruin. This phrasing was chosen in the Noble Order to signal from the very beginning, in the most eloquent way, that such an act is disbelief and apostasy. Perhaps what we have pointed out is more appropriate, as is not hidden from the one who contemplates.