Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:109

(Many of the People of the Scripture wish): They are a faction of the Jewish rabbis who said to the Muslims after the Battle of Uhud: "Do you not see what has befallen you? Had you been upon the truth, you would not have been defeated. So return to our religion, for it is better for you." This was narrated by al-Wahidi from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). It is also narrated that Finhas ibn Azura, Zayd ibn Qays, and a group of Jews said this to Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him), as part of a long hadith. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned that this is not found in any of the books of Hadith.

(If they could turn you back): This is a narrative of their wish. The discussion regarding this "if" (law) has already preceded, so there is no need for repetition.

(As disbelievers after you have believed): "Disbelievers" (kuffaran) is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the pronoun of the addressees. It indicates that disbelief is equated with apostasy, implying that disbelief occurs merely by the act of apostatizing, regardless of what one returns to. This is why it did not say: "to return you to disbelief." It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial qualifier for the subject of "wish" (wadda). Some have chosen that it is a second object for "turn you back" (yaruddukum), based on implying within "turning back" the meaning of "transforming," since among them are those who do not disbelieve until they are turned back to it, thus requiring the rule of dominance (taghlib), as in the verse: “You will surely return to our creed.” Furthermore, the disbelief here is imposed by way of coercion, which is more egregious.

As for the Almighty’s saying (after you have believed), although the apparent meaning is "from" (an), because "returning" (al-radd) is used with it, it is an explicit statement of the fact that faith has been attained by them. It is said: It was brought in the middle to show the complete hideousness of what they intended and the extreme distance of it from being realized—either because of its increased ugliness, which deters the intelligent from undertaking it, or because of the resistance of faith against it. It is as if it were said: "After your firm belief," which contains a strengthening for the believers, the nature of which is not hidden.

(Out of envy): This is the cause for the "wish" (wadda) for them to turn you back, because they wish for their apostasy absolutely, not only the apostasy motivated by envy. It is permitted to be a noun in the accusative case functioning as a circumstantial qualifier (hal), meaning "envying you." It is not pluralized because it is a verbal noun (masdar). There is weakness in this because making the verbal noun a circumstantial qualifier—as Abu Hayyan said—is not a standard analogy. It is also said that it may be allowed as a verbal noun in the accusative case, with its operator being omitted and implied by the meaning, i.e., "they envy you with an envy."

(From themselves): This is linked to an omitted element, functioning as an adjective, either for "envy"—meaning envy originating from the very core of their souls, as if it were essential to them—which contains an indication that it reached an extreme limit (this confirms the matter of the tanwin if it is taken to imply multiplication or glorification)—or for the "wish" understood from wadda, meaning a wish originating "from themselves" and their desires, not from reflection or inclination toward the truth. Making it a redundant adverbial phrase (zarf laghw) modifying "wish" or "envy," as narrated from Makki, is made unlikely by the fact that they are not used with the word "from" (min), as Ibn al-Shajari stated.

(Even after the truth has become clear to them): By the descriptions mentioned in the Torah and the miracles. This acts as evidence for restricting "many" to the rabbis, as the clarity through these means was only for them, not for the ignorant. Perhaps those who said that the wish was also held by their commoners meant to prevent their religion, which they inherited, from being invalidated, and to prevent the leadership of their rabbis, whom they believed in and took as leaders, from being voided. Thus, the meaning of "many" is all of them, from their disbelievers and hypocrites; this mention serves to exclude those among them who believed in secret and in public. It is claimed that the clarity occurred for all, except that its reasons are different and varied. This is what is most probable, for whoever witnesses those dazzling miracles and manifest signs, it is unlikely—in any case—that the truth would not become clear to them and that they would not recognize the rising points of truth, were it not that personal interests, base desires, and satanic promptings blinded those who were blinded from faith and bound those who were bound in the shackles of abandonment.

(So pardon and overlook): "Pardon" (al-'afw) is the abandonment of punishing the sinner, and "overlooking" (al-safh) is the abandonment of blame and reproach. It is more eloquent than pardon, for a person may pardon but not overlook. It is perhaps taken from turning the side of the face (tawliyat safhat al-wajh) in aversion, or from "you turned the page" (tasaffahta al-waraqah) if you bypass what is in it. He preferred pardon over patience regarding their harm, signaling the empowerment of the believers and intimidating the disbelievers.

(Until Allah brings His command): This is one of the commands. The intent is the command to fight, as in His, the Exalted’s saying: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day...” until “...while they are humbled.” Or the command to kill the Qurayza and exile the Banu al-Nadir. It is said: This is one of the affairs, and the intent is the Resurrection or the requital on that day, or the strength of the Message and the abundance of the nation. Some people interpreted "overlooking" as turning away from them and ceasing to associate with them, making the end of "pardon" the coming of the verse of fighting, and the end of "turning away" the coming of Allah’s command. Al-Kalbi interpreted it as the Islam of those who accepted Islam, but this is nothing, as it necessitates interpreting "the command" as one of the commands and one of the affairs, which, according to the verifiers, is between truth and metaphor.

It is related from Qatadah, al-Suddi, and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the verse is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword. This is considered problematic because abrogation, being a clarification of the duration of a term in relation to the Lawgiver and a refutation of the apparent perpetuity of the unrestricted, requires the abrogated ruling to be free of timing and perpetuity. For if it were timed, the abrogator would be a clarification for us as well, and if it were perpetual, it would be an initiation, not a clarification, for the Lawgiver. The command here is timed by an end-point, and the fact that it is unknown requires the verse of fighting to be a clarification of its ambiguity. Thus is clarified the weakness of the answer given by Imam al-Razi—followed by many—that if the end-point to which the command relates is known only through Islamic law, the revealed command does not escape being an abrogation, and it takes the place of “so pardon and overlook” until "I abrogate it for you." This is not like His saying: “Then complete the fast until the night.”

As for al-Tayyibi’s strengthening of this with the judgment of the Torah and the Gospel—because it is mentioned in them that the period of their validity ends with the sending of the Unlettered Prophet, such as His saying: “...who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel”—and his appearance (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was an abrogation: the objection raised in al-Talwih is that what occurred in them was the glad tidings of the Law of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the obligation to return to it. This does not necessitate the timing of the rulings, as the return to him might be in his capacity as an interpreter, a confirmer, or a replacer of some parts without others. So whence does the timing arise? Rather, they are unrestricted, from which perpetuity is understood, so their substitution is abrogation.

The response to the difficulty is: It is not far-fetched to say that those who hold to abrogation intended "clarification" metaphorically, or it may be said: Because of their knowledge, they interpreted the end-point as their death or the coming of the Hour. Perpetuity only contradicts the unrestrictedness of a ruling if it is an end-point to the obligation (wujub); but if it is an end-point to the content of the obligation (mujab), then it does not, and abrogation applies to it according to the majority, as stated by Mawlana al-Sialkoti. However, the apparent text does not support it, so reflect.

(Indeed, Allah is over all things competent): This is an epilogue confirming what was understood from its predecessor. It contains an indication of vengeance against the disbelievers and a promise to the believers of victory and empowerment. It is possible, though remote, that it is a mention of the reason for accepting His command to pardon and overlook, and a threat to those who violate His command.

(And establish prayer and give zakah): This is a conjunction to "pardon and overlook," as if the Exalted commanded them to seek help and resort to Him, the Exalted, through physical and financial worship, for it wards off from them what they dislike. Al-Tabari’s statement—that they were commanded here to pray and give zakah in order to invalidate what preceded of their inclination toward the Jews' saying "Ra'ina"—is below the level of consideration.