Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:11

{And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."} (11)

There is disagreement regarding this sentence. It is said that it is conjoined to [those who] disbelieve/lie because it is closer [in proximity] and to signify that it [also] causes torment, and to indicate that the quality of "corruption" is to be guarded against just as "lying" is. The rationale for it causing torment is that it is included within the scope of the relative clause which acts as the cause [for the torment]. The meaning is that in their saying, "We are but reformers," they are denying the claim made against them; for [they believe] what is attributed to them is reform, whereas it is [in fact] obstinacy and persistence in corruption, and persistence in that is corruption and sin. This is what Al-Zamakhshari inclined toward, and it is based on the [assumption] that there is no need for a pronoun in the sentence referring back to "that" (ma), for what is forgiven in a follower [the conjoined clause] is not forgiven in the followed [the main clause]. Otherwise, the estimation would be: "And they have a painful torment for that which they were [doing] when it was said to them, etc.," which is not well-structured. It seems that whoever considers "that" (ma) as a verbal noun (masdariyyah) treats the connection as being with "were" (kana), since it is not customary for it to be connected to a conditional sentence.

Yes, an objection arises: that His saying, "We are but reformers," is a lie; thus the meaning leads to the deserving of torment due to [the act of] lying. Conjoining an explanation [of a term] to the term itself is something that refined taste and usage reject. Hence, it was said that this conjunction is sound based on the recitation of "they lie/disbelieve" (yukaththibun) with a shaddah, according to one of its interpretations, so that it serves as a reason to combine both the blame for their lying and their denial. As for the objection of the master, the Mufti of the Ottoman lands, that this type of causal justification ought to be with attributes whose causality is apparent and whose establishment in the described subject is acknowledged—needing no clarification due to the listener's familiarity with them or because they were previously mentioned explicitly or implicitly—and there is no doubt that this conditional [clause] is not known to be attributed to them in any way such that it deserves to be in the chain of causality: it is not hidden from those who contemplate it that there is a flaw in it.

It is [also] said: It is conjoined to "he says," because it is safe from the objections present in that [previous] conjunction, and so that the verses would then be in the form of enumerating their evils, with each signifying their independent and intentional characterization by those attributes, and indicating the arrival of torment due to their lying—which is the lowest of their states, so what then of the rest? And because this past tense, by virtue of "when" (idha), is [rendered] future, the conjunction is appropriate. The [counter-argument] is that the outcome of this sentence is lying, as indicated, so there is no difference from the previous one. Even if one were to concede a difference based on consideration and the addition of qualifiers, both are parts of the relative clause or the adjective; both require [a lack of] independence. Moreover, that this lying is the "lowest of their states" is not accepted by anyone with the slightest intelligence. Furthermore, the interruption of the explanation and the inauguration of a new sentence (isti’naf), even if not extraneous, between the parts of a relative clause or an adjective, is not devoid of inappropriateness.

Therefore, that which I incline toward and rely upon, beyond these two matters—which the researcher in Al-Kashf touched upon, and the words of Abu Hayyan in Al-Bahr are close to—is that it is conjoined to His saying: "And among the people are those who say," to clarify their state regarding the claim of belief and their lying in it first, then to clarify their state in their obsession with their falsehood, viewing the ugly as beautiful and corruption as reform, second. He makes the primary focus of the conjunction the sum of these states. Even if it requires conjoining a verbal sentence to a nominal one, it is more favorable according to the context and the style of enumerating evils. What was said against it is not something to be relied upon, even if it is imagined to be more complete in conveying these meanings; this is because it does not indicate the inclusion of this attribute and what follows it in the story of the hypocrites and the explanation of their states, for then the return of the pronouns to them would not be sound, as attested to by the soundness of innate nature to anyone with the slightest training in the styles of speech. Everything outside this circle of fairness—as evidenced by the soundness of nature from the disease of fanaticism and bias—is [invalid], for the return of the pronouns is the link that connects the attributes to them, and the flow of the speech calls for it. Sometimes, in a single story, a sentence comes as a new inauguration without a conjunction; if a new inauguration does not contradict it at all, how could a conjunction to its [previously] inaugurated start contradict it? Conjunction only requires a difference in states, not a difference in stories or their subjects.

As for what Ibn Jarir narrated from Salman (may Allah be pleased with him) that the people of this verse have not yet come, the meaning is not that it is specific to other people, as the apparent [meaning] might suggest; rather, it is not restricted to those who were hypocrites [at the time], even if it was revealed regarding them, for the specificity of the cause does not contradict the generality of the wording.

Then, the one saying this to the hypocrites in the era of revelation is either the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), conveying from Allah the Exalted—who informed him of their hypocrisy—or the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had heard it [about them] and was not certain, so he advised them, and they answered him as they did; or it was some of the believers who suspected them and discerned their [hypocrisy] through the light of faith; or some of those to whom they cast their corruption, but he would not accept it from them for some reason, and thus he turned toward them as an advisor, saying, "Do not cause corruption."

Corruption (Fasad) is the deviation from the state of moderation and uprightness, and its opposite is reform (Salah). The meaning is: Do not do that which leads to corruption, which here is disbelief, as Ibn Abbas said, or sins, as Abu al-Aliyah said, or the hypocrisy with which they befriended the disbelievers and informed them of the believers' secrets. For all of that leads—even if through intermediaries—to the ruin of the earth, the scarcity of goodness, the removal of blessings, and the disruption of benefits. If the speaker is someone to whom they cast corruption but who does not accept it from those who share their disbelief, then "corruption" is taken to mean the stirring up of wars and trials, which necessitates the absence of uprightness and causes people to be preoccupied with one another, thereby destroying the crops and the offspring. Perhaps the prohibition of this is due to weakness or reflection on the consequence and relieving the soul of something whose harm is greater than its benefit—a view that the clever incline toward, especially since in the minds of many disbelievers at that time was an expectation of what would suffice for fighting, [namely] the occurrence of misfortune to the believers—"But Allah refuses except to perfect His light." It is not hidden what level of artificiality is in this interpretation.

"The earth" refers to its genus, or specifically Medina. Carrying it to mean the entire earth is of no value, for the determination of the singular noun signifies the encompassing of individuals, not parts—unless one considers every piece of land as "earth." But it remains that there is no meaning in carrying it to signify totality when the judgment is realized in a single individual. The mention of "the earth" is not merely for emphasis; rather, it is a reminder that the corruption is taking place in a house owned by the Provider who settled you therein and granted you His favors, and the most despicable of Allah's creation is one who passes the night in disobedience to the One in whose blessings he spends his night.

"Only/but" (innama) is for restriction, as some grammarians and scholars of jurisprudence have held. In Al-Bahr, it is chosen that the restriction is understood from the context, and the [grammatical] form does not signify it. To claim that it is composed of the negative ma entered upon by an, which is for affirmation, thereby yielding restriction, is a weak claim originating from someone not knowledgeable in grammar. The meaning of "We are but reformers" is [that we are] restricted to pure reform which has not been tainted by any aspect of corruption, and it has reached a level of clarity such that one should not doubt it. The restriction is either of exclusion or inversion. This either arises from compound ignorance—so they believed corruption was reform and persisted and grew arrogant with an arrogance that overwhelms a person in their days of tribulation until they see what is not beautiful as beautiful—or it follows their habit of lying and saying with their mouths what is not in their hearts.

Hisham and Al-Kisa'i read "it was said" (qila) with the "smell" of the damma [on the qaf] to indicate the waw that was transformed [into a ya]. Another [recitation] is with the pure damma and the silencing of the waw, which is a dialect of Hudhail, but it was not recited [in the canonical readings].