Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:114

(And who is more unjust than one who prevents the mosques of Allah) This was revealed concerning Titus son of Vespasian the Roman and his companions. They invaded the Children of Israel, slaughtered their combatants, took their offspring captive, burned the Torah, ruined the Holy House (Bayt al-Maqdis), threw carcasses into it, and slaughtered pigs within it. It remained in ruins until the Muslims rebuilt it during the days of Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him.

Ata reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that it was revealed concerning the polytheists of the Arabs, who prevented the Muslims from mentioning the name of Allah the Exalted in the Sacred Mosque. According to the first opinion, the verse is conjoined to the words of the Almighty: (And the Christians said), joining story to story to confirm their wickedness. According to the second, it is an interjection consisting of more than one clause between the conjunct—which is "they said: He has taken [a son]"—and the conjunction upon which it depends—which is "the Jews said"—to explain the state of the polytheists who were mentioned, thereby clarifying the extreme abomination of the People of the Scripture; for if the polytheists who emulate them are the most unjust of the disbelievers, then the point is established. The manifest meaning of the verse is general, applying to every preventer and every mosque; the specificity of the cause does not prevent it from having a general application.

“And who is more unjust” is a superlative form acting as a predicate for the interrogative man (who). The interrogation is not intended in its literal sense, but rather carries the meaning of negation, thus leading to an affirmative statement: i.e., "No one is more unjust than that." It has been problematized that this construct is established elsewhere in the Qur'an, such as: (And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord and then turns away from them?), (And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allah?), (And who is more unjust than one who denies the verses of Allah?), and so on. If the meaning is as stated, it necessitates a contradiction.

It has been answered by proposing specification, either through what is understood from the relative clauses themselves or relative to those who came after them in that category; the meaning thus resolves to primacy in preventing or inventing, for example. It was objected that this is far from the meaning of the speech and its Arabic construction, and is a linguistic awkwardness followed by a distortion of the meaning. Therefore, it is better to answer that this does not indicate a negation of equality in "unjustness." The most that can be understood from the verses is the injustice of those mentioned therein relative to others, just as when you say, "No one is more knowledgeable than Zayd, Amr, and Khalid"—this indicates nothing more than that no one is more knowledgeable than them; whether one of them is more knowledgeable than the other, that it does not address.

It cannot be argued that one who prevents the mosques of Allah but does not invent a lie against Allah is less unjust than one who combines both, and thus they are not equal in injustice; for these verses are specifically concerning disbelievers, and they are equal in this regard, as disbelief is a single entity in which no increase is possible relative to the individuals who possess it. Increase is only possible relative to them and to the disobedient believers, by virtue of the shared factor of disobedience. This was stated by Abu Hayyan, though the weakness in his position is evident.

Many have stated that your saying, "Who is more unjust than one who did such and such," is a denial that anyone is more unjust than him or equal to him. Even if the structure of the phrase does not explicitly address the denial of equality, common prevailing custom and consistent usage bear witness to it; for if it is said, "Who is more noble than so-and-so" or "None is more excellent than so-and-so," it is intended with certainty that he is more noble than every noble person and more excellent than every excellent person. Perhaps the best course is to return to one of the two answers, while observing the specific context. If one interprets this speech as being in the mode of hyperbole for the sake of threat and deterrence, while ignoring the negation of equality or increase in reality—as has been argued in accordance with custom—the problem is resolved and the debate is lifted.

“That his name be mentioned”—the word an (that) functions as a second object for "prevents," or as a causal object (maf'ul li-ajlihi) meaning "prevents them from being mentioned," due to the dislike of “that [His name] be mentioned,” or it is an appositive of specification (badal ishtimal) for "mosques." In that case, the second object is implied, i.e., "prevents their maintenance," "worship in them," or the like. Or, it may imply "people" in "mosques of Allah the Exalted," with no elision needed, as the verb is transitive to one object. By "mentioning the name of Allah the Exalted," it refers metonymically to the prayers and acts of drawing near to Allah performed in the mosques, involving both heart and bodily actions, which are permitted therein.

“And strive toward their ruin”—that is, their destruction and abandonment. Qatada said: "It is an explanatory conjunction, because their maintenance is through worship within them." “Those, the unjust”—those who prevent and strive for their ruin.

“It was not for them to enter them except in fear.” The "lam" in (lahum - for them) is either for propriety/fitness, as in "the saddle is for the horse," and the meaning of fear here is fear of Allah the Exalted; or it is for entitlement, as in "Paradise is for the believer," and the meaning of fear here is fear of the believers; or it is for mere connection to occurrence, meaning "It was not in the knowledge and decree of Allah for them to enter them." On the first interpretation, the sentence is a new statement answering a question arising from His saying: (and strive toward their ruin), as if it were said: "So what is appropriate for them?" The meaning of injustice is then the placing of a thing in other than its proper place.

On the second interpretation, it is an answer to a question arising from His saying: (Who is more unjust than one who prevents), as if it were said: "So what was their right?" and the meaning of injustice is the misappropriation of the rights of others. On the third, it is an interjection between two meanings connected in sense, containing a promise to the believers of victory and the liberation of the mosques from the disbelievers, and it is placed in the middle due to its importance. Allah the Exalted has fulfilled His promise; it has been narrated that no Christian enters Bayt al-Maqdis except in disguise and by stealth. Qatada said: "No Christian is found in Bayt al-Maqdis but that he is beaten and punished severely." It does not invalidate this that the Crusaders took it, and it remained in the hands of the Christians for more than a hundred years until King Salah al-Din reclaimed it, because the fulfillment of a promise requires that it be realized at some time; there is no indication of repetition.

It is said: The negation is in the sense of a prohibition, and its meaning, by way of metonymy, is a prohibition against allowing them or enabling them to enter the mosques, which necessitates that they not enter them except in fear of the believers. Thus, the consequence is mentioned while the antecedent is intended. It is obvious that the prohibition against allowing and enabling them at a time when the disbelievers were powerful and preventing access to the mosques has no benefit other than signaling the promise of victory and liberation to the believers. Therefore, interpreting it this way from the start is more appropriate.

The Imams differed regarding the entry of disbelievers into the mosque. Imam Abu Hanafi, may Allah be pleased with him, permitted it absolutely based on the verse, as it implies their entry with fear and humility, and because the delegation of Thaqif came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he lodged them in the mosque, and because of his saying: "Whoever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe, and whoever enters the Ka'bah is safe." The prohibition is interpreted as being for tanzih (avoidance of the improper) or specifically regarding entering the Sacred Precinct with the intention of Hajj. Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, prohibited it absolutely due to the words of the Almighty: (The polytheists are unclean), and mosques must be purified of impurities; hence, the junub (person in a state of ritual impurity) is prohibited from entering. He permitted it only out of necessity. Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, differentiated between the Sacred Mosque and others, and said the Hadith is abrogated by the verse. Abdullah (Ibn Mas'ud) recited: (Except as monotheists - hanifan).

“For them in this world is disgrace”—that is, a great one, through the killing of their champions and leaders, the breaking of their idols, the exposing of their feeble minds, and their expulsion from the Arabian Peninsula, which is their homeland and place of origin, or through the imposition of jizya (tribute) upon those of them who remain as dhimmi. “And for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” which is the punishment of the Fire, for its cause—the injustice recounted—is likewise great. The fronting of the prepositional phrase in both instances is to incite anticipation for what is mentioned afterward.

“And who is more deprived of portion and diminished in right” than one who prevents the places of prostration to Allah the Exalted, which are the hearts wherein He is known and to whom one prostrates with existential annihilation; “that His name be mentioned in them”—the specific name, which is the Greatest Name, for it is not manifested by this name except in the heart, and that is the manifestation of the Essence with all its Attributes, or the name specific to each one of them, i.e., the perfection appropriate to his capacity which requires it. “And strive toward their ruin” by clouding them with prejudice, the dominance of desire, and preventing their inhabitants by stirring up the trials necessitated by the pull of the forces of the soul and the whispers of Satan and illusion. “Those, it was not for them to enter them”—and reach them—“except in fear”—broken, due to the emergence of the manifestation of the Truth within them. “For them in the world is disgrace” and exposure and humiliation through the manifestation of the falsehood of what they are upon, “and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” which is their being veiled from the Truth, the Glorified.