Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:12

This is a rebuttal to their claim [the hypocrites’ claim of being reformers], reported [in the preceding verse], in the most eloquent manner. The style adopted is that of an isti’naf (resumption/new sentence), which serves to fix the judgment more firmly in the listener’s mind, while simultaneously confirming and verifying it.

The use of ‘ala (ألا) and inna (إن) serves this purpose. ‘Ala is composed of the interrogative particle of denial (which implies negation in meaning) and the negative particle la (لا); thus, it is a double negation, which yields an affirmation through a method of argumentation more eloquent than any other. It also serves to impart certainty. As Nasir al-Din stated: A sentence rarely follows it unless it is prefaced by that which oaths are received with (such as kana, the lam of emphasis, or the particle of prohibition).

Many scholars prefer the view that it is a simple, non-compound particle—not because it precedes the intensified anna (while the negative la cannot enter upon it, as it could be said its original governing rule has lapsed after composition)—but because simplicity is the root. The claim that "it rarely occurs [in such and such way]" is not entirely acceptable, for it has appeared with rubba, habbadha, and the vocative ya—such as: ‘Ala rubba yawmin salihin laka minhumā (Oh, how many a good day you have from them), ‘Ala habbadhā Hindun wa-ardun bihā Hindun (Oh, how excellent is Hind, and the land in which Hind resides), and ‘Ala ya Qaysu wal-Dahhāku sīrā (Oh, Qays and Dahhak, depart).

Add to this the definiteness of the predicate and the inclusion of the fasl (pronoun of separation), and the verse points—by way of the phrase la yash‘urūn (they do not perceive)—to the fact that their status as corrupters has become as evident as that which is perceived by the senses, even if they themselves do not grasp it.

The Almighty introduced the istidrāk (rectification/“but”) here, whereas He did not introduce it after the mention of their deception (mukhāda‘ah). This is because the deception mentioned there was not preceded by anything that might suggest a false notion of "perception" requiring a follow-up rebuttal. In contrast, here, when they were forbidden from the corruption they practiced—a corruption not hidden from those of intellect—they responded by claiming they were the opposite. The Almighty then stated their corruption, and they were truly worthy of knowing it, yet they were not [aware]. Thus, it was a place for istidrāk.

As for the argument that "there is no blame upon one who commits corruption unknowingly, and blame only attaches to one who corrupts with knowledge," this is countered by the fact that one who is negligent in attaining knowledge, despite having the capacity for it, is blameworthy without a doubt. Indeed, one might even say they are in a worse state than others. This holds assuming the object of la yash‘urūn is omitted, intended to be "that they are corrupters." It is also possible to intend that "the consequence of that corruption returns to them," or "that We know they are corrupters." In this case, ‘Ala innahum hum al-mufsidūn serves to convey the necessary implication of the news, based on the fact that they are aware of the report but persist in denying it, as is their constant habit. This is weak if the hypocrites are understood as People of the Scripture. It is also possible that no omitted object is intended at all, which is more eloquent in its condemnation and provides greater consolation to the Prophet (peace be upon him), for a learned person should not concern themselves with the opposition of the ignorant.

In Ta’wīlāt ‘Ilm al-Hudā, it is stated that this verse is an argument against the Mu‘tazila, who hold that obligation (taklīf) cannot be directed without knowledge of what is required, and that the proof is not binding without actual recognition. God Almighty informed us that what they did of hypocrisy was corruption on their part, despite their lack of [correct] knowledge. If the reality of knowledge were a condition for obligation, and they lacked it, their actions would not be considered corruption—for corruption is the commission of that which is forbidden. Since there was no prohibition against hypocrisy standing over them, their action would not be corruption. Thus, since it was corruption, it indicates that obligation relies on the presence of the "tool" of knowledge and the capacity to attain it, not the reality of knowledge itself. This is an argument against them. This issue is branched from the issue of whether power must accompany the action. You know that when the possibility exists, the argument sits upon incapacity.

“And when it is said to them, ‘Believe as the people have believed’...”

This is an indication of tahliyya (adornment—with a ha), just as “Do not cause corruption” is an indication of takhliyya (emptying—with a kha). Therefore, the latter was mentioned first. There is nothing here to indicate that actions are part of the perfection of faith or its essence, as some have claimed. The consideration of abandoning corruption is because it signifies the denial that contradicts faith. The object of belief is omitted because it is obvious. Or, it is meant as: "Perform faith."

The kaf in kamā is in the accusative position. Most grammarians make it an attribute of an omitted verbal noun (masdar), meaning: "Believe with a belief like that which the people have believed." Sibawayh does not permit the omission of the qualified noun and replacing it with the attribute in this position; he makes it an accusative of state (hal) from the implied masdar understood from the verb.

Ma is either a masdariyya (making the following verb into a noun phrase) or kāffah (restrictive). It is not treated as a relative pronoun (ma al-mawsūla) because of the artificiality involved. On the reading of it as masdariyya, the meaning is: "Believe with a belief similar to the faith of the people." On the reading of it as kāffah, the meaning is: "Make your faith real, just as the faith of the people is real," by it being accompanied by sincerity, pure from the taints of hypocrisy.

"The people" refers to the Messenger (peace be upon him) and those with him among the believers in general. This is as Ibn Jarir recorded from Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with them both). They are the object of their gaze and their thoughts are turned toward them because they contemplate them. They have been mentioned before because they are the primary subjects who enter into "those who believe." The reference is either to specific individuals (external), or those mentioned, or those who believed from among their own kin, such as Abdullah bin Salam, as was stated by a group of the prominent Companions. Or, it refers to those who are complete in humanity—those whom others are considered among the ranks of cattle, in their lack of distinction between truth and falsehood. Thus, the lam is for the genus or for encompassment.

The verse has been used as evidence that verbal declaration is faith; otherwise, the restriction would not be beneficial. The argument that it is for encouragement is rejected by the fact that they brought a simile in their response. The response to this—after the possibility of countering it with the verse “And they are not believers”—is that there is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of applying the term "faith" to verbal affirmation, but it is applied as a substitute because it is a translation of what is in the heart. The dispute is over whether it is, in itself, the entity named "faith" as defined by the Lawgiver, regardless of what is in the conscience, as has been explained in its place.

When faith was demanded of the hypocrite, this indicates the acceptance of the repentance of the zindiq (heretic). If he is not one, or is one, he is its brother, nourished by his mother's milk. However, if he is known for heresy, calling others to it, and does not repent before being apprehended, he is executed like a sorcerer and his repentance is not accepted, as has been decreed by a group of verifying scholars.

“They said: ‘Shall we believe as the foolish have believed?’...”

They intended this to be a flat rejection; thus, the interrogative hamza is for invalidation and denial. By "the foolish," they meant either those people mentioned earlier, or the entire genus—and those noble, intelligent, and grand individuals were included in it, in their corrupt estimation, primarily. Those who went so far as to say the lam denotes a dominant attribute—like al-‘ayyūq (the star Capella)—are further from the truth, because this description did not become dominant over specific people [the Companions], unless one claims it became dominant among the hypocrites themselves. May God slay them; how are they deluded!

Safah (foolishness) is lightness, agitation, and instability; it became common for deficiency in intellect and judgment. They deemed them foolish out of their own ignorance, as the believers occupied themselves with what does not benefit in their [the hypocrites'] estimation. It is also possible that this is a case of "feigning bravery" out of fear of mockery, if "the people" is interpreted as those who believed among them, for the Jews are a people of slander.

Many scholars have found this verse problematic: if the speaker is the believer, as is apparent, and the responder is the hypocrite, it requires that they [the hypocrites] manifest disbelief when they meet the believers. Where, then, is the hypocrisy? That is the essence of the context and the surrounding narrative.

It is answered that this response was among themselves, and God Almighty reported it from them to refute it; the "response" is not merely what is said face-to-face. It has been common among the predecessors to call a rebuttal of someone’s statement a "response," even if there is a long time between them, without objection. It is also said that idha here functions as law (if), confirming that they hide disbelief—as if to say: "They are in a state that necessitates that if it were said to them thus, they would say that." This is like the usage in the saying: "And if I had blamed him, I would have blamed him alone."

It is also said it was in the presence of the Muslims but spoken in whispers among themselves, and the Knower of Secrets and Hidden Things revealed it. Or it was in the presence of believers who did not reveal their secrets due to kinship or some interest. Our master, the Mufti of the Ottoman lands, mentioned that the undeniable truth is that their saying this, even if issued in the presence of the sincere, does not necessitate that they were openly manifesting disbelief. It is a type of elegant disbelief and an ancient art of hypocrisy, for it is a speech that admits of association [with truth]—what is mentioned in his exegesis—and goodness, by carrying it to mean a claim of faith like the faith of the people, while denying the hypocrisy they were accused of. They meant: "Shall we believe as the foolish and mad believe—those whose faith counts for nothing—if they were to believe? And we will not believe with the faith of the people such that you command us to do so." They addressed the sincere with it as mockery, acting hypocritically to intend the latter meaning, while they relied upon the former. The Law looks to the outward appearance, and with God is the knowledge of the unseen. That is why the believers remained silent, and God Almighty refuted what they were concealing. Thus, the speech is a metonymy for the perfection of their faith—let there be a sting in the heart of that metonymy. It is like their saying: "Isma‘ ghayra musma‘" (Hear, may you not be heard) in its possibility for evil and good. For this reason, it was forbidden.

May God have mercy on him for making God Almighty’s account of them—{Indeed, we are reformers}—of this same category. Our master, Al-Shihab Al-Khafaji, inclined toward this and claimed it was a product of his own thoughts. In my view, it is nothing, for A-nu’minu (Shall we believe) is for the denial of the act in the present, and their saying kamā āmmana (as the foolish have believed) in the past tense is explicit in attributing foolishness to the believers because of their faith. Thus, there is no ambiguity or hypocrisy there. Perhaps when he saw the past tense, he added the explanation: "If they were to believe." I do not know from where he brought that.

"The perfumer cannot repair what time has corrupted."

The easiest path is some of these views. His saying that "bringing what was issued by one of the interlocutors in private into the context of what took place between them in the place of dialogue is unprecedented in speech, let alone in a position of inimitability"—the weakness of this is not hidden to anyone who has studied the dialogues of people, both ancient and modern.

{And God speaks the truth, and He guides to the way.}