Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:136

"Say, 'We have believed in Allah...'"

This is an address to the believers, not to the disbelievers, as has been claimed, due to the burden and artificiality involved in that interpretation. It is an explanation of the commanded following; thus, it holds the position of an explicative substitution (badal al-ba'd) for His saying—Exalted be He—("Rather, [we follow] the religion of Abraham"), because "following" encompasses both belief and action, and this is an explanation of the belief. Or, it is an inclusive substitution (badal al-ishtimal) due to the detailed exposition it contains, which is absent in the former. It is also said that it is a resumption (isti'naf), as if they had asked, "How is the following to be performed?" and were answered by this.

It was first commanded in the singular form and second in the plural form, signaling that it is sufficient in the response for the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to speak on behalf of all the believers. This is unlike the "following," where it is necessary for each individual to express it, as it is a condition of faith or a part of it, as stated by some researchers. The view that it is in the position of an explanation and emphasis for the first statement—and therefore the conjunction was omitted—is not free from objection.

"Allah—the Exalted—" was mentioned first because it is the foremost of all obligations, and because by the precedence of knowing Him, the knowledge of prophethoods and religious laws becomes valid.

"...and what has been revealed to us," That is, the Quran. Even though it is later in the chronological order of revelation compared to others, it is advanced in the order of belief because it is the cause of belief in the others, as it confirms them; thus, He brought it forward.

"...and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants (al-Asbat)," Meaning the scriptures. Although they were revealed to Abraham—upon him be peace—since those who were mentioned in conjunction with him were obligated to follow their details and were included under their laws, it is valid to attribute their revelation to them as well, just as it is valid for us to be obligated by the details of the Quran and included under its laws, such that its revelation is attributed to us.

"Al-Asbat" is the plural of "sibt," like "ahmal" (loads) and "haml" (load). They are the children of Israel. It is said they are among the children of Isaac just as the tribes (qaba'il) are among the children of Ishmael. It is derived from "sibt," which is a tree with many branches; it is as if they were named so due to their abundance. It is also said it comes from "subuta," meaning flowing or spreading. It is said it is an inversion of "bast" (expansion). It is said that the two grandsons of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—are called "sibtayn" because their progeny spread. Then, every daughter's son came to be called a "sibt," and thus he is also called a "hafid" (grandson).

People have differed regarding the Descendants (al-Asbat)—the children of Jacob—whether they were all prophets or not. The view that I find sound is the latter. This is what is narrated from Ja'far al-Sadiq—may Allah be pleased with him—and Imam al-Suyuti inclined towards it and authored a work on it, because what occurred between them and Joseph—upon him be peace—definitely negates prophethood. The claim that it happened before they reached the age of puberty is not accepted, for it involves actions that only adults are capable of. Even if one were to concede that, it would be of no benefit according to the correct position regarding the status of prophets. That act contained a major sin, and there is nothing in the Quran that indicates their prophethood. You have already known what we have mentioned regarding the verse, so preserve that; you have been guided.

"...and what was given to Moses and Jesus," That is, the Torah and the Gospel. Because the People of the Book added to, subtracted from, and altered these two, and claimed that they were revealed in that [altered] state—while the believers deny this—their importance was emphasized, so He singled them out by mention and explained the manner of believing in them. He did not include them in the preceding relative pronoun [i.e., "what was revealed to..."] also because their matter, in relation to "Moses and Jesus," is that they were truly revealed upon them, not merely in terms of being obligated by them, as was the case for the revelation to "Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants." The relative pronoun was not repeated for Jesus because his law did not differ from the law of Moses except in trifles. For this reason of importance, He expressed it with "giving" (al-i'ta') rather than "revelation" (al-inzal), as it is more eloquent since it is the intended meaning and contains an indication of "giving" that holds a resemblance to ownership and delegation. That is why one says, "I lowered (anzaltu) the bucket into the well," but one does not say, "I gave (ataytuha) it to her."

You may say that the meaning of the relative pronoun here is broader than the Torah and the Gospel, including all the evident miracles at the hands of these two noble prophets, as detailed in the Glorious Revelation. Choosing "giving" is for the sake of generalization, and specifying the "two prophets" by mention is because the discourse is with the Jews and Christians.

"...and what was given to the prophets," These are the books that were specific to those of them who were singled out, or that which includes these and the miracles. This is a generalization after specification so that no prophet is left out of belief. "From their Lord" is connected to "was given" mentioned previously, and the pronoun belongs to the prophets specifically. It is also said that it refers to "Moses and Jesus" as well, and "what was given" would be a repetition of the first, with the prepositional phrase connected to it; in either case, it is a peripheral prepositional phrase. It is also permissible for it to be in the position of a state (hal) from the omitted referent. The possibility that "what" is a subject and the prepositional phrase is its predicate is remote.

"We make no distinction between any of them," Meaning, just as the People of the Book have done—believing in some and disbelieving in others—but rather, we believe in them all. The absence of distinction between them was considered, even though the discourse is about what was given to them, because this [belief in the prophets] necessitates the absence of distinction regarding what was given to them. "Ahad" (one) is originally "wahd," meaning one. Since it appears in the context of a negation, it generalizes and applies equally to the individual and the multitude; it is valid to intend either. Here, the group is intended; that is why it is permissible to attach "between" to it. It signifies the generality of groups, as stated by some researchers.

This contradicts what is famous among the masters of Arabic—that the word used in general negation or used with "all" in affirmation has a radical hamza, unlike that which is used in affirmation without "all," where the hamza is derived from a waw. Hence, Al-Taftazani said: "'Ahad' is in the meaning of a group according to its conventional status, because it is a noun for whoever is fit to be addressed, applicable equally to the masculine and feminine, the singular, the dual, and the plural. It is required that its usage be with the word 'all' or with a negation." Abu Ali and others among the masters of Arabic emphasized this. This is not the "ahad" that is the first of the numbers in His saying—Exalted be He—("Say: He is Allah, One"). Its status as having the meaning of a group is not because it is an indefinite noun in the context of negation, as has previously occurred to many minds. Do you not see that "We do not distinguish between one of the messengers" does not stand upright except by assuming a conjunction, i.e., "a messenger and a messenger"? And "You are not one of the women" does not mean "like one of them."

After reflection, you will know that what the scholar mentioned is not refuted by that portion, but is only refuted by the disagreement regarding its origin or lack thereof. Perhaps the matter is easy in this regard, especially since the claim that such [meaning] does not stand without that assumption is not unanimously agreed upon. It is mentioned in Al-Intisaf that the indefinite noun occurring in the context of negation provides generality in wording—a comprehensive generality—to the point that the singular in it is placed in the position of the plural in its application to individuals by concordance, not as some usul scholars thought, that its meaning is by way of concordance in negation just as its meaning is in affirmation. Making this number and generality a matter of definition is what allows the entry of "between" upon it here.

Some people permitted that "ahad" in the verse be in the sense of "one," and its generality is alternative, and the validity of the entry of "between" upon it is in view of a deleted conjunction due to its obviousness (between one of them and another). It contains an indication of the realization of distinction between every single individual among them and whoever else there may be—whoever it is—which is not present in saying "We do not distinguish between them." Its implication is not hidden. The sentence is a state (hal) from the pronoun in "We have believed."

"...and we are to Him Muslims (submitting)," Meaning, submissive to Allah—the Exalted—by obedience, yielding in worship. It is also said: obedient to His command and prohibition. Whoever considers the pronoun [in "between them"] to refer to the prophets mentioned previously has wandered far, and the sentence is either another state (hal) or a conjunction to "We have believed."