Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:14

This is an exposition of the habit of the hypocrites: when they encounter the believers, they fend them off with their claim of belief, out of mockery. One should not imagine this to be a repetition of the earlier part of the narrative; rather, it is an unveiling of their wickedness and guile, and a disclosure of their excessive depravity and their claim to be like the believers in true faith, surrounding it from both sides. Even if this were not so, it should not be deemed a repetition, for the meaning is: "Among the people are those who utter faith hypocritically for the sake of deception," and that utterance occurs upon meeting the believers. This is not repetition at all, given the qualification and the added clarity it provides—that they have combined mockery with their deception, and that they do not utter such things except when the need arises.

The assertion that the word Amana (we believe) initially refers to reporting the initiation of faith, while here it refers to the initiation of the sincerity of faith, is something the Imam [Al-Razi] favored, though I do not follow him in this. His support for it—that verbal affirmation was already known from them and required no clarification, whereas it was the sincerity of the heart that was in doubt, and thus it must be intended—is refuted by a person of discernment and taste regarding what we have established.

Liqā’ (meeting) is the act of approaching a person nearby; it is one of fourteen verbal nouns for laqā. Abu Hanifa and Ibn al-Suma‘i‘ read lāqū (they met), which in Al-Bahr is taken to mean the simple verb. The omission of the object in "we believe" is said to be an act of sufficiency through the prior qualification: "in Allah and the Last Day." Others say it means: "We believe in that which you believe." Far-fetched is the claim that they meant belief in Moses—peace be upon him—exclusively, omitting the rest as a form of dissimulation (tawriyah) and illusion.

Furthermore, nothing regarding the cause of revelation for this verse has been authenticated in my view. As for what Al-Zamakhshari, Al-Baydawi, the Mufti of the Ottoman lands, and others have mentioned, it originates from the chain of Al-Suddi the Younger, and he is a liar. That chain is a chain of lies, not a golden chain, and the signs of fabrication are apparent upon what they have mentioned. Therefore, it is not to be relied upon, nor should one turn toward it in any way.

"And when they are alone with their devils" Khalawat comes from "I was alone with him" (khalawtu bihi), meaning I was in private with him, or from the proverb: "Seek the matter and may blame avoid you (khalāka)," meaning it missed you and passed you by. From this is: "Past generations have already passed away (khalat) before you." In the second interpretation, the first object is omitted here because the purpose does not depend on it—meaning: "when they were alone with them." Its transition to the second object via ilā (to) is due to the sense of "passing by a thing" implying "reaching another."

There is a possibility that it is from "I mocked him" (khalawtu bihi), so the meaning would be: "when they engage in mockery with them." This is similar to saying "I praise such-and-such to you" and "I disparage such-and-such to you," but it is not appropriate for the speech of the Lord of Might to be interpreted this way, even if Al-Zamakhshari and others mentioned it; for khalā has not occurred explicitly with the meaning of "to mock" in the speech of anyone reliable. Their saying, "So-and-so was alone with the honor of so-and-so to toy with it," is not explicit, as it may be taken in its literal sense or to mean "he gained power over him," as has been said, while the indicator of mockery is "to toy with it." Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl claimed that ilā here means ma‘a (with), but there is no evidence for this, just as there is no evidence for the claim that it stands in place of bi. Besides, Sibawayh and Al-Khalil do not subscribe to the substitution of one particle for another. True, seclusion—as stated in Al-Taj—is used with ilā, bi, and ma‘a with the same meaning. It is understood from the words of Al-Raghib that the root meaning of khalā is the emptiness of a space or area from something occupying it, as well as time, not the meaning of "passing." If it is intended in that sense, it is metaphorical, though the appearance of the speech of others suggests it is literal.

"Devils" refers to those who ordered them to deny—from the Jews, as Ibn Abbas said, or their soothsayers, as Al-Dahhak and a group stated. They were named as such due to their rebellion, their beautification of the ugly, and their vilification of the beautiful, or because their companions were devils—if interpreted as soothsayers. There were many of these during the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, such as Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf of Banu Qurayza, Abu Burda of Banu Aslam, ‘Abd al-Dar in Juhayna, ‘Awf ibn ‘Amir in Banu Asad, and Ibn al-Sawda in the Levant. To carry it as "devils of the jinn," as Al-Kalbi said, is something that does not cross my mind.

"Devils" (shayātīn) is a broken plural. Treating it as a sound plural—as in some anomalous readings, tanazzalat bihi al-shayātūn—is a very strange linguistic form. The singular is shaytān. According to the Basrans, it is in the form fay‘āl, so its nūn is radical, from shatana, meaning "to be distant," due to his distance from obeying the command. Evidence for this is the verb tashaytana. Otherwise, the letter would have dropped. The possibility that it is derived from shaytān (the root) and not the other way around—implying the meaning "he did his deed"—is contrary to the outward meaning. According to the Kufans, its weight is fa‘lān, so the nūn is extra, from shāta (yashītu), meaning to perish, to be nullified, or to burn with rage. The feminine is shaytāna. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the devil is every rebel among the jinn, humans, and beasts.

"They say, 'We are with you'" Meaning a spiritual union, which is their equality with them in the belief of Judaism, and that is the "mother of all evils." They used the nominal sentence, which denotes stability, with emphasis, in what was cast toward their devils who are not like the believers—because in the first instance, they were in the position of claiming to initiate faith, and they did not look to anyone’s denial or hesitation, hoping to have their goal realized in their estimation. In the second, they were in the position of imparting stability to push away what might cross the minds of their devils regarding their mingling with the believers and addressing them with faith.

It is said that emphasis, just as it is used to remove denial and doubt, is also used to express sincere desire, and its omission—as it is used for lack of desire—is also for the speaker's lack of concern. Thus, for the sake of desire, they emphasized, and for lack of it, they omitted. Or, it may be because if they had said, "We are indeed believers," it would have been a claim to the perfection and stability of faith, which would not pass with the believers, given their level-headedness and sharpness of intellect—which is not the case with their devils. In my view, the first perspective is correct, though the latter is countered by the Almighty’s words regarding them: "We bear witness that you are the Messenger of Allah," unless it is said that they displayed desire there and feigned ignorance of the lack of acceptance for some purpose. The conditions are diverse and the circumstances are many; hence, it is said that they did so for the sake of taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation) and deception, and the claim that they are like the believers in faith—in order to apply to themselves the believers' rulings and excuse themselves from fighting—they emphasized with bi in the preceding instance where they said, "in Allah and the Last Day." The claim that the difference between the verse of testimony and the verse of faith here is apparent—for if they had said, "We are indeed believers," they would have been committed to two matters: his message (peace be upon him) and the necessity of their belief in him, unlike the verse of testimony, which contains only the commitment to the first—and that the absence of desire in two matters does not necessitate its absence in one—is clearly weak for any fair-minded person, as is not hidden. The majority read ma‘akum with the fatha on the ‘ayn, and it is read anomally with a sukun, which is the dialect of Rabi‘ah and Anmar.

"We are only mockers" Mockery (istihzā’) is to belittle and scoff. Istaf‘ala carries the same meaning as the simple verb; you say haza’tu bihi and istahza’tu similarly, as you say ‘ajibtu (I wondered) and ista‘jabtu. Hujjat al-Islam Al-Ghazali mentioned that mockery is disparagement, disdain, and pointing out faults and deficiencies in a way that causes laughter; this may occur through imitation in action or speech, or by gesture and sign. They intended, "We are belittlers of the believers." The root of this term is "lightness" (khiffa); it is said, "His she-camel is tahza’u (speeding) with him," meaning it is fast and light. Al-Razi's statement that it is an expression of showing agreement while concealing what acts as harm through mockery does not accord with language and custom. The sentence is either an inauguration—as if the devils said to them, when they said, "We are with you," "If that is true, why do you agree with the believers?"—so they answered with that; or it is a substitution for "We are with you." Whether it is a substitution of inclusion, of the whole, or of the part, is a matter of disagreement. As for the first, this sentence provides what the first provided, which is stability in Judaism—for the one who mocks a thing persists in opposing it—plus an increase, which is the glorification of disbelief required to push away the suspicion of mingling and their hardening in disbelief; thus it is a substitution of inclusion. As for the second, which Al-Sa'd held, it is for equality in terms of truth, and does not necessitate equality in terms of what is signified. As for the third, it is because their being "with them" is general in a companionship that includes mockery, sarcasm, and other things. Or it is an emphasis on what preceded it, by saying that their claim "We are with you" is stability in disbelief, and "we are only mockers" is that which necessitates the rejection of Islam and its denial, thus establishing stability in it; for the removal of the opposite of a thing is an emphasis on its stability, so that it does not necessitate the removal of both opposites. Or it is said that "We are with you" necessitates that we deceive the companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with faith; thus, the belittling of them and their religion is an emphasis considering that necessary consequence. The most preferred of these views among the verifiers is that it is an inauguration, were it not for what the Sheikh mentioned in Dala’il al-I’jaz—that the subject of innamā is to come for information that the addressee does not ignore and does not deny the truth of, as it requires that the estimation of a question here is a weak matter; perhaps the matter is easy. It is read mustahzi’ūn with the lightening of the hamza and by changing it into a damma-vowelled yā’, and some of them omit the yā’, so the zāy is given a damma.