Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:143

(And thus We have made you a middle nation)

This is an interpolation between two connected statements which occur as an address to him—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It serves as an extension of praising the believers in another aspect, or as an affirmation to refute the denial [of the Qibla change], implying: This nation and the people of this creed are witnesses over you on the Day of Recompense, and their testimonies are accepted by you; therefore, you are more deserving of following them and emulating them, and there is no basis for your denial of them.

The reference to the “making” (Al-Ja‘l) is indicated by “We have made you” (ja‘alnākum). The particle kāf is brought in a manner indicating distance (bu‘d) for the sake of glorification, and the kāf is intercalated (muqḥam) for emphasis; this is a standard intercalation. Its grammatical place, in origin, is the accusative as an adjective for an elided verbal noun (maṣdar). The original meaning is: “We made you a middle nation, a making that is like that making.” It was brought before the verb to imply restriction (qaṣr). The kāf was then intercalated, so it became the emphatic verbal noun itself, not an adjective for it. That is: "That magnificent making is what We made you, not another making lesser than it." This is what they have said.

We have mentioned before that ka-dhālika is often intended to establish what follows it. This is because the point of similarity is often found in the category and genus, as when you say, "This garment is like this garment," in terms of being silk or linen. This comparison necessitates the existence of its like and its establishment within the category; thus, it is used metaphorically for the mere establishment of what follows it. Since the sentence indicates establishment, its meaning exists without it, and it acts as an emphasis for it, making it like an additional word. This is the meaning of their statement that the kāf is intercalated, not that it is "extra" (zā’idah) as their speech might suggest. As for deriving the meaning that what follows is "wondrous," it is only because that which is not so does not require explanation. When it is emphasized in eloquent speech, it is known that it is a strange matter, or that the "distance" understood from "that" refers to a distance in rank.

Some people hold that ka-dhālika is for comparison with a "making" understood from the preceding speech, i.e., "Just as We made you guided, or made your Qibla the best of Qiblas, We have made you a middle nation." The objection to this is that the locus of the comparison is not exclusive to this nation, for the believers of previous nations were also guided to a straight path, and the Qibla of some of them was also the best of Qiblas. Yet, the "making" compared is exclusive to them, so the comparison is not valid. Furthermore, nothing is understood from the preceding text other than that turning to either of the two Qiblas at its proper time is a straight path, and the command for it at that time is guidance; it is not understood from it that their Qibla was the "best of Qiblas." It is not necessary for the abrogating to be better than the abrogated. Unless, perhaps, the speaker means: "Just as We made your Qibla the Kaaba—which is in reality the best of Qiblas—We have made you..." However, as it stands, it does not escape the objection, as is not hidden.

The meaning of wasaṭan is "the best" (khiyāran) or "just" (‘udūlan). It is, in origin, a noun for that which is equidistant from the sides, like a center. Then, it was metaphorically applied to praiseworthy human qualities, because they are the midpoints between blameworthy qualities flanking them from the sides of excess and deficiency—like generosity between extravagance and stinginess, courage between cowardice and recklessness, and wisdom between cunning and stupidity. Then, it was applied to the one characterized by these qualities, an application of the state (ḥāl) to the locus (maḥall). It is uniform for the singular and others because, according to its origin, it is a static noun (jāmid) whose correspondence is not considered; though sometimes it is observed.

This application is not universal, as is thought from their saying: "The best of affairs is the middle," for it is contradicted by their saying regarding blameworthy things: "Heavier than a singer and a basin," for it—as Al-Jāḥiẓ said—seals the heart and takes the breath; it is not good enough to enjoy, nor bad enough to laugh at. Also, their saying: "The brother of baseness is the middle." Rather, it is a description of praise in two contexts: in lineage, for the middle of a tribe is its most noble and core; and in testimony, as it is here, because it is the justice which is the perfection of the rational, appetitive, and irascible faculties—meaning their use in what is proper, as is proper. Since the knowledge of the servants is only granted through the apparent, the jurists established avoiding major sins and not persisting in minor ones as a substitute for that, and they called it "justice" for the sake of preserving rights.

It has become widespread from Abu Mansur to use this verse as evidence that Ijma‘ (consensus) is a proof. If what the nation agreed upon were false, their justice would be compromised. This is based on interpreting wasaṭ as "just" (‘udūl), but an opponent can interpret it as "the best" (khiyāran). Thus, it is not conclusive, for their being "the best" does not necessitate their being the best in all matters, so it does not contradict their agreement on error. This is not devoid of issues:

1. Justice does not contradict error in ijtihād (legal reasoning), as there is no sin in it. Indeed, the erring mujtahid is rewarded.
2. The intent is their being "middle" in relation to other nations.
3. There is no meaning to the justice of the whole after determining the lack of justice of each individual.
4. It is not necessary that they be just at all times, but rather at the time of giving testimony, which is the Day of Resurrection.
5. The utmost that it proves, after much back and forth, is the authority of the consensus of the entire nation or all of the authoritative scholars among them—which is impossible—and it does not prove the authority of the consensus of the mujtahids of every era, which is what the claimant is aiming for.

Responses were given to the first and second points:

• That justice in the intended sense necessitates infallibility (‘iṣmah) in belief, word, and deed; otherwise, the "middle" status between excess and deficiency would not be achieved. Also, it is a state of equilibrium resulting from the blending of the middle points of the faculties we mentioned, so it is not a relative matter.
• To the third: The intent is that there are those among them who possess this quality. Since we do not know them specifically, we need their gathering so that those who possess this quality do not exit; however, those considered in their gathering are included, and when they enter and an error occurs, the justice of the whole is compromised.
• To the fourth: "We have made you" necessitates the realization of justice in act, and using the past tense to mean the present is contrary to the apparent meaning.
• To the fifth: The address is to those present, i.e., the Companions, as is its origin, so it indicates the authority of consensus in general.

You know that this last answer does not heal the sick nor quench the thirst, for it is miles away from the intention of the claimant. Moreover, one who looks with the eye of fairness sees nothing in the verse beyond its indication of the superiority of this nation over all other nations, and that does not indicate the authority of consensus or lack thereof. Yes, some Shi‘a have held that the verse is specific to the Twelve Imams. They narrated from Al-Baqir that he said: "We are the middle nation, and we are the witnesses of Allah over His creation and His proof on His earth." And from Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance: "We are those about whom Allah the Exalted said: 'And thus We have made you a middle nation.'" They said: "The statement of each one of those is a proof," let alone their consensus, and that the earth is not void of one of them until Allah inherits the earth and those upon it. It is not hidden that proving what they have said is like "combing the acacia tree" [an idiom for an impossible task].

(That you may be witnesses over the people) i.e., the other nations on the Day of Resurrection, that Allah the Exalted has clarified the paths and sent the messengers, and they conveyed and gave sincere advice. This is the ultimate goal of the aforementioned "making" (ja‘l) and is consequential to it. Imam Ahmad and others narrated from Abu Sa‘id that he said: The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said: "The Prophet will come on the Day of Resurrection, and with him is a man, and the Prophet with him are two men, and more than that. His nation will be called and it will be said to them: 'Did this one convey to you?' They will say: 'No.' It will be said to him: 'Did you convey to your nation?' He will say: 'Yes.' It will be said to him: 'Who will testify for you?' He will say: 'Muhammad and his nation.' His nation will be called, and it will be said to them: 'Did this one convey to his nation?' They will say: 'Yes.' It will be said: 'How do you know?' They will say: 'Our Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—came to us and informed us that the messengers had conveyed.' That is the saying of Allah the Exalted: 'And thus We have made you a middle nation.'" In another narration: "Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is brought and asked about the state of his nation, and he will attest to them and testify to their justice. That is His saying, Almighty and Majestic: (And the Messenger will be a witness over you)." The word "over" (‘alā) is used for the witness because of the meaning of "observer" (raqīb) it contains, or to match what preceded it. The connection of "testimony" was delayed first and advanced last because the intent in the first is to establish their testimony over the nations, and in the second, their exclusivity in having the Messenger as a witness over them. It is also said: "That you may be witnesses over the people" in the world regarding matters that are only proper through the testimony of just, virtuous people. (And the Messenger will be a witness over you) and he will attest to you and acknowledge your justice. The traditions do not support this, as there is in it.

(And We did not make the Qibla which you were upon), which is the Rock of the House of Jerusalem, based on what is narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both—that his Qibla—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in Mecca was the House of Jerusalem, but he would not turn his back on the Kaaba, rather he would place it between him and it. And (the) is the second object of "made," not an adjective for "Qibla." The second object is elided, i.e., "a Qibla," as has been said. Abu Hayyan said: Indeed, "making" (ja‘l) is the transformation of a thing from one state to another; therefore, the one invested with the second state is the second object, as in: "I made the clay pottery." Thus, it is proper that the first object is the relative pronoun and the second is "the Qibla." This is what comes to mind when looking at the noble text. But deep reflection leads to what we have mentioned, because "the Qibla" is an expression for the direction one faces for prayer, and it is a universal, while "the direction which you were upon" is a particular instance of it. The mentioned "making" is of the type of turning the universal into a particular; and there is no doubt that the universal becomes particular—like an animal becoming a human—not the reverse. The meaning is that the origin of your affair is that you face the Kaaba as it is now, and "We did not make" your Qibla the House of Jerusalem for any of the things (except that We may know), i.e., in that time, (who follows the Messenger), i.e., follows you in prayer toward it. The turn to the third-person [i.e., 'the Messenger'] while he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is referred to by the title of "Messengership" is to point to the cause of following. (from him who turns back on his heels), i.e., apostatizes from the religion of Islam and does not follow you toward it, longing for the Qibla of his ancestors. This "from" (min) is for separation, like that in the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And Allah knows the corrupter from the reformer." The speech is from the category of representative metaphor (isti‘ārah tamthīliyyah), with the commonality being that the one who turns back leaves what is in his hand and turns away from it in the worst state of retreat; likewise, the apostate turns back from Islam and leaves behind what is in his hand of proofs in the worst state. "Know" (na‘lam) is a narration of a past state, and "follows" (yattabi‘) and "turns back" (yanqalib) mean occurrence. The "making" is metaphorical, considering that the origin was facing the Kaaba, or the meaning is: "We did not make" your Qibla the House of Jerusalem (except that We may know) now, after the conversion to the Kaaba, (who) follows you then (from him who) does not follow you—like some of the People of the Book who apostatized when the "Qibla" was converted—so we know according to the reality of the situation. The result is that what we did was for an incidental matter, which is testing the people, either at the time of the "making" or at the time of the conversion, and it was not for an incidental matter that vanishes upon its passing.

It is said: The intent by "the Qibla" is the Kaaba, based on the fact that he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was praying toward it in Mecca. The meaning is: "We did not turn you back (except that We may know) the firm one who is not swayed by doubt nor afflicted by agitation, from him who apostatizes with instability and agitation due to the conversion, saying: 'If the first were true, there would be no basis for turning away from it; and if the second, there is no meaning to the command for the first.' The 'making' according to this is literal, and 'follows' is for continuity, evidenced by its opposite. This view is weakened because it necessitates claiming the abrogation of the "Qibla" twice.

The verse was considered problematic as it suggests the occurrence of knowledge in the future, while He—the Exalted—has never ceased being All-Knowing. Answers were provided through several avenues:

1. It is by way of representation; i.e., We did that as one who wants to know acts.
2. The intent is the present knowledge upon which the wheel of recompense turns; i.e., so that Our knowledge of it may be connected as something existing in reality. Thus, knowledge is restricted to the contingent, and the contingency reverts to the restriction.
3. The intent is so that the Messenger and the believers may know. It is permissible to attribute the act of some of the King's properties to Him as a reminder of the honor of nearness and exclusivity, so it is like the King saying, "We have conquered the country," when only his soldiers conquered it.
4. It included in "knowledge" the meaning of "distinction," or the intent by it is distinction in the external world. It is a metaphor by applying the name of the cause to the effect. This is supported by it taking "from" (min) as a preposition, like "distinction," and it was interpreted as such by Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both. This is witnessed by the reading "li-yu‘lama" (passive) since the intent is "so that every one from whom knowledge comes may know." It is clear that this is a branch of Allah distinguishing and separating between them in the external world in such a way that it is not hidden from anyone.
5. The intent by it is "recompense," i.e., "so that We may recompense the obedient and the disobedient." Threatening by "knowledge" is frequent in the Quran.
6. "We know" is for the speaker with another; i.e., so that the knowledge is shared between Me and the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and the believers. The objection to this is that it contradicts what we have said, besides that associating Allah—the Exalted—with another in a single pronoun is inappropriate.

Then, if knowledge is a metaphor for distinction, "who" and "from whom" are its two objects with and without an intermediary. If it is literal, then it is either from the perception that takes one object—so "who" is a relative pronoun in the place of an accusative by it, and "from whom" is a state, i.e., "distinguished from whom"—or it is from the knowledge that takes two objects, so "who" is interrogative in the place of an initiating noun (mubtada’), and "follows" is in the place of the predicate, and the sentence is in the place of the two objects. "From whom turns back" is a state from the agent of "follows." With this, the statement of Abu al-Baqa is refuted: that it is not permissible for "who" to be interrogative because "the saying of Allah the Exalted 'from whom turns back'" would have no connection, because what is before an interrogative does not act upon what is after it, and there is no meaning for it connecting to "follows." The speech proves this estimation, so it is not intended that there is no evidence for it.

Then, the sentence "And We did not make," etc., is conjoined, like the two sentences following it, to the sum of the question and answer, explaining the wisdom of the conversion. It is said: It is conjoined to "To Allah belong the East and the West," and it needs to be said then: He—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is commanded to deliver the content of this speech with its exact words, as the first-person pronoun in his speech—upon him be peace—is not valid, and there is remoteness in that, as is not hidden.

(And it was truly hard), i.e., difficult and heavy. The pronoun refers to what the saying of Allah the Exalted "And We did not make," etc., indicates: the "making," or the "turning," or the "apostasy," or the "conversion," or the "becoming," or the "following," or the "Qibla." The benefit of considering the feminine on some accounts is the indication that this turning and conversion, by its occurring once and being exclusive to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was hard upon them, as they had not known it previously. The statement that the feminine of "hard" (kabīrah) makes it an accidental adjective and the feminine of the pronoun is for the femininity of the predicate, so it reverts to the making, turning, or conversion without constraint, is constraint devoid of benefit.

"Indeed" (inna) is the lightened form of the heavy one, which provides emphasis for the judgment, but it is cancelled from acting on what follows it by the intervention of "was" (kāna). The lām is the one separating the lightened inna from the negative. The Kufans claimed that inna is the negative and the lām means "except." The Basrans said: If it were like that, it would be permissible to say, "The people came, except Zayd," but it is not so. It was read "kabīratun" (in the nominative); in "was" is the pronoun of the "story," and "hard" is the predicate of an elided subject, i.e., "it is hard," and the sentence is the predicate of "was." It is said: "Indeed" is extra, as in his saying: "And brothers for us who were noble." It was objected that if it is intended that "was" with its noun is extra, then "hard" is without a subject and "indeed" (lightened) is without a sentence; and such is outside the analogy. And if it is intended that "was" alone is so and the pronoun remains in the nominative by way of being an initiating noun, then there is no way for it to be attached and hidden. It was answered that when it fell after "was" and was in terms of meaning in the position of the noun of "was," it was made hidden in imitation of the noun, even if it is an initiating noun in reality. It is not hidden that this is the extreme of constraint and the limit of forcefulness.

(Except for those whom Allah has guided), i.e., to the secret of the legal rulings built upon wisdoms and interests, in general or in detail. The intent by them is "who follows the Messenger" from among those who are firm in faith, not the wavering ones who turn back on their heels.

(And Allah would not let your faith go to waste), i.e., your prayer toward the abrogated Qibla. In the authentic [traditions], it is stated that when the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was turned toward the Qibla, they said: "O Messenger of Allah, what about those who died while praying toward the House of Jerusalem?" Then it was revealed. Faith is a metaphor from applying the "concomitant" (lāzim) to its "necessitated" (malzūm), and the context is the evidence, which is the interpretation narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both—and others among the leaders of the religion. Thus, there is no meaning to weakening it as the doing of some of them suggests. It is said: The intent is your firmness in faith, or your faith regarding the abrogated Qibla. The lām in "let go to waste" is connected to the elided predicate of "was," as is the opinion of the Basrans, and the verb is in the accusative after it by an elided "to" (an), i.e., "Allah was not one who intends to let your faith go to waste." In directing the negation toward the intention of the act is an emphasis not present in directing it toward the act itself. The Kufans said: The lām is extra and is the one that makes the verb accusative, and "waste" is the predicate; its being extra does not harm its operation, just as the addition of the prepositions does not harm the operation. With this, the rejection by Abu al-Baqa of "waste" being a predicate—because the lām is the preposition and "that" (an) after it is intended, so the estimation becomes "Allah was not the wasting of your faith," thus needing interpretation—is refuted. But you know that this which the Kufans went to is remote from another perspective which is not hidden.

(Indeed, Allah is to the people Kind, Merciful)—an epilogue for all that preceded, for His—the Exalted—being characterized by these two descriptions necessitates by necessity that Allah does not waste their rewards nor leave what contains their wellbeing. The bā’ is connected to "Kind" (ra’ūf). It was brought before "Merciful" because "kindness" is an emphasis in a special mercy, which is the lifting of the disliked and the removal of harm, as His saying, "And let not pity for them take you in the religion of Allah," points to—meaning: do not be kind to them by lifting the whipping from them—it is broader than it and broader than favors, and the repelling of harm is more important than the bringing of benefit. The statement of the judge—may Allah the Exalted whiten the brilliance of his conditions—that "perhaps the advancement of 'Kind' despite it being more emphatic is to preserve the endings" is of no consequence, because the endings of the Quran do not observe the last letter like rhymed prose (saj‘), so observance is achieved in any case. And because "mercy" wherever it appeared in the Quran was advanced, even in non-endings, as in His saying: "kindness and mercy and monasticism which they invented" in the middle of the verse. The speech of Al-Jawhari in this place is pottery that cannot be relied upon. The statement of 'Isam that "it is not remote to say that 'Kind' points to the emphasis in His mercy for the elite of His servants, and 'Merciful' points to the mercy for those below them, so they were ranked according to their rank; thus 'Kind' was advanced due to the advancement of its object in honor and value," is without honor, value, or even an 'Isam. And because it is a specification that neither the Book, nor the Sunnah, nor usage points to. Nafi‘, Ibn Kathir, Ibn ‘Amir, and Hafs read "la-ra’ūfun" with a long vowel, and the others without, like kundus.