Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:146

"Those to whom We have given the Scripture know him" is a nominal sentence (consisting of a subject and a predicate). The intended meaning here is the scholars. The outward noun (al-madhhar) was placed in the position of the pronoun (al-mudmar) because ‘irfan (cognition/profound knowledge) is truly theirs. Furthermore, the verb utu (given) is used for those who possess an aptitude for acceptance, while atayna (We have given) is used more frequently for those who truly possess such aptitude. It is permissible for this conjunctive noun (al-mawsul) to be an appositive to the previous conjunctive noun, or to "[those] from the wrongdoers," in which case the clause serves as a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for "the Scripture" or for the conjunctive noun. It may also be in the accusative case as an object of a suppressed verb of specification (a’ni), or in the nominative case as a subject of a suppressed predicate (khabar).

The pronoun in "know him" refers to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), even if he was not explicitly mentioned beforehand. This is due to the indication found in His saying: "as they know their sons." Comparing the knowledge of him to the knowledge of one’s sons is evidence that he is the intended referent.

Some have said: The referent was explicitly mentioned previously by way of address, so there is no need to assume a semantic precedence. At most, there is a shift here from the second person to the third person (iltifat) to signal that what is meant is not their knowledge of him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in terms of his essence or his illustrious lineage, but rather his being recorded in the Scripture, described therein with attributes that necessarily compel their submission—among which is that he prays toward the two qiblahs. It is as if He said: "Those to whom We gave the Scripture know the one whom We have described within it."

This was countered by the argument that although the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was addressed repeatedly in the discussion regarding the Qiblah, it is not appropriate to refer the pronoun back to him here. This is because this clause is an intercalated, digressive sentence following the mention of the Qiblah and its clarity to the People of the Scripture, joined by the common factor of manifest knowledge despite their obstinacy; hence, it was not conjoined with waw. If the pronoun referred to the aforementioned, it would imply a kind of connection, which would not be appropriate for the flow of the discourse. The evidence for this digression is "[and for everyone is a direction]." Yes, if it is said that it is merely permissible, then there is no harm, as it is a possibility, and perhaps it is the manifest meaning from a profound perspective.

Others have said: The pronoun refers to the "knowledge" mentioned in His saying: "after the knowledge that has come to you," or to the Quran, by asserting its presence in their minds. Or, it refers to the "change" [of the qiblah], due to the subject matter of the preceding speech pointing toward it. However, the comparison [to sons] resists this, for it is appropriate to compare a thing to that which is of its own genus. In the view of rhetoric, it would have been necessary in that case to say: "as they know the Torah or the Rock." Furthermore, the specification of the "People of the Scripture" necessitates that this knowledge be derived from the "Scripture." Allah the Almighty has informed us that his description (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is in the Torah and the Gospel, unlike the aforementioned items which are not mentioned therein.

The Kaf (in kama) is in the accusative case as an adjective for a suppressed source (masdar); that is: "they know him with the descriptions mentioned in the Scripture as being the promised Prophet, in such a way that it is not confused for them, a knowledge like their knowledge of their sons, such that their persons are not confused with others." This is a comparison of the intellectual knowledge derived from studying the heavenly books with sensory knowledge, in that both are impossible to confuse.

"Sons" refers to males, as they have more direct contact and social interaction with their fathers, and are more attached and bound to their hearts than daughters. Thus, the possibility of confusing their persons is more remote, and the comparison to the knowledge of sons is more emphatic than the comparison to one’s own self. For a human may pass a period of time in which he does not "know" himself, such as during infancy, unlike one's sons, for there is no time that passes him without him knowing his son.

As for what is narrated regarding Abdullah ibn Salam when he said regarding the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "I know him better than I know my son," and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) asked him: "Why?" He replied: "Because I have no doubt regarding Muhammad that he is a Prophet, whereas as for my son, perhaps his mother betrayed me,"—upon which Umar kissed his head—its meaning is: "I do not doubt his Prophethood (peace be upon him) in any way, whereas as for my son, I might doubt his lineage, even if I do not doubt his person." This is the object of comparison in the verse. Therefore, it should not be imagined that the knowledge of sons does not deserve to be used as a comparison because it is inferior to the subject of the comparison due to potential doubt. There is no need to state that it suffices for the point of comparison that it be more famous in the subject of comparison, even if it is not stronger—and the knowledge of sons is more famous than other types. Nor is there a need to laboriously suggest that the subject of comparison in the verse is the addition of sons to them absolutely, whether [the paternity] is true or not, and that what Ibn Salam mentioned is his being his son in reality.

"And indeed, a party of them"—these are the ones who did not embrace Islam—"conceal the truth"—which they know—"while they know" (641). This is a circumstantial clause. "While they know" is either treated as an intransitive verb, serving as a warning regarding the utter disgrace of concealing the truth and that it does not befit the people of knowledge; or the object is suppressed—i.e., "they know it"—making it an emphatic circumstantial clause, because the phrase "they conceal the truth" indicates their knowledge of it, since concealment is the hiding of what one knows. Or, it means they know the punishment for concealment. Or, that they "conceal" is itself the explanation. This sentence is a conjunction to what preceded, being the conjunction of the specific to the general; its benefit is to single out those who showed hostility and concealed the truth with condemnation, and to exclude those who believed and made their knowledge manifest from the ruling of concealment.