Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:15

(Allah mocks them)

The scholars of Hadith and a group of interpreters held that mockery, as attributed to the Almighty, is to be understood in its literal sense, even if "the mocker" is not among His Most High names. They said: It is a form of belittlement in a manner that causes whoever observes it to wonder and laugh. There is no impossibility in this occurring from Him, the Almighty, nor is there any validity in prohibiting the comparison of the Absent (the Divine) with the Present (the created).

However, the majority of people hold that He, the Exalted, is not described by this in a literal sense, because it entails the confirmation of the mocked one’s ignorance, whereas the requirement of wisdom and mercy is to show him the truth. If it is understood that He is not truly described by this mockery, then it is a "play" that does not befit His majesty. According to this view, the verse is interpreted in several ways:

1. Retribution: It may mean His recompense for their mockery, due to the similarity in degree, strong connection, and a type of causality between the action and its recompense, along with the existence of formal congruity (mushakala) which is aesthetically pleasing here. Thus, the speech contains a consequential metaphor (isti'ara taba'iyya) or an elliptical metaphor (majaz mursal).
2. Degradation: It may mean the infliction of humiliation and disgrace. This is a metaphor for what is in the position of its ultimate end; thus, it is the attribution of the effect to the cause with respect to conception, and vice-versa with respect to existence.
3. Metaphorical Representation: It may be that Allah, the Holy and Exalted, is treated as though He is mocking them by way of conceptual metaphor (isti'ara makniyya), establishing mockery for Him by way of imagination (takhayyul). Many things are valid in a secondary, derivative sense that are not valid as an intended primary meaning, and He, the Exalted, may attribute to His Sacred Self whatever He wills to facilitate understanding for His servants.

It is also said that the verse follows the path of allegory (tamthil), meaning that He, the Exalted, treats them with the treatment of a mocker:

• In this world: By enforcing the rulings of Islam upon them and drawing them near by degrees from where they do not know.
• In the Hereafter: By opening a door of Paradise for one of them, saying, "Come, come!" so he arrives in grief and anguish; then when he reaches it, it is closed against him. This continues until a man is opened a door and told, "Come, come!" and he does not even approach it. This has been narrated with a mursal chain that has a good foundation regarding those who mock people.

He attributed the mockery to Himself, initiating the sentence with His mention, to alert [the reader] that the mockery of the hypocrites is the most eloquent form of mockery, alongside which their own mockery carries no weight, for it originates from One whose knowledge and power render theirs nonexistent. It also signifies that He, the Exalted, has sufficed His believing servants and taken vengeance for them. They have no need to contend with the hypocrites to exalt their own status, for they were only mocked because of Him, and no one is more jealous than Allah, the Exalted.

The conjunction was omitted because it is the original state, and there is nothing in the previous sentence to which this statement could be properly conjoined without affectation and distance. It is said: The speech was presented in this manner to serve as an answer to the question regarding Allah's treatment of them in response to their treatment of the believers. Their saying, "We are only mockers," serves as an indication that the heinousness recounted is such that it requires the manifestation of Allah's jealousy, prompting everyone to ask about the nature of His vengeance against them.

Some investigators suggest that had this statement been conjoined—even to an implied [phrase] appropriate to the context, such as "They are mockers of the believers"—it would have implied that this was only in response to their mockery. This would fail to convey that Allah has rendered the believers absolutely independent of needing to contend with them, and that He has taken charge of their retribution entirely, instead suggesting that His taking charge is limited to this specific reciprocation. Furthermore, because Allah’s mockery is at such a vast remove from their mockery—to the point of having no correlation—the conjunction would be like conjoining two unrelated matters. Others arranged the two aforementioned benefits of attributing it to the Almighty based on the isti'naf (inception of a new sentence), claiming that if it were conjoined (even by supposition to an implied phrase), the two benefits would be lost.

What we have mentioned is safer from dispute and further from the breeding grounds of confusion; contemplate it. He, the Exalted, turned away from "Allah is mocking them" (which would match their saying) to "Allah mocks them" (yastahzi'u bihim), because it implies continuous renewal, which is more eloquent than the fixed continuity implied by the nominal sentence (ismyya). This is because when a tribulation persists, it may become lighter, and the soul may grow accustomed to it. Indeed, Allah's inflictions upon them and the revelation of verses concerning them were a renewed and continuous matter. This is a type of "lesser punishment," while the punishment of the Hereafter is greater, if they only knew.

He explicitly mentioned the object of the mockery here so that the mockery of them would be decisive. The hypocrites had omitted it in what was narrated about them for fear of it reaching the believers, leaving the phrasing ambiguous so they might have room to defend themselves if confronted. Thus, Allah made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, and His Word is the highest.

And He extends them in their transgression, wandering blindly.

This is conjoined to His saying, "He mocks them," acting as an explanation for it according to one opinion. Madda (to extend) is from the same root as madad (reinforcements for an army); amadda means to append to it what strengthens and increases it. It is said: Madda is an increase of the same species, while amadda is an increase of a different species. It is also said: Madda is for evil, and amadda is for good, the reverse of wa'ada (he promised) and aw'ada (he threatened). If amadda is used for evil, it is perhaps like "So give them tidings of a painful punishment." This root has been used with two meanings: the first is what we mentioned, and the second is respite, such as "extending" one's life. What is meant here is the former, not the latter, for two reasons:

1. It is narrated from Ibn Kathir (from others than the Seven) as yumiddhum (with a damma), which is from al-madd, and that is not heard in the second meaning.
2. It is transitive by itself, whereas the other is transitive via the particle lam. Deletion and reconnection are contrary to the original rule and should not be resorted to without necessity.

Thus, the meaning of "He extends them in their transgression" is that He increases them and strengthens them in it. Al-Baydawi and others adopted this. The truth is that respite is possible here, and Al-Zajjaj and Ibn Kaysan favored this. Both views have their criticisms, as all forms have been reported by reliable linguists in triliteral and augmented forms, both transitive by themselves and via lam. Both originate from one root, and their meanings return to "increase" in essence or quality.

Ibn Mas'ud said that Allah's "extending" them in their transgression is the enabling of disobedience, and Ibn Abbas said it is "respite." The attribution of the "extending" to Allah, in whatever sense, is true according to the people of truth, for He, the Exalted and Almighty, is the Creator of all things, the One who originates them according to what wisdom necessitates and what [the created] preparations invoke. Its attribution to others, as in "and their brethren extend them in error," is like the attribution of "taking the soul" to the angel in "The angel of death will take you," alongside the saying "Allah takes the souls."

The Mu'tazila went on to say that increasing transgression and strengthening it is something impossible to attribute to the Almighty in reality, and they interpreted the verse with other meanings. We have already presented what weakens their school of thought, so we shall fold it here.

"Transgression" (tughyan) is with a damma on the Ta', according to the most famous reading; Zayd ibn Ali read it with a kasra, both being dialects for it. It originates from exceeding the boundary where one was supposed to stop. Whoever neglects the prescribed limits of the law or the intellectual truths has transgressed. From this is "the water transgressed" (tagha), meaning it exceeded its known limit. Its annexation to them is because it is their action, emanating from their powers which are effective by Allah's permission. The specificity implied by the annexation is by this consideration, not by location or inherent description.

Al-'amma is hesitation and bewilderment. It is used specifically for opinion, whereas "blindness" (al-'ama) is used for both opinion and physical sight. Thus, there is a general/specific relationship between them in usage, even if they differ in their original placement. Al-'ama is specific to sight, as is said. Its origin is the lack of markers on a road meant to guide, such as stones or soil—the landmarks. The meaning of "wandering blindly" (ya'mahun) is that they are hesitating and bewildered, which is the opinion of a group of commentators. It is said that 'amma is blindness to the truth. Ibn Qutaybah said: It is to lower one's head so that one does not see what is coming. Thus, the meaning is that they are blind to their guidance, or they lower their heads and do not see. This seems closer to the truth, for the hypocrites were not hesitating in their disbelief; rather, they were persistent in it, believing it to be the truth and everything else false—unless it is said that the hesitation and bewilderment were regarding another matter, not disbelief.

The sentence "wandering blindly" is in the place of an accusative state (hal), either from the pronoun in "extends them" or from the pronoun in "their transgression," because it is a verbal noun annexed to the subject. "In their transgression" can be linked to "extends them" or to "wandering blindly." It is permissible, though contrary to the primary rule, for "in their transgression" and "wandering blindly" to be two states (hal) from the pronoun in "extends them."