Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:27

"Those who break the covenant of Allah after its binding" (2:27).

The grammatical position of this [verse] allows for both the accusative (nasb) and the nominative (raf’). The first [accusative] is either by way of following [the preceding accusative structure] or by way of cutting it off (qat’), meaning: "I condemn [those who...]." The second [nominative] is either based on the second of the two possibilities of the first [case], or it is an initial noun (ibtida') whose predicate is the sentence, "It is they who are the losers." According to this, the sentence would be as if it were a new statement, having no connection [to the previous verse] except remotely.

Naqd (breaking) is the annulment of a structure. Its origin lies in a rope, and its opposite is ibram (twisting/securing). For a wall and the like, its opposite is bina' (building). The usage of naqd for the invalidation of a covenant became widespread—as al-Zamakhshari stated—due to their naming the covenant a "rope" by way of metaphor, because of the permanence of the connection it provides between the contracting parties. It is one of the secrets and subtleties of rhetoric that they remain silent about mentioning the metaphorically borrowed object, then signal its location by mentioning something of its synonyms, thereby alerting [the listener] to its place, as in your saying: "A scholar from whom people draw [knowledge]," and "A brave man who preys upon his peers."

In summary, the verse contains a metaphor by implication (istia'rah bil-kinayah), and "breaking" is a realized, explicit metaphor (istia'rah tahqiqiyyah tasrihiyyah), where the invalidation of a covenant is likened to the invalidation of the construction of a body; the name of the object to which it is likened is applied to the object being likened. However, this is only permissible and refined after considering the metaphor of the covenant as a rope. By this consideration, it becomes a corroborating factor (qarinah) for the metaphor of the "rope" being used for the covenant. From this, it becomes clear that the implied metaphor can exist without the imaginary (takhayyuliyyah) component, and that its corroborating factor can be a realized one. A detailed investigation of this is sought in its proper place.

A covenant is mawthiq (binding). One says "He covenanted with him regarding such-and-such" when he enjoins him and secures him upon it. "He requested a covenant from him" when he stipulates [something] upon him, and "He obtained a firm promise from him." The covenant intended here is either:

1. The covenant taken by the intellect: the proof established for His servants, testifying to His existence, His Oneness, and the truthfulness of His Messengers (peace and blessings be upon them). In breaking it, there is an obvious condemnation, for they broke what Allah had firmly established through the signs repeated to them in their own selves and in the horizons, through the sending of Prophets, and through the revelation of Books confirming it. The "breakers" in this sense are all the disbelievers.
2. The covenant taken by the Messengers from the nations: that if a messenger verified by miracles is sent to them, they must believe him, follow him, not conceal his affair or his mention in the preceding books, and not oppose his law. The "breakers" in this case are the People of the Book and the hypocrites among them, as they cast all of that behind their backs and replaced it completely. Some consider the naqd (breaking) in this case to be more heinous than in the first, while others reverse this; each has its perspective.

It is also said: It is the Trust which mankind undertook after the heavens and the earth refused to bear it. It is also said: It is what was taken from the Children of Israel—not to shed each other's blood, not to drive each other out of their homes, and other such opinions. These are based on the disagreement regarding the reason for the revelation, whereas the apparent meaning is generality.

Min (from) is for the inception of the action (ibtida'), indicating that the object of the preposition is the place from which the thing departed and exited. It signifies that the breaking occurred immediately following the securing of the covenant without delay, which contains an admonition that they do not care for the covenant; for as soon as Allah secured it from them, they broke it. Some say it is connective (silah), but this is far-fetched.

Mithaq is of the pattern mif'al, which is common in attributes, like minhar (one who slaughters much). According to Abu al-Baqa' and al-Zamakhshari, it is a verbal noun (masdar) like mi'ad in the sense of a promise. Others rejected this, saying it is a noun in the place of a verbal noun, as in the verse: "Is it disbelief after the repelling of death from me / and after your gift of a hundred [camels] grazing?" It can also be an instrument noun like mihrah (plow), though this is not widespread and is not far-fetched. It is intended to mean that with which Allah secured His covenant—namely, the signs and the Books—or that with which they secured it—namely, acceptance and commitment.

The pronoun [in mithaqihi] refers to the "covenant" because it is the subject being discussed. It is permissible for it to refer to Allah, though al-Sialkuti did not allow this because the meaning is not complete without considering the "covenant," making it more important to mention than the agent. Furthermore, returning [a pronoun] to the genitive (mudaf) is contrary to the original rule. Abu al-Baqa's words imply that mithaq here is a verbal noun meaning "the securing." As for the pronoun, both possibilities exist: if it returns to the name of Allah, the verbal noun is added to the agent; if it returns to the covenant, it is added to the patient. The rule regarding returning to the genitive is restricted by some researchers to cases other than the genitive construction (idafah); in that context, it is common and frequent. What we have here is of that nature, as it is a verbal noun or interpreted as a derivative, making it like your saying: "Zayd's hitting amazed me, while he was standing."

"And they sever that which Allah has commanded to be joined" (2:27). Ma (that which) is a relative pronoun, or, according to Abu al-Baqa', an indefinite noun described by a clause. There are several opinions regarding what is intended:

1. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); they severed him through denial and disobedience. This was said by al-Hasan. It involves using ma for those who possess intellect—nay, for the master of the rational, nay, for the intellect itself.
2. The Statement (Command); for Allah commanded that it be joined through action, but they did not join it and did not act upon it. The apparent meaning here is that this was revealed concerning the hypocrites.
3. Belief in the Prophets; they were commanded to join it, but they severed it by believing some and denying others.
4. The ties of kinship and blood; Qatada said this. Its apparent meaning is that he intended the disbelievers of Quraish and their likes.
5. The Command which encompasses all that has been mentioned, of whatever necessitates joining, which causes the severing of the connection between Allah and the servant—the connection intended in itself over every other joining or severing.

Perhaps this is the most valid opinion, because it involves applying the wording to the entirety of its meaning, and there is no clear evidence for the particularization [of the other meanings]. Some preferred the preceding view because it is apparent that this is a description of the "corruptly disobedient" (fasiqin) as those who waste the right of creation after having described them as wasting the right of the Creator, the Exalted. Wasting His right is by breaking His covenant, and [wasting] the right of His creation is by severing their ties of kinship—though this is not [in itself] strong.

"And they cause corruption on earth" (2:27). Their corruption is by inciting others to disbelief, encouraging it, and driving people toward it; or by frightening [travelers] on the roads and cutting off the paths for those who wish to migrate to Allah and His Messenger; or because they commit every sin whose harm spreads and whose sparks fly across the horizons. Perhaps this is the most valid interpretation. Mentioning "on earth" is an indication that the intended corruption is that which spreads beyond them, rather than that which stops with them.

"It is they who are the losers" (2:27). "It is they" refers back to the "corruptly disobedient" in consideration of the ugly qualities detailed. It holds a symbolic meaning that they are in a far-removed rank of condemnation. The losers are restricted to them in consideration of their perfection in loss; for they neglected the intellect from contemplation, did not acquire the knowledge beneficial for eternal life and everlasting joy, and instead purchased breaking with keeping, corruption with righteousness, severing with joining, and punishment with reward. Thus, both the capital and the profit were lost to them, and grave harm befell them. This is the great loss. The verse provides a reinforcement of the implied metaphor contained in the previous verses, so understand this.