Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:284

(To Allah belongs what is in the heavens and what is in the earth) of matters contained within their reality and those external to them, howsoever they may be. That is, all of it is a kingdom for Him, the Exalted, and specifically pertains to Him. Thus, He may bind those whose status it is to be among His possessions with whatever He wills of His commands, and no one may say, "The wealth is my wealth, I shall dispose of it as I wish." Some people have made this sentence as a premise for what follows.

(And if you disclose) that is, reveal to people (what is in your souls) that is, what has settled therein with an original settlement, such that it necessitates the soul's being described by it, such as evil predispositions and blameworthy characters like envy, pride, self-admiration, disbelief, and concealing testimony—(or conceal it) by not revealing it—(Allah will call you to account for it). That is, He will recompense you for it on the Day of Resurrection. As for the mere mental conception of sins and blameworthy characters, because it does not necessitate the soul's being described by it, one is not punished for it as long as it does not exist in external reality. To this, the saying of the Prophet, may Allah exalt and protect him, refers: "Verily, Allah has pardoned for my nation what their souls whisper to them, as long as they do not act upon it or speak of it." That is, Allah, the Exalted, does not punish my nation for the conception of a sin; rather, He only punishes for the execution of it. Thus, there is no contradiction between the Hadith and the verse, contrary to the one who imagined such a thing and fell into confusion in order to defend it.

It is not an objection to this that they said: "If the conception reaches the level of firm resolve and determination, one is taken to task for it," due to the saying of the Exalted, (But He will take you to task for what your hearts have earned). For we say: The being taken to task is, in reality, for the firm resolve to bring about the sin in external reality, which is also among the psychological qualities that attach to the predispositions, unlike other things that occur in the soul. Some have organized this by saying: The ranks of intention are: a passing thought, then a fleeting notion, then a discourse of the soul—so listen—followed by a resolve and a firm determination; all are lifted [from responsibility] except the last, for in it the taking to task has occurred.

Thus, the verse, according to our establishment, is firm (muhkam). Some have claimed that it is abrogated (mansukh), arguing based on what Ahmad and Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah, who said: "When there was revealed to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah exalt and protect him, (And if you disclose what is in your souls) the verse, it became severe upon the companions of the Messenger of Allah. They came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah exalt and protect him, then fell upon their knees and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, we were charged with deeds we could bear: prayer, fasting, jihad, and charity; but now there has been revealed to you this verse, and we cannot bear it.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah exalt and protect him, said: 'Do you wish to say as the people of the two Books said before you: We hear and we disobey? Rather, say: We hear and we obey; Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the destination.' When the people recited it and their tongues were humbled by it, Allah, the Exalted, revealed in its wake: (The Messenger believes...) to the end of the verse. When they did that, Allah, the Exalted, abrogated it and revealed: (Allah does not charge a soul except with its capacity)... etc."

Something similar has been authentically narrated from Ali, may Allah honor his face, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Aisha, may Allah be pleased with them all. Al-Bukhari recorded from Marwan al-Asghar, from a man among the companions of the Messenger of Allah—I think it was Ibn Umar—regarding (If you disclose what is in your souls or conceal it), he said: "The verse that follows it abrogated it." According to this, there is no need for reconciliation between the verse and that authentic Hadith in any way, and the Hadith is a report of what happened after the abrogation. This was challenged by the fact that abrogation is specific to legislation (insha'), and does not apply to news (khabar), whereas the noble verse is of the latter category.

Hence, al-Tabarsi said: "All the narrations regarding abrogation are weak." It was answered that the abrogation was not directed at the meaning of the report itself—whether we say it is of the category that changes, like the faith of Zayd and the disbelief of Amr, or whether it is not, like the existence of the Creator and the occurrence of the world—but rather, it was directed at the prohibition understood from it. As is indicated by the statement of the companions to the Messenger of Allah: "We were charged with deeds we could bear, but there has been revealed to you this verse and we cannot bear it." This is explicit that they understood from the verse an obligation, and the legal ruling understood from a report is permitted to be abrogated by consensus, as is indicated by the speech of al-Adud and others.

Some who claimed the verse is firm and hesitated to accept this answer argued that the meaning of "abrogation" here is "clarification" and "elucidation of the intended meaning" metaphorically, as was indicated at His saying, the Exalted: (So pardon and forgive). It is as if it were said: "How could 'what is in your souls' be carried to include necessary whisperings, when that necessitates a charge that is not within one's capacity, and 'Allah does not charge a soul except with its capacity'?" This was objected to on the grounds that, despite its remoteness, it necessitates that the Prophet, may Allah exalt and protect him, approved the companions in their misunderstanding, while it was far from the intent of Allah, and he did not clarify it for them despite the agitation and dread they were in, which caused them to fall upon their knees until the other verse was revealed.

It is possible to answer, despite its remoteness, that there is no harm in this necessity; it may be accepted that it is of the category of his, may Allah exalt and protect him, approval of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, when he interpreted a vision in front of him, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and said: "Did I get it right or wrong, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "You got some of it right and some of it wrong," and he did not clarify for him what he got right and what he got wrong, for a reason. Perhaps here, it was a trial for them to test what was in their chests. This, despite the circumstances, is better than interpreting abrogation as specification, because it would entail the charging of that which cannot be borne, as is not hidden.

It is said: The meaning of the verse is: "If you declare the evil that is in your souls, or you do not declare it—by performing it in secret—Allah will call you to account for it." It comes down to our saying: "If you bring evil deeds into existence, openly or secretly, Allah will call you to account for them." Or, "If you disclose the concealment of testimony that is in your souls by saying to the one who owns the testimony, 'We have testimony, but we conceal it and will not perform it for you before the authorities,' or you conceal it by saying to him, 'There is no knowledge in our minds of what you want us to testify to,' while you are lying in that, Allah will call you to account for it." This was supported by what Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded via Mujahid from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, regarding the noble verse; he said: "It was revealed regarding testimony."

It is also said: The verse is upon its apparent meaning, and (what is in your souls) is in its generality, encompassing all passing thoughts, except that the meaning of (will call you to account) is "Allah will inform you of it on the Day of Resurrection." They counted "the All-Knowing" among the meanings of "the Reckoner" (al-Hasib). All these views are not devoid of scrutiny, so ponder them and return them to your mind; I do not imagine you will find anything beyond what we have mentioned or similar to it in a book.

The prepositional phrase is placed before the agent to show importance to it. As for the precedence of "disclosing" over "concealing"—contrary to the order in His saying, the Exalted: (Say: Whether you conceal what is in your souls or disclose it, Allah knows it)—it is because it is said: "What is tied to 'what is in your souls' here is the reckoning (muhasaba), and the origin of reckoning is visible actions. As for knowledge, its connection to them is the same as its connection to hidden actions, and the state does not differ for Him, the Exalted, between manifest and latent things; indeed, there is nothing 'latent' with respect to Him, the Exalted. Except that the rank of concealment precedes the rank of disclosure; for there is nothing that is disclosed except that it—or its principles—was previously hidden in the soul. Thus, the connection of His knowledge, the Exalted, to its first state precedes the connection of His knowledge to its second state."

(He forgives) in the nominative case as an exception; that is, He forgives by His grace (whom He wills) to forgive from among His servants, and He punishes by His justice whom He wills to punish from among His servants. The precedence of forgiveness over punishment is because His mercy precedes His wrath.

Others besides Ibn Amir, Asim, and Ya'qub read with the jussive (jazm) for both verbs, as a coordination to the response of the condition. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, read with the accusative (nasb) for them by implying "an" (to), where it and what it governs are interpreted as an infinitive coordinated to the infinitive implied by the previous verb. The estimation is: "There will be a reckoning, so a forgiving and a punishing." Among the established rules is that if a verb occurs after the response of the condition, joined by 'waw' or 'fa', the three cases are permitted. Ibn Malik indicated this: "The verb after the response, if joined by 'fa' or 'waw', is permitted in the threefold [case]."

Ibn Mas'ud read yaghfiru and yu'adhdhibu with the jussive without 'fa'. The rationale for those who permit the multiplicity of the response, like the report, is clear. As for others, the jussive is because they are substitutes (badal) for (He will call you to account), a substitute of the part for the whole, or a substitute of inclusion (ishtimal); for each of forgiveness and punishment is a part of the reckoning indicated by "He will call you to account," and absolute reckoning encompasses both. If its collection of both is considered by way of the whole encompassing the parts, it is a substitute of the part for the whole; if it is considered by way of inclusion, like the inclusion of a universal for its particulars, it is a substitute of inclusion.

It is also said: If the real meaning is intended by "He will call you to account," then the substitute is a substitute of inclusion, like "I love Zayd for his knowledge." If recompense is intended, then it is a substitute of the part, like "I struck Zayd [on] his head." Others have said something else. Abu Hayyan leaned toward the necessity of it being inclusion. He said: "Its occurrence in verbs is correct because the verb indicates a genus containing types which it includes. Therefore, if negation falls upon it, all types of that genus are negated." As for the substitute of the part for the whole, it is not possible for the verb, since the verb does not accept division; thus, one cannot say it has a "whole" or a "part" except through far-fetched metaphor. Al-Halabi objected to him, saying that it is not apparent, because universality and partiality are true for both the genus and its type; the genus is the whole, and the type is the part. Thus, the correct view is the occurrence of both types in the verb. They have been mentioned regarding the saying: "When you come to us, you dwell in our homes; you find the best of fire, at which is the best of kindlers." They made "dwelling" a substitute for "coming"—either a substitute of the part, because it is a coming without lingering, so it is a part of it, or as inclusion, because it is a light descent.

It is narrated from Abu 'Amr the assimilation (idgham) of 'ra' into 'lam'. Al-Zamakhshari criticized this, following his habit of criticizing the seven readings if they were not based on the rules of the grammarians. Among their rules is that 'ra' is not assimilated except into 'ra' due to the repetition (takrir) in it, which is lost by assimilation into 'lam'. It may be answered that the seven readings are mutawatir (mass-transmitted), and transmission by mutawatir is scientific proof, while the statement of the grammarians is speculative denial. Even if we grant the lack of tawatur, the least that can be said is that it is proven as a dialect by the transmission of the just (adul), and it is weighted by being a positive proof. The transmission of the assimilation of 'ra' into 'lam' from Abu 'Amr is of such fame and clarity that there is no refuting it. Among those who narrated it from him is Abu Muhammad al-Yazidi, who is an Imam in grammar, an Imam in readings, and an Imam in dialects. Its rationale, in terms of reasoning, is the extreme closeness between them, such that they are almost equivalents, evidenced by the necessity of the assimilation of 'lam' into 'ra' in eloquent speech—except that he noticed the repetition of the 'ra' and did not make its assimilation into 'lam' necessary. Moreover, the prevention of the assimilation of 'ra' into 'lam' is the school of the Basrans, while the Kufans permitted it and narrated it as heard from them—al-Kisa'i, al-Farra', and Abu Ja'far al-Rawasi. The tongue of the Arabs is not restricted to what the Basrans alone narrated, and the Kufan readers are not inferior to the readers of Basra. They permitted it from the Arabs, so it is mandatory to accept it and return in it to their knowledge and their transmission; for one who knows is a proof against one who does not.

(And Allah is powerful over all things).

A tailpiece (tadhyil) establishing the content of what preceded it; for the perfection of His power, the Exalted, over all things necessitates His power over what was mentioned of the reckoning and what was derived from it of forgiveness and punishment. The verse contains proof for the people of Sunnah in refuting the necessity of punishment, as it is made conditional upon the will. The possibility that such a will is "necessary"—like "whom He wills [to perform] the obligatory prayer"—does not necessitate the absence of obligation; that is contrary to the apparent meaning.