Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:285

(The Messenger has believed) Al-Zajjaj said: When Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned in this noble surah—which is clear in evidence—the obligations of prayer, zakat, divorce, menstruation, ila’ (vow of abstinence), jihad, the stories of the prophets—peace be upon them—debt, and usury, He concluded it with this verse to exalt His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his followers, and as a confirmation and summary of all that was mentioned before.

Here, the Glorified and Exalted has testified for those mentioned at the beginning of the surah regarding the perfection of their faith and the excellence of their obedience, and their actual attainment of these qualities. He mentioned the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the third person, whereas He mentioned him at the beginning of the surah (in verse 40) in the second person. This is because the right of a testimony that is to endure throughout the ages is for the one being testified for to be addressed directly. Allah did not explicitly mention here their attainment of their goals—among which are the supplications mentioned hereafter—as an indication that it is a settled matter that does not require explicit statement, especially after it was established in what preceded. His mention of him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with the title of "Messenger" rather than his noble name is a way of honoring him and a preamble for what follows.

Al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi recorded from Anas, who said: When this verse was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), "The Messenger has believed," he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "And he has the right to believe." In a narration by ‘Abd ibn Humayd from Qatadah—which serves as a witness for the hadith of Anas, thus strengthening its disconnection—it states: "And it is right for him to believe in what was revealed to him from his Lord," meaning the rulings mentioned in this surah and others. The intent is his belief in that with detailed faith, though it is summarized here to honor his station (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and to indicate that the attachment of his faith to the details of what was revealed to him—and his encompassing of all that it contains, the essence of which cannot be fathomed, nor can thoughts reach it, no matter how they soar—has reached a level of clarity that renders its mention unnecessary and its explanation sufficient. In placing the end before the beginning (referring to the construction of the phrase) while incorporating the attribute of Lordship and the possessive pronoun connected to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), there is an evident honoring of his noble rank and an elevation of his lofty position.

It is permissible for "the believers" (al-mu'minun) to be a conjunction to "the Messenger," making it nominative as the subject (agent); thus, one may pause here. This is supported by what Abu Dawud recorded in al-Masahif from Ali (may Allah honor his face) that he read: "And the believers believed." Based on this, the saying of Allah: "Each has believed" is an initiating sentence consisting of a subject and predicate. The initiation with an indefinite noun is justified because it is in the position of a genitive construction (idafa). It is also permissible for "The Messenger" to be the subject, "Each" to be a second subject, and "has believed" to be its predicate; the first sentence is then the predicate of the first subject, and the connector is implied. It is not permissible for "each" to be an emphasis (tawkid), for the grammarians have explicitly stated that it cannot be an emphasis for a definite noun unless it is explicitly annexed to its pronoun. The first interpretation is preferred because it better fulfills the requirements of rhetoric and is more acceptable, as the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) then becomes the origin in the ruling of believing in what Allah revealed, and the believers are his followers—what a pride that is for them! The second interpretation implies that the ruling of the believers is stronger than that of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) because their sentence is nominal and emphasized. This was countered by the claim that the second interpretation indicates the honoring of the Messenger and emphasizes the manifest difference between his belief—which is built upon witnessing and direct vision—and the belief of the rest of the believers—which arises from evidence and proof—as if they were different in every respect, even in the structure of the syntax.

The problem with the first interpretation is that if each of the two instances of belief is taken to fit the Messenger's status in terms of essence and attachment, it becomes impossible to attribute them to anyone other than him, and the repetition is wasted. If taken to fit the status of the individual members of the Ummah, it would be a belittlement of his high rank. If they are both taken to fit whomsoever they are attributed to—in terms of essence and attachment—such that for the Messenger it is the belief of direct vision regarding all details, and for the individuals of the Ummah it is the belief acquired from his niche (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) which befits their condition in terms of generalization and detail, it would be a clear affectation that the Revelation is far above. The doubt that was thought to be a contradiction is dispelled by the fact that the use of the nominal sentence with the repetition of the predicate that strengthens the ruling exists because the ruling of the belief of each one of them, in the manner described below, contains a type of hiddenness that necessitates it. The singular pronoun in "believed" (despite referring to all the believers) is because the intent is to state the belief of each individual, without considering them as a collective, as was considered in His saying: "And all will come to Him humbled." This is further from blind following, which, if it does not invalidate [faith], at least blemishes it. Meaning, each one of them individually believed:

(In Allah) i.e., affirmed Him and His attributes, denied anthropomorphism regarding Him, and declared Him free from what does not befit His majesty, such as a partner in divinity and Lordship, and the like.

(And His angels) in that they are infallible, purified, do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do what they are commanded. It is their function to mediate between the Exalted and the Messengers by revealing scriptures and delivering revelation; this is why they are mentioned in the order before His saying:

(And His books and His messengers) i.e., in terms of their coming from the Exalted in a manner befitting the status of each. Detailed belief is required for what is known in detail, and summarized belief for what is known in summary. Belief in the Last Day is mentioned here, just as it was mentioned in His saying: "But the righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day..." because it is included in the belief in His books, and secondary matters are often summarized.

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) read "His book" (in the singular). It is possible that it means the Quran, by interpreting the attachment as a reference to a known entity, or it means the generic category, so it is not restricted to it. The difference between it and the plural, according to what the Imam of the Haramayn and al-Zamakhshari chose—and it is narrated from the Imam Ibn Abbas—is that the encompassing nature of the singular is more comprehensive than that of the plural, because the singular addresses all individuals initially, so nothing—be it small or large—escapes it, unlike the plural, which encompasses groups primarily and essentially, and then extends to individuals. This discussion is among the difficult problems of rhetoric, and its investigation has been completed there.

(We do not differentiate between any of His messengers) [The phrase is in] the position of the accusative as a state from the pronoun in "believed," or in the nominative as another predicate for "each," meaning they say, or he says: We do not differentiate between the messengers of Allah by believing in some and disbelieving in others, as the people of the two scriptures did. Rather, we believe in all of them and affirm the validity of the message of each one of them. They restricted their belief to this to establish the truth and to explicitly state their opposition to those dividers from both groups, by manifesting faith in what they disbelieved in. "So the curse of Allah is upon the disbelievers."

From this, it is known that the speakers are the believers themselves, specifically, as it is far-fetched to attribute to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he should say "I do not differentiate between any of His messengers" while he intends to manifest his belief in his own message and his affirmation of his claim. Whoever considered including the Messenger in "each" and found this unlikely said: It is through the method of "dominance" (taghlib) here. Whoever did not find it unlikely—since he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) says the Shahada just as others do, or replaces the noun in it with a first-person pronoun—did not need to invoke the concept of dominance. The lack of mention regarding the denial of differentiation between the Books is because the aforementioned entails it. The reason He did not reverse this, despite the necessity of the correlation, is that the root of the differentiation of the dividers is the Messengers, and their disbelief in the Books is branched from their disbelief in them. The preference for explicitly mentioning "Messengers" over using an implicit pronoun—as is similar in His saying: "And what was given to the prophets from their Lord... we do not differentiate between any of them"—is either to avoid the illusion of the inclusion of angels (however remote that may be) in the ruling; and while there is no harm in that, there is no great benefit in addressing it, as there is no rival in appearance, or if there is, it is very little. Or it is to signal the reason for not differentiating, or to point to his title, for what matters is the absence of differentiation in terms of the message, rather than other qualities.

Ya’qub and Abu ‘Amr, in one narration from him, read "they do not differentiate" with a 'ya' based on the word "each," and it was read "they do not differentiate" (in the plural) based on its meaning. In that case, the sentence itself is a state or a predicate, according to what preceded regarding the implied speech, and there is no need for it here. The discussion on "anyone" and the insertion of "between" to it has already preceded in the interpretation of His saying: "We do not differentiate between any of them."

(And they said) is a conjunction to "believed," and the plural is based on the meaning; it is a narration of their compliance with commands and prohibitions following the narration of their faith.

(We hear) i.e., we have responded, and this is the conventional meaning of "hearing."

(And we obey) and we accepted willingly what you called us to, regarding commands and prohibitions. It is said: "We hear" what has come to us of the truth and have become certain of its validity, and "we obey" what it contains of command and prohibition.

(Your forgiveness, our Lord) i.e., grant us forgiveness—a generic noun for forgiveness—either as an absolute object or a direct object. Perhaps the former is better, because the latter requires the estimation of a specific verb that necessitates the consideration of context. The mention of hearing is placed before obedience because the general precedes the specific, or because the method of obligation is hearing, and obedience follows it. Mentioning them before asking for forgiveness is because presenting the means before the request is closer to being answered and accepted. The mention of the attribute of Lordship has had its secret discussed more than once.

(And to You is the final destination) i.e., the return through death and resurrection. It is a noun indicating a place or time of return (masdar mimi). The sentence, it is said, is a conjunction to an implied phrase, i.e., "From You is the origin, and to You is the destination." It is a concluding sentence for what preceded, establishing the need for forgiveness, and it contains an acknowledgment of the Resurrection, which was not explicitly stated before.