Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:39

{And those who disbelieved and denied Our signs—those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.}

This is a conjunctive clause to {Then whoever follows My guidance}. It is a counterpart to it, as if He said: "And whoever does not follow it." The reason the aforementioned phrasing was preferred over this is to emphasize the gravity of misguidance and to demonstrate the perfection of its ugliness. Alternatively, it is because {whoever does not follow} would include those to whom the call has not reached and who are not among those under obligation (mukallaf); thus, it was avoided to exclude them. Furthermore, it includes the sinner (fasiq), based on the premise that what is intended by "following" is complete following, which results in the absence of fear and grief. If the Almighty had said "whoever does not follow," his eternal dwelling in the Fire would have been necessitated, whereas what He did say does not necessitate that. Instead, the sinner is excluded from both categories, and it is understood by implication that he bears fear and grief in proportion to his lack of following. Had He made His statement {no fear will there be upon them} at that juncture, it would have negated the persistence of fear and grief.

If "following the guidance" is intended to mean belief in Him—the Almighty—then he would have been included in {Whoever follows My guidance}, except that the guardians of the Book of Allah do not accept this and do not allow it. As for {those—no fear will there be upon them, nor will they grieve}, the relative pronoun (al-ladhina) is used in the plural form to indicate the multitude of disbelievers. The primary meaning of "disbelief" (kufr) is disbelief in Allah the Almighty. It is possible that "disbelieved" and "denied" are both directed toward the prepositional phrase {Our signs}; thus, "disbelief in the signs" means rejecting them in the heart, while "denying them" means rejecting them with the tongue.

An ayah (sign) is originally a clear mark relative to that which is marked. From this comes the "ayah" of the Qur'an, as it is a mark of the cessation of the speech that follows it and precedes it, or because it is a mark of its meaning and rulings. It is said: it is called an ayah because the word ayah is also used for a group, as Abu Amr said: "The people went out with their ayah," meaning their group. It is a group of the Qur'an and a section of letters. Some have mentioned that it is so named because it is a marvel (ajab) from which one wonders at its inimitability, just as one says: "So-and-so is an ayah among the ayat (marvels)."

Regarding its root and measure, there are various opinions: The school of Sibawayh and Al-Khalil is that its root is ayibah with a series of fathas, where the ya was changed into an alif due to its mobility and the openness of what preceded it, contrary to the rule—like ghayah and rayah—since the consistent rule when two vowels meet is to inflect the latter, as it is the place of change. The school of Al-Kisa'i is that its root is ayiyah like fa'ilah, and the rule should have been to assimilate it like dabbah, but this was abandoned for ease, so they deleted its middle radical ('ayn). The school of Al-Farra' is that its measure is fi'lah with a quiescent middle radical, from ta'a al-qawm (the people gathered). They said in the plural: aya', like af'al, so the ya and the final hamza appeared as a substitute for the ya, and the second alif is a substitute for the hamza which is the first radical of the word. If its middle radical were a waw, they would have said in the plural: awa'. Then they turned the quiescent ya into an alif against the rule, because it was not mobile and what preceded it was not open. The school of the Kufans is that its measure is ayiyah like niqah, and it was inflected, which is as anomalous as the first. It is also said its measure is fi'lah with a damma on the middle radical, and it is said its root is ayah, where the final radical was moved forward and the middle radical moved backward, but this is weak. All opinions regarding it are not free from anomaly, and there is nothing strange about ayah.

What is intended by the "signs" here are the revealed Books, the Prophets, the Qur'an, or the indications of His—the Almighty's—existence through His creation and craftsmanship. The intellectual is treated as if it were the spoken, so that "denial" becomes applicable. The Almighty used the "nun" of Majesty to cultivate awe and instill reverence. He attributed the signs to Himself to demonstrate the perfection of the ugliness of denying them.

He indicated with {those} the relative pronoun, considering its description of being in the status of the conjunctive clause, to signal that {those} are distinguished by that description in a way that validates sensory pointing, while intimating the remoteness of their station in it. It is a subject whose predicate is {companions}, which is the plural of sahib (companion), and the pluralization of fa'il as af'al is anomalous, as stated in Al-Bahr. The meaning of companionship is accompaniment with a thing, and it is mostly used in convention for adherence. This sentence is a predicate for {those who disbelieved}. It is possible that the demonstrative pronoun is a substitute for it or an appositive, and the companions is its predicate. The nominal sentence following it is in the position of a state (hal), due to the explicit statement in the Almighty's saying: {those are the companions of the Fire, abiding therein}. It is also permissible that it be a state from "the Fire," as it contains a pronoun referring to it, and the operative factor is the meaning of the annexation (idafa) or an implied "lam" (preposition). Or, it is in the position of the nominative as another predicate for {those}, according to the opinion of those who hold that. Abu Hayyan said: "It is possible that it is an interpretation of what was ambiguous in {companions of the Fire}, clarifying that this companionship does not mean absolute accompaniment but rather eternity, in which case it has no place in syntax." Eternity here means perpetuity, according to what the consensus has established. Among the wonders is what some have mentioned, that in the two verses there is a type of [rhetorical device] called ihtibak (interlocking); how beautiful it would be, were it not for the metonymy that suffices for what is there.