Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:76

(And when they meet those who believe) they say, "We have believed." This is an independent sentence (jumlah musta’nafah). It does not follow the explanation of what occurred from their ancestors; rather, it is to explain the specific shameful acts committed by these people themselves—acts that cause one to despair of their belief—such as the hypocrisy of some and the rebuke of others toward them. It is also possible that it is conjoined to "And there was a party among them..." or, as some have said, conjoined to "They hear..." or to His saying, "And when you killed a person," treating story after story.

The pronoun in "they meet" (laqu) refers to the Jews, consistent with the [previous] "that they might believe you." The pronoun in "they say" refers to those who are meeting, though not all of them engage in the speech in reality; rather, it is through the agency of their hypocrites while the rest remain silent. Thus, it is a case of attributing to the whole what was done by a part, a phenomenon too frequent to count. This interpretation is more profound, as our master, the Mufti of the lands of Rome, said in condemning the state of those who are silent—first—and those who rebuke—second—because it indicates their hypocrisy, the variance in their states, and the contradiction in their opinions. This is done by attributing the speech specifically to the perpetrators, with the implied addition of the genitive (mudaf), meaning "their hypocrites said," as some have done.

It is also said that the first pronoun refers to the hypocrites of the Jews, just as the second does, so that the subject of the condition and the reward may be unified, in observance of the rules of structure. This is supported by what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, and Qatadah in interpreting "And when they meet" as meaning: "the hypocrites of the Jews meet the sincere believers and say [so-and-so]." However, as you have seen and will see, the preceding and succeeding contexts make this unlikely. Ibn al-Sumayqa‘ read it as laqu (transitive).

"And when some of them went aside to others"—that is, when some of the aforementioned people—the silent ones among them—after finishing their engagement with the believers, turned to join others among them—those who were hypocrites. This is as if it were an explicit text on the participation of the silent ones in meeting the believers; for "going aside" (khala) only occurs after such an engagement. Furthermore, since their rebuke is contingent upon this mere "going aside," if they were not present during the interaction, it would have been necessary to make their "hearing" part of the condition. There is also an additional denunciation of them for what they were given to do: silence, then rebuke.

"They say"—that is, those who went aside—rebuking their hypocrites for what they did in their presence:

"Do you speak to them about what Allah has disclosed to you?"—meaning: Do you inform the believers of what Allah has clarified specifically for you regarding the descriptions of His Prophet, Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or the taking of covenants upon your prophets to believe in him and support him? The expression "disclosure" (fath) is used to signal that this was a hidden secret and a closed door. The verse contains an indication that they did not suffice with saying, "We have believed," but rather justified it with what was mentioned. The reason it was not explicitly stated is that it relies upon the testimony of the rebuke. Some people have allowed for the possibility that this rebuke is from the hypocrites toward their successors and remnants who did not engage in hypocrisy. In that case, the "some" who are the subject of "went aside" refers to the hypocrites. This involves replacing the pronoun with an explicit noun to amplify the meaning. The interrogation is one of denunciation and prohibition against speaking in the future tense; however, this interpretation is weak, even if its proponent is great—unless there is a sound narration for it, and short of that, it is an impossibility.

"So that they may argue with you about it"—The [prepositional phrase] relates to "speaking," not to "disclosing," contrary to those who forced an explanation otherwise. The intent is to emphasize the denial and intensify the rebuke. Even though speaking is in itself reprehensible, for this [specific] purpose it is something that would hardly be uttered by a rational person. The reciprocal form (mufa‘alah) here is not intended in the literal sense; rather, the meaning is "so that they may use it as an argument against you." It is used [in the reciprocal form] only for emphasis. Ibn Tamjid mentioned that if one were to argue for a sense of participation between the one arguing and the one argued against—such that there is an argument from one side and listening from the other—it would have a basis, like in "I traded with Zayd." What has already been mentioned is sufficient for you here, so remember it.

The lam is that of purpose (lam al-kay), with the subjunctive an implied after it, or by virtue of it, and it serves to indicate cause. Perhaps here it is figurative, because the speakers did not intend that purpose; however, since their action necessarily entailed it, they are treated as if they were the agents of it, to demonstrate the perfection of their foolish minds and the flimsiness of their opinions.

The pronoun in "about it" refers to "what Allah has disclosed" according to the apparent meaning.

"In the presence of your Lord"—meaning, in His Book and His decree. It is "in the presence of a group" (‘ind ‘isabah)—a substitution for "about it." The meaning of it being a substitution is that its governor, which is the substitute for it, is a substitute—either a total substitution if one interprets it as an active participle, or a substitution of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal) if one interprets it as a verbal noun. Its benefit is to clarify the aspect of argumentation using what Allah disclosed, for arguing with it can be conceived in various ways, as if it were said: "So that they may argue with you about it," by virtue of it being in His Book—meaning they say, "It is mentioned in His Book which you believe in." By what has been mentioned, the way to reconcile His saying "about it" (i.e., what Allah disclosed to you) and His saying "in the presence of your Lord" becomes clear. This also refutes the claim that it cannot be a substitute because the substitute and the original must agree in grammatical case, while here they do not, as the second is a temporal/spatial adverb and the first is an object by mediation.

It is also said the meaning is: "about what is in the presence of your Lord," making the adverb a state (hal) of the pronoun in "about it." Its benefit is to explicitly state that the argument is based on a matter established by Him, the Exalted, even if it is derived from the fact that it is what Allah disclosed. Some say it means "at the mention of your Lord," treating it as an ellipsis of a genitive, with the intention being the "Book." Arguing with what Allah disclosed is treated as being in the Book, and arguing in His presence is considered an extension of this. These opinions are based on the fact that the argumentation is in this world, which is apparent, as this is the abode of argumentation; the interpretation of "in the presence of your Lord" is thus metaphorical.

Others say "in the presence of your Lord" is to be taken literally, and the argumentation occurs on the Day of Resurrection. This has been objected to on the grounds that concealment in this world does not prevent this argumentation, because it is either so the believers do not discover what they argue with—which they already possess via revelation—or so that the one argued against has a path to denial. And [denial] is not possible in the presence of the Lord on the Day of Resurrection. It is not believed that the People of the Scripture held the conviction that concealing what is in the Book in this world would prevent argumentation [based on it] in the Hereafter, for that would be a belief that He, the Exalted, does not know what He sent down in His Book, and they are free from that. The claim that it means "so that they may argue with you" on the Day of Resurrection and during the questioning would merely increase the exposure of your disgrace and rebuke before the witnesses in that great gathering. Perhaps the people believed that the appearance of this in this world increases [the disgrace] in the Hereafter, due to the difference between one who confessed and concealed and one who remained upon denial. Or, that the argument "you reached [the truth] and disobeyed" is prevented by concealment—but it is objected that concealment in that case only prevents argumentation based on their admission, not on "what Allah disclosed." Furthermore, what is prevented in the first view is the increase of rebuke and disgrace, not the argumentation itself.

It is said that "in the presence of your Lord" implies "from the presence of your Lord," and it governs His saying "what Allah disclosed to you." This is something that should not be resorted to in eloquent speech. Al-Damghani allowed that "in the presence of" signifies proximity, meaning "so that they may argue with you about it," drawing near to Allah—though this is also far-fetched. This is similar to what some latecomers said: that it is possible for the argumentation about it "in the presence of the Lord" to mean the mubahalah (mutual invocation of a curse) regarding the truth of what they narrate. In that case, the argumentation is according to the implications of the reciprocal form.

In my view, the return of the pronoun in "about it" to "what Allah disclosed" in the sense that it is "narrated about it," and making this constraint the intended meaning, or referring it to the "speaking" understood from "Do you speak to them," and taking "in the presence of your Lord" to mean the Day of Resurrection, and accepting that concealment prevents this argumentation, is not far-fetched—though no one has explicitly stated it. Perhaps it is better than some of the other aspects, so reflect upon it.

"Do you not then understand?" This is conjoined either to "Do you speak to them?"—with the fa indicating that their lack of understanding is a consequence of their speaking—or to an implied [verb], meaning "Do you not contemplate, so that you do not understand?" The sentence confirms the denial of the speaking, and it is part of the speech of the rebukers. Its object is either what was mentioned first, or it has no object, which is more eloquent. It is also said that it is an address from Allah, the Exalted, to the believers, connected to His saying, "Do you covet..." The meaning is: Do you not understand the state of these Jews, and that there is no hope in their belief while they are upon these blameworthy qualities and ugly characteristics?