Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:8

"And among the people are some who say, 'We believe in Allah and the Last Day,' but they are not believers."

This verse and what follows it, up to the end of the story, is conjoined to the story of "Indeed, those who disbelieve." Each of these conjoined segments is presented for a specific purpose, though both contain an undeniable rebuke of the misguided. This verse, along with the thirteen verses that follow, is presented to rebuke the hypocrites who concealed disbelief while manifesting Islam. Outwardly, they are more criminal than other disbelievers, as indicated by His saying, "Indeed, the hypocrites are in the lowest depth of the Fire."

The term al-nas (the people), according to Sibawayh and the majority, originates from unas. It is either a collective plural or a collective noun for insan (human being). Its fa (the first letter, hamza) was dropped for ease, making its scale fa‘al; its origin is evidenced by insan, ins, and unasi. Both the shortened form (with the missing letter) and the full form are permissible when used as an indefinite noun. When it is made definite with al- (the definite article), the shortened form is more common. When one is identified, it is specified by the trial [of life]. The full form is permissible, though rare, as in the poet's saying: "Indeed, the fates watch over the safe unas."

It is derived from uns (intimacy), the opposite of wahshah (desolation), because one finds intimacy with one's own kind, for man is social by nature. Hence it is said: "Man is only named insan for his intimacy, and the heart (qalb) is only so named because it flips (yataqallab)."

Alternatively, it is derived from anasa, meaning "to see," as in the verse: "He perceived (anasa) a fire from the side of the mount." It also comes in the sense of hearing and knowing. Man is so named because he is manifest and perceptible. Al-Sakaki went to the view that it is a complete noun and its root is the waw from naws (to move/oscillate), arguing that its diminutive is nuways, so its scale is fa‘l. In Al-Kashshaf, it is noted that this is a diminutive that deviates from its augmentative, like unaysiyan and ruwayjal. It has also been said that it is derived from nasi (to forget) through metathesis, due to His saying regarding Adam (peace be upon him): "But he forgot (fa-nasi), and We found in him no determination." This is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and its scale would then be fi‘l.

Generally, it is not used except for the children of Adam. Ibn Khalawayh narrated from some Arabs that unas can refer to the Jinn. Abu Hayyan said this is metaphorical. If taken from naws (oscillation), the concept would apply to the Jinn as well, especially if we say that naws is the oscillation of a thing in the air. Salama ibn ‘Asim was certain that both nas and unas are independent roots.

The lam (the 'al' prefix) is either for the genus or for specific external reference. If it is the former, then man (who) is an indefinite noun described by a relative clause; if it is the latter, then man is a relative pronoun, intending ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his followers. Ibn Hisham and a group allowed that it could be a relative pronoun based on the interpretation of genus, and an indefinite noun described by a clause based on the interpretation of specific reference, because part of a genus can be determined in some way, and some specific individuals may be unknown in one of their states—like the people of a neighborhood among whom there is a murderer who is not identified as such. If the person is identified, these scholars see no room for specification.

It is said that specification is more appropriate because the noun defined by the generic lam—due to its lack of temporal limitation—is close to an indefinite noun, and a part of an indefinite noun is indefinite; thus, it is fitting for the relative man to be used for contrast, whereas the matter is the opposite in the case of specific reference. Following this style, His saying came: "Among the believers are men," and "And among them are those who harm the Prophet," because in the first, the genus was intended, and in the second, the pronoun refers to a specific group of hypocrites.

Since the verse contains a conceptual detailing—for the Almighty mentioned the believers, then the disbelievers, then followed with the hypocrites—it becomes a parallel to verbal detailing, effectively dividing people into believer, disbeliever, and hypocrite. The report about "those who say" (that they are of the people) contains a benefit. You may interpret it as: "those who hide among the hypocrites, who are known to Us; and were it not that covering is a form of nobility, I would expose them." Thus, it is also beneficial and hints at a threat.

It is also said that being "among the people" means they have no quality to distinguish them except the human form, or it is to alert that the mentioned traits contradict humanity, and thus it is surprising. Or the point of the benefit is existence—that is, they exist among them—or that they are humans, not Jinn, since there is no hypocrisy among Jinn. Or that "the people" refers to Muslims, meaning they are counted as Muslims or treated as they are in what they are entitled to and what is required of them. It is not hidden that some of these interpretations are forced and strained, but "every fallen thing has a picker."

Abu Hayyan chose here that "who" (man) is a relative pronoun, claiming that it is only an indefinite noun described by a clause when it occurs in a place restricted to the indefinite in most cases, and that it is rare otherwise—to the extent that Al-Sakaki, despite his high standing, denied it. The flaw in this is clear. The objection to intending specific reference—how can the hypocrites generally enter into the category of the "disbelievers who persist" upon whom the sealing has been placed?—does not apply, because "And among the people" stands as a counterpart to "those who disbelieve," acting as an explanation for a third category: the hesitant ones. Therefore, they do not enter into the former because the hypocrites intended here are the determined ones, those upon whom the sealing of disbelief has been placed, as indicated by: "Deaf, dumb, blind—so they will not return," not the absolute hypocrites. And because their specificity in mixing deception and mockery with disbelief does not contradict their inclusion under the category of "disbelievers who persist." In this regard, they became a third category, so the division is binary in reality and ternary by consideration.

In His saying "they say" and "we believe," there is a consideration for the wording of "who" (man) and its meaning. If He had considered only the former, He would have said "he believes," and if only the latter, "they say." Since both were considered, it is good to consider the wording first, as it is externally prior to the meaning, and the singular is prior to the plural. If the order were reversed, it would be permissible. Ibn ‘Atiyyah claimed that it is not permissible to return from a plural to a singular, but this is refuted by the poet's saying: "I am not one who cringes or they submit when the cavalry of enemies confronts him."

The faith was restricted to Allah and the Last Day—even though they would profess with their mouths all that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) brought—because these two are the greatest objective of faith. For whoever believes in Allah Almighty in a manner befitting the majesty of His essence believes in His books, His messengers, and His laws; and whoever knows that to Him is the final destination prepares for that with righteous deeds. In this, there is an indication of the claim of possessing faith in its two facets: the beginning and the end, which are the paths of reason and revelation. This includes belief in prophethood. Or, perhaps this specification is to signal that they conceal disbelief regarding what they are not hypocritical about in general. For the people, according to the popular view, were Jews, and they were sincere in the basis of their belief in Allah and the Last Day according to their understanding, yet they were hypocritical regarding the manner of believing in them. They would show the believers that their belief in them was like their own. Thus, they are hypocrites in what they intend as pure hypocrisy and are not believers in it at all, such as the prophethood of our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Quran. Or, perhaps by specifying faith in them, they intended to express their lack of belief in the Seal of Messengers (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and what he conveyed; thus, this states their increased wickedness. If they intended the truth of this, it would not be faith, because one must acknowledge what the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) brought. How can it be, when it is deception and obfuscation?

It is said that since their purpose was to exaggerate the sincerity of their Islam—by claiming they had abandoned the creeds they held regarding the beginning and the end and acknowledged that they had been in error—they specified their faith in these two because they were already proponents of the other principles; as for prophethood, there is no acknowledgment of that in believing in these two. Furthermore, abandoning that which is deeply rooted in the heart—which the fathers were upon—by not believing in the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is among the settled matters; so it is as if they did not mention it to point out that it is a matter beyond doubt that they believe in it, after believing in what is even more severe for them.

Interpreting "in Allah and in the Last Day" as a division of their faith is poor, and interpreting it as a division of His—regarding their lack of belief, assuming they believed—is even poorer. "But they are not believers"—the ba must be a connector for faith, and it was repeated to exaggerate the deception and obfuscation by showing that their faith is detailed, confirmed, and strong.

"The Last Day" may mean the eternal time of the resurrection that has no end, or the time Allah has determined from it until each of the believers and disbelievers settles into what has been prepared for them. It is called "last" because it is the final of the limited times. The most likely is the first, because the application of "day" to it is common in the Quran, whether literally or metaphorically, and because faith in it includes faith in the second, as it enters into it, but not vice versa. Yes, what is appropriate for the word "day" linguistically is the second, due to its limitation. In any case, it is different from what people hold, because "day" by custom is from sunrise to sunset, by law, according to the correct view, is from the true dawn to sunset, and by technical convention, is from midday to midday. The matter is beyond that, and this will have more to say later.

In His saying, "But they are not believers," where He brought forward the subject (the pronoun "they") and applied the negation particle, is a rebuttal to the claim of those hypocrites in the most eloquent way. For their inclusion in the ranks of believers is a requirement of the reality of their faith, and the negation of the requirement is the most just witness to the negation of the required thing. There is exaggeration in negating the requirement by indicating its permanence, which necessitates the negation of the occurrence of the required thing entirely. This negation was further confirmed by the ba as well. This is the reason for departing from the rebuttal "they have not believed," which would correspond to the beginning of the discourse.

Some apply the discourse to specification: when the disbelievers saw that they were like the believers in true faith and claimed their agreement, the response was "But they are not believers" by way of restriction to the individual. However, refined taste rejects this, and the application of the description is to signal generalization—that they are not of faith in any respect. It may be restricted by what its predecessor was restricted by, because it occurs as a response to it; however, the negation of the absolute necessitates the negation of the restricted, so it is more eloquent and emphatic.

In this verse is evidence that whoever does not believe in his heart is not a believer. As for whoever acknowledges with his tongue but does not have in his heart what agrees with or contradicts it, he is not a believer—there is no such case, because the presence of the contradiction in the hypocrite here is because his heart is sealed, or because Allah Almighty gave him the lie. This is only because the internal belief did not match the external. Such is what has been said. Some have refined this, claiming that whoever makes faith to be verbal acknowledgment—whether or not it requires being free of denial and disbelief—requires the acknowledgment to be of the two testimonies; and for such a person, "I believe in Allah and the Last Day" is not sufficient, because the pivot is upon uttering the two testimonies, as has been narrated in the authentic tradition. Some even required the word "I bear witness," the specific Name of the Almighty, and the name of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If so, there is no evidence in the verse to invalidate the creed of the Karramiyyah in any way; so let it be considered.