Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:80

This sentence is a circumstantial (haliyya) clause conjoined to His saying: "And there was a group of them..." according to one group of scholars, and according to others, it is conjoined to "And when you killed..." as a narrative following a narrative. Some of the investigators have chosen the view that it is an interjection (i’tirad) to refute what they said when they were threatened with "woe" based on what preceded. In fact, all the sentences, according to him, from His saying: "Do you covet..." to His saying: "And when We took a covenant," are mentioned as a digression between the two conjoined narratives. The pronoun in "they said" refers back to "those who write the Book."

"Touching" (mass) is the contact of one of two things with another in a way involving sensation and affliction. Al-Raghib mentioned that it is like "touching" (lams), but lams may be used for seeking a thing even if it is not found, as in the verse: "I seek it, yet I do not find it." By "the Fire," the Fire of the Hereafter is intended, and by "the numbered," the restricted and few. He used "the numbered" as a metonymy for "the few" because the Bedouins, due to their lack of knowledge of arithmetic and its laws, perceived that which is small as easy to count and that which is large as difficult to count. Thus, they would say: "A counted thing," meaning few, and "uncounted," meaning many. The claim that "fewness" is derived from the fact that when time is long, it is not counted in days but in months, years, or centuries, is problematized by His saying: "Fasting is prescribed for you... for a number of days" (ayyaman ma’dudat) and His saying, the Almighty: "And We made an appointment with Moses for forty nights."

It is narrated from them that they would be punished for forty days—the number of days they worshipped the Calf—then it would be called out: "Bring out every circumcised person from the Children of Israel." In another narration, they are punished for seven days for every thousand years of the days of this world, which would be seven thousand years. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that they claimed to have found written in the Torah that the distance between the two ends of Hell is a journey of forty years until they reach the Tree of Zaqqum, and that they traverse a journey of a year every day, thus completing it [in forty days]. They said this when the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) entered Medina, and the Muslims heard it; thereupon this verse was revealed:

This is to shame and rebuke them. A "covenant" (’ahd) is a metaphor for His information or promise that the Fire will not touch them except for the numbered days. He called it a "covenant" because it is more emphatic than covenants confirmed by oath or vow. Qatadah interpreted it here as a "promise," citing as evidence His saying: "And among them are those who made a covenant with Allah..." to His saying, the Almighty: "...for failing to fulfill what they promised Him."

It was objected that there is no justification for this specification, as "It will not touch us" is a consequence of a promise and a threat, since the touching of the Fire is a threat. It was answered that the threat was not addressed because the purpose of the interrogation is the promise, not the threat, for the [existence of the] threat is established regarding them. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the meaning of the verse is: "Have you said 'There is no god but Allah,' and believed, and obeyed, so that you infer from that and know your exit from the Fire?" It boils down to: "Have you sent forth before Allah deeds that necessitate what you claim?" The first meaning is more apparent.

Ibn Kathir and Hafs recited it with the manifestation (izhar) of the dhal, while the others recited it with assimilation (idgham). The hamzat al-wasl was omitted from ittakhadhtum because it occurred in the middle of speech.

This is the answer to an implied condition: "If you have taken a covenant with Allah, then He will not break it." The scholar estimated it as: "If you have taken," since the meaning is not directed toward the future; this is based on the idea that the conditional particle does not change the meaning of "was" (kana), and there is a well-known disagreement regarding this.

If you say: "It is not valid to make 'For Allah will not break His covenant' a result for the impossibility of causality and sequence, because 'will not' (lan) is for pure future tense," I say: That is not necessary for the fa that implies the hidden [causal] condition (al-fa' al-fasihah), such as in the saying: "They said, 'Khorasan is the farthest intended destination, then the return,' so we have come to Khorasan." Even if that were granted, the judgment has been established upon the taking of the covenant that He will not break the covenant in the future time only, as in His saying: "And whatever you have of favor, it is from Allah." Thus the scholar explained it.

The first answer is based on the view that the fa that implies the hidden condition does not contradict the estimation of a condition, and that it indicates that what follows it is a result of the omitted [precondition], whether it follows it or is delayed due to it being dependent on another matter, as evidenced by the fact that "so we have come to Khorasan" is known in the fasihah [usage], along with it being based on the estimation of a condition and the absence of [immediate] sequence.

The second answer is based on the view that the intended meaning is their judgment, not the judgment of Allah at the time of revelation. Because this is subtle, the Master Isam said: "The most apparent view is that it is a proof for the consequence put in its place—i.e., if you have taken a covenant from Allah, then you have attained salvation, because He will not break His covenant." This conveys the meaning. Some do not estimate an omitted part and make the fa causal, so that the taking of the covenant is the cause for Allah’s non-breaking of His covenant, and the denied thing would then be the totality—so realize this.

This sentence, as Ibn Atiyyah said, is an interjection between "you have taken" and its equivalent, so it has no place in grammatical inflection. The name "Allah" is manifest to signify the cause of the judgment, for the non-breaking [of a promise] is a requirement of Divinity, and the covenant is attributed to His pronoun for that reason as well, or because what is intended by it is all His covenants due to the generality of the attribution. Thus, the [alleged] covenant is included while refraining from affirming the truth of their statement, even if it is suspended upon the taking of what is suspended by the ropes of non-existence. The verse was used as evidence by those who argue for the negation of breaking a promise or a threat by interpreting the "covenant" as the information that includes both. Some claimed that the covenant is manifest in the promise, or rather a customary reality for it, so there is no evidence in it for the negation of breaking a threat.

"Or" (am) may be conjunctive, for the purpose of equating between two things, meaning: "Which of these two is the case? Your taking of the covenant, or your saying about Allah that which you do not know?" This is phrased as one who is hesitant in determining it by way of establishing the fact for those addressed, because the interrogator—the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—knows the occurrence of one of them, which is their saying that which they do not know, specifically. Thus, the interrogation is not in its literal sense. It is understood from this that what occurs after the conjunctive am may be a sentence, because equalization can be between two judgments. Ibn al-Hajib explicitly stated this in al-Idah.

It is also possible that it is disjunctive, meaning "nay" (bal), and the estimation is "Nay, do you say?" The bal in it implies turning away and transitioning from the rebuke by denial of the [claim of the] covenant to the rebuke of the statement [itself], which its hamza indicates. The apparent view of the author of al-Miftah is that it is definitely disjunctive, as he made the sign of the disjunctive [particle] that what follows it is a sentence. The rebuke was attached to their attributing to Him, the Almighty, that which they do not know to have occurred, even though what they attributed to Him is of the sort that they know will not occur, [this is] for the sake of exaggeration in the rebuke. For the rebuke of the lesser necessitates the rebuke of the greater by way of priority. Their reported statement, even if it is not explicitly a fabrication against Him, Glory be to Him, it necessitates it, for such certainty cannot exist except by attributing its cause to Him, the Almighty.