Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:81

This is a response to the statement of theirs that has been recounted, and a refutation of it in a manner more general—encompassing them and all other disbelievers. It is as if He said: "Rather, it shall touch you and others for a long duration and an extended period, not as you claim." The establishment of this generalization serves as a proof for refuting their claim by making it the major premise for a minor premise that is easily accepted.

Bal (Nay) is connected to what is mentioned after it, and the brevity of omission is more eloquent than the brevity of deletion. Some have claimed that it is connected to an omitted phrase, and that the meaning is: "Nay, it shall touch you for a numbered number of days," but this is baseless.

It is a particle of response, like jar and na'am, except that it does not occur as a response unless preceded by a negation, whether an interrogation enters upon it or not, so it serves to affirm that negation. It is a simple (non-compounded) particle; though it is said that its origin is bal, to which the alif was added.

Al-kasb (earning) is the acquisition of benefit. As-sayyi'ah (evil) is the enormity that necessitates the Fire; this was stated by As-Suddi, and based upon this is the interpretation of those who define it as "the major sin," because it is that which makes the Fire deserved—meaning, its doer deserves the Fire if he is not forgiven. Many of the predecessors went to the view that it means "disbelief" here, and the attribution of earning to evil is by way of sarcasm. It is also said: by acquiring evil, they sought a small, fleeting benefit, and from this perspective, "earning" was applied to it.

The intended meaning of "encompassing" (ihatah) is domination, inclusion, and the generality of the outer and inner self. Al-khatiy'ah (sin) is sayyi'ah (evil), but it is predominantly used for that which is intended "by way of the incidental" (al-'arad); that is, it is not intended in its own right, but the intention is towards something else, yet that act is produced from it—like one who shoots at game and hits a human, or drinks an intoxicant and commits a crime.

Some investigators stated: For this reason, He attributed the "encompassing" to it, indicating that sins, in view of the description of "encompassing," fall under the category of being intended by way of the incidental, because they arise from forgetting repentance, and because of their being rooted in him and established—the state of encompassing is attributed to it, unlike the state of "earning," for that is the object of the essential intention and is not established within him, let alone rooted. Thus, He attributed the earning to "an evil" (indefinite), and He attributed the "companions" to the "Fire" in the sense of constant association; for even though companionship can include the few and the many, in convention it is restricted to abundance and constant association. Hence they said: If one who met Zayd swears that he did not "accompany" him, he has not broken his oath.

The intended meaning of khulud (abiding eternally) is perpetuity. There is no proof in this verse for the eternity of the perpetrator of a major sin, because "encompassing" can only be correct in the case of the disbeliever. As for others, if he possesses nothing but the sincerity of his heart and the affirmation of his tongue, then his sin does not encompass him, because his heart and tongue are free from the sin. This does not depend on the belief and affirmation being "good deeds," but rather on them not being "evil deeds." Therefore, the objection does not stand that the opponent makes the deed a condition for them being "good," just as he makes the belief a condition for deeds being "good," so it does not result for him that encompassing is only correct in the case of the disbeliever. There is no need to push back by saying the intent is that he has no proof in the verse, for this is accomplished merely by the fact that encompassing is prohibited in the case of anyone other than the disbeliever. If it were proven that the deed is part of faith, the verse would become a proof, but proving that is harder than "shaving the acacia tree."

Furthermore, the negation of the proof by interpreting "encompassing" as mentioned is only necessary if "evil" and "sin" have the same meaning, namely the absolute enormity. As for when "evil" is interpreted as "disbelief," or the "sin" as "disbelief"—according to what Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), and Ibn Jarir from Abu Wa'il, Mujahid, Qatadah, 'Ata', and Ar-Rabi'—then the negation of the proof is clearer than a beacon on a mountain.

Some have negated its being a proof by interpreting khulud according to its original linguistic root, which is "long duration," but this is baseless because it involves trivializing the matter in a context of intimidation, while not reconciling with the interpretation of khulud in Paradise as "perpetuity." Likewise, there is no proof in the saying of the Almighty: "And they said, 'The Fire will not touch us...'" based on what Al-Jubba'i claimed, where he said: The verse indicates that the Almighty did not promise Moses nor any other prophet after him that He would take the people of major sins and transgressions out of the Fire after punishment, otherwise He would not have rebuked the Jews by His saying: "Say, 'Have you taken...?'" And it is established that the Almighty threatened the disobedient with punishment to deter them from sins; so it is established that their punishment must be eternal. And if it is established for other nations, it must be established for this nation, for the threat cannot differ among nations if the magnitude of the sin is the same. But what Allah rebuked them for was their certainty that the punishment would be brief due to it being interrupted absolutely. Furthermore, this is in regards to disbelievers, not the disobedient, as is not hidden.

Min (whoever) can be conditional or relative. The justifications for the permissibility of the entry of fa into the predicate when the subject is relative exist, and it is made elegant for the relative by the coming of the relative in its counterpart. The mention of the demonstrative pronoun (those), which indicates the presence of the one pointed to with all his attributes, is to signal that they are the cause for the "companionship of the Fire." The meaning of distance contained within it is to alert one to the distance of their station in disbelief and sins. They are referred to by the plural form to observe the meaning of the word man (whoever), after observing the grammatical aspect of the three pronouns, because that is what is appropriate for what is attributed to them in those two states; for the "earning of evil" and the "encompassing of the sin" occur in the state of individuality, while "companionship of the Fire" occurs in the state of plurality. This was stated by some investigators, and it is not devoid of elegance.

Nafi' recited khatiyatuhu (his sin—plural), and some recited khatayahu (his sins) and khatiatuhu (his sin—singular) and khatiyatuhu (his sins—plural, with transformation and assimilation). They favored the plural reading because "encompassing" cannot be of a single thing. The singular reading was explained by saying that even if the sin is singular, it is multiple due to its addition, even though a single thing may encompass, like a ring; so do not be heedless.