Al-Baqarah: (85) "Then you are these..."
(Then you are these, killing your own people). This verse was revealed regarding the Banu Qaynuqa', Banu Qurayza, and Banu Nadir of the Jews. The Banu Qaynuqa' were enemies of the Banu Qurayza. The Aws were allies of the Banu Qaynuqa', while the Khazraj were allies of the Banu Qurayza and the Banu Nadir. The Aws and Khazraj were brothers, as were the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir. Then they split: the Banu Nadir became allies of the Khazraj, and the Banu Qurayza became allies of the Aws. They would fight one another, and occurrences took place among them as Allah the Exalted related, so He reproached them for it.
The word (Thumma) here signifies distance from the occurrence [impossibility/rejection] rather than a delay in time, as this is what occurred in reality, as has been said. (Antum) is the subject (mubtada'), and (Ha'ula') is its predicate (khabar), meaning: "You, after that which was mentioned of the covenant, the affirmation, and the testimony, are those very people who violate it," like saying: "You are that man who did such-and-such." The apparent requirement would have been: "Then you, after that affirmation of the covenant, violated the treaty," so [it should have been] "you kill your own people," etc. That is, your state now is different from the state you were previously upon. However, He inserted (Ha'ula') and placed it as the predicate to convey that the one who has changed is the self itself, reproaching them for the intensity and severity of the covenant, their laxity regarding it, and the changing of the self. Thus, it is [a case] of placing a demonstrative pronoun intended for the essence in place of a description, not a case of making one essence in one address both addressee and absent—otherwise, that would also be understood from [expressions] like: "But you are a people who are ignorant."
The predication is valid while accounting for the change because it is by way of claim (idda'i), for in reality, it is one. They are considered "present/witnessing" with respect to the attachment of knowledge to the actions attributed to them mentioned previously, and "absent" with respect to the lack of attachment of knowledge to them regarding what will be narrated of their actions afterward—not that sins necessitate absence from presence, for then the appropriate form would have been the third person in "you kill" (taqtuluna) and "you expel" (tukhrijuna). This was stated by Al-Sali-kuti.
(Taqtuluna) is either a state (hal), with the operator being the meaning of the [demonstrative] gesture, or an explanation. It is as if, when it was said, "Then you are these," they asked: "How are we?" so "(you kill)" was brought as an explanation of it. It is also possible that it is considered explanatory of it without needing to presume a question. Ibn Kaysan and others went to the view that (Antum) is the subject and (Taqtuluna) is the predicate, and (Ha'ula') is a specification (takhsis) for the addressees once they have been alerted to the state they are persisting in; in that case, it would be in the accusative case (mansub) as "I mean" (bi-ma'na 'a'ni). However, grammarians have stated that specification cannot be [done] with demonstrative pronouns or indefinite nouns. What is established in the Arabic tongue is that it occurs with "ayyuha" (e.g., "O Allah, forgive us, O group"), or with a noun defined by "al-" (e.g., "We, the Arabs, are the most generous to the guest"), or by annexation (e.g., "We, the community of prophets, do not leave behind inheritance"). It may also be by a proper noun (e.g., "By us, Tamim, we uncover the darkness"). It mostly comes after a first-person pronoun, but may come after a second-person pronoun (e.g., "By You, O Allah, we hope for bounty").
It is said that (Ha'ula') is a linguistic emphasis for (Antum), so it is either a substitute for it or an appositive (bayān) to it. To consider it a verbal emphasis by synonym is a delusion, and the speech in that case would be devoid of that nuance. It is also said that (Ha'ula') has the meaning of "those who" (alladhina), and the sentence [following it] is its relative clause, and the whole is the predicate. This is built upon the school of the Kufans, as they permitted all demonstrative nouns to be relative, whether they follow "ma" or not. The Basrans restrict it to when they follow the interrogative "ma," and this is what makes it sound—on the condition that the speech then becomes of the category: "I am the one whom my mother named Haydara." This is weak, as stated by Al-Shihab. Al-Hasan read (Taqtuluna) with the connotation of multiplicity. In Al-Mahdawi’s interpretation, it is attributed to the reading of Abu Nahik.
(And you expel a party of your own people from their homes). This is a conjunction to what precedes it, and the pronoun in "their homes" refers to the party. The preference for the third person, despite the possibility of "your homes" (as in the first instance), is to avoid the misconception that the intended meaning is their expulsion from the homes of the addressees, in the sense of their homes rather than the homes of those being expelled.
(Backing each other up against them with sin and aggression). This is a state (hal) from the subject of (you expel) or from its object; it is said: or from both, because by containing the pronoun of both, it explains their condition. The meaning, according to the first [view], is: "You expel [them] while backing one another up against them." According to the second, it is: "You expel a party that is backed up against." According to the third: "You expel [them] while the act of backing up against them actually occurs from them."
"Backing up" (Tazahur) is cooperation, and its origin is from the "back" (zahr), as if those who cooperate each support their back with the other. (Sin) is an act for which its doer deserves blame and reproach. It is said: it is that which the soul is averse to and the heart is not at ease with. In the hadith: "Sin is that which pricks at your chest." It is connected to "backing up" as a state from its subject; i.e., "involved in sin." Its being a metaphor here for what it necessitates—by attributing the effect to the cause—is like how wine is called a "sin" in the verse: "I drank [the sin] until my mind went astray," just as [sin] takes away minds; this is something to which there is no inviter. (Aggression) is overstepping the limit in injustice.
Asim, Hamza, and Al-Kisa'i read (tazahuruna) with the hardening (tashdid) of the Ta' into the Za'. The rest of the seven read with the intensification of the Ta' into the Za'. Abu Haywa read (tazahuruna) with a Damma on the Ta' and a Kasra on the Ha'. Mujahid and Qatada, with a difference in reports from them, read (tazharuna) with a Fatha on the Ta', Za', and Ha', with the latter two intensified without an Alif. It is also reported from Abu 'Amr, and some read tatazahuruna according to the original form.
(And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them); i.e., you release them from captivity by giving the ransom. Ibn Kathir, Abu 'Amr, Hamza, and Ibn 'Amir read (tafduna-hum), and some of the others' reading is based on this, as there is no mufa'ala form. A group differentiated between fada and fada by saying the former means "to exchange a captive for a captive," while the latter means "to collect the ransom." This is contradicted by the statement of Al-'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him): "I ransomed myself and I ransomed 'Aqil," for it is known he did not exchange a captive for a captive. It is said: (tafaduna-hum) is with force, and (tafduna-hum) is by peace. It is also said: (tafaduna-hum) is to seek the ransom from the captive who is in your hands from your enemies; from this is his saying: "Stand and ransom your captive, for my people and your people, I do not see for them any concern." Abu 'Ali said: "Its linguistic meaning is to release them after you have taken something from them." I see this interpretation here as being at the extreme of remoteness. The saying that the meaning of the verse is: "And if they come to you as captives in the hands of the devils, you seek to rescue them with guidance and exhortation, while you waste your own selves," is closer to the [nature of] the context, as is not hidden.
[Captives] (Asara) is, it is said, the plural of asir (captive), meaning "one who is captured." It is as if they treated asir like kaslan (lazy) and pluralized it the same way they pluralized kaslan to kasla. This is what Sibawayh said. The point of similarity is that the captive is imprisoned from much of his agency due to captivity, and the lazy person is imprisoned from that due to his habit. It is said it is a plural in itself without being modeled, just as they said qadama for qadim. It is heard with a Fatha on the Hamza, though it is not the high [classical] form, contrary to some who claimed that the Fatha is the original and the Damma is to increase in strength. It is said it is the plural of asra, as Hamza read, which is the plural of asir, like jarih and jarha, so asara would be the plural of the plural. This was said by Al-Mufaddal. Abu 'Amr said: "The asra are those in hand, and the asara are those in shackles." I do not see a difference; those who are taken by force and conquest generally are asra and asara.
(Yet their expulsion was forbidden to you) is a state from the subject of (you expel a party of your own people) or its object, after considering the restriction by the previous state. And the saying of Allah the Exalted: (And if they come to you) is a parenthetical clause between them, not a conjunction to (you back each other up), because the coming did not happen concurrently with the expulsion. He restricted the expulsion with this state to convey that it was not based on merit or a sin requiring it. He singled out the expulsion with the restriction—rather than the killing—out of concern for its matter, as it is more severe than it ("And the trial is more severe than killing"). It is said: No, rather because it is less grave in comparison to killing, so it was a site for laxity. [It is also because] the thread of speech is for rebuking and reproaching them for their crimes and the contradictions of their actions, and that is specific to the scenario of expulsion, since it was not reported that they made amends for those killed with anything by way of blood money or retaliation. This is the secret in specifying the "backing up" mentioned previously.
It is said the nuance in repeating the prohibition of expulsion—though he had already expressed it by "You do not expel your own people"—is in the most eloquent manner. And in specifying the prohibition of expulsion by repeating it, rather than the killing, [it is because] they complied with a ruling regarding the expelled—which is the ransom—and disobeyed a ruling—which is the expulsion. Thus, he combined with the ransom the prohibition of expulsion so that it might connect to (Do you then believe), etc., with the utmost connection, and their disbelief in part and belief in part would be cleared up as completely as it is cleared up when it occurs regarding one person.
The pronoun is for the "matter" (dameer al-sha'n), and the sentence after it is its predicate. It is said: Its predicate is (forbidden), and (their expulsion) is the deputy subject (na'ib fa'il); this is the school of the Kufans, and Al-Mahdawi followed them. They only resorted to this because a predicate carrying a nominative pronoun is not permitted to precede the subject, so they do not permit "Qā'im Zayd" to be a fronted predicate. The Basrans permit that, but they do not permit this face because, according to them, the pronoun of the "matter" cannot be predicated by anything except a sentence with both its parts explicitly stated. It is said it is a vague pronoun that is also a subject, and (forbidden) is its predicate, and (their expulsion) is a substitute for it, explaining it. This is based on the permissibility of substituting a manifest noun for a pronoun that has no antecedent to which it returns; some forbade this, while Al-Kisa'i permitted it.
It is said it refers to the "expulsion" understood from (you expel), and (their expulsion) is an appositive to it, or a substitute for it, or for the pronoun in "forbidden." It is weakened by the fact that after returning to the "expulsion," there is no justification for substituting it from it. Strange is what is reported from the Kufans that it is possible it is a "separator pronoun" (dameer al-fasl), as has preceded, with the predicate, and the estimation is "their expulsion is forbidden to you." So when the predicate of the subject was fronted, it [the pronoun] was fronted with it. The Basrans do not permit this because the occurrence of a separator between a definite noun and an indefinite noun that does not approximate the definite is not permitted according to them. Its placement between the subject and predicate—or between what they originally were—is also a condition according to them. Ibn 'Atiyya has speech on this pronoun that must be omitted.
(Do you then believe in a part of the Scripture and disbelieve in a part?). This is a conjunction to (you kill) or to an omitted [verb]; i.e., "Do you do what was mentioned, [believing]..." etc. The interrogation is for threatening and reproaching them for distinguishing between the rulings of Allah the Exalted, since the covenant was for three things: refraining from killing, refraining from expelling, and ransoming the captives. Yet they killed and expelled contrary to the covenant, and they ransomed according to its requirement.
It is said the covenants were four, so the refraining from "backing up" was added. Ibn Jarir reported from Abu al-'Aliya that 'Abdullah bin Salam passed by the Exilarch in Kufa, who was ransoming women whom the Arabs had not fallen upon, while he would not ransom those whom the Arabs had fallen upon. 'Abdullah bin Salam said to him: "It is written for you in your Book that you should ransom them all." Muhyi al-Sunna reported from Al-Suddi that Allah the Exalted took a covenant from the Children of Israel in the Torah that they would not kill one another, nor would they expel one another from their homes, and whoever of the Children of Israel you find, whether slave or handmaiden, buy them for whatever their price amounts to, and set them free.
Perhaps their disbelief in what they committed was due to their belief in the lack of prohibition, despite the explicit Torah [text] indicating it. However, what is in Al-Kashshaf—that it was said to them: "How do you kill them and then ransom them?" and they replied: "We were ordered to ransom and it was forbidden for us to fight, but we are ashamed before our allies"—indicates that they do not deny the prohibition of fighting. Thus, the naming of their act as disbelief is either because it was disbelief in their Law, or it is for exaggeration, as it is named regarding the abandonment of prayer and the like in our Law. The saying that the meaning is "Do you apply some and abandon some?" makes the speech metaphorical in this respect, not in the respect that there is no belief in it [the Scripture]. This is like saying that the intended meaning by "the part believed in" is the prophethood of Musa (peace be upon him), and "the other part" is the prophethood of our Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him).
(So what is the recompense for whoever among you does that, except disgrace in the worldly life). The reference is to the disbelief in part of the Scripture and belief in part, or to what they did of killing and expelling while ransoming the captives. The [word jaza'] is used for both good and evil. Khizy is humiliation and disgrace. Ibn al-Sikkit said: khizy means to fall into a calamity; "a man is khaziyan (disgraced)" when he is ashamed, and the people are khazaya. Here it means scandal and punishment, or the imposition of the jizya for the rest of time, or the victory of the enemy, or the killing of [Banu] Qurayza and the expulsion of [Banu] Nadir from their homes to Jericho and Adhru'at.
It is reported from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The custom of the Banu Qurayza was killing, and the custom of the Banu Nadir was expulsion. When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) prevailed, he expelled the Banu Nadir and killed the men of Qurayza and took their women and children as captives."
The indefiniteness of khizy is to indicate the enormity of its status, and that it reached a level whose essence cannot be encompassed. From here, some did not restrict it to one of the aspects, and claimed that is the most apparent [view]. He made the reference [to] the disbelief in part of the Scripture and belief in part; i.e., whichever part it was, and for that reason he singularized it. In that case, it covers those who disbelieved in the prophethood of Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him), and a peer of his is whoever does all of that.
(Dunya) is taken from dana-yadnu (to be near), and its Ya is converted from a Waw. The Al- and -Lam (definite article) are rarely removed from it, and Abu Hayyan restricted that to poetry. (Ma) is negative. (Man), if considered relative, then the verb yaf'al has no place in the inflection (i'rab); if considered as an adjective, its place is the genitive (jarr) as a description of it. (Minkum) is a state from the subject of yaf'al. (Illa khizyun) is an "exceptive" (istithna' mufarragh) that serves as the predicate for the subject. In the popular view, the accusative (nasb) is not permitted in such a case. It is reported from Yunus that he permitted it in the predicate after "illa," whatever it may be. Some said: if the "what" after "illa" is the first [entity] in meaning, or in its position, then only the nominative (raf') is permitted according to the majority. The Kufans permitted the accusative in what the second [entity] is in the position of the first, and if it is a description, Al-Farra' permitted the accusative, while the Basrans forbade it. It is reported from them that they do not permit the accusative except for verbal nouns (masdar), unless the meaning is known, in which case an accusative [governing] word is presumed. Its verification is in its place.
(And on the Day of Resurrection they will be returned to the most severe of punishment); i.e., they will arrive at it, so it does not necessitate that they were in the most severe punishment before that. Sometimes "returned" (radd) is intended to mean the return to what they were in, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: "So We returned him to his mother." It is as if they were in the world or in their graves in the most severe punishment as well, so they were returned to it. The intent is eternal stay in the Fire. Its "severity" is in that it has no end, or the intent is the most severe of all types of punishment, but in comparison to the punishment of one who did not commit this rebellion, because their rebellion is more severe than the rebellion of those [others]. "And the recompense of a bad deed is a bad deed like it." What we have decided is indicated by the saying of Allah the Exalted: "whoever among you does that," so the objection raised by Imam Al-Razi does not apply—namely, how can the punishment of the Jews be more severe than [that of] the materialists (Dahriyya) who deny the Creator? And what has been said does not suffice, because they disbelieved after their knowledge that it was the Scripture of Allah the Exalted and their affirmation and testimony, for how can it be said that the disbeliever who acknowledges [the Truth] is more severely punished than the polytheist or the denier of the Creator, even if his disbelief was from knowledge and awareness?
The pronoun in (yuradduna) refers to "whoever" (man). The plural form was preferred looking at its meaning, after the singular was preferred looking at its wording. This is because the return is only by way of gathering. There is an inversion (ghayr al-sabk) in that He did not say, for example, "And the most severe of punishment on the Day of Resurrection is for them," to signal the complete incompatibility between the recompenses of the two abodes. Fronting "on the Day of Resurrection" over mentioning what will happen in it is to terrorize the matter and render the state horrific from the very beginning.
Al-Hasan and Ibn Hurmuz (with a difference from them), and Asim (in the narration of Al-Mufaddal), read (turadduna) in the second person. The majority read in the third person. The rationale is that (yuradduna) refers to "whoever does," so whoever read in the third person looked at the form of "man," and whoever read in the second person looked at their inclusion in (minkum), not that the pronoun then refers to "kum" as is imagined.
(And Allah is not unaware of what you do). This is a parenthetical clause and a tail-end to emphasize the threat derived from what preceded; i.e., He is in ambush, not unaware of what you do of the abominations, among which is this sinful act. The addressee in it is whoever was addressed by the verse before it. It is reported from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "The Children of Israel have passed, and you are intended by this, O nation of Muhammad, and by what flows in its path." Nafi', Ibn Kathir, and Abu Bakr read (ya'maluna) with the Ya, based on the pronoun being for "whoever" (man). The rest read with the Ta', from above.
