Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:9

The root of al-khad', with the kha’ opened or kasra-voweled, is concealment and illusion. It is said that with the kasra, it is a verbal noun; from this is the mikhda’ (closet/recess) for a storage area, and the akhda’an (jugular veins) for two hidden veins in the area of cupping, and the saying "the lizard khada’a" when it hides and disappears. It is used in the act of displaying that which suggests safety while internally harboring that which causes harm to another or seeking to escape from them, as the Imam stated. The Master (Al-Sayyid) said: It is that one makes his counterpart imagine the opposite of what he intends for him of harm, while he causes it to reach him. In the Kashshaf, the investigation is that al-khad’ is an active attribute residing in the self, following the preparation of premises in the mind through which one reaches—in a manner censured by religious law, reason, or custom—the extraction of a benefit, such as obtaining a favor for oneself or inflicting harm upon another, while both remain hidden from the one toward whom the intent is directed, such that the attainment or infliction could not occur without it, or if it were to occur, it would necessitate the loss of another objective according to his perception. Thus, "War is khad’" (deceit) is used metaphorically, and its strangeness is not hidden.

Al-mukhada’a (the reciprocal form) is a mufa’ala construct, and the known rule therein is that each party performs upon the other the like of what the other performs upon him. It would thus necessitate here that from each one—from Allah, from the believers, and from the hypocrites—there issues an action related to the other. The apparent meaning of this is problematic because Allah, may He be exalted, neither deceives nor is He deceived. As for the investigation, it is because He is transcendent above all attainment, infliction, or extraction of benefit for Himself; He is also transcendent above effort and the preparation of premises. He is too majestic for the curtains of His glory to be surrounded by the deficiency of being affected, and He is too transcendent for anything to be hidden from His knowledge.

As for what the Master mentioned, it is because He, glory be to Him, is too great for any hidden thing to be concealed from Him or for any harm to reach Him. How then can the hypocrites deceive Him and cause Him to know the opposite of what they intend of harm, and inflict it upon Him? Moreover, being people of the Scripture, they know the impossibility of that, and a rational person does not intend what he has confirmed to be impossible.

As for the fact that He is not deceived: even if it were permissible, in our view, for Him to cause the hypocrites to imagine the opposite of what He intends of harm so that they become deluded and then He inflicts it upon them, it is forbidden to attribute it to Him because it suggests that this occurs out of an inability to combat them or a need to reveal what is hidden, for that is the convention in absolute terms, as in Al-Intisaf. Therefore, it was added in the interpretation: "while fearing or being ashamed of overt confrontation."

As for the believers, while it is possible for them to be deceived, it is unlikely they would intend to deceive the hypocrites because it is not commendable; rather, it is blameworthy and censured. It is the thing most resembling hypocrisy, and they are in no need of it. Furthermore, the deception that is praised is al-takhadu’ (feigned vulnerability), meaning to display vulnerability toward the other as a form of generosity, as indicated by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The believer is gharr (gullible/simple) and generous," not the deception that indicates stupidity. Thus, 'A'ishah said of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "He was too wise to be deceived and too noble to deceive."

It is answered that the form of their deed with Allah, wherein they feign faith while being disbelievers, and the form of Allah’s dealing with them, wherein He ordered the execution of the rulings of the Muslims upon them while they are in His sight among the lowest depths of Hell, and the form of the believers’ dealing with them, wherein they complied with the command of Allah regarding them and applied those rulings upon them, resembles the form of deception. Thus, the speech contains either a dependency metaphor in yukhadi’un alone, or a representational metaphor in the whole sentence. Since the initiation of the action in the mufa’ala form on the part of the actor is explicit, and the object coming with the like of his action is indicated by the context of the speech, it is appropriate to present it in a context of blame when the action is explicitly attributed to them. The fact that the context requires mentioning their state specifically, as our Master the Mufti of the Rum lands stated, does not blemish this beautiful aspect.

Or, it is answered—as has been said—that the intent is the deception of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the verb was applied to other than the one it is meant for due to the association between them, which is the succession (caliphate). Thus, there is a mental metaphor in the predicative relationship. This is apparent according to the view of those who deem the association between what is for it and what is not for it sufficient.

As for those who require the association of the verb to other than that which is for it to be one of its constituents, it does not apply. Moreover, there remains the problem that there is no deception from the Messenger and the believers, and there is no room for the deception to be literal from one side and metaphorical from the other due to the unity of the expression. It is as if the one who answers is either saying that combining the literal and metaphorical is permissible, or he is not saying that the issuance of deception from the Messenger and the believers is impossible, such that they might attain what they intend of the exaltation of the religion and the interests of the Muslims. Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abu Haywah recited yakhda'un (they deceive). The answer to what is required is the answer to what was required. It has also come that fa'ala (the simple form) acts as fa'ala (the reciprocal form), such as "Allah healed me" (‘afani) and "I punished the thief" (‘aqabtu). There is no distance in interpreting the recitation of the majority as such. The preference for the mufa’ala form is to provide intensity in the quality—for when an action is contested, it is intensified—or in quantity, as in "exertion" (mumarasa and muzawala), for they were persistent in deception.

Yukhadi’una is either an explanatory clause (bayan) for "they say," not by way of conjunction, since conjunctive explanation (atf al-bayan) does not occur in sentences according to the grammarians, even if the speech of the rhetoricians suggests it, or it is a self-evident starting point (isti'naf bayani), as if it were said: "Why do they claim faith falsely, and what has it profited them?" And so it was said: "They seek to deceive..." and this, in the outcome, is like the first. Perhaps the first is better. Abu Hayyan permitted this sentence to be a substitute for the relative clause of man (as an appositive of inclusion) or a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun in "they say," i.e., "as deceivers." Abu al-Baqa' suggested it could be a state from the hidden pronoun in "believers." Perhaps the negation is directed at the concomitance, not at the state itself, as in "Zayd did not come to me while dawn had risen" (wa-qad tala'a al-fajr), and "Allah would not punish them while you are among them, and Allah would not be punishing them while they seek forgiveness," provided that the state and the like in such cases are treated as a constraint on the negation, not on the negated, as they have established it in "I did not exaggerate in its brevity." Treating the sentence as a description (sifa) for the believers is prohibited due to the presence of the negation and the constraint, and the state of the description is not like the description of the state; hence, there is no wonder in permitting one and prohibiting the other, as Abu Hayyan imagined in his Bahr. Yes, the amazement is that the sentence is an explanation for the wonder of them being among the people, as is not hidden.

The purpose of these people deceiving those whom they deceive, like the purpose of their hypocrisy, is exactly like the sole of one shoe to another. They intended to magnify their standing among the believers, to uncover their secrets to spread them, to remove the threat of killing or the imposition of the jizya from themselves, and to win a share of the spoils of war, and the like. The fruit of the deception of those whom they deceive—if it be divine wisdoms and religious interests—the abandonment of which might lead to countless corruptions and immeasurable dangers.

The two Haram scholars and Abu 'Amr recited: wa-ma yukhadi'una (and they do not seek to deceive), and the rest of the seven recited: wa-ma yakhda'una (and they do not deceive). Jarud and Abu Talut recited wa-ma yukhda'una (and they are not deceived), with the ya damma-voweled in the passive voice. Some recited wa-ma yukhadi'una with the dal fatha-voweled, also in the passive voice. Qatada and al-'Ajli recited wa-ma yakhda'una (and they do not deceive) from khada'a, doubled, in the active voice. Some others [recited] with the ya and kha fatha-voweled and the dal kasra-voweled and doubled. Everything other than the first two recitations is anomalous. According to the first two, "themselves" (anfusahum) is in the accusative as a pure object, or with the meaning of the active participle. As for the passive, it is either on the basis of omitting the preposition (i.e., fi anfusihim or ‘an anfusihim), or as a specifier (tamyiz) according to the Kufans, or by assimilation to the object according to the claim of some, or that it is an object through the inclusion of the verb, such as "they subtract from their own selves."

It is not problematic, regarding the recitation yukhadi’una, how the restriction of deception to their own selves is valid, as that would necessitate denying it of Allah and the believers, while it was established at the beginning. And since deception is ostensibly between two people, how does one deceive himself? We say: The intent is that the circle of deception returns to them, and its harm reverts to them. The deception here is the first deception, and the restriction is based on the fact that its harm returns to their own selves; thus the expression denoting it is a metaphor or a metonymy for the confinement of its harm to them. Or, we treat the word "deception" as a general metaphor for its harm in the second degree, and its being a metaphor for the first—as the Sa'd said—is not apparent. It is sometimes said that they deceived their own selves because they deluded them with that, and their selves deceived them because they whispered empty wishes to them. Thus, the meaning of the second deception is different from the first, and the deceiver and the deceived are differentiated by consideration. The deception, on this account, is a metaphor for imagining the false and picturing it in the form of the true. Carrying it to its literal meaning is far-fetched.

And that it is of the category of abstraction (tajrid), like the saying: "You have no horses to present, nor wealth; may speech bring happiness if circumstances do not," is not accepted by refined taste, similar to the saying that the speech is of the category of exaggeration in the impossibility of their deceiving Allah and the believers, because just as it is not hidden that the deceiver deceiving himself is impossible—and therefore his deceiving others is impossible—so is it impossible for Allah to be deceived due to His knowledge, and for the believers [to be deceived] due to their being informed by His instruction. Or, it is a metonymy for the fact that their opposition and enmity toward Allah and His beloved ones is a transaction with their own selves, because Allah and the believers benefit them as if they were their own selves. Some make the expression here one of correspondence (mushakala) with both the mushakil (the counterpart) and the mushakal (the object of correspondence) being metaphorical, and each works according to his own mold.

The nafs (self) is the reality of a thing and its essence, and it is not exclusive to bodies, as in His saying: "He has inscribed mercy upon Himself" and "Allah warns you of Himself." It is applied to the subtle vaporous substance that carries the power of life, sensation, and voluntary movement. The philosopher called it the animal spirit, and the first organ it occupies is the heart, as it is the first to be created according to the well-known view. From it, it overflows to the brain, the liver, and all other organs. It does not follow from this that it is the source of the nerves, as it is possible that the organ that benefits from it is the source of the instrument of benefit. It is said: It is the brain, because it is the source, but no definitive proof has been established for that, as in the Commentary on the Canon by Imam al-Razi.

It is often applied to the abstract essence associated with the body through the association of management and control, which is the "command spirit" (al-ruh al-amriyya) intended in "Whoever knows his self knows his Lord," and it is called the rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqa). With the variety of its attributes, its names differ. The organ most favored by the radiance of its spiritual lights is also the heart; for this nobility, it may be called a nafs. Some call the opinion by this name. The apparent meaning in the verse, as is said, is the first meaning, as the intent is to explain that the harm of their deception returns to them and does not bypass them to others, though it is not definitive, as is not hidden. It is applied to other meanings that you will hear with the verification of this discussion, if Allah the Exalted wills.

The sentence "and they perceive not" is a new statement or conjoined to "and they deceive none but themselves." The object of "perceive" is omitted, i.e., "they do not perceive that they are deceiving their own selves," or "that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal," or "Allah informing His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of their deception and their lies," as reported from Ibn 'Abbas, or "the destruction of their own selves and casting them into eternal misery through their disbelief and hypocrisy," as reported from Zayd. Or, the meaning is that they do not perceive anything. It is possible—as in Al-Bahr—that "and they perceive not" is a state sentence, i.e., "they deceive none but themselves" while not perceiving that. If they perceived it, they would not have deceived.

Perception (shu'ur) is awareness through the five outer senses, and it comes to mean knowledge. Al-Raghib said: "You perceived (sha'arta) such and such" is used in two ways: that it is taken from the hair (sha'r), referring to touch, from which "feelings" (masha'ir) is used for the senses. If it is said, "Such a person does not perceive," it is more effective in blame than saying he does not hear or see, because the sense of touch is more comprehensive than the senses of hearing and sight. Sometimes it is said: "I perceived such and such," meaning I grasped a subtle thing, from their saying: "I perceived it," i.e., I hit its hair (a metaphor for precision), like "I informed him" (adhantuhu) and "I grasped its head." This was an allusion to their saying: "Such a person splits the hair" when he is precise in looking, and from it, the "poet" (sha'ir) was named for the perception of the subtleties of meanings. The verse is susceptible to the negation of perception in the sense of knowledge, so the meaning of "they do not perceive" is "they do not know," and it has often come with this meaning. The subsequent [verse] has a kind of indication of it. It also bears the negation of it in the sense of awareness through the senses, making the object of the verb like a sensory thing that is only hidden from one lacking senses. The negation of that is the end of blame, because one who does not perceive the obvious sensory thing is in a rank lower than that of beasts; thus, they are like cattle, rather they are more astray. Perhaps this is better because it contains mockery of them, while indicating the negation of knowledge by way of the "greater priority" (tariq al-awla). It is also more appropriate to His saying: "Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil," as is not hidden.