Surah Al-Baqarah: (90) "Vile is that for which they have sold themselves..."

(Vile is that for which they have sold themselves, in that they disbelieve in what Allah has revealed) – meaning, they have sold [their souls]. The souls are in the position of the item being sold (al-muthman), and the disbelief is in the position of the price (al-thaman), because their vile souls are not purchased, but rather sold. This is metaphorical, meaning they chose disbelief over faith and sacrificed their souls for it.

It is also said that it carries its well-known meaning, for when a person liable to duty (mukallaf) fears for his soul regarding punishment, he performs deeds he believes will save him, as if he has purchased his soul through them. Thus, when these Jews believed that what they brought forth would save them from punishment, they thought they had purchased their souls and saved them; so, Allah, the Exalted, censured them for it. This has been countered by the argument: how can it be claimed they thought that, given His saying, "And when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it"? If they knew the opposition to the truth, how could they think they would be saved by what they did? The intention of worldly punishment—such as leaving behind leadership—is incorrect, as one does not purchase souls with that.

A possible answer is that what is meant is that they thought so based on their apparent state of rigidity in Judaism, their fear regarding what they did and left, and their claiming it to be the truth; thus, it does not contradict their actual lack of belief in reality, as indicated by the verse.

By "what Allah has revealed," it is meant the Book that confirms [previous scriptures]. The substitution of "coming" (al-majī') with "revelation" (al-inzāl)—which implies its descent from the celestial realm—along with attributing it to Allah, the Exalted, serves as a notification of its exalted status and greatness, which necessitates faith in it. It is said that it is possible that what is intended is the Torah and the Gospel, or that it intends all of them, for disbelief in a part of them is disbelief in all of them.

There is disagreement regarding the "ma" (ما) that follows "bisa" (بئس): whether it has a grammatical place or not. Al-Farra' held that it has no place, and that with bisa, it is a single thing, like ḥabbadhā. The majority held that it has a place, though they disagreed whether it is in the accusative or nominative. Al-Akhfash held the former, that it is a specifier (tamyīz), and the sentence following it is in the place of an accusative as an adjective, with the subject of bisa being hidden and explained by it. The estimation is: "Vile is he as a thing for which they have sold [themselves]..." and "that they disbelieve" is the specific object of the censure. The expression in the present tense (muḍāri‘) is to signify the continuity of disbelief, for it is that which necessitates the humiliating torment.

On this view, it is possible that the specific object is omitted and "sold" (ishtara) is an adjective for it, the estimation being: "Vile is a thing for which they have sold...," and "that they disbelieve" is a substitute for the omitted object or the predicate of an omitted subject. Al-Kisa'i held to the accusative as a specifier as well, except that he estimated another "ma" after it, which is the relative pronoun acting as the object of censure, with "sold" being its connective. The estimation: "Vile as a thing is that which they have sold."

Sibawayh held the latter, that it is the subject (fā‘il) of bisa, that it is a definite noun, and the specific object is omitted: "Vile is the thing they sold." This is also attributed to Al-Kisa'i. It is said that it is a relative pronoun, which is one of the two opinions of Al-Farisi; Ibn 'Atiyyah attributed this to Sibawayh, but this is a mistake. Al-Mahdawi reported from Al-Kisa'i that ma is the infinitive (maṣdariyyah) and the combination is the subject of bisa. This was objected to on the grounds that bisa does not enter upon a noun determined by genitive construction with a pronoun. Yet, on this assumption, you could choose not to make it the subject, but rather the specific object, while the subject is hidden and the specifier is omitted due to the clarity of the meaning. The estimation: "Vile is the purchasing—their purchasing," so the objection does not apply. Yes, the objection regarding the return of the pronoun "bihi" (in "sold with it") to ma remains, for the infinitive ma—at least according to others than Al-Akhfash—does not take a returning pronoun, as it is a particle.

"Out of envy" (baghyan) that Allah should send down... "Baghy" in origin is injustice and corruption, from their saying "the wound bagha" (festered/corrupted). This was said by Al-Asma'i. It is also said that its origin is seeking, and its types vary: seeking the removal of a blessing is envy, transgression against others is oppression, and adultery is fujūr. The meaning here, with the assistance of the context, is seeking what is not rightfully theirs, which leads to envy. Al-Qatadah, Abu al-'Aliyah, and Al-Suddi held this view.

It is also said to mean oppression, and its accusative case is because it is the motive (maf‘ūl lahu) for "they disbelieve," implying that their disbelief was merely for the sake of the obstinacy that is the result of envy, not out of ignorance. This is more profound in censure, because the ignorant might be excused. Al-Zamakhshari held that it is a causal factor for "sold," which was refuted on the grounds that it necessitates separation by an external element—the object of censure. While this is not external relative to the act of censure and its agent, it is hidden that it is external relative to the act described by the specifier of the subject. The argument that the meaning is to censure what they sold their souls for out of envy (which is disbelief), rather than to censure what they sold their souls for (which is disbelief out of envy), is a presumption.

Yes, it may be said that separation by an external element only occurs if the object of censure is the subject (mubtada') and bisa is its predicate. But if it were the predicate of a hidden subject—which is the preferred view—then it does not apply, because the sentence is then an answer to a question about the subject of bisa. Thus, the separation between the cause and the effect by that which clarifies the effect is permissible. Some made it the cause for an omitted "sold," fleeing from the separation, and some parsed it as a circumstantial qualifier (ḥāl) or an absolute object (maf‘ūl muṭlaq) for an omitted verb, i.e., "they envied an envy."

"That He sends down" (an yunazzila) is either the motive for the envy—i.e., out of envy because of Allah’s revelation—or it follows an omitted preposition connected to the envy—i.e., envy for the fact that He sends down. The opinion that it is in the genitive case as an apposition of inclusion (badal ishtimāl) to the "ma" in "in what Allah has revealed" is very far-fetched. Closer to it is the claim that it is in the position of a second object, as "baghy," meaning one's seeking what is not his, is transitive sometimes by itself and sometimes by the particle lam. The first object here—meaning Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him—is omitted because it is obvious and to demonstrate that envy is reprehensible in itself, regardless of who is envied, as is clear.

Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Ya‘qub recited "yunazzila" (He sends down) with the light form. "From His bounty"—He intends by it the revelation, and "min" is for the beginning of the limit. It is an adjective for an omitted noun, i.e., "a thing existing from His bounty." Abu al-Baqa' permitted it to be redundant, according to the school of Al-Akhfash, meaning "upon whom He wills of His servants," i.e., upon whom He chooses for the message. In Al-Baḥr, it is stated that what is meant is Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, because they envied him as he was not of them, but was of the Arabs, from the descendants of Isma‘il, and there was no prophet among his descendants other than him, peace and blessings be upon him. Attributing the servants to His pronoun is for honor. "Man" is either relative or descriptive.

"So they have incurred wrath upon wrath" is a consequence of what preceded; they returned laden with "wrath" that is "upon wrath," deserving of it according to the disbelief and envy they committed. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, that the first wrath was for their worship of the calf, and the second for their disbelief in him (the Prophet), peace and blessings be upon him. Qatadah said: "The first is their disbelief in the Gospel, the second is their disbelief in the Quran." It is also said that they are the disbelief in ‘Isa and Muhammad, peace be upon them both, or their saying, "‘Uzayr is the son of Allah," and "The hand of Allah is chained," and other types of their disbelief and their final disbelief in the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is clear that the "fa" (so) of connection necessitates their becoming worthy of successive wrath due to what preceded, and their saying "‘Uzayr is the son of Allah," for instance, is not mentioned previously.

It is possible that His saying, "wrath upon wrath," intends succession and multiplication, not merely two wraths. This indicates the severity of their condition, as in the saying: "And if it were a single spear, I would shield myself from it, but it is a spear and a second and a third." Some have claimed the "fa" is for eloquence (faṣīḥah), meaning: "So when they disbelieved and envied as mentioned, they incurred..."—but this is nothing.

"And for the disbelievers is a humiliating torment." The lam in "the disbelievers" is for recognition (lil-‘ahd), and using the explicit noun instead of a pronoun is to signify that their disbelief is the cause for what has befallen them. It is also possible that it is for generalization, thus including those known in that pattern as mentioned before. Al-muhīn means the abasing; its root is muhawwin, which underwent transformation. Attributing it to the torment is a metaphor of attributing to the cause. The description with it is for restriction and specification, which is understood from the precedence of the predicate over it. Thus, if other than the disbelievers are tormented, it is for purification, not for humiliation and abasement. Therefore, the torment of others is not described with it in the Quran. Thus, there is no leverage for the Khawarij in that He restricted the torment to "the disbelievers," so the sinner must be a disbeliever because he is tormented; nor is there [leverage] for the Murji'ah.