Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:91

(And when it is said to them): This is an adverbial time clause for the verb "they said," and the sentence is a conjunction to the phrase "they say: our hearts are wrapped." There is no objective purpose related to the speaker; therefore, the verb is constructed in the passive form (i.e., its agent is omitted). The outward appearance suggests it is from the side of the believers.

(Believe in what Allah has revealed): The majority view is that this refers to the Quran. It is also said that it refers to all that has been revealed of divine scriptures, treating what has been mentioned as a general term. Despite this, the primary objective is to command belief in the Quran, but the path of generalization was taken to signal the necessity of compliance, due to its participation with that which they [already] believe in—in terms of the scope of the revelation—and its agreement with it in substance. It also serves as a warning that faith in what is other than it, while not believing in it, is not [true] faith in what Allah has revealed.

(They say: We believe in what was revealed to us): That is, we continue in our belief in the Torah and what is in its ruling from among that which was revealed to establish its legal statutes. The agent [of "revealed"] is omitted because it is known, for it is known that none reveals the books except Him—Glorified is He—and because of the flow of His mention in the address. Their intent by the first-person pronoun is either the prophets of the Children of Israel—which is the evident interpretation, and in it is an allusion that their lack of belief in the Quran was out of insolence and envy because it was revealed to one who was not of them—or they mean themselves. The meaning of "revealed to us" is that they were charged with the legal rulings contained in the revelation. They were censured for this statement because it contains an insinuation against the status of the Quran (and the plots of the Jews are notorious), or because they interpreted the absolute, general command and relegated it to a specific [case]—which is belief in what was revealed to them—as is their habit in interpreting the Book according to what is intended for them.

(And they disbelieve in what is beyond it): This is a conjunction to "they said." The expression is in the present tense to narrate the state, as a way of expressing amazement at disbelief in a thing after knowing its truthfulness, or to alert that their disbelief is continuous up to the time of the report. It is also said that it is a new beginning (an isti'naf), which is the view of Ibn al-Anbari. It is also permissible for it to be a circumstantial clause (hal), either based on the school of thought that permits the affirmative present tense to occur as a hal with the waw, or upon the estimation of an implied subject, i.e., "while they are disbelieving." The restriction to the state (hal) here serves to clarify the hideousness of their condition, in that they are contradictory in their belief; for their disbelief in what is beyond it, while claiming belief in the Torah, necessitates a lack of belief in the Torah itself. This is more effective in refuting their statement, which is why some scholars prefer this view.

"Wara'a" (beyond) is in origin a verbal noun, from which the derivations muwara'ah (concealing) and tawari (hiding) are formed; the augmented [forms] are branches of the simple [form], although the simple verb itself was never used at all. Then, it was made an adverb of place. It is attributed to the agent, thereby intending the object, and to the object, thereby intending the agent (i.e., that which is behind). Because it applies to opposites—the back and the front—it is counted among the addad (words with dual meanings), though it is not originally posited for both. In "Al-Muwazanah" by Al-Umawi, it is explicitly stated that it is not among the addad, but rather it stems from the concept of concealment and covering; whatever is hidden from you is "beyond" you, whether it is behind you or in front of you, provided you do not see it. But if you see it, it is not "beyond" you. The meaning here is "what follows it," as Qatada said, or "what is other than it," which is how "And lawful to you is what is beyond that" was interpreted. It is intended here to mean the Quran, as per the majority. Al-Wahidi said it refers to it and the Gospel. The possibility exists that what is intended by "what is beyond it" is the inner meanings of what was revealed to them, which lie behind its words. This would imply that their belief in the outer literal meaning is of no value, unless by "the inner meaning" one intends the Quran, but its distance [from the evident meaning] is not hidden.

(And it is the truth): The pronoun refers to "what is beyond it," and it is a hal (circumstantial clause) describing it. It is also said it refers to the agent of "they disbelieve," and the circumstantial sentence conjoined with the waw does not strictly require a pronoun returning to the subject, such as in "Zaid came while the sun was rising." Even if one assumes the necessity of a pronoun, the existence of the pronoun in what is an extension of the clause is treated as if it were present within it. The meaning is: "while they are accompanying its truthfulness," i.e., aware of it. This is more severe in censure than [simply saying] they disbelieve in that which is Truth in itself. The first view is more appropriate due to its clarity, and that severity is not lost in it either, as the definite article in "the Truth" is to indicate that the subject being judged is known to be characterized by it—of the type: "Your father is the servant"—implying that their disbelief in it was out of mere obstinacy. It is also said the definite article is for increased reproach and casting [them] into ignorance, in the sense that it is specifically the Truth that accompanies the validation of their book. Were it not for the state (hal), namely "confirming," the restriction would not be correct because it is in opposition to their book, and it is also the truth. The response to this is that it would not be correct even if the hal were considered, based on assigning the pronoun-bearer to the Quran, because the Gospel is also Truth confirming the Torah. Yes, if by "the Truth" one meant the established [revelation] that contrasts with the abrogated [law], the restriction would be absolutely correct, but this is far-fetched.

(Confirming what is with them): This is an emphasizing circumstantial clause (hal), because the books of Allah confirm one another; thus, confirmation is a necessity that does not shift. I have already established the substance of the report, as they act like an argument for it. This is why it included a refutation of their statement "We believe in what was revealed to us," for whoever does not confirm what agrees with the Torah does not confirm the Torah itself. The possibility that "what is with them" intends the Torah and the Gospel—as in Al-Bahr—since both were revealed to the Children of Israel and neither contradicts the Quran, is contrary to what proper taste dictates in the context and sequence.

(Say: Why, then, did you kill the prophets of Allah before): The Prophet (peace be upon him) was ordered to say this to silence them, as they killed the prophets while claiming belief in the Torah, which does not permit such [actions]. It is possible that this is a command to anyone who wishes to debate them, whoever they may be. The "fa" (then) is the answer to an implied condition: "If you are believers, then why do you kill..." etc. The "ma" is interrogative, its alif having been dropped because of the prepositional lam. Al-Bazzi stops on such cases with a ha (h), while others stop without it. Using the present tense verb with an adverb indicating the past signifies their persistence in killing throughout past eras. It is also said [it is used] to narrate that state. The intent by "killing" is its literal meaning, and attributing it to the descendants contemporary to the Prophet (peace be upon him)—even though it was committed by the ancestors—is metaphorical due to the connection between the true agent and the one to whom it is attributed. This is like saying to a tribe, "You killed Zaid," when the killer was their forefathers. It is also said that "killing" is a metaphor for approval or the intent to do so. It is not hidden that the objection in the first view is stronger as a reproach than the others, so reflect on this. In attributing "prophets" to the noble Name [of Allah], there is great honor and an indication that anyone who comes from Allah, the Exalted, should be honored and supported, not killed.

(If you were believers): This is a repetition of the objection to emphasize the binding force [of the argument] and to intensify the shock, i.e., "If you were believers, why did you kill them?" From each of the two conditional clauses, whatever was omitted was omitted in confidence of what was established in the other, by way of ihtibak (mutual ellipsis). It is also said that the aforementioned [verse] is the answer to this condition, based on the permissibility of it being placed before [the condition], which is the opinion of the Kufans and Abu Zayd, and it was chosen in Al-Bahr. Al-Iraj said: "If" (in) here is a negation, but its distance [from the evident meaning] is not hidden.