Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:155

There is an implied element in the discourse; the prepositional phrase is connected to an implied predicate, and the ba (ب) is for causality. The ma (ما) is redundant, serving to emphasize the causality, signaling that it is a potent cause. This may also imply exclusivity through the context, just as the precedence over the operative agent—if deemed intended here—implies it. It is also permissible that ma is an indefinite noun (nakirah tamma) and naqdihim (their breaking) is a substitute (badal) for both, meaning: "They opposed and broke, and because of their breaking, We did to them what We did." If you wish, you may delay the operative agent.

Abu Hayyan—may mercy be upon him—chose to estimate the predicate as "We cursed them" (la'annāhum) placed after, because it appears explicitly as such in His saying, the Exalted: { فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ } (Because of their breaking the covenant, We cursed them). Many have permitted connecting the prepositional phrase to ḥarramnā (We forbade) which appears later, on the basis that His saying, the Exalted: { فَبِظُلْمٍ } (for their wrongdoing) is a substitute for His saying: { فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم }. Al-Zajjaj went this way, but it was critiqued in Al-Baḥr on the grounds that it is far-fetched due to the numerous clauses separating the substitute from the original; and because that which is conjoined to the cause is itself a cause, which would necessitate the delay of some parts of the cause of the prohibition until after the prohibition itself, making it impossible for it to be a partial cause or a cause at all except through a forced interpretation. The proof of this is that their saying, "We killed the Messiah," and their saying, "We killed the Messiah" are later in time than the forbidding of the good things upon them. Al-Sifaqsi deemed this interpretation sound, then said: "It may be forced to resolve it by saying that the continuity of the prohibition in every time is like its inception," though there is investigation into this.

The erudite scholar rendered the second fa in { فَبِظُلْمٍ }—according to this estimation—as a repetition of the fa in { فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم }, functioning as a conjunction to "We took from them" (akhadhnā minhum) or as the consequence (jazā’) of an implied conditional. This was also deemed improbable for two reasons: a verbal one and a conceptual one. He explained the first by the length of the separation and by it being a case of substituting a prepositional phrase with a conjunction or a consequence while assuming the operative agent is only the prepositional phrase. The second is due to its implication that the prohibition of some good things is caused by such great crimes and is a consequence of them. He then said: "If the fa were made to conjoin to { فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم }—as in your saying: 'Because of Zayd and his grace, or because of his grace, or then his grace, I was infatuated'—it would not require it to be made a substitute."

Abu al-Baqa and others permitted the connection to an omitted predicate indicated by His saying, the Exalted: { بَل طَبَعَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهَا بِكُفْرِهِمْ }. This was rejected on the grounds that it is neither a suitable explanation nor a contextually relevant indicator for the omitted element. As for the first: because it relates to another statement, as it is a refutation and denial of their saying: { قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ }. As for the second: because it is a digression that renders the speech complete without it; for something to be an indicator for a primary element in the speech, the speech must not be complete without it. The conclusion is that an indicator must have a conceptual connection to its predecessor to be valid as such. From this, it is known that there is no room for the objection that the two "sealings" are equivalent in occurrence—one being through disbelief and the other through the breaking [of the covenant].

It is said: It is connected to { لا يُؤْمِنُونَ } (they do not believe), and the fa is redundant. It is also said: It is connected to what [the preceding phrase] implies, and the refutation of that is obvious.

{ وَكُفْرِهِم بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ } (And their disbelief in the signs of Allah), i.e., His proofs indicating the truthfulness of His prophets—peace and blessings be upon them—and the Qur’an, or [disbelief in] their own scripture by altering it, denying it, and failing to act upon it.

{ وَقَتْلِهِمُ الأَنبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ } (And their killing of the prophets without right), such as Zachariah and John, peace be upon them.

{ وَقَوْلِهِمْ قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ } (And their saying: Our hearts are ghulf), the plural of ghilāf, meaning a container. Its root is ghulf with two dammahs, which was then lightened [in pronunciation], meaning: "We are vessels for knowledge, so we are in no need of anything else besides what is within them." This was stated by Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and ‘Ata. Al-Kalbi said: They mean that our hearts are such that nothing reaches them except that they contain it; even if there were something in your speech, they would contain it too. It is also possible that it is the plural of aghlaf, meaning they are covered with innate veils such that what Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him—brought barely reaches them. It would then be like His saying, the Exalted: { وَقَالُوا قُلُوبُنَا فِي أَكِنَّةٍ مِّمَّا تَدْعُونَنَا إِلَيْهِ }.

{ بَل طَبَعَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهَا بِكُفْرِهِمْ } (Nay, Allah has set a seal upon them by their disbelief). This is a parenthetical statement between the two conjoined parts, brought in as a digression to hasten the refutation of their false claim. Meaning: The matter is not as you claimed—that they are vessels of knowledge; rather, they are sealed, veiled from knowledge, and nothing of it reaches them, like a locked house that has been sealed. The ba is for causality; it is also permitted that it is for the instrument (ālah).

It is also possible that the meaning is: The lack of the truth reaching your hearts is not because they are in veils and innate coverings as you claimed, but because Allah, the Exalted, set a seal upon them due to your acquired disbelief. This "sealing" signifies being forsaken and denied the success required to reflect upon the signs and learn from the admonitions, according to many, while for others, it is a literal sealing. This is supported by what Al-Bazzar recorded from Ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both—from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—who said: "The seal is suspended from the leg of the Throne. When sanctity is violated, sins are committed, and one becomes audacious toward Allah, the Exalted, Allah sends the seal and sets it upon his heart, and he does not understand anything after that." Al-Bayhaqi also recorded it in Al-Shu‘ab, though he weakened it.

{ فَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلا قَلِيلاً } (So they do not believe except a little). It is in the accusative as a description of an omitted cognate accusative (masdar), meaning: "except for a little belief." It is thus like the acknowledgement of the prophethood of Moses—peace be upon him—which is of no benefit, because disbelief in part is disbelief in the whole, as previously mentioned. Or it is a description of an omitted time, i.e., "for a little while." Or it is in the accusative as an exception from the pronoun in { لا يُؤْمِنُونَ }, meaning: "except a few of them," like Abdullah ibn Salam and his peers. Al-Samin refuted this by noting that the pronoun refers to those whose hearts have been sealed, and one whose heart has been sealed by disbelief cannot produce faith. The answer given is that the intended meaning of what was mentioned—ascribing it to the whole—is what is true for the part, considering the majority.

‘Isam al-Milla said: Just as it is necessary to exclude the "few" from the lack of belief that stems from the sealing of their hearts, it is necessary to exclude a "few" of the hearts from their hearts. Thus, it is as if the meaning is: "Nay, Allah, the Exalted, has set a seal upon most of them." Let this be understood.