Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:46

It is said that this is an exposition for "those who were given a portion of the Book," which is understood according to the concept held by the people of the two Books. The text intervening between them was inserted to emphasize the importance of stating the cause for denunciation, astonishment, and the haste to alienate the believers from them, as well as to show interest in urging the believers to trust in Allah the Exalted and to be satisfied with His guardianship and victory. Abu Hayyan objected to this by stating that Al-Farisi prohibited the interjection of two sentences, so what of three? Al-Halabi replied that the prohibition applies when there is no conjunction, whereas here the sentences are conjoined, and through this, two things become one.

Others have said: It is an exposition for "your enemies." The objection to this is that there is no justification for limiting His knowledge (glorified be He) to a specific group of their enemies, especially in the context of a rebuke. It is also said: It is a linkage to Nasir (Helper), meaning "He helps you [from among those who were Jews]." This restricts the vastness of Allah's help, and there is no necessity to place the relative pronoun (al-ladhina) in the position of the pronoun of the enemies; furthermore, the contents within the linkage do not appear consistent with help.

It is also said: It is the predicate of a deleted subject, and His saying (the Exalted): {يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ} is an attribute of it—that is, "Among those who were Jews are a people who distort..." This is necessary in the reading of Abdullah and [the reading of] "among those who..." It has been established that when a subject is described by a sentence or an adverbial phrase and some of its component is a noun governed by min (from) or fi (in) that precedes it, its deletion is standard. From this is the saying: "Time is but two days, one in which I die, and another in which I seek a living, toiling." Al-Farra’ considers the deleted subject to be a relative noun, and {يُحَرِّفُونَ} to be its linkage, meaning: "Of those who were Jews, [there are those] who distort." The Basrans prohibit the deletion of the relative noun while keeping its linkage, although it is supported by what is in the codex of Hafsa (may Allah be pleased with her): "those who distort" (man yuharrifun). This was also objected to on the grounds that its outward meaning implies that the previously mentioned group is separate from the distortion, which is, in reality, the proof of their buying [error].

{الكلم} (The words) is a generic noun, singular of which is kalimah (a word), like labinah and labin, nabqah and nabq. It is said to be a plural, but that is not of the preferred views. Perhaps the one who applied it intended the linguistic meaning, which is that which signifies more than two absolutely. Its pronoun is masculine, considering its singular units in wording, and plural, considering its multiplicity in meaning. It has been recited with a kasra on the kaf and a sukun on the lam as a plural of kalimah, a reduction of kalimah by transferring the kasra of the lam to the kaf. It has also been recited as {يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلَامَ} (distort the speech).

The intended meaning here is either what is in the Torah, or what is more general than that, including the words mentioned later that they uttered during their dialogues with the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The former is what has been transmitted from the predecessors, such as Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and others. The distortion of that is either removing it from the positions in the Torah where Allah the Exalted placed it—such as their distortion of the rab'ah (the stature/description) in the attributes of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and substituting it with tiwal (tallness)—or as their distortion of the stoning [verse] and substituting the fixed penalty in its place. Or, it is shifting it from the meaning that Allah the Exalted revealed into it, toward meanings that have no validity, through corrupt interpretations and misguided pretexts, just as the innovators do with Quranic verses that conflict with their school of thought. The former view is supported by what Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas, who said: "How can you ask the People of the Book about anything, while your Book, which was revealed to His Messenger, is the most recent, read purely, unadulterated? He has told you that the People of the Book replaced the Book of Allah the Exalted and changed it, and they wrote the book with their own hands and said: 'This is from Allah,' to sell it for a small price."

A difficulty is raised: How could this be possible in a Book whose individual letters and words reached the level of tawatur (consecutive transmission) and whose copies spread East and West? The response is that this occurred before the Book became famous across the horizons and reached the level of tawatur. There is remoteness in this, even if supported by the occurrence of discrepancies in the copies of the Torah held by the groups of Jews. It is said that the Jews did this in copies of the Torah to lead people astray, and when that did not succeed, they turned to interpretation.

The intended meaning of {مَّوَاضِعِهِ} (its positions), assuming the broader intent, is whatever is appropriate for it absolutely, whether by the explicit designation of the Exalted (like the positions of what is in the Torah) or by the designation of reason and religion (like the positions of other things). The root of tahrif (distortion) is inclining something toward a harf (edge or side). Thus, if {يُحَرِّفُونَ} means "they remove," it is a metaphor, because if they replaced the "words" and put something else in their place, it necessitates that they inclined them from their positions and distorted them. The difference between what is here and what will come in Surah Al-Ma'idah in His saying (glorified be He): {مِن بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ} (after their positions), is that the latter is more indicative of the stability of the positions of the "words" and their fame than the former, because the adverbial phrase indicates that after the position was established and fixed, they distorted it from there. That was chosen there because it contains what necessitates bringing the more evidence-based and eloquent [phrasing].

{وَيَقُولُونَ} (And they say) is conjoined to {يُحَرِّفُونَ}. Most scholars hold that the intended meaning is speech with the tongue in the presence of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Others chose to interpret it as that which encompasses both this and what expresses their stubbornness and arrogance, so that it may include what their states of being uttered during the distortion of the Torah. In that case, it is not restricted to a time or place, nor specialized to one subject over another. One would need to commit to the generality of the metaphor so that there is no requirement to combine literal and metaphorical meanings. According to this, the meaning is that despite that distortion, they say and understand every matter contrary to their corrupt whims, whether in the presence of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or by the language of state or speech, out of stubbornness and as an affirmation of opposition.

{سَمِعْنَا} (We have heard)—that is, we have understood. {وَعَصَيْنَا} (And we have disobeyed)—that is, we have not obeyed, and it is with this that Al-Raghib interpreted it. {وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ} (And listen, as one who hears not)—this is conjoined to {سَمِعْنَا} and falls under the "saying," but with consideration that it is oral and during his address (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is speech with two faces, susceptible to both evil and good. It is called in rhetoric tawjih (amphiboly), as more than one has stated. They illustrated it with his saying: "May Amr tailor a robe for me, may his eyes be equal"—its susceptibility to evil is by carrying it to the meaning of: "Listen, invoked against you, may you not be heard," or "Listen, not answered to what you call to," or "Listen, resistant to the hearing of what you hear because of dislike for you," or "Listen to speech that will not be heard by you because your ears resist it." Thus, ghayra is either a state (hal) or a direct object. Its status as a state is correct on the first interpretation, considering that the invocation is what they intended, and since they—may Allah curse them—ordained his answer, it became as if it were fixed and occurring. Its susceptibility to good is by carrying it to the meaning of "Listen from us, not hearing anything hateful," from their saying "He made him hear" when he insulted him; the original was "He made him hear what he dislikes," then its object was deleted as a forgotten thing and it became idiomatic. They—may Allah curse them—used to address the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with this out of mockery, showing him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) the latter meaning while concealing the other.

{وَرَاعِنَا} (And [say] Ra'ina) is conjoined to what precedes it, meaning: They also say this during their address to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). This is also of two faces like the former. Its susceptibility to good is in the sense of "Give us respite," "Look at us," or "Wait for us so we may speak to you." Its susceptibility to evil is by carrying it to an insult. In Al-Taysir: Ra'ina itself is among the things they used to insult each other with, and it is for describing stupidity (ru'unah). It is said that it resembles a word of insult they have, Hebrew or Syriac, which is ra'ina. It is said: Rather, they used to extend the kasra of the ayn and meant—may Allah curse them—that he (and far be it from him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was like their servants and shepherds. They used to say this while showing respect and honor, while concealing that for which they deserve Hell and an evil destination.

This is a type of hypocrisy, and it is not contradicted by their open expression of disobedience, as it is said: All disbelievers address the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with disbelief, but they do not address him with insults, abuse, and invocation against him (peace and blessings be upon him). It was objected that then there is no justification for including "hearing" and "disobedience" along with "distortion" and the casting of susceptible speech as a ruse. The answer is that it is possible to say the intended purpose here is to list their blameworthy traits, not merely the distortion and the ruse. It is as if it were said: They distort their book and openly declare their rejection of the prophethood of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is said: Their saying {سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا} was not in his presence (peace and blessings be upon him), but rather among themselves, so it does not contradict their hypocrisy in the two sentences [uttered] before him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is also said that the "saying," looking at the first sentence, is a state, and [looking] at the last two sentences, it is oral. It is said that the first is also of two faces like the last two, as it is possible they meant: "We obeyed your command and disobeyed the command of our people."

Among the people are those who permitted that "distorting the words" means inclining them from their positions, whether they were positions where Allah the Exalted placed them, or where circumstances and custom made them positions for that. Thus, the meaning is: They are a people whose habit is distortion, and His saying (glorified be He) {وَيَقُولُونَ} etc., is a enumeration of some of their distortions. The meaning is that they say to you {سَمِعْنَا} (We have heard), and to their people {عَصَيْنَا} (We have disobeyed). And they say such and such, so they show you one thing and conceal the opposite.

{لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ}—Lay (twisting) is being in the sense of deviation, turning, and bending from one direction to another, and it is in the sense of folding one of the strands of a rope onto another. Its meaning here is either diverting speech from the side of good to the side of evil, or folding one of the two matters onto the other. Its root is lawy, then the waw was turned into a ya and assimilated. It is in the accusative as a causative object for "they say," considering its attachment to the last two statements—or it is said: to all the statements—or as a state, meaning "twisting with their tongues." Similar to this is His saying (the Exalted): {وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ}, meaning slandering it with mockery and ridicule. Both adverbial phrases are attached to what is before them.

{وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ} when they heard any of the commands and prohibitions of Allah (the Exalted) {قَالُوا}—with the language of speech, as is the apparent meaning, or with it and the language of state—as it is said: {سَمِعْنَا} (We have heard) as an act of acceptance, instead of their saying {سَمِعْنَا} (which is intended as hearing of rejection); {وَأَطَعْنَا} (And we have obeyed) instead of their saying {عَصَيْنَا}; {وَاسْمَعْ} (And listen) instead of their saying {وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ}; and {وَانظُرْنَا} (And look upon us) instead of their saying {رَاعِنَا}. {لَكَانَ}—this statement of theirs would be {خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ} (better for them) and more beneficial than that saying of theirs, {وَأَقْوَمَ} (and more righteous)—that is, more just in itself. The superlative form is either literal, considering the root of the action in the preferred over [itself] based on their belief, or by way of sarcasm; or it means the active participle, so there is no need to estimate a "than" (min). In placing the state of the "saying" relative to them before its state in itself, there is a hint that the ambitions of the Jews—may Allah curse them—are soaring toward what benefits them. The phrase composed of an and what follows it is the subject of a hidden thabata (established), due to the indication of an upon it—meaning, if their saying {سَمِعْنَا} etc., had been established. This is the school of Al-Mubarrad. It is said it is a subject with no predicate. It is said its predicate is hidden. {وَلَكِن لَّعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ}—that is, but they did not say what is more beneficial and more righteous, and they persisted in that, so Allah the Exalted let them down and distanced them from guidance because of their disbelief, so they do not believe after that {إِلَّا قَلِيلًا}.

The learned author chose the second view: that it is an exception from the object pronoun in {لَعَنَهُمُ} (He cursed them)—that is, but Allah the Exalted cursed them, except for a small group of them, for He (glorified be He) did not curse them. Therefore, whoever believed among them, like Abdullah bin Salam and his peers, believed. It is said: It is an exception from the doer of {يُؤْمِنُونَ} (they believe). It is directed against this that the proper form would then be nominative as an appositive, because it is from a non-affirmative sentence, even though the reciters have agreed on the accusative. It is unlikely they would agree on other than the preferred reading, even though it implies that belief occurs from those whom Allah cursed and abandoned, unless {لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ} is taken to mean the cursing of most of them, and this is as you see. It is said: It is an attribute of a deleted source (masdar), meaning: "Except for a little belief," because they unified [God] and disbelieved in Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his law, and belief here means affirmation, not legal faith. It is permitted on this interpretation that "a little" is meant to indicate non-existence, as in the saying: "Little complaint for the calamity that befalls him, much passion, various paths, and distances." The intention is that they do not believe except for a non-existent belief, either on the level of {لَا يَذُوقُونَ فِيهَا الْمَوْتَ إِلَّا الْمَوْتَةَ الْأُولَى} (They will not taste therein death except the first death)—that is, if the non-existent is belief, then they produce something of belief, so it is of the hanging on the impossible—or that what they produced of it, since it did not contain what is necessary, was non-existent, the non-existence of the whole due to its part. The [first] direction is the former.