Tafsir of Muhammad 47:30

"And if We willed (to show you them) for We would show them to you." That is, We would have made them known to you, assuming the "vision" (ru'yah) is one of knowledge ('ilmiyyah).

"So you would know them by their mark," is a consequential clause (tafri') of the Prophet's—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—knowing them, derived from Allah the Almighty making them known to him. It is permissible that the vision be optical, implying that he—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—knows them with a knowledge derived from Him showing them to him. The shift to the pronoun of majesty (the "We") is to gesture toward the care taken in the act of showing. The "mark" (sima) is a sign. The meaning here is plural due to its generality relative to the addition, yet it is singularized to indicate that their signs are of a unified genus, as if they were a single thing. That is: you would know them by the marks with which We have branded them.

The lam (in la-'araftahum) is the lam of the oath, acting for the "we would show them" (la-araynakahum) which occurs in the answer to the law (if), because that which is conjoined to the answer is also an answer. It is repeated in the conjoined clause for emphasis. As for the lam in His saying: "And you will surely know them by the tone of their speech," it occurs in the answer to an omitted oath, and the clause is conjoined to the conditional clause.

"The tone of speech" (lahn al-qawl) is a style of speech, whether generally, or that which deviates from the known path—as if one turns away from its manifest form from explicit statement toward allusion and ambiguity. This is why the grammatical errors of the Bedouins are called lahn, due to their deviation from correctness. Al-Raghib said: Lahn is the turning of speech away from its accustomed path, either by removing [proper] inflection or by phonetic alteration, which is blameworthy and the most common usage. Or, it is by removing it from explicit expression and turning it through its meaning toward allusion and implication, which is praiseworthy in terms of rhetoric. To this the poet alluded, according to most men of letters: A sound logic, yet you sometimes use a tone (lahn), and the best of speech is that which has a tone. He intended this by His saying: "And you will surely know them by the tone of speech."

In al-Bahr, it is said: I "lahantu" to him—with a fat'ha on the ha—meaning I spoke to him in a way that he does not understand from you, and it remains hidden to others. And "lahnahu" (with a kasra) means he understood it. And I "al-hantuhu" it, and I "la-hantu" people, meaning I made them understand.

It is said that lahn al-qawl is departing from the truth. According to Ibn Abbas, it means here: their saying, "What is ours if we obey (in terms of reward)?" while they do not say, "What is against us if we disobey (in terms of punishment)?" And this is what was required of them. Some who interpreted it as the style deviating from the known path said: They used to agree among themselves on expressions with which to address the Messenger—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—the appearance of which was good, but by which they meant the ugly. They also used to speak in ways suggesting allegiance while they were the opposite, such as their saying when the believers invited them to support them: "We are with you." The implication is that they were speaking words containing intrigues, and he—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—knew them through that.

From Anas—may Allah be pleased with him—nothing of the hypocrites remained hidden from the Messenger of Allah—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—after this verse. He—upon him be peace—knew them by their mark. We were on some expeditions in which there were nine hypocrites about whom the people complained; they slept one night and woke up with "This is a hypocrite" written on the forehead of each one of them.

In the claim that he—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—knew them by their mark, there are difficulties, for the law (if) suggests non-occurrence; rather, it is appropriate that their knowledge comes from the "tone of speech." It seems he interpreted it as a promise of occurrence, indicating that it was unattainable in the past. Truly, His promise was fulfilled, and he supported this with what happened in some expeditions. The "mark" is not limited to writing, but occurs through other things by which the Prophet—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—would know them, just as the tracker (qa'if) knows the condition of a person through signs that indicate it. Often, a person knows who loves him and who hates him through a look; the look almost speaks of what is in the heart. We have witnessed more than one who knows the Sunni and the Shi'i by marks on the face. If it is true that some saints—may their secrets be sanctified—knew the righteous and the wicked, the believer and the disbeliever, and would say, "I smell from such and such the scent of obedience, and from such and such the scent of disobedience, and from such and such the scent of faith, and from such and such the scent of disbelief," and the matter appears as he indicated, then the Messenger of Allah—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—is more worthy and more entitled to that knowledge. Perhaps it is through marks beyond the capacity of our intellects. The light mentioned in the tradition: "Beware of the discernment (firasah) of the believer, for he looks with the light of Allah the Almighty," varies in manifestation according to one's capacity, and for the Prophet—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—it is at its most perfect.

They mentioned among the signs of hypocrisy the hatred of Ali—may Allah exalt his face. Ibn Marduyah extracted from Ibn Mas'ud, who said: "We did not know the hypocrites during the time of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah exalt him and grant him peace—except by their hatred of Ali ibn Abi Talib." He and Ibn 'Asakir extracted from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that which supports this. In my view, hating him—may Allah be pleased with him—is one of the strongest signs of hypocrisy. If you believe this, then I wish I knew what you would say about Yazid the Outcast: did he love Ali—may Allah exalt his face—or did he hate him? I do not think you are in doubt that he—upon him be the curse—hated him—may Allah be pleased with him—with the most intense hatred. Likewise, he hated his two sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, upon their grandfather, their parents, and upon them be peace, as the mutawatir (concurrently transmitted) reports indicate in meaning. At that point, there is no room for you to say that the cursed one was a hypocrite.

Authentic hadiths have come with signs of hypocrisy other than what was mentioned, such as his saying—upon him be peace: "The signs of the hypocrite are three..." the hadith. However, the scholars said these are signs of practical hypocrisy, not of faith-based hypocrisy. It is also said that the hadith was spoken in a context of repelling the sincere believer from being characterized by any of them, since they were at that time signs of the hypocrites. Those who made allusion to accusation require the legal punishment (hadd) used His saying: "And you will surely know them by the tone of speech" as evidence, though his state is not hidden.

"And Allah knows your works"—He will reward you for them according to your intentions. This, according to what is said, is a promise for the believers and an announcement that their state is contrary to the state of the hypocrites. It is also said to be a threat to the hypocrites and an announcement to them that what is rewarded is what they intend, not what they allude to or hint at. It is maintained that it is a general address; therefore, it is both a promise and a threat.