Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:60

(Say: Shall I inform you of something worse than that?) This is a rebuke to those transgressors, aimed at clarifying that the one truly deserving of censure and reproach is the very religion of distorted faith that they hold. Within this lies a lamentation over them, employing an indirect approach to highlight their transgressions and the consequences and punishments that have befallen them. The Exalted One did not state this explicitly so as not to drive them, through such bluntness, into the path of arrogance and obstinacy. Before the declaration, He addressed them in a manner that indicates the gravity of the matter being clarified and invites them to receive it, utilizing an interrogative structure that stirs curiosity regarding the information to follow. The use of "informing" (al-tanbi’ah) suggests that the matter is of great concern and danger, as an naba’ (news) is that which possesses significance and consequence.

The reference is to the religion they have established for themselves. The term "wickedness" (shariyyah) is applied to their state—despite it being pure evil, entirely free of any shade of virtue—as a concession to their false claim regarding the perfection of their religion, so that He may prove their religion to be worse than all evil. He did not say "worse in reproach" (bi-anqam) in order to specify the basis of this wickedness, for mere reproach does not inherently establish it, as it is possible for the censure to stem from the one doing the censuring—and how many a person censures a correct statement while the fault lies only in their own corrupted understanding. In this is a verification of the wickedness of what is to be mentioned and a further affirmation of it.

It is said that He said "worse" (sharran) because it occurred in the expression of the addressees. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, and others narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that he said: A group of Jews, including Abu Yasir ibn Akhtab, Nafi' ibn Abi Nafi', Ghazi ibn Amr, Zayd, Khalid, and Izar ibn Abi Izar, came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and asked him in whom he believed among the messengers. He replied: "I believe in Allah the Exalted, and in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him." When he mentioned Jesus (peace be upon him), they denied his prophethood and said: "We do not believe in Jesus, and we do not believe in anyone who believes in him." Then they said, as in the report by al-Tabarani: "We know of no religion worse than yours." Whereupon Allah the Exalted revealed this verse. Through this report, those who maintain that the addressees of "Shall I inform you" are the People of the Book find support.

Some have said: The addressees are the disbelievers in general. It is also said: They are the believers. Just as there is a disagreement regarding the address, there is disagreement regarding what the reference ("that") points to. The majority follow what we have previously mentioned. It is also said: The reference is to the majority of the transgressors, and the name is singular either because it is used to point to the one and others—and is not like a pronoun—or because it is interpreted as "the mentioned" or similar.

It is said: The reference is to the aforementioned individuals who are the People of the Book, and the meaning is that the predecessors are worse than the successors.

(A retribution from Allah) That is, a reward fixed with Him the Exalted; it is a verbal noun (masdar mimi) meaning reward (thawab). It is used for both good and evil, for whatever returns to a person as a recompense for their deeds is called by this name, based on the conception that what one performs returns to him, as indicated by the words of the Exalted: So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it, where the Exalted did not say "will see its reward." However, the most common usage is for good; "mathubah" is similar in this regard. Its usage here for evil is by way of sarcasm, like His saying: "A greeting between them is a beating." Its accusative case is as a discrimination (tamyiz) from "worse." It is also said: It is permissible to make it an object for the sake of which (maf'ul lahu) the informing is done, for the sake of seeking a retribution from Allah the Exalted in this informing. It is also possible that it becomes the cause of your fear and leads to your guidance; according to this, "retribution" is used in its conventional sense. While this has merit, it is contrary to the apparent meaning. It is recited "mathubah" with the tha quiescent and the waw opened, similar to mashurah and mashurah, contrary to al-Hariri who necessitates mashurah like ma'unah.

His saying, the Exalted: (The one whom Allah has cursed and with whom He is angry) is a predicate for an elided subject, with the assumption of a genitive construct (mudaf) preceding it that is appropriate to what was pointed to by "that"—i.e., "The religion of the one whom Allah has cursed..." or with the assumption of a genitive construct before the demonstrative pronoun appropriate to "the one"—i.e., "Worse than the people of that..." The sentence, on both assumptions, is an inception that serves as an answer to a question arising from the interrogative sentence, as Sibawayh said, either in its actual state or considering the assumption within it. It is as if it were said: "What is it that is worse than that?" And it was answered: "It is the religion of the one whom Allah has cursed..." or "Who is it that is worse than the people of that?" and it was answered: "It is the one whom Allah has cursed..."

It is permitted—though it should not be permitted upon reflection—to be a substitution (badal) for "worse," and a genitive construct must also be assumed here in a manner similar to what preceded, so that it escapes being an erroneous substitution, which does not occur in eloquent speech. As for the first aspect, it is clearer than it needs to be hidden. If "that" is made a reference to the individuals, the speech does not require that assumption, as is apparent.

He placed the Glorious Name in place of the pronoun to cultivate awe, instill terror, and highlight the horror of the curse and what follows it. The relative pronoun (the one whom) refers to the People of the Book, as Allah the Exalted distanced them from His mercy and was angry with them because of their disbelief and their immersion in sins after the manifestation of the verses and the clarity of the proofs.

(And made of them apes and swine) That is, He transformed some of them into apes—who are the people of the Sabbath—and some into swine, who are the disbelievers of the table of Jesus (peace be upon him). It is reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the two transformations were among the people of the Sabbath; their youth were transformed into apes and their elders into swine. The pronoun "of them" refers to "the one" (man) considering its meaning, just as the first two pronouns refer to it considering its wording. Likewise is the pronoun in His saying: (And he who worshipped the Taghut), for it is a conjunction to the relative clause of "the one," as al-Zajjaj said. Al-Farra' claimed that there is an elided relative pronoun in the speech—i.e., "and he who worshipped"—and it is a conjunction to the accusative "made," i.e., "And He made of them him who worshipped..." It is obvious that this is only sound according to the Kufans. The "Taghut," according to al-Juba'i, is the calf which the Jews worshipped. It is reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and al-Hasan that it is Satan. It is also said: It refers to the priests and everyone they obeyed in the disobedience of Allah the Exalted; worship in all but the first interpretation is a metaphor for obedience.

Shaykh al-Islam said: Placing their descriptions mentioned in the context of proving the wickedness of their religion before this description, even though it is the root that entails them, and even though its indication of its wickedness is essential (because worship of the Taghut is the essence of manifest falsehood, while its indication of it [the curse] is by way of inference from the wickedness of the effects to the wickedness of the belief and action that necessitates them), is either because the intention is to rebuke them from the outset by describing them with what they have no path to deny—neither its wickedness and atrocity nor their being characterized by it—or to signal that both the predecessor and the successor are independent in indicating the aforementioned wickedness. If the order of existence were observed, it would be said: "He who worshipped the Taghut, and Allah cursed him and was angry with him..." but then it might be understood that the cause of the wickedness is the totality.

You know that the description being the "root" is not apparent according to the position of al-Juba'i, and that their characterization by the curse and anger being something they have no path to deny is a matter of contention—for they say: "We are His children and His beloved ones!" unless it is said that the effects resulting from that which indicate it are so manifest that denying their signified meaning is pure obstinacy. It is said: The description of the curse and anger was placed first because they are explicit in that the people are "reproached," and it points to that matter being grave, and he followed them with the aforementioned transformation so that it would be like an argument for that, and he followed it with the worship of the Taghut, which indicates the wickedness of their religion in the most complete manner of indication, so that it may be firmly established in the mind as perfectly as possible, due to the precedence of what points to it summarily. This is also not apparent according to the position of al-Juba'i, and perhaps its observance is not necessary due to the degradation of its rank in this context. The apparent meaning of the expression of Shaykh al-Islam is that he built his speech on this position, as he said after saying: "The meaning of Taghut is the calf, and it is said: the priests and everyone they obeyed in disobedience to Allah the Exalted; thus, the ruling extends to the religion of the Christians as well, and the aspect of delaying the worship of it after the aforementioned punishments becomes clear, for if it had been placed before them, it would necessitate the participation of both groups in those punishments."

In the verse, as a group has said, there are several recitations; two are from the seven, and what is beyond them is anomalous. The majority, other than Hamzah, recited "abada" (worshipped) in the form of the known past tense, and "al-Taghut" in the accusative case; this is the recitation upon which the interpretation is built. Hamzah recited "abd al-Taghut" with the ‘ayn opened, the ba quiescent, and the dal opened, and the Taghut in the genitive case, on the basis that "abd" is singular and meant as a gender, and it is not a collective, for the like of it has not been heard in its structures; rather, it is an intensive form (mubalaghah). Therefore, al-Zamakhshari said: Its meaning is excess in servitude, and he cited the verse of Tarafa: "O son of Labini, your mother is a bondwoman, and your father is a slave (abd)." He intended "a slave." Ibn al-Anbari and al-Zajjaj mentioned the like of this, saying: The ba was given a dammah for the intensive meaning, like their saying for one who is intelligent and cautious: fatun (intelligent) and hadhur (cautious) with dammah on the eye. Abu Ubaydah and al-Farra' criticized this recitation and attributed its reciter to error. The accusative is by conjunction to "apes and swine."

It is also recited "wa-abada" with the ‘ayn opened, the ba with dammah, and the dal with kasrah, and the genitive of Taghut by addition (idafah), and the conjunction is to "the one" (man) based on it being in the genitive case by the assumption of a genitive construct, or by substitution, as has been said, and it was not approved.

Ubayy recited "‘abadu" with the plural pronoun returning to "the one" (man) considering its meaning, and the conjunction is the same as in the recitation of the majority. Al-Hasan recited "‘ubbad" as a plural of "‘abd" (slave), and "‘abd" in the singular, with the genitive and accusative of Taghut. The genitive is by addition, and the accusative is either on the basis that the original was "‘abada" with the ba opened, or "‘abadan" with nunation, then it was elided like his saying: "And no one remembers Allah except a little," with the accusative of the Glorious Name, and the conjunction is apparent. Al-A'mash, al-Nakha'i, and Aban recited "‘ubida" in the form of the unknown (passive) past tense with the nominative of Taghut on the basis that it is the deputy of the subject, and the conjunction is to the relative clause of "the one," and the pronoun of the relative pronoun is elided, i.e., "worshipped in them" or "among them." Some recited likewise, except they feminized it, so they recited "‘ubidat" with the quiescent ta of the feminine, and Taghut is both masculine and feminine, as has passed. The matter of conjunction and the pronoun follows the pattern of the previous recitation.

Ibn Mas'ud recited "‘abad" with the ‘ayn opened, the ba with dammah, and the dal opened, with the nominative of Taghut based on it being the agent for "‘abad," and it is like "shurufa" (became noble), as if worship became his natural disposition, or that it is in the meaning of "became worshipped," like "amara" (he became a commander). The pronoun of the relative pronoun in this is also elided. Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—recited "‘ubud" with the ‘ayn and ba with dammah and the dal opened, and the genitive of Taghut. Al-Akhfash said it is a plural of "‘abid" (slaves), which is the plural of "‘abd," so it is a plural of the plural, or a plural of "‘abid" (worshipper) like "shārif" and "shuruf," or a plural of "‘abd" like "saqf" and "suquf," or a plural of "‘ubbad" like "kitāb" and "kutub," so it is also a plural of the plural like "thimār" and "thumar."

Al-A'mash also recited "‘abbada" with the ‘ayn with dammah, the ba with shaddah and opened, and the dal opened, and the genitive of Taghut as a plural of "‘abid" and "‘abd" like "hutam" and "zufar," in the accusative, added to the Taghut as a singular. Ibn Mas'ud also recited "‘abbada" with the ‘ayn with dammah, the ba with shaddah and opened, and the dal opened, and the accusative of Taghut on the limit of "And no one remembers Allah except a little," with the accusative of the Glorious Name. It is also recited "wa-‘abid al-shaytān" with the accusative of ‘abid and the genitive of shaytān as a substitute for Taghut, and it is an interpretation according to some, not a recitation. It is also recited "‘ubbād" like "juhhāl," "‘ubbād" like "rijāl," as a plural of "‘abid" or "‘abd," and in it is the addition of the "slaves" to other than Allah the Exalted, and some have forbidden it. It is also recited "‘abid" with the nominative as the predicate of an elided subject and the genitive of Taghut. It is also recited "‘abidū" with the plural and addition. It is also recited "‘abidan" in the accusative. It is also recited "‘abadat" with openings, added, on the basis that its origin is "‘abadah" like "kafarah," so its ta was elided for the addition, like his saying: "And they contradicted you for the command and they contradicted," i.e., "contradicted it," like "iqām al-salāh." Or it is a plural or a collective noun for "‘abid" like "khādim" and "khadam." It is also recited "‘abud" like "aklub" and "‘ubayd" as a plural or a collective noun, and "‘abidī" as a plural with the ya. Ibn Mas'ud also recited "And he who worshipped..."

(Those) i.e., those described with those ugly traits and scandals, is a subject, and His saying the Exalted: (worse) is its predicate, and His saying the Exalted: (in station) is a discrimination transferred from the agent. The affirmation of "worseness" for their station is in order to be more eloquent in indicating their wickedness; they have stated that the affirmation of wickedness for the station of a thing is a metonymy for its affirmation for the thing itself, like their saying: "Peace upon the high council" and "Glory is between his two garments." It is as if their wickedness had an effect on their station or became so great that it became tangible. It is also permitted that the attribution is metaphorical, like "the cat ran." It is said: It is permissible for "station" to mean the place of residence and abode in which their matter is to be settled, i.e., "worse in the place of return," and what is meant by it is Hell, and what a wretched destination! The sentence is an inception brought forward from Him the Exalted as a testimony against them for the perfection of their wickedness and straying, and it is included under the order to emphasize the obligation and intensify the rebuke. Making it an answer to the question arising from the interrogative sentence, so that the possibility of the aforementioned substitution remains, is something that hardly stands.

(And further astray from the right path) i.e., more astray from the straight path of truth, which is the religion of Islam and Hanifiyyah. It is a conjunction to "worse," affirming it. Within it is a proof of their religion being pure evil, distant from the truth, for the path they follow is their religion; so if they were more astray, their religion would be manifest straying with no end beyond it. The intention of the two superlative forms is an increase absolutely without regard to anyone else participating in that. It is also said: It is for preference according to their claim. It is also said: It is relative to others among the disbelievers. Some have said: There is no obstacle to saying that their station in the Hereafter is worse than the station of the believers in the world because of the misfortunes of time, the hearing of harm, and the humiliation that befell them from their enemies.