Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:61

(And when they come to you, they say, "We believe.") It was revealed, as Qatada and al-Suddi stated, regarding a group of the Jews who would enter upon the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and manifest faith and satisfaction with what he brought, out of hypocrisy. The address is to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the plural is for glorification—referring to him, peace and blessings be upon him, along with those of his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) who were with him. That is: when they come to you, they manifest Islam to you.

(While they have entered with disbelief and they have exited with it.) That is: they exit from your presence just as they entered, having gained no benefit from their attendance before you, and what they heard from you had no effect upon them. The two sentences are in the position of a state (hal) relative to the pronoun in "they say," according to the most apparent view.

Abu al-Baqa' allowed for them to be two states (hal) relative to the pronoun in "we believe." The "ba" in bi-al-kufr (with disbelief) is for accompaniment (mulabasa). The prepositional phrase is a state relative to the subjects of "they entered" and "they exited." The "waw" (wa) entering upon the nominal sentence serving as a state is for the state itself. Whoever prohibits the multiplicity of state-sentences without a conjunction says: It is a conjunction, and that which is conjoined to a state is also a state.

The entry of qad into the past-tense state-sentence, as the second scholar stated, is to bring the past closer to the present, thereby breaking the sense of remoteness between the past and the present within the sentence. Otherwise, qad only brings a verb closer to the state of speech. This points to what Sayyid al-Sanad clarified in Hashiyat al-Mutawwal: that it has been said the past tense only indicates the completion of the time of speech, while the state—which clarifies the condition of the subject or object—is a constraint for its operator ('amil). If the operator is past, the state is also past in meaning; if it is present, it is present; if it is future, it is future. Thus, what they mentioned is an error arising from the ambiguity of the word hal (state/present), between the present time (which is the opposite of the past) and that which clarifies the aforementioned state.

He then said: It is possible to say that when a state acts as a constraint for something, its being past, present, or future is considered with regard to that constrained element. So, if it is said, "Zayd came to me [while] riding," it is understood that the riding preceded the coming. Therefore, qad is necessary to bring it closer to the time of the coming so that it coincides with it. The scholar al-Kafiji mentioned something similar in Sharh al-Qawa'id, then said: As for apologizing by claiming the prefixing of the affirmative past tense with qad is merely for verbal elegance, this is a concession to that objection and is neither accepted nor satisfactory. End quote.

This has further detail in its proper place. Another meaning has been mentioned for qad in the verse besides proximity, which is expectation (tawaqqu'). It implies that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was expecting these wicked people to enter and exit from the proximity of his presence as they were, empty-handed, with nothing of what they heard from his admonition—peace and blessings be upon him—using the signs of Allah Almighty, clinging to them; this is due to his discernment, from the signs manifest upon them, of their deep-seated hypocrisy. Hence, the Almighty said: (And Allah is most knowing of what they were concealing.)

(And in it is a threat that is not hidden.) In al-Kashshaf, it states that the signs of hypocrisy were manifest upon them, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was expecting Allah Almighty to reveal what they had concealed; hence, the letter of expectation was introduced for that reason. Al-Tibi objected to this, saying that qad is intended for the expectation of its object, which here is the essence of hypocrisy, so how can it be said [it is] for Allah Almighty revealing what they concealed? He answered that there is no doubt that the expected matter should be realized, and their being hypocrites was known to him—may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him—as evidenced by his saying: "The signs of hypocrisy..." and so on. Therefore, one must resort to metaphor and say it refers to Allah Almighty revealing what they had concealed.

In al-Kashf, refuting this, he said: Their entering with disbelief and exiting with it is a manifestation of it, and therefore the letter of expectation was introduced to it—not that it is the essence of hypocrisy—such that there would be a need for metaphor in returning the expectation to its revelation. That the appearance of its signs is not the same as Allah Almighty revealing it by His informing [the Prophet] about them, and that they were shrouded in disbelief, alternating in it, exiting and entering. End quote. Let this be pondered.

The reason the Almighty did not say, "And they have exited," in the same style as the first sentence, is to convey the confirmation of disbelief at the time of exiting, because it is contrary to what is apparent. For the apparent outcome—after their vision was illuminated by seeing the rising sun of the Messengership and their hearing was adorned with the pearls of the words of the ocean of bravery, peace and blessings be upon him—would be for them to return from the deviation they were upon and adorn their hearts, which were devoid of the ornaments of guidance. Furthermore, when they heard the words of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and denied them, their disbelief increased and their misguidance multiplied.