Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:63

Al-Hasan said: The Rabbaniyyun (Godly scholars) are the scholars of the Gospel, and the Ahbar (rabbis) are the scholars of the Torah. Others have said: They all refer to the Jews, because this follows the mention of them. The particle lawla, when preceding the present tense verb—as established by Ibn al-Hajib and others—is for instigation (tahdid), while when preceding the past tense, it is for reproach (tawbikh). The intent here is to urge those whom the masses follow, and who know the ugliness of what they (the masses) are in and the evil of its consequence, to forbid their subordinates ( عَنْ قَوْلِهِمُ الْإِثْمَ وَأَكْلَهُمُ السُّحْتَ )—while they are aware of the ugliness of these acts and are cognizant of their engaging in them. It is stated in Al-Bahr: This instigation implies a reproach for their silence and their abandonment of prohibition. ( لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَصْنَعُونَ )

The discussion regarding this is the same as the discussion regarding its counterpart (in Surah An-Nisa), except that this is more emphatic than what preceded it regarding the commoners. This is because it is established in language and usage that a "deed" (fi'l) is anything that issues from a living being absolutely; if it is intentional, it is called an "action" ('amal). Furthermore, if it occurs through practice and repetition until it becomes established and becomes a faculty, it is called "crafting" (san') and "workmanship" (san'a). Therefore, san' (crafting) is more emphatic because it necessitates establishment. This is why a skilled person is called a sani' (craftsman) and a well-woven garment is called a sani'ah, as Al-Raghib said. In the verse, there is an indication that abandoning the prohibition is uglier than committing the act itself. This is justified by the fact that the perpetrator of the sin finds pleasure, fulfillment, and purpose in it, unlike the one who condones it. Thus, it has been reported that the sin of the cuckold (dayyuth) is greater than that of the adulterers.

This has been challenged with the objection that it would necessitate that the failure to forbid adultery and murder is more sinful than the acts themselves, which is far-fetched. It has been answered that it is not unlikely that the sin of failing to forbid—by one whose prohibition would stop the transgressor from committing the forbidden act—is more severe than the sin of the perpetrator, whatever the act may be, whether it is murder, adultery, or otherwise. Al-Shihab said: The condition of "more severe" varies according to the perspective. Being "more severe" in consideration of committing an act from which one derives no benefit does not negate the fact that direct participation might be more sinful. So reflect upon this. In the verse, there is an undeniable condemnation of scholars for their slackness in forbidding evil. Hence, Al-Dahhak said: "None of the verses of the Quran causes me more fear than this one." Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them—said: "There is no verse in the Quran more reproachful than this one." It was also read: "...from their speaking of transgression and their eating of the Suht (illicit gain); surely evil is that which they were doing (ya'malun)."