Al-Ma'idah: (64) "And the Jews said: The hand..."
(And the Jews said) Regarding this, it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Ikrimah, and al-Dahhak that they said: Allah the Exalted had expanded the provision for the Jews, but when they disobeyed the command of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), He withheld from them what He had previously expanded. Upon that, Finhas ibn Azura—the leader of the Banu Qaynuqa, or in another narration from Ibn Abbas, al-Nabbash ibn Qays—said: (The hand of Allah [the Exalted] is chained). Since the others did not refute the speaker and were satisfied with it, that grave utterance was attributed to all of them, and there are many precedents for this that have already been mentioned.
By this, may Allah curse them, they meant that He—Glorified be He and Exalted far above what they say—is someone who holds back what He has and is stingy. Both "chaining the hand" and "spreading the hand" are metaphors for stinginess and generosity, or are metonyms for them. It is used even where a literal "hand" is impossible, such as the saying: "The lush land spread its hands with rain; its valleys and lowlands thanked its bounty." They even attributed a hand to the north wind, as in the saying: "Its herd strayed, and the evening breeze turned, guided by the hand of the north wind," and the saying of the slave: "On a windy, cold morning, when it dawned, the north wind held its reins." It is also said: "Despair spread its palms in the chest of so-and-so," making palms for despair, which is an abstract concept and not a physical entity. The poet said: "The weakening of my hopes and their contraction have troubled me, and the hands of new despair have spread in my chest."
It is also said that its meaning is that He—Glorified be He—is poor, as in His saying: “Allah has heard the speech of those who said: 'Allah is poor and we are rich'." It is also said: "The hand" here means bounty, meaning His bounty is withheld from us. According to al-Hasan, the meaning is that the hand of Allah is restrained from punishing us, and He does not punish us except as required by His oath, to the extent that our fathers worshipped the calf. It is as if he interpreted "the hand" as power and "the chaining" as a lack of engagement.
It is also said: It is not unlikely that they meant the literal, anatomical hand, for they are anthropomorphists. It has been reported of them that they claimed their Lord has a white head and beard, is seated on a throne, and that He finished creating the heavens and the earth on Friday, then lay back on His back, placing one leg over the other and one of His hands upon His chest to rest from the weariness that afflicted Him in creating them—Glorified and Exalted is Allah far above what they say.
All these sayings are as you can see, and the most astonishing of all is the statement of al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him); I wish he had not said it, and perhaps its attribution to him is not authentic. What rhetoric requires, and what the flow of the discourse supports, is the first interpretation. It is not far-fetched for a people who said to Moses (peace and blessings be upon him), "Make for us a god just as they have gods," and who worshipped the calf, to believe that Allah—Exalted is He—is characterized by stinginess and to say what they said. Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi said: It is possible that the Jews made a statement and held a doctrine whose meaning leads to the conclusion that Allah—Exalted is His glory—is stingy at times and generous at others, so it was recounted about them by way of astonishment at them and refutation of them.
Another interpretation: They said this mockingly, as He—Glorified be He—did not expand [provision] for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions. It is clear, however, that what has been narrated regarding the occasion of the revelation does not support this. It is also said: They said this by way of questioning and astonishment, and the intent is "Is the hand of Allah withheld from us?" since He has restricted the livelihood for us; but the remoteness of this is evident.
(May their hands be chained) This is an imprecation against them for their blameworthy stinginess, as al-Zajjaj stated. This imprecation is an expression of His creating miserliness in their hearts and constraint in their hands. There is no impossibility in this, according to the path of the People of Truth. It may also be an imprecation for poverty and wretchedness. It is said: Let their hands be literally chained, chained in this world as captives and punished in the hereafter in the chains of Hell. The appropriateness of this to what preceded is then in terms of the wording, making it a paronomasia (wordplay). It is also said: It is in terms of the wording and observing the root of the metaphor, as when you say: "May Allah cut off his end," for the root of the word sabab (cause/end) is cutting. Al-Zamakhshari inclined toward this, and al-Tibi found it pleasant, saying: This is a subtle assimilation, unlike the saying: "They said: 'Suggest something for us to cook for you,' I said: 'Cook for me a cloak and a shirt'." Abu Ali al-Jubba'i chose the view that this is an announcement of their state on the Day of Resurrection, meaning their hands will be tied to their necks in Hell as a reward for this grave word. Al-Tabarsi narrated this from al-Hasan, then said: According to this, the speech is estimated with an implicit 'fa' (so) or 'waw' (and), so their speech is complete, and another speech is initiated after it. It is their custom to omit in what takes this course, such as: “And when Moses said to his people: 'Allah commands you to slaughter a cow,' they said: 'Do you take us in mockery?'” [It is known that] such things are by way of an explanatory initiation, and there is no need to burden oneself with the cost of estimation. Moreover, the words of al-Hasan, as we see it, are not definitive in suggesting that the sentence is a declarative statement, for the most he said is "Let their hands be chained in Hell," which is potentially an imprecation against them.
(And they were cursed), meaning they were removed from the mercy of Allah and His reward, (for what they said), meaning because of their statement or for the very thing they said of that heinous speech. This is a second imprecation conjoined to the first.
(Rather, His two hands are spread open) This is a conjunction to an implied [clause] necessitated by the context, meaning: "Nay, the matter is not as they claimed, but He is at the utmost of generosity." The duality of the hand is indicated because the furthest limit that the ambitions of the generous reach is to give with both hands. It is also said: "The hand" here also means bounty, and the dual is intended for the bounties of this world and the bounties of the hereafter, or the manifest and hidden bounties, or what is given for gradual leading to destruction (istidraj) and what is given for honor. It is also said—and it is narrated from al-Hasan—that it means power, like the first "hand," and its dualization is in view of its attachment to reward and its attachment to punishment. It is also said: The intent of the dual is multiplication, as in “Then look again and again” (lit: "look twice"). The intent of the multiplication is merely exaggeration in the perfection of power and its vastness, not that it is multiple. A parallel to this is the poet's saying: "...and she walked with the ease of her two locks, which deepened in her waist and rose in her prominence," for he did not mean that that grace was two locks, for a human has only one lock, but he intended exaggeration.
The predecessors of the Ummah (may Allah be pleased with them) said: This is among the ambiguous (mutashabih), and delegating the interpretation to Allah—Exalted is He—is safer. It has been authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he affirmed two hands for Allah—Exalted is His glory—and said: "And both of His hands are right hands." It has not been narrated from any of his companions (may Allah be pleased with him) that they interpreted it as "bounty" or "power"; rather, they left it as it was revealed and remained silent—and if speech is silver, silence is gold, especially in such instances. In the codex of Abdullah [ibn Mas'ud], it is written: "Rather, His two hands are spread," and it is said: "A hand is spread" with the noun (an adjective), similar to "a gentle gait" and "a loose-running camel."
(He spends how He wills) This is an initiated sentence, brought to emphasize the perfection of His generosity, due to its indication of the generalization of circumstances derived from "how," and it contains a warning regarding the secret of the distress they were tested with—which they, out of their extreme ignorance and misguidance, took as a pretext to embolden themselves to utter a word whose ugliness filled the expanse. The meaning is that this [distress] is not due to a shortage in His bounty, but because His spending follows His will, which is based on the precise wisdoms upon which the spheres of livelihood and the afterlife revolve. Wisdom dictated, since they disbelieved in the signs of Allah and belied His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that He should restrict [provision] for them. "How" is an adverb for "wills," and the sentence is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from the pronoun in "spends," meaning: He spends, being in whatever state He wills, i.e., according to His will.
It is also said that the sentence "spends" is in the position of a hal from the genitive pronoun in "His two hands." This was objected to on the grounds that it involves separation by the predicate and that it is a genitive-annexed (mudaf ilayh), from which a hal cannot be derived. It was rebutted that separation between the hal and its possessor is not impossible, as in His saying—narrating—“This is my husband, an old man,” for it is said that "an old man" is a hal from the demonstrative pronoun, and the agent [of the hal] is the attention [in the sentence]. It was also said that the prohibition of a hal from a genitive-annexed occurs only if it is not a part of, or like a part of, or an agent of, the possessor. Here, the annexed is a part of or like a part of the possessor, so it is not prohibited. It is permitted that it be in the position of a hal from the two hands or from their pronoun. This was rebutted by saying that there is no pronoun for them therein; it was answered that there is no impediment to estimating a pronoun for them, i.e., "He spends with them." Hence, it was said that it is permissible for it to be a second predicate for the subject. Yes, the estimation is contrary to the origin and the apparent [syntax], but that only dictates that it is the less favored opinion, not that it is impossible. He—Glorified be He—omitted mentioning what He spends for the sake of generalization.
(And surely, many of them will be increased by what has been sent down to you)—these are their scholars and leaders, or those of them who persist in disbelief absolutely—(from your Lord), connected to "sent down," just as "to you" is. He informed him of it—even though the right of the subject is to be placed before the terminal—because the context requires attention to be drawn to the terminal, as the Shaykh al-Islam said, because the pivot of the increase is the descent to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). In the expression using the title of Lordship while adding it to his pronoun (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is what is not hidden of honor. The "what" (relative pronoun) is the agent of "will be increased," and the attribution is metaphorical. "Many" is the first object, and "of them" is its modifier. His saying: (in rebellion and disbelief) is the second object, meaning: He will surely increase them in rebellion upon their rebellion and disbelief upon their two old disbeliefs, because "increase" requires the existence of that which is being increased upon before it. This increase is either in terms of intensity and extremism, or in terms of quantity and number, for every time a verse is revealed, they disbelieve in it, and so their rebellion and disbelief increase according to the amount. This is like how food for the healthy increases the illness of the sick.
It is possible that "what has been sent down to you" refers to the bounties that Allah—Exalted is He—granted His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), meaning they disbelieved and persisted in disbelief and said what they said when Allah—Exalted is He—restricted them and withheld from them what He had expanded for them. So whenever they saw, along with that, the expansion of His bounties and the succession of His favors upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—who is their greatest enemy—they increased in rage and resentment against their Lord—Glorified is He—so they added to their first rebellion a rebellion, and to their disbelief a disbelief. In this case, the verse harmonizes with what preceded it in the strongest of ways, except that this is not free from some remoteness, and I have not seen anyone who mentioned it.
(And We have cast among them)—meaning the Jews. Al-Bahr [al-Muhit] stated: The pronoun refers to the Jews and Christians, because they were mentioned in His saying—Glorified is He: “Take not the Jews and the Christians…” and due to the inclusion of His saying—Exalted is He: “O People of the Book” for both parties. This is narrated from al-Hasan and Mujahid.
(Enmity and hatred), so their hearts can hardly align, nor can their word be unified. Among the Jews are the Jabriyya, the Qadariyya, the Murji'a, and the Mushabbiha, and the enmity and hatred between one sect and another are standing tall. Likewise, among the Christians are the Melkites, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians, and their state is their state in that regard. The state of the Jews with the Christians is too manifest to be hidden. The returning of the pronoun to the Jews is supported by the fact that the discourse is about them. The benefit of this report here is the removal of what might be imagined from the mention of their rebellion and disbelief regarding their gathering on a matter that leads to harming the Muslims. Abu Hayyan, after referring the pronoun to the two parties, said: The meaning is that the Jews and Christians will continue to hate and be hostile to one another; rarely will one party agree with the other, and they will not unite to fight you and make war on you. In this is a report of the unseen, for no army of Jews and Christians has gathered to fight the Muslims since the sword of Islam was drawn.
Al-Samīn distinguished between enmity and hatred by stating that enmity is more specific than hatred, for every enemy is a hater, but one who is not an enemy may hate. (Until the Day of Resurrection) is connected to "We have cast," and it is permitted that it be connected to "hatred," meaning the mutual hatred among them is continuous as long as they exist, and the reality of the end is not intended. It is not permitted to connect it to "enmity" so that it would not necessitate the separation between the verbal noun and the modifier with something unrelated.
(Every time they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it) This is a clarification of what was indicated regarding the non-arrival of the calamity of what they are in to the Muslims. The intent is that every time they intend to fight the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and arrange its prerequisites, Allah—the Exalted—repels them and conquers them by dividing their opinions, dissolving their resolves, and casting terror into their hearts. Kindling fire is a metaphor for the intent of war. The Arabs, when they promised each other battle, made their sign the kindling of a fire on a mountain or a hill, and they called it "the fire of war," and it is one of the famous fires among them. Extinguishing it is an expression of repelling their evil.
Al-Bahr narrated two views on the verse: From a group, that the kindling is literal, and likewise the extinguishing, meaning that every time they kindled a fire for warfare, terror was cast upon them, so they retreated and extinguished it, and attributing the extinguishing to Him—the Exalted—is attributing the caused to the original cause.
From the majority, that the speech is meant in the way of metaphor, and the intent from kindling the fire is the manifestation of the plotting against the believers, which is similar to fire in causing harm, and from extinguishing it is the turning of that away from the believers. Perhaps the view of it being a metonym is more pleasant than both of them. That the intent from "war" is the warfare of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is what is narrated from al-Hasan and Mujahid. It is also said: It is more general than that, meaning every time they wanted to wage war against anyone, they were defeated, for when the Jews violated the ruling of the Torah, Allah—the Exalted—gave Nebuchadnezzar power over them; then they corrupted, so He—Glorified be He—gave Petrus the Roman power over them; then they corrupted, so He—Exalted is His glory—gave the Magians power over them; then they corrupted, so He—the Exalted—gave His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) power over them, so he annihilated their green plants, eradicated their roots, dispersed their gathering, and humiliated them; he expelled the Banu al-Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa, killed the Banu Qurayza, took the people of Khaybar captive, prevailed over Fadak, and the people of Wadi al-Qura submitted to him, and he imposed the jizya (tribute) on the protected people, and Allah kept them in a humiliation from which they shall never again be honored. Extinguishing the fire according to this is an expression of prevailing over them—may Allah fight them. "For war" is connected to "kindled," and the lam is for causal explanation, or connected to an implicit [word] that occurred as a modifier for "fire," which is more appropriate for the designation.
(And they strive in the earth in corruption), meaning they exert effort in plotting against Islam and its people and stirring up evil and sedition among them, which is different from what was expressed by kindling the fire of war, such as changing the qualities of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), introducing doubts to the weak among the Muslims, and walking with slander along with fabrication, and the like. "In corruption" is either a direct object [of cause], which is what Abu al-Baqa' limited himself to, or in the position of a verbal noun, or a hal from the pronoun in "they strive," meaning they strive for corruption, or a striving of corruption, or as corruptors.
(And Allah does not love the corruptors). Rather, He hates them, and for that reason, He extinguished the fire of their corruption. The lam (in al-mufsidun) is either for the genus, and they are included in it primarily, or for the covenant [of reference], and placing the noun in place of their pronoun is for causal explanation and clarification of their being rooted in corruption.
The initial sentence is driven to remove what might be imagined regarding the effect of their exertion [having] any bit of harm. Some made it in the position of a hal, and its benefit is the increase in condemning their state and making their affair atrocious.
