Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:66

This means to fulfill their due right by observing the rulings contained within them, among which are the proofs of the prophethood of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the glad tidings of his mission. It does not mean observing every ruling contained within them, whether abrogated or otherwise, for that is not part of "upholding" (the scriptures) in any way.

"And what has been sent down to them from their Lord"—referring to the Glorious Quran, which confirms what came before it, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and chosen by al-Jubba'i and others. It is said that the relative pronoun refers to the books of the prophets of the Children of Israel, such as the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Habakkuk, and the Book of Daniel, for they are filled with glad tidings regarding the mission of the Prophet (ﷺ), a view favored by Abu Hayyan. It is also permissible for the meaning to encompass both the former and the Glorious Quran. The descent of the Book to someone is merely its arrival to them and the obligation to act upon it, even if the revelation was not originally sent directly to that person. Expressing the Quran with this title is intended to signify the obligation upon them to uphold it because it was sent down to them, and to explicitly invalidate their claim that it was not sent down to the Children of Israel. Placing "to them" before "from their Lord" is for the reason previously mentioned. Adding "the Lord" to their pronoun contains increased gentleness toward them in the call to "uphold."

"They would have eaten from above them and from below their feet"—that is, the sky would have given them its rain and blessings, and the earth its vegetation and bounty, as the Almighty said: “We would have opened for them blessings from the heaven” (7:96). This was stated by Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, and Mujahid. It is said the meaning is that they would have benefited from the abundance of tree fruits and crop yields. Others say it refers to fruits that fall from the tops of trees or descend to the ground. Some say it refers to what comes to them from their leaders and kings, and what is given to them by their subordinates and laborers. It is also said that it is meant to hyperbolically describe vastness and fertility, not to designate two specific directions, as if to say: "They would have eaten from every direction." Al-Tabarsi likens this to the saying: "Such a person is in prosperity from his crown to his feet," meaning prosperity comes to him from every direction he seeks it. "Eating" here signifies general benefit, expressed as such because it is the greatest of benefits, which entails all others. The object of "eaten" is omitted to intend generalization, or to focus on the action itself, as in the saying: "Such a person gives and withholds." The "from" (min) in both places is for the beginning of the reach (starting point).

We shall indicate, by the will of the Almighty, in the section on Ishara (allusive interpretation), the secret behind mentioning the "feet." In the first conditional sentence, there is an incitement toward an afterlife matter, while in the second, there is an incitement toward a worldly matter. This alerts us that the distress and constriction experienced by those rebellious ones resulted from the ill-omen of their own crimes, not from any deficiency in the overflowing grace of the Bestower. The incitement toward the afterlife matter is presented first because it is more important, as it holds everlasting salvation and permanent bliss. The expressions differ—first saying "believe and fear" (taqwa), and second "uphold this and that"—as a way of following the path of rhetoric. It is said that the second conditional might allude to what befell the Banu Qurayza and Banu al-Nadir regarding the cutting of their date palms, the ruin of their crops, and their expulsion from their homelands. It is as if it were said regarding them: "If they had remained in their homes and benefited from their palms and crops, but they transgressed beyond the 'upholding,' so they were deprived and wandered in the deserts of distress, for they were unjust."

Some distinguish between the two conditionals, arguing that the first implies a binding necessity for the People of the Book until the Day of Resurrection, for there is no doubt that if a person of the Book believes and fears God, Allah will remove their evil deeds and enter them into His mercy, whether that person was a contemporary of the Prophet (ﷺ) or otherwise. This is not the case for the second conditional, as the binding necessity appears specific to contemporaries. We see many of the People of the Book today far removed from the aforementioned "upholding," yet they have been granted more prosperity than many who have "upheld." We also see many of them who uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what was sent down from their Lord, believing in Allah and His Messenger (ﷺ) in a befitting manner, yet they are in distress of life before and after, their situation unchanged; perhaps they are in comfort, then when they "uphold," the ship of their life stops and they fall into a predicament. (This interpretation) treats it like the first conditional and interprets "expansion" as something broader than visible, superficial expansion—namely, spiritual expansion, such as being granted contentment and satisfaction with what is in their hands, so that even if it is little, it seems much to them. I do not believe this carries weight in your heart, nor would I hold it to settle what is said. The claim that it is like the first, except that the binding necessity between their collective "upholding" and their collective benefit—i.e., if all of them upheld the Torah, all would eat from above them, but not if only some did—I find to be a rejection of speech and a falsehood.

Some investigators have mentioned that some interpreted the Almighty's saying, “They would have eaten...” as “He would have expanded their provision,” and they explained "expansion" in ways they listed, not making it inclusive of the provision of both realms. If it were taken as a progression, detailing in the second what was summarized in the first as a condition and result, that would be a valid approach. And with this aspect, I speak, and toward it, I turn, and I see it as almost certain, except that the difference between the two conditionals makes them not equal, and the difficulty remains in one aspect; there is no escape from it as I see it, except by going toward the difference between the two conditionals. Perhaps the opportunity will lead, if Allah wills, to the verification of what relates to this station, so contemplate.

"Among them is a moderate nation"—meaning a just party, neither excessive nor negligent. They are those among them who embraced Islam and followed the Prophet (ﷺ), as Mujahid, al-Suddi, and Ibn Zayd stated, and this was chosen by al-Jubba'i. These are individuals like Abdullah ibn Salam and his likes among the Jews, and forty-eight of the Christians. It is also said that they are the Negus and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them). The sentence is an initiating one, built upon a question arising from the essence of the two conditionals starting with the particle of prevention (implying the negation of belief, piety, and upholding). It is as if it were asked: "Are they all dismissed due to the lack of faith and its two companions?" It is said: "Among them is..." and the interpretation of "moderate" as being "middle-ground in hostility" is far-fetched.

"And many of them—evil is that which they do"—they are the ignorant fanatics like Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and his likes, and the Romans. Evil is like "wretched" (bi'sa) for condemnation. Some grammarians suggest it contains the meaning of wonder—like "how wretched is Zayd's action," meaning how evil it is. Others say it is merely for condemnation and wonder is derived from the context. Its predicate (the differentiator) is omitted, and "what" (ma) is a relative pronoun acting as its subject—meaning: "Evil is that which they do." It is also possible that "what" is indefinite in the position of a differentiator, and the construction is the predicate for the subject, and the discussion on this is well-known.