Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:70

(We have taken a covenant of the Children of Israel): This is an introductory statement, advanced to clarify another of their crimes, which shouts of their being far removed from faith. Some have linked it to what Allah the Exalted opened the Surah with, namely His saying: "Fulfill [all] covenants," but its remoteness [from that context] is not hidden. The covenant intended here is the confirmed oath taken by their prophets from them regarding faith in Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and following him in what he commands and forbids, or [a covenant] regarding monotheism and the rest of the laws and ordinances prescribed for them in the Torah.

(And We sent to them messengers): Those of great number and significant status, who would make this [covenant] known to them, commit them to admonition and remembrance, and inform them of what they should do and leave in their religion.

(Whenever there came to them a messenger with what did not suit their souls): That is, with the laws and the hardships of the obligations that their souls did not incline toward. This expression was used rather than "what their souls disliked" to emphasize the condemnation of them. The word "kullama" (whenever), as Abu Hayyan stated, is in the accusative case as an adverb of time due to its annexation to the masdariyyah (infinitive) "ma," and it is not a conditional particle, though the jurists and the rationalists have applied that term to it. Al-Safaqisi justified this by saying that calling it a condition is due to it requiring an answer, like the non-assertive conditional particle; it is like "idha" (when), and there is no harm in that. Its answer, as has been said, is His saying: "A party they denied and a party they kill."

It has been said: The answer is omitted, indicated by what is mentioned. Ibn al-Munir estimated it as "they acted arrogantly," because of its appearance in His saying: "So is it that whenever a messenger came to you with what your souls did not desire, you acted arrogantly? Then a party..." Others suggested "they acted with hostility" (nasabu) because it is more pertinent to the reproach regarding how they responded to the arrival of the messenger who guides them, and it is more appropriate for the detail that occurred, which is of the utmost ugliness, namely killing, as we shall point out, Allah willing; for arrogance only leads to this through acting with hostility. As for the other verse, it intended to condemn arrogance as it is in itself, because the context required it. Some claimed that the use of "fa" (then/so) in the verse of arrogance is an indication of the existence of an intermediary, as if it were said: "You acted arrogantly, then you acted with hostility, then a party..." but this is open to objection.

The sentence is, at that point, an inception (isti'naf) to clarify the answer. Al-Zamakhshari deemed this view certain because the speech is a detailed explanation of the judgment regarding the individuals of the collective of messengers mentioned previously; that is, "whenever a messenger from among the messengers came to them," and what is mentioned by His saying "a party they denied..." necessitates that the one who came each time was two parties, which creates a mutual conflict. Even if one were to disregard this, it is not eloquent in such a context to estimate an object [as one does] in "If you honor my brother, you honor [your] brother," because it implies exclusivity, which necessitates certainty regarding the occurrence of the base action while there is a dispute regarding the object, and [because] hanging it upon the condition suggests doubt regarding the base action. Furthermore, placing the object before [the verb], according to what has been said, necessitates the "fa" either to make the verb distant from the effector, requiring a connector, or because placing the object before [the verb] makes it resemble a nominal sentence, which requires the "fa."

It has been said: There is another obstacle, for the meaning is that whenever a messenger came to them, one of the two things happened, not both. If "kanu" (they were) were the answer, it would be the obvious [choice], or [it would be] instead of the "waw." Those who make the sentence the answer did not look to these obstacles. Some researchers said: As for the first, it is for the sake of exaggeration that the killing of one is made like the killing of a party. It is also said that "the messenger" is a genus that applies to many, and it is supported by "kullama," which denotes frequency. As for the second, the rules of the Arabic language do not demand such a thing, and the aspects mentioned are illusions that should not be looked at; nothing like them is found in the books of grammar, and from this, the refutation of the latter is known. Our master Shihab al-Din retorted that it is astonishing for one who is well-versed to be oblivious to such a thing, for he said in Sharh al-Tashil: "It is permissible to say 'If he brings good, it will reach him'," contrary to al-Farra'. Its commentators said: Sibawayh and al-Kisa'i permitted placing the accusative [object] before the answer while maintaining the jussive; al-Kisa'i cited: "For good there are days; so whoever is patient for them and knows their days, the good will reach him," where the estimation is "the good will reach him." Al-Farra' forbade this while maintaining the jussive, saying: "Rather, the nominative is mandatory due to placing the [object] first, or by assuming the 'fa'," and he interpreted the poem as "the good" being an adjective for "days," as if he said: "Its good days."

Ibn Malik chose this school of thought in some of his books. When al-Zamakhshari saw the commonality of the obstacle between the assertive condition and what is in its meaning, he leaned toward it, especially since the power of the meaning requires it; it is the truth.

The conditional sentence is an adjective for "messengers," and the connector is omitted, i.e., "a messenger among them." The majority of grammarians have adopted this. Our master, the Shaykh al-Islam, chose the view that the conditional sentence is an inception (isti'naf), which serves as an answer to a question arising from the report of taking the covenant and sending the messengers, as if it were said: "What did they do to the messengers?" It was said: "Whenever a messenger from among those messengers came to them with what their souls—steeped in error and corruption—did not love of the true rulings and laws, they disobeyed him and showed him hostility."

May Allah show mercy to him, he objected to the majority's view of it being an adjective, saying that the context does not support it, for if a declarative sentence is made an adjective or a relative clause, the judgment it contains is abrogated and made a title for the described, as a completion of it. Thus, it is necessary that [the described] be known to possess it. They said: "Adjectives before they are known are reports, and reports after they are known are descriptions." There is no doubt that what the order was intended for is only to clarify that they made every messenger who came to them a target for killing and denial, according to what making it an inception (isti'naf) in the most eloquent and emphatic way conveys, not to explain that He sent them messengers who were described as each being such, as is the requirement of making it an adjective.

Al-Shihab retorted that this is an imagination that has no basis, for His saying "We have taken a covenant of the Children of Israel..." is driven to clarify their crimes and lament them for it, as the objector admitted, and it does not convey that except by considering the adjective, which is the goal of the view, just as in the rest of the constraints. As for it being "known," there is no harm in that; for if you reproach a person and say to him, "You did such and such," and he is the one who knows better what he did, that does not harm in reproaching and blaming him; rather, it is stronger, as is not hidden from those expert in the styles of speech. Do not pay attention to such illusions. It is not hidden that in his saying "it does not convey that except by considering the adjective..." there is an evident prohibition, and likewise, making what we are discussing similar to your saying to a person you wish to reproach, "You did such and such," when he knows better what he did, contains obscurity. What fairness dictates after reflection is the permissibility of both possibilities, and that what the Shaykh al-Islam went toward is more appropriate, so reflect and be fair.

The expression "they kill" (yaqtuluna), even though the obvious would be "they killed" (qatalu), just as "they denied" (kadhdhabu), is to bring the past state of their ancestors to mind in order to express astonishment at it. This was not intended in the [case of] denial, to give greater concern to the killing. In that, there is also the observance of the rhythm of the endings (the fawasil). Some attributed the expression in the imperfect tense to alerting that this is their continuous habit; they are still hovering around killing the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Others limited it to the intention of narrating the state, because of the evidence of the third-person pronouns. The advancement of "a party" in both instances is for emphasis and to stimulate the listener toward what they did to him, not for exclusivity (qasr).