Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:83

“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears” is a conjunction attached to “they are not arrogant.” The particle “idhā” (when) is in the accusative position governed by “tarā” (you see), and the sentence “tafīḍu” (overflowing) is in the position of a state (ḥāl). The vision referred to is optical—meaning this occurs because they do not act arrogantly, and when they hear the Quran, you see their eyes overflowing with tears. Al-Samīn and others have permitted the possibility of it being an inception (isti’nāf). In any case, it is an explanation of the softness of their hearts, the intensity of their fear, their hastening to accept the truth, and their lack of resistance toward it. The apparent meaning is that the pronoun in “sami‘ū” (they heard) refers back to those who said, “We are Christians.” It has been previously mentioned that the apparent meaning here is general; however, it has been said that what is intended here is specific—those who came from Abyssinia to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—since not all Christians are like this.

“Al-fayḍ” (overflowing) means gushing forth due to being filled, and it is placed here in the position of “being filled” by substituting the effect for the cause—meaning their eyes become filled with tears—or it is intended as hyperbole, such that their eyes themselves are made to overflow because of the tears. This is what was stated in al-Kashshāf. According to what is in al-Kashf, the tears in the first interpretation are the specific water, while in the second, it is the event itself. In the first, it is the material origin, while in the second, it is causative.

In al-Inṣāf, it is stated that this expression is the most eloquent of expressions, consisting of three levels: First: fāḍa dam‘u ‘aynihi (the tear of his eye overflowed), which is the primary form. Second: fāḍat ‘aynuhu dam‘an (his eye overflowed with tears), wherein the action has been transferred to the eye metaphorically and hyperbolically, then the original and literal meaning is pointed out by using the accusative case for what was the subject (the tear) as a specifier (tamyīz). Third: the text of the Noble Quran, which includes the aforementioned transfer, but is more eloquent than the second because it omits the indication of the original form, does not use the specifier in the accusative, and presents it in the form of a causal clause. Al-Zamakhsharī permitted the possibility that the “min” (from) in this case is the one prefixed to the specifier, but this is rejected, even though the Kufans held the view that it is permissible to define the specifier and that its being indefinite is not a condition—as is the school of the majority—because the specifier transferred from the subject prohibits the entry of “min” upon it, even if it is implied with it. Thus, it is not permissible to say: tafaqqa’a Zaydun min shaḥm (Zayd swelled from fat). Let this be understood.

“Mimmā ‘arafū min al-ḥaqq” (from what they have recognized of the truth): The first “min” is for the initiation of the limit, connected to a concealed element that acts as a state (ḥāl) for “tears”—meaning, in a state of them arising from the recognition of the truth. It is also permitted that it be causative, connected to “tafīḍu” (overflowing)—meaning their tears overflow because of their recognition.

It is also permitted, assuming it denotes the initiation of the limit, that it be connected to the same, but it is not permissible—assuming the connection for this “min” and the “min” in “min al-dam‘i” (from the tears) is one—to say they are identical in meaning, for a single particle cannot be connected in meaning to a single operator.

The second “min” is for partiality (tab‘īḍ), connected to “‘arafū” (they recognized), meaning they recognized some of the truth and it caused them to weep; so how would it be if they recognized all of it, recited the Quran, and grasped the Sunnah? Or, it is to explain the “mā” (what), based on the view that it is a relative pronoun. Abū al-Baqā’ asserted that it is connected to a concealed element acting as a state for the omitted referent, and he did not mention the first possibility.

It was recited “turā a‘yunuhum” in the passive voice.

“Yaqūlūna” (they say): An inception based on a question that arose from the narration of their state upon hearing the Quran, as if it were said: “What do they say?” So the reply is: “Rabbanā āmannā” (Our Lord, we have believed) in what was revealed, or in Him to whom it was revealed, or in both.

Abū al-Baqā’ said: It is a state for the pronoun in “‘arafū”. Al-Samīn said: Both are permissible. Its being a state from the genitive pronoun in “a‘yunuhum” (their eyes) is [valid] because the possessor is part of it, as in the saying of the Almighty: “And We shall remove what is in their breasts of resentment [as] brothers.”

“Faktubnā ma‘a al-shāhidīn” (So write us down with the witnesses): Meaning, place us in Your presence with Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his nation who will testify on the Day of Resurrection, according to what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), or with those who testify to the truthfulness of Your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and Your Book, as is reported from al-Jubbā’ī, and it is narrated in this sense from al-Ḥasan.