Tafsir of Al-Mujadilah 58:14

(Have you not seen) is an expression of astonishment at the state of the hypocrites who used to take the Jews as allies, seeking their counsel and conveying to them the secrets of the believers. There is in this, as Al-Khafaji stated, a shift in tone by turning away from the believers to address the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). That is: Have you not looked (at those who have taken as allies)—meaning, befriended—(a people with whom Allah is angry), who are the Jews. (They are not)—that is, those who have taken them as allies—(of you), O community of believers, (nor of them), meaning, from those people with whom He is angry, I mean the Jews, because they are hypocrites, wavering between the two. In the Hadith: "The example of the hypocrite is like the ewe wandering between two flocks," meaning she is hesitant between two herds, not knowing which one to follow.

Ibn Atiyyah allowed that (they) might refer to the people (the Jews), and the pronoun in (of them) to those who have taken them as allies. He then said: The action of the hypocrites in this case is more ignoble, because they have befriended those with whom Allah is angry, who are neither of their own kin—to whom they would owe a duty of protection—nor of the people of truth, such that their allegiance would be correct. The first interpretation is the manifest one, and according to it, the sentence is a new statement (isti'naf). It has also been permitted to be a circumstantial clause (hal) from the subject of (taken as allies), though it was rejected due to the absence of the "waw" (conjunction). This was countered by the fact that they (grammarians) have clarified that a nominal sentence, whether affirmative or negative, may occur as a circumstantial clause using only the "waw," or only the pronoun, or both together. In this case, it comes with the pronoun, namely "hum" (they). According to Ibn Atiyyah, it is in the position of an adjective for "a people." Mawla Sa'd Allah mentioned that there is a "redirection" (iltifat) in (of you), but this was contested by saying that if the address to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prevails, then it is manifest that there is no redirection in it. If it does not prevail, the same applies, for there is no departure from the apparent meaning, given that the address to them (the believers) preceded it. Regarding it as a redirection according to the view of Al-Sakkaki, there is room for consideration.

(And they swear to lies) is a conjunction linked to (taken as allies), included within the scope of the astonishment. It is also permitted that it be a conjunction linked to the sentence (they are not of you), with the imperfect tense (mudari') indicating the repetition of their swearing. Regarding His saying: (while they know)—this is a circumstantial clause from the subject of (they swear), indicating the absolute heinousness of what they did, for swearing to what one knows is a lie is at the peak of ugliness. This has been used as evidence that "lying" encompasses both that which the informant knows to be in accordance with reality and that which he does not know to be in accordance with it. This is used to refute the schools of Al-Nazzam and Al-Jahiz, as according to them, there would be no need for this qualification. A discussion has been raised that it is possible for "lying" to mean that which contradicts their belief, with (while they know) meaning "knowing the opposite of it," in which case the sentence is a circumstantial clause that is emphatic rather than restrictive. Indeed, establishing a new meaning is the primary principle, but it is not definitive, and the possibility invalidates the evidence. The lie they swore to was their claim of being Muslims in truth.

It is also said: They did not insult the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), based on what is narrated: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was sitting in the shade of one of his chambers, and with him were a group of Muslims. He said: "There will come to you a man looking at you with the eyes of a devil. When he comes to you, do not speak to him." Not long after, a man with blue eyes appeared to them. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) saw him, he said: "Why do you and your companions insult me?" The man said: "Let me go; I will bring them to you." He left and summoned them, and they swore (that they did not), and so this was revealed. This Hadith was recorded by Imam Ahmad, Al-Bazzar, Ibn Al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Dala'il, Ibn Marduyah, and Al-Hakim, who authenticated it on the authority of Ibn Abbas—except that its end is: "Then Allah revealed: 'On the day Allah will resurrect them all and they will swear to Him as they swear to you' (Quran 58:18), and the verse after it." Perhaps he also intended that the "lie" refers to their claim that they did not insult him. In Al-Bahr, a similar report is attributed to Al-Suddi and Muqatil: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to his companions: "A man will enter upon you whose heart is the heart of a tyrant, and he looks with the eyes of a devil." Then Abdullah bin Nabtal entered; he was blue-eyed, dark-skinned, short, and had sparse facial hair. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Why do you and your companions insult me?" He swore by Allah that he had not done so. The Prophet said: "You have done it." He brought his companions, and they swore by Allah that they had not insulted him, so this was revealed. Allah the Almighty knows the validity of this.

This Abdullah is the man who was unnamed in the first report; he is Ibn Nabtal—with a fatha on the "n," a sukun on the "ba," followed by a "ta" (with two dots above), and a "lam"—the Ansari, the Awsite. Ibn al-Kalbi and Al-Baladhuri mentioned him among the hypocrites, and Abu Ubaydah mentioned him among the Companions. Thus, it is possible, as Ibn Hajar said, that it became known that he repented. As for what is said in Al-Qamus: "Abdullah ibn Nabil, like amir, among the hypocrites," it is possible that he is this same man, though there is a difference of opinion regarding the vocalization of his father's name. It is also possible that he is another.