Al-Baqarah: (175) Those are the ones who have sold...

Know that when the Almighty described the Jewish scholars for concealing the truth and pronounced a severe threat against them, He described that transgression to show that the severity of the punishment is due to the magnitude of that crime.

Consider that an action can be judged either in this world or in the Hereafter. In this world, the best things are guidance and knowledge, and the worst things are misguidance and ignorance. Since they abandoned guidance and knowledge in this world and settled for misguidance and ignorance, there is no doubt that they are at the peak of treachery in this life. In the Hereafter, the best thing is forgiveness, and the most ruinous is punishment. Since they abandoned forgiveness and settled for punishment, there is no doubt that they are at the utmost loss in the Hereafter. Given their description as stated, they are inevitably the people of greatest loss in both worlds. Allah judged them as having "sold" punishment for forgiveness because, since they knew what the truth was, and they knew that revealing it and removing ambiguity brought the greatest reward, while concealing it and introducing doubt brought the greatest punishment, when they proceeded to conceal that truth, they were necessarily selling forgiveness for punishment.

Regarding His saying: {But how patient are they with the Fire?}

There are several issues concerning this phrase:

There are two main opinions on the meaning of this expression:

1. Interrogative Reproach: The mā (ما) in this verse is an interrogative particle used for severe reprimand. The meaning is: What makes them so patient, and what is it that sustains their patience regarding the Fire, that they abandoned the truth and followed falsehood? This is the view of 'Aṭā' and Ibn Zayd. Ibn al-Anbārī suggested that aṣbar (أصبر) can mean ṣabara (صبر), as the af'al form often substitutes for the simple verb form (like akrama for karuma).
2. Expression of Wonder/Astonishment: It means astonishment. The reasoning is that whoever is content with the cause (their actions) must necessarily be content with its consequence (the Fire). Since they engaged in actions that necessitate the Fire and God's punishment, knowing this consequence, they became like those content with and patient under God's punishment. Thus, Allah says, {But how patient are they with the Fire?}. This is like saying to someone who exposes himself to the Sultan's wrath: "How patient you are with being shackled and imprisoned!"

If this second interpretation is adopted, it becomes clear that the phrase {But how patient are they with the Fire?} must refer to their state in this world, as it describes them during the time of accountability, when they were selling guidance for misguidance.

Al-Aṣamm suggested that it refers to when they are told, {Be gone into it, and speak not to Me} (Al-Mu'minūn: 108), and they remain silent and patient with the Fire out of despair of salvation. This view is weak for two reasons:

1. Allah described them in the present tense, so diverting the meaning to a future state contradicts the apparent meaning.
2. The inhabitants of the Fire often exhibit distress and cry out for help.

Here we have two sub-discussions:

Sub-discussion 1: On Astonishment (Ta'ajjub)

Astonishment is the perception of something as great while the cause of its greatness is hidden. If both elements (greatness and hidden cause) are not present, astonishment does not occur—this is the fundamental principle. However, the term for astonishment may sometimes be used merely to express great magnitude, even if the cause is not hidden or if the greatness itself is not truly contingent on a cause. This is why Sharīḥ objected to the reading of {But I wondered, and they mock} (Aṣ-Ṣāffāt: 12) with the ḍammah on the tā' (implying ‘ajibt - "I wondered"), as he considered it impossible for anything to be hidden from God. Al-Nakha'ī stated that the meaning of astonishment concerning God is simply the perception of greatness, even if, in the case of humans, astonishment requires both greatness and a hidden cause. Similarly, terms like mockery (sukhriyyah) and plotting (makr) can be attributed to God, but not in the sense attributed to humans.

Sub-discussion 2: Forms of Astonishment

There are two primary forms for expressing astonishment in Arabic:

1. The Mā Af'alahu form, such as {But how patient are they with the Fire?}.
2. The Af'il Bihi form, such as {How much more hearing and seeing He is!} (Maryam: 38).

Concerning the First Form: Mā Af'alahu (e.g., Mā Aḥsana Zaydan)

There are several views on the structure of the phrase Mā Aḥsana Zaydan (How beautiful is Zayd!):

First Opinion (Preferred by the Basrans): The mā (ما) is an indefinite pronoun (ism mubham) serving as the subject (mubtada'). The verb (aḥsana) is the predicate (khabar). Zaydan is the object (maf'ūl bihi). The structure means: "A certain thing made Zayd beautiful."

The Kufans reject this view based on several arguments:

1. Inconsistency with Divine Attributes: We can say Mā Akrama Allāh (How great is God!), Mā A'ẓamahu, Mā A'lamahu, and similarly for all His attributes. It is impossible to say: "A certain thing made God Gracious, Great, or Knowing," because God's attributes are necessary to His essence. If one argues that when applied to contingent things, mā means astonishment, but when applied to God, it means only the magnitude aspect, we reply: If we say Mā A'ẓam Allāh, the word mā here cannot mean "a certain thing," so it cannot be the subject, and a'ẓam cannot be its predicate. Thus, this interpretation must be abandoned when applied to God.
2. Loss of Astonishment: If the meaning of Mā Aḥsana Zaydan were "A certain thing made Zayd beautiful," the sense of astonishment should remain when we state this explicitly. However, when we say, "A certain thing made Zayd beautiful," the sense of astonishment is completely lost; it becomes nonsensical. Therefore, interpreting Mā Aḥsana Zaydan this way is invalid.
3. The Agent of Beauty: The one who made Zayd, the sun, the moon, and the universe beautiful is God. It is not permissible to refer to Him by mā (thing). Even if it were permissible, referring to Him by man (who) would be more appropriate. If we said Man Aḥsana Zaydan (Who made Zayd beautiful?), the sense of astonishment should remain, but it does not. This proves the view is flawed.
4. Equivalence to Simple Verbal Sentences: According to their interpretation, there is no difference between Mā Aḥsana Zaydan and Zaydan ḍaraba 'Amran (Zayd struck 'Amr). Since the latter is not an expression of astonishment, the former should not be either.
5. Necessity vs. Contingency: Every attribute established for a thing is either inherent or derived from an external cause. If the cause is the thing itself or something else, then "a certain thing made it beautiful" is a necessary truth (whether that thing is itself or another). However, the knowledge that something is worthy of astonishment is not necessary. Therefore, interpreting Mā Aḥsana Zaydan as "A certain thing made Zayd beautiful" is impermissible.
6. Indefiniteness of the Subject: They claim the subject (mubtada') cannot be indefinite. How then can they make the most indefinite of things (mā) the subject? Furthermore, they say it is impermissible to say rajulun kātibun (a man is a writer) because everyone knows that some man is a writer, making the statement uninformative. Similarly, everyone knows some thing made Zayd beautiful, so what is the benefit of this assertion?
7. Inclusion of Diminutive Form: The diminutive form (which is a characteristic of nouns) can be applied to the verb in this construction, as in Mā Aḥsana Zaydan (where aḥsana is treated like a noun). If they argue this is because the verb has become fixed in one pattern, resembling a noun, we reply: The essence of a verb and the essence of the diminutive form are distinct. If they are mutually exclusive, their combination here proves this is not a verb. If they are not mutually exclusive, the diminutive form should apply to all verbs, which it does not. This invalidates their claim.
8. Vocalization and Declension: In astonishment, we say Mā Aqwama Zaydan (preserving the wāw), just as we say Zaydun aqwamu min 'Amrin. If aqwama were a verb, its wāw should have turned into an alif due to the preceding fatḥah (as in aqāma yuqīmu). If they argue that its fixed pattern makes it like a noun, we reply: The reason for vocalization changes in verbs (seeking lightness due to frequent conjugation) and non-vocalization in nouns (due to lack of conjugation) is based on function. This construction acts like a noun in maintaining the correct vocalization, suggesting it is treated as a noun. Furthermore, if the reason for lightness in verbs is to make it light, it should remain light; keeping it un-vocalized is closer to logic.
9. Separation: If aḥsana were a verb and Zaydan its object, it should be permissible to insert an adverbial phrase between them, such as Mā Aḥsana 'indaka Zaydan (How beautiful Zayd is in your view). However, this is generally not permissible, invalidating their view.
10. Restriction to Triliteral Verbs: If their view were correct, astonishment should be possible with every transitive verb, whether simple or augmented, triliteral or quadriliteral. Since it is restricted mainly to the simple triliteral form, this proves their view is flawed.

Basran Rebuttal (Defending Aḥsana as a Verb):

1. Aḥsana can be a verb, and we must assume it is a verb until evidence proves otherwise.
2. Aḥsana has a fatḥah at the end. If it were a noun serving as a predicate, it should be in the nominative case (raf') if it were the predicate of a subject.
3. The attached accusative pronoun (as in Mā Aḥsanahu) proves it is a verb.

Response to the Basran Rebuttal:

1. Aḥsana can be a noun (the comparative form, ism tafḍīl). Furthermore, we have provided numerous arguments proving it cannot be a verb in this context.
2. We will explain the reason for the final fatḥah later.
3. The argument based on the attached pronoun is weaker than the argument based on the diminutive form (which they conceded implies nominal status). If they abandon the stronger argument (diminutive form), they should certainly abandon this weaker one.

Second Opinion (Preferred by Al-Akhfash): The mā is followed by a phrase (aḥsana) which acts as the relative clause (ṣilah), and the predicate of mā is an implied pronoun. This is also weak for most of the reasons mentioned above, such as the resulting sentence not being coherent if phrased as: "That which made Zayd beautiful is not a well-formed statement."

Third Opinion (Preferred by Al-Farrā'): The mā is an interrogative particle, and aḥsana is a noun functioning as a comparative adjective (like aḥsanu min Zaydin). The meaning is: "What thing is more beautiful than Zayd?" This is an interrogation intended to deny that anything better than Zayd exists. It is like when someone makes a claim about someone's knowledge, and another denies it by asking: "Who knows more than so-and-so?" to show the claimant's falsehood and inability to provide proof.

Although aḥsana should grammatically be in the nominative case (like in the question Mā Aḥsanu Zaydin?—"Which part of Zayd is most beautiful?"), it is in the accusative case (naṣb) to distinguish this type of comparison from the simple inquiry. In the simple inquiry, the meaning is "Which part of Zayd is most beautiful?" Here, the meaning is "What entity in the world is more beautiful than Zayd?" The difference in vocalization marks the difference in meaning. The accusative case for Zaydan is also for distinction, as in the simple inquiry, it would be in the genitive case (khafḍ) because it is added to aḥsana (as an iḍāfah). Furthermore, every comparative form implies an action, and the thing being compared against implies the passive voice. For example, Zaydun a'lamu min 'Amrin means Zayd surpassed 'Amr in knowledge. This verbal sense is considered when distinction is necessary.

Fourth Opinion (Also held by some Kufans): The mā is interrogative, and aḥsana is a verb, as the Basrans claim. The meaning is: "What thing made Zayd beautiful?" This implies that the perfection of this beauty leads one to question the perfection of the agent who caused it. Since the questioner's intellect cannot grasp the full extent of that perfection, he asks others to explain its perfection to him.

We will discuss the structure of Af'il Bihi in detail in the commentary on {How much more hearing and seeing He is!} (Maryam: 38).

7. {That is because Allah has sent down the Book in truth, and indeed, those who differ concerning the Book are in extreme dissension.}