Al-Baqarah: (90) Evil is that for which they sold themselves...

Know that the discussion regarding the true nature of "B'sa ma" (Evil is that which) can only be achieved through several issues:

Issue 1: The Origin of Na'ama and Bi'sa

The origin of Na'ama (How good) and Bi'sa (How evil) is with the first vowel open (fatḥa) and the second vowel short (kasra), like saying (ʿalima). However, when the second letter is a guttated consonant (ḥalqī) and is vowelized with a kasra, four linguistic forms are permissible:

1. The Original Form: With the first vowel open (fatḥa) and the second vowel short (kasra).
2. Following the Second Vowel: The first vowel follows the second, meaning the nūn and the ʿayn are both vowelized with kasra. This is analogous to saying fakhidh (thigh) with both letters vowelized with kasra. Although generally avoided, combining two kasras is permitted here because the guttated consonant encourages the vowelization of its neighbor.
3. Sukun on the Gutted Letter: The kasra on the guttated consonant is replaced by sukun (vowelization cessation), leaving the preceding letter as it was. Thus, one says na'am and bi's (first vowel open, second vowel sukun), similar to saying fakhdh (thigh) with the khā' having sukun.
4. Transferring the Vowel: The guttated consonant becomes sukun, and its kasra is transferred to the preceding letter. Thus, one says ni'ma (with kasra on nūn and sukun on ʿayn), similar to saying fakhid (with fatḥa on fā' and sukun on khā').

Although this last change is permissible when these two words are used in isolation, grammarians made it obligatory for them because they deviate from the function of past tense verbs, which is to report the occurrence of the verbal noun in the past. Instead, Na'ama and Bi'sa became words of praise and blame, intended for exaggeration. This necessary linguistic change signals a deviation from the original meaning. Therefore, they say, "Na'ama ar-rajulu Zaydun" (Zayd is a good man), and they rarely use the original form except in poetic necessity, as Al-Mubarrid cited:

Issue 2: They are Verbs

Na'ama and Bi'sa are verbs derived from namiʿa and basiʿa (with the present tense yan'amu and yab'asu). The proof is that the feminine marker tā' can be attached to them, resulting in ni'mat and bi'sat.

Al-Farrā' considers them nouns, citing the verse by Hassan ibn Thābit (may Allah be pleased with him):

Also cited is the report of a Bedouin who was given news of a newborn daughter. When told, "Your daughter is a good newborn," he replied, "By Allah, she is not a good newborn." The Basrans respond that this usage is by way of ḥikāyah (recounting/quoting).

Issue 3: The Subject of Na'ama and Bi'sa

Na'ama and Bi'sa are roots for goodness and badness, and their subject (fā'il) is a noun that encompasses the entire genus, either explicitly mentioned or implied.

Explicit Subject (Two types):

1. Like saying, "Na'ama ar-rajulu Zaydun" (Zayd is the good man). You do not mean a man, but rather the man in absolute terms.
2. Like saying, "Na'ama ghuālamu ar-rajuli Zaydun" (Zayd is the good youth of the man). The verse:

   "So good a companion for a people who have no weapons, And companion of the caravan is 'Uthmān ibn 'Affān." is considered rare. It is suggested that this occurred because "companion of the caravan" already indicates the intended person (since the meaning is singular), so using the definite article (alif wa lām) in "the caravan" implies it for "the people" as well.

Implied Subject: Like saying, "Na'ama rajulan Zaydun" (Zayd is a good man). The original structure was "Na'ama ar-rajulu rajulan Zaydun," but the first rajul (the subject) was omitted because the accusative indefinite noun (nukra manṣūba) indicates it, just as in "ʿishrūna rajulan" (twenty men). The specification (tamyīz) must be indefinite; no one says "ʿishrūna ad-darāhim." If they had intended to use the definite article here, they would have raised the subject and said "Na'ama ar-rajulu" and avoided the need for implication. They implied the subject intentionally for brevity, as "Na'ama rajulan" already points to the genus being praised above.

Issue 4: The Status of Zayd in "Na'ama ar-rajulu Zaydun"

This statement has two possibilities:

1. Delayed Subject: Zayd is the delayed subject (mubtada' mu'akhkhar), as if one said, "Zaydun na'ama ar-rajulu," where Zayd was postponed, intending it to be first, similar to saying, "Marartu bihi al-miskeen" (I passed by him, the poor one), intending "Al-miskeen marartu bihi." Since ar-rajul (the man) is a common term encompassing the genus, Zayd falls under it, acting as the antecedent to which the pronoun refers.
2. Predicate of a Deleted Subject: Zayd is the predicate (khabar) of a deleted subject (mubtada' maḥdhūf). After saying "Na'ama ar-rajulu," one might ask, "Who is this person being praised?" The answer is, "Zaydun," meaning, "He is Zayd."

Issue 5: The Specific Object of Praise/Blame

The specific object of praise or blame must belong to the genus mentioned after Na'ama or Bi'sa (e.g., Zayd is one of the men). Given this, the noun added to the people in the verse: {Evil is the example of the people who denied Our signs} (Al-A'rāf: 177) must be deleted. The meaning is: "Evil is the example, the example of the people who denied Our signs."

Having summarized these issues, let us return to the exegesis.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {Evil is that for which they sold themselves, that they disbelieved} (Al-Baqarah: 90), there are two issues:

The word (mā) is an indefinite noun in the accusative case, serving as a mufassir (explainer) for the subject of bi'sa. It means: "How evil is the thing for which they sold themselves." The specific object of blame (al-maḵṣūṣ bi-dh-dhamm) is {that they disbelieved} (an yakfarū).

There are two opinions regarding the "selling" here:

1. It means Selling (Bayʿ): The explanation is that when Allah enabled the accountable person to choose between faith (leading to Paradise) and disbelief (leading to Hellfire), choosing one over the other is like choosing one commodity over another. If they choose faith, which brings salvation, one could say, "How good is that which they bought." Since the goal of buying and selling is the exchange of ownership, it is valid to describe either party as the buyer or seller because this action occurs from both sides. Thus, the interpretation of {Evil is that for which they sold themselves} is valid, meaning: They sold their souls for their disbelief. Because what they obtained in exchange for the benefits of their souls was disbelief, they became sellers of themselves through it.

2. The Stronger Opinion (My view): When an accountable person fears Allah's punishment, they perform deeds they believe will save them from that punishment. It is as if they have "bought" their souls with those deeds. These Jews, believing that what they did would save them from punishment and lead them to reward, thought they had bought their souls with those deeds. Allah blamed them, saying, {Evil is that for which they sold themselves}. This second view is closer to the meaning and the wording than the first.

Allah then clarified what they bought their souls with: {that they disbelieved in what Allah sent down}. There is no doubt that this refers to their disbelief in the Qur'an, as the address is to the Jews who believed in other scriptures.

Then, Allah explained the reason they chose this disbelief in what Allah sent down: {out of envy (baghyan)}. This points to their motive for disbelief, similar to saying, "So-and-so hates so-and-so out of envy," to indicate the underlying reason. Without this explanation, we might assume they disbelieved out of ignorance, not envy.

This verse indicates that envy is forbidden (ḥarām). Since baghy (transgression/envy) can stem from various reasons, Allah clarified their motive for this envy: {out of Allah sending down His grace upon whomever He wills of His servants}. The context fits only what we have narrated: they believed this great favor—the awaited Prophethood—would be among their people. When they found it among the Arabs, this led them to envy and transgression.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {So they incurred wrath upon wrath}, there are issues:

There are several interpretations for the dual wrath:

1. Two Distinct Causes: There must be two established causes for the two instances of wrath. The first was their denial of Jesus (peace be upon him) and what was revealed to him. The second is their denial of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and what was revealed to him. Thus, they entered into one wrath after another, and one displeasure after another from Allah, because they entered into one cause after another. This is the view of Al-Hasan, Al-Sha'bī, 'Ikrimah, Abū al-'Āliyah, and Qatādah.
2. Accumulation of Types of Wrath: It does not mean only two instances of wrath, but rather the accumulation of successive types of wrath due to successive sins they committed, similar to phrases like {The Jews say: 'Allah is poor and we are rich'} (Āl 'Imrān: 181) and {The hand of Allah is tied up} (Al-Mā'idah: 64), and other forms of their disbelief. This is the view of 'Aṭā' and 'Ubayd ibn 'Umayr.
3. Emphasis and Intensification: It means emphasizing and multiplying the wrath because, although the disbelief was singular, its gravity was immense. This is the view of Abū Muslim.
4. Specific Sins: The first wrath was for their worship of the calf, and the second was for concealing the description of Muhammad and denying his prophethood. This is the view of Al-Suddi.

Wrath, in reality, is the change that occurs in a person's temperament due to the boiling of the heart's blood upon witnessing something disliked. This is impossible for Allah. Therefore, it is interpreted as His will to inflict harm upon those who disobey Him, through cursing and commanding such infliction.

It is valid to describe Allah with wrath, and that His wrath increases and multiplies, just as it is valid to describe Him with punishment. Thus, His wrath upon someone who disbelieves in one characteristic is not the same as His wrath upon someone who disbelieves in many characteristics.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment}, there are issues:

The phrase {And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment} has an advantage over saying, "And they have a humiliating punishment." The first expression includes those disbelievers and others, whereas the second expression includes only them.

In reality, punishment cannot be humiliating because that implies it humiliates something else, which is only possible for an intelligent being. Allah is the One who humiliates the punished ones with severe punishment. However, since humiliation occurs alongside the punishment, it is permissible to attribute it as a description. If one asks: Since punishment is never without humiliation, what is the benefit of this description? We reply: The fact that the punishment is coupled with humiliation requires proof, and Allah mentioned it to serve as that proof.

A group said that {And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment} proves that no one is punished except the disbeliever. Based on this premise, two groups argued:

1. The Khawārij: They argued that other verses prove the sinner (fāsiq) is punished, and this verse proves only the disbeliever is punished. Therefore, the sinner must be a disbeliever.
2. The Murji'ah: They argued that this verse proves only the disbeliever is punished, and they hold that the sinner is not a disbeliever. Therefore, it must be definitively concluded that the sinner is not punished.

The falsehood of both these views is evident.

7 < {And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us," and they disbelieve in what is beyond it, while it is the truth, confirming what is with them. Say, "Then why did you kill the prophets of Allah before, if you were believers?"} >