Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:6

Having previously mentioned His allies and sincere servants, describing the qualities that qualified them to attain proximity to Him, and having clarified that the Book is guidance and grace specifically for them, He follows this by mentioning their opposites: the stubborn, rebellious disbelievers for whom guidance is of no benefit and grace is of no avail. For them, the presence or absence of the Book, and the warning or silence of the Messenger, are all the same.

Question: Why was the story of the disbelievers disconnected from the story of the believers, rather than being conjoined, as in the verse: "Indeed, the righteous will be in pleasure, and indeed, the wicked will be in Hell" (Al-Infitar: 14-15) and other similar verses?

Answer: The weight of these two passages is not the same as the one you mentioned. The first passage (the believers) was driven by the mention of the Book and that it is guidance for the righteous. The second was driven by the fact that the disbelievers possess such-and-such qualities. Thus, there is a disparity in purpose and style between the two sentences, placing them in a category where there is no room for a conjunction.

Question: This applies if you claim that "those who believe" follows the "righteous." But if you treat it as a new beginning, constructing the speech for the description of the believers and then following it with another statement regarding their opposites, it would be like those verses cited.

Answer: I have already stated that speech initiated after the mention of the righteous is intended as a new beginning (isti'naf), built upon an implied question. This includes it under the ruling of the righteous and makes it a follower in meaning, even if it is a new beginning in wording; in reality, it is like that which follows it.

The definite article in "those who disbelieve" (alladhīna kafarū): It may be for specific reference (al-'ahd), intending specific individuals like Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, and their ilk. Or, it may be for the generic category (al-jins), encompassing everyone who has persisted in their disbelief with such determination that they will not be deterred thereafter. The mention of the equality of warning and non-warning indicates that it encompasses those who persist.

"Equal" (sawā'un): It is a noun meaning "equality," used as a descriptor just as verbal nouns (maṣādir) are used. Examples include: "Come to a word that is equal between us and you" (Al-Imran: 64), and "in four days, equal for those who ask" (Fussilat: 10), meaning "level." Its nominative case is due to it being the predicate of inna.

"Whether you warn them or do not warn them" (a-andhartahum am lam tundhirhum): This is in the position of a nominative, acting as the subject (of the predicate sawā'un), as if it were said: "Indeed, those who disbelieve, your warning and its absence are equal to them."

Alternatively, a-andhartahum am lam tundhirhum is in the position of an initial subject (mubtada'), and sawā'un is a fronted predicate, meaning "your warning and its absence are equal to them," and the whole sentence is the predicate of inna.

Question: A verb is always a predicate, not something to be predicated about. How is it valid to predicate about it in this speech? Answer: It is of the type of speech where the literal wording is abandoned in favor of the meaning. We have found the Arabs leaning clearly toward meanings in parts of their speech. An example is their saying: "Do not eat fish and drink milk," meaning "Let there be no eating of fish and drinking of milk from you," even though the literal wording appears to be an incorrect conjunction of a noun to a verb.

The hamza and am are stripped of the meaning of interrogation; the meaning of questioning has completely vanished from them. Sibawayh said: "This has proceeded on the form of the interrogative particle just as it proceeded on the form of the vocative particle in your saying: 'O Allah (Allāhumma), forgive us, O group (ayyatuhā al-'iṣābah).'" He means that this proceeded on the form of the vocative, but there is no calling.

The meaning of equality is the equality of both (warning and not warning) in the knowledge of the one being asked about, for it is already known that one of the two matters will occur—either the warning or its absence—but not specifically which. Thus, both are known with a non-specific knowledge.

Recitations:

• A-andhartahum (with realization of both hamzas).
• With lightening of the second (between-between).
• With an alif inserted between two realized hamzas.
• With an alif inserted and the second hamza lightened (between-between).
• With the deletion of the interrogative particle.
• With its deletion and the transfer of its vowel to the silent letter before it (as in the recitation qad-aflaha).

Question: What do you say about one who turns the second into an alif? Answer: He is a speaker of solecisms (laḥin), outside the speech of the Arabs for two reasons:

1. The audacity to combine two silent letters without a standard rule (the rule being that the first is a soft letter and the second is assimilated, like al-ḍāllīn).
2. Mistaking the method of lightening, because the method of lightening a mobile hamza preceded by a fatha is to pronounce it "between-between." Turning it into an alif is the lightening of a silent hamza preceded by a fatha, like the hamza in ra's.

"Warning" (al-indhār): It is the act of frightening someone regarding the punishment of Allah by restraining them from sins.

Question: What is the position of "they do not believe" (lā yu'minūn)? Answer: It is either a sentence confirming the sentence before it, or it is the predicate of inna, and the sentence before it is an interpolation (i'tirāḍ).

"Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment."