Of the people there are some who say: we believe in Allah and in the Last Day; but they do not really believe. (Wa min al‑nās man yaqūlu āmannā bi’llāhi wa bi’l-yawm al-ākhir wa mā hum bi-mu’minīn.)
The Verse’s Positioning in Regard to What Precedes It
Just as two parts of a sentence are joined by a conjunction because they both contribute to what is being stated, and two clauses or sentences are joined by a conjunction since they serve the same aim; so two stories are joined since they are both consistent with the same goal. The conjunction of the story of the dissemblers and that of the unbelievers is of this latter sort; that is, the summary of the following twelve verses is joined by a conjunction with the substance (ma’āl) of the previous two verses.
For since the Revelation (al‑tanzīl) opens with praise [of itself]: This is the Book, it entails praise of the believers as the fruits of that book (lit. praise); and this in turn requires disparagement of their opposites, since “things are known by their opposites.” Then, to fulfil the purpose of guidance, it is fitting to follow this with the dissemblers, so that all types of people should be included.
If You Were to Ask: Why does it deal concisely with the disbelievers and pure unbelief in two verses, and then deal at length with dissembling in twelve?
You Would Be Told: For several subtle reasons:
Firstly: If unknown, an enemy is more harmful; and if he is elusive, he is more pernicious; and if he is mendacious, he causes more corruption; and if he is on the inside, he is more injurious. For an internal enemy saps one’s strength and crumbles one’s forces, contrarily to external enemies, for they strengthen resolve and solidarity. Alas! The harm dissembling has caused Islam is truly immense. It is the cause of the present confusion. For this reason the Qur’an frequently condemns it.
Secondly: The dissembler mixes with the believers and becomes familiar with them to an extent, and grows accustomed to belief a little. He starts to feel repelled at his condition because his actions are reviled and condemned. Little by little the confession of divine unity trickles from his tongue to his heart.
Thirdly: The dissembler surpasses the unbeliever in such crimes as mockery, trickery, fraudulence, cunning, lying, and hypocrisy.
Fourthly: The dissembler is usually one of the People of the Book, and a diabolically clever scheming swindler. To be prolix about dissembling therefore is perfect eloquence.
Now to analyze the verse’s words:
Consider this: In one respect of the people (min al‑nās) is the prefixed predicate of who (man).
If You Were to Ask: Isn’t it obvious that the dissembler is one of the people? You Would Be Told: When a statement is obvious, what is intended is one of its necessary consequences, and here it is to cause astonishment. It is as though it is saying: It is extraordinary that the contemptible dissembler is a human being, for man is noble; it is not characteristic of him to stoop to such baseness.
If You Were to Ask: Why is the predicate put first?
You Would Be Told: Precedence is more apt for producing astonishment, and for concentrating attention on the subject, for that is where the aim [of the sentence] is found. Otherwise one might expectantly pass [from the subject] to the predicate [and partially overlook the subject and aim].
Several subtle points may be distilled from the expression the people (al‑nās):
Firstly: The Qur’an did not specify [the dissemblers] and expose them, indeed, it concealed them under the term the people. This indicates that shielding them and not lifting the veil from their repugnant faces was more consistent with the Prophet’s policies (Upon whom be blessings and peace). For if it had exposed them, the believers would have wavered, for no one is safe from the tricks of the soul, and doubts would have led to fear, and fear to hypocrisy, and hypocrisy to dissembling.
Also, if attention had been drawn to their ugliness it might have been said that the Prophet (UWBP) was hesitant and did not trust his followers.
And sometimes, if corruption remains concealed it subsides by degrees and the one perpetrating it endeavours to hide it. But if the veil is raised, in consequence of the saying: “If you’re shameless you can do as you like!”, he would exclaim, “It doesn’t matter what happens!,” and unconcernedly spread depravity.
Secondly: The term the people (al‑nās) indicates that quite apart from other attributes opposed to dissembling, the most general of attributes, I mean humanity, is contrary to it. For man is noble and such degradation is not characteristic of him.
Thirdly: It also infers that dissembling is not particular to any group or class, but is found in mankind generally, whatever the people.
Fourthly: The word hints that dissembling offends the honour of everyone human and inevitably arouses their anger against the person, and drives them to restrict [his activities] to prevent the poison spreading. Similarly, it wounds the honour of the group, and the disgrace of its member excites [its members’] rage against him.
Who say: we believe (man yaqūlu āmannā) If You Were to Ask: Why although they both refer to the same person, is say (yaqūlu) in the singular case, and we believe (āmannā) in the plural?
You Would Be Told: This indicates an exquisitely subtle point, which is that the first person plural is singular [to say: “we” is to speak as one], and say (yaqūlu) is singular because one person is speaking.
But we believe (āmannā) is plural because he is not alone in his belief. Then is the quotation of their assertions: this form of literal quotation indicates the rebuttal in two respects of what is quoted, in the same way that it indicates its forcefulness in two respects.
For say (yaqūlu) hints by its form that they do not speak out of conviction or [in consequence of their] actions, but utter with their mouths what is not in their hearts. Also, its being in the imperfect tense suggests that the reason for their continuing to defend themselves and make this claim is hypocrisy and not prompted by the conscience.
While their assertion we believe (āmannā) being in the perfect tense suggests: “All of us People of the Book, we have long since believed so why shouldn’t we believe now?” And the pronominal suf‑ fix ‑nā – we hints that they say: “We are a community and have ésprit de corps; we aren’t like an individual who may lie or be deceived.”
In Allah and in the Last Day (bi’llāhi wa bi’l‑yawm al-ākhir) Consider this:
The Revelation either takes exactly what others have said, or taking its substance, puts in another form, or summarizes it.
According to the first of these, by mentioning the first and last of the pillars of belief [the dissemblers] are demonstrating their firmness [of belief]. For in their view, these pillars are the most acceptable. And by repeating [the preposition] in (bā’) despite the proximity [of the two words], they are alluding to the other pillars.
Then according to the second [possibility], if it is the Most High’s word, by mentioning only these two poles of belief, it is indicating that what they claim to believe in most powerfully even is not belief. For their belief in them is not as it should be.
And the repetition of the preposition in (bā’) indicates difference. For belief in Allah is belief in His existence and unity, and belief in the Last Day is belief in its reality and that it will come, as was discussed above. [That is, belief in both is multifaceted and not only in one respect.]
But they do not really believe (wa mā hum bi‑mu’minīn)
If You Were to Ask: Why does the verse not say and they do (lit. did) not believe (wa mā āmanū), which would be similar [in tense and form] to we believe (āmannā)?
You Would Be Told:
Lest it should be supposed that there is any inconsistency, if only in form.
And so that the negation should not refer to we believe (āmannā), which [despite being a verb in the perfect tense] is an exclamatory clause (jumla inshā’iyya).
Thus, its explicitness disallows its denial. Rather, the negation and denial refer to the sentence implicit in we believe (āmannā), which is ‘for we are believers’ (fa‑naḥnu mu'minūn).
Furthermore, because this negative sentence is a nominal one, it infers that their unbelief is continuous.
If You Were to Ask: Why doesn’t it indicate its non‑continuance, since the negating particle mā comes at the beginning of the clause?
You Would Be Told: Negation is what is signified by the dense [visible] letter (al‑ḥarf al-kathīf), whereas continuance is signified by the light structure (al‑hai’at al-khafīfa) [of the nominal clause]. So the negation is closer to what is being expressed.
If You Were to Ask: What is the subtlety in [the preposition] bā’ of (bi‑mu’minīn) being used in the predicate of the negating particle mā?
You Would Be Told: It indicates their lack of ability to believe even if they [appear to] believe outwardly. It is the difference between mā Zayd sakhīyan (Zayd is not generous), and mā Zayd bi‑sakhīyin: the first refers to his capricious character, its meaning is Zayd is not actually being generous although he has the ability and is a generous person. While the second means, Zayd does not have the capacity to be magnanimous and is not a generous person, although he does good works.