وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَقُولُ ءَامَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَبِالْيَوْمِ الأْخِرِ وَمَا هُم بِمُؤْمِنِينَ
“And of mankind, there are some who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day” while in fact they do not believe.” [Al-Baqarah:8]
From Hashiyatul Jamal:
“Min an-naas…” is a prepositional phrase and prepositional phrases cannot become mubtada. However, in this case it is mubtada in consideration of its overall meaning (madmoon). Because otherwise, if we consider it khabr coming first, then the meaning of the verse becomes “Those who say…are from the people”. This khabr doesn’t convey any benefit as it is obvious that they are from the people. Therefore, it can’t be khabr coming first.
One way of making the prepositional phrase mubtada is to consider “min an-naas” as “ba’du al-naas” so it directly becomes the mubtada i.e. “Some people…”
Another way is to consider “min al-naas” na’t of an omitted ism such as “fareequn/ba’dun”, i.e. “[A group/some] from amongst the people are those who…”
For example, in the verse below both mubtada and khabr are dharf (prepositional phrase or adverbial structure), but the mubtada is in the power of “Jam’un Min naa”, i.e. a group from among us:
وَمِنَّا دُونَ ذَلِكَ
“…and some the contrary” [Al-Jinn:11]
The ‘man’ could either be mawsool or mawsoof and is in raf’ on the basis of khabr.
If ‘man’ is mawsool it’s like ‘alladhee yaqoolu’ (i.e. those who say) e.g. in the below verse:
وَمِنْهُمُ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ النَّبِىَّ
“And among them are men who annoy the Prophet…” [Tawbah:61]
If ‘man’ is nakirah mawsoofah it’s like “fareequn yaqoolu” (i.e. a group who says) e.g. in the below verse:
مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ رِجَالٌ صَدَقُو
“Among the believers are men who have been true…” [Al-Ahzab:23]
Making “Min an-naas…” mubtada is somewhat similar to making ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ mubtada in the verse below.
From Al-Kashshaf [Zamakhshari]:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ
“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe” – [Baqarah:6]
Sawaa’un is a noun in the meaning of “being equal” used as a descriptor for other nouns just like masdars are sometimes used for that purpose (e.g. “bi al-ghaybi” in Lesson 01). It is raf’ because sawaa’un onwards is khabr of Inna.
ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ onwards is raf’ for being in the place of that which is the Fa’il of sawaa’un. It’s like saying:
“Inna alladheena kafaroo mustawin ‘alayhim indhaaruka aw ‘adamuhu”
Meaning: “Those that disbelieve, it is equal for them your warning and your non-warning.”
This is like saying:
“Inna Zaydan mukhtasibun abuhu wa ibnu ‘ammihi”
Meaning: Zayd, his father and his cousin are arguing.
An alternate interpretation would be that ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ onwards is mubtada and sawaa’un is khabr coming first. All of this together forms the khabr of Inna.
But how is it valid to convey information (ikhbar) about a verb i.e. how can a verb be mubtada or musnad ilayhi? This is because it is from the category of speech in which the perspective of the word (janibul lafdh i.e. the word level) has been discarded in preference to the perspective of the meaning. Arabs sometimes break the rules to satisfy the meaning e.g. “Laa ta’kul as-samaka wa tashraba al-labana”, meaning “Don’t eat the fish and drink the milk (i.e. don’t combine between the two).”
It actually is in the power of: “Laa yakun min ka aklu as-samaki wa shurbu al-labani”, meaning: “From you should not occur the eating of the fish and the drinking of the milk.”
In the original sentence an assumed ‘an’ makes “tashraba” onwards a masdar. And this masdar is ma’toof to a verb. Usually an ism should be ma’toof to an ism, not a verb. However, if a ‘waaw’ or ‘fa’ comes after a command/prohibition, an ‘an’ is assumed after the waaw/fa and the resultant masdar (converted structure) becomes ma’toof to the command/prohibition verb.
So just like a masdar is allowed to be ma’toof to a verb, in the above case, likewise, ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ onwards is allowed to be mubtada in the relevant ayah.
لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ is either:
1) a separate sentence emphasising the earlier point; or,
2) it can be the khabr of Inna, in which case ءَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ onwards is parenthetical; or,
3) according to some, it can be the second khabr of inna; or,
4) it can be haal for ‘hum’ in “lam tundhir hum”; or,
5) it can be a du’a against them, which is the weakest of the opinions.
From Hashiya Jamal:
وَمَا هُم بِمُؤْمِنِي
This is refuting what they said in the most impactful way. They said they believed in Allah and the Last Day. The above is a nominal sentence which negates their belief in all tenses, whereas a verbal sentence would only have negated their belief in the past (in line with their claim, “We believed in…”).
From Matn of Jalalayn:
‘Hum’ and ‘mu’mineen’ are plural in consideration of the meaning of ‘man’ (in ‘man yaqoolu) being plural. And when ‘yaqoolu’ was used in ‘man yaqoolu’, this was in consideration of ‘man’ being singular at the word-level.
‘Man’ can be singular, dual or plural. You can say:
Akrim man akramaka; or,
Akrim man akramooka.
يُخَـدِعُونَ اللَّهَ وَالَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا وَمَا يَخْدَعُونَ إلاَّ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ
“They try to deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not!” [al-Baqarah:9]
They are trying to deceive by professing the contrary of the kufr they are concealing in order to ward off from themselves the worldy (dunyawi) rulings of kufr e.g. avoiding Jizyah, or receiving zakat, share in ghanima etc.
The dominant connotation of the Qaatala/Yuqaatilu baab (verb paradigm) is Musharakah or Shirkah min al-Jaanibayn. When there’s 2 entities that’s following a verb and each is trying to do it to the other, then that’s Qaatala/Yuqaatilu (fighting each other). “Qaatala Zaydun ‘Amran” means “Zayd fought ‘Amr (‘Amr also fought Zayd).”
Khaadi’oona here is not used in the above sense, but only from one side. Otherwise it would mean that Allah is deceiving them too. So it is like “‘Aaqabtu al-lissa” i.e. “I punished the thief.” This doesn’t convey the meaning that the thief also punished me.
They are trying to deceive only the believers, but Allah is mentioned to add beauty (ta’hseen – rhetorical enhancement) to the speech just as Allah is mentioned in the verse which says a fifth of the booty belongs to Allah and His messenger.
So it is Isnad Majazi because the verb “yukhaadi’oona” is not attributed to its actual object (because according to Imam Suyuti Allah is not being deceived). [Or this could perhaps also be Eeqaa’, which I don’t have much information on yet.]
The relation between a verb and its subject, or mubtada and khabar, is called Isnad (so we have musnad and musnad ilayh).
The relation between a verb and its object is called ta’alluq (so we have the fi’l and muta’alliqaatul fi’l i.e. all other details of the verb).
We have seen examples of Isnad Majazi in another post. However, to elaborate further, below are a few examples:
1) عيشة راضية
“A life that is pleased” [Al-Qari’ah:7]
In this example, the active participle (راضية) is attributed to the object, instead of the subject, because, in origin, it is:
عيشة راضٍ عنها صاحبها
“A life that the person is pleased with it”
2) نهاره صائم و ليله قائم
“His day is fasting and his night is standing.”
It is actually the person who is fasting in the day and standing in prayer at night.
This is an example of isnad to the time i.e. maf’ool feehi.
3) Isnad majazi can also occur in a jumlah inshaa’iyyah. For example:
وَقَالَ فَرْعَوْنُ يهَـمَـنُ ابْنِ لِى صَرْحاً
“And Fir`awn said: “O Haman! Build me a lofty tower…” [Mu’min:36}
The command is for Haman to build the tower, but in reality Haman is not going to build himself, rather he will get workers to build the tower for him. So, the command is actually for Haman to issue the command to build. In this case, the verb is predicated to its sabab.
These are examples of Isnad Majazi, not Majaz lughawi where a word is used in a figurative manner.
Another example of Isnad majazi is in Verse 10 of Al-Baqarah:
وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
“A painful torment is theirs…” [Baqarah:10]
“Aleem” is sifah mushabbahah in the power of ismul maf’ool i.e. mu’lam (taf’eel commonly occurs in the meaning of ismul maf’ool). So the phrase means “a punishment that is in pain”, indicating the severity of the punishment, such that it not only causes punishment to those it’s inflicted upon, but also to itself because of its excessiveness.
From Al-Kashshaaf [Zamakhshari]:
The All-Knowing can never be deceived. The hypocrites’ outward behaviour with Allah (i.e. professing opposite to what they believe) is the actions of those trying to deceive. And Allah’s ordering the Prophet (SAW) to let the hypocrites live as Muslims is like the outward conduct of one who deceives, because according to Allah, those people are actually not Muslims, but the worst of disbelievers.