'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' His saying, the Exalted and Majestic: "And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming what was with them, and they had previously sought victory over those who disbelieved, but when there came to them what they recognized, they disbelieved in it. So the curse of Allah is upon the disbelievers." "Evil is that for which they have sold themselves, that they should disbelieve in what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His bounty upon whom He wills of His servants. So they have drawn upon themselves wrath upon wrath, and for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment." "And when it is said to them, 'Believe in what Allah has revealed,' they say, 'We believe in what was revealed to us,' and they disbelieve in what is beyond that, 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?'" The Book: the Qur'an, and "confirming what is with them" means the Torah. It has been narrated that in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, it is written "confirming" in the accusative case. And "they sought victory" means that the Children of Israel had known before the mission of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, of his coming through what was with them of his description and the mention of his time. They thought he would be one of them. So when they fought the Aws and Khazraj and were defeated by the Arabs, they said to them: 'If the Prophet whose time has come were to appear, we would fight you with him, and we would seek his help against you.' And "they sought victory" means they sought help. In the hadith, it is said: 'The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, sought victory through the poor among the emigrants.' It has been narrated that Qurayzah and Nadir, and all the Jews of Hijaz at that time, were seeking victory over the rest of the Arabs. Because of the coming of the awaited Prophet, they migrated to Hijaz and settled there. They had known the place of the mission, but they did not know that it was Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his law. It is evident from these verses that their obstinacy was present, and that their disbelief was with knowledge and defiance. And "the curse of Allah" means His distancing of them and their disgrace because of that. The grammarians differed regarding the answer to "when" and the second "when" in this verse. Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrid said: Their answer is in His saying: "they disbelieved." The second "when" was repeated due to the length of the speech, and that affirms the sin and emphasizes it. Al-Zajjaj said: The first "when" has no answer, for it is unnecessary because of the indication of the apparent meaning of the speech upon it. The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It is as if it is omitted.

Al-Farra' said: The answer to the first 'lam' is in the 'fa' and what follows it. The answer to the second 'lam' is 'they disbelieved.' The origin of 'bi'sa' is 'bi'sa,' the hamzah has been made easier and transferred to the 'ba' with its movement. It is said in 'bi'sa': 'bi'sa,' following the kasrah, and it is sufficient for blame, just as 'ni'ma' is sufficient for praise. The grammarians disagreed about 'bi'sama' in this context. Sibawayh's opinion is that 'ma' is the subject with 'bi'sa,' and it has entered upon 'bi'sa' just as it enters upon the names of species and indefinite nouns because it resembles 'ma' in ambiguity. The estimation according to this statement is: 'bi'sa that which they purchased with their souls to disbelieve.' Like your saying: 'bi'sa the man is Zayd.' And 'ma' in this statement is relative. Al-Akhfash said: 'ma' is in the accusative position for specification, like your saying: 'bi'sa a man is Zayd.' The estimation is: 'bi'sa something to disbelieve.' And 'they purchased with it their souls' in this statement is the description of 'ma.' Al-Farra' said: 'bi'sama' is a single entity composed, like 'habba'za.' In this statement, there is an objection because it is an action that remains without a subject, and 'ma' only negates letters. Al-Kisai said: 'ma' and 'they purchased' are like a single name standing by itself. The estimation is: 'bi'sa their purchasing their souls to disbelieve.' This is also objectionable because 'bi'sa' does not enter upon a specific name defined by addition to the pronoun. Al-Kisai also said: 'ma' is in the accusative position for explanation, and then another 'ma' is implied. The estimation is: 'bi'sa something they purchased with their souls,' and 'to disbelieve' in this statement is a substitute for the implied 'ma.' It is correct in some of the previous statements that 'to disbelieve' is in the genitive position as a substitute for the pronoun in 'with it.' As for in the first two statements, 'to disbelieve' is a beginning and its news is in what precedes it.

And 'they purchased' means they sold. It is said: 'shara' and 'ishtara' mean sold and mean bought. And (what Allah has sent down) refers to the Qur'an. It is possible that it refers to the Torah, because when they disbelieved in 'Isa and Muhammad' blessings and peace be upon them, they disbelieved in the Torah. It is possible that it refers to all of the Torah, Gospel, and Qur'an, because disbelief in some necessitates disbelief in all. And 'baghyan' is an object for which it is done. It is said: it was placed in the accusative for the source, and 'to send down' was placed in the accusative for the object for it, or in the genitive position with the estimation of: 'that He sends down.' Abu Amr and Ibn Kathir read: 'to send down' with the lightening of the noon and the zay. And 'from His bounty' means from prophethood and messengership. 'Whoever wills' refers to Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, because they envied him for what was not from them, and he was from the Arabs. And 'Isa, peace be upon him, also enters into the meaning because they disbelieved in him out of envy, and Allah has favored him.

'And 'they returned': its meaning is that they went on, bearing what they mention that they returned with it. And 'with wrath' means from Allah, the Exalted, due to their disbelief in Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him. 'Upon wrath' is a prior wrath from Allah, the Exalted, upon them. It is said: due to their worship of the calf, and it is said: due to their saying: 'Uzair is the son of Allah,' and it is said: due to their disbelief in Jesus, peace be upon him. So the meaning is: upon a wrath that their forefathers returned with, and these people have a large share of it because of their approval of those actions and their endorsement of them.

And a group said: the intended meaning of His saying: 'with wrath upon wrath' is emphasis, and intensification of the state upon them, because He meant two wraths, each justified by two stories. And 'humiliating' is derived from humiliation, which necessitates eternal punishment in the Fire, because whoever is not made eternal among the sinners of the Muslims, his punishment is like the punishment of one upon whom the prescribed punishment is executed, and there is no humiliation in it; rather, it is purification for him. And His saying, the Exalted: 'And when it is said to them' means the Jews that when it is said to them: 'Believe in the Qur'an which Allah has sent down to Muhammad,' blessings and peace be upon him, they said: 'We believe in what has been sent down to us,' meaning the Torah. And what is after it. Qatadah said: meaning what comes after it, and Al-Farra' said: meaning what is other than it, and he means by it the Qur'an. And if a man speaks or does an action well, it is said to him: there is nothing after what you have brought, meaning nothing will come after it. And Allah, the Exalted, described the Qur'an as the truth.

And 'confirming' is a confirmed state according to Sibawayh, and it is not transferable. Its meaning has already been mentioned in the speech, and nothing remains for it except the meaning of emphasis. Sibawayh recited in the confirmed state:

'I am the son of Darah, known by it is my lineage, and is there for Darah, O people, any disgrace?'

And 'for what is with them' means the Torah.

And His saying, the Exalted: 'Say, then why do you kill?' The verse is a response from Allah, the Exalted, to them in that they believed in what was sent down to them, and a denial from Him of that, and an argument against them.

And it is not permissible to stop at 'then why' due to the lack of a single letter, except that Al-Bazzi stopped at it with the 'h,' and the rest of the reciters with the silence of the 'm.' And Allah addressed those who were present with Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, from the Children of Israel that they killed the prophets due to that being the action of their forefathers.

And 'you kill' came in the form of the future tense, which means the continuation when the ambiguity was resolved by His saying: 'previously.' And if there is no ambiguity, it is permissible to use the past tense in the meaning of the future, and to use the future in the meaning of the past. Al-Hatayah said:

'Al-Hatayah witnessed the day he meets his Lord ∗∗∗ that Al-Walid is more deserving of excuse.'

And the benefit of using the past tense in the place of the future is to indicate that it is as established as the past that has occurred, and the benefit of using the future in the meaning of the past is to inform that the matter is ongoing. Do you not see that those present with Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, when they were pleased with the actions of their forefathers, a part of the killing of the prophets remained for them? And 'if you are' is a condition, and the response is prior. And a group said: 'if' is negating in the meaning of 'not.'