Allah described the severity of the stubbornness of the Jews and the difficulty of their response to the truth. Mahmoud said: "Allah, the Exalted, described the severity of the stubbornness of the Jews and the difficulty of their response..." Ahmad said: "He said (those who said, 'We are Christians') and did not say: 'the Christians', hinting at the firmness of the Jews in disbelief and their refusal to comply with the command. For the Jews were told (enter the holy land which Allah has written for you and do not turn back on your heels). They responded by saying (go you and your Lord and fight; indeed, we are sitting here). The Christians said (we are the helpers of Allah). Thus, they were called Christians. Also, at the beginning of this surah, it was mentioned (and among those who said, 'We are Christians, we took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of what they were reminded of). This was attributed to their saying, and the reference is to their words (we are the helpers of Allah). However, here it is mentioned as a reminder that they did not uphold the covenant, nor did they adhere to what they claimed about being the helpers of Allah. In the second verse, it is mentioned as a reminder that they are in a better situation than the Jews, because when the command came to them, they did not resist it as the Jews did, but rather said (we are the helpers of Allah), while the Jews said (go you and your Lord and fight; indeed, we are sitting here). This is its essence, and Allah knows best. The softness of the hearts of the Christians and their ease of turning to Islam is noted, and the Jews are made companions of the polytheists in their intense enmity towards the believers. Rather, it indicated their precedence in this by placing them before those who associated partners with Allah. Similarly, it was done in the saying (and you will surely find them the most greedy of people for life, and of those who associate partners with Allah). Indeed, they are like that and even more so. The Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "No two Jews are alone with a Muslim except that they are plotting to kill him." This was narrated by Al-Thalabi, Ibn Mardawayh, and Ibn Hibban in Al-Du'afa from the narration of Yahya ibn Ubayd Allah from his father, from Abu Huraira. In the narration of Ibn Hibban, it is mentioned as 'a Jew' in the singular. The reason for the ease of the Christians' acceptance and their closeness to the believers is that among them are priests and monks, meaning scholars and worshippers, and they are a people who possess humility and submission, and there is no arrogance among them, while the Jews are the opposite. It is a clear proof that learning is the most beneficial thing and the best guide to good and the most indicative of success, even if it is from a monk. And the awareness of the Hereafter and speaking of the consequences, even if it is from a Christian, and the avoidance of arrogance, even if it is in a Christian. Allah described them as having soft hearts and that they weep when listening to the Qur'an. This is similar to what is narrated about Al-Najashi, may Allah be pleased with him, when he said to Ja'far ibn Abi Talib—when the emigrants to Abyssinia and the polytheists gathered in his council, and they were cursing him and seeking to incite him against them—he asked: "Is there mention of Mary in your book?" Ja'far said: "There is a surah named after her," and he recited it until he reached the saying: (that is Jesus, son of Mary). He also recited Surah Taha until he reached the saying: (and has the story of Moses reached you?). Al-Najashi wept. I did not find it, but I think the author of Al-Kashaf mentioned it in the context of the story of Ja'far ibn Abi Talib with Amr ibn Al-As when Quraysh sent him with their gift to Al-Najashi to hand over Ja'far and his companions. The meaning of what was mentioned is present in it, except for the recitation of Taha. It was narrated by Ibn Ishaq in Al-Maghazi through Ibn Hibban from the hadith of Umm Salama. And his saying: "And likewise did his people" refers to Al-Najashi's people who came to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him. They were seventy men when the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, recited Surah Yasin to them: Al-Tabari narrated from Qais ibn Al-Rabi' from Salim Al-Aftas from Sa'id ibn Jubair regarding his saying that among them are priests and monks. He said yes, the messengers of Al-Najashi whom he sent and the Islam of his people, who were seventy men, entered upon the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and he recited Yasin to them. They wept and recognized the truth. It was revealed about them and also about (those to whom We gave the Scripture before it, they believe in it). Ibn Mardawayh narrated it from another source from Qais. Likewise, his people who came to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, were seventy men when the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, recited Surah Yasin to them, and they wept. If you say: What does the lam in the saying (for those who have believed) refer to? I say: It refers to enmity and affection, indicating that the enmity of the Jews that is directed at the believers is the most intense and apparent of enmities, and that the affection of the Christians that is directed at the believers is the closest of affections, the most readily available, and the easiest to obtain. Describing the Jews with enmity and the Christians with affection indicates a disparity, then describing enmity and affection with the most intense and the closest. If you say: What is the meaning of the saying (their eyes overflowing with tears)?

It is transformed from this. It is the saying of the speaker: "His eye overflowed with tears." The action is transferred to the eye metaphorically and exaggeratedly. Then it pointed out the original and the truth by placing what was the doer in the accusative case as a distinguishing feature. The third: in it is this mentioned transformation, which is stated in the verse, but it is more eloquent than the second by discarding the indication of the original and not placing the distinguishing feature in the accusative, and presenting it in the form of reasoning, and Allah knows best. The speech with reasoning is further from the original than with the distinguishing feature because the distinguishing feature in such cases has established its being as a doer in the original, as in: "Zayd sweated profusely," "‘Amr burst with fat," "the head ignited with gray hair," and "the earth gushed forth springs." When you say: "His eye overflowed with tears," this original is understood in the usual context of its examples. As for reasoning, it is not customary in that. Do you not see that you say: "His eye overflowed from the remembrance of Allah" just as you say: "His eye overflowed from tears," so reasoning does not convey what the distinguishing feature conveys, and Allah is the guide. I said: Its meaning is that it fills with tears until it overflows, because overflow means that the vessel or something else fills until what is in it comes out from its sides. Thus, the term overflow, which is from filling, is used in place of filling, and it is from placing the effect in the position of the cause, or it intends exaggeration in describing them as weeping, so their eyes are made as if they overflow by themselves, meaning they flow with tears because of weeping, from your saying: "His eye wept with tears." If you say: What is the difference between "from" and "from" in the saying: "from what they knew of the truth?" I say the first is for the beginning of the limit, on the basis that the overflow of tears began and arose from knowing the truth, and it was for it and because of it. The second is for clarifying the relative pronoun which is what they knew. It allows for the meaning of partitive, as they knew some of the truth, which made them weep and affected them. So how if they knew all of it and recited the Qur'an and encompassed the Sunnah? And it was recited: "You see their eyes" in the passive form. "Our Lord, we have believed" is intended to establish faith and enter into it. "So write us among the witnesses" with the nation of Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, who are witnesses over all nations on the Day of Resurrection. "So that you may be witnesses over the people." They said this because they found their mention in the Gospel likewise. "And why should we not believe in Allah" is a denial of disbelief due to the absence of faith while the cause for it exists, which is the hope for Allah's grace upon them by being with the righteous. It was said: When they returned to their people, they reproached them, so they responded with that. Or they meant: And why should we not believe in Allah alone because they were tri-theists, and that is not faith in Allah. The position of "we do not believe" is in the accusative case as a state, meaning: not believing, as you say: "You have no property standing." And the "and" in "and we hope" is the conjunction of the state. If you say: What is the agent in the first and second states? I say: The agent in the first is what is in the "lam" from the meaning of the verb, as if it were said: What happened to us not believing? And in the second, the meaning of this verb, but constrained by the first state, because if you removed it and said: "And why should we not hope," it would not be a statement. It is permissible that "and we hope" is a state from "we do not believe," as they denied to themselves that they do not unify Allah, and yet they hope to be with the righteous, and it can be conjoined to "we do not believe" in the sense: And why should we combine between tri-theism and hoping for the companionship of the righteous, or in the sense: And why should we not combine between them by entering into Islam, because the disbeliever should not hope for the companionship of the righteous. Al-Hasan read: "So Allah gave them what they said" based on what they spoke of with conviction and sincerity, from your saying: This is the saying of so-and-so, meaning his belief and what he adheres to.