Tafsir of Al Imran 3:117

(The likeness of what they spend in this worldly life)—as a demonstration that wealth cannot enrich—the omission of any mention regarding the inability of children to enrich is likely self-evident. For if they are disbelievers—which is the manifest state—then their judgment is the same as [the parents']. If they are believers, they would be a burden upon them in this world, and a source of hatred for them in the Hereafter, “on the Day when secrets are tested” (86:9) and “the shin will be uncovered” (68:42), and their disavowal of them—at a time when a man shall flee from his mother and his father—is too manifest to be hidden.

The “ma” (what) is conjunctive, with the referent omitted; that is, “what they spend.” The indication [of the demonstrative] is for disparagement. The intent is to provide a parable for all the charities and expenditures of the disbelievers, regardless of their nature; this is what has been narrated from Mujahid. It has been said: It is a parable for what disbelievers spend absolutely in their hostility toward the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It has also been said: It refers to what the Quraish spent on the days of Badr and Uhud when they rallied against him, upon him be prayer and peace. And it has been said: It refers to what the base among the Jews spent on their distorting scholars—that is, the condition and curious story of that.

“Is like a wind in which there is a 'sir'”—meaning a severe cold, as stated by Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, and a group. Al-Zajjaj said: 'Sir' is the heat of the fire, and it was present within that wind. It has been said: The root of sir is like sarsar—the cold wind. According to this, the meaning of the arrangement would be: “a wind containing a cold wind,” which, as you can see, requires adjustment. It has been mentioned that this is used by way of tajreed (abstraction), such as the poet’s saying: “Were it not for that, he would have adorned my stallion.” And [as in the phrase] "In the Most Merciful there is sufficient for the weak," meaning He is sufficient.

Some rejected that it is originally a “cold wind,” arguing that it is a verbal noun meaning “cold,” as the learned scholar said, and its usage here is metaphorical and not intended literally. It is also said: It is an adjective meaning “cold,” but its qualified noun is omitted; that is, “a cold cold,” making it a metaphorical attribution, like [the phrase] zillun zalil (a shadowing shade). In this there is remoteness, for what is known in such cases is the mention of the qualified noun; its omission and estimation is unheard of. It is also said: It is originally the sound of the cold wind, from sarra (the pen or the door) when it makes a creaking sound, or from surrah (the clamor or the shout). It was used here in its original sense; but this meaning is also something not found in usage.

The word rih (wind) is the singular of riyāh. In Al-Sihah, it is mentioned as aryāh, and it may be pluralized as arwāh because its root is waw; it only appears with a ya due to the vowel preceding it. When they return to the fatha, it reverts to the waw, as when you say: aruha al-ma’ (the water became windy) and tarawwahtu bil-mirwahah (I fanned myself with a fan). It is also said rih and rihah, just as they say dar and darah. The scholars’ discourse on this position will come, God willing. The wind (rih) is used in the singular because, as stated in Al-Bahr, it is restricted to torment, while the plural (riyāh) is restricted to mercy. It is for this reason it is narrated: “O Allah, make it riyāh (winds) and do not make it a rih (wind).”

“Striking a harvest”—that is, the crops of “a people who wronged themselves” through disbelief and disobedience, and thus returned with wrath from Allah the Exalted. They were described as such because it is said: Destruction resulting from anger is more severe and hideous. Or, it is because the intent is to point to the lack of benefit in this world and the Hereafter, which only occurs in the destruction of the disbeliever’s wealth; as for others, they might be rewarded for what was destroyed for them due to their patience. It is also said: The intent is that they wronged themselves by sowing in a place other than a place for sowing, and at a time other than its proper time.

“It destroyed it”—entirely, leaving neither trace nor mark, as a punishment for their sins. It is said: It is a discipline from Allah the Exalted for them for placing things in a place other than where they belong by right. This is one of the composite similes in which the cream of the essence and the whole is found; it is not necessary in it that what follows the particle be the musabbah bihi (the thing to which it is likened), as in the saying of the Exalted: “The likeness of the worldly life is but as water We have sent down.” Otherwise, it would be necessary to say: “Like a harvest,” because it is the thing to which the spender is likened. It is permitted that the meaning is: “The likeness of the destruction of what they spend is like the destruction of a wind,” or “The likeness of what they spend is like a wind-destroyed harvest.” Muhlak (destroyed) is a passive participle referring to the harvest. The aspect here, given that it is composite, is the scarcity of benefit and loss. It is permissible for it to be a tashbih mufarraq (differentiated simile), wherein the destruction of Allah the Exalted is likened to the destruction of the wind, and the spender is likened to the harvest. Allah the Exalted made their deeds “scattered dust” due to what is in the cold wind of turning it into debris. It is recited tunfiqun (you spend) with a ta.

“And Allah did not wrong them”—the pronoun refers either to the spenders, meaning: He did not wrong them by the loss of their expenditures which they spent in a manner not appropriate or considered; or it refers to the aforementioned people, meaning: Allah the Exalted did not wrong the owners of the harvest by destroying it, for they deserved that. In this case, this negation, along with the saying of the Exalted: “but they were wronging their own selves,” is a confirmation of what was understood before, by way of allusion and explicit statement.

It is recited wa lakin with a shadda (emphatic), on the basis that anfusahum is its noun, and the sentence yazlimun is its predicate, with an omitted referent—the estimate being yazlimunaha (they wrong them). It is not a fronted object as it is in the reading of takhfif (lightened/unemphatic). Its noun is the “pronoun of the affair” (dameer al-sha’n), for it is not omitted except in poetry, as in his saying: “And I was not one of those whose heart passion enters, but he who sees your eyelids falls in love.” Its omission is necessitated there because of the conditional man (who), upon which the “altering” particles (nawasikh) do not enter. The fronting of anfusahum before the verb is for the sake of the cadence (fasila), not for restriction; otherwise, the speech would not be consistent, because its requirement would be: “And Allah did not wrong them, but they wrong their own selves,” and not that they wrong themselves and no one else—which is necessary in the case of restriction. The imperfect tense is used to denote renewal and continuity.