Tafsir of Al Imran 3:118

Ibn Ishaq and others narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: There were men among the Muslims who maintained relations with men from the Jews due to the neighborliness and alliances that existed between them in the pre-Islamic era. Allah, the Exalted, revealed this verse concerning them, forbidding them from taking them as intimates, fearing for them the trial. Abd ibn Humayd narrated that it was revealed concerning the hypocrites of the people of Medina, forbidding the believers from taking them as allies. The manifest meaning of what follows supports this.

The biṭānah (intimate) of a man is those who extract his affairs. It is derived from the biṭānah (lining) of a garment, [referring to] the side that touches the body due to its closeness, and it is the opposite of the ẓihārah (outer layer). The term is used for the singular, the plural, the masculine, and the feminine.

"From other than yourselves" (min dūnikum)—the "from" (min) is connected to "do not take" or to a suppressed [adjective] that acts as an attribute for "intimates." It is also said: it is redundant. "Dūna" is either in the sense of "other than" or in the sense of "the lower or inferior." The plural pronoun attached to it refers to the believers. The meaning is: Do not take the disbelievers, such as the Jews and the hypocrites, as allies and intimates from among those who are not believers, or from among those whose status has not reached your level in honor and religion. The ruling is general, even if the cause of revelation was specific, for taking the opponent as an ally is a source of trial and corruption. For this reason, this "intimacy" has been interpreted [as referring to] the Kharijites.

Al-Bayhaqi and others narrated from Anas, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "Do not engrave Arabic on your signet rings, and do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists." This was mentioned to al-Hasan, who said: "Indeed, do not engrave 'Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah' on your signet rings, and do not confide in the polytheists in any of your affairs." Then al-Hasan said: "The confirmation of this is from the Book of Allah, the Exalted: 'O you who have believed, do not take as intimates [those] from other than yourselves.'"

"They will not spare you [any] corruption" (lā ya’lūnakum khabālān): The root of alw is negligence. It is said: alā, ya’lū, alwan, if he is negligent, lax, and weak. From this is the statement of Imru’ al-Qays: "And a man, as long as the breath of life remains in his soul, will not grasp the ends of affairs, nor will he be ālin [negligent in seeking]." It is an intransitive verb that takes an object through a preposition, and sometimes it is used transitively with two objects in their saying: "I will not ālūka (withhold from you) advice, nor will I ālūka effort," based on the inclusion of the meaning of "prevention"—that is, I will not withhold that from you. It may also be used in the sense of "abstaining from," and thus it takes one object. In al-Qāmūs, it says: alawtu ash-shay’ means "I did not abandon it."

Khabāl originally refers to the corruption that befalls a person, causing him disorder like illness or madness. It is used in the sense of evil and corruption in general. The meaning of the verse, according to the first interpretation, is: They will not neglect to bring you corruption and evil; rather, they strive in causing you harm. In this view, the accusative pronoun and the indefinite noun are in the accusative case due to the omission of the preposition. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah favored this. He also permitted that the second [noun] be in the accusative as a state (ḥāl)—i.e., mukhabbilīn (causing corruption)—or as a specification (tamyīz).

This has been objected to on the grounds that there is no ambiguity in attributing negligence to the agent, and it is not correct to make it an agent except by considering the metaphorical attribution and the accusative through the omission of the preposition. The occurrence of the verbal noun as a state is not standard except in cases where the verbal noun is a type of the agent, such as atānī sur‘atan wa buṭ’an (he came to me quickly and slowly), as al-Raḍī stated in the discussion of the direct object. Al-Kufiyyun adopted this, and Abu Hayyan reported that the tamyīz (specification) here is transformed from a direct object, like fajarnā al-arḍa ‘uyūnan (we caused the earth to gush forth with springs). This is extremely strange, because the assumption is that the verb is intransitive; so whence would it have an object to be transformed from? The consideration of its transitivity to it via the assumption of a preposition is a statement regarding the accusative by the omission of a preposition, and you have heard the argument concerning that.

It is answered by committing to one of the two matters: the [construction as a] state, or that it is accusative due to the omission of the preposition, along with the claim that it is heard in this context. The meaning according to the second [interpretation] is: They will not withhold from you any corruption, meaning they do whatever they can of corruption toward you and do not leave any of it with them regarding you. This is a sound perspective, and the inclusion [of the meaning of prevention] is standard according to the correct view, and the disagreement regarding it is weak and not to be heeded. The meaning and parsing according to the third [interpretation] are apparent after grasping what preceded.

"They desire your ruin" (waddū mā ‘anittum): They love your ‘anat—that is, your severe hardship and your harm. Al-Suddī said: They wish for your deviation from your religion. Ibn Jarir narrated something similar.

"Hatred has already appeared from their mouths" (qad badat al-baghḍā’u min afwāhihim): That is, signs of enmity toward you have appeared from the slips of their tongues and the implication of their words, because due to the intensity of their hatred for you, they cannot control themselves and are unable to preserve their tongues. Qatādah said: This appearance is among themselves, where each of them revealed what indicates his hatred for the Muslims to his brother. There is remoteness in this, as what follows does not befit it. Afwāh (mouths) is the plural of fam, and its origin is fuwah, so its last letter is hā’; plurals return things to their origins. This is also indicated by its diminutive fuwayh and the relational adjective fuwahī. Abdullah recited: Qad badā al-baghḍā’.

"And what their breasts conceal" (of hatred) "is greater" (i.e., more immense than what has appeared), because what appeared was due to a slip, and the like of that cannot be but little.

"We have certainly made clear to you the signs" (i.e., We have shown you the signs indicating the prohibition of taking the enemies of Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—as allies, or: We have shown you clear proofs by which the ally is distinguished from the enemy), "if you use reason" (i.e., if you are among the people of reason, or if you know the distinction between the ally and the enemy, or if you know the admonitions of Allah, the Exalted, and their benefits). The answer to "if" (in) is omitted, as the speech indicates it.

These sentences, other than "and what their breasts conceal is greater"—because it is a state and nothing else—came as independent sentences in answer to the question regarding the prohibition. The abandonment of conjunction between them signifies that each of them is independent in that regard. It is said: They are in the position of an adjective for "intimates," except for "We have certainly made clear," due to the obviousness that it is not suitable for that. The first [view] is better, due to the benefits in the independent [sentences] and what is in the adjectives regarding the indication of the opposite of the intended meaning, or the suggestion of it—which is at least the restriction of the prohibition—and the meaning does not support it. It is said: "They desire your ruin" is an explanation and confirmation of His saying: "They will not spare you [any] corruption," so its ruling is like its ruling. What is besides that is an independent sentence for the purpose of causal explanation, according to the method of sequence, such that the subsequent is a cause for the previous, until the first is the cause for the prohibition. The causal explanation is completed by the whole—i.e., do not take them as intimates because they will not spare you corruption, for they perform your severe harm, as evidenced by the fact that hatred appears from their mouths, even if they conceal much. It is necessary, based on this, to except "We have certainly made clear," as it cannot serve as a cause for the appearance of hatred, while it is suitable as a cause for the prohibition. So understand.