Tafsir of Al Imran 3:119

"Behold! You are those who love them, and they do not love you" (3:119). This is an alert that those addressed are mistaken in taking them as confidants. Regarding the inflection of a structure such as this, there are various positions among the grammarians. Al-Azhari, Ibn Kaysan, and a group [of scholars] said: The ha (in ha-antum) is for attention-drawing (tanbih), antum is the subject (mubtada'), the sentence tuhibbunahum is the predicate (khabar), and ula'i is vocative or in the accusative case due to specification (ikhtisas). This is weakened by the fact that it is contrary to the apparent meaning, and specification cannot be made with a demonstrative pronoun.

It is also said: Antum is the subject, ula'i is its predicate, and the following sentence is a new inception (musta'nafah). This is supported by what Al-Radi stated: that the intent is not "Here I am doing [so and so]" or "Here you are doing [so and so]" to define oneself or the addressee—for there is no benefit in that—but rather the astonishment at the occurrence of the aforementioned action from the speaker or addressee. Thus, the sentence following the demonstrative pronoun is necessary to clarify the astonishing state, and it has no grammatical place as it is an inception.

The Basrans said: It is in the accusative case as a state (hal), meaning: "Here you are, while you are loving them." The state here is necessary because the intended meaning is bound to it and completed by it, and the governing agent in it is the attention-drawing particle or the demonstrative pronoun. Al-Radi objected to this, saying there is no meaning for a state here, as the meaning is not "You are the one pointed to while you are doing the action." It is not hidden that what the Basrans said is the apparent [meaning] from the speech of the Arabs, for they said: "Here you are, standing," explicitly stating the statehood, even if the meaning is to inform of the state because that is what is intended for estrangement. The referent of the pronoun and the demonstrative pronoun are united, and the consideration of the meaning of indication is merely to validate the governing [of the verb], not that the meaning rests upon it; with this, Al-Radi’s objection is repelled, and it has been answered by other means as well.

Al-Zajjaj said: It is permissible that ula'i has the meaning of "those who" (alladhina), serving as the predicate of the subject, and tuhibbunahum is in the position of a relative clause, though this is of no substance. It is also said: Antum is a primary subject, ula'i is a secondary subject, and tuhibbunahum is the predicate of the secondary subject, with the whole sentence being the predicate of the primary subject, similar to "You are Zayd, you love him." It is also said: Ula'i is the predicate, and the sentence following it is a second predicate. Another view: Ula'i is in the accusative case governed by a verb implied by what follows, and the sentence is the predicate of the subject, with the indication being for belittlement; thus, it is used here for reproach, as if he scorned them due to the obviousness of their mistake in that association.

The love of the believers for them is the common love arising from things like kindness and friendship. Such a thing—even if strange—is blameworthy if it occurs from the believers toward enemies of the religion who await for them the vicissitudes of time, but it does not reach the level of disbelief. It did not reach it due to another consideration that hardly occurs from those addressed. It is said: The intent of "you love them" is because you want Islam for them and invite them to Paradise, while they do not love you because they want disbelief and misguidance for you, and in that is destruction. The implications of this are not hidden.

"And you believe in the Book, all of it." That is, the entire genus. Making this akin to "You are the man"—meaning the one perfect in manhood—making the "Book" an allusion to the Quran, is far-fetched. The sentence is a state of the pronoun of the object in "they do not love you." Al-Bahr objected to this by stating that an affirmative imperfect verb, when appearing as a state, cannot be preceded by the waw of state (waw al-hal). For this reason, they interpreted "I stood while I was striking his eyes" as having an omitted subject, i.e., "I stood while I was striking his eyes." Such an interpretation, even if it comes here—i.e., "they do not love you while you believe in the Book, all of it"—coordination [of the sentence] to "you love them" is better, as it is safe from omission. The objection to this is that the discourse is in the context of correction, and belief in the whole Book is not such, as it is pure righteousness. Relying on the interpretation that "you believe in the Book, all of it, while they do not believe in any of it"—because their belief is no belief at all, and thus it cannot coexist with love—is sound, as the second Allama said in establishing the statehood rather than the coordination. With this, what is in Al-Bahr by way of excuse is repelled. The meaning is: "They do not love you, while you believe in their Book, so why do you love them when they do not believe in your Book?"

"And when they meet you, they say, 'We believe,'" out of hypocrisy, "and when they are alone," meaning when some of them are alone with others, "they bite their fingertips at you"—meaning because of you—"out of rage," meaning out of anger and wrath at what they see of the gathering of the believers, the unity of their word, and the support of Allah for them, such that their enemies are unable to find a way to vent their malice and are forced to treat them with diplomacy. Biting the fingertips is a habit of the remorseful, the wretched, and the helpless; thus, it is alluded to for the state of these people, and it is not intended that there is an actual biting.

"Say," O Muhammad, with your tongue. It is said: The intent is "Speak to yourself of humiliating them and honoring Islam without there being any speech." It is also said: It is an address to every believer, an incitement for them toward their enmity, and a spur to address them as one addresses adversaries, for there is nothing that cuts off love like the injury of the tongue. Thus, the intent of His saying, "Die in your rage," according to this, is merely the address of what they dislike. The correct view, upon which their consensus has settled, is that it is an imprecation against them. That this is something hidden—since the one invoked against is not addressed, but rather Allah is addressed, and He is asked to afflict them—is a hidden matter regarding its hiddenness, and it is a neglect of their saying "May Allah kill you" and their saying "Remain in honor" and "May you sleep with a cool eye," and countless others. The intent, as it is said, is the supplication for the continuation of their rage and its increase by the doubling of the strength of Islam and its people until they perish by it. This is, according to the second Allama, from the kinayah of kinayah (metonymy of metonymy), where he expressed the prayer for their death through rage as an allusion to its necessary implication, which is the prayer for the increase of their rage until the time of their destruction, and from that to its necessary implication, which is the strength of Islam and the glory of His Name; this is because mere dying in rage or its increase is not something that is good to request or pray for.

It has been countered that the metaphor is mentioned, while kinayah of kinayah is rare, and Al-Subki explicitly stated it in his principles of jurisprudence, where he cited disagreement regarding it. Furthermore, the difference between metonymy by intermediaries and metonymy of metonymy is something that requires sincere reflection; perhaps it is a difference of consideration. Also, what he mentioned—that mere dying in rage, etc., is [not] to be requested—is repelled by the fact that it is possible the factor making it good is what it contains of an indication of their disparagement, since they have deserved this horrible death and wretched state.

"Indeed, Allah is Knowing of that within the chests." That is, of what is hidden within them. This may potentially be part of the command: "Say to them: 'Indeed, Allah is knowing of what is even more hidden than what you conceal by biting your fingertips when you are alone, so He will recompense you for it.'" It may also be outside of it: "Say to them what has preceded, and do not be surprised at My informing you of their secrets, for I am Knowing of what is more hidden than their inner thoughts." The prohibition of surprise is then either cast in the mold of custom, metaphorically, based on the addressee being aware of the content of this sentence, or it remains in its literal sense if the addressee is someone other than that who pauses at this address. Thus, there is no complication under either premise, contrary to those who were mistaken in that.