Tafsir of Al Imran 3:128

More than one authority has narrated that the lower right canine tooth of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) was struck on the day of Uhud by Utbah ibn Abi Waqqas, who also wounded him on his face. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah—or Ali (may Allah honor his face)—was washing away the blood while the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) was saying, "How can a people succeed who have done this to their Prophet?" Then Allah, the Exalted, revealed this verse.

Ahmad, Al-Bukhari, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa’i, and others narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) said on the day of Uhud: "O Allah, curse Abu Sufyan; O Allah, curse Al-Harith ibn Hisham; O Allah, curse Suhayl ibn Amr; O Allah, curse Safwan ibn Umayyah." Then this verse, {Not for you is any of the matter} and what follows, was revealed, and they were all granted repentance.

Al-Jubba’i narrates that on the day of Uhud, the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) sought permission to invoke curses upon the disbelievers because of the harm they had inflicted upon him—to the extent that he (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) prayed the Dhuhr prayer that day sitting due to his wounds, and the Muslims prayed behind him sitting. Yet, he was not granted permission, and this verse was revealed.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq and Al-Sha’bi stated: When the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) and the Muslims saw what the disbelievers had done to his companions and his uncle Hamzah—such as the mutilation of noses and ears and the cutting off of private parts—they said, "If Allah grants us victory over them, we shall certainly do the same to them as they have done to us, and we shall surely mutilate them in a way that no one among the Arabs has ever been mutilated." Thus, this [verse] was revealed.

From Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him): The Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) wanted to invoke curses upon those of his companions who had fled from him on the day of Uhud, but Allah forbade him from doing so and granted them repentance, and this verse was revealed.

These reports are unanimous that the verse was revealed regarding Uhud, and the most reliable view is that it concerns the polytheists.

Muqatil narrates that it was revealed regarding the people of Bi’r Ma’unah. This occurred when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) sent forty—and it is said seventy—men of his reciter companions, appointing Al-Mundhir ibn Amr over them, to Bi’r Ma’unah four months after Uhud, in order to teach the people the Quran and knowledge. The enemy of Allah, ‘Amir ibn al-Tufayl, called for help against them from the tribes of Sulaym—from ‘Usayyah, Ri’l, and Dhakwan. They surrounded them in their camps and fought until they killed every last one of them, except for Ka’b ibn Zayd of Banu al-Najjar, whom they left with a flicker of life. When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) learned of this, he felt immense grief and practiced Qunut for a month, cursing them. Then this verse was revealed, so he ceased doing so.

The meaning is: You have no part in their affair at all, even a small one. {Or He may grant them repentance or punish them} is a conjunction either to "the matter" (al-amr) or to "any" (shay') by implying "that" (an). That is: You have no part in their matter, or in granting them repentance, or in punishing them. Or: You have no part in their matter, [nor in] granting them repentance, or [in] punishing them. They distinguished between the two interpretations by stating that the first implies the negation of whatever follows from repentance and punishment—whether from his part (the Prophet’s) regarding acceptance, rejection, salvation from punishment, or prevention of deliverance.

According to the second, it is the negation of the act of repentance and punishment itself by him (the Prophet). Meaning: He cannot force them to repent, nor prevent them from it; he cannot punish them, nor pardon them; for all matters are in the hands of Allah, the Exalted. Under either estimation, it is an instance of mentioning the specific after the general, as the second scholar (Al-Thani) said. However, there is some scrutiny regarding such a conjunction using "or" (aw). Some commented that this applies if "the matter" (al-amr) is understood as "status/affair" (sha’n). You may also interpret it as "commissioning/obligation" (taklif)—meaning: what you order them to do is not of your own volition, and the matter is not in your hand, nor is the repentance or the punishment; thus, there is no mention of the specific after the general. The response is that interpreting it as "obligation" is a forced interpretation, whereas interpreting it as "status/affair" is more sublime.

It is narrated from Al-Farra’ and Ibn al-Anbari that "or" (aw) carries the meaning of "unless" (illa an). The meaning would be: You have no part in their affair, unless Allah grants them repentance by [their entering] Islam, then you would rejoice, or He punishes them, then you would find satisfaction through them. In any case, the sentence is a new statement intended to clarify some matters related to the Battle of Uhud or what resembles it, following the clarification of matters related to the Battle of Badr, due to the correlation between them—given that both are founded upon the exclusivity of all authority to Allah and upon its negation from anyone else.

It is said that all that is in these verses concerns the Battle of Uhud, as we have indicated. It is also said that His saying, {Or grant them repentance}, etc., is a conjunction to "turn back" (yanqalibu)—meaning: the fruit of their disgrace is their turning back in failure, or [it is] the repentance granted to them or their punishment. Or it is a conjunction to "suppress them" (yakbutahum). {Not for you is any of the matter} is an interjection, placed between the conjoined [sentences] related to the immediate [consequences] and the conjoined [sentences] to establish that the vanquished has no influence, following the statement that those who grant victory have no [independent] influence. The negation is specified to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) by way of varying the address to indicate that it applies to others [by way of] priority. The declaration of [the Prophet’s] position was singled out because the preceding mention of cutting [them off] and suppression might be thought to imply some role for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) and others engaged in the fighting.

The meaning is: The Master of their affair absolutely is Allah, the Exalted; He granted you victory over them to destroy them, or to suppress them, or to grant them repentance if they embrace Islam, or to punish them if they persist. You have no part in their affair; you are only a servant commanded to warn them and strive against them.

By "punishing them," it refers to the severe otherworldly punishment reserved for the most adamant of disbelievers. Otherwise, the absolute otherworldly punishment is realized in the first two groups. Interpreting it as worldly punishment through captivity and the victory of the believers over them is contrary to the obvious meaning of "punishment" when mentioned absolutely. Similarly, it does not conform to the outward meaning of His saying, {for they are wrongdoers}, as it is in the context of providing the reason for this punishment. Most often, the reason provided is for the otherworldly punishment. Indeed, interpreting it as worldly punishment is more consistent with the meaning mentioned by Al-Farra’ and Ibn al-Anbari, because "satisfaction" is usually [found] in this world.

[Regarding] the categorization of repentance and otherworldly punishment as the final cause of the victory—which results in its existence—it is because their accepting repentance is a consequence of its realization, arising from their knowledge of the truth of Islam due to the victory of its adherents—which is one of the distinct and clear signs. And [that] their mentioned punishment is a consequence of their persistence in disbelief after the truth has become clear in the aforementioned manner, as is indicated by His saying: {so that those who perish might perish upon evidence, and those who live might live upon evidence}. If it were interpreted as captivity, for example, the matter of causality would be exposed with no ambiguity.

This verse was problematized on the basis that it indicates, as in some reports, that the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace and blessings) intended to perform an action and was prevented from it. [The problem is:] if that action was from Allah, how could He prevent him from it? And if it was not, it would impugn [his] infallibility and contradict the words of Allah: {Nor does he speak from his own desire}. The answer is that what occurred was of the nature of "what is less than the best" (khilaf al-awla) considering his station (may Allah grant him peace and blessings), and the prohibition understood from the speech is of the nature of guidance toward choosing the superior path. This is not considered "desire" (hawa) at all, based on the view that it is permissible for a Prophet to exercise independent reasoning (ijtihad) and act upon what his permitted ijtihad leads to.

It is also possible that the action itself was by revelation and permission from Allah to him (may Allah grant him peace and blessings), and that the prohibition of it was an abrogation of that permission. In either case, it does not contradict the infallibility established for the Prophets (may Allah grant them peace and blessings). So understand this.