Tafsir of Al Imran 3:13

"(Qad kāna lakum): This is a continuation of the discourse that was commanded to be delivered, brought forth to confirm and substantiate the content of what preceded it. The address is directed to the Jews as well—a view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam and held by al-Balkhi—meaning: 'You, O Jews, who are deceived by your numbers and your equipment, have had a sign (an āyah), i.e., a great proof indicative of the truth of what I tell you, that you will surely be defeated.'

"(Fī fi’atayn): i.e., two groups or parties of people. The one that was defeated was self-conceited by its numbers and proud of its might, yet what befell it, befell it. They met on the day of Badr.

"(Fi’atun tuqātilu fī sabīlillāh): It is in the highest degree of faith. It did not say 'believing' (mu’minah), as a form of praise befitting the context and a symbol of reliance upon their fighting. It has also been recited as yuqātilu (they fight), interpreting the group as 'the people' or 'the party.'

"(Wa-ukhrā kāfirah): with Allah the Exalted; thus it is far from fighting in His cause. It was not described with the counterpart to the description of the first group so as to exclude their fighting from the realm of consideration, signaling that they did not engage in it due to the awe and dread that overwhelmed them.

"(Kāna) is an incomplete verb (nāqiṣah), and this is the position of the majority of grammarians. (Āyah) is its subject. The feminine marker was omitted in the verb because the subject is not literally feminine, it is separated [from the verb], and because the words āyah (sign) and dalīl (proof) are synonymous. Regarding the predicate (khabar), there are two views: first, that it is (lakum), and (fī fi’atayn) is an adjective for āyah. Second, that the predicate is this adjective (i.e., fī fi’atayn), and lakum relates to kāna according to those who hold that view. It is also permitted that lakum be in the accusative position as a state (ḥāl); it has been stated repeatedly that when a description of an indefinite noun is placed before it, it becomes a state.

"(Iltaqatā) is in the position of the genitive as an adjective for fi’atayn. Fi’atun is the predicate of an omitted subject, meaning 'one of them is a group,' and ukhrā is an adjective for an implied word, meaning 'and another group.' The sentence is an inception (must’anifah) to establish the 'sign' contained within the two groups. It is said that 'a group and what is linked to it' acts as a substitute (badal) for the pronoun in iltaqatā, and what follows them is an adjective; thus, there must be an omitted pronoun referring back to the original noun to justify describing the substitute with a sentence void of a pronoun—i.e., 'a group of them fights,' etc. It is also permitted that each of the conjoined parts is a subject with the following being the predicate—i.e., 'one of them fights,' etc., and 'another group is disbelieving.' It is also said that each of them is a subject with an omitted predicate, i.e., 'of them is a group,' etc.

"It was recited as fi’atan and ukhrā kāfiratan in the accusative case, which serves as praise for the first and dispraise for the second. It is also said to be for the sake of specification (ikhtiṣāṣ). Abu Hayyan objected to this, arguing that the noun specified in this way cannot be indefinite. The answer given is that the speaker did not intend the 'specification' established in grammar—as in 'We, the company of Prophets, are not inherited'—but rather intended the accusative case via the ellipsis of a suitable verb. Scholars of rhetoric call this type of construction 'specification,' as al-Khafaji stated. It is also permissible for them to be two states (ḥālayn), as if it were said: 'They met while believing and disbelieving.' Fi’atan and ukhrā in this case are precursors to the state. It was also recited in the genitive in both cases as a substitution from fi’atayn (a substitution of a part for the whole), with the pronoun referring back to the replaced noun implied, as stated before. This is called 'detailed substitution' (badal tafṣīlī), as in the poet's saying: 'I was like a man with two legs: one healthy and one that the shifting events of time had struck.'

"(Yarawnahum mithlayhim) is in the position of the nominative as an adjective for the latter group, or as an inception explaining the nature of the sign. The meaning—as al-Suddi said—is that the latter, disbelieving group, saw the first, believing group as twice the number of the observers. They were 950 fighters, all fully armed. According to Ali (may Allah honor his face) and Ibn Mas’ud, they were a thousand, and the roof of their house was... they were led and linked by Utbah ibn Rabi’ah ibn Abd Shams, among them were the commanders of Quraysh and the leaders of misguidance. With them were 700 camels and 100 horses. Muhammad ibn al-Furat narrated from Sa’id ibn Aws that he said: The polytheists captured a man from the Muslims and asked him: 'How many were you?' He said: 'Three hundred and a few.' They said: 'We did not see you except as double our number.' They meant 1900, which is what is intended by (yarawnahum mithlayhim).

"Al-Farra claimed it might mean three times their number, for if you say 'I have a thousand and I need twice that amount,' you mean two thousand added to it, not replacing it. Thus, they saw them as three times their number. Al-Zajjaj denied this view because it contradicts the apparent wording, or [that they were] twice the number of the observed, i.e., six hundred and something, given that the number of those sent was 77 migrants and 236 from the Ansar. The standard-bearer of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the migrants was Ali the Valiant (may Allah honor his face), and the flag-bearer of the Ansar was Sa’d ibn Ubadah. They had 70 camels and two horses: the horse of Miqdad ibn Amr and the horse of Marthad ibn Abi Marthad. As for weapons, they had six coats of mail and eight swords. Most were on foot. Fourteen men were martyred that day: six from the migrants and eight from the Ansar, to which reference has already been made.

"Allah the Exalted showed them as such, even though they were not, so that they would fear them and become cowardly in fighting them; this is a form of support and spiritual aid. This occurred when the two groups drew near, after Allah had made them appear few in their eyes during the initial sighting so that they would become bold against them and not fear and flee—where fleeing would be beneficial. A group of scholars held that the meaning is: the believing group sees the disbelieving group as twice their own number, despite being three times their number, so that they would remain steadfast and be reassured by the victory promised in His saying: 'If there are among you a hundred steadfast, they will overcome two hundred.'

"Shaykh al-Islam, the Mufti of the Ottoman lands, said: 'The first [interpretation] is more appropriate, because the sight of the double is not fixed from the side of the believers; rather, they also saw the equal or even less.' It is narrated that Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'We looked at the polytheists and saw them double our number; then we looked at them again and did not see them exceeding us by a single man. Then Allah made them appear few in our eyes until we saw them as a small number, less than ourselves.' Ibn Mas’ud said: 'They were made to look small in our eyes on the day of Badr until I said to a man beside me: "Do you see them as seventy?" He said: "I see them as a hundred." Then we captured a man from them and said: "How many were you?" He said: "Two thousand." If the intention was that the believers saw the polytheists as fewer than their actual count—as in Surah al-Anfal—then seeing them as fewer than themselves would be more worthy of mention as a sign than seeing them as double their number. Furthermore, showing the polytheists the power and wisdom of Allah by making the few appear many and the weak appear strong, casting fear into their hearts because of that, is more profound in serving as a sign for them and a proof against them, and closer to the confession of those addressed because of their frequent intermingling with the polytheists who witnessed the situation. Similarly, linking the verb to the subject is stronger than linking it to the object. Thus, making the first of the preceding mentioned [groups] the subject and the farthest the object—whether the sentence is an adjective or an inception—is better than the reverse.'

"It is possible for the majority, who believe the meaning is the believers seeing the polytheists as double their number, to say that this is based on the interpretation narrated from Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him). We do not concede that their seeing them as fewer than themselves is more worthy of mention as a sign than seeing them as double their number, for it is possible that the sign and indication for the Jews—that they will be defeated—is the believers’ fighting against these polytheists and overcoming them despite the presence of the normal cause for cowardice, which is the believers seeing them as more numerous than themselves. It is as if it were said: 'O assembly of Jews, verify the fighting of the Muslims against you and their overcoming you, and do not be deceived by your knowledge of their fewness and your multitude. For they proceed to fight those whom they see as more numerous than themselves in count, and they do not cower or fear, but are victorious. That is only because Allah the Exalted has filled their hearts with faith and severity against those who oppose Him, surrounded them with His aid and support, and promised them a beautiful promise.'

"It should not be said: 'It is more appropriate for this purpose that the believers see the polytheists as they are, in that they are three times their number, or see them as even more, because their proceeding to fight them then would be a clearer indication of the cause of victory over the Jews.' We reply: Yes, that is as you mentioned, but this vision was chosen because it fulfills the intention while containing praise for the believers for their steadfastness arising from the strength of faith in the final victory promised by His saying: 'If there are among you a hundred steadfast, they will overcome two hundred,' over a view that contains only one matter not inclusive of that specific praise. Based on this, there is no need to commit to the duality being a metaphor for multiplicity, as in His saying: 'Then return your vision twice,' nor to the claim that the pronoun in mithlahum refers back to the latter group—i.e., that the believing group sees the disbelieving group as twice the number of the disbelieving group, meaning close to two thousand, even if some have leaned toward this.

"Also, the objection to his saying 'that the showing of the few as many, etc.'—after conceding that the showing itself was the sign—is that the showing of the few as many did not happen to the Jews addressed at the beginning of the verse, so that showing the effects of Allah’s power through that would be more integral to it being a sign and proof against them. And [the claim] that it is closer to their confession because of their frequent interaction with the polytheists who witnessed the situation depends on the witnesses having told them of it, and their having believed it rather than attributing it to their being deluded by fear—for the fearful one imagines the trees of the desert to be armed warriors and raging lions. Proving each of these matters is difficult. Furthermore, in what Sa’id ibn Jubayr and Ikrimah narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that the Jews said to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) after that event: 'Do not let it deceive you that you encountered a naive people with no knowledge of war, and so you found an opportunity against them. If you had fought us, you would have known that we are the "people" (i.e., the real warriors).' This implies that even if they had told them and they believed it, they would have attributed it to what we mentioned. The statement that 'linking the verb to the subject is stronger, etc.' is conceded, but we do not concede that it demands the priority of making the first of the mentioned [nouns] the subject and the farthest the object absolutely; rather, that is only when there is no subtle meaning in the reverse that is good to observe given the context. Here, that is the case, especially since the first group was already praised for fighting in the cause of Allah, and it turned away from praising them for faith—which is the foundation for it. There is no doubt that their fighting the polytheists while seeing them as more numerous than themselves—and twice their number—is more praiseworthy, as is not hidden.

"Nafi and Ya’qub recited it as tarawnahum with a tā’ (you see them). This was considered problematic on the assumption that the address is to the Jews, because they did not see the believers as twice their own number nor twice the disbelievers, nor did they see the disbelievers as twice their own number or twice the believers. The answer is that it is correct to say: they saw the believers as twice their own number or twice the disbelievers metaphorically, as the vision of the polytheists was placed in the position of their own vision [of the believers] due to the union between them in disbelief and the agreement in word, especially after the covenant and pledge that occurred between them via Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. Thus, the vision was attributed to them to emphasize the clarification and substantiate the occurrence of such a state for them. Similarly, it is correct to say: they saw the reality of the disbelievers as twice the believers, and the vision is taken as the knowledge and belief arising from fame and mass-narration (tawātur). One must accept that the sign for them is the believers’ fighting the disbelievers and the overcoming of the latter by the former, despite being more numerous than them; however, it was limited to the minimum necessary. From this, it is known that the believers’ fighting and overcoming the disbelieving group, while they were three times their number in reality—as is known to them—is a sign a fortiori (min bāb awlā).

"Because of the difficulty in these two answers, some committed to the view that the address from the beginning is to the polytheists to clarify this reading, and required that His saying 'You have had...' be an address to them after that, not included under the command, based on the fact that the warning was about the occurrence of Badr and there is no meaning in using it as proof before its occurrence. And making that included in the object of the command—but expressing the future with the past tense to signify the certainty of its occurrence—is not without its issues. Some made the address in Nafi’s reading to the believers, and committed to the previous address being to them as well, as an initiation of address in the context of showing favor to them for the previously promised victory. It is also said that it is for all the disbelievers. Some of the verifying Imams said: The statement that the address is general for the believers, the Jews, and the polytheists of Makkah is what the context requires, so that the speech is not fragmented and the concluding sentence 'And Allah supports,' etc., is placed like musk in the seal. Then, whoever counts the expression of a group by one of the three methods, and later expresses a part of them by a different method, says it is an instance of iltifāt (shift in discourse) in the verse based on some of its possibilities. And whoever does not count that—as is the apparent case—denies the iltifāt in it. By this, the opinions of those who examine the verse from this aspect and their differences regarding the existence or absence of iltifāt in it are reconciled. So, reflect deeply, for it is for such a topic that all the research is stored.

"Ibn Musayyib recited it as yurawnahum in the passive voice with yā’ and tā’, meaning: Allah the Exalted shows them that by His power. (Ra’y al-‘ayn): An infinitive emphasizing yarawnahum, on the assumption that it is a visual sight; thus, mithlayhim is in that case a state. It is also permissible for it to be an infinitive of comparison on the assumption that it is intellectual/belief-based knowledge, i.e., a view like the view of the eye; thus, mithlayhim in that case is a second object. It is said that ra’y is in the accusative as an adverbial, i.e., 'in the vision of the eye.'

"(Wallāhu) who is characterized by the attributes of beauty and majesty, (yu’ayyidu) i.e., strengthens, (bi-naṣrihi) i.e., by His aid. It is also said: by His proof. He is not strong—the One who wishes to support someone without the mediation of the usual causes, as He supported the group fighting in His path. This is a completion of the commanded speech. (Inna fī dhālika) the mentioned victory, or it is said: that vision, (la-‘ibrah) i.e., a lesson and indication. It is a fa’lah (a noun of state) from 'crossing' (‘ubūr), like rakbah and jalsah, which is crossing over—from which comes 'I crossed the river.' Admonition (itti‘āẓ) is called ‘ibrah because the one who is admonished crosses from ignorance to knowledge and from destruction to salvation. The tanwīn is for magnification, i.e., a great lesson existing for those of vision.

"(Li-ūlī al-abṣār): The plural of baṣar (vision/sight), meaning insight (baṣīrah) metaphorically, or in its known meaning, i.e., the intellects and the insights, or for those who see them and behold them with their physical eyes. This sentence is either a completion of the speech contained under the 'commanded saying,' confirming what preceded it by way of conclusion, or it is from the side of the Exalted, affirming the statement of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)."