Tafsir of Al Imran 3:135

(And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong themselves) is a continuation of what was revealed when the Muslims said to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "The Children of Israel were more honored by Allah than us," and so on, as we have indicated previously. It is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that when the state of the Children of Israel was mentioned in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), this verse was revealed, though the beginning of the verse was not mentioned.

In a narration by al-Kalbi, it is stated that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) established brotherhood between two men—an Ansari and a Thaqafi—and they were inseparable. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went out on some of his military expeditions, and the Thaqafi went with him, leaving the Ansari to look after his family and affairs. He would tend to the needs of the Thaqafi’s family. One day, he came and saw his companion’s wife having bathed, with her hair loosened, and he felt a desire for her. He entered without permission until he reached her and attempted to kiss her. She placed her palm over her face, so he kissed the back of her hand. Then, he felt remorse and shame, and turned back, saying: "Glory be to Allah! I have betrayed my trust and disobeyed my Lord, and I did not even attain my desire." It is said that he felt such regret for his action that he went out to wander in the mountains, repenting to Allah for his sin until he met the Thaqafi. His family had informed the Thaqafi of what he had done, so the Thaqafi went out looking for him until he was guided to him. He found him prostrating and saying: "O Lord, my sin, my sin! I have betrayed my brother." The Thaqafi said to him: "Stand up, O such-and-such, and go to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and ask him about your sin, perhaps Allah the Exalted will grant you relief and repentance." He came with him until he returned to Medina. One day, at the time of the Asr prayer, Gabriel (peace be upon him) descended with his repentance, and he recited: (And those who, when they commit an immorality...) up to His saying, the Almighty: (And excellent is the reward of the [righteous] workers). Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) asked: "O Messenger of Allah, is this for this man specifically or for all people in general?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "Nay, it is for all people in general."

In a narration by ‘Ata from Ibn Abbas, a woman of beauty came to Tihan the date-seller to buy dates, so he embraced her and kissed her. Then he felt regret and came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and mentioned it to him, and this verse was revealed.

You know that there is no objection to the multiplicity of the causes of revelation. Regardless, the generality of the wording implies the actions of the archers (at the Battle of Uhud) as a primary inclusion. Al-Tirmidhi reported from ‘Attaf bin Khalid that he said: "It reached me that when this was revealed, Iblis shouted to his troops and cast dust upon his head, calling for woe and destruction until his troops came to him from every land and sea. They asked: 'What is wrong, our master?' He said: 'A verse was revealed in the Book of Allah, after which no sin by any of the sons of Adam will harm them.' They asked: 'What is it?' He informed them. They said: 'We will open the gate of desires for them, so they will not repent, nor seek forgiveness, and they will perceive nothing except that they are on the truth,' and he was satisfied with that from them."

The relative pronoun (the one who) is either separated from what precedes it as a new subject, or it is said: it is linked to the qualities of the righteous mentioned before. His saying, the Almighty: (And Allah loves the doers of good) is a parenthetical clause between them, pointing to the disparity between the two, as the degree of the former (the righteous) is higher. If the benefit [of the description] is for the righteous, the disparity is more evident and significant.

"Immorality" (al-fahisha) refers to major sins, and "wronging themselves" (zulm) refers to minor sins; this was stated by the Judge Abd al-Jabbar al-Hamadani. It is also said: al-fahisha is the sin of action, and zulm is the sin of speech. Another view: al-fahisha is what causes harm to others—such as exposing a sin, because it encourages others to commit it—while zulm is that which does not. It is also said: al-fahisha is every sin whose ugliness is intense, and it applies to every ugly trait in speech and action, often specifically meaning adultery. The root of fuhsh is exceeding the limit in evil, as in the saying of Tarafa: "An elite of wealth, [but] a fahish who is extreme," meaning one who exceeds the limit in stinginess. Perhaps the intended meaning here is the sin that reaches the peak of ugliness, and "wronging oneself" is sin in general. Mentioning the latter after the former is an instance of mentioning the general after the specific. The "or" (aw) is for categorization; it is not a valid objection to say that in some aspects, this is a vacillation between the specific and the general, a point that has been questioned, for they say this is a distinction between two groups: one who seeks forgiveness for an immorality, and one who seeks forgiveness for any sin committed. How great is the difference between them!

The answer to Idha (When) is His saying, may His glory be exalted: (They remember Allah), meaning they recall His great right and His threat, or they recall the presentation before Him, or being questioned about the sin on the Day of Resurrection, or His prohibition, or His forgiveness. It is said: they recalled His beauty and felt shy, and His majesty and felt awe. It is said: they recalled His Essence—sanctified above all obscenities—and loved to draw near to Him by purifying themselves of base traits. In any case, the intent is not merely to mention His Name, Exalted is His Name.

(And seek forgiveness for their sins), meaning they seek forgiveness from Him, the Almighty, regardless of what the sins were. The object of "seek forgiveness" is omitted because the meaning is understood—i.e., seek forgiveness from Him. The intent is not merely to request pardon, but to do so with repentance; otherwise, seeking forgiveness while persisting is like mocking the Lord, the Almighty. Hence, Rabi’a al-Adawiyya said: "Our very act of seeking forgiveness stands in need of seeking forgiveness."

(And who forgives sins except Allah?) is a parenthetical clause between the two conjoined phrases or between the state and its subject. According to what some investigators have indicated, the structure points to matters regarding Allah and matters regarding the servant.

As for the first, there are several facets:

1. The indication of the Proper Name according to the meaning of "vast forgiveness" necessitated by the context. Constructing the sentence as an interrogative instead of a declarative—not saying "None forgives sins except Allah"—serves to confirm that meaning and emphasize it, as if to say: "Do you know anyone capable of forgiving all sins—small and great, past and future—other than He whose mercy encompasses all things?"
2. Its being placed before its expected position and removed from its seat—because it is a parenthetical clause between the subject ("those who") and the upcoming predicate, or between the conjoined and the conjoiner, or the state and its possessor—to signal the intensity of importance given to it and to alert that whenever seeking forgiveness is present, forgiveness does not fail to follow.
3. Using the definite article (the) for "sins" to announce that when the repentant person initiates the request for forgiveness, he is met with the forgiveness of all his sins, becoming like one who has no sin.
4. The indication through negation via restriction (interrogative restriction) and affirmation that there is no refuge for sinners except His generosity and grace. Since He whose mercy encompasses all things has no partner in bestowing it, this is by grace and generosity.
5. Attributing the forgiveness of sins to His Self, the Almighty, and establishing it for His sanctified Essence after the act of seeking forgiveness and the disavowal of His servants, proves the certainty of that happening, whether according to the promise, as we say, or according to justice, as the Mu'tazilah claim.

As for the second, there are also facets:

1. Expressing the vastness of mercy and the hastening of forgiveness is a great piece of good news and a comfort to the souls.
2. When the servant looks at this intense care and great interest in the matter of repentance, his energy is stirred and his empathy is shaken, so he does not lag behind.
3. Within the meaning of encompassment lies the eradication of despair and hopelessness. This is why the Almighty explained the prohibition in His saying, the Almighty: (Do not despair of the mercy of Allah), with His saying: (Indeed, Allah forgives all sins).
4. "Sins" were made absolute and general after mentioning "immorality" and "wronging oneself," abandoning the expected appearance, to indicate there is no concern regarding forgiveness; for even if sins are great, the pardon of Allah is greater.
5. The Comprehensive Name in the structure, as it indicates the vastness of forgiveness, also indicates—with the intent of restriction—that He alone possesses the requirements for forgiveness: being the Almighty, above whom there is no one who can overrule His decree; and being the All-Wise, who forgives whom His wisdom deems worthy of forgiveness.

Some have committed to the view that the definite article in "the sins" is for the genus, so that the verse signifies the impossibility of any other than Allah issuing forgiveness. This, according to their opinion, the verse does not imply if the intent were all sins, in which case the exaggeration becomes even stronger. Regarding treating the sentence as a state (e.g., "saying so"), it is a forced interpretation that loses many of these subtle points, as is not hidden.

("And do not persist in what they have done") is conjoined to "sought forgiveness" or is a state of the subject, meaning they did not remain—or are not remaining—upon what they did of sins, whether immorality or wrongdoing. The root of israr (persistence) is "tightening." It is also said: to remain constant on something. In religious usage, it is used to mean remaining on the ugly without seeking forgiveness or returning by repentance. It is evident that it is not valid to intend this meaning alone, lest the concept overlap with the literal meaning. Perhaps here it means "remaining." If "seeking forgiveness" is understood as merely requesting pardon, then this points to repentance, which is the cornerstone of the matter, although "seeking forgiveness" was mentioned first because it is ostensibly indicative of it. If it is understood as a state that includes repentance, then this is an explicit mention of part of what was intended, indicating care for it, as they said regarding mentioning the specific after the general. Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Ibn Abbas, in a stopped narration: "Every sin persisted upon by the servant is a major one, and it is not major if the servant repents from it." Ahmad and al-Bukhari recorded in Al-Adab al-Mufrad from Ibn Umar, in a raised narration: "Show mercy and you will be shown mercy; forgive and you will be forgiven. Woe to the vessels of speech! Woe to those who persist!"

(And they know): It is said the sentence is a state of the pronoun in "sought forgiveness," but there is a linguistic remoteness in this. The well-known view is that it is a state of the pronoun in "persisted." The object of "know" is omitted, meaning they know the ugliness of their action. It has been mentioned that a state following a negative verb, as well as all modifiers, may return to the negation as a qualifier for it rather than for the negated, like "I did not come to you while occupied with your affairs," meaning "I refrained from coming while occupied with that." It may also return to what the negation entered, like "I did not come to you riding." This has two meanings: first, which is more common, that the negation returns to the modifier only and the essence of the action is established (the meaning being: "I came, but not riding"). Second, intending the negation of both the action and the modifier—the meaning in the example being "no coming and no riding." It may also be that the negation is directed only at the action without considering the negation or affirmation of the modifier.

It is said: In this verse, it is not correct for "and they know" to be a modifier for the negation because there is no benefit—for refraining from persistence necessitates the reward and recompense whether it is with knowledge of the ugliness or with ignorance; indeed, with ignorance it is more appropriate. Nor is it correct for the negation to be directed only at the modifier while affirming the action, for the meaning is not the affirmation of persistence and the negation of knowledge. Likewise, it is not correct to direct it at both the action and the modifier, for the meaning is not the negation of knowledge. The apparent meaning, therefore, is that it is directed at the action only without considering the negation or affirmation of the modifier. The intent is: "They did not persist knowingly," meaning that the absence of persistence is absolutely realized.

You may say: Why is it not permitted for the state here to be a modifier for the negation, with the meaning being: "They refrained from persisting on the sin because of their knowledge that the sin is ugly," for the state can come in the context of causation. The argument that "refraining from persistence necessitates reward regardless of knowledge of ugliness" is answered by saying that the purpose of mentioning the state is not to qualify the persistence to necessitate reward—so that the mentioned objection would apply—but rather to praise them, for they possess that which deters them from sin, which is their knowledge of the sin’s ugliness. Thus, it is a praise for them, as one of their qualities is avoiding the ugly.

Some of the later scholars insisted that the state is a modifier of the negated and that the negation returns to the modifier, and the meaning is: "They did not have persistence with knowledge of the ugliness of the outcome," because the one who persists without knowledge of the ugliness is not denied the reward, and the one who does not persist due to laziness or lack of inclination of the nature does not attain it; for the reward is for the suppression, not for the absence. Otherwise, everyone would have endless rewards for not doing countless ugly deeds that never crossed their minds. It is clear that the criticism of the statement "the one who does not persist, etc." and "because the reward, etc." is valid.

It is as if the one who made it a state of the pronoun in "sought forgiveness" wanted to flee from this quibbling. And I say: The state is indeed a modifier of the negated, and the object of knowledge is not the ugliness, but rather: "He forgives whoever seeks forgiveness and relents toward whoever repents." This is what is narrated from Mujahid, as a group reported from him, and it is also related from al-Dahhak. The meaning is: they refrained from remaining upon the sin, knowing that Allah the Exalted accepts the repentance of His servants and forgives them. This is a sign that they do not despair of the spirit of Allah, the Almighty. This does not fall prey to the claim of "no benefit" as was argued first, for it is known—without any doubt—that refraining from persistence only necessitates reward if it is not accompanied by despair, for "None despairs of the spirit of Allah except the disbelieving people." Perhaps praising them that they "know that" is better than praising them that they "know the ugliness of the act." Perhaps it is said: the sentence was brought as a parenthetical clause for that purpose, just as the sentence "And who forgives sins except Allah?" was brought for its own purpose. As for making it conjoined to the sentence "did not persist," then sometimes a thing is valid as a dependent but not valid independently; that is not what the soul inclines toward.