Tafsir of Al Imran 3:140

Hamza, al-Kisa’i, and Ibn ‘Ayyash, on the authority of ‘Asim, read it with a damma on the qaf (qurh), while the rest read it with a fatha (qarh). These are two dialects, like al-daff and al-duff, and al-da’f and al-du’f. Al-Farra’ stated: Qarh (with fatha) is the wound itself, and qurh (with damma) is its pain. It is also read with a damma on both the qaf and the ra’ as a form of assimilation, like al-yusr and al-yusr, or al-tunub and al-tunub. Abu al-Summal read both with fatha, and it is the verbal noun of qaraha-yaqrahu, meaning when one sustains a wound.

The meaning is: If they gained the upper hand over you on the day of Uhud, you had already gained the upper hand over them before that on the day of Badr. Yet, that did not weaken their hearts, nor did it discourage them from returning to fight you. You are more entitled not to be weakened, for you hope for that from Allah, the Exalted, which they do not hope for.

The use of the imperfect tense (yamassakum), according to the scholar al-Taftazani, is to narrate the state, as the touching had already passed. As for using in (if) with an implied kana (i.e., in kana massakum qurhun), in does not conjugate into kana due to its strong indication of the past. Or, as has been said, in may come merely for suspension without shifting its verb from the past to the future. What appears in the place of the conditional response is not, in reality, a response—because it was realized before this condition—but rather an indication of the response. The intended meaning is: If a wound has touched you, that does not validate your excuse and your resignation from Jihad thereafter, for a similar wound has already touched your enemies, and they remain as they are. Or it may be said: If a wound touches you, take consolation, for a similar wound has touched the people.

The "likeness" refers to the heavy casualties in general terms. Thus, the objection is not valid that the Muslims killed seventy of the polytheists at Badr and took seventy captive, while the polytheists killed seventy-five of the Muslims at Uhud and wounded seventy. Some committed to interpreting qurh as mere defeat rather than high casualties to avoid this objection. Others went to great lengths to explain the verse—carrying it to meanings the speech of Allah should not be burdened with—by saying: The most appropriate interpretation is: "If a wound touches you," do not show weakness, because "a similar wound has touched the people (al-qawm)," meaning: the men. Qurh (wounding) happens to men, not women; so, whoever is from the rank of men should not turn away from what is his characteristic, but rather should strive for it. Through this, the validity of expressing it in the imperfect tense and its appearance on its literal meaning is revealed, and the objection that their wound was not like the Muslims' wound is also dispelled, without needing the aforementioned answer.

It is said: Both "touchings" occurred at Uhud, for the Muslims had gained an advantage over them before they disobeyed the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), as they killed more than twenty of their men—among them the bearer of their standard—wounded a large number, and hamstrung most of their horses with arrows. It is also said: The "wound" that touched them was that they returned empty-handed despite their large numbers and their victory, due to Allah the Exalted’s protection of the believers.

The specification of the declaration for the cause of this individual instance of the absolute rotation, rather than its other instances occurring among other nations, is done either for identification or for ambiguity, as there is no scientific interest in explaining them. You may also consider the omitted, ambiguous [clause] to be an expression of the causes of all its instances, to indicate generally that every instance has a cause that apparently calls for it. As if it were said: "We rotate them among all people" so that such-and-such wisdoms may occur that call for those instances, "and that [He] may know," etc. The first lam relates to the absolute action, considering its restriction to those instances, and the second relates to it considering its restriction to the known instance, as was stated by our master, the Sheikh al-Islam. It is also permitted that the verb be conjoined to what precedes it based on the meaning; as if it were said: I rotated the days among you because this is Our custom, "and that [He] may know," etc. It is also said that the verb for which the explanation is given is omitted and placed later; the estimation being: "And that Allah may know those who believe, He did that." Some claimed the waw (and) is an addition, though they were [themselves] of limited scope. The speech is a form of representation; i.e., "so that He may treat you with the treatment of one who wishes to know the sincere ones who are firm in faith, apart from others."

"Knowing" here is a metaphor for distinguishing, based on the principle of naming the cause with the name of the effect; i.e., so that He may distinguish the firm in faith from others. Interpreting "knowledge" as "distinction" within the context of the representation is unnecessary elaboration. Many chose to interpret "knowledge" as the contingent attachment upon which recompense is based; some discussion on this has already preceded in [Surah] al-Baqarah.

In summary, the necessity of the occurrence of "knowledge"—which is an attribute existing in His Self, the Exalted—does not follow [as a problem], nor does the absolute [term] "faith," although the intent is the rootedness and sincerity within it, to signify that the name "faith" does not apply to other than it.

Some claimed the estimation is: "So that Allah may know the believer from the hypocrite," except that the mention of one sufficed for the other, but there is no need for this. Similar is the statement regarding the deletion of the genitive, i.e., "the patience of those who..." The shift to the third person by attributing it to the Majestic Name is to instill awe and to signify that the issuing of each of the mentioned things is in the context of being an explanation of His actions, the Exalted, considering a specific origin of His attributes which this Supreme Name gathers, which is different from the origin of the other.

The first [interpretation] is supported by what Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from ‘Ikrimah, who said: "When the news was delayed for the women, they went out to inquire and found two men killed on a mount or a camel. A woman from the Ansar said, 'Who are these?' They said, 'So-and-so and so-and-so,' her brother and her husband, or her husband and her son. She said, 'What did the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) do?' They said, 'He is alive.' She said, 'Then I do not care.' Allah, the Exalted, takes martyrs from among His servants." Then the Quran was revealed according to what she said: {And He takes martyrs from among you.} He used "taking" as a metonymy for honoring, because whoever takes something for himself has chosen and approved of it. Thus, the meaning is: May He honor people from among you with martyrdom.