Al-Imran: 142

(Or do you think that you will enter Paradise) This is an address to those who were defeated on the day of Uhud. It is a new discourse to clarify the ultimate purpose behind the alternation of days and the result of the three preceding causes mentioned. The particle Am (Or) is "disjunctive" (munqati'ah), conceptually replaced by bal (nay/rather), along with an interrogative hamza of denunciation (inkari). To consider it a "conjunctive" (muttasilah) particle requiring an implied counterpart is a strained interpretation. The discourse shifts from providing consolation—by explaining the causes of the hardship they encountered—to verifying that these hardships are among the prerequisites for achieving the loftiest goal and the highest station.

The meaning is: "Nay, it does not befit you to think that you will enter Paradise and attain its bliss, and what Allah Almighty has prepared in it for His servants, (while Allah has not yet made evident those who strive among you)." This is a circumstantial clause (hal) referring to the pronoun in "that you will enter," reinforcing the denunciation. For a person to hope for a reward without action—when they know that the reward is contingent upon it—is deemed far-fetched by rational minds. Hence the saying: "You hope for salvation while not treading its paths; for the ship does not sail on dry land." It has been narrated from Shahr bin Hawshab that seeking Paradise without action is a sin among sins, waiting for intercession without a cause is a form of delusion, and hoping for mercy from One who is not obeyed is folly and ignorance. The negation of "knowledge" here is with respect to its "actualization" (tanjizi), as previously discussed regarding the affirmative view.

It is also permissible for the speech to be a metonymy (kinayah) for the negation of the realization of that goal, because the negation of knowledge is a necessary consequence of the negation of the fact itself; for the fact is a prerequisite for Allah’s knowledge, and the negation of the necessary consequence (lazim) necessitates the negation of the prerequisite (malzum). It is often said: "Allah did not know of any good in so-and-so," meaning there is no good in him for Allah to know. Whether this logic applies to the negation of our own knowledge is a matter of debate; the author of al-Intisaf definitively favored the latter. The preference for metonymy over explicit statement serves to emphasize the realization of the intended meaning: the non-existence of Jihad, which is the cause for the greatest attainment. For to speak of it as having occurred is like claiming something without proof. Therein lies also a hint toward abandoning hypocrisy, signaling that the intended goal is Allah’s knowledge, not that of people. The negation is directed toward the described persons, even though the thing negated is the description itself (Jihad), in order to emphasize the complete absence and non-realization of it. How could the attribute be realized without the one being described?

In selecting lamma (not yet) over lam (not), there is an indication that Jihad is expected from them in the future, based on what is understood from Sibawayh’s discourse that lamma denotes the expectation of the action negated by it. Al-Zajjaj mentioned that if one says "So-and-so has surely done," the response is lamma yaf'al (he has not yet done). If one says "He has done," the response is lam yaf'al. If one says "By Allah, he has done," the responder says "By Allah, he has not done." If one says "He will do" (referring to the future), the response is la yaf'al. Therefore, Abu Hayyan’s assertion that "no grammarian other than Sibawayh mentioned that lamma indicates the expectation of the action negated by it" is not a view to be adopted. However, this expectation here is not considered in the emphasis of the denunciation.

It has been recited as wa ya'lama with a fatha on the mim, based on the original ya'lamanna with a light nun, which was deleted in elision. They have permitted its deletion either on the condition that it meets a quiescent letter or absolutely. An example is the poet’s saying: "When I said 'it is enough for me,' he said by Allah an oath to spare me the entirety of your vessel," based on the narration of a fatha on the lam. It is said that the fatha on the mim is to follow the [vowel of the] lam, so that the magnification (tafkhim) of the Name of Allah (Glorious is His Name) may remain.

(Min kum) (among you) is a circumstantial clause for (alladhina) (those), and the min signifies partiality (tab'id), implying that Jihad is a communal obligation (fard kifayah).

(And [until He] makes evident the patient) This is in the accusative case by the implication of an (that). It is also said it is by the waw of companionship (waw al-sarf), and the speech follows the pattern of "Do not eat fish and drink milk," meaning: "Or do you think you will enter Paradise while Jihad and patience—that is, the combination of both—has not been realized among you?" The preference for "the patient" (al-sabirin) over "those who were patient" (alladhina sabaru) is to signal that what is considered is continuity in patience and to maintain the rhyme of the verses. It is also said the verb is jussive (majzum) due to being conjoined to the jussive preceding it, and it was vocalized with a fatha to avoid the meeting of two quiescent letters, for the sake of lightness and assimilation. This is supported by al-Hasan’s recitation (wa ya'lam with a kasra on the mim). It was also recited as wa ya'lamu in the nominative case, assuming the waw is for initiation or for a circumstantial state, with the estimation of "while He knows," and the owner of the circumstantial state is the relative pronoun; it is as if it were said: "And while you have not striven, and you are patient."