Tafsir of Al Imran 3:154

(Then He sent down upon you) is a conjunction to (He rewarded you), and the address is to the true believers. The meaning is: Then He bestowed upon you, O believers, after the grief that overwhelmed you—and the explicit mention of the "sending down" coming after the grief, along with the particle thumma (then) indicating delay, serves to increase the clarity and remind of the immense favor—(a sense of security)—a noun like al-man'ah (inviolability)—which is the object of "He sent down," meaning: He sent down upon you a security.

(Drowsiness) is a substitution of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal) from it. It is also said: It is an explanatory noun ('atf bayan). It is permissible for "drowsiness" to be accusative as the object, and "security" to be a circumstantial state (hal) derived from it, meaning: in a state of security; its being indefinite does not harm it due to its precedence. Or, it is a state from the addressees, assuming a deleted genitive noun, meaning: "possessors of security," or as the plural of amin (secure), like kibar (elders) and bararah (righteous ones).

It is said that "security" is the reason for the drowsiness (maf'ul lahu). This was challenged on the grounds that it requires the object of a verbal noun to precede the verbal noun itself, unless one assumes an implied verb, meaning: "you felt drowsy for the sake of security." This was rejected because the verb would not have a suitable place there.

It is also said that it is the reason for "He sent down." This was challenged as invalid due to the difference in the required condition, which is the unity of the agent, as the agent of "He sent down" is Allah—Exalted is He—while the agent of the security is those upon whom it was sent down. This was rebutted by saying that "security" (amanah), just as it can be a noun for the one who receives it, can also be a noun for the one who initiates it. The intended meaning here is the latter, as if it were said: "He sent down the drowsiness upon you in order to grant you security." In this case, there is no doubt regarding the unity of the agent. It has been recited with the mim vowelless (sakun), as if it occurred for a brief moment out of security, which does not contradict the fact that the intent is absolute security.

The two adverbial phrases are placed before the direct object out of concern for the importance of what is advanced and to create anticipation for what is deferred. Fear was singled out from among the varieties of grief for removal because it was the most critical concern for them in that situation. Ibn Jarir narrated from al-Suddi that the polytheists departed on the day of Uhud after what had transpired between them and the Muslims. They made an appointment with the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—for Badr the following year. He said to them: "Yes." The Muslims feared they might descend upon Medina. So, the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—sent a man and said: "Observe them; if you see them having packed their baggage and led their horses aside, then the people are leaving. But if you see them sitting upon their horses and having left their baggage, then the people are descending upon Medina. Fear Allah—Exalted is He—and be patient." He braced them for battle. When the messenger saw them sitting upon their baggage, hastening and rushing, he called out at the top of his voice that they were departing. When the believers saw that, they believed the Prophet of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and they slept, while some hypocrites remained, thinking that the people were coming upon them. That is the saying of Allah—Exalted is He—(Then He sent down upon you), etc.

From Ibn Abbas regarding the verse, he said: "Allah—Exalted is He—gave them security that day with drowsiness that covered them, for only he who feels secure becomes drowsy, while he who is afraid does not sleep."

A large number narrated from Anas that Abu Talha said: "Drowsiness overcame us on the day of Uhud while we were in our ranks, and I was among those overcome by drowsiness that day; my sword would fall from my hand and I would pick it up, then it would fall and I would pick it up." In another narration from him, he said: "I raised my head on the day of Uhud and began to look, and there was not one of them who was not swaying under his shield—meaning his shield—due to drowsiness." From al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam is the like of it. It is said: This is the habit of Allah—Exalted is He—with the believers; He makes drowsiness in war a sign of victory. This also occurred for Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—at Siffin. It is one of the divine gifts and celestial tranquility.

(Overcoming a group of you) Ibn Abbas said: They are the emigrants and most of the Ansar. This implies that it did not overcome everyone, and that does not detract from the generality of the sending down for all. The sentence is in the place of an accusative as a description for "drowsiness." Hamza and al-Kisa'i recited it with the ta (feminine prefix) as "overcoming," assuming the pronoun refers to "security." The apparent meaning is then that the sentence is a new beginning, serving as an answer to a question, as if it were asked: "What is the ruling of this security?" and it was answered that it "overcomes a group." It is also said that it is in the place of a description for security. This was challenged on the grounds that a description should precede a substitution or an explanatory noun, that there should be no separation between it and the described by the reason (maf'ul lahu), and that it is conventional to report on the substitution rather than the substituted.

(And a group)—they are the hypocrites—(who were concerned about themselves) meaning: their own worries preoccupied them, or they had no concern except for their own selves, not the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—nor anyone else. Derived from "made him concerned," meaning: made it important to him and his goal. The exclusivity is derived from the context. Some mentioned that the Arabs use this expression for the fearful one whose own worry distracts him from others. "A group" is the subject (mubtada'), and the sentence "had preoccupied them," etc., is the predicate. This is permissible despite it being indefinite because it occurs after the waw of circumstance (hal), as in the poet's saying: "We traveled while a star had shone; then when your face appeared, it hid the light of every rising sun," or because it occurred in the place of elaboration, as in the saying: "When I die, people will be two sorts: one gloating, and another praising what I have done." It is also permissible for the sentence to be an adjective for it, and the predicate is then deleted, meaning: "And with you" or "There is a group." Assuming "Among you is a group" implies that the hypocrites are included in the address of sending down the security. Regardless, the sentence is either circumstantial, clarifying the horror of the situation and confirming the greatness of the grace in escaping it, or it is a new beginning, aimed at clarifying the state of the hypocrites. The waw is either for circumstance or for initiation. Its meaning as "when" is baseless, as Abu al-Baqa' stated.

(Thinking about Allah other than the truth) is in the place of a circumstantial state from the pronoun of "concerned them," not from "group," even if it is specified, because of the disagreement regarding the arrival of a circumstantial state from the subject of the clause. It is permitted to be a description after a description for "group," or a predicate after a predicate, or it is the predicate and "had preoccupied them" is a description or a new beginning clarifying what came before it. "Other than" (ghayr) is not in the accusative as a circumstantial noun because it is added to a deleted source, and it is according to what it is added to, meaning: "other than the truth," which is what ought to be thought of Him—Exalted is He. Some said: It is an absolute object of a specific type. And the saying of Allah—Exalted is He—(The thought of ignorance) is a substitution for what came before it.

Ibn al-Hajib said: "(Other than the truth)" and "(thought)" are two sources; one is for analogy and the other is a confirmation for the former, meaning: they say other than the truth. The two objects of "think" are deleted, meaning: they think that the breaking of His promise—Glory be to Him—is happening. Abu al-Baqa' makes "(other than the truth)" the first object, meaning: a matter other than the truth, and "(about Allah)" is in the place of the second object. The addition of "thought" to "ignorance": it is said it is either an addition of the described to the source of its description, and its meaning is the exclusivity to ignorance, like "a man of truth" and "Hatim of generosity," so it is based on the meaning of the lam (possession/relation), i.e., "that which is exclusive to ignorance." The ya is from the source, and the ta is for the necessary feminine. Or it is from the addition of the source to the agent with the deletion of the added noun, meaning: "the thought of the people of ignorance," i.e., polytheism and ignorance of Allah—Exalted is He—which is also a real exclusivity.

(They say, "Is there for us any part of the matter?") meaning: some of them say to others by way of denial: Do we have any share of victory, conquest, and triumph? Meaning: We have no share of that because Allah—Glory be to Him—will not grant victory to Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Or, those present among them say to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in the form of seeking guidance: Is there anything for us in the matter of Allah—Exalted is He—and His promise of victory? Some researchers preferred this.

The sentence is said to be either a circumstantial state, a predicate after a predicate, a description after a description, a new beginning clarifying what preceded, or a substitution for "they think"—a substitution of the whole according to the reality, or a substitution of inclusion according to the concept. It was problematized that his saying (They say, "Is there for us...") is an interpretation of "they think" and a translation of it, and an interrogative cannot be a translation of a declarative, just as it is not correct to say: "Zayd informed me: 'Do not go,'" or "He ordered me: 'Do not strike,'" or "He forbade me: 'Strike!'" For correspondence between the narration and the narrated is mandatory.

The crux of the problem is that the object of the "thought" is a propositional relation; how can an interrogative be a translation of it? It was answered that an interrogative is a request for knowledge regarding what is doubted or thought; thus, it is permissible to be the object of the "thought." Its verification is that the thought or knowledge relates to what is said in the answer to that interrogative, according to what is mentioned in the chapter on suspending the verbs of the heart upon an interrogative. It is not hidden that this is only upon the assumption of the interrogative being genuine. As for the assumption of it being one of denial, there is no problem, nor is there any "said" or "it is said," because it is a statement, so it corresponds with what precedes it in declarativeness. Some of those who made it a denial took the view that the meaning is: "We have been prevented from managing our own affairs and directing them by our own choice, so there is nothing left for us in the matter." Abdullah ibn Ubayy said that when the hypocrites informed him of the killing of the Banu al-Khazraj, then he said: "By Allah, if we return to Medina, the more honored will surely drive out the meaner." It is said that their evil thought in this was their approval of the opinion of Abdullah and those who followed him. It is said that the interrogative is upon its literal meaning, and the meaning is: "Will this oppression cease for us, so that we have something of the matter?" It is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning. The second "from" is for intensification, and "thing" is in the place of a nominative as the subject, and for its predicate, as Abu al-Baqa' said, there are two views: one is "for us," and "of the matter" is circumstantial; the second is "of the matter," and "for us" is an elaboration, and by it the benefit is completed.

(Say, "O Muhammad, indeed the entire matter belongs to Allah") meaning: indeed, the real affair and victory belong to the party of Allah—Exalted is He—and His allies, so He will grant victory to His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and his companions, and He will abandon His enemies and subdue them. The victory being for Allah—Exalted is He—is a metonymy for it being for His allies, because of their high standing with Allah—Glory be to Him—or that the decree or management is His alone, and no one else shares it with Him; so He does what He wills and runs affairs according to what the Pen has recorded in the past decree. According to this, there is no metonymy in the speech. It came as a confirmation, because the speech that occurred is in response to it, likewise.

It was suggested in al-Bahr that this matter implies the interrogative in what preceded it remains upon its genuineness, for if its meaning were the negation of them having anything of the matter, they would not have been answered by establishing that the entire matter belongs to Allah. Unless one assumes with the sentence of negation a sentence of affirmation, so that the meaning is: "We have no share of the matter, rather it belongs to someone else who compelled us to go out and forced us into it." Then it is possible for that to be an answer to this implied meaning. The response is that there is no need for this assumption either. As for their intention to negate Allah's victory for His Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and those with him, it is clear, because in this statement there is an affirmation of that victory in the most complete way. As for their intention that they have nothing left of the matter, since they were prevented from managing themselves, then in that negation there is an indication that they do have management, and that if they were left to their management, their strength would not have been broken. This affirmation takes it upon itself to refute and nullify that in a way that covers it, as is not hidden. So, I do not see the assumption, with all that is in it, except as a sign of a narrow mindset. Abu 'Amr and Ya'qub recited "entirely" in the nominative as the subject, and the prepositional phrase relates to a deleted noun acting as its predicate, and the sentence is the predicate of "indeed." As for the recitation in the accusative, "entirely" is a confirmation for the noun of "indeed," and "to Allah" is its predicate.

Abu al-Baqa' claimed it is permissible for "entirely" to be a substitution for "the matter," and there is remoteness in that.

(They conceal in themselves) meaning: they hide within themselves or keep secret among themselves (what they do not reveal to you) meaning: what they are unable to show you. The sentence is either a new beginning or a circumstantial state from the pronoun of "they say." His saying—Glory be to Him—: (Say, "Indeed the entire matter belongs to Allah") is an interpolation between the circumstantial state and its possessor, meaning: they say what they say, appearing to be seekers of guidance and victory, while concealing denial and disbelief. This is clear based on the second possibility in the first verse. Whoever chooses to carry the interrogative therein as a denial, for him, the new beginning is necessitated, or the declarative is permitted, and the like, as passed. The responsive sentence is interpolatory in every case except for the possibility of it being a new beginning, according to the correct view. As for making this sentence a circumstantial state from the pronoun of "say," the tie to it—meaning "to you"—its state is not hidden.

(They say) meaning: in themselves or secretly to some of them, for if the saying were open, they would not be hypocrites. The sentence is either a substitution for "conceal" or a new beginning that occurred as an answer to a question arising from what preceded it, as if it were said: "What is it that they concealed?" and it was said: "That." Some researchers favored this because it is of more benefit, and because if the saying is carried upon its literal meaning, the two sayings do not differ, because their saying "Is there for us..." to the believers is not the same as their saying "If we had had any..." to their companions; and a substitution of a state is a state. You know that the latter is built on the thought that the first saying was to the believers, and you know that it is not determined. It is said: Because two sayings do not gather from one speaker. In this is that the time of a concurrent state is not built on narrowing, as is not hidden. Hence, some scholars explained the negation of concurrence by the consequence of this upon what preceded it, and turned away from this explanation.

(If we had had any part of the matter, we would not have been killed right here) in the sense of: "If we had had any part of that, as Muhammad promised, and he claimed that the matter is for Allah and His allies, we would not have been killed." It is as if this, in their belief, is a refutation of what they were answered with first. It is possible that the intent is: "If we had had choice and management, we would not have departed," as was the opinion of Ibn Ubayy and his followers. The meaning of "we would not have been killed" is: we would not have been overcome, because the speakers are not among those who were killed, as it is impossible. It is possible that the attribution is metaphorical by attributing what happened to the few to the whole; so the meaning is: "If we had had anything of that, those who were killed among us would not have been killed in this battle." Then, it is not hidden that the speech about consequence requires the previous descent of the responsive verse and their hearing of it so that it is possible to say it is a claim of refuting it with this corrupt suspicion. The apparent meaning from the narrations is that it did not descend at that time. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from al-Hasan that he was asked about this verse and said: "When those of the companions of Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—were killed, they came to Abdullah ibn Ubayy and said to him: 'What do you see?' He said: 'By Allah, we were not consulted. (If we had had any part of the matter, we would not have been killed right here).'"

Ibn Ishaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Jarir, and a great number narrated from al-Zubayr—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: "I saw myself with the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—when fear intensified upon us. Allah—Exalted is He—sent sleep upon us, and there was not one of us but his chin was on his chest. By Allah, I was listening to the words of Mu'attib ibn Qushayr, I heard them as if in a dream: (If we had had any part of the matter, we would not have been killed right here). So I memorized it from him, and concerning that, Allah—Exalted is He—sent down 'Then He sent down' up to 'right here'." It may be said that this saying of theirs is like the reasoning for the first saying, and that both sayings occurred from them initially, and Allah—Exalted is He—related it to us in refutation. This is clear upon the assumption that the interrogative is one of denial. As for the assumption of it being genuine, there is hiddenness, so reflect.

**(Say, "O Muhammad, in answer to that, if you had been," O hypocrites, "in your houses and your dwellings in Medina and had not gone out to fight by your own choice, those for whom killing was written in the Preserved Tablet or ordained in the previous knowledge of Allah—Exalted is He—in that battle would have gone out—meaning: departed for a cause of the reasons calling for departure—to their places of lying down—meaning: their places of death that Allah—Exalted is He—knew and ordained for their killing—and they would have been killed right there, for the decree of Allah—Exalted is He—cannot be turned back, and His judgment cannot be followed." In this is an exaggeration in refuting their false saying that is not hidden. Some claimed that the most eloquent apparent meaning is that those for whom killing was written are the killing disbelievers, meaning: those who kill from among their people would have gone out to the places of lying down of the killed ones, and not one of them would have been saved, despite their fortification in Medina and their taking caution in their houses. Its remoteness is not hidden because of the decoupling in it, and because the apparent meaning of "upon them" is that they are the killed, not the killers. It is said: The meaning is, if you had stayed in your dwellings, O hypocrites and doubters, and lagged behind in the fighting, the believers who were commanded to fight would have gone out to the battle, being patient and seeking reward, and they would be killed or they would kill. It leads to our saying: If you lagged behind the fighting, the believers would not lag behind. "Places of lying down" is the plural of "place of lying down." If it is in the meaning of "resting place," it is a metaphor for the place of death; if it is in the meaning of the place of the extension of the body absolutely for the living and the dead, it is literal. It has been recited as "written" in the passive voice, and the accusative of "killing," and "fighting was written upon them," and "would have gone out" with the intensive form on the passive construction.

(And that Allah might test what is in your breasts) meaning: so that Allah—Exalted is He—might test what is in your breasts by your deeds, for He has known it as an unseen matter, and He wants to know it as a witnessed matter, so that recompense may occur upon it; al-Zajjal said this. Or, that He might treat you with the treatment of the one who is tested and tried; many said this. It is an address to the believers, and the lam is for causality, and its object is a cause for a deleted verb, conjoined upon other hidden causes to signal their multitude, as if it were said: "He did what He did for numerous interests: (and that He might test), etc.," or for a deleted verb after it, meaning: "And for the aforementioned testing, He did what He did," not for lack of concern for the affairs of His allies and the supporters of His Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—for example.

The conjunction here, according to some researchers, is upon His saying—Exalted is He—: (He sent down upon you). The separation between them is forgiven because the separator is among the relatees of the conjoined-to, in wording or in meaning. It is said: There is no deletion in the speech, but rather it is conjoined to His saying—Exalted is He—: (so that you would not grieve), meaning: He rewarded you with grief for two matters: not grieving, and the testing. It was considered unlikely because the interpolation of those matters is in need of a point, and it is not apparent. Even more unlikely—nay, it is hardly acceptable—is the conjunction to His saying—Exalted is He—: (that He might test you), meaning: He turned you away from them that He might test you and test what is in your breasts. Some made it conjoined to a deleted cause, and both causes are (those for whom it was written would have gone out), as if it were said: (those for whom killing was written would have gone out to their places of lying down) for the execution of the decree, or for numerous interests, and for testing.

This was challenged by saying that sound taste rejects it, for the requirement of the context is the clarification of the wisdom of what occurred that day of intensity and horrors, not the clarification of the wisdom of the assumed departure. The address was made to the believers because they are those who are to be reckoned with, and because the manifestation of their state is a manifestation for others.

It is said: It is for them and for the hypocrites, meaning: that He might test what is in your inner selves of sincerity and hypocrisy. It is said: It is specifically for the hypocrites because the drive of the verse is for them. The apparent meaning of His saying—Exalted is He—: (And that He might purge what is in your hearts), meaning: so that He might purify what is in them of belief from whisperings, favors the first, because the hypocrites have no belief to be purged of whisperings and purified from. Perhaps those who say the address is for the hypocrites only, or with the believers, interpret "purging" as disclosure and differentiation, meaning: to disclose what is in your hearts of hidden matters or hypocrisy and to differentiate it. However, carrying "purging" upon this meaning makes this sentence as a confirmation of what preceded it. It was expressed with "hearts" here, as was said, because purging relates to belief as we pointed out, and it has become common to use "heart" with that, so it is said: "He believes with his heart," and you hardly hear them saying: "He believes with his breast," or "He had faith with his breast." In the Quran: (Those, He has written faith in their hearts), and there is not in it "written in their breasts faith." Yes, the breast is mentioned with Islam, as in His saying—Exalted is He—: (Is he whose breast Allah has expanded for Islam?) From here, some of the masters said: "The heart is the abode of faith, and the breast is the location of Islam; the inner heart (fu'ad) is the dawn of witnessing, and the core (lubb) is the station of true monotheism." Perhaps the verse, according to this, leads to our saying: that He might test your Islam and purge your faith. Perhaps it is said: it was expressed with that, along with the expression of the breasts before it, for the sake of variation, based on the fact that the intended meaning of both plurals is one.

(And Allah is knowing of what is in the breasts) meaning: of what is in the hearts that are in the breasts, of the hidden thoughts. They were described by that because, for their firmness in the breasts, they were made as if they were their possessors; so "possessor" (dhat) is in the meaning of "owner," not in the meaning of "the thing and its self." In the verse is a promise and a threat, or only one of them, according to the disagreement in the address. In it is an alerting that Allah—Exalted is He—is independent of testing, and He only brings forth the image of testing for wisdom He knows, such as exercising the believers or manifesting the state of the hypocrites. He chose "breasts" here because the testing which He—Glory be to Him—is independent of, was related to what is in them. Purging, according to the first meaning, is refinement and cleansing, and that is not something this sentence makes one feel that He—Glory be to Him—is independent of; He only did it for a wisdom. Yes, if "disclosure and differentiation" is intended by it, it is correct to say: "This sentence signals that He—Exalted is He—is independent as well."

Hence, some researchers permitted it to be a circumstantial state from the relatee of the two verbs, meaning: He did what He did for testing and disclosure, while He—Exalted is He—is independent of them, surrounding the hidden matters. However, the secret of the expression for secrets and hidden matters as "possessor of the breasts" rather than "possessor of the hearts" does not appear, even though the second expression is more appropriate for them because the hearts are their place without an intermediary, and their being in the breasts is, according to the apparent, by way of the hearts. Unless one says: "possessor of the breasts" means the things that do not ever leave the breasts because they are established in them, rather they accompany and associate with them, which is more comprehensive than "possessor of the hearts," because the first applies to the secrets in the hearts and to the hearts themselves, as each of these two matters is an associate of the breasts by considering it established in them, unlike the second, because it does not apply except to the secrets as they are the established ones in them, not the breasts. Then it is possible for this comprehensive meaning to be intended by "possessor of the breasts," and the expression by it is for that reason.