Tafsir of Al Imran 3:164

"(Upon the believers)" This refers to his own people, or the Arabs generally, or humanity. The best of the three is the middle one, and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) held this view. Al-Bayhaqi and others narrated from her that she said: "This is for the Arabs specifically." The first (the believers) is better than the third (humanity). In any case, according to Al-Ajhuri, it refers to those among them who are believers in the knowledge of Allah, or those whose ultimate affair leads to faith.

"(When He raised among them)" That is, in their midst, "(a Messenger)" of great magnitude and lofty status, "(from among themselves)"—that is, from their lineage or their species; an Arab like them, or from the children of Adam, not an angel nor a jinn.

"When" (idh) is a temporal adverb. Although it signifies time, it is placed in the context of causation, as most researchers have stated. The prepositional phrase is attached either to "raised" or to an omitted element that acts as an adjective for "Messenger." It is attached for one of two reasons: either to attain familiarity by his being human, thereby easing the reception of the message and removing the natural aversion and repulsion that exists between different species; or so that they might understand his speech easily and boast over all other branches of the human species. Alternatively, it is so they might understand, boast, and be aware of his circumstances regarding truthfulness and trustworthiness, which makes it closer to believing in him and trusting him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

The specification of the believers for this favor, despite the generality of the blessing of the mission—as indicated by His saying: "And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds"—is for the sake of their increased benefit from it, according to the varying opinions regarding them. A parallel to this is His saying: "Guidance for the God-fearing."

It has been read as manna-llahu with the preposition min, and as manna with a stressed 'nun', as a predicate for an omitted subject, such as "his favor" or "His sending." It was omitted because there is an indication of it. Al-Zamakhshari allowed that idh is in the place of a nominative, like idha (when) in the saying: "The most eloquent the prince is, is when he is standing," meaning "Allah's favor upon the believers was at the time of his mission." It is not hidden from you that this requires idh to be the subject and the prepositional phrase to be the predicate.

This was objected to on the grounds that it is not known that any grammarians held that idh could occur in such a way, and the example uses idha, not idh. Furthermore, even in that example, idha is not the subject at all. They allowed two possibilities for it: the accusative, in that the predicate is omitted and it stands in its place; and the nominative, in that it is the predicate itself. In the first case, the speech is of the category of "his grandfather’s grandfather" (jadda jadduhu), because the prince is more eloquent in the state of standing, not in the state of being. In the second case, it is of the category of "his day is fasting" (naharuhu sa'im). The first view is the famous one; the second was permitted by Abd al-Qahir, holding onto the saying of some: "The most eloquent the prince is, is on the day of Friday" (in the nominative). Thus, it is as if Al-Zamakhshari analogized idh to idha, and the subject to the predicate.

Some defended Al-Zamakhshari, arguing that a group of investigative grammarians explicitly stated that idh can exit the state of being an adverb and thus be an object, or a substitute for an object. This is equivalent to their explicit declaration that it can be a subject and a predicate. For example, if it is said that it is flexible (mutasarrif), then all conditions are equal in the permissibility of applying them, without distinction between one state and another, except for a preventative factor.

Yes, Al-Shalubin mentioned in his commentary on Al-Jazuliyyah from some that the basis of flexibility in adverbs is what is heard from the Arabs. If this is the rule for the principle of flexibility itself, rather than its types, then the dust is cleared from what Al-Zamakhshari said. If it is the rule for the types as well, then it is not advanced to the state of being a subject simply by the proof of it being an object, nor to being a subject by the proof of it being a predicate, except by the arrival of an audition (sama') for that. Thus, the correctness of Al-Zamakhshari's speech remains in doubt, for mere assertions that idh can be an object or substitute, and idha a predicate, does not yield benefit, as the possibility of hearing that specifically without other cases exists.

In the reading of the Prophet, Fatimah (may Allah bless him and grant her peace) read "from among themselves" with a fatha on the fa (meaning: from the most noble among them). For he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is from the noblest of tribes and clans. This is a known matter, independent of explanation, and it is incumbent upon every believer to believe it. Shaykh Wali al-Din al-Iraqi was asked whether knowing that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a human and from the Arabs is a condition for the validity of faith, or if it is a communal obligation. He answered that it is a condition for the validity of faith. Then he said: "If a person were to say: 'I believe in the messengership of Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to all creation, but I do not know if he is human, or an angel, or a jinn; or I do not know if he is an Arab or a non-Arab,' there is no doubt in his disbelief due to his denial of the Quran and his rejection of what the generations of Islam have received, successor from predecessor, which has become known by necessity to both the elite and the commoner. I do not know of any disagreement on this." He continued: "If he were a fool who did not know this, it would be obligatory to teach him. If he denies it after that, we judge him to be a disbeliever."

Is the belief that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is from the noblest of tribes and clans to be analogized to this, such that it becomes a condition for the validity of Islam? Or is it not to be analogized, and therefore the faith of one who does not know this—provided he keeps that lofty threshold free from every blemish—remains valid? Reflect upon this. The latter is more apparent and more appropriate for the common believers.

"(Reciting to them His verses)" This is either an adjective, a state (hal), or an initiating sentence. In this, there is a remoteness; it means he recites to them what is revealed to him from the Quran after they had been a people of ignorance, to whose ears nothing of revelation had reached, or after some had been such, while others were longing for it, as the book in his hand informed of its descent and gave glad tidings of it.

"(And purifying them)" That is, he calls them to that by which they become pure and cleansed from the filth of the Age of Ignorance that was in them, or from the impurities of corrupt beliefs, such as those held by the polytheists of the Arabs and the two People of the Book. Or, it means he testifies that they are pure in religion; or he takes from them the Zakat by which he purifies them, as Al-Farra' said. This is clearly remote, and the one close to it is similar.

"And teaches them the Book and Wisdom." The discussion on this has already passed. This teaching is conjoined to what precedes it, and is consequential to the recitation. The purification was placed between them because purification is the perfection of the soul according to the practical faculty, and its refinement is derived from its perfection according to the theoretical faculty obtained by teaching, which is consequential to recitation. This is to signal that each of the consequential matters is a magnificent favor in its own right, requiring gratitude.

If the order of existence had been observed, as in His saying: "Our Lord, and raise among them a Messenger from among themselves who will recite to them Your verses, and teach them the Book and Wisdom, and purify them," it would have hastened to the understanding that all of them constitute one single favor. This is the secret behind expressing the Quran sometimes as "verses" and other times as "Book and Wisdom," as an allusion to it being, under each title, a separate favor, as stated by our master, the Shaykh al-Islam.

It is also said that the intention behind the recitation of the verses is the recitation of what is revealed to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of the verses indicating monotheism and prophethood. From purification is the call to the "good word" containing the testimony of the oneness of Allah and the messengership of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). From the teaching of the Book is the teaching of the words of the Quran and the manner of their performance, so that they may be prepared to establish the pillars of the religion. From the teaching of Wisdom is the instruction in the secrets hidden in the treasuries of the Word of Allah.

In this case, the order of these conjoined items is clear, for the result is that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) paves the paths of monotheism, calls to it, teaches what is necessary after embracing it, and adds honey to the butter. The recitation is presented first because it is in the category of laying the foundation. Then purification, because it follows it, and it is the first matter from which a quality is obtained that the believers adopt; and it is of the category of "stripping away" (takhliyah), which precedes "embellishment" (tahliyah), for averting corruption is more important than acquiring benefits. Then the teaching, for it is only needed after faith.

The matter of presenting teaching before purification in the verse of Al-Baqarah remains, and perhaps it was a signal of the nobility of embellishment, as we indicated there. So reflect.

"(Though they had been before)" Meaning, before the mission of the Messenger, "(in manifest error)," clearly. "And" (wa) is the attenuated "that" (inna), and the "lam" is the distinguishing particle. The meaning is: The state of the affair was that they were before, etc. Some researchers held this view, and Makki mentioned something similar, except he said: The estimation is "and they were before," its name being a pronoun returning to the believers.

Abu Hayyan said: "We do not know of any grammarian who went this way." It has been established in our grammar books and from the masters that if you say, "Indeed Zayd is standing," and then attenuate it, the school of the Basrans has two views regarding it: one is the permissibility of operation; its condition while attenuated is like its condition while stressed, except that it does not operate on a hidden pronoun. The Kufans forbade this, and they are refuted by the established audition from the language of the Arabs.

The second view, which is the most frequent among them, is that it is neglected and does not operate on anything—neither explicit nor hidden, neither pronounced nor implied, at all. If it is followed by a nominal sentence, they are in the nominative due to the subject and predicate, and the lam becomes necessary in the second of its companions if it is not negated, and in the first of them if it is delayed. You say, "In Zayd is indeed standing" (In Zayd la-qa'im), and its meaning is the meaning of "Indeed Zayd is standing." If it is followed by a verbal sentence, it must, according to the Basrans, be one of the "abrogators of the subject" (nawasikh), and if the verb comes from other than that, it is anomalous and not to be analogized upon according to the majority of them.

Al-Halabi answered the one who estimated "the affair" by saying it is an interpretation of the meaning, not an explanation of the syntax. Isam al-Millah said that he who says the "affair" does not want the estimation of the pronoun of the affair, but rather makes the sentence a state (hal) by interpreting it as the story, so that the time of the state and the operator do not differ; for the time of "being in manifest error" is before the time of teaching, but the being of the story is continuous. Then he said: "This is a common, famous interpretation in the state that precedes the time of its realization with the time of the realization of the operator, so memorize it and do not utter it."

You know that what Al-Halabi mentioned is contrary to the apparent, and the speech of Isam al-Millah is viewed with skepticism, because what is appropriate for what he mentioned—given its necessity—is the estimation of "the affair" before it, not after it, as is not hidden. Some allowed that the sentence is initiating and has no place in the syntax. The majority are upon it being a state. By both estimations, it is an explanation of the perfection of the favor and its completion.