Tafsir of Al Imran 3:165

"Or when a disaster struck you, [even though] you had inflicted twice as much, you said, 'From where is this?'"

This is an initial statement put forth to invalidate certain corrupt conjectures that arose following the invalidation of others. The hamza (interrogative particle) is for the purpose of rebuke and confirmation. The waw (conjunction) links the clause that follows it to an elided one preceding it.

"When" (lamma) is a particle of time meaning "at the time when," joined to what follows it, and used in a conditional sense, as Al-Farisi maintained, and this is the correct view according to a group of researchers. The verb that governs it in the accusative case is "you said" (qultum), which serves as the response (jaza'). "[Though] you had inflicted" (qad asabtum) is in the place of a nominative, functioning as an adjective for "disaster." To construe it as in the accusative as a state (hal) would require unnecessary affectation.

The "disaster" refers to what befell them on the day of Uhud, namely the slaying of seventy of them. "Twice as much" refers to what befell the polytheists on the day of Badr, namely the slaying of seventy and the taking of seventy prisoners. It is termed "twice as much" by counting the captives as equivalent to the slain, or because they were capable of slaying them all, and it was God’s decree that they should be killed; thus, the absence of this [slaying] was due to the Muslims themselves, and omitting it despite the capability does not negate the [prior] infliction [of casualties].

It is also said that "twice as much" refers to two instances of defeat, not the number of slain, because the Muslims defeated the disbelievers at Badr and also defeated them at the beginning of the battle of Uhud. According to this, the "disaster" refers to the disbelievers’ defeat of the Muslims after they abandoned their positions.

"From where is this?" (anna hadha) is a nominal sentence where the predicate is fronted. The meaning is "Whence is this?" and not "How is this?" because of the evidence provided by the answer, which is the object of the saying (qawl). Some have said that "from" (anna) is in the accusative case, functioning as an adverb for an elided "[How has this] afflicted us," and "this" is its subject, with the whole sentence being the content of their saying.

Interposing the adverb and its related elements between the particle and the interrogative hamza—despite the fact that it is precisely what is intended to be denied—and linking it with the waw serves to emphasize the denial and intensify the rebuke, for doing an ugly thing at the wrong time is uglier, and the condemnation of its perpetrator is more piercing.

The meaning is: Is it at the time when half of what had previously befallen them [the polytheists] from you has now befallen you from them, that you turn back and say, "From where is this, while we are Muslims fighting in anger for the sake of God, and His Messenger is among us, while these are polytheists, the enemies of God and His Messenger—or [while] God has promised us victory?" Al-Jubba'i inclined toward this. This is upon the premise that the denial and rebuke are directed at the utterance of that statement by them at that specific time, based on the fact that the situation was not a place for it nor did it invite it; rather, it was a situation that should have precluded it, for the fact that their enemy's disaster was twice their own is something that lightens the calamity and brings solace.

Or, [the meaning is]: Have you done what you did of failing, disputing, and leaving the city, pressing the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—and when the catastrophe of that befell you, you said, "From where is this?" This is upon the premise that the rebuke is directed at their viewing the incident as improbable while they themselves were the ones who brought about its cause. It is also permitted that the clause linked to the saying indicates that their statement was not singular, but that they uttered various things they should not have said.

A group maintained that what is linked to [the current verse] is what preceded it, from the verse: "God certainly fulfilled His promise to you" down to this point, because it relates to a single story with no alien elements intervening, so that the saying [of this verse] being remote [from the previous context] is not the case, contrary to what Abu Hayyan claimed. In this case, the hamza is situated between the two linked parts for confirmation—meaning to establish or to compel admission—and to rebuke the content of the linked part. The meaning would be: Was there a promise of victory from God conditional upon patience and piety? So when you failed, disputed, disobeyed, and God afflicted you with what He afflicted you, you said, "From where is this?"

The majority hold that the hamza is fronted despite a delay, and the waw is originally in its position, which is the school of Sibawayh and others, and the interrogative sentence is linked to what preceded it. This was chosen in Al-Bahr. Attributing the "striking" to the "disaster" is figurative, whereas [attributing it] to the addressed is literal. These two attributions were not brought together in the same manner to increase the rebuke. Using the masculine demonstrative pronoun in "From where is this" (anna hadha) is in observance of the meaning of the "disaster" (musiba) being referred to, which is the most well-known view; or it is because their pointing was merely to what they witnessed in the battle as it was, without it occurring to their minds to name it by a noun, let alone the name of "disaster."

It is only [termed so] during the telling. In the verse, it is—as is said—an implicit answer to their deeming that affliction improbable; meaning that the affairs of this world do not remain in one state. So, if you were afflicted by them with the like of what they were afflicted by you, and even more, what is the basis for deeming it improbable? Yet, He provided another answer—one that heals the sick, quenches the thirst, and causes heads to bow in submission. He, the Exalted, said: "Say" (O Muhammad, in response to their corrupt question), "It is from your own selves," meaning that they are the cause of it, in that the archers disobeyed the command of the Messenger of God—may God bless him and grant him peace—by abandoning their positions and becoming greedy for the spoils, so God punished them for that. This was stated by Ikrimah.

Or, [it is from yourselves] in that you chose—before seventy of you were killed—to take the ransom from the prisoners of Badr. This is attributed to Al-Hasan, and it is supported by what Ibn Abi Shaybah, Al-Tirmidhi (who classified it as hasan), Al-Nasa’i, and others extracted from Ali, may God honor his countenance, who said: "Gabriel came to the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—and said, 'O Muhammad, God has disliked what your people did in taking the prisoners, and He has commanded you to give them a choice between two things: either they offer themselves to be beheaded, or they accept the ransom on the condition that the number of those slain among them equals the number of [the prisoners].' The Messenger of God called the people and mentioned this to them. They said, 'O Messenger of God, our clans and our brothers! We take their ransom to gain strength against our enemy, and the equivalent number of us will be martyred; that is not what we dislike.' So seventy men were killed on the day of Uhud, the number of the prisoners of the people of Badr."

Or, [it is from yourselves] in that you chose to leave the city and did not remain to fight the polytheists within it; this was stated by Al-Rabi' and others.

Ibn Jarir extracted from Qatadah that he said: "It was mentioned to us that the Prophet of God—may God bless him and grant him peace—said to his companions on the day of Uhud, when Abu Sufyan and the polytheists arrived: 'We are in a fortified stronghold,' meaning the city. 'So leave the people to enter upon us, and we will fight them.' A group of the Ansar said to him: 'We hate to be killed in the streets of Medina, and we used to prevent that in the pre-Islamic era; so with Islam, we have a greater right to prevent it. Lead us out to the people.' He went and donned his armor. The people then blamed one another and said: 'The Prophet of God—may God bless him and grant him peace—suggested a matter, and you suggested another. Go, O Hamza, and tell him: Our command is subservient to yours.' Hamza came and said to him, and he replied: 'It is not for a Prophet, once he has donned his armor, to take it off until he fights. And there will be a disaster among you.' They said: 'O Prophet of God, is it specific or general?' He said: 'You shall see it.'"

This statement has been countered by the fact that it is refuted by the promise of victory being [given] after the choice to go out, and [the fact that] the Prophet’s—may God bless him and grant him peace—acting upon their demand removed the risk from it and lightened the gravity of their crime in it. Furthermore, the choice to go out and the insistence upon it came from those whom God honored with martyrdom on that day—and where were they from uttering such a word?

It has been answered that the aforementioned refutation is within the scope of the prohibited; for how could it be, when the promised victory was conditional upon what God knew would not be fulfilled? Also, although the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—acted upon it, his noble self was not satisfied with it, nor was his noble heart inclined toward it. It is as if the arrows of fate were released when they disobeyed his sublime opinion and turned away from drinking from the sweet sea of his overflowing intellect. Your guide to this is his saying—peace be upon him—after he donned his armor: "There will be a disaster among you," and his saying in response to the question regarding it—"Is it specific or general?": "You shall see it." For this is like an explicit [expression] of dissatisfaction, and a clear indication that such a choice necessitated the descent of the decree.

[Also], the address in the verse "Say, it is from your own selves" is not a definitive text that those who caused it are the same ones who uttered that word, so as to invalidate the evidence of those chosen for martyrdom in this matter. It is possible that it is of the kind where you say to a tribe: "You killed so-and-so," while the killer among them was only specific people who were not present at the time of the address. Such [usage] is frequent in conversation. Moreover, the fact that the disaster of those who spoke [that word] was the killing of those who were martyred is a definitive text of regret for them, so it is appropriate to allude to them by attributing the shortcoming to them to lighten this regret, and so they may know that the misfortune of deviating from the direction of the Messenger of God’s—may God bless him and grant him peace—will covers both great and small. Indeed, it may even be said that the martyrdom of those who insisted [on going out] is a witness that they were the cause of that disaster; for that reason, they were martyred so that they might go to their Lord in the best of states.

Furthermore, it is not hidden that this answer is not free of affectation. It seems the motivation for it is that those who hold the interpretation of "from your own selves" as "leaving the city and following Abu Sufyan and his people" are a group of eminent scholars, and it is remote to attribute error to them. Indeed, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted it from Al-Hasan and Ibn Jurayj, and Ibn al-Mundhir extracted it via Ibn Jurayj from Ibn Abbas. So reflect upon this.

"Indeed, God is over all things capable," including victory when there is compliance, and desertion when there is disobedience. And since you disobeyed, He, the Exalted, afflicted you with what He afflicted you. The sentence is a summary confirming the content of what preceded it, included under the command. It is also said that the meaning is to comfort their souls and mix the bitterness of the rebuke with the sweetness of the promise; i.e., that He, the Exalted, is capable of granting you victory afterward because He is over all things capable, so do not despair of the mercy of God.

Showing concern for the matter of comforting them, guiding them to the truth of the situation regarding what they asked about, clarifying some of the wisdom therein, and removing what might be imagined from the answer—namely that they were independent in the occurrence of the incident—He returned to addressing them directly, without intermediary, answering their question in the simplest expression, by saying, "Say..."