Tafsir of Al Imran 3:167

"And it was said to them": This is conjoined to "engaged in hypocrisy," signaling that this was a specific hypocrisy they displayed in that situation.

It is also said to be an independent statement conjoined to the sum of what preceded it, joining one narrative to another. The basis for this is that when the Almighty mentioned the conditions of the believers and what transpired for and against them in the preceding verses, and explained that the turning of the tides was only for the purpose of trial, and for the believers to be distinguished from the hypocrites, and for each of the two groups to know that what Allah Almighty decreed regarding the affliction of the believers was inevitable—He then brought forth a story from their [the hypocrites'] stories suitable for this situation, as an interjection. The "wa" (and) was used because it is appropriate for the flow of speech, and hypocrisy in this context is general and customary. It is also permissible that it be a beginning of a statement by way of objection to alert [the reader] to how their hypocrisy manifested or their lack of steadfastness in faith.

Regardless of the interpretation, the speaker is either the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)—which is the view of al-Asamm—or Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Haram from the Banu Salama—which is the view of the majority. The content of the speech is His saying, "Come, fight in the way of Allah, or defend." Al-Suddi and Ibn Jurayj said: "or defend" means defend us against the enemy by increasing our numbers. This is also narrated from Ibn Abbas. It is said they were given a choice between fighting for the sake of the Hereafter, or defending themselves and their wealth against the disbelievers, or between the first [fighting for Allah] and defending the believers [by their presence]. It is as if it were said: "Fight for Allah, or for the sake of the hypocrisy that protects your lives and wealth." The conjunction (fa or wa) was omitted between "Come" and "fight" because the intended meaning for both is the same, which is the latter; the former was mentioned as a preface and an incentive for it, due to its indication of standing together and cooperation. It is said the omission of the conjunction is to indicate that each of the two clauses is intended in its own right. It is also said the second command is a circumstantial state, but its remoteness [from the intended meaning] is clear.

"They said": This is an explanatory initiation, as if it were asked: What did they do when that was said to them? And it was said: "If we knew [how to] fight, we would have followed you." That is: if we knew that you were engaging in actual fighting, we would not have abandoned you, but we do not see this as fighting. This was narrated by Ibn Jarir and others from Ibn Shihab. It is said they meant: we are not skilled in fighting and are not capable of it, for knowledge of a voluntary action is a prerequisite for the ability to perform it, so they expressed the negation of the former to imply the negation of the latter. It is possible they made the negation of "knowing fighting" a metaphor for the fact that what they were in was not [truly] fighting, based on the principle of negating the knowledge by negating the object known; for fighting requires parity from both sides with the hope of repelling or overcoming. When that is not realized, it is casting oneself into destruction. Some have allowed that the meaning of "if we knew fighting" is: in the way of Allah, we would have followed you; or: if we knew of a fight alongside us, we would have followed you, but the opponent has no hostility with us and no intent except against you. It is clear that this speech, by all its interpretations, serves as a suitable response to what was said to them, except for the first [interpretation], and under the first [interpretation of the previous speech], this serves as a response to it in all interpretations except the second, since lack of knowledge of fighting would not be an excuse for not increasing numbers except in a remote sense. Among their sayings is: “If you do not fight, O coward, then show courage.”

The intended meaning of "following" is either going out to fight—which they did not express as such because their tongues, due to the perfection of their hearts' discouragement from it, would not help them to speak it clearly—or it refers to going along with the believers unconditionally, whether for fighting, defending, or increasing numbers. Carrying it to mean compliance with the command—i.e., if we knew there was a fight, we would have complied with your order—is not devoid of remoteness.

"They were, on that day, nearer to disbelief than to faith": That is, they were, on the day they said "if we knew..." and so on, nearer to disbelief than they were before that, due to the appearance of its signs upon them through their abandonment of the believers' victory and their apologizing to them in a way of guile and mockery.

All the prepositional phrases are, in the view of the grammarians, related to "nearer." It is among their rules that two prepositions/adverbs of meaning do not relate to one referent except in three cases. One is that one of them relates to it absolutely, then the other relates to it after it has been qualified by the first. The second is that the second is subordinate to the first by substitution or similar. The third is that the referent is an elative noun (comparative) because it contains the possessor of the quality and the one lacking it, which makes it akin to multiple referents, as in the qualified and the absolute. What we are dealing with is of this type, as if it were said: their closeness to disbelief exceeds their closeness to faith. The preposition lam in both instances is in the sense of ila (to), based on the saying that the connection of "closeness" (qurb) is only with min (from) and ila (to)—you say qurba minhu and ilayhi, and you do not say lahu. Or it remains as is, based on what is in al-Durr al-Masun, that "closeness," which is the opposite of distance, is transitive through three prepositions: lam, ila, and min. It is said that aqrab here is from qarab (with an open ra), which is the search for water, from which comes the qarib (boat) for one's ship, and laylat al-qarab (the night of arrival). The meaning is: they are more seeking of disbelief, and in this case, it is transitive through the lam by consensus.

Some claimed the lam here is for causation, and the estimation is: they, because of their disbelief on that day, are "nearer" [than the disbelievers are to the believers due to their faith]. But it is not appropriate to interpret the speech of Allah in such a way due to the extreme remoteness and weakness of its structure if what was elided were made explicit.

It is permitted to estimate an elided noun in the speech, which is "people" (ahl), and the lam is related to an elided specification, which is "victory." The meaning is: they are nearer to the people of disbelief in terms of victory than they are to the people of faith, since their abandonment and their speech were a strengthening for the polytheists and a discouragement for the believers. This is like saying, "I am more intense in striking Zaid than I am [in striking] Amr." You know that it is possible for the lam to relate to the specification without considering the elision of the noun ahl. Al-Wahidi claimed that the verse contains evidence that the one who brings the word of monotheism does not become an unbeliever, because the Almighty did not explicitly declare their unbelief.

Al-Hasan said: When Allah Almighty said "nearer," it is certain that they are polytheists. It is clear that the verse is like a plain statement of their disbelief, yet they do not deserve to be treated as disbelievers [in legal status]. Perhaps this is for another reason.

"They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts": A sentence initiated to clarify their condition absolutely, not only on that day; therefore, it is separated. It is also said to be a circumstantial state from the pronoun in "nearer." Restricting the speech to the "mouths" is either an explanation that it is verbal speech, not internal belief, or an emphasis like the saying "no bird that flies with its wings." The meaning is that they manifest the opposite of what they conceal. Shaykh al-Islam said that the mention of the mouths and hearts is a depiction of their hypocrisy and a clarification of the opposition between their outward appearance and their inward state. And that "what" is an expression of the speech itself. The intended meaning is either the same speech manifested on the tongue at one time and in the heart at another—so the affirmed and the negated are unified in essence and description, even if they differ in manifestation—or it is only the uttered speech; in which case, the negated [thing] is its origin, from which the speech is never detached. It was expressed this way to clarify the intensity of the connection between them. The meaning is: they utter speech that has no existence—or [no existence for] its origin—in their hearts at all, from among the falsehoods, among which is what was narrated about them earlier. For they manifested two things in it, neither of which was in their hearts: one is the lack of knowledge of fighting, and the other is following [the believers] upon the supposition of knowledge of it. They have lied about both with a manifest lie, as they were aware of it while persisting in abandonment and intending to apostatize. Some preferred that "what" refers to the uttered speech, and the meaning of it "not being in their hearts" is that it is not believed by them nor conceived by them, except like the conception of the "evenness of three," for example. The judgment is general and includes the judgment of what they uttered of the entire conditional proposition, not just the antecedent or the consequent, nor both together without the social structure considered in the proposition. Perhaps what the Shaykh mentioned is better.

"And Allah is most knowing of what they conceal": An addition to verify their disbelief and hypocrisy by explaining that their hearts are occupied with things contrary to their words, in terms of various kinds of evil and corruption, following the explanation of their vacancy of what corresponds to them. The intended meaning is "most knowing" [more so] than the believers, because the Almighty knows it in detail with necessary knowledge, while the believers know it in general by signs. It is permissible that the circumstantial sentence is to alert that hypocrisy does not benefit them, and that the intended meaning is "more knowing than them," because Allah Almighty knows the outcome of their secrets and their aspirations.