Tafsir of Al Imran 3:168

"Those who said" is in the nominative case as a substitute (badal) for the waw in "they conceal" (yaktumun), as if to say: "And Allah is All-Knowing of what those who said conceal." Alternatively, it is a predicate for a deleted subject (i.e., "They are those who..."). It is also said to be the subject, the predicate of which is "Say: Ward off," with a deleted referent—meaning, say to them, etc. Or it is in the accusative case as an expression of blame, or as an adjective for "those who behaved as hypocrites," or a substitute for them. It may also be in the genitive case as a substitute for the pronoun in "their mouths" or "their hearts."

The substitution of a noun for a third-person pronoun occurs in their speech; among examples is the verse by Al-Farazdaq: "Upon a condition that if Hatim were among the people / Given his generosity, Hatim would still be stingy with water."

He used the genitive Hatim as a substitute for the pronoun in "his generosity," because the rhymes are in the genitive. The meaning is: "They speak with the mouths of those who said," or "They say with their mouths what is not in the hearts of those who said." The expression in both interpretations is a form of tajrid (abstraction), like the poet’s saying: "O best of those who ride mounts, and does not / Drink from the cup of the hand of someone who is stingy."

The speaker, as stated by Al-Suddi and others, is Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his companions. They said this on the day of Uhud.

"To their brethren": meaning for the sake of their brethren who went out with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and were killed that day. The intent is their kinsmen or those who are of their own kind.

"And stayed behind": a state (hal) referring to the pronoun in "said." Its meaning is: they said this while they had stayed behind from fighting, having deserted. It is also suggested that it is a conjunction to the relative clause (silah), making it parenthetical between "said" and its object, which is the Almighty's saying:

"If they had obeyed us": meaning in refraining from fighting.

"They would not have been killed": just as we were not killed. This implies that they commanded them to desert when they themselves deserted. This is supported by what Ibn Jarir recorded from Al-Suddi, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) went out with a thousand men, having promised them victory if they were patient. When they departed, Abdullah ibn Ubayy returned with three hundred. Abu Jabir al-Sulami followed them, calling them back. When they overcame him and said to him, "If we knew there would be fighting, we would have followed you," he said to them, "But if you obeyed us, you would return with us." God Almighty then mentioned the lament of their saying "If you obeyed us, you would return with us" with His saying: "Those who said..." etc.

Some took "staying behind" to refer to what Ibn Ubayy deemed correct during the consultation, namely staying in Medina from the start, and considered "obedience" to be an expression of accepting his opinion and acting upon it. This is not without fault. Indeed, our master, the Sheikh al-Islam, refuted this by noting that the sentence is a state (hal), and it is meant to specify where the disobedience and opposition occurred. Moreover, Ibn Ubayy was not among those "staying behind" in that sense. Furthermore, limiting the lack of obedience to their brethren suggests that the command was also limited to them; thus, it is impossible to carry it over to what was addressed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) during the consultation.

"Say": O Muhammad, to shame them and expose their lying.

"Then ward off death from yourselves": meaning, drive it away from yourselves. This is the answer to a conditional clause that has been deleted because the Almighty’s saying "If you are truthful" indicates it—just as the conditional clause itself was deleted because "ward off" indicates it. Whoever permits the answer to precede the condition does not need this explanation.

The object of "truthfulness" is what their statement contained: that the cause of their survival was staying back from fighting. The intent is that what you claimed was the cause of survival is not sound; and even if it were assumed to be sound, it is not beneficial.

As for the first point: causes of survival are many; at most, "staying behind" and "survival" occurred together, which does not prove causality.

As for the second point: the thing inherently being fled from is death, of which killing is one cause. If what you said is true, then ward off all its causes, for the causes of death in the realm of possibility are equal in their susceptibility to being warded off by tricks or their impossibility. Your own selves are dearer to you, and their affair is more important to you.

It is also said that the object of "truthfulness" is what they explicitly stated in their words: "If they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed." The meaning is that if they had obeyed you and stayed behind, they would have been killed while staying behind, just as they were killed while fighting. In that case, "ward off..." etc., is an act of mockery toward them: i.e., if you are men who can ward off the causes of death, then ward off all its causes so that you do not die, just as you have (according to your claim) warded off this specific cause.

In Al-Kashshaf, it is narrated that on the day they uttered this remark, seventy hypocrites died among them—the same number as those killed at Uhud.