Tafsir of Al Imran 3:173

"Those to whom people said, 'Indeed, people have gathered against you, so fear them.'"

This is a substitute for the phrase "those who responded," or it is an adjective [describing them]. The intention by the first "people" is the caravan of Abd al-Qays, and by the second, Abu Sufyan and those with him. The definite article (al) in both instances is for specification (al-‘ahd), and the second group of people is distinct from the first.

It is narrated from Mujahid, Qatada, ‘Ikrimah, and others that they said—and the narration is intertwined—that these verses were revealed regarding the Minor Battle of Badr. That is, on the day of Uhud, when Abu Sufyan wanted to depart, he said: "O Muhammad, the appointment between us and you is the market of Badr next year, if you wish." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "That is between us and you, if Allah the Exalted wills." When the following year arrived, Abu Sufyan set out with the people of Mecca until he reached Majannah, near Marr al-Zahran (it is also said he reached ‘Usfan). Allah the Exalted cast terror into his heart, and he decided to turn back. He met Na‘im ibn Mas‘ud al-Ashja‘i, who had come for ‘Umrah. Abu Sufyan said to him: "I made a promise to Muhammad and his companions to meet at the market of Badr. This is a year of drought, and nothing suits us except a year in which we can graze livestock and drink milk. I have changed my mind, and I dislike that Muhammad should set out while I do not, for that would only increase their boldness. So go to Medina and discourage them, and you shall have ten camels from me, which I will place in the hands of Suhayl ibn ‘Amr."

Na‘im came to Medina and found the people preparing for the appointment with Abu Sufyan. He said to them: "Your opinion is poor. They came to you in your homes and settlements, and only those who fled escaped you. Will you go out to them now that they have gathered against you at the market? By Allah, none of you will escape." The companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) disliked going out, but the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, I will go out even if I am alone." He set out with seventy riders, saying: "Allah is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs." He reached Badr and stayed there for eight days, waiting for Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan and those with him had already turned back from Majannah to Mecca. The people of Mecca named them the "Army of Sawiq" (flour), implying they had done nothing but drink flour-water. Since the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not encounter any of the polytheists, he returned to Medina.

Regarding this, ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah or Ka‘b ibn Malik said: "We promised Abu Sufyan a promise, but we did not find his promise to be true, nor was he faithful. I swear, had you met us, you would have returned disgraced and lost your allies. We left behind the limbs of ‘Utbah and his son, and ‘Amr, Abu Jahl, whom we left lying there. You disobeyed the Messenger of Allah—fie upon your religion and your affair, a matter that was misguided. And I, even if you blame me, am one who says: My family and wealth are a ransom for the Messenger of Allah. We obeyed him, and we have not equated him with any other among us; he is a light for us in the darkness of the night, a guide."

Thus, based on this, the first "people" refers to Na‘im, and this is applied to him just as the term "group" is applied to an individual—and the noun of a group designated with the generic definite article is applied to one of its members metaphorically, as scholars have explicitly stated. Alternatively, it is because those who broadcast the information are like those who spoke it to them. However, there is a dispute regarding the claim that the speaker was Na‘im. Ibn Sa‘d mentioned it in his Tabaqat, and some have mentioned that the speakers were people from ‘Abd al-Qays.

"And it increased them in faith." The hidden pronoun refers to the spoken words, or to the source (masdar) of "said," or to its subject (if by it is meant Na‘im alone), or to Allah the Exalted. Abu Hayyan refuted the first view by saying it is weak, for it is not the speech itself that increases faith, but rather the act of speaking it. He likewise refuted the third view, arguing that when a plural noun is applied to a singular metaphorically, pronouns follow the plural, not the singular. For example, one says: "His dividers are gray," considering the report as being about a plural, and it is not permissible to say "His divider is gray" considering a singular divider. There is debate surrounding both refutations: the former was countered by al-Halabi, who noted that it is the spoken word itself that in reality brought about the increase in faith. Regarding the latter, al-Safaqisi noted that it is not far-fetched to permit it, based on what is known from an examination of their speech regarding words that have both a literal and a figurative sense, by considering the word at one time and the meaning at another.

The intent is that they did not turn toward that [threat], but rather their certainty in Allah the Exalted became established through it, and they increased in tranquility and displayed the zeal of Islam.

This has been used as evidence by those who say that faith varies in increase and decrease. This is clear if obedience is considered part of faith. As for those who define faith as belief and conviction itself, they have said regarding this: "Certainty is among those things that increase with signs, frequent reflection, and the support of arguments, without doubt." Many reports support this. Those who define faith as belief itself and deny that it is subject to increase and decrease interpret what has been reported regarding this by referring to the object of faith. Others say that its increase is a metaphor for the increase in its fruits, the manifestation of its effects, and the shining of its light and radiance in the heart, while its decrease is the opposite. It is as if the increase here is a metaphor for the appearance of zeal and the lack of concern for what discourages them. You know that the first interpretation here is very hidden, because, outwardly, nothing occurred to the people at that time that required faith—such as the obligation of prayer or fasting—to justify saying their faith increased due to that object. Similarly, applying the second interpretation to verses and reports that do not strictly conform to a narrow scope is extremely far-fetched.

Therefore, it is better to say that faith accepts increase and decrease without interpretation, even if we say it is belief itself. The notion that if it decreases, it becomes conjecture or doubt, and ceases to be faith and belief, is universally denied as an absolute statement. Yes, belief may be at a level where, if it falls below it, it ceases to be belief, and there is no dispute that this level does not accept decrease while remaining belief. Some of the investigators pointed to this.

"And they said, 'Allah is sufficient for us...'" Meaning: He is our sufficiency and the One who suffices us, derived from ahsabahu when He suffices him. The proof that hasb (sufficiency) functions as muhsib (sufficer)—which is an active participle—is its occurrence as an adjective for an indefinite noun in the phrase, "This is a man who suffices you," along with it being attached to the second-person pronoun. If it were not an active participle, its attachment would be merely grammatical (idafa) and would not provide definiteness like the idafa of an infinitive, and it would not be valid as an adjective for a man. This is what they said, and from this, it is known that the infinitive interpreted as an active participle has the same ruling regarding idafa. The verbal sentence is conjoined to the sentence that preceded it.

"...and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs." Meaning: The One to whom matters are entrusted (al-mawkul ilayhi). Thus, fa‘il is in the sense of maf‘ul. The noun specifically praised is omitted; it is His essence, the Exalted. The apparent structure is the conjunction of this injunctive sentence to the preceding declarative sentence. The "and" (wa) is either from the narration or from what is narrated. If it is the former, and we grant the permissibility of conjoining an injunction to a statement where it has a syntactical position—because they are then effectively like two singular items—then the conjunction is clear without the need for forced interpretation, because the conjoined sentence is in the position of the object of "said." However, the consensus of the scholars is that such a conjunction is not permitted without interpretation and a supporting example, which has not been established.

If it is the latter, and we grant the permissibility of conjoining an injunction to a statement absolutely—as al-Saffar held—or the permissibility of conjoining a story to a story (meaning the conjunction of the outcome/content of one sentence to the outcome/content of the other without regard to the phrasing, as the second scholar pointed to), then the matter is also clear. If we hold that this is not permitted—as the majority of the scholars maintain—then there must be an interpretation, either on the side of the conjoined-to or the conjoined. Those who go to the first say that the first sentence, even if declarative in form, is intended to express the initiation of reliance or sufficiency, not to report that He is sufficient in reality. Those who go to the second differed; some estimated "[We said]: Allah is sufficient for us, and [we said]: He is the best Disposer of affairs."

It has been objected that this is an estimation to which the mind does not incline, and for which there is no evidence or indication. Moreover, there is no significant relevance between the report that Allah is sufficient for them and the report that they said "He is the best Disposer of affairs" such that it would justify the conjunction. Others made the part following the "and" a conjunction to what preceded it by estimating a predicate, either placed later to match the conjoined-to—for "Allah" is a subject, and "is sufficient for us" is the predicate, based on its mention in the conjoined-to and its omission in usage, and the mind's transition to it—or placed earlier to observe the proximity of the reference.

It has been objected that it is not hidden that after estimating the predicate, if "the best Disposer of affairs" is not interpreted as "one of whom it is said," the sentence remains injunctive, for a nominal sentence whose predicate is an injunction is itself injunctive, just as one whose predicate is a verb is verbal in meaning. How could it be otherwise, when there is no difference between "Excellent is the man, Zayd" and "Zayd is the excellent man" in that the model of each is a proposition not susceptible to truth or falsehood? And after interpretation, the conjoined part is not the sentence "the best Disposer of affairs," but the sentence whose predicate is "the best Disposer of affairs." The problem remains in conjoining "the best Disposer of affairs" unless it is said that this is chosen and that the answer to something may be the confirmation of that thing and the expression of something else, or it may be by changing that thing. What is here is of the second type. In appearance, the conjoined is the sentence "the best Disposer of affairs," so the problem returns. In reality, it is the sentence "He is [the One] of whom it is said..." So there is no problem, but the objection remains that after interpretation, the general creation of praise—for which the verbs of praise were established—is lost. Rather, it becomes a report of specific praise, which is that "He is [the One] of whom it is said: He is the best Disposer of affairs." Furthermore, the "spoken-ness" of the spoken word mentioned is only through the method of predication and reporting about Him with "the best Disposer of affairs," so one must estimate "of whom it is said" once more, leading to an infinite regress of estimations. It seems that for this reason, the majority did not interpret the injunction occurring as a predicate in this way; it is rather the choice of al-Sa‘d (may Allah have mercy on him).

Some have permitted, upon the estimation that the "and" is part of the narrated speech, the conjunction of "the best Disposer of affairs" to "is sufficient for us" based on it being in the meaning of a verb, just as "placed" was conjoined to "cleaver" in His saying: "The Cleaver of the dawn and He placed the night for rest" according to one view. In that case, it is the conjunction of a sentence that has a syntactical position to a singular, because it is then a predicate of the singular. Some investigators permit this—not as a conjunction of an injunction to a statement. Though this, in reality, is unassailable, the matter of the conjunction to the predicate based on what al-Shaykh al-Radi mentioned—that "the best man" is in the meaning of a singular, and its estimation is "an excellent man"—is more evident, as is not hidden. Some have claimed that the verse is evidence for the permissibility of conjoining an injunction to a statement where it has a syntactical position, based on the "and" being from the narration and nothing else.

It is not hidden from you that after accepting that the "and" is as such in it, it does not serve as evidence for what was mentioned, because it is possible that "said" is estimated in the conjoined part, based on its mention in the conjoined-to. It would then be a conjunction of a verbal declarative sentence to a verbal declarative sentence. Furthermore, the apparent structure, just as it requires the verse to contain a conjunction to a statement (in which there is the disagreement you know), also requires the conjunction of a verbal sentence to a nominal one (in which there is also a famous disagreement, as with its opposite). From what we have mentioned regarding the matter of injunction and statement, the answer to that can be derived. Scholars have spoken at length in this place, and what we have mentioned is a little of the much, and a trickle from a pool.

This phrase was the final utterance of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when he was cast into the fire, as related by al-Bukhari in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and by ‘Abd al-Razzaq and others from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both).

Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "When you fall into a matter, say: Allah is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs." Ibn Abi al-Dunya narrated from ‘A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), when his distress intensified, would wipe his hand over his head and beard, then breathe a deep sigh and say: "Allah is sufficient for me, and He is the best Disposer of affairs."

Abu Nu‘aym narrated from Shaddad ibn Aws, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Allah is sufficient for me, and He is the best Disposer of affairs, is the security of every fearful one."