Tafsir of Al Imran 3:181

Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated—via the path of ‘Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas—that he said: Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) entered the House of Study (Bayt al-Midras) and found that the Jews had gathered around a man among them called Finhas, who was one of their scholars and rabbis. Abu Bakr said: "Woe to you, O Finhas! Fear Allah the Exalted and embrace Islam. By Allah, you certainly know that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; you find him written with you in the Torah."

Finhas replied: "By Allah, O Abu Bakr, we are in no need of Allah the Exalted, rather He is in need of us. We do not entreat Him as He entreats us, and we are rich while He is poor. If He were rich, He would not have sought a loan from us, as your companion claims. He forbids you from usury and yet gives it to us; if He were independent of us, He would not have given us usury."

Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) became angry and struck Finhas on the face a severe blow, saying: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, were it not for the covenant between us and you, I would have struck off your head, O enemy of Allah the Exalted!"

Finhas went to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: "O Muhammad, see what your companion has done to me!" The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him): "What led you to do what you did?" He replied: "O Messenger of Allah, he said a grave thing; he claims that Allah—Glorified be His State—is poor and they are rich. When he said that, I became angry for the sake of Allah the Exalted because of what he said, and I struck his face." Finhas denied it, saying: "I did not say that."

Thereupon, Allah the Exalted revealed this verse regarding what Finhas had said, in confirmation of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and He revealed concerning Abu Bakr and the anger he reached in this matter: {And you shall certainly hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse...}

Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Qatadah that he said: It was mentioned to us that this was revealed regarding Huyayy ibn Akhtab when Allah the Exalted revealed: {Who is it that would loan Allah a goodly loan so He will multiply it for him by many times?}. He said: "Our Lord asks us for a loan; only the poor ask the rich for a loan."

Al-Diya’ and others narrated—via the path of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbas—that he said: The Jews came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) when Allah the Exalted revealed: {Who is it that would loan Allah a goodly loan?}, and they said: "O Muhammad, is your Lord poor, asking His servants for a loan?" So Allah the Exalted revealed the verse.

The use of the plural in the first two narrations—despite the speaker being one—is because the others were pleased with that statement. Specifying this statement with "hearing," even though He is the Hearer of all audible things, is a metaphorical allusion to a threat. Hearing necessitates knowledge of what is heard, and knowledge necessitates a threat in this context. It is a hearing of manifestation and threatening, not a hearing of acceptance and pleasure, as in "Allah hears those who praise Him." It is expressed as "hearing" to signify that it is so shameful and monstrous that the speaker would not want anyone to hear it; for this reason, they denied it. Because their denial of the statement is equivalent to a denial of the hearing, Allah confirmed it with an emphatic oath. This also contains, in the severity of the threat and the hyperbole of the warning, what is not hidden.

The governing agent for the clause "that" and what follows it is "they said," as it is the content of the utterance. It is also permitted that it be governed by the noun (the masdar), for it is a verbal noun. Abu al-Baqa’ said: This follows the view of the Kufans regarding the governance of the first [agent], but it is a weak principle; it is made weaker here because the second is a verb and the first is a masdar, and governing by the verb—as it is stronger—is more appropriate.

For this reason, He followed it with His saying: {and their killing of the prophets without right}, signaling that they are brothers in gravity, and alerting that it is not the first crime they committed or sin they deemed permissible, and that whoever is bold enough to kill prophets—without right, even in their own belief as it is in objective reality—such statements are not considered far-fetched for them. The attribution of the killing to these speakers is based on the [shared] pleasure with the actions of their predecessors.

It is said: The meaning is, "We shall gather what they said and their killing of the prophets in the place of torment, and We shall reward them with a similar reward, because both share the nullification of what the messengers brought." It is not hidden that this is not a proper way to interpret the speech of Allah the Exalted.

Al-Hariq (the burning) carries the meaning of al-muhriq (the burner). The annexation of "punishment" to it is an explanatory annexation; that is, the punishment which is the burning, because the One who punishes is Allah the Exalted, not the fire. Or, the annexation is for the cause, as it is placed in the position of the actor, as some scholars of verification have stated.

Al-dhawq (tasting), as al-Raghib said, is the presence of flavor in the mouth. Originally, it is used for what is consumed in small amounts, not large amounts (for which akl—eating—is used). Then, it was expanded and used for the perception of all sensory experiences and states. It is mentioned here, as Nasir al-Din said, because the punishment is contingent upon their statement, which stems from stinginess and greed for wealth—and man's need for wealth is mostly for obtaining food—and the bulk of his stinginess is out of fear of losing it; hence, the mention of "eating" is frequent alongside "wealth."

You may also say: Since the Jews said what they said and killed those whom they killed, they gave the believers and the followers of the prophets a taste of anguish, ignited the fire of jealousy and sorrow in their hearts, and scorched their hearts with the flames of abuse and distress. Thus, they are compensated with this severe punishment.

It is said: The command "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire" is addressed to them just as you made the allies of Allah the Exalted taste what they disliked in the world. The one who says this to them, as al-Dahhak said, is the keepers of Hell. In this case, the attribution is metaphorical.

In this verse, there are hyperboles regarding the threat, as it mentions the "punishment," the "burning," and the "tasting," which is a sign of despair. Al-Zajjaj said: "Taste" is a word said to one who has lost hope of pardon; meaning, "Taste what you are in, for you shall never escape it." It signals that the punishment and humiliation they are in will be followed by what is even more severe and disastrous. The utterance is for the sake of relief (tashaffi), indicating the perfection of wrath and anger. In the preceding [part of the verse] there are also hyperboles, which are not hidden.

Hamzah read sayaktubu (He shall write) with a ya’ and in the passive voice, and qatlahum (their killing) in the nominative case, and wa-yaqulu (and He shall say) in the third-person form.