Tafsir of Al Imran 3:188

(Do not think): This is an address to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or to anyone who is fit to be addressed; meaning, do not think—

(Those who rejoice in what they have brought): That is, in what they have done. Ubayy read it as bima ataw (what they have performed), and it has been read as bima ataw (what they have been given) and bima utu (what they were given). The second reading is reported from Ali (may Allah honor his face).

(And love to be praised for what they have not done): That is, that people praise them. It is also said: that the Muslims praise them; and it is said: that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) praises them.

Ibn Abbas stated—as recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim via the path of al-Awfi—that they are the People of the Scripture; the Book was sent down to them, but they ruled contrary to the truth, distorted the words from their contexts, rejoiced in that, and loved to be "praised for what they have not done" regarding prayer and fasting. In a narration by al-Bukhari and others from him, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) asked them about something, but they concealed it from him and informed him of something else. They left having shown him that they had informed him of what he asked, seeking praise from him thereby, and they rejoiced in what they had "brought" of concealing what he asked them about.

Ibn Jarir reported from Sa’id ibn Jubayr that they "rejoice" in their concealing the description of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) which their Book uttered, and they "love to be praised" for being followers of the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him). According to this, the relative pronoun refers to those mentioned previously, "those from whom your covenant was taken," and it has been placed in the position of their pronoun. The sentence precedes the statement of the punishment that follows their reported deeds, following the explanation of their ugliness. In this, there is also consolation that is not hidden. Included within it is an explanation of another part of their abominations and scandals: their persistence in the ugly, their rejoicing in it, and their love to be described with beautiful attributes they do not possess. Allah (exalted is He) phrased it as "known" to signal how famous they are for being characterized by it.

It is said that the relative pronoun refers to a group of hypocrites, a specific faction known among those mentioned and others. This is supported by what the two Shaykhs and al-Bayhaqi recorded in Shu'ab al-Iman from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him): that men from the hypocrites, when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went out to battle, would stay behind and rejoice in their sitting against the command of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). When he returned from the battle, they would make excuses to him and swear, loving "to be praised for what they have not done." Thus, this verse was revealed. Similar reports are narrated from Rafi’ ibn Khadij, Zayd ibn Thabit, and others.

It is also said that it refers to the hypocrites in general, and most of them were from the Jews. Some claimed that this is the most appropriate interpretation for the content of the silah (relative clause), because of their well-known behavior of rejoicing in what they had done—displaying faith while their hearts were tranquil in disbelief—and seeking praise from the Muslims for faith while they were a thousand miles away from acting upon it. They would manifest love for the believers while being at the furthest extreme of enmity.

It is not hidden from you that even if one concedes this is more appropriate, there is no sound tradition known to us that supports it. Hence, the remoteness of the opinion that it is better to take the relative pronoun in its generality, covering everyone who does any good deeds and rejoices in them with self-admiration and desires that people praise them for virtues they are devoid of—encompassing the aforementioned group as a primary instance—becomes clear. Furthermore, it has been objected that the inclusion of the aforementioned group in an absolute sense, let alone as a primary instance, is not accepted unless one generalizes "what they have brought" to include true good deeds and others. If it is restricted to good deeds, as the surface of this opinion suggests, then the inclusion is not accepted, because those who rejoice do not, in reality, perform any good deed to rejoice over with self-admiration, as is not hidden. Perhaps the matter here is simple.

Yes, what makes it even more remote is what was recorded by Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu'ab via the path of Humayd ibn Abd al-Rahman, that Marwan said to his doorkeeper: "Go, O Rafi’, to Ibn Abbas and say: 'If every one of us who rejoices in what he has been given and loves to be praised for what he has not done is to be punished, we would all be punished.'" Ibn Abbas replied: "What do you have to do with this verse? This verse was only revealed regarding the People of the Scripture," then he recited: "And when Allah took the covenant of those who were given the Scripture..." until the end of the two verses. For if it were better to treat the relative pronoun in its generality, the scholar of the Ummah and the interpreter of the Quran would have done so and removed the difficulty by restricting the rejoicing to "self-admiration," as the proponent of this opinion did.

From the words of the scholar (al-Hibr), it does not follow that rejoicing out of self-admiration and loving praise for what was not done is not prohibited. Rather, the maximum that follows from it is that this is not the meaning of the verse, as they stated. This does not necessitate that it is not the meaning of anything at all, such that it would be a statement denying the prohibition. How could it be, when many texts are explicit about its prohibition, even to the point that some consider it one of the major sins? So let this be understood.

In any case, the relative pronoun is the first object of tahsabanna. His saying (exalted is He), "(So do not think them...)" is an affirmation of it. The Arabs, as Sibawayh said, when they lengthen a story, repeat hasibta and what is similar to it, to signal that what has occurred is connected to the first and is an emphasis on it. So you say: "Do not think Zayd, when he comes to you and speaks to you like this and that, do not think him to be truthful." Thus, "do not think" provides emphasis and clarification. The fa (so) is redundant, as in the saying: "If I perish, then at that time, then lament."

The second object in His saying (exalted is He), "(in a place of safety from the punishment)," means: cloaked in salvation from it, provided that mafazah is a masdar mimi (a verbal noun) meaning "success," and the ta is not for unity, as the verbal noun is built upon it. "(From the punishment)" is attached to it. It is also permissible for mafazah to be a noun of place, meaning a location of success and salvation, and that it is borrowed from mafazah (which means) a wasteland. In that case, "from the punishment" is an adjective for it, because a noun of place does not govern (a prepositional phrase). It is necessary to assume a specific implied attachment, i.e., "a savior from the punishment." Assuming it is general—i.e., "a mafazah existing from the punishment"—is incorrect because the mafazah is not "from" the punishment. It has been objected that assuming a specific term, while being contrary to the norm, is a forced interpretation that is unnecessary.

It has been read with the ba vocalized with a damma in both verbs, on the basis that the address also includes the believers. It has also been read with a ya of the third person, with the ba vocalized with a fatha in both, on the basis that the verb belongs to him (peace and blessings be upon him) or anyone from whom "thinking" can proceed. The two objects in both readings are as mentioned before.

Abu Amr and Ibn Kathir read with the ya and a fatha on the ba in the first verb, and with the ya and a damma on the ba in the second verb, on the basis that the subject of "do not think" is the one who follows, and its two objects are deleted, indicated by the two objects of the confirming verb. The subject of the confirming verb is the pronoun of the relative pronoun, and its two objects are the pronoun referring to them and "in a place of safety," i.e., "Do not think those who rejoice in what they have brought"—so do not think them—"in a place of safety."

It is permissible for the first object of la tahsabannahu to be deleted and the second object to be mentioned, i.e., I mean "in a place of safety" (that) "do not think those who rejoice" themselves to be successful. His saying (exalted is He), "(So do not think them)" is an affirmation, and the fa is redundant, as mentioned. It is also permissible that both objects of "do not think" are mentioned; the first is their pronoun attached to the second verb, and the second is "in a place of safety." This is based on making the affirmation just the verb and subject, which is more appropriate since nothing else has been mentioned previously. This was rejected on the grounds that it involves the attachment of an object pronoun to something other than its governing verb, or its subject which is attached to its governing verb, and no grammarian has said this. Even if it avoids deletion in this category, it is subject to scrutiny, as many have declared it permissible, and I have treated this issue separately in my writings.

It is also permitted that the first verb be ascribed to the pronoun of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or every thinker, the first object being the relative pronoun, and the second object being deleted due to the indication of the object of the second verb. The second verb is ascribed to the pronoun of the relative pronoun, and the fa is for conjunction, due to the clarity of the derivation of the lack of their "thinking" from the lack of his (peace and blessings be upon him) "thinking," or the lack of "thinking" of everyone who thinks. Its two objects are the objective pronoun and "in a place of safety."

Placing the threat by forbidding them from the aforementioned "thinking," according to Shaykh al-Islam, is to alert them to the falsity of their feeble opinions and to cut off their empty hopes, as they used to claim that they would be saved from the punishment of the Hereafter by what they had done, just as they were saved from worldly consequences by it. Based on this, their rejoicing was built. As for his forbidding (peace and blessings be upon him), it is to imply their aforementioned "thinking," not because there is a possibility of "thinking" occurring from him (peace and blessings be upon him).

You know that justifying the beginning with what has been mentioned—assuming the relative pronoun is generalized as mentioned—is not apparent, unless one speaks of taghlib (dominance).

"(And for them is a painful punishment)" is an explanation of the certainty of an individual instance of punishment, which has no end in duration or intensity, following what was indicated regarding their lack of salvation from the absolute punishment. This is signaled by the nominal sentence, the indefinite article for magnification, and the description.

It is permitted that this is an indication of the punishment of the Hereafter, and the denial of salvation from the punishment previously is interpreted as the denial of the immediate punishment, which is their being blameworthy and rejected among the people; for the garment of falsehood does not remain, and the state of its owner is revealed and he is scandalized.