Tafsir of Al Imran 3:191

The expression is in the genitive case, functioning as an adjective (na't) for "those of understanding" (uli al-albab). It is permissible for it to be in the nominative or accusative case to denote praise, or as a predicate (khabar) for an implied subject, or as a beginning (mubtada') whose predicate is implied to be "they say." However, the latter is weak, as it causes a fragmentation of the structure. This is further weakened by what al-Asbahani recorded in al-Targhib from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "A caller will call out on the Day of Resurrection: 'Where are those of understanding?' They will ask: 'Which of the people of understanding do you mean?' He will say: 'Those who remember Allah while standing, sitting, and on their sides...' A banner will be tied for them, they will follow their banner, and it will be said to them: 'Enter it [Paradise] forever.'"

The apparent meaning of "remembrance" (dhikr) is remembrance by the tongue, but it must be accompanied by the presence of the heart, for there is no praise for remembrance without it. In fact, they have unanimously agreed that there is no reward for a heedless person who remembers. Many have inclined toward this, and Ibn Jurayj considered the recitation of the Quran to be dhikr, so it is not disliked for one who is lying down and capable. Indeed, some Shafi'is stipulated that it is disliked if one covers their head to sleep. Some investigators have said: The intended meaning is His remembrance, the Exalted, absolutely—whether that pertains to His Essence, His attributes, or His actions, and whether or not it is accompanied by the remembrance of the tongue. The meaning is: those who are not heedless of Him, the Exalted, at any time, with their hearts being tranquil in His remembrance and their inner secrets submerged in the contemplation of Him.

Accordingly, the account narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them), Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, and a group (may Allah be pleased with them) is understood: that they went out on the day of Eid to the prayer place and began to remember Allah. Some of them said: "Did Allah not say: 'Those who remember Allah while standing and sitting'?" So they stood and remembered Allah on their feet. Their intention was to seek blessings by conforming to the verse in one of the aspects of its implication; it was not their intention to interpret it exclusively or to verify its specific example, otherwise they would have lain down and remembered as well to complete the interpretation and verify the example.

Ibn Abi Hatim and al-Tabarani recorded via Jubayr from al-Dahhak from Ibn Mas'ud regarding this verse that he said: "This is only concerning prayer: if you cannot do it standing, then sitting; and if you cannot do it sitting, then on your side." This is how the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded Imran ibn Husayn, who suffered from hemorrhoids, as recorded by al-Bukhari. Through this report, Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) argued that a sick person should pray lying on their right side, facing the Qiblah with the front of their body. It is not permitted for them to lie on their back, contrary to the view of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him). He made the verse an argument for this, based on the premise that since it restricted the state of the one remembering to the aforementioned postures, it indicates that others are not of its form. Prayer consists of remembrance, so it should not be in a form other than its [defined] state—a point that is worthy of reflection. Ibn Mas'ud’s restriction of the remembrance to prayer does not stand as a conclusive argument, as it is distant from the context and the preceding flow of the noble arrangement.

Al-qiyam (standing) and al-qu'ud (sitting) are the plurals of qa'im (standing) and qa'id (sitting), like niyam and ruqud are plurals of na'im (sleeping) and raqid (lying down). Their accusative case is due to their being states (hal) from the pronoun of the subject in "they remember." It is also possible that they are verbal nouns interpreted as "standing" and "sitting" to facilitate the state. His saying, "And on their sides," is connected to an omitted term conjoined to the state, meaning: "and being on their sides," i.e., lying down. It is permitted to consider the conjoined connection as specific, meaning: "and lying on their sides." The intention behind mentioning these conditions is to signify continuity, and its being understood from them according to convention is beyond doubt. It is not the literal continuity, as that is impossible, but rather the majority of their states. Some derive continuity from the imperfect verb (mudari'), which indicates continuation. Regardless, the meaning is: they remember Allah frequently.

"And they reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth" is a conjunction to "they remember." Conjoining it to the previous conditions is not apparent. The precedence of remembrance in those conditions over reflection is because they both contain the confession of servitude. The servant is composed of an inner self and an outer body; in the first, there is an indication of the servitude of the latter, and in the second, an indication of the servitude of the former, because reflection occurs via the heart and soul. In expressing servitude after finishing the verses of Lordship, there is a subtlety that is not hidden. It is said: The first was mentioned first because it is an indication of looking within the selves, while the second was mentioned last because it is an indication of looking at the horizons (afaq). There is no doubt in the precedence of the first over the second. Our master, the Sheikh al-Islam, stated that this is a clarification of reflection upon His actions, the Exalted, while what preceded is a clarification of reflection upon His Essence, the Exalted, absolutely.

However, the consensus of the exegetical Imams is that He, Glory be to Him, restricted reflection to the creation in order to forbid reflection upon the Creator, due to the impossibility of attaining the essence of His Being and His attributes, Mighty is His command and exalted is His authority. This prohibition has been mentioned in more than one tradition. Abu al-Shaykh and al-Asbahani recorded from Abdullah ibn Salam: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) went out to his companions while they were reflecting, and he said: "Do not reflect upon Allah, the Exalted, but reflect upon what He created."

From 'Amr ibn Murrah: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed by a people who were reflecting, and he said: "Reflect upon the creation and do not reflect upon the Creator." From Ibn Umar: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Reflect upon the signs of Allah, the Exalted, and do not reflect upon Allah, the Exalted." From Ibn Abbas: "Reflect upon everything, but do not reflect upon the Essence of Allah, the Exalted." And so on. Therefore, the claim that the first is a clarification of reflection upon His Essence, Glory be to Him, in an absolute sense, is subject to scrutiny. Moreover, some scholars mentioned in their tafsir that reflection upon Allah, the Exalted, is impossible, for it would demand encompassing the One who encompasses everything. Reflect upon this. It is said: Remembrance was prioritized over reflection as a warning that the intellect does not suffice for guidance unless it is illuminated by the light of the remembrance of Allah and His guidance. Thus, the one reflecting must return to Allah and observe what He has legislated for them, for the intellect that contradicts the Sharia is the garment of misguidance, and there is no result of its thinking but error.

"Creation" (khalq) may mean the "creature" (makhluq), with the genitive construction meaning "in," i.e., "reflecting upon what He created in the heavens and the earth," which is broader than being a part of them or inhabiting them. Or, it is explanatory, i.e., "upon the creature which is the heavens and the earth." It may also retain its meaning as a verbal noun, i.e., "they reflect upon His bringing them into being and His originating them" with the wonders of manufacture, minute secrets, and subtle wisdoms contained therein. They use this as evidence for the Maker, His essential Oneness, that He is the Sovereign, the Subduer, the All-Knowing, the All-Powerful, the Wise, the Perfect, and other qualities of perfection. This leads them to the realization of the truthfulness of the messengers, the validity of the Books speaking of the details of legal rulings, the verification of the Resurrection, and the certainty of recompense. Because of the nobility of this fruit attained through reflection—given that it is an act specific to the heart, distant from the places of hypocrisy—it is among the best of acts of worship.

"Our Lord, You have not created this in vain." The reference is to the heavens and the earth, since they are, in consideration of the creation’s attachment to them, in the sense of "the creation." Or, it refers to "the creation" on the assumption that it means "the creature." It is also said that it refers to both. In any case, the gender agreement and singularity are clear. The shift from the pronoun to the demonstrative noun is to indicate that they are wondrous creations that must be attended to with complete distinction, out of reverence for them. Similar to this is His saying, "Indeed, this Quran guides to that which is most upright." "Vain" (batil) is the idle act, which is that which has no benefit at all, or that which has no significant benefit, or that for which no benefit is intended. It is said: that which vanishes and passes away, having no strength or stability—and it is not hidden that this is a saying without strength or stability. It is either an attribute of an omitted verbal noun, i.e., "a vain creation," or a state of the object.

The meaning: "Our Lord, You have not created this creature—or this thing contemplated, which is of great importance—devoid of wisdom or empty of benefit," as indicated by the states of those heedless of it, those turning away from reflecting upon it, who lack the wings of contemplation. Rather, You created it containing magnificent wisdoms and organized for great interests, before which thoughts stand exhausted and the feet of minds fail to grasp them in their entirety. Among them is that it serves as a pivot for the livelihoods of the servants and a beacon guiding them to the knowledge of the states of the Origin and the Return, just as Your Books have spoken and Your Messengers have brought.

The entire clause is in the position of the accusative as an implied "they say," i.e., they say, "Our Lord..." The clause of speech is a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun in "they reflect," meaning: they reflect upon that, saying: "Our Lord, You have not created this in vain." This is the view held by the majority of exegetes.

It is objected that the noble arrangement does not support this because "what" is in the position of the relative clause (silah), and that which is a condition for it should be among the principles of the judgment applied to the relative noun (mawsul) and the incentives for its stability, such as their remembrance of Allah at all times and their reflection on the creation of the heavens and the earth, as these lead to clarifying those signs and using them as evidence for the objective. There is no doubt that their saying this is not among the principles of the aforementioned reasoning, but rather among its consequences resulting from it. Thus, considering it a condition for what is in the relative clause is not becoming of the noble revelation. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the speech clause is an inception (isti'naf) explaining the result of reflection and the implication of the signs, arising from what preceded. For the soul, upon hearing the specification of the signs erected in the creation of the world for "those of understanding," and then describing them with the remembrance of Allah and reflection upon the domain of those signs, remains expectant of the traces and judgments that will appear from them. It is as if it were said: "What happens when they reflect upon that, and what is the result?" So it is said: "They say such and such," which indicates their grasping of the secret of creation that leads to the knowledge of the truthfulness of the messengers and the validity of the books speaking of the details of legal rulings.

Regarding the claim that the hal (state) combines with this statement being one of the results, its flaws are not hidden. Then, that this statement is one of the results of reflection is something that no thoughtful person would deny. The clarification of this—according to the opinion—is that when these people reflected upon His creatures, especially the heavens with the sun, moon, and stars within, and the earth with its seas, mountains, and minerals, they knew they had a Lord and Maker, so they said: "Our Lord." Then, when they confessed that in each of these are wisdoms, purposes, and benefits that thoughts cannot encompass in detail, they said: "You have not created this in vain." Then, when they contemplated and measured the conditions of these products against their Maker, they saw that the Maker must necessarily be transcendent above resembling anything of them; therefore, He is not a body, nor an accident, nor in a space, nor in need of [anything]... so they said: "Exalted are You," i.e., in transcendence of what does not befit You. Then, when they were submerged in the oceans of Majesty and Grandeur and reached this supreme level, and realized that the One capable of what was mentioned of creation without a model to imitate or a law to follow—and being characterized by comprehensive power and perfect wisdom—is even more capable of the Resurrection which the heavenly Books have spoken of, and that this is only for a brilliant wisdom which is the recompense of the accountable according to their worthiness linked to their deeds of heart and body, they sought salvation from what befalls the negligent and pertains to the failing, so they said: "So protect us from the punishment of the Fire," i.e., grant us success to act according to what we have understood from the evidence. Hence, it is said: The fa (so) is for the sequencing of the supplication of seeking refuge from the Fire upon what "Our Lord, You have not created this in vain" indicates of the obligation of obedience and the avoidance of disobedience. It is as if it were said: "We will obey You, so protect us from the punishment of the Fire," which is the recompense of those who disobey You.

"Exalted are You" (subhanak) is a verbal noun in the accusative case by an omitted verb, and the clause is parenthetical to strengthen and confirm the speech; this does not contradict it being a confirmation of the negation of vanity from His creation. Some said: "By this confirmation," and did not claim it was parenthetical, making what comes after the fa contingent upon the transcendence indicated by "Exalted are You," claiming it is the most apparent, as it includes His transcendence from rejecting the request of the humble who seek refuge in Him. It is clear that the issue branches from the transcendence of [God] from the disappointment of those who hope. It is also said that it is a response to an implied conditional, where the meaning is: "If we transcend You or acknowledge Your Oneness, then protect us from the punishment of the Fire," which is the recompense of those who did not transcend or acknowledge His Oneness.

Al-Tabarsi used the verse as an argument that disbelief, misguidance, and evil deeds are not the creation of Allah, the Exalted, because these things are all "vain" (batil) by consensus, and Allah, the Exalted, has negated that—narrating from those of understanding whose speech He approved—that there is nothing "vain" in what He created. Thus, it must be determined that all evils are not attributed to Him, Mighty is His command, and are negated from Him in terms of creation and origination. This is subject to scrutiny, because all things are equal in that they are the creation of Allah and contain interests and wisdoms, as indicated by His saying: "He gave everything its creation, then guided it." Their differentiation is only in consideration of the relation of some to others, and that some are objects of command while others are objects of prohibition, for example—not because some contain wisdom and others are devoid of it. Thus, evils, as the creation of Allah, are not "vain," because "vain," as you know, is that which has no benefit at all, or no significant benefit, or for which no benefit is intended. They are not such, for they contain within themselves many wisdoms and benefits that it is not far-fetched for Allah to intend, despite His essential independence from them. It is not required that those benefits accrue to the one from whom the act originated; otherwise, many of His creations would be devoid of benefits. Naming them "evils" is only in consideration of them being the objects of prohibition for a reason, which also does not require them to be devoid of wisdom. The utmost is that it entails His lack of approval for them—in the legal sense—which necessitates punishment for them because their overflow was according to the eternal predisposition. Thus, the claim that all these things are "vain" is vain, like the claim of consensus on that. It is as if the speaker did not understand the meaning of "vain" and said what he said.

Some also argued using this verse that the actions of Allah, the Exalted, are explained by purposes, which is apparently based on the assumption that "vain" is "the idle act" in the third sense. You have known that the meaning of "idle" is not restricted to that. Even assuming the restriction, there is no harm in this saying, according to many investigators, provided one maintains [the belief in] His essential independence and that He is not perfected by others, as we indicated in [the Surah of] al-Baqarah. The philosophers of Islam argued with it that He, the Exalted and High, created the celestial spheres and the stars, deposited specific powers in them, and made them such that from their movements and the connection of some to others, benefits result in this world. Because, if they were not so, they would be "vain," and it is impossible that their benefits be restricted to using them only as evidence for the Maker, because every atom of water and air participates in that; therefore, their specificities would have no benefit, and that is contrary to the text. The theologians debated them on this, that it is possible for the celestial spheres to be habitual causes for earthly things, not real ones, and that effects occur at them, not by them. That suffices as a benefit for their creation.

You know that the saying regarding the depositing of powers in celestial spheres—and indeed in all causes—while stating that they are effective by the permission of Allah, the Exalted, is something that has no harm in it; rather, it is the supported school of thought that the predecessors of the nation followed, and which we have verified previously. It does not contradict the reference of everything to the Causer of causes, nor does it conflict with the flow of all matters by His decree and ordainment, the Exalted is His state. Indeed, the claim that celestial spheres and the like are effective by themselves, even if Allah, the Exalted, did not permit, is misguidance, and believing in it is disbelief. Based on this is the interpretation of the tradition: "Whoever said: 'We were given rain by the influence of such-and-such star,' is a disbeliever in Allah, the Exalted, and a believer in the star; and whoever said: 'We were given rain by the grace of Allah, the Exalted,' is a believer in Allah, the Exalted, and a disbeliever in the star." So let this be guarded.