Tafsir of Al Imran 3:192

This is a hyperbole in requesting protection from the Fire and an explanation of the reason for it. The sentence begins with the vocative (call) as a hyperbole in supplication to the Abode of Benevolence, as implied by the word "Lord" (Rabb). It is related from Ibn Abbas that he used to say: "The Greatest Name of Allah is Rabb, Rabb." The emphasis using the noun instead of the pronoun represents the perfection of certainty in the content of the sentence and serves as an announcement of the intensity of fear. Using the explicit noun in place of the pronoun is for the sake of intimidation. Mentioning the "admitting" into the places of punishment is to specify its manner and clarify the extent of its horror.

As for "disgracing" (al-ikhza'), as Al-Wahidi said, it conveys closely related meanings:

• Al-Zajjaj said: "Allah the Exalted disgraced the enemy," meaning He distanced him.
• It is said: He humiliated him.
• It is said: He exposed him.
• It is said: He destroyed him (reported by Al-Mufaddal).
• It is said: He placed him in a station and caused him to stand in a position where he feels shame.

Ibn al-Anbari said: "Disgrace (khizy*) in the language is destruction, whether through ruin, the cutting off of one's argument, or falling into a tribulation." The meaning is: You have disgraced him with a disgrace that has no end beyond it.

It is an established rule that if the reward (jaza') is made something clearly necessitated by the condition (shart), whether that necessity is through generality or specificity—as in their saying: "Whoever reaches the pasture of Al-Samman has reached [the goal]"—or through entailment, as in this verse, it is interpreted as referring to its greatest and most specific instances to maximize the benefit. This is why the disgrace was restricted as it was.

The philosophers of Islam used this verse as evidence that spiritual punishment is more severe than physical punishment. This is because the verse sets the spiritual punishment—which is disgrace, based on its definition as humiliation and shame—as the consequence (jaza') of the physical punishment—which is admitting into the Fire—and makes the latter a condition (shart) and the former the reward. The purpose of the conditional sentence is the reward, and the condition is a restriction for it; thus, it implies that the reward is stronger and more horrific, otherwise, the Imam Al-Razi argued, it would have been reversed. Furthermore, what is understood from His saying: "And save us from the punishment of the Fire," is a request for protection from it, and His saying "Our Lord," etc., is proof of it. Thus, it is as if the request for protection from the aforementioned [Fire] is because of the disgrace that follows it; therefore, it indicates that it is an ultimate state to be feared, as some researchers have stated.

The Mu'tazilah argued using this verse that the perpetrator of a major sin is not a believer, because if Allah admits him into the Fire, He has disgraced him, and a believer is not disgraced, according to His saying: "On the Day when Allah will not disgrace the Prophet and those who believed with him."

The response is: It does not follow from the fact that those who believed with the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) are not disgraced that another person who is a believer may not be disgraced as well. Furthermore, the verse is not general, due to His saying: "And there is none of you except that he will come to it. This is upon your Lord an inevitability that is decreed. Then We will save those who feared Allah." Thus, it is interpreted as referring to those admitted to the Fire for eternity, namely the disbelievers. This is what is reported from Anas, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Qatadah, and Ibn Jurayj.

It is also possible to say: Every person who enters it is disgraced at the time of his entry, even if the final fate of those who committed major sins among them is to exit. His saying, "On the Day when He will not disgrace," etc., is a negation of disgrace in an absolute sense, and for the absolute, a single instance suffices for its truth, which is the negation of eternal disgrace. Also, it is possible to say: "Disgracing" is shared between humiliation and destruction; the affirmed [in this verse] is the former, and the negated [in the other verse] is the latter. In this case, no contradiction arises.

The Murji'ah argued with this verse that the perpetrator of a major sin does not enter the Fire because he is a believer, due to His saying: "O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered," and His saying: "And if two factions among the believers should fight," and a believer is not disgraced, according to His saying: "On the Day when Allah will not disgrace the Prophet," etc., while the one admitted to the Fire is disgraced according to this verse.

The response is to deny all the premises: As for the first, it is possible that he is no longer a believer after the killing, even if he was a believer before. As for the other two, it is because of the specificity of the predicate and the partiality of the subject, as established earlier.

That is, each of them has no helper to aid him and rescue him from what he is in. The sentence is a tail-piece (tadhyil) to demonstrate the horror of their state, and it contains an emphasis on the supplication. Placing "the wrongdoers" in place of the pronoun of "the admitted" is to condemn them and to signal the causation of their entry into the Fire by their wrongdoing.

The Mu'tazilah clung to this negation of helpers to argue against intercession for all who are admitted [to the Fire]. The response is that "the wrongdoer" in an absolute sense is the disbeliever, according to His saying: "And the disbelievers, they are the wrongdoers." It is also said: The negation of a helper does not prevent the existence of an intercessor, because "help" (nasr) is repelling by force, whereas "intercession" (shafa'ah) is rescuing through humility and supplication. This view has merit, and the statement that common usage does not support it is invalid.

In al-Kashf, it is stated: The apparent meaning of the verse is that whoever enters the Fire has no helper [to prevent him] from entering it. As for him having no helper [to rescue him] from exiting after entering, that is not [what the verse indicates]. This is because the negation of individuals is absolute and unrestricted in terms of time. The apparent meaning is to restrict it to that which the helper is requested for first, such as when someone is being punished and you say: "He has no helper." It is not understood from this that the punishment does not end by itself, or that after the punishment no one intercedes, but rather it is understood that no one prevented him from what befell him. Then, even if we were to grant equality [between helper and intercessor], it does not signify [absolute] negation. Many have answered, under the assumption of the generality of "the wrongdoer" and no difference between "help" and "intercession," that the evidences indicating intercession—which are too numerous to count—are particularizers of the general, and what benefits you here has already preceded.