Tafsir of Al Imran 3:194

Some researchers have permitted the attachment to a "restricted being" (kawn muqayyad), acting as a state (hal) for "what"—meaning: "sent down or carried upon Your messengers."

Abu Hayyan objected to this, stating that the rule is that the attachment of a prepositional phrase, if it is a "restricted being," cannot be elided; it is only elided if it is an "absolute being" (kawn mutlaq). Furthermore, the prepositional phrase here is a state, and when a state, predicate, or attribute occurs, it attaches to an absolute being, not a restricted one. It was answered by denying that attachment is restricted to an absolute being; rather, it is permissible to attach it to either, and its elision is permissible if there is evidence for it. The strength of this response is manifest, and Abu Hayyan’s denial is of no account, except that the estimation of a "restricted being" in this context is a forced interpretation that is unnecessary.

Some claimed it is permissible for "upon" (ala) to mean "with," and that it attaches to "give us" (atina), with no elision at all. The meaning would be: "Give us, along with Your messengers, and include them with us in our reward, for he who leads to good is like the doer of it." The benefit of requesting their partnership is to fulfill their due and increase their virtues through the blessing of their participation. It is hidden from no one that this is not how the speech of the Majestic Allah should be interpreted, nor even the speech of any eloquent Arab.

Repeating the call (invocation) for the reason previously mentioned, and grouping the messengers together—even though the One being called is the Unique, the Single (upon Him be blessings and peace)—is because his invocation, especially upon the pulpit of monotheism and the laws agreed upon by all, encompasses the invocation of all. Thus, believing in him (blessings and peace be upon him) is believing in them (peace be upon them), and likewise, the reward promised upon his tongue (upon him be peace and blessings) is promised upon their tongues. The preference for the plural over the singular is to show desire for the flow of Allah’s bounty, as it is known that the reward for believing in many messengers is greater than the reward for believing in one. The second preference is to demonstrate complete confidence in the fulfillment of the promise based on the multitude of witnesses. The delay of this prayer is based on what we mentioned regarding the relative pronoun (al-mawsul), and it is almost certainly apparent because the matter concerns the Hereafter.

As for interpreting it as victory over enemies—as has been said—its delay after what precedes it is either because the first is a matter of "adornment" and the second is of "cleansing," and adornment follows cleansing; or because the first entails salvation in the Hereafter, whereas the lack thereof entails perdition, and the second is not so, as is clear; thus it is secondary and therefore delayed. The view that "victory" is intended, rather than the reward of the Hereafter, is supported by the subsequent statement of Allah: {And do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection}, because requesting the reward would suffice for this prayer; for when the reward is attained, disgrace is far removed from them. This is contrary to the case if the first implies the prayer for victory in this world, for the lack of sufficiency in that case is manifest. In fact, there is subtlety in combining the two prayers: the first is "do not disgrace us" in this world by the enemy’s victory over us. It is as if they said: "Do not disgrace us in this world, and do not disgrace us in the Hereafter." They varied the expression, using a different phrase for each of the two requests due to the difference between the objects requested themselves.

It was answered that the benefit of the follow-up, on that premise, is to indicate that they requested a complete reward that was not preceded by disgrace or falling into affliction. It is as if, having requested the greatest hope and the ultimate expectation of the hopeful on that Day, they turned to request that which elevates their station in that position, which is the total omission of punishment. There is a subtlety in combining these two, as is not hidden. It is also possible to say: They requested the reward first, considering that physical punishment is warded off by it, then they requested the warding off of spiritual punishment, based on the fact that disgrace is insult and humiliation; thus there is an escalation from the lower to the higher, as if they said: "Our Lord, ward off from us physical punishment, and ward off from us that which is more severe, which is spiritual punishment." If you refuse both and claim necessity between the reward and the absence of disgrace, we say: The people, due to their intense yearning and excessive desire for salvation on that Day—wherein horrors appear and children turn gray—were not content with one of the two prayers even if it necessitated the other, but combined them to intensify their petition, and Allah loves those who are persistent in prayer; thus it is closer to being answered. They put the first one forward because it is more consistent in form with what precedes it.

Some interpret this prayer as requesting protection from that which necessitates disgrace, making the conclusion of the prayers "musk" because the object requested therein is a momentous matter. The prepositional phrase attaches to "give" (atina) in meaning and wording. This is absolutely necessary if the speech is interpreted metaphorically or if the relative pronoun (al-mawsul) refers to victory. It is preferred—or rather, almost necessary—if the relative pronoun refers to the reward. The possibility that this is a matter of contention between "give us" and "do not disgrace us" on that premise is as you see.

{You do not fail the promise} is a tail-piece (tadhyil) to verify what they have set in the string of prayer. It is said: It attaches to the one before the last which necessitates it; to this, the speech of al-Ajhuri points. "Promise" (al-mi'ad) is a noun of place or time acting as a verbal noun, meaning the promise. Many here qualify it with reward and response, which is the apparent meaning. As for interpreting it as "resurrection after death," as reported from Ibn Abbas, it is correct because it is the appointed time for people to be recompensed. It may refer to the first.

The absence of conjunction in these prayers, which are opened by the call addressed by Lordship, serves to signal the independence of the requests and the loftiness of their status. We have indicated the secret of repeating the call by that name. In some traditions, it is said that Moses (peace be upon him) once said, "O Lord," and Allah replied to him, "Here I am, O Moses." Moses (peace be upon him) marveled at that and said, "O Lord, is this for me specifically?" He said, "No, but for everyone who calls Me by Lordship." From Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him): Whoever is saddened by a matter and says "Our Lord, our Lord" five times, Allah will save him from what he fears and grant him what he desired; and he recited this verse.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ata that he said: There is no servant who says "O Lord" three times but that Allah looks at him. This was mentioned to al-Hasan, and he said: Do you not read the Quran: {Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller...} etc.?

If you say: "Allah’s promise is bound to occur because it is impossible for Him to fail His promise by consensus, so how did the people request that which is bound to happen?" I say: It is answered that Allah’s promise to them is not based on their essence, but on their deeds; thus the intention of the prayer is for success in the deeds through which they become worthy of receiving what is promised, or the intention is merely submissiveness and humiliation before Allah, evidenced by their saying: {You do not fail the promise}. With this, the tail-piece is joined with the most perfect join. Al-Jubba'i and Ali bin Isa chose this. Or the prayer is an act of worship due to His saying: {Call upon Me}, so there is no harm in it being related to that which is bound to happen and that which is impossible to be broken; such as: {Our Lord, judge with truth}.

It is said: The thing promised is victory and nothing else, and the people knew that, but they were not given a time in the promise so they might know it, so they yearned toward Allah to hasten it due to the joy in victory it contains. Thus, what is promised is not what is asked, and what is asked is not what is promised, so there is no problem. To this, al-Tabari inclined, saying: The verse is specific to those who migrated from the companions of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and they deemed the victory over their enemies slow after having been promised it, so they said: "We have no patience for Your delay and Your forbearance." This is strengthened by the verses that follow, and the speech of Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi points to this as well, and there is discussion therein that is known from what we have presented. It is said: There is no prayer in reality; rather, the speech is cast as a question, and the intention behind it is to inform. It is obvious that this is far from reality, and it is weakened further by His saying...