Tafsir of Al Imran 3:195

Istijaba (responding) is ijaba (the answer). It has been reported from Al-Farra’ that ijaba is applied to an answer even if it is a rejection, whereas istijaba is an answer attained through the fulfillment of the desired object. The addition of the sin (in istijaba) indicates this, as it signifies seeking an answer, and what is sought is that which aligns with the desire, not that which opposes it. It is transitive through the preposition lam (for), which is the most common usage; it may also be transitive directly, as in the poet’s saying: "A caller called: 'O you who answers the call,' yet he did not answer him at that time as a responder." This, as Shihab and others have stated, is regarding transitivity to the caller. As for its transitivity to the du’a (supplication), it is common without the lam, such as "Allah answered his supplication." For this reason, it is said that the aforementioned verse of poetry contains an elided noun, meaning: "He did not answer his supplication."

The fa (so) is for conjunction, and what follows is conjoined either to the implied inception in His saying, Exalted is He: {Our Lord, You have not created this in vain}, and there is no harm in the difference in their forms, given that the future tense there is to indicate the continuity appropriate to the context of supplication, while the past tense here is to signal the certainty and establishment of the response. It is also permissible for it to be conjoined to an implied [phrase] towards which the mind is steered; i.e., "They supplicated with these supplications, {so their Lord answered them}," etc. If this implied statement is considered a state (hal), then it is conjoined to {they reflect} considering its concomitance to what occurred as a state from its agent—namely, His saying: {Our Lord}, etc.—for the response is contingent upon their supplications, not merely upon their reflection. Since this was among their beautiful qualities resulting from their works for the Hereafter, it deserved to be arranged in the string of their merits counted in the midst of praising them.

As for the relative pronoun being an adjective for "people of intellect," there is no room for this conjunction, as previously known, and this has been clarified by our master, the Sheikh al-Islam. The well-known view is that the conjunction is to that which the mind is steered towards. There is no lack of subtlety in mentioning "The Lord" here in the genitive case. Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Hakim, and many others reported from Umm Salama: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I do not hear Allah mentioning women in the context of the Hijra (migration) at all.' So Allah sent down: {So their Lord answered them...} to the end of the verse." The Ansar said: "She is the first woman traveler who came to us." Perhaps the intended meaning is that it was revealed as a completion to what preceded it. Ibn Marduyah reported from her that she said: "The last verse to be revealed was this one: {So their Lord answered them}."

{ أَنِّي لا أُضِيعُ عَمَلَ عَامِلٍ مِنْكُمْ } Meaning "that I do not..." and this is how Ubayy recited it. There is disagreement regarding its derivation. The scholar, the Sheikh al-Islam, derived it based on the ba (in bi-anni) being causative, as if it were said: "So their Lord answered them" because "He does not waste the work of a worker" among them; i.e., His noble sunnah (practice) continues upon that. He made the speech in {that I} and the address in {among you} an example of iltifat (shift in person). The specific nuance in this is the display of complete care regarding the matter of the response and honoring those who supplicate with the honor of the address, and mentioning the reason to emphasize the response, signaling that its foundation is their deeds which they preceded with supplication, not mere supplication.

Some researchers have said that it is a clause for an elided word that functions as a state, either from the subject of {answered} or from the genitive pronoun in {for them}. The estimation is: "addressing them that I..." or "being addressed that I..." etc. It is said that it is connected to {answered} because it contains the meaning of "speech," which is the position of the Kufans. Both views are supported by the fact that it was recited as {inni} (with a kasrah on the hamza), which contains the intent of "speech," and its location is that of a state, meaning: "Saying: I..." or "It being said to them: I..." The agreement of the two recitations is better than their disagreement, and this agreement is apparent based on what some and the author of the view have maintained, even if they differ in intensity and weakness. As for what the scholar mentioned, the obviousness is barely apparent; furthermore, it is in itself not apparent, as is not hidden. It was also recited {la udhi’u} with emphasis (shaddah).

In addressing the promise to the workers generally while symbolizing a warning to those who turn away, there is the utmost subtlety regarding the condition of these supplicants, especially since the abandonment of reward was expressed as "wasting" (idha'a), even though it is not a true wasting, as deeds do not necessitate reward such that its failure would constitute wasting them. Rather, it was expressed as such to emphasize the matter of rewarding, as if it were incumbent upon Him, the Exalted. So it is said. The well-known view is that idha'a originally means destruction, and similar to it is tad'i' (wasting). It is said: "He lost it, he wastes it, a loss, and waste," if it perishes. It is used here to mean nullification: "I do not nullify the work of a worker who is among you." {of male or female} is an exposition of "worker" and an emphasis on its generality, whether it means any individual worker or via the dominance of the masculine.

It is permissible for it to be a substitute (badal) for {among you}, a substitution of the part for the whole as they are for the same essence, or to be a state from the pronoun hidden within it. His saying, the Exalted: {Some of you are from others}, is a subject and predicate. {From} is either ibtida’iyah (starting) with the assumption of an elided noun—i.e., "from the root of some"—or without it, because the male is from the female and the female from the male. Or it is ittisaliyah (connected), and the connection is either by the unity of origin, or it is intended as connection in mixing, cooperation, or unity in religion, such that each one is from the other due to the brotherhood of Islam between them. The sentence is an initiating, parenthetical clause explaining the reason for the inclusion of women in the string of entry with men into the promise. It is permitted for it to be a state or an adjective.

His saying, the Exalted: {So those who migrated...} is a classification of detail for what was summarized in "work," and a counting of some of the merits of its individuals with praise and glorification. The origin of muhajara (migration) is from hijra, which is leaving. It is mostly used for migrating from one land to another, i.e., leaving the first for the second, absolutely, or for the sake of religion, as is common in the usage of the Sharia. The immediate meaning in the verse is this, and upon this, His saying: {And were driven out of their homes} is an explanatory conjunction with an indication that this migration was due to coercion and compulsion because the polytheists harmed and oppressed them until they were forced to leave. It is possible that the intent is "they migrated from polytheism and left it," and in that case, {and were driven out} etc., is an initiation. {And were harmed in My way}, i.e., because of My obedience, My worship, and My religion; this is the path of Allah, the Exalted. The intent of harm is more general than being driven from homes or other things that afflicted the believers from the polytheists. {And fought}, i.e., the disbelievers in the way of Allah, the Exalted. {And were killed}, i.e., were martyred in the fighting.

Hamza and Al-Kisa'i recited it in reverse, and there is no issue in it because the waw (and) does not necessitate order. Killing was mentioned first due to its superiority through martyrdom. This is if the killing and the fighting were from the same person. As for if the intent is that some killed and others fought, and they were not weakened by the killing of their brethren, then the consideration of order in it also does no harm. This intention is validated by the fact that the meaning is not the description of every individual of the mentioned relative pronoun with every single one of the things mentioned in the scope of the relative clause, but rather the description of the whole by the whole in general, whether that is through the description of each individual of the relative pronoun with one of the mentioned descriptions, or two of them, or more. Then what was mentioned comes to pass, either by way of distribution—i.e., among them are those who were killed, and among them are those who fought—or by way of eliding some of the relative pronouns from the midst, as is the view of the Kufans; i.e., "and those who were killed and those who fought." The fact that the meaning is the description of the whole by the whole in general is supported by the fact that if the meaning were the description of every individual by all, then the work of someone who was described by only some would have been wasted, even though the matter is not like that. The saying that the meaning is "they were killed and they had fought," so there is an elided qad (already) and the sentence is a state, is not something that should be applied to the Sublime Speech.

Ibn Kathir and Ibn Amir recited {qutilu} with emphasis to indicate frequency. {I will surely remove from them their misdeeds} is the response to an elided oath; i.e., "By Allah, I will surely remove..." The oath sentence is the predicate for the subject, which is the relative pronoun. Tha'lab claimed that the sentence [of an oath] cannot be a predicate, and his reasoning is that the predicate has a location [in syntax] and the response to an oath has no location, and this is the second [view]. So it is either said that it has a location from the perspective of being a predicate, and no location from the perspective of being a response, or that which has no location is the response, and the predicate is the combination of the oath and its response. It is not harmful that the sentence is performative, due to its interpretation as a declarative or by the assumption of "saying," as is well-known in such examples. Takfir (atonement) originally means covering, as we indicated previously. Since it necessitates the remaining of the thing being covered, and that is not the intended meaning, some researchers interpreted it here as "erasure." The intent of erasing misdeeds is erasing their traces from the heart or from the register of the recording angels and establishing obedience in their place, as He, the Exalted, said: {Except for those who repent, believe, and do righteous work—for them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good deeds}. The intent of misdeeds in what we are discussing is minor sins, because they are what are atoned for by acts of worship, as reported by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr from the scholars, but on the condition of avoiding major sins, as Ibn 'Atiyyah narrated from the majority of the Sunnis. They reasoned for this with what is in the two Sahihs from his saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "The five prayers, Friday to Friday, and Ramadan to Ramadan, are expiations for what is between them as long as major sins are avoided." The Mu'tazilah said that minor sins are atoned for merely by avoiding major sins, and acts of worship have no role in their atonement. They reasoned for this with His saying: {If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden, We will remove from you your [other] evil deeds}. The majority interpreted it as meaning: "We will remove from you your evil deeds with your good deeds." They objected to the Mu'tazilah that it has been reported that fasting the day of 'Arafah is an expiation for two years, and fasting the day of 'Ashura is an expiation for one year, and many such reports exist. If merely avoiding major sins were the expiator, what is the need for enduring this fasting, for example? The reason "misdeeds" were not interpreted to include major sins is that they must be accompanied by repentance, and acts of worship do not atone for them at all in the well-known view, due to their consensus that repentance is an obligation upon the elite and the commoners due to His saying: {And repent to Allah, all of you, O believers}. Expiating major sins through other means would necessitate the invalidation of their obligatory nature, which is contrary to the text.

Ibn al-Salah said in his Fatawa: "Some acts of worship, like prayer for instance, might atone for some major sins if there is no minor sin." Al-Nawawi stated clearly that acts of obedience do not atone for major sins, but they might lighten them. Some said that an act of worship erases a sin, whether it is major or minor. They reasoned for this with His saying: {Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds}, and his saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "Follow a misdeed with a good deed, it will erase it." In this there is a discussion, for the "good deed" in the verse and the hadith means "repentance" if "misdeed" is taken in a general sense.

According to that estimation, it is not possible to carry it on the apparent meaning because "misdeed" then includes the rights of the servants, and there is consensus that good deeds do not do away with them; only repentance with its considered, known conditions does. Furthermore, if one were to take the generality of the ruling, corruption would follow from the lack of fear in the Aftermath. Moreover, in the occasion of revelation, there is guidance towards specifying both the good deed and the misdeed. The two Sheikhs reported from Ibn Mas'ud that a man kissed a woman, then came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and mentioned that to him. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, remained silent until the verse was revealed. He called him and recited it to him. A man said: "Is this for him specifically, O Messenger of Allah?" He said: "Rather, for the people generally." The guidance is either towards specifying the "good deed" as repentance—for he came repentant, and there is nothing in the hadith indicating that he performed any other good deed—or towards specifying the "misdeed" as the minor one, for what occurred from him was as such, since kissing a non-mahram woman is among the minor sins, as they have stated. Some Sunnis said that a good deed atones for a minor sin as long as one does not persist in it, whether they performed a major sin or not, with the more correct view being that repentance from a minor sin is also obligatory even if one has not committed a major sin, because of the possibility of Allah, the Exalted, punishing for it, contrary to the Mu'tazilah. It is also said: The obligation is to perform repentance or its expiation through a good deed. There is a long discussion in this issue.

Perhaps repentance, if Allah wills, Exalted is He, leads to its completion. It might be said that interpreting "misdeeds" here as that which includes major sins is permissible, based on the fact that migration is the abandonment of polytheism, and this only occurs through Islam, and Islam wipes out what came before it. In that case, one considers a semblance of distribution in "misdeeds," that one takes from the types of its denotation with each description what is appropriate for it. This would be a clear promise of what the supplicants asked for regarding the forgiveness of sins and the atonement of misdeeds specifically, after having promised that in a general way. This was objected to on the grounds that this, despite what it contains, is built upon the fact that Islam wipes out what came before it absolutely, and there is disagreement regarding that. Al-Zarkashi said: "Islam that is accompanied by remorse only atones for the sin of disbelief and nothing else. As for other sins, they are not atoned for except by repentance for them specifically, as Al-Bayhaqi mentioned." He reasoned for this with his saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "If he does good in Islam, he will not be held accountable for the first or the last; if he does evil in Islam, he will be held accountable for the first and the last." If Islam atoned for all sins, he would not be held accountable for them if he embraced Islam. It was answered that by considering what was mentioned of the semblance of distribution, the matter of the disagreement becomes easier, as is not hidden from the possessors of fairness. So reflect.

{ وَلأُدْخِلَنَّهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ } This is an indication of what the supplicants expressed previously by their saying: {And grant us what You promised us through Your messengers} according to one of the two sayings, or a symbol for what they asked for by their saying: {And do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection} according to the other saying. {As a reward} is an infinitive used to emphasize what precedes it, because the meaning of the sentence is "I will surely reward them with that," so "reward" was placed in the position of "rewarding," even if it is originally a noun for what one is rewarded with, like "gift" for what is given. It is said that it is a tamiz (specification) or a state from "gardens" because of its description, or from the pronoun of the object, i.e., "rewarded with it" or "being rewarded." It is said it is a substitute for "gardens." Al-Kisa'i said that it is in the accusative case as a qat' (severance). His saying, the Exalted: {From Allah} is an adjective for "reward," and it is an emphasizing adjective because reward cannot be except from Him, the Exalted; however, it was stated explicitly to glorify the reward and magnify its status. It is not an objection that if an infinitive is described, how can it be an emphatic? For what is established in its place is that an emphatic adjective does not negate the infinitive being emphatic.

It is said that it is connected to "reward" considering its interpretation as a passive participle. His saying, the Exalted: {And Allah, with Him is the best of rewards} is a tadhil (concluding sentence) establishing the meaning of what preceded it. The Majestic Name is a subject, its predicate is {with Him}, and {the best of rewards} is elevated by the prepositional phrase as a subject, because of its reliance on the subject; or it is a second subject, and the prepositional phrase is its predicate, and the sentence is the predicate of the first subject. The speech is cast in the mold of a man's saying: "With me is what you want," intending his exclusivity to it and his ownership of it, even if it is not literally "with" him. Thus, "with Him is the best of rewards" does not mean that the reward is in His presence and near to Him according to the literal meaning of "with Him." Rather, it is like the existence of a thing by His power and grace such that no one else can exert power over it at all. The state of a thing being in the presence of someone is that he does not claim it for someone else. Exclusivity is derived from this representation; even if {the best of rewards} were not made a delayed subject, the exclusivity would remain. The verse has provided the increased merit of the Migrants and the elevation of their status.

Ibn Jarir, Abu al-Shaykh, Al-Bayhaqi, and others reported from Ibn 'Umar who said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying: 'The first three to enter Paradise are the poor Migrants through whom adversities are warded off. If they are commanded, they hear and obey. If one of them has a need of the Sultan, it is not fulfilled until he dies while it is still in his chest. And Allah, the Exalted, will call Paradise on the Day of Resurrection, and it will come in its finery and adornment. He will say: "Where are My servants who fought in My way, were harmed in My way, and struggled in My way? Enter Paradise." So they will enter it without punishment or account. The angels will come and prostrate and say: "Our Lord, we glorify You night and day and sanctify You; who are these whom You have preferred over us?" He will say: "These are My servants who fought in My way and were harmed in My way." So the angels will enter upon them from every gate: "Peace be upon you for what you patiently endured. And excellent is the final home."'"