Tafsir of Al Imran 3:26

(Say, "O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty...") This is a confirmation of what the previous verse intimates regarding the greatness of His—Exalted is He—majesty and the immensity of His power. It also serves to silence those who belied the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and to refute them, especially the hypocrites, who are in a worse state than the Jews and the Christians. It is also a glad tiding to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of victory in a tangible sense over those who opposed him, just as he was granted victory through argument over those who debated him. Thus, this noble verse is linked to what precedes it.

Al-Wahidi narrated from Ibn Abbas and Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) opened Makkah and promised his nation the kingdom of Persia and Rome. The hypocrites and the Jews said: "Far-fetched, how far-fetched! From where would Muhammad obtain the kingdom of Persia and Rome? They are mightier and more impenetrable than that. Was it not enough for Muhammad to have Makkah and Medina, that he should now covet the kingdom of Persia and Rome?" Then Allah—the Exalted—revealed this verse.

Abu al-Hasan al-Tha’labi narrated from Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf, who said: My father narrated from his father, saying: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) drew the line for the trench in the year of the Confederates, then apportioned forty cubits for every ten men. ‘Amr bin ‘Awf said: I, Salman the Persian, Hudhayfah, al-Nu’man bin Muqarrin al-Muzani, and six of the Ansar were among those forty cubits. We dug, and Allah—the Exalted—brought forth a round rock from the depths of the trench that broke our iron tools and weighed heavily upon us. We said: "O Salman, go up to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and inform him of the news of this rock; either we divert from it, or he may command us regarding it as he wishes, for we do not like to go beyond his line."

He said: So Salman went up to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who was in a Turkish-style tent. He said: "O Messenger of Allah, a white, round rock has emerged from the bottom of the trench; it has broken our iron and weighed heavily upon us, to the point that nothing can scratch it, neither a little nor a lot. So command us as you wish, for we do not like to exceed your line." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) descended into the trench with Salman, and the nine of us stood on the edge of the trench. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) took the pickaxe from Salman and struck it a blow that cracked it, and a lightning bolt flashed from it, illuminating what was between its two sides, as if it were a lamp in the belly of a dark house. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) cried "Allahu Akbar" with the proclamation of victory, and the Muslims cried "Allahu Akbar." Then he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) struck it a second time; a lightning bolt flashed from it, illuminating what was between its two sides as if it were a lamp in the belly of a dark house. He (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) cried "Allahu Akbar" with the proclamation of victory, and the Muslims cried "Allahu Akbar." Then he (peace be upon him) struck it a third time; it shattered, and a lightning bolt flashed from it in the same manner. He cried "Allahu Akbar" with the proclamation of victory, and the Muslims cried "Allahu Akbar." He took Salman’s hand and ascended. Salman said: "May my father and mother be a ransom for you, O Messenger of Allah! I have seen something that I have never seen the likes of before." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) turned to the people and said: "Did you see what Salman said?" They replied: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "I struck my first blow, and there flashed for me what you saw; the palaces of al-Hirah and the cities of Kisra were illuminated for me, as if they were the fangs of dogs, and Gabriel informed me that my nation shall be triumphant over them. Then I struck the second blow, and there flashed for me what you saw; the red palaces of the land of Rome were illuminated for me, as if they were the fangs of dogs, and Gabriel informed me that my nation shall be triumphant over them. Then I struck my third blow, and there flashed for me what you saw; the palaces of Sana’a were illuminated for me, as if they were the fangs of dogs, and Gabriel informed me that my nation shall be triumphant over them. So rejoice!" The Muslims rejoiced and said: "Praise be to Allah, a true promise He has promised us: victory after the digging." The hypocrites said: "Do you not wonder? He promises you falsehood and tells you that he sees from Yathrib the palaces of al-Hirah and the cities of Kisra, and that they will be opened for you, while you are only digging the trench out of fear, unable to emerge for battle!" So Allah—the Exalted—revealed the Quran: "And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease said, 'Allah and His Messenger did not promise us except delusion'" and He revealed this verse: "Say, 'O Allah...'"

The root of Allahumma (O Allah) is Ya Allah; the Ya was deleted and the Mim was substituted for it. It was preferred due to its proximity to the Waw, which is a letter of prolongation, and it was shaddah-ed because it is a substitute for two letters. Combining it with Ya, as in the saying: "I, when I experience pain, do not say Ya Allahumma or Ya Allahuma," is considered irregular. This is among the characteristics of the Majestic Name, like the fact that the vocative particle is not deleted from it without the Mim, its entering into it with the definite article, the cutting of its hamza, the entry of the oath Ta upon it, the Lam in the oath of wonder (e.g., Lillahi he will not delay the term), the entry of Ayman and Yamin upon it in an oath as well, the Mim in M’Allah, the occurrence of the interrogative hamza as a replacement for the oath particle (like Allah), the particle of alerting in expressions like Laha Allahu dha, and other things. Exalted is He from being a deity whose every affair is strange!

The Kufans claimed its origin is Ya Allah, amina bi-khair (O Allah, intend us with good), which was lightened by deleting the vocative particle, the dependents of the verb, and its hamza. According to them, it is permissible to combine Ya and the Mim without issue, but the defect in this is not hidden; it necessitates that no other supplication-command should follow this word unless through the effort of replacing that verb or joining it by dropping the conjunction.

The Al in al-Mulk (Sovereignty) is for the genus or encompassment. Al-Mulk (with a damma on the Mim), according to what some scholars of verification mention, is a relation between the one who possesses it and the one to whom it relates. If you wish, you may say: it is a quality inherent to His Essence, relating to the other with the relation of total disposal, which necessitates the independence of the disposer and the neediness of the disposed-upon. For this reason, it is not correctly applied in an absolute sense except to Allah—exalted is His majesty. It is more specific than al-Milk (with a kasra on the Mim), because al-Milk relates to seizure with regulation and the ability to dispose of something in linguistic usage, plus the fact that it is a right in Islamic law, without looking at independence and neediness. Therefore, the Malik al-Mulk (Owner of Sovereignty) is the true King, who disposes as He wills, how He wills—bringing into existence, annihilating, giving life, causing death, punishing, and rewarding—without a partner or an obstacle. For this reason, it is not said "King of the Kingdom" except by way of metaphor. Taking al-Mulk to mean this is more appropriate for the context of praise.

It has been said: It means Prophethood, and Mujahid held this view. It has been said: Wealth and slaves. It has been said: This world and the Hereafter. The accusative status of Malik as an adjective is held by al-Mubarrad, al-Zajjaj, and Sibawayh; this requires it to be a second vocative. It is not permissible for it to be an adjective for Allahumma because the attachment of the Mim makes it resemble interjectional nouns (names of sounds), which are not described. Sibawayh’s evidence was countered by Sibawayh himself, for despite it being an interjectional noun, it is described. The response given is that the interjectional noun has become compounded with it and acts like a letter of the word, unlike our case. Hence, Abu Ali said: Sibawayh’s view is correct in my opinion, because there is nothing among described nouns that is on the level of Allahumma. For that reason, it differed from all other nouns and entered the realm of that which is not described, as they became like a sound added to a noun, so it is not described. Al-Taftazani affirmed this, and it is also supported by the fact that the occurrence of the replacement for the vocative particle between the described and the adjective is like the occurrence of the vocative particle between them. If description were permissible, the place of the replacement would be after it.

"(You give sovereignty to whom You will)" is a new sentence explaining some aspects of the disposal necessitated by the ownership of al-Mulk. It is permissible to consider it a state (hal) from the vocative, and there is a dispute regarding the accusative status of the state from it; the correctness of the permissibility is established because it is a direct object, and Al comes from it just as it comes from the subject. Considering the sentence as a predicate for a deleted subject—i.e., "You give"—although Abu al-Baqa’ preferred it, it holds no great benefit.

"(And You take sovereignty away from whom You will)" is a conjunction to "You give," and its ruling is the same as its ruling. The object of "You will" in both positions is deleted—i.e., "from whom You will its removal." The third al-Mulk is the same as the second; the Al in both is for the genus or the covenant. According to the verifiers, they are not the same as the first; the first is an absolute, real sovereignty, and its being owned is absolutely real, while the other two are metaphorical and specific, and their relation to their possessor is metaphorical. Some considered in the distinction that the first is intended to mean "all," while the others mean "a part," by necessity that the one being given cannot be the whole, and the one being removed is that same one, as it is a defined noun repeated. If no obstacle prevents it, it is intended to be the same as the first. Because if it is impossible to give the whole, it is impossible to remove the whole, for the second is preceded by the first.

Some people interpreted al-Mulk here as Prophethood, and the meaning of "removing it" here is transferring it from one people to another—i.e., You give Prophethood to the Children of Israel and transfer it from them to the Arabs. It is said: The meaning is that You give the causes of this world to Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his nation, and strip them from the Romans and Persians, so the Hour will not rise until their lands are opened and the Muslims possess what is in their hands. This was narrated from al-Kalbi. It is said: You take it away from the chieftains of Quraysh.

"(And You honor whom You will)"—that You honor them in this world and the next, or in one of them through victory and success. "(And You humble whom You will)"—that You humble them in one of them, or in both, without the hindrance of another. It is said: The intent is that You honor Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions by causing them to enter Makkah triumphant, and humble Abu Jahl and the dregs of polytheism through killing and casting them into the well. Ata said: "You honor" the Emigrants and the Helpers, "and You humble" the Persians and the Romans. It is said: "You honor" the believers through victory and spoils, "and You humble" the Jews through killing and the jizya. It is said: "You honor" through sincerity, "and You humble" through hypocrisy. It is said: "You honor" the loved ones through Paradise and the Vision, "and You humble" the enemies through the Fire and the Veiling. It is said: "You honor" through contentment and satisfaction, "and You humble" through greed and covetousness. (And it is said and it is said). All these sayings should be treated as exemplary, because there is no restrictor in the verse.

Tu’izzu (You honor) is the imperfect of a’azza, the opposite of adhalla. The root without the hamza is ‘azza, and its imperfect is ya’izzu with a kasra on the ‘ayn. From it is what is in the Qunut supplication of the Shafi’is. It has two other usages: damma and fatha. Imam al-Suyuti organized this, saying: "O reader of the books of etiquette, be alert and refine the difference in the verbs with precision. The doubled ‘azza comes in its imperfect with a tripling of the ‘ayn by a difference that has become famous: that which is like qalla, and the opposite of dhull with greatness, and like karuma, upon us it came with a kasra. And that which is like ‘azza upon us, the state—i.e., sa’uba—then open its imperfect if you are a master." These five verbs are intransitive. "And damma the imperfect of the verb that is not restricted. ‘Azzaztu Zayd, meaning I have defeated, and likewise I have aided him; so both have come as transmitted." It is said: If you are in the mention of Qunut, and "do not yu’izzu (honor), O Lord, whom You have made an enemy" with a kasra. Thank the people of the sciences of Sharia for they have explained the truth to you and shown therein a reminder.

"(In Your hand is all good)" is a new sentence, and some have run it in the style of what preceded it. The definition of "good" is for generalization, and the fronting of the predicate is for specialization—i.e., "In Your hand," whose essence cannot be fathomed and whose power cannot be measured, is all good. You alone dispose of it according to Your will; no one else disposes of it, and no one owns it other than You. The mention of "good" was singled out as a lesson in observing etiquette; otherwise, the mention of honoring and humbling indicates that both good and evil are in His hand—Glory be to Him. Likewise is His—the Exalted’s—saying, which is driven to provide the cause for what preceded and to verify it: "(Indeed, You are over all things competent)."

So it is not far-fetched that the verse is of the category of iktifa’ (sufficiency). It is said: It was limited to it only because the reason for the revelation of the verse was the glad tidings Allah—the Exalted—gave to His Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding the conquests and the succession of good things. It is said: Because things, regarding evil and non-existence, are divided into five categories: the first is that which has no evil at all, the second is that whose good outweighs its evil, the third is pure, the fourth is that which outweighs its good, and the fifth is where good and evil are equal. The existing ones of these categories in the world are the first and second. The evil within them is not intended in essence; rather, Allah—the Exalted—decreed it for a profound wisdom, and it is a means to a greater good and more encompassing benefit. When slight evil is a means to much good, its commission is a benefit required by wisdom, and absolute generosity does not reject it. Do you not see that phlebotomy, cupping, drinking disagreeable medicine, cutting off a tumor, and other painful matters, because they are a means to obtaining health, are considered good to commit according to the requirements of wisdom, and are counted as good, not evil, and health, not sickness? All of Allah’s—the Exalted—decrees of what we perceive as evil are of this category. Therefore, it has come in the Hadith: "Do not suspect Allah—the Exalted—regarding your own self," and it has come: "Do not hate tribulations, for in them is the harvest of the hypocrites."

It has also come: "If you did not sin, I would fear for you something greater than that: wonder, wonder." Hence it was said: "O You whose corruption is righteousness!" How much of the corruptions—because they contain great benefits—is that slight amount forgiven, as it is a means. And what leads to good is good. So every evil that Allah—the Exalted—decreed, because it was not intended in essence, for the rulings of destiny and decree, as they said, follow the ways that all religions agreed upon, from the perspective of bringing benefits and warding off corruptions, or rather by accident for what it necessitates of greater good and more complete benefit, it is true to apply to it, from this perspective, that it is good. Thus it entered into His—Glory be to Him—saying: "(In Your hand is all good)." Therefore, it was limited to "good" in a way that includes what was intended primarily and what was intended by necessity. This is of the category of "nothing in existence is more wonderful than what is," and the sages of Islam have followed it. One should not pay attention to the one who points the arrows of criticism at it. In the commentary of al-Haya’il, it states that evil is decreed accidentally and follows as a consequence, because some things that contain much good might necessitate a little evil. So leaving the much good for the sake of that little evil would be a much greater evil; thus that good issued from You, and it was necessitated that that evil occur. It, from the perspective of issuing from You, is good, since its non-issuance is evil, as it involves the missing of that good. So You are exalted above indecency, while nothing runs in Your kingdom except what You will. This is not from the saying of the obligation of "the most beneficial," nor does it contradict "He is not asked about what He does," for He does not do what He is asked about, out of generosity and wisdom in existence, and from it is: "If you were to see the Unseen, you would have chosen what actually happened."