Tafsir of Al Imran 3:3

(He has sent down upon you the Book) meaning: the Quran, which encompasses the fundamentals and the derivatives, and everything that has been and will be until the Day of Resurrection. Expressing it with a generic noun (the Book) signals its superiority over all other individual instances in its containment of the perfections of that genus, as if it were the only one worthy of being called "the Book" to the exclusion of others. This is hinted at by the explicit mention of the "Torah" and the "Gospel" thereafter.

The placement of the prepositional phrase (upon you) before the direct object (the Book), the selection of the second-person pronoun, and the preference for ‘ala (upon) over ila (to) all serve to magnify the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and highlight his exalted status. This sentence is either a new commencement (ist’naf), another predicate for the Exalted Name (Allah), or it is the predicate itself while the preceding part is a parenthetical clause or a circumstantial qualifier.

(The Ever-Living, the Sustainer of all) is an adjective or a substitute (badal). Al-A’mash recited nazzala (lightly, without the shaddah) and raised the word al-Kitab (the Book); in this case, the sentence is disconnected from what precedes it. It has been said that it is linked to the preceding by assuming the implied meaning "from His presence."

(With the truth) meaning: with veracity in its reports, or with justice as stated by Al-Raghib, or with the categorical proofs that substantiate it from Allah. It is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal), meaning: "clothed in truth" or "truth-bearing." In Al-Bahr, it is suggested that the ba (in bil-haqq) might be causative, meaning: "by reason of the establishment of the truth."

(Confirming) is a circumstantial qualifier from "the Book," following a previous qualifier, or a substitute for the position of the first qualifier, or a qualifier for the pronoun in the prepositional phrase. In any case, it is a reinforcing qualifier.

(What is before it) meaning: the preceding scriptures. The phrase is the object of "confirming," and the lam is for strengthening the transitive action. The manner of its confirmation of what preceded has already been explained.

(And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel) Mentioning them specifically defines "what is before it" and clarifies the high status of their position; this serves as a confirmation for what preceded and a preamble for what follows. The recipient of the revelation is not mentioned regarding them because the discourse pertains to the two books, not to those upon whom they were sent down. The use of the verb anzala (sent down) for both indicates that they only had a single descent, which is the opposite of the Quran. The Quran has two descents: one from the Preserved Tablet to the House of Glory (Bayt al-‘Izzah) in the lowest heaven all at once, and a second descent from there to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in stages over twenty-three years, according to the well-known view. This is why it is said of the Quran both nazzala (to descend in stages) and anzala (to descend at once).

This is superior to the claim that nazzala necessitates gradualness and anzala necessitates one-time descent, as that is challenged by the verse: "Why was the Quran not sent down to him all at once?" where nazzala is paired with "all at once," and the Almighty's saying: "And indeed He has sent down (nazzala) to you in the Book." Some investigators of this field have noted that gradualness (tadrij) is not about quantity, but about performing an action bit by bit, as in a sequence. Linguistic expressions must involve this; thus, the form nazzala indicates it, while inzal is absolute. However, when context dictates, inzal is used to mean the staging of revelation, or it is used in contrast to what is opposed to it, or it is taken in its absolute sense according to what the context requires.

There is a difference of opinion regarding the derivation of the words "Torah" and "Injeel" (Gospel). Some say the former is derived from wara al-zinad (the striking of the fire-stick), meaning it was struck and fire appeared from it, because the Torah is a light and illumination relative to all that is not the Quran, clearing away the darkness of misguidance. Others say it is from wara in speech, meaning to imply or hint, because it contains many symbols and noble allusions. Its morphological weight, according to Al-Khalil and Sibawayh, is faw’ala, like sawma’ah (cell/hermitage), originally wawriyah with two waws; the first was replaced by a ta, the ya was vocalized, and the preceding letter was opened into an alif, becoming Tawrah. It is written with a ya to signal the origin, and for this reason, it is imalah-inflected.

Al-Farra said it is taf’ulah with a kasrah on the ‘ayn, then the kasrah was changed to a fathah and the ya flipped into an alif for simplification, just as they say tawsah for tawsiyah. The Basrans objected to this, arguing that this morphological pattern is rare and that it would necessitate the addition of a ta at the beginning, which is not added in such a manner. Some Kufans held that its weight is taf’ulah with a fathah on the ‘ayn, and the ya was flipped into an alif.

It is said the second (Injeel) is derived from al-najl (fathah followed by sukun), which is water that seeps from the earth—from which al-najeel (grass) grows—and it is also applied to a parent and a child. It is more well-known as being the opposite (an antonym), as Al-Zajjaj said. It is from najala, meaning "to appear," named so because it was extracted from the Preserved Tablet and appeared, or from the Torah. It is also said it comes from al-najl, meaning "widening," hence an eye is called najla for its wideness, because it contains a widening (latitude) not present in the Torah, as it permitted some things that were forbidden in it. It is also said it is derived from al-tanajul, which is contention; people say tanajala when they dispute. It was named so because of the excessive dispute regarding it.

It is clear that the derivation and morphology—under the assumption that the two terms are Arabic—are evident. But under the assumption that they are non-Arabic (the former Hebrew and the latter Syriac, which is the more apparent view), there is no true meaning to their derivation. Deriving them from other non-Arabic words is unprovable, and deriving them from Arabic words, as you have heard, is like drawing a lizard from the sea. Nothing remains except that after they were Arabized, they were treated according to Arabic morphological structures regarding their additions and roots, and an origin was posited for them so they could be understood, as we indicated before. The argument for their Arabic origin based on the inclusion of the definite article (al-) is open to scrutiny, for the inclusion of al- in non-Arabic proper nouns is a subject of debate, as they made the al- mandatory for some non-Arabic proper nouns as a sign of definition, such as Al-Iskandariyah (Alexandria); Abu Zakariya al-Tabrizi said it is never used without it, despite the consensus on its non-Arabic origin. Supporting the non-Arabic nature of Injeel is the report from Al-Hasan that it is with a fathah on the hamzah and is of the pattern af’eel, which is not among the structures of the Arabs.