Tafsir of Al Imran 3:30

(On the day every soul finds): among the burdened souls, (what it has done): in the world, (of good, brought forth): before it, meaning witnessed in the records. It is also said: manifested in images. It is also said: it finds the recompense for its deeds brought forth by the command of Allah the Exalted. Therein lies the intimidation of "brought forth" (muḥḍaran), which is the second object of "finds." (And what it has done of evil): connected to "what it has done." And "brought forth" is implicit in it as well, but it was specifically mentioned with the good to signify that the good is intended in essence, while the bringing forth of evil is from the requirements of legislative wisdom, as the Shaykh al-Islam stated. Estimating "brought forth" in the structure and omitting it due to the sufficiency of its prior mention is what most have held. It is thus a conjunction upon the two objects, which is permissible, as in al-Durr al-Maṣūn. They did not categorize it as being like "I knew Zayd to be virtuous, and 'Amr," which is not a case of omission regarding the first object, but rather like "Zayd is standing, and 'Amr," where the predicate is omitted, as they explicitly stated. Therefore, the omission is necessary, and the distinction between the subject and the object in this chapter is mere illusion. You may also consider "finds" (tajidu) as having the meaning of "encounters" (tuṣību), in which case it is transitive to one object, and "brought forth" (muḥḍaran) is a state (ḥāl).

(It wishes): meaning it hopes; it is the operator for the adverbial of time, meaning it wishes on that day, (that there were between it and it): meaning between it and that day, (a far distance): It is also said: the pronoun refers to what it has done because of its proximity, and because the day contains the bringing forth of both good and evil, while one who wishes for distance would not wish for it from the day itself absolutely; thus, referring the pronoun back to the day is not ideal. This is the view held in al-Baḥr. It was refuted by saying that the former is more eloquent, for it wishes for distance between itself and the day, despite the good it contains, so that it might not see the evil. The amad (distance) is the extreme limit and end of a thing. The difference between it and abad (eternity) is that abad is a duration of time that is unlimited, while amad is a duration that has an unknown limit. The intended meaning here is a long extremity. It is also said: the length of a lifetime. It is also said: the distance one travels from the East to the West. Some have maintained that the intended meaning of "far distance" is a far spatial distance, which is perhaps the most apparent. The wish here is of the same nature as the wish in His saying, the Exalted: "Oh, would that there were between me and you the distance between the two Easts."

This is what has been mentioned regarding the arrangement of the verse, and it is what many of the Imams of exegesis have held. Abu Hayyan said: It is the apparent interpretation at first glance, based on a matter in which the grammarians differed regarding its permissibility: the subject being a pronoun referring to something connected to the object of the preceding verb, such as: "Hind's servant, she struck him." The verse is of this category according to that extraction, because the subject of "wishes" (tawaddu) refers to something connected to the object of "wishes," which is "the day," because it is in a genitive construction with "every soul finds." The estimate is: "Every soul wishes—on the day of its finding what it has done of good and evil brought forth—that there were between it, etc." The majority of the Basrans hold that this is permissible, and it is the correct view. From this is the verse: "A man's term urges him on, and he does not know, while he seeks the attainment of desires," meaning the man, at the time he seeks the attainment of desires, urges on his term and does not know. Al-Farra, al-Akhfash, and others among the Basrans hold that it is not permissible, because this ma'mūl (governed object) is superfluous, and thus it is permissible to dispense with it. Having the pronoun return to what is connected to it removes it from that state because it necessitates mentioning the ma'mūl so that the subject pronoun can return to what is connected to it; its weakness is not hidden.

There are other aspects regarding the verse. Among them is that the one governing the adverbial of time is an estimated "Remember." It is not a refutation against it that His power, glory be to Him, is limited to that day, because if He is able on such a day, then His power on others is known by way of priority. Among them is that it is governed by "returning" (al-maṣīr) or "mentioning" or "He warns you" estimated, so it is a direct object, or by the genitive "punishment" which the statement of Ibn Abbas—may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him—signified. They have explicitly stated that upon the estimate of connecting it to something like "remember," it is permissible for "what it has done" to be an initial (mubtada') whose predicate is the sentence "it wishes," or to be a conjunction to the first "what," and the sentence "it wishes" is either a commencement as an answer to an estimated question—as if an inquirer asked when they were commanded to remember that day: "What will happen at that time?"—and it was said: "It wishes that there were between it," etc.; or it is a state of the subject of "finds." Meaning: Remember the day every soul finds what it has done of good and evil brought forth, wishing for the distance between it and itself. It is also permitted that it be a state of the pronoun in "it has done" due to its proximity. This was objected to on the grounds that the wishing is only at the time of finding the deed present in the Hereafter, not at the time of doing the deed in the world. The state of the pronoun in "it has done" requires this, so there is no basis for it. The reply is that it is a "prospective state" (ḥāl muqaddara), in the sense of: "On the day every soul finds such and such, its wishing is estimated," meaning at the time it is fixed in Our decree, its wishing [is fixed]. Thus, even if the wishing is not contemporaneous with the deed, the fact that the wishing is fixed in the decree and judgment of Allah the Exalted is contemporaneous with it. This is similar to what was said regarding His saying, the Exalted: "And We gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous." It was also objected that, upon the estimation of it being a state of the pronoun in "it has done," it necessitates the specification of the deed, and the context does not suit this. The reply is that the intent is not specification, but rather the clarification of their evil state and their regret, which is unobjectionable.

Abu al-Baqa' also permitted that "what" in "what it has done of evil" be conditional. Al-Safaqsi inclined toward this. The nominative case of "wishes" (tawaddu) is not a barrier, because if the condition is in the past tense and the consequence is in the present, it is permissible for the consequence to be in the nominative or the jussive without distinction between "if" (in) and the conditional nouns. It was objected that the nominative of the present tense in the consequence is rare, just as its nominative in the condition, as al-Mubarrad stated. Usage bears witness to this, as it is found only in the verse of Zuhayr: "And if a friend comes to him on a day of famine, he says: 'No, my wealth is absent, nor is it forbidden.'" Therefore, extracting the agreed-upon recitation in this way is not easy. Yes, there is no harm in extracting the rare (shādh) readings, such as the recitation of "Wherever you may be, death will overtake you," with the nominative "will overtake." The reply is that we do not concede that it is rare. Abu Hayyan mentioned that the nominative is frequently heard in the language of the Arabs, to the point that some of the Maghribis claimed it is better than the jussive. Like the verse of Zuhayr is the saying of Abu Sakhr: "And not by the one if his beloved departs from him, he says and hides his patience: 'I am surely distressed.'" And his other saying: "If they ask you for good, they will be given it; and if they are tested in hardship, the best of the news will be reached from them," with the nominative "will be reached," which is a present tense verb that occurred as the answer to the condition. And his saying: "And if they move away, they do not feel safe from His approach," [looking to] the one who is absent and awaited, and others like it. In al-Baḥr: "If the extraction of the nominative is weak based on that, it is not much, as you have known." However, it is forbidden for "what" in the verse to be a consequence, because Sibawayh mentioned that the intention in the nominative is priority, and it would then be evidence for the answer, not the answer itself. In that case, it leads to putting the implied before its manifest in non-excepted chapters, because the pronoun in "between it and it" refers to the conditional noun, which is "what." Thus, the meaning becomes: "Every soul wishes that there were between it and it a far distance, [regarding] what it has done of evil." This is not permissible. Al-Safaqsi refuted this by saying that if we were to accept the school of Sibawayh, no obstacle would arise either, because the sentence, for containing the pronoun of the condition, necessitates its delay even if it is advanced in intention. Do you not see that if the subject contains a pronoun that refers to the object, it is forbidden to advance it before it according to the majority, even if it is advanced before it in intention? Abdullah recited: "It wished," and upon that, it rises in the nominative by consensus, and the conditional holds true. However, the second scholar said: There is some debate regarding its correctness, because the sentence, upon the estimation of it being a relative clause (mawṣūliyya), is a state or a conjunction to "finds," and the conditional does not occur as a state nor can the adverbial be added to it. Thus, nothing remains but to conjoin it to "remember," and if it were correct, it would corrupt the meaning, which is that this state and this wishing are on that day. There is no escape except to make it a state by estimating an initial: "And it is that what it has done of evil, it wished." Its weakness is not hidden. They parsed the relative clause with its sentence as a state, and the grammarians did not explicitly forbid the addition to it.

Many of the Imams said: The relative clause is more in agreement with the general recitation and more consistent with the path of rectitude, because it is speech like a narration of the state occurring on that day, so it must be taken as that which signifies occurrence. The conditional is not like that, given that it signifies the future, and there is no evil deed in the future of that day. This does not negate its correctness, because even if it does not signify occurrence, it does not contradict it. The matter of the future is an estimation, "And what it had done," as in similar cases, so contemplate and understand. May your deed not cut you off from choosing the relative clause.

(And Allah warns you of Himself): It is said: He mentioned this first to forbid taking the disbelievers as allies, and here, as an exhortation to do good and to forbid the doing of evil absolutely. It is permitted that it be a conjunction to "it wishes," meaning: be afraid of that day and of evil deeds. (And Allah warns you of Himself): by manifesting His overpowering nature. This is something that it is hardly appropriate to interpret the Noble Book in accordance with. Gentler than this is to conjoin it to "finds," and the adverbial is governed by "remember," meaning: "Remember that day, and remember the day Allah warns you of Himself by manifesting His greatness and overpowering nature." It may be said: This is a repetition of what preceded, and a reiteration of it, but not merely for emphasis; rather, to benefit that which it benefits. And His saying, the Exalted: (And Allah is Kind to the servants): is from the perspective that His warning of Himself is from His vast mercy to the servants; when they know Him and are wary of Him, that draws them to seek His pleasure and avoid His wrath, and that is the great success. Or from the perspective that His warning, He be exalted, is not based on the overlooking of the attribute of mercy, but rather it is realized while mercy is also realized. Thus, the sentence, based on the first, is an embellishment, and based on the second, it is a state. To the first, the statement of al-Hasan—may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him—points. The al in "the servants" (al-'ibād) is for encompassing, and the repetition of the Majestic Name is to nurture awe and remove heedlessness by directing the mind toward this judgment in the most complete manner of direction.