Tafsir of Al Imran 3:76

(Indeed) is a response to their statement, "There is no way for us regarding the unlettered," and it is an affirmation of what they denied. The meaning is: "Indeed, there is a way for you regarding the unlettered."

(Whoever fulfills his covenant and fears [Allah] - indeed, Allah loves the righteous.)

This is an initiation confirming the sentence implied by "(Indeed)," as it conveys through its contrary implication the condemnation of those who do not fulfill rights absolutely; thus, they (the disbelievers) are included in it primarily.

"Whoever" (man) is either a relative pronoun or a conditional particle. In "fulfills" (awfa), there are three dialects: keeping the hamza, omitting it while lightening the fa, and omitting it while strengthening (doubling) the fa. The pronoun in "his covenant" ('ahdihi) returns to "whoever" (man). It is also said that it returns to Allah; thus, according to the first view, it is an infinitive added to its agent, and according to the second, it is an infinitive added to its object or its agent.

It is necessary for there to be a pronoun that returns to "whoever" from the second sentence. Therefore, either the explicit noun (al-muttaqin - the righteous) is placed in the position of the pronoun for the sake of connection if "the righteous" refers to "the one who fulfills," or its generality and comprehensiveness are made the link if "the righteous" is general. The explicit noun was placed in the position of the pronoun in the first case to record the virtue of piety upon those who fulfill the covenant, to indicate the cause of the ruling, and to observe the endings of the verses.

The first view is considered stronger due to the strength of the connection within it. Ibn Hisham said: "The manifest meaning is that there is no generality, and that 'the righteous' is equivalent to the one previously mentioned, and the answer, whether in wording or meaning, is omitted; its estimation is 'Allah loves him,' and it is indicated by 'Indeed Allah...' etc." Al-Halabi objected to this, stating that it is an affectation for which there is no need. His statement that "the manifest meaning is that there is no generality" is open to dispute, for when the pronoun in "his covenant" refers to Allah, the shift from the pronoun to the explicit noun serves to provide generality, as is customary in such instances, as some researchers have stated.