ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌ ﲍ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﲔ ﲕ ﲖ ﲗ ﲘ
And let not those who disbelieve ever think that [because] We extend their time [of enjoyment] it is better for them. We only extend it for them so that they may increase in sin, and for them is a humiliating punishment.
Tafsir
Verse range: 3:178
Know that the Almighty has recounted the words of those who refrained from joining the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina, intending to discourage the Companions. They discouraged them by warning that they might be killed, just as the Muslims were killed on the day of Uhud. Allah Almighty clarified that the sayings of these devils are not accepted by the believer, nor does he pay attention to them. Rather, it is incumbent upon the believer to rely on the grace of Allah.
Then, this verse clarifies that the survival of these absentees is not better than the killing of those who were slain at Uhud. This is because their survival has become a means to disgrace in this world and eternal punishment in the Hereafter, whereas the killing of those slain at Uhud became a means to beautiful praise in this world and immense reward in the Hereafter. Therefore, the temptation offered by those dissuaders toward such a life and their dissuasion from such a killing would only be accepted by an ignorant person. This is the explanation of the connection (of the verse).
In this verse, there are several issues:
Ibn Kathir and Abu 'Amr recited $\text{{ولا تحسبن الذين كفروا}} (And let not those who disbelieve think), \text{{ولا تحسبن الذين يبخلون}} (And let not those who are stingy think) (Al 'Imran: 18), and \text{{فلا تحسبنهم}} (So do not think them) (Al 'Imran: 188) in all four instances using the tā’ (for the second-person masculine singular address) and the fatḥa (vowel mark) on the bā’ in \text{{تحسبنهم}}.
Nāfi' and Ibn 'Amir recited it with the yā’ (for the third-person masculine singular), except for \text{{فلا تحسبنهم}}, which they recited with the tā’.
Al-Ḥamzah recited all of them with the tā’.
The difference in reading regarding the vowel on the sīn (whether fatḥa or kasra) was previously mentioned in Sūrat Al-Baqarah.
As for those who read with the yā’ dotted from below (i.e., يحسبن): The word \text{{يحسبن}} is a verb, and \text{{الذين كفروا}} is the subject (fā'il), requiring two objects or one object that stands in place of two objects, similar to the verb ḥasibtu (I thought). For example: Ḥasibtu anna Zaydan munṭaliq (I thought Zayd was setting out), or Ḥasibtu an yaqūma 'Amr (I thought 'Amr would stand up).
In the verse, \text{{أنما نملي لهم خير لأنفسهم}} stands in place of the two objects. A similar example is Allah's saying: \text{{أم تحسب أن أكثرهم يسمعون}} (Or do you think that most of them hear?) (Al-Furqān: 44).
As for Al-Ḥamzah's reading with the tā’ dotted from above (تحسبن): The best explanation provided is that of Al-Zajjāj: \text{{الذين كفروا}} is in the accusative case (naṣb) as the first object, and \text{{أنما نملي لهم}} is an apposition (badal) replacing it. \text{{خير لأنفسهم}} is the second object. The meaning is: "And let not O Muhammad, the granting of respite to the disbelievers be thought by you to be better for them."
A similar instance where an plus a verb stands as an apposition to the object is Allah's saying: \text{{وإذ يعدكم الله إحدى الطائفتين أنها لكم}} (And when Allah promised you one of the two parties [of the enemy] that it would be yours) (Al-Anfāl: 7), where \text{{أنها لكم}} is an apposition to إحدى الطائفتين.
The mā in \text{{إنما}} (Verily/Only) can have two interpretations:
The author of Al-Kashshāf stated that the mā here is mā maṣdariyyah (the particle making the following clause a verbal noun). If so, according to the rules of orthography, it should have been written separately. However, it appears connected in the Uthmānic codices, and following the script of the codices is obligatory.
As for \text{{أنما نملي لهم}}, here it must be connected because it is a kāffah (a particle that stops the preceding inna from functioning as an emphasizer), unlike the first instance.
The meaning of نملي is "We prolong and delay." Imlā’ (granting respite) means giving time and delay.
Al-Wāḥidī, may Allah have mercy on him, said its derivation is from al-mulwah, which means a period of time. It is said: Malawtu min ad-dahr mulwatan, wa mulwatan, wa malāwatan, wa malāwatan (I spent a period of time from the age), all meaning the same.
Al-Aṣma'ī said: Amlā 'alayhi az-zamān means time prolonged for him. Amlā lahu means He prolonged for him and gave him respite.
Abu 'Ubaydah said: From this is al-malā for the vast, long land, and al-malawān (the two periods) are the night and the day.
Our scholars used this verse to argue the issue of Divine Decree and Predestination in several ways:
First Argument: This granting of respite (imlā’) is an expression of prolonging the time, which is undoubtedly an act of Allah. The verse explicitly states that this respite is not good. This indicates that the Almighty is the Actor of both good and evil.
Second Argument: Allah explicitly stated that the purpose of this respite is so that they may increase in sin, transgression, and aggression. This indicates that disbelief and disobedience are by the will of Allah. Furthermore, He emphasized this by saying: \text{{ولهم عذاب مهين}} (And for them is a humiliating punishment), meaning: "We only grant them respite so they may increase in sin and so that they may have a humiliating punishment."
Third Argument: Allah informed us that they gain no good from this respite; they only attain an increase in aggression and tyranny. If they were capable of attaining goodness and obedience despite this respite, while being commanded to do so, it would mean combining two opposites, which is impossible. If they are not capable of goodness and obedience with this respite, while being obligated to do so, the doctrine of the opposing party (the Mu'tazilah) is invalidated by necessity.
Regarding the First Point: The meaning here is not that this respite is not good in itself. Rather, it means this respite is not better for them than dying as the martyrs of Uhud died. This is because all these verses concern Uhud and the discouraging of the hypocrites from Jihad, as explained in previous verses. Thus, Allah clarifies that keeping the disbelievers alive in this world and granting them respite is not better for them than dying the death of the martyrs. This does not necessitate that this respite, in itself, is not good.
Regarding the Second Point: They argue that the verse does not mean the purpose of the respite is for them to commit disbelief and wickedness, citing Allah's saying: \text{{وما خلقت الجن والإنس إلا ليعبدون}} (And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me) (Adh-Dhāriyāt: 56), and \text{{وما أرسلنا من رسول إلا ليطاع بإذن الله}} (And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah) (An-Nisā’: 64). Rather, the verse admits several interpretations:
Regarding the Third Point (Foreknowledge and Knowledge): This is countered by the fact that if this foreknowledge prevented the servant from acting, then Allah would be necessitating actions, making Him mūjib (one who necessitates) rather than mukhtār (one who chooses by will), which is unanimously false.
Response to the First Point: The meaning of \text{{ولا يحسبن الذين كفروا أنما نملي لهم خير}} is the negation of goodness in the absolute sense, not that it is not better than something else. This is because the structure of emphasis (using balāghah) is not used except when mentioning the preferable and the less preferable. Since Allah only mentioned one of the two possibilities here (respite or death), we know He intended to negate the goodness entirely, not just negate that it is better than something else.
Response to the Second Point (Citing \text{{وما خلقت الجن والإنس إلا ليعبدون}}): The verse we rely upon is specific (khāṣṣ), while the verse you cited is general ('āmm). The specific takes precedence over the general.
Response to the Third Point (Interpreting the lām as the lām of consequence): This is a deviation from the apparent meaning (ẓāhir). Moreover, rational proof refutes it. Since Allah knew that they would inevitably become characterized by increasing error and tyranny, their increase in sin becomes necessarily existent because the realization of Allah's known is necessary, and its non-realization is impossible. The willing of the impossible is impossible. Therefore, it is impossible for Him to will faith from them, and it becomes necessary that He wills their increase in error and tyranny. Thus, it is established that the intended meaning is causation, and it is not permissible to resort to the lām of consequence.
Response to the Fourth Point (Fronting and Delaying): There are three responses:
Response to the Fifth Point (The lām cannot be interpreted as causation): For us (Ahl al-Sunnah), it is impossible to attribute the actions of Allah to a purpose that originates from the servants. However, it is not impossible for the Almighty to perform an action so that something else results from it. Furthermore, \text{{إنما نملي لهم ليزدادوا إثما}}$ explicitly states that the purpose of this respite is not to bring them good or beneficence. The opposing party does not claim this, so the verse becomes an argument against them from this perspective.
Response to the Sixth Point (Countering with Allah's Action): The effect of Allah's power in bringing about created things precedes the attachment of His knowledge to their non-existence. Thus, knowledge cannot prevent power. However, concerning the servant, the effect of his power in bringing about an action comes after the attachment of Allah's knowledge to its non-existence. Therefore, this knowledge can prevent the servant from acting. This concludes the debate on this verse.
Our scholars agreed that Allah has no religious blessings for the disbeliever. However, they differed on whether he receives any worldly blessings.
Those who maintained that the disbeliever receives no worldly blessings relied on this verse. They argued that this verse indicates that prolonging life and achieving one's worldly desires are not blessings, because Allah explicitly stated that none of that is good. Reason also confirms this: if someone feeds another a poisoned sweetmeat, this is not counted as an act of generosity. If the purpose of giving worldly blessings is punishment in the Hereafter, then none of them is a true blessing.
As for the verses mentioning the abundance of blessings for the disbelievers, they are interpreted as blessings only in appearance, and the only way to reconcile them with this verse is to say that those blessings are blessings in appearance but are, in reality, calamities and afflictions. And Allah knows best.
