Surah Al 'Imran: (181 - 182) Laqad Sami'a Allah...

Context and Structure of the Verses

There are two main perspectives on the coherence (nadḥm) of these verses following the preceding commands to spend in God's cause:

First View: After commanding believers to sacrifice life and wealth for God's sake and emphasizing this point, God then recounts the objections (shubahāt) raised by the disbelievers against the Prophet's (PBUH) prophethood.

The first objection was: Since God commanded spending wealth in His way, the disbelievers argued that if God truly sought wealth, He would be poor and incapable. Whoever asks for money from others is poor. Since poverty is impossible for God, His asking for money from His servants is also impossible. This proves that Muhammad (PBUH) is a liar in attributing this request to God.

Second View: The coherence lies in referencing the practice of the community of Moses (peace be upon him). When they offered their wealth as a means of drawing near to God, a fire would descend from the sky and consume it. Therefore, when the Prophet (PBUH) asked them to spend wealth in God's way, they said: If you were a prophet, you would not ask for wealth for this purpose. God is not poor and does not need our wealth to establish His religion. Rather, if you were a prophet, you would ask for our wealth so that a fire might descend from the sky and consume it. Since you did not do that, we know you are not a prophet. This is the intended coherence.

Issues within the Verse

It is far-fetched for an intelligent person to claim that God is poor and we are rich. Such a statement is made either in mockery or as a form of logical entrapment (ilzām). Most narrations attribute this statement to the Jews.

It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) sent Abu Bakr to the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, inviting them to Islam, establishing prayer, paying zakāh, and lending God a good loan. Finhas al-Yahudi replied: "Muhammad's God is poor, so He asks us for a loan!" Abu Bakr slapped him and said: "Were it not for the covenant between us, I would have cut off your neck." Finhas complained to the Messenger of God (PBUH), denying what he said, and then this verse was revealed, confirming Abu Bakr (RA).

Others said that when God revealed: {Who is it that would loan Allah a goodly loan and He will multiply it for him manifold?} (Al-Baqarah: 245), the Jews said: "We see Muhammad's God borrowing from us, so we are rich and He is poor. And He forbids usury, yet He offers us usury," referring to the phrase: {and He will multiply it for him manifold}.

The verse does not specify who made this statement, but scholars attribute it to the Jews based on several arguments:

1. God recounts that they said: "The hand of God is tied up," meaning He is stingy in giving—a form of ignorance consistent with the ignorance mentioned in this verse.
2. The narration concerning Abu Bakr's incident.
3. The tendency of the Jews towards anthropomorphism (tashbīh). Whoever holds anthropomorphic views cannot affirm that God is capable of all things. If they fail to establish this fundamental principle (omnipotence), they fail to prove that God is rich and not poor.
4. When Moses (PBUH) asked them to join him in fighting the enemies, they said: "Go, you and your Lord, and fight; indeed, we are staying here." When Moses asked them for self-sacrifice (fighting), they argued that if God were capable, He would not need our fighting. Similarly, when Muhammad (PBUH) asked them for sacrifice through spending wealth, they argued that if God were rich, He would not need our wealth. Thus, attributing this objection to the Jews is fitting, although it is not impossible that other ignorant people said it.

The most apparent interpretation is that they said this to challenge the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH): If Muhammad were truthful that God demands wealth from His servants, then God would be poor, which is impossible. Therefore, he must be a liar in this report. Alternatively, they said it out of mockery and derision. It is highly unlikely that an intelligent person would say such a thing based on genuine belief.

This verse indicates that God is the Hearer of speech, similar to His saying: {Allah has surely heard the statement of her who argues with you concerning her husband} (Al-Mujadilah: 1).

The apparent meaning of the verse suggests that the speakers were a group, as God said: {those who said} (alladhīna qālū), implying all of them held this view. However, the narration that the speaker was only Finhas suggests otherwise. Since the Scripture testifies that the speakers were a group, we must affirm that it was a collective statement.

Then God said: {We will record what they said}

Hamzah recited it as sayuktabu (passive voice, "it will be recorded") with the lām raised, meaning "God will record their killing of the prophets." The rest read sana-ktubu (active voice, "We will record") with the lām open, attributing it to God. Al-Kashshāf noted that Al-Hasan and Al-A'raj read sayuktabu (passive voice) but with the active subject specified (God).

This is a threat regarding that statement, which can have several interpretations:

1. Recording it means establishing the judgment against them so that it is neither canceled nor forgotten. People write things down to ensure permanence. God uses writing metaphorically to establish the consequence of their statement upon them.
2. We will record what they said in the books detailing their deeds, so they will read it in their record books on the Day of Resurrection.
3. My own interpretation: We will record this ignorance about them in the Qur'an so that creation knows until the Day of Resurrection the extent of their obstinacy, ignorance, and their relentless efforts to undermine the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) with everything they could muster.

This means: And We will record their killing of the prophets without right.

Issue 1: Combining the Statement and the Killing

The benefit of joining their description of God as poor with their killing of the prophets is to show that their ignorance is not limited to this time; rather, they have always been persistent in foolishness and folly.

Issue 2: Attributing the Killing to Them

There are two ways to understand the attribution of the killing of the prophets to these people:

1. We will record what these people said, and We will record what their ancestors did, and We will recompense both groups accordingly. This is like God saying: {And when you killed a soul} (Al-Baqarah: 49), meaning your ancestors killed it, and {And when We saved you from the people of Pharaoh} (Al-Baqarah: 49). The doers of these actions are their ancestors. The meaning is that their words and deeds will be preserved for both generations.
2. We will record against these people what they said themselves, and We will record against them their approval of the killing of the prophets, peace and blessings of God be upon them all. Al-Sha'bi narrated that a man spoke about Uthman (RA) and praised his killing. Al-Sha'bi said: "You have become a partner in his blood," then he recited: {Say: Messengers have already come to you before me with clear proofs and that which you said. Then why did you kill them, if you were truthful?} (Al 'Imran: 183). Thus, the killing was attributed to them, even though nearly seven hundred years separated them.

Then God said: {And We will say, "Taste the punishment of the burning"}

Hamzah recited sayuktabu (passive voice) with the lām raised, and wayaqūlu (He will say) with the yā' dotted from below. The rest read sana-ktubu and wanaqūlu (We will say) with the nūn.

This means that God will take vengeance on the speaker by saying to him: "Taste the punishment of the burning," just as you caused the Muslims to taste bitterness. Al-harīq (the burning) is that which burns, similar to al-alīm (the painful) meaning that which causes pain.

It is possible that this statement will be said to them at the time of death, at the gathering, or when the record is read. It is also possible that this is a metaphor for the realization of the threat, even if no literal speech occurs.

One might ask: They raised a question: Whoever asks for money from others is poor and needy. If God asked for money from His servants, He would be poor, which is impossible. Therefore, He did not ask for money from His servants, which invalidates Muhammad's (PBUH) claim to prophethood. This was their objection. Where is the answer to it? And why is the threat mentioned before the answer?

The Response: If we follow the position of our Sunni scholars, we say: God does what He wills and judges as He wills. It is not far-fetched that God commands His servants to spend wealth while He is the Richest of the rich.

If we follow the position of the Mu'tazilites, who hold that God considers what is beneficial (masālih), it is not far-fetched that this command involves various benefits for the servants:

1. Spending wealth causes the love of wealth to leave the heart, which is one of the greatest benefits. If the person dies while the love of wealth remains in his heart, even though he left the wealth, this will cause his soul pain upon separation.
2. Through this spending, one seeks eternal, everlasting reward.
3. Due to spending, the heart becomes empty of love for anything other than God. To the extent that the love of others leaves the heart, the love of God strengthens, which is the root of all felicity.

God has mentioned these reasons extensively throughout the Qur'an, such as: {And lasting good deeds are better with your Lord for reward} (Al-Kahf: 46), {And the Hereafter is better and more enduring} (Al-A'la: 17), {And the pleasure of Allah is greater} (At-Tawbah: 72), and {Say, "In the bounty of Allah and in His mercy—in that let them rejoice." It is better than whatever they accumulate} (Yunus: 58). Since these reasons were mentioned exhaustively beforehand, raising this objection after these clear proofs is pure obstinacy. Therefore, God sufficed by merely mentioning the threat upon citing it.

Then God said: {That is because of what your hands have put forth, and indeed, Allah is not ever unjust to His servants}

Since God mentioned the severe threat, He then mentioned its cause: {That is because of what your hands have put forth} (Dhālika bimā qaddamat aydīkum). This means the burning punishment is retribution for your actions: describing God as poor and committing the killing of the prophets. Thus, this punishment is just, not oppressive.

Al-Jubba'i argued that the verse indicates that punishing them would have been unjust had they not committed those sins. This refutes the position of the Determinists, who claim God punishes children without fault, and that He may punish adults without sin. It also proves that the servant is the actual doer; otherwise, injustice would occur.

The Response: What you mentioned is countered by the issue of the divine caller (dā'ī) and the issue of divine knowledge, as we have explained repeatedly.

One might ask: The verse {And your Lord is never unjust to His servants} (Fussilat: 46) negates the attribute of injustice. Negating an attribute implies the persistence of the underlying principle (i.e., the principle of injustice remains).

The Answer: The Judge answered that the punishment He threatened to inflict upon them, if it were unjust, would be immense. He negates it to the extent of its magnitude if it were established. This confirms what we mentioned: inflicting punishment upon them would be unjust if they were not sinners.

The mention of hands is metaphorical, as the human being is the doer, not the hand. However, since the hand is the instrument of action, attributing the action to it metaphorically is appropriate. In this verse, the hand is mentioned in the plural form: {what your hands have put forth} (bimā qaddamat aydīkum). In another verse, it is mentioned in the dual form: {That is because of what your two hands have put forth} (Al-Hajj: 10). Both are linguistically sound and common.

Verse 183

{Those who said, "Indeed, Allah has taken a covenant from us that we should not believe in any messenger until he brings us a sacrifice that the fire will consume." Say, "Messengers have already come to you before me with clear proofs and that which you said. Then why did you kill them, if you were truthful?"}

This verse continues to recount the objections of the disbelievers (specifically the Jews, according to the context).

{Those who said, "Indeed, Allah has taken a covenant from us that we should not believe in any messenger until he brings us a sacrifice that the fire will consume."} This refers to their conditionality for accepting a messenger: they demanded a sign similar to the one given to Moses (PBUH)—a sacrifice consumed by fire (referring to the offering of Abel and Cain, or the general practice mentioned earlier).

{Say, "Messengers have already come to you before me with clear proofs and that which you said."} The Prophet (PBUH) is commanded to respond: Messengers came to you before me bringing clear signs (al-bayyināt).

{Then why did you kill them, if you were truthful?} If you were truly sincere in your claim that you only reject messengers who fail to bring the sign of the fire-consuming sacrifice, then why did you kill the messengers who did bring clear proofs (even if they didn't bring that specific sign)? This exposes their falsehood; their rejection was not based on a lack of proof but on malice and obstinacy.

Issues within the Verse

(The text provided ends here, before the detailed breakdown of the issues in verse 183, but the structure of the previous section suggests the following points would be addressed in the subsequent text.)