Al Imran: (23-25) Have you not seen...

Know that when the Almighty admonished the people regarding their obstinacy with His saying, {But if they dispute with you, say, "I have submitted myself to Allah"} (Al Imran: 20), He clarifies in this verse the utmost extent of their stubbornness. This is that they are called to the Book which they claim to believe in—the Torah—yet they rebel and turn away. This indicates the peak of their obstinacy. There are several issues in the verse:

Issue 1: The Scope of Those Given a Portion of the Book

The apparent meaning of {Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Book} includes all of them. Undoubtedly, this is mentioned in a context of censure. However, another proof indicates that not all People of the Book are like this, because the Almighty says, {Among the People of the Book is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night while they prostrate} (Al Imran: 113).

Issue 2: The Identity of the Book

The Almighty's saying, {who were given a portion of the Book}, refers to something other than the Qur'an, because He attributes the Book to the disbelievers, who are the Jews and Christians. If this is the case, it must be interpreted as the Book they acknowledged as true and from God.

Issue 3: Reasons for Revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul)

Several accounts are mentioned regarding the reason for revelation:

1. The First Narration (Ibn Abbas): A man and a woman from the Jews committed adultery. They were of high status, and stoning was prescribed in their Book. They disliked the stoning due to their status and referred their case to the Prophet (peace be upon him), hoping for a dispensation to omit the stoning. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) ruled for stoning. They denied this, and the Prophet (PBUH) said, "The Torah is between me and you; it prescribes stoning." They asked who informed him, and they named 'Abdullah ibn Suriya al-Fadki. They brought him, and the Torah was produced. When he reached the verse of stoning, he placed his hand over it. Ibn Salam said, "O Messenger of Allah, he has passed the place!" So he lifted his hand, and they found the verse of stoning. The Prophet (PBUH) ordered them to be stoned, and they were stoned. The Jews became intensely angry, and Allah revealed this verse.

2. The Second Narration: The Prophet (PBUH) entered a Jewish school where a group of them were present. He invited them to Islam. They asked, "Upon what religion are you?" He replied, "Upon the religion of Abraham." They claimed, "Abraham was a Jew." He said, "Come to the Torah!" They refused, and Allah revealed this verse.

3. The Third Narration: The signs of Muhammad's (PBUH) prophethood are mentioned in the Torah, as are the proofs confirming his truthfulness. The Prophet (PBUH) invited them to the Torah and to those signs, but they refused. Allah revealed this verse. The meaning is that if they refuse to submit to judgment by their own Book, do not be surprised by their opposition to your Book. This is why Allah said, {Say, "Then bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful"} (Al Imran: 93). According to this narration, this verse indicates that proofs of his prophethood were found in the Torah. If they knew that nothing in the Torah indicated his prophethood, they would have hastened to clarify what was in it, but they concealed it.

4. The Fourth Narration: This ruling is general for both Jews and Christians because the proofs of Muhammad's (PBUH) prophethood were present in the Torah and the Gospel, and they were called to judge by the Torah and the Gospel, yet they refused.

Regarding {a portion of the Book}: This means a portion of the knowledge of the Book, because if we take it literally, it implies they were given the entire Book. This refers to their scholars, those who call others to the Book, as someone without knowledge would not make such a claim.

Regarding the Almighty's saying, {they are called to the Book of Allah}: There are two opinions:

• The First Opinion (Ibn Abbas and Al-Hasan): It refers to the Qur'an.
  • Objection: How are they called to the judgment of a Book they do not believe in?
  • Answer: They were only called to it after the proofs establishing it as a Book from Allah were established.

• The Second Opinion (Most commentators): It refers to the Torah. Those holding this view cite:
  1. The narrations regarding the reason for revelation indicate they were called to the Torah and refused.
  2. Allah expresses astonishment at the Prophet's (PBUH) amazement at their rebellion and turning away. Astonishment arises when they rebel against the judgment of the Book they acknowledge as true and affirm its validity.
  3. This aligns with the preceding verses. When Allah mentioned that the Prophet's (PBUH) duty is only to convey the message, and his patience regarding their denial despite the clear proof, He showed that they resorted to stubbornness even concerning their own Book, concealing the proofs within it that indicated Muhammad's (PBUH) prophethood. This shows they are extremely bigoted and far from accepting the truth.

Regarding {that He may judge between them}: This means the Book judges between them. Attributing judgment to the Book is a common metaphor. It is also read as the passive form, liyuhkam. Al-Kashshaf states: "His saying {that He may judge between them} implies that the dispute occurred among themselves, not between them and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)." Then Allah clarifies that when called, a faction among them turns away—these are the leaders who claim to be the scholars.

Then He says, {while a faction of them turns away}. There are two interpretations:

1. The ones turning away are the leaders and scholars, and the remaining faction are those who are heedless. It is as if it means: "Then the scholars turn away, and the followers are heedless of accepting from the Prophet (PBUH) because of the turning away of their scholars."
2. Both the turning away and the heedlessness refer to that same faction. It means they turn away from listening to the proof in that specific instance and are heedless of listening to other proofs in all other matters and demands. It is as if it means: "Do not think he only turned away from this issue; rather, he is heedless of everything."

Regarding the Almighty's saying, {That is because they said, "Never will the Fire touch us except for a few numbered days"} (Al Imran: 24): The discussion of its interpretation was previously covered in Surah Al-Baqarah. The connection here is that when Allah said in the first verse, {while a faction of them turns away}, He explains in this verse that this turning away occurred because they said, "Never will the Fire touch us except for a few numbered days."

Al-Jubba'i said this verse indicates the falsehood of those who claim that the inhabitants of the Fire will eventually exit it. He argued that if this were true for this nation, it would be true for all nations. If it were true for all nations, the one reporting it would not be a liar nor deserve censure. Since Allah mentioned this in a context of censure, we know that the claim of the inhabitants of the Fire exiting is false.

My view: It was not appropriate for him to mention such a discussion, because his doctrine holds that pardon from God is good and permissible. If that were the case, the granting of pardon to this nation would not necessitate it for other nations.

Granting that it necessitates it: Why do you claim that the people deserved censure merely for reporting that a sinner would exit the Fire? There are other reasons here:

1. They deserved censure because they were certain that the duration of the sinner's punishment would be short and few days. It is narrated that they used to say their punishment would be seven days, and some said forty nights, corresponding to the period of worshipping the calf.
2. They were lax regarding the fundamentals of religion, saying, "If we make a mistake, our punishment will be brief." This is false, because, according to us, the one who errs in monotheism, prophethood, or the Hereafter deserves eternal punishment because he is a disbeliever, and the disbeliever's punishment is eternal.
3. When they said, {Never will the Fire touch us except for a few numbered days}, they belittled the denial of Muhammad (PBUH) and believed it would have no effect in intensifying the punishment. This was an explicit denial of Muhammad (PBUH), which is disbelief. The persistent disbeliever, without doubt, has an eternal punishment. If the matter is as we have described, Al-Jubba'i's argument based on this verse is weak. The full discussion, exhaustively, is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah.

Regarding the Almighty's saying, {And deluded in their religion were those they were inventing} (Al Imran: 25): They differed on what {what they were inventing} refers to:

• It is said to be their saying, {We are the sons of Allah and His beloved} (Al Ma'idah: 18).
• It is said to be their saying, {Never will the Fire touch us except for a few numbered days}.
• It is said to be their saying, "We are upon the truth, and you are upon falsehood."

Regarding the Almighty's saying, {So how will it be when We gather them for a Day} (Al Imran: 25): The meaning is that when Allah recounted their delusion based on their ignorance, He clarified that a Day would come when that ignorance would cease and that delusion would be unveiled, saying, {So how will it be when We gather them for a Day}. There is an omission in the speech; the meaning is: "What will their state and condition be when We gather them for a Day about which there is no doubt?" The state/condition (the hal) is often omitted with kayfa (how) because it implies it, as in saying, "I would honor him while he does not visit me; so how if he visits me?" (i.e., what would his state be if he visited me?). This omission enhances eloquence because it compels the soul to conjure every type of honor in the first case and every type of torment in this verse.

Regarding {when We gather them for a Day}: He did not say in a Day, because the intent is "for the recompense of a Day" or "for the reckoning of a Day." The direct object (mudaf) is omitted, and the lam (for/to) indicates it. Al-Farra' said: The lam refers to an implied verb. If you say, "They were gathered for Thursday," it means "They were gathered to do something that occurs on Thursday." If you say, "They were gathered on Thursday," you do not imply a verb. Furthermore, it is known that the only benefit of that Day is recompense and showing the difference between the rewarded and the punished. {about which there is no doubt} means no uncertainty.

Then He says, {and every soul will be fully compensated for what it earned}: If what it earned is taken to mean the deeds of the servant, there is an omission: "And every soul will be fully compensated for the reward or punishment of what it earned." If what it earned is taken to mean the reward and punishment, this omission is unnecessary.

Then He says, {and they will not be wronged}: Neither will the reward for good deeds be diminished, nor will the punishment for evil deeds be increased.

Know that the saying {and every soul will be fully compensated for what it earned} is used by those who affirm the threat of punishment (al-wa'id), and it is also used by our companions (the Ash'aris/Maturidis) who hold that a Muslim sinner will not remain eternally in the Fire.

• The former group argues:* The sinner deserves punishment for that sin, and the verse indicates that every soul will be fully compensated for its deeds and what it earned, which necessitates the punishment reaching the sinner.
• Our response: This is a general statement, and we have discussed the Mu'tazila's reliance on general statements.

• Our companions argue: The believer deserves the reward for his faith, and he must be compensated for that reward according to {and every soul will be fully compensated for what it earned}. Either he is rewarded in Paradise and then transferred to the abode of punishment (which is impossible by consensus), or he is punished in the Fire and then transferred eternally to the abode of reward (which is what is sought).

• Objection: Why can't we say that the reward for his faith is nullified by the punishment for his sin?
• Answer: This is false because we explained in Surah Al-Baqarah that the doctrine of nullification (al-muhabitah) is impossible. Furthermore, we know by necessity that the reward for seventy years of monotheism is greater than the punishment for drinking a single sip of wine. The one who disputes this is obstinate. Therefore, even if we accepted the validity of nullification, it is impossible for the entire reward of faith to be nullified by the punishment for drinking a sip of wine. Yahya ibn Mu'adh (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say: "The reward for a moment of faith nullifies seventy years of disbelief; so how can the reward for seventy years of faith be nullified by the punishment for a momentary sin?" This statement is clearly sound.

{Say, "O Allah, Owner of all sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You strip sovereignty from whom You will. You exalt whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is all good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.}

{You cause the night to enter the day and cause the day to enter the night, and You bring the living out of the dead and bring the dead out of the living, and You give provision to whom You will without account."}