Tafsir of Al Imran 3:75-76

Surah Al 'Imran (The Family of Imran): Verses 75-76

The connection of this verse to the preceding ones is twofold:

1. Contradiction of Claims: In the previous verse, they claimed to possess a unique religious status. Allah then reveals that treachery is reprehensible in all religions, yet they persist in it. This proves their claims are false.
2. Scope of Misdeeds: After recounting their religious transgressions (e.g., saying, "Do not believe except in those who follow your religion" - 3:73), this verse recounts their worldly transgressions: their persistence in treachery, injustice, and seizing people's wealth, whether large or small.

This verse indicates that the People of the Book are divided into two groups: those who are trustworthy and those who are treacherous. There are several views on this division:

1. The Believers vs. The Rest: The trustworthy ones are those who embraced Islam. Those who remained Jewish persist in treachery because their doctrine permits killing and seizing the wealth of those who oppose their religion. This is supported by the verse: "They are not all the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing in obedience, reciting the verses of Allah in the hours of the night, prostrating" (3:113), alongside "Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient" (3:110).
2. Christians vs. Jews: The trustworthy are the Christians, and the treacherous are the Jews. The evidence is the Jewish doctrine that permits killing opponents and seizing their wealth by any means.
3. Historical Context (Ibn Abbas): A man deposited 1200 ūqiyyah (ounces) of gold with 'Abdullah ibn Salam, who returned it faithfully. Another man deposited a dīnār with Finhas ibn 'Azūra', who betrayed the trust. This incident led to the revelation of the verse.

The prepositions used with the verb meaning "to entrust" (amintuhu) have subtle differences:

• "Bi" (بـ): Implies the attachment of the trust to the person.
• "'Ala" (على): Implies the person is elevated over or in charge of the trust.

Since the entrusted item becomes closely connected to the custodian for safekeeping, and the custodian gains control over it, both expressions are appropriate. It is also said that "I entrusted you with a dīnār" means "I trusted you concerning it," while "I entrusted you over it" means "I made you its trustee and guardian."

The Qintār and the Dīnār here refer to a large amount and a small amount, respectively. This signifies that some among them are extremely trustworthy—they will return a vast fortune. Others are extremely treacherous—they will betray even a small amount.

This is analogous to the verse: "And if you wish to exchange one wife for another and you have given one of them a Qintār [a great amount], take nothing of it back" (4:20). Under this interpretation, there is no need to specify the exact measure of the Qintār.

Views on the Measure of Qintār:

1. 1200 Ūqiyyah: This is based on the incident involving 'Abdullah ibn Salam, who was entrusted with 1200 ūqiyyah of gold by a man from Quraysh and returned it faithfully.
2. A Bull's Hide Full of Wealth: This is narrated from Ibn Abbas.
3. One Million Dinars or Dirhams: This view has been previously discussed in the exegesis of Qintār.

Ḥamzah and 'Āṣim (in the narration of Abū Bakr) read يُؤَدِّهِ (yu'addih) with a quiescent Hā’ (سكون الهاء). This reading is also reported from Abū 'Amr.

• Al-Zajjāj's Critique: He considered this a mistake by the narrator of Abū 'Amr's reading, similar to the mistake in reading Bāri'ikum with a quiescent hamza. He argued that the grammatical consequence (the jazm) is not on the Hā’ (which is a pronoun suffix) but on the preceding word, and pronouns are not typically made quiescent in continuous speech (waṣl).
• Al-Farrā's Defense: Some Arabs do make the Hā’ quiescent when the preceding letter is vocalized, similar to how they make the mīm in antum and qumtum quiescent when it should be in the nominative case. He cited poetry as evidence.
• Other Readings: It was also read by omitting the vowel of the Hā’ (ختلاس الحركة), relying on the kasrah to imply the yā’, and by fully elongating the kasrah on the Hā’ (which is the standard form).

This part contains two issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of "Standing Over Him" (Qā'iman)

There are two interpretations for the word Qā'iman (standing):

1. Literal Meaning (Al-Suddi): It means you must remain physically present with him, constantly meeting and staying by him. He will only acknowledge what you gave him as long as you are standing over his head; if you leave him alone or delay, he will deny it.
2. Figurative Meaning:
   • Insistence and Demand (Ibn 'Abbās & Ibn Qutaybah): It refers to persistent nagging, litigation, demanding repayment, and pressing the claim. The basis is that the one demanding something stands up for it, while the one who abandons it sits down. This is supported by "a community standing" (3:113), meaning one that adheres to God's command and does not abandon it. Anyone who persistently demands something is said to have "stood up for it," even without physical standing.
   • Continuity and Steadfastness (Abū 'Alī al-Fārisī): Qiyām in Arabic means permanence and steadfastness (as seen in Dīnan Qayyimā - a steadfast religion). Thus, "unless you are constantly standing over him" means "unless you are continuously steadfast in demanding that money from him."

Issue 2: Scope of the Trust (Money vs. Debt)

The terms Qintār and Dīnār encompass both tangible assets ('ayn) and debts (dayn). A person can entrust another with a deposit (wadī'ah), a sale, or a transaction. The verse does not specify one type.

• Ibn 'Abbās's View: He applied it to sales: some people, if you sell to them for the price of a Qintār, will return it; others, if you sell to them for the price of a Dīnār, will not return it.
• Reconciliation: Since the narration states that 'Abdullah ibn Salam returned a large deposit faithfully, while Finhas ibn 'Azūra' betrayed a small deposit, the wording is broad enough to cover all types of trusts (deposits, debts, sales).

This means that their justification for seizing wealth and betraying trusts is their belief that they are not accountable for what they take from the Arabs.

Issue 1: Reasons for this Belief

1. Extreme Sectarianism: They are so fanatical in their religion that they believe killing opponents and seizing their wealth by any means is permissible. The Prophet (PBUH) reportedly said upon revelation of this verse: "God's enemies lied! Everything from the Jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) is now under my feet, except for the trust (amānah), for it must be returned to the righteous and the wicked alike."
2. Claim of Divine Favor: They claim, "We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones" (5:18). Therefore, the rest of humanity are their slaves, and they are not accountable for consuming the wealth of their slaves.
3. Targeting Converts: They stated this not generally against all non-Jews, but specifically against the Arabs who believed in the Prophet (PBUH). It is narrated that Jews had business dealings with Arabs in the Jāhiliyyah. When the Arabs converted, the Jews demanded repayment. The Jews replied, "You have no right over us because you abandoned your religion." It is plausible that the Jews considered conversion from a false religion (Judaism) to another false religion (Islam) as apostasy, thus justifying seizing their wealth.

Issue 2: Meaning of "No Blame/Way" (Sabīl)

The negation of sabīl means negating the ability to demand accountability or impose obligation. This is supported by verses like: "There is no way [blame] upon the doers of good" (9:91) and "Allah will never grant the disbelievers a way [dominion] over the believers" (4:141).

Issue 3: Meaning of Al-Umiyyīn (The Unlettered Ones)

Al-Umiyyīn is attributed to the mother (Umm).

1. The Prophet (PBUH) was called Umiyy because he could not read or write. Since the mother is the origin of something, one who cannot write remains in the original state of not writing.
2. It is attributed to Mecca, the "Mother of Towns" (Umm al-Qurā).

There are several interpretations of this:

1. They claimed that the permissibility of treachery against opponents was mentioned in the Torah. They were lying about this, and they knew they were lying. Such treachery is therefore more severe and heinous.
2. They knew that treachery itself is forbidden.
3. They knew the sinfulness incurred by the treacherous person.

The particle بَلَى (Balā - Yes/Nay) has two functions here:

1. Negating the Preceding Statement: It simply negates what preceded it, which was their claim: "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlettered ones." Allah responds: "Yes, there is blame upon you for that." This is Zajjāj's preferred view, suggesting a full stop after Balā.
2. Introduction to a New Statement: Balā is used to introduce a new discourse. Since their claim that they bear no guilt is akin to claiming, "We are the beloved of Allah," Allah introduces the true criterion: Allah loves those who fulfill their covenant and fear Him, not others. Under this view, stopping after Balā is inappropriate.

Fulfilling the Covenant ('Ahd): We have discussed the meaning of fulfilling the covenant previously. The pronoun in "His Covenant" ('ahdih) can refer back to Allah (in "they say about Allah falsehood") or to "Whoever" (man), as a covenant can be directed toward the object or the subject.

Question 1: If the pronoun refers to the subject (man), does this imply that if the People of the Book fulfilled their covenants and abandoned treachery, they would earn Allah's love?

Answer: Yes. If they fulfill their covenants, they first fulfill the greatest covenant: the commitment in their scriptures to believe in Muhammad (PBUH). If they feared Allah regarding abandoning treachery, they would also fear Him regarding lying about Allah and altering the Torah.

Question 2: Where is the pronoun referring back to the subject (man) in the consequence clause ("Allah loves the righteous")?

Answer: The generality of "the righteous" (al-muttaqīn) stands in place of the explicit return of the pronoun.

This verse emphasizes the immense importance of fulfilling covenants. Acts of obedience are confined to two things: honoring God's command and showing compassion to God's creation. Fulfilling the covenant encompasses both: it benefits creation (compassion) and, because God commanded it, it honors God's command (honoring God). Thus, this statement covers all types of obedience. Fulfilling one's covenant regarding the self means performing acts of obedience and abandoning prohibitions, thereby earning reward and avoiding punishment.