Tafsir of Al Imran 3:90-91

"Then they increased in disbelief"

They are the Jews; they disbelieved in Jesus and the Gospel after having believed in Moses and the Torah. Then they increased in disbelief by disbelieving in Muhammad and the Quran.

Alternatively, it means they disbelieved in the Messenger of Allah after having been believers in him before his mission, then increased in disbelief by persisting in that, slandering him at every turn, showing him enmity, breaking their covenant, persecuting the believers, hindering them from faith in him, and mocking every verse that was revealed.

It is also said that it was revealed regarding those who apostatized and fled to Mecca. Their increase in disbelief was their saying: "We shall remain in Mecca, awaiting for Muhammad the vicissitudes of time; and if we desire to return, we shall act as hypocrites by feigning repentance."

If you ask: It is known that no matter how much an apostate increases in disbelief, his repentance is accepted if he repents. So what is the meaning of "their repentance will never be accepted"?

I say: It is an expression denoting dying in a state of disbelief. For the one among the disbelievers whose repentance is not accepted is the one who dies in disbelief. It is as if it were said: "The Jews or the apostates who did what they did are those who will die in disbelief, entering into the category of those whose repentance is not accepted."

If you ask: Why is it said in one of the two verses "will never be accepted" (without the fa) and in the other "then it will never be accepted" (with the fa)?

I say: The fa indicates that the statement is built upon a condition and a consequence, and that the cause for the refusal of the ransom is dying in disbelief. By omitting the fa, the statement is a subject and predicate, containing no indication of causality. Just as when you say, "He who comes to me has a dirham," you do not make the coming the cause for deserving the dirham, unlike when you say, "Then he has a dirham."

If you ask: Since the meaning is "their repentance will never be accepted" in the sense of dying in disbelief, why was dying in disbelief not made a consequence of their apostasy and increase in disbelief, given the hardness of heart and the accumulation of rust (rayn) that leads to dying in disbelief?

I say: Because many an apostate who has increased in disbelief returns to Islam and does not die in disbelief.

If you ask: What is the benefit of this metonymy—that is, using the refusal of repentance as a metaphor for dying in disbelief?

I say: The benefit is significant: it is to intensify the gravity of the situation for that group of disbelievers and to present their state in the image of those who have despaired of mercy, which is the most severe and dire of states. Do you not see that dying in disbelief is only feared because of the despair of mercy?

"Gold" (dhahaban)

It is in the accusative case as a specifier (tamyiz). Al-A'mash recited it as dhahabun (nominative), responding to mil'u (the fill), just as one says: "I have twenty people, men."

If you ask: What is the position of the phrase "even if he were to offer it as a ransom"?

I say: It is a statement based on the meaning. It is as if it were said: "A ransom will never be accepted from one of them, even if he were to offer the fill of the earth in gold as a ransom."

It is also permissible that it means "even if he were to offer its like as a ransom," as in His saying: "Even if those who did wrong had all that is in the earth, and the like of it with it" (Az-Zumar: 47). The word "like" (mithl) is often omitted in their speech, such as your saying: "I struck him the striking of Zayd," meaning "like the striking of him." Or "Abu Yusuf is Abu Hanifa," meaning "like him." Or "There is no Haytham tonight for the mounts," or "The case of 'there is no Abu Hasan for it'," meaning "no like of Haytham" or "no like of Abu Hasan." Just as it is intended in their saying: "One like you does not do such," meaning "you."

This is because two equals can take the place of one another, so they are in the ruling of a single thing. And if it is intended: "The fill of the earth in gold will never be accepted from one of them," it implies that even if he had given it in charity, and even if he had offered it as a ransom, it would not be accepted from him. It has been recited: "He will not accept from one of them the fill of the earth in gold," in the active voice, referring to Allah—Exalted and Majestic is He—with the accusative case for mil'a and mil'a (the fill) by shortening the two hamzas.