Then they increased in disbelief. The Jews disbelieved in Jesus and the Gospel after their faith in Moses and the Torah. Then they increased in disbelief by their disbelief in Muhammad and the Quran. Or they disbelieved in the Messenger of Allah after they had been believers in him before his prophethood, then they increased in disbelief by their insistence on that, their slander at all times, their enmity towards him, their breaking of his covenant, their trials for the believers, their hindrance from believing in him, and their mockery of every verse that is revealed. It is said: It was revealed about those who apostatized and joined Mecca, their increase in disbelief being that they said: We will remain in Mecca, waiting for Muhammad's downfall, and if we want to return, we will agree to show repentance. If you say: It is known that the apostate, however much he increases in disbelief, is accepted in repentance if he repents, then what is the meaning of 'their repentance will not be accepted'? I say: It is an expression of dying upon disbelief, because the one whose repentance is not accepted from the disbelievers is the one who dies upon disbelief, as if it were said: The Jews or the apostates who did what they did are dying upon disbelief, included among those whose repentance will not be accepted. If you say: Then why was it said in one of the verses 'their repentance will not be accepted' without a conjunction, and in the other 'then their repentance will not be accepted'? I say: The conjunction indicates that the speech is based on condition and consequence. And the reason for the refusal to accept the ransom is dying upon disbelief. By omitting the conjunction, the speech is a beginning and a report, and there is no evidence in it for causation, as you say: The one who came to me has a dirham; you did not make the coming a reason for deserving the dirham, unlike saying: So he has a dirham. If you say: Since the meaning of 'their repentance will not be accepted' is dying upon disbelief, why not make dying upon disbelief a consequence of their apostasy and their increasing disbelief due to the hardness of their hearts and their persistence in sin leading to dying upon disbelief? I say: Because how many apostates who increased in disbelief return to Islam and do not die upon disbelief. If you say: What is the benefit of this metaphor, meaning that it refers to dying upon disbelief by the refusal to accept repentance? I say: The benefit in it is great, which is the severity regarding that group of disbelievers, and revealing their state in the form of those who are hopeless of mercy, which is the most severe of states: Do you not see that dying upon disbelief is feared because of hopelessness of mercy? 'Dying' is in the accusative for distinction. Al-A'mash read: 'died' in the nominative as a response to 'full', as it is said: I have twenty souls, men. If you say: What is the position of the saying 'even if he ransomed himself with it'? [Mawardi said: If you say how is the position of the saying even if he ransomed himself with it... etc. Ahmad said: He did not clarify the application of the verse's wording to this interpretation he went to in any way, and we will clarify the reason that led him to take the speech out of its apparent meaning, then we will establish a way that matches the verse. This conjunction accompanying the condition necessitates another condition that is connected to the condition being approached by necessity, and the custom in such cases is that the stated is an indication of the unspoken in a more appropriate manner. An example is your saying: Honor Zaid even if he wrongs, so this conjunction connects the mentioned to a deleted condition, meaning: Honor Zaid if he does good and if he wrongs, except that you indicated the obligation of honoring him if he wrongs on the basis that honoring him if he does good is more appropriate. From it is: 'Be maintainers of justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it is against yourselves,' meaning - and Allah knows best -: If the truth is against others, and if it is against you, but he mentioned what is more difficult for them, thus making it obligatory as an indication of what is easier and more worthy of obligation. So when the implication of the conjunction in such cases becomes clear, you find that this verse of Al-Imran appears to contradict this pattern, because the saying: 'even if he ransomed himself with it' implies another deleted condition that this mentioned is an indication of in a more appropriate manner. And this mentioned state, which is the state of their ransoming with the fullness of the earth in gold, is the most deserving of cases for accepting the ransom, and there is no other state that is more worthy of acceptance than it. Therefore, the speech is understood to mean: No ransom will be accepted from any of them, even if he ransomed himself with the fullness of the earth in gold, until another state is clarified where the specific ransom with the fullness of the earth in gold is more worthy of acceptance than it. If it is negated where it was more worthy, then it is more appropriate to be negated in what is other than this state. This is all an explanation of the reason that led him to the mentioned interpretation. As for applying the verse to it, it is very difficult, so it is better to mention a way that can apply the verse to it in an easier manner and a closer approach, if Allah wills.

The acceptance of the ransom, which is equivalent to the weight of the earth in gold, occurs under certain conditions. One of these is that it is taken from him in a manner that compels the ransom for himself, just as blood money is forcibly taken from the wealth of the killer, according to one opinion. Another is that the one ransoming himself states in the estimation: 'I ransom myself for such and such,' although he may not actually do it. Another possibility is that he makes this statement and fulfills the amount with which he ransoms himself, making it present and ready, and he may, for example, hand it over to someone he trusts to accept his ransom.

If the conditions are multiple, the intended meaning in the verse is the most significant and deserving of acceptance, which is that he ransoms himself with the weight of the earth in gold as a confirmed ransom, provided he is capable of this great matter and hands it over and fulfills it willingly. Nevertheless, his mere statement of offering the money and being able to do so, or anything that falls under this category, is not sufficient. Thus, the inclusion of 'and' in this case serves as a reminder that there are other conditions where acceptance is not beneficial in relation to the mentioned condition. This meaning has been clearly stated in the words of Allah, the Most High: 'Indeed, those who disbelieve, if they had all that is in the earth and the like of it with it, to ransom themselves from the punishment of the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them.' And Allah knows best.

All of this is a record that there is no escape or salvation for them from the warning, for it is known that they are incapable of even a small amount on that day.

An example similar to this estimation is when someone says: 'I will not sell you this garment for a thousand dinars, even if I were to hand it over to you in my hand.' Reflect on this perspective, for it is something easy yet impossible. And Allah is the Grantor of success.

I said: This statement is carried on the meaning, as if it were said: 'A ransom will not be accepted from any of them, even if he ransoms himself with the weight of the earth in gold.' It is also possible that it is meant: 'Even if he ransoms himself with something similar.'

Ahmad said: 'In this manner, the speech proceeds according to the previous interpretation, for it indicates that the acceptance of something similar to the weight of the earth in gold is not accepted, and thus it is not accepted once in the first place.' This is similar to the saying: 'And if those who wronged had all that is in the earth and the like of it with it.' The term 'like' is often omitted in their speech, as in saying: 'I struck him the way Zayd struck him,' meaning like his strike. And Abu Yusuf is like Abu Hanifa, meaning similar to him, and there is no Haytham tonight for the camels, meaning: nor is there one like Haytham, nor one like Abu Hasan, just as it is intended in their saying: 'Someone like you does not do such and such,' meaning you. This is because the two examples can replace one another, making them equivalent to one thing. It is also meant: 'A ransom will not be accepted from any of them, even if it is the weight of the earth in gold that he has given in charity, and even if he were to ransom himself with it, it would not be accepted from him.' It has been recited: 'A ransom will not be accepted from any of them, even if it is the weight of the earth in gold,' with the subject being Allah, the Exalted and Most High, and the weight being in the accusative case.