We will first mention its revelation, excellence and summarise its contents. We will do that with each sūrah.

Sūrat al-Baqarah is Madinan and different parts of it were revealed at various times. It is said that it was the first sūrah to be revealed in Madīnah except for Allah’s words ‘Have fear of a Day when you will be returned to Allah’ (2:281). That was the last āyah to be revealed and it was revealed on the Day of Sacrifice during the Farewell Ḥajj at Minā. The āyahs about usury were also numbered among the last āyahs to be revealed of the Qur’an.

The excellence of this sūrah is unsurpassed and the reward for reciting it is immense. It is called the Pavilion (fusṭāṭ) of the Qur’an. Khālid ibn Ma‘dān said that. That is due to its greatness, splendour and the great number of rulings and warnings it contains. ‘Umar رضي الله عنه spent twelve years learning it, its fiqh and contents and his son spent eight years doing that. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘I heard one of our shaykhs say, “It contains a thousand commands, a thousand prohibitions, a thousand wisdoms and a thousand reports.”’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent out an expedition, consisting a number of men, and he put the youngest of them in charge of it because he knew Sūrat al-Baqarah. He told him, “Go! You are their commander.” At-Tirmidhī transmitted this from Abū Hurayrah and said that it is sound. Muslim related from Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “Read Sūrat al-Baqarah. Learning it is a blessing, abandoning it is a cause of regret, and sorcerers (baṭalah) are impotent before it.”’ Mu‘āwiyah said that he heard that ‘baṭalah’ are sorcerers.

It is also related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do not turn your houses into graveyards. Shayṭān flees from a house in which Sūrat al-Baqarah is recited.’ Ad-Dārimī related that Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘There is no house, in which Sūrat al-Baqarah is recited, but that Shayṭān leaves it breaking wind.’ The Prophet ﷺ also said, ‘Everything has a hump, and the hump of the Qur’an is Sūrat al-Baqarah. Everything has a core, and the core of the Qur’an is the Mufaṣṣal.’ In Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Bustī, Sahl ibn Sa‘d reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Everything has a hump, and the hump of the Qur’an is Sūrat al-Baqarah. If someone recites it in his house at night, Shayṭān will not enter his house for three nights. If someone recites it during the day, Shayṭān will not enter his house for three days.’ Al-Bustī says what is meant are the rebellious shayṭāns.

Ad-Dārimī reported in his Musnad from ash-Sha‘bi that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘If anyone recites ten āyahs of Sūrat al-Baqarah in the night, Shayṭān will not enter that house that night until morning. They are: the four at the beginning of it, the Āyat al-Kursī and the two following it, and the three at the end, which begin “Everything in the heavens and everything in the earth belongs to Allah” (2:284).’ Ash-Sha‘bī said that neither Shayṭān nor anything he dislikes will come near him or his family that day. They are not recited over a mad person without him recovering. Al-Mughīrah ibn Subay‘, one of the companions of Ibn Mas‘ūd, said, ‘And he will not forget the Qur’an.’ Isḥāq ibn ‘Īsā said, ‘He will not forget what he has memorised.’

We read in the Kitāb al-Isti‘āb of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr: ‘Labīd ibn Rabī‘ah was one of the poets of the Jāhiliyyah. He lived until the time of Islam and became a good Muslim and abandoned his poetry after entering the dīn. While he was caliph, ‘Umar asked him about his poetry and asked him to recite some of it. He recited Sūrat al-Baqarah and ‘Umar said, “I asked about your poetry.” He said, “I have not uttered a line of poetry since Allah taught me al-Baqarah and Āl ‘Imrān.” ‘Umar liked what he said, and gave him a stipend of 2000 and then added 500 more.’ Many historians say that Labīd did not utter any poetry from the time he became Muslim. Some say that after he was Muslim he only said:

“Praise be to Allah, since the end of my life did not come

before I had put on the trousers of Islam!”

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that this verse was actually uttered by Qaradah ibn Nufāthah as-Salūlī. I believe that to be sounder. Someone else said that the verse Labīd uttered in Islam was:

No one criticizes a person as he does himself.

A person is put right by a righteous companion.

1 Alif. Lam. Mim.

Interpreters disagree about the letters at the beginnings of the sūrahs. ‘Āmir ash-Sha‘bī, Sufyān ath-Thawrī and a group of hadith scholars say that Allah has a secret in each of His Books and these letters are Allah’s secret in the Qur’an. They form part of the mutashābih (open to interpretation) āyahs in the Qur’an about which only Allah knows. It is not necessary to discuss them but one should simply believe in them and recite them as they have come. This position was related from Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq and ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. Abu-l-Layth as-Samarqandī related that ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, and lbn Mas‘ūd said, ‘The “separated letters” are a branch of hidden knowledge which cannot be explained.’ Abū Ḥātim said, ‘We only find the “separated letters” in the Qur’an at the beginning of the sūrahs. We do not know what Allah Almighty means by them.’

This was also stated by Abū Bakr al-Anbari, who reported from al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥubāb from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Ṭālib from Abu-l-Mundhir al-Wāsiṭī from Mālik ibn Mighwal from Sa‘īd ibn Masrūq that ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khuthaym said, ‘Allah Almighty revealed this Qur’an and He has kept the knowledge of whatever He wishes for Himself and He has acquainted you with what He wishes. As for what He has kept to Himself, you will not acquire it, so do not ask about it. As for what He has acquainted you with, it is that which you can ask and report about. You do not know the entire Qur’an and you will not teach all that you know.’ Abū Bakr said, ‘This tells us that He concealed the meanings of the letters of the Qur’an from everyone as a test from Allah Almighty. Anyone who believes in them is rewarded and is fortunate. Anyone who rejects and doubts them sins and is far from Allah’s mercy.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘A believer does not have any belief in anything better than belief in the Unseen.’ Then he recited, ‘those who believe in the Unseen.’ (2:3)

This is the basic position and ruling about the mutashābih. It is sound according to the evidence, which will be presented when the matter is again addressed at the beginning of Āl ‘Imrān, Allah willing. The position of a large group of scholars, however, is that we should speak about this matter and search out the benefits it contains and the ideas that can be deduced from it. People disagree about the letters and say many different things. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Alī that the ‘separated letters’ in the Qur’an are the greatest Name of Allah, though we do not know how it is composed from them.

Quṭrub, al-Farrā’ and others say that it is simply a question of the letters of the alphabet — and Allah knows best — so that when the Arabs were challenged by the Qur’an to produce something like it, it would be clear that it is composed of the same letters which are the basis of their normal language. That would make their inability to duplicate it all the more apparent in the proof against them since there is nothing in it outside of the letters they use in their everyday speech. Quṭrub said, ‘They used to run away when they heard the Qur’an. When they heard, “Alif Lām Mīm” and “Alif Lām Mīm Ṣād”, they did not know this expression and so they stopped to listen to him ﷺ and he then presented the familiar Qur’an to them so that it would be firm in their hearing and ears and would be evidence against them.’ Some people say as corroboration for this, ‘It is related that, when the idolaters refused to listen to the Qur’an in Makkah and said, “Do not listen to this Qur’an. Drown it out” (41:26), these letters were revealed so that they would find it odd and start to listen. So they began listening to the Qur’an and the evidence against them was clearly established.’

Another group said that they are letters which indicate the names of things from which they are taken. Ibn ‘Abbās and others said that Alif is from Allah, Lām from Jibrīl and Mīm from Muhammad ﷺ. It is said that alif is the beginning of the Divine Name Allah, lām is the beginning of the Divine Name Laṭīf, and mīm is the beginning of the Divine Name Majīd. Abu-ḍ-Ḍuḥā related from Ibn ‘Abbās that ‘Alif Lām Mīm’ means: ‘I, Allah, know best.’ ‘Alif Lām Rā’’ means: ‘I, Allah, see.’ And ‘Alif Lām Mīm Ṣād’ means: ‘I, Allah, bestow.’ So the alif indicates the idea ‘I’, lām indicates the name Allah, and mīm indicates the meaning ‘I know.’ Az-Zajjāj preferred this position and said, ‘l believe that each letter has a meaning.’ The Arabs have spoken by these letters in verse and used them instead of words.

Zayd ibn Aslam said, ‘They are the names of the sūrahs.’ Al-Kalbī said, ‘They are oaths which Allah Almighty swore by due to their excellence and honour. They are an aspect of His Names.’ Ibn ‘Abbās also said that. Some scholars refute this position saying that it is not valid for them to be oaths because an oath is always connected to a particle, such as inna, qad, laqad or mā. None of these is used here and so it is not correct to say that they are oaths. The reply to that is that the object of the oath is His words: ‘without any doubt’. If a man were to swear, saying, ‘By Allah, there is no doubt in this Book,’ then the words would be correct. ‘Lā’ [no] is the complement of the oath. So the position of al-Kalbī and what is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās is confirmed as being both correct and valid.

If it is asked what is the wisdom in an oath from Allah Almighty, when people in that time were in two groups – those who accepted and those who denied – since those who accept do so without an oath and those who deny will not believe even with an oath, the answer is that the Qur’an was revealed in the language of the Arabs and when one of the Arabs wanted to stress his words, he would swear to what he said. Allah Almighty wanted to stress the proof to them and so He swore that the Qur’an was from Him.

Some say that ‘Alif Lām Mīm’ means: ‘This Book was revealed to you from the Preserved Tablet.’ Qatādah said, ‘Alif Lām Mim is one of the Names of the Qur’an.’ It is related that Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī at-Tirmidhī said, ‘Allah Almighty summed up all the rulings and stories which are in that sūrah in the letters which are mentioned at the beginning of it. That can only be understood by a Prophet or a walī. Then He made that clear throughout the entire sūrah so that all people would understand it.’ Other things are said as well, and Allah knows best.

The stop on these letters is with a sukūn since they are incomplete, except when they are reported about or connected. Then they are inflected. There is disagreement about their position in respect of inflection.

2 That is the Book, without any doubt. In it is guidance for the godfearing:

That is the Book

It is said that ‘That is the Book’ really means ‘This is the Book’. The word ‘that’ (dhālika) is used here to indicate what is present, even if its normal usage is to indicate something absent, just as Allah says about Himself: ‘That (dhālika) is the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible, the Almighty, the Most Merciful.’ (32:6) So the word ‘that’ indicates the Qur’an. In short the meaning is: ‘Alif Lām Mīm. This Book is without any doubt.’ That is the position of Abū ‘Ubaydah, ‘Ikrimah and others. We find support for it in the words of the Almighty: ‘That (tilka) is the argument We gave to Ibrāhīm.’ (6:83) and ‘Those (tilka) are Allah’s Signs which we recite to you with truth.’ (2:252). But when they become as if they were distant, the word ‘that’ is used. In al-Bukhārī we find, ‘Ma‘mar said, ‘“That Book” is the Qur’an.’ It is ‘guidance for the godfearing’ in its clarification and evidence, just as He says: ‘That is Allah’s judgment. Allah will judge between you.’ (60:10) This is Allah’s judgment. ‘This’ can mean ‘that’.

There are a number of different things said about the meaning of these words. It is said that ‘That is the Book’ refers to the Book which accompanies all human beings, containing the information about whether they will be happy or wretched in the Next World, their lifespan and their provision, and the whole phrase means that there is no way of altering it. It is said that ‘That is the Book’ means: ‘That which I wrote for Myself before time: “My mercy precedes My anger.”’ In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When Allah finished creating creation, He wrote in His Book which is with Him, “My mercy predominates over (or precedes) My anger.”’

It is said that Allah Almighty promised His Prophet ﷺ that He would send down on him a Book which water would not erase. It indicates the promise which is referred to in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim in the hadith of ‘Iyāḍ ibn Ḥimār al-Majāsha‘ī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Allah looked at the people of the earth and hated men, both Arabs and non-Arabs, except for the remainder of the People of the Book. He said to His Prophet ﷺ, “I sent you to test you and to test others by you. I sent down to you a Book which cannot be washed away by water. You recite it asleep and awake.”’

It is said that this phrase indicates the part of the Qur’an which was promised in Makkah. It is said that when Allah Almighty revealed to His Prophet ﷺ: ‘We will impose a weighty Word upon you’ (73:5), the Messenger of Allah ﷺ continued to wait for this promise to be fulfilled by his Lord. When ‘Alif. Lām. Mim. That is the Book, without any doubt’ (2:2) was revealed to him in Madīnah, it had the meaning: ‘This Qur’an which was revealed to you in Madīnah is that Book which you were promised and which I revealed to you in Makkah.’

It is said that the word ‘That’ indicates what was revealed in the Torah and Gospel concerning the Qur’an. The implication is that it is that Book which was foretold by the Torah and Gospel. The Gospel and Torah testify to its soundness and it deals with what is in them as well as containing things which are not in them. It is said that ‘That is the Book’ is a reference to the Torah and Gospel themselves, so that the meaning is ‘Alif Lām Mim. Those two Books’ or the like of those two Books, meaning that this Qur’an contains what is in those two Books. So the word ‘that’ indicates ‘two’, the possibility of which is attested to in the Qur’an when Allah Almighty says: ‘A cow, not old or virgin, but somewhere between the two (dhālika)’ (2:68), making it clear that the word ‘that’ can refer to two things.

It is said that ‘That is the Book’ refers to the Preserved Tablet – that Book in which the destinies of all existent things are recorded. Al-Kisā’ī said that it refers to the Qur’an in heaven which had not yet been revealed. It is said that Allah Almighty promised the People of the Book that He would send down a Book to Muhammad ﷺ and so it indicates that promise. Al-Mubarrad said that the meaning is that this Qur’an is that Book by which you seek victory against the unbelievers.

It is also said that it means all the letters of the alphabet, out of which all books are composed. This is somewhat borne out by the derivation of the word kitāb (book) which is a verbal noun from kataba, yaktubu. From it comes katībah (squadron), so called because it is composed of horsemen gathered together and takattaba is used when horses are deployed in squadrons. Kutbah is a seam, and the plural is kutab. So kitāb is the writing by the scribe of the letters of the alphabet joined together in words. It is called a Book, even if it is just writing. The word kitāb also denotes obligation, judgment, prescription and the decree.

without any doubt.

The word ‘doubt’ (rayb) has three meanings. One is doubt, the second is suspicion, and the third is need. So there is no doubt and no suspicion about the Book of Allah Almighty. It means that it is true in itself and it is revealed from Allah and is one of His qualities, uncreated and not within time, even if the unbelievers doubt that. It is said that the phrase is a prohibition, meaning ‘Do not doubt.’ The words end as if He were saying, ‘That Book is true.’ The verb rāba is used when you have doubt and fear about something. Arāba means to become full of doubt.

In it is guidance

The word hudā (guidance) in Arabic means right guidance and clarification, in other words it involves unveiling, guidance and increased clarification for the people who follow it.

There are two types of guidance. Guidance can mean pointing out the way and this is what the Messengers and their followers are able to do. Allah says: ‘Every people has a guide.’ (13:7) He says: ‘You are guiding to a straight path.’ (42:52) So he ﷺ has given us that aspect of guidance which entails direction, calling to the truth and admonition. The aspect of guidance, however, which involves people actually following the path and reaching the goal is the business of Allah alone. He says to his Prophet ﷺ: ‘You cannot guide those you would like to.’ (28:56) Guidance here means filling the heart with faith. Further examples of this are when Allah says: ‘They are the people guided by their Lord’ (2:5) and ‘He guides whoever He wills’ (35:8) where guidance means being actually moved to and on the path of guidance.

Abu-l-Ma‘ālī said, ‘Guidance means “bringing to” and it entails guiding the believers to the paths of the Garden and the roads which lead to it, as in the words of Allah describing those who do jihād: “He will not let their actions go astray. He will guide them... “ (47:4-5) or in the case of the unbelievers to the Fire, as in His words: “Guide them to the Path of the Blazing Fire” (37:23).’ It is said that ‘hudā’ is one of the names for a river because people are guided in it to their livelihood and all their hopes.

for the godfearing:

Allah Almighty singled out the godfearing for His guidance, even though the Qur’an is, in fact, guidance for all creatures, in order to honour them because they believe and affirm what it contains. It is related that Abū Rawq said, ‘“Guidance for the godfearing” means honour for them. It is ascribed to them out of esteem and honour for them and to show their excellence.’

The word ‘godfearing (muttaqīn)’ is derived from taqwā whose linguistic root is said to mean to be sparing of words. Ibn Fāris related that. That is indicated by the hadith, ‘The godly (taqī) is sparing in his words and the godfearing (muttaqī) is above both the believers and those who are obedient.’ He is someone who protects himself, by his righteous actions and sincere supplication, from Allah’s punishment. It is derived from guarding yourself against the disliked by putting a barrier between you and it.

It is reported that Ibn Mas‘ūd said one day to his nephew, ‘Nephew, do you see how many people there are?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. He said, ‘There is no good in any of them except those who turn to Allah or are godfearing.’ Then he added, ‘Nephew, do you see how many people there are?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. He said, ‘There is no good in them except for a man of knowledge or a student.’ Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī said, ‘A godfearing person is someone whose words are for Allah when he speaks and whose actions are for Allah when he acts.’ Abū Sulaymān ad-Dārānī said, ‘The godfearing are those from whose hearts love of appetites has been stripped away.’ It is said that a godfearing person is one is protected from shirk and free of hypocrisy. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is false because someone could be like that and still be a deviator.’ In relation to taqwā ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb asked Ubayy, ‘Have you ever taken a path between thorny bushes?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. He asked, ‘What did you do?’ He said, ‘I gathered in my clothes and was careful.’ He said, ‘That is taqwā.’

Taqwā comprises all good. It is Allah’s directive to all human beings and it is the best acquisition a person can acquire. Abu-d-Dardā’ was asked, “Your companions utter poetry but you do not memorise any of it.” He refuted them, declaiming:

A man wants to be given his desire

but Allah only gives him what He wills.

A man says, ‘My profit and my property,’

but taqwā of Allah is the best thing that can be acquired.

Ibn Mājah related in his Sunan that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘After taqwā, nothing benefits a believer more than a righteous wife. When he commands her, she obeys him. When he looks at her, she delights him. When he swears by her, she carries out the oath. When he is absent from her, she is faithful to him in her person and his property.’

3 those who believe in the Unseen and establish the prayer and spend from what We have provided for them;

those who believe

The word ‘believe’ here means to hold to be true. Linguistically īmān (faith, belief) is affirmation. In the Revelation the words of the brothers of Yūsuf: ‘You will not believe us’ (12:17) mean ‘believe that we are telling the truth’. Qatādah is reported as saying, ‘Son of Ādam, if the only time you want to do good is when you are feeling enthusiastic, you should know that it is the nature of the self to incline to ennui, indifference and boredom; the believer, however, is the one who spurs himself on; the believer is the one who takes heart; the believer is the one who remains strong. The believers are those who cry out to Allah night and day. By Allah, a true believer continues to say, ‘O Lord’, secretly and openly until it is answered secretly and openly.’

In the Unseen

In the language of the Arabs, the word ghayb (Unseen) denotes everything which is hidden from you. It is used for the setting of the sun. Mughībah is used for a woman when her husband is absent. We fall into a ghaybah, meaning a hole in the ground. Ghayābah is a forest, which is a group of trees into which one disappears. It is also used for low-lying ground, because it is out of sight.

Scholars disagree about the meaning of the word here. Some say that what is meant by ‘Unseen’ in this āyah is Allah Himself. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that this is weak. Others have said that it is the Decree; others that it is the Qur’an and the unseen things it contains; others that the Unseen are those matters about which the Messengers report which are beyond the scope of human intellect: the signs of the Last Hour, the punishment of the grave, the Gathering, the Resurrection, the Sirāt, the Scales, the Garden and the Fire. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that these statements are not mutually exclusive. The Unseen refers to all of them.

It is, in fact, the prescribed faith indicated in the hadith of Jibrīl when he said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Tell me about faith (īmān)’ He replied, ‘It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and to believe in the decree, both its good and its evil.’ He said, ‘You have spoken the truth.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘There is no faith better for the believer than faith in the Unseen.’ Then he recited, ‘Those who believe in the Unseen.’ (2:3)

In the Qur’an we find: ‘We are never absent (ghā’ibīn)’ (7:7), and also: ‘Those who fear their Lord in the Unseen.’ (21:49). Allah cannot be seen by the eyes and cannot be seen in this dimension of existence but He is not absent to investigation and deduction. The believers believe that they have a powerful Lord who will repay all their actions. They fear Him in their hearts and fear Him when they are alone, where others cannot see them, through their knowledge that He is aware of them. These āyahs agree and there is no contradiction in them. Praise be to Allah!

‘Unseen’ is also said to mean their consciences and hearts. According to this understanding, the words ‘they believe in the Unseen’ mean ‘they believe in their hearts’. In other words, their hearts are filled with faith in contradistinction to the hearts of the hypocrites which are empty of faith. That is what al-Ḥasan said. A poet said:

We believed in the Unseen when our people

were praying to idols before Muḥammad came.

and establish

Establishing the prayer means performing it together with its pillars, sunnahs and positions at the correct time as will be explained. Qāma here does not have the normal meaning of ‘stand’ but rather means to continue with and firmly establish.

The call known as the iqāmah of the prayer is well-known. It is sunnah with the majority so that, if someone fails to recite it, he does not have to repeat the prayer. Al-Awza‘ī, ‘Aṭā’, Mujāhid, and Ibn Abi Laylā, however, made it obligatory and anyone who forgets it has to repeat the prayer. The literalists said that. It is related from Mālik, and Ibn al-‘Arabī preferred that because, he said, it is found in the hadith about the Bedouin, ‘Do the iqāmah.’ So he ﷺ commanded him to do the iqāmah as he commanded the takbīr, facing the qiblah and wuḍū’. He said, ‘You now have the hadith and it supports you in repeating one of the two transmissions from Mālik that agree with the hadith: the iqāmah is a farḍ.’ Some scholars say that if someone abandons it intentionally, he should repeat the prayer. That is not because it is obligatory since, if it that were the case, those who forget and those who abandon it deliberately would be subject to the same ruling. It is on account of making light of the Sunnah. Allah knows best.

Scholars disagree about whether someone who hears the iqāmah should hurry to the prayer or not. Most believe that he should not hurry, even if he fears that he will miss a rak‘ah, because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the iqāmah for the prayer is given, do not come running to it. Come walking. You must be tranquil. Pray what you catch and complete what you miss.’ Abū Hurayrah related it and Muslim transmitted it. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ also said, ‘When the prayer is called, none of you should run to it. He should walk. He must be sedate and grave. Pray what you catch and finish what you missed.’ This is a text. Part of the reason for this is that when someone hurries, he is breathless and his entry into the prayer, recitation and humility are disordered. A group of the Salaf, including Ibn ’Umar and Ibn Mas‘ūd, disagree about hurrying when someone fears they will miss the prayer. Isḥāq said, ‘He hurries when he fears that he will miss the rak‘ah.’ Something similar is related from Mālik. He said, ‘There is no harm in someone on a horse making the horse go faster.’ Some of them interpret it as the difference between someone walking and someone sitting because a rider does not become breathless in the same way that someone on foot does.

It is more appropriate to follow the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in every case. As in the hadith, you should walk and be sedate and grave because you are in the prayer. It is impossible for the report of the Prophet ﷺ to be different to what he reported. Just as someone who enters the prayer must be grave and still, so the one who is walking to it must be like that so that he obtains its reward. Part of what indicates the soundness of this is what we mentioned of the Sunnah and what ad-Dārimī transmitted in the Musnad from Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf from Sufyān from Muḥammad ibn ‘Ajlān from al-Maqbarī from Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When you have done wuḍū’, go to the mosque. Do not entangle your fingers together. You are in the prayer.’ In this hadith, which is sound, the Prophet ﷺ forbade what is less than hurrying. He made him like someone in prayer. These sunnahs clarify the meaning of His words: ‘hasten to the remembrance of Allah’ (62:9). It does not just mean getting there quickly. This is about action. This is how Mālik explained it. It is what is correct regarding that. Allah knows best.

Scholars disagree about the interpretation of ‘complete what you missed’ and ‘finish what you missed’ and whether they mean the same thing. It is said that they mean the same and that ‘finish’ is undefined and ‘completion’ is meant by it. Allah says: ‘When the prayer is finished’ (63:10) an:d ‘When you have completed your rites’ (2:200). It is said that they have different meanings, and that is sound. The difference depends on whether the person joins at the beginning or end of the prayer. The first view is held by a group of the people of Mālik, including Ibn al-Qāsim. The person concerned finishes what he missed of the Fātiḥah and sūrah and so it is about building on actions and finishing words. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that this is well known in the School. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘That is the view of our people. It is the view of al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, aṭ-Ṭabarī and Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī. Ashhab, who is the one Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam mentioned, related it from Mālik.’

‘Īsā related from Ibn al-Qāsim from Mālik that what the person catches is the end of his prayer and he finishes the actions and words. That is the view of the Kufans. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said, ‘It is the well known position of the school of Mālik.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘I think that those who make what he caught the beginning of his prayer take account of takbir al-iḥrām because that only happens at the beginning of the prayer, and the tashahhud and taslīm are only at the end of it. So they say that what he caught is the beginning of his prayer, supported by the Sunnah in his words, “Complete”. “Completion” is the end.’ Others cite ‘finish’ and someone who finishes something has missed it. The reading of ‘complete’, however, is more common.

The iqāmah precludes you from beginning any supererogatory prayers. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When the iqāmah for the prayer is given, there is no prayer except the prescribed one.’ Muslim and others transmitted it. If someone has started a supererogatory prayer, he does not break it off because Allah says: ‘Do not make your actions of no worth.’ (47:33) That is especially the case if he has prayed a rak‘ah of it. It is also said that he stops it because of the general meaning of the hadith. Allah knows best.

Scholars disagree about someone who enters the mosque without having prayed the two rak‘ahs of fajr and then the iqāmah is given. Mālik says that he should join the prayer with the imam without praying them. If he has not entered the mosque and does not fear missing a rak‘ah of it, he may pray them outside the mosque. He should not pray them in any of the courtyard connected to a mosque in which the Jumu‘ah is prayed. If he fears that he will miss the first rak‘ah of the communal prayer, he should enter and pray with the imam and then pray the two rak‘ahs after sunrise if he wishes. I think that it is better to pray them after sunrise than to leave them. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people say that if someone fears that he will miss both rak‘ahs and not catch the imam before he rises from rukū‘ in the second rak‘ah, he should join the prayer. If he hopes to catch one rak‘ah, he should pray fajr outside the mosque and then join with the imam.

That is also what al-Awzā‘ī said, although he permits praying the rak‘ahs in the mosque if the person is not afraid of missing the final rak‘ah. Ath-Thawrī said, ‘If he fears missing a rak‘ah, he should join the imam and not pray them. Otherwise he should pray them in the mosque.’ Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy (or Ḥayyān) said, ‘Once the iqāmah has started, there are no voluntary prayers except for the two rak‘ahs of fajr.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If someone enters the mosque when the iqāmah for the prayer has been given, he joins with the imam. He does not pray the two rak‘ahs of fajr either in the mosque or outside of the mosque.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said the same. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal also said that, relating from Mālik, and it is the sound position concerning that since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the iqāmah for the prayer is given, then there is no prayer except the prescribed one.’ The two rak‘ahs of fajr are either sunnah, excellent or meritorious. When there is a dispute, one takes the proof of the Sunnah.

Part of the evidence for the well known position of Mālik and that of Abū Ḥanīfah is what is related from Ibn ‘Umar who once arrived when the imam was praying the Ṣubḥ prayer: he prayed fajr in Ḥafṣah’s room and then prayed with the imam. The argument of ath-Thawrī and al-Awza‘ī is what is related about ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd. He entered the mosque when the iqāmah had been given and he prayed fajr behind a pillar and then joined the prayer in the presence of Ḥudhayfah and Abū Mūsā. They said, ‘If it is permitted to perform the supererogatory apart from the prayer outside the mosque, one is likewise permitted to do it inside the mosque.’ Muslim related that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mālik ibn Buḥaynah said, ‘The iqāmah for the Ṣubḥ prayer had been given and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saw a man praying while the mu’adhdhin was giving the iqāmah. He said, “Are you praying Ṣubḥ with four rak‘ahs?”’ This was the Messenger of Allah ﷺ objecting to the man praying the two rak‘ahs of fajr inside the mosque while the imām was praying. It is possible that it is evidence that if the two rak‘ahs of fajr are done in that situation they are sound, because he did not stop him praying while he was able to do so. Allah knows best.

the prayer

Linguistically the root of the word ‘ṣalāh’ (prayer) means supplication. Evidence for that is the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘When one of you is invited for food, he should accept. If he is not fasting, he should eat, and if he is fasting, he should make supplication (ṣallā).’ When Asmā’ gave birth to ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr, she sent him to the Prophet ﷺ. Asma’ said, ‘He wiped his head and prayed (sallā) for him,’ meaning made supplication. Some scholars say that the obligatory prayer is meant and that he prayed two rak‘ahs and left, but the first opinion is better known. It is the view of most scholars. Allah Almighty says: ‘Pray (ṣalla) for them’ (9:103), meaning to make supplication for them.

Some people say that it is derived from the word ṣalā, which is the cord in the middle of the back which separates at the base of the spine and goes round it. From it is also derived the word muṣallā for the second horse in a horse race, because at the end of the race, his head is at the rump (ṣalwān) of the horse in front. So the derivation of the ṣalāh from this is either because it is the second pillar after the declaration of faith, and so it resembles someone coming second immediately behind another horse, or because the back of the one who bows in the prayer is bent, in which case ṣalā refers to the bending of the horse’s back. ‘Alī said, using the word with this meaning, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ came first, Abū Bakr second (sallā) and ‘Umar third.’

It is also said that it comes from the idea of abiding in something, as ‘roasting in a red-hot fire’ in 88:4. According to this, it means holding to worship to the extent which Allah has commanded. It is also said to be taken from the idea of warming a branch with fire to straighten it and make it supple by heat since ṣilā’ means roasting by fire, thus referring to how the one who prays straightens himself by his efforts and makes himself supple and humble. Ṣalāh can also mean supplication and mercy, as in ‘O Allah, bless (ṣalli) Muḥammad.’ Ṣalāh is also an undefined act of worship. Allah says: ‘Their prayer (ṣalāh) at the House’ (8:35), meaning their worship. Ṣalāh can also mean supererogatory prayer as in ‘Instruct your family to do the prayer (ṣalāh).’ (20:132) It can also mean glorification. Ṣalāh can also mean recitation as in 17:110. So it is a word with several meanings. Ṣalāh is also a house in which one prays as Ibn Fāris said. It is also said that ṣalāh is a name simply for this act of worship. Allah would not leave a time without a Law and would not leave a Law without a prayer. Abū Naṣr al-Qushayrī narrated that. According to this position, it has no derivation.

According to the position of the majority, those who study the roots disagree about whether it remains connected to its original linguistic root, and the same is true of īmān, zakāt, ṣiyām, ḥajj and shar‘, which are subjected to legal preconditions and rulings, or whether that addition acts in the same way as it did before the Sharī‘ah was revealed. The first is sounder because the Sharī‘ah is confirmed in Arabic and the Qur’an was revealed in clear Arabic. But the Arabs do have an arbitrary usage where nouns are concerned, such as the word dābbah, which is used for everything that crawls (dabba), and then the Arabs apply it specifically to animals. That is also the custom with nouns in the Sharī‘ah. Allah knows best.

There is disagreement about what is meant by ‘the prayer’ in this instance. It is said that it is both the obligatory and voluntary prayers, and that is the sound position because the expression is undefined.

The prayer is also cause for provision. Allah says: ‘Instruct your family to do the prayer’ (20:132) as will be explained in Ṭaha, Allah willing. It is healing for stomach pain and other things. Ibn Mājah related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ rested at midday as I did and I prayed and sat down. The Prophet ﷺ turned to me and said in Persian, “Is your stomach bothering you?” “Yes, Messenger of Allah,” I answered. He said, ‘Get up and pray. There is healing in the prayer.”’

The prayer is only valid if all its preconditions and obligatory elements are fulfilled. Purity is one of its preconditions. Its rulings will be explained in Sūrat an-Nisā’ and Sūrat al-Mā’idah. The private parts must be covered, which will be dealt with in Sūrat al-A‘rāf, Allah willing. Its obligatory elements are facing the qiblah, the intention, the takbīr al-iḥrām and standing for it, reciting the Fātiḥah and standing for it, rukū‘ and being still in it, rising from rukū‘ and standing up straight, prostration and being still in it, rising from prostration, sitting between the two prostrations and being still in it, the second prostration and being still in it, and the final sitting and being still in it.

The source for all this is the hadith of Abū Hurayrah about the man who had prayed incorrectly and whom the Prophet ﷺ then taught. He told him, ‘When you stand for the prayer, perform wuḍū’ thoroughly and then face the qiblah. Say the takbīr and then recite what is easy of the Qur’an. Then bow and remain still in it and then come up until you are standing straight. Then prostrate until you are still in prostration. Then come up until you are still in sitting. Then do the like of that in all your prayer.’ Muslim transmitted it. Something similar is found in the hadith of Rifā‘ah ibn Rāfi‘ transmitted by ad-Dāraquṭnī and others.

Our scholars said that the Prophet ﷺ explained to us the pillars of the prayer. He said nothing about the iqāmah, raising the hands, the amount of recitation, the takbīrs for the movements, the glorification in rukū‘ and prostration, the middle sitting, the tashahhud for the final sitting and the salām. As for the iqāmah and the specific requirement of the Fātiḥah, they have already been discussed. As for raising the hands, a group of scholars and most fuqahā’ say that it is not mandatory based on the hadith of Abū Hurayrah and Rifā‘ah ibn Rāfi‘. Dāwūd and some of his people say that it is mandatory for the takbīr al-iḥrām, and some of his people said it is mandatory to raise the hands in iḥrām, rukū‘ and coming up from rukū‘, and if someone does not raise his hands, his prayer is invalid. That is the view of al-Ḥumaydī and it is related from al-Awzā‘ī. They cite as evidence the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Pray as you saw me praying’ which al-Bukhārī transmitted. They said, ‘It is obligatory for us to act as we saw him acting because he conveys Allah’s desire.’

As for takbīrs other than the takbīr al-iḥrām, Most say that they are sunnah based on the hadith. Ibn al-Qāsim, Mālik’s companion, said, ‘If someone omits three or more takbīrs in the prayer, he should prostrate before the salām. If he does not prostrate, then the prayer is invalid. If he forgets one or two takbīrs, he also prostrates for forgetfulness, but owes nothing if he forgets.’ It is related from him that omitting one takbīr does not amount to forgetfulness. This indicates that he thinks that all the takbīrs are obligatory but omitting a few is overlooked. Aṣbagh ibn al-Faraj and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, ‘There is nothing due from anyone who does not say any of the takbīrs in the prayer including the takbīr al-iḥrām. If he omits it out of forgetfulness, then he prostrates for forgetfulness. If he does not prostrate, he owes nothing. However one must not omit the takbīr al-iḥrām deliberately because it is one of the sunnahs of the prayer. If someone does so, he has acted badly, but owes nothing and his prayer is valid.’

This is sound and it is the position of most of the fuqahā’ of the cities among the Shāfi‘īs and Kufans, a group of the people of hadith and the Mālikīs except for the position of Ibn al-Qāsim. Al-Bukhārī has a ‘Chapter on completing the takbīr in rukū‘ and prostration’. He includes the hadith of Muṭarrif ibn ‘Abdullāh who said: ‘‘Imrān ibn Ḥusayn and I prayed behind ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. When he went into sajdah he said the takbīr and when he raised his head, he said the takbīr. When he got up after two rak‘ahs, he said the takbīr. When he finished the prayer, ‘Imrān ibn Ḥusayn took hold of my hand and said, “This man reminded me of the prayer of Muhammad ﷺ,” or he said, “He prayed the prayer of Muḥammad with us.”’

‘Ikrimah said, ‘I saw a man at the Maqām saying the takbīr every time he did rukū’ and rose, when he stood up, and when he went down. I told Ibn ‘Abbās and he said, “If that is not indeed the prayer of the Prophet, you have no mother!”’ By this chapter al-Bukhārī indicated to you that the takbīr was not done by them. Abū Isḥāq as-Sabī‘ī related from Yazīd ibn Abī Maryam that Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī said, ‘On the day of the Battle of the Camel, ‘Alī led us in a prayer which reminded us of the prayer of the Prophet ﷺ. He said the takbīr every time he went down and came up, stood and sat.’ Abū Mūsā said, ‘Either we forgot it or abandoned it deliberately.’

Do you see them repeating the prayer? So how can it be said that omission of the takbīr invalidates the prayer? If that had been the case, there would have been no difference between sunnah and farḍ. When the thing on its own is not mandatory, then all of them are not mandatory. Success is by Allah.

According to the majority, tasbīḥ in rukū‘ and prostration are not mandatory based on the ḥadīth already mentioned. Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh made them mandatory and said that someone who omits them must repeat the prayer since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Exalt the Lord in rukū‘ and entreat in supplication in prostration. It is fitting that it be answered.’

Scholars disagree about the sitting and tashahhud. Mālik and his people say that the first sitting and its tashahhud are sunnahs. A group of scholars consider the first sitting to be mandatory and say that it is singled out among other obligations since prostration represents it, just as ‘arāyā do with muzābanah and qirāḍ does with wages [types of business transactions] and like standing for the takbīr al-iḥrām when someone finds the imām bowing. They argue that if it had been sunnah, then someone who abandons it would not invalidate his prayer as the prayer is not invalidated by abandoning sunnahs of the prayer. Those who do not consider it mandatory say that if it had been one of the obligatory elements of the prayer, someone who forgot it would return to it and perform it, as is the case if he misses a prostration or rukū‘, and he would observe in it what he observes in rukū‘ and prostration in order. Then he would prostrate for forgetting it as is done by someone who omits a rukū‘ or prostration and then performs them. We find in the hadith of ‘Abdullāh ibn Buḥaynah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood up from two rak‘ahs and forgot the tashahhud. People behind him said, ‘Glory be to Allah!’ He remained standing and they stood. When he finished the prayer, he did the two prostrations of forgetfulness before the salām. If sitting had been obligatory, forgetfulness would not cancel it because the obligations of the prayer are the same when they are omitted out of forgetfulness or deliberately.

There are five different positions about the ruling of the final sitting in the prayer. The first is that sitting is obligatory, the tashahhud is obligatory and the salām is obligatory. Those who said that include ash-Shāfi‘ī and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in one transmission. Abū Muṣ‘ab related it from Mālik and the people of Madīnah in his Mukhtaṣar. Dāwūd also stated that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If someone omits the first tashahhud and the prayer on the Prophet ﷺ, he does not have to repeat the prayer, but he does the two prostrations of forgetfulness for omitting it. If he omits the final tashahhud out of forgetfulness or deliberately, he should repeat the prayer.’ They cite as evidence the fact that the Prophet ﷺ made the obligatory clear in the prayer because the basis of its obligation is undefined and requires clarification except for that which has a proof. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Pray as you saw me praying.’

The second view is that sitting, the tashahhud and the salām are not mandatory. They are all sunnahs. This is the view of some of the Basrans. It was the position of Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Ulayyah and he stated that the final sitting is analogous with the first. He differs from the majority and is aberrant, although he thought that anyone who omits any of that must repeat the prayer. Part of their argument is the hadith of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the imam raises his head from the final prostration in the prayer and then breaks his wuḍū’, his prayer is complete.’ It is a hadith which is not sound according to Abū ‘Amr. We explained it in Kitāb al-muqtabis. This wording omits the salām, not the sitting.

The third view is that sitting for the amount of time needed for the tashahhud is obligatory, but neither the tashahhud nor the salām are obligatory. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and a group of Kufans said that. They use as evidence the hadith of Ibn al-Mubarak from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ziyād al-Ifrīqī which is weak. In it the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When one of you sits at the end of his prayer and then breaks his wuḍū’ before saying the salām, his prayer is complete.’

The fourth view is that sitting is obligatory and the salām is obligatory, but the tashahhud is not mandatory. Those who said that include Mālik ibn Anas and his people and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in one variant. Their argument is that no remembrance is mandatory except the takbīr al-iḥrām and recitation of the Umm al-Qur’ān.

The fifth view is that tashahhud and sitting are mandatory, but not the salām. The group took that view included Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh. Isḥāq cited as proof the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ūd when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ taught him the tashahhud. He told him, ‘When you have finished this, your prayer is complete. Make up what you owe.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that these words were inserted by Zuhayr into the hadith and then connected to the words of the Prophet ﷺ. Shabābah separated it from Zuhayr and made it part of the words of Ibn Mas‘ūd. His words are more likely to be correct than saying that it is interpolated into the hadith. Shabābah is trustworthy. It is corroborated by Ghassān ibn ar-Rabī‘ who makes the end part of the words of Ibn Mas‘ūd rather than the Prophet ﷺ.

Scholars disagree about the salām. It is said that it is mandatory and also that it is not mandatory. What is sound is that it is mandatory based on the hadith of ‘Ā’ishah and the sound hadith of ‘Alī that Abū Dāwūd and at-Tirmidhī transmitted. Sufyān ath-Thawrī related from ‘Abdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Aqīl ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah from ‘Alī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The key to the prayer is purification. Its taḥrīm is the takbīr. Its release is the salām.’ This hadith is the basis for the obligation of the takbīr and the salām and it is agreed that nothing else satisfies them just as nothing else satisfies purification.’ ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī said, ‘If a man were to begin his prayer with seventy of the names of Allah Almighty without saying the takbīr al-iḥrām, it would not satisfy the requirement. If he breaks wuḍū’ before the salām, it does not satisfy it.’ This is sound from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī by the hadith of ‘Alī. He is an imam in the science of hadith, knowing the sound from the weak. He is enough for you.

Scholars disagree about the obligation of the takbīr at the beginning of the prayer. Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, al-Awzā‘ī, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān and a group said that the takbīr al-iḥrām is not mandatory. What is related from Mālik about someone following the imam indicates this view. What is sound in the School is that the takbīr al-iḥrām is mandatory and it is an obligation and one of the pillars of the prayer. It is correct. Most agree on it. The evidence is found in the Sunnah for all those who oppose that.

Scholars disagree about the wording used to enter into the prayer. Mālik and his people and a group of scholars say that only the takbīr satisfies it. It is not satisfied by the shahādah, tasbīḥ, proclaiming Allah great or praising Him. This is the position of the Hijazīs and most Iraqīs. According to Mālik, only the expression ‘Allāhu akbar’ satisfies it and nothing else. That is similar to what ash-Shāfi‘ī said. He said that it is satisfied by ‘Allāhu akbar’ and ‘Allāhu’l-Kabīr’. Mālik’s proof is the hadith of ‘Ā’ishah who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to begin the prayer with the takbīr and reciting “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds”’, the hadith of ‘Alī, ‘His taḥrīm was the takbīr,’ and the hadith of the Bedouin, ‘he said the takbīr.’ According to the Sunan of Ibn Mājah, Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah and ‘Alī ibn Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭanāfisī related from Abū Usāmah from ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd ibn Ja‘far from Muḥammad ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Aṭā’ who heard Abū Ḥamīd as-Sā‘idī say, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ rose for the prayer, he faced the qiblah, raised his hands and said, “Allāhu akbar”.’ This is a clear text and sound hadith specifying the words of the takbīr.

Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘If someone begins the prayer with “lā ilaha illā ‘llāh”, it does not satisfy the requirement. If he says, “O Allah, forgive me,” that does not satisfy it.’ That is what Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan said. Abū Yūsuf said that it does not satisfy it when he can articulate the takbīr well. Al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah said that the requirement is satisfied if he mentions Allah in place of the takbīr.̛ Ibn al-Mundhir said, “I do not know of any disagreement between them that if someone can recite well and says the shahādah and takbīr but does not recite, his prayer is unsound. If someone holds this position, then he is obliged to say that nothing else satisfies the takbīr just as nothing else can satisfy recitation. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘The requirement is satisfied by saying “Allah is greater” in Persian, even if someone speaks Arabic well.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It does not satisfy it because it is different to what the groups of Muslims believe and differs from what the Prophet ﷺ taught his community. We do not know of anyone who agrees with what he said.’ Allah knows best.

The community agree that the intention is obligatory at the time of the takbīr al-iḥrām except for something related from some of our people who discuss it in the Āyah of Purification. Its reality is to intend to approach the business by doing what is commanded in the recommended manner. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘The basis for every intention is to formulate it in direct proximity with the intended action, or before that, provided that it accompanies that action. If the intention is made earlier and then the person concerned becomes heedless of it and starts the act of worship in that state, it is not counted when he makes it after starting the action. There is an allowance for putting it earlier in the case of fasting because of the great need for it to be connected to its beginning.’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Qarawī told us at the port of ‘Asqalan that he heard the Imam of the two Ḥarams say, ‘A man should make the intention when beginning the prayer and remove his thought from the Maker, the Knower and Prophethoods so that he considers only the intention of the prayer.’ He said that it does not require a long time. That can be in an instant because teaching a camel takes a long time but remembering it can be in an instant. An element of having a full intention is for it to continue right through the whole prayer. However, since that is extremely difficult for a person, the Sharī‘ah allows for the intention to slip during the prayer. He said, ‘I heard our Shaykh Abū Bakr al-Fihrī say in Jerusalem that Muḥammad ibn Saḥnūn said, “I sometimes saw my father Saḥnūn finish the prayer and then repeat it. I asked him about that and said, ‘I lost my intention during it. That is why I repeated it.’”’

These are some of the rulings of the prayer. All its rulings will come in their proper place in this book by Allah’s strength. We will mention rukū‘, the group prayer, qiblah, doing it early in the time and something about the Fear Prayer in this sūrah. Shortening the prayer and the Fear Prayer proper will be mentioned in an-Nisā’, the times in Hūd, al-Isrā’ and ar-Rūm, the night prayers in al-Muzzammil, the prostration of the recitation in al-A‘rāf, and the prostration of thankfulness in Ṣād, each in its proper place, Allah willing.

and spend from what We have provided for them;

The word ‘provided’ means ‘given to’. Provision, according to the people who follow the Sunnah, refers to everything which can be used, ḥarām or ḥalāl, as opposed to the Mu‘tazilites who say that the ḥarām is not provision because it is not valid for a person to own it. According to them Allah does not ‘provide’ the ḥarām; He only ‘provides’ the ḥalāl; only something which is validly owned can properly be called provision. So, according to them, if a child grows up with thieves and only eats what the thieves eat until he is adult and strong and then himself becomes a thief and remains a thief and eats what he steals until he dies, Allah has not provided him with anything, since everything he ever consumed was ḥarām and he did not validly own it. He dies, therefore, without having consumed any of Allah’s provision. This is false and the evidence for it is that, if provision had meant legally valid ownership, it would mean that no child could receive provision, nor could any animal which grazes in the wilderness, nor could a lamb because its mother’s milk belongs to its owner and not to the lamb!

The Community agree that children, lambs and beasts are provided for and that Allah Almighty provides for them, even though they are not the owners of anything, because it is known that nourishment is an aspect of provision. The Community also agree that slaves are provided for and that Allah Almighty provides for them although they are not owners. So it is clear that provision is what we have said, not what the Mu‘tazilites say.

All nourishment is provision and there is no provider except Allah: ‘Is there any creator other than Allah providing for you from what is in heaven and the earth?’ (35:3) He says: ‘Allah is the Provider, the Possessor of Strength, the Sure.’ (51:58) He says: ‘There is no creature on the earth which is not dependent upon Allah for its provision.’ (11:6) This is definitive. Allah Almighty is the true Provider in every instance. The son of Ādam is a mere recipient because his ownership of property is, in fact, only metaphorical as we have made clear in our commentary on the Fātiḥah. He is provided for, like the animals, which truly own nothing. If the thing is something he is permitted to obtain, it is ḥalāl for him, and if it is not permitted, then it is ḥarām for him, but nevertheless all of it is provision. One great man of knowledge explained the words of Allah, ‘Eat of your Lord’s provision and give thanks to Him, a bountiful land and a forgiving Lord’ (34:15) by saying the adjective ‘forgiving’ (ghafūr) used in it indicates that provision may contain what is unlawful.

Rizq is a verbal noun derived from the verb razaqa. Razq is the verbal noun and rizq is a noun whose plural is arzāq. Razq is giving. Rāziqiyyah is a cotton garment. Form VIII is used for an army taking its provisions. Razqah is a single time. Ibn as-Sakīt said that rizq means thankfulness in the dialect of Arzdishanu’ah as in 56:82 where it means ‘thanks’.

The word for ‘those who spend’ (yunfiqūn) means ‘to bring something out’. ‘Spending’ is to give out money with the hand. The verb nafaqa, with regard to a sale, means to transfer money from the hand of the seller to the hand of the buyer. Nafaqa is used for an animal when its life leaves it. From the same root comes nāfiqā’, the second entrance of the hole of the jerboa from which it emerges when it is attacked from the other entrance. We also have the word munāfiq (hypocrite), so called because he leaves belief or belief leaves his heart. Nayfaq is used for trousers because the legs emerge from them. Nafaqa is also used for something which is spent, used up or comes to an end. An example of that usage is in the words of Allah: ‘You would still hold back out of the fear it would run out (infāq).’ (17:100)

Scholars disagree about what is meant by the giving of provision in this instance. It is said that it refers to obligatory zakāt. That is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and is because the prayer accompanies it. It is said that it refers to what a man spends on his family. That is related from Ibn Mas‘ūd because that is the best type of expenditure. Muslim related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Out of a dinar which you spend in the way of Allah and a dinar which you spend on freeing a slave and a dinar which you give to a poor person and a dinar which you spend on your family, the one with the greatest reward is the one which you spend on your family.’ It is related from Thawbān that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Is not the best dinar a man spends the dinar which he spends on his family and the dinar which he spends on his mount in the way of Allah and the dinar which he spends on his companions in the way of Allah?’ Abū Qilābah said, ‘He began with the family,’ and then he continued, ‘What man could have a greater reward than someone who spends on a young family to keep them virtuous, or Allah gives them the benefit of him and he enriches them?’

It is also said that what is meant here is voluntary ṣadaqah. That is related from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk in reference to the fact that obligatory zakāt is only referred to with the expression particular to it, which is the word zakāt. When a word other than zakāt is used, it may be obligatory or voluntary. When the word ‘spend’ is used, it is only voluntary. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘Spending was, at first, a kind of sacrifice by which a person drew near to Allah Almighty according to his effort in it until Allah revealed the obligations of zakāt in Sūrat at-Tawbah which abrogated that.’ It is said that it refers to obligatory rights on wealth other than zakāt because by connecting it to the prayer, Allah Almighty is indicating that they are obligatory, and the fact that He uses another expression shows that this is an obligation other than zakāt.

It is said that its meaning is general and that is a sound position because Allah praises all kinds of spending out from what we are provided with. In that case the meaning is that they pay the zakāt obliged by the Sharī‘ah and also spend in other ways in which it is recommended for them to spend. It is said that ‘believe in the Unseen’ is the portion of the heart, ‘establish the prayer’ is the portion of the body and ‘spend from what they are provided with’ is the portion of wealth. This is evident. Some early scholars said in their interpretation of the words of Allah Almighty: ‘they spend from what We have provided them,’ that they refer to people teaching others some of what Allah has taught them. Abū Naṣr ‘Abd ar-Raḥīm ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Qushayrī related that.

4 those who believe in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down before you, and are certain about the Next World.

It is said that what is meant here are believers from the People of

the Book, such as ‘Abdullāh ibn Sallām, and that it was revealed

about him. The previous āyah was revealed about believers among the Arabs. It is also said that both this āyah and the previous one are about believers in general.

Allah’s words ‘what has been sent down to you,’ refer to the Qur’an and His words ‘and what was sent down before you’ refer to previous Books, so this differs from what the Jews and Christians did, since they only believed in their own Books as Allah tells us later in this sūrah: ‘When they are told, “Believe in what Allah has sent down,” they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us.”’ (2:91)

It is said that when this āyah was revealed and the words ‘those who believe in the Unseen’ came, the Jews and Christians said, ‘We believe in the Unseen.’ When Allah said: ‘establish the prayer’ (2:3), they said, ‘We establish the prayer.’ When He said: ‘and spend from what We have provided for them,’ they said, ‘We spend and give alms.’ When He said: ‘those who believe in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down before you,’ they were averse to that. We find in a hadith that Abū Dharr asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, how many Books have been sent down?’ He answered, ‘One hundred and four Books. Allah sent down fifty scrolls to Seth, thirty scrolls to Enoch, ten scrolls to Ibrāhīm, and ten scrolls to Mūsā before the Torah, and He sent down the Torah, the Gospel, the Zabūr and the Furqān.’ Al-Ḥusayn al-Ujurrī and Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī transmitted it.

There is a question which arises here. How can one believe in all the various Revelations when it is clear that their rulings conflict? Two answers are given. One is that one believes that all of them came from Allah. This is the position of those who abolish all the acts of worship prescribed by prior sharī‘ahs. The second is that one believes in those things in them which have not been abrogated. This is the position of those who say it is obligatory to abide by prior sharī‘ahs, a judgment which will be explained in the proper place.

and are certain about the Next World

The words ‘and are certain about the Next World’ refer to the Resurrection after death. Certainty is knowledge free from all doubt. Various forms of this verb (yaqina) can be used to express this idea. Sometimes it is possible for this word to indicate the opposite meaning of ‘conjecture’, and we find it in this sense elsewhere in the Qur’an and in many poems. Ākhirah (Next World) is derived from ta’akhkhur (delay) because it is later for us, as dunyā (this world) is derived from danuw (nearness)

5 They are the people guided by their Lord. They are the ones who have success.

Our scholars say that the words ‘by their Lord’ refute the Qadariyyah who say that they themselves are the creators of their own faith and their own guidance. Allah is too exalted for their position to be true. If that had been the case, Allah would have said, ‘by their own selves’. The meaning of the word ‘guidance’ (hudā) has already been discussed in the commentary on the second āyah of this sūrah.

They are the ones who have success.

The linguistic root of ‘falāḥ’ (success) is falḥ, which has the meaning of splitting or cleaving. From it comes filāḥah, tillage of the earth when it is ploughed for cultivation. Abū ‘Ubayd said that. That is why a ploughman is called a fallāḥ. Someone with a split lower lip is called aflaḥ. It is as if the one with success cuts through adversity until he reaches his goal. The word is used for success and continuation, which is also another aspect of its linguistic root.

The meaning of ‘the ones who have success’ in this context is those who win the Garden and remain in it. Ibn Abī Isḥāq said, ‘Those who are successful are those who attain what they seek and are saved from the evil from which they flee.’ The meaning is the same. The word falāḥ is also used for saḥūr (the pre-dawn meal in Ramadan), as in the hadith recorded by Abū Dāwūd: ‘Until we almost missed falāḥ with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ It was asked, ‘What is falāḥ?’ The answer was, ‘Saḥūr.’ Falāḥ normally means to gain one’s goal and to be delivered from what one fears.

6 As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them they will not believe.

As for those who disbelieve,

After mentioning the believers and their states, Allah then mentions the unbelievers and their end. Kufr (disbelief) is the opposite of īmān (belief) and that is what is meant in this āyah. Kufr can also mean ingratitude for blessings and gifts received. The Prophet ﷺ used it in that way when he spoke about women in the eclipse hadith: ‘Then I saw the Fire – and l have never seen anything more hideous than what I saw today – and I saw that most of its inhabitants were women.’ They asked, ‘Why, Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘For their kufr.’ It was asked, ‘Do they reject Allah [or ‘Are they ungrateful to Allah’]?’ He said, ‘They are ungrateful to their husbands, and they are ungrateful for good behaviour (towards them). Even if you were to behave well to one of them for a whole lifetime and she were to see you do something (that she did not like) she would say that she had never seen anything good from you.’ Al-Bukhārī and others transmitted it.

The root of the verb kafara in Arabic indicates covering and hiding. Part of that usage is found in the words of a poet:

In the night its clouds cover (kafara) the stars.

Night is called kāfir because it covers everything in darkness. Kāfir can also mean a sea or huge river and is also used with the meaning of cultivator – someone who covers seeds with earth. Its plural in that case is kuffār rather than kāfirūn. Allah Almighty says, ‘Like the plant-growth after rain which delights the cultivators (kuffār)’ (57:20). Ashes are called makfūr when the wind has swept the dust so that it has covered them. ‘Land which is kāfir is that which is so far off the beaten track that people almost never stop in it or pass by it. Those who do stop in such places are people of kufūr. It is also said that kufūr means isolated villages.

A point is made about why Ḥamza recites ‘‘alayhum’, ‘ilayhum’ and ‘ladayhum’ and does not recite ‘rabbihum’, ‘fīhum’ or ‘ jannatayhum,’ the answer is that in the first examples, a yā’ has replaced an alif and the root is ‘‘alāhum’, ‘ladāhum’ and ‘ilāhum’ and therefore the hā’ keeps its ḍammah. That is not the case with the other examples.

it makes no difference to them

The words ‘it makes no difference to them’ mean that it is the same to them whether or not you warn them.

whether you warn them

His words: ‘whether you warn them’ mean to announce and convey warning. The word used here for ‘warn’ (andhara) is almost only ever used to alarm people when there is time for them to take measures to avoid the thing they are being warned about. If the situation does not allow for such a time of preparation, it is called announcement (ish‘ār) and not warning.

Scholars disagree about the interpretation of this āyah. It is said to refer to people in general, indicating those against whom the decree of punishment will be carried out. It is an established fact that Allah already knows that these people will die in kufr. Allah wanted to tell people about those whose state is like that without being specific.

Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Kalbī said that the āyah was revealed about the leaders of the Jews in Madīnah, including Ḥuyayy ibn al-Akhṭab, Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf and those like them. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas said, ‘It was revealed about the leaders of the idolaters who were killed at Badr.’ The first position is sounder. Anyone who says it was revealed about a particular person can only be referring to someone whose kufr was revealed from the Unseen after his death. That is one aspect of the āyah.

7 Allah has sealed up their hearts and their hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment.

Allah has sealed up

The words, ‘Allah has sealed up,’ make it clear that in this āyah Allah debars such people from having faith. The word ‘khatama’ (sealed up) means covering a thing and fastening it up so that nothing can enter it. It is used for letters and other such things so that what is inside them cannot be reached or replaced.

Interpreters say that, in His Book, Allah describes the hearts of the unbelievers as having ten qualities: as being sealed up, stamped, constricted, sick, rusted up, dead, hard, turning away, fanatically enraged and in denial. On being in denial, He says: ‘Their hearts are in denial and they are puffed up with pride.’ (16:22) On fanatical rage: ‘When those who disbelieve filled their hearts with fanatical rage.’ (48:26) On turning away: ‘Then they turn away. Allah has turned their hearts away because they are people who do not understand.’ (9:127) On being hard: ‘Woe to those whose hearts are hardened against remembrance of Allah’ (39:22) and: ‘Then your hearts became hardened after that.’ (2:74) On being dead: ‘Someone who was dead and whom We brought to life.’ (61122) and: ‘Only those who can hear respond. As for the dead, Allah will raise them up.’ (6:36) On being rusted up: ‘No indeed! Rather what they have earned has rusted up their hearts.’ (83:14) On being sick: ‘Those with sickness in their hearts.’ (47:29) On being constricted: ‘When He desires to misguide someone, He makes his breast narrow and constricted.’ (6:125) On being stamped: ‘Their hearts have been stamped so that they do not understand’ (9:87) and: ‘Allah has stamped them with kufr.’ (4: 155) On being sealed up, He says: ‘Allah has sealed up their hearts.’ (2:7) All will be explained in their proper place, Allah willing.

Sealing up can be physical, as we have made clear, and also spiritual as in this āyah. In respect of the heart, being sealed up entails the inability to absorb Allah’s words, understand what He says and reflect on His āyahs. In respect of hearing, it entails the inability to understand the Qur’an when it is recited or to respond to the call to believe in the Oneness of Allah. The blindfold over the eyes entails the inability to be guided by means of reflecting on His creatures and the wondrous things He has made. This is what Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Qatādah and others have said about this.

We find in this āyah definitive proof of the fact that it is Allah Who is the author of guidance and misguidance, kufr and īmān. So we can only be amazed at the obtuseness of the minds of the Qadariyyah who say that they are the authors of their own faith and guidance. The ‘sealing up’ referred to in the āyah is the stamp of kufr so how could someone subject to that come to have īmān, no matter how hard his striving was? Allah has sealed up their hearts and hearing and a blindfold has been placed over their eyes. How they going to be guided and who is going to guide them after Allah, when He has misguided them, made them deaf, and blinded their eyes. ‘And no one can guide those whom Allah misguides.’ (39:23) That action of Allah is nevertheless just, since He does not place any real impediment in the way of those He misguides and disappoints preventing them from fulfilling those things which are obligatory for them. So the attribute of justice is not negated. He denies them His grace, He does not prevent them doing what was obliged for them.

Some say that the words ‘khatm’ (sealing), ‘ṭab‘’ (stamping) and ‘ghishāwah’ (covering) are used metaphorically and are really a way of designating them as unbelievers, judging them to be unbelievers, and reporting that they are unbelievers and are not to be taken as retaining their literal meaning. We say that this is not the case because the reality of this sealing and stamping is an action by which the heart actually becomes sealed and stamped, so it is not correct to take it metaphorically. Do you not see that when it is said, ‘So-and-so stamped the book and sealed it,’ it means that the book in question is actually stamped and sealed, not designated or judged. There is no disagreement concerning this among people with knowledge of the language, and the whole community agree that Allah Almighty has described Himself as sealing and stamping the hearts of the unbelievers to repay them for their disbelief, as He says: ‘Allah has stamped them with disbelief.’ (4:155) So the sealing and stamping are something that Allah does to a heart which prevents faith entering it. There is evidence for this in His words: ‘In that way We insert it into the evildoers’ hearts. They do not believe in it’ (15:12) and He says: ‘We have placed covers on their hearts, preventing them from understanding it.’ (6:25)

their hearts

Putting the heart first indicates the excellence of the heart over all other limbs and faculties. The core and the noblest part of anything is its heart. The heart is the locus of reflection. The Arabic word for heart, qalb, is a verbal noun meaning to turn something over completely so that it is returned to how it was at the beginning. ‘Qalaba’ (to turn) a vessel is to turn it upside down. Then this image is transferred and used for this organ, the noblest part of the creature, owing to the speed with which thoughts revolve in it. It is as is said by the poet:

The heart is only called ‘qalb’ because of its revolving (taqallub),

so beware of turning and change in the heart.

Ibn Mājah reported from Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The metaphor of the heart is that of a feather moved by the winds in the desert.’ This is the meaning which the Prophet ﷺ expressed when he said, ‘O Allah, Who makes hearts firm, make our hearts firm in Your obedience.’ If the Prophet ﷺ, in spite of his immense worth and exalted station, said that, then it is even more fitting for us to say it in imitation of him. Allah Almighty says: ‘Know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart.’ (8:24)

Even though the limbs follow the heart and it is their leader and master, they nevertheless affect it, because the actions they perform make a connection between the outward and the inward. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A man gives ṣadaqah and a white spot is engraved in his heart. A man lies and his heart goes black.’ At-Tirmidhī reports as a sound hadith from Abū Hurayrah: ‘A man may commit a sin and his heart becomes black. If he repents, his heart is polished.’ He said, ‘That is the rust which Allah mentions in the Qur’an when He says: “No indeed! Rather what they have earned has rusted up their hearts.” (83:14)’ Mujāhid said, ‘The heart is like a hand which holds a sin with every finger and then is sealed.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is a lump of flesh in the body. When it is sound, the entire body is sound, and when it is corrupt, the entire body is corrupt – it is the heart.’ This indicates that ‘sealing’ is real, and Allah knows best.

Muslim relates a hadith from Ḥudhayfah: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ related two hadiths to us. I have seen one of them come true and am still waiting for the other. He related to us that the quality of trustworthiness had descended into the hearts of men. Then the Qur’an came down and they knew it from the Qur’an and they knew it from the Sunnah. Then he related that trustworthiness would be removed and he said, “A man will go to sleep and trustworthiness will be taken from his heart and its trace will remain like a small scar. Then he will go to sleep and trustworthiness will be taken from his heart and its trace will remain like a superficial blister, such as you see when an ember rolls onto someone’s foot and it blisters up.” Then he took some pebbles and rolled them onto his foot. “And people will continue to trade but practically no one will fulfil his trust to such a point that it will be said, ‘There is a trustworthy man among the Banū so-and-so!’ and until it will be said of a man ‘How tough he is! How elegant! How intelligent!’ when he does not have even a speck of belief in his heart.” There was a time when I did not care whom I did business with. If he was a Muslim, his dīn was sufficient assurance for me, and if he was a Christian or a Jew, his Muslim patron was sufficient assurance for me. Today I only do business with so-and-so and so-and-so among you.’

Ḥudhayfah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Trials will come upon the hearts, following one after another like the reeds in a woven mat. Any heart which opens the door to them will have a black mark put in it. A heart which rejects them will have a white mark put in it. Thus hearts will be of two kinds: those which are white like marble, which will not be harmed by trial as long as the heavens and the earth endure, and those which are black and dust-coloured like an upset earthen jug, not recognising what is right or rejecting what is wrong, totally permeated by base desires.’

The heart is sometimes referred to by the word fu’ād and also the term ṣadr (breast). Allah Almighty says: ‘It is so that We can fortify your heart (fu’ād) by it.’ (25:32) He says: ‘Did We not expand your breast (ṣadr) for you?’ (94:1). In both places it is the heart which is meant. The heart is also often equated with the intellect. Allah Almighty says: ‘There is a reminder in that for anyone who has a heart’ (50:37) meaning intelligence, because the heart is the locus of the intellect according to most authorities. Fu’ād is the locus of the qalb and the breast is the locus of the fu’ād. Allah knows best.

and their hearing

The fact that hearing comes before sight in this āyah is used as evidence by those who say that hearing is better than vision. Allah also says: ‘Say: “What do you think? If Allah took away your hearing and your sight...”’ (6:46) He says: ‘He gave you hearing, sight and hearts.’ (32:9) This is said to be because hearing is always receptive from every direction, both in light and darkness, while sight is only effective in one direction at a time and needs light to function. However, most people put sight above hearing because hearing only perceives sounds and words, while sight perceives bodies, colours and all forms. They said, ‘Something which embraces more things is better.’

If it is asked why ‘sight’ is in the plural and ‘hearing’ in the singular, the answer is that it is in the singular because ‘sam‘’ (hearing) is a verbal noun which can be used for both a little and a lot. It is also used as a noun for the part of the body that hears. When it is used in the plural, it indicates the individual hearing of a group of people. It is possible that it means ‘the sites of their hearing’ because ‘hearing’ is not sealed up, but the site of hearing is sealed up. ‘Sam‘’ can also mean the function of hearing. Sim‘ is mentioning someone well. It is also a wolf born from a hyena.

and over their eyes is a blindfold.

The pronoun ‘their’ applies to those whom Allah knows will not believe among the unbelievers of Quraysh, or to the hypocrites or the Jews, or to all unbelievers, which is more correct because it is universal. The seal is what covers hearts and hearing and the blindfold covers the eyes. The word used for blindfold is ghishā’ which simply means a covering. From it comes ghāshiyah, a saddle cover, so-called because it goes right over it.

Some commentators say that the covering applies to the hearing and the eyes and that it is only the hearts which are sealed. Others say that the seal covers all of them and that blindfold is another way of saying seal.

They will have a terrible punishment.

‘They’ here refers to the unbelievers who deny the ‘terrible punishment’ they are going to receive. The word ‘punishment’ (‘adhāb) includes things like whipping, burning with fire, cutting with steel and other things which inflict pain and suffering on a person. In the Qur’an we find: ‘A number of believers should attend their punishment.’ (24:2) The word is derived from a root meaning imprisonment and prevention. Linguistically one can say, ‘I will punish him,’ meaning restrain him. The same root is used for the sweetness (‘adhūbah) of water because it becomes sweet by being confined in a vessel so that it is pure and separated from what it is mixed with. We also find it used in the words of ‘Alī, ‘Keep (a‘dhibū) your women from going out.’ Punishment is called that because the person being punished is held and kept from everything which is conducive to his comfort and afflicted with the opposite.

8 Among the people there are some who say, ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day,’ when they do not believe.

Ibn Jurayj related that Mujahid said, ‘Four āyahs were revealed in Sūrat al-Baqarah about the believers, two about the unbelievers, and thirteen about the hypocrites. As-Suddī said that ‘people’ here refers to the hypocrites.’ Sufi scholars say that the word ‘people’ is a generic noun and one does not use the generic to address friends.

Grammarians disagree about the derivation of the word ‘people’ (an-nās). It is said that it is the plural of insān (human being). In this case the word nās comes from naws, which means movement. The word is used to mean moving about and it is found with that meaning in hadith. It is also said that the word comes from the word ‘forget’ (nasī), in which case its root would be nasiya. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Ādam forgot (nasiya) the covenant with his Lord and so was named insān.’ He عليه السلام said, ‘Ādam forgot and so his descendants forgot.’ This is borne out in the Qur’an when Allah says: ‘We made a contract with Ādam before, but he forgot.’ (20:115)

Allah Almighty mentions the believers first because of their nobility and excellence. Then He mentions the unbelievers next because disbelief and belief are two opposites. Then after that He mentions the hypocrites and connects them to the unbelievers to deny that they have faith with the words, ‘They do not believe.’ This refutes the Karramite thesis that faith is confirmed by affirmation of it on the tongue even if the heart does not believe. Their evidence is the words of Allah: ‘Allah will reward them for what they say.’ (5:85). He does not say ‘for what they say and their belief in it.’ They also used as evidence the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they say, “There is no god but Allah.” When they have said it, their blood and property are protected from me.’

This is wrong and fails to look into what the Qur’an and Sunnah actually say about acting by both statement and belief. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Faith is recognition in the heart, articulation by the tongue and acting according to the pillars.’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it in the Sunan. That which Muḥammad ibn Karrām as-Sijistānī and his people state is hypocrisy and schism. We seek refuge with Allah from disappointment and corrupted belief!

Our scholars say that there are two types of believer: a believer whom Allah loves and protects and a believer whom Allah loves and does not protect, but with whom He is angry and towards whom He is hostile. Allah loves and protects all those whom He knows will end up as believers. Allah hates and is angry with and hostile towards all those whom He knows will end up as unbelievers – not, of course, on account of their belief but because of the disbelief and misguidance which will overpower them. Likewise there are two types of unbeliever: an unbeliever who will be punished and an unbeliever who will not be punished. The one who will be punished is the one who ends up with disbelief and so Allah is angry with him and hostile towards him. The one who will not be punished is the one who ends up with belief: Allah is not angry with this one nor does he hate him. He loves him and protects him, not for his disbelief, but for the belief which will overtake him.

This means that it is not permitted to make the following general statement: a believer deserves the reward and an unbeliever deserves the punishment. Rather such a statement must be made conditional on the end result. Because of this we say that Allah was pleased with ‘Umar even while he was worshipping idols and meant to reward him and admit him to the Garden, not, of course, for his worship of idols, but for his ultimate belief. On the other hand, Allah was angry with Iblīs even while he was worshipping because of his ultimate disbelief.

The Qadariyyah differed regarding this matter. They said that Allah was not angry with Iblīs when he worshipped Him nor pleased with ‘Umar when he was worshipping idols. This is false since it is confirmed that Allah knew how Iblīs would end up and how ‘Umar would end up even though this had not yet happened. So it is confirmed that He was angry with Iblīs and loved ‘Umar. The consensus of the Community indicates that Allah would never show love for anyone He knew was going to be one of the people of the Fire. He would be angry with him. He does, however, love the one He knows will be one of the people of the Garden.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Actions are revealed by their final seals.’ That is why Sufi scholars say that faith is not what the slave is adorned with in word and deed, but faith is the preordainment of happiness before time. As for its outward appearance on individuals, that may be either empty of reality or actually true.

This is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and elsewhere by the hadith from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The way that each of you is created is that you are gathered in your mother’s womb for forty days as a sperm-drop and then for a similar length of time as a blood-clot and then for a similar length of time as a lump of flesh. Then an angel is sent and he breathes the spirit into you and is encharged with four commandments: to write down your provision, your life-span, your actions, and whether you will be wretched or happy. By Him, apart from Whom there is no god, one of you can do the actions of someone destined for the Garden until there is only an armspan between him and it, and then what is written will overtake him and he will do the actions of someone destined for the Fire and enter it. And one of you can do the actions of someone destined for the Fire until there is only an armspan between him and it, and then what is written will overtake him and he will do the actions of someone destined for the Garden and enter it.’

Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ghanī ibn Sa‘īd al-Misrī transmitted a hadith about the zindīqs from Muḥammad ibn Sa‘īd ash-Shāmī, who was crucified for being a zindīq, from Sulaymān ibn Mūsā al-Ashdaq from Mujājid ibn Jabr from Ibn ‘Abbās that Abū Razīn al-‘Uqaylī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told me, “Abū Razīn, you and I will drink from a milk whose taste is unaltered.” Then I asked, “How will Allah bring the dead to life?” He said, “Have you passed by a land which is barren and then you pass by it and it is lush, and then you pass by it again and it is barren and you pass by it again and it is lush?” I replied, “Yes.” He said, “That is how the Resurrection is.” I asked, “How will I know that I am a believer?” He said, “None of this Community (or My Community) does an action and knows that it is good and that Allah will reward it, or does an evil action and knows that it is bad and that Allah will either punish it or forgive it, without that showing that he is a believer.”’

Even if the isnād of this hadith is not strong, its meaning is sound. It does not contradict the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ūd. That depends on the seal as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Actions are defined by their final seals.’ This indicates that he is actually a believer, and Allah knows best.

Linguists say, ‘A hypocrite (munāfiq) is called a hypocrite when he displays outwardly something different from what he is concealing inside himself, like the jerboa whose hole is called a nāfiqā’. That is because it burrows into the earth leaving some fine soil near the surface. When it is alarmed, it covers the mouth of its hole with dirt and leaves, so the outside of its hole seems to be solid earth whereas the inside is really hollow. Thus the outside of the hypocrite has the appearance of faith while inwardly it is really disbelief.’

9 They think they deceive Allah and those who believe. They deceive no one but themselves but they are not aware of it.

They think they deceive Allah and those who believe.

Our scholars have said that their imagined deceit of Allah is in themselves and in their thinking. It is said that it is by their actions, which are those of a deceiver. It is said that there is something elided here and that what is really meant is deceit of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Al-Ḥasan and others said that. Allah has made their deceit of His Messenger equivalent to deceit of Himself because the Prophet ﷺ called them using Allah’s Words. The same applies to their deceit of the believers as a whole: in reality they are trying to deceive Allah. Their deceit lies in their display of faith which differs from the disbelief they conceal. This results in their lives and property being spared and makes them think that they are safe and have been successful in deceiving the believers. Some interpreters said that.

Linguists say that the root of the verb ‘khadā‘a’ (deceit) means corruption. So the meaning is that they corrupt their faith and actions, in respect of what is between them and Allah, by showing off. This is explained by the Prophet ﷺ. Its root is also said to signify concealment, from which comes mikhda‘, a cabinet in which something is kept in the house. One form of the word is used of a hyena concealing itself in its den.

They deceive no one but themselves

The words, ‘They deceive no one but themselves,’ mean that the result of what they do is that only they are deceived. There is a saying: ‘Whoever tries to deceive someone who is not deceived has deceived himself.’ This is true because deceit can only occur in respect of someone who does not know the inward reality. Any attempt to deceive someone who knows what is really going on is inevitably self-deceit. This is proof that the hypocrites do not recognise Allah since they do not know that He is not deceived. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not deceive Allah. If anyone deceives Allah, Allah deceives him and his self deceives him while he is not aware.’ They asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, how can Allah be deceived?’ He replied, ‘By your doing what Allah has commanded while seeking the pleasure of another by it.’ The full extent of this deception will be seen in the interpretation of Allah’s words: ‘Allah is mocking them.’ (2:15)

Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr and Abū ‘Amr read, yukhādi‘ūna for ‘deceive’ both times it occurs, whereas ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah, al-Kisā’ī and Ibn ‘Āmir read yakhda‘ūna, without the middle alif the second time.

but they are not aware of it.

This means that they do not understand that the evil of their deception will come back on them; they think that they will be saved and win by their deceit. That may seem to be the case in this world but in the Next World they will be told, ‘Go back and look for light.’ (57:13) Linguists say that ‘being aware of a thing’ is to comprehend it.

10 There is a sickness in their hearts and Allah has increased their sickness. They will have a painful punishment on account of their denial.

There is a sickness in their hearts

In the words ‘a sickness in their hearts’, sickness is a metaphor for the corruption caused by their lack of faith. That is either doubt and hypocrisy or denial and repudiation. The meaning is that their hearts are sick since they lack the protection, success and support which come from true faith. Ibn Fāris, the linguist, says that sickness is anything which removes a person from good health such as illness, hypocrisy, or shortcoming in something.

and Allah has increased their sickness

This is a supplication against them. The meaning of these words is that Allah has increased them in doubt and hypocrisy on top of their disbelief and lack of support and lack of power. So this āyah indicates the permission to pray against the hypocrites and expel them because they are the worst of Allah’s creatures. Indeed one possibility is that the words actually are a supplication against them with the meaning, ‘May Allah increase their sickness’. It is said that the phrase is simply information from Allah about their increased sickness, meaning sickness on top of their sickness. He says in another āyah: ‘It adds defilement to their defilement.’ (9:125)

Those with knowledge of the precise use of language say that the first ‘sickness in their hearts’ is because of their reliance on this world and their love for it and their neglect of the Next World and their turning away from it. Then Allah’s words ‘Allah has increased their sickness’ mean that He has thrown them back on themselves and loaded them with the cares of this world, so that they are unable to break through them and turn to concern for the Next World. Al-Junayd said, ‘Sickness of the heart comes from following the lower desires, and sickness of the limbs comes from the sickness of the body itself.’

on account of their denial.

This refers to their denial of the Messengers and rejection of Allah. It is their denial of His āyahs. ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite ‘yakdhibūna’ meaning ‘because of their lying’.

Scholars disagree about why the Prophet ﷺ left the hypocrites alone even though he knew that they were hypocrites. There are basically four positions.

Some scholars say that he did not kill them because he was the only one who knew their state. Without exception, scholars agree that a qāḍī may not issue a sentence of execution on the basis of personal knowledge. They disagree about lesser sentences.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘This is contradictory. Al-Mujadhdhir ibn Ziyād was killed by al-Ḥārith ibn Suwayd ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit because al-Mujadhdhir had killed his father, Suwayd, in the Battle of Bu‘āth. Al-Ḥārith became Muslim and was ignored during the Battle of Uḥud and he killed al-Mujadhdhir. Jibrīl informed the Prophet ﷺ and he had him killed because he had murdered him, and treacherous murder incurs one of the hudūd of Allah.’ This is negligence on the part of this imam because if this consensus is confirmed, it is not contradictory with what he mentioned because consensus was only established after the death of the Prophet ﷺ and the end of Revelation. That case was a specific one based on Revelation and so it is not used as a proof nor is it superseded by consensus. Allah knows best.

The people of ash-Shāfi‘i say that he did not kill the hypocrites because a zindīq, who is someone who conceals disbelief and shows faith, is asked to repent and is not killed. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘This is weak. The Prophet ﷺ did not ask them to repent and no one transmits that and no one says that it is obligatory to ask zindiqs (heretics) to repent. The Prophet ﷺ left them alone in spite of his knowledge of them.’

He did not kill them in order to bring hearts closer to him and so that people would not be alienated. The Prophet ﷺ indicated this when he said to ‘Umar, ‘I seek refuge with Allah from people saying that I kill my Companions.’ Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it. He used to give people things to bring their hearts closer although he knew about their weak belief. This is the position of our scholars and others. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is the approach of the people of Mālik when talking about the Messenger of Allah ﷺ refraining from the hypocrites, as stated by Muḥammad ibn al-Jahm, Qāḍī Ismā‘īl, al-Abharī and Ibn al-Mājishūn.

As for those who use the words of Allah Almighty: ‘If the hypocrites and those with sickness in their hearts do not desist’ to the words ‘mercilessly put to death’ (33:60-61) as justification for killing hypocrites, Qatādah said that this only applies when they make their hypocrisy public. Mālik said, ‘Hypocrisy in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is like heresy among us today. If there is firm evidence against him, a zindīq is killed without being asked to repent.’ This is one of the positions of ash-Shafi‘ī.

Mālik said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ refrained from killing hypocrites to make it clear to his Community that a ruler is not permitted to judge by personal knowledge when there is no other clear evidence against someone. Qāḍī Ismā‘īl said, ‘There was no witness against ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy, except for Zayd ibn Arqam alone, nor against al-Julās ibn Suwayd, except ‘Umayr ibn Sa‘d, his foster son. If two men had testified to the disbelief and hypocrisy of either of the two men, they would have been killed.’

Ash-Shāfi‘ī gave the evidence for the other position when he said, ‘The sunnah about someone against whom there is evidence of heresy and who then denies it and proclaims his faith and that he is free of every dīn except Islam is that it is forbidden to shed his blood.’ That is what was stated by the people of opinion (ra’y), Aḥmad, aṭ-Ṭabarī and others. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade killing hypocrites as long as they display Islam, even when it is known that they are hypocrites, because what they display outwardly must be accepted.’

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘Allah Almighty made the rulings between his slaves dependent on the outward and entrusted judgment about their secret beliefs to none of His creation. No one can judge against what is apparent because that would be judgment by supposition. If anyone had been entitled to do that, the most entitled would have been the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He judged the hypocrites to be Muslims because of what they displayed outwardly and left their secrets to Allah.’ Allah says that their outward appearance is false: ‘Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are certainly liars.’ (63:1)

There is debate about this distinction. The Prophet ﷺ used to know them – or many of them – by their names and persons by Allah’s informing him of who they were. Ḥudhayfah also knew who they were since the Prophet ﷺ told him so that ‘Umar used to ask him, ‘Ḥudhayfah, who are they?’ He refused to answer.

Allah preserved the Companions of his Prophet since he made them firm against the efforts of the hypocrites to corrupt them or corrupt their dīn and for this reason there was no harm in their remaining. That is not the case today because we are not safe from the heretics corrupting our common people and the ignorant among us.

11 When they are told, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We are only putting things right.’

Corruption is the opposite of rightness. Its reality is turning from rectitude to its opposite. The meaning in the āyah is: ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth through disbelief and friendliness with unbelievers and making people abandon their faith in Muḥammad ﷺ and the Qur’an.’ It is said that the earth, before the Prophet ﷺ was sent, was full of corruption and many acts of disobedience were done in it. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was sent, the corruption was eliminated and the earth put right. Then, when people again perpetrated acts of disobedience, they corrupted the earth after it had been put right, as Allah says in another āyah: ‘Do not corrupt the earth after it has been put right.’ (7:56)

The word for earth (arḍ) is feminine and is a generic term so that it means the earth in general. Everything under the sky is earth. The word arīḍ means wide. A common curse is, ‘May you have no land (arḍ)’. Arḍ also means the shakes and shaking. It also means catarrh. One derived word means a young palm-tree which is an off-shoot. Irāḍ is a large carpet of wool or hair. A man who is arīḍ is humble and disposed to do good.

they say, “We are only putting things right.”

‘Putting things right’ (ṣalāḥ) is the opposite of corruption. They say this because they are under the illusion that their corruption is putting things right. One aspect of it is what they do for unbelievers under the false impression that they are setting things right between them and the believers.

12 No indeed! They are the corrupters, but they are not aware of it.

No indeed! They are the corrupters,

These words are to refute their claims and to deny what they said. Those with knowledge of the precise use of language say that it shows that their claim is a lie. Do you not see that Allah says: ‘They are corrupters’? This is the truth.

but they are not aware of it

There are two opinions about this. One is that they do corruption secretly and display righteousness and are not aware that what they were doing was known by the Prophet ﷺ. The other aspect is that they consider their corruption to be righteousness and are not aware that it is corruption and that they have disobeyed Allah and His Messenger by not making the truth clear and then following it.

13 When they are told, “Believe in the way that the people believe,” they say, “What! Are we to believe in the way that fools believe?” No indeed! They are the fools but they do not know it.

When they are told,

‘They’ refers to the hypocrites, according to Muqātil and others.

“Believe in the way that the people believe,”

This means to affirm Muhammad ﷺ and his Sharī‘ah in the same way that that the Muhājirūn and the people of Yathrib who had become Muslim affirmed them.

They say, “What! Are we to believe in the way that fools believe?”

This was said by the hypocrites who used to say it when they mocked and made fun of Islam, referring to the Companions of Muḥammad ﷺ. Ibn ‘Abbās said that, and he also said that it was the believers of the People of the Book who were intended by their words. Allah acquainted His Prophet ﷺ and the believers with what they said.

No indeed! They are the fools,

Allah confirmed that they possess foolishness, lack of understanding and lack of insight, and they are the ones properly described by that. He reported that they are the fools but they do not realise that they are because of the rust covering their hearts.

Al-Kalbī related from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās that this āyah was revealed about the Jews so that when it was said to them, ‘Believe in the way that the people believe,’ i.e. ‘Abdullāh ibn Sallām and his companions, they said, ‘What! Are we to believe in the way that fools believe?’ meaning the ignorant and superstitious Arabs.

The root of safah (foolishness) is lightness and shallowness. It is used of woven cloth when it is flimsy and badly woven and suggests shabbiness. It is used for the wind which makes the branches of a tree move. It is used to disparage a person. Safah is the opposite of ḥilm (forbearance).

But they do not know it.

These words are like ‘They are not aware of it.’ Knowledge is recognising and knowing something for what it is.

14 When they meet those who believe, they say ‘We believe.’ But then when they go apart with their shayṭāns, they say, ‘We are really with you. We were only mocking.’

This āyah was revealed about the hypocrites.

When they go apart with their shayṭāns,

Commentators disagree about the meaning of shayṭāns here. Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī said that they are the leaders of the hypocrites. Al-Kalbī said that they are the shayṭāns of the jinn. A group of commentators said that they are the soothsayers. ‘Shaytāns’ means people distant from faith. The best course is to combine all of these meanings. Allah knows best.

they say, ‘We are really with you. We were only mocking.’

This is the proof against them because, with these words, they negate their claim to be believers. It is said that it means making fun of the believers. Haz’ is mockery and playing about.

15 But Allah is mocking them, and drawing them on, as they wander blindly in their excessive insolence.

But Allah is mocking them,

This means taking revenge on them and punishing them. He mocks them and repays them for their mocking. The punishment they receive has the same name as the wrong action they commit. This is the statement of the majority of scholars and is a common Arabic usage.

Al-Kalbī related from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās that this āyah refers to the hypocrites of the People of the Book. He mentioned them and their mocking and that when they withdraw to their shayṭāns, meaning their leaders in disbelief, they said, ‘We are with you in your religion. We were only mocking the Companions of Muḥammad.’ Allah will mock them in the Next World and open for them a door between Hell and the Garden and they will be told, ‘Come,’ and they will come swimming in the Fire while the believers are on beds in alcoves looking at them. When they reach the door, it will be shut against them and the believers will laugh at them. According to this understanding the words ‘Allah is mocking them’ refer to something which happens in the Next World. The believers will laugh at them when the doors are locked against them. That is confirmed by the words of the Almighty: ‘those who believe are laughing at the unbelievers, on couches, gazing in wonder’ (83:34-35) at the people of the Fire. ‘Have not the unbelievers been rewarded for what they did?’ (83:36)

Some people say that Allah’s mocking takes the form of drawing them on by degrees in allowing them to experience the blessings of this world. Allah Almighty shows them kindness in this world, contrary to the reality of their situation which is hidden from them, and veils them from the punishment of the Next World so that they think that He is pleased with them when, in fact, the Almighty has foreordained their punishment. A human being considers this to be mocking, deceit, and tricking.

The Prophet ﷺ indicated this interpretation by his words: ‘When you see Allah Almighty, giving a person what he wants when he continues to perform acts of disobedience, that is part of drawing on.’ Then he finished with this āyah: ‘When they forgot what they had been reminded of, We opened up for them the doors of everything, until, when they were exulting in what they had been given, We suddenly seized them and at once they were in despair. So the last remnant of the people who did wrong was cut off. Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.’ (6:44-45). Some scholars say that the meaning of the āyah, ‘We will lead them on from where they do not know’ (7:182), is that when they commit a sin, they receive a blessing.

and drawing them on,

This phrase means allowing them a long period of respite, as we find in Allah’s words: ‘We only allow them more time so that they will increase in evildoing.’ (3:178) The verbal root means increase. Yūnus ibn Ḥabīb said, ‘It is said that Allah gives to them when they commit evil in just the same way that He gives to them when they do good. Allah Almighty says: “We supplied you with property and sons.” (17:6) He says: “We will supply them with fruit and meat they desire.” (52:22)’ Al-Akhfash said, ‘It means to give.’ Al-Farrā’ and al-Lahyānī said, ‘It is to give more of the same. It is used giving support, as when you reinforce an army.’ Allah says: ‘with seven seas more.’ (31:27)

they wander blindly

Mujāhid said, ‘They go to and fro, confused in disbelief.’ The scholars of language use it for when someone is confused and vacillates. It is used for camels that do not know which way to go. ‘Amā signifies blindness of the eyes and ‘amah, as is used here, signifies blindness of the heart. We find in Revelation: ‘It is not eyes that are blind but hearts in breasts that are blind.’ (22:46)

in their excessive insolence.

Their disbelief and misguidance. The basic meaning of the words ‘excessive insolence’ comes from the idea of overflowing or going over the limits of something. We find the same root used in the words of the Almighty: ‘When the waters rose’ (69:11), meaning rose high and overflowed the banks of the reservoir. It is also used of Pharaoh when Allah says: ‘He overstepped’ (20:24), meaning that he was excessive in his claim when he said, ‘I am your Lord Most High.’ (79:24) The meaning in the āyah is to extend the length of their lives so that they increase in insolence and so that their punishment will in turn be increased.

16 Those are the people who have sold guidance for misguidance. Their trade has brought no profit; they are not guided.

Those are the people who have sold guidance for misguidance.

Selling here is a metaphor. It means that these people have preferred disbelief to belief, because the act of buying and selling only occurs when someone desires one thing rather than another. No real exchange is involved here, however, because the hypocrites are not really believers in the first place so in fact they have no faith to sell. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘They take misguidance and abandon guidance.’ It means that they choose disbelief over belief. The business metaphor is appropriate because buying and selling refer to replacing one thing with another and the Arabs used it in this way.

Misguidance (ḍalāl) is bewilderment. Forgetfulness is called misguidance because of the confusion it entails. It can mean being forgotten. Death is also sometimes called misguidance as in Allah’s Words: ‘They said, “When we have been absorbed (ḍalāl) into the earth.”’ (32:10)

Their trade has brought no profit.

Allah ascribed profit to trade since it is the custom of the Arabs to use terms related to commerce metaphorically in this context. It means that they have made no profit in the transaction they have made.

They are not guided.

There is misguidance in the transaction they have made. It is said that is in the prior knowledge of Allah. Guidance is the opposite of misguidance.

17 Their likeness is that of people who light a fire, and then when it has lit up all around it, Allah removes their light and leaves them in darkness, unable to see.

Some of this āyah is in the singular and some in the plural. Some people say that the word alladhī, which is usually singular, has a plural meaning here and means people who light, and this is borne out by the fact that the āyah begins and ends with the plural usage of ‘their’ and ‘them’. Others say that the singular is used because it only takes one person to actually light the fire among the group who undertake to do it. When the light is gone, the effect is the same for all of them and so Allah says: ‘their light’. The pronoun ‘their’ refers to the hypocrites and this depicts their state in the Next World, as Allah does in another place when He says: ‘A wall will be erected between them with a gate in it.’ (57:13) Someone who lights a fire in darkness can only see a short distance, just as the hypocrite remains lost in his confusion and vacillation.

The āyah is a metaphor which illustrates the true reality of the hypocrites. They make a show of faith taking advantage of the judgments of Islam in respect of marriage, inheritance, booty, and other such things and giving security to themselves, their children and their property. This is like someone who lights a fire on a dark night and it gives him just enough light to see what he needs to protect himself. But when it goes out he is no longer safe from harm and he becomes confused. That is how the hypocrites are when they imagine that they are deceiving the believers by uttering the Words of Islam. Then, after they die, they will go to the painful punishment since, ‘The hypocrites are in the lowest level of the Fire’ (41:45) and their light vanishes. They say, ‘Let us borrow some of your light.’ (57:13). It is said that the approach and words of the hypocrites to the Muslims are like fire and their turning from love of them and their reversal is like its extinguishing. Others things are said. The word for fire (nār) is derived from the word for light (nūr), as fire gives light. The plural of nūr is anwār and that of nār is nīrān. Ẓulumāt is the plural of ẓulmah (darkness).

18 Deaf, dumb, blind. They will not return.

It means that they are deaf. The reading of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd and Ḥafṣah has it in the accusative which can be for censure. The word for deafness in Arabic (ṣimām) comes from a word which means to be blocked, like a canal which is silted up or like a vial with a stopper in it. So a deaf person is someone whose hearing is blocked up. The word for dumb (bukm) used here refers to those who cannot speak or understand. If someone can understand, the word used is akhras. It is also said that they mean the same thing. The word ‘umy (blind) is used of those who have lost their sight. It is also said that someone is ‘blind’ when he is confused. What is meant here is not the actual senses themselves, rather what is intended is the negation of the ability to perceive the truth. Qatādah said of this that they are deaf to hearing the truth, dumb to speaking it and blind to seeing it. This meaning was used by the Prophet ﷺ in describing the ruler when the Final Hour is near in the hadith of Jibrīl. Allah knows best.

They will not return.

They will not return to the truth. Allah says this from the position of His prior knowledge of them.

19 Or that of a storm-cloud in the sky, full of darkness, thunder and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps, fearful of death. Allah encompasses the unbelievers.

Or that of a storm-cloud in the sky

Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that the ‘or’ here, in fact, means ‘and’, and it is also said that the ‘or’ is in order to give a choice between the two neighbours so as not to confine the description of the hypocrites to just one of them.

The word for sky, samā’, which means sky or heaven, is everything that is above you and covers you. So the roof of a house is sometimes called samā’. The word can also designate the rain because rain descends from the sky. Herbage is also sometimes called samā’ in Arabic because it covers the ground. Heaven is what is above and the earth is what is underneath.

full of darkness, thunder and lightning.

The word ẓumulāt (darkness) is in the plural, indicating both the darkness of night and the darkness of the clouds which are piled up.

Scholars disagree about what thunder is. At-Tirmidhī reports that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Jews asked the Prophet ﷺ what thunder was. He said, “One of the angels is entrusted with the clouds and wields a fiery sword with which he drives the clouds wherever he wishes.” They asked, “What is this sound we hear?’ He answered, “He hits the clouds when he pushes them until they go wherever Allah has commanded.” They said, “You have spoken the truth.”’ It is a long hadith. Many scholars accept this explanation. Thunder is the name of the sound heard. ‘Alī said that. It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that it is a wind caught between the clouds which causes that sound.

They also disagree about lightning. It is reported from ‘Alī, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās that lightning comes from the iron bar in the hand of an angel with which he drives the clouds. This is the literal meaning of the hadith of at-Tirmidhī. Ibn ‘Abbās also said that it is a whip of fire in the hand of an angel with which he drives the clouds.

Scientists say that thunder is the sound of the collision of the clouds and lightning is what is sparked by their collision. This is rejected and not transmitted and Allah knows best. It is said that the root of thunder (ra‘d) means movement. Hence ri‘dīd is used for a coward. One form of the word means to tremble. The root of the word for lightning, barq, means ‘glittering’ and ‘a bright light’. Associated with that is Burāq, the animal that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ rode in the Night Journey and which the Prophets before him rode. The sky trembles from thunder and flashes light with lightning

Ibn ‘Abbās reported, ‘We were with ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb on a journey between Madīnah and Syria with Ka‘b al-Aḥbār. There was a wind and then rain, strong wind and hail. The people separated. Ka‘b told me, “If someone hears the thunder and then says, ‘Glory be to the One ‘whom the thunder glorifies His praise and the angels from fear of Him’ (13:13), he is safe from what is in these clouds, hail and thunderclaps.” I said it as did Ka‘b. In the morning the people gathered and I said to ‘Umar, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, we were in a different situation to everyone else.” “And why is that?” he asked. I told him the hadith of Ka‘b. He said, “Glory be to Allah! Why didn’t you tell us so that we could say the same as you said!”’ Ibn ‘Umar reported about the Prophet ﷺ, ‘When he heard thunder and lightning, he said, “O Allah, do not kill us with Your anger or destroy us with Your punishment, and protect us from them.”’

They put their fingers in their ears

So that they will not hear the Qur’an and thereby believe in it and in Muḥammad ﷺ. That was disbelief for them and disbelief is death.

against the thunderclaps,

To protect them from the thunderclaps. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid and others said that, when the force of the thunder is very strong, there is an angel who wields the fire from within, which is the lightning. Al-Khalīl said, ‘It is the strong event arising from the sound of the thunder which is accompanied by flashes of fire which burn what they strike.’ Abū Zayd said, ‘The fire that falls from the sky is strong thunder.’ The word ‘thunderclaps’ is also used for the blast and ‘the Shout’ which is a punishment with which Allah strikes the unbelievers. Allah says: ‘The lightning-bolt of the humiliating punishment seized them.’ (41:17) The verb ṣu‘iqa means to faint as in 7:143. And Allah says: ‘those in the earth will lose consciousness’ which means that they will die.

In this āyah Allah likens the states of the hypocrites to the darkness, lightning and thunderclaps which are found in a cloudburst. Darkness resembles their disbelief, and thunder and lightning is like what they fear. Blindness is also darkness. It contains a threat and rebuke, which is the thunder, and radiant proofs, which can be dazzling like the lightning. The thunderclaps represent what the Qur’an contains of being summoned to fight and the threat of the punishment in the Hereafter. It is said that the ‘thunderclaps’ are the burdens of the Sharī‘ah which they hate, such as jihād, zakāt and other things.

Allah encompasses the unbelievers.

They cannot evade Him. This linguistic term is used when someone is hemmed in on all sides. Allah encompasses all creatures, meaning they are in His grasp and under His power. This means that He knows everything about them. It is said that it means He will destroy them and bring them all together. The unbelievers are singled out because they were mentioned earlier in the āyah, and Allah knows best.

20 The lightning all but takes away their sight. Whenever they have light, they walk in it but whenever darkness covers them, they halt. If Allah wished, He could take away their hearing and their sight. Allah has power over all things.

The lightning all but takes away their sight.

The word for ‘take away’ (khaṭafa) used here means taking extremely quickly or snatching. It is used of birds of prey because of their speed. If one takes the Qur’anic metaphor of lightning as indicating alarm, the expression means that their fear of what will happen to them almost takes away their sight. If one takes it as indicating the Qur’anic commands to the believers, it means that it is those which nearly blind them. ‘Yakhṭafu’ and ‘yakhṭifu’ are two dialectical forms that are recited. Abṣār (sight) is the plural of baṣar, the faculty of sight. If ‘lightning’ is metaphorical, then it means that their fear at what befalls them almost removes their sight.

Whenever they have light, they walk in it but whenever darkness covers them, they halt.

Al-Mubarrad says that what is implied is: ‘Whenever the lightning lights up the road for them.’ The meaning is that when they hear āyahs of the Qur’an which they understand and agree with, they accept them and act by them. But when some āyahs are revealed about which they are confused and which they do not understand or find burdensome, they ‘halt’, in other words they remain fixed in their hypocrisy, as Ibn ‘Abbās said. It is said that the meaning is that, when their crops and cattle were flourishing and they had continuous blessings, they said, ‘The dīn of Muḥammad is a blessed dīn.’ But when hardship befell them and difficulties afflicted them, they became angry and remained fixed in their hypocrisy, as Ibn Mas‘ūd and Qatādah said. The soundness of this is indicated by the words of the Almighty: ‘Among the people there is one who worships Allah right on the edge. If good befalls him, he is content with it, but if trial befalls him, he reverts to his former ways.’ (22:11)

Sufi scholars say that this is a metaphor which Allah made for someone whose initial state is made unsound by a self-seeking intention and who, because of that, lays claim to the states of the great. His initial state would have continued to give him illumination if it had remained sound by being accompanied by correct manners. But when he adulterates it with false claims, Allah removes its light from him and he remains in the darkness of his false claims, not seeing any way to emerge from them.

It is also related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the people meant here are the Jews since, when the Prophet ﷺ was victorious at Badr, they were greedy and said, ‘This, by Allah, is the Prophet of whom Mūsā gave good news. There is no banner which will resist him.’ When he suffered a reverse at Uḥud, they went back on that and were full of doubt. This is weak. The āyah is about the hypocrites, and this is sounder from Ibn ‘Abbās. The meaning can apply to all.

If Allah wished, He could take away their hearing and their sight.

This means that, if Allah had wished, he could have informed the believers about them and removed the protection and power of Islam from them by overwhelming them, killing them and expelling them from their homes. Hearing and sight are specifically mentioned since they were already mentioned in the āyah or because they are the noblest senses of the human body.

Allah has power over all things.

This is general. According to the mutakallimūn, it means that it is permitted to describe Allah with the attribute of power. The Community agree that Allah has the name al-Qadīr, the Powerful. He is described as Qadīr, Qādir and Muqtadir. Qadīr is more intensive than Qādir. Az-Zajjājī said that. Al-Harawī said that they mean the same. Allah has power over every possibility whether it is brought into existence or remains non-existent. All responsible people are obliged to know that Allah possesses the power to act as He wills and He does whatever He wishes according to His knowledge and choice. They must also know that human beings possess a certain limited power through which they obtain what Allah has decreed for them by the use of normal means, but this power is not self-generated.

Allah singled out the attribute of power in this instance because He already mentioned the action which results from the threat and intimidation contained in the āyahs, and so power is fitting here. Allah knows best.

The āyahs up to this point form an introductory section to the Book of Allah. The first four describe the believers, the next two describe the unbelievers and the rest are about the hypocrites. This transmission was already mentioned from Ibn Jurayj. Mujāhid said that.

21 Mankind! worship your Lord, Who created you and those before you, so that hopefully you will be godfearing.

Mankind!

‘Alqamah and Mujāhid said that every āyah which begins with ‘Mankind!’ was revealed in Makkah and every one which begins with ‘You who believe!’ was revealed in Madīnah. That is refuted by the fact that this sūrah and Sūrat an-Nisā’ are definitely Madinan and both contain āyahs beginning ‘Mankind!’. But what they said about ‘You who believe’ is true. ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr said, ‘All ḥudūd and legal obligations were revealed in Madīnah and what is mentioned about Divine punishment was revealed in Makkah.’ This is clear.

There is disagreement about who is meant by ‘mankind’. There are two positions. One is that it refers to the unbelievers who do not worship Allah, which is indicated by His words: ‘If you have doubts...’ (2:23) The second is that it is all people, in which case the believers are being told to remain constant in their worship and the unbelievers to begin it.

worship your Lord,

The word ‘worship’ here designates affirming Allah’s unity and holding to laws of His dīn. The root of ‘ibādah (worship) means humility and abasement. The word mu‘abbadah is used for a path made by people’s feet. ‘Ibādah also means obedience, devotion and religious practices.

Who created you

Allah mentions His quality as Creator since the Arabs acknowledged that Allah created them. He mentioned that as an argument against them and to rebuke them. It is said that by that He reminded them of His blessings to them. There are two aspects to the basic meaning of creation. The first is determination and the second is origination and genesis.

and those before you,

If it is said that if they admit that He created them, they must also admit that He created others, the answer is that the words are notification and reminding so that it will be more extensive in warning. He reminds them about those before them so that they will know that the One who made those before them die, having created them, will also make them die. They should reflect on the circumstances of those before them and how they died. They know that they will be tested as those others were tested. Allah knows best.

and hopefully you will be godfearing.

This is clearly connected to ‘worship your Lord,’ not to ‘created you’ because if Allah created someone for Hell, He obviously did not create him to be godfearing.

There are three interpretations of the term la‘alla (hopefully). The first is its usual meaning of hope and anticipation. Such qualities are within the scope of human beings. It is as if He were saying: ‘Do that with the hope and desire that you will be godfearing.’ This is the position of Sībuwayh and leading grammarians. The second is that Arabs often use the term to mean ‘in order to’ and so that it would mean ‘in order for you to be godfearing’. Aṭ-Ṭabarī says this. The third is that it means to bring a thing within reach. It is as if He were saying, ‘Do that because by accepting Allah’s command you will have protection from the Fire.’

22 It is He who made the earth a couch for you and the sky a dome. He sends down water from the sky and by it brings forth fruits for your provision. Do not, then, knowingly make others equal to Allah.

It is He who made the earth a couch for you

The word ‘made’ (ja‘ala) can mean create as in the āyah: ‘He who created/appointed (ja‘ala) the darkness and the light’ (6:1) and can also mean ‘designate’ as in: ‘We have made (ja‘alnā) it an Arabic Qur’an’ (43:3) and ‘They have assigned (ja‘alū) to Him a portion’ (43:15).

A ‘couch’ is something on which people lie and rest. So the description cannot apply to mountains, wild areas and seas, because one of the characteristics of a couch is that it is something on which one reclines. The mountains, however, are described pegs, as we find in: ‘Have We not made the earth a flat carpet and the mountains its pegs?’ (78:6-7) and other places, and the seas as something on which one travels to gain benefit as in: ‘the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit’ (2:164) and elsewhere.

and the sky a dome.

The sky is to the earth like a roof is to a house Allah says elsewhere: ‘We made the sky (samā’) a preserved and protected roof.’ (21:32). Samā’ is used for everything which is high and gives shade, as was mentioned earlier.

He sends down water from the sky and by it brings forth fruits for your provision.

The root of mā’ (water) is mawh and the wāw has been changed to an alif by its vowelling. The words ‘and by it brings forth fruits for your provision’ mean that Allah produces various kinds of fruits and plants for us. ‘Provision’ means food for us and fodder for our animals. This is clear from His words: ‘We pour down plentiful water. Then split the earth into furrows. Then We make grain grow in it, and grapes and herbs, and olives and dates, and luxuriant gardens, and orchards and meadows, for you and your livestock to enjoy.’ (80:25-32) We have already discussed the meaning of provision. If it is asked how provision can be used for fruits before they are owned by any owner, the reply is that they are ready to be owned and sound for use and so they constitute provision.

This āyah indicates that Allah spares the human being from being dependent on any other creature. The Prophet ﷺ indicated this when he said, ‘It is better for one of you to take a rope and carry firewood on his back than for him to go to a man and beg from him who then may give to him or refuse to do so.’ Muslim transmitted it. All forms of work are meant by this. Anyone who makes himself dependent on another human being like himself out of laziness, hope and desire for the things of this world has taken the path of someone who makes another equal to Allah.

A Sufi scholar said, ‘In this āyah Allah speaks about the path of poverty, which is that you make the earth your bed, the sky your cover, water your perfume and grass your food, and do not worship anyone in this world of creatures for the sake of this world. Allah Almighty has given you what you need without owing anything to anyone.’ Nawf al-Bikālī said, ‘I once saw ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib go out and look at the stars. He asked, “Nawf, are you asleep or awake?” I replied, “Awake, Amīr al-Mu’minīn.” He said, “Blessed are those who make do with little of this world and desire the Next World. Those are the people who take the ground as a bed, its soil as a mattress, its water as a perfume, and the Qur’an and supplication as a blanket. They reject this world, taking the path of the Messiah.”’

Do not then, knowingly, make others equal to Allah.

This means His likes and peers. A poet said:

We praise Allah Who has no equal.

All good is with Him and He does whatever He wills.

Ibn ‘Abbās said that the word ‘knowingly’ is addressed to the unbelievers and hypocrites. It might be asked, ‘How can they be described as knowing when Allah has already described them with the attributes of sealing, deafness and blindness?’ The answer has two facets. One is that ‘knowingly’ means the specific knowledge that Allah Almighty created creatures sent down the rain and made provision grow. So they know that He is their Blesser without any equal. The second is that the meaning is that you, in fact, have the strength and ability to know His concern if you were only to reflect and consider. Allah knows best.

This āyah contains evidence for the command to use the evidence of the intellect and invalidates blind imitation. Ibn Fūrak said, ‘It is possible to apply this āyah to the believers in which case it means, ‘O believer, do not apostatise and make others equal to Allah when you know that Allah is One.’

23 If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our slave, produce another sūrah equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth.

If you have doubts about what We have sent down

This refers to the Qur’an and is addressed to the idolaters who are being challenged by Allah. When they heard the Qur’an, they said, ‘This does not seem to us like the words of Allah. We have doubts about it.’ So the āyah was revealed. It is connected to the previous āyah since in that Allah has mentioned evidence of His power and now gives evidence for the Prophethood of His Prophet, showing that what he brings is not a forgery.

our slave

‘Our slave’ (‘abd) is Muḥammad ﷺ. ‘Abd is derived from ta‘abbud, meaning abasement. A slave is so-called because he is submissive. Some people said that ‘ibādah is the noblest of qualities and that being called ‘‘abd’ is the noblest of designations, and so Allah calls His Prophet a slave.

produce another sūrah equal to it,

Ibn Kaysān said that this is a command which, in fact, means that they lack the power to do so, because Allah knew that they would be unable to do it. In the words ‘equal to it’ the ‘it’ refers to the Qur’an according to the majority, while some say that it refers to the Torah and Gospel. Some say that ‘it’ should be read ‘him’ and refers to the Prophet ﷺ, meaning “produce a mortal like him, unable to read or write, who is able to produce such words.”

and call your witnesses, besides Allah,

This means your helpers and supporters. Al-Farrā’ says it means ‘your gods’. Ibn Kaysān said, ‘lf someone asks why witnesses are mentioned here when witnesses testify to a matter, or inform about the matter to which they have witnessed, yet here they are told “to produce a sūrah”, the answer is that they are ordered to seek the help of their scholars and summon them to witness what they bring. So the āyah will refute all of them and be a stronger proof.’ Mujāhid said that it means, ‘summon people to be your witnesses,’ in other words to testify that you are against it.

if you are telling the truth.

This is regarding what you say about being able to match it, since they said elsewhere, ‘If we wanted we could say the same thing.’ (8:31) Truthfulness is the opposite of lying. The root meaning of ṣidq (truthfulness) is the firmness of a spear. Ṣiddīq is someone who is devoted to truthfulness. Ṣadāqah (friendship) is derived from the same root and indicates truthfulness in counsel and love.

24 If you do not do that – and you will not do it – then fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, made ready for the unbelievers.

If you do not do that – and you will not do it –

You will not be able to produce another sūrah equal to it. Some commentators say that the āyah is about not being able to call witnesses. This is one of the unseen things about which the Qur’an reported before it could happen. Ibn Kaysān said that they were not telling the truth when they said that it was lies, forged, magic, poetry or myths of earlier peoples, as we find elsewhere in the Qur’an. They claimed to have knowledge but could not produce anything like it

then fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones,

Fear and safeguard yourself against the Fire by believing the Prophet ﷺ and obeying Allah. The word waqūd (fuel) refers to firewood and wuqūd is burning. The word ‘people’ is usually general, but its meaning here is particular to those who have been decreed to be the fuel of the Fire. May Allah protect us from it! The ‘stones’ in this āyah are said by Ibn Mas‘ūd and al-Farrā’ to be black sulphur. It is singled out because it has five qualities of punishment which other minerals do not: speed of burning, foul smell, much smoke, clinging strongly to bodies, and great intensity of heat when it is burned. It is also said that ‘stones’ means idols since Allah says elsewhere: ‘You and what you worship besides Allah are fuel for Hell.’ (21:98)

This āyah does not mean that only people and stones are in the Fire. There are indications elsewhere that the jinn and shayṭāns will be in it as well. It is a warning that the Fire is so hot that it burns stones as well as burning people. According to one interpretation, the stones are part of the punishment and the people of the Fire are punished with fire and stones.

A ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ says: ‘Every harmful thing will be in the Fire.’ This has two interpretations. One is that everyone who harms others in this world will be punished by Allah in the Next World with the Fire. The second is that everything which harms people in this world – wild animals, vermin and other things – will be in the Fire to punish the people of the Fire. Some interpreters believe that this fire with stones is particular to the Fire of the unbelievers. Allah knows best.

Muslim related from ‘Abbās, ‘I said, “Messenger of Allah, Abū Ṭālib used to protect you and support you. Will that benefit him?” He replied, “Yes. I found him in the midst of the Fire and I brought him to a shallow part. If it were not for me, he would have been in the lowest level of the Fire.”’

made ready for the unbelievers.

The literal meaning of this phrase would seem to imply that only the unbelievers will enter the Fire but that is not the case, as is mentioned in the threat to wrongdoers and in the firm hadiths about intercession.

It also contains an indication of what the people who hold the true position say about the Fire being already created and in existence, which differs from innovators who state that it has not yet been created. Muslim reported that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘We were with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he heard something fall. He said, “Do you know what that was?” We said, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “It was a stone which was thrown into the Fire seventy years ago, and it has been falling through the Fire right up until now when it hit the bottom.”’

Al-Bukhārī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The Garden and the Fire argued and the Fire said, “I have the tyrants and the arrogant.” The Garden said, “I have the weak and poor people.” Allah Almighty said to the Fire, “You are My punishment by which I punish whomever I will,” and He said to the Garden, “You are My mercy by which I show mercy to whomever I will. Each of you will have its fill.”’ Muslim also transmitted that idea. The Prophet ﷺ saw them both during the Eclipse prayer and in his Night Journey and entered the Garden, and this is irrefutable. Success is by Allah.

25 Give the good news to those who believe and do right actions that they will have Gardens with rivers flowing under them. When they are given fruit there as provision, they will say, ‘This is what we were given before,’ But they were only given a simulation of it. They will have there spouses of perfect purity and will remain there timelessly, for ever.

Give the good news to those who believe

Whenever Allah mentions the repayment of the unbelievers, He also mentions the repayment of the believers. Good news (bushrā) means a report about something which produces an effect which is seen on the outer skin (basharah). It is usually used for joy connected to the news of some good occurrence but can also be used for news of a sorrowful or evil type. Allah says, using the same word: ‘Give him the news of a painful punishment.’ (45:8)

and do right actions

This refutes those who say that faith alone is sufficient to gain Divine reward, because if that had been the case, Allah would not have added right actions. The Garden is obtained by faith and right actions. It is also said that the Garden is obtained by faith and the different degrees in it by right actions. Allah knows best.

that they will have Gardens.

The ‘Gardens’ are given that name because they shade those in them with their trees.

with rivers flowing under them.

It is related that the rivers of the Garden are not in channels, but flow on the surface, held in place by Divine power, flowing wherever its inhabitants wish. They flow under those trees.

When they are given fruit there as provision, they will say, ‘This is what we were given before.’

‘Before’ means in this world. There are two aspects to this. One is that their words mean, ‘This is what we were promised in the world below,’ and the second is that they actually mean, ‘This is what we were given in the world below’ because the colour of the fruits they receive there resembles the colour of the fruits of this world. But when they eat it, they find the taste different. It is said that ‘before’ refers to earlier during their time in the Garden because they were given provision there and then later are given more provision. They are given food and fruit at the beginning of the day and eat it and then, when they are given it at the end of the day, they say this, but then they find that the taste is different.

But they were only given a simulation of it.

This means that it is similar in appearance but differs in taste. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan and others said that. ‘Ikrimah said that it resembles the fruit of this world but differs from it in almost every way. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This is an expression of wonderment. There is nothing of this world which is in the Garden except the names of things. So it is as if they wonder when they see the excellence of the fruit and its great size.’ Qatādah said that all of it is the best and there is nothing inferior in it, unlike fruits in this world.

They will have there spouses of perfect purity

‘Spouse’ in Arabic can refer to husband or wife. ‘Purity’ means that they are free of menstruation, phlegm and all human impurities. Mujāhid said that they do not urinate, defecate, give birth, menstruate, ejaculate or expectorate.

and will remain there timelessly, for ever.

Remaining timelessly, forever (khulūd) means staying for time without end, from which comes ‘the Garden of Eternity’. It is used metaphorically for something which is of extremely long duration.

26 Allah is not ashamed to make an example of a gnat or of an even smaller thing. As for those who believe, they know it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, ‘What does Allah mean by this example?’ He misguides many by it and guides many by it. But He only misguides the deviators.

Allah is not ashamed to make an example of a gnat

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When Allah Almighty made the two earlier metaphors for the hypocrites (2:17 and 2:19), people said. “Allah is too high and exalted to make metaphors.” Therefore Allah revealed this āyah.’

In the transmission of ‘Aṭā’ from Ibn ‘Abbās we find: ‘When Allah mentioned the gods of the idolaters, and said: “If a fly steals something from them, they cannot get it back,” (22:73), and He mentioned the stratagems of their gods and compared them to a spider’s web (cf. 29:41), they said, “Do you see that Allah mentions flies and spiders in the Qur’an He revealed to Muḥammad? How can He possibly do that?” So Allah revealed this.’ Al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said that when Allah mentioned flies and the spider in the Book, the Jews laughed and said, ‘This has got nothing to do with Divine Revelation,’ and so Allah revealed this āyah.

Commentators disagree on the meaning of the word ‘yastaḥyī’ (ashamed) in this āyah. It is said that it means, ‘does not fear,’ which aṭ-Ṭabarī prefers. Others say that it means, ‘does not fail to’ or ‘does not refuse to’. The root means to withdraw from doing a thing and refuse to do it out of fear of the occurrence of something ugly. This is impossible for Allah. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Umm Salamah mentioned that Umm Sulaym came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, Allah is not ashamed of the truth,’ meaning that He commanded people not to be to embarrassed to ask about it.

or of an even smaller thing.

‘Wa mā fawqahā’ (lit. ‘what is above it’) means linguistically – and Allah knows best – what is smaller than it. Qatādah and Ibn Jurayj, however, said that it means what is larger.

they know it is the truth from their Lord.

The pronoun ‘it’ refers to the example, meaning that the example is the truth and the truth is the opposite of the false.

they say, ‘What does Allah mean by this example?’

This is not really a question; they are just denying it.

He misguides many by it and guides many by it.

It is said that these are the words of the unbelievers, who say, ‘What does Allah means by this example by which people are divided between guidance and misguidance?’ It is also said that it is a reply from Allah Almighty and this interpretation is more likely because they affirm that guidance is from Him. In this case it is: ‘Say: “He misguides many by it and guides many by it,”’ meaning He gives success to some and disappoints others. This is a refutation of the position of the Mu‘tazilites and others who say that Allah did not create misguidance or guidance. They said that the meaning of ‘misguides many’ is only descriptive, in other words He describes such a person as being misguided because in reality Allah Himself does not misguide anyone. This understanding is in fact an example of their misguidance, differs from the statements of the commentators and is linguistically improbable.

But He only misguides the deviators.

He does not misguide anyone except the deviators whom He already knew He would not guide. Nawf al-Bikālī says, ‘‘Uzayr said, when speaking to his Lord, “My God, You create creatures and then misguide whomever You wish and guide whomever You wish?” A voice said, “‘Uzayr, turn from this! You should turn from this or I will remove your Prophethood from you. I will not be asked about what I do but they will be asked.”’

The basic meaning of ‘ḍalāl’ (misguidance) is disintegration. It is used when milk is dispersed in water and Allah says, using that meaning of the word: ‘When we have been absorbed into the earth.’ (32:10). The root of ‘fisq’ (deviation) is to come out from something and it is used, for instance, to describe a date-stone coming out of its skin and a mouse leaving its hole. In a hadith we find, ‘Five animals are all deviant (fawāsiq) and can be killed in the Ḥaram and out of it: snakes, crows, mice, rabid dogs and kites.’ ‘Ā’ishah related it in Muslim. One variant has scorpions instead of snakes. The Prophet ﷺ used the word fisq for them because of the harm they do. When a man is fāsiq he is impious. In the usage in the Sharī‘ah, someone who is fāsiq has ceased to obey Allah. It is used both for those who do so in disbelief and those who do so in disobeying Allah.

27 Those who break Allah’s contract after it has been agreed, and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption on the earth, it is they who are the lost.

Those who break Allah’s contract

‘Those’ refers back to the ‘deviators’ in the previous āyah. The word used here for ‘break’ (naqada) means to nullify what has been concluded of a marriage contract, treaty or other agreement. Naqada means unravelled when applied to a rope and munāqadah, when used in respect of words, means that they contradict one another.

People disagree about the nature of the ‘contract’ alluded to here. It is said that it is the one which Allah made with all the descendants of Ādam when He brought them forth from his loins. (cf. 7:172) It is said that it is Allah’s directive to His creatures, commanding them to obey His commands and forbidding them to disobey Him. This is found in His Books, revealed on the tongues of all His Messengers. ‘Breaking it’ is to abandon acting by it. It is said that the clear evidence of His Oneness in the heavens and the earth constitutes the contract and breaking it is not grasping it. It is also said that it is Allah’s contract with those given the previous Books to make the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ clear and not to conceal it. In this case, the āyah is about the People of the Book. Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj said, ‘The contract is the one He made with the Prophets and those who follow them not to reject the Prophet ﷺ.’ The evidence for that is found in: ‘When Allah made a covenant with the Prophets … undertake my commission that condition?’ (3:81) The most likely position is that the āyah refers to the unbelievers.

after it has been agreed,

The word for ‘agreed’ (mithāq) used here is employed when a contract has been confirmed by oath. It implies firmness in the strength of the contract.

and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined,

Scholars disagree about what Allah has commanded to be joined. It is said that it means to maintain the ties of kinship. It is said that He commanded that words must be joined to action and their severing is by speaking without acting. It is said that the ‘joining’ refers to Allah’s command to affirm all His Prophets but they severed this by affirming some of them and denying others. It is said that it refers to the dīn of Allah and His worship on earth, establishing His laws and observing the limits He has imposed. It is general, in that case, to everything that Allah Almighty commanded be joined. This is the statement of the majority. Kinship is, of course, a part of that.

and cause corruption on the earth

This refers to the fact that they worship other than Allah Almighty and commit injustice in what they do in order to fulfill their lower appetites. This is extreme corruption.

it is they who are the lost.

They have lost their fortunes and their honour. This is misguidance and destruction. One who is lost will find he has lost himself and his family on the Day of Rising and will be denied a place in the Garden.

This āyah directs people to be trustworthy in their contracts and to hold to that. It is not permitted to break any permissible contract to which you commit yourself, whether it is with a Muslim or anyone else, since Allah Almighty censured those who break their contracts. He says: ‘Fulfil your contracts’ (5:1), and He said to His Prophet ﷺ: ‘If you fear treachery on the part of a people, then revoke your treaty with them mutually.’ (8:58). He forbade treachery and that is nothing other than the breaking of a contract, as will be made clear in its proper place.

28 How can you reject Allah, when you were dead and then He gave you life, then He will make you die and then give you life again, then you will be returned to Him?

How can you reject Allah

This question conveys amazement. It is extraordinary how anyone can disbelieve when the proof has been established. If it is asked how this can be addressed to the People of the Book when they have belief, the answer is that, although they have not rejected Allah, they did not affirm the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ and accept what he brought. So then they associated something else with Allah because they did not acknowledge that the Qur’an was from Him. Anyone who asserts that the Qur’an is the words of a mortal has associated something else with Allah and therefore broken his contract. It is said that the rebuke means: ‘How can you be ungrateful for His blessings to you and reject His power to do this?’ Al-Wāsiṭī said that this is used to rebuke them because dead things and inanimate things cannot contend with their Maker in any way at all. Dispute only issues from bodies which possess a rūḥ.

and then give you life again,

There is disagreement among the people of interpretation on the order of these two deaths and lives and how many deaths and lives a human being has. Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd said that it means that you were dead and non-existent before you were created and then He gave you life by creating you. Then He will make you die when your term comes to an end. Then He will bring you to life on the Day of Rising. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is what is meant by the āyah. It is a position which the unbelievers must hold since they acknowledge their life and previous non-existence. When the selves of the unbelievers concede that they were dead and non-existent and are now alive in this world, the fact that they will be made to die should make them more open to the possibility of another revivification. Yet they still deny that it has any valid relevance to them.’

Someone else said, ‘According to this interpretation, the life in the grave has the same judgment as the life of this world.’ It is also said that it means that you were dead in the loins of Ādam and then Allah brought you out from him like atoms and then He made you die the death of this world and then He will resurrect you.

Another interpretation is that it means that you were dead as sperm in the loins of a man and the womb of a woman and then He took you out of the womb and gave you life. Then He will make you die after that in this life and give you life in the grave for the questioning. Then He will make you die in the grave and then give you the life of the resurrection for the Gathering, which is the life after which there is no more death. According to this interpretation, there are three deaths and three lives. If they were dead in Ādam’s loins and He brought them out from his back and made them testify before they were sperm in the loins of men and wombs of women, then there are four deaths and four lives.

It is even said that Allah Almighty brought them into existence before He created Ādam, in a dust-like form, and then made them die. According to this, there are five deaths and five lives. There is a sixth death for the rebels of the Community of Muhammad ﷺ when they enter the Fire, based on the hadith of Abū Sa‘id al-Khudrī in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stated, ‘As for the true people of the Fire, who are its eternal inhabitants, they do not die in it nor live. The Fire, however, will smite some people for their wrong actions and Allah will make them die until they are coals. Then He will grant intercession on their behalf and they will be brought out group by group. They will be scattered by the rivers of the Garden and it will be said to the people of the Garden, “Pour water on them.” And they will grow like seeds which are carried by a flood.’ A man of the people remarked, ‘It seems as if the Messenger of Allah ﷺ must have grazed sheep in the desert!’ Muslim transmitted it.

Then He will make you die

These words indicate a real death because they are stressed by the use of the verbal noun. That is to honour them. It is said that it is permitted for the words ‘make you die’ to be a metaphor about their being absent from its pains by sleep and not a real death. The first is sounder. Grammarians agree that, when a verb is intensified by a verbal noun, it is not a metaphor, but indicates a reality, as when Allah says: ‘Allah spoke directly to Mūsā.’ (4:164). It is said that the meaning of ‘you were dead’ means you were obscure and then He brought you to life by making you mentioned and honoured by this dīn and the Prophet who came to you. Then He will make you die and your fame will die and then He will bring you to life for the resurrection.

Then you will be returned to Him.

You will be returned to His punishment on account of your disbelief. It is said it is to return to life and to the questioning as the Almighty says: ‘As We originated the first creation, so We will regenerate it.’ (21:104). So their return is like their beginning. Most recite ‘turja‘ūna’ while Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar, Ibn Abī Isḥāq, Mujāhid, Ibn Muḥayṣin and Salām ibn Ya‘qūb recite ‘tarji‘ūna’.

29 It is He who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things.

It is He who created everything on the earth for you

‘Created’ means originated and brought into existence after non-existence. All of this was created for our sake. The word ‘everything’ means that all of the earth’s blessings are for us. It is said that this fact indicates the Divine Unity and demands reflection on our part.

Those who say that the basic position, in respect of things which are useful, is that they are all permissible use this āyah and those like it as evidence. Another example is: ‘He has made everything in the heavens and everything on the earth subservient to you.’ (45:13) This applies until there is specific evidence that something is forbidden. The holders of this view support this by saying that tasty foods were created while it was possible that they would not be created. They were not created to no purpose and so they must have a use. That cannot be for Allah because He has no need of anything and so they must be for our benefit. That benefit consists either in our enjoying them, or in our avoiding them because they are a test for us, or in our reflecting on them. Those things can only come about through our tasting them and therefore they must be permissible.

This is unsound reasoning because we cannot accept as true the proposition that something, which is not created to give benefit, is of no purpose. Allah created things as they are and the principle of bringing benefit is not compulsory for Him. He is the only One Who can make things compulsory. So we cannot require the imposition of some benefit as such people claim, nor can we state that some of those benefits can only be obtained by means of taste. Other matters can also be deduced from foods, as is done by biologists. Another objection to their position is found in the case of substances which are feared to be lethal poisons. So those who espouse this position are countered by those people who forbid certain things. Others do not come down on either side, saying that there is no action about which we know either good or bad but that it is possible for it to be good in itself without that being specified before the Sharī‘ah came and therefore its ruling had to wait for the arrival of the Sharī‘ah. These are three statements made by the Mu‘tazilites.

Abu-l-Ḥasan [al-Ash‘arī] and his adherents, most Mālikīs and aṣ-Ṣayarifī say that one suspends judgment about this question. That means that there is no judgment about the thing in that case and that the Sharī‘ah will judge whatever it wishes when it comes. The intellect cannot judge something to be obligatory or not. Its portion in the matter is simply to recognise matters for what they are.

The sound meaning of ‘created everything on the earth for you’ is that it means that it is food for reflection. That is indicated by the lessons which precede and follow it: giving life, making die, creation, direction to the heaven and arranging it. The One who does such things does not lack the power to bring you back to life again.

It is said that the meaning of ‘for you’ is ‘all for your use’. What is meant by it is ‘for you to reflect upon’ because of what we mentioned. If one were to ask what the benefit of reflecting on scorpions and snakes is, we reply that by means of harmful things a person is reminded of the punishments which Allah has prepared for the believers in the Fire, and that induces him to believe and abandon disobedience. This is the greatest consideration. Ibn ‘Arabī said, ‘There is nothing in this phrase which involves prohibition, permission or suspension of judgment. This āyah is evidence and clarification of Allah’s Oneness.’

Those with a firm grasp of meanings say about ‘It is He Who created everything on the earth for you’ that it implies that people should use these things to strengthen their obedience to Allah and not use them in ways that involve disobedience. Abū ‘Uthmān said, ‘He gave it all to you and subjected it to you as proof of the vastness of His generosity and so that you would have confidence in the generous gifts He has guaranteed to you in the Hereafter. But do not allow His great kindness to lead you to be content with few actions simply because He showed you immense blessings before any action on your part. That is tawhīd.’

‘Umar said that a man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and asked him to give to him. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘I do not have anything, but buy in my name and when something comes to me, we will pay it.’ ‘Umar said to him, ‘You give something when you have something to give! Allah has not obliged you to do what you are unable to do.’ The Prophet ﷺ disliked what ‘Umar said. Then a man of the Anṣār said, ‘Messenger of Allah! Spend and do not fear diminution from the Master of the Throne!’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ smiled and joy could be seen in his face at the words of the Anṣārī. Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘That is what I am commanded to do.’

Our scholars say that fear of diminution is having a bad opinion of Allah because Allah Almighty created the earth and what is in it for the sons of Ādam, quoting the phrase, ‘He created everything on the earth for you.’ All these things are subjected to the human being absolutely as evidence against him so that he will be Allah’s slave as he was created to be. When the slave has a good opinion of Allah, he does not fear diminution because he knows that Allah will replace it. ‘Anything you expend will be replaced by Him. He is the Best of Providers,’ (34:39) and: ‘My Lord is Rich Beyond Need, Generous.’ (27:40) The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty said, “My mercy precedes My anger. Son of Ādam, spend and I will spend on you.” The right hand of Allah is full and pouring forth, not decreased by any of the night or day.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ also said, ‘There is no day which dawns on the slaves of Allah without two angels descending and one of them saying, “O Allah, refund those who give money” and the other saying, “O Allah, ruin those who withhold it.” The same happens in the evening.’ This is all sound and related by the Imams, praise be to Allah.

If someone has an illuminated breast and knows that his Lord is wealthy and generous, he spends and does not fear diminution. That is how it is with someone whose appetites are dead to this world and is content with a little nourishment to keep him alive and whose desires for himself are cut off. This person gives in both wealth and constriction and does not fear diminution. The person who relies on himself fears diminution. When he gives today and has a desire for something tomorrow, he fears that he will not get it tomorrow and the business of the expenses of the day worry him because of fear of diminution.

Muslim reported that Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told me, “Spend (or give out or expend) and do not hold back, or Allah will hold back from you. Do not refuse to spend your surplus or Allah will deny you His.”’ An-Nasā’ī reported that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘Once a beggar came to me while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was with me and I gave instructions for something to be given to him and then summoned him and looked at him. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Do you want nothing to enter or leave your house except with your knowledge.” “Yes,” I replied. He said, “Do not worry, ‘Ā’ishah. Do not hold back, or Allah will hold back from you.”’

and then directed His attention up to heaven

In His words ‘then directed’, the word ‘then’ is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matters referred to. Linguistically the word ‘directed’ (istawā’) means to ascend to and be on top of something, as in: ‘When you and those with you settled in the ship.’ (23:28). It is used for the sky over your head and the birds over your head.

This āyah is one of those which are considered problematic. Regarding it and others of a similar nature people take three views. One of them is that we should read it and believe in it and not try to explain it, which is the position of most of the Imams. An example of this attitude is what is related from Mālik when a man asked him about the words of Allah: ‘The All-Merciful was established firmly on the throne.’ (20:5) Mālik said, ‘The meaning of istawā (established firmly) is not unknown but the how of it is not intelligible; belief in it is mandatory; and asking about it is an innovation. I think you are an evil man!’ Others say that we should read it and understand it literally. This is the position of the anthropomorphists. Yet others say that we should read it and interpret it metaphorically and cannot take it literally.

Al-Farrā’ said about this āyah, ‘Istawā in Arabic has two usual meanings. One refers to people reaching full maturity. The second is being free from crookedness. A third possibility is someone directing himself to something. This is its meaning in this āyah and Allah knows best.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that istawā here means to ascend. All these things are possible in Arabic. Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī said that it is sound for istawā to mean to direct oneself because here directing Himself is to aim for creating heaven and aiming for something is a question of will. That is permitted in respect of the Attributes of Allah Almighty. So ‘then’ is connected to creation, not will. What is related from Ibn ‘Abbās is taken from the commentary of al-Kalbī who is weak. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said that it means ‘to aim for it’, in other words its creation. This is one view. It is said that the meaning of the word is without limitation or definition, as aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred. Abu-l-‘Āliyah ar-Riyāḥī said, ‘It means “to rise”.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘Allah knows best, but what is meant by that is its elevation. It is the vapour of the water from which the sky was created.’ It is said that ‘mustawā’ means smoke. Ibn Aṭiyyah said that the words do not accept that interpretation. It is said that it means to take control, and Ibn Aṭiyyah said that this comes from His words: ‘The All-Merciful was established firmly on the throne.’ (20:5)

It would appear from this āyah, if you take the word ‘then’ as having a temporally sequential meaning, that Allah created the earth before the heavens whereas in Sūrat an-Nāzi‘āt (79) He describes the heavens being created before the earth. This was the position of Qatādah: heaven was created first. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related it from him. Mujāhid and other commentators say that Allah dried the water on which His Throne rested and turned it into the earth and made smoke rise from it and made heaven. Thus earth was created before heaven. I believe that what Qatādah said is sound, Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth.

Part of what indicates that smoke was created before the earth is what is related by as-Suddī from Abū Mālik from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās, and from Murrah al-Hamdānị from Ibn Mas‘ūd and some Companions about this āyah: the Throne of Allah Almighty was on the water and He did not create anything before water. When He desired to bring about creation, He produced smoke from the water and it rose above it and was high above it (samā) and so He called it heaven (samā’). Then He dried the water and made it earth and then split it up made it into seven earths over two days, Sunday and Monday. The earth was placed on the Fish which is the Nūn which Allah mentioned in the Qur’an in al-Qalam. The fish was in the water and the water was on a stone. The stone was on the back of an angel and the angel was on a large stone. The stone, which is the one Luqmān mentioned, was in the wind, neither in heaven nor on earth. The fish moved and was agitated and so the earth quaked. So He sent down mountains on it and it became firm. The mountains vaunt themselves over the earth. That is His words: ‘He cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so it would not move under you.’ (16:15)

He created the mountains and the provision and trees and its inhabitants and what it needs over two days, Tuesday and Wednesday. That is when He says: ‘Say: “Do you reject Him Who created the earth in two days, and make others equal to Him? That is the Lord of all the worlds.” He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid down for those who seek it – all in four days.’ (41:9-10) That is the answer for someone who asks. ‘Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke’. That smoke came from the respiration of water. He made it one heaven. Then He split it open and made it seven heavens in two days, Thursday and Friday. It is called ‘Jumu‘ah’ because in it the creation of the heavens and earth were combined.’ ‘He revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate.’ (41:12)

Then in every heaven He created the angels and creatures in it of vapour and mountains of hail and what is not known. Then He adorned the lower heaven with stars and made them an adornment and protection from shayṭāns. When he finished creating what He wished, He settled on the Throne. That is: ‘It is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days’ (57:1) and: ‘they were sewn together and then We unstitched them.’ (21:30)

Wakī‘ mentioned from Abū Ẓabyān that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The first thing that Allah Almighty created was the Pen. “Write,” He told it. It said, “Lord, what shall I write?” He said, “Write the Decree.” So it wrote what would be on the day until the coming of the Final Hour. Then He created the Nūn and flattened the earth on it and made it firm with the mountains. The mountains will vaunt themselves over the earth until the Day of Rising.’ One variant states that He created the earth before elevating the vapour of the water, which is the smoke, differing from the first variant. The views about this differ and there is scope for independent judgment regarding it.

The basic element of the creation of all things is water as is reported by Ibn Mājah and Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī from Abū Hurayrah. He said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘When l see you my self is happy and my eye delighted. Tell me about the origin of all things.’ He replied, ‘All things were created from water.’ He asked, ‘Tell me about something by virtue of which, I will enter the Garden.’ He said, ‘Feed people, extend the greeting, maintain ties with your kin, and stand in prayer at night when people are asleep, and you will enter the Garden in peace.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The first thing that Allah created was the Pen and He commanded it to write down all that would be.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘Allah knows best, but he meant that the first thing that Allah created after water, wind and the Throne was the Pen.’ Ṭāwus said that a man came to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ and asked ‘What was creation created from?’ He said, ‘From water, fire, darkness, wind and earth.’ The man asked, ‘And from what were these created?’ He replied, ‘I do not know.’ Then the man went to ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr and asked him and he gave the same answer as ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr. Then he went to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbas and he answered the same. When he asked the second question, Ibn ‘Abbās recited: ‘He has made everything in the heavens and everything on the earth subservient to you.’ (45:13) The man said, ‘This could only come from a man of the people of the House of the Prophet!’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘He means that it is the source of all in its creation and origination. He created water first, or water and whatever He willed of His creation, not from a root or prior model. Then He made it the root for what He created afterwards. He is the Originator and He is the Creator. There is no god but Him and no Creator but Him. Glory be to Him! He is Mighty and Exalted!’

and arranged it into seven regular heavens.

Allah mentions seven heavens but does not give a clear number of earths in the Revelation. The only possible reference to seven earths is found in His words: ‘and of the earth the same number (mithlahunna)’ (65:12). There is disagreement about the meaning of that but it is said that it is referring to their number (literally ‘their like’), and the number is also used in several hadiths reference to the number of earths. Their quality and description varies, as it is said that ‘the same number’ can mean ‘the same density’. It is said that there are seven heavens, but they are not unstitched. Ad-Dāwūdī said that. The first is the sound view: there are seven heavens. Muslim related that Sa‘īd ibn Zayd said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘If someone takes a span of land unjustly, his neck will be encircled with it through the seven earths.’ ‘Ā’ishah has something similar as does Abū Hurayrah. An-Nasā’ī related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Mūsā said, “Lord, teach me something by which I can remember you and by which I can pray to you.” He said, “Mūsā, say: ‘There is no god but Allah.’” Mūsā said, “Lord, all of Your slaves say that.” He said, “Say: ‘There is no god but Allah.” He said, “There is no god but You. I want something especially for me.” He said, “Mūsā, if the seven heavens and their inhabitants other than Me, and the seven earths, were put in one pan, and ‘There is no god but Allah’ in the other pan, ‘There is no god but Allah’ would outweigh them.’”

At-Tirmidhī related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘Once while the Prophet of Allah ﷺ and his Companions were sitting, clouds came over them, and the Prophet of Allah ﷺ asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “These are the clouds. These are the water-bearers of the earth which Allah drives to people who are not grateful to Him and do not call on Him.” He asked, “Do you know what is above you?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “It is the firmament, a protected ceiling and waves that are held back.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is between you and it?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “Between you and it is the distance of five hundred years.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is above that?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they replied. He said, “Above that are two heavens with a distance of five hundred years between them.” He continued in that manner until he had mentioned seven heavens, the distance between every two heavens being like that which is between heaven and earth. Then he asked, “Do you know what is above that?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” was the reply. He said, “Above that is the Throne and the distance between it and the [final] heaven is like what is between a pair of heavens.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is below you?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “It is the earth.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is under that?” They replied, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “Under that is another earth, and the distance between them is five hundred years,” and he continued until he had counted seven earths with a distance of five hundred years between each two. Then he said, “By the One Who has the soul of Muḥammad in His hand, if you were to drop a rope to the lowest earth, it would fall on Allah.” Then he recited: “He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward. He has knowledge of all things.” (57:3)’ Abū ‘Īsā said, “The fact that the Prophet ﷺ recited this āyah indicates that it means “it would fall in the knowledge, power and authority of Allah. He is on His Throne as He described in His Book.” It is a gharīb hadith. Al-Ḥasan did not hear directly from Abū Hurayrah.

There are many reports about there being seven earths. We have mentioned enough that about that.

He has knowledge of all things.

He has knowledge of all He created. Since He created things, He must know them. He says: ‘Does He who created not then know?’ (67:14). He knows all known things with timeless pre-eternal knowledge which He alone possesses. He has described Himself with knowledge in various āyahs.

30 When your Lord said to the angels, ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth,’ they said, ‘Why put on it one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood when we glorify You with praise and proclaim Your purity?’ He said, ‘I know what you do not know.’

When your Lord said to the angels,

It is possible that there is an elided word here in which case the meaning would be, ‘Remember when ...’ It is also said that it goes back to His words: ‘Worship your Lord who created you’ (2:21), in which case the meaning would be: ‘When the One who created you said to the angels.’

The fact that Allah addressed the angels indicates that they existed and understood. He addressed them not to consult them or to ask for their opinion but simply to inform them. This is the case with Allah’s commands and prohibitions. The ‘Lord’ is the Master, Controller, the One Who puts right and compels. The singular of ‘angels’ (malā’ikah) is malak.

I am putting a caliph on the earth,’

‘Putting’ in this context means ‘creating’ as aṭ-Ṭabarī said. The ‘earth’ means Makkah. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The earth was smoothed out from Makkah,’ which is why it is called ‘the Mother of Cities’. Khalīfah (caliph) has the form of an active participle, meaning ‘the one who replaced the angels before him on the earth’, or other than the angels, according to what has been reported. It is also possible that it is in the passive mode, in which case it means someone who is sent as a representative.

According to Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd and all the people of interpretation, the caliph is Ādam عليه السلام. He was the caliph of Allah in carrying out His commands and prohibitions because he was the first Messenger to the earth as we find in the hadith of Abū Dharr. He said, ‘I asked, “Messenger of Allah, was he a Prophet and a Messenger?” “Yes,” he answered.’ If it were to be asked to whom was he a Messenger when there was no one on earth, the answer is that he was a Messenger to his children. He had forty children over twenty pregnancies, each pregnancy having a male and a female. They reproduced until they became numerous as Allah says: ‘He created you from a single self and created its mate from it and then disseminated many men and women from the two of them.’ (4:1) He revealed to them the prohibition of carrion, blood and pork. He lived for 930 years according to the Torah. Wahb ibn Munabbih related that he lived for a thousand years. Allah knows best.

This āyah is sound evidence for having a leader and a caliph who is obeyed so that he will be a focus for the cohesion of society and the rulings of the caliphate will carried out. None of the Imams of the Community disagree about the obligatory nature of having such a leader, except for what is related from al-Aṣamm (lit. the Deaf), who lived up to the meaning of his name and was indeed deaf to the Sharī‘ah, and those who take his position who say that the caliphate is merely permitted rather than mandatory if the Community undertakes all their obligations on their own without the need for a ruler to enforce them. Our evidence is found in the words of Allah Almighty: ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth’ as well as other āyahs (38:26, 24:55)

…

The Companions agreed to make Abū Bakr caliph after the disagreement about the selection which took place between the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār in the veranda of the Banū Sā‘idah. The Anṣār said, ‘We will have a leader and you will have a leader.’ Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and the Muhājirūn dissuaded them from that, telling them, ‘The Arabs will only take their dīn from this tribe of Quraysh,’ and so the Anṣār retracted and obeyed Quraysh. If it had been a definite obligation that the ruler had to be from Quraysh, there would have been no point in the argument and debate which took place. It would have been said, ‘The obligation for appointing the leader does not have to be from Quraysh or anyone else, so why are you arguing with us by a pointless issue that is not mandatory?’ When Abū Bakr died, he delegated the office of caliph to ‘Umar and no one claimed that it was not mandatory. That indicates that it is mandatory and that it is one of the pillars of the dīn which support the Muslims. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

The Rāfidite Shi‘ites say that the appointment of a leader should be based on logic. Obedience then follows what is logically decided. Recognition of the leader is achieved by obedience rather than logic. This is false because logic does not make something mandatory or forbidden, or ugly or good. It is confirmed that it is mandatory by the Sharī‘ah, not by logic. This is clear.

If one were to accept that the means to the mandatory nature of leadership (imāmah) is obedience, then tell us whether obedience is obliged by designation (naṣṣ) about the leader (imam) from the Messenger ﷺ, or from the choice of the people who make binding decisions of community, or by the existence of all the qualities of the imams in him so that when he calls on them to obey, that is sufficient?

The answer is that people disagree about this topic. The Imāmiyyah and others believe that the means by which the imam is known is by designation from the Messenger ﷺ and that choice has no part in it. We believe that investigation is the path to acknowledging the ruler, along with the consensus of the people of ijtihād who reach that conclusion. Those who say that the only way to it is by designation base that on their fundamental position that analogy, opinion and ijtihād are false and nothing at all is known by those means. They say that analogy is invalid, root and branch. Then they fall into three different groups. One group claim that the designation of appointment was to Abū Bakr, one group say al-‘Abbās, and one group that it was ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

The proof of the absence and non-existence of a text of designation naming a specific imam is that, if the Prophet ﷺ had imposed on his community obedience to a particular imam so that it would not be possible to turn away from him to someone else, that would have been known since it is impossible to obligate the entire community to obey Allah in something which is unspecified and when there is no way to know that obligation. Since knowledge of who he is is mandatory, then that knowledge must come by way of multiple transmission which necessarily demands that it be known or deduced, or that it come from single reports. It is not possible for that to have the same authority as multiple transmission which demands a priori knowledge or by evidence, since if that had been the case, every responsible person would find in himself knowledge entailing obedience to that specific person and that would be part of the dīn of Allah which is obliged for him, just as every responsible person knows from the dīn of Allah what is obliged for him regarding the five prayers, fasting Ramadan, ḥajj and the like. No one knows that from himself necessarily, so this claim is false.

It is false that it is known by single reports since it is impossible for definitive knowledge to occur by that means. Furthermore, had it been mandatory to go to the transmission of the designation of an imam by any manner, it would be obliged to confirm the leadership of Abū Bakr and al-‘Abbās because each of them had people who transmitted a designation by text explicitly stating his imamate. Then since it is false for the three to be confirmed by designation at the same time, as we will explain, the same is true of one of them, since one of the three must be more entitled than the other. When confirmation of the designation is false because of the absence of a path connected to it, then choice and ijtihād are confirmed.

If someone claims the existence of multiple transmission and necessary knowledge of the designation, then they must be confronted immediately by the demolishment of their claim through the designation of Abū Bakr and the numerous reports about that which, as a whole, take the place of a text. Then there will be no doubt about the determination of those other than the Imāmiyyah in denying the designation. They are huge in number. Necessary knowledge does not agree on denying it by less than a tenth of those who oppose the Imāmiyyah. If the refutation of what is necessary had been permitted in that way, it would be permitted for a group to deny Baghdad, furthest China and other things.

Refutation will be given of hadith which the Imāmiyyah use as evidence for the designation of ‘Alī and their position that any of the community who reject that designation are apostates and oppose the command of the Messenger ﷺ out of obstinacy. One of them is his words ﷺ, ‘Those of whom I am the master (mawlā), ‘Alī is his master. O Allah, befriend whomever befriends him and oppose whomever opposes him.’ They said, ‘Linguistically mawlā means more entitled, and so when he said, “‘Alī is his master” with the fā’ of consequence, it is known that what is meant by “mawlā’ is that he is more entitled and so it is clear that what is meant by that is the imamate and that it demands obedience.’ There are also his words to ‘Alī, ‘In relation to me, you are as Hārūn was to Mūsā, but there will be no Prophet after me.’ They said that the position of Hārūn is known, and he shared with him in being a Prophet, and ‘Alī was not that. He was his brother, but ‘Alī was not that. He was a khalīfah and so it is known that what is meant by that is the caliphate. There are other things that they cited as evidence as will be mentioned, Allah willing.

The first answer to the hadith is that it is not transmitted by multiple sources and there is disagreement about its validity. It was attacked by Abū Dāwūd as-Sijistānī and Abū Ḥātim ar-Rāzī. They deduced that it was false because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Muzaynah, Juhaynah, Ghifār and Aslam are my mawlās rather than others and they have no mawlā other than Allah and His Messenger.’ They said, ‘If the first report had been as he said, then one of the two reports must be false.’

Secondly, even if this report is sound and related from someone trustworthy to someone trustworthy, there is nothing in it that indicates his imamate. Rather it indicates his excellence. That is because mawlā means walī and so the meaning of the report is: ‘If I am the walī of someone, ‘Alī is his walī.’ Allah says: ‘Allah is his Mawlā’ (66:4) and mawlā means Protector (walī). What is meant in the report is to inform people that ‘Alī was the same both inwardly and outwardly. That is an immense virtue of ‘Alī.

This report came for a reason, which was that Usāmah and ‘Alī had a quarrel. ‘Alī said to Usāmah, ‘You are my mawlā.’ He retorted, ‘I am not your mawlā! I am the mawlā of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ!’ The Prophet ﷺ was informed about that and said, ‘If I am the mawlā of someone, ‘Alī is his mawlā.’

Another point is found in the Story of the Lie. ‘Alī said to the Prophet ﷺ about ‘Ā’ishah, ‘There are many women besides her.’ That was hard on her and the hypocrites found an opening and attacked him and said that they were free of him. Then the Prophet ﷺ said this to refute what they said and denied their offering to be free of him and attack him. That is why it is related that a group of the Companions said, ‘We did not recognise the hypocrites in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ except by their hatred for ‘Alī.’

As for the second hadith, there is no disagreement that when he referred to the position of Hārūn in respect of Mūsā, the Prophet ﷺ did not mean the caliphate after him. There is no disagreement that Hārūn died before Mūsā عليه السلام as will be made clear in Sūrat al-Mā’idah. He was not the khalīfah after him: the khalīfah after him was Yūsha‘ ibn Nūn. If he had meant the caliphate by what he said, he would have said, ‘In relation to me, you are as Yūsha‘ ibn Nūn was to Mūsā.’ Since he did not say that, it indicates that it was not what he meant. He meant: ‘I have put you in charge of my people during my lifetime and in my absence from my people.’ Hārūn was the khalīfah of Mūsā over his people when he went to speak to his Lord.

It is said that this hadith has a reason behind it, which was that when he went out on the Tabūk expedition, he put ‘Alī in charge of his family and people in Madīnah. So the hypocrites spread lies about him and said, ‘He left him behind because he hates him.’ ‘Alī went out and joined the Prophet ﷺ. He said, ‘The hypocrites have said this and said that!’ He answered him, ‘They lied. I appointed you as Mūsā appointed Hārūn.’ He added, ‘Are you not content to be in relation to me as Hārūn was to Mūsā?’

If it were to be confirmed that he meant the caliphate, as they claim, then ‘Alī shared with others in this virtue because the Prophet ﷺ appointed one of his Companions as khalīfah in every expedition he made. They included: Ibn Umm Maktūm, Muḥammad ibn Maslamah and others, although this report centres on Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and it is a single report. Abū Bakr and ‘Umar are mentioned in a way that is more appropriate that that. It is related that when the Prophet ﷺ appointed Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal to Yemen, he was asked, ‘Why not send Abū Bakr and ‘Umar?’ He answered, ‘I cannot do without them. Their position is relation to me is that of hearing and sight to the head.’ He said, ‘They are my two wazīrs among the people of the earth.’ It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Abū Bakr and ‘Umar are in the position that Hārūn was to Mūsā’ This report came on its own [without a cause], and that of ‘Alī came because of a cause, and so it means that Abū Bakr is more entitled to the imamate. Allah knows best.

There is disagreement about the method by which someone is made the imam. There are three ways. The first is by designation, and the disagreement about that has already been mentioned. That position was also taken by some Ḥanbalīs, a group of the People of Hadith, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Bakr, the son of the sister of ‘Abd al-Wāḥid and his people, and a group of Khārijites. That view is that the Prophet ﷺ designated Abū Bakr by indication and Abū Bakr designated ‘Umar. Then someone may appoint someone specific by designation as Abū Bakr did, or a group as ‘Umar did, which is the second method. Then they choose which of them should be selected as the Companions did in appointing ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān.

The third method is the consensus of the people who can appoint and dismiss. That is that when the leader of a group in one of the cities of the Muslims dies and they have no leader and he did not appoint anyone, then the community of the people of that city, which is the base of the imam, undertake that themselves and agree about someone and are satisfied with him. All the Muslims before and after them in all regions must obey that leader when that leader is not known for impiety and corruption because it is an invitation which includes them to which they must respond. No one should absent himself from it since the establishment of two rulers entails division and corruption of unity. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If the heart of a believer possesses three qualities, it will not be filled with rancour: sincere action for Allah, holding to the community and giving good counsel to those in power.’

If one of the people who can appoint and dismiss does that, it is confirmed and his action binds others, although some people disagree and say that that it can only be done by a group of the people who can appoint and dismiss. Our evidence is that ‘Umar رضي الله عنه gave allegiance to Abū Bakr and none of the Companions objected to him doing that. It is also because it is a contract and it does not require a number to contract it as is the case with other contracts. Imām Abu-l-Ma‘ālī said, ‘If a contract for leadership is made by one contract, it is binding, and it is not permitted to dismiss him without a reason or change of affairs. This is agreed upon.’

If someone who possesses the qualifications for leadership seizes the imāmah and takes it by force and conquest, it is said that that is a fourth method. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tustarī was asked, ‘What is obliged for us in the case of a ruler who conquers our land?’ He answered, ‘To respond to him and give him what he demands of you of his right, not to object to his actions nor flee from him. When he entrusts you with a secret concerning the dīn, do not disseminate it.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If someone suited for command seizes it without consultation or choice and people give him allegiance, then allegiance to him is complete. Allah knows best.’

There is disagreement about having witnesses to the contract of leadership. Some of our people said that it does not require witnesses because testimony is only established by definitive hearing. Here there is no definitive hearing to confirm the witnessing. Some of them said that it requires witnesses. Those who say that argue that if there were no witnessing to it, that would lead to every claimant claiming that he had a secret contract and that would lead to bloodshed and civil war. Therefore it is obliged that witnessing be taken into account. Two witnesses are enough for it. Al-Jubbā’ī is an exception to that. He said that one considers four witnesses, the contractor and the one contracted because ‘Umar made the Council consist of six, and so that is what is indicated. Our evidence is that there is no disagreement between us and him that the testimony of two is considered. There is disagreement about a larger number. No evidence indicates it and so it should not be considered.

There are eleven preconditions which a ruler (imam) must meet. He should be from Quraysh since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The rulers are from Quraysh.’ There is disagreement about this. He should be someone who is able to be one of the qāḍīs of the Muslims and capable of ijtihād so that he does not need to consult others for a legal decision about things that happen. This is agreed upon. The third is that he should possess experience, sound judgment regarding war, management of armies, protecting frontiers, guarding territory, deterring the community, enforcing retribution on those who do wrong and recompensing those who are wronged. He should be someone who is not preventing by softness from carrying out the ḥudūd, not alarmed by execution or amputation. The proof for all of this is the consensus of the Companions because there was no disagreement between them that all of that was agreed upon. That is also necessary because the ruler is the one who undertakes judgment and legal decisions and he must settle disputes and judge. He must also investigate the affairs of his representatives and judges. That can only be fulfilled by someone who knows all of that and carries it out. Allah knows best.

He must be a free man and Muslim. He must be male and have sound limbs. There is a consensus that a woman cannot be the imam although there is disagreement about her acting as qāḍī concerning matters in which her testimony is permitted. He must be adult and intelligent. There is no disagreement about that. He must be of good character. There is no disagreement among the Community that it is not permitted to give the leadership to a deviant. He should be the best of them in knowledge since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Your imams are your intercessors, so look to those whom you ask to intercede.’ Ṭālūt (Saul) is described in Revelation: ‘Allah has chosen him over you and increased him greatly in knowledge and physical strength.’ (2:247) He began with knowledge and then mentioned what indicated his strength and sound limbs. It is not a precondition that he be protected from slips and errors or that he should know the Unseen. He does not have to be the most discriminating or most courageous of people nor must he come from the Banū Hāshim or any other clan of Quraysh. There is consensus on the validity of the leadership of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, and they were not from the Banū Hāshim.

It is permitted to appoint a less excellent candidate when there is someone better if there is fear of civil unrest and that the affairs of the community will not be in order. That is when the ruler is appointed to repel enemies, protect territory, block gaps, deliver rights, establish the ḥudūd, and collect revenue for the Treasury and distribute it to its people. If it is feared that appointing the better person will result in bloodshed and unrest and that things will be disordered because of the appointment of that leader, that is a clear excuse for turning away from the better man for the lesser one. That is also indicated by the knowledge shown by ‘Umar and the rest of the Community at the time of the Shūrā. The six of them included those who were better and those who were less qualified. It was permitted to give the leadership to any of them when the best interest lay in that choice. They agreed on that and none of them objected to it. Allah knows best.

When a ruler is appointed and then becomes deviant after having taken his position, most say that his leadership is voided and, in the case of well known apparent deviance, that he should be deposed, because it is confirmed that the ruler is responsible for establishing the ḥudūd, fulfilling rights, preserving the property of orphans and mad people, and looking into their affairs in the areas we have already mentioned. Deviance in him would prevent him from undertaking these things. If it were to be permitted for him to be deviant, that would lead to the invalidation of what he undertakes.

Others say that he may only deposed on account of unbelief, abandoning establishing the prayer, or abandoning calling to it or something else in the Sharī‘ah, since ‘Ubādah said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not contend for authority with its people unless you see open unbelief for which you have a proof from Allah.’ There is also the hadith of ‘Awf ibn Mālik: ‘…not as long as they establish the prayer among you.’ Muslim transmitted both. Umm Salamah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Rulers will be appointed over you. Some you approve of and some you disapprove of. Anyone who hates that is innocent. Anyone who disapproves is safe. But those who are content and follow [are destroyed].’ They said, ‘Messenger of Allah, should we not fight them?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘not as long as they pray.’ It means those who hated and disapproved in their hearts. Muslim also transmitted it.

If a leader finds in himself an impediment which would impair his leadership, he should retire. If he does not find any impediment, is he permitted to dismiss himself and appoint someone else? People disagree about that. Some people say that he may not do that, and if he does it, then he is not deposed. Some say that he may do that. The evidence that when a ruler dismisses himself he can retire is found in what Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq said when he said, ‘Dismiss me! Dismiss me!’ The Companions replied, ‘We will not dismiss you or let you be dismissed. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ advanced you among us, so who would be better than you? The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was pleased with you, so should we not be pleased with you?’ If he could not do that then the Companions would not have objected to it and told him that he could not say or do that. When the Companions affirmed in that, it is known that he could do that.

When leadership is given by the agreement of the people of influence or by one of them as was already mentioned, then all people are obliged to give their allegiance to hear and obey and to establish the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. If someone refuses to give allegiance with a valid excuse, he is excused, but if someone refuses without an excuse, he is compelled to accept so that there will be no division among the Muslims. If allegiance is given to two caliphs, then the true caliph is the first one and the other is killed. In respect of killing him, there is disagreement about whether it is actual execution or metaphorical and so that his dismissal is tantamount to his killing and death. The first is clearer. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When allegiance is given to two caliphs, kill the second of them.’Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī related it and it is transmitted by Muslim.

We find in the hadith of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar who heard the Prophet ﷺ say, ‘If someone gives allegiance to a ruler with the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, he should obey to the best of his ability. If another comes to dispute with him, then strike the neck of the other.’ Muslim also related that. ‘Arfajah has: ‘Strike him with a sword, whoever he is.’ This is the strongest evidence forbidding there being two rulers. Another reason is because that can lead to hypocrisy, conflict, division, civil strife and removal of blessings. If, however, regions are far apart and separate, like Andalusia and Khorasan, then that is permitted as will be explained, Allah willing.

If a Khārijite rebels against a ruler known for justice, then people are obliged to fight him. If the ruler is impious, and the Khārijite shows his justice, people should not hurry to help the Khārijite until his business is clear with regard to his justice or the community agree to depose the first. That is because anyone who seeks that might make a show of righteousness in himself until he is well established and then he reverts to his normal behaviour which is not what he was showing.

As for there being two or three rulers at the same time in the same land, the consensus is that that is not permitted. Imam Abu-l-Ma‘ālī said, ‘Our people believe that it is forbidden to give rule to two individuals at the opposite ends of the world. Then they say that if leadership is given to two individuals, that is like marriage in which two guardians give a woman in marriage to two husbands without either of them being aware of the contract of the other. That which I believe is that giving leadership to two people in one region with narrow territory is not permitted, and there is consensus on that. When there is a great distance between the two rulers, then there is scope for that and it is not absolutely prohibited.’

Abū Isḥāq said, ‘It is permitted when the two regions are far apart so that people’s rights and rulings will not be neglected.’ The Karrāmites believe that it is permitted to have two rulers and do not give any detail and so they must allow that in the same land and believe that both Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Alī were rulers. They said that if there are two in two lands or regions, each of them carries out what he is in charge of. That is because it is permitted for two Prophets to be sent at the same time and that does not lead to the invalidation of Prophethood. Therefore it is even more likely to apply to leadership and that does not lead to the invalidation of leadership. The answer to this is that it would be permitted had not the Sharī‘ah forbidden it because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Kill the second of them’ and because the Community agree on that. Mu‘āwiyah did not claim leadership for himself. He claimed to be governor of Syria because he was appointed by the prior ruler. This indicates the consensus of the Community in their time that there is only one leader. Neither of them said, ‘I am a ruler and opposite me is a ruler.’ That is even though it is not logically impossible. The consensus is stronger.

They said, ‘Why put on it one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood,

We know definitely that the angels only know what they are informed about and have no foreknowledge. That applies to all angels because Allah says in praise of them: ‘They do not precede Him in speech’ (21:27).

As to why they asked this question, it is said that it means that when they heard the word “khalīfah”, they understood that the sons of Ādam would cause corruption since the task of the caliph is to put things right. They, however, made the label of disobedience apply to all human beings. So to cheer their hearts, Allah made it clear to them that some humans would cause corruption and some would not. That was confirmed when Allah taught Ādam the names and unveiled knowledge to him, which had previously been hidden. It is also said that they asked the question because they had seen the corruption and bloodshed of the jinn who had inhabited the earth before the creation of Ādam. So Allah sent Iblīs against them with an army of angels and they killed them and drove them into the seas and to the tops of the mountains. That was when pride entered Iblīs’s heart. Their words, ‘Why put…?’ is thus a simple question. ‘Is this caliph going to be like the jinn or not?”’

Ibn Zayd and others said that Allah informed them that the caliph’s descendants would cause corruption and shed blood and so they asked this, either from astonishment that Allah was appointing a species who would disobey him or because they considered both the appointment and the disobedience terrible.

when we glorify You with praise

Its meaning is ‘We disassociate You from any attribute which is not appropriate for You.’ By their glorification they disassociate Him from all defects through His exaltation. Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydullāh said, ‘I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the meaning of “Glory be to Allah”, and he answered, “It is disassociating Allah from every defect.”’ It is derived from the verbal root sabḥ, which means swimming and travelling a long distance.

Interpreters disagree about the interpretation of the glorification of the angels. Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is their prayer, as in the words of Allah: ‘If it had not been that he was a man who glorified Allah’ (37:143), meaning ‘one of those who pray’. It is said that their glorification is raising their voices with dhikr, as al-Mufaḍḍal says. Qatādah said that it is their saying of ‘subhānallāh’ as is usual linguistically. That is confirmed according to what is related by Abū Dharr from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who, when he was asked ‘Which words are best?’, replied, ‘Those which Allah chose for His angels and slaves: “Glory be to Allah with His praise.”’ Muslim transmitted it. ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Qurṭ reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said during the Night Journey, ‘Glory be to the High, the Most High. Glory be to Him and exalted is He!’ Al-Bayhaqī mentioned it.

and proclaim Your purity?’

‘We exalt You, praise You and purify Your Name from those things which are not appropriate for You which heretics have ascribed to You,’ as Mujāhid, Abū Ṣāliḥ and others said. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and others said that it means: ‘We purify ourselves for You, seeking Your pleasure.’ Some people said that Qatādah said it means ‘pray’ and that taqdīs is prayer, but this is weak according to Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah. I say that it is a sound meaning. Prayer contains exaltation, proclamation of purity and glorification. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to say in his rukū‘ and prostration, ‘Glorious, Pure, Lord of the angels and the Rūḥ’. Ā’ishah related it and Muslim transmitted it. It means purification as is seen elsewhere in the Qur’an. The prayer is purification from wrong actions. Someone who performs the prayer enters the prayer in the most perfect state because it is the best of actions. Allah knows best.

He said, ‘I know what you do not know.’

Scholars disagree about the meaning of the words ‘what you do not know’. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Iblīs was proud when He was honoured and made the treasurer of heaven. He believed that it was his prerogative and he despised the potential for disbelief and disobedience inherent in Ādam. The angels said this, not knowing what Iblīs had inside him, which was different to what they had. Then Allah told them, “I know what you do not know,” meaning that He knew what Iblīs really felt about Ādam.’ Qatādah said that it refers to the Prophets, men of virtue and people of obedience who Allah would place on earth. It is also possible that the meaning is general and includes all of that.

31 He taught Ādam the names of all things. Then He arrayed them before the angels and said, ‘Tell me the names of these if you are telling the truth.’

He taught Ādam the names of all things.

‘Teaching’ here means ‘inspiring with the necessary knowledge’. It is possible that it took place by means of the angel Jibrīl. Sufi scholars say, ‘He knew them when Allah taught him and remembered them when He made him do so but forgot the contract he had made because, in it, he relied on himself. Allah says: “We made a contract with Ādam before, but he forgot. We did not find that he had a firm resolve.” (20:115)’ Ibn ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘If those names had not been unveiled to Ādam, he would not have been able to tell them to the angels.’

Ādam’s kunyah (familiar name) is Abu-l-Bashar, which means ‘the father of humanity’. Abū Muḥammad is also used since Muḥammad is the Seal of the Prophets, as as-Suhaylī said. It is said that his kunyah was Abū Muhammad in the Garden and Abu-l-Bashar on the earth.

There is disagreement about the derivation of the name Ādam. It is said that it is derived from the crust (ādam) and surface (adīm) of the earth and he was called that because he was created from it. Ibn ‘Abbās stated that. It is said that it is derived from admah, which is brownness. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk claimed that it is duskiness. An-Naḍr claimed that it is whiteness and that Ādam was white, since they use this word for a white camel. I believe that the sound view is that it is derived from the surface of the earth. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘Ādam received his name because he was created from the surface of the earth and he was called insān (human being) because he forgot (nasā).’ Ibn Sa‘d mentioned that in the Ṭabaqāt.

As-Suddī related from Abū Mālik, from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās and from Murrah al-Hamdānī from Ibn Mas‘ūd about the creation of Ādam. He said, ‘Allah sent Jibrīl to the earth to bring him some of its mud. The earth said, “I seek refuge with Allah from your diminishing or marring me!” He returned without taking anything. He said, “Lord, it sought refuge from me with You and so I gave it refuge.” He sent Mīkā’īl and it sought refuge from him and he gave it. He returned and said the same as Jibrīl said. So he sent the Angel of Death and it sought refuge from him and the angel said, “I seek refuge with Allah from returning without what He commanded me to carry out.” So he took from the surface of the earth and mixed it, not taking it all from one place. He took red, white and black mud, and that is why the sons of Ādam emerge as different colours. That is also why he is named Ādam: because he took from the surface (adīm) of the earth. He ascended with it and Allah Almighty said to him, “Did you not show mercy to the earth when it entreated you?” He answered, “I saw that Your command was more binding that its words.” He said, “You are fit for taking the souls of his children.” He moistened the earth until it became sticky mud whose parts cling to one another. Then he left it until it became fetid. That is His words: “formed from fetid black mud.” (15:26) Then He said to the angels: “I am going to create a human being out of clay, When I have formed him and breathed My Rūḥ into him, fall down in prostration to him!” (38:71-72)

‘Allah created him with His own hand so that Iblīs would not vaunt himself over him. He said, “Do you vaunt yourself over what I have created with my own hand when I am not?” So He created him as a human being and it was a body of forty years on Friday. The angels passed by him and were alarmed at him when they saw him. Iblīs had the greatest fear. He would pass by him and hit him and the body would make a noise like clay that had a ringing sound. That is His words, “earth like dried clay.” (55:14) He entered by his mouth and emerged from his anus and Iblīs said to the angels, “Do not fear this thing. It is hollow. If I have control over him, I will destroy him.”’ It is said that when he passed by him with the angels he said, ‘Do you see this being whose like you have not seen among creatures? If he is preferred to you and you are commanded to obey him, do not do it!’ They replied. ‘We will obey our Lord’s command.’ So Iblīs concealed inside himself: ‘If he is preferred to me, I will not obey him. If preference is given to him, I will destroy him!’

When the time came when He wanted to breathe the rūḥ into him, He said to the angels, ‘When I breathe some of My Rūḥ into him, then prostrate to him.’ When he breathed the rūḥ into him and it entered into his head, he sneezed. The angels told him, ‘Say: “Praise belongs to Allah.”’ So he said, ‘Praise belongs to Allah.’ Allah said to him, ‘May your Lord have mercy on you.’ When the rūḥ entered into his eyes, he looked at the fruits of the Garden. When it entered his belly, he desired food and jumped up before the rūḥ had reached his feet, hastening for the fruit of the Garden. That is when He says: ‘Man was created hasty.’ (21:37) ‘Then the angels prostrated all together, every one of them – except Iblīs. He disdained to be one of the prostrators.’ (15:30)

At-Tirmidhī related that Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Allah Almighty created Ādam from a handful that He took from all over the earth. So the sons of Ādam come according to that earth: some of them are red, some white and some black, and colours between that, easy-tempered and rough, foul and good.’ Abū ‘Īsā said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

‘Names’ here means expressions. ‘Ism’ can be undefined and mean something named as you say, ‘Zayd is standing’ and the ‘The lion is standing.’ ‘Naming’ means their essence. It is also said that ‘essence’ (dhāt), ‘self’ (nafs), ‘source’ (‘ayn) and ‘ism’ mean the same. That is true of many of its usages in the Qur’an.

The people of interpretation disagree about the meaning of the names mentioned in this āyah. Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ikrimah, Qatādah, Mujāhid and Ibn Jubayr said that He taught him the names of all things, large and small. ‘Āṣim ibn Kulayb related that Sa‘d, the freedman of al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī, said, ‘I was sitting with Ibn ‘Abbās when they mentioned the noun for vessel and the noun for whip. Ibn ‘Abbās said, “He taught Ādam all the names.”’ This idea is related by a marfū‘ transmission and the words demands all these meanings since it is a word which is comprehensive and unspecified. We find in al-Bukhārī from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The believers will be gathered on the Day of Rising and will say, “We should ask someone to intercede with our Lord.” They will go to Ādam and say, “You are the father of mankind. Allah created you with His hand, the angels prostrated to you and He taught you the names of all things.”’

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘This āyah contains evidence that language is learned by being informed of it and that Allah Almighty taught it to Ādam in detail and in general.’ That is like what Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘He taught him the names of all things, even the bowl and milk-pan.’ Shaybān related that Qatādah said, ‘He taught Ādam the names of His creation which He had not taught to the angels. He gave the names of every thing and use of all things and their species.’ An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This is the best of what has been related regarding this. It means that He taught him the names of the species and informed him of their uses.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘He taught him the names of the angels and his descendants.’ He preferred this. Ibn Zayd said, ‘He taught him the names of all his descendants.’ Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khuthaym said that it was the names of the angels in particular. Al-Qutabī said that it was the names of what He created in the earth. It is said that it is the names of the species and categories. The first view is sounder, Allah willing.

Then He arrayed them before the angels

Interpreters disagree about whether the presentation of the names involved the presentation of the things themselves, or simply their names, to the angels. Ibn Mas‘ūd says that it means to display the actual things. Others say that it just means the names. The verb ‘araḍa means to show or display something. It is used for displaying goods for sale. Ibn ‘Abbās and others said that it means He displayed the names. The variant reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd has: ‘‘araḍahunna’, referring to the names, not the persons because ‘hunna’ is used for the feminine. The variant of Ubayy has ‘‘araḍahā’. Mujāhid said, ‘those with names’. The second reading would indicate that they are the names and the second that it is the individuals. That would also be the case with ‘hum’ (them). Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It is clear that Allah Almighty taught Ādam the names and presented them to him with those individual species. Then He arrayed them before the angels and asked them for their names if they knew them. Then Ādam told them their names. Al-Māwardī said that the presentation refers to those names named.

Two things are said about the time of the arraying. One is that it was after they were created and the second is that He made the hearts of the angels give them form and then arrayed them.

There is disagreement about the first person to speak Arabic. It is related from Ka‘b al-Aḥbār that Ādam was the first to use Arabic and Syriac writing and books in all languages. Others besides Ka‘b have said that. It is said that it is related by another path that Ka‘b al-Aḥbār said, ‘Jibrīl was the first to speak Arabic, He is the one who taught it to Nūḥ and Nūḥ taught it to his son Sām.’ That is related from Thawr ibn Zayd from Khālid ibn Ma‘dān from Ka‘b. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The first to speak clear Arabic was Ismā‘īl when he was ten years old.’ It is also related that the first to speak Arabic was Ya‘rub ibn Qaḥṭān. Other things are related. We say that the sound position is that the first to speak all human languages was Ādam. The Qur’an bears witness to this as Allah Almighty says: ‘He taught Ādam the names of all things.’ All languages are names and so they are included in this and the Sunnah states this. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘He taught Ādam the names of all things even bowls.’ It is mentioned that it is possible that Ismā‘īl was the first of Ibrāhīm’s children to speak Arabic. If other things are sound, it is possible that he was the first of his tribe to speak Arabic. Allah knows best.

and said, ‘Tell Me the names of these if you are telling the truth.’

‘If the sons of Ādam are simply going to cause corruption on the earth, then show Me that you have the same knowledge that I have taught this new creature.’ In other words there is far more to a human being than the angels were able to perceive. Al-Mubarrad says that. ‘Ṣādiqīn’ (telling the truth) means ‘truly knowing’. That is why the angels were unable to try and answer and instead said, ‘Glory be to You!’ as an-Naḥḥās related. If truthfulness had not been stipulated, they could have made an effort to answer.

32 They said, ‘Glory be to You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.’

‘“Glory be to You” beyond anyone but You knowing the Unseen.’ This is their response to ‘Tell me.’ They answered that they only know what Allah has taught them and do not concern themselves with what they do not know as the ignorant do. From this comes the obligation for someone who is asked for knowledge he does not possess to say, ‘Allah knows best, I do not know,’ in imitation of the angels, Prophets, and virtuous scholars. The Prophet ﷺ told us, however, that, when the scholars died, true knowledge would disappear and we would be left with ignorant people who would be asked for fatwas and give fatwas according to their own opinion. So they will be misguided and also misguide others.

As for the reports related from the Prophet ﷺ, his Companions and the Tābi‘ūn after them about the meaning of the āyah, it is related by al-Bustī in his Musnad from Ibn ‘Umar that a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘What place is worst?’ He replied, ‘I do not know until I ask Jibrīl.’ He asked Jibrīl who replied, ‘I do not know until I ask Mīkā’īl.’ He said, ‘The best of places are the mosques and the worst of places are the markets.’ Abū Bakr said to a grandmother, ‘Come back later so that I can consult the people.’ ‘Alī said three times, ‘It is most cooling for the liver.’ ‘What is that, Amīr al-Mu’minīn?’ they asked. He said, ‘That a man is asked about what he does not know and says, “Allah knows best.”’ Ibn ‘Umar was asked about something and said, ‘I have no knowledge of it.’ When the man turned back, Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘Excellent is what Ibn Umar said! He was asked about what he did not know and said, “I have no knowledge of it”!’ Ad-Dārimī mentioned it in his Musnad.

We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Abū ‘Aqīl Yaḥyā ibn Al-Mutawakkil, the companion of Buhayyah said, ‘I was sitting with al-Qāsim ibn ‘Ubaydullāh and Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘d and Yaḥyā said to al-Qāsim, “Abū Muḥammad, how ugly it is for a great man like you to be asked about something in the dīn and then not to have any knowledge about it nor any answer!” Al-Qāsim asked him, “Why is that?” He answered, “Because you are the son of two imams of guidance: Abū Bakr and ‘Umar.” Al-Qāsim said to him, “More ugly than that is if, having knowledge from Allah, I should speak without knowledge or take from an untrustworthy source.” He was silent and did not answer.’ Mālik ibn Anas said, ‘I heard Ibn Hurmuz say, “A scholar must bequeath ‘I do not know’ to his companions after him so that it is a fundamental principle in their hands.”’ Al-Haytham ibn Jamīl said, ‘I saw Mālik ibn Anas asked about forty-eight questions and say, “I do not know” about thirty-two of them.’

There are many of examples of this that are transmitted from the Companions, Tābi‘ūn and Muslim fuqahā’. That leads to attacking leadership and lack of balance in knowledge. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘Part of the blessing of knowledge and proper manners in knowledge is balance in it. If someone is not balanced in it, he does not understand or make others understand.’ Yūnus ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā said that he heard Ibn Wahb say that he heard Mālik ibn Anas say, ‘There is nothing more lacking in our time than balance.’

If this was the case in Mālik’s time, then what is it like in our time when corruption is widespread and there are many common people and people seek leadership in it for the sake of leadership, not study. Instead it is for reputation in this world and for overpowering contemporaries through debate and argument which hardens the hearts and results in spite. That is part of what cones from lack of taqwā and lack of fear of Allah Almighty. Where is this in respect of what is related about what happened when ‘Umar talked about not making the dower of women more than forty ūqiyyahs, even if for a woman of lineage. A tall woman stood up and said, ‘You cannot say that!’ He said, ‘Why?’ She said, ‘Because Allah Almighty says: “If you have given your wife a large amount, do not take any of it.” (4:20)’ ‘Umar said, ‘The woman is correct and the man is wrong!’

Wakī‘ related from Abū Mash‘ar that Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurṭubī said, ‘A man asked ‘Alī about something and he spoke about it. The man said, “It is not like that, Amīr al-Mu’minīn! It is like this.” ‘Alī said, “You are correct and I erred. Above everyone with knowledge is a Knower.”’ Abū Muḥammad Qāsim ibn Aṣbagh said, ‘When I travelled to the east, I stayed in Qayrawān. I took the hadith of Musaddad from Bakr ibn Ḥammād. Then I travelled to Baghdad and met people. When I finished, I returned to him to complete the hadith of Musaddad. One day I read to him the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ: “Some people of Muḍar came in striped shirts (mujtābi-n-nimār) …” and he said that it was “ath-thimār”. I said, “‘Mujtābi-n-nimār’ is how I read it to all of those to whom I read it in Andalusia and Iraq.” He said, “By going to Iraq, you have contradicted us and become arrogant towards us! Let us go to that Shaykh (who was in the mosque). He has knowledge of such things.” We went to him and questioned him about that and he said that it was as I had said. Bakr ibn Ḥammād said, taking hold of his nose, “My nose is forced to the truth. My nose is forced to the truth.” He left.’

‘All-Knowing’ (al-‘Alīm) is a form used for emphasis. He is the One with great est knowledge of His creation. ‘Al-Ḥakīm’ is the Judge. It is again used for emphasis.

33 He said, ‘Ādam, tell them their names.’ When he had told them their names, He said, ‘Did I not tell you that I know the Unseen of the heavens and the earth, and I know what you make known and what you hide?’

He said, ‘Ādam, tell them their names.’

Allah commanded him to tell the angels their names after they were arrayed before them so that they would know that He knows best what He asked them about. This was in order to demonstrate Ādam’s excellence and high position. He was better than them since he had greater knowledge than them and they were made to prostrate before him and become his students and ordered to learn from him. This demonstrated that he had the rank of majesty and greatness.

Some scholars use this as evidence for the Prophethood of Ādam before he was in the Garden since Allah says: ‘Tell them their names,’ and so Allah commanded him to inform the angels of that which they had no knowledge.

This āyah contains evidence for the excellence of knowledge and its possessors. In a hadith we find: ‘The angels lower their wings to anyone who seeks knowledge for the pure pleasure of seeking it.’ They do that for scholars alone because that is what Allah obliged them to do in the case of Ādam and so they continue to behave in the same way. When knowledge appears in a person, they are humble to him out of respect for knowledge and its possessors and pleasure at his seeking it and being involved with it. This is merely for the seekers of knowledge; how much more must that be so in the case of its masters!

Scholars disagree about who is better: the angels or the children of Ādam. Some people say that the Messengers among human beings are better than the Messengers from the angels and that human awliyā’ are better than the awliyā’ of the angels. Some people say that the Highest Assembly is better. Their argument is that they are ‘honoured slaves, who do not precede Him in speech’ (21:26-27), and other similar āyahs. There is also the ḥadīth qudsī in which Allah says, ‘If he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in an assembly better than them.’

Those who seek evidence for the superiority of the children of Ādam quote the āyah: ‘Those who believe and do right actions, they are the best of creatures’ (98:7) and the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The angels lower their wings to anyone who seeks knowledge for the pure pleasure of seeking it.’ There are other hadiths in which Allah boasts of mankind to the angels and He only boasts of the best. Allah knows best.

Some scholars have said that there is no way of concluding that the Prophets are better than the angels or that the angels are better than them, because the only way of doing so would be if there was a definitive report from Allah or from His Messenger or the consensus of the Community and nothing of that sort exists. This differs from the Qadariyyah and Qāḍī Abū Bakr who said that the angels are better. As for the statement of our people and the Shī‘ah that the Prophets are better because Allah Almighty commanded the angels to prostrate to Ādam, they are told that the person to whom someone prostrates is not necessarily better than the one who prostrates. Do you not see that the Prophets and creation prostrate towards the Ka‘bah when it is agreed that the Prophets are better than the Ka‘bah? There is no disagreement that true prostration is only to Allah Almighty because prostration is worship and worship is only for Allah. This is clear.

He said, ‘Did I not tell you that I know the Unseen of the heavens and the earth,

This is proof that no one knows anything of the Unseen except what Allah informs Him of, like the Prophets or those whom Allah teaches. Astrologers, soothsayers and such people are all liars. This will be discussed in Sūrat al-An‘ām.

and I know what you make known

This refers to their words about Allah putting someone on the earth who would cause corruption there.

and what you hide?’

Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that what is being referred to here is the pride and rebellion which Iblīs concealed in himself. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that ‘hide’ is in the plural when only one person is meant. This is a common Arabic usage. One group said that making known and hiding has an undefined meaning about their secret and public aspects. Mahdī ibn Maymūn said, ‘We were with al-Ḥasan when al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār asked him, “What did the angels hide?” He replied, “When Allah created Ādam, the angels saw an extraordinary creature. It was as if something about that worried them. Then they turned confidentially to one another and said, ‘Why are we concerned about this creature! Allah has not created anything but that we are more honoured than it in His sight.’”’

34 We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Ādam!’ and they prostrated, with the exception of Iblīs. He refused and was arrogant and was one of the unbelievers.

We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Ādam!’ and they prostrated,

‘Prostrate’ here means to be humble and submit. Those who say that Ādam and his sons are better than the angels find evidence in Allah’s words to the angels here: ‘Prostrate to Ādam!’ They say that this indicates that he was better than them. The answer to that is that the meaning of this ‘prostrate’ simply means to be humble in front of Ādam. An eye which ‘prostrates’ drops its gaze. The furthest extent of that is to put one’s face on the ground. Ibn Fāris said, ‘Someone prostrates when he goes low. All that prostrates is humbled.’ It also means to bow the head.

If someone were to ask, ‘lf he was not better than them, what was the point of telling them to prostrate to him?’ the answer is that, when the angels exulted in their glorification and praise, Allah commanded them to prostrate to something other than Him in order to show them that He had no need of them and their worship. Some say that they criticised and belittled Ādam and did not recognise the special nature of what Allah had created and so they were commanded to prostrate. It could be that it was a punishment for them because of what they said.

It is said that Ibn ‘Abbās found evidence for the supreme excellence of human beings in the fact that Allah swore by the life of the Messenger ﷺ and said: ‘By your life! They were wandering blindly in their drunkenness’ (15:72) and granted him security from punishment in His words: ‘So that Allah may forgive you your earlier errors and any later ones.’ (48:2) He said to the angels: ‘Were any of them to say, “I am a god apart from Him,” We would repay him with Hell.’ (21:29) The answer to this is that He did not swear by the life of the angels as He did not swear by His life. He swore by heaven and earth and that did not indicate that they were worth more than the Throne and the seven Gardens. He also swore by the fig and the olive. There is no proof in what he said.

People disagree about how the angels prostrated to Ādam, although they agree that the prostration was not worship. Most say that this command to the angels was for them to place their foreheads on the ground as is done in the prayer because the form of prostration is clear in both custom and the Sharī‘ah. Thus the prostration was to honour him because of his excellence and to obey Allah’s command to them. Ādam acted as their qiblah. Some people say that it was not the ‘sajdah’ (act of prostration) that is known today but rather refers to the basic linguistic meaning of the word, which is abasement and obedience. So the meaning is that humbled themselves before Ādam and acknowledged his virtue. So ‘prostrated’ simply means ‘did what they were commanded.’

There is also disagreement about whether the prostration was exclusively to Ādam, so that it is not permitted to prostrate to anyone else in existence except Allah, or whether such prostration was permitted until the time of Ya‘qūb, based on the words of Allah: ‘He raised his parents up onto the throne. The others fell prostrate in front of him.’ (12:100). Most, however, say that this kind of prostration was permitted right up until the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. When the trees and camels prostrated before him, the Companions said to him, ‘We are more entitled to prostrate to you than trees and stray camels.’ He told them, ‘It is not permitted to prostrate to anyone except the Lord of the worlds.’ Ibn Mājah related this in his Sunan and al-Bustī in his Ṣaḥīḥ. When Mu‘ādh came from Syria, he prostrated to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said, ‘What is this?’ He said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I went to Syria and saw them prostrate before their patriarchs and bishops. So I wanted to do that with you.’ He stated, ‘No one should do that. If I had commanded anyone to prostrate to something, I would have commanded a wife to prostrate to her husband.’

with the exception of Iblīs.

The exception is connected to what was just mentioned before (i.e. the angels), as is generally stated. Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn Jurayj and others said that Iblīs was one of the angels. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘His name was ‘Azāzīl and he was one of the noblest of the angels. He had four wings and then was deprived of his angelic status. When he disobeyed Allah, Allah cursed him and he became Shayṭān.’ Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘The jinn were a tribe of the angels, created from fire and Iblīs was one of them. The rest of the angels were created from light.’ Ibn Zayd, al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said, ‘Iblīs was the father of the jinn in the same way that Ādam was the father of human beings. He was not an angel.’ A similar statement is also related from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said that his name was al-Ḥārith in Arabic. Sahr ibn Ḥawshab and others say, ‘He was one of the jinn who were on earth. The angels fought them and captured him as a child and he worshipped with the angels.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that from Ibn Mas‘ūd.

Others find their evidence in Allah’s description of the angels: ‘They do not disobey Allah in respect of any order He gives them and carry out what they are ordered to do’ (66:6), and in the āyah: ‘Iblīs was one of the jinn.’ (18:50) The jinn are not angels. The proponents of the first position answer that nothing prevents Iblīs from issuing from the angels as a whole, since Allah knew that he would be wretched and He is not asked about what He does. There is nothing in the fact that he was created from fire nor in the development of his appetites, demonstrated by his becoming angry, that precludes him from being one of the angels. As for those who say that he was one of the jinn of the earth who was captured, to counter that it is related that Iblīs, accompanied by an army of angels, was the one who fought the jinn on earth. Al-Mahdawī and others related that.

Ath-Tha‘labī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said that Iblīs was from one of the clans of the angels who were called ‘jinn’ and who were created from smokeless fire. The angels were created from light. His name in Syriac was ‘Azāzīl and in Arabic al-Ḥārith. He was one of the guardians of the Garden and chief of the angels of the lowest heaven. He had authority over it and over the earth. He was one of the angels with the greatest striving and most knowledge. He used to manage what was between heaven and earth. Because of that he saw himself as great and noble. That is what led him to unbelief and to disobey Allah. Then he was transformed into the accursed Shayṭān. Sometimes the angels are referred to as ‘jinn’ because of their being hidden from sight in the same way. We find in Revelation: ‘They claim there is a blood-tie between Him and the jinn.’ (37:158)

He refused and was arrogant

There is a sound hadith from Abū Hurayrah in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the son of Ādam recites a verse of prostration and prostrates, Shayṭān withdraws, weeping, saying, “O woe to me! Ādam was commanded to prostrate and prostrated, so he has the Garden. I was commanded to prostrate and refused, so I have the Fire.” Muslim transmitted it.

He refused to prostrate because he thought he was better than Ādam, which indicates that he considered the command and wisdom of Allah to be foolish. This is the arrogance about which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who has an atom’s weight of pride in his heart will not enter the Garden!’ When a man said to the Prophet ﷺ that a man likes his clothing and appearance to be good, he said ﷺ, ‘Allah is beautiful and loves beauty. Pride is to disregard the truth and to despise people.’ Muslim transmitted it. The accursed one clearly expressed this when he said: ‘I am better than him. You created me from fire and You created him from clay.’ (38:76) Because of that, Allah made him an unbeliever. So anyone who considers any of the commands of Allah Almighty or His Messenger to be foolish is subject to the same ruling as him. There is no dispute about this.

Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘I heard that the first act of disobedience was envy and pride when Iblīs envied Ādam and Ādam desired to eat from the tree.’ Qatādah said, ‘Iblīs envied Ādam for the honour he had been given. He complained. “I am made of fire and this one is only made of clay.”’ So the first wrong action was pride, then greed which caused Ādam to eat from the tree, and then envy when the son of Ādam envied his brother.

and was one of the unbelievers.

This ‘was’ here means ‘became’. Most interpreters say that the meaning is: Allah knew that he would become an unbeliever because an unbeliever has one reality and a believer another and Allah knows them both. This is sound because of what the Prophet ﷺ said, recorded in al-Bukhārī, ‘Actions are by their seals.’ It is said that Iblīs worshipped Allah for eighty thousand years and had leadership and was a guardian of the Garden, during all of which time he was gradually being drawn on, in the same way that hypocrites say the shahādah with their tongues and that Bal‘am had the greatest Name on his tongue. He had leadership but pride was firmly rooted in him. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘He thought that he had greater excellence than the angels, which is why he said, “I am better than him.”’ This is why Allah said: ‘What prevented you from prostrating to what I created with My own Hands? Were you overcome by arrogance or are you one of the exalted?’ (38:75) The basis of his creation was the fire of Might, which is shown by the fact that He swore by it when he said: ‘By Your Might, I will mislead all of them.’ (38:82). Might brings about pride so that he thought that he was better than Ādam. Abū Ṣāliḥ said, ‘The angels were created from the lights of Might and Iblīs from the fire of Might.’

Our scholars say that, if someone is not a Prophet and Allah displays miracles and the breaking of normal patterns at his hand, it does not necessarily indicate that he is saint. This is opposed to what the Sufis and Shi‘ites say about this matter, indicating that if he had not been a walī, Allah would not have made appear at his hands what He did. Our proof is that the knowledge that one of us is a walī of Allah can only be validated after it is clear that he has died a believer. If it is not known that someone died a believer, it cannot be unequivocally stated that he is a walī of Allah. That is only proven by faith. When we agree that we cannot unequivocally state that someone is true to faith and that a man cannot unequivocally state that about himself, it is known that that does not indicate someone is a walī of Allah. They said, ‘We cannot deny that some of His awliyā’ are known by their good outcome, the final seal on their actions, and other such things.’ Shaykh Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī and others said that. Aṭ-Ṭabarī believed that Allah intended the story of Iblīs to be a deterrent to those human beings who resemble him.

There is disagreement about whether there was any unbeliever before Iblīs or not. Some say that Iblīs was the first to disbelieve and it is also said that there were unbelievers of the jinn before him, who were on the earth. There is also disagreement about whether his kufr was out of ignorance or obstinacy, both things being said by the people of the Sunnah. There is no disagreement that he knew Allah before his disbelief. Those who say that he disbelieved out of ignorance say that knowledge was stripped from him when he disbelieved. Those who say that he disbelieved out of obstinacy say that he disbelieved in spite of his knowledge, Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Unbelief with continuing knowledge is unlikely, but still possible. Allah can disappoint whomever He wills.’

35 We said, ‘Ādam, live in the Garden, you and your wife, and eat freely from it wherever you will. But do not approach this tree and so become wrongdoers.’

We said, ‘Ādam, live in the Garden, you and your wife

There is no disagreement that Allah expelled Iblīs when he became an unbeliever and put him far from the Garden and that afterwards He commanded Ādam ‘to live’ (uskun) in the Garden, in other words, to abide there and take up residence there. Sakan, from the same root, means any place that one feels at home in, sikkīn is a knife, which is so called because it stills the movement of the slaughtered animal; miskīn (indigent) is derived from the same root since a poor person cannot move about through lack of means; sukkan is the rudder of the ship because it keeps it steady.

The āyah shows that living in a place does not necessarily constitute ownership of it. One of the gnostics said that the use of the word ‘uskun’ (live in the imperative) shows that it was for a time that would come an end. So the original entry of Ādam and Ḥawwā’ into the Garden was one of a temporary and not a permanent nature. If this understanding is correct there is evidence in it for what most scholars say: that if someone gives a man a place to live, the man does not own it by living there and the owner can evict him when the tenant’s term of residency ends. Ash-Sha‘bī said, ‘If a man says, “My house is a residence (suknā) for you until you die,” it is his for his life and death. But if he says, “Live (uskun) in this house of mine until you die,” it reverts to the owner when he dies.”’ Suknā and ‘umrā are similar although there is greater disagreement about the ‘umrā which will be discussed in Hūd. Al-Ḥarbī said that he heard Ibn al-A‘rābī say, ‘The Arabs did not disagree that these things are based on the property of the owners and its uses that can be assigned in the form of ‘umrā, ruqbā, ifqār, ikhbāl, minḥah, ‘ariyyah, suknā and iṭrāq (see definitions below). This is the argument of Mālik and his people for the fact that a person only owns the use of gifts except in the case of slaves. This is the view of al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad and Yazīd ibn Qusayṭ.’

An ‘umrā is letting a man live in your house for the period of your life or his life. It is the same as a ruqbā. It is when you say, ‘If you die before me, it returns to me. If I die before you, it is yours.’ It comes from the term murāqabah which is that each of them watches (rāqaba) for the death of the other. That is why there is disagreement about whether it is forbidden or permitted. Abū Yūsuf and ash-Shāfi‘ī permitted it. They consider it to be like a bequest. Mālik and the Kufans forbade it because each of them aims for recompense and does not know whether he will obtain it or not. There are also two hadiths on the topic forbidding it and permitting it that Ibn Mājah mentioned in his Sunan. The first was related by Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘An ‘umrā is permitted for someone who makes it. A ruqbā is permitted for the one who makes it.’ This hadith considers ‘umrā and ruqbā to be the same. The second is that Ibn ‘Umar related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no ruqbā. If someone watches for something, it is his in his life and death.’ He said that a ruqbā is that he says to someone else, ‘It is death from me and from you.’ The words ‘There is no ruqbā’ imply a prohibition while the words in the first hadith indicate permission. An-Naṣā’ī transmitted both of them. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that ‘umrā and ruqbā are the same. Ibn al-Mundhir said that it is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘An ‘umrā is permitted for someone who makes it. A ruqbā is permitted for someone who makes it.’ He said that the hadith is sound and it provides a proof for those who say that ‘umrā and ruqbā are the same. It is related from ‘Alī and that is the position of ath-Thawrī and Aḥmad. That is what Isḥāq said. Ṭāwus said, ‘If someone makes a ruqbā, it is like inheritance.’

Ifqār is taken from the word for the spine and the verb is used for letting someone have an animal to ride or letting someone have game. It is the same as ikhbāl. Minḥah is a gift of milk. Manīḥah is a she-camel or ewe that a man gives to another to milk and then it is returned. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘An ‘āriyyah is carried out and a minḥah is returned. A debt is settled and a claimant is a creditor.’ Abū Umāmah related it and at-Tirmidhī, ad-Dāraquṭnī and others transmitted it. It is sound. Iṭrāq is lending a stud to a person when he asks for it to use in his camels.

The word zawj (wife) in the language of the Qur’an has no tā’ while it does have one in hadith. Ādam’s wife was Ḥawwā’ (Eve). She was the first to be called that when she was created from his rib without Ādam being aware of it. If pain had been involved in that process, men would not have affection for their wives. When he woke up, he was asked, ‘Who is this?’ ‘A woman,’ he answered. He was asked, ‘What is her name?’ ‘Ḥawwā’,’ he replied. He was asked, ‘Why is she called “imra’ah” (woman)?’ He said, ‘Because she was taken from man (mar’).’ He was asked, ‘Why did you call her Ḥawwā’?’ He answered, ‘Because she was created from something living (ḥayy).’ It is related that the angels asked this to test his knowledge. They asked him, ‘Do you love her, Ādam?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered. They asked Ḥawwā’, ‘Do you love him, Ḥawwā’?’ ‘No,’ she replied while in her heart her love for him was many times more than his love. They said, ‘If any woman were to speak the truth about her love for her husband, Ḥawwā’ would have spoken the truth.’

Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When Ādam was settled in the Garden, he walked in feeling lonely. While he slept, Ḥawwā’ was created from his shortest rib on the left side so that he might find repose with her and have companionship with her. When he woke up, he saw her and asked, “Who are you?” She answered, “A woman! I was created from your rib so that you might find repose with me.” That is the meaning of His words: “It is He Who created you from a single self and made from him his spouse so that he might find repose in her.” (7:189)’ Scholars say that this is why woman was created crooked because she was created from a curved rib. In the Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abū Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Woman was created from a rib and the top of the rib is the most curved part of it. She will not be straightened. Enjoy her as she is. If you try to straighten her, you will break her, and the breaking is divorce.’ A poet said:

She is the crooked rib that you will not straighten.

If you straighten the rib, you break it.

Are weakness and strength combined in a lad?

Is it not a wonder how she is both weak and powerful?

It is from this that scholars derive the inheritance of a hermaphrodite when the signs of masculinity and femininity are the same in them. If one of the ribs is missing, then they receive the portion of a man. That is related from ‘Alī.

We ignore what the Mu‘tazilites claimed about the Garden here not being the Garden of Eternity, but a garden on the earth. That is because Allah uses the definite article for it and the fact that when someone asks Allah for the Garden, using the definite article, He only means the Garden of Eternity. According to their innovation, if it had been the Garden of Eternity, Iblīs could not have entered it since Allah says: ‘no foolish talk and no wrong action in it’ (52:23) and similar āyahs. It is not logically impossible for Iblīs to have entered the Garden to tempt Ādam.

Mūsā met Ādam and Mūsā said to him, ‘You made your descendants wretched and expelled them from the Garden.’ He used the definite article to indicate that it was the Garden of Eternity. Ādam did not deny that. If it had been other than that, Ādam would have refuted it. As Ādam was silent in the face of what Mūsā said, it was clear that the abode from which Allah expelled him was not the abode to which they were expelled. As for the āyahs they cite as evidence, Allah made those words about it refer to after its people enter it on the Day of Rising. That does not prevent the Abode of Eternity being eternal for those for whom Allah wills it while those for whom annihilation is decreed leave it. It is agreed that the angels enter and leave the Garden. Its keys were in the possession of Iblīs and then they were taken from him after he disobeyed. During the Night Journey, the Prophet ﷺ entered it and left it. He reported what it contains and that it is truly the Garden of Eternity.

If someone claims that what is meant is the Holy Land, which Allah purified of sins, that is ignorance on their part, because Allah commanded the tribe of Israel to enter the Holy Land, which was Greater Syria. The people who follow the Sharī‘ah agree that Allah purified the Holy Land, but nevertheless acts of rebellion, disbelief and lying occurred in it. These things were not prevented by its being sanctified. Abu-l-Ḥasan ibn Baṭṭāl said that some shaykhs related that the people of the Sunnah agree that the Garden of Eternity is the one from which Ādam descended. There is no sense in the position of those who disagree with that. They ask how it is possible that with his perfect knowledge, Ādam sought the Tree of Immortality in the Abode of Eternity, the question is reversed to them and they are asked how would it be possible for Ādam to seek the Tree of Immortality in the abode of annihilation! This is not permitted by anyone who has the smallest amount of intelligence.

The majority recite ‘raghad’ (freely) while an-Nakha‘ī and Ibn Waththāb recite ‘raghd’.

but do not approach this tree

Do not go near it to eat from it. It is said that it means ‘do not touch it’ or ‘do not go close to it’. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is a clear example of sadd ’dh-dharā’i‘ (the legal principle of barring the means to wrong action). Some of those who have a fine grasp of the use of language say that the instruction not to approach, in itself indicates that they were, in fact, going to fall into error and leave the Garden and not dwell in it forever, because someone who is eternal is not commanded or forbidden anything. The evidence of this is in the words of Allah: ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth’ (2:30), showing that Ādam was definitely going to leave the Garden.

A tree is a plant with a trunk. Interpreters disagree about what type of tree this was. Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr and others say that it was a grapevine and that is why wine was forbidden us. Ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Malik and Qatādah say that it was wheat. Wahb ibn Munabbih said that when Allah relented towards Ādam, he made it the food of his descendants. Ibn Jurayj said that some of the Companions said that it was a fig tree as is reported from Qatādah. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that there is no specification of what it was which can be reliably relied upon. What is correct is to believe that Allah forbade Ādam a particular tree and then he went to it and disobeyed Him by eating from it. The tree was a test.

They also disagree about how he could eat from it in the light of the threat which follows it, ‘and so become wrongdoers.’ Some people said that they ate from other than the tree which was indicated and did not interpret the prohibition as applying to the entire species, which suggests that Iblīs deluded them into taking an over-literal understanding of Allah’s instruction to them. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘It was the first act of disobedience according to this view.’ It is also said that Ādam ate out of forgetfulness, forgetting the threat. The soundness of that view is indicated by what Allah says about it in His Book: ‘We made a contract with Ādam before, but he forgot. We did not find that he had a firm resolve.’ (20:117) Since the Prophets are obliged to be cautious and aware because of their great knowledge and position, their obligation is greater than that of others and so by being distracted from a prohibition one becomes disobedient or in opposition.

Abū Umāmah said, ‘If the forbearance of the sons of Ādam since the time Allah created creation until the Day of Rising been placed in one pan of the balance and that of Ādam had been placed in the other, it would have outweighed it and Allah says: “We did not find that he had a firm resolve.”’ This view can be general to all the sons of Ādam and particularly about Muḥammad ﷺ who had the greatest forbearance. It can also mean the forbearance of the sons of Ādam is not that of the Prophets. Allah knows best. The first view is good.

It is said that the first of the two to eat from it was Ḥawwā’ because Iblīs misled her and that the first of his words were to her because she could whisper to her husband and that it was the first trial for men from women. When she mentioned it to Ādam, he rejected it and mentioned the contract. Iblīs persisted with Ḥawwā’ who, in turn, persisted with Ādam until she said, ‘l will eat before you. If anything happens to me, you will be safe.’ She ate and was not harmed and went to Ādam and said, ‘I ate and it did not harm me.’ So he ate and then their private parts became clear to them and they fell into wrong action. This is because the command to them was in the dual. So there was no punishment until they had both done it. It is sound that there was no full disobedience until they had both done it. Ādam did not see this fact and so he forgot the ruling.

That is why some scholars say that if someone says to his two wives or two slave-girls, ‘If you enter the house, you are divorced, or free,’ the divorce or emancipation does not occur if only one of them enters. Scholars disagree about that, taking three different positions. Ibn al-Qāsim said that divorce or emancipation only takes place when they both enter, based on the basic principle and taking the general meaning of the word. Saḥnūn also said that. Ibn al-Qāsim said another time that they are both divorced and both freed when one of them enters because part of breaking an oath is breaking all of it. So if someone swears that he will not eat these two loaves, he breaks it by eating one of them, even one bite of them. Ashhab said that only the one who enters is divorced or freed because the entry of each of them is a precondition for divorce or emancipation. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that this is unlikely because part of a precondition is not a precondition by consensus.

What is sound is the first view. If the prohibition is connected to two acts, it is not broken except by both of them. If you tell two people not to enter a house and then one of them enters it, both have not differed from what was prohibited. So Allah’s words: ‘Do not approach this tree’ is a prohibition directed to the two of them. ‘So become wrongdoers’ is its apodosis. They are not wrongdoers until they both do it. Therefore when she ate from it, she did not incur anything because what was forbidden did not fully exist. This meaning was hidden from Ādam and he wanted to eat and forgot this ruling. This is the sense of Allah’s words: ‘We made a contract with Ādam before, but he forgot.’ (20:115) It is said that he forgot His words: ‘This is an enemy for you and your wife, so do not let him expel you from the Garden and thus make you miserable.’ (20:117)

Scholars disagree about whether the Prophets can commit minor wrong actions, for which they are punished, or not, although there is a consensus that they are protected from major wrong actions and every vice in which there is disgrace or imperfection. Aṭ-Ṭabarī and other fuqahā’, mutakallimūn and hadith scholars say that minor wrong actions are possible for them, while the Shi‘ites maintain that they are protected from all of that. Some of the fuqahā’ of Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī say that they are protected from all minor wrong actions as they are protected from all major wrong actions because we are commanded to follow them in their actions and conduct completely without attention to context. If they were allowed minor wrong actions, it would not be possible to follow them since it would not be possible to judge which of their actions were right and which were wrong.

Some later scholars took the former position, saying that Allah would report about any wrong actions that occurred and rebuke them for them so we would know which they were. They also reported this about themselves, were frightened by it and repented of it. That is found in many cases, so that all of them cannot be argued away. This does not detract from their position. Those instances were rare and due to forgetfulness or a mistake, or an interpretation that led to that. They are good actions in respect of others and bad actions in respect of them because of their station and great worth. They are afraid about that in the Standing in the Rising even though they know that they are safe and secure. This is the truth. As al-Junayd said, ‘The good actions of the pious are the evil actions of those brought near.’ Even if that is reported from them in texts, that does not diminish their rank. Allah chose and purified them.

and so become wrongdoers.’

The root of the word for wrongdoers, ẓulm, means to put something in other than its proper place. Land which is ‘wronged’ (maẓlūmah) is land which had no well and then a well was dug. It is also called ẓalīm. Ẓālim is also used for milk which is drunk before becoming thick. A man who is ẓālim inflicts great injustice. Ẓulm is shirk as Allah says: ‘Associating others with Him is a terrible wrong (ẓulm).’ (31:13)

36 But Shayṭān made them slip up by means of it, expelling them from where they were. We said, ‘Go down from here as enemies to each other! You will have residence on the earth and enjoyment for a time.’

but Shayṭān made them slip up by means of it,

The word for ‘slip up’ comes from the root zillah which mean error, so he made them fall into error. Allah says elsewhere: ‘Shayṭān made them slip for what they had done.’ (3:155) Ḥamzah recited ‘azāllahumā’ with an alif, meaning he pushed them away. Ibn Kaysān said that he made them move from the obedience they had to disobedience. According to this, both readings have the same idea although the reading of the majority has a stronger meaning from ‘zalla’ as in His words: ‘It was Shayṭān who made them slip for what they had done.’ (3:155)

This took place by means of whispering, which caused them to enter into error through their own disobedience. Shayṭān has no power to physically make a person do anything. His only power is to persuade people to commit an error on their own account. Thus the reason for Ādam’s moving from one place to the other was his own wrong action. It is said that the meaning is their actual slipping down from the Garden when Allah expelled them from it. That idea is found in the reading of Ḥamzah.

expelling them from where they were.

Their expulsion from the Garden to the earth was because they were created from it and so that Ādam could be a caliph on the earth. Iblīs did not intend to expel him from the Garden but simply wanted to make him fall from his rank and to put him far from Allah in the position he enjoyed. So Iblīs did not obtain his goal and, for this reason, his rancour, resentment and bad opinion increased even more. In fact the opposite took place. Allah says: ‘Then his Lord chose him and turned to him and guided him.’ (20:122) So Ādam became the caliph of Allah on the earth after he had been near Him in His abode. Ādam’s high rank can be said to be Iblīs’s doing because he was the reason for it and for the error which brought it about.

The commentators do not disagree that Iblīs undertook to make Ādam err but they disagree about how he did it. Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and the majority say that he did it as himself, and the evidence for that is the words of Allah: ‘He swore to them, “I am one of those who give you good advice.”’ (7:21) That entails speaking directly. Others, including ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from Ibn Wahb, say that he entered the Garden in the mouth of a snake. It had four legs like the best Bactrian camel created by Allah. He had presented himself to many animals but only the snake entered the Garden. When the snake brought him into the Garden, Iblīs emerged from its belly and took something from the Tree that Allah had forbidden to Ādam and Ḥawwā’. He took it to Ḥawwā’ and said, ‘Look at this tree! How good it smells! How delicious it tastes! What a splendid colour!’ He kept tempting her until Ḥawwā’ took it and ate it.

Then he tempted Ādam. Ḥawwā’ told him, ‘Eat! I have eaten and it did not harm me!’ He ate some of it and then their private parts became visible to them and they incurred a wrong action. Ādam went inside the Tree and his Lord called out to him, ‘Where are you.’ ‘I am here Lord,’ he answered. He said, ‘Why do you not come out?’ He replied, ‘I am ashamed before you, Lord.’ He said, ‘Go down to the earth from which you were created.’ The snake was cursed and its legs went inside of it and enmity was engendered between it and the sons of Ādam. That is why we are commanded to kill it as will be explained. Ḥawwā’ was told, ‘Because you made the Tree bleed, so you will suffer bleeding every month and will be made to conceive and bear children multiple times, being close to death.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī and an-Naqqāsh added, ‘You will be foolish when you were wise.’

One group said that Iblīs did not enter the Garden to Ādam after he was expelled from it. He was tempted by his internal shayṭān, and the power and whispering that Allah gave him, as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Shayṭān flows through the son of Ādam like blood.’ Allah knows best. The wisdom is that Ādam’s expulsion from the Garden was in order that this world should be inhabited.

It is said that the snake was a servant of Ādam in the Garden and it betrayed him by giving the enemy of Allah power over itself and showed enmity to him there. When they descended, that enmity was reinforced and the earth was made its provision. It was told, ‘You are an enemy to the sons of Ādam and they are your enemy. When one of them meets you, he will crush your head.’ Ibn ‘Umar related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are five that can be killed while in ihrām.’ Snakes were among them. It is related that Iblīs said to it, ‘Take me into the Garden and you will be my responsibility.’ Sākinah bint al-Ja‘d related that Sarrā’ bint Nabhān al-Ghanawiyya said that she heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘(Kill) snakes, small and large, black and white. Whoever kills them has a ransom from the Fire and whoever is killed by one is a martyr.’ Scholars say that there is ransom from the Fire because of their participation with Iblīs and helping him to harm Ādam and his children. Therefore if someone kills a snake, he has killed an unbeliever. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘An unbeliever and his killer are not ever joined in the Fire.’ Muslim and others transmitted it.

Ibn Jurayj related from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār from Abū ‘Ubaydah that Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘We were with the Prophet ﷺ at Minā when a snake passed by. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Kill it.” It raced ahead of us to a rock and entered it. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Bring a palm leaf and ignite a fire on it.”’ Our scholars said that this hadith qualifies the prohibition of mutilation by the Prophet ﷺ and of anyone punishing someone with Allah’s punishment.

Muslim related from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd: ‘We were with the Prophet ﷺ in a cave when al-Mursalāt was revealed. We were taking it fresh from his mouth when a snake came out to us. He said, “Kill it.” We hastened to kill it but it got away from us. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Allah protected it from your evil and protected you from its evil.”’ He did not light a fire nor use any device to kill it. It is said that perhaps there was no fire available and so that was abandoned or fire would not help with the stone and the smoke would be harmful. Allah knows best.

The command to kill snakes is part of guidance towards repelling the evil feared from snakes. When it is known that they are harmful, then it is mandatory to go quickly to kill them since he ﷺ said, ‘Kill snakes with white lines on their backs and the short tailed. They cause loss of sight and miscarriage.’ So he singled them out although they are included in the general command and called attention to the reason for that, which is due to the immense harm they cause. Those whose harmful nature is not verified and which are outside of houses are killed because of the general command and the fact that most snakes are harmful. Ibn Mas‘ūd transmitted that he said, ‘Kill all snakes. Whoever fears their revenge is not connected to me.’

As for snakes inside houses, they are not killed until they have been warned for three days since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There are jinn in Madīnah that have become Muslim. If you see any of them, warn them for three days.’ Some scholars take this hadith to only apply to Madīnah because of the jinn becoming Muslim. They said, ‘We do not know whether any of the jinn outside of those in Madīnah became Muslim.’ Ibn Nāfi‘ said that. Mālik said that it is forbidden to kill house jinn in all lands.’ That is sound because Allah Almighty says: ‘We diverted a group of jinn towards you to listen to the Qur’an.’ (46:29) We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A summoner from the jinn came to me and I went to them and recited the Qur’an to them.’ It says in the hadith that they asked him about their provision. They were jinn from the peninsula. If this is confirmed, then none of them are killed until they are warned.

The imams related that Abu-s-Sā’ib, the freedman of Hishām ibn Zuhrah, visited Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī in his house. He said, ‘I found him praying and sat down to wait until he finished his prayer. I heard a movement in some bundles of wood in a corner of the house. I turned around and saw that it was a snake. I jumped up to kill it but he indicated to me that I should remain sitting. I did so and when he finished, he pointed to a room of the house and asked, “Do you see this room?” “Yes,” I answered. He said, “Among us was a young man who had recently got married. We went with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to the Trench and the young man would ask for permission from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at midday to return to his wife. One day he gave him permission and told him, “Take your weapons with you. I fear that Qurayẓah may harm you.” The man took his weapons and went back, He found his wife standing between the two doors. He went at her with his spear to stab her out of jealousy. She told him, “Put away your spear. Enter the house and see what has made me come out!” He went in and there was a huge snake curled up on the bed. He thrust the spear at it and pierced it and then went out having fixed it in the house. But it escaped and bit him and no one knew which of them died first, the snake or the young man. We went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and mentioned that to him. We said, “Pray to Allah to bring him back to life.” He said, “Ask forgiveness for your brother.” Then he said, “There are jinn in Madīnah that have become Muslim. If you see any of them, warn them for three days. Then if you still see it after that, kill it. It is a shayṭān.”’ Another transmission has that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are those [jinn] who live in these houses. If you see any of them, warn them to leave for three days. If it does not leave, kill it. It is an unbeliever.’ The account continues: ‘He told them, “Go and bury your companion.”’

Our scholars say that it is not understood from this hadith that the jinn that this young man killed was a Muslim and that the jinn killed him in retaliation, because if it had been sound that retaliation had been prescribed between us and the jinn, that would only have been in the case of intentional killing. This young man did not intend to kill a Muslim soul since he had no knowledge of that. He had intended to kill something that it is legally permitted to kill. This is accidental killing in which there is no retaliation. It is more appropriate to say that unbelieving or impious jinn can be killed because of their companionship in enmity and vengeance. It killed Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah when he was found dead in his bathing area and his body had turned green. They were not aware of his death until they heard someone invisible saying:

We killed the master of Khazraj, Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah.

We shot him with an arrow that did not miss his heart!

The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There are jinn in Madīnah who have become Muslim’ in order to clarify the method taken to avoid killing those of them who were Muslim and to overpower those who are unbelievers. It is related by various paths that ‘A’ishah, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, killed a snake (jānn) and dreamt that someone said to her, ‘You killed a Muslim.’ She answered, ‘If it had been a Muslim, it would not have entered where the wives of the Prophet ﷺ were.’ He said, ‘It only entered when you were dressed.’ In the morning she ordered that twelve thousand dirhams be paid in the Cause of Allah.’ Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Badr said that the jānn is one of the snakes whose killing the Prophet ﷺ forbade. It walks and does not coil.

As regards the manner of warning, Mālik said, ‘I prefer that it be warning for three days.’ ‘Īsā ibn Dīnār said that, even if it appears several times a day. He does not confine himself to three times in one day; it has to be over three days. It is also said that three times is sufficient based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Warn it three times.’ ‘Three’ (thalāth) is feminine and so it means ‘three times’. Mālik’s view is more appropriate because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Three days.’ It is a sound text which qualifies what is unqualified. Thābit al-Bunānī mentioned that when house snakes were mentioned to ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, he said, ‘When you see any of them in your homes, say, “I ask you by the contract which Nūḥ عليه السلام made with you and the contract that Solomon عليه السلام made with you.” When you see any of them after that, then kill it.’

Jubayr ibn Nufayr related from Abū Tha‘labah Jarthūm al-Khushanī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are three sorts of jinn: a third of them fly with wings in the air, a third are snakes and dogs, and a third alight and travel on.’ Abu-d-Dardā’ ‘Umaymir related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The jinn were created in three groups: one third are dogs, snakes and the vermin of the earth, a third are in the wind, and a third are like human beings with clothes and are subject to the punishment. Allah created three types of human beings. One type have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears which do not hear. They are like cattle, rather they are more misguided. A third have bodies like those of human beings and hearts of shayṭāns. A third will be in the shade of Allah on the Day when there is no shade but His shade.’

Animals such as snakes, scorpions, mice, geckoes and the like, which basically cause injury, are killed without disagreement because of the harm they cause. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Five are vicious and are killed inside and outside the Ḥaram…’ The snake showed that its nature was vicious when it betrayed Ādam and let Iblīs into the Garden in its jaws. Iblīs told it that it was his responsibility and so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded snakes to be killed, saying, ‘Kill them, even during the prayer,’ referring to snakes and scorpions. Alone among creatures, the gecko blew on the fire of Abraham and so it was cursed. This is similar to what was related about snakes. It is said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone kills a gecko, it is as if he killed an unbeliever.’

According to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abū Hurayrah related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone kills a gecko with the first blow, he has a hundred good deeds. There is less than that for the second and less still for the third.’ The mouse showed its nature when it deliberately went to the ropes of Nūḥ’s Ship and severed them. ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Abī Nu‘m related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Someone in iḥrām can kill snakes, scorpions, kites, aggressive beasts, wild dogs and rats.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ woke up and a mouse had taken the wick [of a candle] to burn down the house and so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that it be killed. The crow showed its nature when the Prophet Nūḥ sent it from the ship to bring him news of the earth and it abandoned his command and went to a carcass. All of this is similar to what the snake did.

We said, ‘Go down from here’

This is addressed to Ādam, Ḥawwā’, the snake and Shayṭān according to Ibn ‘Abbās. Al-Ḥasan said that only Ādam, Ḥawwā’ and the whisperer are intended. Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan said it was all of the descendants of Ādam and Iblīs. The word from which ‘go down’ is derived is hubūṭ, meaning ‘to descend from a higher to a lower place’. Ādam landed in a place called Sarndib in India on a mountain called Būdh borne by a wind from the Garden which lingered among its trees and valleys and filled them with fragrance. Ḥawwā’ landed in Jiddah, Iblīs in Ubulla, and the snake in Baysan or Sijistan. Sijistan is full of snakes.

as enemies to each other!’

‘Enemy’ (‘aduw) is the opposite of friend. It comes from the verb ‘adā which means to do wrong. A wolf which is ‘adawān attacks people. ‘Udwān is pure injustice. Some scholars say that this āyah applies to the human body itself. This is unlikely even though the idea is sound. They find evidence in the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘When a person’s limbs say to his tongue, “Fear Allah regarding us. If you are straight, we are straight. If you are crooked, we are crooked.”’

If it is asked why Allah uses the singular rather than the plural, there are two reasons. One is that ‘some’ and ‘all’ are used in the singular in word and in meaning. Both usages are found in the Qur’an. The second is that ‘enemy’ in the singular is used to mean the plural. Ibn Fāris said that ‘aduw is used for the singular, dual, plural and feminine.

It is important to realise that Allah Almighty did not expel Ādam from the Garden and make him go down from it as a punishment, because He only sent him down after he had repented and He had accepted his repentance. He sent him down either to discipline him or to make the test hard. The truth, however, is that his being sent down to live on the earth stemmed from a pre-eternal wisdom governing the whole matter. It was so that his descendants would spread throughout the earth and so that they could be given responsibility and tested there, and then be given their rewards and penalties in the Next World, since the Garden and the Fire are not dimensions where accountability applies. The eating of the tree was the necessary condition for Ādam’s descent from the Garden and Allah does whatever He wills. He says: ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth,’ and this is a great honour and noble prerogative. It was already indicated in his being created from earth.

you will have residence on the earth

This means a place of residence. As-Suddī, however, says that it refers to their graves, meaning a more permanent resting place. Allah’s words: ‘He made the earth a stable dwelling place’ (27:61) can bear either meaning. Allah knows best.

and enjoyment

The word used here for enjoyment (matā‘) applies to what is enjoyed of food, clothes, life, conversation, intimacy and other such things. From it is taken the mut‘ah (temporary) marriage since it gives a man temporary enjoyment of a woman.

for a time

Interpreters disagree about the word ‘ḥīn’ (time). One group say that it means until death. This is the position of those who say that ‘residence’ refers to our lifetime on the earth. Some say that it means until the Last Hour, and this is the position of those who say that ‘residence’ refers to the grave. Ḥīn sometimes means a distant time and can also refer to a period of time. It can also mean a moment or a segment of time. Ibn ‘Arafah said that it means a segment of time, an hour or more. Al-Azharī said that it is a noun like ‘waqt’ that is used for all times, long or short. It means that he will benefit from it at every moment and its benefit is never cut off. He said that ‘ḥīn’ is the Day of Rising, and it is said that it is morning and evening, as in 30:17.

Linguists disagree about the meaning of this word as do our scholars and others. Al-Farrā’ stated that ‘ḥīn’ can designate two types of time: a time which is undefined and a time which Allah mentions: ‘It bears fruit regularly (kulla ḥīnin) by its Lord’s permission’ (14:25) which is six months. Ibn al-‘Arabī says that the meaning is unknown and no judgment is connected to it. A ‘known time’ is that which is connected to judgments and legal responsibility. The maximum of a known time is a year. Mālik said that it is the most general noun for time. Ash-Shāfi‘ī thinks that it is less than that. Abū Ḥanīfah takes a middle position and says that it is six months.

There is no point in any of this line of thought because there is no valid analogy for its amount or any text from the Prophet ﷺ saying what its length is. One decides on the meaning after ascertaining what a statement means linguistically. If someone swears to pray for a ‘a time’, according to ash-Shāfi‘ī that is applied to one rak‘ah because that is the minimum supererogatory prayer, analogous to the rak‘ah of the witr. Mālik and his people say that the minimum supererogatory prayer is two rak‘ahs. Time is estimated according to the action. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said in al-Aḥkām: ‘If someone swears not to speak to a certain person for “a time” or not to do something for “a time”, then the “time” is a year.’ He said that they agree in rulings that it someone swears to do something for a ‘time’, then more than a year is not included in the oath. This is agreed on in the School.

Mālik said, ‘If someone swears not to do something for a “time”, be it using the word ḥīn, zamān or dahr, all those terms refer to a year.’ Ibn Wahb said that he was unsure about dahr being a year. Ibn al-Mundhir related from Ya‘qūb and Ibn al-Ḥasan that dahr is six months. Ibn ‘Abbās, the People of Opinion, ‘Ikrimah, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, ‘Āmir ash-Sha‘bī and ‘Ubaydah said that ‘It bears fruit regularly (kulla ḥeenin)’ (14:25) means six months. Al-Awzā‘ī and Abū ‘Ubayd also said that it is six months. Ash-Shāfi‘ī does not have a definitive time or limit for ḥīn. He says that it might well mean for the duration of this world. He said that he would never break it. Scrupulousness would make it apply to a single day. Abū Thawr and others said that these terms are applied according to their normal usage in language. Aṭ-Ṭabarī and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the term is used is various ways and with different possibilities because the undefined term does not have a specific meaning in language. Some scholars said that the point of ‘time’ being good news to Ādam is so that he would know that he would not remain in it forever and that he would move to the Garden by the promise that he would return to it. For others, it indicates the Hereafter. Allah knows best.

37 Then Ādam received some words from his Lord and He turned towards him. He is the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.

Then Ādam received some words from his Lord

‘Received’ here means understood, grasped or learned. It is said that it means accept and take. He عليه السلام received the Revelation. Interpreters disagree about the ‘words’ mentioned in this āyah. Al-Ḥasan, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and Mujāhid said that it refers Ādam’s words in Sūrat al-A‘rāf, ‘Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will be among the lost.’ (7:23) Mujāhid also said that the words were, ‘Glory be to You, O Allah. There is no god but You. My Lord, I have wronged myself, so forgive me. You are the Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’ One group say that Ādam saw written on the pedestal of the Throne, ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah’ and sought intercession through that. Another group say that what is meant is weeping, modesty and supplication, or regret, asking for forgiveness and sorrow. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The expression means that Ādam used nothing but the normal form of asking for forgiveness.’ One of the Salaf was asked about what a sinner should say. He answered, ‘He says what our father said: “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves…”’ (7:23) Mūsā said, ‘My Lord, I have wronged myself. Forgive me.’ (28:16) Yūnus (Jonah) said, ‘There is no god but You! Glory be to You! Truly I have been one of the wrongdoers.’ (21:87)

Ibn ‘Abbās and Wahb ibn Munabbih said that the ‘words’ are ‘Glory be to You, O Allah, and by Your praise. There is no god but You. I have done evil and wronged myself. Forgive me. You are the best Forgiver. Glory be to You, O Allah, and by Your praise. There is no god but You. I have done evil and wronged myself. Turn to me! You are the Ever-Relenting, the Most Merciful.’ Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b said that it is the words: ‘There is no god but You. Glory be to You, O Allah, and by Your praise. I have done evil and wronged myself. Turn to me! You are the Ever-Relenting, the Most Merciful. There is no god but You. Glory be to You, O Allah, and by Your praise. I have done evil and wronged myself. Show mercy to me! You are the Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. There is no god but You. Glory be to You, O Allah, and by Your praise. I have done evil and wronged myself. Show mercy to me! You are the Most Merciful of the merciful.’ It is said that the word are ‘Praise be to Allah’ when one sneezes. ‘Words’ (kalimāt) is the plural of kalimah. It is used for both a little and a lot.

and He turned towards him.

This means that Allah accepted his repentance. That occurred on the Day of ‘Ashūrā’ which was a Friday as has been reported. When a person repents, he returns to obedience to his Lord. The root of the word for repentance (tawbah) means to return.

If it is asked why the pronoun ‘him’ is used and not ‘them’ when both Ādam and Ḥawwā’ participated in the wrong action, the answer is that, when Ādam was addressed at the beginning with ‘live’ in the masculine singular, he was singled out for receiving and the story ends with the same pronoun. It is also because a woman is respected and concealed and so Allah wished to conceal her fault. That is why He does not mention her in connection with the act of disobedience when He says: ‘Ādam disobeyed his Lord and became misled.’ (20:121) It is also because the woman usually follows the man. Similarly Mūsā’s servant is not mentioned with Mūsā when he is addressed in the second person singular, ‘Did I not tell you?’ (18:75). It is said that His turning to him also implies His turning to her because the command was issued to both of them.

He is the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.

Allah describes Himself as ‘at-Tawwāb’. The verbal root is used frequently in the Qur’an in the definite and indefinite, noun and verb. The word ‘Ever-returning’ (tawwāb) can be used for both people, as in 2:222, and for Allah. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that our scholars have three positions about the meaning when it is used for Allah. One is that it is permitted for the Lord and is used for Him in the Qur’an and Sunnah and it should not be interpreted. Others say that it is a real description of Allah and it is used when Allah turns towards His slave when he turns from disobedience to obedience. The third view is that when Allah turns to a person, it means that He accepts His repentance. It is possible that it refers to His words, ‘I have accepted your repentance’ and the fact that He makes repentance recur in the heart of the evildoer so that he performs actions in obedience to Him.

The form of the word tā’ib, even if it may be permissible linguistically, cannot be used for Allah because we cannot apply any names or attributes to Him except what He or His Prophet ﷺ or the community of the Muslims have used for Him even if that is possible linguistically. This is the sound position in this area, as we explained in Kitāb al-Asmā. Allah says: ‘Allah has turned towards the Prophet, and the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār’ (9:117) and: ‘Allah accepts repentance from His slaves.’ (9:104) The intensive form tawwāb is used of Allah to stress the action and the frequency of His acceptance of His slaves’ repentance.

No one has the power to generate repentance unilaterally because Allah Almighty alone creates all actions. This differs from the position of the Mu‘tazilites and those who follow them. In the same way no one else can forgive wrong actions, and this is why our scholars say that the Jews and Christians disbelieved when they took their religious leaders as Lords by ascribing this power to them as mentioned in 9:31.

Ibn Kathīr recited ‘Ādama’ and ‘kalimātun’ while the rest recite ‘Ādamu’ and ‘kalimātan’. Both readings mean the same because Ādam received words and learned them.

Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘When Ādam was sent down to earth, there was nothing there but an eagle in the air and a fish in the sea. The eagle went to the fish and spent the night with it. When the eagle saw Ādam, it said, “Fish! Today something has come down to earth that walks on two legs and strikes with its hands!” The fish said, “If you spoke the truth, then I have no escape in the sea and you have no escape on the land!”’

38 We said, ‘Go down from it, every one of you! Then when guidance comes to you from Me, those who follow My guidance will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.’

We said, ‘Go down from it,

Allah repeats the command by way of stress and harshness. It is said that the first time, it is connected to transgression and the second to bringing guidance. It is also said that the first is the descent from the Garden to heaven and the second the descent from heaven to earth. This would indicate that the Garden was in the seventh heaven as indicated by the account of the Night Journey.

every one of you!

Wahb ibn Munabbih said, ‘When Ādam descended to earth, Iblīs said to the wild animals, “This is your enemy, so destroy him.” They gathered and elected the dog as their leader, saying, “You are the boldest of us.” When Ādam saw that, he was confused, but Jibrīl came to him and said, “Stroke the dog’s head.” He did so. When the animals saw that the dog was friendly to Ādam, they scattered. The dog sought security and Ādam gave it to him and he remained with him and his sons from then on.’

At-Tirmidhī related something similar. When Ādam descended to earth, Iblīs said to the wild animals and roused them to harm Ādam. The dog was the fiercest of them against him and then it lost heart. The report says that Jibrīl came to him and told him to put his hand on its head. He did so and it was friendly to him and calm. It became one of those who guarded him and his children and was friendly towards them. When it lost heart, it became afraid of human beings so that if one of them throws a piece of mud at it, it flees and then comes back in a friendly way. So it contains a branch of Iblīs and a branch of the stroking by Ādam. It barks, tears and attacks people by the branch of Iblīs, and by the branch of Ādam, it is calmed so that it is obedient and submits and is friendly to him and his children and guards them. Because of its loss of heart, it lolls out its tongue in all situations. That is why Allah likened evil scholars to a dog as will come in Sūrat al-A‘rāf.

Then when guidance comes to you from Me,

There is disagreement about the meaning of ‘hudā’ (guidance) here. As-Suddī said that it is the Book of Allah. It is said to be success to following Allah’s guidance. One group say that it refers to the Messengers who came to Ādam from the angels and those who came to his descendants from among mankind, as in the hadith of Abū Dharr. ‘From Me’ is another indication that the actions of people are created by Allah, which differs from the position of the Qadariyyah and others.

will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.’

‘Khawf’ (fear) is anxiety and it applies only to the future. Az-Zuhrī, al-Ḥasan, ‘Īsā ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Abī Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb recited ‘lā khawfa’ to denote being free of it. Grammarians prefer it to be in the nominative with the tanwīn (lā khawfun) as the beginning of a sentence because the second is definite and can only be in the nominative. ‘Ḥuzn’ (sorrow) is the opposite of happiness and applies only to the past. So the meaning is that they have no fear about what lies ahead of them in the Next World nor are they sorrowful about anything that passed them by in this world. This does not deny the terrors of the Day of Rising and the fear, which the people of obedience will experience, because Allah and His Messenger have stated that the hardships of the Rising will not be lessened for those who obeyed Allah. It is when they go to the Garden that they will feel no fear, and Allah knows best.

39 But those who disbelieve and deny Our Signs are the Companions of the Fire, remaining in it timelessly, for ever.

‘Those who disbelieve commit shirk.’ The word ‘aṣḥāb’ (Companions) comes from the root ṣuḥbah, which means to be connected to a thing in any state and at any time. It entails complete adhesion to a thing and mixing with it. That is why it is used for the ‘Companions of the Fire’.

40 Tribe of Israel! remember the blessing I conferred on you. Honour My contract and I will honour your contract. Have dread of Me alone.

Tribe of Israel!

Isrā‘īl (Israel) was Ya‘qūb ibn Isḥaq ibn Ibrāhīm عليه السلام. Abu-l-Faraj said that he is the only Prophet to have two names except for Muḥammad ﷺ who has many names. I say, however, that it is said that the Messiah is a name of ‘Īsā, and Allah also named him Rūḥ (Spirit) and Word. Al-Khālid ibn Aḥmad said that there were five Prophets with two names: Muḥammad was also called Aḥmad ﷺ, ‘Īsā was called the Messiah, Ya‘qūb was called Isrā‘īl, Yūnus was called Dhū ’n-Nūn and Ilyās was called Dhū ’l-Kifl. We mentioned that ‘Īsā has four names, but our Prophet ﷺ has many names as we will explain in the proper place. Isrā‘īl is a non-Arabic name and so it is not declined.

Remember the blessing I conferred on you.

‘Dhikr’ (remembrance) is a word with several possibilities of meaning according to the context. When applied to the heart, it implies remembrance rather than forgetfulness. When applied to the tongue, it implies speech rather than silence. Dhikr also means honour as in 43:44. Ibn al-Anbārī said, ‘The meaning is to remember to be grateful for Allah’s blessing. There is no need to actually mention “thankfulness” when blessing is mentioned.’ It is said that it means to remember with the heart, which is certainly much to be desired. In other words: ‘do not forget or overlook the blessing which I bestowed on you.’ ‘Ni‘mah’ (blessing), although singular, has a comprehensive meaning. The singular can have the meaning of the plural.

Among Allah’s blessings to them were that He saved them from the people of Pharaoh, appointed Prophets from among them, sent down the Books and manna and quails to them, made fountains gush out from the rock for them, and included the mention of Muḥammad ﷺ in the Torah. Blessings to fathers are blessings to sons because they are ennobled by the nobility of their fathers.

Those with a precise grasp of the use of language say that Allah connected blessings to the tribe of Israel but did not mention that regarding the Community of Muhammad ﷺ; rather He says: ‘Remember Me and I will remember you’ (2:152), so the other communities look from the blessing to the Blesser while the Community of Muḥammad look from the Blesser to the blessing.

Honour My contract and I will honour your contract.

There is disagreement about the contract referred to here. Al-Ḥasan said it is what is found in Allah’s words: ‘Take hold vigorously of what We have given you’ (2:63) and elsewhere as in 5:12 and 3:187. Az-Zajjāj said that what is meant are the words in the Torah about following Muḥammad ﷺ.

Allah’s honouring of the contract is generally taken to mean that they will receive the reward of the Garden. It is also said that it means that if they perform their obligations with sincerity, then Allah will accept them from them. It is said that if they perform acts of worship, Allah will look after their affairs. It is said that it means that if they preserve their behaviour outwardly, Allah will adorn their hearts inwardly. It is also said that it is general to all His commands and prohibitions and what is mentioned about Muḥammad ﷺ in the Torah and elsewhere. This is the position of most scholars, and it is sound. His side of the contract is that He will admit them to the Garden. We are ordered to fulfil the contract as Allah says frequently in the Qur’an.

Have dread of Me alone.

This means ‘Fear Me.’ Ruhb, rahb and rahbah mean fear. The command is a threat. The yā’ is omitted after the nūn because of the beginning of the āyah. Ibn Isḥāq, however, keeps the yā’.

41 Believe what I have sent down, confirming what is with you. Do not be the first to reject it and do not sell My Signs for a paltry price. Have fear of Me alone.

Believe what I have sent down,

This means to affirm the Qur’an.

confirming what is with you.

This implies ‘affirming what was sent down.’ ‘What is with you’ is the Torah.

Do not be the first to reject it

Ibn Jurayj said that the third person pronoun translated as ‘it’ refers to the Qur’an but according to Abu-l-‘Alīyah it refers to Muḥammad ﷺ in which case it would be ‘him’.

If it is asked why ‘kāfir’ (reject) is in the singular and not the plural, it is said that there is an elision which implies: ‘Do not be the first group to reject it.’ Al-Akhfash and al-Farrā’ say that it goes back to ‘the first’, in other words: ‘do not be the first of those who reject it.’

Do not sell My Signs for a paltry price.

This forbids them from being the first to disbelieve and taking a price for the Signs of Allah. It means: ‘Do not take a bribe to change the description of Muhammad ﷺ as found in the Torah.’ The rabbis used to do that when they were forbidden to do it. Some interpreters, al-Hasan and others, said that. It is said that they received food in return for knowledge as a stipend, when they were forbidden that. It is said that the rabbis used to take a wage for teaching their dīn when they were forbidden from doing that. Abu-l-‘Āliyah said that it means: ‘Do not sell My commands, prohibitions and Signs for a paltry price,’ meaning do not abandon them for this world and its substance, for the sake of a livelihood which is insignificant.

Although this āyah addresses the tribe of Israel, it is about anyone getting something for what they did wrong. It can thus refer to anyone who takes a bribe for altering or falsifying the truth, refusing to teach what he is duty bound to teach, or refusing to convey what he knows, and which it is incumbent on him to convey, unless he is paid for it. All of that is included in the āyah, and Allah knows best. Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who learns knowledge which should be learned for the sake of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, alone simply to obtain by it goods of this world will not experience the scent of the Garden on the Day of Rising.’ Abū Dāwūd transmitted it.

Scholars disagree about taking a wage for teaching the Qur’an and knowledge of the dīn because of this āyah and others like it. Az-Zuhrī and the exponents of opinion (ra’y) forbade it, saying that it is not permitted for anyone to take a wage for teaching the Qur’an, because teaching it is one of the obligations which require sincerity and the intention of drawing near to Allah. Therefore there can be no wage for someone who does that just as there can be none for fasting or the prayer.

Ibn ‘Abbās related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Your children’s teachers are the worst of you, the least merciful to orphans and the harshest to the poor.’ Abū Hurayrah said that he asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, what do you say about other teachers?’ He said, ‘Their dirhams are unlawful, their clothes are unlawful, and their words are hypocrisy.’ ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit said, ‘I taught the Qur’an and writing to some of the people of the Ṣuffah and one of them gave me a bow. I said, “It is not money and I can shoot it in the Way of Allah.” I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about it and he said, “If you are happy to wear a collar of fire, accept it.”’ Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr and most scholars permit accepting a wage for teaching, based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ in the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘You are most entitled to take wages for the Book of Allah.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it. This hadith is an evidentiary criterion which removes any dispute and can be relied on.

To make an analogy between such teaching and the prayer and fasting is incorrect. There is a clear difference between the two things. The prayer and fasting are individual actions of worship for a person, while teaching the Qur’an is an act of worship which can be done by other than the teacher himself. Therefore he is permitted to receive a wage for his attempting to convey the meaning of Qur’an, just as he would for teaching someone how to write the Qur’an. Ibn al-Mundhir said that Abū Ḥanīfah disliked the taking of a wage for teaching the Qur’an, but he permits hiring a man to write a tablet, poem, or known song for a known wage. So he would allow a wage for disobeying Allah but not for obeying him.

Some say that this āyah only applies to the tribe of Israel and there is disagreement about whether what was legislated for them applies to us. It is also said that the āyah is about those who should teach and refuse to do so unless they are paid. If it is not incumbent on someone, he is permitted to take a wage, based on the evidence of the Sunnah. It might be specifically incumbent on him except in the case of a teacher who does not have enough to support himself and his family. If that is the case, then the ruler should support him for sake of the establishment of the dīn. If he does not, it is up to the Muslims to do so. When Abū Bakr became caliph, he did not have enough to support his family and so he took some cloth and went to the market. He was asked about that and said, ‘How else will I support my family!’ They sent him back and allotted him a sufficient amount to cover his needs.

As for the hadiths about teachers mentioned above, none of them are reliable. The hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās is related by Sa‘īd ibn Ṭarīf from ‘Ikrimah, and Sa‘īd is abandoned. The hadith of Abū Hurayrah is related by ‘Alī ibn ‘Āṣim from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Abū Jurham, and Abū Jurham is unknown, and Ḥammād ibn Salamah did not relate from anyone called Abū Jurham. He related it from Abu-l-Muhazzim who is abandoned. So the hadith is without foundation. The hadith of ‘Ubādah was related by Abū Dāwūd from al-Mughīrah ibn Ziyād al-Mawṣulī from ‘Ubādah ibn Nusayy from al-Aswad ibn Tha‘labah from him. Al-Mughīrah is known by the people of knowledge, but has ‘denounced’ (munkar) hadiths. This is one of them as Abū ‘Umar said. The hadith about the bow is known by the people of knowledge because it is related from ‘Ubādah by two paths. It is related from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b from the hadiths of Mūsā ibn ‘Alī from his father from Ubayy, and it is broken.

There is no hadith about this matter which must be acted on on account of its transmission. The hadith of ‘Ubādah is subject to interpretation because it is possible that he taught for the sake of Allah and then took a wage for it. It is related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The best of people and the best of those who walk the surface of earth are teachers. Whenever they renew the dīn, give to them and do not employ them and constrict them. When a teacher tells the child to say, “In the Name of Allah, the All-Merciful, Most Merciful,” and the child says, “In the Name of Allah, the All-Merciful, Most Merciful,” Allah writes the freeing of the child, the freeing of his teachers and the freeing of his parents from the Fire.’

Scholars disagree regarding the ruling about someone who takes a wage for leading the prayer. Ashhab related that Mālik was asked about praying behind someone who was hired to lead the people in Ramaḍān. He said, ‘I hope that there will be no harm in it.’ It is more strongly disliked in the obligatory prayer. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people and Abū Thawr said, ‘There is no harm in that or in praying behind him.’ Al-Awzā‘ī said that he cannot do that where the obligatory prayer is concerned. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people disliked it, as was already mentioned. This question is connected to the one before it and the basic principle is the same. Ibn al-Qāsim disliked taking a wage for teaching poetry and grammar while Ibn Ḥabīb said that there is nothing wrong in taking a wage for teaching poetry, letters and the battles of the Arabs. He did dislike poetry containing reference to wine, obscenity and satire. Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Lakhmī said that. According to his view, a wage is permitted for writing it and selling its books. Singing and wailing are forbidden in any case.

Another point concerning this matter is found in what is related by ad-Dārimī from Ya‘qūb ibn Ibrāhīm from Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Kumayt from ‘Alī ibn Wahb al-Hamdānī that aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Mūsā said, ‘Sulaymān ibn ‘Abd al-Mālik passed through Madīnah on the way to Makka and stayed there for a few days. He inquired, “Is there anyone in Madīnah who met any of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ?” They replied, “Abū Ḥāzim.” He sent for him and when he came, he asked, “Abū Ḥāzim, what is this concealment?” Abū Ḥāzim said, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, what concealment are you referring to?” He said, “The notable people of Madīnah came to me but you did not!” He said, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, I ask you to seek refuge with Allah from saying what is not the case. You did not know me before today and I did not see you!”

‘He turned to Muḥammad ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī who said, “The shaykh is right and you are wrong.” Sulaymān said, “Abū Ḥāzim! Why do we hate death?” He replied, “Because the Next World tests you and this world makes you prosper and so you dislike to move from prosperity to ruin.” He said, “You are right, Abū Ḥāzim. What will our presentation before Allah tomorrow be like?” He said, “For the one who did good it will be like someone returning to his family after an absence. But as for the one who did evil, he will be like a runaway slave being brought back to his owner.” Sulaymān wept and said, “Would that I knew what I have with Allah!” He said, “Examine your actions in the light of the Book of Allah.” He asked, “Where should I look?” He said, “The truly good will be in perfect Bliss and the dissolute will be in a Blazing Fire.” (82:13-14)

‘Sulaymān asked, “Where is the mercy of Allah, Abū Ḥāzim?” Abū Ḥāzim said, “The mercy of Allah is near to those who do good.” Sulaymān said, “Abū Ḥāzim, which of Allah’s slaves are the noblest?” He replied, “Those with integrity and intelligence.” He asked, “Which works are best?” Abū Ḥāzim said, “Performing obligations while avoiding prohibitions.” Sulayman asked, “Whose supplication is heard?” He replied, “The supplication of a good-doer for a good-doer.” He asked, “Which ṣadaqah is best?” He said, “That given to a despairing beggar and to someone who is destitute, in which there is no question of indebtedness or insult.” He asked, “Which words are fairest?” He replied, “Speaking the truth in the presence of someone you fear or have hopes of.” He said, “Which of the believers is the cleverest?” He replied, “A man who obeys Allah and directs other people to it.” He said, “Which of the believers is the most stupid?” He replied, “A man who sinks to his brother’s passion when he is a wrongdoer and sells the Next World for this one.”

‘Sulaymān told him, “You are right. So what do you say about us?” He asked, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, will you let me go?” Sulaymān said, “No, rather give me advice.” He said, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, your forefathers overpowered the people with swords and took this kingdom by force without consulting the Muslims or without their pleasure until they had killed many of them. They have left us. If only you had been aware of what they said and what was said to them!” A man in the gathering said to him, “Abū Ḥāzim! What you have said is bad!” Abū Ḥāzim answered, “You lie. Allah has taken a covenant from scholars to make things clear to people and to not conceal them.” Sulaymān asked him, “So how can we put things right?” He replied, “Leave aside conceit, hold to integrity and distribute equally.” Sulaymān said to him, “What is our approach?” He replied, “Take from the lawful and give it to its people.”

‘Then Sulaymān asked him, “Abū Ḥāzim, will you keep our company so that you can take from us and we from you?” He replied, “I seek refuge with Allah!” Sulaymān asked, “Why is that?” He replied, “I fear that I would lean towards them a little and then Allah would let me taste a double punishment in life and a double punishment in death.” (cf. 17:75) Sulaymān said, “Tell us your needs.” He answered “That you save me from the Fire and make me enter the Garden.” Sulaymān told him, “That is not up to me!” Abū Ḥāzim stated, “I have no need of anything else from you.” He said, “Make supplication for me.” Abū Ḥāzim said, “O Allah, if Sulaymān is your friend, ease him to the good of this world and the Next World. If he is Your enemy, take him by the forelock where You want and please.” Sulaymān said to him, “Enough!” Abū Ḥāzim said, “I was short but it is a lot if you are one of its people. If you are not one of its people, I should not shoot from a bow with no string.”

‘Sulayman said, “Give me some more advice.” He said, “I will advise you and be brief. Exalt your Lord and free Him from seeing you where He forbade you to be and from not seeing you where He commanded you to be.”

‘When Sulaymān left him, he sent him a hundred dinars and wrote to him, “Spend it and you will have the like of it many times more.” He returned it to him and wrote to him, “Amīr al-Mu’minīn, I seek refuge with Allah from your asking me being a joke or my reply to you being a surrender. I am not pleased with it for you, so how could I be pleased with it for myself? When Mūsā, the son of ‘Imrān, عليه السلام arrived at the water of Madyan, he found shepherds drawing water there. Standing apart from them, he found two women, holding back their sheep. He questioned them and they said, ‘We cannot draw water until the shepherds have driven off their sheep. You see our father is a very old man.’ So he drew water for them and then withdrew into the shade and said, ‘My Lord, I am truly in need of any good You have in store for me.’ That was when he was hungry and fearful and without security. In spite of that he asked his Lord alone and did not ask people.

‘“The shepherds did not notice but the women noticed. So when they returned to their father, they told the story to him and recounted what he had said. Their father, who was Shu‘ayb, said, ‘This is a hungry man.’ He told one of them, ‘Go and invite him.’ When she came to him, she showed him respect and covered her face and said, ‘My father invites you so that he can pay you your wage for drawing water for us.’ It grieved Mūsā when she said, ‘your wage for drawing water for us.’ He, however, found that he no alternative but to follow her because he was hungry and alone in a strange place. When he followed her the wind blew her garment against her back so that the shape of her buttocks showed. Mūsā looked to the side at times and lowered his eyes at others.

‘“When his patience was exhausted, he called her and said, ‘Slave of Allah! Go behind me and direct me to the way by words.’ When he reached Shu‘ayb, supper was being prepared. He told him, ‘Sit, young man and eat.’ Mūsā said to him, ‘I seek refuge with Allah.’ Shu‘ayb asked, ‘Why? Aren’t you hungry?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘but I fear that this may be a recompense for drawing water for them and I am from the people of a house who do not sell anything of their dīn even for the entire earth filled with gold.’ Shu‘ayb said to him, ‘No, young man, but it is my custom and the custom of my fathers to give hospitality to a guest and feed him.’ So Mūsā sat and ate.

‘“If these hundred dinars are recompense for what I said, then carrion, blood and pig meat in a state of need are more lawful than it. If it is connected to the treasury, then there are others who deserve it as much as I do. If it is between us, then I have no need of it.”’

This is how one follows the Book and the Prophets. Look at this virtuous imam and scholar and how he would not take any payment for his knowledge, his advice or his counsel. He openly made the truth clear and did not show any fear in doing so. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Awe of someone should not prevent any of you from speaking the truth wherever he is.’ In the Revelation we find: ‘They strive in the Way of Allah and do not fear the blame of any censurer.’ (5:54)

Have taqwā of Me alone.

We have already mentioned the meaning of taqwā. It is also recited with yā’ as we mentioned in the previous āyah.

42 Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth.

Do not mix up truth with falsehood

The word labs means mixing. That occurs when you mix the clear with the ambiguous or truth with falsehood. Allah Almighty says: ‘We would have further confused (labasnā) for them the very thing they are confused (yalbisūn) about.’ (6:9) A thing is mixed up when it is mixed with something similar to it. Then it is not clear. This idea is seen in what ‘Alī said to al-Ḥārith ibn Ḥawṭ: ‘Ḥārith, it is muddled (malbūs) for you. Truth is not recognized by virtue of men. Recognise the truth and then you will recognise its people.’ Sa‘īd related that Qatādah said that the meaning of the phrase is ‘do not mix up Judaism and Christianity with Islam. You know the dīn of Allah. None other is accepted; only it satisfies: that is Islam. Judaism and Christianity are innovations and are not from Allah.’

A possible meaning is libās (clothing) and so the āyah can mean: ‘Do not cover’. That is as clothing covers. A man is described as the garment (libās) covering his wife, and his wife as covering him. Labūs is clothing and armour that covers. Allah says: ‘We taught him the art of making garments (labūs) for you.’ (21:80) You are on intimate terms (lābasa) with a person when you know his inner self. That which covers the Ka‘bah and a howdah is a libs.

The word used for ‘falsehood’ here is bāṭil which means when something becomes unsound and worthless. It can also mean ‘in vain.’ The False (al-Bāṭil) is one of the names of Shayṭān. A hero is also called baṭl, using the same root, because he makes the courage of his opponent ‘in vain’. Baṭāla is unemployment.

Interpreters disagree about what is meant by ‘truth with falsehood’. Ibn ‘Abbās and others said that it means: ‘do not mix what you have of the truth in the Book with falsehood by alteration or substitution.’ Abu-l-‘Āliyah said, ‘The Jews said, “Muhammad ﷺ was sent, but not to us.” So their affirmation of his mission was the truth but their denial that he was sent to them was falsehood.’ Ibn Zayd said that what was meant by the truth was the Torah, and the falsehood was the changes they made to it. Mujāhid said, ‘Do not mix Judaism and Christianity with Islam.’ Qatādah also said that. Ibn ‘Abbās’s statement is the most correct because it is general and so includes all the other statements.

and knowingly hide the truth.

This can be joined as ‘Do not mix and do not hide,’ or there can be an elision, meaning, ‘Let there not exist among you mixing the truth and concealing it.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It means their concealing the genuineness of the Prophet ﷺ in spite of the fact that they recognised him.’ Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn said, ‘A group of the children of Aaron settled in Yathrib when the tribe of Israel experienced what they did of being conquered by their enemies and humiliation. That group were the bearers of the Torah at that time. They established themselves in Yathrib, hoping that Muḥammad ﷺ would appear among them. They were believers, affirming his Prophethood. Their forebears, who were believers, passed, and were followed by one generation after another until they reached Muḥammad ﷺ. They rejected him in spite of their recognition of him. That is the context of the words of the Almighty: ‘yet when what they recognize does come to them, they reject it.’ (2:89)

They knew the truth about Muḥammad ﷺ, so their rejection was one of obstinacy not ignorance. Allah is not attesting that they have knowledge, but is rather forbidding them to conceal what they know to be true. This shows that a wrong action is made all the more serious when it is done in spite of knowledge rather than in ignorance. This will be explained in 2:44.

43 Establish the prayer and pay zakāt and bow with those who bow.

Establish the prayer and pay zakāt

This is a command which entails a definite, undisputed obligation.

The root meaning of ‘zakāt’ is grow and increase. To ‘pay’ is to give. It is used for crops and wealth when they increase. A man who is zakī is someone with increased wealth. Paying this tax out from wealth is called zakāt, even though doing it seems to produce the opposite of increase, since it involves reducing that wealth. The reason is because it increases the wealth in barakah or with the reward for paying it. It is also said that its root meaning is approbation, from which is taken the attestation of a witness’s character by the qāḍī. So whoever pays zakāt obtains approbation for himself. It is further said that the root meaning of zakāt is purification. It is as if the one who pays it has purified himself of the liability of the right to which the poor are entitled and which Allah has imposed on him. Do you not see that the Prophet ﷺ called what was paid as zakāt the ‘filth of people’. Allah says: ‘Take zakāt from their property to purify and cleanse them’” (9:103)

There is disagreement about what is meant by zakāt here. It is said that it is referring to the obligatory zakāt since it is connected to the prayer. It is also said to be the zakāt al-fiṭr. Mālik stated that according to Ibn al-Qāsim. The first is the position of the majority of scholars. According to them, the zakāt mentioned in the Book is general and was then clarified by the Prophet ﷺ. The imams related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no zakāt due on grain or dates until they reach five wasqs, nor on less than five camels nor less than five ūqiyyahs.’ Al-Bukhārī said that it is five ūqiyyahs of silver. Al-Bukhārī related from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is a tenth due on land watered by rain, springs or running springs. There is half of an ‘ushr (a twentieth) on land watered by wells.’ This will be further explained elsewhere. There is no text on zakāt al-fiṭr in the Book except the interpretation given by Mālik here and in Surah al-A‘lā.

and bow

Linguistically the root of the word ‘bow’ – raka‘a – means to bend the body. It is used metaphorically for descending in station. People disagree about why this act is specifically mentioned here. Some people say that, as bowing (rukū‘) is one of the pillars of the prayer, it is used here to designate the prayer as a whole. This is not particular to the word ‘bowing’ alone since the word ‘recitation’ and the word ‘prostration’ are also used to designate the whole prayer as well. Allah says: ‘The recitation of fajr (dawn)’ (17:78), meaning the Fajr prayer, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Whoever catches a prostration of the prayer has caught the whole prayer.’ The people of the Hijaz use the term ‘sajdah’ for a rak‘ah.

It is said that bowing was singled out because the tribe of Israel did not have that in their prayer. It is said that it was more onerous for the people in the Jāhiliyyah so that one of those who became Muslim – I think it was ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn – told the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Provided that I do not have to prostrate except standing,’ meaning ‘not bow’. When Islam was firm in him and he was at peace with it, he performed rukū‘ in the way he was commanded to.

The legal rukū‘ is that a person bends his back from the waist and makes his back and neck level, with his fingers clasping his knees, and remains bowing, saying, ‘Glory be to My Lord, the Immense’ three times. That is the minimum. Muslim related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to begin the prayer with the takbīr and recitation with “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.”’ Rukū‘ is an obligation and the Qur’an is a sunnah. The same is true of prostration as mentioned at the end of al-Ḥajj (22:77). The sunnah of being still is added as well as the separation between them as has already been discussed. Prostration is made clear in the hadith of Abū Ḥumayd as-Sā‘idī: ‘When the Prophet ﷺ prostrated, he put his forehead and nose firmly on the ground, kept his arms far from his sides, placing his hands opposite his shoulders.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it and said that it is a sound ḥasan hadith. Muslim related from Anas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Be straight in prostration and none of you should stretch out his arms like a dog does.’ Al-Barā’ said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When you prostrate, put your palms down and raise your elbows.’ Maymūnah, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prostrated, he had his arms out in such a way that the whiteness of his armpits could be seen from behind. When he sat, he was still on his left thigh.’

Scholars disagree about someone who puts his forehead but not his nose down in prostration, or his nose but not his forehead. Mālik says that he should prostrate on both his forehead and nose. Ath-Thawrī and Aḥmad also said that. It is the view of an-Nakha‘ī as well. Aḥmad said, ‘It is not enough to prostrate only on one of them without the other.’ Abū Khaythamah and Ibn Abī Shaybah said that. Isḥāq said, ‘If he prostrates on one but not the other, his prayer is invalid.’ Al-Awzā‘ī and Sa‘īd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said that what is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, ‘Ikrimah, and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā is that one is commanded to prostrate on the nose. One group said that it is permitted to prostrate on the forehead and not the nose. This is the view of ‘Aṭā’, Ṭāwus, ‘Ikrimah, Ibn Sīrīn and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. That is also the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, Ya‘qūb and Muḥammad. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Someone said that if someone puts his forehead on the ground but not his nose or his nose and not his forehead, his prayer is completely vitiated. This is the view of an-Nu‘mān.’ He added, ‘I do not know of anyone before him with this position or anyone who followed him.’

What is sound is that prostration is putting both the forehead and nose on the ground, based on the prior hadith of Abū Ḥumayd. Al-Bukhārī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘I was commanded to prostrate on seven bones: the forehead (and he pointed to his nose), the hands, the knees and the toes and not to tuck up the clothes and hair.’ This all qualifies what is undefined of the prayer and is a specific view. Allah knows best. It is related from Mālik that it is not enough to prostrate on the forehead without the nose, as ‘Aṭā’ and ash-Shāfi‘ī said. We prefer the first view. The obligation is not fulfilled when he does not prostrate on his forehead.

It is disliked to prostrate on the cloth of the turban, no matter whether there are one or two turns, but there is no harm in the clothes which cover the feet and knees. What is best is to prostrate directly on the ground or on that on which one prostrates. If there is something harmful there, it should be removed before starting the prayer. If someone has not done that, he may wipe it once. Muslim related from Mu‘ayqīb that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about a man who flattens out the earth so that he can prostrate, ‘If you do it, do it once.’ It is related that Anas ibn Mālik said, ‘We prayed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in intense heat and if one of us was not able to put his forehead on the earth, he would spread his garment on the ground and prostrate on it.’

When Allah says: ‘Bow and prostrate’ (22:77), some of our scholars and others said, ‘What is deemed bowing and prostration is enough for us, and the same is true of standing.’ They did not stipulate being still in that but took the minimum designated by the name. It is as if they had not heard the firm hadiths about the nullifying of the prayer. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘Neither rukū‘, prostration, standing after rukū‘, and sitting between the two prostrations is satisfied until the person is straight in bowing, standing, prostrating and sitting.’ That is sound in the tradition and that is the position of the majority of scholars and people of investigation. It is transmitted by Ibn Wahb and Abū Muṣ‘ab from Mālik.

Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘There are many reports from Ibn al-Qāsim and others about the obligation of separation but omitting stillness.’ This is very weak indeed because the Prophet ﷺ did it, commanded it and taught it. If Ibn al-Qāsim had the excuse that he had not seen that, you do not have that excuse. There is knowledge of it and the argument is established against you regarding it. An-Nasā’ī, ad-Dāraquṭnī and ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz related that Rifā‘ah ibn Rāfi‘ said, ‘I was sitting with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when a man came, entered the mosque and prayed. When he finished, he came and greeted the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the people. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Go back and pray. You have not prayed.” He began to pray while we were looking at him, not knowing what was wrong with it. Then he greeted the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the people. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Go back and pray. You have not prayed.” (Hammām said, “I do not know whether that happened twice or three times.”) The man asked him (what was wrong) saying, “I do not know what is wrong with my prayer.” He ﷺ said, “None of you has completed the prayer until he has done wuḍū’ fully as Allah has commanded, washing his face, his hands to the elbows, wiped his head, and washed his feet to the ankles, then has declared Allah great and praised him and recited the Umm al-Qur’an and what he knows and is easy for him, said the takbīr, bowed, placing his palms on his knees until his joints are at rest and relaxed, then said, ‘Allah hears whoever praises Him’, standing upright until his back is straight and every bone takes its portion of it, then said the takbīr and prostrated, putting his face firmly on the ground (Hammām said, “his forehead”) until his joints are at rest and relaxed, said the takbīr and sat upright in his seat with his back straight,” and he described the prayer in its four rak‘ahs to the end. Then he said, “None of you has a prayer until he does that.”’ There is a similar hadith from Abū Hurayrah that Muslim transmitted.

This is the clarification of the undefined prayer in the Book as taught and conveyed by the Prophet ﷺ to all people. If someone does not stop at this clarification, fails to do what the All-Merciful has made obligatory on him and does not obey what has been conveyed to him from his Prophet ﷺ, he is included in those about whom Allah has said: ‘An evil generation succeeded who neglected the prayer and followed their appetites.’ (19:59) Al-Bukharī related that Zayd ibn Wahb said, ‘Ḥudhayfah saw a man who did not fully bow or prostrate and said, “You have not prayed. If you die, you will die on other than the form on which Allah created Muḥammad ﷺ.”’

with those who bow.

The word ‘with’ implies both togetherness and simultaneity. That is why some of those who interpret the Qur’an say that the command to pray did not at first entail attending the group prayer, but when Allah said ‘with’ in this āyah, He was commanding people to pray as a group. Scholars have two different positions about attending the group prayer. The majority say that it is a confirmed sunnah and a penalty is mandatory for anyone who regularly fails to attend it without an excuse. Some of the people of knowledge make it mandatory for the community as a whole. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says, ‘This is a sound view because it is confirmed, by consensus that it is not permitted to agree to make all the mosques empty of group prayers. If there is a group prayer in the mosque and an individual prays in his home that is permitted because the Prophet ﷺ said, “The group prayer is twenty-seven degrees better than the prayer of the person praying alone.” Muslim transmitted it in a hadith from Ibn ‘Umar. It is related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The group prayer is twenty-five times better than the prayer of the person praying alone.”’

Dāwūd said, ‘The prayer in a group is a personal obligation for everyone in the same way that Jumu‘ah is.’ He cited as proof the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Someone who is a neighbor to a mosque has no prayer unless it is in the mosque.’ Abū Dāwūd transmitted it and Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq said that it was sound. It is the position of ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Abū Thawr and others. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Someone who is able to attend the group prayer has no allowance to abandon it unless he has a valid excuse.’ Ibn al-Mundhir related that. Muslim related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘A blind man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, I have no guide to take me to the mosque.” He asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to make an allowance for him to pray in his house He gave him an allowance and then he called him back and asked, “Do you hear the call to prayer?” “Yes,” he answered. He said, “Then respond to it.”’ Abū Dāwūd has in this hadith: ‘I do not find any allowance for you.’ He transmitted it from the hadith of Ibn Umm Maktūm, and he mentioned that he was the one who asked.

It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone hears the call to prayer and no excuse prevents him from coming to it, then the prayer that he prays is not accepted from him.’ They asked, ‘What is an excuse?’ He answered, ‘Fear or illness.’ Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq said that this is related by Maghra’ al-‘Abdī. What is sound is to stop at Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘If someone hears the call and does not come, he has no prayer.’ Qāsim ibn Aṣbagh mentioned it in his book and said that it is related from Qāḍī Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq from Sulaymān ibn Ḥarb from Shu‘bah from Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone hears the call and does not respond, he has no prayer unless he has a [valid] excuse.’ The soundness of this isnād should be enough for you. Abū Isḥāq related from Maghra’ al-‘Abdī. Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘I remember us when only a known hypocrite failed to attend it.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Between us and the hypocrites is attending ‘Ishā’ and Ṣubḥ which they are unable to attend.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘We related that more than one of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ said, “If someone hears the call and does not respond, he has no prayer unless he has an excuse.” They included Ibn Mas‘ūd and Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī.’

Abū Hurayrah related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘I thought about ordering my lads to collect some firewood and then go to some people who were praying in their houses but were not ill and burning them down on them.’ This is used as an argument by those who made the group prayer obligatory. It is clear with respect to the obligation. The majority take it to mean stressing the command to attend the group prayers as indicated by the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar and Abū Hurayrah. They take the statement of the Companions and what is in the hadith about having no prayer to mean with regard to perfection and excellence. The same applies to what the Prophet ﷺ said to Ibn Umm Maktūm, ‘respond’: it is a recommendation. His words, ‘I thought about’ do not indicate absolute obligation because he thought about it but did not do it. It is like a threat directed at the hypocrites who failed to come to the Group Prayer and to Jumu‘ah.

This idea is made clear in Muslim, when he relates that ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Whoever is happy to meet Allah in the morning as a Muslim should guard these prayers when they are called. Allah prescribed the sunnahs of guidance to your Prophet ﷺ. They are part of the sunnahs of guidance. If you pray in your houses as this one who failed to attend prayed in his house, then you have abandoned the sunnahs of your Prophet ﷺ. If you abandon the sunnahs of your Prophet ﷺ, then you are misguided. No man purifies himself and does it correctly and then goes to one of the mosques without Allah recording a good deed for every step he takes, raising him a degree and removing an evil deed from him. I remember us when only a known hypocrite failed to attend it. A man would come, being guided between two men, until he stood in the row.’ So he made it clear that the group prayer is one of the sunnahs of guidance and abandoning it is misguidance. That is why Qāḍỉ Abu-l-Faḍl ‘Iyāḍ said that there is disagreement about people who play a part in abandoning the clear sunnahs and whether they should be fought. What is sound is that they should be fought because this could lead to doing away with the group prayer.

According to this, as long as the Sunnah is established and clearly evident, the prayer at home is permitted and sound. Muslim related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A man’s prayer in a group is about twenty degrees better than his prayer in his house and his prayer in the market. When one of you does wuḍū’ well and then goes to mosque for no other purpose than the prayer and seeking nothing but the prayer, he does not take a step without being elevated one degree by it and one of his errors being removed until he enters the mosque. When he enters the mosque, he is in the prayer as long as he is waiting for the prayer. The angels pray for one of you as long as he is sitting in the place where he will pray. They say, “O Allah, show mercy to him! O Allah, forgive him! O Allah, turn to him!” as long as he does not disturb anyone or break wuḍū’.’ He was asking what breaking wuḍū’ entails and said that it is breaking wind.

Scholars disagree about the excellence connected to the group and whether it is for a group no matter where it is or whether it is only for a group in the mosque, since that is necessarily one of the actions connected to mosques as stated in the hadith. The first view is more evident because the group is what the judgment is connected to, and Allah knows best. What was mentioned of the steps to the mosque, intending to go it and remaining it have a further reward beyond the group. Allah knows best.

There is also disagreement as to whether one group is better than another based on the larger number and on the excellence of the imām. Mālik said no. Ibn Ḥabīb said that it is, because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The prayer of a man with someone else is purer than his prayer on his own. His prayer with two men is purer than his prayer with one man. Allah loves more that which is more.’ Ubayy ibn Ka‘b related it and Abū Dāwūd transmitted it. Its isnād is soft.

They also disagree about whether someone who has prayed in a group can repeat the prayer with another group. Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī and their people say that someone who has prayed alone in his house and his family or outside of his house can repeat the prayer in a group with the imam. If he has prayed in a group, however small, he should not repeat it in a group either smaller or larger. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh and Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī said that if someone has prayed in a group and then finds another group performing that prayer, he is permitted to repeat it with them because it is supererogatory and sunnah. That is related from Ḥudhayfah, Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī, Anas ibn Mālik, Ṣilah ibn Zafar, ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī. Ḥammād ibn Ziyād and Sulaymān ibn Ḥarb also said that.

Mālik’s evidence is the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘A prayer is not prayed twice in a day.’ Some of them said that they do not pray it [again]. Sulaymān ibn Yasār related that from Ibn ‘Umar. Aḥmad and Isḥāq agree that this hadith means that a person does not pray an obligatory prayer and then get up and pray it again, intending the obligation a second time. If he prays it behind an imam as a sunnah or supererogatory prayer, that is not repeating the prayer. The Prophet ﷺ said to those he commanded to repeat the prayer in a group: ‘It is supererogatory for you.’ It comes from the hadith of Abū Dharr and others.

Muslim related from Ibn Mas‘ūd that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The one who knows the greatest amount of the Book of Allah should act as the imam of a people. If they are equal in their knowledge of recitation, then it should be the one with the best knowledge of the Sunnah. If they are equal in the Sunnah, then it should be the oldest of them in terms of Hijrah. If they are equal in the Hijrah, then it should be the one oldest in years. A man should not lead another man when the second man is in authority. No one should sit in the place of honour in a house except with the owner’s permission.’ Abū Dāwūd transmitted it. Shu‘bah said, ‘I asked Ismā‘īl what the place of honour is, and replied that it was his rug.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it and said that the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ūd is sound ḥasan. One acts on it according to the people of knowledge.

They said that the person most entitled to act as imam is the one with the most recitation of the Book of Allah and the one with the most knowledge of the Sunnah. They said that the owner of a house is most entitled to act as imam. Some said that when the owner of a house gives permission to someone else, there is nothing wrong with that person leading them in the prayer. Some of them disliked that and said that the Sunnah is that the owner of the house leads the prayer. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘We related that al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays put a boy forward to lead the prayer, saying that he had the most Qur’an.’ Among those who said that the one who knows the most Qur’an leads the prayer were Ibn Sīrīn, ath-Thawrī, Isḥāq and the people of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘That is what we say because it conforms to the Sunnah.’ Mālik said that the one with the most knowledge leads when his state is good even though age has a right. Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘The one with the most fiqh leads them.’ That is what ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Thawr said, with the condition that he can recite Qur’an. That is because the faqīh has the best knowledge of what is intended by the actions of the prayer.

They interpret the hadith to mean that the one with the most Qur’an is the one with the most fiqh because they learned fiqh from the Qur’an. Part of their custom was to call the fuqahā’ ‘qurrā’’ (reciters). They cite as evidence the fact that, in his final illness, the Prophet ﷺ advanced Abū Bakr because of his excellence and knowledge. Isḥāq said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ put him forward to indicate that he was his successor after him.’ Abū ‘Umar mentioned that in at-Tamhīd. Abū Bakr al-Bazzār related with a good isnād from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When you travel, then the one with the most Qur’an recitation should lead you in the prayer, even if he is the youngest of you. When he leads you, he is your amīr.’ He said, ‘We only know that it is related from the Prophet ﷺ from Abū Hurayrah by this isnād.’

It is permitted for a child to act as imam if he can recite the Qur’an. It is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that ‘Amr ibn Salimah said, ‘We were at a watering place much-frequented by people. The caravans would pass by us and we would ask the people, “What is wrong with the people? Who is this man?” They would say, “He claims that Allah has sent him and has revealed to him such-and-such and such-and-such.” I used to memorise those words and it was as if that was fixed in my heart. The Arabs waited until the Conquest to become Muslim. They used to say, “Leave him and his people be. If he overcomes them, then he is a truthful Prophet.” When the Conquest took place, every tribe rushed to become Muslim, and my father rushed to become Muslim before his people. When he arrived back, he said, “By Allah, I have truly come to you from the Prophet ﷺ. He said, “Pray such-and-such a prayer at such-and-such a time, and pray such-and-such a prayer at such-and-such a time. When the time of the prayer comes, then let one of you announce it, and let the one of you who has the most Qur’an lead you.” They looked and there was no one who had more Qur’an than me since I used to learn it from the caravans. They put me in front of them when I was only about six or seven years old, wearing a cloak. When I prostrated, I was exposed. A woman of the tribe said, “Will you not cover the bottom of your reciter!” So they bought and made a shirt for me. I have never been so happy to have anything as I was to have that shirt.’

Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh were among those who permitted a minor child to act as imam. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred to say that it is only appropriate when the child understands the prayer and can establish it, as that is part of what the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘The one with the most Qur’an recitation should lead you in the prayer’ and that follows the hadith of ‘Amr ibn Salimah. One of the two positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī is that he can lead all the daily prayers but should not lead the Jumu‘ah prayer. Before that he used to say that someone who is allowed to act as imam in prescribed prayers can act as imam at the ‘Īds. He said, ‘But I dislike anyone but the governor acting as imam in them.’ Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘A boy should not act as imam in the prescribed prayer until he has reached puberty, unless it is a people who do not have anyone else who knows any of the Qur’an. Then an adolescent can act as imam.’ Az-Zuhrī said that he may do that if he is needed. Mālik, ath-Thawrī and the People of Opinion forbid it altogether.

The imam [in the prayer] can be any free, adult, Muslim male who is upright, and there is no disagreement about that so long as he knows the limits of the prayer and does not use such bad Arabic in the Umm al-Qur’ān as would unsettle the meaning, such as putting a kasrah on the kāf of ‘iyyāka na‘budu’ (1:4) [which would make it a feminine ‘you’] or a ḍammah on the tā’ of ‘an‘amta’ [which would make it ‘I bless’]. Some of them say that he must observe the distinction between ṭā’ and ḍād and if he does not, then he cannot act as imam, because there is a difference in meaning. Some people allow all of that if he is ignorant of recitation and those who follow him are equally ignorant.

It is not permitted for the imam to be a woman, a hermaphrodite, an unbeliever, a mad person or someone illiterate. None of these can be an imam in any case according to most scholars as will be discussed, with the exception of someone illiterate leading those who are also illiterate. Our scholars said that it is not permitted for someone illiterate who cannot recite well to act as imam when there is someone who can recite properly. That is the same as ash-Shāfi‘ī said. If he leads someone who is illiterate like him, then both we and ash-Shāfi‘ī believe his prayer to be valid. Abū Ḥanīfah said that if someone illiterate leads a group which includes those who can read and those who are illiterate, then the prayer of all of them is unsound. Abū Yūsuf disagreed with him and said that the prayer of the imam and those who cannot recite is valid. One group, holding a contrary position, said that the prayer of all of them is allowed because each of them has fulfilled his obligation and that is like someone doing tayammum leading those who have purified themselves with water, and someone sitting leading those who are standing, because each performs his obligation. The evidence for this view is found in the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Why does the person praying not look to see how he prays? He is only praying for himself.’ Muslim transmitted it. The prayer of the follower is not tied to that of the imam. Allah knows best.

There is nothing wrong in the imamate of a man who is blind or lame, who has a palsied hand, an amputee, eunuch or slave when any of them has proper knowledge of the prayer. Ibn Wahb said, ‘I do not think that someone with palsy or an amputee should lead the prayer because he has less than the rank of perfection. It is disliked for him to be imam because of that imperfection.’ He is opposed by most of his companions and that is correct because the loss of a limb does not prevent any of the obligations of the prayer. A person is permitted to be a regular imam when he lacks an eye. Anas related that the Prophet ﷺ appointed Ibn Umm Maktūm to lead the people in prayer even though he was blind. By analogy and logic, the same holds true for someone lame, an amputee, someone with palsy or a eunuch. Allah knows best. It is related that Anas said about a blind man, ‘What is your problem about him? Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Itbān ibn Mālik led the prayer and they were blind.’ That is the view of most scholars.

There is disagreement about a bastard acting as imam. Mālik said, ‘I dislike him being the regular imam.’ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz disliked it. ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ said that he may lead the prayer if he is approved of. That is the view of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, az-Zuhrī, an-Nakha‘ī, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. According to the people of opinion, the prayer behind him is valid, although they prefer others. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he disliked someone with an unknown father being appointed a regular imam but the prayer behind him is valid. ‘Īsā ibn Dīnār said, ‘I do not take Mālik’s position about the imamate of a bastard. Nothing of the sin of his parents adheres to him.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said the same when he himself is worthy of acting as imam. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘He can lead it because he is included in the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “The one who knows the most recitation leads them.”’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘There is nothing in the traditions reported about preconditions for being imam that indicates taking account of lineage. Rather it indicates fiqh, recitation and righteousness in the dīn.’

As for slaves, Al-Bukhārī related that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘When the first Muhājirūn came to al-‘Aṣabah, a place at Qubā’, before the arrival of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, they were led in the prayer by Sālim, the freedman of Abū Ḥudhayfah. He knew the most Qur’an.’ He said, ‘Sālim, the freedman of Abū Ḥudhayfah, led the first Muhājirūn and the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ in the prayer at Qubā’. They included Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, Zayd, and ‘Āmir ibn Rabī‘ah. ‘Ā’ishah was led in the prayer by her slave Dhakwān from a copy of the Qur’an.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘While he was still a slave, Abū Sa‘īd, the freedman of Abū Asyad, led a group of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that included Ḥudhayfah and Ibn Mas‘ūd in the prayer.’ An-Nakha‘ī, ash-Sha‘bī, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Ḥakam, ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and the people of opinion make an allowance for a slave leading the prayer. Abū Miljaz disliked it. Mālik said, ‘A slave should only lead the prayer if he can recite and the free men with him cannot recite, but a slave may not lead the prayer in an ‘Īd or Jumu‘ah.”’ Al-Awzā‘ī allows the prayer if people pray behind him. Ibn al-Mundhir said that slaves are included in the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: ‘The one who knows the most recitation leads them.’

As for women leading the prayer, al-Bukhārī related that Abū Bakrah said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ heard that the people of Persia had made the daughter of Khusrau their ruler, he said, “A people will not prosper who appoint a woman over their business.”’ Abū Dāwūd mentioned it from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Khallād from Umm Waraqah bint ‘Abdullāh. He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to visit her in her house and assigned her a mu’adhdhin to call the prayer for her and told her to lead the people of her house in the prayer.’ ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān said, ‘I saw the mu’adhdhin and he was a very old man.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that any men who pray behind a woman must repeat the prayer.’ Abū Thawr said that they do not have to repeat it. This is similar to the view of al-Muzanī.

Our scholars have said that it is not valid for a woman to be an imam either for men or women. Ibn Ayman related that it is permissible for her to act as an imam for other women. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that a hermaphrodite cannot be an imam for men or women. Mālik said that he may not be an imam in any case, and that is what most fuqahā’ say.

If an unbeliever who opposes the Sharī‘ah, such as a Jew or a Christian, leads the Muslims in the prayer when they do not know that he is an unbeliever, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Aḥmad said that the prayer is not fulfilled and they must repeat it. Mālik and his people said that because he is not one of the people of nearness. Al-Awzā‘ī said that he should be punished. Abū Thawr and al-Muzanī said that someone who prays behind him does not have to repeat it.

As for the people of innovations among the sects like the Mu‘tazilites, Jahmites and others, al-Bukhārī mentioned that Ḥasan said, ‘Pray, and he has his innovation.’ Aḥmad said, ‘Do not pray behind any of the people of sects since he invites to his sect.’ Mālik said, ‘One can pray behind imams of injustice, but not behind the people of sects, the Qadariyyah and others.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is not permitted to pray behind anyone whose innovation removes him to unbelief. If someone does not go that far, then the prayer behind him is valid. It is not permitted to put someone like this forward to lead the prayer.’

As for someone impious (fāsiq) through his actions, such as a fornicator, drinker or the like, the School disagrees about him. Ibn Ḥabīb said, ‘If someone prays behind a drinker, he should always repeat it unless it is the governor to whom he owes obedience. The one who prays behind him does not have to repeat it unless he was actually drunk. This is the position of the people of Mālik that I have met.’ It is related from the hadith of Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said on the minbar, ‘A woman does not lead a man in the prayer. A desert Arab does not lead a Muhājir. Someone deviant does not lead someone pious unless he is someone in authority.’ Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq said, ‘‘Alī ibn Zayd ibn Jud‘ān related it from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. Most think that ‘Alī ibn Zayd is weak.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If you are happy for your prayer to be pure, put forward the best of you.’ Abu-l-Walīd Khālid ibn Ismā‘īl al-Makhzūmī, who is weak, is in the isnād. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that. Abū Aḥmad ibn ‘Adī said about him, ‘He used to impute hadith to trustworthy Muslims, and he related this hadith from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā’ from Abū Hurayrah.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned from Salām ibn Sulaymān from ‘Umar from Muḥammad ibn Wāsi‘ from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Make your imams the best of you. They form a delegation between you and Allah.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘I think that this ‘Umar is ‘Umar ibn Yazīd, the Qāḍī of Madā’in. Salām ibn Sulaymān was also from Madā’in and is not strong. ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq said that.’

The imams related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The imam is appointed to lead, so do not differ from him. Say the takbīr when he says the takbīr. Bow when he bows. When he says, “Allah hears whoever praises Him,” say, “O Allah, our Lord, praise is Yours.” Prostrate when he prostrates. When he prays sitting, all pray sitting.’ Scholars disagree about someone who bows or goes down before the imam deliberately. One view is that his prayer is invalid if he does that in all or most of the prayer. That is the view of the literalists. It is related from Ibn ‘Umar. Sunayd related from Ibn ‘Ulayyah from Ayyūb from Abū Qilābah that Abu-l-Ward al-Anṣarī said, ‘I prayed beside Ibn ‘Umar and began to come up before the imam and go down before him. When the imam said the salām, Ibn ‘Umar took my hand and pulled me to him. I exclaimed, “What is wrong with you?” He asked, “Who are you?” I said, “So-and-so the son of so-and-so.” He said, “You are from the people of a truthful house! What prevents you from praying?” I retorted, “Did you not see me beside you?” He replied, “I saw you rise before the imam and go down before him. The one who differs from the imam has no prayer.”’

Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy said about someone who bows before the imam and then comes up from his bowing or prostration before the imam does that he does not count that and the prayer is not satisfied. Most fuqahā’ say that someone who does that has acted badly but his prayer is not invalid because the basis in the group prayer and having an imam is a good sunnah. If someone differs from that after having performed his obligatory prayer with purity, bowing, prostration and all its obligatory elements, he does not have to repeat it, even if he has omitted one of its sunnahs, because, if he had wished, he could have prayed the prayer alone before the imam and it would have satisfied the requirement, although he acted badly in abandoning the group prayer. They said that if someone joins a prayer with an imam, and bows when he bows and prostrates when he prostrates, and is not in the same rak‘ah as the imam, he has satisfied it, even if he comes up and goes down before him because he bowed with his bowing, prostrated with his prostration, and rose while following him, but he has acted badly because he has not followed the agreed upon sunnah in following an imam.

What Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr related from the majority is based on the prayer of the follower not being connected to that of the imam because it lacks physical and legal following. That is not the position that most of them hold. The first view is the sound one in tradition and logic. The imam is appointed to be followed in his actions. Part of that is the words of the Almighty: ‘I will make you a model (imām) for mankind.’ (2:124) This is the reality of ‘imām’ linguistically and in the Sharī‘ah. Whoever differs from his imam has not followed him. Then the Prophet ﷺ clarified that: ‘Say the takbīr when he says the takbīr.’ He used ‘fā’’ which denotes consequential order. He explained what Allah meant. Then he strongly threatened someone who gets ahead of the imam in rising or bowing: ‘Does someone who lifts his head before the imam not fear that Allah will transform his head into that of a donkey or that He will give him the form of a donkey?’ It is transmitted by the Muwaṭṭā’, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd and others. Abū Hurayrah said that his forelock is in the hand of Shayṭān. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Every action we have not commanded is rejected.’ If someone deliberately acts differently to his imam, knowing full well that he is commanded to follow him and forbidden to differ from him, he has made light of his prayer and opposed what he has been commanded to do. Therefore the requirement of the prayer is not satisfied. Allah knows best.

If he raises his head out of forgetfulness before the imam, Mālik says, ‘The Sunnah about someone who forgets and does that in bowing or prostration is that he goes back, bowing or prostrating, and waits for the imam. This is an error on the part of one who does it because the Prophet ﷺ said, “The imam is appointed to lead, so do not differ from him.”’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘The apparent meaning of what Mālik said is that this does not oblige the one who did it deliberately to go back because he said, “This is an error on the part of one who does it.”’

This disagreement applies to other than the takbīr al-iḥrām and salām. The salām has already been discussed. As for the takbīr al-iḥrām, the majority believe that that of the follower may be said only after that of the imam with the exception of one of two views related from ash-Shāfi‘ī: if the follower says the takbīr al-iḥrām before that of the imam, that is allowed for him based on the hadith of Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went to the prayer and when he had said the takbīr, he left indicating that they should remain as they were. He went out and then came back, his head dripping water, and led them in the prayer. When he finished he said, ‘I was in janābah but forgot to have a ghusl.’ There was also the hadith of Anas: ‘He said the takbīr and I said it with him.’

Muslim related that Abū Mas‘ūd said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to brush our shoulders in the prayer, saying, “Straighten your rows and do not differ lest your hearts differ. Those of understanding and intelligence should be closest to me, then those after them and then those after them.”’ Abū Mas‘ūd said, ‘Today you are in the greatest disagreement.’ The hadith of ‘Abdullāh adds, ‘Beware of the tumults of the market.’ The words ‘Straighten your rows’ is a command to make the rows straight, especially the first row which is right behind the imam as will be explained in Ṣūrat al-Ḥijr, Allah willing.

Scholars disagree about how to sit in the prayer because of the different traditions that have come regarding that. Mālik and his people said that the person praying has his buttocks on the ground with his right foot upright and left foot folded under as is related in the Muwaṭṭā’ from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd: ‘Al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad showed them how to sit in the tashahhud, and he kept his right foot vertical and laid his left foot down, and sat on his left haunch, not on his foot. Then he said, ‘‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar saw me doing this and related to me that his father used to do the same thing.’

This idea comes in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim where ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to begin the prayer with the takbīr and recitation of the Fātiḥah. When he bowed, he did not raise or lower his head, but in between that. When he raised his head from bowing, he did not prostrate until he was standing upright. When he raised his head from prostration, he did not prostrate until he was sitting up straight. He used to say the greeting after every two rak‘ahs. He would lay his left foot down and have his right foot vertical. He forbade sitting on the heels like Shayṭān and he forbade that a man rest on his arms like an animal. He would end the prayer with the taslīm.’

Allah knows best, but according to this hadith, Ibn ‘Umar said that the sunnah of the prayer is to have the right foot vertical and the left foot folded under. Ath-Thawrī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, and al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy say that he has his right foot vertical and sits on the left foot, based on the hadith of Wā’il ibn Ḥujr. That is what is stated by ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq for the middle sitting. They have the same position as Mālik about the final one in Ẓuhr, ‘Aṣr, Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ based on the hadith of Abū Ḥumayd as-Sā’idī that al-Bukhārī related. He said: ‘I saw that when the Prophet ﷺ said the takbīr, he placed his hands opposite his shoulders. When he bowed in rukū‘, he placed his hands on his knees and then bent his back straight. When he raised his head, he stood up straight until each vertebra had returned to its place. When he went into prostration, he placed his arms so that they were neither stretched out nor held close. The toes of his feet pointed towards the qiblah. When he sat after the first two rak‘ahs, he sat on his left foot and kept his right foot upright. When he sat after the last rak‘ah, he extended his left foot across, keeping the other upright, and sat on his buttocks.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that it is good to do this. All of that is confirmed from the Prophet ﷺ.

Mālik related from Muslim ibn Abī Maryam that ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Mu‘āwī said, ‘‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar saw me playing with some pebbles in the prayer. When it finished, he forbade me to do that, saying, “Do as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did.” I asked, “What did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ do?” He said, “When he sat in the prayer, he placed his right hand on his right thigh and he closed his fist and pointed his index finger, and he placed his left hand on his left thigh. That is what he used to do.”’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘What Ibn ‘Umar described about placing the right hand on the right thigh and closing all the fingers of his hand except for the index finger with which he pointed, and placing the left hand on the left thigh, opened with the fingers spread is all the agreed sunnah of sitting in the prayer. I do not know of any disagreement between scholars regarding it. It is enough for you. They do, however, disagree about moving the index finger. Some of them think that you move it and some think that you do not. All of that is related in sound traditions from the Prophet ﷺ. All of it is permitted. Praise be to Allah.’ Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah related this hadith from Muslim ibn Abī Maryam with the same idea, but he adds to it. Sufyān said, ‘Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd related to us from Muslim and then I met him and listened to him. He added in it: “It is a whisk against Shayṭān. No one forgets as long as he points with his finger and says this.”’

Abū Dāwūd related in the hadith of Ibn az-Zubayr that the Prophet ﷺ used to point with his index finger when he made supplication, but did not move it. That is what is believed by some Iraqis. Some of them forbade moving it. Some of our scholars think that extending it is indicating constant tawḥīd. Most of the scholars of the people of Mālik and others believe that it is moved although they have two different views about continuing to move it. Those who believe that it is continuous say that it is to remind one of continuing presence in the prayer and is a hammer with which to repel Shayṭān as Sufyān mentioned. Those who think that it is not continuous think that it is moved in the articulation of the words of the shahādah. The interpretation is that it is as if he were articulating tawḥīd with that limb. Allah knows best.

They disagree about how a woman should sit in the prayer. Mālik said that it is the same as a man and that there is no difference after the takbīr al-iḥrām except in dress and loudness. Ath-Thawrī said that a woman is covered in her gown from one side. That is related from Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that a woman sits in the manner easiest for her. That is the view of ash-Sha‘bī: she sits in whatever way is easy for her. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that she should sit in the manner that will most cover her.

Muslim related that Ṭāwus said, ‘We asked Ibn ‘Abbās about iq‘ā’ – sitting on the feet [with the feet facing outwards). He answered, “It is the Sunnah.” We said to him, “We think that it is coarseness on the part of a man.” He replied, “It is the Sunnah of your Prophet ﷺ.”’ Scholars disagree about the description of iq‘ā’. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘Iq‘ā’ is that a man sits on his buttocks with his thighs raised as dogs and beasts do.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘This is the form of iq‘ā’ that is agreed upon and the scholars do not disagree about it.’ This is the explanation of linguists and a group of the people of fiqh. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘As for the people of hadith, they consider iq‘ā’ to be to put the buttocks on the heels between the two sajdahs.’ Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said, ‘What seems most likely to me in respect of the interpretation of the iq‘ā’ which Ibn ‘Abbās said is the sunnah, is that which the fuqahā’ say is about putting the buttocks on the heels between the two sajdahs. That is how it is explained by Ibn ‘Abbās that part of the sunnah is to have the buttocks touch the heels.’ Ibrāhīm ibn Maysarah related it from Ṭāwus. Abū ‘Umar mentioned it. The Qāḍī said, ‘It is related that a group of the Salaf and Companions used to do that. The fuqahā’ of the cities in general do not espouse it, calling it iq‘ā’.’ ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from Ma‘mar from Ibn Ṭāwus that his father saw Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn az-Zubayr sitting in iq‘ā’ between the two sajdahs.

There is no disagreement among scholars who say that the taslīm is obligatory and those who say that say that the second taslīm is not obligatory except for what is related from al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy who stated that two taslīms are mandatory. Abū Ja‘far aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī said, ‘We did not find any of the people of knowledge besides him who believe that there are two taslīms who say that the second one is one of the obligations.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘Part of the argument of al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ about both being obligatory is the words: “If someone breaks wuḍū’ after the first but before the second, his prayer is invalid,” and the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “The taslīm brings one out of the prayer.” Then he made clear how the taslīm is: to the right and to the left. Part of the argument of those who say that only the first taslīm rather than the second is mandatory is the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “The taslīm brings one out of the prayer.” That is a single taslīm.’

This question is based on taking the minimum implication of the word (taslīm) or the last of it. Since one enters the prayer by one takbīr by consensus, then leaving it is also by one taslīm, except for the firm sunnahs which have come. There is the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ūd, which has the greatest multiple transmission, that of Wā’il ibn Ḥujr al-Ḥaḍramī, that of ‘Ammār, that of al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib, that of Ibn ‘Umar and that of Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ that the Prophet ﷺ said two taslīms. Ibn Jurayj, Sulaymān ibn Bilāl, and ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Muḥammad ad-Darāwardī all related from ‘Amr ibn Yaḥyā al-Māzinī from Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥabbān that his uncle, Wāsi‘ ibn Ḥabbān, said, ‘I said to Ibn ‘Umar, “Tell me what the prayer of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was like.” He mentioned the takbīr whenever he raised his head and went down. He mentioned, “Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah” to his right and “Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah” to his left.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘This has a sound Madinan isnād while the famous normative practice in Madīnah is one taslīm. That is a practice transmitted by the people of Madīnah by multiple transmissions from old to old. The like of that is a sound argument for the normative practice in every land because it is not hidden that it happens several times every day. The same is true of the normative practice in Kufa and elsewhere of two taslīms which has extensive multiple transmissions from them. Everything like this is a disagreement about what is permissible, as is the case with the adhan. Similarly an objection to a single taslīm or two taslīms has not been related from any scholar in the Hijaz, Iraq, Syria or Egypt. Instead that is well known among them. The hadith about a single taslīm has been related by Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, ‘Ā’ishah and Anas although it is defective and not considered to be sound by the people who know the science of hadith.’

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘It is part of the Sunnah to say the tashahhud silently.’ Mālik preferred the tashahhud of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb which is: ‘Greetings belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Good words and prayers belong to Allah. Peace be upon you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are right-acting. I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muḥammad is His slave and His Messenger.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people and al-Layth use the tashahhud of Ibn ‘Abbās who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to teach us the tashahhud in the same way he taught us a sūrah of the Qur’an. It is: “Blessed greetings, prayers, good words belong to Allah. Peace be upon you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are right-acting. I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muḥammad is His slave and His Messenger.”’

Ath-Thawrī, the Kufans and most of the people of hadith use used the tashahhud of Ibn Mas‘ūd which Muslim also related. He said, ‘We used to say in the prayer behind the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Peace be upon Allah. Peace be upon so-and-so.” One day the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Allah is Peace. When one of you sits in the prayer, he should say, “Greetings, prayers and good words belong to Allah. Peace be upon you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are right-acting.” (When you say that, it applies to every righteous slave of Allah in the heaven and the earth.) “I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muḥammad is His slave and His Messenger.” Then you can choose whatever supplication you wish.’ That is the position of Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Dāwūd. Aḥmad ibn Khālid in Andalusia preferred and inclined to it. A similar tashahhud to that of Ibn Mas‘ūd is related both marfū‘ and mawqūf from Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī. All of this is disagreement about something permissible and there is nothing of an obligatory nature in it. Praise be to Allah alone.

This is a summary of the rulings on the imam and the one following him contained in His words, ‘bow with those who bow’. The position about standing in the prayer will be discussed in 2:238. The ruling about a sick imam and other rulings of the prayer will also be discussed there. The ruling of someone who is sick but not the imam will be discussed in Āl ‘Imrān. The ruling of someone performing the obligatory prayer behind someone performing a supererogatory prayer will be discussed under the Fear Prayer in an-Nisā’. The ruling about the imam praying while higher than the follower will be discussed in Maryam as well as matters about the times, the adhan and mosques. All of this explains His words: ‘establish the prayer’. Some of its rulings were mentioned at the beginning of the sūrah. Praise be to Allah.

44 Do you order people to piety and forget yourselves, when you recite the Book? Will you not use your intellect?

Do you order people to piety

This is a question implying a rebuke. What is meant, according to the people of interpretation, are Jewish scholars. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘A man of the Jews of Madīnah said to his son-in-law, his kin, and those who had a milk relationship with the Muslims, “Be firm in holding to what you have and on what this man (meaning Muḥammad ﷺ) orders you to do. His business is true.” So they ordered their people to do that, but they did not do it.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Jews used to command their followers to follow the Torah but they contradicted it by their denial of the description of Muḥammad ﷺ in it.’ Ibn Jurayj said, ‘The rabbis encouraged people to obey Allah while they committed acts of disobedience themselves.’ One group said, ‘They encouraged others to give ṣadaqah but were themselves miserly.’ All these ideas are similar. The people who deal in indications (ishārāt) say that the meaning is: ‘Do you ask people for the realities of meanings when you disobey their outward meaning?’

There will be a severe punishment for someone who is like this. Ḥammād ibn Salamah related from ‘Alī ibn Zayd that Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘On my Night Journey I passed by some people who were cutting of their lips with scissors of fire. I asked, “Jibrīl, who are they?” He said, “Those are the speakers of the people of this world who commanded people to devoutness and forgot themselves. They used to recite the Book but did not understand.’” Abū Umāmah related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Those who commanded people to piety and forgot themselves will drag their intestines into the Fire of Hell. They will be asked, “Who are you?” and will answer, “We are those who commanded people to do good but forgot ourselves.”’

This indicates that the punishment of someone who knows what is right and wrong and that it is obligatory to perform the requirements of both is worse than that of someone who does not know. That is because it is as if he were making light of the prohibitions and rulings of Allah. He does not benefit from his knowledge. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The worst of people on the Day of Rising will be a scholar whom Allah does not make benefit from his knowledge.’

Know that the rebuke in the āyah is for abandoning acts of piety, not for ordering them. This is why in His Book Allah censures those who command acts of piety but do not perform them themselves. He censured them with a rebuke which will last until the Day of Rising. Manṣūr the Faqīh said:

People who command us to do what they do not do

are mad even if they do not bring us down.

Abu-l-‘Atāhiyyah said:

You described the godfearing as if you possessed that quality,

yet the smell of sins issues from your garment.

Abu-l-Aswad ad-Du’alī said:

Do not forbid something when you do the same.

It is a terrible sin if you do that.

Begin with your own self and forbid it its errors.

If you stop committing them, you are wise.

Then if you admonish, it will be accepted,

and what you say will be followed and instruction will be of use.

Abū ‘Amr ibn Maṭar said, ‘I was present in the gathering of the ascetic, Abū ‘Uthmān al-Ḥīrī, and he came out and sat in the place where he normally sat to remind people. He was silent for a long time. Then a man called Abu-l-‘Abbās called out, “Do you think you are saying something by your silence?” He recited:

“Only a godfearing person commands people to be godfearing.

A doctor is the one who treats the sick.”’

Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī said, ‘I dislike attributing a specific cause to three āyahs: “Do you order people to piety...” (2:44), “Why do you say what you do not do?” (61:2) and “I would clearly not want to go behind your backs and do something I have forbidden you to do.” (11:88)’ Salm ibn ‘Amr said:

‘How ugly is someone who admonishes people to be ascetic

when he is not ascetic.

If he had been true in his asceticism,

the mosque would have been his house, morning and evening.

Dismissing this world is of no consequence

when one asks people for gifts and presents.

Provision is allotted to those you see.

All people, no matter their colour, obtain it.’

Al-Ḥasan told Muṭarrif ibn ‘Abdullāh, ‘Warn your companions!’ He answered, ‘I fear that I will say what I do not do.’ He said, ‘May Allah have mercy on you! Which of us does what he says! Shayṭān wants to be victorious by this. Then no one would command the correct or forbid the bad.’ Mālik said that Rabī‘ah ibn Abī ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān heard Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr say, ‘If a person did not command the correct or forbid the bad unless there was nothing of it in himself, no one would command the correct or forbid the bad.’ Mālik said, ‘He spoke the truth. Who is there who has nothing of it in himself?’

The word for ‘piety’ – birr – means obedience and righteous action. It also means truthfulness. It also means a fox cub and the bleating of sheep when they are herded. So it is a word with multiple meanings. Burr is wheat and barr is respectfulness and esteem, such as that which should be shown to one’s parents.

and forget yourselves

This means ‘fail to do them yourselves’ which is a common usage of the word ‘nasā’ (forget) as it is used frequently in the Qur’an and in hadith. The root can also designate the opposite of remembrance and memory. A man who is described as ‘nasyān’ is very forgetful.

‘Selves’ (anfūs) is the plural of ‘nafs’ which is the soul. Part of the evidence for the fact that the ‘nafs’ is also the soul (rūḥ) is the words of the Almighty: ‘Allah takes back people’s souls (anfus) when death arrives.’ (39:42) That is made clear in the words of the Prophet ﷺ in the words that Bilāl said to the Prophet ﷺ in the hadith of Ibn Shihāb, ‘Messenger of Allah, He Who detained my soul (nafsī) detained your soul,’ and the words of the Prophet ﷺ in the hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam: ‘Allah takes our souls (arwāḥ). If He wishes, He returns them to us.’ Mālik related it. Nafs also means ‘blood’.

when you recite the Book?

This is a great rebuke to the one who understands. ‘Tatlūna’ means ‘to recite’. The Book is the Torah and it also applied to anyone who does the same as they did. The root of ‘tilāwah’ (recitation) means ‘to follow’, which is why it is used for recitation because words follow one another so that they form a sequence.

Will you not use your intellect?

Will you not prevent yourselves from being in this state? The word ‘aql (intellect) implies restraint, from which comes the hobble (‘iqāl) of the camel because it prevents it from moving. The word is also sometimes used for blood money because it restrains the relative of the victim from killing the perpetrator. I‘tiqāl is a spasm of the stomach or restraining of the tongue. A fortress is called ‘ma‘qil’. ‘Aql is the opposite of ignorance. ‘Aql is also a red cloth that Arab women use to cover howdahs. Az-Zajjāj says, ‘Someone described as ‘āqil is someone who does what Allah has obliged him to do. If does not do it, then he is ignorant.’

The people who follow the truth agree that the intellect is an existent thing which is neither timeless nor non-existent because, if it had been non-existent, it would describe some essences and not others. Since it exists, it is impossible to say it is timeless since there is nothing timeless except Allah. Philosophers have stated that the intellect is timeless. Some of them believe that it is a subtle essence in the body from which rays spread, like a lamp in a house, and by it one distinguishes between the realities of known things. Some of them say that it is a simple uncompounded essence. Then they disagree about its location. One group say that it is located in the brain because the brain is the locus of sensation. Another group say that it is located in the heart because the heart is the lode of life and the core of the senses.

The statement that the intellect is an essence is false since essences are similar. If the intellect had been an essence, then every essence would be an intellect. It is said that the intellect is that by which things are perceived in respect of the realities of ideas. Even if this statement is closer to the one before it, it is far from being correct since perception is one of the attributes of the living, and the intellect is something contingent. That is impossible for it as it is impossible for it to experience pleasure and appetite.

Shaykh Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī, Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyanī and others who possess full understanding said that the intellect is knowledge as is indicated by the fact that one does not say, ‘I grasped but did not know.’ Qāḍī Abū Bakr said, ‘The intellect consists of requisite knowledge of the necessary nature of necessary things, permissibility of permissible things, and impossibility of impossible things.’ That is what is preferred by Abu-l-Ma‘ālī in al-Irshād. His preference in al-Burhān is that it is an attribute by which knowledge is grasped. He opposes the school of the Qāḍī and deduced that his school is unsound. He related in al-Burhān that al-Muḥāsibī said that the intellect is an instinct. Abū Bakr related that ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū ‘Abdullāh ibn Mujāhid said that the intellect is the tool of discrimination. It is related that Abu-l-‘Abbās al-Qalānisī said that the intellect is the faculty of discrimination. It is related that al-Muḥāsibī said that the intellect consists of lights and insights. Then he put these views in order and said, ‘The first does not have a sound transmission from ash-Shāfi‘ī and Ibn Mujāhid.’ The word ‘tool’ is used for an actual tool and its usage here is metaphorical. The same is true of those who say that it is a faculty. Only power is understood from a faculty. Al-Qalānisī used the widest of the expressions as is the case with that of al-Muḥāsibī. The intellect is neither a form or a light, but lights and insight use it. This will be explained in the Āyat of Tawḥīd.

45 Seek help in steadfastness and the prayer. But that is a very hard thing, except for the humble:

Seek help in steadfastness and the prayer.

The meaning of the word used for steadfastness – ṣabr – is restraint and it is used for binding a person; and it also means endurance. Allah has commanded us in His Book to persist in obedience to Him and to restrain ourselves from committing acts of disobedience by telling us to be steadfast. It is said that a person first refrains (ṣabara) from acts of disobedience, and once he has done so he becomes steadfast (ṣābara) in obedience. This is the soundest of what is said.

Ṣalāh (the prayer) is mentioned rather than other acts of worship. When something happened to the Prophet ﷺ, he sought refuge in the prayer. Ibn ‘Abbās was once told about the death of his brother – or, it is said, a daughter of his – when he was on a journey and he said, ‘A weak spot Allah has protected, a burden Allah has spared us, and a reward which Allah will bring.’ Then he went off the road and prayed and went back to his camel, reciting, ‘Seek help in steadfastness and the prayer.’

Some people say that what is meant, according to linguistic usage, is supplication. This is like the āyah of Allah: ‘When you meet a troop, then stand firm and remember Allah’ (8:45) because firmness is ṣabr and dhikr is supplication. A third position was espoused by Mujāhid who said that, in this āyah, ṣabr referred to fasting. The month of Ramadan is called ‘The Month of Ṣabr’. The reason for this is that fasting curbs appetites and makes one ascetic in this world and the prayer keeps one from lewd action and what is disliked. Allah knows best.

Steadfastness in the face of injury and in performing acts of obedience is part of striving against the self and curbing it from its appetites and preventing it from becoming proud. It is one of the qualities of the Prophets and righteous. Yaḥyā ibn al-Yamān said, ‘Steadfastness is to not desire any state except that which Allah has placed you in and to find pleasure in whatever He has decreed for you in this world and the Next.’ ‘Alī said, ‘Steadfastness in relation to faith is like the head in relation to the body.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī agreed with ‘Alī and said, ‘That is because faith is recognition by the heart, affirmation with the tongue and action with the limbs. If someone is not steadfast in acting with his limbs, he does not truly have faith.’ Steadfastness in carrying out the Sharī‘ah is comparable to the head of a person’s body: it is not complete without it.

Allah describes the reward for various actions and puts a limit on it. He says: ‘Those who produce a good action will receive ten like it.’ (6:160) But He makes the reward of the steadfast limitless and praises the people who have it: ‘The steadfast will be paid their wages in full without any reckoning.’ (39:10) and: ‘But if someone is steadfast and forgives, that is the most resolute course to follow. (42:43) It is also said that ‘The steadfast will be paid their wages in full without any reckoning’ (39:10) means those who fast because of the words of the Almighty in the sound report from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Fasting is Mine and I repay it.’ He did not mention any exact reward as He did not mention one for steadfastness. Allah knows best.

One of the virtues of ṣabr is that Allah describes Himself as having it, as in the hadith of Abū Mūsā when the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no one or nothing with more patience in the face of an insult which he hears than Allah Almighty is. They claim that He has a son and yet He still gives them health and provides for them.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it. Our scholars say that, in the case of Allah, ṣabr has the meaning of forbearance, in that He defers the punishment from those who deserve it. The description of Him as having ṣabr does not come in the Revelation, but in this hadith where it is interpreted by scholars to mean forbearance, and so one of His Names is aṣ-Ṣabūr, because of His great forbearance towards those who disobey Him.

But that is a very hard thing,

Interpreters disagree about what the word ‘that’ refers to here. It is said to refer to the prayer alone because it is harder for people than fasting, given that steadfastness here refers to fasting. The prayer is the prison of the lower self while fasting is just denial of its appetites. Someone who denies one or two appetites is not the same as someone who denies all his appetites. Fasting denies the appetite for women, food and drink but one is able to enjoy other appetites like talking, walking and looking and other such things. So there is consolation for the denied appetites. The one who prays, however, is denied all those things and all his limbs are restrained in the prayer from all appetites. That is why the prayer is harder for the self and a greater burden on it. It is said to refer to both of them but usually it is taken to mean the prayer.

This is the same as when Allah says: ‘those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in the Way of Allah’ (9:34) when the primary reference is to silver because it was the predominant currency used for trade. And: ‘When they see a chance of trade or entertainment they scatter off to it.’ (62:11) It is said that since steadfastness is included in the prayer, it refers to it. It is also said to refer to worship as a whole which entails both fasting and the prayer. It is said to be a use of the verbal noun here, in which case it would mean that ‘seeking help’ is what is difficult. It is said to refer to responding to Muḥammad ﷺ because ṣabr and prayer are part of what he called to. It is said that it refers to the Ka‘bah because one is commanded to pray towards it. ‘Kabīrah’ means burdensome and difficult. It is hard for all except the humble, for whom it is easy. The people of meanings say that they are those who are supported from pre-eternity by the qualities of being chosen and guided.

except for the humble:

‘Khāshi‘īn’ is the plural of khāshi‘, someone who is humble. Humility is a quality in the soul which shows itself in stillness and humbleness. Qatādah said, ‘Khushū‘’ (humility) is in the heart where it takes the form of fear and appears outwardly as the lowering of the eye in the prayer.’ Az-Zajjāj said, ‘A humble person is one in whom the effect of abasement can be seen.’ The word is used of a house which has fallen down. This is the root meaning. A ‘humble’ place is one which has nothing to indicate where it is. The verb is used for lowering the voice and lowering the eyes. Khush‘ah, which comes from the same root, means a low hill. A land which is khāshi‘ is a place covered in dust with no place where one can alight.

Al-A‘mash said that he asked Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī about humility and he said, ‘A‘mash! You want to be an imam for the people and do not know what humility is! Humility does not consist of eating coarse food and wearing coarse clothes and bowing the head. Humility is to see the noble and lowly as having the same right and to be humble towards Allah in every obligation He has imposed on you.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb looked at a young man with a bowed head and said, ‘You! Lift your head up! Humility is not more than what is in the heart!’ ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said, ‘Humility is in the heart, in your hands being gentle with the Muslims, and in not looking about during the prayer.’ This will be discussed in 23:2. So someone who makes a display of humility, beyond what is in his heart, displays hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘A person is not humble until every hair in his body manifests humility by the words of Allah, “The skins of those who fear their Lord tremble.” (39:23)’

This is praiseworthy humility because when the heart is still, the outward must also be humble, and the person who has it will inevitably display it; so you will see him with his head bowed, courteous and submissive. The Salaf used to strive to be like that. The blameworthy form is artificial, pretending to weep with a bowed head as the ignorant do in order to be viewed with respect. That is deceit from Shayṭān and part of human ego. Al-Ḥasan related that a man sighed in the presence of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb as if he was in sorrow. ‘Umar clouted him. When ‘Umar spoke, he was heard. When he walked, he went quickly. When he struck, he caused pain. He was a truthful worshipper and truly humble. Ibn Abī Najīḥ related that Mujāhid said, ‘The humble are truly the believers.’

46 those who are aware that they will meet their Lord and that they will return to Him.

This describes the humble. The word for being aware, ẓann, means certainty in this context according to the majority of scholars. The normal meaning of ẓann entails some doubt but it can be used to mean certainty as in this āyah and elsewhere.

47 Tribe of Israel! remember the blessing I conferred on you and that I preferred you over all other beings.

He means the beings of their time. The people of every time are considered a ‘world’. It is said that the preference was because they had a lot of Prophets and other advantages.

48 Have fear of a Day when no self will be able to compensate for another in any way. No intercession will be accepted from at, no ransom taken from it, and they will not be helped.

Have fear of a Day

This is a command which is also a threat, and ‘yawm’ (Day) here refers to the punishment and terror of the Last Day.

When no self will be able to compensate for another in any way

This means that no one will be punished for the sin of anyone else nor can he avert it from him. We find in the Ṣaḥīḥ that Abū Burdah ibn Niyār said about sacrifices, ‘It will not satisfy [the requirement] for anyone after you.’ ‘Lā tajzī’ means: it does not settle, suffice nor satisfy if there is nothing against it, but it does if there is without any choice involved in respect to rights. Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who has done an injustice to his brother with regard to his honour or anything else should seek to be absolved by him before the Day when there will be neither dinar nor dirham. If he has some right actions, they will be taken from him to counterbalance any injustice he did and if he does not have any good actions, some of the bad actions of his friend will be taken and he will be made to carry them.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it.

No intercession will be accepted from it,

The word for intercession is derived from the root ‘shaf‘ah’ (even) which means one of a pair and to make an odd number even. Shu‘fah (pre-emption) is called that because it is used when someone adds the property of his partner to his own. Shafī‘ is someone with pre-emption or intercession. A camel which is shāfi‘ is one which is pregnant when there is a young foal still with it.

The position of the people who hold to the truth is that intercession is a reality, while the Mu‘tazilites deny it and believe that sinful believers who enter the Fire will remain in it forever. There are mutually supporting reports that sinful rebellious people from the nations of the Prophets, who affirm the Unity of Allah, will be interceded for by the angels, Prophets, martyrs and righteous. There are two firm grounds for refuting the Mu‘tazilites. The first is the numerous hadiths with multiple transmissions which affirm intercession, and the second is the consensus of the Salaf in their acceptance of these reports. No one denies them and everyone agrees that they are sound and accepts them as decisive evidence for the soundness of the creed of the people who hold to the truth and the falseness of the claims of the Mu‘tazilites.

The Mu‘tazilites claim that there are āyahs in the Book which refute these traditions, like, ‘The wrongdoers will have no close friend or any intercessor who might be heard’ (40:18) and ‘Anyone who does evil will be repaid for it’ (4:123) and here ‘no intercession will be accepted from it.’ We reply that these āyahs are general to every wrongdoer and the general has no definite application, so these āyahs do not apply to everyone who does evil and to every soul. What is meant by them is the unbelievers rather than the believers which is supported by the evidence of the traditions reported about that.

Allah established intercession for some people and denied it to others. He says about the unbelievers: ‘The intercession of the interceders will not help them’ (74:48), ‘They only intercede on behalf of those with whom He is pleased’ (21:28), and ‘Intercession with Him will be of no benefit except from someone who has His permission.’ (34:23) By this we know that intercession will help the believers but not the unbelievers. Commentators agree that what is meant by this āyah is the unbelievers, not every self. If you say that there is punishment for every rebellious wrongdoer, we do not say that they will be for ever in the Fire, by the evidence of the hadiths we related and by the words of Allah: ‘He forgives whomever He wishes for other than that’ (4:48) and ‘No one despairs of solace from Allah except for people who are unbelievers.’ (12:87)

With regard to ‘those with whom He is pleased’ (21:28), if they point out that the deviant is not pleasing, we reply that He did not say, ‘those who are not pleasing.’ Allah is pleased to grant intercession to the unifiers since He says: ‘They have no right of intercession. None do but those who have a contract with the All-Merciful.’ (19:87) The Prophet ﷺ was asked, ‘What is the contract which Allah has made with His creation?’ He replied. ‘That they believe in Him and not associate anything with Him.’

If they say that those who are pleasing are those who repent and have made a contract with Allah by repenting to Him, since the angels ask forgiveness for them and Allah says: ‘Forgive those who turn to you and who follow Your Way’ (40:7), and thus that the intercession of the Prophets is only for the people of repentance and not people of wrong actions, our reply is as follows: What you maintain obliges Allah to accept repentance. If Allah accepts the repentance of the wrongdoer, there is no need for intercession or asking forgiveness. The commentators agree that what is meant by ‘forgive those who turn,’ refers to turning away from shirk and ‘follow Your Way,’ means the Path of the believers. They asked Allah to forgive them for their wrong actions other than shirk as He says: ‘He forgives whomever He wishes for other than that’ (4:48).

If they say, ‘All the Community hope for the intercession of the Prophet ﷺ and if it was particularly for the people of wrong actions, their request would be invalid,’ our reply is that every Muslim seeks the intercession of the Messenger ﷺ and desires Allah to accept it, since no one believes himself to be entirely free of wrong actions and to have performed everything Allah has required of him. Everyone acknowledges that they have shortcomings and so they fear the punishment and hope for salvation. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘None of you will be saved by his actions.’ They said, ‘Not even you, Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘Not even me unless Allah covers me with His mercy.’

Ibn Kathīr and Abū ‘Amr recite ‘tuqbalu’ because shafā‘ah is feminine. The rest have it in the masculine as ‘yuqbalu’, taking it as referring to ‘intercessor’.

no ransom will be accepted from it, and none will be helped.

‘Adl means ‘ransom’ whereas ‘idl means ‘like’. The ‘adl of a thing is that which is equal to a thing, of the same dimension in size. ‘Naṣr’ is ‘help’ and anṣār are helpers as in 3:52.

The reason for the revelation of this āyah is that the tribe of Israel said, ‘We are the sons of Allah, beloved of Him and the sons of His Prophets, and our forebears will intercede for us.’ So Allah informed them about the Day of Rising on which day such intercession will not be accepted and no ransom will be taken. He mentioned intercession, ransom and help because they are the things on which human beings rely in this world. Someone who falls into hardship is only rescued by intercession, help or ransom.

49 Remember when We rescued you from the people of Pharaoh. They were inflicting an evil punishment on you, slaughtering your sons and letting your women live. In that there was a terrible trial for you from your Lord.

Remember when We rescued you from the people of Pharaoh.

The word ‘idh’ (‘when’, translated here by ‘Remember when’) means ‘Remember My blessing when...’ and the following āyahs mention some of the blessings which the tribe of Israel enjoyed: being rescued from their enemies and Prophets being placed among them. It is addressed to those present but refers to their ancestors. Allah says ‘We rescued you’ because the rescue of their forefathers was a reason for the existence of those present. The word ‘najā’ (rescue) comes from the root najwah which is a raised place on the earth. So a rescued person is someone who emerges out of constriction into expansion. The ‘āl’ of Pharaoh means his family, followers and all who follow his dīn. Similarly, the āl of the Prophet ﷺ refers to those who follow his dīn in his time and at all times, whether related to him or not. Whoever does not follow his dīn is not one of his family or his people, even if he is related to him. Evidence for this is in the words of Allah: ‘We drowned the people of Pharaoh’ (2:50) and elsewhere. This is why it is said that Abū Lahab and Abū Jahl were not part of the people or family of the Prophet ﷺ even if they had actual kinship with him. That is why Allah Almighty said of Nūḥ’s son: ‘He is definitely not one of your family. He is someone whose action was not righteous.’ (11:46) We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say aloud and not secretly, “The family of my father (meaning so-and-so) are not my friends. But my friends are Allah and the righteous believers.”’

One group said that the āl of Muḥammad ﷺ consists only of his wives and children based on the hadith of Abū Ḥumayd as-Sā‘idī: ‘They said, “Messenger of Allah, how should we pray for blessing on you?” He replied, “Say: ‘O Allah, bless Muḥammad, his wives and children as You blessed the family of Ibrāhīm. Give blessing to Muḥammad, his wives and children as You gave blessing to Ibrāhīm. You are Praiseworthy, Glorious.”’” Muslim related it. One group of the people of knowledge said that ahl (family) is known and āl are the followers. The first view is sounder based on what we have mentioned and on the hadith of ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Awfā in which it is reported that when people brought their ṣadaqah to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, he would say, ‘O Allah, bless them.’ ‘Abdullāh said, ‘My father brought his ṣadaqah and he said, “O Allah, bless the family (āl) of Abū Awfā.”’

Pharaoh may have been the name of the king himself but it is more probable that it was the title of the rulers of Egypt, like Caesar and Khusrau were titles of the emperors of Rome and Persia, and Negus the title of the ruler of Abyssinia. It is said, according to the People of the Book, that this Pharaoh’s actual name was Qābūs. Wahb said that it was al-Walīd ibn Muṣ‘ab ibn ar-Riyyān. His kunyah was Abū Murrah. He was from the Banū ‘Amlīq ibn Lāwidh ibn Iram ibn Sām ibn Nūḥ. As-Suhaylī said, ‘Every ruler of the Copts and Egypt is called Pharaoh.’ Al-Mas‘ūdī said that the Arabic translation of ‘Pharaoh’ is not known.

They were inflicting an evil punishment on you, slaughtering your sons

The word used for inflicting (yasūmūna) indicates a constant punishment because sawm means constancy. Sā’imah describes sheep because they are always grazing. ‘Evil punishment’ means the worst kind of punishment. It can mean ‘constant punishment’. The evil punishment consisted of making them slaves and chattels. They had to build, till the land, harvest and serve, and anyone who did not work had to pay a poll tax.

‘Slaughtering’ is in Form II, indicating frequency. Dhabḥ is slitting and dhibḥ is something slaughtered. Dhubāḥ is the split at the base of the fingers. Pharaoh was slaughtering male children and letting the women live. One group said that ‘sons’ means ‘men’ and they were called that because they had been sons. The first view is sounder because it is more evident. Allah ascribes the action to the people of Pharaoh even though they were acting on his command since it was they who imposed the punishment. This informs us that someone who does something is punished for his action even if he is just following orders. Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that when a tyrant orders someone to kill someone, the one who does the killing is criminally responsible.

Scholars have three different views regarding this legal question. One is that they are both killed: the one who commanded it and the one who actually carried it out. This is the view of an-Nakha‘ī. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Mālik also said that, giving some additional details. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that when the ruler commands a man to kill another man and the one who is commanded knows that that it is unjust to kill him, then both he and the ruler are subject to retaliation, just as is the case with two joint killers. If the ruler forces him to do it while the one commanded knows that the command to kill is unjust, the ruler is subject to retaliation and there are two views about the one he commanded. One is that he is subject to retaliation and the other is that he is not, but that he owes half the blood money. Ibn al-Mundhir related that.

Our scholars say that the one commanded must be one of those who must obey the one who gave the command, who is at the same time someone whose power to harm is feared, as is the case with the sultan and the master of a slave. In that case retaliation is obliged against both. If he is one of those who are not forced to obey, then the actual killer is killed alone and not the one who issued the command. That is like when a father orders a son, a teacher one of his students, or an artisan one of his apprentices, provided the person ordered is of age. If he is not of age, then the killing is of the one who ordered it and the ‘āqilah relatives of the boy pay half of the blood money.

Ibn Nāfi‘ said that a master is not killed when he orders his slave, even if he does not speak Arabic, to kill a man. Ibn Ḥabīb takes the position of Ibn al-Qāsim, that they are both killed. If the command is issued by someone the person commanded does not fear to disobey, and there is no compulsion, then only the one commanded is killed, not the one who gave the command. He is, instead, beaten and imprisoned. Aḥmad said that if a master orders his slave to kill a man, the master is killed. This position is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and Abū Hurayah. ‘Alī said that the slave is imprisoned. Aḥmad said that the slave is imprisoned and beaten. Ath-Thawrī said that the slave is disciplined. Al-Ḥakam and Ḥammād said that the slave is killed. Qatādah said that they are both killed. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that if the slave is fluent and understands, then the slave is killed and the master punished, but if the slave does not speak the language, then retaliation is taken from the master. Sulaymān ibn Mūsā said, ‘The one who gives the command is not killed, but his hands are amputated and then he is punished and imprisoned.’ That is like what is stated by ‘Aṭā’, al-Ḥakam, Ḥammād, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq about a man who orders a man to kill another man. Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned it. Zafar said that neither is killed, and that is the third position. It is related by Abu-l-Ma‘alī in al-Burhān. He thought that neither of them is separate in respect to retaliation and therefore he thinks that neither of them is killed. Allah knows best.

In that was a terrible trial for you from your Lord.

The words ‘in that’ indicate everything that went on. The word here for trial (balā’) can also be a blessing as Allah says elsewhere using the same root: ‘…test the believers with this excellent trial.’ (8:17). Abu-l-Haytham said that balā’ can be good or bad and its root means testing. Allah tests His slave with good actions to test his gratitude, and tests him with affliction, which he dislikes, to test his steadfastness. Therefore both are called balā’. The majority say that, in this instance, it refers to the slaughtering of the male children and so here it is an evil test. There was a test and affliction in the slaughter.

50 And when We parted the sea for you and rescued you, and drowned the people of Pharaoh while you watched.

When Allah parted the sea, each side was like a great mountain. The image comes from parting the hair and ‘furqān’ from the same root is used for separating the truth from falsehood. ‘Bikum’ here means ‘for you’ because the preposition ‘bi’ can also mean ‘li’. It is also said that ‘bi’ has its normal meaning and so it means ‘We parted the sea by your entering it.’ They travelled between the two bodies of water which were parted. The word baḥr (sea) indicates a large expanse of water, usually salty. A horse is described as baḥr when it has a long stride. ‘We rescued you’ means that ‘We brought you out of it.’

and drowned the people of Pharaoh

There are varying views on the part of scholars about how the tribe of Israel was saved. Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned that Allah revealed to Mūsā to travel from Egypt with the tribe of Israel. Mūsā ordered them to borrow jewellery and goods from the Copts. Allah had made that lawful for the tribe of Israel. Mūsā set out with them at the beginning of the night. Pharaoh was informed and said, ‘Do not follow them until the cock crows.’ That night not a single cock in Egypt crowed. On that night Allah made many of the sons of the Copts die and so they were busy burying them. They set out to pursue them early in the morning as Allah says in 26:60, and Mūsā went to the edge of the sea. The tribe of Israel numbered about 600,000. Pharaoh’s numbers were a million and two hundred thousand. It is said that Pharaoh pursued Mūsā with a million steeds, not counting the mares. It is said that Israel, who is Ya‘qūb, entered Egypt with seventy-six of his descendants and Allah made their numbers grow and blessed his offspring until they were 600,000 men of fighting age when they went to the sea on that day, not counting old men, children and women.

Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned from Shabābah ibn Sawwār from Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq from Abū Isḥāq from ‘Amr ibn Maymūn from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd that when Mūsā set out at night with the tribe of Israel, the news reached Pharaoh and he commanded that a sheep be slaughtered and then said, ‘By Allah, I will not finish skinning it before six hundred thousand Copts have gathered to me.’

He said that Mūsā went on until he reached the sea and told it to part. The sea replied to him, ‘You are arrogant, Mūsā! Have I parted for any of the children of Ādam so that I should part for you?’ There was a man with Mūsā on a steed of his and that man said, ‘Where do you command us to go, Prophet of Allah?’ He replied, ‘I have only been commanded to go in this direction.’ He charged in with his horse and it swam and he came out and repeated, ‘Where do you command us to go, Prophet of Allah?’ He replied, ‘I have only been commanded to go in this direction.’ He said, ‘By Allah, you did not lie and are not accused of lying!’ He plunged in and it swam with him until he once more emerged. He asked again, ‘Where do you command us to go, Prophet of Allah?’ He replied, ‘I have only been commanded to go in this direction.’ He said, ‘By Allah, you did not lie and are not accused of lying!’ So Allah revealed to him: ‘Strike the sea with your staff.’ (26:63) So Mūsā struck it with his staff and ‘it split in two, each part like a towering cliff.’ (26:63) There were twelve paths through it for the twelve tribes. Each tribe had a path that they could see. The cliffs of water became arches and windows so that they could see one another.

When Mūsā’s people emerged and only the people of Pharaoh remained, the sea collapsed in on them and drowned them. He mentioned that it was the Red Sea and that the man who was on the horse with Mūsā was his lad, Yūsha‘, son of Nūn. Allah revealed to the sea, ‘Part for Mūsā when he strikes you.’ The sea spent the night trembling. He struck the sea in the morning. Its kunyah was Abū Khālid. Ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned that. Most commentators narrate this regarding the story. What we have mentioned is sufficient and it will be further explained in the relevant sūrahs.

Allah Almighty mentioned the deliverance and the drowning, but did not mention the day when that occurred. Muslim related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came to Madīnah and found the Jews fasting on the day of ‘Āshūrā’. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked them, ‘What is this day you are fasting?’ They replied, ‘This is a great day in which Allah delivered Mūsā and his people and drowned Pharaoh and his people. Mūsā fasted it out of thankfulness and we also fast it.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘We are more entitled to Mūsā than you are.’ So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ fasted it and commanded that it be fasted. Al-Bukhārī also transmitted that from Ibn ‘Abbās and the fact that the Prophet ﷺ told his Companions, ‘You are more entitled to Mūsā than they are, so fast it.’

The apparent meaning of these hadiths is that the Prophet ﷺ fasted ‘Āshūrā’ and commanded that it be fasted to imitate Mūsā, according to what the Jews had told him. That is not the case. When ‘Ā’ishah related it, she said that Quraysh had fasted the day of ‘Āshūrā’ in the Jāhiliyyah. Then when he came to Madīnah, he fasted it and commanded that it be fasted. When Ramadan was prescribed, then he abandoned fasting ‘Āshūrā’. Whoever wished could fast it and whoever wished did not. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted this.

It might be said that it is probable that Quraysh fasted it in imitation of the Jews because they heard about it from them as they considered them to be people of knowledge and therefore the Prophet ﷺ fasted it during the Jāhiliyyah in Makkah. Then when he came to Madīnah he found the Jews fasting it and said, ‘We are closer and more entitled to Mūsā than you,’ and so he fasted it to follow Mūsā. He made it obligatory and stressed the command to fast it to the extent that even children fasted it. This is taken as evidence by those who speciously claim that the Prophet ﷺ may have worshipped according to the religion of Mūsā. This is not the case as will be explained in al-An‘ām (6:90).

There is some disagreement about whether the day of ‘Āshūrā’ is the ninth or the tenth of Muḥarram. Ash-Shāfi‘ī believed that it is the ninth based on the hadith of al-Ḥakam ibn al-A‘raj who said, ‘I went to Ibn ‘Abbās and found him using his cloak as a pillow at Zamzam. I said, “Tell me about the fast of ‘Āshūrā’.” He said, “When you see the new moon of Muḥarram, count the days and begin the fast on the ninth.” I asked, “Is that how Muḥammad ﷺ fasted it?” “Yes,” he answered.’ Muslim transmitted it. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Mālik and a group of the Salaf believed that it is the tenth. At-Tirmidhī mentioned the hadith of al-Ḥakam and did not describe it as sound or good. Then he added after it from Qutaybah from ‘Abd al-Wahhāb from Yūnus from al-Ḥasan that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that ‘Āshūrā’ be fasted on the tenth.’ Abū ‘Īsā said that the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās is a sound ḥasan hadith.

At-Tirmidhỉ related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Fast the ninth and the tenth and be different to the Jews.’ This hadith is taken by ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Isḥāq. Others have said that his words, ‘count the days and begin the fast on the ninth’ do not contain a proof about not fasting the tenth. Rather it means to fast the ninth alongside the tenth. They said that fasting the two days combines the hadiths. His words to al-Ḥakam about that being how the Prophet ﷺ fasted it means ‘if he had lived’. He did not fast the ninth on its own. That is made clear by what Ibn Mājah in the Sunan and Muslim in the Ṣaḥīḥ transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘If l live until next year, I will fast today and the ninth.’

Abū Qatādah related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘As for fasting the day of ‘Āshūrā.’ I hope that Allah will expiate the year before it.’ Muslim and at-Tirmidhī transmitted it.

while you watched.

‘While you looked on with your own eyes.’ They saw the drowning of the people of Pharaoh when they had been saved and that was the greatest favour to them. It is said that they were brought out to them so that they could see them. This is one blessing after another. It is also said to mean reflecting with the inner eye because they were too busy to actually stop and watch. It is said that it means that you were in the state that someone would be if they looked. This is something that you would do. The first is more likely because they were in no state to reflect when they emerged from the sea. That is because when Allah had saved them and drowned their enemy, they said, ‘Mūsā! Our hearts are not at peace as to whether Pharaoh has truly drowned!’ Then Allah commanded the sea so that they could look at him.

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned from Qays ibn ‘Ubbād that the tribe of Israel said, ‘Pharaoh has not died and he will never die!’ When Allah heard their denial of their Prophet, He cast him up on the shore like a red ox so that the tribe of Israel could see him. When they were at peace about it and were sent on the road to the cities of Pharaoh to reach his treasures and be immersed in blessing, they saw a people devoting themselves to some idols of theirs. They said, ‘Mūsā, give us a god as they have gods.’ Mūsā rebuked them and said, ‘Do you desire other than Allah as a god when He has preferred you over all the worlds (meaning those of his time)?’ Then he commanded them to go to the Holy Land, which had been the home of their forefathers, and to purify themselves of the land Pharaoh. The Holy Land was in the possession of tyrants who had conquered it. So they needed to fight to remove them. They said, ‘Do you want to us make us meat for the tyrants? If would have been better for us if you had left us in Pharaoh’s power!’ Allah says about this: ‘My people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has ordained for you!’ to ‘We will stay sitting here.’ (5:21-24) He prayed and against them and called them deviants.

Therefore they remained wandering in the wilderness for forty years as a punishment. Then He showed mercy to them and gave them manna and quail as will be mentioned. Then Mūsā went to Mount Sinai to bring them the Torah and they adopted the Calf. Then they were told, ‘You have reached Jerusalem, so enter the door in prostration and say, “Ḥiṭṭah.”’ These other stories will be dealt with in the appropriate places.

51 And when We allotted to Mūsā forty nights. Then you adopted the Calf when he had gone and you were wrongdoers.

And when We allotted to Mūsā forty nights.

Abū ‘Amr recited ‘wa‘adnā’ without an alif, and Abū ‘Ubayd preferred it and did not acknowledge ‘wā‘adnā’ because Form III can be attributed to human beings, whereas Allah alone has the true threat and promise as we find elsewhere in the Qur’an. Makkī said that the literal meaning of the word is a promise from Allah Almighty to Mūsā and so it is necessary to apply it to that by the literal meaning of the text, which is that the action is attributed to Allah alone. That is the reading of al-Ḥasan, Abū Rajā’, Abū Ja‘far, Shaybah and ‘Īsā ibn ‘Amr. It is the reading of Qatādah and Abū Isḥāq. Abū Ḥātim said that the common reading is without alif because Form III is mutual between two creatures, each of whom makes a promise. Al-Jawharī said that mī‘ād is an appointment in time and place. It can, however, be used of a single person in Arabic and so has the same meaning as Form I. An-Naḥḥās said that Form III is better, and it is the reading of Mujāhid, al-A‘raj, Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘, al-A‘mash, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī.

Mūsā is a foreign name and so it is not declined. Copts call water ‘mū’ and tree ‘shā’. Mūsā was found in the basket in the water by a tree and so he was called Mūsā because of that. As-Suddī said, ‘When his mother feared for him, she put him in a box and threw it into the river as Allah had inspired her to do. She put him in the water between the trees at the house of Pharaoh. The maids of Āsiyah, the wife of the Pharaoh, came out to do washing and found him and so he was named from the place.’ Ibn Isḥāq said that he was Mūsā ibn ‘Imrān ibn Yashar ibn Qāhit ibn Lāwī ibn Ya‘qūb Isrā’īl ibn Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm.

The majority say that the forty nights referred to were the whole of Dhū ’l-Qa‘dah and the first ten days of Dhū ’l-Ḥijjah. That was after they had crossed the sea and his people asked him to give them a Book from Allah. Mūsā went to Sinai with seventy of the best of the tribe of Israel and climbed the mountain and Allah allotted them forty nights.

Then you adopted the Calf when he had gone and you were the wrongdoers

Some commentators say that the tribe of Israel waited twenty days and twenty nights and then said, ‘He has broken His promise,’ and they adopted the Calf. The Sāmirī told them, ‘This is your god and the god of Mūsā,’ and they accepted what he said. Hārūn forbade them to do that, saying, ‘My people! It is just a trial for you. Your Lord is the All-Merciful, so follow me and obey my command!’ (20:90) but they did not obey him and they all, except for 12,000 of them as is reported, insisted on worshipping the Calf. When Mūsā returned, he found them doing that and threw down the Tablets. He recovered six pieces from the broken Tablets. The surviving pieces contained the lawful and unlawful and other things they needed. He destroyed the Calf with fire and threw the ashes into the sea. They drank love of the Calf from its water. Yellowness appeared on their lips and their bellies were swollen. They repented, but their repentance was not accepted unless they killed one another, as we find in Allah’s earlier words in āyah 54. They stood face to face wielding knives and swords from sunrise until full daylight arrived and then killed one another indiscriminately without any consideration of family ties until Mūsā called to Allah, ‘Lord! The tribe of Israel is annihilated!’ Allah had mercy on them and poured out His bounty on them and accepted the repentance of those who remained and made the rest martyrs.

If it is asked why nights rather than days are mentioned, the answer is that it is because the night precedes the day and so it comes first. That is how it is in dating: the months begin with the first nights and the days follow them.

An-Naqqāsh said that this āyah provides evidence for continuous fasting. If Allah had mentioned the days, it would be possible to believe that Mūsā broke the fast during the night. So the text demands that he fasted night and day for forty days. The Sufis use this as evidence for continuous fasting and that the best of it is forty days. This will be discussed in the proper place.

‘Then you adopted the Calf when he had gone’ means ‘you took it as a god after Mūsā left.’

52 Then We pardoned you after that so that perhaps you would show thanks.

Then We pardoned you after that

Allah is able to pardon His creation and this can take place before or after punishment. This differs from forgiveness when there is no punishment at all. When someone deserves punishment and it is abandoned, then that is pardon. Pardon (‘afw) is the effacement of the wrong action. It means, ‘We effaced your wrong actions and excused you.’ It is derived from the wind effacing tracks. The words ‘after that’ refer to the worship of the Calf. The word ‘ijl (Calf) comes from their haste (isti‘jāl) to worship it. Allah knows best. ‘Ijl and ‘ijjawl mean ‘calf’ and the plural is ‘ajājīl.

so that perhaps you would show thanks.

This means ‘Be grateful for Allah’s pardoning you’. Shakr is to show, and an animal that is shakūr has fat showing on it more that would be provided by its fodder. Its reality is to praise a person for kindness shown to you as mentioned in our commentary on the Fātiḥah. Al-Jawharī said that it is praising a good-doer for kindness he has shown you. Shukrān (thankfulness) is the opposite of kufrān (ingratitude). At-Tirmidhī and Abū Dāwūd report from Abū Hurayrah from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘A person who does not thank people does not thank Allah.’ Al-Khaṭṭābī notes that this has two meanings. One is that the one whose nature is to be ungrateful for what he receives from people and does not thank them for their kindness will also inevitably be ungrateful for Allah’s blessings and fail to thank Him. The other is that Allah does not accept the thanks of a slave for His goodness to him when that person does not thank people for their goodness to him and is ungrateful for their kindness since the two are connected.

Scholars have said many things about gratitude to Allah. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Thankfulness is striving to obey, together with avoiding disobedience secretly and openly.’ Another group said, ‘Thankfulness is acknowledgement of your inability to thank the Blesser. That is why Allah says: “Work, family of Dāwūd in thankfulness.” (34:13) Dāwūd asked, “How can I be thankful, O Lord? Thankfulness is a blessing from you!” He said, “By acknowledging Me and thanking Me even though you recognise that thankfulness is a blessing from Me.” He said, “O Lord, show me Your most hidden blessing to me!” He said. “Breathe, Dāwūd.” Dāwūd took a breath. Allah said, “Who counts this blessing night and day?”’ Mūsā asked, ‘How can I thank You when my actions cannot repay even the smallest blessing which You have given me?’ So Allah revealed to Him, ‘Mūsā, now you have truly thanked Me.’

Al-Junayd said, ‘The reality of thankfulness is the ability to be thankful.’ He also said, ‘Once, when I was a boy of seven, I was playing in front of as-Sarī as-Saqaṭī while a group of people with him were discussing thankfulness. He asked me, “Boy, what is thankfulness?” I replied, “Not to disobey Allah in respect of His blessings.” He told me, “I fear that your portion from Allah lies in your tongue.”’ Al-Junayd said, ‘I still weep on account of what as-Sarī said to me.’ Ash-Shiblī said, ‘Thankfulness is humility and continuing to do good actions, opposing appetites, doing acts of obedience, and being always on the watch for the Compeller of the heavens and the earth.’ Dhū ’n-Nūn al-Miṣrī said, ‘Thankfulness to the one above you is by obedience, to your equal by equivalence, and to those below you by charity and beneficence.’

53 Remember when We gave Mūsā the Book and discrimination so that perhaps you would be guided.

‘Idh’ is used for the past and ‘idhā’ for the future. It is generally agreed that the Book mentioned here is the Torah, but there is disagreement about the meaning of the word ‘furqān’ (discrimination). Al-Farrā’ and Quṭrub said that the meaning is: ‘We gave Mūsā the Torah and Muḥammad the Furqān.’ An-Naḥḥās said that that is grammatically wrong. Az-Zajjāj said that the Furqān is the Book and it has two names here. Al-Farrā’ related it. The best of what is said about the matter is what Mujāhid said: ‘It means discrimination between the truth and falsehood, meaning, in other words, what Allah taught him.’ Zayd said that it refers to the splitting of the sea so that they could cross. It is said to be separation from grief, because they were enslaved under the Egyptians, as is the meaning in 8:29. It is said to be the argument and proof as Ibn Baḥr said. It is said that the wāw (and) is connective and the phrase means: ‘We gave Mūsā the discriminating Book’. The evidence for this interpretation is found in: ‘We gave Mūsā the Book, complete and perfect for him who does good, elucidating everything’ (6:154): the lawful and unlawful, disbelief and belief, promise and threat, and other things. It is also said to refer to their separation from the people of Pharaoh, who were drowned while they were saved. It is said that it means “the Day of Discrimination” which was the day of the Battle of Badr when Allah helped Muḥammad ﷺ and his Companions and destroyed Abū Jahl and his people. ‘Perhaps you will be guided’ from misguidance.

54 And when Mūsā said to his people, ‘My people, You wronged yourselves by adopting the Calf so turn towards your Maker and kill yourselves. That is the best thing for you in your Maker’s sight. And He turned towards you. He is the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.

And when Mūsā said to his people, ‘My people, You wronged yourselves by adopting the Calf

‘Qawm’ (people) is a group of men rather than women as seen in 49:11. Those with knowledge of the precise use of language say that the Calf represents a person’s lower self and whoever abases it and opposes its desires is freed from its tyranny. However, it clearly refers to the actual Calf, which the tribe of Israel worshipped, as is stated in the Revelation.

so turn towards your Maker and kill yourselves.

When Allah told them to turn towards Him, they asked how to do that and He told them to kill themselves. Some interpreters who seek out the motivation for actions have said that the meaning of this was that they abased their lower selves by acts of obedience and thus expiated their excesses, but the sound view is that they actually killed one another in the way we saw above in the commentary on āyah 51. ‘Killing’ is ending movement, and when the term is applied to wine, it is diluting its strength with water. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said, ‘Accepted repentance is a blessing from Allah which He has bestowed on this Community and not on others. The repentance of the tribe of Israel entailed killing.’

It is agreed that Allah did not command everyone who worshipped the Calf to kill himself. Az-Zuhrī said that when they were ordered to do this, they formed two rows and killed one another until they were told, ‘Enough!’ That was martyrdom for those killed and repentance for the living, as we already mentioned. Some commentators say that He sent tyrants to them who did the killing. It is said that those who worshipped the Calf stood in a row and those who had not worshipped it attacked them with weapons and killed them. It is said that the seventy who had been with Mūsā and did not worship the Calf killed those who had worshipped it. Other things are said about the method involved.

One point taken from this is that if a community does not actively combat wrongdoing when it occurs among them, they all become liable to punishment. Jābir said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If, among a people, disobedience is committed, and there are those there stronger and more powerful than those committing it who do not change it, Allah will envelop them all with a punishment.’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it in the Sunan. When the killing reached seventy thousand, Allah pardoned them as Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Alī said. Allah removed killing from them because they had exerted themselves in it. Allah has not bestowed on this community any blessing greater than repentance.

The Divine Name al-Bāri’, ‘Maker’, is different from al-Khāliq, ‘Creator’. Al-Bāri’ is the innovator who makes something new which never existed before whereas al-Khāliq is the one who decrees and moves things from one state to another. Bariyyah is creation.

and He turned towards you.

This refers to those who remained after the slaughter. He pardoned those who remained.

55 And when you said, ‘Mūsā, we will not believe in you until we see Allah with our own eyes.’ So the thunderbolt struck you dead while you were looking. 56 Then We brought you back to life after your death, so that perhaps you would show thanks. When you said, ‘Mūsā, we will not believe in you until we see Allah with our own eyes.’

It is said that this refers to the seventy men picked out by Mūsā. That is because when they heard what Allah had said, they said: ‘We will not believe in you...’ But belief in the Prophets is mandatory after they have displayed their miracles so Allah sent down lightning from heaven which struck them dead. Then Mūsā prayed to his Lord and He brought them back to life. The full story of this incident will be found later in Sūrat al-A‘rāf. Ibn Fūrak said that it is possible that their punishment was for asking to see Allah openly which was beyond the power of Mūsā to grant.

There is disagreement about the possibility of seeing Allah. Most innovators deny its possibility in either this world or the Next. Those who follow the Sunnah and the Salaf say it is possible in both worlds, and say that it will certainly happen in the Next World. This means that what they asked Mūsā for was not an impossibility. This will be discussed in Sūrat al-An‘ām and Sūrat al-A’rāf.

The root of ‘with our own eyes’ (jahr) means publicly or with one’s own eyes. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. The root means appearing. It is used for reciting with the voice audibly and mujāharah is acting in disobedience openly. When you see something unconcealed, you see it ‘openly’ (jihār, jahr). There are two possible meanings for the expression here. One is that it is connected to their speech, meaning ‘they openly said to Mūsā’. The other is that it describes the way they desired to see Allah, meaning with their own eyes, openly and directly. The use of the word also stresses the difference between seeing in a dream and seeing while awake.

So the thunderbolt struck you dead while you were looking

If it is asked how they could die while they were looking, the reply is that the Arabs use this expression when something is very close at hand. It is also said that it refers to what they were doing when the thunderbolt struck.

Then We brought you back to life after your death, so that perhaps you would show thanks.

Qatādah said that they died and their spirits left them and then were returned to their bodies so that their natural lifespans could be fulfilled. An-Naḥḥās said that it is evidence against those of Quraysh who did not believe in the resurrection and also evidence against the People of the Book. ‘Perhaps you will be grateful for being resurrected after death.’ Some people say that it means, ‘We gave you knowledge after your ignorance.’

Al-Māwardī said, ‘There are two different positions about the continuance of responsibility of those brought back after death. One is that it continues and the other is that it is removed.’ The first view is the soundest because, when the tribe of Israel saw the mountain in the air about to fall to them and the fire surrounding them, that was part of what forced them to believe and their legal responsibility continued and so they were like the people of Yūnus. It is impossible that they should cease to be responsible. Allah knows best.

57 And We shaded you with clouds and sent down manna and quails to you: ‘Eat of the good things We have provided for you.’ They did not wrong Us; rather it was themselves they were wronging.

And We shaded you with clouds

Allah caused the clouds to act as an awning above them. Ghamām (clouds) is the plural of ghamāmah. Al-Farrā’ said that it can mean the same as saḥāb because they both cover the sky. The verb is also used for covering the heart. As-Suddī said that they are white clouds. That was to protect them from the heat of the sun of the sun in the day and they dispersed at the end of the day so that they would have the light of the moon at night. Commentators say this was when they were in the desert between Egypt and Palestine after they refused to enter the city of the tyrants and fight them and said to Mūsā, ‘You and your Lord go and fight.’ (5:24) For that they were punished by having to wander for forty years in a small area of desert. It is related that they walked for the entire day and stopped at night and in the morning they were once more where they had been the previous morning. In the desert, they asked Mūsā, ‘Who will provide us with food?’ and Allah sent down manna and quails for them. They asked, ‘Who will protect us from the heat of the sun?’ and the clouds shaded them. They asked, ‘What will we have to give us light?’ So there was a pillar of light for them wherever they went. Makkī said it was a pillar of fire. They asked, ‘Where will we find water!’ And Mūsā was ordered to strike the stone. They asked, ‘Who will provide us with clothes!’ So their garments did not wear out or become ragged and the children’s clothes grew as they grew. Allah knows best.

and sent down manna and quails to you:

There is disagreement about the word ‘mann’. It is said to be simply manna which is what most commentators say. It is also said to be sweet gum or honey or a sweet drink. Wahb ibn Munabbih said it was flat bread. It is said that it is a verbal noun for all that Allah gives as a blessing (manna) to His slaves without effort or cultivation on their part. We also have the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the hadith of Sa‘īd ibn Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl: ‘Truffles are the manna which Allah sent down for the tribe of Israel and their juice contains healing for the eye.’ One variant has: ‘…the manna which Allah sent down for Mūsā.’ Muslim transmitted it. Our scholars say that this hadith indicates that truffles are part of what Allah sent down to the tribe of Israel, which He created for them in the desert. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘It is likened to manna because there is no toil in it of sowing, irrigation or treatment. So it is part of that, i.e. part of the blessing to the tribe of Israel, since it is obtained without effort.’ It is related that it used to rain down on them from dawn to sunset, like snow, and a man would take enough for the day. If anyone stored any of it, it went bad except on Friday, when they stored it for the Sabbath and it did not go bad because Saturday was their day of worship and nothing came down to them on the Sabbath.

Since the Prophet ﷺ stated that truffles are a cure for the eyes, some of those with expertise in medicine say that either it cools the eye of some heat in it and so it is used on its own, or it is compounded with other things. Abū Hurayrah believed that may be used undiluted in all eye illnesses. This is as Abū Wajzah used honey in all illnesses, even in kohl as will explained in an-Naḥl.

There is also disagreement about the quails, salwā in Arabic. It is said to be actual quails as aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that there is consensus that it is birds of some kind. In fact, there is no consensus, because some commentators claim that it is honey.

‘Eat of the good things We have provided for you.’

An elision is implied, namely: ‘We said, “Eat...”’ The words ‘good things’ entail both lawfulness and deliciousness.

They did not wrong Us; rather it was themselves they were wronging

This means that they were not thankful for the blessings they received but responded with acts of disobedience to Allah.

58 Remember when We said, ‘Go into this town. And eat from it wherever you like, freely. Enter the gate prostrating and say, “Relieve us of our burdens!” Your mistakes will be forgiven. We will grant increase to all good-doers.’

Remember when We said, ‘Go into this town and eat from it wherever you like, freely.

A town in Arabic is called a qaryah because there is a concentration of people in it. The root of the verb from which it is derived describes the act of water collecting in a tank. Another meaning is hospitality (qirā) for the guest. Miqrah, from the same root, means a tank. Qarī is a water course. Maqāri is a large bowl.

Commentators disagree about where this town was. Most say it was Jerusalem but it is also said to be Jericho. ‘Umar ibn Shabbah said, ‘It was the capital and the residence of the king.’ Ibn Kaysān said Syria. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said Ramla, Jordan, Palestine and Tadmur. The great blessing involved was that, after their wandering, they were allowed to leave the desert and enter this town.

The instruction to eat is one of permission rather than command the adverb and ‘freely’ indicates plenty and the lifting of the restrictions to which they had been subject in the desert.

Enter the gate prostrating and say, ‘Relieve us of our burdens!’

The gate referred to is said by Mujāhid and others to be the gate of Jerusalem which people know as the Bāb Ḥiṭṭah. It is said to be the Qubbah Gate towards which Mūsā and the tribe of Israel prayed. The word ‘sujjad’ (prostrating), according to Ibn ‘Abbās, here means ‘bent over bowing’. It is said to mean humbling oneself without any particular way of doing it.

There is considerable discussion about the exact significance of the word ‘ḥiṭṭah’ translated as ‘Relieve us of our burdens!’ Al-Akhfash says it means, ‘Relieve us of our wrong actions.’ An-Naḥḥās said that there was a hadith from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘They were told to say: “There is no god but Allah.”’ Another hadith says that they were told to say: ‘Forgiveness!’ In other words: ‘Say this, and your wrong actions will be removed.’ Ibn Fāris said that ‘ḥiṭṭah’ was a word they were commanded to say so that their wrong actions would be removed.

It is possible that they used to use this expression in their worship, which is apparent from the hadith related by Muslim from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The tribe of Israel were told, “Enter the gate prostrating and say, ‘Relieve us of our burdens.’ Your mistakes will be forgiven,” but they altered it and entered sliding on their buttocks, saying, “That (ḥiṭṭah) is a grain of barley!”’ Al-Bukhāri transmitted it. It is also related that they said, ‘ḥinṭah’ (wheat) and ‘ḥibbah’ (seed). Ibn Qutaybah said that they said ‘hiṭṭā’ which is ‘red wheat’ in Hebrew. Al-Harawī related it from as-Suddī and Mujāhid. The upshot of all these various things that are said is that Allah gave them a command but they disobeyed it, were insolent and made mockery of it. So Allah punished them. Ibn Zayd said, ‘The plague destroyed seventy thousand of them.’ It is also related that the door was made low so that they would have to enter it bowing, but they entered it on their backsides Allah knows best.

Scholars use this āyah as evidence for changing the wording of expressions in the Sharī‘ah as long as it does not form part of an act of worship which requires that specific wording. When it is a question of an act of worship in which a particular form of wording is specified, it is not permitted to alter it since Allah censures that in His words here. If it is just the idea which is intended, it can be changed to something else which conveys the same meaning. But not all scholars agree about this. It is related from Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah that a scholar can express the meaning of a text, provided that he conveys the entire meaning. That is the position of the majority. A considerable number of scholars, however, forbid that, including Ibn Sīrīn, Ibn al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, and Rajā’ ibn Ḥaywah. Mujāhid said, ‘One can shorten the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, but not add to them.’ Mālik ibn Anas was very exact where the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ were concerned, even as to whether a verb had a tā’ or yā’. Thus a group of the imams of hadith think that they must be related with exactitude. Even if they hear something incorrect grammatically, they will not alter it. Abū Miljaz related from Qays ibn ‘Ubbād that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘If someone hears a hadith, he should relate it as he heard it. Then he is safe.’ The like of that is related from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr and Zayd ibn Arqam.

There is a similar disagreement about changing the order of words or adding to them or omitting them. Some say that it is the meaning that is important and do not consider the exact wording necessary, and some say that it must be exact. This is better in respect of cautiousness but most scholars hold a different position. The view that it is permitted is the sound one, Allah willing. It is known that the Companions related events and used different wording in their accounts of the same event. They had concern for the meanings and did not repeat or write down hadiths. It is related from Wāthilah ibn al-Asqa‘: ‘We have not transmitted to you all that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ reported to us. The meaning is enough for you.’ Qatādah said that Zurārah ibn Awfā said, ‘I met a number of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and they used different words that had the same meaning.’ An-Nakha‘ī, al-Ḥasan and ash-Sha‘bī did not present hadiths just by meaning. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘When you get the meaning, it is acceptable.’ Sufyān ath-Thawrī said, ‘If I tell you, “I relate to you as I heard,” do not believe me. It is the meaning.’ Wakī‘ said, ‘If the meaning did not have a wide scope, people would be destroyed.’

Scholars agree that it is permitted to transmit the Sharī‘ah to non-Arabs in their language and to translate it for them. That is transmission by meaning. Allah actually does that in His Book when He recounts things that have passed and recounts stories with different wording in different places but with the same meaning, and He transmits their wording in Arabic which may have a different order, elision and addition. If it is permitted to change Arabic into another language, then it is more appropriate for that to be done in Arabic. This is sound.

Some people may remark that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah makes flourish someone who hears my words and conveys them as he heard them,’ and what is confirmed about the Prophet ﷺ instructing a man to say when he went to bed, ‘I have believed in Your Book which You sent down and Your Prophet whom You sent.’ The man said, ‘Your Messenger whom You sent,’ and the Prophet ﷺ insisted, ‘Your Prophet whom You sent.’ They observe that he did not allow the one to whom he taught that supplication to use different wording, and it said, ‘He recited it as he heard it.’ The answer to this is that his words, ‘He recited it as he heard it,’ refer to its ruling rather than the precise words.

The fact that what is meant is the ruling is indicated by his words, ‘Many a person with fiqh is not a faqīh and many a person with fiqh goes to one with more fiqh than him.’ The hadith itself has been transmitted with different wording while its meaning is the same. It is entirely possible that the expressions of the Prophet ﷺ used different wording at different times. The mere fact that a hadith is transmitted with different wordings indicates that that is permitted. When the Prophet ﷺ told him to use ‘Prophet’ rather than ‘Messenger’, that is because ‘Prophet’ is more praiseworthy and each of these two words has its proper place. ‘Messenger’ can be used for all people while ‘Prophet’ is only for the Prophets themselves. Those who are sent are better than the Prophets because they have both Prophethood and the Message. Success is by Allah.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said about this: ‘The disagreement concerning this matter can be conceived of as belonging to the time of the Companions and Tābi‘ūn because they were equal in their knowledge of natural language. We do not doubt that it is not permitted for those after them since natures have changed and customs are different. This is the truth, and Allah knows best.’

Your mistakes will be forgiven.

There are three readings of the word “forgiven” in this āyah: Nāfi‘ recites ‘they will be forgiven’ (yughfar with yā’); Ibn ‘Āmir recites ‘tughfar’ with tā’; and the rest recite ‘We will forgive’ (naghfir with nūn). That is the clearest of them because He says before, ‘We said.’

We will grant increase to all good-doers.’

This means those who did not worship the Calf. It is said that Allah will forgive the sins of those who store up, and increase His goodness to those who do not. It is said that He will forgive the errors of those who disobey and increase His goodness to those who do good. A ‘good-doer’ is someone whose tawḥīd is sound, who conducts himself well, performs his obligations and spares the Muslims his evil. We find in a hadith: ‘Iḥsān is that you worship Allah as if you were seeing Him. Even if you do not see Him, He sees you.’ Jibrīl said, ‘You spoke the truth.’ Muslim transmitted it.

59 But those who did wrong substituted words other than those they had been given. So We sent down a plague from heaven on those who did wrong because they were deviators.

But those who did wrong substituted words other than those they had been given.

The wrongdoers changed the words they had been told to use. That was when they said ‘ḥinṭah’ instead of ‘ḥiṭṭah’, and they added a letter and so they were punished since adding to the dīn and innovating in the Sharī‘ah is a terrible crime and causes great harm. This to due to their changing the word which indicated their repentance. That in itself merits punishment, so how much more must that be the case when the attributes of what is worshipped are altered! Words are less than actions, so what about changing actions! The verb ‘baddala’ (substituted) means to replace a thing with something else. The Abdāl are a category of righteous people who always exist in the world and are so called because, when one of them dies, Allah replaces him with another.

So We sent down a plague from heaven on those who did wrong

‘Those who did wrong’ is repeated a second time rather than simply using the pronoun ‘them’ because of the gravity if what they did. Repetition is of two types. One is when it is used, as here and in 2:79, in a second phrase after the first has been completed, which intensifies the terribleness of the action done. The second is when there is repetition before the sense of the word is complete, as in ‘The Undeniable. What is the Undeniable?’ (69:1) and elsewhere, in which case the result is to honour the thing mentioned. The word ‘rijz’ (plague) is a Divine punishment and it also means ‘filth’.

60 And when Mūsā was looking for water for his people, We said, ‘Strike the rock with your staff.’ Then twelve fountains gushed out from it and all the people knew their drinking place. ‘Eat and drink of Allah’s provision and do not go about the earth corrupting it.’

And when Mūsā was looking for water for his people,

The type of ‘looking for water’ referred to here is what you do when there is no water and there has been no rain for some time. Then you display true slavehood, poverty, need, abasement, repentance and integrity. Our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ did the same when he asked for rain and went out to the place of prayer, humble, abased and making supplication. If we show no repentance and nothing but obstinacy and opposition to the Lord, how can we ask for rain? The Prophet ﷺ said in a hadith related by Ibn ‘Umar: ‘They do not refuse to pay the zakāt due on their property without being denied rain from heaven. Were it not for the animals, they would not have any rain at all.’

The sunnah of the Rain Prayer is to go out to the place of prayer, and for there to be a khuṭbah and the prayer. That is the position of most scholars. Abū Hanifah believes that this prayer is not sunnah nor is going out for it. In his view there should only be supplication. He cited the sound hadith which al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted, but there is no proof in it. That was a supplication whose answer was hastened and so nothing else is needed and it is not intended to clarify the Sunnah. Enough clarification for us, however is the hadith of ‘Abdullāh ibn Yazīd al-Māzinī: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out to ask for rain and reversed his cloak and prayed two rak‘ahs.’ Muslim transmitted it. More about the rain prayer will come in Sūrat Hūd, Allah willing.

Then twelve fountains gushed out from it

Something is elided here implying he struck it and it gushed. Allah has the power to make water gush and to split the stone without the blow but He wanted to connect causes to effects. This is His wisdom for His slaves in respect of their obtaining their desires and to determine their reward and punishment according to that in the Hereafter. The meaning of the verb infajara is to burst out by breaking through, as dawn splits the sky. Fujrah designates the place where water pours out.

When Mūsā asked for water for his people, he was instructed to strike the stone with his staff at the same time as making supplication. The stone in question was cubiform and about the size of a sheep’s head. They travelled with it. It is also said that they did not carry it with them, but found it at every stop. This is an even greater Sign. It is said that Mūsā could hit any stone he wished, which is a yet greater miracle. It is said that Allah commanded him to strike a particular stone. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that it is the stone on which Mūsā put his clothes when he washed and which ran away with his clothes. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘There is no disagreement that it was a separate cubiform stone. Three springs flowed out from each face when Mūsā struck it. When they had enough water, they set out and the water stopped.

What our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ was given when springs of water gushed from his hand is a greater miracle. We have seen water gushing from stones at the beginning and end of the day and night, but no Prophet before our Prophet ﷺ had the miracle of water issuing from between flesh and blood. Trustworthy imams and reliable fuqahā’ related that ‘Abdullāh said, ‘We were with the Prophet ﷺ but did not find water. A basin was brought and he put his hand in it and I saw the water gushing from between his fingers. He said, “Come to purification.”’ Al-A‘mash said, ‘Sālim ibn Abi-l-Ja‘d said that he asked Jābir, “How many were there on the day?” He answered, “One thousand five hundred.”’

and all the people knew their drinking place.

Each of the tribes knew its own spring and did not drink from any other. Mashrab is place where one drinks. It is also called mashrūb. The word for tribes in reference to the tribes of Israel is ‘asbāṭ’ whereas ‘qabā’il’ is used for Arab tribes. There were twelve tribes, descended from the sons of Ya‘qūb. Each had their own exclusive spring. We have heard that there were fifty thousand in each tribe.

‘Eat and drink of Allah’s provision

The elision implies: Eat the manna and quails and drink of the water issuing from the stone.

and do not go about the earth corrupting it.’

The expression ‘ta‘thaw’ (go about) already implies extreme corruption which is forbidden and the word ‘corrupting’ (mufsidīn) is added for more emphasis. ‘Uththah, which is derived from the same root, is the moth that eats cloth. These words permit blessings and counting them while the earlier one forbids disobeying Allah.

61 And when you said, ‘Mūsā, we will not put up with just one kind of food so ask your Lord to supply to us some of what the earth produces – its green vegetables, cucumbers, grains, lentils and onions,’ he said, ‘Do you want to replace what is better with what is inferior? Go back to Egypt, then you will have what you are asking for.’ Abasement and destitution were stamped upon them. They brought down anger from Allah upon themselves. That was because they rejected Allah’s Signs and killed the Prophets without any right to do so. That was because they rebelled and went beyond the limits.

And when you said, ‘Mūsā, we will not put up with just one kind of food

They said this when they were in the desert and became bored with a diet of manna and quails and remembered their previous life in Egypt. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘Some people brought with them vegetables and onions and they inclined to their bad old ways. Their natures yearned for their old habits and they spoke these words. They refer to manna and quails as one food because they ate them together or because it was always the same thing.’ It is said that it is ‘one food because they ate them together, or had them all the time, morning and evening.

The word ṭa‘ām (food) can refer both to what is eaten and what is drunk. This usage is also found in other āyahs. Allah says: ‘Anyone who does not taste it (yaṭ‘amhu) is with me.’ (2:249) and ‘When you have eaten (ṭa‘imtum) disperse.’ (33:53) The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said of the water of Zamzam, ‘It is a food to eat and a healing for illness.’ If salwā is honey, then it was drunk as well. Perhaps what is meant is wheat, as we find the same word used in hadiths for what can be used for zakāt al-fiṭr.

so ask your Lord to supply to us some of what the earth produces – its green vegetables, cucumbers, grains, lentils and onions,’

What is implied here are all those things produced by the earth which are edible. Baql are plants without trunks while shajar have trunks. There is disagreement about what fūm, translated here as grains, means. It is said to mean garlic, like thūm because it is like green vegetables as Juwaybir related from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk. It is also said that it means ‘grains’ and that is what is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and most commentators. An-Naḥḥās preferred it and that it is more appropriate. Those who say that have sound isnāds and Juwaybir does not reach their level even though al-Farrā’ and al-Kisā’ī prefer the first view. Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj said, ‘How can people ask for food without wheat in it when wheat is the basis of nourishment?’ Abū Naṣr al-Jawharī said that fūm is wheat. Some said that it is chick-peas in the Syrian dialect. Al-Farrā’ said that it is an ancient dialect. ‘Aṭā’ and Qatādah said that it is every grain used for bread.

Scholars disagree about eating onions and garlic with their unpleasant smell. The majority of scholars agree that it is permitted because of firm hadiths on the subject. One group of literalists, who say that the prayer must be performed in a group, forbid it because eating them would prevent people going to the prayer. They said that if something prevents the performance of an obligation, then it is unlawful to use it, and they cite as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called it ‘foul’. Allah described His Prophet ﷺ as forbidding foul things. The proof of the majority is what is confirmed from Jābir that the Prophet ﷺ was brought a kettle containing vegetables and he caught an unpleasant smell from it. He was told what vegetables it contained and said, ‘Take it to them,’ referring to some of his Companions who were with him. When he saw that they were reluctant to eat it, he said, ‘Eat. I converse with one you do not converse with.’ Muslim and Abū Dāwūd transmitted that. This makes it clear that it is particular to him while permitted for others.

We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Abū Ayyūb that the Prophet ﷺ was staying with him and he prepared some food for the Prophet ﷺ which contained garlic. When it was returned, he asked about the place of the fingers of the Prophet ﷺ and was told, ‘He did not eat.’ He was alarmed and went up and asked, ‘Is it unlawful?’ he replied, ‘No, but I dislike it.’ He said, ‘I dislike what you dislike.’ This is a text showing that it is not unlawful. That is like what Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī related from the Prophet ﷺ when they ate garlic at the time the conquest of Khaybar: ‘People, it is not for me to make unlawful what Allah has made lawful, but it is a plant whose smell I dislike.’

These hadiths show that the ruling is particular to him since he alone conversed with the angel even though the hadith of Jābir makes the ruling the same for him and others when he said: ‘Whoever eats this garlic plant (or ‘onions and garlic’) should not come near our mosques. The angels are harmed by the what harms of the sons of Ādam.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘People, you eat two plants which I only think are foul: onion and garlic. I saw when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ noticed their scent from a man in the mosque, he ordered that he be taken out to al-Baqī‘. Whoever eats them should kill them by cooking.’ Muslim transmitted it.

lentils and onions

It is related from the Prophet ﷺ through ‘Alī: ‘You must have lentils. They are blessed and pure. They make the heart tender and increase tears. Seventy Prophets were blessed with them, the last of whom was ‘Īsā ibn Maryam.’ Ath-Tha‘labī and others mentioned it. One day ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz would eat bread with oil, one day with meat and one day with lentils. Al-Ḥalīmī said that lentils and oil are the food of the righteous. If its only virtue had been that it was what Ibrāhīm gave as hospitality in his city, that would have been enough. They lighten the body so that it is light for worship and do not provoke the appetites as meat does. Wheat, among all the grains, is fūm in the sound position. Barley, which was the food of the people of Madīnah, was the food of the people of Madīnah as lentils were the food of the town of Ibrāhīm. Each of the two grains enjoys a position of excellence with a Prophet.

he said, ‘Do you want to replace what is better with what is inferior?

‘Replacing’ is putting one thing is place of another. Adnā (inferior), according to az-Zajjāj, is derived from danūw, meaning ‘of mediocre worth’. ‘Alī ibn Sulaymān said that it comes from danā’a, meaning ‘lower’, and the hamza has been removed. It is also said that it is derived from dūn, meaning ‘base’, and the original form would be adwan.

They disagree about what makes manna and quail better than what they asked for. There are five reasons given. One is that vegetables are relatively unimportant compared to manna and quail which are of higher quality. The second is that it is since manna and quail were Allah’s gift to them and He had commanded them to eat them, by eating them, they were following a divine command, which would ensure them a reward in the Next World. The same did not apply to what they were asking for which was, therefore, inferior. The third reason is that what Allah gave them is in fact better and more delicious than what they were asking for. The fourth is that what they were given entailed no work or fatigue on their part and what they were asking for could only be obtained by tillage, harvesting and hard work. The fifth is that there was no doubt about the lawfulness and purity of what came to them there since it came directly from Allah whereas the produce of the earth can be impaired by unlawful transactions and other corrupt practices.

This āyah contains evidence that it is permitted to eat good things and delicious foods. The Prophet ﷺ loved sweets and honey, and drank delicious cold water as will be mentioned in al-Mā’idah and an-Naḥl.

Go back to Egypt, then you will have what you are asking

This command was an impossibility for them so it was a challenge they could not rise to because they were in the desert and this was their punishment. It is said that they were given what they asked for. It is also said that miṣr means any city as ‘Ikrimah related from Ibn ‘Abbās. One group said that it means the city where Pharaoh lived. Those with the first view deduce that the literal meaning of the Qur’an is the command to enter the city and that is supported by the transmission that they live in Syria after the wilderness. The other group deduce from what is in the Qur’an that Allah made the tribe of Israel inherit the houses of the family of Pharaoh.

Abasement and destitution were stamped upon them. They brought down anger from Allah on them.

These qualities stayed with them and were decreed for them. The verb ḍaraba (stamp) is used for ‘striking a tent. Dhillah is abasement and belittling. Maskanah is poverty. There is no Jew, even if he wealthy, who does not have an air of poverty about him. It is said that the abasement referred to was the obligation of jizyah. Al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said that their ‘destitution’ (maskanah) implied humiliation, as taken from sukūn. It means that poverty makes them move little as az-Zajjāj said Abū ‘Ubaydah said that dhillah is belittlement and maskanah is the verbal noun from miskīn (very poor).

The fact that they denied Allah’s Book and the miracles of His Prophets such as ‘Īsā, Yaḥyā, Zakariyyā and Muḥammad عليهم السلام is why that was obliged for them.

That was because they rejected Allah’s Signs

They denied His Book and the miracles of His Prophets such as ‘Īsā, Yaḥyā, Zakariyyā and Muḥammad عليهم السلام.

and killed the Prophets without any right to do so.

The root of Prophet (nabī’) is nabā, which means to appear. It comes from nabwah meaning something high. The position of a Prophet is high. Nāfi‘ recites ‘Prophets’ (nabī’īn) with a hamzah throughout the Qur’an except in two places in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb in which he recites it without maddah or hamzah. The hamzah is omitted in these two places because of the conjunction of two hamzahs with a kasrah. The rest omit the hamzah in all of that. Those who read it with hamzah do so because it comes from the verb anba’a, to report and its active participle is munbi’ and the plural of nabi’ is anbiyā’. It is also said that the plural is nubā’. Al-‘Abbās ibn Mirdās as-Sulamī says in praise of the Prophet ﷺ:

O Seal of the Prophet (nubā’), you are sent

With the truth. The guidance in every path is your guidance.

This is why it is recited with hamzah.

In the case of those who disagree and omit the hamzah, some of them say that it is derived from a verb with a hamzah, but then smooth out the hamzah. Some of them say it is derived from nabā, yanbū, meaning to be visible. So nabiyy comes from nubūwah which is elevation. So the rank of the Prophet is high. Nabiyy without a hamzah is also the path and so the Messenger is called nabiyy because people are guided by him like the path. A poet said:

The place of the Prophet (nabiyy) on (Mt) Ka’ib

has become broken crumbled pebbles.

So the Prophets are like paths for us in the land. It is related that a man said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Peace be upon you, Prophet (nabi’) of Allah,’ using the hamzah and the Prophet ﷺ replied, ‘I am not the Nabi’ of Allah (with hamzah), but I am the Nabiyy of Allah (without hamzah).’ Abū Alī said that the isnād of this hadith is weak. Part of what reinforces its weakness is that words of the eulogy, ‘O Seal of the Prophet (nubā’),’ were recited to him and it is not reported that he objected.

The words ‘without any right to do so’ emphasise the atrocity and the wrong action that they committed. If it is observed that this is evidence that there might be an occasion on which it might be right to kill a Prophet, even though it is known that the Prophets are protected from those who attack them, we reply that that is not the case. When they are killed, it must be wrongly. No Prophet can be killed by right; if they are killed it is in defence of the truth. If it is asked how could it be permitted for the unbelievers to have power over the Prophets, the answer is that it was a mark of honour for them and increased their stations, like those of the believers who are killed in the Way of Allah. Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Ḥasan said, ‘No Prophet was ever killed except for those of them who had been commanded to fight, and everyone commanded to fight is helped.’

62 Those who believe, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who believe in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

Those who believe,

This refers to those who believe in Muḥammad ﷺ. Sufyān said that what is meant are the hypocrites, so it is as if He were saying, ‘Those who outwardly believe.’ That is why they are joined with the Jews, Christians and Sabaeans. Then He clarified the judgment by mentioning Allah and the Last Day.

those who are Jews,

The verb hādū means ‘to be Jews’, and it is ascribed to Yahūdhā (Judah), who was the oldest son of Ya‘qūb. It is said that they were called that because of their turning away from worshipping the Calf and repenting, and so it means repentance. We find in the Revelation: ‘We have truly turned to You’ (7:156) where the verb is hudnā. Ibn ‘Arafah said that it means: ‘have faith in Your command’.

and the Christians

The word for Christians, naṣārā, is the plural of naṣrānī. It is said that the name is derived from Nazareth where ‘Īsā lived. ‘Īsā was called a Nazarene and so that was applied to his followers, as Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah said. Al-Jawharī also said that. It is also said that it comes from the word anṣār which means ‘helpers’.

and Sabaeans

The singular is either ṣābi’ī or ṣāb which is why there is a disagreement about whether it has a hamzah. All, except for Nāfi‘, have it with a hamzah. Linguistically, the Arabic word (ṣābi’) means one who inclines from one dīn to another dīn. The Arabs used it to describe someone who became Muslim. So the Sabaeans separated from the religion of the People of the Book.

There is no disagreement that the Jews and Christians are People of the Book and so it is permitted to marry their women and eat their food. Jizyah is imposed on them. There is disagreement about the Sabaeans. As-Suddī said that they are a sub-group of the People of the Book, as Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh states. Ibn al-Mundhir and Isḥāq say that there is nothing wrong in eating the animals they slaughter because they are People of the Book. Abū Ḥanīfah says the same. Ibn ‘Abbās, however, says that one should not marry their women. Other things are said about them.

It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that this āyah is abrogated by “If anyone desires anything other than Islam as a dīn, it will not be accepted from him.” (3:85) Others said that it is not abrogated and that it is about those who believe in the Prophet ﷺ and who are firm in their belief.

63 Remember when We made the covenant with you and lifted up the Mount above your heads: ‘Take hold vigorously of what We have given you and pay heed to what is in it, so that hopefully you will be godfearing.’ 64 Then after that you turned away, and were it not for Allah’s favour to you and His mercy, you would have been among the lost.

Remember when We made the covenant with you and lifted up the Mount above your heads:

This āyah explains the meaning of: ‘When We uprooted the mountain, lifting it above them like a canopy.’ (7:171) Abū ‘Ubaydah said that it means that it was removed from its place and raised above the surface of the earth. There is disagreement about what ‘the Mount’ (aṭ-ṭūr) is. It is said to be the name of the mountain where Allah spoke to Mūsā and where the Torah was revealed to him (Sinai), and this was what Ibn Jurayj said that Ibn ‘Abbās said. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that it is a mountain on which plants grow, unlike most others on which they do not grow. Mujāhid and Qatādah said it could be any mountain and Mujāhid said that aṭ-ṭūr is simply the Syriac word for mountain.

The Mount was lifted in this way because, when Mūsā brought the Tablets from Allah, which contained the Torah to the tribe of Israel, he told them, ‘Take them and hold fast to them.’ But they replied, ‘No! Not unless Allah tells us to do the same as you tell us!’ So they were struck dead and then brought back to life. Mūsā again told them to take them and again they refused. So Allah commanded the angels to uproot one of the mountains of Palestine and it was held over them like a cloud. The sea was behind them and a fire in front of them and they were told to take on the covenant otherwise the mountain would fall on top of them. They prostrated in repentance and accepted the Torah and the covenant. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that one of the scholars said, ‘If they had taken it the first time, there would have been no need for a covenant.’ So their prostration was done reluctantly because they were looking at the mountain in fear. When Allah showed mercy to them, they said, ‘There is no prostration better than one that Allah accepts and by which He shows mercy to Him slaves.’ They continue to prostrate reluctantly. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The only thing that can be sound is that Allah Almighty created faith in their hearts at the moment of their prostration. It is not that they believed unwillingly and that their hearts were not at peace with that.’

Take hold vigorously of what We have given you

‘We said” is elided before ‘Take.’ ‘Bi-quwwah’ (vigorously, lit. with strength) means with gravity and striving, as Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah and as-Suddī stated. It is said that it means with sincerity. Mujāhid said, ‘“With strength” means “putting it into action”.’ It is also said to mean ‘with a lot of study’.

and pay heed to what is in it,

This means ‘reflect and observe Allah’s commands and warnings in it and do not neglect that and waste it’. It is the same with all the Divine Books: you must act according to them and not just recite them on the tongue. To do otherwise is to waste them. This is what is stated by ash-Sha‘bī and Ibn ‘Uyaynah as will be discussed later. (2:101) An-Nasā’ī related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The worst of people is an impious man who recites the Qur’an and pays no heed to any of it.’ So he explained that the goal is to put it into action. Mālik said, ‘The Qur’an can be recited by someone who has no good in him. This was an obligation for those before us just as it is obliged for us.’

Allah says: ‘Follow the best that has been sent down to you from your Lord.’ (39:55) So He commanded us to follow His Book and act by it, but we have abandoned it just as the Jews and Christians did. There remain people with many books and copies of the Qur’an who do not benefit from that at all because they are dominated by ignorance, desire for power, and the following of appetites. We find in at-Tirmidhī that Abu-d-Dardā’ said, ‘We were with the Prophet ﷺ and he looked towards heaven and said, “This is a time in which knowledge will be snatched away from its people until they have none left.” Ziyād ibn Labīd al-Anṣārī asked, “How can it be snatched away from us when we recite the Qur’an! By Allah, we recite it and our women and children recite it.” He replied, “May your mother be bereft, Ziyād! I consider you to be like those in who know the Torah and Gospel which the Jews and Christians have. What help was it to them?”’ An-Nasā’ī transmitted it from Jubayr ibn Nufayr from ‘Awf ibn Mālik al-Ashja‘ī by a sound path.

In the Muwaṭṭā’ we read that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd remarked to someone, ‘You are in a time when men of understanding (fuqahā’) are many and Qur’an reciters are few, when the ḥudūd defined in the Qur’an are protected and its letters are neglected, when few people ask and many give, when they make the prayer long and the khuṭbah short, and put their actions before their desires. A time will come for people when their fuqahā’ are few but their Qur’an reciters are many, when the letters of the Qur’an are guarded carefully but its ḥudūd are neglected, when many ask but few give, when they make the khuṭbahs long but the prayer short, and they put their desires before their actions.’ (Muwaṭṭā’ 9.24.91) Yaḥyā said, ‘I asked Ibn Nāfi‘ about what is meant by “put their desires before their actions,” and he replied, “They follow their desires and abandon the actions prescribed for them.”’

Then after that you turned away

This is a physical term which is used metaphorically for turning away from commands, religion and faith. ‘After that’ means after the evidence you have seen and after your taking of the covenant and the raising of the mountain.

65 You are well aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath. We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised, cast out.’

You are well aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath

The word ‘sabt’ (sabbath) is derived from sabat which means ‘cutting off’. That is because it was a day of rest, cut off from the rest of the week.

‘You are well aware’ means you recognise them individually and you know the ruling against them. The difference between the terms is that recognition (ma‘rifah) is directed at the essence of what is named and knowledge (‘ilm) is directed at the states of the named. If you say, ‘I recognise Zayd,’ it means him himself, and if you say, ‘I know Zayd,’ it means his states in respect of excellence or imperfection.

An-Nasā’ī related that Ṣafwān ibn ‘Assāl reported that a Jew said to his friend, ‘Let us go to this Prophet.’ His friend said, ‘Do not say “Prophet”! He might hear you. He has four eyes!’ They went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and asked him for seven clear commandments and he told them: ‘Do not associate anything with Allah; do not steal; do not fornicate; do not kill anyone Allah has made inviolate, unless with a legal right; do not slander an innocent person to a ruler; do not use magic; do not consume usury; do not slander chaste women; and do not turn your backs in retreat when the fighting is fierce; and, as Jews, you have one specially for you: that you do not profane the Sabbath.’ They kissed his hands and feet and said, ‘We testify that you are a Prophet!’ He asked, ‘What prevents you from following me, then?’ They replied. ‘Dāwūd prayed that the line of Prophets would continue to be from his descendants and we fear that if we follow you, the other Jews will kill us.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it and said that it is a sound good hadith.

It is possible that the āyah refers to rulings about the Sabbath in general, or it may just refer to the Sabbath on which they caught the fish. The first view is that of al-Ḥasan. Ashhab related that Mālik said, ‘Ibn Rūmān related that a man would take a string and make a loop and throw it down after the fish. One end of the string was tied to a peg. Then he would leave it until Sunday. People were silent at what was done until a lot of fish were caught and they were taken to the markets. The deviants were public about their catch. One group openly forbade them to do that and withdrew, saying, ‘We will not live with you.’ The town was divided by a wall. One morning those who had forbidden them to do what they were doing were sitting in their gatherings and none of the transgressors came out. They said, ‘Something has happened to the people.’ They climbed up the wall to look and there were apes. They opened the gate and went in and the apes went to their kin and smelled their garments and wept. They were told, ‘Did we not forbid you?’ They nodded their heads in agreement. Qatādah said that the children became apes and the old men pigs. Only those who had forbidden them were saved; the rest were destroyed. This will be further discussed in al-A‘rāf.

There are two different positions about whether those transformed had offspring. Az-Zajjāj said that some people say that it is possible that apes are descended from them. Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī preferred that. The majority say that they did not reproduce, and the apes, pigs and other things already existed before that. Those who were transmogrified were destroyed and nothing of them remains because wrath and the punishment smote them. They only lasted three days. Ibn ‘Abbās said that none of them survived more than three days: they did not eat or drink or reproduce. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that it is related and confirmed from the Prophet ﷺ that those transmogrified did not reproduce, eat or drink, and did not live more than three days.

This is what is sound of both views. Ibn al-‘Arabī and others cite as evidence for the first position the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘A group of the tribe of Israel were lost. It is not known what happened them. I only think that they were turned into mice. Do you not see that they do not drink if camel milk is put in front of them but do drink if sheep’s milk is put in front of them?’ Abū Hurayrah related it in Muslim. There is also the hadith about the lizard which Muslim related from Abū Sa‘īd and Jābir. Jābir said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ was brought a lizard and refused to eat it, saying, “I do not know. Perhaps it is from one of the generations that were transmogrified.”’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘We find in al-Bukhārī that ‘Amr ibn Maymūn said, “In the Jāhiliyyah I saw a monkey that fornicated. They stoned it and I stoned it with them.”’ The term ‘fornicated’ is omitted from some variants. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘If it is asked whether animals have knowledge of laws which they inherited from past generations until the time of ‘Amr, we say that that is the case because the Jews altered stoning and Allah wanted it to be carried out on those transmogrified to be a stronger proof against those who denied that and altered it, so that their books, their rabbis and those who had been transmogrified would all bear witness against them and they would know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they make public and that He takes account what they change and alter. The proof will be established against them while they are unaware of that. He will help His Prophet and not help them.’

This is what he says in al-Aḥkām, and there is no proof for any of it. The story of ‘Amr was mentioned by al-Ḥumaydī in Jam‘ bayna-ṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn: ‘Abū Mas‘ūd ad-Dimishqī recounted that in the two Ṣaḥīḥayn collections ‘Amr ibn Maymūn al-Awdī has a story which Ḥuṣayn related from him. He said, ‘In the Jāhiliyyah I saw a monkey that fornicated. The monkeys gathered around it and stoned it and I stoned it with them.’ That is how Abū Mas‘ūd related it. He did not mention in any place that al-Bukhārī transmitted it in his book. We investigated that and found it in some copies, but not all of them. It is mentioned in the Book of the Jāhiliyyah. The transmission of an-Nu‘aymī from al-Farabrī has nothing about this report about monkeys. It may be one of the insertions into al-Bukhārī. That which al-Bukhārī says in the Tārīkh al-kabīr is: “Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād told me that Hushaym reported from Abū Balj and Ḥuṣayn that ‘Amr ibn Maymūn said, ‘In the Jāhiliyyah I saw monkeys gathered around a female monkey and they stoned it and I stoned it with them.’” The word “fornicated” does not appear in it. If this transmission is sound, al-Bukhārī transmitted it as evidence that ‘Amr ibn Maymūn was alive in the Jāhiliyyah. His opinion in the Jāhiliyyah is of no importance.’

Abū ‘Umar mentioned ‘Amr ibn Maymūn in al-Istī‘āb and the fact that his kunyah was Abū ‘Abdullāh. He said that he was considered to be one of the great Tābi‘ūn of the Kufans. He said, ‘He is the one who saw the monkey stoning in the Jāhiliyyah if that is sound, because its transmitters are unknown. Al-Bukhārī mentioned it from Nu‘aym from Hushaym from Ḥuṣayn from ‘Amr ibn Maymūn. ‘Abbād ibn al-‘Awwām narrated it from Ḥuṣayn as Hushaym related it. The long story depends on ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Muslim from ‘Īsā ibn Ḥiṭṭān who are not authoritative. A group of the people of knowledge object to relating fornication to those who are not legally responsible and for ḥadd punishments to be carried out on animals. If it were sound, it would apply to men and jinn because both acts of worship are for both of them alone. As for the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I only think that they were turned into mice’ and ‘Perhaps it is from one of the generations that were transmogrified,’ and the like, this is only suspicion and fear of mice, lizards and other things being transmogrified. This was conjecture on his part before the revelation that Allah did not allow them to reproduce. When this was revealed, he was no longer afraid of that. He knew that lizards and mice were not transmogrified. Then, when someone asked him whether or not apes and pigs were transmogrified, he ﷺ said, ‘Allah does not destroy a people or punish a people and then give them offspring. Apes and pigs existed before that.’ This is a clear sound text that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd related and Muslim transmitted in the Book of the Decree. Texts confirm that lizard was eaten in his presence and on his table without him objecting to it. It is related from Mujāhid in the commentary on this that only their hearts were transformed and their mouths were like those of apes. As far as I know, no one else has said this.

66 We made it an exemplary punishment for those there then, and those coming afterwards, and a warning to those who are godfearing.

We made it an exemplary punishment

Various things are said about the word ‘it’ here. It is said to refer to the punishment and it is said to refer to the town. It is said to be the whole nation which was transformed. It is said to be snakes, but this is unlikely. The word nakāl (exemplary punishment) applies to restraint and punishment. Ankāl are fetters because they restrain. Nikl is used for a heavy bit in a bridle which restrains the animal. Nakila is to refrain from a matter. Tankīl is to inflict a penalty on enemies which acts as a deterrent to others. Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī said ‘those there then’ refers to those among the transmogrified at the time who did not accept their wrong actions and ‘those coming afterwards’ are those who did not commit that sort of wrong action. Al-Farrā’ said that those who were transmogrified were made an exemplary punishment for past wrong actions and those who came after them should fear transmogrification for their wrong actions. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is a good view and both pronouns refer to the punishment. Al-Ḥakam related from Mujāhid from Ibn ‘Abbās is that it is for those with them and those who will come after them. An-Naḥḥās preferred that and said that it is closer to the meaning. Allah knows best. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is for towns with them and after them.

and a warning to those who are godfearing.

Al-Khalīl said that ‘warning’ is reminding about good which will make the heart tender. It was a warning to everyone with taqwā separate from the obdurate unbelievers. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that this includes every godfearing person of every nation. Az-Zajjāj says that it is an admonishment only for the godfearing of the community of Muḥammad ﷺ to refrain from what Allah has forbidden lest they experience a punishment like that of the people who profaned the Sabbath.

67 And when Mūsā said to his people, ‘Allah commands you to sacrifice a cow,’ they said, ‘What! Are you making a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allah from being one of the ignorant!’

And when Mūsā said to his people, ‘Allah commands you to sacrifice a cow,’

‘Commands you’ is read by Abū ‘Amr as ‘ya’murkum’ with sukūn and elision of the ḍammah because it is heavy [instead of ‘ya’murukum’]. This comes first in terms of recitation while ‘you killed someone’ (2:72) comes first in terms of meaning, before the episode of the cow. It is possible that ‘killed someone’ was revealed first and then the command to sacrifice afterwards. It is also possible that the order of revelation is as it is. It is also possible that the command to sacrifice was given and then the killing occurred and they were commanded to strike the deceased with part of it. ‘And’ does not necessarily convey sequence as we see in other āyahs.

There is no disagreement that the dhabḥ method (cutting the throat and carotid arteries) is used for slaughtering sheep and the naḥr method (stabbing through the throat) for camels, and that one can choose either of them for cattle. It is said that dhabḥ is more fitting because Allah mentioned it. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I do not know of anyone who made the meat unlawful when the wrong form of slaughter had been used.’ Mālik disliked it but something can be disliked but not unlawful. The rulings regarding sacrifices will be discussed in Sūrat al-Mā’idah. Al-Māwardī said that they were commanded to sacrifice one particular cow because it was the same species that they had worshipped, so that what they had esteemed would be demeaned in their eyes and they would know the answer to worshipping it in themselves. This idea is a reason for slaughtering the cow but not a reason for the answer to a request. What was meant by it was to revive the one who was killed by killing that which is alive so as to show Allah’s power in originating things from their opposites.

The word ‘baqarah’ (cow) refers to the female while thawr is the word for a bull, like nāqah and jamal in the case of camels. It is said that baqarah is a single cow. The root means ‘to split open’, since cattle split the earth open when they plough it. From this comes the term ‘al-Bāqir’ used for Abū Ja‘far ibn ‘Alī Zayn ’l-‘Ābidīn because he split open (baqara) knowledge and recognized its root. Baqīrah is a bodice without sleeves.

They said, ‘What! Are you making a mockery of us?’ He said, ‘I seek refuge with Allah from being one of the ignorant!’

They said that to Mūsā when they replied to him. That was because they found someone murdered among them and were uncertain about who the killer was. They disagreed and exclaimed, ‘Murder takes place while the Messenger of Allahgis among us!’ They came to him and asked him for clarification. That was before qasāmah [a collective oath taken by the people about a murder victim] was revealed in the Torah. They asked Mūsā to pray to his Lord and He commanded them to sacrifice a cow. When they heard that from Mūsā, which was not a clear answer to their question, they asked him about it and asked for a decision. They asked if he was mocking them. Haz’ is playing and mockery. He sought refuge with Allah because leaving someone who asks for guidance unanswered and mocking him is ignorance and not one of the qualities of the Prophets. Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge. He sought refuge from ignorance as they were ignorant in asking this question of someone who reported to them from Allah.

The form of words indicates the unsound faith of those who said that. It is not possible to believe that of a Prophet who has displayed miracles. He said, ‘Allah commands you to do that.’ If today anyone had said that about any of the words of the Prophet ﷺ, it would be necessary to call that person an unbeliever. Some people believed that that came from their coarse nature and disobedience, as was the case in the division of the spoils of Ḥunayn when someone said, ‘This is a division which is not for the sake of Allah’ and as another said, ‘Be fair, Muḥammad!’ This is the clearest evidence that ignorance is ugly and corrupts the dīn.

This āyah indicates the prohibition against mocking the dīn of Allah and the dīn of the Muslims and those who must be esteemed, and that to do so is ignorance. The person who does that merits punishment. Joking, however, is not part of mockery. Indeed, the Prophet ﷺ and the imams after him used to make jokes. Ibn Khuwayzimdād said, ‘We heard that a man went to the Qāḍī of Kufa, ‘Ubaydullāh ibn al-Ḥasan, and ‘Ubaydullāh joked with him, asking, “Is this cloak of yours from the wool of a ewe or that of a ram?” The man exclaimed, “Don’t be ignorant, Qāḍī!” ‘Ubaydullāh said to him, “Where do you find that joking is ignorance?” The man recited this āyah to him, and ‘Ubaydullāh turned away from him because he saw that the man was ignorant and could not distinguish joking from mockery when they are not the same.’

68 They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what it should be like.’ He said, ‘He says it should be a cow, not old or virgin, but somewhere between the two, so do as you have been told.’

They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what it should be like.’

This shows how prone they were to disobedience. If they had obeyed the command and slaughtered any cow, the goal would have been achieved, but they made things difficult for themselves so Allah made things difficult for them. Ibn ‘Abbās, Abu-l-‘Āliyah and others said that. Something similar is related from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī from the Prophet ﷺ.

He said, ‘He says it should be a cow, not old or virgin, but somewhere between the two.

This indicates the permission for abrogation before an act takes place because the command to slaughter a cow meant any cow. When they wanted further description, He superseded the first ruling with another one. ‘Fāriḍ’ (old) means one which has had many calves and ‘virgin’ means one which has had none.

So do as you have been told.’

This repeats the command and reinforces it. It indicates that a command of this type is mandatory (wujūb) in the language of the fuqahā’. This is sound as it is mentioned in the fundamentals of fiqh, and the command is immediate. That is also the position of most of the fuqahā’. Proof of that is found in the fact that when they did not hasten to do what they were commanded, Allah found them lacking. It is also said that it does not indicate immediacy because he did not reprimand them for the delay. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said that.

69 They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what colour it should be.’ He said, ‘He says it should be a yellow cow, the colour of sorrel, a pleasure to all who look.’

They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what colour it should be.’

In other words, they were asking, “Should it be black, white or red?” ‘Lawn’ (colour) is also a category.

He said, ‘He says it should be a yellow cow, the colour of sorrel,

Most commentators say that the word ṣafrā’ has its normal meaning here of yellow. Makkī said that even the horns and hooves were the same colour. Al-Ḥasan and Ibn Jubayr said that only the horns and hooves were yellow. Al-Ḥasan said that it means black but this is unlikely, because the word only means black when referring to camels as in 77:33. This is because the black colour in camels has a yellowish tinge. If actual black had been meant, He would not have stressed the word used with being ‘fāqi‘’ which means that it is pure yellow, not black. There are various adjectives which the Arabs add to colours, and ‘fāqi‘’ is used for yellow. ‘Fāqi‘’ means ‘pure’ with no other colour in its hide.

a pleasure to all who look.’

Wahb said that the sunlight danced off its hide. Ibn ‘Abbās said that yellow is cheering. It is encouraged to have yellow sandals, as an-Naqqāsh related from him. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said that someone who wears yellow sandals has less cares. Ath-Tha‘labī related this from him.

70 They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what it should be like. Cows are all much the same to us. Then, if Allah wills, we will be guided.’

They said, ‘Ask your Lord to make it clear to us what it should be like. Cows are all much the same to us.

This was their fourth question so they still did not obey the command even when it had been made abundantly clear to them. Baqar is used because it is the plural, which is meant here.

Then, if Allah wills, we will be guided.’

The use of ‘if Allah wills’ in this sentence shows their eventual repentance and obedience. It is an indication that they regretted their lack of acceptance of what they had been commanded to do. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If they had not said “if Allah wills” they would never have been guided to it at all.’ Mentioning ‘guidance’ indicates concern for it.

71 He said, ‘He says it should be a cow not trained to plough or irrigate the fields — completely sound, without a blemish on it.’ They said, ‘Now you have brought the truth.’ So they sacrificed it — but they almost did not do it.

He said, ‘He says it should be a cow not trained to plough or irrigate the fields —

Al-Ḥasan said that the cow was undomesticated and hence untrained for ploughing or irrigating. This āyah provides evidence for singling out animals by their description. If they are definitely known in that way, then an advance sale is permitted. That is the position of Mālik and his people, al-Awzā‘ī, al-Layth and ash-Shāfi‘ī. The same applies to everything which has a clearly defined description since here Allah gives a description that takes the place of specification. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A woman should not describe another women to her husband so that it is as if he could see her.’ Muslim transmitted it. So here description takes the place of seeing.

completely sound, without a blemish on it.’

Musallama (sound) means that the cow must not be lame or have any other impairments as Qatādah and Abu-l-‘Āliyah said. It is not said that it is free of work because it was already made clear that it did no work. Al-Ḥasan said that it means free of any trace of trace of work. ‘Without a blemish on it’ means that nothing mars its colour at all, there being no hint of any other colour. The root of ‘shīyah’ (blemish) is ‘washyi’ and the wāw has been elided.

These specific qualities of the cow were imposed because the tribe of Israel were difficult and so Allah made the matter difficult for them. The dīn of Allah is ease. It is blameworthy to go deep into asking the Prophets and others about matters of detail in this way. We ask Allah for well-being.

There are various stories related about this cow. The gist of them is that a man of the tribe of Israel had a son and he had a calf which he released in the woods, saying, ‘O Allah, I entrust this calf to You for this boy.’ The man died and when the child was grown, his mother told him, ‘Your father entrusted a calf to Allah for you, so go and fetch it.’ He went, and when the cow saw him, it came to him and he took it by the horn, even though it was wild, and he led it to his mother. The people met him and found that he had the cow that they were commanded to sacrifice. They haggled with him for it. Its price was said to be thirty dinars or its weight in gold. Allah knows best.

They said, ‘Now you have brought the truth.’

Meaning ‘made the truth clear’. Qatādah said that that is what it means.

So they sacrificed it – but they almost did not do it.

Because of their rebellion and excessive questioning or because of the high price of the cow. It is said that it was out of fear of being disgraced in the eyes of those who spoke about them, as Wahb ibn Munabbih said.

72 Remember when you killed someone and violently accused each other of it, and Allah brought out what you were hiding.

Remember when you killed someone and violently accused each other of it.

This was discussed at the beginning of the story. There are two positions about the motive for the murder. One is that a man wanted to marry a beautiful daughter of his to his uncle’s son but the uncle refused, so he killed him and took him to another village and dumped his body there. It is also said that he dumped his body between two villages.

The second view is that the man murdered the other out of desire for the inheritance he would receive. He claimed that some tribes had killed him. ‘Ikrimah said that they had a temple with twelve doors, one for each tribe, and they found the dead man in the doorway of one of the tribes and each accused the other. They then went to Mūsā n with their quarrel and he told them to sacrifice a cow. Mujāhid said that ‘violently accuse’ is to disagree and quarrel.

If he was killed for his inheritance, a murderer does not inherit. That was stated by ‘Abīdah as-Salmānī. Ibn ‘Abbās said that this man killed his uncle in order to inherit from him. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that our sharī‘ah has a similar ruling. In the Muwaṭṭā’ Mālik related the story of Uḥayḥah ibn al-Julāḥ and his uncle and it is the reason for a killer not inheriting. Then Islam confirmed that just as many things from the Jāhiliyyah were confirmed. There is no disagreement between scholars that a murderer does not inherit from the blood money or the property of his victim except for an aberrant group, all of whom are people of innovation.

Someone who kills by accident does inherit from the property, but not the blood money according to Mālik, al-Awzā‘ī, Abū Thawr and ash-Shāfi‘ī because he is not suspected of killing in order to inherit and take his property. That is not the position of ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa or ash-Shāfi’ī. According to another position: neither the murderer nor the accidental killer inherit any of the property or the blood money. That is also the view of Shurayḥ, Ṭāwus, ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī. Ash-Sha‘bī related that ‘Umar, ‘Alī and Zayd said that neither the murderer nor the accidental killer inherit anything. Both views are related from Mujāhid.

73 We said, ‘Hit him with part of it!’ In that way Allah gives life to the dead and He shows you His Signs so that hopefully you will understand.

We said, ‘Hit him with part of it!’

The part referred to is said to have been the tongue because that is the organ of speech, and it is said to have been with the rump end of the tail. It is also said to have been the leg or another of the bones. In any case, the corpse was struck with it. Then the dead man identified his killer and reverted back to being a lifeless corpse.

Mālik used this episode as evidence for the validity of applying the qasāmah oath on the basis of the last words of the dying victim of a homicidal attack when he says, ‘So-and-so killed me.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī and most scholars forbid this, claiming that it is contrary to the principle that a suspect is innocent, except when there is absolute certainty of his guilt, and in that case there is only probability because the words of the victim may be true or false. They say that the case of the man of the tribe of Israel was a miraculous one and so it does not apply in normal circumstances. Ibn al-‘Arabī replies that the miracle consisted of the bringing back to life and that, therefore, what the man said has the same ruling as the words of any person who is alive. This is a fine area of knowledge which only Mālik grasped. It does not say in the Qur’an that when he said it was obligatory to believe what he said. Rather the qasāmah was commanded. Al-Bukhārī, ash-Shāfi‘ī and a group of scholars found that unlikely and said, ‘How can what he says about blood be accepted when what he says about dirhams is not accepted?’

Scholars disagree about the ruling of the qasāmah. It is related that Sālim, Abū Qilābah, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah hesitated about giving judgment on it. Al-Bukhārī inclined to that because the hadith of the qasāmah comes in a different place. Most say that the ruling of the qasāmah is confirmed from the Prophet ﷺ, but then there is disagreement about how it is carried out. One group said that the claimants first give their oaths and, when they have sworn, they are entitled. If they refrain, then the defendants swear fifty oaths and are free. This is the view of the people of Madīnah, al-Layth, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr. It is what is demanded by the hadith of Ḥuwayyiṣah and Muḥayyiṣah that the imams related.

Another group believed that one begins with the oaths of the defendants who swear and then are free. That is related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī. Ath-Thawrī and the Kufans take that view. They cite as evidence the hadith of Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubayd from Bushayr ibn Yasār. In it they began with the oaths of the defendants who were Jews. Abū Dāwūd related from az-Zuhrī from Abū Salamah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān from some of the Anṣār that the Prophet ﷺ said to the Jews, beginning with them, ‘Will fifty of your men swear?’ They said to the Anṣār, ‘Seek entitlement.’ They said, ‘Then we swear to what we did not see, Messenger of Allah!’ So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ assigned the blood money against the Jews since the victim had been found among them. He ﷺ also said, ‘The defendant gives the oath.’ They said that this is a definite principle in claims. The Sharī‘ah calls attention to its wisdom when the Prophet ﷺ says, ‘If people were to be given what they claim, then people would have laid claim to the blood and property of people. The oath is offered to the defendant.’

Those who take the first view say that the hadith of Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubayd about starting with the Jews is considered by the people of hadith to be weak. An-Nasā’ī transmitted it and said, ‘As far as I know, Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubayd is not corroborated in this transmission.’ The hadith of Bushayr comes from Sahl about the Prophet ﷺ beginning with the claimants according to Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Ḥammād ibn Zayd, ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ath-Thaqafī, ‘Īsā ibn Ḥammād and Bishr ibn al-Mufaḍḍal. These are seven. Even if Mālik has it mursal, a group have it connected. It is sounder than the hadith of Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubayd. Abū Muḥammad al-Aṣīlī said, ‘It is not permitted for a single hadith to contradict one of a group, although Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubayd said in his hadith that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave him blood money consisting of a hundred of the zakāt camels, but zakāt is not used for blood money and not given to other than the people entitled to it.’ The hadith in Abū Dāwūd is mursal and does not counter sound connected hadiths. They answer about holding to the fundamental principle by the fact that this ruling is a fundamental principle itself for the sanctity of human life.

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is established that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made the claimant provide the evidence and the defendant has to take an oath. It is necessary to judge by the apparent meaning of that, unless Allah makes it specific in His Book or on the tongue of His Prophet ﷺ that the ruling is only about one particular thing and is excluded from the general ruling. One thing specified by the Book is the necessity of imposing the ḥadd punishment on a slanderer if he does not have two witnesses who testify to the truth of his accusation. A special case is someone who accuses his wife: the ḥadd punishment is removed from him when he testifies four times. One thing specified by the Sunnah is the ruling that the Prophet ﷺ gave for the qasāmah. Ibn Jurayj related from ‘Aṭā’ from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, “The claimant must provide evidence and the one who denies it swears an oath,” except in the case of the qasāmah. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. What Mālik said about this in the Muwaṭṭā’ is sufficient.’

They also disagree about the necessity of imposing retaliation by the qasāmah. One group oblige retaliation based on it, and that is the view of Mālik, al-Layth, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr, because of what the Prophet ﷺ said to Ḥuwayyiṣah, Muḥayyiṣah and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān, ‘Will you swear and thereby be entitled to the blood of your companion?’ Abū Dāwūd related from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet ﷺ killed a man from the Banū Naḍr ibn Mālik on the basis of the qasāmah. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that text of ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather is sound. Similarly Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr considers the hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb to be sound and authoritative. Al-Bukhārī said, ‘I saw ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Ḥumaydī and Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh using him as an authority.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that in the Sunan.

Another group said that there is no retaliation on the basis of the qasāmah, but it obliges blood money. This is related from ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās and it is the view of an-Nakha‘ī and al-Ḥasan. It was believed by ath-Thawrī and the Kufans, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Isḥāq. They cite as evidence what Mālik related from Ibn Abī Laylā ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathmah that the Prophet ﷺ said to the Anṣār: ‘Either they will pay blood money for your companion or war will be declared on them.’ They said that this indicates that it is a question of blood money rather than retaliation. They said that his words about being entitled to the blood of ‘your companion’ means the blood money for the life of the man killed because the Jews were not their companions. Whoever is entitled to the blood money of a person is entitled to his blood because blood money may be taken in case of deliberate killing and that would make one entitled to blood.

Justified suspicion (lawth) requires the qasāmah. Lawth means that it is probable that the one who claimed that there was murder is speaking the truth, such as when there is testimony of a single upright witness to seeing the killing or seeing the victim shouting covered in blood, or when the suspect is found close to him with blood on himself. There is disagreement about lawth and what it is. Mālik said, ‘It is the words of the victim, “So-and-so killed me.” The testimony of an upright witness also furnishes justified suspicion.’ That is found in what Ibn al-Qāsim related from him. Ashhab related that Mālik implemented the qasāmah when the witness is not upright or is a woman. Ibn Wahb related that the testimony of women furnishes justified suspicion. Muḥammad related from Ibn al-Qāsim that the testimony of two women constitutes justified suspicion, but not that of only one.

Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘There is great disagreement about lawth. The well known position of the School is that it is when there is a single upright witness.’ Muḥammad said, ‘I prefer that and that view was taken by Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam.’ It is related from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān that when someone who is wounded or struck down says, ‘So-and-so killed me’ and then dies, there is a qasāmah. That is the position of Mālik and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d. Mālik cited as evidence the victim of the tribe of Israel who said, ‘So-and-so killed me.’

Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Justified suspicion is on the evidence of a single upright witness or producing evidence, even from someone who is not considered upright.’ Ath-Thawrī and Kufans obliged a qasāmah on the mere discovery of a murdered victim. They said there is no need to take account of the words of the victim or a witness. They said, ‘If a victim is found where a people are located and there are indications of violence on the body, then the people of that location are required to swear that they have not killed him and they pay the blood money. If there is no trace of violence on him, then they do not owe anything unless there is evidence against one of them.’ Sufyān said, ‘This is something about which there is consensus with us.’ That is a weak position about which the people of knowledge disagree and there is no precedent for it. That is because it is contrary to the Qur’an and the Sunnah and because that is obliging the males of the clan to pay money without any evidence being established against them and no admission on their part.

Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī believed that when a victim is found where a group of people are located, his blood is not demanded and the people of the nearest house are not seized for his death, because it is possible that he was killed and then dumped at someone’s door in order to throw suspicion on them. Therefore no one is seized for something like this until the reasons that are stipulated for the obligation of the qasāmah are shown to exist. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said, ‘This is is one of the things about which judgment is delayed until Allah judges it at the Rising.’

Al-Qāsim ibn Mas‘adah said, ‘I asked an-Nasā’ī, “Mālik said that there is no qasāmah except when there is justified suspicion. Why, then, is the hadith of the qasāmah reported with no element of suspicion in it?” An-Nasā’ī replied, “Mālik put the enmity that existed between them and the Jews in the place of suspicion, and he put suspicion, or the words of the victim, in the place of enmity.”’ Ibn Zayd said, ‘The basis for this is found in the story of the tribe of Israel when Allah brought to life the murder victim when he was struck with part of the cow. He then said, “So-and-so killed me,” and enmity is tantamount to suspicion.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘We do not consider the words of the victim to constitute justified suspicion.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘When there is clear enmity between two peoples, such as that which existed between the Anṣār and the Jews, and a murder victim is found in one of the two parties and they do not mingle with other people, then the qasāmah is obliged for him.’

There is disagreement about a murder victim who is discovered in a place that has been rented. The People of Opinion say that action is against the people of that quarter, not the inhabitants of that property. If they sell their houses and then the victim is discovered, the blood money is owed by the seller, not the inhabitants. If the house-owners are absent and have rented out the houses, then the qasāmah and blood money is due from the absent owners and not the inhabitants among whom the victim was discovered.

Then among them Ya‘qūb retracted this view and said, ‘The qasāmah and blood money is on the inhabitants of the houses.’ This view is related from Ibn Abī Laylā. He argued that the people of Khaybar were resident workers and a victim was found among them. Ath-Thawrī, ‘We say that it is against the owners of the houses.’ Aḥmad said, ‘The position taken is that of Ibn Abī Laylā regarding qasāmah but not blood money.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘It is all the same. There is no blood money nor retaliation except by established evidence or what obliges the qasāmah which is carried out by the guardians.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘This is sounder.’

There are no less than fifty oaths in the qasāmah because of what the Prophet ﷺ said in the hadith of Ḥuwayyiṣah and Muḥayyiṣah, ‘Fifty of you will swear for one of them.’ Those seeking entitlement each swear an oath. If they are less than fifty, or some of them refuse but do not permit pardon, then the oaths are divided between the others. In the case of deliberate killing an oath from less than two men is not acceptable. An oath [for qasāmah] may not be sworn by only one man or by women. The fifty oaths are sworn by guardians and by those of the paternal kin (‘aṣabah) who help them. This is the position of Mālik, al-Layth, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Aḥmad and Dāwūd.

Muṭarrif related from Mālik that no one may swear along with the defendant. They themselves swear, whether they are one or more, fifty oaths by which they free themselves. That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Only an heir swears, whether the killing is deliberate or accidental.’ There is no oath sworn for property and entitlement to it except in the case of those who have personal ownership or the heirs to whom Allah has given ownership. Heirs swear oaths according to their shares of inheritance. That was stated by Abū Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it. It is sound because someone who has no claim against him has no reason to take an oath. The goal of these oaths is to be free of the claim. Anyone who has no claim against him is free of claims.

Mālik said that, in the case of accidental killing, a man or woman may swear the oaths, in whatever way will complete the fifty, by one or by many, and then the oath-taker is entitled to his inheritance. If someone refuses to swear, then he is not entitled to anything. If someone who was absent comes after the swearing of oaths, nothing is obliged against him in respect of what he would have had to swear if he had been present, based on his inheritance. This is the famous view of Mālik. It is also related from him that there is no qasāmah for accidental killing.

This concludes the issues and rulings regarding qasāmah. Success is by Allah.

This story of the cow contains evidence that all true aspects of any Sharī‘ah which existed before ours are also binding on us, as many mutakallimūn and fuqahā’ have said.

In that way Allah gives life to the dead and He shows you His Signs so that hopefully you will understand.

As He gave life to this man after his death, so Allah will revive everyone on the Last Day. He shows you His Signs and His power so that you might understand and not disobey Him.

74 Then your hearts became hardened after that, so they were like rocks or even harder still. There are some rocks from which rivers gush out, and others which split open and water pours out, and others which crash down from fear of Allah. Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Then your hearts became hardened after that,

‘Hardened’ refers to hardness, severity and unbendingness. This refers to the lack of repentance on the part of the Jews and their refusal to submit to the Signs of Allah. Abu-l-‘Āliyah, Qatādah and others said that what is meant here are the hearts of all the tribe of Israel. Ibn ‘Abbās, however, says that what is meant are the hearts of the heirs of the victim because when he was brought to life and named his killer and then became dead again, they denied it and said, ‘He lied’ after seeing this great sign. So their hearts were made blind and they were the most adamant in denying their Prophet. But the judgment of Allah was carried out by their being killed.

At-Tirmidhī reported from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do not speak a lot without mentioning Allah. A lot of words without mentioning Allah produces hardness of the heart. The furthest of people from Allah are the hard-hearted.’ In the Musnad of al-Bazzār Anas reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Four things are part of wretchedness: unresponsive eyes, hard hearts, far-reaching hopes and greed for this world.’

There are some rocks from which rivers gush out,

This refers to springs which become ever larger until they become rivers or rocks that simply split, even if no water comes out.

and others which crash down from fear of Allah.

Some rocks benefit more than hearts because water emerges from them. Mujāhid said, ‘No rock falls from the top of a mountain, nor river from a rock nor water emerges from it, except out of fear of Allah. Allah revealed the Qur’an about that.’ Ibn Jurayj said something similar. Some mutakallimūn say that the rocks, in this instance, mean hail which falls from the clouds. It is said that ‘crash down’ is metaphorical. Ibn Baḥr said that it means, ‘Some hearts fall down.’ The first, however, is the soundest. It does not prevent some inanimates from having knowledge as we find in various accounts of the Prophet’s miracles. An example is the palm trunk against which the Prophet ﷺ used to lean when he gave a khuṭbah. When he moved from it, it moaned. It is confirmed that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is a stone that used to greet me in the Jāhiliyyah. I still recognise it.’ There are other examples.

Allah is not unaware of what you do.

He is aware of your actions so that He does not miss anything, large or small, without recording it against you. Ibn Kathīr has the reading with yā’: ya‘malūna, ‘they do’.

75 Do you really hope they will follow you in faith when a group of them heard Allah’s Word then, after grasping it, knowingly distorted it?

Do you really hope they will follow you in faith

This question implies a negative response as there was no hope for the faith of a group of Jews because they had already rejected. It is addressed to the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. That is because some of the Anṣār wanted the Jews to become Muslim because of their alliance with them and proximity to them. It is said that it is addressed to the Prophet ﷺ alone. Ibn ‘Abbās says that it means: ‘Do not be sad about their denial of you.’ He reported that they were evil people already.

When a group of them heard Allah’s Word

Farīq (group) is a plural noun with no singular form. What is meant by this are the seventy men, whom Mūsā chose to hear the Speech of Allah, but who then did not obey and altered His words when they told their people. This is what ar-Rabī‘ and Ibn Isḥāq said. This interpretation is somewhat weak. As-Suddī and others said that they were not able to listen and they were confused and wanted Mūsā to repeat it for them. When they left a group of them then altered what they had heard of the words of Allah on the tongue of their Prophet.

People disagree about how Mūsā recognised the Speech of Allah when he had not heard it before. Some say that he heard words without letters or voices, with no pause or breath, and knew that it could not be a human voice but must be the voice of the Lord of the worlds. Others said that he heard words which did not come from any direction and so he knew they were not of human origin. It is said that his entire body heard it and so he knew that it was the Speech of Allah. It is said that the miracle indicated that it was the Speech of Allah when he was told to cast down his staff and it became a serpent. That was proof of the truth of the matter and confirmation of His words: ‘I am your Lord.’ (20:12) It is said that he concealed something inside himself which only He who knows the Unseen worlds would know and Allah informed him of that and so he knew that he was addressed by Allah.

and then, after grasping it, knowingly distorted it?

Mujāhid and as-Suddī said that they were the Jewish scholars who altered the Torah and made what was unlawful lawful and what was lawful unlawful, following their own whims and desires. This is to rebuke them because of what their fathers did. It indicates that any scholar who is opinionated regarding the truth is far from right guidance because he knows the promise and threat, and yet still follows his own opinion.

76 When they meet those who believe, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they go apart with one another, they say, ‘Why do you speak to them about what Allah has decided about you, so they can use it as an argument against you before your Lord? Will you not use your intellect?’ 77 Do they not know that Allah knows what they keep secret and what they make public?

When they meet those who believe, they say, ‘We believe.’

This is about the hypocrites.

But when they go apart with one another,

This refers to the Jews because some of them outwardly become Muslim but were actually hypocrites. They would talk to the believers about how their ancestors were being tormented. So the Jews said to them:

Why do you speak to them about what Allah has decided about you,

‘When you speak regarding the punishment which Allah has ordained for you, so that they can say, “We are more honoured with Allah than you are.”’ This is the meaning according to Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī. It is said that when ‘Alī came near Qurayẓah on the day of Khaybar, he heard them insulting the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He went to him and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, do not go to them,’ and he tried to stop him. He said, ‘I think that you heard them insulting me. If they had seen me, they would have refrained.’ He went up to them. When they saw him, they refrained. He told them, ‘You have broken the treaty, brothers of apes and pigs. May Allah disgrace you and send His vengeance on you!’ They replied, ‘You are not ignorant, Muḥammad. Do not be rash towards us! Who has told you this! This report can only have come from us!’ The root of the word used for ‘fataḥa’ (decided) means to give a judgment or decision but the word can also indicate help and assistance as well as judgment.

So they can use it as an argument against you before your Lord?

That is generally taken as referring to the Next World but it is also said that it means ‘when your Lord is mentioned’. Al-Ḥasan said that ḥujjah means straight words in general. Part of that is maḥajjah, the road.

Will you not use your intellect?’

This is generally taken to be the words of the rabbis to their followers but it is also possible that it is addressed by Allah to the believers, meaning. ‘Do you not know that the tribe of Israel do not believe and therefore this is the way they behave?’ Then Allah follows that with another rebuke.

78 Some of them are illiterate, knowing nothing of the Book but wishful thinking. They only speculate.

Some of them are illiterate,

‘Them’ may refer to the Jews alone or to both the Jews and the hypocrites. The word ‘ummiyyūn’ (illiterate) means that they can neither read nor write. It is derived from ummiyyah, meaning ‘to be still in the state in which your mother bore you, without having learned to read or write’. An aspect of that is the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘We are an unlettered nation. We do not write or reckon.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that they are illiterate because they do not affirm of the Mother of the Book. Abū ‘Ubaydah said, ‘They are called “illiterate” since the Book was sent down on them, as if they were ascribed to the Mother of the Book, so it is as he were saying that among them are People of the Book who do not know the Book.’ ‘Ikrimah and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that it refers to the Christian Arabs. It is said that they are some of the People of the Book whose Book was removed because of the wrong actions they committed, and so they became illiterate. ‘Alī said that they are the Magians. The first explanation is more likely, and Allah knows best.

knowing nothing of the Book but wishful thinking.

Abū Ja‘far, Shaybah and al-A‘raj recited ‘amāni’ rather than ‘amāniyy’. ‘Amāniyy’ (wishful thinking) is the plural of umniyah (recitation) from amnuyah as we see in ‘without Shayṭān insinuating something into his recitation while he was reciting (tamannā).’ (22:52) Amāniyy also means ‘lies’. That is how Ibn ‘Abbās and Mujāhid explain it here. It is also what a person wishes for and desires, and so Qatādah said that the meaning is that they desire what they in reality do not have. It is also said that it means ‘to value’.

They only speculate.

This means that they lie and come up with new things because they have no knowledge about whether what they recite is true or not. They merely imitate what their rabbis recite. Abū Bakr al-Anbārī said, ‘The grammarian, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā, told me that the Arabs use ẓann (speculation) for knowledge, doubt and lies. When the evidence for knowledge is established and is greater than the evidence for doubt, then ẓann becomes knowledge. When the proofs for knowledge and those for doubt are equal, then ẓann is doubt. When the proofs for doubt are more than the proofs for knowledge, then ẓann is lies.’ Here Allah means that they are lying.

Our scholars say that Allah describes the rabbis as changing and altering their Book and Allah says in the next āyah: ‘Woe to them for what their hands have written!’ (2:79) That is because they studied the matter, but their scholars were bad shepherds, greedy for worldly things, and so they looked for things to draw people’s attention towards themselves. Therefore they made up new things in their Law and altered it. They added these inventions to the Torah and told their foolish followers, ‘This is from Allah’ so that it would be accepted from them and would establish their power. By so doing they obtained nothing but the rubble and filth of this world.

They said various things. One is, ‘We are under no obligation where the Gentiles (lit. illiterate) are concerned’ (3:75), referring to the Arabs, meaning that whatever property of theirs they usurped was lawful for them. Another thing they said was that no sins they committed would harm them because they were beloved by Allah and His sons. (cf. 5:18) Allah is exalted above that! The Torah has: ‘My rabbis and sons of My Messengers!’ They changed it to ‘My loved ones and My sons.’ Allah said that they were lying in 5:18. They also said, ‘Allah will not punish us. If He does punish us, it will only be for forty days,’ (cf. 2:80), that being the number of days they were worshipping the Calf. Allah made it clear that eternity in the Fire and the Garden is the result of unbelief and faith. It is not what they say.

79 Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’ to sell it for a paltry price. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for what they earn!

Woe

There is disagreement about what ‘wayl’ (woe) means. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān related from the Prophet ﷺ that it is a mountain of fire. Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said that Wayl is a valley in Hell situated between two mountains whose depth is a fall of forty years. Sufyān and ‘Aṭā‘ ibn Yasār said that Wayl is a valley in Hellfire through which flows the pus of the people of the Fire. It is said to be a cistern in the Fire. Az-Zahrāwī said that others said that it is a gate of Hell. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is harsh punishment. Al-Khalīl says that it is intense evil. Al-Aṣma‘ī said that it is being in distress and seeking mercy. Sībuwayh said that ‘wayl’ is used for someone who has fallen into destruction and ‘wayḥ’ seeks to restrain someone on the verge of destruction. Ibn ‘Arafah said that ‘wayl’ is sorrow. It is also said to be extreme sorrow and the expression is used in times of great sorrow and distress. Its root is said to be that destruction which invites woe. Al-Farrā’ said that its root is ‘way’, meaning sorrow.

to those who write the Book

The first to write with the pen was the Prophet Idrīs, as we read in the hadith of Abū Dharr, transmitted by al-Ājurrī. It is said that Ādam was given writing and his descendants inherited it.

with their own hands.

This is for emphasis because it is well known that writing is done with the hands. This kind of linguistic usage is often used for stress in the Qur’an. The fact that they wrote it also indicates that it was not revealed to them, but they are the ones who fabricated it. It came from them, even if they did not physically write it.

This āyah and the one before it warn against making any alterations or changes or additions to the Sharī‘ah. Anyone who alters, changes or innovates something in the dīn of Allah, which is not in it and not permitted in it, is subject to this terrible threat and painful punishment. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cautioned his community about what he knew would occur at the end of time. He said, ‘Those of the People of the Book before you divided into seventy-two sects and this community will divide into seventy-three, all of whom will be in the Fire except for one.’ He cautioned them against originating something from themselves in the dīn which is contrary to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah or the sunnah of the Companions by which they misguide people. What he cautioned about has, in fact, occurred and become widespread. We belong to Allah and to Him we return.

to sell it for a paltry price.

It is paltry because it will inevitably disappear and have no permanence, or because it is unlawful as there is no blessing in anything unlawful and it does not grow in the sight of Allah.

80 They say, ‘The Fire will only touch us for a number of days.’ Say, ‘Have you made a contract with Allah — then Allah will not break His contract — or are you rather saying about Allah what you do not know?’

They say, ‘The Fire will only touch us for a number of days,’

As was mentioned above ‘They’ in this āyah refers to the Jews. There is disagreement about the reason for its revelation. It is said that the Prophet ﷺ asked the Jews, ‘Who are the people of the Fire?’ They replied, ‘We are. Then you will follow us.’ He said, ‘You lie. You know that we will not follow you,’ and this was revealed. Ibn Zayd said that. ‘Ikrimah said that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came to Madīnah, the Jews were saying, “The duration of this world is seven thousand [years]. People will be punished in the Fire for one day of the days of the Next World for each thousand years of the days of this world. That is seven days.” Then Allah revealed this āyah.’ This is what Mujāhid said. Others said that the Jews said that the Torah says that Hellfire is a distance of forty years across. They will cross a year’s length every day until they have gone right across and then leave Hellfire. Aḍ Ḍaḥḥāk related that from Ibn ‘Abbās. Ibn ‘Abbās said that the Jews claim that they found written in the Torah that there is a length of forty years between the sides of Hell until they reach the tree of Zaqqūm. They said, ‘We will be punished until we reach the Tree of Zaqqūm and then Hell will depart and be destroyed.’ Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah said, ‘The Jews said, “Allah swore that they would only enter the Fire for forty days, the number of days that the Calf was worshipped.” Allah said that they were lying.’

This āyah refutes Abū Hanīfah and his people in their conclusion that the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Leave the prayer during the days of your menstruation’ is evidence that the period of menstruation is what can be called ‘the days of menstruation’. For this reason they say that the minimum time for a menstrual period is three days and its maximum ten days because, for any period less than three days, the singular or dual is used and for numbers more than ten the singular is also used and not the plural. The reply to this is that Allah uses the plural ‘days’ in other ways than this way, as when He says about fasting that is for ‘known days’ (2:184) and in that case it is known to mean the entire month of Ramadan and here ‘The Fire will only touch us for a number of days’ (3:24) means forty days.

Have you made a contract with Allah?

Have you sent ahead good deeds, in that you believed and obeyed Allah, so that it would be obliged for you to come out of the Fire? Or do you know that by His Revelation which He entrusted to you? He ends by rebuking them.

81 No indeed! Those who accumulate bad actions and are surrounded by their mistakes, such people are the Companions of the Fire, remaining in it timelessly, for ever; 82 whereas those who believe and do right actions, such people are the Companions of the Garden, remaining in it timelessly, for ever.

The matter is not as they claim. This āyah is a clear refutation of the claim the Jews make. The bad actions referred to are said to be shirk. Ibn Jurayj said, ‘I asked ‘Aṭā’ about the expression “accumulate bad actions” and he said, “It means shirk,” and recited “Those who perform bad actions will be flung head-first into the Fire.” (27:90)’ Al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said that it means all major wrong actions.

This āyah is also important because it indicates that there are two preconditions for salvation and that both are necessary: faith and right action. It is similar to what Allah says: ‘Those who say, ‘Our Lord is Allah,’ and then go straight.’ (41:30) When Sufyān ibn ‘Abdullāh ath-Thaqafī asked the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Messenger of Allah, tell me something about Islam which will preclude my having to ask anyone after you,’ the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Say, “I have believed in Allah,” and go straight.’ Muslim transmitted it. This was discussed in āyah 35. Nāfi‘ recited ‘mistakes’ in the plural while the rest have it in the singular.

83 Remember when We made a covenant with the tribe of Israel: ‘Worship none but Allah and be good to your parents and to relatives and orphans and the very poor. And speak good words to people. And establish the prayer and pay zakāt.’ But then you turned away – except a few of you – you turned aside.

Remember when We made a covenant with the tribe of Israel: ‘Worship none but Allah

There is disagreement about the covenant referred to here. Makkī said that it is the covenant which they made when they were brought out from the loins of Ādam (cf. 7:172), and it is also said that it was the covenant on the tongues of their Prophet, while they were rational and alive, that they would worship none but Allah. Worship entails affirming the Unity of Allah, confirming His Messenger and implementing what is revealed in His Books.

‘Worship’ was recited in the imperative by Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd. The reading of Ibn Kathīr, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited it with yā’: ‘they worship’. Al-Farrā’, az-Zajjāj and a group said, ‘It means that Allah’s contract with them was conditional on their not worshipping anything other than Allah, being good to their parents, and not shedding blood.’

and be good to your parents

Allah connects being good to one‘s parents with tawḥīd because the first development in the womb comes from Allah, and the second, which involves upbringing and teaching, is in the hands of one‘s parents. That is why Allah Almighty enjoined thankfulness to them, as in His words: ‘Give thanks to Me and to your parents.’ (31:14) Being good to parents implies keeping their company correctly and courteously, being humble to them, obeying them, praying for forgiveness for them, and maintaining ties with the people they love.

and to relatives

They are commanded to be good to their relatives by maintaining ties with them and giving them gifts.

and orphans

Yatāmā (orphans) is the plural of yatīm. An orphan is a child without a father. In animals, an orphan is one without a mother. Al-Māwardī said that the term ‘orphan’ can be used of a human child without a mother, but the first is what is well known. The root meaning is to be alone. An orphan child is without his father. An ‘orphan’ in poetry is a verse which has no line before or after it. An ‘orphan pearl’ is a peerless one. This āyah commands people to be kind to orphans and encourages caring for them and protecting their property, which will be explained in an-Nisā’. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘I and an orphan’s guardian, whether he is a relative or a non-relative, will be like these two in the Garden,’ and the transmitter, Mālik ibn Anas, indicated his index and middle fingers. Abū Hurayrah related it and Muslim transmitted it. Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ghanī ibn Sa‘īd transmitted from al-Ḥasan ibn Dīnār from Abū Sa‘īd al-Baṣrī, who is al-Ḥasan ibn Wāṣil, from al-Aswad ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān from Hiṣṣān that Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When an orphan sits with some people at their table, Shayṭān does not come near it.’ He also transmitted from Ḥusayn ibn Qays, who is Abū ‘Alī ar-Raḥabī, from ‘Ikrimah that Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone includes a Muslim orphan at his table until Allah enriches him, he will be forgiven his wrong actions entirely unless he does something which is unforgivable. And if Allah takes away the two things a person loves most and he remains steadfast and in expectation of the reward, he will be forgiven his wrong actions entirely.’ They asked, ‘What are the two things he loves most?’ He replied, ‘His two eyes,’ and then continued, ‘and whoever has three daughters or three sisters and supports them and is good to them until they marry or die all his wrong actions will be forgiven unless he does something which is unforgivable.’ A bedouin man who had emigrated called out, ‘Messenger of Allah, or two?’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Or two.’ Ibn Abbās said that it is a gharīb hadith.

The index finger (sabbābah) is the one that is next to the thumb. It was called ‘sabbābah’ in the Jāhiliyyah they used it when insulting someone. When Allah brought Islam, they disliked this name and called it ‘mushīrah’ (indicator) because they used it to indicate Allah in tawḥīd. It is also called ‘sabbāḥah’ (swimmer) in some hadiths. Eventually the Jāhiliyyah term dominated. It is related that the index finger of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was longer than his middle finger and the ring finger was shorter than the middle finger. Yazīd ibn Hārūn related from ‘Abdullāh ibn Miqsam aṭ-Ṭā’ifī that his aunt, Sārah bint Miqsam, heard Maymūnah bint Kardam say, ‘I went out on the ḥajj that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ performed and I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on his camel and my father asked him some questions. He saw me and I, a young girl, was surprised at how much longer his finger next to the thumb was than the rest of his fingers.’ He ﷺ said, ‘He and I will be like these two in the Garden.’ Hegalso said, ‘I, Abū Bakr and ‘Umar will be gathered on the Day of Rising like this,’ and he pointed with three fingers.

and the very poor

It means: ‘We commanded them to be good to the very poor.’ They are those who are in need and those who are destitute. This contains encouragement to give ṣadaqah and solace to people in need, and to keep an eye on the conditions of the poor and weak. Muslim reported from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Someone who strives on behalf of widows and the poor is like someone who fights in the way of Allah and like someone who continually stands at night in prayer and like someone who continually fasts.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Ṭāwus thought that looking after sisters was better than doing jihād in the Cause of Allah.’

and speak good words to people.

The sentence implies: ‘Speak words which contain good for people’ since ḥusn (good) is a verbal noun. Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited ḥasan. Al-Akhfash said that they mean the same. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it means, ‘Say to them: “There is no god but Allah” and instruct them to say it.’ Ibn Jurayj said: ‘Speak the truth to people about Muḥammad ﷺ and do not alter his description.’ Sufyān ath-Thawrī said: ‘Command them to what is known to be right and forbid them what is recognised as wrong.’ Abu-l-‘Āliyah said that it means: ‘Speak good words to them and excuse them as you yourself would want to be excused.’

All of this encourages noble character. A person should be gentle when he speaks to people and maintain a cheerful face with both the pious and the impious, the one who holds to the Sunnah and even to the innovator, provided you do not flatter him or say anything which might appear to approve of his position. Allah Almighty said to Mūsā and Hārūn, ‘Speak to him with gentle words.’ (20:44) No speakers could be better than Mūsā and Hārūn and no one impious could be worse than Pharaoh, and yet Allah commanded them to be gentle with him. Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Umar said, ‘I said to ‘Aṭā’, “You are a man with whom people from different sects meet and I am a man who tends to be sharp. I tell them some harsh home truths.” He replied, “Do not do that! Allah says: ‘Speak good words to people.’ The Jews and Christians are included in this āyah, so what about others?”’ It is related that the Prophet ﷺ told ‘Ā’ishah, ‘Do not use obscenities. If obscenity had been a man, it would have been a bad man.’

It is said that an-nās (people) in this āyah refers to Muḥammad ﷺ as Allah says: ‘Or do they in fact envy people for the bounty Allah has granted them.’” (4:54) So it would mean: ‘Speak good words to the Prophet.’

Al-Mahdawī related that Qatādah said that this verse was abrogated by the Āyah of the Sword. Ibn ‘Abbās is reported as saying, ‘This āyah was revealed at the beginning and then abrogated by the Āyah of the Sword.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This indicates that our Community was instructed to act like this at the beginning of Islam, but abrogated in respect of the tribe of Israel. Allah knows best.’

and establish the prayer and pay zakāt

This is directed to the tribe of Israel. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Their zakāt used to be burned: a fire would descend and burn what was accepted and leave what was not accepted. So it was not like the zakāt of the nation of Muḥammad ﷺ.’

But then you turned away – except a few of you – you turned aside.

This is addressed to the Jews who were the contemporaries of Muḥammad ﷺ. The turning away done by their ancestors is ascribed to them since they also continued to do the same thing. The few who did not were men like ‘Abdullāh ibn Sallām, who became Muslim. It is said that tawallaytum (turning away) is with the body and mu‘riḍūn (turning aside) is with the heart.

84 And when We made a covenant with you not to shed your own blood and not to expel yourselves from your homes, you agreed and were all witnesses.

It is the tribe of Israel which is being addressed here, but the meaning includes those after them. Safk (shedding) is pouring out. The word for self (nafs) is derived from nafāsah (preciousness), so the self of a person is the dearest thing he has. They agreed to this covenant which was made with them and their ancestors. Their hearts were witnesses to this covenant. Witnessing can also mean being present, so they witnessed the bloodshed and expulsion.

The Jews were a single religious community and so their affairs were unified and they were like a single individual. Therefore one of them killing another was like him killing himself. It is said that retaliation is meant here, commanding them not to kill someone so that they are killed in retaliation, so that it is as if they were shedding their own blood. The same applies to committing fornication or apostasy which would also entail their own deaths. Allah made a covenant with the tribe of Israel in the Torah not to kill each other or expel anyone or enslave him or let him be robbed and other such things. This was all forbidden to us as well but all those things occur in the trials we are experiencing. ‘We belong to Allah and to Him we return!’ The Revelation says: ‘Or to confuse you into sects and make you taste one another’s violence.’ (6:65).

Ibn Khuwayzimdād said that the meaning may be literal, commanding them not to commit suicide nor to be expelled from their houses through their own foolishness, nor for a man to kill himself through overwork or self-imposed affliction, nor to wander in the desert without seeking shelter in people’s houses out of ignorance of religion and foolishness. It can be taken to apply to all those things. It is reported that ‘Uthmān ibn Maz‘ūn gave his allegiance along with ten others of the Prophet’s Companions. They decided to wear ragged garments, wander in the desert, not take refuge in houses, or eat meat or go near women. The Prophet ﷺ heard about that and went to ‘Uthmān’s house but did not find him there. He asked his wife, ‘What is this that we have heard about ‘Uthmān?’ She disliked to disclose her husband’s secrets or to lie to the Prophet ﷺ, so she said, ‘Messenger of Allah, if you have heard something, it is as you have heard it.’ He said, ‘Say to ‘Uthmān from me: “Are you opposed to my Sunnah or following a religion other than mine? I pray and sleep, fast and break the fast, have intercourse with women, resort to houses and eat meat. Anyone who dislikes my Sunnah is not with me.”’ So ‘Uthmān and his companions stopped doing what they were doing.

85 Then you are the people who are killing yourselves and expelling a group of you from their homes, ganging up against them in wrongdoing and enmity. Yet if they are brought to you as captives, you ransom them, when it was forbidden for you to expel them in the first place! Do you then, believe in one part of the Book and reject another? What repayment will there be for any of you who do that except disgrace in this world and on the Day of Rising, they will be returned to the harshest of punishments. Allah is not unaware of what they do. 86 Those are the people who trade the Next World for this world. The punishment will not be lightened for them. They will not be helped.

This āyah is addressed to some of the Jews who had attacked other Jews. It was revealed about the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqā’ and an-Naḍīr. Qaynuqā‘ were the enemies of the Jewish tribe of Qurayẓah, and the Arab tribe of Aws were the allies of Qaynuqā’ and the Arab tribe of Khazraj were the allies of Qurayẓah. So an-Naḍīr, Aws and Khazraj formed a brotherhood and Qurayẓah and an-Naḍīr also formed a brotherhood. Then they split up and fought. When the war ended, they ransomed their captives and that is what Allah is censuring here.

ganging up against them in wrongdoing and enmity.

Taẓẓāharūna (ganging up) means helping each other in wrongdoing. It is derived from the word ẓahr (back) because they strengthened one another like the back strengthens a person. Ithm (wrongdoing) is an action for which the one who does it deserves to be blamed. ‘Enmity’ (‘udwān) is excess in injustice and overstepping the limits in it. The Madinans and Makkans read ‘ganging up’ as ‘taẓẓāharūna’, from tataẓāhrūna and the tā’ is elided into the ẓā’, doubling it, while the Kufans read it as ‘taẓāharūna’ without the shaddah.

Yet if they are brought to you as captives, you ransom them, when it was forbidden for you to expel them in the first place!

The word for ‘captive’ (asīr) is derived from isār which is the leather thong by which a litter is secured and held in place. It is used for someone who is captured, whether or not he is physically bound. The majority recite usārā in the plural except for Ḥamzah who recites asrā. In the case of ‘ransom’, Nāfi‘, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite tufādūhum while the rest recite tafdūhu’. It is derived from fidyah, which is demanding a ransom for captives.

Our scholars say that there are four clauses in the covenant: not to kill, not to expel, not to gang up against people, and the command to ransom captives. They turned away from all that they agreed to except for ransoming and so Allah rebuked them for that. That is why He asks: ‘Do you, then, believe in one part of the Book,’ referring to the Torah, ‘and reject another?’ (2:85)

By Allah, we ourselves, the Muslims, have turned from all good in the course of the troubles that have beset us and we too gang up against one another. Would that it was with other Muslims but in many cases it is with unbelievers! We leave our brothers in abasement and degradation under the rule of the idolaters when it is an obligation for all Muslims to fight to free them. There is no power or strength except by Allah, the Immense!

Our scholars say that it is obligatory to ransom captives even if not a single dirham is left. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘This āyah contains the obligation to ransom captives. Confirming that are reports that the Prophet ﷺ ransomed captives and commanded that they be ransomed. That was what the Muslims did and there is a consensus regarding it.’ It is obliged to ransom captives using money from the Treasury. If that is not possible, then it is a general obligation for the Muslims. When one of them does it, the obligation is cancelled for the rest.

87 We gave Mūsā the Book and sent a succession of Messengers after him. We gave ‘Īsā, son of Maryam, the Clear Signs and reinforced him with the Purest Rūḥ. Why then, whenever a Messenger came to you with something your lower selves did not desire, did you grow arrogant, and deny some of them and murder others?

We gave Mūsā the Book and sent a succession of Messengers after him.

The Book here is the Torah. The word used for ‘sent a succession’ is derived from qafā, which means to come second, following in the tracks of the one that comes first, and, in this way, comes to mean following after. Every Messenger who came after Mūsā came affirming the Torah and the binding command up until ‘Īsā.

We gave ‘Īsā, son of Maryam, the Clear Signs and reinforced him with the Purest Rūḥ.

‘The Clear Signs’ are proofs and evidence. ‘Reinforce’ is to strengthen. The ‘Purest Rūḥ’ is said by Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah to be Jibrīl. Ḥassān said:

Jibrīl is Allah’s Messenger to us

and the Purest Rūḥ. It is not concealed.

An-Naḥḥās said that Jibrīl is called a rūḥ, and purity is attributed to him, because Allah formed him as a rūḥ without any parent, which is why ‘Īsā is also called a rūḥ. Ghālib ibn ‘Abdullāh related that Mujāhid said, ‘The Pure is Allah Almighty, as al-Ḥasan said, and the Rūḥ is Jibrīl.’ Abū Rawq related from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Purest Rūḥ is the name by which ‘Īsā brought the dead to life.’ Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr said that. It is the Greatest Name of Allah. It is said that what is meant is the Gospel which is here called rūḥ in the same way that Allah calls the Qur’an a rūḥ in His words: ‘We have revealed to you a Rūḥ by Our command.’ (42:52) The first is more likely, and Allah knows best.

Why then, whenever a Messenger came to you with something your lower selves did not desire, did you grow arrogant!

‘Why did you refuse to respond out of disdain for the Messengers and thinking the Message unlikely?’ The root of hawā (desire) means ‘to incline to something’. The plural is ahwiyah. Al-Jawharī said that it is called that because of the fact that it makes a person incline to the Fire and therefore it is only used for what is not true and has no good in it. This āyah shows that aspect of it but it can, in fact, also be used in a good sense, as we find in various hadiths.

deny some of them and murder others?

Among those they denied were ‘Īsā and Muḥammad and among those they killed were Yaḥyā and Zakariyā.

88 They say, ‘Our hearts are uncircumcised.’ Rather, Allah has cursed them for their disbelief. What little belief they have!

They say, ‘Our hearts are uncircumcised.’

‘They’ are the Jews again. ‘Uncircumcised’ means that they have a covering over them. It is similar to Allah’s words: ‘Our hearts are covered up against what you call us to.’ (41:5) ‘Ikrimah said that there was a stamp on them. Linguists use this term for the sheathing of a sword. It means that their hearts are veiled from understanding and discrimination. Ibn ‘Abbās said that the meaning is: ‘Our hearts are filled with knowledge and we have no need of the knowledge of Muḥammad ﷺ or anyone else.’ It is said that ‘ghulf’ is the plural of ghilāf.

Rather, Allah has cursed them for their disbelief.

Allah refutes them. Allah makes it clear that the reason for their aversion to faith is that they have been cursed for their disbelief and defiance in earlier times. This is repaying wrong action with something worse than it. The root of ‘la‘n’ (curse) has the meaning of ‘driving away and putting far away’. ‘La‘īn’ is used for a man who is an outcast and is also used for a wolf. This means that Allah has put them far from His mercy, or from His success and guidance, or from every good.

What little belief they have!

It is said that this can also mean, ‘They believe only a little of what they have and reject most of it.’ Al-Wāqidī said, ‘They do not believe, whether a little or a lot.’

89 When a Book does come to them from Allah, confirming what is with them – even though before that they were praying for victory over the unbelievers – yet when what they recognise does come to them, they reject it. Allah’s curse is on the unbelievers.

‘Them’ means the Jews, and the ‘Book’ here is the Qur’an, while ‘what is with them’ refers to the Torah and Gospel. The word for ‘praying for victory’ here (yastaftiḥūn) comes from the root fataḥa and implies the opening of something which is locked, and is used, for instance, for the opening of a door. An-Nasā’ī reports that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah gave victory to the community because of its weak members by means of their supplication, prayer and sincerity.’ An-Nasā’ī also reports from Abu-d-Dardā’ that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Help me in seeking out the weak. They are supported. You are provided for on account of the weak among you.’ Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Jews of Khaybar fought the tribe of Ghaṭafān and were defeated and so the Jews used this supplication, saying, ‘We ask You by the right of the unlettered Prophet whom You promised to send us at the end of time to make us victorious against them.’ They then defeated the tribe of Ghaṭafān. But when the Prophet was indeed sent, they rejected him and so Allah revealed this.

90 What an evil thing they have sold themselves for in rejecting what Allah has sent down, outraged that Allah should send down His favour on whichever of His slaves He wills. They have brought down anger upon anger on themselves. The unbelievers will have a humiliating punishment. Outraged that Allah should send down His favour

The word ‘bi’s’ in Arabic conveys full censure as ‘ni‘m’ conveys full praise. The word ‘baghyan’ (outraged) refers to their envy according to Qatādah and as-Suddī. Al-Asmā‘ī said the same verb is used when a wound putrefies. It is said that its root meaning is connected with selling something, which is why a prostitute is called baghī. They were outraged that Allah sent down His favour on His Prophet ﷺ. Instead of ‘yunazzilu’ (send down), Ibn Kathīr, Abū ‘Amr, Ya‘qūb and Ibn Muḥayṣin recite ‘yunzilu’ (send down).

They have brought down anger upon anger on themselves.

The ‘anger’ referred to here is Divine punishment. It is said that the first anger is on account of their worship of the Calf and the second on account of their rejection of Muḥammad ﷺ. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. ‘Ikrimah said that it is because the Jews first rejected ‘Īsā and then rejected Muḥammad. Qatādah also said that their first disbelief was by rejecting the Gospel and the second was by rejecting the Qur’an. Some people said that the word is repeated twice to stress the severity of what will happen to them.

The unbelievers will have a humiliating punishment.

The word muhīn (humiliating) is only used when referring to the punishment of unbelievers. The punishments which befall rebellious Muslims in this world and the Next are a purification for them.

91 When they are told, ‘Believe in what Allah has sent down,’ they say, ‘We believe in what was sent down to us,’ and they reject anything beyond that, even though it is the truth, confirming what they have. Say, ‘Why then, if you are believers, did you previously kill the Prophets of Allah?’

When they are told, ‘Believe in what Allah has sent down,’ they say, ‘We believe in what was sent down to us,’

‘What Allah has sent down’ refers here to the Qur’an. What was sent down to them was the Torah. Al-Farrā’ said that they reject anything other than it. Qatādah said that they reject anything after it as Abū ‘Ubayd said. The meaning is the same. Al-Jawharī said that warā means ‘after’. The word can also mean ‘before’, being one of the words that can have opposite meanings.

Why then, if you are believers, did you previously kill the Prophets of Allah?

Allah refutes their claim that they believe in what was revealed to them. He says that they are lying and rebukes them by asking them why, in that case, did they kill the Prophets when that was forbidden in their Book? It is addressed to those Jews who were present with Muḥammad ﷺ while their ancestors are meant. It is said to their descendants because they have continued on the same path.

92 Mūsā brought you the Clear Signs; then, after he left, you adopted the Calf and were wrongdoers.

Reference to ‘the Clear Signs’ of Mūsā can be found in Allah’s words: ‘We gave Mūsā seven clear signs.’ (17:101) They were: the staff, the drought, the white hand, the blood, the plague, the locusts, the lice, the frogs and the splitting of the sea. It is said that the expression ‘Clear Signs’ refers to the Torah and the evidence it contains. The use of the word ‘then’ indicates that they did this after receiving the Signs, which makes their wrong action all the worse.

93 Remember when We made a covenant with you and lifted up the Mount above your heads: ‘Take hold vigorously of what We have given you and listen.’ They said, ‘We hear and disobey.’ They were made to drink the Calf into their hearts because of their disbelief. Say, ‘If you are believers, what an evil thing your faith has made you do.’

The first part of this āyah has been discussed previously in the commentary on 2:63 above.

They said, ‘We hear and disobey.’

There is disagreement about whether this was the actual words they used or whether they did an action which took the place of the words, and so it was metaphorical.

They were made to drink the Calf into their hearts because of their disbelief.

In other words love of the Golden Calf penetrated them. It means that their hearts imbibed it. It is a metaphor because the whole matter of the Calf had become firm in their hearts. We read in a hadith, ‘Seditions will be presented to the hearts like a mat, reed by reed. A black spot is formed in the heart of anyone who is made to drink them.’ Muslim transmitted it. Their love of the Calf is referred to as drinking rather than eating because drinking something makes it penetrate right through the whole of the body.

As-Suddī and Ibn Jurayj said that Mūsā filed down the Calf and put it in water and told the tribe of Israel to drink that water. They all drank it and those who loved the Calf had gold filings on their lips. His scattering into the sea is indicated by His words: ‘Then we will scatter it as dust into the sea.’ (20:97) Their drinking it and its showing on their lips is refuted by His words: ‘They were made to drink the Calf into their hearts.’

Say, ‘If you are believers, what an evil thing your faith has made you do.’

The faith referred to is that which they claimed by their words, ‘We believe in what was sent down to us.’ It is said that these words were addressed to the Prophet ﷺ and he was commanded to rebuke them. So it means, ‘Muḥammad, tell them that what they were doing is evil.’

94 Say, ‘If the abode of the Next World with Allah is for you alone, to the exclusion of all others, then long for death if you are telling the truth. 95 But they will never ever long for it because of what they have done. Allah knows the wrongdoers.

When the Jews made their various false claims, as Allah reports from them in His Book, such as: ‘The Fire will only touch us for a number of days’ (2:80), and ‘No one will enter the Garden except for Jews and Christians’ (2:111), Allah told His Prophet ﷺ what to say to them. They were told to wish for death, because if someone really believes that he is one of the people of the Garden he will prefer death to life in this world, since he will obtain the bliss of the Garden and the difficulties of this world will be removed from him by it. But they shrank from doing that, out of fear of Allah, because of the terrible things they had done, thus demonstrating that they did not really believe what they said and indicating their greed for this world. If they had truly longed for death they would have died, as is related from the Prophet ﷺ when he said, ‘If the Jews had really longed for death, they would have died and seen their place in the Fire.’ It is said that Allah kept them from longing for it so as to make that a Sign for His Prophet ﷺ. These are all aspects of the fact that they did not long for death as they claimed. It is related by ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that what is meant is: ‘Wish for death for the party which is lying: you or us.’ They did not do so because they knew that they were lying.

The observation may be made that longing can be expressed with the tongue or with the heart, and so how is it known that they did not wish for it in their hearts? The reply to that is that the Qur’an stated that when Allah says: ‘they will never ever long for it.’ If they had wished for it in their hearts, it would have appeared on their tongues so that they could refute the Prophet ﷺ and invalidate his argument. This is clear.

96 Rather you will find them the people greediest for life, along with the idolaters. One of them would love to be allowed to live a thousand years. But being allowed to live would not save him from the punishment. Allah sees what they do.

It is said that this refers to the Jews and it is said that the words about them stop at ‘life’. The Arab idolaters only knew this life and had no knowledge of the Hereafter. So then what is referred to is another group of idolaters, namely the Magians. That is clear in that they say to someone who sneezes, ‘Live a thousand years!’ They believed that to be the extent that their reckoning would last. Al-Ḥasan believes that it refers to the Arab idolaters because they did not believe in the resurrection after death and hoped for a long life.

Allah sees what they do.

Allah sees those who wish to live a thousand years. ‘Ya‘malūn’ (they do) is also read ‘ta’malūn’ (you do). Those who recite the second say that it implies: ‘Tell them, Muḥammad, that Allah sees what they do.’ Scholars say that Allah describes Himself as knowing hidden matters. The word ‘baṣīr’ (see) in Arabic also means ‘to know something’ and be aware of it. You could use it for someone who has knowledge of medicine (baṣīr bi ’ṭ-ṭibb) or fiqh. Al-Khaṭṭābī said that Allah knows and sees. It is also said that the phrase means that Allah makes the things we do visible by creating the faculty of seeing and perception, so Allah gives His servant sight.

97 Say, ‘Anyone who is the enemy of Jibrīl should know that it was he who brought it down upon your heart, by Allah’s authority, confirming what came before, and as guidance and good news for the believers.

The reason for the revelation of this āyah is that the Jews said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Every Prophet has one of the angels bring him the Message and Revelation from His Lord. Who is your companion so that we might follow you?’ ‘Jibrīl,’ he replied. They said. ‘That is the one who brings war and fighting. He is our enemy! If you had said Mīkā’īl, who brings down the rain and mercy, we would have followed you.’ So Allah revealed this. At-Tirmidhī transmitted it. There are two possibilities for the second pronoun ‘it’ which might also be read as ‘he’. It might possibly mean: ‘Allah sent down Jibrīl to your heart’ or, more likely, ‘Jibrīl brought down the Qur‘an to your heart.’ The heart is mentioned because it is the locus of the intellect and knowledge and accepts gnosis. The āyah indicates the nobility of Jibrīl and censures his enemies. ‘Allah’s authority’ is His will and knowledge. ‘What came before’ is the Torah.

98 Anyone who is the enemy of Allah and of His angels, and of His Messengers and of Jibrīl and Mīkā’īl, should know that Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.’

This is a threat and rebuke to the enemies of Jibrīl and is an announcement that enmity towards some results in Allah’s enmity towards those who show it. The enmity of the slave of Allah is shown by his disobedience to Allah, his failure to obey Him, and enmity towards His friends. Allah’s enmity to the slave is shown by punishing him and by the effects of enmity on him.

If it is asked why Allah singled out Jibrīl and Mīkā’īl for mention when they have already been included under the general category of ‘angels’, the reply is that they are singled out for mention in order to honour them. It is also said that they are singled out because the Jews had mentioned the two of them and they were the cause of the āyah being revealed.

Various things are said by linguists about these two names. The forms given for Jibrīl’s name are: Jibrīl, which is the Ḥijāzī form, Jabrā’īl, Jabra’il, Jibriyil, Jabr’īn, Jibrīn. The forms for Mīkā’il are: Mīkā‘il (as Nāfi‘ has it), Mīkā’īl, Mīkāl (Ḥijāzī), Mīk’īl, Mīkāyil, and Mīkā’al.

Ibn ‘Abbās says that jabr means ‘slave’ and mīkā means ‘owned’. Īl is the Name of Allah, thus both names mean ‘slave of Allah’.

99 We have sent down Clear Signs to you and no one rejects them except the deviators.

Ibn ‘Abbās said that this is the reply to Ibn Ṣūriyā when he said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Muhammad, you have not brought us anything which accords with our knowledge and no clear sign has been sent down to you for us to follow.’ Then this āyah was revealed.

100 Why is it that, whenever they make a contract, a group of them disdainfully tosses it aside? No indeed! Most of them do not believe.

The Jews had made a contract that they would believe in Muḥammad when he was sent and would side with him against the Arab idolaters. Then when he was sent, they rejected him. ‘Aṭā’ says that the āyah refers to the agreements which the Prophet ﷺ made with the Jews which they subsequently broke.

101 When a Messenger comes to them from Allah confirming what is with them, a group of those who have been given the Book disdainfully toss the Book of Allah behind their backs, just as if they did not know.

They tossed it behind them by rejecting the Messenger. As-Suddī said, ‘They cast aside the Torah and adopted the book of Āṣaf and the magic of Hārūt and Mārūt.’ It is said that it can refer to the Qur’an. Ash-Sha‘bī said that they used to read it but rejected acting by it. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said, ‘They covered the Book in silk and brocade and adorned it with gold and silver but did not make lawful what it made lawful or unlawful what it made unlawful.’

102 They follow what the shayṭāns recited in the reign of Sulaymān. Sulaymān did not disbelieve, but the shayṭāns did, teaching people sorcery and what had been sent down to Hārūt and Mārūt, the two angels in Babylon, who taught no one without first saying to him, ‘We are merely a trial and temptation, so do not disbelieve.’ People learned from them how to separate a man and his wife but they cannot harm anyone by it, except with Allah’s permission. They have learned what will harm them and will not benefit them. They know that any who deal in it will have no share in the Next World. What an evil thing they have sold themselves for if they only knew!

They follow what the shayṭāns recited in the reign of Sulaymān.

Allah here reports about the group who discarded the Book by pursuing magic. They were the Jews. As-Suddī said, ‘The Jews opposed Muhammad ﷺ but the Torah and the Qur’an spoke in one voice, so they discarded the Torah and adopted the book of Āsaf and the magic of Hārūt and Mārūt.’

Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ mentioned Sulaymān as one of the Messengers, some of the rabbis said, “Muḥammad claims that the son of Dāwūd was a Prophet! By Allah, he was nothing but a sorcerer!” Then Allah revealed: “Sulaymān did not disbelieve, but the shayṭāns did.” This means that the rabbis told people that what Sulaymān did with respect to riding the seas and subjugating the birds and jinn was magic.’

Al-Kalbī said, ‘The shayṭāns wrote magic and necromancy as dictated by Āsaf, the scribe of Sulaymān during the time when Allah had removed his kingdom from him, and they buried what they wrote in the place where Sulaymān prayed. Sulaymān was not aware of this. When Sulaymān died, they unearthed the books and told people, “He ruled you by this, so learn it.” The scholars of the tribe of Israel said, “We seek refuge with Allah from this being the knowledge of Sulaymān!” whereas the fools accepted that it was and learned it and discarded the books of their Prophets until Muḥammad ﷺ was sent. Then Allah revealed Sulaymān’s innocence of the accusation they made.’

‘Aṭā’ said that ‘ittaba‘ū’ (follow) in this āyah means ‘read’ while Ibn ‘Abbās says that it actually means ‘follow’. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that it means ‘prefer’ since they preferred it to other things.

‘In the reign’ (mulk) means during the time of his Sharī‘ah and Prophethood. Az-Zajjāj said that al-Farrā’ said that it means during the time of his reign. It is said that it means during his kingship and so it is about his stories, qualities and reports. The shayṭāns here are said to be shayṭāns of the jinn. When shayṭān is used for a human being, it refers to someone who is obdurate in misguidance.

Sulaymān did not disbelieve but the shayṭāns did,

This declares his innocence. Although they did not explicitly accuse him of disbelief, the Jews accused him of magic and, since magic entails disbelief, they were, in fact, ascribing disbelief to him. The disbelief of the shayṭāns is established because they taught magic.

teaching people sorcery

The root meaning of ‘siḥr’ (sorcery) is distortion and producing illusions. It happens when a sorcerer does something and the person under the spell imagines something to be different from what it is. This resembles a mirage which someone sees and imagines to be water or someone on a ship who imagines that the trees and mountains are travelling with him. It is said to be derived from diverting a child when he is tricked. Allah says: ‘You are merely someone bewitched (musaḥḥarīn)’ (26:153), i.e. shaped with magic. It is said that the root of siḥr is ‘concealment’, because a sorcerer does it in concealment. It is also said that its root is ‘diversion’, since it diverts a person from what is really happening. Its root is also said to be ‘enticement’ and all that entices and bewitches you. Al-Jawharī said that spells and charms and anything whose means are subtle in that way can be called sorcery.

There is disagreement about whether it is real or not. The Mu‘tazilites say that it is simply deceit and has no basis in reality. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that it is whispering and illness. He said, ‘We think that its function is talismanic and is based on the effect of the particular qualities of the stars or by the shayṭāns making things easy which were difficult.’

We believe that it is true and that it has a reality and that Allah creates through it whatever He wishes, as will be explained. There is also a kind of magic which is merely sleight of hand and legerdemain. Another aspect is spells. Another aspect is words which are memorised and talismans which use the Names of Allah. That may also be part of the work of shayṭāns, or medicines and fumes and other things.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ called eloquence in speech sorcery. He said, ‘Some kinds of eloquence are sorcery.’ Mālik and others transmitted it. That is because they make the false seem credible so that the listener imagines it to be true. That statement is said, by some, to imply censure and by and by others to imply praise. Censure is more likely, because a person may obtain something which is not rightfully his by means of it.

Another kind of sorcery is the sort whose perpetration makes the one who does it an unbeliever. This includes such claims as changing the forms of people and transforming them into animals, going on a month’s journey in a single night, flying through the air and other such things. If anyone does that so that people will imagine that it is true, that turns him into an unbeliever. Abū ‘Amr said, ‘If anyone claims to be a sorcerer who can change animals from one form to another, or turn a person into a donkey and the like, and to have the power to transform bodies and destroy and alter them, this is someone who should be killed because he rejects the Prophets, laying claim to Prophethood himself, since he tries, by the use of trickery, to perform the same feats as them. As for the one who admits that his magic is simply deceit, distortion and illusions, he is not killed unless he does something else for which the punishment is death.’

Sunnīs believe that sorcery is real. Most Mu‘tazilites and some Shāfi‘īs believe that it is baseless and is only distortion and illusion so that a thing is made to appear other than what it is. They say that it is a sort of legerdemain, as Allah says: ‘they appeared to him, by their magic, to be slithering around.’ (20:66) He did not say that it was real, but that it appeared so. This is not evidence because we do not deny that illusion-making is part of magic but other matters are confirmed which defy explanation. If magic did not have a reality, it would not be possible to teach it and the fact that Allah mentioned them teaching it indicates that it is real.

Allah says that the sorcerers ‘produced an extremely powerful magic’ (7:116) and scholars agree that Sūrat al-Falaq was revealed because of the magic of Labīd ibn al-Aṣamm. That is reported in al-Bukhārī and Muslim. When the spell was removed, the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah healed me.’ Healing only occurs by removing an illness. So both Allah and the Prophet have reported that it is real. We find no denial of its existence among the Companions or the Tābi‘ūn. There is a consensus regarding it. Sufyān related from Abu-l-A‘war from ‘Ikrimah that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Magic was taught in one of the towns of Egypt called Farama.’ Anyone who denies it is unbeliever who denies Allah and His Messenger.

Our scholars say that it is not denied that breaking of normal patterns occurs through sorcerers and that, although it is not in the normal power of a human being to cause illness, separation, madness, paralysis of a limb and other things, it is, nevertheless, a human possibility. It is, however, Allah who creates these things when the magic takes place, just as He creates fullness after eating and quenching of thirst through drinking.

Muslims agree that there was no magic involved in what Allah did in relation to the locusts, lice, frogs, splitting the sea, the transformation of the staff, bringing the dead to life and other such signs of the Prophets. Our scholars said that the difference between magic and a Prophetic miracle is that magic can exist with a sorcerer or someone else and a group of people can know it and can do it at the same time, whereas Allah does not give anyone but His Prophet the power to perform a miracle. A sorcerer cannot claim to be a Prophet and what he does is not a miracle. A miracle must be accompanied by a true claim to Prophethood and the challenge to imitate it.

Fuqahā’ differ about the ruling of a Muslim and dhimmī sorcerer. Mālik believed that when a Muslim does magic with words which constitute disbelief, he should be killed and not asked to repent. Even if he were asked to repent, his repentance would not be accepted because he would conceal his sorcery like a heretic or fornicator, and because Allah Himself called sorcery disbelief. Ibn Ḥanbal, Abū Thawr, Isḥāq, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah also said that. The execution of sorcerers is reported from ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, Ibn ‘Umar, Hafsah, Abū Mūsā, Qays ibn Sa‘d and seven Tābi‘ūn. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The ḥadd punishment for a sorcerer is to be struck with the sword.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it, but it is not strong. Only Ismā‘īl ibn Muslim has it and they consider him to be weak. Ibn al-Mundhir related that. It is related that ‘Ā’ishah sold a witch who had used magic on her and used the price to free slaves.

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘When a man admits that he did magic with words which constitute disbelief, then he must be killed, even if he repents. The same applies if there is clear evidence against him. If the words that he used in his magic are not tantamount to disbelief, it is not permitted to kill him. If he deliberately inflicts an injury on the person who has been subjected to his sorcery, retaliation is obliged. If there is no retaliation for it, there is blood money.’

Ibn al-Mundhir also said, ‘When the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ disagree about something, we are obliged to follow the view which is closest to the Book and the Sunnah. It is possible that the magic for which some of them commanded the sorcerer to be executed did indeed constitute disbelief and this corresponds to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. It is also possible that the magic of the witch whom ‘Ā’ishah sold did not actually constitute disbelief. If the hadith about killing sorcerers is sound, then it is only possible when the magic of the sorcerer amounts to disbelief, and so that is in keeping with what is reported from the Prophet ﷺ: “A Muslim’s blood is only lawful by one of three things…”’

This is true. The blood of Muslims is protected and only allowed when there is certainty, and when there is disagreement there is no certainty, Allah knows best. Some scholars say that magic can only be performed through disbelief and arrogance or by esteeming Shayṭān and thus sorcery is evidence of disbelief. Allah knows best. It is related that ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘A sorcerer is not killed unless he kills by his magic and says that it was deliberate. If he does not say it was deliberate, he is not killed but pays blood money for accidental homicide. If he causes harm, he is punished according to the extent of harm he caused.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said that this is false for two reasons. One is that he does not know the reality of magic which, in fact, consists of formulae which revere things other than Allah to which powers and entities are ascribed. The second is that Allah clearly states in His book that the shayṭāns disbelieved.

The Mālikīs argue that a sorcerer’s repentance is not accepted because sorcery is something hidden and not shown and so his repentance cannot be relied on. The person who is asked to repent is someone who openly apostatises. Mālik said that if a sorcerer or heretic repents before there is testimony against him, his repentance is accepted. His proof is the words of Allah: ‘But when they saw Our violent force, their faith was of no use to them.’ (40:85) This indicates that their faith is of use to them before the punishment arrives. This is the same.

It is said that a dhimmī sorcerer is killed, but Mālik said that he is not killed unless he kills and that he is liable for injuries caused. He is killed if he does something not part of his dhimmah treaty. Ibn Khuzayimandād said, ‘There are differing transmissions from Mālik about a dhimmī. Sometimes he said that he is asked to repent and his repentance consists of becoming Muslim. Sometimes he said that he is killed even if he becomes Muslim. Someone from the Abode of War is not killed when he repents. That is also what Mālik said about a dhimmī who insults the Prophet ﷺ: he is asked to repent and his repentance consists of becoming Muslim. Sometimes he said that he is killed and not asked to repent, as is the case with a Muslim. Mālik also said that a dhimmī who does sorcery is punished unless he kills someone with his sorcery or causes some event and he is punished accordingly for it. Others said that he is killed because he has broken the treaty.’ The heirs of a sorcerer do not inherit from him because he is an unbeliever unless his sorcery is not called disbelief. Mālik said that a woman who makes her husband impotent with respect to herself or another by the magical use of knots is punished and not killed.

They disagree about whether a sorcerer is asked to undo his magic from the person bewitched. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab permitted it, according to what al-Bukhārī mentioned. Al-Muzanī inclined to that, but al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī disliked it. Ash-Sha‘bī said that there is no harm in amulet charms. Ibn Baṭṭāl said, ‘We find in the letter of Wahb ibn Munabbih that one should take seven leaves from a lote-tree, crush them between two stones, mix them with water and then over that recite the Throne Verse. Then take three sips from it and wash the body with it. It will remove what he is afflicted by, Allah willing. It is good for a man prevented from having sex with his wife [because of magic].’

Most Mu‘tazilites deny the existence of shayṭāns and the jinn. This indicates their weakness because not only is it not logically impossible to affirm their existence but also the texts of the Book and the Sunnah indicate their existence. An intelligent person who clings to the rope of Allah must accept things which are beyond normal experience when there is a text stating that they exist. Allah says: ‘the shayṭāns disbelieved’ and He also mentions them elsewhere and the Prophet ﷺ mentioned them and therefore they must exist.

and what (mā) had been sent down to Hārūt and Mārūt, the two angels in Babylon,

‘Mā’ means negation [i.e. ‘and it was not sent down to the two angels’] and that is conjoined to ‘Sulaymān did not (mā) disbelieve.’ That is mentioned because the Jews said the two angels (malakayn) that Allah sent with magic were Jibrīl and Mīkā’īl. Allah denies that. ‘Hārūt and Mārūt’ are an appositive for the earlier ‘shayṭāns’. This is the most fitting interpretation of the āyah. It is the soundest of what is said about them and one pays no attention to another interpretation. Sorcery comes from the shayṭāns because of the subtleness of their essence and their trivial understanding. It is mostly women who practise it. Allah refers to them when He says: ‘women who blow on knots.’ (113:4)

And it also said that ‘mā’ is conjoined to the magic [i.e. ‘teaching people magic and what had been sent down to Hārūt and Mārūt, the two angels in Babylon’]. Anyway it is clear that Allah sent down magic to the angels as a test for people. Allah tests His slaves in whatever way He wishes. This is why the angels said, ‘We are merely a trial. We inform you that the act of sorcery is disbelief. If you obey us, you will be saved. If you disobey, you will be destroyed.’

It is related from ‘Alī, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Ka‘b al-Aḥbār, as-Suddī and al-Kalbī that when there was a lot of corruption among the descendants of Ādam in the time of Idrīs, the angels condemned them. Allah Almighty said, ‘If you had been in their position and been formed as they are formed, you would have acted as they have acted.’ They answered, ‘Glory be to You! It is not fitting for us to do that!’ He said, ‘Then choose two angels from the best of you.’ They chose Hārūt and Mārūt. He sent them down to earth and inserted lust in them. Not a month had passed before they were tempted by a woman called ‘Bīdakht’ in Nabatean, ‘Nāhīl’ in Persian and ‘az-Zuhrah’ in Arabic. They argued about her and tried to seduce her. She refused unless they entered her religion, drank wine, and killed a soul whom Allah had made inviolable. They agreed to what she wanted and drank wine and had sex with her. A man saw them and they killed him. She asked them about the Name by which they ascended to heaven and they taught it to her. She spoke it, ascended and was transformed into a star.

Sālim reported from his father from ‘Abdullāh that Ka‘b related that the day had not ended before they had committed what Allah had forbidden them. According to another hadith, they were given a choice between the punishment of this world and the punishment of the Next World and they chose the punishment of this world. So they are punished at Bablyon in an underground passage. It is said that it is the Babylon in Iraq and it is also said that it is the one at Nihawand. ‘Aṭā’ related from Ibn ‘Umar that when he saw Venus (Zuhrah) and Suhayl, he cursed and reviled them and said, ‘Suhayl was a tax-collector in Yemen who wronged people and az-Zuhrah was the woman of Hārūt and Mārūt.’

All of this is weak and nothing to do with Ibn ‘Umar and others. None of it is sound. It is a view refuted by the basic principles of the angels who are the guardians Allah assigned over His Revelation and His emissaries to His Messengers: ‘They do not disobey Allah in respect of any order He gives them and carry out what they are ordered to do.’ (66:6) ‘They do not precede Him in speech and they act on His command.’ (21:27) ‘They glorify Him by night and day, without ever flagging.’ (21:20) Logically, it is not denied that disobedience could occur from the angels, the opposite of what they are obliged exist in them, and lust created in them, since everything imaginable is within Allah’s power. This is the source of the fear of the Prophets, awliyā’, and excellent scholars. But the occurrence of this permissible matter is only perceived by report, and it is not sound.

Part of what indicates the fact that it is not sound is that Allah created the stars and the planets when He created the heavens. We read in a report: ‘When heaven was created, He created in it seven orbits: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, the sun and the moon.’ This is the meaning of His words: ‘each one swimming in a sphere’. (21:33) This confirms that Venus and Suhayl existed before the creation of Ādam. The words of the angels, ‘It is not fitting for us to do that!’ would mean: ‘You are not able to tempt us.’ This is unbelief. We seek refuge with Allah from it and from ascribing it to the noble angels, may Allah bless them all! We declare them free from that and they are free from what the commentators mentioned. Glory be to Allah, your Lord, the Lord of Might, from what they describe!

Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Abzā, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and al-Ḥasan read the word as malikayn, which means two kings, and take it as referring to Dāwūd and Sulaymān. This is weak as Ibn al-‘Arabī stated. Al-Ḥasan said that they were two louts at Babylon who were kings. Bābil (Babylon) is a region in the earth. It is said to be Iraq and the surrounding area. Ibn Mas‘ūd said to the people of Kufa, ‘You are between Hira and Babylon.’ Qatādah said, ‘It extends from Nineveh to Ra’s al-‘Ayn.’ Some people said that it is in Morocco, which Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says is weak. Some people said that it is the mountain of Nineveh. Allah knows best.

There is disagreement about why it is called ‘Bābil’. It is said that ‘Babel’ is called that because of the ‘babble’ of languages when the tower of Nimrod fell. It is said that it is called that because when Allah Almighty wanted to make the sons of Ādam have different languages, he sent a wind that gathered them from the far corners of the earth to Babel and then Allah confounded their language there and then that wind separated them into lands. Balbalah is separation. Al-Khalīl said something to that effect. Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘One of the most concise and best things said about balbalah is what Abū Dāwūd ibn Abī Hind related from ‘Ilbā’ ibn Aḥmar from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that when Nūḥ descended from al-Jūdī, he built a city called Thamānīn (‘Eighty’) and on the day when tongues were confounded, there were eighty languages, one of which was Arabic. The people did not understand one another.’

‘Abdullāh ibn Bishr al-Mazinī related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Fear this world. By the One who has my soul in His hand, it has more sorcery in it than Hārūt and Mārūt.’ Our scholars say that this world has more sorcery than both of them because it bewitches you by deceiving you. Its temptation is concealed and it leads you to compete in greed for it, to amass it and deny it to others until it comes between you and obedience to Allah and comes between you and seeing the truth and observing it. Therefore this world is more enthralling than them. It takes your heart away from Allah, from establishing His right and from the promise and the threat. The sorcery of this world is love of it, enjoying its appetites and being deluded by its false hopes until it takes hold of your heart. That is why the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Love of a thing makes one blind and deaf.’

who taught no one without first saying to him, ‘We are merely a trial and temptation, so do not disbelieve.’

‘Alī is reported as saying that the angels taught people by warning them against magic, but that does not mean that they were inviting them to it. Az-Zajjāj says, ‘This is the position held by most of the people with expertise in language and investigation. It means that they taught people the prohibition and said to them, “Do not do this. Do not use that to come between a man and his wife.”’ Although this world is a greater temptation because its temptation is hidden, they said, ‘We are merely a trial and temptation, so do not disbelieve.’ One group said that that is by learning sorcery, and another group said that it is by using it. Al-Mahdawī said, ‘It is mockery because they said that to those whom they were certain were misguided.’

People learned from them how to separate a man and his wife

As-Suddī said, ‘They used to say to those who came to them, “We are merely a trial and temptation, so do not disbelieve.” If the person refused to go back, they would say, “Go to this pile of ashes and urinate on it.” When he urinated on it, a light would leave him, shining, on the way to heaven. It was his faith. Then a black smoke would emerge from it and enter his ears. It is disbelief. When he told them what he had seen, then they would teach him how to separate a man and his wife.’ One group believe that a sorcerer cannot do more than cause separation, as Allah mentions here, because Allah mentioned that when He criticised sorcery and the aim of learning it. If they had been able to do more than that, they say, Allah would have mentioned that. Another group say that separating a man and his wife is the most common application of magic and does not preclude magic of other kinds, like causing love and hatred, causing evil to part a man from his wife, and to come between a man and his heart. That includes pains and illnesses. All of that can be witnessed, and denying it is pure obstinacy.

But they cannot harm anyone by it, except with Allah’s permission

It is said that this refers to the Jews and it is said that it is refers to the shayṭāns. ‘It’ refers to sorcery. ‘Allah’s permission’ here means His will and decree, not His command, because Allah does not command the reprehensible and then judge people according to it. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘It means “only by the knowledge of Allah.”’ An-Naḥḥās said that this is incorrect.

They have learned what will harm them and will not benefit them.

Meaning in the Next World even if they obtain some benefit from it in this world. It is said that it will also harm them in this world because the harm which results from magic and causing disunion rebounds on the sorcerer in this world if he is discovered because he will be disciplined and punished and the ill fame of sorcery is attached to him.

103 If only they had believed and been godfearing! A reward from Allah is better, if they only knew.

‘They’ here refers to the sorcerers.

104 You who have faith! do not say, ‘Rā’inā,’ say, ‘Unẓurnā,’ and listen well. The unbelievers will have a painful punishment.

This is talking about another act of ignorance on the part of the Jews and the purpose is to forbid Muslims from doing the same thing. The meaning of rā’inā is ‘look at us and we will look at you’ because the form of the verb dictates that. It further signifies ‘protect us and we will protect you; watch us and we will watch you.’ Using this word, however, entails coarseness and the believers were commanded to choose a better word with a finer meaning.

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Muslims used to say to the Prophet ﷺ, “Rā’inā!” by way of asking and desire, from murā’āh (supervision, respect). In Hebrew it was a curse, meaning “Listen, you do not hear.” So the Jews took advantage of that and said, “We curse him secretly. Now we will curse him openly!” and they used to use the word to address the Prophet ﷺ and then laugh about it. Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh overheard them because he knew their language. He told them, “The curse of Allah be on you! If I hear a single man of you say it to the Prophet ﷺ, I will lop his head off!” They replied, “But you say it!” Then the āyah was revealed and they were forbidden to do it so that the Jews would not imitate them and intend a bad meaning by it.’

This āyah contains evidence for two rulings. One is that you should avoid ambiguous expressions which could be disparaging or allude to faults. A corollary of this is that slander can be by allusion and we say that doing this obliges the ḥadd punishment whereas Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the aspect of doubt involved removes the ḥadd. This will be discussed in an-Nūr.

The second ruling to be gained from the āyah is that sadd adh-dharā’i‘ (the blocking of the means), and the protection it gives, constitutes a valid legal principle, which is the position of Mālik and also of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in one transmission from him. The Book and Sunnah provide evidence for this principle. Dharī‘ah (means) is something which is not prohibited in itself but it is feared that someone who does it will fall into the prohibited. In the Qur’an this āyah demonstrates the principle. The way the principle is applied here is that the Jews used to say this phrase, which was a curse in their language. Then Allah informed the Muslims about it and issued the prohibition of the use of this phrase because, although it is all right in itself, it is the means to the evil result.

There are also Allah’s words: ‘Do not curse those they call upon besides Allah, in case that makes them curse Allah in animosity without knowledge.’ (6:108) So Allah forbids cursing their gods – something that is not wrong in itself – out of the fear that they would retaliate. Allah says: ‘Ask them about the town that was by the sea.’ (7:163) Allah forbade them to fish on the Sabbath when the fish came to them near the surface on the Sabbath. They blocked them off on the Sabbath and then took them on Sunday. That blockage was the means to catching. So Allah transmogrified them into apes and pigs. Allah also mentioned to us the idea of being on guard about that. He told Ādam and Ḥawwā’: ‘Do not approach this tree’ (2:35).

As for the Sunnah, there are many firm, sound hadiths, including the hadith of ‘Ā’ishah that Umm Habibah and Umm Salamah mentioned to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ a church they had seen in Abyssinia with images, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Among those people, when a righteous man died, they built a place of prayer over his grave and adorned it with those images. Those are the worst of creatures in the sight of Allah.’ Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it. Our scholars have said that those earlier people did that to console themselves by seeing those images and remembering the righteous behaviour of the people buried there and they strove as they had striven and worshipped Allah at their graves. Then time passed and those after them were ignorant of their aims and Shayṭān whispered to them that their fathers and forefathers had worshipped those images and so they started to worship them. The Prophet ﷺ warned against the same thing happening and strongly objected to people doing that. He blocked the means to that and said, ‘The anger of Allah is terrible against people who take graves of their Prophets and righteous men as mosques,’ and ‘O Allah, do not make my grave an idol which is worshipped.’

Muslim related that an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr say that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘The ḥalāl is clear and the ḥarām is clear. But between the two there are doubtful things about which most people have no knowledge. Whoever exercises caution with regard to what is doubtful, shows prudence in respect of dīn and his honour. Whoever involves himself in doubtful things is like a herdsman who grazes his animals near a private preserve (ḥimā). He is bound to enter it.’ So the Prophet ﷺ forbade doing doubtful things out of the fear of falling into the forbidden. That is sadd adh-dharā‘i ‘.

The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A person will not achieve the status of being one of the godfearing until he leaves what does not concern him out of consideration for what does concern him.’ He also said, ‘One of the major wrong actions is for a man to abuse his parents.’ They said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, is it possible for a man to abuse his parents?’ He answered, ‘Yes. He may curse another man’s father who in turn curses his father, or curse his mother and he in turn curses his mother.’ So he made provoking abuse of fathers the same as actual cursing fathers.

The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When you transact using the sale-and-buy transaction (‘īnah), follow the tails of cattle, are satisfied with farming, and abandon jihad, then Allah will impose abasement on you that He will not remove from you until you return to the dīn.’ Abū ‘Ubayd al-Harawī said, ‘‘Īnah is when a man sells goods to another man at a known price until a set term and then buys them back from him at a lower price than that for which he sold them.’ He said, ‘If, in the presence of someone who wants an ‘īnah, someone buys goods from another man at a known price and takes possession of them, and then buys them from the one who wants an ‘īnah for a greater price than that which he bought them for until a fixed term, and then the buyer buys them from the first seller for cash and a lower price, this is also ‘īnah, but a lesser form than the first one. Some of them consider it to be permissible. It is called ‘īnah because the cash is obtained by the owner of the item. That is because ‘ayn is the ready cash and the buyer buys the item in order to sell it for ready cash which is immediate.’

Ibn Wahb related from Mālik that an umm walad belonging to Zayd ibn al-Arqam mentioned to ‘Ā’ishah رضي الله عنها that she sold a slave to Zayd for 800 until the stipend arrived and she then bought the slave back from him for 600 in cash. ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘An evil sale and an evil purchase! Tell Zayd that his jihād with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ will be nullified if he does not repent!’ Such a statement is not made based on mere opinion because nullification of action is only known through revelation. So it is confirmed that it goes back to the Prophet ﷺ. ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Abandon usury and doubt.’

This is our evidence for sadd adh-dharā’i‘ on which the Mālikīs based the Book of ends of terms and other questions regarding sales and other things. The Shāfi‘īs do not have a chapter on ends of terms because they consider that to consist of different sales transactions.

say, ‘Unẓurnā,’ and listen well.

They are commanded to speak to him ﷺ with respect. It means: ‘Turn to us and look at us.’

105 Those of the People of the Book who disbelieve and the idolaters do not like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord. But Allah selects for His mercy whomever He will. Allah’s favour is truly vast. But Allah selects for His mercy whomever He wills.

‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said, that this means for His Prophethood which He singled out for Muhammad ﷺ. Some people say that the mercy of the Qur’an is what is intended and others say that the mercy mentioned here is general to all types of mercy that Allah has given to His slaves, both now and in the past. The verb raḥima means to have compassion. Raḥm, marḥamah and raḥmah mean ‘mercy’. Ibn Fāris said that. Allah’s mercy to His slaves is His blessing them and pardoning them.

106 Whenever We abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

Whenever We abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten,

This is a very important āyah about judgments. Its cause was that the Jews envied the Muslims when they turned away from Jerusalem and faced the Ka‘bah, and they attacked Islam for that, saying that Muḥammad commanded his Companions to do one thing and then forbade it, and maintained that the Qur’an was of his own making. They contradicted one another and so Allah revealed: ‘If We replace one āyah with another one...’ (16:101) and this āyah.

This subject is very important and scholars must be aware of it. Only ignorant fools deny it because of the effect of events on rulings and recognition of the lawful and unlawful. Abu-l-Bakhtarī said, ‘‘Alī entered the mosque while a man was causing the people there to become frightened. He asked, “What is this?” They answered, “A man who is reminding people.” He said, “He is not a man who reminds people. He says, ‘I am so-and-so son of so-and-so, so acknowledge me.’” He sent for him and asked, “Do you know the abrogating from the abrogated?” “No,” he replied. He said, “Then leave our mosque and do not admonish people in it.”’

There are two aspects to abrogation or supersession (naskh). The first is transfer, like from one Divine Book to another. According to this, all the Qur’an is ‘abrogated’ in the sense that was taken from the Preserved Tablet and sent down to the House of Might in the lowest heaven. This has nothing to do with this āyah. The second form of abrogation is invalidation and removal, which is what is meant here. This, in turn, is divided into two types.

The first is supersession, which is the invalidation of something and its removal, and then putting something else in its place. The verb, nasakha, is used for the sun replacing the shadow when it takes its place. That is its meaning in this āyah. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim we find: ‘There is no Prophethood at all which is not superseded by the next (tanāsakha).’ The community has moved from one state to another. Ibn Fāris said that naskh refers to the Book, and it means to remove a command before it is acted on and then supersede it with something else, like an āyah revealed about a matter and then superseded by another. The verb is used for the sun replacing shade, old age replacing youth and the succession of heirs by successive deaths. There is a succession of ages and generations.

The second type of abrogation is the removal of a thing without replacing it with something else, as wind obliterates (nasakha) a track. This meaning is seen in the words of Allah: ‘Allah revokes (yansakhu) what Shayṭān insinuates’ (22:52), i.e. removes it and so it is not recited nor does it have a replacement elsewhere in the Qur’an.

Pertinent to this matter is what is related from Ubayy and ‘Ā’ishah to the effect that Sūrat al-Aḥzāb (33) was originally the same length as Sūrat al-Baqarah as will be later clarified. Evidence for this is also found in what Abū Bakr al-Anbārī transmitted that Sahl ibn Ḥunayf said while in the assembly of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. He said that a man stood up in the night to recite a sūrah of the Qur’an but was unable to recite any of it. Another man rose and could not recite any of it either. So in the morning they went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. One said, ‘I stood in the night to recite a sūrah of the Qur’an and I could not recite any of it.’ The other stood up and said, ‘The same thing happened to me, Messenger of Allah!’ Yet a third rose and said, ‘And the same thing happened to me, Messenger of Allah.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘It was part of what Allah abrogated yesterday.’

Some modern groups of those who are called Muslims deny that such an occurrence is possible. They are veiled from the consensus of the Salaf that it occurs in the Sharī‘ah. Some Jewish groups also reject that and they are veiled from what comes in the Torah since they claim that Allah told Nūḥ when he left the Ship, ‘I make every animal edible for you and your descendants. I allow all of them for you, like plants, except for blood. Do not consume it.’ Then He forbade many animals to Mūsā and the tribe of Israel. There is also the fact that Ādam married a brother to a sister, and Allah forbade that to Mūsā and others. Ibrāhīm was ordered to sacrifice his son and then told not to do it. Mūsā commanded the tribe of Israel to kill those of them who worshipped the Calf and then stopped that. There are many examples of this. This is transfer from one act of worship to another and one ruling to another for the sake of best interest.

Intelligent people do not disagree that the laws of the Prophets are intended to meet the best interests of people in the dīn and this world. It would have been obliged in the beginning had He not known the end of matters. The One Who knows that changes things addressed according to the change in what is in their best interests, just as a doctor takes note of the changes in his patient. Allah takes note of that in His creation by His will and volition. There is no god but Him. What He asks of them changes, but His knowledge and will do not change. That is impossible in respect of Allah.

The Jews considered supersession and initiation to be the same and therefore they did not permit it and were misled. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘The difference between abrogation and initiation is that supersession is transferring an act of worship from one form to another so that something lawful becomes unlawful or something unlawful becomes lawful. As for initiation, it is leaving what was previously obliged as when you say, ‘Go to so-and-so today,’ and then you say, ‘Do not go to him.’ You decide to turn from the first statement. This is connected to people’s imperfections. Know that the real Abrogator is Allah Almighty. What He says is called abrogation since abrogation occurs by it, one judgment being replaced by another. It is said that the fast of Ramaḍān superseded the fast of ‘Ashūrā’, replacing one form of worship with another.

The sayings of our scholars differ regarding the definition of naskh. That which intelligent people who follow the Sunnah hold is that it is the removal of an established legal ruling by a further instruction which comes later in time. That is the definition of ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and Qāḍī Abū Bakr, who added, ‘If it were not for that, the prior ruling would remain firmly in place.’ So they retain the linguistic definition which means ‘removal’ while avoiding the logical consequence of taking that literally. That which was abrogated, according to our Imams, the people of the Sunnah, constitutes a firm judgment in itself.

Our scholars disagree about whether reports are subject to abrogation. Most say that abrogating is specific to commands and prohibitions and that reports cannot be affected by abrogation since it is impossible to attribute falsehood to Allah. It is said that when a report contains a legal ruling, then supersession is permitted. It might be imagined that making what is general specific is abrogation, but that is not the case because specification does not remove the general (‘āmm). If something moves the general ruling to something else, then that is abrogation, not specification. If someone refers to it as abrogation, that is metaphorical rather than actual.

One should know that there are reports in the Sharī‘ah which appear to be general and all-inclusive but are then limited later so that that their generality is removed. It is like Allah’s words: ‘If My slaves ask you about Me, I am near. I answer the call of the caller when He calls on Me.’ (2:186) The literal meaning of this āyah is that he answers everyone who calls on Him in any case, but this is limited elsewhere as when He says: ‘If He wills, He will deliver you from whatever it was that made you call on Him.’ (6:41) Someone without intelligence must suppose that this is abrogation in reports, but that is not the case. It is part of restriction of the unrestricted.

Our scholars say that abrogation is permitted from what is onerous to what is easier. A case in point is the abrogation of the ruling on standing firm in jihād when the odds are ten to one by that of standing firm when they are two to one. But it is also permitted to move from the easier to the harder, as happened when the fast of ‘Ashurā’ and some other days were exchanged for Ramadan as will be mentioned. And like can be abrogated by like, as happened in the case of the qiblah changing from Jerusalem to the House of Allah in Makkah. Matters can also be abrogated without being replaced, like giving ṣadaqah before conversing with the Prophet ﷺ. The Qur’an can be abrogated by the Qur’an, the Sunnah by a mutawātir hadith, and a single hadith by another single hadith.

Astute Imāms also say that the Qur’an can be abrogated by the Sunnah. An example of that is the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘There is no bequest to an heir.’ It is acknowledged by Mālik but ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abu-l-Faraj al-Mālikī rejected it. The first is a sounder approach by the evidence that all is the judgment of Allah Almighty and from Him, even if the names differ. Flogging was also dropped in the ḥadd punishment for the adulterer who is stoned. That was only dropped by the Sunnah which the Prophet ﷺ made clear.

They also say that the Sunnah can be abrogated by the Qur’an. That happened when the qiblah was changed when the original qiblah was not mentioned in the Qur’an. The āyah we are looking at here is another case: it demands that women should not be returned to the unbelievers when that had been part of the treaty that the Prophet ﷺ made with Quraysh. Astute scholars agree that it is logically permitted for the Qur’an to be abrogated by a single hadith but they disagree about whether it actually occurs. Abu-l-Ma‘ālī and others believe that it happened when the people of the Mosque of Qubā’ changed their qiblah but others reject that. It is not proper to abrogate a text through analogy since one of the preconditions of analogy is that it does not differ from a definitive text.

All of this occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ. The Community agree that there is no abrogation after his death, once the Sharī‘ah was firmly in place. This is why there is a consensus that there is no abrogation after the end of Revelation. When we find a consensus which is apparently contrary to a text, it is known that the consensus relied on an abrogating text which we do not know about. An opposed text is not acted upon and, therefore, it must have been abrogated even though it remains a sunnah which is read and reported. An example of this is the āyah of the ‘iddah (waiting period of a widow) of a year which is recited in the Qur’an. Reflect on this. It is something important. There is abrogation of a ruling while its recitation is left, like the giving of ṣadaqah before conversing with the Prophet (58:12). The opposite can also occur when the recitation is abrogated but not the ruling, which happened in the case of the āyah of stoning. It is also possible for both recitation and ruling to be abrogated. What astute scholars believe is that if someone has not heard about the abrogation, he continues to act according to the first ruling. They also permit abrogation of a ruling before it is acted on, as in the story of Ibrāhīm sacrificing his son and the obligation of the prayer being fifty prayers before it was made five.

There are means for recognising an abrogating text. One is when the expression indicates it, like the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I used to forbid visiting graves. Now you may visit them. I forbade drinking except from skins, now you may drink from every container, but do not drink intoxicants.’ Another indication is when the transmitter mentions the date, as when he says, ‘It was the year of the Ditch,’ when it is known that what was abrogated occurred before it. Another indication is when it is stated: ‘Such-and-such a ruling is abrogated.’ Yet another means is when the entire Community agree that the ruling is abrogated.

Most recite ‘abrogate’ as ‘nansakh’ which is the normal usage. Ibn ‘Āmir recites ‘nunsikh’ from Form IV.

or cause it to be forgotten,

It is said that this means: ‘omit it’. It is removed from you so that you do not read or remember it. ‘Nunsihā’ (forgotten) is also recited with a hamzah (nunsi’hā) meaning ‘to defer’, meaning ‘We defer its sending down or its abrogation to a later date.’

We bring one better than it or equal to it.

This means ‘more beneficial for people’. The benefit is immediate if the abrogating ruling is easier and in the Next World if it is harder. It is also said that it is superior in that it has a greater benefit and reward since there is no disparity in the worth of the Words of Allah.

107 Do you not know that Allah is He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs and that, besides Allah, you have no protector and no helper?

This means that He brings into existence and originates and has sovereignty and authority over all things and that His will and command is carried out in every instance. The Prophet ﷺ is addressed while his entire community is intended. It is said that it means: ‘Say to them, Muḥammad: “Do you not know that Allah has authority over the heavens and earth and that you have no protector apart from Allah?”’

108 Or do you want to question your Messenger as Mūsā was questioned before? Anyone who exchanges faith for disbelief has definitely gone astray from the level way.

‘Am’ (or) in fact means ‘indeed’ you do want and it is a rebuke. This is said to refer to their demanding proofs of Prophethood, such as asking him to bring Allah and the angels. Ibn ‘Abbās and Mujāhid said that they asked for Ṣafā to be turned into gold. ‘Level’ (sawā’) means the middle way of something. It is said that it means the aim, and so it would be ‘astray from the goal of the Path’, which is obeying Allah. Ibn ‘Abbās said that the reason for this āyah was that Rāfi‘ ibn Khuzaymah and Wahb ibn Zayd said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Bring us a Book from heaven which we can read and make rivers flow for us and we will follow you.’

109 Many of the People of the Book would love it if they could make you revert to being unbelievers after you have become believers, showing their innate envy now that the truth is clear to them. But you should pardon and overlook until Allah gives His command. Truly Allah has power over all things. 110 Establish the prayer and pay zakāt. Any good you send ahead for yourselves, you will find with Allah. Certainly Allah sees what you do.

Many of the People of the Book would love it if they could make you revert to being unbelievers after you have become believers, showing their innate envy now that the truth is clear to them.

They do so simply out of envy without having any legitimate authorisation for it from their Book or anywhere else. The āyah is about the Jews.

There are two types of envy: blameworthy envy and praiseworthy envy. The blameworthy kind is when you desire Allah’s blessing to be removed from your brother Muslim whether you want it to come to you or not. Allah censured this type in His Book when He says: ‘Or do they in fact envy people for the bounty Allah has granted them.’ (4:54) It is blameworthy because it is tantamount to thinking that Allah is foolish and that He has blessed someone who does not deserve His blessing.

The praiseworthy type is what comes in the sound hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘You may only have envy in two cases: for a man to whom Allah has given the Qur’an and he gets up and recites it throughout the night, and for a man to whom Allah has given wealth and he spends it throughout the night and the day.’ This sort of envy is called ghibtah rather than ḥasad and al-Bukhārī has a chapter on envying people for their knowledge and wisdom. Its reality is that you desire to have the good and blessing which your Muslim brother has, without any good being removed from him. It is possible to call this aspiration, as the Almighty says: ‘Let people with aspiration aspire to that!’ (83:26) But you should pardon and overlook until Allah gives His command. ‘The truth’ is Muḥammad ﷺ and the Qur’an which he brought.

But you should pardon and overlook until Allah gives His command.

The root of the word ‘afu (pardon) means not to call to account for wrong action. The root of safḥ (overlook) is to remove its effect from the heart. This āyah is, however, abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘Fight those who do not believe … abasement’ (9:29) according to Ibn ‘Abbās. It is said that it is abrogated by ‘kill the idolaters.’ (9:5) Abū ‘Ubaydah said, ‘Every āyah which obviates fighting is Makkan and is abrogated by the command to fight. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said about this, ‘His ruling that this āyah is Makkan is weak because the hostilities with the Jews only occurred in Madīnah.’

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah’s opinion is sound. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim related from Usāmah ibn Zayd that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ rode a donkey with a saddlecloth made in Fadak and Usāmah ibn Zayd rode behind him. He went to visit Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah in the Banū ’l-Ḥārith branch of al-Khazraj before the Battle of Badr. On the way he passed by a gathering containing ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy ibn Salūl, and that was before ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy became Muslim. The gathering contained a mixture of Muslims. idolaters, pagans, and Jews. ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāḥah was also in the gathering.

When the dust from the donkey reached the gathering, ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy covered his nose with his cloak and then said, ‘Don’t cover us with dust!’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ greeted them and then stopped. He dismounted and invited them to Allah and recited the Qur’an to them. ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy ibn Salūl said, ‘You! There is nothing better than what you say if it is the truth. So do not annoy us with it in our gatherings. Return to your mount and only recount it to those who come to you.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāḥah said, ‘Indeed, Messenger of Allah! Bring it to us in our gatherings. We like that!’ So the Muslims, idolaters and Jews abused one another until they were practically fighting. The Prophet ﷺ kept on calming them down until they were quiet.

Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ mounted his animal and went on to visit Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Sa‘d, did you hear what Abū Ḥubāb (meaning ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy) said? He said such-and-such.’ Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubāda said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, pardon him and overlook it. By the One who sent down the Book to you with the truth, Allah brought you with the truth which He sent down to you after the people of this little town had already agreed to crown him. When that was prevented on account the truth which Allah gave you, he was vexed because of that. That is why he did what you saw.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ pardoned him.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Companions used to pardon the idolaters and the People of the Book as Allah commanded them to do and they endured much harm from them. Allah says: ‘You will hear many abusive words from those given the Book before you and from those who are idolaters’ (3:186), and ‘Many of the People of the Book would love it...’

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ continued to pardon them as long as Allah commanded him to do so until the time when Allah gave permission to fight them. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went on the Badr expedition, Allah killed the nobles of Quraysh through him and Ibn Ubayy ibn Salūl and those of the idolaters and pagans with him, said, ‘This is a business which has proved to be victorious,’ and they gave allegiance to the Messenger of Allah in Islam, and became Muslim. The command of Allah was the killing of Qurayẓah and the exile of the Banū ’n-Naḍīr.

Any good you send ahead for yourselves, you will find with Allah.

We read in a hadith: ‘When someone dies, people ask, “What did he leave behind?” while the angels ask, “What did he send ahead?”’ Al-Bukhari and an-Nasā’ī transmitted that ‘Abdullāh [ibn Mas‘ūd] reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Which of you loves the property of his heir more than his own property?’ They said, ‘Messenger of Allah, there is none of who does not love his own property more than that of his heir?’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘No, there is none of you who does not love the property of his heir more than his own property. Your own property is what you send ahead and the property of your heir is what you leave behind.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb passed by the graveyard of Baqī‘ al-Gharqad and said, ‘Peace be upon you, people of the graves. The news with us is that your wives have married, your houses are lived in and your property has been divided up.’ An invisible voice answered him, ‘Ibn Khaṭṭāb! The news with us is that we have found what we sent ahead, profited from what we spent, and lost what we left behind.’ A poet said:

Send ahead righteous action before you die

and work. There is no path to immortality.

Another said:

Send ahead hopeful repentance for yourself

before you die and before tongues are tied.

Yet another said:

Your mother bore you weeping

while the people around you were laughing with joy.

Work for a day when they will weep

and you will be laughing with joy on the day of your death.

111 They say, ‘No one will enter the Garden except for Jews and Christians.’ Such is their vain hope. Say, ‘Produce your evidence if you are telling the truth.’ 112 Not so! All who submit themselves completely to Allah and are good-doers will find their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

They say, ‘No one will enter the Garden except for Jews and Christians.’

This means that the Jews said that none but Jews would enter the Garden and the Christians said that none but Christians would enter it.

Say, ‘Produce your evidence, if you are telling the truth.’

The burhān (evidence) referred to in this āyah is the kind which produces certainty. Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that the purpose of demanding evidence here is to confirm the truth and refute those who deny it. Rather than telling the truth, they are, in fact, lying about both their faith and also their statement concerning entering the Garden.

Not so! All who submit themselves completely to Allah

Aslama (submit) here means ‘to be humble and submit’ is said to mean to be sincere in action. The words ‘themselves completely’ is literally ‘their faces’ and is used because it is the noblest part of the human being and because it is the home of the senses and the place where might and abasement show themselves most clearly. For this reason the Arabs used the word ‘face’ to designate the entire person.

113 The Jews say, ‘The Christians have nothing to stand on,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have nothing to stand on,’ yet they both recite the Book. Those who do not know say the same as they say. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Rising regarding the things about which they differ.

The Jews say, ‘The Christians have nothing to stand on,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have nothing to stand on,’ yet they both recite the Book.

Each of them claims that the other group have nothing and that they are more entitled to mercy than them. ‘The Book’ means the Torah and the Gospel.

Those who do not know say the same as they say.

‘Those who do not know’ are said by the majority to be the unbelieving Arabs because they had no Book. ‘Aṭā’ said that what is meant are the nations before the Jews and Christians. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas said that it means: ‘That is what the Jews said before the Christians.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said that the reason for the revelation of this āyah was that some Christians of Najrān came to the Prophet ﷺ and the Jewish rabbis also came and they argued in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ each said this about the other.

114 Who could do greater wrong than someone who bars access to the mosques of Allah, preventing His name from being remembered in them, and goes about destroying them? Such people will never be able to enter them – except in fear. They will have disgrace in this world and in the Next World they will have a terrible punishment.

Who could do greater wrong than someone who bars access to the mosques of Allah, preventing His Name from being remembered in them,

By ‘mosques’ here Allah means either Jerusalem and the area around it or the Ka‘bah. The plural is used to honour the mosque because it is the qiblah for all other mosques. It is also said that what is meant are all mosques.

People disagree about what is meant by this āyah and about whom it was revealed. Some commentators said that it was revealed about Nebuchadnezzar because he destroyed Jerusalem. Ibn ‘Abbās and others say that it was revealed about the Christians and it means, ‘How, Christians, can you claim to be people of the Garden when you laid waste to Jerusalem and prevented those who pray from praying in it?’ In that case the sense of the āyah would be astonishment at what the Christians did to Jerusalem, in spite of their esteem for it, and that they did what they did out of their animosity towards the Jews. It is related that this devastation remained until the time of ‘Umar. It is said that it was revealed about the idolaters when they prevented the worshippers and the Prophet ﷺ from reaching the Sacred Mosque in the year of al-Ḥudaybīyah. It is said that what is meant is anyone who bars access to any mosque until the Day of Rising. That is sound because the expression is general, and Allah knows best.

The destruction of mosques can be actual, like the destruction wrought by Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem and also by the Christians when they attacked the tribe of Israel under one of their emperors (possibly Vespasian). They slaughtered the people, looted the city, burned the Torah, and put excrement in the Temple and destroyed it. But it can also have a metaphorical meaning, as the idolaters prevented the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from reaching the Sacred House. Or in general, it could mean letting mosques fall into disuse.

Our scholars said, ‘This āyah provides the legal basis for our ruling that it is not permitted to forbid a woman from making ḥajj if she has not performed it, whether or not she has a maḥram, nor should she be prevented from praying in mosques as long as it is it is not feared that that will be a cause of immoral behaviour. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Do not bar the female slaves of Allah from the mosques of Allah.”’

The āyah is also why it is said that it is not permitted to demolish a mosque, sell it, or to let it become unused, even if the town in which it is located falls into ruins. One should not forbid the construction of a mosque unless the aim of building it is to cause dissension, as would be the case when people build a mosque beside another mosque or close to it, and their intention is to cause dissension among the people of the first mosque and ruin it. In such a case, the second mosque should be destroyed and its construction forbidden. It is also why it is not permitted to have two Friday mosques in the same city, or two imāms in the same mosque, or two group prayers said in the same mosque. This will be explained in Sūrat at-Tawbah, Allah willing, and elsewhere. The āyah also indicates esteem for the prayer and that it is the best of actions and has the greatest reward, and that preventing it is the greatest of wrong actions.

Every place in which Allah is worshipped and prostrated to (sajada) is called a mosque (masjid). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The whole earth was made a mosque and is pure for me (to pray in).’ The Companions agreed that when an area is singled out for the prayer by a declaration, it is no longer private property and becomes public for all Muslims. If a man builds a mosque in his house and screens it off from people and singles it out for himself, it remains his property and does not become a mosque in the true sense of the word. If he opens it to everyone, its ruling is that of general mosques and it is no longer private property.

Such people will never be able to enter them – except in fear.

When the Muslims gain control of them and they are under their authority, then it will not be possible for the unbelievers to enter them, and, if they do enter them, it will be in fear that the Muslims will attack them and punish them for entering them. This is an indication that unbelievers should never be allowed to enter mosques as will come in Sūrat at-Tawbah, Allah willing. If the āyah is about the Christians, it is related that it points ahead to the time of ‘Umar’s reconstruction of Jerusalem after its conquest by the Muslims and his ruling that any Christian who enters the mosque of Jerusalem should be beaten, even though it had previously been their place of worship. If it is considered to be about Quraysh, it is said that it refers to the announcement made after the proclamation of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘After this year, no idolater should perform the ḥajj nor do ṭawāf of the House naked.’ It is said that what is meant is the command to struggle against them and eradicate them so that none of them enters Sacred Mosque except in fear. It is, in fact, a prohibition in the form of a report.

They will have disgrace in this world and in the Next World they will have a terrible punishment.

Qatādah reports that the word ‘disgrace’ refers to killing in the case of the ḥarbī, and jizyah in the case of the dhimmī. As-Suddī said that their disgrace in this world will be the coming of the Mahdī, and the conquest of ‘Amuriyya, Rumiyah, Constantinople and other cities. If it refers to Quraysh, it is said to refer to their disgrace at the Conquest of Makkah and the punishment in the Next World of those of them who died unbelievers.

115 Both East and West belong to Allah, so wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.

Both East and West belong to Allah,

East is where the sun rises and West is where it sets, so the āyah implies that all things are subject to Allah’s sovereignty, along with all the directions and creatures contained within them. He is the One who originated them and brought them into existence. These two directions — East and West — are singled out for connection to Him as a mark of honour, like ‘the House of Allah’, and because the reason for the revelation of the āyah dictates that, as will be made clear.

So wherever you tum, the Face of Allah is there.

Scholars disagree about the reason for the revelation of this āyah. There are five positions. ‘Āmir ibn Rabī‘ah says, ‘It was revealed about some people who prayed in a direction other than the qiblah on a dark night, as is transmitted by at-Tirmidhī: “We were with the Prophet ﷺ on a journey during a dark night and we did not know where the qiblah was. Each of us prayed according to his own devices. In the morning, we mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and this āyah was revealed.”’ Abū ‘Īsā said that this hadith lacks a proper isnād and we only know it from the hadith of Ash‘ath as-Sammān. Abū ar-Rabī‘ Ash‘ath ibn Sa‘īd is weak. But most of the people of knowledge accept the implied judgment and say that if someone prays on a cloudy day in a direction other than the qiblah and then it later becomes clear to him that he did not pray in the right direction, his prayer is allowed. That was stated by Sufyān, Ibn al-Mubārak, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. It is also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik, although Mālik says: ‘It is preferred for him to repeat (the prayer) within the time but that is not an obligation on him because he has performed his obligation as he was commanded to do. Perfection is to seek to correct it within the time and there is evidence in the sunnah in the case of someone who prayed alone and then caught that prayer in its time in the group. He repeated it with them. It is only recommended for someone to repeat it if he had his back to the qiblah or faced a direction very much away from the qiblah. If, by his ijtihād, he was only a little to the right or left, he does not need to repeat it either in the time or after the time.’

Al-Mughīrah and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that such a prayer is invalid because facing the qiblah is one of the preconditions of the prayer. What Mālik said is sounder because the direction of qiblah can be abandoned out of necessity in hand-to-hand combat and is also permitted as a dispensation while travelling. Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘It was revealed about travellers who turn wherever their mounts turn.’ Muslim transmitted it. He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray on his camel going from Makkah to Madīnah whatever the direction the camel was facing. About that was revealed: “…so wherever you tum, the Face of Allah is there.”’ There is no disagreement between scholars that it is permitted to pray nāfilah prayers while mounted, going by this hadith. No one, however, is permitted to deliberately abandon qiblah in a farḍ prayer for any other direction, unless that is due to intense fear.

Mālik has differing opinions about someone who is ill and prays on his litter. In one opinion he says that he may not pray a farḍ prayer on the back of a camel, even if he is very ill. Saḥnūn said, ‘If he does that, he should repeat the prayer.’ He said on another occasion, ‘If he is one of those who can only pray on the ground using gestures, then he can pray on the camel after it has been halted and made to face qiblah.’ They agree that it is not valid for anyone who is healthy to pray a farḍ prayer except on the ground, unless he is in a state of fear.

Fuqahā’ disagree about a traveller on a journey in which the prayer cannot be shortened. Mālik and his people and ath-Thawrī said, ‘There can be no voluntary prayers on a camel except during a journey on which the prayer may be shortened, because all the journeys which are reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in which he performed nāfilah prayers were those during which the prayer may be shortened. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d and Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī said that it is permitted to perform nāfilah prayers while mounted outside a city on a journey of any length, whether or not the prayer may be shortened, because the reports do not specify one journey rather than another, so it is permitted in every journey.

Abū Yūsuf said that it is even permitted to pray mounted in a city using gestures going by a report in which Anas ibn Mālik prayed on a donkey in an alley in Madīnah using gestures. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘It is permitted for every rider or walker, resident or travelling, to perform nāfilah prayers while mounted or on his feet using gestures.’ Al-Athram said, ‘Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was asked about praying on a mount while resident. He answered, “I have heard about doing that while on a journey. I have not heard about it while resident.”’ Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘Someone who performs nāfilah on a camel-litter performs them while seated. His standing is cross-legged. He bows, placing his hands on his knees and then lifts his head.’

Qatādah said, ‘It was revealed about the Negus. When he died, the Prophet ﷺ called the Muslims to pray over him outside Madīnah. They said, “How can we pray over a man who has died? He prayed to other than our qiblah.” The Negus was the King of Abyssinia. His name was Aṣḥamah which means “gift”. He was praying towards Jerusalem when he died after the qiblah has been changed to the Ka‘bah. So the āyah was revealed. Also revealed about him was: “Among the People of the Book there are some who believe in Allah.” (3:199) So this was an excuse for the Negus.’

The prayer that the Prophet ﷺ prayed with his Companions was in 9 AH. This is used as evidence by those who permit praying over someone who is absent. That was the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. One of the stranger points about the prayer over the dead person is what ash-Shāfi‘ī said: ‘One prays over someone who is absent. I was in Baghdad in the gathering of Fakhr ’d-dīn [ar-Rāzī]. A man from Khorasan entered and he asked, “How is so-and-so?” He told him, “He has died.” He exclaimed, “We belong to Him and to Him we return!” Then he told us, “Get up and pray for him.” He got up and led us in the prayer for him. That was six months after his death, the distance it took to travel between the two lands.’

We believe that the basis for that is the prayer of the Prophet ﷺ over the Negus. Our scholars, however, say that that was especially for the Prophet ﷺ for three reasons. The first is that the earth was flattened for him, north and south, so that he could see the bier of the Negus as he was able to see the al-Aqṣā Mosque. Those who disagree say that there was no point in seeing him; the benefit is in conveying his blessing. The second is that the Negus had no relative among the Muslims to perform the prayer for him. Those who disagree about this say that it is impossible for a king following a religion not to have followers. The third reason is that the Prophet ﷺ wanted to pray over the Negus to bring him mercy and seek the friendship of the kings after him since they saw his concern for him when he was alive and after his death. Those who disagree say that the blessing of the supplication of the Prophet ﷺ and others is agreed to reach the deceased. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘What I think about the Prophet’s prayer over the Negus is because he knew that the Negus and those who believed along with him did not have any report about how the funeral prayer was performed and knew that they would bury him without it. That is why he hastened to perform the prayer for him.’

The first interpretation is better because if he actually could see him, then he was not praying over someone absent. He was praying over someone present that he could see. Someone absent is not seen. Allah knows best.

Ibn Zayd said, ‘The Jews recommended to the Prophet ﷺ that he should pray facing Jerusalem. When he did, they said, “He was only guided by us.” Then, when the qiblah was changed to the Ka‘bah, the Jews said, “What has turned them from their qiblah they used to face?” and this āyah was revealed.’ According to this position, there is a sequence in the events leading up to it. When the Jews objected to the qiblah changing, Allah Almighty made it clear that He makes His slaves worship however He wishes. If He wishes, He commands them to face Jerusalem, and if He wishes, He commands them to face the Ka‘bah. He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.

Another view is that this āyah is abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘Wherever you come from, turn your face to the Masjid al-Ḥarām.’ (2:149) Ibn ‘Abbās said that it seems that in the beginning a man prayed in whatever direction he wished to and then that was abrogated. Qatādah says that the āyah which abrogated it was: ‘Turn your face, therefore, towards the Masjid al-Ḥarām.’ (2:144) Abū ‘Īsā at-Tirmidhī related it.

Yet another view related from Mujāhid and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk is that it remains a firm ruling. It means: wherever you are in the east or the west, there is the face of Allah which you are commanded to face and that is the direction of the Ka‘bah. Mujāhid and Ibn Jubayr said that when ‘Call on Me and I will answer you’ (40:60) was revealed, people asked, ‘Where?’ and ‘so wherever you tum, the Face of Allah is there’ was revealed. Ibn ‘Umar and an-Nakha‘ī said, ‘Wherever you tum on your journeys and when moving about, the face of Allah is there.’ It is further said that it is connected to Allah’s words in the previous āyah (2:114) ‘Who could do greater wrong?’ and means: ‘O believers, the lands of Allah are vast enough for you, so those who ruin the mosques of Allah cannot prevent you from turning your faces towards Allah’s qiblah no matter where you are on the earth.’ It is said that when the Prophet ﷺ was barred from the House in the Year of al-Ḥudaybīyah, the Muslims were saddened by that.

Those who say that it is abrogated say that there is no objection to that inasmuch as it is a report because it can convey the meaning of a command. It is possible that ‘wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there’ can mean ‘towards the Face of Allah.

People disagree about the interpretation of the word ‘wajh’ (Face) as ascribed to Allah Almighty in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Astute scholars say that it refers to created existence and is used for it as a metaphor, since the face is the most apparent part of the body and the most sublime. Ibn Fūrak said, ‘The attribute of the thing is mentioned and it is meant to designate the One described by it. The expression “having a face” means that something has existence.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Face designates Allah Himself as He says: “but the Face of your Lord will remain, Master of Majesty and Generosity” (55:27).’ Some imams say that this designation should be affirmed when it is heard, even if it contradicts what intellects demand of attributes that are appropriate for the Eternal. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that this is weak and what is actually meant is Allah’s existence. It is also said that it means the direction which one faces, in other words, the qiblah, and it is also said that it means what you aim at.

Another opinion is that the word ‘wajh’ (Face), as ascribed to Allah, means: ‘Wherever the pleasure of Allah lies and His reward,’ going by Allah’s words: ‘We feed you only out of desire for the Face of Allah.’ (76:9), meaning in order to please Him and seek His reward, and by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘If anyone builds a mosque by which he desires the Face of Allah, Allah will build for him its like in the Garden.’ He said, ‘On the Day of Rising a sealed page will be brought and set before Allah Almighty. The Almighty will say to the angels, “Take this away and bring that one.” The angels will say, “By Your might, we only saw good!” He Who knows best will say, “This was for other than My Face. I only accept actions that were done for My Face,”’ i.e. by those that were sincere. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. It is said that it means: ‘Allah is there’ and ‘wajh’ is connective. Al-Kalbī and al-Qutabī said that. It is like what the Mu‘tazilites say.

Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.

He gives His slaves latitude in their dīn and does not oblige them to do anything which is beyond their capacity. It is said that ‘All-Encompassing’ means that His knowledge encompasses everything, as in Allah‘s words: ‘He encompasses everything in knowledge.’ (20:98) Al-Farrā’ said that the name All-Encompassing indicates the Generous whose giving encompasses everything as in Allah’s words: ‘My mercy encompasses everything.’ (7:156) It is said that His forgiveness is all-encompassing. It is said that He is gracious to His slaves and has no need of their actions.

116 They say, ‘Allah has a son.’ Glory be to Him! No, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him. Everything is obedient to Him.

They say, ‘Allah has a son.’ Glory be to Him!

This refers to what the Christians say about the Messiah being the son of God. It is also said that it refers to the Jews’ statement about ‘Uzayr being the son of God. It is said that it is about the unbelieving Arabs who say that the angels are the daughters of Allah. These points will be discussed in Sūrat Maryam and Sūrat al-Anbiyā’.

Al-Bukhārī transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty says, “The son of Ādam has denied Me and he has no right to do that. He has abused Me and he has no right to do that. He denies Me by claiming that I cannot bring him back as he was. He abuses Me by saying that I have a child. I am too glorious to take a consort or child.”’

The word word subḥāna (Glory be) mean ‘to declare free of’ and ‘to disconnect’. It declares the impossibility of their statement that Allah has a son. Allah is unique in His Essence, One in His attributes. He has not had a child, obviating the need for him to have a consort: ‘How could He have a son when He has no wife.’ (6:101) He was not born, obviating the need for something to have existed before Him. He is greatly exalted above what the wrongdoers and deniers say. A child is always of the same genus as his parent and so how could Allah – glory be to Him! – have a son among His creatures when nothing is like Him? The nature of a child is to be of the same species and in-time while timelessness necessitates oneness and permanence. He is Timeless, Pre-eternal, One, Unique. Alone, the Everlasting Sustainer of all. No one is comparable to Him.

Everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him

There is nothing which He did not originate and bring into existence.

Everything is obedient to Him.

Qānit (obedient) means submissive and compliant. All creatures are subjected to Allah. The obedience of inanimate things is in the manifestation of the work done on them and by them. Qunūt means obedience as well as meaning silence. Zayd ibn Arqam said, ‘We used to speak in the prayer, a man speaking to the man at his side, until it reached: “Stand in obedience to Allah.” (2:238) We were commanded to be silent and forbidden to talk.’ Qunūt is the prayer. As-Suddī and others said that it means that everyone will stand in obedience to Him on the Day of Rising. Al-Ḥasan said that it means that everyone undertakes to testify that they are His slave. Qunūt linguistically means standing, as az-Zajjāj said. The āyah means: creatures are obedient, undertake slavehood, either by conscious admission or, if they do not consciously obey, the effect of Allah’s action becomes clear on them. It is also said that the root meaning is ‘obedience’.

117 The Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.

The Originator of the heavens and earth.

The form used for the name ‘the Originator’ is one that gives extra emphasis to the meaning. To originate something is to bring it into existence without any prior model. This means that Allah brought the heavens and the earth into existence and fashioned them without any previous model. Anyone who makes something not previously thought of is called an originator. The verb is the source of the term bid‘ah which means innovation. It is called that because the one who does it innovates something which was not previously done or enunciated by any qualified imam.

No innovation issuing from a creature can have a basis in the Sharī‘ah. If it has any basis at all it may fall under the category of recommended actions. If it is praiseworthy, even if it has no precedent, like some type of generosity or other good deed, it may well be a praiseworthy action, even if no one has done it before. This is supported by the words of ‘Umar regarding the tarāwīḥ prayer, ‘This is an excellent innovation’, since it was a good and praiseworthy action. The Prophet ﷺ prayed it, and then left it and did not continue doing it and people did not gather for it. ‘Umar reinstated it and people gathered for it and he recommended it to them as an innovation, but a praiseworthy one.

Anything which is contrary to what Allah and His Messenger commanded is categorically repudiated and blameworthy and this is what is being referred to by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he said in his khuṭbah, ‘The worst of matters are the new ones, and every innovation (bid‘ah) is misguidance,’ meaning anything which is not in keeping with the Book or the Sunnah or the practice of the Companions. The matter is made even clearer by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Anyone who innovates a good sunnah in Islam has its reward and the reward of whoever does it after him without that decreasing his reward in any way. Anyone who innovates a bad sunnah in Islam bears its burden and the burden of whoever acts by it after him without that decreasing his burden in any way.’ So innovations can be good or bad, and this is the basic principle regarding this matter. Protection and success are by Allah. There is no Lord but Him.

When He decides on something, He just says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.

This means that, when He desires to complete something and make it perfect in accordance with His perfect knowledge of it, He says to it, ‘Be!’ Ibn ‘Arafah said, ‘Allah’s decision on a thing entails perfecting it, carrying it out and finishing it. That is why a judge is called a qāḍī, because, when he decides on a judgment, the quarrel is ended.’ Al-Azharī said that the verb qaḍā (decide) has various meanings. Its root meaning means to finish something and complete it.

Our scholars say that qaḍā is a word with various meanings. It can mean ‘to create’ as in Allah’s words: ‘…He determined (qaḍāhunna) them as seven heavens’ (41:12), meaning ‘created them’. It can mean ‘to inform’ as in: ‘We decreed (qaḍaynā) for the tribe of Israel in the Book’ (17:4), and it can mean to command as in: ‘Your Lord has decreed (qaḍā) that you should worship none but Him.’ (17:23) It can mean to force a judgment to be carried out which is why a judge is called a qāḍī. It can mean to settle a right in full as in: ‘When Mūsā had fulfilled (qaḍā) the appointed term’ (28:29), and it can also mean ‘to will’, meaning ‘to decide or want’ as in: ‘When He decides on (qaḍā) something, He just says to it, “Be!” and it is.’ (40:67) Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says it means ‘determine’. According to the people of the Sunnīs, the āyah has both meanings: He determined it before time and then carried it out. According to the Mu‘tazilites: He determined when He created and brought into existence.

The word translated here as ‘something’ (amr), which generally means a command or a matter, is used in the Qur’an in different ways to mean various things: Islam: ‘Until the truth came and Allah’s command prevailed’ (9:48), meaning here the dīn of Islam; word: ‘When Our command comes’ and ‘they argued among themselves about the matter.’ (20:62); punishment: ‘When the affair is decided’ (14:22) meaning the punishment becomes mandatory; the Prophet ‘Īsā: Allah says: ‘When He decides on something’ (3:47) meaning, in this instance, ‘Īsā, whom He knew would be born without having had a father; the killing of the unbelievers at Badr: Allah says: ‘When Allah’s command comes’ (40:78), meaning the killing which would take place at Badr. And again: ‘So that Allah could settle a matter whose result was preordained’ (8:42) referring to the killing of the unbelievers of Makkah; the conquest of Makkah: Allah says: ‘Wait until Allah brings about His command’ (9:24), meaning the Conquest of Makka; the killing of the Jewish tribe of Qurayẓah and the nobles of the tribe of an-Naḍīr: Allah says: ‘Pardon and overlook until Allah gives His command’ (2:109), referring to the Jewish enemies of the Muslims in Madīnah; the Day of Rising: Allah says: ‘Allah’s command is coming.’ (16:1); the Decree: Allah says: ‘He directs the whole affair’ (10:3), meaning what He has decreed; Revelation: Allah says: ‘He directs the whole affair from heaven to earth.’ (32:5) Revelation descends from heaven to earth. And He says: ‘The Command descending down through all of them’ (65:12), meaning Divine Revelation; command over creation: Allah says: ‘Indeed all matters return eventually to Him’ (42:53), meaning the affairs of every creature; victory: Allah says: ‘They say, “Do we have any say in the affair at all?”’ (3:154), meaning victory. ‘The affair belongs entirely to Allah’ (3:154), meaning victory; wrong action: Allah says: ‘They tasted the evil consequences of what they did (amrihim)’ (65:9), meaning the repayment for their wrong actions; action: Allah says: ‘Pharaoh’s command was not rightly guided’ (11:97); and He says: ‘Those who oppose His command should beware’ (24:63), meaning the action of the Prophet ﷺ.

The Divine command ‘kun’ (Be!) is what is meant by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I seek refuge in the complete Word (or Words) of Allah from the evil of what He created.’ This is also indicated in what is related by Abū Dharr from the Prophet ﷺ that Allah said in a ḥadīth qudsī: ‘My gift is words and My punishment is words.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it in a long hadith. So ‘word’ can mean ‘words’, but when one word is used for different matters at different times, it becomes words, even if it goes back to one word.

Depending on how the grammar is taken, there are two possible ways of looking at the phrase fa-yakūnu (‘and it is’). The first is that the thing comes into being after the command. Even if it was non-existent, it has the same status as something existent, because Allah already ‘knew’ it as will be explained. According to the second view, the thing comes into being simultaneously with the command, and aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that. He said, ‘His command to the thing does not have prior or later existence.’ The thing commanded to exist only exists by the command, and there is nothing which exists except that it has been commanded to exist, as will be explained. He said, ‘It is like when people rise from their graves. Allah’s summons (30:25) is neither earlier nor later, it is at the moment when He calls them.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says this is weak and incorrect in respect of the meaning because it would necessitate the word to be accompanied by bringing into being and existence.

To summarise what is deduced from this āyah: Allah Almighty continues to command non-existent things to come into existence. He decrees and can delay decreed things and He is All-Knowing and can delay known things. The entire āyah demands futurity, required by the things commanded, since temporal things come into being after they were not. All depends on Allah’s Power and Knowledge. He is timeless and continues forever. The meaning of the Divine command ‘Be!’, however, is timeless and connected to the Essence.

Al-Māwardī says, ‘It might be asked, “In what state were the things to which He said ‘“Be” and it is’ – non-existence or existence? If it was in a state of non-existence, it is impossible that He command other than what is commanded, as it is impossible for the command to issue from other than the One who commands. If it is the state of its existence, that state cannot have existence or temporality commanded for it because it is already a temporal existent?” There are three answers to this question:

‘One is that it is a report from Allah regarding the carrying out of His commands in His existing creation, as when He commanded the tribe of Israel to become apes, in which case it is not about bringing something non-existent into existence.

‘The second is that Allah knows every being before it is and so the things which do not yet actually exist are already in His prior knowledge of them. So they are similar to what exists and it is permissible to say, “Be!” to them and to command them to emerge from the state of non-existence to the state of existence, since He has conceived of them and has knowledge of them in the state of non-existence.

‘The third is that it is a general report from Allah about what He brings into being and forms when He desires to create it and bring it into being. It is His Decree which is designated by the word “Be!”, even if it is not an actual word.’

118 Those who do not know say, ‘If only Allah would speak to us, or some sign come to us!’ just like those before them who said the same as they say. Their hearts are much the same. We have made the Signs clear for people who have certainty.

Ibn ‘Abbās said that ‘those who do not know’ are the Jews while Mujāhid said that it is the Christians who are being referred to, which aṭ-Ṭabarī prefers because they are mentioned immediately before this āyah. Ar-Rabī‘, as-Suddī and Qatādah say that it is the Arab idolaters who said these words, claiming that they would become believers if this were to happen. ‘Their hearts are much the same’ as the hearts of those before them in respect of obstinacy, brashness and lack of faith. Al-Farrā’ said that it is because they agree in disbelief.

119 We have sent you with the Truth, bringing good news and giving warning. Do not ask about the inhabitants of the Blazing Fire. Do not ask about the inhabitants of the Blazing Fire.

Muqātil said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If Allah were to send down His violent force on the Jews, they would have faith,’ and then Allah revealed this. It is said that the reason for this was that the Prophet was asked about the state of his ancestors and this āyah was revealed.

There are two readings of the word ‘ask’. Nāfi‘ has it as tas’al, the apocopate form as a prohibition, meaning ‘Do not ask’. The others have it as tus’alu, ‘You will not be asked’. There are two aspects to the Nāfi‘ reading. One is that it forbids asking about the living person who has disobeyed Allah and disbelieved because their state might change and they might still becomes believers and obedient. The second, which is most likely, is that it forbids asking about those who have died in disbelief and disobedience, making their circumstances grave. It is as you say, ‘Do not ask about so-and-so! He is worse than you can imagine!’

120 The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion. Say, ‘Allah’s guidance is the true guidance.’ If you were to follow their whims and desires, after the knowledge that has come to you, you would find no protector or helper against Allah.

The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion.

Allah is telling His Messenger that it is not the goal of the Jews and Christians to gain faith by their queries about the āyahs. Even if he were to bring them everything they asked for, they would still not be pleased with him. They will not be pleased until he abandons Islam and follows them. The word millah (religion) means what Allah has prescribed for His slaves in His Books and on the tongues of His Messengers and so millah and Sharī‘ah are very similar in meaning. There is a difference between the words dīn, millah and sharī‘ah. Millah and sharī‘ah designate what Allah orders His slaves to do and dīn is what the slaves actually make of Allah’s commands to them.

A group of scholars, including Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Dāwūd and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, hold the view that, according to this āyah, all disbelief constitutes one religion since the Almighty says: ‘your religion’, which is singular, and He says: ‘You have your dīn and I have my dīn’ (109:6) and the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The people of two religions do not inherit from one another.’ What is meant is Islam as the Prophet ﷺ also said, ‘A Muslim does not inherit from an unbeliever.’ Mālik and Aḥmad in another transmission believe that disbelief consists of several different religions and so a Jew does not inherit from a Christian and neither of them inherit from a Magian, taking the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ literally. The word millah here means a multiplicity of beliefs, even though it is singular.

Say, ‘Allah’s guidance is the true guidance.’

This means: ‘O Muḥammad, what you have of the true guidance of Allah, which He places in the heart of whomever He wishes, is the true guidance, not what these people claim.’

If you were to follow their whims and desires,

There are two aspects to the use of the second person here. One is that it is addressed to the Messenger ﷺ alone; and the second is that while it is addressed to the Messenger ﷺ, it is his Community that is meant. According to the first aspect, it means to discipline Community since their position is less than his. The reason for the āyah was that the idolaters were asking for a truce while continuing to attack the Prophet ﷺ and Islam. So Allah informed him that they would not be pleased until he followed their religion and He commanded jihād against them.

after the knowledge that has come to you,

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was asked about the one who says that the Qur’an is created. He said, ‘He is an unbeliever.’ It was asked, ‘On what basis is he an unbeliever?’ He said, ‘By the āyahs of the Book of Allah: “If you were to follow their whims and desires after the knowledge that has come to you.” This shows that the Qur’an is part of Allah’s knowledge and so whoever claims it is created is an unbeliever.’

121 Those to whom We have given the Book, who recite it in the way it should be recited, such people believe in it. As for those who reject it, they are the losers. 122 Tribe of Israel! remember the blessing I conferred on you, and that I preferred you over all other beings. 123 Have fear of a Day when no self will be able to compensate for another in any way, and no ransom will be accepted from it, and no intercession benefit it, and they will not be helped.

Those to whom We have given the Book,

Qatādah said that they are the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and the Book is the Qur’an. Ibn Zayd said, ‘They are those of the tribe of Israel who became Muslim, and so the Book is the Torah.’ The āyah is, in fact, general.

who recite it in the way it should be recited,

There is disagreement about the meaning of the āyah. It is said that it means they follow the Book as it should be followed by obeying its commands and avoiding its prohibitions, observing the ḥudūd and the unlawful and in general acting according to what it contains, as ‘Ikrimah said. ‘Ikrimah also said, ‘In the words of Allah Almighty: “The moon when it follows it” (91:2), the word talā – which in the āyah means “recite” – means “to follow”, and that is what Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Mas‘ūd said.’ Ibn ‘Umar said that these words of Allah mean, ‘They follow it as it should be followed.’ According to al-Khaṭīb Abū Bakr Aḥmad, its isnād contains more than one unknown transmitter, but its meaning is sound. Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī said, ‘If someone diligently studies the Qur’an, it will bring him into the meadows of Paradise.’

‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘They are those who, when they read an āyah of mercy, ask Allah for it, and when they read an āyah of punishment, seek refuge from it.’ This understanding was reported in connection with the Prophet ﷺ. It was said of him that when, in the course of his recitation, he recited an āyah of mercy, he asked for it and when he recited an āyah of punishment, he sought refuge from it. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘They are those who know its āyahs of judgment, believe its ambiguous āyahs, and entrust what is unclear in them to the Knower.’ It is said that it means ‘they recite it properly’, but this is unlikely, unless it means they pronounce its phrases slowly and understand its meanings. One understands meanings by following them.

124 Remember when Ibrāhīm was tested by his Lord with certain words which he carried out completely. He said, ‘I will make you a model for mankind.’ He asked, ‘And what of my descendants?’ He said, ‘My contract does not include the wrongdoers.’

Remember when Ibrāhīm was tested by his Lord with certain words which he carried out completely.

Since the Ka‘bah and qiblah are shortly going to be mentioned, this section is linked to Ibrāhīm who is the one who built the House. Part of the duty of the Jews, who are the descendants of Ibrāhīm, is not to tum away from his dīn. The ‘testing’ referred to was by commands and acts of worship. Ibrāhīm is a Syriac name, meaning ‘merciful father’ as al-Māwardī and Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah mentioned. As-Suhaylī said, ‘Often there is agreement between Syriac and Arabic, or the words are very similar.’ Do you not see that Ibrāhīm was merciful to children? That is why he and his wife, Sārah, are entrusted with the care of the children of believers who die young until the Day of Rising? This is indicated by what al-Bukhārī transmitted about the long hadith of the vision reported from Samurah. In it the Prophet ﷺ said that Ibrāhīm was in the meadow surrounded by people’s children.

Ibrāhīm was the son of Terath son of Nahor according to some commentators. The Revelation has: ‘When Ibrāhīm said to his father, Āzar.’ (6:74) That is also what we find in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. There is no contradiction as we discuss later. According to as-Suhaylī, he had four sons: Ismā‘īl, Isḥāq, Madyan and Madā’in.

The ‘words’ referred to are, in reality, the words of the Creator but they are considered to be the tasks which He imposed on Ibrāhīm. Since the means of their imposition was through words, they are called words, just as Jesus is also called a word since He issued from the word ‘Be!’ A thing can be called metaphorically by what it resulted from. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that.

Scholars disagree about what is meant by these ‘words’ (kalimāt). One position is that they are the laws of Islam and that they entail thirty qualities:

Ten are in Sūrat at-Tawbah: ‘Those who make sincere repentance, those who worship, those who praise, those who fast, those who bow, those who prostrate, those who command what is known to be right, those who forbid what is recognised as wrong, those who preserve the limits of Allah: give good news to the believers.’ (9:112)

Ten are in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb: ‘Men and women who are Muslims, men and women who are believers, men and women who are obedient, men and women who are truthful, men and women who are steadfast, men and women who are humble, men and women who give ṣadaqa, men and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts, men and women who remember Allah much: Allah has prepared forgiveness for them and an immense reward.’ (33:35)

And ten are in Sūrat al-Mu’minūn: ‘It is the believers who are successful: those who are humble in their prayer; those who tum away from worthless talk; those who pay zakāt; those who guard their private parts except from their wives, or those they own as slaves, in which case they are not blameworthy – but those who desire anything more than that are people who have gone beyond the limits – those who honour their trusts and their contracts; those who safeguard their prayer.’ (23:1-9)

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Allah did not test any person who fulfilled every one of these qualities except for Ibrāhīm. He was tested by Islam and fulfilled it completely. Allah exonerated him and said: “Ibrāhīm who paid his dues in full.” (53:37)’ Some said that it means the command and prohibition. Another said that the test was sacrificing his son. Yet another said it means carrying out the Message. The ideas are close to one another. Mujāhid said, ‘It refers to the words of the Almighty to Ibrāhīm. Ibrāhīm said, “Will You make me a model for mankind?” “Yes,” He said. He asked, “And what of my descendants?” He said, “My contract does not include the wrongdoers.” Ibrāhīm asked, “Will You make the House a place of return for people?” “Yes,” He answered. He asked, “And a sanctuary?” “Yes,” He said. He said, “Will You show us our rites of worship and turn towards us?” “Yes,” He answered. He asked, “Will You provide its inhabitants with fruits?” “Yes,” He said. So according to this position, Allah Almighty is the one who carried out His own words.’

Sounder than this is what Ṭāwus reported that Ibn ‘Abbās said about this matter: ‘Allah tested him by acts of purification: five connected with the head and five with the body. They are, in respect of the head trimming the moustache, rinsing the mouth, snuffing water up the nose, using the siwāk, and parting the hair; and in respect of the body they are clipping the nails, shaving the pubes, circumcision, plucking the underarms, and washing the site of faeces and urine with water.’ According to this position, the one who carried out the words was Ibrāhīm. It is the literal meaning of the Qur’an.

Maṭar related from Abu-l-Jald that there are ten although there is a difference: instead of parting the hair, there is washing the knuckles, and instead of washing the site of faeces and urine there is shaving the pubes with a razor. Qatādah said that they are the practices of the Ḥajj. Al-Ḥasan said that they are six things: rejecting first the planets, then the moon, then the sun, being thrown into the fire, emigration and circumcision. Az-Zajjāj said that these reports are not contradictory because all of them are part of what Ibrāhīm was tested with.

We see in the Muwaṭṭā’ and elsewhere that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib was heard to say, ‘Ibrāhīm was the first to be circumcised, the first to give hospitality, the first to make a mosque, the first to clip his nails, the first to trim the moustache, and the first to have white hair. When he saw the white hair, he asked, “What is this?” Allah answered, “Gravity.” He said, “Lord, increase me in gravity!”’ Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned from Sa‘īd ibn Ibrāhīm that his father said, “The first to give a khuṭbah on a minbar was Ibrāhīm, the Friend of Allah.” Someone else said that he was the first to make a meat stew, the first to strike with a sword, the first to use siwāk, the first to use water in the lavatory and the first to wear trousers. Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If I adopt a minbar, my father Ibrāhīm adopted it. If I take a staff, my father Ibrāhīm used it.’ All these things will be dealt with in their proper place.

Scholars agree that Ibrāhīm was the first to be circumcised. There is disagreement about the age at which the circumcision took place. In the Muwaṭṭā’ Abū Hurayrah is reported in a mawqūf report as stating that he was 120 and lived for eighty years after that. Something like this would not be stated based on mere opinion. Al-Awzā‘ī related it marfū‘ from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib. Abū ‘Umar mentioned it. Others relate that it was done at the age of eighty and was carried out with an adze.

Scholars disagree about the legal status of circumcision. The majority say that it is a confirmed sunnah and part of the natural patterning of Islam which men should not abandon. A group say that it is obligatory since Allah says: ‘Follow the religion of Ibrāhīm, a man of pure natural faith.’ (2:123) Qatādah said that that refers to circumcision and some Mālikīs believe that. That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Some of our people argue on the basis of what al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭa’ah related from Abu-l-Malỉḥ from his father from Shaddād ibn Awas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Circumcision is sunnah for men, and honour for women.’ Al-Ḥajjāj is not someone who is used as authority.

Part of what is considered authoritative about this matter is the hadith of Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The natural form (fiṭrah) consists of five: circumcision…’ Abū Dāwūd related from Umm ‘Aṭiyyah that a woman used to circumcise women in Madỉnah. The Prophet ﷺ told her, ‘Do not cut a lot. That is better for the woman and more liked by her husband.’ Abū Dāwūd said that this hadith is weak. It contains someone unknown. A boy born with no foreskin is spared circumcision. Al-Maymūnī said, ‘I said to Aḥmad, “This is a man who was born circumcised. He is very grieved about it.” He said, “Allah has spared him the burden. What is he unhappy about?”’

Abu-l-Faraj al-Jawzī said that Ka‘b al-Aḥbār said, ‘Thirteen Prophets were created circumcised: Ādam, Shīth, Idrīs, Nūḥ, Sām, Lūṭ, Yūsuf, Mūsā, Shu‘ayb, Sulaymān, Yaḥyā, ‘Īsā and the Prophet ﷺ.” Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb al-Hāshimī said that there were fourteen: Ādam, Shīth, Nūḥ, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Lūṭ, Shu‘ayb, Yūsuf, Mūsā, Sulaymān, Zakariyyā, ‘Īsā, Ḥanẓalah ibn Ṣafwān (the Prophet of the people of ar-Rass) and the Prophet ﷺ.

There are differing reports about the Prophet ﷺ. Ḥāfiẓ Abū Nu‘aym said in Kitāb al-ḥilyah with an isnād that the Prophet ﷺ was born uncircumcised. In at-Tamhīd Abū ‘Umar has an isnād from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad from Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā from Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb al-‘Allāf from Muḥammad ibn Abī as-Sariyy al-‘Asqallānī from al-Walīd ibn Muslim from Shu‘ayb from ‘Aṭā’ al-Khurāsāni from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib circumcised the Prophet ﷺ on the seventh day, prepared a feast for him and named him ‘Muḥammad’. Abū ‘Umar said that it is a hadith with a strange isnād. Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb said, ‘I looked for this hadith and did not find it with any of the people of hadith I met except for Ibn Abī as-Sariyy.’ Abū ‘Umar remarked that it is said that the Prophet ﷺ was born uncircumcised.

There is disagreement about when a boy should be circumcised. It is confirmed in reports from a group of scholars that Ibrāhīm circumcised Ismā‘īl at the age of thirteen and circumcised his son Isaac at the age of seven days. It is related from Fāṭimah that she circumcised her son on the seventh day. Mālik objected to that and said that it is part of Jewish practice. Ibn Wahb mentioned it from him. Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said, ‘A child is circumcised between the age of seven and ten.’ Ibn Wahb related the like from Mālik. Aḥmad said, ‘I have not heard anything about this.’ We find in al-Bukhārī that Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās was asked, “What were you like when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died?” He said, “I was still uncircumcised that day.”’ He said, ‘They used not to circumcise a male until he had reached puberty, or shortly before.’

Scholars recommend that an adult male should be circumcised. ‘Aṭā’ used to say that a man’s Islam is not complete until he is circumcised, even if he is eighty. It is related that al-Ḥasan allowed an old man who becomes Muslim to not be circumcised and he saw no harm in him, his testimony, slaughtering, ḥajj and prayer. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘This is what most of the people of knowledge believe. The hadith of Buraydah about the ḥajj of an uncircumcised man is not confirmed.’ It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir ibn Zayd and ‘Ikrimah that the animals slaughtered by someone uncircumcised are not eaten and his testimony is not accepted.

With regard to clipping the nails, Mālik said, ‘It is recommended for women to clip their nails and shave their pubes just as it is for men.’ Al-Ḥārith ibn Miskīn and Saḥnūn mentioned it from Ibn al-Qāsim. At-Tirmidhī mentioned in Nawādir al-uṣūl from ‘Umar ibn Ibn ‘Umar from Ibrāhīm ibn al-‘Alā’ az-Zubaydī that ‘Umar ibn Bilāl al-Fazārī heard ‘Abdullāh ibn Bishr al-Māzinī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Cut your nails and bury the clippings. Clean your knuckles. Cleans your gums of food and brush your teeth. Do not visit me stinking.’

Trimming the moustache involves cutting it back a little so that the edge of the lip appears but not removing it completely, which constitutes self-mutilation according to Mālik. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam reported that he said, ‘I think that someone who shaves off his moustache should be disciplined.’ Ashhab said that Mālik said about shaving it, ‘It is an innovation and I think that the one who does it should be beaten.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād said that Mālik said, ‘I think that someone who shaves should be painfully beaten.’ This seems to be because he viewed it as self-mutilation. The same is true about plucking it out. It is better to trim it than shave.

It is related that the Prophet ﷺ used to trim his nails and moustache before he went to Jumu‘ah. Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī said, ‘We did not find any text from ash-Shāfi‘ī on that. His companions whom we saw, namely al-Muzanī and ar-Rabī‘, used to trim their moustaches. That indicates that they took that from ash-Shāfi‘ī.’ He said that the school of Abū Ḥanīfah, Zafar, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad was that it was better to trim the hair and moustache close than to shorten it. Ibn Khuwayzimandād mentioned that the school of ash-Shāfi‘ī was to shave the moustache as was the school of Abū Ḥanīfah. Abū Bakr al-Athram said, ‘I saw that Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal trimmed his moustache a lot. I heard him being asked about the sunnah of trimming the moustache and he said, “It is trimmed as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Trim the moustache.’”’

Abū Bakr said that there are two basic principles here: one is trimming, which is a word subject to interpretation, and the other is shortening it, which is explanatory. That which is explained trumps that which is subject to interpretation. That was the practice of the people of Madīnah, and it is the most appropriate thing that is said about this topic. At-Tirmidhī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to shorten his moustache and said, “Ibrāhīm, the Beloved of the All-Merciful, used to do this.”’ He said that it is a ḥasan gharīb hadith. Muslim transmitted from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The natural form consists of five: circumcision, shaving the pubes, shortening the moustache, clipping the nails and plucking the armpits.’ Regarding that, Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Be different to the idolaters. Trim the moustache and let the beard be full.’ The Persians used to shorten their beards and let their moustaches grow, or let them both grow. This is contrary to beauty and cleanliness. Razīn mentioned from Nāfi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar used to trim his moustache until the skin showed, and he cut what was between the moustache and the beard. We find in al-Bukhārī: ‘Ibn ‘Umar used to cut off of his beard what was more than a handful when he went on ḥajj or ‘umrah. At-Tirmidhī related from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to cut some of his beard on the sides and end. He said that it is a gharīb hadith.

The sunnah for armpits is to pluck them as the sunnah for the pubes is to shave them. If the reverse is done, that is permitted because cleanliness is achieved, but the first is more appropriate since it is the custom.

The hair is parted. The Prophet ﷺ used to part his locks. One describes ‘parting’ the hair when it is not left to grow however it will. An-Nasā’ī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ used leave his hair to hang down and the idolaters used to part their hair. He liked to be in conformity with the People of the Book when he had not been commanded anything specific. Then after that he ﷺ parted his hair. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it from Anas. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said that in reference to the hair, sadl is to let it grow freely. What is meant by scholars here is to let the hair fall on the forehead and to put it into a lock. Parting the hair is sunnah because it is that to which the Prophet ﷺ reverted. It is related that when ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz left the Jumu‘ah prayer, he put guards at the door of the mosque to cut off the forelock of everyone who had not parted his hair. It is said that parting was part of the sunnah of Ibrāhīm عليه السلام. Allah knows best.

Regarding white hair, it is a light and it is disliked to pluck it out. We find in an-Nasā’ī and Abū Dāwūd from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his grandfather that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not pluck out white hair. There is no Muslim who has become white-haired in Islam but that it will be a light for him on the Day of Rising and a good deed will be will be written for him and an error dropped.’ It is also disliked to dye it black, but permitted to use other colours as is reported in the hadith in which Abū Quḥāfah was brought to the Prophet ﷺ and his beard was white like wormwood. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Change this, but avoid black.’

He said, ‘I will make you a model for mankind.’

The word imām here means a model. It is used for a builder’s measure and also for a road because it directs the traveller. It means: ‘We will make you an imam for people, whom they will imitate in these qualities, and the righteous will follow you.’ So He made him an imam for the people who obey Him. That is why all the nations agree that he was rightly guided, and Allah knows best.

He asked, ‘And what of my descendants?’

This is a kind of supplication which consists of asking for information from Allah, meaning, ‘Lord, will You place this right guidance among my descendants?’ This is asking for information or it may be a simple question. Allah informed him that the disobedient and wrongdoers among them are not entitled to be models.

The word for ‘descendants’ is dhuriyyah. That is because Allah brought them out from the loins of Adam like atoms (dharr) when He made them bear witness against themselves. It is also said that it is derived from dhara’a, when Allah created them.

He said, ‘My contract does not include the wrongdoers.’

There is disagreement about what is meant by ‘ahd (contract) here. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it refers to Prophethood as did as-Suddī. Mujāhid said it refers to the imamate; Qatādah that it refers to faith; ‘Aṭā’ that it refers to mercy; and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk that it refers to the dīn of Allah. It is said that Allah’s contract is His command and that the usage of ‘ahd is found elsewhere in the Qur’an, as in ‘Allah made a contract with us’ (3:183), meaning ‘commanded us’. Allah says: ‘Did I not make a contract with you, tribe of Ādam?’ (36:60) It means ‘command’ because the contract of Allah consists of His commands. So this āyah means: ‘It is not possible for them to be in the same position as those accept the commands of Allah since the wrongdoers do not establish them.’ Ma‘mar related that Qatādah also said that it means: ‘My contract concerning the Next World does not include the wrongdoers. As for in this world, it is possible wrongdoers may obtain it.’ Az-Zajjāj said, ‘This is a good view. It means that the hopes of the wrongdoers will not be realised: they are not safe from Allah’s punishment.’ Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that ‘wrongdoer’ means ‘idolater’.

A group of scholars use this āyah as evidence that the imam must be one of the people of justice, good and excellence and have the ability to fulfill the task of leadership. This is borne out by the command of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Do not dispute power with its people.’ The people of iniquity, injustice and wrong cannot be considered its people because of this āyah. This was the reason for the rebellion of Ibn az-Zubayr and that of al-Ḥusayn, the rebellion of the virtuous people and scholars of Iraq against al-Ḥajjāj, and the rebellion of the people of Madīnah against the Umayyads at the Battle of al-Ḥarrah when Muslim ibn ‘Uqbah attacked it.

Most scholars take the view that perseverance in obedience to an unjust ruler is better than rebellion because the consequence of resisting him and rebelling against him is to replace security with fear, shed blood, give free rein to foolish people, attack the Muslims and corrupt the earth. The other is a position of a group of Mu‘tazilites and the position of the Khārijites.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘No wrongdoer can be a Prophet or judge or mufti or leader of the prayer. If such a thing occurs then what he relates of the Sharī‘ah is not accepted and his testimony is not accepted in judgment, although he is not dismissed for his iniquity until those entitled to appoint and dismiss do so. His judgments that accord with what is correct are carried out. Mālik stated this about the Khārijites and the rebels: their judgments are not declared void when they entail some form of ijtihād and do not violate the consensus or oppose texts and this was the consensus of the Companions. That is because the Khārijites rebelled in their time but it is not transmitted that the imāms criticised their judgments or anulled any of them or repeated their collection of zakāt or objected to their carrying out the ḥudūd punishments when they had done it. That indicates that, when they use proper ijtihād, their rulings are not attacked.’

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘As for taking stipends from unjust leaders, there are three possibilities. If everything in their possession has been gathered according to the just demands of the Sharī‘ah, it is permitted to take the stipend, and the Companions and Tābi‘ūn took it from al-Ḥajjāj and others. If the lawful and unjust are mixed, as is the case of rulers today, it is scrupulous to forgo it, but it is permitted for the needy to take it. In this case the ruler is like a thief who has both stolen property and lawful property in his possession and gives something as charity to someone. The recipient is permitted to accept it as ṣadaqah even though it is possible that it might be part of the stolen property. The same is true if such a ruler buys or sells: the contract is binding although it is more scrupulous to avoid it. If, however, everything that is in his possession is clearly unlawful, then it is not permitted to accept his ṣadaqah. If the property in their possession is usurped and it is not known who is its owner and there is no claimant, then it is like what is found in the possession of thieves and highwaymen and is put in the treasury to await a claimant. If there is no one to claim it, the ruler spends as seems best in the best interests of the Muslims.

125 And when We made the House a place of return, a sanctuary for mankind, and they took the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer. We contracted with Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl: ‘Purify My House for those who circle it, and those who stay there, and those who bow and who prostrate.’

And when We made the House a place of return, a sanctuary for mankind,

The House is the Ka‘bah. Mathābah (place of return) is the form of the noun used for place, derived from the verb thāba, ‘to return’. It is called that because people return to it year after year. The use of the word ‘sanctuary’ in this āyah was taken by Abū Ḥanīfah and a group of fuqahā’ as evidence for not imposing the ḥadd punishment in the Ḥaram when an adulterer or thief takes refuge there. In making that ruling they also rely on the words of Allah: ‘All who enter it are safe.’ (3:97) The sound position is that the ḥudūd punishments are carried out in the Ḥaram and that this āyah is abrogated although there is agreement that the killing does not take place in the House but outside of it. The disagreement is about killing inside the Ḥaram. If someone violates a ḥadd there, he is punished there. If someone attacks in it, he is fought and killed where he is. Abū Ḥanīfah says that the one who seeks refuge in the Ḥaram is not killed or pursued and remains confined in it until he dies or leaves. We kill him with the sword and Allah kills him by hunger and constriction, thus condemning him to a worse death. The fact that it is a sanctuary reinforces the command to face the Ka‘bah in the prayer because Jerusalem does not have this virtue and people do not make ḥajj to it.

and they took the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer.’

There are two readings of the verb ‘to take’ in this phrase. Nāfi‘ and Ibn ‘Āmir recite it as ittakhadhū, making it a report about those of the followers of Ibrāhīm who prayed there, added to ‘We made’ and so it reads: ‘they took the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer.’ Or it means ‘when We made’ and ‘when they took’. The second reading is ittakhidhū in the imperative mood so the meaning is a command and the phrase reads: ‘Take the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer.’ According to the first, there is one sentence, and according to the second, there are two sentences. The majority read it with a kasrah as a command and disconnect it from the first sentence.

Ibn ‘Umar reported that ‘Umar said, ‘I coincided with my Lord on three occasions: regarding the Maqām of Ibrāhīm, the ḥijāb and the captives of Badr.’ Muslim and others transmitted it. A similar report comes from al-Bukhārī. He suggested praying behind the Maqām and then this was revealed. He suggested the ḥijāb and 33:53 was revealed.

The word maqām means a place where you stand. There are various statements about the Maqām. The soundest is that it is the stone which people recognise today and behind which they pray the two rak‘ahs after completing the Ṭawāf of Arrival. This is the position of Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah and others. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, in a long hadith, Jābir said, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ saw the House, he greeted the Corner and then trotted three circuits and walked four. Then he went to the Maqām Ibrāhīm and recited, “they took the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer,” and prayed two rak‘ahs in which he recited Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ and Sūrat al-Kāfirūn.’ This indicates that the two rak‘ahs of ṭawāf and other prayers are better for the people of Makkah. In another transmission, as will be mentioned, it indicates that ṭawāf is better for non-resident visitors.

In al-Bukhārī it states that it is the stone which Ibrāhīm climbed on when he was too weak to lift up the stones which Ismā‘īl handed him when they were building the House and his feet sank into it. Anas said, ‘In the Maqām I saw the trace of his fingers and heels and the hollows of his feet. But that disappeared when people continued to wipe it with their hands.’ Al-Qushayrī mentioned it. As-Suddī said, ‘The Maqām is the stone which Ismā‘īl’s wife placed under Ibrahim’s feet when she washed his head.’ Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, ‘Ikrimah and ‘Aṭā’ said that the Maqām is all of the ḥajj. ‘Aṭā’ said that it is ‘Arafah, Muzdalifah and the jamrahs. Ash-Sha‘bī said that. An-Nakha‘ī said that all of the Ḥaram is the Maqām of Ibrāhīm. Mujāhid said that.

The sound position about the Maqām is the first statement since it is confirmed in the Ṣaḥīḥ. Abū Nu‘aym transmitted from Muḥammad ibn Sūqah from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir that Jābir said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ looked at a man between the corner and the Maqām — or the door and the Maqām — making supplication. He was saying, “O Allah, forgive so-and-so.” The Prophet ﷺ asked him, “What is this?” He said, “A man charged me to supplicate for him in this Maqām.” He said, “Return. Your companion is forgiven.”’ It has further paths of transmission.

We contracted with Ibrāhīm and Ismā’īl: ‘Purify My House

‘We contracted’ (‘ahidnā) here means ‘We commanded’ or ‘We revealed to’. The Kufans say that ‘purify’ means to clear it of idols, as Mujāhid and az-Zuhrī said. ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that it means to purify it of evil things and doubt. It is said that it means from unbelievers. As-Suddī said, ‘They built it and founded it on purity and with the intention of purity and so it is connected to the words of the Almighty: “Founded on taqwā.” (9:108) By saying “My House” Allah ascribes it to Himself to honour it. It is like the relationship of a creature to the Creator and a slave to his Master.’ He says, ‘My House’ to honour it. When Allah says: ‘Purify My House’, He means all mosques, and so its ruling is that of cleanliness and purification. The Ka‘bah is mentioned because it was the only mosque at that time or because it is the most respected House. The first view is more likely, and Allah knows best. We read in the Revelation: ‘In houses which Allah has permitted to be built.’ (24:36)

‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb related that he heard the noise of a man in the mosque. He said, ‘What is this? Do you know where you are?’ Ḥudhayfah said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah revealed to me, “Brother of the warners! Brother of the Messengers! Warn your people to only enter one of My houses with sound hearts, truthful tongues, clean hands and pure private parts. One should not enter one of My houses as long as he has an injustice on his head. I will curse him as long as he stands before Me until that injustice is restored to its people. Then I am his hearing with which he hears and his sight with which He sees, and he is one of My friends and chosen ones. He goes with the Prophets, truthful, martyrs and righteous.”’

Those who circle it,

The word used here is ṭā’ifīn and its apparent meaning is to circumambulate it, as ‘Aṭā’ says. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr says that it means ‘strangers who come to Makkah’. That is somewhat unlikely.

and those who stay there,

This is also said to mean those who live in its vicinity, or even, as Ibn ‘Abbās states, those who pray there. It is said that it means ‘those who sit there without doing ṭawāf’.

and those who bow and who prostrate.’

Bowing and prostrating refer to praying towards the Ka‘bah in the Ḥaram. These two things are mentioned because they are the states in which the one who prays is closest to Allah. Ash-Shāfi‘ī Abū Ḥanīfah, ath-Thawrī and a group of the Salaf used this āyah as evidence for the permission to pray both the farḍ and nāfilah prayers inside the House. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that if you pray inside it and face one of its walls, then your prayer is allowed. If you pray towards the open door, your prayer is invalid. That also applies to someone who prays on top of it because he does not face anything. Mālik said, ‘You may not pray a farḍ or sunnah in it, but you may pray nāfilah prayers inside. If someone prays the farḍ prayer there, he must repeat it if it is still within the time of that prayer.’ Aṣbagh said he must always repeat it, even outside the time.

This is sound according to what Muslim related from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said, ‘Usāmah ibn Zayd told me that when the Prophet ﷺ entered the House, he made supplication in all its corners but did not pray until he had come out. When he came out, he prayed two rak‘ahs facing the Ka‘bah and said, “This is the qiblah.”’ Al-Bukhārī related that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered with Usāmah ibn Zayd, Bilāl, and ‘Uthmān ibn Ṭalḥah al-Ḥajabī and they locked the door behind them. When they opened the door, I was the first to enter and met Bilāl. I asked him, “Did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ pray?” “Yes,” he answered, “between the two pillars on the right.”’ Muslim transmitted it. It says in it: ‘He had two pillars on his left, a pillar on his right and three pillars behind him.’ At that time the House had six pillars. It is possible that ‘pray’ means to make supplication as Usāmah said, and it is also possible that it is the normal prayer.

Ibn al-Mundhir and others related that Usāmah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ saw some images in the Ka‘bah. I brought some water in a bucket with which he washed them off.’ Abū Dāwūd aṭ-Ṭayālisī transmitted from Ibn Abī Dhi’b from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Mahrān from ‘Umayr, the freedman of Ibn ‘Abbās, that Usāmah ibn Zayd said, ‘I went in to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the Ka‘bah and he saw some images. He called for a bucket of water. I brought it to him and he began to wash them off, saying, “May Allah fight a people who make images of what they did not create!”’ It is possible that the Prophet ﷺ prayed while Usāmah had gone to look for water and Bilāl saw him but Usāmah did not. Affirming it is more proper than denying it. Usāmah himself said, ‘People took what Bilāl said and left what I said.’ Mujāhid related that ‘Abdullāh ibn Ṣafwān said, ‘I asked ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, “How did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ pray when he entered the Ka‘bah?” “Two rak‘ahs,” he replied.’

This is possible for nāfilah prayers. We do not know of any disagreement between scholars on the validity of nāfilah prayers in the Ka‘bah. That is not the case with farḍ prayers because Allah Almighty specified direction when He says: ‘Turn your face, therefore, towards the Masjid al-Ḥaram.’ (2:144) When he said, ‘This is the qiblah’ when he came out, he specified it as Allah had specified it. If the farḍ prayer had been valid inside it, he would not have said, ‘This is the qiblah.’ This is a sound manner of combining the two hadiths.

There is also disagreement about praying on top of it. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said what we mentioned. Mālik said, ‘Whoever prays on top of it should repeat the prayer within the time.’ Some of Mālik’s people said that it should always be repeated. Abū Ḥanīfah says that one who prays there does not owe anything.

They also disagree about which is better: praying at the House or ṭawāf of it. Mālik said that ṭawāf is better for the people of other places and that prayer is better for the people of Makkah. That is mentioned from Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Aṭā’ and Mujāhid. The majority say that the prayer is better. We find in a report: ‘If it had not been for humble men, bowing old men, suckling babes, and grazing animals, We would have poured the punishment on you.’ Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Thābit the Khaṭib said that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If it had not been that among you are humble men, grazing animals and suckling babes, the punishment would have poured down on the sinners.’ Abū Dharr said, ‘The prayer is best, so do a lot of it,’ Al-Ajurrī transmitted it. There are many reports that attest to the excellence of the prayer and prostration. Allah knows best.

126 And when Ibrāhīm said, ‘My Lord, make this a place of safety and provide its inhabitants with fruits — all of them who believe in Allah and the Last Day,’ He said, ‘I will let anyone who becomes an unbeliever enjoy himself a little but then I will drive him to the punishment of the Fire. What an evil destination!’

And when Ibrāhīm said, ‘My Lord, make this a place of safety and provide its inhabitants with fruits –

This means Makkah. He prayed for his descendants and others to have security and ample livelihood there. It is related that when he made this supplication, Allah commanded Jibrīl to uproot the town of Ṭā’if from Syria and he then carried it around the Ka‘bah for a week, which is why it is called Ṭā’if. Then he set it down in Tihāmah. Makkah and what was around it was a desert without water or plants. Allah blessed the area around it like Ṭā’if and other places and plants grew.

Scholars disagree about whether Makkah became a ḥaram by Ibrāhīm’s supplication or whether it was one before that. One view is that it has always been a ḥaram, protected from tyrants, earthquakes and other such things that happen to other lands. Rebellious people feel respect for it so that its people alone enjoy security. In it Allah has placed the great symbol of His Unity. Its special status is shown by game which go into it. Dogs and game meet in it and the dogs do not attack the game. But, when the game animal leaves the ḥaram, the dogs run after it. Ibrāhīm asked his Lord to protect it from drought, famine and attacks and to provide its people with fruits. He did not, as some people think, refer to shedding blood in it when that was necessary. That was not what he intended so that someone might say that he asked Allah to forbid the killing of those who sought refuge in it. This is very unlikely.

The second view is that it was not a ḥaram before the prayer of Ibrāhīm and was like any other place and that it only became a ḥaram when he made his supplication, as Madīnah became one when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made it one. The people of the first position use as evidence the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said on the Day of the Conquest, ‘This city (Makkah) was made a ḥaram the day when Allah created the heavens and the earth and so will remain sacred by Allah’s making it sacred until the Day of Rising. It was not lawful for anyone to fight in it before me and it was only lawful for me for one hour of one day. It will remain sacred because Allah has made it so until the Day of Rising. Its thorns should not be cut, its game should not be hunted and something dropped should not be picked except by someone who announces that he has found it.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Messenger of Allah, except for idhkhir-herb for our goldsmiths and houses.’ He said, ‘Except for idhkhir-herb.’ Muslim and others transmitted something similar from Shurayḥ.

In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘Abdullāh ibn Zayd ibn ‘Āṣim reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Ibrāhīm made Makkah a ḥaram and prayed for its people. I made Madīnah a ḥaram as Ibrāhīm made Makkah a ḥaram and I prayed for its ṣā‘ and mudd in the same way that Ibrāhīm prayed for the people of Makkah.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that there is no conflict between the two hadiths because the first one reports about the prior knowledge and decree of Allah for it and that it was sacred in the time of Ādam and the time when those with belief lived there, and the second reported about Ibrāhīm renewing its inviolability after it had fallen away. The first statement of the Prophet ﷺ reports about the huge importance of the inviolability of Makkah for the believers by making that inviolability go back to Allah. Mentioning Ibrāhīm when he made Madīnah a ḥaram is providing a model. It is not impossible that the inviolability of Madīnah also came from Allah, and was the carrying out of His Decree and by His prior knowledge. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘Makkah was a ḥaram, but Allah did not make people worship by that until Ibrāhīm asked him for it and so He made it inviolable.’

He said, ‘I will let anyone who becomes an unbeliever enjoy himself a little

Scholars disagree about whether this statement was made by Ibrāhīm or Allah. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Isḥāq and others said, ‘That is from Allah Almighty’. Six readings have umatti‘uhu (‘I will let enjoy’) while Ibn ‘Āmir has numatti‘uh’ (‘We will let enjoy’) as well as ‘We will drive him’. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid and Qatādah said that the statement was made by Ibrāhīm. They read it as amti‘hu in the imperative, and so it is a supplication made by Ibrāhīm against them: “Let him enjoy...” Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Ibrāhīm prayed for those who believed in particular and Allah informed him that He would provide for those who disbelieved as well as those who believed and that He would let them enjoy themselves a little and then force them to the punishment of the Fire.’ Abū Ja‘far said that Allah says: ‘We sustain each one, the former and the latter, through the generous giving of your Lord’ (17:20) and He also says: ‘There are nations to whom We will give enjoyment.’ (11:48) Abū Isḥāq said, ‘Ibrāhīm knew that there would be unbelievers among his descendants and so he singled out the believers.

127 And when Ibrāhīm laid the foundations of the House with Ismā‘īl: ‘Our Lord, accept this from us! You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

The word qawā‘id (foundations) mentioned here is the subject of some discussion. Abū ‘Ubaydah and al-Farrā’ say it means foundations but al-Kisā’ī says it means walls. Its usual meaning however, is foundations. In a report we find: ‘When the House was demolished, huge stones from it were brought, and Ibn Az-Zubayr said, “These are the foundations (qawā‘id) which Ibrāhīm laid.”’ It is said that the foundations had been demolished and Allah informed Ibrāhīm about them. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The House was set on foundations which existed a thousand years before this world was created.’ The singular of qawā’id is qā’idah.

People disagree about who first built the House and its foundations. It is said that it was the angels. It is related that Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad said, ‘While I was present, my father was asked about the initial creation of the House. He said, “When Allah said, ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth’ (2:30), the angels said, ‘Why put on it one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood when we glorify You with praise and proclaim Your purity?’ He became angry with them and they sought refuge with His Throne and circled it seven times, seeking to please their Lord so that He might be pleased with them. He told them, ‘Build for Me a House on the earth at which those of the sons of Ādam with whom I am angry might seek refuge and circumambulate it as you did of my Throne. I will be pleased with them as I am pleased with you.’ So they built this House.”’

‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā’, Ibn al-Musayyab and others that they reported that Allah revealed to Ādam, ‘When you go down to the earth, build me a House. Then go around it as you saw the angels going around My Throne in heaven.’ ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘People claim that it was built from five mountains: Ḥirā’, Sinai, Lebanon, al- Jūdī and Mt. Zayta. Its rubḍ was from Ḥirā’.’ Al-Khalīl said that the meaning rubḍ in this context is the circular foundation of the House which is made of stone. One also calls the outskirts of Madīnah rubḍ.

Al-Māwardī mentioned from ‘Aṭā’ that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When Ādam descended to earth from the Garden, he was told, “Ādam, go and build a House for Me. Circumambulate it and remember Me at it as you saw the angels doing around My Throne.” Ādam went forward and traversing the earth was shortened for him. Every place on which his foot fell flourished until he reached the site of the Sacred House. Jibrīl was striking the earth with his wings and uncovered a firm foundation on the ground of the lowest earth. The angels threw stones to him and one of the stones could not be lifted by thirty men.’ He built it from five mountains as we mentioned.

It is related in some reports that Ādam brought down one of the tents of the Garden and set it up at the site of the Ka‘bah so that he could live in it and circumambulate it. It remained there until Allah took Ādam and then it was removed. This is reported from Wahb ibn Munabbih. One version has: ‘A House came down with him, and he did ṭawāf of it as did his believing children. That was how it was until the time of the Flood. Then Allah removed it to heaven. It is what is called “the Inhabited House”.’ This is related from Qatādah. Al-Ḥalīmī mentioned it in Kitāb minhāj ’d-dīn. He said, ‘It is possible that what Qatādah said about it descending with him was the measure of the Inhabited House in height, width and thickness. Then he was told to build according to those measurements and to position it opposite it. So the position of the Ka‘bah is opposite it and he built it there. As for the tent, it could have descended and been set up in the location of the Ka‘bah. When he was commanded to build it, he built it and it was around the Ka‘bah, giving peace of mind to Ādam as long as he lived. Then it was removed.’ So these reports agree. This was the building of Ādam and then Ibrāhīm rebuilt it.

It is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib that when Allah commanded Ibrāhīm to build the House, he set out from Syria with his son Ismā‘īl and Ismā‘īl’s mother Hajar. The Sakīnah was sent with him with a tongue by which it spoke. Ibrāhīm went with it morning and evening until it brought him to Makkah. Then it told Ibrāhīm, ‘Build the foundation where I am.’ He and Ismā‘īl raised the House until it reached the height of the Corner. He told his son, ‘My son, look for a stone to set in place as a marker for people.’ He brought a stone, but he did not like it and said, ‘Look for another.’ He began to look and brought it but he had already brought the corner stone and put it in its place. He asked, ‘Father, who brought you this stone?’ He answered, ‘One who was not letting me rely on you.’

Ibn ‘Abbās reported that [Mount] Abū Qubays said, ‘Ibrāhīm! Friend of the All-Merciful! You have a deposit with me. Take it.’ It was a white stone from the rubies of the Garden. Ādam brought it down with me from the Garden. When Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl raised the foundations of the House, a square cloud with a face came and called out: ‘Raise it on my square.’ This is the structure of Ibrāhīm.

It is related that when Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl finished building the House, Allah gave them horses as a reward for raising the foundations of the House. Al-Ḥakīm at-Tirmidhī related from ‘Umar ibn Abī ‘Umar from Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād from ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn Hammām, the brother of ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from Ibn Jurayj from Ibn Abī Mulaykah that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Horses were wild like other wild animals. When Allah allowed Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl to raise the foundations, Allah Almighty said, “I will give you a treasure that I have stored up for you.” Then He revealed to Ismā‘īl: “Go out to Ajyad and call. Your treasure will come to you.” He went to Ajyad which was a dwelling, not knowing what the supplication was nor what the treasure was. He inspired him and there was no horse on the face of the earth in the land of the Arabs that did not come to him. He was able to take their forelocks and they were subject to him. He rode them and foddered them. They are good fortune and the legacy of your father Ismā‘īl. They are called “faras” [whose root means “perception”] in Arabic because Ismā‘īl was commanded to make supplication and it came to him.’

‘Abd al-Mun‘im ibn Idrīs related that Wahb ibn Munabbih said, ‘Shīth was the first to build using mud and stones. The structures of Quraysh are known and the report about the serpent in connection with that has been mentioned. It stopped them from destroying it until Quraysh gathered at the Maqām and cried out, “Our Lord! Do not be alarmed! We want to honour and adorn Your House if You are pleased with that. Otherwise do what seems best to You!” They heard the sound of the wings of a heavy bird in the sky and saw a bird larger than an eagle with a black back and white belly and two legs. It sunk its talons in the neck of the serpent and then left with it while its tail was dragging, being greater than such-and-such and took it towards Ajyad.

‘So Quraysh demolished it and began to rebuild it with the stones of the wadi which Quraysh carried on their backs. They raised it upwards to the level of twenty cubits. The Prophet ﷺ was carrying stones from Ajyad. He was wearing a striped garment and it was tight on him. He went to put the garment on his shoulder and his private parts could be seen because of the smallness of the garment. There was a call: “Muḥammad! Cover your private parts!” He was not seen naked after that.’ There were five years between building the Ka‘bah and the descent of Revelation and fifteen years between his leaving and its rebuilding. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned it from Ma‘mar from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Uthmān from Abu-ṭ-Ṭufayl.

It is mentioned from Ma‘mar from az-Zuhrī: ‘When they had built it and reached the place of the Cornerstone, Quraysh argued about the Cornerstone and which tribe should raise it and it became an open quarrel. They said, “Let the first one who comes to us from that door be the arbiter between us!” They agreed on that and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who was a young man wearing a striped garment, entered and they had him judge. He commanded that the stone be placed on a robe and then told the leader of each tribe to take a corner of the robe. They raised it up and the Prophet ﷺ put it in place.’

Ibn Isḥāq said: ‘I was told that Quraysh found a document written in Syriac in a corner. They could not understand it until a Jewish man came and read it for them. It said: “I am Allah, the Lord of Bakkah. I created it on the day that I created the heavens and the earth, and formed the sun and moon, and I surrounded it with seven pure angels. It will remain as long as its two mountains remain, a blessing to its people with water and milk.”’ Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī said, ‘In the time of the Amalekites, Jurhum and Ibrāhīm, the door of the Ka‘bah was on the ground until Quraysh rebuilt it.’ Muslim transmitted that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ whether the wall was part of the House. “Yes,” he answered. I asked, “Then why do they not include it in the House?” He said, “Your people did not have sufficient funds.” I asked, “Why is its door elevated?” He said, “Your people did that so that they could admit whomever they wished and deny whomever they wished. If it had not been that your people were very recently in the time of the Jāhilyyah and I feared that their hearts would be averse, I would have incorporated the wall into the House and brought the door down to the ground.”’

He transmitted that ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr said, ‘My aunt (‘Ā’ishah) told me that the Prophet ﷺ said, “‘Ā’ishah, if it had not been that your people were recently idolaters, I would have destroyed the Ka‘bah and made it level with the earth and given it two doors: an eastern door and a western door, and would have included in it six cubits of the Ḥijr. Quraysh made it smaller when the Ka‘bah was built.”’ ‘Urwah related his father that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me, “If it had not been that your people were recently unbelievers, I would have demolished the Ka‘bah and built it on the foundations of Ibrāhīm. When Quraysh built the Ka‘bah, they made it smaller, and I would have given it a back door.” Al-Bukhārī has that Hishām ibn ‘Urwah said, ‘He meant a door.’ Al-Bukhārī also has ‘two doors’. This was the structure of Quraysh.

When the Syrians attacked ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr and the Ka‘bah was weakened by being burned, Ibn az-Zubayr demolished it and then rebuilt it based on what ‘Ā’ishah had told him. He added to it five cubits from the Ḥijr so that he exposed its foundation and people looked at it. Then he built it on it. The height of the Ka‘bah was eighty cubits. When he added to it, it appeared to be small and so he added ten cubits to its height. He gave it two doors: one by which to enter and one by which to leave. That is what is stated in Muslim, although the wording of reports varies.

Sufyān mentioned from Dāwūd ibn Shābūr that Mujāhid said, ‘When Ibn az-Zubayr wanted to demolish the Ka‘bah and rebuild it, he said to the people, “Demolish it.” They refused to demolish it, fearing that punishment would descend on them. We went out to Minā and stayed there for three days, awaiting the punishment. Ibn az-Zubayr climbed up the wall of the Ka‘bah himself. When they saw that nothing happened to him, they were bold enough to undertake that and they demolished it. When he rebuilt it, he gave it two doors: one by which to enter and one by which to leave. He added six cubits on the side of the Ḥijr and added nine cubits to its height.’

Muslim said in his hadith: ‘When Ibn az-Zubayr was killed, al-Ḥajjāj wrote to ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān to inform him that Ibn az-Zubayr had rebuilt it on the foundations that had been seen by reputable people of Makkah. ‘Abd al-Malik wrote to him, “We are not concerned with any of the mess of Ibn az-Zubayr. As for what he added of the Ḥijr, return it as it was. Block off the door which he opened.” So he demolished it and restored it as it was.’ One version has: ‘‘Abd al-Mālik said, “I do not think that Abu-l-Khubayb (i.e. Ibn az-Zubayr) heard from ‘Ā’ishah what he claimed that he heard.” Al-Ḥārith ibn ‘Abdullāh interjected, “Yes, I heard it from her.” He demanded, “What did you hear her say?” He said, “She said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Your people reduced its size. If it had not been that your people were recently idolaters, I would have restored what they left of it. It may occur to your people to build it. Come and I will show you what they left out of it.”’ He showed her about seven cubits.”’ One variant says that ‘Abd al-Mālik said, ‘If I had heard it before I demolished it, I would have left it as Ibn az-Zubayr rebuilt it’. This is what has been reported about building the Ka‘bah.

It is related that Hārūn ar-Rashīd mentioned to Mālik ibn Anas that he wanted to demolish what al-Ḥajjāj had built of the Ka‘bah and to restore it to what Ibn az-Zubayr had built based on what was reported from the Prophet ﷺ and which Ibn az-Zubayr followed. Mālik said to him, ‘I beseech you by Allah, Amīr al-Mu’minīn, do not make this House a toy for kings. Then they will all want to reduce the House and rebuild it. Then the awe that people have for it will leave their hearts.’ Al-Wāqidī mentioned from Ma‘mar that Hammām ibn Munabbih heard Abū Hurayrah say, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade cursing As‘ad al-Ḥimyarī, who was Tubba‘, and was the first to put a covering over the House. He was the last Tubba‘.’ Ibn Isḥāq said, ‘It was covered with Egyptian linen and then with a striped cloth. The first to use brocade was al-Ḥajjāj.’

One should not take any of the kiswah of the Ka‘bah. It is a gift to it. It should not be decreased at all. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr disliked taking any of the scent of the Ka‘bah for medicinal purposes.

The name Ismā‘īl in Syriac means ‘Listen, O God!’ ‘Īl’ in Syriac means ‘God’.

128 Our Lord, make us both Muslims submitted to You, and our descendants a Muslim community submitted to You. Show us our rites of worship and tum towards Us. You are the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.

Our Lord, make us both Muslims submitted to You,

‘Muslims’ here means both in terms of faith and in terms of action, as Allah says: ‘The dīn with Allah is Islam.’ (3:19). Those who say that Islam and faith are one and the same use this as evidence. This is also supported by another āyah: ‘We brought out all the believers who were there but found in it only one house of Muslims.’ (51:35-36)

and our descendants a Muslim community submitted to You.

It is said that every Prophet only prayed for himself and his own community, except for Ibrāhīm who also prayed for this community as well as his own. It is said that He uses the partitive ‘min’ because his descendants included wrongdoers. Aṭ-Ṭabarī reported that it means the Arabs in particular. As-Suhaylī says that it means the Arabs because they are the sons of Nabt ibn Ismā‘īl or Tayman ibn Ismā‘īl. It is also said that their ancestor was was Qaydar ibn Ismā‘īl. The ‘Adnānī Arabs are descended from Nabt, and the Qaḥṭānī from Qaydar or Tayman. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is weak because its claim appeared among the Arabs and those other than them who believe.

The word ummah (community) means a social grouping. It can refer to a single person since he is imitated in good, as Allah says: ‘Ibrāhīm was a community in himself obedient to Allah’ (16:120). The Prophet ﷺ said about Zayd ibn ‘Amr, ‘He was sent as a community on his own’ because he did not commit shirk in his religion. Allah knows best. The expression can also be used in other contexts to mean region, time, or stature or the face. That is found in the following āyahs: ‘We found our fathers following an ummah,’ (43:22) meaning a religion; ‘This ummah of yours is one ummah’ (21:92), which can mean a time; and ‘remembering after an ummah’ (12:45), meaning ‘a time’.

Show us our rites of worship

‘Show’ (arinā) is recited as arnā by ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, Qatādah, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Muḥayṣin, as-Suddī, Rawḥ from Ya‘qūb, Ruways and as-Sūsī.

The linguistic root of the word manāsik (rites of worship) is nusk and means ‘washing’. In the Sharī‘ah it is the term used for an act of worship. Scholars disagree about what rites are meant here. It is said that it means the practices and waymarks of ḥajj as Qatādah and as-Suddī said. Mujāhid, ‘Aṭā’ and Ibn Jurayj held the view that it refers to sacrificing. It is also said to mean all the acts of worship by which Allah is worshipped. Nāsik means a worshipper.

Zuhayr ibn Muḥammad said, ‘When Ibrāhīm finished building the House, he said, “O Lord, I have finished, so show us our rites of worship!” So Allah sent Jibrīl to him and he performed the ḥajj for him. When he returned from ‘Arafah and the Day of Sacrifice came, Iblīs appeared before him and Jibrīl said, “Throw pebbles at him.” So Ibrāhīm threw seven pebbles at him. That happened for the next two days. Then he went up Thabīr and called out, “Slaves of Allah, answer!” and his call was heard by those between the seas with an atom of faith in their heart and they said, “At Your service, O Allah! At Your service!” Were it not for the presence of Muslims, the earth and those on it would have been destroyed. The people of Yemen were the first to answer.’

Abū Miljaz said: ‘When Ibrāhīm finished building the House, Jibrīl came to him and showed him how to do ṭawāf of the House (and I think he also said, ‘of Ṣafā and Marwa’). Then they went to ‘Aqabah and Shayṭān confronted them. Jibrīl took seven pebbles and gave Ibrāhīm seven pebbles. He stoned him, saying the takbīr. Then he told Ibrāhīm, “Stone and say the takbīr.” He did so with every pebble until Shayṭān retreated. Then they went to the middle Jamrah and Shayṭān confronted them. Jibrīl took seven pebbles and gave Ibrāhīm seven pebbles. He stoned him, saying the takbīr. Then he told Ibrāhīm, “Stone and say the takbīr.” He did so with every pebble until Shayṭān retreated. Then they went to the furthest jamrah and Shayṭān confronted them. Jibrīl took seven pebbles and gave Ibrāhīm seven pebbles. He stoned him, saying the takbīr. Then he told Ibrāhīm, “Stone and say the takbīr.” He did so with every pebble until Shayṭān retreated. Then he took him to Jam‘ and said, “Here the people join the prayers.” Then he took him to ‘Arafāt and said, “Do you recognise (‘arafta)?” “Yes,” he answered. That is why it is called ‘Arafāt.’ It is also related that he repeated the question three times and it means Minā, Jam‘ and this (‘Arafāt).

Khuṣayf ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān reported that Mujāhid said, ‘When Ibrāhīm said, “Show us our rites”, it means Ṣafā and Marwah, which are the ‘waymarks of Allah’ mentioned in the text of the Qur’an.’ Then Jibrīl took him out. When he passed by the Jamrat ’l-‘Aqabah, Iblīs was on it and Jibrīl told him, ‘Say the takbīr and stone him.’ Then Iblīs went on top of the middle one and Jibrīl told him, ‘Say the takbīr and stone him.’ Then the same thing happened with the furthest Jamrah. Then he took him to the Mash‘ar al-Ḥarām and then to ‘Arafāt. He asked him, ‘Do you recognise (‘arafta) what I have shown you?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered. That is why it is called ‘Arafāt. Then he told him, ‘Announce the ḥajj to people.’ He asked, ‘What do I say?’ The answer was, ‘Say: “People! Respond to your Lord!” three times.’ He did so and they said, ‘At Your service, O Allah, at Your service!’ Whoever answered on that day was a ḥājjī. Another variant said that he turned in a circle so that he called in every direction and the people in and the east and the west responded. The mountains bowed so that the sound went a great distance.

Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq said, ‘When Ibrāhīm, the Friend of Allah, finished building the Sacred House, Jibrīl came to him and said, ‘Go around it seven times.’ So he and Ismā‘īl went around it seven times, greeting all the corners on every circuit. When they finished the seven, they prayed two rak‘ahs at the Maqām. Jibrīl rose and showed them all the rites: Ṣafā and Marwah, Minā and Muzdalifah.’ He continued, ‘When he entered Minā and descended from ‘Aqabah, Iblīs appeared to him…’

Ibn Isḥāq said, ‘I heard that Ādam used to greet all of the corners before Ibrāhīm.’ He said that Isḥāq and Sārah performed ḥajj from Syria. Ibrāhīm used to perform ḥajj every year on Burāq and the Prophets and nations after him performed ḥajj.

Muḥammad ibn Sābiṭ related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the nation of one of the Prophets was destroyed, he would go to Makkah and worship there along with those who believed with him until they died. Nūḥ, Hūd and Ṣāliḥ died there and their graves are between Zamzam and the Ḥijr.’ Ibn Wahb mentioned that Shu‘ayb died in Makkah with the believers with him. Their graves are located in the western part of Makkah between the Dār an-Nadwah and the Banū Sahm. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘There are only two graves in the Masjid al-Ḥarām: that of Ismā‘īl and of Shu‘ayb. Ismā‘īl’s grave is in the Ḥijr and Shu‘ayb’s is opposite the Black Stone. ‘Abdullāh ibn Ḍamrah as-Salūlī said, ‘Between the Corner and the Maqām are the graves of ninety-nine Prophets who came on ḥajj and were buried there.

and turn towards Us.

There is disagreement about what this means since both Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl were Prophets protected from wrong action. A group say that they were asking for constancy and continuance, not for forgiveness from wrong actions. This is good but even better than that is the interpretation which maintains that, when they had learned the practices and built the House, they wanted to make that clear to people and acquaint them with the rites they had to perform and inform them that this place of standing and those places are places for intercession for wrong actions and seeking repentance. It is said that it means: ‘Turn towards the wrongdoers among our community.’

129 Our Lord, raise up among them a Messenger from them to recite Your Signs to them and teach them the Book and Wisdom and purify them. You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.’

Our Lord, raise up among them a Messenger from them

Khālid ibn Mad‘ān related that a group of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Messenger of Allah, tell us about yourself.’ The Prophet ﷺ replied, ‘Indeed, I am the supplication of my father Ibrāhīm and the good news of ‘Īsā?’ The word rasūl (Messenger) means someone who is sent and comes from the verb arsala meaning to send out.

and teach them the Book and Wisdom

The ‘Book’ is the Qur’an and the ‘Wisdom’ (hikmah) is recognition and acceptance of the dīn, grasping its interpretation and understanding it, which is by an innate faculty and light from Allah. Mālik stated that and Ibn Wahb related it from him. Qatādah said that the ‘Wisdom’ is the Sunnah and clarification of the laws of the Sharī‘ah. It is said that it refers to the judgments and rulings derived from it. The meanings are close. Teaching is ascribed to the Prophet ﷺ since he gives the commands which are followed and taught us how to look at the Revelation Allah gave him. It is said that the ‘Book’ means the meaning of the words and the ‘Wisdom’ refers to the judgments derived from it. Allah means the unrestricted and restricted, detailed and general, ambivalent and specific.

and purify them

…from the filth of idolatry, as Ibn Jurayj and others said. Zakāh is purification. It is said that the Signs are the recitation of the words, the Book is the meaning of the words, and Wisdom is judgment. It is what Allah means in the address of undefined and defined, explained and unexplained, general and specific. Allah knows best.

You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.’

The Almighty (al-‘Azīz) is the One whom no one can overpower. Ibn Kaysān said that it means the One whose power extends to everything as evinced by Allah’s words: ‘Allah cannot be withstood in any way, either in the heavens or on earth.’ (35:44) It is also said that it means the One Who has no like, the Incomparable. Al-Kisā’ī said that it means the Conqueror as seen in His words: ‘He got the better of me (‘azzanī) with his words.’ (38:23) It is said that it is the One Who has no like.

130 Who would deliberately renounce the religion of Ibrāhīm except someone who reveals himself to be a fool? We chose him in this world and in the Next World he will be one of the people of right action.

Who would deliberately renounce the religion of Ibrāhīm except someone who reveals himself to be a fool?

This question is in fact a rebuke and a negative answer to it is implied, such as: ‘No one would.’ It is also an expression which tends to distance the reader from doing such a thing. Millah means religion and law. The ‘someone who reveals himself to be a fool’ is said by Qatādah to be the Jews and Christians who renounced the religion of Ibrāhīm and adopted Judaism and Christianity, which were innovations that did not come from Allah. Az-Zajjāj said that safiha (to be a fool) means ‘to be ignorant of a matter because of not thinking about it’. Abū ‘Ubaydah says that it means ‘destroys himself’. Ibn Baḥr says, ‘It means that it refers to someone having no self-knowledge and no grasp of the evidence and proofs within himself, which indicate that he has an incomparable Creator, thus failing to recognize Allah’s unity and power.’

Az-Zajjāj said, ‘He reflects about his hands with which he strikes, his feet with which he walks, his eyes with which he sees, his ears with which he hears, his tongue with which he speaks, his molars which grow when he has no need to suckle and needs to masticate the food he eats, his stomach which processes his nourishment, his liver which detoxifies, his veins and passageways which reach the limbs, his intestines where the dregs of food settle and then emerge from the bottom of his body. He uses this as evidence that He has an All-Powerful, All-Knowing Wise Creator. This is the meaning of His words: “in yourselves as well. Do you not see?” (51:21)’ Al-Khaṭṭābī indicated this.

This āyah is used as evidence by those who say that the Sharī‘ah of Ibrāhīm is the same as our Sharī‘ah except for those aspects of it which have been abrogated as He says: ‘the religion of your forefather Ibrāhīm’ (22:78) and ‘Follow the religion of Ibrāhīm.’ (16:123)

We chose him in this world

This means: ‘We chose him to bear Our Message and purified him.’ The word iṣtafā (chose) is derived from ṣafwah which means to be pure and to choose the best.

and in Next World he will be one of the people of right action

The ‘people of right action’ in the Next World are those who are successful and will enter the Garden. Arabic scholars say three things about the phrasing in this āyah. One is: ‘He will be righteous in the Next World’. The second is that ‘in the Next World’ is connected to something elided, i.e. ‘his righteousness is in the Next World.’ The third is that ṣāliḥīn does not mean ‘those who do right action’ here but is simply a designation like ‘man’. There is also a fourth view which states that it means: ‘He is one of the righteous in respect of the actions of the Next World.’ Al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Faḍl said, ‘There is a change in the normal order of words. It implies: “We chose in this world and in the Next World, and he is one of the people of right action.”’ Ḥajjāj ibn Ḥajjāj (who is Ḥajjāj al-Aswad and Ḥajjāj al-Aḥwal, known as Ziqq ’l-‘Asal) said that he heard Mu‘āwiyah ibn Qurrah say, ‘O Allah, You made the righteous righteous and provided them with actions in obedience to You so that You are pleased with them. O Allah, as You made them righteous, make us righteous. As You provided them with actions in obedience to You, provide us with actions in obedience to You. Be pleased with us!’

131 When his Lord said to him, ‘Become a Muslim!’ he said, ‘I am a Muslim who has submitted to the Lord of all the worlds.’

This āyah is connected to the previous one and the implication is, ‘We chose him when his Lord said to him, “Become a Muslim and submit.”’ Allah said this to Ibrāhīm after He had tested him with the stars, the moon and the sun (cf. 6:76-84). Ibn Kaysān and al-Kalbī said it means: ‘Make your dīn sincere for Allah through tawḥīd.’ It is said that it means: ‘Be humble and submitted.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Allah said that to him when he abandoned the customs of his people.’ Islam here entails all its various aspects. In Arabic the word ‘Islam’ implies submission and obedience to the one submitted to. Not everyone’s Islam entails faith but everyone’s faith entails Islam because whoever believes in Allah necessarily submits to and obeys Allah. Not everyone who submits to Allah believes in Him because his submission may be out of fear of the sword and that is not faith.

The Qadariyyah and Kharijites hold a contrary view saying that Islam is synonymous with faith and that every Muslim is a believer and every believer a Muslim based on Allah’s words: ‘The dīn in the sight of Allah is Islam’ (3:19). This indicates that Islam is the dīn and that whoever is not a Muslim is not a believer. Our evidence is found in His words: ‘The desert Arabs say, “We believe.” Say: “You do not believe. Say rather: ‘We have become Muslim.’”’ (49:14) Allah reported that not every one who becomes Muslim is a believer and so it indicates that not every Muslim is a believer. When Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ said, ‘Give to so-and-so. He is a believer,’ the Prophet ﷺ said to him, ‘Or a Muslim.’ Muslim transmitted it. It indicates that faith and Islam are not the same. Faith is internal and Islam is external. This is clear. ‘Faith’ can be used to mean Islam and Islam can be used to mean ‘faith’ since they are connected. It is as if Islam were the fruit of faith and an indication of its soundness. Success is by Allah.

132 Ibrāhīm directed his sons to this, as did Ya‘qūb: ‘My sons! Allah has chosen this dīn for you, so do not die except as Muslims.’

Ibrāhīm directed his sons to this, as did Ya‘qūb:

‘This’ may refer to ‘the religion’ or to the words, ‘I submit to the Lord of the worlds.’ The latter view is more correct because it was the last thing mentioned. Some readings have waṣṣā for ‘directed’ whereas the people of Madīnah and Syria read awṣā.

Ismā‘īl and Isḥāq were the sons of Ibrāhīm. The elder was Ismā‘īl and his mother was Hajar the Copt. There are three positions regarding the age of Ismā‘īl at the time Ibrāhīm took him to Makkah: as a baby, as a two year old infant or as a fourteen year old youth. The first is considered the soundest. He was born fourteen years before his brother Isḥāq and died when he was one hundred and thirty-seven or one hundred and thirty years old. He was eighty years old when Ibrāhīm died. According to one statement, he was the son Ibrāhīm was commanded to sacrifice. Isḥāq’s mother was Sārah, and he was the sacrifice according to another statement, which seems sounder. We will deal with this when we examine the story in Sūrat aṣ-Ṣāffāt (37:102-109). From him descend the Romans, Greeks and Armenians and those like them and the sons of Israel. Isḥāq lived to the age of one hundred and eighty and died in the Holy Land. He was buried with his father Ibrāhīm. When Sārah died, Ibrāhīm married Qanṭūrā (Keturah) bint Yaqṭan the Canaanite and she bore him Madyan, Madāyin, Nahshān, Zimrān, Nashīq and Shuyūkh. He died about 2600 years before the birth of the Prophet ﷺ. The Jews lessen this by 400 years.

Ya‘qūb gave the same directive to his other sons. Al-Kalbī said, ‘When Ya‘qūb looked at the people in Egypt, he saw them worshipping idols, fire and cows, so he collected his sons and alerted them, asking, “What will you worship after me?”’ He was called Ya‘qūb because he was the second of twins and was born holding onto the heel of his brother (‘aqib). He lived to the age of one hundred and forty-seven and died in Egypt. He instructed that he should be transported to the Holy Land and buried with his father, Isḥāq. Yūsuf transported him and buried him there.

‘My sons! Allah has chosen this dīn for you, so do not die except as Muslims.

The dīn is Islam. This means: ‘Cling to Islam and persevere in it and do not part from it until you die.’ This contains an admonition and a reminder of death. That is because everyone knows that they will die but they do not know when. So the command is that death should not come upon you when you are not following the dīn. It is a constant, continuing command.

133 Or were you present when death came to Ya‘qūb and he said to his sons, ‘What will you worship when I have gone?’ They said, ‘We will worship your God, the God of your forefathers, Ibrāhīm, Ismā‘īl and Isḥāq – one God. We are Muslims submitted to Him.’

This is addressed to the Jews and Christians who, by following Judaism and Christianity, falsely attribute to Ibrāhīm something for which he gave no authority. Allah refuted their words and rebuked them here. He says that they are forging lies. Ismā‘īl is included because the uncle is counted with the father.

134 That was a community which has long since passed away. It has what it earned. You have what you have earned. You will not be questioned about what they did.

This āyah indicates that a person’s actions and earnings, good or evil, are ascribed to him, even though it is Allah who gives him the power to do what he does. If it is good, it is by Allah’s favour. If it evil, it is by His justice. This is the school of the People of the Sunnah. There are many āyahs in the Qur’an which express this. A person earns his actions since the power connected to the action was created for him and there is a clear difference between a movement he makes by his own choice and, for instance, an involuntary movement such as a shiver. That capacity is the core of accountability. The Jabrites negate any possibility of personal responsibility and say that people are like plants which move whichever way the wind blows. The Qadarites and Mu’tazilites take the opposite position that a person creates his own actions. No one will be punished for the actions of another.

135 They say, ‘Be Jews or Christians and you will be guided.’ Say, ‘Rather adopt the religion of Ibrāhīm, a man of natural pure belief. He was not one of the idolaters.’

Each claims that what they have is the real truth but Allah refuted that. The āyah means: ‘Say, O Muḥammad, “We follow the one religion.”’ This is why the word “millah” (religion) is in the accusative case. It is said that it means: ‘Follow the religion of Ibrāhīm.’ It implies: ‘Guidance is a religion,’ or ‘Our religion is that of Ibrāhīm.’ Az-Zajjāj said that. Ibrāhīm is called a ḥanīf because he inclined to the dīn of Allah, which is Islam. Ḥanf means ‘inclination’. A man who is aḥnaf (clubfooted) has his feet turn toward each other. Ḥanf means ‘going straight’ as well. Ibrāhīm is called a ḥanīf because he went straight.

136 Say, ‘We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl and Isḥāq and Ya’qūb and the Tribes, and what Mūsā and ‘Īsā were given, and what all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We are Muslims submitted to Him.’

Al-Bukhārī transmitted that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘The People of the Book used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic to the people of Islam. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Neither believe nor deny the People of the Book. Say, ‘We believe in Allah and what has been revealed.’”’ Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn said, ‘When you are asked, “Are you a believer?” recite this āyah.’ Many of the Salaf disliked anyone saying, ‘I am truly a believer.’ The reason for that will be explained in Sūrat al-Anfāl, Allah willing. One of the early people was asked about a man who was asked, ‘Do you believe in the Prophet so-and-so?’ and gave a name he did not know. If he said that he did, it is possible that it was not a Prophet and he was attesting to the Prophethood of someone who was not a Prophet. If he said that he did not, perhaps it was actually a Prophet and he was denying one of the Prophets. So what should he do? The reply was that he should say, ‘If he is a Prophet, I believe in him.’

This āyah is addressed to this community to instruct them in faith. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘A group of Jews came to the Prophet ﷺ and asked him about which of the Prophets he believed in and this āyah was revealed. When he mentioned ‘Īsā, they said, “We do not believe in ‘Īsā or in anyone who does believe in him.”’

and the Tribes,

Asbāṭ (the Tribes) are from the twelve sons of Ya‘qūb. A nation sprang from each of them. They are called asbāṭ, which comes from sabṭ, which means succession, and so it was as if they followed one another. Sabṭ is the term used for the tribes descending from Ya‘qūb as qabīlah is used for Arab tribes. It is also said that the word is derived from sabaṭ, which means a tree. The singular is sabaṭah. Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj said that this is clear in what Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far al-Anbārī related from Abū Nujayd ad-Daqqāq from al-Aswad ibn ‘Āmir from Isrā’īl from Simāk from ‘Ikrimah that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘All the Prophets were from the tribe of Israel except for ten: Nūḥ, Shu‘ayb, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Lūṭ, Ibrāhīm, Isḥāq, Ya‘qūb, Ismā‘īl and Muḥammad عليهم السلام. None of them had two names except for ‘Īsā and Ya‘qūb.’ Sibṭ denotes a group or tribe who come from a single ancestor.

We do not differentiate between any of them,

This means ‘We do not believe in some and reject others like the Jews and Christians do.’

137 If their faith is the same as yours then they are guided. But if they turn away, they are entrenched in hostility. Allah will be enough for you against them. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

If their faith is the same as yours then they are guided.

This is addressed to Muḥammad ﷺ and his community. It means that if they believe as you believe and affirm what you affirm, they are guided. So similarity can occur between two faiths. Baqiyyah related from Shu‘bah from Abū Ḥamzah that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Do not say, “If they believe in the like of what you believe.” Allah has no like. Rather say, “in that in which you believe.”’ ‘Alī ibn Naṣr al-Jahḍamī corroborate it from Shu‘bah. Al-Bayhaqī mentioned it. It is also said to mean that if they believe in your Prophet and all the Prophets without differentiating between them, then they are guided.

But if they turn away, they are entrenched in hostility.

If they refuse to do anything except differentiate between them, then they veer from the dīn to hostility. Zayd ibn Aslam said that the expression ‘entrenched in hostility’ (fī shiqāq) means ‘in contention’. It is said to be quarrelling, opposition and hostility. It is derived from shaqq, which is the side of a chasm, so it is as if each was one of two sides. It is said that it is derived from a verb meaning to be difficult and hard and so it is as if it means that each side wants to make things difficult for the other side.

Allah will be enough for you against them.

Allah will protect His Messenger against his enemies. This is a promise from Allah to His Prophet ﷺ that He would protect him from those who were hostile to him and opposed him. He carried out that promise. That was when the Banū Qaynuqā‘ and the Banū Qurayẓah were killed and Banū ’n-Naḍīr were expelled. It was this āyah on which ‘Uthman’s blood spilled when he was murdered as the Prophet ﷺ had foretold about him. It is related that Abū Dulāmah visited al-Manṣūr wearing a tall hat, a cloak on the back of which was written: ‘Allah will be enough for you against them. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing’, and a sword girded around his waist. Al-Manṣūr had commanded the army to dress in that garb. He asked him, ‘How are you, Abū Dulāmah?’ ‘Bad, Amīr al-Mu’minīn,’ he answered. ‘Why is that?’ he inquired. He said, ‘What would you think of man whose face is on his waist, whose sword in on his bottom, and he has thrown the Book of Allah behind his back?’ Al-Manṣūr laughed at him and immediately ordered that the manner of dress be changed.

138 The dye of Allah – and what dye could be better than Allah’s? It is Him we worship.

Al-Akhfash and others said that ‘the dye of Allah’ is the dīn of Allah and is an appositive for ‘millah’, and so it implies: ‘Follow it’. Shaybah related that Qatādah said, ‘The Jews used to baptise their sons as Jews and the Christians baptised their sons as Christians. The baptism of Allah is Islam.’ Mujāhid said that it is the natural form on which people are created. Az-Zajjāj says, ‘This statement of Mujāhid refers to Islam because the natural form ever since the beginning of creation has been Islam.’ Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan, Abu-l-‘Āliyah and Qatādah said that the ‘dye’ is the dīn. This also derives from immersion in water. Ibn ‘Abbās said that Christians baptised their children when they were seven days old to replace circumcision, which is purification. When they do this, they say, ‘Now he is truly a Christian.’ Allah refuted them by saying that the dye of Islam is better. It is Islam. Calling the dīn this is a metaphor since the effect of it in actions can be seen in a person in the same way that dye can be seen in a garment. It is said that it refers to the ghusl taken by someone who wants to become Muslim which replaces Christian baptism. Al-Māwardī said that.

Because one meaning of ‘dye of Allah’ is the ‘washing (ghusl) of Allah’ it is said that washing when you become Muslim is an obligatory practice. The evidence for this in the Sunnah comes from Qays ibn ‘Aṣim and Thumāmah ibn Athāl who both had a ghusl when they became Muslims. Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī said in a sound transmission that Abū Hurayrah said that Thumāmah al-Ḥanafī was captured and one day the Prophet ﷺ passed by him and he became Muslim. He sent him to the garden of Abū Ṭalḥah and told him to have a ghusl. He did so and prayed two rak‘ahs. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The Islam of your companion is good.’ It is also transmitted that Qays ibn ‘Āṣim became Muslim and the Prophet ﷺ told him to have a ghusl with water and lote-leaves. An-Nasā’ī mentioned it and Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq said that it is sound. It is said that an act by which one draws near to Allah is called ‘dye’. Ibn Fāris related that in al-Mujmal. Al-Jawharī said that ‘the dye of Allah’ is His dīn. It is also said that it is circumcision.

139 Say, ‘Do you argue with us about Allah when He is our Lord and your Lord? We have our actions and you have your actions. We act for Him alone.’

Al-Ḥasan said, ‘Their argument is that they say, “We are more entitled to Allah than you because we are the sons of Allah and those He loves.”’ (cf. 5:18) It is said that it was because of ‘our ancestors and books and because we did not worship idols.’ So the meaning of the āyah is: ‘Ask them, Muḥammad,’ – meaning those Jews and Christians who claim that they are the sons of Allah and those He loves and claim that they are more entitled to Allah than you because of their ancestors and Books – ‘Where is your argument when the Lord is One and everyone will be repaid for his actions? What advantage will precedence in the dīn give you?’ ‘About Allah’ means ‘about His dīn’.

We act for Him alone.’

This means: ‘We are sincere in our worship.’ This contains a sense of rebuke, implying, ‘You are not sincere so how can you claim that you are more entitled?’ The reality of sincerity (ikhlāṣ) is to purify the action in question from taking any account of creatures. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty says, “I am the best associate. Anyone who associates a partner with Me, belongs to his associates. O people, make your actions sincere for Allah Almighty. Allah Almighty does not accept other than what is done sincerely for Him alone. Do not say, “This is for Allah and my relatives.” If it is for your relatives, none of it is for Allah. Do not say, “This is for Allah and your sakes.” Then it is for your sakes and none of it is for Allah.’ Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Qays al-Fihrī related it and ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it.

Ruwaym said, ‘Sincerity in action is that the person who does something does not want any recompense or return for it in either this world or the Next.’ Al-Junayd said, ‘Sincerity is a secret between Allah and the slave. An angel cannot know it so as to record it, nor can a shayṭān corrupt it, nor can passion incline to it.’ Al-Qushayrī reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I asked Jibrīl about sincerity and what it was. He replied, “I asked the Lord of Might about what sincerity was and He said, ‘A secret of Mine which I entrust in the heart of those I love among My slaves.’”’

140 Or do they say that Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl and Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say, ‘Do you know better or does Allah? Who could do greater wrong than someone who hides the evidence he has been given by Allah? Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Or do they say that Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl and Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb and the Tribes were Jews or Christians?

Ḥamzah, al-Kisā’ī and ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Ḥafṣ has ‘Do you say?’ with tā’ which is a good reading. It is as if it means: ‘Do you argue about Allah or say that the Prophets were following your dīn?’ The other reading is with yā’, ‘do they say’. This is, in either case, a rebuke to the claims of both the Jews and the Christians. Allah refutes them because He knows better than you.

Who could do greater wrong than someone who hides the evidence he has been given by Allah?

No one does greater wrong. The word ‘evidence’ (shahāda) here refers to the actions they have been commanded to do since the dīn of all the Prophets was Islam. It is also said to refer to their concealment of the description of Muḥammad ﷺ in their Revealed Books as Qatādah said, but the first explanation is more in keeping with the context.

Allah is not unaware of what you do.

This is a threat that they will not be spared and will have to pay for what they did. A heedless or unaware person (ghāfil) is someone who does not grasp things because he ignores them. It is derived from earth which is ghufl, which means there is no sign or trace of habitation on it. A camel which is ghufl has no markings. A man who is ghufl has no experience of matters.

141 That was a community which has long since passed away. It has what it earned. You have what you have earned. You will not be questioned about what they did.

This is repeated (cf. 2:134 above) because it contains a threat. Since the Prophets, in spite of their excellence and imamate, will be repaid for their actions, how much more will that be the case with you!

142 The fools among the people will ask, ‘What has made them turn round from the direction they used to face?’ Say, ‘Both East and West belong to Allah. He guides whoever He wills to a straight path.’

The fools among the people will ask,

Allah Almighty is giving advance warning of what some people are going to say about the believers changing the direction they face in prayer from Syria to the Ka‘bah. The word ‘fools’ is qualified by ‘people’ because foolishness is also found in animals. The fools are those who say this. A fool (safīh) is someone with a poor intellect. A garment which is safīh, the root from which the word comes, is loosely woven. Quṭrub says that they are ignorant wrongdoers. This refers to the Jews in Madīnah, as Mujāhid says. As-Suddī said that it refers to the hypocrites and az-Zajjāj says that it means the unbelievers of Quraysh when they objected to the change of qiblah. They said, ‘Muḥammad yearns for his homeland and will soon revert to your religion.’ The Jews said, ‘He is confused about the business.’ The hypocrites said, ‘What has made them turn around from their qiblah?’ to mock the Muslims.

‘What has made them turn round from the direction they used to face?’

The imams report that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘While people were at Qubā’ performing the Ṣubḥ prayer, someone came to them and said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ received Revelation in the night and he has been commanded to face the Ka‘bah.” They were facing Syria and immediately turned right round to face the Ka‘bah.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted from al-Barā‘ that the Prophet ﷺ was praying towards Jerusalem for sixteen or seventeen months. He wanted his qiblah to be towards the Ka‘bah. The first prayer he prayed towards it was ‘Aṣr and people prayed it with him. A man who had prayed with the Prophet ﷺ left and passed by the people of another mosque who were in rukū‘. He said, ‘I testify by Allah that I prayed with the Prophet ﷺ towards Makkah.’ So they turned round so that they were facing the House. There were men who had died while they were facing the old qiblah before the change to the House and they did not know what to say about them. So Allah Almighty revealed: ‘Allah would never let your faith go to waste.’ (2:143)

This transmission mentions the ‘Aṣr prayer whereas the transmission of Mālik mentioned the Ṣubḥ prayer. It is also said that it was revealed while the Prophet ﷺ was in the mosque of the Banū Salamah performing Ẓuhr and he changed qiblah after two rak‘ahs of it. For that reason, it was called the Mosque of the Two Qiblahs.

In at-Tamhīd, Abū ‘Umar mentioned from Nuwaylah bint Aslam, one of the women who gave allegiance: ‘We were performing the Ẓuhr prayer when ‘Abbād ibn Bishr ibn Qayẓī came and said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ has faced the qiblah (or ‘the Sacred House’), so the men moved to where the women were and the women moved to where the men were.”’ It is also said that the āyah was revealed about other than the prayer, and that is more common. ‘Aṣr was the first prayer towards the qiblah. Allah knows best.

It is related that the first to pray towards the Ka‘bah, when the qiblah was changed from Jerusalem, was Abū Sa‘īd ibn al-Mu‘allā. That was when he was passing through the mosque and heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ telling people to change the qiblah, reciting this āyah while he was on the minbar: ‘We have seen you looking up into heaven…’ (2:144) He told his companion, ‘Come and let us pray two rak‘ahs before the Messenger of Allah ﷺ comes down! Then we will be the first to pray and we will be covered in blessings.’ They prayed them and then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ descended and led the people in Ẓuhr.

There is disagreement about the length of time the Prophet ﷺ was in Madīnah before the qiblah was changed. It is said that it was changed after sixteen or seventeen months, as we find in al-Bukhārī. Ad-Dāraquṭnī also reported that al-Barā’ said, ‘We prayed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ after he came to Madīnah towards Jerusalem for sixteen months. Then Allah informed the Prophet that He was aware of his desire to change qiblah and the Revelation came: “We have seen you looking into the heaven, turning this way and that.” (2:144) It was sixteen months without doubt.’ Mālik related from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said that the qiblah was changed two months before Badr. Ibrāhīm ibn lsḥāq said that was in Rajab, 2 AH. Al-Bustī said, ‘The Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem for seventeen months and three days. He came to Madīnah on Monday, 15 Rabī‘ al-Awwal, and Allah commanded him to face the Ka‘bah on Tuesday, 15 Sha‘bān the following year.’

Scholars are of three different opinions concerning the reason why the Prophet ﷺ faced Jerusalem. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘It was by opinion and ijtihād.’ ‘Ikrimah and Abū al-‘Āliyah agreed with that view. The second opinion is that he had a choice between it and the Ka‘bah and chose Jerusalem because he wanted the Jews to believe. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that. Az-Zajjāj said that it was to test the idolaters because they were used to the Ka‘bah. The third opinion and the one which the majority hold – Ibn ‘Abbās and others – is that he was obliged to face it by the command of Allah and Revelation from Him. Then Allah abrogated that and commanded him to face the Ka‘bah in the prayer. They cite as evidence: ‘We only appointed the direction you used to face in order to distinguish those who follow the Messenger from those who turn round on their heels.’ (2:143)

There is also disagreement about when the prayer was first made obligatory for him at Makkah and whether the qiblah was then towards Jerusalem or the Ka‘bah. There are two positions. One group say that it was towards Jerusalem and remained that way in Madīnah for seventeen months and then Allah changed it to the Ka‘bah. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. Others say that when the prayer was first made obligatory for him he faced towards the Ka‘bah and he continued to pray towards it while he was in Makkah, as Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl had done. When he went to Madīnah he prayed towards Jerusalem for sixteen or seventeen months and then Allah changed the qiblah back to the Ka‘bah. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I consider this to be the sounder of the two positions.’ Another said, ‘That was because when the Prophet ﷺ came to Madīnah, he wanted to court the Jews and turned to their qiblah so that the Message would be easier for them to accept. When their obstinacy was evident and he despaired of them, he wanted to change back to the Ka‘bah and he looked up at the heavens.’ His love for Makkah was because it was the qiblah of Ibrāhīm, as Ibn ‘Abbās said. It is said that it was to call the Arabs to Islam. It is said that it was to be different from the Jews, as Mujāhid said. Abu-l-‘Āliyah ar-Riyyāḥī said, ‘The mosque and qiblah of Ṣāliḥ was towards the Ka‘bah. Mūsā used to pray towards the Stone which was in the direction of the Ka‘bah and it was the qiblah of all the Prophets عليهم السلام.’

This āyah contains clear evidence that the rulings of Allah and His Book can be both abrogating and abrogated and the Community agree on that, except for the rare exception. Scholars agree that the qiblah was the first ruling to be abrogated in the Book and that it was abrogated twice, according to one of the positions about the matter. It also indicates that it is permissible for the Sunnah to be abrogated by the Qur’an. That is because the Prophet ﷺ prayed towards Jerusalem and there was no Qur’anic text on that. That was a judgment only from the Sunnah and then that was abrogated by the Qur’an.

The āyah also contains evidence of the permission to make a ruling based on a single ḥadīth. That was because facing Jerusalem was definite in our Sharī‘ah, and then when someone came to the people of Qubā’ and told them that the qiblah had been changed to the Sacred Mosque, they accepted that and turned towards it and abandoned the mutawātir in favour of the single report they heard. Scholars disagree about whether it is permitted logically and actually. Abū Ḥātim said, ‘What is preferred is that that is permitted logically, if it is part of the worship entailed by the Sharī’ah, and actually in the time of the Prophet ﷺ as is shown in the story of Qubā’ and also by the evidence that the Prophet ﷺ sent individual governors to the regions and they conveyed both the abrogating and abrogated. However it became forbidden after the death of the Prophet ﷺ by the consensus of the Companions, and the position then was that the Qur’an and the mutawātir are well-known and may not be abrogated by a single ḥadīth, and no one believes that to be possible. Those who say that it is forbidden argue by the fact that it would lead to what is impossible, namely removing what is definitive in favour of what is supposition. The story of Qubā’ and the governors is based on circumstances that convey knowledge either by transmission and realisation, or by probability and implication. This is a question about the fundamental principles of fiqh.

It also contains evidence that if the abrogation has not reached a person, then he should worship according to the first ruling. This differs from those who said that the first ruling is removed by the mere existence of the abrogation, not by knowledge of it. The first view is sounder because the people of Qubā’ continued to pray towards Jerusalem until someone came and told them about the abrogation and then they turned towards the qiblah. When the abrogation exists, it inevitably removes the prior judgment, but on the proviso that there is knowledge of it, because the abrogation is addressed to people, and if that has not reached someone, he is not addressed by it. The point in this disagreement concerns acts of worship which are performed after the abrogation but before the person performing them has heard about it: should he repeat them or not? This is also the basis for the actions of a deputy after he has been dismissed or the one who appointed him has died before he has learned of that. There are two views.

The same is true of a qirāḍ transaction and those appointed by a judge when he dies or is dismissed. What is sound is that the action done by each of those people is carried out and their judgment is not revoked. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said, ‘There is no disagreement that the judgments of someone who has been freed, when he does not know that he has been freed, are the judgments of a free man in things involving other people. There is no disagreement that someone who has been freed does not repeat, after he was freed, any prayers he prayed with insufficient covering for a free person, when he did not know he had been freed. They disagree about someone who incurs an obligation which changes a ruling in worship while he is performing it which is analogous to the question of the prayer at Qubā’.

So if someone prays in a certain state which then changes before he finishes the prayer, he should complete the prayer and not break it off. What he has done satisfies the requirement. That is the same as someone who prays naked and then finds a garment while he is praying, or starts his prayer while healthy and then becomes ill, or is ill and then recovers, or sitting and then is able to stand, or the case of a slave-girl who is freed while she is praying: she takes a head covering and builds on what she has done. It is like someone who begins the prayer with tayammum and then finds water: he does not stop the prayer, as Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and others said. Abū Ḥanīfah, however, said that he does stop it.

This contains evidence that a single report is accepted. The Salaf agree on it and there are multiple transmissions about it going back to the Prophet ﷺ sending his governors and messengers singly to all regions to instruct people in their dīn and convey to them the Sunnah of their Messenger ﷺ regarding commands and prohibitions. It also makes it very clear that the Qur’an was revealed to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ piece by piece and circumstance after circumstance, according to need, until the dīn was complete as Allah says: ‘Today I have perfected your dīn for you.’ (5:3)

Say: “Both East and West belong to Allah.

Since He owns them both, He is entitled to command any direction He wishes.

He guides whoever He wills to a straight path.’

This indicates Allah’s guidance of this Community to the qiblah of Ibrāhīm and Allah knows best. Ṣirāṭ is the Path and ‘straight’ is that in which there are no twists.

143 In this way We have made you a middlemost community, so that you may act as witnesses against mankind and the Messenger as a witness against you. We only appointed the direction you used to face in order to know those who follow the Messenger from those who turn round on their heels. Though in truth it is a very hard thing – except for those Allah has guided. Allah would never let your faith go to waste. Allah is All-Gentle, Most Merciful to mankind.

In this way We have made you a middlemost community

As the Ka‘bah is in the middle of the earth, so We made you a middlemost nation, meaning that we made you inferior to the Prophets but superior to other communities. The word ‘wasaṭ’ (middlemost) implies being just and balanced. The basis of this is the expression: ‘The most praised of things is the middlemost of them.’ At-Tirmidhī related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī from the Prophet ﷺ about this āyah that it means ‘just’. He said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. We find in the Revelation: ‘The best (awsaṭ) of them said.’ It means the best and most just. The middle part of a valley is the best place in it and has the most plants and water. The middle avoids excess and falling short and is praiseworthy, so this community does not go to excess in elevating their Prophet (like the Christians) nor fall short as the Jews do in respect of their Prophets. In a ḥadīth we find, ‘The best of matters is the middlemost of them.’ ‘Alī said, ‘You must take the middle way. The high descend to it and the low rise to it.’ Someone who is from the middlemost of his people is one of the best of them.

so that you may act as witnesses against mankind

This is referring to the Gathering, when the Prophets are joined with their nations, as is established in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī when Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Nūḥ will be summoned on the Day of Rising and he will say, “At your service and obedience, O Lord!” Allah will say, “Did you convey it?” He will say, “Yes.” It will be said to his community, “Did he convey it to you?” They will say, “No warner came to us.” Allah will ask Nūḥ, “Who will then testify on your behalf?” He will say, “Muḥammad and his community.” They will testify that he conveyed it. That is the meaning of His words: “In this way We have made you a middlemost community, so that you may act as witnesses against mankind.”’ Ibn al-Mubārak mentioned this ḥadīth in full. We find in it: ‘Those nations will ask, “How will those who did not meet us testify against us?” The Lord will ask them, “How can you testify against those whom you did not meet?” They will answer, “Our Lord, You sent a Messenger to us and sent down Your contract and Book to us and recounted to us that they conveyed it. Therefore we bear witness to what You entrusted to us.” The Lord will say, “You spoke the truth.” That is the import of His words: “We have made you a middlemost community,” and “middlemost” is “just”: “so that you may act as witnesses against mankind and the Messenger as a witness against you.”’ Ibn An‘am said, ‘I heard that on that Day the community of Muḥammad ﷺ will bear witness, except for someone who has sympathy in his heart for his brother.’

One group said that the āyah means that they will testify against one another after death as is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ said when a funeral passed by him and the deceased was spoken well of: ‘It is obliged. It is obliged. It is obliged.’ Then another passed him and the deceased was spoken ill of and he said, ‘It is obliged. It is obliged. It is obliged.’ ‘Umar said, ‘May my father and mother be your ransom, a funeral passed by and the deceased was spoken well of and you said, “It is obliged. It is obliged. It is obliged.” Then a funeral passed by and the deceased was spoken ill of and you said, “It is obliged. It is obliged. It is obliged.”’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The Garden is obliged for the one you spoke well of and the Fire is obliged for the one you spoke ill of. You are the witnesses of Allah on the earth. You are the witnesses of Allah on the earth. You are the witnesses of Allah on the earth.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted a similar report.

Abān and Layth related from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab that ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘My Community was given three things which no other Prophets were given. Whenever Allah sent a Prophet, He said to him, “Call on Me and I will answer you.” He said to this Community, “All of you call on Me and l will answer you.” When He sent a Prophet, He said to him, “l have not imposed any hardship on you in the dīn.” He said to this Community, “I have not imposed any hardship on any of you in the dīn.” When He sent a Prophet, He made him a witness against his people but He made this Community witnesses against the whole of mankind.’ Abū ‘Abdullāh at-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm transmitted it in Nawādir al-uṣūl.

Our scholars say that, in His Book, our Lord has informed us of the preference He has given us by describing us as just and by entrusting us with the important task of bearing witness against all creation. He has given us the first place even if we are the last in time, as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘We are the first who came last.’ This is also evidence that only the just may be witnesses, which will be discussed later.

This āyah also contains evidence for the soundness of the consensus of the community and the obligation to judge by it because they have been considered just enough to testify against all mankind. Every generation is a witness for those who come after them. The position of the Companions is evidence and testimony for the Tābi‘ūn and that of the Tābi‘ūn for those after them. Since the Community have been made witnesses, it is mandatory to accept what they say.

and the Messenger as a witness against you.

Meaning about your actions on the Day of Rising. It is also said that this can mean, ‘for you’, bearing witness that you have faith.

We only appointed the direction you used to face in order to know those who follow the Messenger

What is meant here is the first qiblah since He says: ‘you used to face.’ It is also said that it was, in fact, the second qiblah. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said that ‘know’ in this context means ‘see’. The Arabs used knowledge to mean seeing and seeing to mean knowledge. It is also said to mean ‘so that you know that We know.’ The hypocrites had doubts about Allah’s knowledge of things before they took place. It is said that this distinguishes the people of certainty from the people of doubt, as Ibn Fūrak said. Aṭ -Ṭabarī mentioned the same view from Ibn ‘Abbās. It is said that it means: ‘so that the Prophet and his followers will know,’ when Allah reports that about Himself, as when one says, ‘The amīr did such-and-such’ whereas it was his followers who did it. Al-Mahdawī mentioned it and it is excellent. It is said that it means: ‘so that Muḥammad will know’ but He ascribed the knowledge to Himself, exalted is He, to single out and show favour, just as He alluded to Himself سبحانه وتعالى in His words, ‘Son of Adam, I was sick but you didn’t visit me…’ The best view is that the meaning is that it is direct witnessing which makes recompense mandatory. Allah knows the unseen and the visible and He knows what will come about before it takes place. The circumstances of known things vary but His knowledge does not vary. His knowledge is the same in every instance. ‘Follow the Messenger’ here means in respect of the command to change the qiblah to the Ka‘bah.

from those who turn round on their heels

This is referring to those who apostatised from the dīn, because when the qiblah was changed some of the Muslims reverted to their former belief and some became hypocrites.

Though in truth it is a very hard thing –

This means the change of qiblah as Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid and Qatādah said. ‘Except for those Allah has guided’: He created the guidance which is faith in their hearts as He says: ‘Allah has inscribed faith upon such people’s hearts.’ (58:22)

Allah would never let your faith go to waste.

Scholars agree that this was revealed about those who died having prayed toward Jerusalem as we see in al-Bukhārī from al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib. In at-Tirmidhī, Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ turned towards the Ka‘bah, they asked “Messenger of Allah, what about our brothers who died while they were praying towards Jerusalem?” and Allah revealed this.’ The prayer is called ‘faith’ here because it contains intention, word and action. Mālik said, ‘I mention this āyah to refute the position of the Murji’ites that the prayer is not part of faith.’ Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq said that it means your turning to the qiblah and your affirming your Prophet ﷺ. This is the position of most Muslims and those who deal with fundamentals. Ibn Wahb, Ibn al-Qāsim, Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam and Ashhab related from Mālik that it means ‘your prayer’.

Allah is All-Gentle, Most Merciful to mankind.

‘Ra’fah’ (gentleness) is stronger than ‘raḥmah’ (mercy). Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ said that gentleness is more frequent than mercy. The meanings are similar.

144 We have seen you looking up into heaven, turning this way and that, so We will turn you towards a direction which will please you. Turn your face, therefore, towards the Masjid al-Ḥarām. Wherever you all are, turn your faces towards it. Those given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord. Allah is not unaware of what they do.

We have seen you looking up into heaven,

This āyah was revealed before 2:282. Aṭ-Ṭabari said that he ﷺ was turning his eyes towards the heaven. Az-Zajjāj said that it is to move the eyes about in the direction of the sky. The meanings are similar. ‘Heaven’ is mentioned because it was the main direction he looked towards and is the source of things like rain, mercy and revelation. ‘Please you’ means that you will love it. As-Suddī said, ‘When he prayed towards Jerusalem, he would raise his head towards heaven, waiting to see what he would be commanded to do. He wanted to pray towards the Ka‘bah and Allah revealed: “We have seen you looking up into heaven.”’ Abū Isḥāq related that al-Barā’ said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed towards Jerusalem for sixteen or seventeenth months. He wanted to face the Ka‘bah and so Allah revealed: “We have seen you looking up into heaven.”’

Turn you face, therefore, towards the Masjid al-Ḥarām.

It is said to be towards any part of the House as Ibn ‘Abbās said while Ibn ‘Umar said toward the Mizāb of the Ka‘bah as Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah related. The Mizāb is the qiblah of Madīnah and the people of Syria and Andalusia. Ibn Jurayj related from ‘Aṭā’ that Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The House is the qiblah for the people who can see it and the mosque is the qiblah for the people of Makkah, and Makkah is the qiblah for the rest of the people of my community, wherever they are on the earth, east or west.’ The word ‘towards’ (shaṭr) here means ‘in the direction of’ although the word can mean ‘half’.

There is no disagreement among scholars that the Ka‘bah itself is the actual qiblah of everyone. They agree that it is mandatory for it to be faced by someone who can actually see it, and if he does not do that, then his prayer is invalid and he must repeat it. They agree that all of those who cannot see it face in its direction. If it is hidden from a person, then he must look for evidence for it from the stars, the direction of the wind, location of mountains and the like which will enable him to deduce the direction. If someone is sitting in the Masjid al-Ḥarām, he should face the Ka‘bah and look at it with faith and in expectation of the reward. Looking at the Ka‘bah is an act of worship as ‘Aṭā’ and Mujāhid said.

There is disagreement about whether someone not at the Ka‘bah must face it exactly or just face in the direction of it. Facing in the direction of it is sound for three reasons. We are only responsible for doing what is possible for us since Allah says: ‘Wherever you are, turn your faces towards it.’ That is what we are commanded to do in the Qur’an by this āyah. The third reason is that scholars use the long line in the prayer as evidence, since clearly if the line is longer than the side of the Ka‘bah not everyone can be facing it directly.

The āyah also contains clear evidence in support of what Mālik and those who agree with him hold, which is the ruling that someone praying should look straight ahead and not at the place where he is going to prostrate. Ath-Thawrī, Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī and al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy said that it is recommended for him to look at the place where he is going to prostrate. Qāḍī Sharīk said, ‘While standing, he looks at the place where he is going to prostrate, in bowing he looks at his feet, in prostration he looks at the place of his nose, and in sitting, he looks at his lap.’

Those given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord.

This means that the Jews and Christians know that the change of direction has come from Allah. If it is asked, ‘How can they know this when it is not part of their dīn or in their Book?’ there are two answers. One is that since they know from their Book that Muḥammad ﷺ is a Prophet, they know that it follows that he only speaks the truth and only commands it. The second is that they know from their dīn that abrogation is permitted, even if some deny it, and so they know that abrogation is permitted in respect of the qiblah.

Allah is not unaware of what they do.

Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited it with tā’, ‘what you do’, addressed to the community of Muḥammad. Both readings inform us that Allah is not unaware of what His slaves do. It contains a threat. The other reading is with yā’: ‘what they do’.

145 If you were to bring every Sign to those given the Book, they still would not follow your direction. You do not follow their direction. They do not follow each other’s direction. If you followed their whims and desires, after the knowledge that has come to you, you would then be one of the wrongdoers.

If you were to bring every Sign to those given the Book, they still would not follow your direction.

This is because they disbelieve even when the truth is clear to them and signs do not help them.

You do not follow their direction. They do not follow each other’s direction.

You do not incline to anything they face. Then Allah tells us that the Jews do not follow the qiblah of the Christians nor the Christians that of the Jews. As-Suddī and Ibn Zayd said that this tells us about their disunity and misguidance. Some people say that it means that those of them who have become Muslim and follow you do not follow the qiblah of those who are not Muslim nor do those who are not Muslim follow the qiblah of those who are. The first view is more likely, and Allah knows best.

If you followed their whims and desires,

This is addressed to the Prophet ﷺ but it is his Community that is meant because it is not permitted for the Prophet to do anything that would entail wrongdoing. It is possible that it means those who disobey the Prophet. The Prophet ﷺ is addressed to give the command more emphasis.

146 Those We have given the Book recognise it as they recognise their own sons. Yet a group of them knowingly conceal the truth.

Those We have given the Book recognise it

The third person pronoun ‘it’ referring back to the Book can also be read as ‘him’ referring to the Prophet ﷺ, in which case it means they recognise his Prophethood and affirm his Message, as Mujāhid, Qatādah, as others said. It is also said that what they recognise is that the change of the qiblah from Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah is true, as Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Jurayj, ar-Rabī‘ and Qatādah said.

as they recognise their own sons.

‘Sons’ are mentioned after them ‘their own selves’ because time may pass for someone in which he does not recognise himself, but he will still recognise his son. It is related that ‘Umar asked ‘Abdullāh ibn Sallām, ‘Did you recognize Muḥammad ﷺ as you recognise your son?’ He answered, ‘Yes, and more! Allah sent His trusted one in His heaven to His trusted one on earth with his description and I recognised him. I have doubts about my son.’

Yet a group of them knowingly conceal the truth.

The ‘truth’ they conceal may be their recognition of Muḥammad ﷺ or the change of the qiblah and is the result of their obstinacy.

147 The truth is from your Lord, so on no account be among the doubters.

The truth is from your Lord,

This refers to the change of qiblah not what the Jews say about their qiblah. According to ‘Alī, this is connected to ‘they know’ in the previous āyah and so it means, ‘They know the truth from your Lord.’ Or it implies: ‘Hold to the truth.’

so on no account be among the doubters.

Again, although the Prophet ﷺ is addressed, it is his Community that is meant.

148. Each person faces a particular direction so race each other to the good. Wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together. Truly Allah has power over all things.

Each person faces a particular direction

‘Wijhah’ (direction), jihah, and wajh mean the same. What is meant is the qiblah. It means: ‘They do not face your qiblah and you do not face theirs.’ Each has a qiblah, either by the truth or by his own whims and desires. The word ‘faces’ implies that each person with a religion has a qiblah to which he turns. Instead of the reading ‘muwallīhā’, Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Āmir recited ‘muwallāhā’ without naming the subject, and the pronoun in this reading refers to one, i.e. ‘each person has a qiblah’. Az-Zajjāj said that. In the majority reading, the pronoun refers to Allah since it is known that Allah is the One Who does that.

So race each other to the good.

The primary meaning of the āyah is to hasten to what Allah has commanded regarding the facing of the Masjid al-Ḥarām, although the phrase, in fact, contains encouragement to hasten to all acts of obedience in general. What is meant here is facing the qiblah because of the context. What is meant by ‘racing’ is to perform the prayer at the beginning of its time, and Allah knows best. An-Nasā’ī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The metaphor of the one who goes early to the prayer is that of someone who sacrifices a camel. The one after him is like someone who sacrifices a cow. The one after him is like someone who sacrifices a ram. Then the one after him is like someone who sacrifices a chicken and the one after him is like someone who sacrifices an egg.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī reports from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Each of you should pray the prayer at its time. What is at the beginning of the time is better for him than his family and wealth.’ Mālik transmitted it from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd. Ad-Dāraquṭnī also transmits from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best of actions is the prayer at the beginning of its time.’ He also related from Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik from Abū Maḥdhūrah from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The beginning of the time is the pleasure of Allah, the middle of the time is the mercy of Allah, and the end of the time is the pardon of Allah.’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said about this, ‘Abū Bakr said, “I prefer Allah’s pleasure to His pardon. His pleasure is for the good-doers and His pardon is for those who fall short.”’ That is what ash-Shāfi‘ī preferred. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘The end of the time is better because it is the time of the obligation.’

Mālik made a distinction, saying that in the case of Ṣubḥ and Maghrib, the beginning of the time is better. In respect of this he goes by the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray Ṣubḥ when it was dark and the women would leave wrapped in their mantles and could not be recognised due to the darkness.’ And in the case of Maghrib, he goes by the ḥadīth of Salamah ibn al-Akwa‘ that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed Maghrib when the sun set. In the case of ‘Ishā’, it is better to delay it if one is able to do so. Ibn ‘Umar related, ‘We remained that night waiting for the ‘Ishā’ prayer with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He came out to us when a third of the night or more had has passed and we did not know whether he was doing something with his family or something else. When he came out, he said, “You are waiting for a prayer when none of the people of the dīn except you are waiting for it. If it had not been that it would be onerous for this Community, I would always pray at this time with them.”’ It is related in al-Bukhārī that Anas said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ delayed the ‘Ishā’ prayer to the middle of the night and then prayed…’ Abū Barzah said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ preferred to delay it.’

As for Ẓuhr, it arrives at a time when people are inattentive and so it is recommended to delay it a little so that people can prepare and gather together. Abu-l-Faraj said that Mālik said, ‘The beginning of the time is better for every prayer except for Ẓuhr when it is very hot.’ Ibn Abī Uways said, ‘Mālik disliked praying Ẓuhr at midday but did it a little later.’ He said that praying exactly at midday is the prayer of the Khārijites. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī and the Ṣaḥīḥ of at-Tirmidhī that Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī said, ‘We were with the Prophet ﷺ on a journey and the mu’adhdhin wanted to give the adhān for Ẓuhr, and the Prophet ﷺ said, “Let it cool.” Then again he wanted to give the adhān and the Prophet ﷺ said, “Let it cool.” When we saw the shadows of the hillocks, the Prophet ﷺ said, “Intense heat is from the exhalation of Hell. When it is very hot, then pray when it is cooler.”’ We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Anas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray Ẓuhr when the sun declined. That on which both ḥadīths from Anas agree is that when it was hot, the prayer was delayed until it was cooler. When it was cool, it was brought forward. Abū ‘Īsā at-Tirmidhī said, ‘Some of the people of knowledge prefer to delay the Ẓuhr prayer when it is very hot. That is the view of Ibn al-Mubārak, Aḥmad and Isḥāq.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Waiting for the Ẓuhr prayer until it is cooler is when its people come from a distance. When someone prays alone or prays in his local mosque, I prefer him not to delay the prayer in intense heat.’ Abū ‘Īsā said, ‘What is meant by those who delay Ẓuhr when it is very hot is that it is more appropriate and closer to following [what was done]. As for those who take the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, that the allowance is on account of distance and hardship for people, the ḥadīth of Abū Dharr counters ash-Shāfi’ī’s opinion. Abū Dharr said, “We were with the Prophet ﷺ on a journey and Bilāl gave the adhān for Ẓuhr.̛ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Bilāl, let it cool. Let it cool.’” If the business had been as ash-Shāfi‘ī believed, there would have been no point in waiting for it to cool down at that time because they were gathered together in the journey and did not need to come from afar.’

As for ‘Aṣr, it is better to do it early in the time. There is no disagreement in our School that when one hopes for a group, it is better to delay the prayer than to do it early in the time. The excellence of the group prayer is known and the excellence of the beginning of the time is unknown. It is better to obtain what is known. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that.

Wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together.

This is a reference to the Day of Rising. Then Allah describes Himself as having power over all things since that attribute is appropriate for what was mentioned of being brought back to life after death and decay.

149 Wherever you come from, turn your face to the Masjid al-Ḥarām. This is certainly the truth from your Lord. Allah is not unaware of what you do. 150 Wherever you come from, turn your face to the Masjid al-Ḥarām. Wherever you are, turn your faces towards it so that people will have no argument against you – except for those among them who do wrong and then you should not fear them but rather fear Me – and so that I can complete My blessing to you so that hopefully you will be guided.

This is stressing the command to face the qiblah and the importance of that, because the change was very difficult for them. Therefore the command is repeated so that people will see the importance of it and it will be easier for them. It is said that the first command to turn the face is to look at the Ka‘bah when you are praying in front of it. Then ‘wherever you are’ is for the Muslims in all the mosques in Madīnah and elsewhere. This is a command to face it everywhere and in all circumstances.

This statement is better than the first one because it gives a benefit to each āyah. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Anas ibn Mālik said, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ was on a journey and wanted to pray on his camel, he faced the qiblah and said the takbīr and then prayed in whatever direction it turned.’ Abū Dāwud also transmitted it. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and Aḥmad said that. Mālik believed that you are not obliged to face Makkah, going by the ḥadīth of ‘Umar in which he said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray facing from Makkah towards Madīnah on his camel.’ ‘Wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there’ (2:115) was revealed about this.

There is no contradiction between the two ḥadīths because this is part of the legal area of texts which are unrestricted or restricted, so the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī is more fitting and the ḥadīth of Anas is sound. It is related that Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad was asked about the meaning of the repetition of stories in the Qur’an. He said, ‘Allah knows that all people do not know the Qur’an by heart. If there was no story repeated, then it would be possible that only some people would know the story. It is repeated so that everyone will know it.’

so that people will have no argument against you –

Mujāhid said that the ‘people’ referred to here are the Arab idolaters and their argument is what they said about the qiblah. It is said that the meaning of this is: ‘So that they will not say to you, “You are commanded to face the Ka‘bah yet you cannot see it.”’ This was removed when He said: ‘Wherever you are, turn your faces towards it.’ Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj said, ‘It means that Allah has acquainted you with the argument about the qiblah in His words: “Each person faces a particular direction.” “So that people will have no argument against you” except for someone who is unjust in his argument when the business is, in fact, clear to him. It is as you say, “You have no argument except being unjust” or “merely in order to wrong me.” “You have no definitive argument. You are merely wronging me.” So the argument is called “injustice” even though it is invalid.’ Quṭrub said that it is possible that it means: ‘So that only those who are unjust can argue against you.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘Allah made it clear that no one has evidence against the Prophet ﷺ and the Companions regarding their facing the qiblah.’ It means that they only have a baseless argument in their remarks about that.

and then you should not fear them but rather fear Me –

‘Khashyah’ (fear) derives from the lack of tranquillity in the heart about what to expect, while khawf is the alarm of the heart which makes the limbs tremble. The āyah calls attention to the fact that all that is other than Allah is insignificant. The command is for people to cast aside their own affairs and to obey the command of Allah.

and so that I can complete My blessing to you

According to az-Zajjāj, this refers to Allah making His chosen qiblah known to them. The completion of guidance is being guided to the qiblah. It is said to be admitting them into the Garden. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘Allah’s blessing to His slave is not complete until He admits him to the Garden.’

151 For this We sent a Messenger to you from among you to recite Our Signs to you and purify you and teach you the Book and Wisdom and teach you things you did not know before.

Al-Farrā’ said that it means: ‘So that I can complete My blessing to you by completing the like of what you have been sent with.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is the best view, meaning: ‘So that I can complete My blessing to you in clarifying that the sunnah of Ibrāhīm is like what We have sent to you.’ It is said that it means: ‘Perhaps you will be guided to a similar guidance as that We sent previously.’ It can also mean: ‘I will complete My blessing to you in this state,’ and the blessing in respect of the qiblah resembles the blessing of the Message, and the remembrance commanded is immense like the blessing. There can also be a change in the normal word order so that it means: ‘Remember Me as We sent you…’ The view related from ‘Alī, which is preferred by az-Zajjāj, is that it means: ‘As We sent a Messenger from among you whom you recognise to be truthful, remember Me with tawḥīd and affirmation of him.’ This is also what at-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm preferred: ‘As I have given you these blessings that I have enumerated to you, remember Me with gratitude and I will remember you with an increased reward because your remembering that is thanking Me and I have promised an increased reward for thankfulness.’ He says: ‘If you are grateful, I will certainly give you increase.’ (14:7)

152 Remember Me – I will remember you. Give thanks to Me and do not be ungrateful. 153 You who believe! seek help in steadfastness and the prayer. Allah is with the steadfast.

Remember Me – I will remember you.

Allah’s remembering of us signifies reward. The root meaning of the word for ‘remembering’ (dhikr) is to be aware with the heart of what is remembered and awake to it. Dhikr with the tongue is called dhikr because it indicates the remembrance of the heart. It is often used, however, with reference to the spoken words and phrases employed in its performance.

The āyah means: ‘Remember Me by obeying Me and I will remember you with the reward and forgiveness,’ as Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said. He also said, ‘Dhikr is obeying Allah. Anyone who does not obey Him, does not remember Him, even if he does a lot of glorification, shahādah and recitation of the Qur’an.’ It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who obeys Allah has remembered Allah, even if he has not done much prayer, fasting or good action. Anyone who disobeys Allah has forgotten Allah, even if he has done a lot of prayer, fasting and good action,’ as Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn Khuwayzimandād mentions in Aḥkām al-Qur’ān. Abū ‘Uthmān an-Nahdī said, ‘I know a moment in which Allah remembers us.’ He was asked, ‘How do you know that?’ He answered, ‘Allah Almighty says: “Remember Me – I will remember you.”’ As-Suddī said, ‘A person does not remember Allah without Allah remembering Him. A believer does not remember Allah without Allah remembering him with mercy. An unbeliever does not remember Allah without Allah remembering him with the punishment.’

Someone said to Abū ‘Uthmān an-Nahdī, ‘We remember Allah but we do not experience any sweetness in our hearts.’ He said, ‘Praise Allah Almighty for the fact that He has adorned one of your limbs with obedience!’ Dhu-n-Nūn al-Miṣrī said, ‘Anyone who really remembers Allah, forgets everything except His remembrance and Allah preserves him from every bad thing and is his redress for everything.’ Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal said, ‘The son of Ādam does not do any action which will be more effective in saving him from the punishment of Allah than dhikr of Allah.’

There are many ḥadīths on the virtue of dhikr and its reward. Ibn Mājah reports from ‘Abdullāh ibn Yūsuf that a Bedouin said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘The laws of Islam are a lot for me. Tell me something on which I can really concentrate my efforts.’ He said, ‘Let your tongue remain moist with the remembrance of Allah Almighty.’ It is transmitted that Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty says, “I am with My noble slave when he remembers Me and moves his lips with My Name.”’ This subject will be discussed in greater depth elsewhere.

Gives thanks to Me

Thankfulness (shukr) is to acknowledge kindness received and to speak of it. The linguistic root of shukr means ‘to display’. So Allah’s slave shows his thankfulness by mentioning Allah’s goodness to him and the Real thanks the slave by praising him for obeying Him.

and do not be ungrateful.

Do not be ungrateful for Allah’s blessings. The word kufr here means to cover up the blessing, not total disbelief.

154 Do not say that those who are killed in the Way of Allah are dead. On the contrary, they are alive but you are not aware of it.

This is like another verse: ‘Do not suppose those killed in the Way of Allah are dead. No indeed! They are alive and well provided for in the very presence of their Lord.’ (3:169) There we will discuss martyrs and the rulings that apply in their case, Allah willing. Allah will bring them to life after death in order to provide for them and so it is equally possible for the unbelievers to be brought to life in order for them to be punished. This is evidence for the punishment in the grave. The martyrs are alive, as Allah says. It does not mean that they will be brought to life later, since in that case there would be no difference between them and anyone else, because everyone will be brought back to life on the Last Day. The evidence for this is found in His words: ‘…but you are not aware of it’, and the believers are certainly aware that they will be brought back to life.

155 We will test you with a certain amount of fear and hunger and loss of wealth and life and fruits. But give good news to the steadfast:

We will test you with a certain amount of fear and hunger and loss of wealth and life and fruits.

‘We will test you so that We know who are the fighters and the steadfast by direct evidence in order that they may be rewarded.’ It is said that they will be tested as a sign for those after them and so that they know that if they too are steadfast in this respect, then truth will be clear to them. It is said that He will inform them of this so that they will have certainty that it will befall them as well; then they will be ready for it and will be less likely to be anxious. It advances Allah’s reward.

‘Certain amount’ (shay’) is in the singular, but has the meaning of a plural. Indeed, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk actually recites it in the plural although most have it in the singular. The word ‘fear’ here refers to fear of the enemy and alarm when fighting as Ibn ‘Abbās said. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it is fear of Allah that is meant. The ‘hunger’ is that caused by drought and famine according to Ibn ‘Abbās. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it refers to the hunger felt in the month of Ramaḍān. ‘Loss of wealth’ comes through being occupied with fighting the unbelievers. It is said that it refers to damage done to crops. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it is the diminishment that comes about through the payment of the obligatory zakat. ‘Loss of life’, according to Ibn ‘Abbās, is by killing and death in jihād. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it is through illnesses. ‘Loss of fruits’, according to ash-Shāfi‘ī means the death of children as they are the fruit of a man’s heart as we find in a tradition. Ibn ‘Abbās says that it means loss of crops and blessing.

But give good news to the steadfast:

Give them the good news of the reward for their steadfastness. The root of the word ‘steadfast’ (ṣabr) means to confine and restrict and its reward is without limit, but that only refers to steadfastness at the first blow. Al-Bukhārī transmitted from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Steadfastness is at the first blow.’ Muslim transmitted it in a more complete form. The steadfastness which is difficult for the self and which has such an immense reward is that shown when the affliction first strikes since it indicates the strength of the heart and its firmness in the station of steadfastness. When an affliction lessens with time anyone can be steadfast. That is why it is said, ‘In an affliction every intelligent person must withstand what a fool can only withstand after three.’ Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tustarī said, ‘When the Almighty said: “give good news to the steadfast”, steadfastness became a way of life.’

There are two types of steadfastness: steadfastness in not disobeying Allah, and this is that of the mujāhid, and steadfastness in obeying Allah, and this is that of the ordinary worshipper. If someone is steadfast in not disobeying Allah and steadfast in obeying Allah, Allah will grant him complete satisfaction with His Decree. The sign of this satisfaction is tranquillity in the heart in the face of everything that happens to you, whether liked or disliked. Al-Khawwāṣ said, ‘Steadfastness is firmness in holding to the rulings of the Book and Sunnah.’ Ruwaym said, ‘Steadfastness is abandoning complaint.’ Dhu-n-Nūn al-Miṣrī said, ‘Steadfastness is seeking the help of Allah Almighty.’

156 Those who, when disaster strikes them, say, ‘We belong to Allah and to Him we will return. 157 Those are the people who will have blessings and mercy from their Lord; they are the ones who are guided.

Those who, when disaster strikes them,

The word ‘disaster’ (muṣībah) means everything that harms and afflicts a believer, even if it is minor. It is used for any evil. ‘Ikrimah related that one night the lamp of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out and he said, ‘We belong to Allah and to Him we return.’ He was asked, ‘Is it a disaster, Messenger of Allah?’ He answered, ‘Yes, whatever harms a believer is a disaster.’ This idea is confirmed in the Ṣaḥīḥ. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim there is a ḥadīth transmitted from Abū Sa‘īd and Abū Hurayrah in which they heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Whatever afflicts the believer, be it discomfort, fatigue, illness or sorrow, even a care that concerns him, expiates his evil deeds.’

Ibn Mājah in the Sunan transmitted from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah from Wakī‘ ibn Hishām ibn Ziyād from his mother from Fāṭimah bint al-Husayn from her father that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone suffers an affliction and remembers his affliction and says, “We belong to Allah and to Him we will return,” even after a long time, Allah will write for him a reward the same as if he had said it on the day he was afflicted.’

One of the worst afflictions is an affliction which affects one’s dīn. ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When someone suffers an affliction, he should remember his loss of me. That is one of the greatest afflictions.’ Abū Muḥammad as-Samarqandī transmitted it in his Musnad. Abū Nu‘aym reported it from Faṭr and has a similar report which is mursal from Makḥūl. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ spoke the truth because the affliction of losing him is greater than any other affliction which a Muslim might suffer after that until the Day of Rising. The Revelation has come to an end and Prophethood has died out.’ The first evil to appear was the apostasy of the Arabs. His death was the end of good and the beginning of loss. Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘Our hands had not brushed off the dust of the grave of the Messenger of Allah when we found that we did not know our hearts.’

We belong to Allah and to Him we will return.

Allah has made these words the refuge of all those overcome by affliction and the resort of all those undergoing trial since it contains many blessed meanings. ‘We belong to Allah’ is tawḥīd, and affirmation of our slavehood and Allah’s mastership; ‘…and to Him we will return’ is affirmation of the inevitability of death and resurrection from the grave and certainty that the entire affair will return to Allah as it belongs to Him. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘These words were not given to any Prophet before our Prophet. If Ya‘qūb had known them, he would not have said, “My sorrow for Yūsuf!” (12:84)’

Abū Sinān said, ‘When I buried my son Sinān, Abū Ṭalḥah al-Khawlānī was standing at the edge of the grave. When I was about to leave, he took my hand and tried to cheer me up. He said, “Shall I give you some good news, Abū Sinān? Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk reported to me from Abū Mūsā that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When someone’s child dies, Allah says to the angels, “You have taken the child of My slave?” “Yes,” they reply. He asks, “You took the apple of his eye?” “Yes,” they reply. He asks, “What did My slave say?” They reply, “He praised You and said, ‘We belong to Allah and to Him we will return.’” Allah Almighty will say, “Build My slave a house in the Garden and name it the House of Praise.”’”’

Muslim related from Umm Salamah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no Muslim who is afflicted by a calamity and then says, “We belong to Allah and to Him we return. O Allah, give me a reward for my calamity and give me something better to replace it,” without Allah granting him something better in its place.’ This is indicated by the words of Allah Almighty: ‘Give good news to the steadfast.’ (2:155). The replacement which Allah gave Umm Salamah was the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He married her when her husband, Abū Salamah, died. Otherwise there is an ample reward in the Next World, as in the ḥadīth of Abū Mūsā.

Those are the people who will have blessings and mercy from their Lord.

The blessings (ṣalawāt) of Allah on His slave are His pardon, mercy, blessing and honour for him in this world and the Next. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘Ṣalawāt from Allah means forgiveness and good praise.’ One element of this is the funeral prayer for the dead person which entails praise for him and supplication for him. The word ‘mercy’ is repeated, when the phrase varies, for emphasis and to expand the meaning. It is said that by ‘mercy’ Allah means removing grief and fulfilling every need. In al-Bukhārī, ‘‘Umar said, “The two sides of the baggage and what is put on it.”’ The two sides [of the carriers on the camel] mean blessing and mercy, and what is on top is ‘those are the guided.’ It is said that it means entitlement to the reward and an ample wage. It is also said that it is making disasters easier to bear and alleviating sorrow.

158 Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah, so anyone who goes on ḥajj to the House or does ‘umrah incurs no wrong in going back and forth between them. If anyone spontaneously does good, Allah is All-Thankful, All-Knowing.

Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah,

Al-Bukhārī related that ‘Āṣim ibn Sulaymān said, ‘I asked Anas ibn Mālik about Ṣafā and Marwah and he said, “We used to think that the observance connected with them was something from the Jāhiliyyah. When Islam came, we kept back from them and then Allah revealed this.”’ In at-Tirmidhī we find that ‘Urwah said, ‘I said to ‘Ā’ishah, “I do not think that someone who does not go between Ṣafā and Marwah owes any sacrifice and I do not care if I go between them or not.” She said, “My nephew, what you say is wrong. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went between them and so did all the Muslims. Those who previously used to go into iḥrām for the idol Manāt, which they used to worship at al-Mushallal, considered it wrong to go between Ṣafā and Marwah, so Allah revealed: ‘Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah.’ If it was as you say, it would have been: ‘incurs no wrong if he does not go between them.’”’ Az-Zuhrī said that he mentioned that to Abū Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Hishām and he liked it and remarked, ‘There is something I heard men of knowledge say: “Those Arabs who do not go between Ṣafā and Marwah said that our ṭawāf between these two stones is something from the Jāhiliyyah and others among the Anṣār said, ‘We are commanded to do ṭawāf of the House and go between Ṣafā and Marwah.’ So Allah revealed: ‘Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah.’”’ Abū Bakr said, ‘I think it was revealed about these groups.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted something to that effect. He said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

Also in al-Bukhārī there is a ḥadīth in which ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ made a sunnah of going between them. No one should abandon going between them.’ Then she told Abū Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān and he said, ‘This is a piece of knowledge I have not heard. I did hear some of the people of knowledge saying that the people – except for those ‘Ā’ishah mentioned who went into iḥrām for Manāt – all used to go between Ṣafā and Marwah. When Allah Almighty mentioned ṭawāf of the House and did not mention Ṣafā and Marwah in the Qur’an, they said, “Messenger of Allah, we used also do ṭawāf of Ṣafā and Marwah and Allah has revealed ṭawāf around the House without mentioning Ṣafā. Is it a sin for us to do ṭawāf of Ṣafā and Marwah?” Allah Almighty then revealed: “Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah.”’ Abū Bakr said, ‘I heard that this āyah was revealed about both groups – those who used to consider it a sin to do ṭawāf of Ṣafā and Marwah in the time of Jāhiliyyah and those who had done ṭawāf of them and then considered it a sin to do so in the time of Islam – because Allah Almighty had commanded ṭawāf of the House without mentioning Ṣafā, only speaking of it after what He said about ṭawāf of the House.’

At-Tirmidhī related that ‘Āṣim ibn Sulaymān al-Aḥwal said, ‘I asked Mālik about Ṣafā and Marwah and he said, “They were among the Landmarks of the Jāhiliyyah. When Islam came, we refrained from them. Then Allah revealed: ‘Ṣafā and Marwah are among the Landmarks of Allah, so anyone who goes on ḥajj to the House or does ‘umrah incurs no wrong in going back and forth between them.’” He said, “They are voluntary. ‘If anyone spontaneously does good, Allah is All-Thankful, All-Knowing.’”’ He said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. Al-Bukhārī also transmitted it.

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘In the time of Jāhiliyyah some shayṭāns used to play music the entire night between Ṣafā and Marwah, and there were idols between them. When Islam came, the Muslims said, “Messenger of Allah, we do not go between Ṣafā and Marwah. To do so is shirk.” Then this was revealed.’ Ash-Sha‘bī said, ‘In the Jāhiliyyah, there was an idol called Isāf on Ṣafā, and an idol called Nā’ilah on Marwah. They used to wipe their hands on the idols when they went between them. So the Muslims refused to go between them. It was because of that that the āyah was revealed.’

The root meaning of the name Ṣafā is smooth stone. It is a well known high rock at Makkah and Marwah is another high rock. That is why they take the definite article. Ṣafā gets its name because Ādam, the chosen one (muṣtafā), stopped there, and so it was named after him. Ḥawwā’ stopped on Marwah and it was named after the word for ‘woman’ (mar’ah). Allah knows best.

‘The Landmarks (sha‘ā’ir) of Allah’ are among His signs and the places of His worship. These are the sites of acts of worship which Allah informs us about, thereby making them signs for people: the standing, sa‘y, and sacrifice. Shi‘ār is an identification mark of the kind put on the hump of camels to be sacrificed.

so anyone who goes on ḥajj to the House or does ‘umrah

He heads for it. The root meaning of the word “ḥajj” means to aim for something. ‘Umrah means a visit.

incurs no wrong in going back and forth between them

They do not commit any sin by doing that. The root of the word for ‘junāḥ’ (wrong) is junūḥ, which means bending and is used for the limbs (jawāniḥ) because they bend. To use this expression means to permit the action. ‘Urwah thought that it meant that it is permissible to abandon tawāf and then he saw that the Sharī‘ah confirmed the fact that there is no allowance to abandon it.

At-Tirmidhī transmitted from Jābir that, when the Prophet ﷺ came to Makkah, he went around the House seven times, and recited, ‘Take the Maqām of Ibrāhīm as a place of prayer’ (2:125); and he prayed behind the Maqām. Then he went to the Stone and kissed it and then said, ‘We begin with what Allah began with.’ So he began with Ṣafā. The correct practice, therefore, according to the people of knowledge, is that you begin with Ṣafā. This is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. According to the people of knowledge, the proper action is to begin with Ṣafā. It is not permitted to begin with Marwah.

Scholars disagree about the obligatory nature of sa‘y between Ṣafā and Marwah. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Ibn Ḥanbal said that it is a pillar of the Ḥajj. This is the well-known position in the school of Mālik, since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do sa‘y. Allah has prescribed sa‘y for you.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. ‘Kataba’ means ‘has made obligatory’ as we see in the Book and ḥadīths. Ibn Mājah transmitted that an umm walad belonging to Shaybah said, ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ doing sa‘y between Ṣafā and Marwah. He was saying, “Al-Abṭaḥ should only be crossed quickly.”’ If someone omits it, or omits even one circuit of it deliberately or out of forgetfulness, he must return from his land, or from wherever he remembers, to Makkah and do ṭawāf and sa’y, because sa’y is only connected to ṭawāf.

Mālik said that sa‘y is the same in ḥajj or ‘umrah, although it is not a farḍ in ‘umrah. If someone has sexual contact with a woman, he must perform ‘umrah and sacrifice according to Mālik, but he completes his practices. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he owes a sacrifice and there is no point in doing ‘umrah if he has gone back and performed ṭawāf and sa‘y. Abū Hanīfah and his people, ath-Thawrī and ash-Sha‘bī said that sa‘y is not mandatory. If someone omits it in the ḥajj and then returns to his homeland without doing it, he owes a sacrifice because it is one of the sunnahs of ḥajj. That is the position of Mālik in al-‘Utibiyyah. It is, however, related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn az-Zubayr, Anas ibn Mālik and Ibn Sīrīn that it is voluntary based on this āyah.

If anyone spontaneously does good, Allah is All-Thankful, All-Knowing

Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite ‘yaṭṭawwa‘’, as with 2:184, while the rest have ‘ṭawwa‘a’ in the past tense. This refers to any supererogatory good action someone does which is not imposed on them, whether ṭawāf or anything else. Allah will show gratitude for the action by rewarding them. What is sound is what ash-Shāfi‘ī believed, based on what we mentioned and the fact that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Take your practices from me.’ Therefore it is clear that it is part of the ḥajj and it must be obligatory in the same way as is the case in his making the number of rak‘ahs clear ﷺ. The same is true of all of that unless it is agreed that it is sunnah or voluntary. Ṭulayb said, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās saw some people doing ṭawāf between Ṣafā and Marwah and said, “This is what your mother, Ismā‘īl’s mother, bequeathed you.”’ This is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī as we will see in Sūrah Ibrāhīm.

It is not permitted for anyone to do ṭawāf of the House or go between Ṣafā and Marwah riding unless he has an excuse. If he does this with a valid excuse, then he owes a sacrifice. If he does it without an excuse, he must repeat the action as long as he is still at the House. Otherwise he must sacrifice. We say that because the Prophet ﷺ did ṭawāf himself and he said, ‘Take your practices from me.’ We are allowed to do that with an excuse because the Prophet ﷺ did ṭawāf on his camel and greeted the Corner with his whip, and when ‘Ā’ishah asked him about it, he said, ‘I am unwell.’ He also told her, ‘Do ṭawāf riding behind the people.’

Our people differentiate between doing ṭawāf on a camel and on a person’s back. It is not permitted to do ṭawāf on a person’s back because then the person being carried is not the one performing ṭawāf; the one performing ṭawāf is the person who is carrying him. If he does ṭawāf on a camel, he is performing ṭawāf. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘This is a distinction in choice. It does satisfy the requirement. Do you not see that if someone faints and is carried in the rest of his ṭawāf or stops at ‘Arafāt while being carried, he has satisfied the requirement.’

159 Those who hide the Clear Signs and Guidance We have sent down, after We have made it clear to people in the Book, Allah curses them, and the cursers curse them –

Those who hide the Clear Signs and Guidance We have sent down,

Allah tells us that anyone who hides the Clear Signs and Guidance is cursed. Scholars disagree about what is meant that. It is said that the Jewish rabbis and Christian monks are the ones who concealed their knowledge of the coming of Muḥammad ﷺ and the Jews concealed the command about stoning. It is said that it means everyone who conceals the truth, and so it is general to all who conceal any knowledge of the dīn of Allah which should be made known. That is explained by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘If anyone is asked about knowledge which he knows and conceals it, Allah will bridle him with a bridle of Fire on the Day of Rising.’ Abū Hurayrah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ related it and Ibn Mājah transmitted it.

That is counterbalanced by the statement of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘You should not tell people a ḥadīth which is beyond the grasp of their intellects lest it be a trial for some of them.’ The Prophet ﷺ also said, ‘Relate to people according to their ability to understand. Do you want Allah and His Messenger to be denied?’ This applies to some areas of knowledge, such as kalām and the like which not everyone can grasp. A scholar should transmit what can be grasped and deal with everyone according to their understanding. Allah knows best.

This āyah is the one which Abū Hurayrah was referring to when he said, ‘If it had not been for an āyah in the Book of Allah Almighty, I would not have told you a single ḥadīth.’ Scholars use it as evidence for the obligation of conveying true knowledge and in general of making knowledge clear without taking a wage for it, since no wage should be received for what it is mandatory to do, just as there is no wage for simply being a Muslim. This has already been discussed in the commentary on āyah 41.

The meaning of the āyah is that, when a scholar intends to conceal knowledge, he disobeys Allah. When that is not his intention, he is not obliged to convey something if he knows that other people know it. When he is asked, he is obliged by this āyah and the ḥadīth to convey what he knows. He is not, however, permitted to teach an unbeliever the Qur’an and knowledge of the dīn until he becomes Muslim. Similarly he is not permitted to teach an innovator proofs and arguments which he might then use to argue against the people who possess the truth. He should not instruct a litigant in techniques of legal advocacy so that he can use it against his opponent to take his money, nor should he teach a ruler a particular interpretation which he can then use to harm his subjects. He should not inform fools of permissive opinions which they might then use as justification for committing forbidden acts or abandoning their obligations or other such things.

It is related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do not deny wisdom to those entitled to it and thus wrong them, and do not give it to those not entitled to it and thus wrong it.’ It is also reported that he said. ‘Do not hang pearls from the necks of swine,’ meaning teach fiqh to someone who is not able to grasp it. Saḥnūn said, ‘The ḥadīth of Abū Hurayah and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ is about giving testimony.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘What is sound is different to that because it says in the ḥadīth: “If anyone is asked about knowledge” and not “testimony”. One takes the literal meaning unless there is something to alter it.’ Allah knows best.

The ‘Clear Signs and Guidance’ mentioned in the āyah are not specific things. On the contrary, it is a general statement, since guidance includes all knowledge of the dīn. The āyah is evidence for the obligation of acting by the statement of a single person because clarification would only be mandatory for him if it were mandatory to accept what he says. Allah says: ‘except for those who sincerely repent and put things right and make things clear.’ (2:160) So its ruling is that clarification occurs simply by virtue of them reporting it.

If it is said that it is possible that everyone is forbidden to conceal the matter, and commanded to make it clear, so that there will be a great number of people who report it, we reply to those who say this that it is a mistake. That is because they were not forbidden to conceal things because they were among those who might collude in concealing knowledge. If someone is one of those who might collude in concealment, their report is not mandatory, and Allah knows best.

The use of the words ‘Clear Signs and Guidance’ also indicates that it is permitted to conceal anything other than that, especially when there is fear of what its misunderstanding might provoke, in which case its concealment is even more emphatically encouraged. Fear of the consequences involved led Abū Hurayrah to do precisely that. He said, ‘I preserved two vessels from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. I have disseminated one of them. If I were to disseminate the other one, my throat would be cut.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it. Our scholars say that the part which Abū Hurayrah did not disseminate, and on account of which he feared dissension or that he himself might be killed, was knowledge which was connected to seditions, information about apostates and hypocrites, and other such things which are not connected to Clear Signs and Guidance. And Allah knows best.

after We have made it clear to people in the Book,

This alludes to the Clear Signs and Guidance which Allah has revealed to the human race. ‘The Book’ is generic, meaning all the Revealed Books.

Allah curses them,

He declares Himself free of them and puts them far from His reward, telling them they are cursed. The root meaning of curse is to put away and drive away.

and the cursers curse them.

Qatādah and ar-Rabī‘ said that the ‘cursers’ are the angels and the believers. Mujāhid and ‘Ikrimah say that they are the insects and beasts who curse them because they are afflicted by drought on account of the wrong actions of those evil scholars who conceal knowledge. Az-Zajjāj said that the correct view is that it is the angels and the believers. He says that the truth of the assertion that it is the beasts of the earth would necessarily depend on a text or a report to that effect and none has been found to back it up. There is, however, a ḥadīth from al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib in which the Prophet ﷺ said in reference to this fact that it is the beasts of the earth. This ḥadīth can be found in Ibn Mājah from Muḥammad ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ from ‘Ammār ibn Muḥammad from Abu-l-Minhāl from Zādhān from al-Barā’. It has a good isnād.

If it is asked, ‘How can the plural reserved for things which have intelligence be used for creatures without intelligence?’ the reply is that it is because the action of intelligent beings is ascribed to them. An example of this is when Allah says in Sūrat Yūsuf: ‘I saw them [the stars] prostrating to me’ (12:4), using the masculine plural. There are many other instances of this and it is something which will be discussed later, Allah willing. Al-Barā’ and Ibn ‘Abbās said that the ‘cursers’ are all creatures except for men and jinn. That is because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the unbeliever is struck in his grave and shouts out, everything hears him except for men and jinn. All who hear him curse him.’ Ibn Mas‘ūd and as-Suddī said, ‘It is a man who curses his companion and the curse rises to heaven and then descends and does not find the person, about whom it was said, as meriting it and so it returns to the one who said it and does not find him to merit it either. Therefore, it becomes general and falls on the Jews who concealed what Allah revealed.’

160 except for those who sincerely repent and put things right and make things clear. I turn towards them. I am the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.

except for those who sincerely repent

Those who sincerely repent are those who are righteous in their actions and do deeds which make their repentance clear. Simple repentance is not enough according to our scholars; it is necessary for the opposite of someone’s original condition to be clearly manifest in him. If he was an apostate and then returns to Islam, he has to be manifestly obeying its laws. If he is one of the people of disobedience, he must become one of the people who perform righteous actions and avoid people immersed in corruption and his former life. If he is an idolater, he must shun the company of other idolaters and mix with the people of Islam. Repentance and its rulings will be explained in Sūrat an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

and put things right and make things clear.

Some scholars say that ‘make things clear’ means, for instance, by breaking wine containers and spilling out their contents and other clear actions connected with breaking with past patterns of behaviour. It is said that it means make clear what is in the Torah about the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ and the obligation to follow him. It is better to take it in the more general sense of displaying the opposite of what people were doing previously. Allah knows best.

161 But as for those who are unbelievers and die unbelievers, the curse of Allah is upon them and that of the angels and all mankind. 162 They will be under it for ever. The punishment will not be lightened for them. They will be granted no reprieve.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Many of my shaykhs told me that it is not permitted to curse a particular unbeliever because his state at the time of his death is not known. Allah Almighty stipulated in this āyah that the application of the curse depends on someone actually dying as an unbeliever. As for what is related about the Prophet ﷺ cursing specific unbelievers, that was only because he knew what their fate would be.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī also said, ‘I consider it valid, however, to curse an unbeliever on the basis of his outward state and it is permitted to fight and kill him. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, “O Allah, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ has satirised me and he knows that l am not a poet, so curse him and satirise him to the extent that he has satirized me.” So he cursed him, even though faith, the dīn and Islam were to be his end. He was fair when he said, “To the extent that he has satirised me,” and no more.’

As for cursing unbelievers in general, without specifying anyone, there is no disagreement about doing that, since Mālik reported with an isnād going back to al-A‘raj who said, ‘People definitely used to curse the unbelievers in Ramaḍān.’ Our scholars add, ‘Whether or not they are dhimmīs.’ This is not mandatory but it is permitted if someone does it, because they deny the truth and are hostile towards the dīn and its people. The same applies to anyone who commits acts of disobedience openly, like drinking wine and practising usury and other such things.

The point of cursing an unbeliever is not to drive him away from disbelief. It is repayment for his disbelief and his display of it. Some of the Salaf said, ‘There is no point in cursing those who are mad or dead among them, either by way of repayment or as a rebuke. It has no effect.’

What is meant by the āyah, according to this understanding, is that people will curse them on the Day of Rising so that it has an effect and harms and pains their hearts. That is the repayment for their disbelief as the Almighty says: ‘Then on the Day of Rising, they will reject one another and curse one another.’ (29:25) This position inclines to the view that the āyah is a simple report from Allah and not a command. Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned that it is not permitted to curse an individual rebel, because it is reported that a man who had drunk wine several times was brought before the Prophet and one of those present said, ‘Allah curse him! How often he is brought!’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not help Shayṭān against your brother,’ and he called him a brother, which obliges compassion for him. This is a sound ḥadīth. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim mentioned it.

One scholar mentioned a disagreement about cursing a specific rebel. He said that the Prophet’s words above were about Nu‘aymān after the ḥadd punishment had been carried out on him. One should not curse someone on whom the ḥadd punishment has been carried out. It is, however, permitted to curse someone on whom the ḥadd punishment has not been carried out, whether he is named and specific or not, because the Prophet ﷺ only cursed those for whom the curse was obliged as long as they remained in that state which obliged the curse. If someone repents of it, refrains and is purified by the ḥadd, then he should not be cursed. This is made evident by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘When one of your slave-girls fornicates, carry out the ḥadd on her and do not find fault her.’ This ḥadīth, being sound, indicates that finding fault and cursing are before the ḥadd and before repentance. Allah knows best.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘It is permitted to curse rebels in general by consensus, based on what is related from the Prophet ﷺ, that he said: ‘Allah has cursed a slave who steals a helmet and has his hand cut off.’

Cursed people are far from Allah’s mercy. The root meaning of ‘la‘n’ (curse) is to drive away and put someone far away. The intent of a curse made by people is to drive someone away, and Allah’s curse is punishment.

If it is observed that not all mankind curse them because their own people do not, there are three answers to this objection. One is that the curse of most people is applied to them, since it denotes the majority. The second is what as-Suddī said: that everyone curses a wrongdoer and a wrongdoing unbeliever even curses himself. The third is Abu-l-‘Āliyah’s statement that what is meant is the Day of Rising when his own people will curse him along with everyone else as Allah says: ‘But then on the Day of Rising you will reject one another and curse one another.’ (29:25) ‘For ever’ refers to the the curse: either in respect of the repayment for it or in respect of its abiding on them for ever. The punishment will not be lightened for them for a single moment.

163 Your God is One God. ‘There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful.

Your God is One God.

When Allah warned against concealing the truth, He made it clear that the first thing which must be made clear, and which it is not permitted to conceal, is knowledge of Allah’s unity. He connected the proof to that and instructed people on how to find out about it: one should reflect on the wonders of creation so as to know that there must be a Unique Doer who is not like anything else. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Quraysh said, “Muḥammad, describe your Lord for us.” Then Allah revealed Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ and this āyah. The idolaters had three hundred and sixty idols. Allah made it clear that He is One.’

There is no god but Him,

This means that there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah. It is reported that ash-Shiblī used to say the name ‘Allah’ alone and omit the words ‘lā iIāha’ – ‘there is no god’. He was asked about that and said, ‘I fear that l might die on the word of denial and not reach the word of affirmation.’ This is one of the very refined areas of knowledge which has no real substance. Allah mentions this phrase in His Book with both negation and affirmation and repeats it many times and promised, on the tongue of His Prophet ﷺ, an ample reward for whoever says it. Al-Muwaṭṭā’, al-Bukhārī, Muslim and others transmitted it. He said ﷺ, ‘If someone’s last words are “There is no god but Allah”, he will enter the Garden.’ Muslim transmitted it. What is meant is with the heart, not the tongue alone. If someone says, ‘There is no god’ and dies before completing the formula but his belief and conscience affirm Allah’s unity and His necessary attributes, by the agreement of the people of the Sunnah, he is one of the people of the Garden.

164 In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky – by which He brings the earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are Signs for people who use their intellect.

‘Aṭā’ said that when the previous āyah was revealed, the unbelievers of Quraysh said, ‘How can One God be enough for people!’ And then this āyah was revealed. Sufyān related from his father that Abu-ḍ-Ḍuḥā said that when the previous āyah was revealed, they asked, ‘What proof is there of this?’ and so Allah revealed this āyah. It is as if they were asking for a sign to make the oneness of Allah clear to them: this universe and wondrous structure must have a Builder and Maker.

Samāwāt (heavens) is in the plural because there are different types of heaven. Each heaven is different from all the other heavens. Arḍ (earth) is in the singular because there is only one earth. Allah knows best. The sign of the heavens is that they are elevated without support under them or above them. That indicates incomprehensible power. Then there are the sun, moon and stars which rise and set in them which are yet another sign of Allah’s power. The sign of the earth consists of its seas, rivers, mines, trees, gentle terrain and rough terrain.

and the alternation of the night and day,

as they come and go from where it is not known. It is said that their differentiation is in respect of the variable intensity of the light and darkness, and the variation in the length and shortness of each. ‘layl’ (night) is the plural of ‘laylah’. ‘Nahār’ (day) denotes the time of light between dawn and sunset. The beginning of ‘day’ is sunrise; anything before it is not part of it. Tha‘lab said that among the Arabs it begins with sunrise. Az-Zajjāj said in Kitāb al-Anwā’ that the beginning of the day is the appearance of the sun.

Ibn al-Anbārī said that there are three categories of time. One category is pure night, which extends from sunset to the rising of dawn. A second category is pure day, which extends from sunrise to sunset. The third category is shared between night and day and it is between dawn and sunrise since some of the darkness of night is left with the beginning of the light of day.

What is sound is that ‘day’ is from the rising of dawn until sunset as is related by Ibn Fāris in al-Mujmal. That is indicated by what is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that ‘Adī ibn Ḥātim said, ‘When it was revealed: “until you can clearly discern the white thread from the black thread of the dawn” (2:187), ‘Adī said to the Prophet, “Messenger of Allah, I put two strings under my pillow, a white one and a black one, by which I recognise night from day.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Your pillow is indeed wide! It is the blackness of night and the whiteness of day.”’ This ḥadīth shows that the day is from the rising of dawn until sunset. This fiqh is applied in oaths and rulings are connected to it. If someone swears that he will not speak to a person for a day (nahār) and then speaks to him before sunrise, he has broken his oath. According to the first view, he has not broken it. What the Prophet ﷺ said is the criterion for that. As for what is part of literal language and derived from the Sunnah is that day begins with whitening of the sky.

and the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit,

‘Fulk’ (ships) is a generic term for all watercraft. The meaning of the āyah is that Allah controls them so that they move on the surface of the water and float in spite of their weight. The first person to make one was Nūḥ, as Allah reports. Jibrīl showed him how to do it and he bequeathed that to everyone. A ship is like a bird, but it is reversed so that the sea is under it as the bird is in the air above. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that.

This āyah and those like it indicate the permission to travel on the sea in general, for commerce or for acts of worship such as the ḥajj and jihād. In the Sunnah we find the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah, ‘A man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, we travel on the sea and carry a little water with us.”’ There is the ḥadīth of Anas ibn Mālik in the story of Umm Ḥarām transmitted by the imams, Mālik and others. And there are other ḥadīths to the same effect such as what is related from him ﷺ by Bundār Muḥammad ibn Bashshār which contains clear evidence for men and women travelling by sea for jihād. If it is permitted to travel on it for jihād, it is more appropriate for travelling on for the obligatory ḥajj. It is related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz that it is forbidden to travel on it, but the Qur’an and Sunnah refute this view. If travelling on it had been disliked or not permitted, then the Prophet ﷺ would have forbidden it to those who said, ‘We travel on the sea.’ This āyah and what is like it is a text.

As for what the two ‘Umars said about that, it is based on being cautious and not endangering oneself in order to seek this world and amass it. That is not the case with obligations. Abū ‘Umar said that Mālik disliked women embarking on the sea for ḥajj and even more so for the sake of jihād. The Qur’an and the Sunnah refute this although some of the people of Basra said that Mālik disliked that because the ships in the Hijaz were small and people could not conceal themselves when answering the call of nature because of the lack of space and press of people in it. It was possible to travel by land from Madīnah to Makkah, and therefore Mālik disliked going by sea. However, there is nothing wrong in using the large ships that the people of Basra have. He said that the basic principle is that ḥajj is obligatory for all those who can find a way to perform it, men or women, when the route is generally safe. There is no difference between land and sea in that respect.

The Book and the Sunnah both provide evidence that it permitted to travel on the sea for worship and for trade. It is a proof and a model, although the circumstances of people travelling on the sea vary. Many of those who travel on it find it easy and not difficult while others find it difficult and are weakened by it, like those afflicted by extreme seasickness, and are unable thereby to perform the obligation of ḥajj and similar obligations. The first individual is permitted to travel on it and the second is forbidden to do so.

There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that when the sea is rough, however, it is not permitted for anyone to embark on it nor to do so at times when it is generally unsafe. It is permitted to embark on it when it is generally safe.

The words ‘to people’s benefit’ in this phrase refer to benefit they have in trade or anything else which is proper for them. If people criticise the Qur’an, saying, ‘Allah revealed in the Book: “We have not omitted anything from the Book” (6:38), so where do we find food seasonings like salt, pepper and the like?’ the reply is, ‘They can be found in Allah’s words: “to people’s benefit.”’

and the water which Allah sends down from the sky –

This, of course, means the rain which brings the world to life and makes the plants grow and is conserved in it for use at other times. As Allah says: ‘We lodged it firmly in the earth.’ (23:18)

and scatters about in it creatures of every kind —

This means separates them and spreads them out. The word ‘dābbah’ (creatures) includes all animals. Some people say that this āyah excludes birds, but this is rejected because they too have feet for walking on the earth.

and the varying direction of the winds,

Sending them as sometimes barren sometimes fertilising, sometimes as freezing gales, sometimes helping sometimes destroying, sometimes hot and sometimes cold, sometimes gentle and sometimes tempestuous. It is said that the expression refers to just their direction – north, south, east or west – and the way they veer from one to the other. It is said that it means that they move large ships with full loads as well as small ships and avert what will harm them. It is said to refer to their variation from season to season.

Abū Dāwud related that Abū Hurayrah reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘The wind (rīḥ) is part of the solace (rawḥ) given by Allah. It brings mercy and brings punishment. When you see it, do not curse it. Ask Allah for its good and seek refuge with Allah from its evil.’ Ibn Mājah also transmitted this in his Sunan from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd from al-Awzā‘ī from az-Zuhrī from Thābit az-Zuraqāi from Abū Hurayrah. It is also related that Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not curse the wind. It is from the breath of the All-Merciful.’ This means that Allah Almighty puts relief, refreshment and comfort in it. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I was helped by the east wind and ‘Ād were destroyed by the west wind.’ This idea also comes in a report that Allah gave His Prophet ﷺ release with the wind on the day of the Confederates as He says: ‘We sent a wind against them and other forces you could not see.’ (33:9) The root of wind (rīḥ) comes from rūḥ which is why the plural is arwāḥ.

Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited ‘rīḥ’ in the singular which is also the case in a number of other sūrahs. The rest recite it as ‘riyāḥ’ in the plural. If it is in the singular, then it is a generic noun which indicates both a little and a lot. If it is in the plural, then it refers to the different directions in which the winds blow. The plural is with mercy and the singular is with punishment. That is frequent in the Qur’an. It is related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to say when the wind blew: ‘O Allah, makes it winds and do not make it a wind.’ That is because the wind of punishment is fierce and cohesive like a single body. The wind of mercy is soft and disconnected which is why the plural is used.

Scholars say that the wind moves the air and can be strong or weak. When the movement of the air starts from the direction of the qiblah, then the wind called an east wind (ṣabā). When the movement begins going towards the qiblah, it is a west wind (dabūr). When it begins from the right of the qiblah going to its left, it is a south wind. When it begins to the left of the qiblah going to the right, it is a north wind. Each of these winds has its own nature. Its use is according to its nature. The east wind is hot and dry. The west wind is cold and wet. The south is hot and wet. The north is cold and dry. The difference in their natures is like the difference in seasons.

That is why Allah has made four seasons deriving from the change in the winds. The first season – spring – is hot and wet and growth starts in it, water descends and earth produces its flowers and its plants appear. People begin to cultivate the trees and many crops. Animals reproduce and have abundant milk. When spring ends, it is followed by summer which is like spring in respect of heat but differs from it as it is not wet. The weather in summer is hot and dry. In it fruits ripen and the grain planted in the spring becomes dry. When summer ends, it is followed by autumn which is like summer in being dry, but is not hot like it. Autumn weather is cold and dry. The soundness of fruits ends and they dry up and there is storing. Fruits are plucked, grapes harvested and all the trees emptied. When autumn ends, it is followed by winter which is like autumn in being cold, but is wet rather than dry, because the weather of the winter is cold and wet. There is a lot of rain and snow and the ground is inert like a body at rest. It does not move until Allah makes the heat of spring return to it. When the warmth joins with the moisture, then there is growth by Allah’s permission. There are many more winds in addition to what we mentioned, but the bases are these four. Every wind between two falls under the ruling of the one that it is closest to.

and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth,

‘Saḥab’ (clouds) take that name because they are dragged (insiḥāb) along in the air. Saḥaba means to drag along. Saḥb, from the same root, means vigorous eating and drinking. They are ‘subservient’ because they are moved without resistance from one place to another. It is said that their subservience lies in their remaining poised between heaven and earth without any support. The first is more likely. They can bring either water or punishment. In Muslim, Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Once, while a man was walking in the desert, he heard a voice in a cloud saying, “Water the garden of so-and-so,” and that cloud went and poured out its water into a rocky area. There was a certain water channel which held all the water and he followed it and found a man standing in his garden directing the water with his spade. He asked him, “Slave of Allah, what is your name?” He said, “So-and-so,” giving the same name he had heard from the cloud. The man then said to him, “O slave of Allah, why did you ask me my name?” The first man said, “I heard a voice in the cloud which this water came from say, ‘Water the garden of so-and-so’ giving your name. What are you doing with it?” He said, “Since you have asked this, I will [reply]. I wait and see what it produces and give a third of it away as ṣadaqah, and my family and I eat from a third, and I reinvest a third back into it.”’ In one version: ‘I devote a third of it to the poor, beggars and travellers.’

In the Qur’an we also find: ‘It is Allah who sends the winds which raise the clouds which We then drive to a dead land’ (35:9) and ‘…when they have lifted up the heavy clouds, We dispatch them to a dead land and send down water to it’ (7:57) and there are many other similar āyahs. Ibn Mājah transmitted that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ saw a cloud coming on the horizon, he left what he was doing, even the prayer, to greet it. He would say, “O Allah we seek refuge with You from the evil of what You have sent.” If it rained, he would say, “O Allah, a useful watering” two or three times.” If Allah moved it on and it did not rain, he would praise Allah for that.’ ‘Ā’ishah also said, ‘When it was a day of wind and clouds, that could be seen in the face of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He paced back and forth. If it rained, he was happy and that state left him.’ She said, ‘I asked him and he said, “I fear that it will be a punishment sent on My community.” When he saw rain, he said, “Mercy.”’ One variant has: ‘‘Ā’ishah, perhaps it will be as the people of ‘Ād said: “When they saw it as a storm cloud advancing on their valleys, they said, ‘This is a storm cloud which will give us rain.’ (46:24)”’

These ḥadīths and āyahs indicate the soundness of the first view that their subservience is not fixed. Allah knows best. Firmness would indicate that there is no change. If the firmness meant is in the air, it is neither in heaven or earth, and so it is sound since He says ‘between’. They are subservient and carry. That shows a greater power, as is the case with birds in the air as the Almighty says: ‘Do they not see the birds suspended in mid-air up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except Allah’ (16:79) and ‘Have they not looked at the birds above them, with wings outspread and folded back? Nothing holds them up but the All-Merciful.’ (67:19)

Ka‘b al-Aḥbar said, ‘The clouds are sieves for the rain. Were it not for the clouds, when water descended from heaven, it would ruin the earth on which it fell.’ Ibn ‘Abbās related that from him. Khaṭīb Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī mentioned that Mu‘ādh ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Khubayb al-Juhanī said, ‘Once, when I was among the Banū Salamah, I saw Ibn ‘Abbās pass by on a mule. Tubay‘, the son of Ka‘b’s wife, passed by him and greeted Ibn ‘Abbās. Ibn ‘Abbās asked him, “Did you hear Ka‘b al-Aḥbar say anything about clouds?” “Yes,” he replied, “he said, ‘The clouds are sieves for the rain. Were it not for the clouds, when water descended from heaven, it would ruin the earth on which it fell.’” He asked, “Did you hear Ka‘b say anything about earth that grows plants one year and then again in the following year?” “Yes,” he said. “I heard him say, ‘Seeds descend from heaven.’” Ibn ‘Abbās said, “And I heard that from Ka‘b.”’

There are Signs for people who use their intellect.

Allah’s Signs are evidence of His Oneness and Power. That is why these matters are mentioned after the previous āyah, which begins ‘Your God is One God…’, in order to demonstrate the truth of that statement about His Oneness and mentioning His mercy and kindness to His creatures. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Woe to the person who reads this āyah and then dismisses it and does not reflect on it or ponder it.’

If someone were to ask, ‘What will disprove that the earth engendered itself?’, he is told that this is impossible because if it had engendered itself, it must have been existent or non-existent when it did it. If it was non-existent, then it is impossible for it to have done it because that must come from one who is alive, knowing, powerful, and possessing volition. It is not valid to describe something that does not exist with those attributes. If it is existent, then its existence would not require engendering. If this were possible, then it would be possible for a building to build itself, wood to carve itself or wool to weave itself. That is impossible. That which leads to an impossibility is impossible.

Allah does not confine mention of His Oneness to mere reports, but also combines that with investigation and reflection on the āyahs of the Qur’an. He instructed His Prophet ﷺ to: ‘Say: “Look at what there is in the heavens and on the earth.”’ (10:101) This is addressed to the unbelievers since the Almighty says: ‘But Signs and warnings are of no avail to people who do not believe.’ He also says: ‘Have they not looked into the dominions of the heavens and the earth’ (7:185) and ‘dominions’ means ‘Signs’. He says: ‘…and in yourselves as well. Do you not then see?’ (51:21) He is saying, ‘Do they not look at themselves with proper reflection and due consideration so that through that they can deduce that it is impossible for events and changes to be self-engendered and that something engendered requires a Maker to make it, and that that Maker must be wise, knowing, powerful, possessing will, hearing, seeing, speaking. That is because if He did not possess these attributes, a human being would be more perfect than Him and that is impossible.

Allah says: ‘We created man from the purest kind of clay’ (23:12), meaning Ādam, ‘then made him (meaning his descendants) a drop in a secure receptacle… you will be raised again.’ (23:13) When a person reflects on the intellect he has been given, he will see that he is managed and moved through various states. He was a drop, then a clot, then a lump, and then flesh and bones. He knows that he did not move himself from being incomplete to being complete because he is not capable of moving himself to the best state, which is full use of his intellect and full strength of limbs. He is not able to add another limb to his limbs. That indicates that he is in a state of incompleteness and weakness and lacks the power to do that. He sees himself as a young man, then a mature man, and then an old man. He did not move himself from being a strong young man to being old and senile. He did not choose it for himself and it is not within his capacity to remove his being old and replace it with restoration of the strength of youth. By that he knows that he is not the one who did those actions on his own and that he has a Maker who accomplished this and moved him from state to state. That had to be the case, for his states could not have changed without there being someone to transfer or manage them.

A wise man said, ‘Everything in the macrocosm has its like in the microcosm, which is the body of the human being. That is why the Almighty said: ‘We created man in the finest mould’ (95:4) and: ‘…and in yourselves as well. Do you not then see?’ (51:21) The sensory faculties of the human being are more noble than the luminous stars. Hearing and sight are in the position of the sun and the moon with regards to perceiving things. His limbs become dust when they decay which is the genus of the earth. He contains water in the form of veins and other fluid components of the body. He contains air in the form of the spirit and respiration. He contains fire in the form of yellow bile. His veins are like the rivers of the earth. His liver is in the position of the springs which supply the rivers as the liver supplies the hepatic veins. His bladder is in the position of the sea since the contents of the body are poured into it as the rivers pour into the sea. His bones are are like trees. As every tree has leaves and fruit, so every limb has an action or effect. The hair on the body is like the plants and insects on the earth. Then the human being can make the sound of every animal with his tongue and his limbs are adapted to the action of every animal. So he is the microcosm within the macrocosm, created and brought about by One Maker. There is no god but Him.’

165 Some people set up equals to Allah, loving them as they should love Allah. But those who believe have greater love for Allah. If only you could see those who do wrong at the time when they see the punishment, and that truly all strength belongs to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment.

Some people set up equals to Allah,

In the previous āyah, Allah gave evidence of His Oneness, Power and the immensity of His authority and He now adds these cogent āyahs, for those with intelligence, about people who set up equals to Him. Mujāhid says that what is meant are the idols which they worshipped in the same way that they worshipped Allah, giving them equal value.

loving them as they should love Allah.

They love their false idols as much as the believers love the Truly Real. Al-Mubarrad said that. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘In spite of the lack of power of the idols, they love them as the believers love Allah with His real power.’ Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī said that it refers to their leaders whom they follow in disobeying Allah. Ibn Kaysān and az-Zajjāj said that it means that they have equal love for Allah and the idols.

But those who believe have greater love for Allah

Greater than the love that idolaters have for their idols and followers have for those they follow. It is said that they have greater love because Allah loved them first and so they love him. When someone has the one he loves attest to his love, then his love is more complete. Allah says: ‘…a people whom He loves and who love Him.’ (5:54) The love that the believers have for Allah and His love of them will be explained in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, Allah willing.

If only you could see those who do wrong at the time when they see the punishment,

The reading of the people of Madīnah and Syria is ‘you could see’ with ta’ whereas the people of Makkah and Kufa read it as ‘they could see’ with yā’. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘The meaning is, that if those who do wrong in this world were to see the punishment of the Next World, they would know when they see it that all strength belongs to Allah.’ ‘See’ then would mean actual vision. An-Naḥḥās says in his book, The Meanings of the Qur’an, ‘This position is the one generally held by the people of tafsīr.’ In I‘rāb al-Qur’ān, Muḥammad ibn Yazīd said that this explanation of Abū ‘Ubayd is unlikely and it is not well expressed because it implies ‘if those who did wrong had seen the punishment.’ So it is as if he considers it uncertain when Allah has made it mandatory.

and that truly all strength belongs to Allah,

Al-Akhfash said that the import of the verb ‘see’ continues so that the meaning is, ‘If those who do wrong could see that strength belongs to Allah…’ and that the word ‘see’ means ‘know’ in this context so it really means: ‘if they knew the reality of the strength of Allah and the severity of His punishment.’ Taking the Madinan reading, it is a threat: ‘If you, Muḥammad, could see those who do wrong when they see the punishment and are terrified of it, they would affirm that all strength belongs to Allah.’ The Prophet ﷺ knew that, but he was addressed when his whole community was intended, as is often the case. It may also mean: ‘Say, Muhammad, to the wrongdoer…’

166 When those who were followed disown those who followed them, and they see the punishment, and the connection between them is cut,

When those who were followed disown those who followed them,

‘Those who were followed’ are the masters and leaders of the unbelievers. They will declare themselves free of those who followed them in disbelief, as Qatādah, ‘Aṭā’ and ar-Rabī‘ said. Qatadah also said, as did as-Suddi, that they were the shayṭāns who misguide mankind and who will declare themselves free of them on the Last Day. It is said that it is general to all who are followed in disbelief.

and they see the punishment,

‘They’ are both the followers and the followed. It is said to be through the certainty they will have in this world at the time of their death about the inevitability of punishment and it is said to refer to their being presented before Allah and questioned in the Next World. Both may be true: it can mean at the time of death and it can mean in the Next World when they actually experience the pain of the punishment.

and the connection between them is cut,

This refers to their connection in this world through kinship and in other ways, as Mujāhid and others said. The root of the word for ‘connection’ (sabab) is a rope which is tied to a thing so that it can be pulled. So what pulls a thing into existence is a sabab, which gives the word its usual meaning of means or cause. As-Suddī and Ibn Zayd said, ‘The means are their actions.’

167 those who followed will say, ‘If only we could have another chance, we would disown them just as they have disowned us.’ In that way Allah will show them their actions as a cause of anguish and remorse for them. They will never emerge from the Fire.

those who followed will say, ‘If only we could have another chance,

The followers claim that they would act righteously if they were given another opportunity. ‘Kurrah’ is a return to a previous state.

In that way Allah will show them their actions as a cause of anguish and remorse for them.

As Allah will show them the Fire, so He will also show then their actions which are the cause of their entering it. This is actual seeing with the eye. Ar-Rabī‘ said that these are the corrupt actions which they committed which made the Fire mandatory for them. Ibn Mas‘ūd and as-Suddī said that it refers to the righteous actions which they abandoned and thereby forfeited the Garden. There are many ḥadīths to this effect. As-Suddī said, ‘They will be shown the Garden and will look at it and at their houses there which they would have had if they had obeyed Allah. Those houses will be divided between the believers.’ They are called ‘their’ actions because they were commanded to do them. ‘Ḥasarah’ (anguish) is the highest degree of regret for something forfeited. It is derived from ḥasīr (exhausted), which is when something is cut off and its strength gone, like a camel which is completely exhausted. It also means to uncover.

They will never emerge from the Fire.

This is an indication that the unbelievers will be in the Fire forever and never leave it, which is the position of the people of the Sunnah. Allah says: ‘They will not enter the Garden until a camel goes through a needle’s eye.’ (7:40)

168 Mankind! eat what is good and lawful on the earth. And do not follow in the footsteps of Shayṭān. He truly is an outright enemy to you.

Mankind!

It is said that this was revealed about the tribes of Thaqīf, Khuzā‘ah and Banū Mudlij about the blessings which they denied themselves, but the words bear a general meaning.

eat what is good and lawful on the earth.

‘Ṭayyib’ (good) here means “lawful” and this is emphasised by the use of the actual legal term (ḥalāl) immediately after it. This is the position of Mālik about ‘good’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it means ‘pleasant and wholesome’ which is why he forbade feeding animals filth. Allah willing, this will be dealt with in greater depth in Sūrat al-An‘ām and Sūrat al-A‘rāf.

The term ‘ḥalāl’ (lawful) is called that because the bond of prohibition has been released (inḥilāl) from it. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Salvation lies in three things: consuming the ḥalāl, performing the obligations and imitation of the Prophet ﷺ.’ Abū ‘Abdullāh as-Sājī, Sa‘īd ibn Yazīd, said, ‘There are five qualities which complete knowledge: gnosis of Allah Almighty, recognition of the truth, sincere action for Allah, acting according to the Sunnah and consuming the ḥalāl. If even one of them is lacking, the action is not complete.’ Sahl said, ‘Eating the ḥalāl is only valid with knowledge, and wealth is not ḥalāl until it is free of six things: usury, the ḥarām, theft, usurpation, the disliked and the doubtful.’

And do not follow in the footsteps of Shayṭān.

It is possible that the word ‘khuṭuwāt’ (footsteps) comes from khaṭī’ah (error). The majority say that the phrase means: ‘Do not follow the actions of Shayṭān.’ As-Suddī said that it means: ‘do not obey him.’ The sound position is that it is general to all customs and laws stemming from innovations and acts of disobedience.

He truly is an outright enemy to you.

Allah reports that Shayṭān is an enemy and His report is true. An intelligent person must be cautious about this enemy whose enmity has been clear from the time of Ādam and who has devoted his energy to corrupting the states of mankind. For this reason Allah commanded us to be on our guard against him in many places in the Qur’an. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar said, ‘Iblīs is confined to the lower earth. When he moves, every evil in the earth between two or more people is set in motion.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted from Abū Mālik al-Ash‘arī: ‘I command you to remember Allah. An example of that is when a man has an enemy rapidly following his tracks and then reaches a fortified fortress and defends himself from him. Similarly the only thing that protects a person from Shayṭān is remembering Allah.’ He said that it is a gharīb sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

169 He only commands you to do evil and indecent acts and to say about Allah what you do not know.

He only commands you to do evil and indecent acts

The word for evil is sū’ because it is bad for the person who does it and brings evil consequences in its wake. The root of the word for indecent acts (fahshā’) means something which is ugly to look at. Sharī‘ah is what makes something good or ugly. All that the Sharī‘ah forbids is ugly and so it is part of the indecent. Muqātil said, ‘Everywhere the Qur’an mentions “indecency” it implies fornication except where Allah says: “Shayṭān promises you poverty and commands you to avarice (fahshā’),” (2:268) where it means to refuse to pay zakat.’

According to this, there is no ḥadd for ‘evil’, but there is for ‘indecency’. That is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and others, and Allah knows best.

and to say about Allah what you do not know.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that this refers to various animals, like baḥīrah, sā’ibah and other such animals which the idolaters made unlawful without any basis for doing so.

170 When they are told, ‘Follow what Allah has sent down to you,’ They say, ‘We are following what we found our fathers doing.’ What, even though their fathers did not understand a thing and were not guided! When they are told, ‘Follow what Allah has sent down on you,’

It is generally held that it is the unbelieving Arabs who are being addressed here but Ibn ‘Abbās said that it was revealed about the Jews. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that the pronoun refers back to ‘mankind’ in the last-but-one āyah. Following implies both acceptance and action. ‘Follow’ is to accept and act accordingly.

They say, ‘We are following what we found our fathers doing.’

The strength of the expression of this āyah would seem, on the surface, to challenge the whole matter of taqlīd, which is the acceptance of an inherited position without calling it into question, and there are other āyahs which have the same import. This āyah and the ones like it, however, are connected to what came before them. That is because Allah informs us about the ignorance of the Arabs in judging by their superstitious customs concerning animals like baḥīrah, sā’ibah and waṣīlah, using as evidence the fact that their fathers did that, and the command to abandon such customs was revealed by Allah to His Messenger.

Some people, however, believe that this āyah censures taking the position of taqlīd since Allah Almighty censures the unbelievers for following their fathers in falsehood and imitating them in disbelief and disobedience. This is sound where falsehood is concerned. As for taqlịd in respect of the truth, it is one of the principles of the dīn and is a protection for the Muslims to which unlearned people who are unqualified to make rulings about matters of the dīn should have recourse. Scholars disagree about the permissibility of taqlīd in matters of uṣūl (basic principles), as will be discussed, but it is universally permitted in respect of secondary rulings.

According to scholars, the reality of taqlīd is to accept a position without evidence. Accordingly, someone who accepts the Prophet ﷺ without looking at his miracles would be a muqallid. Someone who looks into them would not be. It is said that it is believing in the soundness of the fatwas of someone when the soundness of his position is not known. It is derived from the qilādah or halter of the camel, which is when a rope is placed around its neck so that it can be led anywhere.

Taqlīd is not a means to knowledge nor does it reach it, either in respect of basic principles or secondary rulings. That is the position of the majority of intelligent people and scholars, as opposed to what is related from the ignorant Ḥashwiyyah and Tha‘alibiyyah who claim that taqlīd is the sole means to recognise the truth and that it is mandatory, and that investigation and consideration are ḥarām.

The obligation for the common person, who is not able to deduce rulings from basic principles because he is not qualified to do so on account of his lack of knowledge of the dīn, is to head for the person with the most knowledge in his time and his land and ask him about his problem and follow his fatwā since Allah says: ‘Ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (16:43) He uses ijtihād in finding the most knowledgeable of the people of his time by investigating until he satisfied that he has found the man whom most people agree to be the most learned. A scholar must also imitate a scholar who has a similar standing to him in a case in which he does not find the solution through evidence and his own investigation. Qāḍī Abū Bakr and a group of established scholars believed that.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The Community agrees that taqlīd in respect of articles of faith is invalid.’ Others, however, stated that there is disagreement about that, like Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn ‘Arabī and Abū ‘Amr ‘Uthmān Ibn Dirbās. In al-Inṭiṣār, Ibn Dirbās said, ‘Some people permit taqlīd in respect of tawḥīd, but this is shown to be wrong by the words of Allah: “We found our fathers following a religion” (43:23), so He censured their imitation of their fathers and not following the Messenger, and this is just what the followers of sects do when they imitate their great men and do not follow the dīn of Muḥammad ﷺ. It is an obligation for every responsible person to learn tawḥīd and proper understanding of it. That can only be obtained through the Book and the Sunnah as we made clear. Allah guides whomever He wills.’

Ibn Dirbās also said, ‘Many of the people who follow sects say that those who cling to the Book and Sunnah are imitators. This is an error on their part. This designation is more applicable to them, and their scholars are less able since they turn to the position of their masters and great men in their deviation from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the consensus of the Companions. So they are included among those whom Allah censures when He says: “Our Lord, we obeyed our masters and great men...” (33:67) and: “We found our fathers following a religion and we are simply following in their footsteps.” (43:23) Then He said to His Prophet ﷺ: “Say: ‘What if I have come with better guidance than what you found your fathers following?’ They say, ‘We reject what you have been sent with.’” Then He says to His Prophet ﷺ: “We took revenge on them.” (43:25)

‘So Allah made it clear that guidance lies in what His Messengers brought. It is not what the people of tradition say in their creed: “We found our imams, fathers and people taking the Book, Sunnah and consensus of the righteous Salaf of the community saying, ‘We found our fathers and obeyed our leaders and great men on a path.’” That is because these ascribe that to Revelation and following the Messenger, and those ascribe their lies to the people of falsehoods and are increased in misguidance by that. Do you not see that Allah praised Yūsuf in the Qur’an when he said: “I have left the religion of a people who do not believe in Allah nor do they have faith in the Next World. I have followed the religion of my forebears, Ibrāhīm, Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb. We do not associate anything with Allah. That is part of Allah’s favour to us and to all mankind.” (12:37-38) That is because his forefathers were Prophets who followed the Revelation, the pure Dīn with which Allah is pleased. Their forefathers’ following it is praised. In what they brought, there is no mention of ‘non-essentials’ being connected to ‘substances’ and being changed in them. It indicates that there is no guidance in them.’

Ibn al-Ḥaṣṣār said, ‘This began to be discussed in the reign of al-Ma’mūn, after 200 AH when the early books were translated and there was disagreement in them about the timelessness or contingency of the world. They disagreed about substance (jawhar) and its stability and the non-essential (‘araḍ) and its quiddity. Innovators, those in whose hearts was deviance, hastened to memorise those technical terms and with them they intended to impose foreign terms on the people of the Sunnah and to engender doubts among the weak people of this religion. This continued until innovation appeared and the innovators became a party. The sultan became confused about these matters until it reached the point where the ruler proclaimed that the Qur’an was created and compelled people to adopt that position and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was beaten to force him to accept it.

‘Then men from the people of the Sunnah, such as Shaykh Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī, Ibn Kullāb, Ibn Mujāhid, al-Muḥāsibī and their likes, were entrusted with the task restoring the Sunnah and entered into in depth discussions with the innovators using their own technical language. They fought and slew them with their own weapons. Muslims of this community went forward, holding to the Book and the Sunnah, and turned away from the doubts of the heretics, not looking into non-essential and substance. Such were the Salaf.’

Now if someone examines the technical terms of the mutakallimūn to the point where he uses that to defend the dīn, his position is close to that of the Prophets, but as for those among the extreme mutakallimūn who scorn the method of taking traditions from the believers, encourage studying the books of kalām, and only know the truth through those technical terms, they are censured for not following the path of earlier imams. Allah knows best. As for disputation and arguing with evidence and proof, that is clear in the Qur’an.

171 The likeness of those who disbelieve is that of someone who yells out to something which cannot hear it is nothing but a cry and a call. Deaf – dumb – blind. They do not use their intellect.

One understanding of this āyah is that Allah is making a metaphorical allusion to Muhammad ﷺ who is the warner of the unbelievers and the one who calls them to faith. He is saying that he is like a shepherd who calls out to his sheep and camels, but they only hear his call but do not understand what he says. Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘lkrimah, as-Suddī, az-Zajjāj, al-Farrā’ and Sībuwayh explained it like that, saying that the unbeliever is not the one who calls out but the one called out to. Ibn Zayd said, ‘Those who disbelieve are likened in their calling on their inanimate gods, which do not understand, to someone who calls out in the middle of the night and an echo is the only answer they receive. So he shouts to what does not hear or answer and possesses no reality or benefit.’

Qutrub, however, said, ‘The metaphor refers to the unbelievers calling out to something which cannot possibly respond, meaning their idols, likening them to a shepherd who calls out to his sheep when he has no idea where they are.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī says it means that the unbelievers, in calling on their idols, are like people who call out to something which is distant and cannot hear. In these latter interpretations those calling out are the unbelievers and the idols are what they are calling out to. ‘Na‘īq’ is yelling at sheep to keep them back. One uses the term ‘nadā’ for what is far and ‘du‘ā’’ for what is near. That is why the term ‘nadā’ is used for the adhan because it calls to those who are far away.

172 You who believe! eat of the good things We have provided for you and give thanks to Allah if you worship Him alone.

This confirms the first command (2:68) which was to mankind in general. The believers are singled out here out of preference and what is meant by ‘eating’ is consuming things and using them in any way. It is also said that it is eating in the usual sense of the word. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘People! Allah is good and only accepts the good. Allah gives the same command to the believers that He gives the Messengers. Allah Almighty says: “O Messengers, eat of the good things and act rightly. I most certainly know what you do” (23:51) and He says: “O you who believe! eat of the good things We have provided for you … (this āyah)”’ Then he mentioned a man who goes on a long journey, is dishevelled and dusty and stretches out his hands to heaven saying, ‘O Lord! O Lord!’ and said, ‘When his food is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, his clothes are unlawful, and his whole maintenance is unlawful. How could such a man be responded to?’

173 He has only forbidden you carrion, blood and pork and what has been consecrated to other than Allah But anyone who is forced to eat it – without desiring it or going to excess in it – commits no crime. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

He has only forbidden you

The Arabic expression used here implies limitation and restriction, and so Allah moves from the general permission of the previous āyah to what is forbidden in this one. There is no food forbidden beyond this. This is a Madinan āyah and it is reinforced by another āyah revealed at ‘Arafah: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me, any food it is unlawful to eat except for...’ (6:145) So it is completely clear.

‘Carrion’ applies to animals, which would normally be slaughtered but which have died without being slaughtered, and to animals which may not be eaten even if they have been slaughtered, such as beasts of prey. This will be examined in more detail when we reach the relevant passage in Sūrat al-An‘ām.

The āyah is general and is qualified by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Two kinds of carrion are lawful for us: fish and locusts; and the blood of the liver and spleen is also lawful.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. This is an instance of a ḥadīth qualifying a general instruction in the Qur’an. Most of the people of knowledge permit the eating of all the animals of the sea, alive or dead, and this is the school of Mālik. He hesitated about ‘sea pigs’ (dolphins) and said, ‘You said “pig”!’ Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘I am cautious about it but do not think that it is unlawful.’

People disagree about the possibility of the Book of Allah being qualified by the Sunnah and they agree that it is not permitted for this to take place if the ḥadīth is weak. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that. There is evidence that this verse has been qualified by a number of ḥadīths. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Wafā said, ‘We went on seven expeditions with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ during which we ate locusts.’ It is clear that they ate them even though they had died. This is what most scholars including ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah say. The Mālikīs say that they should not be eaten if they have been smothered because they are land creatures.

Scholars disagree about using carrion or anything which is impure for purposes other than eating. There are different positions related from Mālik regarding that as well. Once he said that their use was permitted because it is recorded that the Prophet ﷺ passed by a dead sheep and asked, ‘Why didn’t you take its skin?’ Another time he said, ‘It is all forbidden and it is not permitted to use any of it nor any other impurity in any way,’ so that he did not permit watering crops or animals with impure water or feeding animals things which are impure or even giving them to dogs and other animals. The reason for that is the words of Allah: ‘Unlawful for you are carrion and blood.’ (5:3). And the Prophet ﷺ said in another ḥadīth, ‘Do not use any part of carrion.’ According to the ḥadīth of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Ukaym, ‘Do not use any part of carrion whether the hide or the sinews.’

When a camel, cow or sheep is slaughtered, and there is a foetus inside it, it is permitted to eat the foetus without slaughtering it unless it emerges alive in which case it should be slaughtered. If the foetus emerges dead after the mother has been slaughtered it is considered as one of its limbs. That is clear because it is not permitted to sell an animal excluding her unborn foetus and the foetus follows the mother just as the limbs do. Jābir related that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about a cow, sheep or camel that is slaughtered with a dead foetus inside it. He said, ‘Eat it if you wish. Its slaughtering was the slaughtering of its mother.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted the same idea from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī. It is a definite text.

The transmissions from Mālik vary about whether the skin of carrion is made pure by tanning or not. It is related that it is not, and that is the well-known position of his school, and it is also related that it is pure, based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Any skin which is tanned is pure.’ It is possible that it means that tanning removes external impurities and so it can be used for dry things and for sitting on or for holding water, because water is pure as long as it is not changed in either taste or smell.

The hair and wool of carrion is pure since it is related from Umm Salamah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no harm in keeping carrion when it is tanned and its wool and hair are washed.’ That is because it is pure if it is taken from it while alive, and so the same applies after death, when the flesh is impure, alive or dead. If the flesh is impure when alive, then it is like that after death. So the wool differs in the state of life and death. This is not obliged for milk and the eggs of dead chickens because we believe milk and eggs to be pure after death. They are, however, in an impure vessel and become impure from the proximity of the vessel, not by death.

There are two positions when a mouse falls into something. One position is when the mouse is removed while still alive: then the thing it fell into is pure. If it dies after falling in, there are two possibilities. If it is a liquid, then all of it is impure. If it is solid, then what it is touching is impure. It and what is around it is discarded and the rest can be used since it is pure based on what is related from the Prophet ﷺ when he was asked about a mouse that had fallen into ghee and died. He ﷺ said, ‘If it is solid, throw away it and what is around it. If it is liquid, then pour it out.’ Scholars disagree about washing such a substance. Some say that it is not purified by washing because it is liquid impurity and so it is like blood, wine, urine and all impurities. Ibn al-Qāsim said that it is purified by washing because it is a substance made impure by proximity to impurity, as is the case with a garment. This is not the case with blood which is impure in itself nor with wine or urine because washing destroys them.

Our ruling that it becomes pure by washing refers to its original state of purity and other aspects of use, but it should not be sold without that being made clear because it is a defect in the eye of people which they dislike. Some believe that it is unlawful and impure and so it is not permitted to sell it until the defect has been made clear as is the case with other defective items. It is not permitted to sell it at all before it has been washed because it is not permitted to sell impure things, and because it is then an impure liquid like wine, and because the Prophet ﷺ was asked about the price for wine and said, ‘Allah cursed the Jews. Fat was made unlawful for them and so they collected it and sold it and consulted its price.’ When Allah makes something unlawful, He makes its price unlawful. This liquid is unlawful because it is impure and so its price follows the same ruling.

There is disagreement about when something falls into a pot, flying or not, and then dies. Ibn Wahb related that Mālik said that what is in the pot may not be eaten and is impure since it is mixed with what has died in it. It is related from Ibn al-Qāsim that any meat should washed and the broth poured out. Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about this and said that the meat is washed and eaten. There is no disagreement among his people about the broth. Ibn Khuwayzimandād mentioned it.

As for the rennet from carrion and milk from carrion, ash-Shāfi‘ī says that it is impure because Allah’s words are general: ‘Unlawful for you are carrion…’ (5:3) Abū Ḥanīfah said that they are pure, saying that the impurity of a source has no effect on what is around it. He said, ‘That is why meat is eaten along with its veins in spite of the proximity of blood without requiring purification or washing.’ Mālik’s view is similar to that of Abū Ḥanīfah: it does not become impure by the fact of its death but by the proximity of the impure vessel. It is something which cannot be washed. The same is true of eggs which emerge from a chicken after death because the egg is soft like a liquid before it comes out and becomes hard by exposure to the air.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said: ‘If it is said that your view leads to what is contrary to consensus, that is because the Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims after him used to eat cheese which was brought to them from foreign lands, and it was known that animals slaughtered by the Magians are carrion, and they did not consider whether it was from carrion or correctly slaughtered animals. Very little of the rennet is used in milk made into cheese and a small amount of impurity is ignored when it is mixed with a lot liquid. This is one answer. The other answer is that that occurred at the beginning of Islam and none of the Companions was able to change the eating of cheese from Persia. Cheese is not part of the food of the Arabs. When the Muslims spread in the territory of the non-Arabs by conquest, they did their own slaughtering. This is why the Prophet ﷺ and the Companions ate cheese brought from the land of the non-Arabs and made from the rennet of their slaughtered animals.’

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘There is nothing wrong in eating the food of idolaters, Magians and other unbelievers who have no Scripture as long as it is not from their slaughtered animals, except in the case of cheese that may contain the rennet of carrion. We find in the Sunan of Ibn Mājah about cheese and ghee from Ismā‘īl ibn Mūsā as-Suddī from Sayf ibn Hārūn from Sulaymān at-Taymī from Abū ‘Uthmān an-Nahdī that Salmān al-Fārisī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He answered, “The lawful is what Allah has made lawful in His Book. The unlawful is what Allah has made unlawful in His Book. What He remained silent about is excused.”’

blood

Scholars agree that blood is unlawful and impure and may not be eaten or used. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘Blood is unlawful except what is unavoidable and what is unavoidable is excused. That which is unavoidable is the blood in meat and veins, and a small amount on the body and clothing in which one prays. We have said that because the Almighty says: “Unlawful for you are carrion, blood…” (5:3) and elsewhere: “Say: ‘I do not find in what has revealed to me, any food it is unlawful to eat except for carrion, flowing blood…’” (6:145) What is forbidden is blood that is spilled.’ ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘We used to cook a dish in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and it had a yellow colour from the blood but we ate it without dislike.’ Otherwise that would entail undue hardship. This is a basic principle in the Law: whenever the community is harmed and overly burdened by performing an act of worship, that is cancelled for them. Do you not see that someone may eat carrion when forced to out of necessity, a sick person may break the fast and do tayammum, and the like?

In this āyah Allah forbids blood without qualification and then He qualifies it in al-An‘ām (6:145) by the word ‘flowing’ (masfūḥ). Scholars agree that this qualifies what is unqualified, and the blood meant is that which is spilled out and not that which is mixed with the flesh which, by consensus, is not forbidden. That is also the case with the liver and spleen. There is disagreement about fish blood which is separated from it. Al-Qābisī related that it is pure and continues to be pure, and that is also said by Ibn al-‘Arabī. He said, ‘If fish blood had been impure, it would have been prescribed to slaughter them.’ Abū Ḥanīfah takes the same view. I heard one of the Ḥanafīs say that the evidence for its purity is that when it is dried, it is white whereas other blood is black. This is a point that they use in their argument against the Shāfi‘īs.

and pork

Allah mentions the meat of pigs to indicate that it is forbidden, whether slaughtered or not. It includes the fat, gristle and all other parts. The Community agree that the fat of pigs is forbidden. Mālik and his people used as evidence that if someone who swears not to eat fat then eats meat, he has not broken his oath, but if he swears not to eat meat and then eats fat, he has broken his oath because fat is included with meat. Allah made fat unlawful to the tribe of Israel (6:146) but that did not make the meat unlawful. This is the basis for the distinction that Mālik made. According to the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the people of opinion, if someone swears not to eat meat and then eats fat, he has not broken his oath. Aḥmad said that if he swears not to eat meat and then eats fat, there is no harm unless he intended to also avoid fats.

There is no disagreement that all of the pig is forbidden except for the bristles which can be used for stitching. It is reported that a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about stitching with pig bristle and he said, ‘There is no harm in it.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād mentioned it and said, ‘That is because stitching was done in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and clearly existed after him. We do not know that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ or any of the imams after him objected to it. When the Messenger ﷺ allows something, it is as if it were prescribed from him.

There is no disagreement that pigs on land are unlawful as we mentioned. There is, however, disagreement about ‘sea pigs’ (dolphins). Mālik refused to give any answer about it and said, ‘You said “pigs”!’ It will be dealt with in Sūrat al-Mā’idah.

and what has been consecrated to other than Allah.

This is something over which other than the Name of Allah was mentioned when it was slaughtered. It refers to the slaughtering done by Magians, idol-worshippers and atheists. The idol worshipper sacrifices to an idol, the Magian to the fire, and the atheist, who does not believe anything, slaughters for himself. There is no disagreement among the scholars that whatever a Magian or idol-worshipper slaughters to their idol or fire may not be eaten. According to Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and others, what such people sacrifice to the fire or idol may not be eaten at all. Ibn al-Musayyab and Abū Thawr, however, permit that meat be eaten if it is slaughtered for a Muslim at his order. This will explained in more detail in Sūrat al-Mā’idah.

The word ‘consecration’ (uhilla) means ‘to raise the voice’. It is used for the cry of a newborn baby. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘What is meant is what is sacrificed to idols and stones.’ The custom of the Arabs was to shout the name of the one intended by the sacrifice. That was their usual practice and so it is considered to be tantamount to the intention of consecration. Do you not see that when Ghālib, the father of al-Farazdaq, slaughtered camels, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib observed the intention and said, ‘It is part of what is consecrated to other than Allah’? People left it. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘In the reports of al-Ḥasan ibn Abī ’l-Ḥasan, I saw that he was asked about an opulent woman who prepared a wedding for her amusement and slaughtered a camel. Al-Ḥasan said, “It is not lawful to eat it. It was slaughtered to an idol.”’

Connected to this is what we related from Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā at-Tamīmī, the Shaykh of Muslim, from Jarīr that Qābūs said, ‘A woman sent me to ‘Ā’ishah and said to greet her and ask her which prayer the Messenger of Allah ﷺ liked best to persevere in. She answered, “He used to pray four rak‘ahs before Ẓuhr in which he stood for a long time and did excellent bowing and prostration. As for what he never omitted, whether healthy or ill, resident or traveling, that was the two rak‘ahs before the Morning Prayer.” At that a woman from the people said, “Mother of the Believers, we have a nurse from the Persians and they give us gifts on their festivals. Can we eat any of it?” She answered, “As for the meat slaughtered in the name of that day, do not eat it, but you can eat of the fruit of their trees.”’

But anyone who is forced to eat it –

‘Anyone who is forced’ means ‘compelled by need.’ It is Form VIII from ‘ḍarūrah’ (necessity). Forcing can be either by physical force exerted by a wrongdoer or compulsion due to extreme hunger. That is the position of most fuqahā’ and scholars regarding the meaning of the āyah: that it is someone who is compelled by need and hunger to do that. That is the sound position. It is said that it means that he is forced to eat forbidden things. Mujāhid said, ‘Someone can be physically forced when he is captured by the enemy and forced to eat pork and other things in disobedience to Allah. If someone is physically forced by someone to eat something unlawful, that renders it lawful for him for the duration of the time that the force is being applied.’

Hunger can be either persistent or not. If it is persistent, there is no disagreement that it is permitted to eat one’s fill of carrion. If someone is suffering from hunger and finds the property of a Muslim, the value of which is not sufficient to cause his hand to be cut off for theft and will cause no annoyance to the owner, such as some dates hanging from a tree, a sheep astray in the mountains and the like, it is not lawful for him to then eat carrion. There is no disagreement about this because of the ḥadīth reported by Abū Hurayrah who said, ‘Once, when we were with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on a journey we saw some camels tied to the branches of some trees. We went to them but the Messenger of Allah called to us and we returned to him. He said, “These camels belong to people from a Muslim house. After Allah, it is their strength and fortune. Would you like to return to your bags of provisions and find them gone? Do you think that that would be fair?” “No,” we replied. He said, “This is the same situation.” We asked, “And if we need food and drink?” He said, “Eat but do not take anything away with you. Drink but do not take anything away with you.”’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it. Ibn Mājah said, ‘I believe this to be the basic principle.’

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘We asked, “Messenger of Allah, what is lawful for someone to take from his brother‘s property if he is compelled by hunger?” He replied, “He should eat but not take anything away, and drink but not take anything away.”’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘After that, everyone who disagrees about that is referred to Allah’s prohibition of property.’

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The predominant position is that it is incumbent on a Muslim to preserve the life of another Muslim. It is an individual obligation for him unless someone else takes care of it. He can fight the one who refuses to allow him to do that, even if that might prove fatal. According to the people of knowledge, that is the case if he is the only one available. Then it is an individual obligation for him. If there are several of them or a group, then that is a group (kifāyah) obligation for them. Water in that and other cases is what one can take from another. They do, however, disagree about the obligation of paying for the thing which will save his life. Some make it obligatory and others do not. Both views are found in our School. There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge, past and present, about the obligation of saving life through something insignificant, which is no loss to the owner, when it is feared that someone will die.’

Ibn Mājah transmitted from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah from Shabbābah, and Muḥammad ibn Bashshār and Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far from Shu‘bah from Abū Bishr Ja‘far ibn Iyās who heard ‘Abbād ibn Sharaḥbīl, a man of the Banu Ghubar, say, ‘We suffered in the year of the famine and I came to Madīnah and went to one of its gardens and took an ear of corn, ground it, ate some and put some in my garment. The owner came and beat me and took the garment. I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and told him. He told the man, “Why did you not feed him when he was hungry or starving? Why did you not teach him since he was ignorant?” He commanded him to return the man’s garment to him and ordered a wasq or half a wasq of food for him.’

This is a sound ḥadīth whose men are agreed upon by Bukhārī and Muslim except for Ibn Abī Shaybah whom only Muslim has. Neither Bukhārī nor Muslim transmit anything from ‘Abbād ibn Sharaḥbīl al-Ghubarī al-Yashkurī. The only thing from him is this story from the Prophet ﷺ according to Abū ‘Umar. It negates cutting off the hand and demonstrates the proper behavior in case of famine.

Abū Dāwud transmitted from Samurah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When one of you comes to a flock and the owner is there, he should ask his permission to milk and drink. If no one is there, he should shout three times. If the person comes, he asks permission. If not, he may milk a ewe and drink but may not take anything with him.’ At-TIrmidhī mentioned from Yaḥyā ibn Sulaym from ‘Ubaydullāh from Nāfi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone enters a garden, he can eat but not take any food away.’ He said that this is a gharīb ḥadīth which we only know from Yaḥyā ibn Sulaym. He mentioned from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about hanging fruit and he said, ‘If someone takes what he needs (from hanging fruit) and does not take any away, he has done nothing wrong.’ He said that it is a ḥasan ḥadīth. ‘Umar said, ‘When one of you goes past a garden, he can eat but not take any away in a container.’ The term used for this refers to something in which a person carries something in but it includes carrying something in one’s hands or on one’s back. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘This ḥadīth means that there is an allowance for someone who is compelled by hunger and has nothing with which to purchase food, but he may only carry away what is in his stomach.’

The fundamental principle which is agreed upon regarding this is that the property of other people is forbidden unless they are content to let it be used. That was a custom that was followed in the beginning of Islam and that now exists in some countries. Then it is permitted. That is also applied in times of hunger and dire need as we already stated. Allah knows best.

If the second case exists at a certain time, scholars have two different views about it. One is that someone may eat carrion until he is full and he is permitted to take provision from it if he fears need ahead in a desert or wasteland. When he later finds enough to eat, he must discard the carrion. That is the sense of what Mālik said in the Muwaṭṭā’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and most scholars say that. The proof for that is the principle that necessity removes the prohibition and so that which was forbidden becomes allowed. The extent of what amounts to need is a state of lack of food. That exists until there is food available. The ḥadīth about the whale provides textual evidence for that. When the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ returned from a journey and their provision had run out, they went to the sea coast and there rose before them on the coast something like an enormous mound. When they reached it, it was a beast called a whale. Abū ‘Ubaydah, the commander, said, ‘Carrion.’ Then he said, ‘No, we are the messengers of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and are in the Cause of Allah. You are in need. Therefore eat.’ He [Jābir] said, ‘We, being three hundred, stayed with it for a month until we were plump.’ So they ate and were filled from what they believed to be carrion and took provision from it until they reached Madīnah. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he told them that it was lawful. He asked, ‘Do you have any of its meat with you so that you can give it to us to eat?’ They sent some of it to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he ate it.

One group say that you should eat as much as is needed to sustain life. That is the position of Ibn al-Mājishūn and Ibn Ḥabīb. The people of ash-Shāfi‘ī distinguish between the state of someone resident and someone travelling. They said that someone resident should eat only that amount that will sustain his life. A traveller, however, may have his fill and take provision. Then, when he finds food, he must discard the carrion. If he finds someone else in need, he should give it to him without seeking recompense. It is not permitted to sell carrion.

If someone is physically forced to drink wine, he may drink it without dispute, but if it is on account of hunger or thirst, he should not do so. That is what Mālik said according to al-‘Utbiyyah. Wine only increases thirst. That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Allah completely prohibited wine but prohibited carrion provided that there is no dire necessity. Al-Abharī says, ‘If wine will remove hunger or thirst from someone, he should drink it because Allah says that pigs are impure but then permits them in case of necessity. Allah calls wine an impurity and it should be included, in necessity, under the same permission as that of pigs, going by the apparent meaning which is stronger than using analogy. There must be quenching, even if only for an instant, and repelling hunger, even if it is only for a short time.’

Aṣbagh related that Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘Someone in dire need may drink blood but not wine. He may eat carrion but not take advantage of lost camels.’ Ibn Wahb also said that. He may drink urine but should not go near wine because the ḥadd punishment is obliged for it and so, because of this, the prohibition is stronger. That is the correct position for the people of ash-Shāfi‘ī.

If someone chokes on food, is drinking wine allowed to relieve it or not? It is said that it is not, out of the fear that people will simply use that as an excuse. Ibn Ḥabīb claims that it is permitted in that instance because it is a case of necessity. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Someone who chokes on something is permitted to do that in respect of what is between him and Allah. As for what is between him and us, if we see him the circumstances are not hidden from us, in that we can see that he is choking on something, and so he is believed if he shows those symptoms. If he does not show them, he is given the ḥadd punishment outwardly but is safe from the punishment of Allah inwardly if it really was the case.’

If someone who is in dire need finds carrion, pork and human flesh, he may eat the carrion, because it is lawful for him in that one situation, whereas pork and human flesh never are, and so it is better to go for the lesser prohibition. Similarly, if someone is forced to have sexual intercourse with either his sister or an unrelated woman, he should choose the unrelated woman. This is the rule in respect of these judgments. He should never eat human flesh, even if that results in his death. Our scholars said that and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Dāwud related that. The evidence of Aḥmad is the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Breaking the bones of a corpse is like breaking them when the person is alive.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that he should. It is not permitted to kill a dhimmī because his life is respected, or a Muslim or a captive, because he is someone else’s property. If he is from the abode of war or a muḥṣan fornicator, it is permitted to kill him and eat his flesh. Dāwud objected to al-Muzanī saying that and said, ‘He permits eating the flesh of Prophets!’ Ibn Shurayḥ overcame him by saying, ‘You risk killing Prophets when you forbade them to kill unbelievers.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘What I consider to be sound is that a human being may only be eaten when it is absolutely certain that doing that will save a person’s life.’ Allah knows best.

Mālik was asked about someone compelled to eat carrion, who then finds property belonging to someone else in the form of dates, crops or sheep. He said, ‘If he is safe from harm to his body, in that he will not be considered a thief, and he will be believed if he says that he only ate that to assuage his hunger and did not take any of it with him, then I prefer that to eating carrion.’ This has already been dealt with. If he fears that he will not believed and that he will be considered to be a thief, then it is more permissible to eat the carrion in my view. In this case there is scope for eating carrion.

Abū Dāwud related from Mūsā ibn Ismā‘īl from Ḥammād from Simāk ibn Ḥarb from Jābir ibn Samurah that a man camped in the Ḥarrah with his wife and children. A man said, ‘One of my camels has got lost. If you find it, keep it [for me]. He found it but did not find its owner. Then it became ill and his wife said, ‘Slaughter it.’ He refused and it died. She said, ‘Skin it and we can cut its meat and fat into strips and eat it.’ He said, ‘Not until I ask the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ He asked him and he said, ‘Do you have what is enough for you?’ ‘No,’ he replied. He said, ‘Then eat it.’ Its owner came and he told him what had happened and he said, ‘Why didn’t you slaughter it?’ He answered, ‘I was embarrassed because of what you said to me.’

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘There are two proofs in this āyah. One is that someone who is in need can eat carrion, even if he does not fear dying from hunger, because the question is about sufficiency and not about fearing for your life. The second is that he can eat, be filled, store and take provision because there is permission to store it and no stipulation about merely having your fill.’

Abū Dāwud said, ‘Hārūn ibn ‘Abdullāh related from al-Fadl ibn Dukayn that ‘Uqbah ibn Wahb ibn ‘Uqbah al-‘Āmirī heard his father relate that al-Fukay‘ al-‘Āmirī went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and asked, ‘What carrion is lawful for us?’ He asked, ‘What is your usual food?’ He said, ‘A drink [of milk] in the evening (ghabūq) and another in the morning. (ṣabūḥ).’ Abū Nu‘aym said that ‘Uqbah explained it as a cup of milk in the morning and one in the evening. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘This does not relieve hunger,’ and continued, ‘He made carrion lawful for them in this situation.’ Abū Dāwud said, ‘Gabūq is at the end of the day and ṣabūḥ is at the beginning of the day.’ Al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘Gabūq is evening and ṣabūḥ is morning. A cup of milk in the morning and a cup in the evening keep one alive and upright even though the body is not fully nourished or satisfied. In that day they were permitted to use carrion. So it proves that it is permitted to consume carrion until someone has the nourishment they need.’ This is what Mālik believed and it is one of the two positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If it is permitted when they have a drink of milk morning and evening, then it is permitted to have one’s fill and take provision from it.’ Abū Ḥanīfah, and ash-Shāfi‘ī in another view, said, ‘A person is only permitted to use that amount of carrion that will keep them alive.’ That is what al-Muzanī believed. They said: ‘That is because if someone was in this state in the first place, he would not be permitted to eat any of it; so that is also the situation after he has obtained it.’ Qatādah said, ‘He should not carry any of it away.’ Muqātil ibn Ḥayyān said, ‘He should not seek any provision beyond three morsels.’ The sound position differs from this as was already stated.

As for using any of these things for medical treatment, either in their original form or burned, Ibn Ḥabīb says that they are only permitted for medicinal use if they are altered by burning. Ibn al-Mājishūn said that burning purifies since it changes the character of the substance (as in burned bones). It is related in al-‘Utibiyyah that Mālik said that when marthak, which is made from the bones of carrion and then placed on wounds, is used, the person using it should not pray until he has washed it off. Saḥnūn said that carrion or pig should never be used for medicinal purposes since something else which is lawful can be used. This is not the case with hunger. If there is a possible replacement for carrion, when it is to assuage hunger, then the carrion should not be used.

Wine may not be used for medicinal use either, as Mālik stated, and that is also the predominant position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. That was preferred by Ibn Abī Hurayrah and his people. Abū Ḥanīfah said that it is permitted to drink it for medicinal purposes but not to assuage thirst. That is preferred by Qāḍī aṭ-Ṭabarī among the people of ash-Shāfi‘ī. It is also the view of ath-Thawrī. Some of the Shāfi‘ī Baghdādīs say that it is permitted to drink it to assuage thirst but not for medicinal purposes because the harm from thirst is immediate which is not the case with medicinal use. It is also said that it is permitted to drink it for both reasons.

Some of the Shāfi‘īs forbid using anything unlawful for medicinal reasons except for camel’s urine, whose use is found in the ḥadīth of the ‘Uranīs. Some people forbid using anything unlawful for medicine, quoting the Prophet’s words, ‘Allah did not put the treatment of my community in something He made forbidden for them.’ When Ṭāriq ibn Suwayd asked the Prophet ﷺ about using wine for medicine and he forbade or disliked the use of it. Ṭāriq said, ‘But I am using it for medicine.’ His answer was: ‘It is not a remedy; it is an illness.’ Muslim transmitted this in the Ṣaḥīḥ. It is possible that this is limited to necessity and it is permitted to use poison for medicine, but not to drink it. Allah knows best.

without desiring it or going to excess in it –

According to Qatādah, al-Ḥasan, ar-Rabī‘, Ibn Zayd and ‘Ikrimah it means: ‘without desiring to eat more than what is needed of it’ and ‘…or going to excess in it’ is eating it in spite of there being a substitute for it. As-Suddī said that it is without having an appetite for it or taking pleasure in it, and excess is by eating beyond taking what is necessary to satisfy one’s hunger. Mujāhid, Ibn Jubayr and others said that it means ‘not attacking or transgressing against the Muslims and so the bāghī and ‘ādī here are considered to be highwaymen, those who rebel against the ruler, travellers who cut off ties of kinship, those who raid the Muslims and others.’ This is sound.

The basic linguistic meaning of the word for going to excess, baghī, is to aim for and intend corruption. The verb is used of a woman who is dissolute as in 24:33. Sometimes it is used for seeking something other than corruption.

The root of ‘ādī is ‘a’id and it is one of the words in which there has been a reversal. The basic ruling in this matter, as we have made clear, is that Allah permits, in the case of necessity, the consumption of all forbidden things if there is no possibility of obtaining permitted things.

Scholars disagree about what the ruling is if criminal acts of disobedience lead to such a state of necessity, such as highway robbery or causing alarm to people in other ways. Mālik, and ash-Shāfi‘ī in one of his positions, forbade using the general permission to cover such acts because Allah made the dispensation in order to help us, and it is not lawful to help a rebel. If he wants to eat, let him repent and eat. Abū Ḥanīfah, and ash-Shāfi‘ī in another position, allow it. They consider the permission to be the same. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘It is a wonder that someone permits that while the person is persisting in disobedience. I do not think that anyone says that. If someone does say it, it is a definite error.’

The sound view differs from this. Destroying a man on a journey in which he is being disobedient to Allah is worse disobedience than that in which he is involved. Allah Almighty says: ‘Do not kill yourselves.’ (4:29) This is undefined. Perhaps he may repent later and his repentance will efface what went before. Masrūq said, ‘If someone needs to eat carrion, blood, and pork, and then does not eat it and dies as a consequence, he will enter the Fire unless Allah pardons him.’ Abu-l-Ḥasan aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘Eating carrion in necessity is a dispensation but in his case becomes mandatory. If he refuses to eat the carrion, he becomes a rebel. Using carrion is not a dispensation connected to travelling, but is a consequence of necessity, whether someone is travelling or resident. It is like a rebel who is a resident breaking his fast due to illness or like a rebel who is travelling and who does tayammum because of the lack of water.’ He said, ‘I consider it to be sound.

There are different transmissions from Mālik about that. According to what al-Bājī mentioned in al-Muntaqā, it is well known in his school that it is permitted for someone to eat carrion on a journey that entails disobedience to Allah, but it is not permitted for him to shorten the prayer or break the fast. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘In respect of eating carrion due to necessity, those who are obedient and those who are disobedient are the same, because it is permitted to use carrion [out of necessity] both on a journey and while resident. Someone who departs in disobedience does not have the ruling of a resident person cancelled in his case. His situation is worse than being resident. That is not the case with breaking the fast and shortening the prayer since they are indulgences connected to travel. When the journey is one that involves disobedience, then he is not permitted to shorten the prayer in it since the indulgence is particularly connected to the journey itself. That is why we say that he can do tayammum when he has no water during a journey of disobedience because tayammum is the same for a resident and a traveller. So how can it be possible to forbid him to eat carrion and do tayammum on account of disobedience, when not eating it would lead to death, which is the greatest form of disobedience, and not doing tayammum would lead to abandoning the prayer? Is it permitted to say that because he has committed disobedience he should commit more disobedience? Is it permitted to tell someone who drinks wine that he should also fornicate, or tell a fornicator that he should also disbelieve? Should one tell them to abandon the prayer?’ He mentioned all of this in his Aḥkām al-Qur’ān and he did not say anything different from that coming from Mālik or any of his people.

Al-Bājī said, ‘Ziyād ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Andalusī said that someone who is disobedient on a journey should shorten the prayer and break the fast in Ramadan. He considers all of that to be the same. That is also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah. There is no disagreement that he is not permitted to kill himself by not eating [carrion] and that he is commanded to eat it as an obligation. If someone is on a journey for a disobedient purpose, the obligations and duties of the prayer and fasting are not cancelled for him. He is commanded to perform them. That is as we have mentioned. The meaning behind the first view is that these precepts are permitted on journeys when people are in need of them. One is not, however, permitted to use them to facilitate disobedience. He has a way to avoid killing himself.’

Ibn Ḥabīb said, ‘That is so that he can repent. Then he uses the carrion after his repentance.’ Ibn Ḥabīb connected that to Allah’s words: ‘…without desiring it or going to excess in it.’ So he stipulated that the permission to use carrion is dependent on not being bāghī. A traveller who is involved in brigandage, highway robbery or severing tires of kingship is ‘bāghī’ and going to excess and therefore does not possess the precondition for its being allowed.

This is a deduction based on an understanding which differs from what those who understand fundamental principles believe. The construction of the āyah means that the one who is forced does not desire it and is not going to excess and therefore commits no sin in that respect. Allah is silent about others. The basic principle is that it is undefined. If someone claims that a matter is removed then he must offer proof.

Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah forgives acts of disobedience and so He is more likely to forgive something He has given dispensation for. Part of His mercy is to grant dispensations.

174 Those who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and sell it cheap, take nothing into their bellies but the Fire. On the Day of Rising Allah will not speak to them or purify them. They will have a painful punishment.

Those who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book

These are the Jewish scholars who concealed the part of the Torah Allah revealed containing the description of Muḥammad ﷺ and the truth of his Message. The word ‘anzala’ (sent down) here means ‘disclosed’ as in 6:93. It is also said that it means ‘revealed’, which is its usual meaning.

and sell it cheap,

They do this by accepting bribes. The word ‘cheap’ is used because what they receive will soon disappear and its result is evil. It is also said to mean that the amount of the bribe was small.

take nothing into their bellies but the Fire.

This indicates the reality of the consumption since the metaphor of actual eating is used. The use of the word ‘bellies’ also alludes to their greed and the fact that they have sold the Next World for their portion of food in this one. The fact that they will go to the Fire is because they consumed something which is unlawful and for which Allah will, therefore, punish them. Consuming a bribe is called ‘fire’ because it leads to the Fire. That is what most commentators say. It is said that it is literally fire in their bellies that they will consume as a punishment.

On the Day of Rising Allah will not speak to them

This denotes Allah‘s anger with them and the removal of His pleasure from them. When someone is angry with someone it is said that he does not speak to him. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that it means that He will not speak to them saying what they love to hear. We find in the Revelation: ‘Slink away into it and do not speak to Me.’ (23:108) It is said that it means He will not send them angels with greeting.

or purify them.

This means that Allah will not rectify their wrong actions and so purify them. Az-Zajjāj says, ‘He will not praise them or call them pure.’ In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are three people that Allah will not speak to on the Day of Rising, or purify, or look at, and they will have a painful punishment: an aged adulterer, a lying ruler and a poor person who is arrogant.’ These are singled out for painful punishment and intense torment for pure obstinacy in wrong action and making light of the things which move them to commit these acts of disobedience, since need did not instigate them to do these things nor did necessity bring them to do them, as might be the case with others. In the ḥadīth ‘He will not look at them,’ it means that He will not show them mercy or be kind to them.

175 Those are the ones who have sold guidance for misguidance and forgiveness for punishment. How steadfastly they will endure the Fire!

Punishment follows misguidance as forgiveness follows the guidance that they have cast aside. ‘Selling’ is used metaphorically.

How steadfastly they will endure the Fire!

Most commentators, including al-Ḥasan and Mujāhid, say that the particle mā in this phrase is used to connote wonder and refers to creatures. It is as if Allah were saying, ‘They wonder at how steadfast they are in remaining in the Fire!’ This is the meaning which Abū ‘Alī accepts. Al-Ḥasan Qatādah, Ibn Jubayr and ar-Rabī‘ said, ‘They do not have, by Allah, any steadfastness, but how bold they are towards people!’ It is a known Yemeni dialectical form. It is said that it means ‘How bold they are in actions which bring them to the Fire!’ since they do actions which lead them to the Fire. Az-Zajjāj says that it refers to the great length of time they will remain in the Fire as you say, ‘How steadfastly he endures imprisonment!’ That means that he remains in it for a long time. It is said that it means: ‘How little anxiety they display concerning the Fire!’ and so their lack of concern is steadfastness. Al-Kisā’ī and Quṭrub said, ‘How long they persist in the actions of the people of the Fire!’ It is also said that mā is interrogative and rebuke is intended by it. Ibn ‘Abbās, as-Suddī, ‘Aṭā’, and Abū ‘Ubaydah Ma‘mar ibn al-Muthannā said that. It means: ‘What makes them steadfast in doing the actions of the people of the Fire?’ It is said that this is to humiliate then and make light of them.

176 That is because Allah has sent down the Book with truth and those who differ from the Book are entrenched in hostility.

That is because Allah has sent down the Book with truth

‘That’ means ‘that judgment’, as if Allah were saying, ‘The judgment of the Fire.’ Az-Zajjāj said, ‘It implies: “The matter is that” or “That is the matter” or “That is the punishment they will have.”’ The first ‘Book’ is the Qur’an. ‘Truth’ here means evidence or truthfulness.

and those who differ from the Book

The ‘Book’ referred to here is the Torah. The Christians claim that it mentioned Jesus and the Jews denied that. It is said that their ancestors disagreed about holding to it. It is said that they disagree about what was in the Torah regarding the description of Muḥammad ﷺ and differed about that. It is said that the Qur’an is meant and those who differed from it were the unbelievers of Quraysh when some of them said that it was magic, others said that it was nothing but ancient myths, and still others said that it was forged. The meaning of ‘hostility’ was mentioned in the commentary on 2:137.

177 True goodness does not lie in turning your faces to the East or to the West. Rather, those with true goodness are those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, the Angels, the Book and the Prophets, and who, despite their love for it, give away their wealth to their relatives and to orphans and the very poor, and to travellers and beggars and to set slaves free, and who establish the prayer and pay zakat; those who honour their contracts when they make them, and are steadfast in poverty and illness and in battle. Those are the people who are true. They are the people who are godfearing.

True goodness does not lie in turning your faces to the East or to the West.

There is disagreement about who is being addressed by these words. Qatādah said, ‘It was mentioned to us that a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about true goodness (birr) and then Allah revealed this āyah.’ Qatādah continued, ‘Before the obligatory acts of worship were prescribed, when a man testified that there is no god but Allah and Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger and then died affirming that, that was sufficient to assure him of the Garden, and so this āyah was revealed to redress the balance.’ Qatādah and ar-Rabī‘ said that it is the Jews and Christians who are being addressed because they disagreed about which direction they should turn towards. The Jews faced west towards Jerusalem and the Christians east towards where the sun rose. They spoke about a change of qiblah and each group preferred its own direction. They were told that that was not where true goodness lay. Ḥamzah and Ḥafṣ recite ‘al-birra’ in the accusative. The rest recite ‘al-birru’ in the nominative.

Rather, those with true goodness are those who believe

Here ‘birr’ (true goodness) is a word which includes all good. Its use on its own here implies: ‘But true goodness is the goodness of the one who believes…’ but there is an elision. It is said that the meaning is: ‘But those with true goodness…’ That is because when the Prophet ﷺ emigrated to Madīnah and the obligatory prayers were prescribed, the qiblah redirected towards the Ka‘bah, and the statutory punishments (ḥudūd) were established, Allah revealed this in order to say that true goodness does not lie in praying or doing any other particular action, but rather that a person who is truly good is someone who believes in Allah, and all the other things mentioned in the āyah. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, Aṭā’, Sufyān and az-Zajjāj held that view. It is possible for birr to mean bārr and barr. Barr means kind and benign and filial, while bārr also has that meaning, but is a little more restricted.

Our scholars point out that this is an immense āyah, one of the matrices of judgment, because it contains sixteen different elements:

– the requirement to have faith in Allah and His Names and Attributes

– the Resurrection

– the Gathering

– the Balance

– the Sirāṭ

– the Basin

– the Intercession

– the Garden and the Fire

– the Angels

– the Books revæ…ealed by Allah

– the Prophets

– the duty to spend one’s wealth in ways that are both mandatory

and recommended

– maintaining ties of kinship and not severing them

– looking after orphans and the poor and not neglecting them

– caring for travellers (or guests) and beggars

– setting slaves free

All these things will be clarified elsewhere. Also included are safeguarding the prayer, paying zakat, fulfilling contracts and showing steadfastness in afflictions. Each of these items would require an entire book to do it justice.

There is disagreement about whether one gives voluntary ṣadaqah to an orphan merely because of their being an orphan, in order to maintain ties of kinship, even if the orphan is wealthy, or whether one only gives to the poor. This is about voluntary ṣadaqah rather than obligatory zakat.

and who, despite their love for it, give away their wealth

This is used as evidence by those who say that there are legal rights on wealth other than just zakat and that they are the means by which true goodness is achieved. It is also said that what is meant here is obligatory zakat. The first opinion is sounder since ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from Fāṭimah bint Qays that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is a right on wealth over and above zakat,’ and he quoted this āyah in full. Ibn Mājah and at-Tirmidhī transmit it in their collections as well. He said that the isnād of this ḥadīth is not that strong because Abū Ḥamzah is weak. Bayān and Ismā‘īl ibn Sālim related this ḥadīth from ash-Sha‘bī, and it is stronger.

The soundness of this ḥadīth, even if there is something to be said about the isnād, is indicated by the words of Allah later in the same āyah: ‘establish the prayer and pay zakat’. He mentions zakat with the prayer. That indicates that what is meant by this phrase is not obligatory zakat because otherwise that would entail an unnecessary repetition, and Allah knows best. Scholars agree that, when an urgent need for the Muslims exists after the payment of zakat, there is a communal obligation to spend money on it. Mālik obliged people to ransom captives, even if it used up all their wealth. There is also consensus on this, and that strengthens what we prefer concerning this matter.

It is said the phrase refers to their love for the wealth they give and the pronoun can also refer to the love the giver has for his relatives. The same applies to Allah’s words in Sūrat al-Insān: ‘They give food, despite their love for it, to the poor.’ (76:8) It can have both meanings.

those who honour their contracts when they make them,

It is said that this is added to the earlier sentence, i.e. ‘Those with true goodness or those who believer and those who honour…’ Al-Farrā’ and al-Akhfash said that. This refers to contracts between themselves and Allah, and between themselves and other people.

and are steadfast in poverty and illness and in battle

‘Steadfast’ is in the accusative by way of praise or by the effect of an elided verb. The Arabs put the noun in the accusative for both praise and censure as if they were trying to isolate the person praised or blamed.

Ba’sā’ is hardship and poverty, and ḍarrā’ is illness. Ibn Mas‘ūd said that. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty says, “When I test any of My slaves in his bed and he does not complain to those who visit him, I will replace his flesh with a better flesh and his blood with a better blood. If I take him, it is to My mercy. If I give him well-being, I give him a well-being in which he has no sin.’ He was asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, what flesh is better than his flesh?’ He answered, ‘A flesh without sin.’ He was asked, ‘What blood is better than his blood?’ He answered, ‘Blood without sin.’ Ba’s is the time of war.

Those are the people who are true. They are the people who are godfearing.

They are described as having integrity and taqwā in their affairs and fulfilling them. They are serious regarding the dīn. This is great praise. Truthfulness is the opposite of lying. Someone who is ṣiddīq is someone who holds closely to the truth. In a ḥadīth we find: ‘You must have integrity. Integrity guides to goodness and goodness guides to the Garden. A man continues to be true and takes care to remain truthful until he is written with Allah as a true man (ṣiddīq).’

178 You who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the case of people killed: free man for free man, slave for slave, female for female. But if someone is absolved the thing by his brother, blood-money should be claimed with correctness and paid with good will. That is an easement and a mercy from your Lord. Anyone who goes beyond the limits after this will receive a painful punishment.

You who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the case of people killed:

Al-Bukhārī and ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘There was retaliation among the tribe of Israel but no blood money. So Allah told this community: “Retaliation is prescribed for you in the case of people killed: free man for free man, slave for slave, female for female. But if someone is absolved the thing by his brother…” Absolution is to accept blood money in cases of homicide. “Blood-money should be claimed with correctness and paid with good will.” By saying it should be claimed with correctness and paid with good will, Allah is making it easier for us than what was imposed on those before us. “Going beyond the limits” refers to killing after having accepted blood money.’ This is the wording of al-Bukhārī from al-Ḥumaydī from Sufyān from ‘Amr who heard Mujāhid say that he heard Ibn ‘Abbās say that.

Ash-Sha‘bī said that ‘…free man for free man, slave for slave, female for female’ was revealed about two of the Arab tribes that fought each other and would say, ‘We will accept so-and-so son of so-and-so for our slave.’ Qatādah reported something similar.

The word ‘kutiba’ (prescribed) means ‘established and made obligatory’. It is also said that this means what was written on the Preserved Tablet and previously decreed. ‘Qiṣāṣ’ (retaliation) is from a root meaning someone who follows a trail which has been blazed. A qāṣṣ is a storyteller who follows traditions and reports. Qaṣṣ also means cutting the hair by following its line. It is as if the killer takes a path with regard to killing, and retaliation is to follow after him and proceed along the same path in that respect. That usage can be seen in 18:64. It is said that qaṣṣ is cutting and that is the source of qiṣāṣ because the retaliator wounds with the same type of wound or kills in the same way. The verb is also used for mutilation.

The form that retaliation takes is that when the relative (walī) wants to kill, the killer is obliged to submit to the command of Allah and to accept the prescribed retaliation. The relative of the murdered man is obliged to stop at the killer of his relative and not to go beyond him and kill someone else as well, which is what the Arabs used to do before Islam. That is the meaning of the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘On the Day of Rising, the most insolent of people towards Allah will be three men: someone who killed other than the killer, someone who kills in the Ḥaram, and someone who acts by the blood feuds of the Jāhiliyyah.’

Ash-Sha‘bī, Qatādah and others said, ‘The people of the Jāhiliyyah were excessive and obeyed Shayṭān. When a tribe possessed might and power and a slave of theirs was killed by the slave of another person, they said, “We will only kill a free person for him.” If a woman of theirs was killed, they said, “We will only kill a man for her.” When a base person among them was killed, they said, “We will only kill a noble for them.” They used to say, “Killing safeguards against killing.” Allah forbade them such transgression in this āyah and others.’

There is no disagreement that retaliation in killing can only be adjudged by those in authority. It is the ruler who imposes retaliation, establishes the ḥudūd and other things, because, although Allah Almighty gives all believers the possibility of retaliation, not all believers are ready to agree to it. Therefore the ruler represents them in the matter of carrying out retaliation and imposing other hudūd. Retaliation itself is not obligatory. What is obligatory is not to exceed in retaliation or other ḥudūd. If there is consent to forgo retaliation and to accept blood money or to pardon, that is permitted.

If it is said that ‘prescribed for you’ means it is obligatory and necessary, so how, in that case, can qiṣāṣ not be mandatory? The reply is that it implies ‘if you desire it.’ Know that qiṣāṣ is the limit for those who want blood. Qatlā is the plural of qatīl.

free man for free man, slave for slave, female for female.

There is disagreement about the interpretation of this. One group say that the āyah was revealed to clarify the judgment of the category of those whose blood is forfeit when someone of the same category is killed. So when a free person is killed, someone free is killed in retaliation for him, and when a slave is killed, a slave is killed in retaliation, and a woman is killed in retaliation for a woman. The āyah is a firm ruling which is general and explained by the words of Allah: ‘…a life for a life’ (5:45) and explained by the Prophet in his Sunnah when he killed a Jew in retaliation for a woman. Mujāhid said that. Ibn ‘Abbās said the same, although it is related from him that it is abrogated by the āyah in Sūrat al-Mā’idah. That is the position of the people of Iraq.

The Kufans and ath-Thawrī said that a free man is killed if he has killed a slave and a Muslim if he has killed a dhimmī. Their evidence is the words of Allah here which are general as well as the āyah in Sūrat al-Mā‘idah (5:45). (Mentioned in the previous paragraph). They said that the blood of a dhimmī has the same inviolability as that of a Muslim and should be satisfied by retaliation. It is the inviolability of blood which is the principle. Both the Muslim and the dhimmī are the people of the Abode of Islam. The thing which verifies that is the fact that a Muslim’s hand is cut off for stealing the property of a dhimmī which indicates that the property of a dhimmī is the same as that of a Muslim. It follows that their blood must be the same since property is respected by respect for its owner. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, ath-Thawrī, and Ibn Abī Laylā agree that a free man is killed in retaliation for a slave just as a slave is killed in retaliation for him. That is the position of Dāwud. The same is related from ‘Alī and Ibn Mas‘ūd and is the position of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Qatādah, Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, and al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah.

The majority of scholars do not accept killing a free man in retaliation for a slave because of the categories and divisions shown in the āyah. Abū Thawr said, ‘Since everyone agrees that there is no retaliation between slaves and free people in cases less than homicide, it is even more likely to be the case where homicide is concerned. Those who make a distinction in respect of that are wrong.’ Furthermore the consensus, if someone accidentally kills a slave, is that he only owes the price of that slave. Since slaves do not resemble free men where accidental killing is concerned, the same should hold true in cases of intentional homicide. Moreover, a slave is a commodity that is bought and sold and can be disposed of by a free person and so there is no equality between them.

This consensus is sound. The first view is contradictory. Ibn Abī Laylā and Dāwud said that there is retaliation between free men and slaves with regard to life and all limbs. For proof, Dāwud used the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The blood of the Muslims is the same.’ He did not make a distinction between free men and slaves. This will be explained in an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

The majority also agree that a Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for an unbeliever since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A Muslim is not killed in retaliation for an unbeliever.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted this from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. They do not consider as sound what is related from Rabī‘ah about the Prophet killing a Muslim in retaliation for an unbeliever at Khaybar, because its isnād is broken and the ḥadīth of Ibn al-Baylamānī, who is weak, from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet ﷺ is marfū‘. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘Only Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyā has its isnād, and his ḥadīths are abandoned. What is correct is that it is from Rabī‘ah from Ibn al-Baylamānī mursal from the Prophet ﷺ. The ḥadīths of Ibn al-Baylamānī are weak and not used as evidence even when their line of transmission is connected, let alone when it is mursal.’ The only thing that is sound regarding this topic is the ḥadīth of al-Bukhārī which makes the generality of this āyah specific.

It is related from ‘Alī and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī that the āyah was revealed to explain the ruling of those mentioned in the āyah and to indicate the difference between them and those who would kill a free person in retaliation for a slave or a slave in retaliation for a free person, or male in retaliation for a female or a female in retaliation for a male. They said, ‘When a man kills a woman and her relatives want to kill him, they do so and his relatives are paid half of the blood price. If they want to let him live, they accept a woman’s blood money from him. If a woman kills a man and his relatives want to kill her, they can kill her and take half the blood money or alternatively they can take the full blood money and let her live.’ Ash-Sha‘bī related this from ‘Alī, but it cannot be sound because ash-Sha‘bī did not meet ‘Alī. Al-Ḥakam related that ‘Alī and ‘Abdullāh said, ‘When a man murders a woman with premeditation, he is her retaliation.’ This is contrary to the transmission of ash-Sha‘bī from ‘Alī. Scholars agree that when a one-eyed man or a man with a withered hand kills a man with sound limbs, his relative cannot kill the one-eyed man and take half the blood-money from him because the one-eyed man killed someone with two eyes and the man with the withered hand killed one with two hands. This indicates that blood is equal and it is a life for a life. Children and adults are the same in that respect.

It might be said to those who espouse that position, ‘A woman is not equal to a man in that respect and is not included in the words of the Prophet ﷺ about the blood of Muslims being the same. So why should she be killed for a man when she is not equal to him and half the blood-money taken? And yet scholars agree that blood-money and retaliation are not combined and, when blood-money is accepted, the life of the killer is sacrosanct and there is no retaliation. Therefore your position is baseless and not based on any analogy.’ Abū ‘Umar said that. When a free man kills a slave, the killer is killed if the owner of the slave so wishes and then he pays the blood-money of the free man less the value of the slave. If, instead, he wishes, he can be modest and take the value of the slave. This is mentioned from ‘Alī and al-Ḥasan. It is also denied from them.

Scholars agree that a man should be killed in retaliation for killing a woman and a woman in retaliation for killing a man and the majority do not think anything is repaid. One group think that the difference in the blood money is repaid. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, ath-Thawrī and Abū Thawr said that is how retaliation proceeds between a man and a woman in respect of what is less than a life. Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān and Abū Ḥanīfah said that there is no retaliation between them in injuries which fall short of killing in which there is a life for a life.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Ignorance leads some people to say that a free man should be killed in retaliation for killing his own slave,’ and a ḥadīth is related regarding that from Samurah in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘We kill the one who kills his slave,’ but it is a weak ḥadīth. Our evidence is the words of Allah: ‘If someone is wrongly killed, We have given authority to his next of kin. But he should not be excessive in taking life.’ (17:33) In this case this refers to the slave’s master. All the scholars agree that if a master kills his slave accidentally, the price of the slave is not taken from him for the treasury. ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb related that a man murdered his slave and the Prophet ﷺ flogged him and exiled him for a year and removed his share as a Muslim and did not help him to pay it.

It might be asked, ‘If a man kills his wife, why do you not say that marriage sets up a doubt which would avert retaliation from the husband since marriage is a type of slavery?’ Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said that. Our reply is that marriage is a contract between him and her with implied restrictions on both sides: he cannot marry her sister or four additional wives (making the total five), and she can demand her right of intercourse from him just as he can demand it from her. He, however, has the merit of guardianship over her, which Allah gave him because he supports her from his wealth, according to what is obligatory for him in terms of the bride-price and maintenance. If a doubt had existed, it would exist for both parties.

This ḥadīth which Ibn al-‘Arabī says is weak is, in fact, sound. An-Nasā’ī and Abū Dāwud transmitted it and its text is complete: ‘If someone amputates a part of someone’s body, we amputate that from him. If someone castrates someone, we castrate him.’ Al-Bukhārī said that it is sound that ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī heard it from Samurah. Al-Bukhārī said, ‘I believe that. If the ḥadīth had not been sound, then these two imams would not have believed it. They are enough for you!’ A free man is killed for a slave. An-Nakha’ī, and ath-Thawrī in one view, said that al-Ḥasan only heard the ḥadīth of the ‘aqīqah from Samurah. Allah knows best. They disagree about retaliation between slaves in cases less than killing. This is the position of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, Sālim ibn ‘Abdullāh, az-Zuhrī, Qurrān, Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Thawr. Ash-Sha‘bī, an-Nakha‘ī, ath-Thawrī and Abū Ḥanīfah said that there is no retaliation between slaves except with respect to killing. Ibn al-Mundhir said that the first position is sounder.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī and Abū ‘Īsā at-Tirmidhī related that Surāqah ibn Mālik said, ‘I was present when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ judged that retaliation should be taken from a son for killing his father, but not from a father for killing his son.’ Abū ‘Īsā said, ‘We do not know this ḥadīth from Surāqah except by this path and its isnād is not sound. Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh related it from al-Muthannā ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ. Al-Muthannā is weak in ḥadīth. This ḥadīth is related by Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar from al-Ḥajjāj from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather from ‘Umar from the Prophet ﷺ. The ḥadīth is related mursal from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb and contains some muddling. The normative practice among the people of knowledge is that when a father kills his son, he is not killed on that account, and when he slanders him, he does not receive the ḥadd punishment.’

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The people of knowledge disagree about a man who kills his son deliberately. One group say that no retaliation is taken from him, but he must pay blood-money. This is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and the People of Opinion. That is also related from ‘Aṭā’ and Mujāhid. Mālik, Ibn Nāfi‘ and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said that he is killed in retaliation for him.’ Ibn al-Mundhir added, ‘This is our view based on the literal meaning of the Book and the Sunnah. The text of the Book is: “Retaliation is prescribed for you in the case of people killed: free man for free man, slave for slave.” What is confirmed from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is his words: “The blood of the believers is equal.” We do not know of any firm report that makes the father an exception in this regard. Reports which are not firm are related regarding it.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī related from ‘Uthmān al-Battī that a father is killed for killing his son since retaliation is general. Something similar is related from Mālik. Perhaps they did not accept single reports defining the general statements of the Qur’an.

There is no disagreement in the school of Mālik that when a man deliberately kills his son, such as when he makes him lie down and slaughters him, or constrains and kills him in a manner which there is no excuse for and there is no way he can claim that it was an accident, he is killed in retaliation for him. If he throws a weapon at him or chokes him while disciplining him, there are two views in the School. One is that he is killed in retaliation for him, and the other is that he is not killed, but made to pay a greater than normal sum in blood-money. That is the position of a group of scholars. A non-relative is killed in a similar case.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘I heard our shaykh, Fakhr al-Islām ash-Shāshī, say in debate, “A father is not killed in retaliation for his son because the father is the reason for his existence. How can he be reason for his father’s non-existence?” This is invalidated by the fact that a man is stoned if he fornicates with his daughter even though he is the reason for her existence and she is the reason for his non-existence. What sort of understanding comes from this? Why should he not be the reason for his own non-existence since he disobeyed Allah in doing that? There is a report that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Retaliation is not taken from a father for killing his son,” but it is a false ḥadīth. They added to this by saying that ‘Umar augmented the blood-money in the case of a man who had killed his son and none of the Companions objected to it. The rest of the fuqahā’ consider the case to be allowable, saying, “Retaliation is not taken from a father for killing his son.” Mālik took it as a judgment which is subject to detailed examination of the particular circumstances and said, “If he strikes him with a sword, this is a case in which it is possible that he intended to kill or did not intend to do so. Fatherly compassion provides a doubt which can establish lack of intent and so on that basis retaliation is cancelled. If he lays him down, then the concealed intent is disclosed and the case follows the basic principle.”’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq say that if a son kills his father, he is killed for him.’

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal used this āyah as evidence that a group should not be killed in retaliation for the death of one person. He said, ‘That is because Allah stipulated equality, and there is no equality between a group and one individual.’ The answer to this is that retaliation in this āyah entails killing the one who did the killing, whoever that may be. This was to refute the Arabs who wanted to kill someone who was not the killer in exchange for someone who had been killed and to kill a hundred innocent people in retaliation for one or to take advantage of rank and power. Therefore Allah commanded fairness and equality so that only those who kill may be killed. ‘Umar killed seven men in Sana’, and said, ‘If all the people of Sana‘ had participated in the murder, I would have killed them all.’

‘Alī killed the Kharijites for killing ‘Abdullāh ibn Khabbāb. When they were merely guilty of innovation, he held back from killing them, but when they murdered ‘Abdullāh ibn Khabbāb as a sheep would be slaughtered and ‘Alī was informed about that, he said, ‘Allah is greater!’ He called them to bring out the murderers of ‘Abdulāh ibn Khabbāb to him. They said, ‘All of us killed him’ three times. ‘Alī told his companions, ‘There are the people.’ ‘Alī and his people did not hesitate to kill them all. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmits both reports in his Sunan.

In at-Tirmidhī Abū Sa‘īd and Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If all the people of heaven and all the people of the earth were to participate in shedding the blood of a believer, Allah would throw them all into the Fire.’ It is said that this is a gharīb ḥadīth. Furthermore if a group knew that, if they were to kill a person as a group, they would not be killed, then enemies would help one another to kill their enemies by participating in their killing and achieving their desire for revenge. So it is more fitting to follow this rule than the literal words, and Allah knows best. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Az-Zuhrī, Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit and Ibn Sīrīn said, ‘Two are not killed in retaliation for one.’ That is also related from Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal, Ibn az-Zubayr and ‘Abd al-Mālik.’ Ibn Mundhir added, ‘This is sounder and someone who permits killing a group for the killing of one person has no proof.’ What we mentioned is confirmed from Ibn az-Zubayr.

The Imams related from Abū Shurayḥ al-Ka‘bī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘You company of Khuzā‘ah killed this man from Hudhayl and I am responsible for him. Whoever has a relative killed after these words of mine, is entitled to one of two things: taking the blood money or killing in retaliation.’ The wording is that of Abū Dāwud. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. Abū Shurayḥ related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The relative of the one killed can take life in retaliation, pardon or take blood money.’ This is the position of some of the people of knowledge. It is the position of Aḥmad and Isḥāq.

Scholars disagree about taking blood money from a murderer. One group say that the relative of the murdered man has a choice. If he wishes, he can take retaliation, and if he wishes he can take blood-money, even if the killer does not consent. This is related from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Aṭā’ and al-Ḥasan. Ashhab relates this position from Mālik and it is also the position of al-Layth, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr. Their proof is the ḥadīth of Abū Shurayḥ above and it is a legal text (naṣṣ) sufficient to resolve the dispute. It is also deduced by analysis since blood money is imposed on him without his consent because it is an obligation on him to save his own life as Allah says: ‘Do not kill yourselves.’ (4:29) He says in this āyah: ‘But if someone is absolved by his brother,’ in other words, he forgoes his right to retaliation in one interpretation and is satisfied with blood money, ‘blood-money should be claimed with correctness’, meaning that the one with right to retaliation follows it by correctly demanding blood money, the killer must pay it with good will without delay.

But if someone is absolved something by his brother, blood-money should be claimed with correctness and paid with good will.

Scholars disagree about the interpretation of the words ‘someone’, ‘absolved’ and ‘something’ in this āyah. One view is that ‘someone’ means the killer and ‘absolved’ refers to what the relative of the deceased does. The ‘brother’ is the brother of the deceased. The ‘something’ is his right to retaliation which is absolved and for which he takes blood money. This is the position of Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, Mujāhid and a group of scholars. So absolving, in this case, means abandoning the right to retaliation. It means: when the killer is absolved by the relative of the deceased of his right to retaliation and forgoes it, he takes blood-money and follows it with correctness, and the killer pays it with good will.

Another position is that of Mālik which is that ‘someone’ refers to the relative and ‘absolved’ is to make easy, not to pardon, and the ‘brother’ is the killer and the ‘something’ is the blood money, so the meaning in this case would be that when the relative inclines to foregoing retaliation and taking blood money, the killer can choose between giving it or surrendering himself. Sometimes it is eased and sometimes not. People other than Malik say that if the relatives are satisfied with blood money, the killer has no choice: he has to give it. This is also related from Mālik and many of his people preferred it. Abū Ḥanīfah said that ‘absolve’ here means to spend. That is known linguistically. So it is as if the meaning was ‘Whoever is paid some of the blood money should accept it and pursue it with correctness.’ Some people say that the killer should pay it with good will and Allah recommends that the relative of the murder victim should take the money when that is easy for the killer. It is a lightening and a mercy, as He says after mentioning retaliation in al-Mā’idah: ‘If anyone forgoes that as ṣadaqah, it will be expiation for him.’ (5:45) Allah recommends the mercy of absolution and ṣadaqah, as in this āyah He recommends accepting blood-money when the person pays it. The relative is commanded to claim it with correctness and the perpetrator to pay it with good will.

Some people say that these expressions deal with particular people, about whom the entire āyah was revealed, and they paid the blood money to one another in respect of the injuries outstanding between them. The meaning of the āyah is about when one group received more than the other group, and so ‘absolved’ rather means ‘has more than’. Ash-Sha‘bī said explaining this, ‘There was fighting between two tribes of Arabs and several people were killed. One of the tribes said, “We will not be content until a man is killed for a woman and a woman for a man.” They went to the Prophet ﷺ and he said, “Killing is the same.” They made peace on the basis of the payment of blood money and one of the two tribes received more than the other. That is what this āyah refers to. Whoever has more than his brother should pay it correctly.’ Ash-Sha‘bī said that this was the reason the āyah was revealed.

Finally there is the statement of ‘Alī about the difference between the blood money of a man and a woman, free person and slave, so the meaning is that the one who has more should demand it correctly.

This āyah is encouragement from Allah Almighty for correctness on the part of the person seeking payment and good will on the part of the payer. Is that obligatory or recommended? The recitation in the nominative indicates that it is obligatory, because the meaning is that it must be pursued with correctness.

That is an easement and a mercy from your Lord.

This alludes to the fact that Allah did not give those before us any choice in the matter and they had to take a life for a life, whereas Allah has given this Community the advantage of being able to accept blood money when the relative of the deceased is satisfied by it. Others said that the relative of the dead person can only take retaliation and may not take blood money if the killer agrees to that. Ibn al-Qāsim related that from Mālik, and it is well known from him. Ath-Thawrī and the Kufans also said that. Their evidence is the ḥadīth of Anas in the story about ar-Rubayya‘ who broke a woman’s tooth. They stated, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ judged that there should be retaliation, he said, “Retaliation is the Book of Allah. Retaliation is the Book of Allah.”’ He did not give the injured woman a choice between retaliation and blood money and so the judgment of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger is that there is retaliation for a deliberate injury. The first position is sounder because of the ḥadīth of Abū Shurayḥ.

Ar-Rabī‘ related that ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Abū Ḥanịfah ibn Simāk ibn al-Faḍl ash-Shihābī reported to me from Ibn Abī Dhi’b from al-Maqburī from Abū Shurayḥ al-Ka‘bī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, “If someone is killed, [the relative] has a choice between two courses: if he wishes, he can take the blood-money, and if he wishes, he can take retaliation.” Abū Ḥanịfah said, “I asked Ibn Abī Dhi’b, ‘Do you take this position, Abu-l-Ḥārith?’ He struck my chest, shouted at me and got hold of me, saying, ‘I relate to you from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and then you ask me if I take it? Of course I take it! That is obligatory for me and those who hear it! Allah Almighty chose Muḥammad ﷺ from among people and guided them by him. He chose for them what He chose for him and on his tongue. Therefore people must follow him, willingly and in submission. A Muslim cannot leave that.’”’

This was an easement because the people of Torah only had the choice of killing and nothing else, and the people of the Gospel only had absolution and no retaliation or blood-money. Allah gave this easement to this community and whoever wishes can retaliate by killing, whoever wishes can accept blood-money, and whoever wishes can absolve.

Anyone who goes beyond the limits after this will receive a painful punishment.

This refers to someone who kills after taking blood-money and consequently foregoing the blood of the killer. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘In the Jāhiliyyah, when someone killed a person he would flee to his own people and the people of the victim would come and negotiate the blood-money. The relative of the victim would say, “I will take the blood-money,” and then, when the killer was made secure by this and left, the victim’s relative would kill him and throw the blood-money back at the killer’s family.’

Scholars disagree about someone who kills after taking blood-money. A group of scholars, including Mālik and ash-Shāfi’ī, said that he is the same as the one who kills in the first place. If the relative wishes, he kills him, and if he wishes, he pardons him and he will be punished in the Next World. Qatādah, ‘Ikrimah, as-Suddī and others said that his punishment is to be killed and it is not possible for the relative to pardon him. Abū Dāwud related from Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘I will not pardon someone who kills after having taken blood-money.’ Al-Ḥasan said that his punishment is to return the blood-money and his wrong action remains to be dealt with in the Next World. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said that his business is left up to the ruler who does whatever he thinks best. We find in the Sunan of ad-Dāraquṭnī that Abū Shurayḥ al-Khuzā‘ī said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “Whoever is killed or lamed can choose one of three things. If he wants a fourth, then hold him back. He may retaliate, or absolve, or take the blood-money. If he accepts any of those and then attacks after that, he will go to the Fire to be in it forever.”’

179 There is life for you in retaliation, people of intelligence, so that hopefully you will be godfearing.

There is life for you in retaliation, people of intelligence

These are succinct and eloquent words which mean: ‘You should not kill one another.’ Sufyān related that from as-Suddī from Abū Mālik. It means that when retaliation is established and achieved, it will deter the one who wants to kill someone else out of the fear that retaliation will be taken from him, and so both remain alive. It had previously been the case that, when one man killed another, their two tribes would fight and that would lead to many deaths. When Allah prescribed retaliation, it was a deterrent and they stopped fighting. Therefore they had life through that.

The imams who give fatwā agree that it is not permitted for anyone to take retaliation from someone without the involvement of the ruler. People cannot do it on their own. The ruler, or someone appointed by him, carry that out. Allah appointed the ruler to restrain people’s hands from one another. Scholars agree that the ruler can take retaliation from himself if he transgresses against one of his subjects since he is one of them and has the prerogative of looking after them, like a guardian or trustee. That does not preclude retaliation and so there is no difference between him and anyone else regarding the judgments of Allah in this āyah.

It is confirmed that Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq said to a man who complained to him about a governor who had cut off his hand, ‘If you are telling the truth, I will take retaliation for you from him.’ An-Nasā’ī reported that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘Once, while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was distributing something, a man bent over him and the Messenger of Allah jabbed him with a stick he had and the man yelled out. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to him, “Come, take your retaliation.” He said, “I absolve you, Messenger of Allah.”’ Abū Dāwud aṭ-Ṭayālisī reported from Abū Firās that ‘Umar gave a speech in which he said, ‘Whoever is wronged by an amīr (governor, commander) should present his case to me and I will take retaliation from him.’ ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ stood up and said, ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn, if one of us disciplines a man who is subject to his authority, will you take retaliation from him?’ He replied, ‘How could I not take retaliation from him when I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ take retaliation from himself!’ Abū Dāwud as-Sijistānī has: ‘‘Umar gave a speech and said, “I have not sent my governors to beat your bodies or take your property. If someone has that done to him, he should present his case to me and I will take retaliation from him.”’

so that hopefully you will be godfearing.

So that you will be careful to avoid killing and will submit to retaliation. That obedience leads to other types of obedience. Allah makes one firm in obedience through obedience.

180 It is prescribed for you, when death approaches one of you and if he has some goods to leave, to make a will in favour of his parents and relatives, correctly and fairly: a duty for all those who are godfearing.

This is the ‘Āyah of the Will’. The only āyahs in the Qur’an that deal with wills are this one and the ones we find at 4:12 and 5:106. This āyah is the most comprehensive of them. It was revealed before the revelation of the statutory shares of inheritance and their laws, as will be explained. There is an ‘and’ elided in the words: ‘And it is prescribed,’ because it follows on from the previous āyah about retaliation and may well be directed to the one who is about to have retaliation inflicted on him which will clearly cause his death. So he is someone who knows that death is near him and that this is the time when making a will becomes absolutely imperative.

If it is asked why the word ‘kutiba’ (prescribed) is in the masculine when the word for will (waṣiyah) is feminine, the reply is that the act of making a will (īṣā’) is what is meant and that is masculine. It is also said that it is because the verb is considerably separated from its subject.

and if he has some goods to leave,

Here ‘khayr’ (goods) means wealth. There is no dispute about this but there is disagreement about the amount involved. It is said that it means a lot of wealth, and that is related from ‘Alī, ‘Ā’ishah and Ibn ‘Abbās. They said that seven hundred dinars is a small amount. Qatādah and al-Ḥasan said that it means a thousand dinars or more. Ash-Sha‘bī said that the amount intended is from five hundred to a thousand dinars. The word ‘waṣiyyah’ (will) can designate anything which someone instructs to be done, whether during his lifetime or after his death. Custom, however, has designated it to be a declaration of what is to be done after death. The plural is waṣāyā. Waṣiy can be the testator or the executor from the verb waṣā, a verb also used to describe dense vegetation and such a land is called ‘wāṣiyah’.

Scholars disagree about whether it is obligatory for those who leave property to make a will, although they agree that it is mandatory for those who hold deposits and have debts. Most scholars believe that a will is not mandatory for those who have neither of these. That is the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and ath-Thawrī, whether a person is rich or poor. Another group including az-Zuhrī and Abū Mijlaz say, judging by the literal text of the Qur’an, that making a will is mandatory whether a person has a little or a lot of wealth. Abū Thawr said that making a will is only mandatory for a man who has a debt or wealth belonging to someone else, and then it is mandatory for him to write a will, saying what he owes. As for someone who has no debts or deposits, it is not mandatory for him to make one unless he wishes to do so.

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘This is good because Allah has made it obligatory to return trusts to their owners but it is not mandatory for someone who holds goods on trust to make a will.’ The people with the first view use what is related from Ibn ‘Umar as evidence. He said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘It is not right for a Muslim man who owes something, which he should specify in a will, to spend two nights without making a written will.’ One variant says three nights. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar said about it: ‘Not a night has passed, since I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say that, without me having my will with me.’ Those who argue the opposite say that, if it was mandatory, it would not have been left to the discretion of the one making the will. It would have been necessary for him in every case. Although its literal meaning would make it obligatory, it is refuted that it is obligatory; that is actually only the case for someone who has money that belongs to other people in his possession, which it is feared might be lost, as Abū Thawr said. The same is true if other people owe him money which he fears might be lost to his heir. There is no disagreement that he is obliged to make a will in such a case.

If it is said that Allah’s use of the words, ‘prescribed for you’ means that it is mandatory, the answer to that is found in the previous āyah. It is only when you want to make a will, and Allah knows best. An-Nakha‘ī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ died without making a will. Abū Bakr made a will. It is good to make a will but there is nothing wrong in not making one.’

to make a will in favour of his parents and relatives,

Allah did not explain in His Book the amount that one should make a will for. He says: ‘if he has some goods (khayr)’ and ‘khayr’ means ‘wealth’ as in other āyahs such as 2:272 and 100:8. Scholars disagree about the amount constituted by that. It is related that Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq left a fifth in bequests. ‘Alī said, ‘There is a fifth from the booty of the Muslims.’ Ma‘mar said that Qatādah said that ‘Umar left a quarter in bequests. Al-Bukhārī mentioned that from Ibn ‘Abbās. It is related that ‘Alī said, ‘I prefer to make a bequest of a fifth to that of a quarter and I prefer making a bequest of a quarter to that of a third.’

If someone has little wealth and many heirs, one group prefer that he should not make any bequests. That was related from ‘Alī, Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ā’ishah رضي الله عنها. Ibn Abī Shaybah related that Ibn Abī Mulaykah said to ‘Ā’ishah, ‘I want to make a will.’ She asked, ‘How much do you have?’ ‘Three thousand,’ he replied. She asked, ‘How many dependants do you have?’ ‘Four,’ he answered. She said, ‘Allah says “khayr” and this is something insignificant. It is better for you to leave it to your dependants.’

The majority of scholars believe that it is not permitted for anyone to will away more than a third of their property, except for Abū Ḥanīfah and his followers who said: ‘If a person does not have any statutory heirs, he is permitted to will away all his wealth.’ They said that on the basis that limiting the legacy to a third is in order to leave the statutory heirs with sufficient property since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘It is better for you to leave your heirs well provided for than to leave them needy, begging from other people.’ The imams related it. They say that if he is not someone with an heir, he is not one of those meant by the ḥadīth. This view is related from Ibn ‘Abbās. It is also the view of Abū ‘Ubaydah and Masrūq. Isḥāq believed that and it is one of the two views of Mālik. It is also related from ‘Alī. The reason for the disagreement regarding what we mention is the disagreement about whether the Treasury is an heir or a caretaker.

Scholars agree that people who die with statutory heirs should not will away all of their wealth. It is related that when he was dying, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ said to his son ‘Abdullāh, ‘I want to make a bequest,’ and his son said to him, ‘Go ahead and make a bequest and what you will can be paid from my property.’ He called for a paper and dictated. ‘Abdullāh said, ‘I said to him, “I think that you have exhausted both my property and your property. I will summon my brothers and ask them to permit it.”’

They agree that anyone can change his will and retract any part of it if he wishes. They disagree about doing that in respect of a slave who has a specific contract by which he is to be freed after his owner’s death (mudabbar). Mālik said, ‘The position agreed upon among us is that when someone makes a will, whether he is healthy or ill, in which he frees a slave or something else, he can change whatever of it he wants to and add or delete whatever he likes until he dies. If he wants to cancel that will, he can do so – with the exception of a tadbīr contract which there is no way to change because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “It is not right for a Muslim who has anything to will to remain for two nights without having a written will in his possession.”’ Abu-l-Faraj al-Mālikī said, ‘A mudabbar is analogous to someone who will be set free after a month because it is a term which must come.’ They agree that someone cannot make an oath to set free and to set free at a certain term. That is also the case with a mudabbar. That is the position of Abū Ḥanīfah. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that it is a bequest and it is part of the third like any other bequests. They permit a man to have sex with a female mudabbar which nullifies the making of a mudabbar analogous to someone set free at a certain term. It is confirmed that the Prophet ﷺ sold a mudabbar and that ‘Ā’ishah made her slavegirl a mudabbarah and then sold her. That is the view of a group of the Tābi‘ūn. One group say that a man can change anything he wishes in his will except for emancipation. That is also the position of ash-Sha‘bī, Ibn Sīrīn, Ibn Shubrumah and an-Nakha‘ī. It is also the view of Sufyān ath-Thawrī.

There is disagreement about what happens when a man tells his slave, ‘You are free after I die,’ intending to make that a bequest. Mālik says that he can retract it. If he says, ‘So-and-so is a mudabbar after I die,’ he cannot retract that. If he meant a tadbīr by his first statement, most of the people of Mālik say that he cannot retract it. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr said that he can retract any of that since it is part of the third, and all that is in the third is a bequest. However, ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘The tadbīr can only be retracted by the removal of the mudabbar from his possession through sale or gift. If the mudabbar does not leave his possession until he dies, then he is set free at his death.’ In his earlier position, he said that he can retract the tadbīr as he can any other bequest. Al-Muzanī preferred that based on their consensus that a person can retract a bequest of emancipation. Abū Thawr said, ‘When he says, “I have retracted my tadbīr,” then it is invalidated and the slave is not set free when he dies.’ Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab disagreed about someone who says, ‘My slave is free after I die’ without intending a bequest or tadbīr. Ibn al-Qāsim said that it is a bequest. Ashhab said that he is a mudabbar even he did not mean it as a bequest.

Scholars disagree about whether this āyah is abrogated or is one which contains an active legal judgment. It is said to be the latter. Its literal expression is general and its meaning is only specific in respect of someone whose parents do not inherit automatically, because they are unbelievers or slaves for instance, and in respect of relatives other than a person’s statutory heirs. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, Ṭāwūs and al-Ḥasan held that view and aṭ-Ṭabari preferred it. Az-Zuhrī said that a will is mandatory whether someone has a little property or a lot. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘All of those of import among the people of knowledge agree that it is permitted to make a bequest in favour of parents and relatives who do not inherit.’

Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said that the āyah is general and its judgment was confirmed for a period of time and then abrogated in respect of all those who automatically inherit by virtue of the āyahs specifying the statutory shares of inheritance. It is said that the āyahs about the shares is not the only thing that abrogates it, but it is also abrogated by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Allah has given everyone with a due his due and there is no bequest in favour of an heir.’ Abū Umāmah related it. At-Tirmidhī transmitted it and said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. So the abrogation of the āyah is by the firm Sunnah, not only by the āyahs explaining the shares of inheritance, according to the sound position of scholars. If it were not for this ḥadīth, it would be possible to combine this āyah with the āyahs specifying the statutory shares of inheritance by receiving property from the testator both by statutory inheritance and by bequest. This ḥadīth and the consensus derived from it prevent that happening. Although ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abu-l-Faraj deny that the Book can be abrogated by the Sunnah, it is sound that it is permitted by the proof that all is Allah’s judgment and comes from Him, even if the name for it differs. This idea was already mentioned. Even if this report has reached us as a single report, the fact that the consensus of the Muslims is added to it – that it is not permitted to make a bequest to an heir – it is evident that the obligation to make bequests to relatives who are heirs is abrogated by the Sunnah and it is agreed upon. Allah knows best.

Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Ḥasan say that making a bequest to parents is abrogated by their statutory shares in Sūrat an-Nisā’, but that is confirmed in the case relatives who do not inherit automatically. That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, most Mālikīs and a group of the people of knowledge. In al-Bukhārī Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It used to be that all the property belonged to the child and the parents only inherited through a will, so Allah abrogated what He wished in respect of that. He gave males the portion of two females and gave each of the parents a sixth. A wife receives an eighth or a quarter, and the husband has half or a quarter.’

Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Zayd said that the āyah is abrogated while the recommendation to make a bequest remains. That is similar to Mālik’s position and an-Naḥḥās mentioned it from ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khuthaym said that there is no bequest. ‘Urwah ibn Thābit said, ‘I said to ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khuthaym, “Make me a bequest of your copy of the Qur’an.” He looked at his son and recited: “Blood relations are closer to one another in the Book of Allah.” (8:75)’ Ibn ‘Umar did something similar.

‘Aqrabīn (relatives) is the plural of qarīb. Some people say that it is better to make a will in favour of your relatives rather than non-relatives because of this text from Allah regarding them. For this reason aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk says, ‘A person who makes a bequest to other than his relatives ends his actions with disobedience.’ It is related that Ibn ‘Umar made a bequest of four hundred thousand (dirhams) to each of his slave-girls who bore him children. It is related that ‘Ā’ishah willed her household utensils to a freed slave of hers. The like of that is related from Sālim ibn ‘Abdullāh. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘If a bequest is made to non-relatives, it is returned to the relatives. If it is made to someone completely unrelated, he shares with them. It is not permitted to give to someone other than them while omitting them.’

When Abu-l-‘Āliyah died, people said, ‘Astonishing! A woman of Riyāḥ freed him but then he leaves his property to the Banū Hāshim!’ Ash-Sha‘bī said that he could not do that, even for honour. Ṭāwūs said, ‘If he makes a bequest to non-relatives, it is returned to relatives and his action is nullified.’ Jābir ibn Zayd said that. This is also related from al-Ḥasan. Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh said that. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Awzā‘ī, and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said that if someone leaves a bequest to non-relatives and leaves his relatives in need, he has committed a wrong action. If he does that, however, his bequest stands and is carried out, whether the person receiving it is rich or poor, relative or not, Muslim or unbeliever. It is the meaning of what was related from Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ā’ishah. It is the view of Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās.

The first view is better. In the case of Abu-l-‘Āliyah, it is possible that he thought that the Banū Hāshim were more entitled than the woman who freed him because of him keeping the company of Ibn ‘Abbās, him teaching him and joining him to the rank of the scholars in this world and the Next. Although this parenthood is spiritual, it is actual. The purpose of the woman who freed him was to connect him to free men in this world and the reward of emancipation is enough for her. Allah knows best.

The majority of scholars believe that a very sick person is legally debarred from disposing of his property. The Ẓāhirīs have an aberrant view, saying that he is not debarred. Both the ḥadīth and the idea refute them. Sa‘d said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ visited me during the Farewell Hajj when I was ill and expecting to die and I said, “Messenger of Allah, my illness has reached what you see. I have wealth but only have one daughter as an heir. Can I give two-thirds of my wealth away as ṣadaqah?” “No,” he said. I said, “A half?” and he said, “No.” He then added, “No, but (give) a third, and a third is a lot. It is better for you to leave your heirs wealthy than to leave them in need, begging from people.”’

The Ẓāhirīs also forbid leaving more than a third, even if the heirs allow it. All allow it if the heirs agree to it, and it is sound because the sick person is forbidden to make a bequest of more than a third in order to protect the rights of the heirs. When the heirs forgo their right, then that is permitted and it is like a gift from them. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘It is not permitted to make a bequest to an heir unless the heirs want it.’ It is related that ‘Amr ibn Khārijah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no bequest to an heir unless the heirs allow it.’

They disagree about those who allow a bequest to an heir while the testator was alive rescinding it after his death. One group say that it was permitted by them so they cannot rescind it. This is the view of ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Ṭāwūs, Ibn Sīrīn, Ibn Abī Laylā, az-Zuhrī, Rabī‘ah and al-Awzā‘ī. Another group says that they can rescind it if they wish. That is the view of Ibn Mas‘ūd, Shurayḥ, al-Ḥakam, Ṭāwūs, ath-Thawrī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, Abū Ḥanịfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it. Mālik made a distinction and said, ‘When they allow it when he is healthy, then they can rescind it. When they allow it when he is in his final illness and is, therefore, debarred from acting on his property, that decision is binding on them.’ It is the view of Isḥāq. The people who hold the first view argue that the prohibition comes from the heirs, so when they allow it, it is allowed. They agree that when he makes a bequest of more than a third to a non-relative, it is allowed when they allow it. That is the case. The people with the second view argue that they allowed something over which they had no ownership at that moment. The property only came into their possession after his death. The heir whose permission was asked may die before him and then he is no longer an heir; someone else inherits. If someone who has no entitlement gives permission, nothing is obliged. Mālik argued that when a man is healthy, he is more entitled to all his wealth and can do whatever he wishes with it. When they give him permission when he is healthy, they have abandoned something not obliged for them. When they give their permission when he is ill, then they have abandoned that to which they are entitled. Therefore they cannot retract that when he carries it out.

If the sick person does not carry that out, then the heir can rescind it because it has not been achieved. Al-Abharī said that. Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned from Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh that the position of Mālik in this question is closer than others to the Sunnah. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Mālik, ath-Thawrī, the Kufans, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Thawr agree that if they allow that after his death, it is binding.’

They disagree about a man who makes a bequest of property to one of his heirs and says in his will: ‘If the heirs allow it, it is his. If they do not allow it, it is for the Cause of Allah,’ and then they do not allow it. Mālik said, ‘If the heirs do not allow it, it reverts to them.’ The view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanịfah and Ma‘mar, the companion of ‘Abd ar-Razzāq, say that it is for the Cause of Allah.

There is no disagreement about a will made by a sane adult whose dealings are not legally competent. They disagree about others. Mālik said, ‘The generally agreed way of doing things among us is that a simpleton, an idiot, or a lunatic who has moments of recovery can make their wills as long as they are made while they are sound of mind and know what they are doing. The same is true for a child when he understands what he is bequeathing and does not say anything untoward: his will is permitted and carried out.’ Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that a bequest made by a child is not permitted. Al-Muzanī said, ‘It is analogous to the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, but I do not find any actual mention or text from ash-Shāfi‘ī about that.’ His people have two different views. One is like that of Mālik and the other is like that of Abū Ḥanīfah. Their argument is that neither the divorce nor emancipation of such a minor is allowed. Retaliation is not taken from him for an injury and he receives no ḥadd punishment for slander. So he is not like a legally incompetent adult. The same is true of his will.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘These scholars agree that the will of an adult legally debarred from financial dealings is permitted. It is known that intelligent children can make wills, and therefore his situation is the same as someone who is legally debarred from dealing with his wealth. The reason that he is legally incompetent is that he might squander and destroy it. That reason is removed from him when he dies. In his incompetency concerning his property he resembles the madman who has no wits. It is mandatory to allow his bequest and this is further supported by what has come regarding it from ‘Umar رضي الله عنه. Mālik said, ‘It is the generally agreed way of doing things among us in Madīnah. Success is by Allah.’ Muḥammad ibn Shurayḥ said, ‘When a child or adult makes a bequest, it is a right which Allah has decreed on his tongue. There is no averting the truth.’

correctly and fairly:

This means with justice, no more, no less. It is entrusted to the discretion and opinion of the one making the will, and then Allah decided that on the tongue of His Prophet ﷺ who said, ‘A third, and a third is a lot,’ as we have already mentioned. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah has given you a third of your wealth at your death so that you can increase your good deeds and make it purification for yourself.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted that from Abū Umāmah from Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal from the Prophet ﷺ. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘Only a third is permitted in bequests.’ Al-Bukhārī believed that and cited as evidence His words: ‘Judge between them by what Allah has sent down’ (5:49) and the judgment of the Prophet ﷺ that a third is a lot. That is the ruling that Allah has sent down. Anyone who exceeds the limit of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and makes it more than a third has done something the Prophet ﷺ forbade. If he knows the judgment of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and does that, then he becomes a rebel. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that his statement means that a third is not a small amount.

a duty for all those who are godfearing.

In other words it is a confirmed and established practice but there is no obligation to do it, since Allah says it is for the godfearing. This indicates that making a will is recommended because if it were obligatory, Allah would have said that it was a duty for all Muslims, not just the godfearing.

Scholars have said that the exhortation to hasten to make a will is not taken from this āyah but from the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar. It is increased security for it to be written and witnessed. That is the will that is agreed upon and used. If reputable witnesses testify orally to it, it should be acted upon, even if not a single line is written down. If a person writes it in his hand without witnesses, the position of Mālik does not vary about not acting on it, unless it contains affirmation of a right which is not suspect and therefore must be carried out.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Anas ibn Mālik said, ‘They used to write at the beginning of their wills, “This is the will of so-and-so son of so-and-so who testifies that there is no god but Allah alone with no partner and that Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger. The Hour is coming. There is no doubt about it and Allah will raise up those in the graves.”’ A man would command those who survived him to fear Allah as He should be feared, act correctly towards one another and to obey Allah and His Messenger, and would advise them as Ibrāhīm and Ya‘qūb had advised their sons: ‘My sons! Allah has chosen this dīn for you, so do not die except as Muslims.’ (2:132)

181 Then if anyone alters it after hearing it, the crime is on the part of those who alter it. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

This refers to altering the wording of a will. ‘Hearing it’ can mean hearing the testator himself or alternatively hearing what is confirmed from him by two witnesses. ‘The crime’ refers to the alteration, meaning the crime of alteration.

This āyah indicates that when a person mentions a debt in his will, it should be paid immediately, since it is his first responsibility, and the executor must produce what is demanded and receives a wage for carrying it out. It is a sin for him to delay paying it.

There is no disagreement that when a person makes a bequest of something which is not permitted, such as wine, pigs or any act of disobedience, it is permitted to change the will and it is not permitted to carry it out, in the same way that it is not permitted to carry out bequests of more than a third.

‘Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.’ By naming these two attributes, it is clear that no bias on the part of the testators or alteration on the part of the witnesses can be hidden from Him.

182 But if someone fears bias or wrongdoing on the part of the person making the will, and puts things right between the people involved, in that case he has not committed any crime. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The word ‘khāfa’ (fears) can also mean ‘knows of’ in this instance. The root is khawf. ‘The person making the will’ is recited by Abū Bakr from ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī as ‘muwaṣṣi’ while the rest recite it as ‘mūṣi’. The second reading is clearer because grammarians use the first (Form II) for a more extensive meaning. ‘Janaf’ (bias) means ‘inclining towards something’. It is related that ‘Alī recited ‘ḥayf’ rather than khawf, meaning ‘injustice’. Mujāhid said that this āyah means ‘someone who fears that the testator will be biased and cut off the inheritance of some people and deliberately cause harm, or even bring that about without doing it deliberately’. This kind of unconscious bias is not necessarily a wrong action, although it is definitely a wrong action if it is deliberate. The āyah means that someone who warns a testator about that and averts him from doing it, thereby putting things right between him and his heirs and between the heirs themselves, does nothing wrong. Allah is ‘Ever-Forgiving’ to the testator when he acts on the warning and retracts the injury he would have inflicted.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘ and others say that the meaning of the āyah is that anyone who knows the testator was biased and intended injury to some of his heirs should act after his death and put right the disturbance and schism which then arises between the heirs. He does nothing wrong by doing this when the change is in the best interests of the people concerned. The alteration that is sinful is that which arises from inclination to one heir.

The āyah is addressed to all Muslims. They are told: if you fear that a testator will be biased in his bequest, turn from what is the right, fall into wrong action and not do what is correct by inclining to his daughter’s husband or his daughter’s child, for instance, so that the money will go to his daughter, or to the son of his son when he wants it to go to his son, or he wills it to someone distant and neglects his nearer relatives, then they should hasten to put things right between them. Putting things right will remove the wrong action from the one who does it. It is a farḍ kifāyah so if no one does it, everyone is guilty of wrong action.

The āyah provides evidence for judging based on opinion, because if someone thinks that corruption is intended, he is obliged to strive to put things right. If the corruption is verified, it is no longer considered under the category of putting things right because it becomes a different kind of judgment: one concerned with averting and putting an end to corruption.

There is no disagreement that giving ṣadaqah is better when one is alive and healthy than when one is dead since, when the Prophet ﷺ was asked, ‘Which ṣadaqah is better?’ he said, ‘That you give ṣadaqah when you are desirous of money and healthy.’ The people of the Ṣaḥīḥ transmitted it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘It is better for a man to give one dirham while he is alive than a hundred when he is dead.’ An-Nasā’ī related from Abu-d-Dardā’ that he ﷺ said, ‘The metaphor of someone who spends or gives ṣadaqah after his death is that of someone who gives food after he is full.’

Provided it does not harm anyone, it is permitted for someone to pay any zakat he neglected to pay during his lifetime by means of his will. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Qurrah from his father that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When someone who is dying makes a will, his will is based on the Book of Allah. It expiates any of his zakat he failed to pay.’

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Harming people through a bequest is one of the major wrong actions.’ Abū Dāwud related that Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A man or woman can act in obedience to Allah for sixty years and then, when they are about to die, harm someone in their will and end up in the Fire because of it.’ An-Nasā’ī speaks about about praying over someone who was biased in his will: ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar reported from Hushaym from Manṣūr ibn Zadhān from al-Ḥasan that ‘Imrān ibn Ḥusayn said that a man freed six slaves he had when he died and that was the only property he possessed. The Prophet عليه السلام heard about that and was angry and stated, ‘I wish that I had not prayed over him.’ Then he brought the man’s slaves and divided them into three parts and then drew lots and freed two and left four as slaves. Muslim transmitted it, but instead of ‘I wish that I had not prayed over him’, he has, ‘He said harsh words about him.’

183 You who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you – so that hopefully you will become godfearing – 184 for a specified number of days. But any of you who are ill or on a journey should fast a number of other days. For those who are able to fast [only with difficulty and do not fast], their fidyah is to feed the poor. And if someone does good of his own accord, it is better for him. But that you should fast is better for you, If you only knew.

You who believe! fasting is prescribed for you,

Allah mentions two injunctions for Muslims – retaliation and making a will – and then mentions a third, saying that fasting is also prescribed for them and obligatory and mandatory for all. There is no disagreement about this. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Islam is based on five: the testimony that there is no god but Allah and Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishing the prayer, paying zakat, fasting Ramadan and ḥajj.’ Ibn ‘Umar related it. Linguistically ‘ṣiyām’ (fasting) means refraining from something and not moving from one state to another. Silence is called fasting because it is refraining from speaking, as we find when Allah says in Sūrat Maryam: ‘I have made a vow of silence (ṣawm) to the All-Merciful.’ (19:26) The verb is also used to refer to the wind being still, to an animal when it goes off its food, and to the day when it reaches its midpoint. Maṣām is when the sun reaches midday. In terms of the Sharī‘ah, fasting means to refrain from all those things which break the fast, having made the intention to fast, between dawn and sunset, and it is completed and perfected by avoiding all forbidden things and not falling into any prohibited actions, as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone does not abandon lying and acting by it, Allah has no need of him abandoning food and drink.’

The benefits of fasting are huge and its reward enormous. There are many good and excellent reports attesting to that. Sufficient evidence for the excellence of fasting lies in the fact that Allah singled it out for ascription to Himself as is confirmed in the ḥadīth in which the Prophet ﷺ reports his Lord as saying, ‘Allah Almighty says, “Every action of the son of Ādam is his except for fasting. It is Mine and I reward it.”’ He singled out fasting as being His, even though all acts of worship are in fact His, for two reasons which make fasting different from other acts of worship. The first is that fasting curtails the enjoyment and appetites of the lower self which other acts of worship do not. The second is that fasting is a secret between the slave and his Lord that only He knows. All other acts of worship are outward and may contain some artifice and showing off, which is not the case with fasting. That is why it is specially for Him. Other things are said as well.

as it was prescribed for those before you —

Ash-Sha‘bī, Qatādah and others said that the comparison refers to the time of fasting and amount of fasting. Allah had prescribed fasting Ramadan for the people of Mūsā and ‘Īsā but they altered it. The priests added ten days due to a vow made by one of them and eventually, due to further oaths, the Christian fast became fifty days and that was too arduous in the heat, so it was moved to the spring. An-Naḥḥās preferred this view and said that it is closer to what is in the āyah. There is also a ḥadīth which indicates its soundness from Daghfal ibn Ḥanẓalah in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The Christians were obliged to fast a month and then one of their men became ill. They said, “If Allah heals him, we will add ten days.” Then another ate meat and had a pain in his mouth. They said, “If Allah heals him, we will add seven days.” Then a king fell ill and they said, “We will complete the seven days as ten and move our fast to the spring.” So it became fifty days.’ Mujāhid said, ‘Allah prescribed the fast of Ramadan for every nation.’ It is said that they took a covenant and fasted a day before the thirty days and a day after it, generation after generation, until their fast reached fifty days. It was difficult for them in the heat and so they moved it to the spring. An-Naqqāsh said, ‘There is a ḥadīth about that from Daghfal ibn Ḥanẓalah, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and as-Suddī.

Allah knows best, but this is why it is disliked to fast the Day of Doubt and the six days of Shawwāl continuously after the day of the ‘Īd. Ash-Sha‘bī said, ‘Even if I were to fast all of the six, I would not fast the Day of Doubt. That is because the Christians were obliged to fast the month of Ramadan as we are obliged to fast it. Then they changed it to the spring because it used to coincide with the heat of summer. They did thirty days. Then after them some of them made a covenant imposing on themselves to fast a day before and after the thirty. That continued to be the custom until it reached fifty days. That is the import of His words: “as it was prescribed for those before you.”’

It is said that the comparison applies to the fact of the obligation to fast, not to the time or amount of fasting. It is said that the comparison is in respect of the description of fasting, as it is denial of food, drink and sexual intercourse. Even if the end of the fast comes and someone is asleep, he does not do any of these things. That is how it was with the Christians and at the beginning of Islam. Then Allah abrogated it by His words: ‘On the night of the fast it is lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives.’ (2:187) As-Suddī, Abu-l-‘Āliyah and ar-Rabī‘ said that.

Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal and ‘Aṭā’ said that the comparison is in respect of fasting, not the manner or the number of days, although the two fasts differ in being more or less in terms of time. Fasting three days of every month and the Day of ‘Ashūrā’ ‘…prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you,’ meaning the Jews. According to Ibn ‘Abbās, it was three days of every month and the Day of ‘Ashūrā’. This was then abrogated for the Muslims by the prescription of the month of Ramadan. Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal said that it was abrogated by ‘a specified number of days’ and then by the days of Ramadan.

so that hopefully you will become godfearing —

You are weak. When you only eat a little, your appetites are weakened. When the appetites are weakened, acts of disobedience are lessened. This is a good metaphorical interpretation. It is also said it means so that you will be wary of acts of disobedience. It is said that it is general because fasting, as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘is a covering and hope’ and a means to becoming godfearing because it subdues appetites.

for a specified number of days

This refers to the month of Ramadan. This differs from what is related from Mu‘ādh, and Allah knows best.

But if any of you who are ill or on a journey should fast a number of other days.

There are two possibilities for someone who is ill. One is that he cannot fast at all and it is obligatory for him to break it. The second is that he is able to fast but only with difficulty. This person is recommended to break his fast and only an ignorant person fasts in that condition. Ibn Sīrīn said, ‘When a person is in a state which can be called illness, he can break the fast, analogous with a traveller who does so by reason of travelling, even if he does not have to.’ Ṭarīf ibn Tammām said, ‘I visited Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn in Ramadan and he was eating, When he finished he said, “I have something wrong with this finger.”’

Most scholars, however, say that a person may only break the fast when he has an illness which pains or harms him or when he fears that the illness will last longer or increase if he fasts. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is the position of the people of Mālik who possess extensive knowledge.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād said that there were different transmissions from Mālik about the kind of illness that permits breaking the fast. One view was that the illness had to be one in which there was fear of someone dying if they fasted. Another was that it was a serious illness and there was fear of it getting worse and causing hardship, and this is the sound position of his school. That is based on the literal wording because the ‘illness’ is unspecified. Therefore it is allowed in the case of any illness except that for which there is specific evidence: headache, fever and minor illness which is unaffected by fasting. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘If someone is unable to pray standing due to illness, then he should break the fast.’ An-Nakha‘ī said that. One group said that you should only break the fast when the illness actually forces you to. When the difficulty accompanying it can be endured, then the fast should not be broken. This is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī.

However, the fairest thing concerning this topic, Allah willing, is what Ibn Sīrīn said, and al-Bukhārī reports a similar position from Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh. He said, ‘I fell ill in Nishapur with a minor illness in the month of Ramadan. Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh visited me with a group of his companions. He asked me, “Have you broken the fast, Abū ‘Abdullāh?” “Yes,” I answered. He said, “I feared that you would be too weak to take advantage of the allowance.” I said, “‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak related to me that Ibn Jurayj asked ‘Aṭā’, ‘For what illness may I break the fast?’ He replied, ‘For any illness, since Allah Almighty says: “But if any of you who are ill.”’”’ Al-Bukhārī said that Isḥāq did not have that ḥadīth. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘If a man who is fasting fears that if he does not break the fast his pain or fever will increase, then he should break the fast.’

or on a journey

Scholars disagree about the length of journey on which it is permitted to break the fast and shorten the prayer although there is a consensus about the journey being one which is in obedience to Allah, such as ḥajj or jihād, or a journey to visit relatives or seeking necessary livelihood. As for journeys for trade and other permitted things, there is disagreement about whether it is forbidden or permitted on these. That it is permitted is more likely. As for a journey for the sake of disobedience, there is also disagreement about whether it is permitted or prohibited to break the fast during it, and prohibited is more likely. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that.

According to Mālik, the distance which must be travelled to break the fast is the same as that for which the prayer can be shortened. Scholars disagree about exactly what that is. Mālik said, ‘A day and a night,’ and then he retracted that and said, ‘Forty-eight miles.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘That appears to be the position of his school.’ He is once reported as saying forty-two miles, or thirty-six miles, or a day and night, or two days, which is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. And there is a difference between land and sea journeys. It is said that a sea journey must be a day and a night whereas on land the stipulation is forty-eight miles. It is said in the School that it is thirty miles, and three miles is said outside the School. Ibn ‘Amr, Ibn ‘Abbās and ath-Thawrī said that you should break the fast on a journey of three days, as Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah also related.

Scholars agree that someone travelling in Ramadan is not permitted to break the fast at home before setting out because a traveller does not become a traveller by intention and remains a resident who is a resident until he becomes a traveller by action and actually setting out. A resident does not need any action because by the intention to remain he immediately becomes a resident. Residency does not need any other action. Therefore the two are different. They say that there is no disagreement about the fact that someone who intends to travel is not permitted to break the fast before he actually leaves. If he does break it, Ibn Ḥabīb says that if he has made preparations to travel and has begun the process, he owes nothing provided that the journey actually takes place. That is also related from Aṣbagh and Ibn al-Mājishūn. If he is then prevented from travelling, he owes kaffārah. ‘Īsā related from Ibn al-Qāsim, however, that he only has to make up that day because he was following a legal interpretation in breaking the fast. Ashhab says he owes nothing whether he travels or not. Saḥnūn says that he owes kaffārah whether he travels or not and that he is like a woman expecting her period who breaks the fast for that reason. Then he reverted to the position of ‘Abd l-Malik and Aṣbagh, saying, ‘He is not like a woman because a man can start a journey when he wishes and a woman cannot make her period start.’

The position of Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab about not owing kaffārah in this case is good because it is an action which people are permitted to do and do not incur liability for. Nothing is established about it except by certainty and there is no certainty when there is a disagreement about what is demanded by the words ‘…on a journey’. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is the soundest of their views on this question because it does not intentionally detract from the inviolability of fasting. It is based on a legal interpretation. If someone eats while only intending to travel (and then does not travel), then he must owe kaffārah because that which is cancelled after setting out is not cancelled before setting out. If you reflect on that, you will find it to be the case. Allah knows best.’

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abū Bakr an-Naysābūrī from Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq ibn Sahl in Egypt from Ibn Abī Maryam from Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far from Zayd ibn Aslam from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir that Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b said, ‘I went to Anas ibn Mālik in Ramadan when he was intending to travel. His camel was loaded and he had his travel clothes on. It was close to sunset. He called for food, ate, and then mounted. I asked him, ‘Sunnah?” “Yes,” he replied.’ It is also related that Anas said, ‘Abū Mūsā said to me, “Have I not informed you that when you leave, you leave fasting, and when you arrive, you arrive fasting? When you leave, leave not fasting and when you arrive, arrive not fasting.”’ Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said, ‘If you wish, you can break it in your house before leaving.’ Aḥmad said that someone may break the fast when he goes beyond the houses (of the settlement where he is resident). Isḥāq said, ‘No, it is when he puts his foot in the stirrup.’

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The view of Aḥmad is sound, because when someone starts the day healthy and then becomes ill, he is told not to fast for the rest of the day. Similarly, when he starts the day at home and then sets out on a journey, he can break the fast.’ One group said that he should not break the fast that day, even when he starts a journey. That is what was stated by az-Zuhrī, Makḥūl, Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī, Mālik, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion.

They disagree about what happens if he does break it. Most of them say that he makes it up, but does not do kaffārah. Mālik said that it was because the journey is an incidental reason and it is similar to when he becomes ill. It is related from some of Mālik’s people that he makes it up and does kaffārah. That is the view of Ibn Kinānah and al-Makhzūmī. Al-Bājī related that position from ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ibn al-‘Arabī preferred that and stated it. He said that that is because the journey is something that occurred in his case after the act of worship became binding. Illness and menstruation are different because illness permits breaking the fast and menstruation makes it unlawful to fast. A journey does not authorise that and therefore kaffārah is incurred by a person who breaks the fast under those circumstances for violating the inviolability of fasting. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is not the case because Allah has permitted breaking the fast in the Book and the Sunnah. When they say that he should not break it, that is a recommendation for what he has contracted. If he takes up the dispensation that Allah has given, then he must simply make it up. There is no reason for kaffārah. Someone who makes it mandatory has made mandatory something which neither Allah nor His Messenger made mandatory.’ Regarding this question, it is related that Ibn ‘Umar said that he can break it on that day when he sets out on a journey. It is the view of ash-Sha‘bī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq.

Al-Bukhārī has a chapter entitled ‘Someone breaking his fast on a journey in such a way that people will see him’. He has a ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out from Madīnah to Makkah and fasted until he reached ‘Usfān. Then he called for water and raised it in his hand so that the people would see him and ceased fasting until he reached Makkah. That was during Ramadan.’ Muslim also transmitted that Ibn ‘Abbās said in it: ‘He called for a vessel which contained something to drink and drank from it in the day so that people would see him. Then he ceased fasting until reached Makkah.’ This is a clear text on the topic and so there is no opposition to it. Success is by Allah.

It also contains evidence for those who say that one does not fast on a journey. That is related from ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Umar. Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘If someone fasts on a journey, he should still make it up when he becomes resident.’ ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf said, ‘Someone who fasts on a journey is like someone who does not fast when resident.’ Some of the Ẓāhirīs take that position and cite as evidence ‘a number of other days.’ There is also what is related that Ka‘b ibn ‘Āṣim said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “Fasting on a journey is not part of piety.”’

There is also evidence in it for those who say that if someone on a journey intends at night to fast the next day, he can break the fast, even without an excuse. That is the view of Muṭarrif and one of the views of ash-Shāfi‘ī. It is held by a group of the people of ḥadīth. Mālik said that he must make it up and do kaffārah because he has a choice between fasting and not fasting. When he chooses to fast and makes an intention to do so during the night, it is binding on him and he may not break the fast. If he breaks the fast deliberately without an excuse he must make it up and do kaffārah. It is also related from him that he does not have to do kaffārah. That is the view of most of his people except for ‘Abd al-Malik. He said, ‘If he breaks his fast through sexual intercourse, then he must do kaffārah because doing that does not relate to having sufficient strength for the journey and so he has no excuse. A traveller is permitted to break his fast in order to be strong enough for the journey by doing that. The rest of the fuqahā’ in Iraq and the Hijaz, including ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and the rest of the fuqahā’ of Kufa, say that he owes no kaffārah. Abū ‘Umar also said that.

Scholars disagree about which is better: breaking the fast or fasting on a journey. Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that fasting is better for the one who is strong enough to do it. The majority opinion in the school of Mālik is that there is a choice, which is also the position in the school of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and those who follow him also say that he has a choice, without giving details. That is also the view of Ibn ‘Ulayyah based on the ḥadīth of Anas who said, ‘We travelled with the Prophet ﷺ during Ramadan and those who were fasting did not criticize the non-fasters and the non-fasters did not criticize those who were fasting.’ Mālik, al-Bukhārī and others transmitted it. It is related that ‘Uthmān ibn Abī ’l-‘Āṣ ath-Thaqafī and Anas ibn Mālik, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, said, ‘Fasting is better for those who are strong enough to do it.’ That is the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and his people. Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Taking advantage of the dispensation is better,’ as did Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, ash-Sha‘bī, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, Mujāhid, Qatādah, al-Awzā‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. They say that not fasting is better because of the words of the Almighty: ‘Allah desires ease for you. He does not desire difficulty for you.’ (2:185)

should fast a number of other days.

There is an elision here, i.e. ‘whoever among you is ill or on a journey should break the fast and then make up…’ The majority of scholars say that when the people of the land fast twenty-nine days and a man is ill, when he recovers, he makes up twenty-nine days. He makes up the days he missed. Some people, including al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy, said, ‘He makes up the month without reference to the number of days.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘This is unlikely because Allah says, “a number of other days” and did not say, “a month of other days.”’ ‘Number’ (‘iddah) demands fulfilling the number of days he did not fast. There is no doubt that if he misses some of Ramadan, he must make up the same number of days he missed. It is the number of days that one considers rather than ‘the month’.

People disagree about whether it is obligatory for the days to be continuous or not when someone is making them up. Ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned both in his Sunan and related that ‘Ā’ishah said that originally the āyah said ‘fast a continuous number’ and then ‘continuous’ was dropped. This report has a sound isnād. Abū Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who owes a fast for Ramadan, should do it continuously and not break it.’ Its isnād contains ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm who is weak. Ibn ‘Abbās, however, says about making up Ramadan, ‘Fast it however you wish.’ Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘Fast them as you broke them.’ It is traced to Abū ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Hurayrah, Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ. Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir said, ‘I heard that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about breaking up the fast of Ramadan and said, “That is up to you. If someone had a debt and repayment is done in amounts of one or two dirhams, does he not repay it? Allah is more entitled to pardon and forgive.”’ Its isnād is good although it is mursal and not confirmed as connected. We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ from Mālik from Nāfi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar used to say, ‘Someone who breaks the fast in Ramadan because he is ill or travelling should make up the days he has missed consecutively.’ Al-Bājī said in al-Muntaqa: ‘It is possible that the report means that it is mandatory, and it is possible that it means that it is recommended. Most fuqahā’ say that it is recommended. It is allowed to fast them separately. That is the view of Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī. The evidence for the soundness of this is His words, “a number of other days” without specifying whether they are separate or continuous. If he does them separately, he has fasted a number of other days and so it necessarily satisfies it.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said that consecutiveness is mandatory during the month since it is specified. It is not specified in making up the days and so it is permitted to break them up.

When Allah says, ‘a number of other days’, it indicates the obligation to make it up without specifying a time for doing it because the phrase applies to times, which are not distinct. We find in the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘Sometimes I owed fasting for Ramadan and was unable to make the days up until Sha‘bān since I was busy with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ This is a text and further explanation of the āyah. That refutes what Dāwud said about it being obligatory to make it up on the second day of Shawwāl. In his view, someone who dies without having fasted it has sinned. Based on that, if he is obliged to free a slave and finds a slave on sale for eight, he cannot go beyond him and buy another because he was obliged to free the first slave he finds and the obligation is not satisfied by another slave. If the slave the person owns dies, then the emancipation is not invalidated, as it would be invalidated in the case of someone who vows to free a particular slave who then dies. In that case, his vow is invalidated. Some scholars of fundamentals say that if a person dies after the second day of Shawwāl, he is not disobedient provided that he has resolve. What is sound is that he does not sin and is not negligent. That is the majority position, although it is, however, recommended for him to hurry to make them up so that he does not die before having completed them, still owing an obligation.

If someone must make up days of Ramadan and enough days pass after Ramadan in which he could have made them up and he delays doing so until something prevents him from making them until the following Ramadan, he does not have to feed anyone because he was not negligent since he was permitted to delay. This is the position of the Baghdādī Mālikīs and they relate it as the position of Ibn al-Qāsim in the Mudawwana.

If someone delays making up the fast until Sha‘bān has ended, which is the usual time for making it up, does he owe fidyah? Mālik, Aḥmad, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Isḥāq said that he does but Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Ḥasan, an-Nakha‘ī and Dāwud said he does not. This is what al-Bukhārī believed based on the words he mentioned mursal from Abū Hurayrah and Ibn ‘Abbās that he should feed people, even though Allah does not mention feeding but fasting a number of days. There is a ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah about the person who neglects to make up the days he owes of Ramadan until the next Ramadan. He said that he fasts it with the people and then fasts what he missed and feeds a poor person for every day. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and said that it has a sound isnād. It is related from him that the Prophet ﷺ said about a man who breaks the fast in Ramadan due to illness and recovers and does not make it up until the next Ramadan: ‘He fasts the month he is in and then fasts the month in which he broke the fast and feeds a poor man for every day.’ Ibn Nāfi‘ and Ibn Wajīh are in the isnād and they are weak.

If someone’s illness continues and he does not recover until the next Ramadan, ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ibn ‘Umar that he should feed a poor person a mudd of wheat for every day and does not have to make it up. It is related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘If he does not recover between the two Ramadans, then he fasts for the current one and feeds for the other and does not have to make it up. If he recovers but does not fast until the next Ramadan, he fasts the current one and feeds for the past one. When he breaks the fast, he makes it up.’ It has a sound isnād.

Our scholars say that the positions of the Companions which use different analogies are also used as evidence. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that a man came to him and said that he had been ill through two Ramadans. Ibn ‘Abbās asked him, ‘Was it a continuous illness or did you recover between the two?’ He answered, ‘I recovered.’ He said, ‘Fast the two Ramadans and feed sixty poor people.’ This replaces his statement that if his illness continues, he does not have to make it up. This is similar to their school about pregnant and nursing women feeding and not making up as we will mention.

There is disagreement about the amount someone is obliged to give in feeding, Abū Hurayrah, al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī say that it is a mudd for every day. Ath-Thawrī said that it is half a ṣā‘ for every day.

There is disagreement about what is incurred by someone who breaks the fast or has sex while making up Ramadan. Mālik said, ‘Someone who breaks the fast out of forgetfulness during a day when he is making up Ramadan owes nothing except making up. It is recommended that he continue to fast, because of the disagreement about that, and then make it up. If he breaks it intentionally, then he sins, but he only has to make up that day. He does not continue to fast that day because there is no point in refraining from what a faster refrains from since he is not fasting when he deliberately breaks the fast according to a group of scholars. There is no disagreement among Mālik and his people that no kaffārah is obliged for that. That is the view of a group of scholars. Mālik said, ‘Someone who breaks the fast on a day that he is making up Ramadan, by having sex with his wife or something else, owes no kaffārah.’ Ibn al-Qāsim related from Mālik that someone who breaks the fast on a day he is making up Ramadan owes two days. Ibn al-Qāsim gave that fatwā and then retracted it. Then he said, ‘If he breaks the fast deliberately while making up, he must fast two days in its place, in the same way that someone who spoils his ḥajj by having sex with his wife and then makes ḥajj in the following year and again spoils it by having sex with his wife: he owes two ḥajj’s.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Ibn Wahb and ‘Abd al-Malik disagreed with him about the ḥajj. There is no analogy when something is disputed.’ What I believe is correct, and Allah knows best, is that in both cases he only has to make up one day because it is one day that he spoiled twice.

What is demanded by the words is that when someone fasts one day in place of the one in which he broke the fast in Ramadan, he has performed what is obligatory for him and nothing else is obliged. Allah knows best.

Most believe that if someone breaks the fast in Ramadan because of illness and then dies of that illness, or travels and dies on his journey, he owes nothing. Ṭāwūs and Qatādah said that if a sick person dies before he recovers, feeding is done on his behalf.

They disagree about someone who dies owing some days of Ramadan that he has not made up. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and ath-Thawrī said that no one may fast on behalf of someone else. Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, al-Layth, Abū ‘Ubayd and the literalists say that it is possible to fast on behalf of someone else unless the fast is incurred by a specific vow. Something similar is related from ash-Shāfi‘ī. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that feeding can be done on behalf of someone to make up days of Ramadan they missed. Those who say that fasting is possible cite as evidence what Muslim related from ‘Ā’ishah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone dies owing fasting, then his relative should fast on his behalf.’ This is a general statement about fasting which is made specific by Muslim’s report that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘A woman went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, my mother died while owing a vow to fast (one variant has ‘fast for a month’). Can I fast on her behalf?’ He answered, ‘Do you think that if your mother owed a debt you would pay it for her?’ ‘Yes,’ she answered. He said, ‘Fast on behalf of your mother.’ Mālik and those who agree with him, however, cite as evidence the words of the Almighty: ‘No burden-bearer can bear another’s burden’ (6:164), and: ‘Man will have nothing but what he strives for’ (53:39) and: ‘What each self earns is for itself alone.’ (6:154) They also cite what an-Nasā’ī transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās stating that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘No one may pray on behalf of another and no one may fast on behalf of another, but on their behalf one can feed people with a mudd of wheat for every day they owe.’

This ḥadīth is general, but his statement that no one may fast on behalf of another might mean the fast of Ramadan whereas it is permitted to do so in the case of unfulfilled vows, as is indicated by the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās and others. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim also has a ḥadīth from Buraydah similar to that of Ibn ‘Abbās. One version has: ‘…to fast for two months. Can I fast on her behalf?’ He replied, ‘Fast on her behalf.’ She said, ‘She did not perform ḥajj. Can I perform ḥajj on her behalf?’ He answered, ‘Do not perform ḥajj on her behalf.’ The fact that she said ‘two months’ means that it is unlikely that it was for Ramadan. Allah knows best. Mālik’s argument is strengthened because it was the practice of the people of Madīnah and is supported by clear analogy. It is a physical act of worship which does not involve any wealth and so she is not doing it for someone who owes something like the prayer. The ḥajj does not contradict this because money plays a part in it.

Those who say that you do not fast on a journey and must always make it up use this āyah as evidence. Allah says: ‘Any of you who are ill or on a journey should fast a number of other days.’ That means that the person concerned owes a number and there is no elision in the words. They also cite the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Fasting on a journey is not part of piety.’ Something that is not part of piety is sinful. That indicates that it is not permitted to fast on a journey. Most say that there is something elided in it, i.e. ‘…should not fast and…’, as we already mentioned. It is sound based on the ḥadīth of Anas already mentioned: ‘We travelled with the Prophet ﷺ during Ramadan and those who were fasting did not criticise the non-fasters and the non-fasters did not criticise those who were fasting.’

For those who are able to fast, their fidyah is to feed the poor

‘Poor’ (masākīn) is a plural. Ibn ‘Abbās recited it in the singular: ‘miskīn’. That is related by al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwud and an-Nasā’ī from ‘Aṭā’. It is a good reading because it explains the ruling for each day. Abū ‘Ubayd said that. It is the reading of Abū ‘Amr, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī. Abū ‘Ubayd said that it makes it clear that the ruling is to feed one poor person per day and so the singular can designate the plural while the plural cannot designate the singular. The meaning is that one poor person must be fed for each day. Feeding is fidyah.

Scholars disagree about exactly what is meant by this āyah. The majority say that it is abrogated. Al-Bukhārī related from Ibn Numayr from [al-A‘mash] from ‘Amr ibn Murrah from Ibn Abī Laylā from the Companions of Muḥammad ﷺ that Ramadan was sent down and it was difficult for them. Those who fed a poor person for every day left fasting to those who were able to fast. An indulgence was granted to them regarding that and then it was abrogated by: ‘But that you should fast is better for you’. On this basis, the majority reading of ‘those who are able to fast’ means ‘those who can do it’ because that is how the obligation of fasting was: those who wish to do so should fast, and those who wish to do so should feed a poor person. Ibn ‘Abbās said that this was revealed about the dispensation for old people and the infirm who do not fast when they are able to do so, which was abrogated by: ‘Any of you who are resident for the month should fast it.’ So the dispensation is now only for those who are unable to fast.

Al-Farrā’ said that the pronoun in the words can refer to fasting, in which case it means: ‘those who cannot fast should feed people when they do not fast’ and this was then abrogated. It is also possible that the words apply, not to fasting, but to paying fidyah. If the verb in the āyah is recited as ‘yuṭawwaqūnahu’, which means those for whom fasting is difficult, such as those who are ill or pregnant, and they can fast but with undue hardship for themselves, they can fast and satisfy the requirement or they can pay fidyah instead. Ibn ‘Abbās gives that interpretation. Abū Dāwud related from Ibn ‘Abbās that that judgment is confirmed for pregnant and nursing women. It is also related from him that it is a dispensation for very old men and women who are nevertheless still capable of fasting: they may feed a poor person for every day they do not fast. If pregnant and nursing women fear for their child, they do not fast and pay fidyah instead. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from him that there is a dispensation for old people to not fast but to feed a poor person for every day and they do not have to make up the days. It has a sound isnād. It is also related that he said that the ayah is not abrogated and refers to old men and women who cannot fast: they feed a poor person for every day. This is sound. It is related that he told his umm walad who was pregnant or nursing: ‘You are one of those unable to fast. You must pay fidyah, but do not have to make it up.’ It also has a sound isnād.

It is confirmed with sound isnāds from Ibn ‘Abbās that the āyah is not abrogated, but is one of judgment in respect of those who are mentioned. The first view is also sound although it is possible that the term ‘abrogation’ can mean the qualification of an earlier judgment and a lot of earlier people used that meaning for the word naskh. Allah knows best. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, an-Nakha‘ī, az-Zuhrī, Rabī‘ah, al-Awzā‘ī and the People of Opinion say that pregnant and nursing women should not fast and do not have to feed anyone, as is the case with a sick person who breaks his fast and then makes it up. Abū ‘Ubayd and Abū Thawr said that. Abū ‘Ubayd related that from Abū Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it. That is the position of Mālik about pregnant women when they do not fast. When nursing women do not fast, however, they must make it up and feed people. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Aḥmad say that both categories should not fast but should feed people as well as making it up. They all agree that old men and women who cannot fast, or who can fast, but only with undue hardship, do not fast.

They do, however, disagree about what they owe in that case. Rabī‘ah and Mālik said that they owe nothing, although Mālik did say, ‘I prefer for them to feed a poor person for every day.’ Anas, Ibn ‘Abbās, Qays ibn as-Sā’ib and Abū Hurayrah said that they definitely owe fidyah. That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, the People of Opinion, Aḥmad and Isḥāq, following the position of the Companions رضي الله عنها and this āyah. Those who are not ill or travelling owe fidyah. Mālik’s argument is that this category do not fast because of an existing excuse like old age and therefore it is not mandatory for them to feed people, as is the case with those who are travelling or ill. This is also related from ath-Thawrī and Makḥūl. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it.

There is disagreement about the amount owed by people who have to pay fidyah. Mālik said it is a mudd of the Prophet ﷺ for every day and ash-Shāfi‘ī also said that. Abū Ḥanīfah said that it is a ṣā‘ of dates or half a ṣā‘ of grain. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that it is a ṣā‘ of grain. Ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned it. It is related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘If someone becomes elderly and cannot fast, then he owes a mudd of wheat for every day. It is related from Anas ibn Mālik that if someone is too weak to fast for a month, he should prepare a bowl of food and invite thirty poor people to it and give them their fill.

and if someone does good of his own accord, it is better for him.

Ibn Shihāb said that this refers to anyone who wants to feed as well as fast. Mujāhid said that it is about giving more than a mudd when paying fidyah. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is to feed another poor person. Ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned it and said that its isnād is sound and firm. ‘Īsā ibn ‘Amr, Yaḥyā ibn Waththāb, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited ‘yaṭṭawwa‘’ while the rest have ‘taṭṭawwa‘a’.

But that you should fast is better for you if you only knew.

Fasting is better than breaking the fast. This was before the abrogation. It is said that it refers to travelling and any illness which is not serious. Allah knows best. It is encouragement for fasting, i.e. ‘Know that and fast.’

185 The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur’an was sent down as guidance for mankind, with Clear Signs containing guidance and discrimination. Any of you who are resident for the month should fast it. But any of you who are ill or on a journey should fast a number of other days. Allah desires ease for you; He does not desire difficulty for you. You should complete the number of days and proclaim Allah’s greatness for the guidance He has given you so that hopefully you will be thankful.

The month of Ramadan

Historians state that the first person to fast Ramadan was the Prophet Nūḥ when he left the Ark. We have already mentioned that Mujāhid said that Allah made fasting the month of Ramadan obligatory for every nation and it is known that there were nations before Nūḥ, and Allah knows best. The word for month, shahr, is derived from ishhār which means to make something known in such a way that it is not difficult for anyone to know it. The verb is also used for a sword being unsheathed. The name ‘Ramadan’ is derived from ramaḍ, which is burning, because the belly of the faster is burning from thirst. Ramḍā’ is intense heat. A ḥadīth states: ‘The prayer of the penitent is like when young camels are burned (ramiḍat).’ This is when the feet of young camels are burned and they kneel because of the intense heat. It is said the month was named because it was the time of intense heat and so it is derived from ramḍā’. Al-Jawharī said that the plural is ramaḍānāt and armiḍā’. It is said that when the names of the month were transferred from the ancient tongue, they were named after the times in which they occurred and this month coincided with the days of intense heat and that is the source of its name. It is said that it is called that because it burns up wrong actions by means of righteous actions. It comes from irmāḍ, which means ‘burning’, the verb used when one’s feet are burned by the heat. The verb can also be used for a matter hurting (literally ‘burning’) someone. It is said that it is because, in it, the hearts take the heat of admonition and reflection about the Next World as the sand and stones are burned by the heat of the sun. Ramḍā’ are also burned stones. The verb is also used for putting a blade between two stones and beating it to make it thin. Such a blade is called ramīḍ and marmūḍ. The month is called that because they used to prepare their weapons in Ramadan so that they could fight with them in Shawwāl before the arrival of the Sacred Months. Al-Māwardī related that its name in the Jāhiliyyah was Nātiq.

The statement implies: ‘Obligatory for you is the fasting of the month of Ramadan’ or ‘part of what has been prescribed for you is the month of Ramadan.’ It is also said that this phrase is just descriptive. ‘Month’ is mentioned a second time in the āyah for esteem as occurs elsewhere in the Qur’an.

There is disagreement about whether one can say just ‘Ramadan’ rather than ‘the month of Ramadan.’ Mujāhid disliked that and said that it should be said in the manner that Allah said it. We find in a report: ‘Do not say “Ramadan”. Attribute it as Allah attributed it in the Qur’an. He said, “the month of Ramadan”.’ He used to say, ‘I have heard that it is one of the names of Allah.’ That is why he disliked using the plural. He argued from the premise of what he related about it being one of the names of Allah. This is not sound. It comes from the ḥadīth of Abū Ma‘shar Nujayḥ who is weak. What is sound is that it is permitted to say ‘Ramadan’ on its own as is confirmed in aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ and elsewhere.

Muslim related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When Ramadan comes, the gates of mercy are opened, the gates of the Fire are closed and the shayṭāns are chained.’ We find in the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Bustī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When Ramadan comes, the gates of mercy are opened, the gates of Hell are closed and the shayṭāns are chained.’ It is related from Ibn Shihāb from Anas ibn Abī Anas from his father that he heard Abū Hurayrah say this. Al-Bustī said that this Anas ibn Abī Anas was the father of Mālik ibn Anas and the name of Abū Anas was Mālik ibn Abī ‘Āmir. He was one of the trustworthy people of Madīnah. His full name is Mālik ibn Abī ‘Āmir ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥārith ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Juthayl ibn ‘Amr from the Dhū Aṣbagh from the tribes of Yemen.

An-Nasā’ī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Ramadan, a blessed month, has come to you. Allah has prescribed that you fast it. In it the gates of heaven are opened, the gates of Hell are closed and the recalcitrant shayṭāns are chained. It contains a night better than a thousand months. Anyone who is deprived of its good is truly deprived.’ Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī also transmitted it. ‘Recalcitrant’ defines the ‘shayṭāns’. An-Nasā’ī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to a woman of the Anṣār, ‘Perform ‘umrah in Ramadan. An ‘umrah in it is equivalent to a ḥajj.’ An-Nasā’ī also related from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf that he related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty obliged the fast of Ramadan for you and I have made it sunnah for you to pray at night in it. Anyone who fasts and prays at night in it in faith and in expectation of the reward emerges from his wrong actions like the day his mother bore him.’ There are many traditions like that, all of which omit the word ‘month’.

The excellence of Ramadan is immense and its reward is huge. That is indicated by the meaning of its being derived from being something that burns up wrong actions and as well as the ḥadīths we have mentioned.

Allah imposed fasting from the start of the month of Ramadan, which is when its new moon appears, and that is why the moon is sometimes called a ‘month’, as in the ḥadīth, ‘When the month is clouded over for you’ meaning the new moon. If it is cloudy, Sha‘bān is counted as thirty days, or, if the end of Ramadan is cloudy, it itself is counted as thirty days so that there will be certainty in respect of worship and certainty that it has ended. Allah says in His Book: ‘We have sent down the Reminder to you so that you can make clear to people what has been sent down to them.’ (16:44)

Reliable imams relate that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Fast by seeing the moon and break the fast by seeing it. If it is cloudy, calculate it.’ Muṭarrif ibn ‘Abdullāh, one of the great Tābi‘ūn, and Ibn Qutaybah, the linguist, said, ‘One can rely on reckoning when it is cloudy by observing the stages of the moon, taking the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ, “If it is cloudy, calculate it,” to mean to use its stages as evidence and complete the month accordingly. The majority, however, say that “calculate” means to complete the number which is elucidated by the ḥadīth reported by Abū Hurayrah which says specifically: ‘Complete the number.’ Ad-Dāwudī mentioned that “calculate” means to calculate the stages of the moon. We do not know of anyone who takes this position except for some Shāfi‘īs who say that one can consider the statement of astronomers regarding this matter, but the overwhelming consensus is the argument against them. Ibn Nāfi‘ related from Mālik that, if a ruler does not fast by sighting the moon or break it by sighting it and fasts and breaks it by calculation, you should not follow him or imitate him.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Some of our people have erred and related that ash-Shāfi‘ī said that one can rely on calculation. That is a stumble. May they rise from it!’

Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī disagree about whether the new moon of Ramadan is confirmed by a single witness or whether it needs two. Mālik says, ‘A single testimony is not accepted for it because it is the testimony of a new moon, and not less than two is accepted for it.’ The basis is sighting the new moon of Shawwāl and Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah say that one witness is accepted based on what is related by Abū Dāwud that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘The people sighted the new moon and so I informed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he fasted and ordered the people to fast.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and said that only Marwān ibn Muḥammad has it from Ibn Wahb and he is trustworthy. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that a man testified that he had seen the new moon in the presence of ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and he fasted. He said, ‘I think that he said, “and he ordered the people to fast.”’ He said, ‘I prefer to fast a day of Sha‘bān than to not fast a day of Ramadan.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If most of the people do not see the new moon of the month of Ramadan and one reputable man sees it, I think that he is accepted because of the tradition and out of caution.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī later said, ‘It is not permitted to fast Ramadan except with two witnesses.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī and some of our people say, ‘It is only accepted with two witnesses. That is based on an analogy regarding everything which is not present.’

They disagree about someone who sees the new moon of Ramadan or that of Shawwāl when he is alone. Ash-Shāfi‘ī is reported as saying, ‘If someone sees the new moon of Ramadan on his own, he should fast, and if someone sees the new moon of Shawwāl on his own he should break the fast but conceal it.’ Ibn Wahb reported from Mālik that someone who sees the new moon of Ramadan alone should fast because he should not eat knowing that it is one of the days of Ramadan. If someone sees the new moon of Shawwāl on his own, he should not eat on it because the people would suspect anyone among them who broke the fast and he would not be safe unless they say that they have seen the new moon. That is the position of al-Layth ibn Sa‘d and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. ‘Aṭā’ and Isḥāq said, ‘He should not fast and break the fast.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘He fasts and breaks the fast.’

They disagree about what happens when someone reports about the sighting of the moon in another land. If it is near, their ruling should be followed; if it is far away, then the people of each land should sight it separately. This is related from ‘Ikrimah, al-Qāsim and Sālim. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and Isḥāq also said it. Bukhārī indicated it in a chapter entitled: ‘The people of each land sight it.’ Others said that when it is established among people that the people of a land have sighted it earlier, then they must make up any days they did not fast. That is what al-Layth and ash-Shāfi‘ī said. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I only know that to be the position of al-Muzanī and al-Kūfī.’

Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned in Aḥkām al-Qur’ān: ‘The Ḥanafīs agree that when the people of one country fast thirty days by sighting and the people of another land fast only twenty-nine days, those who fasted twenty-nine have to make up one day. The Shāfi‘īs do not think that, since the moon rising in different places can vary. The evidence of the Ḥanafīs is the words of the Almighty: “Complete the number.” It is established by the sighting of the people of a land that the number is thirty and so those people must complete it. Those who differ from them argue by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “Fast by sighting it and break the fast by sighting it.” That necessitates considering the custom of every people in their land.’ Abū ‘Umar reported the consensus that one does not pay attention to sighting in distant lands, like Andalusia in relation to Khorasan. He said, ‘Each land sights it, except for those areas neighbouring large cities.’

Muslim related from Kurayb that Umm al-Faḍl bint al-Ḥārith sent him on a mission to Mu‘āwiyah in Syria. He said, ‘I came to Syria and did what she asked me to do. Ramadan began while I was in Syria and I saw the new moon on a Friday night. Then I came to Madīnah at the end of the month and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās asked me about when I had seen the new moon. “Friday night,” l replied. “You yourself saw it?” he asked. “Yes,” I said, “and the people saw it and fasted and Mu‘āwiyah fasted.” He said, “But we saw it on Saturday night. We will continue to fast until it is the full thirty days or we see it.” I asked, “Is it not enough that Mu‘āwiyah saw the moon and fasted?” “No,” he said, “that is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded us to do.”’

Our scholars said, ‘The statement of Ibn ‘Abbās, “That is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded us to do”, is a clear statement that goes back to the command of the Prophet ﷺ, and that is evidence that when the lands are far from each other as Syria is far from the Hijaz, the people of each land must act according to their own sighting. If that is confirmed with the overall leader [i.e. the Caliph], he cannot impel people to follow him in that. But if he does, it is not permitted to oppose him.’

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘It is possible to interpret his words, “That is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded us to do” as referring to the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Fast by sighting it and break the fast by sighting it.”’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘There is disagreement about the interpretation of the words of Ibn ‘Abbās. It is said that it is refuted because it is a single report. It is said that it is refuted because breaking the fast varies according to different times of moon rising. That is sound because Kurayb did not testify. He merely reported about a ruling that was confirmed by sighting. There is no disagreement that it is permitted to have a firm ruling based on a single report. An example of that is that when it is confirmed with the people of Aghmat that the new moon is seen on Friday and with the people of Seville that it is seen on Saturday, then each acts according to their sighting since the sky was clear in Aghmat but not in Seville. This indicates a difference in risings.’

The position of school of Mālik regarding this question related by Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Qāsim in al-Majmū‘ah is that when the people of Basra saw the new moon of Ramadan and then news of it reached the people of Kufa, Madīnah, and Yemen, they had to fast or make it up. Qāḍī Abū Isḥāq related from Ibn al-Mājishūn that if it was confirmed at Basra as a generally known fact which does not require testimony and witnesses (because of the large number of people who had seen it), then it was obligatory for the people of other lands to make it up. If it was confirmed with the ruler only by the testimony of two witnesses then it was not obliged for other countries. It is only obliged for those under that ruler’s rule. But if it was confirmed with the Amīr al-Mu’minīn, then the whole community of Muslims must make it up. That is the position of Mālik.

Most people recite ‘month’ in the nominative as a khabar of an elided ibtidā’, meaning ‘That is the month’ or ‘Fasting it, the month of Ramadan, is prescribed for you.’ It is said that it is in the accusative as the object of something not named: ‘Prescribed for you is the month of Ramadan.’

is the one in which the Qur’an was sent down as guidance for mankind

This provides textual evidence that the Qur’an was revealed during the month of Ramadan. It explains the words of the Almighty: ‘Ḥā Mim, by the Book which makes things clear. We sent it down on a blessed night’ (44:1-3), meaning the Night of Power, and: ‘We sent it down on the Night of Power’ (97:1). This also indicates that the Night of Power is only in Ramadan. There is no disagreement that the Qur’an was sent down from the Preserved Tablet on the Night of Power all at once. It was then lodged in the House of Might in the lowest heaven. Then Jibrīl brought it down, piece by piece, with commands and prohibitions brought about by different situations over the course of the following twenty years. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Qur’an was sent down from the Preserved Tablet all at once to the scribes in the lower heaven. Then Jibrīl brought it down in instalments, meaning as one or two āyahs at a time, at different times over twenty-one years.’ Muqātil said, ‘It was sent down every year from the Preserved Tablet on the Night of Power to the lowest heaven. Then it was sent down from the Preserved Tablet to the scribes over twenty months and Jibrīl brought it over twenty years.’ This indicates what al-Ḥasan said about the Night of Power being on the night of the twenty-fourth, as will be mentioned.

The word ‘Qur’an’ designates the Words of Allah Almighty and means ‘recited’. This is a common linguistic usage in Arabic as ‘maktūb’ (written) is a book. It is also said that it is a verbal noun.

We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar that in the sea there are imprisoned shayṭāns who were shackled by Sulaymān who are close to emerging and reciting something to people. Sūrat al-Isrā’ uses the word ‘Qur’an’ to mean ‘recitation’ (17:78) The Arabs often use a verbal noun for a passive participle. This common usage is known legally and the Qur’an is a name for the Word of Allah so that it can be said that the Qur’an which is recited is not created. That means what is recited, not the recitation itself. Sometimes the word is also used for the bound book (muṣḥaf) in which the words of the Qur’an are written down. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not travel to the land of the enemy with the Qur’an,’ meaning a copy of the Qur’an. It is derived from the root qara’a, to collect something. It is said that it is a name for the Book of Allah without any derivation, like Torah and Gospel. This is related from ash-Shāfi‘ī. What is sound is that all of it is derived.

as guidance for mankind, with Clear Signs containing guidance and discrimination.

The Qur’an guides them. It is also clarification, as it makes things clear to them. This refers to the entire Qur’an, its firm judgments and ambiguous expressions, its abrogating and abrogated āyahs, and Allah here lays emphasis on the Clear Signs in it, meaning by that the lawful and unlawful, and its warnings and rulings. Its ‘discrimination’ is that it distinguishes truth from falsehood.

Any of you who are resident for the month should fast it.

The verb ‘shahida’ means ‘to be resident’. It implies: ‘Any of you who are resident in a city during the month, sane, adult, healthy and resident should fast it.’ This qualifies the command to fast. ‘Month’ here is not an object, but an adverb of time.

Scholars disagree about the interpretation of this. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ‘Abbās, Suwayd ibn Ghafalah and ‘Ā’ishah, four Companions, as well as Abū Miljaz Lāḥiq ibn Ḥumayd and ‘Abīdah as-Salmānī, said: ‘Whoever is resident at the beginning of the month in his town should complete his fast, whether he travels or remains resident after that. He may break his fast on a journey when Ramadan starts while he is travelling.’ They think that if Ramadan arrives while someone is travelling, he may not fast and then must make it up with a number of other days. If Ramadan arrives while someone is resident, he should fast. The majority of the community say that whoever is present at the beginning and end of the month should fast as long he is resident. If he travels, then he may break the fast. This is sound and is backed up by firm ḥadīths. Al-Bukhārī has a chapter entitled: ‘If someone fasts some days of Ramadan and then sets off on a journey.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Yūsuf related from Mālik from Ibn Shihāb from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Utbah that Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set off for Makkah in Ramadan and continued fasting. When he reached al-Kadīd, he broke his fast and the rest of the people broke their fast with him.

It is possible that what ‘Alī and those who agree with him said means that this is during a recommended journey, such as one for visiting brothers among the righteous, or a permissible one, such as one for seeking provision beyond what is merely sufficient. As for a mandatory journey, such as one for seeking necessary provision or conquering a land when that is certain or to repel enemies, a person can choose, and it is not mandatory for him to fast. Indeed, it is better to not fast so as to increase strength. If the month arrives when he is in his home town, he fasts some of it there based on the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās and others. There is no disagreement about this, Allah willing. Allah knows best.

Abū Ḥanīfah and his people say that if Ramadan comes when someone is resident and meets its preconditions and is neither mad nor unconscious, he should fast it. If Ramadan comes when he is in a state of insanity and he continues to be in that condition until the end of the month, then he does not have to make it up because he was not present when the month arrived in a manner which would oblige him to fast. If someone is insane at the beginning and then again at the end of the month, he makes up the days of his insanity.

It is confirmed that the obligation of fasting is made binding by being Muslim, by adulthood, and by having knowledge of the month. When an unbeliever becomes Muslim, or a child becomes an adult, before dawn in Ramadan, they must fast the following day. If it is already dawn, then it is recommended for them not to eat, but they do not have to make up the past days of the month, only the day they became adult or Muslim. Scholars disagree about when an unbeliever becomes Muslim on the last day of Ramadan and whether he is obliged to make up all of that Ramadan or not. Is he obliged to make up the day on which he became Muslim? Imam Mālik and the majority say that he does not have to make up what has passed because he is only present at the month at the time he became Muslim. Mālik said, ‘I prefer him to make up the day on which he became Muslim.’ ‘Aṭā’ and al-Ḥasan said, ‘He should fast what remains and makes up what has passed.’ ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn said, ‘He should refrain from eating for that day and then make it up.’ Aḥmad and Isḥāq said something similar. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘He does not have to make up either the rest of the month or that day.’ Al-Bājī said, ‘Those of our people who say that unbelievers are subject to the laws of Islam, which is what is entailed by the position of Mālik and most of his people, oblige him to fast for the rest of the day.’ Ibn Nāfi‘ related that in the Mudawannah from Mālik. Shaykh Abu-l-Qāsim said that. Those of our people who say that unbelievers are not subject to the laws of Islam say that he is not obliged to fast for the rest of the day. That is demanded by what is stated by Ashhab and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn. Ibn al-Qāsim also said that. It is sound based on Allah’s words: ‘You who believe!’ So the believers are addressed rather than others. This is clear. Therefore the convert is not obliged to fast for the rest of the day or to make up what has passed. This was discussed in 2:184.

Allah desires ease for you; He does not desire difficulty for you

One group recite yusr (ease) as yusur and ‘usr’ (difficulty) as ‘usur. They are dialectic usages. Mujāhid and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that the word ‘ease’ refers to not fasting on a journey and the word ‘difficulty’ to fasting on it. The meaning, however, can be general to all matters of the dīn because the Almighty says: ‘He has not placed any constraint upon you in the dīn.’ (22:78) The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The dīn is ease,’ and he further said, ‘Make things easy and do not make things difficult.’ ‘Yusr’ is easiness. An aspect of this is the fact that wealth is sometimes referred to as yasār. The left hand (yusrā) is used for good fortune because it makes the things easier by helping the right hand.

The āyah indicates that Allah wills by His pre-eternal timeless Will which is distinct from His Essence. This is the position of people of the Sunnah, in the same way that He knows by knowledge, has capacity through power, lives by life, hears by hearing, sees by sight and speaks by speech. These are all attributes which exist before time and are distinct from the Essence. The philosophers and the Shi‘ah believe these attributes are negated. Allah is greatly exalted above the words of deviants and atheists! That which demolishes the position of the atheists is the fact that it is said: ‘If it had not been true that He possesses will, then He would not have will. If that had been true, then everything that lacks a will is inferior to that which has a will. Someone who possesses the qualities of will can make something specific or not make it specific. A sound mind would conclude that that is perfection not imperfection. Were it to be imagined that He is divested of that, then His prior state would have been more perfect than his second state and that which is not described would be more imperfect that what is described. This is clearly impossible. How then can it be imagined that something created is more perfect than the Creator and the Creator more imperfect than something created? That instinctively is rejected and nullified.’

Allah Almighty describes Himself as possessing will. He says: ‘He is the Doer of what He wills’ (11:107) and: ‘Allah desires ease for you; He does not desire difficulty for you’ (2:185) and: ‘Allah desires to make things lighter for you’ (4:28) and: ’…when He desires something, He says to it, “Be!” and it is.’ (36:82) A knower may possess ultimate wisdom, perfection, order and exactitude, but nevertheless it is possible for him to exist or not exist. That which is singled out for existence must possess will, power and knowledge. If a being does not possess knowledge and power, then it is not valid for anything to issue from it. If it does not possess knowledge but does possess power, then what issues from it is not arranged with wisdom and precision. If it does not possess will, then it cannot specify any permissible things with states and times rather than other things since they all have the same relationship to it. So they have said that if it is confirmed that Allah possesses power and will, then He must also have life since life is a precondition for these attributes. Someone who is alive must be hearing, seeing and speaking. If it is not confirmed that something possesses these qualities, then it must be described by their opposites, like being blind, deaf and mute as is known in the visible world. The Almighty Creator is too exalted and pure to be described by something that would oblige His Essence to be imperfect.

You should complete the number of days

There are two interpretations of this. One is that someone who breaks the fast on a journey or due to illness must complete the number by fasting the days he missed. The second is that it refers to the number of days in the month, whether it is twenty-nine or thirty. Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The month is twenty-nine.’ This refutes the interpretation of the one who interprets the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The month is counted, and Ramadan and Dhu-l-Ḥijjah are not reduced’ to mean that they are not less than thirty days. Abū Dāwud transmitted it. Most scholars interpret that to mean that the reward is not reduced and errors are expiated whether it is twenty-nine or thirty days.

There is no consideration given to a claimed sighting of the new moon of Shawwāl on the 30th of Ramadan during the daytime. That moon belongs to the coming night. This is what is sound. Transmitters from ‘Umar differ about his matter. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Shaqīq said, ‘‘Umar’s letter arrived when we were at Khaniqan. It said: “Some new moons are larger than others. When you see the new moon in the day, do not break the fast until there are two witnesses who said that they saw it the day before.”’ Abū ‘Umar mentioned it from the ḥadīth of ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from Ma‘mar from al-A‘mash from Abū Wā’il. Abū ‘Umar said that ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib related the like of what ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned. It is also the view of Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Umar, and Anas ibn Mālik. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, al-Layth and al-Awzā‘ī said that. It is also stated by Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq. Sufyān ath-Thawrī and Abū Yūsuf said that if it is seen after midday, it belongs to the coming night, but if it is seen before midday, it belongs to the previous night. Something similar is related from ‘Umar. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from ath-Thawrī from Mughīrah from Shibāk that Ibrāhīm said, ‘‘Umar wrote to ‘Utbah ibn Farqad: “If you see the new moon in the daytime before midday, the thirty are completed, so break the fast.” If you see it after midday, then do not break the fast until evening.”’ ‘Alī related something similar, though nothing is sound regarding this topic in respect of the isnād from ‘Alī. A similar statement to that of ath-Thawrī is related from Sulaymān ibn Rabī‘ah. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb said that. He gave a fatwā to that effect in Cordoba.

Different things are reported from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz about this matter. Abū ‘Umar said that the meaning contained in the ḥadīth from ‘Umar is what is believed by Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah. It is a connected transmission while what is related with the position of ath-Thawrī is broken. It is better to accept what is connected. Those who take the position of ath-Thawrī cite as evidence the ḥadīth of al-A‘mash which is general and does not mention whether it is before or after midday. The ḥadīth of Ibrāhīm has accompanying explanation and so it is better to follow it.

What is related from Umar as connected and mawqūt is related marfū‘ by ‘A’ishah, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was fasting on the morning of the 30th and saw the new moon of Shawwāl in the daytime. He did not break the fast until evening.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from al-Wāqidī that Mu‘ādh ibn Muḥammad al-Anṣārī said, ‘I asked az-Zuhrī about the new moon of Shawwāl when it is seen in the morning. He said that he heard Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab say, “When the new moon of Shawwāl is seen after dawn until ‘Aṣr, or until sunset, it belongs to the coming night.”’ Abū ‘Abdullāh said, ‘This is agreed upon.’

Ad-Dāraqutnī related from Rib‘iyy ibn Ḥirāsh that one of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘People disagreed about the last day of Ramadan. Two Bedouins came and testified in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ that they had seen the new moon the previous evening. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded people to break the fast and go to their prayer place.’ Ad-Dāraqutnī said that this has a sound firm isnād. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘There is no disagreement from Mālik and his people that the ‘Īd prayer may only be performed on the day of the ‘Īd and, even on the day of the ‘Īd, not after midday. That is related from Abū Ḥanīfah. Ash-Shāfi‘ī’s position on this matter varies. Sometimes he took the view of Mālik. Al-Muzanī preferred that and said, ‘If it is not permitted to pray after midday on the day of the ‘Īd, then the second day is even further away, and so it is less fitting to pray then.’ There is another transmission from ash-Shāfi‘ī’ which says that it can be prayed before noon on the second day. Al-Buwayṭī said, ‘It may only be prayed if there is a ḥadīth established about it.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘If the ‘Īd prayer were to be made up after its time has passed, then it would resemble the obligatory prayers but they all agree that the rest of the sunnahs are not made up and this prayer is like them.’

Ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said that people should go out on the following day, and Abū Yūsuf said that in al-Imlā’. Al-Ḥasan ibn Sāliḥ Ḥayy said that they do not go out then for the ‘Īd of Fiṭr, but do for the ‘Īd al-Aḍḥā. Abū Yūsuf said that the prayer for the ‘Īd al-Aḍḥā can be performed even on the third day. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘That is because all the days of Aḍḥā are days of ‘Īd and the ‘Īd prayer can be done on any of them. The ‘Īd al-Fiṭr is only one day. If it is not prayed on that day, it is not made up on another day, because it is not one of the obligatory prayers that can be made up.’ Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said, ‘People go out during the morning on Fiṭr and Aḍḥā.’

The view about going out is sounder, Allah willing, because of the firm sunnah regarding it. That does not prevent the Lawgiver making any exception he wishes regarding the sunnahs and commanding that the prayer should be made up after its time. At-Tirmidhī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone does not pray the two rak‘ahs of Fajr, he should pray them after sunrise.’ Abū Muḥammad says that it is sound. At-Tirmidhī said, ‘Some of the people of knowledge act on this.’ It is the position of Sufyān ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Ibn al-Mubārak. It is related that ‘Umar did it.

Our scholars say that if the time is short for someone and he prays Ṣubḥ and omits the two rak‘ahs of Fajr, he can pray them after sunrise if he wishes. It is also said that he does not pray them then. If we say that he does pray them, is he making them up or performing two two rak‘ahs whose reward replaces the reward for the rak‘ahs of Fajr? Shaykh Abū Bakr said, ‘This follows the basic principle of the School. “Making up” is metaphorical.’

It is not unlikely that the ruling of praying the Fiṭr prayer on the second day is based on this source, especially since it is once in the year as is confirmed in the Sunnah. An-Nasā’ī related from ‘Amr ibn ‘Alī from Yaḥyā from Abū Bishr from Abū ‘Umayr from his uncles that some people saw the new moon and went to the Prophet ﷺ and he commanded them to break their fast after it was well into the day and they went out to the ‘Īd on the following day. One variant says: ‘they went out to their prayer place the next day.’

Abū Bakr from ‘Āṣim, Abū Bakr in part of what was related from him, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah and al-A‘raj recited ‘li-tukammilū’ in Form II while the rest have ‘li-tukmilū’. Al-Kisā’ī prefers the second since it agrees with 5:30. An-Naḥḥās said that these are two dialectical forms with the same meaning. This is an excellent view.

and proclaim Allah’s greatness

This is encouragement to say the takbīr at the end of Ramadan according to the position of the majority of interpreters. People disagree about its definition. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that it is reported that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Urwah, and Abū Salamah used to say the takbīr on the Night of the ‘Īd and praise Allah. He said that that night resembles the Night of Sacrifice. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It is a duty for the Muslims, when they see the new moon of Shawwāl, to say the takbīr.’ It is related that he said, ‘One says the takbīr from the sighting of the moon to the end of the khuṭbah, stopping when the imam comes out, and then saying the takbīr with his takbīr (during the khutbah).’ Some people say that one says the takbīr from the sighting of the moon until the imam comes out for the prayer.’ Sufyān said that it is the takbīr on the day of Fiṭr. Zayd ibn Aslam said, ‘They say the takbīr when they go out to the place of prayer. When the prayer ends, the ‘Īd ends. This is the school of Mālik.’ Mālik said, ‘It is said from the time he leaves his house until the imam comes out.’

Ibn al-Qāsim and ‘Alī ibn Ziyād said, ‘If you go out before sunrise, you do not say the takbīr on the way, nor when you sit, until the sun rises. In the morning after sunrise, you say the takbīr on the way to the place of prayer and when you sit, until the imam comes out.’ According to Mālik, Fiṭr and Aḍḥā are the same in that respect. That is also the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Abū Ḥanīfah, however, said that you say the takbīr for Aḍḥā but not for Fiṭr.

The evidence for the [first] position is that Allah says: ‘proclaim Allah’s greatness’, and also because this is a day of ‘Īd which does not recur in the year. Therefore the sunnah is to say that takbīr when going out to it as is the case with Aḍḥā. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān as-Sulamī said, ‘They put more weight on doing the takbīr for Fiṭr than than for Aḍḥā̛ .’ It is related from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to say the takbīr on the Day of Fiṭr from when he left his house until he reached the prayer place. It is also related from him that on the morning of Aḍḥā and Fiṭr he ﷺ would say the takbīr aloud until he arrived and then would say that takbīr until the imam appeared.

Most of the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and others said the takbīr on the ‘Īd al-Fiṭr as Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned, stating that al-Awzā‘ī related that from Ilyās. When he saw the new moon of Shawwāl, ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘I like people to say the takbīr in groups and alone. They should continue to say it, and do so aloud, until they come to the prayer place up until the imam comes out for the prayer. I also like it on the night of Aḍḥā for those not on ḥajj.’ The ruling of the two ‘Īd prayers and the takbīr on them will come in al-A‘lā and al-Kawthar, Allah willing.

The form of the takbīr according to Mālik and a group of scholars is to say: ‘Allāhu akbar. Allāhu akbar. Allāhu akbar’ three times. That is related from Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh. Some scholars say the takbīr, shahādah and glorification are all included here in the takbīr. Some people say, ‘Allāhu akbar kabīran wa-l-ḥamdu lillāhi kathīran wa subḥāna-llāhi bukratan wa aṣīlā.’ (Allah is very much greater. Praise belongs to Allah and glory be to Allah morning and evening.) Ibn al-Mubārak used to say when he left home on the day of Fiṭr: ‘Allāhu akbar. Allāhu akbar. Lā ilāha illa-llāh. Allāhu akbar lillāhi-l-ḥamd. Allāhu akbar ‘alā mā hadānā.’ Ibn al-Mundhir reported that Mālik did not specify any particular form. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said that there is leeway. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Our scholars prefer the simple takbīr. It is the literal text of the Qur’an, and I incline to that view.’

for the guidance He has given you

It is said that this is mentioned because the Christians went astray by altering their fast and it is said that it refers to replacing what was done in the past, because the practice of the Jāhiliyyah involved boasting about ancestors and rivalry based on lineage and titles. It is also said that it means to esteem Allah for the laws He has guided us to, in which case the phrase has a general significance. This was discussed in 2:52.

186 If My slaves ask you about Me, I am near. I answer the call of the caller when he calls on Me. They should therefore respond to Me and believe in Me so that hopefully they will be rightly guided.

If My slaves ask you about Me,

‘If they ask you Who it is that they worship, then tell them that I am near and I reward obedience and answer the one who makes supplication to Me.’ Allah knows what His slaves do in respect of fasting, prayer and other things. The commentators disagree about the reason this āyah was revealed. Muqātil said that ‘Umar had sexual intercourse with his wife after he had prayed ‘Ishā’ and regretted that and wept. He went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and informed him and returned deeply upset. That was before the permission to do so was revealed. Then this āyah was revealed.

I am near.

This is in respect to the response. It is said to mean ‘near by My knowledge’, and it is said to mean ‘near to My friends through My favour and blessing to them.’

I answer the call of the caller when he calls on Me.

This means: ‘I accept the worship of the one who worships Me.’ The calling means worship and the answer means acceptance. The evidence for that is what Abū Dāwud related from an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Supplication is worship. Your Lord says, “Call on Me and I will answer you.”’ So calling (du‘ā’) is the same as worship. Evidence for that can be found in the words of the Almighty: ‘Those who are too proud for My worship will enter Hell abject.’ (40:60) Here it means supplication.

So Allah Almighty commanded us to make du‘ā’ and encouraged it and called it worship and promised that He would answer it. Layth related from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab that ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘My Community have been given three things that only Prophets were given previously. Whenever Allah sent a Prophet, he said, “Call on Me and I will answer you.” He told the whole of this community, “Call on Me and I will answer you.” When Allah sent a Prophet, he said to him, “I have not placed any constraint on you in the dīn.” He told the whole of this community, “I have not placed any constraint on you in the dīn.” When Allah sent a Prophet, He made him a witness against his people, and He made the whole of this community witnesses against mankind.’

Khālid ar-Rib‘iyy said, ‘I was amazed at this āyah: “Call on Me and I will answer you” (40:60), in which Allah commands us to make supplication and promises the response without any precondition. Someone asked, “What kind of precondition might there be?” The answer was, “Such as we find in His words: ‘Give good news to those who believe and do right actions.’ (2:25) This is a precondition. He says elsewhere: “Give good news to those who believe that they are on a sure footing.” (10:2) There is no precondition here. He says: “Call upon Allah, making your dīn sincerely His.” (40:14) This is a precondition. He says: “Call on Me and I will answer you” (40:60) There is no precondition here. Nations used to resort to their Prophets for their needs so that the Prophets could ask for that for them.’

If it is asked, ‘Why would a caller call if he did not expect to be answered?’ the reply is that the words of Allah in the two āyahs, ‘answer’ and ‘respond’ do not absolutely necessitate an answer for every supplicator in detail nor every seeker in detail. Allah says in another āyah: ‘Call on your Lord humbly and secretly. He does not love those who overstep the limits.’ (7:55) Everyone who persists in a major wrong action, knowingly or ignorantly, is a transgressor and Allah tells us that He does not love transgressors and so how could He answer such a one? The categories of transgression are numerous and, Allah willing, they will be mentioned in Sūrat al-A‘rāf. Some scholars say: ‘He can answer if He wishes as He says: “If He wills, He will deliver you from whatever it was that made you call on Him.” (6:41)’ This is an aspect of the knowledge of what is general and what is defined. The Prophet ﷺ made three supplications and was granted two and denied one as will be made clear in Sūrat al-An‘ām, Allah willing.

It is said that what is intended by this statement is to acquaint all believers with the fact that their Lord answers the call of those who call in general, and that He is close to His slave and hears his supplication and knows his need and responds to whatever He wishes and in whatever way He wishes. ‘Who is further astray than the one who calls other things besides Allah, which will not respond to them?’ (46:5) A master answers his slave and a father his child but may not give them the thing they are asking for. So it is not inevitable that what is asked for will be granted.

It is related through Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Whoever has the door of supplication opened to him has the doors of the answer opened to him as well.’ Allah revealed to Dāwud, ‘Tell My wrongdoing slaves not to call on Me for I have made it incumbent on Myself to answer those who call on Me and when l answer wrongdoers, I curse them.’ People have said that Allah answers every supplication and that the answer either appears in this world or takes the form of expiation of sins or is stored up in the Next World. Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no Muslim who calls on Allah Almighty with a supplication which does not contain a request for anything wrong or severance from his kin, without Allah giving him one of three things: He either hastens it to him, or stores it up for him or turns away the like of it in evil from him.’ They asked, ‘What about when we do a lot of supplication?’ ‘Allah has more,’ he replied. Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmitted this and Abū Muḥammad said that it is sound. The Muwaṭṭā’ has it with a severed isnād. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This ḥadīth is transmitted in commentary on the words of the Almighty: “Call on Me and I will answer you” (40:60). All of this is part of the answer.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Everyone who makes supplication is answered. If someone prays for provision in this world, Allah gives it, and if he does not receive it in this world, then it is stored up for him in the Next World.’

Although the ḥadīth of Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī allows the answer to come in one of three ways, it indicates to you the soundness of what was said about avoiding any transgression that prevents the answer coming by saying: ‘which does not contain a request for anything wrong or severance from his kin’. Muslim added, ‘As long as he does not seek to hasten it.’ It is related from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I continue to answer My slave as long as he does not ask for anything wrong or severance from his kin and as long as he does not seek to hasten it.’ He was asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, what is seeking to hasten it?’ He replied, ‘It is that he says, “I asked and I asked and have not had any answer.” Then he is saddened by that and stops making supplication.’ Al-Bukhārī, Muslim and Abū Dāwud related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘You receive an answer as long as you do not seek to hasten it, saying, “I asked and was not answered.”’

Our scholars said that it is possible that he is reporting about the obligatory nature of the answer and reporting about how it will occur. So it is a report about the obligation and its occurrence. The answer can come in any of the three ways mentioned above. When someone says, ‘I asked and was not answered,’ that voids the occurrence of one of these three things and the supplication is then detached from all of them.

The answer to the supplication can also be denied because of consumption of the unlawful and other such things. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A man is on a long journey with his hair disheveled and covered in dust. He stretches his hands to heaven, saying, “O Lord! O Lord!” But his food is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, his clothing is unlawful and his nourishment is unlawful. How can he be answered when he is in that state?’ This question conveys the fact that it is unlikely for his supplication to be accepted when he is like that.

The answer to the supplication is dependent on the necessary preconditions being met in respect of the one making the supplication, the supplication itself, and what he asks for. The preconditions in the case of the one making the supplication is that he knows that only Allah can bring about his need and that the means are in His hand and subject to Him; that he makes the supplication with a sincere intention and with presence of the heart, as Allah does not answer the supplication of someone with a heedless heart; that he avoids unlawful consumption; and that he does not become impatient with respect to his supplication. The precondition regarding what is being asked for is that it is something permissible to seek or lawful to do, confirmed by his words, ‘as long as he does not ask for anything wrong or severance from his kin’. ‘Wrong’ includes all forms of wrong actions, and ‘kin’ includes all the rights and wrongs of other Muslims.

Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tustarī said, ‘Supplication has seven preconditions: humble entreaty, fear, hope, constancy, humility, universality, and consumption of the lawful.’ Ibn ‘Aṭā’ ’illāh said, ‘Supplication has pillars, wings, means and times. When the pillars are in order, it is strong. When its wings are in order, it flies to heaven. When its times are in order, it is successful. When its means are in order, it will succeed. Its pillars are: the presence of the heart, goodness, humility and submission. Its wings are sincerity. Its time is before dawn. Its means is the prayer on the Prophet ﷺ.’ It is said that it has four preconditions. They are guarding the heart when alone, guarding the tongue when with people, guarding the eye and keeping it from looking at what is not lawful, and guarding the belly from what is unlawful. It is said that one of its preconditions is that supplication be free of grammatical errors as the poet says:

He calls to his Lord in ungrammatical Arabic.

Perhaps when he supplicates like that it will not be answered.

Ibrāhīm ibn Adham was asked, ‘Why do we make supplication and not get an answer?’ He answered, ‘Because you knew Allah but did not obey Him. You knew the Messenger but did not follow his Sunnah. You knew the Qur’an but did not act by it. You consumed the blessings of Allah but did not thank Him properly for them. You knew of the Garden but did not seek it. You knew of the Fire but did not flee from it. You knew Shayṭān but did not fight him and instead agreed with him. You knew of death but did not prepare for it. You buried the dead but did not reflect on it. You ignored your own faults and busied yourselves with the faults of others.’

‘Alī said to Nawf al-Bikālī, ‘Nawf, Allah revealed to David, “Tell the tribe of Israel that they should not enter any of My Houses except with pure hearts, lowered eyes and clean hands. I do not answer the supplication of any of them as long as they act unjustly towards any of my creatures.” Nawf, do not be a poet, tax-collector, or tax assessor. David rose in at an hour in the night and said, “This is an hour in which no one makes a supplication without it being answered unless he is an appraiser, a policeman, a lute-player or a drummer.”’

Our scholars say that no one should say, ‘O Allah, give to me if You wish! O Allah, forgive me if You wish! O Allah, show mercy to me if You wish.’ His request should be free of saying, ‘If You wish.’ He makes the request with the full knowledge that Allah will not do it unless He wishes. Furthermore, the expression ‘If You wish’ contains a degree of not needing His forgiveness, gift and mercy. It is like someone saying, ‘If you wish to give me this, then do so.’ That form of expression is only used when someone is not really in need of the thing he is asking for. If someone is truly in need of something, then he shows resolve in asking and asks in the manner of someone truly in need of what he is asking for. The imams related from Anas ibn Mālik that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When one of you makes supplication, he should be definite in the request and should not say, “O Allah, give to me if You wish.” No one can force Him to do anything.’ We find [added] in the Muwaṭṭā’: ‘O Allah, forgive me if You wish. O Allah, show mercy if You wish.’

Our scholars say that the words ‘he should be definite in the request’ is evidence that a believer must strive in supplication and hope for an positive response. He should not despair of Allah’s mercy because he is calling on one who is generous. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said, ‘No one should be prevented from making supplication by what he knows about himself. Allah answered the supplication of the worst of creation, Iblīs when he said, “Lord, defer me until the Day they are resurrected.” He replied, “You are one of those deferred.”’

There are certain times and situations at which supplication is more likely than at others to be answered, such as the time before dawn, the moment of breaking the fast, between the adhan and the iqāmah, between Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr prayers on Wednesday, at moments of great need, while travelling and while ill, when rain descends and when lining up in the cause of Allah. All of that comes in traditions and they will be explained in the proper place. Shahr ibn Ḥawshab related that Umm ad-Dardā’ said, ‘Shahr, do you suffer from the shakes?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered. She said, ‘Pray to Allah. Supplication for that condition is answered.’ Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ made supplication in the Masjid al-Fatḥ on three days: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. It was answered for him on Wednesday between the two prayers. I could see the joy in his face.’ Jābir added, ‘Nothing important happened to me but that I aimed for that time and made supplication in it and had an answer.’

They should therefore respond to Me…

Abū Rajā’ al-Khurāsānī said: ‘They should call on Me.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this means: ‘They should seek for My response.’ It is Form X of the verb which is to seek for something. Mujāhid and others said that the meaning is: ‘They should respond to Me regarding what I call them to in respect of faith,’ in other words, they should obey Allah and act on His commands.

187 On the night of the fast it is lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives. They are clothing for you and you for them. Allah knows that you have been betraying yourselves and He has turned towards you and excused you. Now you may have sexual intercourse with them and seek what Allah has written for you. Eat and drink until you can clearly discern the white thread from the black thread of the dawn, then fulfil the fast until the night appears. But do not have sexual intercourse with them while you are in retreat in the mosques. These are Allah’s limits, so do not go near them. In this way does Allah make His Signs clear to people so that hopefully they will be godfearing.

On the night of the fast it is lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives.

The way that this is expressed indicates that it was at first forbidden and then that prohibition was abrogated. Abū Dāwud reported from Ibn Abī Laylā that, when a man broke the fast and then went to sleep before eating again, he would not break his fast until the following morning. One day ‘Umar came home and went to his wife and she told him she had already slept. He thought she was making an excuse and had intercourse with her. In another incident a man of the Anṣār wanted to eat and they said, ‘We will heat something up for you,’ and he fell asleep. In the morning, this āyah was revealed.

Al-Bukhārī related that al-Barā’ said, ‘Among the Companions of Muḥammad ﷺ if ever a man was fasting and the time of fast-breaking came but he went to sleep before he had broken his fast, he would not eat that night or the following day until evening. Qays ibn Ṣirma al-Anṣārī was fasting and when the time of fast-breaking came, he went to his wife and asked her, “Do you have any food?” She said, “No, but I will go and look for something for you.” He worked during the day and sleep overcame him. His wife returned to him and when she saw him, she said, “You are disappointed.” In the middle of the day, he fainted and it was mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ. Then this āyah was sent down: “On the night of the fast it is lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives.” Then they were very happy, and it was revealed: “Eat and drink until you can clearly discern the white thread from the black thread of the dawn.”’

We find in al-Bukhārī, also from al-Barā’: ‘When the fast of Ramadan was revealed, they used to not approach their wives through all of Ramadan. Some men betrayed themselves and so Allah revealed: “Allah knows that you have been betraying yourselves and He had turned towards you and excused you.”’ Betrayal here means to have sexual intercourse during the nights of the fast. If someone disobeys Allah, then he has betrayed himself because he has brought down the punishment on himself. Al-Qutabī said, ‘The root meaning of betrayal is that a man is entrusted with something and does not fulfil his trust.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that one night ‘Umar returned after having conversed in the night with the Prophet ﷺ and found that his wife had slept. He desired her and she told him, ‘But I have slept!’ He said, ‘But I have not slept!’ and had sex with her. Ka‘b ibn Mālik did the same thing. In the morning ‘Umar went to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘I apologise to Allah and to you! My self impelled me and I had sex with my wife. Do you find any indulgence for me?’ He said, ‘You were not entitled, ‘Umar.’ When he reached his house, he sent for him and told him about the excuse in the āyah of the Qur’an. An-Naḥḥās and Makkī mentioned it.

The word ‘rafath’ (sexual relations) is an allusion to sexual intercourse because Allah is noble and prefers to use an allusion. Ibn ‘Abbās, as-Suddī and az-Zajjāj said, ‘Rafath is a word which denotes all that a man does with a woman.’ Al-Azharī also said that. Ibn ‘Arafah said that it is sexual intercourse. It is also said that rafath is obscene language.

They are clothing for you and you for them.

The metaphor of clothing is used because a married couple are close to one another like garments and garments cling to the body. Someone said that it is because they cover and protect a thing and so each of them protects the other from what is not lawful as we find in a tradition. It is also said that it is because each of them protects the other from the eyes of other people in respect of what occurs between them. Abū ‘Ubayd said others said a wife is called one’s ‘garment’, ‘bed’, and ‘waist-wrapper’. Ar-Rabī‘ said, ‘They are a bed for you and you are a cover for them.’ Mujāhid said, ‘They are a repose for you, i.e. you each find repose in one another.’

Allah knows that you have been betraying yourselves and He has turned towards you and excused you.

Betraying yourselves was by having forbidden sexual intercourse and eating after sleeping during the nights of fasting. It is possible that it means each of them betrays himself and it is called that because of the harm that reverts to him. Allah’s turning towards them has two possible meanings. One is that He accepts their repentance for having betrayed themselves and the other is that it refers to Him making it easier for them through His indulgence and His allowing them to do what had previously been forbidden, as when He says elsewhere: ‘He knows that you will not keep count of it, so He has turned towards you,’ (73:20) meaning He has lightened it for you. There is also His words about accidental killing: ‘Anyone who does not find the means should fast two consecutive months. This is a concession (tawbah) from Allah.’ (4:92) It means a lightening because the person who did the accidental killing did not do anything for which he should repent. He says: ‘Allah has turned towards the Prophet, and the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār, those who followed him at the “time of difficulty”.’ (9:117) No repentance was obliged from the Prophet ﷺ.

So the words ‘excused you’ can refer to the wrong action or it can mean making things wide and easy, as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The beginning of the time is the pleasure of Allah and the end of it is the pardon of Allah.’ Therefore it means that Allah knew that you would do this and He turned to you after it occurred and lightened things for you. So ‘‘afā’ means ‘to make easy’. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Scholars of asceticism say that that happened so that there could be divine concern and a noble station. ‘Umar betrayed himself and Allah made it part of the Sharī‘ah and things were made easier for the community. Allah was pleased with him and he was pleased with Allah.’

Now you may have sexual intercourse with them

It is lawful for you now to do what was forbidden before. ‘Mubāshara’ (sexual intercourse) is so called because of the contact of skin to skin. This is the literal meaning of the word. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘This indicates that the reason for the revelation of the āyah was ‘Umar having sex with his wife, not the hunger of Qays, because if the hunger of Qays had been the reason, he would have said, ‘Now you may eat’ as that would have been the reason for the revelation of the āyah.

and seek what Allah has written for you.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah, al-Ḥasan, as-Suddī, ar-Rabī‘, and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that this refers to seeking to have a child, indicating that it refers directly back to the previous statement about having sexual intercourse. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘What Allah has written for you is the Qur’an.’ Az-Zajjāj said, ‘It means: “Seek in the Qur’an for what is permitted to you and for what you have been commanded to do.”’ Ibn ‘Abbās and Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal reported that it refers to looking for the Night of Power. It is also said that it means: ‘Take advantage of the allowance and dispensation Allah has granted you,’ and this was what Qatādah and Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said. It is said that it means to seek slavegirls and wives.

Eat and drink until you can clearly discern the white thread from the black thread of the dawn,

When it is clear that dawn has arrived it is not lawful for anyone to eat, even if there is still some time until sunrise. There is disagreement about the point at which it becomes clear that one must abstain from things which break the fast. The majority say that dawn is the light which spreads right and left on the horizon and there are ḥadīths to that effect. Muslim related from Samurah ibn Jundub that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not be deluded from your saḥūr by the adhān of Bilāl nor by the whiteness of the false dawn on the horizon. It is like that until the dawn spreads like that.’ Ḥammād related it with his hand open. Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘Dawn is not like this as it is said,’ and he put his fingers together and then lowered them to the ground, ‘but that which is said to be like this,’ and he put his index fingers together and stretched out his hands.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are two dawns. The one that is like a wolf’s tail does not permit or forbid anything. As for the one which spreads on the horizon, it makes the prayer permitted and forbids food.’ This is a mursal report.

One group say that it refers to the time after dawn when it becomes clear in the streets and houses that dawn has arrived. That is related from ‘Umar, Ḥudhayfah, Ibn ‘Abbās, Ṭalq ibn ‘Alī, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, al-A‘mash, Sulaymān and others. Abstaining becomes obligatory when it is clearly dawn in the streets and on the tops of the mountains. Masrūq said, ‘They did not consider it to be their dawn. What they considered to be dawn was that which filled the houses.’ An-Nasā’ī related from ‘Āṣim that Zirr said, ‘We asked Ḥudhayfah, “When did you have saḥūr with the Messenger of Allah?” He replied. “It was daytime, although the sun had not yet risen.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ṭalq ibn ‘Alī that the Prophet of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Eat and drink. Do not be deceived by the white ascending light. Eat and drink until the red light spreads horizontally.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that Qays ibn Ṭalq is not strong. Abū Dāwud said that this is something that only the people of Yamamah have. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘That which guided them to this fast is that it is during the day and they believe that the day begins with sunrise and ends with sunset.’ The disagreement between linguists about that has already been mentioned as well as the explanation of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: ‘It is the darkness of the night and the whiteness of the day.’ That is what distinguishes along with ‘a specified number of days’. (2:184)

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from ‘Ā’ishah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Whoever does not intend to fast before the rising of dawn has no fast.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbād alone has it from al-Mufaḍḍal ibn Faḍālah with this isnād. All of them are trustworthy. It is related from Ḥafṣah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who does not resolve to fast before dawn has no fast.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr has it marfū‘ from highly regarded, trustworthy people. It is also related marfū‘ from Ḥafṣah. These two ḥadīths indicate what the majority say about dawn and that someone who does not have an intention before dawn has no fast, differing from the position of Abū Ḥanīfah.

Fasting is one of the acts of worship which is only valid with an intention, and the time to make the intention is before dawn (fajr), so how can it be said that eating and drinking is permissible after dawn? Al-Bukhārī and Muslim related that Sahl ibn Sa‘d said, ‘When “Eat and drink until you can clearly discern the white thread from the black thread” was sent down and “of the dawn” had not been sent down, some men who wanted to fast would tie a white thread and a black thread to their legs and would continue to eat until they could see them clearly. Allah later revealed “of the dawn” and they then knew that it meant night and day.’ It is related that ‘Adī ibn Abī Ḥātim said, ‘I said, “Messenger of Allah, what is the white thread from the black thread? Are they two threads?” He said, “You are a thick-head if you look at the two threads.” Then he said, “No, rather it is the blackness of night and the whiteness of day.”’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it and said that dawn is called a thread because what appears is a distinct line of white like a thread. A poet said:

The white thread is the light of morning breaking.

The black thread is the darkness of night covering.

‘Khayṭ’ (thread) in their language designates colour. ‘Fajr’ (dawn) is a verbal noun used for water which gushes up and spreads out. The root meaning is ‘cleaving’. It is used for dawn because when the light of the sun begins to appear, it spreads out along the horizon. This is what the Arabs call ‘the white thread’. One also says that ‘dawn breaks’.

then fulfil the fast until the night appears.

Allah made ‘night’ a time for eating, drinking and sexual intercourse, and ‘day’ a time for fasting. So the judgments of the two times are clear and distinct from each other. What is allowed in the night is not permitted in the day, except for travellers or ill people as we have already explained. In any other case, if someone breaks the fast he either does it intentionally or out of forgetfulness. If it is the first case, Mālik said, ‘Whoever breaks the fast in Ramadan by eating, drinking, or sexual intercourse, must make it up and owes kaffārah,’ as is reported in the Muwaṭṭā’ and also in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim where the Prophet ﷺ ordered a man who broke the fast to free a slave, or fast two consecutive months or feed sixty poor people. Ash-Sha‘bī said that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and others say that this kaffārah is specific to someone who breaks the fast through sexual intercourse based on the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah who said, ‘A man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “I am destroyed, Messenger of Allah!” He asked, “What has destroyed you?” He answered, “I had sex with my wife in Ramadan.”’ In it he mentioned kaffārah and its order. Muslim transmitted it.

They apply this case to the first case and say that it is the same. This is not sound. Rather they are two separate cases because they have two different contexts. Kaffārah is connected undefined to someone who breaks the fast and so it is universal. This is the position of Mālik and his people, Al-Awzā‘ī, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, aṭ-Ṭabarī, and Ibn al-Mundhir. That is also related from ‘Aṭā’ in one transmission as well as from al-Ḥasan and az-Zuhrī. Ash-Shāfi‘ī obliges that position and says that there is no distinction in spite of the difference in circumstances. It indicates that the ruling is universal. Ash-Shāfi‘ī made the penalty mandatory as well as making up the days because of violating the sanctity of Ramadan.

They also disagree about what is obliged for a woman whose husband has sex with her in the month of Ramadan. Mālik, Abū Yūsuf and the People of Opinion say that she owes the same that her husband owes. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that she only owes one kaffārah, whether it was voluntary or forced, because the Prophet ﷺ responded to the questioner with one kaffārah without any distinction. It is related from Abū Ḥanīfah that if it is voluntary, then each of them owe one kaffārah. If he forced her, then only he owes one kaffārah. That is the position of Saḥnūn ibn Sa‘īd al-Mālikī. Mālik said that he owes two kaffārahs, and that is his final position according to most of his people.

They also disagree about someone who has sex or eats forgetting that he is fasting. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and Isḥāq say that he owes nothing in either case, neither making up nor kaffārah. Mālik, al-Layth and al-Awzā‘ī say that he must make any such days up but does not owe kaffārah. The same is related from ‘Aṭā’. It is also related from ‘Aṭā’ that he owes kaffārah if he has sex forgetfully and that it is the same if he does not forget. Some of the Ẓāhirīs say that it is the same whether he has sex forgetfully or deliberately: he must make it up and also owes kaffārah. That is the position of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn. It was the position of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal because the ḥadīth obliges kaffārah and there is no distinction between someone who forgets or someone who does it deliberately. Ibn al-Mundhir says that he owes nothing.

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion said that if someone eats out of forgetfulness and then, thinking that he has broken the fast, has sex deliberately, he must make it up but does not owe kaffārah. Ibn al-Mundhir says, ‘That is what we say.’ It is stated in the School that he must make it up and also owes kaffārah if he did it intentionally since he has violated the sanctity of the fast with impudence and lack of esteem. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘According to the basic principle of Mālik, he does not have to do kaffārah because he ate out of forgetfulness and thought that he had broken the fast, he must make up that day. What sanctity has he violated when he was not fasting? Those other than Mālik said that someone who eats forgetting that he is fasting has not broken the fast.

This is sound, and it is the position of the majority: if someone eats or drinks out of forgetfulness, he does not have to make up a day and his fast is complete, based on the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone fasting eats or drinks out of forgetfulness, it is provision which Allah has given him. He does not have to make it up. (One variant has, ‘He should complete his fast.’) Allah has fed and watered him.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related it and said that it has a sound isnād, all of whose transmitters are trustworthy. Abū Bakr al-Athram said, ‘I heard Abū ‘Abdullāh being asked about someone who eats out of forgetfulness in Ramadan. He answered, “He owes nothing based on the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah.’ Then Abū ‘Abdullāh Mālik said, “They claim that Mālik says he must make it up!” and laughed.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘He owes nothing based on what the Prophet ﷺ said about someone who eats or drinks out of forgetfulness, “He should complete his fast.” He completes it and it is a completed full fast.’

When someone breaks the fast out of forgetfulness, he does not have to make it up and his fast is complete, but if he has sexual intercourse deliberately, he makes it up and owes kaffārah and Allah knows best. Our scholars cited for evidence of the obligation of making up the fact that he is told to fast a full day without any gaps since He says, ‘fulfil the fast until the night appears.’ This day has not been completed, and so it remains for him to fast. Perhaps the ḥadīth is actually about voluntary fasting. It is reported in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim: ‘Anyone who forgets while he is fasting and eats or drinks should complete his fast.’ It does not mention or allude to making it up.

Our scholars use this as evidence, and it is sound. Were it not sound from the Lawgiver, we would not have mentioned it. There is a sound clear text related by Abū Hurayrah from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘If someone breaks his fast in Ramadan out of forgetfulness, he does not have to make it up and owes no kaffārah.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and said that Ibn Marzūq has it, and he is trustworthy from al-Anṣārī. The doubt is therefore removed. Praise be to Allah, the Master of Majesty and Perfection!

When Allah mentions the things forbidden by fasting, such as eating, drinking and sexual intercourse, He does not mention other direct physical contact such as kissing, touching and other such things. That indicates the soundness of the fast of someone who kisses or touches because the mention of what is allowed at night indicates its prohibition during the day, and only three things are mentioned. There is no evidence there for anything other than these specific things and therefore one stops at the evidence. This is why there is disagreement about this matter and indeed the Salaf disagreed.

One of those things is the matter of touching. Our scholars say that it is disliked for someone who is not certain that he will be able to control himself in case it becomes a cause leading to something that actually breaks the fast. Mālik related from Nāfi‘ that ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar forbade kissing and touching for someone who is fasting. Allah knows best, but this is out of fear for what might happen between the couple. If he kisses and is safe from going further, he does nothing wrong. The same is true of touching. Al-Bukhārī related that ‘Ā’ishah said that the Prophet ﷺ used to kiss and touch when he was fasting. ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd and ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr were among those who disliked kissing by someone fasting. It is related that Ibn Mas‘ūd would make up a day to compensate for it. The ḥadīth is an argument against them. Abū ‘Umar said however, ‘I do not know of anyone who grants an indulgence for someone when he knows that it will lead to what will invalidate the fast.’

If someone kisses and ejaculates, then he must make up the day but does not owe kaffārah. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, ath-Thawrī, al-Ḥasan and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it. He said, ‘The one who obliges kaffārah for it has no argument.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘If someone kisses and has a discharge of prostatic fluid, they believe that he does not need to do anything in compensation.’ Aḥmad said, ‘If someone kisses and has a discharge of prostatic fluid or ejaculates, he must make it up, but owes no kaffārah. That is only owed by the one who has sexual intercourse and penetration, whether deliberately or out of forgetfulness.’ Ibn al-Qāsim related from Mālik that someone who kisses or touches and is aroused but discharges no fluid at all must make up the day. Ibn Wahb said that he does not have to make up a day unless he has a discharge of prostatic fluid.’ Qāḍī Muḥammad said, ‘Our people agree that he owes no kaffārah.’ If it is sperm that is ejaculated, does that oblige kaffārah as well as making up? Either it was a single kiss and then discharge, or a kiss which he enjoys and then repeats and has a discharge. If it is a single kiss, or touch, Ashhab and Saḥnūn said that the owes no kaffārah, unless he repeats it. Ibn al-Qāsim said that there is kaffārah for all of that, except for a glance, for which there is no kaffārah unless he repeats it.

Among those who said that someone owes kaffārah if he kisses, touches, plays with his wife or has sexual relations short of penetration and then ejaculates were al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, ‘Aṭā’, Abū Thawr, and Isḥāq. That is the position of Mālik in the Mudawwanah. The argument behind the view of Ashhab is that touching, kissing and contact do not break the fast in themselves but may lead to a matter which breaks the fast. If he does it once, not intending ejaculation and invalidation of fasting, he does not owe kaffārah, as is the case with the glance. If he repeats it, then he has intended to invalidate the fast and he owes kaffārah, just as is the case if he looks again. Al-Lakhmī said, ‘They all agree that ejaculation brought about by the glance does not entail kaffārah unless he continues to do it.’

The fundamental position is that kaffārah is only mandatory for someone who intends to break the fast and violate the sanctity of the fast. Since that is the case, one must look at the normal reaction of someone who has a discharge and whether he normally experiences that from a single kiss or touch or whether that varies and sometimes it happens and sometimes not. I think that he should do kaffārah because he did that knowing he would violate his fast or to expose himself to that danger. If he is normally safe from that happening, then it is assumed that what happened to him is not normal and he does not owe kaffārah. The statement of Mālik about kaffārah being mandatory is because that only happens with someone whose nature is like that. Ashhab took the dominant view that they are safe from that and what they say about the glance is evidence of that.

What he related as a basis for the agreement about the glance is not the same. Al-Bājī related in al-Muntaqā: ‘If someone looks once intending pleasure and then ejaculates, Shaykh Abu-l-Ḥasan said that he must make the day up and owes kaffārah.’ Al-Bājī said, ‘I consider that to be sound because when someone intends pleasure by it, it is the same as a kiss and other types of pleasure. Allah knows best.’ Jābir ibn Zayd, Ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion said about someone who continues to look at a woman until he ejaculates that he does not have to make a day up and does not owe kaffārah. Ibn al-Mundhir said that. Al-Bājī said, ‘In al-Madaniyyah Nāfi‘ related that if someone looks at a naked woman with pleasure and ejaculates, then he must make up the day but does not owe kaffārah.’

Most scholars believe that if dawn comes on someone in janābah, his fast is still valid. Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘That is permitted by consensus. There was some discussion about it between the Companions. Then it was decided that the fast of someone who is in janābah in the morning is sound.’ The argument about it is sound and well known and came about from Abū Hurayrah saying, ‘Someone who is in janābah in the morning has no fast.’ This is transmitted in the Muwaṭṭā’ and elsewhere. We find in an-Nasā’ī that he retracted it. There is disagreement about his retraction. The best known of his two views with the people of knowledge is that the person concerned has no fast as Ibn al-Mundhir related. It is related from al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ. Abū Hurayrah also has a third view, which is that when someone knows that he is in janābah and goes to sleep until morning has come, he has broken the fast. If he does not know, then he is still fasting. That is related from ‘Aṭā’, Ṭāwūs, and ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr. It is related from al-Ḥasan and an-Nakha‘ī that it does not matter in the case of voluntary fasting but must be made up where obligatory fasting is concerned.

These are, in fact, four views about someone who finds himself in janābah in the morning. What is sound is the position of the majority based on the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah and Umm Salamah that the Prophet ﷺ would be in janābah in the morning after sexual intercourse, not a wet dream, and would still fast. Ā’ishah said, ‘In Ramadan, dawn would come while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was in janābah after sexual intercourse, not a wet dream, and he would have a ghusl and fast.’ Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it. It is what is necessarily understood from Allah’s words: ‘Now you may have sexual intercourse with them.’ Since the permission to have sex extends until the rising of dawn, it is necessarily known that dawn might find someone in janābah and he would have to have a ghusl after dawn. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If his penis is inside his wife at dawn, he does not have to make it up.’ Al-Muzanī said, ‘He must make it up because it is part of the completion of intercourse.’ The first is sounder based on what we mentioned and it is the position of our scholars.

There is disagreement about a menstruating woman who becomes pure before fajr but does not purify herself until morning has arrived. Most scholars believe that she is obliged to fast, whether she failed to purify herself deliberately or forgetfully, as is the case with someone in janābah. That is the position of Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim. But ‘Abd al-Malik said, ‘When a menstruating woman becomes pure before fajr but delays ghusl until after dawn, then she is not fasting that day because she was impure for part of it. She is not like someone in janābah because a wet dream does not break the fast but menstruation does.’ That is what Abu-l-Faraj mentioned in his book from ‘Abd al-Malik. Al-Awzā‘ī said that she makes it up because she neglected ghusl. Ibn al-Jallāb mentioned from ‘Abd al-Malik that if she becomes pure at a time when it is possible for her to have a ghusl before fajr, but neglects to do so and does not do it until after morning has arrived, it does not affect her adversely, as is the case with someone in janābah. If the time is so short that she would not be able to have a ghusl before fajr, then her fast is not allowed and she is not fasting that day. Mālik said that. She is the same as someone who is still menstruating at the beginning of the day. Muḥammad ibn Maslamah said that she should fast and make up the day as well, as al-Awzā‘ī also said. An aberrant view is related from him that if she becomes pure before fajr and then neglects and delays doing a ghusl until after the morning has arrived, she owes kaffārah as well as making up the day. If a woman becomes pure during the night in Ramadan but does not know whether that was before or after fajr, she fasts and also makes up that day out of caution. She owes no kaffārah.

It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The cupper and the one cupped break the fast.’ That is related from the ḥadīths of Thawbān, Shaddād ibn Aws and Rāfi‘ ibn Khadīj. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that. Aḥmad said that the ḥadīth of Shaddād ibn Aws is sound. ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī said that the ḥadīth of Rāfi‘ ibn Khadīj is sound. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and ath-Thawrī said that a person does not have to make it up unless he was forced to do that out of deceit. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Anas was asked, ‘Do you dislike someone fasting being cupped?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘unless it results in weakness.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘We believe that the ḥadīths of Shaddād, Rāfi‘ and Thawbān are abrogated by the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was cupped while fasting in iḥrām. It states in the ḥadīth of Shaddād ibn Aws that in the year of the Conquest of Makkah the Prophet ﷺ passed by a man who was being cupped on the 18th of Ramadan and said, ‘The cupper and the one cupped break the fast.’ Then he himself ﷺ was cupped while he was in iḥrām and fasting during the year of the Farewell Hajj. Therefore it must be abrogated because the Prophet ﷺ did not reach another Ramadan after the Farewell Hajj, dying in Rabī‘ al-Awwal of that year.

‘Fulfil the fast until the night appears’ is an undisputed command. The preposition ‘until’ marks its extent in time. In the case of the preposition ila, if what is after it and before it are the same, then all is subject to the same ruling, as when you say, ‘I have bought from this tree to that tree from you,’ so what is sold are trees, and the final tree mentioned is included in the sale. This would not be the case if you said, ‘the area up to (ila) the house.’ The house is not included since it is not the same thing. So here Allah stipulates the completion of the fast when night is clear as it is permitted to eat until day is clear.

Part of the completeness of the fast is that it must be accompanied by an intention which is not removed. According to the Mudawwanah, if it is removed at any point during the day by the person intending to break the fast, even if he has not eaten or drunk, he has broken the fast and must make up that day. According to the book of Ibn al-Ḥabīb, however, he is still fasting. He said that he only ceases to fast by breaking it by an action, not by an intention. It is also said that he owes kaffārah as well as making it up. Saḥnūn said, ‘He does kaffārah if he intends not to fast at night, but if he intends it in the day, it does not harm him, even though it is recommended that he make it up.’

When it is clearly night, then you break the fast legally, whether you eat or not. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Imam Abū Isḥāq was asked about a man who took an oath, swearing by a treble divorce, that he would not break the fast on anything hot or cold. He answered that he broke the fast when the sun set and so owes nothing. For evidence, he cited the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “When night comes from here and day retreats there, then the faster has broken his fast.” Imam Abū Naṣr ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāgh, the author of ash-Shāmil, was asked about it and said, “He must break his fast on hot or cold.” The response of Imam Abū Isḥāq is more fitting because it is demanded by the Book and Sunnah.’

If someone thinks that the sun has set because of clouds or for some other reason and breaks the fast, and then the sun appears, he must only make up that day according to most fuqahā’. We find in al-Bukhārī that Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr said, ‘Once, during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, we broke the fast on a cloudy day and then the sun appeared. Hishām said, “We were commanded to make it up.”’ ‘Umar said in the Muwaṭṭā’ about this, ‘That is an easy matter. It was because of our deduction (ijtihād) about the time,’ meaning making it up. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said, ‘He does not have to make it up,’ meaning this view. Allah knows best.

If someone breaks the fast while unsure about whether the sun has set or not, he owes kaffārah as well as making it up. Mālik said that, even if the person thinks that it is probable that it has set. If someone is unsure about whether dawn has broken or not, he must refrain from eating. If, in spite of his doubt, he eats, then he must make it up like someone who forgets. There is no disagreement about Malik’s position regarding that. Some of the people of Madīnah and others do not think that he owes anything until it is clear to him that dawn really has broken. That is the view of Ibn al-Mundhir. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘Some people think that, since you are permitted to not fast until the beginning of dawn, if someone eats thinking that dawn has not broken, he has eaten with the permission of the Sharī‘ah at a time when it is permitted to eat. Therefore he does not have to make it up.’ That is also stated by Mujāhid and Jābir ibn Zayd. There is no disagreement that making up a day is obligatory for a person if the new moon is hidden from him by clouds on the first night of Ramadan and he eats, and then it becomes clear that it is Ramadan. We have a similar view. That is also true for a captive in the Abode of War when he eats thinking that it is Sha‘bān and then it is clear that that is not the case.

The injunction to ‘fast until the night appears’ contains an implicit prohibition against continuous fasting since night marks the end of the fast. ‘Ā’ishah said that. It is a subject of dispute as people like ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr, Ibrāhīm at-Taymī, Abu-l-Jawzā’, Abu-l-Ḥasan ad-Dīnawāri and others fasted continuously. Ibn az-Zubayr used to fast for seven days at a time. When he broke his fast, he would drink ghee and aloes until his intestines opened. He said, ‘It dries the intestines.’ Abu-l-Jawzā’ used to fast continuously for seven days and seven nights.

The literal text of the Qur’an and Sunnah make it clear that it is forbidden. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When night comes from here and day retreats there, then the faster has broken his fast.’ Muslim transmitted this from ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Awfā. He forbade continuous fasting. When they refused to stop, he fasted day and night continuously with them for a day and then another day. Then they saw the crescent moon and he said, ‘If the crescent moon had not appeared, I would have made it longer.’ It was like a punishment for them since they would not stop. Muslim transmitted it from Abū Hurayrah. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Beware of continuous fasting! Beware of continuous fasting!’ to stress its prohibition. Al-Bukhārī transmitted it.

Most scholars dislike continuous fasting because it weakens the faculties and exhausts the body. Some of them even made it unlawful since it is contrary to the literal text and imitates the People of the Book. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The difference between our fast and the fast of the People of the Book is that we eat before dawn.’ Muslim and Abū Dāwud transmitted it. We find in al-Bukhārī that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Do not fast continuously. Any of you who wants to fast continuously, fast continuously until before dawn (saḥar).’ They said, ‘But you fast continuously, Messenger of Allah.’ He answered, ‘I am not like you. In the night I have One Who feeds me and gives me to drink.’ They said, ‘This is permission to delay breaking the fast until before dawn. It is the limit of someone who wants to fast continuously. It is forbidden to connect the fast of one day to another.’ That was stated by Aḥmad, Isḥāq, and Ibn Wahb, the companion of Mālik.

Those who permit continuous fasting argue that the prohibition against continuous fasting was because they were new to Islam and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ feared to burden them with continuous fasting and the highest stations lest they flag or prove too weak to do something that was more beneficial than jihād and showing strength against the enemy, in spite of their need at that time. It was something that he imposed on himself: continuous fasting and the highest stations of acts of obedience. When they asked him about continuous fasting, he showed them the difference between him and themselves and informed them that his state in that respect was different to their states. When faith was complete in their hearts and firm in their breasts, and there were many Muslims and they had defeated their enemies, the awliyā’ of Allah obliged the highest stations for themselves. Allah knows best.

It is better, however, not to fast continuously even though Islam has now been victorious and defeated its enemies. That is the highest degree and station anyone can hope to attain to. The evidence for that is what we mentioned. Night is not a time for legal fasting so that if a person were to start his fast in it with an intention, he would not be rewarded for it. The Prophet ﷺ did not report from himself that he did it, but the Companions thought that he did and said, ‘But you fast continuously.’ He told them that was given food and drink. The literal meaning of this would be that the Prophet ﷺ was given the food and drink of the Garden. It is said that this can be applied to the meaning of subtleties that came to his heart. When words can be taken both literally and metaphorically, the basis is the literal meaning unless there is evidence that negates it. When they refused to stop continuous fasting, he ﷺ did so with them according to his custom as he had said he did, while they remained doing it in their way until they became weak and lacking in steadfastness. So they ceased to fast continuously. This was a punishment for them so that they would stop their excessive behaviour towards themselves. Success is by Allah.

Breaking the fast with dates or sips of water is recommended based on what is related by Abū Dāwud that Anas said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to break the fast with fresh dates before he prayed, and if there were no fresh dates, then with small dry dates. If there were no dry dates, then with a few sips of water.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and said that it has a sound isnād. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ broke the fast, he said, “We have fasted for You and broken our fast on Your provision. Accept it from us. You are the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”’ Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ broke the fast, he said, “The thirst has gone, the veins are moist and the wage is confirmed, Allah willing.”’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘Al-Ḥusayn ibn Wāqid alone has it and its isnād is sound. Ibn Mājah related that ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ broke the fast with Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh and said, “The fasters have broken the fast with you, the pious have eaten your food, and the angels have prayed for blessing for you.”’ It is also related from Zayd ibn Khālid al-Juhanī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘All those who provide food for someone to break his fast with have the like of his reward with that decreasing their reward at all.’ It is also related from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When the faster breaks his fast, no supplication he makes is rejected.’ Ibn Abī Mulaykah said that he heard ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr say when he broke his fast, ‘O Allah, I ask you by Your mercy which encompasses all things to forgive me.’ We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A faster has two joys. He has a joy when he breaks his fast and a joy in his fasting when he meets his Lord.’

It is recommended to fast six days of Shawwāl based on what Muslim, at-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwud, an-Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah related from Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone fasts Ramadan and then follows it with six from Shawwāl, it is as if he had fasted all time.’ This is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth from Sa‘d ibn Sa‘īd al-Anṣārī al-Madanī. He is one of those from whom al-Bukhārī did not transmit anything. It has a good isnād, explaining the ḥadīth of Abū Asmā’ ar-Raḥabī from Thawban, the freedman of the Prophet ﷺ, who heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Allah has made a good deed equal to ten like it, and so the month of Ramadan is equal to ten months and the six days of the Fiṭr complete the year.’ An-Nasā’ī related it.

There is disagreement about fasting these days. In the Muwaṭṭā’ Mālik disliked it out of fear of the people of ignorance connecting to Ramadan what is not part of it. What he feared actually occurred so that in some towns in Khorasan they rise for the sahūr as they do in Ramadan. Muṭarrif related from Mālik that he used to fast it just for himself. Ash-Shāfi‘ī recommended fasting them. Abū Yūsuf disliked it.

But do not have sexual intercourse with them while you are in retreat (i’tikāf) in the mosques.

Allah makes it clear that sexual intercourse invalidates i‘tikāf. The people of knowledge agree that if someone has sexual intercourse with his wife while he is in i‘tikāf, that violates his i‘tikāf. They disagree about what he owes if he does that. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said that he owes what is owed by someone who has sex with his wife in Ramadan. Pleasures other than intercourse are disliked, even if they were not intended. Touching without lust is not forbidden, because ‘Ā’ishah combed the Prophet’s hair while he was in i‘tikāf and that entails touching. This is the position of ‘Aṭā’, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘They agree that someone in i‘tikāf should not touch or kiss, but they disagree about what he owes if he does that. Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If he does any of that, his i‘tikāf is invalid.’ Al-Muzanī also said that. In another place regarding issues concerning i‘tikāf, he says that his i‘tikāf is not invalidated by sex unless it is something that would entail the ḥadd punishment. Al-Muzanī preferred that based on analogy with fasting during the ḥajj.

The word for ‘retreat’, i‘tikāf, linguistically means ‘to cling to’ and someone doing i‘tikāf clings to good action by obedience to Allah during the period of his i‘tikāf. In the usage of the Sharī‘ah it denotes clinging to a particular act of obedience at a particular time with particular conditions in a particular place. Scholars agree that it is not obligatory but is a supererogatory act of devotion which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, his Companions and his wives imposed on themselves. It is disliked for someone to begin it if he fears that he will not be able to complete it.

Scholars agree that i‘tikāf can only be done in mosques, in view of the words of Allah, ‘in mosques’. They disagree about exactly what is meant by mosques in this context. Some people believe that the āyah was confined to those mosques which were built by a Prophet, such as the Masjid al-Ḥarām and Jerusalem. This is related from Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān and Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, who said that i‘tikāf can only be done in them. Others say that it can only be done in a mosque in which the Jumu‘ah prayer is held since they believe that what is indicated in the āyah is that category of mosques. This is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and Ibn Mas‘ūd. It is the position of ‘Urwah, al-Ḥakam, Ḥammād, az-Zuhrī and Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī, and is one of the positions of Mālik. Still others say that it is permitted in any mosque. This is related from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Abū Qilābah and others. It is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people. Their argument is that āyah is general to every mosque with an imam and mu’adhdhin. It is another position of Mālik. That is also the view of Ibn ‘Ulayyah, Dāwud ibn ‘Alī, aṭ-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Mundhir. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk that Ḥudhayfah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘I‘tikāf is proper in any mosque with a mu’adhdhin and imam.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk did not listen to Ḥudhayfah.

According to Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah, the minimum time of i‘tikāf is a day and a night. If someone vows to do it for a night, he must do it for a day and a night. That is the same if he vows to do it for a day: he must do it for a day and a night. Saḥnūn said that if someone vows to do it for a night, he owes nothing. Abū Ḥanịfah and his people say that if he vows a day, he must do a day without the night. If he vows to do a night, he owes nothing. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that its minimum is an instant and there is not maximum. Some Ḥanafīs say that i‘tikāf for an hour is valid.

According to this view, fasting is not a precondition for i‘tikāf. It is related from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in one of his two views, as well as Dāwud ibn ‘Alī and Ibn ‘Ulayyah. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn al-‘Arabī also said that. They argued that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did i‘tikāf in Ramadan and so it is possible that his fasting was because of its being in Ramadan. According to Mālik and his people, if someone doing i‘tikāf in Ramadan intends his fast to be both voluntary and obligatory, then his fast is invalid. It is known that in the night someone doing i‘tikāf must avoid having sex with women as is also the case during the day. The night is included in his i‘tikāf and the night is not a time for fasting. Therefore the day does not require fasting, but it is good for him to fast.

Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah and Aḥmad, in his other position, say that i‘tikāf is not valid without fasting. It is related from Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ā’ishah. We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ from al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad and Nāfi‘, the freedman of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, that there is no i‘tikāf without fasting, going by the words of the Almighty in His Book: ‘Eat and drink … in the mosques.’ They said, ‘Allah mentions i‘tikāf together with fasting. Yaḥyā said that Mālik said, ‘That is what we go by here.’ Their evidence is what ‘Abdullāh ibn Budayl related from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār from Ibn ‘Umar that in the Jāhiliyyah ‘Umar imposed on himself that he would do i‘tikāf for a night or a day at the Ka‘bah. He asked the Prophet ﷺ who said, ‘Do i‘tikāf and fast.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that only ‘Abdullāh ibn Budayl has it from ‘Amr, and he is weak. ‘Ā’ishah said that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no i‘tikāf without fasting.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that only Suwayd ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz has it from Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn from az-Zuhrī from ‘Urwah from ‘Ā’ishah. They said, ‘We do not consider fasting to be a precondition for i‘tikāf. Rather it is sound that fasting can be for it, for Ramadan, for a vow, or something else. If someone makes a vow, it is directed to what it demands in the basis of the Sharī‘ah. So if someone vows to pray, he must do it. He does not have to purify himself for it especially, but a previous purification is sufficient.

Someone in i‘tikāf should only leave it when absolutely necessary based on the imams relating that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did i‘tikāf, he would put out his head to me and I would comb it. He would not enter the house except for a human need (meaning urine or defecation).’ There is no disagreement about this in the community nor among the imams. When someone in i‘tikāf leaves for a necessary need and returns immediately after the need is fulfilled, he continues with his i‘tikāf and owes nothing. Clear illness and menstruation are part of need.

They disagree about when someone leaves for some other reason. The position of Mālik is what we have mentioned, and that is also the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanịfah. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, al-Ḥasan and an-Nakha‘ī said that a person may visit the sick and attend funerals. This is also related from ‘Alī, but is not firm from him. Isḥāq made a distinction between mandatory and voluntary i‘tikāf: in mandatory i‘tikāf a person may not visit the sick or attend funerals, but in the voluntary, when he begins, he may stipulate that he can visit the sick, attend funerals and attend to other needs. Aḥmad has different positions regarding that: sometimes he forbids it, and sometimes he says, ‘I hope that there will be no harm it.’ Al-Awzā‘ī has the same position as Mālik: no preconditions may be added to i‘tikāf. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘A person may not leave his i‘tikāf except for a necessary need which is that for which the Prophet ﷺ left.’

They disagree about leaving for Jumu‘ah. Some say that he should leave for Jumu‘ah and return after he says the salām because he is leaving for something obligatory and therefore does not break his i‘tikāf. Ibn al-Jahm related it from Mālik. That is the view of Abū Ḥanịfah. Ibn al-‘Arabī and Ibn al-Mundhir said that. The well known position of Mālik is that is someone who wants to do i‘tikāf for ten days, or vows to do that, may only do it in a Jāmi‘ mosque. If he does it in another mosque, then he must leave for Jumu‘ah and his i‘tikāf is invalidated. ‘Abd al-Malik said, ‘He goes to Jumu‘ah, attends it and then returns and his i‘tikāf is valid.

That is sound because of Allah’s words, ‘in the mosques’, which is general. Scholars agree that i‘tikāf is not mandatory but sunnah. Most scholars agree that Jumu‘ah is an individual obligation. When there are two obligations and one is more strongly stressed than the other, then the one that is more strongly stressed is put first. So what is the case when there is something recommended and something mandatory? He did not say that he should fail to go to it, and so that counts as a need.

If someone in i‘tikāf commits a major sin, his i‘tikāf is invalidated because a major sin is the opposite of worship in the same way that breaking wuḍū’ is the opposite of purity. Leaving what Allah has forbidden is the highest of the stations of i‘tikāf in worship. Ibn Khuwayzimandād stated that.

Muslim related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wanted to go into i‘tikāf, he prayed fajr and then entered i‘tikāf. Scholars disagree about the time one enters i‘tikāf. Al-Awzā‘̄I took the ḥadīth literally. It is related from ath-Thawrī and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d in one view, and also stated by Ibn al-Mundhir and a group of Tābi‘ūn. Abū Thawr said, ‘This is done by someone who makes a vow for ten days. If he adds to it, it is before sunset.’ Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said: ‘When someone imposes on himself to do i‘tikāf for a month, he should enter the mosque before sunset on that day.’ Mālik said, ‘That is the case with everyone who wants to do i‘tikāf for a day or longer.’ That was also stated by Abū Ḥanīfah and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn because the first night of the days of i‘tikāf is included in them and it is a time of i‘tikāf and is not divisible. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘When someone swears to Allah to do i‘tikāf for a day, he should enter before dawn and leave after sunset.’ This is not his well known position. Al-Layth in one view and Zufar said that he should enter before dawn. They consider a month or a day to be the same. The same is related from Abū Yūsuf and it is also the view of Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Wahhāb: night is included in i‘tikāf as a natural consequence by the evidence that i‘tikāf is only valid with fasting and night is not a time of fasting. Therefore it is considered that what is meant by i‘tikāf is the day rather than the night. The ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah refutes these views. It is the proof in case of dispute and is a firm ḥadīth which is undisputedly sound.

Mālik recommended that someone doing i‘tikāf during the last ten nights of Ramadan should spend the night of Fiṭr in the mosque and go from there to the prayer. Aḥmad also said that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and al-Awzā‘ī said that he should leave at sunset. Saḥnūn related that from Ibn al-Qāsim, because the ten end when the month ends, and the month ends at the sunset of the last day of Ramadan. Saḥnūn said that this is mandatory. If he leaves during the night of Fiṭr then his i‘tikāf is void. Ibn al-Mājishūn said, ‘This is invalidated by what we mentioned about the end of the month. If remaining the night of Fiṭr had been a precondition of the validity of i‘tikāf, then no i‘tikāf is would have been valid unless it was connected to the night of Fiṭr. The consensus that this is not the case indicates that it is not a precondition of soundness for someone in i‘tikāf to stay the night of Fiṭr.’ This is enough about rulings of fasting and i‘tikāf connected to these āyahs. Success is by Allah.

These are Allah’s limits, so do not go near them.

‘These judgments are the limits of Allah, so do not oppose them.’ This indicates these commands and prohibitions. ‘Ḥudūd’ (limits) are barriers and ḥadd is prevention. Iron is called ḥadīd because it prevents the weapon from reaching the body. A doorman and jailer are called ḥaddād because they prevent people from entering or going out. The ḥudūd of Allah are so called because they prevent the one who commits the crimes from returning to their like.

In this way does Allah make His Signs clear to people

Just as He clarifies these limits, He clarifies all the judgments, so that people will be careful not to exceed them. The Signs are the āyahs which guide to the truth. Hopefully Allah will ease them to guidance by the direction provided by the Signs.

188 Do not devour one another’s property by false means nor offer it to the judges as a bribe, trying through crime to knowingly usurp a portion of other people’s property.

Do not devour one another’s property by false means

This was revealed about ‘Abdān ibn Ashwa‘ al-Ḥadramī. He claimed some property from Imru-l-Qays al-Kindī and they went to the Prophet ﷺ and Imru-l-Qays al-Kindī denied ‘Abdān’s claim and wanted to make an oath. This was revealed and he refrained from making the oath and the Prophet ﷺ ruled in favour of ‘Abdān in respect of the disputed property and Imru-l-Qays did not contend against him. But despite the specific cause of the revelation, the āyah embraces the entire community of Muḥammad ﷺ. It means: you should not consume one another’s property without having the legal right to do so. Things included in this judgment are gambling, fraud, usurpation, denying someone’s just rights and anything the owner is not happy about or things which the Sharī‘ah forbids, even if the owner is happy about them, such as money from prostitution, fees for soothsaying and money from wine and pigs other such things. ‘Property’ is ascribed to both parties since the prohibition applies to both of them.

Anyone who obtains someone else’s property in a manner other than that permitted by the Sharī‘ah has consumed it by false means. One such occasion is if a qāḍī judges in your favour when you know that you are in the wrong. The unlawful does not become lawful by the verdict of a judge because he judges by the outward. This is the consensus concerning property. Umm Salamah transmitted that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I am but a man to whom you bring your disputes. Perhaps one is more eloquent in his evidence than the other and so I rule according to what I have heard from him. If I make a ruling in his favour about something which is rightfully his brother’s, he should not take any of it, for I am awarding him a portion of the Fire.’ The position of most scholars and the imams of the fuqahā’ base their position on this ḥadīth.

This is a clear text expressing the fact that the ruling of the judge by the outward does not change the inward judgment, whether it is about property, bloodshed or sexual matters, except for Abū Ḥanīfah’s position that judgment does not effect the ruling about private sexual matters. He claimed that if a man gives false witness about divorcing his wife and the judge gives a ruling on the basis of their testimony, since they are reputable in his view, it is lawful for her husband to have sex with her when it is known that the ruling was void after her ‘iddah. That is also the case when one of the witnesses marries her: in his view, it is permitted, because if she is lawful to her new husband outwardly, the witness and others are the same, because the judgment of the qāḍī severed the bond. When that happens, then making lawful or making unlawful occur both outwardly and in private. If that were true, she would not be lawful to past husbands. He argues by the ruling of the li‘ān and says, ‘It is known that a wife can be parted from her husband by a li‘ān based on lies. If the judge had known her lies, he would have imposed the ḥadd on her and not parted them. This has nothing to do with the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “If I give a ruling in his favour about something which is rightfully his brother’s, he should not take any of it.”’

This āyah binds everyone who agrees with or opposes any ruling they ask for themselves which is not permitted. Evidence for this is found in His words: ‘Do not consume one another’s property by false means.’ (4:29) It could be answered that it is not agreed to be false until there is clear evidence of that being the case. Then it is included in the general statement. It is evidence that false means are not permitted in transactions.

The root of the word for ‘by false means’ (bāṭil) means literally to go and depart. The plural is bawāṭil. One form of it means to follow a diversion. Qatādah says that Allah’s words: ‘Falsehood cannot reach it” (41:42), refers to Iblīs. He is not able to add anything or remove anything. In: ‘Allah wipes out the false’ (42:24), it means shirk. Baṭalah means sorcerers.

nor offer it to the judges as a bribe,

It is said that this refers to deposits and things about which there is no evidence, as Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Ḥasan said. It is said that it is property belonging to orphans in the possession of their trustees which is presented to the judges when it is demanded, so that some of it can be alienated and apparent evidence given regarding it. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘You act according to what the outward rulings demand and leave what you know to be the truth.’ ‘Adlā bi’l-ḥujja’ is to present something you hope will be successful. It is likened to someone letting down a bucket (dalw) into a well. The verb adlā is used for releasing it and dalā is to pull it out. It means: ‘Do not combine consuming wealth by false means with presenting false evidence to judges.’ That is like His words: ‘Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth.’ (2:42) It is said that it means ‘Do not cajole judges with your property and give them bribes (tarshaw) so that they judge in your favour because judges are rarely free of this.’ The two words are similar, as dalw means a bucket and the root of the word normally used for bribe (rashwah) is rashā’, a rope, since people use rope to get what they need. But judges today are likely to take bribes. There is no power nor strength except by Allah!

trying through crime to knowingly usurp a portion of other people’s property.

‘Farīq’ is a part or portion, and the word is used to denote a sheep that is apart from the greater flock. It means to consume the property of some people. The words ‘through crime’ mean through injustice and transgression. It is called a ‘crime’ (ithm) because of the wrong action of the doer. ‘Knowingly’ means that you know that it is false and a wrong action and this is astonishing audacity and disobedience.

The people of the Sunnah agree that whoever takes any kind of property in this way, no matter whether it is a little or a lot, becomes legally iniquitous by doing that. It is forbidden for him to take it. An exception to that was made by Bishr ibn al-Mu‘tamir and the Mu‘tazilites who followed him. He said that someone only becomes legally iniquitous by taking ten dinars, not by anything less than that. Ibn Hudhayl that it is five dirhams. Some of the Qadarīs of Basra said that it is one dirham or more, but not less. All of this is rejected by the Qur’an and Sunnah and agreement of the scholars of the community. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Your blood property and reputations are sacrosanct to you.’ This is agreed to be sound.

189 They will ask you about the crescent moons. Say, ‘They are set times for mankind and for the ḥajj.’ It is not devoutness for you to enter houses by the back. Rather devoutness is possessed by those who are godfearing. So come to houses by their doors and have fear of Allah, so that hopefully you will be successful.

They will ask you about the crescent moons.

The Jews asked the Prophet ﷺ about this when Mu‘ādh was with him and Mu‘ādh said, ‘Messenger of Allah, the Jews overwhelm us and ask us a lot of questions about the crescent moons. Why does the moon first appear fine and then increase in size until it is round and then get smaller again until it looks like it did at the beginning?’ Then Allah revealed this āyah. It is also said that the reason for the revelation of this āyah was that the Muslims asked the Prophet ﷺ about the new moon and the reason for its waning and fullness and its difference from the sun. Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘ and others said that.

‘Crescent moons’ (ahilla) is the plural of hilāl, while it is one in reality since it occurs once in every month, although it also appears at the end. It is a reference to the passing months and the term is used to designate months because the month begins with a crescent moon. The month (shahr) takes its name from the fact that people make it known (tashharu) by pointing at the new moon with their hands when they see it. The term is used for the two days at the end of the month and the two at the beginning. It is also said to apply to the three at the beginning. Al-Aṣmā‘ī says it is called a crescent (hilāl) when it is curved like a thin thread. It is also said that it is called hilāl until its light is clear in the sky, which is the seventh night. Abu-l-‘Abbās said that it is called hilāl because the word means to raise the voice and people raise their voices when reporting its sighting. One form of the verb is used for the cry of a newborn baby. Another use is for a face shining with joy.

If someone swears that he will settle a debt, or do something else, at the crescent moon or at the beginning of the crescent and does that a day or two after the crescent moon, he has not broken his oath. All the months are valid times for all sorts of acts of worship and transactions.

Say, ‘They are set times for mankind and for the hajj.’

This explains the legal ruling applied to the waxing and waning of the moon. It removes doubt about the length of set terms and transactions, oaths, ḥajj, ‘iddah, fasting and breaking the fast, and the extent of pregnancy, wages and hire and other things. This is referred to in the ayah: ‘We made the night and day two Signs. We blotted out the Sign of the night and made the Sign of the day a time for seeing so that you can seek favour from your Lord and will know the number of years and the reckoning of time.’ (17:12) Allah also says: ‘It is He Who appointed the sun to give radiance and the moon to give light, assigning its phases so you would know the number of years and the reckoning of time.’ (10:5) Counting the new moons is easier than counting days.

What we have affirmed refutes the literalists who say that sharecropping (musāqāh) is permitted for an unknown number of years. They argued that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ employed the Jews in return for half the crops and dates without setting a time. This does not constitute evidence because the Prophet ﷺ told the Jews, ‘I affirm you in what Allah has affirmed you.’ This is the clearest evidence that that was something specifically for him. He was awaiting a judgment concerning that from his Lord. That is not the case with other people. The Sharī‘ah deals with ideas of hire and all transactions. Nothing is permitted except what the Book and Sunnah sets out. The imams of the community state that.

‘Set times’ (mawāqīt) is the plural of mīqāt. It is also said that mīqāt refers to the end of a period, and that mawāqīt is not declinable and has no singular form. Hajj is only mentioned because it is something whose time needs to be known and it is not permitted to delay it beyond its time, which differs from what the pre-Islamic Arabs thought because they used to alter the months. Allah nullified what they said and did as will be discussed in at-Tawbah, Allah willing.

Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah used this āyah as evidence that iḥrām can be validly adopted outside the months of ḥajj because Allah Almighty here makes all the crescent moons apply to it. This is contrary to the position taken by ash-Shāfi‘ī in view of the words of Allah: ‘The ḥajj takes place during certain well-known months’ (2:197), as we will discover when we come to that āyah. The meaning of this āyah, then, is that some crescent moons are times for people (in general) and some are times for ḥajj (specifically).

There is no disagreement between scholars that if someone sells known goods at a known term in the months or days of the customary Arab dating system, that is permitted. That is the same with a sale on credit with a known period of time. They disagree about someone who sells something which is to be paid for at harvest time or the arrivals of stipends or the like. Mālik said, ‘That is permitted because it is known.’ Abū Thawr said that. Aḥmad said, ‘I hope that there is nothing wrong with it.’ The same is true when setting a time such as the arrival of an expedition. Ibn ‘Umar said that one can sell with payment due at the time of the payment of the stipend. One group said that it is not permitted because Allah Almighty set times and made them the markers for time periods in sales. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and an-Nu‘mān stated that. Ibn al-Mundhir said that the view of Ibn ‘Abbās is sound.

When the crescent moon is seen to be large, our scholars say that one does not rely on whether it is large or small. It is the product of its night. Muslim related that Abu-l-Bakhtarī said, ‘We went out on ‘umrah. When we camped at Baṭn Nakhlah, we saw the new moon. Some of the people said that it was three nights old and some said two nights. We met Ibn ‘Abbās and said, “We saw the new moon and some of the people said that it was three nights old and some said two nights.” He asked, “Which night did you see it?” We told him and he said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Allah has extended this for seeing.’ It was the night you saw it.”’

It is not devoutness for you to enter houses by the back.

This is mentioned together with talking about the time of the ḥajj because the questions about the crescent moons and entering houses from their backs were asked together and the āyah was revealed in answer to both of them.

If the Anṣār set out on ḥajj and then returned for something they would not enter the doors of their houses. After they had adopted iḥrām for ḥajj or ‘umrah, they were not allowed to have anything come between them and the sky, so if one of them returned to get something, he would not go inside his house because the ceiling would come between him and the sky. Instead, he would climb up the outside walls onto the roof and then stand by his room and ask for whatever he needed which would be brought out to him. They used to think that this was piety and devoutness and Allah refuted that, making it clear that piety consists obeying Him.

As transmitted by Abū Ṣāliḥ, Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘During the time of the Jāhiliyyah, and also at the beginning of Islam, when someone adopted iḥrām for the ḥajj and was one of the people who live in houses, he would make a hole in the back of his house and enter and leave through it or put a ladder up and climb up and descend by it. If he lived in a tent, he would enter by the back of the tent unless he was one of the ḥums.’ Az-Zuhrī related that the Prophet adopted iḥrām for ‘umrah in the time of Ḥudaybīyah and entered his room and one of the Anṣār entered after him and made a hole in the wall as was his custom. They asked him, ‘Why did you go inside when you are in iḥrām?’ The man replied, ‘You entered and so l entered.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I am one of the ḥums,’ meaning those who do not follow that as a dīn. The man said to him, ‘I have the same dīn as you do,’ and the āyah was revealed. Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Aṭā’ and Qatādah said that. It is said that the man was Quṭbah ibn ‘Āmir al-Anṣārī. Ḥums means the tribes of Quraysh, Kinānah, Khuzā‘ah, Thaqif, Jushm, Banū ‘Āmir ibn Ṣa‘ṣa‘ah and the Banū Naṣr ibn Mu‘āwiyah. It derives from their zealousness (ḥamāsah) in their dīn.

There is some disagreement about the interpretation of this phrase. What we have already mentioned is said about it and it is sound. It is said that it is about delaying the ḥajj; they would make a month sacred that was not normally sacred by delaying the ḥajj so that it took place in it and thereby they also made a sacred month no longer sacred by removing the ḥajj from it. According to this, mentioning houses is based on the disagreement about the obligation in respect of the ḥajj and its months. Some of this will be mentioned in at-Tawbah, Allah willing. Abū ‘Ubaydah said that the āyah is a metaphor and means: ‘It is not devoutness to ask the ignorant, but it is to have fear of Allah and to ask those with knowledge.’ This is similar to the words, ‘I approached the matter by its door.’

It is related by al-Mahdawī, Makkī from Ibn al-Anbārī and al-Māwardī from Ibn Zayd that the āyah is a metaphor for having sex with wives, and men are being instructed to have sex from the front and not the back. Women are called ‘houses’ because one comes to them as one comes to houses. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is unlikely and alters the form of the words.’ Al-Ḥasan said, ‘They used to look for omens. If someone went on a journey and did not achieve what he needed, he would come to his house from the back of it because of the ill omen of disappointment. They were told, ‘There is no devoutness in omens. Devoutness is to be godfearing and trust in Allah.’

The first view is the soundest one because of what al-Barā’ related: ‘When the Anṣār went on ḥajj and returned, they would not enter the houses by their doors.’ He said that one of the Anṣār came and entered his house by the door and was asked about that and so the āyah was revealed. This is a text about actual houses. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it. The other views are derived from something else in the āyah. It is also said that in the āyah Allah calls attention to what devoutness is, and it is doing what Allah has commanded. When Allah says to ‘come to houses by their doors’, He is telling people to do things in the manner which Allah has recommended. So the views are sound. ‘Houses’ is the plural of bayt, and it is read as both buyūt and biyūt.

This āyah also makes clear that anything Allah has not prescribed or recommended as an act of devotion is not, in fact, an act of devotion. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If it is hard to differentiate between what is devoutness and devotion and what is not, examine the action involved. If it is similar in nature to other legal obligations and sunnahs, then it can be that. If that is not the case, then it is not devoutness or devotion.’ He added, ‘That is found in reports from the Prophet ﷺ.’ And he mentioned the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās who said, ‘Once, when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was speaking, he saw a man standing in the sun and asked about him. They said, ‘He is Abū Isrā‘īl. He made a vow to stand and not sit, not to seek shade or speak, and to fast.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Tell him to speak, seek shade and sit. He should complete his fast.’ So the Prophet ﷺ nullified what was not devotion and had no basis in the Sharī‘ah. This confirms that devotion is an action which is somehow similar to other legal obligations and sunnahs.

190 Fight in the Way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. Allah does not love those who go beyond the limits.

Fight in the Way of Allah against those who fight you

This was the first āyah to be revealed with the command to fight. There is no disagreement that fighting was forbidden before the Hijrah by the words of Allah: ‘RepeI the bad with something better’ (41:34), ‘Pardon them and overlook’ (5:13), ‘Cut yourself off from them – but courteously’ (73:10), ‘You are not in control of them’ (88:22) and other similar āyahs which were revealed in Makkah. When the Prophet ﷺ emigrated to Madīnah, he was commanded to fight and this āyah was revealed. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas and others said this. Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq, however, said that the first āyah revealed about fighting was the āyah in Sūrat al-Ḥajj: ‘Permission is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged.’ (22:39). The one in this sūrah is more frequently cited as being the first.

The āyah for the permission to fight was revealed about fighting in general and the instruction is to fight not only those idolators who fight the Muslims but also those who do not fight. The command refers to the time when the Prophet ﷺ went out with his Companions to Makkah to perform ‘umrah. When he camped at Ḥudaybīyah near Makkah, the idolators prevented him from continuing on into Makkah and he remained there for a month. Ḥudaybīyah is the name of a well and that site is named after the well. They made a treaty stipulating that he could return the following year for three days and that there would be no fighting between them for ten years. After concluding this treaty, he returned to Madīnah. The following year he made preparations for ḥajj and the Muslims feared the treachery of the unbelievers and did not like the idea of fighting in the sacred months and in the Ḥaram.

Then this āyah was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So the āyah is connected to the prior mention of ḥajj and entering houses by the back. After this the Prophet ﷺ fought those who fought him and refrained from fighting those who refrained from fighting him until the āyah in Sūrat at-Tawbah (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’ and this āyah was abrogated. This is the position of the majority of scholars.

Ibn Zayd and ar-Rabī‘, however, say that this āyah was abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘Fight the idolaters totally’ (9:36) in which he was commanded to fight all the unbelievers. Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, and Mujāhid said that it is an āyah whose judgment remains operative and means: ‘Fight those who fight you and do not transgress by killing women, children, monks and the like’ as will be explained. Abū Ja‘far an-Naḥḥās said that this is the sounder position in terms of both the Sunnah and in terms of logic. As for the Sunnah, there is a ḥadīth reported by Ibn ‘Umar that, during one of his expeditions, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saw a woman who had been killed and he abhorred that and forbade the killing of women and children. As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, such as monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings, who clearly should not be killed. When Abū Bakr sent Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Mālik and others transmitted this. Scholars put those who should not be killed into six categories.

– Women. But if they fight, they should be fought. Saḥnūn said, ‘In battle and out of it because of the general nature of Allah’s words: “Fight against those who fight you.” A woman can have an immense effect on the fighting, including supplying assistance and encouraging fighting. Women go out with their hair undone, shouting encouragement and censuring flight. So it is permitted to kill them. If they are captured, however, then enslavement is more beneficial since they are more easily converted and it is difficult for them to run away which is not the case with men.’

– Children. Children should not be killed and that is a firm prohibition. If a child fights, however, then he can be killed.

– Monks. Monks should be neither killed nor enslaved. They are left to live on the property which they own. This is when they live apart from the people of disbelief because of the command which Abū Bakr gave to Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān, ‘You will find some people who claim that they have confined the themselves for the sake of Allah. Leave them with what they claim.’ If, however, they are with the unbelievers in churches, they can be killed. As for nuns, Ashhab thinks that they should not be killed. Saḥnūn said, ‘Being a nun does not alter the basic ruling about her as a woman.’ Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘I think that the sound view is that of Ashhab and nuns are included in the directive of Abū Bakr.’

– The chronically ill. Saḥnūn says that they should be killed. Ibn Ḥabīb says that they should not be killed. The sound position is that we consider their states. If there is potential harm in them, they should be killed. Otherwise, they should be left alone.

– Old men. Mālik says that they should not be killed and that is the position of the majority of fuqahā’. If an old man is senile and unable to fight and not consulted for his opinion or taking part in defence, he should not be killed. Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah say that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī has two positions: one is that of the majority and the second is that old men and monks should be killed. The sound position is the first one because of what Abū Bakr said to Yazīd. No one opposes it and there is a consensus to back it up. Also it is not permitted to kill anyone who does not fight or help the enemy, like women. As for those harm is feared in respect of planning, advice or monetary support, if they are captured, the ruler can choose between five options: killing, an act of good will, ransom, enslavement or agreeing to become a dhimmī in return for the payment of jizyah.

– Hirelings and agricultural workers. Mālik says that they should not be killed. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that agricultural workers, hirelings, and old men should be killed unless they agree to pay the jizyah. The first view is sounder because of what the Prophet ﷺ said in the ḥadīth reported by Rabāḥ ibn ar-Rabī‘, ‘Join Khālid ibn al-Walīd. He is not to kill children or hirelings.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Fear Allah regarding children and agricultural workers who do not fight you.’ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz did not kill agricultural workers. Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned that.

Ashhab mentioned that the āyah refers to those who were at Ḥudaybīyah who were commanded to fight those who fought them. What is sound is that it is addressed to all Muslims: it commands each of them to fight those who fight them. Do you not see how Allah made the matter clear in Sūrat at-Tawbah when He says: ‘Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you.’ (9:123) What was meant first are the people of Makkah and it was specified to begin with them. When Allah conquered Makkah, then it was directed to those nearby who were causing harm until eventually the call became universal and the word reached all areas, no unbeliever remaining. That continues until the Day of Rising, supported by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘There is good in the forelocks of horses until the Day of Rising: reward and spoils.’ It is said that its end will be the descent of Jesus son of Mary which is in agreement with the previous ḥadīth because his descent is one of the signs of the Final Hour.

But do not go beyond the limits.

This is a firm judgment. As for the apostates, the only options available concerning them are execution or repentance. The same applies to people involved in deviation and misguidance: the only options afforded them are execution or repentance. If someone conceals a false belief and then it appears in him, as happens with a zindīq, he should be killed and is not asked to repent. As for those who rebel against just rulers, they must be fought until they return to the truth.

Some people have said that this phrase means: ‘Do not go beyond the limits by fighting for other than the Face of Allah, out of fanaticism, for instance, or to gain fame.’ In other words, ‘Fight in the Way of Allah against those who fight you. Fight in support of the dīn so that Allah’s Word is uppermost.’ It is said that it means: do not fight those who do not fight. In that case it would be abrogated by the command to fight all the unbelievers, and Allah knows best.

191 Kill them wherever you come across them and expel them from where they expelled you. Fitnah is worse than killing. Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they do fight you, then kill them. That is how the unbelievers should be repaid. 192 But if they cease, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Kill them wherever you come across them

This is evidence for killing captives, and that topic will be explained in Sūrat al-Anfāl, Allah willing.

and expel them from where they expelled you

According to aṭ-Ṭabarī this is addressed to the Muhājirūn and ‘they’ refers to the unbelievers of Quraysh.

Fitnah is worse than killing.

The fitnah to which they are subjecting you – trying to make you return to disbelief – is worse than killing. Mujāhid said it refers to the believers, so the meaning is that being killed is better for a believer than being subjected to fitnah. Others said that fitnah here means their association of others with Allah and their disbelief in Him and it is a great crime and worse than the killing which they criticise you for. There is evidence that the āyah was revealed about ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī when he was killed by Wāqid ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tamīmī at the end of the sacred month of Rajab, an incident which will be explained later. Aṭ-Ṭabarī and others said that.

Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there.

Scholars take two positions concerning this āyah. One is that it is abrogated. The second is that it is an āyah containing a firm judgment. Mujāhid says that it is an āyah of judgment and that it is not permitted to fight anyone in the Masjid al-Ḥarām unless they fight you there. Ṭāwūs said that as well, and indeed it is what is intimated by the text of the āyah. It is a sound position and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people adopted it. In the Ṣaḥīḥ Collection, Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said on the day when Makkah was conquered, ‘This land was made sacred on the day Allah created the heavens and the earth and it will remain sacred as Allah has decreed until the Day of Rising. Fighting was not lawful in it for anyone before me and it was only lawful for me for one hour of one day and it will remain sacred until the Day of Rising.’

Qatādah said that the āyah is abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘When the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them.’ (9:5). Muqātil said the same. So this means that it is possible to initiate killing in the Ḥaram and evidence for that position can be found in the fact that Sūrat at-Tawbah, where this āyah occurs, was revealed about two years after Sūrat al-Baqarah and after the Prophet ﷺ entered Makkah and had Ibn Khaṭal, who was clinging to the drapes of the Ka‘bah, killed there.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said that the phrase ‘Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Ḥarām’ is abrogated because the consensus is that people should be fought if they attack, even if they occupy Makkah. If they stop people from performing ḥajj, then it is a legal obligation to fight them, even if they do not start the fighting. Makkah is the same as everywhere else in that respect.

It is said that it is a Ḥarām which should be esteemed. Do you not see that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent out Khālid ibn al-Walīd in the year of the Conquest, telling him, ‘Reap them with your sword until you meet me on Ṣafā.’ Al-‘Abbās came and said, ‘Quraysh are finished! There will be no Quraysh after today!’ Do you not see what Allah said about the respect owed to it, that anything found there should not be picked up without it being announced, and yet that is the same with it and other places? It is possible that it is abrogated by His words: ‘Fight them until there is no more fitnah.’ (2:193)

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘I was in Jerusalem on a Friday at the madrasah of Abū ‘Uqbah al-Ḥanafī while Qāḍī az-Zanjānī was giving a lesson to us. While we were there, a man with a radiant countenance with rags on his back entered. He gave the greeting of scholars and went to the front of the gathering wearing a shepherd’s shirt. Qāḍī az-Zanjānī asked, “Who is the master?” He answered, “A man whom scoundrels looted yesterday while I was making for this sacred Ḥaram. I am a man from the people of Ṣaghān, a seeker of knowledge.” The Qāḍī immediately said, “Question him!” It was their custom to honour men of knowledge by immediately questioning them. The lot [for the question posed] that came up was the case of an unbeliever who seeks sanctuary in the Ḥaram: may he be killed or not? The man gave a fatwā that he should not be killed. He was asked for his proof and said that it was the words of Allah: “Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there.” It can also be recited as “Do not kill them.” If it is recited as that, then it is a clear text forbidding that. If it is recited as “Do not fight them,” then it is an admonition because, if Allah forbids fighting which is a cause of killing, it is clear evidence of the prohibition of killing itself. The Qāḍī countered him by supporting ash-Shāfi‘ī and Mālik even though he normally did not espouse their school. So he stated, “This āyah is abrogated by His words: ‘kill the idolaters wherever you find them’ (9:5).” The man from Ṣaghān replied, “This is not fitting for the position and knowledge of the Qāḍī. This āyah which you used to counter is general to all places and that which I used for argument is specific. It is not permitted for anyone to say that the generally undefined abrogates the specific.” Qāḍī az-Zanjānī was stumped. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘If an unbeliever seeks sanctuary in the Ḥaram, there is no way to kill him because of the text of the āyah and the firm Sunnah that forbids fighting in it. However, the ḥadd punishment must be carried out on the fornicator and killer. If, however, the unbeliever initiates fighting, then he is killed according to the text of the Qur’an.’

As for the argument they use about the killing of Ibn Khaṭal and his fellows, that is not a proper argument. That occurred at a time in which Makkah was not a Ḥaram because it was an abode of war and unbelief and so the blood of people could be shed during the time it was not a Ḥaram and in which fighting was permitted. It is confirmed and correct that the first view is sounder, and Allah knows best.

Some scholars say that this āyah applies in the case of someone who rebels against the ruler but does not apply to unbelievers. Unbelievers are killed in every case when they fight. Rebels are only fought with defence in mind and should not be pursued if they retreat, or finished off if they are wounded. This will be discussed in Sūrat al-Ḥujurāt.

But if they cease,

If they stop fighting you because they believe and become Muslims, then Allah will forgive them all that they did before and show mercy to all of them by pardoning them as Allah says elsewhere: ‘Say to those who disbelieve that if they stop they will be forgiven what is past.’ (8:38)

193 Fight them until there is no more fitnah and the dīn belongs to Allah alone. If they cease, there should be no enmity towards any but wrongdoers.

Fight them until there is no more fitnah and the dīn belongs to Allah alone.

This is a command to fight every idolater in every place according to those who say that it abrogates the previous āyahs. According to those who say that it does not abrogate other āyahs, it means: ‘Fight those about whom Allah says: “if they fight you”.’ The former is the more likely meaning. It is an unqualified command to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah: ‘and the dīn belongs to Allah alone.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they say, “There is no god but Allah.”’ The āyah and ḥadīth both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says: ‘until there is no more fitnah,’ meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.

Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘, as-Suddī and others said that fitnah here means shirk and the subsequent injury to the believers caused by it. The root of fitnah is testing and trial, derived from the term for testing silver when it is put in the fire to separate the impurities from the pure metal.

If they cease, there should be no enmity towards any but wrongdoers.

If they stop and become Muslim, or submit by paying jizyah in the case of the people of the Book. Otherwise they should be fought and they are wrongdoers and only transgress against themselves. What is done to the wrongdoers is called enmity since it is the requital of enmity. Wrongdoing and injustice involve enmity and the requital of enmity is also called enmity. It is as Allah says: ‘The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it.’ (42:40) The wrongdoers are either those who initiate fighting or those who remain entrenched in disbelief and fitnah.

194 Sacred month in return for sacred month – sacred things are subject to retaliation. So if anyone oversteps the limits against you, overstep against him the same as he did to you. But have fear of Allah. Know that Allah is with those who are godfearing.

Sacred month in return for sacred month –

The reason for this being revealed was reported by Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, Mujāhid, Miqsam, as-Suddī, ar-Rabī‘, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and others. They said that it was revealed during the ‘Fulfilled ‘Umrah’. When the idolaters prevented the Prophet ﷺ from completing the ‘Umra in the Year of al-Ḥudaybīyah, Allah promised him that he would enter Makkah, and he did so in 7 AH and completed the practices of ‘umra and the āyah was revealed. Al-Hasan related that the idolaters said to the Prophet ﷺ, “Have you ceased fighting in the sacred month, Muḥammad?” “Yes” he replied. They wanted to fight and the āyah was revealed by which Allah allowed him to fight against them. The first interpretation, however, is better known.

Sacred things are subject to retaliation.

Ḥurumāt is the plural of ḥurmah. Allah means the sacredness of the sacred month, the sacred land and the sacredness of iḥrām. Ḥurmah denotes something which is inviolable. Retaliation (qiṣāṣ) is to make things equal, so in this instance the compensation for you for when they stopped you in 6 AH is to make up the ‘umrah in 7 AH. So this is connected to what precedes it. It is said that it is separate and that it refers to the state of affairs at the beginning in Islam which was, that if something sacred was violated, they were entitled to the like of the transgression committed against them. Then this was abrogated by the āyahs of fighting.

One group say that the āyah deals with enmity within the community of Muhammad ﷺ and other crimes and so it is not abrogated. When someone is the victim of transgression in respect of his property or through physical injury, he can retaliate with the like of what was done to him. This is between creatures. There is nothing between the human being and Allah in that respect. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and others say that, and there is one transmission to that effect from Mālik. A group of Mālikīs say that matters of retaliation are up to the judges and not the individual. Property is dealt with according to the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Surrender trusts to those who entrusted them to you and do not betray those who betrayed you.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. If someone deposits a trust with someone who betrays him, he is not permitted to betray him in return and attain his due from the one he trusted. This is the well known position of their school. Abū Ḥanīfah held that view as well because of this ḥadīth as well as the words of the Almighty: ‘Allah commands you to return to their owners the things you hold on trust.’ (4:58) That is the position of ‘Aṭā’ al-Khurāsānī. Qudāmah ibn al-Haytham said, ‘I asked ‘Aṭā’ ibn Maysarah al-Khurāsānī, “A man owes me something. He denies it and denies my proof. Can I retaliate by taking from his property?” He answered, “Do you think that if he had sex with your slave-girl, you would do what he did?”’

What is sound is that it is permitted for him to do that provided that he can obtain his property without being considered to be a thief. That is the school of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ad-Dāwudī related this from Mālik and Ibn al-Mundhir said that as well. Ibn al-‘Arabī preferred that and said that it is not treachery, but rather obtaining one’s right. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Help your brother, wronging or wronged.’ Taking what is owed from the wrongdoer is part of helping him. When Hind bint ‘Uqbah, the wife of Abū Sufyān, said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Abū Sufyān is a stingy, mean man. He does not give me and my son enough maintenance unless I take it from his property without his knowledge. Do I do anything wrong?’ He ﷺ answered, ‘Take what is enough for you and your son in a correct manner.’ So he allowed her to take, but only the amount strictly due to her. All of this is confirmed in the Ṣaḥīḥ. The words in this āyah cut off the dispute.

They disagree about someone taking property which is not of the same sort as the property he is owed. It is said that he can only do that based on the ruling of a judge. Ash-Shāfi‘ī has two views. The sounder of the two is that he may take it based on analogy with taking it from the same sort of property. The second view is that he should not take it because it is a different sort of property. Some say that he calculates the value of what he is owed and takes an equivalent amount. This is sound based on what we explained of the proof.

In dealing with taking, does one take into account what someone owes of debts and other things? Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that you do not, but simply take what you are owed. Mālik said that a person takes into consideration his position in relation to other debtors when someone is bankrupt. Allah knows best.

So if anyone oversteps the limits against you, overstep against him the same as he did to you.

It is agreed that this āyah is general and undefined and retaliation can either be done directly, if that is possible, or by obtaining a legal judgment. People disagree about whether ordinary compensation is included under this and whether it can be called ‘overstepping’ or not. Some say that there are no metaphors in the Qur’an and that this is overstepping, but permitted overstepping (‘udwān), as that is a normal linguistic usage in Arabic. Others say that there are metaphors in the Qur’an and ‘overstepping’ here is used in that way. Scholars disagree about someone who destroys or ruins animals or goods which cannot be weighed or measured. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and a group of scholars say that he owes the equivalent of that and one pays no attention to price unless there is nothing equivalent available, based on this āyah as well as: ‘If you want to retaliate, retaliate to the same degree as the injury done to you.’ (16:123)

It is said that this principle should be applied to all things, even broken bowls, since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A vessel for a vessel and food for food’ regarding an incident when one of his wives broke a bowl of food belonging to another wife. Abū Dāwud transmitted from Musaddad from Yaḥyā, and from Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā from Khālid from Ḥumayd from Anas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was with one of his wives when another of the Mothers of the Believers sent a servant with a bowl of food. She struck it with her hand and broke the bowl. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ picked up the two pieces and put them together and began to collect the food in them, saying, ‘Your mother is jealous.’ He said, ‘Eat,’ and they ate until a bowl in her house was brought. He kept the messenger and the bowl until they had finished and then gave the unbroken bowl to the messenger and kept the broken one. Abū Dāwud related from Musaddad from Yaḥyā from Fulayt al-‘Āmirī (whom Abū Dāwud says is Aflat ibn Khalīfah) from Jasrah bint Dajājah that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘I never saw a woman make food like Ṣafiyyah. She prepared food for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and sent it to him. I could not keep myself from breaking the vessel. I asked, “Messenger of Allah, what is the expiation for what I did?” He answered, “A vessel like the vessel, and food like the food.”’ The evidence is that the Prophet ﷺ made a man who freed half of his slave also pay for the half owned by his partner and not just the cost of half of the slave. There is no disagreement between scholars that there is parity in food, drinks and things that are weighed since he ﷺ said, ‘Food for food.’

There is no disagreement between scholars that this āyah is the basis for parity in retaliation. If someone kills someone, he is killed by the same method he used when he killed, and that is the position of the majority, as long as the victim was not killed by an iniquitous act such as sodomy or drinking wine. In that case, the killer is killed with the sword. One view of the Shāfi‘īs is that he is killed in the same way in any case. Ibn al-Mājishūn said that if someone kills by fire or poison, he is not killed by the same method because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Only Allah punishes with fire.’ Poison is internal fire.

As for retaliation with a staff, Mālik said in one transmission that killing with a staff is prolonged and amounts to torture and so he should be killed by the sword. Ibn Wahb related that from him and Ibn al-Qāsim also said that. Another transmission says that he is killed with it, even if it entails that. That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ashhab and Ibn Nāfi‘ related that Mālik said that someone who kills with stones or a staff is killed with them provided that the blow will be a fatal one, but not if it requires multiple blows. He should not be shot with arrows or stoned because that entails torture. ‘Abd al-Malik said that. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘What is sound among the views of our scholars is that similarity is mandatory unless that falls under the definition of torture. Then it is abandoned in favour of the sword.’ Our scholars agree that when someone cuts off a hand or foot or gouges out an eye, intending torture by that, then that is done to him, as the Prophet ﷺ did to those who killed the herdsmen. But if that occurred through defence or by a striking blow, then he is killed by the sword.

One group take a different view regarding all of this and say that retaliation is only taken by the sword. That is the school of Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī. Their proof for that is what is related from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘There is no retaliation except with iron (i.e. a blade).’ There is also the prohibition against mutilation and the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Only the Lord of the Fire punishes with fire.’

What is sound is the view of the majority based on what the imams related from Anas ibn Mālik about a girl who was discovered with her head crushed between two stones. They asked her, ‘Who did this to you? So-and-so? So-and-so?’ until they mentioned a Jew and she nodded with her head. The Jew was seized and he confessed, so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered that his head be crushed with stones. One version states that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed him with two stones. This is a clear explicit text. It is what is demanded by Allah’s words: ‘If you want to retaliate, retaliate to the same degree as the injury done to you.’ (16:123) As for the evidence used from the ḥadīth of Jābir, ḥadīth scholars consider it to be weak. It is not related by a sound path. If it had been sound, we would say that it is mandatory. When someone kills with a metal weapon, he is killed with it. This is indicated by the ḥadīth of Anas: ‘A Jew crushed a girl’s head between two stones and so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had his head crushed between two stones.’

We say that the prohibition against mutilation is applied when the perpetrator does not mutilate. If he mutilates, then we do that to him as is indicated by the ḥadīth of the ‘Uranīs. It is sound and transmitted by the imams. His words, ‘Only the Lord of the Fire punishes with fire’ apply when he himself has not burned. If he has burned, then he is burned as is indicated by the generality of the words of the Qur’an. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘When a person deliberately throws someone into a fire, then he too is thrown into a fire until he dies.’ Al-Waqqār mentioned this in his Mukhtaṣar from Mālik. It is also the view of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Many of the people of knowledge say that there is retaliation against a man who strangles another man. That is opposed by Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. He said, “If he strangles him so that he dies, throws him into a well and he dies, or throws him from a mountain or a roof and he dies, there is no retaliation. His male relatives owe blood-money. If he is known for that and strangles more than one person, then he is killed.”’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ took retaliation from the Jew who crushed the girl’s head with stones, it was on this basis.’

Someone else related this view from Abū Ḥanīfah and said, ‘Abū Ḥanīfah has an aberrant view and stated that if someone kills by strangulation, poison, throwing someone from a mountain or into a well, or with a piece of wood, he is not killed and retaliation is not taken from him unless he killed with a sharpened blade, stone or wood, or is known for strangling and throwing people [to their death]. His male relatives must pay blood-money.’ This is contrary to the Book and the Sunnah. It is innovating something which is not the business of the community. It is a means to removing the retaliation which Allah has prescribed for people. This is inevitable.

They disagree about someone who imprisons a man and then another man does the killing. ‘Aṭā’ said that the killer is killed and the imprisoner imprisoned until he dies. Mālik said, ‘If he imprisons him wanting to kill him, then they are both killed.’ The view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and an-Nu‘mān said that the one who imprisoned is punished. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred that.

The view of ‘Aṭā’ is sound and demanded by the Revelation. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When one man holds a man while another kills him, then the killer and the one who held him are both killed.’ Sufyān ath-Thawrī related it from Ismā‘īl ibn Umayyah from Nāfi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar, and Ibn Jurayj from Ismā‘īl mursal.

‘Overstepping’ is going beyond the limits as Allah says: ‘Those who overstep Allah’s limits.’ (2:229) The upshot of the āyah is that, if anyone wrongs you, you may take your right according to the way you were wronged, and if someone insults you, you may respond with what he said but may not go beyond what he said. So if someone insults you, you may insult him, but not insult his parents, son or relatives. You are not permitted to lie about him even if he lies about you. Disobedience may not be countered by disobedience. For instance, if someone says to you, ‘You unbeliever!’ you are permitted to say, ‘You are the unbeliever.’ But if he says, ‘Adulterer!’ then your retaliation is to say, ‘You liar, bearer of false witness!’ If you were to say, ‘Adulterer!’ then you would be a liar and sin in the lie. About someone who puts you off when he is wealthy without excuse and says, ‘Wrongdoer! Consumer of people’s wealth!’ the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The evasiveness of someone with sufficient means to pay makes his honour forfeit and his punishment lawful.’ His honour is by what we explained and his punishment is imprisonment. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This was revealed before Islam was strong and Muslims who were injured were commanded to repay with the like of the injury received, be patient or pardon. Then that was abrogated by Allah’s words: “Fight the idolators totally.” (9:36)’ It is said that it was abrogated by taking it to the ruler and it is not lawful for anyone to take retaliation from anyone without the ruler’s permission.

195 Spend in the Way of Allah. Do not cast yourselves into destruction. And do good: Allah loves good-doers.

Spend in the Way of Allah. Do not cast yourselves into destruction.

Al-Bukhārī related from Ḥudhayfah that this whole āyah was revealed about spending. Aslam Abī ‘Imrān said, ‘We raided Constantinople when ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Walīd was in charge of the group. The Byzantines were keeping their backs to the wall of the city. A man attacked the enemy and the people said, “Easy! Easy! Do not cast yourselves into destruction.” Abū Ayyūb said, “Glory be to Allah! This āyah was revealed about us, the Anṣār. When Allah gave His Prophet ﷺ victory and made His dīn victorious, we said, ‘We will stay in our property and put it right.’ and then Allah revealed, ‘Spend in the Way of Allah.’ The expression ‘Do not cast yourselves into destruction’ referred to staying at home to tend to one’s property and abandoning jihād.” Abū Ayyūb continued to do jihād in the Way of Allah until he was buried in Constantinople. His tomb is there.’ So Abū Ayyūb informed us that casting oneself into destruction is abandoning jihād in Allah’s cause and that the āyah was revealed about that. The like of that is related from Ḥudhayfah, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, Mujāhid and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk.

At-Tirmidhī related this report from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb from Abū ‘Imrān Aslam. He said, ‘We were in the city of the Greeks. They came out against us in a single rank. The same number or more of the Muslims went out against them. ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Āmir was in charge of the Egyptians and Faḍālah ibn ‘Ubayd was in charge of the Syrians. A man from the Muslims attacked the Greek ranks until he penetrated them. The people shouted and said, “Glory be to Allah! He is casting himself into destruction!” Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī stood and said, “People! You interpret this āyah in this way when this āyah was revealed about us, the Anṣār! When Allah exalted Islam and its helpers were numerous, we said secretly to one another apart from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘Our property is lost. Allah has exalted Islam and it has many helpers. We should stay in our property and put right what has been lost of it.’ So Allah revealed to His Prophet ﷺ that which refuted what we said: ‘Spend in the Way of Allah. Do not cast yourselves into destruction.’ The actual destruction was staying in one’s property, tending to it, and abandoning expeditions.” Abū Ayyūb continued to fight in the Way of Allah until he was buried in Greek territory.’ Abū ‘Īsā said that it is a sound gharīb ḥasan ḥadīth.

Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Aṭā’, Mujāhid and the majority of people say that ‘do not cast yourselves into destruction’ refers to not spending in the Way of Allah and fearing poverty so that a man says, ‘I do not have anything that I can spend.’ Al-Bukhārī believed this since he did not mention anything else. Allah knows best. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Spend in the Way of Allah, even if you do not have a share or portion. No one should say, ‘I do not have anything.’ The same is reported from as-Suddī: ‘Spend, even a hobble. Do not cast yourself into destruction and say, “I have nothing.”’

There is a third view stated by Ibn ‘Abbās. It is that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded people to go out in jihād, some of the desert Arabs present in Madīnah went to him and said, ‘What shall we use for provision? By Allah, we have no provisions and no one will feed us.’ So Allah revealed, ‘Spend in the Way of Allah,’ i.e. the wealthy should spend in the Way of Allah to obey Allah. ‘Do not cast yourselves to destruction,’ i.e. do not refrain from giving ṣadaqah so that you are destroyed. That is also what Muqātil said. The meaning of what Ibn ‘Abbās said about not refraining from giving ṣadaqah is: ‘Do not refrain from giving to the weak. If they stay behind you, the enemy will defeat you and you will be destroyed.’

A fourth view is related from al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib about this āyah. He was asked, ‘Is it a man who attacks a squadron?’ He answered, ‘No, but it is a man who commits a sin and then says, “I have disobeyed Allah too much. There is no point in repenting,” and he despairs of Allah and after that devotes himself to disobedience.’ So destruction is despairing of Allah. ‘Ubaydah as-Salmānī said that.

Zayd ibn Aslam said that it means: ‘Do not travel in jihād without provision. People did that and it led to them being cut off on the road or being a burden on the people. This is a fifth view.

The ‘Way of Allah’ (sabīlu-llāh) here means jihād and refers to all the ways of doing it. Al-Mubarrad says that ‘your hands’ [the Arabic is ‘bi-aydīkum’, literally ‘by your hands’] means ‘yourselves’. The part designates the whole. This is a common usage in the Qur’an. It is also said that this is a sort of metaphor. A person puts his hand to something when he undertakes to do it personally, and someone involved in fighting has his weapons in his hand. The expression is also used for something that a person fails to do. ‘Destruction’ (tahlukah) is a verbal noun derived from the verb meaning ‘to destroy’ (halaka). It is also said that it means: ‘Do not take what will destroy you.’ Az-Zajjāj and others said that. It means: if you do not spend, then you disobey Allah and are destroyed. It is also said that it means: do not hold on to your property as others are certainly going to inherit it and you will be ‘destroyed’ by being deprived of the use of your property. Another meaning is: do not hold on to your property because, by doing so, you will miss out on its restitution in this world and the reward for giving it away in the Next World. It is also said that it means: do not spend from what is unlawful so that it comes back on you and you are destroyed. Something similar is related from ‘Ikrimah. He said that this is like another āyah: ‘Do not have recourse to bad things when you give.’ (2:267) It is general and includes all that was mentioned since the expression allows that.

Scholars disagree about a man attacking another man in battle and about attacking the enemy on his own. Al-Qāsim ibn Mukhaymarah, al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad and ‘Abd al-Malik among our scholars say that there is no harm in a man attacking a large army alone when he is strong and has a sincere intention. If he is not strong, that is tantamount to suicide. It is said that, when someone seeks martyrdom and has a sincere intention, he is permitted to attack because his aim is to attack the enemy. That is clear in the words of the Almighty: ‘Among the people there are some you give up everything, desiring the good pleasure of Allah.’ (2:207) Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If a man attacks a hundred, or an entire army, or a group of thieves and bandits, or Khārijites, there are two possibilities. If he knows and thinks it is probable that he will kill the one he attacks and survive, that is good. If he knows and thinks it probable that he will be killed, but will cause great harm or open a path which the Muslims can use, then it is also permitted.’ I have heard that when the Muslim army met the Persians, a group of the Muslim cavalry bolted from the elephants. One of their men made a clay elephant and made his horse familiar with it. In the morning his horse did not shy away from the elephants. He attacked the leading elephant. He was told, ‘It will kill you!’ He said, ‘There is no harm if I am killed and the Muslims are victorious.’ The same was true in the Battle of Yamāmah when the Banū Ḥanīfah fortified themselves in the walled garden and one of the Muslims said, ‘Put me in the catapult and shoot me at them.’ They did that and he fought them alone and opened the gate.

Part of this is what is related that a man said to the Prophet ﷺ: ‘What do you think if I am killed in the Way of Allah with steadfastness and in expectation of the reward?’ He answered, ‘You will have the Garden.’ He dived into the enemy until he was killed. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Anas ibn Mālik that in the Battle of Uḥud the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was left with only seven of the Anṣār and two men of Quraysh. When the enemy approached, he said, ‘Whoever turns them away from us will have the Garden’ or ‘will be my companion in the Garden.’ One of the Anṣār went forward and fought until he was killed. Then they advanced again and again he said, ‘Whoever turns them away from us will have the Garden’ or ‘will be my companion in the Garden.’ Another of the Anṣār went forward and fought until he was killed. This continued until all seven were killed and the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘We have not done justice to our Companions.’

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan said, ‘If one man attacks a thousand idolaters on his own, there is no harm in that provided he hopes to survive or inflict great damage on the enemy. If that is not the case, then it is disliked because he exposes himself to destruction without any benefit for the Muslims. If his intention is to encourage Muslims to follow him, it may be permitted because of the benefit for the Muslims involved. If he intends to terrify the enemy and show them the resolve of the Muslims, it may also be permitted.’

If that will help the Muslims, strengthen the dīn of Allah and weaken the unbelievers, then it is the noble station which Allah praises when He says: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their wealth in return for them having the Garden. They fight in the way of Allah, and they kill and are killed.’ (9:111) There are others āyahs in which Allah praises those who expend themselves in that way. The same applies to the ruling of commanding what is correct and forbidding what is bad when one hopes that it will help the dīn and a person strives to achieve that until he is killed: he is in the ranks of the martyrs. Allah says: ‘Command what is right and forbid what is wrong and be steadfast in the face of all that happens to you. That is certainly the most resolute course to follow.’ (31:17) ‘Ikrimah related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best of martyrs is Ḥamzah ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib and a man who speaks the truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler who kills him.’ This will be discussed in Āl ‘Imrān, Allah willing.

And do good: Allah loves good-doers.

Spend in obedience and have a good opinion of Allah that He will repay you for doing it. It is said that it means: do good in your actions by obeying Allah. That is related from some Companions.

196 Perform the Ḥajj and ‘umrah for Allah. If you are forcibly prevented, make whatever sacrifice is feasible. But do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached the place of sacrifice. If any of you are ill or have a head injury, the expiation is fasting or ṣadaqah or sacrifice when you are safe and well again. Anyone who comes out of iḥrām between ‘umrah and ḥajj should make whatever sacrifice is feasible. For any one who cannot, there is three days’ fast on ḥajj. and seven on your return – that is ten in all. That is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥarām. Be fearful of Allah and know that Allah is fierce in retribution.

Perform the ḥajj and ‘umrah for Allah.

Scholars disagree about what this means [as the verb used normally means ‘to complete’]. It is said it means: perform them, doing both of them, as the verb is used elsewhere (2:124, 2:187) to mean this. This is according to the position of those who consider ‘umrah to be obligatory. Those who do not consider it to be obligatory say that it means complete them once you have begun them. When someone assumes iḥrām, he is obliged to complete the act for which he has entered it and not invalidate it. Ash-Sha‘bī and Ibn Zayd stated that. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said that ‘completing them’ is to assume iḥrām for them from the abode of one’s people. That is related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ. ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn did that. Sufyān ath-Thawrī said that ‘completing them’ is to set out intending them and not trade or anything else. That is strengthened by His words, ‘for Allah’. ‘Umar said that ‘completing them’ is to do each of them separately without tamattu‘ or qirān. Ibn Ḥabīb said that. Muqātil said that ‘completing them’ means not to make inappropriate things lawful in them. That was because they used to commit shirk in their iḥrām and would say, ‘At Your service, O Allah! At Your service! You have no partner except a partner that is Yours. You control him and he does not control You.’ Therefore He said to complete them without mixing anything else in them.

As for what is related from ‘Alī and what ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn did in assuming iḥrām before the mīqāts that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ established, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd and a group of the Salaf supported it. It is confirmed that ‘Umar assumed iḥrām from Jerusalem and that al-Aswad, ‘Alqamah, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān and Abū Isḥāq assumed iḥrām from their houses. Ash-Shāfi‘ī made an allowance for doing that. Abū Dāwud and ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Umm Salamah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone assumes iḥrām for ḥajj or ‘umrah from Jerusalem, he leaves his sins like the day his mother bore it.’ One variant has: ‘he is forbidden past and future sins.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it and said, ‘May Allah show mercy to Wakī‘! He assumed iḥrām from Jerusalem,’ i.e. for Makkah. This contains permission to assume iḥrām before the mīqāt.

Mālik disliked anyone adopting iḥrām before the mīqāt. He related that from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb who objected to ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn adopting iḥrām from Basra and ‘Uthmān objected to Ibn ‘Umar adopting iḥrām before the mīqāt. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that the correct thing is to start at the mīqāts. Part of the argument for this view is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ established the mīqāts and specified them, thereby clarifying something previously undefined about the Hajj. The Prophet ﷺ did not adopt iḥrām for ḥajj from his house, but did so at the mīqāt he established for his community. What the Prophet ﷺ did is the best, Allah willing. That is also what was done by most of the Companions and the Tābi‘ūn after them.

The people holding the first view argue that it is better because ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was not given a choice between two things but that he chose the easier of them,’ and the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah, along with what was mentioned from the Companions who saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ adopt iḥrām for ḥajj from the mīqāt. They knew what he intended and knew that his iḥrām from the mīqāt was to make things easier for his community.

The imams have related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set the mīqāt for the people of Madīnah at Dhu-l-Ḥulayfah, for the people of Syria at al-Juḥfah, for the people of Najd at Qarn and for the people of Yemen at Yalamlam. Those sites were for them and for other people who came to them intending ḥajj and ‘umrah. Those who were closer to Makkah than them would assume iḥrām from where they started so that the people of Makkah did so in Makkah. The people of knowledge agree on the literal meaning of this ḥadīth and acting on it. There is absolutely no disagreement about it. They disagree about the mīqāt of the people of Iraq and those who take their mīqāt. Abū Dāwud and at-Tirmidhī related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ set the mīqāt for the people of the east at al-‘Aqīq. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a ḥasan ḥadīth. It is also related that ‘Umar set the mīqāt for the people of Iraq at Dhat ‘Irq. We find in Abū Dāwud from ‘Ā’ishah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set Dhat ‘Irq as the mīqāt for the people of Iraq. This is sound. Those who relate that ‘Umar set it was because it was conquered in his time and then neglected. It was, in fact, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who set it as he set al-Juḥfah for the people of Syria although at that time all of Syria was a land of unbelief as was the case with Iraq and other lands at that time. Iraq and Syria were only conquered in the time of ‘Umar. That is undisputed. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Every Iraqi or easterner adopted iḥrām from Dhat ‘Irq. All say that iḥrām is assumed from the mīqāt. They believe, however, that al-‘Aqīq is more proper than Dhat ‘Irq although Dhat ‘Irq is also their mīqāt.’

Scholars agree that if someone adopts iḥrām before he reaches the mīqāt he is in iḥrām. Those who forbid that think that adopting iḥrām at the mīqāt is better out of their dislike of someone making difficult for himself something which Allah has made easier for him, as well as the fact that it might lead to an innovation in respect of iḥrām. If he does that, however, all of them confirm his iḥrām since he has added something and not decreased it.

This āyah is evidence for ‘umrah being obligatory because Allah commands it to be completed as He commands ḥajj to be completed. Aṣ-Ṣubayy ibn Ma‘bad said, ‘I went to ‘Umar and said, “I was a Christian and became Muslim. I find that ḥajj and ‘umrah are prescribed for me and so I adopted iḥrām for both of them.”’ ‘Umar said to him, ‘You have been guided to the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.’ Ibn al-Mundhir observed that he did not object to what he said and his assumption that they were obligatory for him. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās all said that they were both obligatory. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Ibn Jurayj from Nāfi‘ that ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar used to say, ‘Allah has not created anyone who does not owe ḥajj and ‘umrah if he is able to find a way to do them. If anyone does more than that, it is good and voluntary.’ He said, ‘I did not hear him say anything about the people of Makkah.’ Ibn Jurayj said that ‘Ikrimah reported that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘‘Umrah is obligatory, as is ḥajj, for those who find a way to perform it.’

Among the Tābi‘ūn who believed that it was obligatory were ‘Aṭā’, Ṭāwūs, Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan, Ibn Sīrīn, ash-Sha‘bī, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Abū Burdah, Masrāuq, ‘Abdullāh ibn Shaddād, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū ‘Ubayd, and Ibn al-Jahm among the Mālikīs. Ath-Thawrī said, ‘We heard that it is mandatory.’ Zayd ibn Thābit was asked about doing ‘umrah before ḥajj and said, ‘Two prayers: you are not harmed by starting with either of them.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī mentioned it. It is related marfū‘ from Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn from Zayd ibn Thābit that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Ḥajj and ‘umrah are two obligations. There is no harm in beginning with either of them.’

Mālik, however, said, ‘‘Umrah is sunnah. But we do not know of anyone who made an allowance for abandoning it.’ That is also the position of an-Nahka‘ī and the People of Opinion (ra’y) according to what Ibn al-Mundhir related. Some people of Qazwin and Baghdad report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he considered it obligatory (wājib) like the ḥajj, and that it is a confirmed sunnah. lbn Mas‘ūd and Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh also said that. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Muḥammad ibn Zakariyyā from Abū Kulayb Muḥammad ibn al-‘Alā’ from ‘Abd ar-Raḥīm ibn Sulaymān from Ḥajjāj from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir that Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘A man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about prayer, zakāh and ḥajj and whether they were mandatory. He said that they were. Then he asked about whether ‘umrah was mandatory. He answered, “No, but it is better for you to perform ‘umrah.”’ Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb related it mawqūf from Ḥajjāj and Ibn Jurayj from Ibn al-Munkadir from Jābir. This is the argument of those who do not make it mandatory in the Sunnah. They said that there is no evidence in the āyah of its mandatory nature because Allah connected it to completion, not to initiation, whereas with the prayer and zakāh He does by saying: ‘Establish the prayer and pay zakāh’ (73:20) and with the ḥajj as well when He says: ‘Ḥajj to the House is a duty owed to Allah by all mankind.’ (3:97) When He mentions ‘umrah, He commands that it should be completed. If one were to make ten ḥajj’s or ten ‘umrahs, it is obligatory to complete all of them. The āyah is about obligation and completion, not obligation and initiation. Allah knows best.

Those who disagree about its mandatory nature say that the pillar of ḥajj is standing at ‘Arafah and there is no equivalent standing in ‘umrah. If it had been like the sunnah of the ḥajj, it would be necessary for it to have equivalent actions as is the case with the sunnah prayer which has the same actions as the obligatory prayer.

Ash-Sha‘bī and Abū Ḥawyah recite ‘al-‘umratu’, indicating that it is not mandatory while the main body of the community recite ‘al-‘umrata’, indicating that it is mandatory. The copy of Ibn Mas‘ūd’s Qur’an has ‘Perform the ḥajj and ‘umrah to the House of Allah’ and also ‘Establish the ḥajj and ‘umrah to the House of Allah.’ The point of mentioning Allah here is that the Arabs used to intend the ḥajj for meeting, public display, vying with one another, disagreement, settling needs and attending markets. None of that involves obeying Allah and there is no intention or act of nearness. Allah therefore commanded that people have the intention to perform the obligation and fulfil the need. After that there is scope for commerce.

There is no disagreement among scholars about the fact that someone who attends the ḥajj or ‘umrah practices must make an intention to do so. Part of the completion of any act of worship is the presence of the intention, which is an obligation in itself. It is an obligation just as iḥrām is, since, when the Prophet ﷺ mounted, he said, ‘At Your service for both ḥajj and ‘umrah.’ Ar-Rabī‘ mentioned in the book of al-Buwayṭī that ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If a man says the talbīyah and does not intend ḥajj or ‘umrah, he is not performing ḥajj or ‘umrah. If he makes the intention and does not say the talbīyah until he has finished the practices, his ḥajj is complete.’ The argument is based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Actions are according to intentions.’ If someone does the the same as ‘Alī did when he made his iḥrām the same as that of the Prophet ﷺ, that intention satisfies the requirement because it was based on the prior intention of someone else, which is not the case in the prayer.

Scholars disagree about adolescents and slaves who perform ḥajj and then become adults or are freed before they stand at ‘Arafah. Mālik said, ‘There is no way for them to abandon iḥrām just as there is no way with anyone else, since Allah says: ‘Complete the ḥajj and ‘umrah for Allah.’ No one who abandons iḥrām completes his ḥajj or ‘umrah. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘It is permitted for a child who reaches puberty before the standing at ‘Arafah to renew his iḥrām. If he continues in his original ḥajj, however, it does not satisfy the ḥajj of Islam.’ His argument is that since he was not subject to the obligation when he assumed iḥrām for the ḥajj, but then ḥajj became obligatory when he reached puberty, it is impossible for him to be distracted from a specific obligation by something supererogatory and neglect his obligation. This is like someone who begins a supererogatory prayer and then the iqāmah for a prescribed prayer is given and he fears that he will miss it, so he stops the supererogatory and enters into the prescribed.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that when a child adopts iḥrām and then reaches puberty before standing at ‘Arafah, he stands there in iḥrām and satisfies the ḥajj of Islam. The same is true of a slave. He said that if a slave is freed at Muzdalifah, or a child reaches puberty there, if they return to ‘Arafah after their emancipation or puberty and manage to stand there before dawn, they have satisfied the ḥajj of Islam and they do not owe a sacrifice. I prefer for them to exercise caution and sacrifice. I do not believe that is definitive.

He cited as proof for not renewing iḥrām the ḥadīth of ‘Alī when he arrived from Yemen having adopted iḥrām for the ḥajj. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked him, ‘What did you adopt iḥrām for?’ He answered, ‘I said, “At Your service, O Allah, for an iḥrām which is the same as the iḥrām of Your Prophet.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “I adopted iḥrām for the ḥajj and have driven sacrificial camels.”’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not object to what he said nor did he command him to renew his intention for ifrād, tamattu‘ or qirān.’

Mālik said about a Christian who becomes Muslim on the night of ‘Arafah and adopts iḥrām for the ḥajj: ‘He has satisfied the ḥajj of Islam.’ The same is true of a slave who is freed or a child who reaches puberty, when they are not already in iḥrām and do not owe a sacrifice. Sacrifice becomes obligatory for someone who wants to go on ḥajj but does not adopt iḥrām from the mīqāt. Abū Ḥanịfah said that slaves owe a sacrifice. In their view, they are like a free men in respect of going past the mīqāt. That is not the case with a child or a Christian. They were not obliged to assume iḥrām to enter Makkah because they do not owe the obligation. When an unbeliever becomes Muslim, or a child reaches puberty, they have the same ruling as the people of Makkah and neither owes anything for missing the mīqāt.

If you are forcibly prevented,

Ibn al-‘Arabī says that this āyah is problematical but, in fact, there is nothing problematic about it as we will explain. Being prevented refers to any obstacle which stops you doing what you intended with respect to going on ḥajj, whatever that obstacle might be, whether it is an enemy, the injustice of a ruler, illness, highway robbers or anything else that might stop a person from fulfilling his intention. Scholars disagree about the actual obstacle referred to in the āyah and have two views. One is stated by ‘Alqamah, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr and others which is that it refers to illness and not to an enemy. But it is also said that it is only an enemy which is meant, and that is the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Anas and ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that that is the opinion our scholars prefer, while linguists prefer illness if the verb uḥṣira is used and the enemy if the verb ḥuṣira is used.

What Ibn al-‘Arabī related as the choice of our scholars is related by Ashhab alone. He is opposed by the rest of the people of Mālik in this case who say that uḥṣira is used for illness and ḥuṣira for the enemy. Al-Bājī stated that in al-Muntaqā. Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj related that that is the view of all linguists. Abū ‘Ubaydah and al-Kisā’ī said the same, but we find the reverse in Ibn Fāris. One group, including Abū ‘Umar, said that uḥṣira is used for both. This is the position of Mālik in the Muwaṭṭā’ where he uses uḥṣira for both.

Al-Farrā’ said that they both have the same meaning: for illness and the enemy. Abū Naṣr al-Qushayrī said, ‘The Shāfi‘īs claim that uḥṣira is used for the enemy and ḥuṣira for illness. What is sound is that they are both used for both.’ Al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad and others state their difference from the Shāfi‘īs. Al-Khalīl said, ‘Ḥuṣira is used when a man is detained. Uḥṣira is used for someone on ḥajj who is prevented from completing the practices due to illness or the like.’ He used ḥuṣira for the enemy and uḥṣira for illness. This agrees with what Ibn ‘Abbās said, in other words that ‘forcibly prevented’ is by the enemy. Ibn as-Sakkīt said, ‘Illness prevents (uḥṣira) someone from travelling or from something he needs to do. The enemy prevents (ḥuṣira) a person when they restrict and encircle him.’ Most linguists say that Form I (ḥuṣira) is used for the enemy and Form IV (uḥṣira) for illness.

Since the root meaning is to be confined, the Ḥanafīs say that the person who is prevented is someone who is prevented from reaching Makkah after he has adopted iḥrām, whether that is due to illness, the enemy, or something else. They cite the general meaning of the word and say, ‘The fact that “safety” is mentioned later in the āyah indicates that it is not about illness. The Prophet ﷺ said, “A common cold is security from leprosy.” He also said, “If someone praises Allah before a sneezer does, he is safe from toothache, earache and colic.” Ibn Mājah transmitted that in the Sunan.’ They said, ‘We consider that being detained by the enemy is prevention as it is analogous with illness and has the same ruling. It is not based on the literal meaning of the āyah.’ Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn az-Zubayr, Ibn ‘Abbās, ash-Shāfi‘ī and the People of Madīnah say that what is meant by the āyah is being prevented by the enemy because the āyah was revealed in 6 AH during the ‘umrah of Ḥudaybīyah when the idolaters prevented the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from reaching Makkah. Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘We set out with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the unbelievers of Quaysh blocked the way to the House. The Prophet ﷺ sacrificed his animals and shaved his head. This is indicated by His words, “when you are safe,” not “when you are free.”’ Allah knows best.

Most people believe that when someone is prevented by the enemy from continuing, he should come out of iḥrām where he is, sacrifice his animals, if he has any, and shave his head. Qatādah and Ibrāhīm said, ‘If he is able, he sends his animals on and when they arrive, he comes out of iḥrām.’ Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘The sacrifices for being prevented from completion do not have to take place on the Day of Sacrifice. It is permitted to sacrifice before the Day of Sacrifice if they have arrived.’ His two companions differed from him and said that it is necessary to wait for the Day of Sacrifice and it does not satisfy the requirement if someone slaughters before that. This will be further discussed.

Most scholars say that if someone is stopped by the enemy, be it an unbeliever, Muslim, or ruler who confines him, he owes a sacrifice. That is the position of ash-Shāfi’ī and Ashhab also said that. Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘Someone who is barred from the House in ḥajj or ‘umrah does not have to sacrifice unless he has driven animals with him. That is the view of Mālik.’ Part of their argument is that at Ḥudaybīyah the Prophet ﷺ slaughtered the animals he had marked and garlanded when he went into iḥrām for ‘umrah. When those animals did not reach their place due to the obstruction, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that they be slaughtered because they were sacrificial animals obliged as such by garlanding and being marked. They were brought out for Allah and it is not permitted to return them. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not slaughter them on account of being barred. That is why someone who is barred from the House is not obliged to sacrifice. The majority use as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was not out of iḥrām at Ḥudaybīyah and did not shave his head until he had sacrificed. That indicates that one of the preconditions for someone barred from ḥajj or ‘umra coming out of iḥrām is to sacrifice any animals he has with him. If he is poor, then it is when he finds the means to be able to do so. He only leaves iḥrām by that. That is demanded by Allah’s words here. It is said that he comes out of iḥrām and sacrifices if he is able to do so. Both views are related from ash-Shāfi‘ī, and there are also two views about someone who does not find a sacrificial animal to purchase.

‘Aṭā’ and others say that someone prevented from continuing by illness is just like someone prevented by the enemy. Mālik and Shāfi‘ī and their people say that someone prevented by illness from continuing does not come of out iḥrām until he has done ṭawāf of the House, even if it takes years for him to recover. That is the same for someone who makes a mistake in calculating the month or from whom the crescent moon is hidden. Mālik said, ‘The people of Makkah are like other people in that respect.’ He said, ‘If someone ill requires treatment, he is treated and pays fidyah and remains in his iḥrām. He is not released from his iḥrām until he is free of illness and, when he is free of illness, he must continue to the House and do ṭawāf of it seven times, run between Ṣafā and Marwah and he then comes out of his iḥrām for ḥajj or ‘umrah. This is also the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Regarding that, he believed what was related from ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ā’ishah, Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn az-Zubayr. In the case of someone hindered by illness or miscalculation, they said that he does not come of out iḥrām until he has done ṭawāf of the House. The same is true of someone who breaks a bone or has an abdominal pain.

The ruling for someone in this situation, according to Mālik and his people is that, if he fears that he will miss standing at ‘Arafah due to his illness, he has a choice. If he wishes, when he recovers he can continue on to the House, do ṭawāf and come out of iḥrām for ‘umrah, or he can instead remain in his iḥrām until the next year. If he remains in his iḥrām and does not do anything that someone performing ḥajj is forbidden to do, then he owes no sacrifice. A factor in the argument regarding that is the consensus of the Companions that if someone miscalculates the month, his ruling is that he can only come out of iḥrām by doing ṭawāf of the House.

He said about a Makkan who remains confined until people have finished the ḥajj, that he should go outside the Ḥaram, say the talbiyyah, then do what someone performing ‘umrah does, and then he can come out of iḥrām. Then the following year he should perform ḥajj and sacrifice. Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī said that a Makkan who is barred must stand at ‘Arafah, even carried on a bier. This position was preferred by Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Bukayr al-Mālikī who said: ‘Mālik’s position about a Makkan who is barred is that what applies to others also applies to him: he should repeat the ḥajj and sacrifice. This differs from the literal wording of the Book where Allah says: “That is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥarām.”’ He added, ‘I believe that one takes the position of az-Zuhrī: it is permitted by Allah Almighty for those whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥarām to remain for treatment because of the distance, even if they miss the ḥajj. As for those whose distance from the Masjid al-Ḥarām is not such that one could shorten the prayer when travelling between them, he should attend the practices, even lying on a bier, because he is close to the House.’ Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that if someone is prevented from reaching the House by enemies, illness, lack of money, loss of mount, or being stung by vermin he should remain where he is in iḥrām and send ahead his sacrificial animals or their price. When the sacrifice is made, then he comes out of iḥrām. That is what is stated by ‘Urwah, Qatādah, al-Ḥasan, ‘Aṭā’, an-Nakha‘ī, Mujāhid and the people of Iraq.

Mālik and his people say that someone in iḥrām does not benefit from having made a stipulation about his ḥajj if he fears being hindered by illness or the enemy. That is the view of ath-Thawrī and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people. Such a stipulation is that he says when he goes into iḥrām: ‘At Your service, O Allah, at Your service. I will come out of iḥrām if I am prevented in the land.’ Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh and Abū Thawr said that there is nothing wrong in making a stipulation if the situation exists. That is stated by more than one of the Companions and the Tābi‘ūn. Their argument is the ḥadīth of Ḍubā‘ah bint az-Zubayr ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib who went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I want to perform ḥajj. Can I make stipulations?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered. She asked, ‘So what should I say?’ He said, ‘Say: “At Your service, O Allah, at Your service. I will come out of iḥrām if I am prevented in the land.”’ Abū Dāwud, ad-Dāraquṭnī and others transmitted it.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If the ḥadīth of Ḍubā‘ah were confirmed, I would not go against it. You come out of iḥrām wherever Allah detains you.’

More than one person said that it is sound, including Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī and Ibn al-Mundhir. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to Ḍubā‘ah bint az-Zubayr, “Go on ḥajj and make a stipulation.”’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī took that position when he was in Iraq but not when he was in Egypt. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I take the first view.’ ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned it from Ibn Jurayj from Abu-z-Zubayr that Ṭāwūs and ‘Ikrimah said that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Ḍubā‘ah bint az-Zubayr went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “I am a heavy woman who wants to perform ḥajj. What do you command me to do when I go into iḥrām.” He said, “Go into iḥrām and stipulate that you will come out of iḥrām if you are held back.”’ This is a sound isnād.

Scholars disagree about the obligation to make up the ḥajj in the case of someone prevented from completing it. Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that if someone is stopped by the enemy, he does not have to make up either ḥajj or ‘umrah unless he is someone who has not yet performed the ḥajj and still owes it since it is still obligatory for him. That is also the case with those who believe that ‘umrah is a mandatory obligation. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘Someone barred from completion by illness or the enemy owes both ḥajj and ‘umrah.’ That is the view of aṭ-Ṭabarī. The People of Opinion say, ‘If someone has adopted ihrām for ḥajj, he should make up ḥajj and ‘umrah because his ihrām for ḥajj has become ihrām for ‘umrah. If he is doing qirān, then he should make up ḥajj and two ‘umrahs. If he adopted ihrām for ‘umrah, he should make up ‘umrah. That is the same whether he is detained by illness or the enemy.’

They base their argument on the ḥadīth of Maymūn ibn Mihrān who said, ‘I went out to perform ‘umrah in the year the people of Syria laid siege to Ibn az-Zubayr in Makkah. Some men of my people sent sacrificial animals with me. When I reached the people of Syria, they prevented me from entering the Ḥaram and so I sacrificed my animal where I was and came out of iḥrām and went back. The following year I left to complete my ‘umrah and went to Ibn ‘Abbās to question him. He said, “Replace the sacrificial animals. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ instructed his Companions to replace the animals that they had sacrificed in the year of Ḥudaybīyah in the Fulfilled ‘Umrah. They did so based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Anyone who has broken a leg or gone lame should come out of ihrām and he owes another ḥajj.’”’ ‘Ikrimah related that al-Ḥajjāj ibn ‘Amr al-Anṣārī also said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Anyone who has broken a leg or gone lame should come out of ihrām and he owes another ḥajj.’ They stated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions went on ‘umrah in the year after Ḥudaybīyah. That was making up the earlier ‘umrah. They said that is the reason that it is called ‘the Fulfilled ‘Umrah’.

Mālik argued by the fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not instruct any of his Companions or those with him to make up anything or to repeat anything. His doing that is not recorded from him by any path whatsoever. He did not say the following year, ‘This ‘umrah is making up for the ‘umrah that I was prevented from completing.’ They call it ‘Umrat al-Qaḍā’ and ‘Umrat al-Qaḍiyyah. It was called that because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concluded (qāḍā) and made a treaty with Quraysh that year that they would go back from the House that year and come to it to the following year. That is how it gets its name.

None of the fuqahā’ say that someone who breaks a bone or goes lame has to assume ihrām at the exact place he broke it except for Abū Thawr who follows the literal meaning of the ḥadīth of al-Ḥajjāj ibn ‘Amr. Dāwud ibn ‘Alī and his people corroborate him in that. Scholars agree that someone who breaks a bone should come out of iḥrām, but they disagree about what takes him out of ihrām. Mālik and others said that it is only by doing ṭawāf of the House. The Kufans who oppose him say that he comes out of ihrām by the intention and does what brings him out of it.

There is no disagreement among the fuqahā’ of any city that being prevented is general and applies to both ḥajj and ‘umrah. Ibn Sīrīn said, ‘There is no prevention in respect of ‘umrah because it has no specific time.’ The response to this is that even if it has no specific time, there is harm in waiting until the excuse disappears. The āyah was revealed about that. It is related from Ibn az-Zubayr that someone who is prevented from completion by the enemy or illness only comes out of ihrām by doing ṭawāf of the House. This is also contrary to the text of the report in the year of Ḥudaybīyah.

The preventing agent may be either an unbeliever or a Muslim. If it is an unbeliever, it is not permitted to fight him, even if the prevented person is confident of defeating him, and comes out of ihrām immediately, since Allah says: ‘Do not fight them in the Masjid al-Ḥarām.’ If the unbeliever asks for money, he should not pay it because that would indicate weakness in Islam. If he is Muslim, he is not permitted to fight him in any case and he is obliged to come out of ihrām. If he asks for something in exchange for letting him continue, however, he is permitted to pay it. Fighting is not permitted since it involves destruction of life. There is no obligation to fight where the performance of acts of worship is concerned, even though that is tolerated in the dīn. Paying the amount asked for is avoiding the greater of two harms for the lesser. It is also because the ḥajj is something on which one spends money, in any case, and this is counted as part of the expenses.

The enemy who prevents is either someone you are certain, because of his strength and great number, will stay and consolidate, or not. If it is the former, then the one prevented should come out of ihrām immediately where he is. If the latter is the case, and you hope that the enemy concerned will leave, then you are not considered someone who is prevented unless there is not enough time after the time of the departure of the enemy in which to catch the ḥajj. In that case, according to Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn al-Mājishūn, you should come out of ihrām. Ashhab said, ‘Someone prevented from completing ḥajj does not come out of ihrām until the Day of Sacrifice and does not stop saying the talbiyyah until the people go to ‘Arafah.’ The reason for the position of Ibn al-Qāsim is that this is the moment when he despairs of completing his ḥajj because of the enemy. Therefore he is permitted to come out of ihrām then. The day of ‘Arafah is the basis for that. The reason for the position of Ashhab is that a person must do the utmost that is possible for him regarding the rules of ihrām and so it is obligatory for him until the Day of Sacrifice, which is the moment when those performing ḥajj are permitted to come out of ihrām.

make whatever sacrifice is feasible.

According to most scholars, this means a sheep. Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Āishah, and Ibn az-Zubayr said that it is whatever camel or whatever cow is available. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘The greatest sacrifice is the camel, the medium one the cow and the least the sheep.’ This phrase provides evidence for what Mālik believes, which is that someone stopped by enemy forces does not have to make up his ḥajj, because only the sacrifice is mentioned. Allah knows best.

The word for ‘sacrifice’ (hadī) is used because it refers to camels which are led (hadā) to the House of Allah. The Arabs use the term to mean ‘camels’. Abū Bakr said that they are called this because they are given (yuhdā) to the House of Allah.

But do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached the place of sacrifice.

This is addressed to all Muslims performing the ḥajj, not just those who are prevented from completing their ḥajj. Some scholars think, however, that it only refers to those who have been stopped. So it means: ‘Do not come out of iḥrām until the sacrifices have been slaughtered’. The ‘place of sacrifice’ (maḥillahu) referred to is the place where it is lawful to slaughter the sacrificial animals. For Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī, the place to sacrifice is the place where people have been stopped; this is in order to imitate the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at Ḥudaybīyah. Allah says: ‘and prevented the sacrifice from reaching its proper place,’ (48:25) which means they are stopped from reaching the Ancient House. Abū Ḥanīfah says that it means the Ḥaram of Makkah since Allah says: ‘…and then their place of sacrifice is by the Ancient House.’ (22:33) The response to this is that for this to happen the security necessary to reach the House is essential. Someone who barred fails to meet this condition. The evidence for this lies in the fact that the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions slaughtered their animals at Ḥudaybīyah and not at the Ḥaram. In the Sunnah, the argument advanced is the ḥadīth of Nājiyah ibn Jundub, the Companion of the Prophet, who said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Send the sacrificial camels with me and I will slaughter them at the Ḥaram.’ He asked, ‘How will you do that?’ He said, ‘I will lead them through inaccessible wadis and until the point that I can slaughter them in the Ḥaram.’ The answer to this is that it is not sound. One slaughters where one comes out of iḥrām to imitate what the Prophet ﷺ did at Ḥudaybīyah. This is the sound version related by the imams. Furthermore, the sacrificial animals follow the one who presents them and where he comes out of iḥrām.

Scholars disagree about whether someone who is prevented from continuing should shave his head and about the way in which he should come out of iḥrām before sacrificing. Mālik said: ‘The firm sunnah about which there is no disagreement with us is that it is not permitted for someone to remove any of his hair until he has sacrificed. Allah says: “Do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached the place of sacrifice.”’ Abū Ḥanīfah and his people say that if he comes out of iḥrām before he sacrifices he owes another sacrifice and reverts to being in iḥrām until he sacrifices. If he catches game before he slaughters his sacrifice, he owes requital, and the wealthy and poor are the same in that respect. He does not come out of iḥrām until he sacrifices or the sacrifice is done for him. They said that the minimum is a sheep which is not blind and does not have its ears cut. For them, that takes the place of fasting.

Abū ‘Umar said that the position of the Kufans regarding this matter is weak and contradictory because they do not permit someone barred by illness or the enemy to come out of iḥrām until he has sacrificed in the Ḥaram. By permitting the person stopped because of illness to send a sacrificial animal, instructing the person who takes it to slaughter it on a certain day, whereupon he can come out of iḥrām and shave his head, they then allow him to assume certainty that the animal has reached the place and has been slaughtered. So they compel him to come out of iḥrām based on assumption when scholars agree that it is not permitted for someone obliged to perform one of his obligations to leave it based on assumption. The evidence that it is an assumption is found in their words: ‘If that animal dies, is lost or stolen, the one who sent it comes out of iḥrām and has sex with his wife and hunts, he reverts to being in iḥrām and owes requital for what he hunted.’ So they permit him to invalidate the ḥajj and make obligatory him what is binding for someone who has not come out of iḥrām. This is an unconcealed contradiction and a weak position. They base all of their school on the position of Ibn Mas‘ūd and did not look at anything that disagreed with him.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī has two views about someone who is barred when it is difficult for him to sacrifice. One is that he only leaves iḥrām by sacrifice, and the other is that he is commanded to do what he is able to do. If he is not able to do something, then he does what he is able to do. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Someone who says this says that he leaves iḥrām where he is and slaughters if he is able to do so. If he is able to slaughter in Makkah, then he is only allowed to slaughter there.’ He said that his situation is only satisfied by a sacrifice. It is said that if someone cannot find a sacrificial animal, then he should feed people or fast. If he cannot do any of these three, then he does one of them when he is able to. In the case of a slave, it is said that the situation is only satisfied by fasting. The price of a sheep is calculated in dirhams and then the dirhams in terms of food and he should fast a day for every mudd so calculated.

There is disagreement about whether someone forced to stop can shave his head or not once he has sacrificed. One group say that he does not have to shave because his rites have ended. Their argument is that all the practices, such as ṭawāf and sa‘y, are cancelled for him when he is barred. That is part of what takes him out of iḥrām. Therefore the rest of what brings someone out of iḥrām is cancelled for him by the fact of being barred. Among those who argue this are Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan who said that someone barred does not have to shave or shorten his hair. Abū Yūsuf said that he should shave, but owes nothing if he does not shave. Ibn ‘Imrān related from Ibn Samā‘ah from Abū Yūsuf in an-Nawādir that he must shave his head or shorten his hair.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī has two different view about this matter. One is that the person prevented from finishing the practices shaves his head, which is the view of Mālik, and the other that it is not one of the practices, as is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah. The argument of Mālik is that ṭawāf of the House and running between Ṣafā and Marwah are all made impossible for the person who is barred and so what is between him and them is cancelled for him, but there is nothing preventing him from shaving: he is able to do it. When he is able to do something it is not cancelled for him. Part of what indicates that someone barred must still shave their head, in the same way as someone who reaches the House must, is the words of Allah: ‘Do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached the place of sacrifice.’ There is also what is related about the Messenger of Allah ﷺ supplicating three times for those who shave their heads but only once for those who shorten their hair. This is the definitive proof and sound view regarding this matter. It is what Mālik and his people believe. They believe that shaving the head is one of the practices owed by the ḥajjī which complete his ḥajj, and they are also due from someone who misses the ḥajj, someone barred by the enemy or prevented by illness.

The imams related from Nāfi‘ from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘O Allah, forgive those who shave their heads.’ They said, ‘And those who shorten their hair, Messenger of Allah!’ He said, ‘O Allah, forgive those who shave their heads.’ They said, ‘And those who shorten their hair, Messenger of Allah!’ He said, ‘and those who shorten their hair.’ Our scholars say that this is a supplication by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ three times for those who have shaved and only once for those who shortened their hair. It is evidence that it is better to shave than shorten the hair in the ḥajj and ‘umrah. That is stipulated by Allah’s words in the āyah where there is no mention of shortening the hair. With the exception of something mentioned by al-Ḥasan about obliging shaving in the first ḥajj that a person makes, scholars are, however, agreed that shortening the hair is permitted for men.

Women do not shave their heads. Their sunnah is to shorten the hair since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Women do not have to shave off their hair. They shorten it.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it from Ibn ‘Abbās. Scholars agree on that position. Some people think that a woman shaving her hair amounts to mutilation. There is disagreement about the amount which should be cut. Ibn ‘Umar, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq said that it is a fingertip length from every lock. ‘Aṭā’ says it is the length of three fingers when put together. Qatādah says a third or a quarter. Ḥafṣah bint Sīrīn says that a woman who is older should cut a quarter and a young woman only a little. Mālik says that it should be cut all round but that whatever a woman removes is adequate; all her locks, however, must be trimmed. Ibn al-Mundhir said that it is anything that can be called ‘shortening’, but it is more cautious to take a fingertip from every lock.

No one is permitted to shave his head until his sacrifice has been slaughtered. That is because it is sunnah to slaughter before shaving. This āyah is the basis for that along with what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did. He slaughtered first and then shaved after that. If someone reverses this order, he has either done so in error and ignorance or intentionally. If it is the first case, then he owes nothing. Ibn Ḥabīb related that from Ibn al-Qāsim and it is well known in the school of Mālik. Ibn al-Mājishūn said that he owes a sacrifice, and that is what is stated by Abū Ḥanīfah. As for the second case, Qāḍī Abu-l-Ḥasan related that it is permitted to shave the head before sacrificing. Ash-Shāfi‘ī also said that. The apparent position in the School is that it is forbidden. What is sound is that it is permitted based on the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās in which the Prophet ﷺ was asked about slaughtering, shaving and stoning and a change in the order. He said, ‘There is no harm in it.’ Muslim related it. Ibn Mājah transmitted from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about someone who slaughtered before shaving or shaving before slaughtering and he said, ‘There is no harm in it.’

There is no disagreement that shaving the head in the ḥajj is a recommended practice and permitted in other than the ḥajj, although some disagree and say that in that case it is mutilation. If it had been mutilation it would not have been permitted in the ḥajj or anywhere else because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade mutilation. He shaved the heads of the sons of Ja‘far three days after their father was killed. If shaving had not been permitted, he would not have done it. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib used to shave his head. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that scholars agree about tying the hair and allowing shaving it. This is enough of a proof. Success is by Allah.

If any of you are ill or have a head injury, the expiation is fasting or ṣadaqah or sacrifice when you are safe and well again.

‘If any of you’: some Shāfi‘ī scholars say that this phrase definitely indicates that the one who is ‘prevented’ at the beginning of the āyah refers to people barred by an enemy and not by illness since, if that was not the case, there would be no need for the repetition here. If someone has something harmful on his head, he must pay fidyah. The application of the āyah does not necessarily follow in the context. The pronouns at the end refer back to what was mentioned at the beginning. Part of what indicates that is the reason for its revelation. The imams relate about Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah when the Prophet ﷺ saw lice dropping from his hair onto his face and said, ‘Perhaps your head is causing you harm?’ He commanded him to shave his head at Ḥudaybīyah while they were still hoping to enter Makkah. Then Allah revealed fidyah (expiation) and the Prophet ﷺ commanded him to feed six poor people, sacrifice a sheep or fast three days.

Al-Awzā‘ī said that if someone in iḥrām has something harmful on his head, it is enough for him to expiate it by fidyah before shaving his head. According to this, the āyah means ‘if he wants to shave.’ So anyone who shaves owes fidyah which he does not pay until he shaves. Allah knows best.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says, ‘The sacrifice, in this case, is a sheep and there is no disagreement about that. There is disagreement about the amount of fasting and feeding. Most Muslim scholars believe that the fast is for three days, as is found in the sound ḥadīth from Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah. Al-Ḥasan. ‘Ikrimah and Nāfi‘ say that it is ten days. None of the fuqahā’ of the cities or the imams of ḥadīth take this position.’ It is transmitted by Abu-z-Zubayr from Mujāhid from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān that Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah told him that he went into iḥrām in Dhu-l-Qa‘dah and his head was full of lice. He went to the Prophet ﷺ who was heating a pot over a fire. He ﷺ said to him, ‘It seems that the vermin on your head are causing you harm.’ ‘Yes,’ he answered. He said, ‘Shave and make a sacrifice.’ He said, ‘I do not have the means to sacrifice.’ He said, ‘Then feed ten poor people.’ He replied, ‘I do not have the means.’ He said, ‘Fast for three days.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The ḥadīth would give the impression that there is an order in the three alternatives, but is not the case. If this had been sound, it would be first one, then the other, but most of the reports from Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah use the word ‘choice’. That is the text of the Qur’an and it is how the scholars in every city acted and that was their fatwā. Success is by Allah.

Scholars disagree about how much food is required for the fidyah on account of this harm. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and their people said that the feeding required is two mudds measured by the mudd of the Prophet ﷺ. That is the view of Abū Thawr and Dāwud. It is related that ath-Thawrī said that fidyah is half a ṣā‘ of wheat or a ṣā‘ of dates, barley or raisins. It is also related that Abū Ḥanīfah made half a ṣā‘ of wheat equal to a ṣā‘ of dates. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘This is an error because in some reports the Prophet ﷺ said to Ka‘b, ‘Give as ṣadaqah three ṣā‘s of dates to six poor people.’ Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal once said what Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī said, and another time: ‘He should feed each poor person with a mudd of wheat or half a ṣā‘ of dates.’ Feeding poor people a midday and evening meal does not satisfy the requirement in the expiation for removal of harm. It is necessary to give each poor person two mudds measured by the mudd of the Prophet ﷺ. That is what is stated by Mālik, ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. Abū Yūsuf, however, said that it is enough to feed them a midday and evening meal.

The consensus of the people of knowledge is that someone in iḥrām is forbidden to shave his hair or cut it or eliminate it in any way it by shaving or depilation or anything else, except in case of illness as the Qur’an states. They agree that fidyah is mandatory for someone who shaves while in iḥrām without reason. They disagree about someone who does that or puts on perfume deliberately without an excuse. Mālik said, ‘What he has done is bad! He owes fidyah and can choose how to pay it. It is the same whether that is deliberate or accidental, due to necessity or not.’ Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī, their people, and Abū Thawr say that there is no choice except when it was due to necessity, based on this āyah. So when he shaves his head deliberately or puts on perfume deliberately without an excuse, then he has no choice and only owes a sacrifice. They disagree about someone who does that out of forgetfulness. Mālik said that the one who does it deliberately or does it forgetfully are the same with respect to the obligation of fidyah. That is also the view of Abū Ḥanīfah, ath-Thawrī and al-Layth. Ash-Shāfi‘ī has two views about it. One is that he owes no fidyah and that is the view of Dāwud and Isḥāq. The second view is that he owes fidyah.

Most scholars oblige fidyah for a man in iḥrām who wears stitched clothing, covers all or part of his head, wears leather socks, cuts his nails, touches perfume, and removes harm. That is also the case if he shaves his body or daubs it, or shaves cupping sites. A woman is like a man in that respect. She must pay fidyah for using kohl, even if there is no perfume in it. A man may use kohl if there is no perfume in it. A woman owes fidyah if she covers her face or wears gloves. The intentional, forgetful and ignorant are the same regarding that. Some scholars oblige a sacrifice for people who do any of those things. Dāwud said that they owe nothing for shaving body hair.

Scholars disagree about the place where this fidyah should take place. ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘Sacrifices should be done in Makkah, while feeding or fasting can be done whenever the person wishes.’ The same is stated by the People of Opinion. Al-Ḥasan said that sacrificing must be done in Makkah. Ṭāwūs and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that both feeding and sacrificing may only be done in Makkah, while fasting can be done wherever one wishes, because the people of the Ḥaram get no benefit from fasting. Allah Almighty says: ‘a sacrifice to reach the Ka‘bah.’ (5:95) It is a comfort for poor people in the vicinity of His House. Feeding is beneficial there which is not the case with fasting. Allah knows best. Mālik said, ‘He can do that wherever he wishes.’ It is a sound view and it is the view of Mujāhid. According to Mālik, slaughtering is a practice but a sacrifice is not, based on the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Practices can be done anywhere but sacrifices may only be done at Makkah. Part of his argument is what is related from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd in the Muwaṭṭā’: ‘‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib ordered that Ḥusayn’s head should be shaved and then he offered a sacrifice on his behalf, killing a camel for him.’ Mālik said that Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd said, ‘Ḥusayn had set out with ‘Uthmān on that particular journey to Makkah.’

This is the clearest evidence that fidyah for injury can be fulfilled outside of Makkah. If the sacrifice is slaughtered in the Ḥaram, Mālik permits it to be given to people outside of the Ḥaram, since the object of it is to feed poor Muslims. Mālik said, ‘Since it is permitted to do the fast outside the Ḥaram, it is also permitted to feed other than the people of the Ḥaram.’ Allah’s words: ‘If any of you are ill…’, clarify the proof of what we have said. In this āyah, He does not mention a specific place. So the literal meaning is that wherever a person does that, it satisfies the requirement. Allah uses ‘nusuk’ as a term for what is slaughtered and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ also used that term for it rather than saying ‘hady’. Therefore we are not obliged to treat it as analogous to ‘hady’ nor designate it as such in spite of what has come about that from ‘Alī. Furthermore, when the Prophet ﷺ commanded Ka‘b to do fidyah, he was not in the Ḥaram and therefore it is valid for all of that to take place outside of the Ḥaram. The same as this is related from ash-Shāfi‘ī.

‘Nusuk’ is the plural of nasīkah which is a slaughtered animal that someone offers (nasaka) to Allah. Nusk is basic worship. An example of that usage is Allah’s words: ‘Show us our rites (manāsik)’.’ (2:128) It is said that the linguistic root of nusk is washing and the verb is used for washing a garment. So it is as if a person washes himself of the filth of sins by worship. It is also said that nask are silver ingots, each of which is nasīkah.

It is said that the words ‘when you are safe’ mean ‘when you have recovered from your illness’. It is said that they mean ‘safe from fear of the enemy’, as Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah said. That is more in keeping with the expression used, because no one can ever be free from fear of illness to the extent that it is possible to feel entirely safe from it, and Allah knows best.

Anyone who comes out of iḥrām between ‘umrah and ḥajj should make whatever sacrifice is feasible.

Scholars disagree about who is being referred to in this phrase. ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr, ‘Alqamah and Ibrāhīm say that the āyah is about those who are forcibly prevented and cannot go on. According to Ibn az-Zubayr the situation referred to is when someone is held up until he misses the ḥajj and then reaches the House after it has passed and assumes iḥrām for ‘umrah and then performs ḥajj in the following year to make up for the one he missed. This joins his ‘umrah to the ḥajj of making up. Others say that the situation referred to is when someone is detained and then delays ‘umrah until the following year and does it in the months of ḥajj and performs ḥajj in the same year. Ibn ‘Abbās and others said that this āyah is about both those who are barred and others who are able to continue.

There is no disagreement among scholars that ḥajj involving a temporary removal of iḥrām (tamattu‘), ḥajj on its own (ifrād) and ḥajj and ‘umrah combined (qirān) are all permitted because Prophet ﷺ declared himself happy with all of them. He did not object to the ḥajj of any of his Companions, but allowed it for them and was pleased with them. Scholars do, however, disagree about which of them the Messenger of Allah ﷺ adopted when performing his own ḥajj and which is the best, all based on different ḥadīths that have been reported. Some, including Malik, said that ifrād is better the qirān and qirān is better than tamattu’, because the Prophet ﷺ did ifrād. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he said, “Whoever among you wants to go into iḥrām for ḥajj and ‘umrah should do so. Whoever wants to go into iḥrām for ḥajj alone should do so. Whoever wants to go into iḥrām for ‘umrah should do so.”’ ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went into iḥrām for ḥajj and some people did so with him, while others assumed iḥrām for ḥajj and ‘umrah and yet others assumed iḥrām for ‘umrah. I was one of those who assumed iḥrām for ‘umrah.’ A group related it from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father from ‘Ā’ishah. Some of them say that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘As for myself, I have assumed iḥrām for ḥajj.’ This is a text used in the topic of this dispute. It is the argument of those who say that ifrād is better. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan related that Mālik said, ‘Since two different ḥadīths have come from the Prophet ﷺ, and we heard that Abū Bakr and ‘Umar acted on one of the two ḥadīths and left the other, that provides evidence that truth lies in what they did.’ Abū Thawr also preferred ifrād and thought it better than tamattu‘ and qirān. It one of two positions reported from ash-Shāfi‘ī and it is well known from him.

Others prefer tamattu’, because it is mentioned in the Book, and said that it is better. That is the school of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar and ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr and is the view of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and it is the other position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, “I preferred ifrād, but tamattu‘ is good and we do not dislike it.”’ The argument of those who prefer tamattu‘ is found in what Muslim related from ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn who said, ‘The āyah of tamattu‘ was revealed in the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded us to do it. Then nothing was revealed to supersede it and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not forbid us to do it before he died. Afterwards a man would say whatever he wished about it based on his own opinion.’ At-Tirmidhī related from Qutaybah ibn Sa‘īd from Mālik ibn Anas from Ibn Shihāb from Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Nawfal who, in the year that Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān made ḥajj, heard Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Qays mentioning tamattu‘, ‘umrah joined to ḥajj. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Qays said, ‘He only did that out of ignorance of Allah’s command!’ Sa‘d retorted. ‘What you have said is bad, nephew!’ Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb forbade that!’ Sa‘d answered, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did it and we did it with him.’ This is a sound ḥadīth.

Ibn Isḥāq related from az-Zuhrī that Sālim said, ‘I was sitting in the mosque with Ibn ‘Umar when a man from Syria came and asked him about tamattu‘. Ibn ‘Umar said, “Fine and good.” The man said, “Your father used to forbid it.” Ibn ‘Umar retorted, “Woe to you! If my father forbade it, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did it and commanded it to be done. Should I take the position of my father or the command of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ? Leave me.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it, and Abū ‘Īsā at-Tirmidhī transmitted it from the ḥadīth of Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān from Ibn Shihāb from Sālim. It is related from Layth from Ṭāwūs that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān performed tamattu‘. Mu‘āwiyah was the first to forbid it.’ It is a ḥasan ḥadīth. Abū ‘Umar said that this ḥadīth of Layth is munkar. He is Layth ibn Abī Sulaym and is weak. What is well known is that ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān forbade tamattu‘.

One group of scholars claim that the form of tamattu‘ that ‘Umar forbade and nullified was to add ḥajj to ‘umrah. That was not the case in adding ‘umrah to ḥajj. Those who say that it is correct that ‘Umar forbade tamattu‘ state that he forbade it so that people would seek their provision at the House twice or more in the same year so that there would be more visitors to it outside the Festival. He wanted to be kind to the people of the Ḥaram in respect of people’s visits, to bring about the supplication of Ibrāhīm: ‘Make the hearts of mankind incline towards them.’ (14:37) Others say that he forbade it because he saw that people were inclining to tamattu‘ because it was easy and he feared that ifrād and qirān would be lost when they are two sunnahs of the Prophet ﷺ. In defence of his preference for tamattu‘, Aḥmad cited the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Had I known what I know now, I would not have brought sacrificial camels and I would have made it ‘umrah.’ The imams have transmitted it.

Others prefer qirān, and they include Abū Ḥanīfah and ath-Thawrī. Al-Muzanī said that the reason for that it is that it is performing two obligations together. That is what Isḥāq said. Isḥāq said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did qirān, and it is the position of ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. The argument for those who recommend and prefer qirān is what al-Bukhārī related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. He said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say in the valley of ‘Aqīq, “In the night someone came to me from my Lord and said, ‘Pray in this blessed valley and say, ‘‘Umrah in ḥajj.’”’ At-Tirmidhī related that Anas heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘At Your service for ‘umrah and ḥajj.’ He said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Allah willing, ifrād is better because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did ifrād. That is why we say that ifrād is better. The traditions about his ifrād are sounder because ifrād has more actions and ‘umrah is another action.” Abū Ja‘far an-Naḥḥās said, ‘Ifrād has more followers than tamattu‘ because one remains in iḥrām. That has a greater reward.’ The way that the ḥadīths are brought into agreement with one another is that because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded ifrād and qirān, it is permitted to say that Messenger of Allah ﷺ did tamattu‘ and qirān in the same way that Allah says: ‘Pharaoh called to his people.’ (43:51) ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘We stoned and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stoned. He commanded stoning.’

What is most evident is that the ḥajj of the Prophet ﷺ was qirān. He performed qirān according to the ḥadīths of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and Anas that we have mentioned. We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Bakr that Anas said, ‘I heard the Prophet ﷺ say the talbiyyah for ḥajj and ‘umrah together.’ Bakr said, ‘I related that to Ibn ‘Umar and he said, “He said the talbiyyah for ḥajj alone.” I met Anas and told him what Ibn ‘Umar had said and Anas said, “You are treating us as children! I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘At Your service for ‘umrah and ḥajj!’”’ We also find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ adopted iḥrām for ‘umrah and the people adopted iḥrām for ḥajj. Neither the Prophet ﷺ nor his Companions who had brought sacrificial camels came out of iḥrām while the rest of them did.’ Some of the people of knowledge say that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did qirān. When he did qirān, he did ḥajj and ‘umrah. Therefore the ḥadīths agree.

An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Part of the best of what is said about this is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ adopted iḥrām for ‘umrah and those who saw him said, “He is performing tamattu‘.” Then he adopted iḥrām for ḥajj and those who saw him said, “He is performing ifrād.” Then he said, “At Your service for ḥajj and ‘umrah.” Those who heard him said, “Qirān.” So the ḥadīths agree. The evidence for this is that no one related that the Prophet ﷺ said, “I did ḥajj ifrād” or “I did tamattu‘.” It is, however, valid that he said, “I did qirān,” as an-Nasā’ī related from ‘Alī. He said, “I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he asked me, ‘What did you do?’ I answered, ‘I adopted iḥrām according to your iḥrām.’ He said, ‘I have brought sacrificial camels and am doing qirān.’” He said that he remarked to his Companions, “Had I known what I know now, I would have done what you did, but I have brought sacrificial camels and am performing qirān.” It is confirmed that Ḥafṣah said, ‘I said, “Messenger of Allah, why have people come out of their iḥrām when you have not?” He answered, “I matted my hair and drove my sacrificial animals and so I will not come out of iḥrām until you slaughter.”’ This makes it clear that he was doing qirān because if he had been doing tamattu‘ or ifrād, he would not have been prevented from slaughtering the sacrifices.

An-Naḥḥās mentioned that no one related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I did ḥajj ifrād’, while it is related that ‘Ā’ishah said that he said, ‘I have assumed iḥrām for ḥajj.’ This means that he was doing ifrād although it is possible that he had assumed iḥrām for ‘umrah and then said, ‘I have assumed iḥrām for ḥajj.’ Part of what clarifies this is what Muslim related from Ibn ‘Umar: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ began and adopted iḥrām for ‘umrah and then adopted iḥrām for ḥajj.’ So his words about adopting iḥrām for ḥajj are not evidence for ifrād. His words, ‘I am doing qirān’ remain. Anas, his servant, said that he heard him say, ‘At Your service for ḥajj and ‘umrah together.’ This is a clear text for qirān not subject to interpretation. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Qatādah that his father said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ combined ḥajj and ‘umrah because he knew that he would not perform ḥajj after that.’

As we stated, ifrād, tamattu‘ and qirān are all permitted by consensus. According to scholars, there are four forms of tamattu‘. There is agreement about one of them and disagreement about the other three. The one on which there is agreement is the tamattu‘ meant by the words of the Almighty: ‘Anyone who comes out of iḥrām between ‘umrah and ḥajj should make whatever sacrifice is feasible.’ That is when a man adopts iḥrām for ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj, as will be explained, and is not from Makkah. He comes to Makkah and finishes it and then remains in Makkah, not in iḥrām, until the ḥajj begins in that year before he has returned home or before he goes to the mīqāt of the people of his region. When he does that, he is performing tamattu‘ and owes what Allah has obliged for someone performing tamattu‘: a feasible sacrifice which he slaughters and gives to the poor at Minā or Makkah. If he cannot do that, then he fasts for three days and seven when he returns home. There is consensus that he does not fast on the Day of Sacrifice. There is disagreement about fasting the days of Tashrīq.

This is the consensus of the people of knowledge, past and present, about tamattu‘. It has eight preconditions. The first is that someone combines ḥajj and ‘umrah. The second is that it is on the same journey. The third is that is in the same year. The fourth is that it is in the months of ḥajj. The fifth is that ‘umrah is done first. The sixth is that it is not mixed, but the iḥrām for ḥajj comes after finishing ‘umrah. The seventh is that both ‘umrah and ḥajj are for the same person, and the eighth is that he is not from Makkah. If you reflect, you will see that these are preconditions for the ruling of tamattu‘.

The second form of tamattu‘ is basically qirān. It is that someone combines them in the same iḥrām and assumes iḥrām for both of them together in the months of ḥajj or some other time. He says, ‘At Your service for both ḥajj and ‘umrah.’ When he reaches Makkah, he does one ṭawāf for his ḥajj and ‘umrah and one sa‘y for both according to those who think that it can be done. They are Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and their people, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr. It is the school of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, al-Ḥasan, Mujāhid and Ṭāwūs, based on the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah: ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on the Farewell Ḥajj and we adopted iḥrām for ‘umrah…’ It says in it, ‘Those who combined ḥajj and ‘umrah did one ṭawāf.’ Al-Bukhārī transmitted it. On the Day of Nafr, he ﷺ said to ‘Ā’ishah when she had not done ṭawāf of the House and menstruated, ‘Your ṭawāf and sa‘y are for both your ḥajj and ‘umrah.’ One variant has: ‘Your going between Ṣafā and Marwah satisfies both your ḥajj and ‘umrah.’ Muslim transmitted it.

Or one does two ṭawāfs and two sa‘ys according to the opinion of those who think that, namely Abū Ḥanịfah and his people, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ and Ibn Abī Laylā. It is related from ‘Alī and Ibn Mas‘ūd. That is the view of ash-Sha‘bī and Jābir ibn Zayd. They argue by the ḥadīths about ‘Alī combining ḥajj and ‘umrah and doing two ṭawāfs and two sa‘ys for them. Then he said, ‘That is how I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ act.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted both of them in his Sunan and considered them weak. He made qirān part of tamattu‘ because the one doing qirān is enjoying (tamatta‘a) lack of fatigue in travelling to perform ‘umrah once and to perform ḥajj once, and enjoying combining them. He does not have to assume iḥrām for each of them from his mīqāt. By adding ḥajj to ‘umrah he falls under the words of the Almighty: ‘Anyone who comes out of iḥrām between ‘umrah and ḥajj should make whatever sacrifice is feasible.’

This is a form of tamattu‘ that is permitted by scholars without any dispute. The people of Madīnah do not permit joining ‘umrah and ḥajj unless the person brings a sacrificial camel with him. They believe that it must be a camel and nothing less. Part of what indicates that qirān is tamattu‘ is the view of Ibn ‘Umar. He made tamattu‘ exclusively for the people of all regions [outside Makkah] and recited: ‘That is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥaram.’ Therefore anyone who lives in the vicinity of the Masjid al-Ḥaram and does tamattu‘ or qirān does not owe the sacrifice of tamattu‘ or qirān. Mālik said, ‘I have not heard of a Makkan doing qirān. If he were to do it, he would not owe a sacrifice or fasting.’ Most fuqahā’ take Mālik’s view regarding that. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn said, ‘When a Makkan does qirān of ḥajj with ‘umrah, he does not owe the sacrifice for qirān because Allah has cancelled sacrifice and fasting in tamattu‘ for the people of Makkah.’

The third form of tamattu‘ is the one which ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb threatened. He said, ‘I forbid two types of tamattu‘ that were done in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I will punish people for them: the mu‘tah [marriage] with women and the mu‘tah of ḥajj.’ Scholars disagree about the permissibility of this. It is that a man adopts iḥrām for ḥajj and then, when he enters Makkah, his ḥajj is changed into ‘umrah. Then he comes out of iḥrām and remains so until he adopts iḥrām on the Day of Tarwīyah. This is the form which is reported by multiple transmissions from the Prophet ﷺ. In his ḥajj, he ordered those who did not have sacrifices with them and had adopted iḥrām for ḥajj to make it ‘umrah. Scholars agree on the soundness of the traditions that report that from him ﷺ. They did not reject any of them, but they disagree about taking it and acting on it. Most of them believe that it is not acted on because they believe that it was a specific case which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made for his Companions on that ḥajj. Abū Dharr said, ‘The mut‘ah for us was specifically on that ḥajj.’ Muslim transmitted it. One version has: ‘Two mu‘tahs were allowed only to us specifically,’ meaning the mu‘tah with women and the mu‘tah of ḥajj.

The pretext for its being special and the benefit in it is in what Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘They used to think that ‘umrah during the months of ḥajj was one of the most heinous actions anyone could do. They would consider al-Muḥarram to be Ṣafar and would say, ‘When the wounds on the back of the camel heal and the scar has gone and Ṣafar has passed, then ‘umrah is lawful for anyone who wants to perform it.” The Prophet ﷺ and his Companions arrived on the morning of the fourth of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah, having adopted iḥrām for the ḥajj and he told them to make it an ‘umrah. They thought that extraordinary and said, “Messenger of Allah, what sort of coming out of iḥrām is it?” He said, “A total coming out of iḥrām.”’ Muslim transmitted it. We find with a sound isnād of Abū Ḥātim that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘By Allah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ told ‘Ā’ishah to perform ‘umrah in Dhu-l-Ḥijjah in order by that to cut off the business of the people of shirk. This clan of Quraysh and those near them used to say, “When the wounds on the back of the camel heal and the scar has gone and Ṣafar has passed, then ‘umrah is lawful for anyone who wants to perform it.” They used to go into iḥrām for ‘umrah when Dhu-l-Ḥijjah had passed. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told ‘Ā’ishah to perform ‘umrah to annul that position of theirs.’

This contains proof that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ incorporated the ‘umrah into the ḥajj to show them that there was nothing wrong in performing ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj. That was something specifically for him and those with him because Allah Almighty issued a general command that whoever starts ḥajj or ‘umrah should complete them. One does not oppose the literal text of the Book of Allah, except in favour of something in the Book of Allah or a clarifying sunnah that abrogates it without ambiguity. Their argument is what we mentioned from Abū Dharr as well as the ḥadīth of al-Ḥārith ibn Bilāl whose father said, ‘We said, “Messenger of Allah, is the casting off of ḥajj something particularly for us or is it for people in general?” He replied, “It is particularly for us.”’ This is the position of the majority of the fuqahā’ of the Hijaz, Iraq and Syria except for something related from Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ḥasan and as-Suddī.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal stated it and said, ‘I will not deny those sound multiple transmissions of reports which come about casting ḥajj into ‘umrah based on the ḥadīth of al-Ḥārith ibn Bilāl from his father and the position of Abū Dharr.’ He did not make it particular. Aḥmad argued by the sound long ḥadīth of Jābir about the ḥajj. We find in it: ‘Had I known what I know now, I would not have brought sacrificial camels and I would have made it ‘umrah.’ Surāqah ibn Mālik ibn Ju‘shum stood up and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, is it specifically for this year or is it forever?’ The Messenger of ﷺ intertwined his fingers together and said twice, ‘‘Umrah has been incorporated into ḥajj.’

By Allah, I know that it is to this that al-Bukhārī inclined when he entitled a chapter: ‘Someone saying talbiyyah for ḥajj and specifying it.’ He gives the ḥadīth of Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh: ‘We came with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying, “At Your service, O Allah, for the ḥajj.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ instructed us to make it ‘umrah.’ Some people said that the command by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to come out of iḥrām came by a different path which Mujāhid mentioned: ‘The Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not make the ḥajj obligatory first. He commanded them to come completely out of iḥrām and to wait for what they were commanded. That is the same with the iḥrām of ‘Alī in Yemen and the same with the iḥrām of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. It is indicated by his words, ‘Had I known what I know now, I would not have brought sacrificial camels and I would have made it ‘umrah.’ So it is as if he ﷺ went out waiting for what he was commanded and then commanded his Companions to do that. That is also indicated by his words, ‘In the night someone came to me from my Lord and said, “Pray in this blessed valley and say, ‘‘Umrah in ḥajj.’”’

The fourth form of tamattu‘ is that of someone who is prevented from reaching the House. Ya‘qūb ibn Shaybah mentioned from Abū Salamah at-Tabūdhakī from Wuhayb from Isḥāq ibn Suwayd who heard ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr say in a khuṭbah: ‘People! By Allah, tamattu‘, joining ‘umrah into ḥajj, is not as you do, but tamattu‘ is that a man sets out on ḥajj and is detained by the enemy until the days of ḥajj have passed. Then he reaches the House and does ṭawāf and runs between Ṣafā and Marwah and then enjoys being out of iḥrām until the following year when he performs ḥajj and sacrifices.’

Someone hindered by the enemy has already been dealt with. An element of his position is that someone hindered does not come out of iḥrām, but rather remains in it until he slaughters the sacrifice on the Day of Sacrifice. Then he shaves but remains in iḥrām until he reaches Makkah and then comes out of iḥrām for ḥajj by the actions of ‘umrah. What Ibn az-Zubayr mentioned is counter to the undefined nature of this āyah. Allah did not make a distinction between ḥajj and ‘umrah in the ruling of someone prevented from completing it. When the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions were stopped at Ḥudaybīyah, they came out iḥrām as he did. He commanded them to do so.

Scholars also disagree about the reason for saying that someone is doing tamattu‘. Ibn al-Qāsim said that he is called that because he can enjoy (tamatta‘a) all that it is not permitted for someone in iḥrām to do from the time he comes out of his iḥrām until he starts ḥajj. Others say that he is called that because he enjoys not having to make one of two journeys as it is the due of ‘umrah to be the object of a journey and the same is true of ḥajj. When he enjoys the cancellation of one of them, then he owes a sacrifice to Allah as is also the case with someone doing qirān who combines ḥajj and ‘umrah in the same journey. The first position is more universal: he can enjoy all that someone not in iḥrām can do and he does not have to make another journey from his land to perform ḥajj, and he does not have to return to his mīqāt to adopt iḥrām from for ḥajj.

This is what ‘Umar and Ibn Mas‘ūd disliked. One or both of them said, ‘One of you comes to Minā with his penis dripping with semen.’ However, the Muslims agree that that is permitted. A group of scholars said that ‘Umar disliked it because he preferred to visit the House twice in the year: once on ḥajj and once for ‘umrah. He thought that ifrād was better and commanded it and inclined to it. His forbidding other forms of ḥajj was a recommendation. That is why he said, ‘Separate your ḥajj and your ‘umrah. It is more complete for your ḥajj to do that; and it is more complete for your ‘umrah to perform it outside of the months of ḥajj.’

Scholars disagree about someone who performs ‘umrah in the month of ḥajj, returns home to his house and then performs ḥajj in the same year. Most scholars say that in that case he is not performing tamattu‘ and does not owe a sacrifice or fasting. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, however, said that he is performing tamattu‘ if he returns to his family, whether or not he performs ḥajj. He stated that it is because ‘umrah during the months of ḥajj is necessarily tamattu‘. Hushaym related that from Yūnus from al-Ḥasan. He also related from Yūnus from al-Ḥasan that the person doing that does not owe a sacrifice. The sound position is the first one. That is what was stated by Abū ‘Umar: ‘…whether or not he performs ḥajj.’ Ibn al-Mundhir did not mention it, but said that his ḥajj is based on the literal words of the Book: ‘Anyone who comes out of iḥrām between ‘umrah and ḥajj…’. There is no exception made for someone who returns to his family or does not return. If Allah had intended that, He would have explained it in His Book or on the tongue of His Messenger ﷺ.

A similar position to that of al-Ḥasan is related from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Also related from al-Ḥasan regarding this topic is a position that no one follows and none of the people of knowledge adopt. He said that someone who performs ‘umrah on the Day of Sacrifice is doing tamattu‘. Two views are related from Ṭāwūs that are even more aberrant than what we have mentioned from al-Ḥasan. One is that someone who performs ‘umrah outside the months of ḥajj, then stays until the time of ḥajj and does ḥajj in the same year, is performing tamattu‘. He is the only scholar to say this and none of the fuqahā’ of any region believe it. Allah knows best, but that is because the months of ḥajj are more proper for ḥajj than they are for ‘umrah because ‘umrah is permitted throughout the entire year. The place of the ḥajj is in known months. If someone does ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj, he has put it in a place to which ḥajj is more entitled, although in His Book and on the tongue of His Messenger ﷺ Allah made an allowance for doing ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj if someone is performing tamattu‘ or qirān, and for someone who does ifrād, out of mercy from Him. He assigned a feasible sacrifice for doing it. The other form is what is said about a Makkan when he does tamattu‘ from one the regions: he owes a sacrifice. One does not turn to this because of the literal meaning of His words: “That is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥaram.”’ One group of scholars permit tamattu‘ with the preconditions we have explained. Success is by Allah.

Scholars agree that if a man, who is not from the people of Makkah, performs ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj with the resolve to remain there and then begins ḥajj in that year, that is tamattu‘, and he owes what someone performing tamattu‘ owes. They agree that when a Makkan comes from outside the mīqāt in iḥrām for ‘umrah and then begins ḥajj from Makkah while his family is in Makkah and it is his only residence, he owes no sacrifice. That is also the case if he lives elsewhere as well as living there and has family both in Makkah and outside of Makkah. They agree that if he moves with his family from Makkah and then comes performing ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj and stays there until ḥajj that year, he is performing tamattu‘.

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīifah and their people, ath-Thawrī and Abū Thawr agree that someone performing tamattu‘ does ṭawāf of the House for ‘umrah and runs between Ṣafā and Marwah and after that does another ṭawāf and sa‘y for ḥajj. It is related from ‘Aṭā’ and Ṭāwūs that it is enough to do one sa‘y between Ṣafā and Marwah. They disagree about someone who starts his ‘umrah outside the months of ḥajj and then finishes it during the months of ḥajj. Mālik said that his ‘umrah is in the month in which it occurred. He means that if it occurs outside the months of ḥajj, it is not tamattu‘, but if it occurs in the months of ḥajj, then he is performing tamattu‘ if he does ḥajj in the same year. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If someone does ṭawāf of the House in the months of ḥajj, he is performing tamattu‘ if he performs ḥajj in the same year.’ That is because ‘umrah is completed by ṭawāf of the House. One considers its completion. That is the view of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah Ibn Shurumah and Sufyān ath-Thawrī.

Qatādah, Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that his ‘umrah is attached to the month in which he assumed iḥrām. That idea is also related from Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh. Ṭāwūs said that his ‘umrah is attached to the month in which he enters the Ḥaram. The People of Opinion said that if someone does four circuits of ṭawāf in Ramadan and three in Shawwāl, he is not doing tamattu‘. Abū Thawr said, ‘If he starts ‘umrah outside of the months of ḥajj, it is the same whether he does ṭawāf in Ramadan or in Shawwāl: he is not doing tamattu‘ in this ‘umrah.’ That is the meaning of the statement of Aḥmad and Isḥāq: his ‘umrah is attached to the month in which he assumes iḥrām.

The people of knowledge agree that someone who adopts iḥrām for ‘umrah in the months of ḥajj and does not add ḥajj to it until he begins ṭawāf of the House is by that token doing qirān. He is under the same obligation as that of someone who begins ḥajj and ‘umrah together. They disagree about adding ḥajj to ‘umrah after he has begun ṭawāf. Mālik said, ‘That binds him and he becomes someone performing qirān as long as he has not finished ṭawāf.’ Something similar is related from Abū Ḥanīfah. It is well known from him that it is only permitted to add ḥajj before he begins ṭawāf. It was said that he can add ḥajj to ‘umrah as long as he has not prayed the two rak‘ahs of ṭawāf. All of that is the position of Mālik and his people.

If someone performing ‘umrah has done one circuit for his ‘umrah and then adopts iḥrām for ḥajj, he is performing qirān; the rest of his ‘umrah is cancelled for him and he owes the sacrifice of qirān. That is also the case if someone adopts iḥrām for ḥajj during ṭawāf or after it but before praying the two rak‘ahs. Some of them say that he can add ḥajj to ‘umrah as long as he has not completed sa‘y between Ṣafā and Marwah. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The people of knowledge consider all of this aberrant.’ Ashhab said, ‘When he has done one circuit for ‘umrah, he is not obliged to adopt iḥrām and he is not doing qirān. He continues with his ‘umrah until he finishes it and then adopts iḥrām for ḥajj. This is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī and ‘Aṭā’. Abū Thawr also said that.’

They disagree about adding ‘umrah to ḥajj. Mālik, Abū Thawr and Isḥāq said that ‘umrah may not be added to ḥajj, and if someone adds ‘umrah to ḥajj, it counts for nothing. Mālik said that and it is one of the views of ash-Shāfi‘ī. It was known from him in Egypt. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and ash-Shāfi‘ī in his old school says that he becomes someone performing qirān and owes what he owes as long as he has not done one circuit of his ṭawāf for ḥajj. He cannot do it if he has done ṭawāf because he has done his ḥajj. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I take the view of Mālik regarding this question.’

Mālik said, ‘If someone has slaughtered an animal for ‘umrah and is performing tamattu‘, that does not cover what he owes. He owes another sacrifice for tamattu‘ because that is what he is doing when he begins ḥajj after he has come out of iḥrām for ‘umrah: a sacrifice is obliged for him. Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Thawr and Isḥāq said that he should only slaughter his sacrifice on the Day of Sacrifice. Aḥmad said, ‘If someone doing tamattu‘ arrives before the tenth, he does ṭawāf, sa‘y and sacrifices. If he comes in the ten days, then he only sacrifices on the Day of Sacrifice.’ ‘Aṭā’ said that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘He comes out of iḥrām for ‘umrah when he does ṭawāf and sa‘y whether or not he bas brought a sacrificial animal.’

Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī disagree about what happens when someone doing tamattu‘ dies. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘When he adopts iḥrām for ḥajj, then he owes the sacrifice of tamattu‘ if he can afford that.’ Az-Za‘frānī related it from him. Ibn Wahb related that Mālik was asked whether someone performing tamattu‘, who dies at ‘Arafah or elsewhere after having adopted iḥrām for ḥajj, owed a sacrifice. He said, ‘If anyone dies before stoning the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah, I do not think that he owes a sacrifice. If someone stones the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah and then dies, he owes a sacrifice.’ He was asked if it was paid from the capital or from the third [for bequests] and said that it was paid from the capital.

For any one who cannot, there is three days’ fast on ḥajj and seven on your return – that is ten in all.

Anyone who should sacrifice but is unable to do so due to lack of money or lack of animals, must fast for three days during the ḥajj and seven when he returns home. The three days are the three days up to and including the Day of ‘Arafah. This is the position of Ṭāwūs and it is related from ash-Sha‘bī, ‘Aṭā’, Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, an-Nakha‘ī, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, ‘Alqamah, ‘Amr ibn Dīnār and the People of Opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir related it. Abū Thawr reports that Abū Ḥanīfah says that a person may also fast the prescribed days during the time he is in iḥrām for ‘umrah because it is one of the two iḥrāms of tamattu‘ and so it is permitted to fast these days in the iḥrām for ‘umrah in the same way as it is in the iḥrām for ḥajj. It is also reported from Abū Ḥanīfah and his people that the day before the day of Tarwiyah (7th Dhu-l-Ḥijjah) should be fasted, then the Day of Tarwiyah and then the Day of ‘Arafah.

Ibn ‘Abbās and Mālik ibn Anas say that the three days may be fasted at any time from the time someone assumes iḥrām for ḥajj until the Day of Sacrifice because Allah says: ‘three day’s fast on ḥajj’. If they are fasted on ‘umrah, it is before the time and so it is not allowed. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Ibn Ḥanbal say that the days may be fasted at any time between adopting iḥrām for ḥajj up until the day of ‘Arafah, which is the position of Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ā’ishah. This is also related from Mālik and is stated in the Muwaṭṭā’, and it is in order to avoid fasting on the Day of ‘Arafah. That is following the Sunnah and more conducive to worship. Aḥmad also said that it is possible to fast the three days before adopting iḥrām (but during Dhu-l-Ḥijjah). Ath-Thawrī and al-Awzā‘ī said that the days may be fasted from the beginning of the first ten days of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. ‘Aṭā’ said that. ‘Urwah said that the days may be fasted as long as one remains in Makkah and during the days of Minā, and Mālik and a group of the people of Madīnah also took that view.

The days of Minā are the three days of Tashrīq following the Day of Sacrifice. Mālik related in the Muwaṭṭā’ that ‘Ā’ishah, the Mother of the Believers, said, ‘Someone performing tamattu’, who does not have a sacrificial animal, should fast [three days] during the period from the time he adopts iḥrām for the ḥajj till the Day of ‘Arafah, and if he does not fast then, should fast the days of Minā.’ These words show that it is good to fast between the time one adopts iḥrām for ḥajj tamattu‘ until the Day of ‘Arafah. He begins then, either because it is the proper time to do them, and the days of Minā after that are the time of making them up, as the people of ash-Shāfi‘ī say, or it is because doing the fasting before the Day of Sacrifice exonerates the person, and that is commanded. What is most apparent in the School is that doing that fulfils the requirement, even though fasting before it is better. It is like the latitude of the time of the prayer: the beginning of the time is better than the end of it. This is the sound position: it is performing the duty, not making it up.

‘Three days fast on ḥajj’ can refer to the locus of the ḥajj or the time of the ḥajj. If it means the actual days, this is a sound view because the last of the days of ḥajj is the Day of Sacrifice. It is also possible, however, that the last of the days are the days of stoning because stoning is one of the actions of the ḥajj in particular even if it is not one of its pillars. If what is meant is the locus of the ḥajj, he may fast the days as long as he is at Makkah during the days of Minā as ‘Urwah said and greatly stresses. Some people said that a person may delay starting them until the days of Tashrīq because fasting only becomes obligatory for him when he does not find a sacrifice on the Day of Sacrifice.

A group of the people of Madīnah and ash-Shāfi‘ī in his New School as well as most of his people believe that it is not permitted to fast the days of Minā because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade fasting them. The response to that is that if the prohibition is confirmed, it is general but was qualified by the fact of its permissibility for someone who is performing tamattu’, since it is confirmed in al-Bukhārī that ‘Ā’ishah fasted them. Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ā’ishah both said that there is no allowance to fast the days of Tashrīq unless someone has not brought sacrifices. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that its isnād is sound. It is related marfū‘ from Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ā’ishah via three paths of transmission which he considers to be weak. There is an allowance to fast them because only they remain of the days of ḥajj. Therefore it is mandatory for those without sacrificial animals to fast them. Ibn al-Mundhir related that ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said, ‘If someone fails to fast before, then he should fast after the days of Tashrīq.’ Al-Ḥasan and ‘Aṭā’ said that. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘That is what we say.’ One group say that if he fails to fast during the ten, then nothing but a sacrifice will satisfy the requirement. That is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Ṭāwūs, and Mujāhid. Abū ‘Umar related it from Abū Ḥanīfah and his people. Reflect on it.

Scholars agree that there is no way for someone performing tamattu‘ to fast if he is able to sacrifice. They disagree about what should happen when he does not find a sacrifice and so fasts, but then finds a sacrifice before his fast is complete. Ibn Wahb mentioned that Mālik said, ‘When he begins the fast and then finds a sacrifice, I prefer him to sacrifice. If he does not, the fast satisfies the requirement.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘He continues the fast. It is his obligation.’ That is also what Abū Thawr says and it is the view of al-Ḥasan and Qatādah. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it. Abū Ḥanīifah said, ‘If it becomes feasible on the third day of the fast, the fast is void and he must sacrifice. If he fasts three days in the ḥajj and then it becomes feasible, he can fast seven days and does not return to sacrifice.’ Ath-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Najīḥ and Ḥammād said that.

The words ‘your return’ mean when you return to your country as Ibn ‘Umar, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘, Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’ said. Mālik said that in the book of Muḥammad and ash-Shāfi‘ī stated that. Qatādah and ar-Rabī‘ said, ‘This is a dispensation from Allah Almighty. No one is obliged to fast the seven until he returns home unless there is a very strong reason, as is the case with someone who fasts while travelling in Ramadan. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that fasting on the road satisfies the requirement. This is also related from Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’. Mujāhid said, ‘If he wishes, he can fast on the road. This is a dispensation.’ That is similar to what ‘Ikrimah and al-Ḥasan said. However, some linguists say that the the phrase refers to when you leave iḥrām and return to the state you were in before. Mālik said, ‘When someone has returned from Minā, there is nothing wrong in fasting then.’ Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘It is a lightening and allowance. The consensus is that is permitted to bring forward the allowance and abandon the kindness in favour of resolve. If that has a time, there is no text on it and nothing explicit about it meaning a person’s own country, although that is what is normally understood.’

There is, however, something evident, which is close to a clarifying text, in Ibn ‘Umar’s words: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did tamattu‘ in the Farewell Ḥajj, with ‘umrah to ḥajj, and sacrificed. He drove the sacrificial camels with him from Dhu-l-Ḥulayfah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ first went into iḥrām for ‘umrah and then iḥrām for ḥajj. People did tamattu‘ with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Some people brought sacrificial camels with them and some did not. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ reached Makkah, he said to the people, “Any of you who have sacrificial camels, should not make lawful anything that was unlawful for you until you finish your ḥajj. Those of you who do not have sacrificial animals should do ṭawāf of the House, go between Ṣafā and Marwah, shorten their hair and come out of iḥrām. Then they should adopt iḥrām for ḥajj and sacrifice. Those who do not find any way to sacrifice should fast for three days on ḥajj and seven when they return to their family.”’ This is like a text for it not being permitted to fast the seven days except in one’s own country and family. Allah knows best.

That is similar to what al-Bukhārī reported from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘Then on the eve of Tarwīyah he told us to go into iḥrām for ḥajj. When we finished the rites, we came and did ṭawāf of the House and did sa‘y between Ṣafā and Marwah. Our ḥajj was complete and we had to sacrifice, in compliance with the words of Allah Almighty: “…he should make whatever sacrifice is feasible. For anyone who cannot, there is three days’ fast on ḥajj and seven on your return.” (2:196)’ An-Naḥḥās said that this is the consensus.

There is disagreement about the meaning of the words ‘that is ten in all’. It is known that it is ten. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘Since it is conceivable to imagine that there is a choice between three days on ḥajj or seven when he returns home instead of them since He did not say, “another seven”, He removed that possibility by saying, “that is ten” and then said “in all” (kāmilah). Al-Ḥasan said that he is ‘complete’ in respect of the reward, just like someone who did not do tamattu‘. It is said that it is an expression which is in the form of a report while a command is meant. It means: ‘Complete them: that is the obligation.’ Al-Mubarrad said that ‘ten’ indicates the ten of the number so that it is not imagined that there is anything further after the seven. It is said that it is for stress.

That is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥarām.

A sacrifice is required from anyone not resident in the Ḥaram who performs tamattu‘. Al-Bukhārī related that Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about ḥajj tamattu‘ and said, ‘The Muhājirūn and the Anṣār and the wives of the Prophet went into iḥrām for the Farewell Ḥajj and we went into iḥrām too. When we reached Makkah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Make your iḥrām for ḥajj an iḥrām for ‘umrah – except for those who have garlanded sacrificial animals.” We did ṭawāf of the House and went between Ṣafā and Marwah, and then went to our wives and put on our (normal) clothes. He said, “Anyone who has garlanded his sacrificial animal should not come out of iḥrām until the sacrifice reaches its place.” Then, on the eve of Tarwiyah, he told us to go into iḥrām for ḥajj. When we had finished the rites, we came and did ṭawāf of the House and went between Ṣafā and Marwah. Our ḥajj was complete and we had to sacrifice, in compliance with the words of Allah Almighty: ‘…he should make whatever sacrifice is feasible. For any one who cannot, there is three days’ fast on ḥajj and seven on your return’ to your cities, a sheep being sufficient. So we combined two practices – ḥajj and ‘umrah – in the same year Allah Almighty sent it down in His Book and it was the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ. It was allowed to people other than the people of Makkah. Allah says: “…that is for anyone whose family does not live near the Masjid al-Ḥaram.” The months of ḥajj which Allah Almighty mentioned are Shawwāl, Dhu-l-Qa‘dah and Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. Whoever performs tamattu‘ in these months must sacrifice or fast.’

The lām in ‘for anyone’ means the obligation of sacrifice for those who are not from the people of Makkah. That indicates the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and his people that tamattu‘ and qirān are only for those who are not from Makkah. They believe that those who live near the Masjid al-Ḥaram cannot do either tamattu‘ or qirān, and if someone does that, then he owes the sacrifice for a malpractice, from which he may not eat because it is not the sacrifice of tamattu‘. Ash-Shāfi‘ said that they owe the sacrifice of tamattu‘ or qirān. What is indicated is sacrifice and fasting and so someone from Makkah does not owe either. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn made a difference between tamattu‘ and qirān and obliged a sacrifice for qirān but not tamattu‘.

People disagree about the definition of those who live near the Masjid al-Ḥaram although they agree that those who live in Makkah and what is directly connected to it are considered to be living near it. At-atabarī said, ‘There is consensus that they are the people of the Ḥaram.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It is not as some scholars say about it meaning those who are obliged to attend its Jumu‘ah prayer and anyone beyond that is a Bedouin, making the expression refer to city people and Bedouins.’ Mālik and his people said that they are only the people of Makkah and what is directly connected to it. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that they are the people of the mīqāts and those closer than them in all directions. So those who are the people of the mīqāts and those closer than them are considered to be near the Masjid al-Ḥaram. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people said that they are those who do not have to shorten the prayer when travelling to Makkah. That is the closest mīqāt. The positions of the early scholars are based on these views in interpreting the āyah.

Have taqwā of Allah.

Fear Him in respect of what He has made obligatory for you. This is a general command to be godfearing and a warning about the severity of His punishment.

197 The Ḥajj takes place during certain well-known months. If anyone undertakes the obligation of ḥajj in them, there must be no sexual intercourse, no wrongdoing, nor any quarrelling during hajj. Whatever good you do, Allah knows it. Take provision; but the best provision is fearful awareness of Allah. So be fearful of Me, people of intelligence!

The Ḥajj takes place during certain well-known months.

Allah now explains the difference between the times of ‘umrah and ḥajj. The period during which iḥrām may be assumed for ‘umrah is any time throughout the entire year, but ḥajj is only at one particular time each year. So the āyah means that the months when the ḥajj takes place are well-known months, or the time of the ḥajj falls during well-known months, or the time when the actions of the ḥajj take place is well-known, or it may mean simply that the ḥajj occurs in certain months.

There is disagreement about exactly which months are referred to as ‘well-known’. Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aṭā’, ar-Rabī‘, Mujāhid and az-Zuhrī said that the months of ḥajj are all of Shawwāl, Dhu-l-Qa‘dah, and Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. Ibn ‘Abbās, as-Suddī, ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī say that it is Shawwāl, Dhu-l-Qa‘dah, and only the first ten days of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. That is related from Ibn Mas‘ūd and is also stated by Ibn az-Zubayr. Both are transmitted from Mālik. Ibn Ḥabīb related the latter and Ibn al-Mundhir the former. The point of the disagreement is specifying when someone owes a sacrifice. Those who say that all of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah is included in the months of Ḥajj do not think that a sacrifice is owed if the actions occur after the Day of Sacrifice, because that is still within the months of ḥajj. According to the second view, ḥajj ends on the Day of Sacrifice, and a sacrifice is owed by anyone who does the actions later than that since he is outside its time.

Allah does not name the months of ḥajj in His Book since they were well-known to the people addressed. It is possible in Arabic for the plural ‘months’ to be applied to two months and part of a third month.

They disagree about adopting iḥrām for ḥajj outside the months of ḥajj. Ibn ‘Abbās says that part of the Sunnah is to adopt iḥrām during the months of ḥajj. ‘Aṭā’, Mujāhid, Ṭāwūs and al-Awzā‘ī said that if someone adopts iḥrām for ḥajj before the months of ḥajj, it can only be considered an ‘umrah and not ḥajj. He is like someone who prays before the time of the prayer. It does not satisfy the obligation, but is supererogatory. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Thawr say that. Al-Awzā‘ī says that he adopts iḥrām for ‘umrah. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal says that it is disliked. Mālik, however, in his well-known position, says that iḥrām for ḥajj can be assumed at any time during the entire year and that is also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah. An-Nakha‘ī said that a person does not come out of iḥrām until he finishes his ḥajj based on the words of Allah: ‘They will ask you about the crescent moons, Say: “They are set times for mankind and for the ḥajj.”’ (2:189) What ash-Shāfi‘ī said is sounder because that is undefined while this āyah is specific. It is possible that it is part of the text which is undefined for some people because these months are more excellent than others. On this basis the position of Mālik is sound. Allah knows best.

If someone undertakes the obligation of ḥajj in them.

This means if someone obliges himself to do ḥajj by making the inward intention and performing the outward action of setting off and vocalising the talbīyah in words. Ibn Ḥabīb and Abū Ḥanīfah say that the talbīyah is the definitive action of setting off on ḥajj but ash-Shāfi‘ī said that that is not the case because the talbīyah is not one of the pillars of ḥajj. That is also the view of al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that the intention and the adoption of iḥrām is enough.

The literalists and others say that linguistically the root of the word for ‘undertakes the obligation’ (faraḍa) means to make a notch or cut. From that is derived furḍah, the notch in an arrow, an inlet in the bank of a river or a crevice in a mountain. So ḥajj is obligatory for the slave of Allah in the same way that the notch is necessary for an arrow. It is also said that faraḍa means to make clear, and this goes back to cutting because cutting something makes it distinct from other things. The Arabic particle ‘man’ is in the nominative by the ibtidā’ and has the meaning of the precondition whose khabar is ‘faraḍa’.

there must be no sexual intercourse,

The word used for sexual intercourse here is rafath. Ibn ‘Abbās, Jubayr, as-Suddī, Qatādah, al-Ḥasan, ‘Ikrimah, az-Zuhrī, Mujāhid and Mālik said that rafath means sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse invalidates the ḥajj. Scholars agree that sexual intercourse before ‘Arafah invalidates the ḥajj and makes a new ḥajj obligatory as well as a sacrifice. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, Ṭāwūs, ‘Aṭā’ and others said that it means obscene speech to a woman, like saying, ‘When we come out of iḥrām, we will do such-and-such to you’ without using an indirect allusion. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. He recited while he was in iḥrām:

They walk softly with us.

If the birds tell truly, we will have a touch.

His companion, Ḥussayn ibn Qays, said to him, ‘Do you speak lewdness (tarfuthu) while you are in iḥrām?’ He answered, ‘Rafath is what is said in the presence of women.’ Some people say that it is coarse language mentioning women, whether in their presence or not. It is also said, by some, to apply to all sexual activity which might take place between a man and his wife. Abū ‘Ubaydah said that it is foolish talk.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘What is meant by “no rafath” is a legal prohibition, rather than an existential one. We find and see that which is called rafath, and the report of the Almighty cannot be contrary to what it reports. So the words refer to a legal existence rather than a physical one. It is similar to His words: “Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles.” (2:228) It means legally and not physically because there are divorced women who do not wait. Therefore the negation refers to the legal ruling and not physical existence. The same is true of His words: “No one may touch it except the purified.” (56:79) If we say that it refers to human beings, which is sound, then it means legally that no one should touch it. If it is touched by someone in this state, it is contrary to the legal ruling. This is a fine point that scholars have missed. They say that a report can mean a prohibition. That does not exist and is not sound. They can differ in reality and description.’

no wrongdoing,

Fusūq (wrongdoing) in this context means all acts of disobedience according to Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Aṭā’ and al-Ḥasan. Ibn ‘Umar and a group said that, in this context, it means committing those acts of disobedience to Allah which are specific to the state of iḥrām for ḥajj, such as killing game, paring nails, cutting hair and the like. Ibn Zayd and Mālik said that it means sacrificing to idols, going by Allah’s words: ‘Or some deviance (fisq) consecrated to other than Allah.’ (6:145) Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said it means exchanging obscene epithets. Indicating that are the words: ‘How evil is it to have a name for evil conduct (fusūq)!’ (49:11) Ibn ‘Umar also said that it is cursing. That is attested to by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Cursing a Muslim is wrongdoing (fusūq) and killing him is unbelief.’ The first position is the soundest since it includes all the other possibilities. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who makes ḥajj and does not engage in sexual intercourse or wrongdoing returns as he was on the day his mother bore him.’ And: ‘An accepted ḥajj has no repayment except the Garden.’ He also said ﷺ, ‘By the One who has my soul in His hand, there is no action between heaven and earth better than jihād in the Way of Allah or an accepted ḥajj, in which there is no sexual intercourse, wrongdoing or quarrelling.’ The fuqahā’ state that the accepted ḥajj is one in which one does not disobey Allah while performing it. Al-Farrā’ said, ‘It is one after which one does not disobey Allah.’ An accepted ḥajj is one in which, and after which, one does not disobey Allah. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘An accepted ḥajj is that a person returns from it abstinent with respect to this world, desiring the Next World.’ Other things are said as well.

nor any quarrelling during ḥajj.

Jidāl (quarrelling) is argumentation and is derived from the word jadl which means twisting. A rein which is braided (majdūl) is derived from the same root. It is also possible that jidāl comes from the word jadāla which means the earth. It is as if each of the opponents stands against the other person and one overcomes the other.

Scholars disagree about its exact meaning here and offer six possibilities. Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Aṭā’ say that jidāl here means to argue with a Muslim until you make him angry to the extent that that leads to insults. As for discussing points of knowledge, that is not forbidden. Qatādah said that it means abuse. Ibn Zayd and Mālik ibn Anas said that here it means the disagreements people used to have about which of them was in the authentic places of Ibrāhīm, which used to happen in the Jāhiliyyah when Quraysh stood where the rest of the Arabs did not stand, and so, according to this interpretation, it means that there must be no quarrelling about its sites. One group say that it refers to when one group say. ‘The ḥajj is today’ and another group say, ‘The ḥajj is tomorrow.’ Mujāhid and a group said, ‘It is to argue about the months according to the Arab reckoning. It used to happen that some would be at ‘Arafah while others were at Muzdalifah and they would quarrel about who was in the right.’

According to these two last interpretations, it means that there must be no quarrelling about the time and place of ḥajj. These two positions are the soundest of what is said regarding the interpretation. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Time revolves as it did on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth.’ It means that the ḥajj has returned to the day and time it used to have. When the Prophet ﷺ performed ḥajj, he said, ‘Take your rites from me.’ So he clarified the stations and places of ḥajj. Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurṭubī said, ‘“Quarrelling” is that one group says, “Our ḥajj was more accepted than your ḥajj,” and the others say the same.’ It is also said that the quarrelling occurred with respect to boasting about ancestors. Allah knows best.

Whatever good you do, Allah knows it.

This means that Allah will repay you for your actions because repayment is only made by the one who has knowledge of the matter concerned. It is also said that this is encouragement to use good words instead of obscenities and to be pious and godfearing rather than wrongdoing and argumentative. It is said that the word ‘good’ refers to people restraining themselves so that they do not do what is forbidden.

Take provision;

This is a command to people to take provisions for their ḥajj. Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Ikrimah, Mujāhid, Qatādah and Ibn Zayd said, ‘The āyah was revealed about a group of Arabs who used to go on ḥajj with no provisions. One of them would say, “How could we make ḥajj to the House of Allah and He not feed us?” So they were dependent on other people for their needs. They were forbidden to do that and commanded to take provisions.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr said, ‘People used to rely on one another and not take provisions, and so they were commanded to take provisions. When the Prophet ﷺ travelled, he took a camel carrying provisions. Three hundred men of Muzaynah came to him and when they were about to leave, he said, ‘‘Umar, give the people provisions.’ Some people say that the expression refers to a righteous companion, but Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this specification is weak. A more fitting meaning of the āyah is to store up provision for the Next World in the form of righteous actions.

The first position is sounder because what is meant is actual provision for the ḥajj journey as we mentioned. It is as al-Bukhārī related from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘The people of Yemen used to go on ḥajj and not take provisions. They would say, “We are relying on Allah.” When they came to Makkah, they begged from people, so Allah Almighty sent down: “Take provision, but the best provision is fearful awareness (taqwā) of Allah.”’ This is what the text suggests and is the position of most commentators. Ash-Sha‘bī says that it means specifically dates and sawīq (barley mush). Ibn Jubayr says biscuits and sawīq.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Allah commands the people of wealth to take provisions. Those who have no money and have a craft by which they support themselves, and those who beg, are not being addressed here. Those addressed are people who have wealth but who leave their wealth and go out without provisions, saying, “We are relying on Allah.” Reliance (tawakkul) has preconditions. Those who meet those preconditions go out without provision and are not addressed by this. Most people who go out lack the degree of reliance and neglect its realities. Allah knows best.’ Abu-l-Faraj al-Jawzī said, ‘Iblīs has muddled some people who claim to be relying on Allah, they go out without provision and imagine that this is true reliance on Allah. They are gravely in error. A man said to Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, “I want to set out for Makkah based on reliance on Allah without provisions.” Aḥmad said to him, “Go out without going in a caravan.” “No,” he answered, “only with them.” He said, “Then you are relying on other people’s sacks!”’

but the best provision is fearful awareness of Allah.

Allah reports that the best provision is avoiding what is forbidden and so Allah commands us here to add fearful awareness to taking provision. It means to fear Allah by following His command to take provision. It is said that it can mean that the best provision is that by which the traveller is kept safe from destruction or from the need to beg. It is said that it makes it clear that this world is not the abode of permanence. The people with knowledge of subtle indications (ishārāt) say that Allah is reminding us of the journey to the Next World and commands us to take fearful awareness of Him as provision. Fearful awareness is the provision of the Next World. Al-A‘shā said:

If you do not travel with a provision of fear of Allah,

you will meet those with provision after you die

And regret that you are not like them

and that you did not prepare as they prepared.

Someone else said:

Death is a swollen sea

in which the devices of the swimmer disappear.

Soul! I am speaking, so listen to words

from a compassionate good counsellor.

In his grave, a man’s only companions

are fear of Allah and righteous deeds.

So have taqwā of Me, people of intelligence!

Those with intelligence are singled out, even though the command is to everyone, because they are those through whom the proof of Allah is established. They receive His commands and undertake to carry them out. The word used for intelligent people is the plural of lubb, which refers to the core of anything.

198 There is nothing wrong in seeking bounty from your Lord. When you pour down from ‘Arafāt, remember Allah at the Sacred Landmark. Remember Him because He has guided you, even though before this you were astray.

There is nothing wrong in seeking bounty from your Lord.

The word used here for ‘wrong’ (junāḥ) means wrong action. After mentioning the things prohibited during ḥajj, namely sexual intercourse, wrongdoing and quarrelling, Allah mentions that trade is allowed. It means that there is nothing wrong in seeking bounty from Allah. In the Qur’an, the phrase ‘seeking bounty’ is used for engaging in trade. Allah Almighty says: ‘…spread through the earth and seek Allah’s bounty…’ (62:10). Evidence for the soundness of this is found in al-Bukhārī where Ibn ‘Abbās is reported as observing: ‘‘Ukāz, Majinnah and Dhū’ l-Majāz were markets in the time of the Jāhiliyyah and people thought it sinful to trade during the festivals; and then this was revealed about the ḥajj festival.’ So the āyah is evidence that it is permitted for someone on ḥajj to trade during it while performing the rites of ḥajj. Intending to do so is not shirk and does not detract from the sincerity of the person concerned.

Nonetheless, performing ḥajj without trade is better since it is free of the impurities of this world and the connection of the heart to something else. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related in the Sunan that Abū Umāmah at-Taymī said, ‘I said to Ibn ‘Umar, “I am a man who hires out in this way. People say that I have no ḥajj.” Ibn ‘Umar said, “A man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and asked a similar question as you have asked me. He remained silent until this āyah was revealed: ‘There is nothing wrong in seeking bounty from your Lord.’”’

When you pour down from ‘Arafat,

‘Afāda’ (pour down) means to rush on. The verb is used for when you pour liquid into a vessel until it overflows down the sides. A man who is fayyāḍ is very munificent. A ḥadīth which is mustafiḍ is extensively known.

‘Arafāt is the name of a place which is in the plural form. It is called that because of what is around it. It is said that the plain is called ‘Arafāt because people recognise one another (yata‘ārāfahūna) there. It is said that when Ādam descended in India and Ḥawwā’ at Jiddah, after a long search, they met at ‘Arafāt on the Day of ‘Arafah, and so the day is called ‘Arafah and the place ‘Arafāt. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that. Other things are said which were mentioned in 2:128.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that it is clear that it is an improvised name as is the case with most names of places. ‘Arafah is Na‘mān al-Arāk (Na‘mān of the Lote-trees).’ It is said that it is derived from ‘arf, which means scent. It is a fragrant place as opposed to Minā which is strewn with stomach contents and blood. Hence it is ‘Arafāt. Some say that the two names are derived from steadfastness because they are steadfast in supplication, trial and enduring hardships to perform this act of worship, and the ‘ārif is someone who is steadfast and humble. This is found in a saying: ‘The soul is steadfast (‘arūf) and endures what burdens it.’ We find in a poem:

I steadfastly (‘ārifah) endure the heat for that.

Or similarly in Dhū ‘r-Rummah:

Steadfast (‘arūf) in the face of the decrees that are written for it.

So it has this name because of the humility of the person performing ḥajj and his steadfastness in supplication, types of affliction and enduring hardship to carry out this act of worship.

Scholars agree that if someone stands at ‘Arafāt on the day of ‘Arafah before midday and then goes on before midday, he is not considered to have stood at ‘Arafah. They agree that when someone stands at ‘Arafah after midday and pours onward before nightfall, his ḥajj is complete, with the exception of Mālik ibn Anas who said that he must have part of the night. If someone stands at ‘Arafah in the night, none of the community disagree about his ḥajj being complete. The argument of the majority is based on His words: ‘When you pour down from ‘Arafāt’, in which He does not specify night or day, and the ḥadīth of ‘Urwah ibn Muḍarris who said, ‘I went to the Prophet ﷺ while he was at the stopping place at Jam‘. I said, “Messenger of Allah, I have come to you from the two mountains of Ṭayy’. I have tired my camel out and exhausted myself. By Allah, I have not passed any mountain without standing on it. Do I have a ḥajj, Messenger of Allah?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Whoever has prayed the morning prayer with us at Jam‘, having gone to ‘Arafāt before that, either by night or day, has completed his dishevelment and completed his ḥajj.”’

More than one of the imams transmitted it, including Abū Dāwud, an-Nasā’ī and ad-Dāraquṭnī. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This ḥadīth of ‘Urwah ibn Muḍarris aṭ-Ṭā’ī is sound and confirmed. It is related by a group of the reliable companions of ash-Sha‘bī from ash-Sha‘bī, including Ismā‘īl ibn Abī Khālid, Dāwud ibn Abī Hind, Zakariyyā ibn Abī Zā’idah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī ’s-Safar and Muṭarrif, all of them from ash-Sha‘bī from ‘Urwah ibn Muḍarris ibn Aws ibn Ḥārithah ibn Lām.’ The argument of Mālik regarding the firm Sunnah is the long ḥadīth of Jābir transmitted by Muslim which states: ‘He continued to stand until the sun had set, the yellow light had diminished a little and the disc of the sun had disappeared.’ His actions ﷺ are mandatory, especially in ḥajj. He said, ‘Take your rites from me.’

The majority disagree about someone who leaves before sunset and does not return: what does he owe to make his ḥajj is sound? ‘Aṭā’, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr, the People of Opinion and others said that he owes a sacrifice. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said that he owes a hady. Ibn Jurayj says that he owes a camel. Mālik said that he must do ḥajj again as well as a hady that he sacrifices in that ḥajj: he is like someone who has missed ḥajj. If he returns to ‘Arafah until he goes on after sunset, ash-Shāfi‘ī says that he owes nothing. That is the view of Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Dāwud. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and ath-Thawrī said that a sacrifice is not cancelled for him, even if he returns after sunset. That is what Abū Thawr said.

There is no disagreement among scholars that it is better for someone to stop at ‘Arafah while mounted because the Prophet ﷺ did that until he went on from it after sunset with Usāmah ibn Zayd riding behind him. This is recorded in the long ḥadīth of Jābir and the ḥadīth of ‘Alī as well as the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās. Jābir said, ‘Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ rode to the stopping place and made his she-camel Qaṣwā’ turn towards the rocks, with the path of the walkers in front of him. He faced the qiblah and continued to stop there until the sun had set, the yellow light had diminished a little and the disc of the sun had disappeared. He had Usāmah ibn Zayd sit behind him.’ If someone cannot ride, he stands on foot, making supplication for as long as he is able. There is nothing wrong with a person sitting down if he is unable to stand. Stopping while mounted demonstrates exaltation and honour of the ḥajj: ‘As for those who honour Allah’s sacred rites, that comes from the taqwā in their hearts.’ (22:32) Ibn Wahb said in his Muwaṭṭā’: ‘Mālik said to me, “I prefer stopping at ‘Arafah on mounts and camels to standing on foot. There is no harm in someone who stands on foot resting.”’

It is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and elsewhere from Usāmah ibn Zayd that when the Prophet ﷺ went on from ‘Arafah, he went at a medium pace, but when he found a gap, he sped up. That is what is obliged for the leaders of the ḥajj and those behind them, because hastening the pace to Muzdalifah is hastening to the prayer there. It is known that on that day Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ must be prayed together at Muzdalifah. That is the Sunnah, as will be made clear, Allah willing.

The literal text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah indicates that the whole of the plain of ‘Arafāt is a standing place. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I stood here and all of ‘Arafah is a standing-place.’ Muslim and others related it from the long ḥadīth of Jābir. We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ of Mālik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The whole of ‘Arafah is a standing-place, except the middle of ‘Uranah, and the whole of Muzdalifah is a standing-place, except for the middle of Muḥassir.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘This ḥadīth is connected to the ḥadīth of Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, and the ḥadīth of ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. Most of the traditions do not exclude the middle of ‘Uranah from ‘Arafah and the middle of Muḥassir from Muzdalifah. That is how the reliable scholars among the people of ḥadīth transmit it in the ḥadīth of Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad from his father from Jābir.’

Abū ‘Umar said that fuqahā’ disagree about those who stand at ‘Uranah on ‘Arafah. According to what Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned from him, Mālik said that they should make a sacrifice and then their ḥajj is complete. This is related by Khālid ibn Nizār from Mālik. Abu-l-Muṣ‘ab said that a person who stands in the middle of ‘Uranah is like someone has not stood and has therefore missed the ḥajj and owes a ḥajj in the following year. It is related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘If someone pours on from ‘Uranah, he has no ḥajj.’ That is the view of Ibn al-Qāsim and Sālim. Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned this view from ash-Shāfi‘ī. He said, ‘That is my view. It is not enough if someone stands in a place where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that he should not stand.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘The exception of ‘Uranah from ‘Arafah does not come in a manner which would oblige a [new] ḥajj, either by way of transmission or consensus.’ The argument of those who take the position of Abu-l-Muṣ‘ab is that standing at ‘Arafah is an obligation which is agreed upon in a specific place. It is only permitted to perform it with certainty, and there is no certainty when there is disagreement. ‘Uranah is to the west of the mosque of ‘Arafah. Some scholars said that if the western wall of the ‘Arafah mosque were to fall, it would fall in the valley of ‘Uranah. Al-Bājī related from Ibn Ḥabīb that ‘Arafah is outside of the Ḥaram and ‘Uranah is inside it. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘As for the valley of Muḥassir, Wakī‘ mentioned from Sufyān from Abu-z-Zubayr from Jābir that the Prophet ﷺ hurried through the valley of Muḥassir.

There is nothing wrong in acknowledging the Day of ‘Arafah outside of ‘Arafah in such a way as to resemble the people at ‘Arafah. Shu‘bah related from Qatādah that al-Ḥasan said, ‘The first to do that was Ibn ‘Abbās in Basra.’ It meant people gathering in the mosque at Basra on the Day of ‘Arafah. Mūsā ibn Abī ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘I saw ‘Umar ibn Ḥurayth giving a khuṭbah on the day of ‘Arafah and people had gathered for it.’ Al-Athram said, ‘I asked Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal about celebrating ‘Arafah in cities by gathering on the Day of ‘Arafah. He answered, ‘I hope that there is no harm in it. More than one person has done it: al-Ḥasan, Bakr, Thābit and Muḥammad ibn Wāsi‘. They used to attend the mosque of the Day of ‘Arafah.’

The excellence of the Day of ‘Arafah is immense and its reward is immense. On it Allah expiates the worst wrong actions and multiplies good actions. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best supplication is supplication on the Day of ‘Arafah and the best of what I and the Prophets before have said is: “There is no god but Allah alone with no partner.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from ‘Ā’ishah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no day on which Allah frees a greater number from the Fire than the Day of ‘Arafah. On that Day, Allah draws near to the earth and then, showing His pride in them to the angels, He says, “What do these people want?”’ We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn Karỉz that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Shayṭān is not considered more abased or more cast out or more contemptible on any other day than he is on the day of ‘Arafah. That is simply because he sees the descent of mercy and the fact that Allah overlooks great wrong actions. The only exception to that is what he was shown on the Day of Badr.’ Someone asked, ‘What was he shown on the Day of Badr, Messenger of Allah?’ He answered, ‘Did he not see Jibrīl arranging the ranks of the angels?’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Abu-n-Naḍr Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm al-‘Ijlī related this ḥadīth from Mālik from Ibrāhīm ibn Abī ‘Ablah from Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydullāh ibn Karīz from his father. He did not say in this ḥadīth ‘from his father’. It is nothing. What is correct is what is in the Muwaṭṭā’.

At-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm mentioned in Nawādir al-uṣūl that it was related from Abū Rawḥ Ḥātim ibn Nu‘aym at-Tamīmī from Hishām ibn Abu-l-Walīd ‘Abd al-Malik aṭ-Ṭayālisai from ‘Abd al-Qāhir ibn as-Sariy as-Sulamī from Ibn Kinānah from ‘Abbās ibn Mirdās from his father from his grandfather, ‘Abbās ibn Mirdās that, on the evening of ‘Arafah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made supplication for forgiveness and mercy for his community. He made a lot of supplication and received the reply: ‘I have done that, except for when they wrong one another. As for the sins that are between Me and them, I have forgiven them.’ He said, ‘O Lord, You have the power to reward those wronged with better than the wrong done to them and to forgive those who wronged them.’ He did not receive an answer that night. On the following day in the morning at Muzdalifah, he strove in making that supplication and was answered: ‘I have forgiven them.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ smiled and was asked, ‘What has made you smile, Messenger of Allah, at a time in which you did not used to smile?’ He replied, ‘I smiled at the enemy of Allah, Iblīs. When he learned that Allah had answered my supplication for my community, he fell down, crying for woe and destruction and threw dust on his head and then fled.’

Abū ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī related from ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from Mālik from Abu-z-Zinād from al-A‘raj from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘On the Day of ‘Arafah Allah forgives the sincere ḥājjī. On the night of Muzdalifah, Allah forgives the merchants. On the day of Minā, Allah forgives the porters. On the day of the Jamrah ’l-‘Aqabah, Allah forgives the beggars. Many are the people among those who say that there is no god but Allah who are not present at that standing who are forgiven.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is a gharīb ḥadīth from Mālik. It is only recorded from him by this path. Abū ‘Abd al-Ghanī says that he does not know it. The people of knowledge continue to be indulgent in transmissions about things to be desired and virtues while they are severe about ḥadīths that contain judgments.’

The people of knowledge recommend fasting on the Day of ‘Arafah, except for the people who are actually there. The imams related from ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ did not fast at ‘Arafah. Umm al-Faḍl sent some milk to him and he drank it. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. It is related that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘I went on ḥajj with the Prophet ﷺ and he did not fast (the day of ‘Arafah). I went with Abū Bakr and he did not fast, and with ‘Umar and he did not fast. According to most of the people of knowledge, this is the normal practice. They recommended not fasting at ‘Arafah so that a person will strong in supplication. Some of the people of knowledge did fast ‘Arafah at ‘Arafah.’ There is an isnād from Ibn ‘Umar like the first and he added at the end of it, ‘and with ‘Uthmān, and he did not fast. So I do not fast it, but I neither command or forbid it.’ Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned it.

‘Aṭā’ said about fasting the day of ‘Arafah, ‘I fast in the winter and do not fast in the summer.’ Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī said, ‘One must not fast on the day of ‘Arafah.’ ‘Uthmān ibn Abī ’l-‘Āṣ, Ibn az-Zubayr and ‘Ā’ishah used to fast the day of ‘Arafah.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I prefer to not fast the day of ‘Arafah at ‘Arafāt to follow the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, but I prefer to fast elsewhere since the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about fasting the day of ‘Arafah and said, “It expiates the past year and the coming year.”’ We were told that ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘If someone does not fast on the day of ‘Arafah in order to be strong for supplication, he will have the same reward as someone who fasts.’

remember Allah at the Sacred Landmark.

Remember Him by making supplication and reciting the talbīyah at the Sacred Landmark. The place is called Jam‘ because the prayers of Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ are joined together (jumi‘a) there. Qatādah said that it is because Ādam met Ḥawwā’ there and they joined each other (jama‘a) there and that is also why it is called Muzdalifah (izdalafa, to draw near). It is said that it is called that on account of the actions of the people there, because they draw near (izdalafa) to Allah by standing there. The word for Sacred Landmark (mash‘ar) comes from shi‘ār which means a sign or landmark, and it is called that because it is a landmark of the ḥajj due to the fact that people are required to pray there and spend the night there in supplication to Allah. It is called a Ḥaram because of its sanctity.

It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed both Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ at Muzdalifah. The people of knowledge agree, with no disagreement whatsoever, that the sunnah is to join Maghrib and ‘Ishā’. They disagree about someone who prays before reaching Jam‘. Mālik said, ‘Whoever stands with the imam and goes on when he goes on, does not pray until he reached Jam’, where he joins the prayers. Evidence for this is found in the words of the Prophet ﷺ to Usāmah ibn Zayd, ‘The prayer is ahead of you.’ Ibn Ḥabīb said, ‘If someone prays before reaching Muzdalifah without excuse, he repeats it when he knows. He is in the position of someone who prays before midday based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, “The prayer is ahead of you.”’ Abū Ḥanīfah said that. Ashhab says that he does not have to repeat them unless he prayed both of them before the disappearance of twilight. And then he only repeats ‘Ishā’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that. It is what Qāḍī Abu-l-Ḥasan supported. His argument is that that the sunnah is to join these two prayers, but that it is not a precondition for their validity. It is a recommendation, like joining Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr at ‘Arafah. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred this position and related it from ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr and Ya‘qūb. He related that ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘He does not pray until he has reached Muzdalifah. But if the middle of the night comes before he reaches Muzdalifah, he does pray them.’

If someone hurries and reaches Muzdalifah before twilight has disappeared, Ibn Ḥabīb said, ‘There is no prayer for someone who hastens to Muzdalifah before twilight has disappeared, either the imam or anyone else, until the twilight has disappeared.’ Part of the meaning is that the time of this prayer is after the disappearance of twilight. It is not permitted to pray it before that. If its time had been before the disappearance of twilight, it would not have been delayed.

About someone who reaches ‘Arafah after the imam has pressed on, or he is one of those with an excuse who stood with the imam, Ibn al-Mawwāz said: ‘If someone stands after the imam, he should pray each prayer at its time.’ Mālik said about someone with an excuse that keeps him from being with the imam that he prays both prayers together when the twilight disappears. Ibn al-Qāsim said about those who stand after the imam: ‘If he hopes to reach Muzdalifah in the first third of the night, he should delay the prayer until he reaches Muzdalifah. Otherwise he prays each prayer at its time.’ So Ibn al-Mawwāz restricted delaying the prayer until Muzdalifah is reached to those who stand with the imam rather than other people. Mālik made it a question of the time rather than the place and Ibn al-Qāsim considers the preferred time for the prayer and the place. If someone fears missing the preferred time, then it is invalid to consider the place. It is more appropriate to observe the preferred time.

Scholars disagree about the form of the prayer at Muzdalifah. There are two possibilities. One is with the adhan and the iqāmah. The other is that they are joined together with no action to separate them or action permitted between: setting down baggage and the like. As for the adhan and the iqāmah, it is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ at Muzdalifah with one adhan and two iqāmahs. The Ṣaḥīḥ transmitted that from the long ḥadīth of Jābir. That was the view of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Abū Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir. Mālik said that they should be prayed with two adhans and two iqāmahs. The same is true of Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr at ‘Arafah, although the consensus is that that happens at the beginning of the time of Ẓuhr. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I do not know of any ḥadīth regarding what Mālik says that goes back to the Prophet ﷺ by any path, but it is related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.’ Ibn al-Mundhir added Ibn Mas‘ūd. Part of the argument of Mālik in respect of this topic is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made a sunnah of the two prayers at Muzdalifah and ‘Arafah, so arguably the two have the same time since their time is the same. Therefore each of them is prayed in its proper time and neither of them is more entitled to the adhan and iqāmah than the other since neither of them is being made up: they are prayers that are being prayed at their time. Each prayer is prayed in its time. Their sunnah is therefore to have an adhan and iqāmah for the group. This is clear, and Allah knows best.

The others say that the first one is prayed with an adhan and iqāmah and the second is prayed without an adhan and iqāmah. They said that ‘Umar commanded the second adhan because people had separated for eating and the adhan was to gather them together again. They said, ‘That is what we say when the people separate from the imam for eating or any other reason: he can command the mu’adhdhin to call in order to gather them. When there is an adhan, there is an iqāmah.’ They said that this is the meaning of what is related from ‘Umar. They mentioned the ḥadīth of ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Yazīd in which he said, ‘Ibn Mas‘ūd used to put the evening meal between the two prayers at Muzdalifah. Another path of transmission states that he prayed every prayer with an adhan and a iqāmah. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned it.

Still others said that both prayers are prayed at Muzdalifah with an iqāmah, but with no adhan for either of them. It is related from Ibn ‘Umar and that is the position of ath-Thawrī. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ mentioned from ath-Thawrī from Salamah ibn Kuhayl from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ joined Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ at Jam‘. He prayed Maghrib with three rak‘ahs and ‘Ishā’ with two with one iqāmah.’

Others said that both prayers are prayed together between Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ with one adhan and one iqāmah. That was because they believed what Hushaym related from Yaunus ibn ‘Ubayd from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr about Ibn ‘Umar joining Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ at Jam‘ with one adhan and one iqāmah with nothing separating them. The same is related marfū‘ from Khuzaymah ibn Thābit. He is not strong. Al-Jūzjānī related from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan from Abū Yūsuf from Abū Ḥanīfah that they are prayed with one adhan and two iqāmahs: an adhan for Maghrib and only an iqāmah for ‘Ishā’. This is the position of aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī based on the ḥadīth of Jābir. It is the first view and it is relied on.

Others say that they are prayed with two iqāmahs, with no adhan for either of them. Among those with this position are ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people, Isḥāq, and it is one of the two positions of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. It is the position of Sālim ibn ‘Abdullāh and al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad. They argue by what ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from Ma‘mar from Ibn Shihāb from Sālim from Ibn ‘Umar: ‘When the Prophet ﷺ came to Muzdalifah, he joined Maghrib and ‘Ishā’. He prayed Maghrib with three rak‘ahs and ‘Ishā’ with two with one iqāmah for each of them. He did not connect them at all.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The reports from Ibn ‘Umar about this position are the firmest of what is related regarding this matter, but it is subject to interpretation. There is no disagreement about the ḥadīth of Jābir. It is more fitting. There is no scope for speculation regarding this matter. It is something that must be followed.’

As for a separation between the two prayers by some action other than the prayer, it is confirmed from Usāmah ibn Zayd that when the Prophet ﷺ reached Muzdalifah, he dismounted and did wuḍū’ fully. Then the iqāmah for the prayer was made and he prayed Maghrib. Then every man made his camel kneel in his camp. Then the iqāmah for the prayer was made and he prayed it without praying anything between them. One variant has: ‘They did not unpack until the iqāmah for ‘Ishā’ was given. He prayed and then they unpacked.’ We have already mentioned that Ibn Mas‘ūd had his evening meal between the two prayers. This is permission to separate the two prayers at Jam‘.

Mālik was asked about someone who arrives at Muzdalifah and whether he should begin with the prayer or delay it until he has removed his baggage from his camel. He said, ‘If the baggage is light, there is nothing wrong in doing that before the prayer. I do not think that is the case with load-bearers. Then the person begins with the prayer and unloads his camel afterwards.’ Ashhab said in his books, ‘He can unload his camel before the prayer, although I prefer that he prays Maghrib before unloading it unless it is absolutely necessary, because it is heavy for the animal or some other reason.’ As for supererogatory prayers between the two prayers, Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I do not know of any disagreement between them that someone joining prayers does not pray supererogatory prayers between them. According to the ḥadīth of Usāmah, “He did not pray anything between them.”’

Spending the night at Muzdalifah is not one of the pillars of the ḥajj according to the majority of scholars, but there is disagreement about whether someone who does not spend the night there is obliged to sacrifice. Mālik said that someone who does not spend the night there owes a sacrifice. Someone who stands there for most of the night owes nothing because according to Mālik and his people spending the Night of Sacrifice there is a confirmed sunnah, not an obligation. A similar statement was made by ‘Aṭā’, az-Zuhrī, Qatādah, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion about someone who does not spend the night there. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that if someone leaves it after half the night, he owes nothing, but if he leaves before half the night has passed and does not return to Muzdalifah, he owes fidyah of a sheep.

‘Ikrimah, ash-Sha‘bī, an-Nakha‘ī and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said that stopping at Muzdalifah is an obligation and that, if someone misses Jam‘ and does not stop, he has missed ḥajj and must make his iḥrām that of ‘umrah. That is related from Ibn az-Zubayr and it is the position of al-Awzā‘ī. The same is related from ath-Thawrī. The soundest transmission from him is that stopping there is a confirmed sunnah. Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān said, ‘Someone who misses pouring on from Jam‘ has missed the ḥajj and should make it an ‘umrah and do ḥajj in the following year. Their argument is based on the literal text of the Book and the Sunnah. In the Book, the basis is the words of the Almighty: ‘When you pour down from ‘Arafāt, remember Allah at the Sacred Landmark.’ In the Sunnah, it is the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Whoever catches Jam‘ and stands with the people until they pour down has caught it. Whoever does not catch that has no ḥajj.’ Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Urwah ibn Muḍarris said, ‘I went to the Prophet ﷺ while he was at Jam‘ and said to him, ‘Do I have a ḥajj, Messenger of Allah?’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Whoever has prayed the morning prayer with us at Jam‘, having gone to ‘Arafat before that, either by night or day, has completed his dishevelment and completed his ḥajj.’ Ash-Sha‘bī said, ‘Anyone who does not stop at Jam‘ makes it ‘umrah.’

Those who take the majority position answer that the āyah does not contain any proof of the obligatory nature of standing or of spending the night there since that is not mentioned in it. All that is mentioned is remembrance (dhikr). All agree that if someone stops at Muzdalifah without remembering Allah, his ḥajj is complete. If the remembrance commanded is not a primary element of the ḥajj, then it is even more probable that being present at the place is not going to be either. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Similarly they agree that, when the sun rises on the Day of Sacrifice, the time of stopping at Jam‘ has been missed but whoever manages to stop there before sunrise has caught it. Some say that it is an obligation and some say that it is sunnah.’ As for the ḥadīth of ‘Urwah ibn Muḍarris, in some variants it states that it is about stopping at Muzdalifah rather than spending the night there. That is similar to the ḥadīth of ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ya‘mar ad-Dīlī who said, ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at ‘Arafah when some people from Najd came to ask him about the ḥajj. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The ḥajj is ‘Arafah. Whoever catches it before dawn on the night of Jam‘ has a complete ḥajj.’ An-Nasā’ī related this from Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm from Wakī‘ from Sufyān ath-Thawrī from Bukayr ibn ‘Aṭā’ from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ya‘mar ad-Dīlī. Ibn ‘Uyayna related it from Bukayr from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ya‘mar ad-Dīlī. He said, ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “The ḥajj is ‘Arafah. Whoever catches it before dawn has caught it. The days at Minā are three. There is no sin for someone who hurries on after two and there is no sin for someone who stays longer.”’ He says in the ḥadīth of ‘Urwah, ‘Whoever prays this prayer of ours,’ and he mentioned the prayer at Muzdalifah. Scholars agree that if he spends the night there, stops and then sleeps through the prayer and misses the prayer with the imam, his ḥajj is nevertheless complete. If attending the prayer with the imam is not a primary element of the ḥajj, then stopping at the place where the prayer is held is even less likely to be. They said that this ḥadīth only verifies the obligation of ‘Arafah.

Remember Him because He has guided you, even though before this you were astray.

The command to remember is repeated for emphasis. It is said that the first is a command to remember at the Mash‘ar al-Harām and the second is to remember with sincerity. It is said that the second time it means to acknowledge the blessing and show gratitude for it and then to remind them about the time when they were misguided. Remember Him in a good way as He has guided you in a good way. Remember Him as He has taught you what to do and do not turn from it. ‘Before this’ refers to before the guidance of Islam came, or before the Qur’an, or before the Prophet ﷺ. The first is the most likely, and Allah knows best.

199 Then press on from where the people press on and ask Allah’s forgiveness. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Then press on from where the people press on

The ‘people’ referred to here are those called Ḥums (Quraysh and others), who did not stop with the people at ‘Arafāt, but stopped at Muzdalifah, which is part of the Ḥaram, claiming that they were its servants and must venerate only it. Notwithstanding the fact that they knew that ‘Arafāt was where Ibrāhīm had stood, they did not leave the Ḥaram and stood instead at Jam‘ while the people were at ‘Arafāt. They were told to press on with the people. ‘Then’ in this āyah is for order, and it adds one sentence to another. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk says that the entire community is addressed and ‘people’ means Ibrāhīm as is the case in 3:173. So it has a singular meaning. It is possible that the pressing on here means from ‘Arafah or that it means the pressing on from Muzdalifah. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that it means: ‘Press on from where Ibrāhīm pressed on from Muzdalifah Jam‘,’ namely, press on to Minā because the pressing on from ‘Arafah is before the pressing on from Muzdalifah.

This is evidence to support those who make it an obligation to stop at Muzdalifah since there is a command to press on from it, and Allah knows best. The sound position regarding the interpretation of this āyah is the first one. At-Tirmidhī related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘Quraysh and those following their religion, namely the Ḥums, used to stop at Muzdalifah, saying, “We are the servants of Allah.” Other people stood at ‘Arafah. Therefore Allah revealed: “Press on from where the people press on.”’ This is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. ‘Ā’ishah said in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘The Ḥums were those about whom Allah revealed: “Press on from where the people press on.”’ She added, ‘The people used to press on from ‘Arafāt while the Ḥums pressed on from Muzdalifah. They said, “We only press on from the Ḥaram.” When “Press on from where the people press on,” was revealed they returned to ‘Arafāt.’ This is an explicit text. It is very sound and other views are not relied on. Allah is the One we ask for help.

Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr recited ‘an-nāsī’ (the forgetter). Its interpretation is that it refers to Adam since Allah says: ‘He forgot. We did not find that he had a firm resolve.’ (20:115)

Allah commanded them to ask for forgiveness because this is the place for doing that and a place where it is likely that it will be accepted and that mercy will descend. One group said that it means: ‘Ask Allah’s forgiveness for any actions you did that are contrary to the sunnah of Ibrāhīm with respect to your standing at Quzaḥ at Muzdalifah rather than ‘Arafah.’

Abū Dāwud related that ‘Alī said, ‘In the morning the Prophet ﷺ stood on Quzaḥ and said, “This is Quzaḥ. It is a place of standing. All of Jam‘ is a place of standing. I sacrificed here and all of Minā is a place of sacrifice, so sacrifice where your baggage is.”’ Therefore the ruling for the ḥājjīs when they press on from ‘Arafah to Muzdalifah is that they spend the night there. Then the imam leads the people in the Ṣubḥ prayer before dawn and they stand at the Sacred Landmark. Quzaḥ is the mountain on which the imam stands. They continue to remember Allah and make supplication until it is close to sunrise. Then they press on before sunrise, differing from the Arabs who used to press on after sunrise, when they would say, ‘Ashriq thabīr kaymā nughīr’ (Illuminate Thabīr so that we may hasten)’, meaning to approach coming out of iḥrām.

Al-Bukhārī related that ‘Amr ibn Maymūn said, ‘I saw ‘Umar pray Ṣubḥ at Jam‘. Then he stood and said, “The idolaters used not to press on until the sun rose, saying, ‘Ashriq thabīr.’ The Prophet ﷺ acted differently to them and pressed on before sunrise.”’ Ibn ‘Uyaynah related from Ibn Jurayj from Muḥammad ibn Makhramah from Ibn Ṭāwūs from his father that the people of the Jāhiliyyah used to press on from ‘Arafah before sunset, and press on from Muzdalifah after sunrise. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ delayed one and brought the other forward: he delayed the pressing on from ‘Arafah and hastened that of Muzdalifah, acting differently to the idolaters.

When they press on before sunrise, their ruling is to press on in the manner in which they pressed on from ‘Arafah, which is that the imam travels with the people at a medium pace, and speeds up slightly when he finds a gap. ‘A medium pace’ (‘anaq) is a well known pace taken by mounts. ‘Naṣṣ’ is a faster pace than ‘anaq, like khabab (a quick amble). We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Usāmah ibn Zayd was asked, ‘How did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ travel when he pressed on from ‘Arafah?’ He answered, ‘He travelled at a medium pace, and when he found a gap, he went quicker (naṣṣ).’ Hishām said that naṣṣ is faster than ‘anaq as we already mentioned. It is recommended to hasten in the valley of Muḥassir for the distance of a stone’s throw. There is no harm if one does not do that. It is part of Minā. Ath-Thawrī and others related from Abu-z-Zubayr that Jābir said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ pressed on with tranquillity and told them, “Go gently and quickly in the valley of Muḥassir” and he told them, “Take your rites from me.”’

When they reached Minā on the morning of the Day of Sacrifice, they stoned the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah in the middle of the morning while mounted, if possible. It is not recommended to ride to the other jamrahs. They stone them with seven pebbles, each of them like a pea, as will be explained. When they have stoned them, they leave their iḥrām and what was forbidden to them of clothing and other things becomes lawful for them again: except for women, scent and hunting, according to Mālik and Isḥāq in the transmission of Abū Dāwud al-Khaffāf. ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘Everything is lawful to him except women and scent.’ According to Mālik, if someone uses scent after stoning and before the Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍah, he does not owe fidyah because of what has come about that. He believes that if someone hunts after stoning the Jamrah and before the Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍah, he owes reparation. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr said that everything except women is lawful for him. That is related from Ibn ‘Abbās.

The person performing ḥajj stops saying the talbīyah with the first pebble he throws at the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah. This is the position of most of the people of knowledge in Madīnah and elsewhere. This is permitted and allowed according to Mālik. What is well known from him, however, is that one stops saying it at midday on the day of ‘Arafah according to what he mentioned in the Muwaṭṭā’ from ‘Alī. He said, ‘That is the way with us.’

The basis for this in the Sunnah is what Muslim related from al-Faḍl ibn ‘Abbās. He was riding behind the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said to the people on the evening of ‘Arafah and the morning of Jam‘, ‘You must be calm!’ He was holding back his she-camel until he entered Muḥassir (which is part of Minā). He said, ‘You must have pea-sized pebbles with which to stone the Jamrah.’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ continued to say the talbīyah until he had stoned the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah.’ One variant has: ‘The Prophet ﷺ indicated with his hand how someone flicks a pebble.’ We find in al-Bukhārī that ‘Abdullāh went to the largest Jamrah with the House on his left and Minā on his right. He threw seven pebbles and said, ‘That is how the stoning was done by the one to whom Sūrat al-Baqarah was revealed.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Ā’ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When you have stoned, shaved and sacrificed, then everything except women is lawful for you. Clothing and scent are lawful for you.’ We find in al-Bukhārī that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘I put scent on the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with these two hands when he went into iḥrām and when he came out of it before doing ṭawāf.’ She stretched out her hands. According to scholars, this is the lesser coming out of iḥrām. The greater coming out of iḥrām is the Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍah which makes lawful women and all things that are forbidden in iḥrām. More of this will be mentioned in Sūrat al-Ḥajj, Allah willing.

200 When you have completed your rites, remember Allah as you used to remember your forefathers, or even more. There are some people who say, ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world.’ They will have no share in the Next World.

When you have completed your rites, remember Allah

Mujāhid says that the ‘manāsik’ (rites) referred to here are the sacrifices and it means the spilling of blood. It is said that it refers to the pillars of ḥājj since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Take your rites from me.’ So the meaning is: ‘When you perform the rites of ḥājj, remember Allah, and also remember Him and praise Him for His blessings to you.’ ‘Qaḍaytum’ means: ‘you have performed and finished’. The verb can also be used for performing acts of worship outside of their defined time.

as you used to remember your forefathers – or even more.

The custom of the Arabs was that, when they completed the ḥajj, they would stand at the Jamrah and boast of their forefathers and mention the glorious and courageous feats of their ancestors, to the extent that one of them would say, ‘O Allah, my father was a great tent with a huge pit and much wealth. Give me the like of what You gave him!’ and would only mention his father. This āyah was revealed commanding them to remember Allah more than they used to remember their forefathers in the time of the Jāhiliyyah. This is the position of most commentators. Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Aṭā’, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and ar-Rabī‘ said that the meaning of the āyah is: ‘Remember Allah as children remember their fathers and mothers. Seek help from Him and seek refuge with Him as you did with your parents when you were a child.’ Another group say that the āyah means: ‘Remember Allah and esteem Him, defend His sanctity and repel those who desire to introduce shirk into His dīn and rites just as you would speak well of your parents if someone criticised them, and protect and defend them.’

Abu-l-Jawzā’ said to Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘These days no one mentions his forefathers. So what does the āyah mean?’ He replied, ‘That is not what it is about. Allah is angrier when someone disobeys Him than your parents are angry with you when you abuse them.’

Az-Zajjāj said that ‘even more’ means ‘with a stronger remembrance.’ It is possible that it means: ‘Remember Him more.’

There are some people who say, ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world’

This refers to the idolaters. Abū Wā’il, as-Suddī and Ibn Zayd said, ‘In the time of the Jāhiliyyah, the Arabs used only to pray for the good things of this world. They would ask for camels, sheep and victory over their enemies. They would not ask for the Next World since they did not acknowledge it or believe in it. Here they are being forbidden to ask for only this world. The prohibition comes in the form of a report about what they do. It is also possible that this threat refers to the believers when their supplication is confined to this world. They will have no portion in the Next World because they do not ask for it.’ ‘Khalāq’ is a portion.

201 And there are others who say, ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Next World, and safeguard us from the punishment of the Fire.’

The ‘others’ referred to here are the Muslims who ask for the good of this world and the Next World. There is disagreement about exactly what the two kinds of good entail and there are many things said about this. It is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib that the good in this world is a good woman and in the Next World it is the houris, and the ‘punishment of the Fire’ refers to a bad woman. This, however, is unlikely and is not a sound transmission from ‘Alī because the Fire is, in reality, a burning fire and interpreting it to be a woman would only be metaphorical.

Qatādah said the good of this ephemeral world takes the form of health and adequate wealth. Al-Ḥasan said that the good of this world is knowledge and worship. Other things are said. But what most of the people of knowledge believe is that what is meant by the two kinds of good are the blessings of this world and the Next World. This is sound and the expression entails all of that because the word ‘good’ in both cases in the supplication has no definite article and so it can be applied to all sorts of good. The good of the Next World is the Garden by consensus. It is also said that it does not mean one particular good, but rather ‘Give us the good of this world.’

and safeguard us from the punishment of the Fire.’

What is meant here is a supplication that the person concerned will not enter the Fire because of his acts of disobedience and that he should be brought out of it by intercession. It is possible that it is a supplication confirming the request to enter the Garden so that it expresses the desire for salvation and success on both fronts. It is as what one of the Companions said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I say in my supplication, “O Allah, make me enter the Garden and protect me from the Fire.” I do not know what it is that you and Mu‘ādh mumble.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to him, ‘We say that in a low voice.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it in his Sunan as did Ibn Mājah.

This āyah is a comprehensive supplication, asking for both this world and the Next. Anas was asked, ‘Make supplication for us.’ He said, ‘Give them good in this world and good in the Next World and protect them from the punishment of the Fire.’ They said, ‘More.’ He said, ‘What more do you want? I have asked for this world and the Next World!’ We find in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections that Anas is reported as saying that the Prophet ﷺ frequently used this supplication: ‘Give them good in this world and good in the Next World and protect them from punishment of the Fire.’ Anas used to use this supplication regularly. It is reported that while ‘Umar was doing ṭawāf, he said, ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the Next World and protect us from the punishment of the Fire,’ and that he said nothing else. Abū ‘Ubayd mentioned this. Ibn Jurayj said that he heard that the most frequent supplication of the Muslim when standing at ‘Arafāt should be: ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the Next World and protect us from the punishment of the Fire.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘There is an angel who has been standing at the [Yemeni] Corner since Allah created the heavens and the earth, saying, “Amen.” Therefore say: “Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the Next World and protect us from the punishment of the Fire.”’ ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ was asked about the Yemeni corner while he was doing ṭawāf of the House and he said, ‘Abū Hurayrah related to me that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Seventy angels have been entrusted to it. If someone says, “O Allah, I ask You for pardon and well-being in this world and the Next! Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the Next World and protect us from the punishment of the Fire,” they say, “Amen.”’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it in the Sunān.

202 They will have a good share from what they have earned. Allah is swift at reckoning.

They will have a good share from what they have earned.

This refers to the second group, the party of Islam, and informs them that they will have the reward for the ḥajj or the reward for the supplication. A believer’s supplication is worship in itself. It is also said that the word ‘they’ refers to both groups. The believer will receive the reward for his action and his supplication, and the unbeliever will have the punishment for his shirk and his confining his outlook to this world. Evidence for that are the words of Allah: ‘All have ranks according to what they did.’ (6:132)

Allah is swift at reckoning.

‘Swift’ (sarī‘) comes from the verb saru‘a, meaning ‘to hasten’. ‘Ḥisāb’ (reckoning) is a verbal noun like muḥāsabah. ‘Ḥisāb’ means the same as what is counted (muḥāsabah) and so what is counted constitutes the reckoning. Ḥasab, meaning noble descent, is what a man counts as one of his glories. One can say that his glory (ḥasab) is his dīn or his wealth. In a ḥadīth we find, ‘Ḥasab is wealth and nobility is piety.’ Samurah ibn Jundub related it. Ibn Mājah transmitted it. It is also found in ash-Shihāb.

The āyah means that Allah is swift in calculating the reckoning and has no need of counting, addition or the action of thought as a human reckoner would. That is why He says: ‘We are sufficient as Reckoner.’ (21:47) The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘O Allah, Sender down of the Book, Swift at Reckoning.’ Allah knows His slaves and what they do and has no need of memory or reflection since He knows everything to be reckoned for or against them. The purpose of reckoning is ascertaining the truth.

It is said that the phrase means that Allah is swift at repaying people for their actions. It is said that it means that one thing does not distract Him from other things. He reckons them all at the same time as we find in His words: ‘Your creation and rising is only like that of a single self.’ (31:28) Al-Ḥasan said, ‘His reckoning is swifter than the blink of a eye.’ One report says: ‘Allah reckons in the amount of time it takes to milk a sheep.’ It is said that when He reckons one person, He reckons all creation. ‘Alī was asked, ‘How can Allah reckon all His slaves in a single day?’ He replied, ‘In the same way that He provides for them in a single day!’ Another possible meaning of reckoning is that Allah acquaints His slaves with the exact repayment they will receive for their actions and reminds them of what they forgot as is seen in His words: ‘On the Day Allah raises up all of them together, He will inform them of what they did. Allah has recorded it while they have forgotten it.’ (58:6) It is said that it means that He is swift at bringing about the Day of Reckoning and so the meaning of the āyah is to warn about the Day of Rising.

All of these interpretations are possible. The slave of Allah should make the reckoning light for himself through righteous actions. The reckoning will be lighter in the Next World for the one who calls himself to account in this world.

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The words “They will have a good share...” refer to a man who uses money to perform ḥajj for someone else and has a reward.’ A ḥadīth is reported about that in which a man said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my father died without performing ḥajj. Can I perform ḥajj on his behalf?’ The Prophet ﷺ answered, ‘If your father had a debt, would you not pay it?’ He answered, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘A debt owed to Allah is more entitled to receive settlement.’ He asked, ‘Will I have a reward?’ and then Allah revealed: ‘They will have a good share from what they have earned.’ So the meaning is that the reward for the ḥajj for the dead person is shared between him and the dead person.

Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn Khuwayzimandād stated in al-Aḥkām, ‘The position of Ibn ‘Abbās is like that of Mālik because the final position of Mālik is that the one for whom the ḥajj is done has the reward for paying for it and the ḥajj belongs to the one who does it. So it is as if the person doing the ḥajj has the reward of his body and actions and the one who pays for it has the reward of his spending. That is why we say that there is no difference in this ruling between the one who has performed the obligatory ḥajj for himself or one who has not, because in the case of actions in which a proxy is permitted, the ruling of the proxy is the same for someone who has performed it before or has not performed it. This is true of actions which are for this world and those which are for the Next World. Do you not see that someone who owes zakat, kaffārah or the like can perform that on behalf of someone else, even if he has not performed it for himself? The same is true of someone who does not attend to his best interests in this world. He can, nonetheless, act as proxy for someone else in such things as that and undertake that for someone else even if he has not undertaken it for himself. He can carry out a marriage for someone else even if he himself has not married.’

203 Remember Allah on the designated days. Those who hurry on in two days have done no wrong, and those who stay another day have done no wrong – those of them who are fearful of Allah. Be fearful of Allah. And know that you will be gathered back to Him.

Remember Allah on the designated days.

There is no disagreement among scholars that the ‘designated days’ here refer to the days of Minā. They are the days of tashrīq. These three days have various names. They are the days of the stoning of the jamrahs which takes place over three days but then it is permitted for someone on ḥajj to hurry and do it in two days after the Day of Sacrifice. Ath-Tha‘labī and Ibrāhīm [an-Nakha‘ī] said that the ‘designated days’ are the ‘ushar (10th, 11th and 12th) and the ‘specific days’ (22:28) are the days of sacrifice. Makkī and al-Mahdawī also said that the ‘designated days’ are the ‘ushar.

Allah commands His slaves to remember Him on designated days which are the three days after the Day of Sacrifice. The Day of Sacrifice itself is not one of them by the consensus of the people that no one can hurry and leave on the second day. If the Day of Sacrifice had been one of the designated days, then it would be permitted for those who wish to hurry on to leave on the Day of Nafr because he has taken two of the designated days. Ad-Dāraquṭnī, at-Tirmidhī and others transmitted from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Ya’mar ad-Dīlī that some one of the people of Najd went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at ‘Arafah to question him and he commanded someone to call out: ‘The ḥajj is ‘Arafah. Whoever comes on the night of Jam‘ before dawn has caught it. The days at Minā are three. There is no sin for someone who hurries on after two and there is no sin for someone who stays longer.’ It means anyone who hurries on after two of the days at Minā has to stay at Minā for three days including the Day of Sacrifice. His total stoning consists of forty-nine pebbles and he does not have to stone on the third day. Anyone who doesn’t leave until the end of the third day stays at Minā for four days because of the Day of Sacrifice and does the full amount of stoning as will be explained. Part of the evidence for staying three days at Minā, as we mentioned, is what al-‘Arjī said:

It was only three days at Minā

before Nafr parted us.

The days of stoning are ‘designated’ and the days of sacrifice are ‘specific’. Nāfi‘ related that Ibn ‘Umar said that the ‘designated’ days and ‘specific’ days together add up to four days: the Day of Sacrifice and the three days after it. The Day of Sacrifice is ‘specific’, and not ‘designated’; the next two days are both ‘specific’ and ‘designated’, and the fourth day is ‘designated’ and not ‘specific’. This is the position in the school of Mālik and others.

That is the case because the first day, the Day of Sacrifice, is not one of the days particular to Minā nor one of those which the Prophet ﷺ specified when he said, ‘The days of Minā are three.’ So it is ‘specific’ because Allah says: ‘Invoke Allah’s name on specific days over livestock He has provided for them.’ (22:28) There is no disagreement that what is meant is the Sacrifice, and the Sacrifice is on the first day. It is the day of Aḍḥā and the two days after it. The consensus of our scholars is that there should be no sacrifice on the fourth day and so the fourth day is not included in His word, ‘specific’ because there is no sacrifice on it. The stoning on it is ‘designated’ on account of the stoning, even though it is not ‘specific’ because of the lack of sacrificing on it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘The truth is that the Day of Sacrifice is ‘designated’ for stoning and ‘specific’ for slaughtering, but our scholars says that it is not included in His words, ‘Remember Allah on designated days.’

Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the ‘specific days’ are the ten from the 1st of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah to the Day of Sacrifice. Their position on it does not vary and they related that from Ibn ‘Abbās. Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī related from Abū Yūsuf that the ‘specific days’ are the days of sacrifice and that Abū Yūsuf said, ‘That is related from ‘Umar and ‘Alī and I believe it because Allah says: “Invoke Allah’s name on specific days over livestock He has provided for them.”’ Al-Karkhī related from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan that the ‘specific days’ are the three days of Sacrifice: Aḍḥā and the two days after it. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘According to the view of Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad there is no difference between the “specific” and “designated” because the “designated days” mentioned in the Qur’an are undisputedly the days of tashrīq, and no one doubts that that the “designated days” do not include the ten days, because Allah says: “Those who hurry on in two days have done no wrong.” The “ten” do not have a ruling connected to two rather than three.’ It Is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the ‘specific’ are the ten and the ‘designated’ are the days of tashrīq. That is the majority position.

Ibn Zayd said that the ‘specific days’ are the ten days of Dhu-l-Ḥijjah and the days of tashrīq. This is unlikely based on what we have mentioned and the literal meaning of the āyah refutes it. Allah assigned remembrance in the designated and specific days which indicates something different to what he says, and so there is no need to deal with it.

There is no disagreement that the person addressed here is the person on ḥajj who says the takbīr while stoning the jamrahs, over the animals he intends to sacrifice during the specific days, and after the prayers without the talbīyah. Does it include other than those on ḥajj? The fuqahā’ of all the regions and the famous Companions and Tābi‘ūn agree that everyone is meant to do the takbīr, especially at the times of the prayer, and so it is recited, whether you pray alone or in a group, to imitate the Salaf. The Mukhtasar of Khalil states that women should not do it but the first position is better known since women follow the rules of iḥrām in the same way that men do and the Mudawwanah states that.

If someone forgets the takbīr after the prayer and not much time has passed since he completed it, he should say it. If, however, a long time has passed, he owes nothing. Ibn al-Jallāb said that. Malik is reported in the Mukhtaṣar as saying that you should say it as long as you are still sitting. If you rise before saying it you owe nothing. According to the Mudawwanah, Mālik said that if the imam forgets the takbīr and remembers soon after, he sits and says it, but if a long time has passed, he owes nothing. If he leaves without saying the takbīr and the people are still sitting down, they say it.

Scholars disagree about the end of the time of saying the takbīr. ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is said from the Ṣubḥ prayer on the Day of ‘Arafah up until ‘Aṣr on the last of the days of tashrīq. Ibn Mas‘ūd and Abū Ḥanīfah say that it is from the morning of the Day of ‘Arafah up until ‘Aṣr of the Day of Sacrifice. His two companions disagree and take the first position. So they agree about its beginning, but not its end. Mālik says that the takbīr should be said from Ẓuhr on the Day of Sacrifice to the Ṣubḥ prayer on the last of the days of tashrīq. Ash-Shāfi‘ī agrees with that, and it is also the position of Ibn ‘Umar and another position of Ibn ‘Abbās. Zayd ibn Thābit said that the takbīr should be said from Ẓuhr on the Day of Sacrifice to the days of tashrīq.

Ibn al-‘Arabī says that those who say that the takbīr is said from the Day of ‘Arafah and stopped at ‘Aṣr on the Day of Sacrifice have abandoned the evident text because Allah says: ‘on the designated days’, which are three. Those people say that they say the takbīr over two days and have therefore abandoned the literal text without any proof. As for those who say that it is said on the Day of ‘Arafah and the days of tashrīq, their argument is that Allah says: ‘When you pour down from ‘Arafāt’ (2:198) and so ‘Arafāt is included in the days mentioned. So it would be valid for someone to say that the takbīr should be said from Maghrib on the Day of ‘Arafah because that is the time of pouring down. Doing it before that is not demanded by the literal wording of the ayah. It is obligatory from the Day of Tarwīyah, when one alights in Minā.

There is disagreement about the wording of the takbīr. The well-known position in the school of Mālik is that the takbīr is said three times after each prayer. Ziyād ibn Ziyād related it from Mālik. One transmission is that one says after the three takbīrs: ‘There is no god but Allah. Allah is greater and praise be to Allah.’ (‘Lā ilāha illa-llāh, wa-llāhu akbar, wa lillāhi-l-ḥamd.’) In the Mukhtaṣar Mālik is reported as saying, ‘Allah is greater. Allah is greater. There is no god but Allah and Allah is greater. Allah is greater and praise be to Allah.’ (‘Allāhu akbar. Allāhu akbar. Lā ilāha illa-llāh, wa-llāhu akbar. Allāhu akbar, wa lillāhi-l-ḥamd.’)

Those who hurry on in two days have done no wrong,

Hurrying on is only permitted at the end of the second day. The same applies to the third day because the time of stoning during those days is after midday. All agree that on the Day of Sacrifice you only stone the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not stone the other jamrahs on the Day of Sacrifice. The time for stoning on that day is from sunrise to midday. They also agree that the time for stoning the jamrahs on the days of tashrīq is from after midday up until sunset. They disagree about someone who stones the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah before dawn or after dawn but before sunrise. Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that it is allowed if it was after dawn, but not before dawn.

Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that it is permitted to stone the jamrahs after dawn, but before sunrise. Mālik said, ‘It has not reached us that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ allowed anyone to stone before dawn.’ It is not permitted to stone them before dawn. If someone stones them before dawn, then he must repeat it. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said similarly that it is not permitted to stone them then. Aḥmad and Isḥāq also said that. One group permit stoning before dawn breaks. It is related that Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr used to stone at night. She said, ‘We used to do this in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it. This position is related from ‘Aṭā’, Ibn Abī Mulaykah, and ‘Ikrimah ibn Khālid. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the stoning could occur after the middle of the night. Another group said that there is no stoning until sunrise. Mujāhid, an-Nakha‘ī and ath-Thawrī said that. Abū Thawr said, ‘If someone stones before sunrise, and they disagree about it, it does not satisfy the requirement. If they agree or there is a sunnah about it, then it does satisfy it.’

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘As for the view of ath-Thawrī and those who follow him, his argument is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stoned the jamrah after sunrise and said, “Take your rites from me.”’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The sunnah is that one does not stone until after sunrise and stoning before sunrise does not satisfy the requirement. If someone does do it, then he must repeat it, since he has acted contrary to the Sunnah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ laid down for his community.’

Ma‘mar related from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah that his father said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded Umm Salamah to be in Makkah in the morning of her day…’ Abū ‘Umar said that this ḥadīth varies from Hishām. One group related it mursal from Hisham from his father as Ma‘mar related it and others related it from Hisham from his father from ‘Ā’ishah with an isnād. All of them are reliable. The point is that it indicates that she had stoned the jamrah at Minā before dawn, since the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded her to be in Makkah on the morning of the Day of Sacrifice. This could only happen if she had stoned the jamrah at Minā during the night before dawn. Allah knows best.

Abū Dāwud related from Hārūn ibn ‘Abdullāh from Ibn Abī Fudayk from aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ‘Uthmān from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent Umm Salamah ahead on the night before the Day of Sacrifice. She stoned the jamrah before dawn and then went and performed the Ṭawāf al-Ifāḍah. That was the day when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was going to be with her. If this is confirmed, then stoning at night is permitted, but what is preferred is from sunrise to midday. Abū ‘Umar said that they agree that the preferred time for stoning the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah is between sunrise and midday. All but Mālik agree that if someone stones before sunset on the Day of Sacrifice, it satisfies the requirement and he owes nothing. Mālik said, ‘I recommend that if he fails to stone the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah until evening he should sacrifice an animal that he brought from outside the Ḥaram.

They disagree about someone who does not stone until sunset and then stones in the night or the following morning, Mālik said that he owes a sacrifice. His argument was that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set a time for stoning the jamrah: the Day of Sacrifice. If someone stones after sunset, he has stoned after the end of the time and if someone does something in the ḥajj outside of its time, he owes a sacrifice. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he owes no sacrifice. That is also the view of Abu Yūsuf and Muḥammad. Abū Thawr said that was because when someone said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘Messenger of Allah, I stoned after the evening,’ he said, ‘There is no harm.’ Mālik said, ‘If someone forgets to stone the jamrahs until evening, he should do the stoning at whatever time he remembers, day or night, as someone prays a prayer that he forgot whenever he remembers it. He only stones what he missed. If it is one jamrah, he stones it and then stones the jamrahs after it. The order of the jamrahs in stoning is mandatory. It is not permitted to start stoning the next jamrah until he has completed stoning the previous jamrah, as is the case with the rak‘ahs of the prayer.’ This is well-known in the School. It is said that the order is not mandatory for the validity of stoning, but all stoning at the correct time of performance satisfies the requirement.

There is no stoning after the end of the days of stoning. If someone remembers failing to do that after he is in Makkah or after he has left it, he owes a sacrifice, whether he omitted all of the stoning or just one jamrah or even one pebble of the jamrah. If the days of Minā are over, he owes a sacrifice. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘If someone omits all of the jamrahs, he owes a sacrifice. If he omits one jamrah, he must feed a poor person half a ṣā‘ of food for every pebble of the jamrah he missed until it reaches the level of sacrifice and then he should feed what he wishes, except in the case of the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah for which he owes a sacrifice. Al-Awzā‘ī said that he gives ṣadaqah for omitting a pebble. Ath-Thawrī said that he should feed in the case of one, two or three pebbles. If it is four or more, he owes a sacrifice. Al-Layth said that there is a sacrifice for one pebble missed. That is one of the two views of ash-Shāfi‘ī. His final position is the well-known one: a mudd of food for one pebble, two mudds for two pebbles, and a sacrifice for three pebbles.

The majority say that there is no possibility for anyone to complete anything of the rite of stoning the jamrahs on the days of tashrīq he has missed once the sun has set on the last day, which is the fourth day from the Day of Sacrifice and the third of the days of tashrīq. Such a person must do reparation in the form of sacrifice or feeding the poor according to what we have just mentioned.

It is not permitted to spend the night at Makkah, or elsewhere other than Minā, during the nights of tashrīq. All agree that that is not permitted although there is an exception made for herdsmen and those of the family of ‘Abbās who bring water. Mālik said, ‘A sacrifice is owed by anyone who spends any of the nights of Minā elsewhere, with the exception of herdsmen and those of the family of ‘Abbās who bring water.’ Al-Bukhārī related from Ibn ‘Umar that al-‘Abbās asked for permission from the Prophet ﷺ to spend the nights of Minā at Makkah in order to provide water and he gave him permission. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās used to oversee the watering and undertook that task. He provided the ḥājjīs with water during the Festival. That is why he had an allowance not to spend the nights at Minā, as did those who herded camels, due to their need to attend to the camels and to take them where they could graze, which was some distance from Minā.

Minā takes its name from the blood shed (yumnā) there. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It is called Minā because Jibrīl said to the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Wish (tamann).’ He said, ‘I wish for the Garden.’ Therefore it is called Minā. He said that it is called Jam‘ because Ḥawwā’ and Ādam met (ijtima‘a) there. Jam‘ is also a name for Muzdalifah which is the Sacred Landmark as we already said.

Fuqahā’ agree that spending the nights of Minā at Minā is one of the practices and rites of the ḥajj, except for those we have mentioned who are given a dispensation. Logic demands that any omission of its practices calls for a sacrifice, based on analogy with the rest of the ḥajj and its rites. We find in the Muwaṭṭā’: ‘From Mālik from Nāfi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar is that ‘Umar said, “No one performing ḥajj should spend the nights of Minā beyond al-‘Aqabah.”’ The area of ‘Aqabah beyond which ‘Umar forbade anyone to spend the night is that which is at the jamrah that people stone on the Day of Sacrifice, which is closer to Makkah. Ibn Nāfi‘ related it from Mālik in al-Mabsūṭ. He said that Mālik said, ‘Anyone who spends the nights of Minā beyond it owes fidyah. That is because he spent the nights of Minā other than at Minā.’ Spending those nights there is prescribed in the ḥajj and therefore a sacrifice is owed by someone who does not spend the night there, as is the case if someone does not spend the night at Muzdalifah. According to Mālik, fidyah means a hady. He said, ‘It is a hady driven from outside the Ḥaram into the Ḥaram.’

Mālik related from ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Ḥazm from his father that Abu-l-Baddāḥ ibn ‘Āṣim ibn ‘Adī reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ allowed those herding the camels, who spend the nights away from Minā, to stone on the Day of Sacrifice, then to stone on the following day and the day after it. Then they stone on the Day of Nafr.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Mālik’s view does not accord with this ḥadīth. He used to say that they stone the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah on the Day of Sacrifice and then do not stone on the following day, which is the second of the days of tashrīq, and the day when those who want to hurry on do so or when those who are permitted to hurry on stone on the two days – that day and the day before it – because they perform what they owe. In his view no one pays anything except after it is obligatory for him. This is the meaning of Mālik’s interpretation of this ḥadīth in the Muwaṭṭā’.’

Others say that there is nothing wrong in any of that, based on what is in the ḥadīth of Mālik, because they are all days of stoning. In Mālik’s view, it is not permitted for herdsmen to bring forward the stoning because those other than the herdsmen are not permitted to stone the jamrahs on the days of tashrīq before midday. If someone stones them before midday, he must repeat it. They cannot bring it forward. They do have an allowance for that on the second to the third day. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘What Mālik says regarding this question exists in the transmission of Ibn Jurayj from Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Ḥazm from his father, saying that Abu-l-Baddāḥ ibn ‘Āṣim ibn ‘Adī reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ allowed those herding the camels, who spend the nights away from Minā, to alternate so that they would stone on the Day of Sacrifice, leave the second day and night and then stone on the following day. Our scholars say that stoning the third jamrah is cancelled for those who hurry on. Ibn Abī Zaminīn said, ‘One stones it on the first day of Nafr when he wants to hurry on.’ Ibn al-Mawwāz said, ‘The one who hurries on stops with twenty-one pebbles in the two days, seven pebbles for each jamrah. That makes his total stoning forty-nine pebbles because he stoned the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah with seven on the Day of Sacrifice.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said that the stoning for the third day is cancelled.

Mālik related from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd that he heard ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ mention that there was a dispensation for the herdsmen to stone in the night at first. Al-Bājī said, ‘“At first” means that it was during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, because it is the first period of this Sharī‘ah.’ According to this it is mursal. It is possible that he means the time that ‘Aṭā’ heard it. Then it would be a mawqūf isnād.’ Allah knows best. It has an isnād from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather from the Prophet ﷺ that ad-Dāraquṭnī and others transmitted. We mentioned it in al-Muqtabis fī sharḥ Muwaṭṭā’ Mālik ibn Anas. They were permitted to stone at night because it is easier for them and shows more concern for their efforts to herd the camels, because night is a time when they do no graze or wander off. That is why they stone at that time.

There is disagreement about someone who misses doing the stoning until the sun has set. ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘The only people who are permitted to stone at night are the herdsmen. Merchants may not do that.’ It is related that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘If someone fails to stone until the sun has set, he should not stone until the sun has risen on the following day.’ Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that. Mālik said, as transmitted by Ibn al-Qāsim, ‘If he fails to do it in the day he should stone at night and owes a sacrifice.’ The Muwaṭṭā’ does not mention owing a sacrifice. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, Ya‘qūb and Muḥammad said that if someone fails to stone until evening, he stones and does not owe a sacrifice. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣri makes an allowance for stoning the jamrahs at night. Abū Ḥanīfah said that he stones and owes nothing, even though he did not mention it as being in the night. If he waits until the following day, then he owes a sacrifice. Ath-Thawrī said that if he delays the stoning until night, out of forgetfulness or deliberately, he must sacrifice.

As for the camel-herders or the people who get water (siqāyah) stoning at night, they owe no sacrifice based on the ḥadīth. However, if it is done by other people, then logic demands that they sacrifice. That is when it is deliberate, and Allah knows best.

It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stoned the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah on the Day of Sacrifice while mounted. Mālik and others recommended stoning it while mounted. Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn az-Zubayr, and Sālim used to stone it on foot. The stoning consists of twenty-one pebbles on each of the three days and the takbīr is said with each pebble. The person should face towards the Ka‘bah when he stones and do the jamrahs in the correct order, doing them all without stopping and without separating them or reversing them. He starts with the first jamrah and throws seven pebbles at it and does not set them down. That is what was stated by Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, and the People of Opinion. If he simply tosses them, that is permitted by the People of Opinion.

Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘It is not permitted to throw them all together.’ That is sound because the Prophet ﷺ used to stone them and he did not throw two or more stones at the same time. When he did the stoning, he did it with one pebble at a time. When he had finished throwing them, he stood in front of the jamrah for a long time making such supplication as was feasible. Then he stoned the second one, which is the middle one and left it going to the left in the bottom of the river-bed and stood for a long time at that one making supplication. Then he stoned the third one, the Jamrat al-‘Aqabah, with seven pebbles from below it, but he did not stop beside it. It is satisfactory to stone them from above. The takbīr should be said with every pebble thrown.’ The Sunnah of remembrance when stoning the jamrahs is to say the takbīr and nothing else. They should be stoned on foot which is not the case with the jamrah on the Day of Sacrifice.

All this is related by an-Nasā’ī and ad-Dāraquṭnī from az-Zuhrī from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He used to stone the jamrah that is next to the mosque of Minā with seven pebbles, saying the takbīr with every pebble. Then he went forward and stood for a long time facing the qiblah, raising his hands in supplication. Then he went to the second jamrah and stoned it with seven pebbles, saying the takbīr with every pebble. Then he went down to the left opposite the wadi and stood facing the qiblah, raising his hands in supplication. Then he went to the jamrah at al-‘Aqabah and stoned it with seven pebbles, saying the takbīr with every pebble. Then he left without standing there. Az-Zuhrī said that he heard Sālim ibn ‘Abdullāh relate this from his father from the Prophet ﷺ. He said that Ibn ‘Umar used to do it like this.

The ruling of the jamrahs is that they are considered pure and are are not affected by anything used to stone them. If someone stones them with what has already been used to stone them, Mālik believes that it does not satisfy the requirement. Ibn al-Qāsim said that he said that if that is only a matter of a single pebble, it satisfies the requirement. Ibn al-Qāsim gave that fatwā. The people of knowledge recommend taking the stones from Muzdalifah, not from the mosque. If someone takes more than he needs and still has some in his possession after stoning, he should bury them and not just throw them away. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and others said that.

Most, with the exception of Ṭāwūs, say that they should not be washed. He related that it is not good if the jamrahs and what is thrown are not washed free of impurity but, if they are not, it still satisfies the requirement. Ibn al-Mundhir said that it is disliked to throw what has already been thrown but, nonetheless, it still satisfies the requirement since he did not know of anyone who obliges someone who does that to repeat it. We do not know of any reports stating that the Prophet ﷺ washed the pebbles or commanded that they be washed. Ṭāwūs, as we stated, did wash them.

Throwing bits of mud at the jamrahs does not satisfy the requirement nor does anything except stone. That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. The People of Opinion say that it is permitted with dry clay. The same applies to anything that is part of the earth: it satisfies the requirement. Ath-Thawrī said that if someone throws date-stones or mud, that does not satisfy the requirement. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ threw pebbles.

There is disagreement about the size of what is thrown. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the pebbles should be smaller in both length and width than a fingertip. Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion said that they should be like the pebbles used for flicking. We related that Ibn ‘Umar used to stone the jamrah with something the size of sheep pellets. There is no sense in Mālik’s statement, ‘I prefer them being larger than that’ because the Prophet ﷺ made a sunnah of stoning with something similar in size to date-stones. It is permitted to stone with anything that can be called a pebble, but it is better to follow the Sunnah. Ibn al-Mundhir said that.

This is the sound position which cannot be opposed by anyone who is guided and follows. An-Nasā’ī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me on the morning of al-‘Aqabah while he was on his camel, “Pick up some pebbles for me.” I picked up seven pebbles the size of peas. When I put them in his hand, he said, “Something like these. Beware of excess in the dīn. Those before you were destroyed by excess in the dīn.”’ His words about ‘excess in the dīn indicate dislike of stoning of the jamrahs with large stones and the fact that doing that is part of excess. Allah knows best.

If someone has a pebble left in his hand and he does not know which of the jamrahs it was for, he stones the first and the middle and the last one after it. If it has been a long time, he starts over again.

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, ‘Abd al-Malik, Abū Thawr, and the People of Opinion said that if someone puts one jamrah ahead of another, it does not satisfy the requirement unless he stones them in order. Al-Ḥasan, ‘Aṭā’ and some people say that it does satisfy it. Some people cite as evidence the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘There is no harm in someone putting one rite before another.’ He said, ‘This is not more than a man who combines the prayer and fasting and makes up one of them before the other.’ The first shows more caution. Allah knows best.

They disagree about the stoning done by someone who is ill and someone stoning on his behalf. Mālik said that one may stone on behalf of someone ill or a child who cannot stone. The ill person takes care when he stones and says seven takbīrs for each jamrah and he owes a hady. When a sick person recovers during the days of stoning, he stones for himself. According to Mālik, he owes a sacrifice in addition to that. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and the People of Opinion say that one can stone on behalf of a sick person and they do not mention a sacrifice. There is no disagreement about stoning on behalf of a child who is unable to stone. Ibn ‘Umar used to do that. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘We said, “Messenger of Allah, we reckon that these jamrahs that are stoned decrease in size.” He said, “What is accepted of it is taken up. If it were not for that, you would see them like mountains.”’

Ibn al-Mundhir said that scholars agree that if someone wants to leave Minā to return to his country and come out of iḥrām without staying at Makkah, he can depart after midday when he has stoned during the day after the Day of Sacrifice. That is because Allah says, ‘Those who hurry on in two days have done no wrong.’ He can go as long as there is some of the day left. We related that an-Nakha‘ī and al-Ḥasan said that someone who catches ‘Aṣr at Minā on the second day of tashrīq should not leave until the following day. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is possible that they both said that as a recommendation. We take the first view based on the literal text of the Book and the Sunnah.’

They disagree about whether the people of Makkah can leave in the first departure. We related that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘Any of the people who wish can leave in the first departure except for Khuzaymah. They may only leave in the final leaving.’ Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal used to say, ‘I do not like those who leave in the first departure to be resident in Makkah.’ He said, ‘It is making light for the people of Makkah.’ Aḥmad and Isḥāq took the meaning of ‘Umar’s words ‘except Khuzaymah’ to mean the people of Makkah. Mālik used to say about the people of Makkah, ‘Anyone with an excuse can hurry on in two days, but if someone merely wants to lighten the business of the ḥajj for himself, that is not permitted.’ So he thought that hurrying was for those who lived far away.

One group said that the āyah is general and the allowance is for all people: the people of Makkah as well as others. It is for those who want to leave Minā either to reside in Makkah or to return to their homeland. ‘Aṭā’ agreed that it is for people in general. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It accords with the school of ash-Shāfi‘ī, and we take that position.’ Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ḥasan, ‘Ikrimah, Mujāhid, Qatādah and an-Nakha‘ī said that there is nothing wrong with leaving on the second of the designated days and there is nothing wrong in remaining to the third day. So the āyah means that all of that is permitted. This division is given attention since some Arabs criticised those who hurried on and some criticised those who did not. Therefore this āyah was revealed to remove any consideration of harm from either position.

‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd, and Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī said that it means that anyone who hurries on is forgiven and whoever stays is forgiven. Their argument is based on the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Anyone who makes ḥajj to this House and does not engage in sexual activity or wrongdoing emerges from his errors like the day his mother bore him.’ So Allah’s words ‘have done no wrong’ is a general negation and absolution. Mujāhid said that the āyah means: there is no wrongdoing for those who hurry on or stay until the following year. This report has an isnād. Abu-l-‘Āliyah said about the āyah, ‘There is no wrongdoing for someone who remains godfearing for the rest of his life. The ḥājjī is absolutely forgiven,’ meaning that all his sins have departed provided he remains godfearing for the rest of his life. Abū Ṣāliḥ and others said that the āyah means that there is no wrongdoing for someone who is fearful of killing game and avoiding that which must be avoided in the ḥajj. He also said, ‘Someone who is godfearing in his ḥajj and performs it fully is accepted.’

those of them who are fearful of Allah.

This statement is connected to forgiveness. It implies that there is forgiveness for those who are fearful of Allah. This is the interpretation of Ibn Mas‘ūd and ‘Alī. Qatādah said, ‘Ibn Mas‘ūd mentioned to us that forgiveness is reserved for those who remain fearful of Allah after finishing the ḥajj and avoid all acts of disobedience.’ Al-Akhfash said that it implies: ‘Forgiveness is for those who are fearful of Allah.’ One of them said that it refers to not killing game in iḥrām or in the Ḥaram. It is said that there is safety for anyone who is fearful of Allah. This is related from Ibn ‘Umar. It is also said that it means safety for those who are godfearing. It is also said that it is connected to the remembrance inherent in the word, ‘Remember’ which begins the ayah, meaning that remembrance is confined to those who are fearful of Allah. Allah commands us to be fearful of Him and reminds us of the Gathering and Standing.

204 Among the people there is someone whose words about the life of this world excite your admiration, and he calls Allah to witness what is in his heart, while he is in fact the most hostile of adversaries.

Among the people there is someone whose words about the life of this world excite your admiration,

This āyah is here because Allah has just mentioned in His words a little earlier that the aspiration of some people is confined to this world: ‘Our Lord, give us good in this world.’ The believers are those who ask for the good of both the worlds. Hypocrites are mentioned because hypocrites make a display of faith while concealing disbelief. As-Suddī and other commentators say that it was revealed about al-Akhnas ibn Sharīq. His name was actually Ubayy and al-Akhnas was a nickname for him because on the day of the Battle of Badr, he withdrew (khanasa) from fighting the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with three hundred men of his allies of the Banū Zuhrah. This will be explained in Āl ‘Imrān. He was a man of sweet words and good appearance. He came to the Prophet ﷺ and made a display of Islam and said, ‘Allah knows that l am telling the truth,’ and then after that he ran away. On his way he passed some crops and animals belonging to some Muslims and burned the crops and hamstrung the donkeys. Al-Mahdawī said that Allah’s words: ‘But do not obey any vile swearer of oaths, and backbiter, slandermonger’ (68:10-11), were also revealed about him as were the words: ‘Woe to every fault-finding slanderer.’ (104:1)

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It is not established that al-Akhnas became Muslim.’ Ibn ‘Abbās says that it was revealed about some hypocrites who spoke about those killed in the Rajī‘ expedition, saying that they should have stayed at home. Then this was revealed to describe the hypocrites while those who were martyred in Rajī‘ are referred to in the words: ‘And among the people there are some who give up everything.’ (2:207).

Qatādah, Mujāhid and a group of scholars said that the āyah was revealed about anyone who conceals disbelief, hypocrisy, lying or vindictiveness while displaying the opposite of that in what he says. Therefore the meaning is general and unrestricted. This is akin to something at-Tirmidhī quotes as being contained in one of the books of Allah, which goes: ‘There are some slaves of Allah whose tongues are sweeter than honey while their hearts are more bitter than aloes. They appear to people to be like gentle sheep while they use the dīn to buy this world. Allah Almighty says: “Do they attempt to delude Me? Are they bold towards Me? I swear by My Self that I will destine for them a trial that will leave someone forbearing bewildered!”’

and he calls Allah to witness what is in his heart,

He does this by saying, ‘Allah knows that I am telling the truth,’ whereas Allah knows that he is different to what he says. As Allah says: ‘Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are certainly liars’ (63:1).

The reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd reverses the position of ‘Allāhu’ and ‘yashhadu’ in the āyah, (which would mean ‘Allah bears witness to…’) but the majority reading is stronger in censure because he remains adamant in holding to good words while something other than that is manifesting itself inside him.

Our scholars say that this āyah calls attention to the necessity of caution in dealing with both matters of the dīn and matters of the material world, and the need to verify the states of witnesses and qāḍīs. It points out that a judge should not base his judgment merely on the outward states of people and any display of faith and rectitude they make, without investigating their inward, because Allah will make the inward states of people clear. Some people can speak sweetly while intending evil.

If it is said that this is contradicted by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they say, “There is no god but Allah”...’ the answer is that that was at the beginning of Islam when people’s Islam was sound, before corruption became widespread. That is what Ibn al-‘Arabī said. The sound position, however, is that a judge should judge by the outward until something contrary to it becomes clear, going by the statement of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb in al-Bukhārī, ‘O people, Revelation has come to an end. We now judge according to what appears to us of your actions. If someone exhibits good, we consider him trustworthy and bring him near. We know nothing of what is concealed within him; Allah will call him to account for what is in his heart. If someone exhibits bad to us, we do not consider him trustworthy or believe him, even if it happens to be that his heart is good.’

while he is in fact the most hostile of adversaries.

The word ‘aladd’ (hostile) is derived from the word ladīdān, meaning both sides of the neck so that the implication is that his hostility is deeply rooted. The word ‘khiṣām’ (adversaries) is a verbal noun from khāṣama, and it is also said to be the plural of khaṣm. Az-Zajjāj said that. It means that he is the most vehement in argumentation when he speaks to you and replies to you and you find his words sweet, even though what he says is inwardly false. This indicates that argumentation is only permitted when the inward and outward are the same. We read in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that ‘Ā’ishah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The man Allah most hates is “the most hostile of adversaries”.’

205 When he leaves you, he goes about the earth corrupting it, destroying crops and animals Allah does not love corruption.

When he leaves you, he goes about the earth corrupting it,

The verb ‘tawallā’ (leaves) is said to imply being misguided, angry and arrogant and ‘sa‘y’ (goes about) to imply scheming and striving to bring about reverses for Islam and its people, as Ibn Jurayj and others have said. It is also said that it is the action of a single person, so he turns his back and leaves you. Sa‘y is to go about on his feet, cutting off the road and corrupting it as Ibn ‘Abbās and others say. Both forms of sa‘y are corruption.

destroying

This is added to ‘corrupting’. Although the āyah is held to refer specifically to al-Akhnas burning crops and killing camels, aṭ-Ṭabarī said that its meaning is general and should be extended to all who fit its description and merit the curse and punishment. Some scholars said that if someone kills a donkey or burns a haystack, he must be blameworthy and shame is attached to him until the Day of Rising. Mujāhid said, ‘What is meant is that wrongdoers work corruption in the earth so that Allah withholds the rain from it, causing crops and animals to die.’ It is said that ‘crops’ are wives and ‘animals’ are children. The reason for this is that hypocrisy leads to disunity and fighting and that causes people to be killed. Az-Zajjāj expressed that idea. Sa‘y in the land is ‘running’ and this is an expression for causing sedition and contention between people. Allah knows best. We find in a ḥadīth: ‘When people see an oppressor and do not take hold of his hands [to stop him], Allah is about to envelop them with a punishment from Him.’

crops and animals.

The root of the word ‘ḥarth’ (crops) linguistically means splitting and the word for plough (miḥrāth) comes from it since it splits the earth. By extension ḥarth comes to mean gaining and amassing wealth. We find in a ḥadīth, ‘Cultivate (aḥrith) for this world as if you are going to live forever.’ Ḥarth is agriculture. Ḥarrāth is a ploughman. Other uses of the verb are aḥratha mean to study thoroughly, to ride an animal until it is exhausted, and to poke the fire. Miḥrāth is also a poker according to al-Jawharī.

The word ‘nasl’ (animals) denotes any progeny of a female. Its root meaning is ‘to leave and fall’. The verb is used for hair falling out and feathers moulting. We find it used in the ayah: ‘they will be sliding (yansilūna) from their graves towards their Lord’ (36:51) and: ‘rush down (yansilūna) from every slope.’ (21:96) So the words in the āyah indicate planting and cultivating the earth, planting trees to bear fruit, and seeking increase in livestock which provide livelihood for a person. This refutes those who espouse abandoning secondary means.

Allah does not love corruption.

Al-‘Abbās ibn al-Faḍl said that ‘fasād’ (corruption) means ruin. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said that clipping dirhams forms part of corruption in the land. ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘A man called ‘Aṭā’ ibn Munabbih assumed iḥrām in a jubbah and the Prophet ﷺ told him to remove it.’ Qatādah said to ‘Aṭā’, ‘We heard that he tore it in half.’ ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘Allah does not love corruption.’

The āyah is general to all kinds of corruption in the land, in respect of either property or the dīn, and that is the sound position, Allah willing. It is said that He does not love corruption in people of righteousness, or He does not love it as a dīn.

206 When he is told to be fearful of Allah, he is seized by a feeling of might which drives him to wrongdoing. Hell will be enough for him! What an evil resting-place!

This describes the chief attribute of the unbeliever and the hypocrite: arrogance. It is disliked for a believer to fall into this. ‘Abdullāh said, ‘It is enough wrong action for a man that he says to his brother, “Fear Allah,” and he retorts, “Mind your own business! Someone like you advises me!”’ The word ‘‘izzah’ (might) denotes strength and dominance, as it is used in 38:23. It is also said to mean zeal. It is said that it means unapproachable self-esteem. He exalts himself and when that arrogance takes hold of him, that leads him to commit wrong action. Qatādah said, ‘It means that when he is told to slow down, he is increased in his advancing towards disobedience. It means that his pride leads him to commit wrong action, so that he falls into disbelief for the sake of might and the zeal of the Jāhiliyyah. It is like the ayah: ‘Those who disbelieve are full of vainglory and entrenched in hostility.’ (38:2) It is said that it means that arrogance and zeal make him refuse to accept the warning about the wrong action that is in his heart, which constitutes hypocrisy.

It is mentioned that a Jew needed something from Hārūn ar-Rashīd and he kept going to his door for a year without his need being met. So he stood at his door and when Hārūn came out, he ran and stood in front of him. He said, ‘Fear Allah, Amīr al-Mu’minīn!’ Hārūn dismounted and went down into prostration. When he raised his head. He commanded that his need be met. When he returned, it was said to him, ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn! Do you dismount from your animal for the words of a Jew!’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘but I remembered the words of Allah: “When he is told to have taqwā of Allah, he is seized by pride which drives him to wrongdoing. Hell will be enough for him! What an evil resting-place!” That is enough of a consequence and repayment.’

The usual meaning of the word ‘resting place’ (mihād) is a place prepared for sleep. It is also used for a child’s cradle. Jahannam (Hell) is referred to as one because it is where the unbelievers will remain. It is also said that here ‘Hell’ is an appositive for ‘resting-place’.

207 And among the people there are some who give up everything, desiring the good pleasure of Allah. Allah is Ever-Gentle with His slaves.

After speaking of the actions of the hypocrites, Allah talks about the behaviour of the believers. It is said that the āyah was actually revealed about Ṣuhayb. He emigrated to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and some people of Quraysh followed him. He dismounted, took out what was in his quiver and took up his bow and said, ‘You know that I am the best shot among you. By Allah you will not reach me until I have shot what is in my quiver and struck with my sword until nothing remains in my hands and then do what you wish.’ They said, ‘We will not let you leave us as a wealthy man when you came to us with nothing. Direct us to your property in Makkah and we will let you go.’ They made an agreement with him to that effect and he did that. When he came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, this āyah was revealed and the Prophet ﷺ said to him, ‘A profitable sale, Abū Yaḥyā!’ and recited it to him. Razīn transmitted it. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said that.

Commentators say that the idolaters took Ṣuhayb and tortured him and Ṣuhayb said to them, ‘I am an old man. Your security will not be prejudiced if I am with other than you. Will you not take my wealth and leave me with my dīn?’ They did that and he stipulated a camel and provision for himself and went to Madīnah where Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and some men met him. Abū Bakr told him, ‘A profitable sale, Abū Yaḥyā!’ Ṣuhayb asked what he meant and he told him about the revelation of the āyah.

Al-Ḥasan said, ‘Do you know about whom this āyah was revealed? It was revealed about a Muslim who met an unbeliever and told him, “Say: ‘There is no god but Allah’. If you say it, your property and life are safe.” He refused to say it. The Muslim said, “By Allah, I will sell my self to Allah” and he advanced and fought until he was killed.’ It is said that it was revealed about all those who command what is known to be right and forbid what is recognised as wrong and that is the way it was interpreted by ‘Umar, ‘Alī and Ibn ‘Abbās. ‘Alī and Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Two men fought and the one who was trying to make the corrupter change his ways said, “Be fearful of Allah!” The corrupter refused and pride took hold of him. So the one who was trying to change him sold himself to Allah and fought him. So the two fought.’

Al-Khalīl said, ‘‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb heard a man reciting this āyah and said, “We belong to Allah and to Him we return. A man stood commanding what is known to be right and forbidding what is recognised as wrong and was killed.’ It is said that ‘Umar heard Ibn ‘Abbās say, ‘Two men fought,’ when the reciter recited this āyah. He asked him about what he had said and he explained it to him in this way. ‘Umar said to him, ‘May Allah bless you, Ibn ‘Abbās!’

It is also said that it was revealed about someone who leaps into the fight. Hishām ibn ‘Āmir attacked the ranks at Constantinople and fought until he was slain and Abū Hurayrah recited: ‘And among the people there are some who give up everything, desiring the good pleasure of Allah.’ Something similar is related from Abū Ayyūb.

It is also said that it was revealed about those martyred in the Rajī‘ expedition. Qatādah said that it refers to the Muhājirūn and Anṣār. It is said that it was revealed about ‘Alī when the Prophet ﷺ left him on his bed on the night he went out to the cave as we will deal with in Sūrat at-Tawbah. It is said that the āyah is general and applies to everyone striving in the way of martyrdom for Allah’s sake or changing something wrong. We have already mentioned the ruling on someone who attacks the ranks of the enemy. The rulings of someone who changes something wrong will come in Āl ‘Imrān.

‘Yashrī’ means ‘to sell’. ‘Selling the self’ means to expend it in obeying Allah’s commands. The verb can also mean ‘to purchase’. We see this interpretation of the āyah in the story of Ṣuhayb because he purchased himself with his property and did not sell it, unless it is said that Ṣuhayb offering to fight them was selling himself to Allah, in which case the word bears its normal meaning.

208 You who believe! enter Islam totally. Do not follow in the footsteps of Shayṭān. He is an outright enemy to

you. You who believe! enter Islam totally.

After Allah made it clear that people are either believers, unbelievers or hypocrites, He says, “Follow only one religion and agree on Islam and remain firm in it.” Here the word salm means Islam as Mujāhid said and as is related from Ibn ‘Abbās. Part of that is seen in the words of the Kindī poet:

I called my tribe to Islam (salm) when I saw them turn their backs on us.

This is calling them to Islam when Kindah apostasised after the death of the Prophet ﷺ under al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays al-Kindī. Another reason that it cannot mean ‘truce or a peace treaty’ here is because the Muslims were never commanded to enter into a truce in this way. Rather the Prophet ﷺ was told to incline to peace if the enemy inclined to it, but not to initiate it. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that. It is said that Allah is here commanding those who articulate belief with their tongues to enter into it with their hearts as well. Ţāwus and Mujāhid said that it means, ‘Enter under the authority of the dīn.’ Sufyān ath-Thawrī says that it refers to all types of piety.

It is read both as salm (Warsh) and silm (Ḥafṣ) and they mean the same. This is the position of most of the Basrans and they use both to signify Islam and to signify ‘truce’. Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ distinguished between them and here he recited ‘as-silm’ meaning Islam, and recited ‘as-salm’ in al-Anfāl and Muḥammad where he said that it means ‘truce’. Al-Mubarrad denied this difference. ‘Āṣim al-Jaḥdarī said that silm is Islam, salm is truce and salam is submission. Muḥammad ibn Yazīd disliked this distinction and said, ‘Language is not defined like this. Language is defined by oral transmission, not on the basis of analogy. Someone who makes a distinction like this requires some evidence.’ The Basrans said that silm, salm and salam are employed with the same meaning. Al-Jawharī said that silm and salm mean truce, derived from the root meaning of submission. Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that the word means Islam.

Regarding this āyah, Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān said, ‘Islam is divided into eight parts. The prayer is one part, zakat is one part, fasting is one part, ḥajj is one part, ‘umrah is one part, jihād is one part, commanding what is known to be right is one part, and forbidding what is recognised as wrong is one part. Disappointed is he who has no part of Islam.’

Ibn Abbas said that it was revealed about the People of the Book and the meaning is: ‘You who believe in Mūsā and ‘Īsā, enter into Islam totally through Muḥammad ﷺ.’ It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘By the One who has the soul of Muḥammad in His hand, any Jew or Christian who hears this and then dies without believing in what I was sent with will be one of the people of the Fire.’

‘Kāffatan’ means ‘totally’ and it is an adverb modifying ‘Islam’ or ‘believers’. It is derived from the expression, ‘kafaftu’ meaning ‘I prevented’. So none of you should be prevented from entering Islam. Kaff is stoppage. The hem (kuffah) of a sleeve stops it from unravelling just as the scale (kiffah) of a balance collects what is weighed and keeps it from spreading. The hand (kaff) of a person is that which collects the things that benefit and harm him. The eyes of a blind (makfūf) man are prevented from seeing. The communal group is called kāffah because it prevents separation.

Do not follow in the footsteps of Shayṭān.

Muqātil said, ‘‘Abdullāh ibn Salām and his people asked for permission to recite the Torah in the prayer and to do some of what is in the Torah and this was revealed. It means: “It is better to follow the Sunnah now that Muhammad ﷺ has been sent than to follow the footsteps of Shayṭān.”’ It is also said that it means: ‘Do not follow the path that Shayṭān calls you to.’

209 If you backslide after the Clear Signs have come to you, know that Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

If you backslide

In other words, if you turn back from the path of righteousness. The root of ‘zalal’ (backslide) relates to the foot slipping and so it is used metaphorically for reverting from beliefs, opinions and other such things.

after the Clear Signs have come to you,

This may refer to the miracles of the Prophet ﷺ or to the āyahs of the Qur’an if it is addressed to the believers. If it is addressed to the people of the Book, the Clear Signs are what came in their Books telling them about Muhammad ﷺ. The āyah contains evidence that the punishment of a man of knowledge for a wrong action is greater than the punishment of an ignorant person and is also evidence that someone who has not heard the call of Islam is not an unbeliever by the fact of not observing its laws. An-Naqqāsh related that when Ka‘b al-Aḥbar became Muslim, he used to study the Qur’an. The one who was teaching him recited to him: ‘Know that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Forbearing.’ Ka‘b said, ‘I do not think that that is how it is.’ A man passed by them and Ka‘b asked, ‘How do you recite this āyah?’ The man answered, ‘Know that Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.’ Ka‘b said, ‘That is correct.’ The Name ‘Azīz signifies the One Who cannot be stopped from doing anything He wills, and the Name Ḥakīm signifies the One Who is wise in what He does.

210 What are they waiting for but for Allah to come to them in the shadows of the clouds, together with the angels, in which case the matter will have been settled? All matters return to Allah.

What are they waiting for but for Allah to come to them in the shadows of the clouds

This is referring to those who do not enter into Islam and implies obstinacy on their part. Qatādah, Abū Ja‘far Yazīd ibn al-Qa‘qā‘ and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk recited ‘ẓilāl’ instead of ‘ẓulal’. Abū Ja‘far recited ‘angels’ in the genitive, as being in apposition to ‘clouds’. It implies ‘with the angels’. This is an Arabic usage. Ẓulal is the plural of ẓullah. Al-Akhfash says that if it is in the genitive, it means ‘in the angels’. He says that the nominative reading is better as is evidenced in other āyahs like 6:158 and 89:22. The reading of ‘Abdullāh has: ‘What are they waiting for but for Allah and the angels to come to them’. Qatādah says that it refers to the angels coming to take their souls. It is also said to refer to the Day of Rising, and that is more likely.

Abu-l-‘Āliyah and ar-Rabī‘ said that the angels will come to them in the shadows of the clouds and Allah will come to them in whatever way He wishes. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘It implies “in the shadows of the clouds and among the angels”.’ It is said that the words should not be taken literally in respect of Allah. It means for the command and judgment of Allah to come to them. It is said that it means that the reckoning and punishment that Allah has promised them is lying in wait for them in the shadows, as we find in the ayah: ‘Then Allah came upon them from where they least expected it.’ (59:2) This means that He will cause them disappointment. This is what az-Zajjāj said. The first is the view of al-Akhfash. It is also possible that what is being referred to is the repayment they will receive for their wrong actions and that this particular usage is employed to intensify the threat and to convey alarm. This is also the case elsewhere in the story of the approach of Nebuchadnezzar (16:26).

The word ‘coming’ can entail all these ideas because its root linguistically means to aim for something and so the āyah means: ‘What are they waiting for but for Allah to show them something by means of one of His created forms, with the aim of repaying them and judging their affairs?’

Allah also has the capability to originate an event to which He refers by the words ‘coming’ or ‘settling’. So here He can originate an action which He calls ‘coming’. But His actions are without any cause or instrument. Glory be to Him! As transmitted by Abū Ṣāliḥ, Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This is part of what is unknowable and should not be explained.’ So some people were silent about its interpretation and others interpreted it as we have mentioned. It is said that ‘fī’’ (in) here means ‘bā’’ (through), so He comes to them through clouds. There is also the ḥadīth which states: ‘Allah will come to them in a form…’, meaning a form which is to test them. It is not permitted to take this and similar things which come in the Qur’an and in reports as meaning movement in a place, movement in general, or disappearance, because such things are attributes of physical bodies. Allah is greatly exalted and elevated, the Master of Majesty and Nobility. He is far beyond being anything like physical bodies.

The word for ‘clouds’ (ghamām) in this āyah means ‘thin fine white clouds’. They are called that because they cover, for the verb ghamma means ‘to cover’.

in which case the matter will have been settled

Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal recited, ‘qaḍā’u-l-amr’. Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar recited ‘quḍiyy’ ’l-umūr’ in the plural. Most have: ‘quḍiya-l-amr’. It means that the matter being settled is a reference to the repayment and the punishment of the people of disobedience. Although most readings have ‘turja‘u-l-umūr’ (‘All matters return to Allah’), Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī have ‘tarji‘u-l-umūr’. Both readings are good and have the same meaning. All affairs return to Allah, before and after. He calls attention to remembering that on the Day of Rising things that belonged to the kings of this world will disappear.

211 Ask the tribe of Israel how many Clear Signs We gave to them. If anyone alters Allah’s blessing after it has come to him, Allah is fierce in retribution.

Ask the tribe of Israel how many Clear Signs We gave to them.

What is being referred to in this āyah is the great number of signs which came to them making the coming Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ clear to them and directing them to him. Mujāhid, al-Ḥasan and others said that it refers to the miraculous signs which Mūsā manifested such as the splitting of the sea, the shading by the clouds, his staff turning into a snake, his hand turning white and other things. The command present in the āyah is to His Prophet to ask them by way of rebuking them.

If anyone alters Allah’s blessing after it has come to him,

This is a general expression applying to everyone, even if it is the tribe of Israel who are mentioned in this instance. They changed things in their Books and denied the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ. But the expression applies to all those who alter the blessing of Allah. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that the blessing here is Islam and this is close to the first statement. The expression also includes the unbelievers of Quraysh since the fact that Muḥammad ﷺ was sent to them was a blessing to them and instead of being thankful they rejected him.

Allah is fierce in retribution.

This is a threat. ‘Iqāb (retribution) is derived from ‘aqib which means the last part or heel of something and so it is as if the one being punished has retribution following at his heels. Also from the same root is ‘uqbah, used for the ‘turn of the person riding’ (when people take it in tums to ride an animal) and someone’s turn to get water (when a water source is being shared). ‘Iqāb and ‘uqūbah are punishment, because they follow after the wrong action and punishment is a consequence of a wrong action.

212 To those who disbelieve, the life of this world is painted in glowing colours and they laugh at those who believe. But on the Day of Rising those who fear Allah will be over them. Allah provides for whomever He wills without any reckoning.

To those who disbelieve, the life of this world is painted in glowing colours.

Although no one is named, those intended here are the leaders of Quraysh. The One Who adorns it is its Creator and Originator. Shayṭān also makes it seem attractive by his whispering and causing people to err. Those who disbelieve are singled out for mention because they are totally taken in by the adornment of this world and turn to it and tum away from the Next World because of it. Allah has made what is on the earth its adornment in order to test His creatures to see who will perform the best actions. The believers who follow the norms of the Sharī‘ah are not tempted by worldly adornment but it dominates the minds of the unbelievers because they do not believe in anything but it. Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq said when he was offered wealth, ‘O Allah we cannot do other than rejoice in what You have made seem attractive to us.’

and they laugh at those who believe.

This indicates the unbelievers of Quraysh. So it is as if the unbelievers of Quraysh thought highly of their state in this world and delighted in it and scoffed at the followers of Muḥammad ﷺ. Ibn Jurayj said that they scoffed at their seeking the Next World. It is said that they mocked their poverty and those who were poor among them like Bilāl, Ṣuhayb, Ibn Mas‘ūd and others.

But on the Day of Rising those who fear Allah will be over them.

Allah calls attention to the lowering of their position because of their ugly behaviour: ‘On the Day of Rising those who fear Allah will be over them.’ ‘Alī reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If anyone demeans a believing man or woman, or disdains them on account of their poverty and lack of possessions, Allah will make him known on the Day of Rising and will disgrace him. If anyone slanders a believing man or woman or says something about them that is not true, Allah Almighty will make him stand on a hill of fire on the Day of Rising until he produces what he said about them. If someone esteems a believer, Allah will esteem and honour him more than one of the angels near to Him. There is nothing which Allah loves better than a repentant believing man or repentant believing woman. A believer is acknowledged in heaven as a man is acknowledged in this world among his family and children.’

It is said that this expression refers to their ranks because they will be in the Garden while the unbelievers are in the Fire. It is possible that ‘over’ actually does have a kind of spatial meaning since heaven is high and the Fire is the lowest of the low. It is also possible that it means that what they will have is better than what the unbelievers claim to have. Connected to that is the ḥadīth of Khabbāb with al-‘Āṣ ibn Wā’il. Khabbāb said, ‘Al-‘Āṣ owed me a debt and I went to ask him to settle it. He told me, “I will not settle it until you reject Muḥammad ﷺ.” I told him, “I will not reject him until you die and are resurrected.” He asked, ‘Will I be resurrected after death? Then I will pay you when I return to my wealth and children.”’

The verb for ‘laughing at’ is sakhira and the nouns for it are sukhrīyah, sukhrī and sikhrī.

Allah provides for whomever He wills without any reckoning

Aḍ-Ḍahḥāk says that this means without being subject to accountability in the Next World. It is said that it refers to those who are being victimised, meaning that Allah will provide them with a high station. The āyah calls attention to the great blessing they will receive and says their provision is without reckoning because it will last forever and never end and so the amount of it cannot be calculated. It is said that ‘without any reckoning’ refers to Allah’s provision which He dispenses as He wishes and His bounty is beyond reckoning. What is based on a reckoning is dependent on a person’s prior actions. Allah says, ‘a recompense from your Lord, a commensurate gift.’ (78:36) Allah knows best. It is also possible that it means without the reckoning of those who receive the provision as evinced by His words: ‘He will provide from him from where he does not expect.’ (65:3)

213 Mankind was a single community. Then Allah sent out Prophets, bringing good news and giving warning, and with them He sent down the Book with truth to decide between people regarding their differences. Only those who were given it differed about it, after the Clear Signs had come to them, envying one another. Then, by His permission, Allah guided those who believed to the truth of that about which they had differed. Allah guides whoever He wills to a straight path.

Mankind was a single community.

This means that they had one dīn. Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Zayd said that what is meant by ‘mankind’ here are all the sons of Ādam when Allah brought out their souls from the back of Ādam and they affirmed His oneness. Muhājid said that ‘mankind’ refers to Ādam alone. A singular noun can be used for a plural because he is the source of his offspring. It is said that it means Ādam and Ḥawwā’. Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah said that what is meant are the generations between Ādam and Nūḥ, which were ten, who followed the truth until they differed, and then Allah sent Nūḥ and the Prophets after him. Ibn Abī Khaythamah said that the length of time which passed from the time Allah created Ādam until He sent Muḥammad ﷺ is fifteen thousand eight hundred years. It is said that it is more than that. There were twelve hundred years between him and Nūḥ and Ādam lived to the age of nine hundred and sixty. People in his time had one religion and held to the dīn and the angels shook hands with them. They remained like that until Idrīs was taken up and then they differed.

This is unclear because it is known that Idrīs came after Nūḥ. Some people, including al-Wāqidī and al-Kalbī, say that what is meant is Nūḥ and those with him in the Ark. They were Muslims and then after the death of Nūḥ they differed. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘They were one community in disbelief, meaning in the time of Nūḥ until Allah sent Nūḥ.’ He also said, ‘People in the time of Ibrāhīm were one community: all unbelievers. Ibrāhīm was born in a time of ignorance and then Allah sent Ibrāhīm and other Prophets.’

According to these statements, the verb ‘kāna’ (was) actually means the past. So mankind were believers for the time mentioned and then they disagreed and then the Prophets came. This indicates an elision. ‘Only those who were given it differed about it’ means that people based themselves on the truth and followed it, and then they differed and so Allah sent the Prophets to give good news to those who obey and warn those who disobey. Prophets were sent to all of those whom Allah decreed would become unbelievers. But it is also possible that kāna has a continuous meaning and that what is meant is to inform us that mankind as a species would all be one community in respect of their failure to follow Allah’s laws and their ignorance of the truth if it were not for Allah’s grace to them and His favour in granting them Messengers. In this case kāna does not actually refer to the past.

The word ‘ummah’ (community) is taken from amma, meaning to aim for. So an ummah has one focus. One person can be called an ummah, when what is meant is that his aim is not the same as that of other people. An example of that is what the Prophet ﷺ said about Quss ibn Sā‘idah, ‘He will be gathered on the Day of Rising as a whole ummah.’ That was also said about Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl. Ummah also means ‘stature because it is as if it is the aim of the entire body. Imma means blessing because people aim for it. Imām is used because people aim in the same direction as him. An-Naḥḥās said that.

Then Allah sent out Prophets

There were twenty-four thousand Prophets and three hundred and thirteen of them were Messengers. There are eighteen mentioned by name in the Qur’an. The first Messenger was Ādam as we find in the ḥadīth of Abū Dharr, which was transmitted by al-Ājurrī and Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī. It is also said that it was Nūḥ going by the ḥadīth of intercession where people say to him, ‘You are the first of the Messengers.’ It is also said that the first was Idrīs. This will be dealt with in Sūrat al-A‘rāf, Allah willing.

and with them He sent down the Book with truth

Here ‘Book’ is generic and means all the Books. Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that it means the Torah.

to decide between people regarding their differences.

Most scholars say that it is ‘the Book’ which is the deciding factor since every Prophet judges according to his Book. When he judges by the Book it is as if the Book itself does the judging. ‘Āṣim al-Jaḥdarī recites it as ‘li-yuḥkama’ in the passive. That is an aberrant reading because ‘Book’ was already mentioned. It is said that the meaning is that Allah judges.

Only those who were given it differed about it,

The ‘it’ can also be understood as ‘him’ in which case it refers to the one it has been revealed to, meaning Muḥammad ﷺ. Az-Zajjāj said that. They disagreed about the Prophet ﷺ only after they were given knowledge of him.

envying one another.

Their failure to accept him was only due to envy. This calls attention to the foolishness of what they did and its ugliness.

Then, by His permission, Allah guided those who believed

Allah guided the community of Muḥammad ﷺ to the truth since He clarified the matters about which those before them had disagreed. One group says that it means that the previous communities denied each other’s Books and so Allah guided the community of Muḥammad ﷺ to what was true in all of them. Another group says that Allah guided the believers to the truth regarding the disagreements of the People of the Book about whether Ibrāhīm was a Jew or a Christian. Ibn Zayd and Zayd ibn Aslam said that it is about their qiblah: the Jews faced Jerusalem and the Christians the east. Or it may be about the Day of Jumu‘ah. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘This is the day about which they differed and Allah guided us to it. The Jews have tomorrow and the Christians the day after it.’ It is also said to be about fasting or about all their differences. Ibn Zayd said, ‘They disagree about Jesus; the Jews say he was a fraud and the Christians say he was a Lord. So Allah guided the believers to consider him to be a slave of Allah.’

Al-Farrā’ said that there is an inversion here, and that is what aṭ-Ṭabarī prefers. He said that the meaning is: ‘So Allah guided those who believe to the truth regarding that about which they differed.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that he claimed this implication lest the words give rise to the impression that they disagreed about the truth and so Allah guided the believers to part of that about which they disagreed which may not have actually been the truth. Aṭ-Ṭabarī inclined to this in what he recounted from al-Farrā’. Claiming inversion in the Qur’an without necessity could lead to having a bad opinion. The words should be taken as they are because the word ‘guided’ implies that they got the truth. The words conclude at ‘fīhi’. What is made clear by Allah’s words ‘to the truth’ is that it was a matter about which there was disagreement. Al-Mahdawī said that the idea of disagreement is mentioned before mentioning the truth out of concern for it, since what one is concerned with is the mention disagreement. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that he does not consider this to be strong.

The words ‘by His permission’ mean ‘by His knowledge’ according to az-Zajjāj. An-Naḥḥās says that this is not correct and that it means ‘by His command’. When He gives permission for something, it is commanded. Allah guided those who believe by commanding them to do what they were obliged to do.

Allah guides whomever He wills to a straight path.

This is another refutation of the rationalist Mu‘tazilite position that maintains that the human being is his own guide.

214 Or did you suppose that you would enter the Garden without facing the same as those who came before you? Poverty and illness afflicted them and they were shaken to the point that the Messenger and those who believed with him said, ‘When is Allah’s help coming?’ Be assured that Allah’s help is very near.

Or did you suppose that you would enter the Garden

Qatādah, as-Suddī and most commentators say that this āyah was revealed about the Battle of the Ditch [in 5/627] when the Muslims suffered from overtiredness, stress, heat and cold, poor food and various other difficulties. As Allah says, it was a time when: ‘your hearts rose to your throats’ (33:10). It is also said that it was revealed about the Battle of Uḥud and is similar to what Allah says in Āl ‘Imrān: ‘Or did you reckon that you were going to enter the Garden without Allah knowing those among you who had struggled?’ (3:142) One group say that it was revealed to console the Muhājirūn when they were forced to leave their homes and wealth in the hands of the idolaters in Makkah, preferring the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger, and then the Jews showed animosity to the Prophet ﷺ and some of the wealthy Madinans concealed hypocrisy in their hearts. This was revealed to cheer the hearts of the Muhājirūn.

without facing the same as those who came before you?

This means that they would be tried to the same degree that those before them were tried so that they could be steadfast in the same way as those before them had been steadfast. An-Naḍr ibn Shumayl said that ‘mathal’ has an adjectival meaning and so the meaning can be: what afflicts you is the like of what afflicted those before you. This refers to trial. Wahb said ‘There were seventy dead Prophets between Makkah and Ta’if. They died of hunger and fleas.’ This is like another āyah: ‘Do people imagine that they will be left to say, “We believe,” and will not be tested? We tested those before them.’ (29:1-3) Allah calls on them to be steadfast and promises them that they will be helped if they are, saying, ‘Allah’s help is very near.’

Poverty and illness afflicted them and they were shaken to the point…

The word ‘shaken’ (zulzilū) refers to great turbulence. It can be applied to both individuals and situations. The noun zalzalah means “earthquake” and its plural zalāzil is used for hardships. Az-Zajjāj said the root of the word is zalla, which is used when a thing slips from its place.

…that the Messenger and those who believed with him, said, ‘When is Allah’s help coming?’ Be assured that Allah that Allah’s help is very near.

The verb ‘said’ is recited by Nāfi‘ as ‘yaqūlu’ while the rest have ‘yaqūla’. The position of Sībuwayh is that each reading has two aspects. You say, ‘I travelled until I entered the city’ with a fatḥah, and it means that both the journey and the entry are in the past. The other aspect with a fatḥah, which is used elsewhere, is ‘I travelled to it in order to enter it.’ One of the two aspects when it is read with a ḍammah is: ‘I travelled and entered it,’ and both are in the past. An-Naḥḥās thinks that the reading with ḍammah is sounder and clearer in meaning, i.e. ‘they were shaken until the Messenger said…’ because the statement is not separate from the shaking. According to Muqātil, the Messenger here is Shu‘ayb. He is al-Yasa‘. Al-Kalbī said that this is about every Messenger sent to his nation who strives in fulfilling his mission to the point that he says, ‘When is Allah’s help coming?’’ It is related that aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that it means Muḥammad ﷺ and the revelation of the āyah indicates him. Allah knows best. The other aspect with a ḍammah, which is used elsewhere: ‘I travelled so that I might enter it’ where the journey is in the past and the entry in the present. Mujāhid, al-A‘raj, Ibn Muḥayṣin and Shaybah preferred the ḍammah. Al-Ḥasan, Abū Ja‘far, Ibn Abī Isḥāq, Shibl and others recited it with a fatḥah. Makkī said that he preferred it because most reciters have that.

The question is part of the words of the Prophet ﷺ in which he asks for help to come quickly, without that expressing doubt or uncertainty about its arrival in any way. The word ‘rasūl’ (Messenger) is generic here. One group said that there is a reversal of normal order here. The implied meaning is that those who believed said, ‘When is Allah’s help coming?’ and the Messenger said. ‘Be assured that Allah’s help is very near.’ The Messenger ﷺ is mentioned first because of his high rank. The words of the believers are put first because they occurred earlier in time. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said this is an arbitrary interpretation and it is probable that the words ‘Be assured that Allah’s help is very near’ is simply a report from Allah.

215 They will ask you what they should give away. Say, ‘Any wealth you give away should go to your parents and relatives and to orphans and the very poor and travellers.’ Whatever good you do, Allah knows it.

This was revealed about ‘Amr ibn al-Jamūḥ who was a very old man. He said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I have a lot of wealth. What ṣadaqah should l give and to whom should I give it?’ and this was revealed.

It is said that the askers are the believers in general, and it means: ‘They will ask you about the ways in which to spend and whether to spend.’ As-Suddī said that this āyah was revealed before zakat became obligatory and that the imposition of zakat abrogated it. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that al-Mahdawī thinks this statement to be weak. He stated that the āyah was about the obligatory zakat. It was at a later time that parents ceased to be recipients of it. Ibn Jurayj and others said that it refers to recommended spending and that zakat is something else and so this āyah is not abrogated.

It clarifies the channels of voluntary ṣadaqah. A rich man must spend on his needy parents to the point that their standard of living is brought up to the level of his own in respect of food, clothing and other such things. Mālik said that a son is not obliged to go as far as procuring a wife for his father but he should spend on his father’s wife, whether she is his mother or not. Mālik said that he does not have to procure a wife for his father because he thinks that, in general, there is no real need for him to marry. If, however, his father does really need a wife, then he should procure one for him. As for expenses connected to worship, the son does not have to pay for his father to perform ḥajj or go on jihād but he does have to pay his zakat al-fiṭr. The other channels – orphans, the poor and travellers – have already been discussed. This āyah is similar to His words: ‘Give relatives their due, and the poor and travellers.’ (30:38)

216 Fighting is prescribed for you even if it is hateful to you. It may be that you hate something when it is good for you and it may be that you love something when it is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.

Fighting is prescribed for you

‘Kutiba’ (prescribed) means ‘made obligatory’. This means that fighting is obligatory and refers to the obligation of jihād. Allah makes it clear that He has made the trial of fighting a means of reaching the Garden. What is meant by fighting is fighting enemies among the unbelievers. This is known from the context. The Prophet ﷺ was not given permission to fight while he was in Makkah. When he emigrated, he was given permission to fight those idolaters who fought him when Allah said: ‘Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against’ (22:39), and then he was given permission to fight idolaters in general.

There is disagreement about who is meant by the āyah. It is said that it refers to the Companions of the Prophet in particular, and so fighting with the Prophet is an obligation for each of them individually. When the Sharī‘ah was established, it became a farḍ kifāyah, an obligation for the community as a whole but not for every individual in it. ‘Aṭā’ and al-Awzā‘ī stated that. Ibn Jurayj said, ‘I asked ‘Aṭā’, “Is jihād made obligatory for everyone by this āyah?” He replied, “No, it was prescribed for those people in particular.”’

The majority say that, at first, it was a kifāyah obligation, not specific to all of them, but when the Prophet ﷺ called them out, it was incumbent on them to obey him. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘Jihād will remain an obligation forever for every single Muslim.’ Al-Māwardī related that. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘That on which there is consensus is that jihād is a farḍ kifāyah for the entire community of Muhammad ﷺ. If some undertake it, the obligation falls from the rest, unless the enemy arrives in a Muslim land and then it is an obligation for every individual.’ This will be explained in Sūrat at-Tawbah, Allah willing. Ath-Thawrī said that jihād is voluntary. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah remarked that he thought that these words were in response to a question put by someone who had already performed jihād and he was told that it was voluntary.

even it is hateful to you.

It is natural to dislike it. Ibn ‘Arafah said about the word ‘kurh’ (hateful) that, when it is pronounced with a ḍammah, kurh, as it is here, it means hardship and when it is pronounced with a fatḥah, karh, it means hateful. It is also possible that kurh has the same meaning as karh. The verb is kariha. Jihād is hateful because it involves spending money, leaving one’s homeland and family, exposing one’s body to head fractures and wounds, loss of limbs and death. So people find that aspect of it hateful, not the fact that it is an obligation from Allah. ‘Ikrimah mentioned that they first hated it and then came to love it because, even though obeying the command entails hardship, the knowledge of the reward made it easy.

It is similar to the removal of things which cause people pain and which they fear, like the amputation of limbs, the extraction of teeth, venesection, cupping and other such things which people undergo to improve their health. Knowledge of the eventual benefit makes people keen to undergo these things in spite of the temporary hardship they entail. There could be no benefit greater than everlasting life in the Abode of Eternity: ‘on seats of honour in the Presence of an all-powerful King’ (54:55).

It may be that you hate something when it is good for you and it may be that you love something when it is bad for you.

The word ‘‘asā’ (may be) can mean that it is actually the case. Al-Aṣamm said that it has the meaning of qad [indicating that something certain has taken place]. It is said that it means that it is mandatory. When the word is used by Allah, it means that that is the case everywhere in the Qur’an except 66:5. It means, in other words: ‘You do hate the hardship in jihād but it is good for you in that you conquer, have victory, take booty and are rewarded and whoever perishes dies a martyr. You do love peace and not fighting but it is evil for you since you will be overcome and abased and your authority lost.’ This is absolutely true and it happened in Andalusia when they abandoned jihād and avoided fighting and many fled. The enemy took the land and captured, killed and enslaved the Muslims. We belong to Allah and to Him we return! That was because of what they did and earned! Al-Ḥasan said that the meaning of this āyah is: ‘Do not hate vicissitudes that occur. Your success may lie in many a matter that you hate and your perdition in many a matter that you love.’ Abū Sa‘īd aḍ-Ḍarīr composed:

Many a thing you fear

may bring something that pleases you.

What is loved is hidden from you

while what is hated appears openly.

217 They will ask you about the Sacred Month and fighting in it. Say, ‘Fighting in it is a serious matter; but barring access to the Way of Allah and rejecting Him and barring access to the Masjid al-Ḥarām and expelling its people from it are far more serious in the sight of Allah. Fitnah is worse than killing.’ They will not stop fighting you until they make you revert from your dīn, if they are able. As for any of you who revert from their dīn and die unbelievers, their actions will come to nothing in this world and the Next. They are the Companions of the Fire, remaining in it timelessly, for ever. 218 Those who believe and make hijrah and do jihād in the Way of Allah can expect Allah’s mercy. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

They will ask you about the Sacred Month

Jarīr ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd and Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl related from ‘Aṭā’ ibn as-Sā‘ib from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I have not seen any people better than the Companions of Muhammad ﷺ. They only asked him about thirteen matters, all of which are in the Qur’an. “They will ask you about menstruation,” “they will ask you about the Sacred Month,” “they will ask you about orphans.” They only asked him about what would benefit them.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘There are only three of the thirteen in the ḥadīth.’

Abū-l-Yasār reported from Jundub ibn ‘Abdullāh that the Prophet ﷺ sent out a party led by ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh and wrote a letter for him and instructed him not to read the letter until he reached a certain place. He said, ‘Do not force your companions to go on.’ When he reached the place, he read the letter and said, ‘We belong to Allah and return to Him. We hear and obey His Messenger.’ Two men returned while the rest continued. They met Ibn al-Ḥadramī and killed him, not knowing that it was the month of Rajab. The idolaters said, “You have killed in the Sacred Month!” and Allah revealed this.

It is related that the reason for its revelation was that two men of the Banū Kilāb met ‘Amr ibn Umayyah aḍ-Ḍamrī on the first day of Rajab and he killed them. Quraysh said, ‘You killed them during the Sacred Month,’ and Allah revealed the āyah. The most commonly accepted version, however, is that of ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh. The Prophet ﷺ sent him with eight or nine men in the month of Jumādā al-Ākhirah two months before the Battle of Badr. It is also said that it was in the month of Rajab. In Kitāb ad-Durar, Abū ‘Amr said, ‘When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned from pursuing Kurz ibn Jābir, which is called the First Expedition of Badr, he stayed in Madīnah for the rest of Jumādā al-Ākhirah and Rajab. During Rajab, he sent out ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh ibn Ri’āb al-Asadī with eight of the Muhājirūn: Abū Ḥudhayfah ibn ‘Utbah, ‘Ukkāshah ibn Miḥṣan, ‘Utbah ibn Ghazwān, Suhayl ibn Bayḍā’ al-Fihrī, Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, ‘Āmir ibn Rabī‘ah, Wāqid ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tamīmī, and Khālid ibn Bukayr al-Laythī. He wrote a letter to ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh and told him not to look at it until he had travelled for two days. Then he was to open it and do what he was commanded to do, but he was not force any of his companions. He was their commander.

‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh did what he was commanded. When he opened the letter, he found in it: ‘When you read this letter, proceed to Nakhlah between Makkah and Ta’if. Lie in wait for Quraysh there and find out for us what they are doing.’ When he read the letter, he said, ‘We hear and obey.’ Then he informed his companions about that and the fact that he was not to force any of them to go and whoever wanted to rise and go for his sake should obey him, and if no one obeyed him, he would go alone. Anyone who desired martyrdom should go forward and anyone who disliked death should go back. They answered, ‘We want what you want. There is none of us who does not hear and obey the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ So they went forward with him. They travelled through the Hijaz. Then the camel on which Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and ‘Utbah ibn Ghazwān were alternating on went astray and they fell behind to look for it. ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh and the rest of them pressed on until they stopped at Nakhlah. A caravan of Quraysh carrying raisins and other goods passed by them. The caravan included ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī (whose name was ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbād, one of Ṣadif, a sub-tribe of Hadramawt), ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mughīrah and his brother, Nawfal ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mughīrah al-Makhzūmī, and al-Ḥakam ibn Kaysān, the freedman of the Banū ’l-Mughīrah.

The Muslims held a council and said, ‘We are in the last day of the sacred month of Rajab. If we fight them, we will violate the sanctity of the sacred month. If we leave them until nightfall, they will enter the Ḥaram.’ They agreed to engage them. Wāqid ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tamīmī shot ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī and killed him. ‘Uthmān and al-Ḥakam were captured and Nawfal ibn ‘Abdullāh slipped away. Then they took the caravan and the two captives. ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh said to them, ‘Leave the fifth of our booty for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ They did that. It was the first khums in Islam.

Then the Qur’an was revealed: ‘Know that when you take any booty, a fifth of it belongs to Allah.’ (8:41) So Allah and His Messenger affirmed what ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh had done. Allah was pleased with it and made it a sunnah for the community until the Day of Rising. They were the first spoils to be taken in Islam and ‘Abdullāh was the first commander. ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī was the first to be killed.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ disapproved of killing Ibn al-Ḥaḍramī in the sacred month and the group were in despair. Then Allah revealed: ‘They will ask you about the Sacred Month and fighting in it… … remaining in it timelessly, forever.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ accepted ransom for the two captives. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abdullāh died an unbeliever in Makkah. Al-Ḥakam ibn Kaysān became a Muslim and remained with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ until he was martyred at Bi’r Ma‘ūna. Sa‘d and ‘Utbah returned to Makkah in safety.

It is said that Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ and ‘Utbah went to look for their camel with the permission of ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh. When ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī and his fellows saw the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, they were frightened of them. ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh said, ‘The people are alarmed by you.’ One of the men shaved his head and showed himself to them. When they saw his shaved head, they felt safe and said, ‘People performing ‘umrah. There is nothing for you to worry about.’ Then they discussed fighting them.

The Jews took this as a bad omen and said, ‘Wāqid: war is kindled (waqadat). ‘Amr: war has come to life (‘amarat). Al-Ḥaḍramī: war is present (ḥaḍarat).’ The Makkans sent the ransom for the captives and he ﷺ said, ‘We will not let them be ransomed until Sa‘d and ‘Utbah return. If they do not return, we will kill the two of them in exchange.’ When they appeared, he let them ransom them. Al-Ḥakam became Muslim and stayed in Madīnah until he was killed as a martyr at Bi’r Ma‘ūnah. ‘Uthmān returned to Makkah and died there as an unbeliever. Nawfal struck the belly of his horse in the Battle of the Confederates in order to enter the Trench to attack the Muslims. He fell into the trench with his horse and they were both crushed. Allah killed him, and the idolaters asked to pay for his corpse. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Take it. A foul corpse, foul blood-money.’ This was the reason for the revelation of the āyah.

Ibn Isḥāq mentioned that ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥaḍramī was killed on the last day of Rajab as we already mentioned. Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned from as-Suddī and others that it was on the last day of Jumādā al-Ạkhirah. The first is more famous, although Ibn ‘Abbās mentioned that it was on the first night of Rajab while the Muslims thought that it was still Jumādā al-Ạkhirah. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Aṣ-Ṣāḥib ibn ‘Abbād said in his Risālah known as al-Asadiyyah that ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh was called the ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn’ at this time because he was in command of a group of Muslims

Scholars disagree about whether the āyah was abrogated. The majority say that it was abrogated and that it is permitted to fight the idolaters in the Sacred Months. They disagree about what abrogated it. Az-Zuhrī said that it was abrogated by: ‘fight the idolaters totally.’ (9:36) It is said that it was abrogated by the expedition of the Prophet ﷺ against Thaqīf in the Sacred month and his sending ‘Āmir against Awṭās in the Sacred Month. It is said that it was abrogated by the Pledge of Riḍwān to allow fighting in Dhu-l-Ḥijjah. This is weak. When the Prophet ﷺ heard that ‘Uthmān had been killed in Makkah and that they were resolved on fighting him, he accepted allegiance from the Muslims to defend themselves, not to initiate the fighting.

Al-Bayhaqī mentioned from ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr from other than the account of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq after the story of al-Ḥaḍramī, ‘Allah revealed the āyah: “They will ask you about the Sacred Month and fighting in it.” So Allah informed them in His Book that fighting in the Sacred Month was still as unlawful as it always had been, but what had been made lawful against the believers was far worse than that: barring access to the Way of Allah by imprisoning the Muslims, torturing them and keeping them from emigrating to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, their denial of Allah, and preventing the Muslims from reaching the Masjid al-Ḥarām for ḥajj and ‘umrah and preventing them from praying in it, expelling the people of the Masjid al-Ḥarām from it when they were its Muslim inhabitants, and trying to make them revert from their dīn. We heard that the Prophet ﷺ paid the blood money of Ibn al-Ḥaḍramī and considered the Sacred Month to be sacred as they did until Allah revealed: “Allah and His Messenger are free of them.” (9:1)’

‘Aṭā’ said that the āyah is one of judgment and that it is not permitted to fight in the Sacred Months. He swore to that because the āyahs which come after it are general with respect to times while this one is specific. It is agreed that the general does not abrogate the specific. Abu-z-Zubayr related that Jābir said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not fight in the Sacred Months unless he was attacked.’

and fighting in it.

Sībuwayh says that ‘fighting in it’ is grammatically an inclusive substitute because the question asked includes both the months and fighting. It means that the unbelievers will ask you in wonder at the violation of the sanctity of the month and the reason they asked was because of the fighting in it. Az-Zajjāj said they ask you about fighting in the Sacred Month. Al-Qutaybī said, ‘They are asking whether it is permitted to fight in the sacred month.’

Say, ‘Fighting in it is a serious matter;

It was objectionable because the prohibition against fighting in the Sacred Month was still in place at that time if the Muslims initiated it. The word ‘shahr’ (month) here is generic. The Arabs made it a principle that was equal to all. Blood was not shed during those months and there was no change in the Sacred Months which are Rajab, Dhu-l-Qa‘dah, Dhu-l-Ḥijjah and Muḥarram. Three are together and one is separate. This will be further explained in al-Mā’idah, Allah willing.

but barring access to the Way of Allah and rejecting Him

This is a greater wrong action than fighting in the Sacred Month. Al-Mubarrad and others said that and it is sound since they prevented people from doing ṭawāf of the Ka‘bah. The words “kufrun bihi” (rejecting Him) are generally taken to be referring to rejecting Allah though it is also said that they refer to the ḥajj and the Sacred Months.

and expelling its people from it are far more serious in the sight of Allah.

This means that, in the sight of Allah, these things merit a far greater punishment than fighting in the Sacred Month. Most say that the āyah means: ‘O unbelievers of Quraysh! you think that it is terrible for us to fight in the Sacred Month yet what you do to us in barring access to the Way of Allah, your rejection of Allah, and your expelling the people of the Mosque from it as you did to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and His Companions is a far more grievous sin in the sight of Allah.’ ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh said:

You count killing in the Sacred Month as something terrible,

but far graver than it, if you are properly guided,

Is your barring them from what Muḥammad says

and disbelief in it which Allah sees and witnesses,

And your expelling its people from the mosque of Allah

So that none is seen prostrating to Allah in His House.

If you criticise us for killing him,

oppressors and enviers are more perilous to Islam.

Our spears drank the blood of Ibn al-Ḥaḍramī

at Nakhlah when Wāqid lit the flames of war.

‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abdullāh is with us:

a bloody leather collar restrains him.

Az-Zuhrī, Mujāhid and others said that ‘Fighting in it is a serious matter’ is abrogated by ‘…fight the idolaters totally.’ (9:36) and ‘…fight the idolaters.’ (9:5) ‘Aṭā’ said that it is not abrogated and that there should not be fighting in the Sacred Months as we already mentioned.

Fitnah is worse than killing.

Mujāhid and others said that fitnah in this instance means disbelief so their disbelief is worse than our killing them. Most say that fitnah here means their tempting the Muslims away from their dīn so that they would be destroyed. That is a worse crime than killing people in the Sacred Month.

They will not stop fighting you until they make you revert from your dīn,

This warns the believers of the nature of the evil of the unbelievers. Mujāhid said that it is the unbelievers of Quraysh who are meant here.

As for any of you who revert from their dīn and die unbelievers, their actions will come to nothing in this world and the Next.

So if anyone apostasises and returns to disbelief their actions are nullified and useless. The root of the word for “come to nothing” is ḥabaṭ, which is a word denoting what happens to livestock when they eat too much herbage and their bellies swell. This sometimes causes them to die. This is a threat to the Muslims, warning them to stay firm in Islam.

Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times. That is related from ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān and that is the view of Mālik. Ibn al-Qāsim related it from him. Al-Ḥasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that in one of his two views and it is one of the positions of Ṭāwūs and ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr. Saḥnūn mentioned that ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Abī Salmah al-Mājishūn said that apostates are killed without being asked to repent. He argues that based on the ḥadīth of Mu‘ādh and Abū Mūsā. It says: ‘When the Prophet ﷺ sent Abū Mūsā to Yemen, he sent Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal after him. When he came to him, he dismounted and Abū Mūsā gave him a cushion. There was a man in shackles beside him. Mu‘ādh asked, “Who is this?” He replied, “He is a Jew who became Muslim and reverted and returned to Judaism.” He stated, “I will not sit down until he is killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.” “Sit,” Abū Mūsā said. He repeated, “No, I will not sit down until he is killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.” He said it three times and he commanded that he be killed.’ Muslim and others transmitted it.

Abū Yūsuf mentioned from Abū Ḥanīfah that an apostate is offered Islam. If he does not accept Islam, he is killed immediately unless he requests a delay. If he requests a delay, he is given three days. What is well known from him and his people is that an apostate is not killed without being asked to repent. He considered an apostate and zindīq to be the same in that respect. Mālik, however, said that zindīqs are killed without being asked to repent. This was mentioned at the beginning of al-Baqarah.

They disagree about someone who goes from one form of unbelief to another. Mālik and most fuqahā’ say that he is not interfered with because he has moved to what would have originally be confirmed for him. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam related from ash-Shāfi‘ī that he is killed based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘If someone changes his religion, kill him,’ without specifying Muslims rather than unbelievers. Mālik said that the ḥadīth means someone who leaves Islam for unbelief and that those who leave unbelief for unbelief are not meant by the ḥadīth. That is the view of a large group of fuqahā’. What is well known from ash-Shāfi‘ī is what al-Muzanī and ar-Rabī‘ mentioned about one of the people of the dhimmah changing his religion: the ruler sends him to the Abode of War and expels him from his territory; his property is fair game along with the rest of the property of the people of war if their territory is conquered, because he was given his dhimmī status based on the religion he was following at the time of the contract.

They disagree about female apostates. Mālik, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said that a female apostate is killed just as a male apostate is killed, based on the literal words of the ḥadīth: ‘If someone changes his religion, kill him.’ ‘Someone’ can be male or female. Ath-Thawrī and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that a woman is not killed. That is the position of Ibn Shubrumah and it was what Ibn ‘Ulayyah believed. It is also the position of ‘Aṭā’ and al-Ḥasan. Their argument is that Ibn ‘Abbās related that ḥadīth from the Prophet ﷺ and then said, ‘A female apostate is not killed.’ The one who related the ḥadīth has a better knowledge of its interpretation. Something similar is related from ‘Alī. The Prophet ﷺ forbade killing women and children. The people with the first view argue by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The life of a Muslim is only lawful by one of three things: unbelief after belief…’ Therefore it is general to those who disbelieve after having believed. It is sounder.

There is also discussion about whether people’s actions are considered to have been invalidated by apostasy or not if they later return to the dīn. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that an apostate who returns to Islam does not have his actions or his ḥajj invalidated. His actions come to nothing if he dies an apostate. Mālik says that they are invalidated by apostasy. There is disagreement about a Muslim’s ḥajj when he apostatises and then returns to Islam. Mālik said that he must perform ḥajj again because the first was cancelled by apostasy. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that he does not have to repeat it because the action remains. Our scholars cite as evidence Allah’s words: ‘If you associate others with Allah, your actions will come to nothing.’ (39:65) It is addressed to the Prophet ﷺ while his community is meant because apostasy is legally impossible for him. The people of ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘It is addressed to the Prophet ﷺ to make it more severe for the community. It is clear that, in spite of his noble position, had the Prophet ﷺ committed shirk, his actions would have come to nothing, so what then is the case with you! But, of course, he did not do so because of his excellent rank as Allah says: “Wives of the Prophet! if any of you commits an obvious act of indecency she will receive double the punishment.” (33:30) That is because of the nobility of their status. It is not conceivable that any of them would violate the honour of their noble, esteemed husband.’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Our scholars say that Allah mentioned compliance here as a precondition because it is connected to eternity in the Fire as a repayment. So if someone complies with unbelief, Allah will put him in the Fire forever according to this āyah. If someone commits shirk, Allah will cancel his deeds based on the other āyah. So these are two useful āyahs with two meanings and two different wisdoms. That which was addressed to the Prophet ﷺ was meant for his community to confirm his special status. What was said about his wives was said to explain that, had it been conceivable, the one who did so would be violating the sanctity of the dīn as well as the sanctity of the Prophet ﷺ. There would be a punishment for each violation of sanctity. That is in the position of someone who disobeys Allah in the Sacred Month, the Sacred Land or the Masjid al-Ḥarām. The punishment is multiplied because of multiple violations. Allah knows best.’

Another question is whether apostates are inherited from and there is disagreement about that. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, ash-Sha‘bī, al-Ḥakam, al-Layth, Abū Ḥanīfah and Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh said that their property reverts to their Muslim heirs. Malik, Rabī‘ah, Ibn Abī Laylā, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Thawr said that their property goes to the treasury. Ibn Shubrumah, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad and al-Awzā’ī, in one of two transmissions, say that what an apostate earned after his apostasy goes to his Muslim heirs. Abū Ḥanīfah said that whatever an apostate earns while an apostate is spoils, but what he earned while a Muslim before his apostasy is inherited by his Muslim heirs. Ibn Shubrumah, Abū Yūsuf, and Muḥammad do not make a distinction between the two. The general nature of the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘There is no inheritance between the people of two religions’, indicate that their position is false. They agree that someone’s unbelieving heirs do not inherit from him with the exception of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz who says that they do inherit.

Those who believe and make hijrah

Jundub ibn ‘Abdullāh, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr and others said that when Wāqid ibn ‘Abdullāh at-Tamīmī killed ‘Amr ibn al-Ḥadramī in the sacred month, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ hesitated to take the khums, which was his rightful share of the booty, from ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh and the captives. The Muslims rebuked ‘Abdullāh ibn Jaḥsh and his companions until it became hard for them and then Allah revealed this āyah about the Sacred Month, relieved them, and informed them that they had the reward of those who emigrated and fought. They are indicated in His words: “Those who believe…” and that quality remains for those who do what Allah mentioned. It was said that if they if did not have a burden, they would not have a reward, and so Allah revealed this āyah.

To make hijrah means to move from one place to another, and the aim is to leave one out of preference for the other. Hajr means separation, the opposite of connection. A muhājir is someone who emigrates from one land to another, leaving the first for the second. Tahājur is mutual severance. Some say that muhājarah is to move from the desert to the city. This is weak because that was normal among the Arabs and also because the people of Makkah would, in that case, not be Muhājirūn.

and do jihād in the Way of Allah can expect Allah’s mercy

‘Jāhada’ is Form III of the verb, which means to strive by exerting effort and to struggle (jahd, mujāhadah, jihād). Ijtihād and tahājud is expending effort and exertion). Jahād means ‘hard land’. The word ‘expect’ implies hope and also trying to bring near. It is said that this is praise of them because no one in this world knows if he will go to the Garden, no matter how many good actions he does. There are two reasons for this. The first is that he does not know what his seal will be and the second is that he should not rely on his actions. Hope delights and hope is always accompanied by fear and fear is always accompanied by hope. Hope derives from a desire for a good outcome.

219 They will ask you about alcoholic drinks and gambling. Say, ‘There is great wrong in both of them and also certain benefits for mankind. But the wrong in them is greater than the benefit.’ They will ask you what they should give away. Say, ‘Whatever is surplus to your needs.’ In this way Allah makes the Signs clear to you, so that hopefully you will reflect.

They will ask you about alcoholic drinks and gambling

Those who ask are the believers. The word for ‘alcoholic drinks’ (khamr) comes from khamara, to cover, and the khimār (veil) of a woman comes from the same root. The verb is used for anything that covers something, as in the expression, ‘Cover your vessels.’ So wine covers the intellect and obscures it. Khamar is also used for a covert of trees because it conceals what is under it, so that wolves and other animals are able to conceal themselves there. It is also used for hiding oneself in a crowd when a person is in a situation that causes him to feel alarm. Khumār describes disappearing into a crowd of people so that one is hidden. It is said that it is called khamr because it obscures the mind. It is also said that it is called that because it is left until it becomes intoxicating as Form VIII of the verb is used for dough rising. It is also used to describe having a concealed suspicion until the matter is made clear. It is said that wine is called khamr because it muddles the intellect. Mukhāmirah is become mixed and muddled. The meanings are close together, but the true linguistic root means covering.

The word khamr is generally used for the juice of grapes which has become fermented. However any other substance which intoxicates the mind carries the same ruling, just as there is a consensus among scholars that all types of gambling are unlawful even though only maysir is mentioned here. All other kinds of types of gambling follow the same ruling by analogy. Maysir is, in fact, the act of drawing arrows to determine the distribution of meat. By the same process every alcoholic drink that intoxicates like wine falls under the same ruling.

The majority of the Community believe that when a lot of something intoxicates, then drinking either a little or a lot of it is unlawful and the ḥadd punishment is obliged for doing it. Abū Ḥanīfah, ath-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Laylā, Ibn Shubrumah and a group of the scholars of Kufa say that when a lot of something, other than actual wine made from grapes, intoxicates, it is lawful and if someone becomes intoxicated by it without intending to then the ḥadd punishment is not applicable. This is weak and refuted both by logic and by reports as will come in the commentary about it in Sūrat al-Mā’idah and Sūrat an-Naḥl, Allah willing.

Some commentators say that there is no honour or kindness which Allah failed to bestow on this Community. Part of His generosity and kindness was that He did not impose laws on them all at once, but little by little. This was the case with the prohibition of wine. This is the first āyah revealed about it, and then after it comes 4:43, then 5:91 and finally 5:90 as will be explained in those places, Allah willing.

The ‘gambling’ (maysir) referred to here, as mentioned above, is a particular type of gambling which the Arabs did with arrows. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘In the Jāhiliyyah, a man would stake his wealth and family with another man and then this āyah was revealed.’ Mujāhid, Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn, al-Ḥasan Ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Aṭā’, Mu‘āwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, Ṭāwūs, ‘Alī and Ibn ‘Abbās say that everything in which there is an element of gambling, such as backgammon and chess, is considered to be maysir, even children playing with walnuts and dice. An exception is made in the case of permitted wagers in respect of horses and drawing lots to sort out rights. Mālik said that there are two types of maysir: one constitutes simple amusement and the other is gambling. The kind which constitutes amusement includes chess, backgammon and other games. Gambling is when people bet against one another. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said that chess is the maysir of the non-Arabs. According to Mālik and other scholars any form of gambling is maysir. This will be further clarified in Sūrat Yūnus.

The word maysir is derived from yasar, which is when something is imposed on a person. Yāsir is the person who casts the divining arrows. Al-Azharī said that maysir is the slaughtered camel for which they are betting. It is called maysir because it is divided into parts and the yāsir is the slaughterer because he divides the meat into portions. He said that this is the original root of yāsir and then it was used for those who cast arrows and gamble for animals. The yāsirūn are slaughterers because the maysir is the reason for the slaughtering taking place. The verb yasara is used for the people who slaughter the camel and divide up its joints.

Mālik related in the Muwaṭṭā’ that Dāwud ibn Ḥuṣayn heard Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab say, ‘One form of the gambling of the people of Jāhiliyyah was bartering live animals for slaughtered meat, for instance, one live sheep for two slaughtered sheep.’ This is applied by Mālik and most of his people to the same category, i.e. selling an animal in exchange for meat of the same type. He considered it part of muzābanah, chance and gambling because it is not known whether the live animal will have the same amount of meat or not. It is not permitted to sell meat for meat when there is a disparity, and selling a live animal for meat is like selling meat for other meat of the same kind which is still in its skin. He considers one category to be camels, cattle, sheep, gazelles, mountain goats and other wild beasts. He considers all four-legged edible animals to be a single category and does not permit selling any animal of this category for the meat of another of the same category in any manner whatsoever because he considers it to be muzābanah: like selling raisins for grapes, olives for olive oil, sesame oil for sesame seeds, and the like. He also considers birds to all be a single category and fish to be a single category as well.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said that it is not permitted to sell meat for the animal in any case whatsoever, whether they are the same category or two different categories because the ḥadīth is general. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that a camel was slaughtered in the time of Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq and divided into ten parts. A man said, ‘Give me a portion in exchange for a sheep.’ Abū Bakr, ‘This is not correct.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘I do not know that any of the Companions disagreed with Abū Bakr about that.’ Abū ‘Umar said that it was related that Ibn ‘Abbās permitted selling sheep for meat, but it is not a strong transmission. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq related from ath-Thawrī from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab disliked selling something living for something dead, meaning a slaughtered sheep for a standing one. Sufyān said, ‘We do not see any harm in it.’ Al-Muzanī said, ‘If the ḥadīth about selling a live animal for meat is not sound, then by analogy it is permitted. If it is sound, the analogy is false and the tradition should be followed.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The Kufans have many proofs about permitting selling meat for an animal based on analogy and reflection. However, if the tradition is sound, analogy and investigation are false.’

Mālik related from Zayd ibn Aslam from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade selling an animal for meat. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I do not know that its transmission is directly connected to the Prophet ﷺ by a sound path. The best of its isnāds are mursal from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab according to what Mālik mentioned in the Muwaṭṭā’. That is what ash-Shāfi‘ī believed. His fundamental principle is that he does not accept mursal ḥadīths although he claimed that he dismissed the mursal ḥadīths of Sa‘īd and then found them – or most of them – to be sound. Therefore he disliked selling categories of animals for categories of meat based on the literal and undefined words of the ḥadīth because there is no report that makes it specific and there is also no consensus about it. He does not permit a text to be made specific through analogy. He believes that ‘animals’ includes all living creatures on land or in water, even if they are different species, just as ‘food’ is a noun for all that is eaten or drunk.

Say, ‘There is great wrong in both of them

‘Both of them’ refers to wine and gambling. The wrong in wine is the evil which issues from the drinker: quarrelling, cursing, foul language, lies, loss of the intellect and, therefore, of the obligations owed to the Creator, the invalidation of the prayer, turning from remembering Allah and other such things. In an-Nasā’ī, ‘Uthmān is reported as saying, ‘Avoid wine. It is the mother of all foul things. There was a man before you who used to worship Allah. Then a seductive woman became attached to him and sent her female servant to him to invite him to act as a witness. He went with her servant and whenever they went through a door she locked it behind them until he reached a beautiful woman who had with her a slave-boy and a vessel of wine. She said, “By Allah, I did not invite you to act as a witness! I invite you to have sex with me, drink a cup of this wine or kill the boy.” He said, “Let me drink a cup of this wine.” So she gave him a cup to drink and he said, “Give me more.” He did not stop until he had sex with her and took a life. Therefore avoid wine. By Allah, Allah does not combine faith and inveterate drinking without one being on the point of expelling the other.’ Abū ‘Umar mentioned it in al-Isti‘āb.

It is related that when al-A‘shā went to Madina to become Muslim, some idolaters met him on the road and asked him, ‘Where are you going?’ He said that he was going to Muḥammad ﷺ. They said, ‘Do not go to him. He will command you to pray.’ He replied, ‘It is obligatory to worship the Lord.’ They said, ‘He will command you to give wealth to the poor.’ He answered, ‘Giving charity is also obligatory.’ He was told, ‘He forbids fornication.’ He replied, ‘It is foul and ugly and, in any case, I have become old and have no need of it.’ He was then told, ‘He forbids drinking wine.’ He said, ‘This is something I cannot endure!’ So he went back. He said, ‘I will drink wine for a year and then go back to him.’ Before reaching his house, he fell from his camel, broke his neck and died.

Qays ibn ‘Āṣim al-Minqarī used to drink in the Jāhiliyyah and then forbade it to himself. The reason for that is that while he was drunk he insulted his parents and saw the moon and said something. He gave the wine-merchant a great deal of his money. When he recovered, he was told what he had done and forbade himself wine. He said:

I thought that wine was good

while it contain things that corrupt a patient man.

No, by Allah! I will not drink it while healthy

and I will never use it to treat illness!

As long as I live, I will not pay for it

nor invite anyone to drink with me at night.

Wine disgraces the one who drinks it.

It makes those who drink do terrible things.

Abū ‘Umar said that Ibn al-A‘rābī related from al-Mufaḍḍal aḍ-Ḍabbī related these verses spoken Abū Miḥjan ath-Thaqafī when he gave up wine:

If I die, bury me beside a vine

whose roots will give my bones a drink after my death.

Do not bury me in the desert.

I fear that when I die, I will not taste it again.

‘Umar flogged Abū Miḥjan several times for drinking and exiled him to an island in the sea. Sa‘d met him and ‘Umar wrote, telling him to imprison him and he did so. He was a bold and brave warrior. Sa‘d released his chains in the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah and said, ‘We will never flog you again for drinking wine.’ Abū Miḥjan said, ‘And I, by Allah, will never drink again!’ and he never drank after that. One version adds, ‘I used to drink and then the ḥadd punishment would be imposed on me and so I would be purified of it. Since you have granted me immunity, by Allah, I will never drink again!’ Al-Haytham ibn ‘Adī mentioned that someone told him that he had seen the grave of Abū Miḥjan in Azerbaijan or in the region of Jurjān and the roots of three grapevines grew from it. They were tall and bore fruit on a trellis over his grave. Written on his grave was ‘This is the grave of Abū Miḥjan.’

Someone who drinks becomes a laughing-stock in the eyes of those who are sober. He may play with his urine and filth and may wipe his face with his urine while saying, ‘O Allah, make me one of the penitent! Make me one of those who purify themselves!’ One of them was seen with a dog licking his face while he was saying, ‘Make Allah honour you!’

Gambling brings about enmity and hatred because it is consuming someone’s property falsely.

and also certain benefits for mankind.

Wine has the benefit of producing profitable trade. They used to bring it from Syria for a cheap price and sell it in the Hijaz for a profit. They could not store it and the wine sold for a high price. This is the soundest of what is related about its benefit. It is said that it helps to digest food, strengthens the weak, increases sexual energy, makes the miser generous, the coward brave, brightens colour and gives other kinds of pleasure. Ḥassān ibn Thābit said:

We drink it and it turns us into kings and fearless lions.

Many poems have been written in praise of it.

The benefit of gambling is that by it a man can obtain something without toil or work. They used to buy a camel carcass and divide it into shares. Whoever had a share drawn took his share of the meat without paying anything, whereas the others would pay the full price and not get any of the meat. It is said that its benefit is expansion for the poor. The one who gambled did not eat any of its meat, but divided it among the poor.

There were eleven arrows in maysir, seven of which had shares according to the number of portions. They are: fadhdh, which has one notch and one share, taw’am, which has two notches and two shares, raqīb, which has three notches, ḥils, which has four, nāfiz or nāfis which has five, musbil, which has six, and mu‘allī, which has seven. That adds up to twenty-eight shares. The shares of the camel were like that according to al-Aṣmā‘ī. There remain four arrows which are blanks with no shares or portions. They are: muṣaddar, muḍa‘‘if, manīḥ and safīḥ. It is also said that there are three blanks called safīḥ, manīḥ and waghd. They added these three to increase the shares on what is allowed so that the one shuffles them would have no bias to anyone. The one who shuffles the arrows is called mujīl, mufīḍ, ḍārib or ḍarīb, the plural of which is ḍurabā’. It is said that a watcher was put behind him to ensure that there is no bias towards anyone. The shuffler kneels and wraps them with a cloth and then puts his hand in the bag and draws out the arrow. The custom of the Arabs was to use these arrows to draw lots for the poor in winter, times of scarcity and extreme cold. A camel would be purchased and the wealthy would guarantee its price and satisfy its owner. They used to boast about that and criticize those who did not do it. They called such a person ‘baram’ (niggardly). Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah said:

He was not niggardly, a man to whose wife women bring gifts,

when the tent flaps in the bitter cold of winter.

Then it would be slaughtered and divided into ten parts. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Al-Aṣmā‘ī erred about the division of the camel when he mentioned it there were twenty-eight portions. That was not the case. They drew for ten portions. Whoever had his arrow come out of the bag first took his share and gave it to the poor. The ‘bag’ (rabābah) was like a quiver. The arrows were put into it. It may also the name for all the arrows.

Sometimes they gambled for themselves and then the one whose arrow did not come out was liable for the whole cost as was already stated. The poor of the time subsisted on this custom. Al-A‘shā said:

Those who feed a guest in the winter

and make the gambler give to the poor.

But the wrong in them is greater than the benefit.’

Allah tells us that the wrong in these things is greater than the benefit and will incur harm in the Next World and so the great wrong action is after the prohibition and the benefits before it. Ḥamzah and al-Kisā‘ī recited ‘kathīr’ (more). Their argument is that the Prophet ﷺ cursed wine and cursed ten along with it: the one who sells it, the one who buys it, the one for whom it is bought, the one who presses it, the one who has it pressed, the one who serves it, the one who drinks it, the one who conveys it, the one for whom it is conveyed, and the one who benefits from its price. With the sum of its benefits, then it is good to have the sum of its sins and ‘kathīr’ conveys that. The rest of the reciters and most people recite ‘kabīr’ (greater). Their argument is that the wrong action in gambling and drinking wine is among the major wrong actions and so it is more fitting to call it ‘greater’. It also agrees with ‘akbar’ as they agree that it is not ‘akthar’ except in the copy of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd.

Some people say that wine is forbidden by this āyah because Allah said, ‘My Lord has forbidden indecency, both open and hidden, and wrong action’ (7:33) and here He reports that there is wrong in both of them. Therefore it is forbidden. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this view is not good because the wrong in it is the unlawful that stems from it, not the thing itself as this view would demand. Some people say that this āyah prohibits wine because it is called ‘wrong’ and ‘wrong’ is unlawful in the other āyah and some people said that ‘wrong’ means wine. This is also not good because Allah did not call wine ‘wrong’ in this āyah. He says: ‘There is great wrong in both of them’ not, ‘They are wrong.’ The āyah in al-A‘rāf explains this. Qatādah said that this āyah censures wine. The actual prohibition comes in al-Mā’idah according to most commentators.

They will ask you what they should give away. Say, ‘Whatever is surplus to your needs.’

Most recite ‘‘afw’ in the accusative while Abū ‘Amr recites it in the nominative. There is disagreement from Ibn Kathīr. Al-Ḥasan, Qatādah and Ibn Abī Isḥāq recite it in the nominative. An-Naḥḥās and others said that if ‘dhā’ means ‘which’, then it is better to have the nominative as it means: ‘That which you give away is surplus.’ The accusative is permissible. If ‘mā’ and ‘dhā’ are one word, then the accusative is preferable and it means: ‘Say: ‘Give away whatever is surplus,’ although the nominative is permissible.

Scholars say that since the first question mentioned previously in āyah 215 above is a question of whom to spend on, as we made clear, the answer is appropriate to the question. The second question here is about the amount to give, and it is still connected with the question asked by ‘Amr ibn al-Jamūḥ. When: ‘Any wealth you give away should go to your parents…’ (2:215) was revealed, he asked, ‘How much?’ and was told, ‘Your surplus’ (‘afw), which means ‘what is easy, feasible and superfluous and is not hard to give.’ It is as the poet said:

Take what is surplus from me and continue to love me.

Do not speak about my outburst when I am angry.

It means spend what is surplus to your needs so that you will not harm yourselves by it and thus become needy. This is the most fitting of what is said regarding the interpretation of this phrase, and it is what al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, ‘Aṭā’, as-Suddī, al-Quraẓī, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Abī Laylā and others said. They said ‘surplus to poverty’, and Ibn ‘Abbās said the same. Mujāhid said, ‘Giving ṣadaqah when you are wealthy.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best ṣadaqah is what you give when you are wealthy.’ A similar ḥadīth has: ‘The best ṣadaqah comes from the wealthy.’

Qays ibn Sa‘d said. ‘This means obligatory zakat.’ But the majority of scholars said that it refers to voluntary spending. It is said that it is abrogated. Al-Kalbī said, ‘After the revelation of this āyah, when a man had gold, silver, crops or animals, he would work out what would satisfy him and his dependants for a year and keep that and give the rest as ṣadaqah. If he was someone who earned his living from manual work, he kept what was adequate for the day and gave the rest away. This was the case until the āyah of obligatory zakat was revealed and this was abrogated.’ Some people say that this āyah is one of judgment and that there is a right on property over and above zakat. The first position is the most evident.

In this way Allah makes the Signs clear to you,

Al-Mufaḍḍal ibn Salamah said that it is by the command to spend.

so that hopefully you will reflect…

You will reflect and work out how much of your property is needed for you in the life of this world and spend the rest on what will benefit you in the Next World. It is said that there is a change in the word order: that is how Allah makes the Signs clear to you in this world and the Next World so that you will reflect about this world and how it will vanish so that you are abstinent in it and about the Next World and its permanence so that you desire it.

220 …on this world and the Next. They will ask you about the property of orphans. Say, ‘Managing it in their best interests is best.’ If you mix your property with theirs, they are your brothers. Allah knows a squanderer from a good manager. If Allah had wanted, He could have been hard on you. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. They will ask you about the property of orphans.

Abū Dāwud and an-Nasā’ī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘When Allah revealed: “Do not go near the property of orphans except in a good way…” (6:152), and: “…those who consume the property of orphans wrongfully…” (4:10), everyone who had an orphan in their care separated their food and drink from that of any orphans in their care and began to keep their food aside for them until they ate it or it went bad. That was hard for people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and then Allah revealed this. So they shared their food and drink.’

This āyah is connected to what came before it because the command to preserve the property of orphans is connected to the discussion about property. It is said that the asker was ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāḥah and it is said that it was the Arabs who thought it bad luck to resort to the property of orphans in what they ate. When Allah gave permission for dealing with orphans with the intention of making things right for them, that indicated the permission to utilise the property of orphans. The executor deals with selling, division and other things since this āyah is general. It is not transmitted that any of the caliphs put anyone in charge of an orphan even though they existed at that time.

There are many ḥadīths about making use of an orphan’s property in muḍārabah and trade. The permission for a guardian to mix his property with that of an orphan in his charge is evidence that it is permitted to utilise an orphan’s property in buying and selling and other such things when that is beneficial. There is disagreement about using an orphan’s money for a qirāḍ. Ashhab forbade it, based on analogy with the guardian being forbidden to buy or sell from them for himself. Someone else said that if the guardian takes a share of the profit of the qirāḍ, then the qirāḍ is acceptable, it being comparable to the guardian selling something on behalf of an orphan, subject to investigation. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said, ‘If the guardian of an orphan buys something on credit, that is questionable.’

Ibn Kinānah says that a guardian may spend on an orphan’s wedding and perfume and other things required for it and other matters which are in his best interests. That depends on the orphan’s social standing as well as that of the person he marries, and the extent of his wealth. The same applies to his circumcision. If someone fears that he might fall under suspicion of misusing an orphan’s wealth, he should tell the ruler what he wants to do, who can then command him according what is intended. It is, however, permitted for him to do that if he thinks that correct. The exchange of gifts to curry favour is not permitted nor is bad management of an orphan’s wealth. The literal meaning of the āyah indicates that guardians should teach the orphans in their care about this world and the Next and pay for someone to teach them a craft. When an orphan is given something, the guardian can take it and use it in the orphan’s best interests. This will be further explained in an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

There are two situations regarding what an executor and guardian spend out of an orphan’s property. One is when there is testimony to the transaction. Then his word is only accepted when he provides evidence. The second is when it is not possible to have witnesses to it. In that case, his word is accepted without evidence. When he buys real estate and that which customarily is secured, then his word is not accepted without evidence. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘That is why our people make a distinction between two cases. The first is an orphan who lives in the house of the executor who spends on him, and who is not required to bring witnesses for his expenditure and clothing because it is impossible to have witnesses to what he eats and wears at every moment. Instead he says, “I spent these expenses for a year,” and that is accepted from him. The second case is when the orphan is with his mother or nurse and the executor claims that he spent on him or gave the expenses and clothing to his mother or nurse. His word about giving it to the mother or nurse is not accepted except with proof that she took it either monthly or yearly.

Scholars disagree about a man who gives an orphan in his care in marriage and whether he can buy for himself from the property of his orphan. Mālik said, that matrimonial guardianship (wilāyah) by actual guardianship (kafālah) and custody is stronger than it by kinship, so that he said about the desert Arabs who handed over their children in times of famine, that they could marry them. A marriage by a guardian will be mentioned in an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

Mālik says in his best known position that a guardian may buy from the orphan in his care. That is also what Abū Ḥanīfah says: he may buy the orphan’s property for himself for a greater than normal price because that is putting right as indicated by the words of the Qur’an. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he is not permitted to do that either in respect of marriage or sales, because disposal of assets is not mentioned in the āyah.

Say, ‘Managing it in their best interests is best.’

No specifics are mentioned. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘Since welfare is good, it is permitted to arrange a marriage for them.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī does not think that marriage should be considered a best interest unless there is a real need for it and there is no real need before puberty. Ibn Hanbal permits arranging marriage because it may be in someone’s best interest. Ash-Shāfi‘ī permits a grandfather to arrange marriage with the executor and by the right that a father has for a child whose mother has died, not by the ruling of this āyah. Abū Ḥanīfah permits a qāḍī to carry out a marriage of an orphan based on the literal text of the āyah. These positions all originate from this āyah. If it is confirmed that marriage is a benefit, then the literal text of the Qur’an demands that it be permitted. It is possible that the phrase: ’They will ask you about orphans…’ means about their sustenance for their guardians.

If you mix your property with theirs, they are your brothers. Allah knows a squanderer from a good manager.

If it is said that the property of an orphan should be left alone because buying it might lead to suspicion, the response is that that is not necessary. The blocking of means is employed because forbidden actions may lead to what is forbidden by the text. Here Allah permits a certain level of the mixing of an orphan’s property with that of his guardian and enjoins on guardians to be true to their trusts regarding that, saying: ‘Allah knows a squanderer from a good manager.’ It is not said about other risky matters which Allah has entrusted to people, that they are a means to something unlawful and so must be forbidden. For instance, Allah has entrusted Muslim women with protecting their private parts, even though there are immense judgments that arise from sexual behaviour which are connected to lawfulness, unlawfulness and lineage, and even though it is possible that the women concerned may lie.

When Ṭāwūs was asked about orphans, he would recite, ‘Allah knows a squanderer from a good manager.’ Ibn Sīrīn said that it is preferable, concerning the property of orphans, that their advisors meet and see what would be best for the orphans concerned. Al-Bukhārī quotes it. This is evidence for the fact that a guardian is permitted to buy from an orphan in his care for himself, as was mentioned earlier. The other view is that a guardian should not buy anything which is under his management since that might give rise to suspicion, unless that sale is made by the ruler in a community. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said, ‘He should not buy from an inheritance. There is no harm if someone who is buying on his behalf includes some of it without his prior knowledge.’

The mixing of property is like mixing like with like, like dates with dates. Abū ‘Ubayd said, ‘This mixing is when an orphan has money and it is difficult for his guardian to isolate his food. He has no alternative to mixing the orphan’s property with that of his own dependants, so he takes what is adequate from the orphan’s property after due investigation and includes it in with his family’s maintenance. This may increase and decrease. This abrogating āyah brought the allowance to do this.’ Abū ‘Ubayd also said, ‘I consider this to be the basis for what fellow travellers do on a journey. They distribute their provisions equally between themselves even though the amount of food each brings may vary. Not everyone who eats a little food is happy about giving the surplus to his companion. Since there is leeway in the property of orphans, that applies even more to others. Otherwise I fear that things would be oppressive for people.’

The second phrase is a warning. Allah knows those who squander the property of orphans from those who look after it and will repay each of them.

If Allah had wanted, He could have been hard on you.

Al-Ḥakam ibn Miqsam related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘If Allah had wanted to He could have made what you took of the property of orphans a crime.’ The expression ‘hard on you’ means: ‘He could have destroyed you’ according to az-Zajjāj and Abū ‘Ubaydah. Al-Qutaybī says that it means: ‘He could have constricted things for you and been harsh, but He only desired ease for you.’ It is said that it means that Allah could have obliged you to repay what you used when you mixed your property with theirs as was the case with those before you, but He made things easier for you.

‘‘Anat’ (hardship) is a word used for the breaking of a bone when it has been previously broken and then mended. It is used for an animal that re-breaks a bone so that it cannot walk. ‘Anūt is used for a mountain which is hard to climb. Ibn al-Anbārī says that the root of the word means to make something hard and difficult, to force someone to do something which is difficult to perform, and the meaning is extended to the sense of destruction.

Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

There is nothing impossible for Him. He is ‘Wise’ in disposing of His kingdom as He wishes and nothing can stop Him doing so.

221 Do not marry women of the idolaters until they believe. A slavegirl who is one of the believers is better for you than a woman of the idolaters, even though she may attract you. And do not give [your women] in marriage to men of the idolaters until they believe. A slave who is one of the believers is better for you than a man of the idolaters, even though he may attract you. Such people call you to the Fire whereas Allah calls you, with His permission, to the Garden and forgiveness. He makes His Signs clear to people so that hopefully they will pay heed.

Do not marry women of the idolaters until they believe.

The root of the word used for ‘marry’ here – nakaḥa – means to have sexual intercourse and it is used metaphorically to mean marriage.

After Allah has given permission for using an orphan’s property in a beneficial manner and for arranging their marriage, He makes it clear that marriage with idolaters is not permitted. Muqātil said, ‘This āyah was revealed about Abū Mirthad al-Ghanawī or Kannāz ibn Ḥusayn. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent him secretly to Makkah to bring out one of his Companions. There was a woman in Makkah called ‘Anaq whom he had loved in the time of the Jāhiliyyah. She came to him and he told her, “Islam forbids what used to happen in the time of Jāhiliyyah.” “So marry me,” she said. He replied, “Not until I ask permission from the Prophet ﷺ.” He asked for permission and he forbade him to marry her because he was a Muslim and she was an idolater.’ This will be further explained in an-Nūr, Allah willing

Scholars disagree about the interpretation of this āyah. One group says that Allah forbade marrying all women idolaters in Sūrat al-Baqarah, including women of the Book (Jews and Christians), and then allowed marriage with them in Sūrat al-Mā’idah. This position is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and was related by Mālik ibn Anas, Sufyān ibn Sa‘īd ath-Thawrī and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Amr al-Awzā‘ī. Qatādah and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that the āyah is general to every female unbeliever and there is a special case for women of the Book [Jews and Christians], which is explained in Sūrat al-Mā’idah, and so the general statement never included women of People of the Book. This is one of the positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī. According to the first view, the āyah is taken to be general and then some of that generality was abrogated by al-Mā’idah. The first position is that of Mālik; and Ibn Ḥabīb mentioned it and said, ‘Marrying a Jewish or Christian woman, even though it is allowed by Allah Almighty, is disliked and blameworthy.’

Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī said, ‘Some people say that the āyah in Sūrat al-Baqarah is the abrogating one and the one in Sūrat al-Mā’idah is abrogated, and so they forbid any woman idolater, whether she is of the Book or not.’ An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This has a sound isnād from Muḥammad ibn Rayyān from Muḥammad ibn Rumḥ from al-Layth from Nāfi‘ saying that ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar was asked about a man marrying a Christian or Jewish woman and said, ‘Allah forbade idolatrous women to the believers and I do not know of any shirk greater than for a woman to say, “My Lord is Jesus” or any of the slaves of Allah!’ An-Naḥḥās observes that the prohibition against marrying Christian or Jewish women is contrary to the position of the majority because some of the Companions and Tābi’ūn married women of the Book, including, among the Companions, ‘Uthmān, Ṭalḥah, Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir and Ḥudhayfah, and among the Tābi‘ūn, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, al-Ḥasan, Mujāhid, Ṭāwūs, ‘Ikrimah, ash-Sha‘bī, and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk. That is the position of the fuqahā’ of all regions. It is also impossible for this āyah to abrogate the one in Sūrat al-Mā’idah because Sūrat al-Baqarah was one of the first sūrahs to be revealed in Madīnah and Sūrat al-Mā’idah was one of the last, and the later clearly abrogates the earlier. There is no evidence in the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar because Ibn ‘Umar was a man who hesitated on the side of caution. When he heard one āyah that made it lawful and the other that made it unlawful, and he had not heard about the abrogation, he hesitated and did not take the abrogation, but interpreted it. One does not use interpretation in respect of the abrogating and abrogated.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah mentioned that Ibn ‘Abbās said in part of what is related from him that the āyah is general, including pagans, Magians and Kitābīs. All of those who are following other than Islam are unlawful. According to this, it abrogates the āyah in al-Mā’idah. The position of Ibn ‘Umar in the Muwaṭṭā’ takes this view: ‘I do not know of any shirk greater than for a woman to say, “My Lord is Jesus.”’

It is related that ‘Umar parted Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydullāh and Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān from their Kitābī wives. They said, ‘We will divorce, Amīr al-Mu’minīn. Do not be angry!’ He replied, ‘If it were permitted to divorce them, it would be permitted to marry them. I will part you.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah mentioned that its isnād is good and it is also reported that ‘Umar wanted to separate them and Ḥudhayfah said to him, ‘Do you claim that it is unlawful so that I should let go, Amīr al-Mu’minīn?’ He answered, ‘I do not claim that it is unlawful, but I fear that you will engage with prostitutes from them.’ Something similar is related from Ibn ‘Abbās.

Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb that it is permitted to marry Kitābī women and he mentioned the Companions and Tābi‘ūn in connection with this view. Ibn an-Naḥḥās said that at the end of his words that it is not valid that any of the early people said that it was unlawful.

Some scholars said that there is no conflict between the two āyahs. The literal meaning of the term ‘shirk’ does not include the People of the Book since the Almighty says: ‘Those of the People of the Book who disbelieve and the idolaters do not like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord’ (2:105) and: ‘The People of the Book who disbelieved and the idolaters.’ (98:1) So He distinguished between them in His words. The use of the conjunction ‘and’ means that there must be a difference between the two. Furthermore the term ‘shirk’ is undefined and not a text. Allah says: ‘Free women of those given the Book’ (5:5) and: ‘free women from among the believers.’ So there is no contradiction between what is implied and what is not implied. If it is said that His words: ‘free women of those given the Book before you’ mean ‘who were given the Book before you and then became Muslims,’ as He says: ‘Among the People of the Book there are some who believe in Allah’ (3:199) and: ‘There is a community among the People of the Book who are upright’ (3:113), the answer is that this is different to the text of the āyah when He says: ‘free women of those given the Book before you’ and the position of the majority. It is not unclear to anyone that it is permitted to marry someone who has become Muslim and become one of the Muslims. If they remark that He says: ‘Such people call you to the Fire,’ then the reason for the prohibition of marrying them is because they invite to the Fire. The answer is that that is based on His words: ‘A slavegirl who is a believer is better for you than a woman of the idolaters,’ because idolaters call to the Fire. This reason is the same for all unbelievers and there is no dispute that a Muslim is better than an unbeliever. This is clear.

It is not lawful to marry people of the Book when they are people who are fighting the Muslims. Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about that and said, ‘It is not lawful.’ He recited: ‘Fight those of the people who were given the Book who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…’ (9:29) The ḥadīth transmitter said that Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī related that and approved of it. Mālik disliked marrying such women because of leaving children in the Dār al-Ḥarb and because of their consumption of wine and pork.

A slavegirl who is one of the believers is better for you than a woman of the idolaters, even though she may attract you.

A believing slavegirl is better than an idolatress, even though she may attract you by her lineage, wealth or beauty. This is what aṭ-Ṭabarī and others said. It was revealed about Khansā’, a black girl who belonged to Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān. Ḥudhayfah said, to her, ‘Khansā’, you were mentioned in the Highest Assembly in spite of the fact that you are black and ugly. Allah mentioned you in His Book.’ So Ḥudhayfah freed her and married her.

As-Suddī said that it was revealed about ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāḥah. He had a black slavegirl whom he slapped in anger and then regretted doing so. He went to the Prophet ﷺ and told him and the Prophet asked, ‘What kind of girl is she, ‘Abdullāh?’ He replied, ‘She fasts, prays, does wuḍū’ well, and testifies to the shahādah.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘She is a believer.’ Ibn Rawāḥah said, ‘I will free her and marry her.’ He did so and he was attacked by some of the Muslims who said, ‘He has married a slavegirl!’ They thought that they could marry idolatrous women out of the desire for their lineage, and so this āyah was revealed. Allah knows best.

Scholars disagree about the permissibility of marrying Christian or Jewish slavegirls. In the book of Muḥammad, Ashhab said about someone who became Muslim and was married to a Kitābī slavegirl that they should not be parted. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that it is permitted to marry slavegirls from the People of the Book. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Shaykh Abū Bakr ash-Shāshī taught us in Madīnat as-Salam, “As evidence for the permissibility of marrying a Kitābī slavegirl, the people of Abū Ḥanīfah cite the āyah: “a slavegirl who is a believer is better for you than a woman of the idolaters”. The way the āyah supports this evidentially is that Allah gives a choice between marrying a believing slavegirl and an idolatress. Were it not permissible to marry an idolatrous slavegirl, Allah would not have given a choice between them because choice is between two permissible matters, not between something permissible and something forbidden nor between two opposite matters. The answer to this objection is that linguistically and in the Qur’an it is possible to have a choice between two opposites because Allah says: ‘The Companions of the Garden on that Day will have better lodging and a better resting-place.’ (25:24) And ‘Umar said in his letter to Abū Mūsā, ‘Returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood.’ Another answer is that His words, ‘slavegirl’ (amah) does not mean slavehood by virtue of ownership. Rather it simply means a human being, all human beings being the slaves of Allah. Qāḍī Abu-l-‘Abbās al-Jurjānī said that in Basra.

There is also disagreement about the permissibility of marrying Magian women. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Awzā‘ī and Isḥāq forbid it. Ibn Ḥanbal says, ‘I do not like it.’ It is related that Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān married a Magian woman and ‘Umar told him to divorce her. Ibn al-Qaṣṣār said, ‘Some of our fellows said that according to one of two views, it is mandatory that they have a Scripture which permits marriage with them.’ Ibn Wahb related from Mālik that it is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with a Magian slavegirl by virtue of ownership. The same is true for pagans and other unbelieving women. That is the view of a group of scholars, except for what Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb related from Ibn Jurayj that ‘Aṭā’ and ‘Amr ibn Dīnār were asked about marrying Magian slavegirls and they said that there is no harm in it. They interpreted the āyah as referring to the marriage contract, not the purchased slavegirl. They used as evidence the captives of Awṭās and the fact that the Companions married the slavegirls from them by virtue of ownership. An-Naḥḥās said that this is an aberrant view, and it is possible that the slavegirls from Awṭās became Muslim and therefore it was permitted to marry them. Arguing by Allah’s words: ‘Do not marry women of the idolaters until they believe’ is an error since they took ‘nikāḥ’ to mean the contract, while linguistically it can refer to both the contract and to sexual intercourse, and so when He says: ‘Do not marry women of the idolators’, He forbade every form of nikāḥ with women idolaters, whether actual marriage or sexual intercourse.

Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘I asked az-Zuhrī about whether a man who buys a Magian woman can have sexual intercourse with her. He answered, “When she testifies that there is no god but Allah, he can have sexual relations with her.”’ Yūnus related that Ibn Shihāb said that it is not lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her until she becomes Muslim. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘In view of the fact that he was the most knowledgeable of people regarding expeditions and biographies, Ibn Shihāb’s statement, that it is not lawful for him to have sex with her until she becomes Muslim, is proof of the falsity of the statement of those who claim that the Companions had sexual relations with the captives of Awṭās before they became Muslim. That is related from a group of them, including ‘Aṭā’ and ‘Amr ibn Dīnār who said that there is nothing wrong in having sexual intercourse with a Magian woman. None of the fuqahā’ pay any attention to this.

It has come from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, who was one of those who did not go on that expedition and only engaged in expeditions to Persia and beyond as far as Khorasan, and none of those people were People of the Book. It was not clear how they behaved in respect of their captured women. ‘Abdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Asad reported from Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Firās from ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz from Abū ‘Ubayd from Hishām from Yūnus that al-Ḥasan said, ‘A man asked him, “Abū Sa‘īd, what do you do when they are captured?” He answered, “We used to turn her to the qiblah and command her to become Muslim and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. Then we would command her to have a ghusl. If her owner wants to have sexual intercourse with her, he does not do so until she has done istibrā’.”’ A group follow this interpretation, taking Allah’s words as meaning that they are pagans and Magians because Allah has made women of the Book lawful by His words: ‘free women of those given the Book before you’. This means chaste women, not known for fornication. Some dislike marrying them or having sexual intercourse with them by virtue of ownership since that corrupts lineage.

And do not give [your women] in marriage to men of the idolaters until they believe. A slave who is one of the believers is better for you than a man of the idolaters, even though he may attract you.

A Muslim woman may not marry an idolatrous man. The Community agree that an idolater may not marry a believing woman in any case. That is shame towards Islam.

This āyah provides textual evidence of the fact that marriage is only possible with the presence of a walī. Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī said, ‘Marriage with a walī is found in the Book,’ and he recited this āyah. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is confirmed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “There is no marriage except by a walī.”’ Scholars disagree about marriage without a walī. Most scholars say that there is no marriage without a walī. This is related from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās and Abū Hurayrah. It is also the position of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, Jābir ibn Zayd, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Laylā, Ibn Shubrumah, Ibn al-Mubārak, ash-Shāfi‘ī, ‘Ubaydullāh ibn al-Ḥasan, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Abū ‘Ubayd.

It is the position of Mālik, Abū Thawr and aṭ-Ṭabarī. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The argument of those who say that there is no marriage without a walī is that the Prophet ﷺ affirmed that position in the ḥadīth which was related mursal by Shu‘bah and ath-Thawrī from Abū Isḥāq from Abū Burdah from the Prophet ﷺ. Those who accept mursal ḥadīths must accept it, but those who do not accept mursal reports must also accept it, because those who connected its transmission are people of memorisation and trustworthiness. Among those who connected its transmission were Isrā’īl and Abū ‘Awānah from Abū Isḥāq from Abū Burdah from Abū Mūsā from the Prophet ﷺ. Isrā’īl and those who corroborated him are ḥuffāẓ. Something added by a ḥāfiẓ is accepted and this addition is supported by fundamental principles. Allah Almighty says: ‘Do not prevent them from marrying their first husbands.’ (2:232) This āyah was revealed about Ma‘qil ibn Yasār when he prevented his sister from returning to her husband. Al-Bukhārī has it. Were it not that he had a right concerning her marriage, he would not have been forbidden from preventing it.

One thing that indicates this in the Book is Allah’s words: ‘Marry them with their owners’ permission’ (4:32) and: ‘Marry of those among you who are unmarried…’ (24:32) Allah only addresses men with respect to marrying. If women had that right, He would have mentioned them. This will be explained in an-Nūr. Allah says relating from Shu‘ayb in the story of Mūsā: ‘I would like to marry you to one of these two daughters…’ (28:27) as will be explained in al-Qaṣaṣ. Allah also says, ‘Men have charge of women.’ (4:34) Both the Book and the Sunnah confirm that there is no marriage without a walī. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘We find in the ḥadīth about Ḥafṣah, when she was widowed, that ‘Umar carried out her marriage rather than her doing it herself. This invalidates the position of those who say that an adult woman has power over herself and can give herself in marriage and make the contract without her walī. If that had been true, then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would have proposed to Ḥafṣah herself, since she would have been more entitled to that than her father was, and the proposal would have been being made to someone who had no power to carry out the contract on her behalf.’ This also provides clarification of the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘A widow is more entitled to herself than her walī.’ It means that she is more entitled to herself so that he cannot make a contract for her marriage without her consent, not that she is more entitled to make a contract a marriage for herself without her walī being involved.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A woman may not give another woman in marriage nor may she give herself in marriage. A fornicatress is someone who gives herself in marriage.’ He said that it is a sound ḥadīth. Abū Dāwud related from Sufyān from az-Zuhrī from ‘Urwah that ‘Ā’ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said three times, ‘If any woman is married without the consent of her walī, her marriage is invalid.’ Then he continued, ‘If he consummates it with her, then she has the dower because of what he has got from her. If they quarrel, then the ruler is the walī of those with no walī.’ This is a sound ḥadīth. No attention should be paid to the statement of Ibn ‘Ulayyah from Ibn Jurayj: ‘I asked az-Zuhrī about it and he did not recognise it.’ No one but Ibn ‘Ulayyah says that Ibn Jurayj said this. A group who related from az-Zuhrī did not mention it. If it had been confirmed from az-Zuhrī, it would still not be a proof because trustworthy men transmitted it from him, including Sulaymān ibn Mūsā, a trustworthy imam, and Ja‘far ibn Rabī‘ah. If az-Zuhrī forgot it that does not harm him because no human being is safe from forgetfulness. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Ādam forgot and so his descendants forgot.’ The Prophet himself ﷺ forgot, so it is more fitting that others should suffer from forgetfulness. The one who remembers is an argument against the one who forgets. When someone trustworthy relates a report, the forgetfulness of someone who forgets does not harm him. This is the case if what Ibn ‘Ulayyah related from Ibn Jurayj is sound, so what then is the situation if the people of knowledge deny that story?

Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān at-Tamīmī al-Bustī transmitted this ḥadīth in his sound Musnad without a break in its isnād. No detraction is confirmed in respect of the one who transmitted from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth from Ibn Jurayj from Sulaymān ibn Mūsā from az-Zuhrī from ‘Urwah from ‘Ā’ishah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Marriage can only take place with a walī and two reputable witnesses. Any marriage without that is invalid. If they quarrel, then the ruler is the walī of someone without a walī.’ Abū Ḥātim said, ‘Only three people add “and two reputable witnesses” in the report of Ibn Jurayj from Sulaymān ibn Mūsā from az-Zuhrī: Suwayd ibn Yaḥyā al-Umawī from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Jumaḥī from Khālid ibn al-Ḥārith, and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Yūnus ar-Raqqī from ‘Īsā ibn Yūnus.’

The stipulation of two witnesses is only found in this report. If this report is sound, the Book and Sunnah explicitly state that there is no marriage without a walī. There is no sense in opposing it. Az-Zuhrī and ash-Sha‘bī said that when a woman gives herself in marriage to an equal with two witnesses, the marriage is permitted. That is what Abū Ḥanīfah said. That is the position of Zufar. When she marries herself to someone who is not her equal, the marriage is permitted, but the relatives can separate them. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘What an-Nu‘mān said is contrary to the Sunnah and not part of the position of most of the people of knowledge. We take the report of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’

Abū Yūsuf said, ‘Marriage is only permitted provided there is a walī. If the walī accepts it, it is allowed. If he refuses to accept it and the husband is an equal, then the qāḍī allows it. The marriage is achieved when the qāḍī allows it. If he does not do that, then there must be a new contract.’ There is no disagreement between Abū Ḥanīfah and his people that when a woman’s walī allows her to carry out the marriage herself, it is allowed. Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘When she assigns the matter to a man who gives her in marriage to an equal, the marriage is allowed and her walī cannot part them unless she is an Arab who marries a client (mawlā).’ This is similar to the school of Mālik as will be mentioned.

Some of those who take the school of az-Zuhrī, Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Sha‘bī take the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ about there being no marriage except with a walī as applying to perfection rather than completion. This is similar to the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The neighbour of a mosque has no prayer except in the mosque,’ and ‘There is no portion of Islam for anyone who abandons the prayer.’ They cite as evidence the words of Allah: ‘Do not prevent them from marrying their first husbands…’ (2:232) and: ‘…you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves with correctness and courtesy.’ (2:234) They also cite what ad-Dāraquṭnī related about Simāk ibn Ḥarb saying, ‘A man came to ‘Alī and said, “A woman, of whom I am the walī, married without my permission.” ‘Alī said, “Investigate what she has done. If she married an equal, we allow that for her. If she has married someone who is not her equal, we assign that to you.”’ We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ that ‘Ā’ishah gave her niece by her brother ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān in marriage while he was absent. Ibn Jurayj related from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr from his father that ‘Ā’ishah said that the man to whom she married her brother’s daughter was al-Mundhir ibn az-Zubayr. A curtain was set up between them and then she spoke until nothing remained but the contract. She commanded a man to carry out the marriage. Then she said, ‘Women cannot perform marriage.’ The point of the ḥadīth of Mālik from ‘Ā’ishah is that she set (the amount of) the dower and the terms of the marriage. Although one of her male relatives in fact carried out the marriage, the contract was attributed to ‘Ā’ishah because she arranged it.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād mentioned that what is transmitted from Mālik about guardians varies as to who they are. Sometimes he says that whoever represents the best interests of a woman is her walī, whether he is from the paternal or maternal relatives, unrelated men, ruler or guardian (waṣī). At other times he says that guardians should be paternal relatives and whichever of them represents her best interests is her walī. Abū ‘Umar said that Mālik said in what Ibn al-Qāsim related from him that when a woman is given in marriage by someone other than her walī with her permission, if she is noble and has a position among people, then her walī has a choice between invalidating or affirming the marriage. If she is lowly like a freed woman, black woman, or prostitute or someone with no position, her marriage is allowed. Then her walī has no choice because they are equals. It is related from Mālik that neither a noble or lowly woman may be given in marriage except by her walī or the ruler. Ibn al-Mundhir chose this position. He said, ‘As for the difference Mālik makes between a poor woman and one with no worth, it is not valid because the Prophet ﷺ made judgments the same in respect of blood, saying, ‘The blood of all Muslims is equal in value.’ Since they are the same in respect of blood, they are the same in respect of other things as well.

Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq said, ‘When Allah commanded marriage, He made the believers guardians of one another. Allah says: “The men and women of the believers are friends (awliyā’) of one another.” (9:71) The believers in that sentence inherit from one another. If a man dies without having an heir, his inheritance goes to the Muslims. If a Muslim inflicts an injury, then the blood money is paid by the Muslims. So one guardianship is closer than another and one kinship is closer than another. If a woman is in a position where there is no ruler or walī to represent her, her affair is handed over to one of her neighbours who is trusted who gives her in marriage and acts as her walī in this case, because people must marry and so they do the best that they can in order to bring that about. This is the basis of the view of Mālik concerning a woman in a weak situation: she is given in marriage by the one to whom she entrusts her business because she is too insignificant to have the ruler act on her behalf and so, in that respect, she is like someone without a ruler. Therefore in general it reverts to the totality of Muslims being guardians for her. If she gives her affair to a man and abandons her relatives, she has proceeded improperly in the business and he does something the judge and Muslims dislike him doing and that marriage is invalidated without it being announced that it is unlawful since we have described the Muslims as being guardians of each other and since there is some disagreement about that. The marriage is, however, invalidated because it has been carried out improperly and that is more cautious in respect of protecting private parts. If the marriage has been consummated, a long time has passed and children have been born, then invalidation is not permitted because when matters are dissimilar, then only the undoubtedly unlawful with respect to them is rejected. It resembles something that has been misapplied because of the ruling of a judge; the ruling of a judge is only invalidated by an undoubted error.’

Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people believe that a marriage without a walī is always invalid, both before and after consummation, and that the couple do not inherit from one another when one of them dies. They believe that having a walī is one of the obligatory elements of marriage because of the evidence in the Book and Sunnah. Allah says: ‘Marry off those among you who are unmarried’ (24:32): ‘Marry them with their owners’ permission’ (4:25) and He addresses guardians with the words: ‘…do not prevent them…’ (2:232). The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no marriage without a walī.’ There is no differentiation between lowly and noble women based on the consensus of scholars that there is no difference between them in respect of blood since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The blood of the Muslims is equal in value.’ That is true of other rulings. There is no distinction between noble and lowly in the Book and Sunnah.

There is disagreement about a marriage that happens without a walī and then is allowed by the walī before consummation. Mālik and his people said that that is only valid for a slave. That is permitted when he allows it soon afterwards, whether or not it has been consummated. This is when the contract of marriage is without a walī and the woman did not contract herself. If the woman contracted herself and makes a marriage contract without a walī among the Muslims, this marriage is never affirmed even if a long time has passed and children have been born, but the paternity of any child is attached to the father and there is no ḥadd punishment. That marriage must be annulled in any case. Ibn Nāfi‘ said that Mālik said that it is annulment rather than a divorce.

Scholars disagree about the position and rank of guardians. Mālik used to say, ‘The first in line are sons, however far removed, (i.e. sons of sons) then fathers, then full brothers, then paternal half-brothers, then sons of full brothers, then sons of the father’s brothers, then grandfathers on the father’s side, however far removed, then uncles in the order of the brothers, then their sons in the order of the sons of the brothers, however far removed, then clients, and then the ruler or the qāḍī. An executor is put ahead of relatives in giving orphans in marriage. He is the deputy and representative of the father and so his position is that which the father would have had if he were still alive.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that no one else has guardianship when the father is available, and if he dies, then it is the grandfather, then the father of the father’s father because they are all fathers. After the grandfather, it goes to the brothers and then to other relatives. Al-Muzanī said in the new School that when there is only a mother, the grandfather is more entitled to conduct the marriage as is the case with inheritance. In the old School ash-Shāfi‘ī said that they are the same.

The Madinans related from Mālik something similar to the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī and that the father is more entitled than the son. That is one of the two views of Abū Ḥanīfah related by al-Bājī. It is related that al-Mughīrah said, ‘The grandfather is more entitled than the brothers.’ What is well-known in his school is what we have already mentioned. Aḥmad said that the father is the most entitled to give a woman in marriage; then the son, then the brother, then his son, then the paternal uncle. Isḥāq said that the son is more entitled than the father as Mālik already stated. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred that because ‘Umar ibn Abī Salamah married Umm Salamah to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. An-Nasā’ī transmitted that from Umm Salamah and has a chapter entitled ‘A son giving his mother in marriage’.

Our scholars often cite this as proof, but it counts for nothing. The evidence for it is what is confirmed in sound collections that ‘Umar ibn Abī Salamah said, ‘I was a boy in the care of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and my hand would go around the platter. He said, “Boy, say the Name of Allah, eat with your right hand, and eat from what is in front of you.”’ Abū ‘Umar said in Kitāb al-Isti‘āb, ‘The kunyah of ‘Umar ibn Abī Salamah was Abū Ḥafṣ. He was born in 2 AH in Abyssinia.’ It is said that he was nine years old when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died. It is not possible for someone of this age to act as a walī. However, Abū ‘Umar mentioned that Abū Salamah and Umm Salamah had two sons, the other being called Salamah. He is the one who carried out the contract between the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his mother, Umm Salamah. Salamah was older than his brother ‘Umar. Nothing is transmitted by him from the Prophet ﷺ, only from ‘Umar.

They disagree about a woman being given in marriage by a more distant guardian when a nearer relative is available. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the marriage is void and Mālik said that it is allowed. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘If the closer relative does not object to anything in the contract or reject it, then it is carried out. If he objects, and the woman has been previously married or is an adult orphan virgin with no executor, the position of Mālik and his people and a group of the people of Madīnah varies about it. Some say that it is not rejected and is carried out because the marriage was contracted with the permission of a walī from the tribe. Others among them say that it should not be carried out and say that rank must be observed in guardians according who is the best and most proper. However, that is recommended and not mandatory. This is a summary of the school of Mālik according to most of his people. Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq and his followers preferred that. It is also said that the ruler looks into it and questions the closer relative regarding what he disagrees about. Then if he thinks that it should be carried out, it is carried out, and if he thinks that it should be rejected, it is rejected. It is said that the nearer guardian can reject it in any case because he has the right to do so. It is said that he can reject it or allow it as long as a long time has not passed and there are no children. All of these are positions of the people of Madīnah.

If the closest guardian is a Magian or a fool, then the next closest relative gives her in marriage, and the former is considered to be like someone who is deceased. The same is true if the closest guardian is absent at a great distance or absent so that it is not expected that he will return soon: then the next closest relative gives her in marriage. It is also said that if the closest guardian is absent, then the next one does not give her in marriage, rather the judge does. The former is the view of Mālik.

If two relatives are equal in their closeness and one of them is absent, then the woman entrusts the contract of her marriage to the one who is present and the absent one has no grounds for objection. If they are both present, then she entrusts the contract to one of them and he only gives her in marriage with the other’s permission. If the two disagree, then the judge looks into it and allows it if he thinks that it is best for her. Ibn Wahb related that from Mālik.

Having witnesses to the marriage is not one of the pillars of marriage in the view of Mālik and his people. It is enough that it be made known and announced and not kept secret. As for keeping a marriage secret, Ibn al-Qāsim reports that Mālik stated, ‘If someone marries with witnesses and then orders them to keep that secret, the marriage is not allowed because it is a secret marriage. If someone marries without witnesses, not seeking to conceal it, it is allowed. They bear witness in the future.’ Ibn Wahb related from Mālik about a man who marries a woman with the testimony of two men and asks them to conceal it, that the couple are separated by a divorce and the marriage is not allowed. The woman has her dower if he has consummated the marriage and the witnesses are not punished. Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī say that it is permitted if there were two witnesses, even if he has asked them to conceal it. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is the position of our man, Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī al-Andalusī, who said, ‘Every marriage that has been witnessed by two men is no longer secret.’ I think that he related it from al-Layth ibn Sa‘d. As for secret marriage, ash-Shāfi‘ī and the Kufans and those who follow them say that any marriage without two or more male witnesses is invalid in every case.

The position of ash-Shāfi‘ī is sounder because of the ḥadīth we mentioned. It is related that Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘There is no marriage without witnesses and a sensible walī.’ As far as I know, none of the Companions disagreed with that. The evidence for Mālik and his School is that the sales transactions that Allah mentioned have witnesses to the contract. There is evidence that that is not one of the requirements of a sale, so it is even more fitting that, since Allah did not mention witnesses to marriage, witnesses are not one of its preconditions and mandatory elements. The goal is to make it known and public in order to preserve lineage. Witnesses are good after the contract when there are conflicting claims and disagreement about what was contracted between the two parties. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Make marriage public.’ This position of Mālik is the position of Ibn Shihāb and most of the people of Madīnah.

A believing slave is better than a noble and wealthy idolater. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘All of your men are slaves of Allah and all of your women are slaves of Allah.’ He also said, ‘Do not bar the female slaves of Allah from the mosques of Allah.’ Allah says: ‘What an excellent slave! He truly turned to His Lord.’ (38:30, 44) This is the best interpretation of this this āyah. It removes dispute and disagreement. Allah is the One Who gives success.

Such people call you to the Fire

Meaning the men and women who are idolaters. They call you to actions which make the Fire inevitable. Keeping their company and being intimate with them means that you yourself are bound to participate in many of their deviances quite apart from what they will teach your children.

whereas Allah calls you, with His permission, to the Garden and forgiveness.

He calls you to the actions of the People of the Garden. Az-Zajjāj said that ‘with His permission’ means ‘by His command’.

222 They will ask you about menstruation. Say, ‘It is an impurity, so keep apart from women during menstruation and do not approach them until they have purified themselves. But once they have purified themselves, then go to them in the way that Allah has enjoined on you.’ Allah loves those who turn back from wrongdoing and He loves those who purify themselves.

They will ask you about menstruation.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned from as-Suddī that the askers referred to in this āyah were Thābit ibn ad-Daḥdāḥ or Usayd ibn Ḥuḍayr and ‘Abbād ibn Bishr, which is the position of the majority. The reason for the question, according to Qatādah and others, was that the Arabs in Madīnah and around it had adopted the custom of the Jews with respect to avoiding menstruating women and so this was revealed. Mujāhid said, ‘They used to avoid normal intercourse with women when they were menstruating and they would have anal intercourse with them during their period of menstruation and then this was revealed.’

We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Anas said, ‘When Jewish women menstruated, the Jews would not eat with them or go to them in their rooms. The Companions asked the Prophet ﷺ about this and Allah revealed: “They will ask you about menstruation.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Do everything short of actual intercourse.” The Jews heard this and they said, “This man will not leave any practice we do without opposing us in it!” Usayd and ‘Abbad told the Prophet ﷺ what they were saying and asked, “Messenger of Allah, the Jews say such-and-such. Should we not have sex with women?” They said, “The face of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ changed colour until we thought that he was angry with them. They left. The Messenger of Allah had been given a gift of buttermilk and so he sent for those two men and gave them it to drink. So they knew that he was not angry with them.’ Our scholars say that Jews and Magians shunned menstruating women while the Christians did not avoid them at all, and this was a middle way.

The root of the word for menstruation (maḥīḍ) means to flow and overflow. It is used for a torrent which overflows or a tree whose sap or gum flows out. The forms of the verbal noun also include ḥayḍ and maḥāḍ. A menstruating woman is described as ḥā’iḍ or ḥā’iḍah, the plurals being ḥuyyaḍ and ḥawā’iḍ. Ḥīḍah is a rag used by a woman during menstruation as is maḥīḍah. It is also said that maḥīḍ designates time and place. Ḥawḍ meaning a basin or reservoir is from the same root because water flows into it. The Arabs can use the wāw and yā’ interchangeably. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that there are eight names for a menstruating woman: ḥā’iḍ, ‘ārik, fārik, ṭāmis, dāris, kābir, ḍaḥik and ṭāmith.

Scholars agree that there are three rulings which concern a woman when she sees evident vaginal flowing blood. One of those is normal menstruation whose blood is thick and darker than red. Then she does not pray or fast. There is no disagreement about that. It may be either continuous or with breaks. If it is continuous, then the ruling about it is firm. If it has breaks and she sees blood one day and none one day, or she sees blood for two days and none for one or two days, she does not pray in the days of bleeding and has a ghusl when it stops and then prays. Then she puts together the days of bleeding and cancels the intervening pure days and does not count them as pure in either ‘iddah or istibrā’. Menstruation is part of a woman’s natural constitution and nature.

Al-Bukhārī related that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ set out to the place of prayer on the Day of Aḍḥā or Fiṭr and passed by the women. He said, “O company of women! Give ṣadaqah for I have seen that you make up the majority of the inhabitants of the Fire!” They asked, “Why, Messenger of Allah?” He replied, “You call down too many curses and show ingratitude to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intellect or dīn. Yet the mind of even a resolute man might be swept away by one of you.” They asked, “In what way is our dīn and intellect deficient, Messenger of Allah?” He asked, “Is not the testimony of a woman worth only half that of a man?” “Yes,” they answered. He said, “That is how your intellect is deficient. Is it not so that when a woman is menstruating, she neither prays nor fasts?” They said, “Yes, Messenger of Allah.” He said, “That is how her dīn is deficient.”’

Scholars agree that menstruating women do not pray or fast and that they must make up days of fasting missed but not missed prayers. That is based on the ḥadīth of Mu‘ādhah who said, ‘I asked ‘Ā’ishah, “Does a menstruating women make up the fast but not make up the prayers?” She said, “Are you a Ḥarūrī (Khārijite)?” I replied, “I am not a Ḥarūrī, but I am just asking.” She said, “We experienced that and were commanded to make up the fast but not commanded to make up the prayers.”’ Muslim transmitted it. When it ends, she purifies herself with a ghusl as will be dealt with later.

Scholars disagree about the length of a menstrual period. The fuqahā’ of Madīnah said that it cannot be longer than fifteen days. So it can be fifteen days or less. What goes beyond fifteen days is not menstruation but rather false menstruation (istiḥāḍah). That is the school of Mālik and his people. It is related from Mālik that there is no time for the minimum or maximum of menstruation except that which exists in women. It is as if he abandoned the first position and referred to the custom of women.

Muḥammad ibn Salamah said that the minimum period of purity is fifteen days. Most of the Baghdādī Mālikīs prefer that and it is also the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and their people, and ath-Thawrī. That is sound in respect of this topic because Allah Almighty made the ‘iddah of women with periods three menstrual cycles and the ‘iddah of those who do not menstruate due to old age or youth three months. So it is as if every period is equal to a month and the month includes purity and menstruation. If the period of menstruation is less, that of purity is increased. If the period of menstruation is more, then that of purity is less. So when menstruation is more than fifteen days, then the minimum period of purity opposite it must be fifteen days to complete the month of menstruation and purity. It is what is normally customary in the constitution of women as well as being reinforced by the evidence of the Book and Sunnah.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the minimum period of menstruation is a day and a night and its maximum period is fifteen days. A similar position to that of Mālik is related from him about referring the matter to the custom of women. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that the minimum period of menstruation is three days and its maximum period is ten days. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘According to them, what is less than three days is istiḥāḍah and it only prevents the prayer when it first appears because it is not known how long it will last. Then the woman must make up the prayers she missed. That is also the case, according to the Kufans, if it is more than ten days. According to the Hijazīs, what is more than fifteen days is istiḥāḍah. According to ash-Shāfi‘ī, what is less than a day and a night is istiḥāḍah. That is the view of al-Awzā‘ī and aṭ-Ṭabarī. Among those who said that the minimum length of menstruation was a day and a night and its maximum fifteen days were ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Abū Thawr and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘We believe that a woman can menstruate in the morning and be pure in the evening.’

We have seen what scholars say regarding this topic about the maximum and minimum periods of menstruation and the minimum period of purity in al-Istiẓhār and the argument in al-Muqtabis fī sharḥ Muwaṭṭā’ Mālik ibn Anas. According to ash-Shāfi’ī, if a woman is a virgin experiencing her first period, she starts the fifteen days as soon as she sees blood. Then she has a ghusl and makes up the prayers for fourteen days. Mālik said that she does not have to make up the prayer and her husband should refrain from sexual intercourse with her. Ibn Ḥanbal says that she should wait for a day and a night and then have a ghusl and her husband may not approach her. Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf said that she leaves the prayer for ten days, then has a ghusl and prays for ten days and then after that stops praying for ten days. This is her state when the bleeding stops. If she has known days, then Mālik says that she adds three days through istiẓhār to the known days, as long as it does not exceed fifteen days. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that she has a ghusl at the end of her days without adding anything.

The second type of bleeding is lochia (nifās) after childbirth. Scholars also disagree about its length. It is said that it is two months, which is the view of Mālik. It is said that it is forty days, which is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Other things are said. She is pure when it ends. The ghusl for it is the same as the ghusl for janābah. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said, ‘Bleeding for menstruation and lochia prevent eleven things: the obligation of the prayer and the soundness of performing it, fasting which is not mandatory (and the difference between the two is that the fast must be made up but not the prayer), vaginal intercourse, ‘iddah, divorce, ṭawāf, touching a copy of the Qur’an, entering a mosque and doing i‘tikāf in it, and there are two transmissions about reciting the Qur’an.

The third type of bleeding is that which is neither normal nor part of the natural constitution. It is from a vein which bleeds red blood and does not stop until it is healed. Its ruling is that a woman suffering from it is pure and is not prevented from praying or fasting. This is based on the consensus of scholars and marfū‘ reports that agree on that since it is known that it is blood from a vein, not menstrual blood. Mālik related from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘Fāṭimah bint Abī Ḥubaysh said, “Messenger of Allah, I never become pure. Should I abandon the prayer?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “That is a vein, not menstruation. So when your period approaches, stop praying. When its normal length ends, wash the blood from yourself and pray.”’

This ḥadīth, which is sound and has few words, explains the rulings of menstruation and false menstruation. It is the soundest of what is related regarding this matter. It refutes what is related from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Āmir and Makḥūl about a menstruating woman doing ghusl and wuḍū’ for every prayer and facing the qiblah sitting while remembering Allah. It says that a menstruating woman does not pray. That is the consensus of the great majority of scholars, with the exception of a few of the Khārijites who say that a menstruating women owes the prayer. It also indicates that a woman suffering from istiḥāḍah is not obliged to do other than a ghusl for her period. If she had been obliged to do anything else, he ﷺ would have commanded her to do it. It also refutes the view of those who think that she must do a ghusl for every prayer, those who think that she does one ghusl for the day prayers, one for the two night prayers and one for Ṣubḥ, those who say that she does a ghusl for one purity to another, and the view of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab that it is from one purity to another, because the Prophet ﷺ did not command any of that. It refutes those who espouse istiẓhār because the Prophet ﷺ commanded her to do ghusl and pray when she knew that her period had ended and he did not command her to leave the prayer for three days to wait and see whether menstruation was coming or not. The cautiousness is respect of performing the prayer, not leaving it.

Say, ‘It is an impurity,

It is something by which women and others are discommoded, referring to the smell of menstrual blood. The word ‘adhā’ (impurity) alludes to impurity in general and is also applied to disliked words. Part of that is the words of Allah: ‘Do not nullify your ṣadaqah by demands or gratitude or insulting words (adhā)’ (2:265) where it is disliked words, and: ‘Disregard their abuse (adhā)’ (33:48), meaning to ignore the abuse of the hypocrites. A ḥadīth states, ‘Remove ‘adhā’ from him,’ meaning, the hair on the head of the newborn child. It is shaved on the seventh day which is the ‘aqīqah. There is also the ḥadīth on faith: ‘The least of it is removing something harmful (adhā) from the road.’ This is stones, thorns and the like which might harm a passerby. Allah also says: ‘There is nothing wrong, if you are bothered (adhā) by rain.’ (4:102)

This āyah is used as evidence by those who forbid sexual intercourse with a woman experiencing istiḥādah (false menstruation) when blood is flowing since all blood is impurity and must be washed from the clothes and body. All such blood, whether menstrual or resulting from istiḥādah is still an impurity. Permission to pray is an allowance brought by the Sunnah just as someone with incontinence can also pray. This is the position of Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah, ‘Āmir ash-Sha‘bī, Ibn Sīrīn and az-Zuhrī. There are different positions from al-Ḥasan. ‘Ā’ishah also said that a woman’s husband should not come to her at that time. That is the position of Ibn ‘Ulayyah, al-Mughīrah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān, the most elevated of Mālik’s companions, and Abū Muṣ‘ab who gave a fatwā to that effect.

The majority of scholars, however, say that a woman experiencing istiḥādah can pray, fast, do ṭawāf and recite Qur’an. Her husband can come to her as well. Mālik said, ‘The position of the people of fiqh and knowledge is this, even if the bleeding is considerable.’ Ibn Wahb related it from him. Aḥmad said, ‘I prefer that a husband should not have intercourse with such a woman unless her condition persists for a long time.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said about a woman suffering from istiḥādah, ‘There is no harm in her husband having intercourse with her, even if the blood is flowing onto her heels.’ Mālik said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “That is a vein, not menstruation.” If it were menstruation, what would prevent him having sex with her when she is praying?’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘When Allah judged that the blood of a woman experiencing istiḥādah does not prevent the prayer and other acts of worship done by a woman who is not menstruating, then it is mandatory that none of the rulings of a menstruating women apply to her except for the consensus of having a ghusl as is the case with all sorts of bleeding.’

so keep apart from women during menstruation

This can either mean ‘during’ the time of menstruation if it is a verbal noun or it may refer to the place of menstruation itself in which case it would merely mean avoiding the actual act of sexual intercourse. Scholars disagree about other kinds of sexual contact with a menstruating woman and what is permitted in that respect. Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Abīdah as-Salmānī said that a man must leave his wife’s bed when she menstruates. This is an aberrant position, outside the position of most scholars. Even if the general words of the āyah may suggest that, the Sunnah is contrary to it. Ibn ‘Abbās’s aunt, Maymūnah, went to him and said, ‘Do you turn away from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ!’

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, al-Awzā‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Yūsuf and the vast majority of scholars say that a man can enjoy everything above the waist-wrapper because that is what the Prophet ﷺ said about this. When someone asked him, ‘What is lawful to me of my wife when she is menstruating?’ He replied, ‘She should tie on her waist-wrapper, and then your business is what is above that.’ The Prophet ﷺ said to ‘Ā’ishah when she was menstruating, ‘Tie on your waist-wrapper and then return to bed.’ Ath-Thawrī, ash-Shaybānī and some Shāfi‘īs say that a man should avoid the actual site of the blood, since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do everything except sexual intercourse.’ That is the position of Dāwud and it is the sound view from ash-Shāfi‘ī. Abū Ma‘shar related from Ibrāhīm that Masrūq said, ‘I asked ‘Ā’ishah what is lawful to me of my wife while she is menstruating and she answered, “Everything except the genitals.”’ Scholars say that the reason a woman wears a waist wrapper is to cut off the means because a man might otherwise exceed what is allowed. That agrees with the reports and is not contradictory. Success is by Allah.

They disagree about what someone who does have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating should do. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah say that he should ask for Allah’s forgiveness and owes nothing. That is the position of Rabī‘ah and Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd. Dāwud also said that. It is related from Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan that he should give half a dinar as ṣadaqah. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said, ‘The most excellent remedy is the ḥadīth of ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd from Miqsam from Ibn ‘Abbās in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘He should give a dinar or half a dinar as ṣadaqah.’ Abū Dāwud transmitted it and he said that this is a sound transmission: ‘…a dinar or half a dinar.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī recommended that, but if someone does not do it, he owes nothing. That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī in Baghdad. One group of the People of Hadith said, ‘If he has intercourse during bleeding, he owes a dinar. If he has intercourse after it has ended, he owes half a dinar.’ Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘If someone has intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating, he should give five dinars as ṣadaqah.’ The paths of transmission of all of this is found in the Sunan of Abū Dāwud, ad-Dāraquṭnī and elsewhere. At-Tirmidhī transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If it is red blood, he owes a dinar. If it is yellow, then half a dinar.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The argument that he owes no expiation except asking for forgiveness and repentance is the weakness in the isnād from Ibn ‘Abbās. Something like that is not used as a proof. He remains free of liability. It is not mandatory to confirm anything in it for a poor person or anything else except by an undisputed proof, and that does not exist with respect to this matter.’

and do not approach them until they are pure.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said that he heard ash-Shāshī say in an assembly of debate, ‘When it says, “Do not approach (taqrab)”, it means “Do not touch.” If it is “tuqrib”, it means “Do not go near”. Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr. Ibn Kathīr and ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Ḥafṣ recite ‘yaṭhurna’ while Ḥamzah, al-Kisā’ī, ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr and al-Mufaḍḍal recite ‘yaṭṭahharna’. The copies of the Qur’an of Ubayy and ‘Abdullāh have ‘yataṭahharna’. The copy of Anas ibn Mālik has ‘do not approach women while they are menstruating and withdraw from them until they have purified themselves.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred a double ṭā’, saying that it means ‘they have washed’ since the consensus of all is that it is unlawful for a man to approach his wife after the bleeding has stopped until she has had a ghusl.’ The disagreement is about the type of purification required. Some say it is ghusl, some say it is wuḍū’ and some say it is merely washing the genitals. That makes her lawful to her husband, even if she has not had a ghusl on account of menstruation.

But once they have purified themselves,

This is generally understood to refer to a full ghusl with water. That is the position of Mālik and most scholars. They say that the purification by which sexual intercourse with a woman who has been menstruating becomes lawful is by washing the whole body with water like you do for janābah. Neither tayammum nor anything else is adequate. That is the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, aṭ-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Maslamah, the people of Madīnah and others. Yaḥyā ibn Bukayr and Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurṭubī said, ‘When the period of a menstruating woman has completely finished and she does tayammum in a situation when there is no water, she is lawful for her husband without doing ghusl.’ Mujāhid, ‘Ikrimah and Ṭāwūs said that the end of bleeding makes her lawful for her husband, but she should perform wuḍū’. Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Yūsuf and ash-Shaybānī said that when the blood has stopped for ten days, he can have sexual intercourse with her before she does ghusl. If it is before that time, he is not permitted to do so unless she has a ghusl or it becomes obligatory for her to do the prayer. This is arbitrary and without logic. That judgment would mean that after the end of bleeding, the woman would still be in her ‘iddah and her husband would be able to take her back as long as she has not had a ghusl for her third period.’

Our evidence is that Allah connected the ruling about this to two preconditions. The first is the end of bleeding which is in His words: ‘until they are pure.’ The second is having a ghusl, which is in His words: ‘once they have purified themselves,’ i.e. done a ghusl with water. This is like His words, ‘Keep a close check on orphans until they reach a marriageable age…’ (4:6) where He connected the ruling, which is giving them their wealth, to two preconditions. The first is reaching the age of marriage and the second is recognition of their good sense. Another example is His words about a divorced woman: ‘She is not lawful to him after that until she has married another husband’ (2:230) and then the Sunnah brings in sexual relations [with the new husband]. Therefore making the woman lawful to her first husband is based on two things today: a marriage contract and sexual intercourse with the new husband.

Abū Ḥanīfah argued that the āyah means that the end [of impurity] in the precondition is the same as the end which is mentioned before it, and so the two uses of ‘yaṭhurna’ has the same meaning as ‘yaṭṭahharna’, and so both linguistic usages must be acted on and we must we take each of them to have its own meaning, so the first is about the end of bleeding which is the lesser end, and we do not permit having sex with her until she has had a ghusl because there is always the possibility of its resuming. We take the other āyah to mean when her bleeding stops at the maximum length, and so it is permitted to have sex with her, even if she has not had a ghusl. Ibn al-‘Arabī says that this is the strongest position that they have.

The answer to the first is that it is not the language of those eloquent in Arabic. If that were the case, it would entail a repetition counting. When it is possible to apply the same words to a single thing, then no repetition is used by people, so how could that not be the case with the words of the All-Wise, All-Knowing? The answer to the second is that each of them can be taken to have a meaning that the other does not have, and so when the bleeding stops, she still has the ruling of being menstruating until she has a ghusl. They do not say that, as we made clear. It is agreed that she is still menstruating, and it is not permitted to have sex with a menstruating women. Furthermore, if they said that it demands that it is permitted to have sex when the bleeding ends at the maximum length, what we said demands prohibition. When there is a conflict between what demands prohibition and what demands permissibility, then prohibition takes precedence as was stated by ‘Alī and ‘Uthmān in respect of having two sisters by virtue of ownership: one āyah makes them lawful and the other āyah makes then unlawful. The prohibition takes precedence. Allah knows best.

Scholars disagree about whether a woman of the People of the Book should be forced to have a ghusl or not. In the transmission of Ibn al-Qāsim, Mālik said that she is compelled to have one in order to make intercourse with her husband lawful. Allah says: ‘Do not approach them until they have purified themselves.’ He says that she should do it with water and that the instruction does not single out just Muslim women. Ashhab, however, relates from Mālik that she is not compelled to do so because she does not believe in that instruction. Since Allah says: ‘It is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last day.’ (2:228) That refers to menstruation and pregnancy. The instruction is addressed to believing women. Allah says: ‘There is no compulsion where the dīn is concerned.’ (2:256) This is stated by Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam.

The ghusl that a menstruating woman performs is the same as that performed on account of janābah. She does not have to undo her braids when doing it, based on Muslim’s relation that Umm Salamah said, ‘I said, “Messenger of Allah, I have tight braids on my head. Do I have to undo them for the ghusl for janābah?” He answered, “No, it is enough for you to pour three handfuls of water on your head, then water over yourself, and you will be purified.”’ One variant has: ‘undo them on account of menstruation and janābah.’

then go to them in the way that Allah has enjoined on you.’

This means to have sexual intercourse with them. It is a command which gives permission. ‘Go to’ is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This is strengthened by the mention of purification with water since that is a form of command from Allah which is only complete. Allah knows best. The particle ‘min’ here means ‘in’, namely where Allah has commanded which is the vagina. ‘Min’ is used to mean ‘in’ in other āyahs. It is said that it means ‘in the manner in which He has permitted you,’ so not while fasting, in iḥrām or while in i‘tikāf. Al-Aṣamm said that. Ibn ‘Abbās and Abū Razīn said that it means in a state of purity, not during menstruation. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah said that it means lawfully and not in fornication.

Allah loves those who turn back from wrongdoing and He loves those who purify themselves.

There is disagreement about what this means. It is said that it refers to those who turn back from wrong action and shirk and those who purify themselves with water from janābah and minor impurities. ‘Aṭā’ and others said that. Mujāhid said that it is turning back from wrong actions and also from anal intercourse with women. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It appears to be a reference to the words about the people of Lūṭ in 7:82.’ It is said that those purify themselves are those who have not committed wrong actions. Someone who repents is someone who does not despair of gaining Allah’s mercy and is not arrogant as we see in another āyah: ‘But some of them wrong themselves; some are ambivalent; and some outdo each other in good.’ (35:32)

223 Your women are fertile fields for you, so come to your fertile fields however you like. Send good ahead for yourselves and be fearful of Allah. Know that you are going to meet Him. And give good news to the believers.

Your women are fertile fields for you,

It is related in Muslim from Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh: ‘The Jews used to say, “If a man has intercourse with a woman from the rear, the child will be squint-eyed.”’ Then this āyah was revealed. The transmission from az-Zuhrī adds, ‘If he wishes, when she is lying on her front, and if he wishes, when she is not lying on her front, as long as it is only the one opening.’ At-Tirmidhī mentioned it.

Al-Bukhārī related that Nāfi‘ said, ‘When Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak until he finished it. I came to him one day and he recited Sūrat al-Baqarah until he reached a place whereupon he asked, “Do you know about what this was revealed?” “No,” I answered. He said, “It was revealed about such-and-such.” Then he continued. It is related by ‘Abd aṣ-Ṣamad from his father from Ayyūb from Nāfi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar said that this āyah means ‘however you like’. Al-Ḥumaydī says that the word refers to the vagina. Abū Dāwud related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah forgive him!) misunderstood something. There was this tribe of the Anṣār, who had been idolaters, and the tribe of the Jews, who were People of the Book, and they [the Anṣār] used to think that the Jews were superior to them in knowledge. Therefore they used to imitate much of what they did. They had commanded the People of the Book not to have intercourse with women except on one side [i.e. lying on their backs] as that was more concealing for the woman. This tribe of the Anṣār adopted this from them. The tribe of Quraysh used to uncover women completely and enjoy them coming to them from in front and behind and lying on their backs. When the Muhājirūn came to Madīnah and a man married a woman of the Anṣār, he would act with her in that way and she disliked it and told him, “We are approached on one side! Do that or keep away from me!” This business spread and it reached the Prophet ﷺ. Then Allah Almighty revealed: “Come to your fertile fields however you like,” meaning from in front and behind and lying on the back, referring to the place where the child is born [i.e. the vagina].’

At-Tirmidhī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘‘Umar went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, I am destroyed!” “What has destroyed you?” he asked. He said, “Last night I changed my direction.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not say anything. Then Allah revealed this āyah to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Your women are fertile fields for you, so come to your fertile fields however you like.” [He said,] “Approach from the front or the back, but avoid the anus and menstruation.”’ He said that this is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

An-Nasā’ī related that Abu-n-Naḍr said that he said to Nāfi‘, the freedman of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘It is often said that you say that Ibn ‘Umar gave a fatwā that one can have anal intercourse with women.’ Nāfi‘ exclaimed, ‘They have lied about me! I will tell you how the business is. Ibn ‘Umar read the Qur’an to me one day while I was with him until we reached: “Your women are fertile fields for you.” Do you know what this āyah commands? We, the Quraysh, used to have women lie on their backs. When we arrived in Madīnah and married the women of the Anṣār, we wanted from them what men want from their wives and they disliked that and thought it terrible. The women of the Anṣār used to have sex on their sides. Then Allah revealed: “Your women are fertile fields for you, so come to your fertile fields however you like.”’

These ḥadīths provide a text about the permission for all forms when it is vaginal intercourse, i.e. whatever position you wish, front or back, reclining or lying on the back. As for sex in that part which is not permitted, it is not permitted! The āyah uses the word “ḥarth” (fields) and so this must apply to the vagina, because that entails fertility. Metaphorically, a woman is like the earth, the sperm is like the seed and the child is like the plants

So come to your fertile fields however you like.

The majority of the Companions, the Tābi‘ūn and the imams qualified to give fatwā say that it means whatever position, front or back. The word for ‘however’ (annā) has various meanings in Arabic: however, whenever, and wherever. ‘However’ refers to the manner of joining. One group who say it means ‘wherever’ say that it is permitted to penetrate the anus. Among those to whom this view is ascribed are Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Nāfi‘, Ibn ‘Umar, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Quraẓī and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn. It is also related from Mālik in a book called Kitāb as-Sirr. However, the astute Mālikīs and their shaykhs reject that book. Mālik is too esteemed to have a ‘Kitāb as-Sirr’. This view is found in al-‘Utbiyyah. Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned that Ibn Sha‘bān ascribes this view to a large group of the Companions and Tābi‘ūn. There are many transmissions ascribed to Mālik in Kitāb Jimā‘ an-Niswān wa-l-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘It is related that Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Quraẓī saw nothing wrong with that. In that he interpreted the following words of Allah: “Of all beings, do you lie with males, leaving the wives your Lord has created for you?” (26:165) He said that it implies: “You leave the like of that with your wives and if the like of that had not been permitted with wives, that would not be sound.” It is not the site which is permitted so that you say, “You do that and leave its like which is permitted.”’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘This is debatable since it means: “You leave what your Lord created for you of your wives in which you still your appetite and the pleasure of intercourse is obtained by the two of them together.” According to this, the rebuke is permitted. His words: “Once they have purified themselves, then go to them in the way that Allah has enjoined on you” and “Come to your fertile fields” indicate that it is one site in particular, and it is confined to the site of childbirth.’

This is what is true regarding this matter. Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned that scholars do not disagree that a woman whose vagina is closed so that there is no way to have sexual intercourse with her has a defect for which she can be rejected, with the exception of something that has come from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz by a path that is not sound that there can be no rejection on account of a closed vagina or anything else. All the fuqahā’ take a different view because touching is what is desired in marriage. Their consensus about this is evidence that an old woman who cannot bear children is not rejected. What is sound in respect of this matter is what we explained.

What is ascribed to Mālik and his people regarding this is false and they are innocent of that because the permission is particularly connected to the place of the field because of His words and because the wisdom in creating couples is the bringing about of progeny. The power of marriage is only obtained by the site of procreation. This is the truth. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Shaykh Fakhru ’d-dīn Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn, the faqīh and imam of his time, said, “The vagina is the thing most like thirty-five things,” and he made a fist with his hand then said, “The urinary passage has thirty. The passage of the penis and vagina contain five. Allah has made the vagina unlawful during menstruation because of the impurity arriving. So it even more proper for the anus to be unlawful because of the inevitable impurity.”’ Mālik said to Ibn Wahb and ‘Alī ibn Ziyad when they informed him that some people in Egypt claimed that he allowed anal intercourse, that he objected to that and rebuked the one who told him: ‘They have lied about me! They have lied about me! They have lied about me!’ Then he asked, ‘Are they not an Arab people? Did not Allah say: “Come to your fertile fields”? Is a fertile field other than a place capable of growth?’

What opponents cite about the phrase ‘…however you like’ including all passages, because it is undefined, is not a true argument since it is specific to what we mentioned. There are also numerous ḥadīths which are excellent, sound and well-known, related from twelve Companions with different texts, all of which forbid anal intercourse with women. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal mentioned them in his Musnad as did Abū Dāwud, an-Nasā’ī, at-Tirmidhī and others. Abu-l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī compiled them, along with their paths of transmission, in a section entitled: ‘Prohibition of the disliked place’. Our Shaykh, Abu-l-‘Abbās has a section entitled ‘Exposition on turning away from those who allow anal intercourse.’

This is the truth which is followed and what is sound regarding this matter. Someone who believes in Allah and the Last Day must not be turned, in this calamity, to a scholastic error after having it rectified. We should be cautious about scholastic errors. Something different is related from Ibn ‘Umar in which he said that someone who does it is an unbeliever. That is what he held to. May Allah be pleased with him. Similarly Nāfi‘ said that the one who reported the previous transmission from him was lying, as an-Nasā’ī mentioned. Mālik denied it and thought it terrible and said that those who ascribed it to him were lying. Abū Muḥammad ad-Dārimī related in his Musnad from Abu-l-Ḥubāb that Sa‘īd ibn Yasār said, ‘I asked Ibn ‘Umar, “What do you say about slavegirls when one ‘pastures’ with them?” He asked, “What is ‘pasturing’?” I mentioned to him that it was anal intercourse. He exclaimed, “Do any of the Muslims do that!”’ It is transmitted that Khuzaymah ibn Thābit said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “People! Allah is not shy of the truth. Do not go women from their rear.”’ Something similar is reported from ‘Alī ibn Ṭalq. Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone has anal sex with a woman, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Rising.’ Abū Dāwud aṭ-Ṭayālisī related in his Musnad from Qatādah from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘That is the lesser sodomy.’ It is related that Ṭāwūs said. ‘The actions of the people of Lūṭ started with committing sodomy with women.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The fact that something is confirmed from the Prophet ﷺ dispenses with the need for any further evidence.’

Send good ahead for yourselves and be fearful of Allah

Do what will be of benefit to you on the Last Day. Allah says elsewhere: “Any good you send ahead for yourselves you will find with Allah.” (2:110) So it means obedience and righteous actions. It is also said that it means seeking children and progeny since a child is good for you in this world and the Next. He may be an intercessor and protection for you. It is said it means marriage with a chaste woman so that the ensuing child will be pure and righteous. It is said that it is excess as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who has three of his children die before reaching the age of [accountable] sin will not be touched by the Fire except that which will fulfill an oath.’ This will be dealt with in Maryam, Allah willing. Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Aṭā’ said that it means to mention Allah before sexual intercourse as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If, when he goes to his wife, one of you were to say, “In the Name of Allah. O Allah, keep Shayṭān away from us and keep Shayṭān away from what You provide us with” and a child is decreed for them, Shayṭān will never harm him.’ Muslim transmitted it.

Know that you are going to meet Him.

This is a far-reaching threat, because Allah will repay people both for their piety and for any wrong actions they commit. Ibn ‘Uyaynah related that ‘Amr ibn Dīnār heard Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr say that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say while he was giving an address, “You will meet Allah barefooted, naked, on foot and uncircumcised.” Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recited: “Have taqwā of Allah and know that you are going to meet Him.”’ Muslim transmitted it.

‘Give good news to the believers’ is to make it easy to do good actions and seek the paths of guidance.

224 Do not, by your oaths, make Allah a pretext to avoid good action and being fearful of Him and putting things right between people. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Do not, by your oaths, make Allah a pretext

Scholars say that Allah commands people to spend on, and behave well towards, orphans and women and, as a corollary, He is saying, ‘Do not reject anything of noble character, using as an excuse, “I took an oath that I would not do such-and-such a thing.”’ That is what Ibn ‘Abbās, an-Nakha‘ī, Mujāhid ar-Rabī‘ and others said that the āyah means. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘It is about a man refusing to be pious, or to maintain contact with his kin, or to put things right between people, all of which constitute goodness, saying that he took an oath not to.’ Some commentators say that it means ‘Do not swear falsely by Allah if you truly desire good and that things be put right.’ It is said that it simply means to make an excessive number of oaths by Allah because such oaths are more likely to move people. That is why Allah says, ‘Keep your oaths.’ (5:89) He censured making an excessive number of oaths: ‘Do not obey any vile swearer of oaths.’ (68:10) The Arabs praise making a small number of oaths as one says:

Having few oaths, he keeps his oaths.

If he makes an oath, he fulfils it.

This means that making few oaths comes from piety and taqwā. If someone makes many oaths, then he also breaks them and rarely guards the right of Allah Almighty. This is a good interpretation. Mālik ibn Anas said, ‘I have heard that people swear by Allah to everything.’ It is said that it means: ‘Do not make oaths commonplace in respect of everything, both true and false.’ Az-Zajjāj and others said that the āyah means that when a person is asked to do a good action, he uses Allah as an excuse and says, ‘I have sworn an oath’ which he has not, in fact, sworn. Al-Qutabī said that it means: ‘When you swear not to maintain ties with your kin, not to give ṣadaqah and not to put things right and similar good deeds, then you should expiate your oath.’ This is an excellent position, and it is also what is indicated by the reason for the revelation as we will make clear.

It is said that it was revealed about the time when Abū Bakr made an oath not to give any more money to his poor kinsman Miṣṭaḥ, when he gossiped about ‘Ā’ishah, as we shall read in the story of the Lie which will be discussed in Sūrat an-Nūr (24). It is also said that it was revealed because of Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq when he swore that he would not eat with his guests. It is also said that it was revealed about ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāḥah when he swore not to speak to Bashīr ibn an-Nu‘mān who was his son-in-law. Allah knows best.

The word ‘“urḍah” (pretext) means a target, intention, obstacle, or something which strengthens and supports something, in this case, the oath. The term is used of a woman being a ‘target’ for marriage since it is good for her and strengthens her. It is also used for strength to travel and fight. It means: ‘Do not use your oaths to make Allah reinforce yourselves and as a means to refuse to do good.’

To avoid good action and being fearful of Him

It is more appropriate to do good, like ‘More fitting for them would be obedience and honourable words.’ (47:21) Az-Zajjāj and an-Naḥḥās said that.

225 Allah will not take you to task for careless statements in your oaths, but He will take you to task for the intention your hearts have made. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, All-Forbearing.

Allah will not take you to task for careless statements in your oaths,

The expression ‘laghw’ (careless statements) is a verbal noun that means making use of unnecessary words or things which are not good but which do not actually involve wrongdoing. It is used in a ḥadīth to describe someone else speaking while the imam is speaking on the minbar.

Scholars disagree about exactly what is meant by a careless or ineffective oath. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it refers to those oaths that people make while speaking or arguing when they say, ‘No, by Allah’ and ‘Yes, by Allah’ without really intending to make an actual oath. Al-Marwazī says, ‘The ineffective oath, about which scholars agree, are the careless words of a man, “No, by Allah” and “Yes, by Allah”, when an actual oath is not intended.’ Ibn Wahb related from Yūnus from Ibn Shihāb from ‘Urwah that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘A careless oath is one made when arguing or joking and words which the heart does not intend.’ We find in al-Bukhārī that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The words of Allah, “Allah will not take you to task for careless statements in your oaths” was revealed about when a man says, “No, by Allah” and “Yes, by Allah.”’

It is said that a careless oath is one which is based on speculation and so the truth may tum out to be different. Mālik said that and Ibn al-Qāsim related it from him. A group of the Salaf also said that. Abū Hurayrah said, ‘When a man swears to something, thinking that it is true, and then it turns out that it is not true, that is a careless oath and there is no expiation owed for it.’ Something similar is related from Ibn ‘Abbās. It is related that some people exchanged words in the presence of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while they were shooting. One of them swore, “I hit it and you missed!” It turned out that the business was different and the man said, “He broke his oath, Messenger of Allah!” The Prophet ﷺ said, “The oaths of archers are ineffective oaths. There is no breaking them and no expiation owed for them.”’ Mālik stated in the Muwaṭṭā’, ‘The best of what I have heard on the matter is that carelessness in oaths is when a man makes an oath about something which he feels certain is like he said, only to find that it is other than what he said. There is no kaffārah owed for it.’

If someone swears to something while knowing that he is lying and sinning, in order to please someone or to make an excuse to someone or to get some wealth, this is worse than an oath for which kaffārah is due. Kaffārah is due from someone who swears that he will not do something that it is permitted to do and then does it, or he that he will do something and then does not do it, as happens when he swears that he will not sell a garment for ten dirhams and then sells it for that amount, or he swears that he will beat his boy and then does not beat him.

If it is a sound transmission, Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘A careless oath is what you swear when you are angry.’ Ṭāwūs said that. Ibn ‘Abbās related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no oath while someone is angry.’ Muslim transmitted it. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that it is making what is lawful unlawful, as when someone says, ‘My property is unlawful to me if I do such-and-such,’ or ‘the unlawful is lawful to me.’ Makḥūl ad-Dimishqī said that. Mālik said that this excludes oaths about his wife where the prohibition is binding unless he excludes her in his heart.

It is said that it is an oath to do something in which one disobeys Allah, as was stated by Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Abū Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān, and ‘Urwah and ‘Abdullāh, the sons of az-Zubayr. That is like when someone swears to drink wine or sever ties with his kin. His keeping of his oath in that instance is to abandon that action, and he owes no kaffārah. Their argument is found in the ḥadīth of ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone swears an oath and sees something else better than it, he should abandon it. His abandoning it is its kaffārah.’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it in the Sunan. It will be discussed in al-Mā’idah.

Zayd ibn Aslam said, ‘A careless oath is when someone invokes Allah against himself like, “May Allah blind me,” “May Allah remove my wealth,” “I am a Jew” or “I am an idolater.” This is a careless oath if he says that.’ Mujāhid said, ‘It is like when there are two men involved in a sale and one of them says, “By Allah, I will not sell it to you for that,” and the other says, “By Allah, I will not buy it for this.”’ An-Nakha‘ī said that it is a man swearing that he will not do something and then he forgets about having said that and does it. Ibn ‘Abbās and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that an ineffective oath is one that is expiated, i.e. when the oath is expiated, it is cancelled and becomes of no note and Allah does not take him to task for its expiation and returning to what is better.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr related a position that ineffective oaths are those which are forced. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘As for an oath which is forgotten, there is no doubt that it is ineffective because it is different to his intention and so it is absolutely of no note. The oath of someone forced is of this sort, and the ruling of someone who is forced will be dealt with in an-Naḥl, Allah willing.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘As for those who say that an ineffective oath is an oath entailing disobedience to Allah, that is false because someone who swears to abandon an act entailing disobedience makes his oath an act of worship, and someone who swears to commit disobedience makes his oath disobedience and is told, “Do not do it. Expiate it.” If he does the action, he sins in advancing to do it to fulfil his oath.’ As for someone who says that it entails a man invoking against himself that something will happen to him if he does not do a certain thing, it is careless words in the path of kaffārah, but it is binding when it is intentional, but disliked. He may be punished for it because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘None of you should invoke against himself. It is possible that it will coincide with a moment in which Allah grants anything that He is asked.’ As for someone who says that it is an oath in anger, he is refuted by the oath of the Prophet ﷺ in anger that he would not give camels to ride to the Ash‘arīs and then he did so and expiated his oath as will be explained in at-Tawbah.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘As for those who say that it is an expiated oath, it is not pertinent to what is related.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah also says that it is weak. He said, ‘Generally speaking, Allah removed any calling to task for a careless oath. The reality is that it is not a sin and there is no expiation required for it. Taking to task for oaths is punishment in the Next World for a deliberately false oath and for those whose kaffārah has not been done when it is something for which there should be kaffārah, and taking to task in this world is by making kaffārah necessary. Therefore the statement that it is an expiated oath is weak because there is censure for it and censure is for its being in the Next World.’

‘Aymān’ (oaths) is the plural of ‘yamīn’ which literally means ‘right hand,’ and the basis for that is that among the Arabs, when they made a contract or alliance, they would shake each other’s right hands and so an oath became termed yamīn. It is said that it is because it contains blessing (yumn). Allah called it that because it preserves rights.

but He will take you to task for the intention your hearts have made.

This is an adjunct to Allah’s words: ‘Allah does not take you to task for your inadvertent oaths.’ (5:89) Zayd ibn Aslam said that His words are about someone who says, ‘He is an idolater if he does it.’ This is careless unless he believes in shirk in his heart and acquires it. ‘Ever-Forgiving, All-Forbearing’ are two attributes appropriate to what was mentioned about not taking to task since they are aspects of compassion and leniency.

226 Those who swear to abstain from sexual relations with their wives can wait for a period of up to four months. If they then retract their oath, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 227 If they are determined to divorce, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Those who swear to abstain from sexual relations with their wives

This kind of oath is called īlā’ in Arabic. There are other forms of the verbal noun from the verb: aliyyah, alwah and ilwah. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās said that the īlā’ in the days of Jāhiliyyah could be for one, two or even more years. Men intended by that to harm their wives and so a maximum time of four months was set for it. If someone vows less than that it is not considered an īlā’. According to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, it is said that the Prophet ﷺ pronounced an īlā’ because his wives asked him for maintenance which he did not have. It is said that it is because Zaynab returned his gift to him and he became angry with his wives. This is what we find in Ibn Mājah.

Īlā’ has the same legal conditions as a pronouncement of divorce and a free person, slave or drunk person can invoke it, as can a simpleton and one under a guardian, provided that he is adult and not insane. The same is true of a hermaphrodite if he is not mad and an elderly man as long as he is still alive and active. The position of ash-Shāfi‘ī varies regarding an īlā’ by a eunuch. One view says that he cannot make an īlā’ and another says that it is sound. The first is more correct and closer to the Book and the Sunnah. Sexual intercourse is what cancels the oath and a verbal statement about it does not cancel it. As long as the oath remains unbroken the ruling of īlā’ remains.

Scholars disagree about the kind of oath by which īlā’ occurs. Some say it only occurs with an oath by Allah alone since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Whoever swears should swear by Allah or be silent.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that in his new school. Ibn ‘Abbās says that any oath that prevents sexual intercourse is sufficient for it. That is what is said by ash-Sha‘bī, an-Nakha‘ī, Mālik, the people of Hijaz, Sufyān ath-Thawrī and the people of Iraq, ash-Shāfi’ī in his first view, Abū Thawr, Abū ‘Ubayd, Ibn al-Mundhir and Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that it applies to every oath because of which a man cannot have intercourse with his wife. Unless he breaks it, he is carrying out an īlā’ when the oath goes more than four months. So it is all a person can swear by: by Allah, by one of His attributes, by saying, ‘I swear by Allah’ or ‘I bear witness by Allah’, or ‘I have a promise or pact or pledge with Allah’. In all these cases it is an īlā’. If, however, a man says, ‘I swear’ and does not mention Allah, it is said that it is not an īlā’ unless he means ‘by Allah’ and intends that. This will be further explained in al-Mā’idah. If he swears that he will fast if he has sexual intercourse with his wife and says, ‘If I have sex with my wife, I will fast for a month or a year,’ that is an īlā’. That same is true if it involves divorce, emancipation, prayer or ṣadaqah. The basis for this is the generality of Allah’s words: ‘Those who swear to abstain.’ He made no distinction about what makes it obligatory.

If a man makes an oath not to have intercourse and says ‘inshā’llāh’, it can still be an īlā’, but if, in that instance, he has intercourse with his wife, he owes no kaffārah in the transmission of Ibn al-Qāsim from Mālik. Ibn al-Mājishūn said in al-Mabsūṭ that in that case it is not an īlā’ and that is sounder because of the “inshā’llāh” which undoes the oath. That is the position of the people of all regions because he makes it clear by saying ‘inshā’llāh’ that he is not resolved on the action. The reason for what Ibn al-Qāsim related is based on the fact that ‘inshā’llāh’ does not undo the oath, but has an effect on cancelling kaffārah as will be explained in al-Mā’idah. When the oath remains, then the ruling of īlā’ is obliged for him, even if kaffārah is not obliged.

If a man swears by the Prophet, the angels, or the Ka‘bah not to have intercourse or says that he is a Jew or a Christian or fornicator if he does, this is not an īlā’. Mālik and others said that. Al-Bājī said, ‘I believe that it means it is not a form of the oath unless he meant by what he said for it to be an īlā’.’ According to al-Mabsūṭ: ‘Ibn al-Qāsim was asked about whether a man who tells his wife, “You are not welcome,” means an īlā’ by that. He said that Mālik said, “All words by which divorce are intended are divorce. This is divorce in any case.”’

Scholars disagree about the īlā’ mentioned in the Qur’an. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is not an īlā’ unless he swears that he will never touch her. One group said that if he swears that he will not go near his wife for a day, or more or less than that, and then does not have sex with her for four months, she is free from him by īlā’. This is related from Ibn Mas‘ūd, an-Nakha‘ī, Ibn Abī Laylā, al-Ḥakam, Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān and Qatādah, and Isḥāq said that. Ibn al-Mundhir said that many of the people of knowledge deny this view. Most say that an īlā’ is that a man swears not to have sex with is wife for more than four months. If he swears that for four months or less, it is not an īlā’. They consider it to be a simple oath. If he has sex with her in this period he owes nothing as is the case with other oaths. This is the view of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr. Ath-Thawrī and the Kufans said that an īlā’ is that a man swears to four months or more. That is the view of ‘Aṭā’.

The Kufans said that Allah made the waiting period in the īlā’ four months as He made the ‘iddah of a widow four months and ten days. There are three menstrual cycles in the ‘iddah and there is no waiting after it. They said that it is mandatory that the īlā’ is cancelled after that period, and it is only cancelled by intercourse within the period. There is a divorce after four months. Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī argued that Allah assigned four months for the īlā’ and so he can have it in full without any protest from his wife in it, just as happens in the case of a deferred debt where the one owed it cannot demand it until the end of the stipulated period. The approach of Isḥāq about a short period in which a person is doing īlā’ when he does not have sex is based on someone making an oath to do more than four months: he is doing an īlā’ because he intended harm by the oath. This idea exists in a short period.

They disagree about someone who swears not to have sex with his wife for more than four months and then the four months comes to an end without his wife requesting it or presenting the case to the ruler to enforce a stop. According to Mālik and most of the people of Madīnah nothing is obliged for him. Some of our scholars say that after the end of four months a revocable divorce has taken place. Some of them and others said that he has a final divorce at the end of four months. The sound position is that of Mālik and his people: a divorce is not obliged for the person with the īlā’ until the ruler asks him to stop at the request of his wife to have sex. Then he can take his wife back through sexual intercourse and expiate his oath or divorce her. He must either have intercourse or divorce her. Sulaymān ibn Yasār said, ‘Nine of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ detained people on account of an īlā’.’ Mālik said, ‘That is what is done with us.’ Al-Layth, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr said that. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it.

The term of the īlā’ starts from the day of the oath, not from the day the woman argues with him and presents the case to the judge. If she argues with him and is not content with his refusal of sex, the ruler sets for him a term of four months from the day he swore the oath. If he has sex with her, he has fulfilled the wife’s right and then he expiates his oath. If he does not have sex, then a revocable divorce is carried out. Mālik said, ‘If he takes her back, it is not validated until he has had sex with her during the ‘iddah.’ Al-Abhurī said, ‘That is because divorce occurs to avert harm. When he does not have sex with her, the harm continues. There is no sense in taking her back without that unless he has a reason that prevents sexual intercourse. If there is, then his taking her back is validated because the harm has disappeared since his refusal to have sex is not about causing harm, but comes from a valid excuse.’

Scholars disagree about an īlā’ when one is not angry. Ibn ‘Abbās said that an īlā’ is only possible in anger. That is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib in the well-known position reported from him. Al-Layth, ash-Sha‘bī, al-Ḥasan and ‘Aṭā’ all said that the īlā’ is only made in a state of anger, harshness and desire to cause trouble. It is the same whether that upholds the best interests of a child or not. If it does not come from anger, it is not īlā’. Ibn Sīrīn said, ‘It is the same whether the oath is done in anger or not: it is still īlā’.’ Ibn Mas‘ūd, ath-Thawrī, Mālik, the people of Iraq, ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people and Aḥmad said that. Mālik, however, said, ‘as long as the best interests of a child is not intended by it.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘This is sounder because they agree that ẓihār, divorce and other oaths are the same in both anger and pleasure. So the īlā’ is like that.’ This is indicated by the general nature of the Qur’an. Making it is specific to anger would require a proof. Allah knows best.

Our scholars have said that if a man refuses to have intercourse with his wife without making an oath in order to harm her, he is ordered to have intercourse with her. If he refuses to do so, then they are divorced without a term being set. It is also said that the term of the īlā’ is set. It is said that it is not īlā’ when a man shuns his wife, even if that lasts for years and he does not have sex with her. However, he is admonished and commanded to have taqwā of Allah by not causing her harm.

They disagree about someone who swears not to have sex with his wife until he weans her child so that the child does not become squint-eyed, without intending harm to her, until the end of the period of suckling. During that period the wife cannot make a demand of the husband according to Mālik because he is intending the best interests of the child. Mālik said, ‘I heard that ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib was asked about that and did not consider it to be īlā’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that in one of his views. The other view is that it is īlā’. He does not take the suckling of the child into account. Abū Ḥanīfah said that.

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, al-Awzā‘ī and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal believed that he is not making an īlā’ when he swears not to have sex with his wife in this house or this land because he has a way to have sex with her elsewhere. Ibn Abī Laylā and Isḥāq said that if he leaves her for four months, she is clear of him by īlā’. Do you not see that he is detained for four months? If he swears not to have sex with her in his city or land, according to Mālik, it is considered to be an īlā’. This is when a journey would entail hardship rather than in a garden or cultivated land nearby.

The words ‘their wives’ include free women, dhimmī women and slavegirls when they are married. An īlā’ made by a slave is binding. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr said that his īlā’ is the same as that of a free man. Their argument is the literal text of the Qur’an in this āyah which is general to all. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘That is what I say.’ Mālik, az-Zuhrī, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ and Isḥāq said that the length of a slave’s īlā’ is two months. Al-Ḥasan and an-Nakha‘ī said that an īlā’ with a slavegirl is two months and that with a free woman is four months. Abū Ḥanīfah said that. Ash-Sha‘bī said that the īlā’ of a slavegirl is half that of a free woman.

Mālik and his people, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, al-Awzā‘ī, an-Nakha‘ī and others said that the binding nature of an īlā’ is the same in a consummated and unconsummated marriage. Az-Zuhrī, ‘Aṭā’ and ath-Thawrī said that there can only be an īlā’ after consummation. Mālik said that there can be no īlā’ with a girl who has not yet reached puberty. If the husband pronounces the īlā’ and then the girl reaches puberty, the īlā’ becomes binding from the day she reaches puberty.

An īlā’ made by a dhimmī man is not valid. The same is true of his ẓihār and divorce. That is because we do not consider the marriages of the people of shirk to be valid. They do have a quasi-authority. Since dhimmīs are not bound by the Sharī‘ah, they owe no kaffārah. If they were to present themselves to us in a case of īlā’, it is not proper for our judges to render judgment. They should be sent to their own judges. If that occurs in the form of mutual injustice towards each other, then the ruling is that of Islam, as when a Muslim refuses to have sex with his wife in order to harm her, but without an oath.

can wait for a period of up to four months.

The word tarabbuṣ means being patient and waiting. The reason for this period of time. according to Ibn ‘Abbās, has already been mentioned in what he said about the people of the Jāhiliyyah. Allah forbade that and allowed a husband four months in which to discipline his wife by shunning her since Allah says: ‘…refuse to sleep with them’ (4:34) The Prophet ﷺ parted from his wives in this manner for a month to rectify their behaviour. It is said that this is the maximum which a woman can endure. It is related that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb used to go around Madīnah at night and heard a woman saying:

‘This night is long and dark

and it pains me that I have no beloved with whom to play.

By Allah – were it not for Allah, there would be nothing but Him –

the sides of this bed would shake!

Fear of Allah and modesty restrain me

as well as the honour of my husband from doing it!’

In the morning ‘Umar sent for that woman and asked her, ‘Where is your husband?’ She replied, ‘You sent him to Iraq!’ Then he summoned the women and asked them about the length of time a wife could endure being without her husband. ‘Two months,’ they answered. ‘Her patience becomes stretched after three months, and disappears after four.’ Therefore ‘Umar made four months the maximum length of time for a man to be absent on a military expedition. Then they would be replaced by others. Allah knows best, but this makes it clearer why four months is singled out here.

If they then retract their oath,

This means retract it or go back on it. We see its usage in 49:9. The word ‘fay’’ is also used for the shadow after midday because it returns from the west to the east. Ibn al-Mundhir said that all scholars, who are recorded, agree that retraction consists in having sexual intercourse unless someone has a valid excuse. If he has an excuse in the form of illness or imprisonment or the like, his simple statement of retraction is valid and she remains his wife. If the excuse ends, as when he returns from a journey, recovers from illness or is released from prison, and he still refuses to have sexual intercourse, the couple are separated if the end of the time has been reached. Mālik stated that in the Mudawwanah and the Mabsūṭ. ‘Abd al-Malik said, ‘She is parted from him the day that the period ends. If he has a valid excuse for retraction which is possible, his truthfulness is judged retrospectively. If what he claims about retraction being impossible when, in fact, he was able to do so, then he is taken to be lying about it and stubborn. Rulings are carried out according to what is in force at the time.’

One group said that when there is proof of retraction at a time when an excuse exists, then it is allowed. Al-Ḥasan, ‘Ikrimah and an-Nakha‘ī said that. Al-Awzā‘ī said that. An-Nakhā‘ī said, ‘Retraction is only validated by a statement and witnesses. The ruling of īlā’ is cancelled. So what do you think if he does not rise to intercourse?’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘If he does not have sex, then this statement amounts to causing harm.’ Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said, ‘If he has an excuse, he retracts in his heart.’ Abū Qilābah said that. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘If he is unable to have sex, he says, “I have taken her back.”’ Aṭ–Ṭabarī said, ‘Abū Ḥanīfah says that if someone pronounces an īlā’ while he is ill and a period of four months passes when the wife has a blockage that prevents intercourse or is too young, and he retracts that verbally when the period has passed and the excuse remains, that is a sound retraction. Ash-Shāfi‘ī opposes him in one of his positions. One group said that retraction only takes place by sexual intercourse, whether it is at a time of valid excuse or not. That is what Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said and he said that it is the case when he is on a journey or in prison.

Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, and most scholars say that a man must do kaffārah if he retracts his oath. Al-Ḥasan said that there is no kaffārah. An-Nakha‘ī said that, stating: ‘They used to say that when he retracts it, he owes no kaffārah.’ Isḥāq said, ‘Some commentators say that “If they then retract” means “if they then break the oath.”’ That is the position about oaths, in the view of some of the Tābi’ūn, about someone who swears an oath to do good, have taqwā or some area of good if he does not do it. If he does it, then he owes no kaffārah. Their argument is found in Allah’s words: ‘If they then retract their oath, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, All-Forbearing.’ There is no mention of expiation here. This is also based on the ineffectiveness of an oath sworn to disobey Allah. Abandoning sex with one’s wife is an act of disobedience. There is evidence for this position in the Sunnah in the ḥadīth that ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb reported from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone swears an oath and then sees something better than it, he should abandon it. His abandoning it is its expiation.’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it in the Sunan. This is further explained in the āyah on oaths. The argument of the majority is in accordance with the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘If someone swears an oath and then sees something better than it, he should do what is better and expiate his oath.’

When he expiates his oath, the īlā’ is cancelled. Our scholars said that. That contains evidence for putting kaffārah ahead of breaking the oath in the School. That is the consensus about the īlā’. The evidence is against Abū Ḥanīfah in the question of oaths since he does not think it is permissible to do kaffārah ahead of breaking the oath. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan used this āyah as evidence that it is not permitted to do kaffārah ahead of breaking the oath. He said, ‘Then Allah judged that the person doing an īlā’ is subject to one of two rulings, retraction or resolving on divorce, because if he breaks the oath, nothing is incumbent on him for breaking it. When the one who breaks the oath is not obliged to do anything, he is not in an īlā’. The permission to do kaffārah first cancels the ruling of īlā’ in a way other than how Allah mentions. That is contrary to the Book.’

If they are determined to divorce,

Determination (‘azima) means to conclude a contract on something. It comes from the verb ‘azama. It is also to adjure someone to do something. Shamr said, ‘‘Azīmah and ‘azm is resolving to do something. Ṭalāq is divorce. A divorced women is both ṭāliq and ṭāliqah. Ṭalāq is to undo the marriage contract. The root meaning is to release and let go. Divorced women are let go and divorce is letting go. A released camel is called ‘ṭāliq’, meaning that it is left to graze without a lead or herdsman. The plural is aṭlāq. A woman who is divorced is free to go her own way. It is also said that it is derived from the running free (ṭalaq) of a horse.

The āyah is evidence that the wife is not divorced simply by the conclusion of the period of four months. As Mālik says, ‘The divorce does not occur automatically after the time is up.’

Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Allah is referred to as ‘All-Hearing’ meaning that the pronouncement is heard after the time. Abū Ḥanīfah said that He hears the īlā’ and ‘knows’ the resolve. Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ relates that his father said, ‘I asked twelve of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about a man who does an īlā’ from his wife. All of them said that nothing is obliged for him until the end of four months. Then he is detained. If he does not retract, he is divorced.’ Qāḍī Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘The truth of the matter is that we think that the āyah means that the retraction is at the end. The divorce is by failing to retract it at the end of the period of waiting. This is an equal possibility.’

If the two possibilities are equal, then the position of the Kufans is stronger in analogy based on a woman in ‘iddah counting months and menstrual cycles since Allah has established that term. At the end of it, the bond is severed completely without dispute. Then her husband has no way to return to her without her permission. That is how it is with the īlā’. So if he forgets to retract it and the term ends, the divorce occurs. Allah knows best.

‘If they are determined on divorce” is evidence that there is no īlā’ with a slave-girl with whom he has relations based on ownership since there is divorce. Allah knows best.

228 Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. Their husbands have the right to take them back within that time, if they desire to be reconciled. Women possess rights similar to those held over them to be honoured with fairness; but men have a degree above them. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles;

Allah follows the mention of īlā’ by talking about women who have been divorced and clarifies the rulings applying to women after divorce has taken place. We find in Abū Dāwud and an-Nasā’ī from Ibn ‘Abbās about Allah’s words: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles;’ ‘That is because when a man divorces a woman, he is still entitled to her, but if he divorces her three times, that is superseded when He says: ‘Divorce is twice…’. ‘Divorced women’ is general but what is meant here specifically are those in a consummated marriage. This excludes those divorced before consummation which is dealt with in the āyah in al-Aḥzāb: ‘… there is no ‘iddah for you to calculate for them.’ (33:49) The same is true of pregnant women, about whom Allah says: ‘The time for women who are pregnant is when they give birth.’ (65:4) The purpose of the menstrual cycles is to ascertain whether or not the woman is pregnant, whereas the waiting period at the time of bereavement is for worship. If the woman does not menstruate due to youth or age, then the time is counted in months rather than menstrual cycles. Some people say that the generality of the term ‘divorced women’ first included all of these and was then abrogated. That is weak. The āyah is about menstruating women in particular. It is the most common state of women.

‘Tarabbuṣ’ means waiting as we already stated. Although it is phrased as a report, the waiting referred to here is in fact a command. This is the undoubted position of linguists according to what Ibn ash-Shajarī. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that this is false and that it is simply a report about a ruling of the Sharī‘ah. That must be a report from Allah Almighty. It is said that there is an implied ‘li’ omitted at the beginning of ‘tarrabuṣ’.

Most people recite ‘menstrual cycles’ as qurū’ with a hamzah while Nāfi‘ has quruw. It is the plural of aqru’ and aqrā’ which is, in turn, the plural of qur’. Al-Aṣma‘ī said that. Abū Zayd said that it is qar’. The word also can mean the end of menstruation. Some of them say that it is the time between two menstrual periods. Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ said, ‘Some Arabs call menstruation qur’ and some use that term for purity and some use it for both.’ An-Naḥḥās mentioned that.

Scholars disagree about which of them is meant here. The people of Kufa say that it is the time of menstruation which is meant, based on what ‘Umar, ‘Alī, lbn Mas‘ūd, Abū Mūsā, Mujāhid, Qatādah, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, ‘Ikrimah and as-Suddī said, while the people of the Hijaz say that it is the period of purity which is meant, which is the position of ‘Ā’ishah, Ibn ‘Umar, Zayd ibn Thābit, az-Zuhrī, Abān ibn ‘Uthmān, and ash-Shāfi‘ī. Those who consider it to be menstruation do so because the blood collects (qara’a) in the womb and those who consider it to be purity do so because the blood collects in the body. That which is precise about the matter is that the term is about time as one says, ‘The wind blew in its time (li-qur’ihā).” It is said that menstruation has a time and purity has a time since they both refer to a known time.

Some people say that the word is derived from the settling (qur’) of water in a basin where it collects. The Qur’an takes its name from the fact that it collects meanings or is collection of letters. The womb collects blood at the time of menstruation and the body collects it in the period of purity. Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘The view of those who say that qur’ is derived from the word for water collecting in a basin amounts to nothing because qur’ has a hamzah and that word does not.’ This is sound as it is transmitted by linguists like al-Jawharī and others: the noun for water settling is qirā and qur’ is moving from purity to menstruation or menstruation to purity. That is what ash-Shāfi‘ī said: it is moving from purity to menstruation. He did not think that it is moving from menstruation to purity. This demands that it is qur’, based on derivation, and the āyah means three cycles or three movements.

A divorced woman is described by both states – sometimes she is moving from purity to menstruation and sometimes from menstruation to purity – and so the meaning of the words is in order. It directs to the movement of menstruation and purity and so it is a shared word. It is said that if it is confirmed that qur’ is movement, then her moving from purity to menstruation is not meant at all by the āyah. That is by the sunnah commanding that divorce does not take place during menstruation. That is a divorce with an ‘iddah. If it is a divorce with an ‘iddah, then it is done in a state of purity. That indicates that qur’ is derived from the movement.

Since divorce in a state of purity is sunnah, the words imply that their ‘iddah is three changes. The first is from the purity in which the divorce occurred and which the change from menstruation to purity does not make a qur’ because the language indicates that. However, we recognise another proof. Allah did not mean the change from menstruation to purity. When one of them is removed, then what is meant is the other, which is the change from purity to menstruation. On this basis, there are three changes, the first of which is purity. According to this, it is possible to fulfil three full cycles when divorce is done in a state of purity. It is not used metaphorically in any way. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘This is a fine inspection at the end of the direction taken by ash-Shāfi‘ī. It is possible that in that we mention a secret that it is not hard to understand in the fine points of the Sharī‘ah. It is that the change from purity to menstruation is a qur’ since it indicates that the womb is clear. Normally, a pregnant woman does not menstruate and so menstruation indicates that the womb is empty.’

The change from menstruation to purity is different to this. A menstruating woman can become pregnant at the end of her menstrual period. When pregnancy continues and the child is strong, then the bleeding stops. That is why Arab women become pregnant while pure.

This is how scholars and linguists interpret qur’. They use the verb for a woman when she menstruates, when she is pure and when she becomes pregnant and agree qur’ refers to a time. If you were to say, ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three times,’ the āyah would explain the probable number in what is counted and so clarification must be sought elsewhere. Our evidence is found in Allah’s words: ‘…divorce them during their period of purity (‘iddah)’ (65:1), There is no disagreement about the fact that one is commanded to divorce during purity and it is necessary that it is what is considered in the ‘iddah. When He says: ‘…divorce them,’ He means in a time in which she can do ‘iddah. Then He says: ‘calculate their ‘iddah,’ meaning what the divorced woman observes which is the state of purity in which she is divorced. The Prophet ﷺ said to ‘Umar, ‘Order him to take her back and then keep her until she is pure and then to wait until she menstruates and then becomes pure again. That is the ‘iddah which Allah has commanded for divorced women.’ Muslim and others transmitted it. It is a text about the time of purity being called ‘iddah which is the time in which women are divorced.

There is no disagreement that a woman who is divorced while menstruating does not count that menstruation, but when she is divorced while pure, that period of purity is counted in the ‘iddah by the majority. That is more appropriate. Abū Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān said, ‘We did not meet any of our fuqahā’ who did not take the position of ‘Ā’ishah about ‘aqrā’ being periods of purity. When a man divorces a woman in a period of purity, during which he did not have sex with her, she observes ‘iddah for the rest of it, whether it is only an hour or an instant. Then she starts another period of purity after her menstruation and then a third after the second menstruation. When she sees the blood of the third menstruation, she is lawful to marry and leaves her ‘iddah. If someone divorces a woman during a period of purity, during which he has had sex with her, the divorce is binding, but he has behaved badly and she observes ‘iddah for the rest of that period of purity. Az-Zuhrī said that when a woman is divorced in a state of purity, her ‘iddah is three periods of purity other than the rest of that period. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I do not know of anyone who says that ‘aqrā’ are periods of purity and then takes this view other than Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī. He said that the period of purity in which she is divorced does not count. Then she must observe three periods of purity because of Allah’s words in the āyah.’

According to this view, a divorced woman is not lawful until after the fourth menstrual period. The position of Ibn al-Qāsim, Mālik and most of his people, ash-Shāfi‘ī and the scholars of Madīnah is that when a divorced women sees the first drop of the third period, she is free of the bond. That is the school of Zayd ibn Thābit, ‘Ā’ishah and Ibn ‘Umar. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal also said that and it is what Dāwud ibn ‘Alī and his people said. The argument against az-Zuhrī is that the Prophet ﷺ gave permission to divorce a woman in a state of purity without intercourse and did not stipulate the beginning or end of the period. Ashhab said, ‘The bond and inheritance are not severed until it is certain that it is menstrual blood to ensure that it is not a single gush which is not menstrual blood. The Kufans argue by what the Prophet ﷺ said to Fāṭimah bint Abī Ḥubaysh when she complained of bleeding to him, ‘That is a vein. Wait and when you see your menstrual period, do not pray. When the period passes, then purify yourself and then pray from one period to another.’

The Almighty says: ‘In the case of those of your wives who are past the age of menstruation, if you have any doubt, their ‘iddah should be three months.’ (65:4) This indicates that, in the case of the ‘iddah of a woman beyond the age of menstruation, the time is counted in months. ‘Umar said in the presence of the Companions, ‘A slavegirl’s ‘iddah is two months, half that of a free woman. If you are able to make it one and a half months, do so.’ No one objected to that. That indicates that it is their consensus. It is also the view of the Companions, including the first four caliphs. What they have said is enough for you! Allah’s words: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles,’ indicate that because it means to wait for three full cycles. This is only possible based on saying that they are menstrual cycles because if someone says that they are periods of purity, then it is possible to do an ‘iddah of two periods of purity and part of another because when she is divorced in a period of purity, she counts the rest of that period as a cycle. We believe that she starts from the beginning of menstruation so that the name holds true. When a man divorces her in a period of purity without having had sex during that time, she turns to a menstrual period, then another and then another. When she has a ghusl after the third period, she leaves the ‘iddah.

This is refuted by the words of the Almighty: ‘Allah subjected them to it for seven whole nights and eight whole days’ (69:6). ‘Eight’ is feminine because ‘yawm (day)’ is masculine. The same is true of qur’. This indicates that it is meant. Abū Ḥanīfah agreed with us that when a woman is divorced while menstruating, she does not count the menstrual period in which she is divorced nor the purity after it; she starts the ‘iddah with the menstruation after purity. We count by periods of purity as we already made clear. Linguists permit designating a part of something by the noun for the whole of it.

Some of those who say that it is menstruation say that when she is pure after the third menstrual period, the ‘iddah ends after ghusl and there is no right then for the husband to take her back. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Ṭāwūs, Ibn Shurbrumah and al-Awzā‘ī said that. Sharīk said, ‘When a woman delays the ghusl for twenty years, her husband can still take her back as long as she has not had a ghusl.’ It is related that Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh said, ‘When a woman starts her third menstrual period, she is clear of the husband and he no longer has a right to take her back although it is not lawful for her to marry another until she has had a ghusl after menstruation.’ Something similar is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, but it is a weak position because of the evidence in the words of the Almighty: ‘When their ‘iddah comes to an end, you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves.’ (2:234) As for what ash-Shāfi‘ī mentioned about the change from purity to menstruation being called qur’, the point of it is to shorten the ‘iddah for the woman. So when a woman is divorced in the last hour of purity and then starts to menstruate, she counts it as a cycle and at the change from the third period of purity, the bond is severed and she is lawful. Allah knows best.

Most scholars say that the ‘iddah of a slavegirl who menstruates is two menstrual cycles after her husband divorces her. It is related that Ibn Sīrīn said, ‘I only think that the ‘iddah of a slavegirl is the same as that of a free woman although there is a past sunnah on that. It is more appropriate to follow the Sunnah.’ ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Kaysān al-Aṣamm, Dāwud ibn ‘Alī and a group of the Ẓāhirīs said that the āyahs about the ‘iddah for divorce and widowhood in months and cycles are general to slavegirls and free women. So the ‘iddāh of a free woman and slavegirl is the same. The majority argue by the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Divorce of a slavegirl is two times and her ‘iddah is two menstrual cycles.’ Ibn Jurayj related that from ‘Aṭā’ from Muẓāhir ibn Aslam from his father from al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad that ‘Ā’ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Divorce of a slavegirl is twice and her cycles are two menstrual cycles.’ Both divorce and ‘iddah are ascribed to her. However, only Muẓāhir ibn Aslam has this ḥadīth, and he is weak.

and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs

‘Ikrimah, az-Zuhrī, and an-Nakha‘ī said that this refers to the concealment of menstruation. ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is pregnancy. Mujāhid said that it is menstruation and pregnancy. This is on the basis that a pregnant woman can menstruate. The idea that is meant in the āyah is that the length of the waiting period (‘iddah) depends on the statement of the women concerned and their word is accepted about whether the ‘iddah has ended or not. They are entrusted with that and it is what is meant by this āyah. Sulaymān ibn Yasār said, ‘We were not commanded to investigate women and examine their private parts. That is up to them since they are entrusted with it.’

The reason for prohibiting concealment is to prevent harm to the husband and taking away his right. If a woman says, ‘I have menstruated’ when she has not, then she takes away his right to take her back. When she says, ‘I have not menstruated’ when she has, he is obliged to pay maintenance to which she is not entitled and she thereby harms him. Or she may intend by her lie in denying menstruation that he may not take her back until the ‘iddah is over and so cuts off his right. The same is true of a pregnant woman who conceals her pregnancy to cut off his right to take her back. Qatādah also mentions that it was the custom in the time of Jāhiliyyah for women to conceal their pregnancy so that the child could be ascribed to a new husband and that is the reason that the āyah was revealed. It is related that a man of the tribe of Ashja‘ went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I divorced my wife while she was pregnant. I do not feel safe that she will not marry again and my child will be attributed to another.’ Then this āyah was revealed and his wife was returned to him.

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘All that I remember from scholars is that when a woman says after ten days, “I have had three periods and my waiting period is over,” her words are not believed or accepted unless she says that she had a miscarriage and that is clear.’ They disagree about the time when the woman’s statement is accepted. Mālik says that what she says is accepted if the period of time is reasonable for someone like her. There are two views when what she says is something that rarely occurs. We find in the Mudawannah: ‘If she says she has had three periods in a single month and other women confirm it, she is believed.’ That is what Shurayḥ said. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said to him, ‘You are right and have done well!’ He said in the book of Muḥammad, ‘She is only believed after a month and a half has passed.’ Abū Thawr said something similar. He said, ‘The minimum for that is forty-seven days. That is the minimum fifteen days of purity and the single day for the minimum of menstruation.’ An-Nu‘mān said, ‘She is not believed about less than sixty days.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that.

if they believe in Allah and the Last Day.

This is a strong threat to emphasise the prohibition against concealment and to encourage women to fulfil the trust placed in them by telling the truth about what is in their wombs. It makes concealment tantamount to not believing in Allah. This is not the action of someone who believes.

Their husbands have the right to take them back within that time, if they desire to be reconciled.

The word used for ‘husbands’ here is the plural of the word ba‘l. This word is used because of a husband’s position in respect of his wife. We find in 37:125: ‘Do you call on Baal?’ Baal means a lord or someone in a high position. Bi‘āl means sexual intercourse and this is found in the words of the Prophet ﷺ about the days of Tashrīq: ‘They are the days of eating, drinking and sexual intercourse.’ The word ba‘l can in fact be used for husband or wife.

The ‘right to take them back’ can be exercised in two ways: one is during the waiting period, according to the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, and the other is after the waiting period has come to an end, according to the ḥadīth of Ma‘qil. If that is the case, then the āyah is evidence that the generality regarding those named has become specific. ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles’ is general in respect of women divorced three times and those divorced less times than that without disagreement. Then Allah says: ‘Their husbands have the right to take them back.’ That is a specific ruling about someone whose divorce is less than three times.

Scholars agree that when a free man divorces his free wife, whose marriage has been consummated once or twice, he is entitled to take her back as long as her ‘iddah is not over, even if she dislikes him doing that. If the man does not take her back until the ‘iddah is over, then she is more entitled to herself and is not related to him. She is only lawful to him by a proposal of a new marriage with a walī and witnesses. This is not part of the sunnah of taking back a wife. This is the consensus of the scholars.

Al-Muhallab said, ‘If the man takes his wife back during the ‘iddah, none of the rulings of marriage are necessary for him except for witnessing to the taking back. This is the consensus of scholars because Allah says: ‘Then when they have reached the end of their ‘iddah, either retain them with correctness and courtesy or part from them with correctness and courtesy. Call two upright men from among yourselves as witnesses.’ (65:2) He mentions witnesses in taking back but not in marriage or divorce. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘What we mentioned from the Book of Allah and the consensus of scholars is enough in this area. Allah knows best.’

They disagree about what constitutes a man taking back his wife during the ‘iddah. Mālik said, ‘When he has sex with her during the ‘iddah, intending to take her back, while being ignorant of having to declare that he has done that, that is taking her back. If the man has not made his intention clear, the woman should refuse intercourse until he declares that he has taken her back. Isḥāq said that. It is because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Actions are by intentions, and a man has what he intends.’ If he has sex with her during the ‘iddah without having intended to take her back, Mālik says, ‘He takes her back in the ‘iddah and does not have sex with her until she is free of his false sperm.’ Ibn al-Qāsim added, ‘Even if her ‘iddah ends and neither he nor anyone else has had sex with her in the rest of the period of istibrā’. If he does that, his marriage is void but the prohibition between them is not perpetual because it was his sperm.’ One group said that if he has sex with her, that constitutes taking her back. That is what Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Ibn Sīrīn, az-Zuhrī, ‘Aṭā’, Ṭāwūs and ath-Thawrī said. It is said that he should make a declaration. That is what is stated by the People of Opinion, al-Awzā‘ī and Ibn Abī Laylā. Ibn al-Mundhir related it. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘It is said that his having sex with her is taking her back in any case, whether he intended it or not.’ That is related from a group of the people of Mālik and al-Layth believed that. They do not disagree about someone who sells a slavegirl with an option of return that he can have sex with her during the period of the option. He takes back her ownership by that and chooses to break the sale by doing that.

If someone kisses or touches his wife with the intention of taking her back by that, it is a retraction. If he did not intend retraction by that, he sins and does not take her back. The Sunnah is that he should testify before having sex and before kissing or touching. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that if he has sex with her or touches her with lust, that constitutes a retraction. That is the view of ath-Thawrī. He should testify. In the view of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Isḥāq, Abū ‘Ubayd and Abū Thawr, it is not a retraction. Ibn al-Mundhir said that. He said in al-Muntaqā: ‘There is no disagreement about the validity of verbal retraction. As for action, like sexual intercourse and a kiss, Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad said that it is valid by this and any sort of pleasurable enjoyment.’ Ibn al-Mawwāz said, ‘It is like a touch for pleasure, or looking at her private parts or similar beauties when he intends retraction by that. This differs from the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī that retraction can only be done verbally. Ibn al-Mundhir related it from Abū Thawr, Jābir ibn Zayd and Abū Qilābah.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If he has sex with her, whether or not he intends retraction, it is not a retraction and she receives an appropriate dower. Mālik said that she has nothing because if he takes her back, he does not owe any dower. There is no sex without retraction and no dower for retraction. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I do not know of anyone who obliges him to pay an appropriate dower other than ash-Shāfi‘ī. His position is not strong because she falls under the ruling of a wife and they inherit from each other. So how can a suitable dower be obliged for having sex with a woman when most of her rulings are those of a wife.’ However, the judicial error in the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī is strong because she is unlawful to him unless he takes her back. They agree that when someone has sex with a woman based on a judicial error, she is obliged a dower. That is enough!

They disagree about travelling with her before taking her back. Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he should not travel with her until he has taken her back. That is also the position of Abū Ḥanịfah and his people except for Zufar. Al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād related from him that he can travel with her before taking her back. ‘Amr ibn Khālid related from him that he should not travel with her until he has taken her back.

They disagree about when he visits her without seeing any of her beauties and whether she can adorn herself for him. Mālik said that he should not be alone with her and only visit her with permission. He should not look at her unless she is fully dressed. He should not look at her hair. There is nothing wrong with him eating with her when there is someone else with them. He should not spend the night with her. Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘Mālik retracted that and said that he should not visit her or look at her hair. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people did not disagree that she can adorn herself, perfume herself, and wear jewellery. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘When a man divorces his wife once, he must ask permission to visit her and she can wear whatever clothes and jewellery he likes. If they only have one room, they put a curtain between them and give the greeting when they enter. Something similar is related from Qatādah. When he enters, he makes her aware by clearing his throat. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘A divorced woman who can be taken back is unlawful to her husband until he takes her back and that can only be by declaration.’

Scholars agree that when the man says after the ‘iddah is over, ‘I took you back inside the ‘iddah’ and she denies it, one takes her statement with her oath and he has no way to her. However, an-Nu‘mān did not think that there was any question of an oath in marriage or retraction. His two companions disagreed with him and took a similar view to that of most scholars. The same is true when the wife is a slavegirl and the master and slavegirl disagree and the husband claims that he took her back in the ‘iddah after the end of the ‘iddah and she denies it. One takes the statement of the wife, even if the master says that she is lying. This is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and an-Nu‘mān. Ya‘qāub and Muḥammad said that the statement of the master is taken and he is more entitled to her.

Rejection demands the removal of the bond although scholars say that a revocable divorce makes intercourse forbidden and the rejection refers to being lawful. Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d and Abū Ḥanīfah and those who take their position that the retraction makes intercourse lawful: the point of the divorce decreases the number he has. The rulings of being married remain and none of them are dissolved. They said that even if the rulings of being a wife remain, as long as she is in her ‘iddah the woman is on course for their removal when the ‘iddah ends. Retraction turns away from this path that the woman is travelling. This is a metaphorical rejection and the rejection by which we judge is real. There is an achieved removal, which is the prohibition of sex and the rejection of it is real. Allah knows best.

The word ‘right’ is used in the comparative form here, ‘aḥaqq’ (literally ‘more right’) because there are two rights in any conflict and one has to be preferred. So the husband has the right during the waiting period to take his wife back, which is not the case when the waiting period has ended. This is similar to the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘A widow is more entitled to herself than her guardian (walī).’ A husband is recommended to take his wife back, but that is provided that he puts things right between himself and her and removes the alienation between them. If he just desires to harm her more and to prolong her waiting period and to prevent her being free from the marriage, it is forbidden and the man concerned does wrong. Allah says: ‘Do not retain them by force, thus overstepping the bounds.’ (2:231) If someone does do that, the retraction is nevertheless valid even though he does something forbidden and wrongs himself.

Women possess rights similar to those held over them

Women have rights over men just as men have rights over women. This is why Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I adorn myself for my wife as she adorns herself for me. I do not want to take from her all the rights she owes me for then I would be obliged to give her all the rights I owe her because the Almighty says: “Women possess rights similar to those held over them to be honoured with fairness,” in other words for their husbands to make themselves attractive as long as it does not involve something wrongful.’ He also said, ‘They are entitled to good company from and intimate relations with their husbands and they must obey their husbands.’ It is said that their right is that their husbands should not cause them any harm and in return they should not cause any harm to their husbands. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that. Ibn Zayd said, ‘Fear Allah in respect of them as they should fear Allah in respect of you.’ The meanings are close and the āyah is general to all marital rights.

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I adorn myself for my wife.’ Scholars say that a man’s adornment is dependent on his state. Men do that according to what is seemly and appropriate. Sometimes adornment is proper at one time but not at another, and some adornment suits young men but not old men, and some suits old men but not young men. Do you not see that when old men and mature men trim their moustaches, it is seemly and adorns them, but when young men do that, it is ugly and unseemly because their beard is not yet full. If someone trims his moustache as soon as the hair appears on his face, it is silly. If his beard is full and he trims his moustache, that adorns him. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘My Lord commanded me to leave my beard and trim my moustache.’ The same principle applies to dress.

This applies to all seeking of rights. A man acts according to what is seemly and appropriate with his wife in respect of adornment so that it delights her and makes her abstain from other men. The same is true of mature men: one type of adornment may be appropriate for some but not others. As for wearing perfume, using siwak and toothpicks, removing dirt, excess hair, washing and clipping the nails, that is clearly appropriate for everyone. Henna is for old men, and rings are adornment for all, young and old. That is the adornment of men, as will be made clear in Sūrat an-Naḥl. A husband must bear in mind the times when a wife needs a man to satisfy her so that she has no need to look elsewhere. If a man sees that he is unable to carry out his wife’s right to sexual satisfaction from him, he should take medicines to increase his potency.

but men have a degree above them.

The root of the word darajah (degree) means ‘to roll up’. A darajah is a step which one steps on to ascend. Rijlah means ‘strength’ and a horse that is ‘rajīl’ is strong in walking. The extra degree of a man is on account of intelligence, power to spend and maintain, paying blood money, larger shares of inheritance, and jihād. Ḥumayd said that the degree referred to is the beard, but even if this is sound from him, it is weak because it is not implied by the āyah nor does the āyah mean it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Bliss to the slave who refrains from what he does not know, especially when it concerns the Book of Allah! The superiority of men over women is not hidden from someone who is intelligent, even if it were not that woman is created from man, and so he is her root. He can prevent her going out without his permission and she may only fast with his permission and only make ḥajj with him.’

It is said that the degree is the dower as ash-Sha‘bī said. It is said that it is the permission to discipline. Thus the degree entails preference. You should be aware that the right she owes to her husband obliges the right that he owes to her. That is why the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If I were to command anyone to prostrate to other than Allah, I would have commanded a woman to prostrate to her husband.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The degree indicates encouragement for men to be good company and expansive to women in money and character, because the one preferred must make greater efforts.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is an outstanding and excellent opinion. Al-Māwardī said that it is possible that it is about marital rights because he can initiate divorce but she cannot and he can call her to bed while she cannot force him to respond. Related to that are the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘If a woman is called to her husband’s bed and refuses, the angels curse her until morning.’

‘Allah is Almighty’ with power that none can resist, and ‘All-Wise’, knowing what is correct in His actions.

229 Divorce can be pronounced two times; in which case wives may be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will. It is not lawful for you to keep anything you have given them unless a couple fear that they will not remain within Allah’s limits. If you fear that they will not remain within Allah’s limits, there is nothing wrong in the wife ransoming herself with some of what she received. These are Allah’s limits so do not overstep them. Those who overstep Allah’s limits are wrongdoers.

Divorce can be pronounced two times;

It is confirmed that people in the time of Jāhiliyyah had no limit to the number of divorces they could pronounce although they did have a known waiting period (‘iddah). It was the same at the beginning of Islam: a man would divorce his wife as often as he wished. Then when she was almost free he would take her back. Then during the time of the Prophet ﷺ a man said to his wife, ‘I will not house you nor will I let you go.’ ‘How can you do that?’ she asked. He said, ‘I will divorce you and when your ‘iddah is almost up, take you back.’ The woman complained about that to ‘Ā’ishah and she mentioned it to the Prophet ﷺ and then Allah revealed this āyah, which clarifies the number of divorces a man can pronounce and then retract without having a new marriage with dower and walī. It superseded what they were doing. This was said by ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, Qatādah, Ibn Zayd and others. Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid and others said that the āyah is simply meant to establish the sunnah of divorce: anyone who divorces twice should fear Allah in the third and either leave her without wronging any of her right or keep her correctly. The āyah includes both possibilities.

Divorce is accomplished by the removal of the contractual bond between a husband and wife by means of the pronouncement of certain words. It is permitted by this āyah and others and by the words of the Prophet ﷺ in the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘If he wishes, he may keep her, and if he wishes, he may divorce her.’ The Prophet ﷺ divorced Ḥafṣah and then took her back. Ibn Mājah transmitted it. Scholars agree that it is sunnah to divorce when the woman concerned is free of menstruation in a period of purity in which he has not had sex with her. Then he follows the sunnah in the divorce and the ‘iddah which Allah has commanded. He retracts that if he has sex with her before the end of the ‘iddah. If it has ended, then he becomes a suitor like any other. The Book, Sunnah and consensus of the community is that divorce is permitted and not prohibited. Ibn al-Mundhir said that there is no report that confirms a prohibition of it.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abu-l-‘Abbās Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn ‘Alī ad-Dūlābī and Ya‘qāub ibn Ibrāhīm from al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Arafah from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh ibn Ḥumayd ibn Mālik al-Lakhmī from Makḥūl that Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Mu‘ādh, Allah has not created on the face of the earth anything dearer to Him than setting free a slave and Allah has not created anything on the face of the earth more hateful to Him than divorce. When a man says to his slave, ‘You are free, Allah willing,’ he is free without exception. When a man says to his wife, ‘You are divorced, Allah willing,’ his exception holds good and there is no divorce.’”’ Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn ‘Alī related from Ḥumayd ibn ar-Rabī‘ from Yazīd ibn Hārūn from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh with a similar isnād. Ḥumayd said, ‘Yazīd ibn Hārūn said to me, “What a ḥadīth that would be if only Ḥumayd ibn Mālik al-Lakhmī were recognised!” I answered, “He is my grandfather!” Yazīd said, “You have delighted me, Now it is a ḥadīth!”’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Among those who believed that the exception “Allah willing” applied in divorce were Ṭāwūs, Ḥumayd, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion. According to the position of Mālik and al-Awzā‘ī, the exception is not permitted in divorce. That is the view of al-Ḥasan and Qatādah about divorce in particular.

in which case wives may be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will.

This means that you must do that or that it is obligatory for you to retain them correctly. ‘With good will’ means without wronging her in any way with respect to her rights or overstepping in words. ‘Imsāk’ (retaining) is the opposite of divorce. ‘Tasrīḥ’ (releasing) means to let something go. It is used for combing the hair since the hairs are released from one another. It is also used for releasing livestock. The releasing referred to here either means to leave the woman until the waiting period of the second divorce has ended so that she has control of herself, as as-Suddī and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, or to divorce her a third time and let her go as Mujāhid, ‘Aṭā’ and others said.

The latter is more likely for three reasons. One is a ḥadīth in ad-Dāraquṭnī, reported by Anas that a man said, ‘Messenger of Allah, Allah says, “Divorce is twice.” Why does it become three?’ He replied, ‘Retaining with correctness or releasing with good will is the third.’ Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned it. The second possibility is that the word ‘release’ is one of the expressions used for divorce. The third is that it is allowed by the verbal form of ‘release’ which is causative. Abū ‘Umar said that scholars agree that Allah’s words: ‘…or released with good will’ is the third divorce after the second. It is also meant by His words: ‘But if a man divorces his wife a third time, she is not lawful for him until she has married another husband.’ (2:230) They agree that someone who divorces his wife once or twice can take her back. After the third divorce, she is not then lawful to him until she has married another man. This is a firm ruling of the Qur’an about whose interpretation there is no disagreement. The same is also related from reputable people. Sa‘īd ibn Naṣr related from Qāsim ibn Aṣbagh from Muḥammad ibn Waḍḍāḥ from Abū Bakr ibn Shaybah from Abū Mu‘āwiyah from Ismā‘īl ibn Sumay‘ that Abū Razīn said, ‘A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, “Messenger of Allah, have you seen that Allah says, ‘Divorce is twice.’ Where is the third?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Wives may be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will.”’ Ath-Thawrī and others related the like from Ismā‘īl ibn Sumay‘ from Abū Razīn.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned this report and said that it is confirmed in its transmission. He preferred the statement of aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and as-Suddī that the third divorce is mentioned in the course of His words: ‘If a man divorces his wife a third time.’ (2:230) The third is mentioned in these words with the obliged separation and the prohibition only removed by another husband. So His words, ‘released with good will’, are a renewed point: the separation at the end of the ‘iddah. The goal of the āyah is to explain the number of divorces which oblige making her unlawful and superseding what was permitted of an unlimited number of divorces. If ‘released with good will’ was the third divorce, the goal of causing the prohibition by three would not be clear since stopping at that would not indicate the separation which makes her prohibited without marriage to another. The prohibition is known from Allah’s words: ‘If a man divorces his wife a third time…’ and there the earlier words do not mean the third. If it had meant the third, then the following words would mean a fourth divorce because the fā’ entails consequence.

Al-Bukhārī has a section on ‘The one who allowed a triple divorce by the words of the Almighty: “Divorce can be pronounced two times; in which case wives can be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will”’. This indicates that this is the maximum number allowed. It is binding for the one who has constricted himself. Our scholars said that the imams of fatwā agree that a triple divorce can take place in a single statement. That is the position of the majority of the Salaf with the exception of Ṭāwūs and some of the Ẓāhirīs who believe that saying it three times in one statement is only a single divorce. This is related from Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq and al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭa’ah who said that nothing is obliged for him. It is the position of Muqātil. It is related from Dāwud that it does not occur. What is famous from al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭa’ah, the majority of the Salaf and the imams is that three must occur and there is no difference between saying the three together or separately.

Those who believe that nothing is obliged cite Allah’s words: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles.’ (2:228) This is general and includes every divorced woman except for certain specific ones. Allah also says: ‘Divorce can be pronounced two times’ and: ‘…wives can be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will.’ It is not binding for someone who divorces three times in one statement because it is not mentioned in the Qur’an.

Those who believe that it is a single divorce cite three ḥadīths. One is the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās transmitted by Ṭāwūs, Abu-ṣ-Ṣahbā’ and ‘Ikrimah. The second is the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar as transmitted by those who related that he divorced his wife three times in a single statement and the Prophet ﷺ ordered him to take her back and count it as a single divorce. The third is that Rukānah divorced his wife like that and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered him to take her back. The retraction makes clear that it was considered as a single divorce. The answer to the ḥadīths is what aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī mentioned that Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Mujāhid, ‘Aṭā’, ‘Amr ibn Dīnār, Mālik ibn al-Ḥuwayrith, Muḥammad ibn Iyās ibn al-Bukhayr and an-Nu‘mān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh related from Ibn ‘Abbās that someone who divorces his wife three times in a single statement has disobeyed his Lord and his wife is parted from him and he can only marry her after she has married another husband.

Those imams related from Ibn ‘Abbās that which agrees with the general consensus and indicates the weakness of what Ṭāwūs and others related. Ibn ‘Abbās would not adopt his own opinion if it disagreed with that of the Companions as a whole. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘The transmission of Ṭāwūs is weak and an error which is not used as a basis by any of the fuqahā’ of the regions in the Hijaz, Syria, Iraq or the east and the west. It was said that Abu-ṣ-Ṣahbā’ is not known among the freemen of Ibn ‘Abbās.’ Qāḍī Abu-l-Walīd al-Bājī said, ‘I think that the transmission of Ibn Ṭāwūs about that is sound. Imams have related it from him: Ma‘mar, Ibn Jurayj and others. Ibn Ṭāwūs is an imam. The ḥadīth which they indicate is that which Ibn Ṭāwūs related from his father from Ibn ‘Abbās: “In the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Abū Bakr and two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, divorce was three divorces in one. ‘Umar said, ‘People are hasty in a matter about which they should be slow. We should carry out something on them!’ and he did so.” The account means that they used to carry out a single divorce instead of what people do now with three divorces. The soundness of this interpretation is indicated by what ‘Umar said, “People are hasty in a matter about which they should be slow.” He disliked them innovating haste in divorce when they should be slow about it. If their state had been that in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, he would not have said it and there would have been nothing wrong in them being hasty about a matter in which they should be slow. The soundness of this interpretation is indicated by what is related from Ibn ‘Abbās by a different path: he gave a fatwā that the triple divorce was binding when someone did it all at once. If this is the meaning of the ḥadīth of Ibn Ṭāwūs, then it is what we said. If the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās is applied to the interpretation, no attention is paid to that statement. Ibn ‘Abbās went back to the position of the majority and the consensus. Our evidence by way of analogy is that this divorce was carried out by someone with the power to do so and so it must be binding, the same as is the case if it is a single one.’

The interpretation of al-Bājī is what aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned from the scholars of ḥadīth, that they used this single divorce which became three: they did not divorce in one go, but did so once in the entire ‘iddah so that the woman was clear and the ‘iddah ended. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said, ‘It means that people used to confine themselves to one divorce. Then in the time of ‘Umar, they increased it to three.’ The Qāḍī said, ‘This is the closest to what the transmitter said: in the time of ‘Umar people used to hasten to do three, so he hastened that for them, i.e. obliged the ruling on them.’

As for the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Aḥmad ibn Ṣubayḥ from Ṭarīf ibn Nāṣiḥ from Mu‘āwiyah ibn ‘Ammār adh-Dhahabī that Abu-z-Zubayr said, ‘I asked Ibn ‘Umar about a man who divorced his wife three times while she was menstruating. He said, “Do you know Ibn ‘Umar?” “Yes,” I answered. He said, “I divorced my wife three times in a single statement in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while she was menstruating. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned it to the Sunnah.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘All of them are Shi‘ah. It is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar divorced his wife once while she was menstruating.’ ‘Ubaydullāh said, ‘The only thing contrary to the Sunnah is his divorcing her during menstruation.’ Similarly Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān, Mūsā ibn ‘Uqbah, Ismā‘īl ibn Umayyah, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Ibn Abī Dhi’b, Ibn Jurayj, Jābir. Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Uqbah said that Nāfi‘ said that Ibn ‘Umar did a single divorce. That is also what az-Zuhrī said from Sālim from his father, Yūnus ibn Jubayr, ash-Sha‘bī and al-Ḥasan.

It is said that the ḥadīth of Rukānah is a muddled, severed ḥadīth. It has no authoritative isnād. Abū Dāwud related it from Ibn Jurayj from one of the Banū Abī Rāfi‘, among whom there is no one authoritative, from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās. It says: Rukānah ibn ‘Abd Yazīd divorced his wife three times. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told him, ‘Take her back.’ It is also related by various paths from Nāfi‘ ibn ‘Ujayr that Rukānah ibn ‘Abd Yazīd divorced his wife with a triple divorce and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked him to swear to what he meant by it. He swore that he had only intended a single divorce and so he returned her to him. There is confusion regarding the name and the action. No one uses something like this as an argument.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted this ḥadīth by various paths in the Sunan. In one of them Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Mirdās related from Abū Dāwud as-Sijistānī from Aḥmad ibn ‘Amr ibn as-Sarḥ, Abū Thawr, Ibrāhīm ibn Khālid al-Kalbī, and another that Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfi‘ī related from his uncle Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Shāfi‘ from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Alī ibn as-Sā’ib from Nāfi‘ ibn ‘Abd Yazīd that Rukānah ibn ‘Abd Yazīd divorced his wife Suhaymah al-Muzaniyyah with a final divorce. He informed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about that and said, ‘By Allah, I only meant one!’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked, ‘By Allah, did you only mean one?’ Rukānah said, ‘By Allah, I only meant one by it!’ So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned her to him. He divorced her a second time during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and a third time during the caliphate of ‘Uthmān. Abū Dāwud said that it is a sound ḥadīth. What is sound in the ḥadīth of Rukānah is that he divorced his wife finally, not three times. There is disagreement about a final divorce as we will explain. So there is no argument. Allah knows best. Abū ‘Umar said that the transmission of ash-Shāfi‘ī from his uncle is more complete. The addition is not refuted by the sources and so it is obligatory to accept it because of the trustworthiness of its transmitters. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, his uncle and grandfather were from the household of Rukānah. All of them were from the Banū ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib ibn ‘Abd Manāf. They were people who knew the story.

Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Mughīth aṭ-Ṭulayṭilī mentioned this matter in al-Wathā’iq. He said, ‘There are two types of divorce: the sunnah divorce and the innovated divorce. The sunnah divorce occurs in the manner that the Sharī‘ah recommended. The innovated divorce is the opposite. It is to divorce a wife while she is menstrual or in post-natal lochia and to do three in one statement. If he does it, then the divorce is nevertheless binding.’

Then after the consensus that she is divorced, scholars disagree about what is obliged for someone after the divorce. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and Ibn Mas‘ūd said that one divorce is obliged. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. He observed that his word triple has no sense because he did not divorce three times. The word ‘three’ is allowed if he is reporting about the past and says, ‘I divorced three times,’ reporting about three actions that he did three times. It is as when a man says, ‘Yesterday I recited the sūrah three times.’ That is sound. If he recited it once and says, ‘I recited it three times,’ he is lying. That is also the case if he swears by Allah three times to repeat the oath: that is three oaths. If, however, he says, ‘I swear by Allah trebly,’ that is one oath. That is the case with divorce. That was stated by az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf. We related all of that from Ibn Waḍḍāḥ and it is the position of the shaykhs of Cordoba: Ibn Zinbā‘, Muḥammad ibn Taqiyy ibn Mukhallad, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd as-Salām al-Ḥasanī, the unique scholar and faqīh of his time, Aṣbagh ibn al-Ḥubāb and a group of others.

Part of the argument of Ibn ‘Abbās is that Allah separated the word ‘divorce’ in His Book. He said: ‘Divorce can be pronounced two times,’ meaning the maximum number after which there must be either retaining with correctness during the waiting period or releasing. Releasing means to leave her without returning to her until the end of the waiting period. That is being good to her if there is regret between them. Allah says: ‘You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop’ (65:1), which means regret about separation and the desire to return. The pronouncement of three in one go is not good because it is abandoning what is recommended in something Allah has allowed. Allah mentioned divorce separated [in the āyahs] to indicate that when someone combines it in one phrase, he has left what is analogous in other recommended matters that indicate that. An example of that is when a person says, ‘My property is ṣadaqah for the poor’: a third satisfies that. In the Ishrāf, Ibn al-Mundhir says, ‘Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Ṭāwūs, Abu-sh-Sha‘thā’, ‘Aṭā’, and ‘Umar ibn Dīnār said that if someone divorces a virgin three times in one statement, it is one divorce.’ Sometimes they make an exception for a woman whose marriage is unconsummated and has no ‘iddah when he says, ‘You are divorced three times.’ Then she is clear of him as soon as he says, ‘You are divorced,’ before the ‘three times’.

The same verb for ‘release’ is used in 33:49: ‘Let them go.’ So this expression amounts to explicit divorce, according to ash-Shāfi‘ī. Scholars disagree about the meaning of this and whether it is tantamount to divorce. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad believed that an explicit expression must contain some form of the word ‘divorce’ like ‘You are divorced,’ ‘I have divorced you,’ ‘Divorce is binding on you,’ and other similar expressions which are used to allude to divorce. Abū Ḥanīfah said that. Qāḍī Abu-l-Ḥasan said, ‘There are many explicit statements of divorce, some of which are clearer than others: ṭalāq (divorce), sarāḥ (release), separation, being unlawful, letting go and cut off. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘There are three explicit phrases which come in the Qur’an: divorce, release and separation. Allah says: “…part from them with correctness” (65:2), “…released with good will” and “…divorce them during their period of purity” (65:1).”

If this is affirmed, then there are two types of divorce: explicit and allusory. We have mentioned the explicit. That in which divorce alluded to is the other. The difference between them is that the explicit form does not require an intention. Divorce occurs by the mere articulation of the words. That which is alluded to requires an intention. The argument of those who say that ‘unlawful’, ‘letting go’ and ‘cutting off’ are explicit divorce is because they are so frequently used in divorce, to the point that it is common knowledge. Therefore the intention about divorcing is clear. Then ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said, ‘If divorce is a thousand, nothing of it remains clear. If someone says, “Finally,” then that is the furthest end.’ Mālik transmitted it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Alī said, ‘The statements about letting go, being cut off, clear and unlawful constitute a triple divorce. The woman is not lawful to him until she has married another.’ It has come from the Prophet ﷺ that use of the word ‘finally’ constitutes a triple divorce. It comes from a path of transmission with some weakness in it which ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted. It will be discussed in 2:231.

Scholars do not disagree that if someone tells his wife, ‘I have divorced you,’ it is an explicit divorce whether or not the marriage has been consummated. If someone tells his wife, ‘You are divorced,’ it is one unless he intends more than that. If he intends two or three, it is as he intended. If he does not intend anything, it is one divorce and he can take her back. If he says, ‘You are divorced (ṭāliq),’ and then says, ‘I meant to say “fetter (wathāq)”,’ his statement is not accepted and it is binding for him unless there is some evidence that he is telling the truth. If someone says, ‘You are divorced once and I will not take you back,’ the words, ‘I will not take you back’ are baseless. He can take her back because he said ‘once’, not ‘three times’.

They disagree about someone who tells his wife, ‘I have parted from you,’ ‘You are let go’, ‘cut off’, or ‘clear,’ ‘Your rope is on your withers,’ ‘You are unlawful to me,’ ‘Rejoin your family,’ ‘I have given you to your family,’ ‘I have let you go,’ or ‘I have no way to you.’ Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf said that they constitute a final divorce. It is related that Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘When a man tells his wife, “You are in charge of your business,” “I give command to you,” or “Rejoin your family,” they accept it and it is one final divorce.’ It is related from Mālik that if someone says to his wife, ‘I have parted from you’ or ‘I have released you,’ it is an explicit divorce, just as when you say, ‘You are divorced.’ It is related from him that it is an allusion that refers to the intention of the one who says it and he is asked about the number he meant, whether or not the marriage was consummated. Ibn al-Mawwāz said, ‘The sounder of his two views is that it is one for an unconsummated marriage unless he intends more. Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said that. Abū Yūsuf said that it is three and is like, ‘I have slipped you off’ or ‘I have no authority over you.’

As for other allusions, Mālik considers them, when the speaker has no particular intention, to constitute a triple divorce in every consummated marriage and, in the case of an unconsummated marriage, only if there is a specific intention. If he swears that he only meant one, he is the same as any other suitor because he let go the wife with whom he had a consummated marriage and he only is free or cut off from her by three divorces. In the case of an unconsummated marriage, he is free and parted from her by one divorce. Mālik and a group of his people and a group of the people of Madīnah maintain that in all these expressions he has what he intends and divorce is obliged. It is related from him that it is only when the expression ‘final divorce’ in particular is used, rather than other allusions in which he does not intend that, whether or not it is consummated. If a man intends three, it is three. If he intends one, it is a final one and she has control over herself. If he intends two, it is one. Zufar said that if he intends two, it is two. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘He is not divorcing in any of those instances until he says, “The words I spoke meant divorce.” He has what he intended. If he intends less than three, it is revocable. If he divorces with a final one, it is revocable.’ Isḥāq said, ‘All that resembles divorce is what he intends of divorce.’ Abū Thawr said, ‘It is a revocable divorce and he is not asked about his intention.’ It is related that Ibn Mas‘ūd did not think that there was a final divorce except in the case the khul‘ or ilā’. That is recorded from him. Abū ‘Ubayd said that.

Al-Bukhārī has a chapter entitled: ‘Chapter on if a man says, “I have parted from you,” “I have let you go,” or other expressions which indicate leaving or freeing, or that by which divorce was meant, it is according to what he intended.’ This indicates the position of the Kufans, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Isḥāq when he says, ‘or that by which divorce is meant.’ The argument in that is that any statement that can be construed as being divorce or not being divorce does not necessitate divorce unless the one who said it says that he meant divorce by it. Then it is binding on him by his affirmation. It is not permitted to nullify a marriage because they agree that it is sound. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The position of Mālik about the meaning of a man’s words to his wife, ‘Go out,’ ‘I have released you,’ or ‘Your rope is on your withers,’ varies. Once he said that intention concerning such statements is not taken into account and it constitutes a triple divorce and another time he said, ‘He has what he intends in all of that, whether or not it is consummated.’ I say that.

What the majority believe and what is related from Mālik is that intention in using these expressions is pivotal and the ruling is based on that. That is sound because of the evidence we have mentioned and the sound ḥadīth that Abū Dāwud, Ibn Mājah, ad-Dāraquṭnī and others transmitted from Yazīd ibn Rukānah: Rukānah ibn ‘Abd Yazīd divorced his wife Suhaymah and informed the Prophet ﷺ about that and said, ‘By Allah, I only meant one!’ The Prophet ﷺ asked, ‘By Allah, did you only mean one?’ Rukānah said, ‘By Allah, I only meant one!’ So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned her him. Ibn Mājah said that he heard Abu-l-Ḥasan aṭ-Ṭanāfisī say, ‘How noble this ḥadīth is!’ Mālik said about a man who tells his wife, ‘You are like carrion, blood and pork to me!’: ‘I think that it is final even if he had no intention. She is not lawful to him until she has married another husband.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī thought that if he meant a divorce, then it was a divorce and whatever number of divorces he meant, and if he did not mean a divorce, it is nothing after he takes an oath to that effect.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The basis of this topic regarding every allusion to divorce is what is related about the Prophet ﷺ saying to a woman he married when she said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you”, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Rejoin your family.” That was a divorce. When the Prophet ﷺ told Ka‘b ibn Mālik to withdraw from his wife, he told her, “Rejoin your family,” but it was not a divorce. This indicates that the expression requires an intention and the only ruling is according to what a man intended by what he said. It is like that with all allusions that can possibly give rise to separation and others.’ Allah knows best. Most scholars say that there is no divorce on account of it unless that is what is intended by the speaker. Mālik said, ‘Divorce is obliged by whoever intends divorce by any expression he uses.’

It is not lawful for you to keep anything you have given them

This is addressed to husbands. They are forbidden to take anything from their wives which might cause them harm. The khul‘ divorce is only valid when it is the man alone who has not done anything which would constitute grounds for divorce. Husbands are mentioned because the custom among people is that, in separation, a man seeks what he has given his wife as a dower and support. That is why men are mentioned.

The majority agree that taking a payment for divorce is allowed and they agree that it is forbidden to take anything belonging to the wife unless it is a case of disobedience and bad behaviour on her part. Ibn al-Mundhir related that an-Nu‘mān said, ‘If the disobedience or injustice comes from him and she asks for a khul‘, it is allowed and he is a wrongdoer. What he did is not lawful but he cannot be forced to return what he has taken.’ Ibn al-Mundhir says that this is contrary to the text of the Book of Allah and contrary to a firm report from the Prophet ﷺ, and contrary to what most scholars agree on. I do not think that if someone were told to exert himself to look for an error, he would find something worse that someone saying that the Book forbids something and then, having had that countered by a text, still saying that his view is permitted. Abu-l-Ḥasan ibn Baṭṭāl said that Ibn al-Qāsim related the like from Mālik. This position is contrary to the literal text of the Book of Allah and contrary to the ḥadīth about the wife of Thābit which will be dealt with.

unless a couple fear that they will not remain within Allah’s limits.

In this āyah Allah forbids a man to take anything unless there is fear they will not establish the limits of Allah and he stresses the prohibition by a threat issued to the one who exceeds the limits. It means that each of them thinks that they will not be able to endure giving the obligatory rights to his or her companion due to the dislike she has for him or vice versa. This is not an objection to her ransoming herself, nor is there any objection to the husband taking what she pays. The āyah is addressed to the couple and the dual is used. ‘Fear’ here implies knowledge, so the inference is that they know that they will not be able to remain within the limits, and that is true fear. It is apprehension that something disliked is bound to happen. It is close to the meaning of supposition. Then it is said that ‘unless they fear’ is an exceptive severed from the general sentence. It means: if there is antipathy on their part, there is nothing wrong in them accepting fidyah. Ḥamzah recited ‘yukhāfā’ [instead of yakhāfā] in the passive with the subject elided. The subject in that case is guardians and judges. Abū ‘Ubayd preferred that since He said ‘if you fear’ and so the fear comes from other than the couple. If the couple had been meant, Allah would have said ‘khāfā’. This is evidence for those who say that the khul‘ should be referred to the ruler.

This is the view of Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sīrīn. Shu‘bah said, ‘I asked Qatādah, “From whom did al-Ḥasan take the idea of presenting a khul‘ to the ruler?” He answered, “Ziyād. He was the governor of ‘Umar and ‘Alī.”’ An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This is known from Ziyād. There is no sense in this position because when a man does a khul‘ from his wife, it is based on what they both consent to. The ruler cannot make him to do that. Therefore there is no sense in saying that it is up to the ruler.’

Abū ‘Ubayd denied that he had a choice. I do not know that anything regarding a choice is more unlikely than the particle ‘illā’ because that is not obliged by the inflection, the word, or the meaning. As far as the inflection is concerned, Ibn Mas‘ūd recited ‘illā an yakhāfa’ as ‘takhāfā’. In Arabic, when reference is made to someone where the subject is not named, it is said, ‘illā an yukhāf’. If the expression is ‘yakhāfā’, then it must be recited ‘khīfa’. If it is based on the expression, ‘in khiftum’, then it must be said ‘takhāfū’. As far as the meaning is concerned, it is not unlikely for someone to say: ‘It is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless others fear…’ So the khul‘ can be taken to the ruler. Aṭ– Ṭaḥāwī said, ‘It is true that ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and Ibn ‘Umar allowed it to be carried out by other than the ruler. Just as divorce and marriage are permitted without a ruler, the same is true of the khul‘. That is the view of most scholars.’

If you fear that they will not remain within Allah’s limits,

The limits of Allah consists of what is obliged for them in respect of good company and affectionate fellowship. This is addressed to rulers, and mediators in this matter, even if they are not rulers. Not remaining within Allah’s limits is when a woman makes light of her husband’s due and does not obey him. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mālik Ibn Anas and most fuqahā’ say that. Al-Ḥasan ibn Abī ’l-Ḥasan and some people said that when a woman says, ‘I will never obey anything you order, I will not have a ghusl on account of janābah, and I will not fulfill any oath to you,’ then a khul‘ is lawful. Ash-Sha‘bī said that it means ‘if they fear they will not obey Allah.’ That is due to anger with one another which makes them stop obeying. ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ said, ‘The khul‘ is lawful as is taking property in cases where the woman tells her husband, “I hate you and will never love you.” This is like: “there is nothing wrong with a wife ransoming herself.”’

there is nothing wrong in the wife ransoming herself

Al-Bukhārī reports a ḥadīth from Ayyūb from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that the wife of Thābit ibn Qays came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I do not fault him in respect of the dīn or his character, but I will not obey him!’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Will you return his garden to him?’ ‘Yes,’ she replied. Ibn Mājah transmitted from Qatādah from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that Jamīlah bint Salūl came to the Prophet and said, ‘By Allah, I do not fault Thābit in respect of his dīn or his character, but I dislike ingratitude in Islam and I will not obey him due to my hatred of him.’ The Prophet ﷺ asked, ‘Will you return his garden to him?’ ‘Yes,”’ she replied, and he commanded him to take his garden from her and no more. It is said that she hated him intensely and he loved her fervently. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ separated them by means of the khul‘ divorce and it was the first khul‘ divorce in Islam.

Ibn ‘Abbās is also reported as saying that the first person to have a khul‘ divorce in Islam was the sister of ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy. She came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, my head and his head will never be joined. I lifted the side of the tent and saw him in a group and he was the ugliest and shortest of them and had the ugliest face.’ He asked, ‘Will you return his garden to him?’ ‘Yes,’ she replied, ‘and if he wishes, I will give more.’ He separated them. This is the basis of the khul‘ divorce and it is accepted by the majority of fuqahā’. Mālik said, ‘That is what I have heard from those who possess knowledge, and it is what is done among us. If a man does not harm his wife and is not bad to her and she wants to leave him, it is lawful for him to take whatever she pays to ransom herself as the Prophet ﷺ did with the wife of Thābit ibn Qays.’

If the antipathy is on his side, as it is when he oppresses her and harms her, he should return to her anything he has taken from her. ‘Uqbah ibn Abī ’ṣ-Ṣahbā’ said. ‘I asked Bakr ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Muzanī about a man who wanted his wife to pronounce a khul‘ divorce and he said, “It is not lawful for him to take anything from her.” I asked, “So where are the words of Allah: ‘If you fear that you will not remain within Allah’s limits, there is nothing wrong in the wife ransoming herself’?” “It was abrogated,” he replied. “Where?” I asked. He said, “In Sūrat an-Nisā’: ‘If you desire to exchange one wife for another, and have given your original wife a large amount, do not take any of it. Would you take it by means of slander and downright crime’” (4:20)”’ An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This is an aberrant view outside of the general consensus. Neither of the two contradicts the other so that there is abrogation because “If you fear...” does not cancel the other āyah because, when they fear thus, the husband does not fall into the category designated by the words “If you desire to exchange...” because the latter is addressed to men alone.’ Aṭ-Tabarī said, ‘This āyah is one of judgment and what Bakr said is nonsense.’

Those who think that khul‘ is specific to the state of schism and harm use this āyah, and say that it is a precondition for khul‘. They support this by what Abū Dāwud related from ‘Ā’ishah to the effect that Ḥabībah bint Sahl was married to Thābit ibn Qays and he hit her and broke her jaw. She went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ after the Ṣubḥ prayer and complained to him. The Prophet ﷺ summoned Thābit and said, ‘Take some of her property and separate from her.’ He asked, ‘Is that proper, Messenger of Allah?’ ‘Yes,’ he said. He said, ‘I gave her the two gardens she has as a dower.’ The Prophet said, ‘Take them and separate from her.’ He took them and separated from her. However, the position of the majority is that khul‘ is permitted without any complaint of harm as we see in the ḥadīth of al-Bukhārī and other ḥadīths. The āyah is not a proof for it since Allah did not mention it as a precondition, but rather mentioned it because it is the usual case in the khul‘.

The āyah also indicates the permission for taking, in a khul‘ divorce, more than a husband gave to his wife. Scholars disagree about this. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and Abū Thawr say that it is permitted to do whatever they agree on, whether that is less or more that he gave her. This is reported from ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, Ibn ‘Umar, Qabīṣah and an-Nakha‘ī. Qabīṣah recited as proof: ‘… there is nothing wrong in the wife ransoming herself.’ Mālik said, ‘Doing that is not part of noble character, but l have not seen any of the people of knowledge express dislike of it.’

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘My sister was married to a man of the Anṣār who married her in return for a garden he gave her. There were some words between the two of them and they took it to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who said, “Will you return the garden he gave you and then he will divorce you?” “Yes,” she answered, “and I will give him more.” He said, “Return his garden to him and give him more.”’ We find in the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘If he wishes, I will give him more,’ and he did not object to it.

One group said that he should not take from her more than he gave her. That is what was stated by Ṭāwūs, ‘Aṭā’, and al-Awzā‘ī. Al-Awzā‘ī said, ‘Judges do not permit anyone to take other than what he gave his wife.’ Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that. They argue by what Ibn Jurayj related from Abu-z-Zubayr that Thābit ibn Qays ibn Shammās was married to Zaynab bint ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy ibn Salūl. He gave her a dower of a garden. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Not more, but his garden.’ ‘Yes,’ she said. He took it and let her go. When Thābit ibn Qays heard that, he said, ‘I have accepted the judgment of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ Abu-z-Zubayr and others heard it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. It is related mursal from ‘Aṭā’ that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The man does not take from a woman in a khul‘ more than what he gave her.’

In the view of Mālik, a khul‘ can be carried in exchange for unripe fruit, for a stray camel or runaway slave, an unborn child of a slavegirl and the like that and other unsure things which is not the case in sales and marriage. He can make a demand for all that. If it is sound, it is given to him and if it is not sound, he gets nothing. Divorce is carried out based on its ruling. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘The khul‘ is allowed [in this case] but he receives the appropriate dower.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād related that Mālik said, ‘That is because when contracts involving mutual exchange contain an unsound reimbursement and have passed, then one refers to what is necessary in similar substitutes.’ Abū Thawr said, ‘The khul‘ is invalid.’ The People of Opinion said, ‘The khul‘ is allowed and he has the unborn child of the slavegirl. If there is no child, then he has nothing.’

In al-Mabsūṭ, Ibn al-Qāsim reported that he said: ‘It is permitted in exchange for the fruits of his palm trees for a year or for what his sheep produce in a year.’ This differs from the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī. The proof for what Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim say is the general nature of the words of the Almighty: ‘… there is nothing wrong in the wife ransoming herself.’ By way of analogy, it is part of what he owns by gift or bequest and so it is permitted for it to be an exchange in the khul’, just as is the case with something known. Furthermore, khul‘ is a form of divorce, and divorce is valid without any recompense whatsoever. Since it is valid without any such recompense, then it is even more likely to be valid with unsound goods because the worst state of that which is spent is that about which one is silent. It is also true because marriage, a contract which makes something lawful, is not rendered unsound by unsound goods and so that is even more the case in divorce which destroys the lawfulness of a contract.

If she is given a khul‘ provided that she nurse her son for two years, that is also permitted. There are two views about the basis of the khul‘ being that she support her son after the two years for a known period. One is that it is permitted and that is the view of al-Makhzūmī and the view preferred by Saḥnūn. The second is that it is not permitted. Ibn al-Qāsim related that from Mālik and said that if the husband stipulated it, it is void and removed from the wife. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Those who permit a khul‘ in exchange for a stray camel, runaway slave and the like of uncertain things make this permitted as well.’ Other scholars of the Qarawīn say that Mālik did not forbid a khul‘ in exchange for maintenance for more than two years because of the uncertainty; he forbade it because it is a duty specifically for the father in every case and therefore he cannot transfer it to someone else. The difference between this and maintenance for two years is that the maintenance, which is for suckling, may be imposed on the mother while she is married and after the divorce if the father is in straitened circumstances. Therefore it is permitted to transfer this maintenance to the mother because she is subject to it. In al-Mabsūṭ, Mālik cited as evidence the words of the Almighty: ‘Mothers should nurse their children for two full years – for those who wish to complete the full term of nursing.’ (2:233)

If a khul‘ occurs in a permitted manner, based on providing for the son, and then the child dies before the end of the period, does the husband have recourse to her for payment of the rest of the maintenance? Ibn al-Mawwāz related from Mālik that he cannot pursue her for anything. Abu-l-Faraj related from him that he can pursue her because it is his confirmed due which is the responsibility of the wife by khul‘ and it is not cancelled by the death of the child. That is also the case if he does a khul‘ for money: she is liable for it. The reasoning behind the first view is that he did not stipulate for himself any wealth with which to enrich himself, but the duty of the support of his child. Then if the child dies, he has no right of restitution from her at all. That is like a case in which a man voluntarily supports a child for a year and then the child dies: he owes no restitution at all because he intended to take on his support. Allah knows best. Mālik said, ‘I do not think that anyone should be pursued for something like this. If he does pursue it, he can make a statement regarding that.’ They agree that if she dies, then the child is supported from her money because it was a right established before her death and is not removed by her death.

If in the khul‘ a man stipulates the maintenance of her unborn child and that she will have nothing, he must support the child if she has no wealth to spend on the child. If she then later becomes wealthy, he can pursue her for what he spent and take it from her. Mālik said, ‘It is part of the duty of the man to maintain his child, even if he stipulates that the mother will support it, when she does not have the wherewithal to do so.’

Scholars disagree about whether the khul‘ is a divorce or annulment. It is related from ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī, Ibn Mas‘ūd and a group of Tābi‘ūn that it is a divorce. That was stated by Mālik, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and ash-Shāfi‘ī in one position. If someone intends two or three divorces by the khul‘, that is binding for him according to Mālik. The People of Opinion said that if he intends three divorces, it is three, and if he intends two, it is one final one because it is one statement. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said in his other view that if he intends divorce by the khul‘ and calls it divorce, then it is divorce, and if he did not intend divorce and did not call it such, that separation does not occur.’ He said that in his Old School. I prefer his first position. Al-Muzanī said, ‘It is the soundest in my view.’ Abū Thawr said, ‘When divorce is not named, then khul‘ is separation and not divorce. If it is called divorce, then it is divorce and the husband has the power to take her back as long as she is in her ‘iddah.’

Among those who said that khul‘ is annulment and not divorce unless it is intended are Ibn ‘Abbās, Ṭāwūs, ‘Ikrimah, Isḥāq and Aḥmad. For evidence they cite the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Uyaynah from ‘Amr ibn Ṭāwūs from Ibn ‘Abbās that Ibrāhīm ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ asked him about when a man has divorced his wife two times and then does a khul‘ to part from her. Can he remarry her? He said, ‘Yes, he can remarry her. The khul‘ is not a divorce. Allah mentioned divorce at the beginning and end of the āyah, and the khul‘ is between that and so the khul‘ is not divorce.’ Then he quoted, ‘Divorce can be pronounced two times; in which case wives may be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will.’ (2:229) Then he recited, ‘If a man divorces his wife a third time, she is not lawful to him after that until she has married another husband.’ (2:230) He said, ‘That is because if khul‘ had been a divorce, it would have been the third after the two divorces. And His words after that “If a man divorces” would indicate a fourth divorce. Then the prohibition would be connected to a fourth divorce.’

They also use as evidence what at-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwud and ad-Dāraquṭnī cited from Ibn ‘Abbās that the wife of Thābit ibn Qays obtained a khul‘ from her husband in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered her to observe an ‘iddah of one menstruation. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a ḥasan gharīb ḥadīth. Ar-Rubayyi‘ bint Mu‘awwidh ibn ‘Afrā’ reported that she had a khul‘ in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and he told her to observe an ‘iddah of one menstruation. At-Tirmidhī said that the ḥadīth of ar-Rubayyi‘ is sound about her being ordered to observe an ‘iddah of one menstruation. He said that it indicates that khul‘ is annulment, not divorce because Allah says: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles.’ (2:228) If it had been a divorce, it would not have been confined to one cycle.

If someone divorces his wife twice and then does a khul‘ from her and then wants to marry her, he can do that, as Ibn ‘Abbās said, even if she had not married another husband, because he has only done two divorces and the khul‘ does not count. Someone who considers the khul‘ to be a divorce says that he is not permitted to take her back until she has married another husband because the three divorces are complete by the khul‘. That is sound, Allah willing. Qāḍī Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq said, ‘How can it be permitted for a man whose wife has told him, “Divorce me for a sum” which he then does, to say that it is not a divorce? If he had put her authority in her hands without anything else and then she divorced herself, it would be divorce.’ He says that Allah’s words: ‘If a man divorces his wife a third time, she is not lawful to him after that until she has married another husband’ are added to His words: ‘Divorce can be pronounced two times’ because the words ‘released with good will’ mean ‘or divorced’. If khul‘ had been added to the two divorces, it would only be permitted to have a khul‘ after two divorces. No one says this.

Someone else said that their interpretation of this āyah is a mistake. ‘Divorce can be pronounced twice’ gives the ruling of two times when it occurs other than in a khul‘. It is confirmed that he can still take her back when Allah says: ‘…retained with correctness and courtesy’. Then He mentioned their ruling when it is by way of khul‘. So the khul‘ refers to the two already mentioned since what is meant by them is to explain divorce in general, divorce in exchange for recompense, and a triple divorce with or without recompense after which the woman is only lawful after another husband.

This is the answer to the evidence of the āyah. As for the ḥadīth, when mentioning the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās about one menstrual period, Abū Dāwud said that the ḥadīth was related by ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from Ma‘mar from ‘Amr ibn Muslim from ‘Ikrimah mursal from the Prophet ﷺ. Al-Qa‘nabī related from Nāfi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘The ‘iddah of a woman separated by a khul‘ is the same as that for divorce.’ Abū Dāwud said, ‘We believe that our action is based on this.’ It is the school of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, ath-Thawrī and the people of Kufa. At-Tirmidhī said, ‘That is the view of most of the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet and others.’

The ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās about a single menstruation is gharīb according to at-Tirmidhī and mursal according to what Abū Dāwud mentioned about it being said that the Prophet ﷺ made her ‘iddah one and a half menstrual cycles. Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from Ma‘mar from ‘Amr ibn Muslim from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās that the wife of Thābit ibn Qays got a khul‘ from her husband and the Prophet ﷺ made her ‘iddah one and a half menstrual cycles. Here a cycle and a half is mentioned by Ma‘mar while one menstrual cycle is also related from him. The transmitter was Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān Hishām ibn Yūsuf aṣ-Ṣan‘ānī al-Yamānī. Only al-Bukhārī transmitted from him. The ḥadīth is unsettled in both its isnād and its text. It is not used to argue that the ‘iddah for khul‘ is one menstrual cycle. So the words of the Almighty: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycle,’ remain for every divorced woman whose marriage has been consummated except for special cases. At-Tirmidhī said, ‘Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that the ‘iddah for a khul‘ is one menstruation.’ Isḥāq said, ‘If someone believes this, it is a strong position.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān and Ibn ‘Umar said that her ‘iddah is one menstrual cycle. That was stated by Abān ibn ‘Uthmān and Isḥāq.’ ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said that her ‘iddah is that of a divorced woman. I take the position of ‘Uthmān and Ibn ‘Umar. The ḥadīth of ‘Alī is not firm. We already mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar that the ‘iddah for a khul‘ is the same as that for a divorce. It is sound.

The position of Mālik varies about the case of someone who intends to carry out a khul‘ without any recompense. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said, ‘Mālik considers it to be a khul‘ and the divorce is final.’ It also is reported that he said that it is not final unless there is recompense. Ashhab and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that because it is a divorce divested of recompense and the number must be observed. It is revocable as it would be if he had said ‘divorce’. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘I and the people of knowledge believe this to be the soundest of his views.’ The reason behind the first is the lack of recompense in the khul‘ does not remove it from what is demanded. The basis for that is if the khul‘ is based on wine or pigs.

The woman with a khul‘ is the one divested of all she has received and the woman who ransoms herself does so with some of it and takes some of it. A woman who frees herself is the one who frees herself from her husband before consummation, saying, ‘I am free of you, so be free of me.’ This is the view of Mālik. ‘Īsā ibn Dīnār related that Mālik said, ‘The freed woman is the one who does not take anything or give anything. The woman with a khul‘ is the woman who gives what she was given and may give more. The woman who ransoms herself is the one who ransoms herself with some of what she was given while keeping some. All of this is whether or not the marriage has been consummated. If it is before consummation, then she has no ‘iddah. A woman who conciliates is like the woman who frees herself.’

Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad and others said that these four expressions refer to the same idea, even if their qualities differ in respect of occurrence. It is a final divorce whether or not it is named. She cannot be taken back in the ‘iddah but she can be married in the ‘iddah or after it with her consent and with a walī and dower, before or after having another husband. This is not the view of Abū Thawr because of the fact that she gave him something in exchange for control over herself. If the khul‘ divorce had been revocable, she would not have control over herself. In that case, the husband would have both the recompense and that for which it was given.

This is in spite of the fact that the contract is usually carried out. If she gives him recompense and he stipulates the right of retraction, there are two transmissions about that which Ibn Wahb related from Mālik. One is that it is affirmed, which is the view of Saḥnūn. The other is that it is denied. Saḥnūn said that the reason for the first transmission is that they both agreed on the recompense in compensation for dropping the number of divorces. This is permitted. The reason for the second is that he made a stipulation in the contract which precludes the aim of the contract, and therefore it is not confirmed as would be the case if he stipulated in the marriage contract that he would not have sex with her.

These are Allah’s limits so do not overstep them.

After Allah has clarified the judgments of marriage and divorce, He says: ‘These are Allah’s limits…’ which you are commanded to obey, just as He explains those matters which are prohibited during the fast in another āyah and says: ‘Those are Allah’s limits, so do not go near them.’ (2:187) So He divided the limits into two categories: limits which one is commanded to obey and limits which one is commanded to avoid. Then He ends with the threat: ‘Those who overstep Allah’s limits are wrongdoers.’

230 But if a man divorces his wife a third time, she is not lawful for him after that until she has married another husband. Then if he divorces her, there is nothing wrong in the original couple getting back together provided they think they will remain within Allah’s limits. These are Allah’s limits which he has made clear to people who know.

But if a man divorces his wife a third time,

Some of the Khorasanī Ḥanafī shaykhs used this āyah as evidence that the khul‘ should be followed by normal divorce. They said, ‘Allah prescribed an explicit divorce after she has ransomed herself through khul‘ because the use of the particle fā’ here is sequential. It is unlikely for it to refer back to: “Divorce can be pronounced twice” because the intervening words prevent: “If he divorces her” being based on it. It is more likely to refer to the exception close to it and it would only refer to something before that with some evidence as we see in 4:23.’

Scholars disagree about the divorce after the khul‘ during the ‘iddah. One group say that if a wife frees herself from her husband by khul‘ and then he divorces her again during the waiting period, the new divorce applies rather than the khul‘. That was stated by Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Shurayḥ, Ṭāwūs, an-Nakha‘ī, az-Zuhrī, al-Ḥakam, Ḥammād, ath-Thawrī and the People of Opinion. There is a second view and that is that the second divorce bears no legal weight and is not considered. Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn az-Zubayr, ‘Ikrimah, al-Ḥasan, Jābir ibn Zayd, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr take this position. It is also the position of Mālik, although Mālik says, ‘If she ransoms herself from him on the condition that he gives her a triple divorce consecutively, when he pronounces the divorce, then the full divorce has taken place. If there is a silence between that, what follows the silence is nothing. That is because the sequential and connected nature of the words demands one ruling. That is also the case when “Allah willing” is connected to the oath by Allah: it is preferred and the ruling of the exception is confirmed. When it is separated from it, then it is not connected to the previous words.’

she is not lawful for him after that until she has married another husband.

This is agreed upon and there is no disagreement about it. But there is disagreement about exactly what constitutes an intervening marriage and what it is permitted to be. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and those who agree with him said that the contract itself is enough. Al-Ḥasan ibn Abī ‘l-Ḥasan said that there must be ejaculation as well as sexual intercourse. A group of scholars and fuqahā’ agree that sexual intercourse is enough, and that consists of the meeting of the private parts in the manner which would necessitate the ḥadd and ghusl, which would invalidate fasting and ḥajj, and which would make the payment of a full dowry obligatory. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘I have not come across a question in fiqh more difficult than this one. That is because the basis of the legal position is contingent on what the ruling is connected to: the minimum to which it is possible to apply the term “marriage” or the full meaning of the term “marriage”. If we say the minimum, then we take the position of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. If it is connected to the latter, then there must be ejaculation and penetration, as al-Ḥasan said.’

Ibn al-Mundhir said that the term used in the ḥadīth, ‘taste sweetness’, means sexual intercourse and that is the position of the majority of scholars with the exception of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab who said, ‘People say that she is not lawful to her first husband until she has had sex with the second husband. I, however, say that when he marries her in a sound marriage which is only intended to make her lawful, there is nothing wrong in her marrying the first husband.’ We do not know of anyone who agrees with this statement except a group of the Khārijites. The Sunnah spares the need for anything else. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr took the position of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab. An-Naḥḥās mentioned it in Kitāb ma‘ānī al-Qur’an. He said, ‘The people of knowledge say that marriage here entails sexual intercourse because Allah says, “another husband”. Being a spouse was already mentioned, and so “marriage” must mean sexual intercourse. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, however, said that marriage here is sound marriage when it is not with the simple intention of making her lawful.’

I think that what is most likely is that they had not heard the ḥadīth about ‘sweetness’ or believed that it was not sound and took the literal text of the Qur’an when Allah says: ‘until she has married another husband’. Allah knows best.

The imams like ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Ā’ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When a man divorces his wife three times, then she is not lawful to him until she has married another husband and each of them has tasted the sweetness of the other.’ Some of the Ḥanafī scholars said, ‘If someone makes a marriage contract based on the position of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, the qāḍī can nullify it. Disagreement regarding it is not considered because it deviates from the consensus of scholars.’ Our scholars said that his words ﷺ, ‘…each of them has tasted the sweetness of the other,’ means that they are equal in enjoying the pleasure of sexual intercourse. It is the proof of one two views. We believe that if he has sex with her while she is asleep or unconscious, she still is not lawful to the man who divorced her because she has not tasted ‘sweetness’.

An-Nasā’ī related from ‘Abdullāh that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed those women who tattoo and are tattooed, those who add hairpieces and those to whose hair they are added, those who consume and pay usury and those who facilitate re-marriage and those for whom that facilitation is done. At-Tirmidhī related that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed those who facilitate re-marriage and those for whom that facilitation is done.’ He said that this is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. This ḥadīth is also related from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by a different path. It was the normative position among the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, including ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar and others. It is the position of the fuqahā’ among the Tābi‘ūn. It was also the position of Sufyān ath-Thawrī, Ibn al-Mubārak, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Mālik, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. I heard al-Jārūd mention that Wakī‘ said, ‘One must remove this topic from the People of Opinion.’ Sufyān said, ‘When a man marries a woman to make her lawful and then decides to keep her, she is not lawful to him until he marries her with a new marriage.’

Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘Scholars disagree about a marriage to facilitate remarriage. Mālik said, “A man who married to facilitate remarriage does not remain in his marriage until he has a new marriage. If he has sex with her, then she receives an appropriate dower. It is not lawful for her first husband to have sex with her, whether or not they know that he has married her to make her lawful for her first husband. He is not confirmed in the marriage and it is nullified.” Ath-Thawrī and al-Awzā‘ī said that.’

There is a second view about it related from ath-Thawrī about a marriage which is incorrect, or to facilitate remarriage, that the marriage is sound but the precondition is void. That is the view of Ibn Abī Laylā about that matter and the temporary (mu‘tah) marriage. Al-Awzā‘ī said that the marriage for facilitation is a bad action but the marriage is allowed. Abū Ḥanīfah, Yūsuf and Muḥammad said that the marriage is allowed if it is consummated and he can keep her if he wishes. Once Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that she is not lawful to the first husband if someone married her just to facilitate that, and another time they said that he is lawful to her by this marriage provided he has sex with her and then divorces her. They do not disagree that a marriage of this kind is sound and he can maintain it.

There is a third view. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that when a man says, ‘I will marry you to make you lawful,’ then there is no marriage between them after that. This is a sort of temporary marriage. It is unsound and not confirmed. It is annulled. If he has sex with her on this basis it does not legalise re-marriage. If he marries her with a simple marriage in which there is no stipulation and he does not stipulate that it is to legalise re-marriage, ash-Shāfi‘ī has two views on that in his old book: one is like the view of Mālik and the other is like that of Abū Ḥanīfah. His view in his new Egyptian book does not vary: the marriage is sound if he makes no stipulation. That is the view of Dāwud as well.

Al-Māwardī related from ash-Shāfi‘ī that if a man stipulates that legalisation is the object before the contract, the marriage is sound and he makes her lawful for the first husband. If they stipulate that in the contract, however, then the marriage is invalid and she is not lawful for the first husband. He said that it is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Al-Ḥasan and Ibrāhīm said that if any one of the three people intends legalisation by it, then the marriage is invalid. This is stricter. Sālim and al-Qāsim said that there is nothing wrong in a man marrying a woman to legalise her when the couple do not know about it and he is paid. Rabī‘ah and Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd said that. Dāwud ibn ‘Alī said that: provided that it does not appear as a stipulation when the contract is made.

According to scholars, a marriage arranged with the ostensible purpose of legalising remarriage is permitted for the [second] husband who marries [the woman]. It is the same whether that was stipulated or intended [before the marriage], but when that actually occurs [for that sole purpose], then the marriage is unsound and not confirmed. His having sex with the woman does not make her lawful for her first husband. It is the same whether the first husband knows that or is ignorant of that. It is said that when he learns that the man married her for that purpose, he should not take her back. According to Mālik, she is only made lawful by a marriage in which he desires and has need of her and does not intend to legalise her. The new husband having sex with her [in that marriage] is permissible as long as she is not fasting, in iḥrām or menstruating, and he is an adult Muslim.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī, on the other hand, said, ‘If the new husband has sex with her on the basis of a valid marriage and fully consummates it, then they have tasted “sweetness”. It is the same whether it is a strong or weak marriage and whether the consummation was achieved by his or her hand, and whether he was a child, adolescent or eunuch as long as he still has part of his penis, and whether the woman is fasting or in iḥrām.’ This entire description of ash-Shāfi‘ī is also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, and al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, and it is also the position of some of the people of Mālik. Ibn Ḥabīb said that if he marries her and likes her, he can keep her. If he expects payment for making her legal, it is not permitted since he mixed marriage with the intention of legalisation. In that case she is not lawful for the first husband.

When a master has sex with his slavegirl who has been finally divorced by her husband, she does not become lawful for the first husband since the master is not a husband. That is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and is the view of ‘Ubaydah, Masrūq, ash-Sha‘bī, Ibrāhīm, Jābir ibn Zayd, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān and Abu-z-Zinād. That is also the position of most of the fuqahā’ of the different regions. The opposite of that, however, is related from ‘Uthmān, Zayd ibn Thābit and az-Zubayr. They said that when her master has sex with her in a manner by which he does not intend deceit or legalisation, she may remarry her husband with a proposal and dower. The first view is sounder because the Almighty says: ‘…until she has married another husband’. A master has control by virtue of ownership not marriage. This is clearer.

We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ of Mālik that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and Sulaymān ibn Yasār were both asked whether, if a man married a slave of his to a slavegirl who then divorced her finally and then her master gave her to him, she was lawful to the slave by virtue of ownership. They said that she was not lawful to him until she had married another husband.

Mālik related that he asked Ibn Shihāb about a man who was married to a slavegirl owned by someone else and then bought her and divorced her with a single divorce. He said, ‘She is lawful to him by virtue of ownership as long as it was not a final divorce. If it was a final divorce, she is not lawful to him by virtue of ownership until she has married another husband.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is the position of the bulk of scholars and imams of fatwā: Mālik, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, and Abū Thawr. Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Aṭā’, Ṭāwūs, and al-Ḥasan said that if the one who finally divorced her buys her, then she is lawful to him by virtue of ownership based on the general nature of Allah’s words: ‘…those you own as slaves’. (4:3) Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is an erroneous view because Allah’s statement: ‘…those you own as slaves’ does not permit mothers or sisters or the rest of those forbidden by kinship.’

When a Muslim divorces his dhimmī wife three times and she then marries a dhimmī who consummates the marriage and then divorces her, one group say that the dhimmī is a proper husband for her and she can remarry the first husband. That is what al-Ḥasan, az-Zuhrī, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū ‘Ubayd and the People of Opinion said. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘That is what we say because Allah says: ‘…until she has married another husband’ and the Christian man is a husband. Mālik and Rabī‘ah said that he does not make her lawful.

An invalid marriage does not permit a woman who has been divorced three times to remarry her first husband according to the majority position. Mālik, ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, al-Awzā‘ī, the People of Opinion, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū ‘Ubayd said that she is only lawful for the first husband if she has entered into a valid intervening marriage. Al-Ḥakam said that this refers to the husband. Ibn al-Mundhir said that it does not refer to the husband because the spousal rulings of ẓihār, īlā’ and li‘ān are not confirmed between them. All of those scholars who are regarded say that if a woman says to the first husband, ‘I have married and it was consummated,’ and he believes her, she is lawful to him. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it is scrupulous not to do it if he suspects that she is lying.

‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb strongly condemned this practice of false marriage and said, ‘If I am brought someone who makes remarriage legal or someone for whom it was done, I will stone them.’ Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘False marriage in order to legalise re-marriage (taḥlīl) is fornication and people who do it are fornicators, even if they remain together for twenty years.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘‘Umar’s words are only taken to indicate the severity of his position because it is clear that the ḥadd punishment is removed from someone who has unlawful sexual intercourse when he is ignorant that it is unlawful and has the excuse of ignorance. This is a more appropriate interpretation. There is no dispute that he is not stoned for it.’

Then if he divorces her, there is nothing wrong in the original couple getting back together

The word ‘he’ here refers to the second husband. If he divorces the woman concerned there is nothing wrong if she and her first husband remarry. Ibn ‘Abbās said that there is no disagreement about this. Ibn al-Mundhir said that scholars agree that when a free man divorces his wife three times and her waiting period comes to an end and then she marries another husband who is free and the marriage is consummated and then he divorces her and her waiting period for that divorce ends, then she can re-marry the first husband.

They disagree about what happens when a man divorces his wife once or twice and then she marries someone else and then later remarries her first husband. One group say that she only has the number of divorces which remain from the time she was previously married to the man, as was stated by the great Companions of the Messenger of Allah: ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn and Abū Hurayrah. That is also related from Zayd ibn Thābit, Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ. It is also the position of ‘Abīdah as-Sulmānī, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Mālik, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Laylā, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū ‘Ubayd, Abū Thawr, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan and Ibn Naṣr.

There is a second position that the marriage is new and divorce starts afresh. That was the position of Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās. That was also the position of ‘Aṭā’, an-Nakha‘ī, Shurayḥ, an-Nu‘mān and Ya‘qūb. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned from Abū Mu‘āwiyah and Wakī‘ from al-A‘mash that Ibrāhīm said, ‘The companions of ‘Abdullāh used to say, “Is a marriage destroyed by three and not destroyed by one or two?”’ Ḥafṣ related from Ḥajjāj from Ṭalḥah from Ibrāhīm that the companions of ‘Abdullāh used to say that a single or double divorce annuls as is the case with three, except for ‘Abīdah who said that a wife remains with the remaining unused divorces. Abū ‘Umar mentioned it. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I take the first view.’ There is a third view which is that if there was consummation in the last one, it is a new divorce and new marriage, and if there was no consummation, the number remains as it was. This was the view of Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī.

provided they think they will remain within Allah’s limits

Ṭāwūs said, ‘If they think that each of them will treat the other well.’ It is said that the limits of Allah refer to what He has made obligatory, so it means when they know that there will be correctness between them in the second marriage. If the husband knows that he is unable to support his wife or pay her dowry or provide for any of her obligatory rights, it is not lawful for him to marry her until he makes that clear to her and knows that he will, in fact, be able to fulfil her rights. It is the same if he has a defect which prevents sexual enjoyment. This is so that he does not deceive the woman regarding himself. Similarly he must not deceive her about his lineage or wealth or work by lying about that. Similarly if the woman knows that she will be unable to carry out the duties owed by her to the husband or has a defect which prevents sexual intercourse such as insanity, leprosy or genital defects, she is not permitted to deceive him and must make that clear to him. This same principle applies to those who sell goods: they must make any faults clear. If one of the couple discovers a defect in their partner, they can reject him or her. If it is the man who has the fault, the woman keeps her complete dower if the marriage is consummated and half the dower if it has not been consummated. If the fault is with the woman, the husband returns her and takes back the dower he has given her. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ married a woman from the Banū Bayāḍah and discovered that she had leprosy. He returned her saying, ‘You deceived me.’

There are varying views from Mālik about a woman who is frigid and refuses sex and whose marriage is ended because of that. Sometimes he says that she keeps all of her dower and sometimes that she only keeps half of it. This is because of the difference in his view about whether the entitlement to the dower is based on acceptance or consummation.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘Our companions disagree about whether the wife has to serve or not. Some say that a man cannot oblige his wife to serve and that is because the contract specifies enjoyment, not service. Do you not see that it is not a contract of hire or slavery? It is a contract of pleasure and what is entailed by the contract is enjoyment and nothing more and so more than that may not be demanded of her. Do you not see the words of Allah Almighty: “But if they obey you do not look for a way to punish them” (4:34)? Others among our companions say that she owes the service of a woman of her standing. If she is noble due to the wealth or lineage of her parents, she must manage the house and direct the servants. If she is middle-class, she must make the bed and the like. If she is less than that, she should attend to the house, cooking and washing. If she is a woman from the Kurds, Daylam and the mountains, she is obliged to do what their women are normally obliged to do. That is because Allah says: “Women possess rights similar to those held over them to be honoured with fairness.” (2:228) The custom of Muslims in their lands, ancient and modern, is as we have mentioned it. Do you not see that the wives of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions used to undertake grinding, bread-making, baking, making beds, serving food and the like? We do not know of any woman who refused to do that. She could not refuse and they used to beat their wives when they fell short in doing that and oblige them to serve. Had that not been an entitlement [at that time], they would not have asked for it.’

These are Allah’s limits which he has made clear to people who know.

The ‘ḥudūd’ (limits) are what He has forbidden. The root of the verb is used for confining and denying good. A man who is maḥdūd is deprived of good. The verb is used for a woman in mourning who is forbidden adornment. A doorkeeper can be called ḥaddād, because he prevents people from entering. The words ‘a people who know’ are used because when someone ignorant is subject to a lot of commands and prohibitions, he will not observe them or abide by them. The one who knows will do so. This is why those who know are addressed and not the ignorant.

231 When you divorce women and they reach the end of their waiting period, then either retain them with correctness and courtesy or release them with correctness and courtesy. Do not retain them by force, thus overstepping the limits. Anyone who does that has wronged himself. Do not make a mockery of Allah’s Signs. Remember Allah’s blessing to you and the Book and Wisdom He has sent down to you to admonish you. Be fearful of Allah and know that Allah has knowledge of all things.

When you divorce women and they reach the end of their waiting period,

The word ‘balagha’ (reach) here means ‘to draw near to’ according to the consensus of scholars, because, if she actually reaches the end, her husband no longer has a choice about keeping her. It is a mutual prohibition in the āyah after it because the idea demands that.

then either retain them with correctness and courtesy

This means the husband must undertake to fulfil his legal obligations towards his wife. That is why a group of scholars said that an aspect of retaining with correctness is that if the husband does not have what is necessary for the maintenance of his wife, he must divorce her. If he does not do so, he is no longer in the right and the divorce can be forced upon him by the judge due to the harm she would suffer by remaining with someone who cannot support her. That was the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, Abū ‘Ubayd, Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān, and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī. It was stated by ‘Umar, ‘Alī and Abū Hurayrah among the Companions, and Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab among the Tābi‘ūn. He said that it is sunnah. Abū Hurayrah related that from the Prophet ﷺ.

Another group say that the couple are not separated in that situation and she must put up with that. Maintenance is made his responsibility by the ruling of a judge. That is the position of ‘Aṭā’ and az-Zuhrī and it is the position which is taken by the Kufans and ath-Thawrī. Their evidence is found in the āyahs: ‘If someone is in difficult circumstances, there should be a deferral until things are easier’ (2:280) and: ‘Marry off those among you who are unmarried.’ (24:32). So Allah recommends that poor people marry and so poverty cannot be a reason for separation. It is, however, recommended along with marriage. Also marriage between a couple is established by consensus and there is no separation except by consensus or an irrefutable sunnah from the Prophet ﷺ. The evidence for the first position is in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī: ‘The woman says, “Either feed me or divorce me.”’ This provides a text in case of dispute. We consider separation due to hardship to constitute a revocable divorce, differing from ash-Shāfi‘ī who thinks it is final. This is because it is a separation after consummation when the number of divorces has not been used up, not in exchange for compensation nor due to harm on the part of the husband. Therefore it is revocable.

or release them with correctness and courtesy.

This means to divorce them as was already mentioned.

Do not retain them by force, thus overstepping the limits.

Mālik related from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dīlī that a man would divorce his wife and then take her back, having no need for her and not intending to keep her, but simply to make the waiting period longer for her and to thereby hurt her more, and so Allah revealed this.

Anyone who does that has wronged himself.

Az-Zajjāj says that ‘wrongs himself’ here means that he exposes himself to punishment by doing what Allah has forbidden. This report agrees with the report which was revealed about abandoning what the people of the Jāhiliyyah used to do in divorce and taking wives back as we mentioned earlier. These two reports tell us that the revelation of these two āyahs was about the same idea of a man keeping a woman and taking her back in order to cause harm to her. This is evident.

Do not make a mockery of Allah’s Signs.

This means ‘Do not mock Allah’s judgments’. They are all serious. If someone mocks them, they are still binding on him. Abu-d-Dardā’ said that in the time of Jāhiliyyah a man used to pronounce a divorce by saying, ‘You are divorced and I am joking,’ as he would do in marriage and emancipation. So Allah revealed this āyah and the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If anyone divorces, emancipates, marries or gives in marriage and then says, “I was only joking,” what he said is taken seriously.’ Ma‘mar related it from ‘Īsā from ‘Amr from al-Ḥasan from Abu-d-Dardā’. We find in the Muwaṭṭā’ that a man said to Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘I divorced my wife a hundred times. What do you think?’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘She was divorced from you by three, and you made a mockery of Allah’s Signs in the ninety-seven.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from Ismā‘īl ibn Umayyah al-Qurashī that ‘Alī said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ heard a man do a final divorce and he became angry and said, “Do you make a mockery of Allah’s Signs or the dīn of Allah and make a game of final divorce? We obliged that it is three and she is not lawful to you until she marries another husband.”’ This Ismā‘īl ibn Umayyah is Kufan and weak in ḥadīth.

It is related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘A man used to divorce his wife and say, “By Allah, I will neither let you inherit nor will I let you go.”’ “How is that?” she asked. He said, “When you are about to finish your ‘iddah, I will take you back.”’ So the āyah was revealed. Our scholars say that all such expressions are included in what is said in this āyah because it is said of someone who mocks the Signs of Allah as well as someone who rejects them and someone who discards them and acts on another basis. Thus all are included in this āyah. The Signs of Allah are His proofs, commands and prohibitions.

There is no disagreement between scholars that, if someone divorces in jest, the divorce is binding but they disagree about other matters as will be dealt with in Sūrat at-Tawbah, Allah willing. Abū Dāwud related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Three matters are serious and jests about them are taken seriously: marriage, divorce and taking back in marriage.’ It is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Abu-d-Dardā’: ‘There is no jest in three matters and someone who plays with them is serious: marriage, divorce and emancipation.’ It is said that it means: ‘Do not abandon Allah’s commands so that you fall short and are playing.’ This āyah includes verbally asking for forgiveness while persisting in the deed. That is the case with everything of this sort, so know that.

Remember Allah’s blessing to you and the Book and Wisdom He has sent down to you to admonish you.

The blessing is Islam and Allah making His judgments clear. ‘Wisdom’ refers to the Sunnah which makes things clear on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in respect of things about which there is no text in the Qur’an. He admonishes you to frighten you.

232 When you divorce women and they reach the end of their waiting period, do not prevent them from marrying their first husbands if they have mutually agreed to it with correctness and courtesy. This is an admonition for those of you who believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and purer for you. Allah knows and you do not know.

When you divorce women and they reach the end of their waiting period, do not prevent them from marrying their first husbands

Ma‘qil ibn Yasār related that his sister was married to Abu-l-Baddāḥ and he divorced her and left her until after the end of her waiting period and then regretted it and proposed and she agreed to remarry him. Her brother refused to give her in marriage. He said, ‘It will be unlawful for us to see one another if you marry him,’ and the āyah was revealed. Muqātil said that the Prophet ﷺ summoned Ma‘qil and said, ‘If you are a believer, you will not prevent your sister from remarrying Abu-l-Baddāḥ.’ He said, ‘I believe in Allah and give her in marriage to him.’ Al-Bukhārī related from al-Ḥasan that the sister of Ma‘qil ibn Yasār was divorced by her husband. Her ‘iddah ended and he proposed to her. Ma‘qil refused him and the āyah was revealed. Ad-Dāraquṭnī also transmitted from al-Ḥasan that Ma‘qil ibn Yasār told him, ‘I had a sister and proposals were made to me and I used to refuse her to people. A cousin of mine came and proposed and I married her to him. They were together for as long as Allah wished and he divorced her with a revocable divorce and left her until her ‘iddah had ended. Then he proposed together with other suitors. I said, “I kept her from people and married her to you and then you divorced her with a revocable divorce and left her until her ‘iddah had ended. Now you propose to me and come to me along with other suitors! I will never marry her to you!” So Allah revealed: “When you divorce women and they are near the end of their ‘iddah, do not prevent them from marrying their first husbands.” So I expiated my oath.’ The variant of al-Bukhārī has: ‘Ma‘qil was angry out of pride and said, “He kept away from her when he could keep her and now he proposes to her again!” Allah revealed the āyah and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ summoned him and recited it to him and so he set aside his anger and obeyed Allah’s command.’ He was Ma‘qil ibn Sinān. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Ash-Shāfi‘ī related it in his books from Ma‘qil ibn Yasār or ibn Sinān.’ Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī said that it is Ma‘qil ibn Sinān.

If this is true it indicates that it is not permitted for any woman to marry without a walī because the sister of Ma‘qil had clearly previously been married. If the matter had been left to her and not to her guardian, she would have married by herself and would have had no need of Ma‘qil. So the words ‘do not prevent’ are addressed to guardians. They are commanded to give the women concerned in marriage with their consent. It is also said that it is addressed to the husbands, because taking the woman back to cause her harm keeps her from marrying another and makes her waiting period longer. The people of Abū Ḥanīfah use it as evidence that a woman can give herself in marriage. They said that that is because Allah Almighty ascribes that to her as He says: ‘She is not lawful to him after that until she has married another husband.’ (2:230) He did not mention a walī. This has already been discussed. The first position is sounder since we mentioned the reason for the revelation. Allah knows best.

The word ‘reach’ in this instance really means that the ‘iddah has actually ended because initiating marriage is only conceivable after the end of the ‘iddah. The verb for “prevent” is ‘aḍala, meaning to restrain them. Al-Khalīl said that a mu‘ḍil is a hen which cannot lay eggs. It is said that ‘aḍl is to constrict and prevent, from the meaning of confinement. The verb is used for being prevented from doing something. The verb a‘ḍala is used for a matter when one cannot solve it. Al-Azharī said, ‘The root of ‘aḍl comes from the verb used for a she-camel when the foetus is stuck and hard to get out, just as is the case with a chicken which cannot lay its eggs.

That is better and purer for you.

If you do that you will be righteous.

233 Mothers should nurse their children for two full years – those who wish to complete the full term of nursing. It is the duty of the fathers to feed and clothe them with correctness and courtesy – no self is charged with more than it can bear. No mother should be put under pressure in respect of her child nor any father in respect of his child. The same duty is incumbent on the heir. If the couple both wish weaning to take place after mutual agreement and consultation, there is nothing wrong in their doing that. If you wish to find wet-nurses for your children, there is nothing wrong in your doing that provided you hand over to them what you have agreed to give with correctness and courtesy. Be fearful of Allah and know that Allah sees what you do.

Mothers should nurse their children for two full years – those who wish to complete the full term of nursing.

After Allah has spoken of marriage and divorce He then speaks about children, since a couple may have children when they separate. So the āyah is about divorced women who have children by their ex-husbands. As-Suddī, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and others said that, meaning that they are more entitled to nurse their children than other women because they will be more compassionate towards them and it is harmful to both mother and child to remove a small child from her. This also indicates that, even if the child is weaned, the mother is still more entitled to custody because of her compassion for it. She remains more entitled unless she remarries as will be mentioned.

This renders problematic the words: ‘It is the duty of the fathers to feed and clothe them’, because, if it is not a revocable divorce, divorced women are not entitled to clothing. They are entitled to a wage. Noble character, however, would ensure that the wage was adequate for both her food and her clothing. It is said that the āyah is general to both divorced women who have children and to wives. The most evident position is that it is about wives while the marriage remains, because they are entitled to maintenance and clothing, whether they nurse or not. Maintenance and clothing are according to the man’s ability. If she is busy with nursing and he lacks ability, it might be imagined that maintenance is cancelled. To remove that idea, the Almighty says: ‘It is the duty of fathers – referring to the husband – to feed and clothe them’ while they are nursing because, in doing it, they are occupied with the interests of the husband. So if she were to travel for what the husband needs with his permission, maintenance is not cancelled.

Nursing is mandatory for some and recommended for some. It is said that it is reporting about what is prescribed. People disagree about whether nursing is a right for or against the mother. The expression can mean either because, taken literally, it means that it is obligatory for mothers to nurse their children just as fathers are obliged to maintain them. But that is only while she is married and also only when custom demands it. If she is noble and wealthy, the custom is for her not to nurse. That is like a stipulation. If the child will not, however, accept another woman, then nursing becomes mandatory for her. This is also the case if no one else is available. If the father dies and the child has no property, the position of Mālik in the Mudawwanah is that the mother is still obliged to nurse without being paid a wage. Ibn al-Jallāb said that the wage should be paid from the Treasury. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said that that only applies when the father is a Muslim who is poor.

When a woman has been trebly divorced, she does not have to nurse and only does so if she wishes to. If she does so, she is entitled to a suitable wage if the husband is wealthy. If he does not have wealth, he cannot oblige her to nurse unless she is the only one the child will accept. If she is obliged to nurse and some excuse arises which prevents her from doing so, nursing then becomes the father’s responsibility. It is related from Mālik that if he is poor and the child has no property the mother must nurse. If she has no milk and has wealth, the child is nursed at her expense. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that paying for nursing is only mandatory for the father or grandfather. This will be further discussed later.

The words ‘two full years’ denote a measure of time that revolves in a full cycle. The word for ‘year,’ ḥawl, comes from the verb ḥāla, which means ‘to be transferred, so a ‘year’ is transferred from one moment to another. It is also said that it is called that because it is normal period for the transformation of things. The word ‘full’ is added because the word ‘year’ by itself can be used for less than a complete year, so ‘two years’ can actually be a year and part of another year. Allah says: ‘those who hurry on in two days’ (2:203) and that is actually in a day and part of another day. Allah’s words: ‘those who wish to complete the full term of nursing’ indicates that the two full years is not a definitive term. Weaning can take place before the two years are up. A limit is set merely to eliminate any dispute between the couple about the length of nursing. The father does not have to pay for more than two years and, if the father wants the child to be weaned before two years and the mother does not consent, he cannot enforce that. An increase or decrease in the two years can be made provided that the child is not harmed and that the parents agree.

Mālik and those who follow him and another group of scholars deduce from this āyah that the nursing which creates a milk relationship only occurs within this first two year period and ends when those two years end, so that any nursing after that is not considered. He states that in the Muwaṭṭā’. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam related it from him. It is the position of Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās. It is related from Ibn Mas‘ūd and was also stated by az-Zuhrī, Qatādah, ash-Sha‘bī, Sufyān ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad and Abū Thawr. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam related from him that it is two years and a few days more. ‘Abd al-Malik said that it is like a month or so more. Ibn al-Qāsim related that saying, ‘Nursing is two years, and two months after the two years.’ Al-Walīd ibn Muslim related that he said, ‘A month or two or three after the two years is part of the two years. What is after that is of no consequence.’ It is related that an-Nu‘mān said, ‘Nursing up to six months after the two years is still considered nursing. The first view is the sound one since Allah says: “Mothers should nurse their children for two full years.” This indicates that no ruling is attached to it when the child is nursed after the two years.’ Sufyān related from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Suckling is only in the first two years.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that only al-Haytham ibn Jamīl has it from Ibn ‘Uyaynah. He is trustworthy with good memory.

This report, the āyah and the meaning make it clear that an adult cannot be suckled. It has no standing. The statement that they can was related from ‘Ā’ishah. Among scholars, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said that. It is related that Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī thought that an adult could receive suckling, and then it is related that he retracted that. This will be explained in Sūrat an-Nisā’.

A group of commentators say that the period of suckling is two years for each child. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that that is when the child is in the womb for six months. If it remains for seven months, the nursing period is twenty-three months. If it is nine months, the nursing is twenty-one months going by Allah’s words: ‘His bearing and weaning is thirty months.’ (46:15) So the period of pregnancy and the period of nursing are interconnected and one reduces the length of the other.

It is the duty of the fathers to feed and clothe them with correctness and courtesy – no self is charged with more than it can bear.

‘Rizq’ in this ruling is adequate food. This is evidence for the obligation of the father to maintain the child since it is weak. The feeding referred to is the nourishment which reaches the child by means of the mother through nursing. Scholars agree that a man must support all his children who have no money. When Hind bint ‘Utbah told the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Abū Sufyān is miserly and does not give me adequate maintenance and what is enough for my son. If l take from his property without his knowledge, do I do anything wrong?’ he told her, ‘Take what is adequate for you and your child in a correct manner.’ ‘Kiswah’ is clothing. ‘Ma‘rūf’ (correctness) means what is customary in the usage of the Sharī‘ah without excess or negligence. Then Allah made it clear that a man’s duty of maintenance is according to his wealth and position, and that no specific amount is stipulated, by His words: ‘no self is charged with more than it can bear.’ This will be clarified later. It is said that it means that a woman should not made to endure stinting in her wage and a husband should not be forced to be extravagant. Rather the basic aim should be taken into account.

Mālik thought that this āyah indicates that a mother should have custody of her sons until puberty and of her daughters until marriage. That is her right, and Abū Ḥanīfah stated the same. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that when the child is eight years old, which is the age of discrimination, it is given a choice between his parents. At that stage its interest and desire should be stimulated to learn the Qur’an, manners and the duties of worship. That is the same for both boys and girls.

An-Nasā’ī and others reported from Abū Hurayrah that a woman came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘My husband wants to take my son.’ The Prophet ﷺ said to him, ‘This is your father and this is your mother: choose whichever of them you want,’ and he took his mother’s hand. We find in Abū Dāwud that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘A woman went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while I was sitting with him and she said, “Messenger of Allah, my husband wants to take my son. He brings me water from the well of Abū ‘Inabah and helps me.” The Prophet ﷺ said, “Draw lots for him.” Her husband exclaimed, “Who contends with me for my son?” The Prophet ﷺ said, “This is your father and this is your mother: choose whichever of them you want,” and he took his mother’s hand and went with her.’ Our evidence is what Abū Dāwud related, that al-Awzā‘ī related from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr that a woman came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, my womb was a vessel for this son of mine, my breasts a source of drink for him, and my lap a protection for him. His father has divorced me and wants to take him away from me.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘You are more entitled to him as long as you do not marry.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The consensus of eminent scholars is that when a couple separate and have a child, the mother is more entitled to it as long as she does not remarry.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I do not know of any disagreement among scholars that a divorced woman, as long as she does not marry again, is more entitled to her child than the father, while he is still young and lacking discrimination; this is when he is safe with her and sufficiently supported and no dissoluteness or ostentation is confirmed about her.’

They disagree about the child being given a choice when he understands the situation and who is most entitled to look after the child then. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is confirmed that the Prophet ﷺ judged that the daughter of Ḥamzah should go to her maternal aunt. The Prophet did not give a choice to Ḥamzah’s daughter.’ Abū Dāwud reports that when Zayd ibn Ḥārithah went to Makkah and brought Ḥamzah’s daughter, Ja‘far said, ‘I am more entitled to her. She is my uncle’s daughter and her maternal aunt is married to me, and that maternal aunt is also a mother.’ ‘Alī said, ‘I am more entitled to care for her. She is my uncle’s daughter and I am married to the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and she is more entitled to her.’ Zayd said, ‘I am more entitled to her. I went and travelled to get her and brought her!’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I judge the girl to go to Ja‘far so she can be with her maternal aunt. The maternal aunt is in the position of the mother.’

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The esteemed people of knowledge agree that a mother does not have the right to the child when she remarries.’ That is what he states in Kitāb al-Ashrāf. Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Wahhāb mentioned in his commentary on the Risālah from al-Ḥasan that her right to custody is not cancelled simply by marriage. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, an-Nu‘mān and Abū Thawr agree that the mother’s mother is most entitled to the custody of the child [after the mother]. They disagree about when she has no mother but the father’s mother is available. Mālik said, ‘The father’s mother is more entitled when the child has no maternal aunt.’ Ibn al-Qāsim said that Mālik said, ‘I have heard that the maternal aunt is more entitled to custody than the father’s mother.’ In the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī and an-Nu‘mān the father’s mother is more entitled than the maternal aunt. It is said that the father is more entitled to his son than the father’s mother. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I believe that this is the case when he does not have another wife.’

Then the sister is next after the father and then the paternal aunt. This is when each of those can be trusted with the child and it is in a state of security and adequacy with them. When that is not the case, there is no right to custody. In awarding custody one investigates who will protect the child, be good to him in preserving him and teaching him good. This is the position of those who say that custody is the right of the child. That is related from Mālik and a group of his people also said that. They also do not think that custody should be granted to a reprobate woman or one who is too weak to look after the child’s right due to illness or chronic illness.

Ibn Ḥabīb mentioned from Muṭarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn from Mālik that custody goes first to the mother, then the mother’s mother, then the maternal aunt, then the father’s mother, then the child’s sister, then the child’s paternal aunt, then the daughter of the child’s brother, then the father. The father’s mother is more entitled than the sister. The sister is more entitled than the paternal aunt. The paternal aunt is more entitled than those who come after her. The most entitled of men are the guardians. There is no right to custody for an aunt’s daughter or the daughters of the child’s sister.

When it is not feared that the guardian may cause the death of the child or cause corruption to him, he remains his guardian until he reaches puberty. It is also said that it only lasts until the child looses his milk-teeth. In the case of a girl, it is until she marries. This is the case unless the father wants to travel and resettle somewhere else. In that case, he is more entitled to the child than the mother and others if they do not wish to move. If he wants to leave for the sake of trading, he does not have the right to the child’s custody. The same is true of the relatives of the child, to whom he has been allotted, when they move with the intention of resettling. The mother cannot move her child from the place where the father resides except for a short distance, such that it would not entail shortening the prayer. When the father moves from the mother’s land and stipulates that he will not leave his child with her unless she is responsible for his maintenance and support for a number of known years and she takes that on, it is binding on her. If she dies, however, her heirs are not pursued for that maintenance and support from her estate. It is also said, however, that it does constitute a debt that should be taken from her estate. The first view is sounder, Allah willing. That is also the case if the father dies, or if he made an agreement with her for the support of pregnancy and nursing: it is cancelled and she is not pursued for any of that.

According to Mālik, if the mother remarries, the child is not removed from her until the marriage is consummated. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘When she marries, her right is severed.’ If her husband then divorces her, according to what we think is the best known position of Mālik in his school, custody does not then revert to her. Qāḍī Ismā‘īl and Ibn Khuwayzimandād mentioned that Mālik’s position about that varied. Sometimes he said that the child is returned to her and sometimes he said that it is not. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘If the mother leaves the land where her child is and then returns to it, she is more entitled to her child according to ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion. That is also the case if she marries and then is divorced or widowed: her right to the child is restored.’ That is like the position of Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. If she is divorced or widowed, she can take the child back since the pretext for removing it no longer exists.

When a mother forgoes the right to custody and she is not married to another man and then later wants to take the child back, she can only do so if she had a legitimate excuse for what she did. If she left it out of dislike for the child, then she cannot take it back.

They disagree about what happens to a couple who are divorced when the wife is a dhimmī. One group say that there is no difference between a dhimmī and Muslim mother: they are both entitled to their child. This is the position of Abū Thawr, the People of Opinion, and Ibn al-Qāsim, the follower of Mālik. Ibn al-Mundhir says that there is a marfū‘ ḥadīth which states this, although there is some dispute about its isnād. The other position is that the child remains with the Muslim parent. This is the position of Mālik, Sawwār, and Ibn al-Qāsim, and is reported from ash-Shāfi‘ī. There is the same disagreement when one of the couple is free and the other a slave. One group said that the free parent is more entitled to custody. This is the view of ‘Aṭā’, ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, and People of Opinion. Mālik said, ‘If the father is free, the child is free, and the mother is a slave, then the mother is more entitled to custody unless she is sold and moves. Then the father is more entitled.

No mother should be put under pressure in respect of her child nor any father in respect of his child.

The mother should not refuse to nurse her child in order to harm the father or ask for more than an appropriate wage and it is not lawful for the father to refuse to let the mother nurse when she wants to. This is the position of the majority of commentators. Nāfi‘, ‘Āṣim, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recited ‘tuḍārra’ (‘put under pressure’) in the jussive because it is a firm prohibition. It means: ‘Do not remove the child from her if she is content to nurse and the child is fond of her.’ Abū ‘Amr, Ibn Kathīr, Abān ibn ‘Āṣim and a group recite ‘taḍārru’ added to His words, ‘no self is charged’. So it is a report by which the command is meant. Yūnus related that al-Ḥasan said, ‘She should not harm her husband by saying, “I will not nurse him,” and he should not harm her by removing the child from her if she says that she will nurse him.’

The same duty is incumbent on the heir.

There is disagreement about the interpretation of this phrase. Qatādah, as-Suddī, al-Ḥasan, and ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said that the heir referred to is the heir of the child if he dies. Some said that it is only the male heirs who must pay the nurse, as the father of the child would have that duty if he were alive. Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’ said that. Qatādah and others said that the heirs of the child can be both men and women and they must have it nursed paying in proportion with their shares of inheritance. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that. Qāḍī Abū Isḥāq Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq said in his book, Meanings of the Qur’an, ‘Abū Ḥanīfah said that the maintenance and nursing of the child is incumbent on every relative. For instance, in the case of the young son of a sister who is needy and the young son of an uncle when he is his heir: maintenance is incumbent on the maternal uncle if his sister’s son becomes fatherless even though he does not inherit from him. The responsibility is removed from the son of an uncle if there is another son of an uncle who is an heir.’ Abū Isḥāq said that those who say this are taking a position which is not in the Book of Allah and we do not know of anyone who says it.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī reported that Abū Ḥanīfah and his adherents said that the heir who must pay for the nurse is the child’s heir who is a close relative. As for nephews and those who are not close relatives, they are free of that responsibility. It is said that what is meant is that the paternal relatives of the father must maintain and clothe the child. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘If the child’s father dies and the child has property, his nursing is paid for from his own property. If he has no property, it is taken from the paternal relatives. If they have no money, then the mother is compelled to nurse him.’ Qabīṣah ibn Dhu’ayb, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and Bashīr ibn Naṣr, the Qāḍī of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, said, ‘The “heir” means the child himself. It means that he must pay for nursing from his own property since he was his father’s heir.’

Sufyān said, ‘The heir here is the remaining parent of the child after the death of one of them. If the father dies, then the mother must care for the child if he has no property. The paternal kin share with her in payment for nursing the child according to their share of the estate. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If an orphan is poor and has no money, the ruler must support him from the Treasury. If the ruler does not do it, then the Muslims must do it, starting with those specified in order. The mother is the first specified and it is obliged for her to nurse him and sustain him. She does not resort to him or anyone else.’

Nursing is mandatory and maintenance is recommended. Husbands are obliged to maintain the women who nurse their children. If the husband is unable to pay what is due owing to death or hardship, the duty is not cancelled for the mothers. A waiting period is mandatory for them, as is maintenance and lodging by their husbands. If maintenance is impossible, their waiting period is not thereby cancelled. In al-Asadiyyah ‘Abd ar-Rahmān ibn al-Qāsim reported that Mālik ibn Anas said, ‘A man is not obliged to maintain a sister or a relative.’ He said that Allah’s words: ‘The same duty is incumbent on the heir’ are abrogated. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This is what Mālik said. Neither he nor ‘Abd ar-Rahmān ibn al-Qāsim explained what abrogated it. I do not know of any of their people who made that clear. Allah knows best, but it seems that he believes that what abrogates it is that at first Allah made it obligatory for the widow to receive maintenance for a year and lodging from the property of the deceased and then that was abrogated and removed and it was also abrogated for the heir.’ According to this, the child is obliged to pay for his upkeep from his property and not his heir.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Ibn al-Qāsim said that Mālik said that the instruction: “the same duty is incumbent on the heir”, is abrogated. These are words which the hearts of the heedless abhor and which bewilder the minds of the isolated. But the business is close! The early fuqahā’ and commentators used to refer to specification (takhṣīṣ) as abrogation because it removes part of what was entailed by the generality of the āyah. They used that language and what they meant became unclear to later people. The verification of that is that Allah’s words: “The same duty is incumbent on the heir”, indicate what was before. Some people refer it to all of the obligation of maintenance and prohibition of harm, including Abū Ḥanīfah among the fuqahā’ and Qatādah and al-Ḥasan among the Salaf, deriving it from ‘Umar.

One group of scholars said that the āyah does not refer to all of that, but means that the heir is forbidden to harm the mother by withholding what is due from the father. This is the basic principle. Whoever claims that that it refers to all must provide the proof. ‘This is the basic principle’ means to refer the pronoun to closest person mentioned. That is sound. If it had meant all, which is nursing, spending and lack of harm, Allah would have said, ‘The same duties – using the plural – are incumbent…’. This indicates that it is added to the prohibition to harm. All commentators interpret in that way according to what is related from Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. What is meant by it is that mother may not harm her child by not nursing him when the father pays her a suitable wage, and the father may not harm the mother when she is paid to nurse him for an appropriate wage, because the mother is kinder and gentler towards the child and her milk is better for him than the milk of other women.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Mālik and all his adherents, ash-Sha‘bī, az-Zuhrī, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and all scholars, say that what is meant by “the same duty” is that she should not be harmed. He is not obliged to give anything in respect of food and clothing.’ Ibn al-Qāsim related from Mālik that the āyah includes the fact that the heir owes food and clothing, but then the consensus of the community is that this was abrogated by the heir not being put under pressure. The disagreement is about whether or not he owes food and clothing. Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘mar recited ‘heirs’ in the plural. That would demand the generality of the āyah. They took as evidence the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Allah does not accept ṣadaqah when there are relatives in need.’ The answer to them is that ‘relatives’ is general and includes every relative, maḥram or not. There is no doubt that giving ṣadaqah to relatives is better because the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Give it to your relatives.’ The ḥadīth is taken in that manner and there is no proof in it for what they claim. Allah knows best.

An-Naḥḥās said that the opinion of those who say that ‘the same duty is incumbent on the heir’ means not to harm is a good opinion because people’s property is protected and so none of it taken except by decisive evidence. As for the position of those who say that it refers to the heirs of the father, their argument is that maintenance is the responsibility of the father and so his heirs are more suitable to provide it than the heirs of the son. The argument of those who say that it is the responsibility of the son’s heirs is that as they inherit from him, so they should support him.

An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Muḥammad ibn Jarīr preferred the position of those who say that the heir here is the son. It is an odd position. Deduction by it is sound and the argument based on it is evident because he is more entitled to his own property. With the exception of the odd aberrant position, fuqahā’ agree that if a man has a child who is a minor and the child has property and the father is in straitened circumstances, neither maintenance nor nursing are obliged from the father but rather they are taken from the child’s property. If it is said that Allah says: “It is the duty of the fathers to feed and clothe them with correctness and courtesy,” then it is answered that it is a feminine pronoun. Nonetheless, the consensus defines and explains the āyah and no Muslim can depart from it. As for those who say that it is owed by the remaining parent, their argument is that it is not permitted for a mother to let her child perish, given that the one who supported her and the child has died.’

Al-Bukhārī has a chapter that refutes that entitled ‘“The same duty is incumbent on the heir.” Does a woman owe any support?’ He provides the ḥadīths about Umm Salamah and Hind. Umm Salamah had sons by Abū Salamah who had no property. She asked the Prophet ﷺ who told her that she would have a reward for that. This ḥadīth indicated that she was not obliged to spend on her sons. If she had been obliged to do so, then she would not have said to the Prophet ﷺ, ‘I would not leave them.’ In the ḥadīth of Hind, the Prophet ﷺ allowed her to take the maintenance for her and her son from the father’s property and he did not oblige her to spend from herself as he obliged it for the father. Al-Bukhārī deduced from this that since mothers are not obliged to support their children while their father is alive, neither are they obliged to support them after their father’s death.

As for the view of those who say that the spending and clothing is the duty of every maḥram relative, their argument is that a man must spend on all maḥram relatives if they are poor. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This view is countered by the fact that it is not taken from the Book of Allah, consensus, or sound Sunnah. It is only known from what we mentioned. The Qur’an, however, says: “The same duty is incumbent on the heir,” so the heir owes maintenance and clothing. They differ from that and said, “If he leaves a maternal uncle and a son of a paternal uncle, then maintenance is owed by his uncle and the cousin owes nothing.” This differs from the text of the Qur’an because the maternal uncle does not inherit with the son of a paternal uncle according to one view, and he does not inherit alone according to the view of most scholars. Most scholars take a different view than the one they hold about owing maintenance to every relative.’

If the couple both wish weaning to take place

The dual pronoun refers to the parents. Weaning is the child leaving nourishment by the mother’s milk for other foods. The root meaning of the noun fiṣāl (weaning) means ‘separation’. It is called weaning because the child is separated from the mother’s breast. This āyah refers to it happening before the two years are up. In that case ‘there is nothing wrong in’ weaning him. That is because when Allah set two years as the period of nursing, He made it clear that no one can dispute the time of weaning unless the parents agree on less than that amount of time, as long as that does not harm the child. That is permitted based on this clarification. Qatādah said, ‘Nursing was mandatory for the two years and weaning before that time was forbidden, and then it was lightened and it was allowed to nurse less than two years when Allah said: “If the couple both wish weaning to that place.”’ This indicates that Allah has allowed ijtihād in the rulings on that, when the parents consult one another, about the course which will be in the best interests of the child. That is based on their predominant opinions, not on reality and certainty. Tashāwur is joint consultation. Mashūrah and mushāwarah mean the same. The verb shāra is used for extracting honey and it is also used for making a horse run before buying it. Shawār are household utensils because they are evident to someone who looks. Shārah is a man’s shape and ishārah is bring out something from inside yourself and reveal it.

If you wish to find wet-nurses for your children,

This means other than the mother. Az-Zajjāj said that. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘In Arabic it implies looking for other women to nurse your children.’ This is evidence for hiring a wet-nurse when the parents agree to that. ‘Ikrimah said that the words: ‘No mother should be put under pressure’, refer to getting a wet-nurse. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that the basic position is that every mother is obliged to nurse her child as Allah mentions and their husbands are obliged to give them maintenance and clothing while they are married. If nursing had been a requirement of the father, Allah would have mentioned it with the requirements of maintenance and clothing. Mālik, however, excepted noble women and said that they are not obliged to nurse. He removed them from the general category by the legal principle of custom. This is a principle which only Mālik understands. This splendid principle is that the matter existed in the Jāhiliyyah, regarding those of noble birth, and then Islam came and did not alter it. So those of wealth and high birth continued to free the mothers among them for enjoyment by giving suckling infants to wet-nurses for a period of time. He stated that position and it continues until now and so it is part of the Sharī‘ah.

provided you hand over to them what you have agreed to give

This means that the father is responsible for paying the wages of the wet-nurse. Sufyān said that. Mujāhid said that it means to hand over the wages to the mothers for their nursing until the time they wish to find a wet-nurse. Six of the seven readings has ‘ātaykum’, meaning ‘give’ and Ibn Kathīr has ‘ataykum’ meaning ‘bring and do’. Qatādah and az-Zuhrī said that it means: ‘you hand over what you have done in desiring to seek a wet-nurse’, which means that both parents submit and are satisfied. That is based on their agreement, good intention and seeking what is correct regarding the matter. According to this possibility, ‘hand over’ is addressed to men and women. According to the first two views, it is only addressed to men. Abū ‘Alī said that it means ‘when you hand over what you have given of money or gift and there is some elision. According to this interpretation, it refers to men because they are the one who pay the wages of the wet-nurses.’ Abū ‘Alī also said that it is possible that ‘mā’ acts as a verbal noun and has the same meaning as the first view.

234 Those of you who die leaving wives behind: they should wait by themselves for four months and ten nights. When their waiting period comes to an end, you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves with correctness and courtesy. Allah is aware of what you do.

Those of you who die leaving wives behind: they should wait by themselves for four months and ten nights.

After Allah has mentioned the waiting period of divorce followed by nursing, He speaks about the waiting period for widowhood as well so that it is not assumed that the waiting period for widows is the same as the waiting period for divorce. The words ‘those of you’ refer to husbands and ‘they’ to widows. Az-Zajjāj said that and an-Naḥḥās also mentioned that. ‘Abū ‘Alī al-Fārisī said, ‘It implies: “those of you who die and leave wives: they should wait after them.”’ The expression is extremely succinct. Al-Mahdawī said that Sībuwayh said that it means: ‘In what is recited to you: those of you who die…’

This āyah is about the waiting period of widows. Its literal meaning is general while its actual meaning is specific. Al-Mahdawī related from one scholar that the āyah concerned pregnant women and that it was abrogated by: ‘The time for those who are pregnant is when they give birth.’ (65:4) Most scholars say that this āyah abrogates: ‘Those of you who die leaving wives behind should make a bequest to their wives...’ (2:240) because, in the beginning of Islam, when a man died and left a pregnant wife, he would make a bequest for her of maintenance for a year and provide lodging for her until she left and remarried. Then this was abrogated by four months and ten days and a share of inheritance. Other people have said that there is no abrogation in this and that it constitutes a reduction from the original year in the same way that the travelling prayer was reduced from four to two rak‘ahs. This is not abrogation.

This view is a clear error because the ruling was a waiting period for a year provided the widow did not go out. If she went out, she was not prevented from doing so but the maintenance would thereby be brought to an end. Then this was removed and a waiting period of four months and ten days was imposed. This is an abrogation, and it has nothing to do with the case of the travelling prayer. In any case, ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The prayer was prescribed as two rak‘ahs each, and then the resident prayer was increased and the travel prayer remained the same.’ That will be dealt with in due course.

The waiting period of a pregnant widow lasts until she gives birth according to the majority of scholars. It is related from ‘Alī and Ibn ‘Abbās that the end of the waiting period is whichever of the two terms is longer. Among our scholars Saḥnūn chose this view. It is also related that Ibn ‘Abbās retracted his statement. Their reasoning is that they prefer to combine both āyahs (2:234 and 65:4) and maintain acting on them by taking the longer term. If her ‘iddah ends by giving birth, then she has not acted on the āyah containing the waiting period of the widow. According to the people of fundamentals, joining them is better than giving preference to one of them. This view would be good were it not for the fact that it is overturned by the ḥadīth of Subay‘ah al-Aslamiyyah. She gave birth some days after the death of her husband and she mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he told her to marry. It is transmitted in the Ṣaḥīḥ. So the ḥadīth makes it clear that this ruling applies both to widows and divorced women when they are pregnant, and the waiting period of a widow is specifically for one who is not pregnant. This is reinforced by the view of Ibn Mas‘ūd: ‘The relationship between the two is that the short “Āyah of Women” was revealed after the āyah dealing with the waiting period of widows.’

Our scholars say that the apparent meaning of the words is that abrogation has taken place. That is not what is meant, and Allah knows best. What is actually meant is that it is specific to her. Certain circumstances have removed her from the ruling. The incident involving Subay‘ah took place after the revelation of the āyah about the waiting period of widowhood because it occurred after the Farewell Hajj. Her husband was Sa‘d ibn Khawlah, one of the Banū ‘Āmir ibn Lu’ayy, who had been present at the Battle of Badr. He died in Makkah while she was pregnant. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ told her that he had died in Makkah, and she gave birth after about half a month. Al-Bukhārī said that it was forty days. Muslim related from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Arqam that Subay‘ah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about that and he gave her a fatwā that she was lawful for remarriage when she gave birth and told her that she could marry if that seemed proper for her.

Ibn Shihāb said, ‘I do not think that there is anything wrong in her marrying after she gives birth, even if she is still bleeding, but her husband should not approach her until she is pure.’ This is the position of the majority of scholars and imams of the fuqahā’. Al-Ḥasan, ash-Sha‘bī, an-Nakha‘ī and Ḥammād said that a woman should not marry in the period of lochia. They had two stipulations: giving birth and purity after the bleeding of lochia. The ḥadīth provides the argument against them. They have no argument in his words ﷺ, ‘When she finished her lochia, she beautified herself for suitors’, as we find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Abū Dāwud, because although the root of the word ‘finished’ means to be pure of the blood of lochia, according to what al-Khalīl says, it is possible that what is meant here is that she is finished with the pains of lochia. If we accept that it means what al-Khalīl said, there is no argument in it. The proof lies in what the Prophet ﷺ said to Subay‘ah: ‘You are lawful when you give birth.’ So she becomes lawful when she gives birth. He ﷺ did not say that it is at the end of bleeding or when she has purified herself. What is sound then is what the majority stated.

There is no disagreement that the end of the waiting period of every pregnant divorced woman ends when she gives birth, whether that was a revocable divorce or not, and whether she is free, a slave, a mudabbarah or mukātabah. There is some disagreement about the end of the waiting period of a pregnant widow, as we have stated. All of them agree, without any disagreement, that if a man dies leaving a pregnant widow, even after the period of four months and ten days she is still not lawful until she has given birth. Therefore it is known that what is meant is giving birth.

The word ‘wait’ here means to refrain from remarrying and leaving the marital home. That means not leaving it at night. Allah did not mention the residence of widows in His Book as He did that of divorced woman when He says: ‘let them live…’ (65:6). There is nothing in the term ‘iddah that indicates mourning. He says, ‘wait’ and the Sunnah clarifies that and there are many ḥadīths from the Prophet ﷺ indicating that the waiting period of widowhood is a period of mourning, which should be marked by not wearing jewelry, beautiful dyed garments, perfume and the like. This is the statement of the majority of scholars. Al-Ḥasan said that it has nothing to do with mourning and it is only about not marrying, and so a widow is free to adorn herself and use perfume. This is weak because it is contrary to the Sunnah as we will make clear.

It is confirmed that the Prophet ﷺ said to Furay‘ah bint Mālik when she was widowed, ‘Remain in your house until the term is reached.’ She said, ‘My waiting period was for four months and ten days.’ This is a confirmed ḥadīth transmitted by Mālik from Sa‘īd ibn Isḥāq ibn Ka‘b ibn ‘Ujrah. It was related from him by Mālik, ath-Thawrī, Wuhayb ibn Khālid, Ḥammād ibn Zayd, ‘Īsā ibn Yūnus and a great number of others. Ibn ‘Uyaynah, al-Qaṭṭān and Shu‘bah. Mālik related it from Ibn Sha‘bān. That is enough for you! Al-Bājī said that no one else related it from him. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān accepted it. Abū ‘Umar says that it contains the judgment for the widow spending the waiting period in her house. It is a famous ḥadīth among scholars of the Hijaz and Iraq who maintain the widow should spend the waiting-period in her house and not leave. It is the position of a group of the fuqahā’ of the cities in the Hijaz, Syria, Iraq and Egypt.

Dāwud, however, said that a widow may spend the waiting period wherever she wishes because, in the Qur’an, lodging is only mentioned in the case of divorced women. He argues that it is a disputed question. They said that this ḥadīth was related by a woman not known for conveying knowledge. Lodging and other rulings are only obliged by a text of the Qur’an, Sunnah or consensus. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The Sunnah is confirmed. Praise be to Allah. There is no need for consensus when the Sunnah exists, because when a disagreement occurs about a question, the argument goes in favour of the position that agrees with the Sunnah. Success is by Allah.’ What has come from ‘Alī, Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir, and ‘Ā’ishah supports the opinion of Dāwud and that position was taken by Jābir ibn Zayd, ‘Aṭā’ and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is because Allah says: ‘…they should wait by themselves for four months and ten days’ and did not say, ‘wait in their houses’. So she does the ‘iddah wherever she wishes. It is also reported from Abū Ḥanīfah.

‘Abd ar-Razzāq related from Ma‘mar from az-Zuhrī that ‘Urwah reported that when ‘Ā’ishah’s sister, Umm Kulthum, was widowed when her husband, Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydullāh, was killed, ‘Ā’ishah took her to Makkah on ‘umrah. Her judgment was that a widow could go out during her waiting period. Ath-Thawrī related that ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar heard al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad remark that some people rejected that position of hers. Ma‘mar related that az-Zuhrī said, ‘Those who make allowances for widows take the position of ‘Ā’ishah and those who are scrupulous and firm take that of Ibn ‘Umar.’ It states in the Muwaṭṭā’ that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb sent back some widows from al-Bayḍā’ when they were on their way to ḥajj and prevented them from doing it. This was based on his ijtihād because he thought that widows must stay in their husbands’ houses and that that is demanded by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. A widow is not permitted to go on a ḥajj or ‘umrah until her ‘iddah is over. Mālik said that she is sent back as long as she has not adopted iḥrām.

If the husband owns the dwelling, his widow observes her waiting period in it according to most fuqahā’ – Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī and Aḥmad among them – based on the ḥadīth of Furay‘ah. But can the house then be sold if it belonged to the deceased and the heirs want to sell it? Most of our people say that the sale is permitted but a precondition of the sale must be that the widow can observe her waiting period there. Ibn al-Qāsim said that is because she is entitled to her lodging as a creditor. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥakam said that the sale is invalid until the end of the widow’s waiting period. The reasoning behind the view of Ibn al-Qāsim is that soundness is predominant and doubt is rare and so that does not cause the contract to be invalid. If the sale occurs with this precondition, that causes uncertainty. Mālik said in the book of Muḥammad, that the widow is entitled to reside until the doubt ends. He said that he preferred the buyer to have the option to cancel the sale or carry it out and not retract anything, because it is based on a known amount of time. If the sale has the precondition of the removal of doubt, it is unsound. Saḥnūn said, ‘The buyer has no argument, even if the doubt lasts for five years. The like of that is related by Abū Yazīd from Ibn al-Qāsim.

If the husband has a dwelling that is not owned, she can live in it for the waiting period. Abū Ḥanīfah and ash-Shāfi‘ī disagree since the Prophet ﷺ said to Furay‘ah, knowing that her husband did not own the house, ‘Stay in your house until the period is concluded.’ It is not said that the house was hers. That is why he said to her, ‘Stay in your house.’ Ma‘mar related from az-Zuhrī that she mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ that her husband had been killed and he had left her in a house which was hers and she sought his permission. He mentioned the ḥadīth. We take it to mean that he left a house in which she could live and would not be pursued for. So the wife had to do the waiting period in it. The basis of that is owning the right to live in it.

This is when her deceased husband paid the rent. If he has not paid it, the Mudawwanah states that she has no right of lodging from the property of the deceased, even if he was wealthy, because her right was contingent on what he owned completely. She has only what she receives by inheritance and that is property and not lodging. Muḥammad reported that Mālik said that renting a lodging for the widow is an obligation and must be paid for from the property of the deceased.

The words of the Prophet ﷺ to Furay‘ah, ‘Stay in your house until the term is concluded’ may mean that he commanded her to do that since her husband had paid the rent or had provided for her lodging in his will or that the owner of the house allowed her to spend her waiting period there with or without rent. It is whatever Allah meant by that, in view of the fact that it is necessary for her to have somewhere to live until the end of her waiting period.

They disagree about a woman who is informed of her husband’s death while she is in a house other than that of her husband. Some relate that she should return to his house and Mālik ibn Anas said that. He related it from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and an-Nakha‘ī said that she does the waiting period where the news reaches her and does not leave until the end of her waiting period. Ibn al-Mundhir says that the sound position of Mālik is that she should return to the deceased husband’s house unless he himself had moved her to her current location. In that case, she stays at that place.

She is permitted to go out for her needs and her work, at the time when people normally go out for such things, up until the time of the ‘Ishā’ prayer. She should, however, spend the night in that house alone. We find in al-Bukhārī and Muslim from Umm ‘Aṭiyyah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A woman should not mourn for a dead person more than three days, except in the case of a husband, when the mourning period is four months and ten days. A widow should not wear a dyed garment except for one made of pre-dyed yarn. She should not wear eye make-up (kohl) or perfume until her waiting period has ended, except for costus or aẓfar (types of aromatic wood).’ Umm Ḥabībah said, ‘It is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to mourn for a dead person more than three days unless it is her husband. She should mourn him for four months and ten days.’ Mourning consists of abandoning all adornment in respect of clothing, perfume, jewellery, make-up and henna during the waiting period, because adornment is a sign of seeking a husband and so it is forbidden as a protection and in order to make sure that that does not happen. Oiling the hair is not considered as adornment but henna is. The Arabic for a woman in mourning is ḥādd and muḥidd.

We believe that the fact that the Prophet ﷺ described a woman with faith indicates the soundness of one of the two views about a widowed Kitābī woman not having to observe mourning. That is the view of Ibn Kinānah and Ibn Nāfi‘. Ashhab related it from Mālik. That is also what is stated by Abū Ḥanīfah and Ibn al-Mundhir. It is related from Ibn al-Qāsim that she must mourn like a Muslim. That is the view of al-Layth, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and most of our people because it is one of the rulings about the ‘iddah and so it is obliged for the Kitābī wife of a Muslim just as lodging and ‘iddah are also obliged.

The words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘more than three days’ indicate that it is unlawful for Muslim women to observe mourning for other than their husbands for more than three days, and the fact that it is definitely permitted to mourn them for three days, starting the number with the night before to the end of the third day. If her close friend dies at the end of a day or night, it is not counted and the number starts from the following night.

This ḥadīth indicates a general ruling which applies to all widows and it included slave-girls and young and old free women. That is the position of the majority of scholars. Abū Ḥanīfah believed that neither a slave-girl nor a young girl have to observe mourning. Qāḍī Abu-l-Walīd al-Bājī related it from him. Ibn al-Mundhir said that a married slave-girl is included with wives in general since the reports are non-specific. That is the view of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion. I do not recall any disagreement about that from anyone and I do not know that they disagree about mourning in respect of an umm walad if her master dies because she is not a wife and the ḥadīths are about wives. Al-Bājī said, ‘When the young girl is one of those who understands commands and prohibitions, she is obliged to observe the mourning period prescribed for her, but if she does not grasp any of that because of her youth, Ibn Muzayn related from ‘Īsā that her family should make her avoid what an adult woman would avoid. She must do that. The evidence for the obligation of mourning for a young girl is something related from the Prophet ﷺ. A woman asked him about a daughter of hers who was widowed and had something wrong with her eye. Could she treat it with kohl? The Prophet ﷺ answered, ‘No,’ saying it two or three times. He did not ask about her age. If there had been a separate judgment about young and old, he would have asked about her age to make the ruling clear. It is not permitted to delay clarification about something like this. All who are obliged to observe the waiting period of a widow must observe mourning as is the case with an adult woman.

Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I do not know of any disagreement about dyeing being part of the forbidden adornment. They agree that she is not permitted to wear dyed clothing except for that made with black. There is an allowance for it from ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī. Az-Zuhrī said that she should not wear a black head-scarf. That differs from the ḥadīth. In the Mudawwanah Mālik said, ‘She should not wear fine black Yemenī fabric,’ but he makes an allowance if it is coarse. Ibn al-Qāsim said that the reason for that is that fine fabric is like dyed garments. She can wear fine garments of silk, linen and cotton. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Everyone from whom I have reported makes an allowance for white clothing.’ Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said, ‘Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that every dye is adornment and the woman in mourning should not touch it, whether it is fine or coarse. Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Wahhāb says something similar. He said, ‘A mourning woman is forbidden from enjoying any colour that women use to adorn themselves for their husbands.’ Some of our later shaykhs forbid fine white cloth that is used for adornment. The same is true of fine black cloth. Ibn al-Mawwāz related from Mālik that a woman should not wear jewellery if she is in mourning. In general, any kind of jewellery that a woman wears for adornment should not be worn by a woman in mourning. There is no specific text on gems, rubies, emeralds and things of that sort. Allah knows best.

The people agree that Muslim widows should go into mourning – with the exception of al-Ḥasan who says that it is not mandatory. He based that on the ḥadīth of ‘Abdullāh ibn Shaddād ibn al-Hādi about Asmā’ bint ‘Umays when Ja‘far ibn Abī Ṭālib was killed. She said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ told her, ‘Withdraw for three and then do what you wish.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is only al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī among scholars who did not think that there was mourning. He said that a divorced woman and a widow observe three days. They may then wear kohl, dye and do whatever they like.’ Reports from the Prophet ﷺ confirm mourning. No one who heard those reports did not accept them. Perhaps they did not reach al-Ḥasan, or they reached him, but he interpreted them by the ḥadīth of Asmā’ bint ‘Umays who asked the Prophet ﷺ for permission to mourn for her husband, Ja‘far. He gave her permission for three days and then after three days he sent word to her to purify herself and wear kohl. Ibn al-Mundhir said that the people of knowledge present this ḥadīth with various aspects. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said. ‘This is aberrant in the ḥadīth and not taken.’ Isḥāq said it.

Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī believed that a woman divorced finally, once, or more, or revocably, does not have to mourn. That is the view of Rabī‘ah and ‘Aṭā’. The Kufans, namely Abū Ḥanīfah and his people, ath-Thawrī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy, Abū Thawr and Abū ‘Ubayd said that a woman divorced trebly must mourn. That is also the view of Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, Ibn Sīrīn, and al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah. Al-Ḥakam said, ‘It is more stressed for her than a widow. Part of the idea is that they both observe a waiting period by which lineage is protected.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that part of caution is that a divorced woman avoids adornment. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The words of the Prophet ﷺ, “It is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to mourn for a deceased person other than her husband for more than three days. For a husband it is four months and ten days,” are evidence that a woman who is divorced three times and whose husband is alive does not mourn.’

Scholars agree that if someone divorces his wife in a manner in which he can take her back and then dies before the end of the waiting period, she must observe the waiting period of a widow and she inherits from him. They disagree about the ‘iddah of a woman triply divorced while the husband is ill. One group said that she observes the waiting period for a divorce. This is the view of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Ya‘qūb, Abū ‘Ubayd and Abū Thawr. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘That is what I say because Allah Almighty made the waiting period of divorced women three menstrual cycles. They agree that if the husband of a woman who has been divorced three times dies, she does not inherit from him because she is not his wife. If she is not his wife, he is not her husband. Ath-Thawrī said that she should observe the longer of the two waiting periods. An-Nu‘mān and Muḥammad said that she must observe four months and ten days in which the three menstrual cycles are completed.

They disagree about a woman who hears that her husband has died or has divorced her. One group say that the waiting period for both begins from the day he dies or she was divorced. This is the position of Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās. That is also stated by Masrūq, ‘Aṭā’, and a group of Tābi‘ūn. It was the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū ‘Ubayd, ath-Thawrī, Abū Thawr, the People of Opinion and Ibn al-Mundhir. There is a second view regarding her, which is that it starts from the day the news reaches her. This view was related from ‘Alī. That is the view of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Qatādah, ‘Aṭā’ al-Khurāsānī and Jullās ibn ‘Amr. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said, ‘If there is evidence, her waiting period starts from the death or divorce. If there is no evidence, then it starts from the day the news reaches her.’ The first is the sound position because Allah Almighty connected the waiting period to death or divorce and because, had she known of his death, she would have finished mourning and the ‘iddah would have ended. It is easier for her to have left it when she did not know. Do you not see that a young girl finishes her waiting period and does not observe mourning? Scholars also agree that if the woman is pregnant and does not know that her husband has divorced her or died and then gives birth, her ‘iddah is over. There is no difference between this question and the disputed one. The reasoning of those who say that her waiting period begins from the day the news reaches her is that it is an act of worship by abandoning adornment which is only valid by aim and intention. There is only an intention after knowledge. Allah knows best.

The waiting period for widowhood must be observed by both free women and slaves, young and old, those who have not reached the age of menstruation, those who menstruate, those past the age of menstruation and Kitābī women, whether or not the marriage has been consummated, when the woman is not pregnant. Except for slave-girls, the waiting period of all of them is four months and ten days since the āyah is general. The waiting period of a slave-girl is two months and five days. Ibn al-‘Arabī said that the consensus is that it is half of that of a free woman except for what is related from al-Aṣamm that it is the same for a slave-girl and free woman. The consensus of the community preceded that, but perhaps he had not heard it because of his deafness. Al-Bājī said, ‘We do not know of any disagreement except what is related from Ibn Sīrīn, which is not actually confirmed from him, about slave-girls having the same ‘iddah as free women.’

The position of al-Aṣamm is sound from the point of view of reflection as the āyahs which deal with the waiting person for widowhood and divorce mention months and menstrual cycles and have general application to both slave-girls and free women. Therefore their waiting period is the same, based on this consideration. Generalities do not make a distinction between free and slave and, as the free woman and slave-girl are the same in respect of marriage, so they should be the same in respect of waiting period. Allah knows best. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘It is related from Mālik that a kitābī woman should observe an ‘iddah for three menstruations when she is not pregnant. This is very unsound because it removes her from the generality of the āyah of widowhood when she is in fact part of it and includes her in the generality of the āyah of divorce when she is actually not part of it.’ This is the basis for what is found in the Mudawwanah about her not having to observe a waiting period if the marriage has not been consummated because it is known that she is not pregnant. This entails the fact that she can marry a Muslim or someone else after her husband’s death because she does not have to observe an ‘iddah for widowhood nor wait to see if she is pregnant. Therefore she is lawful for marriage.

They disagree about the ‘iddah of an umm walad whose master has died. One group said that it is four months and ten days as was stated by a group of Tābi‘ūn, including Sa‘īd, az-Zuhrī, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and others. Al-Awzā‘ī and Isḥāq said that. Abū Dāwud and ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Qabīṣah ibn Dhu’ayb that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ said, ‘Do not muddle up the Sunnah of our Prophet ﷺ for us. The waiting period of an umm walad is four months and ten days.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that this is mawqūf. That is correct: it is mursal because Qabīṣah did not listen to ‘Amr. Ibn al-Mundhir said that Aḥmad and Abū ‘Ubayd said that this ḥadīth is weak. It is related from ‘Alī and Ibn Mas‘ūd that her waiting period is three menstrual periods. This is the position of ‘Aṭā’, Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, Sufyān ath-Thawrī and the People of Opinion who said that it is because the ‘iddah is obliged when the woman is free and so it must be a full ‘iddah. The basis of the ‘iddah is that of a free woman. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr said that her ‘iddah is one menstrual period. That is the view of Ibn ‘Umar. It is related from Ṭāwūs that her ‘iddah is half that of a widowed free woman. Qatādah said that. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I take the position of Ibn ‘Umar because it is the minimum of what is said about it and there is no sunnah which is followed nor any consensus which is relied on.’ He mentioned their disagreement about her waiting period when she is freed as well as when she is widowed. Al-Awzā‘ī, however, said that her ‘iddah when she is freed is three menstrual periods.

The soundest position is that of Mālik since Allah says: ‘Divorced women should wait by themselves for three menstrual cycles.’ (2:228) So the precondition for waiting based on menstrual cycles is that it is on account of divorce. So he said that it is not for other things. Allah says: ‘Those of you who die leaving wives behind: they should wait by themselves for four months and ten days,’ and He connected that to the woman being a widow. This indicates that a slave-girl is different; and also a slave-girl with whom the master has had sex based on ownership observes istibrā’ of one menstrual period. That is the basic principle.

If this is confirmed, then the question about the waiting period of an umm walad is whether it is ‘iddah or istibrā’. Abū Muḥammad mentioned in al-Ma‘ūnah that one menstrual period is istibrā’ and it is not ‘iddah. According to the Mudawwanah, an umm walad must observe an ‘iddah and her ‘iddah is one menstrual period as that of a free woman is three menstrual periods. The point of the difference lies in calling it ‘‘iddah’. Mālik said, ‘I do not like anyone promising to marry her until she has had one menstrual period.’ Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘I heard that he said that she should only spend the night in her house.’ He confirmed that the period of her istibrā’ has the same ruling as ‘iddah.

Scholars agree that the husband must support a trebly divorced woman and a revocably divorced woman while she is pregnant since Allah says: ‘If they are pregnant, maintain them until they give birth.’ (65:6)

They disagreed about the obligation of the maintenance of a pregnant widow. One group said that she has no maintenance, as was stated by Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Aṭā’, al-Ḥasan, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Ya‘lā, Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī, Rabī‘ah, Mālik, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. Abū ‘Ubayd also related that from the People of Opinion. The second view is that she receives maintenance from the entire estate. This position is related from ‘Alī and ‘Abdullāh. It was affirmed by Ibn ‘Umar, Shurayḥ, Ibn Sīrīn, ash-Sha‘bī, Abū ‘Āliyah, an-Nakha‘ī, Jullās ibn ‘Amr, Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān, Ayyūb as-Sijistānī, Sufyan ath-Thawrī and Abū ‘Ubayd. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘I take the first view because they agree that if someone is obliged to maintain someone while he is alive, like his young children, wife and parents, it is cancelled for him in death. The same is true of maintenance for his pregnant wives ceasing.’ Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad said, ‘That is because maintenance of a pregnant widow is not a confirmed debt, so it is attached to his property after his death with the evidence that it is cancelled for him in case of hardship. So it is more likely that it would be cancelled for him after his death.’

Scholars disagree about the period of ‘four months and ten nights’ which Allah set for the waiting period of a widow and whether it requires menstruation to take place in it or not. Some say that a widow with whom the deceased husband has had sex must have at least one menstrual period within the four months and ten days. Otherwise there is the possibility that she is pregnant. Others state that she does not owe more than the four months and ten days in any circumstance unless she herself is uncertain, because this is a period of time in which a woman normally has a period, unless she is a woman who does not menstruate or she is a woman who knows that her menstrual period will occur in a longer period than this.

Wakī‘ related from Abū Ja‘far ar-Rāzī from ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas that Abu-l-‘Āliyah was asked why the ten days were added to the four months. He said, ‘Because the spirit is breathed in during that time.’ This will be explained in al-Ḥajj, Allah willing. Al-Aṣma‘ī said, ‘It is said that the foetus of every pregnant woman moves halfway through the pregnancy.’

Al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘Allah knows best, but “ten” means the days with the nights.’ Al-Mubarrad said that ‘ten’ is feminine because it means the period (muddah). The ‘ten’ means every period of a day and a night. The night and day is a known period. It is said that Allah does not say ‘‘ashrah’ in the feminine because the night predominates, since night comes before day and the day is included in it. Also ‘‘ashr’ is easier to say. Night take precedence over day when they are together in dating because the months begin with the night when the new moon is sighted. Since the month begins with a night, it takes precedence. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and the Kufans believe that what is meant are days and nights. Some fuqahā’ believe that when four months and ten nights have passed, the widow can lawfully remarry. That is because ‘iddah is undefined and so the feminine takes preference and it is interpreted as meaning nights. This is the view of al-Awzā‘ī among the fuqahā’ and Abū Bakr al-Aṣamm among the mutakallimūn. It is related that Ibn ‘Abbās recited ‘ten nights’.

When their waiting period comes to an end, you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves with correctness and courtesy.

The waiting period referred to is that of women whose husbands have died. The words ‘you are not to blame’ are addressed to people in general, but particularly to judges and relatives. What widows do with respect to marriage and adornment once they leave mourning is their own business. ‘Correctness’ refers to what is permitted regarding choosing husbands and determining dowry without actually making a contract, because it is the guardian who makes the contract. But this does provide evidence that relatives have the right to prevent widows from adorning themselves and seeking a husband during the time of their waiting period. This refutes Isḥāq’s view that a divorced woman can do that once she starts her third menstrual period. She is not completely free until she has had a ghusl. Sharīk said that a divorced woman’s husband can take her back as long as she has not had a ghusl, even if twenty years have passed. However, Allah’s words in this āyah mean that the waiting period ends with the blood of the third menstrual period. Allah did not mention ghusl. When the waiting period ends, then it is lawful for her to remarry and there is no blame for anything she does of that then. If the ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās is sound, then it may simply be a recommendation.

235 Nor is there anything wrong in any allusion to marriage you make to a woman, nor for any you keep to yourself. Allah knows that you will say things to them. But do not make secret arrangements with them, rather only speak with correctness and courtesy. Do not finally decide on the marriage contract until the prescribed period has come to its end. Know that Allah knows what is in your selves, so beware of Him! And know that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, All-Forbearing.

Nor is there anything wrong in any allusion to marriage you make to a woman,

‘Wrong’ (junāḥ) in this context means sin. That is sounder in the Sharī‘ah. It is said that it means something difficult. The āyah is addressed in particular to any man who wants to marry a woman who is still in her waiting period, saying that there is no sin in alluding to marriage during that time. An allusion is not an explicit statement. It produces understanding of what is alluded to in words whose expression is not explicit. It is like circling around something without actually saying it. It is said that it means ‘to offer’ as in offering someone a present and we find that usage of the verb in ḥadīth. Alluding to something in words connects a person to something whose meaning is understood.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that the Community is agreed that speaking to a woman in her waiting period about marriage in an explicit way is not permitted. They agree that speaking to her mentioning sex or its encouragement or anything like that is not permitted. Other than that is permitted. The closest to that which is explicit is found in the words of the Prophet ﷺ to Fāṭimah bint Qays, ‘Stay with Umm Sharīk. Do not advance yourself too quickly.’ There is a consensus that it is not permitted to allude to marriage with a woman who is in her waiting period following a revocable divorce, because, in that, case, she is still in fact a wife. It is, however, permitted in the case of a woman who is in her waiting period after a final divorce. Allah knows best.

It is related that there are many such allusions and they fall into two categories. The first is to mention her to her guardian to tell him not to give her in marriage before his offer. The second category is to indicate that to her without an intermediary by saying to her things like, ‘I’m intending to marry,’ ‘You’re very beautiful,’ ‘Allah will bring you good,’ ‘I desire you and who could not?’ ‘I am in need of a wife’ or ‘Allah will decree good for you.’ Mālik and Ibn Shihāb used these as examples. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘There is nothing wrong in saying, ‘Do not be hasty with yourself.’ There is nothing wrong in a man giving her a present or doing some work for her while she in the waiting period when it is part of his business. Ibrāhīm said that. He is permitted to praise himself and mention his deeds as part of an allusion to marriage. Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn is mentioned as doing that.

Sukaynah bint Ḥanẓalah said, ‘Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī asked for permission to visit while I was still in my waiting period after the death of my husband. He said, “You know my kinship to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and my kinship to ‘Alī and my place among the Arabs.” I said, “May Allah forgive you, Abū Ja‘far! You are a man from whom people take knowledge and yet you propose to me while I am in my ‘iddah!” He answered, “I have informed you of my kinship to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and ‘Alī. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ visited Umm Salamah when she became the widow of Abū Salamah and said, ‘You know that I am the Messenger of Allah and know my goodness and position among my people.’ That was a proposal.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it.

It is permitted to give a gift to a woman in her ‘iddah. That is part of making an allusion. Saḥnūn and many scholars said that. Ibrāhīm also stated it. Mujāhid disliked anyone saying, ‘Do not hasten to offer yourself to anyone before me.’ He thought that it amounted to a secret arrangement. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘I consider this to be an interpretation of the words of the Prophet ﷺ to Umm Salamah as a sort of opinion about who should marry her, not that he meant to marry her himself.

Khiṭbah (proposal) is the action of a suitor with an intention either by word or deed. Khaṭṭāb is a man who frequently proposes to women. Khaṭīb and khātib mean ‘suitor’ as does khiṭb. Khuṭbah means words that can be about marriage or something else.

not for any (allusion) you keep to yourself.

This means what you conceal during a woman’s waiting period when you want to marry her after it has finished. Iknān is covering and concealment. Kanna and ikanna both mean ‘to conceal’. It means to protect something from disaster whether or not it is concealed. Maknūn is therefore used of eggs and pearls. It can be concealed by a garment, a house, land or something else. It can also be concealed in oneself although the Arabs do not use it in that way. So Allah removed any wrong action from a man who wants to marry a woman who is still in her waiting period and conceals it. He forbade any arrangements which involve a clear statement of desire for marriage, such as a proposal. Allah made this dispensation because He knows people have human weaknesses.

Shāfi‘īs use this as evidence that the ḥadd punishment is not required in the case of a slanderous allusion. They say that, since Allah said that allusion is not wrong in this case, an allusion implying slander should not incur the ḥadd either, because Allah makes it clear here that an allusion is not the same as an explicit statement. We disagree and say that this is an invalid analogy because Allah did not allow explicit marriage proposals, but an allusion by which marriage is understood. An allusion to slander acts in the same way and so the ḥadd punishment is required because the slander is in fact clearly understood just as the allusion to marriage was.

Allah knows that you will say things to them.

He knows, whether that is secretly or openly, in yourselves or on your tongues. There is an allowance in respect of allusions but not explicit statements. Al-Ḥasan said that it means, ‘He knows that you will propose to them.’

But do not make secret arrangements with them,

Scholars disagree about what is meant by ‘secret’ here. It is said that it means to actually arrange a marriage, in other words a man should not say to a woman during her waiting period, ‘Will you marry me?’ He should merely allude to what he intends and not secretly make an agreement whereby she will not marry someone else. This is the position of Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Jubayr, Mālik and his people, Mujāhid, ‘Ikrimah, as-Suddī and most of the people of knowledge. It is also said that ‘secret’ in this context implies fornication, in other words ‘do not agree to fornicate during the waiting period’. Jābir ibn Zayd, Abū Miljaz Lāḥiq ibn Ḥumayd, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, an-Nakha‘ī and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that and that ‘secret’ in this āyah refers to fornication. So it means: ‘Do not make secret arrangement to fornicate with them.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that. It is also said that ‘secret’ refers to sexual intercourse, meaning, ‘Do not describe yourselves to them as being someone who likes a lot of sexual intercourse to make them desire to marry you.’ Mentioning that to other than one’s spouse is lewdness. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that. It could also be that the secret is the marriage contract, whether it is secret or public. Ibn Zayd says that it means to not marry them secretly. If it is lawful, then make it public and consummate it with them. This is the same as the first view. According to this, Ibn Zayd took the first view, but it is very odd to call the contract ‘an arrangement’. That is unsettled. Makkī and ath-Tha‘labī said that it is abrogated by Allah’s words in this ayah: ‘Do not finally decide on the marriage contract…’.

Abū Muḥammad ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The Community agree that it is disliked to arrange a marriage with a woman during her waiting period or for her father to do so for his virgin daughter or a master for his slave-girl.’ Ibn al-Mawwāz said, ‘I dislike a walī, who does not have the power of compulsion, doing it but if it happens, I do not invalidate it.’ Malik said, ‘If they make an arrangement during the waiting period and then marry afterwards, I prefer them to separate, whether or not the marriage has been consummated, and it is one divorce. When she can lawfully marry, then he is just one among other suitors.’ This is what is transmitted from Ibn Wahb. Ashhab related from Mālik that they must be separated. Ibn al-Qāsim said that as well. Ibn al-Ḥārith related the same thing from Ibn al-Mājishūn. He added that it obliges a perpetual prohibition of marriage between the two. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘If someone makes an explicit proposal and the woman explicitly consents but the marriage does not take place until after the waiting period has ended, the marriage is valid and it was the explicit proposal which was disliked.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said that.

rather only speak with correctness and courtesy.

This refers to those allusions which are permitted. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk mentioned that such courteous words might be to say to a woman in ‘iddah, ‘Keep yourself for me. I desire you,’ to which she replies, ‘The same applies here.’ This is a sort of arrangement.

Do not finally decide on the marriage contract until the prescribed period has come to its end.

The meaning of ‘azm, to resolve or decide on something, has already been discussed. Here it means: ‘Do not resolve on the marriage contract.’ It is clear that the Qur’an uses the most eloquent language. What it brings cannot be opposed and its soundness and eloquence is undoubted. Allah says: ‘If they are determined (‘azamū) to divorce’ (2:227) and here He uses the same verb. It means: ‘Do not decide on the contract of marriage during the time of the waiting period.’ An-Naḥḥās said that it means ‘make the contract’.

‘Kitāb’ (prescribed period) literally means ‘book’ and here denotes the limit which is set and the length of the period. It is called a ‘book’ since it is defined and imposed in the Book of Allah. The same word is used elsewhere in reference to the prayer, as in 4:103. So ‘kitāb’ is the obligation, and it means ‘until the obligation reaches its end.’ The term is also used of the fast in 2:183. It is said that there is some elision in the words, i.e. until the prescribed obligation reaches its end. According to this, ‘kitāb’ here means the Qur’an and there is no elision. That is more appropriate.

Allah has definitively forbidden marriage during the waiting period. This is firmly agreed on. It is not allowed until the waiting period is finished although indirect allusions to marriage are permitted during the waiting period. As we have mentioned, there is disagreement about which forms of expression are allowed. There is disagreement about a man who proposes to a woman during her waiting period out of ignorance, or who makes an arrangement and then concludes the contract after its end. We have already discussed this.

There is also disagreement about deciding on marriage while a woman is in her waiting period and when that is discovered and declared invalid by a judge. ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and a group of scholars say that it does not create a perpetual ban and the man concerned simply becomes one of the suitors. Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim said that in the Mudawannah at the end of the chapter after ‘Setting a term for a missing person’. Ibn al-Jallāb related from Mālik that there is a perpetual ban against marriage, even if the marriage is declared invalid before it takes place. His reasoning is that it is marriage within the waiting period and therefore there is a perpetual ban. This is based on the marriage being consummated. If the contract is made within the waiting period and then the marriage consummated afterwards, some scholars say that it is the same as when it is consummated inside the waiting period – there is a perpetual ban between them – whereas other scholars said that there is not a perpetual ban. Mālik said that it does bring about a perpetual ban. Once he stated that the perpetual ban is based on clear evidence. Both views are found in the Mudawwanah in the section on the sunnah divorce.

If the union is consummated in the waiting period, Mālik, al-Layth and al-Awzā‘ī said that they must be parted and she will never be lawful to him. Mālik and al-Layth said that that includes ownership, although they do not permit marriage with someone with whom she has fornicated. Their argument is that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘They may never be joined together.’ Sa‘īd said, ‘She receives her dower because he was allowed to have sex with her.’ Mālik transmitted that in the Muwaṭṭā’. Ath-Thawrī, the Kufans and ash-Shāfi‘ī said that they are separated but the prohibition is not perpetual. The marriage is invalidated and she observes a waiting period and then he is one of the suitors. Their argument is based on the consensus that, if he commits fornication with her, she is not unlawful for him to marry. Therefore the same must be true if he has sex with her while she is in the waiting period. They stated that that is the view of ‘Alī. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned it. Something similar is mentioned from Ibn Mas‘ūd and al-Ḥasan. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from ath-Thawrī from Ash‘ath from ash-Sha‘bī from Masrāuq that ‘Umar retracted that and permitted them to be joined.

Qāḍī Abu-l-Walīd al-Bājī mentioned in al-Muntaqā: ‘When someone marries a woman in ‘iddah, then he must consummate it either within or after the end of the ‘iddah. If he consummates it within the ‘iddah, then the well-known position of the school is that the ban is perpetual. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said that.’ Shaykh Abū l-Qāsim related in at-Tafrī‘ that there are two transmissions about a man who knowingly marries a woman who is in ‘iddah on account of divorce or becoming a widow. One is that she is perpetually unlawful to him as we already stated. The second view is that he commits fornication and receives the ḥadd punishment and the child is not attached to him. He can marry her at the conclusion of the ‘iddah. That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah.

The reasoning behind the first view, which is the well-known one, is based on what is confirmed of the judgment ‘Umar gave regarding that and his establishing that among the people. His judgments have travelled and spread throughout the regions and no one is known to dispute them. It is confirmed that it is the consensus. Qaḍī Abū Muḥammad said, ‘The same thing is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and no one opposes them in spite of that being well known and widespread, and so this has the ruling of consensus.’

The reasoning behind the second view is that this is forbidden sexual intercourse and so her prohibition is not perpetual, as would be the case if she had given herself in marriage, done a mu‘tah marriage or fornicated. Qaḍī Abu-l-Ḥasan said that the well-known school of Mālik regarding that matter is weak in respect of logical thought. Allah knows best.

Abū ‘Umar related from ‘Abd al-Wārith ibn Sufyān from Qāsim ibn Aṣbagh from Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl from Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād from Ibn al-Mubārak from Ash‘ath from ash-Sha‘bī that Masrūq said, ‘‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb heard that a woman of Quraysh had married a man of Thaqīf during her ‘iddah and he sent to them and separated them and punished them. He said, “You will never marry her!” He put her dower in the treasury. The news of that spread among people and the news reached ‘Alī. He said, “May Allah have mercy on the Amīr al-Mu’minīn! What business does the treasury have with dowries? They were ignorant and the leader must return them to the sunnah.” He was asked, “Then what do you say about them?” He answered, “She has her dower which makes sex lawful. They are separated but not flogged. She completes her first ‘iddah and then does a second full ‘iddah of three menstrual cycles. Then he can propose to her if he wishes to do so.” ‘Umar heard that and he addressed the people and said, “People! Prefer ignorance to the Sunnah!”’

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘There is no disagreement among fuqahā’ that if someone makes a marriage contract with a woman during her waiting period for another marriage, that marriage is invalid. The fact that ‘Umar and ‘Alī agreed that they are not subject to the ḥadd punishment indicates that an invalid marriage does not necessitate the ḥadd punishment. That is agreed upon if they are ignorant of the fact that it is forbidden, but there is disagreement when they do know about it.

They also disagree about whether she does an ‘iddah for both of them. This is the question about two ‘iddahs. The Madinans related from Mālik that she completes the rest of the first ‘iddah and then starts a new one for the other. That is the position of al-Layth, al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. It is also related from ‘Alī as we mentioned, and also from ‘Umar. Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb related from Mālik that her ‘iddah for the second is enough from the day they are parted, whether by pregnancy, menstrual cycles or months. That is the view of ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, and Abū Ḥanīfah. Their argument is the consensus that the first husband may not marry her in the rest of the waiting period and so that indicates that she is in the waiting period for the second husband. Were it not for that, he would have married her in her waiting period for his marriage. The people with the first view reply that that is not necessary and that, because the first husband refused to marry her in the rest of the waiting period, it is mandatory when it is followed by the waiting period for the second. These are two duties which she owes two husbands, just like rights and duties owed to other human beings. One does not diminish the other.

Mālik transmitted from Ibn Shihāb from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and Sulaymān ibn Yasār that Ṭulayḥah al-Asadiyyah was married to Rashīd ath-Thaqafī. He divorced her and she remarried during her ‘iddah. ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb beat her and beat her new husband with a scourge and separated them. Then ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘If any woman marries during her ‘iddah and the new husband has not consummated the marriage, separate them. Then she finishes her ‘iddah from her first husband and the new husband becomes one of the suitors. If he has consummated the marriage, separate them. Then she finishes her ‘iddah from her first husband and then observes another ‘iddah for the new husband and they are never united.’ Mālik added that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘She has her dower because sex was made lawful.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This Ṭulayḥah is Ṭulayḥah bint ‘Ubaydullāh, the sister of Ṭalḥah ibn ‘Ubaydullāh at-Taymī. Some copies of the Muwaṭṭā’ in the transmission of Yaḥyā have Ṭulayḥah al-Asadiyyah. That is an ignorant error and I do not know of anyone who said that.’

When he said that he beat them with a scourge, it means as a punishment for committing something forbidden, which is marriage during the waiting period. Az-Zuhrī said, ‘I do not think that it reached the level of flogging.’ He said, ‘‘Abd al-Malik flogged both of them with forty lashes for that.’ He said, ‘Qabīṣah ibn Dhu’ayb was asked about that and said, “You should have been lighter and given them twenty!”’ Ibn Ḥabīb said about when a woman marries in the waiting period and then the new husband touches her, kisses her, winks or looks with a look of pleasure, then the couple should be punished as well as the walī, the two witnesses and anyone who knew that she was still in her ‘iddah. There is no punishment for any of them who did not know that. Ibn al-Mawwāz said that if they did that deliberately, the couple are flogged with the ḥadd punishment. It is possible that the position of Ibn Ḥabīb is about the one who knows about the ‘iddah. It is possible that he was ignorant of the prohibition and did not intend to commit something prohibited. That is the one who is merely punished. Accordingly, ‘Umar beat the woman and her husband with a scourge. The punishment and discipline for that is according to the circumstances of the one punished. The statement of Ibn al-Mawwāz can be taken to mean that they knew of the prohibition and committed what was forbidden out of boldness. Shaykh Abu-l-Qāsim said that these are two transmissions about doing it deliberately: one is that there is the ḥadd and the other that there is punishment and no ḥadd.

Know that Allah knows what is in yourselves, so beware of Him!

This is an extreme warning against falling into what is forbidden.

236 There is nothing wrong in your divorcing women before you have touched them or allotted a dower to them. But give them a gift – he who is wealthy according to his means and he who is less well off according to his means – a gift to be given with correctness and courtesy: a duty for all good-doers.

There is nothing wrong in your divorcing women before you have touched them or allotted a dower to them.

This is another of the rulings which deal with divorced women. It deals with removing any aspersion of wrongdoing from a man who divorces before the consummation of a marriage, whether or not a dower has been stipulated. So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade marriage merely for the sake of gratification and sexual indulgence and instructed people to marry for the sake of protection and in order to obtain Allah’s reward, and with the intention of having a constant companion. The believers did not like divorcing before a marriage had been consummated, as they believed that it was disliked and so this āyah was revealed to remove their prejudice against it, since the basis of marriage lies in the good intention behind it. Some people said that ‘nothing wrong’ means that you should not ask for the return of the entire dower. You are only entitled to get back half of what has been allotted to her and you should give a gift to the woman if the amount of the dower has not been stipulated. It is said that when the command to pay the dower was confirmed in the Sharī‘ah, it was thought that a dower was obligatory, either stipulated or appropriate. In this āyah the wrong was removed from someone who divorces before any dower has been stipulated. Some people have said that it refers to those who pronounce divorce during menstruation when the marriage has not been consummated since in that case the woman does not have to observe a waiting period.

There are four types of divorced women: – Women in a consummated marriage with an allotted dower and

Allah has mentioned before this āyah that the ruling in respect of

their ‘iddah is three menstrual periods. They are not asked to return

any of their dower. – Women without an allotted dower whose marriage has not been

consummated and this āyah is about them. They are not allotted a

dower but Allah says that they should be given a gift. And it is

made clear in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb (33) that a woman whose marriage has

not been consummated and who is divorced has no ‘iddah. – Women who have been allotted a dower whose marriage has not

been consummated who will be mentioned after this āyah in 2:237. – Women without a dower whose marriage has been consummated.

They will be mentioned in Sūrat an-Nisā’ (4:24).

This āyah is about women divorced before either consummation or the allotment of a dower, and the next is about women who are divorced before consummation but after the allotment of dower. The first receives a gift and the second receives half of the dower because of the specification of the contract.

Allah divided divorced women into two groups: those with an allotted dower and those without. He indicated that tafwīḍ marriage is permitted. This is a marriage in which the dower is not mentioned. It is not disputed and in it the woman is allotted a dower after the contract. If it is allotted, it is connected to the contract and permitted. If it is not allotted to her and there is a divorce, the consensus is that the dower is not obliged. Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said that. Al-Mahdawī related from Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān that when a man divorces a wife without having consummated the marriage, and has not allotted her a dower, he is compelled to give half of a suitable dower. If the dower has been allotted after the marriage contract and before divorce, Abū Ḥanīfah said that it is not made half by divorce because it was not obliged by the contract. This is contrary to the literal meaning of the text of His words: ‘If you divorce them before you have touched them but have already allotted them a dower.’ (2:237) It is also contrary to analogy. The allotment after the contract is connected to the contract and so it is obliged to be halved by divorce. The basic position is that the allotment is connected to the contract.

Concerning what happens if death occurs before allotment, at-Tirmidhī mentioned that Ibn Mas‘ūd was asked about a man who married a woman without allotting her something and had not consummated the marriage before he died. Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘She receives the like dower of other women of her class, neither more nor less. She has to observe the ‘iddah and she inherits.’ Ma‘qil ibn Sinān al-Ashja‘ī said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave a similar decision about Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq, one of our women.’ Ibn Mas‘ūd was very happy to hear that. At-Tirmidhī said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. It is also related from him by another path of transmission. This was the normative practice among some of the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and others. It is also the view of ath-Thawrī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq. Some of the people of knowledge among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, including ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Zayd ibn Thābit, Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar said that when a man marries a woman and does not consummate the marriage and has not allotted her a dower before he dies, then she inherits but has no dower and must observe ‘iddah. That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī who said, ‘If the ḥadīth of Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq is confirmed, it is argument for what is related from the Prophet ﷺ.’ It is related from ash-Shāfi‘ī that he retracted this position in Egypt and accepted the ḥadīth of Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq.

There is disagreement about the firmness of the ḥadīth of Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq. Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said in his commentary on the Risālah of Ibn Abi Zayd: ‘The experts in ḥadīth and leaders of the people of knowledge reject the ḥadīth of Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq.’ Al-Wāqidī said, ‘This ḥadīth was situated in Madīnah and none of the scholars accept it.’ As we and Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned, at-Tirmidhī considered it to be sound. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is confirmed like the report of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. We say that.’ He mentioned that it is the view of Abū Thawr and the People of Opinion. A similar position to that of ‘Alī, Zayd, Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar is mentioned from az-Zuhrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī. There is a third position which is that the woman has no inheritance until she has a dower. Masrūq said that.

Part of the argument of Mālik, that a marriage which is ended before any allotment does not oblige a dower, is that its basis is divorce, but if the ḥadīth is sound, then the analogy opposing it is unsound. Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd related from the School that which is in agreement with the ḥadīth. Praise be to Allah. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The ḥadīth of Barwa‘ bint Wāshiq was related by ‘Abd ar-Razzāq from ath-Thawrī from Manṣūr from Ibrāhīm from ‘Alqamah from Ibn Mas‘ūd. It says in it: ‘Ma‘qil ibn Sinān stood up.’ Ibn Mahdī related from ath-Thawrī from Firās from ash-Sha‘bī from Masrūq that ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Ma‘qil ibn Yasār stood up’ I believe that what is correct is Ma‘qil ibn Sinān rather than Ma‘qil ibn Yasār because Ma‘qil ibn Yasār was a man of Muzaynah and this ḥadīth is about a woman of Ashja‘, not Muzaynah. That is how Abū Dāwud related it from ash-Sha‘bī from ‘Alqamah. He says in it: ‘Some people of Ashja‘.’ Ma‘qil ibn Sinān was killed in the Battle of al-Ḥarrah. A poet says:

The Anṣār weep for their leaders,

and Ashja‘ weeps for Ma‘qil ibn Sinān.

In the phrase ‘before you have touched them’, mā means ‘which’. It means ‘If you have divorced women without touching them.’ The recitation of Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr, Abū ‘Amr, ‘Āṣim and Ibn ‘Āmir is ‘tamassūhunna’ and that of Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī is ‘tumāssūhunna’ from Form III because sexual intercourse needs the participation of both of them. The first reading also has an associative meaning. Abū ‘Alī preferred it because the verbs with this meaning normally are in Form I, but both readings are good. ‘Aw’ (‘or’) means ‘and’ here, meaning, ‘before you have touched them and have not allotted them.’

But give them a gift –

This means give them something they will enjoy having. Some, like ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan ibn Abī ’l-Ḥasan, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Abū Qilābah, az-Zuhrī, Qatādah, and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, take it as being mandatory. Others, such as Abū ‘Ubayd, Mālik ibn Anas and his people, Qāḍī Shurayḥ and others, see it as merely being a recommendation. The people with the first position take it as a command and those with the second view look at the words, ‘a duty for good-doers’ and ‘for all who are godfearing’ (2:241) and say that if it had been mandatory, it would have been made general to all people. The first view is more appropriate because of the universal nature of the command to give and connecting the gift to them by the particle of possession in the words: ‘Divorced women should receive maintenance.’ (2:241) That is more apparently an obligation than a recommendation. The second āyah stresses the fact that it is an obligation because everyone must have fear of Allah in respect of shirk and disobedience. Allah says: ‘guidance for the godfearing.’

There is disagreement about the pronoun ‘them’ and which women are meant. Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Jābir ibn Zayd, al-Ḥasan, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, ‘Aṭā’, Isḥāq and the People of Opinion say that a gift is mandatory for a woman divorced before consummation or the allotment of a dower and recommended for others. Mālik and his people said that it is recommended in every divorce even if the marriage was consummated. In the case of a woman whose marriage has been consummated and who has an allotted dower, she should receive her dower but no extra gift. Abū Thawr says she should receive a gift as well, as should every divorced woman. The people of knowledge say that in the case of a woman who has not been allotted a dower and whose marriage has not been consummated, she should only receive a gift. Az-Zuhrī said that the qāḍī decides it for her. Most people say that he does not decide it.

This consensus is about free women. If a slave-girl is divorced before allotment and consummation, then most say that she receives a gift. Al-Awzā‘ī and ath-Thawrī said that she receives no gift because she belongs to her master and he is not entitled to property in exchange for the harm to his property by divorce. As for the fixed school of Mālik, Ibn Sha‘bān said, ‘The gift is on account of the sorrow of divorce. That is why there is no gift before or after consummation for a woman parted by khul‘, freeing herself and li‘ān because in that instance she is the one who chose divorce.’ At-Tirmidhī, ‘Aṭā’ and an-Nakha‘ī said that the wife should receive a gift after khul‘. The People of Opinion said that a woman separated by li‘ān receives a gift. Ibn al-Qāsim said that there is no gift where an invalid marriage is concerned. Ibn al-Mawwāz said, ‘There is no gift in a marriage which becomes unsound after a sound contract, such as when one of the couple becomes the owner of the other.’ Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘The basis of that is that Allah’s words: “Divorced women should receive maintenance/a gift” only apply to divorce, not invalidity.’ Ibn Wahb related from Mālik that a wife given a choice receives a gift which is not the case with a slave-girl who is freed while married to a slave. She has a choice about herself. Such a wife does not receive a gift. As for a free woman given a choice, or who is given authority [for divorce] or whose husband marries a slave-girl, and she chooses herself, in all such instances she receives a gift because the husband is the cause of the separation.

Mālik says that it is not specified whether the gift should be a little or a lot. People disagree about this. Ibn ‘Umar said that the minimum is about thirty dirhams. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The largest gift is a servant, then clothes, then maintenance.’ ‘Aṭā’ said that a medium-sized gift is a dress, veil (khimār) and mantle. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘That is the minimum it should be.’ Ibn Muḥayriz said that anyone receiving a state pension should give thirty dinars and a slave should also give a gift. Al-Ḥasan says that it is according to ability and continued, ‘One gives a servant, another gives clothes, another a garment and another money.’ That is what Mālik said because the āyah says ‘according to his means’ and there is no amount or limit specified. Al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī gave a gift of 20,000 and skins full of honey. Shurayḥ gave a gift of 50,000 dirhams.

It is said that one considers the circumstances of the woman as well. Some Shāfi‘īs said that. They said, ‘If we were consider the state of the man alone, and then if he were to marry two women, one of whom is noble and the other lowly and divorce both before consummation without naming any dower, would they be equal in the gift, the lowly receiving the same as the noble woman? This is contrary to the words of Allah “…a gift to be given with correctness.” That would oblige that when a wealthy man marries a lowly woman, he is like her because if he divorces her before consummation and allotting a dower, he is obliged to give a gift commensurate with his state and a dower suitable for someone like her. According to this, the gift would be many times greater than the suitable dower and so she would be entitled before consummation many times more than what she would be entitled to afterwards in the form of a suitable dower which is in exchange for sexual intercourse.’ The People of Opinion and others say that the gift to a woman divorced before consummation is half of a suitable dower and nothing else, because a suitable dower becomes due by the contract and the gift is part of the suitable dower. Therefore it is obliged for her as the half of the specified dower is obliged when she is divorced before consummation. This is refuted by Allah’s words: ‘…he who is wealthy according to his means, and he who is less well off according to his means.’ This is evidence which refutes a limit. Allah knows the realities of all matters.

Ath-Tha‘labī mentioned a ḥadīth and said that the words: ‘There is nothing wrong in your divorcing women…’ were revealed about a man of the Anṣār who married a woman of the Banū Ḥanīfah without specifying a dower for her. He divorced her before touching her and the āyah was revealed. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Give her a gift, even if it is your hat.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Suwayd ibn Ghafalah said, ‘‘Ā’ishah al-Khath‘amiyyah was married to al-Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. When ‘Alī was struck down and allegiance was given to al-Ḥasan as the caliph, she said, “Congratulations on the caliphate, Amīr al-Mu’minīn!” He said, “‘Alī is murdered and you make a show of gloating! Go, you are divorced three times.” She wrapped herself in her garments and waited until her ‘iddah was over. He sent her 10,000 as a gift along with the rest of her dower. She said: “A scant gift from a parting lover!” When he heard what she had said, he wept and said, “If it had not been that I heard my grandfather (or my father told me that he heard my grandfather) say, ‘If a man divorces his wife three times finally or three times over cycles, she is not lawful to him until she has married another husband,’ I would have taken her back.”’ One variant has: ‘When the messenger informed him, he wept and said, “If I had not divorced her finally, I would have taken her back. But I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘If a man divorces his wife three times with a divorce in each period of purity, or a divorce at the beginning of each month, or three times all at once, she is not lawful to him until she has married another husband.’”’

If someone is ignorant about the need to give a gift, he should still give it to his divorced wife, even if years have passed and she has since married someone else, or to her heirs if she has died. Ibn al-Mawwāz related that from Ibn al-Qāsim. Aṣbagh said that he does not owe anything if she has died because it is solace for the wife on account of being divorced and that has occurred. The reasoning behind the first is that it is a right confirmed against him and it moves from her to her heirs, as is the case with other rights. This notes its obligatory nature in the school. Allah knows best.

he who is wealthy according to his means and he who is less well off according to his means –

This is also taken as evidence of the mandatory nature of the gift. Most recite ‘al-mūsi’’, who is someone in a wealthy situation. One says, ‘he spends according to his means (qadaruhu)’. Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘, Abū ‘Amr and ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr recite ‘qadruhu’ in both places, while Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah, al-Kisā’ī and ‘Āṣim in the variant of Ḥafṣ recite ‘qadaruhu’. Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Akhfash said that they mean the same. Abū Zayd also related that and that is used elsewhere in the Qur’an. ‘Muqtir’ is someone with little property.

a gift to be given with correctness and courtesy:

The words ‘with correctness and courtesy’ here mean with moderation according to the Sharī‘ah.

a duty for all good-doers.

This is further evidence for the mandatory nature of the gift. The verb ḥaqqa means to decide and oblige. The word ‘duty’ stresses it. It is also said that this means that it is for the believers because only they can be called ‘godfearing’ and ‘good-doers’. All people are commanded to do good and be godfearing. They do good by performing the obligations of Allah and avoiding actions in which they disobey Him so that they do not enter the Fire. So it is obliged for all people to do good and be godfearing.

237 If you divorce them before you have touched them but have already allotted them a dower, they should have half the amount which you allotted, unless they forgo it or the one in charge of the marriage contract forgoes it. To forgo it is closer to taqwā. Do not forget to show generosity to one another. Allah sees what you do.

If you divorce them before you have touched them but have already allotted them a dower,

People disagree about this āyah. One group, including Mālik and others, says that it removes the ruling of the gift in the previous āyah from any woman who is divorced after a dower has been allotted. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said that this āyah abrogates the āyah in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb (33:49) because it includes giving a gift to all wives whose marriage has not been consummated. Qatādah says that it abrogates the āyah preceding it. I say that the positions of Sa‘īd and Qatādah are debatable since the preconditions for abrogation do not exist and it is possible for it to coexist with the other āyahs. Ibn al-Qāsim said in the Mudawwanah, ‘The gift is for every divorced woman in 2:241 and for any woman whose marriage has not been consummated in the āyah in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb.’ So Allah excluded a woman who has been allotted a dower by this āyah. Here it is confirmed that she has half of what has been allotted. One group of scholars, including Abū Thawr, say that the command to give a gift to every divorced woman is universal and that this āyah makes it clear that a woman who has had a dower allotted to her receives half of it and the āyah does not mean that the gift is cancelled. Rather she receives a gift as well as half the dower.

they should have half the amount which you allotted,

This is mandatory. The consensus is that the allotted dower is divided equally between the man and the woman. ‘Half’ is the portion of something divided in two.

If a husband allots his wife a dower and then divorces her before consummation, the dower being in her possession, Mālik says that the growth of every property or slave given to her as a dower is shared between them, just as any decrease or destruction is shared between them. The woman owes nothing of it. If he gives her gold or silver and she uses it to purchase a slave or house, or she uses it to buy a share of something or buys something else like perfume, kitchen utensils or something else which she uses for her outfitting and putting things in order for remaining with him, all of that is in the position of the dower given to her and they both share in any growth or decrease in it. If he divorces her before consummation, she only keeps half of it. She is indebted to him for half of what she took from him. If she bought something personal with some or part of it, then she can be in debt to him for half of the dower that she took from him. That is also the case if she buys a slave or a house with a thousand that he gave her as a dower. If he then divorces her before consummation: she owes him half of the thousand.

There is no disagreement that if a man consummates his marriage and then dies having named something for her, she receives the total that he named for her as well as her share of the inheritance and she must observe ‘iddah.

They disagree about a man who has been alone with a woman but has not had sexual intercourse with her before parting from her. The Kufans and Mālik say that he owes the total dower and she must observe ‘iddah based on the report of Ibn Mas‘ūd who said, ‘The Rightly-guided Caliphs judged that when someone closes the door or lowers the curtain, she inherits and must observe ‘iddah.’ It is related marfū‘ and ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it. It will be mentioned in an-Nisā’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī did not oblige a full dower and says that she does not have to observe ‘iddah if there was no consummation. That is based on the apparent text of the Qur’an. Shurayḥ said, ‘I did not hear Allah mention a door or a curtain in His Book. When he claims that he has not touched her, then she receives half the dower. That is the position of Ibn ‘Abbās.’ What our scholars say about this will be mentioned in an-Nisā’ (4:21).

unless they forgo it

This is forgoing the half they are due because of the marriage. This refers to women who have charge of their own affairs. Allah allowed them to forgo it after it has become mandatory since it is solely their due and they can see that it is carried out or they can forgo it as they like. Women in charge of their own affairs are those who are adult, sane and sensible. Ibn ‘Abbās and a group of fuqahā’ and Tābi‘ūn said that it is permitted for a virgin who does not have a walī to do that. Saḥnūn related it in the Mudawwanah from other than Ibn al-Qāsim after Ibn al-Qāsim mentioned that she was not permitted to set aside the half. If she is a ward of someone or a child, it is not permitted for her to cancel the half. There is no disagreement about that as far as I know.

or the one in charge of the marriage contract forgoes it.

People disagree about who is meant by this. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Jubayr ibn Muṭ‘im married a woman from the Banū Naṣr and divorced her before consummation. He sent her the full dower and said, ‘I am entitled to forgo it. Allah says: “…unless they forgo it, or the one in charge of the marriage contract forgoes it.” Therefore I am entitled to forgo it.’ He interpreted the āyah as referring to himself in every situation before and after divorce, namely the marriage contract, since he could act on it or not. Ad-Dāraquṭnī also related marfū‘ from Qutaybah ibn Sa‘īd from Ibn Lahī‘ah from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The walī of the marriage contract is the husband.’ This also comes from ‘Alī, Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and Shurayḥ. He said that that was stated by Nāfi‘ ibn Jubayr, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b, Ṭāwūs, Mujāhid, ash-Sha‘bī and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr. That is also true of Mujāhid and ath-Thawrī. Abū Ḥanīfah preferred it, and it is the sound view from ash-Shafi‘ī. They all say that a guardian has no control over any of his ward’s dower as there is a consensus that it would not he permitted for him to absolve the husband of all the dower if there were no divorce. So the same applies if there is. They agree that a guardian does not have the power to give away any of his ward’s property, and the dower is her property. They agree that guardians cannot absolve the husband, no matter whether they are nephews, uncles or fathers. Allah knows best.

Some of them say that a guardian has that right. Ad-Dāraquṭnī also has a report from Ibn ‘Abbās regarding that, and it is the position of Ibrāhīm, ‘Alqamah and al-Ḥasan, and others added ‘Ikrimah, Ṭāwūs, ‘Aṭā’, Abu-z-Zinād, Zayd ibn Aslam, Rabī‘ah, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b, Ibn Shihāb, al-Aswad ibn Yazīd, ash-Sha‘bī, Qatādah and Mālik, and it was the old position of ash-Shāfi‘ī. According to them it is permitted for a father to forgo half of the dower of his virgin daughter if she is divorced before the consummation of her marriage whether or not she has reached the age of menstruation. ‘Īsā ibn Dīnār said, ‘She does not have recourse to any of it from her father.’

The evidence that it is the walī that is meant is found in the words of Allah at the beginning of the āyah: ‘If you divorce them before you have touched them but have already allotted them a dower, they should have half the amount you allotted.’ So He mentioned the husbands and addressed this to them. Then He says, ‘…unless they forgo it,’ and mentioned women. Then a third group are mentioned: ‘…or the one in charge of the marriage contract forgoes it.’ This does not refer to the previously mentioned husband unless no one but him exists. But the guardian exists and so he is the one who is meant. Makkī said that and Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned it. Furthermore, Allah says: ‘…unless they forgo it,’ and it is known that a minor girl is not in a position to forgo. A young girl, and one who is a ward, are not in a position to forgo and so Allah made the two categories clear. He said: ‘…unless they forgo’ when they are entitled to do that: ‘…or the one in charge of the marriage contract,’ who is the walī: ‘…forgoes it’ because he is in charge of the matter.

That is what is related by Ibn Wahb, Ashhab, Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam and Ibn al-Qāsim from Mālik about the father of a virgin girl and the master of a slave-girl. The walī is permitted to forgo when he is one of the appropriate people. He is not permitted to forgo if he is a simpleton.

If it is said that we do not agree that it is the walī, but rather it is the husband. He is more entitled to this title because he has more control over the contract than the walī, as was already stated, then we reply that we do not accept that the husband has more control over the contract than the father of a virgin girl. The father of the virgin has control of it, rather than the husband, because the object of the contract is the dower of the virgin. The husband does not have the right to contract that, but rather it is the father who does. Shurayḥ allowed the brother to forgo half the dower. That is what ‘Ikrimah said: ‘The one who makes the contract of marriage between them can forgo, whether he is an uncle, father or brother, even she dislikes it.’

To forgo it is closer to taqwā. Do not forget to show generosity to one another.

This is addressed to both men and women according to Ibn ‘Abbās. Mujāhid said, ‘What is best is for a man to forgo all the dower or for a woman to forgo half of it.’

Allah sees what you do.

This is a promise to the good-doer and warning for the one who does not do good. Nothing you do is hidden from Allah.

238 Safeguard the prayer – especially the middle one. Stand in obedience to Allah.

Safeguard the prayer – especially the middle one.

The command is in the plural, directed at the entire Community. The āyah is a command to persevere in performing the prayers at their correct times with all their preconditions. Safeguarding implies constancy in a thing and perseverance in it. The ‘middle’ of something is the best and most balanced part of it. Allah uses the term in another place in the same way when He says: ‘In this way We have made you a middlemost community.’ (2:143). A desert Arab praised the Prophet ﷺ:

O midmost of all people in praise!

Noblest of people in mother and father!

The middle prayer is singled out for mention because it is in the middle of all the prayers, to honour it. An example of this is found in Allah’s words: ‘When We made a covenant with all the Prophets – with you and with Nūḥ’ a(33:7) and: ‘In them are fruits and date-palms and pomegranates.’ (55:68) There are various positions regarding what constitutes the middle prayer:

– One is that it is Ẓuhr because it is in the middle of day, according to the sound position that the day starts from dawn. We begin with Ẓuhr because it is the first prayer prayed in Islam. Those who said that it is the middle prayer include Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ā’ishah رضي الله عنها. One thing that indicates that it is the middle prayer is what ‘Ā’ishah and Ḥafṣah said when they recited the āyah and said, ‘especially the middle one and the ‘Aṣr prayer.’ It is related that it is harder for the Muslims because it comes at a time of when it is very hot and they are distracted from it by work in their property. Abū Dāwud reports from Zayd: ‘The Prophet ﷺ used to pray Ẓuhr at midday and he did not pray any prayer which was harder for the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. Then: “Safeguard the prayer – especially the middle one…” was revealed.’ He said that there are two prayers before it and two prayers after it. Mālik related in the Muwaṭṭā’ and Abū Dāwud aṭ-Ṭayālisī in the Musnad that Zayd ibn Thābit said, ‘The middle prayer is Ẓuhr.’ Aṭ-Ṭayālisī added, ‘The Prophet ﷺ used to pray it at midday.’

– It is said to be ‘Aṣr because the two prayers of the day are before it and the two prayers of the night after it. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Better than this is the argument that it is called “middle” because it is between two prayers. One of them is the first to be made obligatory and the other was the second to be made obligatory. Among those who said this were ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Abū Hurayrah, and Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī. This view is the one preferred by Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and ash-Shāfi‘ī and most of the traditionists. It was the view of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb and preferred by Ibn al-‘Arabī in al-Qabas. In his tafsīr, Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It is the position of the majority of people, and I also say that.’ Hadiths transmitted by Muslim and others are offered as evidence for this position. Ibn Mas‘ūd reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The middle prayer is the ‘Aṣr prayer.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it and said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth. We dealt with more of this in al-Qabas, a commentary on the Muwaṭṭā’ of Mālik ibn Anas.

– It is said to be Maghrib. Qubayṣah ibn Abī Dhu’ayb said that as well as others. Their evidence is that it is middle in the number of rak‘ahs neither more nor less and is not shortened on a journey, and the Prophet ﷺ did not delay it or bring it forward. Prayers are aloud after it and silent before it. ‘Ā’ishah reported that he ﷺ said, ‘The best of prayers in the sight of Allah is the Maghrib prayer. It is not decreased for a traveller or someone who is resident. Allah began the night prayers with it and sealed the day prayers with it. If someone prays Maghrib and prays two rak‘ahs after it, Allah will built him a castle in the Garden. If someone prays four rak‘ahs after it, Allah will forgive him the wrong actions of twenty years (or forty years).’

– It is said to be ‘Ishā’ because it is between two prayers which may not be shortened and it comes at the time of sleep and it is recommended to delay it, so that makes it difficult to safeguard.

– It is said to be Ṣubḥ, because the two night prayers before it are those in which the prayer is said out loud and the two daytime prayers after it are silent and because it is a time when people are asleep and rising for it is hard in the winter because of the cold and in the summer because the night is short. Those who said that it was Ṣubḥ include ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās. It is also transmitted in the Muwaṭṭā’ and at-Tirmidhī reports it from Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās in commentary. It is related from Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh. It is the position of Mālik and his people and ash-Shāfi‘ī inclined to it according to al-Qushayrī.

The sound report from ‘Alī is that it is ‘Aṣr which is related from him by a sound known path. For evidence that it is Ṣubḥ, they cite, ‘Stand in obedience to Him,’ i.e. in it, and there is no prayer in which al-qunūt (standing in obedience) is prescribed except Ṣubḥ. Abū Rajā’ said, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās led us in the morning prayer in Basra and did the qunūt in it before rukū‘. He raised his hands and when he finished, he said, ‘This is the middle prayer in which Allah commanded us to stand in obedience.’ Anas said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ did the qunūt in the Ṣubḥ prayer after rukū‘.’ The ruling on the qunūt and what scholars say about it will be found in Āl ‘Imrān.

– Some say that it refers to the Jumu‘ah prayer because one is encouraged to go to it and listen to the khuṭbah in it and it is made a festival. Ibn Ḥabīb and Makkī mentioned that. Muslim related from ‘Abdullāh that the Prophet ﷺ said about some people who failed to come to Jumu‘ah, ‘I thought about commanding a man to lead the people in the prayer and then burning the houses of some men who failed to come to Jumu‘ah.’

– Ṣubḥ and ‘Aṣr together. Shaykh Abū Bakr al-Abharī said that his evidence for that in found in the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘The angels of the night and the angels of the day succeed one another in overseeing you.’ Abū Hurayrah related it. Jarīr ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘We were sitting with the Prophet ﷺ when he looked at the full moon and said, “You will see your Lord as you see this moon without any doubt that you are seeing Him. If you are able not to miss the prayer before sunrise and before sunset, do so.”’ He means ‘Aṣr and Fajr. Then Jarīr recited, ‘Glorify your Lord with praise before the rising of the sun and before its setting.’ (20:130) ‘Umārah ibn Ru’aybah related that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Someone who prayed before the rising of the sun and before its setting will not enter the Fire.’ It means ‘Aṣr and Fajr. The Prophet ﷺ also said, ‘Whoever prays the two cool ones will enter the Garden.’ It is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and elsewhere. He called them that because they are done in times of coolness.

– ‘Ishā’ and Ṣubḥ. Abu-d-Darda’ said in his final illness. ‘Listen and convey to your descendants: safeguard these two prayers (i.e. in the group): ‘Ishā’ and Ṣubḥ. If you had known what was in them, you would have come to them, even crawling on your hands and knees.’ ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān said that. The imams related that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If you had known what was in ‘Ishā’ and Ṣubḥ, you would have come to them, even crawling.’ He said that they are the hardest prayers for hypocrites. It makes the one who prays Ṣubḥ in the group rise at night and ‘Ishā’ is in the middle of the night. Mālik mentioned it mawqūf, stopping at ‘Uthmān and Muslim has it marfū‘. Abū Dāwud and at-Tirmidhī transmitted that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Whoever attends ‘Ishā’ in the group, it is as if he prayed half the night. Whoever prays ‘Ishā’ and Fajr in the group, it is as if he had prayed the entire night.’ This is contrary to what Mālik and Muslim related.

– The five prayers as a group. Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal said that. That is because ‘Safeguard the prayer’ includes the obligatory and the supererogatory. Then he singles out the obligatory.

– It is unspecified. Nāfi‘ quoted Ibn ‘Umar as saying that. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khaytham said that. Allah concealed it among the five prayers as He concealed the Night of Power in Ramadan, the time of acceptance on the day of Jumu‘ah and the times of the night when supplication is accepted so that people will pray at night in the darkness to converse with the Knower of secrets. Evidence for the validity of its being undefined and not specified is found in what Muslim related in the Ṣaḥīḥ at the end of the chapter where al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib said, ‘“Safeguard the prayer – especially ‘Aṣr” was revealed and we recited it for as long as Allah wished and then Allah abrogated it and said, “Safeguard the prayer – especially the middle one.”’ A man asked, ‘So it is the ‘Aṣr prayer?’ Al-Barā’ said, ‘I have informed you of how it was revealed and how Allah abrogated it. Allah knows best.’ This implies that after it was specified, its specification was abrogated and made unknown. Allah knows best. This is what Muslim preferred because he puts it at the end of the chapter. More than one of the later scholars said that it is sound, Allah willing, because of the contradictory evidence and lack of preference. All that is left, then, is to persevere in all of them and perform them at their times.

This disagreement about the middle prayer indicates the falseness of the position of those who claim that the words ‘and the ‘Aṣr prayer’ in the ḥadīth of Yūnus, the freedman of ‘Ā’ishah, where she told him to write out the Qur’an for her were actually part of the Qur’an. Our scholars said that it is like a commentary from the Prophet ﷺ as indicated by the ḥadīth of ‘Amr ibn Rāfi‘: ‘Ḥafṣah told me to write out the Qur’an for her. Part of what she dictated to me was: “Safeguard the prayer – especially the middle one (which is ‘Aṣr.) Stand in obedience to Allah.” She said, “That is how I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recite it.”’ So her words about ‘Aṣr indicate that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ explained the middle prayer as being ‘Aṣr. Nāfi‘ related ‘and the ‘Aṣr prayer’ from ‘Ā’ishah and from Ḥafṣah, but without ‘and’. Abū Bakr al-Anbārī said, ‘This extra word indicates that it is false, and that what is in the copy of the community of Muslims is sound.’

There is another argument which is that if someone says, ‘the middle prayer and the ‘Aṣr prayer,’ he makes the ‘middle prayer’ other than ‘Aṣr. This is refuted by the ḥadīth of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that is related by ‘Abdullāh. He said, ‘On the Day of the Confederates, the idolaters kept the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from the ‘Aṣr prayer until the sun was yellow. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘They have kept me from the middle prayer. May Allah fill their bellies and graves with fire!’

‘The middle prayer’ is evidence that the odd number is mandatory because the Muslims agreed that the number of obligatory prayers is less than seven and more than three, and there is only five between seven and three. Pairs have no ‘middle’ and so it is confirmed that the number is five. We find in the ḥadīth of the Night Journey: ‘They are five and they are fifty. The word is not changed with Me.’

Stand in obedience to Allah.

This means in the prayer. People disagree about the meaning of the word qānitīn. Ash-Sha‘bī said that it means ‘in obedience’. Jābir ibn Zayd, ‘Aṭā’ and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘Every use of the word qanūt in the Qur’an refers to obedience.’ Abū Sa‘īd said, quoting the Prophet ﷺ, that the people of every dīn will stand as rebels on the Day of Rising, but this Community will be told, ‘Stand in obedience to Allah.’ Mujāhid said that it means ‘in humility’. Qunūt means long bowing, humility, and lowering the eye. Ar-Rabī‘ said that qunūt means long bowing. Ibn ‘Umar said that and he recited: ‘…he who spends the night hours in prayer (qānit), prostrating and standing up?’ (39:9) The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best prayer is the long qunūt.’ Muslim and others transmitted it. A poet said:

Obedient (qānitan) to Allah, calling on his Lord

and intentionally withdrawing from people.

Ibn ‘Abbās said that qānitīn means calling or supplicating, and it is used with that meaning in the ḥadīth: ‘The Prophet ﷺ did the qanūt for a month, invoking against Ri‘l and Dhakwān.’ Some people said that it means to supplicate. Other people said that it means to stand for a long time. As-Suddī said that it means to be silent, and his evidence is that the āyah was revealed to forbid speaking in the prayer which was permitted at the beginning of Islam. This is sound based on Muslim and others relating that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘We used to greet the Messenger of Allah ﷺ while he was praying and he would reply to us. When we returned from the Negus, we greeted him and he did not reply to us. We said, “Messenger of Allah, we used to greet you during the prayer and you would reply to us.” He answered, “One is occupied in the prayer.”’ It is related that Zayd ibn Arqam said, ‘We used to speak in the prayer and a man would speak to the man at his side until it was revealed: “Stand in obedience to Allah.” So we were commanded to be silent and forbidden to speak.’

It is said that the linguistic root means to be constant in a thing. Since that is the linguistic root in language, it is permitted to describe someone who is constant in obedience as ‘qānit’. That same is true about someone who stands long in the prayer, recitation, and supplication in the prayer, or has long-standing humility and silence. All of these are aspects of the idea of qunūt.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘All Muslims agree that deliberately speaking in the prayer while knowing that one is in the prayer, when it is not to put the prayer right, invalidates the prayer. Al-Awzā’ī’s position that when one speaks to revive a person or other important matters, the prayer is not invalidated by that, is logically weak since Allah says: “Stand in obedience to Allah,” and Zayd ibn Arqam said, “We used to speak in the prayer until Allah revealed: ‘Stand in obedience to Allah.’”’ Ibn Mas‘ūd said that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Allah introduced that you should not speak in the prayer.’ This is when it is not a major matter which obliges that one stop the prayer and for which one must start anew. When someone does stop the prayer because of the excellence of saving a person’s life, or on account of property or something similar, he should start the prayer again and not build on what he has done. This is the sound position regarding the question, Allah willing.

They disagree about someone who speaks out of forgetfulness. Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and their people believe that speaking in the prayer out of forgetfulness does not invalidate it. Mālik, however, said, ‘The prayer is not spoiled by deliberately speaking in it when that is about the prayer and putting it right.’ That is the view of Rabī‘ah and Ibn al-Qāsim. Saḥnūn related from Ibn al-Qāsim that Mālik mentioned the case when an imam leads the people in prayer for two rak‘ahs and says the salām out of forgetfulness and they say, ‘Subḥānallāh,’ but he does not understand. So one of the men praying behind him in the prayer says, ‘You have not finished! Finish the prayer!’ and he turns to the people and asks, ‘Is he telling the truth?’ and they say, ‘Yes.’ The imam leads them in the rest of the prayer and both those who spoke and those who did not finish the prayer with him owe nothing. In doing that they are doing what the Prophet ﷺ did on the day Dhu-l-Yadayn spoke in the prayer. This is the position of Ibn al-Qāsim in the Mudawwanah and he related it from Mālik. It is the well known position of Mālik’s school. Ismā‘īl ibn Isḥāq imitated it and cited it as evidence in his book in which he refutes Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. Al-Ḥārith ibn Miskīn said, ‘All of Mālik’s adherents take a different position to that of Mālik in the question of Dhu-l-Yadayn with the sole exception of Ibn al-Qāsim who took Mālik’s position.

Others rejected that, saying that that took place at the beginning of Islam. Now that people know their prayer, whoever speaks in it must repeat it. That is the position of the Iraqis: Abū Ḥanīfah and his people and ath-Thawrī. They believe that speaking in it makes it unsound in every instance, whether that is deliberate or out of forgetfulness and whether it is about the prayer or something else. That is the view of Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, ‘Aṭā’, al-Ḥasan, Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān and Qatādah. The people of Abū Ḥanịfah claimed that this ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah about Dhu-l-Yadayn is abrogated by the ḥadīth of Ibn Mas‘ūd and Zayd ibn Arqam. They said that Abū Hurayrah became a Muslim later and he has the ḥadīth of Dhu-l-Yadayn mursal as he has another ḥadīth mursal: ‘If Fajr catches someone in janābah, he has no fast.’ They said that he has many mursal ḥadīths.

‘Alī ibn Ziyād mentioned that Abū Qurrah heard Mālik say, ‘When a man speaks in the prayer, it is recommended for him to repeat it and not build on what he has already done.’ He said, ‘Mālik said to us, “One day the Messenger of Allah ﷺ spoke to his Companions because they thought that the prayer had been shortened. No one is permitted to do that today.”’ Sahnūn related from Ibn al-Qāsim about a man who prayed alone and thought that he had finished four rak‘ahs and a man at his side said, ‘You have only prayed three.’ The man turned to another and asked, ‘Is what he said true?’ ‘Yes,’ was the answer. He said that his prayer was spoiled and that he should not have spoken nor looked at him. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Regarding this question, they differentiated between an imam with a group and someone praying alone. They permitted speech about the prayer for the imam and those with him, but not for someone praying alone. Other people took Ibn al-Qāsim’s answer to refer to the person praying alone and to the imam and those with him, based on the disagreement about what he said about using the ḥadīth of Dhu-l-Yadayn as the position of Mālik on that differed.’

Ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people said that whoever speaks deliberately, knowing that he is praying, should not complete the prayer and he renders the prayer invalid. If he speaks out of forgetfulness, or speaks thinking that he is not in the prayer because he has finished it, he builds on what he has already done.

The position of Aḥmad varies regarding this matter. Al-Athram mentioned that he said, ‘What a person says in his prayer to put the prayer right does not invalidate his prayer. If he speaks for any other reason, it is invalidated.’ This is the well-known view of Mālik. Al-Khiraqī mentioned that Aḥmad’s view is that if someone speaks deliberately or out of forgetfulness, his prayer is invalid, with the exception of the imam who can speak to put the prayer right in which case his prayer is not invalidated.

Among Mālik’s adherents, with the exception of Saḥnūn, if someone says the salām after two rak‘ahs in a four ra‘kah prayer, his words do not invalidate the prayer. If he says something else, then the prayer is invalidated. What is, in fact, sound is what Mālik believed in his well-known position, holding to the ḥadīth and taking the basic universal principles about violation of rulings and the generality of the Sharī‘ah and removing what is imagined of its being specific when there is no proof of that being the case. If someone were to say that the words spoken are about the prayer and forgetfulness, the Prophet ﷺ told them, ‘Saying “Subḥanallāh” is for men and clapping for women.’ So why did not they not say ‘Subḥanallāh’? The answer is that it is possible that at that time it was not their custom, and if it is as you have said, they did not say ‘Subḥanallāh’ because they thought that the prayer had been shortened. That comes in the ḥadīth: ‘People went out quickly, saying, “Has the prayer been shortened.”’ That required speech. Allah knows best.

Some of those who disagree said that the words of Abū Hurayrah, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ led us in the prayer’ can mean that he led the Muslims while he [Abū Hurayrah] was not one of them, as is seen in what is related from an-Nazzāl ibn Sabrah who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to us, “We and you used to be called the Banū ‘Abd Manāf. Today you are the Banū ‘Abdullāh and we are the Banū ‘Abdullāh.’ By that he meant that he said to his people. This view is unlikely. It is not permitted to say, ‘He led us in the prayer’ when at that time he was an unbeliever and not one of the people of the prayer, and so that is a lie. In the ḥadīth of an-Nazzāl, the speaker was one of the people and heard what he heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. As for what the Ḥanafīs claim of it being abrogated and being mursal, our scholars and others, especially Ḥāfiẓ Abū ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in at-Tamhīd, answered their position and refuted it. He mentioned that Abū Hurayrah became Muslim in the year of Khaybar and came to Madīnah that year. He was the Companion of the Prophet ﷺ for four years and was present for the incident of Dhu-l-Yadayn. That was not before Badr as they claim and Dhu-l-Yadayn was killed at Badr. He said that Abū Hurayrah being present on the day of the incident with Dhu-l-Yadayn is preserved by trustworthy transmitters,

Qunūt can mean ‘standing’. It is one of its possible meanings as mentioned by Abū Bakr ibn al-Anbārī. The community agree that standing in the obligatory prayer is mandatory for every healthy person who is able to stand, whether praying alone or as imam. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The imam is appointed to be followed. When he prays standing, pray standing.’ The imams transmitted the ḥadīth. It clarifies the āyah.

They disagree about whether a healthy person should pray sitting down when he prays behind a sick imam who cannot stand. A group of scholars allow that, indeed the majority of them, based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ about the imam: ‘When he prays sitting, then all pray sitting.’ This is the sound position regarding this matter as we will soon explain, Allah willing. One group of scholars allow someone to pray standing behind a sick imam because each is performing his obligation according to his ability in imitation of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who prayed sitting in his final illness while Abū Bakr was standing beside him, following his prayer and the people were standing behind him. He did not indicate to them or Abū Bakr to sit. He completed the prayer with them sitting while they were standing. It is known that that was after he fell from his horse and it is known that the later action abrogates the earlier one

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Among those who took this position and argued for it were ash-Shāfi‘ī and Dāwud ibn ‘Alī. It is transmitted by al-Walīd ibn Muslim from Mālik. He said, ‘I prefer someone to stand beside him to inform the people in the prayer.’ This is an unusual (gharīb) transmission from Mālik. One group of the people of Madīnah and others said that, and it is sound, Allah willing, because it was the last prayer that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed. What is well-known from Mālik is that someone sitting does not lead people standing in the prayer. If he leads them sitting, then both his prayer and their prayer is invalid because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘After me, no one should lead the prayer sitting down.’ He said that if the imam is ill, the prayer of the imam is complete and the prayer of those following him is spoiled. He said, ‘If someone prays sitting down and is not ill, he must repeat the prayer.’ This is the transmission of Abū Muṣ‘ab from Mālik in the Mukhtaṣar. So someone who prays sitting must repeat the prayer whether that is within the time or after it. It is related from Mālik that they only have to repeat it if it is within the time. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan has a similar position in this to the well-known position of Mālik. He argued for his position and school by quoting the ḥadīth that Abū Muṣ‘ab mentioned.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted from Jābir that ash-Sha‘bī said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘After me, no one should lead the prayer sitting down.’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī said, ‘Only Jābir al-Ju‘fī related it from ash-Sha‘bī, and his ḥadīths are abandoned. It is mursal and not used as evidence.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Jābir al-Ju‘fī does not have anything authoritative related from him with an isnād, so how much more is that the case with what is related as mursal?’

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan said, ‘When a sick imam leads the prayer sitting for both those who are healthy and other ill people who are sitting, his prayer and the prayer of those behind him who cannot stand is valid and permitted, but the prayer of those behind him who can stand is invalid.’ Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf said that both his prayer and their prayer is allowed. They said, ‘If he prays and indicates to people who are bowing and prostrating, it does not satisfy them all in their view and the prayer of the imam is allowed.’ Zufar said, ‘Their prayer is allowed because they prayed their obligatory prayer and their imam prayed his obligatory prayer as ash-Shāfi‘ī said.

As for what Abū ‘Umar and other scholars before and after him said about that being the last prayer that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed, I have seen others who collected the paths of transmission of ḥadīths about this and discussed it speaking about the disagreement of the fuqahā’ regarding that. We will mention a brief summary of it so that it is clear to you what is correct, Allah willing, regarding the soundness of those who say that the prayer of someone healthy behind a sick imam is allowed. Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥabbān al-Bustī mentioned in his sound Musnad from Ibn ‘Umar that while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was in a group of his Companions, he said, ‘Do you not know that I am the Messenger of Allah to you?’ ‘Yes,’ they replied, ‘we bear witness that you are the Messenger of Allah!’ He continued, ‘Do you not know that whoever obeys me has obeyed Allah, and part of obeying Allah is obeying me?’ They answered, ‘Yes, we bear witness that whoever obeys you has obeyed Allah and part of obeying Allah is obeying you.’ He said, ‘Part of obeying Allah is to obey me, and part of obeying me is to obey your commanders. If they pray sitting, then pray sitting.’ ‘Uqbah ibn Abī ’ṣ-Ṣahbā’ is in the path of transmission, and he is trustworthy as Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn said.

Abū Ḥātim said that this report is clear evidence that following the imam praying sitting when their imam prays sitting is part of obeying Allah Almighty which Allah has commanded His servants to do. I consider it to be a sort of consensus. They agree that it is permitted because four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave a fatwā to that effect: Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Abū Hurayrah, Usayd ibn Ḥuḍayr and Qays ibn Qahd. They did not relate, from any of the Companions who witnessed the descent of revelation and sought refuge from alteration and change, anything different to what those four said, whether with a connected or broken isnād. Therefore it is as if the Companions agreed that when the imam prays siting down, those who follow him must also pray sitting down. That is what was stated by Jābir ibn Zayd, al-Awzā‘ī, Mālik ibn Anas, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm, Abū Ayyūb Sulaymān ibn Dāwud al-Hāshimī, Abū Khaythamah, Ibn Abī Shaybah, Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl and those of the people of ḥadīth who followed them like Muḥammad ibn Naṣr and Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzaymah. This is the Sunnah that was related from the Prophet ﷺ from Anas ibn Mālik, ‘Ā’ishah, Abū Hurayrah, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī.

The first in this community to invalidate the prayer of someone following an imam sitting when his imam is sitting was al-Mughīrah ibn Miqsam, the companion of an-Nakha‘ī. Ḥammād ibn Abī Sulaymān took it from him, and then Abū Ḥanīfah took it from Ḥammād, and his people after him followed him. The report with the best isnād which they use as evidence is what is related by Jābir al-Ju‘fī from ash-Sha‘bī who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘After me, no one should lead the prayer sitting.’ If its isnād is sound, it is mursal. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘Among those I have met, I have not seen anyone better than ‘Aṭā’, nor among those I met any more mendacious than Jābir al-Ju‘fī. I have not gone to him with anything without him bringing me a ḥadīth about it and claiming that he had so many thousands of ḥadīths from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he had not uttered.’ So Abū Ḥanīfah discredited Jābir al-Ju‘fī and thought him a liar, differing from the position of those of his companions who adopt his position.

Abū Ḥātim said, ‘Many reports, both summary and abridged, have come about the prayer of the Prophet ﷺ while he was ill. Some of them have clear details. According to some of them: “The Prophet ﷺ came and sat beside Abū Bakr. Abū Bakr followed the Prophet ﷺ and the people followed Abū Bakr.” One of them has: “He sat to the left of Abū Bakr.” This is an explanation.’ So it says that the Prophet ﷺ prayed sitting with the people while Abū Bakr prayed standing. Abū Ḥātim said, ‘In short regarding this report, ‘Ā’ishah related about this prayer up to this point, and Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh has the rest of the story. He said that the Prophet ﷺ commanded them to sit in that prayer as he commanded them to do when he had fallen from his horse. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Qutaybah related from Yazīd ibn Mawhab from al-Layth ibn Sa‘d from Abu-z-Zubayr that Jābir said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was ill and we prayed behind him while he was sitting and Abū Bakr let the people hear his takbīr.’ He said, ‘He turned to us and saw us standing and indicated for us to sit. So we followed his prayer sitting. When he said that salām, he said, “You almost did what Persia and Rome did. They stood for their kings while they were seated. Do not do it. Follow your imam. If he prays standing, pray standing. If he prays sitting, then pray sitting.”’

Abū Ḥātim said, ‘This report provides evident clarification that the Prophet ﷺ sat to the left of Abū Bakr and Abū Bakr moved to follow his prayer and said the takbīr so the people could hear it and follow his prayer. Then the Prophet ﷺ commanded them to sit when he saw that they were standing. When he finished the prayer, he commanded them to sit when their imam prayed sitting. Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh saw his prayer when he had fallen from his horse and his right side was scratched. He ﷺ fell in Dhu-l-Ḥijjah 5 AH. He witnessed this prayer when he ﷺ was ill on another occasion. He gives each report. Do you not see that he mentions about this prayer: “Abū Bakr raised his voice with the takbīr so that people could follow him”? When he fell from his horse, the prayer that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed was in his house and there was no need to raise his voice with the takbīr so that people could hear it because ‘Ā’ishah’s room was small. He raised his voice in the Great Mosque where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed when he was ill. Since what we described is not sound, we cannot make some reports abrogate others. This is the prayer to which he ﷺ went supported by two men, and he was the imam in it and prayed sitting and commanded them to sit. As for the prayer that he prayed at the end of his life, he went out to it between Barīrah and Thawbah. He followed the imam in it and prayed sitting behind Abū Bakr while wrapped in a garment.’

Anas ibn Mālik related: ‘The last prayer that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed with the people, he prayed wrapped in a single garment, sitting behind Abū Bakr.’ So the Prophet ﷺ prayed two prayers in the mosque in the group, not one prayer. We find in the report of ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abdullāh from ‘Ā’ishah that the Prophet ﷺ came out between two men, one of whom was Ibn ‘Abbās and the other ‘Alī. Masrūq reported from ‘Ā’ishah: ‘The Prophet ﷺ felt better and so he came out between Barīrah and Thawbah. I could see his sandals hitting the pebbles and saw the bottom of his feet.’ This indicates that there were two prayers, not one prayer.

Abū Ḥātim reported from Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Khuzaymah from Muḥammad ibn Bashshār from Badal ibn al-Muḥabbar from Shu‘bah from Mūsā ibn Abī ‘Ā’ishah from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abdullāh from ‘Ā’ishah that Abū Bakr led the people in the prayer while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was in the row behind him. Abū Ḥātim said, ‘Shu‘bah ibn al-Ḥajjāj differed from Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah about the text of this report from Mūsā ibn Abī ‘Ā’ishah. Shu‘bah had the Prophet ﷺ following in the prayer sitting while the people were standing. Zā’idah made the Prophet ﷺ the imam when he prayed sitting while the people were standing. They are both trusted custodians. How can one make one of these two apparently contradictory transmissions abrogate the previous accounts? If someone makes one of the two reports abrogate the earlier position of the Prophet ﷺ and leaves the other without evidence that confirms its validity that allows his opponents to take what other of the two reports and leave the one he took.’

Similar to this in the sunan is the report of Ibn ‘Abbās about the Prophet ﷺ marrying Maymūnah while he was in iḥrām and the report of Abū Rāfi‘ that states that he married her while they were both out of iḥrām. So the two reports are apparently contradictory about the same action while we do not think that there is any real contradiction between them. One group of ḥadīth scholars consider the two reports about the marriage of Maymūnah contradictory and believe in the report of ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘No one in iḥrām should marry or give someone in marriage.’ They take it since it is agrees with one of the reports related about the marriage of Maymūnah and abandon the report of Ibn ‘Abbas who said that the Prophet ﷺ married her while he was in iḥrām. Someone who does that must say that the two reports about the prayer of the Prophet ﷺ when he was ill are contradictory according to what we mentioned, and so one must take the report containing the command for the followers to pray sitting when the imam prays sitting. That view is taken, and it agrees with one of the two transmissions about the Prophet’s prayer ﷺ when he was ill. He should abandon the other report as is done in the case of Maymūnah’s marriage. Abū Ḥātim said, ‘Some Iraqis who follow the Iraqi school say that his words, “When the imam prays sitting, then pray sitting,” mean when he says that tashahhud sitting, all do the tashahhud sitting. So they twisted the report from the general meaning in the report without any evidence to support that interpretation.’

239 If you are afraid, then do the prayer on foot or mounted. But when you are safe, remember Allah in the way He taught you when previously you did not know.

If you are afraid, then do the prayer on foot or mounted.

‘Rijāl’ means ‘on foot’. It is the plural of rājil or rajul. It describes a person walking on his feet. Allah commanded people to stand in the prayer with gravity and stillness and with the limbs at rest, and this applies when there is security and peace of mind. Then Allah mentions the occasional state of fear and makes it clear that this act of worship is not cancelled for His slaves in any circumstances, but in certain situations people are allowed to do the prayer while walking or on the backs of horses, camels and the like, and are permitted to pray with nods and gestures in any direction. This is the position of the scholars. This is the prayer performed by someone praying alone when he is constricted by fear for himself during fighting, or fear of a wild animal that is after him, or of an enemy who is pursing him or of a flood that is overflowing. In general, in every matter in which he fears for his life, he is permitted to do what is mentioned in this āyah. There is a consensus of the scholars on this dispensation when someone is acting and moving in a manner by which he thinks that he will save his life.

They disagree about exactly what constitutes the fear in which it is permitted to pray like this. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that it applies to the situation when the Muslims are actually in sight of the enemy and are not in a fortified position protecting them from being hit by arrows, or when the enemy is so close that they can strike at any time, or when someone whose information is trusted comes and tells them that the enemy is close and making for them. Otherwise it is not permitted to pray the fear prayer. If people pray it based on a report and then the enemy leaves, they do not have to repeat the prayer. Some say that they should, which is the position of Abū Ḥanīfah. Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The situation in which it permitted for someone in fear to pray on foot or mounted, facing the qiblah or not facing the qiblah, is in one of intense fear. The circumstances in the reports about it are other than this.’ This refers to the fear prayer with an imam and the division of people (into two groups). Its ruling is not dealt with in this āyah. The fear prayer behind an imam will be dealt with in Sūrat an-Nisā’. Mālik differentiated between fear of the enemy and fear of wild beasts and the like which might attack and bring about death. When it is on account of other than the enemy, it is recommended to repeat the prayer within the time if one reaches safety. Most scholars view fear as having the same ruling in either instance.

Abū Ḥanīfah said that fighting invalidates the prayer but the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar refutes that and the evidence of the āyah reinforces Ibn ‘Umar’s position. The literal meaning of the āyah is the strongest proof of it as will be dealt with Sūrat an-Nisā’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that since Allah made a dispensation permitting the omission of some of the preconditions of the prayer, that indicates that fighting does not invalidate the prayer. Allah knows best.

The number of rak‘ahs is not reduced in the fear prayer to below that of the travel prayer according to Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and a group of scholars. Al-Ḥasan ibn Abī ’l-Ḥasan, Qatādah and others said that the rak‘ah is prayed by indication. Muslim related from Bukayr ibn al-Akhnas from Mujāhid that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Allah prescribed the prayer on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as four rak‘ahs when resident, two when travelling and one in fear.’ Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that only Bukayr ibn al-Akhnas has this. It is more fitting to safeguard the prayer. When someone prays two rak‘ahs when travelling and in a state of fear, he leaves disagreement in favour of certainty. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Muzāhim said, ‘Someone in fear of death in hand-to-hand fighting and elsewhere prays one rak‘ah. If he is unable to do that, then he says two takbīrs.’ Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh said, ‘If he is only able to say one takbīr, that is enough.’ Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned.

But when you are safe, remember Allah in the way He taught you

This means return to the full pillars of the prayer you are commanded to do normally. Mujāhid said that it means when you are resident, and aṭ-Ṭabarī also reported this position. One group say that it means when the fear you were subject to, which made you resort to the fear prayer, is removed.

Scholars disagree about whether the person in fear builds on the prayer to complete it if the situation becomes safe. Mālik said that if someone prays one rak‘ah in a safe situation and then fear occurs, he should mount and complete the prayer while mounted. That is the same if he prays one rak‘ah in fear and then becomes safe: he should dismount and complete the prayer. This is also one of the positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī and is what al-Muzanī said. Abū Ḥanīfah says that if someone begins the prayer safe and then fears, he starts anew and does not complete what he has done. If he prays in fear and then becomes safe, he completes it. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the one who dismounts completes it but the one mounted does not. Abū Yūsuf said that he does not complete it in any of those situations.

The words ‘remember Allah’ here mean to thank Him for the blessing of teaching you the form of the fear prayer, which satisfies the obligation of prayer imposed on us, so you do not miss any of the prayers. This is something that you did not know. The kāf in ‘kamā’ implies thankfulness.

Our scholars say that the basis of the prayer is supplication and a state of fear is one in which supplication is most appropriate which is why the prayer is not cancelled by fear. If the prayer were to be cancelled by fear, it would be more likely to be cancelled by other things, such as illness or the like. Allah commanded us to safeguard the prayers in every situation: health or illness, at home or on a journey, in strength or weakness, fear or security. The obligation of prayer is never removed from the responsible person. The ruling of someone ill will come in Āl ‘Imrān. It means perform the prayer as best you can. It is not cancelled in any state so that if you can only do it by indication by the eyes, then you must still do it. This is why the prayer differs from other acts of worship, all of which can be cancelled by excuses. Ibn al-‘Arabī says, ‘Our scholars say that this is an immense matter and the one who abandons the prayer is killed because it resembles faith in that the obligation to do it is never removed.’ They said that the prayer is one of the pillars of Islam and nothing can replace it nor can it be delegated. Someone who abandons it is killed. This will be discussed in at-Tawbah.

240 Those of you who die leaving wives behind should make a bequest to their wives of maintenance for a year without them having to leave their homes But if they do leave you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves with correctness and courtesy. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

Those of you who die leaving wives behind should make a bequest to their wives of maintenance for a year without them having to leave their homes

A group of commentators have said that this means that a widow should stay in the house of her husband for a year and that she is entitled to maintenance from his estate as long as she does not leave it. If she leaves, the heirs can stop the maintenance. The waiting period of four months and ten days and the maintenance were abrogated by the shares of inheritance in Sūrat an-Nisā’. Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah, aḍ-Ḍahḥāk, Ibn Zayd and ar-Rabī‘ followed this opinion. Scholars disagree about lodging. Al-Bukhārī related that Ibn az-Zubayr said, ‘I said to ‘Uthmān about this āyah in al-Baqarah: “Those of you who die leaving wives behind…” which was abrogated by the other āyah, “Why do you write it down?” He answered, “Nephew, I will not change any of it from its place.”’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that Mujāhid said, ‘This āyah is one of judgment and is not abrogated. The ‘iddah was confirmed as four months and ten days but then Allah gives widows a further bequest of lodging for seven months and twenty days during which they may continue to live in their husband’s house if they wish or leave if they wish. That is from the words of Allah: “…without them having to leave their homes. But if they do leave, you are not to blame.”’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that all this is removed by abrogation, which is agreed upon by everyone except for what aṭ-Ṭabarī said that Mujāhid said. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ said that the consensus is that the ‘year’ is abrogated and her waiting period is four months and ten days. Other said that ‘waṣiyyah’ (bequest) is an instruction from Allah which was mandatory for wives after the death of their husband, allowing them reside in the house for a year, and it was then abrogated.

What aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned from Mujāhid is sound and confirmed. Al-Bukhārī transmitted from Isḥāq from Rawḥ from Shibl from Ibn Abī Najīḥ that Mujāhid said about: ‘Those of you who die leaving wives behind…’, ‘A widow was obliged to spend this waiting period with her husband’s family. Then Allah revealed: “Those of you who die leaving wives behind should make a bequest to their wives…”’ He added, ‘Allah then allotted a full year for her, another seven months and twenty days as a bequest. If she wished, she could stay with his executor, and if she wished, she could leave. That is from the words of the Almighty: “… without them having to leave their homes. But if they do leave, you are not to blame.”’

The first position is more apparent since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘It [the ‘iddah] is four months and ten days. In the Jāhiliyyah, one of you would throw a piece of dung at the end of a year.’ He was reporting about the state of widows before the Sharī‘ah. When Islam came, Allah Almighty commanded them to stay in their houses for a year and then that was abrogated by four months and ten days. In addition to its clarity in the firm Sunnah transmitted by single reports, it is the undisputed consensus of Muslim scholars. Abū ‘Umar said that. The same is true of the rest of the āyah. According to the majority of scholars this āyah is all abrogated. Then the command to provide wives lodging for the year was abrogated except for an aberrant, avoided transmission from Ibn Abī Najīḥ from Mujāhid which is not corroborated. None of the Muslim scholars among the Companions and Tābi‘ūn or those after them said that she has more than four months and ten days as far as I know. Ibn Jurayj related the like of what people say from Mujāhid. So the consensus is reached and disagreement removed. Success is by Allah.

‘Bequest’ is recited by Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr, al-Kisā‘ī and ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr in the nominative. It is possible that it means: ‘they should make a bequest’ and ‘to their wives’ describes it. That is how it is in the reading of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd. Abū ‘Amr, Ḥamzah and Ibn ‘Āmir recite it in the accusative based on an implied verb: ‘make a bequest’. Someone deceased does not make a bequest. It means when someone is close to death. It is said that it means: ‘Allah commands” and it means to give them maintenance, so Allah has assigned that for them. It is also possible that it is in the accusative for the adverbial ḥāl or because it is a verbal noun. ‘Matā‘’ here is their maintenance for a year.

‘Without them having to leave their homes’ means that the relatives of the deceased and his heirs who inherit the house should not expel the deceased’s widow from it.

But if they do leave you are not to blame for anything they do with themselves with correctness and courtesy.

This refers to them leaving voluntarily before the year is up. Then there is nothing held against the guardian, judge or anyone else because the widow does not have to stay in the house for a whole year. It is said that it means that there is nothing wrong in cutting off their maintenance or in them looking for new husbands since that is cut off from them under the supervision of the heirs. They cannot remarry until their waiting period is finished but there is nothing wrong in them remarrying after the end of the waiting period. The words ‘with correctness and courtesy’ here mean in accordance with the Sharī‘ah.

Allah is Almighty

It entails a threat to those who oppose the limits in this case and expel the wife when she does not want to leave.

All-Wise

Firm in judgement (muḥkim) in what He desires in the affairs of His slaves.

241 Divorced women should receive maintenance given with correctness and courtesy: a duty for all who are godfearing. 242 In this way Allah makes His Signs clear to you, so that hopefully you will use your intellect.

People disagree about this āyah. Abū Thawr says that it is one of the āyahs of judgment, and every divorced woman is owed maintenance. That is what az-Zuhrī said, adding that it even applies to divorced slave-girls. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that every divorced woman should receive maintenance. That is one of the positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī. Mālik says that every woman divorced once or twice receives it, except in the case of a woman divorced before consummation whose dowry has been allotted; she simply receives half her dowry. If it has not been allotted, then she receives maintenance not exceeding the dower of a woman of her status. There is no definition of the amount of maintenance, as Ibn al-Qāsim said.

Ibn al-Qāsim said in the Mudawwanah about when the curtain has been lowered (privacy between the couple has been established), ‘Allah Almighty has appointed maintenance for every divorced woman on the basis of this āyah. Then in the other āyah He makes an exception for a woman whose dower has been allotted and whose marriage has not been consummated: she does not receive maintenance. Ibn Zayd claimed that it is abrogated.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Ibn al-Qāsim fled from the word “abrogation” to “exception” and that is not proper in this place. It is indeed pure abrogation as was stated by Zayd ibn Aslam. When Ibn al-Qāsim makes “divorced women” include every divorced woman, he must then say that there is abrogation.’

‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ and others said that this āyah is about previously married women who have had sex, since in another āyah it mentions the maintenance of those whose marriage has not been consummated. This position is about a woman who has been allotted a dower before consummation and whose marriage has not been consummated in general. That is on the basis that Allah’s words in 2:247 specifies this category of women. When it is said that this is general and undefined, then that is abrogation and not specification.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī said in another view that there is only a gift for a woman who has been divorced before consummation when there has been no touching or allotment, because someone who is entitled to something of the dower does not need a gift. The words of Allah about the wives of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Come and I will give you all you need’ (33:27), are taken as being voluntary on the part of the Prophet ﷺ, not mandatory, and His words: ‘…there is no ‘iddah for you to calculate for them, so give them a gift’ (33:49), are also taken to be not mandatory. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that when a woman has been allotted a dower, she has no gift if she is divorced before consummation, because she takes half of the dower when there has been no sexual intercourse. In the case of a woman whose marriage has been consummated, she receives a gift when she is divorced because the dower is in compensation for sexual intercourse and the gift on account of of the dissolution of the contract. Ash-Shāfi‘ī obliged a gift for a woman after a khul‘ and buying her freedom. Mālik’s people said, ‘How can a woman who ransoms herself be given a gift when she us the one who spends? How can she then take a gift?’ There is no gift due to a woman who chooses separation, whether by khul‘, ransoming herself, buying her freedom, or by mutual agreement, li‘ān or emancipation, when she chooses separation, whether or not it has been consummated and whether a dower has been stipulated or not.

243 What do you think about those who left their homes in thousands in fear of death? Allah said to them, ‘Die!’ and then brought them back to life. Allah shows great favour to mankind, but most people are not grateful.

The literal meaning of the words ‘What do you think...?’ is ‘Do you not see?’ but in this usage it refers to the vision of the heart and means ‘Do you not know?’ Sībuwayh says that the phrase is used to call attention to the story of those people.

The story behind the āyah is that some of the tribe of Israel suffered a plague in a town called Dāwardān and fled from it. They went into a valley and Allah caused them to die there. Ibn ‘Abbās said that there were four thousand of them and they said, ‘We will go to a land where there is no death,’ but Allah made them die anyway. A Prophet passed by them and prayed to Allah and He brought them back to life. It is said that they were dead for seven or eight days, and Allah knows best. Al-Ḥasan said that Allah made them die before their time was up as a punishment for them and then brought them back for the rest of their lifespans. It is said that he did that to them as a miracle for one of the Prophets whose name is said to be Sham‘ūn. An-Naqqāsh related that they fled from the fever.

It is also related that they fled from fighting or from jihād. When Allah commanded them to fight through Ezekiel and they feared death in jihād, they left their homes and fled from it, so Allah made them die to teach them that nothing could save them from death. Then He brought them back to life and commanded them to fight by His words: ‘Fight in the Way of Allah.’ (2:190) Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that all these stories have weak isnāds. The important point about the āyah is that, in it, Allah informs his Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ about the importance of taking note of the mistakes of the people of the past and to acquaint him with some people who left their homes in flight from death and how Allah made them die and then brought them back to life to show them and all those after them that death is in the hand of Allah and no one else and so there is no sense in having fear of it or the delusion of being able to escape from it. Allah revealed this āyah before commanding the believers of the Community of Muḥammad ﷺ to fight jihād. This is the position of aṭ-Ṭabarī. It is the apparent meaning of the āyah.

‘Ulūf’ (thousands) is the plural of alf. The number referred to by the word ‘thousands’ is said to be 60,000 or 80,000. Ibn ‘Abbās said 40,000. Abū Mālik said 30,000. As-Suddī said 37,000. It was said by ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ to be 70,000. Ibn Jurayj related from him that it was 8,000. The sound position is that it was more than 10,000 because of the plural used for ‘thousands’. It is not used for less than 10,000. Ibn Zayd said that the expression means they were united (the verbal root alafa has the meaning of unite), meaning that one group of their people did not leave nor was there any dissension between them, but they were united. This group then differed from them and left in order to flee from death and to seek to live. So Allah made them die in the place where they claimed that they were safe. According to this, ulūf is the plural of ālif.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Allah caused them to die for a time as a punishment and then brought them back to life. This death was a punishment after which there was life. There is no life after the death which is the end of one’s term.’ Mujāhid said, ‘When they were brought to life, they returned to their people, and they recognised that they had been dead. The blackness of death was on their faces. None of them touched a garment without it becoming a grimy shroud until they finally died at the time written for them.’ Ibn Jurayj said that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The smell remains on that clan of the tribe of Israel until today. It is related that they were in the middle of Iraq.’ It is said that they were brought back to life after they were putrid. That smell exists in their descendants until today.

The expression ‘in fear of death’ means in order to avoid death. It is said that two angels shouted the word ‘Die!’ at them, meaning that Allah said this by means of the angels, and Allah knows best.

The soundest of these positions, and best known, is that they were fleeing from the plague, as Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr related from Ibn ‘Abbās who said, ‘They left, fleeing the plague, and died. Then one of the Prophets asked Allah to bring them back to life so that they could worship Allah, and Allah brought them back to life.’ ‘Amr ibn Dīnār said about this āyah: ‘The plague broke out in their town and some people left and some remained. More left than remained. Those who left were saved and those who remained died. When it happened again, they all went out except for a few and Allah caused them and their animals to die. Then He brought them to life and they returned to their town and reproduced.’ Al-Ḥasan said that they left to avoid the plague and Allah made them all die at the same moment, including their animals. They numbered 40,000.’

Rulings derive from this āyah. The imams related from ‘Āmir ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ who heard Usāmah ibn Zayd relate from Sa‘d that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The plague was a punishment with which Allah punished some nations and some of it remained, and it comes and goes. Anyone who hears that it has broken out in a land should not go to it, and if someone is in a land where it has broken out, he should not leave it, fleeing it.’ Abū ‘Īsā at-Tirmidhī transmitted from Qutaybah from Ḥammād ibn Zayd from ‘Amr ibn Dīnār from ‘Āmir ibn Sa‘d from Usāmah ibn Zayd that the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the plague and said, ‘It is something that remains of a plague or punishment which Allah sent on a group of the tribe of Israel. When it breaks out in a land where you are, do not leave it. When it breaks out in a land where you are not, do not go to it.’ He said that it is a sound ḥasan ḥadīth.

‘Umar and the Companions acted according to these ḥadīths when he returned from Saragh when ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf informed them of the ḥadīth, as is well known in the Muwaṭṭā’ and elsewhere. People dislike fleeing from the plague and a land with disease. It is related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘Fleeing from the plague is like fleeing from battle.’ There is the story of ‘Umar who was on his way to Syria with Abū ‘Ubaydah and returned. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘The ḥadīth of Sa‘d contains evidence that a person should guard against disliked things before they occur and avoid feared things before they attack and that one must have steadfastness and lack of terror after such things occur. That is because the Prophet ﷺ forbade someone who is not in a land where the plague is to enter the land where it is raging and he forbade someone who is in the land where the plague has broken out from fleeing from it. That is what is mandatory with respect to the general ruling of everyone who fears fearful matters. In that he follows what one follows in the case of the plague. This idea is like the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Do not wish to meet the enemy. Ask Allah for well-being. If you meet the enemy, be steadfast.’

This is what is sound in respect of this matter and it is what is demanded by what the Messenger ﷺ said and by the action of his noble righteous Companions. When Abū ‘Ubaydah argued with ‘Umar and asked, ‘Are you fleeing from Allah’s decree?’ ‘Umar answered, ‘Would that someone other than you said that, Abū ‘Ubaydah! Yes, we are fleeing from Allah’s decree to Allah’s decree.’ It means that the human being cannot escape what Allah has decreed for and against him. However, Allah has commanded us to be cautious about perilous matters and put energy into guarding ourselves against disliked things. Then ‘Umar said to him, ‘If you had camels and descended into a valley where one side was lush and the other barren, would you not graze on the lush side? Doing so is based on Allah’s decree. If you were to graze them on the barren side, that is also by the decree of Allah.’ ‘Umar returned to Madīnah from that place.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘We do not know of any disagreement about the fact that when unbelievers or highwaymen make for a weak land whose people will not be able to resist those who are coming, they can remove themselves from them. Life-spans are decreed and can be neither lengthened nor shortened. It is said that it is forbidden to flee from the plague because the one who is in the place where it breaks out might have already taken his portion of it, since he shared with the people of that place in the cause of that prevalent illness. So there is no point in him fleeing. So he adds the hardship of travel to the first signs of the plague. Then his pains are doubled and harm increased. They will die on every road and be cast into every ravine and mountain pass. Therefore it is said that no one flees from the plague and is safe.’ Ibn al-Madā’inī related that.

There is enough warning about that in Allah’s words in this āyah. If he flees and is safe, he might say, ‘I was saved because I left it,’ and his belief will thereby be deficient. Generally speaking, fleeing from the plague is forbidden based on what we mentioned and also because it entails emptying the land when there are oppressed people in it for whom it would be difficult to leave. They will be harmed if the wealthy, who are the pillars of the land and support the oppressed, evacuate it. When the plague has broken out in a land, no one should go it, being cautious about harmful situations and averting ideas which disturb. There may be destruction in entering that place and it is not permitted in the judgment of Allah expose oneself to it. It is mandatory to protect oneself from what is disliked. It is feared that what someone believes will be false so that he might say, ‘If I had not entered this place, that disliked matter would not have happened to me.’ This is the point of the prohibition of entering a land where the plague has broken out or leaving it. Allah knows best.

Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘The plague is a trial for those who remain and those who flee. Someone who flees may say, “I was saved because I fled.” Someone who stays may say, “I stayed and so I died.”’ Mālik indicated something similar when he was asked about disliking to look at a leper. He said, ‘I have not heard that there is any dislike of doing that. I can only think that what has come about that being forbidden is out of fear of being alarmed by him or the fear that it will cause wrong thinking in a person. The Prophet ﷺ said about the plague, “When you hear that the plague has broken out in a land, do not go to it. If it breaks out where you are, do not leave it to flee from it.”’ He was also asked about a land in which there was death and illnesses and whether it was disliked to leave it. He answered, ‘I see no harm in leaving or staying.’

The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When the plague breaks out in a land where you are, do not leave it, fleeing from it.’ This indicates that it is permitted to leave a plague land if one is not fleeing from it since he is certain that what befalls him could not have missed him. That is also the ruling of someone who enters it when he is certain that entering it will not bring him anything unless Allah has decreed it for him. Then a person is permitted to enter or leave it within the parameters that we mentioned. Allah knows best.

The word for plague is ‘ṭā‘ūn’. It is generally used for death from pestilence. It is related from ‘Ā’ishah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The annihilation of my community comes about through defamation (ṭa‘n) and plague (ṭā‘ūn).’ She said, ‘We know what ṭa‘n is. What is ṭā‘ūn?’ He said, ‘It is a bubo like the ganglion of a camel in the groin and armpits.’ Our scholars say that this pestilence was sent by Allah as revenge and a punishment to whomever He wishes of His disobedient and unbelieving servants. He sent it as martyrdom and mercy to the righteous. Mu‘ādh said about the ‘Amwas Plague, ‘It is martyrdom and mercy for them and the supplication of your Prophet: “O Allah, give Mu‘ādh and his family a portion of Your mercy.” It appeared on his hand.’ Abū Qilābah said, ‘I knew what martyrdom and mercy are, but l did not know what the supplication of your Prophet meant. I asked and was told that he asked for the obliteration of his community to be by stabbing and the plague.’

Jābir and others reported that the Prophet ﷺ said about the plague, ‘The one who flees from it is like someone who flees from battle. Whoever is patient is like someone who is steadfast in battle.’ We find in al-Bukhārī from Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar that ‘Ā’ishah informed him that she asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the plague, the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, told her, ‘It is a punishment which Allah sent to those before you. He made it a mercy for the believers. There is no one who comes into contact with the plague and then remains where he is with fortitude and in expectation of the reward, knowing that only what Allah has written for him will befall him, who will receive any other reward than that of a martyr.’ This explains the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The plague is martyrdom and the one who dies of it is a martyr.’ It means someone who is steadfast in it in expectation of a reward from Allah, knowing that what afflicts him was only what Allah decreed for him. That is why Mu‘ādh hoped to die in it since he knew that whoever dies in it is a martyr. The one who fears and dislikes the plague and flees from it is not included in the meaning of the ḥadīth.

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘I have not heard that any people of knowledge fled from the plague except for what Ibn al-Madā’inī mentioned about ‘Alī ibn Zayd ibn Jud‘ān fleeing from the plague to Sayala. He used to go to every Jumu‘ah and returned. When he went to Jumu‘ah, they shouted to him, ‘Flee from the plague!’ He died at Sayala.’ He said, ‘‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd and Rabāṭ ibn Muḥammad fled to ar-Rabāţiyyah. Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Alī al-Fuqaymī said about that:

When death startled every denier,

I was steadfast, but Rabāṭ and ‘Amr were not.

Abū Ḥātim mentioned that al-Aṣmā‘ī said, ‘One of the Basrans fled from the plague and mounted a donkey of his and travelled with his family in the direction of Safawān. He heard someone chanting behind him:

He will not outrun Allah on a donkey or on an unbeaten fast horse.

Death comes as decreed. In the morning it is in front of the traveller.

Al-Madā’inī said, ‘The plague broke out in Egypt while ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Marwān was governor. He fled from it and stopped in one of the towns of Upper Egypt called Sukar. When he had stopped there, the messenger of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān reached him. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz asked, ‘What is your name?’ He answered, ‘Ṭālib ibn Mudrik,’ which means ‘Seeker, son of the one who reaches.’ He exclaimed, ‘Oh! I do not think that I am returning to Fusṭāṭ!’ He died in that town.’

244 Fight in the Way of Allah. Know that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

This is addressed to the Community of Muhammad ﷺ ordering them to fight in the Way of Allah. The purpose of this fighting is to make the word of Allah uppermost. The ways of Allah are many and varied, and the āyah applies to all of them. Allah says: ‘Say: “This is My way.”’ (12:108) Mālik said, ‘The ways of Allah are many and there is not one of them which should not be fought on, in or for. The greatest of them is the dīn of Islam. There is no disagreement about this.’

It also is said that the people addressed are those of the tribe of Israel who were brought to life. That is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, who say that the wa (and) which comes at the beginning of the āyah connects it to the previous matter and if this is the case then something is elided and what is intended is: ‘He said to them, “Fight...”’

An-Naḥḥās said that the āyah is a command to the believers not to flee in the face of fighting. It means, ‘Know that Allah hears your words if you say the like of what those people said and He knows your intention.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that those who say that it is those who were brought to life who were commanded to fight have no basis for what they say. Allah knows best.

245 Is there anyone who will make Allah a generous loan so that He can multiply it for him many times over? Allah both restricts and expands. And you will be returned to Him.

Is there anyone who will make Allah a generous loan

Allah commanded jihād and fighting for the truth and there is nothing in the Sharī‘ah which it is not permitted to fight for, the greatest object being the dīn of Islam as Mālik said. Then Allah encouraged people to spend to that end and included this in this passage about fighting in the Way of Allah. So a person spends hoping for the reward for fighting, as ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān did in the case of the Army of Hardship.

When this āyah was revealed, Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ set out to give all his wealth as ṣadaqah, seeking the reward of his Lord. The Shaykh, faqīh and imam, Qāḍī Abū ‘Āmir Yaḥyā ibn ‘Āmir ibn Aḥmad ibn Manī‘ al-Ash‘arī (by lineage and school) reported to us in Cordoba in Rabī‘ al-Ạkhir 628 AH, when I read to him from Abū Ijāzah by reading from Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Khalaf ibn Madyan al-Azdī from Abū ‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘dūn from Abu-l-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Mahrān from Abu-l-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Zakariyyā ibn Ḥaywah an-Naysābūrī in 366 AH from his uncle, Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā from Muḥammad ibn Mu‘āwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ from Khalaf ibn Khalīifah from Ḥumayd al-A‘raj from ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Ḥārith that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘When: “Is there anyone who will make Allah a generous loan,” was revealed, Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ said, “Messenger of Allah, does Allah desire a loan from us?” He replied, “Yes, Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ.” Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ said, “Give me your hand.” He gave it to him and he said, “I have lent Allah a garden with six hundred palm trees in it.” Then he walked to the garden where Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ was with his family. He called her. “Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ!” “At your service!” she replied. He said, “Come out. I have lent my Lord a garden with six hundred palm trees in it.”

Zayd ibn Aslam said, ‘When: “Is there anyone who will make Allah a generous loan,” was revealed, Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ said, “May my father and mother be your ransom, Messenger of Allah! Does Allah ask us for a loan when He has no need of a loan?” He said, “Yes, He wants to admit you to the Garden by it.” He said, “If I lend my Lord a loan will He guarantee the Garden for me and my daughter, Daḥdāḥah?” “Yes,” he replied. He said, “Give me your hand.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave him his hand and he said, “I have two gardens, one at as-Sāfilah and one at al-‘Āliyah. By Allah, they are all that I own. I have made them a loan to Allah Almighty!” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Make one of them for Allah, and leave the other as livelihood for you and your dependants.” He said, “I bear witness, Messenger of Allah, that I have made the better of them a loan for Allah Almighty.” It was a garden of six hundred palm-trees. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Allah will repay you with the Garden for them.” Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ went to Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ who was with heir children in the garden going around in the palm-trees and said:

My Lord has guided me to the paths of guidance,

to the path of good and correctness.

Leave the garden at al-Widād.

It is a loan until the Meeting.

I have lent it to Allah, relying voluntarily,

not seeking a favour or its return,

Only the hope for many times more in the Hereafter.

So set out with yourself and your children.

There is no doubt that piety is the best provision

which someone sends ahead to the Hereafter.

Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ said, ‘A profitable sale! May Allah bless you in what you purchased!’ Then Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ answered him in verse:

Allah has given you the good news of good and joy.

A person like you settles what he owes and is faithful.

Allah has provided for my dependants

and given black ‘ajwah dates and bright flowers.

The slave strives and has what he toiled for

in the long nights and owes what he procured.

Then Umm ad-Daḥdāḥ told her children to remove what was in their mouths and what was in their sleeves and went to the other garden. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘How many heavy clusters and abundant houses Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ will have!’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘By the judgment, wisdom, power, will and decree of the Creator, when people heard this āyah, they were separated into categories and divided into three groups. The first group are base. They said, “The Lord of Muḥammad is poor and in need of us and we are rich and independent.” This is unconcealed ignorance. They are refuted by His words: “Allah has heard the words of those who say, ‘Allah is poor and we are rich.’” (3:181) The second group preferred avarice and miserliness and desired wealth and did not spend in the way of Allah or ransom captives or help anyone, being too lazy to obey and relying on this world. The third group set out to obey Allah, choosing to respond to what they heard with haste like Abu-d-Daḥdāḥ and others, and Allah knows best.

The word used for ‘loan’ here is qarḍ. It is everything for which there is repayment. Aqraḍa means to advance money to someone. Qirḍ is used in another dialect. Az-Zajjāj said that linguistically it means a good or bad test. Al-Kisā’ī said that it is what you advance of good or bad actions. Its root means ‘cutting’. The word miqrāḍ, meaning scissors, comes from it, because aqraḍa implies cutting out a piece of one’s wealth which will be repaid. Another form of the word is used for when the traces of a people are cut off and they are destroyed. Qarḍ here is a noun but Allah could say iqrāḍ. The word is used to make it familiar to people in a way that they will understand. Allah is Rich-beyond-need and Praiseworthy, but He likens what the believer gives in this world in exchange for what he hopes for of reward in the Next World to a loan, as He likens the giving of lives and property in order to obtain the Garden to buying and selling, as will be discussed in Sūrat-Tawbah, Allah willing.

It is said that the aim of this āyah is to encourage ṣadaqah and spending wealth in the Way of Allah to help the poor and needy and to be generous with them, and ‘in the Way of Allah’ also means to support the Dīn. Allah alludes to the poor by mentioning Himself, even though He is sublime and beyond need of anything, to encourage ṣadaqah, as He alludes to the sick, hungry and thirsty by mentioning Himself in the famous ḥadīth: ‘Son of Ādam, I was ill and You did not visit Me; I asked you for food and you did not feed Me; I asked you for water and you did not give it to Me.’ The reply was, ‘O Lord, how could I give you water when You are the Lord of the worlds?’ He said, ‘My slave asked you for water and you did not give it to him. If you had given it to him, you would have found that with Me.’ This ḥadīth can be found in both al-Bukhārī and Muslim. All of this is to ennoble the person alluded to in order to encourage those who are addressed.

Someone who asks for a loan is duty bound to repay the loan and Allah has made it clear that those who spend in the Way of Allah certainly do not lose by doing so. Allah absolutely rewards it. In a ḥadīth we read, ‘Spending in the Way of Allah is multiplied seven hundred times or more.’ This will be explained in 2:261. Here Allah says: ‘…so that He can multiply it many times over’. This has no end or limit.

The reward for the loan is so large because it gives expansion to the Muslim and relieves him. Ibn Mājah related in the Sunan from Anas ibn Mālik that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘On the Night Journey I saw written on the gate of the Garden, “Ṣadaqah is rewarded ten times over and a loan eighteen times.” I asked Jibrīl, “Why is a loan better than ṣadaqah?” He replied, “Because a beggar may ask when he has something but the one who asks for a loan only does so out of real need.”’

Muḥammad ibn Khalaf al-‘Asqalānī related from Ya‘lā from Sulaymān ibn Yusayr from Qays ibn Rūmī that Sulaymān ibn Udhubān lent ‘Alqamah a thousand dirhams to be repaid when he received his stipend. When his stipend arrived, Sulaymān demanded repayment and was hard on ‘Alqamah, so he paid it. It seemed that ‘Alqamah was angry. A month passed and then he went to him again and said, ‘Lend me a thousand dirhams until my stipend comes.’ He answered, ‘Yes, and with honour! Umm ‘Utbah! Bring that sealed bag you have!’ She brought it and he said, ‘By Allah, they are your dirhams that you paid me. Not a single dirham has moved.’ He asked, ‘What has made you do this for me?’ He said, ‘It is because of what I heard from you.’ He asked, ‘And what did you hear from me?’ He replied, ‘I heard you mention from Ibn Mas‘ūd that the Prophet ﷺ said, “If any Muslim gives a loan to another Muslim twice, it is as if he had given it as ṣadaqah once.”’ He said, ‘That is what Ibn Mas‘ūd told me.’

A loan in the Sharī‘ah is one to one, in other words, a person returns what has been lent him. Scholars agree that it is permitted to lend dinars, dirhams, wheat, barley, dates and all similar goods. The Muslims agree that stipulating an increase over and above what has been lent is usury, even if it is only a handful of fodder, as Ibn Mas‘ūd said, or a single grain. It is, however, permitted to give more when repaying provided that it was not a precondition because that is courtesy and the ḥadīth transmitted by Abū Hurayrah reports, ‘The best of you is the best of you in repayment.’ The imams transmitted it: al-Bukhārī, Muslim and others. The Prophet ﷺ praised repaying well. That is undefined and not limited by any description. That is how the Prophet ﷺ repaid the loan of a young camel with a four-year-old camel. This ḥadīth contains evidence for the permission to lend animals. That is the school of the majority while Abū Ḥanīfah forbade that as already mentioned.

It is not permitted for someone who takes a loan to give a gift to the one who gave him the loan while it is still outstanding nor is it permitted for the lender to accept it unless that is their normal custom, and the Sunnah has brought this. Ibn Mājah transmitted from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh from ‘Utbah ibn Ḥumayd aḍ-Ḍabbī that Yaḥyā ibn Abī Isḥāq al-Hunā’ī said, ‘I asked Anas ibn Mālik about one of our men who lent his brother some money. Could he give him a gift?’ He answered, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “When one of you gives his brother a loan and then he gives him a gift or lets him ride his animal, he should not accept and not ride unless that was the normal custom between them before that.”’

A loan can be property, whose ruling we have explained, or it can be in the form of reputation. We find in a ḥadīth from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Is one of you unable to be like Abū Ḍamḍam? When he left his house he would say, “O Allah, I have given my reputation as ṣadaqah to Your servants.”’ It is related that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘Give a loan of your reputation for day when you are poor.’ He meant: ‘Do not take your due from someone who insults you and do not carry out a ḥadd on him until the Day of Rising when there will be a full reward.’ Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘It is not permitted to give reputation as ṣadaqah because it is Allah’s right.’ That is related from Mālik. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘This is false. The Prophet ﷺ said in the Ṣaḥīḥ: “Your lives, property and honour are unlawful to you…” This demands that these three matters are treated in the same way: as a human right.’

Al-Wāqidī said that the word ‘generous’ (ḥasan, literally “good”) means what is reckoned as good by the lender. ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmān aṣ-Ṣadafī said that it means not entailing obligation or harm. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh said, ‘He does not believe that there is compensation for the loan.’

so that He can multiply it for him many times over?

‘Āṣim and others recited ‘yuḍā‘ifahu’ while Ibn ‘Āmir and Ya‘qūb recited ‘yuḍa‘‘afahu’, Ibn Kathīr, Abū Ja‘far and Shaybah recited ‘yuḍa‘‘afuhu’, and others recited ‘yuḍā‘ifuhu’. This stresses the idea of great increase. Al-Ḥasan and as-Suddī say only Allah knows what this multiplication entails since He says: ‘…pay out an immense reward direct from Him.’ (4:40) Abū Hurayrah said that this is about money given to help in jihād.

Allah both restricts and expands.

This is general to everything. ‘You will be returned to Him’ is a threat. He will repay every action.

246 What do you think about the council of the tribe of Israel after Mūsā’s time when they said to one of their Prophets, ‘Give us a king and we will fight in the Way of Allah!’? He said, ‘Is it not possible that if fighting were prescribed for you, you would not fight?’ They said, ‘How could we not fight in the way of Allah when we have been driven from our homes and children?’ But then when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned their backs – except for a few of them. Allah knows the wrongdoers.

What do you think about the council of the tribe of Israel

In order to encourage fighting, Allah mentions another story which concerns the tribe of Israel. The ‘council’ (mala’) are the nobles among a people. It is as if they were filled with honour. Az-Zajjāj said that they are called this because they are filled (mala‘a) with everything they need. Here the ‘council’ means representatives of the people, and mala’ can be used as the name for a group, like qawm and rahṭ. The word also means good character. Part of that is found in a ḥadīth: ‘Make the council good. All of you will be seen.’ Muslim transmitted it.

after Mūsā’s time

After his death.

When they said to one of their Prophets, ‘Give us a king and we will fight in the Way of Allah!’?

It is said that the Prophet referred to was Shamwīl ibn Bāl ibn ‘Alqamah who was known as ‘the son of the old woman’. It is also said that it was Sham‘ūn [Samuel] as as-Suddī said. It is said that he was known as ‘the son of the old woman’ because his mother was old and barren and asked Allah for a child. It is said that he was called ‘Sham‘ūn’ because she prayed to Allah to give her a child and He heard her prayer and she bore a boy. Therefore she called him ‘Sham‘ūn’ and said, ‘Allah has heard (sami‘a) my prayer.’ The sīn becomes a shīn in Hebrew. He was one of the descendants of Ya‘qūb. Muqātil said that he was one of the descendants of Hārūn. Qatādah said that the Prophet was Yūsha‘ ibn Nūn. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is weak because Dāwud was generations after Mūsā and Yūsha‘ ibn Nūn was Mūsā’s servant. Al-Muḥāsibī mentioned that his name was Ismā‘īl. Allah knows best.

This āyah tells us that at that time the tribe of Israel were abased and defeated by their enemies and asked for permission to fight and were commanded to do so. When the command came many were faint-hearted. A few, however, were steadfast and so Allah gave them victory. One reports states that these were the ones who were made to die and then brought back to life. Allah knows best.

He said, ‘Is it not possible that if fighting were prescribed for you, you would not fight?’

Nāfi‘ reads ‘‘asītum’ while the rest read ‘‘asaytum’ which is the best known. The word kutiba (lit. written) here means ‘prescribed’. When they saw the reality of fighting and thought about actually taking part in the battle, their resolve weakened.

But then when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned their backs

The words ‘turned their backs’ means that their intentions became muddled and their resolve failed. This happens with wealthy nations who incline to comfort and an easy life. When war occurs, they are reluctant to fight and follow their nature. Part of this idea is found in the prohibition of the Prophet ﷺ when he said: ‘Do not wish to meet the enemy. Ask Allah for well-being. But when you do meet them, then stand firm.’ The imams have related it. Then Allah reported that a small number of them remained firm on their first intention and their resolve to fight in the Way of Allah continued.

247 Their Prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Ṭālūt to be your king.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us when we have much more right to kingship than he does? He has not even got much wealth!’ He said, ‘Allah has chosen him over you and increased him greatly in knowledge and physical strength. Allah gives kingship to anyone He wills. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.’

Their Prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Ṭālūt to be your king.’

Their Prophet responded to their request. Ṭālūt (Saul) was a water-bearer, or tanner, or a mule driver, but he was a man of knowledge and so Allah elevated him. He was from the tribe of Benjamin and not from the tribe of either prophethood or kingship. Prophethood was in the descendants of Levi and kingship in the tribes of Yahūdhā (Judah). That is why they objected. Wahb ibn Munabbih said, ‘When the Council of the tribe of Israel said this to Samuel, he asked Allah to send them a king and to show him who he was. Allah said to him, “Keep an observant eye on the horn in your house. When a man comes to you at the time when the oil is bubbling up in the horn, he is the king of the tribe of Israel. Then anoint his head with it and make him their king.”’ He said, ‘Ṭālūt was a tanner and went out looking for an animal he had lost. He went to Shamwīl to ask him to pray for him to find the animal or to find some relief and the oil bubbled up. So Shamwīl took him and anointed his head and told him, “You are the king of the tribe of Israel whom Allah has commanded to be advanced to kingship.” Then he told the tribe of Israel, “Allah has appointed Ṭālūt to be your king.”’

Ṭālūt and Jālūt are two Arabicised foreign names and so they are not declined. The same is true of Dāwud.

They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us

‘How can he rule us when we are more entitled to be kings than he is?’ Their custom was that the Prophets would name the king by Allah’s command. When they asked, ‘How?’ it means ‘From what path when we are from the tribe of kings and he is not?’ They also pointed out that he was poor, completely ignoring the strongest reason, which was the prior decree of Allah, and their Prophet pointed out this conclusive argument against them: ‘Allah has chosen him over you.’ His choice is the definitive argument. He made it clear to them that that was the reason why Ṭālūt was chosen.

He said, ‘Allah has chosen him over you and increased him greatly in knowledge and physical strength.

He also possessed knowledge, which is the basis of a person’s character, and physical strength which helped him in war and fighting. This āyah, therefore, provides the description of what a ruler should be like and the conditions governing rulership. A ruler merits his authority on the basis of knowledge, piety and strength, not on the basis of lineage. Lineage has no real say in the matter since knowledge and virtue supersede it as Allah makes clear by informing us that He chose Ṭālūt over them on account of his knowledge and strength even though their lineage was more noble. We have already mentioned the preconditions of leadership at the beginning of the sūrah. This āyah is the basis for it. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘At the time, Ṭālūt was the most knowledgeable man among the tribe of Israel, and the most complete. His physical stature alarmed the enemy.’ It is said that he was called Ṭālūt because of his height (ṭawl). It is also said that the increased strength took the form of great charity and courage, not actual physical strength. A poet says:

You see a thin man and think little of him

when a bold lion is in his clothes.

You admire a handsome man and put him to the test,

and the handsome man is not as you had thought.

A camel may be immense but lacking in heart

and the camel has no need of its great size.

This is the meaning of the words of the Prophet ﷺ to his wives: ‘The first of you to join me will be the one with the longest hand.’ They used to measure their hands, and then it was Zaynab who died first because she used to work with her hands and give ṣadaqah. Muslim transmitted it. One of the interpreters said that what is meant by knowledge here is knowledge of war. This is making the general particular without any evidence for doing so. It is said that ‘increased knowledge’ refers to the fact that Allah gave him revelation, but this would mean that Ṭālūt was a Prophet.

Allah gives kingship to anyone He wills.

Some commentators believe that these words are something that Allah said to Muhammad ﷺ. It is also said these are the words of Shamwīl and that is more likely. He said that to them when he saw their obstinacy and argumentativeness. He wanted to conclude his words with some definitive statement which could not be gainsaid, and so he said this. The ascription of a worldly kingdom to Allah is because He owns it. Then, without them asking, he informed them that ‘the sign of kingship…’ It is also possible that they had asked him for proof of his truthfulness about Allah choosing Ṭālūt to be king. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The first is more apparent based on the context of the āyah. The second is more in keeping with the blameworthy qualities of the tribe of Israel. Aṭ-Ṭabarī believed that.’

248 Their Prophet said to them, ‘The sign of his kingship is that the Ark will come to you, containing serenity from your Lord and certain relics left by the families of Mūsā and Hārūn. It will be borne by angels. There is a sign for you in that if you are believers.’

Their Prophet said to them, ‘The sign of his kingship is that the Ark will come to you.

It is said that the Ark (tābūt) was sent down to Ādam. From him it reached Ya‘qūb and from then on remained with the tribe of Israel. Those who fought with it were victorious until they disobeyed Allah and the Ark was seized and then the Amalekites defeated them: Jālūt (Goliath) and his people according to as-Suddī. So the tribe of Israel were forced to surrender the Ark to them. This is the strongest evidence that disobedience is the cause of failure, and this is clear.

An-Naḥḥās said that it is related that the sign in the Ark was that a groan was heard coming from it. When they heard that, they went out to fight. When there was no groan, they did not go out. It is said that they used to place it at a critical place on the battlefield and they would have victory. This continued until they disobeyed Allah and were defeated and the Ark was taken from them and they were abased. When they saw this, some of them arranged for a Council and they asked the Prophet of the time for a king. When he told them that Ṭālūt was their king, they then rejected him as Allah tells us. When he gave them the decisive argument, they then asked for a clear sign of that.

We read in aṭ-Ṭabarī, ‘When they asked their Prophet for the clear sign regarding what he said, he called on his Lord and, because of that, affliction descended on the people who had taken the Ark. There is some disagreement about that. It was said that they put it in a temple of theirs in which there were idols and the idols were overturned. They said, “Put it in the temple of the idols under the great idol,” and in the morning it was on top of the idol. They tied it to its feet and in the morning the hands and feet of the idol were cut off and cast under the Ark. So they took it and put it in a village and those people experienced pains in their necks.’ It is said that they put it in a lavatory and then they were afflicted by haemorrhoids. When the affliction was great, they said, ‘It is this Ark which is the problem,’ and they returned it to the tribe of Israel. They put it on a cart between two oxen and let them loose in the land in the direction of the tribe of Israel. Allah sent angels to drive the oxen until they reached the tribe of Israel who were under the command of Ṭālūt. Then they were certain of victory. The angels carried the Ark in this transmission. It is related that the angels came to carry it. Yūsha‘ ibn Nūn put it on the earth. It is related that they saw the Ark in the air when it descended among them. Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khaytham said that. Wahb ibn Munabbih said that the size of the Ark was three cubits by two cubits. Al-Kalbī said that it was made of acacia wood from which combs are made.

containing serenity from your Lord and certain relics left by the families of Mūsā and Hārūn.

People disagree about the “sakīnah” (serenity) and the “baqiyyah” (relics). The word sakīnah is derived from sukūn, meaning tranquillity, gravity and serenity. So it means that the Ark was the cause of serenity in their hearts despite their disagreement over Tālūt. We find a similar use of the word when Allah says: “Allah sent down His serenity on him” (9:40), meaning something which made his heart tranquil. He meant that the Ark was the cause of tranquillity in their hearts. Wherever they were, they relied on it and did not abandon it when it accompanied them in war.

Wahb ibn Munabbih said, ‘The sakīnah is a rūḥ (spirit) from Allah which spoke. When they disagreed about something, it clarified the matter for them, and when it shouted in war, they had victory.’ ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said, ‘It was a wind which blew and had a face like a human being.’ It is said that he said that it was a gale with two heads. Mujāhid said, ‘It was an animal like a cat with two wings, a tail and shining eyes. When it looked at an army, that army was defeated.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that it was a gold basin from the Garden in which the hearts of the Prophets were washed. As-Suddī said that. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The sound view is that the Ark contained some excellent objects left by the Prophets and the hearts of the people were strengthened by that.’

We read in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that al-Barā’ said, ‘A man was reciting Sūrat al-Kahf and he had a horse with him tethered by two ropes. Then a cloud came over him and began to draw near and his horse began to shy away from it. In the morning he went to the Prophet ﷺ and mentioned that to him and he said, “That was the sakīnah which descended on account of the Qur’an.”’ We find in the ḥadīth of Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that Usayd ibn al-Ḥuḍayr was reciting the Qur’an at night in his drying-floor. In it the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Those were the angels who were listening to you. If you had continued, the people would have seen them in the morning and they would not have been concealed from them.’ Al-Bukhārī and Muslim transmitted it. Sometimes the Prophet ﷺ mentioned the descent of the sakīnah and sometimes the descent of the angels. It indicates that the sakīnah was in that canopy and that it always descends with the angels. This is the argument of those who said that the sakīnah was a spirit (rūḥ) or something with a spirit because it is not valid that listening to the Qur’an be done by something that is not sentient. Allah knows best.

Several things are said about the relics (baqiyyah). It is said that they consisted of the staff of Mūsā, the staff of Hārūn, and fragments of the tablets because they were broken when Mūsā threw them down. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. ‘Ikrimah added the Torah to the list. Abū Ṣāliḥ said that it was the staff and garment of Mūsā, the garment of Hārūn and two tablets of the Torah. ‘Aṭiyyah ibn Sa‘d said that it was the staff of Mūsā, the staff of Hārūn, their garments, and fragments of the tablets. Ath-Thawrī said that some people said it was a measure of manna in a gold basin, the staff of Mūsā, the turban of Hārūn and fragments of the tablets. Some said that it was the staff and sandals. The meaning of this is what is related about when Mūsā came to his people and found them worshipping the Calf. He threw down the tablets in anger and they broke. He extracted from them what was unbroken and took the fragments of what was broken and put them in the Ark. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that the word refers to jihād and fighting the enemy. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said the command to do that was in the Ark, either written or by the mere fact of it being brought. They are ascribed to the families of Mūsā and Hārūn since the command comes from one people to another, all of whom were from the families of Mūsā and Hārūn. The family (āl) of a man are his kin.

249 When Tālūt marched out with the army, he said, ‘Allah will test you with a river. Anyone who drinks from it is not with me. But anyone who does not taste it is with me – except for him who merely scoops up a little in his hand.’ But they drank from it – except for a few of them. Then when he and those who believed with him had crossed it, they said, ‘We do not have the strength to face Jālūt and his troops today.’ But those who were sure that they were going to meet Allah said, ‘How many a small force has triumphed over a much greater one by Allah’s permission! Allah is with the steadfast.

When Tālūt marched out with the army,

The word for ‘march out’ (faṣala) means to go out with them but the verb also means ‘to separate from’. Wahb ibn Munabbih said, ‘When Tālūt set out, they said to him, “The water will not be enough for us, so ask Allah to make a river flow for us.” He said, “Allah will test you with a river.”’ According to as-Suddī, there were eighty thousand soldiers. Wahb continued, ‘No one stayed behind the army except for those excused by youth, age or illness. Ibtilā’ is testing.’

Nahar and nahr (river) are two dialectical forms. The word is derived from the meaning of expansion. Nahār (day) comes from it. Qatādah said, ‘The river with which Allah tested them was a river between Jordan and Palestine.’ The reason for the test was so that Tālūt would know that those who left the water alone would obey him in respect of other things and those who were overcome by desire for water and disobeyed his command would disobey him in more important matters. It is related that they reached the river and were thirsty and the water was very sweet and good. That is why those who obeyed had an allowance of scooping up a handful to remove the pain of thirst from themselves. It is clear that a handful is to relieve the harm caused by thirst for those who are resolute and steadfast in the hardship of life and whose concern is for other than just being comfortable. It is as ‘Urwah said:

Feel the purity of water, and the water is cool.

This is the sense of the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Enough for a person are a few morsels with which to keep his back straight.’ One of those with a grasp of profound meanings said that this āyah is an example that Allah has made which represents this world. Allah likened the river and the one who drinks from it to someone who inclines to this world and seek to have a lot of worldly things. The one who does not drink from it is like someone who turns from it and makes do with little of it. Someone who scoops up a handful is like someone who only takes what he needs from it. These three have different states in the sight of Allah. This is excellent, although it moves from the literal to an interpretation, but the meaning is nevertheless sound.

he said, ‘Allah will test you with a river.

Those who say that Tālūt was a Prophet take these words as a proof, since it is clear that Allah had revealed to him that this was a test from Allah for them. Those who say that he was not a Prophet say that it was Shamwīl who informed him of the revelation and then he informed the people. The test was to distinguish the sincere people from the false-hearted. Some people believe that ‘Abdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, commanded his companions to light a fire and enter it to test their obedience, but his nature led him to make the matter he imposed harsh. This will be dealt with in an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

Anyone who drinks from it is not with me.

‘He will not be one of my companions in this battle.’ It was not a test of their faith so they did not become unbelievers by doing that. As-Suddī said that they were eighty thousand and so they inevitably included believers, hypocrites, and both serious and lazy people. We find in a ḥadīth: ‘Whoever cheats us is not one of us,’ meaning ‘He is not one of our Companions and not following our path and guidance.’ It is said:

When you try to deceive Asad by iniquity,

I am not from you and you are not from me.

This saying is used by the Arabs. If a man’s son is following a different path, he may say, ‘You are not from me.’

But anyone who does not taste it is with me —

Allah uses the verb ṭama‘a (taste) rather than shariba (drink). Allah does not repeat the same word, because the best style in Arabic is to avoid repetition and the style of the Qur’an is the most eloquent possible. This is an aspect of that eloquence.

Our scholars use this as evidence for the principle of sadd adh-dharā’i‘ because the least taste is included in the word ‘taste’. When ‘tasting’ is forbidden, there is no way for someone to drink from what is forbidden.

The use of the word ‘taste’ also indicates that water is considered to be food. If it is food, it means that it nourishes and supports the body. So usury may occur in respect of it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘That is sound in the School.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Mālik said, “There is nothing wrong in selling water on the bank for water different in amount and on credit.’ That is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan said, ‘It is one of the commodities that are measured and weighed. According to this position, there should be no disparity in it.’ He considers that to be usury because the cause with respect of it being usury is weighing and measuring. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘It is not permitted to sell water with different amounts or on credit.’ His reason for its being usury is that water is one sort of combustible.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Abū Ḥanīfah said, “If someone says, ‘If my slave so-and-so drinks from the Euphrates, he is free,’ he is only free if he drinks directly from the river with his mouth. If he drinks using his hand or scoops it up with a vessel, he is not freed because Allah made a difference between drinking directly from the river and drinking with the hand.”’ He continued, ‘This is unsound because the drinking of water is used for every form of doing so in Arabic, whether that is scooping up with the hand and drinking directly by mouth. It is one application. When he finds that water which the oath was about in language and actuality, that fulfils the oath.’

I say that the view of Abū Ḥanīfah is sounder. The people who understand language make a distinction between them as does the Book and the Sunnah. Al-Jawharī and others said that the verb kara‘a denotes drinking water directly from the place without using one’s hands or a vessel. In the Sunnah, Ibn Mājah mentioned in the Sunan from Wāṣil ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā from Ibn Fuḍayl from Layth from Sa‘īd ibn ‘Āmir that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘We passed by a pond and began to drink directly (nakri‘u) from it. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Do not drink directly from it. Rather wash your hands and then drink from it. There is no more sweeter vessel than the hand.”’ This is a text. Muslim transmitted from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym and said that he is weak.

except for him who merely scoops up a little in his hand.’

Scooping is taking up something with the hand or some implement. Mighrafah (ladle) comes from the same root. Gharf and ightirāf (scooping) mean the same. This usage means to do it once. Some say that when the word gharfah (Warsh) is used it means with one hand and when ghurfah (Ḥafṣ) is used it means with two, and some say that they both mean the same thing.

Whoever desires what is purely ḥalāl in these times without any suspicion or doubt should drink water with his own hands from springs and rivers whose flow is subjected by the flow at the end of the night and end of the day, seeking from Allah by that to gain good deeds, remove burdens, and join the imams and pious. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone drinks with his hand while able to use a vessel, desiring to be humble by doing that, Allah will record good deeds for him according to the number of his fingers. That was the vessel of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam when he cast aside the cup and said, “Uff! This is part of this world.”’ Ibn Mājah transmitted it from Ibn ‘Umar. He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade us to drink on our bellies: that is kar‘ (drinking directly from the water with the mouth). He forbade us to scoop it up with one hand. He said, “None of you should drink like a dog nor drink with one hand as was done by people with whom Allah was angry. He should not drink from a vessel at night without first shaking it, unless it was covered. If someone drinks with his hand while able to use a vessel…”’ Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd is in the isnād. Abū Ḥātim said, ‘His ḥadīths are recorded but not used as an authority.’ Abū Zur‘ah said, ‘If Baqiyyah relates from trustworthy sources, then he is trustworthy.’

But they drank from it – except for a few of them.

Ibn ‘Abbās said that they drank according to the degree of their certainty. The unbelievers drank eagerly, and those who were merely disobedient less than that. Seventy-six thousand of the people failed the test and only the believers remained, some of whom did not drink at all and some of whom took a handful. Those who drank were not quenched, but remained intensely thirsty. Those who completely left the water were in a good situation and were more steadfast than those who took a handful.

Then when he and those who believed with him had crossed it,

This means that they crossed the river. ‘Huwa’ is used for stress. The verb jāwaza means ‘to cross a place’. Ibn ‘Abbās and as-Suddī said, ‘Four thousand men crossed the river with him, including those who drank from it. When they saw Jālūt and his armies, which numbered one hundred thousand, all of them heavily armed, three thousand six hundred and eighty of his army left.’ If this is so, the believers who had certainty in the resurrection and the return to Allah and who said, ‘How many a small force has triumphed over a much greater one by Allah’s permission’ were same number as the people of Badr. Most commentators say that those who did not drink crossed the river with him and some of them said, ‘How can we face the enemy when they are so many!’ and those with true resolve made the other statement. Al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib said, ‘We used to say that the people of Badr were the same number as the companions of Ṭālūt who crossed the river him: about 310.’ One variant has ‘313’. He added, ‘Only those who believed crossed with him.’

But those who were sure that they were going to meet Allah

Here ẓann means certainty. The word can also mean doubt. It means that they thought that they would be killed with Ṭālūt and would meet Allah as martyrs. So there was uncertainty about the possibility of being killed.

‘How many a small force has triumphed over a much greater one by Allah’s permission!’

A ‘fi’ah’ (force) is a group of people and section of them. It also comes from a root meaning to cut with a sword, so it is like a section cut from the rest. This statement was to encourage fighting, being steadfast and obeying those who are true to their Lord. This is how it is mandatory for us to behave. But ugly actions and false intentions have prevented that until we have reached the stage where a large number of us can be defeated by a small number of the enemy as we have seen happen more than once. That is what we have brought on ourselves!

In al-Bukhārī, Abu-d-Dardā’ said, ‘We fight on the basis of our actions.’ In the Musnad, the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Are you given provision and victory except on account of your weak ones?’ Now actions are false and the weak are neglected. Steadfastness is scarce, reliance on Allah is weak and taqwā has completely disappeared! Allah says: ‘Be steadfast, be supreme in steadfastness; be firm on the battlefield; and show fear of Allah’ (3:200); ‘Put your trust in Allah’ (5:23); ‘Allah is with those who show fear of Him and with those who are good-doers’ (16:128); ‘Allah will certainly help those who help Him’ (22:40) and: ‘When you meet a troop, stand firm and remember Allah repeatedly so that perhaps you will be successful.’ (8:45)

These are the reasons for victory and its preconditions. They are lacking and do not exist with us. We belong to Allah and to Him we return! Only the mention of the word Islam remains, and only the merest trace of the dīn, due to the appearance of corruption, excessive transgression and lack of guidance so that the enemy has conquered the lands of the east and west, land and sea. Seditions have become widespread, and the trials are terrible. There is no protection except with the All-Merciful!

250 When they came out against Jālūt and his troops, they said, ‘Our Lord, pour down steadfastness upon us, and make our feet firm, and help us against this unbelieving people.’

They went out onto the field of battle. Jālūt was the ruler of the Amalekites and their king. His shadow extended for a mile. It is said that the Berbers are descended from him. It is said that he had three hundred thousand warriors. ‘Ikrimah said seventy thousand. When the believers saw their numbers, they prayed to their Lord. This is like Allah’s words: ‘Many a Prophet fought when there were many thousands with him…’ (3:146-147) When the Prophet ﷺ met the enemy, he would say in the fighting, ‘O Allah, I attack and move by You.’ When the Prophet ﷺ met the enemy, he would say, ‘O Allah, I seek refuge with you from their evil and put You at their throats.’ At the Battle of Badr, he made supplication until his cloak fell from his shoulders, asking Allah to fulfil His promise as will be dealt with in Āl ‘Imrān, Allah willing.

251 And with Allah’s permission they routed them. Dāwud killed Jālūt and Allah gave him kingship and wisdom and taught him whatever He willed. If it were not for Allah’s driving some people back by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted. But Allah shows favour to all the worlds.

And with Allah’s permission they routed them.

Allah sent down victory on them. The root of the verb ‘hazamū’ (they routed) literally means to break. It also means to sink a well. Zamzam is called ‘the Hazmah of Jibrīl,’ meaning that he sunk it with his foot and water came out. Another form of the word means kindling.

Dāwud killed Jālūt

That was because King Ṭālūt selected him from his people to fight Jālūt. He was a short young man, sallow and sickly. Jālūt was one of the strongest and most powerful of men. He used to defeat entire armies on his own. Yet Jālūt was killed at Dāwud’s hand in front of the Amalekite army. His full name was Dāwud ibn Ishā [Jesse] or Dāwud ibn Zakariyyā and he was descended from Yahudhā ibn Ya‘qūb in whose line was both prophethood and kingship. He was a shepherd and the youngest of his brothers and looked after the sheep while his seven brothers accompanied Ṭālūt. When war came, he said to himself, ‘I will go and see this fight.’ When he started on the way, he passed by a stone and it called out to him, ‘Dāwud! Take me. It is through me that you will kill Jālūt.’ Then another stone called him and then another. So he took them and put them in his bag and went along.

Jālūt came forward seeking single combat. People backed away from him until Ṭālūt said, ‘If someone goes out and kills him, I will marry my daughter to him and give him authority over my property.’ Dāwud came forward and said, ‘I will go and kill him.’ Ṭālūt thought little of him when he saw him because of his youth and small size and rejected him. Jālūt called out a second and third time and Dāwud came out once more. Ṭālūt asked him, ‘Have you had any experience of fighting?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘What was it?’ he asked. He said, ‘A wolf attacked my sheep and I hit it and then cut off its head.’ Ṭālūt said, ‘Wolves are weak. Have you tested yourself against anything else?’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘A lion came and I hit it and then took its jaws and split them. Do you think this man is stronger than a lion?’ ‘No,’ he answered. Ṭālūt had armour intended only for the person who was to fight Jālūt. He told him about it and it was brought and he put it on. Ṭālūt said, ‘Ride my horse and take my weapons,’ which he did.

When he had gone a short distance, people said, ‘The youth is a coward!’ Dāwud said, ‘If Allah does not kill him for me and help me against him, this horse and armour will be of no use to me. I will fight him in the way I am used to fighting.’ Dāwud was extremely skilful with a slingshot. He dismounted and took his bag and tied it round him and took his sling and went out to Jālūt who was bristling in his armour. Jālūt said to him, ‘You, lad, come out against me!’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘You are scarcely even a match for a dog!’ Ṭālūt said. ‘That may be so,’ replied Dāwud, ‘but you are less than that.’ He said, ‘I will feed your flesh to the birds and wild beasts today!’ They approached one another. Jālūt went to seize Dāwud with his hand since he thought little of him. Dāwud took the stone, put it in the sling, said the name of Allah and slung it and it hit him on the head and killed him. He removed his head and put it in his bag. The army was defeated in the subsequent confusion. It is said that he hit at the site of his nose. It is said that it hit his eye and emerged from the back of his head and hit some of his army and killed them. It is said that the stone split up until some of it hit everyone in the army. It was the handful which the Prophet ﷺ threw at Hawāzin in the Battle of Ḥunayn. Allah knows best. People have many stories about this āyah. I have mentioned to you what is meant by it and Allah is praised.

The meaning of the statement of Ṭālūt, ‘If someone goes out and kills him, I will marry my daughter to him and give him authority over my property,’ is confirmed in our Sharī‘ah. It is when the leader says, ‘If someone brings a head, he will have such-and-such,’ or ‘If he brings a captive, he will have such-and-such.’ This will explained in al-Anfāl.

This indicates that going out for single combat can only be done with the permission of the leader, as Aḥmad, Isḥāq and others said. What is transmitted from al-Awzā‘ī varies. It is related that he said that no one should embark on that without the leader’s permission. It is also related that he said that there is nothing wrong with it. If the leader forbids anyone going out to single combat, no one may do so except with his permission. One group permits going out, not mentioning whether it is with or without the permission of the leader. This is the position of Mālik. Mālik was asked about a man in the ranks who says, ‘Who will come forth?’ He said, ‘That is up to his intention. If he desires Allah by that, I hope that there is no harm. That was done in the past.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘There is nothing wrong in going out.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘It is good to go out with the permission of the leader, but someone who goes out without the permission of the leader does nothing wrong. That is not disliked because I do not know of any report that forbids it.’

and Allah gave him kingship and wisdom.

As-Suddī said, ‘Allah made him the inheritor of both the kingdom of Ṭālūt and the prophethood of Shamwīl. He taught him how to make chain mail, speak the language of the birds and other forms of knowledge.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It is that Allah gave him a chain connected to the galaxy and celestial sphere. The end of which was at Dāwud’s hermitage. Nothing happened in the air without the chain ringing so that Dāwud knew what has happening. No one with a disease touched it without being healed. The sign of his people entering the dīn was when they touched it with their hands and then they wiped their palms on their chests. They used to take their arguments to it after Dāwud until it was removed.’

If it were not for Allah’s driving some people back by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted.

For the word ‘driving’ Nāfi‘ reads difā‘ while the rest read daf‘. They are both verbal nouns as Sībuwayh said. Abū Ḥātim said that they they mean the same.

Scholars disagree about the people by whom corruption is driven back. It is said that they are the Abdāl, who are forty men. Whenever one of them dies, Allah replaces him with another. They will all die on the Last Day. Twelve of them are in Syria, eight in Iraq. It is related that ‘Alī said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “The Abdāl are in Syria and they are forty men. When one of them dies, Allah replaces him with another man. By them succour is poured forth and by them He helps the believers against their enemies and removes affliction from the people of trials.”’ At-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm mentioned it in Nawādir al-Uṣūl.

The following is also transmitted from Abu-d-Darda’: ‘The Prophets are the pegs which hold the earth in place. When Prophethood was brought to an end, Allah replaced the Prophets with some of the people from the Community of Muhammad ﷺ called the Abdāl. They are not superior to other people in respect of fasting or prayer, but on account of their good character, true scrupulousness, good intention, sound hearts and good counsel for all the Muslims, seeking Allah’s pleasure by steadfastness, forbearance, intelligence, and humility without abasement. They are the caliphs of the Prophets, the people Allah has chosen for Himself and whom He has selected for Himself by His knowledge. They are forty true men. Thirty of them have a similar certainty to that of Ibrāhīm, the Friend of the All-Merciful. By them Allah drives away disliked things from the people of the earth and innovations which people have introduced. It is because of them that people have rain and provision. None of them dies without Allah putting someone else in his place.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘If it were not for Allah’s driving back the enemy by the armies of the Muslims, the idolaters would have triumphed and killed the believers and ruined their towns and mosques.’ Sufyān ath-Thawrī said, ‘They are the martyrs who are the means by which the dīn is established.’ Makkī related that most commentators say, ‘If it were not that Allah has defended those who do not pray by those who do and those who are not fearful of Allah by those who are, people would have been destroyed for their wrong actions.’ That is like what an-Naḥḥās, ath-Tha‘labī and the rest of the commentators say, ‘If it were not for Allah’s driving back the impious unbelievers by the pious believers, the earth would have been corrupted.’

The Prophet ﷺ is reported as saying in a ḥadīth, ‘Allah drives the punishment away from those of my community who do not pray by those who do, from those who do not give zakat by those who do, from those who do not perform ḥajj by those who do, and from those who not do jihād by those who do. If they had all agreed to abandon these things, Allah would not put off their destruction for the blink of an eye.’ Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recited: ‘If it were not for Allah’s driving some people back by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted.’

The Prophet ﷺ also said, ‘The angels call out every day: “Were it not for Allah’s slaves who pray, suckling children and grazing animals, the punishment would already have fallen upon you.”’ Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb transmitted the same idea from the ḥadīth of al-Fuḍayl ibn ‘Iyāḍ. Manṣūr related from Ibrāhīm from ‘Alqamah from ‘Abdullāh that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Were it not for humble men, grazing animals and suckling children, the punishment would already have fallen upon the believers.’ Someone said:

If it had not been for Allah’s slaves who bow

and orphaned suckling children,

And animals grazing in the wild,

the most painful punishment would have fallen on them.

Jābir reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘By a man’s rectitude, Allah puts right his children and grandchildren and the people of his house and the houses around him and they will remain in Allah’s protection as long as he is among them.’ Qatādah said, ‘The believers experience trials on account of the unbelievers and the unbelievers experience well-being on account of the believers.’ Ibn ‘Umar reported from the Prophet ﷺ, ‘On account of a righteous believer Allah will drive away affliction from a hundred of the people of his household and his neighbours.’ Then he recited this āyah.

It is also said that this driving back is by means of the laws prescribed on the tongues of the Messengers. If it were not for that, people would plunder and loot one another and be destroyed. This is an excellent statement as it is general to restraining, defence and other things. Reflect on it. ‘But Allah shows favour to all the worlds’ indicates that the fact that the believers avert the evil of the unbelievers is a favour and blessing from Him.

252 Those are Allah’s Signs which We recite to you with truth. You are indeed one of the Messengers.

Allah is informing his Messenger ﷺ that only a sent Prophet will have knowledge of these signs which He mentions.

253 These Messengers: We favoured some of them over others. Allah spoke directly to some of them and raised up some of them in rank. We gave Clear Signs to ‘Īsā, son of Maryam, and reinforced him with the Purest Rūḥ. If Allah had willed, those who came after them would not have fought each other after the Clear Signs came to them, but they differed. Among them there are those who believe and among them there are those who disbelieve. If Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other. But Allah does whatever He desires.

These Messengers: We favoured some of them over others.

This āyah is confusing. There are firm ḥadīths in which the Prophet ﷺ stated, ‘Do not choose between the Messengers,’ and ‘Do not give preference to any of the Prophets of Allah,’ meaning, ‘Do not say that this one is better than that one.’ They are related by trustworthy imams. Scholars disagree about this, some saying that these statements were made before there was revelation of his superiority and before he knew that he was the master of the children of Ādam and that the Qur’an abrogated the prohibition of preference with this āyah.

Ibn Qutaybah said that his words, ‘I am the master of the children of Ādam’, refer to the Day of Rising because he will intercede on that Day and he will have the Banner of Praise and the Basin. His words, ‘Do not prefer me to Mūsā’, are a mark of his humility, as Abū Bakr said, ‘I have been appointed and I am not the best of you.’ The same is true of his words ﷺ, ‘No one should say that I am better than Yunus ibn Mattā.’ That expresses humility. The words of Allah: ‘Do not be like the companion of the fish…’ (68:48) indicate that, in fact, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was better than him because Allah says, ‘Do not be like him.’ That indicates that the other statements of the Prophet ﷺ were expressing humility. It is permitted to say, ‘Do not prefer me to him in action. He may be better in action than me,’ or to say in affliction and trial, ‘He has a greater trial than me.’

The leadership and excellence which Allah has given His Prophet ﷺ on the Day of Rising over all the Prophets and Messengers was not because of his actions, but rather because Allah preferred him and singled him out for this distinction. This is the interpretation which al-Muhallab preferred. One of them said, ‘It is forbidden to delve into that because delving into that is a means leading to argumentation and that would lead to mentioning the Prophets in a way which is not appropriate and might lessen the respect due to them.’ Our shaykh said that it means that one does not say, ‘The Prophet is better than all the other Prophets,’ which is the literal prohibition because that that might lead to deprecation of the other Prophets. The prohibition is about using the expression, not about what one might believe in that way. Allah has reported that the Prophets vary in excellence. One should not say, ‘Our Prophet is better than the Prophets,’ nor that he is better than a certain Prophet, in order to avoid what has been forbidden and to show proper courtesy and to act in accordance with belief in what the Qur’an contains of preference. Allah is the One who knows the realities of things.

The best that is said is that the prohibition of preference is in respect of the reality of Prophethood itself which is one trait in which there is no rivalry. Rivalry exists in increased states, election, miracles, and kindnesses, not in the fact of Prophethood itself. That is why there are Messengers and ‘those with resolve’, the one Allah took as a Friend, the one He spoke to, and those He raised in rank. Allah says: ‘We favoured some of the Prophets over others’ (17:55) and ‘These Messengers: We favoured some over others.’

This is excellent and combines the ḥadīths without need for any abrogation. Saying that some are favoured over others is based on virtuous qualities and means. Ibn ‘Abbās indicated that when he said, ‘Allah preferred Muḥammad over the Prophets and over the people of heaven.’ They asked, ‘Ibn ‘Abbās, what is his being favoured over the people of heaven?’ He replied, ‘Allah Almighty says: “Were any of them to say, ‘I am a god apart from Him,’ We would repay him with Hell. That is how We repayment the wrongdoers.” (21:29) He said to Muḥammad: “Truly We have granted you a clear victory, so that Allah may forgive you your earlier errors and any later ones.” (48:1)’ They asked, ‘What is his being favoured over the Prophets?’ He said, ‘Allah says: “We have not sent any Messenger except with the language of his people” (14:4) and He said to Muḥammad ﷺ: “We only sent you to the whole of mankind.” (35:28) He sent him to both jinn and men.’ Abū Muḥammad ad-Dārimī mentioned this in his Musnad.

Abū Hurayrah said, ‘The best of the sons of Ādam are Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā and Muḥammad. They are “those with resolve” among the Messengers.” These are texts from Ibn ‘Abbās and Abū Hurayrah about specification. It is known that the Messengers are better than those who were not sent with a Message. The one who is sent is favoured over others by the Message while he is equal in Prophethood regarding what the Messengers encounter of their nations’ denial and being killed by them. This is not hidden.

However, Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The Qur’an demands preference. That is in general without any specification of anyone less favoured. That is also the case in the ḥadīths. That is why the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I am the most honoured of the sons of Ādam with my Lord’ and ‘I am the master of the sons of Ādam.’ He was not specific. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘No one should say that I am better than Yūnus ibn Mattā’ and ‘Do not prefer me to Mūsā.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is a strong prohibition against specifying the less favoured because Yūnus was a young man and caved in under the burdens of Prophethood. If the Prophet ﷺ did not express that, neither should anyone else.’

Allah willing, what we prefer is better. When Allah reported that He favoured some over others, He made some of the rivalry clear and mentioned the circumstances in which others were favoured. He says: ‘Allah spoke directly to some of them and raised some of them in rank. We gave Clear Signs to ‘Īsā, the son of Maryam’ (2:253); ‘We gave Dāwud the Psalms’ (17:55); ‘We gave him the Gospel’ (5:46), ‘We gave to Mūsā and Hārūn the Discrimination and a Shining Light and a Reminder to those who are godfearing’ (21:480; ‘We gave knowledge to Dāwud and to Sulaymān’ (27:15); and ‘When We made a covenant with all the Prophets – with you and with Nūḥ.’ ;(33:7) So He was general and then specific. He began with Muḥammad ﷺ. This is clear.

That is similar to what was said about the Companions. They shared in being Companions of the Prophet ﷺ and then were distinct with respect to the virtues Allah bestowed on them in the form of gifts and means. By those gifts they vary in excellence although they are all Companions, upright and praised. How excellent are the words of Allah: ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are fierce to the unbelievers…’ (48:29) He says: ‘He bound them to the expression of taqwā which they had the most right to and were most entitled to.’ (48:26) He says: ‘Those of you who gave and fought before the Victory are not the same.’ (57:10) He says: ‘Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance under the tree.” (48:18) So He was general and then specific. He forbade disgrace and deprecation. May Allah be pleased with all of them and provide us with love for them!

Allah spoke directly to some of them.

The one to whom Allah spoke was Mūsa. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about Ādam and whether he was a sent Prophet. He said, ‘He was a Prophet who was spoken to.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The interpretation of people regarding this is that Ādam was spoken to in the Garden and so the special quality of Mūsā remains.’

and raised up some of them in rank.

An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Some of the commentators, including Ibn ‘Abbās, ash-Sha‘bī and Mujāhid, said that this refers to Muḥammad ﷺ. He said, “I was sent to the red and black (i.e. all mankind), the earth was made a mosque for me, I was helped by terror at the distance of a month’s travel, booty was made lawful for me, and I was given intercession.”’ His marks of distinction include the Qur’an, the splitting of the moon, the tree speaking to him, his feeding a lot of people from a few dates, and his obtaining milk from the sheep of Umm Ma‘bad after its milk had dried up. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said this and added, ‘He is the person with the largest community and by him all the Prophets are sealed, not to mention other aspects of the great and noble character which Allah granted him.’ It is possible that it means both Muhammad ﷺ and others whose signs are great. It is possible that it refers to Allah’s statement that He raised Idrīs up to a high place and to the ranks of the Prophets in the heavens as reported in the ḥadīth of the Mi‘rāj.

We gave Clear Signs to ‘Īsā, son of Maryam,

The clear signs of ‘Īsā were bringing the dead to life, healing the blind and lepers, and creating a bird of clay as we read in the Qur’an.

and reinforced him with the Purest Rūḥ.’

‘The Purest Rūḥ’ is Jibrīl as already stated.

If Allah had willed, those who came after them would not have fought each other

By ‘them’ Allah means the Messengers. It is said that the pronoun ‘them’ refers specifically to Mūsā and ‘Īsā. It is said that it is all the Messengers after them, which is the literal meaning of the āyah. It is said that fighting refers to what was done by people after they had all passed away but this is not the meaning. What is meant is people fighting one another after the time of the Prophet concerned. People fell into disagreement after each Prophet. Some believed, and some rejected out of rebellion, envy and desire for worldly goods. All of that is by the decree and will of Allah. If He had willed differently, whatever He had willed would have happened, but the secret in this matter is that He did not will other than what occurred.

254 You who believe! give away some of what We have provided for you before a Day arrives on which there is no trading, no close friendship and no intercession. It is the unbelievers who are the wrongdoers.

Al-Ḥasan said that this āyah refers to obligatory zakāt. Ibn Jurayj and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that it includes both obligatory zakāt and ṣadaqah. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that this is sound, but the previous āyahs, which mention fighting and tell us that Allah drives back the unbelievers by means of the believers, makes it probable that this is a recommendation rather than an explicit command. It is in the Way of Allah. That is reinforced by the words at the end: ‘It is the unbelievers who are the wrongdoers,’ meaning: ‘Fight with your lives and also by spending your wealth.’

According to this interpretation, spending wealth is sometimes mandatory and sometimes recommended according to whether jihād is obligatory individually or not. Allah commands His slaves to spend from what He has provided them with and blessed them by, and warns them against withholding from spending until a day comes on which it is not possible to buy or sell or obtain maintenance. It is as He says: ‘He says, “My Lord, if only You would give me a little more time so that I can give ṣadaqah.”’ (63:10)

‘Khullah’ (close friendship) means sincere mutual love. It is derived from the word takhallala, which refers to the interpenetration of secrets between friends. Khilālah, khulālah and khalālah are all words for true friendship and love. A poet says:

How do you connect with someone whose true friendship (khalālah) is like the welcoming shade?

Khullah can also mean sweet herbage. It is said that ‘khullah’ is the bread of camels and salty herbage is their fruit. Khallah means need and poverty. It is also a male camel in its second year, as al-Aṣmā‘ī said. An expression says, ‘They brought them a round cake of bread as though it were the foot of a khallah.’ One says of a dead person, ‘May Allah put right the gap (khallah) he has left.’ Khallah is also sour wine. Khillah is the scabbard of a sword. More will be said about the derivation of Khalīl (friend) in Sūrat an-Nisā’. Allah tells us that there will no friendship or intercession in the Next World except by the permission of Allah. Its reality is mercy from Him to honour the one who is permitted to intercede.

Ibn Kathīr and Abū ‘Amr recited ‘bay‘a fīhi walā khullata walā shafā‘ata’ in the accusative without tanwīn. The same is found in 14:31 and 42:23. The rest recite all of that in the nominative and with tanwīn. Having a fatḥah in the general negative embraces all the aspects of this category. It is as if it is an answer to the person who asks, ‘Is there any trading on that day?’ asking a general question which has a general negative response. ‘Lā’ with a negative noun is in the position of one noun in the nominative case by the inceptive whose predicate is ‘on it’. If you wish, you can make it an adjective of ‘Day’. Those who make it nominative put ‘lā’ in the position of ‘laysa’ and give an answer which is not undefined. It is as if it is the answer to someone who asks, ‘Is there trading on it?’ omitting ‘any’. So the answer is not changed from the nominative case. Makkī said, ‘The nominative is preferred because most reciters have it, and it is permitted outside of the Qur’an. [SOME OMISSION]

It is the unbelievers who are the wrongdoers.

‘Unbelievers’ is the inceptive and ‘who’ is a second inceptive and ‘wrongdoers’ is the predicate of the second. If you wish, ‘who’ can be redundant for the distinction and ‘wrongdoers’ is the predicate of ‘unbelievers’. ‘Aṭā’ ibn Dīnār said, ‘Praise be to Allah who said this, and did not say that the wrongdoers are the unbelievers!’

255 Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth and their preservation does not tire Him. He is the Most High, the Magnificent.

Allah, there is no god but Him,

This is the Throne Verse, the Master of the āyahs of the Qur’an and the greatest āyah. It was revealed at night and the Prophet ﷺ summoned Zayd and he wrote it down. It is related that Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah said, ‘When the Āyat al-Kursī was revealed, every idol in this world prostrated, every king in this world prostrated and the crowns fell from their heads. The shayṭāns fled, hitting one another, and went to Iblīs and told him what was happening among them. He commanded them to investigate what had occurred and they went to Madīnah and heard that the Throne Verse had been revealed.’

The Imams report from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Abu-l-Mundhir! Do you know which verse of the Book of Allah is the greatest?” I said, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He repeated, “Abu-l-Mundhir! Do you know which verse of the Book of Allah is the greatest?” I said, “Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining.” He struck my chest and said, “May you enjoy this knowledge, Abu-l-Mundhir!”’ Abū ‘Abdullāh at-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm added, ‘By the One Who has my soul in His hand, this āyah has a tongue and two lips with which it proclaims the sanctity of the King at the foot of the Throne.’ Abū ‘Abdullāh said, ‘Allah revealed this āyah and made the reward for its reciter both immediate and later. The immediate reward is that it protects the one who recites it from disasters.’ It is related that Nawf al-Bikālī said, ‘In the Torah the Throne Verse is called the friend of Allah.’ He means that the one who recites it is called ‘dearest’ (‘azīz) in the domains of the heaven and earth.’ When ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf entered his house, he would recite the Āyat al-Kursī in the four comers of his house, intending by that to guard the four sides and to expel Shayṭān from the House.

It is related that ‘Umar wrestled a jinn and threw him to the ground. The jinn said to him, ‘Let me go and I will teach that which will protect you from me.’ He let him go and he said, ‘You will be protected from me by the Throne Verse.’ This is sound. We read in a tradition, ‘If someone recites the Āyat al-Kursī after every prayer, the Master of Majesty and Nobility will take his spirit directly and he will be like one who fights alongside the Prophets of Allah until he is martyred.’ ‘Alī said, ‘I heard your Prophet ﷺ say on the minbar, “If someone recites the Āyat al-Kursī after every prayer, only death keeps him from entering the Garden, and only someone who is true or a worshipper will persist in it. If someone recites it when he goes to bed, Allah will protect him, his neighbour, his neighbour’s neighbour and the houses around him.”’

We find in al-Bukhārī in the story of Abū Hurayrah regarding Shayṭān, when the Prophet ﷺ put him in charge of guarding the zakāt of Ramadan, that he said, ‘Messenger of Allah, he claimed that he would teach me some words by which Allah would benefit me. So I let him go.’ ‘What were they?’ he asked. He said, ‘He told me, “When you go to bed, recite the Throne Verse from beginning to end.” He told me, “A guardian will continue to watch over you and Shayṭān will not come near you until morning.”’ They were the most eager of people for good. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘He has told you the truth although he is a liar. Do you know to whom you were speaking the past three nights, Abū Hurayrah?’ ‘No,’ he answered. He said, ‘That was Shayṭān.’

We find in the Musnad of Abū Muḥammad ad-Dārimī that ash-Sha‘bī said that ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘One of the Companions of Muḥammad ﷺ met a man of the jinn and they wrestled and the human being threw him down. The human told him, ‘I see that you are scrawny and thin, with forearms like those of a dog. Are all the jinn like this or just you?’ He answered, ‘No, by Allah! I am considered one of the strong ones among them! Let us wrestle again. If you throw me down, I will teach you something which will be of benefit to you!’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. So he wrestled and he threw him down. The jinn said, ‘Recite the Throne Verse.’ ‘Yes,’ he agreed. He said, ‘No one recites it in a house but that shayṭān leaves it, breaking wind like a donkey and then will not enter it again until morning.’ Abū Nu‘aym transmitted it from Abū ‘Āṣim ath-Thaqafī from ash-Sha‘bī. Abū ‘Ubaydah mentioned it in the gharīb hadiths of ‘Umar from Abū Mu‘āwiyah from Abū ‘Āṣim ath-Thaqafī from ash-Sha‘bī from ‘Abdullāh. ‘Abdullāh was asked, ‘Was it ‘Umar?’ He said, ‘Who else could it have been but ‘Umar?’

It is reported in at-Tirmidhī from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Whoever recites the beginning of Sūrah al-Mu’min (40:1-3) and the Throne Verse in the morning will be protected until evening. Whoever recites them in the evening will be protected until morning.’ He said that it is a gharīb hadith. Abū ‘Abdullāh at-Tirmidhī al-Ḥakīm said that it is related that the believers are recommended to seek protection by reciting it after every prayer.

Anas has a marfū‘ hadith going back to the Prophet ﷺ in which he said, ‘Allah revealed to Mūsā: “If someone continues to recite Āyat al-Kursī after every prayer he will be given what the thankful are given: the reward of the Prophets and the actions of the true. I will stretch out my hand to him with mercy, and all that keeps him from entering the Garden is the arrival of the Angel of Death.” Mūsā said, “Lord, is there anyone who hears this who will not persevere in it?” He replied, “Among My slaves I will only give it to a Prophet, a true person, a man I love, or a man I want to be martyred in My Path.”’ It is reported from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b that Allah Almighty said to Musa, ‘Musa, anyone who recites the Āyat al-Kursī after every prayer will be given the reward of the Prophets.’ Abū ‘Abdullāh said, ‘I think that it means that he will be given the reward of the action of the Prophets. None but the Prophets have the reward of Prophethood.’ This āyah contains the truth of tawḥīd and the lofty attributes. It is fifty words long, and each word contains fifty blessings. It is equal to a third of the Qur’an, as a hadith reports. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah mentioned that. Within a long hadith, Abū Dharr said, ‘I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ which is the greatest āyah revealed by Allah in the Qur’an. He answered, ‘Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The noblest āyah in the Quran is the Throne Verse.’ One scholar said, ‘That is because the name of Allah is repeated it, either directly or indirectly, eighteen times.’

the Living, the Self-Sustaining.

These are combined attributes of Allah. ‘Al-Ḥayy’ (The Living) is one of His Beautiful Names. It is said that it is the Greatest Name of Allah. It is said that when ‘Īsā wanted to bring the dead to life, he made this supplication, ‘O Living, O Self-Sustaining.’ It is said that it was used by Āsaf ibn Barkhiyā when he wanted to bring the throne of Bilqīs to Sulaymān. He made the supplication: ‘O Living, O Self-Sustaining.’ It is said that the tribe of Israel asked Mūsā about the Greatest Name of Allah and he said to them, ‘Ayā Hayā Sharā Hayā’ which means: ‘O Living, O Self-Sustaining.’ It is said that it is the supplication people at sea should make when they fear drowning. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that some people said that it is like a description of Himself and that should not be examined. It is said that He called Himself ‘Living’ since He disposes of matters exactly and determines things precisely. Qatādah says that it is the Living who does not die. As-Suddī says that it means the One who goes on forever. Labīd said:

If you see me sound today, I am not among the living from Kilāb and Ja‘far.

‘Al-Qayyūm’ (The Self-Sustaining), means the One who undertakes to uphold everything He has created, as Qatādah said. Al-Ḥasan said that it means the One who attends to every self in respect of what it earns until He has repaid it for its actions, as He knows them, and nothing is hidden from Him. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It means: the One who does not change or vanish.’ Umayyah ibn Abi-ṣ-Ṣalt said:

The heavens and the stars as well as the sun and the moon only abide

As determined by the Self-Sustaining Guardian. The gathering, the Garden and bliss are only for a matter which is immense.

Al-Bayhaqī said that he saw in ‘Uyūn at-tafsīr that Ismā‘il aḍ-Ḍarīr said, ‘Qayyūm means the One who does not sleep,’ which is taken from the verse after it. Al-Kalbī said, ‘Al-Qayyūm is the One with no beginning.’ Al-Anbārī mentioned that. A poet says:

The Master of the Throne is the One Who provides for people. He is Living and the One Who sustains them.

He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep.

Then Allah denies that He is subject to drowsiness or sleep. Drowsiness, according to all, is what affects the eyes and sleep is what affects the heart. Al-Mufaḍḍal made a distinction between them: sinah is what is in the head, nu‘ās is in the eye, and sleep (nawm) is in the heart. Ibn Zayd said that wasnān is when someone rises from sleep so confused that he might even unleash his sword against his family. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘What Ibn Zayd said is debatable. It is not understood from Arabic.’ As-Suddī said, ‘Sinah is the wind of sleep which touches the face and makes a person drowsy.’ Generally speaking, it is fatigue which affects a person. What is meant by the āyah is that Allah Almighty is not affected by lapses or weariness in any way. The root of sinah (drowsiness) is wasnah. Sleep is that which is heavy and removes a person’s consciousness.

People mention what Abū Hurayrah reported about a story which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recounted on the minbar: ‘Once Mūsā wondered about whether Allah slept and so Allah sent an angel to him to keep him awake for three nights and then gave him two bottles, one in each hand, and commanded him to look after them. He began to fall asleep and his hands almost released them. Then he moved them apart. When he fell asleep, his hands banged together and the bottles broke. He said that Allah made an example by that illustrating the fact that if He were to sleep, the heavens and the earth would not be maintained.’ This hadith is not sound. Others, including al-Bayhaqi, said that it is weak.

Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him.

He owns them, so He is the Owner and Lord of all. ‘Mā’ is used even though sentient beings are included in the whole. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘This āyah was revealed when the unbelievers said, “We only worship idols so that they might bring us close to Allah.”’

Who can intercede with Him except by His permission?

It is affirmed in this āyah that Allah gives permission to whomever He wishes to be an intercessor. They are the Prophets, the people of knowledge, those who strive, angels and others whom Allah has honoured and ennobled. Then they only intercede for those with whom Allah is pleased as we know from His words: ‘They do not intercede except on behalf of those with whom He is pleased.’ (21:28)

Ibn ‘Atiyyah said, ‘It appears that the scholars and righteous intercede for those who have not reached the Fire and are between the two stages, or have arrived there, but have righteous deeds to their credit.’ In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in ‘One of the remaining chapters on the Vision’ we find: ‘The believers will say, “Our Lord, our brothers used to pray with us and fast with us.”’ This is intercession for those who are borderline cases. As for the intercession of miscarried children at the gate of the Garden, it is for their parents. This intercession is for relatives and acquaintances. The Prophets intercede for the rebels of their community who are in the Fire for their wrong actions. It is not on account of kinship or acquaintance, but on account of faith alone. There then remains the intercession of the Most Merciful of the Merciful for those who were immersed in errors and wrong actions for which the intercession of the Prophets does not prevail. As for the intercession of Muhammad ﷺ to hasten the reckoning, that is his alone.

In his Ṣaḥīḥ, Muslim adequately explains how intercession takes place. The intercessors will enter the Fire and bring people out who deserve to be punished. So it is not unlikely that the believers have two intercessions: intercession for those who have not reached the Fire and the intercession for those who have reached it and entered it. May Allah protect us from it! We find mentioned in the hadith of Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī: ‘Then the bridge will be set up over Hell and intercession will be allowed. They will say, “O Allah, safety! Safety!”’ It was asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, what is the bridge?’ He answered, ‘A very slippery place on which are snares, hooks, and hard thorns which are like that found in Najd known as sa‘dān. Some of the believers will cross over it like the blink of an eye, some like lightning, some like the wind, some like a bird, and some like the faster steed and camel. Some will escape unhurt, some will be scratched but released, and some will be pushed into the Fire until the believers are delivered from the Fire. By the One Who has my soul in His hand, on the Day of Rising there is none of you who will make more earnest entreaties of Allah for his rights than those the believers will make for their brothers in the Fire. They will say, “Our Lord, they used to fast with us, pray with us and go on ḥajj!” They will be told, “Go and bring out those you know.” Their forms are forbidden to the Fire and they will bring out many people who were taken by the Fire up to middle of their thigh or up to their knees. Then they will say, “None of those about whom You commanded us remains in it.” Then the Almighty will say, “Return and bring out whoever you find who has the weight of a dinar of good in his heart.” They will bring out many people and then will say, “Our Lord, we have not left in any of those about whom You commanded us.” Then He will say, “Return and bring out whoever you find who has the weight of half a dinar of good in his heart.” They will bring out many people and then will say, “Our Lord, we have not left in any of those about whom You commanded us.” Then He will say, “Return and bring out whoever you find who has an atom’s weight of good in his heart.” They will bring out many people and then say, “Our Lord, we have not left any good in it.”’ Abū Sa‘īd said, ‘If you do not believe me in respect of this hadith, then, if you wish, recite: “Allah does not wrong anyone by so much as the smallest speck. And if there is a good deed Allah will multiply it and pay out an immense reward direct from Him.” (4:40) Then Allah Almighty will say, “The angels have interceded, the Prophets have interceded and the believers have interceded. None remains but the Most Merciful of the merciful.” He will take a handful from the Fire, bringing out people who never did any good at all and have been turned into charcoal…’

It is mentioned from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I will say, “O Allah, give me permission for those who said, ‘There is no god but Allah.’” He said, “That is not for you. By My might, pride, immensity and omnipotence, I will bring out those who said, ‘There is no god but Allah.’”’ Abū Hurayrah mentioned that he ﷺ said, ‘When Allah has finished judging between His slaves and wants to bring out those among the people of the Fire He wishes to, He will command the angels to bring out of the Fire anyone among those to whom Allah desires to show mercy who did not associate anything with Allah, those who said, “There is no god but Allah.”’ They will recognise them in the Fire by the mark of prostration. The Fire will consume all of the son of Ādam except for the mark of prostration. Allah has forbidden the Fire to consume the mark of prostration.’

These hadiths indicate that the intercession of the believers and others is for those who have entered the Fire. May Allah protect us from it! Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that it applies both to those who have reached it and those who have not reached it. It is possible that that is taken from other hadiths. Allah knows best. Ibn Mājah transmitted in the Sunan from Anas ibn Mālik that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘People will be lined up in rows on the Day or Rising (Ibn Numayr said ‘the people of the Garden’) and a man from the people of the Fire will pass by a man and say, “Do you not remember me? Do you not remember the day you asked me for water and I gave you a drink?” The man will intercede for him. A man will pass another man and say, “Do you not remember the day I brought you water for purification?” and he will intercede for him.’ Ibn Numayr said: ‘He will say, “Do you not remember the day when you sent me to get something you needed and I did it?” and he will intercede for him.’

As for the intercession of our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, there is disagreement about it. It is said that it will occur three times, or two or five times. It will be dealt with elsewhere. We have also dealt with this in Kitāb at-Tadhkirah.

He knows what is before them and what is behind them

‘Them’ in this phrase refers to everyone who has sentience. They are all included in ‘everything in the heavens and the earth.’ Mujāhid said that ‘what is before them’ is this world and ‘what is behind them’ is the Next World. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘All this is valid and there is nothing wrong with it because “what is before” means everything to which a person advances and “what is behind” is all that came before.’ Something similar to this was stated by as-Suddī and others.

but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills.

Knowledge here means what is known, meaning that people do not encompass any of what He knows. This is like the statement of al-Khiḍr to Mūsā when the sparrow dipped its beak in the sea, ‘My knowledge and your knowledge does not diminish the knowledge of Allah except as this sparrow would diminish this sea.’ This and examples like it refer to known things because the knowledge of Allah is an attribute of His Essence which cannot be separated from it. The meaning is that no one knows other than what Allah wishes him to know.

His Footstool encompasses the heavens and the earth

In his History, Ibn ‘Asākir mentioned from ‘Alī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The Footstool is made of pearl and the Pen is made of pearl and the length of the Pen is seven thousand years and the height of the Footstool is only known by Allah.’ Ḥammād ibn Salamah related from ‘Āṣim ibn Bahdalah, who is ‘Āṣim ibn Abi-n-Nujūd, from Zirr ibn Ḥubaysh that Ibn Mas‘ūd is reported as saying, ‘There is a distance of five hundred years between every heaven and five hundred years between the seventh heaven and the Footstool, and between the Footstool and the Throne is a distance of five hundred years. The Throne is above the water and Allah is above the Throne. He knows what you are in and what you are on.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said that His Footstool is His knowledge, and aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that. Indicating that is the derived word kurrāsah (notebook) which contains knowledge. Scholars are also called ‘karāsīy’ (thrones) because they are relied on. That is similar to the saying, ‘the supporting pegs of the earth.’ A poet said:

Noble people and a troop surround them, those who know (karāsīy) events when they occur.

It is also said that the Footstool is Allah’s Power by which He sustains the heavens and the earth, as the word kursī can be used for the underpinning of a thing. Kursī is the base of a wall which holds it up. This is close to what Ibn ‘Abbās said about ‘His Footstool encompasses’. Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘We related from Ibn Mas‘ūd and Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr that Ibn ‘Abbās said that “His Footstool encompasses” means His knowledge.

Other transmissions from Ibn ‘Abbās and others indicate that what is meant by the Footstool is something connected to the Throne. Isrā’īl related from as-Suddī reported that Abū Mālik said, ‘It is the rock on which the seventh earth stands and is the whole extent of creation in all its vastness. Four angels are over it. Each of them has four faces: a human face, a lion’s face, an ox’s face and an eagle’s face. They attend to it and encompass the earths and heavens. Their heads are under the Footstool, and the Footstool is under the Throne. Allah has placed His Footstool above the Throne.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘This statement indicates that there are two Footstools. One is under the Throne and one is above the Throne.’ It is related in what Asbāṭ related from as-Suddī from Abū Mālik, and from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās, from Murrah al-Hamdānī from Ibn ‘Abbās, and from Murrah al-Hamdānī from Ibn Mas‘ūd from some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about this that the heavens and earth are inside the Footstool and the Footstool is in front of the Throne.

The people of atheism apply it to the immensity of the kingdom and majesty of the sultan. They deny the existence of the Throne and Footstool and say that they are nothing. The people of the truth consider their existence conceivable since the power of Allah is vast and one must believe in it. Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī said, ‘The Footstool is the place where the feet are put. It creaks as a saddle creaks.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘We also related this from Ibn ‘Abbās and we mentioned that it means, as he thinks, that it is part of the Throne, where the feet of someone on a throne would be placed. There is, however, no affirmation of “place” in it.’ Ibn Buraydah related that his father said, ‘When Ja‘far came from Abyssinia, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked him, “What was the most extraordinary thing you saw?” He answered, “A woman with a basket of food on her head. A horse passed and knocked it off. She sat down, collecting her food and then she turned to it and said, ‘Woe to you for a Day when the King will sit on His Throne and hear a tale from the wrongdoer and give to the wronged!’” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ affirmed her words and said, “A nation is not pure (or ‘how can a nation be pure?’) when its weak do not take their due from the strong?”’

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The statement, “The Footstool is the place of the feet” mean that it is part of the Throne of the All-Merciful, like the place for the feet on the thrones of kings. It is an immense created thing in front of the Throne. It is ascribed to it as the footstool is ascribed to a king’s throne.’ Al-Ḥasan ibn Abi-l-Ḥasan said that the Footstool is the Throne itself, but this is not acceptable. The hadiths clearly state that the Footstool is a creation which is in front of the Throne and the Throne is greater than it.

Abū Idrīs al-Khawlānī related that Abū Dharr said, ‘I asked, “Messenger of Allah, what is the greatest āyah revealed to you?” He replied, “The Āyat al-Kursī.” Then he said, “Abū Dharr, the heavens and the Footstool are only like a ring cast in the desert, and the size of the Throne compared to that of the Footstool is like the size of the desert compared to the ring.”’ Al-Ajurrī, Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī in his sound Musnad and al-Bayhaqī transmitted it and said that it is sound. Mujāhid said, ‘The heavens and the earth in comparison to the Throne are like a ring cast into the desert.’

their preservation does not tire Him

This āyah informs us about the immensity of what Allah has created. It is deduced from that that Allah is greater still since the preservation of this immense matter does not tire Him at all.

The word ‘tire’ means to find something burdensome and hard. This is how Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah and others explained it. Az-Zajjāj says that the ‘him’ can refer to Allah or it can refer to the Throne. If it is the Footstool, that is part of the business of Allah.

He is the Most High, the Magnificent.

‘Al-‘Alī’ (The Most High) refers to height of power and position, not place, because Allah is free of being confined by space. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that some people said that He is High above His creation as His place is above the places of creatures. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is the view of ignorant anthropomorphists! The aspect is not related.’ ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Qurṭ related that in the Night Journey the Messenger of Allah ﷺ heard glorification in the high heavens: ‘Glory be to Allah, the High, the Most High! Glory be to Him and exalted is He!’ ‘Alī and ‘ālī is the one who conquers and overcomes things. The Arabs use the verb ‘alā for overcoming and overpowering. A poet said:

When we overpowered (‘alawnā) and firmly were over them, We left them flat for the vultures and wild beasts.

‘Al-‘Aẓīm’ (The Magnificent) describes His immense power, importance and nobility, not His physical size. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that some people said ‘aẓīm means esteemed (mu‘aẓẓam) as is said that ‘atīq (ancient) means mu‘attiq. Other people rejected that and said, ‘Had it meant “esteemed”, that would imply that He is not magnificent before He created creation and after it is annihilated since there would be none to esteem Him then.

256 There is no compulsion where the dīn is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

There is no compulsion where the dīn is concerned.

The word ‘dīn’ in this āyah means what is believed and religion since it is followed by ‘Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error’. Compulsion can take place in judgments regarding oaths, sales, gifts and other things. This will be explained in Sūrat al-Naḥl (16:106), since this is not the place for it. Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān recited ‘ar-rashad’. That is also related from al-Ḥasan and ash-Sha‘bī. The form rashada, yarshudu, rushd is used when something you love is attained but the form rashida, yarshadu, rashad is also possible. Ghawā is its opposite. An-Naḥḥās said that. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah related that Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān as-Sulamī recited rushād rather than rushd and al-Ḥasan recited rushud. The root of ‘ghayy’ (error) refers to when someone is misguided in what he believes or thinks. The word ‘error’ (ghayy) is not used to denote complete misguidance.

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this āyah.

– It is said that it is abrogated because the Prophet ﷺ forced the Arabs to adopt the dīn of Islam and fought them and was only pleased with Islam for them. Sulaymān ibn Mūsā took that view, saying, ‘It is abrogated by “O Prophet! Do jihād against the unbelievers and the hypocrites.” (9:73)’ That is related from Ibn Mas‘ūd and many commentators.

– It is not abrogated and was sent down about the people of the Book in particular and means that they are not forced to adopt Islam when they pay jizyah. Those who are forced are the idolaters. Only Islam is accepted from them, and they are the ones about whom the āyah: ‘O Prophet! Do jihād against the unbelievers and the hypocrites’ (9:73) was revealed. This is the position of ash-Sha‘bī, Qatādah, al-Ḥasan and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk. The evidence for this position is related by Zayd ibn Aslam from his father, ‘I heard ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb say to an old Christian woman, “Become Muslim, old woman, you will be safe. Allah sent Muḥammad with the Truth.” She replied, “I am an old woman and close to death.” ‘Umar said, “O Allah, bear witness!” and he recited, “There is no compulsion where the dīn is concerned.”’

– Abū Dāwūd reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that this was revealed about the Anṣār. There was a woman all of whose children had died. She made a vow that if she had a child who lived she would make it a Jew. When the Banu-n-Naḍīr were exiled, among them were many of the children of the Anṣār. They said, ‘We will not abandon our children!’ Then Allah revealed this. One variant has, ‘We did what we did and we thought that their dīn is better than what we had.’ When Allah brought Islam, they denied it and this was revealed. Whoever wished remained with them and whoever wished, entered Islam. This is the position of Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, ash-Sha‘bī and Mujāhid, but he added that the reason that they were with the Banu-n-Naḍīr was through suckling. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘The position of Ibn ‘Abbās regarding this āyah is the best position since its isnād is sound.’

– As-Suddī said that the āyah was revealed about a man of the Anṣār called Abū Ḥuṣayn who had two sons. Some merchants came from Syria to Madīnah with oil and when they wanted to leave, his sons went to them. They invited the two sons to become Christians and they did so and went back with them to Syria. Their father went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to complain about this and asked the Messenger of Allah to send someone to bring them back. Then the words: ‘There is no compulsion where the dīn is concerned’ were revealed. He had not at that time been commanded to fight the People of the Book. He said, ‘Allah has put them far away. They are the first to disbelieve.’ Abu-l-Ḥuṣayn felt annoyed that the Prophet ﷺ did not send someone after them. Then Allah revealed: ‘No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them’ (4:65). Then ‘No compulsion’ was abrogated and he was commanded to fight the People of the Book in Sūrat at-Tawbah. The sound view for the reason behind the words: ‘No, by your Lord, they are not believers …’ is the hadith of az-Zubayr with his Christian neighbour about water as will be dealt with in Sūrat an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

– It is said that it means ‘do not call those who have submitted through the sword compelled and forced’.

– It is said that it was related about captives who were People of the Book. They are not compelled when they are adults. If they are Magians, young or old, or idolaters, they are compelled to adopt Islam because their captivity does not help them when they are idolaters. Do you not see that their slaughtered animals are not eaten nor their women married? That is what Ibn al-Qāsim reported from Mālik. Ashhab said that children are considered to have the dīn of those who have captured them. If they refuse that, they are compelled to become Muslim. Children have no dīn and that is why they are compelled to enter Islam so that they do not go to a false dīn. When other types of unbelievers pay the jizyah, they are not forced to become Muslim, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs, Quraysh or otherwise. This will be dealt with in Sūrat at-Tawbah.

Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in Allah

The word for ‘false gods’ (ṭāghūt) comes from the root ṭaghā which means ‘to exceed the bounds’. The word can indicate the plural or the singular. It is said that the root of ṭāghūt is ṭughyān which means ‘overstepping the limits’. Al-Mubarrad said that it is a plural, but Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that that is rejected. Al-Jawharī said that the word ṭāghūt refers to soothsayers, shayṭāns and every leader in misguidance. It can have a singular meaning as we see in 4:60 or a plural meaning as we see in 2:257. It does have an actual plural: ṭawāghīth.

has grasped the Firmest Handhold,

This phrase is a metaphor. Commentators disagree about metaphorical usage (tashbīh). Mujāhid says that ‘the Firmest Handhold’ is true belief and as-Suddī says that it means Islam. Ibn ‘Abbās, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘It is ‘lā ilāha illa-llāh.’ All these understandings actually amount to the same thing.

which will never give way.

Mujāhid said, ‘This should be understood alongside Allah’s statement that “He never changes a people’s state unless they change what is in themselves.” (13:11)’ In other words, He will not remove the designation of believer from them until they actually disbelieve. The word for ‘give way’ (infiṣām) means to break, but not completely. Qaṣm is completely breaking. Al-Jawharī said, ‘Faṣm is breaking, but not completely.’ The verb is used of rain stopping and a fever ending. When rejection of falsehood and faith in Allah are part of what the tongue articulates and the heart believes, Allah hears what is said and knows what is believed.

257 Allah is the Protector of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light. But those who disbelieve have false gods as protectors. They take them from the light into the darkness. Those are the Companions of the Fire remaining in it timelessly, for ever.

The word ‘walī’ (Protector) signifies the One who helps His believing slaves as al-Khaṭṭābī said. Qatādah said that the darkness mentioned in the āyah refers to misguidance and light to guidance. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and ar-Rabī‘ said much the same thing. Mujāhid and ‘Abdah ibn Abī Lubābah said that this was revealed about some people who believed in ‘Isā عليه السلام. When Muhammad ﷺ came, they rejected him. That was their being taken out of the light into the darkness. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The one with this belief who had a stronger light in it left it for darkness. The wording of the āyah has no need of specification. It applies to every disbelieving community who had partial belief, like the Arabs had. That is because Allah is the Protector of those of them who believed and He brought them out of the darkness of disbelief into the light of belief. Those who disbelieved after the coming of the sent Prophet ﷺ were misguided by their shayṭāns. It is as if Shayṭān brought them out of faith when they were ready to enter it and so they will enter the Fire for their disbelief. That is justice and Allah is not asked about what He does.’ Al-Ḥasan recited ‘ṭawāghīt’ in the plural which means shayṭāns. Allah knows best.

258 What about the one who argued with Ibrāhīm about his Lord, on the basis that Allah had given him sovereignty? Ibrāhīm said, ‘My Lord is He who gives life and causes to die.’ He said, ‘I too give life and cause to die.’ Ibrāhīm said, ‘Allah makes the sun come from the East. Make it come from the West.’ And the one who was an unbeliever was dumbfounded. Allah does not guide wrongdoing people.

The expression ‘What about?’ (a lam tara) literally means ‘Have you seen?’ and is frequently used in Arabic to introduce something surprising or astonishing. The ‘one’ referred to in the āyah is generally taken to be Nimrod, Numrūdh ibn Kūsh ibn Kan‘ān ibn Sām ibn Nụḥ, the king of his time and the one who built the fire into which Ibrāhīm was thrown and who was killed by a gnat. This is the position of Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘, as-Suddī, Ibn Isḥāq, Zayd ibn Aslam and others. He was destroyed when he tried to fight against Allah. Allah sent a great cloud of gnats against him and they covered the sun and consumed his army until only their bones were left. One entered his brain and ate it until it became the size of a mouse. The dearest of people to him after that was the one who hit his head with a hammer! He suffered for forty days.

Ibn Jurayj said that he was the first king in the earth. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that this is rejected. Qatādah said that he was the first to become a tyrant; he was the one who built the tower at Babel. It is said that he was king of the entire earth and was one of two unbelieving kings. The second king was Nebuchadnezzar. It is also said that the one who argued with Ibrāhīm was Numrūdh ibn Fālikh ibn ‘Ābir ibn Shālikh ibn Arfakhshand ibn Sām. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah related all of that. As-Suhaylī related that he was Numrūdh ibn Kan‘ān ibn Ḥām ibn Nūḥ. He was king over the black people. He was appointed by aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk who was known as al-Azdahāq. His name was Bīwarāsb ibn Andarāst and he was the king of all regions. He is the one who was killed by Afīdūn ibn Athfiyān.

Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk was a tyrant whose kingdom lasted a thousand years. He was the first to crucify people and the first to cut off hands and feet. Nimrod had a son called Kush, or a similar name, and a son called Nimrod the younger. Nimrod the younger ruled for a year and Nimrod the elder ruled for four hundred years, as they say.

There are two versions of how the debate reported in this āyah occurred. One is that the people went out to a festival they used to observe and Ibrāhīm went to their idols and broke them. When they returned, he said to them, ‘Do you worship something you have carved?’ They asked, ‘Who do you worship?’ He said, ‘I worship my Lord who gives life and causes to die.’ It is also said that Nimrod had complete control of the food stores of his people and, when they wanted to eat, they had to buy food from him. When they went to him, they prostrated to him. Ibrāhīm entered and did not prostrate. He asked him, ‘Why do you not prostrate to me?’ He replied, ‘I prostrate only to my Lord.’ Nimrod demanded, ‘Who is your Lord?’ Ibrāhīm answered, ‘My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die.’

Zayd ibn Aslam said, ‘This Nimrod had control of all the provisions of his people. When people came, he demanded, “Who is your Lord and God?” “You,” they answered. “Give them provision,” he said. Ibrāhīm came to seek provision and he asked him the same question. Ibrāhīm replied, “My Lord is He who gives life and causes to die.” When he heard this, Nimrod said, “I give life and cause to die.” Then Ibrāhīm asked him the question about the sun and he was dumbfounded. He said, “Do not give him provision.” Ibrāhīm returned to his people with nothing. He passed by a heap of fine sand and said to himself. “If I fill my sacks with this, when I enter the children will be happy until I can see to them.” He did that and when he reached his house, the children were happy and began to play on the sacks. He fell asleep from exhaustion and his wife said, “I will prepare some food for him and he will find it ready when he wakes up.” She opened one of the sacks and found it to be the finest flour and baked it. When he rose, she put it before him. He asked, “Where is this from?” She said, “From the flour you brought.” Ibrāhīm knew that Allah had done that.’

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned that Abū Ṣāliḥ said, ‘The Prophet Ibrāhīm went to obtain food and was unable to obtain it. He passed by some red sand and took some of it and returned to his family. They asked, ‘What is this?’ He answered, ‘Red wheat.’ They opened it and found that it was red wheat. When any of it was planted, it produced ears that were full of grain from bottom to top.

Ar-Rabī‘ and others said about this story that, when Nimrod said, ‘I give life and cause to die,’ he summoned two men. He killed one and released the other. He said, ‘I gave life to that one and made that one die.’ Then Ibrāhīm countered that with the question about the sun which dumbfounded him. It is related in a hadith that Allah said, ‘The Final Hour will not come until I bring the sun from the west so that it is known that l have the power to do that.’ Then Nimrod commanded Ibrāhīm to be thrown into the fire. That is what tyrants do. When they are opposed in something and unable to offer proof of their position, they inflict punishment. Allah saved Ibrāhīm from the fire as we will see later.

As-Suddī said, ‘When Ibrāhīm emerged from the fire, they brought him to the King. He had not been in his presence before that time. He spoke to him and asked, “Who is your Lord?” He replied, “My Lord is the One who gives life and causes to die.” Nimrod said, “I give life and cause to die. I will take four people and put them in a room and will not give them food or water until they are starving. I will bring them out and feed two and they will live and not feed two who will die.” Then Ibrāhīm countered with the question about the sun and he was dumbfounded.’

Legists have mentioned about this āyah that, when Ibrāhīm described his Lord with bringing to life and making die, it was a statement that could be taken literally or metaphorically. It should be pointed out that Ibrāhīm meant essential qualities in the first instance while Nimrod took what he said metaphorically and misrepresented it to his people. So Ibrāhīm left the argument and moved to an example which cannot be made metaphorical. ‘And the one who was an unbeliever was dumbfounded.’ The king could not argue and refute the second example nor could he say, ‘I am the one who brings it from the east’ because intelligent people would reject that.

This āyah indicates the permissibility of giving an unbeliever the title of ‘king’ when he has kingdom, might and elevation in this world. It also is an affirmation of the use of evidential argument in establishing the proof of a matter and this is often found in the Sunnah and Qur‘an. Allah says: ‘Produce your evidence if you speak the truth,’ (2:111) and: ‘Have you authority to say this?’ (10:68), meaning any evidence. Allah also described how Ibrāhīm argued with his people and refuted their worship of idols as we find in Sūrat al-Anbiyā’ and elsewhere. He says in the story of Nūḥ: ‘They said, “Nūḥ, you have argued with us and argued much…’ (11:32) until he said, ‘I am innocent of the crimes which you commit.’ (11:36) Mūsā also argued with Pharaoh as seen in many āyahs.

All of this is instruction by Allah through question and answer and debate in the dīn because that shows the difference between truth and falsehood by the demonstration of the proof of the truth and the invalidity of false evidence. The Prophet ﷺ debated with the People of the Book and called on them to invoke Allah against themselves after the argument as will be dealt with in Āli ‘Imrān. Ādam and Mūsā argued and Ādam won the argument. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ argued with one another on the Day of the Verandah. They pushed one another, made affirmations and debated until the truth came from its people and allegiance was given to Abū Bakr. They also debated about the people of the Riddah. There are very many instances of that. The words of Allah: ‘You are a people arguing about something of which you have knowledge’ (3:66) are evidence that arguing about something with knowledge is permitted for those who reflect. Al-Muzanī, the follower of ash-Shāfi‘īʼ, said, ‘Among the conditions of debate is that Allah should be intended by it and that what is clear should be accepted from it.’ It is said that debating is not sound unless those who are debating are close or equal in respect of their level of knowledge of the dīn, intelligence, understanding and fairness. Otherness it is merely quarrelling and arrogance.

‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib recited ‘a lam tar’ with the jussive, but the majority vowel the rā’ and the yā’ is elided in the jussive. ‘An ātāhu-llāhu-l-mulka’ is in the position of the accusative, meaning ‘because Allah had given him’ or ‘for the sake of what Allah had given him.’ Most recite ‘ana uḥyī,’ discarding the alif after the nūn of ‘anā’ (I) in the connection, while Nāfi‘ and Ibn Abī Uways keep it because of meeting with the hamzah, as is the case throughout the Qur’an except in 7:188 where it is discarded as is done by the other reciters since that is rare. It only occurs three times in the Qur’an. It acts like that which does not have hamzah after it because of its rareness and so the alif is elided in the connection.

Grammarians said that in the case when the pronoun of the speaker has a hamzah and a nūn, as when you say ‘ana’ or ‘anah’, the alif and the hā’ are to make the vowelling clear in the stop. When the word is connected to something, they are dropped because the word to which it is connected takes the place of the alif. It is rare to say ‘anā fa‘altu’ except in poetry. An-Naḥḥās said that the fact that Nāfi‘ kept the alif and recited ‘anā uḥyī’ has no logic. Makkī said that the Basrans consider the alif to be redundant and believe that the name is implied by the hamzah and nūn and the alif is added for strengthening. It is said that it is added by the stop to make the vowel of the nūn clear. According to the Kufans, the noun is ‘anā’ in full. Nāfi‘ confirms the alif in the root according to their position, and those who elide it do so to lighten it, and because it is indicated by the fatḥah (a).

Al-Jawharī said, ‘As for saying ana (I) it is a metonymic noun and is for the first person alone. It only has the fatḥah (a) invariably to distinguish it from an (that) which is a preposition that puts the verb in the subjunctive case, and the final alif is to make clear the vowelling when there is a stop. If it occurs in the middle of speech it is dropped except when there is poor usage of language.

The word ‘dumbfounded’ (bahita and buhita) is used when someone is stopped and falls silent out of confusion. An-Naḥḥās and others said that. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that some of the Arabs said that it is bahata. Ibn Jinnī said that Abū Ḥaywah recited ‘bahuta’ which is a dialectical form of buhita. Ibn as-Samayfa‘ recited ‘bahata’ meaning, ‘Ibrāhim stunned the one who disbelieved.’ He said that it is permitted for bahata to be a dialectical variant of bahuta. Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Akhfash related ‘bahita’ like khariqa and dahisha and said that most of them have bahuta. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that some people interpret the reading ‘bahata’ to mean ‘insulted and ejected’ when he was stopped and had no further device to use.

259 Or the one who passed by a town which had fallen into ruin? He asked, ‘How can Allah restore this to life when it has died?’ Allah caused him to die a hundred years, then brought him back to life. Then He asked, ‘How long have you been here?’ He replied, ‘I have been here a day or part of a day.’ He said, ‘Not so! You have been here a hundred years. Look at your food and drink – it has not gone bad — and look at your donkey so We can make you a Sign for all mankind. Look at the bones – how We raise them up and clothe them in flesh.’ When it had become clear to him, he said, ’Now I know that Allah has power over all things.’

Or the one who passed by a town which had fallen into ruin?

‘Aw’ (or) is a conjunction which has its normal meaning here. According to al-Kisā’ī and al-Farrā’ it refers back to the ‘What about…?’ in the previous āyah. Al-Mubarrad said that it means: ‘Have you not looked at the one who argued with Ibrāhīm about his Lord? Have you not seen who he is? Like the one who passed by a town…’ The words imply that. Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥusayn recited ‘or’ as ‘a wa’ with a fatḥah on the wāw as a conjunction to which the interrogative alif is added, and it indicates confirmation. A ‘qaryah’ (town) is called that because people gather (qarā) in it. The verb is used for water collecting in a place.

Sulaymān ibn Buraydah, Nājiyyah ibn Ka‘b, Qatādah, Ibn ‘Abbās, ar-Rabī‘, ‘Ikrimah and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘The one who passed by the town was ‘Uzayr.’ Wahb ibn Munabbih, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr and ‘Abdullāh ibn Bakr ibn Muḍar said that it was Irmiyā’ (said by some to be Jeremiah), who was a Prophet. Ibn Isḥāq said that Irmiyā’ is al-Khiḍr. An-Naqqāsh related that from Wahb ibn Munabbih. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is as you see, although one name is the same as the other because al-Khiḍr was a contemporary of Mūsā. The one who passed by the town was one of the clan of Hārūn some time later according to what Wahb ibn Munabbih related.’

If al-Khiḍr is Irmiyā’, it is not improbable since al-Khiḍr has been alive from the time of Mūsā until now according to the sound position on that, which will be talked about in Sūrat al-Kahf. If he died before this story, then the position of Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah is sound. Allah knows best.

An-Naḥḥās and Makkī related from Mujāhid that he was an unnamed man of the tribe of Israel. An-Naqqāsh said that it is said that he was the servant of Lūṭ. As-Suhaylī related that al-Qutaybī has one statement saying that it is Shu‘ayb and the one who restored it to life after it was ruined was Kūshik al-Fārisī. The town is Jerusalem as stated by Wahb ibn Munabbih, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas and others. He said that he came from Egypt and that his food and drink – referred to in the āyah – consisted of green figs, grapes and a pot of wine. It is also said that it was juice and it is said that it was a small amount of water.

It was Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the town. He was the governor of Iraq for Lohorasp and then Gushtasp, the son of Lohorasp, who was the father of Isfandiyar. An-Naqqāsh related that it is ‘the Overturned Cities’. Abū Ṣāliḥ transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the tribe of Israel and captured many of them and took them to Babylon. ‘Uzayr ibn Sharkhiyā was one of them. He was one of the scholars of the Israelites. He went out one day for something he needed to Dayr Hizqal on the banks of the Tigris. He stopped under the shade of a tree. He tied his donkey up in the shade of the tree and then went around the town and did not see anyone living there. It was fallen down and deserted. He said, ‘How can Allah restore this to life when it has died?’

It is said that it was the town from which thousands fled out of fear of death referred to earlier in 2:243. Ibn Zayd said that. Ibn Zayd said that it was those people who left their homes in thousands in fear of death and Allah told them, ‘Die!’ A man passed by their decayed bones and stopped to look and said. ‘How can Allah restore this to life when it has died?’ Allah caused him to die a hundred years. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, however, says that this position of Ibn Zayd is contrary to the words of the āyah since the āyah mentions a town fallen into ruin with no one in it. So it indicates the town. Its being brought to life was by flourishing and the re-establishment of buildings and houses.

Wahb ibn Munabbih, Qatādah, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, ar-Rabī‘ and ‘Ikrimah said that the town was Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed it. There is a long account about the history of the tribe of Israel and when Irmīyā’ or ‘Uzayr stopped at the town which was a great hill in the middle of Jerusalem brought about when Nebuchadnezzar had commanded his army to move the earth to it until he made it like a mountain. Irmīyā’ saw that the walls of the houses were collapsed onto their roofs and said, ‘How will Allah bring this to life after its death?’

In the expression ‘fallen into ruin’ (khāwiyatun ‘alā ‘urūshihā) the word ‘urūsh means roofs of houses and anything that is set up for the sake of shade or shelter. Part of the usage of ‘arīsh is a trellis as in 16:68. As-Suddī said that the roofs fell in and the walls fell on top of them. Aṭ-Ṭabarī prefers it. Others said that it simply means that the place was uninhabited with the houses still standing and the expression simply means ‘empty’. The root of the verb is khalw. ‘Empty’ can also mean ‘collapsed’. Khawā’ also describes a stomach empty of food. The verb is used of a woman whose womb becomes empty after giving birth. Khawī describes easy ground. Form II of the verb describes a camel kneeling with its belly off the ground and it also describes a man in prostration.

He asked, ‘How can Allah restore this to life when it has died?’

This means: ‘by what means and method?’ The literal meaning of the expression is about bringing the town back to life by restoring its inhabitants and prosperity, as one uses the expression today for empty cities which are unlikely to be re-inhabited. So it means: ‘How will this flourish after it has fallen into ruin?’ It is as if this was a question expressing regret when the man who was standing reflected on his city where his family had lived and which he loved. Allah made a greater response than the asker had intended by his question: actually bringing the dead to life. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that one of them said, ‘This statement implies doubt about Allah’s power to bring things to life. This is an example he made to himself.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that the question does not imply doubt about the power of Allah Almighty to bring the town to life and make it flourish. The doubt comes from being ignorant in another way. It is not correct to interpret the āyah as expressing doubt.

Allah caused him to die a hundred years then brought him back to life.

‘Hundred’ is in the accusative as an adverb. ‘Ām means a year, and one says ‘sinwan ‘uwwam’ for stress. We see this in poetry. It is implied that it is the plural of ‘ā’im although it alone is mentioned because it is not a noun, but rather stress, as al-Jawharī said. An-Naqqāsh said that ‘ām is a verbal noun like ‘awm, which means swimming. A year (‘ām) is called that because it is the amount of time it takes for the sun to ‘swim’ (‘āma) around the celestial sphere. So ‘awm is like sabḥ. Allah says: ‘…each one is swimming (yasbaḥūna) in a sphere.’ (36:40) Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is the idea behind what an-Naqqāsh said.’ The literal meaning of this āyah is to make someone die by removing their rūḥ from their body.

In the story behind this āyah, it is related that Allah sent a king to refurbish it and renew it so that it was complete by the time the speaker was revived. It is said that seventy years after his death Allah sent a Persian king called Kushk [Cyrus] who refurbished it in thirty years. Ba‘atha is to bring back to life.

Then He asked, ‘How long have you been here?’

There is disagreement about the asker here. It is said that it was Allah Almighty. It is said that the man heard an unseen voice. It is said that it was Jibrīl or a Prophet or a believing man of the people who saw him. The most apparent position is that it was Allah because of the rest of the āyah. Allah knows best.

He replied, ‘I have been here a day or part of a day.’

This is what he thought and so he was not lying when he said it. It is similar to the answer the People of the Cave gave in 18:19 when they said that they had been there for a day or part of a day when in fact they had been there for 309 years. They were not lying, but expressing what they thought to be the case. It is as if they were saying, ‘What we think in our opinion is that we have been here for a day or part of a day.’ That is similar to what the Prophet ﷺ said in the story about Dhu-l-Yadayn in respect of the prayer: ‘I did not shorten and I did not forget.’ Some people have said that it was an actual lie but he was not punished for it. A lie is to report something to be other than what it actually is. That is the same in both knowledge and ignorance. This is clear in respect of fundamental principles. On this basis it is permitted to say that the Prophets are not protected from reporting something to be other than what it actually is when that is not intentional, just as they are not protected from oversight and forgetfulness. This is connected to this āyah, but the first view is sounder.

Ibn Jurayj, Qatādah and ar-Rabī‘ said that Allah made him die in the morning and then raised him up before sunset so that he thought that it was the same day. When he saw the remaining sun, he was afraid that he had lied in saying, ‘a day,’ so he added ‘or part of a day.’ He was told that he had been there a hundred years and he saw how the town was flourishing and its trees and buildings as evidence of that.

Look at your food and drink — it has not gone bad —

It is said that his food and drink consisted of green figs which he had gathered from the trees of the town he passed by. Ibn Mas‘ūd recited ‘hādhā ṭa‘āmuka wa sharābuka’ (this is your food and drink) Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif and others recite ‘unẓur li-ṭa‘āmika wa-sh-sharābika li-mi’ati sannah (Look at your food and drink for a hundred years.)’ Most recite ‘yatasannah’ with the ‘hā’’ at the end while the two brothers [Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī] elide it. There is no disagreement that one stops at the ‘hā’’. Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif also recited ‘lam yassanna’ and ‘wa-nẓur’ (with wāw not fā’), assimilating the tā’ into the sīn. According to the recitation of the majority, the hā’ is part of the root and the ḍammah is elided for the jussive. It comes from ‘sannah’ (year), meaning that it has not been altered by the years.

Al-Jawharī says that sannah is the singular of sunūn or sinīn. Two things are said about what it is missing. The first is that it is a wāw and the other is that it is hā’ and that its root is sanhah, like jabhah because it is from the expression sanahat and tasannahat used for palm-trees which have lasted for years. A palm-tree that is sannā’ bears fruit some years and not other years. It is also called sanhā’. One of the Anṣār said:

It is not a tree that is sanhā’ or propped up, but ‘ārīyah loans for years (sanīn) of drought.

Asnahtu means ‘I stayed with’ as does tasannaytu. You hire someone for a year (musānāh and musānahah). The diminutive is sunayyah and sunayhah. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘If someone recites “lam yatasanna” he says sunayyah for the diminutive and the alif is elided for the jussive and stops on the hā’ and says ‘yatasannah’, the hā’ being for making the vowel clear.’

Al-Mahdawī said, ‘It is possible that its root is from sānaytuhu musānah, i.e. “I hired him year by year’ or from sānahtu with a hā’. If it is from sānaytu, its root is yatasannā and the alif has been omitted for the jussive. It has a wāw in the root as indicated by sanawāt and the hā’ in it is for silence. If it is from sānahtu, then the hā’ is the lām of the verb and according to this, the root of sanah is sanhah. According to the first, it is sanawah. It is also said that it is derived from asina, the verb for water becoming brackish, but this would oblige an extra alif in the word.’

Abū ‘Amr ash-Shaybānī said that it came from Allah’s words: ‘fetid (masnūn) black mud’. (15:26) What it means is that it has not changed. Az-Zajjāj said. ‘That is not the case because “masnūn” does not mean “changed”, but poured out on the surface of the earth.’ Mujāhid said that it means ‘it has not become foul’. An-Naḥḥās said that the soundest of what is said about this is that it is from sannah, and that it has not been changed by the years. It is possible that it comes from the meaning ‘drought’ as Allah says: ‘We seized Pharaoh’s people with years of drought (sinīn)’ (7:130) and the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘O Allah, impose on them years of drought like those of Yūsuf.’ So it means ‘your food has not been changed by drying up’ or ‘it has not been changed by the passage of years,’ and so has remained fresh.

– and look at your donkey

Wahb ibn Munabbih and others said, ‘Look at how We re-connect its bones and bring it to life bit by bit.’ It is related that Allah brought it to life by re-connecting its bones and then clothing them in flesh until the donkey was completely restored. Then an angel came and breathed the spirit into it and the donkey stood up and brayed. This is what most commentators say. Wahb and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk also said that it can mean: look at your donkey standing, untouched after a hundred years, and the bones that he looked at were the actual bones after Allah brought its eyes and head to life while the rest of the body was dead. They said that Allah made people’s eyes blind to Irmīyā’ and his donkey for this period of time.

so We can make you a Sign for all mankind.

Al-Farrā’ said that putting the wāw before the word here indicates that it is a precondition for what is after it. It is a sign of resurrection after death. It can also indicate an interpolation. He was still the age he had been when he died and his sons and grandsons were old men. ‘Ikrimah said that he was forty when he died. ‘Alī related that ‘Uzayr’s wife was pregnant when he left and that he was fifty when Allah made him die for a hundred years. Then he was brought back to life and returned to his family after his resurrection still fifty years old. He had a son who was a hundred years old and his son’s son was fifty years old. Ibn ‘Abbās related, ‘When Allah brought ‘Uzayr to life and he mounted his donkey and rode to his home, he did not recognise people nor did they recognise him. He found an old blind woman in his house who was the mother of the household. This woman had been twenty years old when ‘Uzayr left. He asked her, “Is this Uzayr’s house?” She said, “Yes!” and wept and then said, “‘Uzayr left us in such and such a year.” He said, “I am ‘Uzayr.” She stated, “‘Uzayr has been gone for a hundred years.” He replied, “Allah made me die for a hundred years and then brought me to life again.” She said, “‘Uzayr was someone whose supplication for the sick and afflicted was answered. Ask Allah to restore my sight to me.” He prayed to Allah and wiped her eyes with his hand and she was healed where she was, as if she had been released. She said, “I testify that you are ‘Uzayr!” She went to the assembly of the tribe of Israel, which included a son of ‘Uzayr’s, who was one hundred and twenty-eight years old, and his grandsons who were old men. She said, “People! By Allah, this is ‘Uzayr!” His son went to him with the people and said, “My father had a black mole like the crescent moon between his shoulders.” He saw it and knew that it was ‘Uzayr.’

It is said that when he came he found that everyone he had known had died. He was a sign for those of his people who were alive since they had heard about his state and were certain. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The greatest sign is in him being made to die for this period and then brought to life after that. His entire business is a sign throughout time and there is no need to specify which of the details are correct.’

Look at the bones — how We raise them up and clothe them in flesh.’

‘Raise them up’ is read as nunshizuhā by the Kufans and Ibn ‘Āmir and as nunshiruhā by everyone else although Abān related from ‘Āṣim that it is ‘nanshuruhā’ as did Ibn ‘Abbās, al-Ḥasan and Abū Ḥaywah. In either case it means to bring to life. It is known linguistically that Allah brings the dead to life (anshara) and they are revived (nasharū). Allah says: ‘When He wishes, He brings him to life.’ (80:22) It is like a garment being unfolded (nashara). The verb is used for being resurrected after death and the noun is nushūr. Al-A‘shā said:

Until, when people see it, they say, ‘Wonder! The resurrected (nāshir) dead!”

It is as if death rolls up the bones and limbs, and revivification and joining the limbs together is like spreading them out and opening them up (nashara) again. If it is read nashaza it means an elevated place and the verb means to raise. A poet said:

You see the young fox in it. As if a majestic fortress rose high (nashz).

Makkī says, ‘It means: “Look at the bones and how We raise them up and put them together in order to bring them to life” because nashz means elevating. Part of that is describing a disobedient wife as nushūz because she puts herself above agreeing with her husband. It is also used in the words of the Almighty: ‘When you are told: “Make room (fa-nshuzū) in the gathering,” then make room.”’ (58:11) This means: get up and press together. When it is read with rā’, then it means to bring to life. Bones do not come to life on their own until they are connected to one another. The zāyy is more appropriate in this context since it means to join together rather than bring to life. That which is described as being brought back to life is the man rather than the bones on their own. One does say, ‘This bone is alive.’ So it means: ‘Look at the bones and how We raise them from their place on the ground to the body so that it can be brought to life.’ An-Nakha‘ī recited ‘nanshuzuhā’ and that is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah. Kuswah is clothing that covers a person. The flesh is likened to it. An-Nābighah uses it as a metaphor for Islam:

‘So that I was clothed in a shirt from Islam.’

When it had become clear to him, he said, ‘Now I know that Allah has power over all things.’

It is related that Allah brought some of him back to life and then he saw how Allah brought the rest of his body to life. Qatādah said, ‘He looked at how the bones are connected to one another because the first part of him Allah brought back to life was his head and then he was told to look. At that point he said, ‘I know,’ meaning ‘I know this.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that it means: when it was clear to his own eyes what he denied of Allah’s power before he saw that. Then he said, ‘I know.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is an error because it demands something not obliged by the words. His explanation is based on an aberrant view and weak probability. This is what I think because there is no confirmation that he denied before that as aṭ-Ṭabarī said. What he said was prompted by reflection, as a believing person might say when he sees something unusual of Allah’s power, ‘There is no god but Allah’ and the like. Abū ‘Alī said that it means: ‘I know this sort of knowledge which I did not know previously.’

We already mentioned this idea from Qatādah. That is what Makkī said: ‘He reported about himself when he witnessed the power of Allah to bring the dead to life and had certainty of that by actually witnessing its occurrence. He affirmed that he truly knew that Allah has power over all things. In other words he is saying, “I now know by eye-witnessing this sort of knowledge which I did not know before.”’ This is based on the reading of ‘a‘lamu’ with the alif disconnected which is the reading of most reciters. Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī connect the alif (i‘lam) which has two possible meanings. One is that the angel told him, ‘Know’ and the other is that he put himself in the position of a separate speaker. So it means: ‘When it was clear to him, he said to himself, “Soul, know with this definitive knowledge which you did not know by eye-witnessing.”’ Abū ‘Alī composed something about this understanding:

Bid farewell to Hurayrah. The caravan is leaving. Your bleary eyes have not closed in the night.

Makkī said, ‘It is unlikely that it is a command from Allah to know because He had demonstrated His power to him and shown him something that is certainly sound and affirms His power. So there is no point in Allah commanding that. He is commanding himself to do that. That is an excellent possibility.’ The mode (ḥarf) of ‘Abdullāh indicates that it is a command from Allah to know, meaning that this knowledge is necessary because of what you have seen and are certain about. His mode has ‘qīla i‘lam’ (It was said, ‘Know…’). That also agrees with the command before it: ‘Look at your food,’ ‘Look at your donkey,’ and ‘look at the bones.’ So the same is true in the case of ‘Know that Allah…’. Ibn ‘Abbās used to recite it in that way and said, ‘Who is better: him or Ibrāhīm, since he was told, “Know that Allah is Almighty, All-Wise”?’ This makes it clear that it is part of the words of Allah to him when he witnessed the bringing of everything back to life.

260 When Ibrāhīm said, ‘My Lord, show me how You bring the dead to life.’ He asked, ‘Do you not then believe?’ He replied, ‘Indeed I do! But so that my heart may be at peace.’ He said, ‘Take four birds and train them to yourself. Then put a part of them on each mountain and call to them; they will come rushing to you. Know that Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.’

When Ibrāhīm said, ‘My Lord, show me how You bring the dead to life.’ He asked, ‘Do you not then believe?’

People disagree about Ibrāhīm’s request and whether it arose out of doubt or not. The majority say that Ibrāhīm did not doubt that Allah could bring the dead to life but simply wanted to see it happen with his own eyes. That is because people have a natural desire for direct proof of what they are told. That is why the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A report about something is not the same as actually seeing it.’ Ibn ‘Abbās related that and no one else related it. Abū ‘Umar said that. Al-Akhfash said, ‘He did not mean the seeing of the heart. He meant the seeing of the eye.’ Al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and ar-Rabī‘ said that Ibrāhīm was asking in order to add certainty to his certainty. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Aṭ-Ṭabarī has a chapter in his Tafsīr: “Others said that he asked his Lord for that because he doubted the power of Allah.” He included in this section from Ibn ‘Abbās: “I consider this the most hopeful of āyahs.”’ It is mentioned that ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ said, ‘Something that enters the hearts of ordinary people entered Ibrāhīm’s heart and he said, “My Lord, show me how You bring the dead to life.”’ He mentioned the hadith of Abū Hurayrah in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘We are more entitled to doubt than Ibrāhīm.’ Then aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred this view.

The hadith from Abū Hurayrah was transmitted by al-Bukhārī and Muslim in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘We are more entitled to doubt than Ibrāhīm. He said, “Lord, show me how You bring the dead to life,” and He asked, “Do you not then believe?” He said, “Yes, but so that my heart will be at rest.” Allah had mercy on Lūṭ. He took refuge in a strong pillar. If I had remained imprisoned for as long as Yūsuf, I would have answered the invitation.’ This is mentioned by aṭ-Ṭabarī, but Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that his interpretation [about the permissibility of doubt] is rejected.

As for what Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I consider this the most hopeful of āyahs,’ that is because it contains boldness (idlāl) to Allah Almighty and asking for revivification in this world and there is no suspicion concerning it. It is permitted to say, ‘I consider this the most hopeful of āyahs since Allah asked, “Do you not believe?” which shows that faith is enough and there is no need for delving and investigation.’ ‘Aṭā’s statement can refer to direct witnessing of bringing the dead to life, and the meaning of the hadith is: ‘If he had doubted, then we would have been more entitled to doubt. We do not doubt, and so it is more likely that Ibrāhīm did not doubt either.’

The hadith is, in fact, negating any doubt on the part of Ibrāhīm. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said about it, ‘That is pure faith.’ It concerns passing thoughts which do not last. Doubt means to hesitate between two matters without preferring one to the other. The Khalīl was not subject to that. Bringing the dead to life was affirmed when he heard it. Ibrāhīm knew it, as he said, ‘My Lord gives life and causes to die,’ earlier in this sūrah. Doubt is far from someone whose feet are firm in faith, so how much more must that be the case with someone whose rank is that of a Prophet and Friend. It is agreed that Prophets are protected from major wrong actions and minor vile ones by consensus.

If you reflect on the request he made and all the words of the āyah, you will find that they do not imply doubt. It is a question of ‘how’. It is a matter of the manner of the occurrence of a phenomenon which exists and is affirmed by the asker. It is like the questions, ‘How does Zayd know?’, ‘How is cloth woven?’ and other such things. When you say, ‘How is your garment?’ and ‘How is Zayd?’ it is a question about a state. ‘How’ can apply to something which is understood as when you say, ‘Be however you wish.’ It is also like the words of al-Bukhārī, ‘How the beginning of the revelation was’. The ‘how’ in this āyah is asking about the manner of bringing to life. Bringing to life is confirmed. However, we find some of those who deny the existence of something refer to that denial by asking about the state of that thing which the person knows not to be sound, indicating that they find that thing itself not to be sound. That is like when someone claims, ‘I will lift up this mountain!’ and the person who denies him says, ‘How could you possibly lift it up?’ Here the expression is used metaphorically with the aim of denial. It is a disputatious remark and is as if he were saying, ‘Supposing that you can raise it, tell me how you are going to do that!’ Since the words used by Ibrāhīm also involve this metaphorical usage, Allah absolved him of doing that and had Ibrāhīm make the reality clear by asking him, ‘Do you not then believe?’ He replied, ‘Indeed I do.’ So the business was complete and he was shown to be free of any doubt. Then he said that the reason for his question was to have his heart be at peace.

What Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah mentioned is conclusive. Doubt of this sort is not permissible for the Prophets. It constitutes disbelief. The Prophets agree about Resurrection. Allah reported that Shayṭān has no way against His Prophets and awliyā’. He says: ‘You have no authority over any of My slaves.’ (15:42) The accursed one said, ‘only Your slaves among them who are sincere.’ If he has no power over them, how could he make them doubt? He was asking about how the parts of the dead are gathered together after they have been separated and how their sinews and skins are reconstituted after they have fallen apart. He wanted to move from the knowledge of certainty to the eye-witnessing of certainty. His words, ‘show me how,’ are asking for direct witnessing of the manner in which it is achieved. Some of the people who deal in meanings say that Ibrāhīm wanted his Lord to show him how He brings the hearts to life, but this is false and rejected because of the following explanation. Al-Māwardī mentioned it. The alif in ‘Do you not (a wa lam) believe’ is not the interrogative alif, but the alif of affirmation.

He replied, ‘Indeed I do! But so that my heart may be at peace.’

‘I make this request to You so that my heart will be tranquil through seeing the difference between what is known by intellectual proof and what is known by direct experience.’ The tranquillity of the heart consists in balance and stillness. The tranquillity of the limbs is known, as in rukū‘ when they are still, as the Prophet ﷺ instructed: ‘Then bow until you are still in bowing.’ The tranquillity of the heart occurs when someone’s thoughts have been stilled concerning the thing believed. Reflecting about the manner in which revivification occurs is not forbidden, just as we still reflect on it today when there are lessons to be learned from it. Ibrāhīm wanted to actually see it take place and witness the manner in which it occurs. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that this means that he wanted to have certainty. The same was related from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr. It is also related from him that it was about increasing his certainty. Ibrāhīm and Qatādah said that.

Some of them said that it is to further increase faith. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah points out that this is nonsensical since certainty is indivisible. As-Suddī and Ibn Jubayr said that it means: ‘Do you not believe that you are My Khalīl?’ He replied, ‘Yes, but so that my heart may be at peace about it.’ It is said that he prayed to be shown how the dead are brought back to life so that he would know whether Allah would answer His prayer. So Allah said to him, ‘Do you not believe that I answer your prayer?’ He replied, ‘Yes, but so that my heart may be at peace about Your answering my prayer.’

There is disagreement about what moved him to do this. It is said that Allah promised to make him His Khalīl and he wanted a sign of that. As-Sā’ib ibn Yazīd said that. It is said that it was the words of Nimrod, ‘I give life and cause to die,’ which made him ask. Al-Ḥasan said that he saw a riding animal which wild beasts and snakes had eaten and asked the question. It was half on the land and half in the sea. When he saw how it was split up, he wanted to know how it would be gathered back together so that his heart would be at peace by seeing how the parts would be rejoined when he saw how they were separated.

He said, ‘Take four birds and train them to yourself. Then put a part of them on each mountain and call to them; they will come rushing to you.

It is said that they were a cock, a peacock, a dove and a crow. Ibn Isḥāq mentioned that from some scholars. Mujāhid, Ibn Jurayj, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Yasār and Ibn Zayd said that. Ibn ‘Abbās said it was a crane instead of a crow, and elsewhere an eagle in place of the dove.

Ibrāhīm took these birds as he was commanded and then slaughtered them and then cut them into small pieces. He mixed their flesh together with the blood and feathers so that they were all jumbled together and then put parts of that mixture on each mountain. He stood where he could see those pieces while he kept the heads of the birds in his hand. Then he said, ‘Come by Allah’s permission,’ and those parts flew and the blood flew to the blood and feathers to feathers until they were as they had been at first but headless. Then he repeated the call and they ran to him. The verb sa’y is not used when a bird flies except metaphorically. An-Naḥḥās said that. Ibrāhīm pointed at each of them which was without a head. When he pointed with its head, it came close until each bird joined its head and they flew away by Allah’s permission. Az-Zajjāj said that it means: ‘put a piece of each on each mountain.’ Abū Bakr from ‘Āṣim and Abū Ja‘far recited ‘juzu’’. Abū Ja‘far recited “juzz” while the rest have ‘juz‘’. They are different dialects. It means a portion.

The words “ṣurhunna ilayka” (train them to yourself) may mean make them incline to you but are also said to mean ‘cut them up’. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, Abū ‘Abīdah and al-Anbārī said that. Ibn Isḥāq said that. Abu-l-Aswad ad-Du’alī said that its means ‘cutting’ in Syriac. Tawbah ibn al-Ḥumayyir said in a description:

When I tugged the rope, the thongs of the saddle-girth creaked

with the ends of sticks, its thongs being strong.

The ropes were close to me when I reached them when I stood, and my rising almost cut them (yaṣūruhā).

Ṣawr is cutting. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, ‘Ikrimah, and Ibn ‘Abbās in another transmission, said that it means ‘cut’ in Nabatean. It is said that it means ‘to make them incline to you’, i.e. bring them to you and gather them to you. A man who is described as ‘aṣwar’ has his neck bent. The word also means to incline to in the sense of yearning for. A woman is described as ṣawrā’ and the plural is ṣūr, like aswad and sūd. A poet said:

Allah knows that in my turning To my neighbours on the day of separation, I yearn (ṣūr).

If it means ‘cut’, ‘to’ is connected to ‘take’ and there is no need for implying something elided. If it means ‘incline to’, it is connected to ‘ṣurhunna’ and there is something elided: ‘make them incline to you and then cut them up.’

There are five readings here, two of which are from the seven readings: ‘ṣurhunna’ and ‘ṣirhunna’. Some people recite ‘ṣurrahunna’ as if He were saying, ‘Bind them.’ Connected to that meaning is the purse (ṣurrah) for dinars. Some people recite ‘ṣirrahunna’, meaning ‘make them call out’ from the verb ṣarra for the creaking of a door and the noise of a pen. An-Naqqāsh related it. Ibn Jinnī said that it is a rare reading and that the form ‘yaf‘ilu’ in doubled transitive verbs is rare. Normally the middle letter has a ḍammah. Ibn Jinnī said, ‘As for the reading of ‘Ikrimah with a ḍammah on the ṣād, it is possible for the rā’ to have a ḍammah, fatḥah or kasrah, but what is proper is to have a ḍammah because of the ḍammah on the hā’ after it. The fifth reading is ‘ṣarrihinna’ which al-Mahdawī and others related from ‘Ikrimah. It means: ‘restrain them’ from ṣarrā, yuṣarrī. Connected to that meaning is a sheep which is muṣarrāh, whose milk is left to collect in the udder.

Here al-Māwardī interjects an objection. Why should Ibrāhīm be given a response when asking for the Signs of the Next World when that was denied to Mūsā when he asked, ‘Lord, show yourself to me so that I may look at You!’ (7:143)? There are two answers to this. One is that what Mūsā asked for does not correspond with continuing responsibility while what Ibrāhīm asked for is particular and continued responsibility corresponds with it. The second is that the circumstances were different. It may be proper for something to be granted at certain times but denied at other times regarding that for which there is no permission. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Allah commanded Ibrāhīm to do this before he had children and before the Scrolls were sent down to him.’ Allah knows best.

261 The metaphor of those who spend their wealth in the Way of Allah is that of a grain which produces seven ears; in every ear there are a hundred grains. Allah gives such multiplied increase to whoever He wills. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.

After Allah has given evidence in support of fighting in the Way of Allah, He encourages jihād and confirms that those who do jihād after this evidence, which only a Prophet could have brought them, will have an immense reward for it. It is reported by al-Bustī in his sound Musnad from Ibn ‘Umar, ‘When this āyah was revealed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Lord, give my community even more,” and then Allah revealed: “Is there anyone who will make Allah a generous loan so that He can multiply it for him many times over?” (2:245) The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Lord, give my community even more than that,” and Allah revealed: “The steadfast will be paid their wages in full without any reckoning” (39:10).”

This āyah stresses the nobility of spending in the Way of Allah and its excellence and encourages people to do that. There is an elision in the Arabic, which implies, ‘The metaphor of the “spending” of those who spend...’ or ‘The metaphor of those who spend their wealth is like a farmer who plants his crop of grain in the earth...’ meaning that it produces seven ears in each of which there is a hundred grains. So He likens the one who gives ṣadaqah to a cultivator and likens the ṣadaqah to grain set aside for sowing, and so Allah gives him for every ṣadaqah of his seven hundred good deeds.

The metaphor makes it clear that a good action is worth seven hundred good deeds. ‘Allah gives such multiplied increase to whomever He wills’ means that it can amount to even more than seven hundred. So the person who gives ṣadaqah is like a farmer. If he is intelligent in his work and the seed is good and the earth is fertile, the crop will be abundant. The same applies if the one who gives ṣadaqah is righteous and the wealth is good and he spends it in a place where the reward will be great. Some say that seven hundredfold is the maximum possible increase.

It is related that this āyah was revealed about ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf on the occasion when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ encouraged people to give ṣadaqah when he was going on the Tabūk expedition. ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān brought him four thousand and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I have eight thousand. I have kept four thousand for myself and my dependants and I am lending four thousand to my Lord.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘May Allah bless you in what you have kept and what you have given.’ ‘Uthmān said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I will kit out all those who have no equipment,’ and this was revealed about them.

It is said that it was revealed about voluntary ṣadaqah. It is also said that it was revealed before the Āyah of Zakat and then abrogated by the Āyah of Zakat. There is no need to claim abrogation because spending in the Way of Allah is recommended at every time. The ways of spending are numerous, and the greatest of them is for jihād to raise high the word of Allah.

The type of grain referred to is not specified. The word used is ḥabbah and can designate all grains that are cultivated and stored as food. Wheat, however, is the most famous of them. Part of that is the words of al-Mutalammis [Jarīr ibn ‘Abd al-Masīḥ]:

I wish that I could always eat the wheat (ḥabb) of Iraq. The wheat which is eaten in the town is worms.

Ḥabbat al-qālib is one’s beloved or its fruit. Ḥibbah are seeds of plants that are not foodstuffs. We find in the hadith of intercession: ‘They will grow as a seed (ḥibbah) grows in what the flood has carried.’ The plural is ḥibab. Ḥubbah is love as is ḥibb, which also means ‘beloved’.

Sunbulah (ear) comes from the verb, asbala, to put forth ears [of grain], and they are released as a curtain is let down (isbāl). It is said that it means that covered grain appears in it as a thing is covered when a curtain is dropped over it. The plural of sunbulah is sanābil. It is said that what is meant are ears of millet which has that number in its ears. However, this is baseless because the ears of millet have many times more than this number as we can see.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The ears of wheat have a hundred grains. As for other grains, they have more than that. The example, however, merely uses this number.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said about this āyah that it is a hundred grains if that exists. Otherwise, it is an estimation. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that it means that every ear has a hundred grains. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘What aṭ-Ṭabarī said is more or less the same as aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said.’ Abū ‘Amr ad-Dānī said that some recite ‘mi’ata’ in the accusative, implying, ‘It produces a hundred grains.’ Ya‘qūb al-Ḥaḍramī said that some recite ‘mi’ata’ in the accusative, implying, ‘It produces a hundred grains,’ just as some recite ‘punishment’ in the accusative in 67:6, meaning ‘We have prepared for those who disbelieve the punishment of Hell.’ Abū ‘Amr, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite ‘anbatas-sab‘’ with the tā’ assimilated into the sīn because they are both letters with soft articulation and sometimes replace one another. The rest have them as distinct because they are two words.

The Qur’an reports that a good action of any type is worth ten like it. This āyah tells us that spending in jihād is worth seven hundred. Scholars disagree about the meanings of ‘Allah gives such multiplied increase to whomever He wills.’ One group say that it is simply a reference to the seven hundred fold mentioned and does not indicate a greater increase than that. Another group of scholars says that it is to inform us that Allah can multiply it more than seven hundred times if He wishes. I consider this to be the soundest because of hadiths which mention that possibility.

Ibn Mājah related from Hārūn ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Ḥammāl from Ibn Abī Fudayk from al-Khalīl ibn ‘Abdullāh from al-Ḥasan from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Abu-d-Dardā’, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr, Abū Umāmah al-Bāhilī, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh and ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone sends support for the Cause of Allah while he remains in his house, he will have seven hundred dirhams for every dirham. If someone goes on an expedition in the Cause of Allah and spends on it, he will have 700,000 dirhams for every dirham.’ Then he recited this āyah: ‘Allah gives multiplied increase to whomever He wills.’ It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the multiplication reaches a million for whomever Allah wishes. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This does not have a verified isnād.’

This āyah contains evidence that agriculture is one of the highest professions adopted by people and is a legitimate way of earning a living. This is why Allah uses it for metaphors. We read in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘There is no Muslim who plants a seedling or cultivates a crop from which birds, humans or animals eat without that being ṣadaqah for them.’ Hishām ibn ‘Urwah related from his father that ‘Ā’ishah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Cling to cultivation in the hidden places of the earth.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it. The Prophet ﷺ said about palm trees, ‘They are firm in muddy conditions and give food in drought.’ This is praise for them. Agriculture is one of the communal (kifāyah) obligations and so a ruler must compel people to do it. This includes planting trees. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Malik met Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī and said, ‘Direct me to property I can apply myself to.’ Ibn Shihāb said:

I say to ‘Abdullāh on the day I meet him,

when the camels are saddled for the east,

‘Follow the plants of the earth and leave their owners.

Perhaps one day you will receive an answer and be provided for.

You will be given vast recurring wealth when the waters of the earth gush forth.’

It is related that al-Mu‘taḍid said, ‘I saw ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib in a dream handing me a spade and he said, “Take it. It is the key to the treasures of the earth.”’

262 Those who spend their wealth in the Way of Allah, and then do not follow what they have spent by demands for gratitude or insulting words will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

Those who spend their wealth in the Way of Allah,

This was revealed about ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Samurah said, ‘‘Uthmān brought a thousand dinars for the Army of Hardship and put it in the lap of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. I saw him put his hand in it and turn it about. He said, “It does matter what ‘Uthmān does after today. O Allah, do not forget this day for ‘Uthmān!”’ Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘I saw the Prophet ﷺ raise his hands to pray for ‘Uthmān, saying, “My Lord, ‘Uthmān! I am pleased with ‘Uthmān, so be pleased with him.” After dawn, this āyah was revealed.’

Spending in the Way of Allah in general was mentioned in the previous āyah and then it is made clear in this āyah that judgment about it and reward for it are for the one who does not follow up what he gives with demands for gratitude or insult of any kind. For such an action would invalidate the ṣadaqah as Allah tells us in the next āyah. You must desire the face of Allah and His reward by spending and not hope for any kind of return for it from the one to whom you give it. Allah Almighty says: ‘We do not want any repayment from you or any thanks.’ (76:9) If you desire something in exchange for it from the person you give it to then it is not for the Face of Allah. This is the case when someone follows up his spending with demands and insult. The same is also true when someone has to spend to avert harm since the one on whom he spent will owe him a favour or some similar feeling of indebtedness. He does not desire to please Allah when he does this. Allah only accepts what is given for the sake of Allah and when most of the aim is to seek that which is with Allah. It is as it is related that a desert Arab came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and said:

‘‘Umar! Charity is rewarded with the Garden.

Clothe my little daughters and their mother!

Be a protection for us against time! I ask you by Allah to do it!’

‘Umar said, ‘And if I do not do it, what then?’ He replied: ‘Then, Abū Ḥafṣ, I will go.’ He said, ‘And if you go, what then?’ He said:

‘You will be questioned about my state

on the day when there are gifts,

In a place of standing when one will be questioned about it, and will either go to the Fire or to the Garden.’

‘Umar wept until his beard was wet and then said, ‘Lad, give him this shirt of mine because of that Day, not because of his poem! By Allah, I do not own any other shirt!’

Al-Māwardī said, ‘When the gift is like this, free of seeking recompense or gratitude, and free of seeking indebtedness or publicity, that is more noble for the giver and more pleasant for the one who accepts it. As for someone who gives while seeking recompense for his gift and demanding gratitude and praise, he is someone showing off, seeking reputation. These cases entail censure which negates the generosity. If someone seeks something, he is a trader looking for a profit who does not deserve praise.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that the āyah: ‘Do not give out of a desire for gain’ (74:6) means: ‘Do not give a gift whereby you seek one better than it.’ Ibn Zayd believed that this āyah was about those who do not go out in jihād, but give while they remain at home. The āyah before it is about those who go out themselves. He said, ‘That is why there is a precondition for these people, but not for the first ones.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This statement is debatable because its arbitrary nature is evident.’

and then do not follow what they have spent by demands for gratitude or insulting words

The expression ‘demands for gratitude’ (mann) means to mention the blessing by enumerating it and rebuking the person by it, as when you say ‘I was good to you’, ‘I restored you’, ‘After all I have done for you’ and other such things. Some say that manna means to speak about what you gave so that the recipient hears about it and to insult him. Mann is one of the great wrong actions. That is confirmed in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and elsewhere. Someone who does that is one of the three whom Allah will not look at and whom He will not purify on the Day of Rising, and they will have a painful punishment. An-Nasā’ī related from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There are three who will not enter the Garden: the one who disobeys his parents, a habitual drinker, and someone who demands gratitude for his gift.’ One of the paths of transmission in Muslim has: ‘someone who only gives something in order to receive gratitude for it.’

The expression ‘adhā’ (insulting words) means insulting and complaining and is more general than mann which is mentioned because it frequently occurs. Ibn Zayd said, ‘If you think that your greeting will be onerous for someone on whom you have spent desiring the Face of Allah, then do not greet him.’ A woman asked him, ‘Abu Usāmah, show me a man who will truly go out in the Way of Allah. They only go out for what they can get. I have arrows and a quiver.’ He said, ‘May Allah not bless your arrows and quiver! You have harmed them even before giving to them!’ Our scholars have said that if someone spends in the Way of Allah and does not follow it by demands for gratitude or insulting words such as ‘How strongly you entreat!’, ‘May Allah deliver us from you!’ and the like, Allah has guaranteed him the reward, which is the Garden, removed fear of what is to come from Him after his death, and sorrow for what he missed of this world because he delights in His Hereafter.

They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

They will feel no fear for the future after death and no sorrow for what has passed of this world because they will delight in the Next World. This āyah also contains evidence for the excellence of the rich over the poor as will come later, Allah willing.

263 Correct and courteous words accompanied by forgiveness are better than ṣadaqah followed by insulting words. Allah is Rich Beyond Need, All-Forbearing.

Correct and courteous words

It means that correct words are more appropriate as an-Naḥḥās and al-Mahdawī said. An-Naḥḥās said, based on an elided inceptive, that it can mean: ‘That which you are commanded is to use correct and courteous words.’ Words which are described as ‘ma‘rūf’ include making supplication, putting people at their ease and giving them hope for what is with Allah. That is better than ṣadaqah which is merely outward with no inward dimension, because correct words will have a reward while outward ṣadaqah may have no reward. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A good word is ṣadaqah, and an aspect of correct behaviour is to meet your brother with a cheerful face.’ Muslim transmitted it. One should meet the beggar with a smile and welcome him so that he will be thankful if you give to him and excuse you if you do not. One of the sages said, ‘Meet the one with a need with a smile. Even if you miss his gratitude you will not miss his pardon.’ Ibn Lankak related that Abū Bakr ibn Durayd went to a government official for something he needed and his request was not granted. The official showed some vexation, so he said:

Do not be vexed by someone who makes a request.

It is a good thing to be seen as someone to whom requests are made.

Do not show the face of rejection to a hopeful face.

Your might continues when you are seen as a source of hope.

You meet the noble and show joy.

You meet the blameworthy and your frown is a guide.

Know that soon you will be reported, So be a report that gives delight.

In the hadith of ‘Umar we find that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When a beggar asks of you, do not interrupt his request until he finishes. Then turn to him with gravity and leniency, or spend a little, or give a good reply. One who is neither human nor jinn will come to you to see what you do with what Allah has given you.’

Its proof is the hadith about the leper, the person with scabies and the blind man which Muslim and others transmitted. In that account an angel took the form of a leper, a bald man and a blind man to test the individual concerned. Bishr ibn al-Ḥārith said, ‘I saw ‘Alī in a dream and said, “Amīr al-Mu’minin! Tell me something by which Allah will benefit me!” he answered, “How excellent is the kindness of the Prophets to the poor out of desire for the reward of Allah Almighty, and better still is the poor escaping the rich by putting their trust in what Allah has promised.” I said, “Amīr al-Mu’minin! Tell me more!” He recited:

“You were dead and then became alive,

and you soon will be dead again.

Ruin a house in the abode that is transient. Build a house in the abode that will abide!”’

accompanied by forgiveness

This can refer to disregarding the defects and bad state of the needy. This is like the case of the desert Arab who begged from people with eloquent language. Someone asked him, ‘Where are you from?’ He answered, ‘O Allah, forgiveness! It is an evil earning that it is denied because of lineage!’ It is also said that its meaning is that to excuse a beggar when he is insistent, rude and harsh is better than giving him ṣadaqah with demands of gratitude and insults. An-Naqqāsh said something to that effect. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘This is a problem explained by the desert Arab.’

The words ‘better than ṣadaqah’ mean, and Allah knows best, that an action that leads to forgiveness is better than ṣadaqah followed by insulting words. It can be like your words, ‘Allah’s graciousness to you is greater than ṣadaqah by which gratitude is intended.’ So Allah’s forgiveness is better than this sort of ṣadaqah.

Allah is Rich Beyond Need, All-Forbearing.

Allah is Rich beyond need of the ṣadaqah of his slaves. He orders them to do it so that He can reward them for it. An aspect of His Forbearance is that He does not hasten the punishment to the one who insults when he gives ṣadaqah.

264 You who believe! do not nullify your ṣadaqah by demands for gratitude or insulting words, like him who spends his wealth, showing off to people and not believing in Allah and the Last Day. His likeness is that of a smooth rock coated with soil, which, when heavy rain falls on it, is left stripped bare. They have no power over anything they have earned. Allah does not guide disbelieving people.

You who believe! do not nullify your ṣadaqah by demands for gratitude or insulting words,

This tells us that Allah does not accept ṣadaqah which is marred in this way and that the reward for it is made null and void. What is referred to is ṣadaqah by which gratitude and insults are meant. It is an article of faith that, in general, evil deeds do not invalidate good deeds or cancel them out. Demands for gratitude and insults do not invalidate other ṣadaqah which has been made without them. The majority of scholars say that it is only the ṣadaqah Allah knows has been used to impose gratitude or used as an insult that is not accepted. It is said that Allah appoints an angel over the giver who does not register that. This is good.

The Arabs say of someone who demands gratitude, that he has ‘a black hand’. When he gives without being asked, he has ‘a white hand’. If someone gives after being asked, he has ‘a green hand’. One of the eloquent said, ‘Whoever expects gratitude for charity has lost gratitude. If someone admires his deeds, his reward is lost.’ A poet said:

I borrowed from a friend of mine.

I was slow in repaying him and he was hostile to me.

When he was certain that time was fighting me, he showed regret in his dealing with me.

Someone else said:

You corrupted the good that you gave by seeking thanks. When a generous person gives, he does not seek thanks.

Abū Bakr al-Warrāq spoke well when he said:

The very best of good at every time and moment is a gift which is free of seeking gratitude.

Ibn Sīrīn heard one man say to another, ‘I did this and that for you!’ He told him, ‘Be quiet! There is no good in charity which is counted.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Beware of demanding gratitude for charity. It invalidates thankfulness and erases the reward.’ Then he recited this āyah.

Our scholars say that, on the basis of this āyah, Mālik disliked a man giving his obligatory zakāt to his relatives in case he might be praised in return for it or they might feel the need to show gratitude to him and recompense him for it. Then it would not be sincerely for the Face of Allah. He preferred it to be given to non-relatives and also preferred that someone other than the giver should undertake to distribute it, if there is no ruler to do so, to prevent the danger of demands for gratitude or insults, and that of praise, or recompense by service from the recipient. This is not the case with ṣadaqah because, even its if reward is nullified, he is safe from any threat and is just like someone who has not done anything. When the obligatory is nullified, he is threatened about something he has failed to do.

like him who spends his wealth, showing off to people and not believing in Allah and the Last Day.

Allah likens someone who demands gratitude and inflicts insults through his ṣadaqah to someone who spends to show off to people, not for the Face of Allah, and to an unbeliever who spends so that people will say that he is generous and praise him for it.

His likeness is that of a smooth rock coated with soil, which, when heavy rain falls on it, is left stripped bare.

Then this person is likened to a smooth rock covered with soil. One would think, to look at it, that it is fertile, good earth but then the rain comes and washes it away and all that is left is bare rock. That is a metaphor for someone who gives in order to show off. His intention of seeking gratitude, insult and showing off will be disclosed in the Next World and the act of ṣadaqah will be null and void, in the same way that the heavy rain exposes the smooth stone. Ṣafwān is a large smooth stone. It is said that what is meant is that any person who spends to show off is, like an unbeliever, not rewarded because he does not intend the Face of Allah by his act so as to merit the reward, even if he gives multiple times, and so the excellence of the action is voided. It is said that the reward is nullified from the moment he demands gratitude or behaves insultingly. What was before that is written for him and multiplied. Then the insult stops the multiplication because ṣadaqah grows and grows until it is as big as a mountain. When it leaves his hand sincerely in the prescribed manner, it is multiplied, but when gratitude it sought by it or an insult made, it stops there and the multiplication is cut off. The first position, however, is more evident, and Allah knows best.

Ṣafwān is the plural and ṣafwānah is the singular. Al-Akhfash said that. Some have said that ṣafwān is a singular. Al-Kisā’ī said that ṣafwān is a singular and its plural is ṣifwān, ṣufiyy or ṣifiyy. Al-Mubarrad, however, denied that and said that ṣifiyy is the plural of ṣafā. From this comes ṣafwā’ and ṣafā (stones). Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab and az-Zuhrī recited it as ṣafawān, which is a dialectical usage. Quṭrub recited ṣifwān. An-Naḥḥās said that ṣafwān and ṣifwān can be either plural or singular, although it is more likely to be singular since Allah uses the singular hā’ in referring to it. It is still permitted to mention the plural, but a thing is only removed from its normal place by a definitive proof. As for what al-Kisā’ī related about the plural, it is not sound based on true investigation, but ṣifwān is the plural of ṣafā which means ṣafwān. This is like waral and wirlān, akh and ikhwān, and karā and kirwān.

Wābil is heavy rain. The verb wabala is used when it rains heavily. The earth which receives it is described as mawbūlah. Corroborating that meaning are Allah’s words: ‘We seized him with terrible severity (wabīl).’ (73:16) A blow or a punishment described as wabīl is severe. Ṣald is smooth stone. Al-Kisā’ī said that the verb is ṣalida. Ṣald is any part of the earth on which no plants grow. It describes the forehead where no hair grows. An-Naqqāsh said that aṣlad means ‘stripped’ in the dialect of Hudhayl.

They have no power

This refers to those who show off, unbelievers and those who demand gratitude.

over anything they have earned.

This means that they will not reap the reward of their spending. What they give is simply considered as something they spend for their own needs since it is for other than Allah. Spending is called ‘earning’ because they intend earning by it. It is said that this is a metaphor for the nullifying of the reward of those who show off in their giving and the voiding of the excellence of the giving of those who look for gratitude or who cause harm by it. Al-Māwardī mentioned that.

265 The metaphor of those who spend their wealth, desiring the pleasure of Allah and firmness for themselves, is that of a garden on a hillside. When heavy rain falls on it, it doubles its produce; and if heavy rain does not fall, there is dew. Allah sees what you do.

The metaphor of those who spend their wealth, desiring the pleasure of Allah and firmness for themselves,

Ibtighā’ (desiring) is a causative object and ‘tathbīt’ (firmness) is conjoined to it. Makkī said that both ‘tathbīt’ (firmness) and ‘desiring’ are causative objects. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that it is not, because spending does not ‘make firm’ and so tathbīt cannot be a causative object and, in fact, ibtighā’ (desiring) is a verbal noun used adverbially. Allah mentions the ṣadaqah of those who gain nothing from their ṣadaqah and forbade the believers to vitiate their ṣadaqah like that in any way. He mentions the spending of the people whose ṣadaqah is pure since it is given in keeping with the commands of the Sharī‘ah.

The word ibtighā’ means ‘seeking’ and ‘marḍāt’ (pleasure) is the verbal noun from the verb raḍā, to please. It is said that the word tathbīt means that they confirm where they should give their ṣadaqah. Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan said that. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘When a man wants to give ṣadaqah, he “confirms” it by examining himself. If it is truly for Allah, he should give it. If it is mixed with doubt, he should refrain from doing so.’ It is said that it means to confirm it and be certain about it, as Ibn ‘Abbās said. Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah also said that it means examining their own motives. Ash-Sha‘bī, as-Suddī, Qatādah, Ibn Zayd, Abū Ṣāliḥ and others said that it means to make certain, in other words they should look into themselves and confirm that their spending is out of obedience to Allah. These three positions are more correct than that of al-Ḥasan and Mujāhid who both believed that ‘tathbīt’ is a verbal noun not based on another verbal noun. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is only allowed when mentioning the verbal noun and it is made clear by a prior use of verb as we see elsewhere in the Qur’an as in 71:17 and 73:8. If there is no mention of the verb first, then you cannot use the verbal noun with other than its meaning. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is the pathway taken in Arabic as far as I know.’ An-Naḥḥās said, ‘If it had been as Mujāhid says, it would be tathabbut from tathabbata. The statement of Qatādah about it being examination is not known, although it can be meant that their selves are firm and examined. This is unlikely.’ The position of ash-Sha‘bī is good: it means making it firm in themselves that they are spending that to obey Allah. One uses the verb thabbata to refer to someone verifying his resolve and strengthening his opinion. So here they are certain of Allah’s promise to make them firm in that. It is also said that it means to affirm that Allah makes them firm in themselves that they will have the reward for that, which is not the case with a hypocrite who does not expect a reward.

is that of a garden on a hillside.

A ‘jannah’ (garden) is a piece of land with trees which shade it, taken from the linguistic root which means ‘to cover and conceal’. The word ‘rubwah’ (hillside) indicates a slightly elevated place which usually has a thick layer of good earth and is very fertile, which is why it is mentioned. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘Riyāḍ al-Ḥazan is not being referred to here as aṭ-Ṭabarī claims. Rather those are the meadows ascribed to Najd because they are the best meadows of Tihāmah. The plants of Najd are fragrant and are called abrad and araqq. Najd is called Ḥazan (sorrow). Sometimes the air of Tihāmah is only good at night. That is why the desert Arabs say, ‘My spouse is like the night of Tihāmah.’ As-Suddī said that it is at a rabāwah, and that means the lower ground.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is an undetermined expression because rubwah is derived from rabā, which is to grow.’

What as-Suddī said is of no consequence because the Arabic root r-b-w means ‘increase’ in Arabic. It is used for asthma (rabw), when the breath is short, and it is also used generally for being short of breath. Al-Farrā’ mentions about ‘He seized them in an ever-tightening grip (rābiyah)’ (69:9) that it means ‘increasing’. Arbā is to give more. The verb is also used for growing up among a people.

Al-Khalīl also says that rubwah is an elevated place which Allah singled out because the water does not flood such a place as frequently happens with flash floods in Arab lands. So it is a situation that they like. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it is an elevated place through which rivers do not flow because Allah mentioned heavy rain in a manner that indicates that there is no running water there. It does not mean there cannot be running water because elsewhere Allah mentions, ‘a mountainside (rabwah) where there was a meadow and a flowing spring.’ (23:50) What is known in Arabic is that it is an elevated place, whether or not there is flowing water there.

‘Rubwah’ (hillside) has five dialectal forms. ‘Rubwah’ is the qirā’ah of Ibn Kathīr, Ḥamzah, al-Kisā’ī, Nāfi‘ and Abū ‘Amr. ‘Āṣim, Ibn ‘Āmir and al-Ḥasan have ‘rabwah’. ‘Ribwah’ is the reading of Ibn ‘Abbās and Abū Isḥāq as-Sabī‘ī. ‘Rabāwah’ is the reading of Abū Ja‘far an Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān. This form is found in a poem. ‘Ribāwah’ is the reading of al-Ashhab al-‘Aqīlī. Al-Farrā’ said that one says rabāwah and ribāwah and all are from rābiyah and the verb is rabā’, yarbū.

When heavy rain falls on it, it doubles its produce; and if heavy rain does not fall, there is dew.

‘It’ is the hillside. Wābil is heavy rain. A poet said:

There are none of the meadows of Ḥazan with green grass on which heavy rain (wābil) falls.

Ukul (produce) is the fruit which is eaten. The same word is used in 14:25. It is also used for anything that is eaten. Uklah is a morsel. The hadith in Muslim describes the reward for every morsel a husband puts in his wife’s mouth using the word ‘uklah’. Here it is ascribed to the garden to make it specific, like the saddle of a horse or the door of a house.

Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr and Abū ‘Amr recite ‘uklahā’. That is the case with all that is attributed to something feminine. ‘Āṣim, Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī distinguish it when it is ascribed to something masculine, as in 6:141 (ukuluhu), and when it is not ascribed as in 36:16 (ukulin). Abū ‘Āṣim makes that heavy while the other two lighten it [of the middle vowel]. ‘Āṣim, Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite it with full pronunciation in all we mentioned. It is also said that ukl and ukul mean the same.

The verb ‘double’ means that it gives twice the amount of fruit produced by other land. One of the scholars said that means it bears fruit twice in a year. The first view is the more frequently cited one, meaning that it produces in one year what other lands produce in two years.

Mentioning dew continues the praise of the land because dew is enough moisture for it on account of its excellent soil and it still produces double. That is because of the fine nature and good quality of the soil. Al-Mubarrad and others said that it implies that dew is enough for it. Az-Zajjāj says that it is the dew that forms on it. The word for ‘dew’ (ṭall) can mean drizzle or light rain which is very fine. Ibn ‘Abbās and others said that and it is a well-known meaning for the word. Others, including Mujāhid, said that it means dew here. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that it is metaphorical. An-Naḥḥās said that linguists say the verbs are wabala and awbala, and ṭalla and aṭalla. According to aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ: ‘Ṭall is the weakest form of rain and the plural of ṭilāl.’ Al-Māwardī said, ‘Crops watered by dew are weaker than those watered by rain and are less plentiful, but even if they are less, they are more cohesive and beneficial.’ Some of them said that there is a change in the normal order and it means: like a garden on a hillside watered by heavy rain, and if heavy rain does not fall on it, then there is dew and it produces its produce twice over, meaning that the leaves of the garden are green and it produces a bumper crop.

The first interpretation is more correct and there is no need for a change in order. So the Almighty likens the growth of the spending of those sincere people whose ṣadaqah Allah causes to grow, in the same way that a foal or young camel grows, like the plants in a garden on such a hillside grow. It is not like smooth stone whose earth is stripped from it so that it remains bare. Muslim and others transmitted from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘No one gives a rightfully earned date as ṣadaqah without Allah taking it in His right hand and making it grow as one of you would raise a foal or young camel, until it is like a mountain or larger still.’ It is also transmitted in the Muwaṭṭā’.

Allah sees what you do.

This is both a promise and a threat. Az-Zuhrī recited this with a yā’ (they do) as if it means all people or only the hypocrites. In that case, it is a pure threat.

266 Would any of you like to have a garden of dates and grapes, with rivers flowing underneath and containing all kinds of fruits, then to be stricken with old age and have children who are weak, and then for a fierce whirlwind containing fire to come and strike it so that it goes up in flames? In this way Allah makes His Signs clear to you, so that hopefully you will reflect.

Would any of you like to have a garden of dates and grapes, with rivers flowing underneath

Aṭ-Ṭabarī related from as-Suddī that this āyah is a metaphor of spending for the sake of showing off to others. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘This is an example Allah made of those who show off by their actions which will then be nullified on the Day of Rising when they will be most in need of them. They are like a man who has a garden and children who cannot help him. He becomes old and then a firestorm strikes his garden and burns it up, leaving him absolutely destitute.’ It is related that Ibn Zayd recited: ‘You who believe! do not nullify your ṣadaqah by demands for gratitude or insulting words’ (2:264) and then said, ‘Then Allah made an example of that and said: ‘Would any of you like…’

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is clearer than what aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred. This āyah is not another example of spending to show off because of the context in which it occurs. As for the meaning in this context, it is a metaphor of the state of every hypocrite or unbeliever who does an action which he supposes to be good. Then comes the moment of need and he finds it was nothing.’

It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās that it is a metaphor for those who act for the sake of other than Allah, and the hypocrites and unbelievers, as will come, even though we find something else stated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Al-Bukhārī transmitted from ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr that one day ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb asked the Companions of the Prophet, quoting this āyah, ‘About what was this āyah related?’ They replied, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ ‘Umar became angry and said. ‘Say: “We know” or “We do not know!”’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘I know something about it, Amīr al-Mu’minīn.’ He said, ‘Nephew, speak and do not undervalue yourself.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It is a metaphor about action.’ ‘Umar asked, ‘What action?’ Ibn ‘Abbās replied, ‘The action of a rich man who works in obedience to Allah and then Allah sends a shayṭān to him and he does acts of disobedience until his good actions are burned up.’ One variant has, ‘When his life is over and term is near, he seals it with the actions of the wretched.’ ‘Umar was pleased with that interpretation.

Ibn Abī Mulaykah related this āyah and said, ‘This is a metaphor of a human being who does righteous actions until the end of his life when he needs his actions and then does bad actions.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is speculative. The āyah can be taken to mean all that its words convey.’ Mujāhid, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘ and others said the like of that. Palm trees and grapes are mentioned because of their honour and excellence over other trees. Al-Ḥasan recited ‘jannāt’ in the plural.

containing all kinds of fruits

This means that it does not lack any kind of fruit.

and then for a fierce whirlwind containing fire to come and strike it

Al-Ḥasan says that this means a wind which is intensely cold. Az-Zajjāj said that it is the strong wind which throws the soil into the sky like pillars, which is called a whirlwind. Al-Jawharī said that a ‘whirlwind’ (Zawba‘ah) is one of the leaders of the jinn which is why that is the name for a whirlwind. It is also said that it is a wind that raises a cloud containing thunder and lightning. Al-Mahdawī said that it is called (i‘ṣār) because it wraps around like a garment is wrung (‘uṣira). Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is weak.

I say that it is sound because it is physically witnessed. It rises like a twisting pillar. It is said that the wind is called i‘ṣār because it presses the clouds, and the clouds are pressed (mu‘ṣirāt) either because they carry [rain], like a young girl who is ready to menstruate but has not yet done so, or because they are pressed by the winds. Ibn Sīdah said that some people say that mu‘ṣirāt are the winds rather than the clouds. Ibn Zayd said that i‘ṣār is a fierce wind and strong simoom. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘That is either in intense heat or intense cold. All of that is from the exhaling of and breathing of Hell as we find in the words of the Prophet ﷺ: “When it is very hot, wait for the prayer until it cools. Intense heat is from the exhaling of Hell,” and “The Fire complained to its Lord…””

It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās and others that this is a metaphor made by Allah of unbelievers and hypocrites, like a man who plants a garden which has an abundance of fruits and then becomes old and has weak children, boys and girls, and his livelihood and that of his children comes from that garden. Then Allah sends a wind containing fire on the garden which burns it up. He lacks the strength to rework the garden and his sons have no wealth with which to help their father. That is also the case with unbelievers and hypocrites when they come to Allah Almighty on the Day of Rising. They will not have another chance to be revived and go back a second time, just as the man with the garden cannot replant his garden a second time. Nothing can help him at that time of his old age and the weakness of his children.

In this way Allah makes His Signs clear to you, so that hopefully you will reflect.

It means: ‘so that you will refer to My immensity and lordship and not take other than Me as protectors.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘…so that you might reflect on the vanishing and annihilation of this world and the coming and everlasting nature of the Next World.’

267 You who believe! give away some of the good things you have earned and some of what the earth produces for you. Do not have recourse to bad things when you give, things you would only take with your eyes tight shut! Know that Allah is Rich Beyond Need, Praiseworthy.

You who believe! give away some of the good things you have earned

This is addressed to the entire Community of Muhammad ﷺ. Scholars disagree about what is meant by giving here. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, ‘Abīdah as-Salmānī and Ibn Sīrīn said that it refers to the obligatory zakāt. In the āyah Allah forbids people to use bad things to pay it rather than good. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah stated that the position of al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib, al-Ḥasan and Qatādah is that the āyah is about voluntary ṣadaqah. They recommended that people should only give good property. The āyah is general to both ideas but, in the case of zakāt, it is connected to an actual command, and, as the command is mandatory, it means that it is, therefore, forbidden to pay zakāt with bad property. That command is particular to the obligatory duty.

As for voluntary giving, a person can give a little, and so give what is less in value. A dirham is better than a date. The people who believe that it is a recommendation say that the imperative is as suitable for the recommendation as it is for the command. It is as forbidden to give bad quality in voluntary charity as it is in what is obligatory. Allah is more entitled to receive the best. Al-Barā’ related that a man hung up a bunch of poor quality dates and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saw it and said, ‘An evil hanging,’ and the āyah was revealed. At-Tirmidhī transmitted the full report. The command, according to this, is a recommendation to only give what is good. Most commentators state that ‘good things’ means things of high quality and which are favoured by people. Ibn Zayd said that it means from what is lawful earning.

Earning can be by physical toil, which is working for a wage, the rulings governing which will be dealt with later, or by trade, which is buying and selling. Inheritance is included in this because, although the heir did not earn it, someone else did. Sahl ibn ‘Abdullāh mentioned that Ibn al-Mubārak was asked about a man who wants to earn and intends by his earning to maintain his ties of kinship, do jihād, do good deeds and to engage in the pitfalls of earning for this reason. He said, ‘If he has enough livelihood to spare himself from asking people, then leaving this is better because when he seeks the lawful and spends it in a lawful way, he will be asked about it and his earning and his spending. Leaving that is zuhd, for zuhd consists in leaving what is ḥalāl.’

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘According to this āyah, it is permitted for a parent to consume some of their child’s earnings. That is because the Prophet ﷺ said, “Your children are part of your good earning. Eat from the property of your children with good cheer.”’

and some of what the earth produces for you.

This includes plants, mineral wealth and treasure. These three categories are included in this phrase. As for plants, ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Ā’ishah said, ‘The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is that there is no zakāt on less than five wasqs.’ A wasq is sixty ṣā‘s, so that makes three hundred ṣā‘s of wheat, barley, dates and raisins. There is no zakāt on vegetables produced by the earth. Some of the Ḥanafīs argue by the words here that the ruling is general to both a little and a lot of all varieties of what the earth produces and believe, by the literal understanding, that zakāt on vegetables is, therefore, mandatory. This will be fully dealt with in Sūrat al-An‘ām (6).

As for minerals, the Imams related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘There is no penalty for a wound inflicted by a dumb beast. There is no penalty for an injury due to a well and no penalty for an injury due to a mine. There is a fifth due on treasure.’ Our scholars say that since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A fifth due on treasure,’ that indicates that the ruling for minerals is not the same as that for treasure because the Prophet ﷺ distinguished between minerals and treasure. Allah knows best.

The linguistic root of ‘rikāz’ (buried treasure) is something that is ‘placed’ (irtakaza) in the earth: like gold, silver and gems. That is what most of the fuqahā’ say because they maintain that what is rare of minerals found embedded in the earth obtained without work, effort or toil, that there is a fifth due on it because it is rikāz. It is related from Mālik that the ruling of the rare case when minerals are extracted without work is the same as that when work is required to extract minerals in the form of buried treasure. The first view mentioned is his final position, and the majority of fuqahā’ give that ruling.

‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘ịd ibn Abī Sa‘īd al-Maqburī related from his father from his grandfather that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about rikāz and said, “It is the gold which Allah created in the earth on the day when He created the heavens and the earth.’” ‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘īd said that the hadith is matrūk (not acted upon). Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned that. It is related by another path from Abū Hurayrah which is not sound and which was mentioned by ad-Dāraquṭnī. There is no disagreement that things buried in the time of Jāhiliyyah are considered as treasure. If it was buried during the time of Islam, it is classified as a find.

There is disagreement about the discovery of buried treasure. Mālik says, ‘Buried treasure that was buried during the Jāhiliyyah and is found in the land of the Arabs or the wilderness in territory owned by the Muslims without fighting belongs to the one who finds it and he owes a fifth on it. What is found in Muslim territory is like a find. What is found in land taken by conquest belongs to the group who conquered it rather than just the one who found it. What is found in lands obtained by treaty belongs to the people of that land rather than people in general. The finder has nothing of it unless he is one of the people of that abode. In that case, it belongs to him rather than them.’ It is also said that it belongs to the people with the treaty. Ismā‘īl said that the ruling of buried treasure is the same as that of booty which is that it is property belonging to an unbeliever that a Muslim has found. Therefore he is in the position of someone who fights and seizes property: so he has four-fifths of it.

Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘Mālik used to say that there is a fifth due on goods, gems, iron, lead and the like that are found as buried treasure. Then he retracted that and said, “I do not think that there is anything due on it.” His final position expressed to us was that there was a fifth due on it.’ That is sound based on the general meaning of the hadith and it is also the position of most fuqahā’.

Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad said that buried treasure found in a house belongs to the owner of the house rather than the finder and there is a fifth due on it. Abū Yūsuf disagreed with him and said that it belongs to the finder rather than the owner of the house. The position of ath-Thawrī is that when it is found in the wilderness, it all belongs to the finder and there is a fifth due on it. They do not distinguish between land taken by fighting and land obtained by treaty. They also think that the ruling is the same in Arab or other lands. They believe that it is permitted for its finder to keep the fifth for himself if he is needy, and he can also give it to the poor. Some of the people of Madīnah and followers of Mālik do not make a distinction regarding any of that. They said that it is the same whether the buried treasure is found in land taken by fighting or land obtained by treaty, Arab land or abode of war, when no one has ownership and no one claims it: it goes to the finder and a fifth is due on it, based on the general wording of the hadith. That is the view of al-Layth, ‘Abdullāh ibn Nāfi‘, ash-Shāfi‘ī and most scholars.

There is disagreement about ores that are found and then mined. Mālik and his people say that there is nothing due on gold or silver that is mined until it reaches twenty mithqāls of gold or five ūqiyyahs of silver. When it reaches that amount, then zakāt is owed on it. Anything that exceeds that is accounted according to that as long as the mine is producing. When it stops and then there is another lode that produces, zakāt then begins there anew.

They consider buried treasure to be like a crop from which zakāt is taken immediately and is not delayed for a year. Saḥnūn said about a man who has mines that what is found in one mine is not added to another and zakāt is only taken from two hundred dirhams or twenty dinars on each mine. Muḥammad ibn Maslamah said that they are added together and zakāt is paid on the total as is the case with crops. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people said that a mine is like buried treasure. Any gold or silver after the fifth has been paid is considered according to each of them. If someone obtains the amount on which zakāt is obliged, he pays zakāt on it when he still possesses the niṣāb after a full year. This is when he does not already have gold or silver on which zakāt is owed. If he already has that on which zakāt is obliged, then the new gold or silver is added to that and he pays zakāt on it. They believe that that is the case with every profit which is added to the niṣāb in the year in the same category: zakāt is paid based on the year of the principal. That is the view of ath-Thawrī.

Al-Muzanī mentioned that ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘My position regarding it is that it is what is produced from mines.’ Al-Muzanī said, ‘What is most appropriate is that the principle is that what mines produce is profit on which zakāt is paid a year after it is produced.’ Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said, ‘Any gold and silver which mines produce is in the position of profit on which a new year begins.’ That is the view of ash-Shāfi‘ī in what al-Muzanī deduced from his school. That is the position of Dāwūd and his people when a year has passed over it in the sound possession of its owner based on the words of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘If someone obtains property, there is no zakāt on it until he has had it for a year.’ At-Tirmidhī and ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it.

They also argue by what ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn An‘am related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī when the Prophet ﷺ gave some of those whose hearts were to be reconciled some good ore which ‘Alī had sent from Yemen. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘Those whose hearts are to be reconciled have a right to zakāt. By that it is clear that the custom on mines is the custom of zakāt.’ The argument of Mālik is based on the hadith of Rabī‘ah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān which states that the Prophet ﷺ granted to Bilāl ibn al-Ḥārith the mines of al-Qabaliyyah which were in a region of al-Fur‘. Up until today those mines only have zakāt taken from them. The isnād of this hadith is broken and the people of hadith do not take something like that as being authoritative, but it was the normative practice which was followed in Madīnah. Ad-Darāwardī related it from Rabī‘ah ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Bilāl al-Muzanī from his father. Al-Bazzar mentioned it. Kathīr ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf related from his father from his grandfather from the Prophet ﷺ that he gave a grant of the mines of al-Qabaliyyah, above and below ground, to Bilāl ibn al-Ḥārith. This is the ruling on what the earth produces. In an-Naḥl we will deal with what the sea produces since it is the partner of the earth. In al-Anbiyā’ we will discuss the meaning of the hadith which says: ‘There is no penalty for a wound inflicted by a dumb beast.’

Do not have recourse to bad things when you give,

‘Tayammamū’ means to aim for something. The āyah indicates that earnings can be good or bad. In an-Nasā’ī it is related from Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf that these words refer to bad quality dates. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade this type of dates being taken in payment of zakāt. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf that his father said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that ṣadaqah be given, and a man brought bunches of bad quality dates. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Who has brought this?’ Normally no one brought anything without it being attributed to him. Then it was revealed: ‘Do not have recourse to bad things when you give.’ He said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ forbade that ju‘rūr and ḥubayq (inferior quality dates) be taken in payment of zakāt.’ Az-Zuhrī said that they are two types of dates in Madīnah. At-Tirmidhī transmitted it from al-Barā’ and said that it is sound.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī and an-Naḥḥās related that ‘Abdullāh recited ‘ta’ammamū’. It is a dialectical form. Muslim ibn Jundub recited ‘tuyammimū’. Ibn Kathīr recited ‘ittayammamū’ with a double tā’. There are various dialectical forms of the word: ‘amamtu’ and ‘ammamtu’, ‘yammamtu’ and ‘tayammamtu’. Abū Amr related that Ibn Mas‘ūd recited ‘walā tu’ammimū’ with a hamzah.

Al-Jurjānī said in Naẓm al-Qur’ān that a group of people said that the words end at ‘bad things’ and then a new sentence begins which describes them: ‘you give things you would only take with your eyes tight shut.’ It is as if the meaning is to blame and censure people. The pronoun in ‘minhu’ refers to the bad things. He said that another group say the speech is connected to ‘minhu’ and so the pronoun refers to ‘you have earned’.

things you would only take with your eyes tight shut!

This refers to things you would only take in payment from people if you were making things easy for them and forgoing your rights: they are things you dislike and are not pleased with. So when a debt to Allah is involved, do not give what you would not be pleased to take for yourselves. Al-Barā’, Ibn ‘Abbās and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk stated that. Al-Ḥasan said that the meaning is things you would not take, if you found them being sold in the market, unless their price was reduced. Something similar is also related from ‘Alī. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘These two statements are similar inasmuch as they are both about zakāt.’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘If the āyah had been about obligatory zakāt, Allah would not say, “you would only take”, because bad or defective things are not permitted to be taken in zakāt in any case, not with the eyes shut or by overlooking them. Such things can be taken while lowering the eyes in supererogatory ṣadaqah.’ Al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib also said that it means: ‘You would not take it if you had been given it except with your eyes shut,’ meaning that you would be embarrassed before the giver and would accept it from him although you have no need of it and consider it to be of no value.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is consonant with the āyah being about voluntary charity.’ Ibn Zayd said, ‘You would not take the unlawful unless you shut your eyes to its disliked nature.’

The majority recitation is ‘tughmiḍū’ from the verb aghmaḍa which is used for when a man affects to be easy about something and overlooks in it and is satisfied to take only part of his due. Part of that is what aṭ-Ṭirimmāḥ said:

People did not wake us for the witr and humility. They are content with closing their eyes to it.

It is possible that it comes from shutting the eyes (taghmīd) because someone who wants to be patient with something disliked closes his eyes. He said:

How many things will you show me which I disregard (ughanniḍu) even though I am not blind to them!

This is ignoring what is disliked. An-Naqqāsh mentioned this meaning for the āyah and Makkī indicated it. The Arabs say, ‘aghmaḍa-r-rajulu’ when a man ignores something. This sort of derivation is frequent. Az-Zuhrī recited ‘taghmidū’ and also ‘tughammidū’. The first means: ‘you ignore the offer from the seller so that he lowers it for you.’ The second, which is the reading of Qatādah according to what an-Naḥḥās mentioned, means: ‘you take it for less’. Abū ‘Amr ad-Dānī said that the meaning of both readings of az-Zuhrī is that ‘you take it for less.’ Makkī related from al-Ḥasan ‘tughammaḍū’ and Qatādah also recited ‘tughmaḍū’. Abū ‘Amr ad-Dānī said that it means ‘unless it is reduced for you.’ An-Naḥḥās related it from Qatādah himself.

Ibn Jinnī said, ‘It means that you find that you have been unclear about the interpretation of the business or your tolerance, and you have proceeded in a manner that is not normally anticipated. This is as you say, “I praised the man,” meaning that you found him to be praised.’

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The majority reading is based on overlooking and lowering the eye because aghmaḍa is in the position of ghammaḍa. So it means that you overlook the interpretation in taking it, either because it is unlawful, as Ibn Zayd says, or because it is a gift or taken for a debt, according to another.’ Al-Mahdawī says that it means: you close your eyes to taking it. Al-Jawharī says that the verb refers to acting in an easy way in buying and selling. It is as if you wanted more than it because of its poor quality or a reduction in its price.

Know that Allah is Rich Beyond Need, Praiseworthy.

Allah tells us about His attribute of absolute wealth, meaning that He has no need of our ṣadaqah. So whoever tries to draw near and seeks a reward should do that with something that has a value and importance. He is advancing something for himself. Allah is Praiseworthy in every state. Az-Zajjāj points out that He does not command people to give ṣadaqah when they are poor, but He tests them. So He is Praiseworthy in that as in all His blessings.

268 Shayṭān promises you poverty and commands you to avarice. Allah promises you forgiveness from Him and abundance. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.

Shayṭān promises you poverty and commands you to avarice.

The derivation of the word Shayṭān has already been mentioned in the commentary on 2:14. The expression ‘promises you poverty’ here means ‘threatens you with poverty’, making you afraid of it so that you do not spend. This āyah is connected to the one before it. Shayṭān has a way of hindering someone from spending in the Way of Allah. He also commands ‘avarice’ (fahshā’), which refers to acts of self-gratification and spending on them. It is said that it means: ‘Do not give ṣadaqah; rather disobey and cut people off.’ ‘Faqr’ (poverty) is also recited as ‘fuqr’ in one dialect. Al-Jawharī said that fuqr is a dialectical usage.

Allah promises you forgiveness from Him and abundance.

In Arabic when the word wa‘ada is used undefined, then it is about good. When it is limited by something, then it can mean to promise good or to threaten evil, as is also the case with bishārah. This āyah contains both meanings. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This āyah contains two things from Allah and two things from Shayṭān. At-Tirmidhī reports from Ibn Mas‘ūd that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Shayṭān has a touch he uses on the son of Ādam and the angel has a touch. The touch of Shayṭān has the effect of threatening evil and denying the truth. The touch of the angel has the effect of promising good and confirming the truth. Anyone who experiences that should know that it is from Allah. Anyone who experiences other than that should seek refuge with Allah from Shayṭān.’ Then he recited this āyah. He said that it is a sound ḥasan hadith. Outside of the Qur’an, it is permitted to have ‘commands avarice’ without a bā’.

The word ‘forgiveness’ (maghfirah) indicates Allah’s veiling of the wrong actions of His slaves in this world and the Next. ‘Faḍl’ (abundance) here means provision in this world and expansion and blessing in the Next. Both are promised by Allah.

An-Naqqāsh mentioned that some people use this āyah to claim that poverty is better than wealth because Shayṭān distances the human being from what is good and does that by alarming them about poverty. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘There is no definitive evidence in the āyah. In fact, this idea is strongly contradicted.’ It is related in the Torah: ‘My servant spends from My provision and I grant him My bounty. My hand is stretched out over every outstretched hand.’ It is confirmed in the Qur’an where He says: ‘Anything you expend will be replaced by Him. He is the best of Providers.’ (34:39) Ibn ‘Abbās mentioned it.

Allah gives from His vast wealth and knows where to bestow it. He knows the Unseen and the visible. They are two of His names which we mentioned in Kitāb al-Asnā.

269 He gives wisdom to whomever He wills and he who has been given wisdom has been given great good. But no one pays heed but people of intelligence.

He gives wisdom to whomever He wills.

Allah gives it to whomever He wishes of His slaves. Scholars disagree about the meaning of the word ‘ḥikmah’ (wisdom) here. As-Suddī said that it refers to Prophethood. Ibn ‘Abbās said that it means understanding of the Qur’an: its fiqh, abrogations, āyahs of judgment, ambiguous āyahs, unusual expressions, and changes in the normal order of words. Qatādah and Mujāhid also said that it means understanding of the Qur’an. Mujāhid said that it means being correct in word and deed. Ibn Zayd said, ‘Wisdom is understanding the dīn.’ Mālik ibn Anas said, ‘Wisdom is recognition of the dīn of Allah, understanding it, and putting it into practice.’ Ibn al-Qāsim related that he said, ‘Wisdom is reflecting on the commands of Allah and following them.’ He also said, ‘Wisdom is obeying Allah and understanding the dīn and acting on it.’ Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas said, ‘Wisdom is humility.’ Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī said, ‘Wisdom is understanding the Qur’an.’ Zayd ibn Aslam also said that. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘Wisdom is scrupulousness.’

Most of these ideas are close in meaning as ḥikmah (wisdom) is a verbal noun which comes from iḥkām, which means perfection in word or deed. All the things mentioned above are wisdom. The Book of Allah is wisdom. The Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ is wisdom. All that is mentioned of excellence is wisdom. The basic meaning of ḥikmah is something which prevents foolishness. It is said that it is knowledge because it prevents foolishness and, by it, one knows how to prevent foolishness, which is every ugly action. The same is true for the Qur’an, intelligence and understanding. Al-Bukharī has the hadith: ‘When Allah desires good for a person, He gives him understanding in the dīn.’ Here He says: ‘He who has been given wisdom has been given much good.’

The fact that Allah repeats the word ‘wisdom’ here rather than using a pronoun the second time is to show concern for it to indicate its honour and excellence as was already explained in 2:59. Abū Muḥammad ad-Dārimī mentioned in his Musnad from Marwān ibn Muḥammad from Rifdah al-Ghassānī that Thābit ibn ‘Ajlān al-Anṣārī said, ‘It was said that Allah desired to punish the people of the earth, but when he heard a teacher teaching wisdom to children, He averted that from them.’ Marwān said that the wisdom was the Qur’an.

Anyone who is given wisdom and the Qur’an has been given the best of what can be given of all the knowledge of the books of the early people and others because He said about those: ‘You have only been given a little knowledge.’ (17:85) This is called ‘great good’ because the Qur’an is the all-inclusive Book. One of the sages said, ‘Whoever is given knowledge and the Qur’an should value himself properly and not humble himself to the people of this world for the sake of worldly things. What he has been given is better than what the people of this world have been given because Allah called this world “a little good” and called knowledge and the Qur’an “great good”.’

Most recite ‘he who is given’ as ‘man yu’ta’ in the passive form of the verb. Az-Zuhrī and Ya‘qūb recite ‘man yu’ti’ meaning ‘he to whom Allah gives’. Albāb means intelligence. The singular is lubb.

270 Whatever amount you spend or vow you make, Allah knows it. The wrongdoers have no helpers.

Vows were part of the culture of the Arabs and they used to make them a lot. Allah mentions two types of vows: those a man makes voluntarily, and those he makes after obliging himself to do so. This āyah is both a promise and threat, telling us that those with sincere intention will be rewarded. Anyone who spends to show off or for any other reason like inducing gratitude or as an insult is a wrongdoer. His action is worthless and he gains no benefit from it.

The phrase ‘knows it’ means that Allah takes account of it, according to Mujāhid. The pronoun is singular although it mentions two things. An-Naḥḥās says that it implies: ‘Whatever amount you spend, Allah knows it. Whatever vow you make, Allah knows it.’ So there is elision. It is possible that what is implied is: ‘whatever you spend, Allah knows it’ and the hā’ (it) refers to mā (what), and ‘vow you make’ is added to it. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The pronoun is singular in “knows it” when two things have been mentioned since He means what was mentioned or stated.’

This is good. All that was mentioned is implied, even if it is a lot. The reality of a vow is that you say that it is whatever acts of worship a responsible person has made mandatory for himself which were not mandatory or necessary for him. You say, ‘The man took a vow to do such-and-such’ when he obliges himself to do it. The present tense can be yandhuru or yandhiru. Its rulings will be explained elsewhere, Allah willing.

271 If you make your ṣadaqah public, that is good. But if you conceal it and give it to the poor, that is better for you, and We will erase some of your bad actions from you. Allah is aware of what you do.

Commentators believe that this āyah is about voluntary ṣadaqah because concealment of it is better than making it public. This is the case with all acts of worship: concealment is better in respect of voluntary acts because it precludes showing off. That does not, however, apply to obligatory zakāt. Al-Ḥasan said that making zakāt public is better but that concealing voluntary acts of giving is better because it is closer to what Allah desires with respect to that. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Secret giving when it is voluntary is seventy times better than public giving. In the case of obligatory zakāt, its public payment is better than paying it secretly by up to twenty-five times according to some. It is the same with all obligations and supererogatory actions.’ He said that that is the case in all obligatory and voluntary actions in all matters.

Such a position is not taken on the basis of mere opinion. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the Prophet ﷺ said. ‘The best prayer a man can perform is the one he does in his house except for the obligatory prayer.’ That is because there is no showing off in the obligatory, while supererogatory prayers are subject to that. An-Nasā’ī reported from ‘Uqbah ibn Āmir that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Someone who recites the Qur’an aloud is like the one who gives ṣadaqah publicly. Someone who recites the Qur’an silently is like someone who gives ṣadaqah secretly.’ We find in a hadith: ‘Secret ṣadaqah extinguishes the wrath of the Lord.’

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘There is no preference in sound hadith for public zakāt over that given secretly nor for secret zakāt over that given publicly, but there is a firm consensus regarding that. As for voluntary ṣadaqah, the Qur’an clearly states that it is better given secretly than publicly. Our scholars say that this is generally the case. The truth about this matter is that the state of giving ṣadaqah varies according to the circumstances of the giver, the recipient and those who witness it. The public giver has the benefit of demonstrating the Sunnah and the reward for acting as a model for others.’

This refers to someone whose state is strong and intention good and who is safe from showing off. As for someone whose state falls below this, doing it secretly is better for him. As for the recipient, when giving is done secretly, he is kept safe from people’s disdain or from the claim that he took what he did not need and failed to be abstinent. Generally speaking, keeping ṣadaqah secret from people is better than making it known to them since they might attack the giver for showing off and the taker for being able to do without it. On the positive side, doing it publicly encourages people to give ṣadaqah. But this is rare today.

Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb said, ‘This āyah was revealed about the giving of ṣadaqah to the Jews and Christians. It was as if Allah was commanding that a portion of zakāt should be secret.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this position is rejected, especially by the righteous Salaf. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that the consensus is that doing what is obligatory is better.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned that this āyah indicates that it is generally better to conceal zakāt. It is the right of the poor and it is better for the owner of property to distribute it himself. This is one of the two positions of ash-Shāfi‘ī. In his other position, he stated that what is meant by ṣadaqah here is the voluntary ṣadaqah rather than obligatory zakāt. It is more appropriate to perform the obligatory publicly so that there will be no suspicion. That is why it is said, ‘It is better to do the nāfilah prayers alone, but praying in the group removes suspicion about whether someone is fulfilling the obligatory prayer or not.’

Al-Mahdawī said, ‘What is meant by the āyah is both the obligation of zakāt and what is voluntary. Concealment was better in the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Then people’s suspicions arose after that and so scholars recommended making what is obligatory public so that no suspicion would remain.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah remarked, ‘This position is contrary to the traditions (āthār). In our time it seems that it is recommended to conceal obligatory zakāt. Those who refuse to do it are numerous and paying it publicly opens a person to the accusation of showing off.’ Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘It is permitted for the āyah to mean both obligatory and voluntary ṣadaqah because He mentioned the hidden and praises it, and the public and praises it, and so it can be directed to both of them.’ An-Naqqāsh said that this āyah was abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘Those who give away their wealth, night and day, secretly and openly.’ (2:274) So, in the āyah public ṣadaqah is praised and then the ruling is given that when it is given secretly it is better. That is why one of the sages said, ‘When you give charity, conceal it. When you are given it, then make it known.’ Di‘bil al-Khuzā‘ī said:

When they take revenge, they make it public. When they bestow, they conceal that.

Sahl ibn Hārūn said:

When one day you go to a friend to ask of him,

he gives you what he owns and apologises.

He conceals his action while Allah makes it known. When you give what is beautiful, it shows.

Al-‘Abbās ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib said, ‘A charitable act is only complete when it has three characteristics: hastening it, thinking it small, and concealing it. When you hasten it, you make it more welcome. When you consider it small, you make it great. When you conceal it, you perfect it.’ A poet said:

I consider your charity to be greater

when it is concealed and small in your sight.

You forget it as if you had not given it, while it is famous among people.

There are different readings of the phrase ‘that is good’. Abū ‘Amr, Nāfi‘ in the transmission of Warsh, ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Ḥafṣ and Ibn Kathīr recite ‘ni‘immā’, and Abū ‘Amr (again), Nāfi‘ in other than the transmission of Warsh, ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr and al-Mufaḍḍal recite ‘ni‘mā’. Al-A‘mash, Ibn ‘Āmir, Ḥamzah, and al-Kisā’ī recite ‘na‘immā’. Outside of the Qur’an we find: ‘ni‘ma mā’. An-Naḥḥās said that it is connected in the script and so assimilation is necessary.

There are four dialectical forms of ni‘ma. The root is na‘ima, but there is also ni‘ima where the nūn has a kasrah because the ‘ayn does, na‘ma (where the root is na‘ima and the kasrah has been elided because of being heavy), and ni‘ma, which is the most eloquent. The root of them is na‘ima. It is used for every praise, and lightened and the kasrah of the ‘ayn changed and the ‘ayn becomes silent. Two things are implied by ‘fa-ni‘immā hiya’. One is that it is based on the dialectical form ni‘ima, and the other is that is based on the good dialect and the root is ni‘ma and the ‘ayn has a kasrah because of two silent letters meeting. What Abū ‘Amr and Nāfi‘ relate about the ‘ayn being silent is impossible. It is related that Muḥammad ibn Yazīd said, ‘As for a sukūn on the ‘ayn and double mīm, no one is able to pronounce it. It tries to combine two silent letters and vowel them which does not happen.’ Abū ‘Alī said, ‘The statements of those who give the ‘ayn a sukūn are not proper because it is combining two silent letters, the first of them is not a letter of extension and softness. That is permitted by grammarians when the first letter has extension since the extension replaces the vowel, as in dābbah and ḍawāl.’ Perhaps Abū ‘Amr concealed the vowel and sneaks it in as he does in ‘bāri’ikum’ and ‘ya’murukum’ and someone listening thought that it was a sukūn because of the subtleness of that to the ear. Abū ‘Alī said, ‘As for the one who recites ‘ni‘immā’, he brings the word according to its root.’ He also said that the mā is in the accusative and ‘hiya’ explains the implied subject before it is mentioned. It implies: ‘Making it public is good,’ and ‘making public’ is singled out for praise even though the muḍāf is elided and replaced by the muḍāf ilayh.

The following words: ‘That is better for you’, lead you to the fact that concealing is better. The pronoun in ‘that’ refers to concealing, not to ṣadaqah. ‘If you conceal it’ is a precondition which is why the nūn of the verb is omitted. ‘Give it’ is added to it. Its apodosis is: ‘That is better for you’.

The word ‘erase’ is subject to various readings. Abū ‘Āmir, Ibn Kathīr, ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr, Qatādah and Ibn Abī Isḥāq have nukaffiru (We will erase). Nāfi‘, Ḥamzah, and al-Kisā’ī have nukaffir (We will erase) with a sukūn on the rā’. The same is related from ‘Āṣim. Al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī al-Ju‘fī from al-A‘mash has yukaffira (it will erase). Ibn ‘Āmir has yukaffiru (it will erase) and Ḥafs related that from ‘Āṣim. It is also related from al-Ḥasan as it is related from him as ‘yukaffir’. Ibn ‘Abbās recited ‘tukaffir’. ‘Ikrimah recited ‘tukaffar’. Al-Mahdawī related that Ibn Hurmuz recited ‘tukaffir,’ and it is related that ‘Ikrimah and Sahr ibn Ḥawshab recited ‘tukaffira’. The clearest reading is ‘yukaffiru’, and this is what al-Khalīl and Sībawayh said. An-Naḥḥās said that Sībawayh said, ‘It is proper with the ḍammah and good because the words after the fā’ act normally without the apodosis. The jussive is permitted when it is applied to the meaning because it means: if you conceal it and give it to the poor, that is better for you and Allah will erase bad actions from you. Abū Ḥātim said that al-A‘mash recited ‘yukaffir’ without the preceding wāw. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘What Abū Ḥātim related from al-A‘mash without the preceding wāw is jussive based on the appositive. It is as if it were in place of the fā’. What is related from ‘Āṣim, “yukaffiru” means “Allah will erase”.’ This is the position of Abū ‘Ubayd. Abū Ḥātim says that it means, ‘the giving will erase’. The reading of Ibn ‘Abbās with a tā’ means ‘ṣadaqah will erase’.

Generally speaking, the readings with nūn in the first person plural, is the Divine ‘We’, and those with a tā’ in the third person feminine refer to ṣadaqah, except for what is related from ‘Ikrimah with a fatḥah on the fā’ where it refers to bad actions. If it is with the yā’ of the third person masculine, then it is Allah Who does the erasing and the concealed giving is also that which erases as we mentioned. Makkī mentioned that.

There are two reasons for the verb having a ḍammah at the end. One is that it is the predicate of an implied inceptive and so implies: ‘We will erase’ or ‘it (ṣadaqah) will erase’ or ‘Allah will erase’. The second is that there is a stop and a new sentence and the conjunctive wāw is not for sharing, but conjoins one sentence to another. We have already mentioned the meaning of the recitation with the sukūn. As for the naṣb (with fatḥah) ‘and nukaffira (We shall erase)’, that is weak, and is based on the ellipsis of an (that), which is possible but unlikely. Al-Mahdawī said, ‘It resembles the naṣb in the apodosis of the interrogative since the apodosis which the thing necessitates is is based on the existence of something else, which is also the case with the interrogative.’ The sukūn on the rā’ is the purest of these recitations, linguistically speaking, because it notifies us that the erasure is comprised in the recompense, and the fact that it is stipulated if concealment occurs. As for with the ḍammah, this sense is not in it.

This is contrary to what al-Khalīl and Sībawayh chose. In the words ‘some of your bad actions’ (min sayyi’ātikum) the ‘min’ (some) is partitive. Aṭ-Ṭabarī reports that some have said that it is redundant, but Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that is a mistake on their part. ‘Allah is aware of what you do’ is both a threat and a promise.

272 You are not responsible for their guidance, but Allah guides whomever He wills. Whatever good you give away is to your own benefit, when you give desiring only the Face of Allah. Whatever good you give away will be repaid to you in full. You will not be wronged.

You are not responsible for their guidance but Allah guides whomever He wills.

These words are connected to the mention of ṣadaqah. It is as if Allah were making it clear that it is permitted to give ṣadaqah to the idolaters. There is a mursal hadith related by Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr where the Prophet ﷺ said that the reason for the revelation of this āyah was that the Muslims used to give ṣadaqah to the poor among the dhimmīs. When there were a lot of poor Muslims, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Only give ṣadaqah to the people of your own dīn.’ Then this āyah was revealed to make it clear that it is permitted to give ṣadaqah to those who are not part of the dīn of Islam. An-Naqqāsh mentioned that the Prophet ﷺ was given zakāt and a Jew came and said, ‘Give to me.’ The Prophet ﷺ answered, ‘There is no share in the zakāt of the Muslims for you.’ The Jew went away and this āyah was revealed. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ called for him and gave some to him. Then that was abrogated by the āyah of zakāt.

Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Some of the Anṣār had relatives in the Jewish tribes of the Banū Qurayẓah and the Banu-n-Naḍīr. They used to not give ṣadaqah to them out of the desire that they would become Muslim if they were needy and the āyah was revealed because of them.’

One of the commentators related that Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr wanted to give ṣadaqah to her grandfather, Abū Quḥāfah, and then did not do so because he was an unbeliever, and the āyah was revealed about that. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that the aim of the Prophet ﷺ in not giving ṣadaqah was so that they would become Muslims and enter into the dīn and for that reason Allah said: ‘You are not responsible for their guidance.’ It is also said that this is not connected to the āyah before it but is totally a new statement and so it is apparently about ṣadaqah and giving it to the unbelievers.

Our scholars say that the ṣadaqah which non-Muslims are permitted according to these traditions is voluntary ṣadaqah. As for zakāt, it is not permitted to give it to an unbeliever since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I was commanded to take ṣadaqah (meaning here zakāt) from your rich and give it to your poor.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘The consensus among all the scholars I learned from is that a dhimmī is not given any of the zakāt.’ Then he mentioned a group who said something different to that. Al-Mahdawī said that this āyah is an allowance for the Muslims to give some of the zakāt to their relatives who are unbelievers. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is rejected by consensus, and Allah knows best.’ Abū Ḥanīfah said that zakāt al-fiṭr can be given to them, but Ibn al-‘Arabī says that this is baseless and weak. Our evidence is that zakāt on livestock and money is an obligatory purification and may not be given to unbelievers. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Spare them from having to beg on this day,’ meaning ‘Īd al-Fiṭr.

We reply that this is the case because the Muslims are busy with the ‘Īd and the ‘Īd prayer, while this is not the case with the idolaters. It is permitted to give it to non-Muslims if one holds the position that it is a sunnah to do so. It is one of our positions, and it is also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah, as we mentioned. It is adopting the general meaning of the āyah about kindness, feeding people and general ṣadaqah. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This ruling is conceivable for the Muslims when dealing with the dhimmīs and enslaved ḥarbīs.’

In the Qur’an we read: ‘They give food, despite their love for it, to the poor and orphans and captives.’ (76:8) A captive in the Abode of Islam can only be an idolater. The Almighty says: ‘Allah does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the dīn or driven you from your homes, or from being just to them.’ (60:8). So the literal meaning of these āyahs allows ṣadaqah to be given to non-Muslims. The Prophet ﷺ, however, excepted zakāt from that, saying, ‘Take ṣadaqah from their rich and give it to their poor,’ and scholars agree on that. So non-Muslims can be given voluntary ṣadaqah if they are needy, and Allah knows best.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘There is no disagreement that zakāt al-fiṭr can be given to disobedient Muslims, unless they have abandoned the pillars of Islam: prayer and fasting. Then it may not be given to them until they repent. Zakat is given to other disobedient Muslims because they are included under the general category of “Muslims”.’ We find in Ṣaḥīh Muslim that a man gave ṣadaqah to a wealthy man, a thief and a prostitute, and his ṣadaqah was accepted.

but Allah guides whoever He wills.

This refutes the Qadariyyah and groups of the Mu‘tazilites as we have already explained (2:5).

Whatever good you give away is to your own benefit

The word ‘good’ in this āyah refers to wealth because it is accompanied by the words ‘give away’. The context indicates that it is wealth. In other contexts, the word ‘good’ can have other meanings as in 99:7. This negates the statement of ‘Ikrimah that every ‘good’ in the Book of Allah is wealth. It is related that one of the scholars used to give away a lot in charity and he swore that he had not done good to anyone. He was asked about that and said, ‘I did that for myself and he recited, “Whatever good you give away is to your own benefit.”’

when you give desiring only the Face of Allah.

Then Allah made it clear that the only spending which is accepted is that by which the Face of Allah is sought. It is also said that it is testimony by Allah for the Companions that they sought the Face of Allah when they spent. This is preference and praise of them. According to the first view, it is a precondition for them, and the precondition applies to others in the community. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, ‘You do not spend anything by which you desire the Face of Allah without being rewarded for it, even a morsel you place in your wife’s mouth.’ So the reward for spending is given in full to those who spend and none of it is stinted as that stinting would be an injustice to them.

273 It is for the poor who are held back in the Way of Allah, unable to travel in the land. The ignorant consider them rich because of their reticence. You will know them by their mark. They do not ask from people insistently. Whatever good you give away, Allah knows it.

It is for the poor

The words ‘for the poor’ are connected to ‘whatever good you give away’ in the previous āyah. It is said that it implies that spending or ṣadaqah is for the poor alone. As-Suddī, Mujāhid and others said that what is meant by poor in this instance are the poor Muhājirūn of Quraysh and others. Then the āyah is extended so that it is applied to all who are considered poor throughout time. The poor Muhājirūn are singled out because they were those who were poor at that time. They were the People of the Ṣuffah, who numbered about four hundred men. That was because the poor used to come to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. They had neither family nor property and so a verandah (ṣuffah) was built for them in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ which is why they were called the People of the Ṣuffah.

Abū Dharr said, ‘I was one of the people of the Ṣuffah. In the evening, we presented ourselves at the door of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and he would order each of us to go with a man [as his guest for supper] until there remained ten or less of the people of the Ṣuffah and the Prophet ﷺ would bring us his supper and we would eat with him. When we finished, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said. “Sleep in the mosque.”’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted that al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib quoted the āyah: ‘Do not have recourse to bad things when you give’ (2:267) and said, ‘It was revealed about us, the Anṣār. We owned some palm trees. A man would bring dates from his trees according to whether its fruits were a lot or a little. A man would bring a branch or two of dates and hang them in the mosque. The people of the Ṣuffah did not have any food, so when one of them was hungry, he would go to the bunch and hit it with his stick and some dates would fall and he would eat. People who did not truly desire to do good would bring branches of poor dates or broken ones and hang them in the mosque. Then Allah Almighty revealed: “O you who believe, spend of the good things...” (2:267). This means: “If one of you had been given the like of what he gave, you would only take it with your eyes closed due to embarrassment.” After that a man would only bring good things.’ This is a sound gharīb ḥasan hadith.

According to our scholars the people in the mosque were impoverished and they were in the mosque out of necessity and ate from ṣadaqah due to their compelling need. When Allah gave victory to the Muslims, they were relieved from that and went out and then had property of their own.

who are held back in the Way of Allah, unable to travel in the land.

Allah then described the states of those poor Muhājirūn in a manner which obliges compassion for them. These words indicate the fact that they were restricted in their ability to move. Qatādah and Ibn Zayd said that this means they were kept from going about to earn a living due to fear of the enemy. This is why Allah says that they are unable to travel because every direction was full of unbelievers. This was at the beginning of Islam. So their excuse kept them from earning and jihād, and the unbelievers’ dislike of them kept them from going out in trade, so they remained poor. It is also said that it means they held themselves back from jihād, but the first interpretation is more likely, and Allah knows best.

The ignorant consider them rich because of their reticence.

This means that they have withdrawn and do not ask, and rely on Allah, so that someone who did not know would suppose them to be rich. This shows that the ascription of poverty can be applied to someone who has clothes of some value and that does not prevent zakāt being given to him. In fact Allah commands it to be given to these people. They were among the Muhājirūn who fought with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and were not ill or blind. ‘Reticence’ (ta‘affuf) in this context means to refrain from begging and put oneself above it. This is how it is explained by Qatādah and others. There are two readings of ‘consider them’: ‘yaḥsabuhum’ and ‘yaḥsibuhum’. Abū ‘Alī considers ‘yaḥsabuhum’ to be better fitting but the other reading is also good.

You will know them by their mark.

This is evidence that the distinguishing marks of Islam have a legal bearing in respect of those on whom they appear, so that if we find a corpse in the Abode of Islam who is wearing a Christian belt and is not circumcised, it is not buried in the graveyard of the Muslims. Connected to that are His words: ‘…you would know them by their mark and know them by their ambivalent speech.’ (47:30) That takes precedence over the normal ruling of most scholars that a dead person is deemed to belong to the dīn of the place where he is found. It also indicates the permissibility of giving zakāt to someone who has fine clothes and adornment. Scholars agree on that. Then they disagree about the amount he may take. Abū Ḥanīfah says that it is the same amount on which zakāt is obliged to be paid, ash-Shāfi‘ī says that it is food for a year, and Mālik says it is forty dirhams. Ash-Shāfi‘ī also said that zakāt should not be given to someone who is earning.

Scholars disagree about what the ‘sīmā’ (mark) referred to is. Mujāhid says that it is humility and humbleness. As-Suddī said that it is the sign of poverty and need which can be seen in their faces. Ibn Zayd said that it is their tattered clothes. Some people, including Makkī, said that it is the mark of prostration, and Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah says that this is better. That is because they were unoccupied and trusted in Allah and had no work except the prayer and so they had the mark of prostration on them.

This mark, which is the mark of prostration, was shared by all the Companions as Allah says at the end of Sūrat al-Fatḥ: ‘Their mark is on their faces, the traces of prostration.’ (48:29) So in this respect there can have been no difference between them and others. So the only thing that the ‘mark’ can be is the effect of poverty and need, or an extra large mark of prostration. They were recognised by the sallowness of their faces from praying at night and fasting in the day, and Allah knows best. As for humility, its place is the heart, and rich and poor share in it. All that remains is what we preferred. Allah is the One Who gives success.

They do not ask from people insistently.

The word ‘ilḥāf’ (insistently) is a verbal noun derived from liḥāf (blanket). It is called that because it covers all manner of asking in the same way that a blanket covers everything; an insistent beggar is one who begs from everyone and pesters them with his asking. Part of that is what Ibn Aḥmar said:

It continued to surround them with its shivering, and cover them (yalḥafuhunna) with a thick thin blanket.

He describes a male ostrich protecting the eggs with its wings which become like a blanket which is thin in spite of its thickness.

An-Nasā’ī and Muslim reported from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The very poor man is not the one who is turned away by a date or two, or a bite or two; the very poor man is the one who does not ask. Recite if you like: “They do not ask from people insistently.”’

Scholars disagree about the meaning of this and take two positions. Some people, including aṭ-Ṭabarī and az-Zajjāj, say that the meaning is: ‘They do not beg at all.’ This would mean that they completely refrain from asking. This is the position of the majority of commentators, and refraining from asking is their firm quality. They do not ask people either insistently or not insistently. Other people say that what is meant is the lack of asking insistently, meaning that they ask, but not insistently. This is easy to understand.

In any case the āyah calls attention to the bad state of those who do ask people insistently. The Imams related from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do not be insistent in asking. By Allah, if any of you may ask me for something and get what he wants from me even though I dislike him doing it, he will not be blessed in what I give him.’

In the Muwaṭṭā’ we read from Zayd ibn Aslam from ‘Aṭā’ ibn Yasār that a man of the Banū Asad said, ‘My family and I dismounted to rest at Baqī‘ al-Gharqad. My family said to me, “Go to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and ask him for something to eat,” and they began to mention what they needed. I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and found that a man was asking for something, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was saying, “I do not have anything to give you.” The man turned away from him in anger, saying, “By my life! You give to those you wish to give to!” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ remarked, “He is angry with me because I do not have anything to give him. Whoever asks you for something while he has an ūqiyyah or its equivalent has asked insistently.”’ The man continued, ‘I told myself that a camel we had was worth more than an ūqiyyah. (Mālik explained that an ūqiyyah was forty dirhams.) So I returned without having asked him for anything, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent me barley and raisins later on. He gave us from his share until Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic, gave us relief.’

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘That is how Mālik related it and it is corroborated by Hishām ibn Sa‘d and others. It is a sound hadith. The ruling on a Companion who is not named is not the same as the ruling on others who are not named. Scholars say that is because there is no impairment of them as a rule and integrity is established for them.’ This hadith indicates that it is disliked for anyone who has an ūqiyyah of silver to beg. Anyone who begs when he has that amount of silver, or what is equivalent to it, is considered to be insistent. I do not know of anyone who possesses knowledge of the dīn who does not dislike someone begging when they have this amount of silver or its equivalent in gold according to the literal meaning of this hadith. They are permitted to take what comes to them without asking, provided it is not zakāt. There is disagreement if it is zakāt as will be explained later.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘One of the best things related from the fuqahā’ regarding begging and dislike of it, and the position of those who possess scrupulousness regarding it, is what al-Athram related from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal when he was asked about when begging becomes lawful. He said, “When a person does not have enough for lunch and supper. This is based on the hadith of Sahl ibn al-Ḥanẓaliyyah.” Ibn Ḥanbal was then asked, “And if he is compelled to ask?” He replied, “It is permitted if he is in pressing need.” He was asked, “And if he refrains?” He replied, “That is better for him.” Then he added, “I do not think that anyone will die of hunger. Allah will bring him his provision.” Then he mentioned the hadith of Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī: “Whoever abstains, Allah will make him abstinent.”’

In the hadith of Abū Dharr, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Be abstinent.’ Abū Bakr said, ‘I heard him being asked about a man who does not have anything: should he beg or eat carrion? He replied, “Would he eat carrion when there is someone he can ask? This is abhorrent.”’ He said that he heard him being asked whether a man should beg on behalf of another man. He said that he should not, but can make an allusion. It is like what the Prophet ﷺ said when people came barefooted, naked, wearing stripped cloaks. He said, ‘Give ṣadaqah.’ He did not say, ‘Give to them.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ said, “Intercede and you will be rewarded.” That has the general meaning of asking on behalf of someone else.’ Allah knows best.

Abū Bakr said, ‘It was said that a man was mentioned to Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and he asked, “Is he in need?” He said, “This is an allusion and there is nothing wrong with it. Asking is to say, ‘Give to him.’” Then he added, “I do not like a person asking for himself, so what then is the case with him asking for another? I prefer making an allusion here.”’

It is reported by Abū Dāwūd, an-Nasā’ī and others that a Persian asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘Should I beg, Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘No, but if you must, then ask of the righteous.’ So he permitted asking the people of excellence and righteousness when that is necessary. Ibrāhīm ibn Adham said, ‘Asking for your needs from people is a veil between you and Allah Almighty. Place your need with the One who controls harm and benefit. Take refuge in Allah Almighty and Allah will spare you from others and you will live in happiness.’

If something comes to someone without their asking for it, they should accept it and not reject it. It is provision which Allah has brought. Mālik reported from Zayd ibn Aslam from ‘Aṭā’ ibn Yasār that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent a gift to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and ‘Umar returned it. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked, ‘Why did you return it?’ He replied, ‘Messenger of Allah, did you not tell us that it is better for us not to take anything from anyone?’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘That is by asking. Provision which Allah gives you is not the same as asking.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, ‘By the One in whose hand my self is, I will not ask anything from anyone, and anything that comes to me without my asking for it, I will accept.’ This is a definitive text.

Muslim transmitted in his Ṣaḥīḥ, an-Nasā’ī in the Sunan, as well as others that Ibn ‘Umar said that he heard ‘Umar say, ‘The Prophet ﷺ gave me a gift and I said, “Give it to someone who is more in need of it than I am.” Once he gave me something and I said, “Give it to someone who is more in need of it than I am.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Take any wealth that comes to you without your looking for it or asking it for it. Take it as long as you yourself do not pursue it.”’ An-Nasā’ī added, ‘Take it and either enrich yourself with it or give it away as ṣadaqah.’ Muslim related from ‘Abdullāh ibn as-Sa‘dī al-Mālikī that ‘Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to me, “When you are given something without asking, then eat and give ṣadaqah.”’ This is sound and mursal from Mālik.

Al-Athram said that he heard Abū ‘Abdullāh Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal being asked about the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘what comes to you without you asking or looking for it’ and what ‘looking for it’ mean. He said, ‘It is that you look towards the thing and think in your heart, “Perhaps it will be sent to me.”’ He was asked, ‘Even if one makes no allusion to it?’ ‘Yes,’ he answered, ‘because it is in the heart.’ He was told, ‘This is harsh!’ He answered, ‘Even if it is harsh, it is like that’ He was asked, ‘And if a man does not normally send me anything but it occurs to my heart, “Perhaps he will send something to me”?’ He answered, ‘This is looking for something. If it comes to you without you thinking about it and without it occurring to your heart, then it is something in which there is no looking for it.’

Abū ‘Umar said, ‘Ishrāf (looking for) linguistically is raising one’s head towards something that one desires and alluding to obtaining it. What Aḥmad said about the interpretation of ishrāf is a restriction which I find unreasonable because Allah has overlooked for the people of this community things that their selves say to them as long as it is not articulated on the tongue and acted on by a limb. As for thoughts in the heart that involve disobedience to Allah, except for outright unbelief, they are of no consequence, provided, of course, that they are not acted upon. The consensus is that the thoughts of the self are overlooked.’

Insistence in asking and being importunate in it when a person is wealthy is forbidden and not lawful. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Anyone who asks people for an increase over what he has is asking for a hot ember. He can either seek to be independent or he is seeking increase.’ Abū Hurayrah related it and Muslim transmitted it. Ibn ‘Umar reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘One of you will continue to beg until he meets Allah without a single piece of flesh on his face.’ Muslim also related it.

If the asker is needy, there is no harm in him asking three times, informing people of his state and apologising. But it is best to leave it. If the one asked knows of his need and is able to give him what he asks, he is obliged to give. If he does not know it, he gives to him out of fear that he is speaking the truth and that rejecting him will not be profitable.

Regarding someone who needs something to keep up appearances, such as having a good garment to wear on the ‘Īd and Jumu‘ah, Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘While I was in the mosque of the Caliph in Baghdad, I heard a man say, “This is your brother who attends Jumu‘ah and he has no other garment with which to support the sunnah of Jumu‘ah.” The following Jumu‘ah I saw him in another garment and was told, “Abu-ṭ-Ṭāhir al-Burnusī gave it to him.”’

274 Those who give away their wealth by night and day, secretly and openly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Dharr, Abū Umāmah, Abu-d-Dardā’, ‘Abdullāh ibn Bishr al-Ghāfiqī and al-Awzā‘ī that this āyah was revealed about the fodder of horses which are used for jihād in the Way of Allah. In the Ṭabaqāt, Ibn Sa‘d mentioned from Muḥammad ibn Shu‘ayb ibn Shābūr from Sa‘īd ibn Sinān from Yazīd ibn ‘Abdullāh from his father that his grandfather ‘Arīb reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about: ‘Those who give away their wealth by night and day, secretly and openly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.’ He said, ‘They are the owners of horses.’ By means of the same isnād, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is reported as saying, ‘The one who spends on horses is like someone who stretches out his hand with ṣadaqah without closing it again. Their urine and droppings will be like fragrant musk on the Day of Rising.’

Ibn ‘Abbās also reported that this āyah was revealed about ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib who had four dirhams and gave away one at night, one in the day, and one secretly and one openly. ‘Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned it from ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn Mujāhid from his father from Ibn ‘Abbās. Ibn Jurayj said that it was revealed about a man who did that but he did not name ‘Alī or anyone else. Qatādah said that this āyah was revealed about those who spend without being either extravagant or tightfisted. The fā’ is added in ‘lahum’ because the words have the meaning of an apodosis.

275 Those who practise usury will not rise from the grave except as someone driven mad by Shayṭān’s touch. That is because they say, ‘Trade is the same as usury.’ But Allah has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury. Whoever is given a warning by his Lord and then desists, can keep what he received in the past and his affair is Allah’s concern. But all who return to it will be the Companions of the Fire, remaining in it timelessly, for ever. 276 Allah obliterates usury but makes ṣadaqah grow in value! Allah does not love any persistently ungrateful wrongdoer. 277 Those who believe and do right actions and establish the prayer and pay zakāt, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. 278 You who believe! be fearful of Allah and forgo any remaining usury if you are believers. 279 If you do not, know that it means war from Allah and His Messenger. But if you sincerely repent you may have your capital, without wronging and without being wronged.

These āyahs contain the ruling on usury and the permissibility of contracts in trade and a threat to those who consider usury lawful and persist in it. Many points emerge from them.

Those who practise usury

The word ‘practise’ (literally ‘eat’) means here ‘take’. That is because they take it with the intention of consuming it. Linguistically ‘ribā’ (usury) means ‘increase’ in general. Part of the usage of the verb is found in the hadith: ‘By Allah, we did not take a morsel but that it grew (rabā) in size.’ This refers to food for whose blessing the Prophet ﷺ prayed. Muslim transmitted it. Then the Sharī‘ah limited this general usage to certain specific practices. Sometimes the word is applied to unlawful earning, as when Allah Almighty says about the Jews: ‘…because of their practising usury when they were forbidden to do it.’ (4:160) What is meant by usury here is not the kind which is unlawful for us. What is meant is unlawful property, as when Allah says: ‘They are people who listen to lies and consume ill-gotten gains’ (5:42), meaning unlawful wealth in the form of bribes and what they consider lawful of the property of non-jews when they say: ‘We are under no obligation where the gentiles are concerned.’ (3:75) So according to this, the prohibition against usury includes all unlawful wealth whatever way it is earned.

The usury known in the Sharī‘ah takes two forms: the usury entailed by delay and the usury entailed by disparity in contracts and foodstuffs as will be explained. The Arabs had a practice whereby they would say to a debtor, ‘Will you settle now or pay more later?’ The debtor could then increase the amount of money he owed, and the creditor would wait for it. This is forbidden by the consensus of the Community. Most prohibited sales are forbidden because of the idea of increase either in money or in benefit to one of the parties incurred by delay and the like. Some forbidden sales do not have increase in them, like selling fruit before it is ripe or selling after the adhān has been called for Jumu‘ah, and the one who does it is said metaphorically to be practising usury.

The Imams relate from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates and salt for salt, like for like, hand to hand. Anyone who increases or asks for increase practises usury. The taker and the giver are the same in respect of that.’ In the hadith of ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit we find, ‘When the categories are different, sell however you wish when it is hand to hand.’

Abū Dāwūd related from ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Gold for gold – ore and coins – silver for silver – ore and coins – wheat for wheat – mudd for mudd – barley for barley – mudd for mudd – dates for dates – mudd for mudd – and salt for salt – mudd for mudd. Anyone who increases or asks for increase practises usury. There is no harm in selling gold for silver when the amount of silver is more, provided it is hand to hand, and no delay is involved. There is no harm in selling wheat for barley when the amount of barley is more, provided it is hand to hand, and no delay is involved.’

Scholars agree that taking this position is following the Sunnah and that is the position of the majority of the Muslim fuqahā’ except in the case of wheat and barley. Mālik considers them one category and does not permit two of them for one. That is also the position of al-Layth, al-Awzā‘ī, and a large number of the scholars of Madīnah and Syria. Mālik adds sult-barley to them. Al-Layth considers them as one category and Ibn Wahb also holds that view.

The Sunnah is confirmed and there is no position other than it. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When these categories are different, sell however you wish when it is hand to hand,’ and he said, ‘Wheat for wheat and barley for barley’ which indicates that they are two different categories, just as wheat differs from dates, and because their attributes differ and they have different names. One does not consider plants which the Sharī‘ah does not consider. They are different. This is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah, ath-Thawrī and the people who base their position on the hadith.

Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān believed that the prohibition related from the Prophet ﷺ was about minted dirhams and dinars, not gold and silver ore for coins nor about things made from gold and silver. It is said that this was his position until an incident occurred to him with ‘Ubādah which is transmitted by Muslim and others: ‘We went on a sortie when Mu‘āwiyah was in command of the people and took a lot of booty. Part of our booty consisted of a silver vessel. Mu‘āwiyah ordered a man to sell it against the people’s stipends. People argued about that. ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit heard about it, went along and said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbid selling gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt except like for like, item for item. Anyone who increases or asks for increase practises usury.” The people returned what they had been given. Mu‘āwiyah heard about that and stood up and said, “What is the matter with men who relate hadiths from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when we saw him and were his Companions and did not hear it from him!” ‘Ubādah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit stood up and repeated the story. He said, “We will relate what we heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ even if Mu‘āwiyah dislikes it! – or ‘in spite of him’. I do not care. I accompanied him in his army on a dark night.”’ Ḥammād said this or something similar to it.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, ‘It is related that the story concerned Abu-d-Dardā’ with Mu‘āwiyah. It is possible that that occurred to both of them together but the hadith on the custom is recorded from ‘Ubādah. It is what scholars rely on regarding the subject of usury. There is no disagreement that what Mu‘āwiyah did is not permitted and it is not denied that Abu-d-Dardā’ and ‘Ubādah knew something that was unknown to Mu‘āwiyah. They were respected men among the fuqahā’ of the Companions and two of their great men. Certain things were unknown to Abū Bakr and ‘Umar while they were known to lesser men and the same holds true for Mu‘āwiyah. It is also possible that his position was that of Ibn ‘Abbās who was an ocean of knowledge but did not see anything wrong in two dirhams for one until Abū Sa‘īd dissuaded him from it. The incident of Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Ubādah took place while he was governor for ‘Umar. Qabīṣah ibn Dhu’ayb said, “Ubadah objected to something Mu‘āwiyah did and said, “I will not live in the same land as you!” and went back to Madīnah. ‘Umar asked him, “What has brought you here?” and he told him. He said, “Go back to your place. May Allah make ugly a land which does not contain you and those like you.” He wrote to Mu‘āwiyah, “You have no authority over him.”’

The Imams (and the wording is that of ad-Dāraquṭnī) related from ‘Alī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Dinar for dinar and dirham for dirham with no disparity between them. Anyone who needs silver should buy it with gold. If he needs gold, he should buy it with silver, thus and thus.’ Scholars say that this indicates the genus of the coins. Silver is both white and black and gold is red and yellow. None of that can be exchanged except like for like, same for same, in every case. This is the position of the majority of the people of knowledge. The transmission from Mālik about minor coins of base metal (fulūs) varies. He at times compared them to dirhams since they are used to pay for things, while at other times he forbade doing that since they are not currency in every land and vary from one land to another.

There is no consideration given to one view which is related from several Mālikīs which some relate from Mālik, that when a merchant is preparing to leave and requires minted dirhams or dinars, he can take his silver or gold bullion to the mint and tell the minter, ‘Take this silver or gold of mine and take out the fee for your work and give me minted dinars for my gold or minted dirhams for my silver because I am preparing to leave and I fear I will miss the people I am travelling with,’ and that that is permitted due to necessity, and it is something which some people have to do. Ibn al-‘Arabī related it in what he took from Mālik about someone other than a merchant and said that Mālik lightened the usual ruling in that case. The form of this transaction is that he sells his silver which weighs a hundred dirhams, adding five extra as the fee for minting, for a hundred. This is pure usury. A transaction which would be permissible would be if he told him, ‘Mint this for me,’ and then separately gives him the wage for it. When he mints it, he takes the whole amount from him and pays him the wage for doing it.

What Mālik did first is what he did last. Mālik looked at the outcome and on that basis made the judgement for the present circumstances. The rest of the fuqahā’ reject it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Mālik’s argument concerning it is clear.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘This is the same usury which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade when he said, “Anyone who increases or asks for increase practises usury.”’ Ibn Wahb denied that this was Mālik’s position and denied it himself. Al-Abharī claimed that it was out of compassion in seeking trade and so that the market was not missed, and the ruling of usury is only applicable against someone who desires an increase and intends that. Al-Abharī forgets Mālik’s basic principle of cutting off the means to wrong (sadd adh-dharā‘ī), including his position about someone who sells a garment, which he has no intention of rebuying, on credit and then finds it being sold in the market: he is not permitted to buy it for less than the amount he sold it for, even if he did not intend or desire that originally. Such examples are numerous. If usury only existed in a transaction when someone actually intended it, it would only be made unlawful for the fuqahā’ [who would possess the necessary perspicacity to recognize it in the transaction]. ‘Umar said, ‘No one should trade in our market except someone with fiqh. Otherwise he will practise usury.’ This is clear to anyone who is fair and inspired to right guidance.

Mālik went to great lengths to prevent forbidden increase, and so he considered something merely suspect to be the same as actual usury. He forbade exchanging a dinar and dirham for a dinar and dirham in order to block the means and to cut off suspicion, since they would not be exchanged except with some increase in mind. The reason for prohibiting that is the impossibility of making an equal distribution. It is exchanging gold and silver for gold, and it is evident that the intrinsic disparity in such an exchange is forbidden. Furthermore, he forbade exchanging a dinar of fine gold and a dinar of base gold [for two dinars of medium quality, because it is as if he considered the medium quality dinar] to correspond to the good quality one and considered the poor quality one negligible. This demonstrates the acuteness of his investigation into the matter and indicates that that transmission about paying extra for minting should be rejected and is not sound, and Allah knows best.

Al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘Bullion is pieces of gold and silver before they are minted.’ ‘Ayn (specie) are minted dirhams and dinars. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade selling a mithqāl of gold coins for slightly over a mithqāl of unminted gold bullion, and he forbade a disparity between minted silver and unminted silver. He said, ‘Bullion and coins have the same ruling.’

Scholars agree that dates for dates can only be like for like. They disagree about selling one date for two dates and one grain of wheat for two. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, and ath-Thawrī forbid it. That is analogous to the position of Mālik. It is sound because if there is usury in a lot of something, then a little of it is included in the ruling by analogy. Those who permit that argue that when only one or two dates are consumed, they have no price because they cannot be weighed or measured and therefore disparity is permitted.

Know that the issues concerning this subject are numerous and its secondary rulings widespread. A measure of that can be gained by looking at what each of the scholars consider to be the legal reason (‘illah) behind the prohibition of usury. Abū Ḥanīfah said that the reason is because it is a weighed or measured category. So in his view all that is subject to measurement or weight consists of one category. It is not permitted to sell some of it for the same category with disparity or with delay. So he forbids selling dirt for dirt with disparity because it can be measured, but permits one loaf of bread for two loaves because he does not think it falls under measurement which is its basis and so he removes it from a genus in which usury can exist.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that the reason is that it is a category of food. This is his position in his new school. So he does not permit selling flour for bread or bread for bread with disparity or delay, whether the bread is leavened or unleavened. He thinks that it is not permitted to sell one egg for two, one pomegranate for two, or one melon for two melons, either hand to hand or with delay because all of those are consumable foods. In his old school, he said that the reason was that the prohibition was based on its being weighed or measured.

What the Mālikīs say about this matter varies. The best of what is said about it is that foodstuffs which can be stored form a general category, like wheat, barley, dates, and salt for which there is a text, as well as similar items like rice, millet, sorghum, sesame, and legumes like broad beans, lentils, cowpeas, and chickpeas. The same holds for conserved meats, milks, vinegars, oils and fruits like grapes, raisins, and olives. There is disagreement about figs. Honey and sugar are added to them. Usury can occur with all of those things with delay, but disparity is permitted in them by the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘When these categories are different, sell however you wish if it is hand to hand.’ There is no usury in respect of fresh fruits which are perishable, like apples, melons, pomegranates, pears, cucumbers, aubergines and other vegetables. Mālik said, ‘It is not permitted to sell eggs for eggs with disparity because they can be stored.’ He permits like for like. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said, ‘It is permitted to sell one egg for two or more because they are not stored.’ That is the position of al-Awzā‘ī.

Grammarians disagree about the word ‘ribā’ (usury). The Basrans say that its root has a wāw because the dual is ribawān. Sībawayh said that. The Kufans say that it is written with a yā’ and the dual has a yā’ because of the kasrah at the beginning of the word. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘I have not seen an error worse than this or uglier than this! They are not satisfied with just an error in script; they even err in the dual!’ in spite of the fact that they recite: “What you give with usurious intent, aiming to get back a greater amount from people’s wealth, does not become greater (yarbū with wāw) with Allah.” (30:39) Muḥammad ibn Yazīd said that ‘ribā’ is written with a wāw in the muṣḥaf to distinguish it from zinā. It is more appropriate for ribā to have a wāw because it is from the verb rabā, yarbū.

will not rise (from the grave) except as someone driven mad by Shayṭān’s touch.

‘Lā yaqūmūna’ (they will not rise) here refers to rising from the grave according to Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, Ibn Jubayr, Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, as-Suddī, and Ibn Zayd. One of them said, ‘Allah appoints a shayṭān to choke him.’ They all said, ‘He will be raised like a madman to punish him and make him hated by all the people in the Gathering.’ This agreed-upon interpretation is strengthened by the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd which is: ‘They will not rise on the Day of Rising except as someone rises...’

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The words of the āyah contain a simile for the state of someone who engages in trade in this world with avarice and greed, comparing him to a madman, because greed and desire affect him to the extent that his limbs become disordered. This is like when you say, “He’s mad!” about someone walking quickly whose movements are addled, either by anxiety or something else.’ The poet al-A‘shā likened the movements of a camel to madness. However, the reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd and the mutually supporting positions of commentators make this interpretation weak.

‘Driven mad’ (yatakhabbaṭuhu) is Form V of the verb khabaṭa. Allah will make this disorder a sign of practising usury. That is because He enlarges the usury in their bellies and it makes them heavy, so when they rise from their graves they will stand and then fall over. It is said that they will be raised on the Day of Rising with their bellies inflated like pregnant women and whenever they stand, they will fall down and people will walk over them. Some scholars say that that is the sign by which they will be known on the Day of Rising and then punishment comes after that. The image of ‘eating’ is used here for the practice of usury because consumption is the greatest goal of a person in property, and it also indicates greed, which is the severest form of avarice. So one of the consequences of earning takes the place of all earning, and clothing, dwelling, storing and spending on dependants is all included in ‘eating’ (akl), which is here translated as ‘practise’.

This āyah contains evidence against those who deny that epilepsy is from the jinn and claim that it is natural and that Shayṭān does not move inside a person nor touch him. The refutation of this has already been discussed earlier. An-Nasā’ī related that Abu-l-Yasār said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to make the following supplication: “O Allah, I seek refuge with You from falling from a high place, being crushed by a falling building, drowning, and burning. I seek refuge with You from being touched by Shayṭān at the time of death. I seek refuge with you from being killed in Your cause while retreating. I seek refuge with You from dying from a sting.”’ It is related from Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā from Abū Dāwūd from Hammām from Qatādah from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ used to say, ‘O Allah, I seek refuge with You from madness, leprosy, white leprosy, and evil diseases.’ Mass means madness. One says that a man is ‘touched’ (mussa, alisa, mamsūs and mal’ūs).

That is the form usury will take in the Next World. It is related in the hadith of the Night Journey: ‘I was taken by Jibrīl and passed by some men each of whom had a belly like a great house. They were in the path of the people of Pharaoh. The people of Pharaoh are exposed to the Fire morning and evening. They advance like camels maddened by thirst, trampling on stones and trees, not hearing or understanding. When the people with those bellies are aware of them, they stand up, but their bellies make them fall. When any of them stands up, his belly pulls him over and he falls. They cannot leave and then the people of Pharaoh envelop them, trampling them front and back. That is their punishment in the Interspace between this world and the Next. The people of Pharaoh are saying, “O Allah, let the Final Hour never come!” Allah Almighty says: “On the Day the Hour takes place: ‘Admit Pharaoh’s people to the harshest punishment!’” (40:46) I said, “Jibrīl, who are they?” He answered, “They are those who consumed usury who will only rise as someone driven mad by Shayṭān’s touch.”’ Mass is insanity.

That is because they say, ‘Trade is the same as usury.’

With all commentators this refers to the unbelievers and they are told to keep that which they received in the past. This is not what is said to a disobedient believer. He should cancel his sale and cancel what he did when he was ignorant of the prohibition. That is why the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If anyone does an action which is not part of our business, it is rejected.’ The threat implicit in this āyah includes those who are disobedient.

They say that the increase at the end of the term is based on the price at the beginning of the contract. This is because of the way that the Arabs understood usury. When a debt was due, they would tell the debtor, ‘Either you pay it or you increase it,’ i.e. the amount of the debt. Allah says that that is unlawful and refutes them by saying: ‘But Allah has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury.’ It is clear that when the terms ends and someone cannot pay it, he is given a deferral. This usury is what the Prophet ﷺ cancelled when he stated on the Day of ‘Arafah, ‘All usury is cancelled, and the first usury I cancel is our usury, that of ‘Abbās ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib. It is all cancelled.’ He began with his uncle and singled him out. This is one of the customs which demonstrates justice in a ruler: to impose justice on himself and those close to him, and then on people in general.

But Allah has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury.

This is one of the generally applicable (‘āmm) āyahs in the Qur’an. The definite article before the word ‘trade’ (al-bay‘) is to indicate the genus, not to make it definite, since there is no prior mentioned trade to which it can refer. So trade is general, and then the usurious transactions we have mentioned and other things which are mentioned as being forbidden are specified. Such things include wine, carrion, a transaction known as ḥabal al-ḥabalah and other things confirmed in the Sunnah and by the consensus of the Community. This is similar to ‘kill the idolaters’ (10:5) and other literal statements which are necessarily generally applicable but which are then made specific. This is the position of most of the fuqahā’. Some say that this āyah is included in the undefined (mujmal) parts of the Qur’an which, in turn, is further described by what is lawful and unlawful in sales, and so it is not possible to use it to make a sale lawful or unlawful unless that is accompanied by some clarification from the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. It indicates the permissibility of sales in general, not particular transactions. This is the difference between ‘āmm and mujmal. The ‘āmm indicates the permissibility of sales in general when there is no evidence of a specific factor making them prohibited. The mujmal does not indicate the permissibility of the specific unless there is definite evidence of permissibility. The first is sounder, and Allah knows best.

Linguistically ‘bay‘’ (trade) is a verbal noun of the verb ‘bā‘a’ (to sell), meaning to give goods and take something in return. It stipulates a seller, who is the owner or one who acts on his behalf, and a buyer, who is the one who pays the price, and the goods which are paid for. So the pillars of the sale are four: seller, buyer, price, and thing paid for. Then among the Arabs the reciprocal transaction varies according to those it is connected to. If it is in exchange for ownership, it is called a sale. If it is in exchange for the use of allowing sex, it is called marriage (nikāḥ). If it is in exchange for another use, it is called hire. If it is coin for coin, it is money-changing. If it is a deferred debt, it is an advance (salam). This will be explained in the Āyah of Debt. The ruling on hire will be dealt with in al-Qaṣaṣ. The ruling on dower in marriage will be dealt with in an-Nisā’.

The sale involves a verbal offer and verbal acceptance, however it is expressed. In Arabic, this involves the expression using the past tense, which is actual, and the future tense, which is an allusion. The sale can also be made binding by a commonly understood allusion by which ownership is transferred. This is as when someone says, ‘I have sold you these goods for ten dirhams,’ and the buyer says, ‘I have bought them.’ Or the buyer says, ‘I have bought it’ and the buyer says, ‘I have sold it to you.’ Or the seller says, ‘I will sell them to you for ten dirhams,’ and the buyer says, ‘I will buy them’ or ‘I have bought them.’ The same is true if he says, ‘Take this for ten,’ or ‘You will be blessed with them for ten,’ or ‘I have handed them over’ when both parties intend a sale. All of this is a binding sale. If the seller says, ‘I have sold them to you for ten,’ and then retracts that before the buyer accepts, he cannot retract until he hears the buyer either accept or reject that because he has obliged that on himself and said it and because the contract is not complete.

If the seller then says, ‘I was joking,’ what is transmitted about that varies. Sometimes it is said that the sale is binding and one does not pay attention to his statement, and sometimes it is said that one looks at the value of the goods. If the price is similar to its value, then the sale is binding. If there is a great disparity, like selling a slave for a dirham or a house for a dinar, it is known that he did not intend a sale by that and was joking. So it is not binding.

A usurious contract is void and is never permitted since the Imams related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī: ‘Bilāl brought some Barni dates and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked him, “Where are these from?” Bilāl said, “From dates which we consider low quality. I exchanged two ṣā‘s of them for a ṣā‘ to feed the Prophet ﷺ.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Oh! usury itself! Do not do it, but if you want to buy dates, sell them in another sale and then buy them.”’ In one variant, ‘This is usury. Return them. Then sell our dates and buy for us from the price.’ The words ‘return them’ indicate that a usurious contract is void and not valid in any way. That is the position of the majority, except for Abū Ḥanīfah who said, ‘A usurious sale is permitted in as far as it is a sale, but forbidden since it entails usury. If the usury is removed, then the sale is permitted.’ If this had been the case, then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would not have voided the sale and would have merely commanded that the extra amount be returned and validated the transaction of the ṣā‘.

Any sale which is clearly ḥarām is null and void and so the buyer must return the goods themselves. If they have been lost while in his possession, he must return the price paid. This is the case with real estate, goods and animals. Mālik said that what is unclearly unlawful is returned, whether or not it has gone.

Whoever is given a warning by his Lord

Ja‘far aṣ-Ṣādiq said, ‘Allah forbade usury so that people would lend to one another.’ Ibn Mas‘ūd reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A loan is worth twice what ṣadaqah is worth.’ Some people said that Allah forbade it because it destroys wealth and thereby destroys people.

‘Ā’ishah recited this āyah when she was told about what Zayd ibn Arqam had done. Ad-Dāraquṭnī reported from al-‘Āliyyah bint Anfa‘: ‘Umm Muḥibbah and I went to Makkah and we visited ’A’ishah and greeted her. She asked, “Who are you?” We said, “We are from the people of Kufa.” It was as if she turned away from us and Umm Muḥibbah said to her, “Umm al-Mu’minīn, I had a slave-girl and I sold her to Zayd ibn Arqam al-Anṣārī for eight hundred dirhams against his stipend. He wanted to sell her and then I bought her for six hundred dirhams cash.” She turned to us and said, “Evil is what you sold and what you bought! Tell Zayd that he has nullified his jihād with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ unless he repents!” She asked her, “What do you think of the transaction if I only take the capital from him?” She recited: “Whoever is given a warning by his Lord and then desists, may keep what he received in the past.”’ Al-‘Ālīyah was the wife of Abū Isḥāq al-Ḥamdānī al-Kūfī as-Sabī‘ī, Umm Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq.

Mālik relates this hadith in the transmission of Ibn Wahb regarding credit sales. If something leads to falling into the forbidden, then it is forbidden, even if it is outwardly a permissible sale. In this principle, Mālik differed from other fuqahā’ who said, ‘Rulings are based on the outward, not a supposition.’ Our evidence is the position of ‘blocking the means’ (sadd adh-dharā‘i’). If the transaction is safe, we deduce its soundness, as already stated. This hadith is a definitive text. What ‘Ā’ishah said for Zayd was only to deter him, since such things are not a matter of opinion. Nullification of actions can only be known by revelation.

We read in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stated, ‘The ḥalāl is clear and the ḥarām is clear. But between the two there are doubtful things about which most people have no knowledge. Whoever exercises caution with regard to what is doubtful, shows prudence in respect of his dīn and his honour. Whoever gets involved in the doubtful things is like a herdsman who grazes his animals near a private preserve (ḥimā). He is bound to enter it. Every king has a private preserve and the private preserve of Allah on His earth are the things that He has made forbidden.’

The legal sense of this, in terms of evidence, is that he forbade doing doubtful things out of the fear of falling into the forbidden and it is that which constitutes the legal principle of ‘blocking the means’ (sadd adh-dharā‘i’). The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘One of the major wrong actions is for a man to abuse his parents.’ They said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, is it possible for a man to abuse his parents?’ He replied, ‘He may curse another man’s father who in turn curses his father, and curse his mother and he in turn curses his mother.’ So he made all allusion to cursing parents in general like cursing one’s own parents. The Prophet ﷺ, however, did curse the Jews when they consumed the price they obtained for selling what they were forbidden to eat.

In a letter, Abū Bakr said, ‘There must be no joining together of animals that are kept separately nor separation of animals that are kept together out of the fear of having to pay zakāt on them.’ Ibn ‘Abbās forbade dirhams for dirhams when combining them would lead to an offence. Scholars agree that it is forbidden to combine a sale and a loan, that a little wine is ḥarām, even if it does not intoxicate, that being alone with an unrelated woman is forbidden, even if a man is impotent, that it is forbidden to look at the face of a young woman, and several other things which are known to be definite. It is confirmed that the Sharī‘ah has forbidden them because they constitute the means to forbidden things. So it is more fitting that the potential causes of usury be defended against and the means to it blocked. If someone allows those means, he should allow digging wells and setting up ropes in situations where they might lead to the death of Muslim men and women. No one allows that.

There is also agreement that the ‘īnah sale is forbidden, and Allah is the One who grants success. Abū ‘Ubayd al-Ḥarawī explained an ‘īnah sale as being ‘a transaction in which someone sells goods to a man for a known price for a known term and then buys them back from him for less than the price for which he sold them.’ He said, ‘If he buys goods from someone else in the presence of the one who seeks the ‘īnah for a known price and then takes possession of them and then sells them to the one who seeks the ‘īnah for a higher price for a set term, and then the buyer buys them from the first seller for cash for a lower price, this is also ‘īnah, but less disliked than the first, and some permit it.’ It is called ‘īnah because of the presence of cash for the one with the ‘īnah, ‘ayn meaning ‘ready money’.

Abū Dāwūd reports that Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “When you sell by ‘īnah, follow the tails of cattle, are content to be farmers and abandon jihād, then Allah will impose abasement on you which will not be removed from you until you return to your dīn.”’ Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Khurāsānī says that the isnād of this hadith contains someone who is not well-known. Abū ‘Ubayd al-Harawī explained the ‘īnah sale and said, ‘It is that you sell some goods to a man for a known price due at a specified term and then you buy them from him for a lesser price than the price for which you sold them.’ He said, ‘If, in the presence of someone who desires an ‘īnah, someone buys goods from someone else for a known price and takes possession of them and then sells them to the one who desires an ‘īnah for a greater price than that for which he purchased them with a known period of credit, and then the buyer sells them to the first seller for cash less than the price, that too is an ‘īnah, but it is less disliked than the first kind. Some people permit it. It is called an ‘īnah because of the presence of cash. That is because of the presence of ready money and the buyer. He bought it in order to sell it for ready money which he receives immediately.’

Our scholars say that if someone sells goods for a price on credit and then buys them for the same sort of payment for which he sold them, he must buy them for cash or with a term less than the term for which he sold to them or for a longer term for the same price, or greater or less. These are three possible situations. In the first and second cases, the transaction is permitted if the price paid is the same or greater, but it is not permitted if the price is less, according to ‘Ā’ishah’s hadith. As for the third case, which is to sell them for a longer term, if he buys the goods themselves or more, it is permitted to do that for the same price or less, but not for more. If he buys some of it, it is only permitted for the same price, not more or less. Our scholars have specified seventy-seven points on this topic, but the nub of them is what we have mentioned.

He can keep what he received in the past

This refers to past usury and makes clear that there will be no consequences in this world or the Next. As-Suddī and others said that. This is the judgment of Allah for the unbelievers of Quraysh and Thaqīf and others who became Muslim who used to deal in usurious transactions before they were Muslim.

and his affair is Allah’s concern.

There are four interpretations of the pronoun ‘his’ here. One is that it is really ‘its’ and refers to usury, meaning the business of usury is subject to Allah’s command in making it unlawful or not. The second is that the pronoun refers to ‘what was in the past’ i.e. it is up to Allah to pardon that and remove its consequences. The third is that the pronoun refers to the usurer, meaning that his affair is up to Allah in making him firm in giving up usury or returning him to indulging in it. An-Naḥḥās preferred this position, saying that it is clear and good, i.e. his business is up to Allah in the future. If He wishes, He makes him firm in standing by the prohibition, and if He wishes, returning him to usurious transactions. The fourth is that the pronoun refers to what is forbidden (i.e. ‘its’ affair), but means to allow him to hope for the best.

But all who return to it

This means that they revert to usury before they die. Sufyān said that. Another said, ‘Whoever reverts and says that trade is like usury has disbelieved.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘We believe that the āyah is about the unbelievers, so being forever in the Fire is literal. In respect of the disobedient Muslim, it is metaphorical.’

Allah obliterates usury

In this world: meaning that He removes blessing (barakah) from usury, even if it is a lot. Ibn Mas‘ūd related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Even if usury is a lot, its end is little.’ It is said that it means in the Next World. Regarding these words, Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘Neither ṣadaqah, ḥajj, jihād nor gifts to relatives are accepted from a usurer.’ Maḥaqa (obliterating) has the meaning of ‘to decrease and vanish.’ The waning (maḥāq) of the moon is derived from the same root.

but makes ṣadaqah grow in value!

This means that He increases it in blessing in this world and makes its reward many times more in the Next World. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: ‘When someone gives ṣadaqah, Allah makes it grow, even if it is only a morsel of food, like one of you would raise his colt or foal until it comes on the Day of Rising the size of Uḥud.’

Allah does not love any persistently ungrateful wrongdoer.

An ungrateful person is also called a wrongdoer for emphasis. It is said that it is to remove any confusion about the word ‘ungrateful’ (kaffār) since the word can be used for a farmer who covers up the grain in the earth. Ibn Fūrak said that.

Those who believe and do right actions and establish the prayer and pay zakāt, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow.

Here Allah singles out the prayer and zakāt, even though they are no more than a component part of righteous deeds, to honour them and highlight their value since they are the best of actions: the prayer with respect to the body and the zakāt with respect to property.

You who believe! be fearful of Allah and forgo any remaining usury

Its outward meaning is that any uncollected usury is void, even if it was contracted before the revelation of the āyah of prohibition. It is said that this āyah was revealed because of Thaqīf. They made a treaty with the Prophet ﷺ that they would claim the usury which people owed them while the usury they owed others would be cancelled. When the terms of their usury were due, they sent to Makkah to settle them. The debts were against the Banū ‘Abdah, who are the Banū ‘Amr ibn ‘Umayr of Thaqīf, and the Banū al-Mughīrah of Makhzūm. The Banū Mughīrah said, ‘We will not give you anything. Usury has been abolished.’ They went to ‘Attāb ibn Usayd and he wrote about it to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the āyah was revealed. The Messenger of Allah then wrote it to ‘Attāb, and Thaqīf learned of it and refrained. This is the reason for the revelation of the āyah as was reported by Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Jurayj, as-Suddī and others. It means: place a screen between you and the punishment of Allah by abandoning any outstanding usury.

if you are believers.

This is a condition applying to Thaqīf because it was when they first became Muslim. We can suppose that, if the āyah is about those who affirm belief, it is a metaphorical condition, as you might say to someone who wants to establish himself, ‘If you are a man, then do such-and-such.’ An-Naqqāsh related Muqātil ibn Sulaymān said that the word ‘if’ here means ‘when’. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is not known linguistically. Ibn Fūrak said that it is impossible that it means the Prophets before Muḥammad ﷺ. ‘Forgo any remaining ribā if you believe’ in Muḥammad ﷺ since the first command is only of use if you believe. This is rejected by what is reported about the reason for the revelation of the āyah.

If you do not, know that it means war from Allah and His Messenger.

This is a threat to anyone who does not abandon usury. War calls for killing. Ibn ‘Abbās said that on the Day of Rising it will be said to the practiser of usury, ‘Take up your weapons for war.’ Ibn ‘Abbās also said, ‘If someone insists on usury and does not desist, it is a duty for the leader of the Muslims to ask him to repent. If he does not desist, he strikes off his head.’ Qatādah said, ‘Allah threatened the people of usury with killing and made them lawful for killing wherever they are found.’ It is said that the meaning is: ‘If you do not desist, you are at war with Allah and His Messenger,’ meaning you are their enemies. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘If the people of a land think usury to be lawful, they are apostates and the ruling regarding them is the same as that of the people of apostasy, and it is permitted for the ruler to fight them. Do you not see that Allah Almighty has announced that when He says: “…know that it means war from Allah and His Messenger”?’ Abū Bakr recited it from ‘Āṣim as ‘ādhinū’, meaning ‘inform others’.

Ibn Bukayr narrated, ‘A man came to Mālik ibn Anas and said, “Abū ‘Abdullāh, I saw a drunkard, who was a chronic drinker, who was trying to catch the moon. I said, ‘My wife is divorced if there is anything worse than wine which enters a man’s belly.’” He said, “Go away while I investigate your problem.” He came back to him the following day and he said the same thing. He came back the day after that and Mālik told him, ‘Your wife is divorced. I have examined the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ and I did not see anything worse than usury because Allah has proclaimed war on account of it.”’

This āyah indicates that practising usury and making use of it is one of the major wrong actions. There is no disagreement about that as we will make clear. It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A time will come upon people when there will not be anyone left who does not consume usury, and even one who does not consume it will be touched by its dust.”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Ḥanẓalah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A dirham of usury is worse in the sight of Allah than thirty-six wrongful acts of fornication.’ It is related that he said ﷺ, ‘Usury has ninety-nine gates, the least of which is like a man having sex with his mother.’

Ibn Mas‘ūd said, ‘Those who take usury, pay it, its witnesses and scribes if they know of it, are cursed on the tongue of Muḥammad ﷺ.’ Al-Bukhārī related that Abū Juḥayfah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the price of blood, the price of dogs, and the earnings of prostitutes, and cursed those who consume usury and those who pay it, the tattooer and women who are tattooed.’ In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abū Hurayrah reported, ‘Avoid the seven deadly wrong actions.’ Usury was one of them. In Abū Dāwūd from Ibn Mas‘ūd we find: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed those who take usury, those who pay it, its scribes and its witnesses.’

But if you sincerely repent, you may have your capital, without wronging and without being wronged.

Abū Dāwūd related that the father of Sulaymān ibn ‘Amr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say in the Farewell Hajj, “Every usurious transaction of the Jāhiliyyah is cancelled. You have your capital, not wronging or being wronged.”’ So when there is repentance, Allah returns to usurers their capital and tells them not to wrong others by taking any more usury and that they will not ‘be wronged’ by their capital being retained causing them to lose it. It is possible that ‘not being wronged’ refers to procrastination because the procrastination of the wealthy is wrongdoing. The meaning is that the capital debt is settled straight away while any usury is removed. This is the sunnah of righteousness, and is the closest thing to righteousness. Do you not see that when the Prophet ﷺ indicated to Ka‘b ibn Mālik to reduce the debt of Ibn Abī Ḥadrad by half, to which Ka‘b agreed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ told the other, ‘Get up and pay it.’ Scholars agree that the command referred to settling the debt. Reconciliation will be dealt with in an-Nisā’, Allah willing.

But if you sincerely repent you may have your capital,

This is to stress the invalidation of any usurious increase that is still outstanding, but permits receiving the capital in which there is no usury. Some scholars use this as evidence that anything that happens to the sale goods before they are received, which would oblige the prohibition of the contract, invalidates the contract, as when a Muslim buys game and then the buyer or seller assumes iḥrām before it is collected: the sale is forbidden because something has occurred which forbids the sale. Allah has invalidated what has not been collected because something has occurred which makes it forbidden before it has been collected. If it has already been collected before that happens, the sale is not affected. This is the school of Abū Ḥanīfah and the position of the Shāfi‘īs. It is used as evidence that the destruction of the goods before they are collected, and while they are still in the possession of the seller, obliges the cancellation of the contract, although, according to Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, some early scholars disagreed with this position.

This is in keeping with the position of those who say that a basic contract in which there is usury is permitted but then becomes invalidated by the ruling of Islam before it can be collected. As for those who forbid the usurious contract at its source, these words are not sound. That is because usury is forbidden in all religions, and what was done in the Jāhiliyyah was the custom of the idolaters, and the usury they took is the same as what they had gained by usurpation and looting, and so what they did is not considered.

According to this, it is not correct to call witnesses to any contract involving usury. The laws of the Prophets before us forbid usury, and this is well known and mentioned in the Book of Allah, as He relates about the Jews: ‘because of their practising usury when they were forbidden to do it.’ (4:161) Allah mentions in the story of Shu‘ayb that his people rejected that and said: ‘Do your prayers instruct you that we should abandon what our fathers worshipped or stop doing what we want to with our wealth?’ (11:87) So it is not valid to use testimony as evidence (i.e. for the validity of such contracts).

Some of the scrupulous who go to excess believe that when lawful property is mixed with the unlawful in such a way that it cannot really be separated, and then someone removes the unlawful amount mixed with it, what remains is not lawful or good, because the lawful might have been removed and the unlawful left. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘This is excess in the dīn. With respect to things that cannot be easily differentiated, what is desired is the value, not the thing itself. If it is destroyed, then its equivalent replaces it. Mixing is tantamount to destruction as the individual item cannot be differentiated.’ Allah knows best.

Our scholars say that the way to repent of unlawful property in one’s possession, if it is usury, is to return it to the person from whom it was taken and to seek him out if he is not present. If you despair of finding him, then you should give that amount away as ṣadaqah. If you took something through injustice, you should follow the same procedure in dealing with the one you wronged. If the matter is unclear to you, and you do not know how much is lawful and how much is unlawful, you should examine the amount and return an amount sufficient to preclude any doubt that any of the unlawful remains in your possession. You should return that to those you know you wronged and from whom you took usury. If you despair of finding them, you must give ṣadaqah on their behalf. If your wrongs take up all you have and you know that you are obliged to pay what you can never do because it is so great, then your repentance is to give all of your possessions either to the poor or for the best interests of the Muslims so that there only remains in your possession the minimum clothing necessary for the prayer and covering your private parts and food for the day.

In the eyes of most scholars there is a difference between this and someone who is bankrupt, because the one who is bankrupt did not take people’s property through transgression. They are the ones who go to him and so he is left with what will cover him in his normal dress. Abū ‘Ubayd and others, however, think that the ruling is the same and a bankrupt is only left with what will be enough for the prayer and to cover his private parts. Whenever he obtains anything, it is taken from him and he only keeps what we mentioned until he and those who know his state know that he has settled what he owes.

This āyah is a threat from Allah about usury, and a similar threat about sharecropping (mukhābarah) is reported from the Prophet ﷺ. Abū Dāwūd reported from Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn from Abū Rajā’ from Ibn Khaytham from Abu-z-Zubayr that Jarīr ibn ‘Abdullah said, ‘Allah and His Messenger announce war against someone who does not abandon mukhābarah.’ This is evidence for the prohibition of sharecropping, which is working land for a half, third or quarter of its produce. It is also called muzāra‘ah. All the Mālikīs, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and their followers and Dāwūd agree that it is not permitted to rent land for a third, a fourth, or part of its produce because that is unknown, although ash-Shāfi‘ī and his people and Abū Ḥanīfah say that it is permitted to rent land for food when what it produces is known, as it is known that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘As for something known and guaranteed, there is no harm in it.’ Muslim transmitted it. That is the position of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, while Mālik and his adherents forbid it.

That is also based on what Muslim related that Rāfi‘ ibn Khadīj said: ‘In the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ we used to let out the land for cultivation and we would rent it in return for a third, a fourth and a specified amount of food. One day one of my uncles came to us and said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ has forbidden us something which used to contain benefit for us, but obeying Allah and His Messenger is more beneficial for us. He forbade us to rent out the land for cultivation in return for a third, a fourth and a specified amount of food. He commanded the owner of the land to cultivate it or give it for cultivation.”’ He disliked renting it and the like of that.

It is agreed that it is not permitted to rent land in exchange for any type of food or drink because that would be tantamount to selling food for food on credit. Therefore renting land for any of what it produces is forbidden, even if that is not normally eaten or drunk, except in the case of wood, reeds and firewood, as they fall under the category of muzābanah in their view. This is recorded from Mālik and his adherents. Ibn Saḥnūn mentioned from al-Mughīrah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Makhzūmī al-Madanī that ‘There is no harm in renting land for food which is not produced from it.’ It is also related from al-Mughīrah that it is not permitted, as the rest of the Mālikīs say.

Ibn Ḥabīb mentioned that Ibn Kinānah used to say, ‘Land may not be rented for anything connected to any plants that it produces. There is nothing wrong in renting it for something else, whether it is something that it is eaten or not, and whether or not it is produced from it.’ Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā stated that. He said that it is one of the positions of Mālik. He said that Ibn Nāfi‘ said, ‘There is nothing wrong in renting land for anything, food or anything else, whether or not it is produced from it, except for wheat and similar grains. That is the muḥāqalah that is forbidden.’

Mālik said in the Muwaṭṭā’: ‘As for a man who gives his uncultivated land for a third or a fourth of what comes out of it, that is an uncertain transaction because crops may be scant on one occasion and plentiful at another time. The crops may perish completely and the owner of the land will have abandoned a set rent which it would have been good for him to rent the land for. He takes an uncertain amount and does not know whether or not it will be satisfactory. It is like a man having someone travel for him for a set amount and then saying, “Shall I give you a tenth of the profit of the journey as your wage?” This is not lawful and must not be done.’ Mālik said, ‘A man must not hire out himself or his land or his ship or his animal unless it is for a known set amount.’ That is also the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah and his people.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Layth, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad said that there is nothing wrong in giving a man land in exchange for a part of what it produces, like a third or a fourth. That is the position of Ibn ‘Umar and Ṭāwus. In their argument, they cited the story of Khaybar and the fact that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ employed its people for half of what the land produced and [half] of the fruit. Aḥmad said, ‘The hadith of Rāfi‘ ibn Khadīj about forbidding renting fields has confused wording and is not sound. It is more fitting to take the story of Khaybar which is a sound hadith.’

One group of the Tābi‘ūn and those after them allow giving a man a ship or a mount, as land is given, in exchange for a share of what Allah gives the person when working with it. They consider that the basis in that is the qirāḍ which is agreed about. It will be dealt with later in al-Muzzammil (73:20), Allah willing. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said about the position of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘We used to practise sharecropping (mukhābarah) and did not see any harm in that until Rāfi‘ ibn Khadīj informed us that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had forbidden it.’ It means that they used to rent land in exchange for part of what is produced. He said that that was abrogated by the sunnah of Khaybar.

Part of what verifies the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī that it was abrogated is what the imams related from Jābir. Ad-Dāraquṭnī reports it as: ‘The Prophet ﷺ forbade muḥāqalah, muzābanah, mukhābarah and selling fruits before their condition is known.’ Abū Dāwūd related that Zayd ibn Thābit said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the mukhābarah and I asked, “What is the mukhābarah?” He answered, “That you take land in exchange for a half, third or fourth [of what is produces].”’

Most recite ‘mā baqiya’ with the yā’ vowelled. Al-Ḥasan gives it a sukūn. This is frequently seen in poetry. [OMITTED] The reason is that the yā’ is like the alif and just as the vowel does not reach the alif, that is also the case with the yā’. Al-Ḥasan recite ‘mā baqā with alif which is the dialect of Ṭayy’ who use jarāh for jārīyah and nāṣāh for nāṣīyah.

Abu-s-Sammāl among the reciters recites ‘min ar-ribū’. Abu-l-Fatḥ ‘Uthmān ibn Jinnī said, ‘This variant is aberrant for two reasons. One is leaving the kasrah for the ḍammah, and the other is having the wāw after ḍammah at the end of the word.’ Al-Mahdawī said that the reason is that it intensifies the alif and takes it towards the wāw which the alif replaces. It should not be taken in other than this way since there is no noun with a silent wāw at the end preceded by a ḍammah. Al-Kisā’ī and Ḥamzah use imālah in ribā because of the place of the kasrah on the rā’. The rest make it emphatic by the fatḥah on the bā’.

Abū Bakr from ‘Āṣim and Ḥamzah recite ‘fādhinū’, meaning ‘announce to others’ and the object is elided. The rest recite ‘fadhānū,’ meaning ‘have notice’. It is like ‘I have a knowledge (innī ‘alā ‘ilm). Abū ‘Ubayd related it from al-Aṣma‘ī. Linguists related that it is said, ‘adhintu bihi idhnan,’ ‘I know it.’ Ibn ‘Abbās and other commentators say that it means: ‘be certain of war from Allah Almighty,’ and it has the meaning of authorisation. Abū ‘Alī and others preferred the reading with maddah. He said, ‘because when they are commanded to inform others who do not cease doing that, they have to know it themselves.’ He said that their informing them contains their own knowledge while their knowledge does not entail informing others. Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred the reading without maddah because it is specific to them. According to the reading with maddah, they were commanded to inform others.

All the reciters recite ‘lā taẓlimūna’ and ‘walā tuẓlamūna’. Al-Mufaḍḍal related from ‘Āṣim ‘lā tuẓlamūna walā taẓlimūna’ which is a reversal. Abū ‘Alī said, ‘The majority reading is preferred because it is in harmony with ‘if you repent’ in the two verbs depending on the subject.

280 If someone is in difficult circumstances, there should be a deferral until things are easier. But making a free gift of it would be better for you if you only knew.

If someone is in difficult circumstances,

After Allah has decreed that usurers should receive their capital back from those to whom they lent it, He decrees that the one experiencing hardship should be granted a delay until a time when things are easier for him. The reason for the revelation of this āyah is that when Thaqif asked for the property which was owed to them, the Banu-l-Mughīrah complained of hardship and said, ‘We have nothing,’ and asked for a delay until the time when their fruits would be ready for harvesting. Then this āyah was revealed.

The words of this āyah as well as Allah’s words: ‘If you repent you may have your capital’ (2:279) indicate that it is affirmed that someone owed a debt can ask for it from the debtor and is permitted to take property without his consent. This indicates that when a debtor refuses to settle the debt when he is able to do so, he is a wrongdoer. Allah Almighty says: ‘you may have your capital’ and so enabled people to seek their capital when it is not impossible for their debtor to pay it.

Al-Mahdawī and some scholars said. ‘This āyah abrogates what was done in the Jāhiliyyah by way of selling people as slaves who were unable to pay their debts.’ Makkī related that the Prophet ﷺ also instructed people to follow that practice at the beginning of Islam. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘If it is really confirmed that the Prophet ﷺ did that, then it was abrogated.’ Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī said, ‘A free man would be sold for a debt at the beginning of Islam, if he did not have enough property to settle his debts, until Allah abrogated that practice by His words: “If someone is in difficult circumstances, there should be a deferral until things are easier.”’ Their evidence is a hadith related by ad-Dāraquṭnī from Muslim ibn Khālid az-Zanjī from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ibn al-Baylamānī that Surrāq said, ‘I owed a man some money – or a debt – and he took me to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I did not have any money and so he bought me from him – or I was bought for him.’ Al-Bazzār transmitted it with this isnād. Muslim ibn Khālid az-Zanjī and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Baylamānī are not used as authoritative.

there should be a deferral until things are easier.

These words are general to all people. Anyone who is in difficulty is given a deferral. This is the position of Abu Hurayrah, al-Ḥasan and most of the fuqahā’. An-Naḥḥās said, ‘The best of what is said on this āyah is the position of ‘Aṭā’, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and ar-Rabī‘ ibn Khaytham. They said that the deferral applies to everyone who is in difficulty both in respect of usury and in respect of all other debts. This combines all the positions because it can be an abrogation revealed about usury and then become another more general ruling.’ Ibn ‘Abbās and Shurayḥ said that it is specific to usury and there is no deferral in other debts and dealings. A debtor must pay people what he owes or be imprisoned until he pays it. That is the position of Ibrāhīm [an-Nakha‘ī]. Their evidence is: ‘Allah commands you to return to their owners the things you hold on trust.’ (4:58) Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This position applies when is there is no pressing poverty. If there is poverty, the ruling is that a deferral should be imposed.’

If someone has a lot of debts and his creditors ask for their money, the judge can divest him of all his property and leave him with just his bare needs. Ibn Nāfi‘ related from Mālik that he is only left with what will conceal his private parts. The well-known position is that a debtor is left his normal clothing without excess and his cloak is not removed if he normally wears it, and the clothing of his wife is left. There is disagreement about selling his books if he is a scholar. He is not left a house or servant or Friday clothes unless they are inexpensive and, in such a case, it is forbidden to imprison him. The basis for that is: ‘If someone is in difficult circumstances, there should be a deferral until things are easier.’

The Imams related that Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī said, ‘A man experienced loss in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in respect of the produce which he sold and his debts mounted up. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Give ṣadaqah to him.” The people gave him ṣadaqah but that did not amount to enough to settle his debt. So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ told his creditors, “Take what you find and you may only have that.”’ In Abū Dāwūd we find: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not allow creditors more than the seizure of a debtor’s property.’ This is a definitive text. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not order debtors to be imprisoned or kept in confinement. According to Shurayḥ, the man concerned was Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal. This differs from the position of Abū Ḥanīfah who said that he is kept in close confinement if there is a possibility that he might have money. He is not forced to work as we mentioned. Success is by Allah.

A bankrupt person should be imprisoned, according to Malik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and others, until it becomes clear that he has no property. Mālik says that he should not be imprisoned if it is not suspected that he has hidden property and it is clear that he does not have anything. He should not be imprisoned if his difficulties are evident as we mentioned. If the property of a bankrupt man is collected, and then destroyed before it reaches its owner and can be sold, the bankrupt man is liable and the debt remains. If the qāḍī sells the property and keeps the price, and then the money is lost before the creditors get possession of it, they are responsible and the bankrupt man is free of further liability. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, however, says that the debtor is always liable until the money reaches the creditors.

‘Difficulties’ (‘usrah) refer to constricted circumstances due to lack of money. The name of the Army of Hardship (Jaysh al-‘Usrah) is taken from it. Naẓirah means a deferral. Maysarah is a verbal noun meaning ‘ease’. The copy of the Qur’an of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b has ‘dhā ‘usratin’ which would mean: ‘If the person who is the object of the demand is in hardship’. Al-A‘mash recited ‘mu‘siran’. Abū ‘Amr ad-Dānī said that Aḥmad ibn Mūsā said that that is how it is in the copy of the Qur’an of Ubayy ibn Ka’b. An-Naḥḥās, Makkī and an-Naqqāsh said, ‘According to this, the words of the āyah apply especially to the people who practice usury. If it is recited with “dhū”, it is general to all of those who owe a debt.’ Al-Mahdawī said that ‘Uthmān’s copy of the Qur’an had ‘fa-in’, but al-Mu‘tamir related that ‘Uthmān’s copy had ‘wa-in’ with ‘dhā’, which an-Naḥḥās mentioned.

Most recite ‘deferral’ as ‘naẓirah’ while Mujāhid, Abū Rajā’ and al-Ḥasan recited ‘naẓrah’, which is a dialect of Tamīm. They say ‘karm’ for ‘karam’ and ‘kabd’ for ‘kabid’. Nāfi‘ alone reads ‘until things are easier’ as maysurah while the others read it as maysarah. An-Naḥḥās related from Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’ ‘nāẓirhu’ as a command and ‘maysurihī’. Abū Ḥātim said that the reading of nāẓiratun is not permitted. Rather it is in an-Naml (27:35) because the woman said it about herself, from the verb naẓara, meaning she is waiting. Here in al-Baqarah, it is about deferral in respect of a debt, as we also see in 15:36. Abū Isḥāq az-Zajjāj permits that and says that it is a verbal noun as seen with other verbs throughout the Qur’an.

But making a free gift of it would be better for you if you only knew.

Here Allah recommends that ṣadaqah be given to a person faced with difficulties and makes that better than granting a deferral. As-Suddī, Ibn Zayd and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said that. Aṭ-Ṭabarị and others said that the meaning of the āyah is, ‘That you make it a free gift to both rich and poor is better for you.’ The sound position is the first one. There is nothing about the rich in the āyah.

Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī mentioned that Buraydah ibn al-Khaṣīb reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone grants time to a person in difficulties, he is considered to have given ṣadaqah on every day [of the deferral].’ He said, ‘It is ṣadaqah for every day until the debt is due. When he defers it after it is due, he is considered to have given the same amount in ṣadaqah for every day.’ Muslim reported that Abū Mas‘ūd narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A man among those before you underwent the reckoning and no good at all was found for him except that, being a wealthy man, he used to do business with people and used to order his employees to make allowances for anyone in difficulties. So Allah, the Mighty and Exalted, said, “We have more right to do that than you,” and he was pardoned.’

It is related from Abū Qatādah that he looked for a debtor of his who was trying to hide and found him. The man said, ‘I am in difficulties.’ ‘By Allah?’ Abu Qatadah asked. ‘By Allah.’ he said. Abū Qatādah said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “Whoever wants Allah to save him from the calamity of the Day of Rising should give more time to someone in financial difficulties or absolve him.”’ We find in a long hadith that Abu-l-Yasār Ka‘b ibn ‘Amr heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘If someone gives more time to someone in difficulties or reduces the amount he owes, Allah will shade him in His shade.’ There are many hadiths which encourage doing that. The hadith reported by Abū Qatādah indicates that if the creditor knows that the debtor is in difficulty, or even suspects it, it is forbidden for him to demand payment from him, even if that has not been proven before a judge. A delay is granted to the one in difficulty until a time when he is in better circumstances. Reducing it is to cancel responsibility for the debt. Both ideas are included in the example of Abu-l-Yasār with his debtor when he said, ‘Pay it if you find the means to do so. Otherwise you are free.’

281 Be fearful of a Day when you will be returned to Allah. Then every self will be paid in full for what it earned. They will not be wronged.

It is said that this āyah was revealed nine days before the death of the Prophet ﷺ and that nothing else was revealed after it. Ibn Jurayj said that. Ibn Jubayr and Muqātil said it was seven days before his death. Three days is also mentioned. It is related that it was three hours before his death, and the Prophet ﷺ ordered, ‘Put it between the āyahs of usury and the āyah of the debt.’ Makkī reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Jibrīl came to me and said put it after āyah 280.’

It is related from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Ibn ‘Abbās and Qatādah that the last āyah to be revealed was: ‘A Messenger has come to you from yourselves.’ (9:128). The first position is more commonly reported, sounder and better known. It is related that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The last āyah to be revealed was: “Be fearful of a Day when you will be returned to Allah. Then every self will be paid in full for what it earned. They will not be wronged.” Jibrīl told the Prophet. “Muḥammad! Put it at the end of āyah: 280 of al-Baqarah.”’ Abū Bakr al-Anbārī mentioned in Kitāb ar-Radd that the position of Ibn ‘Umar was that this was the last āyah to be revealed and the Prophet ﷺ lived twenty-one days after it. This will be dealt with in 110:1.

The āyah is a warning to all people and a command encouraging every human being. ‘Day’ is in the accusative as the object, not as an adverb, and ‘when you will be returned to Allah’ describes it. Abū ‘Amr recited ‘returned’ as ‘tarji‘ūna’ ‘you will return’, also see in 88:25, which reflects the reading of Ubayy (taṣīrūna) instead of ‘turja‘ūna’ as in 8:62 and 18:36 which the rest have and which reflects the meaning of ‘Abdullāh (turaddūna). Al-Ḥasan recited ‘yurja‘ūna’ which means ‘all people will be returned’. Ibn Jinnī said, ‘It is as if Allah is showing kindness to the believers by directly addressing them when He mentions the return, since that is what awakens the hearts. He makes a grammatical change to the third person, which is also out of kindness to them.’

The majority of scholars say that the day referred to is the Day of Rising and Reckoning, while some people say that it is the day a person dies. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that the first is sounder because of the context.

There is an implied elision: ‘you will be returned to the judgment and decision of Allah.’ ‘They’ here means ‘all people’. This āyah conveys to us that reward or punishment is connected to actions and so it refutes the Jabriyyah, as we already mentioned.

282 You who believe! when you take on a debt for a specified period, write it down. A writer should write it down between you justly. No writer should refuse to write; as Allah has taught him, so he should write. The one incurring the debt should dictate and should be fearful of Allah his Lord and not reduce it in any way. If the person incurring the debt is incompetent or weak or unable to dictate, then his guardian should dictate for him justly. Two men among you should act as witnesses. But if there are not two men, then a man and two women with whom you are satisfied as witnesses; then if one of them is confused, the other can remind her. Witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon. Do not think it too trivial to write down, whether small or large, with the date that it falls due. Doing that is more just in Allah’s sight and more helpful when bearing witness and more likely to eliminate any doubt – unless it is an immediate transaction hand to hand, taken and given without delay. There is nothing wrong in your not writing that down. Call witnesses when you trade. Neither writer nor witness should be put under pressure. If you do that, it is deviancy on your part. Be fearful of Allah and Allah will give you knowledge. Allah has knowledge of all things.

You who believe! when you take on a debt

Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘I heard that the closest āyah in time in relation to the Āyat al-Kursī was the āyah of the Debt.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This āyah was revealed specifically about the salam sale,’ meaning the fact that the people of Madīnah used the salam sale was the reason for the revelation of the āyah. Then it applied to all those with mutual debt obligations. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said that the āyah contains thirty rulings. Some of our scholars use it as evidence for the permission to put a term on loans according to what Mālik said, since there is no difference between a loan and any other contract which involves debts. The Shāfi‘īs disagree with that and say that the āyah does contain permission for delay on all debts. The command is for there to be witnesses if the debt has a set term. Then there is other evidence for the permissibility or prohibition of deferment with respect to debts.

The word ‘dayn’ (debt) is stress, and it is the correct term for any transaction in which one person is owed cash and the other is granted a delay. The word ‘ayn in Arabic refers to what is immediate and dayn refers to what is absent. A poet says:

She promised us nabīdh for two dirhams. Immediate wine is not a debt.

Another said:

The fates take me wherever they wish,

wherever they desire to put me in the grave,

Or they kindle wood and fire. That death is then cash and not a debt.

Allah made this clear by saying ‘for a specified period’.

for a specified period

Ibn al-Mundhir said that this indicates that a salam sale without a known term is not permitted. The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ indicates something similar to the Book of Allah. It is confirmed that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came to Madīnah they used to give advances against fruit for two or three years ahead. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Whoever gives an advance on dates, should give an advance for a known measure and known weight for a known term.’ Ibn ‘Abbas related it and al-Bukhārī, Muslim and others transmitted it.

Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘The people of the Jāhiliyyah used to sell meat to one another for the ḥabal al-ḥabalah (the offspring of a pregnant camel).’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade them to do that. All scholars agree that the permitted salam sale is when a man gives an advance to his companion of known defined food with a known measure for a known term in known dinars or dirhams and the transaction is made before they leave the place. Our scholars say that the date set for when a salam becomes due can be the harvest, cutting of the fruit, or the festivals of Nayrūz or Mihrajān [New Year or the autumn equinox] since that is a particular time.

Our scholars define the salam sale as being a known sale on credit for goods which are defined for ready money or what has the same ruling for a known term. It must be known and anything unknown must be avoided. For instance, in Madīnah at the time the Prophet ﷺ came to them they used to give credit and make a loan on the basis of the expected fruits of the date-palms, and the Prophet ﷺ forbade them to do that because of the uncertainty inherent in it, since the trees might not produce anything.

‘Defined’ means in general, not in detail, as the sale can be for dates, garments or fish while their category or specific description is not mentioned. ‘Ready money’ is specified to avoid a debt in exchange for a debt. ‘What has the same ruling’ is to exclude two or three days in which it is permitted to delay the capital of the salam. We believe that it is permitted to delay it for that amount with or without the precondition of its proximity, but it is not permitted to stipulate that. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and al-Kūfī do not permit a delay in the capital of the salam after the time of the contract and separation. They thought that that was like money-changing. Our evidence is that the two areas are different because of their particular description. Money-changing has a narrow remit but many preconditions which differs from the salam. There are more doubtful elements in transactions. Allah knows best. ‘A known term’ avoids the immediate salam which is not permitted according to the well-known position. Making the term known avoids having an unknown term which is what they used to do in the Jāhiliyyah.

Salaf and salam have the same meaning and they are both found in hadiths, however the term salaf can be used for a loan (qarḍ). It is agreed that the salam is one of the permissible business transactions, except for the Prophet’s prohibition of selling what you do not have. There is an allowance in the salam, because when the salam is a known sale which is a debt, it is the sale of something absent which is required by necessity on the part of each of those involved in the transaction. If the owner of the capital needs to buy fruit and the one with the fruit needs the price before they are clear in order to spend it on them, it becomes evident that the salam sale is a necessary benefit. Fuqahā’ call it ‘the sale of the needy’. If it was permitted immediately, this wisdom would be invalidated and the benefit removed and the exception about selling what is not in your possession would be pointless. Allah knows best.

There are nine preconditions of the salam which are both agreed upon and disputed. Six concern the object of the salam and three concern the capital. The object of the salam is that it is a debt which is owed, it is described, it is a specific amount, it is due in the future, the time when it is due is known and that it will exist when that time arrives. The three which concern the capital which are agreed upon is that it is known category, amount and cash. These are agreed upon with the exception of cash.

Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘As for the first condition, that it is a debt which is owed, there is no lack of clarity that what is meant is that it is something for which one is liable because it is a debt transaction. If it had not been for that, the person concerned would not have entered a debt and people would not have been directed to it in profit and kindness.’ People agree on this position although Mālik said that a person is only permitted a salam on something specific with two conditions: one is that it is in a secure town and the other that it has begun to be taken, like milk from a sheep and fresh dates from a palm tree. He is the only one who stated that.

These two questions are sound in evidence because a specific article is forbidden in a salam out of fear of muzābanah and uncertainty so that it will not be difficult in the place. When that place is safe, and it is usually not difficult for it to exist in that place, then it is permitted, since there is no certainty of the guarantee of ends in legal questions. There must be the possibility of a small risk. That is frequently seen in secondary issues in the books of legal issues.

As for a salam in respect of milk and fresh dates which have started to be taken, it is a Madinan question about which the people of Madīnah agreed. It is based on the principle of public welfare because a person needs to take milk and dates on a daily basis and it is hard to take them every day anew because the cash may not be present and the prices fluctuate. Those who own palm trees and milk need cash because they have goods that are not exchanged. Then when both parties share in the need, there is an allowance for them to engage in this transaction, based on it being analogous with ‘ārīyahs and other basic needs and benefits.

The second condition is that it is described, and that is agreed upon as is the third condition. How it is measured can be in one of three ways: volume, weight or number. That is based on custom, either what is known by the people or what is known in the Sharī‘ah.

There is disagreement about the fourth condition, which is that it is due in the future. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that an immediate salam is permitted. Most scholars forbid it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘The Mālikīs are unsettled about the length of the term, even referring it to a day, so that some of our scholars actually say that an immediate salam is permitted. What is sound is that there must be a term because sales are one of two sorts: immediate, which is the basis, or deferred. If it is immediate and there is no salam in it, then it is selling what is not in your possession. There must be a term so every contract has its description and preconditions and so that the rulings of the Sharī‘ah are in their proper places and definitions. According to our scholars, its definition varies according to its market. Allah says: ‘a specified period’ and the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘a known term.’ That requires no discussion.

That which our scholars permit in respect of the immediate salam is about things that have different prices in different towns. So a salam between them is permitted in one, two or three days. If it is in the same town, then that is not the case because the price will be the same. Allah knows best.

The fifth condition is that it be a known term and there is disagreement in the community about that. Since Allah and His Prophet ﷺ have described that. Only Mālik among all the fuqahā’ of the cities permits selling until harvest and cutting because he saw that it was known. This was already discussed in 2:189.

The sixth condition is that it exists in the place. There is no disagreement in the community about that either. If the object of the sale ceases to exist in the place where the term is by something coming from Allah, then all scholars say that the sale is void.

It is not a precondition of the salam that the one who takes is the owner of the goods. There was some disagreement about this among the Salaf based on what al-Bukhārī related that Muḥammad ibn al-Mujālid said, ‘‘Abdullāh ibn Shaddād and Abū Burdah sent me to ‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Awfā and told me, “Ask him whether in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, the Companions of the Prophet used to make advance payment for wheat.” ‘Abdullāh said, “We used to make advance payments to the peasants of the people of Syria for wheat, barley, and oil for a specified measure and for a specified time.” I asked, “To the person who possessed the crop?” He answered, “We did not ask about that.” Then they sent me to ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Abzā and I asked him. He answered, “The Companions of the Prophet ﷺ used to make advance payments in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and we did not ask them whether they had the crops or not.”’

Abū Ḥanīfah stipulated the existence of the object of the salam from the time of the contract to the time of the end of the term set, fearing that it would be demanded and not be present and that would amount to risk. The other fuqahā’ differed from him and said that what one considers is its existence at the end of the term. The Kufans and ath-Thawrī stipulated that the place of taking possession be mentioned in respect of things that have to be transported with effort. They said that the salam is unsound if the place of taking possession is not mentioned. Al-Awzā‘ī said that it is disliked. We believe that if it is not mentioned, then the contract is not unsound, and the place of taking possession is specified. Aḥmad, Isḥāq and a group of the people of hadith said that, based on the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās in which he did not mention the place where the salam was taken. If that had been one of the preconditions, then the Prophet ﷺ would have made it clear as he made the measure, weight and term clear. That is like what Ibn Abī Awfā said.

Abū Dāwūd related from Sa‘d (aṭ-Ṭā‘ī) from ‘Aṭiyyah ibn Sa‘d from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone pays in advance, he must not transfer what he has paid for to someone else before he receives it.’ Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥaqq ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘He is al-‘Awfī, and no one considers his hadiths as authoritative, even if esteemed people related from him.’ Mālik said, ‘The business with us is that if someone buys food for a known price to be delivered at a stated date, and, when the date comes, the buyer does not find that the seller has what will satisfy what he paid for, then it is revoked. He should only take from him gold or silver or the exact price that he paid him. He should not buy anything from him for that price until he has taken that from him. That is because if he were to take other than the price which he paid or exchanged it for goods other than the food that he purchased from him, then it is selling food before it is received in full.’ Mālik said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ forbade selling food before it was received in full.’

write it down.

‘Write down the amount and the term.’ It is said that Allah commands writing, but what is meant is writing and witnessing, because writing without witnesses does not constitute proper evidence. It is said that He commands us to write so that we will not forget. Abū Dāwūd aṭ-Ṭayālisī reports in his Sunan that Ibn ‘Abbās said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about the words of Allah: ‘when you take on a debt...’: ‘The first disavowal of Ādam occurred in this manner. When Allah showed him his descendants, he saw a radiant man, shining with light, and asked, “O Lord, who is this?” The answer was, “This is your descendant, Dāwūd.” He asked, “O Lord, how long will he live?” “Sixty years,” was the reply. He said, “O Lord, increase his life!” “No,” He replied, “unless you give him some of your life span.” He asked, “What is my life span?” “A thousand years,” He replied He said, “I have given him forty years.” So Allah wrote it for him and the angels testified to it. When the angels came to him as he was dying, he said, “I still have forty years!” They replied, “You gave them to your descendant Dāwūd.” “I did not give anyone anything!” he said. So Allah produced the document and the angels testified to it.’ One version has: ‘Dāwūd lived a hundred years and Ādam’s life was a thousand years.’ At-Tirmidhī transmitted it. Allah’s words: ‘write it down’ are a clear indication that its entire description is recorded in a manner that will remove any dispute between those involved for the judge who gives a ruling when the case is presented to him. Allah knows best.

Some people believe that writing accounts is obligatory for owners and obliged by this āyah, be it a sale or a loan, so that there will be no forgetfulness or disavowal. Aṭ-Ṭabarī prefers that. Ibn Jurayj said, ‘The one who borrows should write it down and the one who lends should act as witness.’ Ash-Sha‘bī said, ‘They used to think that Allah’s words: “If you leave things on trust with one another” (2:283) were abrogated by the command to write.’ Something similar is related by Ibn Jurayj. Ibn Zayd also said that and he reported it from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī. Ar-Rabī‘ believed that this was obligatory by these words and then the ruling was lightened by His words: ‘If you leave things on trust with one another.’ Most say that the command to write is a recommendation to preserve property and remove uncertainty. If the debtor is trustworthy, writing the debt down does not harm him. If he is other than that, writing will put his debt in order and satisfy the need of the one with the right. One of them said, ‘If you testify, it is decisive. If you trust, there is free disposal.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is a sound view and there is no abrogation with respect to this because Allah recommended writing in what a man gives and leaves. His recommendation is to promote people’s caution.

A writer should write it down between you justly.

‘Aṭā’ and others said that it is obligatory for a scribe to write, when he is the only available scribe. Ash-Sha‘bī said that. So when he is the only available scribe, he is obliged to write it down. As-Suddī said that it is obligatory when he is unoccupied. The lām is elided from the first and kept in the second because the second is absent and the first is addressed to the person, and so it is kept.

The word ‘justly’ means ‘with trust and fairness’. He should not write more or less than the amount. The words ‘between you’ are used because both sides are involved. That is because the one owed the debt is likely to be suspected in writing down the debt he is owed and the same suspicion exists in the case of the debtor. Therefore, Allah prescribed a scribe from other than those involved who should write justly and should not be moved by favouritism for either party. It is said that when people transact with one another, so that one is not isolated from another, and some write down debts and some do not, Allah commanded that the writer should write it down justly.

The bā’ connected to ‘justly’ is connected to ‘write’, not to ‘writer’ because what is obliged is that he write the document justly, not that he is just in himself. A child, a slave and someone in care can write it down when they understand it. In the case of those appointed as scribes, it is not permitted for guardians to abandon them except for reputable witnesses with whom they are pleased. Mālik said that, based on this āyah, documents should only be written down by people who are known for being fair and trustworthy. According to this view, the bā’ is connected to ‘writer’.

No writer should refuse to write.

The scribe is forbidden to refuse when called upon to fulfil his function. People disagree about a scribe’s obligation to write or witness’s to bear witness. Aṭ-Ṭabarī and ar-Rabī‘ said that it is obligatory for a scribe to write when he is ordered to do so. Al-Ḥasan said, ‘It is obligatory for him in a situation in which it is not possible to obtain another scribe. In that case the person with the debt would be harmed if the scribe refused. When that is the case, it is obligatory for him. If it is possible to obtain another scribe who is able to do it, then he does not have to. As-Suddī said, ‘It is obligatory for him when he is free to do it.’

Al-Mahdawī said that ar-Rabī‘ and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk that ‘refuse’ is abrogated by Allah’s words: ‘Neither writer nor witness should be put under pressure.’ This position is based on the opinion of those who think that writing was obligatory for anyone chosen by the two people involved in the transaction. A scribe was not permitted to refuse until that understanding was abrogated by the words: ‘Neither writer nor witness should be put under pressure.’ This is unlikely. It is not confirmed that it was ever obligatory on anyone whom the people in the transaction wanted, whoever that was. If the writing had been an obligation, it would not be valid to be paid for it, because being paid for performing obligatory actions is invalid, and there is no disagreement among scholars that it is permitted to receive a wage for writing out documents.

as Allah has taught him, he should write.

The kāf in ‘kamā’ is connected to ‘write’ meaning ‘write as Allah has taught him.’ It is possible that it is connected to idea in ‘refuse’, meaning ‘As Allah has blessed with knowing how to write, he should not refuse and should be gracious in the same way that Allah has been gracious to him.’

The one incurring the debt should dictate

The one taking on the debt acknowledges his liability verbally so that it is known what he owes. The verb in Arabic for ‘dictate’ is amalla and amlā. These are two dialectical forms. Amalla is the dialect of the people of the Hijaz and the Banū Asad while Tamīm have amlā. Both are found in the Qur’an. The witnessing of the debt is because of the affirmation made by the one incurring it. Allah commanded the scribe to have fear of Allah and not reduce the amount owed. Bakhs is reduction. This is also found in His words: ‘It is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs.’ (2:228)

If the person incurring the debt is incompetent or weak

Some people say that this means young, but that is an error. An adult can also be an incompetent. The word ‘weak’ here implies an adult without intelligence.

or unable to dictate,

Allah puts people who incur debts into four categories: an independent person who can dictate for himself and three others who cannot dictate. They are always in existence. Their rights are also taken care of in matters other than business dealings, such as inheritance when it is divided up, as well as other things. They are the incompetent, the weak and those unable to dictate. An incompetent (safīh) is someone with deficient sense regarding property, and it is not proper for him to give or take for himself. He is like the safīh garment, which is one that is lightly woven. Someone with a vile tongue is called a fool (safīh) because foul language almost only occurs in ignorant people and people of defective intellect. Arabs sometimes use the word safīh for feebleness of the intellect and sometimes for weakness of the body. A poet says:

We fear that our understanding will be deficient (tasfaha) and the time will be unknown for the sensible.

Dhu-r-Rummah said:

They walk as they are shaken (tasaffahat) by winds, Their tops shaken by the movement of the winds.

It is said that ḍu‘f is physical weakness and ḍa‘f is mental weakness. It is also said that they are two dialectical forms with the same meaning. The first view is sounder. It is based on what Abū Dāwūd related from Anas ibn Mālik that a man in the time of the Prophet ﷺ used to trade and he had some weakness (ḍa‘f) in his intellect. His family went to the Prophet of Allah ﷺ and said, ‘Prophet of Allah, stop so-and-so from trading. He trades and there is some weakness in his mind.’ So the Prophet ﷺ summoned him and forbade him to sell. He said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I cannot bear going for any time without trading.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said. ‘If you will not stop trading, then say, “This for that, and no cheating.”’ Abū ‘Īsā Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsā as-Sulamī at-Tirmidhī transmitted it from Anas and said it is ṣaḥīḥ. He mentioned weakness in his intellect. Al-Bukhārī transmitted it with the words: ‘When you buy something, say, “No cheating” and you have the option to return any goods you buy for three days.”’

This man was Ḥabbān ibn Munqidh al-Anṣārī, the father of Yaḥyā and Wāsi‘. It is also said that it was Munqidh, the grandfather of Yaḥyā and Wāsi‘, the Shaykh of Mālik and father of Ḥabbān. He reached the age of 130. In one of his expeditions with the Prophet ﷺ, he received a head wound which muddled his intellect and speech. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related that Ḥabbān ibn Munqidh was a weak man and also blind. He suffered a head wound and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave him an option of three days in respect of his purchases. He found it hard to speak and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to him, ‘Buy and say, “No cheating.”’ He could be heard saying, ‘No cheating. No cheating.’ He transmitted it from Ibn ‘Amr.

Scholars disagree about someone who is cheated in their dealings due to lack of experience and lack of intelligence and whether they should be debarred from trading based on this āyah and on the hadith. Aḥmad and Isḥāq said that they should be debarred, while others said that they should not be. Both positions are found in the School. What is sound is the first position based on this āyah and the words in the hadith, ‘Prophet of Allah, stop so-and-so from trading’ when he did not debar because he said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I cannot bear going for any time without trading.’ So he allowed him to buy and made it specific to him because someone who is cheated in sales should be debarred, especially if his mind is disordered.

Part of what indicates that it is a particular ruling is what Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq related from Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ḥabbān who said, ‘He was my grandfather, Munqidh ibn ‘Amr. He suffered a head wound and his language was broken and his mind disordered. He would not stop trading and continued to be cheated. He went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and mentioned that to him and he said, “When you buy, say, ‘No cheating.’ Then you have the option of retraction for three days for the goods you buy. If you are pleased, keep them. If you are angry, return them to their owner.”’ He lived a very long life to the age of 130. He was alive in the time of ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān when the people spread out and were numerous. He would buy goods in the market and return them when he was badly cheated. They would criticise him, saying, “You bought them!” He would reply, “I have the option. If I am satisfied, I keep them and if I am angry, I return them. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ granted me an option of three days.” He would return the goods to their owner on the following day or the day after and would be told, “By Allah, I do not accept them. You took my goods and gave me dirhams.” His answer was, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave me an option of three days.” One of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pass by and say to the merchant, “Bother you! He spoke the truth! The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave him an option for three days!”’ Ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted it and Abū ‘Umar mentioned it in al-Isti‘āb. He said that al-Bukhārī mentioned it in his History from ‘Ayyāsh ibn al-Walīd from ‘Abd al-A‘lā from Ibn Isḥāq.

The ‘weak’ are those who have some defect in their mind and so cannot dictate, either because of a stammer, muteness or ignorance of the language. Their guardian is their father or a trustee. Those who cannot dictate are children and their guardian is their trustee or father. If someone is ill, he has an agent. As for the dumb, they can be one of the weak or, more appropriately, one who cannot dictate. These are distinct categories that will be dealt with in an-Nisā’.

then his guardian should dictate for him justly.

At-Ṭabarī believed that the pronoun ‘him’ refers to the ‘right’, (meaning the guardian entitled to the right) and has an isnād to that effect from ar-Rabī‘ and Ibn ‘Abbās. It is also said that it refers to the one who owes the debt, which is correct, and what is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās is not sound. How could it be considered evidence if the one responsible for dictating the debt owed by an incompetent is the one owed the money! This is something which is not part of the Sharī‘ah unless the reason that the person is unable to dictate is that illness or great age make his words incomprehensible or he is mute. In such a case the one owed the debt can dictate while the one who is unable to do so listens and when it is finished, affirms it. But this is not what the āyah is about. This is only valid for someone who cannot dictate due to illness.

When Allah says: ‘the one incurring the debt should dictate,’ that indicates that he is trusted in what he says. That demands accepting the statement of the one who left a pledge along with his oath when there is a disagreement between him and the broker about the amount of the debt when the pledge exists. This is when the pledger says, ‘I pledged fifty’ and the broker claims that it is a hundred. One takes the statement of the pledger when the pledge exists. That is the school of most of the fuqahā’: Sufyān ath-Thawrī, ash-Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and the People of Opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir preferred it because the broker claims the extra. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The claimant provides evidence and the one against whom the claim is made takes an oath.’ Mālik said, ‘One takes the word of the broker about the value of the pledge and he is not believed about more than that.’ It is as if he thought that pledge and his oath is a witness on behalf of the broker, but Allah’s words: ‘the one incurring the debt should dictate,’ refute him. The one incurring the debt is the pledger. This question will be dealt with.

If someone says that Allah Almighty has put the pledge in place of witnesses and writing when testimony indicates the truthfulness of what is testified to between him and the value of the pledge and, when it reaches its value, there is no document about the increase, then the answer to him is that it does not indicate that its value must be that of the debt. The pledge for a thing can be more or less than its value. The broker is believed when he swears an oath to the value of the debt up to the point where it is equal to the value of the pledge. The custom is not like that. It may be that the debt is less than the pledge. That is common, and so there is no point to this position.

If it is confirmed that what is meant by the ‘guardian’ here is a faqīh, then the text indicates that the affirmation of the faqīh regarding the matter is accepted when he takes an oath because when he dictated it, he carried out the instruction.

The dealings of a debarred incompetent without the permission of his guardian are null and void by consensus and do not ever effect anything. There is disagreement about the dealings of an incompetent who is not debarred. That will be dealt with in Sūrat an-Nisā’.

Two men among you should act as witnesses.

They are called upon to act as witnesses. People disagree about whether this is obligatory or merely recommended. The sound position is that it is recommended as will be explained. Allah regulates testimony by His wisdom in financial and physical matters and other ḥudūd and makes two witnesses necessary in each case except where fornication is concerned as will be explained in Sūrat an-Nisā’. The linguistic form of ‘witness’ or ‘shahīd’ is an intensive form and that indicates that he may be called on to testify several times. This is also an indication of integrity. Allah knows best.

The word ‘men’ (rijāl) excludes unbelievers, children and women. The expression could include slaves but Mujāhid said that it means free men, which Qảḍī Abū Isḥāq prefers. Scholars disagree about the testimony of slaves. Shurayḥ, ‘Uthmān al-Battī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr said that a slave’s testimony is allowed when he possesses integrity. They rely on the meaning of the āyah. Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, ash-Shāfi‘ī and most scholars say that a slave’s testimony is not permitted and they rely in that on the defect inherent in slavery. Ash-Sha‘bī and an-Nakha‘ī allow it in minor matters. The sound position is that of the majority because Allah says: ‘You who believe! when you take on a debt…’ and the address continues to ‘two men among you’. So the apparent meaning of the address is that it is dealing with those who contract debts and slaves do not have that capacity without their masters’ permission.

If they say that the specificity of the beginning of the āyah does not prevent it from being general at the end, they are told that it is specific by His words: ‘Witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon…’ as will be explained. The words ‘your men’ also indicate that people who are blind can act as witnesses when they have definite knowledge about what they are testifying to, as is related from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about testimony and said, “You can see this sun. So testify when you have the equivalent certainty about the matter or do not testify.”’ This indicates that a witness should actually see what he testifies to, and that testimony on the basis of logical deduction, which might be wrong, is not permitted. For instance, a blind man is permitted to have intercourse with his wife when he recognises her voice because it is permitted to engage in intercourse on the basis of the probability that it is lawful. If a woman is brought to him and he is told, ‘This is your wife,’ and he does not recognise her, he is permitted to have intercourse with her. He can accept a gift which comes to him by the statement of a messenger and he can testify to what he has been told.

If, however, someone informs him from Zayd about a confirmation, sale, slander or usurpation, he is not permitted to testify to what he was told because testimony requires certainty. It is permitted in other things to accept probability. That is why ash-Shāfi‘ī, Ibn Abī Laylā and Abū Yūsuf said that if he knew of that before he went blind, them he is permitted to testify after he has become blind. The blindness may intervene between that to which he witnessed, as is the case with absence or death. This is the position of all of those scholars. That which prevents the testimony of a blind person in what he could have seen is of no consequence. His testimony is valid in respect of what is confirmed by extensive reports as when he reports about a ruling of the Messenger ﷺ which has multiple transmissions. Some scholars accept the testimony of a blind person on the basis of hearing the voice because he thought that deduction by that rises to the level of certainty. The similarity in voices is like the similarity of forms and colours. This is weak since it would require a sighted person to rely on the voice.

The position of Malik regarding the testimony of the blind on the basis of hearing a voice is that it is permitted in divorce and other things when he recognises the voice. Ibn al-Qāsim said, ‘I asked Mālik, “A man hears his neighbour through a wall without seeing him and hears him divorce his wife. Can he testify to it if he recognises his voice?” Mālik answered, “His testimony is allowed.”’ That position was also related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, Shurayḥ al-Kindī, ash-Sha‘bī, ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd, Rabī‘ah, Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, Mālik and al-Layth.

But if there are not two men, then a man and two women

This means that if the claimant does not bring two men, then a man and two women suffice. This is the position of the majority. There is some elision and it means: ‘then a man and two women should take their place.’ Outside of the Qur’an, it might be in the accusative, namely ‘call on a man and two women to testify.’ Some say that the testimony of women is only permissible when there are no other men at all. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is weak and does not accord with the words of the āyah. The clear position is that of the majority, which is that if the person with the debt neglects to call two men, or does that intentionally for some reason, he calls a man and two women instead. In this āyah Allah has permitted the testimony of two women with a man when there are other men available. Allah does not mention this anywhere else. According to the majority, this is particular to property matters and on condition that there is a man with them. It is for property rather than other matters because Allah gives many means for confirming the ownership of property since there are many means of obtaining it and property is frequently subject to dispute. Sometimes confirmation is by writing, sometimes by witnessing, sometimes by pledges and sometimes by guarantee, and the testimony of women with men is part of that.

No intelligent person should suppose that Allah’s words ‘when you take on a debt’ include the debt of the dower with severance or the settlement of blood money owed for deliberate killing. Those cases are not about testimony to a debt, but testimony to other things. Scholars do permit the testimony of women alone regarding things which only they can know, as is also the case with the testimony of children, when it is necessary, about injuries. However, scholars also disagree about the testimony of children in such cases. Mālik allowed it as long as the children have not separated and do not disagree. The testimony of less than two of them is not permitted in the case of a child for an adult or an adult for a child. ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr gave judgment regarding injuries in such cases, and Mālik said, ‘It is the agreed practice here.’ Ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and the Ḥanafīs did not permit it because they are not ‘men’ nor ‘those with whom you are satisfied’ nor ‘two upright men from among yourselves’. (65:2) These qualities are not found in a child.

Since Allah made the testimony of two women equal to that of one man, their ruling must be the same as his ruling. As we and ash-Shāfi‘ī require that oaths are witnessed, it is obligatory for an oath to be witnessed by two men because this equivalence is undefined. Abū Ḥanīfah and his people disagree about this, and do not think that an oath needs a witness. They said, ‘Allah Almighty places oaths in various categories and numbers them. He does not mention the need for a witness in any of them. Therefore it is not permitted to make a judgment contingent on that because it is a category additional to those Allah has specified. This is an addition to the text and it is abrogation.’ Among those who take this position are ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ‘Aṭā’, al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Uyaynah and a group.

Some of them said that judging by an oath with a witness is abrogated by the Qur’an. ‘Aṭā’ claimed that the first to give judgment based on it was ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān. Al-Ḥakam said, ‘Judging by an oath and a witness is an innovation, and the first to judge in this way was Mu‘āwiyah.’ All of this is an error and supposition and does not help in the face of the truth. Those who deny and are ignorant are not like those who affirm and know. Allah’s words: ‘Two men among you should act as witnesses…’ do not refute the Messenger of Allah ﷺ giving judgment with an oath and a witness, nor that it is not used to obtain rights, nor that it is only obliged by what Allah mentions and nothing else. If that were the case, it would be nullified by the refusal of the defendant to swear if the plaintiff swears. If that is the case, then the consensus is that he would be entitled to the money, and that is not what the Book of Allah says. This definitively refutes them.

Mālik said, ‘Part of the argument of those who say that is that he is told, “Do you think that if a man claimed that another man owed him money, the defendant would not swear that he did not owe it?” If he swears that, then the right will be nullified for him. If he refuses to swear and the one who demanded the debt swears that his right is true and confirms that his companion owes him that, this is something in which no one disagrees about in any land. So on what basis does he claim this and where does he find it in the Book of Allah? Whoever affirms, affirms by an oath with a witness.’

Our scholars said that, in view of the fame and soundness of the hadiths, the wonder is that they have said that those who act on it are innovating and revoke their ruling and disparage their opinion. This is also in spite of the fact that it was the practice of the four Caliphs, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Mu‘āwiyah, Shurayḥ, and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. He wrote to his governors to do that: Iyās ibn Mu‘āwiyah, Abū Salamah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān, Abu-z-Zinād and Rabī‘ah. That is why Mālik said, ‘The past practice of the Sunnah is enough for that. Do you see that these men cancelled their rulings and judged them to be innovators? This is indeed grave negligence and an incorrect reflection. The imams related from Ibn ‘Abbās that the Prophet ﷺ gave judgment based on an oath with a witness.’ ‘Amr ibn Dīnār said it is particular to property.

Sayf ibn Sulaymān related it from Qays ibn Sa‘d ibn Dīnar from Ibn ‘Abbās. Abū ‘Umar said that this is the soundest isnād of this hadith. No one attacks its isnād and there is no disagreement among the people who know the hadith that its men are trustworthy. Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān said, ‘Sayf ibn Sulaymān is confirmed. I do not know of anyone with a better memory than him.’ An-Nasā’ī said, ‘This is an excellent isnād. Sayf is trustworthy and Qays is trustworthy.’ Muslim transmitted this hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās. Abū Bakr al-Bazzār said, ‘Sayf ibn Sulaymān and Qays ibn Sa‘d are trustworthy. Those after have no need of mentioning them because of their fame for trustworthiness and integrity.’

None of the Companions objected to an oath with a witness. Rather it is transmitted from them that it was their position. That was also the position of most of the people of knowledge in Madīnah. There is disagreement about it reported from ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr and Ibn Shihāb. Ma‘mar said, ‘I asked az-Zuhrī about an oath with a witness and he said, “This is something which people have innovated. There must be two witnesses.”’ It is related from him that he was the first to give judgment based on a witness and oath. That is what was stated by Mālik and his people, ash-Shāfi‘ī and his followers, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū ‘Ubayd, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī, and a group of the people of tradition. I believe that it is not permitted to oppose it because of the multiple reports about it from the Prophet ﷺ and the normative practice of the people of Madīnah generation after generation.

Mālik said, ‘Judgment is given on the basis of an oath with a witness in all lands.’ In his Muwaṭṭā’ he does not justify a question by other than it. There is no disagreement reported from him about giving a ruling based on an oath with a witness. The same is true about all of his companions in Madīnah, Egypt and elsewhere. The Mālikīs in all lands know of only this in their School with the exception of those of us in Andalusia. Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā claimed that he did not see al-Layth giving a fatwa by it nor believing in it. Yaḥyā differed from Mālik in that as well as differing from the Sunnah and the normative practice in the Abode of Hijrah.

The oath with a witness is an additional ruling articulated on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, in the same way that he forbade being married to a woman while also being married to her paternal or maternal aunt, even though Allah says: ‘Apart from that He has made all other women lawful for you’ (4:24) and like his forbidding eating the flesh of domestic donkeys and all beasts of prey with fangs although Allah says: ‘Say: “I do not find…”’ (6:145). It is also like wiping over leather socks when the Qur’an states that one washes or wipes feet. There are many examples of this. If it were permitted to say that the Qur’an abrogates the ruling of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about an oath with a witness, it would be permitted to say that the words of the Qur’an: ‘Allah has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury’ (2:274) and ‘only by means of mutually agreed trade’ (4:29) abrogate the muzābanah, a sale involving risk, selling what has not yet been created, and other forbidden sales. No one is allowed to do this because the Sunnah clarifies the Book.

If it is said that what comes in the hadith is a judgment about something specific and is not universal, we say that those are words that undermine this principle. So it is as if one is saying that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made it obligatory to rule by an oath with a witness. What supports this interpretation is what Abū Dāwūd related from Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave judgment based on a witness and an oath in respect of rights.’ Through analogy and investigation, we find that an oath is stronger than two women because they have no way to be part of the li‘ān process while the oath is a part of it. When the Sunnah is sound, it is mandatory to take it and the Sunnah does not require corroboration because whoever opposes it is overcome by it. Success is by Allah.

When it is confirmed that a ruling is given on the basis of an oath with a witness, Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Wahhāb said, ‘That is about property rather than physical rights based on the consensus about that among all who say that a ruling is given on the basis of an oath with a witness,’ He added, ‘That is because property rights are less important than physical rights. This is indicated by the fact that women’s testimony is accepted in them.’ The position of Mālik varies about deliberate wounding and whether retaliation for it can be obliged by a witness and an oath. There are two transmissions from him. One is that it obliges choosing between retaliation and blood money, and the other is that it does not oblige anything because that is a physical right. He said that that is what is sound. Mālik stated in the Muwaṭṭā’, ‘This procedure pertains to property cases in particular.’ ‘Amr ibn Dīnār said that. Al-Māzirī said, ‘There is no dispute that it is accepted in matters which purely concern property. There is no disagreement that it does not occur in what is simple marriage and divorce.’

If the testimony is about something which is not property, but which will lead to property, like testifying to a will and marriage after death, so that by its affirmation one only seeks property, there is disagreement about accepting it. Those who consider the property accept it and those who consider the circumstances do not accept it. Al-Mahdawi says that the testimony of women in cases involving ḥudūd is not permitted according to the position of most of the fuqahā’ and most preclude it in marriage and divorce as well. That is the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī and others. They may testify about property but not about other things and so they do not testify against the testimony of others, even if there is a man with them. Judgment is, however, given on the basis of the testimony of two of them in all matters in which only women are present, like childbirth, the first cry of a newborn and the like. All of this is the school of Mālik, although there is some disagreement within it.

with whom you are satisfied as witnesses

This describes both the man and the two women. Ibn Bukayr and others said that this is addressed to judges. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘This is not a good interpretation. The āyah is addressed to all people, but someone confused by the context might think it referred to judges alone. This usage is frequent in the Book of Allah. Although the address is directed to some in particular, it is in fact universal.’

These words indicate that there are witnesses who are not considered to be satisfactory. Those are people who are not considered to be of sufficient integrity. That is, of course, in addition to being Muslim. This is the position of the majority. Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘Every Muslim who displays Islam and is free of impiety is considered to have integrity, even if his state is unknown.’ Shurayḥ, ‘Uthmān al-Battī and Abū Thawr said that they are the Muslims of integrity, even if they are slaves.

So they make the ruling universal and that obliges accepting the testimony of a bedouin against a townsperson when he is someone with whom they are satisfied and who possesses integrity. Ash-Shāfi‘ī and those with him accept that, since he is one of our men and the people of our dīn. The fact that he is from the desert is like him being from another country. Undefined terms in the Qur’an indicate the acceptance of the testimony of men of integrity and that Bedouin and townspeople are the same in that respect. Allah says: ‘…with whom you are satisfied as witnesses’ and ‘…call two upright men from among yourselves as witnesses.’ (65:2) Therefore ‘from among yourselves’ is addressed to the Muslims as a whole.

This demands absolutely that the meaning of integrity is necessarily additional to Islam because the attribute is additional to what is primarily described. The same is true of ‘with whom you are satisfied.’ This differs from what Abū Ḥanīfah said. It is not known whether one is satisfied with someone unless his state is reported. Therefore it necessarily follows that outward Islam is not, by itself, sufficient. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Mālik, as transmitted by Ibn Wahb from him, believed that Bedouin should not testify against townspeople based on the hadith of Abū Hurayrah in which the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘It is not permitted for a Bedouin to testify against a townsperson.’ What is sound is that his testimony is permitted when he has integrity and people are satisfied with him, as will be dealt with in an-Nisā’ and at-Tawbah. The hadith of Abū Hurayrah does not distinguish between a townsperson who is resident or one who is travelling. When he is travelling, then there is no disagreement that his testimony is accepted.

Our scholars say that integrity entails uprightness in religious matters, which includes avoiding major wrong actions and maintaining noble character and abandoning minor wrong actions, and being clearly trustworthy and not gullible. It is said that it is having a clear conscience and upright behaviour in the judgment of the one who assesses him. These ideas are similar.

Since giving testimony is a really important matter and has a lofty rank, entailing, as it does, the acceptance of the statement of one person over that of another, Allah Almighty stipulated for it the need for integrity and being considered satisfactory. Whoever judges that a witness possesses singular qualities and virtues, making him superior to others, stipulates that that prerogative accords him being singled out for giving testimony and the validity of judgment made on the evidence entailed by his testimony. This is the clearest proof of the permissibility of ijtihād and deduction based on indications and signs which our scholars believe contain hidden meanings and rulings. This will be further discussed in Sūrat Yūsuf, Allah willing. It indicates entrusting the matter to the ijtihād of judges. Sometimes a judge might discern lack of attention or doubt in the witness and therefore reject his testimony.

Abū Ḥanīfah says that outward affirmation of Islam is sufficient for someone to qualify as a witness in matters involving property but not in cases involving the ḥudūd. This is wrong and misses the point because property is one of people’s rights. So, as Ibn al-‘Arabī said, someone’s outward Islam is not sufficient. Since Allah stipulated being satisfactory and possessing integrity in incurring debts as we have explained, it is more proper that He also stipulated that with respect to marriage, differing from Abū Ḥanīfah who says that a marriage may be contracted even if the witnesses are impious. So he denies to marriage the safeguards demanded in the case of property when they are even more necessary in the case of marriage because of its connection to lawfulness, sanctity, the ḥadd and lineage.

The position of Abū Ḥanīfah with regard to this matter is very weak indeed since Allah stipulated being satisfactory and possessing integrity and that cannot be known merely from the fact that someone is Muslim. It is known by investigating his circumstances so that one is not deceived by him merely saying, ‘I am a Muslim.’ It may well be the case that he has inside him that which would cause his testimony to be rejected. It like Allah’s words: ‘Among the people there is someone whose words about the life of this world excite your admiration and he calls Allah to witness what is in his heart … Allah does not love corruption.’ (2:204-205) He also says: ‘When you see them, their outward form appeals to you.’ (63:4)

then if one of them is confused, the other can remind her.

Abū ‘Ubayd says that the expression ‘is confused’ (ḍalla lit. strays) here means ‘forgets’. Straying from testimony happens by forgetting part of it and remembering another part so that a person is confused about it. That is not the case when someone forgets it all. They are not called ‘confused’. Ḥamzah recites ‘in’ whose apodosis is in ‘fā’’ connected to ‘tudhakkiru’. If it is read as ‘an’, it is the object and the regent in it is elided. The reading of the community of ‘tudhakkira’ is added to the verb with a fatḥah. Ibn Kathīr and Abū ‘Amr have ‘tudhkira’ which means: one woman can make another equivalent to a male in witnessing since the testimony of a woman is half that of man. When both of them testify, as a whole they become like the testimony of a male. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah and Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ said that. That is unlikely because the only thing opposite to ḍalāl when it means ‘forgetfulness’ is ‘reminding’ and that is found in the majority reading which is Form II, meaning to call attention when she forgets.

Witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon.

Al-Ḥasan says that this phrase deals with two issues. You should not refuse when you are asked to be a witness and you should not refuse to attest to the thing you are asked to bear witness to. Ibn ‘Abbās said that. Qatādah, ar-Rabī‘ and Ibn ‘Abbās said it means that people should not refuse to convey what they witnessed and confirm it in writing. Mujāhid said, ‘This means when you are called to give testimony and are in possession of the evidence.’ An-Naqqāsh reports that this is how the Prophet ﷺ explained the āyah. Mujāhid said, ‘When you are first called to testify, if you wish, then go, and if you do not wish, do not.’ Abū Miljaz, ‘Aṭā’, Ibrāhīm, Ibn Jubayr, as-Suddī, Ibn Zayd and others all said that.

According to this, it is not obliged for witnesses to attend when summoned to witness two people who made a contract, but they must attend in the case of two people who contracted a debt if they were present at the transaction. When they were witnesses to the original contract and are asked to affirm their testimony to the document, they must do so. This is the situation which is referred to in this āyah. What is involved is the confirmation of testimony already given. If the testimony is confirmed, then they are called upon to reconfirm it in the presence of the judge. So the being ‘called upon’ refers to attending the court.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The āyah, as al-Ḥasan said, combines two recommended matters. The Muslims are encouraged to help their brothers. When there are many witnesses and there is confidence that the person will not be deprived of his right, then it is merely recommended for the one summoned, and he can fail to attend for any excuse whatsoever. If he fails to attend without any excuse, there is no wrong action or reward for him. If it is necessary and there is the slightest risk that someone will be deprived of his right, the recommendation is strengthened to the point that is close to an obligation. If a witness knows that someone will be completely deprived of his right by his failing to testify, then it is obligatory for him to testify, especially if he is summoned to do so. This is even more emphatic because it is a yoke on his neck and a trust which he must fulfil.

This āyah provides evidence that it is permitted for a ruler to provide witnesses for people and to pay them from the treasury and for them to have no other work except attending to the preservation of people’s rights. Otherwise those rights might be lost and rendered null and void. Then the meaning would imply: ‘Witnesses should not refuse to testify when people demand what they are entitled to.’ Allah knows best. If it is said that this refers to testifying in exchange for a wage, we reply that it is simple testimony from people who have their needs fulfilled by the treasury. That is like paying judges and guardians and for all the acts of public welfare which help the Muslims. This is part of it, and Allah knows best. The Almighty says: ‘Those who collect it’ (9:60), giving a share of the zakāt to those who collect it.

This also indicates that a witness is someone who comes before a judge. This is the basis of the Sharī‘ah and is acted on in every age and is understood by every nation. When this is confirmed, then a slave is outside of the bulk of witnesses, which is made specific by the words, ‘your men’, because a slave cannot necessarily respond and it may not be possible for him to come, because he is not independent and only acts with the permission of someone else. Therefore, he falls below the level of giving testimony just as he also cannot reach the degree of being a guardian. He similarly is not required to attend Jumu‘ah, go on jihād and perform ḥajj as will be explained.

Our scholars say that this applies when one is summoned to give testimony. As for the case when he acts as a witness for a man who does not know about him and who will benefit from it, some people say that it is recommended because Allah says: ‘Witnesses should not refuse when they are called upon.’ So Allah obliges the duty to be carried out when one is called upon, and if he is not called upon, it is still recommended since the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The best witness is the one who brings his testimony before he is asked for it.’ The imams related it. What is sound is that doing it is an obligation, even if he is not asked, as long as there is fear that someone’s right will be lost or ignored, or it is about a divorce or an emancipation against someone who continues to enjoy his wife or employ that slave, and other such things. A person who is a witness to any of that must confirm that testimony, and his testimony is not dependent on him being asked so that the right is lost. That is why the Almighty says: ‘…they should carry out the witnessing for Allah’ (65:2) and ‘…only those who bore witness to the truth and have full knowledge.’ (43:86) We also have the sound hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Help your brother, wronging or wronged.’ It is incumbent to help him by giving testimony to make him ashamed to deny what he owes.

There is no ambiguity about the fact that if someone is obliged to give testimony regarding one of the matters we have mentioned and then does not testify, it impairs the witness and testimony. There is no distinction between the rights of Allah and the rights of human beings. This is the position of Ibn al-Qāsim and others. Some of them believe that if that testimony is about a human right, it only invalidates that particular testimony and it is not valid for him to give it afterwards. The first is the sound position because that which obliges its invalidation is his impiety in not performing what he was obliged to do without having any excuse for not doing it. Impiety (fisq) removes the qualification to be a witness in general. This is clearer.

There is no contradiction between the words of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘The best witness is the one who brings his testimony before being asked for it’ and his words in the hadith of ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, ‘The best of you is my generation, then the one after them, and then the one after them.’ ‘Imrān ibn Ḥuṣayn said, ‘I do not know whether he said “then the one after them” two or three times.’ The hadith continues: ‘Then after them there will come a people who give testimony when they are not asked to, who are treacherous and not trustworthy, who make vows but do not fulfil them, and plumpness will appear among them.’ They transmitted both hadiths as sound.

This hadith can be taken in three ways. One is that it means a false witness who testifies to what he was not asked to testify to, meaning that he was not bound to do it. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb gave an address at al-Jabiya and said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood among you as I am standing among you and said, “People! Have fear of Allah in respect of my Companions, then those who follow them, and then those who follow them. Then lies and false testimony will spread.”’ The second is that it means that greed impels him to perform his testimony, which is why he hastens to testify before he is asked. This is a rejected testimony. It indicates that the witness is overcome by passion. The third is what Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī said. He related various paths of transmission of this hadith: ‘When we were boys, they used to forbid us to make contracts and act as witnesses.’

Do not think it too trivial to write down, whether small or large, with the date that it falls due.

The verb sa’ama means to become weary of doing something. Al-Akhfash said that and that it is as a poet said:

I was weary of the burdens of life. Whoever lives for eighty years is weary, and I do not care!

This is in order to avert the danger of tedium which may come about through the constant repetition of contracting debts as it is feared that people may become bored with writing them down. One of them may say, ‘This is so little that it does not need to be written down’, so it is stressed for both small and large amounts. Our scholars said that it excludes what is about a qīrāṭ or the like since it is insignificant and a person does not affirm or deny it.

Doing that is more just in Allah’s sight

This means writing down both small and large transactions with witnesses. ‘Aqwam’ (more just) here means ‘more correct and more likely to protect the rights of those concerned’. It is also more likely to remove doubts and uncertainty.

and more helpful when bearing witness

This is evidence that if a witness sees the contractual document but does not remember giving the testimony, he should not confirm it since there is some doubt about it. He should only testify to what he is sure about and may say, for instance, ‘This is my handwriting, but I do not remember writing it.’ Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘Most trustworthy scholars forbid a witness to testify to his writing when he does not remember giving the testimony.’ Malik found evidence for the permissibility of doing that in Allah’s words: ‘We can do no more than to testify to what we know.’ (12:81). Some scholars say that since Allah ascribed writing to justice, he can testify to his handwriting, even if he does not remember writing it. Ibn al-Mubārak mentioned from Ma‘mar from Ibn Ṭāwus from his father about a man who testified to a testimony that he had forgotten. He said, ‘There is nothing wrong in him testifying if he finds his mark or his handwriting on the document.’ Ibn al-Mubārak said, ‘I find this very good.’ There are also reports from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he gave judgment about more than one matter by evidence and testimony. What is reported from the Messengers before him indicate the soundness of this position. Allah knows best. This will be further explained in al-Aḥqāf, Allah willing.

unless it is an immediate transaction hand to hand,

This means that it takes place on the spot. ‘Āṣim alone recites ‘tijāratan’ in the accusative as the predicate of kāna. The noun is elided and so it implies: ‘Unless the transaction is a cash transaction’. That is how Makkī and Abū ‘Alī al-Fārisī assessed it. That is because Allah knew that it would be difficult for them. Therefore, He stated that it can be left and removed anything wrong in doing that in respect of every cash transaction. That is in respect of small things like food and the like, not when it is something great like property. As-Suddī and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘This is what is done hand to hand.’

taken and given without delay.

The transaction is achieved by each party taking their goods or cash and separating. When it is a question of land or buildings or a lot of animals, so that the conclusion of the contract is not subject to the two parties separating, then it is recommended that it be written down because a change in circumstances might occur in that instance. When the exchange is clearly made and they part, each with his goods, it is very unusual for there to be a dispute unless it is for concealed reasons. The Sharī‘ah recommends this procedure as being in people’s best interests in the case of credit sales whether the goods are absent or not, by means of writing, testimony and pledge. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says: ‘There are three forms of sale: selling with a document and witnesses, selling with a pledge, and selling on trust.’ When Ibn ‘Umar sold for cash, he called for witnesses and when he sold on credit, he wrote it down.

Call witnesses when you trade.

Aṭ-Ṭabarī says that this means that you should call witnesses to both small and large transactions. People disagree about whether that is obligatory or recommended. Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī, Ibn ‘Umar, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Jābir ibn Zayd, Mujāhid, Dāwūd ibn ‘Alī and his son Abū Bakr say that it is obligatory. One of the strongest in respect of that position was ‘Aṭā’. He said, ‘I call witnesses when I sell and buy for a dirham, or half a dirham, or a third or less. Allah says: “Call witnesses when you trade.”’ Ibrāhīm said, ‘I call witnesses when I sell and buy, even for a bunch of onions.’ One of those who believed it to be obligatory and preferred that was aṭ-Ṭabarī. He said, ‘It is not lawful for a Muslim to buy and sell without calling witnesses. Otherwise he opposes the Book of Allah. If it is on credit, he must write it down and have witnesses if a scribe is at hand.’

Ash-Sha‘bī and al-Ḥasan believe that the āyah is just recommendation and guidance and not a definite injunction. That is reported to be the position of Mālik, ash-Shāfi‘ī, and the People of Opinion. Ibn al-‘Arabī claimed that this is the position of all and he said that it is sound. No one related that it is mandatory except aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk. He said, ‘The Prophet ﷺ bought a slave and wrote: “In the Name of Allah. The All-Merciful, Most Merciful. This is what Muḥammad, Messenger of Allah, has purchased from al-‘Addā’ ibn Khālid, a sale from one Muslim to another, with no hidden defect, no taint and no wickedness (ghā’ilah) [i.e. in the slave sold.].”’ He also bought without witnesses and left his armour in pawn to a Jew without witnesses being present. If having witnesses had been mandatory, it would have been obligatory when leaving a pledge out of fear of dispute.

We mentioned the view of it being obligatory from other than aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, namely the hadith of al-‘Addā’ in ad-Dāraquṭnī and Abū Dāwūd. He became Muslim after the Conquest of Makkah and Ḥunayn. He is the one who said, ‘In the battle of Ḥunayn, we fought the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and Allah did not give us victory or help us.’ Then he became Muslim and was a good Muslim. Abū ‘Umar mentioned him and mentioned this hadith. He said at the end of it, ‘Al-Aṣmā‘ī said, “I asked Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah about wickedness (ghā’ilah) and he said, ‘Running away, stealing and fornication.’ I asked him about badness (khibthah) and he said, ‘Selling those who have a treaty with the Muslims.’”’

Imam Abū Muḥammad ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘The obligation in respect of that is undecided and the details are very difficult indeed. When it is something frequent, it may be that the merchant wants to seek friendship by not having witnesses or it may be the custom in some lands. He may be shy about a scholar or important esteemed man and so does not ask him to ask as a witness. All of that is part of trust, so the command to have witnesses remains a recommendation since it contains benefit in most cases as long as there is no excuse to prevent it.’

Al-Mahdawī, an-Naḥḥās and Makkī report that some people say that Allah’s words: ‘Call witnesses when you trade’ were abrogated by: ‘If you leave things on trust with one another.’ (2:283) An-Naḥḥās reported from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the second āyah abrogated the one before it. An-Naḥḥās said that this is the position of al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥakam, and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Zayd. Aṭ-Ṭabarī disagrees, saying that is illogical, and says that the second āyah refers to someone who cannot find a scribe. Allah says: ‘If you are on a journey and cannot find a writer, something can be left as a security. If you leave things on trust with one another…’ It means if he does not ask him for a deposit. He said that if were possible for this to abrogate the first, then Allah’s words: ‘If you are ill or on a journey, or any of you have come from the lavatory’ (4:43) could abrogate His words: ‘You who believe, when you get up for the prayer.’ (5:6) Similarly, it would be possible for Allah’s words: ‘Anyone who cannot find the means should fast two consecutive months’ (4:92) to abrogate His words: ‘free a believing slave.’ (4:92)

One scholar said that it is not clear that the phrase: ‘If you leave things on trust with one another’ (2:293) was revealed later than the beginning of the āyah which contains the command to have witnesses. Rather it was revealed at the same time. It is not permitted for the abrogating and abrogated to come together at the same time. He said that it is related that when it was said to Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘The Āyah of Debt was abrogated,’ he said, ‘No, by Allah, the Āyah of Debt is one of judgment and there is no abrogation in it.’ He said, ‘Witnessing was instituted to bring about peace of mind. That is as Allah made different methods to secure debts. They include writing, pledges and witnesses. There is no disagreement among the people of the cities that the pledge is prescribed as a recommendation, not an obligation. It is known from that that the same must be true of witnesses. People continue to trade, resident and on journeys, on land and sea, on the flat and on mountains, without witnesses while people know that and do not object to it. If witnesses had been obligatory, they would have objected to the one who abandoned it.’

All of this is good deduction. Better than it is what comes from the clear Sunnah about not having witnesses. It is in what ad-Dāraquṭnī transmitted, namely that Ṭāriq ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Muḥāribī said, ‘We came in a group from Rabadhah and south of Rabadhah and camped near Madīnah. We had a woman in a sedan with us. While we were sitting down, a man wearing two white garments came to us and greeted us. We returned the greeting. He asked, “From where have you people come?” We answered, “From Rabadhah and south of Rabadhah.” We had a red camel with us and he asked, “Will you sell me this camel of yours?” “Yes,” we answered. “For how much?” he asked. We told him for a certain number of ṣā‘s of dates. He did not ask us to reduce it at all, but said, “I have taken it.” Then he took the camel’s head and entered Madīnah and was hidden from us. We criticised one another and said, “You gave your camel to someone you do not know!” The woman said, “Do not blame one another. I saw the face of a man who would not deceive you. I have not seen a man with a face more like the full moon than his.” In the evening, a man came to us and said, “Peace be upon you. I am the messenger of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to you. He commands you to eat from this until you are full and to measure until you have full measure.” We ate until we were full and took full measure.’ Az-Zuhrī mentioned the hadith from ‘Umārah ibn Khuzaymah from his uncle, who was one of the Companions of the Prophet, that the Prophet ﷺ bought a horse from a Bedouin. We find in it: ‘The bedouin began to say, “Bring a witness who will testify that I sold it to you!” Khuzaymah ibn Thābit said, “I testify that you sold it.” The Prophet ﷺ turned to Khuzaymah and said, “On what basis do you bear witness?” He answered, “By affirming that you speak the truth, Messenger of Allah!” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ made Khuzaymah’s testimony equal to the testimony of two men.’ An-Nasā’ī and other transmitted it.

Neither writer nor witness should be put under pressure.

One meaning of this is that a scribe should not write anything other than what has been dictated to him nor should the witness add to his testimony nor decrease it. Al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, Ṭāwus, Ibn Zayd and others said that. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’ that the āyah means that the scribe should not be prevented from writing nor the witness from testifying.

Mujāhid, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, Ṭāwus, and as-Suddī said – and the same thing is also related from Ibn ‘Abbās – that the āyah means that the witness should not be summoned to testify or the scribe to write when they are busy and they should not be made to come when they have an excuse nor should they be abused. They should not be told, ‘You have disobeyed Allah’s command!’ or similar things so as to put them under pressure. Allah forbade this because, if it was applied, it would distract them from their dīn and livelihood. The form of the verb ‘yuḍārru’ which involves two people demands these ideas.

If you do that, it is deviancy on your part,

If someone testifies to what is not the truth or changes things when writing it down, he is called a deviant. This is even more appropriate in the case of someone who asks a witness to testify when is busy.

If you do put them under pressure it is disobedience to Allah, as Sufyān ath-Thawrī said. The scribe and witness disobey by adding or decreasing. That is a type of prevarication which harms property and people and invalidates their rights. Forcing the witness or scribe when they are busy is also disobedience and incorrect behaviour since it is disobeying Allah’s command. ‘Your part’ implies that deviancy will occur from you.

Be fearful of Allah and Allah will give you knowledge.

This is a promise from Allah that He will teach those who fear Him, meaning that He will put a light in their hearts by which they will understand what comes to them. He may put discrimination in their hearts, so that they will be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Allah says, ‘O you who believe, if you fear Allah, he will give you discrimination.’ (8:29) Allah knows best.

283 If you are on a journey and cannot find a writer, something can be left as a security. If you leave things on trust with one another the one who is trusted must deliver up his trust and be fearful of Allah his Lord. Do not conceal testimony. If someone does conceal it, his heart commits a crime. Allah knows what you do.

If you are on a journey and cannot find a writer,

After Allah has mentioned the recommendation to testify and write for the benefit of preserving property and the dīn, He follows that by mentioning the excuses which may prevent people from writing and enjoins them to leave a pledge in such cases. He clarifies what constitutes a valid excuse by mentioning a journey, which is the usual reason, especially since there were a lot of expeditions at that time. But included in that are all valid excuses. There are often times when a person is resident and cannot make use of a scribe, as occurs when people are at work or during the night. Another instance is when there is fear for the loss of what the debtor owes and the lender seeks a pledge from him for that reason. The Prophet ﷺ left his armour in pledge with a Jew whom he asked for an advance of barley. He said, ‘Muhammad wants to take away my property.’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘He lies. I am the one who is trustworthy on earth and trustworthy in heaven. If you trust me, I will pay. Take my armour to him.’ He died with his armour still in pledge.

Most scholars say that a pledge should be left when travelling, going by the text of the Revelation. It is confirmed while a person is resident by the sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ. This is sound. We already explained its permissibility when resident from the idea in the āyah since excuses arise when someone is a resident. Excuses arise when one is resident and its prohibition while a person is a resident is only related by Mujāhid, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk and Dāwūd who hold to the āyah. There is no argument in that because even though the wording is that of a precondition, what is meant is most circumstances. The fact that in the āyah the pledge is on a journey does not prevent it being used in other cases. As we stated, we find in the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections and elsewhere from ‘Ā’ishah that the Prophet ﷺ purchased food from a Jew on credit and left his iron armour as a pledge. An-Nasā’ī transmitted that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ died while his armour was in pledge with a Jew for thirty ṣā‘s of barley for his family.’

Most recite ‘writer (kātib)’, meaning a man who can write, while Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk, ‘Ikrimah, and Abu-l-‘Ālīyah recited ‘kitāb’ (writing). Abū Bakr al-Anbārī said, ‘Mujāhid explained it as meaning, ‘If you do not find ink,’ meaning with the scribes. Ibn ‘Abbās related ‘kuttāb (scribes)’. An-Naḥḥās said that it is an aberrant reading, and the common people do not have it. Rarely is something outside of the common recitation other than attacked. The context of the words indicates ‘writer’. Before this Allah said: ‘A writer should write it down between you justly.’ Kuttāb demands a plural, but Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that ‘kuttāb’ is good because every occurrence has a writer and so the plural is used, even if there are not ‘writers’ present. An-Naḥḥās and Makkī said that it is the plural of kātib. Al-Mahdawī related that Abū’ ’l-‘Ālīyah recited ‘kutub’, the plural of ‘kitāb’ (book) since there are different occurrences. Makkī said that it means ‘when inkwell, pen and paper are not available.’ The lack of a writer is also the lack of the implement. It also demands the lack of writing. So both readings are good except from the aspect of the written word.

something can be left as a security.

Instead of rihān (security), Abū ‘Amr and Ibn Kathīr recite ‘ruhun’, and ‘ruhn’ is also related from him. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that some people take ruhun to be the plural of rihān. Az-Zajjāj related that from al-Farrā’. Al-Mahdawī said that ‘security’ is an inceptive whose predicate is elided. It means: ‘something left as security is sufficient for that.’ An-Naḥḥās said that ‘Āṣim ibn Abi-n-Nujūd recited ‘ruhn’ and that is related from the people of Makkah. Rihān is like baghl and bighlān and kabsh and kibāsh. Ruhun is the plural of rihān like kutub and kitāb. It is also said that it is the plural of ‘rahn’ like saqf and suquf, ḥalq and ḥuluq, and the like. The second ḍammah in ruhn has been elided because it is heavy. [BIT MORE OMITTED]

The meaning of ‘leaving a security’ is that an item be kept by the lender as a guarantee against what is owed so that the amount can be paid in full from selling the security or renting it out, if the debt cannot be collected from the debtor. That is how scholars define it. The root of the verb (rahana) means ‘to remain or last’. Ibn Sayyidah says that rahana means to make something last. It is as a poet says:

Bread and meat make them last. The pot of coffee is poured.

Al-Jawharī said that rahana means to make to make last. Arhana is used to make food and drink last. That which is rāhin continues and is fixed. Rāhin also describes a thin camel and thin people. He said:

Do you see my body is lean and has become emaciated (rahan)? The glory of men is not in plumpness.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that rahn is the security which is deposited. One of them said that the verb arhana is used for that. Abū ‘Alī said that arhana means to pay an excessive price either in a loan or a sale. Abū Zayd also said that it is to buy for an excessive price. He says about a she-camel:

An ‘Īdiyyah camel for excessive (urhinat) dinars.

‘Īd is a sub-tribe of Mahrah and their camels are described as noble.

Az-Zajjāj said that one says about a security (rahn), rahanat and arhanat. Ibn al-A‘rābī and al-Akhfash said that. ‘Abdullāh ibn Himā as-Salūlī said:

When I feared their talons, I was saved and gave them your property as security (arhantuhum).

Tha‘lab said that all transmitters say that it can be rahantu, except for al-Aṣma‘ī who related arhantu as adding a future verb to a past verb. He said that it is like their words, ‘I stood and slapped his face.’ It is a good position because it is the wāw of the ḥāl in the sentence and so ‘slap’ is a ḥāl modifying the first verb and it means ‘I stood, slapping his face.’ [OMISSION]

Ibn as-Sikkīt said that the verb means to make an advance. A murtahin is someone who takes a pledge (rahn). The thing is called marhūn. The dual is rahīnah. Rāhana is to make a wager (murāhanah) with someone, and ‘arhantu bihi waladī’ means ‘I made my children a stake for it.’ Rahīnah is the single of rahā’in. All of that comes from al-Jawharī.

Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that there is no disagreement about its use in loans and sales, and then the verbal noun is used for the object.

Abū ‘Alī said that since the word means to be fixed and constant, the pledge is void according to the fuqahā’ the moment it goes from the possession of the one who takes it to the one who pledged it. This is what we believe. If the pledge is taken from the possession of the one who accepted it and returned to the pledger by the choice of the one who has taken it on pledge, the pledge then becomes invalid. Abū Ḥanīfah says that, although he adds that if it is returned to his keeping, it is not invalid. Ash-Shāfi‘ī also says that it is not invalidated. Our proof is that He says, ‘taken’. When it leaves the possession of the one who took it, then that term cannot be applied to it and it is not sound to base a ruling on it. This is clear.

If the pledge is verbal and not actually taken, no ruling applies since the āyah says ‘taken’. Ash-Shāfi‘ī says that Allah only gives a ruling to a pledge which is ‘taken’. Without that, there is no ruling. This is very literal. The Mālikīs say that the pledge is binding by the contract and the pledger must hand over the pledge to the keeping of the person who takes it by the words of the Almighty: ‘Fulfil your contracts.’ (5:1, 17:34). This is a contract. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The believers abide by their conditions,’ and this is a condition. We believe that taking possession of the pledge is a precondition for its being operative.

The word ‘taken’ (maqbūḍah) implies that the person accepting the pledge or his agent must clearly take it. They disagree about a third party with integrity taking it and whether that effects it or not. Mālik and all his people and most other scholars say that the taking by any just person constitutes ‘taking’, while Ibn Abī Laylā, Qatādah, al-Ḥakam, and ‘Aṭā’ said that it does not, and that it is only ‘taken’ when it is actually in the possession of the person accepting the pledge. They see it as an act of worship. The position of the majority is sounder because, if a just person takes it, it is still taken. If the pledge is in the possession of a just person who took it and he loses it, the pledgee is not liable since there is nothing in his possession for which he is liable.

Our scholars have said that the literal and non-specific nature of the word ‘taken’ demands that it is permitted to have a pledge for shared property. This differs from Abū Ḥanīfah and his people who do not permit a pledge for a third of a house, or half of a slave or a sword. Then they said that if a man owes something to two men, in which they are partners, it is permitted to give them land as a pledge for that when they both take it. Ibn al-Mundhir said, ‘This permits a pledge for shared property because each of them is pledged half of a house.’ Ibn al-Mundhir further says, ‘A pledge of something jointly owned is permitted, just as it is permitted to sell it.’

Our scholars have said that it is permitted to leave a pledge of liability because it is ‘taken’. Others forbid this. An example of that is two men who do business together and one owes a debt to the other and his pledge is his debt which he owes. Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘It is permitted to use as a pledge any goods which can be sold. This is why we permitted a pledge of liability because it is permitted to sell it and because it is property for which there is a receipt. It is analogous to available merchandise.’ Those who forbid that say that it is forbidden because it cannot be properly taken and being taken is a precondition for the pledge to be binding because the right must be received in full at the place, and it must be able to be paid in full financially and that that is not conceivable with a debt.

Al-Bukhārī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A mount may be ridden when it is a pledge because of its upkeep. Its milk may be drunk when it is a pledge because of its upkeep. Someone who rides it or milks it must pay for its upkeep.’ Abū Dāwūd transmitted it with a different word for ‘drink’. Al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘These are unclear words and it is not clear who is the one riding and milking and whether it is the pledger or the pledgee or the just purpose who has the pledge in his possession.’

The explanation of that is found in two hadiths, and it is because of them that scholars disagree about it. Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘When a riding animal is a pledge, then the pledgee must fodder it and may drink the milk. The one who drinks it is responsible for its upkeep.’ This is transmitted from Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-‘Alā’ from Ziyād ibn Ayyūb from Hushaym from Zakariyyā from ash-Sha‘bī from Abū Hurayrah. It is the position of Aḥmad and Isḥāq that the pledgee can use the pledge for milk and riding according to the cost of its upkeep. Abū Thawr said, ‘If it is the pledger that pays for its upkeep, then the pledgee cannot use it. If the pledger does not pay its upkeep and it remains in the possession of the pledgee and he pays for its upkeep, then he can ride it and he may also make use of a [pledged] slave.’ Al-Awzā‘ī and al-Layth said that.

The second hadith was also transmitted by ad-Dāraquṭnī, but there are things said about its isnād. It is related from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh from Ibn Abī Dhi’b from az-Zuhrī from al-Maqburī from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The pledge does not become forfeit. He has its gain and bears its loss.’ That is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, ash-Sha‘bī and Ibn Sīrīn, and it is the position of Mālik and his people. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said, ‘The pledger makes use of the pledge and must pay for its upkeep. The pledgee does not use any of the pledge except for preserving the security.’ Al-Khaṭṭābī said, ‘That is the soundest and most fitting position as evidenced by the words of the Prophet ﷺ.’

Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī said, ‘That was at a time when ribā was still permitted, when it was not forbidden to have an interest-bearing loan or an unequal exchange of goods. Ribā was forbidden after that.’ The community agree that it is not permitted for the pledger to have sex with his slave-girl who has been given as a pledge nor may he use her as a servant. Ash-Sha‘bī said that he may not use any of the pledge. Ash-Sha‘bī transmitted this hadith but gave a fatwa which differed from it! That is not permitted for him until it is abrogated. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that there is a consensus that the pledger can milk and ride the pledge. If the pledgee milks the pledge, it is either with or without the permission of the pledger. If it is without his permission, we find in a hadith that Ibn ‘Umar related from the Prophet ﷺ: ‘No one should milk an animal without permission.’ This refutes him and demands that it be abrogated. If it is with permission, then it is one of the fundamental principles agreed upon about forbidding what is unknown and risky, selling what is not in your possession and selling what has not yet be created. That also refutes him. That was before the revelation of the prohibition of ribā’. Allah knows best.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘There are two situations that can arise when a pledgee stipulates the use of the pledge. If it is part of a loan, then it is not permitted. If it is part of a sale or hire, then it is permitted because he becomes someone who sells the merchandise for the price that was mentioned as well as the use of the pledge for a known period. So it is like a sale and hire. In the case of a loan, it would turn it into an interest-bearing loan. That is because the loan is a good action. If there is a benefit from it, then it becomes an increase and that is ribā.’

It is not permitted to take a pledge as forfeit. That is when the pledgee stipulates that he has a right to it if there is no payment at the end of the term. This was part of the action of the Jāhiliyyah. The Prophet ﷺ declared it void when he said, ‘The pledge does not become forfeit.’ ‘A pledge being forfeit’ is when it is in the possession of the pledgee when it is not redeemed.

Zuhayr said:

She separated herself with a pledge which was not redeemed On the day of farewell, and so the pledge became forfeit.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī related from Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah from Ziyād ibn Sa‘d from az-Zuhrī from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab from Abū Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The pledge does not become forfeit. He has its gain and bears its loss.’ Ziyād ibn Sa‘d is one of the trustworthy keepers. This is a good isnād. Mālik transmitted from Ibn Shihāb in a mursal transmission from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘A pledge does not become forfeit.’ Abū ‘Umar said, ‘As far as I know, that is how it is related by all of those who relate the Muwaṭṭā’ from Mālik except for Ma‘n ibn ‘Īsā.’

He connected its transmission, and Ma‘n is trustworthy, although I fear that the error in it is from ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-Ghaḍārī from Mujāhid ibn Mūsā from Ma‘n ibn ‘Īsā. In it he added from ‘Abdullāh ‘Amrūs from al-Abharī with his isnād, ‘He has its gain and bears its loss.’ Transmitters disagree about this addition. Ibn Abī Laylā, Ma‘mar and others removed it.

Ibn Wahb related it and said, ‘Yūnus said that Ibn Shihāb said, “Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab used to say, ‘The pledge belongs to the one who pledged it. He has its gain and bears its loss.’” Ibn Shihāb reported that this is part of what Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab said, not what the Prophet ﷺ said. However, Ma‘mar did mention it marfū‘ from Ibn Shihāb. Ma‘mar is the firmest of those who relate from Ibn Shihāb. ‘Alī corroborated it marfū‘ from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Unaysah, who is not strong. The basis of this hadith with the people of knowledge of transmission is that it mursal. Although it is connected by various paths, they find fault in them. Furthermore, no one makes this hadith marfū‘, but they disagree about its interpretation and meaning.

Ad-Dāraquṭnī also related it marfū‘ from Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ayyāsh from Ibn Abī Dh’ib from az-Zuhrī from Sa‘īd from Abū Hurayrah. Abū ‘Umar said that Ismā‘īl did not hear it from Ibn Abī Dh’ib, but rather heard it from ‘Abbād ibn Kathīr from Ibn Abī Dh’ib. We consider ‘Abbād to be weak and he is not used as an authority. We also believe that the hadiths of Ismā‘īl are not accepted when they are reported from people other than those of his land. When he relates from Syrians, his hadiths are in order. When he relates from Madinans and others, there are many errors and much confusion in his hadiths.

Growth in the pledge is part of it when it is not distinct, like clarified butter, or progeny, like infants of animals, and fruit. This includes palm shoots and other sorts of produce, fruits, milk and wool. They are not included as part of the pledge unless that is stipulated. The difference is that infants follow mothers in zakāt, but that is not the case with wool, milk and the fruit of trees because they do not follow their sources in zakāt and do not have the same form or the same idea. They have their own ruling which is not the same ruling as their source. This is not the case with infants and progeny. Allah knows best what is correct regarding that.

It is permitted for someone whose debts encompass all his property to leave a pledge, as long as he has not been declared bankrupt. The pledgee is more entitled to the pledge than the other creditors. Mālik and a group of people stated that. Something different is also related from Mālik which was stated by ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Abī Salamah: it is that the rest of the creditors are included with him in that. That is of no consequence because the transactions of someone who has not been debarred are sound in all circumstances, whether buying or selling. The creditors dealt with him in buying and selling and deciding. The position of Mālik does not differ in this area. The same is true of the pledge, and Allah knows best.

If you leave things on trust with one another the one who is trusted must deliver up his trust

This is an order from Allah to hand over what was left in trust and not to procrastinate. The command here is mandatory and is connected to the consensus that it is mandatory to pay debts. The judge can confirm that and creditors can compel him to pay it. Furthermore there are sound hadiths which make another person’s property unlawful to him. The word for ‘amānah’ (leave on trust) is a verbal noun meaning something for which one is responsible. ‘His’ refers to the one who owes the debt [and left the pledge].

and be fearful of Allah his Lord.

He must not conceal anything that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Do not conceal testimony.

This forbids a witness from causing harm by hiding the fact of his testimony. The prohibition is mandatory and a threat accompanies it. The prohibition applies to when the witness fears that the right will be lost. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘A witness must testify when he is called upon to testify and report when he is asked to report.’ If there are several witnesses, it is a farḍ kifāyah that they testify. When two have satisfied it, the obligation falls from the rest of them. If they do not do it, then it is incumbent on the remaining witness to go and do it so that there is affirmation. This is known when he is called upon to do it when he says, ‘Ensure my right by conveying the testimony you have.’ Then it becomes incumbent on him to do it.

If someone does conceal it, his heart commits a crime.

The heart is mentioned since concealment is an action and the heart is that piece of flesh by whose soundness the entire body is sound, as the Prophet ﷺ said. One part of it designates the whole of it. This was mentioned at the beginning of the sūrah. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘When a witness resolves not to convey his testimony and abandons performing it with the tongue, then he commits a sin in both ways.’ ‘His heart commits a crime’ is metaphorical. It stresses the real nature of what occurs and indicates the threat. That is part of eloquence and fine use of language in expressing the meaning. It is said that the crime of the heart is the reason for its transformation. When Allah transforms the heart, He makes the person a hypocrite and seals it. We seek refuge from Allah. This was already mentioned at the beginning of the sūrah.

Know that Allah’s commands concerning testimony and writing are intended to rectify discord and to avoid disputes which might lead to conflict, thereby preventing Shayṭān from enticing people to deny others their rights and exceed what the Sharī‘ah has defined for them, or not to confine themselves to the amount they are owed. It is for this reason that the Sharī‘ah forbids unknown sales which would lead to disagreement and conflict and bring about mutual rancour and separation. One aspect of this is Allah’s prohibition of gambling and games of chance and drinking wine. Allah says: ‘Shayṭān wants to stir up enmity and hatred between you by means of wine and gambling.’ (5:91) Whoever is guided by Allah in respect of His commands and restraints, obtains the good of this world and the dīn. Allah Almighty says: ‘But if they had done what they were urged to do, it would have been better for them.’ (4:66)

Al-Bukhārī related from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone takes something from another intending to repay it, Allah will repay it for him, and if someone takes it intending to destroy it, Allah will destroy him.’ An-Nasā’ī reported that Maymūnah, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, used to have a lot of debts, and she was asked, ‘Umm al-Mu’minīn, do you incur debts when you have nothing with which to pay them?’ She replied, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, “If anyone takes on a debt intending to pay it, Allah will help him with it.”’

Aṭ-Tahāwī, Abū Ja‘far aṭ-Ṭabarī and al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah in his Musnad reported from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Ạmir that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do not frighten people when they are secure.’ They asked ‘Messenger of Allah, how can that happen?’ ‘By debts,’ he replied.

Al-Bukhārī reported from Anas that the Prophet ﷺ said in a supplication, ‘O Allah, I seek refuge with You from worry, sorrow, incapacity, laziness, cowardice, miserliness, heavy debts and the oppression of men.’ Scholars say that heavy debts are those which the debtor can find no way to pay. The word for ‘heavy’ is taken from the Arabic expressions ‘ḥiml muḍli‘’, an overburdening load, and ‘dābah muḍli‘’, an animal unable to bear its load. The author of al-‘Ayn said that.

The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘A debt is the disgrace of the dīn.’ It is related that he said, ‘Debts are worry by night and abasement by day.’ Our scholars say that debts are disgrace and abasement because they preoccupy the heart and mind, and one is always concerned about paying them. There is abasement to the creditor when he meets him and he continues to endure the burden of the creditor’s favour to him by delaying paying it to the end of its term. He may promise to pay and then put it off, or the creditor may abuse him because of it and he will lie, or he may give him an oath and then break it, and other such things. This is why the Prophet ﷺ sought refuge from it. It was said to the Messenger of Allah, ‘How often you seek refuge from debts!’ He said, ‘When a man is in debt, he will speak and lie and promise and break his promise.’ Furthermore, sometimes someone may die without paying the debt and then be left in pledge for it, for the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘The soul of the believer is pledged in the grave for his debts until they are paid.’ All of these things are disgrace in the dīn which removes its beauty and perfection. Allah knows best.

When Allah commands people to write down debts, to bear witness and to take pledges, that constitutes a clear text about preserving property and making it grow, refuting ignorant false Sufis and the riffraff who follow them who do not agree with that. They abandon all their wealth and do not leave enough for themselves and their families. Then, when they and their families are in need, they either turn to the generosity of brothers or friends, or take from the wealthy and unjust. This is blameworthy and forbidden. Abu-l-Faraj al-Jawzī said, ‘I do not wonder at those who practise asceticism when they are lacking in knowledge. I do wonder at how people who have knowledge and intellect encourage this and command it when it is contrary to the Sharī‘ah and logic.’ Al-Muḥāsibī talked a lot about this and Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī praised it as well. I think al-Muḥāsibi has more of an excuse than Abū Ḥāmid because Abū Ḥāmid had more fiqh, although his entry into taṣawwuf obliged him to support what he had entered into.

Al-Muḥāsibī said, ‘I heard that when ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf died, some of the Companions of Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “We fear for ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān because of what he left.” Ka‘b said. “Glory be to Allah! What do you fear for ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān? He earned well, spent well and left well.” That reached Abū Dharr who went out angrily after Ka‘b. He picked up the jawbone of a camel and then went to look for Ka‘b. Ka‘b was told, “Abū Dharr is looking for you.” So he ran to ‘Uthmān asking him for his help and telling him the story. Abū Dharr tracked down Ka‘b until he came to ‘Uthmān’s house. When he entered, Ka‘b got up and sat down behind ‘Uthmān, fleeing from Abū Dharr. Abū Dharr said to him, “Son of a Jewish woman, do you claim that there is no harm in what ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān left! The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out one day and said, ‘The ones with the most will be the ones with the least on the Day of Rising except for those who say such-and-such.’”’ Al-Muḥāsibī said, ‘In spite of his excellence, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān will still be made to stand in the courtyard on the Day of Rising because of his lawful earnings which he used for the sake of abstinence and acts of charity, and so he will be prevented from hastening to the Garden with the poor and will be have to crawl in behind them.’

Al-Ghazālī mentioned this and supported it by the hadith of Tha‘labah who was given money and then refused to pay zakāt. He said, ‘If anyone examines the states of the Prophets and awliyā’ and their statements, he will not doubt that the absence of wealth is better than its existence, even if it is directed towards good ends, since the least of the consequences of wealth is that attending to it distracts the himmah (aspiration) from remembrance of Allah. So a murīd must leave his property so that he only has what he needs and not have a dirham to which his heart tums so that he is veiled from Allah.’

Al-Jawzī said, ‘All of this is contrary to the Sharī‘ah and intelligence, and is poor understanding of what is desired in respect of property. Allah honoured and esteemed it and commanded it to be preserved since He made it the support of the human being and that which is the support of the noble human being is also noble. The Almighty says: “Do not hand over to the simple-minded any property of theirs for which Allah has made you responsible.” (4:5). He forbade property to be surrendered to someone without good sense and says: “If you perceive that they have sound judgment hand over their property to them.” (4:6) The Prophet ﷺ forbade squandering property and told Sa‘d, “It is better to leave rich heirs than to leave them poor, begging from other people,” and he said, “Nothing helped me like the property of Abū Bakr.” He told ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ, “The best of property is the good property of a righteous man.” He prayed for Anas, “O Allah, make his property and children plentiful and bless him in it.” Ka‘b said, “One thing I repent of is that I divested myself of my property as sadaqah for Allah and His Messenger.” He said, “Keep part of your property for yourself. That will be better for you.”’

Al-Jawzī continued, ‘These hadiths are found in the sound collections and are contrary to what false Sufis believe about a lot of wealth being a veil and a punishment and that having it is contrary to reliance on Allah. It cannot be denied that its temptation is something to be feared, that a lot of people avoid it out of fear of that, that amassing it properly rarely occurs, that the safety of the heart from temptation by it is rare and that it is unusual for a heart to be busy with it while still remembering the Next World. This is why its temptation is feared. As for earning property, when someone confines himself to what will suffice him of what is lawful, that is necessary. As for someone who intends to amass it and have a lot of the lawful, one looks to his intention. If his intention is to boast, that is evil. If he intends a modest income for himself and his family, to save up for changes of fortune and bad times, and intends to expand things for his brothers, enrich the poor and do righteous actions, his intention will be rewarded, and his amassing it with this intention is better than many acts of obedience.

‘The intention of many of the Companions was to amass sound wealth for good ends and so they encouraged it and asked for more. When the Prophet ﷺ gave az-Zubayr a land grant, he summoned his horse and ran his horse until it stopped, and then threw his whip and he said, “Give him up to where his whip lands.” Sa‘īd ibn ‘Ubādah said in his supplication, “O Allah, give me expansion.” The brothers of Yūsuf said, “We can get an extra load.” (12:65) Shu‘ayb said to Mūsā, “If you complete ten, then that is up to you.” (28:27) When Ayyūb was healed and golden locusts began to fall on him, he began to collect them in his garment and collected a lot, he was asked, “Are you not full?” He said, “Lord, does a poor man have his fill of Your bounty?”

‘This is something embedded in human nature. The words of al-Muḥāsibī are erroneous and indicate lack of knowledge. What he mentioned about Ka‘b and Abū Dharr is impossible and forged by the ignorant. Its lack of soundness is concealed because of their attachment to the People [i.e. Sufis]. Its isnād is not firm. The truth of the matter is that Abū Dharr died in 25 AH and ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ‘Awf died in 32 AH so he lived seven years after Abū Dharr. The actual words of the account indicate that it is forged. How could the Companions say, “We fear for ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān?” Is there not a consensus that it is permitted to amass lawful wealth, so what is the sense of fearing for someone because of something which is allowed? Would the Sharī‘ah permit something and then punish someone for it? This is poor understanding.

‘How would Abū Dharr disapprove of ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān when ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān was far more excellent than him? Is its attribution to ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān alone evidence that he did not follow the path of the Companions? Ṭalḥah left three thousand measures and every measure weighed three hundredweight. Az-Zubayr left two hundred and fifty thousand. Ibn Mas‘ūd left seventy thousand. Many of the Companions amassed wealth and left it and no one objected to that. As for the words “‘Abd ar-Raḥmān will crawl on the Day of Rising,” this is proof that the transmitter does not know the hadith. I seek refuge with Allah from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān crawling on the Day of Rising! Do you think that one of the ten promised the Garden, one of the people present at the Battle of Badr, and one of the people of the Shūrā, would have to crawl?

‘Then it was ‘Umārah ibn Zādhān who related the hadith and al-Bukhārī said that his hadiths are shaky. Aḥmad said that he reported many denounced hadiths from Anas. Abū Ḥātim ar-Rāzī said that he is not authoritative. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that he is weak.

‘The statement, “It is better to abandon lawful wealth than to amass it” is not true. When the intention is sound, then amassing it is better without any disagreement among the scholars. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, “There is no good in one who does not seek wealth with which to pay his debts and protect his reputation. If he dies, he leaves inheritance for those after him.” He himself left four hundred dinars. Sufyān left two hundred. He used to say. “Wealth in this time is an armour.” The Salaf continued to praise wealth and collect it for recommended things and to help the poor. Some people shun it since they prefer to devote themselves to worship. They have strong aspiration and are content with only a little. If someone says this, then this small amount is better for him than approaching the business, but he is close to the level of sin.’

Part of what indicates that preserving property and caring for it is correct is that one can fight for it and over it. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If someone is killed in defence of his property, he is a martyr.’ This will be mentioned further in Sūrat al-Mā’idah, Allah willing.

284 Everything in the heavens and everything in the earth belongs to Allah. Whether you divulge what is in yourselves or keep it hidden, Allah will still call you to account for it. He forgives whomever He wills and He punishes whomever He wills. Allah has power over all things. Whether you divulge what is in yourselves or keep it hidden, Allah will still call you to account for it.

People disagree about this statement and there are five different positions about it:

– One group say that it is abrogated. Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Ā’ishah, Abū Hurayrah, ash-Sha‘bī, ‘Aṭā’, Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b, Mūsā ibn ‘Ubaydah and a group of Companions and Tābi‘ūn said that. This degree of accountability remained until Allah revealed: ‘Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear.’ (2:286) We find in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘When the āyah was revealed: “Whether you divulge what is in yourselves or keep it hidden, Allah will still call you to account for it,” something of [fear of that] entered their hearts that had never entered them before. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Say: ‘We hear and obey and submit.’” So Allah cast faith into their hearts and then Allah Almighty revealed: “Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear. For it, is what it has earned, and against it is what it has merited. Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake!” and He said, “I have done it.” “Our Lord, do not place on us a load like the one You place on those before us!” and He said, “I have done it.” “Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear! And pardon us, and forgive us and have mercy on us. You are our Master, so help us against the people of the believers.” (2:286) He said, “I have done it.”’ One variant has: ‘When they did that, Allah abrogated it for them and then revealed: “Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear.”’

– Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ikrimah, ash-Sha‘bī and Mujāhid said that it is an āyah of judgment specifically about the testimony referred to earlier, which it is forbidden to conceal and for which the person will be called to account. Allah informs us in this āyah that a person will be called to account for what he conceals inside himself.

– The āyah is about doubt and certainty which comes to the heart. Mujāhid said that.

– It is a general ruling and not abrogated. Allah will call His creatures to account for their actions and for things they did not do, which were settled in themselves and which they concealed, desired and intended. He will forgive the believers and punish the people of disbelief and hypocrisy for that. Aṭ-Tabarī mentioned this position, and related something similar from Ibn ‘Abbās. It is related from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘It was not abrogated. But when Allah gathers the creatures, He will say, “I will tell you what you concealed in yourselves.” He will tell the believers and then forgive them. As for the people of doubt and uncertainty, He will tell them of the denial they concealed. That is what He means when He says: “He forgives whomever He wills and He punishes whomever He wills,” and the meaning of His words: “He will take you to task for the intention your hearts have made” (2:225) referring to doubt and hypocrisy.’

Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘On the Day of Rising Allah will tell each person what he was concealing so that he knows that he does not have to fear on account of it.’ In a report we read, ‘Allah Almighty will say on the Day of Rising: “This is the Day on which secrets are revealed and consciences probed. My scribes only record your actions which appear on your limbs and tongues. I know what they do not know and know what they do not report or write down. I will inform you of that and reckon you for it and then l will forgive whoever I wish and punish whomever I wish.” So He will forgive the believers and punish the unbelievers.’

This is the soundest position on this matter. It is indicated by the hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Allah will pardon My Community for what their selves suggest to them when they do not articulate that nor act on it.’ We say that this refers to the judgments of this world, like divorce, emancipation and sales whose rulings are not binding as long as they are not spoken. That which it mentioned in the āyah is what is between the servant and Allah in the Next World.

– Al-Hasan said that the āyah is one whose ruling is not abrogated. Aṭ-Ṭabarī mentioned that other scholars said things similar to what has been quoted from Ibn ‘Abbās, although they added that the punishment, repaying people for what occurs within their selves and is accompanied by thought, is manifested through the misfortunes that befall them in this world, its pains and all the things which are disliked in it. Something similar to this is reported in a chain of transmission from ‘Ā’ishah. That is the fifth view. Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that it is a judgment whose ruling is not abrogated. Ibn ‘Aṭā’ said, ‘This [that it is not abrogated] is correct. Allah’s words: “Whether you divulge what is in yourselves or keep it hidden...” refer to things which are within your capacity and ability accompanied by conviction and thought, since the words of the āyah include thoughts which worried the Companions and the Prophet ﷺ and so Allah explained to them what He meant by revealing another āyah and stipulated that the ruling is that a person is only obliged to do what he is capable of doing. It is not possible to repel thoughts. They predominate and they are not part of what people are held accountable for. This explanation gave them relief and alleviated their anxiety.’

The rest of the āyah is one of judgment and is not abrogated. One thing which refutes the claim of abrogation is that the āyah is a report, not an order or instruction, and abrogation does not occur in respect of reports. If someone believes that there is abrogation, it can only be in the ruling which was connected to the Companions when they were alarmed by the āyah. That was that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Say, “We hear and obey.”’ That conveys the command to be firm in this and cling to Allah and see the kindness of Allah in His forgiveness. If this is the case, the ruling can be abrogated and the āyah is similar to Allah’s words: ‘If there are twenty of you who are steadfast, they will overcome two hundred.’ (8:65) This is also in the form of a report, but the meaning demands: ‘Hold to this, be firm on it and steadfast accordingly.’ Then it was abrogated after that. As far as I know, the consensus of the people is that this āyah about jihād was abrogated by a hundred being required to be firm against two hundred. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this āyah in al-Baqarah is the most similar thing to it. It is said that there is allusion and specification in the words and that the words imply: Allah will call you to account for that if He wishes. According to this, there is no abrogation.

An-Naḥḥās said, ‘Part of the best of what is said about this āyah, and most similar to the literal meaning, is what Ibn ‘Abbās said: it is universal and undefined. Then one adds the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar about intimate conversation which al-Bukhārī, Muslim and others transmitted. In Muslim’s variant, he said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘On the Day of Rising, the believer will draw near to his Almighty Lord until He puts His veil over him and will have to admit to his wrong actions. He will say, ‘Do you admit to this?’ He will reply, ‘O Lord, I admit to them.’ Allah will say, ‘I concealed them for you in the world and today I forgive you for them.’ He will be given the page containing his good deeds. There will be an announcement about unbelievers and hypocrites in front of people: ‘These people lied about Allah.’”’

It is said that the āyah was revealed about those who took the unbelievers as friends rather than the believers. It means: ‘O believers, if you make known or conceal what is in yourselves about taking the unbelievers as protectors and friends, Allah will take you to account for it.’ Al-Wāqidī and Muqātil said that. For evidence of this, they recite Allah’s words in Āl ‘Imrān: ‘Say: “Whether you conceal what is in your breasts or make it known [in taking the unbelievers as friends], Allah knows it.”’ (3:29) It is also indicated by the āyah before it: ‘The believers should not take unbelievers as friends rather than believers.’ (2:28)

This is unlikely because the context of the āyah does not demand it. It will be explained in Āl ‘Imrān, Allah willing. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said, ‘I heard that the Prophets used to bring this āyah to their people.’

He forgives whomever He wills and He punishes whomever He wills.

Ibn Kathīr, Nāfi‘. Abū ‘Amr, Ḥamzah and al-Kisā‘ī recited in the apocopate form, yaghfir – yu‘adhdhib, while Ibn ‘Āmir and ‘Āṣim read it yaghfiru – yu‘adhdhibu. It is related that Ibn ‘Abbās, al-A‘raj, Abu-l-‘Ālīyah, and ‘Āṣim al-Jaḥdarī recited them as yaghfira – yu‘adhdhiba, implying an elided ‘an’. The truth is that it is added to the meaning as is seen in 2:285. Adding to the word is better because of the resemblance.

An-Naḥḥās said that it is related from Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif without the fā’ before ‘He forgives’ as an appositive. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that it is recited that way by al-Ju‘fī and Khallād. It is related that it is like that in the copy of the Qur’an of Ibn Mas‘ūd. Ibn Jinnī said that it is an appositive for ‘call you to account’ and it explains the calling to account. [ILLUSTRATIVE POEM OMITTED] An-Naḥḥās said that it is better than the jussive.

285 The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. Each one believes in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers. We do not differentiate between any of His Messengers. They say, ‘We hear and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord! You are our journey’s end.’ 286 Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear. For it is what it has earned; against it, what it has merited. Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake! Our Lord, do not place on us a load like the one You placed on those before us! Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear! And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy on us. You are our Master, so help us against the people of the unbelievers.

The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord.

It is related from al-Ḥasan, Mujāhid and aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk that this āyah is about the Night Journey (al-Mi‘rāj). The same tafsīr is transmitted from Ibn ‘Abbās. Some of them say that the entire Qur’an was brought down to Muḥammad ﷺ by Jibrīl except for this one āyah. One of them said, ‘It is what he heard during the Mi‘rāj.’ Others say that it was not about the Mi‘rāj because the Night Journey occurred in Makkah while this entire sūrah is Madinan.

As for those who say that this āyah is about the Night Journey, they say, ‘When the Prophet ﷺ ascended and reached a high place in the heavens, Jibrīl accompanied him until he reached the Lote Tree of the Furthest Limit. Then Jibrīl said to him, “I cannot go beyond this place. No one except you has been commanded to go beyond it.” So the Prophet ﷺ went beyond the Lote Tree until he reached what Allah wished. Jibrīl had indicated that the Prophet ﷺ should greet his Lord and so he said. “Greetings are for Allah and prayers and good words.” Allah said, “Peace be upon you, O Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.” The Prophet ﷺ desired that his Community should have a share of the greeting and so he said. “Peace be upon us and on the righteous slaves of Allah.” Jibrīl and all the people of the heavens said, “I bear witness that there is no god except Allah alone without partner and I bear witness that Muḥammad is His slave and Messenger,” and then Allah Almighty said: “The Messenger believes…”, meaning that he is thankful and that the Messenger affirms “what has been sent down to him from his Lord.” The Prophet ﷺ wanted his Community to share in the honour and said, “And so do the believers. Each one believes in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers. We do not differentiate between any of His Messengers.”’ This means that they say, ‘We believe in all the Messengers and do not disbelieve in any of them and do not differentiate between any of them as the Jews and Christians did.’

So his Lord said to him, ‘How do they accept the āyahs We have revealed?’ That is inherent in His words: ‘Whether you divulge what is in yourselves.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘They say, “We hear and obey. Forgive us, our Lord! You are our journey’s end.”’ That means the source to which they will return. Then Allah said: ‘Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear,’ i.e. more than it is capable of. ‘For it, what it has earned’ of good and ‘against it what it has merited’ of evil. At that point Jibrīl said, ‘Ask and it will be given to you.’ So the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget’ and do something in ignorance ‘or make a mistake’ in what we do deliberately. It is said that we do things both forgetfully and in error. Jibrīl said, ‘If you are granted that, then error and forgetfulness will be removed from your community. Ask for something else. He said ﷺ, ‘Our Lord, do not place on us a load like the one You placed on those before us!’ That was when good things were made unlawful for them because of their wrongdoing. When they sinned at night, they found it written on their doors. Fifty prayers were imposed on them and then Allah lightened it for this community and reduced it after fifty prayers were imposed. Then he said ﷺ, ‘Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear!’ He was saying, ‘Do not burden us with actions which we will not be able to do and so incur punishment.’ It is said that it means: ‘What is hard for us.’ That is because if they had been commanded to perform fifty prayers, they would have been able to do that, but it would have been very difficult for them and they would not have been able to persevere in it. ‘And pardon us’ and spare us from being transmogrified ‘and forgive us’ and do not let us be swallowed up by the earth ‘and have mercy on us’ and do not bombard us. ‘You are our Master’ and Protector and Preserver, ‘so help us against the people of the unbelievers.’ His supplication was answered.

In defining the extent of Allah’s help, the Prophet ﷺ reported, ‘I was helped by terror going before me for the distance of a month.’ It is said that when those going on a military expedition leave their houses with a sincere intention and beat the drums, terror and awe falls into the hearts of the unbelievers the distance of a month away, whether they know that they have set out or not. When the Prophet ﷺ returned from his Night Journey, Allah revealed these āyahs so that he could inform his Community of these things.

There is another aspect to the interpretation of this āyah. Az-Zajjāj said, ‘In this sūrah, after Allah has mentioned the obligation of the prayer and zakāt and clarified the principles of hajj, the ruling of menstruation, divorce, īlā’, the stories of the Prophets and clarified the ruling on usury, He mentions His own worth by saying: “Everything in the heavens and everything in the earth belongs to Allah.” Then He mentions that all this is affirmed by the Prophet ﷺ and the believers: “The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord.” This means that the Messenger affirms all of these things which were mentioned as do all of the believers who affirm Allah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers.’

It is said that the reason for its revelation was the āyah before it. When the former āyah was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ, it was hard on the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, so they went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and then knelt and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, we have been given as obligations actions we can do: prayer, fasting, jihād and ṣadaqah, but in this āyah Allah has revealed something that it is impossible for us to do.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Do you mean to say what the people of the two Books before you said: “We hear and we disobey”? Say: “We hear and we obey. Forgive us, our Lord! You are our journey’s end.”’ When the people recited it, their tongues were humbled and then Allah revealed this āyah: ‘The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord…’ When they said that, Allah abrogated the āyah and revealed: ‘Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear. For it, is what it has earned, and against it, is what it has merited. Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake!’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Our Lord, do not place on us a load like the one You placed on those before us!’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear!’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Master, so help us against the people of the unbelievers.’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Muslim transmitted this from Abū Hurayah.

Our scholars said that the fact that the first variant has ‘I have done it’ while this one has ‘Yes’ indicates the hadith was transmitted by its meaning. When the matter was confirmed by their saying ‘We hear and obey,’ Allah praised them in this āyah and removed from them the hardship they experienced about thoughts which occur to them. This favour is the fruit of obedience and devotion to Allah. What happened to the tribe of Israel was the opposite of that. They were censured and made to endure the hardships of abasement, wretchedness and exile because they said, ‘We hear and we disobey.’ Such is the result of disobedience and recalcitrance towards Allah. We seek refuge with Allah from His vengeance by His grace and generosity!

The Prophet ﷺ was told, ‘The house of Thābit ibn Qays is adorned with lamps every night.’ He replied, ‘Perhaps he is reciting Sūrat al-Baqarah.’ Thābit was told about this and said, ‘I recite: “The Messenger believes...” from Sūrat al-Baqarah.’ It was revealed when the Companions of the Prophet were experiencing hardship because Allah threatened to call them to account for what their selves concealed. They complained about that to the Prophet ﷺ and he said, ‘Perhaps you say, “We hear and we disobey” as the tribe of Israel said?’ They said, ‘We hear and we obey!’ and so Allah revealed this āyah to him. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘They should believe.’

‘Believe’ means to affirm, as has already been mentioned. That which was sent down is the Qur’an. The reading of Ibn Mas‘ūd has the word ‘believe’ after ‘believers’: ‘and the believers believe…’ Nāfi‘, Ibn Kathīr, ‘Āṣim in the transmission of Abū Bakr and Ibn ‘Āmir recite ‘kutubihi’ (books) in the plural and recite ‘kitābihi’ in the singular in at-Taḥrīm. Here and in at-Taḥrīm Abū ‘Amr recites ‘kutubihi’ in the plural. Ḥamzah and al-Kisā’ī recite ‘kitābihi’ in the singular in both places. If it is in the plural, it means all Books. If it is in the singular, it is the verbal noun which includes all that is written which is sent down from Allah. If it is recited in the singular, it can mean all Books and kitāb is a generic noun. So both readings are the same. Allah says: ‘Then Allah sent out Prophets bringing good news and giving warning, and with them He sent down the Book (kitāb).’ (2:213)

Most recite ‘Messengers’ as ‘rusulihi’ as well as ‘rusulinā’, ‘rusulikum’ and ‘rusuluka’, except for Abū ‘Amr from whom ‘ruslihi’ is related. He relates ‘ruslinā’, ‘ruslikum’ but both ‘rusuluka’ and ‘rusluka’. Abū ‘Alī said that if someone recites ‘rusulikum’, it is the root of the word. If it is rusl, then it is as a lightening occurs in singular words like ‘unq and ṭunb, and then it is more proper in the plural which is heavier. Makkī said something to that effect.

Most people recite ‘differentiate’ with the nūn of the first person plural. It means: ‘They say, “We do not differentiate.”’ So ‘they say’ is elided. This usage is seen in other āyahs like 13:23 and 3:191. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr, Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mur, Abū Zur‘ah ibn ‘Amr ibn Jarīr and Ya‘qūb recited it in the third person with yā’. This refers back to ‘each’ (kull). Hārūn said that the mode (ḥarf) of Ibn Mas‘ūd has ‘yufarriqūna’.

‘One’ (aḥad) is in the singular rather than the plural because ‘aḥad’ can be used of both the singular and the plural as we see elsewhere, as in 69:47. It is an adjective of one, while the plural is meant. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Booty was not made to anyone (aḥad),’ meaning to any of the rulers but you. Ru’bah said:

The affairs of people become your dīn. They do not fear anyone (aḥad) but you.

This āyah shows that the believers are not like the Jews and Christians who believe in some of the revelation and reject some of it.

They say, ‘We hear and we obey.’

This suggests some elision such as ‘We hear as those who accept hear.’ It is said that ‘hear’ means ‘accept’ as in the prayer when it is said, ‘Allah hears whoever praises Him,’ and so there is no elision. This entails praise of the speaker. Obedience is acceptance of the command.

Forgive us, our Lord!

The word ‘ghufrān’ (forgive) is a verbal noun and the object of it is implied, so what is literally ‘Your forgiveness’ means ‘grant us Your forgiveness,’ as az-Zajjāj said. Others say that it means, ‘We ask (or I ask) for Your forgiveness.’

You are our journey’s end.’

This is an affirmation of the Resurrection and the fact that we will stand before Allah. It is related that when this āyah was revealed, Jibrīl told the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Allah has allowed praise of you and your community. Ask and you will be given,’ and the following āyah was what he asked.

Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear.

Imposition implies a command to do something which is difficult and entails hardship. Al-Jawharī related that. The word ‘wus‘’ (bear) denotes capacity and effort. This is a definite report and it is a declaration from Allah that, from the moment of the revelation of the āyah, He has not imposed on His slaves any kind of worship, demanded of the hearts or the limbs, which is not within the capacity of the one on whom it is imposed. Through this āyah, anxiety was removed from the Muslims with regard to the matter concerning their thoughts. There is something related from Abū Hurayrah which conveys the meaning of this āyah. He said, ‘I would not wish to be anyone whose mother bore him except for Ja‘far ibn Abī Ṭālib. I followed him one day when I was hungry. When he reached his house, all he found in it was a churn for butter in which only a few traces remained. He broke it up between us and we began licking what was on it. He said:

“Allah does not impose on any self more than it can bear, and a hand can only be generous with what it has.”’

People disagree about whether it is permissible for a ruling about worldly matters to be imposed on someone when it is not within his capacity to carry it out. They do, however, agree that there is no imposition in the dīn which is beyond a person’s capacity. This āyah informs us that such an imposition does not occur in the Sharī‘ah. Abu-l-Ḥasan al-Ash‘arī and a group of mutakallimūn say that it is logically permissible for someone to be charged with doing something he is not capable of doing, and that does not detract at all from the tenets of belief (‘aqīdah) in the Sharī‘ah. That sort of command can be meant to be a punishment for the person on whom it is imposed, as when someone who made images is ordered to create a barley-seed on the Day of Judgment. Those who say that it is permitted disagree about whether it occurred in respect of the Message of Muḥammad ﷺ or not.

One group say that such an imposition occurred in the case of Abū Lahab, because he was obliged to believe in all of the Sharī‘ah and yet part of the revelation was that he would never believe because the judgment on him was that his hands would be ruined and he would burn in the Fire. It was announced that he would not believe and so he was charged with believing something which he could not believe. Another group says that such an imposition does not occur at all and report that there is a consensus on that. They say the words: ‘He will bum in a Flaming Fire’ (111:3) mean ‘He will be brought to it.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah related that.

The word ‘yukallifu’ (impose) is a transitive verb with two objects one of which is elided so that ‘worship’ or ‘something’ is implied. By Allah’s kindness and blessing to us, even though He imposed on us what is hard and difficult – such as odds of one against ten and hijrah, which entails leaving one’s homeland and separation from family, homeland and traditions – Allah did not impose on us burdensome hardships or painful matters, such as those He imposed on those before us which involved killing themselves and cutting out the patch soiled by urine on clothes and skins. Rather He made things easy for us and reduced the burden and the chains which He had placed on those before us. To Allah belongs praise, grace, favour and blessing.

For it is what it has earned; against it, what it has merited.

The words refer to good actions and bad actions, according to as-Suddī. The majority of scholars do not disagree with that. Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah stated that. It is similar to Allah’s words: ‘No bearer of a burden can bear the burden of another’ (6:164) and ‘What each self earns is for itself alone.’ (6:164) Thoughts and their like are not part of what a human being earns. The expression for good actions is in the words ‘for it’ since a person rejoices in earning them and adds them to his property. Bad actions are ‘against it’ since they are weights and burdens and hard to bear, as one says, ‘I have (lit. for me) property,’ and ‘There is a debt against me.’ The root kasaba, which has the basic meaning of acquisition, is repeated and the meaning differs according to the form the word takes [kasabat = earned, iktasabat = merited]. Ibn ‘Atiyyah said, ‘It is clear to me regarding this that good actions are part of what is acquired without being a burden since their acquirer is following the path of Allah’s command and His Sharī‘ah. Evil deeds are acquired since their acquirer burdens himself through them by rending the veil which Allah has forbidden. So the āyah utilises both usages.’

This āyah indicates that it is valid to call people’s actions ‘acquisitions’. People do not create them. If one were to say that a person created his actions, that is simply metaphorical. Al-Mahdawī and others said that it is said that this āyah means that no one is taken to task for the actions of another. Ibn ‘Atiyyah said, ‘This is sound in itself, but it is not an aspect of this āyah.’

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said that the āyah is evidence that someone who kills someone else by crushing, choking or drowning is personally responsible in respect of retaliation or blood money as opposed to someone whose blood money is the responsibility of their clan (‘āqilah). That differs from the literal words of the āyah. It indicates that the fact that there is no retaliation against a father does not demand that it is also cancelled for someone who is jointly responsible. It indicates the obligation of the ḥadd against the ‘āqilah when they enable someone who is insane. Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Our scholars mentioned that this āyah is about retaliation being mandatory against the partner of a father, differing from Abū Ḥanīfah, and against someone who shares in accidental homicide, differing from ash-Shāfi‘ī and Abū Ḥanīfah, because each of them has merited killing. They said that joint participation by someone on whom retaliation is not obliged is not an argument for averting what is averted by doubt.’

Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake!

This āyah means: ‘Pardon our wrong actions if we forget and make a mistake or simply forget or simply make a mistake,’ as the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Error and forgetfulness have been removed from my Community and from what they are forced to do,’ i.e. its being a wrong action in those cases. There is no disagreement that the wrong action is cancelled out. There is disagreement about the rulings connected to that action. Does that cancellation of the action mean that the action has no legal consequences or does it still entail all its legal consequences? There is disagreement about that, and the sound position is that it varies according to the circumstances. It is agreed that some consequences are not cancelled, like penalties, blood money and obligatory prayers, and others are agreed to be cancelled, like retaliation and speaking words which can be considered to be disbelief. There is disagreement about a third category, like eating out of forgetfulness in Ramadan or breaking an oath out of forgetfulness.

Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear!

This ‘load’ is a weighty burden. Mālik and ar-Rabi‘ say that the word ‘iṣr’ (load) denotes a difficult, onerous thing. Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said that it refers to stringent commands and what was hard for the tribe of Israel regarding urine and the like. Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘They endured hard things.’ This is similar to what the others said. An-Nābighah said:

You who protected the side of the mountain from the descent of their riders, bearing the burden (iṣr) for them after they recognised it.

‘Aṭā’ said that it refers to being turned into pigs and monkeys. Ibn Zayd also said that. He also said that it means wrong actions for which there is no repentance or expiation.

The word linguistically means ‘charge or undertaking’, as when Allah says: ‘Do you agree and undertake my charge (iṣrī) on that condition?’ (3:81) Another form of the word means constriction, wrong action and burdensomeness. The word iṣār denotes a short rope which is used to bind loads and the like. The verb means ‘to confine.’ According to al-Jawharī, place of confinement is called a ma’ṣīr.

Ibn Khuwayzimandād said, ‘It is possible to infer from the literal meaning of this āyah that it refers to the burden which opponents claim that every act of worship entails. That resembles the words of Allah: “He has not placed any constraint on you in the dīn,” (22:78) and the words of the Prophet ﷺ: “The dīn is ease, so make things easy. Do not make things difficult.”’ O Allah, be hard on those who are hard on the Community of Muḥammad ﷺ! Aṭ-Ṭabarī said something similar and said that it is used as an argument for lack of injury and constriction.

Qatādah said that Allah’s words: ‘Our Lord, do not place on us a load we have not the strength to bear,’ mean, ‘Do not make things hard for us as You made them hard for those before us.’ Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘Do not impose on us actions which we cannot do.’ Ibn Zayd said the same. Ibn Jurayj said, ‘Do not turn us into apes or pigs.’ Sallām ibn Shābūr said, ‘“What we do not have the strength to bear” refers to lust.’ An-Naqqāsh related it from Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’. It is related that Abu-d-Dardā’ used to say in his supplication, ‘I seek refuge with You from lust against which one cannot resist.’ As-Suddī said, ‘It is the strengthening of the shackles which were on the tribe of Israel.’

And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy on us. You are our Master, so help us against the people of the unbelievers.

‘And pardon us’ for our wrong actions. One pardons a wrong action by overlooking it and not punishing for it. ‘And forgive us’, meaning conceal our wrong actions. Ghafr is covering and concealing. ‘Have mercy on us’ means ‘Bestow Your mercy on us.’ ‘You are our Master’ means ‘You are our Protector and Helper.’ This is instructing people on how best to make supplication.

It is related that when Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal finished reciting this sūrah, he said, ‘Āmīn.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said, ‘It is thought that he related that from the Prophet ﷺ. If that is the case, it is completion. If it is based on analogy with the Sūrah of Praise (the Fātiḥah) since that is a supplication and this is a supplication, that is good. ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib said, “I do not think anyone with intelligence, who has found Islam, will sleep until he has recited both of them.”’

Muslim related this idea from Abū Mas‘ūd al-Anṣārī who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If someone recites these two āyahs at the end of al-Baqarah in the night, they will spare him,’ meaning from rising at night to pray.

It is also related from Ibn ‘Umar that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say, ‘Allah revealed to me two āyahs from the treasures of the Garden. He sealed Sūrat al-Baqarah with them. The All-Merciful wrote them with His hand a thousand years before He created creation. If someone reads them after ‘Ishā’ twice, they will spare him from rising at night to pray: “The Messenger believes…” to the end of the sūrah.’ It is said that they spare him the evil of Shayṭān so that he does not have any power over him.

Abū ‘Amr ad-Dānī related from Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Allah Almighty wrote a Book a thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth. He sent down from it these three āyahs which conclude al-Baqarah. If someone recites them in his house, Shayṭān will not approach his house for three nights.’ It is related that the Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I was given these āyahs at the end of Sūrat al-Baqarah from the treasure under the Throne. No Prophet before me was given them.’ This is sound.