An-Nisa

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ In the first verse of this sūrah, all human beings are addressed, because this sūrah contains matters of which all people are in need in their lives. Thereafter comes the call to taqwā and God‑fearingness, which constitutes the foundation of the programs that make a society sound, wholesome, and healthy. The fulfillment of one another’s rights, the just distribution of inheritance, the protection of orphans, the safeguarding of domestic rights, and similar programs are such matters that cannot reach completion without the elevation of taqwā and God‑consciousness. For this reason, this sūrah, which encompasses all such issues, begins with an invitation to taqwā. That God Almighty who observes all human actions and oversees them begins this sūrah with a call to taqwā. That God who is the witness over all human deeds, by way of introduction, points to a characteristic of humankind which is the root of unity and oneness in human society. الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ That God who created all human beings from a single human being. Therefore, the imagined and illusory distinctions and claims of superiority that every group has fabricated for itself—such as racial, linguistic, regional, tribal distinctions, and other classifications of this kind which today have become the cause of thousands of evils in world society—should not exist in an Islamic society, because the origin of all is one and the same. All of them are children of the same parents and were created from the same essence. When consideration is given to the fact that the society of the time of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was entirely tribal, the significance of this statement becomes fully apparent. Expressions of this type also occur in other places in the Noble Qur’an, to which reference will be made in their respective locations. Now it remains to be seen who is meant by “nafs wāḥidah”. Does it refer to a single individual person, or to a single generic identity (that is, the male species)? There is no doubt that the apparent meaning of this expression refers to a single individual, and it alludes to that first human being whom the Qur’an introduces by the name of Ādam as the father of present‑day human beings. The expression Banī Ādam used in numerous Qur’anic verses also points in the same direction, and the possibility that this refers to a generic unity appears remote. وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا This statement apparently indicates that the honored spouse of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) was created from him. Some exegetes have understood from this that the wife of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام), Ḥawwāʾ, was created from his body. Some well‑known reports also state that Ḥaḍrat Ḥawwāʾ was created from the ribs of Ādam (عليه السلام), and this verse has been cited as evidence for that view. (The second chapter of the Book of Genesis in the Torah also elaborates upon the same meaning.) However, by paying attention to other Qur’anic verses, the doubt and ambiguity concerning the interpretation of this verse are resolved, and it becomes clear that what is meant is that God Almighty created the wife of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) from the same kind (jins), that is, the human kind. Thus, in Sūrat al‑Rūm, verse 21, it is stated: وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا And in Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 72, He says: وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا It is clear that in both of these verses, stating that spouses are from among yourselves means that they are from the same kind, not from the bodily parts. Furthermore, according to a report narrated in Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī from Ḥaḍrat Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام), the notion that Ḥaḍrat Ḥawwāʾ was created from the ribs of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) has been rejected, and it has been clarified that Ḥaḍrat Ḥawwāʾ was created from the remaining clay of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام).

وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًا كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاءً This statement indicates that from Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) and his wife many men and women were produced. From this expression it is understood that the proliferation of the descendants of the sons of Ādam (عليه السلام) took place through Ādam (عليه السلام) and his wife alone, and that there was no involvement of any third being. The outcome of this discussion is that the children of Ādam (عليه السلام)—brothers and sisters—married one another, because if they had married women from some other lineage, the expression “مِنْهُمَا” would not apply to both of them. This subject has also been mentioned in many narrations and is not particularly astonishing. For according to this reasoning, which is transmitted in some narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), such marriages were permissible at that time, because the ruling prohibiting marriage between brother and sister had not yet been revealed. It is evident that the prohibition of any act depends upon the issuance of a command from God. It is also possible that, due to expediency and necessity, an act may be permissible in one period and later become prohibited. However, there are also some other narrations in which this issue has been explained differently, stating that the sons and daughters of Ādam (عليه السلام) did not marry one another, and severe criticism has been directed toward those who hold such a view. If it is assumed that the narrations conflict with one another, then the narration that accords with the Qur’an should be regarded as correct, in which case the first view must be accepted, because the content of those narrations corresponds exactly with the apparent meaning of the above verse. There is also another possibility, namely, that it be considered that the sons of Ādam (عليه السلام) married individuals from among the remaining humans who existed before them, because according to some reports, Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) was not the first human being to inhabit the earth. Contemporary empirical studies also indicate that the human species lived on the earth several million years ago, whereas not much time has passed from the birth of Ḥaḍrat Ādam (عليه السلام) until now. Therefore, it should be accepted that before Ādam (عليه السلام) there were other humans living on the earth who were in the process of disappearing at the time of his birth, and thus there is no obstacle to the sons of Ādam (عليه السلام) marrying into the families of those earlier remaining people. (It should be noted that, in brief, preference should be given to the second or third view, especially since narrations also exist in support of them; moreover, marriage between brother and sister is not regarded as acceptable in any society, even those that do not follow any religion. The verse is not explicit but only apparent. Additionally, the principle of agreement or disagreement with the majority is also to be considered.) However, as has been written, this possibility also does not fully accord with the apparent wording of the above verse. This is a matter that requires extensive discussion and lies beyond the scope of exegetical discourse. وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالْأَرْحَامَ The importance that taqwā holds in establishing a sound society has led to a renewed call to piety and God‑fearingness. Here, however, an additional phrase has been included. Thus it is stated: fear God, whom you regard as possessing greatness and majesty, and whose name you invoke when you ask one another for something. (The term تَسَاءَلُونَ is derived from تَسَاءُل, which means asking one another. تَسَاءَلُونَ بِاللَّهِ means that when people ask one another for something they say “I ask you by God,” and this is a sign of the greatness of God Almighty in their view.) Then it says: وَالْأَرْحَامَ This word is conjoined to اللَّهَ, and for this reason in the well‑known recitation it is read in the accusative. Accordingly, its meaning will be: fear the severing of kinship ties. Here the mention of the subject first highlights the extreme importance of maintaining kinship bonds, to the extent that the Qur’an mentions the relatives alongside the blessed name and noble designation of God Almighty. Secondly, it points again to what was mentioned at the beginning of the verse, namely that all humans share the same father and mother. In reality, all the descendants of Ādam (عليه السلام) are relatives of one another. This bond and connection require that you show love to all human beings—regardless of their race or tribe—as you would to members of your own family. إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا The word رَقِيب originally refers to a person who observes conditions from an elevated place. Later it came to be used in the sense of a guardian or protector, because guarding necessitates observation and oversight. The elevation implied in رَقِيب may be spatial, in the sense of someone stationed at a high place to keep watch, or it may be figurative in a moral sense. In the above statement it is said: God is your Watcher, and He sees and knows all your actions and intentions; and implicitly it also conveys that, in times of difficulty, He is your Protector as well. The word كَانَ in the above statement, although a past‑tense verb, is used here for the sake of emphasis.

A man from the tribe of Banū Ghaṭafān had a brother who was extremely wealthy. When he passed away, his brother, under the pretext of guardianship of his orphaned nephews, took possession of his wealth. When his nephew reached maturity, he refused to hand over the orphan’s rightful share. When this case was presented before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the above‑mentioned verse was revealed. After hearing the verse, the usurper repented and returned the property to its rightful owner, saying: أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الْحُوبِ الْكَبِيرِ I seek refuge with God lest I fall into a great sin.

Misappropriation of the property of orphans is prohibited. In every society, due to various incidents, fathers pass away and leave behind young children. However, in corrupt societies that remain entangled in internal conflict—such as the Arabian society of the Age of Ignorance—the number of orphaned children is very large, and they must remain under the support and guardianship of the Islamic government and every individual Muslim. In the above‑mentioned verse, three important directives concerning the property of orphans are given: وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ In this statement, the command is given that when orphans reach maturity, their property must be handed over to them. That is, your control over their property is only in the capacity of a trustee, overseer, and agent, not as an owner. وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا الْخَبِيثَ بِالطَّيِّبِ And do not substitute their pure and wholesome property with your inferior and unwholesome property. This command is in fact to prevent injustice, for at times the guardians of orphans, under the pretext that exchanging property will benefit the orphan or that no harm will result, would take the orphan’s good and pure property and replace it with their own inferior and undesirable property. وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَىٰ أَمْوَالِكُمْ And do not consume their property along with your own, that is, do not mix the property of orphans with your own property, whether with the intention of ultimately claiming all as your own, or by mixing your inferior property with their superior property in a way that results in the violation of the orphans’ rights. In the above statement, the word “إِلَىٰ” is used in the sense of “مَعَ” (with). إِنَّهُ كَانَ حُوبًا كَبِيرًا At the end of the verse, in order to emphasize the seriousness of this matter, it is stated that such manipulation of the property of orphans constitutes a great sin. Rāghib, in his book al‑Mufradāt, states that “الحوبة” originally refers to a need that draws a person toward sin. Since the oppression committed by guardians against the property of orphans often arises due to need or under the pretext of necessity, the word “حوب” has been used in this verse instead of “إثم” (sin), so that attention may be drawn to this underlying reality. The study of various Qur’anic narrations shows that Islam places great importance on this matter. Accordingly, it issues severe warnings of punishment to those who betray the trust of orphaned property, and with firm, clear, and decisive language urges guardians to exercise strict vigilance over the wealth of orphans. The details of this will appear a few verses later in this same sūrah, and under verse 152 of Sūrat al‑Anʿām and verse 34 of Sūrat al‑Isrāʾ. The severe tone of these verses had such an impact upon the hearts of the Muslims that they even began to fear preparing shared food for themselves and orphans. As a result, they arranged for food for themselves and their own children to be prepared separately from that of the orphans, which caused hardship for both parties. Therefore, in verse 220 of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, permission was granted that if the intention in mixing the property or food of orphans with one’s own is goodwill and reform, then there is no harm in doing so. For further clarification, one may consult the second volume of Tafsīr Namūnah under this same verse of Sūrat al‑Baqarah. Generating responseProvide your feedback on BizChat

Concerning this verse, a specific occasion of revelation has been transmitted. It is reported that prior to Islam, the people of the Ḥijāz would take orphan girls into their homes under the pretext of guardianship, then marry them and assume ownership of their wealth, since everything remained under their control. They would even fix their dowries at an amount lower than customary. If even a minor difficulty arose with them, they would easily divorce them, and they would not be willing to maintain the relationship even in the capacity of an ordinary wife. Under these circumstances, the above‑mentioned verse was revealed, commanding those who were guardians of orphans that if they married orphan girls, they must observe justice and fairness with regard to them; and if they were unable to do so, then they should not marry them and should instead choose someone else for marriage from among other women. وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانْكِحُوا … In the preceding verse, the command concerning the protection of the property of orphans was given. Now, in this verse, attention is drawn to another of their rights, namely, that if you fear that, in the event of marrying orphan girls, you will not be able to maintain justice and equity in matters of marital rights and property, then do not marry them; instead, make a selection from among other women. In view of what has already been stated, the interpretation of the verse becomes entirely clear. This also provides the answer to the objection that the verse begins with mention of orphans, while in its latter part it discusses wives, and that these two matters apparently do not correspond to one another. The reason is that, while the latter part of the verse discusses marriage, the beginning of the verse states that if you are unable to maintain justice in the matter of marrying orphans, then it is better to refrain from it and, instead of marrying these orphan girls, select another woman for marriage. Although exegetes have presented various opinions on this matter, that which is understood directly from the verse itself is precisely what has been indicated, namely, that the verse addresses the guardians of orphans to whom, in the preceding verse, various rulings regarding the protection of the property of orphans had been given. In this verse, they are addressed concerning marriage to orphans, in that just as they must observe justice and fairness regarding the wealth of orphans, so too, in the event of marrying orphan girls, they must exercise utmost care in observing their rights; otherwise, they should not marry them and should instead select other women. Among the other evidences supporting this interpretation is verse 127 of this sūrah, in which explicit mention is made of the requirement to observe justice when marrying orphan girls. Its explanation will appear in its appropriate place. The narrations cited in this connection also support this interpretation. (Reported in Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 1, p. 438, and Tafsīr al‑Manār under the verse in question.) As for the narration attributed to Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) claiming that a substantial portion of the Qur’an once existed between the beginning and the end of this verse but was omitted, it should be made clear that this narration is not reliable in any respect from the standpoint of its chain of transmission. Such reports that speak of distortion of the Qur’an or the disappearance of parts of it have in fact been fabricated by enemies of Islam and hypocrites with the aim of undermining the credibility of the Qur’an, or they have originated from individuals who failed to grasp the connection between the beginning and end of the verse and assumed that something had been omitted in between; gradually, this conjecture took on the form of a narrated report. Whereas we have already come to know that the clauses of the verse are fully and perfectly interconnected.

In Arabic usage, مَثْنَىٰ means “two by two,” ثُلَاث means “three by three,” and رُبَاع means “four by four.” Since the address in the verse is directed to all Muslims, its meaning will be as follows: in order to avoid injustice and oppression toward orphan girls, refrain from marrying them, and instead marry such women whose social and familial status does not allow you to commit injustice against them; and you may marry two, three, or four women among them. However, since the addressees are all Muslims, the expression “two by two, three by three, or four by four” has been used; otherwise, there is no doubt that the maximum number of wives (even then subject to specific conditions) is four. It is also necessary to mention that in the above phrase, the conjunction و is used in the sense of “أو” (or). The intent is not “two and then three and then four,” for that would amount to nine; if that were the intended meaning, it would have been stated explicitly as nine rather than being expressed in this separate and complex manner. Moreover, in Islamic jurisprudence this matter is among the necessities of religion, that marrying more than four wives is absolutely prohibited. In any case, the above verse constitutes an explicit proof regarding the number of wives, subject to the conditions that will soon be indicated. فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً Thereafter, it is immediately stated that this permission is conditional upon complete justice; and if you are unable to maintain justice, then suffice with one wife, so that you may avoid committing injustice and oppression against others. أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ Or, instead of choosing another wife, benefit from what your right hands possess, since the conditions relating to them are easier (although their rights must also be fulfilled). ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا This course of action (choosing a wife or bondwoman) is more likely to prevent injustice and deviation from justice. Discussion of the issue of bondage and the Islamic perspective on it will be presented in detail in the relevant verses. Generating responseProvide your feedback on BizChat

Before discussing the philosophy of the number of wives in Islam, it is necessary to examine what is meant by justice between wives, because it has been stated as a condition in connection with the number of wives. Does this justice relate to the practical affairs of life—such as conjugal relations, provision of livelihood, and the supply of comfort, ease, and material well‑being—or does it also include justice in matters of the heart and human emotions? There is no doubt that justice in matters of love and affection lies beyond human capability. Who is the person who has complete control over the emotion of love, when its causes lie outside his own being? For this reason, God Almighty has not made justice obligatory in this respect. God Almighty states in the same Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 129: وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ You will never be able to maintain complete justice between wives, even if you strive hard. Therefore, inner affection is not prohibited so long as it does not, in practical matters, become the cause of preferring some wives over others. The responsibility placed upon a man relates to justice in practical and external matters. From this it becomes clear that those who wish to combine and link the verse وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً with the verse وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ and draw the conclusion that polygyny is absolutely prohibited in Islam are suffering from a grave misunderstanding. They imagine that in one verse justice has been made a condition, while in the other justice has been declared impossible for men, and therefore multiple marriages are forbidden. This is precisely their error. As has already been indicated, the justice that lies beyond human capacity pertains to inner emotional inclination and does not form part of the conditions for polygyny, while the justice that constitutes a condition pertains to practical and external matters. Evidence for this is found in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 129, where it is stated: فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَالْمُعَلَّقَةِ Since you cannot maintain complete equality in matters of affection between your wives, at least do not incline entirely toward one side, lest you leave another as though suspended. In summary, such people have taken one part of the verse into account and forgotten another, and it is for this reason that they have fallen into a confusion regarding polygyny that astonishes every researcher. Moreover, in Islamic jurisprudence and its various sources, there is no disagreement or dispute between the Shīʿa and the Sunnīs concerning polygyny and its conditions. Rather, it is counted among the necessary and self‑evident principles of Islamic law. We now return to the wisdom and philosophy underlying this Islamic ruling.

In the above verse, polygyny is permitted (subject to strict conditions and clearly defined limits). We now encounter the questions and objections raised by opponents as a result of superficial study and unreflective emotional reactions. Western critics in particular raise strong objections in this matter, claiming that Islam has allowed men to establish harems and keep countless wives, whereas Islam has never permitted the formation of harems in this sense. The clarification is as follows: a study of the conditions prevalent in various societies prior to Islam leads to the conclusion that unrestricted polygyny was a common phenomenon. Some idolaters even had ten or more wives when they accepted Islam. Therefore, Islam did not establish the foundation of polygyny, nor did it introduce something entirely new. Rather, Islam limited it in light of the actual requirements of human life and further imposed severe conditions and restrictions upon it. Islamic laws revolve around genuine human needs. These laws were not formulated under the influence of propaganda or emotional impulses. The issue of polygyny has likewise been addressed in accordance with this very temperament. It is well known that, in the numerous events of life, men are exposed to the danger of death more than women. In wars and other catastrophes, it is mostly men who fall victim to death. Moreover, it cannot be denied that a man’s sexual life generally extends over a longer period than that of a woman, because women, after a certain stage, lose sexual receptivity, whereas the situation of men is different. Furthermore, during periods of menstruation and childbirth, sexual relations are practically forbidden for women, whereas no such restriction exists for men. Apart from these considerations, there are other aspects that merit attention. There are also women who, due to various reasons, are deprived of their husbands. In such cases, they are not attractive to men in the sense that they could become their first wives. Now, if the possibility of polygyny does not exist, such women would spend their entire lives without husbands. Newspapers and journals frequently publish reports stating that certain widowed women complain about their disordered lives because of the restriction on polygyny and regard men’s limitation to a single marriage as an act of injustice toward them. When these realities are considered in situations where the balance between men and women is lost, we are compelled to choose one of the following three options: 1. That men, under all circumstances, confine themselves to one wife, while all surplus women remain unmarried for life, suppressing all natural requirements and inner desires. 2. That men legally maintain only one wife, but establish free and illicit sexual relations with unmarried women, keeping them as mistresses. 3. That those individuals who are capable of having more than one wife, and who face no physical, financial, or moral difficulty, and who are able to establish complete justice among their wives and children, be permitted to choose more than one wife. It is evident that there is no fourth option beyond these three. Choosing the first option means waging war against human nature, disposition, and spiritual and physical needs, and disregarding the emotions and feelings of such women. This is a war in which there is no hope of success, and even if it were hypothetically successful, its inhuman aspects are obvious to all. In other words, the issue of polygyny should not be examined, in cases of necessity, solely through the lens of the first wife, but rather it should be studied through the perspective of the second wife as well. Those who cite the difficulties of the first wife as an argument against the second wife are in fact viewing a three‑sided issue from only one angle, because the matter of polygyny must be considered from the perspective of the man, the first wife, and the second wife, and a judgment must be made while taking into account the interests of all three. Choosing the second option means granting legal status to obscene and reprehensible acts, using women merely as objects of sexual gratification under the status of mistresses, depriving them of security, peace, and a future, and effectively trampling upon their dignity. This is not a method that any rational person would propose. Thus, only the third option remains, which provides a solution to women’s natural desires and innate needs, while also delivering them from the harmful consequences and destructive life of obscenity and immorality. In this way, women themselves will also extract society from the vortex of sin. It should, however, be noted that although the permissibility of polygyny is a societal necessity and one of the established rulings of Islam, in the present age the fulfillment of its conditions is very different from former times. In earlier periods, life was simple and uncomplicated, and maintaining complete equality among wives was easier, and most people were able to shoulder this responsibility. In our age, however, anyone who wishes to benefit from this law must strictly observe justice in every respect. Only if he is able to do so may he proceed, and fundamentally this step must not be motivated by passion or lust. It is astonishing that those in the West who oppose polygyny have, in their own history, experienced events that made the necessity of this institution entirely clear. For example, after the Second World War, war‑torn countries—especially Germany—became acutely aware of this need. Some of their thinkers were even compelled to reconsider the prohibition of polygyny in order to find a solution to the problem. Matters progressed to the point that they consulted al‑Azhar, requested detailed explanations of the Islamic wisdom behind polygyny, and began to study and research it. However, the Church launched fierce attacks and criticism against them, forcing them to abandon this program. The result was horrific obscenity and widespread moral corruption, which engulfed all war‑torn countries. Leaving all these matters aside, it cannot be denied that some men possess an inclination toward more than one wife. If this inclination is purely the result of lust, then it is correct not to pay attention to it. However, in some cases the wife is barren and the man has a strong desire for offspring; in such a situation, the man’s wish is logical. In other cases, a man’s sexual desire is intense, while his first wife lacks the capacity to fulfill this natural demand, and thus the man considers himself compelled to pursue a second marriage, even to the point that, in the absence of lawful fulfillment, he may resort to unlawful steps. In such circumstances as well, the logical nature of the man’s desire for a second marriage cannot be denied. Accordingly, in countries where polygyny is legally prohibited, illicit relationships with multiple women are commonly established in practice. The well‑known French historian Gustave Le Bon counts the Islamic law of polygyny—restricted and conditional—as among the merits of Islam. Comparing it with the unrestricted illicit relationships of European men with multiple women, he writes: Even in the West, whose climate and temperament do not favor this custom [polygyny], having a single wife is something that appears only in law books. I do not believe it can be denied that traces of this custom exist in our society. Indeed, I am astonished and unable to understand what deficiency exists in the East’s lawful and restricted concept of polygyny when compared with the deceitful and hypocritical polygyny of the West. Rather, I assert that the former method is in every respect superior and more dignified than the latter. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that some individuals who outwardly present themselves as Muslims misuse this Islamic law in a manner contrary to its spirit, acquiring wives through disgraceful means and infringing upon the rights of their spouses. But this is not a flaw of the law itself, nor should the actions of such individuals be attributed to Islamic legislation. Which law exists that is not subject to misuse?

Here some people raise the question that if, under the above‑mentioned circumstances, certain situations arise for women, then should women also be permitted to have two husbands? The answer to this question is not very difficult. The first point is that, contrary to what is commonly believed, men possess a much stronger sexual inclination than women. In academic literature, illnesses related to sexual matters are predominantly discussed with reference to women. One of these is female sexual frigidity, whereas in men the situation is the opposite. Even among other living beings it is observed that the expression of sexual desire generally originates from the male. The second point is that polygyny does not create any social or legal difficulty with respect to men, whereas if, hypothetically, women were to have two husbands, many problems would arise. One simple issue among these is that the lineage of a child would become unknown, and it would not be known which husband the child belongs to. It is evident that such a child would not become the center of affection for any of the men. Some scholars even hold the view that a child whose father is unknown receives very little maternal affection as well. Perhaps no further clarification is needed that resorting to birth‑control methods to prevent conception, such as pills and similar means, is never completely reliable, and these methods cannot guarantee the absence of offspring. Many women have used such methods, or made errors in their use, and yet children have been born. Therefore, no woman can confidently accept the practice of having multiple husbands. For these reasons, having multiple husbands cannot be considered logical for women, whereas for men, in view of these circumstances, it is both logical and practicable.

The word “نِحْلَة” in Arabic usage has been used with the meaning of a debt, and also with the meaning of a gift or grant. Rāghib states in his book al‑Mufradāt that, in his view, this word is derived from the root “نحل” (which means “honeybee”), because a gift and donation resemble the act of bees in producing honey. “صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ” is the plural of “صَدَاق”, which means dower (mahr). In the preceding verse, discussion concerned the selection of a wife; now, in this verse, reference is made to one of the rights of women. The verse emphatically commands that the dower of women be paid fully, exactly like a debt—meaning that just as one is careful that nothing be diminished when repaying debts, one must adopt the same attitude when paying the dower (this is in the case where niḥlah is understood to mean a debt). And if it is taken to mean gift or donation, then the interpretation of the verse becomes as follows: the dower, which is a divine gift and has been established by God so that the rights of women may be strengthened in society and their physical vulnerability compensated for in this manner, must be paid in full. فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَرِيئًا At the beginning of the verse, explicit command is given for the protection of women’s rights that the entire dower should be paid to them; but in the latter part of the verse, while respecting the feelings of both parties and for the strengthening of emotional bonds and the promotion of mutual affection, it is stated: if women, with full willingness and contentment of heart, remit a portion of their dower, then it is lawful and proper for you to accept it. This is so that mutual life may not be governed solely by rigid legal formulas, but that feelings of love and affection may also operate in parallel.

In the Age of Ignorance, since people did not acknowledge the worth and dignity of women, it was often the case that the dower (mahr), which is the indisputable right of a woman, was handed over to her guardians, who regarded it as their own legitimate entitlement. At times, the dower of one woman was made conditional upon the marriage of another woman; for example, if a man married off his sister to someone, he would in return receive that person’s sister, and the dower of both women would consist solely of this exchange. Islam abolished all such oppressive customs and categorically declared the dower to be the exclusive and legitimate right of the woman. In the Qur’anic verses, men are repeatedly advised to fulfill this right completely. In Islam, no fixed amount has been prescribed for the dower; its determination depends upon the mutual consent of husband and wife. Although many narrations emphasize that the dower should not be excessive, this is not an obligatory ruling but rather a recommended one. At this point, the question arises: since both man and woman equally benefit from marriage and conjugal relations, and since the marital bond is established for the mutual benefit of both parties, why is it required that the man pay a lesser or greater amount of wealth to the woman as dower? Does this ruling not undermine the status of women or render marriage a form of commercial transaction? For this reason, some people strongly oppose the institution of dower. Since it is not customary in Western societies, Western‑influenced individuals in particular raise objections, whereas the absence of dower does not substantially elevate a woman’s status; rather, it subjects her to greater vulnerability. The explanation is that although it is correct that men and women benefit equally from married life, it cannot be denied that, in the event of separation, the woman suffers greater loss. The primary reason for this is that, owing to certain physical capacities, men generally wield greater influence and dominance in society. Although some people deny this evident reality when speaking, observable social conditions demonstrate that occupations yielding higher income are predominantly held by men. This condition is also observable even in Europe, where women are theoretically regarded as enjoying complete freedom. Moreover, men generally have greater prospects for remarriage, whereas widowed women—especially after a portion of their lives has passed and they have lost the assets of youth and beauty—face much more limited prospects of finding a new husband. In reality, the dower serves as a means of compensating the woman for these losses and as a safeguard for her future life. In addition, the dower typically acts as a restraint (brake) upon the man’s inclination toward separation and divorce. It is true that, under Islamic law, the obligation of the dower rests upon the man immediately upon the conclusion of the marriage contract, and the woman has the right to demand it forthwith. However, since it generally remains as a liability owed by the man, it functions as a form of savings for the woman and serves as a deterrent against the dissolution of the marital bond. There are some exceptional aspects to this issue, but what has been stated applies in most cases. Now, if some individuals have misinterpreted the dower and regarded it as a kind of price for the woman, this has no relation whatsoever to Islamic law, because in Islam the dower in no way constitutes a commercial price. The strongest evidence for this lies in the marriage contract formulas, wherein legally both the man and the woman are regarded as the two essential parties to the covenant, and if the dower is not mentioned explicitly, the contract does not become invalid. In such a case, however, it becomes the responsibility of the husband to provide a dower equivalent to that of women of similar status prior to consummation. From what has been stated, we reach the conclusion that the dower exists to compensate for potential loss and to honor the rights of women, not to serve as a price for them. Perhaps the term niḥlah (in the sense of a gift) also alludes to this very meaning.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

The above verses complete the discussion related to orphans. Some aspects of this discussion have already appeared in the preceding verses. وَ لَا تُؤْتُوا السُّفَهَاءَ أَمْوَالَكُمْ Do not entrust your wealth and property to the foolish, and allow them to remain so until they acquire understanding in economic matters, so that your wealth may be safeguarded from danger and loss.

Rāghib states in al‑Mufradāt that safah (on the pattern tafah) originally denotes a kind of lightness or lack of firmness of the body, such that one is unable to maintain balance while walking. For this reason, the rein ( (translator’s note: the rein is the rope tied around the head and neck of a horse or donkey) ) is called safīh, because it is supple and constantly sways. Thereafter, this term came to be used, by analogy, for those individuals who lack sound judgment, whether their deficiency lies in material matters or in spiritual matters. However, it is clear that in the above‑mentioned verse, safāhah pertains specifically to a lack of adequate judgment in financial affairs. Here, safīh refers to a person who is unable to take responsibility for the management of property and cannot discern his own benefit in economic transactions. Idiomatically, it is said kalāh‑e sarash burad (that is, people fleece him). Evidence for this meaning is found in another verse in which it is stated: فَإِنْ آنَسْتُمْ مِنْهُمْ رُشْدًا فَادْفَعُوا إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ If you perceive sound judgment in them, then hand over their property to them. Accordingly, although the verse under discussion concerns orphans, it also contains a general meaning applicable to all people, namely that under no circumstances and in no situation should property that is under one’s guardianship, or in any way entrusted to one, be handed over to those who are unintelligent or lack discernment. In this respect, no distinction exists even with regard to public property (the assets of the Islamic government). Evidence for this general meaning lies both in the broad sense of the term safīh and in the narrations transmitted from the leaders of Islam on this subject. For example, a narration attributed to Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) relates that a man named Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd al‑Ḥamīd said: I asked the Imām about the interpretation of the verse “وَلَا تُؤْتُوا السُّفَهَاءَ أَمْوَالَكُمْ”, to which he replied: شارِبُ الْخَمْرِ سَفِيهٌ، لَا تَدْفَعُوا إِلَيْهِ أَمْوَالَكُمْ The one who drinks intoxicants is a fool; do not entrust your wealth to him. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, under the present verse.) Another narration also forbids appointing an intoxicated person as a trustee over financial matters. In summary, numerous narrations describe the intoxicated person as safīh, and perhaps this expression is used because an intoxicated person loses both his material capital and his spiritual capital. What foolishness could be greater than that a person not only gives away his money, but also relinquishes his intellect and purchases madness, employing the various faculties of his body in this pursuit and causing numerous social harms? In another narration, all those who are untrustworthy in any respect are designated as safīh, and entrusting personal or public wealth to them is forbidden. Yūnus ibn Yaʿqūb relates: I asked Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) about the interpretation of the verse “وَلَا تُؤْتُوا السُّفَهَاءَ أَمْوَالَكُمْ”, and he said: مَنْ لَا تُوثَقُ بِهِ A fool is one who is not trustworthy. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, under the present verse; see also Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn.) Here a question arises: if the verse concerns orphans, why does it say “أَمْوَالَكُمْ” (your wealth) instead of “أَمْوَالِهِمْ” (their wealth)? It is possible that the purpose of this expression is to highlight the social and economic principle that Islam regards all members of human society as one entity, inasmuch as the welfare of one individual cannot be separated from the welfare of others. Likewise, the loss of one individual is the loss of the entire society. For this reason, keeping this perspective in view, the second‑person pronoun is used instead of the third‑person pronoun. In reality, this property does not concern the orphans alone, but also concerns you; if any harm befalls it, it will return to you in one form or another. Therefore, it must be carefully safeguarded. From this it becomes clear that those short‑sighted individuals who, out of misplaced sympathy or under the guise of assistance, appoint weak and timid persons to religious or missionary positions commit an entirely incorrect and irrational act. الَّتِي جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ قِيَامًا In this phrase, the Qur’an employs a remarkable expression regarding wealth and property: the stability and subsistence of your lives and your society depend upon capital; without it, you cannot stand firmly upon your own feet. Do not entrust it to foolish and wasteful individuals. This demonstrates that Islam accords great importance to economic and financial matters. In contrast, the current Gospel (Matthew 19:23) states that a rich man will not enter Paradise. Islam states that a poor and destitute nation can never stand upright. It is astonishing that Christians, despite their erroneous teachings, have reached the pinnacle of worldly success, whereas we, despite these exalted Islamic teachings, continue to stumble. In reality, they have abandoned superstitions, and thus have advanced far; whereas we, by distancing ourselves from these lofty and noble teachings, wander aimlessly. وَارْزُقُوهُمْ فِيهَا وَاكْسُوهُمْ وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا At the end of the verse, two important commands are given regarding orphans: Provide their food and clothing from their own property, so that they may be raised with dignity and reach maturity. It is noteworthy that the expression “فِيهَا” (within it) is used here rather than “مِنْهَا” (from it). This indicates that the livelihood of orphans should be met from the profits and returns of their property. Had it been stated that their expenses should be met from the property itself, it would have implied a gradual depletion of the principal, and it is natural that by the time they reach maturity, they may have lost most of their capital. Through this subtle choice of wording, the Qur’an advises guardians to meet the living expenses of orphans from the income and yield of their wealth, so that the principal remains preserved. Secondly, the verse states that one should speak to orphans in a kind and respectful manner. That is, by comforting and pleasant speech, one should remedy their psychological deprivation and continuously advise them, so that by the time they reach maturity they may become reasonably discerning. Likewise, the moral upbringing and character formation of orphans are also the responsibility of the guardians. وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغُوا النِّكَاحَ Here, giving another directive concerning orphans and their property, it states: test the orphans and put them through practical trials until, when they reach the age of marriage, you find in them sound judgment and the ability to safeguard wealth; then hand over their property to them.

1. The word *ḥattā* indicates that orphans should be continuously tested before they reach the age of maturity, until they enter the stage of puberty and are intellectually capable of fully managing their property. Implicitly, it is understood that "testing" refers to the gradual training of the orphans. Meaning, do not leave them on their own until they become adults and then hand over the property to them. Rather, before puberty, give them practical training to lead an independent life. As for how the orphans should be tested, the method is to give them some wealth so that they may engage in trade with it. However, their actions should be supervised so skillfully that no disruption occurs in their work. When it becomes known that they have the ability to perform this task well and are not deceived in transactions, their properties should be given to them, or through continuous education and training, they should be nurtured in such a way that they can take charge of their future lives. 2. In "*idhā balaghū al-nikāḥ*," there is an indication that when they step into that stage of life where they are capable of marriage—and it is obvious that one who is eligible for marriage also has the ability to better perform household responsibilities—such a person cannot move forward without capital. Therefore, married life begins alongside an independent economic life. In other words, the wealth and property of the orphans should be returned to them so that when they become physically mature and have a great need for wealth, their thinking also matures, enabling them to protect their property well. 3. "*Ānastum minhum rushdan*" is an indication that their *rushd* (sound judgment/maturity) should be completely evident. This is because "*ānastum*" is from the root "*īnās*," which means to observe and to see. And this root is from the root of "*insān*," one of whose meanings is also the pupil of the eye. In reality, at the time of observing and seeing, help is taken from the *insān*, i.e., the pupil of the eye. That is why observing is expressed with "*īnās*." وَ لا تَاْکُلُوہا إِسْرافاً وَ بِداراً اَنْ یَکْبَرُوا After this, it is again emphasizing to the guardians that they should not, in any way, commit treachery and dishonesty with the orphans' property, and not waste their capital before they come of age. وَ مَنْ کانَ غَنِیًّا فَلْیَسْتَعْفِفْ وَ مَنْ کانَ فَقیراً فَلْیَاْکُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ Meaning, if the guardians of the orphans are well-off and wealthy, then they should not benefit from their property in any way. And if they are poor and needy, then only in exchange for the responsibilities they have undertaken to protect the orphan's property, they may take from it according to their work, while practicing justice and fairness. In this regard, there are also several narrations that have clarified the meaning of this verse, as we have written. One of these narrations is reported from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a.s.): فذٰلک رجل یحبس نفسہ عن المعیشة فلا باٴس ان یاٴکل بالمعروف اذا کان یصلح لھم فان کان المال قلیلا فلا یاٴکل منہ شیئاً۔ This refers to a person whom the protection of the orphan's property prevents from securing his own livelihood. In that case, there is no harm in him taking from the orphan's property in a reasonable measure, and this is only if it is beneficial for the orphan. And if the orphan's property is small (and its guardianship does not consume much time), then in that situation, he should not take even a bit from the orphan's property. فاذا دفعتم الیھم اموالھم فاشہدوا علیھم۔ The final ruling mentioned in this verse concerning the guardians of orphans is that when you wish to hand over their property to them, you should call witnesses, so that no room remains for accusation, dispute, or any kind of objection. و کفیٰ باللہ حسیبا۔ However, know that the true Reckoner is God Almighty, and more important than anything is that your account is clear with Him (God). Because God is He who, if you have committed any dishonesty that was hidden even from the eyes of the witnesses, will take account of it.

In the Age of Ignorance, it was customary that only men were regarded as heirs. They believed that a person who did not possess the strength to bear arms, engage in combat, and sustain his life through raiding was not entitled to inheritance. For this reason, they deprived women and children of inheritance and distributed the estate of the deceased among distant male relatives. Thus, an Anṣārī man named Aws ibn Thābit passed away, leaving behind young daughters and sons. His cousins, named Khālid and ʿArfaṭah, came and divided his property between themselves and gave nothing to his wife and small orphaned children. His wife then submitted a complaint to the noble presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. At that time, no ruling regarding this matter had yet been revealed in Islam. On this occasion, the above‑mentioned verse was revealed. Accordingly, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny summoned both of them and instructed them not to appropriate the property in this manner, but to hand it over to the immediate survivors, namely the children and the wife, until the method of its distribution among them would be clarified in the subsequent verses.

In reality, this verse represents a step against erroneous habits and customs, for they used to deprive women and children of their lawful rights. Therefore, this verse completes the discussions that occurred in the preceding verses, because the Arabs, due to their incorrect and oppressive customs, deprived women and young children of the right to inheritance. The verse declared this false law invalid and stated that men have a share in what parents and near relatives leave behind, and women also have a share, whether it be little or much; for this reason, no person has the right to usurp the share of another. لِلرِّجَالِ نَصِيبٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ وَلِلنِّسَاءِ نَصِيبٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ مِمَّا قَلَّ مِنْهُ أَوْ كَثُرَ Thereafter, at the end of the verse, emphasizing this objective, it states that this is an obligatory, fixed share and that its payment is mandatory, so that no doubt or ambiguity remains in this matter. نَصِيبًا مَفْرُوضًا Incidentally, as we understand it, the verse mentions a general ruling applicable to all cases. Therefore, those who hold the view that if prophets and messengers leave behind property or wealth, it does not reach their heirs as inheritance, are contradicting the above‑mentioned verse. Yes, what is meant here is the personal property of a prophet; otherwise, the public treasury (bayt al‑māl), which belongs to all Muslims, is to be expended in accordance with the laws governing the public treasury. Likewise, from the general aspect of this verse and from other verses that will later address inheritance, it becomes clear that the view advocating ʿaṣabiyyah—that is, restricting inheritance in certain cases exclusively to paternal relatives, as some Sunni scholars hold—is also contrary to Qur’anic teachings, because it results, in some circumstances, in women being deprived of inheritance. Islam negates this outcome in light of the above verse and other similar verses.

وَإِذَا حَضَرَ الْقِسْمَةَ أُولُوا الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينُ فَارْزُقُوهُمْ مِنْهُ It is an accepted fact that this verse was revealed after the legislation of the law of inheritance, because it states that when relatives, orphans, and the needy are present at the gathering for the distribution of inheritance, something should also be given to them from it. Accordingly, the meaning of this verse constitutes a recommended and ethical command concerning those categories who, despite proximity, remain deprived of inheritance. The verse states: if, at the gathering for the division of inheritance, some relatives of the second or third degree, as well as certain orphans and needy persons, are present, then something of the property should be given to them as well. In this way, feelings of envy and resentment that may arise in their hearts due to deprivation from inheritance are removed, and through this means the bonds of human relationships are strengthened. Although the terms “الْيَتَامَىٰ” and “الْمَسَاكِينُ” are used in an absolute sense, apparently what is meant by them are the orphans and needy belonging to the family and kin, because according to the law of inheritance, when closer categories of relatives are present, more distant categories are deprived of inheritance. Therefore, if such individuals are present at such a gathering, it is appropriate that a suitable gift (the determination of whose amount depends solely on the intention of the heirs and which is to be taken from the property of the principal heirs) be given to them. Some exegetes are of the view that by the orphans and needy mentioned in the verse is meant all orphans and needy persons, whether they are related to the deceased or not. However, this possibility appears remote, because strangers and outsiders cannot attend gatherings of this familial nature. Some exegetes also maintain that this verse sets forth an obligatory ruling rather than a recommended one, but this too appears remote, because if it were an obligatory right, it would have been necessary to specify its amount and limits, whereas here the discretion has been left to the actual heirs. وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَعْرُوفًا At the end of the verse, the command is given to speak kindly and courteously to those who remain deprived of inheritance; that is, in addition to material assistance, one should also win their affection through one’s moral capital, so that no kind of hurt remains in their hearts. This command is a second indication that the aforementioned command is recommended rather than obligatory. From what has been written, it also becomes clear that there is no basis for asserting that the above verse has been abrogated by the verses that specify capital and inheritance, because there is absolutely no contradiction between those verses and this verse.

وَلْيَخْشَ الَّذِينَ لَوْ تَرَكُوا … In order to awaken people’s feelings of compassion regarding the pitiable condition of orphans, the Qur’an points toward a reality of which people sometimes become heedless, namely: treat other people’s orphans in the same manner as you would wish people to treat your own orphans tomorrow. Imagine the miserable condition of your helpless, unsupported, and parentless children were they to be placed under the guardianship of an oppressive and unbelieving person who neither considers their feelings and emotions nor observes justice with regard to their property. How painful would this scene be for you, and how anxious would you feel for your children. In the same way, be concerned for the children and orphans of others, and feel their suffering. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse would be as follows: those who are anxious and worried about the future life of their own children should refrain from betraying or oppressing orphans. Social issues, in principle, always operate and spread in the form of a continuous pattern from today to tomorrow and from tomorrow to future generations. Those who lay the foundation of injustice in society—for example, by establishing the practice of oppressing orphans—are in fact inviting and practically exemplifying that tomorrow the same treatment should be meted out to their own children. Therefore, they not only practice oppression against the children of others, but also pave the way for injustice to be inflicted upon their own offspring. فَلْيَتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلْيَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا Now that this is the case, the guardians of orphans must not oppose the commands of God Almighty, and must speak to orphans in a gentle tone and treat them with kindness and compassion, so that their inner pain may be alleviated and the wounds of their hearts may be healed. This lofty injunction of Islam, contained in the above statement, points to a subtle psychological consideration in the upbringing of orphans that is extremely worthy of reflection. It is that the need of a small orphan is not confined merely to food and clothing, but that the soothing of his emotional feelings through sympathy and kindness is also essential, and this will influence his future development and upbringing. For an orphan, like others, is a human being, and it is necessary that through compassionate behavior he receive spiritual nourishment, and through love and affection he experience the comfort that a child finds in the embrace of his parents. He is not like a lamb that goes out with the flock to pasture in the morning and returns in the evening; alongside physical care, it is equally essential to give due attention to the nurturing and education of his psychological inclinations, otherwise he will become an oppressive, rebellious, depraved, and dangerous member of society.

It is narrated from one of the companions of Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that one day the Sixth Imam (عليه السلام) said: whoever commits injustice against another person, God Almighty will impose upon him someone who will commit the same type of injustice against him. The companion says: I thought to myself, this is indeed astonishing—that the father commits injustice while the punishment is suffered by the children. Before I could even articulate this thought, the noble Imam (عليه السلام) said: The Qur’an states: وَلْيَخْشَ الَّذِينَ لَوْ تَرَكُوا مِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّةً ضِعَافًا خَافُوا عَلَيْهِمْ (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 346) The question that arose in the narrator’s mind is the same question that many people ask: how is it permissible that God Almighty exact the recompense for one person’s crime from another? In principle, what sin has the offspring of the oppressor committed that they should become victims of that injustice? The answer to this question can be clearly understood from the foregoing discussion, namely that whatever actions individuals perform within a society gradually take the form of customs and practices and are transmitted to subsequent generations. Eventually, these innovations come to affect their own offspring as well. In reality, this belongs to the causal and constitutive consequences (āthār waḍʿī wa takwīnī) of their actions. If this outcome is attributed to God, it is only because all constitutive effects and the laws of cause and effect ultimately derive from Him. In no sense, therefore, does injustice originate from God Almighty. In summary, whenever injustice is established as a norm within a society, it becomes a chain binding both the oppressor and his progeny. Provide your feedback on BizChat

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَىٰ ظُلْمًا إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ نَارًا At the beginning of this sūrah, we have already written that its verses were revealed to lay the foundation of a sound and healthy society. Therefore, at the outset, in order to remove the customs of the Age of Ignorance and the criminal misdeeds that still lingered in the hearts of some newly converted Muslims, very severe commands are seen concerning unlawful interference in the property of orphans, among which the above‑mentioned verse is the most explicit. This verse states that those who consume the property of orphans through manipulation are in reality consuming fire. Throughout the entire Qur’an, this kind of expression is found in only one other place, and that relates to those who conceal truths and alter the divine verses to gain profit. Concerning them, God Almighty states: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا أُولَٰئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلَّا النَّارَ Those who conceal the revelations of God and derive a small benefit from them consume nothing but fire. (Sūrat al‑Baqarah, 174) وَسَيَصْلَوْنَ سَعِيرًا The word يَصْلَوْنَ is derived from the root صَلْي (on the pattern of dard), meaning to enter fire and be burned, and سَعِير means a blazing fire. In this verse, the Qur’an states that in addition to consuming fire in this world, they will very soon enter a blazing fire in the Hereafter that will burn them severely. This verse indicates that our actions have a true inner form in addition to their outward appearance, which is hidden from our eyes in this world, but in the Hereafter these inner forms will be manifested. This shows that deeds will appear in embodied form. The Qur’an states that those who consume the property of orphans, although the outward aspect of their action appears to be the enjoyment of colorful and tasty foods, the true reality of these foods is burning fire, and this is the reality that will be revealed on the Day of Resurrection. The true form of an action always has a special correspondence with its outward state. Just as consuming the property of orphans and seizing their rights burns their hearts and agitates their souls, likewise, the true form of that action is a consuming fire. Directing attention to this reality—the true form of actions—for those who have faith in such realities is extremely effective in preventing wrongdoing. Is there anyone who would take burning embers with his own hands and place them into his mouth and swallow them? In the same way, it is impossible for believers knowingly to consume the property of orphans. If we observe that God‑conscious people would not even conceive of sin, one reason is that through the power of knowledge and faith and through moral training, they were able to perceive the true forms of actions, and therefore they would never even think of committing an evil deed. It may be that an ignorant and unaware child, seeing the pleasing glow of a burning ember, may become so fascinated by it that he suddenly picks it up in his hand. But a discerning person who has repeatedly experienced the burning nature of fire does not commit such folly; he would not even imagine doing so. There are many deeply moving traditions regarding unlawful interference in the property of orphans, to the extent that even the slightest encroachment upon their property is subject to accountability in light of these rulings. In one narration, it is related from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام), from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), that someone asked what amount of usurped orphan property incurs the punishment mentioned in this verse. He replied: The amount of two dirhams. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, under the present verse)

See ayat 12 for tafseer.

The brother of the well‑known poet of early Islam, Ḥassān ibn Thābit, namely ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān ibn Thābit al‑Anṣārī, passed away. He left behind one wife and five brothers. The brothers of ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān divided the inheritance among themselves and gave nothing to his wife. This matter was presented before the noble presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and a complaint was lodged against those who had taken the inheritance. Thereupon, the above‑mentioned verses were revealed, in which the details of the inheritance of husband and wife are set forth. It is also narrated from Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī that he said: I once fell ill, and when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny came to visit me, I had lost consciousness. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny asked for water, performed ablution with some of it, and sprinkled the remaining water upon me, whereupon I regained consciousness. He remained silent for a while. Shortly thereafter, these verses were revealed, and the shares of the heirs were determined. Provide your feedback on BizChat

Before we set down the commentary on these verses, we consider it necessary to draw attention to a few points. The first point is that many people might assume that it would be preferable, after a person’s death, to declare his wealth public property and deposit it into the public treasury (bayt al‑māl). However, upon reflection, it becomes clear that such a measure would be contrary to justice, because the matter of inheritance is entirely a natural and rational issue. When parents transmit some of their physical and spiritual attributes to their children according to the law of heredity, how then can their property be excluded from this law? Furthermore, lawful wealth is the result of an individual’s labor, effort, and exertion. The collective effort and energy that a person expends in working alongside others gradually become apparent among his close relations. Accordingly, we naturally consider each person to be the rightful owner of the fruits of his labor. Therefore, when at the time of death a person’s hand can no longer reach his wealth, justice requires that this wealth pass to those individuals who are his closest relatives. In reality, the existence of such persons is regarded as a continuation of his own existence. For this reason, many people, despite possessing enough wealth to provide adequately for their own lives, nonetheless continue tirelessly to expand their enterprises. Their objective is to secure and brighten the future of their children. Thus, the law of inheritance can make the economic machinery of a society more dynamic and effective. If everyone’s property were entirely separated from him after his death and placed among public assets, it is quite possible that economic activity and vitality would come to a standstill. Evidence for this discussion is the event that occurred in France. It is said that some time ago, the representatives of the French parliament annulled the law of inheritance. In its place, they decided that whatever wealth a person left behind would be confiscated as public property and spent on public needs in such a way that none of the deceased person’s relatives would receive anything. However, after some time had passed, the adverse economic effects of this law became apparent, and it was clearly revealed that it had a profound impact on the country’s imports and exports and had significantly reduced economic activity. Consequently, these conditions alarmed economists. They identified the fundamental cause of this outcome as the improper implementation of the inheritance law, which necessitated its revision. Thus, it cannot be denied that the law of inheritance, in addition to being a religious ruling, is also a natural and inherent principle that exerts a deep influence on the vitality of economic activity.

The law of inheritance is founded upon natural principles, and it has appeared in various forms among earlier nations as well. Although some people claim that the Jews did not possess a law of inheritance, a study of the present Torah reveals that this law exists in considerable detail in the Book of Numbers. It states: And say to the Children of Israel: if a man dies and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter. If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest relative among his kin, and he shall inherit it. And this shall be an obligatory statute for the Children of Israel, as the Lord commanded Moses. (Book of Numbers, verses 8–11) From the above passages it is clear that, among the Children of Israel, inheritance was restricted exclusively to blood relatives, because from beginning to end neither the wife nor the husband is mentioned. In Christianity, this law remained authoritative, because the extant Gospels report that Jesus (peace be upon him) said: I have not come to alter the commandments of the Torah. For this reason, no systematic discussion of inheritance is found in Christian religious writings. Only in a few places are derivatives of the word inheritance mentioned, all of which refer to spiritual or eschatological inheritance rather than material inheritance. Before Islam, inheritance among the Arabs was distributed through three means: 1. Lineage (nasab): In their usage, this referred only to sons and adult men. Children and women were completely deprived of inheritance. 2. Adoption (mutabannā): This referred to a boy who had been abandoned by one family and adopted by another; in effect, a “declared son.” In this case, inheritance law applied between the adopted son and the adoptive father. 3. Covenant: Two men would enter into an agreement to protect one another throughout life, and after death to become one another’s heirs and confidants. Islam purified the natural and innate law of inheritance from these corrupt accretions and eliminated the oppressive discriminations that existed, on the one hand, between men and women, and on the other hand, between younger and elder relatives. Islam established three sources of inheritance, which had not previously existed in this form. These three sources are: 1. Lineage (nasab) in its broad sense—that is, every type of relationship generated through birth, manifested at different levels between individuals, whether male or female, younger or elder. 2. Cause (sabab): That is, relationships created through marriage between individuals. 3. Walāʾ: This refers to relationships established between individuals apart from lineage or marriage. For example, walāʾ al‑ʿitq: if a person frees a slave and the freed slave dies without leaving any blood or marital relatives, his property passes to the one who emancipated him. This itself serves as a reward and encouragement for freeing slaves. Similarly, walāʾ ḍamān al‑jarīrah was a special pact formed voluntarily between individuals, whereby both parties undertook to defend one another in various circumstances and to inherit from one another after death when no lineage or marital relationship existed between them. Likewise, walāʾ al‑imāmah means that if a person dies leaving no blood or marital relatives, his inheritance passes to the Imam—or, in other words, to the public treasury of the Muslims. For each of these categories there are specific conditions and rulings, which have been explained in detail in the books of jurisprudence.

يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنثَيَيْنِ In this verse, a ruling is stated concerning the first category of heirs (namely, children and parents). It is evident that, in terms of closeness and relational bond, no relationship is closer than that of children, mother, and father. For this reason, the Qur’an has given them precedence over other categories of heirs. In the opening of the verse it is stated: God enjoins and commands you concerning your children that the share of the male shall be equal to that of two females. It is noteworthy that, in terms of encouragement and style of expression, the verse emphasizes granting inheritance to daughters, and stands in opposition to the innovations of the Age of Ignorance, since daughters were completely deprived of inheritance therein. As for the philosophy underlying the difference between the shares of the two, it will be explained shortly. فَإِنْ كُنَّ نِسَاءً فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ If the deceased leaves behind only daughters—two or more—then they shall receive two‑thirds of the estate. وَإِنْ كَانَتْ وَاحِدَةً فَلَهَا النِّصْفُ But if there is only one daughter, then she shall receive one‑half of the estate.

Here a question arises, namely that in this verse the Qur’an states “فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ”—that is, if there are more than two daughters, then two‑thirds of the estate belongs to them. On this basis, the verse appears to remain silent regarding the ruling for exactly two daughters, because it mentions only the case of a single daughter or more than two daughters. The answer to this question becomes clear by considering the first part of the same verse, namely: لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ That is, the male shall have a share equal to that of two females. If among the heirs of a deceased person there is only one daughter and one son, then the daughter’s share is one‑third and the son’s share is two‑thirds. Accordingly, the combined share of two daughters would also amount to two‑thirds. Perhaps for this reason, in the subsequent clause of the verse, no explicit mention is made of the share of two daughters, and instead reference is made to the share of multiple daughters, which does not exceed two‑thirds (reflect carefully). Moreover, careful reflection on the final verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ also resolves this issue, because in that verse the share of one sister (analogous to one daughter) is set at one‑half, and it is then stated that if there are two sisters, they receive two‑thirds of the estate. From this ruling, it becomes entirely clear that the share of two daughters is likewise two‑thirds. In addition to this, such an expression is found in Arabic literary usage, where it is said “فَوْقَ اثْنَتَيْنِ”, by which is meant (اثنتان وما فوق)—that is, two or more. Leaving all these considerations aside, the aforementioned ruling is firmly established according to Islamic jurisprudence and the sources of ḥadīth. Even if it is assumed that the above expression leaves room for doubt, that doubt is removed by consulting the ḥadīth literature.

Although, in appearance, the inheritance of a man is twice that of a woman, closer examination makes it clear that, in one respect, a woman’s share of inheritance is in fact double that of a man, when viewed in light of the protection that Islam has afforded to women’s rights. The explanation is as follows: when the responsibilities of men are taken into account, it becomes apparent that half of a man’s income is practically expended on women, whereas no such obligation rests upon women. A man is required to provide all the necessities of life for his wife according to her needs—housing, clothing, food, and other essential requirements. The needs of minor children also fall upon the man. Women, by contrast, are not responsible for these obligations, and indeed even their own living expenses are not incumbent upon them. For this reason, a woman can retain her entire inheritance as savings, whereas a man is compelled to spend his share upon himself, his wife, and his children. The practical consequence is that half of the man’s income is spent on women and half on himself, while the woman’s share remains fully preserved. For further clarification, consider the following example: Suppose that the total wealth of the world is thirty billion rupees, to be distributed according to the law of inheritance among men and women, sons and daughters. If we calculate the combined inheritance income of men in comparison to that of women, we find that twenty billion rupees fall to men and ten billion rupees to women. When, as is customary, women are married, it is evident that the full burden of their living expenses rests upon men. In this way, women are able to preserve their ten‑billion‑rupee share intact, because in practice they benefit from the men’s twenty billion rupees, which are spent upon them and upon their children. Thus, half of the men’s share (ten billion rupees) is spent on women. When this amount is added to the ten billion rupees that women have preserved, the total comes to twenty billion rupees—two‑thirds of the world’s total wealth—while men are able to spend no more than ten billion rupees upon themselves. From this it follows that, in terms of actual expenditure and benefit, the real share of women is double that of men. This difference exists because, generally, women possess a lesser capacity to earn income. This represents Islam’s logical and just protection of women. Although outwardly a woman’s inheritance share appears to be half that of a man, her effective and real share has been set greater than that of men. It is noteworthy that reference to Islamic sources reveals that this question arose even at the beginning of Islam and that people would occasionally ask the leaders of Islam about it. The responses given by these great figures of Islam—the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them)—are essentially uniform in content, namely that: God Almighty has placed the responsibility for living expenses and the dower upon men; therefore, their inheritance share has been fixed as greater. In the book Maʿānī al‑Akhbār, it is narrated from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (peace be upon him) that he said in answer to this question: The share of women in inheritance is half that of men. This is because when a woman marries, she takes something, whereas a man is obliged to give something. Furthermore, women’s expenses rest upon the shoulders of men, while women are not responsible for either the expenses of men or their own expenses.

As for the inheritance of the parents, who belong to the first category of heirs and, in terms of inheritance, are equal to children (that is, they belong to the first class), their shares are those already mentioned in the above verse. This has three cases: First case: If the deceased has one or more sons and daughters, then each of the parents—the father and the mother—receives one‑sixth of the estate: وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِنْ كَانَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ Second case: If the deceased has no children and the parents alone inherit, then the mother’s share is one‑third of the total estate: فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ الثُّلُثُ Here the father’s share is not mentioned explicitly, because it is self‑evident, namely two‑thirds. However, if the deceased is survived by a wife (in the case of a deceased man) or a husband (in the case of a deceased woman), then the share of the wife or husband is deducted from the father’s share. That is, in this situation, the father’s share shifts into the form described in the second clause. Third case: If only the parents are heirs—there being no children—but the deceased has brothers, whether full siblings (both paternal and maternal) or only paternal (half‑brothers), then the mother’s share is reduced from one‑third to one‑sixth: فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ In reality, although the brothers do not themselves inherit in this case, the mother is prevented from receiving an increased share; for this reason they are called ḥājib (preventers). The rationale behind this ruling is clear: the existence of several brothers increases the burden of life upon the father, because the father is responsible for their expenses until they reach maturity—and in many cases even after they have reached youth, numerous expenses still fall upon the father. It is for this reason that such brothers cause a reduction in the mother’s share. If the brothers are related only through the mother, they do not become ḥājib, because they impose no responsibility upon the father.

Here a question arises that the Qur’an, while mentioning brothers in this context, has used the plural form, as it states: فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ That is, if the deceased has brothers. We know that in Arabic, the plural form is used at a minimum for three. Yet, all Islamic jurists are agreed that two brothers are also ḥājib (preventers), and because of them the mother’s share is reduced from one‑third to one‑sixth. The answer to this question becomes clear by turning attention to other verses of the Qur’an. It is not necessary that in every instance the plural form be restricted to three or more individuals; rather, in many contexts it is also used for two persons. For example, in Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ, verse 78, it is stated: وَكُنَّا لِحُكْمِهِمْ شَاهِدِينَ This verse relates to the judgments of the two prophets Dāwūd (David) and Sulaymān (Solomon) (peace be upon them). Yet the Qur’an uses the plural pronoun (هُمْ) for these two noble figures. From this it is evident that, in certain cases, the plural form may be used for two individuals as well. It is true, however, that such usage requires contextual indication and supporting evidence. With respect to the verse under discussion, the Muslims are unanimously agreed upon this meaning, and evidence for it is also found in the teachings transmitted from the leaders of Islam. With the exception of Ibn ʿAbbās, all Islamic scholars—whether Shīʿī or Sunnī—are in agreement that two brothers are included within the ruling of this verse.

مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ Thereafter, the Qur’an states that the heirs may divide the property among themselves only when the deceased has left neither a bequest nor any outstanding debt. If he has made a bequest or is indebted to someone, then the bequest must first be executed and the debt must be repaid. (However, as has already been mentioned in the chapter on bequests, the testator may make a bequest of up to one‑third of his estate. If he bequeaths more than that, it is not valid unless the heirs consent.) آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا In this verse, God Almighty says: you do not know which of your parents and your children is more beneficial for you. That is, the law of inheritance has been established upon the true and real interests and benefits of humankind, and the determination of these interests lies with God alone, because human beings are often incapable of perceiving their own true benefit in every situation. It may be that some people suppose that parents, being responsible for many of a person’s needs, should take precedence over children in inheritance; others may think the opposite. If the law of inheritance were left to human discretion, these differing views would give rise to numerous disputes and conflicts. However, God Almighty—who knows realities as they truly are—has instituted a just system of inheritance in which the welfare of humankind lies. فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا This is a law that has been made obligatory by God Almighty, and He is All‑Knowing and All‑Wise. This statement has been included to emphasize the preceding points, so that people may raise no objection concerning the laws related to inheritance.

وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ In the preceding verse, reference was made to the shares of children and parents. Here, the manner in which husband and wife inherit from one another is explained. The verse states that if a man’s wife leaves no offspring, he shall receive one‑half of her estate. But if she has one or more children—even if those children are from another husband—then the husband shall receive one‑quarter of what she leaves behind. فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُنَّ وَلَدٌ فَلَكُمُ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْنَ This division, however, is to be carried out only after payment of the wife’s debts and fulfillment of her financial bequests, as stated in the divine command: مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ As for wives inheriting from their husband, if the husband leaves no offspring, they are entitled to one‑quarter of his estate, as stated: وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ But if the husband has offspring—even if those children are from another wife—then the wives’ share becomes one‑eighth: فَإِنْ كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ This distribution of inheritance, like the previous one, takes place only after payment of the husband’s debts and fulfillment of his financial bequests: مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ It is noteworthy that the share of the husband and wife in the presence of children is reduced by half, taking into consideration the rights of the offspring. The reason why the husband’s share is fixed at twice that of the wife is the same as the reason previously explained in detail with respect to the inheritance of sons and daughters. Attention should also be given to the fact that the share designated for wives—whether one‑quarter or one‑eighth—is not exclusive to a single wife. If a man has multiple wives, the specified share is to be divided equally among all of them. This is the apparent meaning of the above‑mentioned verse.

وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً … In this verse, we encounter a new term that appears in the Qur’an only in two places: once in the verse under discussion and once in the final verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ. This term is “كَلَالَة” (kalālah). Examination of lexicographical works shows that kalālah originally carries a verbal (masdar) meaning and is derived from “كَلَال”, which signifies the loss or depletion of strength and vigor. (Translator’s note: Ṣiḥāḥ al‑Lughah states: “al‑kalālah fī al‑aṣl maṣdar bi‑maʿnā al‑kalāl wa‑huwa dhahāb al‑quwwah.”) This term later came to be used for those brothers and sisters who inherit from the deceased. Perhaps the reason and suitability for this usage is that brothers and sisters belong to the second class of heirs, and they inherit only when there are no parents or children. A person who has neither parents nor children is, by nature, in distress and hardship and has suffered a loss of support and strength; therefore, such a case is termed kalālah. Rāghib writes in al‑Mufradāt that kalālah refers to a person whose estate is inherited in the situation where he leaves behind neither parents, nor children, nor grandchildren. Another narration transmitted from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny indicates that kalālah is a designation for a person who dies leaving behind neither parents nor children. Furthermore, there is no inconsistency in the usage of kalālah being applied both to the deceased person and to the relatives who inherit in this manner, as is clarified in the relevant discussions on this subject. As for why the Qur’an chose the term kalālah instead of explicitly naming brothers and sisters, perhaps the reason is that individuals who have neither parents nor children should bear in mind that their wealth will pass into the hands of people who themselves are signs of weakness, and thus, before others benefit from it, they should themselves expend that wealth in places of vulnerability—such as assisting the needy and promoting collective welfare. We now return to the interpretation of the verse: وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوِ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ This verse states that if a man passes away and his inheritance is taken by siblings, or if a woman passes away and she is survived by a brother or a sister, then each of them shall receive one‑sixth of the estate. This applies when there is only one brother or one sister remaining. If they are more than one, then they shall collectively receive one‑third of the estate, meaning that they must divide one‑third of the property among themselves: فَإِنْ كَانُوا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَٰلِكَ فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ The verse then continues: مِنْ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ This applies after the bequest has been fulfilled and all debts have been repaid, provided that no harm has been caused to the heirs. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that no bequest exceeding one‑third of the estate is made, because according to narrations transmitted from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them), bequeathing more than one‑third of one’s property constitutes harm to the heirs. Such a bequest is executed only with the consent of the heirs. Alternatively, this condition refers to cases where a person, without being in debt, falsely claims indebtedness in order to deprive the heirs of their rightful shares. Finally, by way of emphasis, the verse states: وَصِيَّةً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَلِيمٌ That is, this is God’s ordinance and instruction; it deserves to be respected, for He knows your true welfare. The One who has established these rulings is fully aware even of the intentions of those who make bequests, yet He is also Forbearing, and thus does not hasten to punish those who fail to observe His commands immediately.

1. Whatever has been stated in the above verse regarding the inheritance of brothers and sisters, although it appears to be general and applicable to paternal‑maternal siblings as well as those related only through the father or only through the mother, attention to the final verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ—whose interpretation will be presented shortly—makes it clear that what is intended in this verse is only maternal siblings, that is, brothers and sisters related through the mother. Whereas the final verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ concerns brothers and sisters related through both parents or through the father alone. God willing, we shall present evidence concerning this matter under the commentary of that verse. Although, since both verses discuss the inheritance of kalālah siblings, they appear at first glance to be in conflict with one another, careful consideration of the substance of both verses clearly shows that each addresses a specific category of siblings. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two verses. 2. It is evident that inheritance for this category applies only when no one from the first category, namely parents or children, remains alive. Evidence for this is the verse: “And the close relatives—some of them have greater right over others according to the Book of God.” (al‑Anfāl, 75) This means that among relatives, those who are closer to the deceased have precedence. Likewise, the numerous traditions transmitted on this subject further bear witness to the classification of heirs and the precedence of some over others. فَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ فِي الثُّلُثِ. 3. — if there is more than one (maternal brother or sister), they are equal partners in one‑third of the estate. From this verse it is understood that they must divide this one‑third equally among themselves, and in this case there is no distinction between male and female, since the meaning of absolute partnership entails equality of shares. From the above verse it becomes clearly understood that a person does not have the right to conspire against the heirs and invalidate their rights by means of a bequest or by falsely declaring a debt that is in reality not owed. His only obligation is to disclose any genuine debts he truly owes, and he has the right to make a just bequest whose limit, according to transmitted traditions, is one‑third of the estate. In this regard, stern instructions are found in the pronouncements of the leaders of Islam. In one tradition it is stated: إِنَّ الضِّرَارَ فِي الوَصِيَّةِ مِنَ الكَبَائِرِ Causing harm to the heirs and depriving them of their legitimate rights through an unjust bequest is a major sin. (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān) In reality, through this ruling Islam intends, on the one hand, to allow the deceased to continue receiving benefit and reward from a portion of his wealth after death, and on the other hand, to benefit the heirs as well. Islam does not wish that, due to malice or hostility, the bond of affection—which ought to remain alive even after death—should become weakened or severed.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

“Ḥudūd” is the plural of ḥadd. In its original sense it means to prevent and to restrain. Subsequently, everything that serves as a boundary between two things and distinguishes and separates them from one another came to be called a ḥadd—for example, the boundary of a house, the boundary of a garden, the boundary of a city, and the boundary of a country. In other words, ḥadd refers to points that separate one set of points from others. In the above-mentioned verse, God, by means of the word tilka, refers to the laws of inheritance that have already been mentioned in the previous verse and declares: these are God’s boundaries, transgressing and crossing which is forbidden. Those who go beyond them will be regarded as sinners. This meaning of tilka ḥudūd Allāh appears in numerous verses of the Noble Qur’an, and it occurs everywhere after the exposition of collective injunctions and regulations. For example, it appears after the prohibition of sexual relations during iʿtikāf and the ordinances of fasting in al-Baqarah, verse 187; after verses 229 and 230 of al-Baqarah; after the six rulings concerning divorce in verse 10 of Sūrat al-Ṭalāq; and after the discussion of expiation in verse 4 of Sūrat al-Mujādilah. In all these instances, injunctions and laws are set forth beyond which transgression is prohibited, and they are identified under the designation of divine boundaries. (With reference to the interpretation of ḥudūd Allāh, further discussion has already appeared in volume 2 of this commentary; see the Urdu translation, p. 101.) من یطع اللہ و رسولہ یدخلہ جنات۔۔۔ Referring to these few divine boundaries and limits, God declares: those who obey God and His Messenger and respect these boundaries will abide forever in the gardens of Paradise, beneath whose trees rivers flow perpetually. At the end of the verse it is stated: this is the supreme success (و ذٰلک الفوز العظیم). وَ مَنْ یَعْصِ اللَّہَ وَ رَسُولَہُ وَ یَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَہُ یُدْخِلْہُ ناراً خالِداً فیہا This part of the verse presents the opposing viewpoint to those referred to in the preceding verses. It is declared: those who disobey God and His Messenger and overstep the boundaries of His commands will remain forever in the Fire. However, we know that mere disobedience to God (even if it involves a grave sin) is not necessarily the cause of eternal punishment. For this reason, the people intended in the aforementioned verse are those who, out of enmity, rebellion, defiance, revolt, and denial of the divine signs, trample the commands of God underfoot. In reality, such people do not believe in God or in the Day of Resurrection. If one reflects on the fact that the word ḥudūd is plural and encompasses all divine laws, this meaning does not appear far-fetched, because a person who violates all the laws of God certainly does not believe in God; otherwise, he would have shown respect for at least some of them. It is noteworthy that in the preceding verses, regarding the people of Paradise, the expression خالدین فیھا (they will abide therein forever) appears in the plural form, whereas in this verse, which concerns the inhabitants of Hell, خالداً فیھا appears in the singular. This indicates that among the inhabitants of Paradise, social togetherness itself is counted as one of the blessings, whereas the people of Hell will be so trapped and immersed in divine punishment that they will have no awareness of others. In sum, they will be practically alone. Up to a point, this is also true in this world when comparing those who insist on pursuing only their own opinion and remain isolated with those who live collectively and socially: the latter are people of Paradise in this world, and the former are people of Hell. و لہ عذاب مھین For them there is a humiliating and disgraceful punishment. In fact, in the previous sentence the aspect of physical punishment in divine chastisement is evident, and since humiliation and disgrace are also mentioned here, reference is made to its spiritual aspect as well.

In general, several merits can be identified in the law of inheritance, and particularly in the Islamic law of inheritance. Some of these are indicated below: 1. One of the merits of the Islamic system of inheritance is that, while observing the established order of relations, no person connected to the deceased is deprived of inheritance. In contrast to the custom prevalent among the Arabs of the pre-Islamic era and in some other societies—where women and children, on account of their inability to bear arms or participate in warfare, were deprived of inheritance and the wealth of the deceased was given to distant relatives—Islam contains no trace of such a practice. Rather, the Islamic law of inheritance encompasses all individuals who have any form of relationship or connection with the deceased. 2. These laws possess a positive dimension with regard to legitimate and natural human needs, because a person naturally wishes that the wealth earned through sweat and toil should end up in the hands of those who are a part of one’s very being, and whose lives, in reality, represent the continuation and permanence of one’s own life. For this reason, children receive the largest share under the law of inheritance, while parents and other relatives are assigned appropriate portions according to their respective positions. 3. This law encourages and motivates people to earn more wealth and to keep the wheels of economic activity in motion. When a person sees the outcome of lifelong effort reaching those who are the focal point of one’s affection and attachment, the desire to work continues to increase regardless of age or condition, and no stagnation or interruption occurs in one’s activities. As has already been noted, when in certain countries the law of inheritance was abolished and the wealth and property of the deceased were transferred to the state, the negative effects of this policy soon appeared in the form of economic stagnation. Consequently, those societies were eventually compelled to repeal such laws. 4. The Islamic law of inheritance prevents the concentration of wealth in a single place, because under this system, after each transfer of inheritance, wealth is distributed justly among many individuals. Thus, this system assists in the fair distribution of wealth. It deserves attention that many of the contemporary forms of wealth distribution have caused harm and suffering to societies. The Islamic law of inheritance is not of this nature; rather, wealth is distributed in such a manner that it is accepted willingly and with satisfaction by all concerned. 5. The Islamic law of inheritance is not based merely on social interaction with the deceased, but also takes into account the real needs of the heirs. For example, we observe that the share of sons is double that of daughters, or that in certain circumstances the father’s share is greater than that of the mother. The reason for this is that, according to Islamic law, men bear greater responsibilities, and the expenses of women’s lives rest upon men’s shoulders. Therefore, men have relatively greater financial needs than women.

At this point, we examine two important scholarly issues, namely ʿawl and taʿṣīb. This discussion arises because the shares of inheritance, as stated in the preceding verses, sometimes amount to less than, or more than, the total estate. For example, if two full sisters (sharing both paternal and maternal lineage) and a husband are heirs, the share of the two sisters is two‑thirds, while the husband’s share is one‑half of the estate. Their total thus becomes 7/6, that is, one‑sixth more than the whole. Here the question clearly arises as to whether, in an equitable manner, all heirs should receive a proportional reduction corresponding to the excess one‑sixth, or whether the reduction should be applied only to specified individuals. Among Sunni scholars, it is the well‑known view that the shares of all heirs should be proportionally reduced. In juristic terminology, this is referred to as ʿawl (lexically, ʿawl denotes increase or elevation). Accordingly, they maintain that the extra one‑sixth should be deducted from both groups in proportion to their respective shares. (Explanatory note: the method of calculation is as follows. The fraction 4/6 represents the share of the two sisters, while 3/6 represents the share of the husband. The additional 1/6 is divided between the two groups in the ratio of 3 to 4. Applying the mathematical rule of proportional distribution, 4/4 is deducted from the sisters’ share and 3/4 from the husband’s share.) They apply the same approach in other comparable cases. In effect, this approach treats the heirs as claimants and the estate as a debtor who lacks the capacity to meet all claims in full. In technical terms, the debtor is insolvent, and it is well known that, in such situations, the claims of creditors are reduced proportionally. However, the position of the Shiʿi jurists is that any deficiency should always be borne by specific individuals. According to them, in the foregoing example the deficiency and reduction should both be applied to the share of the two sisters. They argue that, as reported in hadith, it is inconceivable that God—who knows the precise reckoning of all things, even the grains of sand in the desert—would prescribe inheritance shares in such a way that a deficiency would occur. Certainly, in such cases God has established a particular rule. If attention is paid to that rule, the notion of deficiency disappears. That rule is that among the heirs there are some for whom the Qur’an has not fixed both a minimum and a maximum limit; rather, their share is variable and can shift from its original position. Accordingly, in the example above, the deficiency will not affect the husband; the additional one‑sixth must be deducted from the share of the two sisters (reflect upon this). At times, the opposite situation arises, in which the total of the prescribed shares is less than the entire estate, leaving a remainder. For example, a person dies leaving behind a daughter and a mother. It is well known that in this case the mother’s share is 1/6 and the daughter’s share is 3/6, the total being 4/6, which leaves a remainder of 2/6. Sunni scholars maintain that this surplus should be given to the ʿaṣabah (on the pattern of kasabah), that is, the later category of heirs (explanatory note: males who are directly or indirectly related to the deceased). In this example, it would be given to the deceased’s brother. This is termed taʿṣīb in technical usage. Shiʿi jurists, however, maintain that the entire estate should be redistributed between the same two heirs in the ratio of one to three, because when heirs of the first class are present, the second class has no claim. Moreover, granting the surplus to male members of a later class resembles the practices of the pre‑Islamic period, in which women were unjustly deprived of inheritance. The above constitutes a complex scholarly discussion, the essence of which has been summarized here. For further detail, reference should be made to works of jurisprudence.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

وَ اللاَّتی یَاْتینَ الْفاحِشَةَ۔۔۔ As has already been indicated previously, the word fāḥishah in its original sense means an extremely reprehensible act or an indecent form of speech. When this term is used with reference to adultery or acts contrary to chastity and moral purity, it is by virtue of this very connotation. This word occurs thirteen times in the Noble Qur’an. In some instances it is used for adultery, in others for liwāṭ, and in yet others for extremely vile and grave acts. As the majority of exegetes have understood, this noble verse points to the punishment of married women who commit adultery. The verse further states that if your wives are accused of adultery, then bring four Muslim men as witnesses to this act. If they testify to it, then confine those women to their houses until death overtakes them. One indication that the above verse refers to zināʾ al‑muḥṣanah (explanatory note: muḥṣanah refers to a married woman) is, in addition to the contextual clue found in the subsequent verse, the expression min nisāʾikum (“your wives”), which occurs repeatedly in the Qur’an with this meaning. For this reason, the punishment for conduct contrary to chastity committed by married women has been specified in this verse as life‑long confinement. However, immediately thereafter the verse states without delay: (او یجعل اللہ لھن سبیلا)—that is, “or that God may make a way for them.” This means that the punishment of confinement remains in effect until death overtakes them, or until a new ruling is determined for them by God. From this it follows that this was a temporary ruling revealed at an initial stage, so that when conditions and intellectual readiness later became favorable, a new ruling would be revealed concerning them. At that point, those women who were subject to this ruling and were still alive would naturally be released from confinement, and no other punishment would be imposed upon them. Their release from confinement would result from the abrogation of the initial ruling. As for the absence of an additional punishment, the reason is that penal laws apply to acts committed after their promulgation. Thus, whatever law is enacted subsequently serves as the means of release for these prisoners, while the new law applies only to those who commit the offense thereafter (reflect upon this). As for the view expressed by some that “او یجعل اللہ لھن سبیلا” refers to the path of release established through God’s later ruling regarding stoning, this opinion is incorrect, because it does not accord with the expression “لھن سبیلا” (“a way for them”), since killing someone cannot be regarded as a means of deliverance. It is well known that the ruling later established in Islam for those who commit zināʾ al‑muḥṣanah is rajm (stoning), which is firmly established in the Prophetic traditions, even though there is no explicit reference to it in the Qur’an. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that the above verse has not been abrogated at all, because abrogation pertains to rulings that are initially absolute, not to those that are temporary and limited in nature. The above verse explicitly presents life‑long confinement as a restricted and provisional ruling. If certain narrations indicate that the above verses were abrogated by later rulings concerning punishment for acts contrary to chastity, what is meant is not technical abrogation, since in the language of the narrations the term naskh is sometimes used for any form of termination of a ruling (reflect upon this). It should also be noted that confining such women within their homes is, from one perspective, to their benefit, because it is far better than confining them in public prisons. From another perspective, experience shows that ordinary prisons have a profound corrupting effect on society, because they often become major centers for the propagation of vice. Criminals exchange their experiences with one another there, since they remain together and possess ample idle time. وَ الَّذانِ یَاْتِیانِہا مِنْکُمْ۔۔۔ Thereafter, in this verse God refers to adultery and acts contrary to chastity committed by non‑muḥṣan (unmarried) individuals and declares: if an unmarried man and woman commit this vile act, then punish them. Although this verse does not explicitly mention zināʾ al‑ghayr al‑muḥṣan, yet since it follows the previous verse, and since the punishment mentioned here is distinct from and lighter than the punishment mentioned earlier, it follows that the ruling pertains to a category of offenders not included in the previous verse. Given that the preceding verse, as explained, is specific to adultery committed by muḥṣan individuals, it follows that this verse sets out the ruling for adultery committed by non‑muḥṣan individuals. It is also evident that the punishment mentioned in this verse is a general one, and it is quite possible that the ruling stated in Sūrat al‑Nūr, verse 2—prescribing one hundred lashes for each of the two parties—serves as its explanation and elaboration. For this reason, this ruling has not been abrogated. In Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī, Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) is reported to have stated regarding this verse: البکر اذا اتت الفاحشة التی اتتھا ھذہ الثیب فازوھما۔ That is, this verse refers to unmarried men and women; if they commit the vile act, they are to be punished. Although the word “اللذان” is a masculine dual form, it refers here to both man and woman, in accordance with the rhetorical principle of taghlīb. Some exegetes have proposed the possibility that this verse refers to acts such as liwāṭ, while the preceding verse relates to musāḥaqah (female same‑sex relations). However, the pronoun in “یاتیانها”, which refers back to fāḥishah mentioned in the previous verse, indicates that the immoral act referred to in this verse is of the same type as that mentioned earlier. Therefore, interpreting one verse as referring to liwāṭ and the other to musāḥaqah runs counter to the apparent meaning, even though both involve same‑sex relations. Accordingly, both verses are related to adultery. Even setting all this aside, it is well known that in Islam the punishment for liwāṭ is execution, not mere harm, pain, or flogging. In short, there is no evidence to suggest that the verse under discussion has been abrogated. فَإِنْ تابا وَ اَصْلَحا فَاَعْرِضُوا عَنْہُما إِنَّ اللَّہَ کانَ تَوَّاباً رَحیماً۔ At the end of the verse, God alludes to repentance and forgiveness for such sins and declares: If they sincerely repent and reform themselves and make amends for their past actions, then overlook their punishment and turn away from it, for God is indeed Most Accepting of repentance, Most Merciful. This ruling, in reality, opens the door of return for such offenders: when repentance and reform are realized, Islamic society embraces them with generosity, and they no longer remain rejected members of society. However, as stated in the works of jurisprudence, repentance is valid only if it occurs before the crime is proven in an Islamic court through testimony and before a judicial ruling is issued. Repentance after the issuance of the ruling carries no legal weight. Nevertheless, this ruling also indicates that those who have repented should not be reproached or blamed for their past sins. Thus, where the punishment and prescribed legal penalty are waived, it is all the more appropriate that people should overlook the sin itself. Likewise, those upon whom this penalty has already been carried out and who subsequently repent are also deserving of being overlooked by the Muslim community.

Sometimes, taking various considerations into account, people raise the question as to why Islam has prescribed such severe and seemingly harsh punishments in its penal laws. For example, at one stage the punishment for adultery committed with a married woman was prescribed as life imprisonment, and later as death. Is it not preferable that the punishment for such sins be lighter and more lenient, so that proportionality between crime and punishment may be maintained? However, reflect for a moment: although Islamic penal laws and punishments appear, at first glance, to be severe and stringent, the method for establishing the commission of a crime is by no means easy. Rather, such strict conditions have been stipulated that, in practice, they are unlikely to be fulfilled unless the act is committed openly and flagrantly. For instance, the requirement of four witnesses—as indicated in the preceding verse—means that only those who are utterly reckless and shameless can be proven guilty. It is evident that such brazen individuals deserve severe punishment, so that they may serve as a lesson for society and so that the community may be cleansed of moral corruption. Likewise, there are additional conditions attached to the testimony of witnesses, such as having seen the act with their own eyes, not relying on circumstantial evidence, and consistency in testimony, all of which render the crime both firmly established and manifestly grave. In this manner, the possibility of such severe punishment is placed before potential sinners. Even if this possibility is extremely remote, it can nonetheless influence the psychology of many individuals. At the same time, Islam has made the proof of such crimes difficult, so that in practice these punishments are not frequently or widely implemented. In reality, Islam seeks to preserve the deterrent effect of penal legislation without resulting in the execution of large numbers of people. In sum, the Islamic approach to determining punishment on the one hand and making proof of the crime difficult on the other constitutes a method that is highly effective in protecting society from moral corruption, while the number of individuals upon whom such punishments are actually carried out remains very limited. For this reason, this method has been described as being at once facilitating yet unattainable.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

إِنَّمَا التَّوْبَةُ عَلَى اللَّهِ لِلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ السُّوءَ بِجَهَالَةٍ In the previous verse, the issue of not being punished due to repentance for those who act against chastity and purity was explained in detail. And in this context, through this sentence, an indication was made towards the acceptance of their repentance by the Lord: Inna Allaha kana tawwaban raheema God is very accepting of His servants' repentance and is Merciful to them. In this verse, the Almighty Lord explains the issue of repentance and some of its conditions with clarity, and He says: Repentance is only for those who commit sin out of *jahalah* (ignorance). Let us now see what *jahalah* is. Is it ignorance and foolishness, and being unaware of the sin or its ominous effects and painful consequences? Although the word *jahl* and its derivatives have been used for various meanings, the context indicates that in the verse under discussion, it refers to the turmoil of carnal desires, the dominance of rebellious whims and lusts, and their ascendancy over the faculties of reason and faith. Although in this state, knowledge is not absent due to the sin, it is suppressed by selfish motives and becomes practically ineffective. And when knowledge loses its effect, it is practically equivalent to ignorance and foolishness. If the sin is not due to this type of ignorance but is based on denial of and enmity towards the command of the Lord, then this type of sin is disbelief (*kufr*). For this reason, repentance for it is not accepted, unless one abandons this way and refrains from stubbornness and denial. In fact, this verse is stating the same reality that Imam Zain al-Abidin (as) has explained with greater clarity in Dua Abu Hamza, where he (as) submits in the court of God: Ilahi lam a'sika heena 'asaytuka wa ana birububiyyatika jahid, wa la bi amrika mustakhiff, wa la li 'uqubatika muta'arrid, wa la li wa'idika mutahawin, wa lakin khati'atun 'aradat wa sawwalat li nafsi wa ghalabani hawaya... My God, when I disobeyed You, my advance towards sin was not due to denying Your Lordship, nor due to taking Your command lightly, nor due to considering Your punishment insignificant, nor due to deeming Your promised punishment unimportant. Rather, it was a mistake and an error that occurred from me. The soul that incites to evil made the truth seem doubtful to me, and my whims and desires overcame me. In this sentence, another condition for repentance is indicated. He says: thumma yatooboona min qareeb meaning, they repent soon after. There is a difference of opinion among the commentators regarding what is meant by "*qareeb*" (soon/near). Some of them take it to mean before the signs of death appear, and they present the following verse, which states that repentance is not accepted after the signs of death appear, as evidence for this. Based on this, the word *qareeb* is perhaps used because, in principle, the life of this world, no matter how long, is short, and its end is near. However, some have taken it to mean a time close to the sin. That is, one should regret their sin as soon as possible and return to God, because complete repentance is that which completely washes away the traces and marks of the sin from the soul and body, to the extent that no effect of the sin remains in the heart. And this can happen if a person repents as soon as possible, before the sin takes root in their being and becomes their second nature. Otherwise, the effects of most sins remain in the corners of a person's heart and soul. Therefore, complete repentance is that which is done immediately after the sin. The word *qareeb*, according to its linguistic and common usage, is consistent with this meaning. It is true that repentance is accepted even after a period of time has passed, but it is not a complete repentance. And perhaps `‘ala Allah` (i.e., that repentance which is incumbent upon Allah to accept) also points to this meaning. This is because this expression has only appeared in this verse in the Quran, and its concept is that accepting this type of repentance is among the rights of the servants, whereas accepting repentance after a long time is a divine favor, not a right. fa'ula'ika yatoobu Allahu 'alayhim wa kana Allahu 'aleeman hakeema. After mentioning the conditions of repentance, the Almighty Lord says that God accepts the repentance of such people, and He is All-Knowing, All-Wise. wa laysati at-tawbatu lilladheena ya'maloona as-sayyi'at... This verse refers to those individuals whose repentance is not accepted. It says: The repentance of those who reach the threshold of death and say that they now repent from their sins will not be accepted. The reason for this is also clear: in the throes of death, when death is clearly visible, the veils are lifted from the human eye, and a special insight is created in it. One sees with one's own eyes some realities related to the other world and the deeds one performed in this world, because now the matters take on a sensory aspect. Therefore, it is obvious that in such a situation, every sinner regrets their evil deeds and is like a person who wants to flee from a flame of fire they see near them. It is certain that the basis of religious responsibility and the Lord's trial is not on such observations, but rather it depends on faith in the unseen and the observation through the eye of intellect and wisdom. For this reason, it is stated in the Glorious Word:When the first sign of worldly punishment would appear upon some nations of past eras, the door of repentance would be closed for them. Thus, we read in the account of Pharaoh: حتی اذا ادرکہ الغرق قال اٰمنت انہ لا الہ الا الذی اٰمنت بہ نبو اسرائیل و انا من المسلمین الان و قد عصیت قبل و کنت من المفسدین ۔ ( یونس ۹۰،۹۱) Until, when he was about to drown, he cried out, saying: "Now I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I submit." But it was said to him, "Now you say this, whereas before you were disobedient and were among the mischief-makers." (Yunus 90, 91). For this reason, your repentance will not be accepted. From some Quranic verses (for example, Surah As-Sajdah, verse 12), it is concluded that sinners will see the divine punishment on the Day of Resurrection and will regret their deeds. But their regret will not benefit them in any way. Such people are just like those criminals who, when their eyes fall upon the gallows and they feel its noose around their neck, regret their actions. Obviously, this regret is neither a cause for virtue, nor a reason for honor and pride, nor a means of elevating one's rank; therefore, it is ineffective. Certainly, this verse is not contrary to the narrations which state that repentance can be accepted until the last breath, because in the narrations, "the last breath" refers to those moments in which the signs of death have not yet been seen and, according to the terminology, the vision of the *barzakh* has not yet occurred. The second group consists of those individuals whose repentance will not be accepted. These are they who die in a state of disbelief. The Lord of the Worlds says about them in the aforementioned verse: ولا الذین یموتون وھم کفار۔۔ meaning, "for those who die in a state of disbelief, the door of repentance is closed." This reality has also been clarified in other verses of the Quran. (Reference: Al-Imran 91, Baqarah 161, Baqarah 217, and Muhammad 34). Now the question arises, at what point will such people who depart from the world in a state of disbelief repent, such that their repentance is not accepted? Some say that their repentance will not be accepted in the Hereafter, and some commentators say that 'repentance' here does not mean the repentance of the servants, but repentance from God. Meaning, God will not turn towards them with forgiveness and mercy. But it is apparent that the verse has another objective in view. It indicates that for those individuals who repented from their sins in a state of health, safety, and faith, but at the time of death did not depart from the world in a state of faith, their past repentance is meaningless. The explanation for this is that we know one condition for the acceptance of a person's good deeds is *'muwafat bar iman,'* meaning to depart from the world with faith. Therefore, for those who are disbelievers in the final moments of their lives, their previous deeds (even the good deeds they performed in a state of faith) will be rendered worthless, according to the explanation of the Quranic verses (Reference: Baqarah 217). Even if they had repented from their sins in a state of faith, in this case, that too will become useless. It is as if there are two conditions for the acceptance of repentance: 1. It must be before the signs of death appear. 2. The person must depart from the world with faith. From this verse, it is implicitly concluded that a person should not delay in repenting, because it is possible that death may come suddenly and the doors of repentance may be closed for them. It is noteworthy that in the verse under discussion, the delay in repentance, which is called *'tasweef,'* and "death in a state of disbelief" have been placed on an equal footing, and this is a sign of the importance that the Quran gives to this subject. At the end of the verse, it is stated: اولئک اعتدنا لھم عذابا الیما . Meaning, "We have prepared a painful punishment for both these groups." It is needless to remind that besides the above-mentioned conditions for repentance, there are other conditions as well, which will be indicated in the relevant verses.

In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, it is narrated from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) that this verse was revealed concerning those men who kept their wives with them but did not maintain marital relations with them, remaining in such a state while waiting for their death in order to seize their property. As Ibn ʿAbbās states: This verse was revealed concerning men whose wives had very large dower payments. Although they did not wish to maintain marital relations with them, they were unable to divorce them on account of the magnitude of the dower. Therefore, they subjected them to hardship so that the women might relinquish the dower and obtain a divorce. A group of exegetes has also transmitted another occasion of revelation for this verse; however, it does not correspond to this verse, but rather pertains to verse 22, which, God willing, will be discussed in connection with that verse.

یا اَیُّہَا الَّذینَ آمَنُوا لا یَحِلُّ لَکُمْ اَنْ تَرِثُوا النِّساءَ کَرْہاً At the beginning of this sūrah we have already noted that its verses confront many of the reprehensible practices of the pre‑Islamic period. Accordingly, the verse under discussion points to several of the evil customs of that era and warns Muslims to refrain from them: Do not imprison women out of greed for their wealth. As indicated in the occasions of revelation, one oppressive practice of the pre‑Islamic period was that men would marry wealthy women who were unattractive, then leave them in a suspended state—neither divorcing them nor treating them as wives—in the hope that they would die so that the men could seize their property. The above‑mentioned verse declares: O believers, it is not lawful for you to take women’s inheritance by coercion or by causing them harm. Thus, the Qur’an decisively condemns this practice. Do not subject women to hardship in order to extract their dower. Another reprehensible custom was that men would harass and mistreat women so that they might forgo their dower and seek divorce. This occurred especially when a woman’s dower was large. This meaning is forbidden by the verse: وَ لا تَعْضُلُوہُنَّ لِتَذْہَبُوا بِبَعْضِ ما آتَیْتُمُوہُن that is, do not constrain them so that you may take back part of what you have given them. However, an exceptional case is indicated by the phrase إِلاَّ اَنْ یَاْتینَ بِفاحِشَةٍ مُبَیِّنَةٍ, namely, if they commit a manifestly disgraceful act, then husbands have the right to apply pressure so that the women may relinquish the dower and obtain a divorce. In reality, this is a form of punishment, akin to extracting compensation from immoral women in return for their misconduct. As to whether فاحشة مبینة (a manifest indecency) refers specifically to acts contrary to chastity or to other severely reprehensible behaviors, exegetes have engaged in an extended discussion. However, based on a narration transmitted from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him), it has been explained to include all forms of grave opposition, disobedience, and abusive conduct on the part of a wife. Nevertheless, not every minor act of disobedience is implied here, for the term fāḥishah itself conveys gravity and abnormality, and the word mubayyinah further emphasizes this point. Live with them in a dignified and appropriate manner. By stating وَ عاشِرُوہُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف, the verse commands refined companionship and proper humane conduct toward women. It then adds: فَإِنْ کَرِہْتُمُوہُنَّ فَعَسی اَنْ تَکْرَہُوا شَیْئاً وَ یَجْعَلَ اللَّہُ فیہِ خَیْراً کَثیراً۔ That is, even if, for certain reasons, you are not fully pleased with your wives and find them disagreeable or lacking in several respects, do not hastily resolve to separate from them or treat them harshly. Rather, as far as possible, continue to treat them well. It is possible that your judgment is based on doubt or misconception, and that God has placed much الخير and blessing in that very thing which you dislike. Therefore, so long as matters have not reached an intolerable point, it is preferable not to abandon good companionship and kind speech. It often happens that spouses fall into baseless resentment and aversion toward one another without sound reason, and under such conditions their judgments become distorted, to the point that virtues appear to them as vices and vices as virtues. With the passage of time and continued interaction, reality gradually becomes clear. Accordingly, it should also be noted that the expression خَیْراً کَثیراً in this verse conveys glad tidings for spouses who conduct themselves toward one another with good character, encompassing a broad range of meanings. One clear instance of this is righteous, upright, capable, and honorable offspring.

See ayat 21 for tafseer.

Before Islam, it was customary that if a man wished to divorce his first wife and contract a new marriage, he would, in order to avoid paying the dower, accuse his wife of acts contrary to chastity and subject her to hardship. This was done so that she would agree to return her dower—usually already received—and obtain a divorce. He would then stipulate the same dower for the second wife. The above‑mentioned verse, by commanding avoidance of this reprehensible practice, declares it to be blameworthy. (Cf. Tafsīr Ṣāfī, under the verse in question.)

This verse, too, was revealed in support of certain rights of women. It commands the Muslim community that when they intend to separate from a first wife and take another wife, they have no right to diminish the first wife’s dower, nor, if they have already paid it, to take it back from her. The term qinṭār denotes a very large amount of wealth. Accordingly, Raghib states in al‑Mufradāt that qinṭār is originally derived from qanṭarah, meaning “a bridge,” and since abundant wealth, like a bridge, provides benefit to a person throughout life, it came to be called qinṭār. (For further explanation, see the commentary on verse 14 of Sūrat Āl ʿImrān in volume 2 of Tafsīr‑e Nemūneh; Urdu translation, p. 267.) اَ تَاْخُذُونَہُ بُہْتاناً وَ إِثْماً مُبیناً۔ Thereafter, referring to the pre‑Islamic practice of accusing one’s wife of immorality, the verse further declares: do you wish to reclaim the dower by committing slander and manifest sin? That is, not only is this an act of injustice and a cowardly and wrongful deed, but it is also an open and evident sin. وَ کَیْفَ تَاْخُذُونَہُ وَ قَدْ اَفْضی بَعْضُکُمْ إِلی بَعْضٍ (explanatory note: ifḍāʾ is derived from the root faḍā, meaning openness and expansiveness. When one person establishes complete intimacy with another, he in fact transforms his limited physical being into a broader existence. Hence, ifḍāʾ signifies the creation of close association and intimacy.) In this verse, in order to stir the feelings of affection in men, the Qur’an once again employs a rhetorical question and states further: you and your wives have lived together in privacy for long periods and have shared deep intimacy, like two souls in a single body. How, then, can you, despite such closeness, treat one another like strangers or enemies and trample upon the rights that have been acknowledged? This is comparable to an expression in contemporary Persian usage, where two close friends who quarrel are told: you have shared bread and salt together for so long—why do you now fight? In reality, wrongdoing against one’s spouse in such circumstances is tantamount to wrongdoing against oneself. The verse then adds: notwithstanding the fact that your wives took from you a firm and binding covenant at the time of marriage, how can you now repudiate that sacred and solemn pledge and move toward manifest breach of covenant? وَ اَخَذْنَ مِنْکُمْ میثاقاً غَلیظاً۔ It should also be noted that although this verse was revealed in the context of divorcing a first wife and marrying another, it is not confined solely to that situation. Rather, the intent is that wherever separation and divorce occur at the initiative of the husband, and the woman does not wish for separation, the full dower must be paid, and if it has already been given, nothing of it may be taken back—whether or not there is an intention to remarry. Accordingly, the phrase إِنْ اَرَدْتُّمْ اسْتِبْدالَ زَوْجٍ (“if you intend to take another wife”) in reality alludes to the pre‑Islamic context, but it does not affect the general ruling. It is also necessary to mention here that istibdāl means “to seek substitution,” and therefore implies desire and intention. When it is connected with aradttum (“if you intend”), the verse seeks to emphasize that one should not resort to unlawful and cowardly disputes or accusations in order to marry another woman.

In the pre‑Islamic period, it was customary that when a man died leaving behind a wife and children, if the wife was not the biological mother of his sons, those sons would treat her as part of the property to be inherited. In this way, they considered it their right either to marry their stepmother themselves or to give her in marriage to someone else. After the advent of Islam, a particular incident occurred involving a Muslim: an Anṣārī man named Abū Qays passed away. His son wished to marry his stepmother, but the woman said, “I regard you as my son, and therefore I do not consider this appropriate. Nevertheless, I will ask the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, about my religious obligation.” She then presented the matter before the Prophet. In response, the above‑mentioned verse was revealed, strictly prohibiting such an act.

As we have already indicated in discussing the occasion of revelation, this verse decisively abolished a highly detestable and reprehensible practice of the pre‑Islamic period and declared: وَ لا تَنْكِحُوا ما نَكَحَ آباؤُكُمْ مِنَ النِّساء that is, do not marry those women whom your fathers have married. However, since legislation generally does not apply retroactively, it further states: اِلّا ما قَدْ سَلَف that is, except for those marriages that had already taken place previously. Thereafter, three severe forms of condemnation are expressed regarding this type of marriage. First, it is stated that it is an indecent act (اِنَّهُ كانَ فاحِشَةً). Then it adds that this practice is something that arouses abhorrence in the eyes of people, meaning that human nature finds it repugnant (وَ مَقْتاً). Finally, it declares that it is an evil way (وَ ساءَ سَبيلاً). It is even recorded historically that the people of the pre‑Islamic period themselves viewed such marriages with detestation, and the children born of such unions were referred to as “maqīt” (offensive or detestable offspring). It is evident that this ruling was established in view of multiple considerations and for the reform of society. On the one hand, marriage with a stepmother is comparable to marriage with one’s biological mother, since the legal rulings pertaining to a stepmother are akin to those of a real mother. On the other hand, intruding into the father’s private marital domain constitutes a violation of his dignity and respect. Apart from all this, such an act sows the seeds of discord among a person’s offspring, for disagreements may arise among the children regarding marriage to the stepmother, and rivalry may even develop between father and son, since rivalry and hostility commonly exist between a former and a subsequent husband. If such a marriage with a stepmother were to occur during the father’s lifetime (after his divorce), it would constitute a clear manifestation of jealousy and enmity. Even if it were to occur after his death, it is still possible that the son might harbor a form of jealousy toward his deceased father. It is not unlikely that the three expressions used in this verse to condemn and censure this act allude to these three underlying rationales.

In this verse, reference is made to maḥārim (those women with whom marriage is prohibited) and it may be inferred from this verse that prohibited affinity arises through three means: 1. By birth, which is described as a consanguineous (nasabī) relationship. 2. Through marriage, which is termed a relationship by affinity (sababī). 3. Through suckling (riḍāʿah), which is referred to as a foster relationship (riḍāʿī). First, the verse points to consanguineous maḥārim, which are seven categories, stating: حُرِّمَتْ عَلَیْکُمْ اُمَّہاتُکُمْ وَ بَناتُکُمْ وَ اَخَواتُکُمْ وَ عَمَّاتُکُمْ وَ خالاتُکُمْ وَ بَناتُ الْاَخِ وَ بَناتُ الْاُخْتِ۔۔۔ That is, your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your nieces through brothers, and your nieces through sisters are prohibited to you. It should be noted that the term “mother” here does not refer only to the woman who directly gave birth to a person, but also includes grandmothers, great‑grandmothers, paternal grandmothers, and similar relations. Likewise, “daughter” does not denote only a direct daughter, but also granddaughters, great‑granddaughters, and their descendants. The same applies to the remaining five categories. It is evident that people are naturally repelled by marriages of this kind. For this reason, almost all nations (with very rare exceptions) regard marriage with maḥārim as prohibited. Even the Magians, who according to certain sources and texts once considered such marriages permissible, now deny this practice. Although some individuals attempt to portray this matter as an ancient custom or outdated tradition, it remains an established fact that the universality of a law—across peoples, eras, centuries, and regions—reflects its intrinsic conformity with human nature, since ordinary customs and conventions lack the capacity to become permanent and universal. Apart from this, it has now been scientifically established that marriages between closely related individuals carry numerous risks, in that latent and hereditary diseases intensify and become manifest (this does not mean that such diseases are created by marriage itself). Some people even go beyond immediate maḥārim and consider marriage within the same clan or tribe—such as marriage between cousins—undesirable, believing that it also increases genetic risks. Even if such concerns may not arise among relatively distant relatives (as is generally the case), among close relatives who share a greater degree of common blood they certainly lead to increased defects and illnesses. (Explanatory note: Nevertheless, in Islam marriage between cousins and similar relatives has not been declared prohibited, since they do not fall under the category of maḥārim, and the probability of harm in such relationships is very low. Many cases have been observed in which such marriages have occurred and resulted in children who are physically healthy and intellectually capable.) Moreover, in general there is no sexual attraction whatsoever between maḥārim, because they usually grow up together, develop alongside one another, and remain in constant proximity. They become ordinary and habitual presences in each other’s lives. Therefore, such exceptional cases cannot serve as a standard for general and universal rules. It is also well known that sexual attraction is a primary condition for the stability of marital life. Accordingly, if marriage were to occur between maḥārim, it would prove unstable and devoid of vitality and warmth. The verse then refers to foster maḥārim, stating: وَ اُمَّہاتُکُمُ اللاَّتی اَرْضَعْنَکُمْ وَ اَخَواتُکُمْ مِنَ الرَّضاعَةِ That is, your foster mothers who nursed you, and your foster sisters, are prohibited to you. Although the Qur’an mentions only two categories here—foster mothers and foster sisters—numerous well‑established traditions indicate that foster relationships are not restricted to these two. Rather, according to a renowned hadith transmitted from the Prophet: یحرم من الرضاع ما یحرم من النسب That is, all relationships that are prohibited on the basis of lineage are likewise prohibited on the basis of suckling. However, the amount of suckling that establishes foster prohibition, along with other relevant conditions, is detailed in the books of jurisprudence.

Its underlying rationale is that nourishment derived from the milk of a particular individual contributes to the growth of another person’s flesh and bones, thereby creating a resemblance between that person and the offspring of the one who provides the milk. For example, when a woman breastfeeds a child to a certain extent, the child’s body develops in a specific manner through her milk. This gives rise to a particular similarity between that child and the woman’s own children. In reality, each of them may be regarded as a part of that mother’s body, and they are thus akin to two siblings related by lineage. Finally, the verse refers to the third group of maḥārim and presents them under several headings: 1. وَ أُمَّهٰتُ نِسَائِكُمْ — and the mothers of your wives. That is, the mere fact that a woman enters into marriage with a man and the marriage contract is concluded renders her mother, her maternal grandmother, and all similar ascendant relations permanently unlawful for him. 2. وَ رَبَائِبُكُمُ الَّلَاتِي فِي حُجُورِكُمْ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمُ الَّلَاتِي دَخَلْتُمْ بِهِنَّ — and your stepdaughters who are in your care, born of your wives with whom you have consummated marriage. This means that merely concluding a lawful marriage contract with a woman does not render her daughters from a previous husband unlawful to the man; rather, for such prohibition to take effect, consummation of the marriage is required in addition to the contract. The qualification mentioned here clarifies and emphasizes that the ruling concerning the wife’s mother, discussed earlier, is not subject to such a condition and, in technical terms, reinforces the general application of that ruling. Although the phrase فِي حُجُورِكُمْ (“in your care”) might suggest that if a wife’s daughter from a previous marriage is not raised in the man’s household she would not be unlawful to him, established reports and the accepted ruling indicate that this qualification is not restrictive in a technical sense. Rather, it alludes to the underlying rationale for the prohibition: daughters whose mothers remarry are generally young and are commonly raised in the new husband’s household like his own daughters. The verse implies that they are truly like your daughters—so can a person marry his own daughter? The term ربائب, the plural of ربيبة, reflects this meaning. The verse then further emphasizes this point by stating that if consummation has not occurred with the wife, then there is no prohibition regarding her daughters: فَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُونُوا دَخَلْتُمْ بِهِنَّ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ. 3. وَ حَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ — and the wives of your sons who are from your own loins. The phrase مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ (“from your own loins”) is used to repudiate a false pre‑Islamic custom, whereby adopted sons were treated as real sons and all the legal rulings applicable to biological sons were extended to them, including the prohibition of marrying their wives. In Islam, adoption in this sense, along with its attendant legal consequences, has no foundation. 4. وَ أَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ — and that you combine two sisters [in marriage]. That is, it is forbidden for a man to marry two sisters at the same time. However, if marriages to two or more sisters occur at different times, or if one sister is divorced before marrying the other, there is no objection. Since the practice of keeping two sisters in marriage simultaneously existed in the pre‑Islamic period and many people had already contracted such unions, the Qur’an states in this regard: إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ, meaning that, like the other rulings, this one does not apply retrospectively. Thus, those who had entered into such marriages prior to the legislation incur no punishment, although they are required thereafter to retain only one wife and separate from the other. Why has Islam prohibited this form of marriage? One possible explanation is that sisters, by virtue of their natural and familial bond, ordinarily share deep affection for one another. When they become rivals, however, this innate affection may be lost and replaced by conflict that is profoundly detrimental to their lives, since feelings of love and rivalry would remain in perpetual contention within their hearts. Some exegetes maintain that the phrase إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ applies to all the categories of maḥārim mentioned in this verse. That is, if prior to the revelation of this verse a person had married someone who later became prohibited under the newly legislated rulings, such prohibition would not retroactively apply to that existing marriage, and any children born from it would be considered legitimate. However, after the revelation of this verse, separation would be required. The concluding phrase of the verse, إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا, is also consistent with this interpretation.

وَ الْمُحْصَناتُ مِنَ النِّساء۔۔۔ This verse is a continuation of the discussion in the preceding verse concerning women with whom marriage is prohibited. It further warns that marriage and sexual relations with married women are forbidden. The term muḥṣanāt is the plural of muḥṣanah, derived from the root ḥiṣn, meaning “fortress.” By this association, the term is applied to married, chaste, and virtuous women who protect themselves from sexual relations with men other than their husbands, or who live under the protection of a husband. At times, free women, in contrast to slave women, are also referred to as muḥṣanāt, because their freedom resembles a protective enclosure surrounding them, into which no one may enter without permission. However, it is clear that in the present verse, the intended meaning is married women. This ruling is not restricted to Muslim women alone, but applies to women of all religions and communities; marriage with them is not permitted. The sole exception to this ruling concerns non‑Muslim women who are taken captive in war. In the Islamic view, once such women enter captivity, their marital bond with their former husbands is severed, and they are regarded, in effect, as divorced. Islam permits, after the completion of the waiting period (ʿiddah)—the duration of which is one menstrual cycle, and if the woman is pregnant, until childbirth—that they may either be married or treated as bondwomen (إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ). This is an exception that falls under what is termed an “interrupted exception” (istithnāʾ munqaṭiʿ), meaning that married women who enter Muslim captivity have their marital ties immediately severed. This is analogous to the case of a non‑Muslim woman who accepts Islam while her husband does not; upon her conversion, no marital bond remains between them, and she joins the category of unmarried women. This makes it clear that Islam does not permit a Muslim to marry a married woman, regardless of her religious affiliation. This is why a waiting period has been prescribed and marital relations are prohibited during that time. To understand the rationale of this ruling, three possible scenarios must be considered. First, that such women be returned to the lands of the disbelievers; second, that they remain among Muslims without husbands; and third, that their marriage to their former husbands be dissolved and that they remarry. The first option is contrary to Islamic principles of moral guidance, and the second is unjust. Therefore, only the third option remains viable. From several narrations—whose chain of transmission reaches the well‑known Companion Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī—it is understood that the above verse was revealed concerning the captives taken at the Battle of Awtās. After ensuring that these captive women were not pregnant, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny permitted them either to marry Muslims or to remain under their custody as bondwomen. This hadith also supports the above interpretation. كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ In this phrase, God Almighty, by way of emphasizing the aforementioned rulings concerning prohibited women and those similar to them, declares: these are matters that God has prescribed and firmly ordained for you. Therefore, under no circumstances can there be any alteration, reduction, or increase in them. وَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَنْ تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ Thereafter, it states that apart from the categories of women mentioned in this verse and the preceding verses, you are permitted to marry others on the condition that such marriages conform to the Islamic framework of chastity and moral restraint, and that they avoid licentiousness and indecency. For this reason, the word muḥṣinīn in the verse refers to the state of men, meaning chaste and morally upright; ghayra musāfiḥīn serves as an emphasis of this meaning. The root safḥ (on the pattern of kitāb) signifies adultery, and is originally derived from safḥ, meaning to spill or to act recklessly and without reflection. The Qur’an consistently employs euphemistic expressions in such matters, and here this term is used metaphorically to denote illicit sexual relations. The phrase أَنْ تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ indicates that marital relations should either be established through lawful marriage with the payment of dower, or, in the case of bondwomen, through lawful ownership following payment of their price. (Explanatory note: Islam adopted a comprehensive and far‑reaching program for the gradual emancipation of slaves, which will be discussed in detail under the relevant verses.) Perhaps, implicitly, the expression ghayra musāfiḥīn also points to the fact that in matters of marriage, one’s objective should not merely be the gratification of sexual desire. Rather, marriage should serve the higher purpose for which sexual desire has been placed in human beings: the continuation of the human race and its protection from moral corruption.

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً In this part of the verse, reference is made to temporary marriage, which in technical terminology is called mutʿah. The divine command states: those women with whom you contract mutʿah, give them their dower as an obligatory due. This indicates that the institution of temporary marriage was already recognized and accepted among Muslims prior to the revelation of this verse; otherwise, the Qur’an would not have instructed the payment of dower in this context. Because this issue has significant exegetical, juristic, and social implications, it must be examined from multiple perspectives. 1. The contextual indicators within the verse strongly support its reference to temporary marriage. 2. Such marriages were practiced during the lifetime of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and were not abrogated during his lifetime. 3. This form of marriage fulfills a genuine social and communal need. 4. Mutʿah provides solutions to several social problems. Beginning with the first point: the term mutʿah, from which istamtaʿtum is derived, is used in Islamic legal terminology specifically for temporary marriage and constitutes a recognized technical meaning (ḥaqīqah sharʿiyyah). Evidence for this lies in the repeated use of the term mutʿah in this sense in Prophetic traditions and the statements of the Companions. If the technical meaning were rejected and only the lexical meaning (“benefit” or “enjoyment”) were adopted, the verse would merely state that if one benefits from a woman in permanent marriage, her dower must be paid. This interpretation is untenable, since entitlement to dower in permanent marriage does not depend on consummation or benefit; rather, according to the well‑known juristic view, the full dower becomes obligatory upon conclusion of the marriage contract (or at least half becomes obligatory immediately). Furthermore, a large number of Companions and Successors—such as ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Mujāhid, Qatādah, al‑Suddi, and many others—understood this verse as referring to temporary marriage. Even Fakhr al‑Rāzī, after an extensive discussion, acknowledges the original ruling and argues only for its later abrogation. The Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them), who possessed the deepest knowledge of revelation, unanimously interpreted the verse in this sense. Numerous traditions are transmitted from them, including the statement of Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him): المتعة نزل بها القرآن وجرت بها السنة من رسول الله “Temporary marriage was revealed in the Qur’an, and the practice of the Messenger of God proceeded according to it.” Likewise, Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him), when asked about temporary marriage, cited the same Qur’anic phrase as explicit evidence: نزلت في القرآن فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة And he further stated: أحلها الله في كتابه وعلى لسان نبيه فهي حلال إلى يوم القيامة “God made it lawful in His Book and through the tongue of His Prophet, and it remains lawful until the Day of Resurrection.”

There is unanimous agreement among all Muslim scholars—and indeed this is a matter known necessarily in religion—that temporary marriage (nikāḥ al‑mutʿah) was permissible at the beginning of Islam. The indication of permissibility found in the above verse does not negate the established nature of the original ruling, for even its opponents maintain that its legal legitimacy is proven through the Sunnah. Muslims practiced it in the early period of Islam, and the well‑known statement attributed to ʿUmar clearly reflects this reality: متعتان كانتا على عهد رسول الله وأنا أحرمهما وأعاقب عليهما: متعة النساء ومتعة الحج (See: Kanz al‑ʿIrfān, vol. 2, p. 158; Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī; Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī; al‑Sunan al‑Kubrā by al‑Bayhaqī, Book of Marriage.) “Two types of mutʿah existed during the time of the Messenger of God, and I (ʿUmar) prohibit them and will punish for them: the mutʿah of women and the mutʿah of ḥajj.” This statement itself is explicit proof that this ruling existed during the Prophet’s time. At most, opponents claim that it was later abrogated and prohibited. However, the matter deserving careful consideration is that the narrations cited to support the claim of abrogation are highly contradictory. Some claim that the Prophet himself abrogated it, thereby asserting that the abrogating proof is a Prophetic Sunnah. Others claim that the abrogating text is the verse of divorce: إِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَطَلِّقُوهُنَّ لِعِدَّتِهِنَّ “When you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting period.” This verse, however, has no relevance to the issue at hand, as it addresses divorce, whereas divorce does not exist at all in temporary marriage; rather, separation occurs automatically upon the completion of the term. The one point that is universally acknowledged is that the permissibility and legitimacy of temporary marriage during the time of the Prophet is certain, and no reliable evidence exists establishing its abrogation. Accordingly, based on the firmly established principle in legal theory—one that has reached the level of certainty—the continued validity of the ruling of mutʿah is affirmed. Indeed, the well‑known statement of ʿUmar cited above is itself clear evidence that this ruling was not abrogated during the Prophet’s lifetime. It is self‑evident that no one other than the Messenger of God has the authority to abrogate divine rulings. Only the Prophet, by divine command, could abrogate any ruling, and after his death the door of abrogation is permanently closed. Otherwise, every individual could abrogate laws by personal reasoning, leaving nothing of an eternal and enduring law. Moreover, exercising independent reasoning (ijtihād) in opposition to explicit Prophetic statements—in effect, exercising ijtihād against a clear text—has no legal validity. It is particularly striking that in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Tirmidhī, one of the most renowned Sunni collections, and likewise in works attributed to al‑Dāraqutnī (see: Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī, vol. 2, p. 762, under al‑Baqarah 195), the following report appears: a man from Syria asked ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar about ḥajj al‑tamattuʿ. Ibn ʿUmar responded clearly that it was lawful and good. The Syrian replied, “But your father forbade it.” Ibn ʿUmar became angry and said: “If my father forbids something and the Messenger of God permits it, should I abandon the Sunnah of the Prophet and follow my father? Get up and go away from me.” (Concerning ḥajj al‑tamattuʿ: it refers to entering the state of iḥrām, performing ʿumrah, exiting iḥrām and becoming fully lawful—up to marital relations—and then entering iḥrām again on the 9th of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah to perform the rites of ḥajj. In the pre‑Islamic period this practice was considered improper, but Islam explicitly permitted it, as clarified in al‑Baqarah 196.) A parallel narration concerning temporary marriage is also transmitted from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Tirmidhī (see: Sharḥ al‑Lumʿah, vol. 2, Book of Marriage). It is also reported in al‑Mubāsharah by al‑Rāghib that a Muslim once intended to practice mutʿah and was questioned about how he deemed it lawful. He replied, “From ʿUmar.” They responded in astonishment, “How is that possible when he forbade it and threatened punishment for it?” The man replied, “Precisely for that reason. Because ʿUmar said that the Messenger of God made it lawful and that he forbade it. I accept its legitimacy from the Messenger of God, and I do not accept its prohibition from anyone else.” (See: Kanz al‑ʿIrfān, vol. 2, p. 159.) The point that must be emphasized here is that those who claim abrogation face serious difficulties. First, numerous Sunni narrations explicitly state that this ruling was not abrogated during the Prophet’s time, but rather prohibited during ʿUmar’s caliphate. Advocates of abrogation must therefore reconcile these reports. They number twenty‑four, extensively documented by al‑ʿAllāmah al‑Amīnī in volume six of al‑Ghadīr. Two examples suffice here: In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī reports: “We practiced temporary marriage with full ease during the time of the Prophet, and this continued until ʿUmar prohibited it in the case of ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth.” (See: al‑Ghadīr, vol. 6, p. 206.) In the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik and al‑Sunan al‑Kubrā of al‑Bayhaqī, a report from ʿUrwah ibn al‑Zubayr states that Khawlah bint Ḥakīm came to ʿUmar and informed him that a Muslim named Rabīʿah ibn Umayyah had contracted mutʿah. ʿUmar said: “Had I forbidden it earlier, I would have stoned him. But now I prohibit it immediately.” (See: al‑Ghadīr, vol. 6, p. 210.) In Bidāyat al‑Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd al‑Andalusī, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh is reported as stating: “We practiced mutʿah during the time of the Prophet, during the caliphate of Abū Bakr, and until the middle of ʿUmar’s caliphate; then ʿUmar forbade it.” The second difficulty is that the narrations claiming abrogation during the Prophet’s lifetime are profoundly contradictory. Some claim it was abrogated at Khaybar, others on the day of the conquest of Mecca, others during Tabūk, and yet others at Awtās. Such inconsistency strongly indicates fabrication, for authentic abrogation cannot rest on mutually contradictory reports. The author of Tafsīr al‑Manār states that he initially affirmed ʿUmar’s opposition to mutʿah, but later encountered reports suggesting that it had been abrogated during the Prophet’s time rather than during ʿUmar’s, and thus retracted his earlier view. This entire approach is untenable, because the reports attributing abrogation to the Prophet are contradictory, whereas there exist clear reports explicitly affirming that the practice continued until ʿUmar’s time. This leaves no room for retraction or apology. The earlier conclusion corresponds to historical reality. It is evident that neither ʿUmar nor anyone else—indeed, not even the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt, who were the true successors of the Prophet—possessed authority to abrogate rulings that existed during the Prophet’s lifetime. After the Prophet’s death and the cessation of revelation, abrogation ceased to have any meaning. Claiming that ʿUmar’s statement represents independent reasoning is also astonishing, as independent reasoning has no validity in opposition to an explicit text. Even more remarkable is that some Sunni jurists have considered verses relating to marriage—such as al‑Muʾminūn 6 and the present verse concerning mutʿah—as abrogated, implying that temporary marriage is not a form of marriage at all, whereas it is definitively established that it is one of its recognized forms.

It is a universal and general principle that if the legitimate satisfaction of human carnal desires is not duly considered, the individual will resort to illicit means to quench his thirst — for it is an indisputable reality that carnal desires cannot be eliminated under any circumstances, and even if they were to be eliminated, such a course of action would be inappropriate, as it constitutes a war against the law of nature. The correct path, therefore, is to make reasonable provision for the satisfaction of these desires and to adopt a reformative approach in this regard. Nor can it be denied that the sexual drive constitutes one of the most powerful desires and inclinations of human nature — to the extent that certain psychologists regard it as the very foundation of human nature and constitution, and subordinate all other desires to it. The question now arises: in numerous places and societies, there are countless individuals who lack the means and capacity for permanent marriage (nikāḥ-i dā'imī); or there are married persons who are engaged in prolonged travel or duties in circumstances where they are unable to make any provision for the satisfaction of their sexual needs. This is particularly acute in the present era, when marriage is considerably delayed on account of the pursuit of education and the complex problems of society, and very few young people are in a position to marry upon reaching puberty — which is the very period of the height of sexual desire. This matter has assumed an exceedingly dangerous form in our times. What then ought to be done under such circumstances? Should people in such situations be inclined toward the suppression of carnal desires in the manner of monks and nuns? Or should they be left free for sexual licentiousness, with the currently prevalent and destructive permissiveness of shamelessness and immodesty being generally sanctioned? Or should a third path be adopted — one that carries neither the burden of permanent marriage nor the vice of sexual licentiousness? In sum, permanent marriage — neither in the past nor in the present — can adequately fulfill and bear the sexual needs of all sections of society. We now stand at a crossroads: either we must declare licentiousness and moral corruption to be permissible — as the contemporary materialist world effectively regards it and accepts it in legal terms — or we must accept temporary marriage (nikāḥ-i muwaqqat). It is not known what answer those who oppose temporary marriage with the same vehemence as they oppose licentiousness have contemplated for this question. Temporary marriage does not carry the stringent conditions of permanent marriage, nor does it entail the dangerous sexual vices and harms associated with licentiousness. It may therefore be a suitable option for those of modest financial means and for individuals occupied with educational and other engagements.

At this juncture, several objections arise that deserve comprehensive responses. Some argue: what is the difference between temporary marriage and fornication and adultery? In both, bodily self-sale occurs in exchange for a sum of money. In their view, this form of marriage is in reality merely a veil cast over the face of immorality and sexual licentiousness — the only difference being that in mut'ah, two simple formulaic statements are recited. The response to this is that those who advance this argument are entirely unfamiliar with the meaning and nature of temporary marriage — for temporary marriage is not completed merely by the utterance of two statements. Rather, it has, like permanent marriage, its own rules, regulations, and ordinances: the woman in temporary marriage remains exclusively under the authority of that one man throughout the duration of the contract, and when the period expires she must observe the waiting period ('iddah) — that is, for a minimum of forty-five days she may not contract marriage with another person, so that if she has conceived by the first man, this may become apparent. Even if she has taken measures to prevent pregnancy, she must still complete the 'iddah period. And if a child is born of such a union, that man becomes the child's heir and guardian, just as in the case of a child born of permanent marriage, and all the rulings pertaining to offspring apply. In fornication and adultery, no such conditions exist whatsoever. Can the two still be considered analogous to one another? It must be noted, however, that temporary marriage does differ from permanent marriage in the matter of inheritance between spouses (Explanatory Note: there is, however, no difference whatsoever between the children of temporary and permanent marriage), maintenance, and certain other rulings. Nevertheless, this difference and distinction cannot be equated with fornication and adultery. In any case, by the principles and rules of marriage, it constitutes a form of marriage. The second objection raised is that mut'ah causes certain licentious individuals to exploit this law wrongfully and commit various immoral acts under its cover — to the extent that respectable and honorable people are never willing to engage in it, and women of standing and dignity never come near it. Is there any law whatsoever from which people do not derive improper benefit? Is it then necessary to prohibit a natural law and social necessity merely because it is misused — or should those who misuse it be restrained and checked? Suppose a group misuses the Ḥajj of the House of God by conducting the trade of narcotics during that sacred journey — would people in such a case be prohibited from participating in this great Islamic gathering, or would those engaged in illicit trade be given the appropriate punishment? If one observes that respectable individuals today hold this Islamic law in contempt, the defect lies not in the law itself but in those who act upon it incorrectly — or more precisely, in those who exploit it wrongfully. If in contemporary society, temporary marriage were practiced on correct lines and in its proper form, and if an Islamic government were to implement it properly under specific laws and regulations, the exploitation by those who misuse it could also be prevented — and respectable individuals would then no longer regard it with contempt and aversion in the fulfillment of a social necessity. It is further argued that as a result of mut'ah, illegitimate children live in society like foundlings. The response to this is that what has already been written above makes the answer to this question entirely clear — for illegitimate children are, in the eyes of the law, not affiliated with either parent, whereas there is not the slightest difference between the children of temporary marriage and permanent marriage with respect to inheritance and other social rights. It is thus ignorance of the actual facts that constitutes the source of this objection and doubt.Sonnet 4.6Adaptive

At the end of this discussion, it seems necessary to recall a useful point which the famous English intellectual Bertrand Russell wrote in his book 'Marriage and Morals' (Reference: This is the name of the Persian translation of Bertrand Russell's book. (Translator)) under the topic of trial marriage. After mentioning the proposal of 'companionate marriage' or 'trial marriage' by Judge Ben B. Lindsey, who tried the cases of the youth, he writes: According to the proposal of the aforementioned judge, young people should have the option to enter into a new kind of marriage, which would differ from ordinary marriage (permanent nikah) in three matters. 1. The intention of the two parties should not be to have children; in this regard, it is necessary that they be taught methods of contraception. 2. Their separation should be easy to accomplish. 3. After the divorce, the woman should not have the right to any kind of maintenance (nan o nafqah). After stating Judge Lindsey's objective, Russell says: I think that if this type of marriage were to be considered legally valid, many young people, especially college and university students, would be ready for a temporary marriage and would step into a temporary shared life. A life that brings with it freedom; in this way, deliverance would be found from many of society's ills, conflicts, and especially sexual promiscuity. (Reference: Book 'Marriage and Morals', pages 189 and 190). As you have read, the above proposal regarding temporary marriage is in many ways like the Islamic ruling. But the conditions and characteristics that Islam has prescribed for temporary marriage (nikah muwaqqat) are in many ways more clear and complete. In Islamic temporary marriage, preventing childbirth is not forbidden, and the separation of the two parties is also easy. After separation, maintenance (nan o nafqah) is also not obligatory. ولاجناح علیکم فیما تراضیتم بہ من بعد الفریضة After mentioning at the end of the verse that the payment of the dower (haqq-e-mahr) is necessary, it has been indicated that if the two parties to the contract, with mutual consent, increase or decrease the amount of the dower, there is no harm. This is because the dower (mahr) is a type of debt that can be changed with the consent of both parties. In this regard, there is no difference between a temporary and a permanent contract, although we have written in detail that this verse is about temporary marriage. There is another possibility in the interpretation of the above verse, and that is that there is no impediment if, upon the conclusion of the temporary marriage, the two parties extend the period of the marriage. The method for this is that the husband and wife agree with each other to increase both the specified period of the marriage and the stipulated dower as needed. This interpretation has also been indicated in the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s.). انَّ اللّہ کان علیماً حکیماً The rulings that have been indicated in this verse are such that they hold goodness and felicity for humankind, because the Lord of the worlds is aware of the best interests of His servants and is All-Wise in the implementation of law.

"وَمَنْ لَمْ یَسْتَطِعْ مِنْکُمْ طَوْلاً أَنْ یَنْکِحَ..." Following the discussions concerning marriage in the preceding verses, this verse sets forth the conditions for contracting marriage with slave women. It first declares: those who lack the financial means to marry free women may marry slave women, whose dower and generally other related expenses are comparatively more manageable and accessible. (Explanatory Note: The word ṭawl, rhyming with naw', signifies capacity, access, financial resources, and so forth.) However, marriage with slave women does not mean that the master should marry his own slave woman — for he may keep her as a wife in accordance with the conditions specified in jurisprudential works. Accordingly, what is intended is the marriage of persons other than the master to a slave woman. Incidentally, the word mu'mināt indicates that the slave woman must be definitively Muslim for marriage with her to be permissible, thereby precluding marriage with slave women from among the People of the Book. It is noteworthy that the Qur'an employs the word fatayāt for these slave women — fatayāt being a plural that is generally used for respectable women and most commonly for young girls. "وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِیمَانِکُمْ" This statement indicates that you are bound to assess their faith on the basis of their outward circumstances and declared beliefs; as for their inner state and the secrets of their hearts, God is more fully aware of your faith and conviction than you yourselves. "بَعْضُکُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ" Since some people were averse to marrying slave women, the Qur'an declares: you have all been born of the same father and mother and you are of one another. Accordingly, you should not feel aversion toward marrying slave women — who, from a human standpoint, are no different from others, and whose worth and value in terms of spiritual merit is equally contingent upon piety and God-consciousness, just as with everyone else. You are different limbs of a single body. "فَانْکِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ" It is, however, necessary that this marriage be contracted with the permission of the master — for without such permission it is void. The use of the expression ahl (family/household) for the masters alludes to the fact that masters ought not to treat slave women as objects of sexual commerce and material commodity, but should deal with them in a fully humane manner — as a family guardian deals with his children and dependents. "وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ" This indicates that an appropriate dower should be determined for them and paid directly to them — meaning that the slave women themselves are the owners of the dower. Although a group of exegetes hold the view that a word is implicit in this verse and that the intended meaning is ātū mālikahunna ujūrahunna (pay their dower to their masters), this interpretation is not consistent with the apparent meaning of the verse, even though certain traditions support it. The verse also incidentally yields the conclusion that slaves may own property that comes to them by lawful means. The phrase bi'l-ma'rūf — meaning "in a proper and equitable manner" — indicates that no injustice should be done to them in determining the dower, but rather that their genuine entitlement or the customary amount should be paid. "مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَیْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ" A further condition of this marriage is that slave women should be selected who do not engage in any conduct overtly or covertly incompatible with chastity and modesty — nor those who take secret companions: "وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ". (Explanatory Note: Akhdān is the plural of khadn, originally meaning "friend and companion," but generally used for those who maintain clandestine and illicit relations with members of the opposite sex. Note that the word khadn in the Qur'an is used for both men and women.) A question may arise here: having prohibited fornication through the expression ghayr musāfiḥāt, was there any need for the additional prohibition of taking secret companions (akhdān)? In light of the fact that during the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah), certain people held the belief that only open and public fornication was a reprehensible act, whereas maintaining clandestine relationships was not objectionable, it becomes entirely clear why the Qur'an has explicitly addressed both categories. "فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَیْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَیْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ" In this statement, in connection with the rulings concerning marriage with slave women and the protection of their rights, a discussion of their punishment is also introduced: when they deviate from the path of chastity and modesty and commit adultery, they shall receive half the punishment prescribed for free women — that is, fifty lashes. A second point that merits attention here is that the Qur'an declares: "إِذَا أُحْصِنَّ" — meaning that this punishment applies when they are muḥṣanah.

The exegetes have written several possibilities regarding this. Some have taken it to mean a married woman, in accordance with the well-known juristic term and the preceding verse, while others have taken it to mean a Muslim woman. However, the punishment for married women [for adultery] is stoning, not lashing. In short, it becomes clear from this that the first interpretation, in which the meaning of *muhsanah* is stated as a married woman, is not acceptable. Similarly, there is no evidence for the second interpretation, i.e., being a Muslim woman. Paying attention to the fact that the word *muhsanat* has mostly appeared in the Holy Quran in the meaning of chaste women, it seems that the truth is that the verse under consideration is pointing towards this. Meaning, those slave-girls who engaged in prostitution out of fear of their masters' severity are exempt from punishment, but those slave-girls who are not faced with this life-threatening severity and can live a life of chastity, if they commit an unchaste act, they will be punished like free women. However, their punishment will be half that of free women. ذٰلک لمن خشی العنت منکم *'Anat* (on the pattern of *sanad*) originally refers to the re-breaking of a bone, meaning for a bone to break again due to some accident after the pain has subsided and the wound has healed. It is clear that this type of break is extremely painful and agonizing, which is why the word "*'anat*" is used for soul-crushing difficulties and distressing tasks. In the above sentence, the Holy Quran states: Marriage with slave-girls is for those who are in great distress due to sexual desire and do not have the ability to marry free women. On this basis, this type of marriage is not permissible for other individuals. It is possible that the philosophy of this ruling is that in those times, the upbringing of slave-girls, in particular, was in such bad and wretched conditions that they were naturally afflicted with moral, spiritual, and social defects, and it is a given that the children born of such a marriage would be affected to some extent by the mother. On this basis, Islam presented a powerful, gradual, and excellent program for the freedom of slaves so that they would not remain slaves forever. Additionally, as a secondary measure, male and female slaves were given the option to marry one another. Certainly, this does not contradict the fact that some slave-girls possessed exceptional qualities in terms of morals and upbringing. What has been written above was regarding the majority of slave-girls. Now, if we read in books that the mothers of some religious luminaries were slave-girls. However, it is also necessary to keep in mind that what is forbidden regarding slave-girls, without necessity, is marriage (*nikah*) with them, not sexual relations by virtue of ownership. و ان تصبروا خیر لکم As long as it is within your power to keep your garment from being stained with sin, it is beneficial to save yourself from marrying slave-girls. و اللہ غفور رحیم And God is Forgiving and Merciful towards those evil deeds that you used to commit in the past out of ignorance and unawareness.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

"یُرِیدُ اللهُ لِیُبَیِّنَ لَکُمْ وَیَهْدِیَکُمْ سُنَنَ الَّذِینَ مِنْ قَبْلِکُمْ وَیَتُوبَ عَلَیْکُمْ" Following the conditions, restrictions, and various rulings concerning marriage that were alluded to in the preceding verses, the question may have arisen in the minds of some: what is the purpose of all these legal restrictions and boundaries? Would it not have been preferable to grant humanity complete freedom in these matters, so that others too might derive pleasure and benefit in whatever manner and by whatever means the worldly-minded do? The above verse, in reality providing the answer to these questions, declares that God wishes, through these ordinances and rulings, to make the realities clear for you and to guide you toward paths that are entirely to your benefit. And observe that this program is not exclusively for you — the pure and righteous communities of the past also possessed similar customs and norms. Furthermore, God wishes to forgive you and to restore to you once again those blessings that had been withheld from you on account of your errors and shortcomings — and this is contingent upon your turning back from the paths of disobedience that you had adopted during the pre-Islamic era of ignorance. "وَاللهُ عَلِیمٌ حَکِیمٌ" God knows the mysteries and subtleties of His commandments, and through His wisdom He has enacted these rulings for your benefit. "وَاللهُ یُرِیدُ أَنْ یَتُوبَ عَلَیْکُمْ وَیُرِیدُ الَّذِینَ یَتَّبِعُونَ الشَّهَوَاتِ أَنْ تَمِیلُوا مَیْلاً عَظِیماً" He reiterates with further emphasis: God Almighty, through these commandments, desires to restore to you once again those blessings and bounties that were taken from you on account of your immersion in carnal desires. But those who are steeped in lust and submerged in the waves of sin desire that you turn entirely away from the path of righteousness and plunge, as they have, into sins from head to foot. You may now judge for yourselves: which is better for you — those restraints that serve your goodness and the elevation of your station, or this unbridled freedom that leads to defeat, degradation, and wretchedness? These verses are in reality a response to those who, in our era as well, raise objections to religious laws — particularly concerning sexual matters. The reality of these unrestrained freedoms is like a mirage, and their consequence is equivalent to turning away from the path of human perfection and progress, falling into deviance, and descending into the pits of destruction — numerous examples of which we witness with our own eyes in the form of the disintegration of families, various sexual crimes, illegitimate children, sexual diseases, and psychological disorders. "یُرِیدُ اللهُ أَنْ یُخَفِّفَ عَنْکُمْ وَخُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ ضَعِیفاً" This verse alludes to the point that the first ruling — concerning the permissibility of contracting marriage with slave women under specified conditions — was a form of facilitation and accommodation. For the human being is fundamentally a weak creature upon whom the storms of carnal and sensual desires assault from every direction. It is therefore necessary to indicate to him those lawful and divinely sanctioned means by which he may make provision for the satisfaction of these desires and thereby safeguard himself from treading upon the paths of error and transgression.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

إِنْ تَجْتَنِبُوا کَبائِرَ ما تُنْہَوْنَ عَنْہُ نُکَفِّرْ عَنْکُمْ سَیِّئاتِکُمْ۔ یہ آیت صراحت کے ساتھ اعلان کرتی ہے کہ اگر تم گناہان کبیرہ کو جن کی ممانعت کی جا چکی ہے چھوڑ دو، تو ہم تمہارے ”سیئات“ کی پردہ پوشی کریں گے اور تمہیں بخش دیں گے اور تمہیں جنت عطا کریں گے۔ اس سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ گناہ دو قسم کے ہیں۔ ان میں سے ایک کا نام قرآن نے کبیرہ اور دوسری قسم کا ”سیئة“ اور سورہٴ نجم کی آیت ۳۲ میں سیئة کی بجائے ”لمم“ (بحوالہ لمم (بر وزن قسم) چھوٹے اور کم اہمیت والے کام کو کہتے ہیں)۔ فرمایا ہے اور سورہٴ کہف کی آیت ۴۹ میں کبیرہ کے مقابلے میں صغیرہ کا ذکر کیا ہے۔ جہاں ارشاد ہوتا ہے: لا یغادر صغیرة ولا کبیرة الا احصاھا یہ اعمال نامہ کسی چھوٹے بڑے گناہ کو نہ بھولے گا اور اسے ضرور شمار کرے گا۔ اس سے واضح طور پر ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ گناہ کی جانی پہچانی دو قسمیں ہیں کہ جن کو کبھی کبیرہ اور صغیرہ سے اور کبھی کبیرہ اور سیئة سے اور کبھی کبیرہ اور لمم سے تعبیر کیا جاتا ہے۔ اب دیکھنا ہے کہ گناہ صغیرہ و کبیرہ کے تعین کے لئے کیا ضابطہ اور میزان ہے۔ بعض کہتے ہیں کہ یہ دونوں نسبتی امور ہیں یعنی جب دو گناہوں کا ایک دوسرے مقابلہ کیا جائے تو جس کی اہمیت زیادہ ہے وہ کبیرہ ہے اور جس کی کم حیثیت ہے وہ صغیرہ ہے، اس لئے ہر گناہ اپنے سے زیادہ بڑے گناہ کی نسبت سے گناہِ صغیرہ ہو گا اور اپنے سے چھوٹے گناہ کی بسنت کبیرہ ہو گا۔(تشریحی نوٹ: طبرسی مرحوم نے مجمع البیان میںاس عقیدے کی نسبت شیعہ علماء کی طرف دی ہے حالانکہ ایسا نہیں ہے کیونکہ ہمارے بہت سے علماء دوسرا نظریہ رکھتے ہیں جس کی ہم تشریح کریں گے)۔ لیکن ظاہر ہے کہ یہ معنی کسی طرح بھی زیر نظر آیت کے مطابق نہیں کیونکہ آیت نے دو گروہوں کو ایک دوسرے سے جدا کر دیا ہے اور انہیں ایک دوسرے کے مدمقابل قرار دیا ہے اور ایک سے پرہیز کو دوسرے کی بخشش کا ذریعہ قرار دیا ہے (غور فرمائیے گا)۔ لیکن اگر کبیرہ کے لغوی معنی کو دیکھیں تو ہر وہ گناہ کبیرہ ہو گا جو اسلام کی نظر میں بڑا اور زیادہ اہم ہے اور ا س کی اہمیت کی نشانی یہ ہو سکتی ہے کہ قرآن مجید نے صرف اس کی ممانعت پر قناعت نہ کی ہو بلکہ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ عذاب جہنم کی دھمکی بھی ہو سکتی ہو مثلاً قتل زنا، سود خوری وغیرہ ۔ا سی لئے روایاتِ اہل بیت(ع) میں ہے: الکبائر التی اوجب اللہ عزو جل علیھا النار گناہان کبیرہ وہ ہیں جن پر خداوند عالم نے آگ کی سزا مقرر فرمائی ہے۔ (بحوالہ نور الثقلین، جلد ۱، صفحہ ۴۷۳)۔ اس حدیث کا مضمون حضرت امام باقر (ع) حضرت امام جعفر صادق (ع) اور امام علی بن موسیٰ رضا (ع) سے منقول ہے گناہان کبیرہ کو سمجھنے اور مذکورہ ضابطے کی روشنی میں انہیں پہنچاننے کے بعد کام آسان ہو جاتا ہے۔ اب ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ کچھ روایات میں کبائر کی تعداد سات اور بعض میں بیس اور بعض میں ستر ہے جو کچھ ہم کہہ چکے ہیں وہ اس کے منافی نہیں ہے۔ کیونکہ اصل میں ان روایات میں سے بعض پہلے درجہ کے گناہان کبیرہ کی طرف بعض دوسرے درجہ کے کبائر کی طرف اور بعض سب گناہانِ کبیرہ کی طرف اشارہ کرتی ہیں۔

"إِنْ تَجْتَنِبُوا کَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ نُکَفِّرْ عَنْکُمْ سَیِّئَاتِکُمْ" This verse explicitly declares: if you abstain from the grave sins (kabā'ir) whose prohibition has been enjoined upon you, We shall conceal your sayyi'āt (minor transgressions), forgive you, and grant you Paradise. From this it becomes evident that sins are of two categories: one of which the Qur'an has designated kabīrah, and the other sayyi'ah — and in verse 32 of Sūrah al-Najm, sayyi'ah is replaced by lamam (Explanatory Note: lamam, rhyming with qism, refers to minor and inconsequential matters). In verse 49 of Sūrah al-Kahf, ṣaghīrah is mentioned in contradistinction to kabīrah, where it is declared: "لاَ یُغَادِرُ صَغِیرَةً وَلاَ کَبِیرَةً إِلاَّ أَحْصَاهَا" "It will not omit a minor or major sin but will enumerate it." From this it is clearly established that sins have two well-recognized categories — sometimes designated kabīrah and ṣaghīrah, sometimes kabīrah and sayyi'ah, and sometimes kabīrah and lamam. The question now is: what is the criterion and standard for determining which sins are minor and which are grave? Some hold that both are relative matters — that is, when two sins are compared with one another, the one of greater significance is kabīrah and the one of lesser significance is ṣaghīrah. Accordingly, every sin is a minor sin relative to one that is greater than it, and a grave sin relative to one that is lesser. (Explanatory Note: The late Ṭabarsī in Majma' al-Bayān has attributed this view to Shī'ah scholars, whereas this is not the case — for many of our scholars hold a different view which we shall elaborate.) It is evident, however, that this meaning in no way accords with the verse under discussion — for the verse has separated the two categories from one another, placed them in opposition to each other, and made abstinence from one the means of forgiveness for the other. This point merits careful reflection. If, however, the lexical meaning of kabīrah is considered, every sin that is regarded as great and highly significant in the view of Islam would be a grave sin — and the indication of its gravity may be that the Qur'an has not been content merely to prohibit it, but has simultaneously threatened punishment in Hellfire — such as murder, adultery, usury, and the like. It is for this reason that in the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) it is stated: "اَلْکَبَائِرُ الَّتِی أَوْجَبَ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَیْهَا النَّارَ" "The grave sins are those for which God Almighty has prescribed the punishment of fire." (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 473) The content of this tradition is transmitted from Imām Bāqir (peace be upon him), Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), and Imām 'Alī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (peace be upon him). Once the grave sins are understood and identified in the light of the aforementioned criterion, the matter becomes straightforward. We now observe that in certain traditions the number of grave sins is given as seven, in others as twenty, and in yet others as seventy — which is not in conflict with what has been stated. For in reality, certain of these traditions allude to grave sins of the first degree, certain others to grave sins of the second degree, and certain others to all grave sins collectively.

It may be argued here that this verse in fact encourages minor sins, for it appears to say: after abandoning the grave sins, there is no harm in committing minor ones. The response to this objection is made abundantly clear by the very expression employed in the verse — for the Qur'an declares: "نُکَفِّرْ عَنْکُمْ سَیِّئَاتِکُمْ" ("We shall conceal your minor sins") — meaning that abstinence from grave sins, particularly when the foundations of piety are firmly established, produces within the human being a state of God-consciousness that may wash away the effects of minor sins from his existence. In reality, this verse is analogous to the verse: "إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ" (Hūd: 114) "Verily, good deeds remove evil deeds." The verse under discussion alludes to the genuine effects of truly righteous deeds — and this is precisely analogous to saying that if a person avoids dangerous toxic substances and his health is sound and intact, the soundness of his health may neutralize the undesirable effects of certain unsuitable foods.

At this juncture, an important point demands our attention: a minor sin remains minor only when it is not repeated and is not committed out of contempt, arrogance, and rebelliousness — for according to the Qur'an and Islamic traditions, it follows that minor sins frequently transform into grave sins. The circumstances in which this transformation occurs are as follows: 1. When they are committed repeatedly. As transmitted from Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him): "لاَ صَغِیرَةَ مَعَ الْإِصْرَارِ" "No sin remains a minor sin when committed with persistence." (Ref: Uṣūl al-Kāfī, Vol. 2, p. 288) 2. When a sin is regarded as trivial and inconsequential. As stated in Nahj al-Balāghah: "أَشَدُّ الذُّنُوبِ مَا اسْتَهَانَ بِهِ صَاحِبُهُ" "The most grave of sins is that which its perpetrator considers insignificant." (Ref: Nahj al-Balāghah, Kalimāt al-Qaṣār) 3. When a sin is committed with the intention of rebellion, arrogance, and defiance before the command of the Lord. This is understood in a general sense from various Qur'anic verses. In addition, verse 37 of Sūrah al-Nāzi'āt declares: as for those who rebel and transgress and prefer the life of this world over the next, their abode shall be Hellfire. 4. Sins committed by individuals who occupy a particular standing in society and whose lapses are not regarded as equivalent to those of others. As the Qur'an states in Sūrah al-Aḥzāb regarding the wives of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "If you commit an evil act, you shall receive its punishment." And the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared: "مَنْ سَنَّ سُنَّةً سَیِّئَةً فَعَلَیْهِ وِزْرُهَا وَوِزْرُ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا لاَ یَنْقُصُ مِنْ أَوْزَارِهِمْ شَیْئاً" "If a person establishes an evil practice and custom, its sin shall rest upon him, as well as the sin of all those who act upon it — without the slightest reduction in their own sins." (Ref: Maḥajjat al-Bayḍā', Vol. 7, p. 61) 5. When one takes pleasure in the sin and takes pride in having committed it. As the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared: "مَنْ أَذْنَبَ ذَنْباً وَهُوَ ضَاحِکٌ دَخَلَ النَّارَ وَهُوَ بَاکٍ" "Whoever commits a sin while laughing shall enter the Fire weeping." 6. When the absence of immediate punishment following a sin is taken as evidence of Divine approval, and one regards oneself as immune from punishment and beloved in the Divine Presence. As the Qur'an states in verse 8 of Sūrah al-Mujādalah: the arrogant sinners will say among themselves — "Why does God not punish us?" — whereupon the Qur'an adds: "Hellfire is sufficient for them."

The eminent exegete Ṭabarsī records in Majma' al-Bayān that Umm Salamah (the wife of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny) submitted before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: when men go forth for jihād, why cannot women do the same? And why do we receive half the inheritance? Would that we were men, so that we too could go forth for jihād as they do and hold the same standing in society. It was in this context that the above-mentioned verse was revealed, through which an answer was given to this question and to other similar ones. In Tafsīr al-Manār it is recorded that when the verse concerning inheritance was revealed and it specified the share of men as double that of women, certain Muslim men began to say: "Would that our spiritual reward and recompense were like that of women" — and certain women said: "Would that our punishment and chastisement were also half that of men, just as our share of inheritance is half of theirs." It was in response to this that the above-mentioned verse was revealed and an answer was given to them. This same occasion of revelation is recorded in Tafsīr Fī Ẓilāl and Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī with minor differences.

"وَلاَ تَتَمَنَّوْا مَا فَضَّلَ اللهُ بِهِ بَعْضَکُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ" As has been stated in the account of the occasion of revelation, the difference between the shares of men and women in inheritance had become a troublesome question for certain Muslims — as though they failed to take into account that this difference exists because the burdens and responsibilities of the affairs of life rest predominantly upon the shoulders of men, while women are exempted therefrom. Moreover, the expenses of women must also be borne by men — as has already been alluded to, such that in practice the actual share of women becomes double that of men. The above verse accordingly declares: do not covet the distinction that God has assigned to some of you over others — for within this distinction are concealed numerous mysteries and subtleties that transcend your understanding. In terms of creation, natural constitution, capacity, and disposition, and with respect to your physical and spiritual attributes, you possess differences among yourselves — and this very fact constitutes the foundation of your social order. The difference in rulings (such as in inheritance) has been established on account of the difference in your rights and respective standings. All these distinctions and differences are in accordance with Divine justice and law. Had there been wisdom in any other arrangement, God would have ordained it accordingly. The desire and longing to change these distinctions therefore amounts to opposition to the Divine will, which is pure truth and justice. It must not, however, be mistaken that this verse alludes to genuine and natural differences — not to the artificial disparities that arise from class exploitation and oppression, for such disparities neither accord with the Divine will nor constitute something whose alteration ought not to be desired. Rather, they represent unjust and irrational distinctions that must be actively worked to eliminate. For instance, women cannot rightly wish that they were men, nor should men wish that they were women — for both sexes constitute the foundation of human society. Nevertheless, this difference of sex should not be a cause for one to trample upon the rights of the other. Those who regard this verse as a document for perpetuating social divisions and factionalism are in grave error. "لِلرِّجَالِ نَصِیبٌ مِمَّا اکْتَسَبُوا وَلِلنِّسَاءِ نَصِیبٌ مِمَّا اکْتَسَبْنَ" Immediately following, it declares: each of men and women benefits in accordance with his or her own efforts, striving, and standing — whether that standing is natural in character (such as the difference in sex between man and woman) or arises from endeavor and voluntary effort. It is noteworthy that the word iktisāb — meaning "acquisition" — carries a broad signification that encompasses both voluntary efforts and those things that a person acquires on the basis of his natural constitution. "وَاسْأَلُوا اللهَ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ" Thereafter it declares: rather than coveting this type of distinction, seek the grace and bounty of God Almighty, so that He may bestow upon you abundant blessings, lofty Divine assistance, and goodly recompense — and that through these you may become fortunate and felicitous. Whether you are male or female, of this family or that — in any case, desire that in which your true well-being and felicity lie, not that which you merely imagine to be beneficial. It is perhaps to this that the expression min faḍlihi (from His grace) alludes. It is evident, however, that seeking the grace of God Almighty does not mean that a person should neglect the causes and means of things; rather, he ought to seek God's mercy within those very causes and means that He has ordained. "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ بِکُلِّ شَیْءٍ عَلِیماً" Since the Lord knows all things — what natural differences and distinctions in rights are necessary for the social order — His works contain no injustice, sectarianism, or inappropriate disparity of any kind. He likewise knows the inner secrets of people: which individuals harbor false aspirations within their hearts, and which individuals reflect upon the Divine will and matters of genuine reform.

Many people ponder inwardly: some individuals possess greater capacity and others less; some are handsome and others plain; some are physically strong and others weak — do these natural differences and distinctions accord with the justice of the Lord of the universe? In addressing this question, several points deserve our attention: 1. Certain differences that exist among people — physically and spiritually — arise from class oppression, social or individual indolence and comfort-seeking, and have no connection whatsoever with the workshop of nature. For instance, the children of the wealthy are often physically stronger and more handsome than the children of the poor, and are more advanced in terms of capacity — for they benefit from better nutrition and a healthier environment, while others are deprived of these. Similarly, some people squander their physical and spiritual faculties through lethargy and the pursuit of ease. Such artificial and contrived differences, therefore, are to be regarded as groundless and causeless, and will be eliminated with the dismantling of the class system and the universalization of social justice. Islam and the Qur'an have never endorsed such disparities. 2. However, certain natural and innate differences are necessary for the human being. Even if a society were to benefit fully and completely from social justice, its members would not be uniform in form, weight, and constitution like products from a single factory — they would naturally differ from one another. It should be known, however, that God Almighty generally distributes physical and spiritual blessings and human capacities in such a manner that each person is endowed with a share — so that individuals in whom all excellences are simultaneously combined are exceedingly rare. One person possesses physical strength while another excels in mathematics; one has a poetic disposition while another has expertise in commerce; one is absorbed in agriculture while another possesses a different capacity altogether. What is important is that society, or individuals themselves, should recognize their various capabilities and cultivate them in a healthy environment so that each person may discover and benefit from his particular strength and capacity. 3. It should also be borne in mind that society, like the human body, requires various structures, organs, and different types of cells. If an entire body were constructed entirely of delicate and fine tissues such as those of the eye and brain, it could not survive. And if all the body's tissues were rigid and inflexible like bone, they would be incapable of performing various functions and responsibilities. Rather, a variety of tissues is necessary so that some may perform the function of sleeping, some of seeing, some of hearing, and some of speaking. Similarly, a complete society requires various capabilities and diverse physical and intellectual capacities — though not in such a manner that certain segments of the social body live in deprivation, or that their contributions are regarded as trivial and they are treated with contempt. Just as all tissues of the body, despite their many differences, derive full benefit from nutrition, air, and all the necessities of life, so too should all human beings be treated equally. In other words, wherever natural differences of physical and inner constitution exist among people — not differences of an oppressive and tyrannical character — they reflect the requirement of Divine wisdom, and justice is never separable from wisdom. For instance, had all human cells been created of a single type, this would have been contrary to wisdom and prudence, and justice too would have been absent — for justice means placing everything in its appropriate position. Similarly, if all members of society on any given day were to share identical thoughts and equal capacity and potential, society would collapse into disorder on that very day. It is for this reason that what is stated in the above-mentioned verse concerning the difference in the natural constitution of men and women is in reality an allusion to precisely this point — for it is evident that if all human beings were either all male or all female, the human race would swiftly come to an end, and moreover a significant portion of the legitimate pleasures of the human species would be utterly annihilated. If certain people now raise the objection — "Why were some created male and others female, and what justice of the Lord does this represent?" — it is evident that such an objection would be neither rational nor logical, for those raising it have not reflected upon the wisdom and underlying purpose thereof.

"وَلِکُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مَوَالِیَ" (Ref: Mawālī is the plural of mawlā, which is originally derived from the root walāyah, carrying the meaning of connection and attachment, and is applied to all persons who bear some form of relationship with one another. In certain contexts it is used in relation to those connected with the followers of another, and in this verse it carries the meaning of heirs.) "مِمَّا تَرَکَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ" Here the Qur'an returns to the subject of inheritance and declares: We have appointed heirs for each of men and women — whatever the parents and close relatives leave behind shall be distributed among them according to a specific method. In reality, this statement constitutes a summary of the rulings concerning inheritance pertaining to relatives and close ones that were set forth in the preceding verses, and serves as an introduction and prelude to the ruling that will be stated subsequently. "وَالَّذِینَ عَقَدَتْ أَیْمَانُکُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِیبَهُمْ" Thereafter it further declares: and those with whom you have concluded a covenant and pledge — give them their share from the inheritance. The reason the verse designates the covenant as 'aqd yamīn (the tying of a knot with the right hand) is that human beings generally perform acts with the right hand, and a covenant is itself a form of binding a knot. The question now is: who are those covenant-bound individuals who are to be given a share from the inheritance? Some exegetes hold that this refers to spouses, since they have bound themselves to one another through the covenant of matrimony. However, this view does not appear sound — for marriage is very rarely referred to in the Qur'an as 'aqd yamīn or by similar expressions, and such an interpretation would moreover constitute a repetition of what has already been stated. The meaning more closely consonant with the verse is that this refers to the covenant of ḍamān al-jarīrah — a practice that was prevalent before Islam and which Islam, upon its advent, reformed and validated on account of its beneficial dimension. The arrangement was as follows: two individuals would promise one another to provide fraternal mutual assistance, to support each other in difficulties, and that when either of them passed away, the surviving person would inherit from the deceased. Islam accepted this custom of the covenant of friendship, with the stipulation that inheritance based upon such a covenant would only be received when none of the deceased's close relatives from the various classes of heirs remained alive. Further details on this matter are found in the chapter on inheritance in jurisprudential works. (Ref: Ḍamān al-jarīrah is as follows: "I conclude a covenant with you that you will help me and I will help you, I will assist you in paying indemnity and blood money and you will assist me, you will inherit from me and I will inherit from you" — whereupon the other says: "I accept.") "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ عَلَى کُلِّ شَیْءٍ شَهِیداً" Whether you are negligent in giving those entitled to inheritance their rightful shares, or whether you pay them their dues in full — God is aware of every state and condition, for He is the witness and observer of every act and every thing.

"الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ" "Men are the guardians and custodians of women." By way of clarification of this statement, it should be noted that the household is a small society and, like the larger society, must have a leader and guardian. For if both the man and the woman were jointly to exercise leadership and guardianship, this would be devoid of meaning. Accordingly, either the man or the woman must be the head and chief of the household, while the other serves as a helper and functions under his or her supervision. The Qur'an here clarifies that the position of guardianship is assigned to the man. The purpose is not oppression and tyranny but rather an orderly arrangement of leadership — one that necessarily entails attentiveness to responsibilities and mutual consultation. In the contemporary world, this principle is more self-evident than in any previous era: if a group — even one of only two individuals — is assigned to a task, it is necessary for one of them to be the head and the other the assistant; otherwise the task will not be accomplished. The guardianship of the man within the household is of this same nature. This standing is on account of certain qualities present in the man — for instance, his tendency to give precedence to rational thought over emotions and sentiment (in contrast to the woman, who is more abundantly endowed with the capacity for love and feeling). Furthermore, the man is physically stronger, and therefore makes greater use of rational planning and is capable of defending his household through physical strength. In addition, his responsibility for providing the material necessities of his wife and children, the obligation of paying the dower, and the duty of protecting the honor of his wife and progeny — all of these confer upon him the right to hold the position of guardianship as well. It is, of course, possible that women may surpass their husbands in the aforementioned qualities. However, the reality is that law does not look at individual cases but at the general pattern and the norm — and there is no doubt that, considered collectively, men are more suited for these responsibilities than women. If women also assume certain responsibilities, this does not negate the significance of the man's role. "بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنْفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ" This statement alludes to this same reality — for in the first portion it declares: this guardianship exists on account of the differentiation and distinction that God Almighty has placed among them for the purpose of creation and for the benefit of the human species. And in the concluding portion it declares: this guardianship is also on account of the financial duties and obligations that rest upon the man for fulfilling the material needs of the members of the household. However, it is evident that the assignment of these responsibilities to men is neither evidence of the superiority of their personal stature nor an indicator of distinction in the next world — for that is contingent upon piety and God-consciousness. Just as it is possible that an assistant may surpass his superior in various personal dimensions and yet the superior may be more suited for the leadership of a particular task. "فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِلْغَیْبِ" Here it further declares that women, with respect to the responsibilities entrusted to them within the family, are of two kinds. The first category consists of righteous and virtuous women — those who understand and fulfill their responsibilities within the domestic order. They do not commit treachery in matters of honor and chastity, nor in financial matters, whether in the presence or absence of their husbands. They safeguard the husband's honor and the family's secrets even in his absence, and in return for the rights that God has assigned to them, they discharge their duties and responsibilities in an excellent manner. God Almighty has alluded to precisely this through the expression "بِمَا حَفِظَ اللهُ". It is evident that men bear the responsibility of treating women of this kind with the utmost respect and appreciation.

The second type of women are those who turn away from their duties and demonstrate incompatibility. Regarding such women, men have certain duties and responsibilities that should be carried out step-by-step, one after the other. They must ensure in every situation that they do not go beyond the limits of justice. These responsibilities are stated in order in the following verse. واللاتي تخافون نشوزهن فعظوهن (Explanatory note: "Nushuz," from "nashz" (rhyming with 'nadhr'), means high ground. Here it is an allusion to rebellion and transgression). The first stage is concerning those women who demonstrate rebellion and enmity. The Quran, in the verse above, states: those women whose rebellion and defiance you fear, admonish them. Those who step outside the four walls of the domestic system should first be given compassionate advice, and an attempt should be made to bring them to the right path by explaining the negative consequences of such actions, and their attention should be drawn towards their responsibilities. واهجروهن في المضاجع If your advice and words have no effect on them, then stay away from their beds. Through this inattention and indifference, which is termed a boycott, express your displeasure against their behavior. Perhaps this slight warning will have an effect on them. واضربوهن Now, if their rebellion and inattention to duties exceed the limit, and they persist in breaking the law and stubbornly move forward, and neither counsel and advice nor separation from the bed and inattention has any effect on them; when no path remains except practical strictness and there is no choice but practical severity to persuade them to fulfill their responsibilities, then permission is given here to persuade them to perform their duties through physical reprimand.

An objection may be raised here: how has Islam permitted men to inflict corporal punishment upon women? The answer to this objection is not particularly difficult when one considers the meaning of the verse, the traditions transmitted in this connection, the clarifications found in jurisprudential works, and the explanations offered by contemporary psychologists. First, the verse has permitted the matter of corporal punishment only in relation to those who do not fulfill their responsibilities — and even then, only when no other means has proven effective. It is worth noting that this is by no means a novelty exclusive to Islam. In all the legal systems of the world, when individuals cannot be made to sense their responsibilities through conciliatory means, recourse to firmness and severity becomes necessary — not only through physical punishment but in certain instances through even more severe penalties that may extend to the point of execution. Second, corporal punishment, as stated in jurisprudential works, must be light in nature — of a kind that carries no risk of breaking bones, wounding the body, or causing swelling. Third, contemporary psychologists hold the view that certain women are masochistic in disposition, and when this condition intensifies, the only remedy for bringing them to a state of calm and composure is mild corporal punishment. It is therefore possible that this provision was conceived with such individuals in mind — for whom a light form of corporal punishment provides relief. This constitutes a form of psychological treatment. It is indisputable that if any of the preceding stages proves effective and the woman begins to fulfill her responsibilities, the man has absolutely no right to resort to pretexts in order to cause her distress. For this reason, the verse subsequently declares: "فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَکُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُوا عَلَیْهِنَّ سَبِیلاً" "If they obey you, do not seek any means against them." If it is now argued that men too may commit such rebelliousness, transgression, and excess — and whether men too will receive the same kind of punishment — the answer is yes: men who fail to discharge their obligations are equally deserving of the same category of penalty, even including corporal punishment. However, since this function lies outside the purview of women, it is the duty of the legitimate Islamic authority (ḥākim-i shar') to make delinquent men aware of their responsibilities through various means, including corporal punishment. The well-known account is recorded of a man who had transgressed against his innocent wife and persistently refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing. 'Alī (peace be upon him) not only admonished him in practice but threatened him with the sword, thereby compelling him to admit his transgression. "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ عَلِیّاً کَبِیراً" At the conclusion of the verse, men are once again warned not to exploit their position as guardians of the family for improper purposes, and to keep ever present in their minds the power of God — which transcends all powers — for God is Most High and Most Great.

"وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ شِقَاقَ بَیْنِهِمَا..." God Almighty, in this verse, alluding to the matter of dispute and discord between spouses, declares: if signs of incompatibility and separation appear between husband and wife, appoint one arbitrator from the husband's family and another from the wife's family to understand the causes of the discord and to arrive at a settlement and reconciliation. He then declares: "إِنْ یُرِیدَا إِصْلاَحاً یُوَفِّقِ اللهُ بَیْنَهُمَا" — if these two arbitrators proceed with sincerity and goodwill, and their purpose is to effect reconciliation between the couple, God too will provide His assistance and through their mediation will create affection and harmony between them. And at the conclusion of the verse, in order to admonish the arbitrators to act with sincerity, it declares: God is fully aware of their intentions: "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ عَلِیماً خَبِیراً". The family reconciliation tribunal to which this verse alludes is one of the masterpieces of Islam. This tribunal possesses certain distinctive qualities that other judicial bodies lack, among which are the following: 1. The family environment is fundamentally a center of sentiment and affection. Naturally, the approach adopted in this environment must differ from that employed in other settings — just as ordinary criminal courts cannot function with an approach devoid of empathy and kindness, so too in the family environment, dry legalism and soulless convention cannot suffice. Here, differences must be resolved as far as possible through love and compassion. It is for this reason that God Almighty commands that the judges of this tribunal be persons related to both spouses, so that they may activate the couple's sentiments of love and affection. This quality is evidently possible only in such a tribunal and is absent from all others. 2. In ordinary courts, both parties to a dispute are compelled to disclose every manner of secret and private matter in their own defense. It is well established that when spouses reveal their marital secrets before strangers, they inflict such wounds upon one another's feelings that even if the court compels them to return home, the former sincerity and affection between them will no longer remain, and a kind of estrangement will arise in which they are obliged to fulfill their duties and responsibilities mechanically. Experience fundamentally demonstrates that spouses who have once entered such courts never return to being the couple they once were. In the family reconciliation tribunal, however, such shameful matters are in the first place not raised in open proceedings, and if they do come up, since those present are relatives and intimate persons, there is far less apprehension of grave adverse effects. 3. The judges of ordinary courts have no concern for the escalation of differences — whatever form the matter may take, it leaves no impression upon them. Whether the couple returns home or separates permanently is entirely inconsequential to them. But in the family reconciliation tribunal, the matter is the complete opposite — for its judges are the close relatives of the couple, and the reconciliation or separation of the couple has a profound impact on their own lives, on the lives of the children, on emotional orientations, and on accountability for the consequences that arise. They therefore make every possible effort to ensure that reconciliation, sincerity, and affection are maintained between the two and that they are brought to harmony and accord. 4. Beyond all of this, this reconciliation tribunal does not entangle the parties in difficulties, crushing expenses, and the complications and confusions of ordinary courts, and strives to bring the matter to its objective within a short period without subjecting the parties to repeated inconveniences. It is evident that from both families, experienced, wise, and well-informed arbitrators must be selected. From the qualities enumerated above, it becomes clear that the possibility of spousal reconciliation in this tribunal is far greater than in any other court. In Islamic jurisprudence, the conditions for the two arbitrators, their ruling and its execution, and their scope of authority are elaborated in detail. Among these conditions is that both arbitrators must be of mature age, of sound intellect, just and upright, and wise and discerning in their work. As for the execution of their ruling with respect to the couple, certain jurists hold that their decision — whatever it may be — must be implemented, and the apparent meaning of the word ḥukm in this verse supports this interpretation, since the concept of arbitration and adjudication inherently entails the execution of a decision. However, many jurists have regarded the judgment of the arbitrators as binding only in the matter of reconciliation and the resolution of differences between the couple. Indeed, their view is that if the arbitrators impose certain conditions upon the wife or husband, compliance with those conditions is also obligatory. As for the case of separation and divorce, their ruling shall not be binding — and the apparent meaning of the verse, which alludes to the matter of reform and reconciliation, is more consistent with this latter view. For further clarification on this matter, the reader is referred to the jurisprudential works.

God Almighty in the above verse sets forth another series of Islamic rights, which include the rights of God, the rights of people, and the etiquette of social conduct. In total, ten rulings and principles may be derived from this verse. 1. وَاعْبُدُوا اللهَ وَلاَ تُشْرِکُوا بِهِ شَیْئاً The Qur'an first invites people to worship God and to abandon polytheism and idolatry — which is the root of all Islamic commandments. The call to Divine unity purifies the soul, renders intention sincere, strengthens the will, and fortifies the resolve to accomplish every beneficial objective. Since this verse sets forth a series of Islamic rights, it first emphasizes the right of God over humanity. 2. وَبِالْوَالِدَیْنِ إِحْسَاناً Thereafter, alluding to the right of parents, it enjoins kindness and benevolence toward them. The right of parents is among those subjects most repeatedly emphasized in the Qur'an — hardly any matter has been accorded such consistent insistence. This appears at four places in the Qur'an immediately following the mention of Divine unity (al-Baqarah: 83, al-An'ām: 151, al-Isrā': 23, and the present verse). This repeated mention leads to the conclusion that there exists a connection and link between the two — and indeed there is, for the greatest of all blessings is the blessing of life, which in the first degree proceeds from God and in subsequent stages relates to the parents. A child is a part of the very existence of the parents. For this reason, neglecting the rights of parents is equivalent to associating partners with God Almighty. A detailed discussion of parental rights will, God willing, appear in the commentary on the relevant verses of Sūrah al-Isrā' and Sūrah Luqmān. 3. وَبِذِی الْقُرْبَى After this, the commandment to show kindness to all relatives is issued — also a subject upon which great emphasis has been laid, sometimes under the heading of ṣilat al-raḥm (maintaining bonds of kinship) and sometimes under the heading of kindness and benevolence toward them. In reality, Islam desires to establish, within the broad framework of human kinship, certain stronger bonds — bonds that exist in smaller, more homogeneous units commonly known as families and clans — so that in difficulties and calamities they may assist one another and protect their respective rights. 4. وَالْیَتَامَى Thereafter, the believers are directed toward the rights of orphans, with an injunction to act benevolently toward them — for in every society, children are continually rendered orphans as a result of various mishaps and calamities. Neglecting them is not merely to place them in danger but to endanger society as well, for if orphaned children are not properly cared for and are not treated with adequate compassion and affection, they may become delinquent, dangerous, and criminally inclined. Benevolence toward orphans is therefore in the interest of society itself. 5. وَالْمَسَاکِینِ After this, the rights of the needy are recalled — for even in a sound and just society there may exist the destitute and the indigent, and to overlook them is contrary to the principles of humanity. And if through deviation from the principles of social justice, healthy and able-bodied people are reduced to poverty and deprivation, it is all the more imperative to rise in reform of such a society. 6. وَالْجَارِ ذِی الْقُرْبَى After this, an injunction is given to show kindness to close neighbors. Exegetes have advanced various interpretations regarding who the close neighbor is. Some have taken this to mean neighbors who are also relatives, but this interpretation appears remote given that the verse has already alluded to the rights of relatives. Rather, what is intended is proximity of dwelling — for neighbors who are physically closer have greater rights and deserve more consideration. Alternatively, it may refer to those neighbors who are closer in terms of religious affiliation. 7. وَالْجَارِ الْجُنُبِ After this, distant neighbors are recommended. As already stated, this refers to distance of dwelling — for according to several traditions, the forty houses in every direction constitute one's neighbors. (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 480) In this manner, every city is divided into small neighborhoods — for if one imagines a person's home as the center of a circle whose radius encompasses forty houses in every direction, a simple calculation reveals that approximately five thousand homes would fall within such a circle, and it is self-evident that a small city contains no more than this. It is noteworthy that the above Qur'anic verse, in addition to mentioning close neighbors, also elaborates on the rights of distant neighbors — for the word "neighbor" has a limited connotation generally confined to close proximity. In order to extend this meaning in accordance with the Islamic perspective, there was no recourse but to explicitly mention distant neighbors as well. It is also possible that by "distant neighbors," non-Muslims are intended — for the right of neighborliness in Islam is not limited to Muslim neighbors but encompasses non-Muslims as well, provided they are not engaged in active hostility against Muslims. The right of neighborliness carries such importance in Islam that among the well-known testamentary statements of Amīr al-Mu'minīn 'Alī (peace be upon him) it is transmitted: "مَا زَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ PBUH & His Pure Progeny یُوصِی بِهِمْ حَتَّى ظَنَنَّا أَنَّهُ سَیُوَرِّثُهُمْ" "The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny so persistently enjoined concern for them that we thought he would command that neighbors inherit from one another." This tradition also appears in well-known Sunnī works — it is cited from al-Bukhārī in Tafsīr al-Manār and Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī. In another tradition from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is recorded that he declared on three occasions: "وَاللهِ لاَ یُؤْمِنُ..." "By God, he does not believe..." When asked who such a person was, he replied: "الَّذِی لاَ یَأْمَنُ جَارُهُ بَوَائِقَهُ" "The one whose neighbor is not safe from his harm." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Vol. 3, p. 1754) In yet another tradition, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is reported to have declared: "مَنْ کَانَ یُؤْمِنُ بِاللهِ وَالْیَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَلْیُحْسِنْ إِلَى جَارِهِ" "Whoever believes in God and the Last Day should treat his neighbor with kindness." (Ref: al-Manār, Vol. 5, p. 92, Beirut edition) And Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: "حُسْنُ الْجِوَارِ یَعْمُرُ الدِّیَارَ وَیَزِیدُ فِی الْأَعْمَارِ" "Good conduct toward neighbors causes homes to flourish and increases lifespans." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Ṣāfī, p. 120) In this scientific and mechanized era, neighbors often know nothing of one another's general circumstances — sometimes two neighbors may live side by side for twenty years without even knowing each other's names. This great Islamic commandment carries a particular luminosity — Islam is a firm advocate of extensive cooperation and mutual sympathy within human society, while in this era of material advancement, sympathy and cooperation are diminishing further with every passing day and indifference and disrespect are ever increasing. 8. وَالصَّاحِبِ بِالْجَنْبِ After this, an injunction is directed toward those who claim to be companions. However, it should be noted that ṣāḥib bi'l-janb carries a meaning broader than mere friend and companion — it is in reality used for any person who associates with another in any manner, whether a long-standing friend or a brief companion such as one who becomes a fellow traveler on a journey. Some traditions hold that ṣāḥib bi'l-janb refers to the traveling companion (rafīquka fī al-safar), or the person who associates with another in the hope of benefit (al-munqaṭi' ilayka yarjū naf'aka). This is not a restrictive definition but rather an indication of the broad signification of the term, which encompasses all such individuals. Accordingly, this verse carries a comprehensive and general ruling — enjoining good conduct toward all persons with whom one comes into contact, whether genuine friends, colleagues, visitors, students, those seeking counsel, or those in service. Some traditions have interpreted ṣāḥib bi'l-janb as meaning "wife," and the authors of al-Manār, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, and al-Qurṭubī transmit this meaning from 'Alī (peace be upon him) in their commentary on the verse — though it is not implausible that the purpose is to mention one particular instance of the verse's application. 9. وَابْنِ السَّبِیلِ Here a further group is recommended — those who, although persons of standing and comfortable means in their own homeland and city, find themselves in need in a foreign city while traveling. The excellent designation ibn al-sabīl (son of the road) aptly captures this, since we have no prior acquaintance with such persons to attribute them to any tribe, family, or individual — they are deemed deserving of assistance solely on the basis that they are travelers in need. 10. وَمَا مَلَکَتْ أَیْمَانُکُمْ In the final stage, an injunction is given to treat slaves with kindness. The verse is in reality structured from the right of God at its opening to the rights of slaves at its close — for these rights are inseparable from one another. This is not the only verse in which concern for slaves is enjoined; other verses also address the subject. Islam has incidentally formulated an excellent program for the gradual emancipation of slaves, culminating in their complete liberation. God willing, this will be discussed in detail in the commentary on the relevant verses. "إِنَّ اللهَ لاَ یُحِبُّ مَنْ کَانَ مُخْتَالاً فَخُوراً" At the conclusion of the verse, God Almighty issues a warning through this statement — "God does not love the arrogant and the boastful" — that whoever turns away from God's commandments and, on account of arrogance, neglects the rights of relatives, parents, orphans, the destitute, travelers, and companions, cannot be a beloved servant of God. And one who is not deserving of Divine grace and favor is deprived of all good, blessing, prosperity, and righteousness. Witness to this meaning is the tradition recorded in the commentary on this verse: a Companion of the Prophet says: "I recited this verse before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, whereupon he enumerated the evils and consequences of arrogance at such length that I began to weep. He asked: 'Why do you weep?' I replied: 'I prefer fine and beautiful clothing, and I now fear that I may thereby be counted among the arrogant.' He said: 'No — you are among the people of Paradise, and this is not a sign of arrogance. Arrogance consists in failing to show humility and submissiveness before truth, considering oneself superior to others, and disdaining them — and in neglecting the discharge of their rights.'" In sum, the concluding statement of the verse yields the conclusion that polytheism and the trampling of people's rights are the source and wellspring of pride and arrogance. The discharge of the above-mentioned rights — particularly the rights of slaves, orphans, and the needy — requires the utmost humility and self-abasement. (Ref: Note that mukhtāl, derived from the root khayal, signifies one who considers himself great on account of certain conceits and illusions. The horse is called khayl because in its gait it raises its steps in the manner of the arrogant. Fakhūr, derived from fakhr, means one who boasts and prides himself. The distinction between the two words is that one refers to inner arrogance — a mind filled with conceit — while the other refers to outward arrogance manifesting in one's actions and conduct.)

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

This verse is in reality a supplement to the preceding verses and alludes to the arrogant and self-indulgent individuals — those utterly debased persons who not only withhold kindness from others but actively encourage others toward miserliness as well: "الَّذِینَ یَبْخَلُونَ وَیَأْمُرُونَ النَّاسَ بِالْبُخْلِ". Furthermore, they endeavor to conceal whatever God Almighty has bestowed upon them: "وَیَکْتُمُونَ مَا آتَاهُمُ اللهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ". Thereafter, their ultimate fate is declared thus: We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment: "وَأَعْتَدْنَا لِلْکَافِرِینَ عَذَاباً مُهِیناً". Perhaps the reason for this expression is that miserliness is in most cases rooted in disbelief itself — for miserly people in reality do not possess perfect faith in God's boundless bounties and in the promises He has made to the righteous. They are convinced that if they help others they will be reduced to poverty. And the statement that a humiliating punishment awaits them is so that they may understand that the punishment of arrogance and conceit is the consequence of their own deeds. Incidentally, it should be reflected upon that miserliness is not limited to financial matters alone but encompasses the withholding of every form of Divine blessing. There are many people who are not financially miserly yet are miserly in knowledge and learning and in other such matters. In the second verse, alluding to yet another quality of self-willed arrogant individuals, it declares: "وَالَّذِینَ یُنْفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ رِئَاءَ النَّاسِ وَلاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَلاَ بِالْیَوْمِ الْآخِرِ" They are such people that if they do spend, they do so to display themselves before others and to gain renown — their purpose is neither the service of humanity nor the pleasure of the Creator. For this reason, when spending, they are not concerned with the worthiness of the recipients but are always preoccupied with how to spend in a manner that maximizes their own benefit and enables them to demonstrate their standing. Since they believe neither in God nor in the Day of Resurrection, their generosity lacks spiritual motivation — their impulse is fame, false prestige, and ostentation, which are among the signs of arrogance and self-interest. "وَمَنْ یَکُنِ الشَّیْطَانُ لَهُ قَرِیناً فَسَاءَ قَرِیناً" They have made Satan their companion and whoever does so has chosen for himself a most wretched associate — for his fate cannot be better than that, since their logic and program is the logic and program of Satan. It is he who tells them that sincere spending leads to poverty and destitution. As the Qur'an states: "الشَّیْطَانُ یَعِدُکُمُ الْفَقْرَ" (al-Baqarah: 268) For this reason, either they spend nothing at all and resort to miserliness — as indicated in the preceding verse — or if they do spend, they spend in places from which they derive personal benefit, as alluded to in this verse. The verse incidentally yields the conclusion that a wicked companion can ruin a person's destiny and bring him to the lowest depths of degradation. It further yields the conclusion that the connection of the arrogant with Satan is permanent, not temporary — for they have taken him as their friend and companion. "وَمَاذَا عَلَیْهِمْ لَوْ آمَنُوا بِاللهِ وَالْیَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَأَنْفَقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَهُمُ اللهُ" Here, in an expression of regret for the condition of this group, it declares: how much better it would have been had they desisted from this waywardness and believed in God and the Day of Requital, and sincerely bestowed upon His servants a portion of the bounties that God has placed in their possession — thereby attaining felicity in both this world and the next. Why do they not review their course of conduct, even though this alternative path is far clearer, more luminous, and more beneficial — while the path they have adopted leads to no outcome other than loss and wretchedness? "وَکَانَ اللهُ بِهِمْ عَلِیماً" In every state, God Almighty is fully aware of their intentions and deeds and rewards or punishes them accordingly. It is noteworthy that in the preceding verse, which dealt with hypocritical expenditure, the wealth was attributed to those who spend it, whereas in the present verse the attribution is "mimmā razaqahumu Allāh" (from what God has provided them). This difference in expression may allude to three points: First, in ostentatious expenditure no attention is paid to whether the wealth is lawfully or unlawfully obtained. Whereas wealth spent in the path of God Almighty must necessarily be lawful and constitute a genuine instance of "mimmā razaqahumu Allāh". Second, since those who spend ostentatiously regard the wealth as connected to their own person, they do not refrain from arrogance and self-congratulation. Whereas when wealth is spent for God, attention is directed toward the fact that this wealth was given by God — and if a portion of it is spent in His path, there is no occasion for self-congratulation. Hence every form of arrogance and self-congratulation is avoided. Third, ostentatious expenditure is mostly associated with material wealth — for such people are devoid of spiritual and moral capital and therefore have nothing of that nature to spend. But what is spent for God encompasses a far broader domain: it includes all material, spiritual, and inner blessings — whether related to wealth, knowledge, social standing, or position.

The word dharra originally denotes an extremely small ant that is barely visible to the naked eye. Some have held that it refers to the minute particles of dust suspended in the air that become visible through small apertures and windows in darkened spaces when sunlight illuminates them. It is also said that if a person places his hand upon soil or a similar substance and then blows upon his hand, each of the particles of soil that scatter into the air constitutes a dharra. Gradually, however, the word came to be applied to any minute thing whatsoever, and in the contemporary era the atom — which is the smallest constituent unit of matter — is also designated dharra. For just as in earlier times the particles of dust were called dharra because they were regarded as the smallest constituent parts of matter, so too today it has been established that the smallest units of a compound body are molecules (mawlīkūl), and the smallest units of a simple body are atoms (atom) — which are far smaller than molecules. In scientific terminology, the atom is that which is not only invisible to the naked eye but cannot be seen even through the most powerful electron microscope; it is observable only through scientific formulas and specialized photography designed for the observation of extremely minute objects. Mithqāl carries the meaning of weight and heaviness. Accordingly, mithqāl dharra refers to the smallest perceptible and tangible particle of matter — the sense being that of a burden or weight. The above-mentioned verse declares that God does not commit injustice to the extent of even an atom's weight; and not only does He refrain from injustice, but if a good deed is performed He multiplies it manifold and bestows in return a great reward from Himself. This verse is in reality addressed to the faithless and miserly individuals whose condition was described in the preceding verses, declaring: the punishments you are receiving are the consequence of your own deeds — God commits no injustice against you of any kind. Conversely, had you chosen the path of God instead of miserliness and disbelief, you would have been rendered deserving of a manifold and great reward. Incidentally, it should be noted that ḍi'f or muḍā'af in the Arabic language means that which is increased by an equivalent amount or by several multiples thereof. Accordingly, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the present verse and other verses that state that the reward of those who spend in the path of God is sometimes tenfold, sometimes seven-hundredfold, or even more — in every instance, the grace and bounty of God toward His servants is made manifest: He does not punish their sins in a measure exceeding the sins themselves, yet He grants many times more than the measure of their good deeds. As for the proof of why God does not commit injustice — this is self-evident: oppression and injustice arise either from ignorance or from need, personal weakness, and deficiency. Now for a Being Who has knowledge of all things and all people, Who is in need of none, and in Whose sacred essence no deficiency or imperfection exists whatsoever — there is no conceivable possibility of committing injustice. Indeed, notwithstanding His omnipotence, by virtue of being All-Knowing and All-Wise He commits no injustice: He maintains every thing in its proper place in this vast and extensive world, and deals with every person in accordance with that person's capacity and the measure of his deeds and conduct.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

"فَکَیْفَ إِذَا جِئْنَا مِنْ کُلِّ أُمَّةٍ بِشَهِیدٍ" Following the preceding verses concerning the reward and punishment of the wicked and the righteous, these verses allude to the witnesses of the Day of Resurrection. The first verse declares: what will be the condition of those people on that day when We bring a witness for every community to testify to their deeds, and appoint you as a witness over them? In addition to the testimony of the human being's own limbs, the testimony of the earth upon which he lived, and the testimony of God's angels over his deeds, every Prophet shall also serve as a witness to the deeds of his community. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — who is the last and greatest of God's Prophets — shall serve as a witness to the deeds of his community. In the presence of all these witnesses, how will the wicked be able to deny the reality and how will they be able to save themselves from the punishment of their deeds? A similar theme appears in several other Qur'anic verses — for instance, al-Baqarah: 143, al-Naḥl: 89, and al-Ḥajj: 78. A question now arises here: what is the nature of the testimony the Prophets will give concerning the deeds of their communities? If the pronoun hā'ulā' refers to the Muslims — as recorded in Tafsīr Majma' al-Bayān — the answer to this question becomes clear. For every Prophet, as long as he lived among his community, witnessed their deeds; and after him, his infallible successors serve as witnesses and observers over their deeds. It is for this reason that in connection with the circumstances of 'Īsā (peace be upon him), it is recorded that on the Day of Resurrection, in response to the question of God Almighty, he will submit: "مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَا أَمَرْتَنِی بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللهَ رَبِّی وَرَبَّکُمْ وَکُنْتُ عَلَیْهِمْ شَهِیداً مَا دُمْتُ فِیهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیْتَنِی کُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِیبَ عَلَیْهِمْ وَأَنْتَ عَلَى کُلِّ شَیْءٍ شَهِیدٌ" (al-Mā'idah: 117) "O Lord, I said to them only what You commanded me — to worship God, Who is my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when You took me, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness over all things." A group of exegetes, however, has also advanced the possibility that the pronoun hā'ulā' refers to the witnesses of the earlier communities — that is: O Messenger, We shall appoint you as a witness over all witnesses and over all earlier Prophets. Several traditions also allude to this interpretation. (Ref: Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Tafsīr al-Burhān, commentary on the aforementioned verse) On this basis, the verse would convey the following meaning: every Prophet, whether alive or deceased, serves as a witness to the circumstances of his entire community through inner and spiritual observation. And the sacred soul of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in the same manner observes and bears witness to the circumstances and deeds of all past communities and his own community. It is even possible that the righteous and pious individuals of a community who have attained an elevated spiritual station may also possess this capacity. This would imply that the sacred soul of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny was present even before the creation of Ādam (peace be upon him) — for shuhūd carries the meanings of awareness and presence. However, this interpretation does not sit comfortably with the verse quoted above concerning 'Īsā (peace be upon him), since he was a witness over his community only during his lifetime. This point merits careful reflection. (Explanatory Note: This verse appears to have no particular connection with 'Īsā (peace be upon him); rather it carries a distinct meaning of its own. — Translator) If shahādah is understood in the sense of practical witnessing — that is, the deeds of an exemplary individual serving as the standard and measure by which the deeds of others are assessed — then no ambiguity remains in the above interpretation. That is to say: every Prophet, by virtue of his distinctive qualities, serves as the scale and criterion for assessing the deeds of his community, and the good and wicked among the community may be identified by their resemblance or lack thereof to him. And since the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is the greatest of all God's Prophets, his deeds and qualities shall serve as the standard for assessing the stations of all Prophets. The only remaining question is whether shahādah has been employed in this sense — but given that the thoughts and deeds of exemplary human beings do in practice bear witness to the possibility of a human being attaining such spiritual and inner degrees, this meaning does not appear remote. This point merits careful reflection. "یَوْمَئِذٍ یَوَدُّ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا وَعَصَوُا الرَّسُولَ..." When the disbelievers and those who stood in opposition to God's sent Prophets find themselves confronted with irrefutable witnesses in this Divine court, they shall be so remorseful over what they have done that they shall wish they had been dust and could become equal to the earth beneath them. The Qur'an declares: "لَوْ تُسَوَّى بِهِمُ الْأَرْضُ". At the conclusion of Sūrah al-Naba' it is stated: "وَیَقُولُ الْکَافِرُ یَا لَیْتَنِی کُنْتُ تُرَاباً" "And the disbeliever will say: 'Would that I had been dust.'" However, the expression tusawwā alludes to yet another meaning: that in addition to wishing they could become dust, the disbelievers will also desire that their dust and their graves be swallowed into the earth and become level with the surrounding ground — so that they may be completely obliterated. (Ref: al-An'ām: 22-23; al-Mujādalah: 18). Yet at that juncture, they will not be able to conceal any reality: "وَلاَ یَکْتُمُونَ اللهَ حَدِیثاً" — for in the presence of these witnesses, they will be unable to deny. This is not, however, in conflict with other verses indicating that certain disbelievers will also on the Day of Resurrection attempt to conceal truths and tell lies — for their lying will occur before the witnesses appear, but afterward, when no scope for denial remains, they will be compelled to acknowledge all realities. Amīr al-Mu'minīn (peace be upon him) declared in a sermon: "God on the Day of Resurrection will seal the lips of certain people so that they may not speak. Whereupon their hands shall speak, their feet shall bear witness, and the skin of their bodies shall narrate their deeds — and at that point no one will be able to deny the reality." (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 482, transmitted from Tafsīr al-'Ayyāshī) Some exegetes have also recorded the interpretation that "وَلاَ یَکْتُمُونَ اللهَ حَدِیثاً" means that they will wish that when they were in the world they had not concealed the truths concerning the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. On this basis, the clause would be conjoined to "لَوْ تُسَوَّى بِهِمُ الْأَرْضُ". However, this interpretation is not consonant with the apparent sense of lā yaktumūna, which is a present-tense verb — for had this meaning been intended, the expression would have been: "وَلَمْ یَکْتُمُوا".

From the above-mentioned verse, several Islamic rulings may be derived: 1. The invalidity of prayer in a state of intoxication — that is, those who are intoxicated may not perform the prayer, and their prayer in such a state is void. The wisdom behind this is also self-evident, for prayer constitutes a dialogue and intimate communion between the servant and God, and must be performed with the utmost attentiveness and presence of mind — whereas intoxicated persons are far removed from and oblivious to such a station: "یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا لاَ تَقْرَبُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَأَنْتُمْ سُکَارَى حَتَّى تَعْلَمُوا مَا تَقُولُونَ". At this juncture, some may raise the question: does this verse not imply that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is only prohibited when its intoxicating effect persists until the time of prayer — thus indicating that its consumption is permissible in other circumstances? A detailed response to this question will, God willing, appear in the commentary on verse 90 of Sūrah al-Mā'idah. The brief answer, however, is that Islam adopts a gradual approach in implementing many of its commandments. The matter of alcoholic beverages, for instance, was addressed in several stages: first, its consumption was declared distasteful and contrary to rizqan ḥasanan (al-Naḥl: 67); subsequently, prayer in a state of intoxication was prohibited; then the comparison of its benefits and harms established that its harms far outweigh its benefits; and finally, in the last stage, a categorical and explicit prohibition was issued (al-Mā'idah: 90). Fundamentally, there is no better or more illuminating method for uprooting a social and moral corruption that has severely affected the environment than to gradually incline individuals toward abandoning it before issuing the final ruling. Incidentally, it should be noted that this verse does not in any way indicate the permissibility of consuming alcohol; rather, it addresses only the matter of intoxication during the state of prayer and remains silent regarding other circumstances until the final ruling arrives. Given that the intervals between the five daily prayers — particularly in that era when they were generally performed at all five designated times — were not greatly extended, it is necessary, in order to perform the prayer in a state of full consciousness, to abstain entirely from intoxicating beverages during those intervals. For the effect of alcohol frequently persists until the time of prayer and consciousness is not fully maintained. On this basis, the verse under discussion bears a resemblance of sorts to a permanent and continuous prohibition. It is also necessary to note that numerous traditions in both Shī'ah and Sunnī works have interpreted the above verse as referring to the intoxication of sleep — that is, do not commence prayer until you have awakened properly, until you know what you are saying. (Ref: Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 483; Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Vol. 2, p. 1771) However, it appears that this interpretation draws upon the import of "ḥattā ta'lamū mā taqūlūn" rather than upon the word sukārā. In other words, the instruction is: until you know what you are saying — which indicates that performing prayer in any state in which one's full consciousness and awareness is not intact is prohibited, whether that state is one of intoxication or of drowsiness and the heaviness of sleep. Incidentally, it may also be inferred from this statement that it is preferable not to pray even in a state of lethargy and inattentiveness, since some degree of weakness is present in such a state as well. Perhaps this is the reason why Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) is reported to have declared: "When you are in a state of lethargy and sluggishness, or drowsiness, or heaviness of disposition, do not pray in such a condition — for God Almighty has prohibited the believers from performing prayer in a state of intoxication." (Ref: Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 483; a tradition of similar content is also found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī) 2. The invalidity of prayer in a state of major ritual impurity (janābah), alluded to by "وَلاَ جُنُباً". This ruling is followed by the mention of its exception: "إِلاَّ عَابِرِی سَبِیلٍ" — except when in a state of travel — meaning that if water is unavailable during travel, one should perform the prayer with tayammum (dry ablution), the details of which will follow. However, a different interpretation of this verse is also recorded in the traditions: (Ref: Wasā'il, Vol. 1, p. 486) namely, that the word ṣalāh in the verse refers to the place of prayer — that is, the mosque — meaning that one should not enter mosques in a state of janābah. Those who pass through the mosque in a state of janābah are then excepted. Certain traditions indicate that a group of Muslims and Companions of the Prophet had constructed homes around the Prophet's Mosque whose doors opened into it, and they were permitted to pass through the mosque in a state of janābah without pausing. It is noteworthy, however, that the consequence of this interpretation would be that the word ṣalāh is employed in two different meanings in the verse — one referring to prayer and the other to the place of prayer — since the verse under discussion sets forth two rulings: one that prayer should not be performed in a state of intoxication, and the other that mosques should not be entered in a state of janābah. As has already been stated in the principles of jurisprudence, the use of a single word in two different meanings is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it is certainly contrary to the apparent sense and is not permissible without contextual evidence. The aforementioned traditions may, however, serve as such contextual evidence. 3. The permissibility of performing prayer or passing through a mosque after performing the ritual bath is indicated by "حَتَّى تَغْتَسِلُوا". 4. Thereafter, the ruling of tayammum is set forth for those who are excused from using water — whether due to illness or for some other reason: "وَإِنْ کُنْتُمْ مَرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ" — that is, if you are ill or in a state of travel. In reality, within this brief expression are gathered all the occasions that necessitate tayammum: first, when water is harmful to the body; and second, when water is unavailable or one lacks the strength to use it. It then declares: "أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِنْکُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ" — alluding to the causes that necessitate tayammum: when you have relieved yourselves or had conjugal relations with women. "فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً" — and find no water — "فَتَیَمَّمُوا صَعِیداً طَیِّباً" — then perform tayammum with clean earth. The method of tayammum is then described: "فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِکُمْ وَأَیْدِیکُمْ" — wipe your faces and hands. At the conclusion of the verse, allusion is made to the fact that the above-mentioned ruling constitutes a form of ease and facilitation for you — for God is All-Forgiving and All-Merciful.

1. The phrase `فلم تجدوا ماءً`, which according to terminology begins with the *fā’ al-tafrī‘* (the *fā’* of consequence), is connected to `علیٰ سفر`. This means that when you are on a journey, it is possible that water may not be found and you may need to perform tayammum, because when a person is in a settlement, such an occurrence is very rare. From this, it becomes clear that the statement written by commentators like the author of *Al-Manār*, that "travel alone is sufficient to perform tayammum instead of wudu," is completely baseless. This is because the *fā’ al-tafrī‘* in `فلم تجدوا` invalidates this statement. Its meaning is that sometimes water is not found during a journey, so on such an occasion, one should perform tayammum; not that tayammum is permissible merely by being in a state of travel. It is surprising that the aforementioned author criticizes the jurists (*fuqahā’*) in this regard, whereas the mentioned criticism has no place here. 2. The word "aw" (or) in the phrase `اوجاء احد منکم من الغائط` is in the meaning of "waw" (and), because illness or travel are not the causes of tayammum in themselves. Rather, in such a state, if the means for wudu or ghusl are not available, then tayammum becomes obligatory. 3. In this verse, the elegance and purity of the Quran's expression are fully apparent, just as in many other verses. Because when it wishes to speak about relieving oneself, it chooses an expression that conveys the meaning without using any inappropriate words. Therefore, it says: `اوجاء احد منکم من الغائط`. Its explanation is that "ghā’iṭ," contrary to the meaning understood from it today (Reference: The word "ghā’iṭ" is generally used for human excrement nowadays), originally refers to low-lying ground that conceals a person from people's sight. And in those times, people wandering in the wilderness and travelers would go to such places to relieve themselves so that they would be hidden from people's sight. Therefore, the meaning of this phrase would be: if one of you comes from a low-lying place, which is generally a euphemism for relieving oneself. And it is noteworthy that the words "one of you" are used instead of "you" to increase the elegance of the expression (pay attention). Similarly, when speaking about sexual intercourse, it is explained with the expression `اولامستم النساء` or "have touched women." And the word "lams" (touch) is a fine euphemism for sexual intercourse. 4. The remaining details of tayammum, including `صعیداً طیباً`, will, God willing, be discussed in detail under verse 6 of Surah Al-Ma'idah.

Many people ask: what benefit is there in striking the hands upon the earth and then wiping them over the forehead and the backs of the hands — particularly given that much soil is contaminated and may transmit germs and microorganisms? In response to this objection, two points deserve attention: A. The moral benefit. Tayammum is an act of worship, and the spirit of worship manifests itself therein in its true sense — for the human being touches his forehead, which is the most honored part of the body, with the hands that have been struck upon the earth, in order to express his humility and submissiveness before God: as though declaring — "My forehead and hands are presented before You in the utmost reverence and prostration." The human being thereby prepares himself to perform the prayer or other acts of worship — for which purification is a prerequisite — with the greatest sincerity and humility. In this manner, this act is highly effective and efficacious in nurturing the sentiments of submissiveness, servitude, and gratitude. B. The hygienic benefit. In the contemporary world, it has been established that soil, by virtue of the numerous bacteria it contains, is capable of eliminating impurities and contamination. These microorganisms — whose function is the decomposition of polluting substances and the elimination of various foul odors — are found in abundance in the surface layer of the earth at a slight depth, where they can benefit well from air and sunlight. It is for this reason that when dead animals or corpses are buried in the earth, and similarly when other matter laden with contamination is placed on the ground, within a short period of time their components break down and are completely annihilated through the action of these microorganisms, so that the source of foul odor is utterly eliminated. It is indisputable that had the earth not possessed this quality, the globe would within a short time have been transformed into heaps of putrefaction. Fundamentally, soil possesses an antibiotic effect — constituting the finest natural disinfectant. Accordingly, pure and clean soil is not merely not a filthy substance, but is in fact a substance that removes contamination and filth. In this respect, it may to a certain extent serve as a substitute for water — with the difference that water is a solvent, dissolving and carrying away microorganisms, whereas soil kills them outright. It should, however, be noted that the soil for tayammum must be completely pure and clean — as the Qur'an expresses with the remarkable designation "ṭayyiban" (pure and wholesome). It is also noteworthy that ṣa'īd — derived from the root ṣu'ūd (ascent) — indicates that it is preferable to select for this purpose soil that is on the surface of the earth, exposed to the heat and light of the sun and abundant in antibiotic microorganisms. If such soil is also pure and clean, the tayammum performed with it will possess the aforementioned effects. (A further discussion in this connection will appear in the commentary on verse 6 of Sūrah al-Mā'idah.)

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

"أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا نَصِیباً مِنَ الْکِتَابِ یَشْتَرُونَ الضَّلاَلَةَ وَیُرِیدُونَ أَنْ تَضِلُّوا السَّبِیلَ" God Almighty addresses His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in this verse with an expression of astonishment, declaring: the condition of this group is remarkable — those who possessed a portion of the heavenly scripture, yet instead of utilizing it to attain guidance and felicity for themselves and others, have chosen the path of misguidance and desire that you too go astray. In this manner, the very thing that was in their possession — and that was a means of guidance for themselves and others — has, on account of their evil intentions, been transformed into misguidance and an instrument of leading others astray. For they were not genuinely in pursuit of truth; rather, they viewed everything through the dark lens of hypocrisy, envy, and materialism. He then declares: although these people present themselves in the garb of friendship, they are in reality your mortal enemies — and God is fully aware of them: "وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ بِأَعْدَائِکُمْ". What greater enmity could there be than this — that they oppose your guidance and felicity, sometimes in the tone of well-wishing and sometimes in the language of slander, and are at every moment engaged in the pursuit of their evil objectives? Yet do not be alarmed by their hostility — you are not alone. It is sufficient that your God is your guide, guardian, and helper: "وَکَفَى بِاللهِ وَلِیّاً وَکَفَى بِاللهِ نَصِیراً" — for they shall be powerless. If you trample their words underfoot, there is nothing to fear from anyone. Incidentally, the expression "أُوتُوا نَصِیباً مِنَ الْکِتَابِ" — "a portion of the Book was given to them" — indicates that what they possessed was not the complete and authentic divine scripture, the Torah, but merely a portion thereof. This is consistent with the established and acknowledged facts of history — for a great many of the original sections of the Torah were either gradually altered over the passage of time or were completely obliterated and destroyed.

This verse, following the preceding ones, elaborates upon several further qualities of the enemies of Islam and alludes to certain of their actions. It first states that their practice consisted of distorting realities and misrepresenting the face of God's commandments: "مِنَ الَّذِینَ هَادُوا یُحَرِّفُونَ الْکَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ" — a group of Jews would alter the words of God from their proper places. Whether this distortion was textual or interpretive is unclear at first, but the subsequent clauses indicate that what is intended here is literal textual distortion and alteration of wording — for immediately after this clause it declares: "وَیَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَیْنَا" — "We heard and we disobeyed" — that is, instead of saying "sami'nā wa aṭa'nā" (we heard and obeyed), they say: we heard and defied. This is precisely analogous to those who sometimes say sarcastically: "Your words and our not paying the slightest heed to them." The subsequent clauses of the verse likewise attest to this meaning. Thereafter, alluding to their hostile audacity and disrespectful speech, it declares that they say: "وَاسْمَعْ غَیْرَ مُسْمَعٍ" — "Hear, may you never hear." In this manner, like an ignorant and foolish group, they are engaged in distorting realities and betraying the revealed scriptures — those very scriptures which represent the fruit of their deliverance from the clutches of a tyrant and oppressor like Pharaoh. They have resorted to the unmanly weapons of mockery and ridicule — the weapons of the obstinate and the arrogant. At times, beyond these strategies, they would exploit certain phrases that sincere Muslims would address to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, twisting those phrases to carry other meanings and employing them in mockery and derision. For instance, the word rā'inā, meaning "show us consideration" — which sincere Muslims in the early period of the Islamic call would address to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny so that they might better listen to and internalize his words — this group of Jews would distort and repeat before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny with its intended Hebrew meaning of "hear, may you never hear", or alternatively with its other Arabic meaning of "make us foolish." (Explanatory Note: If rā'inā is derived from the root ra'ā, it means "show us consideration and grant us respite"; if derived from ra'ūnah, it means "make us fools." Note that in the first case, certain traditions indicate that the Jews would place particular emphasis on the nūn and draw out the ending.) Their purpose was to convey — God forbid — that the work of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was to deceive people and keep them in ignorance. They did all of this in order to deflect realities from their true axis through their words and to level criticism against the true religion: "وَرَاعِنَا لَیّاً بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْناً فِی الدِّینِ". Layy (rhyming with ḥayy) means the coiling or twisting of a rope, and here it is employed in the sense of distortion and substitution. "وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَکَانَ خَیْراً لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ" Had they, instead of this obstinacy, insistence, enmity toward truth, and disrespect, adopted the straight path — declaring: we have heard the word of God and we have obeyed; listen to our petitions and show us consideration; grant us respite so that we may comprehend the realities — this would have been to their own benefit and would have been consistent with the requirements of justice, reason, and proper conduct. "وَلٰکِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللهُ بِکُفْرِهِمْ فَلاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ إِلاَّ قَلِیلاً" However, on account of their disbelief, rebelliousness, and defiance, they have been distanced from the mercy of God, and their hearts have become so deadened that they cannot readily be brought to life and awakened. Among them, only a small number possess pure hearts who are prepared to accept the realities, who listen to words of truth and believe in them. Some scholars regard this statement as one of the Qur'an's unseen prophecies — for just as the Qur'an informs in this clause, throughout the long history of Islam, very few Jews have believed and affiliated themselves with Islam, while the rest, from that day to this, remain in a state of active opposition to Islam.

"یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا الْکِتَابَ آمِنُوا بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقاً لِمَا مَعَکُمْ" Following the discussion in the preceding verses concerning the People of the Book, the address is here directed toward them: O you who have been given the heavenly scripture, believe in the Qur'anic verses that are in harmony with the signs contained in your own books concerning it — and it is indisputable that given the presence of these signs, you have greater right than others to become adherents of this pure religion. He then issues a warning: before you are seized by one of two punishments, submit before the truth. The first punishment is that your faces be completely obliterated and all those faculties through which you see, hear, and comprehend realities be erased — and thereafter your faces be turned toward your backs: "مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ نَطْمِسَ وُجُوهاً فَنَرُدَّهَا عَلَى أَدْبَارِهَا". (Ref: The original meaning of ṭams is to erase and obliterate the traces of something — for instance, if a building were demolished and its site completely cleared and all vestiges of the previous structure eliminated. However, it is also used metaphorically for that whose effect and function ceases.) It hardly needs to be noted that what is intended by this statement is the rendering useless of reason and intellect, eye and ear, for comprehending the realities and events of life and turning away from the straight path. As is transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) in a tradition: "By this is meant the obliteration of their faces from the path of right guidance, and by turning them toward their backs is meant misguidance." (Ref: Majma' al-Bayān, Vol. 3, p. 55, commentary on the aforementioned verse) The clarification is as follows: the People of the Book — particularly the Jews — despite all these clear signs, refused to bow before the truth, deliberately resolved upon obstinacy and enmity, repeatedly and knowingly contradicted and opposed the truth at various junctures, and gradually this became their second nature. It is as though their thoughts were completely disfigured and their eyes and ears were rendered blind and deaf. People of this kind, rather than progressing along the path of life, retreat backward — and this is the very punishment for those who knowingly deny the truth. In reality, this is analogous to verse 6 of Sūrah al-Baqarah. Accordingly, ṭams and turning toward the back refers to an intellectual, spiritual, and moral regression. As for the second punishment with which they are threatened, it is that they be distanced from Divine mercy in the manner of the Companions of the Sabbath (Explanatory Note: Details concerning the Companions of the Sabbath will appear in the commentary on verses 162-166 of Sūrah al-A'rāf. They were a group of Jews required not to work on Saturdays, but they defied their Prophet's command and continued fishing, reached the utmost extent of rebellion and transgression, and ultimately met with a grievous fate): "أَوْ نَلْعَنَهُمْ کَمَا لَعَنَّا أَصْحَابَ السَّبْتِ". A question arises here: what is the difference between these two threats, connected as they are by the word aw (meaning "or") — does each constitute an independent threat, or is one conjoined to the other? Some exegetes hold the view that the first threat has a spiritual dimension while the second has a physical dimension of bodily disfigurement — on the grounds that God states in this verse: We shall distance them from Our mercy just as We distanced the Companions of the Sabbath. We know, as will be elaborated in Sūrah al-A'rāf, that the Companions of the Sabbath suffered outward physical disfigurement. Others hold the view that both the distancing from Divine mercy also has a spiritual character — with the difference that the first threat alludes to deviation, misguidance, and regression, while the second threat signifies destruction and annihilation — for one of the meanings of la'n (curse) is destruction and perishing. In sum, the People of the Book, on account of their insistence and persistence in opposition to truth, shall either be overcome and defeated or shall be utterly annihilated. A further question arises: have these threats been put into effect against them? There is no doubt that the first threat has been carried out against many of them and the second against some — in the Islamic wars, a great number of their community was destroyed and their power was eliminated. The history of the world shows that even thereafter they faced very severe difficulties and hardships in various countries, great numbers of them were killed, and they continue even now to live under very adverse and dangerous circumstances. At the conclusion of the verse, by way of further emphasis upon these threats, it declares: the command of God shall be executed in every circumstance and no power can impede it: "وَکَانَ أَمْرُ اللهِ مَفْعُولاً".

The above-mentioned verse explicitly declares that all sins may be forgiven, but polytheism shall under no circumstances be pardoned — unless one abandons it, repents, and embraces monotheism. In other words, no sin can annul faith — just as no righteous deed can bring salvation in the presence of polytheism: "إِنَّ اللهَ لاَ یَغْفِرُ أَنْ یُشْرَکَ بِهِ وَیَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذٰلِکَ لِمَنْ یَشَاءُ" The connection of this verse with the preceding ones lies in the fact that both the Jews and the Christians were, in their respective ways, guilty of a form of polytheism. The Qur'an through this verse warns them to abandon this belief — for it is a sin that cannot be forgiven. At the conclusion of the verse, the proof of this is set forth: whoever associates a partner with God Almighty has committed a most grievous sin: "وَمَنْ یُشْرِکْ بِاللهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَى إِثْماً عَظِیماً". (Explanatory Note: Iftirā' is derived from the root farā, rhyming with fard, meaning "to cut." When a portion of something sound is cut away, it becomes damaged; hence evil acts such as polytheism and falsehood are also designated iftirā'.) This verse is among those that inspire confidence and hope in the grace and bounty of God Almighty for the monotheists — for in it, God has declared the possibility of forgiveness for all sins other than polytheism. In accordance with a tradition that the late Ṭabarsī has transmitted in Majma' al-Bayān from Amīr al-Mu'minīn 'Alī (peace be upon him), this verse is the most hope-inspiring of all Qur'anic verses: "مَا فِی الْقُرْآنِ آیَةٌ أَرْجَى عِنْدِی مِنْ هٰذِهِ الْآیَةِ" And according to Ibn 'Abbās, this verse is among those that are more beneficial for the believers than anything upon which the rays of the sun shine — for there are many people who commit grave sins and thereafter despair forever of the mercy of God Almighty, and on this very basis, having lost all hope of forgiveness in their remaining years of life, become further mired in the swamp of sin. Whereas it is precisely hope in the forgiveness, pardon, and forbearance of God that constitutes the effective means of restraining them from sin and rebelliousness. This verse therefore, in reality, guides us toward an important pedagogical and moral principle. When we observe that — according to certain exegetes and numerous traditions transmitted in the commentary on this verse — the killer of the Commander of the valiant, Ḥamzah ibn 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib, the uncle of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, upon the revelation of this verse, embraces faith and withdraws from his criminal ways, hope is thereby kindled for other sinners as well: that they should not despair of the mercy of God and should not immerse themselves in yet further sin on account of what they have already committed. At this juncture, an objection may be raised: does this verse not encourage sinfulness, since it promises the forgiveness of all sins other than polytheism? The clarification is this: there is no doubt that the import of this promise of forgiveness is not an unconditional promise without any prerequisite or restriction; rather, it is for those individuals who demonstrate the worthiness and eligibility for forgiveness. As has already been alluded to, the Divine will (mashī'ah) mentioned in this verse and in other verses is in the sense of Divine wisdom — for the will and intention of God is never separable from wisdom. And it is indisputable that His wisdom by no means requires that He deem anyone worthy of forgiveness and pardon without the requisite capacity and eligibility. On this basis, the pedagogical and reformative dimension of this verse is many times greater than the scope for its misappropriation.

It is noteworthy that the above-mentioned verse has no connection with the matter of repentance — for repentance and the abandonment of sin washes away all sins, including polytheism. Rather, what the verse addresses is the possibility of Divine pardon for those who were not granted the opportunity to repent — that is, those who passed away before regretting their committed sins, or who departed from this world after remorse but before making practical amends for their evil deeds. This may be elaborated as follows: from numerous Qur'anic verses, it becomes evident that the forgiveness of sin has several means, which may be summarized under five headings: 1. Repentance (tawbah): Remorse over past sins, firm resolution to abstain from future sins, setting out upon the straight path, and practically atoning for evil deeds through righteous ones. The verses that attest to this meaning are numerous, among them: "هُوَ الَّذِی یَقْبَلُ التَّوْبَةَ عَنْ عِبَادِهِ وَیَعْفُو عَنِ السَّیِّئَاتِ" "He is the One Who accepts repentance from His servants and pardons evil deeds." (al-Shūrā: 25) 2. The performance of abundant righteous deeds, which also becomes a means of forgiving evil deeds. As He declares: "إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ" "Righteous deeds remove evil deeds." (Hūd: 114) 3. Intercession (shafā'ah): The details of this have already been presented in the first volume of Tafsīr-i Namūnah. 4. Abstaining from grave sins (kabā'ir): This also becomes a cause for the forgiveness of minor sins, as has been elaborated in the commentary on verses 31 and 32 of this same Sūrah. 5. Divine pardon ('afw-i khudāwandī): This too is available to certain individuals who possess the requisite capacity and eligibility, as has been explained in the commentary on this very verse. We now reiterate: Divine pardon is conditional upon His will and is not a general, unconditional matter. His will and intention pertains only to those individuals who, in practice, demonstrate their worthiness and eligibility through one means or another. From this it also becomes clear why polytheism is not amenable to forgiveness and pardon — for the polytheist completely severs his connection with God Almighty and commits an evil act that is contrary to the foundation of all religions and the laws of human nature.

See ayat 50 for tafseer.

In numerous Islamic exegetical works, it is recorded concerning this verse that the Jews and Christians held certain exclusive qualities and distinctions for themselves. As stated in Qur'anic verses, they would at times declare: "We are the children of God," and at other times claim: "Paradise is exclusively reserved for us and none other than us may enter it" (al-Mā'idah: 18; al-Baqarah: 111). These verses were accordingly revealed and a response was given to their false and baseless notions.

"أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِینَ یُزَکُّونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ" (Explanatory Note: Yuzzakkūn is derived from the root tazkiyah, meaning "to regard as pure and to present oneself as pure." It is sometimes also used in the meanings of purifying, cultivating, and guiding toward growth. Its original sense is purification — if this purification is practical in character, it is commendable; if it is merely verbal, it is blameworthy.) This verse alludes to a reprehensible quality that afflicts many people and nations — self-praise, presenting oneself as righteous and pure, and fabricating virtues for oneself. The verse declares: have you not seen those who extol and praise themselves? It then states: God praises whomsoever He wills: "بَلِ اللهُ یُزَکِّی مَنْ یَشَاءُ" — for it is that Sacred Being alone Who, in accordance with His encompassing wisdom and will, praises individuals in exact proportion to their capacity, worthiness, and eligibility — without the slightest excess or deficiency — and never commits so much as a needle's point of injustice against anyone: "وَلاَ یُظْلَمُونَ فَتِیلاً". (Explanatory Note: Fatīl in the lexicon refers to the extremely fine thread visible in the cleft of a date stone — employed as a metaphor for the smallest and most minute of things. It is originally derived from the root fatl, meaning "that which is twisted.") In reality, true excellence is that which God Almighty designates as excellence — not that which the self-praising, out of self-interest, attach to themselves, thereby committing injustice both against themselves and against others. Although the address here is directed toward the Jews and Christians — who without any basis falsely arrogated to themselves certain distinctions and privileges, presenting themselves as an honored and distinguished people, sometimes declaring: "لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلاَّ أَیَّاماً مَعْدُودَةً" (al-Baqarah: 80), and at other times asserting: "نَحْنُ أَبْنَاءُ اللهِ وَأَحِبَّاؤُهُ" (al-Mā'idah: 18) — this censure is by no means exclusive to them but encompasses all individuals and nations in which this reprehensible habit is found. The Holy Qur'an in Sūrah al-Najm, verse 32, explicitly addresses all Muslims: "فَلاَ تُزَکُّوا أَنْفُسَکُمْ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنِ اتَّقَى" "Do not praise yourselves — He knows best who is truly God-fearing." The source of this defect is that very self-conceit, arrogance, and pride which gradually assumes the form of self-praise. It is lamentable that this reprehensible habit is found among many peoples, classes, and individuals, and the source of many social maladies, conflicts, and supremacist tendencies is precisely this malaise. A study of past history reveals that certain nations of the world, on account of this very false sense of superiority, considered themselves above other peoples and on this basis deemed themselves entitled to subjugate others as their servants. The Arabs of the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah), despite every manner of backwardness and poverty, considered themselves of superior lineage, and each of their tribes regarded itself as superior to all others. In the contemporary era, the German nation's sense of racial supremacy and self-aggrandizement became the source of regional and global wars. The Jews and Christians in the early period of Islam were likewise gripped by this very delusion with respect to others — which is precisely why they were so reluctant to bow before the truths of Islam. For this reason, in the present verse, the Qur'an forcefully suppresses this type of delusion and supremacist desire, designating it as fabrication, false attribution to God, and a grave sin: "انْظُرْ کَیْفَ یَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللهِ الْکَذِبَ وَکَفَى بِهِ إِثْماً مُبِیناً" — that is, observe how this group, by fabricating false virtues and attributing them to God, lies against Him. Even if they had committed no other sin beyond this, it would be sufficient for their punishment. Amīr al-Mu'minīn 'Alī (peace be upon him) states in his celebrated Khuṭbah-i Hammām regarding the distinctive and particular qualities of the God-fearing: "لاَ یَرْضَوْنَ مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمُ الْقَلِیلَ وَلاَ یَسْتَکْثِرُونَ الْکَثِیرَ فَهُمْ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ مُتَّهِمُونَ وَمِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ مُشْفِقُونَ إِذَا زُکِّیَ أَحَدٌ مِنْهُمْ خَافَ مِمَّا یُقَالُ لَهُ فَیَقُولُ أَنَا أَعْلَمُ بِنَفْسِی مِنْ غَیْرِی وَرَبِّی أَعْلَمُ بِی مِنْ نَفْسِی اللَّهُمَّ لاَ تُؤَاخِذْنِی بِمَا یَقُولُونَ وَاجْعَلْنِی أَفْضَلَ مِمَّا یَظُنُّونَ وَاغْفِرْ لِی مَا لاَ یَعْلَمُونَ" "They are never satisfied with their small deeds and never regard their many deeds as great. They hold themselves perpetually accountable in the performance of their obligations and live in fear of their own deeds. When any among them is praised, he is troubled by what is said of him and declares: 'I know myself better than others do, and my Lord knows me better than I know myself. O Lord, do not hold me accountable for what they say about me; make me better than what they suppose; and forgive me for what they do not know.'"

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

Most exegetes record regarding the occasion of revelation of the above-mentioned verses that after the event of the Battle of Uḥud, a man by the name of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf — one of the elders of the Jews — came to Mecca with seventy men in order to conclude a covenant with the people of Mecca against the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and to abrogate the agreement that existed between them and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Ka'b went to the house of Abū Sufyān, who received him with great honor, while the remaining Jews were distributed as guests among the various households of Quraysh. One of the people of Mecca said to Ka'b: "You too are People of the Book, and Muḥammad too is a possessor of scripture. The truth is that we have doubts — we suspect that this is a conspiracy being devised to destroy us. If you wish for us to enter into a mutual covenant, the first condition is that you prostrate before these two idols" — pointing to two of the large idols — "and declare your belief in them." They complied and did so. Thereafter Ka'b presented the following proposal to the people of Mecca: thirty persons from among you and thirty from among us shall go to the Ka'bah, press our abdomens against its wall, and covenant with the Lord of the Ka'bah that we shall not be remiss in waging war against Muḥammad. This arrangement was duly settled. Finally, Abū Sufyān turned to Ka'b and said: "You are a learned man and we are ignorant and unlettered. In your view, which of the two — 'we' or 'Muḥammad' — is closer to the truth?" Ka'b replied: "Describe your religion to me in detail." Abū Sufyān said: "We sacrifice large camels for the pilgrims, provide them with water, offer hospitality, liberate captives, maintain the bonds of kinship, keep the House of our Lord in a state of flourishing, perform circumambulation around it, and we are the custodians of God in the land of Mecca. But Muḥammad has abandoned the religion of his forefathers, severed ties with his relatives, separated himself from us, and departed from the ancient religion. The religion of Muḥammad is new and novel." Ka'b then declared: "By God, your religion is better than the religion of Muḥammad." It was at this juncture that the above-mentioned verses were revealed, providing a response to these statements.

The first verse, viewed in the light of the occasion of revelation just mentioned, portrays a reprehensible quality of the Jews — that in order to achieve their objectives, they would conspire with every group, to the extent that they even prostrated before idols in order to please the polytheists, disregarding all that they had witnessed and read of the greatness of Islam and the qualities of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. To the point of declaring the foolish and vice-laden religion of the polytheists to be superior to Islam in order to gratify them — despite being People of the Book themselves, and having far more in common with Islam than the polytheists did. For this reason, the verse expresses astonishment: have you not seen those who, despite possessing a portion of God's scripture, prostrate before idols and profess belief in false deities and transgressors? "أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا نَصِیباً مِنَ الْکِتَابِ یُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْجِبْتِ وَالطَّاغُوتِ" Not content with this, they went further and told the disbelievers that their path was closer to guidance than that of the believers: "وَیَقُولُونَ لِلَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا هٰؤُلاَءِ أَهْدَى مِنَ الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا سَبِیلاً"

The word jibt appears in the Holy Qur'an only in this one verse. It is an uninflected noun (ism jāmid) with no derivatives. It is said to be originally an Abyssinian word carrying the meaning of "sorcerer" or "devil." Upon entering the Arabic language, it came to be used in this sense or for "idol" — and for every object of worship other than God. It is also said that the original form was jibs, with the sīn subsequently changed to tā'. The word ṭāghūt appears in the Qur'an at eight places. As has already been explained in the first volume in the commentary on verse 256 of Sūrah al-Baqarah, it is derived from the root ṭughyān and constitutes a hyperbolic form (Ref: Tafsīr al-Manār, Vol. 3, p. 35; some scholars regard it as a verbal noun employed in an adjectival and hyperbolic capacity) carrying the meaning of transgression beyond bounds and limits. Its signification encompasses everything that causes transgression beyond ordained limits — including idols, which is why the word is also applied to them. Accordingly, Satan, idols, tyrannical and arrogant rulers, every object of worship other than God, and every false path that leads to other than truth — all are designated by the name ṭāghūt. As for the meaning of these two words in the verse under discussion, exegetes have offered various interpretations. Some hold that they are the names of two idols before which a group of Jews prostrated in the narrative mentioned above. Others hold that jibt signifies "idol" and ṭāghūt signifies "idolater" or "the supporter of idols" — those who, in the name of communicating with idols, would attribute certain statements and things to them, falsely ascribing words to them in order to deceive people. (Ref: Tafsīr al-Tibyān; Tafsīr Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī) This meaning is more consistent with what has been recorded in both the occasion of revelation and the exegetical tradition — for the Jews prostrated before idols and also submitted themselves before the idolaters. The subsequent verse then sets forth the ultimate fate of those who devise such conspiracies, declaring: these are the people whom God Almighty has distanced from His mercy, and one whom God has distanced from His mercy shall find no helper or supporter anywhere: "أُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِینَ لَعَنَهُمُ اللهُ وَمَنْ یَلْعَنِ اللهُ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُ نَصِیراً" In accordance with the Qur'anic declaration, the Jews were unable to derive any benefit from their grave conspiracies; they ultimately failed and were defeated, and the Qur'anic prophecy concerning them was proven correct. Although the above-mentioned verses were revealed concerning a specific group, it is indisputable that they are not exclusive to them — rather, they apply to all those who, in pursuit of their base objectives, stake their dignity, personality, and even their faith and conviction. Those who devise such conspiracies are distanced from the mercy of God in both this world and the next, and are in most cases destined to meet with defeat. It is noteworthy that this reprehensible disposition is still found with great intensity among that people. We observe that in order to achieve their objectives, they do not turn away from cunning, deception, and fraud regardless of the circumstances. This is the very reason why, throughout their long history and even today, they continue to suffer defeat upon defeat.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

In the commentary on the preceding two verses, it was recorded that the Jews bore testimony in favor of the polytheists of Mecca — declaring that the idolatry of Quraysh was superior to the monotheism of the Muslims — and even went so far as to prostrate before idols in order to win their sympathy. In this verse, it is recalled that their judgment carries no value or weight for two reasons: 1. They possess no standing, rank, or credibility in society that would entitle them to render judgment among people. No governance or service of justice was ever entrusted to them that would permit them to venture in that direction: "أَمْ لَهُمْ نَصِیبٌ مِنَ الْمُلْکِ". Furthermore, they possess no material, spiritual, or inner capacity to govern over others — for the very spirit of trustworthiness toward others is absent in them. Even were such authority granted to them, they would be unwilling to grant any right to any person but would rather monopolize all powers and distinctions exclusively for themselves: "فَإِذاً لاَ یُؤْتُونَ النَّاسَ نَقِیراً". (Explanatory Note: Naqīr is derived from the root naqr, rhyming with faqr, meaning to strike something so repeatedly that a pit and hole is eventually created in it — which is why the beak is called minqār. Some say naqīr refers to a very small kernel visible on the back of a date stone, and it is most commonly employed as a metaphor for extremely minute things.) Given that the Jewish sense of justice is such that they invariably render decisions either in their own favor or in favor of those who follow their path, Muslims should never be troubled or perturbed by such declarations. 2. Such erroneous judgments are rooted in envy toward the family of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and therefore carry no value whatsoever. Having forfeited the station of prophethood and governance through their ingratitude and oppression, they are unwilling for this Divine office to be entrusted to anyone. They therefore envy the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his family — who have been blessed with this Divine bounty — and attempt to extinguish the flames of their envy through such baseless judgments: "أَمْ یَحْسُدُونَ النَّاسَ عَلَى مَا آتَاهُمُ اللهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ". He then declares: why are they astonished, troubled, and envious at the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the family of Banū Hāshim receiving this office — given that God Almighty bestowed upon the Family of Ibrāhīm the heavenly scripture, wisdom and knowledge, and vast governance (upon Mūsā, Sulaymān, and Dāwūd, peace be upon them)? Yet regrettably, you ungrateful people squandered those precious spiritual and material endowments through wickedness and hardheartedness: "فَقَدْ آتَیْنَا آلَ إِبْرَاهِیمَ الْکِتَابَ وَالْحِکْمَةَ وَآتَیْنَاهُمْ مُلْکاً عَظِیماً" From what has been set forth, it becomes clear that by al-nās in "أَمْ یَحْسُدُونَ النَّاسَ", what is intended is the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his family. For nās means "a group of people" and its application to a single individual — the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny — is not permissible without a contextual indicator. Furthermore, the word is a collective noun, and the plural pronoun referring back to it in this verse corroborates this meaning. In addition, the expression Āl Ibrāhīm (the Family of Ibrāhīm) constitutes a second contextual indicator that al-nās refers to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his Ahl al-Bayt — for the contextual parallelism yields the conclusion that if We have bestowed this greatness and distinction upon the family of Banū Hāshim, this is by no means a matter for wonder, since We had previously bestowed spiritual and material station and eminence upon the Family of Ibrāhīm in accordance with their worthiness. Numerous traditions in both Sunnī and Shī'ah works contain this clarification that by al-nās the family of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is intended. Transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) in the commentary on this verse, he declared: "God made among the Family of Ibrāhīm messengers, prophets, and leaders" — and then, addressing the Jews: "You acknowledge this, yet deny it in the case of the Family of Muḥammad." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Burhān, Vol. 1, p. 376; a tradition of similar content is also transmitted in Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, Vol. 5, p. 52) In a further tradition, when Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) was asked about this verse, he declared: "نَحْنُ الْمَحْسُودُونَ" "We are the ones who were envied." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Burhān, Vol. 1, p. 376; Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, Vol. 5, p. 52) Tafsīr al-Durr al-Manthūr transmits from Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Ṭabarānī from Ibn 'Abbās, that he stated regarding this verse: "By al-nās in this verse, we are intended — not others." The Qur'an then declares in the subsequent verse that of the people of that era, one group believed in the heavenly scripture revealed to Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him), while another group not only refused to believe but became an obstacle to its propagation and advancement. For such people, the blazing flame of Hellfire is sufficient: "فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ صَدَّ عَنْهُ وَکَفَى بِجَهَنَّمَ سَعِیراً" Similarly, those who disbelieve in the heavenly scripture revealed to the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny shall also be seized by the same punishment.

Envy — termed rashk in Persian — signifies the desire for the removal of another's blessing, regardless of whether that blessing comes to the envious person or not. Accordingly, the center of the envier's desire and aspiration is destruction and ruin, not the acquisition of that wealth or blessing for himself. 1. The envier expends all or most of his physical and intellectual energies — which ought to be devoted to social and collective objectives and purposes — in the destruction and ruination of what exists. In this manner, he destroys both his own existence and that of society. 2. Envy is the root of many of the world's corruptions. If the true causes and underlying reasons of murder, theft, oppression, and injustice were to be studied and investigated, it would become apparent that a great portion of them have envy as their basis and foundation. Perhaps it is for this reason that envy has been likened to a spark of fire that endangers the existence of the envier or the society in which he lives. A scholar has stated that envy and malice are the most dangerous of things and must be regarded as the worst enemies of felicity and well-being — and every effort must be made to eliminate them. Institutions and establishments founded by envious and prejudiced people remain backward — for as has already been stated, the envier constantly strives to push others back, and this is contrary to the spirit of progress and perfection. 3. Beyond all this, envy exerts harmful effects upon the human body. Those who harbor envy are generally afflicted with sorrow of heart, and suffer far more from ailments of the nerves and other vital organs. For it is now an established reality that most physical diseases have psychological causes and contributing factors, and contemporary medicine contains detailed discussions under the heading of psychosomatic illnesses specifically devoted to this category of disease. It is noteworthy that this very fact has been stated in traditions transmitted from the leaders of Islam. In one tradition, 'Alī (peace be upon him) states: "صِحَّةُ الْجَسَدِ مِنْ قِلَّةِ الْحَسَدِ" "Bodily health derives from the reduction of envy." And at another place he declares: "الْعَجَبُ لِغَفْلَةِ الْحُسَّادِ عَنْ سَلاَمَةِ الْأَجْسَادِ" "How remarkable is the heedlessness of the envious regarding the well-being of their own bodies." Indeed, certain traditions state that envy harms the envier before it harms the envied, and gradually brings about his destruction. 4. Envy is, in its inner and spiritual dimension, a sign of narrowness of heart and vision, ignorance, weakness of faith, shortsightedness, and deficiency — for the envier in reality finds himself incapable of attaining the station of the envied. He therefore exerts every effort to push the envied person backward. Furthermore, he in practice objects to the wisdom of God Almighty — Who is the true source of these blessings — and raises his finger in accusation against those upon whom God has bestowed His bounties. It is for this reason that Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) states: "اَلْحَسَدُ أَصْلُهُ مِنْ عَمَى الْقَلْبِ وَالْجُحُودِ لِفَضْلِ اللهِ تَعَالَى وَهُمَا جَنَاحَانِ لِلْکُفْرِ وَبِالْحَسَدِ وَقَعَ ابْنُ آدَمَ فِی حَسْرَةِ الْأَبَدِ وَهَلَکَ مَهْلَکاً لاَ یَنْجُو مِنْهُ أَبَداً" "Envy and malice constitute the darkness and blindness of the heart, and their source is the denial of God's bounties. Both — the blindness of the heart and the objection to God's bestowal — are the two wings of disbelief. On account of envy, the son of Ādam fell into eternal regret and perished in a destruction from which he can never be delivered." (Ref: Mustadrak al-Wasā'il, Vol. 2, p. 327) God Almighty states in the Holy Qur'an that the very first murder committed upon the face of the earth had envy as its cause. (al-Mā'idah: 27) And Amīr al-Mu'minīn 'Alī (peace be upon him) is reported to have said in Nahj al-Balāghah: "إِنَّ الْحَسَدَ یَأْکُلُ الْإِیمَانَ کَمَا تَأْکُلُ النَّارُ الْحَطَبَ" "Envy consumes faith gradually just as fire gradually consumes wood." (Ref: Nahj al-Balāghah, Khuṭbah 86) For the envier's suspicion of God's wisdom and justice gradually intensifies, and it is precisely this suspicion that drives him out of the valley of faith and casts him into the pit of Hell. Envy carries numerous spiritual, material, individual, and social harms — and what has been set forth above is in reality but a summary enumeration of them.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

Following the preceding verses, these two verses elaborate upon the ultimate fate of the believer and the disbeliever. The first verse declares: We shall cast the disbelievers into the fire, and whenever the skin of their bodies is burned away, We shall replace it with another skin so that they may long experience the punishment of God Almighty: "إِنَّ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا بِآیَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِیهِمْ نَاراً کُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُوداً غَیْرَهَا لِیَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ". (Explanatory Note: Nuṣlīhim is derived from the root ṣalā, meaning "to cast into fire" and "to be heated by burning in fire." Naḍijat is derived from the root naḍj, meaning "to be scorched and cooked.") The apparent reason for the replacement of the skin is that after it has been burned, the sensation of pain may diminish — but so that the punishment may not be reduced but rather remain at its full intensity, a new skin shall be placed upon the body. This is the consequence of trampling truth and justice underfoot and persisting in turning away from the command of God. At the conclusion of the verse it declares: God is fully capable of administering such punishment and is also All-Wise — He punishes in exact accordance with the measure of accountability: "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ عَزِیزاً حَکِیماً". The subsequent verse then gives a promise to those who possess faith and perform righteous deeds — that He shall very soon admit them into the gardens of Paradise beneath which rivers flow, where they shall dwell in an eternal and everlasting life. Furthermore, they shall be given pure spouses who shall be a source of contentment and comfort for their souls and bodies, and they shall live in the shade of trees — a shade that, unlike the fleeting shadows of this world, shall be perpetual and enduring, never traversed by the scorching heat of summer or the bitter cold of winter: "وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ سَنُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِی مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِینَ فِیهَا أَبَداً لَهُمْ فِیهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُطَهَّرَةٌ وَنُدْخِلُهُمْ ظِلاًّ ظَلِیلاً". (Explanatory Note: Ẓalīl is derived from the root ẓill, meaning shade, and is employed here for emphasis — for ẓill ẓalīl conveys the sense of dense, enveloping shade, and is a metonym for a perpetual and pleasant, all-encompassing shade.) A noteworthy point emerges from a comparative examination of these two verses: the boundlessness of Divine mercy and the fact that it surpasses and exceeds His wrath becomes apparent. For in the first verse, the punishment of the disbelievers is promised using the word sawfa (soon/eventually), whereas in the second verse the reward of the believers is promised with sa- (in sa-nudkhiluhum — We shall soon admit them). In Arabic rhetoric, sawfa is generally employed for the more remote future while sa- is used for the near future — even though we know that both verses relate to the Day of Resurrection and the temporal distance of the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous from us is equally the same. This distinction serves to allude to the swiftness and expansiveness of God's mercy and the remoteness and restraint of His wrath — and this is analogous to what we recite in supplications: "یَا مَنْ سَبَقَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ غَضَبَهُ" "O You Whose mercy has preceded and surpassed Your wrath."

Some may raise the objection that the above-mentioned verses declare that when the skin of the wicked is burned, We shall replace it with another skin so that they may remain in Divine punishment. But punishing a new and innocent skin in place of the guilty skin, they argue, is not consistent with Divine justice. The well-known materialist Ibn Abī al-'Awjā' — a contemporary of Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) — posed precisely this same question to him, reciting the above-mentioned verse and asking: "مَا ذَنْبُ الْغَیْرِ" "What is the fault of the new skin?" Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) gave him a brief yet profoundly meaningful response, saying: "هِیَ هِیَ وَهِیَ غَیْرُهَا" "The new skin is the same old skin — even as it is its replacement." Ibn Abī al-'Awjā' recognized that a secret was concealed within this brief statement and said: "Give me an analogy from the affairs of the world in this connection." The Imām (peace be upon him) replied: "أَرَأَیْتَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلاً أَخَذَ لَبِنَةً فَکَسَرَهَا ثُمَّ رَدَّهَا فِی مَلْبَنِهَا فَهِیَ هِیَ وَهِیَ غَیْرُهَا" "Consider this: a person takes a brick, breaks it into fragments, then places it back into the mold and makes a new brick. That new brick is the same original brick — even as it is also a new brick. Its original substance is preserved; only its form has changed." (Ref: Majālis of Shaykh al-Mufīd; Iḥtijāj of Ṭabarsī) From this tradition it follows that the new skin shall be fashioned from the same original skin. Incidentally, it should be noted that in reality, reward and punishment pertain to the human soul and faculty of perception — the body is merely a medium for transmitting reward and punishment to the soul.

Although the present verse, like many other verses, was revealed on a particular occasion and in a specific context, it is evident that it conveys a general ruling. The verse elaborates in detail that God commands you to return trusts to those who are entitled to them. The word amānah (trust) here clearly carries a broad signification encompassing every kind of material and spiritual matter and affair. Every Muslim is, in accordance with this verse, responsible for not betraying any trust — without any exception — regardless of whether the holder of the trust is Muslim or non-Muslim. This is in reality a declaration of human rights within Islam in which all human beings are equal. It is noteworthy that in the above-mentioned occasion of revelation, the trust was not merely a material one, and the other party was a polytheist. The second portion of the verse alludes to another important legal principle: justice in governance and adjudication. The verse declares that God has also commanded you that when you judge between people, you should judge with justice: "وَإِذَا حَکَمْتُمْ بَیْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ تَحْکُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ". By way of emphasis upon both these rulings, it then declares: God gives you the best of admonitions: "إِنَّ اللهَ نِعِمَّا یَعِظُکُمْ بِهِ". And with further emphasis: God is in every circumstance the observer of your deeds — He hears your words and witnesses your actions: "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ سَمِیعاً بَصِیراً". This ruling is likewise universal and general and applies to every kind of adjudication and decision-making. It is recorded that two persons came to Imām al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) for the resolution of a dispute. 'Alī (peace be upon him), who was observing the matter, said to his honored son: "یَا بُنَیَّ انْظُرْ کَیْفَ تَحْکُمُ فَإِنَّ هٰذَا حُکْمٌ وَاللهُ سَائِلُکَ عَنْهُ یَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ" "My dear son, reflect carefully upon what judgment ought to be given — for this too is a form of adjudication, and God shall question you concerning it on the Day of Resurrection." (Ref: Majma' al-Bayān, Vol. 3, p. 64) These two important Islamic legal principles — the preservation of trust and justice in adjudication — constitute the cornerstones of a pure and wholesome human society. No society, whether material or spiritual in its orientation, can be organized without acting upon both of these principles. The first principle is that material assets, wealth, official responsibilities, human capital, cultural and historical documents, and inheritance — all are Divine trusts entrusted to various individuals in society, and it is the responsibility of all to safeguard their respective trusts, strive to return them to their rightful owners, and in no way betray them. The second is that societies invariably contain differences, contradictions, and conflicts of interest — these must be resolved and adjudicated through just arbitration so that factionalism, unwarranted distinctions, and oppression may be eliminated from society. As has already been noted, amānah is not limited to the material goods that people entrust to one another. Scholars and intellectuals are also the custodians of society, upon whom rests the duty not to conceal the realities. Even children are a Divine trust with human beings — negligence in their education and upbringing also constitutes a betrayal of trust. Beyond this, the very existence and being of the human being, along with all the capacities and capabilities God has bestowed upon him, are Divine trusts — regarding which he is responsible to exert himself in their preservation. He must not be negligent in safeguarding the capacities of body and soul, the vigor of youth, and intellectual capability. It is for this reason that not only is suicide impermissible for the human being, but he may not inflict any harm upon himself whatsoever. Indeed, from certain Islamic traditions it follows that the trusts of secrets, knowledge, and the Imāmate — which every Imām entrusts to the succeeding Imām — also fall within the meaning of this verse. (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 496) It is noteworthy that in the above-mentioned verse, the discharge of trust is placed prior to justice. Perhaps the reason is that the issue of justice becomes necessary whenever there is betrayal of trust in adjudication — for the original foundation and basis is that all people be trustworthy, but when one individual or several individuals deviate from this, the need for justice arises to acquaint them with their obligation.

In Islamic books and sources, such emphasis has been placed upon trust and justice as is rarely seen with respect to other commandments. The following traditions make this reality clear: 1. Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) declared: "لاَ تَنْظُرُوا إِلَى طُولِ رُکُوعِ الرَّجُلِ وَسُجُودِهِ فَإِنَّ ذٰلِکَ شَیْءٌ اعْتَادَهُ فَلَوْ تَرَکَهُ اسْتَوْحَشَ وَلٰکِنِ انْظُرُوا إِلَى صِدْقِ حَدِیثِهِ وَأَدَاءِ أَمَانَتِهِ" "Do not look merely at the length of a person's bowings and prostrations — for it is possible that he has grown accustomed to them and now feels uncomfortable abandoning them. Rather, look to the truthfulness of his speech and his discharge of trust." (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 496) 2. In another tradition, likewise transmitted from Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), he declared: "The station and rank that Amīr al-Mu'minīn 'Alī (peace be upon him) attained in the estimation of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny was on account of his truthfulness in speech and his discharge of trust." (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 496) 3. In yet another tradition, Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) said to one of his followers: "إِنَّ ضَارِبَ عَلِیٍّ بِالسَّیْفِ وَقَاتِلَهُ لَوِ ائْتَمَنَنِی وَاسْتَنْصَحَنِی وَاسْتَشَارَنِی ثُمَّ قَبِلْتُ ذٰلِکَ مِنْهُ لَأَدَّیْتُ إِلَیْهِ الْأَمَانَةَ" "If the one who struck 'Alī (peace be upon him) with the sword — his killer — were to entrust something to my keeping, or seek my counsel, or ask my advice, and I were to accept any of these, I would most certainly discharge the trust faithfully." (Ref: Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 496) 4. Among the traditions transmitted from the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny in both Shī'ah and Sunnī works, the following luminous and great declaration is also recorded: "آیَةُ الْمُنَافِقِ ثَلاَثٌ إِذَا حَدَّثَ کَذَبَ وَإِذَا وَعَدَ أَخْلَفَ وَإِذَا ائْتُمِنَ خَانَ" "The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when a trust is placed with him, he betrays it." (Ref: Majma' al-Bayān, Vol. 3, p. 64) 5. The Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to 'Alī (peace be upon him): "سَوِّ بَیْنَ الْخَصْمَیْنِ فِی لَحْظِکَ وَلَفْظِکَ" "When the two parties to a dispute come before you, maintain equality and justice in the manner of your glancing at them and in the words you address to them." (Ref: Majma' al-Bayān, Vol. 3, p. 64)

This verse and the several verses that follow address one of the most important Islamic issues — namely, leadership — and identify and specify the true points of reference (marāji') for Muslims in various religious and social matters. First, the believers are commanded to obey God Almighty — and it is self-evident that it is obligatory upon a believing person that all his acts of obedience ultimately culminate in obedience to God Almighty, and that in accordance with His command, the source of every form of leadership be His sacred being. For He is the ontological owner (mālik-i takwīnī) and supreme sovereign of the universe, and therefore every form of governance and ownership must accord with His command: "یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا أَطِیعُوا اللهَ". In the second stage, the command is to follow the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — that Messenger who is infallible and never speaks from desire or passion, who is the Divine representative among the people, whose word is the word of God, and upon whom this lofty and elevated station has been bestowed by God Almighty. Accordingly, obedience to God is based upon His essential creatorship and sovereignty, whereas obedience to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is based upon the command of the Lord. In other words, God is intrinsically and essentially deserving of obedience (wājib al-ṭā'ah bi'l-dhāt), while the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is derivatively deserving of obedience (wājib al-ṭā'ah bi'l-ghayr). Perhaps the repetition of aṭī'ū in the verse alludes to precisely this point — namely, that there is this distinction between the two forms of obedience: "أَطِیعُوا الرَّسُولَ". In the third stage comes the command to obey ūlū al-amr — those from within the Islamic community who safeguard the religious and worldly affairs of the people.

Regarding this matter, there exists considerable disagreement among Islamic exegetes, the brief summary of which is as follows: 1. Some Sunnī exegetes hold the view that ūlū al-amr refers to the kings and holders of power of every era and every environment, admitting no exception whatsoever. The consequence of this view is that it becomes obligatory upon Muslims to follow every government, in whatever form it may exist — even were it to be the government of the Mongols. 2. Some other exegetes — such as the author of Tafsīr al-Manār and the author of Tafsīr Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur'ān — hold the belief that ūlū al-amr refers to the representatives of various social strata, leaders, rulers, scholars, and office-holders in all affairs of life. However, not in an absolute and unconditional sense; rather, their obedience is conditional upon their rulings not being contrary to the ordinances established by Islam. 3. Some other exegetes hold the view that ūlū al-amr refers to the intellectual and spiritual guides — that is, scholars who are just and possess comprehensive knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. 4. Some Sunnī exegetes hold the view that this expression refers specifically to the first four Caliphs and is limited exclusively to them — on the basis of which there would be no ūlū al-amr in subsequent ages. 5. Some exegetes interpret ūlū al-amr as referring to the Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. 6. Yet another possibility advanced in the interpretation of ūlū al-amr is that it refers to the commanders of the Islamic armies. 7. All Shī'ah exegetes hold a unanimous view in this connection — that ūlū al-amr refers to the Infallible Imāms (peace be upon them), who have been entrusted by God and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny with the material and spiritual leadership of the Islamic community in all affairs of life. This expression cannot be applied to anyone other than them. Those, however, who are appointed by them to a particular rank or office and occupy a position in the Islamic community are — under specified conditions — also obligatory to obey, but not on the basis that they themselves are ūlū al-amr, but rather because they are representatives of the ūlū al-amr. We now devote our full attention to the examination and study of the foregoing interpretations. There is no doubt that the first interpretation does not in any way accord with the meaning of the verse or with the spirit of Islamic teachings. It is impossible to equate obedience to every government, unconditionally and without restriction, with obedience to God and the Messenger. For this reason, not only Shī'ah exegetes but also major Sunnī exegetes have negated it. The second interpretation likewise does not accord with the meaning and import of the verse — for the verse renders obedience to ūlū al-amr absolutely obligatory without any conditional qualification. The third interpretation — namely, interpreting ūlū al-amr as just scholars with comprehensive knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah — also does not accord with the verse. For obedience to scholars too is conditional; one of the conditions being that their rulings must not contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah. Accordingly, if they fall into error (which is possible since they are not infallible) or turn away from the truth for some other reason, their obedience in that case would not be obligatory. Yet the verse renders obedience to ūlū al-amr absolutely obligatory in the same manner as obedience to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Furthermore, obedience to scholars pertains to those rulings which they derive from the Qur'an and Sunnah — which in reality amounts to nothing other than obedience to God and the Prophet, and there was therefore no need to mention it separately. The fourth interpretation — restricting ūlū al-amr to the first four Caliphs — implies that in today's Islamic world there is no referent for the expression ūlū al-amr. Moreover, there is no evidence for this restriction. The fifth and sixth interpretations — restricting it to the Companions or to military commanders — also have no supporting evidence. Some Sunnī exegetes — such as the renowned Egyptian scholar Muḥammad 'Abduh and the distinguished exegete Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī in certain of their statements — hold that ūlū al-amr carries the second meaning described above. In their view, the comprehensive signification of the term includes representatives of various strata of the Islamic community — whether scholars or rulers, and representatives of other strata. They regard them as ūlū al-amr subject to certain conditions, among which is that they be Muslim — as indicated by the word minkum — that their rulings not contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah, that they issue rulings from their own volition and not under compulsion, that they act in accordance with the interests of Muslims, and that they may only rule on matters in which they have legitimate authority — not on matters of worship and those affairs that Islam has already definitively established. They also hold that the ūlū al-amr may only render rulings in matters for which no explicit scriptural text exists. Beyond all these conditions, it is further necessary that they collectively and unanimously present their view. Their contention is that the entire Muslim community — or all of its representatives — cannot collectively fall into error. In other words, the community as a whole is collectively infallible. The consequence of all these conditions would be that obedience to such a ruling would be absolutely and unconditionally obligatory — just as obedience to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — without any restriction (the substance of this discussion being that the consensus of the community constitutes a proof). However, upon reflection it becomes evident that this interpretation too faces several difficulties. For consensus of thought and opinion on social matters is extremely rarely achieved, with the result that anxiety and unease would perpetually prevail in the great majority of Muslim circumstances and events. If one were to accept the view of the majority, the objection arises that the majority is never infallible, and therefore their obedience could not be absolutely and unconditionally obligatory. Furthermore, it has been established in the science of jurisprudential principles that there is no evidence for the infallibility of the entire community — apart from the infallible Imām. A further reason is that the proponents of this interpretation have stipulated the condition that the ruling must not contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah. But who shall determine whether a given ruling accords with or contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah? This responsibility must undoubtedly rest with the mujtahidīn and scholars versed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. The consequence of this reasoning would be that obedience to ūlū al-amr is not permissible without the authorization of the scholars — since obedience to the scholars surpasses and transcends obedience to ūlū al-amr. And this meaning is apparently not consistent with the noble verse. While it is true that they have included scholars within the category of ūlū al-amr, in reality — according to this interpretation — scholars occupy a higher reference point and supervisory position relative to the representatives of other strata. For scholars understand better than others whether something is sound from the perspective of the Qur'an and Sunnah or not. They would therefore be the supreme reference authority, which is not consistent with the aforementioned interpretation. The aforementioned interpretation thus faces difficulties on several counts. The only interpretation that is not susceptible to the above objections is the seventh — that is, that ūlū al-amr refers to infallible leaders and Imāms — for this interpretation is consistent with the absolute obligation of obedience established by the above-mentioned verse and is in full and complete accord with it. For the station of 'iṣmah (infallibility) testifies to the immunity of such an Imām from every error, sin, and mistake. Accordingly, every ruling he issues is — just as the command of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — obligatory to obey without any condition or restriction, and is capable of being placed on an equal footing with obedience to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny — to the extent that it is conjoined to the Prophet's name without the need for a repeated aṭī'ū.

Some eminent Sunnī scholars — among them the renowned and distinguished exegete Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī — acknowledging this reality at the outset of their discussion of this verse, write: "Whomsoever God Almighty renders absolutely and unconditionally obligatory to obey must certainly be infallible — for if he were not immune from error, he would commit errors, and yet God has rendered his obedience obligatory. If following him despite his error were also required, this would produce an internal contradiction in God's own command itself — for on one hand his act would be prohibited, while on the other hand obedience to ūlū al-amr would be obligatory. This command of God would thus result in the simultaneous conjunction of a positive injunction and a prohibition. For on one hand God has rendered obedience to the command of ūlū al-amr absolutely obligatory without any condition or restriction, while on the other hand, if ūlū al-amr were not infallible, such a ruling would — by the judgment of sound reason — not be valid. From this premise and introduction, we arrive at the conclusion that the ūlū al-amr alluded to in the above-mentioned verse must certainly be infallible." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Kabīr by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Vol. 10, p. 144, Egyptian edition, 1357 AH) Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī continues his discussion, writing that this infallible entity is either the entire Muslim community or certain individuals from within it. The second meaning is also not acceptable — for it would be necessary that we identify and be able to access these particular individuals, which is not the case. When this possibility or doubt is removed, the first possibility remains: that the entire community is infallible. And this itself constitutes evidence that the consensus (ijmā') and agreement of the community is authoritative and acceptable, and is counted among the reliable and trustworthy proofs. (Ref: Tafsīr by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Vol. 10, p. 144, Egyptian edition, 1357 AH) We observe that although Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī is renowned for raising objections in scholarly matters, he has fully and unreservedly accepted the indication of this verse that the Imām must be infallible. The most that can be said at this juncture is that since he was unfamiliar with the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and their infallible Imāms and leaders, he did not accept the position that the ūlū al-amr must be individuals designated by God. He was therefore compelled to designate as ūlū al-amr either the entire community or the representatives of all strata of Muslims — whereas these meanings are in no way acceptable, as we have already elaborated. The ūlū al-amr must be one who serves as the leader of the Islamic community so that the governance of the Islamic state and the diverse difficulties of Muslims may be resolved through his wise and capable guidance. For we know that unanimous governance of all opinions — even of their representatives — is practically unattainable, since the various social, political, cultural, moral, and economic problems that Muslims encounter do not in most cases admit of the unanimous agreement of the entire community or their representatives, and following the majority cannot be considered following the ūlū al-amr. On this basis, the practical implication of the discourse of Fakhr al-Rāzī and of contemporary scholars who follow his conviction is that obedience to ūlū al-amr either ceases to have any practical application or remains as a merely exceptional circumstance. From all the foregoing statements we draw the conclusion that this noble verse establishes — and only establishes — the leadership of infallible leaders, who constitute a small number of specific personalities from within the community. This point merits careful reflection.

At this juncture, certain objections have been raised against the above-mentioned interpretation. In the interest of impartiality in the discussion, they are presented to the reader. 1. If ūlū al-amr refers to the infallible Imām, this meaning bears no appropriate relationship to the word ūlā which is a plural form — since in accordance with this meaning, there would not be more than one infallible Imām in any given era. The response to this question is that although there is not more than one infallible Imām in any given era, collectively across all ages they comprise a considerable number of individuals who shape character and build conduct — and it is evident that this verse is not defining the responsibility of a single era. 2. According to this meaning, the ūlū al-amr did not exist during the era of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — so how was the command to obey them issued? The answer to this also becomes clear from the preceding response, for the verse is not restricted to any particular era but rather clarifies the obligations of all Muslims for every age. In other words, during the era of the prophetic mission, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself was the ūlū al-amr — for the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny held two offices: one was the office of prophethood and the conveying of commandments, mentioned in the verse as "aṭī'ū al-rasūl", and the other was the office of the leadership and headship of the Islamic community, to which the Qur'an refers by the term ūlū al-amr. Thus in the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny era, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself was the infallible leader and guide. Perhaps the non-repetition of aṭī'ū between the Messenger and ūlū al-amr is not without an allusion to precisely this meaning. In other words, the office of prophethood and the office of ūlū al-amr are two distinct offices that are jointly concentrated in the person of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, but in the Imām they are separated — the Imāms possessing only the second office, that of ūlū al-amr. The verse then declares: "فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِی شَیْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ کُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَالْیَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذٰلِکَ خَیْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِیلاً" "If you dispute over something, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the Last Day — that is better and more excellent in its ultimate outcome." It is evident that ūlū al-amr is not mentioned here, and the prescribed method for resolving disputes is the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The response to this objection is that it does not fall exclusively upon the interpretation of Shī'ah scholars — upon even brief reflection, it becomes evident that it also bears upon the other interpretations, meaning that this objection applies to Sunnī interpretations as well. Second, there is no doubt that the dispute and contention referred to in the above statement concerns differences regarding legal rulings — not those matters pertaining to the particulars of governance and leadership. For in those matters, obedience to ūlū al-amr is necessarily obligatory, as has been clarified in the first clause of the verse. Accordingly, the dispute referred to here signifies differences concerning the general commandments and laws of Islam, whose legislation pertains to God and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — for we know that the Imāms are executors of commandments, not legislators or abrogators. The Imāms always proceed along the path of executing the commandments of God and the Sunnah of the Messenger. It is for this reason that in the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) it is stated: if anyone transmits from us anything that contradicts the Book of God and the Ḥadīth of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, do not accept it — for it is impossible and inconceivable that we should say anything contrary to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. For this reason, the first point of reference for resolving people's differences in the laws and commandments of Islam is God and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — upon whom Divine revelation descended. If the Infallible Imāms expound commandments, those commandments are not from themselves but are derived from the Book of God or from the knowledge transmitted to them from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. This is precisely why the term ūlū al-amr is not included among those who resolve disputed commandments and issues. (Explanatory Note: If in verse 83 of this Sūrah the ūlū al-amr is designated as the point of reference for the resolution of certain difficulties, this does not refer to differences regarding the general commandments and laws of the revealed religion; rather, as will be elaborated in the commentary on that verse, it pertains to matters relating to the manner of executing commandments.)

In Islamic books and sources, certain traditions exist that support the interpretation that the word ūlū al-amr refers to the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt. Among them are the following: 1. The renowned Islamic exegete Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī al-Maghribī (d. 756 AH) writes in Tafsīr Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ that this verse was revealed in honor of 'Alī (peace be upon him) and the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). (Ref: Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, Vol. 3, Egyptian edition, p. 278) 2. The Sunnī scholar Abū Bakr ibn Mu'min al-Shīrāzī records in his Risālah-yi I'tiqād — according to Munāsib al-Kāshī — transmitting from Ibn 'Abbās that the above-mentioned verse was revealed in honor of 'Alī (peace be upon him) on the occasion when the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny left him behind in Medina during the expedition to Mū'tah or Tabūk. 'Alī (peace be upon him) submitted: "You leave me behind in the city like women and children." Whereupon the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared: "أَمَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَکُونَ مِنِّی بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى حِینَ قَالَ اخْلُفْنِی فِی قَوْمِی وَأَصْلِحْ فَقَالَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَأُولِی الْأَمْرِ مِنْکُمْ" "Are you not pleased that you hold the same relation to me as Hārun (peace be upon him) held to Mūsā (peace be upon him) — when Mūsā said to him: 'Be my successor among the Children of Israel and set things in order'? Thereupon God Almighty declared: 'and those in authority among you.'" (Ref: Ḥaqā'iq al-Ḥaqq, Vol. 3, p. 478) 3. Shaykh Sulaymān al-Ḥanafī al-Qundūzī — a renowned Sunnī scholar — records in Yanābī' al-Mawaddah, in the Kitāb al-Manāqib, transmitting from Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī: A man once came before 'Alī (peace be upon him) and asked: "What is the minimum by which a person may be counted among the ranks of the believers, and what is the minimum by which a person may be reckoned among the disbelievers or the misguided?" Amīr al-Mu'minīn (peace be upon him) replied: "The minimum on account of which a person is reckoned among the misguided is that he does not recognize the proof of God and His representative — the witness and testifier whose obedience and guardianship is obligatory." The man said: "O Amīr al-Mu'minīn, introduce them to me." 'Alī (peace be upon him) declared: "They are those whom God has placed alongside His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and has declared: "یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا أَطِیعُوا اللهَ وَأَطِیعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِی الْأَمْرِ مِنْکُمْ" The man said: "May I be your ransom — please elaborate further." Amīr al-Mu'minīn (peace be upon him) declared: "Those of whom the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny spoke on various occasions and in the sermon of the last day of his life, saying: "إِنِّی تَرَکْتُ فِیکُمْ أَمْرَیْنِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِی إِنْ تَمَسَّکْتُمْ بِهِمَا کِتَابَ اللهِ وَعِتْرَتِی أَهْلَ بَیْتِی" 'I am leaving among you two things — if you hold fast to them you will never go astray after me: the Book of God and my 'itrah, who are my Ahl al-Bayt.'" (Ref: Yanābī' al-Mawaddah, Istanbul edition, p. 116) 4. The same scholar also writes in Yanābī' al-Mawaddah that the author of Kitāb al-Manāqib has transmitted from Tafsīr Mujāhid that this verse was revealed concerning 'Alī (peace be upon him). (Ref: Yanābī' al-Mawaddah, Istanbul edition, p. 114) 5. Numerous traditions in Shī'ah works — transmitted in al-Kāfī, Tafsīr al-'Ayyāshī, the works of al-Ṣadūq, and others — all bear witness that by ūlū al-amr the Infallible Imāms (peace be upon them) are intended. Indeed, in certain of these traditions the name of each Imām is explicitly mentioned. (Ref: Tafsīr al-Burhān, Vol. 1, commentary on the aforementioned verse)

A Jew of Medina had a dispute with a hypocrite over a certain matter. They agreed to select a person as judge. The Jew, being satisfied with the justice and impartiality of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, said: "I am content with the judgment of your Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny." The hypocrite, however, chose Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf — a prominent figure among the Jews — for he knew that by offering a bribe he could turn the latter's opinion in his favor. In this manner he opposed the adjudication of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and it was in this context that this noble verse was revealed, strongly censuring such individuals. (Ref: Tafsīr Majma' al-Bayān; the majority of exegetes have also transmitted this same occasion of revelation.) Some exegetes have also recorded a second occasion of revelation for this verse: that in the early period of Islam, certain newly converted Muslims, following the customs of the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah), would bring their disputes to Jewish scholars or soothsayers. It was on this basis that the verse was revealed, strictly prohibiting them from doing so. (Ref: al-Manār, Vol. 5, p. 222)

The verse under discussion is in reality a continuation and completion of the preceding verse — for the preceding verse invites the believers to obey God Almighty, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and ūlū al-amr, and to have their disputes settled in accordance with the Book and Sunnah, while prohibiting them from obeying, following, and seeking judgments from ṭāghūt. As has already been stated, ṭāghūt is derived from the root ṭughyān and is used, in all its derivative forms, in the sense of rebellion, transgression beyond limits, or anything that constitutes a cause of defiance and rebelliousness. Accordingly, those who render judgments in accordance with falsehood are ṭāghūt — for they have transgressed the Divine bounds of truth and justice. In a tradition transmitted from Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), he declared: "الطَّاغُوتُ کُلُّ مَنْ یُتَحَاکَمُ إِلَیْهِ مِمَّنْ یَحْکُمُ بِغَیْرِ الْحَقِّ" "Every person who renders judgments contrary to truth and before whom people bring their cases for adjudication is a ṭāghūt." The above-mentioned verse, censuring those Muslims who went to such rulers for the adjudication of their disputes, declares: O Messenger, do you not see those who present themselves as Muslims and claim that they have believed in all the books revealed upon you and upon the Prophets before you — yet despite this, they bring their disputes to be adjudicated by ṭāghūt, even though they have been commanded never to accept the authority of ṭāghūt: "أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِینَ یَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَیْکَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِکَ یُرِیدُونَ أَنْ یَتَحَاکَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ یَکْفُرُوا بِهِ" The Qur'an then declares that turning toward ṭāghūt is a Satanic snare that desires to divert people from the straight path and cast them into the distant roads of misguidance: "یُرِیدُ الشَّیْطَانُ أَنْ یُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلاَلاً بَعِیداً". It is evident that the above-mentioned verse, like other Qur'anic verses, warns all Muslims for all ages: do not go to the rulers of falsehood; seeking judgment from ṭāghūt is contrary to faith in the revealed scriptures; and moreover, this conduct diverts one from the straight path onto crooked roads that are far distant from the path of truth. The evils and harms of such judgments — in terms of bringing destruction upon the collective affairs of humanity — are concealed from no one, and this too is among the causes of the backwardness of societies.

See ayat 63 for tafseer.

See ayat 63 for tafseer.

Following the prohibition against going to ṭāghūt and unjust arbitrators — mentioned in the preceding verse — these three verses now examine and discuss the consequences of such judgments and the pretexts to which the hypocrites resorted. In the first verse, God Almighty declares: such Muslim-seeming individuals not only take their cases to ṭāghūt for adjudication but, when reminded to return to God and accept the Prophet's judgment, they stubbornly persist in turning away from the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny call and insist upon this course of action. The Qur'an declares that their turning toward ṭāghūt was not a momentary and temporary lapse that a reminder might correct — rather, their persistence in opposition and their obstinate insistence upon this conduct illuminates the operation of the spirit of hypocrisy within them and the weakness of their faith. Otherwise they would have been awakened by the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny call and acknowledged their error: "وَإِذَا قِیلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى مَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ رَأَیْتَ الْمُنَافِقِینَ یَصُدُّونَ عَنْکَ صُدُوداً" In the subsequent verse, another dimension of human nature is described: when these same hypocrites, as a consequence of their deeds, fall into some calamity and find no way of escape, they then come reluctantly before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "فَکَیْفَ إِذَا أَصَابَتْهُمْ مُصِیبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَیْدِیهِمْ ثُمَّ جَاءُوکَ" They then swear by God that their purpose in taking the matter to others was nothing other than beneficence and bringing about reconciliation and harmony between the claimants: "یَحْلِفُونَ بِاللهِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلاَّ إِحْسَاناً وَتَوْفِیقاً" At this juncture, two points deserve attention. The first concerns what is meant by the calamity that had befallen them. It is entirely possible that this refers to the troubles, misfortunes, and general afflictions that would arise as a consequence of seeking judgment from ṭāghūt — for there is no doubt that even if such judgments immediately benefit one of the parties, it is not long before the perpetuation of such judgments becomes a cause for the spread of oppression and corruption, thereby destabilizing the social order. People very quickly witness the consequences of their actions and come to regret what they have done. Some exegetes have also suggested that by "calamity" is meant the disgrace and humiliation of the hypocrites before the people, or the afflictions that come by the command of God — such as grief, sorrow, and unexpected losses. The second point is whether the hypocrites' reference to iḥsān (beneficence and goodness) means acting with kindness toward both parties to the dispute, or treating the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny with courtesy — or perhaps both are intended simultaneously. They had fabricated ludicrous pretexts for taking their cases to others. They would even claim that bringing the case before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was beneath his dignity — since disputants often raise a clamor and commotion, which is entirely contrary to the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny exalted station. Moreover, a judgment invariably results in a loss for one party, which naturally engenders enmity — as though by such pretexts they wished to cleanse their own position, claiming that their purpose was solely to serve the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the parties to the dispute, or that fundamentally their intention was not adjudication but rather reconciliation between the disputants. However, in the third verse God Almighty lifts the veil from their faces and, declaring such false pretexts to be void, states that these are the people whose innermost secrets God knows full well: "أُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِینَ یَعْلَمُ اللهُ مَا فِی قُلُوبِهِمْ" God Almighty nevertheless commands the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to overlook punishing them: "فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ". For this reason, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, as far as possible, treated leniently those hypocrites who presented themselves as Muslims — since he was charged with judging by outward appearances and would not punish them for anything short of an extraordinary offense, given that they appeared outwardly within the ranks of the Muslims and punishment might have been construed as a form of retribution. He then commands: admonish them and make an impression upon their hearts through eloquent words, and inform them of the wholesome consequences of righteous conduct: "وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُلْ لَهُمْ فِی أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَوْلاً بَلِیغاً"

In the preceding verses, the Qur'an censured the practice of going to unjust rulers and judges. In this verse, it declares by way of emphasis that all the Prophets who have been sent are for the purpose of being obeyed by the command of God — and that no opposition to them should occur: "وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِیُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللهِ" — for they were sent by God and were also the heads of the Divine governance; accordingly, it was the duty of people to follow them in the proclamation and implementation of God's commandments and not to content themselves with a mere verbal claim of faith. This makes abundantly clear that the purpose of sending Prophets is that all people obey and submit to them. If certain individuals, exploiting their freedom, did not obey, this constitutes their own shortcoming. The above-mentioned verse therefore negates the belief of the determinists (jabriyyūn) that certain people were from the very outset assigned to obedience and others to disobedience and defiance. Incidentally, the phrase bi-idhni Allāh indicates that whatever the Prophets of God possessed was from God Almighty — that is, the obligation of their obedience is not intrinsic to themselves but is by the command and from God. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the verse, a path of return is opened for sinners and those who went to ṭāghūt or committed sin in some other form, declaring: those who had wronged themselves — if they came to you and sought forgiveness from God, and the Prophet also sought forgiveness on their behalf — they would find God All-Accepting of repentance and Merciful: "وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوکَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللهَ تَوَّاباً رَحِیماً" It is noteworthy that instead of declaring that they disobeyed God and went to unjust rulers, the Qur'an states: "إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ" — when they wronged themselves — indicating that in obeying the command of God and following the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny lies your own benefit, and opposing them is oppression against oneself — for it destroys your material life and is in reality the cause of your spiritual and moral backwardness. This verse also constitutes a clear and decisive response to those who regard tawassul (seeking intercession) through the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imāms (peace be upon them) as a form of polytheism. For the verse explicitly declares that coming to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, making him an intercessor in the Divine Presence, and seeking forgiveness through his mediation and supplication are means of the acceptance of repentance and Divine mercy. Were the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny intercession, supplication, seeking of forgiveness, and mediation a form of polytheism, how could God have issued such a command to sinners? However, sinners must first repent and abandon their sins, and thereafter seek to benefit from the grace of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny for the acceptance of their repentance. It is evident that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny does not himself forgive sins — rather, he only seeks forgiveness from God — and this verse constitutes a crushing and decisive response to those who deny this form of intermediation and tawassul. It is also noteworthy that the Qur'an does not say "seek forgiveness on their behalf" — but rather declares that the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny shall seek forgiveness on their behalf — indicating that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny benefits them through his station and rank, and seeks forgiveness on behalf of repentant sinners. This meaning — namely, that the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny seeking of forgiveness is efficacious for the believers — appears in other Qur'anic verses as well, such as verse 19 of Sūrah Muḥammad, verse 5 of Sūrah al-Munāfiqūn, and verse 114 of Sūrah al-Tawbah. As for the verse concerning Ibrāhīm's (peace be upon him) seeking of forgiveness for his uncle, and other verses that prohibit seeking forgiveness for polytheists — these indicate that there is no objection to seeking forgiveness for believers. Furthermore, certain verses indicate that angels also seek forgiveness in the Divine Presence on behalf of certain sinful believers — for instance, verse 7 of Sūrah Ghāfir and verse 5 of Sūrah al-Shūrā. In sum, numerous Qur'anic verses convey this meaning — that Prophets, angels, or pure-hearted believers seek forgiveness on behalf of certain sinners, and their supplication is effective in the Divine Presence. This also conveys the meaning of intercession (shafā'ah) on behalf of sinners by the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the angels, and pure-hearted believers. However, as has already been stated, for such intercession the offenders themselves must possess the requisite capacity and eligibility. What is remarkable is that certain statements of some exegetes indicate that they wish to restrict the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny seeking of forgiveness in the above-mentioned verse to his personal capacity. They argue that since the people in question had wronged the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny personally, it was necessary to obtain his satisfaction so that God might forgive their sins. However, it is evident that having one's case adjudicated by other than the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny constitutes not merely personal wrong against the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny but also opposition to his specific office — or in other words, opposition to the Divine command. Even if we were to suppose that it constituted a personal wrong against the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the Qur'an has not relied upon this reasoning; the Qur'an has declared that their conduct was contrary to the Divine command. Moreover, if we wrong someone, it suffices for that person to be satisfied — and there is no need to seek forgiveness in the Divine Presence for it. Setting aside all these considerations, if we were to adopt this interpretation of the verse, what would be said about all the other verses that designate the seeking of forgiveness by Prophets, angels, and believers as efficacious for sinners? Were personal rights also at stake in all those instances?

Al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwām — who was among the Muhājirūn — had a dispute with an Anṣārī Muslim of Medina concerning the irrigation of gardens that were adjacent to one another. Both parties came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to have their dispute adjudicated. Since Zubayr's garden was situated on the elevated side of the channel and the Anṣārī's garden was in the lower-lying area, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny instructed Zubayr to water his garden first and thereafter allow the Anṣārī to take his turn — in accordance with the established custom governing adjacent gardens. However, the Anṣārī — who was ostensibly a Muslim — became displeased at the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny just and impartial decision and said: "Did you give this ruling because Zubayr is the son of your paternal aunt?" The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was pained by this remark to the extent that the color of his face visibly changed. It was on this occasion that the above-mentioned verse was revealed, admonishing such Muslims. Some other Islamic exegetical works also record different occasions of revelation beyond the one narrated above, which bear some similarity to the one mentioned. (Ref: Tafsīr al-Tibyān; Ṭabarsī; al-Manār)

Although the occasion of revelation of the initial portion of the above-mentioned verse has already been stated, it should be noted — as has been written on numerous occasions — that the specific occasion of revelation of a verse is never contrary to its general import. On this basis, the verse may well serve as a continuation and completion of the discussion of the preceding verse. In this verse, God Almighty swears an oath and declares that people's faith shall be true and genuine only when they accept the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny as judge and arbiter in their differences and do not turn to others: "فَلاَ وَرَبِّکَ لاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى یُحَکِّمُوکَ فِیمَا شَجَرَ بَیْنَهُمْ" (Explanatory Note: Shajara is originally derived from the root shajar, rhyming with qamar, meaning "tree" — and because disputes and contentions involve a kind of entanglement and complication, similar to how tree branches intertwine with one another, the word also came to be used for dispute and contention. It is employed in this latter sense in the present verse.) It then declares that not only must they bring their disputes to you for adjudication, but when you render judgment among them — whether in their favor or against them — they must not only refrain from opening their lips in objection but their hearts must be fully at peace and contentment: "ثُمَّ لاَ یَجِدُوا فِی أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِمَّا قَضَیْتَ وَیُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِیماً" Although the distress and unease that a person experiences from a judgment that goes against him is often not entirely within his control, yet through moral cultivation, the nurturing of a spirit of submission before truth and justice, and the contemplation of the true station of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, a particular inner state arises within the human being such that he no longer feels even the slightest discomfort — not only with the judgment of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny but also with the judgments of the scholars who are his successors. In any case, it is the duty of a sincere Muslim to habituate himself to submission before truth. The verse sets forth the signs of firm and genuine faith in three stages: 1. In all disputes — whether great or small — one must refer to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny for adjudication and judgment, which has its source in the Divine command, and must not turn to ṭāghūt and those who render false judgments. 2. One must not consider the judgments and commandments of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — which are unquestionably the command of God — to be objectionable, and must not harbor even inner resentment against them. 3. One must act firmly upon the command of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and submit completely before truth. It is evident that accepting the commandments of a school of thought on occasions where they appear to be in one's own benefit does not constitute evidence of faith in that school. Rather, the demonstration of faith consists in implementing those commandments on occasions where they apparently appear to be against one's immediate interests yet are in reality founded upon truth and justice. The tradition transmitted from Imām Ja'far al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) in the exegesis of this verse states: "If a group worships God, performs the prayer, pays the zakāt, fasts in the month of Ramaḍān, and performs the Ḥajj — yet finds objectionable certain things that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny did, or says: 'It would have been better had such-and-such not been done' — they are in reality not true believers." He then declared: "It is incumbent upon you to submit before God and before the truth." Incidentally, two important points emerge from the above-mentioned verse: 1. This verse constitutes a proof of the infallibility of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. For the absolute and complete acceptance — in word and deed — of all the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny commandments, to the point of inner submission before them, is clear evidence that he neither commits error in the commandments of God and in his rulings, nor does he knowingly say or do anything contrary to truth. He is thus infallible both from error and from sin. 2. The above-mentioned verse negates independent legal reasoning (ijtihād) and the expression of personal opinion and conviction in the face of clear prophetic texts and in matters regarding which an explicit command has been issued by God and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Accordingly, if Islamic history informs us that certain individuals exercised ijtihād, expressed opinions, and stated their own convictions in the face of the commandments of God and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — saying, for instance: "The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny has said thus, but I say otherwise" — we must acknowledge that their conduct was entirely contrary to the explicit declaration of the above-mentioned verse.

See ayat 67 for tafseer.

Here the preceding discussion is brought to completion — the discussion concerning those who took exception to the just decisions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Alluding to the burdensome and severe commandments of earlier communities, it declares: We have not placed any difficult obligation upon their shoulders. Had We given them the same severe commandment that We gave to earlier communities — such as the Jews, who were commanded after their idol-worship and calf-worship, as an expiation for that grave sin, to kill one another or to leave their beloved homeland — how would they have been able to carry it out? They will not even submit before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in a matter concerning the irrigation of a garden — so how could they pass the test of other trials? It is indisputable that had they been given such a command — to kill one another or to abandon their homeland — very few of them would have acted upon it: "وَلَوْ أَنَّا کَتَبْنَا عَلَیْهِمْ أَنِ اقْتُلُوا أَنْفُسَکُمْ أَوِ اخْرُجُوا مِنْ دِیَارِکُمْ مَا فَعَلُوهُ إِلاَّ قَلِیلٌ مِنْهُمْ" Some exegetes write that readiness to die and willingness to depart from one's homeland are comparable to each other in several respects — for the human body is the homeland of the soul and carries great importance. Similarly, the country in which we reside holds a particular importance for the human body. Departing from one's physical homeland is therefore exceedingly difficult for the human being, as it is the place of his birth and residence. He then declares: if they accept the admonitions of God and the Messenger, there is benefit in it for themselves and it constitutes a cause for the strengthening of their faith: "وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ فَعَلُوا مَا یُوعَظُونَ بِهِ لَکَانَ خَیْراً لَهُمْ وَأَشَدَّ تَثْبِیتاً" It is worth noting that the commandments of God Almighty are here expressed as admonitions and counsel. The purpose is to indicate that these commandments are not of the kind that bring the slightest benefit to the one issuing them — God Almighty — but are in reality counsels that serve your own interest. It is for this reason that it immediately declares: their observance is beneficial to you and constitutes a cause for the strengthening of your faith. This point merits attention: the concluding portion of the verse indicates that the more a human being takes steps along the path of obedience to God's command, the greater steadfastness and firmness develops within him. In reality, obedience to God's command is a form of spiritual exercise — whose continuous practice, like physical exercise, increases strength, power, stability, and consolidation day by day. In this manner, the human being gradually reaches a station where no force can overpower the strength of his faith or deceive him. In the subsequent verse, presenting the third benefit of submission and obedience before God, it declares: at that time — in addition to what has already been mentioned — We shall also bestow upon them a great reward: "وَإِذاً لَآتَیْنَاهُمْ مِنْ لَدُنَّا أَجْراً عَظِیماً" In the last of the verses under consideration, alluding to the fourth benefit, it declares that We shall guide them to the straight path: "وَلَهَدَیْنَاهُمْ صِرَاطاً مُسْتَقِیماً" It is evident that this guidance does not refer to the foundational guidance of the religion and its law — rather, these are new Divine graces bestowed in the form of secondary guidance and as reward and recompense upon those who are deserving. This is analogous to what is alluded to in verse 17 of Sūrah Muḥammad: "وَالَّذِینَ اهْتَدَوْا زَادَهُمْ هُدىً" "Those who take steps along the path of guidance, God increases them further in guidance." In a tradition, it is recorded that when the verse "وَلَوْ أَنَّا کَتَبْنَا عَلَیْهِمْ أَنِ اقْتُلُوا أَنْفُسَکُمْ" was revealed, a believer said: "By God, had such severe commandments been given to us, we would certainly have acted upon them — but thanks be to God that He has exempted us from such obligations." When this reached the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he declared: "إِنَّ مِنْ أُمَّتِی لَرِجَالاً الْإِیمَانُ أَثْبَتُ فِی قُلُوبِهِمْ مِنَ الْجِبَالِ الرَّوَاسِی" "Among my community there are indeed men whose faith is more firmly and steadfastly rooted in their hearts than the most immovable of mountains." (Ref: Tafsīr Fī Ẓilāl, Vol. 2, p. 428)

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

Thawbān was a Companion of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny who held him in the deepest affection and love. One day he came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in a state of profound distress. When the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny enquired about the cause of his anguish, he submitted: "Whenever I am separated from you and cannot see you, I become consumed with grief. Today I was immersed in the thought that on the Day of Resurrection, if I am counted among the people of Paradise, it is certain that I shall not be at your level — and therefore I shall never be able to behold you. And if I am not among the people of Paradise, then too I shall be deprived of your sight. In either case, I shall be unable to attain the honor of your blessed presence. How then am I not to be distressed?" It was at this moment that the above-mentioned verse was revealed, giving glad tidings to such people that those who are obedient and compliant shall in Paradise also be the companions of the Prophets and great leaders of the religion. Thereafter, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared: "By God, the faith of a Muslim is not complete until he loves me more than his own self, his parents, and all his relatives, and submits himself before my word."

This verse sets forth yet another honor and distinction of those who are obedient and compliant before God Almighty and His Messenger — and in reality it completes the qualities and distinctions mentioned in the preceding verses. "وَمَنْ یُطِعِ اللهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولٰٓئِکَ مَعَ الَّذِینَ أَنْعَمَ اللهُ عَلَیْهِمْ..." As has been elaborated in the commentary on Sūrah al-Ḥamd, those who are endowed with this blessing always traverse the straight path and never deviate or turn away even to the slightest degree. God Almighty then, by way of clarification of this statement and in enumerating those upon whom He has completed His blessing, alludes to four categories of people who constitute, in reality, the four pillars of this subject: 1. The Prophets specifically sent by God — who are the first to set foot upon the straight path for the guidance and leadership of humanity: "مِنَ النَّبِیِّینَ". 2. The Ṣiddīqūn — "the truthful" — those who are truthful in speech and who demonstrate the sincerity of their word through their conduct and character, proving that they are not merely claimants of faith but genuinely believe in the commandments of God: "الصِّدِّیقِینَ". This expression makes clear that after the station of prophethood there is no station higher than truthfulness — not merely truthfulness of speech but also the purity of action and conduct, which includes trustworthiness and sincerity. For trustworthiness is in reality another name for truthfulness in action, just as truthfulness in speech is trustworthiness in word. (Note that ṣiddīq is a hyperbolic form meaning "one who is wholly and entirely truth and righteousness.") In certain traditions, ṣiddīqīn has been interpreted as referring to Amīr al-Mu'minīn and the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) — and as has been written on numerous occasions, this type of interpretation presents the most luminous and eminent referents of the verses, without restricting the meaning of the verse to them alone. 3. The Shuhadā' — those killed in the path of pure Divine conviction and purpose, or the chosen righteous individuals who shall serve as witnesses over the deeds of humanity on the Day of Resurrection: "الشُّهَدَاءِ". (Explanatory Note: Shahīd originally means "witness." Sometimes a person bears witness to the truth only verbally, and sometimes through the practical act of giving his life in the path of lofty and pure objectives.) 4. The Ṣāliḥūn — worthy and meritorious individuals in terms of knowledge and action who attain an elevated station on account of their constructive, reformative, and beneficial works and their adherence to the commandments of the Prophets: "وَالصَّالِحِینَ". In Shī'ah traditions, the word ṣāliḥīn has been interpreted as referring to the distinguished Companions of the Infallible Imāms — and this too, as was stated regarding ṣiddīqīn, represents an example and instance of righteous and worthy individuals. A point that must be recalled at this juncture is that the mention of these four stages may be an allusion to the fact that for the formation of a sound, wholesome, and worthy human society, the leaders of truth and the Prophets must first enter the field of action; thereafter, their sincere propagators — whose word and deed are in complete harmony — must disseminate their objectives everywhere. Following this period of intellectual reform, a group of people must rise to confront those who obstruct the path of God, offer sacrifice in the path of truth, and bear witness through martyrdom. It is as a result of their efforts and struggles that a society composed of the righteous and the pure comes into being. It is evident that the righteous too shall discharge all three of these duties for subsequent generations — providing leadership and propagation and offering sacrifice. From these verses, the following reality also becomes abundantly clear: that companionship with the finest of associates is of such great importance that in the next world as well, for the completion of the bounties of Paradise, the obedient shall be blessed with this great gift — and in addition to all other honors and distinctions, they shall also attain the companionship of the Prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous. Association with these four groups of the obedient does not mean that they shall be equal to them in rank and station — rather, while in each other's company, each shall be deserving of God's grace and bounty in accordance with his own level. Just as trees, flowers, and vegetation, though growing in proximity to one another and all benefiting from sunlight and rain, do not benefit equally from these — their benefit being proportionate to their respective worth and capacity. In expressing the importance of this great distinction — companionship with the chosen — the verse declares: this is the special grace and bounty of God Almighty, and He is fully aware of the states, intentions, capacities, and eligibilities of His servants: "ذٰلِکَ الْفَضْلُ مِنَ اللهِ وَکَفَى بِاللهِ عَلِیماً" (Note: Dhālik, the demonstrative pronoun indicating remoteness, is used in such contexts to denote the greatness and loftiness of rank and station.)

The word ḥadhar (rhyming with khaḍar) carries the meanings of alertness, preparedness, and vigilance in the face of danger. "At times this word also carries the meaning of the means and instrument through which danger may be confronted." The word thubāt is the plural of thubah (rhyming with gunah) and is used in the sense of dispersed and unorganized detachments and units. In the above-mentioned verse, the Holy Qur'an addresses all Muslims and issues two commandments and directives for the protection of their collective existence: first it declares — O you who have believed, keep a watchful and penetrating eye upon your enemies and their spies, lest you be caught off guard and exposed to danger through your heedlessness of them: "یَا أَیُّهَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا خُذُوا حِذْرَکُمْ". It then commands that in confronting the enemy, various methods and techniques be employed, and that you advance to overcome the enemy either in multiple detachments or altogether: "فَانْفِرُوا ثُبَاتٍ أَوِ انْفِرُوا جَمِیعاً" — where movement in the form of various dispersed units and detachments is necessary, advance in that manner; and where it is essential that all move against the enemy as a unified army, collective organization must not be neglected. Some exegetes have interpreted ḥadhar in the above-mentioned verse as meaning exclusively "weapons," whereas ḥadhar carries a broad signification and is not limited in its meaning to weapons. Furthermore, clear evidence within this same Sūrah — in verse 102 — demonstrates that ḥadhar is used in a different sense from weapons, where God declares: "أَنْ تَضَعُوا أَسْلِحَتَکُمْ وَخُذُوا حِذْرَکُمْ" "There is no harm in laying down your weapons when necessity requires it during the prayer on the battlefield — but remain vigilant and alert in watchfulness and readiness." This verse is comprehensive and encompasses all dimensions. It contains, for all Muslims and for every era and age, the commandment to remain perpetually prepared for the protection of their security and the defense of their frontiers, and for a form of material and spiritual readiness to always prevail and govern over their community. It is noteworthy that ḥadhar carries such a broad signification that it encompasses every kind of material, spiritual, and moral means and instrument. Alongside all of this, Muslims must, in every age and era, be acquainted with the capabilities of the enemy, its weapons, and its methods of warfare, and must know the numerical strength and performance of the enemy's arsenal in proportion to their own level of preparedness — for all the above-mentioned factors are effective in anticipating danger from the enemy and in comprehending the meaning of ḥadhar. On the other hand, every form of material and spiritual preparation for self-defense is indispensable — this preparation must be complete in terms of education, economics, and the provision of human resources. Similarly, the procurement of modern weaponry and knowledge of the methods of its employment are also necessary. It is indisputable that had the Muslims applied even this single verse to their lives, they would never have faced defeat and failure throughout their entire history. As is alluded to in the above verse, one must never fall prey to stagnation and archaic rigidity in employing various methods and techniques of warfare, but must take steps in accordance with the requirements of time and place and in light of the capabilities of the enemy. Where the condition of the enemy is such that advance against it in the form of various detachments is appropriate, utilize that method with each detachment having its own specific strategy; and where it is necessary that all advance in an organized manner according to a single strategy, stand in a unified rank. Here it becomes clear that those who insist that all Muslims in their collective wars must adopt a single method and that no difference in their techniques should exist are not correct in their position — this is also contrary to experience and inconsistent with the spirit of Islamic teachings, and perhaps the above verse alludes to precisely this dimension. For the attainment of true purposes and objectives, this constitutes an important and fundamental principle. Incidentally, the word jamī'an indicates that all Muslims — without exception — must participate in confronting the enemy, and this command is not specific to any particular detachment.

See ayat 73 for tafseer.

Following the general commandment concerning jihad and preparedness in the face of the enemy — as set forth in the preceding verse — this verse describes the condition of a group of hypocrites, declaring: these double-faced individuals who are present in your midst exert every effort to avoid joining the ranks of those fighting in the path of truth: "وَإِنَّ مِنْکُمْ لَمَنْ لَیُبَطِّئَنَّ" (Explanatory Note: It is noteworthy that in the above verse the address is directed toward the believers, yet the discourse concerns the hypocrites — despite which, through the expression "minkum," they are counted as part of the believers. This is because the hypocrites always lived among the believers and were outwardly numbered among them. Liyubaṭṭi'anna is derived from the root baṭu'a, rhyming with quṭb, meaning "sluggishness and lethargy in proceeding." According to a group of lexicographers and exegetes, it carries both intransitive and transitive meanings — that is, they are themselves sluggish and dilatory in proceeding, and they also induce this in others. Perhaps in light of the fact that this is in the form of taf'īl, it carries exclusively the transitive meaning; or more precisely, it may be said that at times he incites himself and at times others toward sluggishness and lethargy.) However, when the warriors return from the battlefield or news reaches the hypocrites — if the Muslims have suffered defeat or martyrdom — they say with joy and delight that God has bestowed upon them a great blessing, for they were not present with them to witness that heart-rending scene: "فَإِنْ أَصَابَتْکُمْ مُصِیبَةٌ قَالَ قَدْ أَنْعَمَ اللهُ عَلَیَّ إِذْ لَمْ أَکُنْ مَعَهُمْ شَهِیداً" But if news reaches them that the true believers have been victorious and have consequently acquired spoils of war, these reckless individuals say with longing and regret — as though they bore no connection to the believers whatsoever — "Would that we had been with the warriors and obtained a great share of the spoils": "وَلَئِنْ أَصَابَکُمْ فَضْلٌ مِنَ اللهِ لَیَقُولَنَّ کَأَنْ لَمْ تَکُنْ بَیْنَکُمْ وَبَیْنَهُ مَوَدَّةٌ یَا لَیْتَنِی کُنْتُ مَعَهُمْ فَأَفُوزَ فَوْزاً عَظِیماً" Although the spoils of war are not explicitly mentioned in the above verse, it is evident that one who regards martyrdom in the path of God as a calamity and misfortune, and considers being spared from witnessing martyrdom as a Divine blessing — for such a person, the attainment of material and military booty alone constitutes a great victory and triumph. These double-faced individuals — about whom it must be said with regret that they have existed and continue to exist in every society — instantly alter their countenance in response to the victories and defeats of the true believers. They never stand by them in sorrow and suffering, they do not walk alongside them in hardship and difficulty, yet they remain in anticipation that in times of success and triumph they may receive their share of the spoils and attain the same distinctions as the true believers.

In the preceding verses, the hypocrites were distinguished and separated from the ranks of the believers. In this verse and the several verses that follow, the believers are invited to strive in the path of God with compelling and persuasive arguments. It should also be noted that these verses were revealed at a time when various internal and external enemies were threatening and intimidating the Muslims — which makes the importance of these verses, in which the spirit of jihad among the Muslims is stirred and aroused, all the more evident. At the outset of the verse, God declares: let those who are prepared to exchange the base material life of this world for the eternal and everlasting life of the next world fight in the path of God: "فَلْیُقَاتِلْ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ الَّذِینَ یَشْرُونَ الْحَیَاةَ الدُّنْیَا بِالْآخِرَةِ" That is to say, only those individuals may truly be called genuine warriors who are prepared for this — and who have rightly come to understand that the life of the material world, as the word dunyā (meaning "lower" and "more base") itself indicates, carries no weight or importance in comparison with an honorable death in exchange for an everlasting life. But those who regard material life as more precious and valuable than sacred human goals and objectives can never be good warriors. Thereafter, the verse declares: "The outcome of such warriors is clear — for either they shall attain martyrdom or they shall destroy the enemy and prevail over it, and in both cases We shall grant them a great reward": "وَمَنْ یُقَاتِلْ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ فَیُقْتَلْ أَوْ یَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِیهِ أَجْراً عَظِیماً" It is indisputable that in the lexicon of such devoted fighters, defeat has no existence — they consider themselves victorious in both outcomes. This very spirit alone is sufficient to secure the means of victory against the enemy. History bears witness to the fact that the Muslims rapidly gained ascendancy over enemies who were many times superior to them in numbers, equipment, and military preparedness — and the driving force behind this was precisely this unconquerable spirit. Even non-Muslim scholars who have examined the rapid advances of Islam and the Muslims in the era of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and thereafter have identified this spirit as the driving force behind their progress. A well-known Western historian writes: "On account of the blessings of the new religion and the rewards promised in the next world, they had absolutely no fear of death, and life held no reality in their view except in relation to the next world — which is why they refrained from attachment to this life." (Ref: Tārīkh-i Tamaddun-i Islām wa 'Arab, Gustave Le Bon, p. 155) It is noteworthy that in the above verse — as in many other Qur'anic verses — the jihad that is declared sacred is that which is "fī sabīl Allāh" — in the path of God — which serves as a means of deliverance for the servants of God, is undertaken for the sake of the principles of truth and justice, and is for the purpose of purity and piety. It does not refer to those wars that are waged for the purposes of expansionism, fanaticism, colonial ambition, and imperialistic objectives.

In the preceding verse, the believers were invited to jihad on the basis of arguments concerning faith in God and the Day of Resurrection, and considerations of benefit and loss. In this verse, they are invited toward jihad on the basis of human emotions and sentiments, as it declares: why do you not fight in the path of God and for the sake of the oppressed and helpless men, women, and children who are imprisoned in the clutches of the tyrants? Do your human emotions permit you to remain sitting in silence and continue witnessing these heart-rending scenes? "وَمَا لَکُمْ لاَ تُقَاتِلُونَ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِینَ" (Explanatory Note: There is a clear distinction between mustaḍ'af and ḍa'īf. Ḍa'īf refers to one who is naturally weak and incomplete, whereas mustaḍ'af refers to one who has been rendered weak and powerless through the oppression and tyranny of others — whether this weakness is intellectual and cultural, moral, economic, or political and social in nature. Accordingly, this is a comprehensive expression employed for every form of colonially subjugated and oppressed person.) "مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ" To further stir the sentiments of the believers, it then declares: these oppressed individuals are those who have become entrapped in a suffocating environment and have been driven to despair on every side. Accordingly, they raise their hands in supplication and beseech God to deliver them from this environment of oppression and tyranny: "الَّذِینَ یَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هٰذِهِ الْقَرْیَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا" They also petition their Lord to send them a guardian and protector for their support: "وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْکَ وَلِیّاً" — and declare: send us a helper and supporter: "وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْکَ نَصِیراً". In reality, the above verse alludes to the fact that God has accepted their supplication and has placed upon you the responsibility of this great human prophetic message — and you have been designated from God's side as the "guardian and supporter" present for their aid and deliverance. It is therefore imperative that you not squander this opportunity and this lofty station from your hands.

Islamic jihad — as has been alluded to previously — is not for the seizure of wealth and property, position and rank, resources and the raw materials of other nations, nor is it for the search of markets or the imposition of belief and political ideology. Rather, it is solely for the propagation of the principles of virtue and faith, and for the defense of subjugated and oppressed men, women, and deprived and tyrannized children. Accordingly, jihad has two comprehensive goals and objectives to which the above-mentioned verse alludes: one a "Divine objective" and the other a "human objective." In reality, these two are not separable from one another, and their ultimate return points to one and the same reality.

In Islam's view, the only society and environment worth living in is one in which a person may freely act in accordance with his sound beliefs. As for an environment or society in which one's voice is stifled and a person is not even free to call himself a Muslim — such a place is not one in which life can be lived. In such an environment, the believers desire to leave — for in such surroundings only the oppressor holds sway. What is noteworthy is that Mecca was an exceptionally sacred city and the original homeland of the Muhājirūn — yet its turbulent and suffocating condition became the very cause for them to beseech God to grant them deliverance from it.

In the above-mentioned verse, those Muslims who were imprisoned in the clutches of the enemy first petitioned God to send them a guardian (walī) for their deliverance, and then expressed their desire for a helper and supporter to free them from the grip of the oppressors. For before everything else, the existence of a capable and compassionate "leader" and guardian is indispensable — and thereafter, friends, helpers, and a sufficient number of supporters are needed. Accordingly, however numerous such helpers and supporters may be, they are of no avail without a sound and capable leader.

The people of faith seek everything from God and stretch forth the hand of supplication before no one other than Him — to the extent that even when they petition for a guardian and helper, they seek it from Him alone.

In this verse, the warriors are then urged toward bravery and encouraged to engage the enemy in combat. Furthermore, to distinguish and define the ranks and objectives of the warriors, it declares: "The people of faith fight in the path of God — for that which is beneficial to God's servants — whereas the faithless fight in the path of ṭāghūt — that is, destructive and corrupting forces." "الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا یُقَاتِلُونَ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ وَالَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا یُقَاتِلُونَ فِی سَبِیلِ الطَّاغُوتِ" That is to say, in any case their days of life are not devoid of struggle and combat. At most, one group is engaged in the path of truth and the other in the path of falsehood and Satan. It then declares: fight the companions of Satan and do not fear them: "فَقَاتِلُوا أَوْلِیَاءَ الشَّیْطَانِ". Ṭāghūt — the corrupting and oppressive forces — however formidable and powerful they may appear outwardly, are inwardly feeble and powerless. Do not be intimidated by their outward equipment, preparations, and ostentation — for their inner substance is hollow and their plans and conspiracies are as deficient and weak as their strength and power. For they do not rely upon the power of the Eternal God; rather, they place their trust in Satanic forces: "إِنَّ کَیْدَ الشَّیْطَانِ کَانَ ضَعِیفاً". The proof of this weakness and feebleness is evident — for on one hand, the people of faith advance along the path of objectives and realities, harmonizing with and echoing the law of creation, imbued with eternal and everlasting color. They strive to liberate humanity and to eliminate the manifestations of oppression and tyranny. The supporters of ṭāghūt, on the other hand — the colonial and plundering forces — exert themselves in the path of transient desires whose effect is the destruction of society and contrary to the law of creation. On the other hand, the people of faith, relying upon spiritual forces, are confident that these are the guarantors of their success and shall grant them strength. Whereas the faithless have no firm and solid support to lean upon. It is noteworthy that in this verse, the complete connection between ṭāghūt and Satan is elaborated — how ṭāghūt, possessing Satanic qualities, obtains assistance from various forces — to the extent that God declares that the companions of ṭāghūt are none other than the friends of Satan. This same theme appears in verse 27 of Sūrah al-A'rāf: "إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا الشَّیَاطِینَ أَوْلِیَاءَ لِلَّذِینَ لاَ یُؤْمِنُونَ" "We have made the Satans the guardians of those who do not believe."

A group of exegetes — among them the great exegete al-Ṭūsī, the author of al-Tibyān, and the authors of Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī and al-Manār — transmit from Ibn 'Abbās that a group of Muslims who were residing in Mecca and upon whom oppression and cruelty was being inflicted by the polytheists came before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: "Before our acceptance of Islam we were honored and respected, but after accepting Islam our condition has changed and we have lost that dignity and honor. The enemy has subjected us to torment and affliction. If you permit us, we shall fight the enemies so that we may restore our standing and position." On that day the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: "I have not yet been commanded to wage war." However, when the Muslims had settled in Medina and the ground had been made level for confrontation and the command for jihad was revealed, some of those who had previously been insistent upon fighting now began to shy away from the battlefield of jihad and the fervor of that former day had cooled. It was on this occasion that the above-mentioned verse was revealed, setting forth the realities in order to awaken the spirit of courage among the Muslims and to censure those who were evading jihad.

The Qur'an here declares: the condition of this group is truly astonishing — those who at an inopportune moment were clamoring with great fervor and demanding that permission be given to them to engage in jihad. They were told at that time to attend to their own defense and construction, perform the prayer, increase their numbers, and continue paying the zakāt. But when the circumstances became favorable in every respect and the command for jihad was revealed, fear overcame them and they began raising objections against this commandment: "أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِینَ قِیلَ لَهُمْ کُفُّوا أَیْدِیَکُمْ وَأَقِیمُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَآتُوا الزَّکَاةَ فَلَمَّا کُتِبَ عَلَیْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِیقٌ مِنْهُمْ یَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ کَخَشْیَةِ اللهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْیَةً" They said explicitly in their objection: "O Lord, why have You so hastily revealed the command for jihad? How much better it would have been had You deferred this command, or had this message of prophethood been placed upon the shoulders of future generations." (Explanatory Note: From certain traditions it appears that they had heard some things concerning the advent of Imām Mahdī (peace be upon him), and some of them were therefore waiting for the matter of jihad to be made specific to the era of his advent. — Nūr al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 1, p. 518) "وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لِمَ کَتَبْتَ عَلَیْنَا الْقِتَالَ لَوْلاَ أَخَّرْتَنَا إِلَى أَجَلٍ قَرِیبٍ" The Qur'an gives two responses to such individuals. The first response has already been delivered within the very statement "یَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ کَخَشْیَةِ اللهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْیَةً" — that is, instead of fearing the Omnipotent God, they stand in dread of weak and powerless human beings, and indeed they fear those frail and feeble people even more than they fear God. The second response is to say to such individuals: suppose that by not engaging in jihad for a few days you were to obtain rest and comfort — even so, this life is transient and worthless. But the eternal and everlasting world holds far greater value for the God-fearing, particularly when they shall receive their complete recompense and reward, and not even the slightest injustice shall be done to them: "قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْیَا قَلِیلٌ وَالْآخِرَةُ خَیْرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقَى وَلاَ تُظْلَمُونَ فَتِیلاً" (Explanatory Note: Fatīl is a fine thread in the cleft at the center of a date stone, the details of which have already been presented in the third volume.)

The first question that arises is: why, among all the commandments of Islam, are only the prayer and zakāt specifically mentioned, given that Islamic commandments are not limited to these two? The answer is that the prayer is a symbol of connection with God, and zakāt is a symbol of establishing bonds with God's creation. The purpose is therefore to command the Muslims to prepare their bodies, souls, and communities for jihad by establishing a firm attachment to God and strong bonds with His servants — to cultivate themselves, in the technical sense of the term. It is indisputable that any form of jihad will end in defeat without the spiritual and physical preparedness of individuals and without firm and consolidated bonds. The Muslim, in the shelter of prayer and worship of God, consolidates his faith, nurtures his spiritual fervor, and prepares himself for every form of sacrifice and selflessness. Through zakāt, he bridges social distances and disparities, and through it provides economic support for the procurement of experienced soldiers and military equipment. When the command for jihad is issued, he stands fully prepared to confront the enemy.

We know that the law of zakāt was revealed in Medina and that zakāt was not obligatory upon the Muslims of Mecca. How then is it possible that the above-mentioned verse is describing the condition and circumstances of the Muslims of Mecca? The late Shaykh al-Ṭūsī has addressed this question in Tafsīr al-Tibyān, stating that by zakāt in the above-mentioned verse is intended the recommended (mustaḥabb) zakāt that was in effect in Mecca — meaning that the Qur'an was urging the Muslims, even in Mecca, toward providing financial assistance to those in need and supplying the necessities of the newly converted Muslims.

The above-mentioned verse also incidentally alludes to an important reality: that the Muslims had one course of action in Mecca and another in Medina. The thirteen-year period of residence in Mecca was devoted to the moral and spiritual formation of the Muslims. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny strove day and night without cease to deliver them from idolatry and the frivolous elements of the pre-Islamic era, and to cultivate them into human beings capable of confronting the great trials of life with steadfastness, resoluteness, and selfless sacrifice. Had this foundation not been laid during the Meccan period, the Muslims of Medina would never have achieved those astonishing and successive victories. The Meccan period was the era of education, cultivation, and the acquisition of experience for the Muslims. It is on this basis that out of the one hundred and fourteen Sūrahs of the Qur'an, approximately ninety were revealed in Mecca — the majority of which served as the source of belief, school of thought, and ideological foundations. The Medinan period, on the other hand, was the era of establishing governance and laying the foundations of a complete and comprehensive society. For this reason, neither jihad nor zakāt was obligatory in Mecca — for jihad is among the duties of the Islamic government, just as the formation of the public treasury (bayt al-māl) is also a governmental responsibility.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

Upon reflection on the preceding and subsequent verses, it becomes evident that these two verses also pertain to the hypocrites who lived within the ranks of the Muslims — as the verses indicate, they feared participating in the battlefield of jihad, and when the command for jihad was issued they were distressed. The Qur'an responds to their mode of thinking in two ways. The first response is the one that appeared at the conclusion of the preceding verse: "قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْیَا قَلِیلٌ وَالْآخِرَةُ خَیْرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقَى" "Say: the enjoyment of this worldly life is little, but the next world holds its recompense for the God-fearing." The second response — which is currently under discussion — is that fleeing from death is of no benefit to you. "For wherever you may be, death will overtake you — you are ultimately destined to become its prey, even if you conceal yourselves within fortified towers." Death — which must inevitably come and from which escape is impossible — why should it not be accepted in the cause of truth and righteousness, as in jihad, rather than accepting a useless and futile death? "أَیْنَمَا تَکُونُوا یُدْرِکُّمُ الْمَوْتُ وَلَوْ کُنْتُمْ فِی بُرُوجٍ مُشَیَّدَةٍ" It is noteworthy that in numerous Qur'anic verses — such as verse 99 of Sūrah al-Ḥijr and verse 47 of Sūrah al-Muddaththir — death is designated yaqīn (certainty), indicating that every people and group, whatever their belief, may deny everything else but cannot deny this reality: that life must one day come to an end. These verses warn those individuals who are passionately attached to life and who believe that death means eternal annihilation and who even fear its very mention. In the verse under discussion, through the meaning of yudriккum, attention is drawn to the fact that fleeing from this reality of existence is an inappropriate act — for the root meaning of yudriккum is that a person flees from something and it pursues him. This reality is stated even more explicitly in verse 8 of Sūrah al-Jumu'ah: "قُلْ إِنَّ الْمَوْتَ الَّذِی تَفِرُّونَ مِنْهُ مُلاَقِیکُمْ" "Say: the death from which you flee shall certainly come to meet you." When this reality is kept in view, is it wisdom for a person to remain at home in comfort rather than proceeding to the battlefield of jihad and attaining an honorable station? Suppose he avoids jihad and spends a few more days of life, repeating what he was doing before — and is thereby deprived of the reward and recompense of those who strive in the path of God — is this in accordance with reason and logic? Fundamentally, death is a great reality and one should be prepared to meet it with honor. A second point deserving attention is that the above verse declares that nothing — not even fortified towers (burūj mushayyadah): (Explanatory Note: mushayyadah is derived from the root shayd, rhyming with shīr, meaning lime and other solid materials used for the consolidation of a foundation. Since in that era the most solid material for foundations was lime and mortar, the term was predominantly used in this sense. Hence burūj mushayyadah means fortified strongholds; and where mushayyadah appears to carry the meaning of "lofty and elevated," the reason is that no tall building's foundations can be established without the use of lime) — can provide escape from death. The reason is clear: people suppose that death penetrates into human existence from outside. In practice, however, the source of death is within the human being — for the capacity of the various components and organs of the body is necessarily limited, and one day they cease to function. Unnatural death pursues a person from outside, but natural death comes from within. Fortified towers and massive strongholds cannot block its path. It is true that fortified strongholds sometimes provide protection from unnatural death — yet even then they cannot deliver a person entirely from death, and after a few days natural death comes to claim him.

In this verse, the Qur'an — alluding to certain other groundless statements and false notions of the hypocrites — declares: whenever they are blessed with success and good things and benefits come to them, they say "this is from God" — that is, we were so worthy that God bestowed upon us these kindnesses and blessings: "وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ یَقُولُوا هٰذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ" But when they face defeat or encounter some difficulty on the battlefield, they say it was due to the Prophet's erroneous strategy and the deficiency of his military planning — citing in this connection the defeat at the Battle of Uḥud: "وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَیِّئَةٌ یَقُولُوا هٰذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِکَ" Some exegetes suggest that the above verse concerns the Jews, and that by ḥasanah and sayyi'ah are meant all the good and bad events of life — for the Jews, at the time of the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny advent, would attribute the good events of their lives to God while ascribing the bad events to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, this verse is connected in context to the preceding and subsequent verses that address the hypocrites, and it most likely pertains to them. In any case, the Qur'an answers them by declaring that in the view of a genuine monotheist and far-sighted worshipper of God, all such events — victories and defeats alike — are from God and are accorded in accordance with people's capacity and eligibility: "قُلْ کُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ" At the conclusion of the verse, alluding by way of censure to various aspects of the life of these hypocrites, it declares that these people do not reflect and contemplate: "Why then are these people not prepared to comprehend the realities?" "فَمَالِ هٰؤُلاَءِ الْقَوْمِ لاَ یَکَادُونَ یَفْقَهُونَ حَدِیثاً" The subsequent verse then declares: all the good things, successes, and blessings that reach you are from God, and the evils and defeats that befall you are from yourselves: "مَا أَصَابَکَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللهِ وَمَا أَصَابَکَ مِنْ سَیِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِکَ" At the conclusion of the verse, those who attribute the defeats and failures to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — and who in common parlance considered the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to be their cause — are given a response. The address is directed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "And We have sent you as Our Messenger to the people, and God is sufficient as a witness thereof." Is it conceivable that one sent by God should be the cause of defeat, failure, and evil for the people? "وَأَرْسَلْنَاکَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً وَکَفَى بِاللهِ شَهِیداً"

A study of these two consecutive and interconnected verses gives rise in the mind to a question: why in the first verse are all good things and evil things (ḥasanāt and sayyi'āt) attributed to God, whereas in the second verse only the good things are attributed to God while the evil things and sayyi'āt are attributed to the people themselves? There must certainly be a subtle point concealed here — for how else is it possible that two verses appearing in immediate succession should contain such an apparent contradiction? Careful reflection upon both verses yields several points, each of which may independently serve as an answer to the question. 1. If the sayyi'āt and evil things are analyzed, they are found to possess two dimensions — a positive dimension and a negative dimension. It is precisely this negative dimension that gives them the form of evil and presents them in relative terms or comparatively as harmful. An example may be presented in this connection. A person who kills a Muslim by means of a firearm has unquestionably committed an evil act. If we now reflect upon the factors involved in this evil act, we find: the person's physical strength, his mental faculty, the power of the weapon, accurate aim, the exploitation of an opportune moment, and the effectiveness and power of the bullet — all of which are positive dimensions of the event, since they are all potentially useful and beneficial, and when properly employed can serve an important purpose in times of great difficulty. The only negative dimension of this event is that all these capacities and energies have been misused — for instance, instead of being employed to kill a dangerous predator or to eliminate an oppressive tyrant, they were directed against an innocent human being. It is only this dimension that is negative — that these capabilities were turned to evil purpose. The capacity for accurate aim is not in itself an evil thing, nor is the use of a firearm and gunpowder inherently bad; they are all means of employing capability and each carries great benefits in its proper place. Accordingly, we observe that in the first verse, all ḥasanāt and sayyi'āt are attributed to God — the reason being that all the means of power, including even those capacities from which improper benefit has been extracted, are from God and are the source of all constructive and positive action. And if in the second verse the sayyi'āt are attributed to the people, this is an allusion to precisely those negative dimensions of events and to those who have misused God's gifts and capacities. This is entirely analogous to the example of a father who gives his son capital to build a good home, but the son squanders it on narcotics, corruption, and destruction. There is no doubt that for the capital itself he is indebted to his father — but for the misuse of that capital he himself is responsible. 2. It is possible that the verse alludes to the principle of al-amr bayn al-amrayn (the matter lying between the two extremes) — to which reference has been made in the discussion of jabr (compulsion) and tafwīḍ (delegation). The summary of this principle is that all events in the world, including our own deeds — whether good or bad, righteous or otherwise — are in one sense related to God, for it is He Who has granted us power and endowed us with freedom of will and volition. Whatever we choose and select through the exercise of our free will is therefore not contrary to the Divine will. Yet at the same time, our deeds are attributed to us and their source is our own existence — for the determining factor and cause of the deed is our will and volition, and it is on this basis that we are accountable and answerable for our deeds. The attribution and ascription of our deeds to God — as has already been alluded to — does not remove our responsibility and accountability, nor does it necessitate the doctrine of compulsion (jabr). Accordingly, where God declares that ḥasanāt and sayyi'āt are from Him, He is alluding to the attribution of all things to His divine agency; and where He declares that the sayyi'āt are from us, He is alluding to our own agency and to our will and volition. In reality, the totality of these two verses establishes the principle of al-amr bayn al-amrayn. This point merits careful reflection. 3. Another interpretation that exists for these verses — and to which allusion is also made in the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) — is that by sayyi'āt are intended the punishments and retributions for deeds and the consequences and penalties of sins. There is no doubt that these punishments are from God — but since they are the result of the deeds and acts of the servants, they are sometimes attributed to the servants and sometimes to God, and both are correct. Just as it is equally correct to say either that the judge cuts off the hand of the thief, or that the thief himself cuts off his own hand.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

In this verse, the standing of the Messenger is set forth in relation to people and their ḥasanāt and sayyi'āt. God first declares that whoever obeys the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny has obeyed God: "مَنْ یُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللهَ" Accordingly, obedience to God and obedience to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny cannot be separated — for the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny takes no step contrary to the Divine will; his speech, conduct, and deeds are all in accordance with the command of God. He then declares: if certain people turn away and stand in opposition to your commandments, you are not accountable for their deeds, and it is not your responsibility to dispute with them or to forcibly prevent them from disobedience. Your duty is the conveyance of the prophetic message, the enjoining of good, the forbidding of evil, and the guidance of the misguided and uninformed: "وَمَنْ تَوَلَّى فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاکَ عَلَیْهِمْ حَفِیظاً" It should be noted that the word ḥafīẓ, in the sense of one who is perpetually charged with the surveillance of something, conveys that the responsibility of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is to provide guidance, extend the invitation to truth, and confront sedition and corruption — but if certain people persist in opposition, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is not accountable for their deviance such that he must be present everywhere and confront every sin and act of disobedience by force. Events such as those of the Battle of Uḥud may also be within the purview of the verse — that the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny duty was to devise a more thorough and carefully considered military strategy and to protect the Muslims from the harm of the enemy. And it is indisputable that in these commandments and regulations, obedience to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is obedience to God. But if certain people defied the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny commandments and were consequently defeated, accountability for that rests with them and not with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. It should be reflected upon that this verse is among the most explicit Qur'anic verses serving as a proof for the authority of the Prophetic Sunnah and the acceptance of his traditions. Accordingly, no one can say: "I accept the Qur'an but do not accept the Prophet's traditions and Sunnah" — for the above verse explicitly states that obedience to the Prophet's tradition and Sunnah is obedience to the command of God. When we observe that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — in accordance with the Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, recorded in well-known Islamic sources whether Shī'ah or Sunnī — has explicitly designated the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as an authoritative proof and reference, we understand that obedience to the commandments of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) is likewise inseparable from obedience to the command of God. No one can say: "I accept the Qur'an but do not accept the commandments of the Ahl al-Bayt" — for this is contrary to the above verse and similar verses. For this reason, in the numerous traditions recorded in Tafsīr al-Burhān in connection with this verse, we read that God, in accordance with the above verse, granted the right of commanding and forbidding (amr wa nahy) to His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in turn granted this right to 'Alī (peace be upon him) and the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). It is therefore the obligation of the people not to turn away from their commanding and forbidding — for their commandments and prohibitions are always from God and not from themselves. (Ref: Tafsīr al-Burhān, Vol. 1, p. 396) Alongside this, the subsequent verse, alluding to a group of hypocrites or individuals of weak faith, declares: "When these people stand before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in the ranks of the Muslims, they outwardly express compliance with the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny command — either to protect their interests or to shield themselves from harm — saying that they are wholeheartedly ready to follow the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny": "وَیَقُولُونَ طَاعَةٌ" But when people depart from the prophetic assembly, those hypocrites and people of weak faith set their pledges aside and in secret gatherings devise plans contrary to the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny directives: "فَإِذَا بَرَزُوا مِنْ عِنْدِکَ بَیَّتَ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْهُمْ غَیْرَ الَّذِی تَقُولُ" From this statement it becomes clear that the hypocrites were not sitting idle in the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny era — rather, they would hold secret nocturnal gatherings, consulting one another and sabotaging the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny course of action. However, God commands His Messenger to turn away from them, not to be troubled by their conspiracies, and not to rely upon them for his program — but to place his trust solely in God, Who is the most helpful and protective of all: "فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَتَوَکَّلْ عَلَى اللهِ وَکَفَى بِاللهِ وَکِیلاً"

Following the reproaches that were directed at the hypocrites in the preceding verses, this verse, alluding to them and to all others who harbor doubt and hesitation regarding the truth of the Qur'an, declares: do these people not reflect upon the distinctive nature and character of the Qur'an and observe its consequences? Had the Qur'an been revealed by anyone other than God, they would certainly have found within it many discrepancies and contradictions. Now that it contains no contradiction or inconsistency of any kind, it must be recognized that it has been revealed from God alone: "أَفَلاَ یَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ کَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَیْرِ اللهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِیهِ اخْتِلاَفاً کَثِیراً" The word tadabbur is originally derived from the root dubr (rhyming with abr), meaning "the back" and "the ultimate outcome and end of something." Accordingly, tadbīr refers to examining the results, consequences, and the antecedents and sequels of something. Its distinction from tafakkur is that tafakkur is connected with the study of the causes and characteristics of an existing thing, whereas tadabbur pertains to the study and assessment of its consequences and outcomes.

1. It is the responsibility of people to investigate and study the principles of religion and such matters as the truthfulness of the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny claim and the truth of the Qur'an, and to abstain from blind imitation and unconsidered judgments. 2. Contrary to what some people suppose, the Qur'an is comprehensible and intelligible to all people — for had it not been comprehensible and intelligible, the command to reflect and ponder upon it would not have been issued. 3. Another proof of the Qur'an's truth and of the fact that it was revealed from God is that throughout its entirety there exists no contradiction or inconsistency. For a proper appreciation of this reality, attention is drawn to the following elaboration: "Every person's states and views are perpetually changing — with certain exceptional circumstances aside, the law of development and evolution in general conditions prevails over the human being and his thoughts and views alike. As days, months, and years pass, people's language, thought, and speech continuously change. If examined carefully, the writings of any author are never uniform — even the beginning and end of a single book differ from one another. Particularly if a person has passed through great events — events that form the foundation of an intellectual, social, ideological, and doctrinal revolution — however much he strives to maintain a uniformity and consistency of discourse and to connect it to his previous statements, he cannot do so. This is especially the case if he was raised in an illiterate and backward environment." "Yet the Qur'an — which was revealed over a period of twenty-two years in accordance with the educational requirements and needs of the people, on entirely different occasions and in wholly varied circumstances — is a book that addresses completely diverse subjects. Unlike ordinary books, it does not treat only a single social, political, philosophical, human rights, or historical subject; rather, the Qur'an at times discusses Divine unity and the mysteries of creation, at times treats commandments, laws, and customs and traditions, and at times addresses past acts of worship and the relationship between servants and God. In the words of Dr. Gustave Le Bon, the Qur'an — the heavenly scripture of the Muslims — is not confined to religious teachings and commandments alone but also sets forth for the Muslims political, social, and societal ordinances. For a book possessing such characteristics, it is generally not possible to be free from contradiction, inconsistency, and contradictory statements. Yet when we observe that despite all these dimensions, all its verses are in complete harmony with one another and free from every form of contradiction, discrepancy, and incongruity, we can appreciate far more fully that this book cannot be the creation of human thought — but is from God. As the Qur'an itself states this reality in the above-mentioned verse."* (Ref: Kitāb Qur'ān wa Ākhirīn Payghambar, p. 309, by Nāṣir Makārim)

In this verse, alluding to yet another negative action of the hypocrites and people of weak faith, God Almighty declares: these are people who, when news of victory or defeat reaches them, spread it among the people without investigation — whereas most of these reports are groundless and fabricated by the enemies for particular purposes, and their dissemination is harmful to the Muslims: "وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِنَ الْأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُوا بِهِ" Whereas their responsibility is to first place such reports before their leaders and guides, to seek benefit from their extensive knowledge and profound insight, and to neither cause Muslims to fall into the arrogance of imagined victories arising from fictitious successes, nor to deflate their resolve with false tidings of defeat: "وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَى أُولِی الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِینَ یَسْتَنْبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ" The word yastanbiṭūnahu is originally derived from the root nabaṭ (rhyming with faqaṭ), referring to the first water extracted from a well and drawn from the depths of the earth. On this basis, deriving benefit from various proofs and evidences of any reality and extracting from existing documentation is called istinbāṭ — whether this is in jurisprudential matters or in philosophical, political, and scholarly issues. Those who possess the power of discernment and command sufficient mastery over various issues, and who are able to separate realities from groundless rumors and sound matters from erroneous ones, and convey them to the people — among such people the foremost rank belongs to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his successors the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), and the second rank belongs to scholars who possess authoritative views in these matters. As is transmitted from Imām al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) in Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn in connection with this verse, he declared: "هُمُ الْأَئِمَّةُ" "By this verse are intended the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt." Other traditions of similar content have also been transmitted. It is possible that an objection may be raised against such traditions — that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was present at the time of the revelation of the verse, whereas the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) had not yet been granted the office of the Imāmate. The answer to this objection is clear — for this verse is not restricted to the era of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny; rather, it is a comprehensive law for all eras and ages, addressing the dissemination of false reports among the Muslims by enemies and ignorant Muslims.

One of the major problems that afflict various societies — eliminating collective thought, mutual understanding, and cohesion — is the fabrication and dissemination of false reports. In this manner, a hypocrite sometimes fabricates a false piece of news, conveys it to a few individuals, who then begin spreading it without investigation, and some perhaps even add their own embellishments to it. The effect of this is that it wastes a considerable portion of people's intellectual energy, preoccupies them, and plunges them into anxiety and distress. Such reports frequently undermine the confidence of the people and render society sluggish and hesitant in the discharge of its important duties. Although in societies that are oppressed and whose voices have been stifled, the fabrication and dissemination of false reports constitutes a form of resistance or retaliation — in sound and healthy societies, the spread of false reports is exceedingly harmful. If such reports concern capable, well-intentioned, and beneficial individuals, they discourage and dampen their resolve in rendering services and performing meritorious deeds, and sometimes destroy their standing accumulated over many years, depriving people of the benefits of their existence. On this basis, Islam explicitly wages war against the fabrication of false reports and declares forgery, falsehood, slander, and their dissemination to be prohibited. The above-mentioned verse is one example of this. At the conclusion of the verse, allusion is then made to the reality that had God's grace and mercy not been your companion — and had you not been delivered through God's designated guides from such false reports and their evil consequences — a great many among you would have proceeded along the paths of Satan, and few would have remained who abstained from following Satan: "وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللهِ عَلَیْکُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لاَتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّیْطَانَ". That is, it is only the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the scholars possessed of vision and insight who can be safeguarded from the temptations of falsely publicized reports — but the majority of society, if deprived of sound leadership, cannot be protected from fabricated reports and their harmful effects. (Explanatory Note: From what has been stated, it becomes clear that "illā qalīlā" is an exception from the pronoun in "ittaba'ahum," and there is no inversion or transposition of any kind in the verse. This point merits careful reflection.)

In Tafsīr Majma' al-Bayān, al-Qurṭubī, and Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, the occasion of revelation of this verse is transmitted as follows: When Abū Sufyān and the army of Quraysh returned victorious from the battlefield of Uḥud, Abū Sufyān entered into an agreement with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that they would meet again in combat at the occasion of Badr al-Ṣughrā — that is, in the month of Dhū al-Qa'dah, at the market that was held on the land of Badr. When the appointed time arrived, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny invited the Muslims to proceed to the designated location. However, a group of Muslims — who had not yet forgotten the bitterness of the defeat at the Battle of Uḥud — strongly opposed going. It was on this occasion that the above-mentioned verse was revealed, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny renewed his invitation to the Muslims to set out. At this juncture, only seventy men accompanied the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and reached that place. However, Abū Sufyān — who was fearful of confronting the Muslims — did not come to engage in combat, and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny returned safe and sound to Medina with his Companions.

Following the verses concerning jihad, this verse contains a momentous command to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny — namely, that it is his responsibility to stand against the enemy alone, even if not a single person accompanies him on the battlefield. For he is answerable only for his own responsibility, and beyond encouraging others and extending the invitation to jihad, he bears no other obligation regarding them: "فَقَاتِلْ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ لاَ تُکَلَّفُ إِلاَّ نَفْسَکَ وَحَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ" In reality this verse embodies an important social commandment — particularly concerning leaders — which is that they must be so firm in resolve, steadfast, and unwavering in their work that even if not a single person responds to their call, they must not abandon the struggle for their sacred objective and destination. Despite inviting others to discharge their duties, they must not leave their course of action to the will of others. No leader who does not possess such resolute determination is worthy of leadership, nor does he possess the capacity to attain his objectives. The leaders and guides designated by God are especially possessed of lofty resolve, courage, and character — for they rely upon the being of God, Who is the source of all power and strength. Accordingly, after this command, God declares: it is hoped that God, through your striving and efforts, shall eliminate the power and might of the enemies — even if you alone stand against them. For His power transcends all powers and His punishment surpasses all chastisements: "عَسَى اللهُ أَنْ یَکُفَّ بَأْسَ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا وَاللهُ أَشَدُّ بَأْساً وَأَشَدُّ تَنْکِیلاً" (Explanatory Note: Bā's in the lexicon means strength, firmness, and courage. Tankīl is derived from the root nakūl — meaning "to halt out of fear" — and the origin nakl (rhyming with akl) is taken in the sense of a bridle for an animal. On this basis, tankīl, which is a verbal noun, conveys the meaning of performing an act for the purpose of causing the opposing party — upon witnessing it — to refrain from transgression and turn back. It is that punishment inflicted upon oppressors that serves as a lesson and deterrent for others.)

The word 'asā in Arabic lexicon also carries the sense of uncertainty in the meaning of "perhaps," while la'alla comes in the meaning of being hopeful, anticipating, and expecting something whose existence in the future is not certain but merely probable. The question now arises: the use of such words in human speech is natural and entirely fitting — for the human being is not aware of all matters, his capacity and power are limited, and he cannot subject the outcome of whatever he does to his own will. But for God, Who is fully aware of the past, present, and future and Who has the authority to do whatever He wills, the use of words implying "ignorance" or "powerlessness" is inconceivable. For this reason many scholars hold the belief that when such words appear in His speech, they are not employed in their original meaning but carry other significations — for instance, 'asā carries the meaning of promise and la'alla the meaning of seeking. However, the reality is that these words in the speech of God also carry their same original meanings, and their necessary implication is not ignorance or lack of authority. Rather, these words are employed on occasions where the attainment of an objective requires several prerequisites — so when one or several of these prerequisites have been realized, a categorical and definitive judgment cannot yet be made about the existence of that objective; rather, it must be expressed as a conditional and probabilistic judgment. For instance, the Qur'an declares: "وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّکُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ" "When the Qur'an is recited, listen to it attentively and remain silent — it is hoped that God's mercy shall be your companion." (al-A'rāf: 204) It is evident that God's mercy does not become one's companion merely through listening attentively to the Qur'anic verses — for this is but one prerequisite, and there are other necessary conditions as well, including the comprehension and understanding of those verses and thereafter the implementation of the commandments contained within them. Accordingly, in such circumstances, the presence of one prerequisite does not permit a categorical and definitive judgment about the attainment of the result — rather, it must be expressed as a conditional and probabilistic judgment. In other words, expressions of this type in the speech of God serve the purpose of awakening and drawing the listener's attention to the fact that beyond this particular action, certain other conditions and prerequisites are also necessary for the attainment of the objective. In this very example, for instance, in addition to listening attentively to the Qur'an, acting upon it is also necessary for attaining awareness of God's mercy. This discussion is fully applicable to the verse under examination as well — for the power of the disbelievers cannot be eliminated merely through extending the invitation to jihad and kindling the desire for it in the believers; the remaining program of jihad must also be implemented for the ultimate objective to be achieved. On this basis, it is not necessary that when such words appear in God's speech, their true and original meaning should be set aside. (Explanatory Note: Al-Rāghib in his book al-Mufradāt has also presented another possibility in the interpretation of such words — that by them it is intended to inspire hope in the addressee and listener, not to express the speaker's own hope. In clearer terms: when God says 'asā and la'alla, it does not mean "I am hopeful," but rather "let you be hopeful.")

As has been alluded to in the commentary on the preceding verse, the Qur'an declares that every person is in the first instance accountable for his own actions and not for those of others. However, so that this principle may not be misused, this verse declares: it is true that every person is accountable for his own actions — but one who encourages another toward a good deed shall receive a share of it, and one who incites another toward an evil deed shall also bear a share of it: "مَنْ یَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً حَسَنَةً یَکُنْ لَهُ نَصِیبٌ مِنْهَا وَمَنْ یَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً سَیِّئَةً یَکُنْ لَهُ کِفْلٌ مِنْهَا" Accordingly, the meaning of every person being accountable for his own deeds does not imply that he close his eyes to calling others to the truth and confronting corruption, and that by adopting isolation and individualism he distance himself from society — wounding the spirit of social solidarity in Islam. Shafā'ah is originally derived from the root shaf' (rhyming with naf'), meaning "even number" and "pair" — accordingly, the joining and integration of one thing with another is called shafā'ah. At times it is also used in the meaning of guidance, direction, and counsel — as in the above verse — in which case it carries the meaning of amr bi'l-ma'rūf wa nahy 'an al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). Shafā'ah sayyi'ah is its opposite — that is, enjoining evil and forbidding good. But when the occasion is for delivering sinners from their ultimate consequences, it carries the meaning of assisting sinful individuals who possess the capacity and eligibility for intercession. In other words, shafā'ah sometimes occurs before the performance of an act — in which case it is in the meaning of guidance — and sometimes it occurs after the performance of an act, in the meaning of delivering someone from its consequences. In both cases, one thing serves as an adjunct and supplement to the other. Incidentally, it should be noted that although the verse carries a comprehensive meaning encompassing every form of invitation — whether toward good or evil — since it appears in the context of the jihad verses, shafā'ah ḥasanah refers to the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny encouragement toward jihad, and shafā'ah sayyi'ah refers to the hypocrites' discouragement from it — and each shall bear the consequences of his own action. It is also noteworthy that the word shafā'ah at this juncture — where the discourse concerns guidance toward good or evil — possibly alludes to the point that the words of a leader (whether a leader directing toward good or one teaching evil) shall exert influence upon others only when he does not distinguish himself from them but rather places himself as their equal and companion. This is a method that proves highly effective in social and collective objectives. When the Qur'an in certain places — such as Sūrah al-Shu'arā', al-A'rāf, Hūd, al-Naml, and al-'Ankabūt — refers to the Prophets and Messengers sent for the guidance and leadership of communities as "akhūhum" or "akhāhum" (their brother), this too is an allusion to precisely this point. A second noteworthy point is that regarding shafā'ah ḥasanah — those who urge toward good deeds — the Qur'an states that the encourager shall receive a naṣīb (share), while in connection with shafā'ah sayyi'ah it declares that he shall receive a kifl. This difference in expression is because naṣīb means something beneficial and abundantly useful, while kifl signifies something base and evil. (Explanatory Note: Kifl, rhyming with ṭifl, originally refers to the rearmost and hindmost part of an animal's back upon which riding is painful and difficult — hence every form of sin and evil share is called kifl, and any burden-laden and toilsome task is called kafālah.) This verse clarifies one of the fundamental social principles of Islam — explicitly declaring that people are participants in the deeds of others through encouragement and guidance. Accordingly, whenever any word, deed, or even silence becomes a cause of encouraging a group toward a good or evil act, the one who encouraged will be responsible for a proportionate share of its results and consequences. Yet this does not diminish the share of the person who actually performs the act. In a tradition transmitted from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "مَنْ أَمَرَ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ نَهَى عَنْ مُنْکَرٍ أَوْ دَلَّ عَلَى خَیْرٍ أَوْ أَشَارَ بِهِ فَهُوَ شَرِیکٌ وَمَنْ أَمَرَ بِسُوءٍ أَوْ دَلَّ عَلَیْهِ أَوْ أَشَارَ بِهِ فَهُوَ شَرِیکٌ" "Whoever commands a good deed, forbids an evil deed, guides people toward a righteous act, or provides the means of encouragement toward it — he is a partner and sharer in that act. And similarly, whoever invites toward an evil deed, guides toward it, or encourages it — he too shall be a sharer in it." This tradition mentions three stages of inviting people toward good or evil: 1. The stage of direct command. 2. The stage of guidance and direction. 3. The stage of indication and suggestion. These three are sequentially strong, moderate, and weak stages — and accordingly every form of involvement that serves as a cause of encouraging someone toward a good or evil act makes the one who interfered a sharer in its results and consequences in proportion to his involvement. In accordance with this Islamic logic, not only those who commit sins are sinners — but also those who, through various means of propagation, create the circumstances for a deed; to the extent that even a single word of minor encouragement includes a person among those who sin. Similarly, those who do this on the path of charitable deeds and righteousness also receive their reward therefrom. Certain sound traditions transmitted in the commentary on this verse indicate that one of the meanings of shafā'ah ḥasanah and shafā'ah sayyi'ah is also supplicating for good or evil on behalf of another — which constitutes a form of intercession in the Divine Presence. It is transmitted from Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that he declared: "مَنْ دَعَا لِأَخِیهِ الْمُسْلِمِ بِظَهْرِ الْغَیْبِ اسْتُجِیبَ لَهُ وَقَالَ لَهُ الْمَلَکُ فَلَکَ مِثْلاَهُ فَذٰلِکَ النَّصِیبُ" "Whoever supplicates for his Muslim brother in his absence, his supplication shall be accepted, and God's angel shall say to him: 'double of that is for you as well' — and by naṣīb in the verse this is what is intended." (Ref: Tafsīr al-Ṣāfī, commentary on the aforementioned verse) This interpretation does not conflict with the preceding one — rather, it represents an expansion in the meaning of shafā'ah: that a Muslim who assists another in any form — whether through encouragement toward good, through supplication in the Divine Presence, or through any other means — shall be a sharer in its result. This highlights the spirit of social solidarity in Islamic programs and prohibits Muslims from living in a purely personal and exclusively individualistic manner. This establishes the reality that the human being cannot remain indifferent to others and to efforts for their betterment — and his personal interests are not endangered by this; rather, he becomes a sharer in the results thereof. At the conclusion of the verse, God Almighty declares: God is powerful and omnipotent, guards and accounts for your deeds, and shall render appropriate reward and punishment in consequence of good and evil deeds: "وَکَانَ اللهُ عَلَى کُلِّ شَیْءٍ مُقِیتاً". It should be noted that muqīt is originally derived from the root qūt, meaning the food that preserves human life. Accordingly, muqīt — which is the active participle of the if'āl form — means one who provides sustenance to others, and since such a person is the guardian of their life, the word muqīt is also used in the meaning of guardian and protector. Furthermore, one who provides sustenance certainly has power and authority over those he sustains — for this reason the word also carries the meaning of muqtadir (omnipotent). Such a person certainly maintains an accounting of those under his care — for this reason the word has also been used in the meaning of ḥasīb (the Reckoner). In the above verse, it is possible that all these meanings are intended by the word muqīt.

Although some exegetes hold the view that this verse is connected to the preceding verses in the sense that the preceding discussions pertained to jihad and this verse commands that if the enemy desires friendship and reconciliation you should respond appropriately — it is evident that this connection does not preclude the verse from also constituting a general and universal ruling concerning the expression of all forms of greeting and courtesy extended by various individuals. At the outset of the verse it declares: when someone extends a greeting to you, respond with something better, or at minimum with its equivalent: "وَإِذَا حُیِّیتُمْ بِتَحِیَّةٍ فَحَیُّوا بِأَحْسَنَ مِنْهَا أَوْ رُدُّوهَا" Taḥiyyah in the lexicon is derived from the root ḥayāh, meaning "to invoke life for another" — whether this invocation takes the form of "salāmun 'alayk" (may God preserve you in safety) or "ḥayyāk Allāh" (may God keep you alive) or words of similar import. In general usage, however, it encompasses every form of verbal expression of affection and love between people, the most evident manifestation of which is the offering of salutation. However, from certain traditions and commentaries it is evident that the practical expression of affection is also included within the meaning of taḥiyyah. In Tafsīr 'Alī ibn Ibrāhīm, it is transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir and Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon them): "الْمُرَادُ بِالتَّحِیَّةِ فِی الْآیَةِ السَّلاَمُ وَغَیْرُهُ مِنَ الْبِرِّ" "By taḥiyyah in the verse is intended salutation and every form of righteous and kind conduct." In a tradition from Kitāb al-Manāqib it is recorded that a handmaid presented Imām al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) with a branch of flowers. In response, the Imām set her free. When asked about the reason for this, he declared that God had instructed them in this excellence of conduct, saying: "وَإِذَا حُیِّیتُمْ بِتَحِیَّةٍ فَحَیُّوا بِأَحْسَنَ مِنْهَا" He then added: "The better taḥiyyah was precisely her liberation." From this it becomes clear that the verse constitutes a universal ruling concerning the response to every form of expression of affection and love — whether verbal or practical. At the conclusion of the verse, so that people may know that their greetings and responses — and their superiority or equivalence, in whatever measure and form — are not hidden and concealed from God, it declares: God is aware of the reckoning of all things: "إِنَّ اللهَ کَانَ عَلَى کُلِّ شَیْءٍ حَسِیباً"

As far as we know, the individuals of all nations and peoples of the world, when they meet one another, present some form of greeting as an expression of affection — which is sometimes verbal and sometimes practical in nature. Action is generally a symbol of greeting. In Islam too, salām is the most evident form of greeting, and in the above verse — as has already been alluded to — taḥiyyah, although carrying a broad meaning, nevertheless has its most evident expression in the offering of salutation. Accordingly, in accordance with this verse, it is obligatory upon all Muslims to respond to salutation in a superior manner or at minimum in an equivalent fashion. From the Qur'anic verses it is evident that salām is one form of taḥiyyah. In verse 61 of Sūrah al-Nūr it is stated: "فَإِذَا دَخَلْتُمْ بُیُوتاً فَسَلِّمُوا عَلَى أَنْفُسِکُمْ تَحِیَّةً مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ مُبَارَکَةً طَیِّبَةً" "When you enter houses, offer salutation to one another — a greeting from God that is blessed and wholesome." In this verse, salutation has been designated as the blessed and wholesome Divine greeting, and incidentally it may be inferred that salāmun 'alaykum originally means salāmu Allāhi 'alaykum — "may the peace of God be upon you" — or "may God preserve you in safety." For this reason, offering salutation is also a declaration of friendship, peace, and non-hostility. From certain Qur'anic verses it is also evident that the greeting of the people of Paradise is likewise salām: "أُولٰٓئِکَ یُجْزَوْنَ الْغُرْفَةَ بِمَا صَبَرُوا وَیُلَقَّوْنَ فِیهَا تَحِیَّةً وَسَلاَماً" (al-Furqān: 75) "The people of Paradise, on account of their steadfastness and patience, shall be blessed with the rewards and exalted stations of Paradise, and shall be greeted with taḥiyyah and salām." In verse 23 of Sūrah Ibrāhīm and verse 10 of Sūrah Yūnus, regarding the people of Paradise: "تَحِیَّتُهُمْ فِیهَا سَلاَمٌ" "Their greeting in Paradise is salām." From Qur'anic verses it is also evident that taḥiyyah in the sense of salutation — or something equivalent in meaning — was practiced among earlier communities as well. As appears in verse 25 of Sūrah al-Dhāriyāt, in the account of Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him), when the angels sent to punish the people of Lūṭ (peace be upon him) came to Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) in disguise, they greeted him with salām and he responded to their salutation: "إِذْ دَخَلُوا عَلَیْهِ فَقَالُوا سَلاَماً قَالَ سَلاَمٌ قَوْمٌ مُنْکَرُونَ" From the poetry of the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah) as well, it is evident that greeting through salām existed in that period too. (Explanatory Note: "wa law anna Laylā al-Akhyaliyyata sallamat / 'alayya wa dūnī jandal wa ṣafā'iḥ / la-sallamtu taslīma al-bishāshati aw zaqā / ilayyā ṣadā min jānibi al-zabar ṣāliḥ" — these verses are by the pre-Islamic poet Tawbah.) When we impartially compare this Islamic greeting with the greetings of various peoples, its value and worth becomes more evident to us. The Islamic greeting is at once an orientation toward God, a supplication for the safety of the one being addressed, and a declaration of peace and harmony. In Islamic traditions, very great emphasis has been placed upon salām — to the extent that it is transmitted from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "مَنْ بَدَأَ بِالْکَلاَمِ قَبْلَ السَّلاَمِ فَلاَ تُجِیبُوهُ" "Whoever begins speech before offering salutation — do not respond to him." (Ref: Uṣūl al-Kāfī, Vol. 2, Bāb al-Taslīm) It is also transmitted from Imām al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that God declares: "الْبَخِیلُ مَنْ بَخِلَ بِالسَّلاَمِ" "The miser is one who is miserly in offering salutation." (Ref: Uṣūl al-Kāfī, Vol. 2, Bāb al-Taslīm) In another tradition, it is transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon him): "إِنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ یُحِبُّ إِفْشَاءَ السَّلاَمِ" "God Almighty loves the spreading of salutation." (Ref: Uṣūl al-Kāfī, Vol. 2, Bāb al-Taslīm) By ifshā' al-salām is meant offering salutation to various individuals broadly. In traditions, many etiquettes of salutation have been set forth — among them that salām is not restricted only to those with whom one has a particular acquaintance. As one tradition records, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was asked: "What act is best?" He replied: "تُطْعِمُ الطَّعَامَ وَتُفْشِی السَّلاَمَ عَلَى مَنْ عَرَفْتَ وَمَنْ لَمْ تَعْرِفْ" "Feed food and offer salutation to those you know and those you do not know." (Ref: Tafsīr Fī Ẓilāl, commentary on the aforementioned verse) In traditions it is also recorded that the one riding should greet the one on foot, and the one on a more valuable mount should greet the one on a less valuable one — as though this commandment serves to counter the arrogance that arises from wealth, prosperity, and a particular material standing. In the present age, it is observed that people regard the etiquette of greeting as the responsibility of the lower class, and have given it the form of colonial subjugation, servitude, and idol-worship. If we study the conduct of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, we find that he would offer salutation to all people — even to children. This discussion does not, however, conflict with the ruling found in certain traditions that children younger in age should offer salutation to their elders — for that is a requirement of courtesy and has no connection with class distinctions and differences in material standing. In certain traditions, the command appears not to offer salutation to usurers, the openly sinful, the deviant, and the wayward. This too is a form of stance against corruption and evil. However, salutation is permitted when the purpose is to establish acquaintance or contact with such individuals in order to invite them to refrain from disobedience to God. By "taḥiyyah bi-aḥsan" is meant the addition of other phrases to the salutation — such as "wa raḥmatu Allāh" or "wa raḥmatu Allāhi wa barakātuh." In Tafsīr al-Durr al-Manthūr it is recorded: A person said to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: "al-Salāmu 'alayk." He replied: "wa 'alayk al-salāmu wa raḥmatu Allāh." A second person said: "al-Salāmu 'alayk wa raḥmatu Allāh." The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: "wa 'alayk al-salāmu wa raḥmatu Allāhi wa barakātuh." A third person said: "al-Salāmu 'alayk wa raḥmatu Allāhi wa barakātuh." The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: "wa 'alayk." When he asked why the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny had given him a brief reply, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: "The Qur'an declares to respond to the greeting in a better manner — but you left nothing remaining." In reality, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny responded to the first and second persons with a superior greeting, but in the case of the third person adopted an equivalent response — for the import of "wa 'alayk" is "may what you have said be for you as well." (Ref: al-Durr al-Manthūr, Vol. 2, p. 8)

The above-mentioned verse is both a completion of the preceding verses and an introduction to those that follow — for after the commandment of taḥiyyah in the preceding verse, it was declared that God maintains an accounting of your deeds. In this verse, the matter of the Day of Resurrection and the universal court of justice that shall be convened on that day is mentioned, and it is brought together with the issue of Divine unity and the oneness of God — which is another pillar of faith. It declares: there is no deity other than Him, and He shall most certainly gather you together on the Day of Resurrection — that Day of Resurrection in which there is no room for doubt or uncertainty: "اللهُ لاَ إِلٰهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ لَیَجْمَعَنَّکُمْ إِلَى یَوْمِ الْقِیَامَةِ لاَ رَیْبَ فِیهِ" The word yajma'anakum alludes to the fact that the Day of Gathering shall be a single day for all individuals. As is alluded to in verses 93 through 95 at the conclusion of Sūrah Maryam — that all the servants of God, whether they be the inhabitants of the earth or the dwellers of other cosmic spheres, shall all be resurrected on one and the same day. "لاَ رَیْبَ فِیهِ" — "there is no doubt in it" — this expression in this verse and in other Qur'anic verses concerning the coming of the Day of Resurrection alludes to the conclusive and indisputable proofs that bear tidings of that day — such as the law of evolution and development, the wisdom and philosophy of creation, and the law of Divine justice. A detailed discussion of these has been presented in the chapter on ma'ād (resurrection). At the conclusion, for further emphasis upon this meaning, it declares: who is more truthful in speech than God? "وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللهِ حَدِیثاً" Accordingly, whatever promise He makes — whether concerning the Day of Resurrection or anything else — no doubt should be entertained regarding it. For the source of falsehood is either ignorance or weakness and neediness — but that God Who is the most knowledgeable of all and the most self-sufficient of all is the most truthful of all, and fundamentally falsehood holds no conceivable meaning for Him.

Some exegetes have transmitted from Ibn 'Abbās that certain people of Mecca were outwardly Muslim but in reality possessed the qualities of hypocrites — for this reason they were unwilling to migrate to Medina and were in practice well-wishers and supporters of the idolaters. Eventually, however, they were compelled to leave Mecca — perhaps migrating for the purpose of espionage, taking advantage of their particular status in order to be closer to Medina — and they were pleased that the Muslims regarded them as belonging to their ranks. They therefore supposed that entering Medina would naturally create no difficulty for them. The Muslims became aware of this situation, but very soon a difference of opinion arose among them concerning how to deal with these hypocrites. One group held the view that they should be rejected and repelled — for in reality they were supporters of the enemies of Islam. However, certain Muslims were outwardly focused and simple-minded, and opposed this position, saying: "How can we confront people who bear witness to Divine unity and prophethood, and declare their blood lawful and permissible merely for the offense of not having migrated?" It was on this occasion that the above-mentioned verse was revealed — admonishing the second group regarding this misunderstanding and thereafter providing them with guidance. (Explanatory Note: Other occasions of revelation have also been recorded for this verse and the subsequent verses — among them, some have connected it to the events of the Battle of Uḥud. However, the subsequent verses — which allude to migration — are not related to that but rather accord with the occasion of revelation mentioned above.)

With attention to the above-mentioned occasion of revelation, the connection of this verse and the subsequent verse with the preceding verses concerning the hypocrites becomes fully clear. At the outset of the verse, God Almighty declares: why have you become divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites, each making a separate judgment? "فَمَا لَکُمْ فِی الْمُنَافِقِینَ فِئَتَیْنِ" (Explanatory Note: In the above statement, the word iftaraqtum is in reality implicit and becomes clear upon attention to the remainder of the sentence — the original construction being: famā lakum iftaraqtum fī al-munāfiqīna fi'atayn.) That is to say, regarding these individuals who have made their hypocrisy manifest — on account of their failure to migrate, their complicity with the polytheists, and their refusal to join the ranks of the Muslim warriors — no one should harbor doubt or uncertainty concerning their deeds and ultimate fate. It is indisputable that these are first-rank hypocrites. Why then are some people deceived by their verbal proclamation of Divine unity and their claim of faith, and intercede and advocate on their behalf — whereas the preceding verses have stated "man yashfa' shafā'atan sayyi'atan yakun lahu kiflun minhā" — thereby making themselves sharers in their evil outcome? It is then declared: from this group of hypocrites, God has withdrawn His support and guidance on account of their evil and shameful deeds, completely nullified their schemes, and their condition is like that of a person standing on his head rather than on his feet: "وَاللهُ أَرْکَسَهُمْ بِمَا کَسَبُوا" (Explanatory Note: Arkasahum is derived from the root raks (rhyming with makth*), meaning "to overturn something." Some also give it the meaning of "to turn back and return.")* Incidentally, from "bimā kasabū" it is evident that straying from the path of guidance, felicity, and salvation is the result of the human being's own deeds. If this act is attributed to God, it is because God is All-Wise and punishes every person in accordance with his deeds — and shall also reward him in proportion to his capacity and eligibility. At the conclusion of the verse, addressing the simple-minded individuals who support this group of hypocrites, it declares: do you wish to guide those whom God has deprived of guidance on account of their evil deeds — whereas these people are not worthy of guidance? "أَتُرِیدُونَ أَنْ تَهْدُوا مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللهُ وَمَنْ یُضْلِلِ اللهُ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِیلاً" For it is the immutable Divine law that the effects of a person's deeds are not forcibly removed from him — so why do you entertain the expectation that those whose intentions are not sound, whose hearts are filled with hypocrisy, and who in practice support the enemies of God shall attain guidance? This is an unwarranted and illogical expectation. (Explanatory Note: A detailed discussion of guidance and misguidance has appeared in the first volume of this commentary.)

The preceding verse concerned those hypocrites in whose support certain simple-minded Muslims had stood up and were interceding on their behalf — whereas the Qur'an had declared them to be strangers to Islam. Now this verse declares: within them is such profound ignorance and darkness that not only are they themselves disbelievers but they desire that you too become disbelievers like them so that you may become equal to one another: "وَدُّوا لَوْ تَکْفُرُونَ کَمَا کَفَرُوا فَتَکُونُونَ سَوَاءً" For this reason they are even worse than ordinary disbelievers — for ordinary disbelievers seek to invalidate the beliefs of others because that is their nature. Muslims should therefore not take any of them as friends and allies: "فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِیَاءَ" — unless they desist from their deeds and abandon hypocrisy and subversion, the proof and sign of which is that they migrate from the center of disbelief and hypocrisy to the center of Islam — from Mecca to Medina: "حَتَّى یُهَاجِرُوا فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ" But if they are not prepared to migrate, then understand that they have not abandoned disbelief and hypocrisy — and their calling themselves Muslim is solely for the purpose of espionage and subversion. In that case, wherever you find them, seize them, or if necessary, kill them: "فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَیْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ" At the conclusion of the verse, the emphasis is once again placed: never take any of them as a friend or helper: "وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِیّاً وَلاَ نَصِیراً" The reason for the severe commandments that appear in the above verse concerning this group of hypocrites is that for the formation of a living society proceeding along the path of reform, there is no other way to be delivered from such a dangerous enemy disguised as a friend. What is noteworthy is that Islam permits peaceful coexistence with non-Muslim individuals — such as Jews and Christians — subject to certain conditions and is prepared not to engage them in any way. Yet it deals with this particular group of hypocrites with such severity — although they appear outwardly to be Muslim — and commands their capture and even their killing when necessary. The reason for this is none other than the fact that such individuals, under the guise of Islam, can inflict upon Islam such harm as no enemy could.

It may be said that the Prophet's PBUH & His Pure Progeny practice regarding the hypocrites was that he would never issue a command for their killing — lest the enemy accuse him of involvement in the killing of his own Companions, or lest some people misuse this and, labeling their personal enemies as hypocrites, become embroiled with them and kill them. It should be noted that this practice of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny pertained specifically to the hypocrites of Medina and those like them who were outwardly Muslim. However, those who — like the hypocrites of Mecca — were clearly and openly in league with the enemies of Islam were not included within this ruling.

From the various traditions transmitted concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse — which exegetes have recorded in all manner of commentaries — it appears that among the Arab tribes there were two tribes known as Banū Ḥamzah and Ashja'. The first of these had entered into a covenant with the Muslims not to wage war against them, and the tribe of Ashja' had likewise concluded a similar agreement with Banū Ḥamzah. Certain Muslims were apprehensive about the power of Banū Ḥamzah and feared they might break their covenant — they therefore proposed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that before they launched an attack, the Muslims should strike first. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared: "کَلاَّ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَبَرُّ الْعَرَبِ بِالْوَالِدَیْنِ وَأَوْصَلُهُمْ لِلرَّحِمِ وَأَوْفَاهُمْ بِالْعَهْدِ" "Never do such a thing — for they are among all the Arab tribes the most dutiful toward their parents, the most kind and compassionate toward their relatives, and the most faithful in fulfilling their pledges." Some time later, the Muslims received intelligence that seven hundred individuals from the Ashja' tribe, under the leadership of Mas'ūd ibn Wajīlah, had reached the vicinity of Medina. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny sent his representatives to inquire about the purpose of their coming. They replied that they had come to enter into a covenant of non-belligerence with Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. When the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny received this information, he commanded that a large quantity of dates be taken as a gift to them. Thereafter, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny met with them, and they said: "On one hand, we do not have the strength to confront your enemies — for we are few in number — and on the other hand, we neither have the power to oppose you nor do we wish to fight you. Since our dwelling place is not near yours, we have therefore come to conclude a covenant of non-belligerence with you." It was on this occasion that the above-mentioned verses were revealed, issuing the necessary commandments to the Muslims in this connection. From certain traditions it is also evident that a portion of this verse was revealed concerning the tribe of Banū Mudlij — whose people came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and declared that they would neither align themselves with him nor take any step in opposition to him. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny concluded an agreement of non-belligerence with them.Sonnet 4.6Adaptive

Following the severe commandment concerning those hypocrites who are in league with the enemies of Islam, the present verse declares that two groups are excepted from this ruling: 1. Those who are connected with a people with whom you have a covenant and who have entered into an agreement with them: "إِلاَّ الَّذِینَ یَصِلُونَ إِلَى قَوْمٍ بَیْنَکُمْ وَبَیْنَهُمْ مِیثَاقٌ". 2. Those who, on account of their particular circumstances, find themselves in a situation where they neither have the strength to fight against you, nor can they take your side, nor do they have the resolve to clash with their own tribe: "أَوْ جَاءُوکُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَنْ یُقَاتِلُوکُمْ أَوْ یُقَاتِلُوا قَوْمَهُمْ". It is evident that the first group must be excepted from this ruling out of respect for the covenant, and the second group — though not in a position to act — should, after seeking the truth, establish its connection. However, since it declares its neutrality, objecting to it is contrary to the principles of justice and magnanimity. Thereafter, so that Muslims may not become arrogant on account of their glorious successes and attribute them entirely to their military power and skill, it stirs their human sentiments in relation to this neutral group, declaring: if God willed, He could make these very weak people dominant over you so that they would engage you in combat: "وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَیْکُمْ فَلَقَاتَلُوکُمْ". Therefore, do not forget your God in the midst of your successes and never rely upon your own strength in any dimension. And do not regard sparing the weak as being to your detriment. At the conclusion of the verse, the emphasis is repeated in a more explicit manner for the last group: if they do not fight you and offer peace and reconciliation, God does not permit you to fight them. It is your duty to firmly grasp the hand that is extended toward you in peace: "فَإِنِ اعْتَزَلُوکُمْ فَلَمْ یُقَاتِلُوکُمْ وَأَلْقَوْا إِلَیْکُمُ السَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ اللهُ لَکُمْ عَلَیْهِمْ سَبِیلاً" A noteworthy point is that the Qur'an in this verse and in several other verses designates the offering of peace as "ilqā' al-salam" — "casting peace" — possibly alluding to the fact that the two parties to a conflict, prior to peace, are generally drawing away from one another — to the extent that they examine even the offer of peace with great caution — as though, while remaining at a distance from one another, they cast this offer toward each other.

Various occasions of revelation have been transmitted for the above-mentioned verse. The most well-known among them is that certain people of Mecca came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and, through deception and cunning, presented themselves as Muslims. However, whenever they went before Quraysh and their idols, they would commence the worship and veneration of their idols. In this manner, they wished to remain safe from both Islam and Quraysh simultaneously — to benefit from both sides and suffer no harm from either. In the common expression, they sought to maintain dual relations with both groups. It was on this occasion that the present verse was revealed, commanding severe action against this group.

Here another group is introduced that stands in complete opposition to the group concerning which the commandment of peace was issued in the preceding verses. These are people who, for the protection of their interests, wish to operate freely between the Muslims and the polytheists. To achieve this objective, they have adopted the path of deception and treachery — outwardly expressing solidarity and agreement with both groups: "سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِینَ یُرِیدُونَ أَنْ یَأْمَنُوکُمْ وَیَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ" For this reason, whenever the opportunity for sedition and idol-worship presents itself, all their programs are turned upside down and they plunge headlong into idol-worship: "کُلَّمَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْکِسُوا فِیهَا" These are the complete opposite of the first group — for the first group strove not to be in conflict with the Muslims, whereas this group strove to remain embroiled with the Muslims. The first group offered peace, while this group was at war with the Muslims. The first group caused no harm to the Muslims, but this group did not refrain from oppression and injustice. These three distinctions — to which "فَإِنْ لَمْ یَعْتَزِلُوکُمْ وَیُلْقُوا إِلَیْکُمُ السَّلَمَ وَیَکُفُّوا أَیْدِیَهُمْ" alludes — are the reason that the ruling concerning them is completely different from that of the previous group. The Muslims are commanded to take them captive wherever they find them and to kill them if they offer resistance: "فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَیْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ" Since a full and conclusive argument has been established against them, the verse at its conclusion also declares: these are people over whom We have clearly established your dominance and authority: "وَأُولٰٓئِکُمْ جَعَلْنَا لَکُمْ عَلَیْهِمْ سُلْطَاناً مُبِیناً" The dominance alluded to in the verse under discussion may be logical in nature — for the logic of the Muslims prevailed over the logic of the polytheists — or it may be outward and external, since by the time these verses were revealed the Muslims had become considerably powerful. The expression "thaqiftumūhum" in the above verse possibly alludes to a subtle point — for this word is derived from the root thaqāfah, meaning "to lay hands on something with difficulty and skill," whereas "wajadtumūhum" from the root wujdān carries simply the meaning of "finding" or "coming upon." The import of the two is different. It is as though this group of hypocrites — being double-faced and maintaining relations with both sides — constitutes the most dangerous group of hypocrites, one that cannot be easily identified or caught in any trap. The verse therefore declares: lay hands on them with skill and difficulty — and then convey to them the command of God. This alludes to the fact that apprehending them is an arduous and difficult task.

A Meccan idolater by the name of Ḥārith ibn Yazīd had, with the assistance of Abū Jahl, kept a Muslim by the name of 'Ayyāsh ibn Abī Rabī'ah in the grip of oppression and torment for an extended period — as punishment for his inclination toward Islam. After the migration of the Muslims to Medina, 'Ayyāsh also migrated to Medina and joined the ranks of the Muslims. By chance, one day in a neighborhood near Medina he encountered Ḥārith ibn Yazīd — the very man who had tormented him. 'Ayyāsh, seizing what he considered an opportune moment, killed Ḥārith. He believed he had killed an enemy — it had not even occurred to him that Ḥārith had repented and become a Muslim, and was on his way to present himself before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. When this event was reported to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, this verse was revealed and the ruling was set forth concerning this killing — which had occurred in error and by mistake.

Since, in the preceding verses, Muslims were in effect granted permission to suppress their dangerous internal enemies (the hypocrites), there arose the risk that some individuals might misuse this ruling—labeling personal enemies as hypocrites and killing them, or carelessly shedding the blood of an innocent person. Therefore, in this verse and the one that follows, the rulings concerning unintentional killing and intentional killing are set out, so that all essential aspects of homicide—which Islam regards as an extremely grave matter—are taken into due consideration. At the beginning of this verse, which addresses unintentional killing, it is stated that it is not lawful for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake: وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَأً. This expression indicates that, as a matter of principle, no true believer would ever intend to stain his hands with the blood of an innocent person, for within the sphere of faith all believers are like the limbs of a single body. Is it conceivable for one limb of the human body to sever or injure another without error? For this reason, those who engage in such acts do not possess true faith and are in fact deprived of it. The phrase إِلَّا خَطَأً (“except by mistake”) does not mean that one is permitted to commit an act as grave as killing on the basis of doubt, since doubt implies lack of clarity and awareness, and in a state of doubt a person does not recognize an error as such. Rather, the meaning is that believers, apart from cases of genuine mistake, are incapable of committing such a major sin. Thereafter, the penalty and expiation for unintentional killing are set out in three stages. The first case is that of an innocent person killed mistakenly who belongs to a Muslim family. In this situation, two obligations are imposed upon the killer: one is to free a believing slave, and the other is to pay blood money to the heirs of the slain person: وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَأً فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ—unless the heirs voluntarily remit the blood money: إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا. The second case is when the slain person belongs to a group that is hostile toward the Muslims. In this instance, the expiation for unintentional killing consists solely of freeing a believing slave, and payment of blood money is not required, since strengthening an enemy group financially would be contrary to Islamic principles. Moreover, Islam prohibits maintaining close ties with a group that is wholly hostile to the faith, so this situation is not considered one warranting financial compensation: فَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ. The third case is when the slain person belongs to a non‑Muslim group that has a treaty with the Muslims. In observance of the treaty, the ruling here is that, in addition to freeing a believing slave, blood money must be paid to the heirs of the slain person: وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ. Exegetes have differed as to whether, in this third case, the slain individual—like in the first two cases—is necessarily a believing Muslim, or whether the ruling also applies to a non‑Muslim or a protected person (dhimmī). However, according to the apparent meaning of the verse and the traditions related to its interpretation, the reference here is also to a believing victim. This raises the question of whether the blood money of a Muslim may be paid to non‑Muslim heirs, given that a non‑Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim. The verse appears to indicate that the blood money is to be given to the heirs, even if they are non‑Muslims, on the basis of the treaty between them and the Muslims. Nevertheless, since a non‑Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim, some exegetes have argued that the intent is that the blood money be given only to Muslim relatives of the slain person, not to non‑Muslim heirs. Certain traditions also point in this direction. Yet the phrase مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ (“a people with whom you have a treaty”) suggests that the slain person’s heirs are not Muslims, since Muslims do not form treaties with one another (reflect carefully). At the end of the verse, regarding those who lack the means to free a slave—either because they are financially incapable or because no slaves are available, as in the present age—it states that such individuals must fast for two consecutive months: فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ. Finally, it declares that this ruling, whether the freeing of a slave or fasting for two months, constitutes a form of repentance accepted by God, for God is All‑Knowing and All‑Wise, and all His laws are grounded in wisdom: تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا.

In order to make amends for unintentional killing, three matters are mentioned here, each of which serves, in its own way, to compensate for the loss and damage caused by such an act. The first is freeing a slave, which in reality constitutes compensation for a social loss—namely, the loss of a believing member of the community. The second is payment of blood money (diyah), which in effect compensates for the economic loss suffered by the family as a result of the killing of one of its members. As has already been stated, diyah can never represent the true value of a human life, for the blood of an innocent person is far more precious than any financial measure; rather, it serves only as a form of economic compensation for the loss sustained by the family. The third is fasting continuously for two months, which serves as compensation for the moral and spiritual loss that the person who caused the death by mistake must bear. It should be noted, however, that fasting for two consecutive months is required only of those who are unable to free a believing slave; in such cases, fasting becomes obligatory. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that freeing a slave is itself counted as an act of worship, and thus it necessarily exerts a spiritual and moral effect upon the soul of the person who performs it.

Where the heirs of the slain person are Muslims, the phrase إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا (“unless they voluntarily forgo the blood money”) is mentioned; however, where the heirs are not Muslims, this provision is not stated. The reason for this distinction is clear: in the former case, there is a valid basis for such remission, whereas in the latter case no such basis exists. Moreover, as far as possible, Muslims should not place themselves under the obligation or favor of non‑Muslims in such matters.

It is noteworthy that in the first case—where the heirs of the slain person are Muslims—the sequence mentions first “freeing a slave” and then “payment of blood money,” whereas in the third case—where the heirs are not Muslims—the blood money is mentioned first. This difference in expression may indicate that, in dealings among Muslims, a delay in the payment of blood money generally does not produce severe negative consequences, while in the case of non‑Muslims, blood money should be paid before all else so that the flames of dispute and conflict may be extinguished and adversaries may not interpret the matter as a violation of the treaty.

This verse does not specify the amount of the blood money (diyah); rather, its details are determined according to the Prophetic Sunnah. According to that, the complete diyah consists of one thousand gold mithqāls, or one hundred camels, or two hundred cattle, or—if the heirs agree—the monetary value of these animals. (The determination of gold or specific livestock as the basis of diyah follows Islamic principles, since Islam establishes its standards and measures in natural, intrinsic realities, not on artificial, manufactured, or temporary systems that change with the passage of time.)

It is possible that some may object that there ought to be no punishment for a mistake, and therefore question why Islam accords such seriousness to this matter when the person who committed the error has not intentionally committed a sin. The answer is clear: the issue of shedding blood is not a trivial matter. For this reason, through such a strict ruling Islam seeks to ensure that people exercise the utmost caution, so that no killing occurs at their hands—even by error or mistake—because many mistakes are also blameworthy. Moreover, this ruling makes it clear that one cannot absolve oneself of responsibility merely by claiming unintentional killing. The final phrase of the verse, تَوْبَةً مِّنَ اللَّهِ, may itself be pointing to the fact that mistakes generally arise from insufficient care and reflection. Therefore, in matters of great gravity (such as the taking of a human life), expiation must be such that repentance to God becomes incumbent upon those who commit them.

Muqays ibn Ṣubāḥ al‑Kinānī was a Muslim. He saw the body of his slain brother in the quarter of Banū Najjār. He came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and informed him of the incident. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny sent him together with Qays ibn Hilāl al‑Muzanī to the leaders of Banū Najjār and instructed them that if they recognized the killer of Hishām, they should hand him over to Hishām’s brother Muqays, and if they did not recognize the killer, they should pay the blood money (diyah). Since they did not recognize Hishām’s killer, they paid the blood money, which Muqays accepted, and he set out for Medina in the company of Qays ibn Hilāl. During the journey, remnants of pre‑Islamic attitudes from the age of ignorance stirred Muqays’s emotions. He began saying to himself that accepting the blood money was a sign of defeat and disgrace. Consequently, he killed his traveling companion—who belonged to Banū Najjār—in retaliation for his brother’s blood, and then fled toward Mecca, renouncing Islam as well. In response to this treachery, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny declared his blood lawful, and the above verse was revealed on this occasion, setting forth the punishment for intentional killing.

After setting out the punishment for unintentional killing, this verse specifies the punishment for a person who deliberately kills a believer. Since the taking of human life is an extremely grave crime and a major sin, and if it is not decisively restrained and confronted, public safety—which is among the most essential foundations of a sound society—would be completely destroyed, the Qur’an assigns it exceptional importance. In various verses it treats this matter with the utmost seriousness, to the extent that the killing of a single human being is equated with the killing of all humankind: مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا Whoever kills a soul—unless in retribution for another soul or for corruption upon the earth—it is as though he has killed all people. For this reason, in the verse under discussion, four punishments are mentioned—along with severe punishment in the Hereafter—for those who intentionally kill a believer, in addition to qiṣāṣ, which is the worldly penalty. 1. Eternal residence in Hell: وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا 2. Divine wrath: وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ 3. Deprivation of divine mercy: وَلَعَنَهُ 4. Being subjected to a tremendous punishment: وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا Thus, for intentional killing, the Qur’an mentions a degree of severity and harshness of punishment that is unparalleled in its treatment of other acts. In addition to this, the worldly punishment for intentional killing is qiṣāṣ, the details of which have already been explained earlier in connection with Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 179.

Here a question arises: “Eternal punishment (خلود) is meant for those who depart from the world without faith, whereas those who commit intentional killing may still be believers, and it is even possible that they regret their grave act, perform sincere repentance, and compensate for their past sin as far as possible.” The answers are as follows: 1. The first response is that killing a believer here means killing someone because of his faith or deeming such killing lawful. It should be understood that killing of this kind is proof of disbelief on the part of the killer, and its consequence is eternal punishment. A tradition conveying this meaning is reported from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq عليه السلام, wherein he said that killing a believer on account of his faith is the deliberate killing referred to by God in the verse وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا. 2. It is also possible that by killing innocent believers, a person may end up losing faith altogether, depart from this world without repentance, and thereby become deserving of eternal punishment. 3. A further possibility is that خلود in this verse denotes an extremely prolonged punishment rather than absolute eternity. Another question may arise: Is intentional killing, in principle, subject to repentance? Some exegetes have answered in the negative, maintaining—based on this verse and certain narrations—that intentional killing has no repentance (لا توبة له). However, the spirit of Islamic teachings, the traditions of the great guides of truth, and the very philosophy of repentance—which aims at moral reform and safeguarding future conduct—make it clear that no sin is beyond repentance, even though repentance from some sins entails extremely stringent conditions. The Qur’an states: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ (نساء: 48). God does not forgive associating partners with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. As previously explained, this verse concerns forgiveness without repentance, for even the sin of shirk becomes forgivable through repentance and returning to monotheism and Islam, as was the case for many early Muslims who had previously been polytheists. Likewise, سورة الزمر، الآيتان 53–54 declare: إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا... وَأَنِيبُوا إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ وَأَسْلِمُوا لَهُ. God forgives all sins; return to your Lord and submit to Him. Thus, claims that verses promising forgiveness are restricted by this verse are unfounded, because the language of those verses—addressed to sinners with multiple emphatic assurances—is not subject to restriction. Moreover, if a person who commits intentional killing were to despair completely of God’s forgiveness, even after sincere repentance and extensive righteous deeds, he would have no incentive to worship God, abandon sin, or refrain from further crimes—an outlook entirely contrary to the ethos of prophetic guidance, which aims at moral reform at every stage. History also shows that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny forgave even individuals who committed extremely grave crimes, such as the killer of Ḥamzah ibn ʿAbd al‑Muṭṭalib, and accepted their repentance. It is therefore untenable to claim that a sin more severe than shirk could exist, for even shirk becomes forgivable through repentance. None of the above implies that intentional killing is a trivial matter or that repentance from it is easy. On the contrary, sincere repentance from this sin is extraordinarily difficult and demands substantial restitution—something far from easy. Numerous traditions emphasize the gravity of killing an innocent believer; for example, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ—the collapse of the world is lighter in God’s sight than the killing of a Muslim. He also said: لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا قُتِلَ بِالْمَشْرِقِ وَآخَرَ رَضِيَ بِالْمَغْرِبِ لَشَرِكَ فِي دَمِهِ—if a man is killed in the East and another approves of it in the West, he shares in his blood.

In the books of jurisprudence, jurists—drawing upon Islamic traditions in the chapters concerning qiṣāṣ and diyah—have divided homicide into three categories: “قتل عمد”, “قتل شبیہ عمد”, and “قتل اشتباہ.”

This is the form of killing in which there is prior deliberate intent and the means of killing are knowingly employed—for example, when a person, with the intention of killing someone, uses a weapon, a stick, a stone, or even his hands to carry it out.

This is the form of killing in which there is no intention to kill, but the person engages in an act against the victim such that, unintentionally and without awareness, it ultimately results in death. For example, a person may beat someone without the intention of killing, yet that beating accidentally becomes the cause of the person’s death.

This is the form of killing in which there is no intention to kill, nor even an intention to undertake any act against the victim. Rather, it is a case such as when the intent is to hunt an animal, but due to an error the arrow strikes a human being and results in his death. For each of these categories detailed and specific rulings exist within the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Several occasions of revelation for the above verse are reported in Islamic narrations and exegetical works, which are largely similar in substance. One of these reports states that, after returning from the Battle of Khaybar, the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny dispatched Usāmah ibn Zayd with a group of Muslims to a Jewish community residing in a village of Fadak, in order to invite them either to accept Islam or to accept the conditions of dhimmah. When a Jewish man learned of the approach of the Muslim force, he took refuge at the foot of a mountain together with his wealth and children. Thereafter, he himself hurried forward to receive the Muslims. Usāmah ibn Zayd assumed that the man was accepting Islam merely out of fear for his life and property and was not sincere in his faith. He therefore attacked and killed him and seized his possessions (his sheep and goats) as war booty. When news of this incident reached the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he became extremely angered and distressed and said: “You have killed a Muslim.” Usāmah, deeply troubled, replied that the man had accepted Islam only to protect his life and property. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny responded: “You were not aware of what was in his heart; how could you know? Perhaps he had truly become a Muslim.” On this occasion, the above verse was revealed as a warning to the Muslims that they must never reject or deny those who accept Islam on account of seeking war booty; rather, whoever professes Islam, his claim must be accepted.

After the emphatic instructions given in the preceding verses regarding the protection of the lives of innocent persons, this verse now sets forth a precautionary ruling aimed at safeguarding the lives of those innocent individuals who might become targets of suspicion. It states: O you who believe! When you set out in the path of God, investigate carefully, and do not say to one who professes Islam that you are not a believer (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَتَبَيَّنُوا وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَنْ أَلْقَىٰ إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَامَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِنًا). It commands that those who profess faith should be accepted with openness and goodwill, and that all forms of suspicion and ill‑thinking regarding the sincerity of their acceptance of Islam should be set aside. It then adds a further warning: do not, for the sake of the fleeting gains of this transient world, accuse those who accept Islam, treat them as enemies, kill them, and seize their possessions as war booty (تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا). The word عَرَض denotes something lacking permanence and stability; therefore, عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا refers to the worldly assets and benefits that are, without exception, temporary and perishable. By contrast, the enduring and invaluable spoils are with God (فَعِنْدَ اللَّهِ مَغَانِمُ كَثِيرَةٌ). Just as you yourselves were once in a similar state in the time of ignorance, when your conflicts were driven by plunder and hostility (كَذَٰلِكَ كُنتُم مِّن قَبْلُ)—or, according to another interpretation, you too initially professed Islam outwardly while what lay concealed in your hearts was not apparent to others—so now, under the shade of Islam and by virtue of the favor God has bestowed upon you, you have been delivered from that condition. Therefore, in gratitude for this great blessing, it is incumbent upon you in all matters to exercise careful investigation and discernment (فَمَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَتَبَيَّنُوا). And know that God is fully aware of your deeds and intentions (إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا).

The above verse states with complete clarity that a Muslim should never enter the battlefield for material gain. For this reason, believers are commanded to accept an initial declaration of faith made by the opposing side and to respond positively to any gesture of peace, even if doing so means relinquishing significant material benefits. This is because the purpose of Islamic jihad is not territorial expansion or the accumulation of war booty; rather, its aim is to liberate humanity from servitude to other human beings and from enslavement to power and wealth. When a path of hope and reconciliation becomes visible, it must be immediately embraced. The verse further reminds the believers that they themselves were once in a similar state, when base thinking prevailed and blood was shed for material advantages, but today that condition has completely changed. Moreover, when they themselves entered the fold of Islam, what did they possess beyond a mere verbal declaration of faith? Why, then, should they deny to others the very principle from which they themselves once benefited? Provide your feedback on BizChat

By reflecting on the content of this verse, an objection may arise that Islam—by accepting outward declarations of affiliation with the religion—creates opportunities for hypocrites to enter the Islamic environment. Through this approach, it is possible that some individuals might abuse it, engaging in espionage or committing non‑Islamic actions under the cover of Islam. However, it may be said that there is hardly any law in the world that does not leave room for misuse by opportunists. What matters is that a law must be grounded in clear and overriding benefits. If it were argued that a claim of embracing Islam should not be accepted until one’s inner state is fully ascertained, this would give rise to far greater evils, the harm of which would be much more severe. Such a stance would undermine fundamental principles of human nature and moral sensibility, because anyone harboring resentment, suspicion, enmity, or jealousy toward another could accuse him of being a hypocrite, alleging that his Islam is merely superficial and not heartfelt. This would inevitably lead to the killing of many innocent people. Moreover, at the initial stage of inclination toward any religion or belief system, there are always individuals who are drawn to it superficially, out of simplicity, social courtesy, or outward conformity. Yet with the passage of time and continued association with that religion, their faith often becomes firm and well‑rooted, with its foundations deeply established in their hearts. For this reason, such individuals cannot be rejected or dismissed outright.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discourse concerned jihad; these two verses set out a comparison between those who strive in jihad and those who do not. God declares that those believers who refrain from participating in the battlefield—while not afflicted by a specific impediment that genuinely prevents them from joining—can never be equal to those fighters who struggle in the path of God and for the exaltation of the word of truth with their lives and their wealth: لَا يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُولِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ. It is clear that “القاعدون” here refers to those individuals who, despite professing the fundamentals of faith, failed to display the courage and resolve required and therefore did not participate in jihad. Nevertheless, jihad was not obligatory in the individual sense (farḍ ʿayn) for them, for had it been obligatory, the Qur’an would not have spoken of them in such a mild and conciliatory manner, nor would it have promised them recompense at the end of the verse. Accordingly, when jihad is not individually obligatory, the “مجاهدون” are manifestly superior to the “قاعدون”. In any case, this verse does not include those who refrained from jihad due to hypocrisy or enmity. It should also be borne in mind that the expression “غَيْرُ أُولِي الضَّرَرِ” carries a broad meaning, exempting all those who are unable to participate in jihad due to physical disability, illness, extreme weakness, or similar conditions. Thereafter, emphasizing with clarity and eloquence the superiority and excellence of the fighters, the verse states that God has granted a great distinction to those who strive in His path with their wealth and their lives over those who remain behind: فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً. The use of the word “دَرَجَةً” in the indefinite form indicates greatness and immense significance, as though the elevation of their rank is so lofty that it cannot be fully comprehended. However, as already noted, the group contrasted with the fighters here comprises those upon whom jihad was not an individual obligation, or who lacked the capacity to enter the battlefield owing to illness, infirmity, or other impediments. Therefore, so that their righteous intention, faith, and good deeds are not disregarded, the verse also gives them glad tidings by stating that God has promised goodness to both groups: وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى. Yet it is evident that the promised goodness differs greatly in degree. By this statement, the Qur’an indicates that every virtuous deed retains its value and is never wasted—especially in the case of those who abstained from jihad despite longing for it and considering it a great felicity, but were deprived of it because it was not individually obligatory. Their reward corresponds to the depth of their attachment and intention. Likewise, those who are أُولِي الضَّرَرِ—unable to participate due to illness or physical impairment, yet fully inclined toward jihad—will receive a substantial share of the reward of the fighters. This meaning is affirmed by a report from the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, who said to the Muslim army: لقد خلفتم في المدينة أقوامًا ما سرتم سيرًا ولا قطعتم واديًا إلا كانوا معكم، وهم الذين صحت نياتهم ونصحت جيوبهم وهوت أفئدتهم إلى الجهاد، وقد منعهم عن المسير ضرر أو غيره. “You have left behind in Medina certain people who were with you in every step you took and every valley you crossed. Their intentions were sound, their hearts sincere, and their souls yearned for jihad, but some impediment—such as illness or disability—prevented them from marching.” Nevertheless, because the importance of jihad in Islam is even greater than this, the verse once again emphasizes the superiority of those who strive, declaring that God has bestowed upon the fighters a tremendous reward above those who remain behind: وَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا. This “أجر عظيم” is then explained as elevated ranks from God, along with forgiveness and mercy: دَرَجَاتٍ مِّنْهُ وَمَغْفِرَةً وَرَحْمَةً. Even if, in fulfilling their duties, some individuals stumble or err and later regret their actions, God has promised forgiveness and deliverance to them as well. Thus the verse concludes: وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا.

In the above verse, the term المجاهدين appears three times. On the first occasion, the fighters are mentioned together with their aim and objective as well as the means: المجاهدين في سبيل الله بأموالهم. On the second occasion, only the means of jihad are mentioned, without explicit reference to the objective: المجاهدين بأموالهم وأنفسهم. On the third occasion, the verse mentions only المجاهدين, without any additional qualification. This represents a clear point of rhetorical eloquence: as the listener becomes progressively more familiar with the subject, its conditions and specifications are gradually reduced, until familiarity reaches a stage where a single indication suffices to convey the entirety of the meaning.

In the verse, “دَرَجَةً” is used in the singular when referring to the superiority of the fighters over those who remain behind, whereas in the subsequent verse the plural form “دَرَجَات” is used. Apparently, there is no real contradiction between these two expressions, because the first usage highlights the principle of superiority of the fighters over others, while the second elaborates upon that superiority in detail, which is why forgiveness and mercy are mentioned alongside it. In other words, the difference between the two lies in conciseness versus elaboration. Moreover, the expression “دَرَجَات” may also indicate that not all fighters occupy the same rank or level. Their spiritual and worldly stations differ according to the degree of sincerity, self‑sacrifice, and the hardships they endure. For it is evident that all fighters who stand together in a single rank against the enemy neither exert the same level of effort nor possess the same degree of sincerity. Accordingly, each will receive reward and recompense commensurate with his deeds and intentions.

Jihad is a universal law governing the realm of nature and existence. Everything in the world—whether from the plant kingdom or the animal kingdom—advances toward its intended perfections through struggle, clearing its own path by means of effort. For example, if we observe the roots of a tree, we find them constantly active and dynamic in their quest to obtain strength and nourishment. Were they to abandon this effort and activity, survival would be impossible for them. For this reason, when they encounter obstacles within the earth, they bore through them and continue forward if they possess sufficient strength. It is remarkable that these delicate and seemingly fragile roots sometimes confront obstructions with the force of steel instruments; and even if they are weak, they skillfully alter their course in order to bypass the obstacle and continue their growth. If we look at the human body itself, we witness an extraordinary and continuous struggle taking place within it—by day and by night, in wakefulness and in sleep alike. This struggle occurs between the white blood cells and invading enemies. Were this battle to cease even for a moment, and were these defenders of the body to withdraw from their struggle, a multitude of harmful diseases would immediately overwhelm the body, endangering personal health and safety. The same principle applies exactly to human societies, nations, and communities. Those who continuously remain in a state of vigilance and struggle remain alive and successful, while those who seek only comfort and luxury and wish merely to preserve individual existence gradually fade away and are replaced by living, striving societies. For this reason, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: فَمَنْ تَرَكَ الْجِهَادَ أَلْبَسَهُ اللَّهُ ذُلًّا وَفَقْرًا فِي مَعِيشَتِهِ وَمَحْقًا فِي دِينِهِ، إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَعَزَّ أُمَّتِي بِسَنَابِكِ خَيْلِهَا وَمَرَاكِزِ رِمَاحِهَا Whoever abandons jihad, God clothes him in humiliation and imposes poverty upon his livelihood, and erases the vitality of his religion. Indeed, God has bestowed honor upon my community through the hooves of their horses and the points of their spears. On another occasion, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny stated: اغْزُوا تُورِثُوا أَبْنَاءَكُمْ مَجْدًا Engage in jihad so that you may leave glory and honor as an inheritance for your children. Amir al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام), in his sermon on jihad, states: فَإِنَّ الْجِهَادَ بَابٌ مِنْ أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ فَتَحَهُ اللَّهُ لِخَاصَّةِ أَوْلِيَائِهِ، وَهُوَ لِبَاسُ التَّقْوَى وَدِرْعُ اللَّهِ الْحَصِينَةُ وَجُنَّتُهُ الْوَثِيقَةُ، فَمَنْ تَرَكَهُ رَغْبَةً عَنْهُ أَلْبَسَهُ اللَّهُ ثَوْبَ الذُّلِّ وَشَمْلَةَ الْبَلَاءِ وَدِيْثَ الصَّغَارِ وَالْقَمَاءَةِ Jihad is one of the gates of Paradise which God has opened for His chosen friends. It is the garment of piety, the impregnable armor of God, and His unassailable shield. Whoever abandons it out of aversion is clothed by God in the garments of humiliation and affliction and is rendered contemptible in the eyes of the people. Moreover, it is important to understand that jihad is not confined solely to armed combat and warfare. Rather, it encompasses every form of effort that contributes to the realization of sacred divine objectives. Beyond defensive and military struggle, jihad also includes intellectual, rational, economic, and political endeavors that advance the cause of truth and justice.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

Before the outbreak of the Battle of Badr, the leaders of Quraysh had issued a dangerous proclamation declaring that all inhabitants of Mecca who wished to participate in the battlefield should rise and go forth to fight the Muslims, and that whoever opposed this directive would have his house destroyed and his property confiscated. Following this threat, some individuals who had outwardly embraced faith, yet were deeply attached to their homes and possessions, were unwilling to migrate. They therefore set out toward the battlefield together with the polytheists. During the battle, they supported the idol‑worshippers, but upon seeing the Muslims’ small numbers, they fell into doubt and hesitation, and eventually they were killed on the battlefield. The above verse was revealed in connection with this incident, describing their admonitory and tragic end.

After the discussions on jihad, these verses point to the admonitory fate of those who professed Islam yet practically ignored one of Islam’s fundamental directives, namely “hijrah”. As a consequence, they fell into perilous circumstances and, by joining the ranks of the polytheists, lost their lives. The Qur’an states that those whose souls were taken by the angels while they had wronged themselves were questioned by them: if you were Muslims, then why did you join the ranks of the disbelievers and fight against the Muslims? (إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ). In reply, they offer excuses, saying: we were oppressed and under compulsion in our land, and therefore we lacked the power to act upon the divine command (قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ). But this excuse will not be accepted, and they will immediately hear this response from God’s angels: was not God’s earth spacious enough that you might have migrated therein, removing yourselves from that polluted and constricted environment? (قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا). Finally, mentioning their end, the verse declares that such people—who, on account of idle excuses and personal expediency, did not migrate and instead chose to remain in that suffocating environment—will have Hell as their abode, and what an evil destination it is (فَأُولَئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا). In the following verse, an exception is made for the truly oppressed, genuinely weak and helpless individuals (not those who falsely claim weakness). It states that men, women, and children who find no way to escape that oppressive environment are exempt from this ruling, for they are truly unable, and it is inconceivable that God would impose an unbearable obligation (إِلَّا الْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ حِيلَةً وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ سَبِيلًا). In the final verse it is said that perhaps God’s pardon will encompass them, for God has always been Pardoning and Forgiving (فَأُولَئِكَ عَسَى اللَّهُ أَنْ يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا). A question may arise here: if these individuals are truly excusable, why does the verse not state that God will certainly and definitively forgive them, instead using the expression “عَسَى” (“perhaps”)? The answer is the same as that already explained under verse 84 of this sūrah, clarifying the intended meaning of such expressions. The ruling mentioned in this verse is subject to certain conditions that require careful consideration. God grants pardon to those who, whenever an opportunity arose, did not fall short in the matter of migration; in technical terms, they left no deficiency or neglect in fulfilling this duty, and even now stand ready and willing to migrate should the opportunity present itself again.

The use of the term تَوَفَّى in this verse instead of the word “death” in fact points to an important conceptual nuance: death does not mean annihilation or non‑existence. Rather, it signifies the taking possession of the human soul by a group of angels, that is, they remove the soul—which constitutes the most fundamental element of human existence—and transfer it to another realm of existence. Such an expression, which occurs repeatedly in the Qur’an, is in reality among its clearest indications that something of the human being remains after death. The detailed discussion of this reality appears in various verses at appropriate contexts. This explanation serves as a response to those who claim that the Qur’an has nowhere explicitly mentioned the soul. Generating response.

In several places (twelve instances) in the Qur’an, the term تَوَفَّى—alongside references to death—is used. A study of these instances shows that there is not a single designated angel for taking souls; rather, multiple angels are entrusted with conveying human souls from this world to the next. In the above verse, the angels are mentioned in the plural form (الْمَلَائِكَةُ), which testifies to this fact. In Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 61, it is stated: حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ تَوَفَّتْهُ رُسُلُنَا—“When death comes to one of you, Our messengers take his soul.” If, in some verses, this act is attributed to the Angel of Death (as in Sūrat al‑Sajdah, verse 11), it is understood to mean that he is the chief over all the angels appointed to take souls, and it is this angel who is referred to in prophetic traditions as ʿAzrāʾīl. Hence, when people ask how a single angel can be present in many places at the same time to seize souls, the response becomes clear through this explanation. Moreover, even if it were assumed that there were no other angels and that only a single angel performed this task, no difficulty would arise, because his singularity would itself indicate the vastness of his scope and capacity. A non‑material being possesses an ability to encompass reality far more extensively than material entities. Thus, in a tradition reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny asked the Angel of Death about his encompassing presence in this world, he replied: مَا الدُّنْيَا كُلُّهَا عِندِي فِيمَا سَخَّرَهَا اللَّهُ لِي وَمَكَّنَنِي عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا كَالدِّرْهَمِ فِي كَفِّ الرَّجُلِ يُقَلِّبُهُ كَيْفَ يَشَاءُ—“This world and all that is in it, by virtue of the authority God has granted me, is no more to me than a dirham in a man’s hand, which he turns about as he wishes.” In some verses, the act of taking the soul is attributed directly to God Himself, as in: اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا—“God takes souls at the time of their death” (Sūrat al‑Zumar 39:42). This does not contradict the previous verses, because where actions are performed through intermediaries, sometimes the action is attributed to the agents, and at other times to the One who appoints the causes and intermediaries; both attributions are valid. The soundest understanding is that many events in the world are attributed in the Qur’an to angels who are appointed by God to administer the order of creation—bearing in mind that the concept of angels encompasses a broad spectrum, ranging from immaterial rational beings to natural forces.

From the Qur’anic verses and narrations it becomes clear that those individuals who are intellectually, physically, or economically so weak that they are unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood, or who—despite holding correct beliefs—are unable to fulfill their obligations due to physical or financial weakness or because of unjust social constraints, and who are likewise incapable of migrating, are termed مستضعف (oppressed or weak). It is reported from Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام) that he said: ولا يقع اسم الاستضعاف على من بلغتْه الحُجَّةُ فسمعتها أُذُنُه ووعاها قلبُه—“The designation mustadʿaf does not apply to one upon whom the proof has been completed, whose ear has heard the truth and whose heart has comprehended it.” When Imam Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar (عليه السلام) was asked, “Who is the mustadʿaf?”, he wrote in response: الضعيف من لم تُرفع له حُجَّة ولم يعرف الاختلاف، فإذا عرف الاختلاف فليس بضعيف—“The mustadʿaf is one to whom the proof has not been presented and who has not recognized the existing differences (in beliefs and doctrines); once he has recognized those differences, he is no longer mustadʿaf.” It is evident that in both of these narrations, mustadʿaf refers to weakness in terms of intellect and belief. However, in the verse under discussion, as well as in verse 75 of the same sūrah, mustadʿaf refers to practical weakness—that is, a person who has recognized the truth but is prevented from acting upon it by environmental coercion and constriction.

After mentioning the humiliating and wretched condition of those who neglect the obligation of migration and thereby fall into various forms of degradation and misfortune, this verse discusses, in two parts, the decisive importance of migration (hijrah). First, it sets forth the worldly fruits and blessings of migration, declaring that those who migrate in the way of God and for the sake of God will find, in this vast earth, many secure and expansive places in which they can reside, promote the truth, and overcome their opponents: وَمَنْ يُهَاجِرْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ يَجِدْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُرَاغَمًا كَثِيرًا وَسَعَةً. It should be noted that “مُرَاغَم” is derived from رَغَام (meaning dust or soil); irghām conveys the sense of forcing someone into the dust and humiliating him, while murāgham can function both as a passive participle and as a noun of place. In the present verse, it is used in the sense of a place—that is, a place where the truth may be implemented, and where, if opposition arises out of obstinacy, it can be overcome and forced into submission. Thereafter, the verse turns to the spiritual and otherworldly dimension of migration, stating that if a person leaves his home and homeland with the intention of migrating toward God and His Messenger, but death overtakes him before he reaches his destination, then his reward is incumbent upon God, and God will forgive his sins: وَمَنْ يَخْرُجْ مِنْ بَيْتِهِ مُهَاجِرًا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ يُدْرِكْهُ الْمَوْتُ فَقَدْ وَقَعَ أَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا. Accordingly, those who undertake migration attain a great success in every case—whether they reach their destination and, in freedom and security, fulfill their religious duties and attain their intended goal, or whether they fail to do so and instead sacrifice their lives along this path. In all situations, every form of reward and recompense rests with God alone. However, the verse makes a particular point by stating “فَقَدْ وَقَعَ أَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ”, meaning that his reward has become binding upon God; this expression powerfully illustrates the exceptional greatness and significance of the reward promised to those who migrate.

According to this verse and many other Qur’anic passages, Islam explicitly commands that if a person is unable, due to certain factors within a given environment, to fulfill his religious responsibilities, he must migrate to another environment or a place of safety. For it is not fitting to say, نتواں مرد بہ ذلت کہ درینجا زادم —that one should die in humiliation merely because this is the place of one’s birth. The reason for this command is clear: a human being is not inherently bound to any particular location. He is not confined to a specific land, environment, or territory. Thus, excessive attachment to one’s birthplace, surroundings, or region cannot, from the Islamic perspective, serve as an obstacle to migration. This is precisely why, in the early period of Islam, all such attachments were cut off for the sake of preserving and advancing the religion. As one Western historian has observed: “The tribe and the family are like a solitary tree growing in the desert, without whose shade no one can survive; yet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, through his migration, severed this tree—which had been nourished by his own flesh and blood—for the sake of his Lord (thus ending his bond with Quraysh).” Moreover, it is a shared characteristic of all living beings that when they perceive their very existence to be threatened, they adopt the path of migration. From the earliest times, human populations have moved from their homelands to other regions in order to preserve their lives when geographical conditions changed. This phenomenon is not unique to human beings; many species among animals are also identified as migratory. For example, certain migratory birds traverse the entire globe for survival, with some traveling from the North Pole to the South Pole—covering distances of nearly 18,000 kilometers. This demonstrates that migration is among the fundamental laws that sustain life itself. Is it then conceivable that the human being is inferior to a bird? Or that when sacred goals and higher, spiritual life—whose value far exceeds material existence—are endangered, a person should abandon his objectives merely because a place happens to be his birthplace, submitting himself instead to humiliation, deprivation, and servitude? Or should he rather, in accordance with this universal law of life, migrate from that region to a place more suited to his material and spiritual growth and development? It is also noteworthy that the migration undertaken not merely for self‑preservation but for the preservation of Islam itself marks the very beginning of Muslim history. This migration provides the foundation for all subsequent political, missionary, and social developments in Islam. As for the question of why the year of the Prophet’s migration was chosen as the starting point of the Islamic calendar, the matter merits careful attention. Every nation and community has a point of historical commencement: Christians count their history from the year of the birth of Jesus (عليه السلام). In Islam, despite many significant events—such as the birth of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, his mission, the conquest of Mecca, and his departure from this world—none of these was selected. Instead, the migration of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny alone was chosen as the beginning of Islamic chronology. Historical accounts relate that during the caliphate of the second caliph, when Islam had already expanded considerably, Muslims felt the need to establish a unified historical starting point. After much discussion, the proposal of ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was accepted: he chose the Hijrah as the point of departure for Islamic history. In truth, this choice was most appropriate, for migration represented the decisive step through which Islam was translated into lived reality and inaugurated a new chapter of its history. While Muslims remained in Mecca, they were passing through an initial stage of training and formation; outwardly, they possessed no collective or political power. Immediately after migration, however, the Islamic state was established, and rapid progress ensued in all spheres of life. Had Muslims not migrated in accordance with the Prophet’s command, Islam might not only have failed to spread beyond Mecca, but could even have been suppressed and buried there. It is evident, therefore, that migration is not a command confined to the time of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Rather, in every age and in any place where similar circumstances arise, it becomes the duty of Muslims to migrate. Fundamentally, the Qur’an presents migration as a means of attaining freedom and tranquility, as explicitly stated in the verse under discussion. The same truth is expressed in another manner in Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 41: وَالَّذِينَ هَاجَرُوا فِي اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا ظُلِمُوا لَنُبَوِّئَنَّهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً “And those who migrate in the path of God after having been wronged, We shall surely settle them in this world in a goodly place.” It must also be emphasized that, in the Islamic view, migration is not limited to physical or geographical relocation alone. Rather, migration must first begin within the inner self—a departure from those elements that conflict with human authenticity, dignity, and honor. This inner migration is a prerequisite that prepares a person for outward migration, should physical relocation become necessary. When such inner migration has taken place, a person is then able, under its influence, to join those who migrate in the path of God. In essence, the spirit of migration is nothing other than the passionate movement from darkness to light, from disbelief to faith, and from sin and disobedience to obedience to God. For this reason, traditions state that those who migrated physically but failed to undergo spiritual migration are not truly counted among the emigrants. Conversely, those who had no need for physical migration but undertook inward migration are included among the emigrants. Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) said: ويقول الرجل هاجرتُ ولم يهاجر، إنما المهاجرون الذين يهجرون السيئات ولم يأتوا بها “Some people say, ‘We have migrated,’ although in truth they have not migrated. The real emigrants are those who abandon sinful acts and do not commit them.” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny also said: من فرّ بدينه من أرضٍ إلى أرضٍ وإن كان شبرًا من الأرض استوجب الجنة وكان رفيق محمد وإبراهيم عليهما السلام “Whoever migrates—even the distance of a handspan—from one land to another in order to protect his religion earns Paradise and will be in the company of Muhammad and Abraham, peace be upon them both,” for these two great prophets were the foremost exemplars and leaders of migration in the history of existence.

The previous verses discussed jihad and migration (hijrah). This verse now alludes to the traveler’s prayer, stating that when you set out on a journey, there is no blame upon you if you shorten the prayer, should you fear harm from the disbelievers, for the disbelievers are your manifest enemies: وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنَّ الْكَافِرِينَ كَانُوا لَكُمْ عَدُوًّا مُبِينًا. In this verse, travel is expressed by the phrase ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ, because a traveler treads upon the earth while journeying. Here a question arises: in the above verse, the ruling of shortening the prayer appears to be conditioned upon fear of the enemy, whereas in jurisprudential discussions we read that shortening the prayer is a general ruling applicable to all travel, with no distinction between dangerous and safe journeys. Numerous narrations from both Shiʿi and Sunni sources regarding the shortened prayer also support this generality. The response is that connecting the ruling of shortening the prayer to fear may be for one of several reasons. First, this condition relates to the circumstances of the early days of Islam and is what is termed a predominant qualification, meaning that most journeys at that time were accompanied by danger and fear. As stated in the principles of jurisprudence, such predominant qualifiers do not restrict the general meaning. An example is the verse وَرَبَائِبُكُمُ اللَّاتِي فِي حُجُورِكُمْ (“your stepdaughters who are under your care”), for stepdaughters are forbidden regardless of whether they were raised in one’s care; the phrase reflects what commonly occurred. Second, some exegetes hold that the ruling of shortening the prayer was initially limited to times of fear (as reflected in this verse), and later expanded to encompass all situations. Third, it is possible that the condition serves an emphatic function, meaning that although shortening the prayer is obligatory for the traveler in all cases, it carries greater emphasis when there is fear of the enemy. In any case, there is no doubt that when one considers the many Islamic narrations related to the interpretation of this verse, it becomes clear that the traveler’s prayer is not confined to circumstances of fear. This is why the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself shortened the prayer during travel, even during the rites of pilgrimage in Minā. Another question arises from the phrase لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ (“there is no blame upon you”), since the verse does not explicitly say that one must shorten the prayer. How, then, can it be said that shortening the prayer is an individually obligatory duty rather than optional? The answer is that this very question was posed to the leaders of Islam, and they pointed to two matters. First, the expression لَا جُنَاحَ is used in the Qur’an in some contexts to indicate obligation. For example: إِنَّ الصَّفَا وَالْمَرْوَةَ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ اللَّهِ فَمَنْ حَجَّ الْبَيْتَ أَوِ اعْتَمَرَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَطَّوَّفَ بِهِمَا. Although the phrasing says “there is no blame,” the practice of saʿy between Ṣafā and Marwah is obligatory in both ḥajj and ʿumrah. Thus, لَا جُنَاحَ here negates a mistaken assumption of prohibition rather than indicating permissibility alone. Similarly, in the case of travel, some may have assumed that shortening the prayer was sinful, so the verse removes that misconception. Second, as indicated in several narrations, shortening the prayer during travel is considered a divine concession, and propriety and reverence require that one not reject or disregard a concession granted by God. In Sunni narrations, it is reported from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding the shortened prayer: صَدَقَةٌ تَصَدَّقَ اللَّهُ بِهَا عَلَيْكُمْ فَاقْبَلُوا صَدَقَتَهُ—“It is a gift that God has granted to you, so accept His gift.” Similar narrations are found in Shiʿi sources, where Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) reports from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that breaking the fast and shortening the prayer during travel are divine gifts, and whoever neglects them has effectively rejected God’s gift. Another point worth noting is that some people imagine that the verse in question concerns the prayer of fear offered on the battlefield, taking the phrase إِنْ خِفْتُمْ (“if you fear”) as evidence. However, the phrase إِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ (“when you travel in the land”) has a general meaning encompassing all forms of travel, whether for ordinary purposes or for jihad. Moreover, the ruling concerning fear is addressed separately and independently in the following verse. As previously mentioned, the reference to fear here is a predominant qualification, reflective of the conditions common to travel at that time. Additionally, in a battlefield there is always fear of enemy attack; thus it would be unnecessary to say “if you fear,” which further indicates that the verse refers to all travel where danger may possibly exist, not exclusively to prayer under combat conditions. It should also be noted that the detailed conditions of shortening the prayer—like many other legal rulings—are not fully specified in the Qur’an itself but are clarified through the Sunnah. Among these conditions is that shortening the prayer does not apply to travel of less than eight farsakhs (approximately twenty‑eight miles), since travelers at that time typically covered that distance in a single day. Likewise, those who are constantly traveling or whose livelihood is based on continual travel are exempt from this ruling, because travel for them is habitual rather than exceptional. Similarly, travel undertaken for sinful purposes is not covered by this concession, since it is a divine leniency that does not apply to journeys of disobedience. Furthermore, until the traveler reaches the point of no return—where the city’s call to prayer can no longer be heard or its dwellings are no longer visible—he may not shorten the prayer, as he has not yet truly left the bounds of his city and thus cannot be considered a traveler. These are among the rulings explained in detail in the books of jurisprudence, and the related narrations have been recorded by the hadith scholars in their respective collections.

When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, accompanied by a group of Muslims, set out with the intention of going to Mecca and reached the region of al‑Ḥudaybiyah, the Quraysh became aware of this development. Under the leadership of Khālid ibn al‑Walīd, two hundred men took positions in the mountains near Mecca in order to block the Muslims’ advance. At the time of the noon prayer, Bilāl gave the call to prayer, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny led the Muslims in congregational ẓuhr prayer. Observing this scene, Khālid ibn al‑Walīd began reflecting and said to his companions that among the Muslims the ʿaṣr prayer holds particularly great importance—so much so that they value it even more than their own eyesight. He proposed that when the Muslims were engaged in prayer, they should exploit their momentary unguarded state and swiftly eliminate them. At this juncture, the above verse was revealed, and the Muslims were instructed regarding the prayer of fear. This verse addresses sudden attacks that may occur during periods of inattention. One aspect of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an is that, before the enemy is able to put plans into action, those plans are rendered ineffective. It is for this reason that it is said Khālid ibn al‑Walīd, upon witnessing this situation, ultimately embraced faith and became a Muslim.

After the verses related to jihad, this verse instructs the Muslims concerning the prayer of fear, which is performed during battle. Addressing the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the verse states: when you are among them and lead them in prayer, the believers should divide into two groups. One group should stand armed with you for prayer (وَإِذَا كُنتَ فِيهِمْ فَأَقَمْتَ لَهُمُ الصَّلَاةَ فَلْتَقُمْ طَائِفَةٌ مِّنْهُم مَّعَكَ وَلْيَأْخُذُوا أَسْلِحَتَهُمْ). Then, when this group prostrates—meaning that they complete the first unit of the prayer—you should remain in place, and they should quickly complete their second unit and return to the battlefield to confront the enemy. Thereafter, the second group, which has not yet prayed, should take the place of the first and pray with you (فَإِذَا سَجَدُوا فَلْيَكُونُوا مِن وَرَائِكُمْ وَلْتَأْتِ طَائِفَةٌ أُخْرَى لَمْ يُصَلُّوا فَلْيُصَلُّوا مَعَكَ). This second group must likewise remain attentive to defensive measures and keep their weapons with them, not laying them aside (وَلْيَأْخُذُوا حِذْرَهُمْ وَأَسْلِحَتَهُمْ). In this manner, the prayer is performed so that the enemy may not overcome you through negligence, for the enemy is always waiting to exploit such an opportunity; they desire that you become heedless of your weapons and military equipment so that they may launch a sudden assault upon you (وَدَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْ تَغْفُلُونَ عَنْ أَسْلِحَتِكُمْ وَأَمْتِعَتِكُمْ فَيَمِيلُونَ عَلَيْكُم مَّيْلَةً وَاحِدَةً). However, since it may occur that keeping weapons and defensive equipment during prayer becomes difficult due to rain, or because of weakness, illness, or wounds—conditions that often arise in war—the verse concludes by stating that there is no blame upon you if, under such circumstances, you lay aside your weapons (وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِن كَانَ بِكُمْ أَذًى مِّن مَّطَرٍ أَوْ كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَنْ تَضَعُوا أَسْلِحَتَكُمْ). Even then, you must not neglect measures of vigilance and protection; rather, keep them close at hand so that, if the enemy attacks, you are able to defend yourselves until assistance arrives (وَخُذُوا حِذْرَكُمْ). Adhere firmly to these commands and be assured of victory, for God has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment (إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَعَدَّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا).

It is clear that the reference here to the presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny among the Muslims at the time of the prayer of fear does not mean that this prayer is conditioned upon the physical presence of the Prophet himself. Rather, what is intended is the presence of an imam, leader, and guide to lead the congregational prayer among those who are sacrificing themselves and striving in the path of God. For this very reason, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) and Imām Ḥusayn (عليه السلام) also performed the prayer of fear, and even some commanders of Islamic armies (such as Ḥudhayfah al‑Yamānī) carried out this practice whenever circumstances required it.

In the verse, the first group is instructed that during the prayer of fear they should have their weapons with them, whereas the second group is told not to lay aside their defensive equipment (such as armor) and weapons at all. The distinction between these two groups may be due to the fact that, while the first group is performing the prayer, the enemy may still be unaware of this arrangement and thus the likelihood of an attack is relatively low; however, at the time of the second group—when the enemy has become aware of the performance of the prayer—the probability of an attack is much greater.

By protecting property and possessions is meant that, in addition to safeguarding yourselves, you must also keep watch over other military resources, travel equipment, food supplies, and the animals accompanying you, ensuring their protection as well.

We know that congregational prayer (ṣalāt al‑jamāʿah) is not obligatory in Islam, yet it is among the most strongly emphasized recommended acts, and the above verse stands as a living proof of this reality. The emphasis placed upon this Islamic practice is so great that even on the battlefield a special form of prayer—the prayer of fear—is prescribed in order to preserve congregational prayer. This clearly demonstrates the immense importance attached both to prayer itself and to performing it in congregation. Moreover, this ruling reveals how deeply true combatants are committed to their objectives and ideals. At the same time, it conveys to the enemy that even in the midst of warfare Muslims remain firmly attentive to the fulfillment of their religious duties. Such conduct also produces a distinct psychological impact upon the adversary, showcasing discipline, conviction, and spiritual resolve even under the most perilous conditions.

In this verse, no extensive detail is provided regarding the prayer of fear, and this reflects the Qur’anic method of presenting general principles while leaving detailed explanation and elaboration to the Sunnah. According to what is established through the Sunnah, the manner of performing the prayer of fear is that a four‑unit prayer is reduced to two units. The first group performs one unit of prayer together with the imam; after completing that unit, the imam pauses, while that group completes its second unit individually and then returns to the battlefield. The second group then takes their place, performs one unit with the imam, and completes the second unit individually. (There are other reported views regarding the manner of the prayer of fear, but what has been described here is the most well‑known and widely accepted view.)

After the ruling concerning the prayer of fear in the previous verse—establishing that even in a state of warfare prayer must be upheld—this verse now states that after completing the prayer one must not become heedless of God. Rather, one should remember God while standing, sitting, and lying on one’s side, and continually seek His aid: فَإِذَا قَضَيْتُمُ الصَّلَاةَ فَاذْكُرُوا اللَّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِكُمْ. Remembering God in the states of standing, sitting, and reclining may refer to times of rest that occur intermittently on the battlefield, or it may denote the various conditions of combat itself, since fighters may at times fight standing, at times seated, and at times lying on their sides while using different weapons. In reality, this verse points to an important Islamic principle: performing prayer at fixed times does not mean that a person should remain heedless of God at other moments. Prayer is a disciplinary command that revives within the human soul the spirit of attentiveness toward the Lord, and it suggests that remembrance of God should continue in the heart even during the intervals between prayers—whether on the battlefield or elsewhere. Numerous traditions have interpreted this verse in connection with the manner of prayer for the sick: if they are able, they pray standing; otherwise sitting; and if even that is not possible, then lying on their side. This interpretation represents one dimension of the verse’s meaning and demonstrates its breadth; the verse is not restricted to a single context. Thereafter, the Qur’an states that the ruling of the prayer of fear is an exceptional one, and when the state of fear ends, prayer should be performed in its normal form: فَإِذَا اطْمَأْنَنتُمْ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ. The verse then concludes with a strong emphasis on the fixed timing of prayer, affirming that prayer is a permanent and obligatory duty for all believers: إِنَّ الصَّلَاةَ كَانَتْ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ كِتَابًا مَوْقُوتًا. The term مَوْقُوتًا, derived from waqt (time), indicates that prayer is bound to specific times that cannot be disregarded. Thus, even in a setting as critical as the battlefield, Muslims are commanded to perform this obligation precisely because its times are divinely fixed. At the same time, numerous traditions transmitted in connection with this verse explain مَوْقُوتًا in the sense of “firmly prescribed” and “obligatory,” which also accords with the verse’s meaning and arrives at essentially the same conclusion.

Some exegetes argue that they do not deny the philosophy, importance, or formative effects of prayer, yet question whether it is necessary for it to be performed at fixed times. They suggest that it might be better to leave people free to fulfill this obligation whenever they find opportunity and spiritual readiness. Experience, however, bears witness to the fact that if formative and educational practices are not maintained under discipline and clearly defined conditions, many people gradually forget them and their foundations become unstable. Therefore, in such matters it is essential that specific times and strict regulation be established, so that no one can abandon them on the basis of excuses or pretexts. Especially, the performance of acts of worship at fixed times, and particularly in a collective form, possesses a grandeur and majesty that cannot be denied. In reality, this constitutes an important method and technique for the moral and spiritual cultivation of human beings.

Ibn ʿAbbās and several other exegetes have reported that after the painful events of the Battle of Uḥud, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny ascended the slope of Mount Uḥud, while Abū Sufyān also climbed the mountain and, in a triumphant tone, called out: “O Muhammad! One day victory is ours and another day it is yours; that is, today’s victory is in return for the defeat we suffered at Badr.” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to the Muslims: respond to him immediately (as though demonstrating to Abū Sufyān that those trained in the Prophet’s school are fully aware and alert). The Muslims replied: our situation and yours are by no means the same; our martyrs are in Paradise, whereas your slain are in Hell. Abū Sufyān then shouted this sentence as a boastful slogan: لَنَا الْعُزَّى وَلَا عُزَّى لَكُمْ — “We have al‑ʿUzzā, and you have no ʿUzzā.” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: you too should respond by saying: اللَّهُ مَوْلَانَا وَلَا مَوْلَىٰ لَكُمْ — “God is our patron and guardian, and you have no patron and no protector.” When Abū Sufyān found himself powerless and weakened before this living Islamic slogan, he abandoned the idol al‑ʿUzzā and clung to the idol Hubal, crying out: أَعْلُ هُبَل — “Exalt Hubal.” The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny instructed the Muslims to defeat this ignorant slogan with a stronger and more resolute one, saying: اللَّهُ أَعْلَىٰ وَأَجَلُّ — “God is higher and greater.” When Abū Sufyān gained no benefit from these various slogans, he finally shouted that the appointed meeting place would be Badr al‑Ṣughrā. The Muslims returned from the battlefield bearing many wounds and were deeply grieved by the tragic events of Uḥud. At that moment, the above verse was revealed, awakening them and exhorting them not to neglect the pursuit of the polytheists and not to remain distressed by that painful incident. The Muslims, in that same condition, rose to pursue the enemy, and when this news reached the polytheists, they hastily withdrew from the vicinity of Medina and returned toward Mecca. This occasion of revelation teaches us that Muslims must not be unaware of any technique employed by the enemy, and that in response to every means of warfare—whether physical or psychological—they must adopt an even stronger and more dominant method. They must confront the enemy’s logic with firmer logic, counter their weapons with better weapons, and even oppose their slogans with more powerful slogans; otherwise, events will turn to the enemy’s advantage. Therefore, in our own time, when Muslims are surrounded by painful events and terrifying forms of corruption, instead of merely lamenting, they should act with vigor: confront false books and publications with sound books and accurate knowledge; oppose the enemy’s modern propaganda tools with the most advanced contemporary means of communication; provide correct and healthy avenues of recreation for the youth in place of corrupt centers; and, in response to their plots, conspiracies, and stratagems, present comprehensive Islamic plans suited to the present age that can contend with diverse political, economic, and social ideologies. Only through such measures can we preserve our existence, and it is incumbent upon us to advance in today’s world in the capacity of a leading community.

After the verses concerning jihad and migration, the verse under discussion seeks to awaken within the Muslims the spirit of steadfastness and loyalty by declaring: do not become weak or lethargic in pursuing the enemy (وَلَا تَهِنُوا فِي ابْتِغَاءِ الْقَوْمِ). This conveys that one should never assume a merely defensive posture, even against the most formidable enemy; rather, protection is achieved by advancing toward such adversaries with initiative and counter‑offensive action. Psychologically, this strategy is highly effective in undermining the enemy’s morale. Precisely such an approach proved beneficial in the aftermath of a severe defeat, when the enemies of Islam—having tasted apparent victory and left the battlefield—were overtaken by hesitation and abandoned the idea of returning, withdrawing swiftly away from Medina. Thereafter, God the Exalted presents a vivid and compelling argument in support of this command, stating: why should you become weak, when if you suffered pain and hardship in the course of jihad, your enemies likewise endured pain and suffering? The difference, however, is that you still cherished hope for the abundant help and mercy of the Lord of the worlds, whereas they were deprived even of that hope (إِن تَكُونُوا تَأْلَمُونَ فَإِنَّهُمْ يَأْلَمُونَ كَمَا تَأْلَمُونَ وَتَرْجُونَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَرْجُونَ). Finally, for greater emphasis, the verse concludes by reminding: do not forget that all your anxieties, hardships, exertions, and even occasional lapses or acts of forbearance are not hidden from God’s sight (وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا). Therefore, you will surely behold the outcome of all of this.

See ayat 106 for tafseer.

Several occasions of revelation are reported in Islamic narrations and exegetical works concerning the verses under discussion. The summary of one such account is as follows: The clan of Banū Abīrīq was relatively well known, and among its members were three brothers named Bishr, Bashīr, and Mubashshir. Bashīr entered the house of a Muslim named Rifāʿah and stole a sword, a coat of mail, and some provisions. His nephew Qatādah, who was among the combatants of Badr, reported this incident to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, the three brothers falsely accused one of their believing neighbors, a Muslim named Labīd, of the theft. Labīd was greatly angered by this unjust accusation. Drawing his sword, he came to them and cried out: “You accuse me of theft, whereas you yourselves are more deserving of this accusation, and you are the very hypocrites who used to compose satirical verses against the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and then attribute them to Quraysh. Either prove the charge you have brought against me, or I shall strike you with my sword.” When the brothers saw this situation, they spoke gently to Labīd; but when they learned that the incident had already been conveyed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny by Qatādah, they went to an orator of their clan and urged him, along with several others, to present themselves before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, exonerate the real thieves by outward appearance, and claim that Qatādah had made a false accusation. In accordance with the duty of judging by outward evidence, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny accepted the testimony of that group and deemed Qatādah—who was in fact innocent—worthy of censure. Qatādah was deeply distressed and returned to his uncle, recounting the incident with great sorrow. His uncle consoled him, saying: “Do not grieve; God is our protector.” Thereupon, the above verse was revealed, acquitting the innocent person and sharply reprimanding the true betrayers. Another occasion of revelation is also reported: the coat of mail of an Anṣārī man was stolen during one of the military expeditions. Suspicion fell upon a man from the clan of Banū Abīrīq. When the thief realized that danger was imminent, he threw the coat of mail into the house of a Jew and instructed his clansmen to defend him before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, claiming that since the armor was found in the Jew’s house, the accused was innocent. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny initially encountered this situation, he outwardly exonerated the accused and issued a judgment against the Jew. Thereupon, the above verses were revealed, making the truth manifest.

God, in these verses, first addresses the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, stating that the purpose of sending down this heavenly Book is to establish the principles of truth and justice among people: إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاكَ اللَّهُ. It then declares that one must never support or argue on behalf of those who commit betrayal: وَلَا تَكُنْ لِلْخَائِنِينَ خَصِيمًا. Although the address is outwardly to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, there is no doubt that this is a general ruling applicable to all judges and decision‑makers. Therefore, such an address does not imply that this situation ever occurred with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself; rather, the command is universally binding. In the following verse, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is instructed to seek forgiveness from God: وَاسْتَغْفِرِ اللَّهَ—for God is Forgiving and Merciful: إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا. As to why forgiveness is mentioned here, several possibilities have been proposed. The first is that the command to seek forgiveness relates to a تركِ أَولى (leaving what is preferable), in that a decision was reached swiftly in light of the apparent confession and testimony of the disputing parties, even though further investigation in that particular case would have been more appropriate. The second possibility is that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny issued a decision in accordance with the judicial rules of Islam based on outward evidence, and since the proofs presented by the betrayers appeared outwardly stronger, judgment was passed in their favor. Then, once the truth became clear and the rightful claimant received his right, the command came to seek forgiveness—not because any sin had occurred, but because a Muslim’s right had temporarily been jeopardized due to the conspiracies of certain individuals. In this view, the command to seek forgiveness pertains to the real ruling rather than the apparent ruling. Another view holds that the command to seek forgiveness is directed toward the litigants themselves, who had presented claims and offered false testimony in the matter. In this connection, a hadith is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, in which he said: إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ وَإِنَّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ إِلَيَّ، وَلَعَلَّ بَعْضَكُمْ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَلْحَنَ بِحُجَّتِهِ مِنْ بَعْضٍ، فَأَقْضِيَ لَهُ عَلَى نَحْوِ مَا أَسْمَعُ، فَمَنْ قَضَيْتُ لَهُ مِنْ حَقِّ أَخِيهِ شَيْئًا فَلَا يَأْخُذْهُ، فَإِنَّمَا أَقْطَعُ لَهُ قِطْعَةً مِنَ النَّارِ. “I am only a human being, and you bring your disputes before me; it may be that some of you are more eloquent in presenting their arguments than others, and I judge according to what I hear. Yet know that if I decide in favor of someone, granting him something that is actually the right of his brother, I am only allotting to him a portion of the Fire; so let him not take it.” This hadith shows that the duty of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was to judge on the basis of outward evidence and the arguments presented by the disputing parties. Although such judgments ordinarily ensure that rightful claims are upheld, it nevertheless remains possible that outward proof or testimony may not correspond with reality. In such cases, it must be understood that the judge’s ruling does not alter reality itself; truth does not become falsehood, nor does falsehood become truth, by virtue of judicial appearance.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

After the commands prohibiting support for those who commit betrayal, these verses continue the discussion by stating that one must never plead or argue on behalf of those who betray their own souls: وَلَا تُجَادِلْ عَنِ الَّذِينَ يَخْتَانُونَ أَنفُسَهُمْ. This is because God does not love those who are treacherous and persistently sinful: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَنْ كَانَ خَوَّانًا أَثِيمًا. It is noteworthy that God says here, those who betray their own souls, even though, according to the circumstances of revelation, they had betrayed others. This alludes to a subtle and frequently emphasized Qur’anic meaning: every act a person commits—whether good or evil, material or spiritual—ultimately affects the person himself before anyone else. As stated elsewhere: إِنْ أَحْسَنتُمْ أَحْسَنتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ وَإِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَهَا—if you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, it is likewise for yourselves. Alternatively, this expression points to another Qur’anic principle: humanity resembles a single body with multiple limbs, such that when one limb harms another, it is in fact harming itself—like a person striking his own face with his hand. Another point is that the verse does not concern those who committed betrayal once and then felt remorse; such individuals are to be treated with leniency rather than severity. Rather, the verse refers to those whose pattern of life is betrayal, as indicated by يَخْتَانُونَ (the present tense, denoting continuity) and by خَوَّان (an intensive form meaning “habitually treacherous”). The term أَثِيمًا (“sinful”) reinforces خَوَّانًا. In the preceding verse they are also called خَائِن (traitor), a descriptive active participle indicating repeated behavior. The verses then censure such people further, saying that they feel ashamed for their inner deeds to be exposed before people, yet they are not ashamed before God: يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلَا يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ اللَّهِ. God—who is with them everywhere—was with them when they devised treacherous plots by night and spoke words displeasing to Him, and God fully encompasses all their actions: وَهُوَ مَعَهُمْ إِذْ يُبَيِّتُونَ مَا لَا يَرْضَىٰ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطًا. Thereafter, the address turns to members of the thief’s clan who defended him. God addresses them, saying: astonishingly, you defend them in the life of this world, but who will defend them before God on the Day of Resurrection, or who will act as their advocate and deliver them from their afflictions: هَا أَنتُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ جَادَلْتُمْ عَنْهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فَمَن يُجَادِلُ اللَّهَ عَنْهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَمْ مَن يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكِيلًا. Thus, your defense on their behalf is of little value, for in the everlasting life they will have no defender before God. In reality, these three verses first counsel the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—and, by extension, all judges—to exercise complete vigilance so that some individuals may not, through deception and false testimony, trample upon the rights of others. They then warn the betrayers themselves, and finally those who defend them, to reflect upon the dire consequences of their actions in this world and the next. One of the rhetorical subtleties of the Qur’an is that even when an event appears outwardly minor—perhaps revolving around a single object of little value, or involving a Jew or an enemy of Islam—it examines all its dimensions with utmost care, issues warnings at every stage, and addresses each party according to its station: from the great Prophet of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, whose mantle is protected by infallibility, to sinful betrayers, and to those who defend them out of tribal or familial bias.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

After the discussion of betrayal and false accusation in the preceding verses, these three verses present three overarching principles. 1. First, attention is drawn to the fact that the path of repentance remains open even for wrongdoers. Whoever commits an evil act or wrongs himself, and thereafter sincerely repents, seeks God’s forgiveness, and strives to make amends, will find God Forgiving and Merciful: وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ سُوءًا أَوْ يَظْلِمْ نَفْسَهُ ثُمَّ يَسْتَغْفِرِ اللَّهَ يَجِدِ اللَّهَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا. It should be noted that the verse mentions two matters: sūʾ and injustice. Considering the parallelism of the expression and the original sense of sūʾ as “causing harm,” it becomes clear that every kind of sin—whether it harms others or oneself—is forgivable provided there is genuine repentance and restitution. Moreover, the expression يَجِدِ اللَّهَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا indicates that true repentance has an immediate inner effect upon the person himself: on the one hand, the distressing burden of sin is removed through awareness of God’s forgiveness, and on the other hand, the individual feels that the distance created by disobedience from divine mercy has been removed, restoring nearness to God. 2. The second verse clarifies a reality that had already been indicated implicitly in earlier verses, namely that a person who commits sin inevitably harms himself thereby: وَمَنْ يَكْسِبْ إِثْمًا فَإِنَّمَا يَكْسِبُهُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ. The verse concludes by emphasizing that God is All‑Knowing and Wise, fully aware of human actions and granting recompense and punishment in accordance with merit: وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا. Thus, although sins differ in outward appearance—sometimes harming others and sometimes harming oneself—their ultimate reality always returns to the individual, and the first and most profound effects of sin manifest within the sinner’s own soul. 3. The final verse underscores the severity of falsely accusing innocent people, declaring that whoever commits a sin or error and then casts it upon an innocent person has indeed borne a grave falsehood and an evident sin: وَمَنْ يَكْسِبْ خَطِيئَةً أَوْ إِثْمًا ثُمَّ يَرْمِ بِهِ بَرِيئًا فَقَدِ احْتَمَلَ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا. In this verse, two categories of wrongdoing are mentioned: khaṭīʾah and ithm. Although there is considerable debate among exegetes and lexicographers regarding the distinction, the most plausible understanding is that khaṭīʾah originally refers to unintentional slips or errors, which may require expiation, but its usage gradually expanded to include all sins, whether intentional or inadvertent, since any sin conflicts with the sound human soul and constitutes a lapse from its proper rank. In contrast, ithm more commonly denotes deliberate and voluntary sins. Linguistically, ithm refers to something that restrains or hinders, and since sins obstruct a person from goodness and righteous action, they are described by this term. It should also be observed that the verse employs a subtle metaphor with respect to false accusation: sin is likened to an arrow, and accusing another person of it is likened to shooting that arrow at a target. Just as casting an arrow at someone may destroy him, falsely hurling the “arrow” of sin at an innocent person may annihilate his honor and dignity, which is tantamount to killing him. It is clear that the burden of such an act will permanently rest upon the shoulders of the accuser; the verb احْتَمَلَ (“he bears upon himself”) further emphasizes the gravity and enduring nature of this responsibility.

Slandering an innocent person is among the most reprehensible acts, and Islam has condemned it with great severity. The verse under discussion, together with numerous Islamic traditions transmitted on this subject, clearly expresses Islam’s stance. Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) relates from a wise authority: البُهتان على البريء أثقل من الجبال الراسيات To slander an innocent person is heavier than firmly rooted mountains. Slandering the innocent is incompatible with the very spirit of faith. It is reported from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that he said: إذا اتهم المؤمن أخاه انماث الإيمان في قلبه كما ينماث الملح في الماء When a believer accuses his believing brother, faith dissolves in his heart just as salt dissolves in water. In reality, calumny and false accusation constitute one of the worst forms of lying, for they combine the grave evils of falsehood with the harms of backbiting, and they represent one of the most extreme forms of injustice and oppression. For this reason, it is narrated from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that he said: من بهت مؤمنًا أو مؤمنة أو قال فيهما ما ليس فيهما أقامه الله تعالى يوم القيامة على تلٍّ من نار حتى يخرج مما قال Whoever slanders a believing man or woman, or says about them something that is not true, God will cause him to stand on a mound of fire on the Day of Resurrection until he is cleared of what he has said. In truth, when such base and cowardly practices become prevalent, their consequence is the destruction of social order and justice: truth and falsehood become confused, innocent people are ensnared in calamity, the guilty escape accountability, and mutual trust is utterly destroyed.

God, in these verses, refers to one aspect of the incident involving Banū Abīrīq, which has already been indicated in the occasions of revelation of the preceding verses. The verse states that had it not been for God’s grace and mercy upon you, a group of them had firmly resolved to lead you away from the path of truth and justice; however, divine favor encompassed you and God protected you: وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكَ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَهَمَّتْ طَّائِفَةٌ مِّنْهُمْ أَنْ يُضِلُّوكَ. Their intention was to falsely accuse an innocent person and then entangle the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in this affair, so that, on the one hand, they might undermine the social and spiritual standing of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and, on the other, accomplish their personal aims at the expense of an innocent Muslim. But God, who is the Protector of His Messenger, rendered their schemes futile. Another occasion of revelation for this verse has also been mentioned, namely that a delegation from the tribe of Banū Thaqīf came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: we are prepared to pledge allegiance to you on two conditions—first, that we will not destroy our idols with our own hands; and second, that we be allowed to continue worshipping the idol al‑ʿUzzā for one more year. God instructed His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny not to show any inclination toward these proposals. In this context, the above verse was revealed, assuring the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that divine grace would protect him from such whisperings. The Qur’an then declares that these people misguide none but themselves, and they cannot harm you in the least: وَمَا يُضِلُّونَ إِلَّا أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَضُرُّونَكَ مِن شَيْءٍ. Finally, the verse explains the reason for the Prophet’s immunity from misguidance, error, and sin, stating that God sent down to him the Book and wisdom and taught him what he did not know: وَأَنزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُن تَعْلَمُ. It then concludes by emphasizing: وَكَانَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكَ عَظِيمًا—God’s grace upon you has indeed been immense.

The above verse is among those passages that point to the protection of the Prophet from error, misguidance, and sin. It states that had divine assistance not encompassed you, they would have led you astray; but by virtue of God’s aid, they neither possess the power to mislead you nor are they able to cause you any harm. In this manner, God—exalted is He—has safeguarded His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny from error and sin so that: - the Prophet may serve as a practical model for the community and become a criterion for goodness and virtue; - as a great leader, he may remain protected from the catastrophic consequences of slips and errors, so that the community itself is safeguarded from confusion and contradiction between obedience and disobedience to him; - people may place complete trust in the Prophet, for total trust is the foremost condition of divine leadership. In this verse, a fundamental proof of the doctrine of infallibility (ʿiṣmah) is presented in a concise manner: God taught the Prophet forms of knowledge by which he became entirely protected from sin and error. For knowledge—when it reaches its ultimate level—leads to infallibility. For example, a physician will never drink water containing malaria parasites or dozens of other harmful germs that he has personally observed in the laboratory and whose devastating effects he fully understands. His knowledge prevents him from doing so, whereas in ignorance he might have acted otherwise. Thus, whoever possesses complete awareness of realities through divine revelation and God‑given knowledge neither falls into error nor into misguidance and sin. Here one must avoid a misunderstanding: this does not mean that the Prophet is compelled to refrain from sin. Rather, the Prophet possesses divinely granted knowledge, yet he is not forced by it. That is, he does not act upon his knowledge out of compulsion, but out of free will and conscious choice—just as in the aforementioned example, the physician is not compelled to refrain from drinking contaminated water; rather, he chooses not to drink it by his own informed intention. If it is asked why this divine grace was granted specifically to the Prophet, the answer is that it corresponds to the weighty and exceptional responsibility of leadership placed upon his shoulders—a responsibility not borne by others. God grants strength and capacity in proportion to the responsibility He assigns; the greater the burden, the greater the divine empowerment.

The preceding verses referred to the hidden and sinister nighttime gatherings and secret plots of certain hypocrites or similar individuals. In this verse, the subject of “najwā” (private or secret communication) is discussed in slightly greater detail. The term “najwā” does not refer only to whispering or speaking privately into someone’s ear; rather, it includes all forms of hidden and clandestine meetings. Etymologically, najwā is derived from najwah (from the root meaning an elevated or raised ground). Since elevated places are separated from their surroundings, and secret meetings and whispers are likewise separated from others, such communication is called najwā. Some scholars hold that these words are derived from the root najāt (deliverance or escape), because a raised area offers refuge from floods, and clandestine meetings likewise remain hidden from public awareness. In any case, the verse states that there is no good in most of their secret meetings, which are held under satanic schemes and conspiracies: لَا خَيْرَ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِّن نَّجْوَاهُمْ. Then, lest it be assumed that every form of whispering or private meeting is blameworthy or forbidden, the verse lays down general exceptions, declaring that secret communication is permissible when it involves commanding charity, promoting good, or reconciling people: إِلَّا مَنْ أَمَرَ بِصَدَقَةٍ أَوْ مَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ إِصْلَاحٍ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ. If such private communications and meetings are not motivated by ostentation but are undertaken solely for the sake of God’s pleasure, He will grant a great reward: وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاتِ اللَّهِ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا. In principle, the Qur’an characterizes whisperings, secret communications, and hidden meetings as satanic acts: إِنَّمَا النَّجْوَىٰ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ (al‑Mujādalah 10). This is because such practices are usually employed for wrongful purposes, whereas virtuous and beneficial actions generally do not require secrecy. However, at times extraordinary circumstances necessitate that good deeds be performed discreetly, and such exceptions are repeatedly acknowledged in the Qur’an. For example: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا تَنَاجَيْتُمْ فَلَا تَتَنَاجَوْا بِالْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَمَعْصِيَةِ الرَّسُولِ وَتَنَاجَوْا بِالْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ (al‑Mujādalah 9). Fundamentally, whispering in the presence of others often generates suspicion and misunderstanding and can give rise to mistrust among people. Therefore, it should be avoided unless there is a genuine need, which is precisely the wisdom underlying the Qur’anic directive. Nonetheless, there are situations in which secrecy becomes necessary to protect human dignity—for example, providing financial assistance discreetly, as indicated by the reference to charity in this verse. Similarly, enjoining good (amr bi‑l‑maʿrūf) when done publicly may sometimes cause embarrassment and discourage acceptance of advice, leading to stubborn resistance. This is why the verse alludes to it under the term maʿrūf. Another example is reconciliation between people: openly disclosing disputes may hinder reconciliation, whereas confidential and trustworthy dialogue with both sides may help achieve peace. In these three situations—and others like them—positive actions are best carried out under the cover of najwā. It should also be noted that all three of these deeds fall within the broader concept of charity (ṣadaqah): one who enjoins good offers the alms of knowledge, and one who reconciles others gives the alms of social influence. Accordingly, it is reported from Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام): إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ عَلَيْكُمْ زَكَاةَ جَاهِكُمْ كَمَا فَرَضَ عَلَيْكُمْ زَكَاةَ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ—“God has made it obligatory for you to give the zakāt of your social standing, just as He has made obligatory the zakāt of your wealth.” It is also narrated from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny: أَلَا أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ صَدَقَةٍ يُحِبُّهَا اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ؟ تُصْلِحُ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ إِذَا تَفَاسَدُوا، وَتُقَرِّبُ بَيْنَهُمْ إِذَا تَبَاعَدُوا—“Shall I inform you of a charity that God and His Messenger love? It is reconciling people when they are in discord, and bringing them closer when they have drifted apart.”

In the account of the occasion of revelation of the preceding verses, it has already been noted that Bashīr ibn Abīrīq, after stealing from a Muslim, placed the blame upon an innocent person and, through deception, managed to present himself as blameless before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, with the revelation of the above verses, his wrongdoing was exposed and he was disgraced. After this exposure, instead of repenting and returning to the path of truth, he chose the path of disbelief and openly dissociated himself from the Muslims. It was in this context that the above verse was revealed, setting forth a general ruling of Islam concerning such conduct.

When a person commits a wrongdoing and then becomes aware of it, two paths lie before him. One is the path of return and repentance, through which the effects of sin are effaced—something that has been discussed in the preceding verses. The other is the path of obstinacy and defiance, the ominous consequence of which is alluded to in the verse under discussion. God states that whoever, after guidance has become clear to him, opposes the Messenger and follows a path other than the path of the believers, We shall leave him upon the course he has chosen and shall cast him into Hell—how evil a destination it is: وَمَنْ يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا. It should be noted that “يُشَاقِق” derives from “شِقَاق”, which denotes a deliberate form of opposition infused with hostility and enmity. The phrase “مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ”—that is, after guidance and the straight path have become clear—further emphasizes this meaning. In reality, no better end is possible for such individuals. Their outcome is wretched and regrettable both in this world and in the Hereafter. In this world, their condition deteriorates progressively, as the Qur’an indicates: they become ever more entrenched in their wrong path, and the further they advance in deviation, the wider grows their distance from the path of truth. This outcome is one they have chosen for themselves; they have laid its very foundation with their own hands. Therefore, no injustice has been done to them in this regard. The divine statement “نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ” also points to a further stage of progression in misguidance, signifying that such people are left to continue along the path they have freely selected. (On this subject, detailed discussion has already appeared under the heading “Divine Guidance and Misguidance” in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, vol. 1, Urdu translation, p. 140.) Another interpretation of “نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ” is that We leave such individuals under the guardianship of those false deities and false supports whom they themselves have chosen. The phrase “نُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ” then points to their ultimate fate on the Day of Resurrection.

From among the four sources of legal authority in jurisprudence, one is ijāʿ (consensus), meaning agreement among Islamic scholars on a particular issue. In the principles of jurisprudence, various arguments have been advanced to establish the probative authority of consensus, and some have considered the verse under discussion to be one such proof. This is because the verse states that whoever chooses a path other than that of the believers will meet a wretched fate in this world and the next; hence, when believers choose a particular course in a matter, everyone ought to follow it. However, the correct view is that the present verse has no direct connection with establishing the authority of consensus (even though we do uphold the authority of consensus—on the condition that, in the issue under discussion, the statement of an infallible is present, or the infallible is included among those who form the consensus, even if only implicitly. In such cases, the authority of consensus in reality derives from the Sunnah and the statement of the infallible, not from this verse being a proof for ijmāʿ). The reasons why this verse cannot serve as a proof for the authority of consensus are as follows: 1. The punishments specified in the verse apply to those who knowingly and deliberately oppose the Messenger and choose a path other than the path of the believers—that is, when both conditions are present together, the consequence described by the Qur’an ensues. This opposition is carried out with knowledge and awareness. Such a situation has no relation to the issue of ijmāʿ, nor does it establish ijmāʿ as an independent proof. 2. Secondly, “the path of the believers” (sabīl al‑muʾminīn) here refers to the path of monotheism, God‑centeredness, and the foundational essence of Islam, not to juridical verdicts or subsidiary legal rulings. This is attested both by the occasions of revelation and by the apparent meaning of the verse itself. In reality, choosing a path other than that of the believers amounts to nothing other than opposing the Messenger; both expressions return to the same essential meaning. It is for this reason that a narration attributed to Imam al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states that when Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was in Kūfa, some people approached him and requested that he appoint an imam for them so they could perform the recommended prayers of Ramadan—known as tarāwīḥ, which had been performed in congregation during the time of ʿUmar—behind that imam. The Imam (ʿalayhi al‑salām) forbade this and prevented such a congregation (for congregational prayer for supererogatory prayers is invalid). Despite hearing this definitive command from their Imam and leader, these people persisted obstinately and raised their voices, crying, “People! Come and weep this month of Ramadan!” Some companions of ʿAlī came to him and said that some people were refusing to submit to his command. He replied: leave them to themselves; let them choose whom they wish and perform that (non‑legitimate) congregation if they insist. Then he recited this verse: وَمَنْ يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا. What has been stated above regarding the interpretation of this verse is also corroborated by this narration.

After the discussion of hypocrites and apostates—those who turn back to disbelief after having accepted Islam—the present verse once again draws attention to the severity of the sin of shirk, emphasizing that it is a sin that is not subject to pardon and that no sin greater than it can be conceived. With slight variation, the same theme has already appeared earlier in this sūrah in verse 48. Such repetition is a rhetorical and pedagogical necessity in matters of moral training, for foundational and critical issues must be reiterated at intervals so that they become firmly rooted in hearts and minds. In reality, sins resemble diseases of the body. As long as an illness does not attack the body’s vital centers and render them ineffective, the body’s defensive capacities can still function and recovery remains possible. But if, for instance, a disease assaults the body’s primary center of defense and paralyzes it, the doors of hope close and death becomes inevitable. Shirk is precisely such a disease: it disables the most sensitive center of the human spirit and casts darkness and obscurity over the soul. As long as it persists, there is no hope of salvation. By contrast, if the truth of tawḥīd and devotion to the One God—which is the source of all virtue, movement, and motivation—remains alive, then forgiveness for other sins can still be hoped for: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ. As previously noted, this verse appears twice in this sūrah with slight differences, so that the effects of shirk and idol‑worship—which for centuries had entrenched themselves deeply in human souls—might be eradicated once and for all, and the spiritual and material fruits of monotheism might manifest upon the tree of human existence. There is, however, a subtle distinction between the two verses. Here it states: وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا, meaning that whoever associates partners with God has fallen into a far‑reaching misguidance. In the earlier verse it says: وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا, meaning that whoever associates partners with God has fabricated a tremendous falsehood and committed a grave sin. In the earlier case, the focus is on the enormity of shirk from the perspective of God‑centered belief and recognition of the Divine; here, by contrast, its irreparable consequences for human beings themselves are emphasized. There, the matter is viewed from the doctrinal and theological angle; here, its practical and external consequences are highlighted. It is evident that, in technical terms, these two aspects are inseparable and mutually implicative.

See ayat 121 for tafseer.

See ayat 121 for tafseer.

See ayat 121 for tafseer.

See ayat 121 for tafseer.

After mentioning the hypocrites and apostates—those who, after accepting Islam, reverted to disbelief—the present verse once again draws attention to the gravity of the sin of shirk, emphasizing that it is a sin not subject to pardon and that no sin greater than it can be conceived. With slight variation, this same theme has already appeared earlier in this sūrah, in verse 48. Such repetition is a rhetorical necessity in matters of moral and spiritual training, because foundational and momentous issues must be reiterated at intervals so that they become firmly rooted in hearts and minds. In reality, sins resemble bodily diseases. As long as an illness does not attack the vital centers of the body and render them ineffective, the body’s defensive mechanisms can still function, and recovery remains possible. But if, for example, a disease strikes at the body’s essential center of defense and paralyzes it, the doors of hope are shut and death becomes inevitable. Shirk is precisely such a disease: it disables the most sensitive center of the human spirit and casts darkness and obscurity over the human soul. As long as it persists, there is no hope of salvation. However, if the truth of tawḥīd and exclusive devotion to God—which is the source of all virtue, movement, and motivation—remains alive, then forgiveness for other sins may still be hoped for: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ. As previously stated, this verse appears twice in this sūrah with slight differences, so that the effects of shirk and idol‑worship—long entrenched in the depths of human souls over centuries—may be eradicated once and for all, and the spiritual and material fruits of monotheism may manifest upon the tree of human existence. Nonetheless, there is a subtle distinction between the two verses. Here it states: وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا—that is, whoever associates partners with God has fallen into deep and far‑reaching misguidance. In the earlier verse it is said: وَمَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا—that is, whoever associates partners with God has fabricated a tremendous falsehood and committed a grave sin. In the earlier verse, attention is drawn to the enormity of shirk from the perspective of divine truth and recognition of God; here, the irreparable harm it causes to human beings is emphasized. There, the theological and doctrinal dimension of the issue is highlighted, whereas here its practical aspect and external consequences are brought to the fore. It is evident that, in technical terms, these two aspects are inseparable and mutually implied.

After the preceding verses explained that those who take Satan as their patron are manifestly in loss—since Satan makes false promises to them, keeps them occupied with idle hopes, and offers nothing but deception—this verse presents, in contrast, the ultimate fate of the believers. It states that those who have faith and perform righteous deeds will soon be admitted into the gardens of the highest Paradise, beneath which rivers flow: وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ سَنُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ. These blessings are not transient like worldly enjoyments; rather, the believers will abide therein forever: خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا. This promise is not like the fleeting and deceptive promises of Satan; it is a true promise and a pledge from God Himself: وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقًّا. It is evident that no one is more truthful in word and commitment than God: وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللَّهِ قِيلًا. For breach of promise arises either from incapacity and weakness, or from ignorance and need—qualities that are utterly inconceivable with respect to the divine realm.

See ayat 124 for tafseer.

According to Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and other exegetical works, Muslims and the People of the Book used to boast over one another. The People of the Book would say that their prophet came before the Prophet of Islam and that their scripture preceded the Qur’an, while the Muslims would say that their Prophet is the Seal of all prophets and that his Book is the final revelation, more perfect and comprehensive than the other heavenly scriptures; therefore, they claimed greater superiority. In another report, it is stated that the Jews would say, “We are the chosen people, and the fire of Hell will not touch us except for a few days” (وَقَالُوا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلَّا أَيَّامًا مَعْدُودَةً) (al‑Baqarah: 80). The Muslims, on the other hand, would say that they were the best community, because God had declared concerning them: كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ (Āl ʿImrān: 110). It was in this context that the above verse was revealed, nullifying all such claims and making it clear that the true worth and value of every individual is determined according to one’s deeds.

In these two verses, a fundamental principle of Islam is articulated: the existential worth of individuals and their entitlement to reward or punishment are not determined by claims, affiliations, or aspirations, but are based solely on faith and action. This principle is fixed, normative, and immutable in Islam. It is a universal law under which all communities stand equal. Accordingly, the first verse declares that superiority and merit do not depend on the wishes of the Muslims or the People of the Book: لَيْسَ بِأَمَانِيِّكُمْ وَلَا أَمَانِيِّ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ. It then states that whoever commits an evil deed will be requited for it and will find no protector or helper besides God: مَنْ يَعْمَلْ سُوءًا يُجْزَ بِهِ وَلَا يَجِدْ لَهُ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا. Likewise, whoever performs righteous deeds while being a believer—whether male or female—shall enter Paradise and will not be wronged in the least: وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ مِنَ الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ أَوْ أُنْثَىٰ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَأُولَٰئِكَ يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ وَلَا يُظْلَمُونَ نَقِيرًا. (The meaning of naqīr has already been discussed under verse 53 of this sūrah.) Thus, the Qur’an, with striking clarity, dispels all illusory claims founded merely on religious identity, communal affiliation, or ethnic belonging, and declares them devoid of salvific value. Instead, the foundation of salvation is established as faith in the principles of this divine system and adherence to its moral and practical directives. In connection with the first verse, a narration is transmitted in primary Shiʿi sources stating that upon its revelation, some Muslims were overcome with fear and distress to the point of weeping. They realized that human beings are fallible and inevitably susceptible to sin, and they feared that if no forgiveness were possible and every sinful act necessarily led to punishment, the path would be unbearably difficult. They therefore submitted this concern to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, saying that the verse had left them with no way forward. In response, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, the matter is indeed as this verse declares. Yet I give you glad tidings that will draw you nearer to God and encourage you toward righteous deeds: the afflictions and hardships that befall you serve as expiation for your sins—even the thorn that pierces your foot.” This narration underscores that while divine justice is exacting, divine mercy remains active through trials that purify human beings and compensate for their shortcomings.

The divine statement وَلَا يَجِدْ لَهُ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا means that a sinner, in the face of his sins, will find no protector or helper apart from God. Some people might infer from this expression that it completely negates the concept of intercession (shafāʿah). The response is that, as has already been explained elsewhere, intercession does not mean that intercessors—such as prophets, Imams, or the righteous—possess any independent power in opposition to God. Rather, their intercession itself operates under God’s command, and they never intercede without His permission, nor on behalf of anyone who lacks the necessary worthiness. Therefore, all intercession ultimately returns to God, and is in fact a branch of His guardianship, help, and support. Accordingly, this verse does not deny intercession as understood in Islamic doctrine; it denies the existence of any independent protector or helper apart from God.

See ayat 126 for tafseer.

In the above verse, a clear declaration is made that Islam establishes a decisive criterion for religious excellence, so that no misunderstanding arises from the preceding discussion which emphasized faith and action rather than mere affiliation. The verse states: And who is better in religion than one who submits himself wholly to God, does good, and follows the pure and upright way of Abraham (وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ دِينًا مِمَّنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ وَاتَّبَعَ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا). Although the verse is phrased as a rhetorical question, its purpose is to elicit acknowledgment of this truth from the listener. In this verse, three elements are presented as the criteria for the best and most excellent religion: Complete submission before God (أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ). (The term wajh literally means “face,” but since the face reflects the heart and soul and houses most of the senses that connect a person to the external world, it is sometimes used to signify the entire being or essence of a person. Thus, in سورة القصص، آية 88: كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ means “Everything shall perish except the Essence of God.”) Righteous conduct and excellence in action (وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ). Here iḥsān refers to every form of goodness manifested through the heart, the tongue, and action. In Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, under this verse, a ḥadīth from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is transmitted in response to the question of what iḥsān means. He said: أَنْ تَعْبُدَ اللَّهَ كَأَنَّكَ تَرَاهُ، فَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ تَرَاهُ فَإِنَّهُ يَرَاكَ — that you worship God as though you see Him; and if you do not see Him, then truly He sees you and watches over you. Following the pure religion of Abraham (وَاتَّبَعَ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا). (The word millah also means “religion,” but it differs from dīn in that it is not attributed directly to God; rather, it is attributed to a prophet. One says millat Ibrāhīm, but not millat Allāh. The term ḥanīf refers to one who abandons false religions and inclines wholly toward the truth with complete submission. This concept has already been explained earlier.) At the conclusion of the verse, a decisive reason is given for placing full confidence in the religion of Abraham: God chose Abraham as His intimate friend (وَاتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلًا). This divine selection itself is the greatest testimony to the purity, authenticity, and enduring truth of Abraham’s way. Provide your feedback on BizChat

The term “khalīl” may derive either from خُلَّة (from the root ḥujjah in pattern), meaning friendship, or from خِلَّة (from the root ḍarab in pattern), meaning need and dependence. Exegetes have differed over which meaning is more appropriate to the verse under discussion. Some consider the second meaning closer to the apparent sense, on the grounds that Abraham clearly perceived his absolute dependence on God in all matters. However, the verse explicitly states that God chose Abraham for this station, which indicates that friendship is the intended meaning. For to say that God chose Abraham as a friend is far more appropriate than to say that God chose him because of his need, since all created beings are, without exception, in need of God, and this is not a quality exclusive to Abraham. As the Qur’an declares: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ “O mankind, you are the ones in need of God” (Fāṭir 35:15). A narration attributed to Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) states that God did not take Abraham as His khalīl because He was in need of Abraham’s friendship, but rather because Abraham was a righteous servant who was beneficial and constantly striving in the path of God. This narration—cited in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under the present verse—also supports the interpretation of khalīl as friend. As for the question of which qualities earned Abraham this exalted rank, several reasons are mentioned in the traditions, all of which may be considered valid grounds for his selection. One narration from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) states: إِنَّمَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلًا لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَرُدَّ أَحَدًا، وَلَمْ يَسْأَلْ أَحَدًا قَطُّ غَيْرَ اللَّهِ “God took Abraham as His intimate friend because he never turned away anyone who sought help, and he never asked anything of anyone except God.” Other traditions indicate that Abraham attained this rank because of his frequent prostration, his feeding of the hungry, his standing in prayer during the darkness of night, and his constant striving in obedience to God. In the following verse, the Qur’an refers to God’s absolute ownership and His all‑encompassing authority. It states that whatever exists in the heavens and on the earth belongs to God, and that God encompasses all things: وَلِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُحِيطًا. This indicates that God did not choose Abraham as His friend out of any need or deficiency—since God is absolutely free of all need—but solely because of Abraham’s virtues and his exemplary qualities.

In the verse under discussion, responses are given to certain objections and questions that had been raised concerning women, particularly orphan girls. It states: O Prophet, they seek legal judgment from you concerning women. Say: God gives you rulings concerning them (وَيَسْتَفْتُونَكَ فِي النِّسَاءِ قُلِ اللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِيهِنَّ). It then further declares that the Qur’an also provides guidance regarding those orphan girls whose property you had seized, whom you neither married nor handed over their wealth to, so that they might marry others. The Qur’an clarifies these issues and exposes the injustice inherent in such practices (وَمَا يُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ فِي يَتَامَى النِّسَاءِ الَّلَاتِي لَا تُؤْتُونَهُنَّ مَا كُتِبَ لَهُنَّ وَتَرْغَبُونَ أَنْ تَنْكِحُوهُنَّ). It also enjoins observance of the rights of young children—who, according to the customs of the pre‑Islamic period, were deprived of inheritance—by stating that God commands you concerning the weak among the children (وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الْوِلْدَانِ). Once again, with comprehensive emphasis, it declares that God commands justice in dealing with orphans (وَأَنْ تَقُومُوا لِلْيَتَامَىٰ بِالْقِسْطِ). Finally, attention is drawn to the fact that whatever actions you perform—especially with respect to orphans and the weak—do not escape God’s knowledge, and appropriate recompense will be given accordingly (وَمَا تَفْعَلُوا مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِهِ عَلِيمًا). It should also be noted that the expression تَسْتَفْتُونَكَ is derived from fatwā and futyā, meaning to provide answers to difficult or complex issues. Linguistically, since its root is fatā (meaning “young”), it is possible that the term originally referred to answers that were fresh or vigorous, and later came to be used for responses to all kinds of legal questions.

Many Islamic exegetical works and ḥadīth collections report the occasion of revelation of this verse as follows: Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj had two wives, one elderly and the other young. Due to certain disagreements, he divorced his elderly wife. While her waiting period (ʿiddah) had not yet ended, Rāfiʿ said to her: if you wish, I can reconcile with you; however, if I give preference to my other wife, you must remain patient. If you do not accept this, then wait until the completion of your waiting period, after which we shall separate permanently. The woman accepted the first proposal, and reconciliation took place between them. Thereupon, this verse was revealed, setting forth the legal ruling concerning such a situation.

As explained in the commentary on verses thirty‑four and thirty‑five of this sūrah, “nushūz” is derived from the root “nashz”, meaning elevated or raised ground. When applied to marital relations between a man and a woman, it conveys the sense of rebellion, defiance, or alienation. In the preceding verses, the rulings concerning a woman’s nushūz were discussed. In the present verse, reference is made to a man’s nushūz, stating that when a woman fears rebellion or neglect on the part of her husband, there is no blame on either of them if they reach a settlement between themselves in order to preserve the marital bond: وَإِنِ امْرَأَةٌ خَافَتْ مِنْ بَعْلِهَا نُشُوزًا أَوْ إِعْرَاضًا فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَنْ يُصْلِحَا بَيْنَهُمَا صُلْحًا. Since the woman, of her own free will and without coercion, has chosen to forgo some of her rights, there is no sin in doing so. The expression لَا جُنَاحَ (“there is no blame”) points precisely to this voluntary nature. From the occasion of revelation of this verse, two juridical points become evident: 1. Regulations such as the division of nights among multiple wives pertain to rights, not to immutable legal obligations; therefore, a woman has the authority to relinquish such a right partially or entirely of her own choice. 2. Reconciliation (ṣulḥ) does not necessarily require material compensation; it may also consist in waiving one’s rights. The verse then emphasizes reconciliation by stating: وَالصُّلْحُ خَيْرٌ—“reconciliation is better.” Though brief, this statement is rich in meaning. While it appears here in the context of family disputes, its scope is in fact general and universal. Reconciliation, harmony, and affection should always be preferred. Conflict, hostility, and estrangement run counter to sound human nature and a tranquil life; therefore, except where unavoidable, one should not adopt the path of discord and separation. Contrary to some materialist theories which claim that struggle and conflict are the basis of human survival and progress, Islam holds that human advancement—by virtue of reason and consciousness—rests on cooperation rather than confrontation. The verse then points to one of the main roots of quarrels and unwillingness to compromise, stating that human souls are prone to miserliness: وَأُحْضِرَتِ الْأَنْفُسُ الشُّحَّ. Every person tends, out of self‑love, to insist on receiving his or her full share of rights, and this disposition forms the basis of most conflicts. If men and women become aware that many disputes arise from greed—a blameworthy trait—and strive to reform themselves by adopting forgiveness and forbearance, not only domestic conflicts but many social disputes would come to an end. Nevertheless, lest men misuse this concession to oppress women, the verse concludes by addressing them directly, exhorting them to goodness and God‑consciousness, urging vigilance over their conduct and warning them not to deviate from justice and fairness, for God is fully aware of all their deeds: وَإِنْ تُحْسِنُوا وَتَتَّقُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا.

See ayat 130 for tafseer.

In the final part of the preceding verse, where ihsān (doing good) and taqwā (God‑conscious restraint) are enjoined, there is also an implicit warning directed toward husbands: they must not deviate in the slightest from the path of justice in their treatment of their wives. At this point, an important question arises: since complete equality in emotional inclination is not within human capacity, what should be done when a man has more than one wife? The verse under discussion answers this question by stating: you will never be able to establish full equality between wives with respect to love, no matter how much you strive (وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ). The phrase وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ indicates that there were some Muslims who made sincere efforts in this regard. This may be related to the earlier verse of this sūrah which states: if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one. It is clear that a divine law cannot be contrary to human nature, nor can it impose an obligation beyond human capacity (taklīf mā lā yuṭāq). Emotional attachment is influenced by various factors, some of which lie beyond human control; therefore, no command is issued regarding equality in this domain. However, justice in conduct and in the fulfillment of rights—matters that lie within human ability—is strongly emphasized. In order to prevent misuse of this concession, the verse immediately adds: although you cannot establish emotional equality between wives, do not incline completely toward one so as to leave the other suspended, deprived in practice of her rights (فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَالْمُعَلَّقَةِ). At the end of the verse, those who had previously failed to observe justice among their wives are warned that if they reform their conduct and adopt God‑conscious restraint, thereby compensating for their past behavior, God will encompass them in His forgiveness and mercy (وَإِنْ تُصْلِحُوا وَتَتَّقُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا). Numerous Islamic traditions emphasize the gravity and importance of justice among wives. In one narration it is reported that Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام), on days allocated to one wife, would not even perform ablution in the house of another. Similarly, it is reported that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, even during illness, did not remain in the house of any single wife beyond her allotted time. It is also narrated that Muʿādh ibn Jabal had two wives who died simultaneously during a plague; he cast lots to determine which one to bury first, so that no action contrary to justice would occur. These reports underscore the seriousness with which the principle of justice among wives is regarded in Islamic teachings.

As noted earlier in the commentary on verse 3 of this sūrah, some misunderstand the relationship between that verse and the present one and conclude that since plural marriage is conditioned upon justice, and justice is said here to be impossible, having more than one wife must therefore be prohibited in Islam. Interestingly, Islamic traditions report that the first person to raise this objection was a materialist contemporary of Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) named Ibn Abī al‑ʿAwjāʾ. He posed this question to Hishām ibn al‑Ḥakam, a learned Muslim theologian and defender of Islam. Hishām did not immediately know the answer, so he traveled from his hometown—apparently Kūfa—to Medina to seek clarification from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام). The Imam was surprised that Hishām had come outside the season of ḥajj and ʿumrah, whereupon Hishām explained the nature of the question that had arisen. Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) replied: in verse 3 of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, the justice that is required refers to material maintenance and the equitable fulfillment of marital rights and conduct, whereas in verse 129 the justice deemed impossible refers to equality in emotional inclination and inner attachment. Therefore, plural marriage is not prohibited, nor is it impossible, provided the Islamic conditions—especially justice in conduct and rights—are observed. When Hishām returned and presented this answer to Ibn Abī al‑ʿAwjāʾ, the latter swore by God and said: “This answer did not originate from you.” (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 420.) It is clear that assigning different meanings to “justice” in the two verses is based on explicit contextual indicators. In the verse under discussion it is stated plainly that one must not incline completely toward a single wife so as to leave the other suspended; thus, the permissibility of having two wives is affirmed, with the condition that no practical injustice is committed, even if emotional inclination differs. Likewise, in verse 3, permission for plural marriage is explicitly granted under the condition of justice in rights and treatment. The subsequent verse then points out that if marital life becomes so difficult for both parties—due to circumstances that darken the horizon of life and render reconciliation impossible—they are not compelled to preserve the marriage at all costs or to remain imprisoned in a bitter domestic situation until the end of their lives. Rather, they may choose separation. In such circumstances, they should proceed with courage and not fear what lies ahead, for if they part ways, God will enrich each of them out of His abundance (وَإِنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا يُغْنِ اللَّهُ كُلًّا مِنْ سَعَتِهِ). God’s wise mercy is vast and all‑encompassing (وَكَانَ اللَّهُ وَاسِعًا حَكِيمًا).

See ayat 134 for tafseer.

See ayat 134 for tafseer.

See ayat 134 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse it was indicated that if circumstances compel a husband and wife to separate and there is no alternative, there is no harm in taking that step, nor should one fear the future, for God will, through His grace and bounty, make them self‑sufficient and content. In the verses under consideration, the discussion continues. In the first verse it is stated that God has the power to make them independent, because whatever exists in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him: وَلِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ. One who possesses such limitless ownership and boundless power cannot be incapable of enriching and providing for His servants. Thereafter, at this juncture and on other occasions as well, emphasis is placed on adopting God‑consciousness. It is declared: We enjoined those who were given the Book before you, and We also enjoin you, to fear God: وَلَقَدْ وَصَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ وَإِيَّاكُمْ أَنْ اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ. Then, turning the address specifically toward the Muslims, it is stated that this command to observe God‑consciousness is for their own benefit and that God has no need of it. If they turn away and choose the path of disobedience, they will cause no harm to God, for whatever exists in the heavens and the earth is His, and God is Self‑Sufficient and Praiseworthy: وَإِنْ تَكْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَنِيًّا حَمِيدًا. In reality, true independence belongs only to God, for He is Self‑Sufficient in His essence, whereas the self‑sufficiency of all others depends upon Him. Likewise, He alone is truly worthy of praise, because the perfections that render Him deserving of praise belong inherently to His essence, unlike the perfections of created beings, which are granted to them and derive from another. In the following verse, this statement is repeated for the third time, affirming that whatever exists in the heavens and the earth belongs to God and that He oversees, protects, and administers all affairs: وَلِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا. At this point, a question arises: why has this statement been repeated three times within such a short span? Is this repetition merely for emphasis, or does it carry additional implications? Careful reflection upon the verses reveals that each repetition serves a distinct purpose. The first occurrence comes in the context of reassuring the spouses that after separation God will make them independent; thus, reference to His ownership of the expanses of the heavens and the earth demonstrates His power to fulfill this promise. The second occurrence follows the injunction to adopt God‑consciousness, indicating that God derives no benefit from obedience, nor does disobedience cause Him harm. This meaning corresponds to what Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states at the beginning of the Sermon of Hammām in Nahj al‑Balāghah: God, exalted is He, created His creatures when He created them while being independent of their obedience and secure from their disobedience, for the disobedience of those who disobey does not harm Him, nor does the obedience of those who obey benefit Him. The third occurrence appears as the prelude to the discussion contained in verse 123, after which it is stated that God is fully capable of removing you, O people, and bringing forth another community more resolute and more devoted to obedience: إِنْ يَشَأْ يُذْهِبْكُمْ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ وَيَأْتِ بِآخَرِينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلَى ذَٰلِكَ قَدِيرًا. In Tafsīr al‑Tibyān and Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, it is narrated from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that when this verse was revealed, he placed his hand upon the back of Salmān and said: “They are these people from among the non‑Arab Persians.” This statement is in fact a prophecy of the great services that Iranian Muslims would render to Islam. In the final verse, attention is drawn to those who claim faith in God and outwardly participate in jihad and observe Islamic rulings, yet whose aim is not divine pleasure but rather worldly gain such as spoils of war. It is stated that those who seek only the reward of this world are mistaken, for with God is the reward of both this world and the Hereafter: مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ ثَوَابَ الدُّنْيَا فَعِنْدَ اللَّهِ ثَوَابُ الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا. Why, then, do they not seek both, when God is fully aware of intentions and observes all actions in every circumstance? This verse once again makes clear that Islam’s outlook is not confined solely to spiritual and otherworldly dimensions; rather, it seeks for its followers both material and spiritual well‑being and success together.

In the preceding verses, specific rulings were given concerning justice toward orphans and wives. In the verse under discussion, however, a fundamental and universal principle is established, addressed to all believers without exception, commanding them to uphold justice and act with complete fairness: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ. It should be noted that قَوَّامِينَ is the plural of قَوَّام, an intensive form that denotes constant and vigorous establishment. That is, stand firmly for justice in every situation, in every action, at every stage, and in every era, to the extent that justice becomes part of your character and moral identity, and deviation from it becomes contrary to your nature and disposition. The term قِيَام is used here because meaningful action generally requires rising and committing oneself actively to a task; thus, standing for something signifies undertaking it with firm resolve and determination, even if the matter itself does not physically require standing or movement, as in the issuing of a judicial ruling. It may also be that the term is used because something judged to be “upright” is that which stands vertically without even the slightest inclination to either side—indicating that justice must be upheld with absolute precision and without the slightest deviation. To reinforce this command, the verse then emphasizes the matter of testimony and bearing witness, stating that all personal interests and attachments must be set aside, and testimony must be given purely for the sake of God, even if it is against one’s own self, one’s parents, or one’s close relatives: شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ. This tendency—to allow love and hatred to influence testimony—has existed in many societies, and was especially prevalent in the society of the pre‑Islamic period, where truth and justice often held little weight. A report from Ibn ʿAbbās indicates that even after embracing Islam and migrating to Medina, some individuals continued to refrain from testifying against relatives out of kinship loyalty. This verse was revealed in that context, serving as a warning against such conduct. As the verse itself suggests, such behavior is incompatible with the spirit of faith. A true believer is one who gives no consideration to anyone when truth and justice are at stake—not even to personal or familial interests. Incidentally, this also implies that relatives may testify either for or against one another when justice requires it, provided there is no legitimate suspicion of bias or partisanship. The verse then points to further factors that lead to deviation from justice, stating that neither the wealth of the rich nor the poverty of the poor should obstruct truthful testimony, for God is more aware of their circumstances: إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقِيرًا فَاللَّهُ أَوْلَىٰ بِهِمَا. In reliance upon God’s support, the wealthy and powerful cannot harm one who bears truthful testimony, nor will the poor be deprived of sustenance by the enforcement of justice. Once again, by way of emphasis, the command is issued: do not follow caprice and desire, lest you deviate from justice: فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوَىٰ أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا. From this statement it becomes clear that the root of oppression is the pursuit of personal desire, and that a society free from ego‑driven inclination cannot become a breeding ground for injustice. Finally, emphasizing once more the seriousness of establishing justice, the verse warns that if people obstruct the rightful recipient from receiving his right, distort the truth, or turn away after the truth has become clear, God is fully aware of their deeds: وَإِنْ تَلْوُوا أَوْ تُعْرِضُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا. The use of خَبِيرًا—rather than عَلِيمًا—is significant, for khabīr denotes knowledge of fine details and minutiae. This indicates that God is aware even of the slightest deviation from truth, even when it is concealed beneath excuses or presented under a veneer of legitimacy, and that such actions will be held accountable. The verse as a whole demonstrates Islam’s profound concern for social justice and articulates its requirements with striking clarity and force. The multiple emphases contained within these few statements show how sensitive Islam is to this vital human issue. It is therefore deeply regrettable that there exists such a vast gap between the practical conduct of many Muslim societies and this elevated Islamic command—a gap that constitutes one of the fundamental causes of Muslim decline.

According to a report transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās, this verse was revealed concerning certain leading figures among the People of the Book. These included ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, Asad ibn Kaʿb, his brother Usayd ibn Kaʿb, and some others. The reason was that they initially came into the presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said that they believed in him, in his Book, in Moses and the Torah, and in ʿUzayr, but that they did not believe in the rest of the heavenly scriptures, nor in the other prophets. In response to this attitude, the above verse was revealed, instructing them that they must believe in all of them—namely, all the divine books and all the prophets—without distinction.

From the occasion of revelation it becomes clear that the address of the verse is directed toward certain believers among the People of the Book who, due to specific inherited prejudices, after accepting Islam expressed faith only in their former religion together with Islam, while refusing to acknowledge the remaining prophets and heavenly scriptures. The Qur’an admonishes them to formally and fully accept all prophets and all divine books, for they are all continuations of a single truth, all share the same ultimate objective, and all have been sent from the same source. Although there is a difference of rank—much like successive levels in an educational system, where each new dispensation comes with more complete instruction—there is nevertheless no justification for accepting some while rejecting others. Can a single truth be divided into parts, and can prejudice obscure reality? Accordingly, the verse declares: O you who believe! Believe in God, His Messenger, the Book that He has sent down upon His Messenger, and the Book that He sent down previously (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ مِنْ قَبْلُ). Irrespective of the specific occasion of revelation, another possibility in the interpretation of the verse is that the address is directed to all who have outwardly accepted Islam but whose faith has not yet penetrated the depths of the heart. They are here being called to become believers in the true and complete sense. A further possibility is that the verse addresses those believers who have accepted God and the Messenger in a general sense, but have not yet become fully acquainted with the particulars of Islamic belief and doctrine. The Qur’an instructs them that true believers must accept all prophets, all previous scriptures, and the angels of God, for disbelief in them amounts to denial of divine wisdom. Is it conceivable that a Wise God would abandon earlier generations without guides, leaving them to wander aimlessly through life? A question arises here regarding the angels whose belief is enjoined: does this refer specifically to the angels who convey revelation—whose acceptance is inseparable from belief in prophets and scriptures—or does it refer to all angels, including those entrusted with the administration of the created order? The latter interpretation is more comprehensive, for belief in them also forms part of belief in divine wisdom. The verse concludes by describing the fate of those who remain heedless of these truths: Whoever disbelieves in God, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has indeed fallen into far‑reaching misguidance (وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا). In effect, this verse makes belief in five fundamental principles obligatory: the Origin (God), the Return (the Hereafter), the heavenly books, the prophets, and the angels. The expression ”far‑reaching misguidance” is a subtle and powerful formulation, implying that such individuals have been cast so far away from the true path that an easy return to it is no longer possible.

See ayat 139 for tafseer.

See ayat 139 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, it was stated that the disbelievers are in far‑reaching misguidance. In connection with this, the present verse continues the discussion by referring to a group of people who constantly present themselves in changing forms. One day they appear among the believers, the next day they are found alongside the disbelievers; on another day they again stand with the believers, only to later be seen in the ranks of extreme and fanatical disbelievers. In short, like a shapeshifter, they assume a new guise at every moment, appearing each day in a different color, and ultimately die in a state of disbelief and faithlessness. The first of the above verses describes the end of such people, stating that those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed again, then disbelieved once more, and thereafter increased in disbelief—God will never forgive them, nor will He guide them to the straight path (إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا). This constant change in behavior, shifting of stance, and instability of disposition is in fact the result of failing to undertake a proper investigation of Islamic principles, or else the product of conspiracies by hypocrites and bigoted disbelievers among the People of the Book, aimed at unsettling true believers. In their view, such back‑and‑forth movement would shake the faith of genuine believers, as has already been mentioned in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 72. The verse under discussion provides no argument that repentance is unacceptable for such individuals; rather, its subject is limited to those who ultimately close their eyes upon this world while persisting in intensified disbelief. Such people, in view of their beliefs and deeds, are neither deserving of forgiveness nor guidance—unless they reconsider their course. Thereafter, the following verse states: give glad tidings to the hypocrites that a painful punishment awaits them (بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا). The use of the term “glad tidings” (bashshara) in reference to painful punishment may be either a form of irony directed at their absurd beliefs, or derived from bashar (face), which has a broad meaning and applies to any news that affects a person’s countenance, whether by joy or sorrow. In the final verse, these hypocrites are described as those who take disbelievers as allies instead of believers (الَّذِينَ يَتَّخِذُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ). Their underlying aim is then exposed: do they truly seek honor and dignity through such alliances (أَيَبْتَغُونَ عِنْدَهُمُ الْعِزَّةَ)? Whereas all honor belongs exclusively to God (فَإِنَّ الْعِزَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا). For honor always flows from knowledge and power, and those who possess neither true power nor true knowledge cannot bestow dignity upon anyone. This verse serves as a warning to all Muslims not to seek honor—whether economic, cultural, or political—through friendship with the enemies of Islam, but rather to place their trust in God, who is the source of all honor. The enemies of Islam themselves possess no true dignity; how, then, can they confer it upon others? And even if they appear to possess some outward dignity, it is unreliable, for whenever their interests demand it, they readily abandon even their most loyal allies, as though no prior association had ever existed. Contemporary history is replete with examples of this reality.

It is reported from Ibn ʿAbbās concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse that some hypocrites used to sit in the gatherings of Jewish scholars. In those meetings, the verses of the Qur’an were mocked and ridiculed. It was in response to this behavior that the verse was revealed, setting forth the evil consequence of such conduct.

It is stated in Sūrat al‑Anʿām, which is among the Meccan chapters of the Noble Qur’an, in verse 68 that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is explicitly commanded as follows: if you see people mocking the Qur’anic verses and uttering offensive remarks, then turn away from them. It is clear that this command is not exclusive to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny but is a general directive, although it is addressed to him in particular. The rationale for this is evident, for it represents a form of negative resistance toward such conduct. In the verse under discussion, this Qur’anic ruling is reaffirmed, and Muslims are warned accordingly: it has already been revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of God being denied and mocked, do not sit with them until they engage in some other discourse (وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ). The consequence of violating this command is then stated: if you participate in such gatherings, you become like them, and your fate will be the same as theirs (إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِثْلُهُمْ). For further emphasis, it is declared that participation in such assemblies is a sign of hypocrisy, and that God will gather all hypocrites and disbelievers together in Hell (إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَامِعُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْكَافِرِينَ فِي جَهَنَّمَ جَمِيعًا).

1. articipation in a gathering where sin is committed is equivalent to committing the sin itself, even if the participant remains silent, because such silence constitutes a form of approval and practical endorsement. 2. If forbidding evil (nahy ʿan al‑munkar) cannot be carried out in a positive manner, it should at least be performed in a negative form—namely, by distancing oneself from the sinful environment and leaving the gathering where the sin is taking place. 3. Those who, through silence or participation in such gatherings, practically encourage sinners share the same punishment as those who directly commit the sin. 4. Sitting with disbelievers is not prohibited so long as they are not insulting the divine verses and no harm or danger is involved, as indicated by the phrase حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ, which shows that such interaction is otherwise permissible. 5. Showing friendliness or goodwill toward such sinners under these circumstances is a sign of hypocrisy, because a true Muslim cannot remain in a gathering where the verses of God are mocked without either objecting or leaving the assembly to express disapproval.

The verse under consideration and several verses that follow describe the characteristics of the hypocrites and their confused modes of thinking. It is stated that hypocrites are those who always seek to derive benefit from every event that occurs: if success is granted to you, they immediately place themselves among the ranks of the believers and say, “Were we not with you? Did our substantial support not contribute to this success?” Thus they claim to be partners and stakeholders in all these benefits and in both material and spiritual gains (الَّذینَ یَتَرَبَّصُونَ بِکُمْ فَإِنْ کانَ لَکُمْ فَتْحٌ مِنَ اللَّہِ قالُوا اَ لَمْ نَکُنْ مَعَکُمْ). But if success comes to the enemies of Islam, they at once draw close to them, openly express their joy, and say: “It was we who encouraged you to fight the Muslims and not to submit to them; therefore, we too share in your successes” (وَ إِنْ کانَ لِلْکافِرینَ نَصیبٌ قالُوا اَ لَمْ نَسْتَحْوِذْ عَلَیْکُمْ وَ نَمْنَعْکُمْ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنینَ). (Explanatory note: the root of “استحوذ” is “حوذ,” which refers to the rear part of the thighs. When a camel driver wishes to drive a camel, he positions himself behind it and strikes its thighs and back; therefore, “استحوذ,” in the sense of driving and mobilizing, conveys the meaning of domination and control. The above verse is used in this very sense.) In this way, through sheer opportunism, such people seek, on the one hand, to obtain honor and distinction in the event of the believers’ success, even to the extent of claiming a share in the spoils of war and placing believers under a sense of obligation, and, on the other hand, they rejoice at the success of the disbelievers, reinforce them in unbelief, spy for them against the Muslims, and smooth the path for their victory. Thus they are at once “companions of the caravan” and “partners of the highway robbers”; they spend their lives engaged in this dual game. The Qur’an, in a brief statement describing the ultimate end of such people, says that a day will inevitably come when the veils will be lifted and the masks removed from their ugly faces; indeed, “on the Day of Resurrection God will judge between you” (فَاللَّہُ یَحْکُمُ بَیْنَکُمْ یَوْمَ الْقِیامَةِ). Therefore, true believers should not be overawed by them. At the end of the verse it further states that God will never make a way for the disbelievers to have dominance over the believers (وَ لَنْ یَجْعَلَ اللَّہُ لِلْکافِرینَ عَلَی الْمُؤْمِنینَ سَبیلاً). Does this sentence mean that, from the standpoint of logic and argument, the disbelievers will never prevail over the believers, or does it also refer to military victory or some other form of success? In this regard, certain aspects may be examined. The word “سبیل,” according to technical usage, falls under the category of an indefinite noun occurring in a negative context, which conveys generality; thus the verse indicates that not only in logical argumentation, but also politically, militarily, culturally, economically—in any respect whatsoever—the disbelievers will not prevail over the people of faith. If today, in various arenas, we observe with our own eyes that disbelievers dominate Muslims, it is because most Muslims are not true believers. Today, Muslims have forgotten the demands of faith, their responsibilities, their authentic mode of conduct, and Islamic thought itself; there is neither unity nor Islamic brotherhood among them, nor do they engage in genuine jihād, nor do they possess knowledge and awareness, even though Islam has made the pursuit of knowledge obligatory from the moment of awakening until the moment of death. For this very reason they live the kind of life they do today. Some jurists have also cited this verse, with respect to rights and rulings in various issues, as evidence for the non-dominance of disbelievers over believers; in view of the generality of the verse, this interpretation does not appear far-fetched (reflect upon it). It is also noteworthy that in this verse the word “فتح” is used for the success of the Muslims, whereas for the success of the disbelievers the word “نصیب” is used, indicating that if the disbelievers happen to attain certain successes, they will be limited, temporary, and unstable, whereas the final victory will belong to the people of faith alone.

See ayat 143 for tafseer.

1. In order to achieve their sinister objectives, they adopt the path of deception and deceit, to the extent that they even wish to deceive God. Whereas in attempting this they are themselves deceived, for in their greed to obtain a paltry and contemptible gain they forfeit their very existence and the great capital of humanity with their own hands (اِنَّ الْمُنافِقینَ یُخادِعُونَ اللَّہَ وَ ہُوَ خادِعُہُمْ). The above interpretation is evident from the wāw in “وَ ہُوَ خادِعُہُمْ,” since it is a wāw al-ḥāliyyah. It is narrated from some elders that one of them would say to craftsmen: “Beware lest a poor traveler deceive you.” Someone said: “They are ignorant and simple-minded, and we can deceive them.” The elder replied: “That is exactly my point: by deceiving in this way you may obtain a trivial gain, but you lose the عظیم capital of faith.” 2. They are distant from God and deprived of the pleasure of intimate communion with Him; therefore, “when they stand for prayer, they stand in a state of total lethargy, laziness, and listlessness” (وَ إِذا قامُوا إِلَی الصَّلاةِ قامُوا کُسالی). 3. Since they do not believe in God and His great promises, even if they perform an act of worship or a good deed, it is done for ostentation rather than for God (یُراؤُنَ النَّاسَ). 4. Even when they engage in remembrance or remember God, it is neither from sincerity of heart nor with awareness and wakefulness, and if it occurs at all, it is only very little (وَ لا یَذْکُرُونَ اللَّہَ إِلاَّ قَلیلاً). 5. These people live in a state of aimless wandering; they have neither a program for life nor a clear path—neither do they belong to the believers nor to the disbelievers (مُذَبْذَبینَ بَیْنَ ذلِکَ لا إِلی ہؤُلاء ِ وَ لا إِلی ہؤُلاء ِ). Note that “مذبذب” is an اسم مفعول derived from the root “ذبذب,” which originally denotes a particular sound: when something is suspended and waves of air set it into motion, the sound produced by its striking is called “ذبذب.” Subsequently, this term came to be used for moving objects and for people who are wavering and without direction—one of the most subtle expressions imaginable. Incidentally, this expression also points to the fact that it is not the case that hypocrites cannot be recognized; rather, their vacillation possesses a particular tone and resonance by attending to which they are identified. From this expression it further becomes clear that hypocrites are like a suspended and hanging body, incapable of acting on their own; it is various winds that blow them this way and that, and whichever direction the wind takes, their movement follows. At the end of the verse, their fate is described thus: they are people from whom God has withdrawn His hand of support due to their deeds and has left them to wander astray, and “whomever God leads astray, you will never find for him a way” (وَ مَنْ یُضْلِلِ اللَّہُ فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَہُ سَبیلاً). The issue of God’s leading astray and the fact that this does not negate choice and volition has already been discussed under verse 26 of Sūrat al-Baqarah in Tafsīr-e-Namūnah, volume one.

See ayat 146 for tafseer.

See ayat 146 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, certain characteristics of the hypocrites and the disbelievers were identified. In these verses, the believers are first warned not to regard the disbelievers (and hypocrites) as their support and guardians instead of the believers (یا اَیُّہَا الَّذینَ آمَنُوا لا تَتَّخِذُوا الْکافِرینَ اَوْلِیاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنینَ), for this is tantamount to lawlessness and associating partners with God, and according to the law of divine justice it entails a very severe punishment. Therefore it is said: do you wish to establish against yourselves a clear proof before God (اَ تُریدُونَ اَنْ تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّہِ عَلَیْکُمْ سُلْطاناً مُبیناً). (Explanatory note: the root of “سلطان” is “سلاطہ” (on the pattern of “مقالہ”), which means the power to subdue and overcome another. The word “سلطان” itself has the meaning of an اسم مصدر and is used for every kind of domination. On this basis, a “دلیل” is also called “سلطان,” since it brings about one person’s dominance over another. At times, those who possess authority are also referred to as “سلطان” in the sense of proof and argument.) In the following verse, the condition of those hypocrites is made clear whose friendship heedless Muslims have placed like a yoke around their own necks, or it describes the state of those who, despite professing Islam, have adopted the path of hypocrisy. It is said: the hypocrites shall indeed be in the lowest depth of the Fire, and you will find no helper for them (إِنَّ الْمُنافِقینَ فِی الدَّرْکِ الْاَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ وَ لَنْ تَجِدَ لَہُمْ نَصیراً). (Explanatory note: “درک” (on the pattern of “مرگ”) refers to the deepest point of a river. Likewise, when ropes are tied together and cast into a river, the final rope that reaches the depth is called “درک” (on the pattern of “فلک”). This shows that all these words convey the meaning of reaching and attaining something. Sometimes the stairs leading down to a basement are also called “درک,” whereas the stairs leading upward toward the roof are called “درجہ.”) From this verse it becomes clear that, in the view of Islam, hypocrisy is among the worst forms of disbelief, and hypocrites are the farthest removed from God; therefore, their abode is the lowest and most debased level of Hell—and it ought to be so. The dangers that hypocrites pose to human society cannot be compared to any other threat. Because of their outward display of faith, they acquire a certain status and protection, which they cowardly employ against defenseless individuals, stabbing from behind. It is an established fact that a cowardly and dangerous enemy who attacks under the guise of friendship is far more harmful than one who openly declares hostility and presents himself clearly. In reality, the path of hypocrisy is adopted only by those who are base, ignoble, cowardly, insignificant, and polluted in every respect. In order to make it clear that even people so deeply polluted by sin may, if they so wish, return to God and reform themselves, it is further stated: except those who repent, correct their deeds (make amends for past actions), hold fast to divine grace, and purify their religion and faith sincerely for God (إِلاَّ الَّذینَ تابُوا وَ اَصْلَحُوا وَ اعْتَصَمُوا بِاللَّہِ وَ اَخْلَصُوا دینَہُمْ لِلَّہِ). Such people may ultimately attain salvation and become companions of the believers (فَاُولئِکَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنینَ), and God will grant all the people of faith an عظیم reward and abundant recompense (وَ سَوْفَ یُؤْتِ اللَّہُ الْمُؤْمِنینَ اَجْراً عَظیماً). It is noteworthy that the verse states that these people will be “with” the believers, which indicates that the station of steadfast believers will be superior; they are the الأصل, while these are the فرع, and they will gain radiance only through the illumination of the true believers. Another point worthy of consideration is that, in describing the fate of the hypocrites, they are assigned to the lowest level of Hell, whereas with respect to the believers there is the glad tiding of an “اجر عظیم,” which has no limit or end, and whose greatness is bound to divine grace.

In the preceding verses, severe punishments were mentioned for the disbelievers and the hypocrites. In the present verse, an important reality is pointed out, namely that the painful punishments ordained by God are not because He seeks to take revenge upon sinful servants, or to display His power, or because their disobedience and rebellion have caused Him any harm that He wishes to remedy. All such notions are manifestations of deficiency and need, whereas the essence of God is exalted above every deficiency and shortcoming. Rather, all these punishments are themselves the reaction to and outcome of human beings’ own corrupt thoughts and deeds. For this reason, it is stated: what need does God have to punish you if you give thanks and believe (ما یفعل اللہ بعذابکم ان شکر تم و امنتم). The concept of شکر is that every blessing should be used in the manner for which it was created. With this point in view, it becomes clear that the meaning of the above statement is that if you believe, perform righteous deeds, make proper use of divine blessings, and do not derive wrongful benefit from them, then surely not even the slightest punishment will touch you. To further emphasize this point, it is said: God is aware of your actions and intentions, and in return for righteous deeds He Himself is appreciative and all‑knowing (وَ کانَ اللّٰہُ شاکِراً عَلیماً). In the verse under consideration, “شکر” has been mentioned prior to “ایمان.” This is because until a person recognizes God’s blessings and reaches the station of gratitude, he cannot truly recognize God Himself, for His blessings are a means to His knowledge. In theological works on Islamic beliefs, some scholars have also presented “وجوب شکر منعم” as a proof for “وجوب معرفت الٰہی.” They argue that gratitude is a requirement of human nature, and that giving thanks to the Bestower of blessings is obligatory; therefore, recognizing the One who bestows these blessings is also obligatory (reflect upon this).

See ayat 149 for tafseer.

In these two verses, certain ethical injunctions of Islam are set forth. First it is stated that God does not like that indecent speech be voiced openly or that the faults and evil deeds of some people be publicly disclosed (لا یُحِبُّ اللَّہُ الْجَہْرَ بِالسُّوءِ مِنَ الْقَوْل). This is because God Himself is Setār al‑ʿUyūb, and He does not approve of people’s veils being torn away, their shortcomings exposed, and their honor and dignity destroyed. Moreover, we know that generally every human being possesses some weak and hidden aspects; if these faults were to be revealed, an atmosphere of mistrust would spread throughout society to such an extent that cooperative living and working together would become difficult. Therefore, preserving the stability of social relations and taking human requirements into account also necessitate that, without a valid purpose, the hidden and weak aspects of individuals should not be exposed. It should also be noted that “سوء” refers to every kind of evil and reprehensibility, and “جہر من القول” refers to every form of verbal expression, whether in the form of complaint or tale‑bearing. For this reason, among the verses from which the prohibition of backbiting is inferred, the present verse is also included; however, its meaning is not restricted to backbiting alone, rather it forbids every form of malicious speech. Thereafter, mentioning the exceptional case of reprehensible speech, it is stated: except for the one who has been wronged (إِلاَّ مَنْ ظُلِمَ). Such people have the right, in self‑defense, to complain about the wrongdoing of the oppressor, or to openly condemn injustice and criticize it, and they should not remain silent until they obtain their right and injustice is removed. In reality, this exception exists so that oppressors and tyrants may not take undue advantage of the above injunction, and so that the command may not become an excuse for surrendering before injustice and oppression. It is evident that in such circumstances one should confine oneself solely to matters related to exposing the oppression of the oppressor and defending the oppressed. At the end of the verse, in keeping with the Qurʾanic style—lest someone falsely assuming the position of an oppressed person misuse this exception and unnecessarily go about exposing people’s faults—it is stated that God hears words and is aware of intentions (وَ کانَ اللَّہُ سَمیعاً عَلیماً). In the subsequent verse, attention is drawn to the opposite aspect of this ruling. It is said: if you manifest good deeds openly or keep them concealed, there is no harm in that (whereas evils, except in exceptional cases, should absolutely be concealed); and if, in the face of wrongdoing, you adopt the path of pardon and forgiveness toward people, that is better. This is because, in reality, it is the divine mode of conduct that, despite possessing power over every form of retribution, He deals with His servants through pardon and forgiveness (إِنْ تُبْدُوا خَیْراً اَوْ تُخْفُوہُ اَوْ تَعْفُوا عَنْ سُوءٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّہَ کانَ عَفُوًّا قَدیراً). This second verse may, in fact, be regarded as the counterpart of the first verse from two perspectives: first, the manifestation of good deeds in contrast to the manifestation of evils, and second, forgiveness on the part of those who have been subjected to injustice.

Here a question arises: does forgiveness of an oppressor not, in reality, amount to endorsing his injustice? Does it not become a cause for encouraging and perpetuating oppression? Does such conduct not lull the minds of the oppressed into passivity and generate a negative reaction? The answer to this question is that forgiveness and forbearance have their own proper place, while the manifestation of truth and resistance against oppression have a distinct occasion. For this very reason, Islamic teachings state on the one hand: “لا تَظلِمونَ وَ لا تُظلَمونَ” — “Do not commit oppression, nor accept oppression” (al‑Baqarah 2:279). It is also stated: “کونوا للظالم خصماً و للمظلوم عوناً” — that is, be an enemy of the oppressor and an aide of the oppressed (reported in Nahj al‑Balāghah, Will no. 48). Likewise, it is said: “فقاتلوا التی تبغی حتّی تفیءَ إلیٰ أمرِ اللّٰہ” — that is, fight the oppressors until they submit to the command of God (al‑Ḥujurāt 49). On the other hand, forgiveness, forbearance, and pardon are also enjoined. It is said: “وَ أَنْ تَعْفُوا أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَیٰ” — and if you forgive, that is nearer to piety (al‑Baqarah 2:237). It is also stated: “وَ لْیَعْفُوا وَ لْیَصْفَحُوا أَلا تُحِبُّونَ أَنْ یَغْفِرَ اللّٰہُ لَکُمْ” — pardon and overlook; do you not love that God should forgive you? (al‑Nūr 24:22). At first glance, some short‑sighted individuals may perceive disparity or contradiction among these injunctions. However, when attention is paid to the narrations found in Islamic sources, it becomes clear that forgiveness and forbearance have their proper context, and that confrontation for the repression of oppression has a separate time and place. The clarification is as follows: forgiveness and forbearance apply in situations where power has been attained and victory over the enemy has been secured, such that the opponent has suffered a decisive defeat and no new danger is anticipated from him. In such circumstances, forgiveness becomes a reformative and educational measure, and this manner of conduct is likely to prompt the adversary to reconsider his actions. Numerous such instances are recorded in Islamic history. The following statement of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) bears witness to this perspective. He said: “اِذا قَدَرتَ علٰی عدوِّک فاجعلِ العفوَ عنه شُکرًا للقدرةِ علیه” — “When you gain power over your enemy, make forgiveness toward him a form of gratitude for the power you have attained” (reported in Nahj al‑Balāghah, Short Sayings, no. 10). Conversely, in situations where the threat of the enemy persists, and there is the likelihood that forgiveness will embolden him, encourage further wrongdoing, or be construed as approval of injustice, Islam never permits such pardon or clemency. In such circumstances, the leaders of Islam have never adopted the path of forgiveness and indulgence.

See ayat 152 for tafseer.

See ayat 152 for tafseer.

In these verses, the condition of the disbelievers and the believers is described, and mention is made of their ultimate fate. These verses complete the preceding ones, in which the hypocrites were discussed. First, reference is made to those who make distinctions among the divine prophets, accepting some as truthful while rejecting others. It is stated: those who disbelieve in God and His messengers, and seek to draw a distinction between God and His messengers, saying, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” and who desire to adopt a path in between—these are truly the disbelievers (إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَکْفُرُونَ بِاللهِ وَرُسُلِہِ وَیُرِیدُونَ اَنْ یُفَرِّقُوا بَیْنَ اللهِ وَرُسُلِہِ وَیَقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍ وَنَکْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍ وَیُرِیدُونَ اَن یَتَّخِذُوا بَیْنَ ذَلِکَ سَبِیلًا اُوْلَئِکَ ہُمْ الْکَافِرُونَ حَقاًّ). This statement, in reality, describes the condition of the Jews and the Christians. The Jews do not accept حضرت عیسیٰؑ, and both the Jews and the Christians do not accept the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, despite the fact that, according to their own scriptures, the prophethood of these messengers is firmly established. The source of this selective acceptance of truths lies in base desires and ignorant prejudices, and at times unjustified envy and narrow‑mindedness become obstacles in the path. This mode of behavior, in fact, signifies a lack of true faith in God and the prophets, because faith does not consist in accepting only what accords with one’s temperament and inclinations while rejecting what runs counter to one’s desires. Such an attitude is a form of self‑worship rather than God‑worship. True faith lies in accepting the truth even when it conflicts with one’s natural inclinations. Therefore, the Qur’an declares such people to be disbelievers in the above verse, even though they claim belief in God and in some of the prophets (إِنَّ الَّذِینَ یَکْفُرُونَ بِاللهِ وَرُسُلِہِ). For this reason, even the matters in which they outwardly profess faith are rendered devoid of value, because the source of that faith is not the quest for truth. Finally, reproaching them, it says: We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating and degrading punishment (وَاَعْتَدْنَا لِلْکَافِرِینَ عَذَابًا مُہِینًا). Here the punishment is described as “مُہِین,” that is, humiliating. Perhaps the reason for this is that by making distinctions among the prophets, they have, in reality, shown contempt for some of them; therefore, their punishment should correspond to the nature of their deed.

Punishment sometimes takes the form of عذاب الیم, such as flogging or the infliction of physical pain; at other times it is humiliating, for example, disgracing a person publicly. Sometimes it appears as عذاب عظیم, accompanied by clamor and publicity, such as administering punishment in the presence of others, and at times the effect of punishment runs deep within a person’s very being and endures for a long period; this is termed عذاب شدید, such as prolonged imprisonment with hardship and other similar penalties. It is evident that each of these forms of punishment corresponds to the nature of the sin. For this reason, in many Qur’anic verses the punishment of wrongdoers is described as عذاب الیم, because this is commensurate with the painful oppression they inflict upon God’s servants. Those whose crime is contemptuous are given a humiliating punishment, and those who commit grave and severe sins receive punishments of a similar gravity. The purpose of the above examples is only to make the meaning clearer; otherwise, the punishments of the next world cannot truly be analogized with the punishments of this world. Thereafter, the condition and ultimate fate of the believers are mentioned. It is stated: those who believe in God and His messengers and do not make any distinction among them, and who thus display before God their spirit of submission and sincerity, and who demonstrate steadfastness in the face of every kind of unjust prejudice—such people will soon be granted their recompense by God (وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا بِاللهِ وَرُسُلِہِ وَلَمْ یُفَرِّقُوا بَیْنَ اَحَدٍ مِنْہُمْ اُوْلَئِکَ سَوْفَ یُؤْتِیہِمْ اُجُورَہُمْ). However, believing in the prophets and submitting to them in practice does not contradict recognizing some of them as superior to others, since differences in their missions and responsibilities necessarily entail differences in their ranks. The intent here is that, in believing in and accepting the prophets, no distinction should be made among them. At the end of the verse, it is indicated that if these believers had previously adhered to such prejudices and distinctions, or had committed other sins, yet now purify their faith and return sincerely to God, then God will forgive them; for God is always Forgiving and Merciful (وَکانَ اللّٰہُ غَفُورًا رَحِیمًا). It is worth noting that in the verses under discussion, those who uphold discrimination and differentiation among the prophets are described as true disbelievers, whereas those who believe in all of them are not explicitly called “true believers,” but are simply termed believers. Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that true believers are those who, in addition to faith, are also completely pure and righteous in their conduct. This is borne out by the verses at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Anfāl, where after mentioning faith in God, the qualities of the believers are presented as a dynamic and positive sequence of actions, including moral, social, and spiritual growth, as well as prayer, almsgiving, and trust in God. Thereafter it is stated: اُوْلَئِکَ ہُمْ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ حَقّاً — these are the firm and true believers (al‑Anfāl 8:4).

See ayat 154 for tafseer.

According to Tafsīr al‑Tibyān, Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, and Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, it is reported in the discussion of the occasion of revelation of these verses that a group of Jews came into the presence of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said that if you are truly God’s Messenger, then present your heavenly Book to us all at once, just as Moses (عليه السلام) brought the Torah to his people in a single, complete form.

In these verses, mention is first made of the demand put forward by the People of the Book (the Jews). It is stated that the People of the Book ask you to bring down for them a book from the heavens all at once (یَسْاَلُکَ اَہْلُ الْکِتَابِ اَنْ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَیْہِمْ کِتَابًا مِنْ السَّمَاء). There is no doubt that good intention was not involved in this request, because the purpose of the revelation of heavenly scriptures is guidance and moral training. Sometimes this purpose is achieved by the scripture being revealed at once, and at other times gradual revelation is more conducive to that aim. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for them to demand evidence from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and to seek lofty and elevated teachings, rather than attempting to determine the manner in which divine revelation should descend. Hence, thereafter, God points to their lack of sincerity and, in order to console His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, recalls the former obstinacy, hostility, and pretext‑making that the Jews repeatedly displayed toward their great prophet, Moses son of ʿImrān. It is said that they demanded from Moses something even greater and more astonishing than this and said: “Show us God openly” (فقد سالوا موسی اکبر من ذٰلک فقالوا ارنا اللہ جھرة). This strange and irrational demand reveals a polytheistic mentality. It shows that they were demanding to see God as a corporeal and limited being, and undoubtedly this arose from obstinacy and enmity. Because of this injustice, the heavenly thunderbolt overtook them (فاخذتھم الصّٰعقة بظلمھم). Thereafter, reference is made to another of their evil deeds, namely calf‑worship. It is stated that despite witnessing and recognizing miracles and clear proofs, they took the calf as their deity (ثم اتخذوا العجل من بعد ما جاء تھم البینٰت). Despite all this, in order that they might return to the right path and dismount from the steed of obstinacy and hostility, it was declared that even then We pardoned them, granted Moses superiority, and bestowed upon him a clear authority, and overturned the scheme of the Samirī and the calf‑worshippers (فعفونا عن ذٰلک واتینا موسی سلطانا مبینا). Yet they did not awaken from their slumber of heedlessness nor descend from the mount of arrogance. Therefore, We raised Mount Ṭūr above them and took a covenant from them in that state, and commanded them to enter the gate of Bayt al‑Maqdis in humility and prostration; and We instructed them to refrain from transgression on the Sabbath and to abandon earning and fishing on that day, for fishing on that day was forbidden. Regarding all these matters, We took from them a firm and solemn covenant, but they fulfilled none of these emphatic commitments (وَرَفَعْنَا فَوْقَهُمُ الطُّورَ بِمِيثَاقِهِمْ وَقُلْنَا لَهُمُ ادْخُلُوا الْبَابَ سُجَّدًا وَقُلْنَا لَهُمْ لَا تَعْدُوا فِي السَّبْتِ وَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا). In view of this dark past, can such people be sincere in the demand they now make of you? If they are truthful, then why do they not act upon the explicit signs of the final Prophet found in their own heavenly books, and why have they chosen to turn a blind eye to those clear indications concerning you?

1. If it is said that these deeds related only to the earlier Jews, then what connection do they have with the Jews who were contemporaries of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny? The answer is that they did not object to the actions of their forefathers; rather, they expressed agreement with their views. Therefore, all of them are regarded as sharing the same characteristic. 2. With regard to what is mentioned in the above verses—that the Jews claimed the Torah was revealed all at once—this is not an established fact. Perhaps the source of this notion lies in the Ten Commandments, which are called the Ten Injunctions, and which were revealed to Moses (عليه السلام) collectively in the form of tablets. However, there is no evidence available to us that the rest of the laws of the Torah were revealed all at once.

See ayat 158 for tafseer.

See ayat 158 for tafseer.

See ayat 158 for tafseer.

In these verses, further actions, violations of law, hostilities, and enmities of the Children of Israel toward the divine prophets are mentioned. In the first verse, reference is made to the covenant‑breaking, disbelief, and killing of prophets by a group among them. It is stated that because of their breach of covenant, We removed them from Our mercy or declared some of the pure blessings forbidden to them (فَبِمَا نَقْضِہِمْ مِیثَاقَہُم). (Explanatory note: “فَبِمَا نَقْضِہِمْ” is, according to the rules of grammar, a جارّ و مجرور, and therefore requires a governing verb. It is possible that its implied governing word is “لَعَنّاہُم” (We cursed them) or “حَرَّمْنَا عَلَیْہِمْ” (We forbade for them), which appears in verse 160. On this basis, what occurs in between functions as a parenthetical statement, which in such contexts adds eloquence and stylistic beauty to the discourse.) After this covenant‑breaking, they denied the divine signs and adopted the path of opposition (وَکُفْرِہِمْ بِاٰیَاتِ اللّٰہِ), and they did not stop at this but went on to commit an even greater crime, namely the unjust killing of the guides of the path of truth—the prophets—without right (وَقَتْلِہِمُ الْاَنْبِیَاءَ بِغَیْرِ حَقٍّ). They were so bold and audacious in their wrongful conduct that they mocked the discourse of the prophets and openly said to them: our hearts are veiled and sealed off, preventing us from hearing and accepting your call (وَقَوْلِہِمْ قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ). Here the Qur’an further states: indeed, their hearts have truly been sealed, such that no truth can now take root within them; but the cause of this seal is their own disbelief and faithlessness. Hence, only a small number—those who did not fall into such obstinacy—believed, while the rest did not (بَلْ طَبَعَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیْہَا بِکُفْرِہِمْ فَلَا یُؤْمِنُونَ اِلَّا قَلِیلاً). Their violations of law did not end here. They advanced so swiftly along the path of disbelief that they leveled a grave calumny against a woman of perfect chastity, Maryam (عليها السلام), the mother of a great prophet of God, who had conceived by God’s command without a husband (وَبِکُفْرِہِمْ وَقَوْلِہِمْ عَلٰی مَرْیَمَ بُہْتَانًا عَظِیمًا). They even took pride in killing prophets and said: we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God (وَقَوْلِہِمْ اِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِیحَ عِیسَی ابْنَ مَرْیَمَ رَسُولَ اللّٰہِ). Perhaps they uttered “Messenger of God” mockingly and sarcastically. They were false in their claim of killing Jesus; they neither killed him nor crucified him, rather another person who resembled him was made to appear so to them and was crucified in his place (وَمَا قَتَلُوہُ وَمَا صَلَبُوہُ وَلٰـکِنْ شُبِّہَ لَہُمْ). Thereafter, the Qur’an says that those who differed concerning the Messiah were themselves in doubt, and had no real knowledge of the matter, following nothing but conjecture (وَاِنَّ الَّذِینَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِیہِ لَفِی شَکٍّ مِّنْہُ مَا لَہُمْ بِہِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ اِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ). The exegetes differ regarding the nature of this disagreement. Some have suggested that the disagreement concerned the true status and position of the Messiah: one group regarded him as the son of God, while others, like certain Jews, did not even acknowledge him as a prophet, and all of them were mistaken. It is also possible that the disagreement related to the manner of his killing—some saying he was killed and others saying he was not—and that none of them was truly certain of their claim. It may also be that those who claimed to have killed Jesus were in doubt because they failed to recognize him, uncertain whether the one they killed was truly the Messiah or someone else in his place. Concluding emphatically, the Qur’an declares that they certainly did not kill him; rather, God raised him up unto Himself, and God is Mighty and Wise (وَمَا قَتَلُوہُ یَقِینًا بَلْ رَفَعَہُ اللّٰہُ اِلَیْہِ وَکَانَ اللّٰہُ عَزِیزًا حَکِیمًا).

In the verse under consideration, the Qur’an states that the Messiah was neither killed nor crucified; rather, the matter was made to appear uncertain to them, and they imagined that he had been crucified, whereas in reality they most certainly did not kill him. In all four of the existing Gospels—Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John—the crucifixion and killing of the Messiah (عليه السلام) are mentioned. This matter is explained in detail in the concluding sections of all four Gospels. The general belief of contemporary Christians is the same. Indeed, from one perspective, the killing and crucifixion of the Messiah constitute one of the most fundamental pillars of present‑day Christianity, because, as is well known, modern Christians do not regard the Messiah merely as a prophet who came for the guidance, training, and instruction of humanity; rather, they call him the Son of God and one of the three persons of God. According to this belief, his very purpose in coming into the world was to be divine, and to “purchase” the sins of humankind through his sacrifice. Christians say that he came so as to become an atonement for our sins; he was crucified and killed in order to wash away the sins of humanity and deliver the world from punishment. For this reason, they believe that the path to salvation lies exclusively in establishing a relationship with the Messiah and believing in his crucifixion. It is for this reason that they refer to Christianity as the “religion of salvation” or the “religion of God,” and they call the Messiah the “savior” or the “redeemer.” This belief also explains why Christians make extensive use of the symbol of the cross and regard it as their distinctive emblem. This, in brief, is a summary of the Christian belief concerning the fate of the Messiah. However, no Muslim harbors any doubt that this belief is false. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. The Messiah (عليه السلام), like the other prophets, was a messenger of God; he was neither God nor the son of God. God is one and unique; He has no likeness, partner, peer, wife, or child. 2. The notion of atonement for sins is entirely irrational. Every individual is accountable for his own deeds, and the path to salvation lies in a person’s own faith and righteous action. 3. The doctrine of vicarious atonement encourages moral corruption, destruction, and pollution. The reason the Qur’an places special emphasis on the fact that the Messiah was not crucified—although it may appear, at first glance, to be a relatively minor point—is precisely to decisively refute the absurd and baseless belief that someone’s sins can be purchased or expiated through another’s sacrifice, and to extricate Christians from this superstitious belief so that they may rectify their conduct and actions as the means of salvation, rather than relying on the doctrine of the cross. 4. There exist numerous indications that point to the weakness of the belief in the crucifixion of Jesus (عليه السلام), for example: a. It is known that all four of the existing Gospels that mention the crucifixion were written after Jesus (عليه السلام), by his disciples or by the disciples of his disciples, and even Christian historians acknowledge this. It is also known that the disciples of the Messiah fled when faced with the enemy assault, and the Gospels themselves bear witness to this (Explanatory note: “At that moment, all the disciples abandoned him and fled” — Gospel of Matthew, chapter 26, sentence 87). Therefore, they learned about the crucifixion of the Messiah through rumors and reports circulating among the public, and it was from there that this notion entered their writings. As will be mentioned later, circumstances arose such that another person was mistakenly apprehended and taken in place of the Messiah. b. Another factor that supports the possibility that someone other than Jesus (عليه السلام) was arrested by mistake is that those who went to apprehend him in the Garden of Gethsemane outside the city were a detachment of Roman soldiers. These soldiers were occupied with their military duties in the garrison; they neither recognized the Jews, nor were they familiar with the local language and customs, nor were they able to distinguish Jesus (عليه السلام) from among his disciples. c. According to the Gospels, the arrest took place at night at the residence of Jesus (عليه السلام). In such circumstances, it becomes even easier for the real individual to escape and for another to be apprehended in his place. d. From the wording of all the Gospels it appears that the arrested person remained silent before the Roman governor Pilate and offered very little in his own defense in response to interrogation. It is highly unlikely that Jesus (عليه السلام), despite his eloquence, power of speech, courage, and bravery, would see himself in danger and yet refrain from defending himself. Does this not give rise to the strong possibility that another person was arrested in his place, who was so overcome by terror and anxiety that he was unable even to speak in his defense? There is a strong likelihood that this person was Judas Iscariot, who, according to the Gospels themselves, was not seen after this event and later committed suicide (cf. Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27, sentence 6). e. As mentioned earlier, according to the testimony of the Gospels, the disciples of the Messiah fled as soon as they sensed danger. It is only natural that other friends and associates also went into hiding that day and observed events from a distance. Consequently, the arrested individual was surrounded by Roman soldiers, with none of his companions present nearby. In such a situation, it is hardly surprising that a case of mistaken identity could have occurred. f. It is recorded in the Gospels that the person sentenced to the gallows cried out in complaint to God while on the cross, saying that He had abandoned him and handed him over to be killed by his enemies (Explanatory note: Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” meaning: “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” — Matthew, chapter 27, verses 46–47). If the Messiah (عليه السلام) had truly come into the world for the explicit purpose of being crucified and becoming an atonement for the sins of humanity, then such statements should never have been uttered by him. This utterance clearly indicates that the person was extremely weak, fearful, helpless, and distraught; such words would never have been spoken by the Messiah himself. (Note: some of the above indications are derived from the book “Qahramān‑e Ṣalīb.”) g. In addition to the four Gospels accepted by Christians, some other extant Gospels—such as the Gospel of Barnabas—explicitly deny the crucifixion of Jesus (عليه السلام) (cf. Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 34). Some researchers have even proposed the view that there were two individuals named Jesus, one of whom was crucified and the other was not, with a span of five hundred years separating them (cf. al‑Mīzān, vol. 3, p. 245). Taken collectively, these indications clarify the Qur’anic claim that the killing and crucifixion of the Messiah (عليه السلام) were matters of confusion and mistaken appearance rather than historical reality.

With regard to the interpretation of the above verse, two possible understandings may be considered, each of which merits examination. The verse states that there is no one among the People of the Book except that he will believe in the Messiah before “his own death” (وَإِنْ مِنْ اَہْلِ الْکِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَیُؤْمِنَنَّ بِہِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِہِ). This moment refers to the time when a person stands at the threshold of death. At that time, his connection with this world weakens while his connection with the next world becomes stronger; the veils are lifted from before his eyes, many realities become visible to him, and he attains awareness of them. At that juncture, his inner vision perceives the true station of the Messiah and submits to it. Those who had denied him then become believers, and those who had regarded him as God come to recognize their error. Such faith resembles the faith of Pharaoh and others who, upon being seized by punishment and witnessing their own destruction with their own eyes, profess belief. This kind of faith is of no benefit to them. How much better it would be, therefore, for such people to believe earlier, at a time when faith is of benefit and can truly transform them. According to this interpretation, the pronoun in “قَبْلَ مَوْتِہِ” refers to the individual from among the People of the Book. 1. According to the second interpretation, all the People of the Book will believe in the Messiah before “his death.” The Jews will accept his prophethood, and the Christians will abandon their belief in his divinity. This will occur, in accordance with Islamic traditions, at the time of the appearance of Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام), when Jesus (عليه السلام) will descend from the heavens and pray behind him. The Jews and Christians will see him and will come to believe in him as well as in Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام). It should be noted that the religion of Jesus (عليه السلام) belongs to an earlier dispensation, and at that time it will be his responsibility to follow the religion of Islam, whose executor and upholder will be Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام). According to this interpretation, the pronoun in “قَبْلَ مَوْتِہِ” refers to Jesus (عليه السلام) rather than to the People of the Book. 2. Many Islamic works transmit a narration from the Noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in which he said: کیف انتم اذا نزل فیکم ابن مریم وامامکم منکم “What will be your condition when the son of Mary descends among you while your leader is from among yourselves?” (According to Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, this narration is recorded in Musnad Aḥmad, Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and Sunan al‑Bayhaqī.) In the Tafsīr of ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, a report is transmitted from Shahr ibn Ḥawshab, who said that one day Ḥajjāj remarked: “There is a verse in the Qur’an that has exhausted me, and I remain immersed in reflecting upon its meaning.” Shahr asked: “Which verse is it, O Commander?” Ḥajjāj replied: “وَإِنْ مِنْ اَہْلِ الْکِتَابِ … for I kill Jews and Christians, yet I see no signs of such belief in them.” Shahr said: “You are not interpreting the verse correctly.” Ḥajjāj asked: “How so? What is its correct interpretation?” Shahr replied: “It means that Jesus (عليه السلام) will descend before the end of the world, and there will remain no Jew or non‑Jew who will not believe in him before the death of Jesus (عليه السلام). Jesus (عليه السلام) will pray behind Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام).” Upon hearing this, Ḥajjāj said: “Woe to you! Where did you bring this interpretation from?” Shahr answered: “I heard it from Muhammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليهم السلام).” Ḥajjāj then said: “واللہ جئت بھا من عین صافیہ,” that is, “By God, you have brought it from a pure and clear spring.” (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 426.) At the end of the verse, it is stated that on the Day of Resurrection, Jesus (عليه السلام) will be a witness against them (وَیَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ یَکُونُ عَلَیْہِمْ شَہِیدًا). By his testimony against them is meant that he will bear witness that he conveyed the message of prophethood and never invited them to believe in his divinity, but rather called them to the lordship and sovereignty of God alone. Provide your feedback on BizChat

Here a question arises: according to verse 117 of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, Jesus (عليه السلام) will testify on the Day of Resurrection only about the period of his earthly life during which he lived among his community, and he will not accept responsibility for what occurred after that (cf. Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 426), as stated in the divine saying: وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنتَ أَنتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنتَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ That is: “I was a witness over them so long as I remained among them; but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things.” However, in the verse under discussion it is stated that Jesus (عليه السلام) will bear witness on the Day of Resurrection concerning all of them, whether they lived in his own time or not. A careful comparison of the two verses makes it clear that the verse under discussion relates to the testimony of Jesus (عليه السلام) regarding the conveyance of his prophetic mission and the negation of any claim to divinity, whereas verse 117 of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah pertains to testimony concerning the actual conduct of his community. The clarification is as follows: the present verse indicates that Jesus (عليه السلام) will testify against all those who held beliefs in his divinity, whether they lived during his lifetime or thereafter, and he will declare that he never invited anyone to such a belief. By contrast, verse 117 of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah indicates that he will say that he fully and adequately conveyed the message of prophethood while he was among them and that during that time he practically prevented their deviation; however, after he was taken from among them, they adopted the belief in his divinity and chose the path of deviation, and during that period he was neither among them to witness their actions nor to restrain them from such deviation.

See ayat 162 for tafseer.

See ayat 162 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, reference was made to several examples of the lawlessness of the Jews. In the above verses, after mentioning some of their other improper deeds, the punishments are described that befell them—and will befall them—both in this world and in the Hereafter as a consequence of their actions. First it is stated: because of the ظلم and injustice committed by those who were Jews, and because of their barring people from the path of God, We rendered forbidden for them certain pure and wholesome things that had been lawful for them, and deprived them of benefiting from them (فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنْ الَّذِینَ ہَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَیْہِمْ طَیِّبَاتٍ اُحِلَّتْ لَہُمْ وَبِصَدِّہِمْ عَنْ سَبِیلِ اللهِ کَثِیرًا). Likewise, because they consumed usury despite having been forbidden from it, and because they wrongfully devoured the property of others, these very acts became the cause of their deprivation (وَاَخْذِہِمُ الرِّبَا وَقَدْ نُہُوا عَنْہُ وَاَکْلِہِمْ اَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ). In addition to this worldly punishment, We shall subject them to punishments in the Hereafter as well; and for those among them who disbelieved, We have prepared a painful chastisement (وَاَعْتَدْنَا لِلْکَافِرِینَ مِنْہُمْ عَذَابًا اَلِیمًا).

1. The prohibition of ṭayyibāt for the Jews: By the prohibition of ṭayyibāt is meant the same matter to which reference is made in Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 146, where it is stated: We forbade for the Jews, because of their ظلم and wrongdoing, every animal that does not have a split hoof, and We also forbade them the fat of cattle and sheep, which they were fond of, except that which is borne on their backs or attached to the entrails or mixed with bone. Accordingly, this prohibition was a legislative and legal prohibition, not a creational or natural one. That is, these blessings were naturally and physically available to them, but from the perspective of divine law they were prevented from consuming them. In the present Torah, in the book of Leviticus (chapter eleven), mention is made of the prohibition of some of these things, but it is not stated there that this prohibition was imposed as a punishment (cf. Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, vol. 3; see p. 29 of the Urdu translation). 2. Was this prohibition general? This prohibition applied specifically to the unjust individuals, not to everyone. In this regard, the apparent meaning of the above verse and of verse 146 of Sūrat al‑Anʿām indicates that for the oppressors it was a punishment, whereas for the righteous—who were few in number—it functioned as a test and a means of discipline. Some exegetes hold that this prohibition applied only to the oppressors, and certain narrations also point in this direction. In Tafsīr al‑Burhān, under Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 146, a narration is reported from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), where he said: The rulers and leaders of the Children of Israel used to prevent the poor and needy from eating the meat of birds and animal fat. Because of this injustice and oppression of theirs, God Himself rendered these things forbidden to them (reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 559). 3. The prohibition of usury predates Islam: This verse also makes it clear that the prohibition of usury is not exclusive to Islam; rather, it existed among previous communities as well, although in the present, altered Torah its prohibition appears to be limited to dealings with co‑religionists (cf. the Torah, Deuteronomy, chapter 23, verse 20). By “co‑religionists” here, offspring of Prophet Ishmael may be intended (translator’s note).

In the final verse among the verses under discussion, attention is drawn to an important reality repeatedly emphasized by the Qur’an: when the Qur’an censures the Jews, it is not doing so on the basis of ethnicity or communal rivalry. Islam does not condemn any nation or tribe because of its national or tribal identity; rather, the object of condemnation is only corrupt deeds and deviant individuals. For this reason, in this verse believing and upright individuals among the Jews are explicitly excluded, they are praised, and they are given the glad tidings of a great reward. The Qur’an states: but those among them who are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers who believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, and who establish prayer, give zakāt, and believe in God and the Last Day—such people We shall soon grant a great reward (لَكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلَاةَ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّٰهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ أُولٰئِكَ سَنُؤْتِيهِمْ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا). (Note: a detailed discussion of “الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ” has already been presented in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, vol. 2, p. 255 of the Urdu translation.) For this very reason, a group among the prominent Jews, upon witnessing the emergence of Islam and recognizing its truth, entered the fold of Islam and supported it with heart and soul. Such individuals came to be regarded with respect by the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and by the rest of the Muslims.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses we noted that the Jews made distinctions among the prophets, affirming some while denying others. In the verses under consideration, they are once again given a response. It is stated: We have revealed to you just as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him; and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon; and We gave David the Zabūr (إِنَّا اَوْحَیْنَا إِلَیْکَ کَمَا اَوْحَیْنَا إِلَی نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِیِّینَ مِنْ بَعْدِہِ وَاَوْحَیْنَا إِلَی إِبْرَاہِیمَ وَإِسْمَاعِیلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَیَعْقُوبَ وَالْاَسْبَاطِ وَعِیسَی وَاَیُّوبَ وَیُونُسَ وَہَارُونَ وَسُلَیْمَانَ وَآتَیْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا). Why, then, do you create divisions among those noble prophets, when all of them are travelers upon the same path? It is also possible that the addressees of this verse are the Arab polytheists and idol‑worshippers, who were astonished at the descent of revelation upon the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The verse conveys that there is nothing surprising in this: was revelation not sent to the earlier prophets as well? Thereafter it further states that the prophets upon whom revelation was bestowed were not limited to those mentioned above; there were other messengers whose accounts had already been related to you, as well as messengers whose accounts have not yet been narrated. All of them shared the same mission, and revelation was continuously bestowed upon them (وَرُسُلًا قَدْ قَصَصْنَاہُمْ عَلَیْکَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَرُسُلًا لَمْ نَقْصُصْہُمْ عَلَیْکَ). Beyond all this, God spoke to Moses directly (وَکَلَّمَ اللّٰہُ مُوسَیٰ تَکْلِیمًا). Thus, the bond of revelation has always existed within humanity. How could it be conceivable that mankind should be left without guides and leaders, and yet still be held accountable and responsible? For this reason, We sent these messengers as bearers of glad tidings and as warners, so that they might give people hope of God’s mercy and reward, and warn them of His punishments, thereby completing the proof against them and leaving them with no excuse (رُسُلًا مُبَشِّرِینَ وَمُنذِرِینَ لِاَلاَّ یَکُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَی اللهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ). God has organized and sustained this program of sending guides with the utmost precision. How could it be otherwise, when He is Mighty and Wise (وَکانَ اللّٰہُ عَزِیزًا حَکِیمًا)? His wisdom necessitates the practical realization of this plan, and His power paves the way for its fulfillment. For if a sound program were not to be realized, it would be due either to a lack of wisdom or to a lack of power—yet neither of these deficiencies can exist in the pure essence of God. At the end of the verse, for the consolation and reassurance of the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is stated: God Himself bears witness to what He has revealed to you (لَکِنِ اللّٰہُ یَشْہَدُ بِمَا اَنْزَلَ إِلَیْکَ). Your selection for this mission was not without purpose; rather, He revealed these verses to you with full knowledge of your reality (اَنْزَلَہُ بِعِلْمِہِ). This statement may also carry another meaning, namely that what has been revealed to you flows from the boundless ocean of divine knowledge, and its contents themselves testify that their source is divine knowledge. Hence, the truthfulness of your claim is attested by the very text of the verses, and no external proof is needed. How could it be possible for one who never sat at the feet of a teacher to present, without divine knowledge, a book that encompasses the highest teachings, philosophy, laws, ethical injunctions, and comprehensive social programs? Finally, it is stated that not only does God bear witness to your truthfulness, but the angels also bear witness—although God’s testimony alone is sufficient (وَالْمَلَائِکَةُ یَشْہَدُونَ وَکَفَیٰ بِاللّٰہِ شَہِیدًا).

1. Islam as the synthesis of the virtues of all religions: Some exegetes infer from the phrase “اِنَّا اَوْحَیْنَا اِلَیْكَ كَمَا اَوْحَیْنَا …” that the Qur’an intends to convey to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that all the qualities and distinguishing features that were present separately in the previous religions have been brought together in his religion—so to speak: آنچہ خوباں ہمہ دارند تو تنہا داری that is, “All the excellences which others possess individually, you possess collectively.” Certain narrations reported from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) also point to this meaning, and the exegetes have in fact derived this conclusion from those narrations (see Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī, p. 139; Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 42; and Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 1, p. 573). 2. Categories of heavenly scriptures: The above verse mentions the Zabūr among the heavenly books that God granted to David (عليه السلام). This does not contradict the well‑known fact that the prophets who brought a new legal dispensation and possessed an independent scripture—the ulū al‑ʿazm prophets—are no more than five. As indicated by Qur’ānic verses and Islamic traditions, the heavenly scriptures revealed to the prophets fall into two categories. The first category comprises those scriptures that contained legislative commandments and proclaimed a new law; these are not more than five, corresponding to the five ulū al‑ʿazm prophets upon whom they were revealed. The second category comprises scriptures that did not introduce new laws, but consisted rather of exhortations, admonitions, guidance, counsels, and supplications. The Zabūr belongs to this category. The “Psalms of David” or “Zabūr of David,” which are counted among the books of the Old Testament, bear witness to this reality. Although this book, like other texts of the Old and New Testaments, has not remained free from distortion and alteration, it can nevertheless be said that it has survived to some extent in its general form. It consists of one hundred and fifty sections, each of which is called a psalm, and all of them are comprised of exhortations, moral counsel, supplications, and invocations. A narration is reported from Abū Dharr, who said that he asked the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny how many prophets there were. He replied: “One hundred and twenty‑four thousand.” Abū Dharr then asked: “How many of them were messengers?” He said: “Three hundred and thirteen; the rest were prophets.” Abū Dharr further asked: “How many heavenly books were revealed to them?” He answered: “They were one hundred and four books: ten books were revealed to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Idrīs, and ten to Abraham—making one hundred books—along with the Torah, the Gospel, the Zabūr, and the Qur’an” (reported in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 10, p. 476). 1. The meaning of al‑Asbāṭ: Al‑Asbāṭ is the plural of sibṭ (on the pattern of sabad), and it signifies the tribes of the Children of Israel. Here, however, what is intended are the prophets who were raised among those tribes (see the detailed discussion of al‑Asbāṭ in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, vol. 1, Urdu translation, p. 244). 2. The modalities of revelation to the prophets: The manner in which revelation descended upon the prophets varied. Sometimes revelation came through the angel of revelation; at other times through inspiration cast into the heart; and at times in the form of an audible voice, whereby God produced sound waves in space or through physical entities and thus spoke to His prophet. Among those who were distinguished in this regard was Moses son of ʿImrān, who would sometimes hear the voice from the tree in the blessed valley, and at other times from Mount Ṭūr. For this reason, Moses was given the title Kalīm Allāh. The separate mention of Moses in the above verse may well be due to this distinctive privilege.

See ayat 169 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, various discussions concerning disbelievers and believers have already passed. In the present verses, yet another group is identified—those who have chosen the most severe form of disbelief. They did not content themselves with their own deviation; rather, they actively strive to mislead others as well. These are people who consider it acceptable to commit ظلم against themselves, and against others, for they neither tread the path of guidance themselves nor desire that others should walk upon it. Accordingly, in the first verse it is stated: those who disbelieve and obstruct others from setting foot upon the path of God have indeed fallen into a far‑removed misguidance (إِنَّ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا وَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِیلِ اللهِ قَدْ ضَلُّوا ضَلاَلًا بَعِیدًا). Such people are at the furthest distance from the path of truth, because they are not only misguided themselves but also propagate misguidance. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they will abandon the very path to which they themselves invite others. Along with disbelief, they have combined obstinacy and hostility, and have set out upon a course of deviation that lies far removed from the path of truth. In the following verse it is further stated: those who disbelieve and commit ظلم—meaning that they wrong the truth by failing to act in accordance with what it demands, they wrong themselves by depriving their own souls of felicity and plunging into misguidance, and they wrong others by barring them from the path of truth—such individuals will not attain the forgiveness of the Lord, and God will not guide them to any path other than the path of Hell (إِنَّ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا وَظَلَمُوا لَمْ یَکُنْ اللهُ لِیَغْفِرَ لَہُمْ وَلاَ لِیَہْدِیَہُمْ طَرِیقًا إِلاَّ طَرِیقَ جَہَنَّمَ). They shall abide therein forever (خَالِدِینَ فِیہَا اَبَدًا). They should know that the divine warning and threat will most certainly be carried out, for this is easy for God and fully within His power (وَکَانَ ذَلِکَ عَلَی اللهِ یَسِیرًا). As is evident, the above verses lay particular emphasis on such disbelievers and their punishment. On the one hand, their deviation is described as ضلال بعید, a distant and extreme misguidance; on the other hand, the expression لَمْ یَکُنِ اللهُ indicates that forgiving them is incompatible with the demands of divine justice; and finally, further emphasis is added through the expressions خالدین and اَبَدًا. All of this severity is due to the fact that they not only went astray themselves, but were also persistent in leading others astray, thereby rendering their accountability exceedingly grave.

In the preceding verses, the fate of the unbelievers has been described. In the present verse, an invitation to faith is issued, and its outcome is explained by employing expressions that inspire yearning and encouragement within the human soul. All people are urged toward this exalted objective. It is first stated: O people, the very Messenger for whom you were waiting, and concerning whom indications had already been given in the earlier heavenly scriptures, has now come to you bearing the truth (یَا اَیُّہَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَائَکُمْ الرَّسُولُ بِالْحَقِّ). (Explanatory note: apparently, the definite article in “الرَّسُولُ” is the definite article of covenant, pointing to the Messenger for whose advent they had been waiting—not only the Jews and Christians, but even the polytheists, since they had heard accounts from the People of the Book in this regard and were themselves expectant. With regard to “بِالْحَقِّ,” in some narrations transmitted through the paths of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), “the truth” has been interpreted as the wilayah of ʿAlī (عليه السلام). As has been stated repeatedly, such interpretations mention a clear instance or manifestation, and do not restrict the verse exclusively to that single meaning.) Thereafter it is said: this Messenger has come from the very Lord who has undertaken your upbringing and nurturing (مِنْ رَبِّکُمْ). It is then further stated: if you believe, it will be for your own good; through faith you will not be serving someone else, but rather rendering service to your own selves (فَآمِنُوا خَیْرًا لَکُمْ). Finally, it is declared: do not imagine that if you choose the path of disbelief it will cause any harm to God; this is not the case, for all that is in the heavens and the earth belongs to God (وَإِنْ تَکْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ لِلّٰهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ). Moreover, since God is All‑Knowing and Wise, all the commands He has enjoined upon you and all the programs He has instituted are grounded in wisdom and hidden benefits, and they operate in your own interest (وَکَانَ اللّٰهُ عَلِیمًا حَکِیمًا). Hence, if He has sent prophets and established programs, this is not due to any need on His part, but rather a requirement of His knowledge and wisdom. In view of all these considerations, is it fitting that you abandon the path of faith and set out upon the path of disbelief?

In this verse and the one that follows it, within the context of the ongoing discussion about the disbelievers and the People of the Book, reference is made to one of the most serious deviations of the Christian community, namely the doctrine of the Trinity, or the belief in three gods. Through brief yet forceful argumentative statements, they are warned of the grave consequences of this major deviation. First, they are cautioned and alerted to the danger with the words: do not exceed proper bounds in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth (یَا اَہْلَ الْکِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللّٰهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ). One of the most significant factors in the deviation of the heavenly religions has been the tendency of people to exaggerate regarding their leaders and guides. Since human beings are naturally attached to themselves, they seek to elevate their leaders beyond their true station, imagining that by magnifying them they are enhancing their own significance. At times, people become trapped in this perilous vortex because they suppose that such exaggeration concerning their leaders is a sign of devotion and love. The greatest flaw of exaggeration, however, is that it undermines and corrupts the very foundation of religion, which is God‑centeredness and pure monotheism. For this reason, Islam’s stance toward those who exaggerate (ghulāt) is extremely severe and uncompromising, and in theological and juridical works such individuals are classified among the worst categories of disbelievers.

In this connection, several points deserve attention: 1. ʿĪsā (Jesus) is the son of Mary: In the Noble Qur’an, the name of ʿĪsā is mentioned together with the name of his mother sixteen times (إِنَّمَا الْمَسِیحُ عِیسَی ابْنُ مَرْیَمَ). That is, Jesus is only the son of Mary. This expression points clearly to the fact that the Messiah, like other human beings, remained in the رحمِ مادر, passed through the embryonic stage, was born, drank milk, and was nurtured in his mother’s care. In other words, all human attributes were present in him. How, then, could a being who is subject to the laws of nature and the material world become the Eternal and Everlasting God? In particular, the word “إِنَّمَا” appearing in the verse under discussion serves as a response to a mistaken assumption: the absence of a father does not imply that ʿĪsā is the son of God; rather, he is only the son of Mary. 2. ʿĪsā is the Messenger of God: ʿĪsā is God’s envoy and Messenger (رَسُولُ اللَّهِ). This status and rank are themselves incompatible with any claim to divinity. It is noteworthy that the various statements attributed to Jesus—some of which still survive in the present Gospels—all point to his prophethood and mission for human guidance, not to his divinity or godhood. 3. ʿĪsā is the Word of God: ʿĪsā is described as the Word of God cast unto Mary (وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَیٰ مَرْیَمَ). In several Qur’anic verses, Jesus is referred to as “کلمہ.” This expression signifies his being created, just as our own words are our creations and productions. Likewise, all entities in the created world are God’s creations. Just as human words manifest inner meanings and articulate attributes and emotions, so too do the creatures of the universe manifest the attributes of divine majesty and beauty. For this reason, the Qur’an in several places uses the word “کلمة” for all created things (for example, al‑Kahf 109 and Luqmān 29). These “words,” however, differ in rank: some are exceedingly exalted, others relatively ordinary. Jesus possessed a special distinction in creation, in addition to prophethood, in that he was created without a father. 4. ʿĪsā is a spirit from God: Jesus is described as a spirit created by God (وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ). This expression also appears in the Qur’an concerning Adam, and in one sense applies to all humankind. It points to the nobility of the spirit that God has breathed into human beings in general, and into the Messiah and the other prophets in particular. Some have attempted to misuse this expression with reference to Jesus, claiming that it indicates he is a “part” of God, basing this argument on the word “مِنْهُ.” However, it is well known that in such contexts “مِنْ” does not denote partition (tabʿīḍ), but rather is a min nashʾiyyah, indicating origin and source. In this regard, historical accounts mention that Hārūn al‑Rashīd had a Christian physician who once engaged in debate with ʿAlī ibn Ḥusayn al‑Wāqidī, a scholar among the Muslims. The physician said: “Your heavenly Book contains a verse that shows that the Messiah is a part of God,” and then recited the verse under discussion. Al‑Wāqidī immediately recited this Qur’anic verse: وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا مِّنْهُ That is: “He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth—all from Him” (al‑Jāthiyah 13). He then said: “If ‘مِنْ’ indicated partition, then according to this verse everything in the heavens and the earth would be a part of God.” Upon hearing this, the Christian physician immediately embraced Islam. Hārūn al‑Rashīd was greatly pleased by this incident and rewarded al‑Wāqidī (cf. Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 84). Moreover, it is astonishing that Christians cite the birth of Jesus without a father as evidence of his divinity, while overlooking the fact that Adam was created without both father and mother—yet no one regards this unique creation as proof of Adam’s divinity. After presenting these points, the Qur’an says: since this is the reality, believe in God and His messengers, and do not say “three”; desist—it is better for you (فَآمِنُوا بِاللّٰهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌۚ اِنْتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ). Once again it is emphasized that God alone is the One True Deity (إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ). Although you claim that God is one even while holding the doctrine of the Trinity, true unity becomes meaningless if He is said to have a son who would resemble Him. How could such unity persist? How could God have a son when He is exalted above every deficiency—including the deficiency of needing a wife or offspring—and above corporeality and physical attributes (سُبْحَانَهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ)? Furthermore, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him; all are His creation, and He is their Creator. The Messiah is one of these created beings—how then could an exception be claimed for him? Is it conceivable that a created being and owned entity could become the son of his Creator and Owner (لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ)? God is not only the Creator and Owner of all things; He is also their Sustainer, Protector, Provider, and Guardian (وَكَفَىٰ بِاللّٰهِ وَكِيلًا). In principle, a God who is Eternal and Everlasting, and who has taken upon Himself the care of all creation from eternity to eternity, has no need of a son. Is He like human beings, who desire a son to succeed them after their death?

Christianity has succumbed to various deviations and distortions, among which none is more grave than the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians state explicitly that God is three, and at the same time they also insist that He is one and unique—that is, they affirm both unity and trinity simultaneously. This assertion has created an immense difficulty for Christian scholars and thinkers. Had they regarded divine unity as metaphorical and the Trinity as literal, the matter would at least have been conceptually simpler; likewise, had they accepted unity as literal and treated the Trinity as metaphorical, the problem could have been resolved with relative ease. But what is truly astonishing is that they maintain both as literal and real. In contemporary times, some Christian missionary writings have been distributed among uninformed audiences in which a “metaphorical Trinity” is proposed. In reality, this represents a form of dissimulation that does not accord with the authentic sources and foundational texts of Christianity, nor with the genuine beliefs of its authoritative scholars. This is the point at which Christianity finds itself confronted with an irrational proposition—one that even a child who has learned the alphabet and basic counting cannot accept. For this reason, Christians commonly assert that this issue is not subject to the measure of reason, but rather pertains to devotion, worship, and the heart. From here emerges the notion of separating religion from logic and reason, a development that draws Christianity into a perilous valley in which it is claimed that religion has no rational dimension and consists solely of emotional and devotional elements. At this point, the estrangement between knowledge and religion becomes apparent, and the contradiction between the logic of modern Christianity and rational inquiry is laid bare. For reason categorically affirms that the number three can never be equal to the number one, whereas contemporary Christianity maintains that they are equal.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Gospels: In any of the existing Gospels, there is no indication of the issue of the Trinity. For this reason, Christian researchers are of the view that the source of the Trinity in the Gospels is hidden and unclear. An American author, Mr. Box, says: But the issue of the Trinity is hidden and unclear in the Old Testament and the New Testament. (Reference: Qamus-ul-Muqaddas, p. 345, Beirut edition) As some historians have written, the issue of the Trinity arose among Christians approximately after the third century. It is an innovation that entered into true Christianity on the one hand due to exaggeration and on the other hand due to the interaction of Christians with other nations. Some have expressed the possibility that the Christian Trinity was principally taken from the Hindu triad worship, which is called the "Indian Trinity." (Refer to the 20th-century encyclopedia by Farid Wajdi, under the entry for "Thaluth"; the three Hindu gods were Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is against reason: The Trinity, especially the Trinity in Unity (i.e., three while being one), is a concept that is completely irrational and contrary to rational guidance. And we know that religion can never be separate from reason and knowledge. True knowledge is always in harmony with true religion, and these two are always alongside each other. The idea that religion should be accepted on the basis of blind faith is very wrong, because if reason is set aside in accepting the principles of a religion and it is accepted merely on the basis of blind faith, then no difference will remain between that religion and other religions. In that case, what argument is there to say that man should be a worshipper of God and not an idol worshipper? And likewise, why then should Christians propagate their religion, but other religions should not? And what are the special characteristics that they perceive in Christianity and insist that people come towards it? All these questions are proof that religion should be understood through logic, and this is completely contrary to the claim according to which they separate religion from reason in the matter of the Trinity. In any case, there is nothing worse for destroying the foundations of religion than to say that religion does not have a rational and logical aspect but is adopted on the basis of blind faith. 3. God is one in every respect: In the discussion of Tawhid (monotheism), many arguments have been presented that prove the oneness and uniqueness of God's essence and negate any kind of duality, trinity, or plurality. God is one, who is an infinite being, who is eternal, everlasting, and unlimited in terms of knowledge, power, and ability. We know that plurality and duality cannot be conceived in an infinite being. Because if we assume two to be infinite, both will be limited. Because the first being lacks the power, ability, and existence of the second, and the second being similarly lacks the existence and the distinctions and characteristics of the first being. Meaning, the first being has its own existence and distinctions, and the second has its own existence and distinctions; on this basis, the first being will be limited, and the second as well. In clearer terms, if two beings are assumed to be infinite in all aspects, then surely the first "infinite" being, upon reaching the limit of the second "infinite" being, will end, and the second "infinite" being, upon reaching the limit of the first "infinite" being, will also end. Therefore, both will be limited and finite. The result of this is that the essence of God, which is an infinite being, can never have plurality. Therefore, if we believe that the essence of God is composed of three persons or three essences, its consequence is that all three would be limited, not unlimited and infinite. Furthermore, every composite is dependent on its parts, and its existence is an effect of their existence. The necessary consequence of accepting composition for the essence of God is that He would be dependent and an effect, whereas we know that He is self-sufficient and the first cause of the world of existence. 4. How is it possible for God to be in human form?: Regardless of all these points, how is it possible for the essence of God to appear in human form and become needful of a body, place, food, clothing, etc.? To confine the eternal and everlasting God within the body of a human and to conceive of Him in the state of a fetus in a mother's womb are among the worst slanders that can be associated with the sacred essence of the Divine. Similarly, to attribute a son to God is an illogical and completely irrational matter, because its necessary consequence is to affirm various physical attributes for God. This is why a person who has not been raised in a Christian environment and has not become accustomed to these imaginary and false teachings from childhood begins to feel distressed upon hearing these things that are against nature and reason. Christians themselves do not get troubled by hearing things like "God the Father" and "God the Son" because they have become familiar with these erroneous concepts from childhood. 5. Deceptive Analogies: In this era, it is seen that some Christian preachers resort to deceptive examples to keep uninformed people heedless. For example, they compare the unity in trinity (i.e., being one while being three) to the sphere of the sun, its light, and its heat. Meaning, these are three things, yet they are one reality. Similarly, they compare it to a being whose reflection threeis being reflected in mirrors; even though it is a single entity, three entities are seen. Similarly, they give the example of a triangle which has three angles, but if these angles are extended inwards, they meet at a single point. With a little reflection, it becomes clear that these examples have no connection to the issue under discussion. It is an accepted fact that the sphere of the sun and its light are two different things. Light refers to waves above the red color, which, from a scientific perspective, is different from heat, which is infrared waves. If they are called one, this holds no more reality than a misunderstanding and a metaphor. The example of the body and the mirrors is clearer than this, because the reflection that falls in the mirrors is nothing other than the reflection of light. And it is an accepted fact that the reflection of light is something other than the body itself; therefore, they cannot be called one thing. And anyone who has read the first book of physics in any school knows this. The example of the triangle is also like this; the angles of a triangle are certainly multiple, and when the angles, by extending inwards, change into a single point, this has no relation to the triangle. It is a matter of surprise that some Eastern Christians try to apply the logic of the Sufis' *wahdat al-wujud* (Explanatory Note: By the Sufi doctrine of *wahdat al-wujud*, what is meant is the unity of being. They say that there is only one existence which manifests in different faces, and that one existence is a fallacy) to the doctrine of the Trinity in unity. But it is clear without saying that even if a person were to accept the erroneous and deviant belief of *wahdat al-wujud*, they would still have to consider all the beings of this universe as a part of God's essence, or rather, conceive of them as His very essence. Therefore, no meaning of a trinity can be derived from this; rather, all beings, from the smallest to the greatest, would be deemed its part or manifestation. Hence, the Christian Trinity has no connection to *wahdat al-wujud*, even though the Sufi doctrine of *wahdat al-wujud* has, in its own right, also been proven false. 6. Another Misconception: Sometimes, some Christians say that when we call Jesus the Son of God, it is similar to how you call Imam Hussain (as) *Thar Allah wa Ibn Tharih* (the blood of God and the son of the blood of God), or how in some narrations, Hazrat Ali (as) is called *Yad Allah* (the Hand of God). The answer to this is that, firstly, it is a great misunderstanding that some have translated *'thar'* to mean blood. Because the word *'thar'* in Arabic has never come to mean 'blood'; rather, its meaning is 'blood revenge' or 'price of blood'. In Arabic, the word used for blood is *'dam'*. Therefore, *'Thar Allah'* means, "O person whose price of blood pertains to Allah, and He alone will exact your blood revenge." Meaning, you do not belong to a single family such that the head of that family would avenge you, nor do you belong to a single tribe such that the chief of the tribe would avenge you; you belong to the world of humanity, and your connection is with the universe, existence, and the pure essence of God. Therefore, He must take your blood revenge. Similarly, you are the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as), who was a martyr in the path of God, and God Himself must also take his blood revenge. Secondly, if in any religious text a term like *'Yad Allah'* or something similar has been used for the men of God, it is as a simile, an allusion, and a metaphor. Is any true Christian prepared to declare that calling the Messiah the Son of God is a type of metaphor and allusion? Certainly, this is not the case, because in the primary books and sources of Christianity, he is declared the real son of God, and they say that this attribute is specific to the Messiah and not for anyone else. What is seen in some of the superficial missionary writings of Christians, where they declare "Son of God" to be an allusion and a simile, is mostly to deceive the common people. For clarification of this, pay attention to the following passage. This passage was written by the author of the *Qamus Kitab-i Muqaddas* (Dictionary of the Holy Book) under the entry for the word "God": And "Son of God" is a title for our Savior and Redeemer that cannot be used for anyone else, except in a place where it is known from the context that the intended meaning is the real son of God (Reference: *Qamus-i Muqaddas*, p. 245, Beirut edition).

See ayat 173 for tafseer.

Some exegetes have reported the following narration concerning the occasion of revelation of these verses: a group of Christians from Najrān came into the presence of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said, “Why do you criticize our leader?” The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied, “What fault have I attributed to him?” They said, “You say that he is a servant of God and His Messenger.” Thereupon these verses were revealed, and they were answered through them.

Although the verses under discussion possess a specific occasion of revelation, they remain closely connected to the preceding verses in which the divinity of the Messiah is denied and the doctrine of the Trinity is refuted. First, from yet another perspective, the divinity of the Messiah is negated by stating: how can you believe in the divinity of Jesus when neither Jesus himself refrains from servitude to his Lord, nor do the angels who are brought near to God refrain from that servitude (لَنْ یَسْتَنْكِفَ الْمَسِیحُ أَنْ یَكُونَ عَبْدًا لِلّٰهِ وَلَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ). It is self‑evident that one who himself worships cannot be an object of worship. Is it conceivable that someone should worship himself, or that the worshipper and the object of worship, the servant and the Lord, be one and the same? It is noteworthy that a narration is reported from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (عليه السلام), wherein he confounded deviant Christians who claimed the divinity of Jesus. Addressing one of their leading clerics, the Jāthlīq, he said: the other traits of Jesus are commendable, except for one shortcoming—he did not engage in sufficient worship. The Christian, taken aback, angrily replied: how mistaken you are! It is unanimously agreed that he was the most devoted of worshippers. The Imam immediately asked: whom did he worship? Did he worship anyone other than God? Thus, by your own admission, he was a servant of God, a created being who worshipped Him—not a deity or God. The Christian fell silent and could offer no reply (reported in Manāqib Ibn Shahrāshūb, vol. 4, p. 352). Thereafter, the Qur’an further states: whoever turns away from the worship and servitude of the Lord out of arrogance, God will gather all such people before Him on the Day of Resurrection and assign to each an appropriate recompense (وَمَنْ یَسْتَنْكِفْ عَنْ عِبَادَتِهِ وَیَسْتَكْبِرْ فَسَیَحْشُرُهُمْ إِلَیْهِ جَمِیعًا). On that day, those who believed and performed righteous deeds will be fully granted their rewards, and God will increase them out of His grace; whereas those who refused servitude and chose the path of arrogance will be subjected to a painful punishment, and besides God they will find no protector, patron, or helper (فَأَمَّا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَیُوَفِّیهِمْ أُجُورَهُمْ وَیَزِیدُهُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ وَأَمَّا الَّذِینَ اسْتَنْكَفُوا وَاسْتَكْبَرُوا فَیُعَذِّبُهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِیمًا وَلَا یَجِدُونَ لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللّٰهِ وَلِیًّا وَلَا نَصِیرًا).

1. “اِسْتَنْكَفُوا” and “اِسْتَكْبَرُوا”: The term istinkāf denotes refraining from something or withdrawing oneself from it; therefore, it carries a broad meaning. However, by adding istakbarū, this meaning is narrowed, because turning away from servitude to God may sometimes arise from ignorance or lack of awareness, and at other times from arrogance, self‑conceit, and rebellion. Although both are reprehensible, the latter is many times more blameworthy and severe. 2. The angels do not abstain from worship: The mention that the angels do not refuse worship is either because the Christians believed in three deities (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—or, in other words, God the Father, God the Son, and the intermediary between the two). Thus, in this verse the Qur’an aims to negate the divinity of the other alleged objects of worship—both the Messiah and the Holy Spirit (understood as an angel)—so that the unity of the Divine Essence may be affirmed. Alternatively, it may be because, while responding to Christian polytheism, the verse also alludes to the polytheism of the Arab idolaters, who regarded the angels as God’s offspring and as part of the Divine Being; this statement therefore serves as a response to them as well. By taking into consideration both of these perspectives regarding the angels, there remains no room for debate as to whether the verse under discussion indicates the superiority of angels over the prophets or not, because the purpose of the verse is to negate the third hypostasis of the Trinity or the objects of worship of the Arab polytheists—not to establish any superiority of the angels over the Messiah.

See ayat 175 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned the deviation of the People of the Book from monotheism and the teachings of the prophets. In these two verses, the final word is stated and the path of salvation is clearly identified and determined. First, addressing all the people of the world, it declares: O people! There has come to you from your Lord a Messenger possessing clear proofs and decisive evidence, and We have sent down to you a manifest light, namely the Qur’an, which illuminates your path to felicity and true success (یَا اَیُّہَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَائَکُمْ بُرْہَانٌ مِنْ رَبِّکُمْ وَاَنزَلْنَا إِلَیْکُمْ نُورًا مُبِینًا). According to the view of some scholars, the word “برہان” is derived from the root “برہ” (on the pattern of “فرح”), meaning whiteness. Since a clear and sound argument reveals the face of truth to the listener, making it manifest, luminous, and clear, it is called “برہان.” As some exegetes have stated, and as contextual indications confirm, in the present verse “برہان” refers to the blessed person of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and “نور” refers to the Noble Qur’an, which in several other verses is also described as light. In Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, the Tafsīr of ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, and Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, a number of narrations have been transmitted through the channels of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) stating that the word “برہان” refers to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and that “نور” refers to ʿAlī (عليه السلام). This interpretation does not contradict the general meaning of the verse, for it is possible that “نور” here has a broad sense that includes both the Qur’an and Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام), who was the guardian, interpreter, and defender of the Qur’an. In the following verse, the outcome of following this “burhān” and this “nūr” is described: as for those who believe in God and hold firmly to this heavenly Book, He will soon admit them into His vast mercy, increase their reward through His grace and favor, and guide them toward Himself along the straight and upright path (فَاَمَّا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا بِاللهِ وَاعْتَصَمُوا بِہِ فَسَیُدْخِلُہُمْ فِی رَحْمَةٍ مِنْہُ وَفَضْلٍ وَیَہْدِیہِمْ إِلَیْہِ صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِیمًا). (Explanatory note: a detailed discussion of “صراط مستقیم” has already been presented in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume one, in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Ḥamd; see the Urdu translation, p. 69.)

Many exegetes transmit the occasion of revelation of this verse from Jābir ibn ʿAbdallāh al‑Anṣārī as follows. He relates: I became severely ill, so the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny came to visit me. He performed ablution there and sprinkled the water of his ablution over me. Since I was preoccupied with the thought of death, I said to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: my only heirs are my sisters—how should their inheritance be apportioned? Thereupon this verse was revealed, which is known as the Verse of Inheritance (Āyat al‑Farāʾiḍ). According to the view of some scholars, this was the final verse revealed to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny concerning the legal rulings of Islam (cf. Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī, under the commentary on the present verse).

In the verse under consideration, the share of inheritance allotted to brothers and sisters is explained. As we have already mentioned in the commentary on verse 12 at the beginning of this sūrah, there are two verses in the Noble Qur’an concerning the inheritance of brothers and sisters. One is verse 12 itself, and the other is this verse, which is the final verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ. Although the two verses differ with respect to the specified shares of inheritance, it has already been clarified at the beginning of the sūrah that each verse pertains to a different category of brothers and sisters. Verse 12 relates to maternal siblings, whereas the present verse concerns paternal‑maternal siblings or purely paternal siblings. The reason for this is that, in general, some heirs are related to the deceased indirectly, and their share of inheritance is determined through that intermediary relationship. Thus, maternal brothers and sisters receive their share based on the mother’s portion, which is one third, while paternal or paternal‑maternal brothers and sisters receive a share corresponding to the father’s inheritance, which is two thirds. Since verse 12 discusses the inheritance of brothers and sisters in terms of a one‑third share, it applies to those who are related to the deceased only through the mother, whereas the verse under discussion deals with a two‑thirds share and therefore applies to those brothers and sisters who are related through both parents or through the father alone. Moreover, narrations transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt concerning this matter also confirm this interpretation. In any case, once the one‑third or two‑thirds share assigned to the brother or sister is determined, the remaining property is distributed among the other heirs in accordance with Islamic law. Since it has thus become clear that there is no contradiction between these two verses, we now proceed to explain the rulings contained in the present verse. It should be noted that this verse was revealed in response to a question concerning kalālah (brothers and sisters). (Explanatory note: the lexical meaning of kalālah and the reason brothers and sisters are referred to by this term has already been discussed in detail under verse 12 of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ; see the Urdu translation, vol. 3, p. 288.) Therefore, it is stated: they ask you for a ruling; say that God gives you a ruling concerning kalālah (یستفتونک قل اللہ یفتیکم فی الکلالة). Thereafter, reference is made to several specific legal rulings.

1. When a man passes away leaving no children and only one sister, then one half of the estate he leaves shall go to that single sister (اِنِ امْرُؤٌ ہَلَکَ لَیْسَ لَہُ وَلَدٌ وَلَہُ اُخْتٌ فَلَہَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَکَ). 2. If a woman dies leaving no children and she has only one brother (whether paternal‑maternal or purely paternal), then the entire estate shall go to that lone brother (وَہُوَ یَرِثُہَا اِنْ لَّمْ یَکُنْ لَّہَا وَلَدٌ). 3. If the deceased leaves behind two sisters, then they shall receive two‑thirds of what he leaves (فَاِنْ کَانَتَا اثْنَتَیْنِ فَلَہُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَکَ). 4. If the deceased leaves both brothers and sisters (more than two in number), then they shall divide the entire estate among themselves such that the share of each male shall be equal to the share of two females (وَاِنْ کَانُوا اِخْوَۃً رِجَالًا وَّنِسَاءً فَلِلذَّکَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْاُنْثَیَیْنِ). At the end of the verse it states: God makes these matters clear to you lest you go astray, and so that you may attain the path of felicity; and indeed, the path indicated by God alone is the true and correct path, for He has full knowledge of all things (یُبَیِّنُ اللّٰہُ لَکُمْ اَنْ تَضِلُّوا وَاللّٰہُ بِکُلِّ شَیْءٍ عَلِیمٌ). (Explanatory note: here “اَنْ تَضِلُّوا” is used in the sense of “اَنْ لَا تَضِلُّوا,” that is, the particle “لا” is implicit. Such expressions occur frequently in the Qur’an and in the Arabic language.) It should also be noted that in the present verse the inheritance of brothers and sisters is discussed in the situation where there are no children, and no mention is made of the presence or absence of parents. However, according to the opening verses of this sūrah, parents are always placed in the first class of heirs alongside children. From this it becomes clear that the verse applies specifically to the case where there are neither children nor parents.