Al-Ma'idah

As established by Islamic traditions and the discussions of major exegetes, this sūrah is the final sūrah—or among the very last sūrahs—revealed to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) that Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام) stated: “Sūrat al‑Māʾidah was revealed two or three months before the death of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny” (cf. Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 430). The statement found in some narrations that this sūrah is nā­sikh and not mansūkh also points to this very reality. This does not contradict what was mentioned in the second volume of this commentary under verse 281 of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, where it was said that, according to narrations, that verse was the final verse revealed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. There the discussion concerned a single verse, whereas here it concerns an entire sūrah. Because of its special position, this sūrah presents final Islamic teachings and the concluding programs of the religion. It addresses the leadership of the community and the succession of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and perhaps for this very reason it begins with the emphatic command to fulfill covenants and pledges. In its opening statement, it declares: O you who believe, fulfill all covenants and contracts (یَا اَیُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ). This command serves to make it obligatory for the believers to honor the covenants they have previously entered into with God, as well as those referred to within this sūrah. It resembles the moment when a traveler bids farewell to relatives and followers, emphasizing in his final moments that they must not forget his testament and exhortations, and that they should remain faithful to the promises and pledges they have made with him. It should be noted that “العقود” is the plural of “عقد.” Linguistically, ʿaqd means to draw together the ends of something firmly; thus it is used for tying a knot in a rope or joining two ropes together. From this concrete sense, it later acquired a conceptual meaning, and every form of covenant or binding pledge came to be called ʿaqd. Some jurists have explicitly stated, however, that the term ʿaqd is more specific than ʿahd, since ʿaqd refers only to covenants that possess a strong and binding character, not to every kind of promise. Therefore, if in some narrations and exegetical writings the terms ʿaqd and ʿahd appear to be used interchangeably, this does not conflict with the explanation given here, because the intent there was to convey their general meaning, not to examine their finer distinctions. Considering that, in legal terminology, “العقود” is a definite plural (jamʿ muḥallā bi‑l‑alif wa‑l‑lām), which conveys generality, and that the sentence itself is absolute, the above verse constitutes proof that fulfilling all types of covenants and contracts is obligatory. This applies whether the covenant is between one human being and another, or between a human being and God. Consequently, it encompasses all divine and human covenants—political, economic, social, commercial, marital, and otherwise—carrying a comprehensive and far‑reaching meaning that addresses every dimension of human life, whether doctrinal or practical, whether natural or monotheistic, and whether related to agreements people conclude with one another in the various affairs of life. In Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, a report is transmitted from al‑Rāghib stating that, with regard to form and nature, covenants between two parties fall into three types: sometimes a covenant exists between God and His servant; sometimes between a human being and his own self; and sometimes between one human being and another (cf. Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, under the present verse). With respect to the second type, it may be said that when a person makes a covenant with himself, he effectively regards himself as occupying two positions. In any case, the scope of the verse is so broad that it also includes the covenants and treaties that Muslims enter into with non‑Muslims.

This verse is among those that address the juridical rights and legal principles of Islam, and throughout the body of fiqh it is cited as evidence from beginning to end. From it, an important juristic principle is derived, known as اَصَالَةُ اللُّزُومِ فِي الْعُقُود, that is, the principle that every kind of covenant and contract—whether concerning property, obligations, or specific actions between two individuals—is binding, obligatory, and must be fulfilled. Scholars and jurists have emphasized that this principle encompasses all forms of transactions, partnerships, business dealings, and contracts that exist in our time, even if such arrangements did not exist in earlier periods, as well as those that may arise in the future among rational people, provided they are based on sound and valid principles. This rule applies universally, and this verse serves as its foundation, subject of course to the general conditions and frameworks specified by Islamic law regarding contracts. The use of this verse as evidence for a juristic principle does not mean that it excludes divine covenants between God and His servants, or matters related to leadership and the guidance of the community, for which pledges were taken from the people through the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Rather, the verse has a broad scope that includes all such dimensions. It should also be noted that the fulfillment of a bilateral covenant remains obligatory as long as neither party breaches it. However, if one party violates or nullifies the covenant, the binding obligation ceases for the other party as well, and in such a case the agreement no longer retains its status as a binding ʿaqd.

The issue of fulfilling covenants and pledges discussed in the verse under consideration constitutes one of the most fundamental pillars of collective life. Without it, no form of social cooperation or sustained relationship is possible, and if human beings abandon it, they effectively forfeit social life and all its benefits. For this very reason, Islamic sources and texts place great emphasis upon it. There are perhaps very few concepts that have been discussed with such breadth and insistence, because without fidelity to covenants society inevitably descends into chaos and insecurity, which represents one of the gravest collective afflictions for humankind. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, in his directive to Mālik al‑Ashtar, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) states: فَإِنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ فَرَائِضِ اللهِ شَيْءٌ النَّاسُ أَشَدَّ عَلَيْهِ اجْتِمَاعًا مَعَ تَفَرُّقِ أَهْوَائِهِمْ وَتَشَتُّتِ آرَائِهِمْ مِنْ تَعْظِيمِ الْوَفَاءِ بِالْعُقُودِ، وَقَدْ لَزِمَ ذٰلِكَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ فِيمَا بَيْنَهُمْ دُونَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لِمَا اسْتَوْبَلُوا مِنْ عَوَاقِبِ الْغَدْرِ “Among the obligations imposed by God, there is nothing upon which people—despite the divergence of their inclinations and the dispersion of their views—are more unanimous than the glorification of fulfilling covenants. For this reason, even the polytheists in the Age of Ignorance observed fidelity to their pledges among themselves, because they had come to recognize the painful consequences of treachery.” (Reported in Nahj al‑Balāghah, Letter 53.) It is also reported from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) that he said: اِنَّ اللهَ لَا يَقْبَلُ إِلَّا الْعَمَلَ الصَّالِحَ، وَلَا يَقْبَلُ اللهُ إِلَّا الْوَفَاءَ بِالشُّرُوطِ وَالْعُهُودِ “God accepts nothing from His servants except righteous action, and likewise He accepts nothing with respect to conditions and covenants except their fulfillment.” (Reported in al‑Kāfī, vol. 2, p. 162.) From the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny it is reported that he said: لَا دِينَ لِمَنْ لَا عَهْدَ لَهُ “He who does not honor his covenant has no religion.” (Reported in Safīnat al‑Biḥār, vol. 2, p. 294.) Thus, fidelity to covenants is a principle in which no distinction exists among human beings, whether the counterpart is a Muslim or a non‑Muslim. In technical terms, this belongs to universal human rights rather than rights restricted to fellow believers. In a narration from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), he said: ثَلَاثٌ لَمْ يَجْعَلِ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لِأَحَدٍ فِيهِنَّ رُخْصَةً: أَدَاءُ الْأَمَانَةِ إِلَى الْبَرِّ وَالْفَاجِرِ، وَالْوَفَاءُ بِالْعَهْدِ لِلْبَرِّ وَالْفَاجِرِ، وَبِرُّ الْوَالِدَيْنِ بَرَّيْنِ كَانَا أَوْ فَاجِرَيْنِ “There are three matters regarding which God has granted no concession to anyone: returning a trust, whether to a righteous person or a sinner; fulfilling covenants, whether with a righteous person or a sinner; and showing kindness to one’s parents, whether they are righteous or sinful.” There is even a narration reported from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) stating that if a person assumes a covenant even by gesture, he must honor it. The text of the narration reads: إِذَا أَوْمَأَ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَوْ أَشَارَ إِلَى أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَنَزَلَ عَلَى ذٰلِكَ فَهُوَ فِي أَمَانٍ (Reported in Mustadrak al‑Wasāʾil, vol. 2, p. 25.) After discussing the ruling concerning covenants—which encompasses all divine ordinances and binding pledges—the Qur’an proceeds to a sequence of legal rulings. The first of these concerns the lawfulness of certain animal meats. It is stated: livestock (and their offspring) have been made lawful for you (أُحِلَّتۡ لَكُم بَهِيمَةُ ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ). The term “ٱلْأَنْعَام” is the plural of “نَعَم,” which denotes camels, cattle, and sheep. When used in the singular, “نَعَم” refers specifically to camels, but in its plural form it includes camels, cattle, and sheep (cf. Mufradāt al‑Rāghib, root “نعم”). The word “بَهِيمَة” derives from the root “بَهْمَة,” meaning something obscure or difficult to discern. Any animal incapable of articulate speech is called “بَهِيمَة,” due to the indistinct nature of its sounds. Generally, this term is applied to quadrupeds and does not include predatory animals or birds. Since the embryos of animals (while in the womb of the female) also possess a kind of obscurity, they too are referred to as “بَهِيمَة.” Accordingly, the permissibility of “بَهِيمَةُ الْأَنْعَام” may refer either to all quadrupeds (except those explicitly excluded in subsequent verses), or to the permissibility of the embryos of lawful animals whose creation is complete and upon which skin and hair have developed. If “بَهِيمَة” is understood here to mean animals in general, then its annexation to “الأنعام” is explanatory; if it is understood to mean embryos, then the annexation is possessive. Since the permissibility of animals such as camels, cattle, and sheep was already established, it is possible that the verse alludes specifically to the permissibility of their embryos. However, what appears more consistent with the context is that the verse carries a broad meaning, encompassing both the permissibility of the animals themselves and their embryos. Even if the ruling regarding the animals was already known, it is reiterated here as an مقدمہ before mentioning the exclusions that follow. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that the connection between this ruling and the obligation of fulfilling covenants lies in the fact that loyalty to covenants constitutes a foundational principle. This principle reinforces divine laws themselves, since divine commands are also a form of covenant between God and His servants. Thereafter, further rulings are mentioned, including both lawful and unlawful meats. Two exceptions are then stated regarding the permissibility of livestock: the meat of those animals whose prohibition will be recited to you is excluded (إِلَّا مَا يُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡكُمۡ), and hunting is forbidden while you are in a state of consecration for ḥajj or ʿumrah (إِلَّا مَا يُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡكُمۡ غَيۡرَ مُحِلِّي ٱلصَّيۡدِ وَأَنتُمۡ حُرُمٌ). (Note: “إِلَّا مَا يُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡكُمۡ” is an exception clause, and “غَيۡرَ مُحِلِّي ٱلصَّيۡدِ” functions as a circumstantial qualifier connected to the implied subject, thereby reinforcing the exception.) At the conclusion of the verse, it is stated: God decrees whatever He wills—that is, since God is fully aware of all things and is their absolute Owner, He issues whatever ruling accords with wisdom and serves the true interests of His servants (إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحۡكُمُ مَا يُرِيدُ).

In this verse, several important Islamic rulings are set forth. These belong to the final set of commandments revealed to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and all of them—or most of them—are connected to the rites of ḥajj and the visitation of the Sacred House. The rulings are as follows: 1. Respect for the divine symbols: First, addressing the believers, it is stated that they must not desecrate the symbols of God and must observe their sanctity (يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا لَا تُحِلُّوا شَعَٰٓئِرَ ٱللَّهِ). There has been considerable disagreement among exegetes regarding the precise meaning of shaʿāʾir Allāh, but in view of the context provided by the remainder of the verse and the year of revelation (10 AH), which corresponds to the year of the Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage, it becomes evident that shaʿāʾir Allāh refers to the rites and program of ḥajj. The responsibility of the Muslims is to respect and safeguard all of these rites. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that in the Qur’an the term shaʿāʾir is generally used with reference to the rituals of ḥajj. 2. Respect for the sacred months: The sanctity of the sacred months must be observed, and fighting and conflict during them must be avoided (وَلَا ٱلشَّهۡرَ ٱلۡحَرَامَ). 3. Respect for sacrificial animals: The sacrificial animals brought for ḥajj—whether they are hady or animals marked with garlands (qalāʾid)—must not be treated as lawful targets, nor should they be harmed. They are to be left unharmed until they reach the place of sacrifice and are slaughtered there (وَلَا ٱلۡهَدۡيَ وَلَا ٱلۡقَلَٰٓئِدَ). 4. Freedom and security of the pilgrims: All visitors to the Sacred House must enjoy complete freedom in performing these great Islamic rites. In this matter, no distinction should be made on the basis of individuals, tribes, families, or languages. Therefore, those who come seeking God’s grace and pleasure—even if they also seek lawful worldly benefit through trade along with the visitation of the Sacred House—must not be obstructed. Whether they were formerly enemies or current allies is irrelevant; it suffices that they are Muslims and visitors to the Sacred House, which renders them secure (وَلَآ ءَآمِّينَ ٱلۡبَيۡتَ ٱلۡحَرَامَ يَبۡتَغُونَ فَضۡلٗا مِّن رَّبِّهِمۡ وَرِضۡوَٰنٗا). Some exegetes and jurists have held that this directive is general and even includes non‑Muslims, suggesting that if polytheists were to come with the intention of visiting the Sacred House they too should not be prevented. However, considering that Sūrat al‑Tawbah—widely known to have been revealed in 9 AH—explicitly forbids polytheists from approaching the Sacred Mosque (verse 28), and that Sūrat al‑Māʾidah was revealed during the final year of the Prophet’s life (10 AH), with authentic Sunni and Shīʿī traditions indicating that none of its rulings were abrogated, this interpretation cannot be sustained. The correct view is that this ruling specifically concerns Muslims. 1. Permissibility of hunting after exiting iḥrām: The prohibition of hunting applies only during the state of iḥrām. Thus it is declared that once people have exited the iḥrām of ḥajj or ʿumrah, hunting becomes lawful for them (وَإِذَا حَلَلۡتُمۡ فَٱصۡطَادُواْۚ). 2. Prohibition of retaliation motivated by past hostility: During the period of ignorance, the polytheists had obstructed the Muslims from performing the rites of visitation to the Sacred House, particularly at the time of al‑Ḥudaybiyyah. This past wrongdoing must not become a pretext for reviving old enmities after they have embraced Islam, nor for placing obstacles in their way should they come to visit the Sacred House (وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّكُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ أَن صَدُّوكُمۡ عَنِ ٱلۡمَسۡجِدِ ٱلۡحَرَامِ أَن تَعۡتَدُواْۘ). Lexicographers and exegetes note that the word jurm originally meant plucking an unripe or unsuitable fruit from a tree, and later came to be used for acts that are offensive or blameworthy, as well as for inciting someone toward a wrongful act. Thus, in this context, the meaning is that hostility toward a people must not incite one to wrongdoing. Although this ruling was revealed in relation to the visitation of the Sacred House, it in fact establishes a general principle: a Muslim must not be consumed by rancor, nor allow past events to dominate the mind or provoke acts of vengeance. Upon reflection, many instances of discord and division in societies stem precisely from the persistence of such historical grievances. This command, revealed at a time when the sun of the Prophet’s earthly life was nearing its setting, came specifically to prevent the resurgence of discord among Muslims, thereby underscoring its profound importance. Cooperation upon righteousness and piety: To complete the discussion, it is stated that instead of uniting for revenge against former enemies or current associates, believers must assist one another in righteousness and piety, and must not cooperate in sin and transgression (وَتَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى ٱلۡبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقۡوَىٰۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى ٱلۡإِثۡمِ وَٱلۡعُدۡوَٰنِۚ). F1inal exhortation to God‑consciousness: At the conclusion of the verse, all the preceding rulings are reinforced with an exhortation to God‑consciousness and obedience, warning that divine punishment is severe (وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلۡعِقَابِ). These commands collectively delineate the ethical, legal, and spiritual framework governing pilgrimage, communal conduct, and social cohesion within Islam.

What is stated in the present verse regarding cooperation constitutes a general foundation of Islamic law that encompasses all social and political matters. According to it, all Muslims are obliged to cooperate with one another in righteous and virtuous deeds and to support one another therein, whereas cooperation and mutual assistance in false aims, wrongful actions, injustice, and transgression are absolutely prohibited—even if the perpetrator happens to be a close friend or a blood relative. This Islamic principle stands in complete opposition to the law that prevailed in the Age of Ignorance, and which, regrettably, continues to operate in the modern age of ignorance as well. The law of ignorance was expressed in the saying: انصر اخاك ظالماً او مظلوماً that is, “support your brother (or friend or ally), whether he is an oppressor or the oppressed.” In that era, when members of a tribe attacked another tribe, the rest of the tribe would rise in support without bothering to investigate whether the action was just or unjust. This same principle continues to dominate international relations today, where states bound by treaties or shared interests support one another in major global matters without regard for justice, failing to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed. Islam has decisively abolished this ignorant principle. The command of Islam is that Muslims should cooperate only in righteousness and piety, not in sin, aggression, or injustice. It is noteworthy that the two terms “برّ” and “تقویٰ” appear together in the verse. One of them represents the affirmative dimension, pointing to beneficial and constructive actions, while the other represents the preventive dimension, indicating restraint from wrongdoing. Cooperation, therefore, must involve both promoting good and resisting evil. In Islamic jurisprudence, this principle has been used to derive rulings related to rights and transactions. On its basis, certain commercial dealings and contracts have been declared unlawful when they involve aiding sin or injustice. Examples include selling grapes to an alcohol‑producing factory, selling weapons to enemies of truth and justice when they are at war with Muslims, or leasing property for unlawful and un‑Islamic activities (subject to conditions discussed in juridical texts). If this Islamic foundation were implemented in all societies—such that people, regardless of personal, tribal, or familial ties, supported those engaged in constructive and reformative work, and withheld support from oppressive and transgressive individuals regardless of who they were—many social ills and hardships would be eliminated. Likewise, if governments at the international level refused to cooperate with aggressors and tyrannical regimes, injustice, domination, exploitation, and oppression would disappear from the world. However, reality demonstrates that certain governments openly support aggressors and provide assurances of backing to those with whom they share interests; therefore, under current conditions, substantial improvement cannot be expected. Islamic narrations place significant emphasis on this matter. By way of illustration, a few narrations are cited: 1. It is narrated from the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that he said: اذا کان یوم القیامة نادی مناد این الظلمة؟ و اعوان الظلمة؟ و اشباہ الظلمة؟ حتیٰ من برء لھم قلماً و لاقلھم دواتاً، قال، فیجتمعون فی تابوت من حدید ثم یرمی بھم فی جھنم۔ “When the Day of Resurrection comes, a caller will cry out: Where are the oppressors? Where are the helpers of the oppressors? Where are those who resembled the oppressors? Even those who sharpened a pen for them or filled their inkwell will be summoned. All of them will be gathered into an iron chest and cast into Hell.” (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 12, p. 131.) 2. Ṣafwān al‑Jamāl, one of the companions of Imam Mūsā al‑Kāẓim (عليه السلام), narrates that when he visited the Imam, the Imam said: “All of your actions are commendable except one.” Ṣafwān asked which one it was. The Imam replied: “You lease your camels to that man (meaning Hārūn).” Ṣafwān explained that he did not lease them for luxury or unlawful hunting, but only for travel to Makkah. The Imam then asked whether he received payment from them and whether he wished for them to remain in power until the payment was made. When Ṣafwān affirmed this, the Imam stated: “Whoever wishes for their survival is among them, and whoever is among them will be in Hell.” Ṣafwān then sold all his camels. When Hārūn learned of this, he summoned him and said that had it not been for Ṣafwān’s past good deeds, he would have ordered his execution. (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 12, pp. 131–132.) 3. In another narration, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to ʿAlī (عليه السلام): یا علی کفر باللہ العظیم من ھذہ الامة عشرة … و بایع السلاح من اھل الحرب “O ʿAlī, ten groups of this community have become deniers of God … among them are those who sell weapons to the enemies of Islam while they are in a state of war with Muslims.” (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 12, p. 74.) After this discussion, the Qur’ān declares: حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۚ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ ۚ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ Translation: Carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, that over which a name other than God has been invoked, that which has been strangled, beaten to death, fallen from a height, gored, and that which a beast has eaten—except what you are able to slaughter properly—and what has been sacrificed on stone altars, and dividing meat by arrows of chance—all of this is transgression. Today those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion; therefore do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and approved Islam for you as a religion. But whoever is compelled by hunger, without inclining toward sin, then indeed God is Forgiving and Merciful.

In the verse under discussion, reference is made to the permissibility of the flesh of livestock at the beginning of the sūrah, along with a statement that certain exceptions would be mentioned later. The present verse, in fact, contains precisely those promised exceptions. It enumerates eleven categories that are declared unlawful. Some of these prohibitions are mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an as well, and their repetition here serves the purpose of emphasis. 1. It first states that carrion is forbidden to you (حُرِّمَتْ عَلَیْکُمُ الْمَیْتَةُ). 2. Likewise, blood is forbidden (وَالدَّمُ). 3. The flesh of swine is also forbidden (وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِیرِ). 4. And the flesh of any animal slaughtered according to the customs of the Age of Ignorance in the name of idols—or, in principle, in the name of any other than God—is forbidden (وَمَا أُہِلَّ لِغَیْرِ اللّٰہِ بِہِ). A detailed discussion of the prohibition of these four categories and their underlying rationale has already been presented in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume one. 5. Also forbidden are animals that are killed by strangulation, whether this occurs naturally, by means of a snare, or through human action. In the Age of Ignorance, it was customary in some cases to press an animal tightly between two pieces of wood or between the branches of a tree until it died, after which its flesh was consumed (وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ). Some narrations indicate that this practice was particularly common among the Magians, who would strangle animals to death and then consume their flesh. 6. Likewise forbidden are animals that die as a result of violent beating or severe injury, or even due to a serious illness leading to death (وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ). The root of mawqūdhah is waqadha, denoting a blow so severe that it leads to death, or an affliction that brings an animal to the brink of death. According to Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī, it was customary among some Arabs to beat animals severely for the sake of idols until they died, regarding this as a form of worship. 7. Animals that die from falling from a height are also forbidden (وَالْمُتَرَدِّیَةُ). 8. Likewise forbidden is the flesh of animals that die as a result of being gored by the horns of another animal (وَالنَّطِیحَةُ). 9. Also forbidden is the flesh of animals killed as a result of an attack by wild beasts (وَمَا أَکَلَ السَّبُعُ). One possible rationale for the prohibition of the flesh of these latter five categories is that in such cases a sufficient amount of blood does not drain from the animal. Until the principal blood vessels in the neck are severed, a substantial quantity of blood remains in the body; and blood is known to be a center for various germs, with putrefaction beginning there most quickly after death. In other words, such flesh retains a greater degree of harmful impurity. In addition, proper slaughter involves invoking the name of God and facing the qiblah, imparting a spiritual dimension that is absent in these cases. However, if the animal is reached before it fully dies and is slaughtered according to Islamic rites such that sufficient blood flows out, it becomes lawful. Hence, after mentioning these prohibitions, the verse states: (إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّیْتُمْ). Some exegetes have suggested that this exception applies only to the last category, namely (وَمَا أَکَلَ السَّبُعُ), but the majority hold that it applies to all the aforementioned cases, which appears to be the more accurate view. It may be asked why, after mentioning carrion (maytah) at the beginning of the verse, these specific cases are listed separately—are they not all included under the concept of maytah? The answer is that from a juridical perspective, maytah has a broad meaning, encompassing every animal not slaughtered according to Islamic law. Linguistically, however, maytah generally refers to an animal that dies naturally, without external cause. Therefore, the aforementioned cases do not clearly fall under the lexical meaning of maytah, or at least there is room for ambiguity, making explicit mention necessary. 1. In the Age of Ignorance, the idolaters had placed certain stones around the Kaʿbah that had no specific carved form; these were referred to as nuṣub. Animals were slaughtered in front of them, and their blood was smeared upon them. Unlike other idols, which possessed defined shapes, these stones had none. Islam declared the flesh of animals sacrificed upon such stones unlawful (وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَی النُّصُبِ). This prohibition has an ethical and spiritual basis rather than a purely physical one, and in reality constitutes a subset of the previous category, namely (وَمَا أُہِلَّ لِغَیْرِ اللّٰہِ بِہِ). 2. Another category of forbidden flesh mentioned in the verse is that of animals slaughtered as part of games of chance. The practice involved ten individuals wagering together by purchasing an animal and slaughtering it. Ten arrows or wooden sticks were then placed in a container—seven marked “winner” and three marked “loser.” A lottery was conducted in which an arrow was drawn for each participant: those who received a “winner” arrow took a portion of the meat without paying anything, while the three “losers” were obliged to pay one‑third of the animal’s price each without receiving any meat. These sticks were called azlām. Islam declared the consumption of such meat unlawful (وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ), not because the meat itself was inherently forbidden, but because the act involved gambling and reliance on chance. It is evident that the prohibition of gambling is not restricted to meat consumption, but applies universally in all forms, encompassing all practices that involve harm, aimlessness, and frivolity. Finally, to emphasize these prohibitions, the verse states that all such acts constitute fisq, a departure from obedience to the Lord and from the bounds of divine law (ذٰلِکُمْ فِسْقٌ). Although the demonstrative pronoun ذٰلِکُمْ is grammatically singular while addressing a plural audience, this usage is acceptable, as a collective set of prohibitions is treated as a single entity for the purpose of reference.

From the foregoing discussion and from other Islamic sources it becomes clear that Islam’s approach to the consumption of meat, like its other laws, is based on moderation. It is neither like the practice of the Age of Ignorance, in which lizards, carrion, blood, and the like were all consumed, nor like that of many contemporary Western societies, where people do not refrain even from eating crabs and insects, nor again like the practice of the Hindus, who have declared meat consumption absolutely forbidden. Rather, Islam has declared lawful the meat of those animals whose food is pure, which are not naturally repulsive, and which meet specific conditions, thereby drawing a firm line against both excess and deficiency. It has laid down definite conditions for the consumption of various kinds of meat, which may be summarized as follows. First, animals whose meat is to be consumed must be herbivorous, since the flesh of carnivorous animals, owing to their diet of carrion and filth, is generally unhealthy and becomes a source of various diseases. In contrast, herbivorous livestock normally feed on wholesome and pure substances. Moreover, as has already been mentioned in the commentary on verse 72 of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, the traits and dispositions of animals are transmitted to those who consume their flesh. For this reason, eating the flesh of predatory animals strengthens traits of cruelty and savagery in human beings, and accordingly Islam has forbidden animals that feed on filth as well. Second, the animals whose meat is consumed must not be naturally repugnant. Third, such animals must not be harmful or injurious to either the human body or the human spirit. Fourth, animals sacrificed in the path of idolatry, polytheism, or similar practices are forbidden, because they are spiritually and morally impure. Fifth, Islam has laid down specific rulings concerning the method of slaughtering animals, each of which carries its own benefits or ethical effects. After mentioning these rulings, two meaningful statements appear in the verse under discussion. First, it declares: “Today those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion; therefore do not fear them, but fear Me alone” (الْیَوْمَ یَئِسَ الَّذینَ کَفَرُوا مِنْ دینِکُمْ فَلا تَخْشَوْہُمْ وَ اخْشَوْنِ). Thereafter it states: “Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My blessing upon you, and approved Islam for you as a religion” (الْیَوْمَ اَکْمَلْتُ لَکُمْ دینَکُمْ وَ اَتْمَمْتُ عَلَیْکُمْ نِعْمَتی وَ رَضیتُ لَکُمُ الْاِسْلامَ دینًا). These two declarations together signify the completion of the Islamic way of life and the establishment of a balanced, comprehensive framework in which faith, law, ethics, and social conduct are harmoniously integrated, leaving no room for fear of external opposition or deviation from the divinely ordained path.

Here an important discussion arises, namely the identification of the term “اليوم” (that is, “this day”) mentioned in the two clauses of the above verse. What is this day on which these four matters are said to have been realized together? 1) On that day the disbelievers despaired; 2) the religion was perfected; 3) the divine blessing was completed; and 4) God, exalted is He, accepted Islam as the final religion for all humankind. There is considerable disagreement among exegetes on this matter, but there is no disagreement on one point: such a day must have been a moment of exceptional importance in the life of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and it cannot have been an ordinary or commonplace day, because a day of such magnitude cannot be an ordinary one. For this reason, many narrations report that when some Jews and Christians heard this verse, they remarked that if such a verse had existed in their heavenly scriptures, they would have designated that day as a festival (cf. Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 155). We must therefore seek this significant day through contextual indicators, signs, the chronology of the revelation of the verse and the sūrah, the biography of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and narrations found even in non‑Shīʿī Islamic sources. Is this day the one on which the above rulings concerning lawful and unlawful meats were revealed? Certainly not, because the revelation of such rulings does not possess such extraordinary significance, nor can it be said to bring about the completion of the religion. Moreover, these were not the final rulings revealed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, since further rulings appear later in the sūrah, and such matters cannot be considered a cause for the despair of the disbelievers. The sort of event that could lead disbelievers to despair must have provided a firm foundation and enduring support for the future of Islam. In other words, rules distinguishing one type of meat as lawful and another as unlawful could not have had any real impact on the sentiments or expectations of the disbelievers. Is this day the Day of ʿArafah during the Farewell Pilgrimage, as suggested by a group of exegetes? This interpretation must also be rejected, because none of the aforementioned indicators can be fully applied to that day. No event occurred on that day that could justify the despair of the disbelievers. If one argues that the enormous gathering of Muslims was the reason, such a gathering had already taken place in Mecca prior to the Day of ʿArafah, in the presence of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. If it is argued that the revelation of the above rulings is intended, that too, as stated earlier, would not have alarmed or disheartened the disbelievers. Is the intended day the Day of the Conquest of Mecca, as some have suggested? This is also untenable, because the time of revelation of this sūrah occurred long after the Conquest of Mecca. Or is it the day on which the verses of Sūrat al‑Barāʾah were revealed? That event also predates the revelation of this sūrah by a considerable period. Perhaps the most astonishing conjecture is that which claims the intended day to be either the advent of Islam or the day of the Prophet’s mission, even though both of these occurred long before the revelation of this verse and are separated from it by a lengthy interval. Thus, none of these proposed possibilities align with the import, context, or tone of the verse. There remains, however, another interpretation—advanced unanimously by Shīʿī exegetes in their works and supported by numerous narrations—one that fully accords with the verse’s wording and spirit. According to this view, the verse refers to the Day of Ghadīr Khumm, the day on which the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny formally designated Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) as his successor. This, indeed, was the day on which the disbelievers sank into the depths of despair. They had expected that Islam was dependent upon a single individual and that with the passing of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, matters would revert to their former state. But when they saw that a figure unparalleled after the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in knowledge, piety, justice, and authority had been appointed as his successor, and that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny had taken the pledge of allegiance from the people on his behalf, they realized that Islam’s roots were firm and enduring. Thus, on that day, the religion attained its completion, for without the designation of the Prophet’s successor and the clarification of the future of the Muslim community, final perfection could not be achieved. It was on this day that the divine blessing was completed for humanity through the appointment of a worthy leader such as ʿAlī (عليه السلام). It was likewise on this day that Islam, with the completion of its program, was accepted by God as the final and chosen religion. Accordingly, all four elements mentioned in the verse were realized together. Further contextual indicators also support this interpretation. First, it is reported in Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, and Tafsīr al‑Manār, under this verse, that after its revelation the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny lived no more than eighty‑one days. Considering that, according to Sunni narrations—and even some Shīʿī narrations, as reported by al‑Kulaynī in his famous work al‑Kāfī—the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny passed away on the twelfth of Rabīʿ al‑Awwal, we may conclude that the day of revelation of this verse corresponds precisely to the eighteenth of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah. This conclusion holds assuming that neither the Day of Ghadīr nor the day of the Prophet’s death is included in the count, and that the three intervening lunar months each had twenty‑nine days—an entirely plausible scenario. Moreover, before and after Ghadīr Khumm no other event in Islamic history aligns with the stipulated chronology; consequently, the day in question can be none other than Ghadīr. Second, numerous narrations transmitted through well‑known Sunni and Shīʿī channels explicitly state that the noble verse under discussion was revealed on the Day of Ghadīr Khumm following the declaration of the wilayah of ʿAlī (عليه السلام). A few examples include the following: Ibn Jarīr al‑Ṭabarī narrates in his book al‑Wilāyah, on the authority of the well‑known Companion Zayd ibn Arqam, that this verse was revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام) on the Day of Ghadīr. Ḥāfiẓ Abū Nuʿaym al‑Iṣfahānī narrates in his book Mā Nuzila min al‑Qurʾān fī ʿAlī from the famous Companion Abū Saʿīd al‑Khuḍrī that when the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny introduced ʿAlī (عليه السلام) to the people as their leader at Ghadīr Khumm, and before the people had dispersed, the verse “الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ” was revealed. At that moment, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “الله أكبر على إكمال الدين وإتمام النعمة ورضا الرب برسالتي وبالولاية لعلي من بعدي”، and then declared: “من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه…”. Al‑Khaṭīb al‑Baghdādī also reports in his history, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah, that after the event of Ghadīr Khumm and the declaration of ʿAlī’s wilayah—together with ʿUmar’s statement “بخٍ بخٍ يا بن أبي طالب أصبحت مولاي ومولى كل مسلم”—the verse of completion was revealed. These narrations and others like them have been transmitted in numerous classical works, including al‑Ghadīr, al‑Ḥaqq, Tafsīr al‑Burhān, and Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn. They are too numerous and widespread to be dismissed as solitary reports; if not mutawātir, they are at least mustafīḍ and well established in major Islamic sources. Some partisan critics have attempted to dismiss these reports, but such efforts lack scholarly balance. An additional noteworthy point is that the Qur’an states in Sūrat al‑Nūr (24:55): وَعَدَ اللَّہُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ … “God has promised those among you who believe and perform righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession on the earth…” Given that Sūrat al‑Nūr was revealed before Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, and considering the phrase “وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا” revealed in connection with the wilayah of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), it follows that Islam can become established and secure on earth only when it is conjoined with wilayah. In other words, Islam attains universality only when it is not separated from the leadership of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام). When the verse of Sūrat al‑Nūr is combined with the verse under discussion, it becomes clear that the three divine promises—succession, security, and the establishment of the chosen religion—were realized on the Day of Ghadīr with the revelation of “الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ”. At that moment, the most complete exemplar of faith and righteous action, namely ʿAlī (عليه السلام), was appointed as the successor of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny; the Muslims gained relative security; and the religion approved by God was firmly established. This interpretation does not conflict with narrations that relate Sūrat al‑Nūr to the eventual appearance of Imam al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), since the phrase “الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ” possesses a broad meaning: one manifestation occurred on the Day of Ghadīr, and a more comprehensive realization will occur at the time of the Mahdī’s ظهور. Likewise, “الْأَرْضِ” need not refer exclusively to the entire globe, but may denote a portion of it, as is evident from Qur’anic usage in various contexts.

Only one question now remains regarding this verse, and it is the following: if, according to the chains of transmission cited above and the reports presented under the verse يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ, both verses are connected with the event of Ghadīr, then why has a separation been placed between them? One of them is verse 3 of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, while the other is verse 67 of the same sūrah. A second question is this: why has that part of the verse which relates to the event of Ghadīr been combined with material concerning lawful and unlawful meats, when there appears to be no direct connection between the two topics? (This question is alluded to in the discussions on this verse in Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 466.) The answer is as follows. First, we know that Qur’ānic verses, and likewise the sūrahs themselves, were not compiled in accordance with their chronological order of revelation. Many sūrahs revealed in Madinah contain Makkan verses, and conversely, Makkan sūrahs include Madinan verses. Keeping this reality in view, the separation of these two verses from one another is not surprising (although within each sūrah the placement of verses occurred under the direct instruction of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny). Had the Qur’ān been arranged strictly according to the order of revelation, then such a separation could have been objected to—but this is not the case. Second, it is possible that the verse related to Ghadīr was incorporated among verses concerning lawful and unlawful foods in order to safeguard it from distortion, omission, or manipulation. It is often the case that a precious object is concealed among ordinary items so that it attracts less attention (reflect upon this point). The events that occurred during the final moments of the Prophet’s life bear clear witness to this concern. Certain individuals openly opposed the writing of a testament by the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to the extent that (God forbid) allegations were even made that he was speaking incoherently due to illness. Utterly inappropriate accusations were leveled against the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The details of this incident are recorded in the most well‑known Islamic sources and are mentioned in major Sunnī and Shīʿī works. This narration appears repeatedly in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, including in Kitāb al‑Marḍā, vol. 4; Kitāb al‑ʿIlm, vol. 1, p. 22; and Kitāb al‑Jihād, vol. 2, p. 118. This episode stands as clear evidence that certain individuals were extraordinarily sensitive regarding the question of succession and the caliphate of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and were prepared to go to extreme lengths to oppose it. In such circumstances, was it not necessary that the verses connected with the issue of succession be carefully protected and preserved in a manner that would ensure their safe transmission to future generations—by integrating them within general discussions—so that even the most vehement opponents would pay less attention to them? Furthermore, as we have already noted, the reports linking الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ to Ghadīr and the succession of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny are not confined to Shīʿī sources alone, which might invite objection; rather, they are also found in numerous Sunnī works. In fact, the narration has been transmitted through multiple chains from three well‑known Companions. In light of all this, it becomes clear that the placement of the verse and the manner of its contextual integration were deliberate, purposeful, and aimed at preserving the integrity of a foundational principle of Islam, while ensuring its survival against distortion and denial.

At the end of the verse, matters related once again to forbidden meat are mentioned, and here the ruling for a case of necessity is stated: whoever is compelled, due to extreme hunger, to consume forbidden meat, while having no inclination toward sin, then it is permissible for him, for God is Forgiving and Merciful; and at times of necessity, He does not subject His servants to hardship nor punish them for it (فَمَنِ ٱضۡطُرَّ فِی مَخۡمَصَةٍ غَیۡرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثۡمٍ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِیمٌ). The word “مَخۡمَصَة” is derived from the root “خمص” (on the pattern of “لمس”), which means to become hollow or sunken, and it is used for severe hunger. This is because intense hunger causes the stomach to become drawn in, whether this occurs during a famine or when an individual personally encounters such a difficult situation. The phrase “غَیۡرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثۡمٍ” means “not inclining or leaning toward sin.” It appears either as an emphasis on the condition of necessity, or it means that, in a situation of need, one should not hasten toward forbidden meat nor come to regard it as lawful; or that the state of necessity should not have been self‑created; or that one should not have embarked upon a journey involving a prohibited act, thereby placing oneself in such hardship. It is also possible that all of these meanings are intended by this expression. For further clarification of this issue, reference may be made to Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume one, pages 413–414 (Urdu translation).

Many reports concerning the occasion of revelation (shaʾn‑e‑nuzūl) of this verse have been transmitted, but the most appropriate among them is as follows: Zayd al‑Khayr and ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim—both Companions of the Messenger—came into the presence of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: “We are people who hunt using trained hunting dogs and falcons. Our dogs capture lawful wild animals. Some of these animals reach us alive, and we slaughter them properly; however, others are killed by the dogs, and we do not have the opportunity to slaughter them. We know that God has declared carrion unlawful—what, then, is our responsibility in this regard?” Concerning this matter, the verse under discussion was revealed, and they were given an answer through it. (cf. Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī, vol. 3, under the commentary on this verse.)

In the preceding two verses, the rulings concerning lawful and unlawful meat have already been explained. In the present verse, further rulings related to these matters are mentioned. In response to a question, it is stated: they ask you what has been made lawful for them (يَسۡـَٔلُونَكَ مَاذَآ أُحِلَّ لَهُمۡۖ). The Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is then instructed to say to them: first, inform them that all pure and wholesome things have been made lawful for you (قُلۡ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَٰتُ). This means that whatever Islam has declared unlawful belongs to the category of impure and harmful things, and divine laws never prohibit something that is pure and inherently beneficial to humankind. Thus, true religious legislation is always in harmony with the laws of creation. Thereafter, the issue of hunting is addressed. It is stated that the game caught by trained hunting animals—those whom you have trained and taught according to what God has taught you—is lawful for you (وَمَا عَلَّمۡتُم مِّنَ ٱلۡجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ ٱللَّهُۖ). From the phrase (فَكُلُواْ مِمَّآ أَمۡسَكۡنَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ) it becomes clear that the original construction presupposes an ellipsis, as though the meaning were “and the game of those hunting animals you have trained” (reflect upon this). The term “جوارح” is derived from “جرح,” which carries the meanings of earning or acquiring, and also of wounding. For this reason, hunting animals—whether birds or beasts—are called “جارحہ,” and its plural is “جوارح,” that is, animals that wound their prey or obtain it for their owner. Human limbs are also referred to as “جوارح” because a person performs actions and gains through them. Thus, (وَمَا عَلَّمۡتُم مِّنَ ٱلۡجَوَارِحِ) includes all animals trained for hunting. However, the accompanying term “مكلمين” is derived from “كلب,” meaning dog, and refers to one who trains hunting dogs. This specification limits the ruling to hunting dogs and excludes birds of prey such as falcons. For this reason, in Shīʿī jurisprudence, only game hunted by trained dogs is considered lawful, whereas hunting with falcons and similar birds is not deemed lawful. Some Sunni exegetes have taken a broader view and considered all trained hunting animals permissible, interpreting “مكلمين” in a more general sense; however, as noted, its original linguistic root confines it to trained dogs. Nevertheless, if other hunting animals incapacitate the prey without killing it, and it is then slaughtered properly before death, it becomes lawful. The phrase “تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ” contains several important points. First, the training of such animals must be continuous and sustained; if they forget their training and attack prey like wild or stray dogs, the meat is not lawful, because the verb “تعلمونهن” is in the present tense, indicating continuity. Second, the training must accord with correct principles, as indicated by “مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ.” Third, all knowledge originates from God, whether in minor matters or major ones; without His teaching, no knowledge is attainable. Implicitly, this also indicates that trained dogs must be conditioned to act upon their master’s command and desist when ordered to stop. It should further be noted that if an animal hunted by trained dogs reaches the hunter alive, it must be slaughtered according to Islamic rites; but if it dies before the hunter reaches it, it is still lawful, even without slaughter. Thereafter, two conditions for the lawfulness of such hunted game are mentioned. First, eat of that which the hunting animals have held for you (فَكُلُوا مِمَّا اٴمْسَكْنَ عَلَیْکُمْ). This indicates that if the trained dogs habitually eat part of the prey and leave part of it, such game is not lawful, as it falls under the category of (وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ) mentioned in the previous verse. In such a case, the dog is neither truly trained, nor is what remains genuinely “for you.” Some jurists do not uphold this condition, citing certain narrations found in ḥadīth collections; detailed discussion of this matter is found in juridical works. In summary, the dog must be trained not to consume its prey. The second condition is that God’s name must be invoked at the time the hunting dog is released (وَاذۡكُرُوا ٱسۡمَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡهِ). Finally, to emphasize the observance of all these rulings, it is stated: be mindful of God, for God is swift in reckoning (وَاتَّقُوا ٱللَّهَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ سَرِيعُ ٱلۡحِسَابِ). (A detailed discussion of “سریع الحساب” has already been presented in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume two, page 45 of the Urdu translation.)

This verse completes the discussion of the preceding verses. It first states: from today onward, pure and wholesome things have been made lawful for you, and the food of those who were given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them (الْیَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَکُمُ الطَّیِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا الْکِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَکُمْ وَطَعَامُکُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ). Several points here merit attention. 1. By the expression “الْیَوْمَ” (today), some exegetes have understood the Day of ʿArafah, while others have suggested the day of the conquest of Khaybar. However, it is not far‑fetched that this refers to the Day of Ghadīr, when Islam achieved complete ascendancy over the disbelievers (further clarification of this will follow). 2. Pure things (ṭayyibāt) had already been lawful prior to this day; their mention here serves as a prelude to the ruling concerning the food of the People of the Book that follows. 3. What is meant by the food (ṭaʿām) of the People of the Book that is declared lawful in this verse? The view held by most Sunni exegetes and scholars is that it includes all kinds of food, including meat slaughtered by them. However, the overwhelming majority of Shīʿī jurists and exegetes hold that it excludes meat slaughtered by them, though a small number of Shīʿī scholars have followed the former opinion. Numerous narrations transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) support the view that “ṭaʿām” here does not include the meat they slaughter. In the Tafsīr of ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, it is narrated from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) regarding this verse that he said: “What is meant by their food here is grains and fruits, not the animals they slaughter, because when they slaughter they do not mention the name of God” (بحوالہ وسائل الشیعہ، جلد 16، صفحہ 291). Other numerous narrations cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, volume 16, in the chapters on foods and drinks (chapter 51, pp. 1–2), together with what can be inferred from the previous verses, indicate that the permissibility applies to eating and drinking with them apart from their slaughtered meat. As Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) pointed out in the narration mentioned above, the People of the Book generally do not observe Islamic conditions when slaughtering animals: they neither pronounce God’s name nor face the qiblah, and often fail to fulfill the remaining requirements. How, then, could such meat be explicitly declared unlawful in the preceding verses and then deemed lawful in this verse? Several questions arise here. The first question is: if by “ṭaʿām” is meant foods other than meat, then such items were already lawful—was it forbidden, prior to the revelation of this verse, to purchase grain and similar commodities from the People of the Book, while commercial interactions between Muslims and them were ongoing? The answer becomes clear when one pays attention to a fundamental point in the interpretation of this verse: it was revealed at a time when Islam had gained dominance over the entire Arabian Peninsula and its presence had become firmly established. At that point, the enemies of Islam had lost hope of defeating the Muslims. It was therefore appropriate to relax social restrictions that had previously existed between Muslims and disbelievers. Earlier, close social interaction—such as visiting one another, inviting them as guests, or being their guests—had been restricted. This verse declared that now, since you have established your position and there is no longer any danger from them, some social barriers are removed: you may accept their hospitality and invite them into your homes, and likewise marriage with them is permitted (subject to conditions that will be mentioned). It should be noted that those who do not consider the People of the Book to be ritually pure argue that eating with them is permissible only if the food is dry or, if it is moist, they have not touched it. Those scholars who consider the People of the Book to be pure hold that if the food is not prepared from their slaughtered meat and there is no certainty of extrinsic impurity (such as contamination by wine or beer), then eating with them is permissible. In summary, the purpose of the verse is essentially to remove earlier social restrictions in relations with the People of the Book. The evidence for this is that it states your food is lawful for them as well, meaning that there is no objection to hosting them. Immediately thereafter, the ruling regarding marriage with women of the People of the Book is also mentioned. It is clear that a government can only issue such directives when it has full control over its environment and no longer fears its enemies. Such a situation had, in reality, already come into existence on the Day of Ghadīr. Some have suggested that this point was reached on the Day of ʿArafah during the Farewell Pilgrimage or after the conquest of Khaybar; however, the Day of Ghadīr appears far more suitable in every respect. A second question raised—mentioned in Tafsīr al‑Manār—is that the word “ṭaʿām” appears in many Qur’anic verses with a broad meaning encompassing all kinds of food, including meat. How, then, can it be restricted here to grains, fruits, and similar items? The author of al‑Manār remarks that he raised this objection in a gathering that included some Shīʿī scholars and found no response. From our perspective, the answer is clear. We do not deny that “ṭaʿām” has a broad meaning in itself, but the preceding verses—especially those that explicitly prohibit meat over which God’s name has not been pronounced—serve to qualify and restrict this general term, excluding such meat from its scope. Every general or absolute expression is subject to specification by contextual evidence. It is also well known that the People of the Book are not bound by the Islamic requirement of invoking God’s name at slaughter, nor do they observe certain other conditions established by the Sunnah. A third question is raised in Kanz al‑ʿIrfān, where it is noted that “ṭayyibāt” is a general term, while “طَعَامُ الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا الْکِتَابَ” is a specific one. Usually, when the specific follows the general, some particular point or emphasis is expected—yet none is immediately apparent. The author then expresses hope that God may resolve this scholarly difficulty (بحوالہ کنز العرفان، جلد 2، صفحہ 312). In light of what has already been explained, the answer also becomes evident: the mention of the lawfulness of pure things functions as a prelude for lifting restrictions on social interaction with the People of the Book. In essence, the verse conveys: since every pure thing is lawful for you, therefore the (pure) food of the People of the Book is also lawful for you; accordingly, the previous social restrictions imposed due to earlier circumstances are now relaxed in view of your present strength and stability (reflect carefully upon this).

After declaring the permissibility of the food of the People of the Book, the verse goes on to address marriage with chaste Muslim women and chaste women from among the People of the Book. It is stated that chaste women from among the believers, as well as chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, are lawful for you in marriage, provided that you give them their due bridal gifts (وَ الْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَ الْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ). This permission is subject to the condition that the marriage be conducted in a legitimate and lawful manner, not as open fornication nor as secret illicit relationships (مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ). As has already been explained in volume three of this commentary under verse 25 of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, the term “أَخْدَان” is derived from “خِدْن” (on the pattern of “إِذْن”), meaning a companion or associate, but it is generally used for covert and unlawful relationships with the opposite sex. In reality, this part of the verse also aims at easing certain restrictions that previously existed regarding marriage between Muslims and non‑Muslim women. Here, the conditional permissibility of marriage between Muslim men and women of the People of the Book is established. At this point, the question arises whether all forms of marriage—permanent and temporary—are permitted with women of the People of the Book, or whether only temporary marriage (mutʿah) is allowed. There is disagreement among Muslim jurists on this issue. Sunni scholars generally do not distinguish between these two forms of marriage in this regard and consider the verse to be general in scope. By contrast, many Shīʿī jurists hold that the verse permits only temporary marriage with women of the People of the Book. Some narrations transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) support this view, and there are also certain contextual indicators in the verse that may be taken as reinforcing it. One such indicator is the expression إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ, “provided that you give them their bridal gifts.” Although the word “أُجُور” (wages or compensation) is used for the dower in both permanent and temporary marriage, it is more commonly associated with temporary marriage and thus has a stronger affinity with it. A second indicator is the phrase غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ, which prohibits open fornication and secret illicit relationships. This formulation is more closely related to temporary marriage, because permanent marriage bears no resemblance to fornication or secret liaisons that would necessitate such a clarification, whereas some ignorant or ill‑informed individuals have historically likened temporary marriage to fornication or clandestine relationships. Similar expressions appear in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 25, which is known to pertain to temporary marriage. Nevertheless, some jurists permit marriage with women of the People of the Book in an unrestricted sense and do not regard these contextual indicators as sufficient to limit the generality of the verse. They also cite certain narrations in support of their position. Further details on this matter may be found in the works of jurisprudence. It should not remain unmentioned that in the present age, when many practices of the Age of Ignorance have resurfaced, a notion has emerged that friendly relationships between unrelated men and women—whether secretly or openly—are permissible without marriage. In reality, the modern world has exceeded even the Age of Ignorance in moral and sexual deviation. In that earlier period, illicit relationships were generally concealed; today, they are often practiced openly and even boasted about without shame. This disgraceful custom, which constitutes manifest and shameless immorality, is an ominous import from the West into the East, and it stands as a source of numerous social miseries and crimes. It is also necessary to note that while permission has been granted—subject to the stated conditions—for mutual eating with the People of the Book, in the matter of marriage only Muslim men are permitted to marry women of the People of the Book. Muslim women are not permitted, in any case, to marry men from the People of the Book. The rationale for this is evident: women are generally more emotionally receptive and may, in contrast to men, be more readily influenced to adopt the beliefs of their husbands. Since the aforementioned concessions regarding social interaction and marriage with the People of the Book may be misused by some individuals, leading them consciously or unconsciously to become inclined toward non‑Islamic influences, the verse concludes with a stern warning. It states that whoever disbelieves in faith—by rejecting what ought to be believed in and abandoning the path of the believers in favor of the way of the disbelievers—his deeds will come to nothing, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers (وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ). This indicates that the concessions granted are meant to ease life and facilitate constructive engagement, enabling Muslims to exert a positive influence on others—not to fall under their influence and renounce their own faith. Should one do so, the consequences will indeed be severe. (For a detailed discussion of حبط and إحباط, reference may be made to Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume two, under verse 217 of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, p. 66 of the Urdu translation.) In light of the narrations and the reported occasion of revelation related to this part of the verse, it is also possible that some Muslims initially found it difficult to accept the permissibility of eating with the People of the Book and marrying their women. The Qur’an therefore cautioned them that objecting to or denying the divinely revealed rulings would render their deeds void and place them among the losers in the Hereafter.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned physical purity and material blessings. In the verse under consideration, the focus shifts to spiritual purity, and attention is given to those matters that bring about inner purification. It sets forth the rulings concerning wuḍūʾ, ghusl, and tayammum, all of which serve as means of cleansing the soul. First, addressing the believers, the rulings of wuḍūʾ are explained: O you who believe, when you rise for prayer—numerous narrations transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) state that “when you rise” (إِذَا قُمْتُمْ) means when you rise from sleep. Reflection upon the structure of the verse and its various components also supports this meaning, because later, when the ruling of tayammum is mentioned, it states: “or one of you comes from relieving himself” (أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ). If the address at the beginning of the verse were directed generally to those who are without wuḍūʾ, then the conjunction of this clause—particularly with the particle “or”—would not fit well with the apparent meaning of the verse, since this situation would already fall within the category of being without wuḍūʾ. However, if the address at the beginning concerns those rising from sleep, and only the state of ritual impurity caused by sleep is being mentioned initially, then the meaning of the entire passage becomes coherent (reflect upon this). Thus, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe a part of your heads and your feet up to the ankles (يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ فَٱغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى ٱلْمَرَافِقِ وَٱمْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى ٱلْكَعْبَيْنِ). The verse does not specify the precise boundaries of the face that must be washed in wuḍūʾ, but narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) convey in detail the manner in which the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny performed wuḍūʾ. The length of the face is from the hairline to the chin, and its width is that which falls between the thumb and the middle finger. This clarification corresponds to the customary understanding of “face,” since it is that part of a person which first confronts another upon meeting. The extent of the hands to be washed is defined as up to the elbows, because “al‑marāfiq” is the plural of “mirfaq,” meaning elbow. When someone is instructed simply to wash the hands, one might suppose that washing up to the wrists is sufficient, since that is the usual practice. To remove this ambiguity, the verse specifies washing up to the elbows (إِلَى ٱلْمَرَافِقِ). This makes it clear that “إِلَى” in this verse indicates the limit of what must be washed, not the manner or direction of washing, as some have imagined—namely, that the hands must be washed from the fingertips toward the elbows, as is practiced by some Sunni groups. This is similar to someone saying: paint the wall from the bottom up to one meter high; the intent is to define the extent to be painted, not the direction of applying paint. Accordingly, the verse simply specifies the portion of the hands that must be washed, while the manner of washing is established by the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny as transmitted through his Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), which indicates washing from the elbows downward to the fingertips. It should be noted that the elbows themselves are included in the washing, since according to established grammatical principles, when a limit is mentioned, the limit itself is included in the ruling. The particle “بِـ” in the phrase بِرُءُوسِكُمْ, according to narrations and the statements of linguists, indicates partiality. This means that only a part of the head is to be wiped, which in practice has been limited to the front portion of the head, wiping approximately one quarter of it or slightly less. Hence, the practice prevalent among some Sunni groups of wiping the entire head—and even the ears—does not accord with the meaning of the verse. The term “أَرْجُلَكُمْ” appears in coordination with “بِرُءُوسِكُمْ,” which clearly indicates that the feet, like the head, are to be wiped rather than washed. The vowel marking on “أَرْجُلَكُمْ” supports this reading, as it is connected syntactically to “بِرُءُوسِكُمْ,” not to “وُجُوهَكُمْ.” Moreover, there is a considerable separation between “وُجُوهَكُمْ” and “أَرْجُلَكُمْ,” making coordination with the former highly unlikely. In addition, many Qurʾānic reciters have read “أَرْجُلِكُمْ” with a kasrah under the lām. The word “كَعْب” in Arabic usage denotes the raised or prominent part of the foot, or the joint where the foot meets the leg. Lexicographical sources mention three meanings: the prominent upper part of the foot, the joint, and the ankle bones on either side of the foot. However, contextual and descriptive explanations make it clear that the term here does not refer to the lateral ankle bones. Jurists have differed as to whether it means the raised portion on the top of the foot or the joint between the foot and the leg; prudence dictates wiping up to the joint. Thereafter, the ruling of ghusl is given: if you are in a state of major ritual impurity, then purify yourselves (وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا). It is evident that “fāṭṭaharū” means washing the entire body, because had washing of only a specific part been intended, it would have been explicitly mentioned. The same usage appears in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 43, where it states: حَتَّى تَغْتَسِلُوا. As previously noted in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah under Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 43, the word “junub” is a verbal noun used in the sense of an active participle, meaning “one who is distant.” This is because a person in a state of major impurity must distance himself from certain acts, such as prayer and remaining in the mosque. The term “junub” is used for singular and plural, masculine and feminine alike, and expressions such as “jār junub” (a distant neighbor) are derived from the same root. The verse indicates that if one rises for prayer while in a state of janābah, ghusl is required, from which it may also be inferred that ghusl of janābah substitutes for wuḍūʾ. Next, the ruling of tayammum is mentioned: if you rise from sleep intending to pray and you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you has come from relieving himself, or you have had intimate contact with women, and you do not find water, then perform tayammum with pure earth (وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لَٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَآءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا). It is noteworthy that the clauses “أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ” and “أَوْ لَٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ” are, as previously indicated, connected to the initial phrase “إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ.” The opening of the verse refers to arising from sleep, and the latter part mentions two additional causes that necessitate wuḍūʾ or ghusl. If these clauses were instead connected to “عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ,” several interpretive difficulties would arise—for example, returning from relieving oneself cannot meaningfully stand as a counterpart to illness or travel. Thus, it becomes necessary to understand the conjunction “أو” here in the sense of “and,” as many exegetes have suggested, even though this departs from the usual meaning of the particle. Moreover, limiting the causes of wuḍūʾ to only relieving oneself would otherwise be unjustified. When understood in the manner explained above, such difficulties do not arise (reflect upon this). Another noteworthy point is that the state of janābah is mentioned twice in the verse. This may be for emphasis, or it may be that “junub” refers to janābah caused by nocturnal emission during sleep, while “لَٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ” alludes to janābah resulting from sexual intercourse. If “qiyām” is understood as rising from sleep—as indicated by narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) and contextual clues within the verse—this itself supports such an interpretation. The method of tayammum is then described: wipe your faces and your hands with it (فَٱمْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ مِّنْهُ). It is clear that this does not mean scooping earth and smearing it onto the face and hands, but rather striking the hands upon clean earth and then wiping the face and hands. Due to the presence of the word “مِنْهُ,” some jurists have held that even a small amount of dust must adhere to the hands. With respect to “صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا,” many linguists have mentioned two meanings for “ṣaʿīd”: one is soil, and the other is anything that covers the surface of the earth, whether soil, sand, stone, or the like. This has led to a difference of opinion among jurists regarding what materials are valid for tayammum—whether it is limited to soil or extends to stone and pebbles as well. However, taking into account the original linguistic sense of “ṣaʿīd,” which derives from “ṣuʿūd” (to rise, to be elevated), the latter meaning appears more appropriate. The word “ṭayyib” denotes something agreeable to human nature and disposition. The Qurʾān uses this term in many contexts, such as “بلد طيب,” “مساكن طيبة,” “ريح طيبة,” and “حياة طيبة.” Anything pure is described as ṭayyib because human nature instinctively recoils from impurity. It thus becomes clear that the earth used for tayammum must be pure and clean. Narrations from the guides of Islam emphasize this point; in one report it is stated that Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) forbade performing tayammum with dirt taken from roads, which is typically contaminated (reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 2, p. 969). It should be noted that while in the Qurʾān and ḥadīth the term tayammum is used for this specific Islamic act, linguistically it means “to intend” or “to aim toward.” In effect, the Qurʾān is saying that when you intend to purify yourselves in this way, direct yourselves toward a clean part of the earth—that is, select from the earth’s surface a portion that corresponds to the meaning of ṣaʿīd, derived from ṣuʿūd: a part exposed to rain, sunlight, and air, not trodden underfoot. Using such earth is not only not harmful to health, but, as has been noted in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah under Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 43, even possesses disinfectant properties, as attested by scientific observation.

The philosophy of tayammum has already been discussed in sufficient detail in the third volume. As for the philosophy of wuḍūʾ, there is no doubt that it possesses two clear benefits: one related to physical well‑being, and the other to moral and spiritual refinement. From the standpoint of health, washing the face and hands five times a day—or at least three times—plays an important role in bodily cleanliness and hygiene. The requirement of wiping the head and the feet, in which it is necessary that water make contact with the hair or the skin, also contributes to keeping these parts clean. Moreover, as will be clarified in the discussion of the philosophy of ghusl, the contact of water with the skin is highly effective in regulating the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. From the moral and spiritual perspective, since this act is performed with the intention of seeking nearness to God and solely for His sake, it carries profound تربیتی effects. Especially noteworthy is the implicit meaning it conveys: that from head to foot, I am prepared to obey You. This ethical and spiritual dimension is supported by a narration transmitted from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (عليه السلام). He stated: اِنَّمَا أُمِرَ الْوُضُوءُ وَ بُدِئَ بِهِ لِيَكُونَ الْعَبْدُ طَاهِرًا إِذَا قَامَ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْجَبَّارِ عِنْدَ مُنَاجَاتِهِ إِيَّاهُ، مُطِيعًا لَهُ فِيمَا أَمَرَهُ، تَقِيًّا مِنَ الْأَدْنَاسِ وَ النَّجَاسَةِ، مَعَ مَا فِيهِ مِنْ ذَهَابِ الْكَسَلِ، وَ طَرْدِ النُّعَاسِ، وَ تَزْكِيَةِ الْفُؤَادِ لِلْقِيَامِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْجَبَّارِ. “Wuḍūʾ was prescribed, and worship was initiated with it, so that the servant may be pure when he stands before the Almighty at the time of intimate supplication with Him—obedient to Him in what He has commanded, safeguarded from filth and impurity. Additionally, wuḍūʾ removes lethargy and drowsiness, and purifies the heart so that it may be fit to stand before the Almighty.” (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 1, p. 257.)

Some people ask why Islam prescribes ghusl in the state of janābah, even though only a particular part of the body becomes physically affected. What is the difference between urination and the emission of semen, such that in one case only a specific area must be washed, whereas in the other the entire body must be washed? This question admits of an outline answer and a detailed explanation. The brief answer is that the emission of semen, unlike urine or other bodily waste, is not an action confined to a single bodily organ, because its effects extend to the entire body. After emission, all bodily cells fall into a particular state of lassitude. This is itself an indication that the act influences the whole organism. The explanation is as follows. According to the research of scientists and physicians, the human body is governed by two interconnected systems of autonomic nerves that regulate all bodily activity. One is the sympathetic system, and the other is the parasympathetic system. These networks extend throughout the entire body and its various functions. The role of the sympathetic nervous system is to stimulate and accelerate bodily activity, while the parasympathetic system serves to slow it down. In effect, one functions like the accelerator of a vehicle, and the other like its brake. When these two systems remain in balance, the bodily “machine” operates in a stable and healthy manner. At times, certain events occur in the human body that disrupt this equilibrium. One of these events is the peak of sexual pleasure (climax), which generally manifests in the emission of semen. At this moment, the parasympathetic system gains dominance over the sympathetic system, and the balance is disturbed in a negative direction. It has also been scientifically established that contact of water with the skin is effective in re‑stimulating the sympathetic nervous system and restoring bodily balance. Since sexual climax affects all parts of the body at the sensory level, and the equilibrium between the two nervous systems is disrupted throughout the body, the ruling has been given that after sexual intercourse or the emission of semen, the entire body must be washed with water, so that its life‑giving effect can restore balance to the nervous system across the whole body. In this regard, a narration is transmitted from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (عليه السلام), in which he states: اِنَّ الْجَنَابَةَ خَارِجَةٌ مِنْ كُلِّ جَسَدٍ فَلِذلِكَ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ تَطْهِيرُ جَسَدِهِ كُلِّهِ “Janābah affects the entire body; therefore it is obligatory to purify the whole body.” (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 1, p. 466.) This narration also gestures toward the same reality. Nevertheless, ghusl is not beneficial solely from this physiological perspective; it is also a form of worship whose ethical and spiritual effects cannot be denied. For this reason, without the intention of nearness to God (qaṣd al‑qurbah) and obedience to the divine command, such a bath is not valid. In reality, at the time of sexual intercourse and the emission of semen, both the soul and the body are affected. The soul tends toward material desire, and the body falls into lethargy. When the body is washed with the intention of nearness to God, it becomes, in a sense, a “bath of the soul” as well. In this way, the spirit inclines once again toward God and spirituality, and the body moves toward purity, vitality, and activity. Apart from all these considerations, the lifelong obligation of ghusl of janābah plays an essential role in bodily care and the preservation of health. Many people are negligent with respect to cleanliness and personal hygiene, but this Islamic injunction obliges them, at regular intervals, to bathe and maintain bodily purity. This is not merely a concern of earlier generations; even in our own time there are many individuals who neglect bodily cleanliness for various reasons. (Indeed, this ruling applies universally, even to one who has only recently bathed.) Taken together, these three considerations make it clear why, in the cases of emission of semen—whether in sleep or wakefulness—and sexual intercourse (even if semen is not emitted), washing the entire body has been made obligatory. At the end of the verse, to clarify that these rulings contain no undue hardship, but are enacted on the basis of wisdom and benefit, it is stated: God does not desire to place you in difficulty, but rather desires to purify you and to complete His blessing upon you, so that you may give thanks (مَا يُرِيدُ اللّٰهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِنْ يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ). In essence, this statement emphasizes the truth that all divine commands and Islamic ordinances are for the sake of people and for their benefit, and not for any other purpose. God seeks, through these laws, to keep human beings pure—both spiritually and physically. It should also be borne in mind that God does not wish to burden people with obligations that exceed their capacity. Although this statement appears in the context of rulings related to ghusl, wuḍūʾ, and tayammum, it at the same time articulates a general legal principle: divine obligations are never intended to be unbearably heavy or beyond human ability. Therefore, whenever an obligation becomes genuinely unbearable or extremely difficult for a person, it is lifted in that particular case. For example, if fasting becomes a source of excessive hardship for an elderly man or woman, it no longer remains obligatory for them on the basis of this very principle. It must not be forgotten, however, that some rulings are inherently demanding, and in view of higher aims and greater benefits, their hardships are meant to be borne—such as jihād against the enemies of truth. From this verse, Islamic jurisprudence derives a foundational principle known as qāʿidat lā ḥaraj (“the rule of no undue hardship”), and jurists rely upon it extensively in the derivation of legal rulings.

In the previous verse, a number of Islamic rulings and the completion of divine blessings were mentioned. In keeping with that discussion, this verse once again draws the attention of the believers to the immeasurable blessings of God. Among these blessings, the most significant are the blessings of faith, Islam, and guidance. It is stated: remember the blessings of God upon you (وَٱذۡكُرُوا نِعۡمَةَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡكُمۡ). Here the word “نعمة” appears in the singular form, but it is used in the sense of a genus, and a genus here conveys generality; therefore, it refers to all divine blessings. It is also possible that the specific blessing intended here is the blessing of Islam, to which reference was made in the preceding verse, where it was said: وَ لِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ — and what blessing could be greater than this? It was under the shade of Islam that Muslims attained all blessings, honors, and resources. Those who were previously scattered, ignorant, misguided, blood‑thirsty, corrupt, and agents of corruption were granted unity and wisdom through Islam, and they became enriched with both material and spiritual blessings. Thereafter, mentioning the covenant that they have bound with God, it is stated: and do not forget the divine covenant when you said, “We hear and we obey” (وَمِيثَاقَهُ ٱلَّذِي وَاثَقَكُم بِهِۦ إِذۡ قُلۡتُمۡ سَمِعۡنَا وَأَطَعۡنَا). Concerning which covenant is meant here, two possibilities have been advanced. The first is the covenant that the Muslims entered into at the beginning of Islam—such as at al‑Ḥudaybiyyah, during the Farewell Pilgrimage, or at al‑ʿAqabah—or the covenant that every Muslim implicitly enters into with God upon accepting Islam. The second is the covenant that every human being has inherently entered into with God by his very nature, which is sometimes referred to as the covenant of the “realm of ذرّ”. The explanation is that at the time of creating human beings, God endowed them with remarkable capacities and countless blessings. Among these is the ability to discern the mysteries of creation and, through them, to attain knowledge of the Lord. Likewise, He granted humanity intellect and understanding, through which people recognize the prophets and act upon their teachings. By bestowing these capacities, God effectively took a covenant from human beings that they would not render them dormant or null, but would instead utilize them properly. And by possessing these capacities, human beings, in the language of their very state, declared: “We hear and we obey.” This covenant is broader, more enduring, and more universal than any other covenant that God has taken from His servants. It is precisely this covenant to which Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) alluded in the first sermon of Nahj al‑Balāghah when he said: ليستأدوهم ميثاق فطرته “The prophets were sent in order to call people to fulfill the covenant of their innate nature.” It is evident that this comprehensive covenant encompasses all religious matters. (Further explanation of this covenant and the reason it is referred to as the covenant of the “realm of ذرّ” will, God willing, be discussed under verse 172 of Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf.) There is therefore no obstacle to understanding this verse as referring to all existential and legislative covenants—those embedded in human nature by divine command and those taken by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny from the Muslims on various occasions. From here it becomes clear that the narration stating that the “covenant” refers to the pledge taken by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny at the Farewell Pilgrimage concerning the wilayah of ʿAlī (عليه السلام) corresponds perfectly with the explanation given above. We have repeatedly noted that narrations reported under Qur’anic verses usually point to a particular, clear instance of application, without restricting the broader meaning of the verse to that instance alone. It should also be noted that the term “ميثاق” is derived from the root “وثاق”, which originally refers to binding something with a rope or the like, and later came to denote anything that brings about assurance and firmness. Since a covenant resembles a knot tied between two individuals or groups, producing mutual confidence, it is referred to as a “ميثاق”. At the end of the verse, emphasis is laid once more by stating: be mindful of God, for God is well aware of what lies within the breasts (وَٱتَّقُوا ٱللَّهَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ ٱلصُّدُورِ). The expression “ذات الصدور” is a compound term: “ذات” signifies essence or inner reality, and “صدور” is the plural of “صدر”, meaning chest. This points to the fact that God is aware of the most subtle secrets hidden in the depths of the human soul—secrets that no one else can know. As for why emotions, feelings, and intentions are attributed to the heart or chest, this matter has already been discussed in detail in volume one, page 100 of the Urdu translation.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

In this verse, a call is made for the establishment of justice. A similar call—though with certain differences—has already appeared in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 135. First, addressing the believers, it is stated: O you who believe, always stand firm for God and bear witness with justice (يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٰمِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَآءَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ). Thereafter, pointing to a common cause that leads to deviation from justice, the Muslims are warned lest national hostilities or personal grievances prevent them from upholding justice or lead them to encroach upon the rights of others, for justice stands above all such considerations (وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّكُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعۡدِلُواْ). In view of the importance of this matter, the command to uphold justice is repeated: act justly, for that is nearer to piety (ٱعۡدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقۡرَبُ لِلتَّقۡوَىٰ). Since justice is one of the most essential pillars of God‑consciousness and piety, emphasis is placed for the third time with the exhortation: fear God, for God is fully aware of all that you do (وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرُۢ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ). There are several points of difference between this verse and verse 135 of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ. First, in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ the call is to uphold justice and to bear witness for the sake of God, whereas here the call is to stand for God and to bear witness with justice and equity. This distinction may be because in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ the emphasis was on giving testimony for God rather than for relatives, loved ones, or close associates, while here—since the discussion concerns enemies—the emphasis is placed on testimony grounded in justice and fairness, that is, testimony not tainted by oppression or injustice. Second, in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ one reason for deviating from justice is mentioned, whereas here a different cause is highlighted: there, the focus is on excess in unwarranted affection, while here the focus is on excess in unwarranted hatred. Nevertheless, Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ encapsulates both by stating: فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوَىٰ أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا — do not follow desire lest you deviate from justice. In reality, following one’s whims and desires is the principal source of injustice, because oppression sometimes arises from self‑interest and the pursuit of personal gain, rather than from friendship or enmity. Thus, the fundamental cause of deviation from justice is the following of base desires. Concerning this, both the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) have stated: اَمَّا اتِّبَاعُ الْهَوَىٰ فَيَصُدُّ عَنِ الْحَقِّ “As for following desire, it turns one away from the truth.” This narration is reported from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in Safīnat al‑Biḥār under the entry “hawā,” and it is also recorded from Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام) in Sermon 42 of Nahj al‑Balāghah.

Islam accords very few issues an importance equal to that of justice, because the principle of justice—like the principle of divine unity (tawḥīd)—constitutes the foundation of all the principles and subsidiary rulings of Islam. Just as no doctrinal, practical, individual, social, moral, or legal matter in Islam is separable from the reality of tawḥīd, so too none of them is devoid of the spirit of justice. For this reason, it is not surprising that justice has been counted among the uṣūl al‑dīn and recognized as a fundamental pillar of the intellectual structure of Muslims. Although justice, which forms part of the uṣūl al‑dīn, belongs to the divine attributes, and though divine knowledge—also one of the uṣūl al‑dīn—encompasses justice, nonetheless treating justice as a distinct and emphasized principle is deeply meaningful. This is why, in Islam’s social teachings, no principle has been relied upon more heavily than justice. The following narrations suffice to demonstrate its importance. 1. The Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: اِيَّاكُمْ وَالظُّلْمَ فَاِنَّ الظُّلْمَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ هُوَ الظُّلُمَاتُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ “Beware of injustice, for every act will be embodied on the Day of Resurrection in a form appropriate to it, and injustice will be embodied as layers of darkness that will envelop the wrongdoers.” (Safīnat al‑Biḥār, entry: ظلم) We know that every goodness and blessing lies in light, whereas darkness is the source of every kind of absence and deprivation. 2. It is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny: بِالْعَدْلِ قَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْأَرْضُ “By justice the heavens and the earth are sustained.” (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī, under Sūrat al‑Raḥmān, verse 8) This is the clearest possible expression concerning justice. It means that not only can the limited life of humankind on this earthly sphere not be sustained without justice, but the entire cosmos—heaven and earth alike—exists by virtue of justice, through the balance of forces and the proper placement of everything in its rightful position. If this balance were disturbed even for a moment, or by an amount as small as the point of a needle, everything would collapse. In a similar narration it is said: الْمُلْكُ يَبْقَىٰ مَعَ الْكُفْرِ وَلَا يَبْقَىٰ مَعَ الظُّلْمِ “Governments may endure in the presence of disbelief, but they do not endure in the presence of injustice.” This is because injustice is something whose effects appear quickly in this world. The wars, anxiety, insecurity, political chaos, and social, moral, and economic crises of today’s world provide clear testimony to this truth. What deserves special attention is that Islam does not merely preach justice; rather, it places far greater emphasis on the actual establishment of justice. Merely reciting these verses and narrations from the pulpit, writing them in books, or repeating them in speeches does not cure the injustices, evils, and corruptions that exist in society. The true grandeur of these commands will only become evident on the day they are implemented in the lives of Muslims. In the following verse, in accordance with the Qur’anic practice of reinforcing specific injunctions through universal principles, a general rule is stated. God promises forgiveness and a great reward to those who believe and perform righteous deeds: وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَهُم مَّغْفِرَةٌ وَأَجْرٌ عَظِيمٌ And those who disbelieve and deny God’s signs are the companions of the blazing Fire: وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُولَٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ It is noteworthy that forgiveness and the great reward are mentioned here explicitly as a promise from God—وَعَدَ اللَّهُ—whereas punishment in Hell is described as the outcome of deeds. This points to the fact that in the Hereafter, divine recompense is rooted in God’s grace and mercy, which can never be proportionate to the meagerness of human actions. Likewise, punishment there is not driven by vengeance but is the direct consequence of one’s own deeds. It should also be noted that in the phrase أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ the word aṣḥāb means companions or associates—those who remain together continually. This indicates enduring companionship with Hell; however, this verse alone does not constitute definitive proof of eternal residence therein, as explained in Tafsīr al‑Tibyān, Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, and Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī. The term may indicate permanence or may indicate long duration followed by cessation. Just as the Qur’an refers to those who boarded Noah’s Ark as أَصْحَابُ السَّفِينَةِ (companions of the ship), even though their stay was not everlasting. There is, however, no doubt that disbelievers abide in Hell eternally, but that conclusion is drawn from other verses, not from this one. The word الْجَحِيم derives from the root جحم (on the pattern of فهم), meaning “to blaze intensely.” Hell is called al‑Jaḥīm for this reason. Even in worldly usage, a large and fiercely burning fire is sometimes called jaḥīm, as in the story of Abraham (عليه السلام), where Nimrod said: فَأَلْقُوهُ فِي الْجَحِيمِ “Cast him into the blazing fire.” (al‑Ṣāffāt: 97)

After mentioning the divine blessings in the preceding verses, the address in this verse once again turns toward the Muslims. Here, God reminds them of further favors He has bestowed upon them, so that, in gratitude, they may obey the divine command and strive for the establishment of justice. It is stated: O you who believe, remember the favor of God upon you when a group resolved to stretch out their hands against you and eliminate you, but God restrained their hands from you (يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱذۡكُرُواْ نِعۡمَتَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡكُمۡ إِذۡ هَمَّ قَوۡمٌ أَن يَبۡسُطُوٓاْ إِلَيۡكُمۡ أَيۡدِيَهُمۡ فَكَفَّ أَيۡدِيَهُمۡ عَنكُمۡۖ). In the Qur’anic verses, God repeatedly reminds the Muslims of His diverse blessings and favors, so that He may strengthen the spirit of faith within them, awaken a sense of gratitude in their hearts, and encourage steadfastness in the face of difficulties. The present verse is one such example. As for the question of which event this verse refers to, exegetes have differed. Some consider it to refer to the thwarting of the threat posed by the Jews of Banū Naḍīr, who had conspired in Madinah to eliminate the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslims. Some exegetes understand it as referring to the incident of Baṭn Nakhlah that occurred in the sixth year after the Hijrah at the time of al‑Ḥudaybiyah. The incident was that a group of the Meccan polytheists, under the leadership of Khālid ibn al‑Walīd, devised a plan to attack the Muslims during the afternoon prayer. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny became aware of this plot and shortened the prayer, converting it into the prayer of fear (ṣalāt al‑khawf), thereby causing their scheme to fail. Others regard the verse as referring more generally to other incidents from the life of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslims, which was filled with trials and dangers. Some exegetes hold the view that the verse points to all such events that occurred throughout Islamic history. The word “قَوْمٌ” appears here in the indefinite form and denotes a singular group; setting this aside, this interpretation appears more comprehensive than the others. In any case, the verse draws the attention of the Muslims to moments at which it was entirely possible that their name could have been erased from the page of existence forever. The verse is warning them that, in recognition of these blessings, they should adopt piety, place their trust in God, and know that if they remain God‑conscious, they will not stand alone in life. That unseen hand which has always guarded them will continue to support them in the future as well (ۡۖ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ وَعَلَى ٱللَّهِ فَلۡيَتَوَكَّلِ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ). It is clear that tawakkul does not mean that a person should abandon responsibilities under the pretext of entrusting matters to God, or submit passively before events. Rather, it means that while fully employing one’s capabilities and energies, one should remain aware that whatever one possesses is not from oneself, but from another Source. In this way, arrogance and self‑conceit are removed from the heart. One also ceases to fear the magnitude and severity of hardships and events, does not fall into despair, and recognizes that there exists a support whose power surpasses all powers. It is also noteworthy that in the verse, the command to adopt piety comes first, followed by the reference to tawakkul. This indicates that divine support is reserved for those who are pious. It should be kept in mind that the word taqwā is derived from the root wiqāyah, meaning protection and self‑guarding, and it denotes safeguarding oneself and refraining from corruption and evil.

At the beginning of this sūrah, reference was made to the obligation of fulfilling covenants, and this theme has been reiterated repeatedly in various ways. The present verse also relates to that same subject. It is possible that these successive emphases on fulfilling covenants and the condemnation of covenant‑breaking are intended to highlight the importance of the Covenant of Ghadīr, which will be mentioned in verse 67. At the beginning of the verse under discussion it is stated: God indeed took a covenant from the Children of Israel, and after this covenant We appointed from among them twelve leaders, each of whom was responsible for the guardianship of one of the twelve groups of the Children of Israel (وَلَقَدۡ أَخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِيثَٰقَ بَنِيٓ إِسۡرَٰٓءِيلَ وَبَعَثۡنَا مِنۡهُمُ ٱثۡنَيۡ عَشَرَ نَقِيبٗاۖ). The word naqīb is derived from naqaba (on the pattern of naqad), which denotes large openings, particularly underground passages. The leader or head of a group is called a naqīb because he is aware of the inner affairs of that group, as though he has made an opening that enables him to know their conditions and circumstances. Sometimes the term naqīb is also applied to someone who is not the actual leader of a group but serves as a representative or identifier for it. The term manāqib (virtues) is used for merits because knowledge of them is attained only through investigation and inquiry. Some exegetes have interpreted naqīb in this verse merely as one who is informed and aware of secrets, but this interpretation appears very remote, because history and ḥadīth indicate that each of the leaders of the Children of Israel was in fact the guardian and head of his tribe. In Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, a report is transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās stating: innahum kānū wuzarāʾ wa ṣārū anbiyāʾ baʿda dhālika—that is, the leaders of the Children of Israel were ministers of Moses (عليه السلام), who later attained the rank of prophethood (Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, vol. 6, p. 78). It is also recorded concerning the circumstances of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny that on the night of al‑ʿAqabah he commanded that, corresponding to the number of the leaders of the Children of Israel, twelve naqībs be selected from among his followers. It is evident that their responsibility was likewise to provide leadership for the community (Safīnat al‑Biḥār, entry: naqīb). It is noteworthy that numerous narrations transmitted through Sunnī sources refer to the twelve successors and caliphs of the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, introducing their number by analogy with the number of the leaders of the Children of Israel. Among these narrations are the following. In his Musnad, the well‑known Sunnī authority Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal narrates from Masrūq, who says that he asked ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd how many individuals would rule over this community. Ibn Masʿūd replied: laqad suʾilnā Rasūl Allāh fa‑qāla ithnā ʿashar ka‑ʿidat nuqabāʾ Banī Isrāʾīl—that is, “We asked the Messenger of God the same question, and he answered: twelve, corresponding to the number of the leaders of the Children of Israel” (Musnad Aḥmad, vol. 1, p. 398). In Tārīkh Ibn ʿAsākir, a narration from Ibn Masʿūd states that he asked the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny how many caliphs would rule over this community, and the Prophet replied: inna ʿiddata al‑khulafāʾ baʿdī ʿiddata nuqabāʾ Mūsā—“The number of caliphs after me will be equal to the number of the leaders of Moses” (Fayḍ al‑Qadīr, Sharḥ Jāmiʿ al‑Ṣaghīr, vol. 2, p. 459). In Mukhtār Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, a narration is reported from Jābir ibn Samurah stating that twelve caliphs will rule this community, corresponding to the number of the leaders of the Children of Israel (Mukhtār Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, marginal notes to Musnad Aḥmad, vol. 5, p. 312). Similar narrations are also recorded in Yanābīʿ al‑Mawaddah (p. 445) and al‑Bidāyah wa‑l‑Nihāyah (vol. 6, p. 247). The verse then clarifies God’s promise to the Children of Israel as follows: God said to them, “Indeed I am with you” (وَقَالَ ٱللَّهُ إِنِّي مَعَكُمۡۖ), meaning that He would support and assist them. This support, however, was conditional upon several requirements: first, that they establish prayer (لَئِنۡ أَقَمۡتُمُ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ); second, that they give the prescribed alms (وَءَاتَيۡتُمُ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ); third, that they believe in God’s messengers and support them (وَءَامَنتُم بِرُسُلِي وَعَزَّرۡتُمُوهُمۡ). The term ʿazzartumūhum derives from taʿzīr, which carries the meanings of restraint and support; certain Islamic penalties are called taʿzīr precisely because they are intended to assist the offender by preventing further sin, thereby indicating that Islamic punishments are not vindictive but corrective in nature. Fourth, they were enjoined not to refrain from voluntary spending and charitable contributions, which are metaphorically described as a goodly loan to God (وَأَقۡرَضۡتُمُ ٱللَّهَ قَرۡضًا حَسَنٗا). If they fulfilled this covenant, God promised to forgive their past sins (لَّأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنكُمۡ سَيِّـَٔاتِكُمۡ) and to admit them into gardens beneath which rivers flow (وَلَأُدۡخِلَنَّكُمۡ جَنَّٰتٖ تَجۡرِي مِن تَحۡتِهَا ٱلۡأَنۡهَٰرُۚ). But whoever among them thereafter chooses disbelief, denial, and rebellion has surely strayed from the straight path (فَمَن كَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذَٰلِكَ مِنكُمۡ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ سَوَآءَ ٱلسَّبِيلِ). As for the Qur’anic expression that likens charitable spending to lending a loan to God, a necessary explanation has already been provided in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume 2, page 129 of the Urdu translation. One question remains here: why are prayer and almsgiving mentioned prior to belief in Moses (عليه السلام), when faith in him would logically precede action? Some exegetes answer that “the messengers” (rusul) here refers to the prophets who came after Moses (عليه السلام), not to Moses himself, and thus the command pertains to future obligations, allowing prayer and almsgiving to be mentioned earlier. Another possibility is that by rusul the leaders of the Children of Israel are meant, since a covenant had already been taken from the Children of Israel regarding them. Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān reports that some early exegetes held that the leaders of the Children of Israel were God’s messengers, and this interpretation accords with the present verse. The discussion is followed by the next verse: فَبِمَا نَقۡضِهِم مِّيثَٰقَهُمۡ لَعَنَّٰهُمۡ وَجَعَلۡنَا قُلُوبَهُمۡ قَٰسِيَةٗۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ ٱلۡكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِۦ وَنَسُواْ حَظّٗا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُواْ بِهِۦۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَآئِنَةٖ مِّنۡهُمۡ إِلَّا قَلِيلٗا مِّنۡهُمۡۖ فَٱعۡفُ عَنۡهُمۡ وَٱصۡفَحۡۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُحۡسِنِينَ. Translation: “So because of their breaking of the covenant, We removed them from Our mercy and made their hearts hardened. They distorted the words from their proper places and forgot a portion of that which they were reminded of. And you will continue to observe treachery from them, except for a small number among them. Yet pardon them and overlook [their faults]; indeed God loves the doers of good.”

In the previous verse, reference was made to God’s covenant with the Children of Israel. In the present verse, mention is made of their breach of that covenant and its consequences. It is stated: because they broke their covenant, We cast them away from Our mercy and made their hearts hardened (فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَٰقَهُمۡ لَعَنَّٰهُمۡ وَجَعَلۡنَا قُلُوبَهُمۡ قَٰسِيَةٗۖ). The word laʿn in Arabic lexicon means to drive away and distance, and when it is attributed to God it signifies depriving someone of divine mercy. The term qāsiyah is derived from the root qasāwah (hardness), which is used for hard stones; by analogy it is applied to those whose hearts show no inclination toward truth and no receptivity to guidance. In reality, these two punishments are the consequence of covenant‑breaking: they were deprived of divine mercy, and their thoughts and hearts became rigid and incapable of inclination or flexibility. Thereafter, the effects of this hardness of heart are described as follows: they distort words from their proper places (يُحَرِّفُونَ ٱلۡكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِۦ), and they forget a portion of that with which they had been reminded (وَنَسُواْ حَظّٗا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُواْ بِهِۦۚ). It is not unlikely that what they forgot included the signs and indications of the Prophet of Islam, to which other Qur’anic verses also allude. It may also point to the fact, as is historically known, that the Torah was lost for a long period and was later rewritten by some Jewish scholars. It is natural that much of it was lost, some was altered, and some was forgotten. What eventually remained in the hands of the Jews was only a portion of the Book of Moses, mixed with many fabrications, while even parts of that were forgotten. It is then further stated: you will continue to uncover acts of treachery from them every day, except for a small group among them (وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَآئِنَةٖ مِّنۡهُمۡ إِلَّا قَلِيلٗا مِّنۡهُمۡۖ). The word khāʾinah, although grammatically an active participle, is here used in the sense of a verbal noun meaning “treachery,” as is common in Arabic usage; it is also possible that it is the descriptive adjective of an implicit collective noun referring to a group. Finally, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is instructed to pardon them and overlook their misconduct, for God loves those who do good (فَٱعۡفُ عَنۡهُمۡ وَٱصۡفَحۡۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُحۡسِنِينَ). As to whether this directive refers to overlooking the past errors of the righteous minority or those of the unrighteous majority, the outward meaning of the verse supports the latter interpretation, since the righteous minority had committed no acts of treachery requiring forgiveness. It is evident that this pardon and forbearance concern the personal harms inflicted upon the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, not matters relating to the core principles and objectives of Islam, for in those there is no scope for compromise or pardon.

All the verses in the Noble Qur’an that refer to the distortions committed by the Jews make it clear what kinds of alterations they carried out in their revealed scripture. At times they engaged in semantic distortion (taḥrīf maʿnawī), meaning that they interpreted the verses of their heavenly book contrary to their true meanings. In such cases, they did not change the wording, but they altered the intended meaning. At other times they committed verbal distortion (taḥrīf lafẓī). In a spirit of mockery and ridicule, instead of saying “سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا” (we hear and we obey), they would say “سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا” (we hear and we disobey). At times they concealed portions of the verses, revealing only what suited their own interests and hiding whatever went against them. They even went so far as to place their hands over part of the revealed text while the scripture was open, so that the other party would remain unaware of it and be unable to read it. This behavior will be mentioned later in connection with Ibn Ṣūriyā under verse 41 of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah.

In the verse under discussion we observe that God, exalted is He, attributes the hardening of hearts to Himself. It is known that hardness of heart and lack of receptivity become the source of deviation from truth and the root of sin. Here a question arises: when God is presented as the agent of this hardening, how can such people be held accountable for their deeds? Does this not amount to a form of compulsion or coercion? A careful examination of numerous Qur’anic verses—and even of the present verse itself—makes it clear that on many occasions people are deprived of divine grace and guidance as a consequence of their own evil actions. In reality, it is their own conduct that lays the foundation for their intellectual and moral deviation, and they cannot in any way disassociate themselves from the consequences of their deeds. However, since the effect of every cause ultimately operates by God’s will, the Qur’an attributes such effects to God. Thus, in the verse under discussion it is stated that because they broke their covenant, We made their hearts hard and devoid of flexibility. In Sūrat Ibrāhīm, verse 27, it is stated: وَيُضِلُّ اللَّهُ الظَّالِمِينَ “And God leads the wrongdoers astray.” Similarly, in Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 77, with regard to certain covenant‑breakers, it is said: فَأَعْقَبَهُمْ نِفَاقًا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يَلْقَوْنَهُ بِمَا أَخْلَفُوا اللَّهَ مَا وَعَدُوهُ وَبِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ “So He caused hypocrisy to take root in their hearts until the day they meet Him, because they broke their promise to God and because they used to lie.” Such expressions are numerous in the Qur’an. It is evident that these negative effects, whose source lies in the actions of human beings themselves, are in no way incompatible with human freedom of choice and volition. This is because the groundwork for them is laid by the individuals themselves: they knowingly choose this path and enter this domain, and these outcomes are the inevitable consequences of their own actions. An analogy may be drawn with a person who knowingly consumes intoxicants. When he becomes intoxicated and commits crimes, it is true that in the state of intoxication he no longer possesses full control. Nevertheless, since he himself deliberately produced the causes leading to this state, and since he knew that intoxication can lead to such actions, he remains accountable for them. In such a case, if it is said that “because he drank alcohol, we deprived him of his reason, and as a result of his actions we caused him to commit crimes,” does this entail any objection or element of compulsion? In summary, all instances of guidance and misguidance that the Qur’an attributes to God are in fact rooted in the deeds of human beings themselves. It is by means of their own actions that one person is guided and another led astray. (Further explanation on this matter has already been provided in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, volume 1, p. 140 of the Urdu translation.)

From the previous verse, the discussion concerned the covenant of God taken from the Children of Israel. In this verse, mention is made of the covenant‑breaking committed by the Christians (Naṣārā). It is stated: among those who claimed, “We are Christians,” We took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of what they were reminded of (وَمِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّا نَصَٰرَىٰٓ أَخَذۡنَا مِيثَٰقَهُمۡ فَنَسُواْ حَظّٗا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُواْ بِهِۦ). Yes, they too had entered into a covenant with God: that they would not deviate from the reality of divine unity, would not neglect the divine commandments, and would not conceal the signs of the final Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Yet they adopted conduct similar to that of the Jews. The difference, however, is that while the Qur’an states concerning the Jews that a small group among them remained pure and possessed recognition of the truth, it says regarding the Christians that a group among them deviated. This makes it clear that, in comparison to the Jews, a larger proportion of the Christians fell into deviation. The history of the present Gospels shows that all of these Gospels were written by certain Christians many years after Jesus Christ (عليه السلام). For this reason, clear contradictions exist within them. This points to the fact that they had forgotten an important portion of the Gospel. The present Gospels also clearly contain myths and false attributions. For example, there are references to Jesus Christ (عليه السلام) consuming wine (cf. Gospel of John, chapter 2), which is contrary both to reason and to certain verses of the present Torah and Gospel themselves. Likewise, the story of Mary Magdalene is found there (Gospel of Luke, chapter 7, verses 36–44). It should also be noted that Naṣārā is the plural of Naṣrānī. Why Christians are designated by this name has been explained through various possibilities. One is that Jesus Christ (عليه السلام) spent his childhood in the city of Nazareth. Another is that the term derives from Naṣrān, the name of a locality with which the Christians were particularly associated. A third explanation is that when Jesus Christ (عليه السلام) asked the people for helpers and supporters, they accepted his call, as the Qur’an states: كَمَا قَالَ عِيسَى ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ لِلۡحَوَارِيِّينَ مَنۡ أَنصَارِيٓ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ قَالَ ٱلۡحَوَارِيُّونَ نَحۡنُ أَنصَارُ ٱللَّهِ Just as Jesus son of Mary said to the disciples, “Who are my helpers toward God?” The disciples said, “We are the helpers of God.” Since among them were some who did not act in accordance with what they claimed, and were helpers of Jesus (عليه السلام) only in name and claim, the Qur’an in the present verse states: وَمِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّا نَصَٰرَىٰ—that is, among those who merely said, “We are helpers of Jesus,” while they were not truthful in that claim. The Qur’an then states concerning the deeds of the Christians that as a consequence of their actions, We placed among them enmity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection (فَأَغۡرَيۡنَا بَيۡنَهُمُ ٱلۡعَدَاوَةَ وَٱلۡبَغۡضَآءَ إِلَىٰ يَوۡمِ ٱلۡقِيَٰمَةِۚ). Their second punishment, to which the final part of the verse alludes, is that God will soon inform them of the consequences of their deeds, and they will witness them with their own eyes in practice (وَسَوۡفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ ٱللَّهُ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَصۡنَعُونَ).

1. The meaning of “فَأَغْرَيْنَا”: This word is derived from the root ighrāʾ, which means to attach or bind something closely to something else. Later, it came to be used in the sense of inciting or encouraging toward an action, because such encouragement causes a person to become strongly connected to certain causes. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is that the covenant‑breaking and wrongful deeds of the Christians became the cause for enmity, hostility, hypocrisy, and discord to arise among them (for, as is well known, the effects of existential causes are attributed to God in Qur’anic language). Even today, numerous conflicts exist among Christian governments, on account of which two world wars have already occurred, and factionalism, hostility, and enmity continue to this day. Moreover, disagreements and hostilities among various Christian sects are so intense that even now they continue to shed each other’s blood. Some exegetes have also suggested that what is meant here is the enmity between Jews and Christians that will persist until the end of time; however, the apparent meaning of the verse supports the interpretation that the enmity in question is primarily among the Christians themselves (accordingly, the pronoun “بَيْنَهُمْ” refers back to the Christians mentioned at the beginning of the verse). It hardly needs to be pointed out that this painful outcome is not limited to Christians alone; if Muslims were to adopt the same conduct, they too would face the same result. 2. The meanings of “عَدَاوَة” and “بَغْضَاء”: The term ʿadāwah is derived from ʿaduw, which means to transgress or overstep bounds, whereas baghḍāʾ is derived from baghḍ and means hatred or aversion toward something. The difference between the two is that baghḍ pertains primarily to the inner, emotional dimension, whereas ʿadāwah has an outward, practical dimension, or at least combines both the emotional and practical aspects. 3. Will Judaism and Christianity remain forever? From the verse under discussion it appears as though the Christians, as followers of a religion (or Jews and Christians together), will remain in existence until the end of time. This gives rise to the question: Islamic narrations indicate that after the appearance of Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام), there will no longer be more than one religion in the world, and that religion will be Islam. How, then, can these two points be reconciled? The answer is that it is possible that Christianity (and Judaism) will remain only in a very limited form.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

In the previous verses, discussion concerned the Jews and Christians and their breaches of covenant. In these verses, they are now addressed directly and invited to Islam, which has purified their revealed religions from distortions and guides them toward the straight path, far removed from every kind of deviation and crookedness. First it is stated: O People of the Book, Our Messenger has come to you, making clear to you many matters of the Book which you used to conceal, while overlooking many others (يَٰٓأَهۡلَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ قَدۡ جَآءَكُمۡ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمۡ كَثِيرٗا مِّمَّا كُنتُمۡ تُخۡفُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ وَيَعۡفُواْ عَن كَثِيرٖۚ). From this statement it is understood that the People of the Book had concealed many truths, but the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny disclosed only those matters that people needed at that time, such as the reality of divine unity, the false attributions made to the prophets in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the prohibition of usury and wine, and other similar issues. He, however, overlooked matters that related specifically to past nations and bygone eras, the mention of which held no benefit for contemporary communities. Thereafter, pointing to the counsel, greatness, and profound effect of the Qur’an in guiding and nurturing humankind, it is stated: There has come to you from God a light and a clear Book (قَدۡ جَآءَكُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ نُورٗا وَكِتَٰبٗا مُّبِينٗا). Through this light God guides all who seek His good pleasure to the paths of peace (يَهْدِي بِهِ ٱللَّهُ مَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ رِضْوَٰنَهُۥ سُبُلَ ٱلسَّلَٰمِ). Moreover, He brings them out of various forms of darkness—such as polytheism, ignorance, disunity, and hypocrisy—into the light of monotheism, knowledge, and unity, by His permission, and He guides them to a straight path (وَيُخْرِجُهُم مِّنَ ٱلظُّلُمَٰتِ إِلَى ٱلنُّورِ بِإِذۡنِهِۦ وَيَهۡدِيهِمۡ إِلَىٰ صِرَٰطٖ مُّسۡتَقِيمٖ). What is meant by “light” in the first of these verses? According to some exegetes, it refers to the person of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, while according to others it refers to the Noble Qur’an. In numerous verses, the Qur’an itself is described as light, which indicates that in the present verse the intended meaning of “light” is the Qur’an. On this basis, “a clear Book” serves as an explanatory and clarifying description of that same reality. In Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf, verse 157, it is stated: فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ بِهِۦ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَٱتَّبَعُواْ ٱلنُّورَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُۥٓ أُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُفۡلِحُونَ — those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the light that was sent down with him, they are the ones who are successful. In Sūrat al‑Taghābun, verse 8, it is stated: فَـَٔامِنُواْ بِٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ وَٱلنُّورِ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَنزَلۡنَا — so believe in God, His Messenger, and the light that We have sent down. Many other verses convey the same meaning. However, the attribution of the word “light” to the person of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny does not appear in the Qur’an. Furthermore, in the subsequent verse the pronoun “به” is singular, which also supports the view that “light” and “clear Book” are in fact one and the same reality. Although in numerous narrations “light” has been interpreted as referring to the Commander of the Faithful ʿAlī (عليه السلام) or to all the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), it is evident that these interpretations belong to one of the inner dimensions of the verse, corresponding to the multiple layers of meaning (buṭūn al‑Qurʾān), since it is well known that the Qur’an has not only outward meanings but also inner ones. The reason this interpretation is understood as pertaining to the inner meanings is that at the time the verse was revealed the Imams were not present in such a way that the People of the Book would be called to believe in them directly. A further point is that the second verse gives glad tidings to those who set out in pursuit of divine pleasure, promising that under the guidance of the Qur’an they will be granted three great blessings. The first is guidance to the paths of peace—peace of the individual, society, soul, family, and morals—an aspect that is fundamentally practical in nature. The second blessing is deliverance from the darkness of disbelief and irreligion into the light of faith, which pertains to the realm of belief. The third blessing is that all of this is accomplished through the shortest and nearest path, referred to as the “straight path” (ṣirāṭ mustaqīm). However, all these blessings will be attained only by those who enter through the door of submission and sincerity and who are encompassed by the phrase “مَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ رِضْوَٰنَهُۥ”. Hypocrites and obstinate individuals who harbor enmity toward the truth will derive no benefit from it, as testified by other Qur’anic verses. Moreover, the ultimate source of all these effects is the decisive will of God, to which the expression “بِإِذۡنِهِۦ” alludes.

To complete the preceding discussions, this verse launches a decisive and severe refutation of the claim of the divinity of Jesus (عليه السلام), declaring it to be an explicit act of disbelief. It states: those who say that God is the Messiah, son of Mary, have certainly disbelieved, and in reality they have denied God (لَّقَدۡ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلۡمَسِيحُ ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَۚ). To fully grasp the meaning of this statement, it is necessary to understand the unfounded claims made by Christians concerning God. First, they believe in three gods, a doctrine which has already been invalidated in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 170: لا تَقُولُوا ثَلَٰثَةٌ ٱنتَهُوا خَيۡرٗا لَّكُمۡۚ إِنَّمَا ٱللَّهُ إِلَٰهٞ وَٰحِدٞ — that is, “Do not say ‘three’; desist, it is better for you. God is only One God.” The interpretation of this verse has already been discussed earlier in this volume. Second, they consider the Creator of the universe to be one of these three gods, referring to Him as “God the Father.” Christian sources state that “God the Father, through the Son, is the Creator of the entire universe” (cf. Dictionary of the Bible, p. 345). They also describe God as the One who exists by Himself, the Creator of all creatures and the Owner of the entire cosmos, an infinite and eternal spirit, possessed of wisdom, power, and justice, and immune to any change or transformation (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 344). The Qur’an invalidates this belief as well in Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, verse 73: لَّقَدۡ كَفَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلَٰثَةٖۘ وَمَا مِنۡ إِلَٰهٍ إِلَّآ إِلَٰهٞ وَٰحِدٞ — “They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is the third of three, whereas there is no god except the One God.” The explanation of this verse will follow later in this volume. Third, they claim that all three gods, despite being numerically three, are in reality one, a doctrine they describe as “unity in trinity.” This meaning is directly addressed in the present verse. They claim that God is Jesus son of Mary, and that Jesus son of Mary is God, and that together with the Holy Spirit they constitute three distinct persons who are nonetheless one. All aspects of the trinitarian doctrine—each of which represents a major deviation within Christianity—are refuted by the Qur’an within a single verse. A detailed discussion of the invalidity of the doctrine of the Trinity may be found in this volume under the commentary on Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 171. From the foregoing, it becomes clear why Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī and certain other exegetes encountered difficulty in understanding this verse, objecting that no Christian explicitly professes belief in an identity between God and Jesus. The reason for this misunderstanding lies in their insufficient familiarity with Christian texts, as the doctrine of “unity in trinity” is clearly articulated in contemporary Christian sources. It is also possible that such texts were not available to these exegetes at the time. The Qur’an then presents a rational argument to invalidate the claim of divinity, stating: if God were to will the destruction of the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all who dwell on earth, who could prevent Him? (قُلۡ فَمَن يَمۡلِكُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ شَيۡـًٔا إِنۡ أَرَادَ أَن يُهۡلِكَ ٱلۡمَسِيحَ ٱبۡنَ مَرۡيَمَ وَأُمَّهُۥ وَمَن فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ جَمِيعٗا). This points to the fact that Jesus (عليه السلام) and his mother Mary possess no status beyond that of created beings, like other humans. As created beings, they are subject to annihilation, and whatever may be conceived as perishable cannot possibly be the eternal and everlasting God. Put differently, if Jesus (عليه السلام) were truly God, then the Creator of the universe would not be able to destroy him, and divine power would thereby be limited—something incompatible with the very concept of God, whose power is unlimited, just as His essence is unlimited. The repetition of the phrase “the Messiah son of Mary” within the verse appears to underscore a critical point: Christians themselves acknowledge that Jesus (عليه السلام) was the son of Mary, born from a mother’s womb, passing through the stages of embryonic development, infancy, and gradual growth. How, then, could God reside within such a confined environment as a womb, undergo such transformations, and be dependent upon a mother during infancy? It is noteworthy that in this verse, along with the mention of Jesus (عليه السلام), his mother is explicitly mentioned as well, thereby distinguishing her from other individuals. This may be due to the fact that Christians also direct acts of worship toward Mary. In contemporary churches, alongside other statues, there is often a statue of Mary that is venerated. This point is also indicated in Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, verse 116: وَإِذۡ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يَٰعِيسَى ٱبۡنَ مَرۡيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلۡتَ لِلنَّاسِ ٱتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَٰهَيۡنِ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ — “And when God will say: O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods besides God?’” Finally, addressing those who regard the birth of Jesus (عليه السلام) without a father as evidence of his divinity, the verse concludes by stating: to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever lies between them; He creates whatever He wills, and God is powerful over all things (وَلِلَّهِ مُلۡكُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَمَا بَيۡنَهُمَاۚ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُۚ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ قَدِيرٌ). That is, God may create without father and mother, as He created Adam (عليه السلام); He may create through both parents, as He creates ordinary human beings; or He may create through a mother alone, as He created Jesus (عليه السلام). This diversity in modes of creation is nothing other than a manifestation of His absolute power.

In this verse, the preceding discussions are brought to completion. Referring to the unfounded claims and illusory distinctions of the Jews and the Christians, it is stated: the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the sons of God and His beloved ones” (وَقَالَتِ ٱلۡيَهُودُ وَٱلنَّصَٰرَىٰ نَحۡنُ أَبۡنَٰٓؤُاْ ٱللَّهِ وَأَحِبَّٰٓؤُهُۥۚ). They did not confine themselves to this single claim alone; rather, the Qur’anic verses repeatedly mention such assertions on their part. In Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 111, mention is made of their claim that none but themselves would enter Paradise and that Paradise is exclusively reserved for Jews and Christians. In Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 80, reference is made to the Jews’ claim that the Fire of Hell would touch them only for a few days, after which they are reproached for this assertion. In the present verse, their imagined claim that they are God’s sons and special beloved ones is recalled. There is no doubt that they did not consider themselves literal sons of God. Christians regard only Jesus Christ (عليه السلام) as the literal son of God and openly express this belief. In Christian literature, “son of God” is a title applied to the savior and redeemer and is not applied to anyone else except in cases where it is clear, from the Qur’an, that the intent is not literal sonship (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 345). They applied this term to themselves in the sense that they claimed a special relationship with God, believing that anyone belonging to their lineage or entering their group would automatically be counted among God’s beloved ones and “sons,” even without righteous deeds. (Some time ago, in our region, certain individuals began special missionary efforts to convert people to Christianity and referred to themselves as “sons of God.”) It is well known that the Qur’an combats all such imagined distinctions and considers a person’s merit to lie solely in faith, righteous action, and piety. Therefore, to refute this claim, the verse states: say to them, then why does He punish you for your sins? (قُلۡ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُمۖ). That is, you yourselves acknowledge that you will be punished, even if for a limited period, with the punishment of sinners. The very fact that such punishment befalls you is proof that your claim of a special relationship with God, or of being counted as God’s sons, is unfounded. Moreover, your own history testifies that even in this world you have been afflicted by many punishments and calamities. This is a second proof of the falsity of your claim. To further emphasize this meaning, it is stated: rather, you are human beings from among those He has created (بَلْ أَنتُمْ بَشَرٌ مِّمَّنْ خَلَق). This is a universal law: God forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills (يَغۡفِرُ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَآءُۚ). Furthermore, all are God’s creation, His servants and possessions; therefore, calling anyone a “son of God” has no rational or principled basis (وَلِلَّهِ مُلۡكُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيۡنَهُمَا). Ultimately, all creation shall return to Him (وَإِلَيۡهِ ٱلۡمَصِيرُ). At this point the question arises: where did the Jews and Christians ever claim to be “sons of God,” even in a metaphorical sense? The answer is that this notion appears repeatedly in the present Gospels. One example is recorded in the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 41 and following, where Jesus (عليه السلام) said to the Jews: “You do the deeds of your father.” The Jews replied: “We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, God.” Jesus (عليه السلام) said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me.” In Islamic narrations as well, a report is transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās stating that when the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny invited a group of Jews to Islam and warned them of God’s punishment, they said: how can you threaten us with God’s punishment when we are God’s sons and His beloved ones? (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān; Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, vol. 11, p. 192). A similar narration is cited in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under the present verse, stating that when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny warned them of divine punishment, a group said: do not threaten or frighten us, for we are God’s sons and His beloved ones; even if He becomes angry with us, His anger is like that of a human father toward his son—soon to subside.

In this verse, the address once again turns to the People of the Book. It states: O People of the Book—O Jews and Christians—Our Messenger has come to you, and at a time when there has been an interval and discontinuity between the divine messengers, he has made the truths clear to you, lest you should say that no bearer of good tidings and no warner ever came to us (يَٰٓأَهۡلَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ قَدۡ جَآءَكُمۡ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمۡ عَلَىٰ فَتۡرَةٖ مِّنَ ٱلرُّسُلِ أَن تَقُولُواْ مَا جَآءَنَا مِنۢ بَشِيرٖ وَلَا نَذِيرٖۖ). That is, a giver of glad tidings and a warner—namely the Prophet of Islam—has come to you: one who gives glad tidings of divine mercy and reward to the believers and the righteous, and who warns the unbelievers, sinners, and the morally corrupted of divine punishment (فَقَدۡ جَآءَكُم بَشِيرٗا وَنَذِيرٗا). The word fatrah literally denotes stillness and calm, and it is also used for the interval or gap between two movements, efforts, or revolutions. Between Moses (عليه السلام) and Jesus (عليه السلام) there were divinely sent messengers, but this was not the case between Jesus (عليه السلام) and the Prophet of Islam. The Qur’an designates that period as fatrah al‑rusul, and it is known that there was a gap of approximately six hundred years between Jesus (عليه السلام) and the mission of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Some consider this interval to have been slightly less than six hundred years, while others estimate it as somewhat longer. According to certain views, the span between the birth of Jesus (عليه السلام) and the Hijrah of the Prophet of Islam amounted to six hundred and twenty‑one Roman years and one hundred and ninety‑five days (as cited in the marginal notes of Tafsīr al‑Fatūḥ al‑Rāzī, vol. 4, p. 154). However, as the Qur’an indicates in Sūrat Yā Sīn, verse 14, and according to the statements of Islamic exegetes, at least three messengers appeared during the interval between those two prophets, and some count them as four. Even so, there was still a gap between the passing of those messengers and the advent of the Messenger of Islam. For this reason, the Qur’an characterizes this period as a fatrah.

It may be said at this point that, according to our belief, human society can never be devoid—even for a moment—of divine representatives and those sent by God; how, then, could there be such a period of fatrah? It should be noted that the Qur’an states: عَلَىٰ فَتۡرَةٖ مِّنَ ٱلرُّسُلِ—that is, during a period in which there were no messengers. This does not contradict the possibility that awṣiyāʾ (divinely appointed successors) were present during that time. More precisely, the term rasūl refers to those figures who were charged with extensive and open proclamation: they conveyed glad tidings and warnings, broke the social silence of their communities, and made their voices heard by all. Not all awṣiyāʾ possessed such a mandate or responsibility; indeed, it is possible that, due to certain social circumstances, they lived among the people in a concealed manner. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states in one of his sayings: اللّٰهُمَّ لَا تَخْلُو الْأَرْضُ مِنْ قَائِمٍ لِلّٰهِ بِحُجَّةٍ، إِمَّا ظَاهِرًا مَشْهُورًا، أَوْ خَائِفًا مَغْمُورًا، لِئَلَّا تَبْطُلَ حُجَجُ اللّٰهِ وَبَيِّنَاتُهُ، يَحْفَظُ اللّٰهُ بِهِمْ حُجَجَهُ وَبَيِّنَاتِهِ، حَتَّى يُودِعُوهَا نُظَرَاءَهُمْ، وَيَزْرَعُوهَا فِي قُلُوبِ أَشْبَاهِهِمْ. Indeed, the earth is never devoid of one who stands with the proof of God—either openly manifest and well‑known, or hidden and unknown—so that the divine proofs and signs may not be nullified (and so that they may protect them from distortion and disappearance). Through them, God preserves His proofs and signs, so that they may entrust them to their counterparts and sow them within the hearts of those similar to them. (Reported in Nahj al‑Balāghah, Short Sayings, no. 147.) When distortions, satanic insinuations, corruptions, and ignorance of divine teachings gradually spread, it is possible that some people may attempt to use such a situation as a pretext to evade responsibility. In such circumstances, God cuts off this pretext through His divinely guided champions. At the end of the verse it is stated: وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ قَدِيرٌ—God has power over all things. That is, sending messengers and appointing their successors to propagate the truth is an easy matter within the scope of His power.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

In these verses, the preceding discussions are brought to completion. Here the aim is to awaken in the Jews a spirit of recognition of truth, to call them to awareness of their past errors, and to urge them toward making amends for those errors. It is stated: remember when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the blessings of God upon you” (وَإِذۡ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوۡمِهِ يَٰقَوۡمِ ٱذۡكُرُواْ نِعۡمَةَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡكُمۡ). It is evident that the expression “نِعۡمَةَ ٱللَّهِ” encompasses all the blessings of the Lord, but here three of them are mentioned explicitly. The first is that many prophets and leaders arose among them—this was, in reality, their greatest blessing (إِذۡ جَعَلَ فِيكُمۡ أَنۢبِيَآءَ). It is even said that during the time of Moses son of ʿImrān alone, more than seventy prophets existed; all seventy individuals who accompanied Moses (عليه السلام) to Mount Ṭūr belonged to the rank of prophets. Through this blessing they were saved from dreadful afflictions such as polytheism, idol worship, and calf worship, and were delivered from various superstitions, delusions, moral vices, and impurities. This was their greatest blessing. The second was a great material blessing which, in its proper place, also served as a prelude to spiritual blessings. Alluding to this, it is stated: He placed control over your lives and possessions in your own hands (وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكٗا). For many years the Children of Israel had been shackled in the chains of Pharaoh and the Pharaonic regime; they had no control over their own affairs and were treated like captive animals. Moses son of ʿImrān (عليه السلام), by God’s command, rose up, shattered the chains of slavery and colonial domination that bound their feet, and made them masters of their own lives. Some have suggested that “مُّلُوكٗا” here refers to kings and rulers who arose among the Children of Israel, whereas we know that political sovereignty among them existed only for a short period and that only a few individuals reached that position. The verse, however, states “وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكٗا”—that God made all of you such. This makes it clear that the meaning is exactly what has been described above. Moreover, the word malik in Arabic also means one who possesses authority and ownership. Lexicographers state: al‑malik man kāna lahu al‑mulk wa al‑mulk huwa mā yamlikuhu al‑insān wa yataṣarrafu bihi, that is, a malik is one who possesses dominion, and dominion refers to whatever a person owns and controls. In al‑Durr al‑Manthūr, a narration is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny stating: among the Children of Israel, anyone who possessed a servant, a mount, and a wife was called a malik. This narration is also transmitted in al‑Mīzān (vol. 5, p. 319) and in Tafsīr al‑Ṭabrisī (vol. 6, p. 108). At the end of the verse, reference is made in general terms to those great blessings which were not granted to anyone else at that time: you were given things that were not given to anyone among the worlds (وَءَاتَىٰكُم مَّا لَمۡ يُؤۡتِ أَحَدٗا مِّنَ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ). These included many kinds of blessings, among them their miraculous deliverance from Pharaoh, the splitting of the sea for them, and the provision of special food such as manna and quails. The details of these matters have already been discussed under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 57, in volume one. Thereafter, with regard to the boundaries of the sacred land promised to the Children of Israel, it is stated: Moses said to his people, “Enter the sacred land which God has ordained for you; do not turn back in fear or shrink from sacrifice, lest you return as losers” (يَٰقَوۡمِ ٱدۡخُلُواْ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ ٱلۡمُقَدَّسَةَ ٱلَّتِي كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ وَلَا تَرۡتَدُّواْ عَلَىٰٓ أَدۡبَارِكُمۡ فَتَنقَلِبُواْ خَٰسِرِينَ). Exegetes have expressed various views regarding what is meant by “ٱلۡأَرۡضَ ٱلۡمُقَدَّسَةَ”. Some say it refers to Jerusalem, others name Jordan or Palestine, and some identify it with the land around Mount Ṭūr. It is not unlikely, however, that it refers to the region of al‑Shām as a whole, which includes all these areas. History bears witness that this entire region was the cradle of divine prophethood, the land of emergence of great religions, and a center for the propagation of monotheism, God‑worship, and the teachings of the prophets across long spans of history; hence it was called the sacred land. At times, Jerusalem in particular is also designated as the sacred land. The phrase “كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ” indicates that God had determined for the Children of Israel to live in peace, security, and prosperity in the sacred land—on the condition that they keep it free from polytheism and idolatry and that they themselves not deviate from the teachings of the prophets. If, however, they failed to abide by this command, they would suffer great loss. Therefore, if we find that one generation of the Children of Israel did not enter that land and instead wandered for forty years in the desert, while the next generation was granted that opportunity, this does not contradict the meaning of “كَتَبَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ”, since the divine promise was conditional upon requirements that they failed to fulfill, as the subsequent verse makes clear. The Children of Israel responded to Moses (عليه السلام) in exactly the manner typical of weak, cowardly, and ignorant people. Such people wish for all successes to fall into their hands effortlessly and miraculously, as if someone should place the morsel directly into their mouths. They said to Moses: you know that a powerful and tyrannical people inhabit this land. As long as they remain there, we will not even set foot in it. Only if they leave will we obey you and enter the sacred land (قَالُواْ يَٰمُوسَىٰٓ إِنَّ فِيهَا قَوۡمٗا جَبَّارِينَ وَإِنَّا لَن نَّدۡخُلَهَا حَتَّىٰ يَخۡرُجُواْ مِنۡهَا فَإِن يَخۡرُجُواْ مِنۡهَا فَإِنَّا دَٰخِلُونَ). The term jabbār is derived from jabr, meaning to forcefully repair or compel; hence the act of setting a broken bone is called jabr. Later, it came to be used both in the sense of correction and in the sense of domination and tyranny. God is also called al‑Jabbār because He has power over all things or because He restores every needy being. This response of the Children of Israel clearly reflects the pernicious effects that prolonged Pharaonic domination had left upon their generations. The use of the word “لن”, which denotes emphatic and enduring negation, shows the extent of their fear and reluctance to struggle for the liberation of the sacred land. They should instead have exerted effort, embraced the spirit of struggle and sacrifice, and gained control over the land. Even if, contrary to the divine norm, their enemies were to be miraculously annihilated without any effort on their part and they inherited a vast territory without hardship, they would still be incapable of governing and protecting it. What is acquired without effort neither inspires commitment nor endows readiness or competence for its preservation. Historical sources indicate that the “جَبَّارِينَ” referred to here were the Amalekites, a people descended from one of the sons of Shem, who lived in the northern regions of the Arabian Peninsula near the Sinai Desert. They invaded Egypt and ruled it for long periods; their rule lasted approximately five hundred years (from around 2213 BCE to 1703 BCE). They were a strong and tall people, but exaggerated and mythical accounts of their stature were later fabricated, including outlandish legends about a figure named ʿوج. Such tales, which even found their way into some Islamic books, are in reality part of what are known as Isrāʾīliyyāt. This is confirmed by the presence of similar stories in the present Torah itself. At the end of chapter 13 of the Book of Numbers it is stated that the spies returned and described the land as one that consumed its inhabitants, claiming that all the people they saw were of great stature, and that in comparison they seemed like locusts in both their own eyes and the eyes of those people. Thereafter, the Qur’an states that two men among the believers—endowed with fear of God and, by that virtue, granted great blessings such as steadfastness, courage, foresight, and social and military insight—supported Moses’ strategy and said to the Children of Israel: enter upon them through the gate, and once you enter it you will surely prevail (قَالَ رَجُلَانِ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَخَافُونَ أَنۡعَمَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيۡهِمَا ٱدۡخُلُواْ عَلَيۡهِمُ ٱلۡبَابَ فَإِذَا دَخَلۡتُمُوهُ فَإِنَّكُمۡ غَٰلِبُونَۚ). In all circumstances, they urged reliance upon faith and trust in God in order to achieve this goal (وَعَلَى ٱللَّهِ فَتَوَكَّلُوٓاْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤۡمِنِينَ). Regarding the identity of these two men, most exegetes have written that they were Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, both of whom were among the leaders of the Children of Israel previously mentioned. This identification is also found in the present Torah, in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 1. As for the phrase “مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَخَافُونَ”, several interpretations have been proposed, but the apparent meaning is that they were men who feared God, and therefore had no fear of anyone else. The statement “أَنۡعَمَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيۡهِمَا” supports this understanding, for there is no blessing greater than fearing only God and not others. A question arises here: how did these two men know that if the Children of Israel launched a sudden attack and entered the city, the Amalekites would be defeated? Perhaps because they trusted in the promise of victory conveyed through Moses (عليه السلام), and because they also understood a basic principle of warfare: when an attacking force penetrates the enemy’s central stronghold and fights on its home ground, it generally prevails. This strategic principle is also mentioned in Nahj al‑Balāghah in the Sermon on Jihād, where the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) states: “By God, whenever a people are attacked in the heart of their own land, they are humiliated.” Furthermore, as noted earlier, although the Amalekites were physically strong, they were better suited to desert warfare and not to combat in narrow city streets. Moreover, it is said that despite their strength, they were cowardly and easily intimidated by sudden attacks. For all these reasons, the two men were confident of victory. However, the Children of Israel rejected this proposal. Because weakness and timidity had taken hold of their spirits, they bluntly told Moses (عليه السلام): as long as they remain in that land, we will never enter it. You and your Lord, who promised you victory, go and fight with the Amalekites; when you have succeeded, inform us—we will remain seated here (قَالُواْ يَٰمُوسَىٰٓ إِنَّا لَن نَّدۡخُلَهَآ أَبَدٗا مَّا دَامُواْ فِيهَا فَٱذۡهَبۡ أَنتَ وَرَبُّكَ فَقَٰتِلَآ إِنَّا هَٰهُنَا قَٰعِدُونَ). This verse shows that the Children of Israel reached the extreme of insolence toward their prophet. They used the emphatic expressions “لن” and “أبدا” to declare their open defiance, and then uttered the audacious statement: you and your Lord go and fight—we will sit here. They belittled Moses (عليه السلام) and his promises, disregarded the advice of those two faithful servants of God, and perhaps did not even deem them worthy of a response. Notably, some important elements of this story also appear in the present Torah, in Numbers chapter 14, where it is reported that the Children of Israel protested against Moses and Aaron, wishing they had died in Egypt or in the wilderness, questioning why God had brought them to a land where they would fall by the sword and their women and children would be taken captive. There it is stated that Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before the assembly, and that Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh tore their garments. The Qur’an further relates that Moses (عليه السلام), in complete despair of his people, raised his hands in supplication and requested separation from them, saying: My Lord, I have power over none but myself and my brother; so separate us from this rebellious people (قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي لَآ أَمۡلِكُ إِلَّا نَفۡسِي وَأَخِيۖ فَٱفۡرُقۡ بَيۡنَنَا وَبَيۡنَ ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلۡفَٰسِقِينَ). Although the disobedience of the Children of Israel to their prophet had reached the level of disbelief, the Qur’an refers to them as fāsiqīn because the term fāsiq has a broad meaning that encompasses every form of departure from obedience and servitude to God. Thus, regarding Satan it is said: فَفَسَقَ عَنۡ أَمۡرِ رَبِّهِ—he rebelled against the command of his Lord (al‑Kahf 50). It is also worth noting that earlier verses indicate, through the phrase “مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَخَافُونَ”, that there was a minority among the Children of Israel who feared God. Joshua and Caleb belonged to this group. Yet here Moses (عليه السلام) mentions only himself and his brother Aaron (عليه السلام). Perhaps this is because Aaron was Moses’ appointed successor and, after Moses, the most virtuous among the Children of Israel, and hence is mentioned specifically. Ultimately, Moses’ supplication was answered, and the Children of Israel were made to face the consequences of their wrongdoing. A revelation came to Moses (عليه السلام): this sacred land shall be forbidden to them for forty years (قَالَ فَإِنَّهَا مُحَرَّمَةٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡۛ أَرۡبَعِينَ سَنَةٗۛ). During these forty years, they would wander aimlessly in the land (يَتِيهُونَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِۚ). The word “يَتِيهُونَ” derives from tīh, meaning wandering, and subsequently Tīh became the name of the desert in which they wandered. As discussed earlier, this desert was a part of the Sinai Peninsula. Moses (عليه السلام) was then told: do not grieve over these rebellious people (فَلَا تَأۡسَ عَلَى ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلۡفَٰسِقِينَ). This final statement may indicate that when the decree of forty years of wandering was issued, Moses’ compassion was aroused and he may have sought forgiveness for them, as is also reflected in the present Torah. But he was immediately informed that they were not worthy of pardon, for they were indeed rebellious and defiant, and such an outcome was inevitable for them. It should be noted that this forty‑year deprivation was not an act of vengeance—since no divine punishment is ever vindictive—but rather served either as correction or as the natural consequence of their deeds. In reality, it had a profound role: the Children of Israel had long endured the blows of Pharaonic domination, which had left them deeply scarred by humiliation, loss of self‑worth, and a servile mentality. Even under the guidance of a great leader like Moses (عليه السلام), they could not cleanse their souls of these defects within a short time or prepare themselves in a single leap for a life of honor, power, and dignity. Their response to the command for jihad and liberation of the sacred land clearly demonstrates this reality. It was therefore necessary for them to wander for a long period in vast deserts so that the weak and servile generation shaped by slavery would gradually disappear, and a new generation—raised in an atmosphere of freedom and nurtured by divine teachings—would emerge, capable of undertaking such a struggle and establishing the rule of truth in that land.

See ayat 29 for tafseer.

See ayat 29 for tafseer.

In these verses, reference is made to the sons of Adam (عليهما السلام), and the account is related of the killing of one brother by the other. The connection of these verses with the preceding ones may be that many of the wrongful actions of the Children of Israel were rooted in jealousy; through these verses, God draws their attention to how grievous and horrific the outcome of jealousy can be, to the extent that it leads a brother to stain his hands with the blood of his own brother. It is first stated: O Prophet, relate to them the true account of the two sons of Adam (وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ ابْنَيْ آدَمَ بِالْحَقِّ). The expression “بِالْحَقِّ” may indicate that this account has been narrated in the Old Testament (the Torah) with numerous superstitions interpolated into it, whereas the Qur’an presents it in its true and factual form. There is no doubt that “Adam” here refers to the well‑known Adam, the first father of the present human race. The suggestion made by some that this refers to an Adam from among the Children of Israel is completely unfounded, because this word has been repeatedly used in the Qur’an with the former meaning, and if some other meaning were intended here, an explicit contextual indicator would have been necessary. As for the phrase “مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ,” whose explanation will follow shortly, it can by no means serve as a contextual indicator for such an interpretation. The verse then recounts the event, stating: when each of the two offered an offering to draw nearer to God, the offering of one was accepted, while that of the other was not accepted (إِذْ قَرَّبَا قُرْبَانًا فَتُقُبِّلَ مِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا وَلَمْ يُتَقَبَّلْ مِنَ الْآخَرِ). For this reason, the one whose offering was not accepted threatened to kill his brother and swore, “I will surely kill you” (قَالَ لَأَقْتُلَنَّكَ). The other brother admonished him and said that if this occurred, it was not his fault; rather, the objection lay with the brother whose act lacked piety, for God accepts only from those who are God‑fearing (قَالَ إِنَّمَا يَتَقَبَّلُ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْمُتَّقِينَ). He further said that even if the threat were carried out and the other were to raise his hand to kill him, he would never raise his own hand to kill in return (لَئِنْ بَسَطْتَ إِلَيَّ يَدَكَ لِتَقْتُلَنِي مَا أَنَا بِبَاسِطٍ يَدِيَ إِلَيْكَ لِأَقْتُلَكَ), because he feared God, the Lord of the worlds, and would never stain his hands with such a sin (إِنِّي أَخَافُ اللَّهَ رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ). He added that he did not wish to bear the burden of another’s sin upon himself; rather, he desired that the aggressor bear the burden of both his own sin and the sin committed against him (إِنِّي أُرِيدُ أَنْ تَبُوءَ بِإِثْمِي وَإِثْمِكَ). The verb “تَبُوءَ” is derived from the root “بوء,” meaning “to return.” That is, if the threat were actually carried out, the burden of his own previous sins would fall upon the murderer as well, because by unlawfully taking a life he would incur liability and recompense; and since he possessed no righteous deeds to offset this burden, he would have to carry it himself. It is then stated: thus you would become one of the inhabitants of the Fire, and such is the recompense of the wrongdoers (فَتَكُونَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّارِ ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الظَّالِمِينَ).

1۔ The names of the sons of Adam: The Noble Qur’an does not mention the names of the sons of Adam (عليه السلام), neither here nor elsewhere. However, according to Islamic narrations, the name of one is Hābīl and the other is Qābīl. In the fourth chapter of the Book of Genesis in the present Torah, one is named Qāyin and the other Hābīl. As the well‑known exegete Abū al‑Fatḥ al‑Rāzī states, each of these names has several linguistic variants: the first was called Hābīl, Hābil, or Hābin, and the second was called Qābīl, Qābin, or Qibn. In any case, the differences regarding the name Qābīl in Islamic narrations and the Torah trace back to linguistic variations, and this is not a matter of real significance. It is surprising that a Christian scholar has used this issue as a basis for objecting to the Qur’an, asking why the Qur’an calls “Qāyin” by the name “Qābīl.” This objection is baseless, first because it is merely a matter of linguistic variation, and differences in names are widespread across languages; for example, the Torah renders “Ibrāhīm” as “Abraham,” while the Qur’an uses “Ibrāhīm.” Second, fundamentally, the names “Hābīl” and “Qābīl” are not mentioned in the Qur’an at all; these names appear in Islamic narrations. (ʿAllāmah Shaykh Muḥammad Jawād Balāghī wrote a treatise entitled al‑Akādhib al‑Aʿājīb (“Astonishing Falsehoods”), in which he cites false claims similar to this one; a Persian translation of this treatise has been published.) 2۔ The meaning of “qurbān”: It is known that qurbān refers to something that brings one nearer to God. However, the specific act performed by the two brothers is not described in the Qur’an. From certain Islamic narrations and from what is mentioned in the Book of Genesis, chapter four, it appears that Hābīl, who possessed livestock, selected one of his best‑fed rams, while Qābīl, who was a farmer, selected an inferior portion of wheat or poor‑quality flour. 3۔ How was acceptance determined? The question arises as to how the sons of Adam (عليه السلام) knew that one offering had been accepted in the divine presence while the other had been rejected. The Qur’an does not explain this, but some Islamic narrations indicate that they placed their offerings upon the peak of a mountain, and as a sign of acceptance, a fire descended and consumed Hābīl’s offering, while the other remained untouched. This was a recognized sign at that time. Some other exegetes hold that the acceptance of one and the rejection of the other were communicated to Adam (عليه السلام) through revelation. The reason for this was nothing other than the fact that Hābīl was pure‑hearted, upright in character, and ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of God, whereas Qābīl was dark‑hearted, envious, and obstinate. The dialogue between the two brothers that the Qur’an records clearly reveals their respective spiritual states. 4۔ The first source of injustice is envy: These verses clearly show that the first source of conflict, murder, aggression, and injustice in human history was envy. This demonstrates how base and hateful envy is among moral vices, and it also reveals the profound negative effects it has on social and communal life.

See ayat 31 for tafseer.

In these verses, the account of the sons of Adam (عليه السلام) is presented, describing the killing of one brother by the other and the events that followed the murder. First it is stated that his rebellious soul gradually made the killing of his brother acceptable to him, and so he killed him (فَطَوَّعَتۡ لَهُۥ نَفۡسُهُۥ قَتۡلَ أَخِيهِ فَقَتَلَهُۥ). The root ṭawʿ signifies becoming compliant and submissive. This expression indicates that after the offering of Hābīl was accepted, a storm arose within Qābīl’s heart. On the one hand, his inner revulsion and conscience, provoked by jealousy, sought to restrain him from committing the crime; yet gradually the rebellious soul overcame the restraining forces, subdued his awakened conscience, bound it, and prepared him to murder his brother. The word ṭawwaʿat is brief, but it powerfully conveys this gradual process, for no one is subdued in a single moment; rather, this occurs through a slow, inner struggle and conflict. It is then said: as a consequence of this act he became one of the losers (فَأَصۡبَحَ مِنَ ٱلۡخَٰسِرِينَ). What greater loss could there be than to incur the torment of conscience, divine punishment, and lasting disgrace and shame recorded in one’s name until the Day of Resurrection? Some have inferred from the word aṣbaḥa that the killing occurred at night; however, in Arabic usage this term is not restricted to night or day, but rather denotes the occurrence of a state or event. For example, in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 103, it is said: فَأَصۡبَحۡتُم بِنِعۡمَتِهِۦٓ إِخۡوَانٗا — “and by His grace you became brothers.” According to narrations transmitted from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), when Qābīl killed his brother, he left the body in the wilderness, not knowing what to do with it. Before long, wild beasts began approaching Hābīl’s body. Under intense pressure from his conscience, Qābīl carried the corpse on his shoulders for some time in order to protect it, while birds hovered around him, waiting for him to set it down so that they might seize it (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under this verse). As the Qur’an states, at that moment God sent a crow. The purpose was that it would scratch the earth and conceal the body of another dead crow, or bury its stored food, as is the habit of crows, so that Qābīl might learn how to bury his brother’s body (فَبَعَثَ ٱللَّهُ غُرَابٗا يَبۡحَثُ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ لِيُرِيَهُۥ كَيۡفَ يُوَارِي سَوۡءَةَ أَخِيهِۦ). The verb yabḥath derives from baḥth, originally meaning to search in the soil for something; later it came to be used for every kind of investigation, including intellectual inquiry. The word sawʾah refers to anything that a person finds repulsive or shameful, hence it is also used for nakedness. It is also possible that the subject of li‑yuriyahu is God—that is, God wished to preserve Hābīl’s dignity and to teach Qābīl the method of burial—or that the subject is the crow itself, which performed this act by God’s command. There is nothing surprising in a human learning something from an animal, for history and experience testify that many animals possess innate knowledge, and that throughout human history people have learned much from animals. Some medical books even note that certain aspects of human medical knowledge have been acquired through observation of animals. The Qur’an then continues: at that point Qābīl became distressed by his ignorance and negligence and cried out, “Woe to me! Am I unable to be like this crow and thus bury the body of my brother?” (قَالَ يَٰوَيۡلَتَىٰٓ أَأَعَجَزۡتُ أَنۡ أَكُونَ مِثۡلَ هَٰذَا ٱلۡغُرَابِ فَأُوَارِيَ سَوۡءَةَ أَخِيهِۦ). In any case, he became remorseful of what he had done, as the Qur’an states: فَأَصۡبَحَ مِنَ ٱلنَّٰدِمِينَ. Was this remorse because he feared that his despicable act would eventually be revealed to his parents or possibly to another brother, bringing severe reproach upon him? Or was it because he had carried his brother’s corpse for a time without burying it? Or was it simply because, after committing any grave wrongdoing, a person naturally experiences inner anguish and regret? Regardless of the cause, it is clear that this remorse does not constitute repentance from sin. Repentance requires regret that arises from fear of God and awareness of the gravity of the wrongdoing, and that leads to a firm resolve never to repeat such an act. The Qur’an gives no indication that Qābīl repented in this manner; rather, the subsequent verse perhaps alludes to the absence of true repentance. A narration is transmitted from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, who said: “No soul is killed unjustly except that a portion of its blood falls upon the first son of Adam, for he was the first to establish the practice of killing.” This indicates that every unjust killing committed thereafter carries a share of its burden upon Qābīl, who initiated this evil practice (reported in Fī Ẓilāl al‑Qurʾān under this verse, and in Musnad Aḥmad). From this it is also understood that every evil and pernicious practice that endures in the world places a share of its sin upon the shoulders of the one who first established it. There is no doubt that this incident involving the sons of Adam (عليه السلام) is a real historical event. Beyond the apparent meanings of the Qur’anic verses and Islamic narrations establishing its reality, the expression bil‑ḥaqq used in these verses is itself a testimony to its factual nature. Therefore, those who regard this account as a mere parable, metaphor, or symbolic narrative do so without evidence. Nevertheless, there is no objection to viewing this real event as a paradigm for the perennial struggle between pure, righteous, and God‑accepted individuals on the one hand, and impure, deviant, rancorous, envious, and obstinately unjust individuals on the other. How pure and exalted are those righteous ones who drank the cup of martyrdom at the hands of such evil people. Ultimately, the perpetrators of evil become aware of the consequences of their shameful deeds and seek to conceal and bury them. At that point, their desires hasten to assist them; the crow becomes a symbol of those desires, quickly arriving to invite them to conceal their crimes. Yet in the end, nothing remains for them except loss, ruin, and regret.

After recounting the episode of the sons of Adam (عليه السلام), this verse presents a general and universal conclusion. It first states: For this reason, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a human being—without it being in retribution for another life or for spreading corruption in the land—it is as though he has killed all of humankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he has saved all of humankind (مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُۥ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًۢا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي ٱلْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًۭاۖ وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعًۭا). (The word “أجل” originally means “crime” (on the pattern of nakhl), and later came to be used for any action with a grievous consequence; it is now commonly employed to indicate causation and reasoning.) Here an important question arises: How can the killing of one human being be equivalent to killing all humanity, and how can saving one life be equated with saving all? Many exegetes have proposed explanations—six in Tafsīr al‑Tibyān, five in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, and four in Kanz al‑ʿIrfān—some of which stray far from the apparent meaning of the verse. The correct answer is that the Qur’an is expressing a social and moral reality. A person who stains his hands with the blood of an innocent human being demonstrates readiness to attack and kill other innocent people like the victim; such a person is, in reality, a predatory being whose prey consists of innocent humans. From this perspective, there is no distinction among innocent persons. Likewise, one who saves a life on the basis of humanitarian feeling and compassion is prepared to act in the same way toward every human being; he is attached to the preservation of innocent life. From this perspective as well, there is no distinction among individuals. The Qur’anic expression “فَكَأَنَّمَا” (it is as though) indicates that although the death or survival of one person is not literally equal to the death or survival of the entire society, it resembles it in meaning and implication. A second point is that human society is in reality a single organic unit, whose members resemble the limbs of a single body. When pain afflicts one limb, its effects appear, to varying degrees, throughout the body. Society is composed of individuals; the destruction of one person inflicts harm upon the entire society. The loss of one individual represents the loss of a portion of the society proportional to the impact and influence of that individual, thus affecting the whole. Likewise, the life of a single person contributes to the life of the collective body, because each individual—according to his or her capacities—fulfills a necessary role within the great structure of human society, some in greater measure and some in lesser. Certain narrations state that the punishment of such a murderer on the Day of Resurrection will resemble that of one who has killed all humankind. This too points to the same concept and does not imply that one individual is literally equal to all of humanity in every respect. It is for this reason that other narrations state that when a person kills many individuals, his punishment increases proportionately. From this verse it becomes clear how immensely valuable a single human life is in the view of the Qur’an. Considering that these verses were revealed in an environment where human blood held little value, their moral magnitude becomes even more striking. It is noteworthy that many narrations state that although the verse outwardly concerns physical life and death, its more important application is to spiritual life and death—that is, leading someone astray or rescuing someone from misguidance. When someone asked Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) about the interpretation of this verse, he replied: «من حرق أو غرق … ثم سكت … ثم قال: تأويلها الأعظم أن دعاها فاستجاب له» That is: the verse refers to saving someone from being burned or drowned and similar dangers. Then, after a pause, he added: the greatest interpretation of this verse is calling someone to the path of truth or falsehood, and the person responds to that call. (Reported in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 1, p. 620; similar narrations are also reported.) A second question regarding the verse is why the Children of Israel are mentioned specifically, despite the fact that this ruling is not exclusive to them. The answer is that they are named because many unjustified killings occurred among them, driven by envy and the lust for power. Even in later eras, much bloodshed has been associated with them. For this reason, this divine ruling was addressed to them explicitly in the first instance. At the end of the verse, referring to their repeated violation of divine law, it is stated: Our messengers came to them with clear proofs, yet after that many of them continued to commit excesses and transgressions in the land (وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًۭا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ). It should be noted that the term “إسراف” (excess) has a wide semantic scope, encompassing all forms of transgression beyond proper limits, although it is frequently used in the context of excessive expenditure.

See ayat 34 for tafseer.

It has been reported regarding the occasion of revelation of this verse that a group of polytheists came into the presence of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and embraced Islam. However, the climate of Madinah did not suit them: their complexion turned yellow and they became ill. In view of their health, the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny instructed them to go outside Madinah to a wholesome desert area where the camels of zakāt were pastured, so that they might also have access to fresh camel milk. They recovered their health, but instead of showing gratitude to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, they cut off the hands and feet of the Muslim shepherds, gouged out their eyes, began killing them, seized the camels of zakāt, and apostatized from Islam. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then ordered that they be captured and that, by way of qiṣāṣ, the same treatment be inflicted upon them as they had inflicted upon the Muslim shepherds. Their eyes were gouged out, their hands and feet were cut off, and they were executed, so that others might take heed and refrain from committing such crimes against humanity. The verse under discussion was revealed concerning such people, setting forth the ruling of Islamic law regarding them. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 353, and Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī, vol. 3, p. 2145.)

This verse, in reality, completes the ongoing discussion concerning the taking of human life. It sets forth an extremely severe punishment for those who, while armed and issuing threats to people—indeed, even killing them—plunder their property and possessions. It declares: those who rise up to wage war against God and His Messenger and spread corruption upon the earth—this is their recompense, that one of the following punishments be imposed upon them: First, that they be put to death; second, that they be crucified; third, that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides; and fourth, that if they reside in a particular region, they be banished from it (إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ ٱلَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ وَيَسۡعَوۡنَ فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوٓا۟ أَوۡ يُصَلَّبُوٓا۟ أَوۡ تُقَطَّعَ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَأَرۡجُلُهُم مِّنۡ خِلَٰفٍ أَوۡ يُنۡفَوۡا۟ مِنَ ٱلۡأَرۡضِ).

1۔ What is meant by waging war against God and the Messenger? As indicated in narrations transmitted from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), and as is also attested—at least implicitly—by the occasion of revelation of the verse, waging war against God and the Messenger means attacking people’s lives and property while armed, by means of intimidation and terror. This applies whether such acts are committed outside cities, as by bandits and highway robbers, or within cities themselves. Accordingly, lawless marauders who assault people’s lives, property, and honor fall under the purview of this ruling. It should also be noted that in this verse, waging war against God’s servants is described as waging war against God Himself, which demonstrates how greatly Islam values human rights and the security and peace of society. 2۔What does cutting off hands and feet mean? As clarified in jurisprudential works, cutting off hands and feet here refers to the same extent specified in the ruling on theft, namely the cutting of only four fingers of the hand and foot. (See Kanz al‑ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al‑Qurʾān, vol. 2, p. 352.) 3۔ Are the four punishments discretionary? In the verse under discussion, four punishments are mentioned. The question arises whether these punishments are discretionary—that is, whether the Islamic government may choose whichever punishment it deems appropriate for an offender—or whether the punishment is determined by the nature of the crime itself. In other words, if the aggressors (bandits) have killed innocent people, the punishment of execution applies; if they have taken up arms to terrorize people and plundered their property, the punishment of cutting off fingers applies; if they have both killed and looted, they are to be executed and their bodies displayed for a time as a deterrent; and if they have taken up arms against people but have neither killed nor stolen, they are to be banished to another region. There is no doubt that this latter interpretation is closer to the truth, and this meaning is also conveyed in several narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام). (See Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 1, p. 622.) It is true that some narrations refer to a degree of discretion for the Islamic authority in this matter; however, when these are read in light of the narrations mentioned earlier, it becomes clear that “discretion” does not mean arbitrarily selecting one of the four punishments without regard to the nature of the crime. It would be far‑fetched to equate execution or crucifixion with exile, as these punishments are not of the same level. Interestingly, even in contemporary legal systems, it is common for a single crime to carry a range of punishments—for example, imprisonment of three to ten years—where judicial discretion does not imply arbitrariness, but rather the tailoring of punishment to the severity of the offense. In this important Islamic law as well, the punishments for aggressors vary precisely because the crimes themselves vary; not all aggressors are equal in the nature or severity of their actions. It is self‑evident that Islam has imposed such severe punishments for aggressors in order to protect innocent blood, lives, property, and honor from the attacks and transgressions of obstinate, violent, wanton, and corrupt individuals. (The rulings mentioned above have been presented only summarily; a detailed study of the conditions and applications of this law should be undertaken in works of jurisprudence.) At the end of the verse it is stated: this disgrace and punishment are for them in this world, but it will not end there; in the Hereafter they shall also suffer a tremendous punishment (ذٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الْاٰخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ). This indicates that the implementation of Islamic penalties in this world does not preclude punishment in the Hereafter. Then, so that the door of repentance is not closed even to such dangerous criminals, and so that the path of reform and rectification remains open if they incline toward it, it is stated: except for those who repent before you gain power over them—know that God is Forgiving, Merciful (اِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِنْ قَبْلِ اَنْ تَقْدِرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَاعْلَمُوا اَنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُوْرٌ رَّحِيْمٌ). From this it is understood that they will be spared this particular punishment only if, before being apprehended, they voluntarily abandon their criminal intent and genuinely repent. It should be noted here that such repentance does not nullify liability for murder or theft if these have already been committed; rather, only the punishment pertaining specifically to armed intimidation is lifted. In other words, in matters pertaining to the rights of God (ḥuqūq Allāh), punishment is lifted by repentance, but in matters pertaining to the rights of people (ḥuqūq al‑nās), punishment cannot be lifted without the consent of those whose rights were violated (reflect carefully). A further implication is that the punishment for muḥārabah (armed aggression) is more severe than that for ordinary murder or theft; repentance removes the additional muḥārabah penalty, but not the standard penalties for murder, theft, or usurpation. One might ask how repentance—being an inner state—can be proven. The answer is that there are several means of establishing it: for example, the testimony of two upright witnesses that they heard him repent freely and without coercion, or a clear and sustained transformation in his conduct and pattern of life such that the آثار of repentance become evident.

In this verse, the address is directed to the believers, and three commands are given to them for attaining salvation. First it is stated: O you who believe, be mindful of God and adopt piety (يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا اتَّقُوا ٱللَّهَ). Then it is commanded: seek the means of nearness to Him (وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ ٱلْوَسِيلَةَ). Finally, the command is given to strive in the path of God (وَجَاهِدُوا فِى سَبِيلِهِ). The result of acting upon all these commands will be that you attain salvation and success (لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ). The subject that deserves particular attention in this verse is the command given to the believers to seek a wasīlah (means). The term wasīlah denotes seeking closeness, or that by which closeness is attained with inclination and willingness. Thus, the word wasīlah in this verse carries a broad meaning: it encompasses every action and thing that leads to proximity to the sacred presence of the Lord. Included within its meaning are, foremost, faith in God and the Messenger of God and striving in His path, as well as prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to the House of God. Likewise, maintaining family ties, spending in the way of God openly or secretly, and every good and righteous deed are encompassed by its meaning. As Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states in Nahj al‑Balāghah: إِنَّ أَفْضَلَ مَا تُوَسِّلَ بِهِ الْمُتَوَسِّلُونَ إِلَى اللَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى الإِيمَانُ بِهِ وَبِرُسُلِهِ وَالْجِهَادُ فِي سَبِيلِهِ فَإِنَّهُ ذِرْوَةُ الإِسْلَامِ، وَكَلِمَةُ الإِخْلَاصِ فَإِنَّهَا الْفِطْرَةُ، وَإِقَامُ الصَّلَاةِ فَإِنَّهَا الْمِلَّةُ، وَإِيتَاءُ الزَّكَاةِ فَإِنَّهَا فَرِيضَةٌ وَاجِبَةٌ، وَصَوْمُ شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ فَإِنَّهُ جُنَّةٌ مِنَ الْعِقَابِ، وَحَجُّ الْبَيْتِ وَاعْتِمَارُهُ فَإِنَّهُمَا يَنْفِيَانِ الْفَقْرَ وَيَرْحَضَانِ الذَّنْبَ، وَصِلَةُ الرَّحِمِ فَإِنَّهَا مَثْرَاةٌ فِي الْمَالِ وَمَنْسَأَةٌ فِي الأَجَلِ، وَصَدَقَةُ السِّرِّ فَإِنَّهَا تُكَفِّرُ الْخَطِيئَةَ، وَصَدَقَةُ الْعَلَانِيَةِ فَإِنَّهَا تَدْفَعُ مِيتَةَ السُّوءِ، وَصَنَائِعُ الْمَعْرُوفِ فَإِنَّهَا تَقِي مَصَارِعَ الْهَوَانِ. That is: the best means by which those who seek nearness approach God—exalted is He—are faith in Him and in His messengers, and striving in His path, for it is the summit of Islam; the word of sincerity (لا إله إلا الله), for it is the innate nature; establishing prayer, for it is the religious system; giving alms, for it is an obligatory duty; fasting in the month of Ramadan, for it is a shield against punishment; pilgrimage and lesser pilgrimage to the House, for they remove poverty and wash away sin; maintaining ties of kinship, for it increases wealth and prolongs life; giving charity in secret, for it expiates sins; giving charity openly, for it wards off an evil death; and acts of kindness, for they protect from humiliating downfalls—all of these are means of nearness to God. It should be noted that the intent here is by no means to independently ask anything from the essence of the Prophet or the Imams; rather, the intent is to perform righteous deeds, to follow the Prophet and the Imams, to seek their intercession, or to present their rank and station as a means. This, in reality, is a form of respect and expresses recognition of their rank and position in the eyes of the one who seeks nearness, and it is itself a mode of devotion to God. When God is asked through this means, it carries no trace of polytheism, nor does it contradict other Qurʾanic verses, nor does it go beyond the general meaning of the verse under discussion. The intercession of the prophets, the Imams, and the righteous servants of God—which, according to explicit Qurʾanic statements, is itself a means of divine proximity—is also included within the broad meaning of wasīlah. Likewise, following the Prophet and the Imams is a cause of nearness to the divine presence. Even presenting the rank and status of the prophets, the Imams, and the righteous as a means is included within its meaning, for mentioning them is in fact tantamount to honoring their station and school. Those who restrict the verse to only one of these meanings, in reality, possess no proof for such restriction, because—as already noted—from the linguistic standpoint, anything that brings about nearness is a wasīlah.

Other Qur’anic verses also clearly demonstrate that taking the rank of a righteous person as a means (وسیلہ) before God, and requesting something from God by virtue of that person, is in no way prohibited and is not contrary to monotheism. In Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 64, it is stated: ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله توابًا رحيمًا — “If, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, and sought forgiveness from God, and the Messenger had sought forgiveness for them, they would surely have found God accepting of repentance, Most Merciful.” Likewise, in Sūrat Yūsuf, verse 97, it is stated that the brothers of Joseph requested their father to seek forgiveness for them before God, and Jacob (عليه السلام) accepted their request. In Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 114, it is also reported concerning Abraham (عليه السلام) that he sought forgiveness for his father (referring to his uncle, whom he regarded as his father), which further supports the effectiveness of the prayers of the prophets on behalf of others. Numerous other Qur’anic verses and narrations likewise corroborate this principle.

Numerous Shiʿi and Sunni narrations also make it clear that there is no objection to tawassul in the aforementioned sense; rather, it is regarded as a commendable practice. Such narrations are very numerous and are recorded in many books. By way of illustration, we cite a few reports from Sunni sources. (1) Wafāʾ al‑Wafāʾ, authored by the well‑known Sunni scholar al‑Samhūdī, states that seeking intercession before God through the Messenger of God and his rank and status is permissible—before his birth, after his birth, after his passing, during the period of the barzakh, and on the Day of Resurrection. The author then transmits a narration stating that Adam (عليه السلام) took the Prophet of Islam as a means, since he was aware of the Prophet’s future advent, and supplicated in the divine presence saying: “يارب اسئلک بحق محمد لما غفرت لی”—that is, “O Lord, I ask You, by the right of Muhammad, that You forgive me” (Wafāʾ al‑Wafāʾ, vol. 3, p. 1371; this narration is also recorded in al‑Tawassul ilā al‑Ḥaqīqah al‑Tawassul, citing al‑Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil al‑Nubuwwah). Al‑Samhūdī then cites another narration, reported by a group of hadith transmitters including al‑Nasāʾī and al‑Tirmidhī, as evidence for the permissibility of tawassul during the lifetime of the Prophet. In summary, it relates that a blind man requested the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to pray for his healing, whereupon the Prophet instructed him to supplicate as follows: “اللهم انی اسئلک و اتوجه الیک بنبیک محمد نبی الرحمة یا محمد انی توجهت بک الی ربی فی حاجتی لتقضی لی اللهم شفعه فی”—that is, “O God, I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad, I turn through you to my Lord regarding my need, that it may be fulfilled for me. O God, make him my intercessor” (Wafāʾ al‑Wafāʾ, p. 1373). Al‑Samhūdī then narrates a report establishing the permissibility of tawassul after the Prophet’s passing: during the caliphate of ʿUthmān, a man with a need went to the grave of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, performed prayer, and supplicated: “اللهم انی اسئلک و اتوجه الیک بنبینا محمد نبی الرحمة یا محمد انی اتوجه بک الی ربک ان تقضی حاجتی.” The author states that his need was immediately fulfilled (Wafāʾ al‑Wafāʾ, p. 1373). (2) The author of al‑Tawassul ilā al‑Ḥaqīqah al‑Tawassul, despite adopting a very strict stance on the issue, transmits twenty‑six narrations from various books and sources indicating the permissibility of tawassul. Although he attempts to criticize the chains of transmission, it is evident that when narrations are numerous and reach—or exceed—the level of tawātur, no scope remains for undermining them on the basis of isnād criticism; and the narrations concerning tawassul and wasīlah in Islamic sources far exceed the level of tawātur. Among them is a report cited in al‑Ṣawāʿiq from the eminent Sunni Imam al‑Shāfiʿī concerning seeking tawassul through the Ahl al‑Bayt of the Messenger, in which he says: “آل النبی ذریعتی و هم الیه وسیلتی ارجو بهم اعطی غداً بید الیمین صحیفتی” “The family of the Prophet are my means, and they are my means of access to Him; through them I hope that tomorrow, on the Day of Resurrection, my record will be given to me in my right hand” (al‑Tawassul, p. 329). The author of al‑Ṣawāʿiq also transmits from al‑Bayhaqī that during the caliphate of the second caliph a drought occurred, whereupon Bilāl, together with several Companions, went to the noble grave of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: “يا رسول الله استسق لامتك فانهم قد هلكوا”—that is, “O Messenger of God, seek rain for your community, for they are perishing.” Likewise, Ibn Ḥajar relates in al‑Khayrāt al‑Ḥisān that Imam al‑Shāfiʿī, during his time in Baghdad, would visit the grave of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and seek tawassul through him for his needs (al‑Tawassul, p. 331). In Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Dārimī, a report from Abū al‑Jawzāʾ states that during a severe famine in Madinah, people complained to ʿĀʾishah, who instructed them to open an aperture in the roof above the Prophet’s grave so that rain might descend by virtue of the blessing of his grave; they did so, and abundant rain fell. Al‑Ālūsī in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī cites several of these narrations, analyzes them in detail, and despite adopting a rigorous approach, ultimately does not forbid seeking tawassul through the rank of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, whether during his lifetime or after his passing; he further concludes, after extended discussion, that there is no objection to seeking tawassul before God through others besides the Messenger of God, provided that the one taken as a means possesses rank and standing in the divine presence (Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, vol. 4, pp. 114–115). As for Shiʿi sources, the matter is so evident within them that there is no need to cite narrations at all.

1. As we have already stated, tawassul does not mean that a person directly asks the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny or the Imams (عليهم السلام) to fulfill his needs; rather, the intention is to regard their rank and spiritual station as a means of connection in the Divine Presence. In reality, this is nothing but turning toward God Himself, because the reverence shown to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is due to the fact that he was sent by God and advanced along the same divine path. We are astonished at those who consider this kind of tawassul to be a form of shirk, whereas shirk consists in considering someone a شریک (partner) to God in His attributes or actions. The type of tawassul we have described bears no resemblance whatsoever to shirk. 2. Some people insist on drawing a distinction between the state of life and the state after death with respect to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams (عليهم السلام), even though most of the cited narrations relate to the period after passing away. Even apart from these narrations, in the view of a Muslim, the prophets and the Imams (عليهم السلام) possess, after death, a barzakhī life similar to that which the Qur’an has affirmed for the martyrs, when it says: “Do not think them dead; rather, they are alive.” (Āl ʿImrān 3:169) 3. Some insist on making a distinction between requesting the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to supplicate and swearing by his rank before God. They regard requesting supplication as permissible, but consider other forms impermissible, even though, from a logical point of view, there is no difference between the two. 4. Some Sunni authors and scholars—particularly Wahhabi figures—persist with great obstinacy in attempting to declare the narrations transmitted concerning tawassul to be weak. Through useless and groundless objections, they seek to consign these traditions to oblivion. Their manner of argument is such that an impartial observer feels that they first formed their belief and then tried to impose it upon Islamic narrations, seeking to set aside whatever contradicts their doctrine. A researcher, however, can never accept such illogical and prejudiced argumentation. 5. As we have already mentioned, the narrations relating to tawassul have reached the level of tawātur; that is, they are so numerous that they render investigation into individual chains of transmission unnecessary. Moreover, many of these narrations are sound (ṣaḥīḥ), leaving no room for objection regarding the chains of others. 6. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that the narrations transmitted in connection with this verse—such as those in which the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny instructed people to ask God for الوسيلة on his behalf, or the statement of Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام) recorded in al-Kāfī that “الوسيلة” is the highest rank in Paradise—do not contradict the aforementioned interpretation of the verse. As we have repeatedly emphasized, wasīlah includes every meaning of nearness to the Lord, and the nearness of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to God, as well as the highest station in Paradise, represents one of its manifestations.

See ayat 37 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, the believers were commanded to observe taqwā, to pursue the path of jihād, and to seek الوسيلة. In these two verses, by way of explaining the rationale behind that command, reference is made to the ultimate fate of faithless and sin‑polluted individuals. It is stated: those who have disbelieved, even if they were to possess all that is on earth, and the like of it besides, and were to offer it as ransom in order to be delivered from the punishment of the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them, and for them there is a painful chastisement (اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا لَوۡ اَنَّ لَہُمۡ مَّا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ جَمِیۡعًا وَّ مِثۡلَہٗ مَعَہٗ لِیَفۡتَدُوۡا بِہٖ مِنۡ عَذَابِ یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ مَا تُقُبِّلَ مِنۡہُمۡ ۚ وَ لَہُمۡ عَذَابٌ اَلِیۡمٌ). The same theme is also found in Sūrat al‑Raʿd, verse 47. This clearly expresses the utmost emphasis concerning divine punishment, and shows that deliverance from it cannot be attained through any form of wealth or power, no matter if that wealth equals the whole of the earth or even more than it. Salvation can be achieved only through faith, taqwā, jihād, and righteous action. Thereafter, by pointing to the everlasting nature of this punishment, it is stated: they will continually desire to come out of the Fire, but they will not be able to come out of it, and for them there will be a lasting punishment (یُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ یَّخۡرُجُوۡا مِنَ النَّارِ وَ مَا ہُمۡ بِخٰرِجِیۡنَ مِنۡہَا ۫ وَ لَہُمۡ عَذَابٌ مُّقِیۡمٌ). The discussion concerning the permanence of the punishment and the eternal residence of the disbelievers in Hell will, God willing, be addressed under Sūrat Hūd, verse 108.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

In several preceding verses, the rulings concerning the “muḥārib”—that is, a person who, openly and by force of arms, terrorizes people and attacks their lives, property, and honor—were explained. In proportion to that discussion, these verses now set forth the ruling regarding the thief, who takes people’s property secretly and covertly. It is first stated: as for the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands (وَ السَّارِقُ وَ السَّارِقَۃُ فَاقۡطَعُوۡۤا اَیۡدِیَہُمَا). Here, the male thief is mentioned before the female thief because, in the matter of theft, the primary and more frequent agents are generally men, whereas in the commission of fornication, the more influential and motivating factor is often unrestrained women. Thereafter it is stated: this is a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment from God (جَزَآءًۢ بِمَا کَسَبَا نَکَالًا مِّنَ اللّٰہِ ؕ). This phrase, in reality, alludes to two points: first, that this punishment is the direct consequence of their own actions and something they have themselves brought upon their own fate; and second, that it is, in a sense, a preventive measure and a means of returning to truth and justice. This is because the word “نَکَال” denotes a punishment intended as a deterrent for the abandonment of sin. Originally, this word means a “bridle,” and later it came to be used for every punishment that restrains one from deviation and wrongdoing. At the end of the verse, lest there arise the misconception that the stated punishment is unjust, it is declared: God is Mighty and Wise (وَ اللّٰہُ عَزِیۡزٌ حَکِیۡمٌ). That is, God is all‑powerful, and therefore there is no reason for Him to take revenge upon anyone out of weakness or need; and He is wise, hence He does not punish anyone without due cause. In the following verse, while opening the door of return for such individuals, it is stated: whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms himself, then God will turn to him in forgiveness; indeed God is Forgiving, Merciful (فَمَنۡ تَابَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ ظُلۡمِہٖ وَ اَصۡلَحَ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ یَتُوۡبُ عَلَیۡہِ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ). The question arises whether repentance results only in the forgiveness of the sin, or whether the prescribed punishment for theft (the cutting of the hand) is also annulled. In this regard, it is well known among our jurists that if repentance takes place before the theft is proven in an Islamic court, then the legal punishment is also lifted; but once the crime has been established through the testimony of two just witnesses, repentance no longer removes the prescribed punishment. In reality, the true repentance referred to in the verse is that which occurs before judicial proof is established, for otherwise every thief, upon seeing himself confronted with punishment, would claim repentance, and in that case no punishment would ever be enforced. In other words, an “informative repentance” is one that occurs before the crime is proven in a Sharīʿah court; otherwise, it becomes an “emergency repentance.” Emergency repentance is like that repentance which is made upon witnessing divine punishment or the signs of death, and such repentance has no value. After stating the ruling of repentance concerning thieves, the discourse turns toward the great Prophet of Islam, saying: do you not know that to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and that He disposes of them as He wills? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and God is powerful over all things (اَلَمۡ تَعۡلَمۡ اَنَّ اللّٰہَ لَہٗ مُلۡکُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یُعَذِّبُ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ وَ یَغۡفِرُ لِمَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ).

With regard to the conditions for punishing a thief, as with other legal rulings, the Qur’an states the fundamental principle and leaves the detailed elaboration to the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. From Islamic narrations, it becomes clear that for the implementation of this Islamic prescribed punishment of cutting the hand, numerous conditions must be fulfilled, without which its enforcement is not permissible. Among these conditions are the following: 1) the stolen property must have a value of at least one‑quarter of a dīnār (by dīnār is meant a minted gold coin equivalent to one شرعی mithqāl, and one شرعی mithqāl equals eighteen chickpea grains, that is, three‑quarters of the commonly used mithqāl); 2) the property must have been taken from a secure place, such as a house, a shop, or an inner pocket; 3) the theft must not have occurred during a time of famine, when people are suffering from hunger and see no alternative means of survival; 4) the thief must be sane and mature, and must have committed the act voluntarily; 5) a father’s taking from the property of his son, or a partner’s taking from jointly owned property, does not fall under this ruling; 6) the theft of fruit from garden trees has also been exempted from this ruling; 7) any case in which there is a reasonable possibility of confusion, such that the thief may have taken another’s property mistakenly believing it to be his own, is also excluded from this ruling. There are additional conditions as well, whose details are mentioned in jurisprudential works. It should not be misunderstood that theft is unlawful only when these conditions are met; rather, the intended meaning is that the enforcement of this prescribed punishment is restricted to these conditions, whereas theft itself, in every form, amount, and circumstance, is unlawful in Islam. With regard to the extent of cutting the hand, it is well known among our jurists, based on narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), that only the four fingers of the right hand are to be cut, and not more than that, although Sunni jurists generally hold that a greater portion should be cut. The question is sometimes raised as to whether this punishment is excessively harsh. Opponents of Islam and some uninformed Muslims have repeatedly objected that this Islamic punishment is very severe, and that if it were to be implemented in today’s world, many hands would be cut off. Moreover, they argue that by applying this ruling, a person is deprived not only of an important part of his body, but is also subjected to lifelong public stigma. In response to this objection, several realities deserve attention. First, as mentioned in the discussion of conditions, this ruling does not apply to every thief, but rather to a particularly dangerous category of criminals. Second, because Islam sets specific and strict conditions for proving this crime, this punishment will be executed upon very few individuals. Third, many objections raised against Islamic laws by poorly informed people arise from examining a single ruling in isolation from the rest of the legal system. In other words, they imagine this ruling being applied within a completely non‑Islamic society. Islam, however, is not defined by one ruling alone, but by an integrated system of laws. If all these laws were to govern a society—establishing social justice, combating poverty and deprivation, ensuring proper education and upbringing, and promoting moral conduct, awareness, vigilance, and taqwā—it would become clear how small the number of people affected by this ruling would be. There should be no misunderstanding that the intent here is to claim that this ruling should not be implemented in contemporary societies. Rather, the point is that all these dimensions must be taken into account when issuing judgments and administering justice. In summary, it is the responsibility of an Islamic government to provide basic necessities for all its citizens, to ensure requisite education, and to cultivate their moral character. It is evident that in such an environment, the number of wrongdoers would be very limited. Furthermore, if today a high number of thieves is observed, the reason is that such rulings have not been implemented. Consequently, in regions where Islamic rulings have been enforced—for example, in Saudi Arabia in past years—there has been a notably high level of public security. Many pilgrims to the House of God have witnessed suitcases, wallets, and bags lying unattended in the streets and alleys of the Hijaz, without anyone daring to touch them, until officials of the lost‑and‑found department arrive and take them away, later returning them to their owners upon identification. Likewise, many shops remain open at night without doors, and no one steals from them. It is noteworthy that this Islamic ruling remained in force for centuries, under whose protection the Muslims of the early Islamic period lived lives of safety and security, yet over those centuries it was applied to only a small number of individuals. If, for the sake of centuries of communal security, the hands of a few wrongdoers are cut off, can this truly be regarded as a high price? Another objection raised is that the enforcement of the prescribed punishment for the theft of one‑quarter of a dīnār contradicts Islamic principles concerning the sanctity and protection of a Muslim’s life, since Islam seeks to safeguard a Muslim from all forms of harm, and has specified a very high blood‑money for the cutting of four fingers. As indicated by certain historical reports, this very question was raised nearly a thousand years ago before one of Islam’s great scholars, the late Sayyid al‑Murtaḍā ʿAlam al‑Hudā. The questioner presented his objection in poetic form, saying: ید بخمس مئین عجد و دیت ما بالھا قطعت فی ربع دینار, that is, “How is it that the hand, whose blood‑money is five hundred dīnār, is cut off in return for one‑quarter of a dīnār?” (It should be noted that five hundred dīnār is the blood‑money for cutting five fingers, whereas, as mentioned earlier, according to the jurists of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), only four fingers are cut in the case of theft.) In response, Sayyid al‑Murtaḍā composed the following verse: عز الامانة اغلاھا و ارخصھا / ذل الخیانة فانھم حکمة الباری, meaning that the dignity of trust rendered the hand precious, but the disgrace of betrayal diminished its worth; thus one should understand the wisdom of the Creator. This incident has also been reported in Tafsīr al‑Ālūsī, volume 2, page 6, though there the name علاء الدین سخاوی is mentioned instead of Sayyid al‑Murtaḍā ʿAlam al‑Hudā. With regard to the occasion of revelation, numerous narrations have been transmitted concerning this verse. Among them, the clearest is the narration reported from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام). Its summary is as follows. A prominent, married man among the Jews of Khaybar committed an immoral act with a married woman who also belonged to a distinguished family of Khaybar. In the Torah, the prescribed punishment for such an act was stoning. The Jews were troubled over enforcing this ruling and sought a solution in which both offenders might be spared, while still claiming adherence to divine law. They sent a message to their co‑religionists in Medina to consult the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding this incident, hoping that if Islam provided a more lenient ruling, they could adopt it; otherwise, they would simply disregard it. Perhaps they also sought thereby to draw the Prophet’s attention and present themselves as friendly toward the Muslims. For this purpose, some of the Jews of Medina came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and he asked them whether they would accept whatever ruling he issued. They replied that this was precisely why they had come. At that point, the ruling of stoning for those who commit adultery while already married was revealed, but they refused to accept it, offering the excuse that no such ruling existed in their religion. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then said that this was the same ruling contained in their Torah, and asked whether they would agree to summon one of their scholars for judgment, accepting whatever he cited from the Torah. They agreed. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then asked about Ibn Ṣūriyā, who lived in Fadak, and they acknowledged him as the greatest scholar of the Torah. Someone was sent to bring him, and when he arrived, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to him: I adjure you by the One God who revealed the Torah to Moses (عليه السلام), split the sea for you, drowned your enemy Pharaoh, and bestowed His blessings upon you in the wilderness—has a ruling of stoning been prescribed for you in the Torah in such a case, or not? He replied that the oath compelled him to speak the truth, and that indeed such a ruling existed in the Torah. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then asked why they opposed its enforcement. He replied that in earlier times they had applied this punishment to common people but not to the wealthy and influential, which caused this sin to become prevalent among the upper classes of their society. Eventually, a close relative of one of their leaders committed this offense and was punished, after which an ordinary man committed the same act. When they attempted to stone him, his relatives protested and demanded equal treatment. Faced with this situation, they convened and replaced the law of stoning with a lighter punishment, consisting of forty lashes, blackening the face, and parading the offenders through the streets. At that point, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny ordered that the man and the woman be stoned in front of the mosque. According to a narration recorded by al‑Bayhaqī in his Sunan, volume 8, page 246, the Jewish scholars had brought the man and the woman with them to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then said: O God, I am the first to revive Your command after the Jews had abandoned it. Thereupon, the aforementioned verses were revealed, referring to this incident.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

From the verses under consideration and several subsequent verses, it becomes clear that Islamic judges possess the right, under specific conditions, to adjudicate the cases of non‑Muslims as well. The details of this matter will be discussed under the relevant verses. The first of these verses begins with the address yā ayyuhā al‑rasūl (“O Messenger”). This mode of address appears in the Qur’an only in two places: one here, and the other in verse 67 of this same sūrah, where the issue of wilāyah and khilāfah is discussed. Because the matter at hand is highly significant and accompanied by fear of the enemy, this address seeks to further awaken the sense of responsibility within the Prophet and to strengthen his resolve, emphasizing that he is the bearer of the divine mission, and that the mission itself belongs to God; therefore, he must declare the ruling with firmness and courage. Thereafter, by way of consoling and reassuring the Prophet and as a prelude to the subsequent command, it is stated that those who profess faith merely with their tongues while their hearts have never truly believed, and who hasten one another toward disbelief, should not cause him grief, for this is not something new (لَا یَحۡزُنۡکَ الَّذِیۡنَ یُسَارِعُوۡنَ فِی الۡکُفۡرِ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اٰمَنَّا بِاَفۡوَاہِہِمۡ وَ لَمۡ تُؤۡمِنۡ قُلُوۡبُہُمۡ ۚۛ). Some commentators hold that there is a distinction between the expressions yusāriʿūna fī al‑kufr and yusāriʿūna ilā al‑kufr. The former is used for people who are already immersed in disbelief and are competing with one another in plunging deeper into it, reaching its furthest stages, whereas the latter refers to those who are moving toward the domain of disbelief from outside and vying with one another in that movement (reported in al‑Manār, vol. 6, p. 288). After this discouragement of the internal enemies and hypocrites, the state of the external enemies, namely certain Jews, is described. It is said that among the Jews as well there are those who tread this path, and they too should not be a cause of sorrow for the Prophet (وَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡا ۚۛ). Then, pointing to their hypocritical conduct, it is stated that they listen intently to what he says, but this attentiveness is not for obedience; rather, it is in order to find a pretext for denying him and for fabricating accusations against him (سَمّٰعُوۡنَ لِلۡکَذِبِ). This phrase has another possible interpretation, namely that they lend their ears more readily to the lies and fabrications of their former leaders, while being unwilling to accept the truth. In the first interpretation, the particle lām in lil‑kadhib is explanatory (lām al‑taʿlīl), whereas in the second it is transitive (lām al‑taʿdiyah). Another of their characteristics is that they not only attend the Prophet’s gatherings in order to fabricate falsehoods, but also act as informants for those who do not come to him at all (سَمّٰعُوۡنَ لِقَوۡمٍ اٰخَرِیۡنَ ۙ لَمۡ یَاۡتُوۡکَ ؕ). According to another interpretation, they listen to and obey the commands of their own leaders. Their method is such that if they hear from the Prophet any ruling that accords with their own desires, they accept it; but if they hear something contrary to their inclinations, they oppose it. Thus they listen to and obey their own unbelieving leaders rather than the Prophet. In such circumstances, their opposition should not be a cause of grief for him, because from the outset they never came with the intention of accepting the truth. Among their other traits is that they distort the word of God, whether through verbal distortion or distortion of meaning. Any ruling that they perceive as conflicting with their interests and desires, they either reinterpret according to their whims or reject altogether (یُحَرِّفُوۡنَ الۡکَلِمَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَوَاضِعِہٖ ۚ). The nature and types of distortion have already been discussed under verse 13 of this sūrah. Even more astonishing is that they reach firm decisions before ever coming to the Prophet. Their leaders instruct them that if Muḥammad gives a ruling in accordance with their wishes, they should accept it, but if it runs contrary to their desires, they should avoid it entirely (یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ اِنۡ اُوۡتِیۡتُمۡ ہٰذَا فَخُذُوۡہُ وَ اِنۡ لَّمۡ تُؤۡتَوۡہُ فَاحۡذَرُوۡا ؕ). They are so deeply immersed in misguidance and so firmly entrenched in these beliefs that, without any reflection or investigation, they reject whatever contradicts their distorted notions. Hence, there remains no hope for their guidance. God intends, through this process, to subject them to trial and disgrace, and whomever God wills to disgrace through punishment, no one can protect from Him (وَ مَنۡ یُّرِدِ اللّٰہُ فِتۡنَتَہٗ فَلَنۡ تَمۡلِکَ لَہٗ مِنَ اللّٰہِ شَیۡئًا ؕ). They are so polluted that their impurity is no longer capable of being cleansed; they are those whom God does not will to purify in their hearts (اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ لَمۡ یُرِدِ اللّٰہُ اَنۡ یُّطَہِّرَ قُلُوۡبَہُمۡ ؕ). This is because God’s actions are always grounded in wisdom, and those who, by their own choice, have spent a significant portion of their lives in deviation, hypocrisy, falsehood, opposition to the truth, and distortion of divine laws, are not ordinarily capable of turning back. At the end of the verse it is stated that for them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter there will be a tremendous punishment (لَہُمۡ فِی الدُّنۡیَا خِزۡیٌ ۚۖ وَّ لَہُمۡ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ عَذَابٌ عَظِیۡمٌ). In the second verse, the Qur’an again emphasizes that their listening ears are only for the purpose of hearing something in order to deny it, or alternatively, for listening attentively to the lies of their leaders (سَمّٰعُوۡنَ لِلۡکَذِبِ). This repetition serves to stress and firmly establish this reprehensible trait. In addition to this, they consume unlawful gains and bribery in abundance (اَکّٰلُوۡنَ لِلسُّحۡتِ ؕ). The term suḥt originally denotes stripping bark from a tree or extreme hunger; later it came to be used for illicit wealth, particularly bribery, because such wealth strips society of freshness, purity, and blessing, just as a tree becomes withered and dry when its bark is removed. Hence, suḥt has a broad meaning, and the mention of specific instances in some narrations does not imply restriction. Thereafter, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is granted discretion such that if such people come to him seeking a judgment, he may either decide their case according to Islamic rulings or turn away from them (فَاِنۡ جَآءُوۡکَ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَہُمۡ اَوۡ اَعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ ۚ). This does not mean that the Prophet should act based on personal inclination; rather, it means that he should consider the circumstances and public interest, adjudicating if it is expedient, or refraining if it is not. To further strengthen the Prophet’s spirit, it is added that if he turns away from them, they will not be able to cause him any harm whatsoever (وَ اِنۡ تُعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ فَلَنۡ یَّضُرُّوۡکَ شَیۡئًا ؕ). And if he chooses to judge between them, he must do so with justice, for God loves those who judge with fairness (وَ اِنۡ حَکَمۡتَ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَہُمۡ بِالۡقِسۡطِ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یُحِبُّ الۡمُقۡسِطِیۡنَ). This raises the question of whether an Islamic government today also retains the option to adjudicate the cases of non‑Muslims according to Islamic law, or to refrain from doing so. There is disagreement among exegetes on this issue. Some maintain that anyone living within an Islamic environment, whether Muslim or non‑Muslim, is equally subject to Islamic laws regarding rights, rewards, and punishments. According to this view, the ruling of the above verse has either been abrogated or is restricted to non‑dhimmī unbelievers, that is, those unbelievers who do not live as a protected minority within an Islamic state, but engage with Muslims through treaties and interactions. Others hold that even today the Islamic government retains discretion with respect to non‑Muslims, such that it may, in light of circumstances and considerations of public interest, either adjudicate their cases according to Islamic rulings or permit them to refer to their own laws. For detailed study and research, reference should be made to jurisprudential discussions on القضاء in the legal literature.

In the preceding verse, mention was made of the Jews turning to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny for judgment, and the present verse pertains to the same matter. Here, an expression of astonishment is conveyed, stating: how is it that they call you to judge, while they possess the Torah, in which the judgment of God is already present (وَکَیْفَ یُحَکِّمُونَکَ وَعِنْدَہُمْ التَّوْرَاةُ فِیہَا حُکْمُ اللهِ). It should be noted that the ruling requiring the stoning of a married man and woman who commit adultery is explicitly found in the existing Torah, in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty‑two. What is astonishing is that they regard the Torah as an abrogated book and consider the religion of Islam to be false, yet despite this, they abandon those rulings of the Torah that do not accord with their inclinations and seek a judgment that, in principle, should not be acceptable to them at all. Even more astonishing is that, after having selected you as an arbiter, they refuse to accept your judgment precisely because it conforms to the ruling of the Torah and runs contrary to their desires and inclinations (ثُمَّ یَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِکَ). The reality is that they do not truly believe; otherwise, they would not treat the commands of God in such a frivolous and manipulative manner (وَمَا اٴُوْلَئِکَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِینَ). It may be objected that the above verse states that the judgment of God is present in the Torah, whereas Qur’ānic verses and historical evidence indicate that the Torah is a distorted book, and that it was in this distorted form during the time of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In response, it should be noted, first, that we do not consider the entire Torah to be distorted; rather, certain parts of it conform to reality, and it is by coincidence that the ruling under discussion belongs to those undistorted portions. Second, whatever the state of the Torah may have been, in the eyes of the Jews it was still regarded as a heavenly book and not considered distorted. Under these circumstances, is it not astonishing that they would refuse to act upon it?

The present verse, together with the following verse, completes the preceding discussion. While emphasizing the importance of the heavenly book of Prophet Moses (عليه السلام), it is stated: We revealed the Torah, in which there was guidance and light—guidance for directing people toward the truth, and light for removing the darkness of ignorance and unawareness (اِنَّاۤ اَنۡزَلۡنَا التَّوۡرٰىۃَ فِیۡہَا ہُدًی وَّ نُوۡرٌ ۚ). Accordingly, the prophets of God—those who had submitted themselves to the divine command and who were active after the revelation of the Torah—used to judge among the Jews according to it (یَحۡکُمُ بِہَا النَّبِیُّوۡنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَسۡلَمُوۡا لِلَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡا). Not only the prophets, but also the devout scholars and God‑fearing learned men among the Jews would judge according to this same heavenly book, which had been entrusted to them for preservation, and they were witnesses over it (وَ الرَّبّٰنِیُّوۡنَ وَ الۡاَحۡبَارُ بِمَا اسۡتُحۡفِظُوۡا مِنۡ کِتٰبِ اللّٰہِ وَ کَانُوۡا عَلَیۡہِ شُہَدَآءَ ۚ). The meaning of “ربانی” and its original root has already been discussed elsewhere, and “اَحبار” is the plural of “حَبر.” This term later came to be used for scholars who exert a good and positive influence within society, just as ink is called “حبر” because it leaves beneficial and lasting effects. At this point, the address turns toward the scholars of the People of the Book who were present at that time, declaring: do not fear people, but fear Me, and convey the true divine rulings, for if you conceal the truth you will be punished (فَلَا تَخۡشَوُا النَّاسَ وَ اخۡشَوۡنِ). Likewise, do not sell the verses of God for a paltry price (وَ لَا تَشۡتَرُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِیۡ ثَمَنًا قَلِیۡلًا ؕ). In reality, concealing the truth stems either from fear of people or from the pursuit of personal interests. In any case, both reflect weakness of faith and negate true human dignity, and the above statements point to both factors. Concerning such individuals, the verse concludes with a decisive judgment: those who do not judge by what God has revealed are disbelievers (وَ مَنۡ لَّمۡ یَحۡکُمۡ بِمَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡکٰفِرُوۡنَ). It is evident that failing to judge according to God’s command includes both remaining silent and issuing no judgment at all—thereby misleading people through silence—as well as actively judging in contradiction to divine law. It is also clear that disbelief has multiple levels and degrees, beginning with outright denial of God and extending to disobedience and sin. Perfect faith calls a person to act according to God’s commands, and those who fail to do so cannot be said to possess complete faith. This verse clearly delineates the heavy responsibility and accountability that rest upon the scholars and intellectual leaders of every community. It requires them to stand firm against the social upheavals and crises around them, to confront deviations decisively, and to fear no one in the path of truth.

In this verse, a portion of the divine penal laws that were present in the Torah is set forth. It is stated: We prescribed for them in it the law of retaliation, namely that if someone deliberately kills an innocent person, the heirs of the victim are entitled to kill the murderer in return (وَ کَتَبۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمۡ فِیۡہَاۤ اَنَّ النَّفۡسَ بِالنَّفۡسِ ۙ). Likewise, if a person damages another’s eye and destroys it, the injured party is entitled to have the perpetrator’s eye removed (وَ الۡعَیۡنَ بِالۡعَیۡنِ). Similarly, an ear may be taken in return for an ear (وَ الۡاُذُنَ بِالۡاُذُنِ), a nose for a nose (وَ الۡاَنۡفَ بِالۡاَنۡفِ), and a tooth for a tooth (وَ السِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ ۙ). In the same way, any wound inflicted may be reciprocated through retaliation (وَ الۡجُرُوۡحَ قِصَاصٌ ؕ). Accordingly, the ruling of retaliation is to be applied without any distinction based on race, class, social status, tribe, or personal standing, and no form of discrimination is acceptable in this matter. As with other Islamic rulings, this law also has specific conditions, which are detailed in jurisprudential works. This is because the principle of retaliation is not confined to the Children of Israel; rather, its counterpart exists in Islam as well, as indicated in the verse on retaliation in Sūrat al‑Baqarah (2:178). This verse abolishes the unjust distinctions and discriminations that were prevalent at that time. As can be understood from certain exegetical works, there existed a striking inequality between two Jewish tribes in Medina. If a member of Banū Naḍīr killed someone from Banū Qurayẓah, no retaliation was taken; however, if a member of Banū Qurayẓah killed someone from Banū Naḍīr, he was executed in return. When Islam came to Medina, Banū Qurayẓah raised this issue before the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and he declared that bloodshed admits no distinction between individuals. Banū Naḍīr objected, claiming that this ruling diminished their status and lowered their standing. It was in this context that the present verse was revealed, clarifying that not only in Islam, but also in the Jewish religion itself, this law of equality had always existed. However, lest it be assumed that God has made retaliation obligatory in all cases or has called for strict like‑for‑like retribution, the verse adds that if someone forgoes his right and acts with pardon and forgiveness, this will serve as an expiation for him, and just as he has forgiven, God will forgive him as well (فَمَنۡ تَصَدَّقَ بِہٖ فَہُوَ کَفَّارَۃٌ لَّہٗ ؕ). Many exegetes have suggested another possible interpretation of this clause, namely that the pronoun “lahu” refers to the offender, meaning that if the victim forgoes his right, the retaliation of life is lifted and this becomes an expiation for the offender. However, the apparent meaning of the verse is the one already mentioned. Thus, retaliation is presented as a form of charitable concession that may be granted to the offender. The use of the expression “تَصَدَّقَ” and the divine promise of forgiveness for the one who pardons are clearly intended to encourage forgiveness and forbearance. There is no doubt that retaliation cannot restore what has been lost; at most, it provides a momentary sense of relief and reassurance. The divine promise of forgiveness, however, represents real compensation in another form for what has been lost, alleviating inner distress and offering strong encouragement toward mercy. In a narration from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), it is reported that he said: whoever forgives, God forgives for him sins of a similar kind. This entire discussion constitutes a decisive response to those who regard the law of retaliation as unjust or describe it as a blood‑thirsty legislation. Careful reflection on the verse reveals that permission for retaliation is meant to deter criminals and protect innocent lives from aggression, while at the same time the door of forgiveness and reconciliation remains open. By creating a balance between fear and hope, Islam seeks both to restrain oppression and injustice and, as far as possible, to prevent the cycle of bloodshed. At the end of the verse it is stated: those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are wrongdoers (وَ مَنۡ لَّمۡ یَحۡکُمۡ بِمَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الظّٰلِمُوۡنَ). What injustice could be greater than being overpowered by misplaced emotions and sentiments and excusing a murderer under the pretext of avoiding retaliation, thereby leaving the hands of killers free to take more innocent lives and subjecting the innocent to oppression? It should be noted that even the present Torah contains a similar ruling. In the Book of Exodus, chapter twenty‑one, it is stated that if harm is inflicted, then life is to be taken for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and blow for blow.

After the verses related to the Torah, this verse describes the state of the Gospel. It is stated: after those earlier guides and prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, following in their footsteps, confirming what was before him of the Torah (وَقَفَّیْنَا عَلَی آثَارِہِمْ بِعِیسَی ابْنِ مَرْیَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَیْنَ یَدَیْہِ مِنْ التَّوْرَاةِ). There is also another interpretation of this statement, namely that Jesus (عليه السلام) affirmed the truthfulness of the Torah that had been revealed to Moses son of ʿImrān, just as all heavenly prophets acknowledged the truthfulness of the prophets who preceded them. It is then stated that We gave him the Gospel, in which there was guidance and light (وَآتَیْنَاہُ الْإِنجِیلَ فِیہِ ہُدًی وَنُورٌ). In the Noble Qur’an, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an itself are each described as light. Concerning the Torah, it states: اِنَّاۤ اَنۡزَلۡنَا التَّوۡرٰىۃَ فِیۡہَا ہُدًی وَّ نُوۡرٌ (al‑Māʾidah 44). The present verse bears witness regarding the Gospel, and concerning the Qur’an it states: وَقَدْ جَاءَکُمْ مِنَ اللّٰہِ نُورٌ وَکِتَابٌ مُبِینٌ (al‑Māʾidah 15). In reality, just as all existing beings are in dire need of light for the continuity of their life, so too are the religion of God and the rulings and laws of the heavenly books indispensable for human growth, perfection, and advancement. It has been fundamentally established that the source of all energies, movements, and beauties is light; without light, stillness and death would prevail everywhere. In the same way, without the teachings of the prophets, all individual and social human values would fall into a slumber of death, a reality that can be clearly observed in materialistic societies. The Qur’an has referred in multiple places to the Torah and the Gospel as heavenly books and has made it clear that both were originally revealed by God, and there is no doubt concerning this fact. At the same time, it is also an established reality that after their respective prophets, both of these heavenly books were subjected to distortion: certain truths were omitted, and other writings took their place, some of which did contain portions of the original scriptures. Therefore, the designation of “light” applies to the original Torah and Gospel, not to the distorted forms that existed later. Once again, by way of emphasis, it is stated that not only did Jesus son of Mary (عليه السلام) confirm the Torah, but his heavenly book, the Gospel, also bore witness to the truthfulness of the Torah (وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَیْنَ یَدَیْہِ مِنْ التَّوْرَاةِ). At the end, it is declared that this heavenly book is a source of guidance and admonition for the God‑conscious (وَہُدًی وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِینَ). This expression is similar to that which appears at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Baqarah concerning the Qur’an, where it states: هُدًی لِلْمُتَّقِینَ, meaning that the Qur’an is guidance for the God‑conscious. Not only the Qur’an, but all heavenly scriptures are, in this sense, means of guidance for the God‑conscious. By the God‑conscious are meant those who are seekers of truth and are ready and prepared to accept it. It is evident that those who, out of obstinacy and hostility, close the window of their hearts to the truth cannot benefit from any reality whatsoever. It is also noteworthy that in the verse under discussion, the Gospel is first described with the expression فِیہِ ہُدًی, and later guidance is mentioned in an absolute sense as هُدًی. This difference in expression may be due to the fact that while the Gospel and other heavenly books contain evidences of guidance for all people without exception, for the God‑conscious—who reflect upon them with discernment—this guidance becomes a means of moral training, perfection, and spiritual advancement.

In the preceding verses, mention was made of the revelation of the Gospel. In this verse, it is stated: We commanded the People of the Gospel to judge according to what God has revealed therein (وَ لۡیَحۡکُمۡ اَہۡلُ الۡاِنۡجِیۡلِ بِمَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ فِیۡہِ ؕ). There is no doubt that this statement does not mean that the Qur’an is now instructing the Christians to act according to the current laws of the Gospel, for such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the Qur’an, which appears as the final and superseding religion and abrogates previous dispensations. Rather, the intent is that after the Gospel was revealed to Jesus, his followers were commanded at that time to act in accordance with it and to judge by its rulings. In fact, as many exegetes have explained, the word “قُلْنَا” is implied here, and the meaning of the verse is: “And We said: let the People of the Gospel judge …”. At the end of the verse, by way of emphasis, it is stated: those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are transgressors (وَ مَنۡ لَّمۡ یَحۡکُمۡ بِمَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ). It is noteworthy that in these verses, the same group of people is described at one point as “disbelievers,” at another as “wrongdoers,” and here as “transgressors.” This variation in expression may be explained by the fact that every legal ruling involves three dimensions. On one side, it relates to the Lawgiver, that is, God; on the second, it reaches the one who implements the law, namely the ruler or judge; and on the third, it concerns the person upon whom the law is applied. Thus, each description points to one of these dimensions. When a person judges contrary to a divine command, in one respect he tramples upon divine law and thereby adopts a form of disbelief; in another respect he commits injustice against an innocent human being; and in a third respect he deviates from the boundary of his own duty and responsibility and thus becomes a transgressor, for transgression (fisq) means stepping beyond the limits of servitude and responsibility.

After mentioning the previous prophets, this verse turns to the rank and status of the Qur’an. The term “مُهَیْمِن” refers to something that acts as a protector, witness, trustee, and guardian over another thing. Since the Qur’an fully preserves the fundamental principles of the earlier heavenly scriptures and brings them to completion, it is described as “muhaymin.” Thus it is stated: We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it of the Book (that is, its indications and signs correspond to those described in the earlier scriptures), and as a guardian over them (وَ اَنۡزَلۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡکَ الۡکِتٰبَ بِالۡحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَیۡنَ یَدَیۡہِ مِنَ الۡکِتٰبِ وَ مُہَیۡمِنًا عَلَیۡہِ). In essence, all heavenly scriptures are harmonious in their foundational principles, and their goal and purpose are one and the same, namely the moral training, growth, and perfection of humanity. Although they differ in subsidiary rulings, this difference follows the gradual law of development and progression, whereby each new religion advances toward a higher stage and presents a more comprehensive program. The mention of “مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَیْنَ یَدَیْہِ” followed by “مُهَیْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ” indicates that the Book revealed to you both confirms the earlier scriptures and exercises oversight over them. Consequently, it is said that you should judge among them according to what God has revealed (فَاحۡكُمۡ بَيۡنَهُمۡ بِمَاۤ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ). This statement, introduced with the particle of consequence, reflects the comprehensiveness and finality of Islamic rulings in relation to those of previous religions. This command does not contradict the earlier verses in which the Prophet was given the choice either to judge among them or to leave them to themselves, because the meaning here is that if you do choose to judge among the People of the Book, then you must judge according to the rulings of the Qur’an. It is further stated that you must not follow the desires of those who seek to reshape divine commands in accordance with their inclinations, nor turn away from the truth that has been revealed to you (وَ لَا تَتَّبِعۡ أَهۡوَاءَهُمۡ عَمَّا جَآءَكَ مِنَ الۡحَقِّ). In order to complete the discussion, it is then said: for each of you We have appointed a law and a clear way (لِكُلٍّ جَعَلۡنَا مِنكُمۡ شِرۡعَةً وَمِنۡهَاجًا). The word “شرع” or “شريعة” refers to a path that leads to water and ends there, and religion is called a “sharīʿah” because it leads to truths and teachings that are the source of purity, refinement, and human life. The terms “نهج” and “منهاج” signify a clear and manifest path. It has been reported from Ibn ʿAbbās, as cited by al‑Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt, that the difference between “شرعة” and “منهاج” is that “شرعة” refers to what is stated in the Qur’an, while “منهاج” refers to what is conveyed through the Prophetic Sunnah. Although this distinction is appealing, there is no decisive proof for it. Some prominent exegetes hold that the difference between “dīn” and “sharīʿah” lies in the fact that “dīn” consists of tawḥīd and other foundational principles common to all religions, which is why the religion has always been one, whereas “sharīʿah” refers to the laws and rulings that differ among various religious communities. It is then stated that God possessed the power to make all people one community and followers of a single religion, but such a uniformity would not accord with the law of gradual perfection and the principles of successive stages of moral training (وَ لَوۡ شَآءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمۡ أُمَّةً وَّاحِدَةً وَلَٰكِن لِّيَبۡلُوَكُمۡ فِيمَآ آتَىٰكُمۡ). The phrase “لِّيَبۡلُوَكُمۡ فِيمَآ آتَىٰكُمۡ” indicates that God tests humanity with what He has bestowed upon them. This points to the fact that God has placed diverse capacities and abilities within human beings and nurtures and cultivates them through trials and through the teachings of the prophets. After the completion of one stage, humanity is guided toward a higher stage, and at the end of one era, a new prophet is sent to lead them into a more elevated phase. Accordingly, all nations and communities are addressed and called upon, instead of expending their energies in disputes and conflicts, to compete with one another in good works (فَاسۡتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ), for the return of all is to God, and on the Day of Resurrection He will inform them of the matters in which they used to differ (اِلَى اللَّهِ مَرۡجِعُكُمۡ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُمۡ بِمَا كُنتُمۡ فِيهِ تَخۡتَلِفُونَ). It is then said: and judge among them according to what God has revealed, and do not follow their desires, and beware lest they tempt you away from some of what God has revealed to you; and if they turn away, then know that God intends to afflict them with some of their sins, and indeed many of the people are defiantly disobedient (وَ اَنِ احۡكُمۡ بَيۡنَهُمۡ بِمَاۤ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعۡ أَهۡوَاءَهُمۡ وَاحۡذَرۡهُمۡ أَن يَّفۡتِنُوكَ عَنۢ بَعۡضِ مَاۤ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيۡكَ ۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوۡا فَاعۡلَمۡ أَنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَن يُصِيبَهُم بِبَعۡضِ ذُنُوبِهِمۡ ۖ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ النَّاسِ لَفَاسِقُونَ). Then it is asked: do they seek the judgment of the Age of Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than God for a people who possess certainty? (أَفَحُكۡمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبۡغُونَ ۖ وَمَنۡ أَحۡسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حُكۡمًا لِّقَوۡمٍ يُوقِنُونَ). With regard to the occasion of revelation, some exegetes have reported from Ibn ʿAbbās that a group of Jewish leaders conspired among themselves and said: let us go to Muḥammad; perhaps we can divert him from his religion. With this intention, they came to the Prophet and said that they were the scholars and nobles of the Jews, and that if they were to follow him, the rest of the Jews would surely follow them. They added that there was a dispute between them and another group, concerning a killing or some other matter, and if he were to judge in their favor, they would believe in him. The Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny refused to issue such an unjust judgment, and upon this the above verse was revealed. In the interpretation of this verse, God once again emphasizes to His Prophet that he must judge among the People of the Book according to God’s command and not submit to their desires (وَ اَنِ احۡكُمۡ بَيۡنَهُمۡ بِمَاۤ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعۡ أَهۡوَاءَهُمۡ). The repetition of this command is either due to the additional points mentioned in the verse, or because the subject of judgment here differs from that in the preceding verses: there the issue concerned adultery by married persons, while here it concerns murder or another type of dispute. The Prophet is then warned that they have plotted to divert him from the path of truth and justice, and that he must remain vigilant and aware (وَ احۡذَرۡهُمۡ أَن يَّفۡتِنُوكَ عَنۢ بَعۡضِ مَاۤ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيۡكَ). If the People of the Book refuse to submit to his just judgment, he is told to understand that this indicates the weight of their sins upon them, the withdrawal of divine grace from them, and God’s will to punish them for some of their sins (فَإِن تَوَلَّوۡا فَاعۡلَمۡ أَنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَن يُصِيبَهُم بِبَعۡضِ ذُنُوبِهِمۡ). The mention of “some” rather than all sins may indicate that not all punishment is administered in this world; rather, only part of it is realized here, while the remainder is deferred to the Hereafter. The specific nature of the punishment is not clarified in the verse, but it may allude to the fate that befell the Jews of Medina, who, as a result of their repeated betrayals, were forced to abandon their homes and leave the city, or it may signify the deprivation of divine guidance as a form of punishment. In other words, the penalty for persistent sin and obstinacy may manifest as deprivation from just rulings and a life of confusion and misguidance. At the end of the verse it is stated that if they persist on the path of falsehood, one should not be distressed, for indeed many people are defiantly disobedient (وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ النَّاسِ لَفَاسِقُونَ).

See ayat 50 for tafseer.

It may be objected that the verse under discussion implies that even the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny could deviate from the truth, and that therefore God is warning him. One might ask whether this is compatible with the doctrine of the infallibility of the prophets. The response is that infallibility does not at all mean that it is impossible for the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny or the Imams to commit a sin, for in that case such infallibility would carry no merit. Rather, it means that despite possessing the power and capacity to commit sin, they do not do so. Indeed, this refraining itself may occur as a result of divine reminders and guidance. In other words, divine attention and reminders are among the factors that protect the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny from sin. A detailed discussion concerning the station of infallibility of the prophets and the Imams will, God willing, be presented under the verse of purification (al‑Aḥzāb 33). In the following verse, by way of a rhetorical and denunciatory question, it is stated: do these people, who claim adherence to the heavenly scriptures, expect that you will judge among them according to the rulings of the Age of Ignorance, with discrimination and bias (اَفَحُکۡمَ الۡجَاہِلِیَّۃِ یَبۡغُوۡنَ ؕ)? Whereas for people of faith, there is no judgment better or higher than the judgment of God (وَ مَنۡ اَحۡسَنُ مِنَ اللّٰہِ حُکۡمًا لِّقَوۡمٍ یُّوۡقِنُوۡنَ). As noted in the discussion of the earlier verses, there existed strange and unjust distinctions among different Jewish tribes. For example, if a member of Banū Qurayẓah killed someone from Banū Naḍīr, retaliation would be taken, but if a member of Banū Naḍīr killed someone from Banū Qurayẓah, retaliation would not be enforced, or alternatively, the blood‑money demanded would be double the normal amount. The Qur’an declares that such distinctions are hallmarks of the Age of Ignorance, whereas in divine law there is no discrimination among the servants of God. In al‑Kāfī, it is related from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) that he said: الحکم حکمان حکم اللّه و حکم الجاهلیة فمن أخطأ حکم اللّه حکم بحکم الجاهلیة, meaning that there are only two kinds of judgment: the judgment of God and the judgment of ignorance; whoever abandons God’s judgment has adopted the judgment of ignorance. O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; they are allies of one another, and whoever among you takes them as allies is indeed one of them, and God does not guide the wrongdoing people. You see those in whose hearts there is disease hastening toward them, saying, “We fear that a misfortune may befall us.” Yet perhaps God will bring victory or a command from Himself, and they will become regretful over what they concealed within their hearts. And those who believe will say, “Are these the ones who swore by God with their strongest oaths that they were truly with you?” Their deeds have come to nothing, and they have become losers. Regarding the occasion of revelation, many exegetes have transmitted that after the Battle of Badr, ʿUbādah ibn al‑Ṣāmit al‑Khazrajī came before the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: I have allies among the Jews who are numerous and powerful. Now that they are threatening us with war and the affair of the Muslims has become distinct from that of the non‑Muslims, I declare my disavowal of their friendship and alliance, and my only ally is God and His Messenger. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy said instead: I do not renounce my alliance with the Jews, for I fear sudden calamities and I need their support. Thereupon the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: the matter concerning Jewish alliance that I feared with respect to ʿUbādah, I fear even more with regard to you, for the danger of this alliance is greater in your case. ʿAbd Allāh then said: if that is so, I also accept this and sever my ties with them. At that point, the above verses were revealed, warning the Muslims against taking the Jews and Christians as allies.

The above verses strongly warn the Muslims against forming alliances and cooperative relationships with the Jews and the Christians. In the first verse it is stated: O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as awliyāʾ—that is, as sources of support and as allies (in other words, faith in God requires that you not establish friendship and cooperation with them for the sake of material interests) (يَااَیُّہَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا لاَتَتَّخِذُوا الْیَھُودَ وَالنَّصَارَی اَوْلِیَاءَ). The term awliyāʾ is the plural of walī and derives from wilāyah, whose meaning is intense closeness, proximity, and friendship. It also carries the sense of alliance and mutual support. However, when the occasion of revelation of the verse and the existing contextual indicators are taken into account, it becomes clear that the intent here is not that Muslims should have no commercial or social relations whatsoever with Jews and Christians. Rather, the meaning is that Muslims should not enter into political alliances with them, nor rely upon their friendship when confronting enemies. The matter of alliances and covenants was very common among the Arabs at that time and was commonly expressed with the term walāʾ. It is noteworthy that the verse does not use the expression “People of the Book,” but instead explicitly mentions Jews and Christians. This may point to the fact that had they truly acted upon their heavenly scriptures, they could have been suitable allies; however, their mutual solidarity with one another is not based on divine teachings but rather on political and ethnic motives. Thereafter, the reason for this prohibition is explained succinctly: each of these two groups is an ally and supporter of the other (بَعْضُھُمْ اَوْلِیَاءُ بَعْضٍ). That is, as long as their own interests and the interests of their allies are at stake, they will never truly turn toward you. Therefore, whoever among you forms friendships and alliances with them will, from the perspective of collective and religious alignment, be counted as one of them (وَمَنْ یَتَوَلَّھُمْ مِنْکُمْ فَإِنَّہُ مِنْھُمْ). There is no doubt that God does not guide such wrongdoers—those who betray themselves and their Muslim brothers and sisters and place their trust in enemies (إِنَّ اللهَ لاَیَھْدِی الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِینَ). In the following verse, attention is drawn to the excuses put forward by those with diseased minds to justify their unlawful relationships. It is stated that those in whose hearts there is a sickness hasten toward such alliances, insisting that they need these groups as their support, and excusing themselves by saying that they fear a sudden turn of events in which power might fall into their hands and they might then be afflicted by calamity (فَتَرَی الَّذِینَ فِی قُلُوبِھِمْ مَرَضٌ یُسَارِعُونَ فِیھِمْ یَقُولُونَ نَخْشَی اَنْ تُصِیبَنَا دَائِرَةٌ). The word dāʾirah derives from dawr and refers to something that revolves. Since political power throughout history has constantly rotated from one group to another, it came to be referred to as dāʾirah. Similarly, the various adversities that surround a person are also described by this term. In response, the Qur’an states that just as these people imagine the possibility that power may one day fall into the hands of the Jews and Christians, they should also consider the possibility that God may grant victory to the Muslims and place power and authority in their hands. At that point, these hypocrites will become regretful over what they had concealed within their hearts (فَعَسَی اللهُ اَنْ یَاٴْتِیَ بِالْفَتْحِ اَوْ اَمْرٍ مِنْ عِنْدِہِ فَیُصْبِحُوا عَلَی مَا اَسَرُّوا فِی اَنفُسِہِمْ نَادِمِینَ). In fact, this verse responds to them in two ways. First, it clarifies that such thoughts arise only from diseased hearts and from those whose faith is unstable and who harbor سوء ظن toward God; otherwise, a true believer would never entertain such ideas. Second, even if one were to assume the possibility of their success, is there not also the possibility of the Muslims’ success? On the basis of what has been said, the meaning of ʿasā here is that of possibility and expectation, which preserves the original and common meaning of the term. Many exegetes, however, have interpreted it here as conveying a definitive divine promise to the Muslims, though such an interpretation does not strictly conform to the apparent sense of the word ʿasā. The phrase aw amrun min ʿindih following the word fatḥ indicates that it is possible for the Muslims to prevail over their enemies either through war and military victory or without war, through attaining such power and authority that the enemy submits without resistance. In other words, fatḥ alludes to military successes, while amrun min ʿindih points to social, economic, and other forms of success. However, given that God is the One stating this possibility and He has knowledge of future realities, the verse may reasonably be understood as an indication of the eventual military, social, and economic victories of the Muslims. In the final verse, attention is drawn to the ultimate fate of the hypocrites. When true believers attain victory and success and the reality of the hypocrites is laid bare, the believers will say in astonishment: are these the same people who used to swear emphatically that they were with us—then how did their situation come to this? (وَیَقُولُ الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا اَہَؤُلاَءِ الَّذِینَ اَقْسَمُوا بِاللهِ جَہْدَ اَیْمَانِہِمْ إِنَّہُمْ لَمَعَکُمْ). Because of this hypocrisy, all their deeds are rendered null and void, since their source was neither pure nor sincere. Consequently, they become losers both in this world and in the Hereafter (حَبِطَتْ اَعْمَالُھُمْ فَاٴَصْبَحُوا خَاسِرِینَ). In fact, the final statement serves as an answer to an implicit question, as though someone were to ask what ultimately became of them. The response is that their deeds were completely nullified and they suffered loss. That is, even if they had performed seemingly good deeds, their adoption of hypocrisy and shirk ultimately rendered those deeds futile, as has already been explained under the discussion of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 217.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

Although the occasion of revelation mentions the dialogue between ʿUbādah ibn al‑Ṣāmit and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy, there is no doubt that these verses should not be viewed merely in connection with a conversation between two historical individuals. Rather, each of them represents a distinct social school of thought. One school maintains that it is necessary to remain independent from the enemy, not to place one’s reins in the enemy’s hands, and not to rely on the enemy’s support. The other school of thought argues that in this turbulent world every individual and every nation needs some form of support, and that prudence sometimes requires taking outsiders as allies, assuming that the friendship of non‑members has value and will one day prove beneficial. The Qur’an forcefully condemns this latter school of thought and emphatically warns the Muslims against such an outlook. Yet it must be said with regret that some Muslims have forgotten this great divine command and have come to rely upon outsiders. History bears witness that many of the misfortunes suffered by Muslims have originated precisely from this tendency. Al‑Andalus stands as a living testament to this reality. In yesterday’s al‑Andalus and today’s Spain, Muslims once established a brilliant civilization through their own power and strength, only to lose it again by placing their trust in outsiders. Another example is the great Ottoman Empire, which in a short span of time dissolved like snow melting in the summer heat. Nor are the painful blows suffered by Muslims in the modern era as a result of deviating from this principle insignificant. Yet it is astonishing that even now there is still no awakening. An outsider remains an outsider. Even if, for the sake of shared interests, an outsider may walk alongside us for a few steps, in decisive and critical moments he will not only abandon us but may also inflict severe blows upon us. What is required is that the Muslim of today lend the greatest attention to this Qur’anic call and place his trust in no power other than his own. The Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny was so mindful of this principle that during the Battle of Uḥud, when a group of Jews came forward to fight alongside him against the polytheists, he sent them back on the way and refused their assistance, even though their numbers could have played an effective role in that battle. Why did he do so? Because it was not unlikely that at a sensitive moment in the battle they would join the enemy and annihilate what remained of the Muslim forces.

After the discussion concerning the hypocrites, the discourse turns to apostates, stating that, according to the Qur’anic prediction, some will abandon this religion; yet they will not be able to inflict any real harm upon God, His religion, the Muslims, or the rapid progress of the Islamic community. This is because God will, in the future, raise up another group to support this religion (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا مَنۡ یَّرۡتَدَّ مِنۡکُمۡ عَنۡ دِیۡنِہٖ فَسَوۡفَ یَاۡتِی اللّٰہُ بِقَوۡمٍ). Thereafter, the qualities of those who will carry out this great mission are described. The first quality is that they will be devoted lovers of God, with no concern other than seeking His pleasure: “He loves them, and they love Him” (یُّحِبُّہُمۡ وَ یُحِبُّوۡنَہٗۤ ۙ). The second and third qualities are that they will be gentle, humble, and compassionate toward believers, while being firm, resolute, and strong in the face of enemies and oppressors (اَذِلَّۃٍ عَلَی الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ اَعِزَّۃٍ عَلَی الۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ ۫). The fourth quality is that striving in the path of God will be a constant and integral part of their program (یُجَاہِدُوۡنَ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ). The fifth quality is that in fulfilling the divine command and defending the truth, they will not fear the reproach of any critic or blamer (وَ لَا یَخَافُوۡنَ لَوۡمَۃَ لَآئِمٍ ؕ). In reality, in addition to physical strength, they possess such firm resolve that they pay no heed to corrupt customs, nor are they intimidated by a deviant majority. They are unconcerned with those who mock others under the illusion of numerical superiority. We know many individuals who may possess outstanding qualities, yet when confronted by society, public opinion, and a deviant majority, become excessively cautious, display cowardice and weak‑mindedness, and quickly withdraw from the field. In contrast, for a reformer, a leader, and those who step forward to propagate his ideals, courage and boldness are required above all else. Reform cannot be achieved by fearing the masses or the surrounding environment, and such fear is incompatible with elevated spiritual distinction. Finally, it is stated that the attainment of these distinctions and qualities—beyond human effort itself—depends upon the grace and favor of God; He bestows them upon whomsoever He wills and deems worthy (ذٰلِکَ فَضۡلُ اللّٰہِ یُؤۡتِیۡہِ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ؕ). It is He whose bounty is vast and who has full knowledge of those who possess merit and qualification (وَ اللّٰہُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِیۡمٌ). Regarding whom this verse refers to as the supporters of Islam and whose qualities God is describing here, extensive discussion is found in Islamic narrations and the statements of exegetes. Numerous reports transmitted through both Shiʿi and Sunni channels state that the verse was revealed concerning Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام), either at the conquest of Khaybar or in connection with his battles against the Nākiṭhīn, Qāsiṭīn, and Māriqīn (the Nākiṭhīn being those who ignited the Battle of Jamal, the Qāsiṭīn the army of Muʿāwiyah, and the Māriqīn the Khārijites). Accordingly, it is reported that when several commanders of the Muslim army failed to conquer Khaybar, the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny turned toward the assembled forces one night and declared: “Tomorrow I shall give the banner to a man who loves God and His Messenger, and whom God and His Messenger love; one who advances forcefully against the enemy and never retreats; he will not return from the battlefield until God grants victory at his hands.” Numerous narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) regarding this statement have been recorded in works such as Tafsīr al‑Burhān and Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, and among Sunni scholars, Thaʿlabī has also transmitted these reports. Another narration relates that when the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was asked about the referent of the verse, he placed his hand upon the shoulder of Salmān and said: “This man and his companions, helpers, and compatriots are meant.” In this way, he foretold the acceptance of Islam by the people of Persia and their fruitful efforts and endeavors in the advancement of Islam. He then added: “If the religion were suspended at the Pleiades, men from the sons of Persia would surely attain it.” In some narrations, the word “religion” is replaced with the word “knowledge.” In other narrations, it is reported that the verse refers to the supporters and helpers of Imam al‑Mahdi (عليه السلام), who will rise with full strength against those who apostatize from the religion of truth and justice, and who will fill the world with faith and justice. There is no doubt that these narrations concerning the interpretation of the verse do not contradict one another, because they reflect the Qur’anic method of presenting a general and comprehensive meaning with multiple significant manifestations. Among its prominent instances are Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام), Salmān al‑Fārsī, and all those who follow this program, even if they are not explicitly named in narrations. Yet it must be said with regret that, due to tribal and sectarian biases, this verse too has been misapplied, and individuals lacking any of the qualities mentioned in the verse have been portrayed as its referents and even as occasions of its revelation. Some have even counted Abū Mūsā al‑Ashʿarī among its examples—despite his well‑known historical folly that brought Islam to the brink of disaster and undermined the standard‑bearer of Islam, Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام). Certain reports mention only Abū Mūsā’s people, referring to the people of Yemen, who indeed supported Islam at a critical juncture—yet Abū Mūsā himself was not among them—whereas the narrations concerning Salmān explicitly indicate that both he and his people constitute clear instances of this verse.

I revised the final section of this volume in Makkah al‑Mukarramah, in the immediate vicinity of the Sacred House, at a time when the majestic rituals of ʿUmrah were also being performed. During those days, I was suffering from pain in my hand, to the extent that even holding a pen had become difficult. In such circumstances, I deeply sensed that the same sectarian biases which are visible in scholarly works are today manifested on a vast scale among the general public here, and even among certain scholars. It appears as though an unseen hand is at work, intent on ensuring that Muslims never achieve unity. These biases have reached so far that they now extend even to periods preceding Islamic history. Near the Kaʿbah, the main road currently named Shāriʿ Abū Sufyān enjoys greater prominence than Shāriʿ Ibrāhīm al‑Khalīl, named after the founder of Makkah. Today, among a particular extremist group, accusing Muslims of “shirk” has become as easy as drinking a glass of water: you make the slightest movement, and immediately the cry of “mushrik” is raised. It is as though Islam is their personal possession, and they alone are the custodians of the Qur’an. The Islam or disbelief of others is made dependent entirely on their own likes and dislikes—whomever they wish, they label a polytheist, and whomever they wish, they declare a Muslim, with a single word. This is despite the fact that, in the commentary on the preceding verses, we have read that when Islam enters a period of estrangement, God will send figures like Salmān for the preservation of the grandeur of the religion—and this is a glad tiding given by the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself. What is truly astonishing is that the issue of tawḥīd, which ought to serve as the foundation of Muslim unity, has today become a tool for creating division within Muslim ranks and for branding others as polytheists and unbelievers. Matters have reached such an extent that an informed observer once said to some of their extremists: “Look how far matters between us have deteriorated—if Israel should dominate us, some among you would rejoice; and if it were to suppress you, some among us would celebrate. Is this not exactly what Israel and its patrons desire?” One must not abandon fairness and justice. From my repeated meetings with some of their scholars, it has become clear that many perceptive and intelligent individuals are genuinely distressed by this situation. On one occasion, during a discussion on the boundaries of shirk before several senior instructors of the Ḥaram, a Yemeni scholar remarked: “Attributing shirk to the People of the Qiblah is a grave sin, which earlier generations regarded as extremely serious. What is this behavior of the ignorant, who constantly accuse people of shirk? Do they not realize how tremendous a responsibility they place upon themselves by doing so?”

In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and other works, it is narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās that he said: one day I was sitting near the well of Zamzam, conveying to the people the statements of the Messenger. Suddenly a man approached, wearing a turban and with his face veiled. Whenever I related a saying of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he would respond by saying “qāla Rasūl Allāh” and then narrate another statement of the Messenger. Ibn ʿAbbās adjured him to disclose his identity, whereupon he removed the veil from his face and called out: O people! Whoever does not know me should know that I am Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī. I heard with my own two ears the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny say—and if I were to lie, may both my ears become deaf—that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “ʿAlī qāʾid al‑bararah wa qātil al‑kafarah, manṣūr man naṣarah wa makhdhūl man khadhalah,” meaning: ʿAlī is the leader of the righteous and the slayer of the disbelievers; whoever supports him, God will support him, and whoever abandons him, God will abandon him. Abū Dharr then continued: O people! One day I was praying in the mosque with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny when a beggar entered the mosque and asked the people for help, but no one gave him anything. He then raised his hands toward the sky and said: O God, bear witness that I asked for assistance in the mosque of Your Messenger, yet no one even responded to me. At that moment, while ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was in the state of bowing (rukūʿ), he gestured toward the beggar with the little finger of his right hand. The beggar approached and removed the ring from his hand. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, who was in prayer, observed this incident. When he finished his prayer, he raised his head toward the sky and said: O God! My brother Moses asked You to expand his breast, make his task easy for him, and loosen the knot of his tongue so that people might understand his speech. He also asked You to appoint for him his brother Hārūn as a minister and helper, to strengthen him through him, and to make him a partner in his affair. O God! I am Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny, Your Messenger and chosen one; expand my breast for me, make my task easy for me, and appoint for me from my family ʿAlī as my minister, so that through him my back may be strengthened and made firm. Abū Dharr says: the supplication of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had not yet concluded when Gabriel descended and said to the Messenger of God: Recite! The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: What shall I recite? Gabriel replied: Recite: innamā waliyyukum Allāh wa rasūluhu wa alladhīna āmanū … This account of the occasion of revelation— as will be explained—has been transmitted through different chains with some variations in detail; however, the core substance and foundation of all these narrations are one and the same.

This verse begins with the word innamā, which in Arabic usage conveys restriction and exclusivity. It states that your walī—your guardian, authority, and the one who has the rightful power of disposal over your affairs—are only three entities: God, His Messenger, and those who believe, who establish prayer and give zakāt while they are in the state of bowing (اِنَّمَا وَلِیُّکُمُ اللّٰہُ وَ رَسُوۡلُہٗ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا الَّذِیۡنَ یُقِیۡمُوۡنَ الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ یُؤۡتُوۡنَ الزَّکٰوۃَ وَ ہُمۡ رٰکِعُوۡنَ). There is no doubt that the word rukūʿ in this verse refers to the bowing posture of prayer, and not merely to humility or submissiveness. In the juristic usage of Islam and in Qur’anic terminology, when rukūʿ is mentioned without qualification, it denotes the specific act of bowing in prayer. Moreover, the occasion of revelation of this verse and the numerous narrations transmitted concerning the giving of a ring by Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام) while in the state of rukūʿ—which will be discussed in detail—together with the phrase yuqīmūna al‑ṣalāh, all clearly indicate this meaning. There is no instance in the Qur’an where zakāt is described as being given through humility alone; rather, zakāt is to be paid with sincerity of intention and without ostentation. Likewise, there is no doubt that the word walī in this verse does not mean “friend” or “helper,” because friendship and mutual assistance are not limited to those who establish prayer and give zakāt in the state of rukūʿ. Such meanings are general obligations that encompass all Muslims. All Muslims are required to maintain bonds of friendship and mutual support with one another, including those upon whom zakāt is not obligatory or who possess nothing upon which zakāt is due—let alone those who have the capacity to give zakāt while in the state of rukūʿ. It therefore becomes clear that in this verse, walī signifies guardianship in the sense of authority, legitimate control, and material and spiritual leadership, especially since this guardianship is placed on the same level as divine guardianship and the guardianship of the Messenger, and all three are expressed under a single term. In this way, the verse constitutes a Qur’anic designation (naṣṣ) indicating the guardianship and leadership of Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام). This context gives rise to several important discussions, which are examined separately. Testimony of hadith, exegetes, and historians shows—as already indicated—that numerous reports are found in many Islamic works, including Sunni sources, affirming that this verse was revealed concerning Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام). Some of these reports explicitly mention the giving of the ring during rukūʿ, while others simply state that the verse was revealed in his honor. This narration has been transmitted by Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, Salamah ibn Kuhayl, Anas ibn Mālik, ʿUtbah ibn Ḥakīm, ʿAbd Allāh Abī, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ghālib, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī, and Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī. In addition to these ten individuals, Sunni works also transmit this narration directly from Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام) himself. It is noteworthy that the book Ghāyat al‑Marām records twenty‑four narrations from Sunni sources and nineteen narrations from Shiʿi chains regarding this matter. Well over thirty well‑known works, all from Sunni sources, contain this narration. Among them are Dhakhāʾir al‑ʿUqbā by Muḥibb al‑Dīn al‑Ṭabarī, Fatḥ al‑Qadīr by al‑Shawkānī, Jāmiʿ al‑Uṣūl, Asbāb al‑Nuzūl by al‑Wāḥidī, Lubāb al‑Nuqūl by al‑Suyūṭī, Tadhkirat al‑Khawāṣ by Sibṭ ibn al‑Jawzī, Nūr al‑Abṣār by al‑Shiblīnjī, the Tafsīr of al‑Ṭabarī, al‑Kāfī al‑Shāf by Ibn Ḥajar al‑ʿAsqalānī, Mafātīḥ al‑Ghayb by Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, al‑Durr al‑Manthūr by al‑Suyūṭī, Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, the Musnad of Ibn Mardawayh, the Musnad of Ibn al‑Shaykh, Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Nasāʾī, and al‑Jamʿ bayn al‑Ṣiḥāḥ al‑Sittah, among many others. In light of this, how can all these narrations be ignored, when for the occasions of revelation of many other verses, reliance is placed upon one or two reports only? Yet it seems that prejudice prevents due attention from being given to all these narrations and to the testimony of all these scholars. If such an abundance of reports were to be disregarded, then no narration should ever be considered in Qur’anic exegesis, for very few verses possess such extensive evidence concerning their occasion of revelation. This matter was so clear and evident that the well‑known poet of the Prophet’s time, Ḥassān ibn Thābit, expressed the substance of these narrations in poetry in honor of Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام), saying: فأنت الذي أعطيت إذ كنت راكعاً زكاةً فدتك النفس يا خير راكع فأنزل فيك الله خير ولاية وبينها في محكمات الشرائع Meaning: You are the one who gave zakāt while in the state of bowing—may my soul be sacrificed for you, O best of those who bow—and thereafter God revealed the finest guardianship concerning you and established it clearly in the decisive verses of the law. These verses of Ḥassān ibn Thābit have been transmitted, with minor variations, in numerous works, including Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī by Shihāb al‑Dīn al‑Ālūsī and Kifāyat al‑Ṭālib by al‑Ganjī al‑Shāfiʿī.

Some biased Sunni writers have denied that this verse was revealed regarding ʿAlī (عليه السلام), and likewise have objected to interpreting “wilāyah” as guardianship, authority, disposal over affairs, and leadership. Here we examine and analyze the most important of these objections.

One objection claims that because the verse uses the plural form “alladhīna”, it cannot be applied to a single individual; in other words, the verse states that your walī consists of “those” who establish prayer and give zakāt in the state of bowing, so how can this be restricted to one person? The response is that in Arabic literary usage it is quite common for the plural form to be employed while intending a single individual. Consider the following examples: – In the verse of mubāhalah, the word “nisāʾinā” appears in the plural form, whereas numerous transmitted reports concerning its occasion of revelation testify that what is intended by it is Lady Fāṭimah al‑Zahrāʾ (عليها السلام) alone. In that same verse, the word “anfusanā” also appears in the plural form, even though among those who went for mubāhalah, besides the Messenger of God, only ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was present. – In connection with an incident from the Battle of Uḥud, Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 172 states: “alladhīna qāla lahumu al‑nās inna al‑nās qad jamaʿū lakum fakhshawhum fazādahum īmānan”. As mentioned earlier in the interpretation of this verse, several exegetes have transmitted its occasion of revelation in which “alladhīna” refers to a single person, namely Nuʿaym ibn Masʿūd. – In Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, verse 52, it states: “yaqūlūna nakhshā an tuṣībanā dāʾirah”, where plural forms are used, even though the verse was revealed concerning ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy, as explained in its exegesis. – Likewise, similar expressions occur in al‑Mumtaḥanah, verse 1; al‑Munāfiqūn, verse 8; and al‑Baqarah, verses 215 and 274, among others, where plural wording is employed while, according to their occasions of revelation, a single individual is intended. Such expressions are used either to emphasize the significance, position, and far‑reaching impact of that person and his action, or to present the ruling in a universal and general form, even though its concrete instance may be a single individual. God, who is One, is Himself referred to in many Qur’ānic verses through plural pronouns as a form of exaltation and majesty. It cannot be denied that without a contextual indicator, using the plural form while intending the singular would be contrary to the apparent meaning and therefore impermissible. However, in the present case, the numerous reports transmitted concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse constitute a clear and decisive contextual indicator. In many other instances, reliance has been placed on far less evidence than this, even though here such abundant corroborating material is available.

Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī and some other partisans have raised the objection that ʿAli (عليه السلام) was known for his intense concentration in prayer and his deep absorption in intimate communion with his Lord. It is even famously reported that on one occasion, while he was in the state of prayer, the head of an arrow was removed from his foot without his noticing it. How, then, they ask, could it be possible that he heard the voice of a beggar and turned his attention toward him? The answer to this objection is that those who raise it have overlooked a subtle but crucial point: hearing the voice of a needy person and responding by helping him does not constitute turning away from God; rather, it is itself a form of turning toward God. Imam ʿAli (عليه السلام) was oblivious to himself during the prayer, not oblivious to God. And it is well understood that negligence toward God’s creatures is, in reality, negligence toward God Himself. To put it more clearly, giving zakāt during prayer is not the performance of a merely permissible worldly act within worship; rather, it is worship within worship. In other words, what is incompatible with the spirit of worship is for a person, during worship, to become preoccupied with purely material or personal concerns. By contrast, paying attention to matters that constitute means of attaining God’s pleasure is fully harmonious with the spirit of worship and in fact elevates it to a higher degree. It should also be noted that absorption and concentration toward God does not mean that a person loses awareness or becomes involuntarily unconscious. Rather, it means that by deliberate choice one turns one’s attention away from everything that is not for God and not in the path of God. It is noteworthy that Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī’s prejudice goes so far that he counts Imam ʿAli’s (عليه السلام) gesture toward the beggar—indicating that he should come and take the ring himself—as a “major action” (fiʿl kathīr), which he considers invalidating of prayer. This is despite the fact that jurists of his own school permit actions during prayer that are far more substantial than a mere gesture, and yet do not regard them as harmful to the validity of prayer. They even permit actions such as killing harmful creatures like snakes or scorpions, lifting a child and putting him down, and even nursing an infant during prayer, without considering these to be “major actions.” How, then, does a simple gesture become a “major action”? When intellect becomes trapped in the storm of prejudice, such contradictions cease to be surprising.

Another objection to this verse concerns the meaning of the word “walī,” which some have taken to mean merely “friend” or “helper,” rather than “one vested with authority, guardianship, and the right of disposal.” The response to this objection is as we have already indicated in the earlier interpretation of the verse: here, “walī” cannot possibly mean friend or helper, because friendship and mutual assistance are qualities established for all believers in general, not exclusively for those particular believers whom the verse describes as establishing prayer and giving zakāt while in the state of bowing. In other words, friendship and assistance constitute a general directive applicable to the entire community of believers, whereas this verse is clearly setting forth a specific and distinctive ruling. That is precisely why, after mentioning faith, the verse goes on to specify particular characteristics—characteristics that are uniquely associated with a specific individual.

It is argued that on what wealth was zakāt obligatory for ʿAlī (عليه السلام), when he never accumulated worldly possessions for himself; and if what is meant is voluntary charity, then it cannot be called zakāt. The response to this is as follows. First, historical sources testify that ʿAlī (عليه السلام) earned substantial property through his own labor and spent it in the path of God. It is recorded that he emancipated one thousand slaves with the proceeds of his own work. In addition, he also received a share from the spoils of various battles. Therefore, the existence of some property, or even a small date‑grove, upon which zakāt would have been obligatory, is by no means improbable. Moreover, it is well known that the obligation of paying zakāt with immediacy is a matter of customary immediacy (fawr ʿurfī), and this is not incompatible with offering it during prayer. Second, the Qur’an itself has repeatedly used the term zakāt to refer to recommended (non‑obligatory) charity. In many Meccan sūrahs the word zakāt appears, and what is intended there can only be voluntary charity, since it is established beyond doubt that the legislation of obligatory zakāt was revealed only after the Prophet’s migration to Medina (such as in al‑Naml 27:3, al‑Rūm 30:39, Luqmān 31:4, Fuṣṣilat 41:6, and similar verses).

It is objected that even if one believes in the immediate succession (khilāfah bi‑lā faṣl) of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), one must still accept that this matter relates to the period after the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Therefore, at the time of the revelation of the verse, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was not yet a walī in actuality. In other words, at that time he possessed wilāyah bi’l‑quwwah (potential authority), not wilāyah bi’l‑fiʿl (actual authority), whereas the verse apparently speaks of actual authority. The response is that in everyday language such expressions are very common. Words are frequently used for individuals in a potential sense. For example, during his lifetime a person may write a will and appoint someone as the executor and guardian (waṣī and qayyim) of his children, and from that very moment the terms “executor” and “guardian” are applied to that person, even though the testator is still alive. In the narrations transmitted through both Shiʿi and Sunni channels from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام), we find that the Prophet addressed him as “my executor” and “my successor,” even though that succession would only be realized after the Prophet’s lifetime. Similar expressions are also found in the Qurʾān itself. One such example is the supplication of Prophet Zachariah (عليه السلام), where he asks God: “Grant me from Yourself a walī who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob” (Maryam 19:5). It is clear that the walī referred to here—meaning a guardian and successor—would assume that role only after Zachariah’s death. Likewise, many people designate their successors during their own lifetime and refer to them as successors from that point onward, even though they are successors only in potential, not yet in actual exercise of authority.

It is said that why ʿAlī (عليه السلام) himself did not argue on the basis of this clear proof. The answer to this is that, as we have already seen in the discussion of the narrations concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse, this report has itself been transmitted in numerous works directly from ʿAlī (عليه السلام), as found, for example, in Musnad Ibn Mardawayh, Musnad Abī Shaykh, and Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl. In reality, this very transmission constitutes his argumentation based on the verse. In the valuable work al‑Ghadīr, a detailed report is cited from Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays al‑Hilālī, according to which ʿAlī (عليه السلام), in the presence of a number of people in the battlefield of Ṣiffīn, presented proofs for his rightful claim. One of those proofs was argumentation based on this very verse. In Ghāyat al‑Marām, it is reported from Abū Dharr that ʿAlī (عليه السلام) argued with this verse on the day of the shūrā. (Reported in Minhāj al‑Barāʿah, vol. 2, p. 363.)

It is also argued that the interpretation of wilāyah as leadership and imamate does not accord with the verses that come before and after this one, because in those verses wilāyah appears in the sense of friendship. The response is that, as we have repeatedly emphasized, Qur’anic verses were revealed gradually and in connection with different events. Therefore, their meaning and purport are tied to the specific circumstances in which they were revealed, and it is not necessary that all the verses of a single sūrah, or even consecutive verses, always be directly connected in subject matter or meaning. It is quite common for two adjacent verses to relate to entirely different events, and due to that difference, their purport and implications may also be entirely distinct. As the reported occasions of revelation clearly show, the verse innamā walīyyukum Allāh was revealed concerning the act of giving zakāt by ʿAlī (عليه السلام) while in the state of bowing, whereas the verses before and after it—as we have already examined and will further examine—were revealed in connection with other events. Consequently, excessive reliance cannot be placed on assuming a strict thematic unity between them. Moreover, it is noteworthy that even from this angle, the verse under discussion does bear a form of compatibility with the surrounding verses. In those verses, wilāyah is discussed in the sense of friendship and mutual assistance, while in the present verse wilāyah is used in the sense of leadership and guardianship. There is no doubt that a walī—a guardian, leader, and authority—is also, by necessity, the friend, supporter, and helper of his followers. In other words, being a friend and helper constitutes one of the attributes and characteristics of comprehensive and absolute wilāyah.

It is also claimed that from where could ʿAlī (عليه السلام) have obtained such a valuable ring as some historical accounts describe, and moreover that wearing a ring of such extraordinary value would itself constitute extravagance (isrāf). It is then argued that this should be taken as evidence that the cited interpretation is incorrect. The response is that the exaggerations concerning the price of that ring are entirely unfounded, and we possess no reliable or acceptable proof that it was extraordinarily precious. The claim found in a weak report—recorded as a mursal narration in Tafsīr al‑Burhān (vol. 1, p. 485)—that its value equaled the annual revenue of Syria bears more resemblance to legend than to historical reality. It is likely that such a statement was fabricated in order to undermine the significance of this important event. In the authentic and reliable narrations that report the occasion of revelation of the verse, no such fanciful assertion is mentioned whatsoever. Consequently, such claims cannot obscure or invalidate a well‑established historical event and reality.

This verse completes the theme of the preceding verse, reinforcing and emphasizing the same objective. It informs the believers that those who accept the wilāyah—namely, the guardianship, authority, and leadership—of God, His Messenger, and those believers indicated in the previous verse will inevitably be successful, because they enter the حزب الله, and the Party of God is victorious and triumphant (وَ مَنۡ یَّتَوَلَّ اللّٰہَ وَ رَسُوۡلَہٗ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا فَاِنَّ حِزۡبَ اللّٰہِ ہُمُ الۡغٰلِبُوۡنَ). In this verse, there exists another contextual indicator for the meaning of “wilāyah” that was discussed under the previous verse, namely wilāyah in the sense of guardianship, authority, and leadership. This is because the concept of حزب الله and its triumph is associated with the establishment and success of an Islamic polity, not with ordinary or conventional friendship. This itself serves as evidence that “wilāyah” here signifies guardianship, governance, and holding the reins of Islam and the Muslim community, since the notion of حزب الله inherently contains the idea of organized structure, collective commitment, and concerted effort toward shared aims and objectives. It should be noted that “الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا” in this verse does not refer to all believers in general; rather, it refers specifically to the individual already identified with defined attributes in the preceding verse. A question arises here: does the victory of حزب الله mentioned in this verse refer only to spiritual success, or does it encompass all forms of spiritual and material victory? There is no doubt that the verse signifies the comprehensive and universal success of the Party of God on all fronts. The reality is that if a community truly becomes part of حزب الله—possessing firm faith, piety, righteous action, unity, complete mutual trust, awareness, knowledge, and adequate preparation—then it will undoubtedly achieve success in all spheres. If today we observe that Muslims do not enjoy such success, the reason is evident: most of the conditions required for being part of حزب الله are absent in contemporary Muslim societies. This is why the energies and capacities that should be employed to defeat the enemy are instead largely expended in weakening one another. In Sūrat al‑Mujādilah, verse 22, certain qualities of the Party of God are also mentioned; discussion of that verse will, God willing, come at its appropriate place.

In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Tafsīr Abū al‑Futūḥ al‑Rāzī, and Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, it is reported that Rifāʿah and Suwayd were among the polytheists. They outwardly professed Islam, but later entered into cooperation with the hypocrites. Some Muslims maintained social relations with these two individuals and displayed friendship toward them. It was on this occasion that the above‑mentioned verses were revealed, warning the believers of the danger inherent in such conduct and urging them to abstain from it. From this, it is argued that in this verse wilāyah must mean friendship rather than guardianship and authority, as was the case in the preceding verses, because the occasion of revelation of this verse differs from that of the earlier ones. Therefore, it is claimed, the verses should be taken as explanatory of one another. Likewise, regarding the verse that follows as a complement to the first, its occasion of revelation is reported as follows: a group of Jews and some Christians, upon hearing the call to prayer and observing the Muslims rising to perform the prayer, would begin mocking and ridiculing them. Consequently, the Qur’an instructed the Muslims to refrain from forming friendships with such people. This line of argument insists that the context of these verses restricts the meaning of wilāyah to mere friendship and social association rather than authority, leadership, and guardianship, on the basis that their occasions of revelation address social relations with overt or covert enemies rather than questions of religious leadership and divine appointment.

In this verse, God Almighty once again commands the believers to avoid friendship with hypocrites and enemies. In order to stir their emotions and moral sensitivity, the command is expressed in the following manner: O you who believe, do not take as friends those who make a mockery and a game of your religion, whether they are from among those who were given the Book before you, or from among the disbelievers (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّخَذُوۡا دِیۡنَکُمۡ ہُزُوًا وَّ لَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُوۡتُوا الۡکِتٰبَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِکُمۡ وَ الۡکُفَّارَ اَوۡلِیَآءَ ۚ). At the end of the verse, by saying (وَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ), it is emphasized that piety and genuine faith are incompatible with friendship toward such people. It should be noted that the word “هُزُو” (on the pattern of “قفل”) refers to words or actions of ridicule intended to display something as worthless and insignificant, as stated by al‑Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt. The term istihzāʾ is generally used for mockery that is practiced in someone’s absence or behind his back, although on rare occasions it may also be applied to mockery conducted openly in front of the person. The word “لَعِب” is commonly used for actions that lack a sound or meaningful purpose, or that are performed without any serious aim. For this reason, children’s play is also described as laʿib. In the preceding verse, friendship with a group among the hypocrites and the People of the Book is forbidden because they used to mock the commands and practices of Islam. In the following verse, one of their behaviors is cited as evidence of this attitude: when you call the Muslims to prayer, they turn it into mockery and amusement (وَ اِذَا نَادَیۡتُمۡ اِلَی الصَّلٰوۃِ اتَّخَذُوۡہَا ہُزُوًا وَّ لَعِبًا ؕ). The exegetes differ on whether the pronoun in ittakhadhūhā refers back to the prayer itself or to the call to prayer. The reported occasions of revelation include both possibilities, since the hypocrites and unbelievers mocked both the spirit of the call to prayer and the act of prayer itself. However, the apparent sense of the verse more strongly supports the interpretation that the pronoun refers to ṣalāh. Thereafter, the cause of such behavior is explained: this is because they are a people who do not understand and are far removed from the ability to grasp realities (ذٰلِکَ بِاَنَّہُمۡ قَوۡمٌ لَّا یَعۡقِلُوۡنَ).

Every religious community, in every era, possesses certain distinctive symbols through which it stimulates the feelings and emotions of its members and calls them toward responsibility, and this phenomenon is even more evident in the present age. In the past and the present, Christians have used the discordant sound of the church bell to summon their followers to the church, whereas Islam has adopted the adhān for this purpose—a call that is far more effective and appealing than the ringing of bells. The attraction and resonance of this Islamic symbol are so strong that, as the author of al‑Manār notes, even prejudiced Christians, upon hearing it, acknowledge its profound effect on listeners. He further narrates that in one Egyptian city, people have observed certain Christians gathering specifically to listen to this heavenly chant at the time of the Muslim adhān. What symbol could be more excellent than one that begins with the name of the Supreme and Exalted God, rises with the proclamation of the oneness of the Creator of the universe and the message of His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and concludes with a call toward success, salvation, righteous action, and the remembrance of God? This symbol begins with the name of God and ends with the name of God. It consists of harmonious phrases, concise expressions, clear content, and a message that reforms and awakens. For this reason, Islamic narrations place great emphasis on proclaiming the adhān. In this regard, a well‑known narration from the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny states that on the Day of Resurrection, the callers to prayer will be taller than others by a measure of head and neck. This elevation, in reality, corresponds to the station of leadership and to the fact that they called people toward God and toward an act of worship such as prayer. In Islamic cities, when the melodies of the adhān resonate from the minarets at the time of prayer, their sound is like a life‑giving breeze, bearing a message of freedom, independence, and dignity for sincere believers. This call sends tremors and anxiety through the bodies of ill‑wishers and enemies. This voice is a رمز of the survival of Islam. An acknowledgment by a well‑known English figure serves as evidence of this point. Addressing a group of Christians, he said: as long as the name of Muḥammad is proclaimed from the minarets of the adhān, the House of the Kaʿbah stands in its place, and the Qur’an remains the guide and leader of the Muslims, it will not be possible for us to establish the foundations of our policies in Islamic lands. (These words are attributed to Gladstone, who was a leading British statesman of his time.) Yet it is said with sorrow that some unfortunate and short‑sighted Muslims have abandoned this great Islamic symbol and replaced it with frivolous programs, despite the fact that this symbol is a living historical testimony, spanning centuries, to the endurance of their religion and culture. May God guide such individuals and return them to the ranks of the Muslims. It is evident that just as the inner meaning and content of the adhān are beautiful, its outward recitation should also be performed with a pleasing voice, and its inner beauty should not be violated by an unpleasant mode of delivery. With regard to the legislation of the adhān, a number of narrations transmitted through Sunni chains claim that the adhān was instituted through dreams, containing strange elements that do not accord with the logic of Islam. Among them is the following account: the Companions requested that some sign be established to announce the time of prayer. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny consulted with them, and various suggestions were put forward—some proposed raising a banner, some lighting a fire, and others ringing a bell. The Messenger of God accepted none of these suggestions, until ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zayd and ʿUmar ibn al‑Khaṭṭāb claimed to have seen in a dream a person instructing them to proclaim the adhān to announce the prayer and teaching them its words, after which the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny supposedly accepted it. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī.) This fabricated narration appears to constitute an affront to the dignity of the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, for it implies that instead of relying upon revelation, he depended upon the dreams of certain individuals and established religious rulings on the basis of such dreams. In reality, this was not the case. Rather, as reported in the narrations of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), the adhān was taught to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny through revelation. Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) relates that when Gabriel came with the adhān, the head of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was resting in the lap of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), and Gabriel taught the Prophet the adhān and the iqāmah. When the Messenger of God raised his head, he asked ʿAlī (عليه السلام): did you hear Gabriel’s call of the adhān? ʿAlī replied: yes. The Prophet then asked: have you memorized it? He replied: yes. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny then said: call Bilāl—whose voice was beautiful—and teach him the adhān and the iqāmah. Thereupon, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) summoned Bilāl and taught him the adhān and the iqāmah. (Reported in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, vol. 4, p. 612.) For further clarification on this matter, reference may be made to the book al‑Naṣṣ wa al‑Ijtihād, p. 128.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

It is narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās that a group of Jews came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and asked him to explain his beliefs. The Messenger of God replied: I believe in God, the Great and the One, and I affirm as truth whatever has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets of God, and I do not differentiate between any of them. They said: We do not believe in Jesus, nor do we accept his prophethood. They further added: We consider no religion to be worse than your religion. Thereupon, the above‑mentioned verses were revealed as a response to them.

In the first verse, God commands His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to ask and say to the People of the Book: what offense have we committed that you resent us and criticize us, other than that we have believed in the One God and submitted to what has been revealed to us and to what was revealed to the previous prophets (قُلۡ یٰۤاَہۡلَ الۡکِتٰبِ ہَلۡ تَنۡقِمُوۡنَ مِنَّاۤ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ اٰمَنَّا بِاللّٰہِ وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡنَا وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ مِنۡ قَبۡلُ ۙ). The verb “تَنقِمُونَ” derives from “نِقمَة” and originally denotes rejection or resentment, whether expressed verbally, in practice, or through punitive measures. This verse points to one aspect of the groundless obstinacy, stubbornness, and prejudice of the Jews. They were unwilling to recognize any worth in anyone who stood against their own distorted religion, and as a result of this intense bias, truth appeared false in their eyes and falsehood appeared true. At the end of the verse, a sentence is added which, in reality, explains the cause of this attitude. It states that if they object to pure monotheism and submission to all heavenly scriptures, it is because most of them have become polluted by transgression and sin, and when someone adopts purity and the path of truth, this itself appears blameworthy in their eyes (وَ اَنَّ اَکۡثَرَکُمۡ فٰسِقُوۡنَ). In a corrupt environment composed largely of sin‑ridden individuals, the standard for distinguishing truth from falsehood becomes so distorted that pure beliefs and righteous conduct are regarded as evil and become targets of criticism, while false beliefs and corrupt deeds are seen as good and are admired. This is a characteristic of distorted thinking: when a person becomes immersed in sin and grows accustomed to it, this inversion of values naturally follows. It should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, the verse does not condemn all of the People of the Book; rather, by using the term “most,” it clearly distinguishes the righteous and virtuous minority from the rest. In the second verse, the distorted beliefs, corrupt practices, and the punishments that befell the People of the Book are contrasted with the condition of true believers and Muslims, so that it becomes evident which of the two groups is truly deserving of reproach and censure. This is, in fact, a reasoned response intended to confront obstinate and prejudiced individuals. It is stated: O Prophet, say to them: is believing in the One God and in the heavenly scriptures something blameworthy, or are their own evil deeds—because of which they became subject to divine punishments—the real cause for reproach? Say: shall I inform you of those whose outcome in the sight of God is worse than this (قُلۡ ہَلۡ اُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِشَرٍّ مِّنۡ ذٰلِکَ مَثُوۡبَۃً عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ). The term “مَثُوبَة” and “ثَوَاب” originally mean return or recompense, and are used for every kind of consequence, whether reward or punishment, though they are more commonly used for positive outcomes. In this verse, the word is employed in the sense of ultimate outcome or recompense. There is no doubt that faith in God and in the heavenly scriptures is not an evil matter. Thus, when the verse compares this faith with the conduct and beliefs of the People of the Book and asks who is worse, it employs a rhetorical allusion, similar to the case in which an impure person criticizes a virtuous one, and the virtuous replies by asking whether purity is worse or moral corruption. The verse then elaborates on this point by stating that those who incurred God’s curse and wrath because of their deeds, and among whom some were transformed into apes and swine, and those who worshipped ṭāghūt, are certainly worse in position in this world and will have a more evil abode in the Hereafter, and they are far more astray from the straight and balanced path (مَنۡ لَّعَنَہُ اللّٰہُ وَ غَضِبَ عَلَیۡہِ وَ جَعَلَ مِنۡہُمُ الۡقِرَدَۃَ وَ الۡخَنَازِیۡرَ وَ عَبَدَ الطَّاغُوۡتَ ؕ اُولٰٓئِکَ شَرٌّ مَّکَانًا وَّ اَضَلُّ عَنۡ سَوَآءِ السَّبِیۡلِ). The word “سَوَاء” in Arabic denotes equality, balance, and moderation, and the straight path is described as “سَوَاءُ السَّبِیل” because it is even, balanced, ordered, and free from deviation. It should also be noted that “عَبَدَ الطَّاغُوتَ” is conjoined to “مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ,” and that “عَبَدَ” is a past‑tense verb rather than the plural of “ʿabd,” as some have mistakenly supposed. The attribution of ṭāghūt‑worship to the People of the Book refers either to the calf‑worship of the Jews, or to their unquestioning submission before deviant and corrupt leaders. The discussion of metamorphosis (مسخ)—whether it refers to a physical transformation of form or to a moral and intellectual transformation—will, God willing, be examined in detail under Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf (7:163).

See ayat 63 for tafseer.

See ayat 63 for tafseer.

In the first verse, by completing the discussion concerning the hypocrites among the People of the Book and by lifting the veil from their hypocrisy, the Muslims are warned that when such people come to you, they say, “We have believed,” but they enter with hearts filled with disbelief and depart in the same state. Logical argument and your words have no real effect upon their hearts (وَ اِذَا جَآءُوۡکُمۡ قَالُوۡۤا اٰمَنَّا وَ قَدۡ دَّخَلُوۡا بِالۡکُفۡرِ وَ ہُمۡ قَدۡ خَرَجُوۡا بِہٖ). Thus, although outwardly they speak in support of the truth, express faith, and hypocritically welcome your words, you should not be deceived by this behavior. At the end of the verse, a warning is issued that despite all these coverings and pretenses, God is fully aware of whatever they conceal (وَ اللّٰہُ اَعۡلَمُ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَکۡتُمُوۡنَ). In the following verse, the signs of their hypocrisy are described. It is stated that you see many of them hastening toward sin, transgression, and the consumption of what is unlawful (وَ تَرٰی کَثِیۡرًا مِّنۡہُمۡ یُسَارِعُوۡنَ فِی الۡاِثۡمِ وَ الۡعُدۡوَانِ وَ اَکۡلِہِمُ السُّحۡتَ ؕ). That is, they advance along the paths of sin and wrongdoing as though moving toward something honorable and praiseworthy, and without any sense of shame they compete with one another in such actions. It should be noted that the term “ithm” is sometimes used in the sense of disbelief and sometimes in the general sense of sin. Here, however, it appears in contrast to “ʿudwān,” and therefore some exegetes have explained it as referring to sins whose harm affects only the perpetrator, unlike “ʿudwān,” whose harm extends to others. Another interpretation suggests that mentioning “ʿudwān” after “ithm” is an instance of mentioning the particular after the general, and that the subsequent mention of consuming unlawful wealth is the most specific case of all. In this way, the verse first condemns them for all kinds of sin in general, then singles out, because of their importance, two major sins: oppression and injustice on the one hand, and the consumption of unlawful wealth on the other, whether in the form of bribery, usury, or otherwise. In short, the Qur’an exposes and censures those hypocritical individuals among the People of the Book who commit every kind of sin with great indifference, especially oppression, and in particular the consumption of illicit wealth. At the end of the verse, to emphasize the ugliness of their deeds, it is said: how evil indeed is what they used to do (لَبِئۡسَ مَا کَانُوۡا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). The expression “kānū yaʿmalūn” indicates that these were not occasional or accidental acts, but practices in which they persisted and which they repeatedly committed. In the third verse, an attack is directed toward their scholars, who by their silence encouraged them in sin. It is stated: why do the Christian and Jewish scholars not forbid them from sinful speech and from consuming what is unlawful (لَوۡ لَا یَنۡہٰہُمُ الرَّبّٰنِیُّوۡنَ وَ الۡاَحۡبَارُ عَنۡ قَوۡلِہِمُ الۡاِثۡمَ وَ اَکۡلِہِمُ السُّحۡتَ ؕ لَبِئۡسَ). As mentioned earlier, “rabbāniyyūn” is the plural of “rabbānī” and refers to scholars who invite people toward God, a term more commonly applied to Christian religious scholars, while “aḥbār,” the plural of “ḥabr,” refers to scholars who exert a positive influence upon society and is more commonly used for Jewish religious scholars. It may be observed that whereas the previous verse mentioned “ʿudwān,” this verse does not. Some have taken this as an indication that “ithm” is a broad concept that also includes “ʿudwān” within it. Additionally, unlike the previous verse, this verse mentions “qawlihim al‑ithm” (their sinful speech). This may point to the responsibility of scholars to restrain people not only from sinful actions but also from corrupt speech; or else “qawl” here may signify belief, meaning that scholars seeking to reform a corrupt society must first correct erroneous thoughts and beliefs, because until there is a transformation at the level of ideas and convictions, no profound reform in conduct can be expected. In this way, the verse highlights that social reform must begin with an intellectual revolution. Just as the principal sinners are condemned, so too are the silent scholars who abandoned the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil. At the end of the verse it is declared: how evil is what they used to do (لَبِئۡسَ مَا کَانُوۡا یَصۡنَعُوۡنَ). This makes it clear that those who fail to fulfill the great obligation of enjoining good and forbidding evil—especially scholars and intellectual leaders—will share the same fate as the primary sinners, and in reality will be counted as partners in their crimes. It is reported from the well‑known exegete Ibn ʿAbbās that he said: this is the strongest verse revealed in condemnation of scholars who fail to discharge their responsibilities and who remain silent. Clearly, this ruling is not limited to silent Jewish and Christian scholars, but applies to all thinkers, leaders, and scholars who witness people becoming polluted by sin, rushing along the path of oppression, and yet remain silent, for God’s command applies equally to all. Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) stated in one of his sermons that previous communities were destroyed because they committed sins while their scholars remained silent and did not forbid evil, whereupon divine punishment, afflictions, and calamities descended upon them; therefore, he exhorted people to practice enjoining good and forbidding evil lest they meet the same fate. The same theme appears in the Sermon of al‑Qāsiʿah in Nahj al‑Balāghah, where it is stated that God deprived past nations of His mercy only because they abandoned enjoining good and forbidding evil, cursing the common people for committing sins and the scholars for abandoning the duty of restraint. It is also noteworthy that in the previous verse, describing the common people, the expression “yaʿmalūn” is used, whereas in the present verse, describing the scholars, “yaṣnaʿūn” is employed. The term “yaṣnaʿūn,” derived from “ṣunʿ,” indicates actions performed with deliberation and skill, whereas “yaʿmalūn,” derived from “ʿamal,” is used for actions in general. If ignorant or ordinary people commit evil deeds, some may do so out of ignorance or heedlessness; but when scholars and intellectuals fail to act upon their responsibilities, it is evident that they do so knowingly and deliberately. For this reason, the punishment of the learned is more severe than that of the ignorant.

In this verse, an example is given of the unjust and sinful statements of the Jews, whereas the previous verse had referred to such statements in a general manner. The explanation may be summarized as follows. History indicates that at one time the Jews were at the height of power. During that period, they ruled over a portion of the inhabited world that, though limited, was significant for them. The eras of Prophet Dāwūd and Prophet Sulaymān son of Dāwūd (عليهما السلام) may be cited as examples. Even in later periods, their power and influence remained strong. However, with the advent of Islam—particularly in the Hijaz—the sun of Jewish dominance set. As a result of the battles of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny with the Jews of Banū al‑Naḍīr, Banū Qurayẓah, and Khaybar, they were severely weakened. At that juncture, some of them, recalling their former power and prestige, mockingly and derisively declared that God’s hand is fettered and that He does not bestow bounty upon them. (Some exegetes state that this remark was made by Fakhās ibn ʿĀzūrāʾ, the chief of Banū Qaynuqāʿ, while others attribute it to Nabāsh ibn Qays.) Since others approved of this statement, the Qur’an ascribed it to them collectively, saying: “The Jews said: God’s hand is fettered” (وَ قَالَتِ الۡیَہُوۡدُ یَدُ اللّٰہِ مَغۡلُوۡلَۃٌ). It should be noted that the word “yad” in Arabic is used with multiple meanings: one meaning is the literal “hand”; another is “bounty” or “favor”; a third is “power”; a fourth is “sovereignty or authority”; and a fifth is “control or dominion.” Its primary literal meaning is “hand,” but since human beings perform their most important actions with the hand, the word has also come to be used figuratively for these other meanings. In Persian, the word “dast” is similarly employed with a range of meanings. In some narrations transmitted through the school of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), this statement is understood as pointing to the Jewish belief regarding predestination and decree, namely that God determined all matters at the beginning of creation and that whatever is to occur has already been fixed, such that God Himself cannot alter it. However, the verse also contains the expression “بَلۡ یَدٰہُ مَبۡسُوۡطَتٰنِ”, as will be mentioned later, which supports the first interpretation, though the second interpretation can also be traced back to the same core idea. When their lives were overturned and their fortune waned, they imagined this as an unchangeable destiny fixed from the outset, implying in practice that God’s hand was constrained. In response, God first condemns this belief, stating: “Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said” (غُلَّتۡ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَ لُعِنُوۡا بِمَا قَالُوۡا). Then, in refutation of this false belief, it is said: “Rather, His two hands are outspread; He bestows as He wills” (بَلۡ یَدٰہُ مَبۡسُوۡطَتٰنِ ۙ یُنۡفِقُ کَیۡفَ یَشَآءُ). There is no compulsion upon Him; He is not subject to the determinism of natural causes nor constrained by historical necessity. Rather, His will transcends all things and operates freely within all things. It is noteworthy that the Jews used the singular form “yad,” whereas God employs the dual form, saying “His two hands are outspread.” This serves both as an emphatic expression and as a subtle allusion to the vastness of divine generosity, since one who gives abundantly gives with both hands. In addition, the mention of two hands may symbolize perfect power, or may allude to material and spiritual, or worldly and otherworldly, bounties. Thereafter, it is stated that these verses—which unveil their words and beliefs—do not produce a positive effect upon them, nor do they restrain them from the wrong path; rather, for many of them, what has been revealed to you from your Lord only increases rebellion and disbelief (وَ لَیَزِیۡدَنَّ کَثِیۡرًا مِّنۡہُمۡ مَّاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡکَ مِنۡ رَّبِّکَ طُغۡیَانًا وَّ کُفۡرًا). As for what is meant by “enmity” (ʿadāwah) and “hatred” (baghḍāʾ) here, exegetes differ. Yet if we set aside the present circumstances of the Jews and consider their history of dispersion and exile, it becomes evident that a major factor contributing to this historical condition was their lack of unity, resolve, and firm collective will. Had they possessed unity and steadfast determination, they would not have remained scattered, divided, and wretched throughout such a long history. Further clarification regarding the enduring hostility and enmity among the People of the Book has already been provided under verse 14 of this sūrah. At the end of the verse, reference is made to the Jews’ repeated attempts to ignite the fire of war and to God’s intervention in extinguishing that destructive fire and protecting the Muslims therefrom. It is stated: “We cast among them enmity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Whenever they kindle a fire for war, God extinguishes it” (وَ اَلۡقَیۡنَا بَیۡنَہُمُ الۡعَدَاوَۃَ وَ الۡبَغۡضَآءَ اِلٰی یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ؕ کُلَّمَاۤ اَوۡقَدُوۡا نَارًا لِّلۡحَرۡبِ اَطۡفَاَہَا اللّٰہُ). This is, in reality, one of the remarkable aspects of the Prophet’s miraculous career. The Jews of the Hijaz were stronger than all other groups in the region and were well versed in military affairs. They possessed formidable fortresses and substantial financial resources, which they employed in warfare. The Quraysh themselves sought their support, and each of the tribes of Aws and Khazraj endeavored to form alliances and military pacts with them. Yet despite all this, their presumed power collapsed in a manner that few could have imagined. The Jews of Banū al‑Naḍīr, Banū Qurayẓah, and Banū Qaynuqāʿ were compelled, under particular circumstances, to go into exile. The Jews of Khaybar and Fadak surrendered their fortresses. Even the Jews residing in the deserts of the Hijaz ultimately submitted before the greatness of Islam. Not only were they unable to aid the polytheists, but they themselves withdrew from direct confrontation. The Qur’an further declares: “They strive upon the earth to spread corruption” (وَ یَسۡعَوۡنَ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَسَادًا), while God does not love the corrupters (وَ اللّٰہُ لَا یُحِبُّ الۡمُفۡسِدِیۡن). Accordingly, the Qur’an never reproaches them on the basis of race or lineage; rather, its criterion for criticism and blame is the deeds and actions performed by any individual or group. In the subsequent verses, we will see that, despite all these matters, the Qur’an still leaves the door open for them to return to the path of truth.

See ayat 66 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the conduct and attitudes of the People of the Book were criticized. In these two verses, following an educative method, God Almighty addresses those among the People of the Book who had deviated from the right path, seeking to guide them back, to point out the true way to them, and at the same time to commend the minority among them who did not align themselves with the dominant corrupt practices. It is stated: if the People of the Book were to believe and adopt taqwā, We would surely efface their past misdeeds and overlook their sins (وَ لَوۡ اَنَّ اَہۡلَ الۡکِتٰبِ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ اتَّقَوۡا لَکَفَّرۡنَا عَنۡہُمۡ سَیِّاٰتِہِمۡ). Not only would their sins be forgiven, but We would also admit them into Gardens of bliss, endowed with diverse forms of blessing (وَ لَاَدۡخَلۡنٰہُمۡ جَنّٰتِ النَّعِیۡمِ). This refers to spiritual and otherworldly blessings. Thereafter, pointing to the profound impact of faith and taqwā even upon material life, it is stated: if they were to uphold the Torah and the Gospel and place them before their eyes as a practical code of life, and act upon all that has been revealed to them from their Lord—whether from previous heavenly scriptures or from the Qur’an—without engaging in discrimination or sectarian bias, then the bounties of heaven and earth would surround them (وَ لَوۡ اَنَّہُمۡ اَقَامُوا التَّوۡرٰىۃَ وَ الۡاِنۡجِیۡلَ وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ رَّبِّہِمۡ لَاَکَلُوۡا مِنۡ فَوۡقِہِمۡ وَ مِنۡ تَحۡتِ اَرۡجُلِہِمۡ). There is no doubt that by upholding the Torah and the Gospel, what is meant is their authentic and genuine content that was preserved and available at that time, not the distorted portions that had, through various indications, crept into them. Moreover, the phrase “وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ رَّبِّہِمۡ” refers to all heavenly scriptures and divine commandments, for this expression is general and absolute. In reality, it signals that ethnic and national prejudices should not be intermingled with religious and divine matters. The issue here is not the heavenly scriptures of Arabs or Jews as such; rather, the fundamental concern is divine guidance itself. Through this formulation, the Qur’an seeks to reduce their prejudices as much as possible and to allow the message to penetrate into the depths of their hearts and souls. It is for this reason that all the pronouns in the verse revert to them (اِلَیۡہِمۡ، مِّنۡ رَّبِّہِمۡ، مِّنۡ فَوۡقِہِمۡ، مِّنۡ تَحۡتِ اَرۡجُلِہِمۡ), so that they might dismount from obstinacy and not imagine that submitting to the Qur’an implies submitting before the Arabs, whereas in reality it signifies submission before the Almighty God. There is also no doubt that upholding the Torah and the Gospel means acting upon their fundamental principles, for—as has been repeatedly emphasized—the core teachings of all prophets are uniform, and the difference among them lies only in degrees of completeness and perfection. This does not contradict the fact that certain specific ordinances of earlier dispensations may be abrogated by later ones. In brief, the above verse once again underscores the point that adherence to heavenly teachings is not intended solely to secure the welfare of the afterlife, but is also beneficial for the entirety of human material life. Such adherence organizes societies and communities, consolidates energies, brings blessings into resources, expands provisions, enhances prosperity, and generates peace and security. If one reflects upon the magnitude of material crises and the vast human energies that are wasted in the contemporary world due to deviation from prophetic teachings, it becomes evident that they are largely consumed by destructive weaponry, purposeless conflicts, and ruinous endeavors. Today, the wealth and resources expended on destruction are, if not greater, certainly no less than those devoted to reform and human well‑being. How many intellectual capacities are being employed in the manufacture of weapons and in the pursuit of colonial and imperial ambitions. How many resources, tools, capabilities, and energies are squandered aimlessly, while humanity stands in profound need of them. Were this not the case, the world today would be more beautiful, harmonious, and livable. Incidentally, the expressions “مِّنۡ فَوۡقِہِمۡ” and “مِّنۡ تَحۡتِ اَرۡجُلِہِمۡ” signify that all the blessings of heaven and earth would encompass them. It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a metaphor indicating the universality and abundance of these blessings, much as it is said in Arabic and other languages that a certain person is “immersed in blessings from head to toe,” meaning that blessings surround him from all sides. This verse also serves as a response to the statement attributed to the Jews in the preceding verses: if you observe that God’s blessings have been cut off from you, the reason is not that divine generosity has ceased or that God’s hand has become restrained; rather, it is your own deeds that have been reflected in your material and spiritual life, darkening all dimensions of your existence. Until you return and reform, these darknesses will not be lifted. At the end of the verse, attention is drawn to that righteous minority among them by stating: although most of them are evildoers, there nevertheless exists among them a moderate and upright group whose condition, in the sight of God and among His creation, differs from the rest (مِنۡہُمۡ اُمَّۃٌ مُّقۡتَصِدَۃٌ ؕ وَ کَثِیۡرٌ مِّنۡہُمۡ سَآءَ مَا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). Similar expressions regarding the virtuous and righteous minority among the People of the Book can also be found in Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf (7:159, 181) and Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (3:75).

The appointment of the successor to the Prophet was the final act of the prophetic mission. This verse carries a distinctive tone and emphasis that sets it apart from the preceding and following verses. In this verse, the address is directed solely to the Prophet, and it is concerned exclusively with his responsibility. The verse begins with the address “يٰاَیُّهَا الرَّسُوۡلُ” (O Messenger), and with explicitness and strong emphasis it commands the Prophet to convey to the people whatever has been revealed to him from his Lord (بَلِّغۡ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡکَ مِنۡ رَّبِّکَ). It then, as a further emphasis highlighting the gravity of this command, warns that if he does not carry it out—though he would never neglect his duty—it would be as though he had not conveyed any part of the divine mission at all (وَ اِنۡ لَّمۡ تَفۡعَلۡ فَمَا بَلَّغۡتَ رِسَالَتَہٗ). Thereafter, in order to remove the Prophet’s anxiety and concern, it reassures him that he need not fear with regard to the delivery of this message, because God will protect him from the people (وَ اللّٰہُ یَعۡصِمُکَ مِنَ النَّاسِ). At the end of the verse, by way of warning and threat to those who will deny this specific message and persist in obstinate disbelief, it states that God does not guide such stubborn disbelievers (اِنَّ اللّٰہَ لَا یَہۡدِی الۡقَوۡمَ الۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ). The structure of the verse, its distinctive tone, the repeated emphases, its opening with “يٰاَیُّهَا الرَّسُوۡلُ”—an address found in the entire Qur’an only in two places—and the unprecedented warning that failure to convey this command would amount to having conveyed no part of the prophetic mission at all, collectively indicate that the subject under discussion is an issue of such immense importance that neglecting its proclamation would be equivalent to neglecting the whole of the divine message. Furthermore, this also shows that the matter in question was one that had already provoked intense opposition, and that the opponents were so vehement that the Prophet was deeply concerned lest their reaction to this announcement create serious problems for Islam and the Muslim community. It is for this reason that God reassures and consoles him. This leads to the inevitable question: what was that supremely important matter whose proclamation God commanded His Prophet with such forceful insistence? Especially when we consider the historical context of the revelation of this sūrah, it becomes clear that it was revealed in the final days of the Prophet’s life. Could it have concerned issues of monotheism or polytheism, which had already been resolved years earlier? Or matters related to legal rulings and Islamic laws, when the most significant of these had already been conveyed? Or issues concerning the People of the Book—Jews and Christians—when, after the events involving Banū al‑Naḍīr, Banū Qurayẓah, Banū Qaynuqāʿ, Khaybar, Fadak, and the Christians of Najrān, no unresolved problem of this nature remained? Or could it have related to the hypocrites, when after the conquest of Mecca and the firm establishment of Islam throughout the Arabian Peninsula, they had lost all effective power and influence and were reduced to concealed inner opposition? In reality, what vital issue still remained unresolved in the final days of the Prophet’s life that would warrant such extraordinary emphasis? It is also beyond doubt that the Prophet’s anxiety was not for his own personal safety, but was due to the anticipated obstruction and opposition of the adversaries, whose reaction could translate into dangers and harms for the Muslim community. Is there any issue other than the determination of the Prophet’s successor and the future destiny of Islam and the Muslims that could plausibly possess all these characteristics? At this point, it is necessary to turn to the numerous narrations recorded in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources concerning the above verse, in order to examine how far they substantiate this conclusion. Thereafter, the objections and questions raised by many Sunni exegetes regarding this interpretation can be addressed. Regarding the occasion of revelation, it must be said with regret that the truths connected with this verse have not reached all Muslims with full transparency, due largely to earlier decisions and entrenched sectarian prejudices that hindered their open presentation. Nevertheless, in a wide range of books authored by Sunni scholars—whether works of exegesis, hadith, or history—there exists a remarkably large number of narrations that explicitly state that this verse was revealed concerning ʿAli (عليه السلام). These narrations have been transmitted by many Companions of the Prophet, such as Zayd ibn Arqam, Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī, Abū Hurayrah, al‑Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, Ḥudhayfah, ʿĀmir ibn Laylā ibn Ḍurah, and Ibn Masʿūd. All of these Companions agree that the verse was revealed concerning ʿAli (عليه السلام) and the event of Ghadīr. These reports have been transmitted through numerous chains of transmission: the narration of Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī through eleven chains, that of Ibn ʿAbbās through eleven chains, and that of al‑Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib through three chains. A large number of Sunni scholars have explicitly recorded these reports in their works. By way of example, among them are: Abū Nuʿaym al‑Iṣfahānī in Mā nazala min al‑Qurʾān fī ʿAlī; al‑Wāḥidī al‑Nīsābūrī in Asbāb al‑Nuzūl; Abū Saʿīd al‑Sijistānī in al‑Wilāyah; Ibn ʿAsākir al‑Shāfiʿī; Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī in al‑Tafsīr al‑Kabīr; Abū Isḥāq al‑Ḥamūwaynī in Farāʾid al‑Simṭayn; Ibn Ṣabbāgh al‑Mālikī in Fuṣūl al‑Muhimmah; Jalāl al‑Dīn al‑Suyūṭī in al‑Durr al‑Manthūr; al‑Qāḍī al‑Shawkānī in Fatḥ al‑Qadīr; Shihāb al‑Dīn al‑Ālūsī in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī; Shaykh Sulaymān al‑Qundūzī al‑Ḥanafī in Yanābiʿ al‑Mawaddah; Badr al‑Dīn al‑Ḥanafī in ʿUmdat al‑Qārī; Shaykh Muḥammad ʿAbduh in Tafsīr al‑Manār; and Ibn Mardawayh, as transmitted by al‑Suyūṭī, among many others. This should not be misunderstood to mean that all these scholars accepted the implication of the verse regarding the leadership and succession of ʿAli (عليه السلام). Rather, the point is that they transmitted the relevant narrations in their works. In some cases, fear of prevailing social conditions or commitment to earlier mistaken positions prevented an objective conclusion; some even attempted to minimize the importance of the verse. For example, Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, well known for his bias in certain doctrinal matters, relegated this interpretation to the tenth possibility, after mentioning nine extremely weak and implausible alternatives. While this approach is not surprising from him, it is more astonishing that some writers who claim intellectual openness either completely omitted any discussion of the verse’s occasion of revelation or treated it so perfunctorily that it would escape notice, as seen in the works of Sayyid Quṭb in Fī Ẓilāl al‑Qurʾān and Rashīd Riḍā in al‑Manār. Whether their context did not allow them to present this reality openly, or whether thick veils of prejudice prevented their intellectual clarity from penetrating to the depth of the truth, remains unclear. It should also be noted that some scholars openly acknowledged that the verse was revealed concerning ʿAli (عليه السلام) but denied that it establishes wilāyah and khilāfah. Their objections and the corresponding responses will be discussed subsequently. In any case, the narrations concerning this matter—found not only in Shiʿi sources but also in well‑known Sunni works—are so numerous that denial or easy dismissal is simply not possible. It is difficult to understand why, in the case of many Qur’anic verses, one or two reports are deemed sufficient to establish their occasion of revelation, yet in the case of this verse, such a vast body of evidence is considered inadequate. Does this verse possess some unique feature that other verses do not? And is there any logical justification for this unusually strict attitude? Another point that must be recalled here is that the narrations discussed above relate only to the occasion of revelation of this verse. The narrations concerning the sermon of the Prophet at Ghadīr Khumm and the introduction of ʿAli (عليه السلام) as walī and successor are far more numerous still. Indeed, in his work al‑Ghadīr, ʿAllāmah Amīnī has documented this event with references from 110 Companions, 84 Tābiʿūn, 360 scholars, and numerous renowned Islamic works. This demonstrates that the hadith of Ghadīr belongs to the most definitively established mutawātir traditions. If someone harbors doubt even about such a massively corroborated report, it must be said that they cannot accept any mutawātir narration at all. A comprehensive discussion of all the narrations relating to the occasion of revelation of this verse, as well as those concerning the event of Ghadīr, would require a separate and extensive volume, going far beyond the scope of a Qur’anic commentary. For this reason, we suffice with this summary and invite those who wish to pursue further study to consult works such as al‑Suyūṭī’s al‑Durr al‑Manthūr, al‑ʿAllāmah’s al‑Ghadīr, Nūr Allāh al‑Shūshtarī’s Iḥqāq al‑Ḥaqq, Sharaf al‑Dīn’s al‑Murājaʿāt, and Muḥammad Ḥasan al‑Muẓaffar’s Dalāʾil al‑Ṣidq.

Many narrations transmitted on this subject, although all revolving around a single historical event, nevertheless differ in their wording and style. Some are detailed and lengthy, others concise and precise; some narrations illuminate one aspect of the event, while others shed light on a different dimension. However, when all these reports are considered together, and when they are examined in the light of Islamic historical sources, contextual indicators, surrounding circumstances, and the physical setting of the event, the following picture clearly emerges. It was the final year of the life of the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The rites of the Farewell Pilgrimage (Ḥijjat al‑Wadāʿ) had concluded in the most dignified and majestic manner under his leadership. Hearts were filled with spirituality, and souls were still tasting the profound sweetness of that great act of worship. The Companions of the Prophet—whose number was very large—could hardly contain their joy at being graced with this immense blessing and attaining this unique felicity. Regarding the number of those who accompanied the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, some sources mention ninety thousand, others one hundred and fourteen thousand, others one hundred and twenty thousand, and some even one hundred and twenty‑four thousand. Not only the people of Madinah were present on this journey; Muslims from various regions of the Arabian Peninsula had also joined him in order to attain this historic honor. The sun of the Hijaz poured scorching heat upon valleys and mountains, yet the unparalleled spiritual sweetness of this journey made all hardships bearable. As the time of return approached, the land of Juhfah gradually came into view, followed by the dry and burning desert of Ghadeer Khumm. This location was in fact a crossroads separating the people of the Hijaz: one road led north toward Madinah, another east toward Iraq, a third west toward Egypt and other western lands, and a fourth south toward Yemen. It was precisely here that the final objective and the most important task of this momentous journey was to be completed, so that the Muslims would separate only after learning the Prophet’s final and most decisive directive. It was Thursday, in the tenth year of the Hijrah. Eight days had passed since ʿĪd al‑Aḍḥā when suddenly the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny issued the command for those with him to halt. The Muslims called loudly to those who were moving ahead of the caravan to return, and they waited long enough for those behind to arrive. When the sun passed the zenith, the Prophet’s muʾadhdhin called out Allāhu Akbar and invited the people to perform the noon prayer. The Muslims hastened to prepare for prayer, but the heat was so intense that some were compelled to place part of their cloaks beneath their feet and another part over their heads, lest the burning sand and the sun’s rays injure them. In that desert there was neither shade nor greenery, only a few leafless desert trees resisting the harsh heat. Some people stood under these trees and draped pieces of cloth over them to fashion a rudimentary canopy for the Prophet, yet even beneath it the hot wind carried the scorching heat. After the noon prayer was completed, the Muslims were about to proceed quickly to their small tents to seek shelter, but the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny informed them that all of them must remain, for they were to hear a new divine message to be delivered through an extensive sermon. Those who were far from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny could not clearly see his luminous face in that vast gathering, so a pulpit was constructed from camel saddles. The Prophet ascended it, praised and glorified the Lord of the worlds, and, relying upon God, addressed the people, saying that he was soon to respond to the call of God and depart from among them, and that both he and they would be held accountable. He then asked them what testimony they would bear concerning him. The people responded loudly: نشهد إنك قد بلغت ونصحت وجهدت فجزاك الله خيرًا—we testify that you have conveyed the message, fulfilled the duty of sincere counsel, and exerted yourself in guiding us; may God reward you with the best reward. He then asked whether they bore witness to the oneness of God, to his prophethood, to the truth of the Day of Resurrection, and to the raising of the dead from their graves. All replied affirmatively. He said: اللهم اشهد. He then asked whether they could hear his voice, and they confirmed that they could. A profound silence fell over the desert, broken only by the sound of the wind. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny then said that he was leaving among them two weighty and precious trusts, and asked how they would treat them. Someone called out: O Messenger of God, what are those two weighty trusts? He replied: the first is the Book of God, the greater trust; one end of it is in the hand of God and the other in your hands—do not let go of it, lest you go astray. The second precious trust is my Ahl al‑Bayt. God, the Subtle and the All‑Aware, has informed me that these two shall never separate until they meet me in Paradise. Do not go ahead of them, and do not lag behind them, for in either case you will be destroyed. Suddenly, the people saw the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny scanning the gathering, as though searching for someone. When his gaze fell upon ʿAli ibn Abi Ṭalib (عليه السلام), he immediately took him by the hand and raised it so high that the whiteness beneath their armpits was visible, and all recognized him as the commander of Islam who had never known defeat. The Prophet’s voice grew louder and he proclaimed: أيها الناس من أولى الناس بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم—O people, who has more authority over the believers than their own selves? They replied unanimously that God and His Messenger knew best. He then declared that God is his Master and he is the master of the believers, having greater authority over them than themselves. Thereafter he proclaimed: فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه—whomsoever I am master of, ʿAli is also his master. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny repeated this statement three times—according to some reports, four times—and then raised his head toward the heavens and supplicated: اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه وأحب من أحبه وأبغض من أبغضه وانصر من نصره واخذل من خذله وأدر الحق معه حيث دار. He then said: ألا فليبلغ الشاهد الغائب—let those who are present convey this message to those who are absent. The sermon concluded. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was drenched in sweat, as was ʿAli (عليه السلام), and all those present were soaked from head to foot. Before the crowd had dispersed, Jibrīl descended with revelation, bringing the divine proclamation: اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم وأتممت عليكم نعمتي—today I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you. Upon hearing this, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny exclaimed: الله أكبر على إكمال الدين وإتمام النعمة ورضا الرب برسالتي والولاية لعلي من بعدي. With the announcement of the wilayah of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAli ibn Abi Ṭalib (عليه السلام), the gathering erupted in congratulations. People came forward eagerly to congratulate him on this rank and station. Among the recorded congratulations are the words attributed to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar: بخٍّ بخٍّ لك يا بن أبي طالب أصبحت وأمسيت مولاي ومولى كل مؤمن ومؤمنة. Ibn ʿAbbās declared that this covenant would remain binding upon all. The renowned poet Ḥassān ibn Thābit, with the Prophet’s permission, recited a poem commemorating the event, describing the proclamation at Ghadeer Khumm and the designation of ʿAli (عليه السلام) as imam and guide after the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, along with the supplication for his supporters and against his enemies. This is a summary of the well‑known Ḥadīth of Ghadeer as preserved in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources.

There is no doubt that if this verse had been related to any subject other than the succession of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), then—just as has already been explained—far less evidence than these narrations and the contextual indicators present within the verse itself would have been considered sufficient. Indeed, the leading exegetes of the Islamic world have, in interpreting many other verses of the Qur’an, often been satisfied with one‑tenth of the documentation available here, or even less. Yet it must be said with regret that at this point the veils of prejudice have become an obstacle to the acceptance of many clear realities. Those who have disputed the interpretation of this verse and the numerous narrations reported concerning its occasion of revelation, and who have raised the banner of opposition against the reports that have reached or even surpassed the level of tawātur regarding the event of Ghadīr, fall into two categories. The first group consists of those who, from the very outset, have approached the issue not only with hostility and obstinacy, but have also adopted a method of abuse, disparagement, and vilification of the Shiʿah. The second group consists of those who have preserved a spirit of scholarly inquiry and have, to some extent, penetrated to the core of the truth. These individuals therefore adopted an argumentative approach and, on that basis, acknowledged part of the reality. However, before presenting the verse and the narrations connected to it, they raised certain objections—objections which may have been the product of the intellectual atmosphere surrounding them—and only thereafter mentioned the verse and its related reports. A clear example of the first group is Ibn Taymiyyah, who articulated his position in his book Minhāj al‑Sunnah. His condition resembles that of a person who, in broad daylight, closes his eyes tightly, stuffs his fingers forcefully into his ears, and then begins shouting, “Where is the sun?” He is neither prepared to open his eyes in order to see the facts, nor willing to remove his fingers from his ears to hear the outcry of Islamic traditionists and exegetes. Instead, he continues incessantly with insults and verbal assaults, fully committed to dishonoring others. Such individuals are so constrained by ignorance, heedlessness, obstinacy, and harsh prejudice that they deny even those clear and self‑evident matters that are easily grasped by anyone. For this reason, we neither trouble ourselves with transmitting their statements, nor impose upon readers the burden of responding to them. For what can be said about a person who, in the face of numerous great Islamic scholars and exegetes—most of whom belong to the Sunni tradition—who have explicitly stated that this verse was revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام), stubbornly insists that none of them ever recorded such a matter in their works? What value can be attached to the words of someone whose claim is so manifestly false? It is worthy of note that Ibn Taymiyyah, confronted with the many authoritative works that explicitly record this verse as having been revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام), contented himself with the following absurd assertion in order to absolve his stance: “None of the scholars who know what they are saying know this verse to have been revealed concerning ʿAlī.” As though only those scholars who echo Ibn Taymiyyah’s extreme and antagonistic inclinations are deemed, in his view, to “know what they are saying,” and anyone who does not agree with him is assumed to be an ignorant scholar who does not understand his own words. This is the logic of one whose thinking is dominated by self‑assertion and stubbornness. We therefore leave discussion of this group at this point. However, among the objections raised by the second group, there are some that merit discussion. These are the objections that we shall now present and examine.

There is no doubt that had this verse been related to any subject other than the immediate succession of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), then—as has already been explained—an amount of evidence far smaller than these narrations and the internal indications present in the verse itself would have been considered sufficient. Indeed, many of the leading exegetes of the Islamic world, in interpreting other Qur’anic verses, have at times been satisfied with even one‑tenth of the documentation available here, or less. Yet it must regretfully be stated that, at this point, the veils of prejudice have become an obstacle to accepting many clear facts. Those who have disputed the interpretation of this verse and the numerous narrations reported regarding its occasion of revelation, and who have raised objections against the narrations which have in fact reached—or even surpassed—the level of tawātur in relation to the event of Ghadīr, fall into two categories. The first category consists of those who, from the outset, approached the matter with hostility and obstinacy, and who adopted a method of insult, disparagement, slander, and abuse against the Shiʿah. The second category consists of those who preserved, at least to some extent, the spirit of scholarly investigation and managed to approach a part of the truth. For this reason, they adopted a path of argumentation and conceded a portion of the reality. However, before presenting the verse and the narrations connected to it, they raised several objections—objections that were perhaps the product of the intellectual environment surrounding them—and only afterward mentioned the verse and its related reports. A clear example of the first group is Ibn Taymiyyah, who presented his position in the book Minhāj al‑Sunnah. His condition resembles that of a person who, in bright daylight, shuts his eyes tightly, forcefully inserts his fingers into his ears, and begins to shout, “Where is the sun?” He is neither prepared to open his eyes to see obvious realities, nor willing to remove his fingers from his ears to hear the voices of Islamic traditionists and exegetes. Instead, he persists in continuous insults and is committed to defamation. Such individuals are so constrained by ignorance, inattentiveness, obstinacy, and aggressive prejudice that they deny even clear and self‑evident matters which anyone can easily comprehend. Therefore, we neither burden ourselves with transmitting their statements, nor impose on readers the effort of reading their rebuttals. What can be said about a person who, in the face of numerous great Islamic scholars and exegetes—most of whom belong to the Sunni scholarly tradition—who have explicitly stated that this verse was revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام), stubbornly insists that none of them ever reported such a matter in their works? What weight can be given to the words of someone whose claims are so clearly contrary to the documented record? It is noteworthy that Ibn Taymiyyah, when faced with many authoritative works that explicitly state that this verse was revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام), contented himself with the following absurd claim in order to defend his position: “None of the scholars who know what they are saying know this verse to have been revealed concerning ʿAlī.” As if only those scholars who echo Ibn Taymiyyah’s extreme and adversarial inclinations are considered, in his view, to “know what they are saying,” while anyone who disagrees with him must necessarily be ignorant of their own words. This is the logic of someone whose thinking is dominated by self‑assertion and obstinacy. We therefore leave discussion of this group at this point. However, among the objections raised by the second group, there are some that are worthy of careful examination. These are the objections that will now be presented and discussed. The most significant objection raised regarding the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr is that the word “مولى” has multiple meanings, one of which is friend, supporter, or helper, and that it is not certain that this meaning is not intended here. The answer to this objection is neither difficult nor complex. Any impartial observer readily understands that for the mere mention or reminder of friendship toward ʿAlī, there was no need for all these preliminaries and arrangements: stopping a massive caravan, delivering a sermon in the middle of a scorching and barren desert, detaining people there, and extracting repeated acknowledgements and affirmations from them. This is because mutual friendship among Muslims was among the most self‑evident principles of Islam, present from its very inception. Moreover, this was not a matter that the Prophet had not already conveyed; on the contrary, he had repeatedly proclaimed it long before. Nor was this an issue whose proclamation would cause the Prophet anxiety such that God would need to reassure him with a promise of protection. Nor was it an issue about which God would speak in such a tone, declaring, “If you do not convey it, then you have not conveyed the message at all.” All these elements bear witness that the subject at hand was far above and beyond an ordinary friendship—one which had been foundational to Islamic brotherhood from the very beginning. Furthermore, if the intention were merely to establish a general and simple friendship, why would the Prophet first obtain from the people the explicit acknowledgement, “ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم” (Am I not more entitled to you than your own selves?), a statement reported in numerous narrations? What relevance would such a declaration have to the matter of ordinary friendship? Likewise, can ordinary friendship justify the situation in which figures such as ʿUmar publicly congratulated ʿAlī in these words: “أصبحت مولاي ومولى كل مؤمن ومؤمنة” (“You have become my master and the master of every believing man and every believing woman”), and regarded this as a new rank and distinction? This segment of the incident—known as the Ḥadīth of Tahniʾah—has been transmitted through numerous chains by many great Sunni scholars of ḥadīth, tafsīr, and history from several Companions, such as Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū Hurayrah, al‑Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, and Zayd ibn Arqam. Al‑ʿAllāmah al‑Amīnī has cited this narration in the first volume of al‑Ghadīr from sixty Sunni scholars. Had ʿAlī (عليه السلام) not already been recognized, even as an ordinary Muslim? Since friendship among Muslims is obligatory upon all, did Muslims require congratulations for practicing mutual friendship? And did this need to be done in the last year of the Prophet’s life, with such solemnity and grandeur? Moreover, is there any conceivable connection between the issue of mere friendship with ʿAlī and the emphases found in the Ḥadīth al‑Thaqalayn and the farewell expressions of the Prophet? The requirement of a general friendship between ʿAlī and the believers does not necessitate that the Prophet equate him with the Qur’an. The Ḥadīth al‑Thaqalayn is among the mutawātir narrations, transmitted in numerous Sunni sources from many Companions, including Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī, Zayd ibn Arqam, Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Hurayrah, Ḥudhayfah ibn Usayd, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Khaṭab, ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd, Jubayr ibn Muṭʿim, Ḍamrah al‑Aslamī, Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī, Abū Rāfiʿ, and Umm Salamah. Does not every unbiased observer understand from this parallel between the Qur’an and the Ahl al‑Bayt that the discussion here concerns leadership and imamate? After the Prophet’s passing, the Qur’an is the foremost guide of the Muslims; on this very basis, the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) are their second guide.

It is sometimes stated that the verses immediately before and after this verse deal with the People of the Book and their wrongful actions, and that therefore this verse should be understood in the same context. The author of Tafsir al‑Manar has placed particular emphasis on this point (vol. 6, p. 466). However, as we have already explained in the interpretation of this verse itself, this objection carries no real weight. First, the distinctive tone and style of this verse, and its clear difference from the verses before and after it, strongly indicate that the subject under discussion here is something different from the surrounding passages. Second, as we have repeatedly stated, the Qur’an is not a classical book in which topics are arranged systematically into chapters and sections; rather, revelation descended gradually, in accordance with needs and in response to various incidents and events as they occurred. For this reason, we often see that while the Qur’an is discussing a battle, it suddenly introduces a subsidiary legal ruling, or while addressing Jews and Christians, it abruptly turns to the Muslims and conveys to them a specific Islamic command. For further clarification, one may refer again to the discussion we presented at the beginning of the exegesis of this verse. What is surprising is that some highly prejudiced individuals insist that this verse was revealed at the very beginning of the Prophet’s mission. This claim is clearly untenable, since Surah al‑Ma’idah was revealed during the final days of the Prophet’s life. If they then argue that this one verse alone was revealed in Mecca at the beginning of the mission—a claim advanced only to support their position—it must be noted that at the beginning of the mission there was neither armed conflict between the Prophet and the Jews nor with the Christians. On that basis, the connection between this verse and the verses before and after it would completely collapse (reflect carefully on this point). All of this shows that this verse has fallen victim to a storm of prejudice, and it is for this reason that so many unfounded possibilities have been invented concerning it, whereas no such treatment is applied to comparable verses elsewhere. Everyone appears to be striving, through some pretext, evasion, or unsupported claim, to divert the meaning of this verse away from its correct and proper interpretation.

It is sometimes argued that how can this ḥadīth be accepted when neither al‑Bukhārī nor Muslim have included it in their respective collections. This objection itself is among the curiosities of scholarly debate. First, there are many reliable ḥadīths which Sunni scholars have accepted that are not found in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī or Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and this is by no means the first instance of such a situation. Second, a point worthy of reflection is whether, in their view, only these two books are to be regarded as authoritative. This ḥadīth is in fact present in their trusted sources and books; even within the Ṣiḥāḥ Sittah (the six canonical books relied upon by Sunni scholars), such as Sunan Ibn Mājah (vol. 1, pp. 55, 58). Likewise, this ḥadīth appears in Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 1, pp. 84, 88, 118–119, 152, 331, 381). Moreover, scholars such as al‑Ḥākim, al‑Dhahabī, and Ibn Ḥajar—despite their well‑known critical stances—have acknowledged the soundness of many of its chains of transmission. Therefore, it is not far‑fetched that al‑Bukhārī and Muslim, given the particular political climate and constricted atmosphere of their time, were unable or unwilling to explicitly record in their works matters that ran counter to the inclinations of those in power during their era.

It is sometimes asked why, if the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr possessed such decisive weight and clarity, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) himself, his Ahl al‑Bayt, his supporters, and those associated with them did not consistently cite it as explicit proof at critical junctures. Would it not have been more appropriate, it is argued, to present such an important piece of evidence in order to establish the legitimacy of ʿAlī (عليه السلام)? This objection itself stems from unfamiliarity with the Islamic sources, whether in the fields of ḥadīth, history, or tafsīr. In fact, Sunni scholarly works record numerous instances in which ʿAlī (عليه السلام), the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt, and those affiliated with this understanding did cite the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr as evidence. One such instance directly concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام) has been reported by al‑Khaṭīb al‑Khwarizmī, on the authority of ʿĀmir ibn Wāthilah. ʿĀmir states: “I was present with ʿAlī (عليه السلام) in the house on the day of the Shūrā. I myself heard him say to the members of the council: ‘I shall present before you a decisive proof which neither Arabs nor non‑Arabs together can overturn. I ask you by God: is there anyone among you who called upon God in His unity before me?’ He then spoke of the spiritual excellences of the Household of the Messenger until he said: ‘I ask you by God, is there anyone among you besides me concerning whom the Prophet said: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه وانصر من نصره ليبلغ الشاهد الغائب?’ All of them replied: ‘No.’” (Manāqib, p. 217). This narration has also been transmitted by al‑Ḥamūwaynī in Farāʾid al‑Simṭayn, chapter 58; by Ibn Ḥātim in Dār al‑Naẓīm; by al‑Dāraquṭnī in his work; by Ibn ʿUqdah in his compilation; and by Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd in Sharḥ Nahj al‑Balāghah. In chapter 58 of Farāʾid al‑Simṭayn, it is also reported that during the caliphate of ʿUthmān, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) cited the event of Ghadīr in the mosque in the presence of several people. Likewise, in Kūfah, he explicitly invoked this ḥadīth before those who were denying a clear textual designation (naṣṣ) by the Prophet regarding his immediate succession. According to al‑Ghadīr, this specific narration—that is, his argument from the event of Ghadīr in Kūfah—has been reported in well‑known Sunni works and respected sources through four Companions and fourteen Tābiʿūn. Similarly, on the day of the Battle of al‑Jamāl, ʿAlī (عليه السلام), according to the narration recorded in al‑Ḥākim’s al‑Mustadrak (vol. 3, p. 271), cited the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr before Ṭalḥah. During the Battle of Ṣiffīn as well, in accordance with the report of Sulaym ibn Qays al‑Hilālī, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) invoked this ḥadīth within his camp before the Muhājirūn, the Anṣār, and those who had come from various regions. On that occasion, twelve individuals from among the participants of Badr stood and bore witness that they had heard this statement from the Messenger of God himself. In addition to ʿAlī (عليه السلام), several eminent figures cited the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr as proof, including Fāṭimah al‑Zahrāʾ, Imām al‑Ḥasan, Imām al‑Ḥusayn, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar, ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, Qays ibn Saʿd, ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al‑ʿAzīz, and the ʿAbbāsid caliph al‑Maʾmūn. Even ʿAmr ibn al‑ʿĀṣ explicitly mentioned the event of Ghadīr in a letter he wrote to Muʿāwiyah in order to demonstrate his awareness of ʿAlī’s rank and station and of the realities distinguishing him from Muʿāwiyah. This letter has been recorded by al‑Khaṭīb al‑Khwarizmī al‑Ḥanafī in Manāqib, p. 124. Those who seek further elaboration and wish to examine in detail the various reports in which ʿAlī (عليه السلام), the Ahl al‑Bayt, Companions, and others invoked the Ḥadīth of Ghadīr as evidence may consult al‑Ghadīr, vol. 1, pp. 59–213. There, al‑ʿAllāmah al‑Amīnī has documented narrations involving the use of this ḥadīth as proof on different occasions by twenty‑two individuals from among the Companions and non‑Companions.

It is sometimes argued that if this verse grants ʿAlī (عليه السلام) the position of leadership and authority, and is connected to the event of Ghadīr, then what relation does the final statement—“اِنَّ اللّٰهَ لَا يَهْدِي القَوْمَ الكَافِرِينَ” (Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people)—have to this subject. The answer to this objection requires nothing more than understanding that the word “كفر” in both Arabic usage and Qur’anic terminology denotes denial, rejection, opposition, or deliberate abandonment. At times it refers to denial of God or rejection of the prophethood of the Messenger, and at other times it applies to denial or resistance toward other divine commands. For example, in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (3:97), in the context of ḥajj, it states: “وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ اللّٰهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنِ العَالَمِينَ”, indicating that whoever disregards or violates the obligation of ḥajj causes no harm to God, for Allah is independent of all creation. Likewise, in Sūrat al‑Baqarah (2:102), the term “كفر” is used in relation to those who become involved in sorcery, where it says: “وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّى يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ”. In Sūrat Ibrāhīm (14:22), Satan declares on the Day of Resurrection that he disowns those who followed him, stating: “إِنِّي كَفَرْتُ بِمَا أَشْرَكْتُمُونِ مِنْ قَبْلُ”. Accordingly, the application of the term “كفر” to those who oppose the matter of wilayah and leadership is neither unusual nor unjustified. Another objection raised in order to evade this well‑established ḥadīth and the verse under discussion is the claim that if the Prophet had appointed ʿAlī (عليه السلام) as leader, guardian, and caliph at Ghadīr Khumm, then it would necessarily follow that there were two leaders and two authorities at the same time. However, when one considers the specific circumstances of the revelation of this verse, the context of the ḥadīth, and the unmistakable indicators drawn from the final months of the Prophet’s life—during which he was conveying his last and most decisive instructions—this objection collapses entirely. The Prophet explicitly stated that he was about to depart and that he was leaving behind two weighty trusts. A person who speaks in this manner is clearly engaged in arranging succession and preparing for the future, not establishing parallel authority during his own lifetime. Thus, there is no implication whatsoever of the simultaneous existence of two leaders. What is particularly noteworthy is that while some Sunni scholars raise the objection of “two leaders at one time,” others raise the opposite objection, claiming that although the Prophet appointed ʿAlī to the position of leadership and caliphate, he did not specify its timing, and therefore it could refer to a period after the first three caliphs. How astonishing it is that some fall off the roof on one side and others on the opposite side, yet all are prevented by prejudice from accepting the plain meaning of the event itself. One might ask them: if the Prophet intended only to designate a fourth caliph for the distant future and was concerned with succession in general, then why did he not mention the first, second, and third caliphs—whose appointment would logically precede the fourth—during the sermon of Ghadīr Khumm? We conclude this discussion by reiterating what has already been stated: had preconceived doctrines and biases not intervened, none of these objections would have been raised concerning this verse and this ḥadīth, just as no such objections are raised in other comparable cases.

See ayat 69 for tafseer.

In Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and the Tafsīr of al‑Qurṭubī, it is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that a group from among the Jews came to the presence of the Prophet and posed their first question by asking whether he affirmed that the Torah was from God. The Prophet replied in the affirmative. They then said that they too accepted the Torah, but did not believe in anything beyond it. In reality, their intent was that the Torah constituted a common ground between them and the Prophet, whereas the Qur’an was a scripture in which only he believed; therefore, they suggested that it would suffice for them to accept the Torah alone and reject everything else. Thereupon, the first verse was revealed, and their claim was answered.

As we have already observed in the interpretation of the verses of this surah, a considerable portion of them is connected with the covenant‑breaking, objections, debates, and questions raised by the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). This verse also refers to another dimension of those discussions and responds to their weak line of argument by which they sought to accept the Torah as a mutually agreed‑upon scripture between Muslims and Jews while discarding the Qur’an as a disputed book. The verse addresses them by stating that the People of the Book will have no standing whatsoever unless they uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and all the heavenly scriptures revealed to them—without exception and without discrimination: “قُلۡ يٰۤاَہۡلَ الۡكِتٰبِ لَسۡتُمۡ عَلٰي شَيۡءٍ حَتّٰي تُقِيۡمُوا التَّوۡرٰىةَ وَالۡاِنۡجِيۡلَ وَمَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَيۡكُمۡ مِّنۡ رَّبِّكُمۡ”. This is because, as has been noted, all these books originate from a single divine source and share the same foundational principles, although the final book is the most complete and comprehensive of them all. For this very reason, earlier scriptures also contain numerous glad tidings regarding the final revelation, namely the Qur’an. They claim to accept the Torah and the Gospel; therefore, if they are sincere in this claim, they must also accept the prophecies contained within these texts and, having recognized their realization in the Qur’an, submit to it. The verse further makes it clear that mere claims are insufficient; rather, one must actively uphold these divine scriptures in practice. Moreover, the issue is not one of “our book” versus “your book.” The matter concerns divine revelation as a whole—whatever has come from God. How, then, can they reasonably ignore the final book on the basis of such a frail argument? The Qur’an then once again refers to the condition of the majority among them, stating that many of them not only fail to derive guidance or admonition from these verses, but, due to their obstinacy, their disbelief and rebellion only continue to increase: “وَلَيَزِيۡدَنَّ كَثِيۡرًا مِّنۡهُمۡ مَّاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَيۡكَ مِنۡ رَّبِّكَ طُغۡيَانًا وَّكُفۡرًا”. Indeed, verses of truth and sound guidance often produce a contrary effect upon diseased minds and hearts filled with stubbornness. At the conclusion of the verse, the Prophet is consoled in the face of the severe resistance of this deviant majority, being told not to grieve over the opposition of this disbelieving group, for the harm of their rejection ultimately returns upon themselves and causes him no injury: “فَلَا تَأۡسَ عَلَي الۡقَوۡمِ الۡكٰفِرِيۡنَ”. (Here, “تَأۡسَ” derives from “آس”, meaning grief or sorrow.) It is also evident that the meanings conveyed by this verse are not restricted solely to the Jewish community. If Muslims likewise content themselves with merely claiming Islam, while failing to practically uphold the principles of prophetic teachings—especially the Qur’an, their own heavenly book—then they will possess neither dignity nor worth before God, nor in their individual and collective lives. Such a community will remain weak, subordinate, and defeated. The following verse once again emphasizes this reality, declaring that all nations, peoples, and followers of various religions—whether Muslims, Jews, Sabians, or Christians—will be saved, free from fear of the future and sorrow over the past, only if they truly believe in God and the Day of Judgment and perform righteous deeds: “اِنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَالَّذِيۡنَ هَادُوۡا وَالصّٰبِـُٔوۡنَ وَالنَّصٰرٰي مَنۡ اٰمَنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَالۡيَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ يَحۡزَنُوۡنَ”. This verse delivers a decisive response to those who attempt to confine salvation to a particular nation or community, or who wish to discriminate among divine commands—accepting some prophets while rejecting others—and to merge religious guidance with ethnic or national prejudices. The verse declares that the path of salvation lies precisely in avoiding such tendencies. As has already been clarified in the commentary on Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 62, some attempt, through misleading generalizations, to interpret this verse as supporting a doctrine of indiscriminate pluralism, treating all religions as equally salvific, while ignoring the reality that successive revelations were necessary for guiding humanity through its gradual ascent toward perfection. However, as has been noted, the phrase “عَمِلَ صَالِحًا” serves to clearly delimit the meaning, indicating adherence to the final and binding divine law. Acting upon abrogated laws cannot be considered righteous action; rather, righteous action consists in acting according to the current and final divine legislation. In addition, it is plausible to interpret the phrase “مَنۡ اٰمَنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَالۡيَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا” as referring specifically to the Jews, Christians, and Sabians, since “الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا” mentioned at the beginning of the verse does not require this qualifying condition. Under this interpretation, the meaning would be that believers (Muslims), as well as Jews, Christians, and Sabians—provided that they embrace faith and Islam and perform righteous deeds—will all attain salvation, and their previous religious affiliations will pose no barrier once they come to faith. In this sense, the path remains open to all.

See ayat 71 for tafseer.

In the verses that have appeared earlier in Surah al‑Baqarah and at the beginning of this surah, reference has already been made to the firm covenant that Allah, the Exalted, had taken from the Children of Israel. In this verse, that covenant is recalled once again, stating that We took a covenant from the Children of Israel and sent messengers to them so that they might be made to fulfill that pledge: “لَقَدۡ اَخَذۡنَا مِیۡثَاقَ بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِیۡلَ وَ اَرۡسَلۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡہِمۡ رُسُلًا”. As explained earlier (in volume one), this covenant appears to be the same pledge referred to in Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 93, namely the commitment to act upon what Allah revealed to them. The verse then continues by stating that not only did they fail to honor this covenant, but whenever a messenger brought them a command that was contrary to their own inclinations and desires, they reacted with the most hostile opposition. When they were unable to neutralize the messenger’s influence, they would resort to denying or even killing him: “کُلَّمَا جَآءَہُمۡ رَسُوۡلٌۢ بِمَا لَا تَہۡوٰۤی اَنۡفُسُہُمۡ ۙ فَرِیۡقًا کَذَّبُوۡا وَ فَرِیۡقًا یَّقۡتُلُوۡنَ”. Such is the method of deviated and self‑centered people: instead of submitting themselves to their leaders, they insist that leaders submit to their desires; and when leaders oppose those desires, they not only refuse their guidance but are even prepared to deny them the right to live. In this sentence, “کَذَّبُوا” is used in the past tense while “يَقْتُلُونَ” appears in the present tense. Beyond maintaining verbal harmony with surrounding verses, which also employ the present tense, this may indicate continuity, as the present tense conveys persistence. It suggests that denying and killing prophets was not an incidental occurrence for them but became a permanent pattern and ideological program in their collective life. The following verse highlights their self‑delusion despite these acts of rebellion and crime. It states that in spite of their conduct, they assumed that no trial or punishment would befall them: “وَ حَسِبُوۡۤا اَلَّا تَکُوۡنَ فِتۡنَۃٌ”. As made explicit in other verses, they regarded themselves as a superior nation and even claimed to be the sons of God. Ultimately, this dangerous self‑deception and sense of superiority placed a veil over their eyes and ears, rendering them blind to the signs of God and deaf to the words of truth: “فَعَمُوۡا وَ صَمُّوۡا”. However, when they witnessed examples of divine punishment and the consequences of their evil deeds, they felt remorse and repented, realizing that Allah’s warnings were indeed true and that they were by no means a superior lineage. Allah, in turn, accepted their repentance: “ثُمَّ تَابَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ”. Yet this awakening and remorse did not last long. They once again returned to rebellion, rejected truth and justice, and the veils of heedlessness that accompany immersion in sin once more descended upon their eyes and ears. Once again, many of them became blind to the signs of truth and deaf to its call: “ثُمَّ عَمُوۡا وَ صَمُّوۡا کَثِیۡرٌ مِّنۡہُمۡ”. Perhaps the precedence of “عَمُوا” (they became blind) over “صَمُّوا” (they became deaf) points to the fact that they were first expected to observe the signs of Allah and the miracles of His messengers, and then to listen to their teachings. The phrase “کَثِیۡرٌ مِّنۡہُمۡ” following the repetition of “عَمُوا وَ صَمُّوا” serves to clarify that this state of heedlessness was not universal; rather, there always remained a righteous and virtuous minority among them. This clearly demonstrates that the Qur’an’s criticism of the Jews is not racial or tribal in nature, but based purely on conduct. Exegetes differ on whether the repetition of “عَمُوا وَ صَمُّوا” indicates emphasis and generality or refers to two distinct historical events. Some maintain that it alludes to two separate occasions in the history of the Children of Israel: one during the Babylonian assault, and the other during the invasions by the Persians and Romans, briefly referenced at the beginning of Surah Banī Isrā’īl. Another interpretation is that they repeatedly fell into this condition; whenever they observed the dire consequences of their actions, they repented, only to later break their repentance, rather than this occurring merely twice. The verse concludes with a concise yet profound statement affirming that Allah was never unaware of their deeds and that He continually observes all that they do: “وَ اللّٰہُ بَصِیۡرٌۢ بِمَا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ”.

See ayat 74 for tafseer.

See ayat 74 for tafseer.

Following the discussions in the preceding verses concerning the deviations of the Jews, this verse and the verses that follow turn to the deviations of the Christians. At the outset, God addresses one of the most fundamental deviations of Christianity, namely the belief in the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, stating: surely those who said that Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary, have disbelieved (لَقَدۡ كَفَرَ الَّذِيۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ هُوَ الۡمَسِيۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ). What disbelief could be greater than equating an absolutely unlimited and infinite God with a created being who is limited in every respect, and attributing the qualities of the creation to the Creator, while Christ himself explicitly said to the Children of Israel: worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord (وَقَالَ الۡمَسِيۡحُ يٰبَنِيۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِيۡلَ اعۡبُدُوا اللّٰهَ رَبِّيۡ وَرَبَّكُمۡ). By this statement, he rejected every form of exaggeration and association regarding his own status, expressed his disassociation from shirk, and presented himself as a created being like the rest of God’s creation. To further emphasize the matter and remove every doubt, Christ added that whoever associates anything with Allah, Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and his abode shall be the Fire (اِنَّهٗ مَنۡ يُّشۡرِكۡ بِاللّٰهِ فَقَدۡ حَرَّمَ اللّٰهُ عَلَيۡهِ الۡجَنَّةَ وَمَاۡوٰىهُ النَّارُ). The verse then clarifies, by way of further emphasis, that those who commit such injustice and wrongdoing will have no helpers at all (وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِيۡنَ مِنۡ اَنۡصَارٍ). As previously noted, the history of Christianity shows that belief in the Trinity did not exist in the first century, particularly not during the lifetime of Christ. Even in the present Gospels, despite all their distortions, there is no explicit mention of the Trinity, a fact acknowledged by Christian researchers themselves. Therefore, what the Qur’an reports here about Christ’s firm insistence on monotheism fully accords with the remaining Christian sources and constitutes one of the clear signs of the Qur’an’s truth. It should also be noted that the topic of this verse concerns exaggeration and the claim of unity between Christ and God, that is, the notion of “unity within trinity.” The next verse, however, approaches the issue from a different Christian perspective by referring to the multiplicity of gods—that is, “trinity within unity”—and states that those who say Allah is the third of three have certainly disbelieved (لَقَدۡ كَفَرَ الَّذِيۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّ اللّٰهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلٰثَةٍ). Many exegetes, such as al‑Ṭabarsī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Shaykh al‑Ṭūsī in al‑Tibyān, as well as al‑Rāzī and al‑Qurṭubī in their respective commentaries, have suggested that the first verse refers to the Jacobite sect, which believes in the unity of God and Christ, while this verse refers to the Melkites and Nestorians, who explicitly affirm three gods. However, as has already been indicated, restricting these verses to particular Christian sects does not accord with reality, since belief in the Trinity is common to all Christians, just as belief in the oneness of God is definitive among all Muslims. At most, Christians claim that although there are three, they constitute one true unity, asserting that three real entities together form a single true entity. The two verses appear to point to these two contradictory aspects of the same belief: first, the claim of unity of three, and second, the claim of their multiplicity. Their juxtaposition serves as a clear demonstration of the incoherence of this doctrine—how God can be one by being Christ and the Holy Spirit, and yet at the same time become three distinct entities. How can three be identical to one in a rational sense? The reality supporting this interpretation is that no Christian group is known that entirely denies the doctrine of three. Some historical reports mention a small minority within Christianity who affirm only the unity of Christ with God, but such views are extremely rare today. The Qur’an then states decisively that there is no deity except the One God (وَمَا مِنۡ اِلٰهٍ اِلَّاۤ اِلٰهٌ), with the use of “مِن” before “إله” emphasizing the complete negation of all other deities. It then warns them once more in the strongest terms that if they do not desist from this belief, those among them who persist in disbelief will surely be touched by a painful punishment (وَإِنۡ لَّمۡ يَنۡتَهُوۡا عَمَّا يَقُوۡلُوۡنَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡا مِنۡهُمۡ عَذَابٌ اَلِيۡمٌ). Here, “مِنۡهُمۡ” most plausibly signifies “some of them,” referring to those who persist in disbelief and shirk after the Qur’anic call to monotheism, not those who repent and return to correct belief. In al‑Manār, a story is cited from the book Iẓhār al‑Ḥaqq that aptly illustrates how incomprehensible the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is. The author reports that three men accepted Christianity, and a priest taught them its essential doctrines, including the Trinity. Later, a devout Christian questioned the priest about the newly converted men. When shown them, he asked whether they had learned the doctrines. The priest confidently replied that they had. He then called one of them and asked what he understood about the Trinity. The man replied that God is three: one in heaven, one on earth who was born from Mary’s womb, and a third who descended in the form of a dove upon the second God at the age of thirty. The priest, angered, dismissed him as ignorant. The second convert, when questioned, replied that God had been three, but since one was crucified, only two gods now remained. The priest grew even angrier and expelled him as well. He then called the third man, who was the most diligent student, and who said respectfully that he had fully memorized and understood what the priest taught: God is one in three and three in one; one of them was crucified and died, and because he was united with the others, all died, leaving no God at all. In the third of these verses, the Qur’an invites them to repent from this unbelieving belief so that Allah’s forgiveness may encompass them. Thus it says: will they not then turn back to Allah and seek His forgiveness, while Allah is All‑Forgiving, Most Merciful.

See ayat 77 for tafseer.

See ayat 77 for tafseer.

After the preceding discussions concerning Christian exaggeration regarding the status of Jesus and the belief in his divinity, these verses refute that belief through clear and concise rational arguments. First, the text asks what distinction exists between Jesus and the other prophets that would justify belief in his divinity. Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger, and many messengers had already passed before him (ما المسيح ابن مريم إلا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل). If being a messenger of God were evidence of divinity and personification of God, then the same claim would have to be made for all other prophets as well. Yet this is not the Christian position. Deviant Christians are not content to regard Jesus merely as a messenger of God; rather, their prevailing belief is that he is the son of God and, in a sense, God Himself who came to redeem mankind’s sins rather than to guide and reform them. For this reason, he is referred to as “the Redeemer” (فادی). The verse then reinforces this argument by stating that his mother was a truthful and righteous woman (وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ). This statement implies, first, that one who has a mother, develops within a woman's womb, and is dependent upon numerous human needs cannot be divine. Second, if Mary is to be honored, it is because she stood in harmony with Jesus during his mission and assisted him in his prophetic task. She, too, was a devoted servant of God, and therefore deserves respect but not worship, contrary to Christian practices that involve acts of reverence bordering on worship before her statues. Another decisive argument rejecting the divinity of Jesus follows: both Jesus and his mother consumed food (كانا يأكلان الطعام). A being so dependent that deprivation of food for a few days renders him incapable of movement cannot be equated with the Lord or Creator. The verse concludes by highlighting both the clarity of these arguments and the obstinacy and ignorance with which they are rejected, saying: observe how clearly We explain these signs to them, then observe how they are turned away (انظر كيف نبيّن لهم الآيات ثم انظر أنّى يؤفكون). The root of “يؤفكون” is “إفك,” which denotes deviation from the truth and being turned away from it, often through falsehood. The repetition of “انظر” emphasizes two matters: first, deliberate reflection upon these clear proofs, which are sufficient for any rational observer; and second, astonishment at the negative and irrational reaction of those who reject them. The following verse completes the argument by stating that Jesus himself possessed no power over benefit or harm, neither for himself nor for others, let alone for humanity at large: say, do you worship besides Allah that which neither controls harm nor benefit for you (قل أتعبدون من دون الله ما لا يملك لكم ضرًا ولا نفعًا). This dependence explains why Jesus and his companions repeatedly fell into the hands of their enemies and could not act independently without divine assistance. The verse then warns them not to imagine that God is unaware of their utterances or their inner realities, for God is All‑Hearing and All‑Knowing (والله هو السميع العليم). The Quran’s emphasis on Jesus’ human nature and bodily needs has consistently posed a profound challenge to those who claim his divinity. In response, Christian theologians have devised complex explanations such as dividing Jesus into two natures—divine (لاهوت) and human (ناسوت)—a construct which itself exposes the weakness and incoherence of such theology. Notably, the verse employs “ما” rather than “من,” a term generally used for non‑rational beings. This choice subtly includes idols composed of stone and wood within the scope of condemnation, implying that if worship of a created being were permissible, idol worship would be equally justified. Since all created beings share the attribute of createdness, attributing divinity to Jesus effectively resembles idol worship rather than true devotion to God. After clarifying this misconception through decisive reasoning, the Prophet is commanded to invite the People of the Book to abandon this path practically and return to the truth. He is instructed to say: O People of the Book, do not exaggerate in your religion beyond the truth, and do not transgress its bounds (قل يا أهل الكتاب لا تغلوا في دينكم غير الحق). The term “لا تغلوا” derives from “غلو,” meaning to exceed proper limits. When excess relates to a person’s rank, it is termed “غلو”; in prices, “غلاء”; in archery, “غلو” signifies extreme force; emotional boiling is “غليان”; and an uncontrollable animal is described as “غلواء.” Some scholars hold that “غلو” applies only to excess, while others extend it to both excess and deficiency, with its opposite being “تقصير.” Christian exaggeration is evident; Jewish exaggeration also falls under this prohibition, possibly referring to their claim regarding Ezra (عزير) as the son of God. Since exaggeration often arises from following misguided desires, the verse concludes by warning: do not follow the desires of a people who went astray before you, misled many others, and deviated from the straight path (ولا تتبعوا أهواء قوم قد ضلوا من قبل وأضلوا كثيرًا وضلوا عن سواء السبيل). This reflects historical reality within Christianity, where belief in the Trinity did not exist in its early centuries. Rather, when idol‑worshipping populations—such as those influenced by Indian religions—entered Christianity, remnants of their earlier beliefs, including trinitarian concepts, were absorbed into Christian doctrine. Historically, Hindu trinitarian belief in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva predates Christian Trinity and likely influenced it. Surah al‑Tawbah, verse 30, similarly remarks after describing Jewish and Christian exaggerations regarding Ezra and Jesus: “يضاهئون قول الذين كفروا من قبل” (their words resemble those of earlier disbelievers). The repetition of “ضلوا” refers first to those earlier disbelievers from whom such beliefs were adopted, and second to the People of the Book who not only strayed themselves but misled others. This repetition may emphasize both their initial deviation and their compounded misguidance through spreading false beliefs. A person who actively leads others astray is, in reality, more misguided than one who merely errs, for he exhausts his capabilities in wrongdoing and bears both his own burden of sin and that of others. It is inconceivable that one firmly established upon the straight path would willingly shoulder the burden of his own sins along with the sins of others.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

In these verses, in order to prevent the People of the Book from blindly imitating those who came before them, attention is drawn to the misfortune that befell earlier communities. It is stated that those from among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed through the tongues of David and Jesus son of Mary, and these two great prophets called upon God to exclude them from His mercy: “لُعِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا مِنۡۢ بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِیۡلَ عَلٰی لِسَانِ دَاوٗدَ وَ عِیۡسَی ابۡنِ مَرۡیَمَ”. Various explanations have been proposed as to why only these two prophets are named. Sometimes it is said that after Moses, these two were the most prominent prophets among them. At other times it is suggested that the People of the Book took pride in being descendants of David, and the Qur’an thus makes clear that David himself repudiated those who chose disbelief and rebellion. Another view holds that the verse alludes to two specific historical incidents that provoked the anger of these two great prophets and led them to curse certain groups among the Children of Israel: David cursed the inhabitants of the coastal city of Aylah, known as the Companions of the Sabbath, whose story is mentioned in Surah al‑Aʿraf; and Jesus cursed a group among his followers who persisted in denial and opposition even after the heavenly table was sent down. In any case, the verse conveys the reality that mere belonging to the lineage of the Children of Israel, or being counted among the followers of Jesus, is no guarantee of salvation unless accompanied by righteous conduct. Indeed, these very prophets disavowed such people. The concluding phrase of the verse reinforces this point by stating that this rejection and condemnation occurred because they were disobedient and transgressed all bounds: “ذٰلِکَ بِمَا عَصَوۡا وَّ کَانُوۡا یَعۡتَدُوۡنَ”. Furthermore, they bore no sense of collective responsibility, nor did they restrain one another from wrongdoing. Rather, even among their apparently righteous individuals, a group would remain silent in a manner that practically encouraged sinners (کانوا لایتناھون عن منکر فعلوہ). Thus, the overall pattern of their conduct was extremely base and reprehensible (لَبِئۡسَ مَا کَانُوۡا یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ). In the interpretation of this verse, narrations from the Prophet and the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt are reported that carry powerful moral lessons. In one narration from the Prophet, it is stated: “لَتَأۡمُرُنَّ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ وَلَتَنۡهَوُنَّ عَنِ الۡمُنۡكَرِ وَلَتَأۡخُذُنَّ عَلَىٰ يَدِ السَّفِيهِ وَلَتَأۡطِرُنَّهُ عَلَى الۡحَقِّ أَطۡرًا، أَوۡ لَيَضۡرِبَنَّ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَ بَعۡضِكُمۡ عَلَىٰ بَعۡضٍ وَيَلۡعَنَكُمۡ كَمَا لَعَنَهُمۡ”. This means that you must certainly enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, restrain the foolish, and compel them toward the truth; otherwise, God will make your hearts alike and will curse you just as He cursed them. In another narration, Imam Jaʿfar al‑Sadiq, explaining the phrase (کانوا لایتناھون عن منکر فعلوہ), stated that they did not participate in the gatherings of sinners nor engage in their actions; however, when they encountered them, they would meet them with smiles and friendliness and maintain a sense of intimacy. This indicates that mere outward avoidance without moral firmness ultimately contributed to the spread of wrongdoing. The following verse refers to another of their grave errors, stating that many of them established bonds of friendship and alliance with disbelievers (تریٰ کثیراً منھم یتولون الذین کفروا). It is evident that this was not ordinary social interaction, but a form of association intertwined with sin and encouragement of corrupt beliefs and actions. Hence the verse concludes by declaring: how evil is that which they have sent ahead for themselves, leading God’s anger to fall upon them, and consigning them to eternal punishment (لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَھُمْ اَنفُسُھُمْ اَنۡ سَخِطَ اللّٰهُ عَلَيْھِمۡ وَفِي الۡعَذَابِ ھُمۡ خَالِدُوۡنَ). Regarding the identity of “الذین كفروا” in this verse, some scholars hold that it refers to the polytheists of Mecca with whom the Jews formed alliances, while others suggest it refers to oppressive rulers and tyrants with whom the Jews had established close relations in earlier periods. The narration attributed to Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir supports the latter meaning, stating that they befriended tyrannical kings, embellished their sinful desires, and sought worldly benefit through closeness to them. There is no obstacle to understanding the verse as encompassing both meanings, and indeed extending even more broadly to include all forms of corrupt alliance and collaboration.

In this verse, Allah Almighty guides them toward the path of salvation by showing the incorrect nature of their conduct. It states that if they had truly believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what had been revealed to him, they would never have taken outsiders and the enemies of God as friends, nor chosen them as sources of support (وَلَوْ كَانُوا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّٰهِ وَالنَّبِيِّ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَا اتَّخَذُوهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ). Yet, it must regretfully be said that those among them who were genuinely obedient to God were very few, while most of them stepped outside the bounds of divine command and adopted the path of transgression (وَلٰكِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ). It is evident that the term “النبي” in this context refers to the Prophet of Islam (PBUH & His Pure Progeny), since this expression appears repeatedly in the Qur’an with that specific meaning, as is demonstrated clearly in numerous verses. An alternative interpretation has also been suggested in the exegesis, according to which the pronoun in “كانوا” returns to the polytheists and idol‑worshippers who had become allies and trusted supporters of the Jews. Under this reading, the meaning would be that if those polytheists—whom the Jews treated as friends and relied upon—had believed in the Messenger of Allah and in the Qur’an, the Jews would never have taken them as allies. This, then, would itself be a clear sign of the Jews’ misguidance and moral corruption: despite claiming to follow the heavenly scriptures, they maintained close ties with idol‑worshippers so long as they remained polytheists, whereas when such people turned toward God and the revealed books, they distanced themselves from them. However, the first interpretation accords more closely with the apparent meaning of the verse, according to which all the pronouns refer back to a single subject—namely, the Jews themselves.

In these verses, in order to restrain the People of the Book from blindly imitating their predecessors, attention is drawn to the disastrous fate that befell those earlier communities. It is stated that the disbelievers among the Children of Israel were cursed through the tongues of David and Jesus, son of Mary, and that these two great prophets prayed that they be deprived of divine mercy: “لُعِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا مِنۡۢ بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِیۡلَ عَلٰی لِسَانِ دَاوٗدَ وَ عِیۡسَی ابۡنِ مَرۡیَمَ”. Several explanations have been given as to why only these two prophets are mentioned. Some state that after Moses, these were the most renowned prophets among them. Others explain that the People of the Book took pride in being descendants of David, and the Qur’an thus clarifies that David himself repudiated those who chose disbelief and rebellion. Another view holds that the verse refers to two specific historical incidents in which these great prophets became angered and cursed certain groups among the Children of Israel: David cursed the inhabitants of the coastal town of Aylah, known as the Companions of the Sabbath, whose account will appear in Surah al‑Aʿraf; and Jesus cursed a group among his followers who persisted in denial and opposition even after the heavenly table was sent down. In any case, the verse indicates that mere belonging to the lineage of the Children of Israel or being counted among the followers of Jesus can never be a guarantee of salvation unless one’s conduct accords with divine guidance. Indeed, these very prophets distanced themselves from such people. The concluding phrase of the verse reinforces this point by stating that this rejection occurred because they disobeyed and habitually transgressed limits: “ذٰلِکَ بِمَا عَصَوۡا وَّ کَانُوۡا یَعۡتَدُوۡنَ”. Moreover, they did not recognize any collective moral responsibility, nor did they restrain one another from wrongdoing. Rather, even among those who appeared righteous, a group would remain silent in a manner that practically encouraged sinners: “کانوا لایتناھون عن منکر فعلوہ”. Thus their overall way of life was extremely base and reprehensible: “لَبِئۡسَ مَا کَانُوۡا یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ”. In the interpretation of this verse, narrations from the Prophet and the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt are reported that carry profound moral instruction. In one narration from the Prophet, it is stated: “لَتَأۡمُرُنَّ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ وَلَتَنۡهَوُنَّ عَنِ الۡمُنۡكَرِ وَلَتَأۡخُذُنَّ عَلَىٰ يَدِ السَّفِيهِ وَلَتَأۡطِرُنَّهُ عَلَى الۡحَقِّ أَطۡرًا، أَوۡ لَيَضۡرِبَنَّ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَ بَعۡضِكُمۡ عَلَىٰ بَعۡضٍ وَيَلۡعَنَكُمۡ كَمَا لَعَنَهُمۡ”. This means that you must enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, restrain the foolish, and compel them toward the truth; otherwise, God will make your hearts alike and will curse you just as He cursed them. In another narration, Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq, explaining the phrase “کانوا لایتناھون عن منکر فعلوہ”, states that they did not participate in the actions or gatherings of sinners, but whenever they encountered them they would greet them with smiles and maintain friendly relations. This indicates that outward detachment without moral firmness ultimately served to encourage wrongdoing. The following verse highlights yet another grave fault, stating that many of them established relationships of affection and alliance with disbelievers: “تَرٰی کَثِیۡرًا مِّنۡہُمۡ یَتَوَلَّوۡنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا”. It is evident that such friendships were not ordinary social relations, but associations mixed with sin and encouragement of corrupt beliefs and practices. Hence the verse concludes by declaring how evil was that which they sent ahead for their Hereafter, the consequence of which was divine anger and eternal punishment: “لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَهُمْ أَنفُسُهُمْ أَنْ سَخِطَ اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَفِي الْعَذَابِ هُمْ خَالِدُونَ”. Regarding the phrase “الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا”, some interpret it to mean the polytheists of Mecca with whom the Jews had forged alliances, while others understand it to refer to oppressive rulers and tyrants with whom the Jews had allied in earlier times. A narration attributed to Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir supports the latter view, stating that they befriended tyrannical kings, embellished their corrupt desires, and sought worldly benefit through closeness to them. There is no obstacle to understanding the verse as encompassing both meanings, and even extending more generally to all forms of corrupt alliance and collaboration.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

In this verse, a comparison is drawn between the Jews and Christians who were contemporaries of the Prophet (PBUH & His Pure Progeny). In the first statement, the Jews and the polytheists are placed in a single line, while the Christians are placed in another. It is stated at the outset that the most intense enemies of the believers are the Jews and the polytheists, whereas the Christians are those whose hearts are more inclined toward affection for the believers (لَتَجِدَنَّ اَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَۃً لِّلَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا الۡیَہُوۡدَ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَشۡرَکُوۡا ۚ وَ لَتَجِدَنَّ اَقۡرَبَہُمۡ مَّوَدَّۃً لِّلَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوا الَّذِیۡنَ قَالُوۡۤا اِنَّا نَصٰرٰی). Islamic history provides ample testimony to this reality, as Jews were directly or indirectly involved in many of the wars fought against Islam and seldom refrained from hostility or breach of covenants. Very few of them entered the fold of Islam. In contrast, Muslims rarely encountered Christians on the battlefield in the early Islamic period, and many Christians, on the contrary, joined the ranks of the Muslims. The Qur’an then briefly explains the reason for this spiritual and social distinction by pointing out certain characteristics found among Christians of that time which were absent among the Jews. The first distinction is that among them were scholars and intellectuals who, unlike the materialistic Jewish scholars, did not attempt to conceal the truth (ذٰلِکَ بِاَنَّ مِنۡہُمۡ قِسِّیۡسِیۡنَ). The term “قِسِّیۡسِیۡنَ” derives from a Syriac word meaning Christian religious leaders and clergy. Another distinction was that among them were ascetics who had renounced worldly attachment, in stark contrast to the greed‑driven Jewish leadership. Although these ascetics were not free of deviations, they nonetheless stood on a moral level higher than that of the Jews (وَ رُہۡبَانًا). A further distinguishing feature was that many of them were humble in accepting the truth and did not manifest arrogance (وَّ اَنَّہُمۡ لَا یَسۡتَکۡبِرُوۡنَ). By contrast, the majority of Jews refused to accept Islam primarily due to a sense of racial and tribal superiority, particularly because Islam did not arise from within the Jewish lineage. In addition, there existed among the Christians a group—such as the companions of Jaʿfar and certain Christians of Abyssinia—who, upon hearing the verses of the Qur’an, were so moved by the realization of the truth that tears of joy would flow from their eyes (وَ اِذَا سَمِعُوۡا مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَی الرَّسُوۡلِ تَرٰۤی اَعۡیُنَہُمۡ تَفِیۡضُ مِنَ الدَّمۡعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُوۡا مِنَ الۡحَقِّ). They would openly and without hesitation proclaim: “Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses” (یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَاۤ اٰمَنَّا فَاکۡتُبۡنَا مَعَ الشّٰہِدِیۡنَ). So deeply affected were they by the powerful verses of the divine Book that they would declare how it was impossible not to believe in God and in the truths that had come from Him, while hoping to be included among the righteous (وَ مَا لَنَا لَا نُؤۡمِنُ بِاللّٰہِ وَ مَا جَآءَنَا مِنَ الۡحَقِّ ۙ وَ نَطۡمَعُ اَنۡ یُّدۡخِلَنَا رَبُّنَا مَعَ الۡقَوۡمِ الصّٰلِحِیۡنَ). As noted previously, this comparison primarily concerns the Jews and Christians who were contemporaries of the Prophet (PBUH & His Pure Progeny). Despite possessing a heavenly scripture, the Jews, due to excessive materialism, stood alongside the polytheists, even though there was no doctrinal commonality between them. Initially, the Jews were among those who gave glad tidings of the coming of Islam and did not possess doctrinal deviations such as Trinity or exaggerated beliefs. However, their extreme attachment to worldly gains alienated them from the truth. The Christians of that period did not generally share this condition. Nevertheless, both earlier and later historical periods demonstrate that subsequent Christian communities committed offenses against Islam and the Muslims that were no less severe than those committed by the Jews. The prolonged and bloody Crusades of the past, as well as numerous modern movements driven by Christian imperial powers against Islam and Muslims, are well known. Therefore, these verses should not be interpreted as laying down a universal rule applicable to all Christians across all times. The phrase “وَ اِذَا سَمِعُوۡا مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَی الرَّسُوۡلِ” and what follows clearly indicate that these verses refer specifically to a particular group of Christians contemporary with the Prophet (PBUH & His Pure Progeny). The next two verses then refer to the outcomes and recompense of both groups. First, it is stated that those who expressed affection toward the believers, submitted to the divine verses, and openly proclaimed their faith will be rewarded by God with gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide eternally, and this is the recompense of the righteous (فَاَثَابَہُمُ اللّٰہُ بِمَا قَالُوۡا جَنّٰتٍ تَجۡرِیۡ مِنۡ تَحۡتِہَا الۡاَنۡہٰرُ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَا ؕ وَ ذٰلِکَ جَزَآءُ الۡمُحۡسِنِیۡنَ). The term “أَثَابَہُمُ” is derived from “ثواب,” which originally conveys the meanings of return, beneficence, and recompense. In contrast, those who adopted hostility and disbelief—who denied and rejected the divine signs—are declared to be companions of Hellfire (وَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ کَذَّبُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِنَاۤ اُولٰٓئِکَ اَصۡحٰبُ الۡجَحِیۡمِ).

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

After the previous discussion concerning Christian exaggeration regarding the status of Jesus and the belief in his divinity, these verses invalidate that misconception through a series of clear and concise arguments. First, it is asked what difference exists between Jesus and the other prophets that would justify belief in his divinity. Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger, and many messengers had already passed before him (ما المسیح ابن مریم الا الرسول قد خلت من قبلہ الرسل). If being a messenger from God were a proof of divinity or justification for associating partners with God, then the same claim would have to be made about all other prophets as well. Yet even deviant Christians are not prepared to accept Jesus merely as a divine envoy; rather, their dominant belief is that he is the son of God and, in a sense, God Himself, who came to atone for the sins of mankind rather than to guide and reform them. For this reason, he is described as a “redeemer” (فادی). The verse then reinforces this argument by stating that his mother was a truthful and righteous woman (وَ اُمُّہٗ صِدِّیقَۃٌ). This implies, first, that a being who has a mother, develops within a woman’s womb, and is dependent upon numerous human needs cannot be divine. Second, Mary’s honor lies in her alignment with Jesus during his prophetic mission and her support of his message; she herself was a devoted servant of God and therefore does not deserve worship, despite Christian practices that display devotional reverence before her images. A further argument rejecting the divinity of Jesus is then presented: he and his mother both used to consume food (کانا یاٴکلان الطعام). A being so dependent that deprivation of food for a short time leaves him incapable of action cannot be equated with the Lord or Creator. The verse concludes by drawing attention both to the clarity of these evident arguments and to the obstinate and misguided response toward them: observe how We clearly set forth the signs for them, then observe how they are turned away from the truth (انظر کیف نبیّن لھم الاٰیات ثم انظر أنّی یؤفکون). The root of “یوفکون” is “افک,” which signifies being turned away from the truth, even if this deviation results from one’s own fault. The repetition of the command “انظر” emphasizes two matters: reflection upon these manifest and sufficient proofs, and astonishment at the negative and irrational reaction produced in response to them. The following verse completes this reasoning by declaring that Jesus himself possessed no power over benefit or harm, neither for himself nor for others, let alone for humanity at large (قل اتعبدون من دون ما لا یملک لکم ضرًا ولا نفعًا). This dependence explains why he and his companions repeatedly fell into the hands of their enemies and were powerless without divine assistance. The verse then warns against imagining that God is unaware of such claims, affirming that God is All‑Hearing and All‑Knowing (وَ اللّٰہُ ھُوَ السمیع العلیم). The Qur’anic emphasis on the human nature and physical needs of Jesus has always posed a serious difficulty for those who claim his divinity. To escape this, Christian theologians developed explanations such as dividing Jesus into two aspects—a divine nature (لاہوت) and a human nature (ناسوت)—a construction that itself reveals the weakness and inconsistency of their reasoning. It is also noteworthy that the verse uses the term “ما” rather than “من,” a form typically applied to non‑rational beings. This expression appears to deliberately include idols made of stone and wood, implying that if worship of a created being were permissible, then idol worship would also be justified. Since all created beings share the attribute of createdness, belief in the divinity of Jesus effectively constitutes a form of idol worship rather than true devotion to God. After clarifying the error of exaggeration regarding the prophets through decisive reasoning, the Prophet is commanded to invite the People of the Book to abandon this deviation in practice and return to the truth: say, O People of the Book, do not exceed the bounds in your religion beyond the truth (قل یا اہل الکتاب لا تغلوا فی دینکم غیر الحق). The term “لا تغلوا” derives from “غلو,” meaning to exceed proper limits. When excess concerns a person’s rank or status, it is called “غلو”; when it refers to prices, it is termed “غلاء”; in archery it signifies extreme force; emotional boiling is described as “غلیان”; and an uncontrollable animal is called “غلواء.” Some scholars understand “غلو” to include both excess and deficiency, while others reserve it specifically for excess, with its opposite being “تقصیر.” While Christian exaggeration is evident, the verse also addresses Jewish exaggeration, likely alluding to their beliefs concerning ʿUzayr. Since exaggeration often arises from following misguided desires, the statement is completed by warning: do not follow the desires of a people who went astray before you, misled many others, and deviated from the straight path (ولا تتبعوا اھواء قوم قد ضلوا من قبل و اضلوا کثیرًا و ضلوا عن سواء السبیل). This reflects an observable reality in Christian history: the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist in early Christianity but emerged later, particularly as converts from idol‑worshipping traditions entered Christianity and transferred remnants of their earlier beliefs into the new faith. Historically, the Indian belief in a triad of deities predates Christian trinitarianism and appears to have influenced it. Surah al‑Tawbah, verse 30, similarly notes after referencing Jewish and Christian exaggerations regarding ʿUzayr and Jesus that “یُضَاہِـُٔوۡنَ قَوۡلَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا مِنۡ قَبۡلُ”, meaning that their statements resemble those of earlier disbelievers. The repetition of “ضلوا” refers first to the earlier disbelieving groups from whom such beliefs were adopted and then to the People of the Book who, having been misguided themselves, proceeded to mislead others. This repetition may indicate intensified deviation, for one who actively draws others into misguidance is more misguided than one who errs alone, having burdened himself with both his own sins and the sins of others. It is inconceivable that a person firmly established on the right path would willingly load himself with the weight of both his own wrongdoing and that of others.

In these verses, a series of important Islamic legal rulings is presented. Some of these rulings are stated here for the first time, while a significant portion serves to clarify and emphasize injunctions that had already been mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an. As has already been stated, this surah was revealed toward the end of the Prophet’s life; therefore, it was necessary that various Islamic commands be reiterated and strongly emphasized. In the first verse, reference is made to the conduct of certain Muslims who had declared some divine blessings forbidden upon themselves. They are prohibited from repeating this practice, and it is said: “يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تُحَرِّمُوۡا طَیِّبٰتِ مَاۤ اَحَلَّ اللّٰہُ لَکُمۡ”. That is, O believers, do not forbid for yourselves the wholesome and pure things that Allah has made lawful for you. (The meanings of “ḥalāl” and “ṭayyib” have already been discussed earlier.) Apart from the immediate occasion of revelation, this command also clarifies that the praise mentioned earlier for certain Christian scholars and monks was due to their inclination toward truth and their submission to it, not because of their renunciation of the world or their forbidding of lawful pleasures. Muslims are therefore explicitly discouraged from imitating them in those practices. By issuing this command, Islam openly declares its dissociation from monasticism and world‑renunciation of the kind practiced by Christian clergy and monks. Further explanation of this point will appear under Surah al‑Ḥadīd, verse 27 (“وَ رَهۡبَانِیَّةً ابۡتَدَعُوۡهَا”). The verse then emphasizes this instruction by stating: do not transgress the prescribed limits, for Allah does not love those who exceed bounds (“وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ”). The following verse reiterates this theme, but with an added nuance. Whereas the previous command forbade unlawful restrictions, this verse positively instructs believers to benefit lawfully from divine blessings, stating: “وَكُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا”. That is, partake of what Allah has provided for you that is lawful and pure. However, benefiting from these blessings must be accompanied by moderation, piety, and mindfulness of God, as expressed in the phrase: “وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي أَنْتُمْ بِهِ مُؤْمِنُونَ”. In other words, true faith in God requires respect for all His commands, lawful enjoyment of His provisions, and adherence to moderation and God‑consciousness. Another interpretive possibility of this phrase is that declaring lawful and wholesome things forbidden does not align with a higher or more complete level of piety. Genuine piety requires balance rather than excess in any direction. In the following verse, the Qur’an addresses oaths taken in relation to forbidding lawful things or other matters. Oaths are divided into two categories. The first is described as vain or futile oaths, regarding which Allah neither holds people accountable nor imposes any penalty: “لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ”. As discussed previously under Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 225, vain oaths are those uttered without firm intention or deliberate resolve, such as casual expressions like “by Allah” spoken without conscious intent, or oaths made impulsively in anger. Some scholars also include oaths based on mistaken assumptions that are later discovered to be false. It is also known that for an oath to be binding, it must involve deliberate intention and must not concern an unlawful or reprehensible act. An oath taken to perform something prohibited or disliked has no binding force and does not need to be fulfilled. It is possible that the term “laghw” in this verse encompasses all such cases. The second type consists of deliberate and binding oaths, taken with clear intention and firm resolve. Regarding these, the Qur’an states: “وَلَكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا عَقَّدْتُمُ الْأَيْمَانَ”. That is, Allah will hold you accountable for oaths you have firmly bound. The term “ʿaqd” signifies binding and fastening, and by extension is used for covenants and obligations. Here, “binding an oath” refers to a resolved commitment undertaken in the name of God. For such an oath, if it concerns a lawful or virtuous act, fulfillment becomes obligatory. If one breaks it, expiation (kaffārah) is required. The kaffārah specified in this verse consists of one of three options. The first is feeding ten needy persons: “فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ”, with the condition that the food should be of an average standard, comparable to what one normally provides for one’s own family (“مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ”). This indicates moderation in both quality and quantity, though standards may vary according to time, place, and social circumstances. The second option is clothing ten needy persons: “أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ”. Juristic reports clarify that the clothing should sufficiently cover the body according to customary standards, taking into account differences related to gender, climate, and social context. The third option is emancipating a slave: “أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ”. Juristic discussion exists regarding whether the freed slave must be a believer, a matter addressed in legal literature. The verse’s general wording reflects Islam’s consistent encouragement of freeing slaves through multiple avenues. If a person lacks the means to fulfill any of the three options, the Qur’an prescribes fasting three days: “فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ”. This provision applies specifically to those genuinely unable to perform the previous expiatory acts. The verse then summarizes: “ذَلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمَانِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ”. Yet, to prevent misuse of expiation as an excuse for violating oaths, it adds: “وَاحْفَظُوا أَيْمَانَكُمْ”, meaning that oaths must be safeguarded and not violated lightly. Finally, the verse concludes by stating that Allah thus clarifies His signs so that believers may give thanks: “كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ”. Following this, verses 90–92 address intoxicants and gambling. It is declared: “يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِنَّمَا الۡخَمۡرُ وَ الۡمَیۡسِرُ وَ الۡاَنۡصَابُ وَ الۡاَزۡلَامُ رِجۡسٌ مِّنۡ عَمَلِ الشَّیۡطٰنِ فَاجۡتَنِبُوۡہُ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ”. Intoxicants, gambling, idolatrous practices, and divination by arrows are described as filth from the work of Satan, and believers are commanded to avoid them so that they may prosper. The following verse explains that Satan seeks to sow enmity and hatred through intoxicants and gambling and to prevent remembrance of Allah and prayer: “فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُنْتَهُونَ”. The command then concludes with an emphatic call to obedience: “وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَاحْذَرُوا”, followed by the clarification that the Messenger’s duty is clear communication alone. Regarding the occasion of revelation of the first of these verses, both Shiʿi and Sunni commentaries record similar reports. One narration attributed to Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ explains that before the prohibition of wine, a feast involving intoxication escalated into quarrelling and injury, prompting the revelation of this command. Other narrations report that ʿUmar repeatedly prayed for clear guidance regarding wine until these verses were revealed, at which point he declared: “انتهينا انتهينا” — “We have stopped, we have stopped.”

See ayat 92 for tafseer.

See ayat 92 for tafseer.

As noted earlier in volume three of this tafsīr under Surah al‑Nisāʾ, verse 43, the consumption of wine and intoxicants was extremely widespread in the pre‑Islamic period of Jāhiliyyah and had become an openly practiced social norm. Some historians even state that the essence of the passions of the pre‑Islamic Arabs was encapsulated in three things: poetry, wine, and warfare. Reports further indicate that even after the prohibition of wine, the command of its forbiddance proved extremely difficult and burdensome for some Muslims, to the extent that they used to say: “ما حرّم علینا شیء اشدّ من الخمر” — “No prohibition was more difficult for us than the prohibition of wine.” It is clear that had Islam sought to confront this deeply rooted social epidemic abruptly, without considering human psychology and broader social realities, success would not have been possible. Therefore, Islam adopted a gradual method for uprooting the evil of wine‑drinking. Minds were first prepared and conditioned, and only afterward was the definitive ruling of prohibition revealed. This was necessary because the habit of intoxication had effectively become a second nature for many. Consequently, in earlier Meccan revelations, subtle indications were given regarding its reprehensible nature. For example, Surah al‑Naḥl, verse 67 states: “وَ مِنۡ ثَمَرَاتِ الۡنَّخِیۡلِ وَ الۡاَعۡنَابِ تَتَّخِذُوۡنَ مِنۡهُ سَكَرًا وَّ رِزۡقًا حَسَنًا” Here, the intoxicating drink (سَكَرًا) derived from dates and grapes is contrasted with wholesome provision (رِزۡقًا حَسَنًا), implicitly classifying intoxicants as impure and inferior. However, the roots of wine‑drinking ran far deeper than could be eliminated through indirect allusions alone. Moreover, wine also constituted a notable source of economic income. Therefore, after the Muslims migrated to Madinah and the first Islamic polity was established, a more explicit ruling was revealed as a preparatory step toward absolute prohibition. This occurred with the revelation of Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 219: “یَسۡـَٔلُوۡنَكَ عَنِ الۡخَمۡرِ وَ الۡمَیۡسِرِ قُلۡ فِیۡهِمَاۤ اِثۡمٌ كَبِیۡرٌ وَّ مَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ ۖ وَ اِثۡمُهُمَاۤ اَكۡبَرُ مِنۡ نَّفۡعِهِمَا” This verse acknowledges certain economic or social benefits that wine and gambling had in societies such as that of Jāhiliyyah, while simultaneously emphasizing that their harms and sins far outweigh any perceived benefit. Thereafter came Surah al‑Nisāʾ, verse 43: “یٰۤاَیُّهَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَقۡرَبُوۡا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ اَنۡتُمۡ سُكَارٰی حَتّٰی تَعۡلَمُوۡا مَا تَقُوۡلُوۡنَ” In this verse, Muslims were explicitly forbidden from approaching prayer while intoxicated, until they were fully aware of what they were saying. This did not imply that drinking wine was permissible outside prayer times; rather, it further served the gradual implementation of prohibition. In other words, the verse remained silent about non‑prayer contexts, without explicitly permitting them. As Muslims grew more familiar with Islamic teachings and became intellectually and spiritually prepared to eradicate this deeply entrenched social disease, the final and definitive ruling was revealed with unparalleled clarity and decisiveness — the very verse under discussion. From this point onward, no room remained for excuse or ambiguity. Notably, this verse employs multiple emphatic expressions to stress the prohibition: 1. It begins with the address “يٰۤاَیُّهَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا”, indicating that violation of this command contradicts the very spirit of faith. 2. The word “اِنَّمَا” is used to convey exclusivity and strong emphasis. 3. Wine and gambling are mentioned alongside “الۡاَنۡصَابُ” — unshaped stone idols — equating their danger with idolatry. In this context, a narration from the Prophet states: “شارب الخمر كعابد الوثن” — “The drinker of wine is like a worshipper of idols.” 4. Wine, gambling, idols, and divining arrows are all declared to be filth and impurity: “رِجۡسٌ”. 5. They are explicitly attributed to satanic activity: “مِّنۡ عَمَلِ الشَّیۡطٰنِ”. 6. A decisive command is issued to avoid them entirely: “فَاجۡتَنِبُوۡهُ”. The term اجتناب denotes distancing oneself completely, which is stronger and more comprehensive than mere prohibition. 7. The verse concludes by declaring that success and prosperity are unattainable without abandoning these evils: “لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ”. 8. The subsequent verse explains their destructive consequences, stating that Satan seeks to sow enmity and hatred through wine and gambling and to divert people from the remembrance of Allah and prayer: “اِنَّمَا یُرِیۡدُ الشَّیۡطٰنُ اَنۡ یُّوۡقِعَ بَیۡنَكُمُ الۡعَدَاوَۃَ وَ الۡبَغۡضَآءَ فِی الۡخَمۡرِ وَ الۡمَیۡسِرِ وَ یَصُدَّكُمۡ عَنۡ ذِكۡرِ اللّٰہِ وَ عَنِ الصَّلٰوۃِ” It then challenges the believers through a rhetorical question: “فَهَلۡ اَنۡتُمۡ مُّنۡتَهُوۡنَ” — “Will you now desist?” emphasizing that no justification remains after such warnings. As a result, even those who had remained attached to wine — including figures such as ʿUmar, who according to Sunni exegetes had a strong inclination toward it — acknowledged the sufficiency and finality of this command after its revelation and declared complete cessation. Finally, the third verse reinforces this prohibition by commanding obedience to Allah and His Messenger and warning against disobedience: “وَ اَطِیۡعُوا اللّٰہَ وَ اَطِیۡعُوا الرَّسُوۡلَ وَ احۡذَرُوۡا” It then states that if people turn away, they will face consequences, while the duty of the Messenger is solely clear and unequivocal conveyance of the message: “فَاِنۡ تَوَلَّیۡتُمۡ فَاعۡلَمُوۡۤا اَنَّمَا عَلٰی رَسُوۡلِنَا الۡبَلٰغُ الۡمُبِیۡنُ”.

As has already been discussed in volume two of Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah under Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 219, a detailed analysis of these two major social and societal scourges has been presented. However, following the method of emphasis adopted by the Qur’an itself, it is appropriate here to mention several additional points. These points consist of a collection of statistical data which, considered individually, reveal the depth and breadth of the harms associated with both intoxicants and gambling. 1. According to statistical reports published in England concerning alcohol‑induced insanity, in which this condition was compared with insanity caused by other factors, it was found that out of 2,249 cases of alcohol‑related madness, only 53 cases were attributable to other causes (Symposium on Alcohol, p. 65). 2. Other statistics obtained from hospitals in the United States indicate that 85 percent of psychiatric patients were suffering from alcohol‑related conditions (Symposium on Alcohol, p. 65). 3. An English intellectual named Bentham writes that alcoholic drinks render people foolish in northern regions and drive them insane in southern regions. He then adds that Islam has declared all forms of alcoholic beverages unlawful, and this is among the distinctive features of Islam (cited in Tafsīr Ṭanṭāwī, vol. 1, p. 165). 4. If the statistics relating to murders and other crimes committed in states of intoxication—crimes that have ruined countless homes and destroyed families—were compiled, their numbers would be staggering (Encyclopaedia, Farīd Waḥīdī, vol. 3, p. 790). 5. In France, approximately 440 people lose their lives every day as a result of alcohol consumption (Social Calamities of Our Century, p. 205). 6. According to another set of statistics, the number of people who died in the United States in a single year due to psychological illnesses was double the number of American fatalities in the Second World War. Researchers attribute a fundamental role in these psychological illnesses to alcoholic beverages and cigarette smoking (Collected Publications of Nasl‑e‑Nau). 7. According to figures published by a scholar named Hooger in a scientific journal commemorating its twentieth anniversary, 60 percent of murders, 5 percent of assault and injury crimes, 30 percent of moral crimes (including incest), and 20 percent of theft‑related crimes were linked to alcohol consumption. The same scholar states that 40 percent of juvenile offenders were influenced by alcohol (Symposium on Alcohol, p. 66). 8. From an economic perspective, the losses in England alone resulting from workers’ absenteeism due to alcohol consumption amount to 50 million dollars annually (approximately eighty crore rupees by current estimates). This amount would be sufficient to cover the expenses of thousands of nursery, primary, and secondary schools (Collected Publications of Nasl‑e‑Javān, Year 2, p. 330). 9. According to statistics published in France regarding the harms of alcohol, beyond the annual individual losses amounting to 137 billion francs, the French government also incurs the following alcohol‑related expenditures: 60 billion francs for courts and prisons, 40 billion francs for public welfare and charity, 10 billion francs for hospitals treating alcohol‑related illnesses, and 70 billion francs for maintaining law and order. These figures clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of mental illness, hospitals, murders, violent unrest, thefts, sexual crimes, and accidents is directly linked to the number of taverns (Publication of the Center for the Study of Iran’s Development: Alcohol and Gambling). 10. In the United States, the largest statistical center has established that gambling is directly involved in 30 percent of crimes. According to other data published about gamblers, it is observed with deep regret that 90 percent of pickpocketing incidents, 50 percent of moral corruption, 30 percent of divorces, 40 percent of violent assaults and injuries, and 5 percent of suicides are attributed to gambling (Publication of the Center for the Study of Iran’s Development: Alcohol and Gambling).

In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī, Tafsīr al‑Qurṭubī, and several other exegetical works, it is reported that after the revelation of the verse declaring the prohibition of wine and gambling, some of the Companions of the Prophet raised a question. They said: if these two practices carry so much sin, what will be the fate of our Muslim brothers who passed away before the revelation of this verse and who, until that time, had not abandoned these practices? Thereupon, this verse was revealed, and their question was answered.

In this verse, a response is given concerning those who died before the revelation of the prohibition of wine and gambling, as well as those to whom this ruling had not yet reached because they lived in distant regions. It is stated that those who had faith and performed righteous deeds, and to whom this command had not yet been conveyed, bear no sin for what they consumed, even if they drank wine or consumed earnings acquired through gambling (لَیْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا طَعِمُوا). It should be noted that the term “طَعِيم” (ṭaʿām) is most commonly used for foods that are eaten rather than for drinks, although at times it is also applied to drinking, as in Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 249: (فَمَنْ شَرِبَ مِنْهُ فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي وَمَنْ لَمْ يَطْعَمْهُ فَإِنَّهُ مِنِّي). The permissibility mentioned in the verse is conditional upon their possessing piety, faith, and righteous conduct (إِذَا مَا اتَّقَوْا وَآمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ). The verse then repeats this condition by stating: then they should maintain piety and faith (ثُمَّ اتَّقَوْا وَآمَنُوا). Thereafter, with a slight change in wording, it states for the third time: then they should maintain piety and act with excellence and virtue (ثُمَّ اتَّقَوْا وَأَحْسَنُوا). The verse concludes by saying that God loves those who excel in goodness (وَاللّٰهُ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ). Regarding this triple repetition, both classical and modern exegetes have expressed differing views. Some consider it purely emphatic, arguing that the fundamental importance of piety, faith, and righteous deeds necessitates repeated affirmation and reinforcement. Others propose that each mention refers to a distinct stage or level. Numerous speculative interpretations have been offered in this regard, though many lack supporting evidence. A more coherent explanation is that the first mention of “تقوى” refers to an initial, inward sense of responsibility and God‑consciousness that motivates a person to investigate religion, reflect upon the Prophet’s signs, and search for truth, ultimately leading to faith and righteous conduct. Until this initial form of piety awakens within the human soul, the impulse to seek truth does not arise. In this sense, the first reference to piety corresponds to this preliminary stage. This understanding does not conflict with the opening phrase of the verse—“الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ”—since it is possible that the faith mentioned there refers to an outward or preliminary acceptance, whereas the faith emerging after the initial stage of piety is genuine, rooted faith. The second mention of piety refers to a deeper, internalized piety that penetrates the heart and produces more stable, established faith. At this level, righteous deeds are inherent within that faith, and thus need not be mentioned separately. The third reference to piety denotes the highest level, where piety has reached completion, and the believer is not only committed to fulfilling obligatory duties but is also urged toward “إحسان,” that is, excellence and benevolence, even in acts beyond mere obligation. In summary, the threefold mention of piety corresponds to three successive stages of moral and spiritual consciousness: an initial stage, an intermediate stage, and a final, perfected stage. Each stage is indicated by contextual clues within the verse itself, unlike other interpretations advanced by some exegetes that lack textual or contextual support.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

These verses address one of the rulings related to ʿumrah and ḥajj, namely the ruling concerning the hunting of land and sea animals while in the state of ihrām. The passage begins by referring to an incident faced by the Muslims in the year of al‑Ḥudaybiyah, stating: “O you who believe, Allah will surely test you with something of the game that your hands and your spears can reach” (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَیَبۡلُوَنَّکُمُ اللّٰہُ بِشَیۡءٍ مِّنَ الصَّیۡدِ تَنَالُہٗۤ اَیۡدِیۡکُمۡ وَ رِمَاحُکُمۡ). The wording of the verse suggests a forewarning of an event that was about to occur and indicates that such easy access to game had never happened before. This was a form of trial for the Muslims, especially given their practical need for animal meat as a source of food. Considering that wild animals were approaching the encampments repeatedly in a tempting manner, refraining from such readily available food—particularly in those circumstances—constituted a major test. Some exegetes have suggested that the phrase “that your hands can reach” means that animals could be captured with nets or similar means, but the apparent meaning of the verse indicates that it was actually possible to seize them directly by hand. The verse then clarifies the purpose of this trial: it was meant to distinguish those who fear Allah in the unseen (لِیَعۡلَمَ اللّٰہُ مَنۡ یَّخَافُہٗ بِالۡغَیۡبِ). As explained previously in the commentary on Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 143, such expressions do not imply any lack of divine knowledge; rather, they indicate the manifestation of inner intentions through outward action. Inner states alone are insufficient for moral growth and accountability unless they are realized through concrete behavior. The verse concludes with a warning that whoever transgresses after this clarification will face a painful punishment (فَمَنِ اعۡتَدٰی بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ فَلَہٗ عَذَابٌ اَلِیۡمٌ). Although this statement implicitly establishes the prohibition of hunting while in the state of ihrām, the following verse makes this ruling explicit and general: “O you who believe, do not kill game while you are in the state of ihrām” (یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَقۡتُلُوا الصَّیۡدَ وَ اَنۡتُمۡ حُرُمٌ). There is scholarly disagreement over whether this prohibition applies to all land animals, whether lawful or unlawful to eat, or only to those that are lawful. Among the Shīʿī Imāmī jurists and exegetes, the well‑known position is that the ruling is general, and the narrations transmitted from the Ahl al‑Bayt support this understanding. Some Sunni jurists, such as Abū Ḥanīfah, concur with this view, while others, including al‑Shāfiʿī, restrict it to animals whose meat is otherwise lawful. This ruling does not apply to domesticated animals, as they are not considered “game.” It is also noteworthy that, according to Shīʿī narrations, not only is hunting forbidden in the state of ihrām, but assisting, pointing toward prey, or directing someone to it is also prohibited. One might assume that hunting does not include animals whose meat is unlawful, but this is incorrect, since hunting may be undertaken for various objectives, including obtaining hides or removing danger, not merely for eating meat. The well‑known verse attributed to Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام) reflects this broader usage: “The game of kings is rabbits and foxes, but when I enter the battlefield, my quarry is the brave.” This illustrates the generality of the term “hunting.” The verse then addresses the expiation for intentionally killing game while in ihrām, stating that such a person must offer compensation equivalent to the animal killed, from among domesticated livestock, to be judged by two just persons and offered as a sacrificial gift reaching the Kaʿbah (وَ مَنۡ قَتَلَہٗ مِنۡکُمۡ مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَآءٌ مِّثۡلُ مَا قَتَلَ مِنَ النَّعَمِ … یَحۡکُمُ بِہٖ ذَوَا عَدۡلٍ مِّنۡکُمۡ هَدۡیًۢا بٰلِغَ الۡکَعۡبَۃِ). The dominant interpretation among jurists and exegetes is that “equivalence” refers to similarity in kind, form, or stature—for example, a camel in place of an ostrich, or a sheep or goat in place of a deer—rather than merely monetary value, though value may be considered when equivalence in kind is uncertain. In such cases, two knowledgeable and just persons are to determine the equivalent. The verse further provides alternative forms of expiation: feeding the poor with an equivalent amount of food (اَوۡ کَفَّارَۃٌ طَعَامُ مَسٰکِیۡنَ) or fasting an equivalent number of days (اَوۡ عَدۡلُ ذٰلِکَ صِیَامًا). Although the verse does not specify the number of poor persons or days of fasting, the required equivalence suggests proportional equality with the sacrificial value. Reports indicate that one day of fasting corresponds to one mudd of food given to the poor. There is juristic disagreement over whether the offender may choose freely among these three options or must follow a sequence, beginning with sacrifice, then feeding the poor, and finally fasting if unable to perform the previous acts. The surface meaning of the verse suggests choice. These expiations serve to make the offender taste the consequence of the wrongdoing (لِّیَذُوۡقَ وَبَالَ اَمۡرِہٖ). The term “وبال” originally denotes a heavy or destructive downpour and came to signify hardship and severe consequence. The verse then states that Allah has pardoned what occurred in the past (عَفَا اللّٰہُ عَمَّا سَلَفَ), but warns that whoever repeats the offense after clarification will be subject to divine retribution, for Allah is Mighty and Possessor of retribution (وَ مَنۡ عَادَ فَیَنۡتَقِمُ اللّٰہُ مِنۡہُ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَزِیۡزٌ ذُو انۡتِقَامٍ). The apparent wording suggests that repeated offenses incur divine punishment without reiteration of the expiation, a point supported by narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt. The next verse addresses sea hunting, stating that hunting from the sea and eating it are lawful even while in ihrām (اُحِلَّ لَکُمۡ صَیۡدُ الۡبَحۡرِ وَ طَعَامُہٗ). The more convincing interpretation is that “طعامہ” refers to food prepared from caught fish, not fish that died naturally, as consuming dead fish is unlawful according to Shīʿī law. This phrase also supports the juristic ruling that, in contrast to land game, both hunting and eating sea animals remain permissible during ihrām. The verse explains that this concession is meant as provision for residents and travelers alike (مَتَاعًا لَّکُمۡ وَ لِلسَّیَّارَۃِ), alleviating hardship during travel. Finally, the ruling regarding land game is reiterated with emphasis: hunting land animals remains forbidden as long as one is in the state of ihrām (وَ حُرِّمَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ صَیۡدُ الۡبَرِّ مَا دُمۡتُمۡ حُرُمًا). The passage concludes with a general exhortation to fear Allah, before whom all will be gathered on the Day of Resurrection (وَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ الَّذِیۡۤ اِلَیۡہِ تُحۡشَرُوۡنَ).

We know that ḥajj and ʿumrah are among those acts of worship which detach a person from the material world and immerse him in an atmosphere saturated with spirituality and inward devotion. The norms of material life—warfare and conflict, quarrels and corruption, sexual indulgence, and material pleasures—must be entirely set aside during the rites of ḥajj and ʿumrah, and the individual becomes engaged in a kind of divinely prescribed spiritual discipline. It appears that the prohibition of hunting during the state of iḥrām is also subordinate to this very objective. Moreover, if hunting were a lawful and permissible activity for visitors to the House of God, then in view of the massive and continuous influx of pilgrims to this sacred land every year, many species of animals in this region—already limited due to scarcity of land and water—would face extinction. Hence, this ruling functions as a form of protection and guarantee for the survival of animal life in that area. This becomes even clearer when we consider that, apart from the state of iḥrām, hunting within the sacred precinct (ḥaram), as well as cutting down its trees and vegetation, is also prohibited. All this demonstrates that the ruling is closely connected to the preservation of the natural environment and the protection of both plant life and animals in this region from destruction and annihilation. This legislation is so precise and meticulous that not only is the act of hunting itself forbidden, but also assisting in hunting, pointing out the prey, or guiding hunters toward it is likewise declared unlawful during iḥrām. As reported in narrations transmitted through the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) said to one of his companions: “لا تستحلن شیئًا من الصید وأنت حرام، ولا وأنت حلال في الحرم، ولا تدللن علیه محلًّا ولا محرمًا فیصطاده، ولا تشر إلیه فیستحل من أجلك، فإن فیه فداءً لمن تعمّده.” That is: Never regard anything from hunting as lawful while you are in the state of iḥrām, nor while you are not in iḥrām but are within the sacred precinct. Do not point out the prey to a muḥill or a muḥrim so that he may hunt it; do not even gesture toward it or give any instruction, lest he deem it permissible because of you. For in this case, the one who deliberately causes this act will himself be liable to expiation.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, discussion concerned the prohibition of hunting during the state of iḥrām. In this verse, attention is drawn to the importance of Makkah and its role in the organization and reform of the collective life of Muslims. It first states that Allah has made the Kaʿbah, the Sacred House, a means for the establishment and stability of human affairs (جَعَلَ اللّٰہُ الۡكَعۡبَةَ الۡبَیۡتَ الۡحَرَامَ قِیَامًا لِّلنَّاسِ). This sacred House is a symbol of unity for the people, a means for bringing hearts together, and a great center for strengthening various bonds and relationships. Under the shelter of this House, with its centrality and spirituality firmly rooted in deep historical foundations, people are able to organize many of their disordered affairs, remedy numerous shortcomings and weaknesses, and build the structure of their collective felicity upon its foundations. For this reason, in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān the Kaʿbah is described as the first House established for the benefit of humankind (سورہٴ آلِ عمران، آیہ ۹۶). In reality, when the breadth of meaning contained in the expression “قِیَامًا لِّلنَّاسِ” is taken into account, it becomes clear that Muslims can, under the protection of this House and within the framework of the Islamic institution of ḥajj, reform all aspects of their affairs. Since it was necessary that these rites be carried out in an atmosphere of peace and security, free from warfare, conflict, and strife, the verse also refers—within this context—to the role of the sacred months, those months in which fighting is absolutely forbidden (وَ الشَّهۡرَ الۡحَرَامَ). Furthermore, from the perspective that the presence of unmarked sacrificial animals (الۡهَدۡی) and marked offerings (الۡقَلَائِد) plays a specific role in completing this program—by providing sustenance for people engaged in the rites of ḥajj and ʿumrah and relieving their concerns in this regard—the verse also alludes to them (وَ الۡهَدۡیَ وَ الۡقَلَائِدَ). Since all of these programs, regulations, and prescribed rulings—such as those related to hunting, the sanctity of the Sacred Precinct, and the sacred months—reflect the vastness of the Lawgiver’s knowledge and the depth of divine wisdom, the verse concludes by stating that Allah has instituted this ordered system so that you may realize that His knowledge encompasses all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth, and that Allah has full knowledge of everything, particularly of the spiritual and physical needs of His servants (ذٰلِكَ لِتَعۡلَمُوا أَنَّ اللّٰهَ يَعۡلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الۡأَرۡضِ وَأَنَّ اللّٰهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ). In light of the foregoing, the connection between the beginning and the end of the verse becomes clear, for such profound legislative rulings can only be organized by a Being fully aware of the depths of the creational order. Unless one has complete knowledge of all the particulars of the heavens and the earth, and of the formative mysteries of the human soul and body, such laws cannot be devised. Only a law that is in harmony with the laws of creation and human nature can truly be sound and reformative. In the following verse, by way of emphasizing the preceding commands, encouraging their observance, and warning those who oppose or disobey them, it is stated: Know that Allah is severe in punishment, yet also All-Forgiving and Most Merciful (اِعۡلَمُوا أَنَّ اللّٰهَ شَدِيدُ الۡعِقَابِ وَأَنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ). The fact that “شَدِيدُ الۡعِقَابِ” is mentioned prior to “غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ” may indicate that, despite the severity of divine punishment, it can be washed away by repentance, thereby allowing divine forgiveness and mercy to encompass the servant. The verse then further emphasizes personal responsibility by stating that people themselves are accountable for their deeds, and that the duty of the Messenger is nothing more than the clear conveyance of the divine message (مَا عَلَى الرَّسُولِ إِلَّا الۡبَلَاغُ). Nevertheless, Allah is fully aware of people’s intentions and of all their manifest and hidden actions (وَاللّٰهُ يَعۡلَمُ مَا تُبۡدُونَ وَمَا تَكۡتُمُونَ).

The Kaʿbah, mentioned twice in these verses and in the preceding passages, is linguistically derived from the root “كعب”, which denotes the raised and protruding part above the foot. Subsequently, the term came to be used for anything elevated or prominent. A cube is called “مكعّب” because it protrudes equally on all sides, and young women whose breasts have begun to develop are called “كاعب”, with the plural “كواعب”, for the same reason. Thus, the word “Kaʿbah” alludes both to the physical elevation of the House of God and to the loftiness and honor of its rank and status. The Kaʿbah possesses a long and eventful history, and all of these events, in one way or another, stem from its greatness and significance. Its importance is such that, in Islamic traditions, demolishing or violating the Kaʿbah is likened to killing the Prophet or the Imam (عليهم السلام). Looking toward it is considered an act of worship, and circumambulating it is among the greatest of acts. It is even reported in a narration from Imam al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) that he said: “It is not appropriate for anyone to raise the height of his building above that of the Kaʿbah.” However, it must be emphasized that the sanctity and importance of the Kaʿbah do not stem from its physical structure as such. As stated by Amir al‑Muʾminin (عليه السلام) in the Sermon of al‑Qāṣiʿah in Nahj al‑Balāghah, God placed His House in a parched, rocky land amid harsh mountains and commanded it to be built with the simplest of materials and ordinary stones. Rather, the Kaʿbah derives its exceptional status because it is among the most ancient and earliest centers of monotheism and worship of God, and because it serves as a focal point toward which the attention of diverse nations and peoples is directed. It is for this reason that it has attained such profound significance in the court of God.

Impurity Is Not Justified by Majority In the preceding verses, discussion focused on the prohibition of intoxicating drinks, gambling, sacrificial stones (anṣāb), divining arrows (azlām), and hunting while in the state of iḥrām. Since it is possible that some people might attempt to justify committing these sins by appealing to prevalent practice in certain societies or regions—for example, claiming that most people in a city drink alcohol or gamble, or that the majority pay no heed to the prohibition of hunting in specific circumstances—and thus use this as a pretext to disregard and neglect these divine commands, Allah, in order to close the door on such excuses entirely, articulates a fundamental and universal principle in a concise statement. He says: O Prophet, the impure and the pure are never equal, even though the abundance of the impure may impress or astonish you (قُلۡ لَّا یَسۡتَوِی الۡخَبِیۡثُ وَ الطَّیِّبُ وَ لَوۡ اَعۡجَبَکَ کَثۡرَۃُ الۡخَبِیۡثِ). Accordingly, in this verse, the terms khabīth and ṭayyib encompass all forms of impurity and purity, whether they pertain to unlawful and lawful food, or to corrupt and sound ideas, beliefs, and practices. At the end of the verse, addressing those endowed with intellect and discernment, the Qur’an emphasizes: So fear Allah, O people of understanding, that you may attain success (فَاتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ یٰۤاُولِی الۡاَلۡبَابِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ). The reason for clarifying something so self‑evident lies in the possibility that one might imagine that certain factors—such as the numerical dominance of those inclined toward impurity, what is commonly referred to as a “majority”—could elevate impurity to the level of acceptability or parity with purity. As is often observed, some people fall under the psychological influence of large numbers and assume that if a majority inclines toward a particular view or practice, this must be decisive proof of its correctness. In reality, this is not the case. History has witnessed many situations in which the majority of societies became ensnared in clear errors and grave deviations. What truly serves as the criterion for distinguishing good from evil, and the impure from the pure, is not quantitative majority but qualitative superiority—namely, the strength, elevation, and soundness of ideas and the purity and integrity of values, not the sheer number of adherents. This principle may not align with the inclinations of some contemporary audiences, since extensive propaganda and social conditioning have led many to accept majority trends as the ultimate معيار (measure) of right and wrong. They have come to believe that “truth” is whatever the majority approves of, and that goodness is determined by popular inclination. Yet this assumption is fundamentally flawed, and many of the world’s afflictions and miseries arise precisely from this mode of thinking. Only if a majority is itself guided by sound leadership and correct teachings—what may be termed a “mature” or “rightly guided” majority—can its inclinations potentially serve as a measure of good and evil, not when that majority is unguided and lacks moral discernment. Thus, in the verse under discussion, the Qur’an directs attention to this decisive reality: never let the abundance of evil and impurity deceive or impress you. Elsewhere, the Qur’an repeatedly states: وَلٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ, that most people do not act on the basis of knowledge and understanding. It should also be noted that in this verse the word khabīth precedes ṭayyib, because the immediate address is to those who regard the abundance of impurity as evidence of its importance or legitimacy. Accordingly, the Qur’an responds by reminding them that the criterion of good and evil is never numerical majority or minority. At all times and in all places, purity is superior to impurity, and people of intellect are never deceived by numbers. They distance themselves from corruption even if everyone around them is polluted, and they persist in seeking what is pure even if the entirety of their society moves in the opposite direction.

See ayat 102 for tafseer.

With regard to the occasion of revelation (shaʾn al‑nuzūl) of the above verse, various reports are found in the books of ḥadīth and tafsīr. However, the interpretation that appears most consistent with the wording and context of the verse is the report narrated from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام) in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān. It is as follows: One day the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) delivered a sermon in which he explained God’s command concerning ḥajj. Thereupon, a man named ʿUkāshah (and according to another narration, Surāqah) asked: “Is this ruling for every year? Does ḥajj become obligatory upon us every year?” The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not respond to his question. However, the man persisted and repeated the question two or three times. At that point, the Prophet said: “Woe to you! Why do you insist so much? If I were to say ‘yes,’ ḥajj would become obligatory upon you every year. If it became obligatory every year, you would not be able to fulfill it, and if you failed to fulfill it, you would fall into sin.” He then added: “So long as I do not state something explicitly for you, do not insist upon it. One of the things that caused the destruction of some of the previous communities was precisely this: they persisted obstinately, engaged in excessive questioning, and argued insistently with their prophets. Therefore, when I command you to do something, perform it to the extent of your ability.” He then said: «إِذَا أَمَرْتُكُم بِشَيْءٍ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ» — “When I command you to do something, perform of it what you are able.” And: “When I forbid you from something, then abstain from it completely.” At this juncture, the verse under discussion was revealed, and through it they were prohibited from such conduct. It should not be misunderstood from this occasion of revelation—as will be clarified in the interpretation of the verse—that the door of questioning, inquiry, or seeking knowledge is being closed to the people. On the contrary, the Qur’an itself explicitly commands people to ask those who possess knowledge about matters they do not know: «فَاسْئَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ». Rather, what is meant here is the prohibition of unnecessary questions, obstructionist insistence, and stubborn argumentation. Such behavior usually stems from defects in people’s mentality and leads to resistance against guidance, disruption of constructive discourse, and fragmentation of the orderly progression of religious instruction and practice.

There is no doubt that questioning is the key to understanding realities; for this reason, those who ask less tend to know less. Accordingly, the Qur’an and Islamic traditions emphatically instruct Muslims to ask about matters they do not know. However, since every general principle admits exceptions, this educational rule is also not without qualification. At times, it is better—due to considerations of public order and collective welfare—that certain matters remain undisclosed. In such situations, persistent inquiry and insistence on uncovering what is concealed is not a virtue; rather, it is blameworthy and inappropriate. For example, physicians commonly deem it advisable to conceal severe and terrifying illnesses from patients. At most, they inform close relatives of the actual condition, on the condition that it be kept hidden from the patient. Experience shows that many individuals, if they become aware of the gravity of their illness, fall into panic and distress. Such fear, even if it does not directly lead to death, at least delays recovery. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not appropriate for the patient to persistently question the physician, because continual insistence may place the physician under such pressure that, in order to safeguard his own peace of mind or attend to other patients, he finds no option but to reveal the truth—despite the harm this disclosure may cause. Similarly, people are in need of maintaining good opinion about one another, and to preserve this great social capital it is often better not to be fully informed of all aspects of one another’s private lives. Ultimately, every person has some weakness, and complete exposure of all weaknesses would make cooperation and collective action extremely difficult. For instance, it is possible that a person of great influence and effectiveness may have been born into a socially humble family; if this background were publicly exposed, his social impact might be undermined. In such situations, people should not engage in insistence or probing inquiry. Likewise, many collective or social movements require confidentiality until they are ready for implementation; insistence on disclosure in such cases can negatively affect the success of the entire effort. These and similar situations illustrate contexts in which questioning is not appropriate, and where leaders or guides should not provide answers unless compelled by overwhelming pressure. It is to this reality that the Qur’an explicitly refers in the verse under discussion, stating: O you who believe, do not ask about matters which, if disclosed to you, would cause you distress (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَسۡـَٔلُوۡا عَنۡ اَشۡیَآءَ اِنۡ تُبۡدَ لَکُمۡ تَسُؤۡکُمۡ). However, since persistent questioning by some individuals and the absence of answers may lead others to doubt, confusion, and various forms of mischief, the verse continues: if you insist on asking about such matters while the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be disclosed to you, and you will fall into hardship (وَ اِنۡ تَسۡـَٔلُوۡا عَنۡہَا حِیۡنَ یُنَزَّلُ الۡقُرۡاٰنُ تُبۡدَ لَکُمۡ). The specification of the time of Qur’anic revelation indicates that these questions pertained to matters that could only be clarified through revelation. The verse then adds: do not imagine that God’s silence regarding certain matters is due to forgetfulness or negligence; rather, He intends ease for you and has pardoned them. God is All‑Forgiving and Most Forbearing (عَفَا اللّٰہُ عَنۡہَا ۚ وَ اللّٰہُ غَفُوۡرٌ حَلِیۡمٌ). In a tradition, Imam ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states: “Indeed, God has prescribed obligatory duties for you—do not neglect them; He has set bounds for you—do not transgress them; He has forbidden certain things—do not violate them; and He has remained silent about certain matters, not out of forgetfulness, but because He deemed concealment better—so do not burden yourselves by pursuing them.” (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under the verse in question.) A question may be raised here: if revealing such matters is against people’s best interests, why are they disclosed when insistence occurs? The answer lies in what has already been indicated: sometimes persistent silence in the face of repeated questioning generates greater harm, giving rise to suspicion, mistrust, and intellectual unrest. Just as a doctor’s silence in response to repeated questioning may cause a patient to doubt the physician’s diagnostic competence, leading the patient to abandon medical instructions, so too silence in certain religious or social contexts may create misconceptions. In such cases, disclosure becomes the lesser of two harms, even though it may itself bring difficulties. The following verse reinforces this point by stating that previous communities engaged in similar questioning, and when answers were finally given, they rose in disobedience and opposition (قَدۡ سَاَلَہَا قَوۡمٌ مِّنۡ قَبۡلِکُمۡ ثُمَّ اَصۡبَحُوۡا بِہَا کٰفِرِیۡنَ). Exegetes differ regarding which earlier community is being referenced. Some suggest it refers to the disciples of Jesus (عليه السلام) who requested the heavenly table, after which some turned to defiance. Others associate it with the people who demanded a miraculous sign from Ṣāliḥ (عليه السلام). However, these interpretations seem inappropriate, since the verse discusses questioning in the sense of seeking clarification (istifhām), not requesting or demanding (ṭalab). The use of the word “suʾāl” in multiple senses may have led to this confusion. A more plausible interpretation is that the verse refers to the Children of Israel, when they were instructed to slaughter a cow in connection with the investigation of a murder. They posed obstinate and excessive questions about the cow’s characteristics—questions for which no initial specification had been given—thereby making matters unnecessarily difficult for themselves, to the point that finding such a cow became extremely burdensome. Regarding the phrase “ثُمَّ اَصۡبَحُوۡا بِہَا کٰفِرِیۡنَ”, two interpretations are possible. First, “kufr” may signify disobedience and defiance, as previously indicated. Second, it may carry its more familiar meaning of outright disbelief, since sometimes receiving distressing answers can push a person to deny not only the particular instruction but also the authority or competence of the one who issues it. For example, hearing a disturbing medical diagnosis may provoke a patient to reject the physician outright, attributing the diagnosis to incompetence or senility. In conclusion, it must be emphasized that the verses under discussion do not, under any circumstances, close the door to rational, scholarly, educational, or ethical inquiry. Rather, the restriction applies exclusively to inappropriate, needless questions and to probing into matters whose disclosure is not only unnecessary but often better—and at times essential—to remain concealed.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

In this verse, reference is first made to four improper practices that existed among the Arabs of the pre‑Islamic period. They had designated certain animals, in various ways, with special signs and markings and declared the consumption of their meat unlawful. They would not drink their milk, shear their wool, or use them for riding. At times they set these animals free so that they could roam wherever they wished, and no one would interfere with them. In other words, such animals were rendered completely idle and useless. These four categories referred to domesticated animals whose use was considered forbidden during the jāhiliyyah period, and Islam abolished this innovation. Accordingly, the Qur’an states that God has made none of these designations legally binding: neither baḥīrah, nor sāʾibah, nor waṣīlah, nor ḥām (مَا جَعَلَ اللّٰہُ مِنۡۢ بَحِیۡرَۃٍ وَّ لَا سَآئِبَۃٍ وَّ لَا وَصِیۡلَۃٍ وَّ لَا حَامٍ). As for an explanation of these four categories, they are as follows. Baḥīrah refers to an animal that had given birth five times, where the fifth offspring was a female, or according to another report, a male. The Arabs would make a wide slit in its ear and leave it free, neither slaughtering nor killing it. The term baḥīrah is derived from the root baḥr, meaning expansiveness or openness, and this name was given due to the large tear made in its ear. Sāʾibah refers to a she‑camel that had given birth twelve times, or according to another narration, ten times. Such an animal was also set free; no one would ride it, it could graze wherever it wished, and drink from any spring. No one had the right to restrain it. Occasionally, its milk might be taken and offered to guests. The term sāʾibah is derived from a root meaning to flow freely or to be released. Waṣīlah refers to a sheep that had given birth seven times, or according to another report, to a sheep that had delivered two offspring in a single birth. Killing such an animal was considered unlawful. The word waṣīlah comes from the root waṣl, meaning connection or joining. Ḥām is derived from the concept of protection or restraint and refers to a male animal used for breeding. When it had successfully impregnated females a certain number of times—ten according to the Arabs—they would say that it had “protected its back,” and thereafter no one was allowed to ride it or burden it. Although exegetes and narrations mention additional interpretations of these terms, their common element is that these animals had repeatedly served their owners in a fruitful manner, and in return the owners accorded them a form of reverence and exemption. While the sense of gratitude underlying such behavior may appear commendable, refraining from all benefit from these animals had no sound rationale. Rather, it amounted to waste of property, nullification of divine blessings, and neglect of resources. Moreover, these animals, due to being left unattended, often endured great hardship, as few people were willing to take responsibility for their proper care and nourishment. Given that such animals were often old, their condition was even more distressing, leading to a life of deprivation until death. For these reasons, Islam strongly forbade such practices. In addition, numerous reports and exegetical works indicate that many of these practices—or some of them—were performed as offerings to idols, which means that Islam’s opposition to them was also a confrontation with idol‑worship. Remarkably, some reports state that when such animals died naturally, their meat was at times consumed as a form of blessing, which was itself a reprehensible act. The verse then states that the disbelievers and idol‑worshippers falsely attributed these practices to God, claiming that they were divine laws (وَّ لٰکِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا یَفۡتَرُوۡنَ عَلَی اللّٰہِ الۡکَذِبَ). Most of them did not engage in reflection or use their intellect in this matter, but instead practiced blind imitation (وَ اَکۡثَرُہُمۡ لَا یَعۡقِلُوۡنَ). In the following verse, the Qur’an exposes the logic behind their baseless practices. When they are told to come toward what God has revealed and toward the Messenger, they turn away and say that the customs, traditions, and ways of their forefathers are sufficient for them (وَ اِذَا قِیۡلَ لَہُمۡ تَعَالَوۡا اِلٰی مَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ وَ اِلَی الرَّسُوۡلِ قَالُوۡا حَسۡبُنَا مَا وَجَدۡنَا عَلَیۡہِ اٰبَآءَنَا). In reality, their misdeeds and idol‑worship stemmed from another form of idolatry: uncritical reverence for the baseless customs and practices of their elders. Merely being linked to “ancestors” and “forefathers” was, in their view, sufficient proof of the correctness of beliefs and rituals. The Qur’an responds firmly by asking: what if their forefathers lacked knowledge and were not rightly guided (اَوَ لَوۡ کَانَ اٰبَآؤُہُمۡ لَا یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ شَیۡئًا وَّ لَا یَہۡتَدُوۡنَ)? That is, if those ancestors—upon whom they rely for their beliefs and practices—had been people of knowledge and guidance, then following them could have been likened to the imitation of the learned by the ignorant. But when it is known that they possessed no greater knowledge and were likely even more ignorant, such imitation becomes nothing more than the blind following of one ignorant person by another. This is something that reason and intellect deem highly blameworthy. The use of the word “most” (اکثر) in the verse also suggests that even within such an environment of ignorance and darkness, there existed a small but discerning minority, albeit weak, that viewed such practices with contempt and rejection.

Among the practices that were widespread with great intensity during the Age of Ignorance was the habit of taking pride in one’s ancestors and elders, and of according them unconditional reverence—at times reaching the level of veneration—by uncritically respecting their personalities, ideas, customs, and traditions. The Qur’an has referred to this phenomenon in various verses. Moreover, this practice was not confined to the Age of Ignorance alone; rather, it has existed among many nations and communities, and it may well be one of the principal factors through which superstitions and meaningless practices are transmitted and spread from one generation to another. It is as though “death” bestows upon past generations a kind of immunity and sanctity, enveloping them in an aura of reverence and piety. There is no doubt that the spirit of gratitude and the principles of human ethics require that one respect one’s forefathers and elders. However, this does not mean that they should be regarded as infallible, nor that critical examination, inquiry, and evaluation of their ideas and customs should be abandoned, nor that their baseless practices should be followed blindly and unquestioningly. Such behavior is, in reality, a form of idolatry and an ignorant mode of reasoning. On the contrary, while respecting their rights and acknowledging their beneficial ideas and traditions, it is necessary to confront and firmly eradicate their erroneous rituals and improper practices. This is especially important given that later generations, due to the progression of knowledge and accumulation of experience over time, are generally more informed and discerning than earlier generations. No sound reason or intellect permits blind imitation of the past. It is indeed astonishing that we sometimes observe this weak form of reasoning even among educated individuals, including university professors, who have not entirely freed themselves from it. At times, they practically embrace astonishing and even absurd superstitions. For example, some, in imitation of their forefathers, jump over fire at the end of the year, attempting in this way to preserve elements of ancestral fire‑worship. In reality, their reasoning is nothing other than a continuation of the same mentality that characterized the bedouins of the Age of Ignorance.

In Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, quoting from al‑Durr al‑Manthūr and transmitted from a group of Sunni scholars, a narration is reported from a man named Abū al‑Aḥwaṣ. He relates: I came into the presence of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wearing old and worn clothes. The Prophet asked me: “Do you possess wealth?” I replied: “Yes.” He asked: “What kind of wealth?” I said: “All kinds of wealth—I have camels, sheep, horses, and so on.” The Prophet said: “When Allah grants you something, it is necessary that its effects be visible upon you,” meaning that one should not set aside one’s wealth and live like the poor and indigent. He then asked: “Are the young of your camels born with slit ears, or with sound and intact ears?” I replied: “Certainly with sound and intact ears. How could a she‑camel give birth to an offspring with slit ears?” The Prophet then said: “Then it must be you yourself who take a knife in hand and slit the ears of some of them, saying ‘this is baḥīr,’ and cut the ears of others, saying ‘this is ṣarm.’” I replied: “Yes, that is what I do.” The Prophet said: “Do not do this at all. Whatever Allah has granted to you is lawful for you.” He then recited this verse: مَا جَعَلَ اللهُ مِنْ بَحِیرَةٍ وَلاَ سَائِبَةٍ وَلاَ وَصِیلَةٍ وَلاَ حَامٍ. This narration indicates that they would render a portion of their wealth idle and useless, while at the same time practicing miserliness by wearing torn and worn clothing. In reality, this represented an unfounded and illogical contradiction.

In the previous verse, the conduct of the people of the Age of Ignorance in blindly imitating their elders was discussed, and the Qur’an clearly warned them that such imitation is not sound from the perspective of reason and logic. Following this clarification, it was natural for a question to arise in their minds: if we disengage ourselves from our elders in such matters, what will become of their fate? Moreover, if we abandon this type of imitation, what will be the situation of many others who follow the same path? In response to such questions, the present verse declares: O you who believe, responsibility lies upon yourselves; if you are rightly guided, the misguidance of others—whether they be your own elders or your contemporaries and companions—will not harm you (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا عَلَیۡکُمۡ اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ ۚ لَا یَضُرُّکُمۡ مَّنۡ ضَلَّ اِذَا اہۡتَدَیۡتُمۡ). The verse then directs attention to the return to God, the reckoning of the Hereafter, and the individual accountability of every person, stating: to Allah is the return of you all; then He will inform each of you of what you used to do (اِلَی اللّٰہِ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ جَمِیۡعًا فَیُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ).

Regarding this verse, many objections have been raised. Some have imagined that there is a contradiction between this verse and the command of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, which is an established and definitive obligation in Islam. Their reasoning is that this verse appears to say: focus on yourselves, occupy yourselves with your own condition, and the deviation and misguidance of others will not affect you. Interestingly, reports indicate that a similar misunderstanding also existed among some less‑informed individuals at the time of the verse’s revelation. Jubayr ibn Nufayl says: I was sitting in a circle of the Companions of the Prophet, and I was the youngest among them. They began discussing enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. In the midst of their discussion, I spoke up and said: Does Allah not say in the Qur’an, “يٰۤاَیُّهَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا عَلَیۡکُمۡ اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ ۚ لَا یَضُرُّکُمۡ مَّنۡ ضَلَّ اِذَا اہۡتَدَیۡتُمۡ”? If so, then what need remains for enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong? At once, all of them reprimanded me and said: You are separating a verse of the Qur’an without understanding its meaning. I was deeply ashamed of what I had said, and they continued their discussion. When they later rose to leave the gathering, they turned toward me and said: You are a young man, and you took a verse of the Qur’an out of context without understanding it. However, it may be that you live to see a time when miserliness dominates people and rules over them, when desire becomes their leader, and when everyone admires only his own opinion. In such a time, safeguard yourself alone, and the misguidance of others will not harm you—that is, this verse relates to such a circumstance. Some comfort‑seeking individuals of our own time, when discussion arises about fulfilling the two great divine duties of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, cite this verse in order to absolve themselves of responsibility, distorting its meaning. Yet with a little reflection it becomes clear that there is no contradiction whatsoever between this verse and those two obligations. First, the verse states that each individual’s accountability is separate, and that the misguidance of others—such as one’s ancestors or contemporaries—does not harm those who are rightly guided. Even if they are brothers or fathers and sons, their deviation does not justify following them. Therefore, do not imitate them, but save yourselves. Second, the verse refers to situations in which enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is ineffective, or the conditions for its effectiveness do not exist. At times, people become anxious and ask: what is our duty in such circumstances? The Qur’an answers that there is no cause for distress, because you have fulfilled your obligation; they have not accepted it, or the capacity and conditions for acceptance were not present. Therefore, no harm comes to you. This meaning is clearly reflected in the narration quoted earlier, and likewise in other traditions. It is reported that when the Messenger of Allah was asked about this verse, he said: “أْمُرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَانْهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ، فَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ دُنْيَا مؤْثَرَةً، وَشُحًّا مُطَاعًا، وَهَوًى مُتَّبَعًا، وَإِعْجَابَ كُلِّ ذِي رَأْيٍ بِرَأيِهِ، فَعَلَيْكَ بِخَاصَّةِ نَفْسِكَ وَذَرِ الْعَوَامَّ” — Enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, but when you see that people prefer the world, miserliness is obeyed, desire is followed, and everyone admires only his own opinion, then attend to your own soul and leave the masses. In any case, there is no doubt that enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is among the most fundamental pillars of Islam, and one cannot evade responsibility for it under normal circumstances. These two obligations are suspended only in situations where there is no hope of their effectiveness and when the essential conditions for their performance are absent.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

In Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and several other works of Qur’anic exegesis, it is reported regarding the occasion of revelation of the above verses that among the Muslims there was a man named Ibn Abī Māriyah who set out from Madinah for the purpose of trade, accompanied by two Arab Christians named Tamīm and ʿAdī, who were brothers. During the journey, Ibn Abī Māriyah, who was a Muslim, fell ill. He wrote a testament, concealed it among his belongings, and entrusted his property to his two Christian companions, instructing them to deliver it to his relatives. He then passed away. After his death, the two companions opened his possessions and took for themselves the most valuable and important items, while delivering the remainder of the property to the heirs. When the heirs opened the belongings, they noticed that some of the items which Ibn Abī Māriyah had taken with him were missing. They then discovered the written testament, in which all the stolen items were listed in detail. They confronted the two Christian companions with this evidence, but both denied the accusation and claimed that they had handed over everything that had been entrusted to them. As a result, the heirs lodged a complaint with the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Thereupon, the verses under discussion were revealed, clarifying the ruling concerning such cases. However, according to the version of the incident reported in al‑Kāfī, it appears that the two companions initially denied the existence of the missing property altogether, and the case was brought before the Prophet. Since the Prophet had no concrete evidence against them, he required them to swear an oath, and upon their taking the oath, he ruled in their favor and acquitted them. Not long thereafter, however, some of the disputed property was found in their possession, thereby exposing their falsehood. The matter was once again brought to the attention of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who was meanwhile awaiting divine guidance, until the aforementioned verses were revealed. Following this revelation, the Prophet ordered the heirs of the deceased to take an oath, after which he took back the recovered property and restored it to them.

One of the most important principles in Islam is the preservation of rights, the protection of people’s property, and the establishment of comprehensive social justice. The verses above are connected with this sphere of legal rulings. First, in order to prevent the loss of the heirs’ rights in the estate of a deceased person—and to ensure that the rights of dependents, orphans, and minor children are not violated—the verse addresses the believers and states: O you who believe, when death approaches one of you at the time of making a bequest, let there be two just persons from among you as witnesses to the testament (يٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا شَہَادَۃُ بَیۡنِکُمۡ اِذَا حَضَرَ اَحَدَکُمُ الۡمَوۡتُ حِیۡنَ الۡوَصِیَّۃِ اثۡنٰنِ ذَوَا عَدۡلٍ مِّنۡکُمۡ). Here, “justice” refers to moral integrity, meaning abstention from major sins and manifest wrongdoing. It has also been suggested that justice here may mean trustworthiness specifically in financial matters and avoidance of betrayal, unless further evidence establishes additional conditions. The phrase “from among you” indicates Muslim witnesses, as opposed to non‑Muslims, who are mentioned later in the verse. It must also be noted that this verse does not concern ordinary testimony in general, but testimony connected with a will; here the two individuals function simultaneously as executors and witnesses. The assumption that, in addition to two witnesses, a third person must be appointed separately as an executor runs contrary both to the apparent meaning of the verse and to its reported occasion of revelation, for—as noted earlier—Ibḥn Abī Māriyah had only two companions whom he appointed for this role. The verse then adds that if you are traveling and the calamity of death befalls you—and no Muslim witnesses are available—then two persons from among others (i.e., non‑Muslims) may be chosen for this purpose (اَوۡ اٰخَرٰنِ مِنۡ غَیۡرِکُمۡ اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ ضَرَبۡتُمۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَاَصَابَتۡکُمۡ مُّصِیۡبَۃُ الۡمَوۡتِ). Although the verse does not explicitly state that recourse to non‑Muslims is conditional upon the unavailability of Muslims, this restriction is clearly implied by the context, and the mention of travel serves precisely this purpose. Likewise, although the particle “aw” often indicates choice, here—as in many other instances—it implies an ordered sequence: Muslims should be chosen first, and only if that is not possible should non‑Muslims be selected. It should also be observed that the non‑Muslims intended here are People of the Book (Jews and Christians), since Islam does not accord legal standing to idolaters. The verse then prescribes a further safeguard: if doubt arises, the two witnesses should be detained after the prayer and made to swear an oath by God (تَحۡبِسُوۡنَہُمَا مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ الصَّلٰوۃِ فَیُقۡسِمٰنِ بِاللّٰہِ اِنِ ارۡتَبۡتُمۡ). Their oath is to the effect that they will not exchange the truth for worldly gain, even if it concerns a close relative, and that they will not conceal God’s testimony, for otherwise they would be among the sinners (لَا نَشۡتَرِیۡ بِہٖ ثَمَنًا وَّ لَوۡ کَانَ ذَا قُرۡبٰی … وَلَا نَکۡتُمُ شَہَادَۃَ اللّٰہِ اِنَّاۤ اِذًا لَّمِنَ الۡاٰثِمِیۡنَ). It should be emphasized that these requirements apply only when suspicion and doubt are present. They function as a strong protective measure and do not contradict the general acceptance of the testimony of two just witnesses without an oath when no accusation exists. Accordingly, the verse is neither abrogated nor restricted solely to non‑Muslims (reflect on this carefully). As for the reference to prayer, in the case of non‑Muslims it naturally refers to their own form of prayer, since that is what would evoke a sense of God‑consciousness for them. With respect to Muslims, some have held that the verse specifically refers to the afternoon prayer, and there are narrations from the Ahl al‑Bayt pointing in this direction. However, the apparent wording of the verse is general and applies to prayer without restriction. The mention of the afternoon prayer in some traditions may indicate a recommended practice, since people would often be gathered in greater numbers at that time and judicial matters were commonly addressed then. In any case, choosing the time of prayer for testimony is meant to awaken God‑consciousness, as expressed in the verse: “Indeed, prayer restrains from indecency and wrongdoing” (إِنَّ الصَّلَاةَ تَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنكَرِ). The sanctity of time and place influences one’s inclination toward truth; hence some jurists have even recommended that, if possible, testimony be given in Makkah, between the Corner and the Station of the Kaʿbah, or in Madinah near the Prophet’s pulpit. The following verse addresses the situation in which it becomes evident that the two initial witnesses betrayed the trust and testified falsely, as occurred in the reported occasion of revelation. In such a case, the ruling is that two other persons must take their place—chosen from among those whose rights were violated, namely the heirs of the deceased—and give testimony to reclaim their rightful property (فَاِنۡ عُثِرَ عَلٰۤی اَنَّہُمَا اسۡتَحَقَّاۤ اِثۡمًا فَاٰخَرٰنِ یَقُوۡمٰنِ مَقَامَہُمَا مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ اسۡتَحَقَّ عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡاَوۡلَیٰنِ). Al‑Ṭabarsī remarks in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān that this verse is among the most intricate in meaning and grammatical structure in the Qur’an, yet with attention to two points it becomes clear. First, in light of the term “sin” (ithm), the phrase “istahaqqā ithman” indicates committing wrongdoing and infringing upon another’s right. Second, “al‑awlayān” here means “the two who were most entitled” to testify—that is, the original witnesses who deviated from the truth. The sense of the verse, then, is that if it is discovered that the first two witnesses committed injustice, two others from among those wronged (the heirs) shall take their place. According to this reading, “ākhirān” is the subject, “yaqūmān maqāmahuma” is its predicate, and the phrase “min alladhīna” qualifies the two replacement witnesses. The verse further states that these two heirs must swear an oath by God that their testimony is more truthful and just than that of the first witnesses, and that they themselves have not transgressed; otherwise they would be among the wrongdoers (فَیُقۡسِمٰنِ بِاللّٰہِ لَشَہَادَتُنَاۤ اَحَقُّ مِنۡ شَہَادَتِہِمَا …). Their testimony is based on prior knowledge of the deceased’s property acquired during travel or otherwise, and thus rests on direct knowledge rather than conjecture. Finally, the verse explains the wisdom behind these detailed rulings on testimony: this procedure is more likely to ensure that witnesses give testimony accurately, or at least fear that their oaths may be contested by subsequent oaths if they betray the truth (ذٰلِکَ اَدۡنٰۤی اَنۡ یَّاۡتُوۡا بِالشَّہَادَۃِ عَلٰی وَجۡہِہَاۤ اَوۡ یَخَافُوۡۤا اَنۡ تُرَدَّ اَیۡمَانٌۢ بَعۡدَ اَیۡمَانِہِمۡ). In essence, this framework strengthens accountability before God and before people, discouraging deviation from justice. The verse concludes by emphasizing all the preceding commands: fear Allah, listen attentively, and know that Allah does not guide those who persist in wrongdoing (وَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَ اسۡمَعُوۡا ۗ وَ اللّٰہُ لَا یَہۡدِی الۡقَوۡمَ الۡفٰسِقِیۡنَ).

This verse in fact completes the preceding verses. Since the earlier verses—connected with the issue of truthful and false testimony—ended with commands to observe piety and to fear opposing God’s command, this verse states: fear the Day on which God will gather the messengers and question them about their mission, asking them what response they received from the people (یَوۡمَ يَجۡمَعُ اللّٰهُ الرُّسُلَ فَيَقُوۡلُ مَاذَاۤ اُجِبۡتُمۡ). They will deny any claim to independent knowledge and will attribute all realities entirely to God’s knowledge, saying: O Lord, we have no knowledge; indeed, You alone are the Knower of all hidden things (قَالُوۡا لَا عِلۡمَ لَنَا ؕ اِنَّكَ اَنۡتَ عَلَّامُ الۡغُيُوۡبِ). In the same way, you too will encounter such an All‑Knowing God and such a court of judgment; therefore, observe truth and justice in your testimonies. From what has been said above, it becomes clear that from a grammatical perspective “يَوۡمَ” functions as the object of an implied verb of fearing, as understood from the preceding verse. Here two questions arise. The first is that other Qur’anic verses indicate that the prophets and messengers are witnesses over their communities, whereas this verse appears to show them denying knowledge altogether and referring everything to God. There is, however, no contradiction between these two matters. Rather, they relate to different stages. In the first stage—which is indicated by the verse under discussion—the prophets, in response to God’s question, display humility and courtesy by negating independent knowledge and attributing everything to God’s knowledge. In subsequent stages, they will testify concerning what they know about their communities. This is similar to a situation in which a teacher asks a student to answer a question; the student first humbly acknowledges the teacher’s superior knowledge, and then proceeds to state what he himself knows. The second question is how the prophets can deny having knowledge when they possess extensive knowledge beyond ordinary human understanding through divine instruction. Although exegetes have offered various explanations, in our view the matter is quite clear: what the prophets mean is that they regard their knowledge as nothing when compared to God’s knowledge—and in reality this is indeed the case. Our entire existence is insignificant before His infinite being, and our knowledge is no knowledge at all when measured against His knowledge. In summary, whatever belongs to the contingent being is nothing in comparison with the Necessary Being. In other words, although the prophets possess immense knowledge in their own right, when this is compared with God’s knowledge it is negligible. True and absolute knowledge belongs to the One who is present everywhere at all times, who is aware of the interconnections of all the particles of the universe, and who comprehends all the characteristics of existence as an integrated unity. This attribute is exclusive to God, exalted is He. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that this verse cannot be taken as proof for denying all forms of knowledge of the unseen to the prophets or the Imams, as some have assumed. Knowledge of the unseen is, in essence, God’s alone; however, He grants access to it to whomsoever He wills and to whatever extent He deems appropriate. This is clearly affirmed by numerous Qur’anic verses, among them: عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ فَلَا يُظْهِرُ عَلَى غَيْبِهِ أَحَدًا إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَى مِن رَّسُولٍ (Surah al‑Jinn, 26), meaning that God is the Knower of the unseen and does not disclose His unseen to anyone except a messenger whom He chooses. Likewise, in Surah Hūd, 49: تِلْكَ مِنْ أَنبَاءِ الْغَيْبِ نُوحِيهَا إِلَيْكَ, “These are from the tidings of the unseen which We reveal to you.” Such verses and others like them show that although knowledge of the unseen is not intrinsically limited to God alone in the sense of absolute exclusivity, it is wholly dependent upon His will: He teaches from it to whomever He wishes and in whatever measure and manner He determines.

Divine Favours Bestowed upon Jesus (ʿĪsā عليه السلام) This verse and the subsequent verses until the end of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah relate to the life of Jesus son of Mary (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam عليه السلام) and the divine favours granted to him and to his community. They are presented here as a lesson and means of awakening for the Muslims. It begins with the statement: remember the time when God said to Jesus, son of Mary: recall My favour upon you and upon your mother (اِذْ قَالَ اللّٰهُ يٰعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ اذْكُرْ نِعْمَتِي عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ وَالِدَتِكَ). According to this interpretation, the preceding verses inaugurate an independent discussion with a clear pedagogical purpose directed at the Muslims and connected to worldly realities. Some exegetes, however, such as al‑Ṭabarsī, al‑Bayḍāwī, and Abū l‑Futūḥ al‑Rāzī, have suggested that this verse is a continuation of the earlier verse concerning the questioning of the messengers on the Day of Resurrection, and that the verb qāla (said), though in the past tense, carries the meaning of yaqūlu (will say). This interpretation, however, runs counter to the apparent wording of the verse, especially since recounting blessings is normally intended to awaken gratitude—an objective that has no place in the context of the Hereafter. The verse then begins enumerating those favours. The first is: I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (إِذْ أَيَّدْتُكَ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ). The meaning of Rūḥ al‑Qudus has already been discussed in detail in Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah. In brief, one interpretation identifies it as the angel of revelation, Gabriel, while another understands it as a divine, unseen power that supported Jesus (ʿĪsā عليه السلام) in manifesting miracles and fulfilling his prophetic mission—a power that exists at a weaker level even among those other than prophets. The second divine favour mentioned is that, by the support of the Holy Spirit, Jesus spoke to people both in the cradle and in maturity (تُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا). This indicates that his words in infancy were as measured, weighty, and meaningful as his speech in adulthood, unlike the trivial utterances of ordinary children. The third favour is: I taught you the Book, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel (وَإِذْ عَلَّمْتُكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنجِيلَ). Mentioning the Torah and the Gospel after the general term “the Book” is an instance of elaboration after summarization. The fourth favour is that Jesus, by divine permission, fashioned from clay the form of a bird and breathed into it, whereupon it became a living bird by God’s permission (وَإِذْ تَخْلُقُ مِنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ بِإِذْنِي فَتَنفُخُ فِيهَا فَتَكُونُ طَيْرًا بِإِذْنِي). The fifth favour is that, by divine permission, he healed those born blind and those afflicted with leprosy (وَتُبْرِئُ الْأَكْمَهَ وَالْأَبْرَصَ بِإِذْنِي). Finally, among these favours was that God restrained the Children of Israel from harming Jesus when their disbelievers rose against him in the face of his clear proofs and declared them to be manifest sorcery. God protected him amid that tumultuous hostility so that he might continue his mission (وَإِذْ تُخْرِجُ الْمَوْتَىٰ بِإِذْنِي وَإِذْ كَفَفْتُ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَنكَ إِذْ جِئْتَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْهُمْ إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ). A particularly noteworthy point is that in this single verse the phrase bi‑idhni (“by My permission”) is repeated four times, leaving no room for exaggeration or for claims of divinity regarding Jesus (ʿĪsā عليه السلام). Although his acts were extraordinary and bore resemblance to divine acts, none of them originated from him independently; rather, all were carried out by God’s permission. Jesus was a servant of God, wholly obedient, and whatever he possessed derived from the power of the Eternal God. One might object that all these favours pertain directly to Jesus (ʿĪsā عليه السلام), so why are they also described as favours upon his mother, Mary (Maryam عليها السلام)? The answer is evident: a blessing bestowed upon a child is in reality also a blessing upon the mother, for both share a single origin; they are branches of the same tree and rooted in one foundation. Incidentally, as explained earlier in the commentary on Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (49), this verse and similar ones constitute clear textual evidence for the concept of wilāyah takwīniyyah (creational authority) of God’s chosen servants, since acts such as reviving the dead and healing congenital blindness are attributed to Jesus himself—though always with divine permission. This wording shows that it is entirely possible for God to grant certain individuals authority to effect extraordinary acts in the realm of creation. Interpreting these verses merely as descriptions of prophetic supplication and subsequent divine response runs contrary to their apparent meaning. By wilāyah takwīniyyah in the case of God’s friends, nothing more is meant than what has been explained above, and no evidence exists for attributing to them a greater degree than this. Further clarification may be found in volume two of the commentary.

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

The Divine Favours Granted to the Disciples (Ḥawāriyyūn) and the Descent of the Heavenly Table (Māʾidah) After the discussion in the preceding verses about the divine favours bestowed upon Jesus (ʿĪsā عليه السلام) and his mother Mary (Maryam عليها السلام), these verses turn to the blessings granted to the Ḥawāriyyūn—the close companions and helpers of Jesus. The purpose is again moral instruction and spiritual awakening, especially for the Muslim audience. The passage begins by recalling the moment when God inspired the disciples, saying: believe in Me and in My Messenger. They immediately accepted the call and responded: we believe; bear witness that we are Muslims, fully submitting to Your command (وَإِذْ أَوْحَيْتُ إِلَى الْحَوَارِيِّينَ أَنْ آمِنُوا بِي وَبِرَسُولِي قَالُوا آمَنَّا وَاشْهَدْ بِأَنَّنَا مُسْلِمُونَ). Here it is important to note that the concept of waḥy (revelation/inspiration) in the Qur’an is not restricted solely to revelation in the prophetic sense. It also encompasses divine inspiration or guidance granted to non‑prophets. For this reason, the Qur’an speaks of waḥy in relation to the mother of Moses (Surah al‑Qaṣaṣ 28:7), and even to animals such as the honeybee. Accordingly, the inspiration given to the disciples may be understood either as inner divine guidance planted in their hearts, or as instruction conveyed to them through Jesus himself, often reinforced by the miracles they witnessed. The verses then refer to the well‑known incident of the descent of the heavenly table. The disciples said to Jesus: can your Lord send down to us a table from heaven? (إِذْ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ يٰعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ هَلْ يَسْتَطِيعُ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ). The word māʾidah in Arabic refers both to a table spread for food and to the food itself. It is derived from a root meaning movement or circulation, possibly alluding to the passing of food and dishes around those who partake. Jesus responded with caution and admonition, sensing in the request a trace of doubt after so many signs had already been shown. He said: fear God if you are truly believers (قَالَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰهَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ). However, the disciples quickly clarified their intention. They explained that their request was not born of obstinacy or disbelief. Rather, they wished to eat from it, so that their hearts might find reassurance, their certainty be strengthened, and their faith rise from belief to ʿilm al‑yaqīn—unshakeable knowledge—enabling them to bear witness to the truth of Jesus’s message (نُرِيدُ أَنْ نَأْكُلَ مِنْهَا وَتَطْمَئِنَّ قُلُوبُنَا وَنَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ صَدَقْتَنَا وَنَكُونَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ). When Jesus realized their sincerity, he presented their request to God in a refined and devotional manner, keeping in view both spiritual aims and collective benefit. He prayed: O God, our Lord, send down upon us a table from heaven to be for us a festival for the first of us and the last of us, and a sign from You. And provide for us, for You are the best of providers (اللّٰهُمَّ رَبَّنَا أَنْزِلْ عَلَيْنَا مَائِدَةً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ تَكُونُ لَنَا عِيدًا لِأَوَّلِنَا وَآخِرِنَا وَآيَةً مِنْكَ وَارْزُقْنَا وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الرَّازِقِينَ). God accepted the prayer, but with a solemn warning: indeed I shall send it down to you; yet whoever among you disbelieves thereafter, I shall punish him with a punishment such as I have not inflicted upon anyone in all the worlds (إِنِّي مُنَزِّلُهَا عَلَيْكُمْ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بَعْدُ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنِّي أُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا لَا أُعَذِّبُهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ). The lesson is clear: the greater the divine favour and the clearer the sign, the heavier the responsibility. Open defiance after such unmistakable proof deserves unparalleled accountability. Key Reflections - Faith admits levels; sincere believers may still seek reassurance, but they must do so with humility and reverence. - Divine miracles are not merely privileges; they intensify moral responsibility. - God’s gifts aim to strengthen gratitude, unity, and remembrance—not entitlement or complacency. If you’d like, I can next: - explain how this story connects to Islamic concepts of ʿīd (festival and renewal), or - discuss historical and theological interpretations of whether the māʾidah actually descended, or - continue with the remaining verses at the end of Sūrat al‑Māʾidah in the same explanatory style.

In these verses there are several points whose examination is necessary: 1. What was meant by the request for the heavenly table (مائدة)? There is no doubt that the disciples (ḥawāriyyūn) harbored no improper intention in making this request, nor was their aim obstinacy toward Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām). Rather, they sought further reassurance, so that whatever doubts and apprehensions still lingered in the depths of their hearts might be removed. It often happens that a person establishes a matter through reasoning, and sometimes even through experience, yet when an issue is of exceptional importance, many subtle misgivings and hesitations remain hidden within the heart. Hence arises the desire either to eliminate these doubts through repeated testing and experience, or to replace intellectual reasoning with direct observation so that all hesitation and inner anxiety may be uprooted entirely. Thus we see that Abraham (ʿalayhi al‑salām), despite having attained the highest rank of faith and certainty, nevertheless requested that God show him the reality of resurrection with his own eyes, so that his faith—grounded in knowledge—might be transformed into ʿayn al‑yaqīn and direct witnessing. However, because the apparent wording of the disciples’ request seemed objectionable, Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām) initially interpreted it as a form of pretext‑making and reproached them. When they clarified their intention with sufficient explanation, he accepted their request. 2. What is meant by the expression “هَلْ يَسْتَطِيعُ رَبُّكَ”? At first glance, this phrase appears to suggest that the disciples doubted God’s power regarding the descent of the table. Yet in the explanations offered by Muslim exegetes, several notable interpretations are presented. First, it is said that they made this request at an early stage, before they had fully come to know the divine attributes. Second, their intent may have been: does God deem it appropriate or wise, according to His own judgment, to send down such a table—just as someone may say, “I cannot place all my wealth in the hands of a particular person,” meaning not inability, but lack of expediency. Third, يستطيع may here mean يستجيب, since the root ṭawʿ denotes compliance and responsiveness; when used in the form of istifʿāl, it may convey acceptance or response. Accordingly, the meaning would be: will your Lord accept our request to send down a heavenly table. 3. What was this heavenly table? The Qur’an does not specify what items the heavenly table contained. However, according to hadith—among them a narration transmitted from Imām al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām)—it appears that it consisted of several loaves of bread and a few fish. Possibly the reason for this request was that the disciples had heard that, through Moses (ʿalayhi al‑salām), a heavenly provision had descended upon the Children of Israel, and they therefore sought a similar sign from Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām). 4. Did the table actually descend? Although the verses in question almost explicitly state the descent of the table—since God does not break His promise—it is surprising that some exegetes have denied its descent, claiming that after realizing the heavy responsibility that would follow, the disciples withdrew their request. The correct view, however, is that the table did indeed descend. 5. What is meant by “ʿīd”? The term ʿīd is derived from the root ʿawd, meaning “return.” Hence those days on which the hardships of a people or nation are removed and they return to prior states of success and ease are called ʿīd. Islamic festivals are called ʿīd because after a month of obedience in Ramadan, or after performing the great rite of pilgrimage, the soul returns to its original purity and innate cleanliness, and unnatural impurities are removed. Since the day of the table’s descent marked a return to success, purity, and renewed faith in God, Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām) designated it as an ʿīd. According to reports, the descent of the table occurred on a Sunday, and this may be one of the reasons for the special status of Sunday among Christians. A narration from ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “وكل يوم لا يُعصى الله فيه فهو يوم عيد” — “Every day in which God is not disobeyed is a day of ʿīd.” This likewise indicates that the abandonment of sin constitutes a return to success, purity, and primordial nature. 6. Why was a severe punishment mentioned? An important point must be noted: when faith reaches the level of direct witnessing and ʿayn al‑yaqīn, such that reality is seen with one’s own eyes and no room remains for doubt or hesitation, responsibility becomes far more severe. This individual has entered a new stage of faith and accountability, and even minor negligence will merit severe punishment. This is why the responsibility of the prophets and the friends of God was exceedingly stringent, and why they lived in constant fear and vigilance. Even in ordinary life, one knows generally that hungry people exist and that accountability may follow; but when one directly witnesses a starving innocent person crying from hunger, responsibility becomes immediate and far more serious. 7. The New Testament and the table (مائدة). The four canonical Gospels do not discuss the table in the manner described by the Qur’an. Although in the Gospel of John, chapter 21, there is mention of Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām) feeding people and miraculously providing bread and fish, careful attention shows that this account bears no relation to the heavenly table or the matter of the disciples. Likewise, in the Acts of the Apostles—a book of the New Testament—there is mention of a descent of provision associated with the disciple Peter, which again is unrelated to the discussion at hand. Given that many realities revealed to Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām) were not recorded in these texts, no difficulty arises in affirming the Qur’anic account of the descent of the table.

See ayat 118 for tafseer.

See ayat 118 for tafseer.

In these verses there are several points that require careful study: 1. What was meant by the request for the Table? There is no doubt that in making this request the disciples had no improper intention, nor was their aim obstinacy toward Jesus (علیه السلام); rather, they were seeking further reassurance so that the doubts, suspicions, and misgivings that still lingered in the depths of their hearts might also be removed. For it often happens that a person establishes a matter through rational argument, and sometimes even on the basis of experience, yet when the issue is of great importance many scruples and uncertainties remain in the recesses of the heart; consequently, one desires either through repeated experiments and trials or by replacing rational proof with direct observation to uproot doubts and misgivings from the deepest layers of the heart. Thus, we see that Abraham (علیه السلام), despite having attained the highest rank of faith and certainty, nevertheless requested from God to behold the reality of resurrection with his own eyes, so that his faith based on knowledge might be transformed into “ʿayn al‑yaqīn” and direct witnessing. However, because the outward implication of the disciples’ request appeared somewhat problematic, Jesus (علیه السلام) initially interpreted it as pretextual and objected to them, but when they clarified their purpose adequately, he accepted their explanation. 2. What is meant by “هَلْ یَسْتَطِیْعُ رَبُکَ”? At first glance this expression suggests that the disciples doubted God’s power regarding the descent of the Table, but the interpretations offered by Muslim exegetes are noteworthy: first, that they made this request at an early stage, before becoming fully acquainted with the divine attributes; second, that they meant whether God deemed it wise or expedient to send down such a Table, as when someone says, “I cannot entrust all my wealth to such‑and‑such a person,” meaning not inability but lack of perceived benefit; third, that “یستطیع” here means “یستجیب,” since the root طوع signifies submission and compliance, and in the form of istifʿāl it can convey the sense of responding. Accordingly, the phrase would mean: will your Lord accept our request to send down a heavenly Table for us? 3. What was this heavenly Table? The Qur’an does not specify the items it contained, but reports in the traditions, including a narration from Imam al‑Bāqir (علیه السلام), indicate that it consisted of several loaves of bread and some fish. Perhaps the request for such a miracle arose because the disciples had heard that through the miracle of Moses (علیه السلام) a heavenly provision had descended upon the Children of Israel, and therefore they sought a similar sign from Jesus (علیه السلام). 4. Did the Table actually descend? Despite the fact that the above verses quite explicitly indicate the descent of the Table—since God does not break His promise—it is surprising that some exegetes denied its descent, claiming that when the disciples realized the heavy responsibility that would follow, they withdrew their request; the correct view, however, is that the Table did descend upon them. 5. What is meant by “ʿīd”? Linguistically, ʿīd derives from the root ʿawd, meaning return; thus, days on which the difficulties of a people or nation are removed and they return to former states of success and ease are called ʿīd. Islamic festivals are termed ʿīd in this sense because after a month of obedience in Ramadan, or upon performing the great obligation of ḥajj, the soul returns to its original natural purity and clarity, and unnatural impurities are removed. Since the day of the Table’s descent was a day of success, purity, and return to faith in God, Jesus (علیه السلام) named it an ʿīd; as related in traditions, the Table descended on a Sunday, which may be one of the reasons for the Christian reverence for that day. A narration from ʿAlī (علیه السلام) states: “وکل یوم لایعصی الله فیہ فہو یوم عید,” that is, every day on which God is not disobeyed is a day of ʿīd; this too points to the same meaning, for the abandonment of sin is a day of success, purity, and return to the primordial nature. 6. Why was severe punishment threatened? It is essential to note that when faith reaches the stage of direct witnessing and ʿayn al‑yaqīn—when the truth is seen with one’s own eyes and no possibility of doubt or hesitation remains—the responsibility and accountability of that person become extremely severe. Such an individual is no longer in the former state of faith that lacked direct witnessing and was occasionally beset by doubts; rather, he has entered a new stage of faith and responsibility, in which even slight negligence entails severe accountability and harsh punishment. This is why the responsibility of the prophets and the friends of God was so onerous, and why they lived constantly in awe and apprehension. We encounter analogous situations in everyday life: in principle, everyone knows that there are hungry people in their town or region for whom they will be held accountable, but when one actually sees with one’s own eyes an innocent person crying out from intense hunger, the degree and immediacy of accountability become far more severe. 7. The New Testament and the Table: In the four extant Gospels the Table is not discussed in the manner found in the Qur’an. Although the Gospel of John, chapter 21, contains an account in which Jesus (علیه السلام) feeds people and miraculously offers bread and fish, a little reflection shows that this has no connection with the heavenly Table and the episode of the disciples under discussion. In the book Acts of the Apostles, which is part of the New Testament, there is also mention of a Table descending upon a disciple named Peter, but that too concerns a different matter from the one discussed here. Given that many truths related to Jesus (علیه السلام) were not transmitted, there is no difficulty in accepting the Qur’anic account of the descent of the Table.

1. Is there any evidence in Christian history that Mary was regarded as a deity, or were Christians only adherents of the Trinity, that is, three gods: “God the Father,” “God the Son,” and “the Holy Spirit”? It is certain that, according to their belief, the “Holy Spirit” is the intermediary between “God the Father” and “God the Son,” and is distinct from Mary. In response to this question it may be said that it is true Christians did not regard Mary as God; nevertheless, they performed rites of worship before her and her images, just as idolaters did not consider idols to be God, yet still regarded them as partners with God in worship. More precisely, there is a distinction between “Allah” meaning God, and “ilāh” meaning an object of worship. Christians regarded Mary as an ilāh, that is, an object of worship, not as God. According to the expression of one exegete, although no Christian sect explicitly applies the terms “ilāh” or “object of worship” to Mary and instead consider her only the Mother of God, in practice they perform acts of devotion, humility, and ritual worship before her, regardless of whether they apply such terminology or not. He further notes that not long ago, in Beirut, in the ninth issue of the seventh year of the Christian journal al-Mashriq, published on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Pius IX, several noteworthy articles were printed concerning the personality of Mary. That issue explicitly stated that in Eastern as well as Western churches Mary is worshipped. In the fourteenth issue of the fifth year of the same journal, an article by Anastās Karmalī was published, in which an attempt was made to derive proof for the worship of Mary even from the Old Testament and the Torah, interpreting the story of the enmity between the serpent (Satan) and the woman (Eve) as referring to Mary. Accordingly, the worship of Mary is indeed present among them. 2. The second question is why Jesus (عليه السلام), in words that appear to contain the implication of intercession, speaks about the polytheists of his community and states that if God forgives them then He is “ʿAzīz” and “Ḥakīm.” In response, it should be noted that if Jesus’s purpose were intercession, he would have said “إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ,” because God’s being Forgiving and Merciful is more directly consonant with the notion of intercession. However, we see that he instead describes God as “ʿAzīz” (Mighty) and “Ḥakīm” (Wise), which indicates that his purpose here is not to request forgiveness or intercession, but rather to negate from himself any authority in the matter and to consign the affair entirely to God. That is, the matter lies wholly in God’s hands: if He wills, He may forgive, and if He wills, He may punish; neither His punishment is devoid of wisdom, nor is His forgiveness a sign of weakness, and in every case the matter remains within His absolute power. Moreover, it is also possible that among them there was a group who, having become aware of their error, adopted the path of repentance, and that these words refer to that group.

See ayat 120 for tafseer.

After the description of God Almighty’s conversation with Jesus (عليه السلام) on the Day of Resurrection, as explained in the preceding verses, we read in this verse that following this dialogue God Almighty declares: today is the day on which the truthfulness of the truthful will benefit them (قَالَ اللّٰهُ هٰذَا یَوۡمُ یَنۡفَعُ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ صِدۡقُہُمۡ). Certainly, in this statement, truthfulness refers to truthfulness in speech and conduct in this world, whose benefit will be realized in the Hereafter; otherwise, truthfulness in the Hereafter—where there is no realm of moral responsibility—will avail no one. Moreover, the very condition of that Day will be such that no one will be able to utter anything but the truth; even sinners and wrongdoers will confess their own evil deeds, and thus there will be no room for falsehood on that Day. Accordingly, those who fulfilled their responsibility, discharged their mission, and adopted no path other than truth and integrity—such as Jesus (عليه السلام) and his sincere followers, as well as the sincere followers of all the prophets, who walked the path of truthfulness in this world—will fully benefit from the fruits of their deeds. Incidentally, this statement also indicates in a concise manner that truthfulness encompasses the entirety of virtues: truthfulness in speech and truthfulness in action, and on the Day of Resurrection only truthfulness will be the capital that proves beneficial, while nothing else will avail. Thereafter, the reward granted to the truthful is described as follows: for them there are gardens of Paradise beneath which rivers flow, and they will abide therein forever (لَہُمۡ جَنّٰتٌ تَجۡرِیۡ مِنۡ تَحۡتِہَا الۡاَنۡہٰرُ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَاۤ اَبَدًا ؕ). Yet more important than this material blessing is that God is pleased with them and they are pleased with God (رَضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَ رَضُوۡا عَنۡہُ). It is particularly noteworthy that in this verse, after mentioning the gardens of Paradise with all their blessings, the pleasure of God with His servants and the pleasure of the servants with God are mentioned, followed by the phrase (ذٰلِکَ الۡفَوۡزُ الۡعَظِیۡمُ). This indicates the immense significance of this mutual satisfaction—God’s pleasure with His servants and the servants’ pleasure with God. For it is entirely possible that a person may be immersed in the highest of material blessings, yet if he feels that his Master, his Deity, and his Beloved is displeased with him, all those blessings will turn into bitterness and anguish for his soul. It is also possible that a person may possess everything, yet remain dissatisfied with what he has; in such a case, those blessings cannot bring true felicity, and inner distress will constantly afflict him, depriving him of spiritual tranquility, which is the greatest of divine blessings. Moreover, when God is pleased with someone, He grants him whatever he desires, and when He grants him what he desires, that person, too, becomes pleased with God. The result is that the greatest blessing is God’s pleasure with a human being and the human being’s pleasure with God. In the final verse, reference is made to God’s sovereignty and ownership over the heavens, the earth, and whatever is within them, and to the universality of His power over all things (لِلّٰہِ مُلْکُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْاَرْضِ وَمَا فِیھِنَّ وَھُوَ عَلیٰ کُلِّ شَیْءٍ قَدِیرٌ). This mention, in reality, is presented as the reason and cause for the satisfaction and pleasure of the servants with God; for a being who has power over all things and exercises dominion over the entire realm of existence is fully able to bestow upon His servants whatever they desire and thereby satisfy them. Incidentally, this may also point to the incorrectness of the Christians’ practice of worshipping Mary, since only that being is worthy of worship who rules over the entire universe of creation, not Mary, who is nothing other than a created being. Here the commentary on Sūrah al‑Mā’idah comes to an end.