At-Tawbah

See ayat 2 for tafseer.

Surrounding the call of Islam were various groups, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny dealt with each of them in accordance with their specific circumstances. One group consisted of those with whom neither the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny nor they themselves had entered into any treaty or covenant. Some other groups had concluded agreements with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—such as at al‑Ḥudaybiyyah—pledging to desist from hostility. Among these treaties, some were fixed‑term agreements, while others had no specified duration. During this period, certain tribes that had entered into treaties with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny unilaterally violated their covenants without any valid justification, openly collaborating with the enemies of Islam or plotting to eliminate the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The Jewish tribes of Banū al‑Naḍīr and Banū Qurayẓah adopted such conduct. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny responded to them with firm measures and expelled them from Medina. However, some treaties—whether fixed‑term or without specified duration—were still in effect. The opening verse under discussion announces to all idol‑worshippers that whatever treaty they had with the Muslims has now become void. God says: This is a declaration of dissociation from God and His Messenger toward those polytheists with whom you had made treaties (بَرَائَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ). They are then granted a period of four months so that during this time they may reflect, clarify their position, and decide their course: after these months they must either renounce idol‑worship or prepare themselves for war. It is stated: So move freely through the land for four months (فَسِيحُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ). (Exegetical note: “سِيحُوا” is derived from “سِيَاحَة”, meaning to move about freely, calmly, and without hindrance.) Then it is said: Know that you cannot render God powerless, nor can you escape the domain of His power (وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّهِ). And also know that ultimately God will disgrace and humiliate the disbelievers and the idol‑worshippers (وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مُخْزِي الْكَافِرِينَ).

We know that in Islam, fulfillment of covenants and adherence to treaties is accorded special importance. In this context, a question arises: how can the Qur’an command that the treaties concluded with the polytheists be annulled unilaterally? Attention to the following points clarifies the answer to this question: First, as explicitly stated in verses 7 and 8 of this very sūrah, the treaties were not annulled arbitrarily or without warning. Rather, there existed clear signs and indications of treaty‑violation on the part of the polytheists, and they were prepared—should they attain the upper hand—to strike decisively against the Muslims without the slightest regard for their covenants. It is entirely logical that when a community perceives its enemy actively preparing for treachery and observes sufficient evidence of impending betrayal, it does not wait to be caught unawares, but instead announces the annulment of the treaty and confronts the threat. Second, when treaties are imposed upon a community or nation under conditions of coercion or weakness, and it is compelled to accept them unwillingly, there is no reason why—after gaining strength—it should not annul such agreements unilaterally. Idol‑worship was neither a genuine religion nor a rational system of thought; it was an irrational, illusory, and dangerous practice that had to be eliminated from society in the end. If, in the early stages, the power of the idol‑worshippers in the Arabian Peninsula was such that the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny was compelled to conclude peace treaties with them, this does not entail that after attaining strength he was obligated to uphold treaties that were contrary to reason, wisdom, and sound judgment. This situation is comparable to that of a great reformer who appears among cow‑worshippers and begins extensive efforts to abolish that practice; if, under pressure, he temporarily enters into a non‑aggression pact with them, then once he acquires sufficient followers and strength, he rises to eradicate outdated and false beliefs and announces the termination of that agreement. For this reason, we observe that such annulments were restricted exclusively to the idol‑worshippers. Treaties concluded with the People of the Book and with other powers residing around the Arabian Peninsula continued to be respected by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny until the end of his life. Moreover, the treaties with the polytheists were not annulled in a state of negligence or suddenness. Rather, they were granted a four‑month period of respite, and this announcement was made publicly—on the day of ʿĪd al‑Aḍḥā, near the Kaʿbah, the central gathering place of Arabia—so that all people might be fully informed. This afforded them ample opportunity to reflect and reconsider, and perhaps abandon that baseless religion which was the source of backwardness, fragmentation, ignorance, and moral corruption. God does not wish to keep them in heedlessness nor to deprive them of the opportunity for reflection. Even if they were not prepared to accept Islam, they were given adequate time to prepare themselves defensively, so that they would not be drawn into an unjust and sudden war. Had the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny disregarded education and human principles, he would never have awakened the enemy by granting a four‑month respite, nor would he have allowed them sufficient time to prepare militarily. Instead, he could have annulled the treaty abruptly on a single day and launched a surprise attack without any prior notice, thereby dismantling them entirely. It was precisely for this reason that many idol‑worshippers took advantage of this four‑month respite, studied Islamic teachings more deeply, and ultimately entered the embrace of Islam.

There is disagreement among exegetes regarding the answer to this question. However, what appears from the above verses is that the beginning of this period commenced from the moment when this announcement was publicly recited before the people. We know that this public proclamation was made on the day of ʿĪd al‑Aḍḥā, the tenth of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah. Accordingly, the four‑month period concluded on the tenth day of the month of Rabīʿ al‑Thānī of the following year. The tradition transmitted from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) also supports this understanding.

See ayat 4 for tafseer.

In these verses, the annulment of the treaties of the polytheists is reiterated with strong emphasis, to the extent that the Qur’an even specifies the date of the public proclamation, stating: a proclamation from God and His Messenger to all people on the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage that God and His Messenger are dissociated from the polytheists (وَاَذَانٌ مِنْ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْاَكْبَرِ اَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ). (Exegetical note: The phrase “وَاَذَانٌ …” is syntactically connected to “بَرَائَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ”. Other grammatical possibilities have been mentioned, but this interpretation is the most apparent.) In reality, God intends, on this great day in the land of Mecca, through a universal public declaration, to close all avenues of excuse‑making for the enemies and to silence calumniators and troublemakers, so that they cannot claim that they were taken by surprise or subjected to a clandestine and treacherous assault. It is noteworthy that instead of the expression “إِلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ”, the verse uses “إِلَى النَّاسِ”, indicating that it was necessary for all those present in Mecca on that day to hear this announcement, so that others besides the polytheists would also bear witness to it. Thereafter, the discourse turns directly toward the polytheists, and an attempt is made to guide them through encouragement and warning. First, it is stated: If you repent, return to God, and abandon idol‑worship, it is better for you (فَاِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ). That is, accepting the religion of tawḥīd is beneficial for you, for your society, and for your world and Hereafter; and if you reflect properly, you will realize that under its shade all your disorder and deprivation can be removed—without there being any benefit in this for God or His Messenger. Then, by way of admonition to the obstinate and resistant opponents, it is said: If you turn away, then know that you are not able to frustrate God (وَاِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا اَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّهِ). At the end of the verse, those who persist relentlessly in opposition are warned: Give tidings to the disbelieving polytheists of a painful punishment (وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِعَذَابٍ اَلِيمٍ). As previously indicated, this unilateral annulment applied only to those polytheists in whose conduct clear signs of readiness for treaty‑violation had appeared. Accordingly, in the following verse, one group is exempted, where it is stated: except those polytheists with whom you made a treaty, and who have not fallen short toward you in anything, nor supported anyone against you (اِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ اَحَدًا). Regarding this group, it is commanded: Fulfill your covenant with them to the end of its term (فَاَتِمُّوا اِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ اِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ), because God loves the God‑fearing—those who refrain from every form of betrayal and transgression (اِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ).

There is disagreement among exegetes regarding the meaning of ḥajj al‑akbar—which specific day it denotes. However, numerous narrations transmitted from the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) as well as through Sunni chains of transmission indicate that it refers to the tenth of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah, the day of ʿĪd al‑Aḍḥā. In other words, what is meant is Yawm al‑Naḥr (the Day of Sacrifice). The conclusion of the four‑month period on the tenth of Rabīʿ al‑Thānī, in accordance with what is reported in Islamic sources and historical works, constitutes further evidence supporting this interpretation. Moreover, on the day of ʿĪd al‑Aḍḥā, the principal and essential rituals of the pilgrimage are effectively completed; hence, it is appropriate for it to be described as the day of ḥajj. As for why it is termed “akbar” (greater), the reason is that during that year all groups—both Muslims and idol‑worshippers, according to earlier customs—participated in the rites of ḥajj, whereas after that year this practice was completely terminated. This interpretation is reported in Islamic traditions. (Exegetical note: In Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, it is narrated from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) that he said: “إِنَّمَا سُمِّيَ الْأَكْبَرَ لِأَنَّهَا كَانَتْ سَنَةَ حَجٍّ فِيهَا الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَالْمُشْرِكُونَ، وَلَمْ يَحُجَّ الْمُشْرِكُونَ بَعْدَ تِلْكَ السَّنَةِ” (vol. 1, p. 184)). In addition, another interpretation has also been offered: that ḥajj al‑akbar refers to the rites of ḥajj as opposed to ʿumrah, which is referred to as ḥajj al‑aṣghar. This interpretation is also mentioned in some narrations, and there is no obstacle to both explanations being valid simultaneously. (Exegetical note: In the same commentary, it is narrated from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that he said: “هُوَ يَوْمُ النَّحْرِ وَالْأَصْغَرُ الْعُمْرَةُ” (vol. 2, p. 186)).

Although the Qur’an expresses God’s dissociation from the polytheists in a general manner, Islamic traditions indicate that ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was instructed to make the following four public declarations to the people: 1. The treaties concluded with the polytheists have been annulled. 2. The polytheists have no right to participate in the rites of ḥajj in the following year. 3. Circumambulation of the House in a state of nakedness is forbidden (a practice that was prevalent among the polytheists at that time). 4. Entry of the polytheists into the Sacred House of God is forbidden. (In some narrations, the fourth declaration is reported as stating that the polytheists will not enter Paradise.) In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, it is narrated from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) that ʿAlī (عليه السلام) delivered a sermon during the ḥajj of that year and proclaimed: “لَا يَطُوفَنَّ بِالْبَيْتِ عُرْيَانٌ، وَلَا يَحُجَّ الْبَيْتَ مُشْرِكٌ، وَمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ عَهْدٌ فَهُوَ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِ، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ مُدَّةٌ فَمُدَّتُهُ أَرْبَعَةُ أَشْهُرٍ.” From today onward, no one may circumambulate the House of God in a state of nakedness, no idol‑worshipper has the right to participate in the rites of ḥajj, those who have a treaty with the Prophet that remains valid until a specified term shall have their treaties respected until that term, and those whose treaties have no fixed duration are granted a period of four months. In some other narrations, explicit reference is also made to the fourth issue, namely the prohibition of polytheists from entering the Sacred Mosque (the Kaʿbah).

From the statements of historians and some exegetes, it becomes clear that there remained a period of nine months in the non‑aggression and cessation‑of‑hostilities treaty with a group from Banū Kinānah. Since they remained loyal to their covenant and did not assist the enemies of Islam, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny likewise honored their treaty until the completion of its appointed term. (Referenced in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 5, under the verse in question.) Some other scholars have also counted the tribe of Banū Khuzaʿah among this group whose covenant was established for a specified period. (Referenced in Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 10, under the verse in question.)

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

Here, after the expiry of the four‑month reprieve granted to the polytheists, the responsibility of the Muslims is stated, and the most decisive ruling concerning the polytheists is issued. It is declared: When the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them (فَاِذَا انسَلَخَ الْاَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ). (Exegetical note: “انسَلَخَ” derives from “انسلاخ”, meaning to come out or pass away; its original usage is “سَلْخُ الشَّاةِ”, removing the skin of an animal.) Then further commands are given: seize them (وَخُذُوهُمْ), besiege them (وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ), and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush (وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ). (Exegetical note: “مَرْصَد” comes from “رَصْد”, meaning a lookout point or ambush.) Here, four severe measures appear regarding them: 1. Blocking their routes, 2. Besieging them, 3. Capturing them, and 4. Killing them. It appears that these four measures are not presented as a single optional ruling to be applied indiscriminately; rather, decisions should be made in light of circumstances, time, place, and prevailing conditions, and whichever of these measures is appropriate should be implemented. Only when no alternative remains does killing become permissible. This severity arises because the Islamic objective is to eradicate idol‑worship from the face of the earth. As previously indicated, freedom of religion—meaning refraining from compelling others to accept Islam—applies to the heavenly religions and the People of the Book (such as Jews and Christians), not to idol‑worshippers. Idol‑worship is not a religion deserving respect; it is degeneration, absurdity, deviation, and moral disease, which must be eliminated decisively and at every cost. However, this severity does not mean that the path of return is closed. At any time and under any condition, they may change their orientation and beliefs. Hence, an immediate further ruling is given: If they repent, return to the truth, establish prayer, and pay zakhāt, then leave their way open (فَاِنْ تَابُوا وَاَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ). In that situation, they are no longer distinct from other Muslims and share equally in all rights and rulings, because God is Forgiving and Merciful, and no one who turns sincerely toward Him is deprived of His mercy (اِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ). To remove every possible doubt regarding the intention of these commands—and to make it clear that Islam’s goal is the promotion of tawḥīd, truth, and justice, not colonial domination, exploitation, or seizure of lands and wealth—the next verse completes the ruling by stating: If any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God (وَاِنْ اَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَاَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ). That is, deal with him with utmost gentleness and provide him an opportunity to think and reflect freely, so that he may study the different dimensions of the Islamic call. If the light of guidance shines in his heart, he will accept it. It is then further commanded: Afterwards, convey him to his place of safety (ثُمَّ اَبْلِغْهُ مَاْمَنَهُ), so that no one may confront or harm him on the way. Finally, the rationale for this reformative ruling is presented: This is because they are a people who do not know (ذٰلِكَ بِاَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَايَعْلَمُونَ). Thus, if the doors of knowledge and awareness are opened to them, there remains hope that they will abandon idol‑worship—which is the product of ignorance—and proceed upon the path of God and monotheism, which is the demand of knowledge and understanding. It is narrated in both Shīʿī and Sunnī sources that when the annulment of the treaties of the polytheists was announced, one of them asked ʿAlī (عليه السلام): “O son of Abū Ṭālib, if after the expiry of these four months one of us wishes to meet the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to present certain matters or to hear the word of God, will he be safe?” ʿAlī (عليه السلام) replied: “Yes—because God says: وَاِنْ اَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَاَجِرْهُ…”. Thus, the first verse—which may appear extremely severe—is balanced by the gentleness of the following verse, producing a state of equilibrium. This is the method of sound ethical training: severity and mercy are always combined, so that from them a healing and life‑giving remedy may be prepared.

1. What is meant here by “al‑ashhur al‑ḥurum”? Although some exegetes have discussed this at length, when the preceding verses are taken into consideration, the apparent meaning is that these are the same four months of reprieve that were fixed for the polytheists. This period began on the tenth of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah, 9 AH, and ended on the tenth of Rabīʿ al‑Thānī, 10 AH. Many researchers have adopted this interpretation, and what is particularly noteworthy in this regard is that it has also been explicitly affirmed in several narrations. (In Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, under the verse in question, a number of traditions are cited to this effect.) 2. Are prayer and zakah conditions for the acceptance of Islam? At first glance, the above verses seem to indicate that, for the repentance of the idol‑worshippers to be accepted, the establishment of prayer and the payment of zakah are also necessary. On this basis, some Sunni jurists have considered the abandonment of prayer and zakah to be evidence of disbelief. However, the correct understanding is that the mention of these two great Islamic ordinances is intended to indicate that in all situations where the claim to Islam appears doubtful—as was generally the case with idol‑worshippers at that time—the performance of these two major obligations should be regarded as signs of genuine Islam. Alternatively, it may mean that they should accept prayer and zakah as divine laws, submit to them, and formally acknowledge them, even if they fall short in practice. This interpretation is supported by the existence of many evidences establishing that a person cannot be counted among the disbelievers merely for abandoning prayer and zakah, even though his Islam would then be gravely deficient. Of course, if the refusal to pay zakah amounts to armed rebellion against the Islamic government, it constitutes disbelief—but that is a separate discussion not directly related to the present topic. 3. Faith is the fruit of knowledge. Another point that emerges from the above verses is that ignorance is a major cause of disbelief, while knowledge and awareness are the primary sources of faith. Therefore, for the guidance of people, it is essential to provide them with sufficient opportunities for study, reflection, and contemplation, so that they may understand the path of truth—rather than accepting Islam through blind and unthinking imitation.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

As you have seen in the preceding verses, with the exception of a specific group, Islam annulled all treaties with the polytheists and idol‑worshippers. They were granted only a four‑month respite in order to clarify their position. In the verses under discussion here, the rationale for this action is explained. First, in the form of a rhetorical question, the Qur’an states: How can there be for the polytheists any covenant before God and before His Messenger? (كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ) That is, in light of their conduct and such wrongful actions, they should not expect that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would unilaterally remain bound to their treaties. Immediately thereafter, a group that was not complicit in such misconduct and treaty‑breaking is excluded, where it is said: except those with whom you made a covenant at the Sacred Mosque (إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ). So long as they remain firm and faithful to the covenant made with you, you too must remain firm toward them (فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا), because God loves the God‑fearing, those who avoid every form of covenant‑breaking (إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ). In the following verse, the same point is affirmed with greater clarity and emphasis, again in the form of a rhetorical question: How can their covenant be respected, when if they were to gain dominance over you, they would neither observe kinship toward you nor honor any covenant? (كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً). The word “إِلّ” signifies kinship and close familial ties; some have interpreted it as meaning covenant. According to the first interpretation, the meaning is that although Quraysh were relatives of the Messenger of God and some Muslims, they themselves showed no regard for kinship ties; thus how could they expect the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslims to honor them? According to the second interpretation, emphasis is placed on “ذِمَّة”, which denotes covenant and treaty. Rāghib, in al‑Mufradāt, traces the root of this word to “الإِلّ”, meaning brightness and radiance, because firm covenants and close kinship bonds possess a distinctive clarity and prominence. The Qur’an then further states: Do not be deceived by their flattering speech and outwardly pleasing words, for they seek to please you with their mouths while their hearts reject it (يُرْضُونَكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَىٰ قُلُوبُهُمْ). Their hearts are filled with malice, vengeance, cruelty, covenant‑breaking, and disregard for kinship, even though their tongues express friendship and affection. At the end of the verse, the underlying cause of this behavior is identified: most of them are defiantly disobedient (وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ). In the next verse, this rebellion and disobedience is explained: They have sold the signs of God for a paltry price and barred others from the path of God (اشْتَرَوْا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا فَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ). It is reported in one narration that Abū Sufyān prepared a feast and invited certain individuals in order to incite hostility against the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Some exegetes have interpreted the above verse as referring to this incident, though its meaning is evidently broader and includes this and other instances in which polytheists turned away from God’s signs in order to safeguard their momentary and petty interests. The Qur’an then adds: How evil is what they used to do (إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ). They deprived themselves of felicity, guidance, and true happiness, and also became obstacles for others. What act could be worse than bearing the burden of one’s own sins while also carrying the burden of the sins of others? In the final verse under discussion, the preceding argument is once again reinforced: If they are given the opportunity, these polytheists will not observe any kinship or any covenant with regard to a believer (لَا يَرْقُبُونَ فِي مُؤْمِنٍ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً), because they are transgressors by their very nature (وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُعْتَدُونَ). This is not a posture that they adopt only toward you; rather, whoever falls within their reach will be subjected to their aggression. Although the content of this last verse appears to reiterate what was stated earlier, it nevertheless introduces an important distinction: in the preceding verses, the discussion focused on the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslims around him, whereas here the reference is to every believer. That is, you possess no special status in their eyes; rather, they are enemies of anyone who believes and follows the creed of monotheism. They are, in truth, enemies of faith itself. This is similar to what the Qur’an says regarding certain earlier nations: وَمَا نَقَمُوا مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَمِيدِ They harbored animosity toward them only because they believed in God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy (al‑Burūj, 8).

Who is meant by “إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ”? In this clause, a particular group is exempted from the general declaration annulling the treaties. Who exactly is meant by this group? Exegetes have differed on this matter. However, by considering the preceding verses, it becomes clear that the intended reference is to those very tribes who remained faithful to their covenants, such as Banū Ḍamrah, Banū Khuzaymah, and similar groups. In reality, this clause serves as an emphasis and clarification of the preceding verses, reminding Muslims that they must remain vigilant and treat those groups differently from the ones whose treaties were annulled. Another question concerns the phrase “عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ”—what is meant by “those with whom you made a covenant near al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām”? It is possible that this expression refers to the fact that, at the time of Ṣulḥ al‑Ḥudaybiyyah, the Muslims concluded a treaty with the polytheists of Mecca on the land of Ḥudaybiyyah, and along with Quraysh, other Arab tribes also became parties to that agreement—such as the tribes mentioned above. This location lies approximately fifteen miles from Mecca, and the treaty was concluded in 6 AH. Through this agreement, the polytheists undertook to cease hostilities against the Muslims. Although the polytheists of Quraysh later violated the treaty and subsequently embraced Islam upon the Conquest of Mecca, some of the allied tribes neither broke the treaty nor committed any act of betrayal. Since the territory associated with Mecca extends over a wide area, with a radius of roughly forty‑eight miles, all of this region may be regarded as falling under the designation al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām. Accordingly, in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 196, regarding the rulings of ḥajj al‑tamattuʿ, it is stated: ذٰلِكَ لِمَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ أَهْلُهُ حَاضِرِي الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ “These rulings apply to one whose household does not reside near al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām.” According to explicit narrations and juristic verdicts, the laws of ḥajj al‑tamattuʿ apply to those whose distance from Mecca exceeds forty‑eight miles. Therefore, there is no obstacle to describing the treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, concluded fifteen miles from Mecca, as having been made “عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ”. As for the claim made by some exegetes that this exception pertains specifically to the polytheists of Quraysh, and that the Qur’an regarded their treaty concluded at Ḥudaybiyyah as still binding, this view does not appear sound. First, the treaty‑violation of Quraysh is certain and well‑established; if they were not the treaty‑breakers, then who was? Second, the event of Ḥudaybiyyah occurred in 6 AH, whereas the polytheists of Quraysh embraced Islam in 8 AH following the Conquest of Mecca. Therefore, the verses under discussion—revealed in 9 AH—cannot pertain to them.

As has already been stated, the purport of the above verses is not that the polytheists had merely formed an intention to violate their treaties, and that once the Muslims attained power this intention alone became sufficient justification for declaring those treaties void. Rather, the reality is that they had repeatedly demonstrated this mindset in practice, showing through concrete actions that whenever they found an opportunity they would strike the Muslims decisively, without the slightest regard for their covenants. This very state of affairs was sufficient grounds for the annulment of those agreements.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

One of the recognized techniques of eloquence and rhetoric is that important themes are repeated in order to reinforce them and implant them firmly in the mind. Since the matter of delivering the final and decisive blow to idol‑worship and eliminating its remaining traces in the Islamic environment was of utmost importance, the Qur’an has restated the earlier themes in these verses with a new style and structure. These verses also contain new nuances that elevate them beyond mere repetition, even though repetition itself would have been justified. First, it is declared: If they repent, establish prayer, and give zakāt, then they are your brothers in religion (فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَاَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ). At the end of the verse it is added: We explain the signs in detail for a people who have knowledge (وَنُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ). In the previous verses, it was stated that if they repent and perform the Islamic duties of prayer and zakāt, then resistance against them should cease: “فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ”. Here, however, it is further clarified that they are your religious brothers, meaning that in terms of dignity, respect, and affection, no distinction remains between them and other Muslims—just as there is no distinction among brothers. This approach is highly effective in preparing the psychological, intellectual, and emotional disposition of the polytheists to accept Islam: first, they are assured of non‑hostility, and then they are promised full fraternal inclusion within the Muslim community. However, if they persist in betraying their covenants, trample their agreements, attack your faith, and continue their hostile propaganda, then the command is issued: Fight the leaders of disbelief (وَإِنْ نَكَثُوا اَیْمَانَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُوا اَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ), because they have no regard for covenants (إِنَّهُمْ لَا اَیْمَانَ لَهُمْ). Although they had pledged to abandon hostilities, they have violated their covenants repeatedly and are ready to violate them again. Therefore such covenants hold no value. The objective of this firmness is that they may reflect, desist, and abandon their hostility (لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنْتَهُونَ). In the subsequent verse, in order to stimulate resolve within the Muslim community and remove hesitation or fear regarding this life‑giving command, it is said: Why do you not fight a people who broke their oaths and resolved to expel the Messenger? (اَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَكَثُوا اَیْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ). You did not initiate hostility or annul the treaties unjustly; rather, they were the ones who began first (وَهُمْ بَدَءُوكُمْ اَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ). And if some among you hesitate out of fear, it is completely unjustified: Do you fear them? But God is more deserving that you fear Him, if you are truly believers (اَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ فَاللهُ اَحَقُّ اَنْ تَخْشَوْهُ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ). In the next verse, Muslims are given a certain promise of victory. It is declared: Fight them; God will punish them by your hands (قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللهُ بِاَیْدِيكُمْ). Not only will He punish them, but He will disgrace them (وَيُخْزِهِمْ), grant you victory over them (وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ), and thereby heal the hearts of a group of believers (وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ). Some exegetes hold that “a group of believers” refers specifically to a group from Banū Khuzaʿah, who had been treacherously attacked and harmed while unaware by idol‑worshippers from Banū Bakr. Others suggest it refers to a group from Yemen who had embraced Islam but were later oppressed by polytheists upon arriving in Mecca. It is not unlikely that this expression encompasses all those believers who were subjected to injustice, persecution, and suffering at the hands of the idol‑worshippers, whose hearts were deeply wounded by their cruelty. The next verse adds that through this victory and defeat, God will also remove the rage and anguish from the hearts of the believers (وَيُذْهِبْ غَيْظَ قُلُوبِهِمْ). This phrase may serve as emphasis for the previous statement, or it may carry a distinct meaning: the former refers to those hearts that had long ached for the triumph of Islam and the Messenger—hearts burdened by sorrow and weakness—while the latter refers to hearts distressed by the loss of loved ones and the suffering endured under oppression, which now find relief through the downfall of the tyrannical enemies. At the conclusion of the passage, it is stated: God accepts the repentance of whom He wills (وَيَتُوبُ اللهُ عَلٰى مَنْ يَشَاءُ), and God is All‑Knowing, All‑Wise (وَاللهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ). Implicitly, this final statement indicates that some among these adversaries may eventually turn toward repentance; therefore vigilance must be maintained, for God will accept their repentance and excessive harshness would no longer be justified. It also conveys glad tidings that in the future some from among them will join the Muslims, and through their sincere inner readiness the divine favor will encompass them. Some exegetes have even regarded these concluding verses as among the prophetic glad tidings of the Qur’an, and as signs of the truthfulness of the Messenger’s mission, for the events unfolded precisely as foretold.

Who is meant by this group? Exegetes have differed concerning the identification of this group. Some have understood it to refer to the Jews; others have taken it to mean those nations that later engaged in warfare with the Muslims, such as the Persian and Byzantine empires. Some have considered it to refer to the disbelievers of Quraysh, while others have interpreted it as referring to individuals who embraced Islam and then apostatized. However, the apparent meaning of the verses bears clear witness that the subject under discussion is that same group of polytheists and idol‑worshippers who, at that time, had outwardly concluded non‑hostility agreements with the Muslims, yet had already violated their covenants in practice. This refers to the polytheistic groups inhabiting the environs of Mecca and the remaining regions of the Ḥijāz. The interpretation that this refers to the Jews is extremely unlikely, since the entirety of the surrounding discussion in these verses revolves around mushrikūn, not the People of the Book. Likewise, it is not plausible that what is meant is the tribe of Quraysh, because Quraysh and their leader Abū Sufyān had apparently embraced Islam after the Conquest of Mecca in 8 AH, whereas the sūrah under discussion was revealed in 9 AH. It is also far‑fetched to suppose that the reference is to the governments of Persia and Byzantium, because the verses speak of a present and ongoing issue and conflict, not of a future confrontation. Moreover, those powers had not expelled the Messenger of God from his homeland. Similarly, it is unlikely that the verse refers to apostates, because at that period history does not point to the existence of a powerful group of apostates whom the Muslims were preparing to fight. In addition, the term “أَيْمَان” (plural of yamīn) and likewise the word “عَهْد” clearly denote covenants of non‑hostility, not the act of entering Islam itself. Therefore, if in some Islamic narrations these verses are applied to the instigators of the Battle of Jamal (the Nāki thīn) or those similar to them, this is not because the verses were originally revealed concerning such individuals, but rather because the spirit of the verse and its ruling apply equally to later groups that resemble them in conduct. One remaining question concerns the expression “وَإِنْ نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ” (“if they break their covenants”), even though the polytheists in question had in fact already violated their treaties. The answer is that this phrase means if they continue in their covenant‑breaking and do not desist from their course, then fighting them becomes obligatory. This usage is comparable to the supplication “اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ”, meaning “O God, keep us firmly and continuously upon the straight path.” Evidence for this interpretation lies in the fact that “وَإِنْ نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ” stands in direct contrast to “إِنْ تَابُوا”. The matter thus admits of only two possibilities: either they repent, abandon polytheism and idol‑worship, and return to the path of God—in which case they become your brothers; or they persist in their former ways, in which case you are commanded to fight them.

It is noteworthy that in the above verses it is not stated simply, “fight the disbelievers.” Rather, the command is issued to rise up and wage jihād against their leaders and chiefs. This points to the reality that the general populace usually follows its leaders and elites; therefore, the real target must always be the leadership. One must block the very sources of misguidance, deviation, injustice, and corruption, and uproot such trees from their foundations. So long as the leaders remain, struggling against their followers yields little benefit. Moreover, this expression reflects high‑mindedness, lofty resolve, courage, and valor, in that attention is directed toward the principal adversary. Hence, the command is to prepare oneself to confront the leaders themselves, rather than to expend effort on their minor followers. It is surprising that some have interpreted this expression as referring specifically to the chiefs of Quraysh, even though some of them had already been killed at the Battle of Badr, and those who remained—such as Abū Sufyān—had outwardly embraced Islam after the Conquest of Mecca. At the time of the revelation of this verse, they were already included among the Muslims; therefore, confronting them at that stage would have been meaningless. Even today, this essential Qur’ānic principle remains fully operative: in order to eradicate injustice, corruption, colonial domination, and exploitation, one must rise up against their leaders and instigators. Struggling against the common masses alone serves no real purpose (reflect carefully).

The meaning of “إِخْوَانُکُمْ فِی الدِّین” In the above verse, this is among the most subtle expressions that can be employed to establish equality among the members of a society, and it represents the strongest possible bond of love and compassion. This is because the clearest and closest relationship that embodies complete equality among human beings is the bond between two brothers. Yet it must be stated with regret that class divisions and national and ethnic idols have destroyed this Islamic brotherhood—one that had become a source of envy and resentment for all enemies. Yesterday’s brothers today stand against one another in such opposition that it is difficult to believe. At times, they even kill one another in ways that an enemy would not treat another enemy. This condition is itself one of the hidden reasons for our present backwardness.

The meaning of “اَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ” This expression means: “Do you fear them?” From it one may infer, in a general sense, that among the Muslims there was a group who felt apprehensive about this command to engage in jihād—either because they feared the power and strength of the enemy, or because they were anxious about the sin of covenant‑breaking. The Qur’an responds to them explicitly, stating that they should not fear these weak human beings, but rather fear disobedience to the command of the Lord. Moreover, fear of covenant‑breaking on their own part is unwarranted, because the polytheists themselves had already laid the groundwork for it and had taken the initiative in this matter.

The Meaning of “هَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ” This expression means: “they resolved to expel the Messenger.” The question arises as to what is meant by this. Apparently, it refers to the intention formed at the time of the Hijrah, when the Quraysh resolved to drive the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny out of Mecca. They had initially planned to expel him, but later altered their decision and instead resolved to kill him. However, by God’s command, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny departed from Mecca on that very night. In any case, the mention of this matter here is not intended as an example of treaty‑violation itself; rather, it serves to highlight one of the most grave and dangerous schemes of the polytheists—an intention in which not only Quraysh but other tribes as well were involved. Their covenant‑breaking, on the other hand, had already been clearly established through other actions and evidence.

An astonishing matter is that the adherents of the doctrine of determinism (jabr) have attempted to derive support for their position from the phrase “قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ …”, whereas if one frees one’s mind from prejudice, it becomes evident that the above verse does not, in the slightest degree, indicate what they intend. Its case is exactly like that of someone who approaches a friend concerning the accomplishment of a task and says: We hope that God will set this matter right through your hands. This statement does not mean that the person is compelled to perform that task; rather, it means that God has placed this matter within his capacity and power, and has granted him a pure intention, by virtue of which he may accomplish that task through freedom of will and choice. Thus, the verse conveys attribution of the effect to God while execution takes place through human agency—without implying compulsion, but rather affirming voluntary action within divine permission.

In this verse, the Muslims are encouraged toward jihād through yet another approach and are reminded of their serious responsibility in this matter. They are told that they should not imagine that merely claiming faith is sufficient to set everything right. Rather, sincerity of intention, truthfulness of speech, and the reality of faith become manifest through confronting and struggling against the enemies—a struggle that must be completely free of hypocrisy and pursued with pure sincerity. It is first stated: Do you suppose that you will be left alone and not be put to the test, while God has not yet distinguished those among you who strive in His way and do not take—besides God, His Messenger, and the believers—any intimate confidant? (اَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ اَنْ تُتْرَکُوا وَلَمَّا یَعْلَمْ اللهُ الَّذِینَ جَاھَدُوا مِنْکُمْ وَلَمْ یَتَّخِذُوا مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ وَلَا رَسُولِہِ وَلَا الْمُؤْمِنِینَ وَلِیجَةً). (Exegetical note: “اَم” is a conjunctive particle used to connect one interrogative sentence to another, thereby conveying an interrogative meaning. It typically follows a prior interrogative, and here it is linked to the phrase “أَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ …” mentioned in verse 13.) The word “وَلِیجَة” derives from the root “ولوج”, meaning “to enter,” and is used for those individuals who are admitted into one’s inner circle, becoming confidants or managers of one’s affairs. Its meaning is close to that of “بِطَانَة”. In essence, the above statement conveys two fundamental principles to the Muslims: mere outward profession of faith is insufficient to settle matters or clarify personal integrity. Rather, people are tested in two essential ways: First, through striving in the path of God to eliminate the manifestations of shirk and idol‑worship; Second, through cutting off all forms of alliance, cooperation, and intimacy with hypocrites and enemies. The first involves expelling external enemies, while the second involves rooting out internal enemies. The expression “وَلَمَّا یَعْلَمْ اللهُ” (“while God has not yet known”) has parallels in other Qur’ānic verses. Its intended meaning is “it has not yet become manifest or established”, and such phrasing is commonly used for emphasis. Otherwise, both rational evidence and numerous Qur’ānic verses affirm that God has always known, knows, and will continue to know all things. In truth, this verse closely resembles the opening verse of Sūrat al‑ʿAnkabūt, where it is stated: اَحَسِبَ النَّاسُ اَنْ یُتْرَکُوا اَنْ یَقُولُوا آمَنَّا وَھُمْ لَا یُفْتَنُونَ Do people suppose that they will be left alone merely because they say, “We believe,” and that they will not be tested? As already explained in the commentary on Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, the divine trials are not meant to uncover unknown information for God, but rather to educate, nurture capacities, and bring forth and reveal the inner potential and realities of human beings. At the end of the verse, a warning is issued by way of emphasis: God is fully aware of all that you do (وَاللهُ خَبِیرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ). Let no one imagine that God is unaware of their hidden connections with hypocrites or enemies. This is not the case; rather, He knows all things intimately and will deal with His servants accordingly. From the tone of the verse, it appears that at that time there were some newcomers within the Islamic community who were not yet psychologically prepared for jihād. This discourse is directed toward such individuals. As for the true fighters in the path of God, they had already demonstrated their sincerity and character repeatedly in the arenas of struggle.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

In these verses, the Qur’an addresses another issue that naturally arose after the annulment of the treaties with the polytheists and the command to fight them. Some people might have raised the question: Why should this large group be excluded and denied entry into al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām for the performance of the pilgrimage, when their presence seemingly adds to the vitality and outward prosperity of the sanctuary? Some imagined that the physical maintenance and apparent liveliness of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām depended in part upon them, and that their large gatherings around the Kaʿbah contributed to its symbolic and spiritual stature. The verses under discussion firmly respond to such baseless and misguided notions. In the very first verse it is made explicit that the polytheists have no right to maintain or frequent the mosques of God, while they openly bear witness to their own disbelief: (مَا كَانَ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ أَنْ يَعْمُرُوا مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ شَاهِدِينَ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ بِالْكُفْرِ). Their testimony to their own disbelief is evident not only from their statements, but also from their actions, their forms of worship, and even from the manner in which they performed the rites of pilgrimage. The verse then points to the underlying rationale and philosophy of this ruling: because they lack faith, their deeds will come to nothing and will be rendered invalid, possessing no value in the sight of God (أُولَـٰئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ), and as a result they will abide eternally in the Fire (وَفِي النَّارِ هُمْ خَالِدُونَ). Under such circumstances, neither their efforts toward the upkeep and embellishment of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām nor their numerical presence around the Kaʿbah carries any real weight or worth. God is pure and transcendent, and His House must likewise remain pure; therefore, the hands of morally impure and spiritually defiled individuals must be kept far removed from the House of God and from the mosques. In the following verse, to complete this discussion, the Qur’an sets forth five essential conditions for those who are truly worthy of maintaining and inhabiting the mosques and places of worship. It declares: (إِنَّمَا يَعْمُرُ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ). Here, the first and second conditions are identified: faith in God and faith in the Last Day. These conditions are foundational and doctrinal. Without them, no action—however outwardly commendable—can be truly pure, righteous, or sincere; even if it appears virtuous externally, it remains internally tainted by ulterior and impure motives. Next, the third and fourth conditions are mentioned: (وَأَقَامَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَى الزَّكَاةَ). That is, faith in God and the Day of Judgment must not remain a mere claim or verbal assertion; it must be confirmed through righteous deeds. The individual’s relationship with God must be firmly established through the proper observance of prayer, and his relationship with God’s creation must be expressed through the payment of zakāt. Finally, the Qur’an refers to the fifth condition, stating: (وَلَمْ يَخْشَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ). Such a person fears none but God. His heart is filled with love for God alone, he feels accountable only before the divine command, and he considers feeble human beings far too insignificant to influence his destiny, his society, his future, his success, his progress, or ultimately the flourishing of God’s House. The verse concludes by stating: Such people may rightly be among those who are guided (فَعَسَىٰ أُولَـٰئِكَ أَنْ يَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُهْتَدِينَ)— people who strive for the construction and true flourishing of God’s mosques and who partake of the profound and far‑reaching fruits of this endeavor.

1. What is meant by the “maintenance (ʿimārah) of mosques”? Does the term ʿimārat al‑masājid refer to the founding and construction of mosques, or does it mean attending them and participating in their congregations? This verse is known as the verse of the maintenance of mosques. Some exegetes, in interpreting it, have chosen only one of these meanings, whereas the term is in fact broad and comprehensive, encompassing all of these aspects. Polytheists and idol‑worshippers have no right either to participate in mosques or to undertake their construction; rather, all such matters must be carried out by Muslims alone. From these verses it can also be understood implicitly that Muslims should not seek assistance from polytheists—or even from non‑Muslims in general—for the construction of mosques. Although the first verse explicitly concerns the polytheists, the second verse, which begins with the restrictive particle “إِنَّمَا”, limits the maintenance of mosques exclusively to believers. From this it becomes clear that those who administer and supervise mosques should likewise be selected from among the purest and most upright individuals, not from morally corrupt or impure people merely because of their wealth, status, or social influence—as, unfortunately, is practiced in some regions. All impure hands must be completely removed from these sacred centers. From the day tyrannical rulers, sin‑laden capitalists, and morally corrupt individuals began to involve themselves in mosque construction and Islamic institutions, their spiritual character and reformative mission have been distorted. It is for this reason that today many mosques have, in effect, taken on the character of Masjid al‑Ḍirār.

Some may think that there is no harm in benefiting from non‑Muslim wealth for the construction and maintenance of these institutions. However, those who think this way overlook a fundamental principle: Islam consistently regards righteous action as the fruit of the tree of faith. Action is always the reflection of a person’s intention and belief, and it inevitably assumes their form, color, and character. From impure intentions, it is impossible for a pure action to emerge, nor can such an action yield wholesome and beneficial results, because action is the echo and return of intention itself.

The phrase “وَلَمْ یَخْشَ إِلَّا اللهَ” (he fears none but God) indicates that the construction, flourishing, and safeguarding of mosques is not possible without courage and bravery. These sacred Islamic centers can be transformed into places of human development and the highest institutions of moral and spiritual training only when their founders, caretakers, and protectors possess such courage that they fear none but God. They must not be influenced by rank, status, or worldly power, and must allow no activity within these centers other than the implementation of God‑centered programs.

Some exegetes have restricted the above verses exclusively to al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām, whereas the wording of the verses is general, and there is no evidence for such a restriction. Although al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām—being the greatest of Islamic mosques—is certainly the foremost instance of this ruling, and although it was predominantly in view at the time these verses were revealed, this fact alone cannot serve as proof for confining the scope of the verses to it alone.

Numerous traditions transmitted from the Ahl al‑Bayt of the Messenger (عليهم السلام) as well as through Sunni chains of transmission emphasize the extraordinary importance of building mosques. These narrations clearly demonstrate the elevated status of mosque construction. It is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that he said: مَن بَنیٰ مَسْجِداً وَلَو کَمَفْحَصِ قطَاة بَنَی اللهُ لَہُ بَیْتاً فِی الْجَنَّةِ Whoever builds a mosque, even if it be like the nest of a bird, God will build for him a house in Paradise. In another narration, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is reported to have said: من اٴسرج فی مسجد سراجاً لم تزل الملائکة و حملة العرش یستغفرون لہ مادام فی ذلک المسجد ضوئہ Whoever lights a lamp in a mosque, so long as its light remains in that mosque, the angels and the bearers of the Divine Throne continue to seek forgiveness and invoke blessings for him. However, in the present age, that which is needed most is the spiritual cultivation and living vitality of mosques. In other words, even more than emphasizing the physical structure of the mosque, importance must be given to the people of the mosque, its caretakers, and its guardians. From every direction, Islamic revival and movement should emerge from the mosque. The mosque should be utilized as a center for purification of the soul, for awakening and enlightening people, and for cultivating awareness. The mosque must serve as the central base for preparing Muslims to purify the social environment and to defend the Islamic heritage. Particular attention must be paid to ensuring that the mosque becomes a center for faithful and committed youth, rather than remaining limited to those who merely occupy the front rows or to idle individuals. The mosque must be the hub of the most active and dynamic segments of society, not a gathering place for stagnant or indifferent individuals.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

Regarding the occasion of revelation (sha’n al‑nuzūl) of the above verses, various reports have been transmitted in both Shiʿi and Sunni sources. Among them, the narration that appears most accurate is presented below. The well‑known Sunni scholar al‑Ḥākim Abū al‑Qāsim al‑Ḥaskānī reports that Shaybah and al‑ʿAbbās were boasting over one another. In the course of their exchange, each was expressing pride in his own distinction. At that moment, ʿAlī (عليه السلام) passed by them and asked: What is it that you are boasting about? Al‑ʿAbbās replied: I possess a distinction that no one else has, namely providing water to the pilgrims of the House of God. Shaybah said: I am responsible for the construction and maintenance of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām (and I am the custodian of the Kaʿbah). ʿAlī (عليه السلام) said: Although I am younger than you, I feel reluctant to mention a distinction that I possess and that you do not. They asked: What distinction is that? He replied: I fought with the sword in jihād until you came to believe in God and His Messenger. Al‑ʿAbbās rose angrily and, adjusting his garment, went in search of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. When he met him, he complained: Do you not see the kind of things ʿAlī says to me? The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: Call ʿAlī. When ʿAlī (عليه السلام) appeared before the Prophet, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: Why did you say such words to your uncle? ʿAlī (عليه السلام) replied: O Messenger of God! If I caused him distress, I merely stated a truth. It makes no difference to me whether someone is pleased or displeased by the truth. At that moment, Jibrīl descended and said: O Muḥammad! Your Lord conveys His greetings to you and commands you to recite these verses before them: اَجَعَلْتُمْ سِقَایَةَ الْحَاجِّ وَ… (Do you regard the providing of water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām as equal to faith in God and the Last Day and striving in the path of God? They are not equal.) This narration is reported with slight variations in wording in many Sunni sources, such as Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī, Thaʿlabī, Asbāb al‑Nuzūl of al‑Wāḥidī, Tafsīr al‑Baghdādī, Maʿālim al‑Tanzīl of al‑Baghawī, Manāqib Ibn al‑Maghāzilī, Jāmiʿ al‑Uṣūl of Ibn al‑Athīr, Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Rāzī, and other works. (For further documentation and analysis of this narration and its sources, see Iḥqāq al‑Ḥaqq, vol. 3, pp. 122–127.) In any case, the above tradition is among the well‑known and widely recognized reports, to the extent that even those inclined toward bias have acknowledged it. After completing the commentary on these verses, we shall return to a further discussion of this narration.

Although these verses have a specific occasion of revelation, they also complete and reinforce the preceding verses, and such cases are numerous throughout the Qur’an. In the first verse it is stated: Do you regard providing water to the pilgrims of the House of God and maintaining al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām as equal to the deeds of one who believes in God and the Last Day and strives in the path of God? These are by no means equal in the sight of God, and God does not guide the wrongdoing people (اَجَعَلْتُمْ سِقَایَةَ الْحَاجِّ وَعِمَارَةَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ کَمَنْ آمَنَ بِاللهِ وَالْیَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَجَاھَدَ فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ لَایَسْتَوُونَ عِنْدَ اللهِ وَاللهُ لَایَھْدِی الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِینَ). The word “سقایة” is a verbal noun meaning “to give water,” and it is also used for the instrument or measure by which water is given (as in Sūrat Yūsuf, verse 70). It is also used in the sense of a large vessel or basin in which water is placed. In al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām, there was an area between Zamzam and the Kaʿbah known as “سقایة العباس”, where a large container was placed from which pilgrims took water. Historical sources indicate that before the advent of Islam, the position of sheltering and providing water for the pilgrims (سقایة الحاج) was considered equal in rank to the custodianship of the Kaʿbah’s keys and was regarded as one of the most prestigious offices. During the days of pilgrimage, pilgrims are in great need of water, particularly in a land characterized by dryness and intense heat, where water is scarce and hot winds prevail for much of the year. This highlights the special importance of the office of سقایة الحاج, and the one entrusted with it naturally enjoyed high status, since serving pilgrims was regarded as a living and practical service. Likewise, the custodianship, construction, and maintenance of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām carried immense honor, because even during the pre‑Islamic period, al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām was considered the most sacred and eminent religious center. Despite all this, the Qur’an declares that faith in God and striving in His path are superior and more exalted than all such outward services. In the next verse, by way of emphasis and clarification, it is stated: Those who believe, migrate, and strive in the path of God with their wealth and their lives hold a far greater rank in the sight of God, and they are the successful ones (الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَھَاجَرُوا وَجَاھَدُوا فِی سَبِیلِ اللهِ بِاَمْوَالِھِمْ وَاَنفُسِھِمْ اَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً عِنْدَ اللهِ وَاُوْلٰئِکَ ھُمَ الْفَائِزُونَ). In the following verse, God promises them three great rewards in return for these three major acts—faith, migration, and jihād: 1. He gives them glad tidings of His boundless mercy (یُبَشِّرُھُمْ رَبُّھُمْ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنْہُ). 2. He bestows upon them His pleasure and approval (وَرِضْوَانٍ). 3. He grants them gardens in Paradise wherein abiding blessings endure (وَجَنَّاتٍ لَھُمْ فِیھَا نَعِیمٌ مُقِیمٌ). In the following verse, for further emphasis, it is stated: They shall remain therein forever (خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا اَبَدًا), because with God there is a great reward that He grants to His servants in recompense for their deeds (إِنَّ اللهَ عِنْدَہُ اَجْرٌ عَظِیمٌ).

As we have already read in the discussion of the occasion of revelation (sha’n al‑nuzūl) of the above verses, according to a narration transmitted in many well‑known Sunni sources, these verses were revealed concerning ʿAlī (عليه السلام) and in affirmation of his virtues—although their meaning is general and expansive. As we have repeatedly stated, the occasion of revelation never restricts the scope of a verse’s meaning. Nevertheless, some Sunni exegetes appear unwilling to acknowledge striking and prominent virtues in favor of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), even though they recognize him as their fourth great leader. It is as though they fear that if they were to submit to the abundant evidence and sources establishing ʿAlī’s exceptional merits and distinctions, Shiʿi scholars might confront them from every direction, asking why—despite these proofs—they give precedence to others over ʿAlī (عليه السلام). As a result, they often disregard historical realities and, to the extent possible, raise objections to such traditions on the basis of their chains of transmission; and if there is no room to challenge the chain, they attempt in one way or another to weaken or obscure the indication of the narration itself. Regrettably, such biases persist even in our own time, to the point that some of their so‑called enlightened scholars have not escaped them. I cannot forget a conversation I once had with a Sunni scholar. When discussion turned to traditions of this nature, he made a remarkable statement. He said: In my view, the Shiʿah can establish all the principles and branches of their doctrine entirely from our own sources, references, and books, because there is a substantial body of narrations in our works that support Shiʿi positions. But for this very reason, I believe our predecessors were overly naïve: whatever traditions they heard, they recorded in their books, and today we cannot easily accept everything they left behind. It should be noted that his remarks applied even to the Ṣiḥāḥ, the authoritative Musnads, and the highest‑ranking canonical works. I replied to him: This is not a sound scholarly method—that one should inherit a doctrine first and then declare every narration that supports it authentic, while dismissing any narration that conflicts with it as the naïveté of earlier scholars, even when such a narration is reliable. How much better it would be to choose a different approach: first purify oneself of all inherited presuppositions, and then, by examining the evidence with open reason, adopt the belief that is truly supported by sound proof. You can clearly see why and on what basis these famous and widely known traditions—those that establish the elevated and superior rank of ʿAlī (عليه السلام) over others—are met with such coldness. Indeed, they are often subjected to a barrage of objections, and at times are ignored altogether, as though such traditions never existed. In light of the foregoing, we now turn to the discussion offered by the well‑known exegete, the author of al‑Manār. He entirely ignores the aforementioned narration regarding the occasion of revelation of the verses under discussion, and instead treats as authentic another narration that does not align with the content of the verses and should in fact be discarded because it conflicts with the Qur’an. This is the narration he attributes to Nuʿmān ibn Bashīr. Nuʿmān relates that he was sitting with a group of Companions near the pulpit of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. One of them said: After embracing Islam, I do not consider any deed superior to providing water to the pilgrims of the House of God. Another said: The construction and upkeep of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām is superior to every other deed. ʿUmar prevented them from continuing this discussion and said: Do not raise your voices near the pulpit of the Messenger of God; this is Friday. He then added: After the Friday prayer, I shall go to the Messenger of God and ask him about the matter over which you are disputing. (After the prayer, ʿUmar went to the Messenger of God and posed the question.) At that moment, the verses under discussion were revealed. (al‑Manār, vol. 10, p. 215) However, this narration is incompatible with the verses in question from several perspectives, and we know that any narration that conflicts with the Qur’an must be set aside. The following points are noteworthy in this regard: a. In the verses under discussion, the comparison is not between jihād, siqāyat al‑ḥājj, and the construction of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām in isolation. Rather, the comparison places siqāyat al‑ḥājj and the construction of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām on one side, and belief in God and the Last Day together with jihād on the other. This indicates that certain individuals were comparing acts they had performed in the pre‑Islamic period with faith and jihād. b. The phrase “وَاللهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ” indicates that the deeds of the first group were tainted with wrongdoing, which is only conceivable if those acts were carried out in a state of shirk. The Qur’an states: “إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ” —Indeed, shirk is a tremendous wrongdoing (Luqmān / 13). c. The subsequent verse states that those who believe and strive possess a higher rank. This implies superiority over those who lack faith, hijrah, and jihād—something incompatible with Nuʿmān’s narration, since according to that account all participants in the discussion were believers and Muslims, and may even have taken part in hijrah and jihād. d. The preceding verses discuss the actions of polytheists with regard to maintaining mosques: “مَا كَانَ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ أَنْ يَعْمُرُوا مَسَاجِدَ اللهِ”, and the verses under discussion continue the same subject. This indicates that the theme is the construction of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām and siqāyat al‑ḥājj in a state of shirk—again incompatible with Nuʿmān’s narration. It might be argued that the phrase “أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً” indicates merely a comparative preference between two good deeds. However, this objection is easily answered: the comparative form (afʿal al‑tafḍīl) is frequently used even when one side of the comparison possesses virtue and the other is entirely devoid of it. For example, it is commonly said that arriving late is better than not arriving at all—without implying that not arriving at all is in any sense good. Similarly, the Qur’an states: “وَالصُّلْحُ خَيْرٌ” —Reconciliation is better (al‑Nisāʾ / 128), without suggesting that war is inherently good. Likewise, the Qur’an says: “وَلَعَبْدٌ مُؤْمِنٌ خَيْرٌ مِنْ مُشْرِكٍ” (al‑Baqarah / 221). Does this imply that an idol‑worshipper possesses any genuine merit? And in Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 108, it is stated: “لَمَسْجِدٌ أُسِّسَ عَلَى التَّقْوَىٰ مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَقُومَ فِيهِ”, even though we know that there is nothing praiseworthy about worship in Masjid al‑Ḍirār. Such expressions are exceedingly common in the Qur’an, in Arabic usage, and in other languages. From the entirety of this discussion, we conclude that the narration attributed to Nuʿmān ibn Bashīr—being contrary to the Qur’anic content—must be rejected, whereas the well‑known narration that coheres with the apparent meaning of the verses, which we cited at the outset under the heading of occasion of revelation, should be accepted. This narration establishes a clear virtue for the great leader of Islam, ʿAlī (عليه السلام). May God Almighty keep us steadfast upon the truth and firm in following such leaders, and grant us open eyes and ears and a mode of thought unburdened by prejudice.

It becomes clear from the above verses that the station of رضوان (Divine pleasure) is among the great blessings and ranks that God, Exalted and Majestic, bestows upon the believers and the warriors in His path. This station is distinct and separate from the gardens of Paradise, the everlasting delights of heaven, and the vast mercy of the Lord. Further explanation of this matter will, God willing, come under verse 72 of this same sūrah, where it is stated: وَرِضْوَانٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ أَكْبَرُ

See ayat 24 for tafseer.

The final hesitation and pretext that could arise regarding the command to wage war against the polytheists—and which, according to some exegetes, did in fact arise—was the consideration that, on the one hand, among the polytheists and idol‑worshippers there were close relatives and family connections of the Muslims. At times a father would embrace Islam while the son remained a polytheist, and at times the reverse would occur: the children would set out upon the path of God while the father remained immersed in the darkness of shirk. The same situation existed among brothers, spouses, and extended families. If war were to be waged against all polytheists, this would entail disregarding one’s own relatives, clan, and tribe. On the other hand, much of their wealth and commerce was tied to the polytheists. They travelled to Mecca and engaged in trade that contributed to the city’s prosperity. A third concern was that they owned houses in Mecca that were in a comparatively good and inhabited condition, which could become deserted in the event of war with the polytheists, or lose their value due to the suspension of the polytheists’ participation in the pilgrimage rites. The above verses are directed precisely toward such individuals and provide them with a clear and decisive response. First, it is stated: O you who believe, do not take your fathers and your brothers as patrons, allies, and protectors if they prefer disbelief over faith (یَااَیُّھَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا آبَاءَكُمْ وَإِخْوَانَكُمْ اَوْلِیَاءَ إِنِ اسْتَحَبُّوا الْكُفْرَ عَلَى الْإِیمَانِ). Then, by way of emphasis, it is further declared: Whoever among you takes them as patrons—such people are the wrongdoers (وَمَنْ یَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَاُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ). What injustice could be greater than that a person, by befriending strangers to the truth and enemies of the truth, commits wrongdoing against himself, against the society in which he lives, and against the Messenger sent by God? In the following verse, due to the extreme importance of this matter, it is elaborated with emphasis and warning. Addressing the Prophet, it is said: Say: if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, your clan, the wealth you have amassed, the commerce whose decline you fear, and the dwellings you find pleasing are more beloved to you than God, His Messenger, and striving in His path, then wait until God brings about His command (قُلْ إِنْ كَانَ آبَاؤُكُمْ وَاَبْنَاؤُكُمْ وَإِخْوَانُكُمْ وَاَزْوَاجُكُمْ وَعَشِیرَتُكُمْ وَاَمْوَالٌ اقْتَرَفْتُمُوهَا وَتِجَارَةٌ تَخْشَوْنَ كَسَادَهَا وَمَسَاكِنُ تَرْضَوْنَهَا اَحَبَّ إِلَیْكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَجِهَادٍ فِی سَبِیلِهِ فَتَرَبَّصُوا حَتَّىٰ یَاْتِیَ اللَّهُ بِاَمْرِهِ). Giving preference to these matters over divine pleasure and jihād constitutes a form of disobedience and manifest transgression. Those who are deeply attached to the glitter and adornments of material life are not worthy of divine guidance. Therefore, at the end of the verse it is stated: God does not guide the defiantly disobedient people (وَاللَّهُ لَا یَهْدِی الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِینَ). In Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al‑Qummī, it is narrated: When Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) announced during the pilgrimage rites that from that point onward no polytheist would be permitted to enter al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām, Quraysh raised a loud outcry and said: Our trade has perished, our dependents have been lost, and our houses have become deserted. At that moment, the verse “إِنْ كَانَ آبَاؤُكُمْ …” was revealed. Through these verses, true and sincere faith is clearly distinguished from faith tainted with shirk and hypocrisy. A clear boundary is drawn between genuine believers and those weak in faith. It is stated explicitly that if, in a person’s estimation, the eight‑fold capital of worldly life—four parts related to immediate relatives (parents, children, brothers, and spouses), one part to the broader social group and tribe, one part to accumulated wealth, and one part to comfortable dwellings—becomes more precious and valuable than God, His Messenger, jihād, and obedience to the divine command, to the point that one is unwilling to sacrifice these worldly attachments for religion, then it is evident that true and complete faith has not yet taken root within that person. The reality and spirit of faith, with all its values, will fully manifest only on the day when there is no hesitation or doubt in such sacrifice and self‑denial. Moreover, those who are not prepared for this type of sacrifice and devotion are, in truth, committing injustice against themselves and their society. Ultimately, they will fall prey to the very fate they fear: for any community that is unprepared for such sacrifices at decisive historical moments will sooner or later face defeat, and those very relatives and those possessions to which they clung in order to avoid jihād will themselves fall into danger and be destroyed in the grasp of the enemy.

What has been stated in the above verses does not mean that bonds of affection and friendship with relatives are to be severed, nor that economic resources should be disregarded, nor does it call for the suppression or abandonment of human emotions. Rather, the intent is that when life reaches a point of choice, love for one’s spouse, children, wealth, status, home, and family must not become an obstacle to the implementation of God’s command and inclination toward jihād, nor should these matters stand in the way of a person’s sacred objective and mission. Accordingly, when one is not standing at such a crossroads—when there is no situation requiring the choice of one of the two—then maintaining regard for both is necessary and appropriate. In Sūrat Luqmān, verse 15, concerning polytheist parents, it is stated: وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَىٰ أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا And if they struggle to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them; but keep company with them in this world in a good and proper manner.

One interpretation of this statement is the very one that we have already explained above: namely, that it constitutes a divine warning directed at those who give precedence to their material interests over the pleasure of God. Since this warning is expressed in a concise and general manner, its effect is stronger and more alarming. It is much like when a person says to one of his subordinates, “If you neglect your responsibility, then I too will do what I must.” Another possible interpretation of this statement is that God is saying: if you are not prepared for this kind of sacrifice, then God will bring about the victory and dominance of His Messenger through a path that He knows, and will support him in whatever manner He has willed. This is similar to what is stated in Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, verse 54: يَااَیُّھَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا مَنْ یَرْتَدَّ مِنْکُمْ عَنْ دِینِہِ فَسَوْفَ یَاْتِی اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ یُحِبُّھُمْ وَیُحِبُّونَہُ O you who believe! Whoever among you turns back from his religion—he causes no harm to God, for God will soon bring forth a people whom He loves and who love Him.

Some people may imagine that what has been stated in the above verses was confined only to the early Muslims and belongs merely to past history; however, this is a serious misconception. These verses encompass Muslims of the past, the present, and the future alike. If Muslims lack firm faith, are unprepared for jihād and sacrifice, are unwilling to migrate when circumstances demand it, and give precedence to material interests over the pleasure of God—allowing attachment to spouses, children, wealth, and worldly comfort to prevent them from self‑sacrifice—then their future is bleak. Not only their future, but even their present stands in jeopardy, and all their past honor, inheritance, and distinction will be lost. The foundations and centers of their lives will fall into the hands of others, and their existence will lose all meaning, because life consists of faith, and of jihād carried out under the shade of faith. The above verses should be taught as a guiding principle to all Muslim children and youth, so that the spirit of faith, sacrifice, and struggle may be kept alive within them. They must be made aware of their responsibility to protect and preserve their spiritual and historical heritage.

See ayat 27 for tafseer.

See ayat 27 for tafseer.

From the preceding verses, we have seen that God Almighty calls the Muslims to make every form of sacrifice necessary for uprooting shirk and idol‑worship from the path of God, and issues a severe warning to those whose inner selves are so encompassed by the love of spouses, children, clan, tribe, wealth, and possessions that they are not prepared for sacrifice and jihād. Thereafter, in the verses under discussion, attention is drawn to an important principle: every leader and guide must, at critical moments, direct the attention of his followers to a fundamental reality—namely, that if attachment to wealth and children prevents a weak‑faith group from taking the initiative in jihād against the polytheists, the group of true believers should not be disturbed or disheartened by this. For when their numbers were few (as in the Battle of Badr), God did not abandon them; and even on the day when their numbers were great (as in the Battle of Ḥunayn), numerical superiority did not cure their affliction. Rather, in every situation, divine assistance was the true cause of their victory. Accordingly, the first verse states: God has indeed helped you on many occasions (لَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللَّهُ فِي مَوَاطِنَ كَثِيرَةٍ). The word “مَوَاطِن” is the plural of “مَوْطِن”, meaning a place that one chooses to reside in permanently or temporarily. One of its meanings also includes the battlefield, because soldiers remain stationed there for a shorter or longer period. The verse continues: and on the Day of Ḥunayn, when your great numbers impressed you (وَيَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ إِذْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ كَثْرَتُكُمْ). In that battle, the Muslim army numbered twelve thousand—although some have mentioned ten or eight thousand. However, the most well‑known and reliable reports affirm the figure of twelve thousand, and until that time no Islamic battle had involved such a large contingent. As a result, some Muslims boastfully declared: “لَنْ نُغْلَبَ الْيَوْمَ”—“We will never be defeated today.” Yet, as will be explained, God willing, in the detailed account of the Battle of Ḥunayn, it was precisely this large force—within which there was a group of newly converted Muslims who had not yet been properly trained—that became the cause of flight and initial defeat. Ultimately, however, they were saved by divine grace. Regarding this initial setback, the Qur’an further states: the earth, despite its vastness, became constricted for you (وَضَاقَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْأَرْضُ بِمَا رَحُبَتْ), then you turned back, fleeing (ثُمَّ وَلَّيْتُم مُّدْبِرِينَ). At that moment, when the Muslim forces had scattered across the battlefield of Ḥunayn and only a few remained steadfast—while the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was deeply distressed by the flight of the army—God sent down His tranquility upon His Messenger and the believers (ثُمَّ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَىٰ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ), and He sent down forces that you did not see to strengthen and support them (وَأَنزَلَ جُنُودًا لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا). As we have already mentioned in connection with the verses relating to the Battle of Badr, the descent of these unseen divine forces was not for actual combat, but rather for strengthening the spirits and steadfastness of the believers. Finally, the Qur’an states the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Ḥunayn: God punished those who disbelieved (وَعَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا)— some were killed, some captured, and others fled beyond the reach of the Muslims— and that is the recompense of the disbelievers (وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ). Despite this, the door of repentance was left open to the disbelieving captives and those who fled, so that if they so desired, they might return to God and accept the religion of truth. Hence, the final verse under discussion declares: Then after that, God accepts the repentance of whom He wills (ثُمَّ يَتُوبُ اللَّهُ مِن بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَاءُ). The verb “يَتُوبُ”, being in the present tense, indicates continuity—meaning that the gates of repentance and return remain open before them. This is because God is Forgiving and Merciful (وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ): He never closes the door of repentance upon anyone, nor does He deprive anyone of hope in His vast mercy.

“Ḥunayn” is the name of an area near the city of Ṭāʾif. Since this battle was fought on that land, it became known as the Battle of Ḥunayn. In the Qur’an it is referred to as “یَوْمِ حُنَيْنٍ”. This battle is also known as “غزوه اوطاس” and “غزوهٔ هوازن”. Oṭās is the name of the terrain in that region, and Hawāzin is the name of the tribe that fought against the Muslims in that battle. In al‑Kāmil, Ibn al‑Athīr writes that the beginning of this battle occurred when Hawāzin, which was a very large tribe, learned of the conquest of Mecca. Its leader, Mālik ibn ʿAwf, gathered the people and said that it was possible that after the conquest of Mecca, Muḥammad would arise to fight against them. He declared that wisdom required them to take the initiative before Muḥammad fought them. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was informed of this, he ordered the Muslims to prepare to march toward the land of Hawāzin. (al‑Kāmil by Ibn al‑Athīr, vol. 2, p. 261) There is little disagreement among historians regarding the overall circumstances of this battle, although numerous reports exist concerning its details that do not fully align with one another. What is presented below in brief follows the account recorded by the late Ṭabarsī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān. It was toward the end of Ramaḍān in the year 8 AH, or at the beginning of the month of Shawwāl, when the leader of Hawāzin, Mālik ibn ʿAwf, assembled his people. He brought along their wealth, children, and women as well, so that during the fighting no one would contemplate fleeing. In this manner they entered the land of Oṭās. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny entrusted the great standard of the Islamic army to ʿAlī (عليه السلام), and all those who had served as commanders of units during the conquest of Mecca marched under that banner toward the field of Ḥunayn. The Prophet learned that Ṣafwān ibn Umayya possessed a large quantity of armor. He sent someone to him requesting one hundred suits of armor on loan. Ṣafwān asked whether these would be taken as a loan or by force. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied that they were a loan and that he personally guaranteed their safe return. Ṣafwān lent the armor to the Prophet and himself accompanied him. The army included two thousand individuals who had accepted Islam during the conquest of Mecca, in addition to ten thousand fighters who had marched with the Prophet for that campaign. Altogether, the total force numbered twelve thousand. They proceeded toward the battlefield. Mālik ibn ʿAwf was a courageous and resolute man. He ordered his tribe to break the scabbards of their swords and to position themselves in ambushes among mountain passes, ravines, and trees along the path of the Islamic army. He instructed them that when the Muslims arrived in the early darkness of dawn, they should launch a sudden and unified attack to annihilate them. He added that Muḥammad had not yet encountered warriors who would make him taste defeat. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny led the dawn prayer with his companions and then ordered them to advance toward the land of Ḥunayn. At that moment, the army of Hawāzin unleashed a sudden barrage of arrows from all directions. The vanguard of the Muslim army—among whom were the newly converted Meccans—broke into flight. This caused the remaining ranks to become disordered and flee as well. At this moment, God left the Muslims momentarily to face the enemy on their own and withdrew His immediate support, because they had grown arrogant due to their large numbers. Thus, the signs of defeat appeared. However, ʿAlī (عليه السلام), who carried the standard of the Islamic army, stood firm against the enemy with a small group of companions and continued to fight. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny remained at the center of the army. His uncle al‑ʿAbbās, along with several members of Banū Hāshim, formed a protective circle around him. Their total number did not exceed nine, with the tenth being Ayman, the son of Umm Ayman. As the fleeing soldiers passed by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he instructed al‑ʿAbbās—who had a strong and powerful voice—to climb a nearby elevation and call out to the Muslims: يا معشر المهاجرين والأنصار! يا أصحاب سورة البقرة! يا أهل بيعة الشجرة! إلى أين تفرون؟ هذا رسول الله. “O company of the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār! O companions of Sūrat al‑Baqarah! O those who pledged allegiance beneath the tree! Where are you fleeing? The Messenger of God is here.” When the Muslims heard the voice of al‑ʿAbbās, they turned back, calling out “Labayk! Labayk!”. The Anṣār, in particular, hastened forward and launched a fierce attack from all sides against the enemy army. With divine assistance, they continued their advance until the tribe of Hawāzin was struck with terror and scattered in all directions. The Muslims pursued them relentlessly. Approximately one hundred from the enemy were killed, their wealth was seized as spoils of war, and a number were taken captive. (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 5, pp. 17–19) It is recorded that at the conclusion of this historic event, representatives of the Hawāzin tribe came before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and accepted Islam. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny treated them with great kindness and generosity. Even their leader, Mālik ibn ʿAwf, embraced Islam. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny returned his property and captives to him and entrusted him with the leadership of the Muslims of his tribe. In reality, the primary cause of the Muslims’ initial setback was the arrogance and pride that emerged from their numerical superiority, along with the presence of two thousand newly converted Muslims—among whom some were naturally hypocritical, others had joined in pursuit of war spoils, and some had joined without a clear purpose.

There is near consensus that the majority of the Muslims fled at the beginning of the Battle of Ḥunayn. According to one report, the number of those who remained was ten; some even state that it was as few as four, while others mention a maximum of one hundred. According to several well‑known narrations, since the caliphs were also among those who fled, some Sunni exegetes have attempted to present this retreat as a natural and understandable reaction. The author of al‑Manār writes that when the enemy launched an intense barrage of arrows against the Muslims, those who had joined the Muslims from Mecca—among whom were hypocrites, weak believers, and those who had come seeking war spoils—fled and turned their backs on the battlefield. As a result, the rest of the army naturally became disturbed and disoriented and also fled—not out of terror, but in a customary and instinctive manner. He argues that it is a natural phenomenon that when one group flees, others become unsettled and retreat without reflection. Hence, their flight did not constitute abandonment of the Prophet or leaving him in the hands of the enemy so as to deserve divine wrath. (Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 10, pp. 262–263, 265) We refrain from offering further commentary on this claim and leave the judgment to the reader. However, it is necessary to note that in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī—one of the most authoritative Sunni collections—regarding the defeat and flight of the Muslims at Ḥunayn, it is reported: فإذا عمر بن الخطاب في الناس، وقلت ما شأن الناس؟ قال أمر الله، ثم تراجع الناس إلى رسول الله Suddenly ʿUmar ibn al‑Khaṭṭāb was among the people. I said, “What has happened to the people?” He replied, “It is the decree of God.” Then the people returned to the Messenger of God. (Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 10, pp. 262–263, 265) However, if we set aside preconceived judgments and turn directly to the Qur’an, we find that the Qur’an makes no distinction among those who fled, nor does it divide them into groups; rather, it censures all who turned back. We see no meaningful difference between the two Qur’ānic statements: “ثُمَّ وَلَّيْتُمْ مُدْبِرِينَ” Then you turned back, fleeing and the statement found in Sūrat al‑Anfāl, verse 16: وَمَنْ يُوَلِّهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ دُبُرَهُ إِلَّا مُتَحَرِّفًا لِقِتَالٍ أَوْ مُتَحَيِّزًا إِلَىٰ فِئَةٍ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِغَضَبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ Whoever turns his back to them on that day—except as a tactical maneuver for fighting or to join another group—has indeed incurred the wrath of God. When these two verses are considered together, it becomes evident that all who fled on that day—apart from a few individuals—committed a grave sin, at most later repenting and returning to the battlefield.

The term “سَكِينَة” is derived from the root “سكون” and denotes a state of tranquility and inner peace that removes every kind of doubt, fear, and anxiety from a person and enables steadfastness in the face of severe and difficult circumstances. Sakīnah has a close relationship with faith, in the sense that it arises from faith itself. When people of faith recall God’s boundless power and contemplate His grace and mercy, a wave of hope arises within their hearts. It is for this reason that in some narrations “سَكِينَة” has been interpreted as “faith” (as reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 114), while in other narrations it has been described as “a breeze from Paradise in the form and appearance of a human being” (as reported in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 201). All of these interpretations ultimately return to the same underlying meaning. The Qur’an states in Sūrat al‑Fatḥ, verse 4: هُوَ الَّذِی أَنْزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ فِي قُلُوبِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لِيَزْدَادُوا إِيمَانًا مَعَ إِيمَانِهِمْ It is He who sent down sakīnah into the hearts of the believers, so that they might increase in faith along with their faith. In any case, this extraordinary psychological state is a divine and heavenly blessing through which a person is able to endure even the most difficult events and experiences an entire world of tranquility and steadfastness within himself. It is noteworthy that in the verses under discussion, the Qur’an does not say “ثُمَّ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَيْكُمْ” (“Then God sent down His sakīnah upon His Messenger and upon you”), although earlier clauses employ the direct address “كم”. Instead, it states “عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ”, which indicates that the hypocrites and those who entered the battlefield seeking worldly gain had no share in this sakīnah and tranquility; rather, this blessing was granted exclusively to the people of faith. It is reported in narrations that this breeze from Paradise accompanied the prophets and the messengers of God (as cited in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 112). This explains why, during incidents in which ordinary people lose self‑control, their spirits remain calm and their resolve firm, iron‑like, and unshakable. The descent of sakīnah upon the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny at the Battle of Ḥunayn, as previously noted, was intended to remove the distress caused by the flight of the soldiers. Otherwise, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself stood firm in that confrontation like an unyielding mountain, and likewise ʿAlī (عليه السلام) and a small group of Muslims also remained steadfast.

The above verse states that God, Exalted and Majestic, granted assistance to the Muslims in “مواطن كثيرة” (many battlefields). The number of battles in which the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was present and personally took part, as well as those in which he was present but did not actively engage in combat, and those battles in which the army of Islam confronted the enemy while he himself was not present, is a matter of disagreement among historians. However, from certain narrations transmitted to us through the routes of the Ahl al‑Bayt, it appears that their number amounted to eighty (80). It is narrated in al‑Kāfī that one of the Abbasid caliphs suffered from a severe poisoning. He vowed that if he recovered, he would distribute a large amount of wealth among the poor. When he regained his health, the jurists who surrounded him differed regarding what constituted a “large amount”, and none could provide a clear textual basis or decisive proof. Ultimately, they referred the matter to the ninth Imam, Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al‑Taqī (عليهما السلام). In response, he stated that “kathīr” denotes eighty (80). When asked for the reason, he pointed to the present verse and explained that they had counted the battles between Islam and disbelief in which the Muslims achieved victory, and their number amounted to eighty.

One important point to which contemporary Muslims must pay close attention is to draw lessons from events such as Ḥunayn and to realize that numerical superiority and large crowds must never become a source of arrogance or self‑deception. Mere numbers do not guarantee success. The crucial factor lies in well‑trained believers and individuals possessing firm resolve, even if their numbers are small. As witnessed at the Battle of Ḥunayn, a small group transformed the course of events, whereas an untested and untrained majority became the cause of defeat and retreat. The essential task is to cultivate within individuals the spirit of faith, steadfastness, and self‑sacrifice, so that their hearts may become centers of divine sakīnah, enabling them to remain firm like mountains even amid the harshest storms of life—calm, resolute, and unshaken.

As stated earlier, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) conveyed four rulings to the people of Mecca during the pilgrimage of 9 AH, one of which declared that from the following year onward no polytheist would have the right to enter al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām or to circumambulate the Kaʿbah. The above verse points to this ruling and clarifies its underlying rationale. It first states: O you who believe! The polytheists are impure; therefore, after this year they must not approach al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām (یَااَیُّھَا الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِکُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا یَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِھِمْ ھٰذَا). A question then arises as to whether this verse constitutes a legal proof of the ritual impurity (najāsah) of the polytheists in the juridical sense. On this issue, jurists and exegetes have differed. In order to clarify the meaning of the verse, it is necessary first to examine the word “نَجَس”. This term is originally a verbal noun, but is used adjectivally for the purpose of emphasis and intensity. Rāghib, in al‑Mufradāt, states that “نَجَاسَة” and “نَجَس” denote every form of impurity, which may be of two kinds: sensory (physical) and inner (spiritual). Ṭabarsī, in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, explains that anything from which human nature instinctively recoils may be described as najis. For this reason, the term is often applied in contexts where no literal physical impurity is intended. For example, a prolonged illness or pain is described in Arabic as najis. Likewise, base and wicked individuals are referred to by this term, and old age or bodily degeneration and decay are also called najis. From this, it becomes clear that the above verse does not necessarily indicate that the polytheists are described as najis because their bodies are physically impure, like blood, urine, or wine, nor is it a definitive statement that their impurity refers solely to an intrinsic spiritual pollution arising from their beliefs. Consequently, this verse cannot on its own be used as juridical evidence to establish the ritual impurity of disbelievers; rather, such a ruling would require recourse to other proofs. The verse then addresses those shallow‑minded individuals who feared that if polytheists were barred from entering al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām, their commerce and trade would collapse and they would be reduced to poverty. It declares: If you fear poverty, then soon God—if He wills—will enrich you from His bounty (وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَیْلَةً فَسَوْفَ یُغْنِیکُمْ اللهُ مِنْ فَضْلِہِ اِنْ شَاءَ). And indeed, this is precisely what occurred: God enriched the Muslims in the best possible way. Even during the lifetime of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, as Islam spread and expanded, a continuous influx of visitors and pilgrims poured into Mecca—a phenomenon that has endured up to the present day. Despite Mecca’s extremely unfavorable geographical conditions—situated among barren, rocky, waterless mountains—it has nevertheless become a highly populated city and an important center of trade. The verse concludes by stating: God is All‑Knowing, All‑Wise (إِنَّ اللهَ عَلِیمٌ حَکِیمٌ). Every divine command, therefore, is issued with wisdom and full awareness of its consequences.

In the previous verses, the responsibilities of the Muslims with regard to the polytheists were explained. In the verse under discussion and the verses that follow, the responsibilities of the Muslims toward the People of the Book are clarified. These verses, in reality, present Islamic rulings that represent a middle position between the rulings concerning Muslims and those concerning polytheists. This is because the People of the Book resemble Muslims through their adherence to a heavenly religion, yet in another respect they resemble the polytheists. For this reason, Islam does not permit their killing, whereas it permitted fighting the idol‑worshippers who rose up for confrontation, since the program was to eradicate idolatry from the face of the earth. At the same time, Islam allows the People of the Book to live in close proximity to Muslims on the condition that they are prepared to live peacefully as a religious minority, show respect for Islam, refrain from stirring agitation against Muslims, and avoid anti‑Islamic propaganda. One sign of accepting the principle of peaceful coexistence is that they agree to pay jizya to the Islamic government—an individual tax levied annually, amounting to a small sum per person. Its limits and conditions will, God willing, be explained in later discussions. Otherwise, Islam permits fighting them. The justification for this firm stance is made clear in three clauses of the verse under discussion. First, it is stated: Fight those who do not believe in God or in the Last Day (قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ). But the question arises: how can the People of the Book, such as Jews and Christians, be described as not believing in God and the Last Day, when it is apparent that they do affirm both? The answer lies in the fact that their belief is intermingled with superstitions and unfounded doctrines. Regarding their belief in the origin and the reality of monotheism, the first point is that a group among the Jews—as will be mentioned in later verses—considered ʿUzayr (عليه السلام) to be the son of God, while Christians generally believe in the divinity of the Messiah (عليه السلام) and in the doctrine of Trinity. Second, as indicated in subsequent verses, they were afflicted with “shirk in worship”, and in practice worshipped their religious scholars and leaders. They sought forgiveness for sins—which belongs exclusively to God—from those leaders, and after altering divine laws, formally adhered to those altered rulings. As for their belief in resurrection and the Hereafter, it too was a distorted belief, because they confined resurrection to a purely spiritual form, as is evident from their statements. Thus, their belief in both the origin and the return is fundamentally flawed. Next, the verse points to their second characteristic: that they do not deem forbidden what God and His Messenger have forbidden (وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ). It is possible that the word “رَسُولُهُ” (His Messenger) here refers to Moses (عليه السلام) or Jesus (عليه السلام), because in practice they are not faithful even to the prohibitions of their own religions. Many actions that were forbidden in the laws of Moses or Jesus are committed by them, and at times they even declare them lawful. It is also possible that “رَسُولُهُ” refers to the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, meaning that the command to fight them is issued because they do not submit to what God has prohibited through the Prophet of Islam and persist in every kind of sin. This interpretation is more plausible, as supported by verse 33 of this same sūrah, whose commentary will soon be presented, where it is stated: ھُوَ الَّذِی اَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِینِ الْحَقِّ Moreover, in the Qur’an, whenever the word “رَسُولُهُ” is mentioned in an absolute sense, it refers to the Prophet of Islam. If the intent were their own messenger, it would have been expressed in the dual or plural form, since they had their own prophets, as is stated in Sūrat Yūnus, verse 13: وَجَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ Such expressions appear elsewhere in the Qur’an as well. One might argue that in this case the verse merely states what is already obvious, since it is clear that non‑Muslims do not accept all Islamic prohibitions. However, it should be noted that the purpose of listing these attributes is to explain the justification for fighting them—that is, fighting them is permissible because they do not accept Islamic prohibitions and are immersed in many sins. Therefore, if they rise up for confrontation and refuse to live as a peaceful minority, fighting them becomes lawful. Finally, the verse points to their third characteristic: that they do not fully adhere to the religion of truth (وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ). Regarding this clause, the two earlier possibilities again arise, but it appears that “دīn al‑ḥaqq” here refers specifically to Islam, as will be indicated explicitly a few verses later. After mentioning their failure to recognize Islamic prohibitions, this statement represents a progression from the particular to the general: first pointing out their corruption in specific prohibitions—because this is especially striking—then stating that, in reality, they have not submitted to the true religion at all. Their religions have deviated from the true path, many truths have been neglected, and numerous superstitions have been introduced. Thus, they are given two options: either to accept the evolutionary and more complete transformation of Islam and build a new world of religious thought, or at least to live peacefully with Muslims as a minority under conciliatory conditions. After mentioning these three attributes—each serving to justify fighting them—the verse states that this ruling applies to the People of the Book (مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ). In technical terms, the particle “مِن” here is explanatory rather than partitive. In other words, the Qur’an states—regrettably—that the followers of earlier heavenly scriptures have generally fallen into these religious deviations, and this ruling concerns them collectively. Then, in a single phrase, the distinction between them and the idol‑worshippers is made clear: the fighting shall continue until they pay the jizyah (حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ). The term “جِزْيَة” is derived from “جَزَاء”, and refers to the payment taken from non‑Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic state. It is so named because it is given as compensation in return for the protection of their lives and property provided by the Islamic government, a meaning recorded by Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt. The word “صَاغِرُونَ”, derived from “صَغَر”, refers to someone who accepts his subordinate status. In this verse, it means that the payment of jizyah must be an expression of submission to the authority of Islam and the Qur’an. In other words, it symbolizes peaceful coexistence and signifies their status as a protected and respected minority under the authority of the Muslim majority. The interpretation offered by some exegetes that this implies humiliation or degradation of the People of the Book is unsupported—neither by the linguistic meaning of the term, nor by the spirit of Islamic teachings, nor by the other rulings concerning the treatment of religious minorities. Another important point is that, although the verse mentions the conditions briefly, it implicitly indicates requirements such as refraining from anti‑Islamic education or propaganda within Islamic society, not supporting enemies of Muslims, and not obstructing the progress of the Muslim community. Such actions are incompatible with the concepts of submission, acceptance, and cooperation that the verse conveys.

Jizyah is a form of Islamic taxation that is levied on individuals, not on property or land. In other words, jizyah is a per‑capita annual tax. Some hold the view that the origin of this term is non‑Arabic and that it is derived from the ancient Persian word kazīt, meaning a tax collected for the maintenance of the military. However, many scholars maintain that it is a purely Arabic term and, as previously mentioned, it is derived from the root “جزاء”, signifying that this levy is taken as compensation for the protection and security afforded by the Islamic government to religious minorities. Jizyah existed even before Islam. Some are of the opinion that it was first imposed by the Sasanian king Nūshīrwān, but even if this claim is not accepted, it is at least certain that Nūshīrwān collected jizyah from his subjects. He levied an annual per‑capita tax—varying between 12, 8, 6, or 4 dirhams—from every individual who was not an official of the state and whose age ranged between twenty and fifty years. The philosophy stated for this taxation was that the existence, freedom, and security of a country are the responsibility of every individual. Therefore, when one group rises to fulfill this duty through military service, while another group—occupied with trade and livelihood—is unable to join the ranks of the defenders, it becomes the responsibility of the latter group to contribute, in the form of a per‑capita annual tax, toward the expenses of the army and the guardians of public security. There exist indications, both from the periods before Islam and after its advent, that confirm this philosophy underlying jizyah. The age limitation (between twenty and fifty years) for those liable to pay jizyah during the reign of Nūshīrwān itself serves as evidence, since this age group consisted of those capable of bearing arms and participating in the defense of security and national independence; yet, because they were engaged in economic activity, they instead paid jizyah. Another point is that in Islam, jizyah is not imposed upon Muslims, because jihād is an obligation upon all, and in times of need everyone must take the field against the enemy. Religious minorities, however, are exempted from participation in jihād; therefore, in lieu of this duty, they are required to pay jizyah so that they may share, in this manner, in safeguarding the integrity of the Islamic state in which they live in peace. Moreover, children, women, the elderly, and the blind among religious minorities are exempt from jizyah—this too is further evidence supporting the same principle. From all that has been stated, it becomes clear that jizyah is merely a form of financial contribution paid by the People of the Book in return for the responsibility undertaken by Muslims to protect their life and property. Hence, those who regard jizyah as a form of “tribute imposed by conquest” have failed to grasp its spirit and rationale. They overlook the fact that once the People of the Book become ahl al‑dhimmah, it is the duty of the Islamic government to protect them from all forms of aggression and harm. Furthermore, when it is taken into account that in exchange for paying jizyah they live a life of comfort and security, and are exempt from participation in warfare and defensive responsibilities, it becomes evident how much lighter their burden is compared to that of Muslims vis‑à‑vis the Islamic state. That is, by paying a small annual amount, they benefit from all the advantages of the Islamic order and share equally with Muslims in this regard, while being spared from confronting dangers and crises. One of the clearest proofs supporting this philosophy is found in the treaties concluded between Muslims and the People of the Book during the period of Islamic governance. These treaties explicitly stipulate that the People of the Book are obligated to pay jizyah, and in return it is the duty of Muslims to protect them. Even if an external enemy rises against them intending to harm them, the Islamic government is bound to defend the People of the Book. Many such treaties exist. One of them is cited here as an example. This treaty was concluded by Khālid ibn al‑Walīd with the Christians living near the Euphrates. The text of the treaty reads: “ھٰذا كتاب من خالد بن الوليد لصلوبا ابن نسطونا وقومه، إنّي عاهدتكم على الجزية والمنعة، فلكم الذمّة والمنعة، وما منعناكم فلنا الجزية، وإلاّ فلا، كُتب سنة اثنتي عشرة في صفر.” This is a document from Khālid ibn al‑Walīd to Ṣulūbā ibn Nasṭūnā and his people: I have concluded with you a covenant of jizyah and protection; in return, you shall enjoy security and protection. So long as we protect you, we are entitled to jizyah; otherwise, we are not. Written in the year 12 AH, in the month of Ṣafar. It is noteworthy that historical records indicate that whenever protection was not adequately provided, jizyah was either returned or not taken at all. It should also be noted that the amount of jizyah was not fixed. Its level was determined in accordance with the financial capacity of those who paid it, and at times it did not exceed one dinar annually. In some treaties, it was even stipulated that the obligation of jizyah would be according to each person’s ability. All that has been outlined above effectively dispels the various objections and hostile insinuations directed against this Islamic ruling and demonstrates that it is a just, rational, and equitable injunction.

See ayat 33 for tafseer.

See ayat 33 for tafseer.

See ayat 33 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned the polytheists. It was explained that their covenants had been annulled and that it was necessary to dismantle the system of idol‑worship. Thereafter, attention was drawn to the condition of the People of the Book, indicating that under certain conditions they could live in a conciliatory manner alongside the Muslims, and that if this were not the case, then fighting them was commanded. In the verses under discussion, the resemblance of the People of the Book—particularly the Jews and Christians—to the polytheists and idol‑worshippers is highlighted, so that it becomes clear that the degree of strictness applied to the People of the Book is also due to their deviation from tawḥīd, in one sense “shirk in belief” and in another sense “shirk in worship.” First, it is stated: The Jews said that ʿUzayr is the son of God (وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ), and the Christians said that the Messiah is the son of God (وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَىٰ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ). This is a claim uttered by their mouths alone, devoid of any reality (ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ). Their statements resemble the utterances of those who disbelieved before them (يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ). God combat them; may they be cursed and driven away from His mercy—how they are turned away from the truth and fabricate falsehoods! (قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ)

In Arabic, the name “ʿUzayr” corresponds to what is known in Jewish terminology as “Ezra.” When Arabs adopt names from other languages, they generally modify them, and particularly in expressions of affection they often change them into a diminutive form. Thus, “Ezra” became “ʿUzayr,” just as the original name “Yeshua” was rendered “ʿĪsā,” and “Yūḥannā” became “Yaḥyā.” The concept of diminutives in Arabic involves forming a specific pattern from the original noun to indicate smallness; for example, “rajul” (man) becomes “rujayl” (little man). However, such forms are not always used to denote smallness; at times they express affection, as when a person speaks lovingly to his child. In any case, ʿUzayr (Ezra) holds a distinctive position in Jewish history. Some among them even attribute the foundation of their community and the revival of their religious identity to him. In reality, ʿUzayr rendered immense service to the Jewish religion, particularly after the events involving Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. Under his onslaught, the condition of the Jews was catastrophically disrupted: their cities were captured, their place of worship was destroyed, the Torah was burned, their men were killed, and their women and children were taken captive and transported to Babylon, where they remained for nearly a hundred years. When the Persian king Cyrus later conquered Babylon, Ezra, who was then among the Jewish leaders and elders, approached him and interceded on behalf of the Jews. Cyrus agreed that they could return to their cities and that the Torah should be rewritten anew. Because of this, they held Ezra in extraordinarily high esteem. For this reason, a group among the Jews bestowed upon him the title “ibn Allāh” (son of God). Although certain narrations—for example, those reported in Iḥtijāj al‑Ṭabarsī—suggest that this title was originally intended as an honorific expression of reverence, the same narrations record that when the Prophet of Islam questioned them, saying: If you grant this title to ʿUzayr due to his great services, then why do you not accord the same title to Moses, who rendered far greater service to you than ʿUzayr?—they were unable to offer any reply, nor did they have any answer available. In any case, through this designation, the minds of some people moved beyond mere reverence. As is often the case with the populace, they interpreted the expression according to their natural inclinations and came to believe that he truly was the son of God. Two factors contributed to this perception: first, ʿUzayr rescued them from a life of homelessness and dispersion, and second, by rewriting the Torah he granted their religion a renewed life. Nevertheless, not all Jews held this belief. However, the Qur’an makes clear that at least a particular group among them—especially those present at the time of the Prophet of Islam—did adhere to this outlook. This is evidenced by the fact that no historical record exists showing that the Jews denied or protested this attribution upon hearing the verse; had that not been the case, they would certainly have reacted. From what has been explained, the answer becomes clear to the question of why today Jews do not hold such a belief and no one considers ʿUzayr to be the son of God, yet the Qur’an attributes this statement to them. The explanation is that it is not necessary for all members of a group to share a belief for it to be attributed to them; rather, it is sufficient that a notable and identifiable segment of the group held such a belief, particularly at the time of revelation.

With regard to the Christians, there is no doubt that they regarded حضرت عیسیؑ as the real and literal son of God, and that this designation was not applied merely as an expression of reverence, but in its actual and literal sense. They explicitly state in their religious texts that this term, in its true meaning, may not be applied to anyone other than the Messiah. As we have already explained elsewhere (vol. 4, pp. 176–184 of the Urdu translation), حضرت مسیحؑ never made such a claim. Rather, he consistently introduced himself only as the servant of God and His messenger. In principle, there is no rational basis for assuming the existence of a father–son relationship—which is intrinsically tied to the material world and the realm of contingencies—between God and any human being.

In the above verse, the Qur’an states that in these deviations they resemble the earlier idol‑worshippers and are similar to them. Those earlier polytheists believed in certain gods as fathers, others as sons of God, and even regarded some as the mother of God or the wife of God. Similar conceptions can be observed in the fundamental beliefs of the idol‑worshippers of India, China, and ancient Egypt. When such ideas later entered Jewish and Christian thought, it was as though they had merely imitated the idol‑worshippers. In the present age, some researchers are inclined to compare the contents of the two Testaments (the Torah, the Gospel, and related writings) with Buddhism and Brahmanism, seeking the roots of these scriptures’ doctrines in those belief systems. Through such comparisons, it can be observed that many teachings of the Torah and the Gospel correspond closely to the superstitions found in Buddhism and Brahmanism, to the extent that numerous narratives and accounts found in the Gospel are identical to those present in these two religious traditions.

The phrase “قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ”, although literally meaning “may God fight them” or “may God slay them,” is understood—according to what Ṭabarsī narrates in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān from Ibn ʿAbbās—as a metonym for curse, that is, may God distance them from His mercy. In the following verse, after referring to doctrinal shirk, attention is drawn to their practical shirk, in other words, an explicit indication of “shirk in worship.” It is stated: The Jews and the Christians took their scholars and monks as their lords besides God (اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ), and also the Messiah, son of Mary (وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ). The term “أَحْبَار” is the plural of “حَبْر”, and “رُهْبَان” is the plural of “رَاهِب.” A “حَبْر” refers to a learned scholar or religious authority, while a “رَاهِب” denotes a person who has renounced worldly life, resides in a monastery or church, and devotes himself entirely to worship.

There is no doubt that the Jews and Christians did not prostrate themselves before their scholars and monks, nor did they perform prayer, fasting, or other acts of worship for them. However, because they submitted themselves unconditionally to their authority, to the extent that they regarded as binding even those rulings issued in opposition to God’s commands, God has described this blind and irrational obedience as worship. This meaning has been explicitly explained in a narration transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) and Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام). They said: اما والله ما صاموا لھم ولا صلوا، ولكنھم احلوا لھم حراما وحرموا علیھم حلالا فاتبعوھم وعبدوھم من حیث لا یشعرون By God! They did not fast for them nor did they pray for them; rather, their leaders declared what God had made unlawful to be lawful and what He had made lawful to be unlawful, and they accepted this, followed them, and thus worshipped them without realizing it. (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under this verse; Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 209) In another narration, ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim reports: I came into the presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny while a cross was hanging around my neck. He said to me: O ʿAdī, remove this idol from your neck. I did so, then drew nearer to him and heard him reciting the verse: اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا… When he finished reciting the verse, I said: We do not worship our leaders. He replied: Is it not the case that they declare lawful what God has forbidden and forbid what God has made lawful, and you follow them? I said: Yes, that is so. He then said: That is their worship. (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under this verse) The reason for this interpretation is clear: legislation belongs to God alone, and no one else has the right to declare something lawful or unlawful and impose it as binding law. What human beings may do is only to discover divine laws and, where appropriate, apply them to particular cases. Therefore, when someone legislates in opposition to God’s law and others accept this legislation unconditionally, they have effectively assigned divine authority to someone other than God. This amounts to a form of practical shirk and idol‑worship—in other words, worship of other than God. Contextual evidence indicates that the Jews and Christians granted their leaders such authority that they believed they could alter divine laws whenever they deemed it expedient. Even today, the practice of absolution of sins exists among Christians, whereby one confesses sins before a priest and is told, “I have forgiven you.” Another important point is that there is a difference in nature between Christian worship of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (عليه السلام) and Jewish worship of their religious leaders. Christians genuinely believed حضرت مسیح (عليه السلام) to be the Son of God, whereas Jews worshipped their leaders through unconditional obedience. The Qur’ānic expression carefully preserves this distinction. It states first: اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ and then separately mentions: وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ This stylistic separation shows that Qur’ānic wording preserves even the finest nuances. Finally, the verse emphatically concludes that all such forms of human‑worship are innovations and fabrications, and that they were never commanded to adopt multiple objects of worship. Rather, they were commanded to worship one single God: وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا the One besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ He is exalted and transcendent above whatever they associate with Him: سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

In the above verse, the Qur’an imparts to its followers a highly valuable lesson and instills a profound and elevated understanding of tawḥīd. It declares that no Muslim has the right to accept the unconditional obedience of any human being, because such obedience is equivalent to worship. All obedience must be confined to obedience to God, and following a human command is permissible only so long as it does not conflict with the divine laws—regardless of who the person issuing the command may be or how exalted his status may appear. This is because unconditional obedience is tantamount to worship and represents a form of idol‑worship and servitude. Yet, it must be said with regret that Muslims, due to distancing themselves from this fundamental Islamic principle and substituting human idols in place of God, have become victims of division, fragmentation, colonial domination, and exploitation. Until these idols are broken and removed, disorder and distress cannot be eliminated. In fact, such idol‑worship is more dangerous than the idolatry of the pre‑Islamic age, in which people prostrated before stones and wooden idols. Those lifeless idols never exploited their worshippers; but when human beings take the place of idols, they, driven by self‑interest, shackle their followers with chains of subjugation and plunge them into every form of degradation and misery. In the third of the verses under discussion, the Qur’an portrays—through a striking metaphor—the relentless yet futile efforts of the Jews and Christians, and indeed of all opponents of Islam, including the polytheists. It states: They wish to extinguish the light of God with their mouths, but God refuses except to perfect His light, even though the disbelievers may dislike it (يُرِيدُونَ اَنْ يُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللهِ بِاَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَيَاْبَى اللهُ إِلَّا اَنْ يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ).

In this verse, the religion of God, the Qur’an, and Islamic teachings are likened to light, and we know that light is the source of life, movement, growth, and habitation on the face of the earth, as well as the origin of every form of beauty and splendor. Islam, too, is a dynamic and life‑giving religion that leads human society toward perfection and advancement, and is a fountainhead of all goodness and blessing. The efforts of the enemies are likened to futile attempts to extinguish this light by blowing upon it, and how absurd it is that someone should attempt to extinguish a sun‑like radiance with mere breaths. There could be no more eloquent or forceful imagery to portray the contemptible and insignificant nature of their efforts. In reality, the endeavors of weak and powerless creatures possess no greater value than this when set against the infinite will and boundless power of the Divine Reality.

The Qur’an mentions attempts to extinguish the light of God in two places: one in the verse under discussion and the other in Sūrat al‑Ṣaff, verse 8. In both instances, the statement is presented as a critique of the efforts of the enemies of Islam; however, a slight difference can be observed between the expressions used in these two verses. In the present verse, the wording is: “يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُطْفِئُوا”, whereas in Sūrat al‑Ṣaff it is stated: “يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا”. This variation in expression undoubtedly points to a subtle distinction. Rāghib, in al‑Mufradāt, explains the difference between these two formulations by noting that in the first verse, the attempt to extinguish is indicated without reference to means or preliminaries, whereas in the second verse, the attempt is shown as being carried out through means and causes. In other words, whether they rise to extinguish the light of truth without means or whether they mobilize all possible resources and instruments, they will nonetheless be faced with defeat.

The term “يَأْبَىٰ” is derived from the root “إِبَاء”, and it conveys the meaning of firm refusal, decisive prevention, and strong rejection. This expression constitutes proof of the definitive divine will and irrevocable determination of the Lord regarding the completion and advancement of the religion of Islam. At the same time, it instills vigor, confidence, and hope in the hearts of all Muslims concerning the future of this religion—provided that they are truly and genuinely Muslim.

Finally, in the verse under discussion, the Muslims are given glad tidings of the universal ascendancy of Islam. Completing the argument of the preceding verse—which establishes that the desperate efforts of the enemies of Islam will never bear fruit—the Qur’an states explicitly: It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, so that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, even though the polytheists may dislike it (هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ). By guidance (الهدى) is meant the clear evidences and manifest proofs present within the religion of Islam, and by the Religion of Truth (دِينِ الْحَقِّ) is meant this very religion whose principles and subsidiary laws are grounded in truth. In short, its history, its sources, and its ultimate aims are all truthful. Undoubtedly, a religion whose teachings are true, whose evidences and sources are clear, and whose historical foundations are well established must ultimately prevail over all other religions. With the passage of time, the advancement of knowledge, and the ease of communication, the veils of poisonous propaganda will be lifted, the face of truth will become increasingly evident, and all the obstacles placed by the enemies of truth in its path will be removed. Thus, the Religion of Truth will encompass all regions, whether or not its opponents desire it, and regardless of whether they persist in their malicious conduct—because their actions run contrary to the course of history and stand in opposition to the very laws governing creation.

In the above verse, the Qur’an states: “أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ”, which effectively points to the very proof of Islam’s ultimate predominance over all religions. This is because when the content and substance of the Prophet’s message are founded upon guidance, reason itself bears witness to it at every level. Moreover, when its principles and subsidiary rulings are in harmony with truth and oriented toward the realization of truth, such a religion will naturally attain ascendancy over all others. It is recorded concerning an intellectual from India that he devoted a considerable period to the study and investigation of the world’s major religions. After extensive research, he eventually accepted Islam and authored a book in English entitled “Why I Became a Muslim.” In it, he clearly enumerated the distinguishing merits of Islam in comparison with other religions. Among the most important factors that drew his attention, he writes that Islam is the only religion whose historical continuity is firmly established, preserved, and reliable. He expresses astonishment that Europe adopted a religion in which its bearer was elevated beyond the rank of humanity and declared to be God himself, despite the absence of a sound and credible historical foundation. A careful study and analysis of the statements and reflections of those who have abandoned their former religions and embraced Islam reveals that they were deeply impressed by the religion’s remarkable simplicity, its rational and evidence‑based rulings, the solidity and coherence of its principles and branches, and the humanitarian legislation it offers. They recognized that its laws and teachings are free from every form of absurdity, and that within them shines the light of truth and guidance.

With regard to how and in what manner Islam will attain supremacy over all religions, exegetes have expressed differing views. Some interpret this supremacy as purely logical and rational, arguing that it has already occurred, since from the standpoint of reason and argument no existing religion can be meaningfully compared with or rival Islam. However, the term “إِظْهَار”, which appears in the expression “لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ …”, if examined in its broader Qur’ānic usage and in the contexts where its root is employed, reveals that it most often denotes manifest, outward dominance and tangible authority, rather than mere intellectual superiority. For example, in the account of the Companions of the Cave it is stated: إِنَّهُمْ إِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ يَرْجُمُوكُمْ If they gain dominance over you, they will stone you (al‑Kahf / 20). Similarly, concerning the polytheists, it is said: كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً If they gain dominance over you, they will observe neither kinship nor covenant (al‑Tawbah / 8). It is evident that in such contexts the dominance referred to is not logical or theoretical, but practical and actual. Therefore, the sounder interpretation is to understand this supremacy as comprehensive in nature, encompassing every form of dominance. This understanding is more consistent with the Qur’ānic wording, which speaks of dominance in an absolute sense. In other words, a time will come when Islam will prevail over all religions both in terms of reason and argument, and in terms of outward influence and governance. All will fall under its illumination and authority.

The above verse—appearing with exactly the same wording in Sūrat al‑Ṣaff and with slight variation repeated in Sūrat al‑Fatḥ—announces an event of great significance, the very importance of which explains its repetition. It proclaims the universal destiny of Islam. Although some exegetes have interpreted the victory mentioned in this verse as a regional and limited success, achieved during the lifetime of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny or shortly thereafter, this interpretation is not compelling. Given that the verse contains no restriction, condition, or qualification and is expressed in absolute terms, there is no justification for confining its meaning. The meaning of the verse clearly conveys Islam’s comprehensive triumph over all religions in every respect, indicating that Islam will ultimately encompass the entire globe and prevail throughout the world. There is no doubt that this has not yet occurred in full, but we know that God’s definitive promise is being realized gradually and progressively. The rapid spread of Islam across the world, its official recognition in various European countries, its growing influence in America and Africa, and the acceptance of Islam by numerous intellectuals and non‑intellectuals alike—all these factors indicate that Islam is advancing toward global manifestation. According to many traditions recorded in Islamic sources, the completion of this program will occur at the time of the appearance of Imām al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), who will actualize and globally implement Islam’s universal mission. The late Ṭabarsī reports in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, in his commentary on this verse, a statement from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام): إنّ ذلك يكون عند خروج المهدي فلا يبقى أحدٌ إلا أقرّ بمحمد (ص) This promise will be fulfilled at the time of the appearance of al‑Mahdī from the family of Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny; on that day, there will remain no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge the truth of Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In the same commentary, a narration from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny states: لا يبقى على ظهر الأرض بيت مدر ولا وبر إلا أدخله كلمة الإسلام There will remain no house on the face of the earth—whether built of stone and clay, fabric and tents, wool and hair—except that God will cause the word of Islam to enter it. Likewise, in Shaykh al‑Ṣadūq’s book Kamāl al‑Dīn, a narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) interpreting this verse states: والله ما نزل تأويلها بعد ولا ينزل تأويلها حتى يخرج القائم، فإذا خرج القائم لم يبق كافر بالله العظيم (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 211) By God! The full realization of this verse has not yet occurred, nor will it occur until the Qāʾim appears; when he arises, there will remain no one on earth who denies God Almighty. Many other narrations conveying the same meaning have been transmitted from the leaders of Islam, and numerous exegetes have cited this interpretation under the present verse. What is truly astonishing, however, is that the author of al‑Manār not only rejects this interpretation outright, but—because the narrations concerning Imām al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) clearly correspond to the verse under discussion—he discusses them only to launch sweeping attacks, driven by his particular bias against the Shiʿah. He categorically denies the traditions concerning Imām al‑Mahdī, dismissing them as contradictory and unacceptable, assuming that belief in the Mahdī is confined solely to the Shiʿah or those inclined toward them. Beyond this, he even portrays belief in the Mahdī as a cause of backwardness and decline. In view of this situation, it becomes necessary to present—briefly—some narrations concerning the appearance of Imām al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) and to examine the impact of this belief on the progress of Islamic society and resistance to oppression and injustice, so that it may become evident how prejudice drives knowledge and insight out the door once it enters through another. This discussion will also demonstrate how the aforementioned exegete—despite extensive knowledge of Islamic issues—has nonetheless viewed clear and established realities through a distorted lens due to this weakness rooted in bias.

Although Sunni and Shiʿi scholars have authored many works on the subject of the rising (qiyām) of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), in our view nothing is more eloquent, balanced, and decisive than a formal written response issued by several scholars of the Ḥijāz to a questioner. For this reason, we present its text here in full translation for the esteemed readers. Before doing so, however, it should be recalled that the traditions related to the rising of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) are of such a nature that no Muslim researcher—regardless of school or affiliation—has denied their mutawātir status. A large number of books have been written on this subject to date, and their authors have unanimously accepted the authenticity of the reports concerning the universal reformer, al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام). Only a very small number of figures—such as Ibn Khaldūn and Aḥmad Amīn of Egypt—have expressed doubts regarding the attribution of these reports to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, there exist strong indications that what motivated them was not perceived weakness in the reports themselves, but rather the notion that traditions concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) include matters that are difficult to accept readily; or else because they were unable to distinguish sound narrations from unsound ones, or could not arrive at an adequate interpretation of them. In any case, it is necessary first to present the response issued by Rābiṭat al‑ʿĀlam al‑Islāmī (the Muslim World League). This organization is primarily associated with the most rigid elements of the Muslim world—namely the Wahhābīs—and its position therefore clearly demonstrates that belief in the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) is a point of consensus among Muslims. In our assessment, the evidences assembled in this concise pamphlet are of such a nature that no one can dare to deny them. The fact that even strict Wahhābī scholars submitted to them is itself due to the irrefutable strength of its proofs. Approximately one year prior (note: this volume of the commentary was published in 1400 AH), a person named Abū Muḥammad from Kenya addressed a question to Rābiṭat al‑ʿĀlam al‑Islāmī regarding the awaited Mahdī (عليه السلام). In response, the head of the organization, Muḥammad al‑Ṣāliḥ al‑Qazzāz, explicitly stated that Ibn Taymiyyah, the founder of the Wahhābī school, also accepted the traditions concerning the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام). The pamphlet in question was prepared by five well‑known contemporary scholars of the Ḥijāz. It clarifies the name of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) and identifies Mecca as the place of his appearance. It then states that when corruption and turmoil prevail throughout the world, and disbelief and oppression become widespread, God—through him—will fill the earth with justice and equity, just as it had been filled with injustice and tyranny. He is described as the last of the twelve rightly guided successors about whom the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny gave news in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections. The traditions concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) have been transmitted by many Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, including ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ṭalḥah ibn ʿUbaydallāh, ʿAbd al‑Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, Qurrah ibn Iyās al‑Muzanī, ʿAbdallāh ibn al‑Ḥārith, Abū Hurayrah, Ḥudhayfah ibn al‑Yamān, Jābir ibn ʿAbdallāh, Abū Umāmah, Jābir ibn Mālik, ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿUmar, Anas ibn Mālik, ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn, and Umm Salamah, as well as many others. Numerous statements have also been transmitted directly from the Companions themselves concerning the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام). These are regarded as having the same authority as Prophetic traditions, since this is not a matter subject to personal reasoning (ijtihād); thus it is evident that they must have heard these reports directly from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The pamphlet further states that the many Prophetic traditions and Companion testimonies concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) are recorded in a wide range of well‑known Islamic sources, including the Sunan, Maʿājim, and Musnads, such as Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Sunan al‑Tirmidhī, Ibn ʿAmr al‑Dānī, Musnad Aḥmad, Ibn Yaʿlā and al‑Bazzār, Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Ḥākim, al‑Ṭabarānī’s al‑Muʿjam al‑Kabīr and al‑Awsat, al‑Ruyānī, al‑Dāraquṭnī, Abū Nuʿaym in Akhbār al‑Mahdī, al‑Khaṭīb in Tārīkh Baghdād, Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq, and many other scholarly works. It further notes that several scholars of Islam authored independent works devoted specifically to this subject, including Abū Nuʿaym’s Akhbār al‑Mahdī, Ibn Ḥajar al‑Haythamī’s al‑Qawl al‑Mukhtaṣar fī ʿAlāmāt al‑Mahdī al‑Muntaẓar, al‑Shawkānī’s al‑Tawḍīḥ fī Tawātur mā Jāʾa fī al‑Muntaẓar wa‑l‑Dajjāl wa‑l‑Masīḥ, Idrīs al‑ʿIrāqī al‑Maghribī’s al‑Mahdī, and Abū al‑ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al‑Muʾmin’s al‑Wahm al‑Maknūn fī al‑Radd ʿalā Ibn Khaldūn. It also states that a group of early and later scholars have explicitly affirmed that the traditions about al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) have reached the level of tawātur, and thus are in no way deniable. Among them are al‑Sakhāwī in Fatḥ al‑Mughīth, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al‑Ṣaffārīnī in Sharḥ al‑ʿAqīdah, Abū al‑Ḥasan al‑Ābirī in Manāqib al‑Shāfiʿī, Ibn Taymiyyah in al‑Fatāwā, al‑Suyūṭī in al‑Ḥāwī, Idrīs al‑ʿIrāqī in his work on al‑Mahdī, al‑Shawkānī in al‑Tawḍīḥ, Muḥammad Jaʿfar al‑Kānānī in Naẓm al‑Tanāthur, and Abū al‑ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al‑Muʾmin in al‑Wahm al‑Maknūn. The discussion concludes by stating that only Ibn Khaldūn attempted to object to the traditions concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), relying on a single fabricated narration: “لا مهدي إلا عيسى” (There is no Mahdī except Jesus). This claim, however, was rejected by the leading Imams and scholars of Islam—most notably by Ibn ʿAbd al‑Muʾmin, who authored a specialized refutation that spread widely throughout the East and West some thirty years earlier. Major hadith scholars and leading authorities have explicitly stated that the narrations concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) consist of ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan traditions, that taken together they are mutawātir, and that belief in the appearance of al‑Mahdī is obligatory for every Muslim, forming an integral part of the creed of Ahl al‑Sunnah wa‑l‑Jamāʿah. None deny it except the ignorant, the unaware, or the innovator. Muḥammad Muntaṣir al‑Kānānī Director, Institute of the Islamic Jurisprudence Assembly

From the preceding discussion we have come to understand that this belief does not represent an extraneous or later insertion into Islamic teachings; rather, it belongs to those matters of the highest certainty that were taken directly from the Founder of Islam himself. All Islamic schools and traditions are in agreement regarding this belief, and the narrations concerning it are mutawātir. We now turn to the effects of this expectation (intizār) within contemporary Islamic societies, and examine whether belief in such an emergence leads a person into a realm of fantasy and illusion—rendering them negligent of their present condition and causing them to surrender passively before all circumstances—or whether, in reality, this belief constitutes a call to uprising, responsibility, and moral formation, both at the individual and societal levels. Does this belief generate movement or stagnation? Does it awaken a sense of duty and responsibility, or does it provide an excuse for escaping responsibility? In short, does it paralyze intellectual capacities or revitalize them? Before addressing these questions, it is essential to give full attention to one crucial point: even the most reformative laws and the loftiest concepts, when they fall into the hands of ignorant, unqualified, or self‑serving individuals, can be distorted in such a way that they produce results entirely contrary to their original purpose, leading people onto a path opposite to their intended goal. There are many examples of this phenomenon, and, as we shall see, the concept of intizār has not been immune from such misuse. Therefore, in order to avoid every kind of misunderstanding, we shall—according to the saying “bāyad āb rā az sar‑chashmeh gereft” (one must take water from its source)—return to the primary sources in this discussion as well. That is, we will directly consult the authentic Islamic texts and examine the various narrations—expressed in different formulations—that emphasize the concept of intizār, so that we may arrive at its true purpose and objective. Now, please reflect carefully upon the following narrations: 1. Someone asked Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام): What do you say about a person who holds allegiance to the rightful leaders, awaits the appearance of the government of truth, and then departs from this world in that state? The Imām (عليه السلام) replied: هو بمنزلة من كان مع القائم في فسطاطه ثم سكت هنيئة، ثم قال: هو كمن كان مع رسول الله He is like one who is in the tent of the Qa'im (among the soldiers of his army). Then the Imām paused briefly and added: He is like one who was with the Messenger of God (in his campaigns). (Biḥār al‑Anwār, vol. 13, p. 136, old edition; reported from al‑Maḥāsin of al‑Barqī.) The same meaning appears in numerous narrations, expressed in different formulations. 2. Some narrations state: بمنزلة الضارب بسيفه في سبيل الله That is, he is like one who strikes with his sword in the path of God. 3. In other narrations it is stated: كمن قارع مع رسول الله بسيفه That is, he is like one who wielded the sword in defense alongside the Messenger of God. 4. In some narrations it appears as: بمنزلة من كان قائداً تحت لواء القائم That is, he is like one who is a commander under the banner of the Qa'im (al‑Mahdī). 5. Other narrations say: بمنزلة المجاهد بين يدي رسول الله That is, he is like one who performs jihād in the presence of the Messenger of God. 6. Some narrations state: بمنزلة من استشهد مع رسول الله That is, he is like one who was martyred in the company of the Prophet. Across these six narrations, seven distinct similes are employed regarding the expectation of the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام). These clearly reveal that, on the one hand, this expectation is intrinsically connected to the concept of intizār, and on the other hand, it is inseparably linked to the final form of struggle and confrontation with the enemy (reflect carefully on this point). 7. In many narrations, the expectation of such a government is described as one of the greatest acts of worship. This theme appears in Prophetic traditions and in statements attributed to Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام). One narration reports that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: أفضل أعمال أمتي انتظار الفرج من الله عز وجل Among the most virtuous deeds of my community is awaiting relief from God. (Biḥār al‑Anwār, vol. 13, p. 137, citing al‑Kāfī.) Another narration from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny states: أفضل العبادة انتظار الفرج The most virtuous act of worship is awaiting relief. (Biḥār al‑Anwār, vol. 13, p. 136, citing al‑Kāfī.) This narration carries a general meaning. Whether “intizār al‑faraj” is understood in its broad sense or interpreted specifically as awaiting the appearance of the great universal reformer, in both cases its relevance to the subject at hand remains clear. All of these expressions collectively indicate that awaiting such a revolution is always bound to comprehensive and all‑encompassing struggle, a point that must be borne in mind so that the meaning of intizār may be properly understood and a unified conclusion drawn from all these formulations.

The term “انتظار” (intizār) is used to describe the state of a person who is dissatisfied with the present condition and is actively engaged in bringing about a better one. For example, a sick person who awaits recovery, or a father who awaits the return of a son who has gone on a journey. The sick person is distressed by illness, and the father is troubled by separation from his child; both are striving toward a better state. Likewise, a merchant who is distressed by poor business conditions and awaits the end of an economic crisis experiences two states: one of dissatisfaction with the present condition, and the other of striving toward improvement. Accordingly, awaiting the just government of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) and the uprising of the universal reformer is composed of two elements: a negative element and a positive element. The negative element is dissatisfaction with the existing condition, and the positive element is the aspiration for a better and just state. When these two aspects take root in the human spirit, they become the source of two broad categories of action. On the one hand, there is the severing of all forms of association with the sources of oppression and corruption, even to the point of confrontation and struggle against them. On the other hand, there is self‑reform, self‑reliance, and comprehensive preparation—both physical and spiritual—for the establishment of a unified global government. If we reflect carefully, we see that both dimensions are inherently reformative, educational, and serve as causes of movement, awareness, and awakening. When attention is given to the true and authentic meaning of intizār, the rewards and outcomes described in the numerous narrations cited earlier become entirely clear. It becomes evident how true expectant believers are likened—at times—to those who stand in the camp of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), or under his banner, or to one who wields the sword in the path of God, or to one who is immersed in his own blood, or to one who attains martyrdom. Do these descriptions not point to the various stages of struggle and differing degrees of striving in the path of truth and justice—stages attained by different individuals according to their level of preparedness and quality of expectation? Just as those who struggle in the path of God possess varying degrees of sacrifice and corresponding outcomes, so too do the processes of self‑purification and readiness involved in intizār possess multiple and distinct levels. From the standpoint of both means and outcomes, these two are alike: both constitute forms of jihād. Both require preparation and self‑discipline. A person who is to be in the camp of such a government—namely, in the military center of a global administration—cannot be careless or ignorant, nor can such a person afford negligence or moral laxity. Not everyone can enter such a camp; it is a place reserved for those who truly possess the capability, merit, and fitness for such a role. Similarly, one who bears arms and stands before the leader of such a revolution, fighting those who oppose peace, reconciliation, and just governance, must possess complete preparedness—spiritually and intellectually—for combat. To better understand the genuine effects of awaiting the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام), consider the following clarification: Intizār means thorough preparation. How is it possible for a tyrant or oppressor to sincerely await the one whose sword will be drenched in the blood of the unjust? How can a person stained with sin and impurity truly await a revolution whose first blaze will consume the garments of the impure? An army awaiting a great jihād will push the training of its soldiers to the utmost limit, breathe the spirit of revolution into them, and rectify every point of weakness—because the state of intizār is always aligned with the nature of the objective being awaited. Waiting for the arrival of an ordinary traveler, waiting for the return of a beloved friend, waiting for the season to harvest fruit from trees, or for the time of reaping crops—each of these forms of waiting involves a distinct kind of readiness and preparation. For a guest, one must prepare the house and arrange the means of hospitality. For harvesting fruit or crops, one must prepare the necessary tools, sickles, or machinery. Now consider those who await the emergence of a great universal reformer. In reality, they are awaiting an all‑encompassing transformation and a revolution that will overturn existing conditions—the greatest and most fundamental human revolution in all of history. Unlike past revolutions, it will not be regional, but universal; not limited, but comprehensive; encompassing all of humanity and all aspects of human life. It will be a revolution in the political, cultural, economic, and moral spheres alike.

Such a transformation, before anything else, requires prepared and capable individuals endowed with genuine human worth. It demands people who are able to shoulder the immense burden of comprehensive reform across the entire world. At the initial stage, it is necessary to elevate levels of awareness, understanding, and commitment to cooperating in the realization of this great program, and to strengthen spiritual and intellectual preparedness. Narrow‑mindedness, short‑sightedness, distorted thinking, envy, childish and irrational disputes, and all forms of hypocrisy and fragmentation are utterly unbefitting of true expectant believers. The key point is that a genuine expectant believer can never be a mere spectator of such a vital program. Rather, one must decisively place oneself among the ranks of revolutionaries from the very outset. Faith in the outcome of this revolution does not permit standing alongside its opponents, nor does it allow passivity. At the same time, standing among its supporters requires pure conduct, a purified soul, sufficient courage, and deep awareness. If I myself am corrupt, flawed, or unjust, how can I sincerely long for a system in which corruption, deviation, and injustice will have no value—and will instead be rejected and despised? Is such expectation not, in itself, sufficient to demand purification of thought, spirit, body, and soul? An army that spends its time awaiting a liberating jihād will undoubtedly maintain the highest state of readiness. It will ensure that all weapons necessary for the coming battlefield are prepared. Such an army remains fortified, continuously enhances the preparedness of its forces, strengthens the hearts of its soldiers, and keeps alive within each of them passion and love for struggle and confrontation. Any army that lacks this level of preparedness cannot be considered an army of waiting; if it claims to be so, such a claim is false. Awaiting a universal reformer and educator entails readiness for complete intellectual, moral, material, and spiritual reform of the entire world. Now consider how profoundly human‑forming and transformative such preparation and expectancy truly are. Reforming the entire earth and eradicating all forms of oppression and corruption is neither a trivial matter nor an easy undertaking. Preparation for so vast a goal must correspond to its magnitude—its depth and scope. To bring such a revolution to its culmination requires individuals of immense resolve, unwavering strength, incorruptible integrity, elevated vision, full preparedness, and penetrating insight. Such a goal demands rigorous self‑construction and the deepest forms of personal discipline. For such an objective, the implementation of numerous moral, intellectual, and social responsibilities is unavoidable. This, then, is the true meaning of انتظار (intizār). Can anyone honestly claim that such an expectancy is not human‑forming, reformative, and transformative?

Alongside the personal responsibility of true expectation, it is also incumbent upon genuine expectant believers not only to reform themselves, but to remain attentive to the condition of one another and to strive, alongside their own self‑reform, for the reform of others as well. This is because the great and weighty program whose completion they await is not an individual undertaking; rather, it is a program in which all elements of the revolution must participate. Consequently, the task must take on a collective and social form, and efforts and endeavors must be coordinated and harmonious. The depth and scope of this coordination must correspond to the magnitude of the global revolution whose advent they await. In a vast and collective battlefield, no one can remain indifferent to the condition of others; rather, it is one’s responsibility that wherever a point of weakness is identified, it be corrected; wherever damage is found, it be repaired; and wherever fragility exists, it be strengthened. This is because without the active and harmonious participation of all fighters present in the field, it is impossible to bring such a program into practical realization. Thus, true expectant believers do not merely strive for their own reform, but also consider it their duty to contribute to the reform of others. This is yet another constructive and formative effect of awaiting the emergence of a universal reformer, and it is the underlying philosophy behind all the virtues attributed to the sincere expectant believer.

Another effect of awaiting the appearance of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) is that it prevents one from being absorbed into a corrupt environment or surrendering before evil. This can be explained as follows: when corruption becomes widespread and engulfs everyone—when the majority, or a large portion of society, drifts toward it—righteous individuals sometimes find themselves trapped in a severe psychological pressure. In such suffocating conditions, they may lose hope in reform. At times, they come to believe that the water has risen above their heads, leaving no remaining hope for change, and that striving to preserve personal purity has become futile. Gradually, such despair can draw them toward conformity with corruption and environmental degeneration. They may no longer be able to maintain themselves as a righteous minority in contrast to a corrupt majority, and may even consider non‑conformity to prevailing norms a source of disgrace. The only force capable of breathing the spirit of hope into them—inviting them to stand firm and resist, and preventing them from dissolving into a corrupt environment—is hope for total and comprehensive reform. Only in this case can they preserve their own purity and continue the struggle for reforming others. We observe that in Islamic law, despairing of divine forgiveness is itself regarded as a major sin. Some ignorant or inattentive individuals may wonder why despair of God’s mercy has been given such gravity—so much so that it is counted among the gravest sins. The underlying philosophy is precisely that a sinner who despairs of God’s mercy finds no reason to think of compensation or even to abandon persistent sin. His logic becomes: the water has already passed over my head; whether by one span or a hundred makes no difference. He tells himself: I am already disgraced in this world; fearing the world is pointless now. There is no color darker than black; in the end there is Hell, and I have already purchased it for myself—what else should I fear? Such thoughts keep him firmly upon the path of sin. However, when a window of hope remains open—hope in divine pardon and the expectation that the present condition can be transformed—then a new arena opens in one’s life, inviting return from the path of sin and a re‑entry into purity and reform. For this reason, hope has always been considered an effective educational factor in the reform of corrupt individuals. Likewise, righteous people trapped within a corrupt environment cannot protect themselves without hope. In summary, the more corrupt and decadent the world becomes, the more intense the hope grows in awaiting the appearance of the reformer, and the more profoundly it affects the believers spiritually. Against powerful waves of corruption and evil, this hope becomes their shield. Not only do they refrain from despair at the spread of corruption, but, in fact, as expressed in poetry: “As the moment of union draws nearer, the fire of love burns even more fiercely.” Correspondingly, the goal appears ever closer to them, their struggle against evil intensifies, their efforts to preserve themselves increase, and their passion and vitality grow stronger. From the preceding discussions, we conclude that intizār becomes a cause of stagnation only when its meaning is distorted or falsified—as occurred through distortion by some opponents and misrepresentation by some supporters. However, when individuals and societies act upon its true meaning, intizār becomes a powerful factor in education, self‑reformation, movement, and hope. Among the clear evidences regarding the rising of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) is the following verse: وَعَدَ اللَّهُ 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 over the earth. In commentary upon this verse, it is narrated from the guides of Islam: هُوَ الْقَائِمُ وَأَصْحَابُهُ That is, the ones promised here are al‑Qāʾim (al‑Mahdī, عليه السلام) and his companions (Biḥār al‑Anwār, old edition, vol. 13, p. 14). Another narration states: نَزَلَتْ فِي الْمَهْدِيِّ (ع) It was revealed concerning al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام). In this verse, al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام) and his supporters are introduced under the title: الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ Those among you who believe and perform righteous deeds. Thus, the establishment and realization of this global revolution is impossible without firm faith capable of removing all weakness, frailty, and fear; nor is it possible without righteous deeds that open the path to global reform. Those who await this program must elevate their levels of awareness, knowledge, and faith, and simultaneously strive to reform their actions. Only such individuals are deserving of the glad tidings of marching alongside and cooperating within such a government—not those who support oppression, nor those estranged from faith and righteous action, nor timid and cowardly individuals who, due to weakness of faith, fear everything—even their own shadows. Nor are the lazy, lifeless, and idle—those who sit with folded hands, remain silent in the face of social corruption, and make no effort whatsoever to resist it—worthy of such participation. This is the constructive and reformative social impact of awaiting the rising of al‑Mahdī (عليه السلام).

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned the polytheistic practices of the Jews and Christians, who had in effect attributed a form of divinity to their scholars and monks. The verse under discussion here declares that such figures not only lack any claim to divinity, but are also unfit to guide humanity. Evidence for this lies in their manifold forms of misconduct. Turning the address directly toward the Muslims, the Qur’an states: O you who believe! Many of the scholars and monks of the People of the Book consume the wealth of people wrongfully and bar others from the path of God (يَااَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْاَحْبَارِ وَالرُّهْبَانِ لَيَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَيَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ). It is noteworthy that, consistent with the Qur’anic method, this ruling is not extended to all Jewish scholars and monks; rather, the expression “كَثِيرًا” explicitly leaves room for the exception of the righteous and virtuous minority. Similar formulations appear elsewhere in the Qur’an, as previously noted. As for the question of how they wrongfully consumed people’s wealth—without legitimate justification and, in Qur’anic terms, by falsehood—this is indicated in several other verses and is also documented in historical sources. One practice was that they concealed the true teachings of ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) and Mūsā (عليه السلام) so that people would not be attracted to the new religion (Islam), thereby safeguarding their own interests and preserving the flow of gifts and offerings they received. This is alluded to in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verses 41, 79, and 174. Another practice involved accepting bribes in order to declare falsehood as truth and truth as falsehood, and issuing unjust rulings in favor of the powerful and influential—a matter referenced in Sūrat al‑Mā’idah, verse 41. A further source of their unlawful income was their trade in what may be termed “selling Paradise” and “forgiving sins,” whereby they extracted large sums of money from people under such pretexts, conducting commerce in forgiveness and salvation—matters that belong exclusively to God. This issue provoked considerable controversy and conflict in the history of Christianity. Regarding their obstructing people from the path of God, this is evident, for they either distorted divine scriptures or concealed them for the sake of protecting their own interests. Moreover, anyone whom they perceived as a threat to their authority or advantage was subjected to accusations, placed before so‑called “religious inquisitions,” harshly interrogated, condemned, and punished by the most brutal means. The truth is that had they not engaged in such acts, and had they not sacrificed their followers to greed and base desires, many groups would today have wholeheartedly embraced the religion of truth—Islam. Thus, it can be stated openly that the burden of millions remaining in the darkness of disbelief rests upon their shoulders. Even today, churches and Jewish institutions spare no effort in misleading the public about Islam, continuing to level strange and even horrific accusations against the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. This phenomenon is so widespread that some enlightened Christian scholars have openly acknowledged that the Church’s hostile and cowardly attacks against Islam have played a major role in keeping Western societies ignorant of this pure and noble religion. Following this discussion of the worldliness of Jewish and Christian leaders, the Qur’an proceeds to derive a general principle concerning hoarders, declaring: Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them in the path of God—give them tidings of a painful punishment (وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ). The verb “يَكْنِزُونَ” derives from “كَنْز”, meaning a treasure. The root conveys the sense of collecting and assembling components of something; hence an animal with abundant flesh is described as “كِنَازُ اللَّحْم”. Over time, the term came to denote the collecting, storing, and sometimes concealing of valuable wealth and goods. Thus, its meaning encompasses accumulation, preservation, and concealment. The term “ذَهَب” means gold, while “فِضَّة” means silver. As Ṭabarsī reports in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, some lexicographers have offered a thought‑provoking explanation: gold is called “ذَهَب” because it rapidly goes away and does not remain, recalling the linguistic meaning of “ذهاب” as departure; silver is called “فِضَّة” because it quickly disperses and becomes scattered, since “انفضاض” in Arabic denotes dispersal. Such naming alone suffices to illustrate the fleeting nature of wealth. Since the earliest stages of human society, various commodities were used as means of exchange, and people traded surplus agricultural produce or goods for their needs. In the earliest periods, barter dominated because currency had not yet been invented. Barter, however, involved numerous difficulties: many people had surplus goods to sell but had no immediate need for what was offered in exchange. They therefore sought a medium that could later be converted into whatever goods were required. From this need emerged the concept of currency. The emergence of silver and, more importantly, gold gave concrete form to this idea. These metals became the basis of low‑ and high‑value currency, greatly facilitating commerce and economic exchange. Thus, the fundamental purpose of currency lies in the smooth and rapid circulation of economic transactions. Those who hoard money as hidden treasure not only disrupt economic balance and harm societal welfare, but also act in direct opposition to the very rationale behind the invention of currency. The above verse explicitly declares hoarding to be unlawful and commands Muslims to spend their wealth in the path of God and for the benefit of His servants, avoiding the accumulation, storage, and withdrawal of wealth from circulation. If they fail to do so, they are warned to expect a painful punishment. This painful punishment is not limited to the severe chastisement of the Hereafter; it also includes the harsh consequences experienced in this world as a result of economic imbalance and the emergence of class disparities. While earlier generations may not have fully grasped the importance of this Islamic command, today its reality is clearly understood, for the calamities afflicting humanity—wars, bloodshed, and widespread suffering—arising from the hoarding of wealth by self‑centered and heedless individuals, are evident to all and concealed from none.

Exegetes have differed concerning the verse under discussion as to whether every form of wealth accumulation beyond basic necessities constitutes kanz (hoarding) and is therefore unlawful according to this verse, or whether this ruling pertains specifically to the early period of Islam prior to the revelation of the obligation of zakāt, such that it was later abrogated once zakāt became obligatory. Another view holds that the only mandatory requirement is the payment of zakāt, and nothing beyond this; accordingly, if a person accumulates wealth and regularly pays its Islamic dues—namely zakāt—then he does not fall under the scope of this verse. A large number of narrations found in both Shiʿi and Sunni sources appear to support this third interpretation. For example, in one narration attributed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he said: إِذَا أُدِّيَتْ زَكَاتُهُ فَلَيْسَ بِكَنْزٍ That is, any wealth whose zakāt has been paid is not considered hoarded treasure (kanz). (al‑Manār, vol. 10, p. 404) It is also narrated that when the above verse was revealed, the matter initially became burdensome for the Muslims, and they said that no one among them would then be able to save anything for their children or provide for their future. They questioned the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, who replied: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمْ يَفْرِضِ الزَّكَاةَ إِلَّا لِيُطَهِّرَ بِهَا مَا بَقِيَ مِنْ أَمْوَالِكُمْ، وَإِنَّمَا فَرَضَ الْمَوَارِيثَ فِي أَمْوَالٍ تَبْقَى بَعْدَكُمْ God did not prescribe zakāt except in order to purify what remains of your wealth, and He prescribed the law of inheritance with respect to the wealth that remains after you. (al‑Manār, vol. 10, p. 404) In other words, if the accumulation of wealth were absolutely forbidden, then there would have been no place for the legislation of inheritance. A similar narration is reported in Amālī al‑Shaykh, in which the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: Whoever pays the zakāt on his wealth, then whatever remains is not considered kanz. (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 213) At the same time, other narrations are found in Islamic sources that, at first glance, appear inconsistent with this interpretation. One such narration is reported in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān from Imām ʿAlī (عليه السلام), who said: مَا زَادَ عَلَىٰ أَرْبَعَةِ آلَافٍ فَهُوَ كَنْزٌ، أُدِّيَتْ زَكَاتُهُ أَوْ لَمْ تُؤَدَّ، وَمَا دُونَهَا فَهُوَ نَفَقَةٌ Whatever exceeds four thousand (dirhams)—which apparently refers to a year’s necessities—is kanz, whether its zakāt has been paid or not; and whatever is less than that is considered essential expenditure. (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān; Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 213) In al‑Kāfī, a narration from Muʿādh ibn Kathīr relates that he heard Imām al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) say: Our Shiʿah are permitted—as long as they spend what they have in the path of God—to retain what remains as lawful; however, when our Qāʾim arises, he will declare all hoarded wealth unlawful and will take it from them to employ it against the enemies. The Imām then recited the verse: وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ... (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 213) Numerous historical works also report that Abū Dharr (رض) would repeatedly recite this verse morning and evening before Muʿāwiyah in Syria, loudly proclaiming: Give tidings to the hoarders of branding upon their foreheads, sides, and backs, until the heat penetrates their very insides. (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 214; al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 122) Likewise, Abū Dharr’s use of this verse in argument before ʿUthmān indicates that he did not view it as restricted merely to those who withhold zakāt, but as applicable more broadly. When all these narrations are considered together, alongside the verse itself, the conclusion that emerges is as follows: under normal circumstances, when society is not facing hardship or existential danger and people enjoy ordinary living conditions, the payment of zakāt is sufficient, and accumulated wealth does not fall under the prohibition of kanz. (It should also be noted that, in principle, if Islamic economic regulations are properly observed, the excessive accumulation of wealth becomes extremely difficult, as Islam imposes numerous conditions and restrictions on wealth acquisition.) However, when circumstances are abnormal or critical—such that the welfare, survival, and integrity of the Islamic society require intervention—the Islamic government has the authority to limit the accumulation of wealth or impose restrictions upon it, as indicated in the narration from Imām ʿAlī (عليه السلام). It may even, for the sake of the survival of the Muslim community, require that all stored wealth and reserves be made available, as mentioned in the narration of Imām al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) concerning the era of the Qāʾim. The underlying rationale applies to other critical situations as well, since the Imām explicitly states: فَلْيَسْتَعِينُوا بِهِ عَلَىٰ عَدُوِّهِ So that he may use it to confront his enemies. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that such measures lie exclusively within the authority of an Islamic government, and may be undertaken only when circumstances truly require them. As for the actions of Abū Dharr (رض), it is quite possible that they, too, were motivated by the specific conditions of his time, when concentrated wealth posed a serious threat to the survival and integrity of Islamic society. Alternatively, his objections may have been directed particularly at public treasury (bayt al‑māl) funds controlled by ʿUthmān and Muʿāwiyah. It is well known that such funds cannot be withheld even temporarily when rightful recipients and needy individuals exist, and must be distributed immediately; this matter is altogether distinct from the issue of personal zakāt. This is especially clear given that all historical sources—both Sunni and Shiʿi—attest that ʿUthmān distributed large portions of the public treasury among his relatives, while Muʿāwiyah used bayt al‑māl funds to construct palaces reminiscent of Sasanian legends. Under such circumstances, Abū Dharr was fully justified in reminding them of the divine command.

We know that among the objections raised against the third caliph, one of the most notable is the oppressive exile of Abū Dharr (رض). He was banished to Rabadhah, a place known for its harsh climate, and as a consequence this great Companion and devoted fighter in the path of Islam ultimately passed away there. Abū Dharr (رض) was the person about whom the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: The heavens have not shaded, nor has the earth borne, anyone more truthful than Abū Dharr. We also know that Abū Dharr’s disagreement with ʿUthmān was not rooted in any desire for wealth or ambition for position, for Abū Dharr was a pious and free‑spirited man. The source of his opposition lay solely in the third caliph’s extravagant handling of the public treasury (bayt al‑māl), his excessive favoritism toward his clan and relatives, and his lavish gifts to his supporters. Abū Dharr (رض) was especially uncompromising regarding financial matters connected to the bayt al‑māl and insisted that everyone adhere to the practice of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—yet we know that conditions during the reign of the third caliph were markedly different. In any case, Abū Dharr’s clear and uncompromising stance became intolerable to the third caliph. First he was sent to Syria, but there Abū Dharr raised even stronger and more decisive objections against the actions of Muʿāwiyah. Ibn ʿAbbās reports that Muʿāwiyah wrote to ʿUthmān saying: If you need Syria, recall Abū Dharr, for if he remains here this region will slip from your grasp. ʿUthmān then issued an order summoning Abū Dharr. According to some historical accounts, Muʿāwiyah ordered that Abū Dharr be driven toward Madinah continuously, day and night, without being allowed a moment’s rest. When Abū Dharr reached Madinah he fell ill, and since his presence there was also deemed undesirable for the caliphate’s affairs, he was exiled to Rabadhah, where he eventually died. Those who seek to defend the third caliph sometimes level the accusation against Abū Dharr that he held communistic views, believed all wealth belonged to God alone, and denied private ownership. This accusation is astonishing. How can such a claim be made when the Qur’an explicitly recognizes private ownership under defined conditions, when Abū Dharr was among the closest companions of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, raised under the direct guidance of the Qur’an, and when no one under the heavens was more truthful than him? Even remote Bedouins were aware of Islamic rulings on trade and inheritance—can it then be imagined that one of the Prophet’s closest disciples was ignorant of them? Is there any explanation other than the fact that obstinate and biased defenders of the third caliph fabricated such accusations to absolve him—and even more strangely, did so in defense of Muʿāwiyah’s conduct? Regrettably, some people still follow these claims blindly today. Indeed, guided by the Qur’anic verses—especially “آيَةُ الكَنز”—Abū Dharr (رض) firmly maintained and openly proclaimed that the Islamic public treasury must not become the private property of certain individuals. He believed that wealth in which the needy and deprived have a rightful share, and which must be spent for the strengthening of Islam and the welfare of Muslims, should not be used to display personal generosity or to revive legends of palace‑building. Moreover, Abū Dharr held that in times when Muslims suffered acute hardship, the wealthy themselves should adopt the simplest manner of life and spend from their wealth in the path of God. If Abū Dharr had any “crime,” it was this—and the verdict of biased historians, the Umayyads, and sycophantic, religion‑selling transmitters was to distort and blacken the image of this striving man by leveling false accusations against him. Abū Dharr’s second “crime” was his deep attachment to Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام). This “crime” alone was sufficient for Umayyad propagandists to unleash their malicious efforts to tarnish his status. Yet his integrity was so pure, and his truthfulness and understanding of Islamic principles so clear, that all these falsehoods were rendered disgraceful and futile. One particularly strange fabrication attributed to Abū Dharr in defense of the third caliph—reported in Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd—claims that when Abū Dharr was at Rabadhah, a group from Kūfa came to him and said: This man (ʿUthmān) has done all this to you. Are you ready for us to raise a banner and fight him under it? Abū Dharr allegedly replied: No—if ʿUthmān were to send me from east to west, I would still obey him. (al‑Manār, vol. 10, p. 406) The fabricators overlooked an obvious contradiction: if Abū Dharr were so obedient, why did he oppose the caliph so persistently that his presence in Madinah became intolerable? Even more astonishing is what the author of al‑Manār writes under the present verse, claiming that Abū Dharr’s case demonstrates the extent of freedom of expression in the era of the Companions—especially during ʿUthmān’s reign—the respect accorded to scholars, and the affection of the caliphs toward them. According to him, Muʿāwiyah lacked the courage to act against Abū Dharr on his own and thus sought authorization from the caliph. Truly, what can bias not accomplish? Is exile to the scorching, desolate land of Rabadhah—essentially a valley of death and fire—a model of intellectual freedom and scholarly respect? Is pushing a great Companion into a place where he died evidence of respect for freedom of belief? If Muʿāwiyah refrained from acting independently out of fear of public reaction, does that constitute respect for Abū Dharr? Among the strangest claims is that Abū Dharr’s exile was justified under the principle of preferring the removal of corruption over securing benefits. Defenders argue that although Abū Dharr’s presence in Madinah had benefits, his rigid stance and strict attitude toward wealth supposedly generated corruption; thus, the caliph disregarded those benefits and exiled him. They further claim that since both Abū Dharr and ʿUthmān were mujtahids, neither can be criticized (al‑Manār, vol. 10, p. 407). We truly do not understand what corruption Abū Dharr’s presence in Madinah caused. Was calling people back to the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny a source of corruption? Why did Abū Dharr not object to the financial policies of the first two caliphs—policies that differed from ʿUthmān’s—if his stance was inherently corruptive? Was returning people to the original Islamic economic framework corruption? Was the exile of Abū Dharr and silencing his truthful voice a form of reform? Did not ʿUthmān’s own conduct—especially in financial matters—produce such a catastrophic upheaval that he himself ultimately became its victim? Was that the “corruption,” and was abandoning Abū Dharr’s stance the “benefit”? Yet when prejudice enters by one door, reason departs by another. In any case, the conduct of this great Companion is clear to any fair‑minded researcher, and there is no rational path by which the third caliph can be absolved of the harm and suffering inflicted upon Abū Dharr (رض).

In the following verse, the Qur’an points to the punishment of such people in the next world, stating that a day will come when these coins will be heated in the blazing fire of Hell, and then their foreheads, their sides, and their backs will be branded with them (يَوْمَ يُحْمَىٰ عَلَيْهَا فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ فَتُكْوَىٰ بِهَا جِبَاهُهُمْ وَجُنُوبُهُمْ وَظُهُورُهُمْ). In that state, the angels of punishment will say to them: this is the very thing that you hoarded for yourselves and stored as treasure, and which you did not spend upon the deprived in the path of God (هٰذَا مَا كَنَزْتُمْ لِأَنْفُسِكُمْ). Now taste that which you used to hoard and experience its bitter consequence (فَذُوقُوا مَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْنِزُونَ). This verse once again emphasizes the truth that human deeds do not perish; rather, they endure and will be embodied before human beings in the Hereafter, becoming the cause of their joy and delight or of their pain and suffering. As for why, among all parts of the body, only the forehead, the sides, and the back are mentioned in this verse, exegetes have differed. However, it is reported from Abū Dharr (رض) that he used to explain this by saying that the scorching heat spreads throughout the surrounding space and envelops their entire being (حَتَّىٰ يَتَرَدَّدَ الْحَرُّ فِي أَجْوَافِهِمْ). (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 214) It has also been said that this is because it was through these three bodily parts that they dealt with the deprived: at times they turned their faces away, at times they avoided facing them out of indifference, and at times they turned their backs upon them. Therefore, these three parts of their bodies will be branded with the toxic wealth they had accumulated. At the conclusion of this discussion, it is appropriate to draw attention to a literary point present in the verse. The verse states: (يَوْمَ يُحْمَىٰ عَلَيْهَا), that is, on that day the fire will be applied upon the coins so that they become heated and capable of burning. Ordinarily, in such contexts the preposition “عَلَىٰ” is not used; rather, one would say, for example: يُحْمَى الْحَدِيدُ (the iron is heated). This variation in expression may allude to the intensity of the burning, because coins placed above or upon the fire become far more intensely heated than when merely placed within it. The Qur’an does not say that the coins will be thrown into the fire; rather, it says that they will be placed upon it so that they are thoroughly heated, molten, and able to burn. This represents an extremely stern and severe expression of punishment for such hard‑hearted hoarders of wealth.

See ayat 37 for tafseer.

Since this sūrah contains detailed discussions concerning warfare with the polytheists, the two verses under consideration also point to another important ruling related to war and Islamic jihād—namely, the rule regarding the sanctity of the Sacred Months. First, it is stated: Indeed, the number of months with God is twelve, in the Book of God, from the day He created the heavens and the earth (إِنَّ عِدَّةَ الشُّهُورِ عِندَ اللَّهِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ شَهْرًا فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ يَوْمَ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ). The expression “كِتَابُ اللَّهِ” may refer to the Qur’an or earlier heavenly scriptures, but in view of the phrase “يَوْمَ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ”, it appears more appropriate to understand it as referring to the Book of Creation and the natural order of the universe. In any case, since the solar system assumed its present form, the concepts of year and month have existed. A year consists of the earth completing one full orbit around the sun, and a month consists of the moon completing one full orbit around the earth, resulting in twelve lunar cycles each year. This constitutes a natural, immutable calendar, providing structure to human life and order to historical reckoning. It is one of God’s great blessings to humanity, as discussed in detail under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 189: يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْأَهِلَّةِ قُلْ هِيَ مَوَاقِيتُ لِلنَّاسِ وَالْحَجِّ It is then added: Among these twelve months, four are sacred—months in which all forms of warfare are prohibited (مِنْهَا أَرْبَعَةٌ حُرُمٌ). According to some exegetes, the sanctity of these four months dates back to the time of Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام) and was fully observed even among the Arabs of the pre‑Islamic era, though they sometimes manipulated the timing to suit their desires. In Islam, however, these months are fixed and unchangeable: three consecutive months—Dhū al‑Qaʿdah, Dhū al‑Ḥijjah, and Muḥarram—and one separate month, Rajab. In Arab terminology, the three consecutive months are termed “سَرْد”, and the single one “فَرْد”. It should be noted that the prohibition of warfare during these months applies only when aggression is not initiated by the enemy. If the sanctity is violated by the enemy, Muslims are obliged to defend themselves and may not remain passive. In such cases, it is not the Muslims who have violated the sanctity, but the aggressors themselves—details of which appear in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 194. The verse then emphasizes: That is the upright and established religion (ذٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ). This indicates that the sanctity of the Sacred Months is a firm, enduring law—not a distorted custom like that practiced in the pre‑Islamic era, where months were arbitrarily shifted according to whim. Several narrations (e.g., Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 122) indicate that this rule existed not only in the Abrahamic tradition but also among Jews, Christians, and other followers of heavenly religions. Thus, the phrase “ذٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ” may also be understood as pointing to the permanence and universality of this law. The verse continues: So do not wrong yourselves therein (فَلَا تَظْلِمُوا فِيهِنَّ أَنْفُسَكُمْ)— that is, do not violate the sanctity of these months lest you subject yourselves to worldly punishment and chastisement in the Hereafter. However, since there was a possibility that the prohibition of fighting during these months might be exploited by the enemy, the verse immediately adds: Fight the polytheists collectively, just as they fight you collectively (وَقَاتِلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَافَّةً كَمَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ كَافَّةً). That is, although polytheists are characterized by shirk—which breeds division and discord—they wage war in united ranks. You, however, are people of tawḥīd, and tawḥīd is the foundation of unity and cohesion; therefore, you are even more entitled to maintain solidarity and stand as a single, unbreakable wall before the enemy. The verse concludes with reassurance: And know that God is with the God‑fearing (وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ). If you observe piety and adhere fully to the principles of Islamic teachings, divine support and victory are assured, for God stands with the righteous. In the following verse, another erroneous practice of the pre‑Islamic era is criticized—namely the manipulation of the Sacred Months (نَسِيء). It is stated: Indeed, the postponement (of sacred months) is an increase in disbelief (إِنَّمَا النَّسِيءُ زِيَادَةٌ فِي الْكُفْرِ), by which the disbelievers are led further astray (يُضَلُّ بِهِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا). They declare one month lawful one year and unlawful the next, attempting thereby to match the number of months God has made sacred—substituting one for another while retaining the count of four (يُحِلُّونَهُ عَامًا وَيُحَرِّمُونَهُ عَامًا لِيُوَاطِئُوا عِدَّةَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ). Through this absurd practice, the very philosophy behind the sanctity of the Sacred Months is rendered meaningless, and God’s law becomes a plaything for their desires. Astonishingly, they are pleased with their actions, for their evil deeds have been made attractive in their eyes (زُيِّنَ لَهُمْ سُوءُ أَعْمَالِهِمْ). As will be mentioned later, under satanic influence they manipulated the Sacred Months, imagining this practice to be beneficial for economic planning or military preparedness, even claiming that prolonged peace weakens combat readiness and that war must therefore be rekindled. God, however, leaves such people—those unworthy of guidance—to their chosen path, for God does not guide the disbelieving people (وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ).

1. The Philosophy of the Sacred Months Declaring warfare prohibited during these four months constitutes a method for terminating prolonged conflicts and serves as an invitation to peace and reconciliation. If belligerent parties were to lay down their weapons for four months each year—if the clang of swords and the explosions of bombs were to fall silent and an opportunity for reflection emerged—the likelihood of wars coming to an end would increase. Sustaining an activity continuously differs greatly from abandoning it and then restarting it anew; the latter is invariably more difficult by several degrees. The experiences of the prolonged Vietnam War illustrate this vividly, when even a mere twenty‑four‑hour ceasefire at the arrival of the New Year required immense effort. Yet Islam proclaims a four‑month ceasefire every year for its followers, which in itself is a clear sign of Islam’s commitment to peace. However, as already noted, if the enemy seeks to exploit this Islamic law and violate the sanctity of the Sacred Months, Muslims are permitted to respond in kind. 2. The Meaning and Philosophy of “Nasīʾ” in the Pre‑Islamic Period The term “نَسِيء” (patterned like kathīr) derives from the root “نَسَأَ”, meaning to delay or defer (and the term may function either as a verbal noun or a noun of action). A transaction in which payment is deferred is called “نَسِيئَة”. In the Age of Ignorance, Arabs would at times defer a Sacred Month—for example, replacing Muḥarram with Ṣafar. The process worked as follows: a leader of Banū Kinānah would declare during the pilgrimage at Minā, before a large gathering, in response to public demand, “I postpone Muḥarram this year and substitute Ṣafar in its place.” Ibn ʿAbbās is reported to have said that the first person to initiate this practice was ʿAmr ibn Luhayy, while others attribute it to Qalammas of Banū Kinānah. According to some views, the rationale behind this practice was that three consecutive months of restriction—Dhū al‑Qaʿdah, Dhū al‑Ḥijjah, and Muḥarram—seemed burdensome to them, and they believed such restraint weakened the spirit of combat and reduced military effectiveness. Pre‑Islamic Arabs possessed a peculiar attachment to warfare, plunder, and bloodshed; conflict was a central feature of their lives, and three continuous months of ceasefire felt oppressive. Therefore, they sought to detach at least Muḥarram from that sequence. Another possibility mentioned is that Dhū al‑Ḥijjah sometimes fell during the summer, making conditions difficult. We know that for the Arabs of that era, pilgrimage rites were not restricted to worship alone; they functioned as a grand conference, a legacy of Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام), and a major source of commercial prosperity. Because it was so beneficial, they altered the month according to their convenience and transferred it to another season that suited them better. It is possible that both rationales were at play. In any case, such practices ensured that the flames of war continued unabated and the purpose of the Sacred Months was nullified. Thus, the pilgrimage rites became a plaything in their hands and a means to further their material interests. The Qur’an characterizes this conduct as an increase in disbelief, for beyond their doctrinal shirk and disbelief, by rejecting this ruling they committed practical disbelief. In particular, this manipulation entailed two unlawful acts: they rendered what God had declared unlawful lawful, and what He had declared lawful unlawful. 3. Unity in Confronting the Enemy In the above verses, the Qur’an commands Muslims that when the time comes to confront the enemy, they are to fight collectively and stand in a single unified rank. This command indicates that Muslims must prepare themselves politically, culturally, economically, and militarily to face their adversaries. Only through such unity—rooted in the spirit of Islamic monotheism—can they achieve victory. This is precisely the command that has long been forgotten, and this neglect constitutes a major cause of the decline and backwardness of Muslims. 4. Why Evil Deeds Appear Attractive As long as a person has not embarked upon the path of wrongdoing, the conscience remains capable of clearly distinguishing between good and evil. However, once someone knowingly treads the path of sin and engages in wrongdoing, the light of conscience gradually grows dim. Eventually, the repulsiveness of sin fades, and if one persists, evil deeds slowly begin to appear attractive while good deeds appear distasteful. This reality is alluded to in the verses under discussion as well as in many other verses. At times, the embellishment of evil deeds is attributed to Satan, as in سورة النحل، آية 63: فَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ. At other times it is expressed in the passive voice, as in the present verse. The agent may be satanic whisperings or the rebellious self. Sometimes it is attributed to “شركاء” (idols), as in سورة الأنعام، آية 137. In some cases, it is even attributed to God, as in سورة النمل، آية 4: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ زَيَّنَّا لَهُمْ أَعْمَالَهُمْ. As repeatedly explained, attributing such matters to God is due to the fact that these effects arise from the inherent consequences of a person’s own actions, and all causal properties ultimately originate with God—He is the Cause of causes. Moreover, such attributions in no way conflict with human free will or the freedom of choice.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

It is transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās and other Companions that the above verses were revealed in connection with the Expedition of Tabūk, at the time when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny returned from Ṭāʾif to Madinah and called upon the people to prepare for confrontation with the Romans. Islamic narrations indicate that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny generally did not disclose the essential details of military campaigns to the Muslims beforehand, lest military secrets fall into the hands of the enemy. However, the situation concerning Tabūk was different. Therefore, in advance, he informed them explicitly that they were going out to fight the Romans. This was because confronting the Eastern Roman Empire was not an easy undertaking, unlike fighting the polytheists of Mecca or the Jews of Khaybar. It was thus necessary for the Muslims to prepare themselves fully for this extraordinarily difficult expedition. Moreover, the distance between Madinah and the Roman frontier was very great. In addition, it was the height of summer, and the season of harvesting crops and fruits had also arrived. All of these factors combined to make the journey to the battlefield extremely difficult for the Muslims, to the extent that some hesitated in responding to the call of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and found themselves wavering and uncertain. It was under these conditions that the above verses were revealed, issuing a firm and decisive warning to the Muslims, alerting them to the danger of this state of hesitation, and preparing them for this momentous campaign. (Explanatory note: Many exegetes—such as Ṭabarsī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī in Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, and Ālūsī in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī—have briefly reported this occasion of revelation.)

As noted in the discussion of the occasion of revelation, the above verses concern the Expedition of Tabūk. Tabūk is a region situated between Madinah and Syria, and today it lies within the territory of Saudi Arabia. At that time, it was close to the frontier of the Eastern Roman Empire, which then exercised control over the Syrian lands. (Explanatory note: the distance of Tabūk from Madinah is reported as approximately 610 kilometres, and from Syria as about 692 kilometres.) This event took place in 9 AH, roughly one year after the Conquest of Mecca. Since the confrontation was with a global superpower of that era, rather than with a small or large Arab tribe, some Muslims felt apprehensive about participating in the campaign. Under these circumstances, the atmosphere was especially conducive to the poisonous propaganda and whisperings of the hypocrites, who left no means unused in weakening the hearts and spirits of the believers. It was the season of harvesting fruits and reaping crops. For those whose livelihood depended upon modest farming or livestock, these days were of critical importance, as their sustenance for the entire year hinged upon them. As previously mentioned, the long distance and the intensity of the heat further compounded the inhibiting factors. At this moment, divine revelation came to the aid of the people, and Qur’ānic verses were revealed successively, confronting these negative influences head‑on. In the first verse under discussion, the Qur’an summons believers to jihād with the utmost severity and firmness possible. At times it speaks in a tone of encouragement, at times in reproach, and at times in the language of warning, employing every means to rouse and prepare them. It first declares: O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when it is said to you, “Go forth in the path of God,” you cling heavily to the earth? (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انْفِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ). The term “اثَّاقَلْتُمْ”, derived from “ثِقْل”, signifies heaviness or inertia. The phrase “اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ” is a metaphor for the desire to remain behind in one’s homeland and to avoid marching toward the battlefield, or, in another sense, an allusion to attachment to the material splendor and allure of worldly life. In either case, this described the state of a portion of the Muslims—though not all of them. It certainly did not describe the true believers and lovers of jihād in the path of God. The Qur’an then continues in a reproachful tone: Have you become content with the worldly life instead of the Hereafter? (أَرَضِيتُمْ بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الْآخِرَةِ), even though the enjoyments and advantages of worldly life are insignificant and negligible when compared with the life of the Hereafter: (فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا قَلِيلٌ). How can a rational person consent to such a losing transaction—abandoning an immensely valuable and enduring treasure in exchange for something trivial and fleeting? Then, shifting from reproach to a tone of grave warning, the Qur’an declares: If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment (إِلَّا تَنْفِرُوا يُعَذِّبْكُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا). And if you imagine that by withdrawing or turning away from the field of jihād you can hinder the advance of Islam or dim the radiance of the divine path, you are gravely mistaken. For God will replace you with another people—believers possessing firm resolve and obedience to the divine command (وَيَسْتَبْدِلْ قَوْمًا غَيْرَكُمْ)— a people entirely different from you, not only in character, but also in faith, willpower, courage, and submission. Thus, you cannot harm God or His pure religion in the least (وَلَا تَضُرُّوهُ شَيْئًا). This is a factual reality, not a mere rhetorical statement or distant hope, because God has power over all things, and whenever He wills the triumph of His pure order, there can be no doubt that He will bring it to fruition (وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ).

1. Seven Emphases on Jihād: In the above verses, the issue of jihād is emphasized through seven distinct approaches: a. The address is directed specifically to the believers. b. The command to march forth toward the battlefield is issued. c. The expression “فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ” is employed. d. Preference for worldly life over the Hereafter is criticized through a rhetorical question of denial. e. Withdrawal from jihād is met with the threat of “عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ” (a painful punishment). f. A further warning is given that those who refuse will be removed and replaced by another people. g. Attention is drawn to God’s limitless power, making it clear that human lethargy cannot impede divine objectives; any loss incurred will fall solely upon those who fail. 2. Attachment to the World as an Obstacle to Jihād: The above verses clearly show that attachment to worldly life causes hesitation and inertia in those called to jihād. True fighters must be pure in character, ascetic in spirit, and indifferent to the glitter and allure of the world. In the supplication of Imām ʿAlī ibn al‑Ḥusayn (عليه السلام) for the guardians of the frontiers of the Islamic state, he says: وَأَنْسِهِمْ عِنْدَ لِقَائِهِمُ الْعَدُوَّ ذِكْرَ دُنْيَاهُمُ الْخَدَّاعَةَ، وَامْحُ عَنْ قُلُوبِهِمْ خُطُوَاتِ الْمَالِ الْفَتُونِ “O God, when they confront the enemy, remove from them remembrance of the deceptive world, and erase from their hearts the alluring pull of wealth.” This reality becomes evident when one truly understands the nature of this world and the Hereafter: in comparison with the Hereafter, this world is so limited and insignificant that no comparison between the two is possible. In this regard, a narration is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, in which he said: وَاللَّهِ مَا الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلَّا كَمَا يَجْعَلُ أَحَدُكُمْ إِصْبَعَهُ فِي الْيَمِّ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا فَلْيَنْظُرْ بِمَ تَرْجِعُ “By God, the relationship of this world to the Hereafter is like one of you dipping his finger into the sea, then withdrawing it and looking to see how much water remains on it.” 3. Which Group Is Referred to in the Verse? Some exegetes have held that the group referred to in the verse are the Persians, while others have interpreted it as referring to the people of Yemen. Both of these groups played extraordinarily significant roles in the expansion and strengthening of Islam through their courage and steadfastness. Others have understood the verse as referring to those who embraced Islam after the revelation of these verses and devoted themselves wholeheartedly to sacrifice in its path.

As has already been explained, the preceding verses emphasize the issue of jihād from multiple perspectives. One of these is the warning that believers should not imagine that if they withdraw from jihād and from supporting the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the divine program and Islam itself will collapse. The verse under discussion continues this line of argument and declares: if you do not support him, then God—who has already supported him miraculously in the most severe conditions and the most complex situations—certainly has the power to support him again (إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ). (It should be noted that from a literary point of view, this sentence contains an ellipsis, and its original form would have been “إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوهُ يَنْصُرْهُ اللَّهُ”, since a past‑tense verb, whose meaning denotes an event already completed, cannot serve as the apodosis of a conditional clause unless it carries the sense of the present tense.) This refers to the time when the polytheists of Mecca had prepared a dangerous conspiracy to assassinate the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the details of which have already been discussed under Sūrat al‑Anfāl, verse 30. After extensive deliberation and planning, they reached the final decision that a number of swordsmen from various Arab tribes would surround the Prophet’s house at night and then, at dawn, attack together, striking him repeatedly with their swords while he lay in his bed. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, having been informed of this plot by divine command, prepared to leave Mecca and migrate toward Madinah. In order to remain safe from the reach of disbelief at the outset, he took refuge in the Cave of Thawr, which lies to the south of Mecca in a direction opposite to the route toward Madinah. On this journey, Abū Bakr accompanied the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The enemy exerted great effort to locate the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny but eventually returned in despair. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny remained in the cave for three nights and days. When it became certain that the enemies had withdrawn, he set out at night, avoiding the main routes, and journeyed toward Madinah. Within a few days, he arrived in Madinah safely, and thus a new chapter in Islamic history began. The verse above points to one of the most sensitive moments of this historic journey when it states that God supported His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny at the moment when the disbelievers expelled him (إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا). Although the disbelievers did not intend merely to drive him out of Mecca but had resolved firmly to kill him, the outcome of their actions compelled the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to leave Mecca; therefore, this act is attributed to them. The verse then states that this occurred when he was the second of two (ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ), indicating that only one person accompanied him. This highlights the extreme solitude of that perilous journey. Abū Bakr was his companion when the two took refuge in the cave—namely, the Cave of Thawr (إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ). At that moment, fear and anxiety overwhelmed the Prophet’s companion, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny comforted him, saying: do not grieve; God is with us (إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا). At that time, God sent down upon him the spirit of tranquility, which He bestows upon His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny during such critical and perilous moments (فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ), and He supported him with forces that you do not see (وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا). These unseen forces may refer to the angels who guarded the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny during that journey filled with fear and danger, or to those who later came to his aid in the battles of Badr, Ḥunayn, and other encounters. Finally, God rendered the word, objective, and way of the disbelievers low, while exalting the divine word and plan (وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا السُّفْلَىٰ وَكَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا). Along with this, it is indicated that their conspiracy was doomed to failure, the structure of their false creed collapsed, and the light of God manifested itself everywhere and shone forth. The Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny attained success in every direction. How could it have been otherwise, when God is both Mighty and Wise, guiding His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny toward the paths of victory through His wisdom and supporting him through His power (وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ).

The concise references in the above verse to the presence of Abū Bakr with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny during this journey have given rise to extensive debate between Shiʿi and Sunni exegetes. In this matter, some have followed a path of exaggeration, while others have gone to the opposite extreme. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, due to his particular bias, has attempted in his commentary to derive twelve distinct virtues for Abū Bakr from the above verse, stretching interpretations to an excessive degree in order to inflate the number of alleged merits. The result has been an account so overextended that detailing it would amount to a waste of time. On the other hand, some have insisted that the verse indicates several points of reproach with regard to Abū Bakr. The first issue that must be examined is whether the term “صَاحِب” constitutes proof of virtue. Apparently, it does not, because linguistically the term simply means “companion” or “traveling associate,” whether good or bad. This usage appears in Sūrat al‑Kahf, verse 37, where two individuals are mentioned, one of whom was a believer and the other a disbeliever and polytheist, and it is said: (قَالَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُ أَكَفَرْتَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَكَ مِنْ تُرَابٍ) His companion said to him while conversing with him: Do you disbelieve in the One who created you from dust? Some have also insisted that the pronoun in “فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ” refers to Abū Bakr, arguing that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had no need of sakīnah (tranquility), and therefore its descent must have been for his companion. However, when attention is paid to the subsequent phrase “وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا” and to the unity of the pronoun’s referent in both clauses, it becomes clear that the pronoun “عَلَيْهِ” also refers to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. It is likewise mistaken to assume that sakīnah is associated exclusively with moments of grief or sorrow. The Qur’an repeatedly states that sakīnah was sent down upon the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny during periods of severe difficulty and critical situations. One such instance is the Battle of Ḥunayn, concerning which we read in verse 26 of this same sūrah: (ثُمَّ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ) Likewise, in Sūrat al‑Fatḥ, verse 62, it is stated: (فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ). In neither of these passages is there any reference to grief or sorrow; rather, the context concerns the severity and complexity of circumstances. In any case, the Qur’ānic verses indicate that the descent of sakīnah occurred during moments of intense hardship, and there is no doubt that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was passing through extremely critical moments in the Cave of Thawr. More astonishing still is the claim by some that the phrase “بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا” refers to Abū Bakr, whereas the entire discussion of the verse revolves around divine support and assistance directed toward the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The Qur’an seeks to clarify that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was not alone: if you do not support him, God will support him. Why, then, should one ignore the central figure around whom the entire discourse revolves and instead divert attention to someone whose mention appears only incidentally in the context of companionship? This situation clearly indicates that bias has intervened to the extent that some individuals have failed even to attend to the actual meaning of the verse.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

As has already been stated, the Expedition of Tabūk represented an exceptional situation that required measures of extraordinary difficulty and complexity. For this reason, a number of weak‑faith individuals or hypocrites hesitated and prevaricated about participating in this campaign. In the preceding verses, God reproached one group, asking why they become heavy and sluggish when the command for jihād is issued, and emphasized that the command of jihād is ultimately in their own interest. Otherwise, God is fully capable of replacing lethargic and comfort‑seeking individuals with courageous, valiant believers possessing firm resolve, and He is even capable of protecting His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny without them at all, as He did in the incidents of the Cave of Thawr and the night of Laylat al‑Mabīt. It is astonishing that a few strands of a spider’s web stretched across the entrance of the cave caused the obstinate and defiant enemy to abandon their pursuit entirely and turn back from the very entrance of the cave, leaving the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny completely unharmed. When God can alter the course of human history through a few threads spun by a spider, He has no need for the aid of those who display hesitation and demand consideration for their comforts. In reality, all of these commands exist for their own growth and spiritual perfection, not because God is in need of them. Following this discussion, the Qur’an once again summons the believers to jihād from every angle and reproaches those who display indolence. It first commands: Go forth to the battlefield, whether lightly equipped or heavily burdened (انفِرُوا خِفَافًا وَثِقَالًا). The term “خِفَاف” is the plural of khafīf (light), and “ثِقَال” is the plural of thaqīl (heavy). Together, these expressions convey an all‑encompassing meaning that includes every possible human condition and circumstance: whether one is young or old, unmarried or married, with few or many dependents, wealthy or poor, afflicted or at ease, possessing farmland, orchards, commerce, or none of these. In every situation, in every state, at every station, once the command of jihād is issued, one must respond to this liberating call, close one’s eyes to all other concerns, and step forward toward the battlefield with sword in hand. Those exegetes who have sought to confine these expressions to only one narrow interpretation of their meanings possess no valid evidence for doing so. In reality, each of these terms represents a manifestation of this broad and comprehensive meaning. The verse then continues: Strive in the path of God with your wealth and your lives (وَجَاهِدُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ), that is, strive in every dimension, for without total commitment, success against such a formidable enemy—regarded as a superpower of that era—would not be possible. Yet, lest there remain any misunderstanding that such sacrifice benefits God Himself, the verse clarifies: That is better for you, if you only knew (ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ). That is, if you were to realize that jihād is the key to honor and dignity, the means by which humiliation and weakness are removed; if you were to understand that no nation can attain genuine freedom and justice in this world without struggle; and if you were to recognize that divine pleasure, eternal felicity, and the manifold blessings of God are attained through this comprehensive and sacred movement of collective sacrifice. At this point, the discourse turns toward the lazy, negligent, and weak‑faith individuals who sought to avoid participation in this great confrontation by fabricating excuses. Concerning them, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is addressed: If there had been immediate worldly gain and an easy journey, they would surely have followed you (لَوْ كَانَ عَرَضًا قَرِيبًا وَسَفَرًا قَاصِدًا لَاتَّبَعُوكَ). But since the journey was distant and arduous, they shirked their responsibility (وَلَكِنْ بَعُدَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّقَّةُ). Even more astonishing is that they did not suffice with excuses alone; rather, they come to you swiftly and swear by God that if they had the ability, they would have gone forth with you (وَسَيَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ لَوِ اسْتَطَعْنَا لَخَرَجْنَا مَعَكُمْ), claiming that their failure to accompany you was due to incapacity and unavoidable circumstances. In doing so, they destroy their own souls (يُهْلِكُونَ أَنفُسَهُمْ), while God knows full well that they are liars (وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ). They do in fact possess the ability, but since the task is difficult rather than easy, they resort to false oaths. This reality is not confined to the Battle of Tabūk or to the era of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In every society, there exists a group of idle, lazy, hypocritical, opportunistic, and self‑interested individuals who always remain on the sidelines, waiting for the moment of victory and reward. When success appears, they rush to the front ranks, raise a clamorous display, tear their garments, proclaim themselves champion fighters and devoted defenders, and seek to present themselves as the most sincere supporters—so that they may enjoy the fruits of others’ efforts without exerting any hardship themselves. Yet the same individuals, at times of crisis and difficulty, scatter in every direction, fabricating excuses to justify their retreat. One claims illness, another cites a sick child, another mentions a wife in childbirth, another complains of weak eyesight, while yet another claims to be entangled in preparatory affairs. Dozens of such excuses emerge. It is therefore incumbent upon vigilant and enlightened leaders to identify such individuals early on and, if they prove incapable of reform, to remove them from their ranks.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

The above verse indicates that a group of hypocrites came to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and began to present various excuses, to the extent that they swore oaths and sought permission to be considered exempt from participation in the Tabūk campaign, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny granted permission to that group. In the first verse under discussion, God Almighty addresses His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny in a tone of admonition, saying: God has pardoned you—why did you grant them permission to stay behind (عَفَا اللهُ عَنْكَ لِمَ أَذِنتَ لَهُمْ), why did you not allow matters to proceed so that the truthful would be distinguished from the liars and you would come to know their true condition (حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكَ الَّذِينَ صَدَقُوا وَتَعْلَمَ الْكَاذِبِينَ). Regarding this admonition, which is accompanied by the mention of divine pardon, exegetes have differed as to what it signifies. Does it indicate the commission of an error, some form of tark al‑awlā (leaving what is preferable), or nothing of that sort at all? Some commentators have gone so far as to show undue haste and even display disrespect toward the sacred rank of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, treating this verse as evidence for the possibility of sin being attributed to him. At the very least, such individuals failed to observe the etiquette that God Himself employed in speaking to His Messenger, for the verse begins with the declaration of pardon before issuing any admonition. In this manner, they fell into a grave misunderstanding. In fairness, there is no indication in this verse of any sin on the part of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Even the apparent sense of the verse provides no such evidence, for all contextual indicators show that whether the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny had granted permission or not, the group of hypocrites would not have participated in the Tabūk expedition, and even if they had done so, they would have been of no benefit to the Muslims and would instead have increased their difficulties. As stated in the following verse: (لَوْ خَرَجُوا فِيكُمْ مَا زَادُوكُمْ إِلَّا خَبَالًا) If they had gone forth with you, they would have added nothing but corruption. Therefore, by granting them permission, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny caused no loss whatsoever to the Muslim community. The only possible consideration was that, had permission not been granted, their true nature would have been exposed earlier and people would have recognized their reality sooner. However, no sinful act occurred in this regard. At most, it may be described as tark al‑awlā, in the sense that although granting permission under those circumstances—especially given their oaths and insistence—was not a wrongful act, withholding permission would have been preferable in order to expose them more swiftly. Another interpretive possibility is that this admonition and address are expressed metaphorically, not even implying tark al‑awlā, but rather intended to present, in a subtle and allusive manner, the inner hypocrisy of the hypocrites themselves. This can be illustrated by the following analogy: suppose a tyrant intends to strike your son across the face, and one of your friends restrains his hand. You would not be displeased with that action; rather, you would welcome it. Yet, in order to expose the tyrant’s inner cruelty, you might angrily say to your friend: why did you not let him strike him, so that everyone could recognize this brutal hypocrite? Your aim in such speech is solely to demonstrate the tyrant’s cruelty and hypocrisy, even though outwardly it appears to be a reproach of the one who intervened. Another issue that remains in interpreting the verse is whether the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not recognize the hypocrites, given that God says it would have been better to withhold permission so that their condition might become clear. The answer is that, first, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not possess ordinary empirical proof of their inner state, and knowledge of the unseen is not a sufficient basis for judgment in practical affairs; rather, matters must become evident through conventional methods. Second, the objective may not have been restricted to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny alone, but rather that all Muslims might become aware of their reality, even though the address is directed to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The verse then proceeds to describe the distinguishing characteristics of believers and hypocrites, stating: those who believe in God and the Last Day do not ask you for permission to refrain from striving with their wealth and their lives in the path of God (لَا يَسْتَأْذِنُكَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ). Rather, when the command of jihād is issued, they hasten toward it without hesitation or lethargy. Faith in God, faith in the responsibilities imposed by Him, and faith in the judgment of the Hereafter all call them to this path, closing the door to excuse‑making and pretexts. God knows the God‑fearing well and is fully aware of their intentions and actions (وَاللهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالْمُتَّقِينَ). It is then stated: only those who do not believe in God and the Day of Judgment seek your permission to abstain from participation (إِنَّمَا يَسْتَأْذِنُكَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ). Emphasizing their lack of faith, it is further added that they are people whose hearts are seized with doubt and uncertainty (وَارْتَابَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ). As a result of this doubt and hesitation, they advance at times and retreat at others, remaining perpetually confused and wavering, which leads them to fabricate excuses and to seek permission from the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny (فَهُمْ فِي رَيْبِهِمْ يَتَرَدَّدُونَ). Although these characteristics are expressed in the present tense, the intent is to describe enduring traits of believers and hypocrites alike, without distinction between past, present, or future. Believers, under the shade of their faith, possess firm determination and unshakable resolve. They see the path illuminated, their purpose clear, and their goal defined. Consequently, they move forward decisively and without hesitation. Hypocrites, on the other hand, have a dark and undefined goal, and thus remain trapped in confusion and bewilderment, constantly seeking excuses to evade the burden of responsibility. These two sets of characteristics are not limited to the believers and hypocrites of the early Islamic period or the field of Tabūk alone. Even today, true believers can be distinguished from false claimants by these very traits: the believer is courageous and resolute, while the hypocrite is fearful, timid, confused, and inclined toward excuse‑making.

See ayat 48 for tafseer.

See ayat 48 for tafseer.

In the previous verses it was stated: وَاللّٰهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ—and God knows that they are liars. The verses under discussion continue this theme by identifying another sign of their falsehood and fabrication. It is stated that if they were truthful and genuinely prepared to participate in jihād, and were merely awaiting permission, then they should have prepared all the necessary means of jihād—arms, mounts, and whatever lay within their capacity. Yet no such readiness is visible among them (وَلَوْ أَرَادُوا الْخُرُوجَ لَأَعَدُّوا لَهُ عُدَّةً). These are dark‑hearted and faithless individuals whom God dislikes to see present in the noble arena of jihād. Therefore, He deprived them of His enabling grace and held them back from setting out (وَلَكِنْ كَرِهَ اللّٰهُ انْبِعَاثَهُمْ فَثَبَّطَهُمْ). (The term ثَبَّطَهُمْ derives from تثبيط, meaning to restrain or hinder from proceeding.) Exegetes have differed as to whose voice this discourse represents: whether it is from God, from the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, or the inner voice of their own souls. However, the apparent meaning is that this is a takwīnī consequence arising from their corrupt and impure inner being, dictated by their depraved beliefs and evil deeds. It is often observed that the demands of a situation are expressed in the form of commands or prohibitions. The verse clearly indicates that every intention and action carries an inherent consequence that inevitably encompasses a person, and that not everyone is qualified to undertake great tasks or to step forward in the path of God. This divine enablement is granted only to those whose intentions are pure, who possess readiness and sincerity. In the following verse, the Qur’an points to the reality that the absence of such individuals from the battlefield is not, in fact, a cause for regret; rather, it may even be a cause for relief. This is because they would not remove any difficulty; rather, due to the spirit of hypocrisy, disbelief, and moral deviation they carry, they would generate new problems instead. In truth, Muslims are imparted a profound lesson here: never to be preoccupied with large numbers or massive forces, but rather to ensure the selection of sincere and faithful individuals, even if they are few in number. This lesson applied to Muslims in the past, applies today, and will continue to apply in the future. It is first stated that if they had gone out with you (toward Tabūk), their first ominous impact would have been that they would not have added anything to your ranks except confusion and hesitation (لَوْ خَرَجُوا فِيكُمْ مَا زَادُوكُمْ إِلَّا خَبَالًا). The term خَبَال denotes agitation and uncertainty. The root خَبَل (with different vocalization) conveys meanings of madness or bodily impairment. Accordingly, had they entered the field with their corrupted inner state—one saturated with doubt, hesitation, and cowardice—they would have done nothing but sow suspicion within the ranks of the Muslim army and spread corruption. Moreover, they would have hastened to infiltrate the army, to incite discord and division, and to sever the bonds of unity (وَلَأَوْضَعُوا خِلَالَكُمْ يَبْغُونَكُمُ الْفِتْنَةَ). (The term أَوْضَعُوا derives from إيضاع, meaning rapid movement; here it conveys swift infiltration. فتنة in this context signifies discord and division.) Subsequently, Muslims are alerted to a further danger: that among them there exist weak‑faith individuals who are quick to be influenced by the words of these hypocrites (وَفِيكُمْ سَمَّاعُونَ لَهُمْ). The term سَمَّاع refers to one who is overly receptive, who lends eager hearing and accepts statements without scrutiny or reflection. Thus, it is the responsibility of strong believers to keep watch over this vulnerable group, lest they fall prey to these wolf‑like hypocrites. Another possible interpretation of سَمَّاع is that it denotes spies—that is, among you are individuals who spy on behalf of the hypocrites. The verse concludes by stating that God knows the wrongdoers well (وَاللّٰهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالظَّالِمِينَ)—those who openly oppress and those who secretly wrong themselves or society at large; none of them are hidden from His all‑encompassing knowledge. In the next verse, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny is warned that this is not the first instance in which these hypocrites have engaged in poison‑spreading and subversive activity. They have done so before and continue to exploit every opportunity for their objectives (لَقَدِ ابْتَغَوُا الْفِتْنَةَ مِنْ قَبْلُ). This is a reference to the event of the Battle of Uḥud, in which ʿAbdullāh ibn Ubayy and his companions turned back from the road and withdrew their support from the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, or to other occasions on which they plotted against the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny or the Muslim community—incidents well documented in Islamic history. They disrupted your affairs repeatedly and engineered schemes to create discord among the Muslims, to deter them from jihād, and to ensure that nothing of strength remained around you (وَقَلَّبُوا لَكَ الْأُمُورَ). Yet none of their plots had any effect; all their schemes collapsed and their blows fell ineffective. Ultimately, the truth arrived and God’s command prevailed (حَتَّىٰ جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَظَهَرَ أَمْرُ اللّٰهِ), even though they detested your progress and success (وَهُمْ كَارِهُونَ). Before the will and decree of God, however, the desires and intentions of His servants hold no power. God willed to grant you victory, to cause His religion to spread throughout the world, and to remove every obstacle from its path—and indeed, He brought this about. The crucial point is to understand that what is described in these verses is not confined, like other historical narratives, to the era of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In every society, there is always a group of hypocrites who seek, especially at critical and history‑shaping moments, to poison minds with corrosive speech, to extinguish the spirit of unity, and to sow doubt and uncertainty in people’s beliefs. However, when a society remains vigilant, it is certain that through divine support all such conspiracies and schemes will be rendered ineffective, their plans will collapse, and their designs will be thwarted—because God has promised victory to His allies, on the condition that Muslims engage in jihād with sincerity and maintain constant vigilance against these internal enemies.

Some exegetes have reported that when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was preparing the Muslims for the Expedition of Tabūk and calling them to set out for it, a leader of the Banū Salamah tribe named Jadd ibn Qays came to him. He was among the hypocrites. He said: If you permit me, I will not participate in this campaign, because I am very fond of women; especially if my eyes were to fall upon Roman women, I might lose self‑control, become infatuated with them, and withdraw from the battlefield. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny granted him permission. At that point, the above verse was revealed, censuring the character of this individual. The Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny then turned toward a group from Banū Salamah and said: Who is your leader and chief? They replied: Jadd ibn Qays—but he is a miserly and cowardly man.

The occasion of revelation mentioned above indicates that whenever a person wishes to rid himself of the burden of responsibility, he will inevitably fabricate some form of excuse for himself. This is precisely what the hypocrite Jadd ibn Qays did when he devised a pretext to avoid participation in the field of jihād, claiming that beautiful Roman women might captivate his heart, cause him to lose resolve, and render him unable to fight, thereby entangling him in what he described as a “religious problem.” A similar mindset can be seen in the attitude of an agent of a tyrannical ruler who once argued that if authorities were not harsh and violent toward the people, then the salary they received would become “religiously problematic” for them—meaning that, in order to avoid such a supposed problem, they felt justified in oppressing God’s creatures. In any case, the Qur’an here addresses the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and responds to such disgraceful and humiliating excuses by stating: among them are those who say, “Grant me permission and do not expose me to temptation” (وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَقُولُ ائْذَنْ لِي وَلَا تَفْتِنِّي). In the explanation of the verse and its occasion of revelation, it has also been suggested that Jadd ibn Qays used the excuse that he had dependents—his wife, children, and property—with no one to look after them, in order to evade participation in jihād. In response to such people, the Qur’an declares: beware, they have already fallen into temptation, sin, and disobedience to God’s command, and Hell indeed encompasses the disbelievers on all sides (أَلَا فِي الْفِتْنَةِ سَقَطُوا وَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ لَمُحِيطَةٌ بِالْكَافِرِينَ). That is, through their frivolous excuses—and perhaps under the pretense of avoiding future sin—they are already immersed in sin, while Hell surrounds them. They trample underfoot the clear command of God and His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding setting out for jihād, all on the assumption that they might otherwise fall into doubt or temptation.

1. One Sign of the Hypocrites In every society, one way of identifying hypocrites is to examine the style of their reasoning and the excuses they advance in order to evade the performance of their obligatory responsibilities. The nature of these justifications clearly reveals their inner reality. They most often take refuge in minor, trivial, insignificant, and sometimes even ridiculous pretexts, in order to disregard fundamental and comprehensive duties. In doing so, they seek to exploit superficial reasoning to distract the believers. They invoke religious issues and appeal to the commands of God and the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, even though they are immersed in sin, and they rush sword in hand against the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his religion. 2. The Meaning of “وَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ لَمُحِيطَةٌ بِالْكَافِرِينَ” Exegetes have expressed different views concerning the interpretation of this phrase. Some have held that the causes and factors of Hell—namely sins—have already encompassed them. Others interpret it as the presentation of future, certain events in the form of the present or the past, that is, that Hell will inevitably and decisively encompass them. It is also possible to interpret this statement in its literal sense and say that Hell already exists at this very moment: Hell exists in the inner reality of this world, and they are already surrounded by it. Although the order for its manifest effect has not yet been issued, just as Paradise also presently exists and encompasses the inner dimension of this world. The inhabitants of Paradise, due to their affinity with it, are connected to it, and the inhabitants of Hell, due to their affinity with Hell, are likewise connected to it.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

In the verses under discussion, attention is drawn to one of the traits and identifying signs of the hypocrites, and the discussion that appears in the preceding and following verses regarding the characteristics of the hypocrites falls within this same framework. It is first stated: If any good befalls you, it grieves them and causes them discomfort (إِنْ تُصِبْكَ حَسَنَةٌ تَسُؤْهُمْ). This distress and sorrow are clear evidence of their inward hostility and lack of faith. How could it be possible that a person with even the slightest degree of true faith would feel anguish at the success of the Messenger of God or of any ordinary believer? But if, on the other hand, a calamity afflicts you and you are overtaken by hardship, they rejoice and say that we had already taken our precautions beforehand, and thus they claim to have saved themselves from falling into that pit of destruction (وَإِنْ تُصِبْكَ مُصِيبَةٌ يَقُولُوا قَدْ أَخَذْنَا أَمْرَنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ), and when they return to their homes, they rejoice at your defeat, affliction, or distress (وَيَتَوَلَّوْا وَهُمْ فَرِحُونَ). These blind‑hearted hypocrites exploit every circumstance, boasting about their supposed intelligence, claiming that it was their cleverness not to participate in a particular struggle, and that the hardships which befell others due to their lack of discernment did not affect them. They speak in such a manner, swelling with pride, as if they cannot contain themselves. But, O Prophet, respond to them in two decisive and logical ways. First, say to them that no event ever befalls us except what God has decreed for us—He who is our Guardian, Protector, All‑Wise and Merciful, and who decrees for us nothing but what is ultimately for our good (قُلْ لَنْ يُصِيبَنَا إِلَّا مَا كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَنَا هُوَ مَوْلَانَا). Indeed, the believers place their trust solely in God (وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ). The people of faith are devoted only to Him; they seek help only from Him; they bow their foreheads at His threshold alone, and they have no refuge other than Him. The hypocrites are trapped in a grave mistake when they assume that by means of their limited intellect and feeble reasoning they can foresee every hardship and dispense with God’s grace and mercy. They fail to realize that their very existence, in the face of a great storm of events, is no more than a straw, or like a drop of water on a scorching desert afternoon; without divine favor, a frail human being can accomplish nothing. Then say to them, O Prophet: What do you expect for us except one of two good outcomes? Either we strike down the enemy and return from the battlefield victorious, or we are slain and drink the cup of martyrdom with honor and dignity. Whichever of the two occurs is for us a source of pride and delight (قُلْ هَلْ تَتَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلَّا إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ). Whereas we, concerning you, await one of two dark destinies and misfortunes: either God will afflict you with punishment from Himself, or you will be humiliated and destroyed at our hands (وَنَحْنُ نَتَرَبَّصُ بِكُمْ أَنْ يُصِيبَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِعَذَابٍ مِنْ عِنْدِهِ أَوْ بِأَيْدِينَا). Thus, you wait—indeed, we too are waiting with you (فَتَرَبَّصُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ مُتَرَبِّصُونَ).

There is no doubt that, to the extent that our destiny is connected to our actions, efforts, and endeavors, it lies within our own hands. Qur’ānic verses state this explicitly. For example: وَأَنْ لَيْسَ لِلْإِنْسَانِ إِلَّا مَا سَعَىٰ—for man there is nothing except what he strives for (al‑Najm: 39). Likewise: كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ—every soul is held in pledge for what it has earned (al‑Muddaththir: 38). Numerous other verses convey the same meaning (although the efficacy of effort itself also operates in accordance with divine laws and under God’s command). However, matters that lie beyond our exertion and outside the scope of our power fall solely within the domain of divine authority, and whatever has been decreed in accordance with the requirements of the law of causality will inevitably come to pass. All of this unfolds according to the will, knowledge, and wisdom of the Lord. People of faith, who believe in God’s knowledge, wisdom, grace, and mercy, regard all such decrees as part of the best possible order (نظام احسن) and in accordance with the true interests of God’s servants. Each person’s destiny corresponds to the capacities and qualifications he has acquired. A hypocritical, cowardly, indolent, and internally fragmented community is destined for destruction, and this is its inevitable fate. By contrast, the destiny of an aware, united, faithful community possessing firm resolve can be nothing other than success. From all that has been stated, it becomes clear that the above verses neither negate human free will and choice, nor do they imply a doctrine of forced destiny or the inefficacy of human effort.

In the final verse under discussion, an extraordinary, firm, and profound logic is presented. Within this logic lies the true secret of all the victories of the Muslims, and even if the Messenger of Islam had delivered no other teaching or command, this alone would have sufficed to guarantee the success of his followers. He erased the very concept of defeat and failure from the spiritual consciousness of his community and made it clear to them that they are victorious in every situation: if they are slain, they are victorious, and if they strike down the enemy, they are victorious as well. Before them lie two paths, whichever of them they take leads to the intended destination. There is no crookedness, confusion, or place for stumbling on their path. One path leads toward martyrdom, which is the pinnacle of honor, the final ascent, and the highest blessing for a believer—an honor and blessing beyond which nothing greater can be conceived for a human being. It is to trade one’s life with God and, in return, to attain an eternal life, filled with indescribable blessings in proximity to the Divine. The other path is victory over the enemy: to shatter its satanic power and to cleanse the human environment of the evils of tyrants, oppressors, and wrongdoers. This too is a tremendous bounty and a manifest honor. A soldier who enters the battlefield with this spirit never thinks of fleeing or turning his back on the enemy. Such a soldier fears no person and no force. Fear, anxiety, disturbance, and hesitation find no entry into his being. An army composed of such soldiers is invincible. This spirit can be produced only through Islamic teachings, and even today, if through sound education and training this logic is re‑instilled among Muslims, all backwardness and defeats can be remedied. Those who study and analyze the causes of the early Muslims’ advancement and the present‑day Muslims’ decline, and regard it as a perplexing riddle, should come and reflect even briefly on the above verse; they will find there a clear answer. It is noteworthy that in the above verse, when reference is made to the two forms of defeat suffered by the hypocrites, each is explained in detail, whereas when the two forms of success of the believers are mentioned, they are left unstated and the discussion moves on. It is as though these two successes are so evident, clear, and self‑manifest that they require no explanation whatsoever. This constitutes a subtle and beautiful rhetorical point employed in the above verse.

We reiterate once again that, alongside viewing these verses in their historical context, we must recognize that they constitute a lesson for us for both past and future eras. In general, no society is ever free from the presence of a group of hypocrites—whether few or many—and their characteristics are largely similar, following the same patterns. These individuals are ignorant and foolish, yet at the same time self‑centered and arrogant, considering themselves extremely intelligent and discerning. They are always distressed by the comfort and ease of others, and they rejoice and smile at the hardships and sufferings of people. They are constantly lost in futile thoughts and doubts, which is why they take one step forward and another backward. In contrast stand the true believers, who rejoice in the happiness of others and share in their grief. They never take pride in their own knowledge or insight, nor do they ever consider themselves independent of divine grace. They remain filled with love for God and do not fear any calamity or difficulty along this path.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

These verses point to further characteristics of the hypocrites and to the outcome of their conduct, making clear how their actions are lifeless and ineffective and bring them no benefit. Moreover, since among righteous deeds spending in the path of God (that is, the payment of zakāt in its broader sense) and the establishment of prayer (as the bond between Creator and creation) occupy a special position, these two aspects are singled out in particular. First it is stated: O Prophet, tell them that whether you spend voluntarily in the path of God or do so reluctantly, under compulsion, or out of personal and social considerations, nothing will be accepted from you in any circumstance, O hypocrites (قُلْ أَنفِقُوا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا لَنْ يُتَقَبَّلَ مِنْكُمْ). The term anfiqū, although in the imperative form, conveys a conditional meaning, that is, if you spend, whether willingly or unwillingly, it will not be accepted from you. It then points to the reason for this by stating: because you have been a defiantly disobedient people (إِنَّكُمْ كُنتُمْ قَوْمًا فَاسِقِينَ). Your intentions are corrupt, your actions impure, and your hearts darkened, and God accepts only that deed which is pure and which is performed by a pure person with God‑consciousness and piety. It is evident that “fisq” here does not refer to a common or minor sin, for a person may commit a sin and yet still perform a righteous deed. Rather, what is meant here is disbelief and hypocrisy, or the contamination of their hypocrisy with ostentation. There is no obstacle to understanding “fisq” in this statement, in its broader sense, as encompassing both meanings, as the next verse will clarify. In the following verse, reiterating the reason why their expenditures are not accepted, it is stated: nothing has prevented their contributions from being accepted except that they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and every deed in which faith in God and certainty in divine unity is absent is not acceptable in the divine presence (وَمَا مَنَعَهُمْ أَنْ تُقْبَلَ مِنْهُمْ نَفَقَاتُهُمْ إِلَّا أَنَّهُمْ كَفَرُوا بِاللهِ وَبِرَسُولِهِ). The Qur’an has repeatedly stated that faith is a condition for the acceptance of righteous deeds, to the extent that even if an act is performed on the basis of faith but, after a period, the doer adopts disbelief, that act is nullified, rendered void, and becomes ineffective. After mentioning the non‑acceptance of their spending and financial outlays, it then turns to the manner of their worship and states: they do not come to prayer except in a state of lethargy, discomfort, and as though bearing a burden (وَلَا يَأْتُونَ الصَّلَاةَ إِلَّا وَهُمْ كُسَالَى), just as they do not spend except reluctantly and under compulsion (وَلَا يُنفِقُونَ إِلَّا وَهُمْ كَارِهُونَ). In reality, their expenditures are not accepted for two reasons: first, because they occur in a state of disbelief and lack of faith, and second, because they are made unwillingly and under compulsion. Likewise, their prayer is not accepted for two reasons: disbelief, and performance in a state of lethargy and aversion. In the foregoing statements, the condition of the hypocrites is described in terms of their fruitless deeds. Beyond this, another sign of theirs is implicitly indicated: true believers can be readily recognized by the joy and vitality they display in worship and by their eagerness and sincerity toward righteous deeds, just as hypocrites can be recognized by the manner in which they perform their acts, for they generally take steps toward good deeds with coldness, lack of inclination, discomfort, and reluctance, as though someone were forcibly dragging them by the hand toward righteousness. It is clear that since the deeds of the first group arise from divine love and are infused with heartfelt concern, due regard is given to their decorum and proper conditions, whereas since the deeds of the second group are carried out with aversion, unwillingness, and disinterest, they are deficient, fragmented, and devoid of spirit. Thus, the difference in their causes gives rise to differing outward forms. In the final verse, addressing the Prophet, it is stated: “Do not let their wealth and their children amaze you,” and do not suppose that, despite their hypocrisy, these are divine bounties granted to them (فَلَا تُعْجِبْكَ أَمْوَالُهُمْ وَلَا أَوْلَادُهُمْ), for although they appear to be blessings, in reality God intends thereby to punish them in worldly life, and, because of their excessive attachment to these things, that their souls should depart while they remain in disbelief (إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللهُ لِيُعَذِّبَهُمْ بِهَا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَتَزْهَقَ أَنفُسُهُمْ وَهُمْ كَافِرُونَ). In fact, they will be afflicted through wealth and children—economic and human resources—in two ways. First, such people commonly have unrighteous offspring and unblessed wealth, which become sources of grief and sorrow for them in worldly life. Is it not a cause of pain to strive day and night for children who bring disgrace, shame, and anxiety, and to risk one’s life safeguarding wealth that has been acquired through sinful means? Second, because they are deeply attached to these possessions and offspring and do not believe in the expansive, blissful Hereafter and the life after death, relinquishing this material accumulation becomes extremely difficult for them, to the point that they depart this world clinging to these very things, dying in disbelief and in the harshest state. Wealth and children, when pure and righteous, are blessings and sources of comfort, but when impure and unrighteous, they become causes of anguish, hardship, and painful punishment.

1. Do hypocrites spend willingly? Some people ask how it is stated at the beginning of the first verse that whether you spend willingly or unwillingly it will not be accepted from you, whereas at the end of the second verse it is explicitly stated that they spend only in a state of aversion and compulsion. Are these two verses contradictory? When attention is paid to one point, the answer becomes clear: the beginning of the first verse is in fact formulated as a conditional proposition (qaḍiyyah shartiyyah), meaning that if you were to spend, whether out of free choice or under compulsion, it would not be accepted. It is well known that a conditional proposition does not establish the existence of its condition; that is, even if we suppose that they were to spend with inclination, choice, and free will, it would still be of no benefit, because they lack faith. The second verse, however, is stating a concrete factual proposition (qaḍiyyah khārijiyyah), namely that these people in reality always spend only with compulsion and aversion (reflect carefully on this). 2. Prayer and fasting alone are not sufficient: Another lesson that can be derived from the above verses is that one should not be impressed merely by people’s prayer, fasting, and payment of zakāh, because hypocrites also perform prayer and apparently spend in the path of God. Rather, it is necessary to distinguish the prayers and generosity of hypocrites from the pure and reformative deeds of true believers, and it is noteworthy that through careful observation and investigation this distinction generally becomes apparent even from outward actions. A ḥadīth states: لَا تَنْظُرُوا إِلَى رُكُوعِ الرَّجُلِ وَسُجُودِهِ، فَإِنَّ ذٰلِكَ شَيْءٌ اعْتَادَهُ، وَلَوْ تَرَكَهُ اسْتَوْحَشَ، وَلٰكِنِ انْظُرُوا إِلَى صِدْقِ حَدِيثِهِ وَأَدَاءِ أَمَانَتِهِ “Do not look at the length of a person’s bowing and prostration, for that may be a habitual form of worship, the abandonment of which would make him uneasy; rather, look at his truthfulness in speech and his fulfillment of trusts.” This is because truthfulness, uprightness, and trustworthiness spring from faith, whereas habitual bowing and prostration can also coexist with disbelief and hypocrisy.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

In the above verses, another sign concerning the conduct and condition of the hypocrites is mentioned. It is stated that they swear by God that they are from among you (وَيَحْلِفُونَ بِاللهِ إِنَّهُمْ لَمِنْكُمْ), whereas they are not from among you, nor are they in agreement with you in any matter; rather, they are a people who are extremely fearful (وَمَا هُمْ مِنْكُمْ وَلَكِنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ يَفْرَقُونَ). The verb “yafraqūn” derives from the root “f‑r‑q” (on the pattern of “shafaq”) and conveys the meaning of intense fear and dread. Raghib, in al‑Mufradāt, states that this root originally denotes separation, dispersal, and fragmentation, as if their fear is such that they wish their hearts to become scattered and torn apart. In reality, since inwardly they have no true support, they are constantly afflicted by fear, anxiety, and severe terror. Because of this fear and dread, they are never able to express what lies within them, and since they do not fear God, they fear everything else and live in a perpetual state of panic. By contrast, true and sincere believers live, under the shade of faith, with tranquility, confidence, and a distinctive sense of courage and fortitude. In the following verse, their intense hatred, hostility, and aversion toward the believers are expressed in a brief yet eloquent and explicit manner. It is stated that if they were to find a refuge (such as a fortified stronghold), or could reach mountain caves, or discover a subterranean passage, they would rush toward it with all possible speed in order to distance themselves from you and manifest their rancor and enmity (لَوْ يَجِدُونَ مَلْجَأً أَوْ مَغَارَاتٍ أَوْ مُدَّخَلًا لَوَلَّوْا إِلَيْهِ وَهُمْ يَجْمَحُونَ). The term “maljaʾ” means a place of refuge, such as a strong fortress or a similar shelter. “Maghārāt” is the plural of “maghārah,” meaning a cave. “Mudkhal” denotes hidden and concealed routes, such as tunnels dug underground that lead to some place of entry. The verb “yajmaḥūn” derives from “jimāḥ,” meaning to move with speed and intensity such that nothing can restrain it, like the uncontrollable galloping of a rebellious horse, which is described as “jamūḥ.” In sum, this is among the clearest and most refined expressions employed by the Qur’an in depicting the fear and terror of the hypocrites and their hatred and enmity: if they were to find any path of escape in the mountains or in the earth, they would distance themselves from you out of fear or hostility. Yet, since their tribe, clan, wealth, and worldly interests remain within your domain, they are compelled to stay among you, suppressing their anguish and enduring this situation against their will.

See ayat 59 for tafseer.

In Tafsīr al‑Durr al‑Manthūr, it is narrated from Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, al‑Nasāʾī, and several other ḥadīth scholars that the Noble Messenger was engaged in the distribution of certain spoils (or similar property) when a man named Dhū al‑Khuwaīṣirah from the tribe of Banū Tamīm came forward and, raising his voice, said: “O Messenger of God, act with justice.” The Messenger of God replied: “Woe to you! If I do not act justly, then who will act justly?” ʿUmar cried out: “O Messenger of God, grant me permission to strike off his neck.” The Messenger of God said: “Leave him alone. He has companions such that you will deem your own prayer and fasting insignificant compared to theirs, yet despite this they will pass out of the religion in the way an arrow passes through the bow.” On this occasion, the above verses were revealed and people of this type were admonished.

In the first of the above verses, attention is drawn to another condition of the hypocrites: they are never content with their due share and are constantly preoccupied with extracting as much benefit as possible from the public treasury and communal resources, whether they are entitled to it or not. Their friendships and enmities revolve entirely around this axis. They are pleased with anyone who fills their pockets, but become resentful toward anyone who, while observing justice, does not grant them what belongs to others. In their vocabulary, justice and right have no real meaning; and if these terms carry any sense at all, then in their view a just person is one who gives them the maximum possible, while an unjust person is one who withholds from them what belongs to others. In other words, they are entirely devoid of any sense of collective consciousness; they think only in individual terms, keep only their own interests in view, and judge everything solely from that perspective. Hence it is stated: “Among them are those who criticize you concerning the distribution of alms” and accuse you of failing to observe justice (وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَلْمِزُكَ فِي الصَّدَقَاتِ). In reality, however, the matter is that they are focused only on their own interests: “if they are given a share thereof, they are satisfied” and regard you as just, even if they have no entitlement (فَإِنْ أُعْطُوا مِنْهَا رَضُوا); “but if they are not given any of it, they immediately become angry” and accuse you of injustice (وَإِنْ لَمْ يُعْطَوْا مِنْهَا إِذَا هُمْ يَسْخَطُونَ). But if they were content with their rightful share, and were satisfied with what God and His Messenger give them, and were to say: “God suffices us; if more is needed, God and His Messenger will soon grant us of His grace; we desire only God,” and seek from Him that He make them independent of people’s wealth—if they were to act in this manner, it would be better for them (وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ رَضُوا مَا آتَاهُمُ اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَقَالُوا حَسْبُنَا اللهُ سَيُؤْتِينَا اللهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ وَرَسُولُهُ إِنَّا إِلَى اللهِ رَاغِبُونَ).

Are people of this kind not found today in Islamic societies as well? Are all individuals content with their legitimate rights? And does everyone regard as just the one who gives them strictly according to their due? Undoubtedly, the answer to these questions is negative. It must be said with great regret that even now there are many individuals who consider the criterion of truth and justice solely to be their personal interests and who are not satisfied with their lawful rights. If someone seeks to give everyone—especially the deprived—their legitimate due, such people begin to raise an outcry. Therefore, it is not necessary to turn the pages of history alone in order to identify hypocrites; a single glance at our surroundings is sufficient. Indeed, if we look at ourselves as well, we will come to know our own condition and that of others. O Lord, revive the spirit of faith within us; erase satanic thinking and hypocrisy from among us; and grant us the success to adorn ourselves in such a way that we are content only with our rightful share, neither oppress others nor regard the usurpation of others’ rights as justice. Enable us always to seek justice and to implement justice.

In the history of Islam, two periods appear prominently in this regard. One is the Meccan period, during which the attention of the Noble Messenger and the Muslims was focused on individual education, moral training, and propagation. The second is the period of Medina, in which the Messenger of God undertook the establishment of an Islamic government and the task of giving practical form to Islamic teachings and implementing them through this righteous polity. There is no doubt that, at the time of establishing a government, one of the initial and most essential issues is the formation of the public treasury (bayt al‑māl), through which the economic needs of the government can be met; these are fundamental requirements that every government necessarily faces. However, as we shall, God willing, point out later, the command of zakāt had already been revealed in Mecca as well, but at that time it was not obligatory to collect zakāt funds into a central treasury; rather, people paid it individually. In Medina, however, the command to collect and centralize it was revealed by God Almighty in verse 103 of Sūrat al‑Tawbah. The verse under discussion—which is acknowledged to have been revealed after the verse that made the collection of zakāt obligatory (even though its mention appears earlier in the Qur’an)—sets out the various legitimate expenditures of zakāt. It is noteworthy that this verse begins with the word إِنَّمَا, which denotes restriction and exclusivity, and thus indicates that certain selfish and ignorant individuals were hoping to obtain a share of zakāt without entitlement, but the word إِنَّمَا dashed those hopes. The two preceding verses likewise convey that some people objected to the Messenger of God, asking why he did not place a portion of zakāt at their disposal, to the point that when deprived they flew into a rage, but when given they expressed satisfaction. In any case, the above verse, by clearly specifying the genuine and rightful expenditures of zakāt, puts an end to all unfounded expectations and defines eight categories of eligibility: 1. The poor (fuqarāʾ): First, it states clearly that alms and zakāt are for the poor (إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ). 2. The needy (masākīn). 3. Those employed to collect it (وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا): this group consists of the officials and workers who collect zakāt and administer the Islamic public treasury; what they receive is in reality their remuneration. 4. Those whose hearts are to be reconciled (وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ): that is, individuals who do not yet possess a strong inner inclination toward the advancement of Islam but whose goodwill and support may be secured through financial encouragement. Further elaboration on وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ will follow later. 5. For the emancipation of slaves (وَفِي الرِّقَابِ): that is, a portion of zakāt is allocated to struggle against slavery and to eliminate this inhumane institution. As noted earlier, Islam’s program regarding slavery is one of gradual emancipation, the ultimate outcome of which is the liberation of all slaves, without provoking adverse social reactions; allocating a share of zakāt to this end forms part of this same program. 6. For debtors who, without having committed any crime or wrongdoing, are burdened by debt and lack the capacity to repay it (وَالْغَارِمِينَ). In the path of God (وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ): as will be indicated at the end of the verse, this includes all paths through which the divine religion is expanded and strengthened, such as jihād, propagation, and the like. 7. The stranded traveler (وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ): that is, travelers who, for some reason, become needy along the way and lack sufficient provisions or means of transport to reach their destination, even if they are not poor in their homeland, but have fallen into this situation due to theft, illness, loss of property, or some other cause. Such individuals are to be given from zakāt an amount sufficient to enable them to reach their destination with ease. At the conclusion of the verse, by way of emphasis, it is stated regarding these expenditures that this is an obligation ordained by God (فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللهِ). There is no doubt that this obligation is thoroughly balanced and comprehensive, serving the well‑being of both the individual and society, for God is All‑Knowing and Wise (وَاللهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ).

1. The difference between “faqīr” and “miskīn”: There is disagreement among exegetes regarding this matter. Some maintain that faqīr and miskīn have the same meaning, and that both terms were used in the above verse merely for emphasis; on this basis, the categories of zakāt expenditures would be seven. Others hold that the two terms have distinct meanings. The majority of exegetes and jurists support the second view, and its proponents have offered extensive discussions concerning these two terms. The interpretation that appears most convincing is that a faqīr is a person who lives a life of hardship and constraint, even though he may be engaged in some form of work and never asks anyone for help, whereas a miskīn is one who is more severely deprived, unable to work, and therefore asks from others. This understanding is perhaps derived from the original meaning of miskīn, which is rooted in the notion of “stillness” (sukūn), implying a person who, due to extreme poverty, lies helpless on the ground without movement. Moreover, examining the Qur’anic usage of these terms supports this distinction. For example, in Sūrat al‑Balad, verse 16, we read: أَوْ مِسْكِينًا ذَا مَتْرَبَةٍ “or feeding a destitute miskīn lying in the dust.” In Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 8, it states: وَإِذَا حَضَرَ الْقِسْمَةَ أُولُوا الْقُرْبَىٰ وَالْيَتَامَىٰ وَالْمَسَاكِينُ فَارْزُقُوهُمْ “And when relatives, orphans, and masākīn are present at the division, grant them something thereof,” which indicates that masākīn refers to mendicants who sometimes appear in such circumstances. In Sūrat al‑Qalam, verse 24, it states: أَنْ لَا يَدْخُلَنَّهَا الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِسْكِينٌ “that no miskīn should enter your fields today,” which again points to those who ask for help. Likewise, the expressions iṭʿām miskīn or ṭaʿām miskīn appear in numerous Qur’anic verses, indicating hungry people who are in need of even a single meal. By contrast, wherever the term faqīr appears in the Qur’an, it clearly denotes dignified individuals who are deprived but do not extend their hand in supplication. For instance, in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 273: لِلْفُقَرَاءِ الَّذِينَ أُحْصِرُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ ضَرْبًا فِي الْأَرْضِ يَحْسَبُهُمُ الْجَاهِلُ أَغْنِيَاءَ مِنَ التَّعَفُّفِ “[Charity is] for the fuqarāʾ who are constrained in the path of God and cannot travel in the land; the uninformed think them to be wealthy because of their dignity.” In addition, a report transmitted by Muḥammad b. Muslim from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq or Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir states that when he was asked about faqīr and miskīn, he replied: الفقير الذي لا يسأل، والمسكين الذي هو أجهد من ذلك الذي يسأل “The faqīr is one who does not ask from people, whereas the miskīn is in a worse condition and asks from others.” (cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 6, p. 144, Book of Zakāt, ch. 1, ḥadīth 2). The same meaning is conveyed in another narration transmitted by Abū Baṣīr from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq. Although there are some indications that might appear to conflict with this interpretation, considering all the evidence together makes it clear that the view outlined above is the soundest. 2. Must zakāt be divided equally among the eight categories? Some exegetes and jurists hold that the apparent meaning of the above verse requires zakāt to be divided equally into eight portions, with each portion allocated to its designated category, unless the amount of zakāt is so small that such division is not feasible. However, the overwhelming majority of jurists maintain that the eight categories merely define permissible avenues for spending zakāt, not mandatory divisions. The definite practice of the Noble Messenger, the infallible Imāms (peace be upon them), and their companions supports this latter view. Moreover, since zakāt constitutes one of the public revenues of Islam and it is the duty of the Islamic government to collect it for the purpose of meeting the diverse needs of society, the manner of its allocation naturally depends on collective necessities on the one hand and the judgment of the Islamic leadership on the other. 3. When was zakāt made obligatory? From various Qur’anic verses—such as al‑Aʿrāf 156, al‑Naml 3, Luqmān 4, and Sūrat Ḥā‑Mīm al‑Sajdah, verse 7—all of which are Meccan, it is clear that the obligation of zakāt was prescribed in Mecca and that Muslims were already bound by this duty. However, when the Messenger of God migrated to Medina and laid the foundations of the Islamic state, the need for an organized public treasury naturally arose. Accordingly, God commanded the Prophet to collect zakāt directly from the Muslims, rather than leaving its expenditure to their personal discretion, as indicated by the verse: خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً “Take charity from their wealth” (al‑Tawbah 103). This command is widely held to have been revealed in the second year after the Hijrah. Subsequently, the detailed categories of zakāt expenditure were revealed in Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 60, which is the verse under discussion. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the command to collect zakāt appears in verse 103, whereas the specification of its expenditures occurs earlier in the text (verse 60), since the arrangement of Qur’anic verses does not follow the chronological order of revelation but was determined by the Prophet through divine instruction. 4. Who are meant by “al‑muʾallafatu qulūbuhum”? The expression al‑muʾallafatu qulūbuhum indicates that a portion of zakāt is to be spent on individuals whose hearts are to be inclined and reconciled. The question arises whether this category refers exclusively to non‑Muslims and unbelievers who are given zakāt to encourage them to assist in jihad, or whether it also includes Muslims of weak faith. As discussed in juristic analyses, this verse, together with several related narrations, carries a broad meaning and encompasses all individuals for whom financial assistance can benefit Islam and the Muslim community; there is no evidence restricting this category solely to unbelievers. 5. The importance and effect of zakāt in Islam: Islam did not emerge merely as an ethical, philosophical, or doctrinal system; rather, it appeared as a comprehensive code that accounts for all material and spiritual needs of human beings. From the earliest period of the Prophet’s mission, Islam established a system of governance and paid particular attention to supporting the deprived and combating class disparities. This clearly demonstrates the central importance of the public treasury and zakāt, which constitutes one of its principal sources of revenue. In every society there exist unemployed, sick, orphaned, abandoned, and disabled individuals who are in need of assistance, as well as the necessity of supporting devoted defenders during times of external threat. Likewise, the judiciary, educational and media institutions, and religious centers of an Islamic state all require financial resources that cannot be sustained without stable and reliable funding. For this reason, zakāt—being a form of taxation levied on income, production, and stagnant wealth—occupies a position of exceptional importance in Islam, to the extent that it is placed on a par with the most fundamental acts of worship and is frequently mentioned alongside prayer. Indeed, the acceptance of prayer has even been conditioned upon the payment of zakāt. Islamic traditions further indicate that if an Islamic government demands zakāt from individuals and they rise in opposition and refuse to pay, persisting despite admonition, it is permissible to take military action against them. Thus, Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq is reported to have said: مَنْ مَنَعَ قِيرَاطًا مِنَ الزَّكَاةِ فَلَيْسَ هُوَ بِمُؤْمِنٍ، وَلَا مُسْلِمٍ، وَلَا كَرَامَةَ “Whoever withholds even a qīrāṭ of zakāt is neither a believer nor a Muslim, and has no honor.” (cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 6, p. 20). It is noteworthy that traditions indicate that the limits and amounts of zakāt have been determined with such wisdom that, were all Muslims to pay zakāt correctly and fully, no poor or needy person would remain in an Islamic society. Imām al‑Ṣādiq states: ولو أن الناس أدّوا زكاة أموالهم ما بقي مسلم فقيرًا محتاجًا … وإن الناس ما افتقروا ولا احتاجوا ولا جاعوا ولا عروا إلا بذنوب الأغنياء “If people were to pay the zakāt on their wealth, no Muslim would remain poor or needy … people become impoverished, needy, hungry, and naked only because of the sins of the wealthy.” (cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 6, p. 4). Other traditions indicate that paying zakāt safeguards property and strengthens its foundations, whereas neglecting this obligation leads to such social estrangement that the wealth of the affluent itself becomes endangered. Imām Mūsā b. Jaʿfar stated: حَصِّنُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بِالزَّكَاةِ “Protect your wealth by paying zakāt.” (cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa, vol. 6, p. 6). Similar reports are transmitted from the Prophet and from the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (peace be upon him). For further details, reference may be made to volumes and chapters cited in Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿa. 6. The difference between the prepositions “لِـ” and “فِي”: A final point worthy of attention is that in the verse, the preposition لِـ is used with four categories (إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ), which typically indicates ownership, whereas the preposition فِي is used with the other four (وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ), which more directly signifies expenditure or allocation. Exegetes have differed in interpreting this variation. Some hold that the first four groups become owners of zakāt, whereas the latter four do not; rather, zakāt is merely spent on them. Others suggest that فِي denotes greater entitlement, as it implies that zakāt is, as it were, contained within these categories. The interpretation adopted here is that six categories—fuqarāʾ, masākīn, ʿāmilīn, muʾallafatu qulūbuhum, ghārimīn, and ibn al‑sabīl—are co‑ordinate and may personally receive and own zakāt, whereas the remaining two—fī al‑riqāb and fī sabīl Allāh—represent specific causes rather than individual ownership. In these cases, zakāt is spent for the purpose itself, such as purchasing slaves to free them, or financing activities that fall under fī sabīl Allāh, like military equipment, construction of mosques, or establishment of religious institutions. In such expenditures, no individual becomes the owner of zakāt; rather, it is allocated to the designated cause. This nuanced distinction illustrates the remarkable precision of Qur’anic expressions.

Several accounts of the occasion of revelation (shaʾn‑i nuzūl) have been reported for this verse, which are mutually similar. One of them states that this verse was revealed concerning a group of hypocrites who were sitting together and making improper and objectionable remarks about the Noble Messenger. One of them said, “Do not do this,” because he feared that these words might reach Muhammad’s ears and that he might reproach them (and stir the people against them). One of them, whose name was Jallās, said, “This is no serious matter. We can say whatever we wish, and if it reaches his ears, we will go to him and deny it, and he will accept our statement, because Muhammad is good‑natured and accepts what is said; he believes whatever anyone tells him.” At that point, the above verse was revealed and they were answered through it.

The exegesis of this verse, as is evident from its content, concerns one or several individuals who caused distress to the Noble Messenger through their words and used to say that he was overly trusting and that he readily accepted what was said (وَمِنْهُمْ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ النَّبِيَّ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ أُذُنٌ). The word “udhُن” literally means “ear.” It is also used, in a figurative sense, for people who listen very attentively to what others say and are described idiomatically as being “all ears.” In reality, these people were portraying one of the Messenger’s virtues—one that is essential in a leader—as though it were a flaw, being unaware of the fact that a beloved leader must display utmost kindness and compassion, accept excuses as far as possible, and conceal people’s faults, except where doing so would have harmful consequences. For this reason, the Qur’an immediately continues by instructing them to say: if the Prophet listens to you, accepts your excuses, and, in your estimation, is attentive and trusting, then this is actually to your benefit (قُلْ أُذُنُ خَيْرٍ لَكُمْ), because in this way he safeguards your honor and dignity, does not injure your standing, does not wound your feelings, and thereby strives to preserve your affection, unity, and cohesion. For had he immediately exposed matters and disgraced the liars, it would have placed you in a very difficult situation. Moreover, if the honor of a group were destroyed, the path of repentance and return would be closed to them, and those sinners who were capable of guidance would end up aligning themselves with the wicked and distancing themselves from the Prophet. A compassionate and merciful leader, especially one who is also firm and wise, must understand all these considerations, yet refrain from voicing many things so that those who are receptive to moral training may be reformed and not flee from his school, and so that people’s secrets are not laid bare. Another possible meaning of the verse is that God, in response to those who fault‑find, is saying: it is not the case that he considers all speech worthy of attention; rather, he listens to what is beneficial for you—that is, he listens to God’s revelation, attends to constructive counsel, and accepts people’s excuses only in situations where doing so serves their interest and that of society. After this, so that fault‑finders might not exploit this statement and use it as a pretext, the verse adds: he believes in God and in His commands, and he listens to and accepts the words of sincere believers, acting upon them (يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّٰهِ وَيُؤْمِنُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ). That is, in reality, the Prophet has two modes of conduct: one pertains to outward social conduct and the avoidance of exposing faults, and the other pertains to action. In the first, he listens to people’s statements and does not openly reject them; but in the realm of action, his attention is directed solely to God’s commands and to the counsel and words of true believers. A principled leader must act in this manner, because safeguarding the interests of society is not possible otherwise. Therefore, God immediately adds: he is a mercy for those believers among you (وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ). At this point, one might ask: in several verses we read that the Prophet is “a mercy to all the worlds” (rahmatan lil‑ʿālamīn) (al‑Anbiyāʾ 107), whereas this verse states that he is a mercy only for the believers. Does this particularization contradict that universality? Attention to one point resolves this question: mercy has degrees and levels, one pertaining to potentiality and capacity, and another to actualization. For example, rain is God’s mercy in the sense that each of its drops possesses the capacity to bring goodness, growth, and life, yet it is evident that the effects of this mercy manifest only upon land that is receptive. Thus, one may say both that all drops of rain are “mercy” and that they are a mercy specifically for receptive land—the former referring to potentiality, the latter to realization. In the same way, the Noble Messenger, in terms of capacity and aptitude, is a mercy for all worlds, but in practical effect he is a mercy specifically for believers. One matter remains: those who harm and distress the Messenger of God and speak ill of him should not imagine that they will escape punishment. It is true that the Messenger of God bears a responsibility to deal with them magnanimously and generously and not to disgrace them; but this does not mean that they will not be recompensed for their deeds. Thus, at the conclusion of the verse, the Qur’an states: those who harm the Messenger of God, for them is a painful punishment (وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ).

See ayat 63 for tafseer.

It appears from the writings of some exegetes that the two verses under discussion complete the preceding verse and were naturally and contextually revealed as part of the same sequence. However, another group of exegetes has transmitted a different occasion of revelation for these two verses. According to this account, when verses were revealed condemning those who opposed the expedition of Tabūk and those who lagged behind, one of the hypocrites said: “By God, these people are our elders and nobles, and if what Muhammad says about them is true, then they are worse than beasts.” Upon hearing this, a Muslim said: “By God, what the Prophet says is the truth, and you are worse than a beast.” When this report reached the Noble Messenger, he sent someone to summon that hypocrite and asked him why he had said such a thing. The hypocrite swore an oath that he had not uttered those words. The believing man who had spoken against him was the one who had conveyed the matter to the Prophet, and he supplicated: “O God, You Yourself confirm the truthful one and expose the liar.” At that moment, the above verses were revealed, clearly distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Another clear sign and reprehensible practice of the hypocrites to which the Qur’an alludes is that, in order to conceal their misconduct, they deny many of their own actions and seek—indeed sought—to deceive people through false oaths, keeping them pleased and complacent. In the above verses, the Qur’an on the one hand exposes this ugly behavior and disgraces them, and on the other hand instructs the Muslims not to be taken in by their false oaths. It first states: they swear by God before you so that they may please you (يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللهِ لَكُمْ لِيُرْضُوكُمْ). It is evident that by these oaths their aim is not to state the truth; rather, they seek through deception and trickery to distort reality in your eyes and to achieve their own objectives. If their intention had truly been to please the sincere believers, it would have been far more necessary for them to please God and His Messenger, whereas through their conduct and behavior they have gravely displeased God and the Messenger. Therefore, the Qur’an says: if they are truthful and possess faith, it is more appropriate that they should please God and His Messenger (وَاللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ يُرْضُوهُ إِنْ كَانُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ). A point worthy of reflection is that in this statement, although the discourse is about God and His Messenger together, the pronoun is used in the singular rather than the dual (namely, in يُرْضُوهُ). In reality, this expression points to the fact that the pleasure of the Messenger and the pleasure of God are not separate, and that the Messenger approves only of what God approves. In other words, this is an indication of tawḥīd fiʿlī (unity of action), because the Messenger has no independent will apart from God. His satisfaction and displeasure are entirely for God; all that he is and does is for God and in His path. In several narrations it is reported that during the time of the Noble Messenger a man, speaking in conversation, said: من أطاع الله ورسوله فقد فاز ومن عصاهما فقد غوى Whoever obeys God and His Messenger has indeed succeeded, and whoever disobeys them has gone astray. When the Prophet heard this, and noted that the speaker had placed God and the Messenger on the same grammatical level by using a dual pronoun, he was displeased and said: بئس الخطيب أنت، هلا قلت من عصى الله ورسوله — “You are a poor speaker. Why did you not say: whoever disobeys God and His Messenger?” (cited in Tafsīr Abū al‑Fatḥ al‑Rāzī, under the verse in question). In the subsequent verse, the Qur’an issues a severe warning to such hypocrites and says: do they not know that whoever opposes and shows enmity toward God and His Messenger, for him is the fire of Hell, wherein he shall abide forever (أَلَمْ يَعْلَمُوا أَنَّهُ مَنْ يُحَادِدِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَأَنَّ لَهُ نَارَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدًا فِيهَا). It then adds by way of emphasis: that is the great humiliation (ذَلِكَ الْخِزْيُ الْعَظِيمُ). The word يُحَادِدْ derives from the root مُحَادَّة, based on حدّ, which originally means edge, side, or boundary. Since opponents and enemies stand on opposite sides, this root came to convey the meaning of opposition and enmity, much as in everyday speech terms of “standing against” are used to signify hostility and antagonism.

See ayat 66 for tafseer.

See ayat 66 for tafseer.

Several occasions of revelation have been transmitted for the above verses, all of which relate to the actions and mischief of the hypocrites after the expedition of Tabūk. One of these accounts states that a group of hypocrites held a secret meeting in which they plotted to assassinate the Noble Messenger. Their plan was that, on the return journey from the expedition of Tabūk, they would lie in ambush in a mountain pass, disguise themselves, and when the Messenger of God passed by on his camel, they would frighten the camel and thereby kill him. God informed His Prophet of this conspiracy. The Messenger of God ordered that a group of Muslims keep watch and disperse those individuals. When the Noble Messenger reached that mountain pass, the reins of his camel were in the hand of ʿAmmār, while Ḥudhayfah was driving the camel from behind. The Messenger of God said to Ḥudhayfah: strike the faces of their mounts with your whip and drive them away. He did so. When the Prophet passed safely through the pass, he asked Ḥudhayfah whether he had recognized them. He replied: “No, I did not recognize any of them.” Thereupon the Prophet enumerated all their names. Ḥudhayfah asked: since the situation is thus, why do you not command a group to go and kill them? The Prophet replied: I do not like that the Arabs should say that Muhammad, once he gained strength over his companions, began killing them. This occasion of revelation has been transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir, peace be upon him, and is reported in many books of ḥadīth and exegesis. Another occasion of revelation that has been mentioned is that when the hypocrites observed the Prophet’s stance in confronting the enemy during the expedition of Tabūk, they mockingly said that this man imagines he will conquer the palaces of Syria and the formidable Syrian fortresses; this is utterly impossible. God informed His Prophet of this incident, whereupon he ordered that the way of this group be blocked. He then summoned them, reproached and rebuked them, and told them that they had made such statements among the people. They offered excuses, claiming that they had no serious intention and were merely joking, and they swore oaths to that effect.

From the preceding verses it becomes clear how the hypocrites regarded the very sources of strength as means of weakness and used propaganda to sow division and discord among the Muslims. In the verses now under discussion, another aspect of their plans and methods is highlighted. The first verse indicates that, in order to protect the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslim community from the intrigues of the hypocrites, God would at times expose their inner secrets and inform the believers of their plots. This kept the Muslims vigilant and prevented them from falling prey to deception, while also forcing the hypocrites to recognize their own precarious position and rein in their actions. For this reason, the hypocrites were often fearful and confused. Referring to this state, the Qur’an declares: “The hypocrites fear lest a surah be revealed concerning them, informing them of what is in their hearts” (يَحْذَرُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ أَنْ تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُورَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ). Yet, in spite of this fear, their intense hostility and obstinacy prevent them from refraining from mockery of the Prophet’s actions; they persist in ridicule and derision. Therefore, at the end of the verse, God commands His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: Say to them: mock as much as you wish; God will surely bring to light that which you fear (قُلِ اسْتَهْزِئُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ مُخْرِجٌ مَا تَحْذَرُونَ). The imperative “mock!” here is not a command in the usual sense, but a threat—similar to when one says to an enemy, “Do whatever harm you can; we will respond decisively.” Such expressions are used in the language of warning. Implicitly, this verse shows that the hypocrites were well aware, deep within their hearts, of the truthfulness of the Prophet’s call and of his connection with God. Despite this awareness, their stubbornness and enmity led them to opposition rather than submission. This is why the Qur’an states that they feared the revelation of verses that would expose the secrets hidden in their hearts. It should be noted that “revealed upon them” here does not mean revelation addressed to the hypocrites themselves, but verses revealed about them and against them, though formally revealed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In the next verse, God points to another strategy of the hypocrites: “If you ask them why they said such things or acted in that manner, they will surely say: ‘We were only engaging in idle talk and joking’” (وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ). The word khawḍ originally means to wade gradually into water; by extension it came to signify entering into any matter, and in the Qur’an it frequently denotes indulging in improper or reprehensible discourse. This was, in reality, a calculated means of escape. They plotted deliberately and uttered poisonous remarks so that, if their design succeeded without exposure, they would achieve their objective; and if their plot was uncovered, they could shield themselves behind the guise of humor and light‑heartedness, hoping thereby to avoid punishment and public reproach. Such tactics were not peculiar to the hypocrites of that era; rather, hypocrites in every age employ similar methods. Often they cloak their most committed agendas in the garb of jokes or casual entertainment—if their aim is accomplished, all the better; if not, they retreat behind the excuse of jest to escape consequences. However, the Qur’an announces a definitive reckoning for them and commands the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny to confront them directly: “Is it God, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking?” (قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ). Can everything be treated as an object of mockery—even God, the Qur’anic revelations, and the Messenger? Are the most fundamental principles of Islam suitable for ridicule? Can acts such as frightening the Prophet’s camel on a dangerous mountain pass—placing him at risk of falling—be dismissed under the pretext of humor? Likewise, can scoffing at the divine signs or jeering at the Prophet’s foretelling of future victories be regarded as harmless amusement? All of this testifies that they harbored dangerous intentions, which they sought to conceal behind such pretenses. Thereafter, God commands the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to say to them plainly: “Do not offer excuses” (لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا), “for you have disbelieved after your belief” (قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ). This indicates that the individuals concerned were not initially among the openly declared hypocrites; rather, they belonged to a group of weak believers. After this incident, however, they chose the path of disbelief. Another interpretive possibility is that they had in fact been hypocrites all along, but since no manifest wrongdoing had previously appeared from them, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Muslim community were obliged to treat them outwardly as believers. When their true nature was exposed after the events of the expedition of Tabūk, they were warned that they would no longer be counted among the believers. Finally, the verse concludes: “If We pardon one group among you, We shall punish another group because they were criminals” (إِنْ نَعْفُ عَنْ طَائِفَةٍ مِنْكُمْ نُعَذِّبْ طَائِفَةً بِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا مُجْرِمِينَ). This statement implies that those deserving of forgiveness are those who have washed away the stains of their sins through repentance. Other verses—such as verse 74 of the same surah—support this interpretation. Numerous traditions related to this verse report that some among those hypocrites repented sincerely, while others persisted in their ways. For further details, see Tafsir Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 239.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

From the preceding verses it can be inferred that the hypocrites regarded the causes of strength as sources of weakness and engaged in propaganda in order to sow division and discord among the Muslims. In the verses under discussion, attention is drawn to another aspect of their schemes and methods. From the first verse it becomes clear that, in order to protect the Noble Messenger from the plots of the hypocrites, God would at times lift the veil from their secrets and inform the Muslim community about them, so that they might remain vigilant and not fall victim to their deception, and so that the hypocrites themselves might become conscious of their situation and restrain themselves. For this reason, the hypocrites were often fearful, anxious, and bewildered. Thus, the Qur’an refers to this state of theirs and says: “The hypocrites fear lest a sūrah be sent down against them, informing them of what is in their hearts” (يَحْذَرُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ اَنْ تُنَزَّلَ عَلَیْهِمْ سُورَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا فِی قُلُوبِهِمْ). Yet, despite this, it is remarkable that, owing to extreme hostility and obstinacy, they do not refrain from mocking the actions of the Prophet and persist in derision. Therefore, at the end of this verse, God addresses His Prophet and says: tell them, mock as much as you wish, but know that God will surely bring to light that which you fear and will disgrace you thereby (قُلْ اسْتَهْزِئُوا إِنَّ اللهَ مُخْرِجٌ مَا تَحْذَرُونَ). The imperative “استهزؤوا” here is of a threatening nature, similar to when one says to an enemy, “Do whatever harm you can; we will respond at the appropriate moment.” Such expressions are used in contexts of warning. Incidentally, from the preceding verse it becomes evident that the hypocrites inwardly recognized well the truthfulness of the Prophet’s call and were fully aware of God’s connection with him. Nevertheless, due to obstinacy and hostility, instead of submitting, they persisted in opposition. For this reason, the Qur’an says that the hypocrites feared that Qur’anic verses might be revealed against them that would expose the hidden secrets of their hearts. It should be noted that the phrase “تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ” does not mean that such verses were revealed unto the hypocrites themselves, but rather that they were revealed concerning them and against them, although they were revealed to the Noble Messenger. In the subsequent verse, God refers to yet another scheme of the hypocrites and says: “If you ask them why they committed such a wrongful act or uttered such a statement, they will surely say: we were only engaging in idle talk and jesting” (وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ). In fact, this was an ingenious escape strategy: they carefully devised conspiracies and uttered poisonous remarks with the intent that their true motives would remain concealed. If their malevolent aim succeeded, they would achieve their objective; and if their scheme was exposed, they would hide behind the veil of jest and frivolity and, through false excuses, escape punishment and public reaction from the Messenger and the people. The plans of the hypocrites of that time—and indeed of every age—are of the same nature. By this method they reap many advantages: at times they present objectives to which they are firmly committed in the guise of ordinary humor and playful banter; if they succeed, all the better, and if not, they evade punishment under the pretext of joking and levity. However, the Qur’an declares their inevitable punishment and commands the Messenger to say to them plainly: “Was it God, His verses, and His Messenger that you were mocking and deriding?” (قُلْ أَبِاللهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ). That is, is everything a matter for mockery, even God, the Prophet, and the verses of the Qur’an? Are the most fundamental principles of Islam objects of jest? Can frightening the Prophet’s camel and driving it off, and endangering the Prophet’s life in that perilous mountain pass, be dismissed as mere joking? Or can ridiculing the verses of God and making sarcastic remarks about the Prophet’s foretold future victories be regarded as harmless humor? All of this testifies that they harbored dangerous intentions that they sought to conceal behind such pretexts. Thereafter, God commands His Prophet to say to the hypocrites explicitly: “Do not make excuses” (لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا), “for indeed you have disbelieved after your faith” (قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ). This indicates that the group referred to above were not originally among the hypocrites, but rather belonged to those of weak faith; however, after this incident, they chose the path of disbelief. Another possible interpretation of this statement is that this group had already been within the ranks of the hypocrites, but since no outward error had previously manifested from them, it was incumbent upon the Prophet and the Muslims to treat them as believers. When, after the events of Tabūk, the veil was lifted and their disbelief and hypocrisy became apparent, they were warned that henceforth they would no longer be counted among the believers. Finally, the verse concludes with the statement: “If We pardon a group among you, We shall punish another group because they were criminals” (إِنْ نَعْفُ عَنْ طَائِفَةٍ مِنْكُمْ نُعَذِّبْ طَائِفَةً بِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا مُجْرِمِينَ). The declaration that one group will be punished for its crime indicates that those whose sins and transgressions have been washed away by the water of repentance are worthy of forgiveness. Indications of this meaning are also found in subsequent verses, such as verse 74. Numerous reports transmitted in connection with this verse indicate that among the hypocrites mentioned in the foregoing verses, some regretted their deeds and repented, whereas others persisted in their course. For further clarification, see Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 239.

In this verse, in order to awaken the community of hypocrites, the mirror of history is placed directly before them, and by comparing and contrasting their lives with those of earlier rebellious hypocrites, an effective lesson of admonition is presented. It is stated: “You are like those who came before you, following that same evil path and the same wretched destiny” (كَالَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ). They were like you—indeed stronger than you in power and far ahead of you in wealth and offspring (كَانُوا أَشَدَّ مِنْكُمْ قُوَّةً وَأَكْثَرَ أَمْوَالًا وَأَوْلَادًا). In worldly life they derived enjoyment from their allotted share through sensual indulgence, filth, sin, turmoil, corruption, and destruction. You, as the hypocrites of this community, have likewise taken your share just as the hypocrites before you took theirs (فَاسْتَمْتَعُوا بِخَلَاقِهِمْ فَاسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِخَلَاقِكُمْ كَمَا اسْتَمْتَعَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ بِخَلَاقِهِمْ). The word “خَلاق” in the lexicon means portion and share; as Raghib states in al‑Mufradāt, it is derived from “خُلُق,” in the sense that a person’s share in this world corresponds to his disposition and character. It is then said: you plunged into disbelief and hypocrisy and into mocking the believers just as they plunged into these matters (وَخُضْتُمْ كَالَّذِي خَاضُوا). At the end, in order to awaken the hypocrites of the Prophet’s era and of all times, the fate of past hypocrites is stated in two short sentences. The first is that they are those whose deeds have been rendered null and void in both this world and the Hereafter, and from which they will derive no positive outcome whatsoever (أُولَٰئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ). The second is that they are the true and ultimate losers (وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ). It is possible that through hypocritical conduct they may secure some limited and temporary gains, yet upon correct reflection it becomes evident that by this path they benefit neither in this world nor in the Hereafter. The history of former nations clearly demonstrates how the misfortunes of hypocrisy clung to them, leading them to decline and annihilation, and how their evil end was fully exposed in the Hereafter. When we see that, despite possessing abundant resources, wealth, and offspring, they never attained success and all their deeds were nullified due to their lack of substance and the corrosive effects of hypocrisy, then you—being weaker in power and capacity—will be ensnared even more severely in such wretchedness and ruin. Thereafter, God Almighty, turning the address toward the Prophet of Islam, poses a rhetorical question: “Has the news of those before them not reached these hypocrites—the people of Noah, ʿĀd, Thamūd, the people of Abraham, the people of Midian, and the overturned cities?” (أَلَمْ يَأْتِهِمْ نَبَأُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَعَادٍ وَثَمُودَ وَقَوْمِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَأَصْحَابِ مَدْيَنَ وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَاتِ). These were nations that for long periods exercised authority over major parts of the world, yet each one, due to corruption, disobedience, rebellion, injustice, oppression, and widespread wrongdoing, was afflicted by some form of divine punishment. The people of Noah were destroyed by the devastating waves of the flood; the people of ʿĀd (the people of Hūd) by violent and furious winds; the people of Thamūd (the people of Ṣāliḥ) by ruinous earthquakes; the people of Abraham by deprivation of manifold blessings; the people of Midian (the people of Shuʿayb) by a blazing cloud; and the people of Lot by the overturning of their cities. Nothing remained of them except lifeless bodies and decayed bones buried beneath earth or submerged in water. These are the harrowing events whose study and awareness shake every person who possesses even a slight sense of reflection. Yet God never deprived them of His grace; He sent to them their messengers with clear proofs for their guidance (أَتَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ). But they paid no heed to the admonitions and counsel of these God‑sent guides and attached not the slightest importance to the unbearable hardships those servants of God endured in guiding and advising humanity. Therefore, God did not wrong them in any way; rather, they wronged themselves (فَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيَظْلِمَهُمْ وَلَكِنْ كَانُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ).

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the common characteristics of hypocritical men and women were set forth, which may be summarized in five points: commanding what is evil, forbidding what is good, miserliness and stinginess, forgetting God, and disobedience to God’s command. In these verses, by contrast, the characteristics of believing men and women are described—also in five corresponding points—set precisely opposite to those of the hypocrites. The verse begins as follows: “Believing men and believing women are allies, patrons, and supporters of one another” (وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ). It is noteworthy that for the hypocrites the expression “awliyāʾ” was not used; rather, the phrase “بَعْضُهُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ” appeared, which outwardly suggests unity of purpose and similarity in traits and conduct. This also points to the fact that although hypocrites stand in a single row and their various groups engage in similar plots and programs, the spirit of affection, mutual devotion, and true solidarity is absent among them. When their personal interests are endangered, they readily betray even their associates. Hence, in Sūrat al‑Ḥashr, verse 14, it is stated: “You think them to be united, whereas their hearts are divided” (تَحْسَبُهُمْ جَمِيعًا وَقُلُوبُهُمْ شَتَّى). After stating this reality, God Almighty proceeds to articulate the detailed attributes of the believers. First, it is said that they enjoin what is right (يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ). Second, they forbid what is wrong, evil, and sinful (وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ). Third, in contrast to the hypocrites who forgot God, they establish prayer (وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ), remembering God and illuminating the heart through worship and remembrance, thereby awakening and refining the intellect. Fourth, unlike the hypocrites who were miserly and stingy, they give zakāt (وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ), spending a portion of their wealth in the path of God, for the welfare of God’s creation and for the reconstruction and betterment of society. Fifth, whereas the hypocrites are rebellious, transgressive, and disobedient to God’s command, the believers obey God and His Messenger (وَيُطِيعُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ). At the conclusion of this verse, God Almighty indicates the outcome and recompense of the believers’ foremost distinction and declares: “God will soon have mercy upon them” (أُولَٰئِكَ سَيَرْحَمُهُمُ اللَّهُ). The term “mercy” (رَحْمَة), used here once, has a very expansive meaning, encompassing every kind of good, blessing, and beneficence in both religion and worldly life. This term stands in direct contrast to the state of the hypocrites, upon whom God has pronounced a curse and from whom He has distanced His mercy. Indeed, God’s promise of mercy to the believers is certain and reassuring, for He is Mighty and Wise; He neither makes promises without cause nor is He unable to fulfill them once given (إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ). The subsequent verse explains one aspect of this expansive divine mercy prepared for the believers, mentioning both its material and spiritual dimensions. It begins by stating: “God has promised the believing men and believing women gardens beneath which rivers flow” (وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ). One of the distinguishing features of this immense blessing is that it is not subject to decay, extinction, or separation; rather, they will abide therein forever (خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا). Another divine favor for them is that God will grant them pure and splendid dwellings in the gardens of ʿAdn (وَمَسَاكِنَ طَيِّبَةً فِي جَنَّاتِ عَدْنٍ). Linguistically, “ʿAdn” denotes permanent settlement and abiding in a place; thus, “maʿdin” means a locus where a substance remains and persists. On this basis, “ʿAdn” bears an affinity to the notion of everlastingness, but since the preceding phrase already indicated eternity, it appears that “the gardens of ʿAdn” refer to a particular, exalted domain within Paradise, distinguished from all other gardens. This distinction has been described in various forms in Islamic narrations and exegetical works. In a narration from the Prophet of Islam, it is reported that he said: “ʿAdn is the abode of God which no eye has seen and no heart has conceived; none shall dwell therein except three groups: the prophets, the truthful ones, and the martyrs.” Another narration transmitted from the Prophet states: “Whoever desires to live as I have lived, to die as I have died, and to dwell in the Paradise which my Lord has promised me—the gardens of ʿAdn—then let him show loyalty to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and his descendants after him.” From this narration it becomes clear that the gardens of ʿAdn are among the highest gardens of Paradise, in which the Noble Messenger and a select group of his special followers will reside. A similar meaning is also transmitted from ʿAlī (peace be upon him), indicating that the gardens of ʿAdn are the place of residence of the Prophet of Islam. Thereafter, God Almighty points to the believers’ spiritual reward and blessing, declaring: “And the good pleasure of God is greater” (وَرِضْوَانٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ أَكْبَرُ). No one can truly describe or comprehend the spiritual delight and joy that a human being attains through divine satisfaction and turning toward God. According to some exegetes, even a single aspect of this spiritual delight surpasses all the gardens of Paradise, with their manifold blessings and boundless comforts. Indeed, within the confines of this world and its limited life, we cannot even conceive such a blessing, let alone fully grasp that immense spiritual and existential reward. Yet a faint analogy may be drawn from worldly experience: the joy one feels upon meeting a sincere and affectionate friend after long separation, or the profound intellectual satisfaction gained from solving a complex problem after years of effort, bears no comparison to any material pleasure or physical delight. This clarification also refutes the claim of those who object that the Qurʾān, when describing the recompense of the believers and the righteous, mentions only material rewards and neglects spiritual emotions. Such an objection rests upon error and misrepresentation, for in the above statement the pleasure of God—mentioned explicitly and in an indefinite form—points to a unique and exalted dimension of divine satisfaction, surpassing all the material pleasures of Paradise. This indicates how precious and significant the spiritual reward truly is. The reason for its superiority is evident: in reality, the soul is like a precious jewel, whereas the body resembles its shell; the soul is sovereign and the body subordinate. The true and fundamental goal is the perfection of the soul, while the refinement of the body is merely a means. Hence, the radiance and scope of spiritual realities exceed those of corporeal existence, and spiritual pleasures cannot be measured by physical ones, just as spiritual suffering and anguish are far more intense than bodily pain. The verse concludes, encompassing all material and spiritual blessings, with the declaration: “That is the great triumph” (ذَٰلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ).

Finally, in this verse, the command is issued to adopt severity toward the disbelievers and the hypocrites, stating: “O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites” (يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ), and “be harsh toward them” (وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ). This constitutes their primary punishment, while in the Hereafter their abode will be Hell, an evil destination and a wretched end (وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ). The manner of struggle against the disbelievers is entirely clear, encompassing all forms of jihād, especially armed combat. However, there has been disagreement regarding the manner of striving against the hypocrites, for it is well established that the Noble Messenger did not engage in armed combat against hypocrites. This is because a hypocrite is one who outwardly stands within the ranks of the Muslims and, in appearance, adheres to all the visible symbols of Islam, even though inwardly he violates its commands. We are aware that many individuals do not possess genuine faith, yet since they present themselves as Muslims, they cannot be treated in the same manner as non‑Muslims. Therefore, as is evident from Islamic narrations and the writings of exegetes, striving against the hypocrites refers to a different kind of struggle, other than armed confrontation, such as reproach, admonition, warning, exposure, and public disgrace. Perhaps the phrase “وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ” specifically alludes to this kind of severity. It is also possible, in interpreting the verse, to suggest that so long as the hypocrisy of such individuals and their clandestine plans have not been fully uncovered, they are to be treated according to the rulings applied to Muslims. However, once their condition becomes entirely clear, the legal ruling of hostile disbelievers applies to them, and in that case armed struggle against them would become permissible. Yet what weakens this interpretation is that at such a stage the designation “hypocrite” would no longer apply; rather, they would then fall into the category of hostile disbelievers. As has already been noted, a hypocrite is defined as one whose outward appearance is Islamic while his inner reality is disbelief.

Various reports have been transmitted concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse, all of which indicate that certain hypocrites uttered distressing remarks about Islam and the Prophet, and after their secrets were exposed they swore false oaths claiming that they had said nothing. In short, the scheme they had devised against Islam failed. Among these incidents is that a hypocrite named Jallās, on the occasion of the expedition of Tabūk, after hearing some of the sermons of the Noble Prophet, vehemently rejected them and denied the Prophet. After returning to Medina, a man named ʿĀmir b. Qays, who had heard those statements, came into the presence of the Prophet and reported what Jallās had said. However, when Jallās himself appeared in Medina, he categorically denied the matter. Thereupon the Messenger of God ordered both of them to stand by the pulpit in the mosque and swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Both took oaths. Then ʿĀmir said: “O God, reveal an āyah to Your Prophet, make manifest the truthfulness of the truthful one and the falsehood of the liar.” The Prophet and the believers said “Āmīn.” Jibrīl then descended and brought the above verse to the Prophet. When the phrase فَإِنْ يَتُوبُوا يَكُ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ (“if they repent, it will be better for them”) was recited, Jallās said: “O Messenger of God, my Lord has called me; I regret my sin and I repent.” The Prophet accepted his repentance. Moreover, as we have already indicated, exegetes have reported that a group of hypocrites had firmly resolved that on the return from the expedition of Tabūk, while passing through a mountain pass, they would frighten the Prophet’s camel so that the Noble Messenger would fall from the mountain into the pass. However, the Messenger of God was informed of this plot through revelation and rendered their scheme ineffective. He placed the halter of the camel in the hand of ʿAmmār, while Ḥudhayfah drove the camel from behind so that it would remain fully under control. He also ordered the people to take another route, so that the hypocrites could neither conceal themselves within the crowd nor carry out their plan. When, in the darkness of the night, he heard the sound of some people following them through the pass, he instructed certain companions to immediately turn those hypocrites back. They numbered approximately twelve or fifteen individuals, some of whom had covered their faces. When they realized that they could not put their plan into effect, they withdrew, but the Prophet recognized them and enumerated each of their names to his companions. However, as will be evident, since this verse refers to two actions of the hypocrites—one, their improper speech, and the other, their failed conspiracy—it follows that both of these occasions of revelation are simultaneously applicable and correct.

The connection of this verse with the preceding verses is entirely clear, since all of them concern the hypocrites. In this verse, however, another aspect of their conduct is exposed: when they see that their secrets are being revealed, they deny the events outright, to the extent that they even resort to false oaths in order to prove their claims. God first states: the hypocrites swear by God that they did not utter such statements concerning the Messenger (يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللهِ مَا قَالُوا), whereas they most certainly uttered words of disbelief (وَلَقَدْ قَالُوا كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ). In this way, they adopted the path of disbelief after having professed Islam (وَكَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِمْ). This does not mean that they were truly Muslims beforehand and then became disbelievers; rather, they were Muslims only outwardly, and by expressing disbelief they shattered even that superficial and pretended Islam. Beyond this, they entertained a dangerous plan that they were unable to carry out (وَهَمُّوا بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُوا). This intention may refer to the incident of Laylat al-ʿAqabah, namely the attempt to assassinate the Prophet, which has already been explained in the discussion of the occasions of revelation, or it may more generally refer to all those schemes they devised in order to destroy Islamic society, spread corruption, foment hypocrisy, and create discord, yet they were never able to achieve success in any of these efforts. It is noteworthy that in various situations, owing to the preparedness and vigilance of the Muslims, the hypocrites and their plans were identified. The Muslims were constantly on the alert with regard to them, so that if they heard any statement from them, they would report it to the Prophet in a timely manner for precautionary measures and necessary action. This vigilance, timely intervention, together with the revelation of verses and divine confirmation, became the cause of the humiliation of the hypocrites and the failure of their conspiracies. In the next statement, in order to make fully manifest the baseness and ingratitude of the hypocrites’ conduct, it is further declared: in reality, they had seen no wrongdoing from the Messenger, nor had Islam caused them any harm; on the contrary, under the banner of the Islamic state they had benefited from various material and spiritual blessings. Thus, in fact, they were taking revenge for nothing other than the fact that God and His Messenger, through divine grace, had enriched them and made them self‑sufficient (وَمَا نَقَمُوا إِلَّا أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ). There is no doubt that enriching them through God’s grace and the extreme kindness of the Messenger, and fulfilling their needs and requirements, was not something that should have provoked them to seek revenge for such benevolence; rather, they ought to have responded with gratitude and appreciation. Yet these disloyal and base individuals repaid beneficence and blessing with crime and transgression. This is a remarkably eloquent expression, often used in speech and writing, such as when one has served another person for years, given him shelter, protection, and great affection, and then he betrays; at that point one might say: our only crime was that we gave you refuge, protected you, and showed you great kindness. Thereafter, in keeping with the Qur’anic method of always keeping the path of return open, it states: if they repent, it is better for them (فَإِنْ يَتُوبُوا يَكُ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ). This reflects Islam’s realism, its emphasis on moral reform, and its opposition to harshness and inappropriate severity. Even for those hypocrites who attempted to assassinate the Messenger of God, uttered blasphemous statements, and inflicted pain and insult, the path of reconciliation and repentance is not only left open but they are explicitly invited to repentance. This is the true face of Islam, yet how many are there who present this beautiful and authentic visage of Islam as though it were a religion of coercion and harshness? Is there, in the contemporary world, any government so compassionate and forbearing that it would deal with conspirators against itself with such mercy and clemency? As we have read in the occasions of revelation, one of those who devised hypocritical plots repented upon hearing this call, and the Prophet accepted his repentance. Nevertheless, in order that such people not misconstrue this leniency as weakness, they are warned that if they turn away and refuse to repent, God will punish them with a painful chastisement in this world and in the Hereafter (وَإِنْ يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ). If they imagine that someone might come to their aid against God’s punishment, they are gravely mistaken, for they will find on the face of the earth neither a protector nor a helper (وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ). Their punishment in the Hereafter is evident; as for their worldly punishment, it consists of humiliation, abasement, and misery.

See ayat 78 for tafseer.

See ayat 78 for tafseer.

See ayat 78 for tafseer.

It is well known among exegetes that these verses were revealed concerning an Anṣārī man named Thaʿlabah ibn Ḥāṭib. He was a poor man and used to come daily to the mosque, persistently asking the Messenger of God to pray that God would grant him wealth. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to him: قلیل توٴدی شکرہ خیر من کثیر لاتطیقہ “A small amount of wealth for which you are able to give thanks is better than an abundance whose gratitude you cannot bear.” Is it not better that you follow the Messenger of God and live a simple life? However, Thaʿlabah continued to insist, and finally he said to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: “I swear by the One who sent you with the truth: if God grants me wealth, I will surely discharge all of its dues.” The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny therefore prayed for him. According to one report, not much time passed before one of his cousins, who was very wealthy, died, and a great amount of wealth came to him. Another report states that he bought a single sheep, which multiplied to such an extent that it could no longer be managed in Medina. He therefore took them to the surrounding settlements near Medina, and became so occupied and absorbed in material life that he no longer attended congregational prayer, let alone the Friday prayer. After some time, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny sent a collector to him to receive zakāt. But this mean‑spirited and miserly man not only delayed in fulfilling the divine obligation, but even objected to the law itself, saying that this command was like jizyah, that is, “We embraced Islam in order to be spared from jizyah; now, by giving zakāt, what distinction remains between us and non‑Muslims?” In reality, he neither understood the meaning of jizyah nor that of zakāt, and even if he did understand, his worldliness did not allow him to state the truth or acknowledge what was right. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny heard his words, he said: یا ویح ثعلبہ! یا ویح ثعلبہ! “Woe to Thaʿlabah! Woe to Thaʿlabah!” It was at this point that the above‑mentioned verses were revealed. For these verses as well, occasions of revelation have been transmitted which closely resemble the narrative of Thaʿlabah. From the reported occasions of revelation and from these verses it becomes clear that the person or persons in question were not initially counted among the hypocrites, but because of such actions and conduct they came to be included among them.

In reality, these verses point to a major characteristic of the hypocrites, namely that in times of helplessness, weakness, poverty, and distress they profess faith in such an emphatic manner that no one could imagine that one day they would stand among the ranks of the hypocrites. They even criticize those who possess ample sources of income and resources, questioning why they do not benefit the deprived with their means. Yet when they themselves become wealthy, they draw in their hands and become so deeply immersed in worldliness that they forget all the promises they made to God. That is, their personality changes completely, and their way of thinking undergoes a total transformation. This very small‑mindedness results in worldliness, miserliness, and selfishness. In this way, the spirit of hypocrisy grips them so firmly that it leaves no path of return for them. In the first verse it is stated that among the hypocrites are those who made a covenant with God that if He were to grant them something out of His bounty, they would surely give charity and would indeed become among the righteous (وَمِنْھُمْ مَنْ عَاھَدَ اللهَ لَئِنْ آتَانَا مِنْ فَضْلِہِ لَنَصَّدَّقَنَّ وَلَنَکُونَنَّ مِنْ الصَّالِحِین). However, they made these claims at a time when their hands were empty; but when God granted them wealth from His bounty, they became miserly and turned away, becoming disobedient and averse (فَلَمَّا آتَاہُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِہِ بَخِلُوا بِہِ وَتَوَلَّوا وَہُمْ مُعْرِضُونَ). The consequence of this broken covenant and miserliness was that the spirit of hypocrisy became firmly and permanently entrenched in their hearts, and it will remain there until the Day of Resurrection and the time when they meet God (فَاَعْقَبھُمْ نِفَاقًا فِی قُلُوبھِمْ إِلَی یَوْمِ یَلْقَوْنَہُ). And this, because they went against what they had promised God and because they persistently lied (بِمَا اَخْلَفُوا اللهَ مَا وَعَدُوہُ وَبِمَا کَانُوا یَکْذِبُونَ). Finally, by way of reproach and censure, it is asked: do they not know that God knows their secrets and their whisperings, and that God is the One who has full knowledge of all unseen matters (اَلَمْ یَعْلَمُوا اَنَّ اللهَ یَعْلَمُ سِرَّھُمْ وَنَجْوَاھُمْ وَاَنَّ اللهَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُیُوبِ).

1. From the expression "فَاَعْقَبَہُمْ نِفَاقًا فِی قُلُوبِہِمْ" it becomes clear that many sins and evils—even unbelief and hypocrisy—are mutually causal and interrelated, because the above statement explicitly indicates that their miserliness and breach of promise became the cause for hypocrisy to sow within their hearts the seeds of various conspiracies and corruptions. The same is true of other sins and wrongful acts. Therefore, some books state that at times, as a result of major sins, a person departs from this world devoid of faith. 2. The expression "یوم یلقونہ", whose pronoun returns to God, refers to the Day of Resurrection, because "لقاء اللہ" and similar expressions in the Qur’an are generally used with reference to the Hereafter. It is true that with the occurrence of death the period of action comes to an end and the record of deeds is closed; however, the effects of those deeds continue to remain until the Day of Resurrection. Some exegetes have also written that the pronoun in "یلقونہ" returns to miserliness, meaning that they will be punished until they see the consequence of their miserliness. Similarly, it has also been suggested that meeting the Lord refers to the moment of death; but all these possibilities are contrary to the apparent meaning of the verse, and the apparent meaning is precisely what has been stated above. With regard to what is meant by meeting the Lord of the worlds, we have discussed this under verse 46 of Surah al-Baqarah in volume one (p. 183, Urdu translation); please refer to it. 3. From the verses under discussion it is also evident that breaking promises and lying are among the salient characteristics of hypocrites, and that it is the hypocrites who bind themselves to God with emphatic pledges and then trample them underfoot, to the extent that they lie even to their Lord. A well-known hadith transmitted from the Messenger of God also confirms this reality. The Prophet said: للمنافق ثلاث علامات اذا حدث کذب و اذا وعدہ خلف و اذا ائتمن خان A hypocrite has three signs: (1) when he speaks, he lies; (2) when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and (3) when he is entrusted, he betrays that trust. (Reference: Majma‘ al-Bayan, under the verse under discussion.) It is noteworthy that in the aforementioned narrative (the episode of Tha‘labah) all three signs are present: he lied, he broke his promise, and he also betrayed the wealth that God had given him as a trust. The above hadith is reported with even greater emphasis in al-Kafi through Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq from the Messenger of God, who stated: ثلاث من کن فیہ کان منافقاً و ان صام و صلی وزعم انہ مسلم من اذا ائتمن خان اذا حدث کذب و اذا وعد اخلف Whoever possesses these three traits is a hypocrite, even if he fasts, prays, and claims that he is a Muslim: (1) he betrays a trust; (2) when he speaks, he lies; and (3) when he makes a promise, he goes back on it. (Reference: Safinat al-Bihar, vol. 2, p. 607). It is possible that such sins may occasionally be committed even by some believers, but then they repent. However, the persistence and continuity of these sins are a sign of hypocrisy and a hypocritical disposition. It is also necessary to keep in mind that what we have read in the above verses does not pertain merely to a historical incident of a bygone time; rather, it describes a moral and social reality whose countless examples, without exception, are found in every era and every society. If we look around us (and even look at ourselves), we will find examples of the actions and thinking of Tha‘labah ibn Hatib reflected in various religious figures. How many individuals are there who, under ordinary circumstances or in poverty, appear to stand among sincere and steadfast believers: they participate in all religious programs, lament beneath every banner of reform, support those who raise the voice of truth, feel an urge to perform virtuous deeds, and raise their voices to confront every form of corruption and evil. But when circumstances change and they acquire wealth, or attain some office or position, their countenance suddenly alters. Their fervor and passion for God and religion grow dim, and they are no longer seen in reformative and educational programs. They neither tear open their collars for the sake of truth nor raise their voices against falsehood. Previously, when they had neither status nor position in society, they made various promises to God and to God’s creation—that if one day they were granted resources or reached a position, they would do this and that. They even raised thousands of objections against the wealthy and powerful for failing to discharge their duties. But the day their own condition changed, all pledges were forgotten, and all objections and criticisms melted away like snow. Undoubtedly, this small-mindedness is a clear trait of hypocrites. Hypocrisy is nothing other than a hellish personality and duplicity. The life history of such people is the best example of duplicity and double-facedness of character. In principle, a magnanimous person does not possess duplicity. Moreover, just as faith has degrees, hypocrisy also has stages. In some individuals this vile habit becomes so deeply ingrained in the soul that, in their hearts, hypocrisy comes to have multiple degrees comparable to faith in God. In some people this habit becomes so entrenched that no effect of faith in God remains in their hearts, even though they consider themselves to be included among the believers. A person who habitually lies while outwardly appearing truthful—does he not possess two aspects and two faces, and is he not a hypocrite? A person who outwardly appears trustworthy and is therefore relied upon by people, who entrust their deposits to him, but who in reality betrays them—does he not possess a hellish personality? Likewise are those who bind themselves by covenants and pledges but never honor them. Is this not the conduct of hypocrites? One of the greatest calamities for human societies, and a factor behind their backwardness, is the existence of such hypocrites. If we do not close our eyes and do not lie to ourselves, we will see many such Tha‘labah-like hypocrites around us and within Islamic societies. What is astonishing is that despite all these defects, disgrace, and distance from the spirit of Islamic teachings, we place the blame for our backwardness upon Islam itself.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

In connection with the occasions of revelation of these verses, reports have been transmitted in works of hadith and tafsir. From a study of all these reports it becomes clear that the Messenger of God had resolved to prepare the Islamic army to confront the enemy (most likely for the expedition of Tabuk). For this purpose, he required the cooperation of the people. When he expressed this intention, those who possessed means rendered significant service to the Islamic army, either through zakat or voluntary contributions. The Muslim laborers, however, had limited income. Among them, Abu ‘Aqil al-Ansari, or Salim ibn ‘Umayr al-Ansari, worked at night drawing water from a well and earned additional wages, thereby collecting two mann of dates (explanatory note: this is according to the customary Iranian weights; the Iranian mann is used for different measures—for example, the Tabrizi mann is equivalent to 3 kilograms, the Rayy mann to 12 kilograms, and the official mann to 18 kilograms). They kept one mann for their households and brought one mann in the service of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In this way they rendered a service that appeared modest but was in fact of great value for a major Islamic objective. Likewise, other Muslim laborers served the Islamic army. Fault-finding hypocrites objected to both groups: they accused those who had given much of ostentation, and they mocked those who had ostensibly given little, saying, “Does Islam even need this kind of assistance?” Thereupon, the above-mentioned verses were revealed, in which they were sternly threatened and warned of divine punishment.

In these verses, attention is drawn to a general characteristic of the hypocrites: namely, that they are obstinate, prone to making excuses, habitually critical, and disruptive. Through inappropriate and contrived connections, they demean every positive action and present it in a negative light, with the aim of discouraging people from performing good deeds, and, furthermore, of sowing the seeds of suspicion regarding others’ thoughts and intentions. In this way, they seek to bring reformative and beneficial activities within society to a halt. The Holy Qur’an strongly condemns this inhumane conduct and warns the Muslims about it, so that people may not fall prey to such suspicions and so that the hypocrites themselves may realize that their schemes cannot succeed within an Islamic society. It declares: those who find fault with the voluntary charities of the faithful believers, and who mock, in particular, the needy among the believers who can give nothing except what they earn with difficulty, God mocks them, and for them awaits a painful punishment (الَّذِینَ یَلْمِزُونَ الْمُطَّوِّعِینَ مِنْ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ فِی الصَّدَقَاتِ وَالَّذِینَ لاَیَجِدُونَ إِلاَّ جُھْدَھُمْ فَیَسْخَرُونَ مِنْھُمْ سَخِرَ اللهُ مِنْھُمْ وَلَہمْ عَذَابٌ اَلِیمٌ). The word "یلمزون" is derived from "لمز" (on the pattern of tanẓ), meaning fault‑finding, while "المطوعین" comes from the root "طوع" (on the pattern of mauj), meaning obedience; however, it is generally used for righteous people, especially those who perform not only obligatory acts but also voluntary ones. This verse indicates that the hypocrites found fault with some people and mocked others. It is evident that they mocked those who had the ability to offer only a small amount of assistance to the Islamic army, and certainly found faults with those who, in contrast, provided substantial assistance. They accused the major contributors of ostentation and belittled those who were able to give only a little. In the following verse, strong emphasis is placed on the punishment of these hypocrites, and they are given a final warning. Addressing the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is stated: seek forgiveness for them or do not seek forgiveness for them—even if you seek forgiveness for them seventy times, God will never forgive them (اسْتَغْفِرْ لَھُمْ اَوْ لاَتَسْتَغْفِرْلَھُمْ إِنْ تَسْتَغْفِر لَھمْ سَبْعِینَ مَرَّةً فَلَنْ یَغْفِرَ اللهُ لَھُم). This is because they have disbelieved in God and His Messenger and have chosen the path of unbelief, and it is this unbelief that has cast them into the depths of hypocrisy and an evil end (ذَلِکَ بِاَنَّھُمْ کَفَرُوا بِاللهِ وَرَسُولِہِ). It is evident that God’s guidance reaches those who take steps on the path of seeking truth and who sincerely pursue reality; but God does not guide those who are transgressors, sinners, and hypocrites (وَاللهُ لاَیَھْدِی الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِینَ).

1. The significance of action lies in quality, not quantity From an examination of the Qur’anic verses, this reality becomes clearly evident: Islam never places its reliance on the mere abundance of deeds; rather, everywhere it assigns importance to the quality of action. In Islam, sincerity and purity of intention possess immense value. The aforementioned verses of the Qur’an represent one example of this logic. As we have seen, a Muslim laborer remained awake throughout the night for a small task. His heart was filled with love of God, sincerity, and a sense of responsibility. For this reason, he engaged himself in efforts to resolve the difficulties of the Islamic community and thus provided one mann of dates for the Islamic army. The service he rendered to Islam at that critical moment has been given great importance by the Qur’an, and those who belittle such outwardly small but in reality great deeds are severely condemned. The Qur’an states: “A painful punishment awaits them.” This also makes clear that in a sound society, at times of difficulty all people must demonstrate a sense of responsibility. One should not look only to those who possess power and wealth, because Islam belongs to everyone, and everyone must strive with heart and soul to protect it. The essential point is that each person should not withhold effort according to his or her capacity; the issue is not one of more or less, but of a sense of responsibility and sincerity. It is noteworthy that in a hadith it is reported that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was asked: “Which charity is the best?” He replied: “The effort of one with limited means.” 2. The characteristics of hypocrites are the same in every age The characteristic that we have read in the above verses concerning the hypocrites of the Prophet’s PBUH & His Pure Progeny era is not limited to that time alone. Rather, it is among the base traits of hypocrites in every age. With their distinctive malicious disposition, they strive to render every positive act ineffective by presenting it in a distorted manner. Their effort is to demoralize every righteous individual in one way or another and to make them sluggish in the performance of good deeds. They even downplay the value of the services rendered by people of limited income, and, in order to damage their dignity and insult them, they ridicule their efforts. They do all this so that all positive activities may come to an end and they may succeed in their corrupt objectives. It is the responsibility of aware and vigilant Muslims in every era to remain attentive to their vile conspiracies, to take steps in complete opposition to them, to encourage those who serve society, and to appreciate more highly those services which may appear small but are carried out with sincerity of heart, so that people of all levels may remain engaged in their work with enthusiasm and devotion. Likewise, all Muslims should be made aware of this destructive scheme of the hypocrites, so that they do not lose heart. 3. The meaning of “سَخِرَ اللهُ مِنْهُمْ” Its literal meaning is “God mocks them,” but this does not mean that God performs actions like theirs. Rather, as the exegetes have stated, it means that God will punish those who mock, or that He will deal with them in such a way that they will be humiliated and disgraced, as mockers themselves humiliate others. 4. The meaning of “سَبْعین” (seventy) There is no doubt that the number “seventy” in the verse under discussion is used for multiplicity, not for an exact numerical count. In other words, the meaning of the verse is that no matter how much forgiveness is sought for them, God will not forgive them. This is similar to when someone says to another, “Even if you insist a hundred times, I will not accept,” which does not mean that if one insists a hundred and one times acceptance will follow; rather, it means absolute refusal. Such expressions are, in fact, for emphasis. That is why in Surah al‑Munafiqun, verse 6, this point is stated in the form of absolute negation: سَوَاءٌ عَلَیْهِمْ أَسْتَغْفَرْتَ لَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ لَنْ یَغْفِرَ اللهُ لَهُمْ “It is the same for them whether you seek forgiveness for them or do not seek forgiveness for them; God will never forgive them.” Another reason for this is perhaps the cause mentioned at the end of the verse, namely that they have disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and God does not guide the defiantly disobedient. It is clear that for such individuals, however much forgiveness is sought, it cannot be a means of salvation. It is surprising that in several reports transmitted through Sunni chains, it is stated that after the revelation of this verse the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: لازیدنّ فی الاستغفار لھم علی سبعین مرة رجاءً منہ أن یغفر الله لھم، فنزلت: سَوَاءٌ عَلَیْهِمْ أَسْتَغْفَرْتَ لَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تَسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ لَنْ یَغْفِرَ اللهُ لَهُمْ “By God, I will seek forgiveness for them more than seventy times, in the hope that God will forgive them,” and at that point this verse (of Surah al‑Munafiqun) was revealed, stating that whether forgiveness is sought for them or not, God will never forgive them.” (Explanatory note: multiple reports with this theme are collected in Tafsir al‑Tabarsi, vol. 10, p. 138.) The apparent implication of these reports is that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny understood the number seventy in the earlier verse as a precise number. However, as stated above, the verse—especially in light of the cause mentioned at its conclusion—clearly indicates that seventy denotes multiplicity and serves as a metaphor for absolute negation and emphasis. Therefore, these reports, being contrary to the Qur’an, cannot be accepted, particularly since their chains of transmission are also not reliable. The only possible interpretation of these reports (although contrary to the apparent wording) is that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny made this statement before the revelation of these verses, and when the verses were revealed, he desisted from seeking forgiveness for them. Another report has also been transmitted, and it is possible that the above reports are ultimately based on this one, which became confused due to transmission by meaning. The report states that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: لو علمتُ أنَّهُ لو زِدتُ علی السبعین مرة غُفِرَ لهم لفعلتُ “If I knew that by seeking forgiveness more than seventy times they would be forgiven, I would do so.” Its meaning—especially in view of the particle “لو”, which denotes impossibility—is that I know God will not forgive them, but my heart is so full of concern for the guidance and salvation of God’s servants that, if hypothetically their salvation could be achieved by seeking forgiveness more than seventy times, I would certainly do so. In any case, the meaning of the verse under discussion is clear, and any hadith that contradicts it must either be interpreted or set aside.

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

In these verses as well, the discussion continues regarding the thoughts and actions of the hypocrites, so that Muslims may clearly recognize this group and not fall prey to their misguided plans and conspiracies. It is first stated that those who did not participate in jihad (at Tabuk), who fabricated frivolous excuses and remained seated in their homes, and who, in their own estimation, preferred personal safety over the risks of the battlefield, are pleased with this conduct that stands in opposition to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny (فَرِحَ الْمُخَلَّفُونَ بِمَقْعَدِهِمْ خِلَافَ رَسُولِ اللهِ). They dislike striving in the way of God with their wealth and their lives, and dislike attaining the great distinctions and honors of the mujahidin (وَكَرِهُوا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ). They were not content merely with abstaining from the battlefield; rather, through satanic insinuations, they attempted to dishearten others and turn them away as well. They said to others: do not set out toward the battlefield in this scorching heat of summer (وَقَالُوا لَا تَنْفِرُوا فِي الْحَرِّ). In reality, on the one hand they sought to weaken the resolve of the Muslims, and on the other hand to involve many others in their crime. Thereafter, the Qur’an addresses the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and commands him, in clear and admonitory words, to say: the blazing fire of Hell is far more intense in heat, if you but understood (قُلْ نَارُ جَهَنَّمَ أَشَدُّ حَرًّا لَوْ كَانُوا يَفْقَهُونَ). However, due to weak faith and lack of understanding, they do not reflect upon what kind of burning fire awaits them—a fire whose smallest spark is more searing than every fire of this world. The following two verses indicate that they imagine they have achieved success: by staying away from jihad and by demoralizing the mujahidin, they believe they have reached their objective, and thus they burst into laughter, as hypocrites have done in every age. But the Qur’an warns them, saying: they should laugh little and weep much (فَلْيَضْحَكُوا قَلِيلًا وَلْيَبْكُوا كَثِيرًا). Yes, they should weep for their dark future and for the painful punishments that await them. They should weep because they have destroyed all paths of return. They should weep because they have expended all their capacities and the capital of their lives only to purchase disgrace and misery for themselves. At the end of the verse it is stated: this is the recompense for the deeds they used to commit (جَزَاءً بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ). From what has been said, it becomes clear that such people will laugh little and weep much in this world, because ahead of them lies such a painful punishment that if they were aware of it, they would weep greatly and laugh very little. Some exegetes, however, have mentioned another possibility regarding the meaning of this statement: namely, that however much they may laugh, the duration of worldly life is so short that it is still little, whereas in the Hereafter they will weep so much that worldly lamentation will appear insignificant by comparison. Yet the first interpretation accords more closely with the apparent wording of the verse and with similar expressions used in speech and writing, especially since the second interpretation would require the imperative form to be understood purely in a declarative sense, which is contrary to the apparent meaning. In a well-known hadith, transmitted by many commentators from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he said: «لو تعلمون ما اعلم لضحكتم قليلا و لبكيتم كثيراً»—if you knew what I know (regarding the terrifying punishments of the Hereafter), you would laugh little and weep much. This hadith also serves as evidence for the first interpretation. In the final verse under discussion, attention is drawn to another deliberate and dangerous practice of the hypocrites: when they openly commit a wrongful act, they then express a resolve to make amends in order to obtain exoneration, and in this way attempt to conceal their innovations and actions contrary to Islam. The verse states: when God brings you back to a group of them and they seek your permission to go forth to another battlefield of jihad, then say to them: you will never go out with me, nor will you ever fight an enemy alongside me (فَإِنْ رَجَعَكَ اللهُ إِلَى طَائِفَةٍ مِنْهُمْ فَاسْتَأْذَنُوكَ لِلْخُرُوجِ فَقُلْ لَنْ تَخْرُجُوا مَعِيَ أَبَدًا وَلَنْ تُقَاتِلُوا مَعِيَ عَدُوًّا). That is, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is instructed to disappoint them permanently and to make it clear that their schemes will never succeed and that no one will again be deceived by them; it would be better for them to take their nets of deception elsewhere, for here no one will fall into them anymore. It is also noteworthy that the words «طَائِفَةٍ مِنْهُمْ» (a group of them) indicate that not all of them were prepared to make such a request, and that not all expressed readiness to participate in another jihad. Perhaps the reason was that some among them were so disgraced and ashamed that they could not even present themselves before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to put forward such a proposal. Thereafter, the reason for rejecting their request is stated as follows: you were already content to sit back and remain behind the first time; therefore, now sit with those who remain behind and turn away (إِنَّكُمْ رَضِيتُمْ بِالْقُعُودِ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ فَاقْعُدُوا مَعَ الْخَالِفِينَ).

See ayat 85 for tafseer.

1. The reality of offering to participate in a subsequent jihad: There is no doubt that had these hypocrites truly regretted turning away from jihad on the first occasion, repented sincerely, and then offered to participate in a subsequent jihad in order to make amends for their earlier sins, God the Exalted would have accepted their offer and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would not have rejected their request. From this it becomes evident that their offer itself was another manifestation of deceit and hypocrisy. In reality, it was a technique for concealing their conspiratorial face and for continuing their previous conduct. 2. The meaning of the term “خالف”: This term carries the meaning of “متخلف” (one who stays behind), referring to those individuals who did not participate in the battlefield of jihad, whether with an excuse or without any excuse. Some have also stated that “خالف” means opposition, indicating that you too should go and join those who oppose. Another meaning that has been mentioned for this term is “فاسد” (corrupt), because “خلوف” is used in the sense of corruption, and in lexicographical usage “خالف” has been applied with the meaning of corrupt. It is also possible that in the above verse all these meanings are intended, because the hypocrites and their associates possessed all of these reprehensible traits. 3. Our responsibility in the present age and the conduct of hypocrites: We consider it necessary to reiterate that Muslims of the present age, too, should follow this firm method of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny in dealing with the hypocrites of their societies—those who tread the same path as the hypocrites of earlier times. Once they have fallen prey to their deception, they should not be deceived by them a second time, nor should they assign any importance to their crocodile tears, because “a believer is not stung from the same hole twice.”

When the hypocrites openly turned away from jihad, thereby tearing away their own veils and making their true condition clear, God the Exalted commanded His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to adopt a more explicit and more resolute course of action, so that the very thought of hypocrisy and the manufacture of hypocrites might be eradicated forever from people’s minds, and so that the hypocrites themselves might realize that no place or standing remained for them within the Islamic society. Accordingly, the Qur’an declares: never perform the funeral prayer for any of them who dies (وَلاَ تُصَلِّ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ مَاتَ أَبَدًا), and never stand at his grave to seek forgiveness for him (وَلاَ تَقُمْ عَلَى قَبْرِهِ). In reality, this constitutes a kind of negative yet highly effective struggle against the hypocrites. As previously explained, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny could not, from a legal standpoint, be instructed to put them to death and thereby cleanse the Islamic society of their presence; however, such negative methods of confrontation were extremely effective in discrediting them to a considerable extent, isolating them, and expelling them from the Islamic community. We know that a true believer is honored both in life and after death; therefore, Islam has prescribed for him the rites of washing, shrouding, and burial, so that he may be laid to rest with dignity and special respect. It has even enjoined that after burial one should stand at his grave and seek God’s forgiveness for his possible sins and lapses. If these rites are withheld from a person, it is tantamount to casting him out of the Islamic society; and when the one who rejects him is the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself, this inflicts a severe blow upon the standing of the rejected individual. In fact, this is a calculated method of confrontation and a form of “cold war.” In the present age as well, Muslims should employ similar methods in dealing with hypocrites: as long as certain individuals profess Islam and outwardly observe its norms, they should be treated as Muslims, even if their inner reality is otherwise. But if they themselves tear away the veil and openly manifest their hypocrisy, then they should be treated like those who are alien to Islam. At the end of the verse, the rationale for this ruling is once again made explicit, when it is said: “this is because they have disbelieved in God and His Messenger” (إِنَّهُمْ كَفَرُوا بِاللهِ وَرَسُولِهِ), and “they died while they were transgressors” (وَمَاتُوا وَهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ). That is, they neither regretted what they had done nor washed away their sin‑stained garment with the water of repentance. At this point, Muslims might ask: if hypocrites are truly so far removed from divine mercy, and believers are commanded to sever affection and attachment from them, then why has God shown them such apparent favor, and why has He granted them all this wealth and offspring (economic and human strength)? In the following verse, addressing the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, God the Exalted answers this very question: let not their wealth and their children impress you (وَلاَ تُعْجِبْكَ أَمْوَالُهُمْ وَأَوْلَادُهُمْ). For outward‑looking people regard these as signs of felicity; rather, God only intends to punish them by means of these things in this world, and that their souls should depart while they are disbelievers (إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللهُ أَنْ يُعَذِّبَهُمْ بِهَا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَتَزْهَقَ أَنْفُسُهُمْ وَهُمْ كَافِرُونَ). A parallel to this verse is found in verse 55 of the same surah. It points to the reality that when economic and human resources fall into the hands of unrighteous individuals, they are not only devoid of felicity but are often a source of distress, tribulation, and misery. For such people neither expend their wealth in its proper place so that beneficial and reformative results may be obtained from it, nor is their offspring rightly guided, faithful, and well‑trained, so as to become a source of comfort to their eyes and a means of resolving the difficulties of their lives. Their wealth is mostly spent on destructive, rebellious passions, on generating corruption and disorder, and on strengthening the pillars of oppression. This, in truth, is the consequence of forgetfulness of God and neglect of the fundamental issues of life. Their offspring, too, become engaged in the service of oppressive and corrupt individuals and ultimately become a cause of affliction. Of course, for those who regard wealth and human strength as the fundamental criteria, and for whom it makes no difference how these resources ought to be used, such lives appear very attractive from a distance; but if we examine their real lives from close up, and also attend to the manner in which these resources are actually employed, we will confirm that they are not, in reality, fortunate people.

1. Conflicting reports regarding the occasion of revelation: With respect to the occasion of revelation of the first verse, multiple reports have been transmitted that differ from one another. Some of these reports indicate that when the well‑known hypocrite ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy died, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny performed his funeral prayer, stood by his grave and supplicated, and even clothed him with his own garment as a shroud; thereafter the verse was revealed, prohibiting the repetition of such an action. Other reports suggest that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny intended to perform his funeral prayer, when Gabriel descended and recited this verse to him, thereby preventing him from doing so. Still other reports imply that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny neither performed his funeral prayer nor even intended to do so; rather, in order to console the family of ‘Abd Allah, he merely sent his own garment to be used as a shroud. When people asked why he had done this, given that ‘Abd Allah was an unbelieving individual, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied that although his garment would not save him from divine punishment, he hoped that, as a result of this act, many people would embrace Islam—and indeed, after this event, many members of the Khazraj tribe became Muslims. Because these reports are mutually divergent, we set them aside as determinations of the occasion of revelation, particularly since, according to some exegetes, the death of ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy occurred in 9 AH, whereas the verses under discussion were revealed around 8 AH (cf. al‑Mizan, vol. 9, p. 385). What cannot be denied, however, is that the tenor of the verse suggests that prior to its revelation the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny used to perform the funeral prayers of hypocrites and stand by their graves, because outwardly they were regarded as Muslims. (Explanatory note: some reports suggest that even after the revelation of this verse, the funeral prayer of hypocrites was still performed, but with only four takbirs, omitting the final takbir associated with supplication for the deceased. This report can only be accepted if, in this context, “لا تصل” is interpreted to mean “do not supplicate.” However, if it is taken to mean “do not perform the prayer,” then this report stands in contradiction to the Qur’an and is therefore unacceptable. It cannot be denied that the apparent meaning of “لا تصل” is precisely “do not perform the prayer.” Consequently, according to Islamic ruling, we cannot perform the funeral prayer for those whose hypocrisy has become manifest, nor can we abandon the above verse on the basis of a solitary and weak report.) After the revelation of this verse, however, this practice was completely abandoned. 2. Standing by the graves of believers and supplicating for them: From the verse under discussion it is evident that standing by the graves of believers and supplicating for them is permissible, since the prohibition in the verse is specific to hypocrites. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse implies that visiting the graves of believers—that is, standing by their graves and offering supplications—is permitted. However, the verse remains silent regarding the issue of seeking intercession through the graves of believers or requesting one’s needs from God through their blessing, although the permissibility of this practice is well‑established on the basis of Islamic traditions.

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

In these verses as well, the discussion continues concerning the hypocrites; however, here their acts of wrongdoing are contrasted with the righteous deeds of true believers, through which their deviation and helplessness become even more evident. In the first verse it is stated that whenever a surah concerning jihad is revealed and calls people to believe in God (that is, exhorts them to remain steadfast in their faith and to strengthen it) and to strive alongside the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, then at such a moment the hypocrites who possess power—those who have both the physical and financial capacity to participate in the battlefield—seek permission from you not to take part in jihad, and say: leave us to remain with those who stay behind and are exempt from participation (وَإِذَا اُنزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ اَنْ آمِنُوا بِاللهِ وَجَاھِدُوا مَعَ رَسُولِہِ اسْتَاْذَنَکَ اُوْلُوا الطَّوْلِ مِنْھُمْ وَقَالُوا ذَرْنَا نَکُنْ مَعَ الْقَاعِدِینَ). The term طَوْل (on the pattern of قَوْل) denotes material means; accordingly, أُولُوا الطَّوْلِ refers to those individuals who possessed sufficient financial capability to participate in the battlefield. Despite this, they desired to remain alongside those powerless individuals who lacked the physical and material capacity for warfare. The root of this word is طَوْل (on the pattern of پول), which is the opposite of عَرْض, and the relationship between these meanings is evident, because financial and physical capacity signify, in a sense, extension, endurance, and sustained power. In the next verse, the Qur’an censures and reproaches them by stating that they are content to remain with those left behind (رَضُوا بِاَنْ یَکُونُوا مَعَ الْخَوَالِفِ). As noted earlier, الخَوَالِف is the plural of خالِفَة, derived from the root خلف, meaning “behind.” Accordingly, women who remain in the house after men have gone out are referred to as خالِفَة. In the verse under discussion, الخَوَالِف refers to all those who are excused from participation in the battlefield for any reason, whether women, elderly men, the sick, or children. Some hadith reports transmitted in the interpretation of this verse also point to this meaning. It is then further stated that under the influence of sin and hypocrisy, they have reached a stage where their hearts have been sealed; as a result, they do not understand (وَطُبِعَ عَلَی قُلُوبِھِمْ فَھُمْ لاَیَفْقَھُونَ). We have already discussed the concept of the sealing of hearts at the beginning of Surah al‑Baqarah. In the subsequent verse, the qualities and characteristics of the opposing group are mentioned—characteristics that stand in complete contrast to those of the hypocrites. It is stated: but the Messenger and those who believe with him strive in the way of God with their wealth and their lives (لَکِنْ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا مَعَہُ جَاھَدُوا بِاَمْوَالِھِمْ وَاَنفُسِھِمْ). As a result, various forms of prosperity, success, and material and spiritual blessings of both worlds become theirs (وَاُوْلَئِکَ لھُمْ الْخَیْرَاتُ), and it is they who are truly successful (وَاُوْلَئِکَ ھُمْ الْمُفْلِحُونَ). The term الخَیْرَات is a plural noun with the definite article, which conveys generality; it is a comprehensive expression encompassing every kind of goodness, blessing, and success, whether material or spiritual. According to the principles of rhetoric and semantics, the wording of these two clauses testifies that true success belongs exclusively to these people, and likewise that entitlement to every form of goodness and felicity is exclusive to them—namely, those who strive with their entire being and all their resources. This verse indicates that when faith and jihad are combined, every form of goodness and blessing accompanies them, and that without these two there is neither a path toward success nor any share in material and spiritual bounties. Another noteworthy point that emerges from the comparison of the attributes of these two groups is that the hypocrites, due to the absence of true faith and their deep immersion in sin, are ignorant and morally deficient; consequently, they lack high aspiration, which itself is a product of understanding, insight, and awareness. They are content to remain with the sick and children and to forgo the virtues and honors of participating in jihad, whereas, in contrast, the believers possess such clarity of vision, understanding, and lofty resolve that they regard participation in jihad with all available resources as the path to deliverance from hardship. This is the great lesson that the Qur’an has imparted in many of its verses, yet despite this we remain heedless of it. In the concluding part of the verse under discussion, reference is made to some of the otherworldly rewards of this second group: God has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow (اَعَدَّ اللهُ لَھُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِی مِنْ تَحْتِھَا الْاَنْھَارُ). It is then emphatically stated that these favors and blessings are neither temporary nor perishable; rather, they will abide therein forever (خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا). And this is the supreme success (ذَلِکَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِیمُ). The expression أَعَدَّ لَهُمْ (God has prepared for them) itself indicates the importance of the matter and the honor that this group holds in the sight of God—that these blessings and favors have been prepared in advance specifically for them.

In the preceding discussion, attention was given to the excuse‑making and pretext‑fabricating hypocrites; in the same vein, this verse points to the condition of two groups who lagged behind from jihad. The first group consists of those who were genuinely excused. The second group consists of those who, without any valid excuse and out of rebellious defiance, turned away from this great responsibility. It is first stated: a group of the Bedouin Arabs who were unable to participate in the battlefield came to you so that permission might be granted to them and they might be excused (وَجَاءَ الْمُعَذِّرُونَ مِنْ الْاَعْرَابِ لِیُؤْذَنَ لَھُمْ). In contrast to them are those who lied before God and His Messenger and, without any excuse at all, remained seated in their homes and did not go forth to the battlefield (وَقَعَدَ الَّذِینَ کَذَبُوا اللهَ وَرَسُولَہُ). At the end of the verse, the second group is strongly warned; it is declared that those among them who disbelieved will soon be afflicted by a painful punishment (سَیُصِیبُ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا مِنْھُمْ عَذَابٌ اَلِیمٌ). What we have stated in the interpretation of the verse accords more closely with the contextual indicators present within the verse itself. On the one hand, we observe that these two groups are set in opposition to one another, and on the other hand, the expression “مِنْھُمْ” indicates that not all of them were unbelievers. These two indicators show that the “مُعَذِّرُونَ” were genuinely excused. In contrast to this interpretation, two other explanations of the verse have also been proposed. The first is that “مُعَذِّرُونَ” refers to those who fabricated trivial, baseless, and false excuses in order to evade jihad, while the second group refers to those who did not even trouble themselves to invent excuses and openly disobeyed God’s command regarding jihad, whether they spoke truthfully or falsely. However, the contextual indicators show that “مُعَذِّرُونَ” refers to those who were truly excused.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

It is reported concerning the first verse that one of the sincere companions of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to him: I am an elderly, blind, and infirm person, and I do not even have anyone who can take my hand and lead me to the battlefield of jihad. If I do not participate in jihad, will I be considered excused? The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny remained silent, and then the first verse was revealed, granting permission and exemption to such individuals. This occasion of revelation shows that even blind persons did not refrain from participating in jihad without first informing the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Out of the possibility that their presence—even in such a condition—might encourage the combatants or increase the apparent size of the army, they would ask the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny about their responsibility and duty. With regard to the second verse, traditions report that seven impoverished men from among the Ansar came into the presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and requested that means be provided for them to participate in jihad. However, since the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not possess the resources to equip them, he responded negatively. They departed from his presence with tear‑filled eyes and later became known as “al‑Bakkā’ūn” (the Weepers).

To clarify the condition of all groups, these verses present a clear classification with respect to whether or not they were excused from participation in jihad. Five groups are indicated: four are genuinely excused, and one consists of hypocrites who are not excused. In the first verse it is stated: there is no blame upon those who are weak and infirm (whether due to old age, loss of sight, or similar reasons), nor upon the sick, nor upon those who do not possess the means required to participate in jihad, if they do not take part in this obligatory Islamic undertaking (لَیْسَ عَلَی الضُّعَفَاءِ وَلاَعَلَی الْمَرْضَی وَلاَعَلَی الَّذِینَ لاَیَجِدُونَ مَا یُنفِقُونَ حَرَجٌ). For these three groups, exemption exists in every legal system; reason and logic also affirm this, and it is well established that Islamic laws are never divorced from reason and rationality. The term “حرج” originally denotes the center of accumulation of something, and since accumulation and crowding are associated with constriction and narrowness of space, the word came to signify hardship, discomfort, and responsibility. In the present verse, it is used in the latter sense, namely responsibility, accountability, and obligation. Thereafter, an important condition for the validity of their exemption is stated: this exemption applies provided that they do not withhold sincere well‑wishing toward God and His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny (إِذَا نَصَحُوا لِلَّہِ وَرَسُولِہِ). That is, although they cannot go to the battlefield carrying weapons, they can still encourage the combatants through word and deed, strengthen their morale by enumerating the fruits and outcomes of jihad, and, to the extent possible, weaken the enemy’s resolve and contribute to the means of their defeat. This interpretation follows from the fact that the word “نصح”, whose root conveys the meaning of sincerity, is a comprehensive term that encompasses every form of goodwill and sincere effort. Since the context here concerns jihad, it refers to all efforts required in that regard. The rationale for this exemption is then given: such individuals are beneficent, and for the beneficent there is no path to blame, reproach, punishment, or accountability (مَا عَلَی الْمُحْسِنِینَ مِنْ سَبِیلٍ). At the end of the verse, two great divine attributes are mentioned, which in reality constitute another reason for the pardon of these three groups: God is All‑Forgiving and All‑Merciful (وَاللهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِیمٌ). غفور, derived from غفران, means to conceal and cover; by virtue of this attribute, God overlooks the shortcomings of the excused and the weak and accepts their excuses. God’s being رحیم entails that He does not impose burdensome and difficult obligations upon anyone and grants pardon; compelling such individuals to be present on the battlefield would not accord with divine forgiveness and mercy. Thus, a Forgiving and Merciful God will certainly grant them exemption. A number of reports cited by exegetes under this verse indicate that excused individuals are not only relieved of this obligation and exempted from punishment, but, in proportion to their sincere longing to participate in jihad, they are also partners with the combatants in reward, recompense, and honor. A hadith transmitted from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny states that when he returned from the expedition of Tabuk and approached Medina, he said: You have left behind in this city certain individuals who, throughout the journey, shared with you every step you took, every expenditure you made in this path, and every land you crossed. The Companions asked: O Messenger of God, how could they have been with us while they were in Medina? He replied: Because they were unable to participate in jihad due to an excuse (though their hearts were with us). (Reference: al‑Mizan, vol. 9, p. 386; citing al‑Durr al‑Manthur.) Thereafter, a fourth group that is excused from participation in jihad is mentioned: likewise, there is no blame upon those who came to you requesting mounts so that they might participate in jihad, but when you said, I do not find anything upon which to mount you, they turned back with eyes overflowing with tears, grieving that they found nothing to spend in the way of God (وَلاَعَلَی الَّذِینَ إِذَا مَا اَتَوْکَ لِتَحْمِلھُمْ قُلْتَ لاَاَجِدُ مَا اَحْمِلُکُمْ عَلَیْہِ تَوَلَّوا وَاَعْیُنُھُمْ تَفِیضُ مِنْ الدَّمْعِ حَزَنًا اَلاَّ یَجِدُوا مَا یُنفِقُونَ). The word “تفیض”, derived from فیضان, means to overflow as a result of being filled. When distress is moderate, the eyes fill with tears without shedding them; but when grief becomes intense, tears flow. This depiction indicates that these Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny were so passionately devoted to jihad that they were not pleased by being excused; rather, they wept as though they had lost a beloved relative or dear friend. There is no doubt that this fourth group is not essentially separate from the third group mentioned in the preceding verse, but it possesses a distinct feature that warranted a separate and vivid portrayal in an independent verse. Their distinction lay in two aspects: (1) they did not content themselves with remaining behind due to lack of means, but rather came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and insisted on being provided with mounts; and (2) when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny responded in the negative, they were not pleased by being excused, but were instead deeply distressed and grieved. For these two reasons, God the Exalted has mentioned them separately and with special emphasis. In the final verse, the condition of the fifth group is described—those who possessed no valid excuse before God. It is stated that the path of blame and punishment is open only against those who seek your permission to stay back while they possess sufficient resources and are entirely capable (إِنَّمَا السَّبِیلُ عَلَی الَّذِینَ یَسْتَاْذِنُونَکَ وَہُمْ اَغْنِیَاءُ). It is then further stated that it is enough of a disgrace for them that they are content to remain in Medina with the weak, the sick, and the excused, thereby depriving themselves of the honor of participation in jihad (رَضُوا بِاَنْ یَکُونُوا مَعَ الْخَوَالِفِ). This punishment is also sufficient for them: due to their evil deeds, God has stripped them of the capacity for thought and understanding, sealed their hearts, and as a result they know nothing (وَطَبَعَ اللهُ عَلَی قُلُوبِھِمْ فَھُمْ لاَیَعْلَمُونَ).

1. The spirit of the combatants and the aspiration for martyrdom: These verses vividly express the powerful and elevated spirit of the mujahidin of Islam, showing how deeply the love of jihad and martyrdom surged within their hearts and how they regarded this honor as superior to every other distinction. From this, the major causes of the rapid advancement of Islam at that time, and of our present backwardness, become evident. How can we expect those whose eyes overflow with tears when they are excused from participation in jihad to be equated with those who fabricate excuses in order to avoid it? If the same spirit of faith were to be revived today, and if the love and passion for martyrdom were once again to surge in hearts, success and progress would surely follow today just as they did at the dawn of Islam. The real tragedy is that we have merely donned the outward garb of Islam, while Islam has not penetrated the depths of our being; yet we still wish to see ourselves as successful as the Muslims of the early period. 2. The multiple stages of jihad: From the verses under discussion it also becomes clear that no individual can ever be entirely exempt from cooperating with the mujahidin. Even those who are sick, blind, or naturally incapable of bearing arms and entering the battlefield are still obliged to encourage the combatants verbally or through other forms of support and proclamation, and to assist them in whatever manner is possible. Such individuals should not forget their responsibility, nor should they withdraw completely from all related efforts. In reality, jihad has multiple stages, and being exempt from one stage does not constitute exemption from all other stages. 3. The source of a broad legal principle: The statement “مَا عَلَی الْمُحْسِنِینَ مِنْ سَبِیلٍ” (“there is no ground for reproach or liability against the doers of good”) serves as the foundation of a wide‑ranging legal principle in juristic discussions, from which scholars have derived many rulings. For example, if property entrusted to a trustworthy person is lost without negligence or excess on the part of the trustee, that individual cannot be held liable for compensation. Alongside other evidences, this verse is cited as proof. There is no doubt that the verse was revealed in the context of jihad, but it is well known that a verse being revealed for a particular circumstance does not restrict its general applicability. In other words, the fact that a ruling is stated with regard to one specific case does not confine it exclusively to that case.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

Some exegetes state that these verses were revealed concerning those hypocrites whose number exceeded eighty, because when the Prophet returned from the expedition of Tabūk he ordered that no one should sit with them or converse with them. When they found themselves under intense social pressure, they began to offer excuses. Thereupon the above verses were revealed, which laid bare their reality. The theme of not trusting false excuses and oaths is discussed here as well; these verses likewise concern the satanic actions of the hypocrites. One after another, the veil is lifted from their various deeds, and the Muslims are warned not to be deceived by their hypocritical behavior and outwardly pleasing words. In the first verse under discussion it is stated: when you return to them (from the campaign of Tabūk) toward Medina, the hypocrites will come after you and offer excuses (يَعْتَذِرُونَ إِلَيْكُمْ إِذَا رَجَعْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ). The verb yaʿtadhirūn is in the present tense, which indicates that God, in advance, informed the Noble Prophet and the Muslims that very soon the hypocrites would come offering false apologies; therefore, the manner of responding to them was also taught to the Muslims beforehand. Then, addressing the Prophet as the leader of the Muslims, it is said: tell the hypocrites, “Do not make excuses; we will never believe you” (قُلْ لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا لَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لَكُمْ), “because God has informed us of your affairs” (قَدْ نَبَّأَنَا اللهُ مِنْ أَخْبَارِكُمْ). Thus, we are fully aware of your satanic plots. Nevertheless, the door of return and repentance remains open for you. Soon God and His Messenger will see your deeds (وَسَيَرَى اللهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ). In the exegesis of this verse, another possibility has also been mentioned, namely that this sentence does not refer to repentance, but rather means that in the future as well, God and His Messenger (in accordance with revelation) will remain aware of your statements and schemes and will nullify them; therefore, you can achieve nothing, neither today nor tomorrow. However, the first interpretation appears to be more consistent with the context of the verse. Incidentally, it should be noted that we will discuss in detail, under verse 105 of this same sūrah, this statement and the issue of all the deeds of the community being presented before its Prophet. It is then stated that all your deeds and intentions will be recorded and preserved: “then you will be returned to the One who knows the unseen and the seen, and He will inform you of what you used to do” (ثُمَّ تُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَالِمِ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ), and He will recompense you for them. In the following verse, reference is again made to the false oaths of the hypocrites: they will soon resort to swearing in order to deceive you, and when you return to them they will swear by God so that you may turn away from them, forgive them, and overlook any fault they may have committed (سَيَحْلِفُونَ بِاللهِ لَكُمْ إِذَا انقَلَبْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ لِتُعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمْ). In reality, they will try every possible door: sometimes attempting to prove their innocence through excuses, sometimes confessing sin and demanding pardon and forbearance. They imagine that perhaps by some means they can find a place in your hearts. But you should not be influenced by them in any way, and you should “turn away from them,” not in the sense of forgiveness, but as an expression of disapproval (فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمْ). They seek iʿrāḍ in the sense of overlooking, whereas you are commanded to practice iʿrāḍ in the sense of rejection. These two expressions are similar in form yet convey entirely opposite meanings, a subtlety and elegance that will not be lost on discerning readers. It is then stated by way of emphasis, explanation, and reasoning: for they are impure, and one should indeed turn away from such filthy beings (إِنَّهُمْ رِجْسٌ). Because of this, they can have no abode except Hell (وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ), for Paradise is the dwelling place of the pure and righteous, not of the impure and corrupt. All of this is merely the recompense for the deeds they themselves committed (جَزَاءً بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ). In the final verse under discussion, another type of oath is mentioned: they insistently swear so that you may be pleased with them (يَحْلِفُونَ لَكُمْ لِتَرْضَوْا عَنْهُمْ). The oath mentioned in the first verse was taken so that the believers would not practically reproach them, whereas the oath referred to in this verse indicates that they also sought to gain the believers’ inner satisfaction and approval, beyond merely outward conduct. It is noteworthy that at this point God does not say, “Do not be pleased with them”; rather, the expression used here carries a tone of warning: if you are pleased with them, God will never be pleased with a people who are defiantly disobedient (فَإِنْ تَرْضَوْا عَنْهُمْ فَإِنَّ اللهَ لَا يَرْضَىٰ عَنْ الْقَوْمِ الْفَاسِقِينَ). There is no doubt that, in religious and moral terms, they did not seek to bring genuine contentment to the Muslims; rather, they sought by such means to remove the believers’ resentment so that they might be safe from their scrutiny in the future. However, by stating lā yardā ʿani al‑qawm al‑fāsiqīn, God warns the Muslims that these are transgressors and that they must never be pleased with them. These are nothing but their deceptive stratagems; therefore, remain vigilant lest you fall into their trap. How fitting it would be if, in every age, Muslims were to remain attentive to the satanic and well‑known schemes of the hypocrites, so that they may not be able to employ their old deceptive methods and thereby succeed in their evil aims.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses the discussion concerned the hypocrites of Medina. In these verses, correspondingly, attention is given to the characteristics and attitudes of the hypocritical Bedouins, alongside mention of the sincere and truthful Bedouin believers. This is perhaps in order to warn Muslims lest they imagine that hypocrites exist only within the city; it is pointed out that hypocritical Bedouins are even more severe than these. The history of Islam bears witness that Muslims were repeatedly attacked by such hypocrites. Owing to the successive victories of the Islamic army, there was a danger that this threat might be overlooked. In any case, in the first verse the Qur’an states that the Bedouin Arabs—because of their distance from education and upbringing and their failure to hear the divine verses and the sayings of the Prophet—are more intense in disbelief and hypocrisy (الْاَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا). For this very reason, they are more deserving of ignorance concerning the limits of what God has sent down to His Messenger (وَأَجْدَرُ أَلَّا يَعْلَمُوا حُدُودَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ). The word “al‑aʿrāb” belongs to those terms that have only a plural form, yet, according to Arabic lexicography, it has no singular. As scholars of the language—such as the authors of al‑Qāmūs, al‑Ṣiḥāḥ, and Tāj al‑ʿArūs, as well as others—have stated, this term is used exclusively for Bedouin Arabs, and its singular form, with the suffix of relation, is “aʿrābī.” Accordingly, contrary to the conception held by many people, “al‑aʿrāb” is not the plural of “ʿarab.” The term “ajdar” derives from the root “j‑d‑r,” which means “wall,” and later came to be used for anything elevated or appropriate; thus, it is commonly employed in the sense of “more fitting” or “more appropriate.” At the end of the verse it is stated: God is Knowing and Wise; that is, if He issues such a judgment regarding the Bedouin Arabs, it is for a particular reason, because their environment embodies such attributes (وَاللهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ). However, so that no misconception might arise that all Bedouin Arabs, or all Bedouins throughout the world, possess these qualities, the following verse points to two distinct groups among them. It states: among these Bedouin Arabs there is a group who, whenever they spend something in the way of God, regard it—due to hypocrisy or weak faith—as a loss (مَغْرَمًا). One of their traits is that they constantly await calamities to befall you and hope that misfortune and failure will overtake you (وَيَتَرَبَّصُ بِكُمُ الدَّوَائِرَ). The word “dawāʾir” is the plural of “dāʾirah”; while its basic meaning is well known, the Arabs use “dāʾirah” for those severe and painful events that encompass and beset a person, and in the plural form they say “dawāʾir.” In reality, such people are narrow‑minded, miserly, and intensely envious. Because of their miserliness, they count every kind of financial contribution in the path of God as a loss, and because of their envy, they await hardships and afflictions for others. It is then stated that you should not expect calamities and misfortunes to descend upon you, nor should they await them for you, because these hardships, failures, and miseries are in fact seeking only that hypocritical, faithless, ignorant, foolish, narrow‑minded, and envious group (عَلَيْهِمْ دَائِرَةُ السَّوْءِ). At the conclusion of the verse it is stated: God is All‑Hearing and All‑Knowing (وَاللهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ); He hears their words and is aware of their intentions and inner thoughts. In the final verse, attention is drawn to the second group, namely the sincere believers among the Bedouins, and it is stated: among the Bedouin Arabs there is a group who believe in God and the Last Day (وَمِنَ الْاَعْرَابِ مَنْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ). Accordingly, they do not regard spending in the path of God as a loss, but rather, with attention to God’s vast recompense and reward in the Hereafter, they consider it a means of proximity to God and a cause for the attention and supplication of the Prophet, which is an honor and a great blessing (وَيَتَّخِذُ مَا يُنْفِقُ قُرُبَاتٍ عِنْدَ اللهِ وَصَلَوَاتِ الرَّسُولِ). Here, God Almighty emphatically affirms their way of thinking and says: Be aware that indeed this spending of theirs is a means of nearness for them in the presence of God (أَلَا إِنَّهَا قُرْبَةٌ لَهُمْ). On this basis, God will soon admit them into His mercy (سَيُدْخِلُهُمُ اللهُ فِي رَحْمَتِهِ); if any slips occur on their part, He will forgive them on account of their faith and their deeds. God is Forgiving and Merciful (إِنَّ اللهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ). The successive emphases in this verse are particularly striking: the words “alā” and “inna” are both used for emphasis; thereafter comes the phrase “sayudkhiluhumu llāhu fī raḥmatih,” and especially the use of the preposition “fī,” which conveys being immersed in God’s mercy. Finally, the concluding statement again begins with “inna” and mentions God’s attributes of compassion and mercy—“Ghafūr” and “Raḥīm.” All of this expresses the utmost divine grace and mercy toward this group. Despite being deprived of education and training and lacking sufficient access to divine verses and the teachings of the Prophet, they accepted Islam with heart and soul, and despite limited financial means—which are inherent in a Bedouin existence—they do not refrain from spending in the path of God. Perhaps for this reason, they are more deserving of appreciation than those who live in cities and possess every kind of resource. Particular attention is warranted to this point: concerning the hypocritical Bedouins, the expression “عَلَيْهِمْ دَائِرَةُ السَّوْءِ” is used, indicating that misfortunes encompass them; while for the believing and self‑sacrificing Bedouins the expression “فِي رَحْمَتِهِ” is used, indicating that divine mercy envelops them. One group is surrounded by misery, while the other is encompassed by divine mercy.

1. Large population centers: The importance that Islam attaches to great societies and major population centers becomes clear from the above verse. This point deserves attention: Islam arose from such a backward environment that it showed no trace of civilization, yet it nevertheless recognizes the special significance of the formative factors of civilization and is mindful of the fact that those who live in remote areas far from cities lag behind in faith and religious knowledge because they lack sufficient resources and opportunities for education and training. Therefore, in Nahj al‑Balāghah, Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (peace be upon him) states: وَٱلزَمُوا ٱلسَّوَادَ ٱلْأَعْظَمَ فَإِنَّ يَدَ ٱللَّهِ مَعَ ٱلْجَمَاعَةِ Remain attached to the major centers, for God’s hand is with the community. (Nahj al‑Balāghah, sermon 127). However, the meaning of this is not that everyone should turn toward the cities and leave the villages—upon which urban populations depend—deserted. On the contrary, knowledge and learning should be carried from the cities to the villages, and efforts should be made to promote and strengthen education and training, religion and faith, and awakening and awareness in rural areas. There is no doubt that if rural populations are left to their own condition and deprived of urban knowledge and culture, the verses of the heavenly books, and the teachings of the Messenger of God and the true guides, disbelief and hypocrisy will rapidly surround them. Rural people are more receptive to proper education and training, because among them there are more people of pure hearts and sound minds, untouched by corruption, and urban intrigues and conspiracies are fewer among them. 2. Bedouin mentality among city dwellers: Although “aʿrābī” literally means “Bedouin,” in Islamic traditions it has been given a broader meaning. In other words, its Islamic sense is not tied to a particular place or region, but rather to a mode of thought and an intellectual orientation. Those who are distant from Islamic manners, norms, and proper education are aʿrābī, even if they live in cities, while Bedouins who are aware of Islamic manners and norms are not considered aʿrāb. In a well‑known narration transmitted from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq, he said: مَنْ لَمْ يَتَفَقَّهْ مِنْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَهُوَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ Whoever among you does not gain understanding in religion is an aʿrābī. (Cited in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 254). This statement is a clear testimony to our foregoing discussion. In another narration it is stated: مِنَ ٱلْكُفْرِ ٱلتَّعَرُّبُ بَعْدَ ٱلْهِجْرَةِ To revert to Bedouin ways and taʿarrub after the Hijrah is disbelief. Likewise, in Nahj al‑Balāghah it is reported that Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (peace be upon him), addressing disobedient individuals among his companions, said: وَٱعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ صِرْتُمْ بَعْدَ ٱلْهِجْرَةِ أَعْرَابًا Know that after the Hijrah you have become aʿrāb. (Nahj al‑Balāghah, sermon, p. 192). In the two narrations above, being an aʿrābī is placed in contrast to the Hijrah. If we note that the broader meaning of Hijrah is not confined to physical migration or geography, but rather rests on shifting one’s intellectual axis from disbelief to faith, then the meaning of being an aʿrābī also becomes clear: returning from Islamic manners and norms to the customs of jāhiliyyah. 3. The concept of proximity to God: In the above verses it is stated regarding believing Bedouins that they regard their expenditures and actions as a means of attaining closeness to God. In particular, the word “قُرُبَات” is used in the plural, indicating that they seek not one, but many forms of nearness thereby. There is no doubt that nearness to God does not mean spatial or physical proximity, but rather proximity in rank, station, and worth—that is, drawing closer to the Absolute Perfection and allowing the attributes of Divine beauty and majesty to cast their shadow upon one’s soul and intellect.

At times it is said that among women the first to embrace Islam was Khadījah, among men the first was Abū Bakr, and among children the first was ʿAlī. By this formulation they in fact seek to diminish the significance of this matter (this expression has been mentioned by the well‑known and partisan exegete, the author of al‑Manār, under the verse in question). Whereas, first of all, as we have already stated, the young age of Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī, peace be upon him, at that time does not diminish the importance of this matter at all, especially when the Qur’an says concerning Ḥaḍrat Yaḥyā: وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا — “We granted him wisdom while still a child” (Maryam 12). Likewise, regarding Ḥaḍrat ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, it is stated that even in childhood he spoke out and said to those who doubted him: إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيًّا — “Indeed, I am the servant of God; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet” (Maryam 30). When such verses are considered together with the aforementioned ḥadīth in which the Prophet designated Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (ʿa) as his executor, caliph, and successor, it becomes clear that the partisan discourse of the author of al‑Manār carries no real weight. Secondly, it is not historically established that Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr was the third person to accept Islam; rather, numerous historical and ḥadīth works mention many individuals who accepted Islam before him. We conclude this discussion with the point that Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (ʿa), in his own statements, explicitly indicated that he was the first believer, the first Muslim, and the first to perform prayer alongside the Messenger of God, and through this he clarified his rank and status. This has been transmitted from him in many works. Moreover, Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd narrates from the renowned Muʿtazilī scholar Abū Jaʿfar al‑Iskāfī that those who claim that Abū Bakr preceded others in Islam should explain why, if this were correct, he himself never used it at any point as an argument for his merit, nor did any of his supporters among the Companions ever make such a claim (cited in al‑Ghadīr, vol. 2, p. 240). Were all the Companions righteous and virtuous? We have previously alluded to the fact that Sunni scholars generally hold the belief that all the Companions of the Messenger of God were pure, righteous, virtuous, worthy, and destined for Paradise. Some people take the verse under discussion as definitive proof of this claim. In this context, we once again analyze and examine this important issue, which is the source of many problems and disagreements in Islamic matters. Many Sunni exegetes transmit under this verse that Ḥumayd b. Ziyād said: I went to Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al‑Quraẓī and asked him what he said concerning the Companions of the Messenger of God, and he replied: جَمِيعُ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ (ص) فِي الْجَنَّةِ مُحْسِنِهُمْ وَمُسِيئِهِمْ — “All the Companions of the Messenger of God are in Paradise, whether among them the righteous or the sinners.” I asked: “From where do you say this?” He replied: “Recite this verse: وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ … until where it says: رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ.” He then added: but regarding the Followers (tābiʿīn) there is one condition, namely that they follow the Companions only in their good deeds (that is, the Followers attain salvation only on this condition, whereas no such condition applies to the Companions). (Cited in Tafsīr al‑Manār and Tafsīr al‑Kabīr by Fakhr al‑Rāzī under the verse in question.) However, this claim is unacceptable on the basis of many arguments. First, the ruling mentioned in the verse applies equally to the Followers as well, and by Followers is meant, as we have indicated, all those who follow the conduct and path of the foremost among the Emigrants and the Helpers. On this basis, the entire community without exception should be considered saved. As for the explanation given in the narration attributed to Muḥammad b. Kaʿb, that God imposed the condition of “doing good” (iḥsān) for the Followers, meaning that they follow the Companions only in their good practices and not in their sins, this is among the strangest of claims, because its implication is that the branch is given precedence over the root. If following righteous deeds is a condition of salvation for the Followers, then by greater reason this condition should apply to the Companions themselves. In other words, God, in the verse under discussion, declares His pleasure and satisfaction for those Emigrants and Helpers and their Followers whose manner of life is sound, not that He is pleased with all Emigrants and Helpers regardless of whether they are righteous or corrupt, while making His pleasure conditional only for the Followers. Second, this claim is wholly incompatible with reason, because reason does not concede any intrinsic distinction for the Companions of the Prophet over others. What difference is there between Abū Jahl and those individuals who believed in the Prophet’s religion and later deviated? Those who came into the world centuries after the Messenger of God, whose sacrifices and self‑devotion in the path of Islam were no less than those of the early Companions—indeed, their distinction lies in the fact that they recognized and believed in the noble Prophet without ever having seen him—how could they be deprived of God’s mercy and pleasure? How could the Qur’an that says the most honored and noble in the sight of God is the most God‑fearing accept such an illogical discrimination and preference? How could the Qur’an, which in its various verses curses the unjust and the corrupters and deems them deserving of divine punishment, endorse an illogical immunity and protection of the Companions from divine punishment? Are such curses and threats in the Qur’an to be considered exceptions, from which one group is excluded? Why and for what reason? Apart from all this, does such a judgment not amount to granting the Companions license for every kind of sin and disobedience? Third, such a judgment is in no way consistent with Islamic history, because there were many individuals who were, at one point, among the Helpers and the Emigrants and later deviated from that path, and the Messenger of God became displeased and angry with them; and it is evident that the displeasure of the Messenger of God entails the wrath of God. Did we not, in the preceding verses, read the account of Thaʿlabah b. Ḥāṭib al‑Anṣārī, how he deviated and incurred the anger of the Prophet? More explicitly, if what they intend is that all the Companions of the Messenger never committed any sin and were infallible and pure from every act of disobedience, then this amounts to denying evident facts. If they intend that they committed sins and performed wrongful acts, yet God is nevertheless pleased with them, then the implication is that God granted indulgence toward sin. Who can absolve Ṭalḥah and Zubayr, who were initially among the special Companions of the Messenger of God, and likewise ʿĀʾishah, the wife of the Messenger of God, from responsibility for the blood of seventeen thousand Muslims killed in the Battle of the Camel? Was God pleased with that bloodshed? As for opposing ʿAlī (ʿa), who was the caliph of the Messenger—assuming, for the sake of argument, that his caliphate was not expressly designated—at the very least he was chosen by the consensus and agreement of the community. Was drawing the sword against him and against his loyal supporters an act with which God was pleased? The reality is that the doctrine of “the absolute sanctification of the Companions” is a supposition whose proponents, through insistence and pressure, have distorted the pure face of Islam, which everywhere makes faith and righteous action the criterion of individual merit. The final point is that God’s pleasure and satisfaction mentioned in the verse under discussion are tied to specific matters, namely migration, support, faith, and righteous action. All Companions and Followers were included in God’s pleasure so long as they adhered to these, and the day any of them turned away from them, he also turned away from divine pleasure. From what we have stated, it becomes clear that the reproach leveled by that partisan exegete, namely the author of al‑Manār, against the Shiʿa for not believing in the absolute purity and rectitude of all the Companions, carries no weight. The Shiʿa have committed no offense other than accepting the judgment of reason and the testimony of history and the Qur’an, and refusing to heed the baseless and incorrect distinctions asserted by partisan individuals.

The Qur’an once again turns the direction of the discussion toward the hypocrites. It is stated: among those who dwell around your city (Medina) there is a group of hypocrites (وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَکُمْ مِنْ الْاَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ). That is, do not confine attention only to internal hypocrites; rather, remain alert and keep watch over the external hypocrites as well. Observe their dangerous activities and remain vigilant regarding them too. The word “aʿrāb,” as has been indicated earlier, is generally used for the Bedouin Arabs. It is then further stated that within Medina itself and among the inhabitants of this city there is a group whose hypocrisy has reached the level of defiant rebellion; they are firmly entrenched in it and are experienced therein (وَمِنْ اَھْلِ الْمَدِینَةِ مَرَدُوا عَلَی النِّفَاقِ). The term “maradū” derives from the root “m‑r‑d” (on the pattern of “sard”), which conveys the meanings of absolute transgression, rebellion, and estrangement. In its original sense it denotes “bareness” and “stripping away.” For this reason, boys on whose faces hair has not yet grown are called “amrad,” and a “shajaratun mardāʾ” refers to a tree completely devoid of leaves, while “mārid” denotes a person who has entirely broken away from obedience and command. Some commentators and lexicographers have also mentioned “practice” or “training” (tamrīn) as one meaning of this root (this meaning is also cited in Tāj al‑ʿArūs and al‑Qāmūs). This may be because total detachment and complete separation from something are not possible without practice. In any case, these hypocrites are so devoid of truth and reality, and so skilled in their conduct, that they present themselves among sincere Muslims in such a way that no one becomes aware of their hypocrisy. The difference in expression used in the verse under discussion regarding internal and external hypocrites appears to point to the fact that the internal hypocrites are more adept in their actions; therefore, they are naturally more dangerous, and Muslims should keep a strict watch over them, even though they should not remain heedless of the external hypocrites either. For this reason, it is immediately stated thereafter: you do not know them, but We know them (لاَتَعْلَمھُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُھُمْ). This, however, refers to the general state of the Prophet’s knowledge and does not contradict the fact that through revelation and divine instruction he was fully informed of their secrets. At the end of the verse, the punishment and severe chastisement for this group are described as follows: We shall soon punish them twice, and then they will be returned to a great punishment (سَنُعَذِّبُھُمْ مَرَّتَیْنِ ثُمَّ یُرَدُّونَ إِلَی عَذَابٍ عَظِیم). There is no doubt that “the great punishment” refers to the torment and penalties of the Day of Resurrection, but regarding the two punishments mentioned prior to that, there is disagreement among the commentators as to what is meant, and numerous possibilities have been proposed. It appears most likely, however, that one of these punishments is the collective social chastisement that will occur when, after their disgrace and the exposure of their secrets, they lose all social standing and importance; this is perhaps alluded to in the preceding verses and is also mentioned in some traditions, which state that when the matter of these people reached dangerous stages, the Messenger of God would identify them, to the extent that they were even expelled from the mosque. The second punishment for them is the same as that to which reference has been made in verse 50 of Sūrat al‑Anfāl, where it is said: ولو تریٰ اذ یتوفی الذین کفروا الملآئکة یضربون وجوھھم و ادبارھم الخ If you were to see the disbelievers at the time when the angels take their souls, how the angels strike their faces and their backs and punish them, you would grieve at their condition. It is also possible that the second punishment refers to inner anguish and spiritual torment, the pain inflicted upon them as they witness the Muslims’ successes on all sides.

Several narrations have been transmitted concerning the occasion of revelation (شأنِ نزول) of the verse under discussion, and in most of them the name of Abū Lubābah al‑Anṣārī appears. According to one report, he, together with two or several Companions of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, did not participate in the Expedition of Tabūk. When these individuals heard the verses revealed censuring those who had remained behind, they were overwhelmed by grief and remorse and bound themselves to the pillars of the Prophet’s Mosque. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny inquired about them and was informed that they had sworn not to free themselves from the pillars until the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself came and released them. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied that he too swore not to do so unless God granted him permission. Thereupon, the above verse was revealed, and God accepted their repentance. The Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny then came and released them from the pillars of the mosque. As an expression of gratitude for this acceptance, they brought all of their wealth to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: This is the very wealth and property to which we clung out of attachment and because of which we refrained from participating in jihād. Accept it from us and expend it in the path of God. The Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: As yet, no command concerning this has been revealed to me. Shortly thereafter, the following verse was revealed, commanding him to take a portion of their wealth; and according to some narrations, he was instructed to accept one‑third of it. Other narrations state that the above verse was revealed in connection with Abū Lubābah during the incident of Banū Qurayẓah. The Jewish tribe of Qurayẓah had consulted Abū Lubābah as to whether they should accept the judgment of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny or not. He replied that if they accepted the Prophet’s judgment, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny would have their heads struck off. After making this statement, Abū Lubābah became remorseful, repented, and bound himself to a pillar of the mosque. Thereafter, the above verse was revealed, and God accepted his repentance.

In the previous verse, the condition of the internal and external hypocrites of Madinah was described. Here, reference is made to a group of sinful Muslims who repented and undertook action to compensate for their wrongful deeds. It is stated: And others have confessed their sins (وَآخَرُونَ اعْتَرَفُوا بِذُنُوبِهِمْ), and they have mixed a righteous deed with another that was evil (خَلَطُوا عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَآخَرَ سَيِّئًا). It is then further stated: It may be that God will turn toward them in mercy and accept their repentance (عَسَى اللَّهُ أَنْ يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ), for indeed God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful (إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ), and the possessor of vast and boundless mercy. In the above verse, the expression “عَسَىٰ” has been used. This expression generally appears in contexts where the possibilities of success and failure coexist. This may be so that such individuals are kept between hope and fear, for both of these states are means of moral refinement, spiritual growth, and proper training. It is also possible that the use of “عَسَىٰ” indicates that, in addition to repentance, remorse, and regret, other conditions must also be fulfilled, and that they should compensate for their past through righteous deeds. However, given that the verse concludes with an explicit reference to God’s forgiveness and mercy, the aspect of hope clearly predominates. It is also evident that although this verse was revealed concerning Abū Lubābah or other individuals who stayed behind from the Expedit

See ayat 105 for tafseer.

See ayat 105 for tafseer.

In the first verse under consideration, reference is made to an important Islamic ordinance, namely zakāt, and the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded, as a general rule, to collect charity—that is, zakāt—from people’s wealth (مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً). The particle “مِنْ”, which denotes partitivity, indicates that zakāt constitutes only a portion of one’s wealth, not the entirety of it, nor does the whole wealth become zakāt. The verse then points to two aspects of the ethical, psychological, and social philosophy of zakāt, stating that through it one purifies them and causes them to grow (تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَتُزَكِّيهِمْ بِهَا). That is, zakāt purifies people from moral vices such as miserliness, materialism, and excessive attachment to the world, and nurtures qualities such as generosity and respect for the rights of others. Moreover, by fulfilling this divine obligation, the social evils that arise from deprivation, poverty, crime, and class disparity within a segment of society are removed, thereby cleansing society of these corruptions. Social cohesion, growth, and economic advancement are also achieved through such measures. Thus, the command of zakāt both purifies the individual and society on the one hand, and on the other hand fosters the growth of virtuous qualities among people while facilitating social progress. This is indeed one of the most comprehensive ways to describe zakāt: it removes impurities while simultaneously serving as a means of development and perfection. It has also been suggested in interpreting the verse that “تُطَهِّرُهُمْ” has zakāt as its subject, while “تُزَكِّيهِمْ” has the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny as its subject. According to this reading, the verse would mean that zakāt purifies them, and through it the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny nurtures their growth. However, it appears more apparent that both verbs have the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny as their subject, as reflected in the interpretation given above, though in outcome there is little difference between these two readings. The verse then adds: when they give zakāt, pray for them and invoke blessings upon them (وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ). This indicates that even when people fulfill their obligatory duties, they should be appreciated and encouraged—particularly through moral and spiritual means. Accordingly, it is narrated that when zakāt was brought to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he would supplicate for the givers by saying “اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ.” The verse further states that your prayer and blessing are a means of tranquility for them (إِنَّ صَلَاتَكَ سَكَنٌ لَهُمْ), for through this supplication divine mercy descends upon their hearts and souls, and they perceive it. Moreover, when the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny or his successors express appreciation and accept zakāt, this provides believers with a form of spiritual and intellectual reassurance: although they have outwardly given something away, they have in fact attained something far greater in return. It is noteworthy that, even today, it is rarely heard that tax collectors are required to thank contributors. Yet this recommended practice reveals the deep respect for human dignity embedded within the Islamic system of values. The verse concludes, in keeping with the preceding discussion, by stating that God is All‑Hearing and All‑Knowing (وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ)— He hears the supplication of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and knows the intentions of those who give zakāt.

1. Accepted Zakāt: From the occasion of revelation mentioned above, it becomes clear that this verse is closely connected with those verses that relate to the incident of Abū Lubābah and his companions’ repentance. After their repentance was accepted, they brought all of their property to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny as a gesture of gratitude, and he accepted a portion of their wealth. This occasion of revelation does not contradict the fact that the verse also establishes a general ruling concerning zakāt. The assumption by some exegetes that there is a contradiction between the two is unfounded, as has been repeatedly clarified regarding other verses and their occasions of revelation. One question nevertheless remains: according to this report, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny accepted one‑third of Abū Lubābah’s and his companions’ wealth, whereas the prescribed amounts of zakāt never reach one‑third. For wheat, barley, dates, and raisins, zakāt is one‑tenth or one‑twentieth; for gold and silver it is two and a half percent; and for cattle, sheep, and camels, zakāt likewise does not amount to one‑third. This may be explained by saying that the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny accepted part of their wealth as zakāt and the remainder as expiation for their sins. Thus, he took the obligatory zakāt from them and also accepted an additional portion as a means of purifying them from their sins, the total of which equaled one‑third of their property. 2. The Meaning of “خُذْ”: The term means “take.” This command constitutes clear evidence that the head of an Islamic government has the authority to collect zakāt from the people, rather than merely waiting to see whether they choose to pay it voluntarily. 3. The Generality of the Command “صَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ”: Although “صَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ” is addressed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is evident that the ruling is general, since as a principle the specific commands given to the Prophet require special evidence to be considered exclusive. Therefore, officials and guardians of the public treasury may, in every era, pray for donors by saying “اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ.” It is, however, surprising that some biased individuals among the Sunnis consider invoking blessings upon the family of the Prophet impermissible—for example, regarding phrases such as “اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ” or “صَلِّ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ الزَّهْرَاءِ.” Such a prohibition would itself require proof, whereas permissibility does not require proof. Moreover, as indicated above, the Qur’an explicitly allows such supplications for ordinary people, let alone for the family of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, his successors, and the friends of God. Some sinners—such as those who remained behind from the Expedition of Tabūk—used to implore the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny to accept their repentance. In this regard, the second verse under discussion points out that accepting repentance is not the task of the Messenger: Do they not know that God alone accepts repentance from His servants? (أَلَمْ يَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ يَقْبَلُ التَّوْبَةَ عَنْ عِبَادِهِ). He not only accepts repentance, but it is God Himself who takes the zakāt and other alms that are given either as expiation for sins or as a means of drawing closer to Him (وَيَأْخُذُ الصَّدَقَاتِ). There is no doubt that zakāt and alms are collected by the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the Imams, or the leaders of the Muslims, or are received by those entitled to them. Nevertheless, since the hand of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the rightful guides is the hand of God—inasmuch as they are His representatives—it is as though God Himself receives these alms. Likewise, the needy who accept assistance by God’s command are, in reality, His representatives, and thus their hands are also the hand of God. This subtle point powerfully illustrates the grandeur and dignity of the Islamic institution of zakāt. In addition to encouraging Muslims to fulfill this great divine obligation, they are thereby reminded to observe the utmost respect and decorum in giving zakāt and charity, for the true recipient is God. One must not imagine, through shortsightedness, that humiliating or demeaning the needy is permissible, or that alms may be given in a manner that injures their dignity. On the contrary, zakāt should be delivered to its rightful recipients with humility and reverence, as an expression of courtesy before one’s true Benefactor. It is narrated from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny: إِنَّ الصَّدَقَةَ تَقَعُ فِي يَدِ اللَّهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَبْلُغَ إِلَىٰ يَدِ السَّائِلِ “Charity reaches the hand of God before it reaches the hand of the beggar.” In another narration from Imām Zayn al‑ʿĀbidīn (عليه السلام): إِنَّ الصَّدَقَةَ لَا تَقَعُ فِي يَدِ الْعَبْدِ حَتَّىٰ تَقَعَ فِي يَدِ الرَّبِّ “Charity does not reach the hand of the servant until it first reaches the hand of the Lord.” There is even a report that all other deeds are taken under the charge of the angels, except charity, which goes directly into the hand of God. Similar meanings are also transmitted in Sunnī sources. These narrations, rich in metaphor and allusion, underscore the immense importance of service to humanity and assisting the needy within Islamic teachings. Finally, the verse concludes with emphatic reassurance: And indeed God is the One who constantly accepts repentance and is Most Merciful (وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ).

As is evident from numerous verses of the Holy Qur’an, repentance (tawbah) is not limited merely to regret and remorse over sin. Rather, alongside remorse, it necessarily includes reform and rectification, and often requires concrete reparation. Such reparation may manifest in the form of unconditional assistance to those in need, as we have seen in the above verses and in the incident of Abū Lubābah. There is no distinction in this regard between sins related to financial matters and those of other kinds, as has already become clear in the case of those who stayed behind from the Expedition of Tabūk. In essence, the objective is to cleanse the soul polluted by sin through righteous, virtuous, and worthy actions, restoring it to its original and natural purity. In the following verse, the preceding discussions are reaffirmed in a renewed form. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to proclaim to all people that they should perform their duties and responsibilities, and to know that God, His Messenger, and the believers observe their actions (وَقُلِ اعْمَلُوا فَسَيَرَى اللَّهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ). This indicates that no one should imagine that actions performed in secrecy or within a group escape the awareness of God. Rather, in addition to God, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the believers are also aware of them. Attentiveness to this reality and faith in it play a powerful role in preserving the purity of actions and intentions. Ordinarily, if a person senses that even one individual is observing him, he adjusts his conduct to avoid reproach—how much more so when he realizes that God, His Messenger, and the believers are fully aware of his deeds. Soon you will be returned to the One who knows both the unseen and the manifest, and He will inform you of what you used to do and recompense you accordingly (وَسَتُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَالِمِ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ).

1. The Issue of the Presentation of Deeds (عرض الأعمال): In light of numerous reports transmitted from the Imams, it is a well‑known and widely accepted belief among the followers of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام) that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams of guidance (عليهم السلام) are made aware of the deeds of the entire community—meaning that God Almighty, through special means, presents the deeds of the الأمة before them. The narrations reported in this regard are abundant and may even reach the level of tawātur. By way of example, we cite a number of representative reports below. It is reported from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that he said: تعرض الاعمال علی رسول اعمال العباد کل صباح، ابرارها و فجارها، فاحذروها، و قول الله عزوجل و قل اعملوا فسیری الله عملکم و رسوله و سکت. “All the deeds of people are presented before the Messenger of God every morning—whether the deeds of the righteous or the sinful. So be mindful of this, and this is the meaning of the saying of God Almighty: وَقُلِ اعْمَلُوا فَسَيَرَى اللَّهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ.” Having said this, the Imam remained silent. Another report is transmitted from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام), in which he states: ان الاعمال تعرض علی نبیکم کل عشیة الخمیس فلیستح احدکم ان تعرض علی نبیه العمل القبیح. “All your deeds are presented to your Prophet every Thursday evening; therefore, one of you should feel ashamed that an evil deed be presented to the Prophet.” A further narration is transmitted from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (عليه السلام) that a man asked him to pray for him and his family. The Imam replied: “Do I not pray? By God, your deeds are indeed presented before me every day and every night.” The narrator says that this statement weighed heavily upon him. The Imam then turned to him and said: “Have you not read the Book of God Almighty: وَقُلِ اعْمَلُوا فَسَيَرَى اللَّهُ عَمَلَكُمْ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ—and by God, the ‘believers’ here refer to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (and the remaining Imams from his progeny).” In some narrations, only the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is mentioned; in others, ʿAlī (عليه السلام); and in yet others, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny together with all the Imams. Some narrations specify Thursday afternoons, while others speak of daily presentation, twice weekly, monthly, or at the time of death and burial. These narrations are not contradictory and may all be valid—similar to how reports are presented daily, weekly, monthly, or annually to higher authorities in various institutions. The question arises whether this understanding is derived from the verse itself and its related narrations, or whether—as some Sunni exegetes claim—the verse merely indicates that human actions inevitably become known, and that God, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and the believers become aware of them through ordinary means. In response, fairness dictates that the verse itself contains clear indications. First, the verse is absolute and encompasses all deeds, whereas it is known that not all deeds become apparent to the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny or the believers through ordinary means—since many evil acts are committed secretly, and even many good deeds remain hidden. Claiming that most good deeds become publicly visible would be untenable. Hence, awareness of all deeds must occur through extraordinary, divinely granted means. Second, the verse concludes with فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ, which undoubtedly includes all actions, hidden or manifest. The apparent meaning is that the word عمل at the beginning and the end of the verse bears the same sense. Thus, the initial part concerns awareness of all deeds, and such awareness cannot arise through ordinary means. Third, the inclusion of المؤمنون is meaningful only if all deeds—known through extraordinary means—are intended; otherwise, manifest deeds are observed by believers and non‑believers alike. From this, it becomes clear that المؤمنون here does not refer to all believers, but to specific individuals endowed with divine knowledge of the unseen—namely, the true successors of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. An important point deserving attention is that belief in the presentation of deeds has a profound educational effect. When one knows that God—who is ever‑present—along with the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the beloved leaders, becomes aware of every deed daily or weekly, one inevitably exercises greater caution and mindfulness in conduct. This is akin to an employee who knows that detailed reports are regularly presented to senior officials. 2. Does “Seeing” Here Mean Vision or Knowledge? Some exegetes maintain that in فَسَيَرَى اللَّهُ عَمَلَكُمْ, the verb seeing signifies recognition, not knowledge, arguing that ruʾyah takes only one object. However, it is permissible to understand ruʾyah in its literal sense of perceptive observation. While this poses no issue with respect to God, who encompasses all perceptions, it presents no difficulty concerning the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams (عليهم السلام) either—since deeds are not annihilated, but persist until the Day of Resurrection and may be shown to them. 3. What Is Meant by “Soon God Will See Your Deeds”? There is no doubt that God knows deeds even before they are performed. The phrase فَسَيَرَى اللَّهُ refers to observing deeds after their realization—their concrete existence. Thus, the verse points to awareness of deeds in their actualized form.

Some exegetes state that the above verse pertains to the three individuals—Hilāl ibn Umayyah, Murārah ibn Rabīʿ, and Kaʿb ibn Mālik—who remained behind from the Expedition of Tabūk, whose remorse and the manner of acceptance of their repentance will be discussed under verse 118 of this same sūrah. Other reports indicate that the above verse concerns certain disbelievers who had killed eminent figures of Islam—such as Sayyid al‑Shuhadāʾ Ḥamzah and others like him—in various battles against the Muslims, and thereafter renounced polytheism and entered the religion of Islam. In interpreting this verse, reference is thus made to another category of sinners whose final outcome was not yet definitively determined: they were neither such that they could be regarded as unquestionably deserving of divine mercy, nor such that one should completely despair of their forgiveness. Accordingly, the Qur’an states regarding them: the matter of another group is deferred to the command of God—either He will punish them or He will accept their repentance (وَآخَرُونَ مُرْجَوْنَ لِأَمْرِ اللَّهِ إِمَّا يُعَذِّبُهُمْ وَإِمَّا يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ). The term “مُرْجَوْنَ” derives from “إرجاء”, which denotes delay and postponement, and is originally connected to “رجاء”, meaning hope. In this context, it signifies a postponement that nevertheless carries hope within it. In reality, these individuals were neither possessors of such pure, firm faith and righteous deeds that they could be deemed felicitous and assured of salvation, nor were they so corrupt and deviant that a definitive mark of condemnation could be drawn against them and they be declared utterly doomed. Rather, a judgment would be rendered concerning them in accordance with divine grace, commensurate with their spiritual standing and condition. At the conclusion of the verse, it is further stated that God will not deal with them arbitrarily or without due reckoning, but will act strictly in accordance with the demands of knowledge and wisdom, for indeed God is All‑Knowing and All‑Wise (وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ).

An important question arises here that exegetes have rarely discussed in a comprehensive manner. The question is this: what difference exists between this group and the group whose condition was described earlier in this sūrah in verse 102? Both groups were sinful, and both repented for their sins. The first group openly confessed its wrongdoing and expressed remorse, while with respect to the second group the phrase “إِمَّا يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ” indicates that they too repented. Likewise, both groups hoped for divine mercy and remained suspended between fear and hope. The answer is that these two groups may be distinguished in two ways. First, the initial group repented immediately and expressed remorse openly, even binding themselves to the pillars of the mosque as a manifest sign of repentance, as has been recounted in the case of Abū Lubābah. In short, they demonstrated their regret explicitly and displayed readiness for every form of restitution, bodily and financial. In contrast, the individuals of the second group did not initially disclose their state, even though they were remorseful inwardly; nor did they immediately demonstrate readiness to compensate for their past actions. In reality, they sought an easier and less demanding path to absolution. A clear example of this group consists of the three individuals mentioned earlier, whose condition will soon be explained in detail. They remained suspended between fear and hope. Consequently, we observe that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny ordered the community to dissociate from them and sever relations. Thus, they were subjected to intense social pressure and were ultimately compelled to adopt the same path as the first group. Because the announcement of acceptance of their repentance occurred through the revelation of a verse, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny awaited divine revelation during this period, until after fifty days—or slightly less—their repentance was accepted. It is for this reason that with regard to the first group, until they had altered their conduct, the expression “وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ” appears, which does not explicitly state acceptance of repentance. It is therefore not surprising that for grave sins, especially during the period of Qur’ānic revelation, mere remorse was insufficient for repentance to be accepted; rather, concrete restitution, explicit confession, and ultimately the revelation of a verse were conditions for its acceptance. Second, another possible distinction between the two groups is that although the first group neglected a major Islamic obligation—namely participation in jihād—or disclosed certain military secrets to the enemy, they were not tainted by sins as grave as the killing of Ḥamzah, the leader of martyrs. Therefore, after their repentance and readiness for restitution, God accepted their repentance. The killing of Ḥamzah, however, was not a sin that could be compensated for, and thus the salvation of that group depended entirely upon divine decree: whether God would encompass them within His forgiveness or subject them to punishment. In any case, the first explanation accords with the narrations concerning the circumstances of revelation that link the verse under discussion to the three individuals who remained behind from the Expedition of Tabūk, while the second explanation corresponds with narrations transmitted through the channels of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام), which state that the verse pertains to Ḥamzah, Jaʿfar, and others of a similar rank. Upon careful reflection, these two explanations are not mutually exclusive; it is possible that both meanings are intended in the interpretation of the verse.

See ayat 110 for tafseer.

See ayat 110 for tafseer.

See ayat 110 for tafseer.

The verses under discussion concern a particular group of hypocrites who, in order to accomplish their sinister conspiracies, established a mosque in Madinah that later became known as Masjid Ḍirār. This incident has been recorded by all Islamic exegetes as well as in numerous works of ḥadīth and history, although some differences appear in the details. Based on what can be gathered from various commentaries and narrations, the summary of this event is as follows. A group of hypocrites came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: Grant us permission to build a mosque among the tribe of Banī Sālimah, near the Mosque of Qubāʾ, so that the weak, the sick, and the elderly—those who are unable to attend the congregational prayer—may offer their prayers there. Similarly, on rainy nights, those who are unable to come to your mosque may fulfill their religious obligation there. This took place at a time when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had already resolved to set out for the Expedition of Tabūk, and he granted them permission. They further requested: Would it be possible for you to come and pray in it yourself? The Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: At present, I have resolved to depart on a journey; however, if God wills, upon my return I shall come and pray in that mosque. When the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny returned from the Expedition of Tabūk, these individuals came to him again and said: We request that you come to our mosque, lead the prayer, and supplicate to God to bless it. This occurred while the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny had not yet entered the city of Madinah, when suddenly the angel bearing divine revelation descended and brought the above verses, exposing their deeds. Immediately thereafter, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny ordered that the mosque be burned, that its remaining structure be demolished, and that its site be used as a dumping place for refuse. If one were to consider their outward actions alone, one might initially be surprised by such a command. Is building a mosque for the convenience of the sick, the elderly, and emergency situations not a commendable religious and humanitarian service? Why, then, should such an order be issued? However, when one examines the true reality of the matter, it becomes clear how appropriate and well‑considered this command was. The explanation is as follows: A man named Abū ʿĀmir had embraced Christianity and allied himself with monastic life. He was regarded as an ascetic and devotee and enjoyed considerable influence within the tribe of Khazraj. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny migrated to Madinah and the Muslims gathered around him, Abū ʿĀmir—who had once been among those who foretold the coming of the Prophet—saw that people had turned away from him. As a result, he rose in opposition to Islam. He left Madinah and sought support from the disbelievers, urging Arab tribes to assist him, and actively participated in planning the Battle of Uḥud against the Muslims. He instructed that pits be dug between the ranks of the armies; by circumstance, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny fell into one of these pits, sustaining injuries to his forehead and breaking his blessed tooth. Although the Battle of Uḥud brought difficulties upon the Muslims, the voice of Islam emerged even stronger thereafter, resonating widely. Abū ʿĀmir fled Madinah and went to the Roman emperor Heraclius, seeking his assistance to suppress the Muslims and raise an army against them. It is worth noting that due to these actions, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had already branded him with the title “الفقاسق”. Some reports state that death did not give him enough time to advance his plea to Heraclius, while others indicate that he met Heraclius and was reassured and pleased by his promises. In any case, before his death he wrote a letter to the hypocrites in Madinah, giving them glad tidings that he would return with a Roman army to support them. He strongly urged them to establish a base for him so that it could serve his future operations. Since it was not feasible to openly establish a center in Madinah under his own name, they deemed it suitable to execute their plan under the guise of a mosque, using the pretext of assisting the infirm and excuse‑bearing individuals. The mosque was eventually constructed, and a Qur’an‑literate youth named Majmaʿ ibn Ḥārithah (or Majmaʿ Jāriyah) was even appointed as its prayer leader. However, divine revelation exposed their scheme. As for why the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not take harsh action against them before departing for the Expedition of Tabūk, the reason may have been twofold: first, to allow their true intentions to become fully manifest, and second, to prevent any additional mental or social complications during the journey. In any case, upon his return, the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny not only refrained from praying in that mosque, but also ordered certain Muslims—Mālik ibn Dukhshum, Maʿn ibn ʿAdī, and ʿĀmir ibn al‑Sakan (or ʿĀṣim ibn ʿAdī)—to set the mosque on fire and demolish its walls. Ultimately, it was designated as a site for refuse disposal.

The preceding verses describe the conditions of various opposing groups. The verses under discussion introduce yet another group. These individuals entered the arena with highly skilled planning and calculated conspiracies; however, God’s mercy encompassed the believers, and their schemes and plots were rendered null and void. In the first verse, the Qur’an states that a group among them established a mosque in Madinah. Behind the sacred name of a mosque, they concealed their ominous objectives (وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا). It should be noted that although exegetes have proposed different grammatical analyses of this phrase, the apparent meaning is that it is connected to the preceding clauses concerning the hypocrites, with the implied construction being “مِنْهُمْ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا”. Thereafter, four categories of their objectives are summarized. First, one of their aims was to cause harm to the Muslims (ضِرَارًا). The term “ضرار” means intentional harm. Although they claimed that their goal was to protect Muslim interests and assist the sick and weak, in reality they sought the eradication of the Messenger of Islam and the suppression of the Muslims. Indeed, had it been within their power, they would have wished to erase Islam from existence altogether. Second, their aim was to strengthen the foundations of disbelief (وَكُفْرًا). They intended to return people to their pre‑Islamic condition. Third, they sought to create division among the believers (وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ). If people began to gather in that mosque, the vibrancy of the neighboring Mosque of Qubāʾ or the Masjid al‑Nabī—located at some distance—would diminish. As some exegetes have observed, this phrase indicates that the distance between mosques should not be so small as to undermine attendance and unity elsewhere. Accordingly, those who, due to tribal partisanship or personal interests, build a mosque adjacent to another and thereby fragment Muslim gatherings—leaving other mosques empty and lifeless—are acting against Islamic objectives. Fourth, their final aim was to establish a base for an individual who had already waged war against God and His Messenger in the past, whose previous misdeeds were well known, and who intended to complete his schemes through this center (وَإِرْصَادًا لِمَنْ حَارَبَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ). Remarkably, all of these corrupt aims were concealed beneath an attractive and deceptive façade. They even swore solemn oaths that they intended nothing but good (وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الْحُسْنَىٰ). Such conduct has always characterized hypocrites in every age: they cloak their objectives in pleasing coverings and rely on repeated oaths to mislead the masses. But the Qur’an continues by declaring that God—who is fully aware of all inner secrets, for whom the unseen and the seen are alike—bears witness that they are certainly liars (وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ). Within this statement, multiple emphases are evident: it is a nominal sentence; it employs “إِنَّ” for emphasis; it contains “لَكَاذِبُونَ” with the emphatic lām; and the use of the nominal form rather than a past verb indicates the continuity and persistence of their deceit. In this manner, God categorically refutes their emphatic oaths. In the following verse, to further reinforce this life‑guiding command, God declares: Do not ever stand in that mosque, nor pray therein (لَا تَقُمْ فِيهِ أَبَدًا). Instead, it is more fitting that you stand in prayer in a mosque whose foundation was laid upon piety from the very first day (لَمَسْجِدٌ أُسِّسَ عَلَى التَّقْوَىٰ مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَقُومَ فِيهِ)— not a mosque whose foundation from the outset was laid upon disbelief, hypocrisy, irreligion, and division. Although the term “أَحَقّ” is grammatically a comparative, here it is not used to suggest a preference between two equally legitimate options. Rather, it contrasts suitability with unsuitability, worthiness with unworthiness. Similar expressions appear frequently in Qur’ānic usage, traditions, and everyday speech. For example, when one says to a corrupt person that purity and goodness are “better” for him, this does not imply that corruption is good but merely less good; rather, it affirms that purity is good and corruption is bad. Exegetes have stated that the mosque referred to here as being more worthy is the Mosque of Qubāʾ, near which the hypocrites constructed Masjid Ḍirār. Although it has also been suggested that the reference could include the Masjid al‑Nabī or all mosques founded upon piety, in view of the expression “مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ” and the fact that the Mosque of Qubāʾ was the first mosque built in Madinah, the first interpretation appears more appropriate—though the description may equally apply to other mosques founded upon piety. The Qur’an further states that in this mosque there are men who love to purify themselves, and God loves those who purify themselves (فِيهِ رِجَالٌ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يَتَطَهَّرُوا وَاللَّهُ يُحِبُّ الْمُطَّهِّرِينَ). Exegetes have differed as to whether this purity refers to physical cleanliness or spiritual purification. Narrations reported in Tafsīr al‑Tibyān and Majmaʿ al‑Bayān relate that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny asked the people of Qubāʾ what they did in their purification that warranted such praise, and they replied that they washed with water after relieving themselves. Similar reports have been transmitted from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام). However, as repeatedly noted, such narrations provide examples rather than restrictions. The apparent meaning of the verse is general and encompasses both inner purification from shirk and sin as well as bodily cleanliness from physical impurities. In the third verse under discussion, a comparison is drawn between two groups: the believers, who build mosques like that of Qubāʾ upon foundations of piety, and the hypocrites, who erect places of worship upon disbelief, hypocrisy, division, and corruption. It states: Is one who establishes his building upon piety toward God and the seeking of His pleasure better, or one who establishes his building on the edge of a crumbling precipice, which then collapses with him into the fire of Hell (أَفَمَنْ أَسَّسَ بُنْيَانَهُ عَلَى تَقْوَىٰ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانٍ خَيْرٌ أَمْ مَنْ أَسَّسَ بُنْيَانَهُ عَلَىٰ شَفَا جُرُفٍ هَارٍ فَانْهَارَ بِهِ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ). The word “بنيان” denotes a foundation or structure; “شفا” refers to the edge of something; “جرف” is the margin of a riverbank whose base has been undermined by water; and “هار” describes something weak and on the verge of collapse. This striking analogy vividly illustrates the instability and fragility of the hypocrites’ endeavors, as opposed to the firmness and endurance of the believers’ actions. The believer resembles one who carefully selects solid ground and employs reliable materials for construction, while the hypocrite is like one who builds at the edge of an eroding riverbank, perpetually on the verge of collapse. Hypocrisy, like such a structure, has an appearance but no true foundation, and therefore is destined to crumble into ruin and disgrace. Seeking God’s pleasure and aligning with reality and the laws governing existence are, without doubt, causes of stability and permanence. Hypocrisy—alienation from truth and rebellion against the order of nature—is undoubtedly a cause of decline and annihilation. Since hypocrites wrong both themselves and society, the verse concludes: God does not guide the wrongdoing people (وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ). As repeatedly noted, divine guidance—meaning the provision of the means to reach one’s goal—is granted only to those worthy of it. Those devoid of such worthiness are not recipients of this grace, for God is Wise and His decree operates according to measure and justice. In the final verse under discussion, the Qur’an points to the obstinacy and shameless persistence of the hypocrites. It states that the structure they built remains a source of doubt in their hearts until their hearts are torn apart and they are overtaken by death (لَا يَزَالُ بُنْيَانُهُمُ الَّذِي بَنَوْا رِيبَةً فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلَّا أَنْ تَقَطَّعَ قُلُوبُهُمْ). They live perpetually in confusion and uncertainty. Although the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny ordered the building to be burned and demolished, its imprint of doubt remained engrained in their diseased hearts. The verse concludes by affirming that God is All‑Knowing and Wise (وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ). God’s command to dismantle that structure—despite its outward claim to righteousness—was rooted in His knowledge of their corrupt intentions and inner reality, and it was wholly in accordance with wisdom and the welfare of the Islamic community, not the result of haste or anger.

The episode of Masjid Ḍirār constitutes a lifelong lesson for all Muslims. Divine revelation and the practical conduct of the Messenger clearly indicate that Muslims must never be so superficial as to judge matters solely on outward appearances while remaining unaware of, or indifferent to, their underlying aims and intentions. A true Muslim is one who can recognize hypocrisy and hypocrites at all times, in every place, in every form of dress, and behind every façade—even if that façade assumes the appearance of religion, the banner of the Qur’an, and the outer form of a mosque. Exploiting religion against religion is not a new phenomenon. The methods of colonial powers, tyrannical rulers, and hypocrites have been essentially the same in every society. When people incline toward a certain idea or belief, such forces first exploit that inclination and then put their own oppressive objectives into effect—to the point that they enlist religion itself in opposition to religion. In principle, the emergence of false prophets and fabricated religions followed the same logic: to redirect people’s religious inclinations toward a path that served particular interests. It is obvious that in the environment of Madinah—especially during the lifetime of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, when Islam and the Qur’an had already penetrated deeply into society—open warfare against Islam was not feasible. Instead, irreligion had to be presented in the guise of religion, and falsehood had to be clothed in the garment of truth, so that simple‑hearted people might be drawn in and reprehensible objectives thereby realized. A true Muslim, however, is not one who is so naïve and superficial as to be deceived by such appearances. Rather, he must examine the agents behind such actions, the forces acting from behind the scenes, and other contextual indicators, so as to discern their true nature, and to perceive the inner reality behind outward forms. A Muslim is not one who responds to every call merely because it appears to be the voice of truth, regardless of the throat from which it emerges; nor is he one who grasps every outstretched hand without discernment. He is not someone who aligns himself with every act that appears religious, mourns beneath every banner raised in the name of Islam, or is drawn toward every structure erected under the name of religion. A Muslim must be vigilant, aware, discerning of realities, attentive to the future, and capable of analyzing and evaluating social issues. He must be able to recognize devils wearing the guise of angels, wolves disguised in the clothing of shepherds, and to prepare himself to confront enemies masquerading as friends. One of the foundational principles of Islam is that intentions and purposes are examined before all else. In the Islamic view, the value of every action is tied to its intention, not merely its outward form. Although intention is an inner reality, it is impossible for a person—no matter how skilled in concealment—to harbor an intention in the heart without its effects manifesting in action. From this perspective, the answer becomes clear as to why, despite its exalted status as a mosque and a house of God, Masjid Ḍirār was commanded to be destroyed. Why was a mosque, whose soil could not even be removed from its boundaries, demolished, and why was a place that must be purified immediately if defiled designated as a dumping ground for refuse? All these questions share a single answer: Masjid Ḍirār was not truly a mosque. In reality, it was an idol‑temple; not a sacred place, but a center of division and hypocrisy; not the house of God, but the house of Satan. Names, outward appearances, and disguises do not alter reality. This is the great lesson that the story of Masjid Ḍirār has imparted to Muslims of every era. From this discussion it also becomes clear how vital unity and cohesion among Muslims are in the view of Islam—to such an extent that if the construction of one mosque near another leads to division, discord, and fragmentation within the ranks of Muslims, then such a divisive mosque is itself devoid of sanctity.

A second lesson that we derive from the above verses is that God commands His Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny not to perform prayer in Masjid Ḍirār, but instead to pray in the mosque whose foundation was laid upon God‑consciousness. This pattern of negation and affirmation is manifest from the fundamental Islamic slogan “لا إله إلا الله” down to every major and minor program of Islam. It expresses the truth that every negation must be accompanied by an affirmation in order to take practical form. If people are prohibited from attending corrupt or harmful centers, it is necessary that, in their place, pure and wholesome institutions be established—institutions that provide spiritual nourishment and tranquility for society and the community. If people are restrained from harmful forms of entertainment, opportunities for wholesome and constructive recreation must be provided. If attendance at imperialistic schools and educational institutions is prohibited, sound centers of education and moral training must be made available. And if indecency and immorality are condemned, practical and accessible means must be provided to facilitate marriage for the youth. Those who expend all their effort solely on negation, with no trace of affirmation in their approach, should realize that such negation yields little benefit. This is because it is a principle of creation that instincts and emotions must be satisfied through proper and legitimate channels. It is an established method of Islam that “لا” must be combined with “إلا” so that life‑giving monotheism may emerge. Regrettably, this is a lesson that many Muslims have forgotten, yet they continue to complain about the lack of progress in Islamic programs. Contrary to their assumptions, Islam’s program is not limited to negation alone. Had negation and affirmation been pursued together, Islamic advancement would have been inevitable and certain.

A third valuable lesson that we derive from the incident of Masjid Ḍirār and from the verse under discussion is that an effective and constructive religious and social center must be formed through two positive elements. First, its foundation and purpose must be pure and upright (أُسِّسَ عَلَى التَّقْوَىٰ مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ). Second, its supporters and guardians must themselves be pure, righteous, faithful, steadfast of heart, and sincere (فِيهِ رِجَالٌ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يَتَطَهَّرُوا). Without these two fundamental pillars, neither the intended result nor the objective can be attained.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

Since the preceding verses referred to those who remained behind from jihād, the two verses under discussion present, through a powerful and eloquent analogy, the exalted rank of believing fighters. In this illustration, God introduces Himself as the purchaser, declaring: God has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth in exchange for Paradise (إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَىٰ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ). In every transaction of buying and selling, there are five essential elements: (1) the buyer, (2) the seller, (3) the commodity, (4) the price, and (5) the binding contract. In this verse, God indicates all of these elements: He presents Himself as the buyer, the believers as the sellers, their lives and wealth as the commodity, and Paradise as the price. As for the manner in which this commodity is delivered, a subtle and eloquent expression is employed—namely, they fight in the path of God, killing and being killed (يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ). In reality, God’s hand is extended to receive the lives and wealth that are expended in the arena of jihād. The fifth element—the firm contractual guarantee—is then mentioned: this is a true promise binding upon God, recorded in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an (وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ). By reflecting upon the phrase “فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ”, it becomes evident that God is the purchaser only of those lives, efforts, and struggles that are expended in His path—that is, every effort for truth and justice, and every struggle aimed at liberating humanity from the grasp of disbelief, oppression, and corruption. The Qur’an then further emphasizes the certainty of this transaction, saying: And who is more faithful to his covenant than God? (وَمَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ). Although the price of this transaction is not paid immediately and resembles a deferred sale, there is no risk involved, for God—by virtue of His absolute power and self‑sufficiency—is more faithful to His promise than anyone else. He neither forgets nor is He incapable of fulfillment, nor does He act contrary to wisdom or expediency, nor—God forbid—does He ever make a false promise. Most strikingly, after completing this magnificent transaction, God, in the manner of one who congratulates a merchant upon a successful bargain, declares: Rejoice, then, in the bargain you have made (فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُمْ بِهِ). This joy is reflected outwardly, for “استبشار” derives from “بِشْرَة”, meaning the face, and denotes happiness whose effects appear visibly. And the verse concludes by proclaiming: That indeed is the great triumph (وَذَٰلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ). A similar expression appears elsewhere, such as in Sūrat al‑Ṣaff, verses 10–12: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَىٰ تِجَارَةٍ تُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ عَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَتُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنْفُسِكُمْ ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ يَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَيُدْخِلْكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ وَمَسَاكِنَ طَيِّبَةً فِي جَنَّاتِ عَدْنٍ ذَٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ. Here, one is struck with awe at God’s grace: He is the absolute sovereign of all existence, the giver of every possession, and yet when He purchases the very bounties He Himself has bestowed upon His servants, He does so at a price multiplied countless times over. Even more remarkable is that jihād—which in reality is the cause of a person’s own dignity, and the pride and success of nations, whose ultimate benefits return to humanity itself—is described as the means of payment. An impermanent commodity, destined to perish sooner or later, is exchanged for eternal felicity. More astounding still is that although God is more truthful than all truth‑tellers and requires no guarantee, He nonetheless provides the strongest assurances and confirmations for His servants. Then, at the conclusion of this majestic transaction, He offers congratulations and glad tidings. Can any generosity, mercy, or love surpass this? And can any bargain be more profitable? Indeed, it is narrated from Jābir ibn ʿAbdullāh al‑Anṣārī that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was in the mosque and recited it aloud. The people proclaimed takbīr. One of the Anṣār stepped forward and asked in astonishment: “Was this verse truly revealed?” The Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: “Yes.” The man responded: “بَيْعٌ رَبِيحٌ لَا نَقِيلُهُ وَلَا نَسْتَقِيلُهُ”—“This is a profitable bargain; we will neither revoke it nor seek its revocation.” Following the Qur’anic style of presenting a matter concisely in one verse and elaborating it in the next, the subsequent verse introduces, with clear attributes, those believers who have sold their lives and wealth to God. They are described by nine qualities: التَّائِبُونَ — those who repent and cleanse their hearts and souls with repentance. الْعَابِدُونَ — those devoted to worship, self‑purification, and intimate communion with God. الْحَامِدُونَ — those who praise God for His material and spiritual blessings. السَّائِحُونَ — those who move continuously from one place of devotion to another, indicating that their spiritual refinement is not confined to any single environment. The term “السَّائِحُونَ” derives from “سِيَاحَة”, implying persistent movement and continuity. Various interpretations exist: some understand it as regular worship in mosques, others as fasting, and yet others as traveling through the land to observe signs of divine greatness, to understand societies, or to strive in the path of God through jihād. Considering the surrounding qualities, the first meaning appears most fitting, though all meanings may be encompassed. الرَّاكِعُونَ — those who bow in humility before God. السَّاجِدُونَ — those who prostrate themselves at His threshold. الْآمِرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ — those who enjoin what is good. وَالنَّاهُونَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ — those who forbid wrongdoing. وَالْحَافِظُونَ لِحُدُودِ اللَّهِ — those who safeguard God’s boundaries, enforce His laws, and rise to establish justice and righteousness in society. After enumerating these nine qualities, God once again encourages such sincere believers, trained in the school of faith and action, and commands the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny: Give glad tidings to the believers (وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ). The glad tidings are left unrestricted, encompassing every form of goodness, felicity, honor, and success. It is also noteworthy that the first six qualities pertain to personal refinement, the subsequent two relate to social responsibilities and moral vigilance, and the final quality emphasizes the collective duty of establishing righteous governance and pursuing positive societal engagement.

See ayat 114 for tafseer.

The first verse clearly and decisively prohibits the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the believers from seeking forgiveness for the polytheists, stating: It is not appropriate for the Prophet and those who believe to seek forgiveness for the polytheists (مَا كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُوا لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ). Then, to emphasize the ruling and give it general applicability, it adds: even if they are close relatives (وَلَوْ كَانُوا أُولِي قُرْبَى). Thereafter, the reason for this ruling is stated: once it becomes clear to the believers that the polytheists are inhabitants of Hell, there remains no meaning or justification for seeking forgiveness on their behalf (مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ). Such supplication would be futile and an improper hope, because a polytheist has no claim to forgiveness, nor can salvation be conceived for one who persists upon the way of shirk. Moreover, seeking forgiveness is itself a form of expressing affection, attachment, and emotional inclination toward the polytheists—something that the Qur’an has repeatedly forbidden. Because Qur’an‑aware believers were conscious that Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام) had sought forgiveness for his uncle Āzar, it was possible that the question would arise in their minds: Āzar was a polytheist, and if seeking forgiveness for such people is prohibited, then why did one of God’s great prophets engage in this act? Hence, the verse under discussion addresses this question by stating that Ibrāhīm’s seeking forgiveness for his father (i.e., uncle) was solely due to a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of God, he dissociated himself from him and refrained from seeking forgiveness thereafter (وَمَا كَانَ اسْتِغْفَارُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لِأَبِيهِ إِلَّا عَنْ مَوْعِدَةٍ وَعَدَهَا إِيَّاهُ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ لِلَّهِ تَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ). At the conclusion of the verse, the Qur’an further states that Ibrāhīm was one who was deeply humble before God and intensely fearful of divine displeasure, as well as gentle and forbearing (إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لَأَوَّاهٌ حَلِيمٌ). It is possible that this description serves as justification for Ibrāhīm’s initial promise to seek forgiveness for Āzar: on the one hand, he was forbearing and patient, and on the other, he was described as “أوّاه”, which according to some exegetical explanations means compassionate and merciful. Such qualities naturally compelled him to strive more earnestly for Āzar’s guidance, even in the form of promising to seek forgiveness for his past sins. It is also possible that the statement serves instead to clarify that Ibrāhīm’s humility before God and fear of opposing Him rendered him entirely unwilling to seek forgiveness for the enemies of truth. Rather, his act was limited strictly to a period when he still hoped for Āzar’s guidance. Thus, the moment Āzar’s enmity toward God became clear, Ibrāhīm immediately abandoned that course of action. If it is asked how the Muslims knew that Ibrāhīm had sought forgiveness for Āzar, the answer is that these verses of Sūrat al‑Tawbah, as previously indicated, were revealed during the latter part of the Prophet’s life, whereas the Muslims had already read Sūrat Maryam, verse 47, in which Ibrāhīm says “سَأَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ رَبِّي”, thereby promising to seek forgiveness for Āzar. It is also well known that God’s Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny never makes a promise frivolously or without purpose, and when he makes a promise, he fulfills it. Furthermore, the Muslims had also read Sūrat al‑Mumtaḥinah, verse 4, where Ibrāhīm’s act of seeking forgiveness is explicitly mentioned. Likewise, Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, verse 86, states clearly: (وَاغْفِرْ لِأَبِي إِنَّهُ كَانَ مِنَ الضَّالِّينَ). Hence, when some Muslims wished to seek forgiveness for their polytheist elders who had died in a state of disbelief, the Qur’an explicitly prohibited them from doing so and clarified that Ibrāhīm’s case was entirely different: his seeking forgiveness occurred during Āzar’s lifetime and was based on hope for his acceptance of faith—not after his death.

Several Sunni exegetes have transmitted, through Saʿīd ibn al‑Musayyib from his father, a fabricated narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and other works. According to this report, when the time of Abū Ṭālib’s death approached, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny went to him while Abū Jahl and ʿAbdullāh ibn Umayyah were present. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to him: “O uncle, say لا إله إلا الله so that I may intercede for you with God on its basis.” At that point, Abū Jahl and ʿAbdullāh ibn Umayyah turned to Abū Ṭālib and said: “Do you wish to turn away from the religion of ʿAbd al‑Muṭṭalib?” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny repeated his request, but they continued to dissuade Abū Ṭālib. The last words uttered by Abū Ṭālib, according to this narration, were that he remained upon the religion of ʿAbd al‑Muṭṭalib and refrained from saying لا إله إلا الله. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is then reported to have said: “I will continue to seek forgiveness for you until I am forbidden from doing so,” whereupon the verse ما كان للنبي والذين آمنوا was revealed. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Manār and other Sunni commentaries.) Clear signs of fabrication are evident in this narration. First, it is well known among exegetes and historians that Sūrat al‑Barāʾah was revealed in 9 AH, and according to some opinions, it was among the final sūrahs revealed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. By contrast, historians have recorded that Abū Ṭālib’s death occurred in Mecca prior to the Prophet’s migration. Because of this obvious contradiction, biased authors—such as the author of al‑Manār—have resorted to strained explanations. At times they claim that the verse was revealed twice, once in Mecca and again in Madinah in 9 AH. At other times they suggest that the verse may have been revealed at the time of Abū Ṭālib’s death in Mecca and was later placed within Sūrat al‑Tawbah by the Prophet’s order. Both claims lack any supporting evidence. Would it not have been more reasonable, instead of resorting to such baseless justifications, to cast doubt upon the narration itself and its authenticity? Second, it is indisputable that prior to Abū Ṭālib’s death, God had already revealed several Qur’ānic verses prohibiting Muslims from establishing bonds of affection and loyalty with polytheists. Seeking forgiveness is among the clearest manifestations of affection and goodwill. How, then, could Abū Ṭālib have died as a polytheist, only for the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to swear that he would continue seeking forgiveness for him until God forbade it? It is noteworthy that Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, unable to deny that this verse was revealed in Madinah toward the end of the Prophet’s life like the rest of Sūrat al‑Tawbah, nevertheless—due to his well‑known bias in such matters—offered another justification. He suggested that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny continued to seek forgiveness for Abū Ṭālib from the time of his death until the revelation of Sūrat al‑Tawbah, after which he was prohibited. He then asks rhetorically: what objection is there to this having been permissible for the Prophet and believers up to that point? Had Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī freed himself from the constraints of bias, he would have realized that it is impossible for the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to have sought forgiveness for a polytheist over such a lengthy period while numerous Qur’ānic verses—already revealed by that time—had clearly condemned all forms of affection and alliance with polytheists. (It is well known that Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, revealed before Sūrat al‑Barāʾah, in verse 139, explicitly forbids friendship with disbelievers, as does Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 28. Moreover, earlier verses of the same Sūrat al‑Tawbah addressed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny state explicitly: seek forgiveness for them or do not seek forgiveness—God will never forgive them.) Third, the sole transmitter of this narration is Saʿīd ibn al‑Musayyib, whose enmity toward Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام) is well established. For this reason, his report concerning ʿAlī, his father, or his descendants cannot be relied upon. After drawing attention to this point, ʿAllāmah al‑Amīnī cites a noteworthy remark from al‑Wāqidī, who states that Saʿīd ibn al‑Musayyib passed by the funeral of Imām Zayn al‑ʿĀbidīn ʿAlī ibn al‑Ḥusayn (عليه السلام) and did not perform the funeral prayer, abstaining on the basis of a trivial excuse. Ibn Ḥazm further reports that when Saʿīd was asked whether he prayed behind al‑Ḥajjāj, he replied: “We pray even behind those who are worse than al‑Ḥajjāj.” Fourth, as discussed earlier in this commentary, there is no doubt that Abū Ṭālib had embraced faith in the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Clear evidence and decisive proofs have been presented establishing that the claim of his disbelief is a grave slander. All Shiʿi scholars and many Sunni scholars—such as Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd in Sharḥ Nahj al‑Balāghah, al‑Qasṭallānī in Irshād al‑Sārī, and Zaynī Daḥlān in the margins of al‑Sīrah al‑Ḥalabiyyah—have explicitly affirmed this. A discerning researcher who reflects upon the political campaign launched by the Umayyad rulers against ʿAlī (عليه السلام) will readily comprehend that no individual connected to him was spared from this conspiracy. In truth, Abū Ṭālib’s only “crime” was that he was the father of the great leader of Islam, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام). Did not the same forces level grievous accusations against Abū Dharr, a renowned warrior of Islam, simply because of his love for ʿAlī and his opposition to Umayyad policies? Abū Ṭālib, who throughout his life steadfastly supported and protected the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and obeyed him in every respect, stands far above such accusations. For further discussion on Abū Ṭālib’s faith, reference may be made to volume five of this commentary, pages 166–171 (Urdu translation).

A second question that arises here is how Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام) could have promised to seek forgiveness for his uncle Āzar, and how he fulfilled that promise, whereas according to the verse under discussion and other Qur’ānic verses, seeking forgiveness for such a person is prohibited—given that Āzar never believed and was among the polytheists and idolaters. In answering this question, attention must be paid to the point clearly indicated by the above verse: Ibrāhīm expected and hoped that through his supplication Āzar might incline toward faith and monotheism. His seeking forgiveness, in reality, meant asking God to guide him and forgive his past sins. However, when Āzar died in a state of polytheism and it became certain to Ibrāhīm that he was persistently hostile toward the Lord and that there remained no possibility for his guidance, Ibrāhīm ceased seeking forgiveness for him. According to this understanding, Muslims too may seek forgiveness for their polytheist relatives and acquaintances for as long as they remain alive and there remains hope for their guidance—that is, they may ask God both for their guidance and their forgiveness. However, when such individuals die in a state of disbelief, there is no longer any scope for seeking forgiveness on their behalf. As for a report found in some narrations stating that Imām al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) said that Ibrāhīm promised to seek forgiveness for Āzar only if he accepted Islam (and not before), and that when it became clear that he was an enemy of God he dissociated himself from him—this would imply that Ibrāhīm’s promise was conditional, and since the condition was not fulfilled, he never actually sought forgiveness for him. This narration, however, in addition to being mursal and weak, also contradicts the apparent and explicit Qur’ānic verses. The evident meaning of the verse under discussion is that Ibrāhīm did in fact seek forgiveness. Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, verse 86, explicitly states that Ibrāhīm asked God to forgive him, where it says: وَاغْفِرْ لِأَبِي إِنَّهُ كَانَ مِنَ الضَّالِّينَ. Another supporting indication is the well‑known statement narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that as long as Āzar was alive, Ibrāhīm repeatedly sought forgiveness for him, but when Āzar died in a state of disbelief and his enmity toward the religion of truth became certain, Ibrāhīm discontinued this practice. Since some Muslims wished to seek forgiveness for their polytheist ancestors who had died in disbelief, the Qur’an explicitly prohibited them from doing so and clarified that the case of Ibrāhīm was entirely different: he sought forgiveness during Āzar’s lifetime and on the basis of hope for his faith, not after his death.

The verse under discussion is not the only passage that calls for the severance of all forms of connection with the polytheists. Rather, numerous Qur’ānic verses make it clear that all forms of association—whether social ties, kinship relations, or bonds of loyalty and disassociation—must be governed by doctrinal and religious principles. This bond—faith in God and opposition to shirk and idolatry—must dominate all relationships of the believers, for it is the foundational bond that governs and supersedes all social and communal matters. Superficial or merely outward ties can never override or negate this principle. This is a lesson that applied in the past and applies equally today; it is a teaching for every age and every era.

See ayat 116 for tafseer.

Some exegetes have stated that a number of Muslims passed away before the revelation of certain obligatory duties. Thereupon, some people came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and expressed concern about the fate of those individuals, fearing that they might be subjected to divine punishment because they had not fulfilled those obligations. It was in response to this concern that the above verse was revealed, negating such apprehensions. (reported in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under the verse in question) Other exegetes have stated that this verse was revealed concerning the Muslims’ acts of seeking forgiveness for the polytheists and expressing affection toward them prior to the explicit prohibition mentioned in the preceding verses. The verse reassured them that their acts of istighfār performed before the divine prohibition would not be subject to accountability.

The first verse discussed above points to a general principle that is also affirmed by reason: namely, that God does not punish a person concerning a matter until He has clarified it and provided explanation through divine law. In other words, moral responsibility and accountability arise only after commands have been clearly communicated. In the discipline of uṣūl al‑fiqh, this principle is referred to as “قَاعِدَةُ قُبْحِ الْعِقَابِ بِلَا بَيَانٍ” (the rule that punishment without prior clarification is reprehensible). Accordingly, the verse begins by stating that God was not such as to mislead a people after having guided them until He clarified for them what they should avoid (وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُضِلَّ قَوْمًا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَاهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ مَا يَتَّقُونَ). The verb “يُضِلّ” essentially means “to cause to go astray,” or as some exegetes have suggested, it may mean “to pass a judgment of being astray,” similar to declaring someone just or sinful. (Some imagine that only the morphological form باب تفعيل can carry the meaning of issuing a judgment, whereas this sense also appears in باب إفعال. For example, in a well‑known verse by the poet Kumayt, written to express his devotion to the family of the Messenger, he states: “وَطَائِفَةٌ قَدْ أَكْفَرُونِي بِحُبِّكُمْ”, meaning: “A group has pronounced me an unbeliever because of my love for you.” Here, باب إفعال is clearly used in the sense of issuing a judgment.) Alternatively, “يُضِلّ” may be understood as referring to being deprived, on the Day of Resurrection, of the path leading to reward and recompense—an interpretation that ultimately returns to the meaning of punishment. A further interpretation, as mentioned earlier, understands iḍlāl to mean the withdrawal of divine enabling grace (tawfīq) and leaving a person to himself, the consequence of which is deviation from the path of guidance and wandering. This expression subtly alludes to the reality that persistence in sin becomes a source of increasing deviation and remoteness from the path of guidance. (For further clarification regarding the Qur’ānic meanings of guidance and misguidance, reference may be made to Tafsīr‑e‑Namūnah, vol. 1, pp. 140–141.) At the conclusion of the verse it is stated that God has knowledge of all things (إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ). That is, the very nature of God’s all‑encompassing knowledge entails that He does not hold anyone accountable or subject them to reproach regarding a matter until He has clearly communicated it to His servants.

Some exegetes and traditionists have held that the above verse serves as evidence for the claim that rationally self‑evident moral principles (المستقلات العقلية) do not entail moral responsibility unless they are articulated through revelation. By المستقلات العقلية they mean matters whose goodness or badness the human intellect can recognize without recourse to divine law—such as the evil of injustice, the goodness of justice, and the wrongness of theft, lying, transgression, and the killing of an innocent soul. According to this view, all rational judgments must be confirmed by religious law in order for human beings to be held accountable, such that prior to the revelation of the divine law, people bore no responsibility even with respect to rationally evident moral truths. However, the invalidity of this claim is clear, because the expression “حَتَّىٰ يُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ” (“until it becomes clear to them”) provides its own response and demonstrates that this verse and others like it are concerned with matters that are ambiguous and in need of clarification. It is evident that this cannot apply to rationally self‑evident principles, for the evil of injustice and the goodness of justice are matters free of ambiguity and do not require further elucidation. Those who advance such an argument fail to consider that, if it were valid, people would not be required to respond affirmatively to the call of the prophets, nor to examine claimants of prophethood and their miracles in order to ascertain their truthfulness, since—according to that logic—the truth of the Prophet and the divine command would not yet be clear to them. Consequently, just as critical examination of prophetic claims is itself mandated by reason and counted among the rationally self‑evident obligations, so too are other matters that reason recognizes clearly and directly binding. Evidence for this understanding can be found in certain traditions transmitted through the channels of the Ahl al‑Bayt (عليهم السلام). In Kitāb al‑Tawḥīd, it is reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that, in interpreting this verse, he said: “حَتَّىٰ يَعْرِفَهُمْ مَا يُرْضِيهِ وَمَا يُسْخِطُهُ”—that is, God does not punish anyone until He has made clear to him what leads to His pleasure and what incurs His wrath. (Reported in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 276.) In any case, this verse and others of its kind serve as the foundation for a general principle and a fundamental rule: as long as no proof exists establishing the obligation or prohibition of something, no responsibility applies with regard to it. In other words, all things are permitted and licit unless evidence exists indicating their obligation or prohibition. This is known as the principle of innocence (أصل البراءة). In order to further emphasize this principle, the subsequent verse states: the dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs to God (إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ), and the system of life and death lies within His power—He alone gives life and causes death (يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ). Therefore, you have no protector, guardian, or helper apart from God (وَمَا لَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ). This points to the fact that all powers and all forms of sovereignty in the realm of existence lie in His hands and under His command. Thus, one must not seek refuge in other than Him, nor take entities besides God as a source of protection, nor establish bonds of allegiance or affection with the enemies of God under the pretext of intercession or forgiveness.

See ayat 118 for tafseer.

Exegetes have stated that the first of these verses was revealed concerning the Expedition of Tabūk and the extraordinary hardships that befell the Muslims on that occasion—hardships so severe that some individuals even contemplated turning back. However, through God’s grace and enabling support, they remained steadfast. It is reported that among those to whom this verse applied was Abū Ḥaythamah, one of the Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. He was not among the hypocrites, yet due to negligence and lethargy he did not initially accompany the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to the battlefield of Tabūk. Ten days passed after the army’s departure. The heat was intense and scorching. One day, Abū Ḥaythamah returned to his wives and found that they had erected a shaded shelter, prepared cool water, and arranged excellent food. Suddenly he became deeply reflective, and the memory of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny troubled his conscience. He said: “The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—who has never committed a sin, and for whom God has guaranteed past and future—now bears arms upon his shoulders and endures the hardships of this arduous journey amid burning desert winds. And here is Abū Ḥaythamah, sitting in cool shade, in the presence of prepared food and beautiful wives. Is this justice?” He then turned to his wives and said: “By God, I will not speak to any of you, nor will I remain under this shelter, until I go and join the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny.” Saying this, he gathered provisions, mounted his camel, and set out. His wives tried repeatedly to speak to him, but he uttered not a single word. He proceeded until he reached near Tabūk. The Muslims began saying among themselves: “There is a rider approaching from the road.” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny then said: “If this rider is Abū Ḥaythamah, then all is well.” When the rider drew closer and the people recognized him, they said, “Yes, it is Abū Ḥaythamah.” He dismounted, greeted the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and related his story. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny welcomed him and prayed for him. Thus, he was a man whose heart had inclined briefly toward falsehood, but due to his spiritual readiness, God redirected him toward the truth and granted him firmness and steadfastness. With regard to the second verse, another occasion of revelation has been reported, the essence of which is as follows: three Muslims—Kaʿb ibn Mālik, Murārah ibn Rabīʿ, and Hilāl ibn Umayyah—did not participate in the Expedition of Tabūk and did not accompany the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, they did not wish to be counted among the hypocrites; rather, their failure resulted from negligence and lethargy. Shortly thereafter, they were overcome with regret and remorse. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny returned from Tabūk to Madinah, they presented themselves before him and offered their excuses. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not speak to them, and he instructed the Muslims not to converse with them either. They became victims of intense social pressure. Eventually, even their women and children went to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and sought permission to separate from them. Although he did not grant formal separation, he ordered that they not approach them. Despite its physical openness, the atmosphere of Madinah became constricted for them. In order to escape this overwhelming humiliation and disgrace, they were compelled to leave the city and seek refuge on the surrounding mountain peaks. Among the episodes that struck them most deeply was the following, narrated by Kaʿb ibn Mālik himself. He said: “One day I was sitting in distress in the marketplace of Madinah when a Christian man from Syria arrived searching for me. When he recognized me, he handed me a letter from the King of Ghassān. It read: ‘If your companion has abandoned you, then come to us.’ My state was transformed, and I exclaimed: ‘Woe to me! Matters have reached such a point that even my enemy seeks to exploit my situation.’” In summary, their relatives would bring them food but would not utter a single word to them. This condition persisted for some time, and they waited anxiously for their repentance to be accepted and for a verse to be revealed indicating divine forgiveness. Yet no news came. During this period, one of them suggested to the others that since people had severed relations with them, it would be better for them to also cut off relations with one another—acknowledging their own sin, but refusing to find comfort in the company of fellow sinners. They did so to the point that they did not speak a single word to one another, nor did any of them remain in the company of the others. Thus, they spent fifty days in repentance and supplication, until finally their repentance was accepted. It was concerning them that the above verse was revealed.

These verses also relate to the Expedition of Tabūk and contain various points concerning this great event in Islamic history. In the first verse, reference is made to the infinite mercy of God that encompassed the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, as well as the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār, at such a critical moment. It is stated that God turned with mercy toward the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and toward the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār who followed him during the hour of hardship (لَقَدْ تَابَ اللهُ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ فِي سَاعَةِ الْعُسْرَةِ). It is then further stated that this divine mercy was bestowed at a time when, due to the intensity of events and the pressure of hardships, it was close to occurring that the hearts of a group of the believers might deviate from the path of truth (and resolve to return from Tabūk) (مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا كَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ مِنْهُمْ). Once again emphasis is placed on the fact that after this condition, God turned toward them with His mercy and accepted their repentance, for He is compassionate and merciful toward the believers (ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّهُ بِهِمْ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ). This divine grace did not encompass only that great group who participated in jihād, but also extended to the three individuals who did not take part in the battle and were therefore left behind by the fighters (وَعَلَى الثَّلَاثَةِ الَّذِينَ خُلِّفُوا). However, this divine favor was not granted to them easily; rather, it came only after these three individuals—Kaʿb ibn Mālik, Murārah ibn Rabīʿ, and Hilāl ibn Umayyah, whose circumstances have already been explained in the accounts of revelation—had endured intense social pressure, and after the entire community had boycotted them, to the point that the earth, despite its vastness, became constricted for them (حَتَّىٰ إِذَا ضَاقَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَرْضُ بِمَا رَحُبَتْ). Their hearts were so filled with grief and anguish that it was as though they found no space even within their own selves, and the situation reached a point where they even severed relations among themselves (وَضَاقَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْفُسُهُمْ). Thus, all avenues appeared closed to them, and they became certain that there was no refuge from the wrath of God except through returning to Him (وَظَنُّوا أَنْ لَا مَلْجَأَ مِنَ اللهِ إِلَّا إِلَيْهِ). Then once again, the mercy of God encompassed them, and this mercy made sincere repentance and true return easy for them (ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيْهِمْ لِيَتُوبُوا). Indeed, God alone is the One who accepts repentance and is merciful (إِنَّ اللهَ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ).

In the first verse under discussion, we read that God turned toward the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the Muhājirūn, and the Anṣār, and accepted their repentance. There is no doubt that the infallible Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny had committed no sin for which God would need to turn toward him or accept his repentance, even though some Sunni exegetes of ḥadīth have considered this expression to be evidence of some lapse on the part of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny during the affair of Tabūk. However, if one reflects carefully upon this verse itself and upon other Qur’ānic passages, it becomes clear that this interpretation is incorrect. First, the meaning of God’s tawbah is His turning toward His servants with mercy and favor, and this concept does not entail sin or error. For example, after mentioning certain Islamic rulings, the Qur’an states in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ: يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ سُنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ وَيَتُوبَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ. In this verse, there is no mention of any sin or lapse beforehand; rather, the context concerns the clarification of divine rulings and guidance toward the sound practices of earlier communities. This clearly indicates that tawbah here denotes the bestowal of divine mercy. Second, lexicographical works also record this meaning of tawbah. In the well‑known dictionary al‑Qāmūs, one of its meanings is stated as: رَجَعَ عَلَيْهِ بِفَضْلِهِ وَقَبُولِهِ, that is, He turned toward him with His favor and acceptance. Third, in the verse under discussion, reference is made to deviation from the truth by only a group of the believers, whereas divine tawbah is declared for all of them. This indicates that God’s tawbah here does not mean accepting an excuse for sin, but rather refers to a special divine mercy that came to assist the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and all the believers during those extremely difficult moments. No one among the Muhājirūn or the Anṣār is excluded from this mercy, and it was this mercy that kept them steadfast in jihād.

The term “ساعة” in Arabic lexicography denotes a portion of time, whether small or large; however, an extended and prolonged period is not described as a ساعة. The word “عُسْرَة” signifies hardship and difficulty. Islamic history clearly indicates that the Muslims were never confronted with a situation of hardship, pressure, and strain as severe as that which they faced during the Expedition of Tabūk. This was because, first, the journey to Tabūk took place under extreme heat. Second, drought had already placed the people in considerable hardship and distress. Third, it was the season of harvesting fruit from trees, upon which the people’s annual livelihood depended. In addition to all this, the distance between Madinah and Tabūk was considerable, and the Muslims were facing the Eastern Roman Empire, which was the superpower of that era. Furthermore, mounts and provisions were so scarce that at times two individuals were compelled to take turns riding the same animal. Some who traveled on foot did not even possess footwear and were forced to walk barefoot across the scorching desert sands. The shortage of food and water was so severe that, on occasion, a single date would be passed from one person to another, each sucking it in turn until nothing but the pit remained, and a single sip of water had to be shared among several people. Despite all these conditions, the majority of the Muslims possessed a strong and resilient spirit. In spite of every hardship, they advanced alongside the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny toward the enemy, displaying extraordinary steadfastness and endurance, and in doing so they left behind a great and lasting lesson for Muslims of every age—a lesson sufficient for all generations, and a means of triumph over formidable and dangerous enemies. There is no doubt that among the Muslims there were individuals whose hearts were weak, and it was these weak‑hearted individuals who contemplated turning back. Concerning them, the Qur’an states: “مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا كَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ مِّنْهُمْ”. The term “يَزِيغُ”, derived from “زَيْغ”, refers to deviation from truth toward falsehood. However, as observed, the collective spirit of the majority and the grace of the Lord ultimately turned even these individuals away from such thoughts, and they too joined the ranks of the fighters in the path of truth.

In the above verses, with respect to the three individuals who were indolent and negligent, the expression “خُلِّفُوا” is used, meaning “they were left behind.” This expression may be understood in one of two ways: either it indicates that when such individuals displayed laziness, the Muslims moved forward toward the battlefield without concern for them and left them behind; or it signifies that when these individuals came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny to offer excuses, he did not accept their excuses and deferred the acceptance of their repentance.

One of the important issues that can be derived from the above verses concerns the punishment of criminals and corrupt individuals through social pressure and collective boycott. We clearly observe how those who stayed behind from the Expedition of Tabūk were subjected to such severe hardship, constraint, and pressure as a result of social boycott that it proved more painful for them than any form of imprisonment. This collective isolation brought them to the brink of breakdown, surrounding them with despair from every direction. The effect of this method upon the Muslim society of that time was so profound that thereafter very few individuals dared to commit such an offense. This form of punishment creates neither the problem of prisons nor financial burdens, nor does it encourage laziness or allow the growth of immoral traits. Yet its impact is far more powerful and painful than confinement. In reality, this represents a form of boycott and a negative, non‑violent struggle by society against corrupt and irresponsible individuals who evade critical duties. If Muslims were to adopt such measures against similar elements in every era and age, success would be assured. In this way, society could be purified and protected. However, in contemporary Islamic societies, overlooking such violations and tolerating conspiratorial behavior has almost become a widespread disease. This condition not only fails to restrain such individuals but instead emboldens them further in their wrongdoing, fostering greater carelessness and audacity.

The locality of Tabūk was more distant than all the regions toward which the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had previously advanced in his military expeditions. Tabūk was the name of a strong and elevated fortress situated on the border between the Ḥijāz and Syria, and for this reason the surrounding region came to be known as the land of Tabūk. As a result of the rapid spread of Islam throughout the Arabian Peninsula, the fame of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny began to resonate across the neighboring lands. Although these powers had previously acknowledged the limited strategic significance of the Ḥijāz, the rise of Islam and the growing strength of the Islamic army— which had unified the Ḥijāz under a single banner—caused deep concern regarding their future position. The eastern frontier of the Roman Empire bordered the Ḥijāz. That government feared it might become the first victim of Islam’s rapid expansion. Accordingly, it gathered a formidable, fully armed force of forty thousand soldiers—commensurate with a power such as Rome at that time—and stationed it near the border of the Ḥijāz. News of this movement reached the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny through travelers. Without delay, the Messenger issued orders for preparation in order to provide a decisive lesson to Rome and other neighboring powers. His emissaries conveyed this call throughout Madinah and other regions. Within a short period, thirty thousand men became ready to confront the Romans, including ten thousand cavalry and twenty thousand infantry. The season was extremely hot, grain stores were empty, and the year’s harvest had not yet been gathered. Under such circumstances, travel was exceedingly difficult for the Muslims. Nevertheless, because it was a command from God and His Messenger, the expedition had to proceed regardless of conditions, and the perilous and lengthy desert between Madinah and Tabūk had to be crossed. Because this army faced severe economic hardship, the route was long, scorching winds swept the way, gravel lashed the travelers, sandstorms arose, and mounts were insufficient, the expedition became known as Jaysh al‑ʿUsrah—the Army of Hardship. Enduring all these adversities, the army reached the land of Tabūk at the beginning of the month of Shaʿbān in the ninth year after the Hijrah, while the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny left ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام) behind in Madinah as his representative. This expedition was the only campaign in which ʿAlī (عليه السلام) did not participate. The Messenger’s decision was both appropriate and necessary, as there was a strong possibility that certain pagan or hypocritical elements who had remained behind—using various pretexts to avoid the Tabūk expedition—might exploit the prolonged absence of the Messenger and his army. They could have attacked Madinah, killed women and children, and plundered the city. The presence of ʿAlī (عليه السلام) in Madinah constituted a powerful safeguard against such conspiracies. When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny arrived at Tabūk, however, he found no trace of the Roman army. The great Islamic force had already demonstrated extraordinary courage and valor in numerous battles, and when news of their rapid advance reached the Romans, they deemed it wiser to retreat within their own territory. In this way, they attempted to portray the reports of an impending Roman attack on Madinah as little more than an unfounded rumor, for they feared initiating a dangerous conflict for which they lacked justification. Nevertheless, the swift arrival of the Islamic army at Tabūk delivered several important lessons to the enemies of Islam. First, it demonstrated that the spirit of jihād among the Muslim fighters was so powerful that they did not fear even the mightiest military force of their time. Second, many tribes and local rulers in and around Tabūk approached the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and entered into covenants of non‑aggression, thereby providing security for the Muslims from their side. Third, the influence of Islam penetrated deep into the territories bordering the Roman Empire, echoing widely as a major historical event and paving the way for further attention toward Islam. Fourth, enduring this journey and its hardships prepared the ground for the eventual conquest of the Syrian territories and clarified that this arduous path would ultimately have to be traversed. These significant achievements were sufficient to justify the hardships endured by the army. In accordance with his established practice, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny then consulted his companions regarding whether to continue advancing or to return. The majority opinion favored returning, and this view was more consistent with the spirit of Islamic principles—especially given that the soldiers were exhausted and physically weakened by the grueling journey and its hardships. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny accepted this counsel, and the Islamic army returned to Madinah.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned those who remained behind and turned away from the battlefield. Those who remained behind were people who broke the covenant they had made with God and His Messenger, and who, in practice, had already falsified their professed belief in God and the Hereafter. We observed how the Muslims responded by severing their relations with them and admonishing them. In the verse under discussion, reference is made to the opposing group—those who stand in contrast to the hypocrites—and they are commanded to strengthen their ties with the truthful, namely those who remain steadfast in their covenant. It is first stated: O you who believe, fear God (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ). And in order that the believers may traverse the winding and challenging path of God‑consciousness without error or deviation, it is further stated: and be with the truthful (وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ). With regard to who the “الصادقين” are, exegetes have mentioned various possibilities. However, if one wishes to proceed directly to the core of the matter, one must turn to the Qur’an itself, which has explained the meaning of “الصادقين” in multiple verses. In Sūrat al‑Baqarah it is stated: لَيْسَ الْبِرَّ أَنْ تُوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ قِبَلَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ وَلَٰكِنَّ الْبِرَّ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالْكِتَابِ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ وَآتَى الْمَالَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَالْيَتَامَىٰ وَالْمَسَاكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ وَالسَّائِلِينَ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَأَقَامَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَى الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُوفُونَ بِعَهْدِهِمْ إِذَا عَاهَدُوا وَالصَّابِرِينَ فِي الْبَأْسَاءِ وَالضَّرَّاءِ وَحِينَ الْبَأْسِ أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ صَدَقُوا وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُتَّقُونَ (Baqarah: 177). In this verse, the believers are first discouraged from excessive disputation over the change of the direction of prayer, and then the reality of righteousness is explained. Faith in God, the Day of Judgment, the angels, the revealed books, and the prophets is mentioned, followed by spending wealth in the path of God for the needy and the deprived, establishing prayer, paying alms, fulfilling covenants, and showing patience and steadfastness in times of hardship and battle. After enumerating these qualities, the verse declares that those who possess them are the truthful and the God‑conscious. Thus, the truthful person is one who believes in all sacred principles and simultaneously gives practical expression to that belief in every arena. Similarly, Sūrat al‑Ḥujurāt, verse 15, states: إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَرْتَابُوا وَجَاهَدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ. That is, the true believers are those who believe in God and His Messenger, then do not fall into doubt, and strive with their wealth and lives in the path of God—these are the truthful ones. Here again, truthfulness is defined as a synthesis of faith and action, free from hesitation and withdrawal. In Sūrat al‑Ḥashr, verse 8, it is stated: لِلْفُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنْصُرُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ. That is, those impoverished emigrants who were expelled from their homes and possessions, who seek God’s grace and pleasure and who support God and His Messenger—these are the truthful ones. In this verse, the deprived believers who endured all hardships with resilience and steadfastness, were forcibly separated from their homes and wealth, and whose sole aim was God’s pleasure and the support of the Messenger, are explicitly described as “الصادقين.” Taking all these verses together, we may conclude that the truthful are those who, as a consequence of their faith in God, sincerely fulfill the responsibilities placed upon them. They are neither consumed by doubt nor inclined to retreat, nor are they intimidated by the multitude of hardships; rather, through various forms of sacrifice, they demonstrate the authenticity of their faith. There is no doubt that these qualities exist in varying degrees and levels. Some individuals may occupy the highest rank, whom we call the Infallibles, while others may stand at lower levels.

As noted above, although the concept of “الصادقين” is broad in scope, numerous narrations indicate that in this context it refers specifically to the Infallibles (المعصومين). Sulaym ibn Qays al‑Hilālī relates that one day Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (عليه السلام) was engaged in conversation with a group of Muslims. Among other things, he said to them: I adjure you by God, do you know that when God revealed the command (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ), Salman asked: “O Messenger of God, is this command general or specific?” The Messenger of God replied: “Those charged by this command are all believers, but the meaning of ‘الصادقين’ is specific—first for my brother ʿAlī, and after him for his successors until the Day of Resurrection.” When ʿAlī (عليه السلام) asked the people present about this, they replied: Yes, we heard this from the Messenger of God. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 170.) Nāfiʿ relates from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar, in explaining this verse, that he said: God first commanded the Muslims to fear Him, and then said: “كُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ”, that is, be with Muhammad and his Ahl al‑Bayt. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 170.) Some Sunni exegetes, such as the author of al‑Manār, have transmitted this narration with the wording “مَعَ مُحَمَّدٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ” (with Muhammad and his Companions). However, attention to the meaning of the verse makes it clear that it is general and applies to all times, whereas the Companions of the Prophet existed only in a limited historical period. Hence, the narration from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar as found in Shiʿi sources appears more accurate. The author of Tafsīr al‑Burhān has also transmitted similar reports through Sunni chains and states that Muwaffaq ibn Aḥmad, with his chain of transmission from Ibn ʿAbbās, narrated under this verse: “وَهُوَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ”—that is, He is ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. He further notes that ʿAbd al‑Razzāq recorded the same meaning in his book Rumūz al‑Kunūz. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 100.) The more significant point is that in the verse under discussion, the first command is “اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ” (fear God), followed by the command to accompany the truthful. If the meaning of “الصادقين” were general and included all truthful and steadfast believers, the wording would have been “كونوا من الصادقين” (be among the truthful) rather than “كونوا مع الصادقين” (be with the truthful) (reflect carefully). This itself serves as an internal indication that “الصادقين” in this verse refers to a specific group. Moreover, “being with” clearly means following and walking in their footsteps, not merely physical companionship. This raises the question: can unconditional obedience and following be commanded with respect to someone who is not infallible? Does this not itself indicate that “الصادقين” must refer exclusively to the Infallibles? Therefore, what is established by the narrations—when critically examined—is also supported by the verse itself. It is noteworthy that the well‑known exegete Fakhr al‑Rāzī, who is often associated with generating doubt and contention, nevertheless accepted this principle (although most Sunni exegetes passed over the issue in silence). He states that God commands the believers to accompany the truthful; thus, the verse implies that fallible people must follow an infallible one so that, through such following, they may be preserved from error. He further argues that this meaning must apply to every era, and that no proof exists to restrict it to the time of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. However, he then adds that although the verse requires the existence of an infallible in every era, this infallible should be understood as the collective body of the الأمة (community) rather than a specific individual. In other words, he interprets the verse as evidence for the authority of the consensus of believers and the community’s immunity from error. (See Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Rāzī, vol. 16, pp. 220–221.) In this way, Fakhr al‑Rāzī correctly traverses half of the path but falters in the second half. Had he reflected upon a key point embedded in the text of the verse, he would have completed the remaining half correctly. That point is this: if “الصادقين” were to mean the entire community, then the follower himself would be a part of that collective, resulting in an identity between follower and leader, and thus eliminating the distinction between تابع (follower) and متبوع (leader). Yet the apparent meaning of the verse clearly distinguishes between the two, indicating that the followers are one entity and the leaders another (reflect carefully). In summary, the verse under discussion is among those Qur’ānic verses that indicate the existence of an infallible authority in every age. One question remains: since “الصادقين” appears in the plural form, does this not imply that there must be multiple infallibles in every era? The answer is straightforward: the addressees of the verse are not limited to people of a single era; rather, the verse applies to all times. Accordingly, the plural refers to infallibles across successive eras, not multiple individuals within a single period. A clear indication of this is that during the time of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, no one besides him was obligatorily obeyed, yet the verse unquestionably applied to believers of that era as well. Therefore, the plural form signifies not multiple individuals in one era, but the مجموع of infallibles across all eras.

See ayat 121 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reproach was directed at those who remained behind from the Expedition of Tabūk. The two verses under discussion present, in this context, a final and fundamental exposition in the form of a general principle. It is first stated that the inhabitants of Madinah and the Bedouins living around this central city of Islam have no right to differ with the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny by staying behind and leaving him alone (مَا كَانَ لِأَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُمْ مِنَ الْأَعْرَابِ أَنْ يَتَخَلَّفُوا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ). Nor do they have the right to prefer the preservation of their own lives over the life of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny (وَلَا يَرْغَبُوا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ). This is because the leader of the community, the Messenger of God, is the symbol of the survival and vitality of the Islamic nation. Leaving him without support not only places the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in danger, but in reality endangers the existence and life of the religion of God and of the believers themselves. In effect, the Qur’an, through an emotionally charged expression, urges all believers to protect the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, encouraging them to support and defend him amidst hardships and afflictions. It declares that your own lives are not more precious than his life, nor is your survival more valuable than his existence. Does your faith permit that a being of such immense worth—whose existence is the means of your guidance and salvation—be exposed to danger, while you, seeking safety, refrain from sacrifice on his behalf? It is evident that the emphasis placed upon Madinah and its surrounding regions stems from the fact that at that time Madinah was the center of Islam. Otherwise, this ruling is neither confined to Madinah and its environs nor restricted to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny alone. In every age, it is the duty of all Muslims to regard their leaders as dearer than their own lives—or even more so—and to strive to protect them, never leaving them alone in times of hardship. For danger to the leader is, in reality, danger to the entire community. The verses then refer to the reward and recompense bestowed upon those fighters who confront every form of hardship with steadfast resolve. Seven categories of hardship are identified: 1. Thirst: that they are afflicted by no thirst (ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ لَا يُصِيبُهُمْ ظَمَأٌ). 2. Fatigue: nor do they suffer exhaustion or weariness (وَلَا نَصَبٌ). 3. Hunger: nor does hunger befall them in the path of God (وَلَا مَخْمَصَةٌ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ). 4. Provoking the enemy: nor do they tread any ground that arouses the fury of the disbelievers (وَلَا يَطَئُونَ مَوْطِئًا يَغِيظُ الْكُفَّارَ). 5. Blows from the enemy: nor do they suffer any strike from an enemy (وَلَا يَنَالُونَ مِنْ عَدُوٍّ نَيْلًا). Except that for each of these, a righteous deed is recorded for them (إِلَّا كُتِبَ لَهُمْ بِهِ عَمَلٌ صَالِحٌ). Undoubtedly, God will recompense them for each of these individually, for God does not let the reward of those who do good go to waste (إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ). 1. Spending wealth: likewise, they do not expend any amount—small or great—in the path of God (وَلَا يُنفِقُونَ نَفَقَةً صَغِيرَةً وَلَا كَبِيرَةً). 2. Traversing terrain: nor do they cross any valley while going to or returning from the battlefield without it being recorded for them (وَلَا يَقْطَعُونَ وَادِيًا إِلَّا كُتِبَ لَهُمْ). All of this occurs so that God may recompense them according to the excellence of what they have done (لِيَجْزِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ).

As noted in the preceding lines, most exegetes have understood this expression to mean that whatever suffering the fighters in the path of God endure at the hands of the enemy—whether in the form of wounds, imprisonment, or even death—is recorded in their register of deeds for the sake of divine recompense, and each will receive reward in accordance with his circumstance. Considering that the verse enumerates the hardships faced by the fighters, this interpretation appears appropriate. However, if one relies on the syntactic structure of the phrase itself and interprets it in accordance with the literal implications of its wording, the meaning would be that whenever they strike the enemy, it is recorded in their register of deeds, because the expression “نَالَ مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ” in lexical usage denotes inflicting a blow upon the enemy. Nevertheless, in view of the verse as a whole, the contextual indicators support the earlier interpretation.

Two interpretations have been mentioned for this expression. One is that the term “أَحْسَن” functions as a qualifier of their deeds, and the other is that it describes their reward. We have selected the first interpretation above, as it is also more consistent with the apparent meaning of the verse. According to this interpretation, the deeds of such fighters are regarded as the finest actions of their lives, and God will grant them recompense in proportion to those deeds. The second interpretation requires the ellipsis of the word “مِن” after the term “أَحْسَن”. According to this view, divine recompense is considered superior to and greater than their deeds. On this basis, the implied construction of the sentence would be: “لِيَجْزِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنَ مِمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ”, that is, God will reward them with something better and greater than what they have already done.

The foregoing verses were not revealed solely for the Muslims of the past; rather, they are equally relevant for the Muslims of today and for those of every age. There is no doubt that in every form of jihād—whether minor or major—various hardships and difficulties arise. However, when those engaged in struggle illuminate their hearts and souls with faith in God and in His great promises, and become certain that every breath, every word, and every step taken in His path will not be wasted, but rather will be recorded with the utmost precision and preserved without the slightest diminution, and that God will recompense them by counting these efforts among the best of deeds and granting them the most fitting reward from His boundless ocean of grace, then they will never shrink from enduring hardships. They will not be intimidated by the abundance of difficulties, and no matter how prolonged, arduous, and fraught with trials the struggle may be, they will display no weakness or lethargy of any kind.

The late al‑Ṭabarsī reports in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, that whenever the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny set out toward the battlefield of jihād, all the Muslims would depart with him, leaving behind only the disabled and the hypocrites. However, when certain verses concerning the hypocrites were revealed—particularly the severe threats and reproaches directed at those who turned away from the Expedition of Tabūk—the believers became even more resolute in participating in the fields of jihād. To such an extent did this determination grow that even in battles in which the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not personally participate, the believers would all set out, leaving the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny alone in Madinah. In view of these circumstances, the above verse was revealed, instructing them that it is not appropriate for all Muslims to depart for the battlefield in every situation. Rather, a group should remain in Madinah. Those who remain should learn the Islamic teachings and rulings directly from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and after their fellow fighters return, they should instruct them in the religious knowledge they have acquired. This great exegete also relates another occasion of revelation for this verse: some of the Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny went to Bedouin tribes to propagate the religion. The Bedouins received them favorably and treated them well, but some people objected, saying: why have you left the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and come to us? Hearing this, they became distressed and returned to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. At that point, this verse was revealed, affirming the legitimacy of their missionary activity and relieving their distress. In Tafsīr al‑Tibyān, yet another occasion of revelation for this verse is reported. It states that when Bedouin people embraced Islam, all of them set out toward Madinah to learn the rulings of Islam. As a result, prices of goods rose in Madinah and various other difficulties arose. Thereupon, this verse was revealed, instructing them that it is not necessary for everyone to abandon their homes and cities and travel to Madinah to learn Islamic teachings; rather, it is sufficient for some of them to do so.

The verse under discussion is connected to the preceding verses concerning jihād. It points to a reality that is life‑giving for Muslims: jihād holds great importance, and remaining behind from it without justification is a source of disgrace and sin. However, in certain circumstances where necessity does not demand the participation of all Muslims in the field of jihād—especially in situations where the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself remains in Madinah—it is not appropriate for everyone to depart for battle. Rather, it is necessary that each Muslim community be divided into two groups: one group that fulfills the duty of jihād, and another that remains in Madinah to acquire knowledge of the Islamic teachings (وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُوا كَافَّةً فَلَوْلَا نَفَرَ مِنْ كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِنْهُمْ طَائِفَةٌ لِيَتَفَقَّهُوا فِي الدِّينِ). And when their fellow believers who participated in jihād return from the battlefield, this second group should instruct them in the commands and injunctions of God and warn them against مخالفت (disobedience) (وَلِيُنذِرُوا قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُوا إِلَيْهِمْ), so that they may exercise caution, avoid violating Divine commands, and fulfill their obligations (لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ).

What has been stated above in the interpretation of this verse not only accords with the well‑known occasions of revelation, but is also more consistent with the apparent meaning of the verse than other interpretations. One point, however, deserves careful consideration: after the expression “كُلُّ فِرْقَةٍ طَائِفَةٌ”, it may be understood by implication that “لِتَبْقَىٰ طَائِفَةٌ”—that is, from every group, one party should set out, while another should remain behind. When attention is paid to the contextual indicators present in the verse, no difficulty arises from this understanding (reflect carefully). Nevertheless, some exegetes have proposed another possibility, namely that there is no implied ellipsis in the verse. According to this view, the meaning is that among the Muslims, a group should, as a collective obligation (wājib kifāʾī), go forth to the battlefield and, through participation therein, acquire insight into Islamic teachings by directly witnessing the Muslims’ victory over their enemies—a manifestation of the greatness and truth of this religion—and upon returning, convey this awareness to their companions. (According to al‑Qurṭubī, this interpretation was adopted by al‑Ṭabarī in his commentary; some other exegetes have also mentioned it as a possible meaning beneath the verse.) A third possibility, mentioned by yet other exegetes, is that independent of the discussions concerning jihād, the verse establishes a separate ruling: that it is obligatory upon the Muslims, as a collective duty, that from each community a group arise to travel toward the major centers of Islam in order to acquire Islamic teachings and knowledge, and, after completing their studies, return to their towns and homes to teach others. (This interpretation accords with the occasion of revelation cited by Shaykh in al‑Tibyān.) As we have noted, however, the first interpretation is more closely aligned with the meaning of the verse, although taking all of these meanings together is not far‑fetched. (It should be noted that, in our view, the application of a single expression to multiple meanings is valid.)

Some have imagined that there is a kind of contradiction between this verse and the preceding verses: in the earlier verses, a command is given that all should participate in the battlefield of jihād, and those who remain behind are severely reproached, whereas in the present verse it is commanded that not everyone should set out toward the battlefield. However, it is clear that these two commands have been issued with regard to different circumstances. For example, at the time of Tabūk, when the Muslims were confronted with the powerful army of the Eastern Roman Empire, there was no alternative but for all Muslims to set out, especially in such conditions where the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself remained in Madinah. In such a situation, Madinah should not have been left empty, and potential dangers could not be ignored. At the same time, Muslims could not afford to remain negligent of acquiring Islamic knowledge and teachings. Therefore, there is no abrogation (naskh) involved in these verses, and the assumption made by some in this regard arises from a misunderstanding.

There is no doubt that “تَفَقُّهُ فِي الدِّين” refers to the acquisition of the entirety of Islamic knowledge and rulings, whether they pertain to the principles of religion (uṣūl al‑dīn) or its subsidiary laws (furūʿ al‑dīn), because the concept of tafaqquh comprehensively encompasses all of these matters. Therefore, the above verse constitutes clear evidence that among Muslims there must always exist a group that undertakes the obligation of collective duty (wājib kifāʾī) by acquiring knowledge of all Islamic teachings, and after completing their education, they should travel to different regions—particularly returning to their own people and communities—in order to convey Islamic rulings and acquaint them with religious teachings. Thus, the above verse provides explicit proof for the obligation of learning and teaching Islamic knowledge. In other words, acquiring knowledge is obligatory, and imparting knowledge is likewise obligatory. If the modern world takes pride in compulsory education, the Qur’an, more than fourteen centuries ago, went even further by making this duty obligatory not only upon learners but also upon teachers.

Some scholars of Islam have derived from the verse under discussion an argument for the permissibility of taqlīd (authoritative following). This is because acquiring religious teachings, conveying the detailed rulings of the law to others, and the obligation of listeners to act upon them—this is precisely what taqlīd entails. Admittedly, as previously indicated, the verse under discussion does not deal exclusively with the subsidiary rulings (furūʿ al‑dīn), but its scope also encompasses matters of principle (uṣūl); nevertheless, the subsidiary rulings are unquestionably included within its meaning. The principal objection that arises here is that during that period, the notions of ijtihād and taqlīd in their later technical forms did not yet exist. At that time, those who learned religious rulings and conveyed them to others were not in a situation comparable to contemporary jurists who issue legal verdicts, nor did they possess the status of later‑period mujtahids. Rather, they would learn the rulings directly from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and transmit them to others exactly as they had heard them, without expressing personal opinions. However, if attention is paid to the broader conceptual meaning of ijtihād and taqlīd, this objection can be addressed. There is no doubt that the science of jurisprudence (fiqh) did not possess, at that time, the breadth and complexity it has today, and Muslims were often able to obtain legal rulings directly from the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny with relative ease. Nevertheless, it was not the case that all leading figures of early Islam were permanently present in close proximity to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in the manner of later religious authorities. Many among them would travel to distant regions to assume responsibilities in governance or judiciary roles. Inevitably, they would encounter legal questions that they had not heard directly from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In such cases, they would resort to the general and absolute implications of Qur’ānic verses and apply universal principles to particular situations. Inevitably, they would derive specific rulings from general principles and refer subsidiary matters back to foundational rulings, which, in practical terms, constitutes a form of simple and preliminary ijtihād. It is certain that such practices existed during the lifetime of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, demonstrating that the foundations of ijtihād were present among the Companions, even though not all of them were engaged in it to the same degree. Since the verse under discussion possesses a general and comprehensive scope, it encompasses both the acceptance of transmitted rulings from narrators and the acceptance of scholarly opinions from jurists. Accordingly, its generality can validly be used to establish the legitimacy of taqlīd.

Another important point that can be derived from this verse is that, in the view of Islam, teaching and learning enjoy a special respect and significance, to the extent that Islam does not obligate all believers to participate simultaneously in the battlefield. Rather, it makes it obligatory that a group remain behind to acquire the knowledge of Islamic teachings. In other words, striving against ignorance is deemed as obligatory as striving against the enemy, and it is no less important than armed struggle. Indeed, success in struggle against external enemies is impossible unless one has first succeeded in the struggle against ignorance, for an ignorant nation is always a defeated nation. A contemporary exegete has mentioned an interesting observation under this verse. He writes: “I was once engaged in my studies in Tripoli when the local deputy commissioner—who himself possessed considerable awareness of Islamic teachings—said to me: ‘On what basis does the government exempt scholars and students of religious sciences from military service, when this sacred duty is legally obligatory upon all, and when students of religious knowledge have a greater claim than others to perform this religious obligation? Is this not incorrect?’ Immediately, the verse under discussion came to my mind, and without any preamble I replied: ‘The foundation of this matter exists in the Qur’an itself, for it states that one group should engage in jihād while another group should acquire knowledge.’ He greatly appreciated this answer, especially since it came from a student like myself who had only recently begun his studies.” Provide your feedback on BizChat

In the context of the ongoing discussions concerning jihād, the verse under consideration sets forth two additional directives. First, addressing the believers, it states: O you who believe! Fight those disbelievers who are nearest to you (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ). It is true that one must confront all enemies without discrimination; however, from a military and strategic perspective, there is no doubt that priority should be given to confronting the nearest enemy. This is because the danger posed by a close enemy is greater. The principle here is similar to that applied in calling people to Islam and guiding them toward the religion of truth, where one begins with those who are closest. The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, by divine command, began his mission with his own relatives, then called the people of Mecca, thereafter dispatched emissaries throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and finally addressed letters to the rulers of the world. Undoubtedly, this method is closer to achieving success. Naturally, in every general rule there are exceptional situations. It is possible that under unusual circumstances, a distant enemy may pose a far greater threat, necessitating that attention be directed toward neutralizing that enemy first. However, as stated, this represents an exception rather than the general rule. The rationale for prioritizing the nearest enemy is evident. First, the threat posed by a nearby enemy is greater than that posed by a distant one. Second, information and intelligence regarding a nearby enemy are more readily available, and this in itself aids in achieving success. Third, advancing toward a distant enemy while leaving a nearby enemy unchecked can create the danger that the latter may launch an attack from behind or destabilize the center of Islam in one’s absence. Fourth, confronting a nearby enemy generally requires fewer resources and less logistical preparation, and securing a close front is comparatively easier. For these reasons, and others like them, repelling such an enemy is more urgent. It should also be noted that when this verse was revealed, Islam had already brought nearly the entire Arabian Peninsula under its authority. Consequently, the nearest enemy at that time was the Eastern Roman Empire, which the Muslims confronted in the expedition to Tabūk. It should not be overlooked that although this verse speaks explicitly of armed conflict and physical proximity, it is not implausible that the spirit of the verse also applies to intellectual and moral confrontations and to non‑physical forms of proximity. In other words, Muslims should prioritize confronting ideological and propagandistic threats posed by those whose danger to Islamic society is most immediate. For example, in our own time, the threat of atheism and materialism confronts societies on a broad scale. Therefore, confronting such ideologies should take precedence over confronting false religions more generally, without neglecting them entirely. Likewise, resistance to intellectual, political, and economic forms of colonial domination should occupy a primary position in this struggle. The second directive in the verse concerning jihād pertains to firmness and severity of conduct. The verse states: And let them find in you a firmness (وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً). This indicates that inner courage, steadfastness, and spiritual readiness alone are not sufficient for standing firm against the enemy. Rather, this readiness and firmness must also be outwardly manifested before the enemy, so that it becomes clear that such resolve exists among you. This outward display of strength itself becomes a cause of the enemy’s retreat and defeat. In other words, possessing strength is not enough; displaying that strength before the enemy is also necessary. For this reason, Islamic history records that when the Muslims came to Mecca to perform the circumambulation of the Kaʿbah, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny commanded them to perform ṭawāf swiftly, even to jog, in order to display their vigor, speed, and strength before the watching enemies. Likewise, during the Conquest of Mecca, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny ordered that fires be lit throughout the desert at night, so that the people of Mecca would become aware of the immense size and power of the Islamic army. This indeed left a profound impression upon them. He also commanded that Abū Sufyān, the leader of the Meccan disbelievers, be stationed at a certain place while the Muslim army passed before him, unit by unit, demonstrating its strength. Finally, the Qur’an gives glad tidings of victory to the believers in these words: And know that God is with the God‑fearing (وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ). This expression may further indicate that steadfast action must be accompanied by piety, and under no circumstances should the bounds of human ethics be transgressed.

See ayat 125 for tafseer.

In connection with the preceding discussions concerning the hypocrites and the believers, these two verses point to a clear distinguishing sign of both groups. It is first stated that when a sūrah is revealed, some of the hypocrites say to one another: Which of you has had his faith increased by the revelation of this sūrah? (وَإِذَا مَا أُنزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَقُولُ أَيُّكُمْ زَادَتْهُ هَذِهِ إِيمَانًا). By uttering such remarks, they sought to express their indifference toward the Qur’ānic sūrahs and to imply that these revealed verses possessed no significant or noteworthy effect. They wished to convey that these verses were devoid of any serious or consequential meaning. However, the Qur’an responds to them with a decisive tone, clearly differentiating between two groups of people. It declares that as for those who believe, the revelation of these verses indeed increases their faith, and the signs of joy and gladness become visible upon their faces (فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَزَادَتْهُمْ إِيمَانًا وَهُمْ يَسْتَبْشِرُونَ). But as for those in whose hearts reside the diseases of hypocrisy, ignorance, hostility, and envy, every such revelation adds impurity to their existing impurity (وَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ فَزَادَتْهُمْ رِجْسًا إِلَىٰ رِجْسِهِمْ). Ultimately, they depart from this world in a state of disbelief and denial (وَمَاتُوا وَهُمْ كَافِرُونَ).

The two Qur’ānic verses mentioned above emphasize the reality that life‑giving teachings and a sound program of action alone are not sufficient to secure the felicity of an individual or a community; rather, the availability of their prerequisites and the preparation of their foundations must also be regarded as a fundamental condition. Qur’ānic verses are like the life‑giving drops of rain: upon fertile ground they produce lush vegetation, while upon barren, thorny land they yield only weeds and thistles. Those who turn toward these verses with the spirit of learning and faith, and with love for truth, derive from every sūrah—indeed, from every single verse—a new lesson that nurtures their faith and strengthens within them the manifest qualities of humanity. By contrast, those who look upon these verses through the dark veils of obstinacy, arrogance, and hypocrisy not only fail to benefit from them, but find their disbelief and hostility intensified by them. In other words, with every new command they commit a new act of disobedience; with every injunction they display renewed defiance; and before every truth they exhibit fresh obstinacy. Thus layers of rebellion, insubordination, and stubbornness accumulate within their being, causing the roots of these corrupt traits to grow ever more firmly within their souls. Ultimately, they die in a state of disbelief, and the path of return becomes entirely closed to them. In another formulation, it may be said that in any educational and formative program, the effectiveness of the educator alone is not sufficient; rather, the receptivity of the subject and the capacity of the recipient are also essential conditions.

In lexicographical usage, the term “رِجْس” denotes an impure and unclean state or entity. Rāghib, in his work al‑Mufradāt, states that impurity is of four kinds: (1) with respect to natural disposition, (2) from the standpoint of intellect and thought, (3) in terms of religious law, and (4) in some cases encompassing all of these aspects simultaneously. There is no doubt that the impurity which arises from hypocrisy, obstinate resistance, and intense opposition to the truth constitutes a form of inward and spiritual defilement. Over time, the effects of this inner impurity inevitably manifest throughout a person’s entire being, speech, and conduct.

By attending to the original meaning of the term “بِشَارَت” (glad tidings), it becomes clear that it denotes a condition in which the signs of joy and inner happiness manifest visibly upon the face. This indicates that the pedagogical and formative effect of the Qur’ānic verses upon the believers was so immediate and profound that its آثار (effects) would swiftly appear upon their faces.

In the above verses, hypocrisy and its corrupt attributes have been described as a disease of the heart. As previously noted, in such contexts the term “قلب” signifies the human spirit and intellect, and disease of the heart denotes moral vices and spiritual deviations. This teaching indicates that if a person’s spirit and intellect are sound and healthy, none of these corrupt traits can take root within his being; rather, such traits are contrary to human nature, just as physical illness runs counter to bodily health. Therefore, being tainted by these characteristics is itself evidence of deviation from the original natural path and a sign of spiritual sickness.

The above verse conveys a profound lesson to all Muslims. These verses reflect the reality that whenever a Qur’ānic sūrah was revealed, it infused the early Muslims with a renewed spiritual vitality and provided them with fresh moral formation, such that its effects quickly became visible on their faces. By contrast, today we observe people who outwardly identify as Muslims yet are not only unaffected by the recitation of a single sūrah, but show scarcely any change even after completing a full recitation of the Qur’an.

See ayat 127 for tafseer.

In the verses under discussion, reference is again made to certain characteristics of the hypocrites, and the discussion concerning the signs of hypocrisy that appears in the preceding and subsequent verses forms part of the same context. It is first stated: Do they not see that once or twice every year they are put to trial? (أَوَلَا يَرَوْنَ أَنَّهُمْ يُفْتَنُونَ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ مَرَّةً أَوْ مَرَّتَيْنِ). What is astonishing is that despite these repeated trials, some of them do not desist from following erroneous paths, nor do they repent, nor do they take admonition (ثُمَّ لَا يَتُوبُونَ وَلَا هُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ). Exegetes have differed regarding the nature of this trial that occurs once or twice every year. Some interpret it as referring to illnesses; others take it to mean hunger, poverty, and other hardships. Some consider it to be the witnessing of signs of Islam’s greatness and the truthfulness of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in the arenas of jihād, since hypocrites participate in such contexts due to social pressure. Others understand it as the exposure of the hypocrites’ secrets and the unveiling of their inner realities. However, in view of the closing phrase of the verse—that they do not take admonition—it becomes clear that this trial must be of a type that should awaken such individuals. Moreover, the expression of the verse suggests that this test is distinct from the general trials that people ordinarily encounter in life. Considering this, the fourth interpretation—that is, the exposure of their corrupt acts and the manifestation of their inner selves—appears closer to the meaning of the verse. It is also possible that the term trial here carries a comprehensive meaning encompassing all of these elements. The verse then turns to their gestures of denial upon hearing the revelations of God. It is stated: when a sūrah of the Qur’an is revealed, they glance at one another with looks of disdain and rejection, conveying through their eye movements how distressed they are (وَإِذَا مَا أُنزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ نَظَرَ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ). Their discomfort and anxiety stem either from the fear that the revelation of this sūrah might expose them to further disgrace and humiliation, or from their inner blindness, which prevents them from understanding anything of it, since a person is inherently hostile toward that which he does not understand. In any case, they resolve firmly to leave the gathering so as not to hear these heavenly words, yet they fear that someone might notice them as they depart. They therefore discreetly ask one another, Is anyone watching you? (هَلْ يَرَاكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ). When they are reassured that others are absorbed in listening to the words of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and are not paying attention to them, they slip out of the gathering (ثُمَّ انصَرَفُوا). Whether uttered verbally or signaled through their glances, the phrase “هَلْ يَرَاكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ” corresponds to “نَظَرَ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ”, both conveying essentially the same meaning. In reality, “هَلْ يَرَاكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ” is an explanation of their furtive glances at one another. At the end of the verse, the reason for their aversion and unease upon hearing God’s words is stated: God has turned their hearts away from the truth because of their obstinacy, hostility, and sins—since they are people who do not understand (صَرَفَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ). Exegetes have mentioned two possibilities regarding the expression “صَرَفَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ”: first, that it is a declarative statement, as interpreted above; second, that it is an imprecatory expression, conveying supplication or curse—namely, that God has turned their hearts away from the truth. However, the first interpretation appears to be the more accurate one.

See ayat 129 for tafseer.

According to some exegetes, the verses under discussion are among the final verses revealed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and Sūrat al‑Barāʾah concludes with them. In reality, these verses point back to all the themes that have appeared throughout this sūrah. This is because, on the one hand, they address all people—whether believers or hypocrites—making it clear that the apparent severity and firmness exhibited by the Prophet and the Qur’an, examples of which appear repeatedly in this sūrah, are motivated solely by the Prophet’s deep love for their guidance, moral formation, perfection, and spiritual growth. On the other hand, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is reassured not to be distressed or disheartened by the people’s defiance and disobedience, many instances of which have been mentioned in this sūrah, and to remain certain that God Almighty is, in every circumstance, his supporter, ally, and helper. Therefore, in the first verse, addressing the people, it is stated: There has come to you a Messenger from among yourselves (لَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ). The use of “مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ” instead of “مِنْكُمْ” points specifically to the intense bond between the Messenger and the people, as though he were a part of their very being and an expression of the community’s soul in human form. For this reason, he fully knows their pains and hardships, is aware of their difficulties, and shares in their sorrow and anguish. In such circumstances, it is inconceivable that he would say or command anything that does not serve their benefit. Indeed, this is the first attribute of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny mentioned in these verses. It is astonishing that some exegetes, influenced by ethnic and Arab‑centric biases, have claimed that the addressees of this verse are Arabs specifically—that is, that the Prophet came to them from among their own ethnic group. In our view, this is among the weakest interpretations of the verse. For we know that racial or ethnic identity is something the Qur’an does not emphasize; throughout the Qur’an, the forms of address are “يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ”, “يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا”, and similar expressions. Nowhere does the Qur’an say “يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَرَبُ” or “يَا قُرَيْشُ” or the like. Moreover, the verse concludes by stating that the Messenger is gentle and merciful toward the believers (بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ), which clearly refutes such a narrow interpretation, as it applies to all believers regardless of ethnicity, nation, lineage, or tribe. It is regrettable that some biased scholars have attempted to reduce the Qur’an from its universal and human scope, confining it within a narrow ethnic framework. After stating “مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ”, the verse proceeds to mention four outstanding qualities of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—qualities that powerfully influence human emotions and inspire people’s inclinations. First, it states that any hardship, suffering, or difficulty experienced by the people is extremely distressing to him (عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ). This means that he not only does not rejoice in their suffering, but cannot remain indifferent to it. He shares in their pain and sorrow. Even when he insists upon difficult responsibilities or arduous battles, it is solely for their salvation and liberation from oppression, sin, and misery. Second, it states that he is deeply concerned about their well‑being (حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ). In lexical usage, “حِرْص” signifies intense concern or attachment. Notably, the verse simply states “he is eager concerning you,” without specifying guidance or any other matter, indicating his concern encompasses every aspect of their happiness, progress, growth, and prosperity. Then, pointing to the third and fourth qualities, the Qur’an states: he is compassionate and merciful toward the believers (بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ). Thus, even when he issues difficult and demanding commands, they are manifestations of his love and mercy. Even the hardships endured during the Expedition of Tabūk—crossing scorching deserts in the height of summer, enduring hunger and thirst while confronting a powerful enemy—were expressions of his compassion. Regarding the difference between “رَءُوف” and “رَحِيم”, exegetes have offered various views, but the most convincing interpretation appears to be that “رَءُوف” refers to special compassion shown to the obedient, while “رَحِيم” refers to mercy extended even to sinners. It should be noted, however, that when these terms are used independently, they may convey similar meanings, whereas when paired together, they often signify distinct nuances. In the following verse, which is the final verse of this sūrah, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is comforted and instructed not to be grieved by people’s obstinacy and disobedience. He is told that if they turn away from the truth, he should say: God is sufficient for me (فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَقُلْ حَسْبِيَ اللَّهُ), for He has power over all things. He is the only deity (اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ), and thus the sole refuge. Yes, I place my trust exclusively in Him and entrust all my affairs to Him (عَلَيْهِ تَوَكَّلْتُ), and He is the Lord and Master of the Mighty Throne (وَهُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ). The Exalted Throne—the realm beyond nature in all its majesty—lies entirely within His dominion and care. How, then, could it be possible that He would abandon me or fail to support me against my enemies? Can any power rival His power, or can any mercy surpass His mercy? O God! At this moment, as we conclude this sūrah and write these lines, enemies surround us from all sides, and our courageous and noble nation has risen to eradicate oppression, corruption, and tyranny. An unprecedented unity has emerged across all ranks and classes, to the extent that even young children are participating in this struggle, and no one hesitates to offer sacrifice and devotion. O Lord! You know and see all of this. You are the source of compassion and love. You have promised victory and success to the fighters in Your path. Therefore, draw near Your help and support, grant us final and complete victory, and quench the thirst of these lovers and seekers with the pure waters of faith, justice, and freedom. إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ.