This article is a translation of the book Dafʿ Īhām al Iḍṭirāb ʿan Āyāt al Kitāb (Removing the False Impression of Contradictions from the Verses of the Book) by Shaykh Muḥammad al Amīn al Shanqīṭī.

First Half of The Book Translated

Alif Lam Mim. That Book

الم ۝ ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ

“Alif Lam Mim. That is the Book.” (al Baqarah 1–2)

Allah, Most High, pointed to the Qur’an in this verse with a word used for something far away. In other verses, He pointed to it with a word used for something near, such as His saying:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَهْدِي لِلَّتِي هِيَ أَقْوَمُ

“Indeed, this Qur’an guides to what is most upright.” (al Isra 9)

And His saying:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ يَقُصُّ عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ

“Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel.” (al Naml 76)

And His saying:

وَهَٰذَا كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ

“And this is a blessed Book which We sent down.” (al Anʿam 92)

And His saying:

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ

“We relate to you the best of stories through what We have revealed to you of this Qur’an.” (Yusuf 3)

And other verses.

There are several ways to reconcile these verses.

The first way is what some ulama of eloquence carefully explained: the reason the Qur’an is pointed to with a word used for something present and near is that this Qur’an is near and present in hearing, on tongues, and in hearts. The reason it is pointed to with a word used for something far away is the high rank of its station and its distance from resembling the speech of creation, and from what the disbelievers claim about it, such as that it is magic, poetry, soothsaying, or tales of the earlier people.

The second way is what Ibn Jarir al Tabari (d. 310AH) chose in his Tafsir: that “that” points to what is contained in His saying:

الم

“Alif Lam Mim.”

He said that it was pointed to with a word used for something far away because the speech being pointed to had already ended. In reality, its meaning is near because its ending had only just occurred. He gave an example of a man speaking to another man and saying to him at one time, “By Allah, that is just as you said,” and at another time saying, “By Allah, this is just as you said.” So the far indication is by looking at the fact that the speech has passed and ended, while the near indication is by looking at how close its ending was.

The third way is that the Arabs may sometimes point to something near with a word used for something far away. So the verse would be upon one of the ways of the Arabic language. A similar example is the saying of Khufaf ibn Nudbah al Sulami, when Malik ibn Harmalah al Fazari was killed:

“If the core of my horses was struck, then deliberately, before my eye, I aimed for Malik.

I said to him while the spear bent his back: Look at Khufaf, indeed I am that one.”

Meaning: I am this one.

Al Bukhari (d. 256AH) quoted this last view from Umar ibn al Muthanna Abu Ubaydah (d. 209AH), as Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH) said. In every case, the general body of mufassirun hold that “that Book” means “this Book.”

No Doubt In The Book

لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ

“There is no doubt in it.” (al Baqarah 2)

This is an indefinite word in the setting of negation, joined with the particle of absolute negation, and it is therefore built upon the fatḥah.

When an indefinite word comes in this way, it is a clear text in generality, as is established in the science of usul. This particle, which is a clear text in generality, is known among grammarians as the particle that negates the whole category. As for the particle that works like “is not”, it is apparent in generality, but not a clear text in it.

Accordingly, the verse is a clear text in negating every individual form of doubt from this great Qur’an.

Other verses have come indicating that some people, such as the doubting disbelievers, have doubt concerning it, such as His saying, Most High:

وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا

“And if you are in doubt about what We sent down upon Our servant.” (al Baqarah 23)

And His saying:

وَارْتَابَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ فَهُمْ فِي رَيْبِهِمْ يَتَرَدَّدُونَ

“Their hearts doubted, so they waver in their doubt.” (al Tawbah 45)

And His saying:

بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ يَلْعَبُونَ

“Rather, they are in doubt, playing.” (al Dukhan 9)

The way to reconcile this is that the Qur’an has reached such clarity in evidence and such manifest proof in its miracle that it prevents any doubt from entering it. As for the doubt of the disbelievers concerning it, that is only because of the blindness of their inner sight, as Allah explained through His saying:

أَفَمَنْ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ الْحَقُّ كَمَنْ هُوَ أَعْمَىٰ

“Is the one who knows that what was sent down to you from your Lord is the truth like one who is blind?” (al Raʿd 19)

So He clearly said that whoever does not know that it is the truth, this came to him only because of his blindness. It is known that the blind person not seeing the sun does not oppose the fact that there is no doubt about the sun because of how clear it is.

“If a person has no sound eye, then it is no wonder that he doubts while the morning is bright.”

Some ulama answered that His saying, “There is no doubt in it,” is a report intended as a command, meaning: “Do not doubt it.” Upon this, there is no problem.

Guidance For The People Of Taqwa

هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

“A guidance for the people of taqwa.” (al Baqarah 2)

In this verse, the guidance of this Book is made specific to the people of taqwa (God consciousness). Another verse indicates that its guidance is general for all people. It is His saying, Most High:

شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ فِيهِ الْقُرْآنُ هُدًى لِلنَّاسِ

“The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur’an was sent down as guidance for people.” (al Baqarah 185)

The way to reconcile both verses is that hidayah (guidance) is used in the Qur’an in 2 ways: one is general, and the other is specific.

As for general guidance, its meaning is making the path of truth clear and showing the road plainly, whether the person for whom it is shown follows it or not. In this meaning is His saying, Most High:

وَأَمَّا ثَمُودُ فَهَدَيْنَاهُمْ

“As for Thamud, We guided them.” (Fussilat 17)

Meaning: We made the path of truth clear to them upon the tongue of Our Prophet Salih عليه السلام, even though they did not follow it. This is proven by His saying, Mighty and Exalted is He:

فَاسْتَحَبُّوا الْعَمَىٰ عَلَى الْهُدَىٰ

“But they preferred blindness over guidance.” (Fussilat 17)

Also from this is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ

“Indeed, We guided him to the path.” (al Insan 3)

Meaning: We made clear to him the path of good and evil. The proof is His saying:

إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا

“Whether grateful or ungrateful.” (al Insan 3)

As for specific guidance, it is Allah favouring the servant with tawfiq (being guided to act upon the truth). In this meaning is His saying, Most High:

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ

“Those are the ones whom Allah guided.” (al Anʿam 90)

And His saying:

فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ

“So whoever Allah wants to guide, He opens his chest to Islam.” (al Anʿam 125)

When this is known, then know that the guidance made specific to the people of taqwa is the specific guidance, meaning Allah favouring them with tawfiq. The general guidance for people is the general guidance, meaning making the path clear and showing the road plainly.

By this, the problem is also removed between His saying, Most High:

إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ

“Indeed, you do not guide whom you love.” (al Qasas 56)

And His saying:

وَإِنَّكَ لَتَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ

“And indeed, you call them to a straight path.” (al Mu’minun 73)

The guidance negated from him ﷺ is the specific guidance, because tawfiq is in the Hand of Allah alone:

وَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ فِتْنَتَهُ فَلَنْ تَمْلِكَ لَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا

“Whoever Allah wants to put to trial, you will not have anything for him against Allah.” (al Ma’idah 41)

The guidance affirmed for him ﷺ is the general guidance, meaning making the path clear. He ﷺ made it clear until he left it as a white road, its night like its day:

وَاللَّهُ يَدْعُو إِلَىٰ دَارِ السَّلَامِ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ

“Allah calls to the Home of Peace and guides whom He wills to a straight path.” (Yunus 25)

Indeed Those Who Disbelieved

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

“Indeed, those who disbelieved, it is the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.” (al Baqarah 6)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that the disbelievers do not believe.

Other verses have come indicating that some disbelievers believe in Allah and His Messenger, such as His saying, Most High:

قُلْ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ يَنْتَهُوا يُغْفَرْ لَهُمْ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ

“Say to those who disbelieved: if they stop, what has already passed will be forgiven for them.” (al Anfal 38)

And His saying:

كَذَٰلِكَ كُنْتُمْ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَمَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ

“You were like that before, then Allah favoured you.” (al Nisa 94)

And His saying:

وَمِنْ هَٰؤُلَاءِ مَنْ يُؤْمِنُ بِهِ

“And among these are those who believe in it.” (al Ankabut 47)

The way to reconcile this is clear: the verse is from the general wording that is made specific. It refers specifically to the wretched ones for whom wretchedness had already preceded in the knowledge of Allah. They are the ones pointed to in His saying:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ ۝ وَلَوْ جَاءَتْهُمْ كُلُّ آيَةٍ حَتَّىٰ يَرَوُا الْعَذَابَ الْأَلِيمَ

“Indeed, those upon whom the word of your Lord has become binding will not believe, even if every sign came to them, until they see the painful punishment.” (Yunus 96–97)

What proves this specification is His saying, Most High:

خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ

“Allah has sealed their hearts.” (al Baqarah 7)

Some answered that the meaning is: they will not believe as long as the seal remains upon their hearts and hearing, and the covering remains over their eyes. If Allah removes that from them by His bounty, they will believe.

Allah Has Sealed Their Hearts And Their Hearing

خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ

“Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing.” (al Baqarah 7)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that they are compelled, because whoever has his heart sealed and a covering placed over his sight has had the ability to believe taken away from him.

Other verses have come indicating that their disbelief occurs by their own will and choice, such as His saying, Most High:

فَاسْتَحَبُّوا الْعَمَىٰ عَلَى الْهُدَىٰ

“They preferred blindness over guidance.” (Fussilat 17)

And His saying, Most High:

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَالْعَذَابَ بِالْمَغْفِرَةِ

“Those are the ones who bought misguidance in exchange for guidance, and punishment in exchange for forgiveness.” (al Baqarah 175)

And His saying:

فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

“So whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (al Kahf 29)

And His saying:

ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ

“That is because of what your hands sent forth.” (Aal Imran 182)

And His saying:

لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَهُمْ أَنْفُسُهُمْ

“How evil is what their souls sent ahead for them.” (al Ma’idah 80)

The answer is that the sealing, stamping, and covering placed upon their hearing, sight, and hearts, all of that is a punishment from Allah for them because they rushed into disbelief and denied the messengers by their own choice and will. So Allah punished them by withholding tawfiq from them, as a fitting recompense. Allah, Most High, explained this through His saying:

بَلْ طَبَعَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهَا بِكُفْرِهِمْ

“Rather, Allah sealed them because of their disbelief.” (al Nisa 155)

And His saying:

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا فَطُبِعَ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ

“That is because they believed, then disbelieved, so their hearts were sealed.” (al Munafiqun 3)

And His saying:

وَنُقَلِّبُ أَفْئِدَتَهُمْ وَأَبْصَارَهُمْ كَمَا لَمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهِ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ

“We turn their hearts and their eyes away, just as they did not believe in it the first time.” (al Anʿam 110)

And His saying:

فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ

“When they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate.” (al Saff 5)

And His saying:

فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ فَزَادَهُمُ اللَّهُ مَرَضًا

“In their hearts is sickness, so Allah increased them in sickness.” (al Baqarah 10)

And His saying:

بَلْ رَانَ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ مَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ

“Rather, what they used to earn has covered their hearts.” (al Mutaffifin 14)

And other verses.

Their Example Is Like The Example Of One Who Kindled A Fire

مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَارًا

“Their example is like the example of one who kindled a fire.” (al Baqarah 17)

In this verse, the pronoun is singular in His saying, “kindled”, and in what surrounds it. Then the pronoun is plural in His saying:

ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ

“Allah took away their light and left them in darknesses, unable to see.” (al Baqarah 17)

Even though the reference of all these pronouns is one thing: the word “the one who” in His saying, “Their example is like the example of the one who.”

The answer is that the word “the one who” is singular in wording, but general in meaning for everything included by its relative clause. It has been established in usul that all relative nouns are forms of general wording. Once this is understood, know that the singular pronoun is due to the wording of “the one who”, while the plural pronoun is due to its meaning.

For this reason, it has become common on the tongues of the ulama that “the one who” may come with the meaning of “those who”. Examples of this in the Qur’an include this noble verse. His saying, “like the example of the one who kindled”, means “like the example of those who kindled”, as proven by His saying:

ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ

“Allah took away their light and left them.” (al Baqarah 17)

And His saying:

وَالَّذِي جَاءَ بِالصِّدْقِ وَصَدَّقَ بِهِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُتَّقُونَ

“The one who came with truth and believed it, those are the people of taqwa.” (al Zumar 33)

And His saying:

لَا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالْأَذَىٰ كَالَّذِي يُنْفِقُ مَالَهُ رِئَاءَ النَّاسِ

“Do not ruin your charities with reminders of favour and harm, like the one who spends his wealth to be seen by people.” (al Baqarah 264)

Meaning: like those who spend, as proven by His saying:

لَا يَقْدِرُونَ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ مِمَّا كَسَبُوا

“They are not able to gain anything from what they earned.” (al Baqarah 264)

And His saying:

وَخُضْتُمْ كَالَّذِي خَاضُوا

“And you plunged into speech like those who plunged.” (al Tawbah 69)

This is based upon the correct view that the wording in this verse is a relative noun, not a verbal noun.

A similar example from Arab speech is the saying of the rajaz poet:

“O Lord of Abs, do not bless anyone among them, neither the one standing nor the one sitting, except those who stood at the edges of the rope.”

And the saying of the poet Ashhab ibn Rumaylah, which Sibawayh (d. 180AH) quoted as evidence for using the singular relative noun while intending the plural:

“Indeed, those whose blood came at Falj are the people, all the people, O mother of Khalid.”

Ibn al Anbari (d. 328AH) claimed that the word in the verse of Ashhab is a plural form, while the word in the verse is singular intended for the plural. The speech of Sibawayh refutes him.

And the saying of Udayl ibn al Farkh al Ijli:

“I spent the night giving drink to the people, my brothers, those whose misguidance is my misguidance and whose right path is my right path.”

Some said: the one who kindled the fire was one person with a group alongside him. Its weakness is not hidden.

Deaf, Dumb, Blind

صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ

“Deaf, dumb, blind, so they do not return.” (al Baqarah 18)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that the hypocrites do not hear, do not speak, and do not see. Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying, Most High:

وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَذَهَبَ بِسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ

“If Allah had willed, He would have taken away their hearing and their sight.” (al Baqarah 20)

And His saying:

وَإِنْ يَقُولُوا تَسْمَعْ لِقَوْلِهِمْ

“And if they speak, you listen to their speech.” (al Munafiqun 4)

Meaning because of their eloquence and the sweetness of their tongues.

And His saying:

فَإِذَا ذَهَبَ الْخَوْفُ سَلَقُوكُمْ بِأَلْسِنَةٍ حِدَادٍ

“When fear leaves, they lash you with sharp tongues.” (al Ahzab 19)

And other verses.

The way to reconcile this is clear: they are dumb from speaking the truth, even if they speak with other than it. They are deaf from hearing the truth, even if they hear other than it. They are blind from seeing the truth, even if they see other than it.

Allah, Most High, explained this reconciliation through His saying:

وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ سَمْعًا وَأَبْصَارًا وَأَفْئِدَةً

“We made for them hearing, sight, and hearts.” (al Ahqaf 26)

That is because whatever brings no benefit is like something nonexistent. The Arabs may use deafness for hearing that has no effect. From this is the saying of Qaʿnab ibn Umm Sahib:

“They are deaf when they hear good by which I am mentioned, but if I am mentioned badly among them, they listen.”

And the saying of the poet:

“I am deaf to the matter I do not want, and I make all creation hear when I want.”

And the saying of another:

“I made Amr deaf and blind to generosity and glory on the day of boasting.”

Likewise, speech that has no benefit is like nothing.

Hubayrah ibn Abi Wahb al Makhzumi said:

“A person’s speech outside its proper meaning is like arrows falling while having no tips.”

Fear The Fire Whose Fuel Is People And Stones

فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ

“So fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones.” (al Baqarah 24)

This verse indicates that this Fire was already known to them, because of the definite article used for something already known. Allah, Most High, said in Surah al Tahrim:

قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ

“Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones.” (al Tahrim 6)

The indefinite wording of “Fire” here indicates that they did not know it with these qualities. The way to reconcile is that they did not know that one of its qualities was that people and stones would be its fuel. Then the verse of al Tahrim came down, and from it they came to know this quality of the Fire. Then, when it had become known to them, the verse of al Baqarah came down, and the Fire was made definite with the definite article of prior knowledge, because it had already been known to them through the verse of al Tahrim.

Al Baydawi (d. 685AH) and al Khatib mentioned this reconciliation in their tafsirs, and they claimed that the verse of al Tahrim came down in Makkah. The apparent wording of the Qur’an indicates this reconciliation, because defining the Fire here with the definite article of prior knowledge indicates a previous reference. The relative noun and its clause are also proof of prior knowledge and of not intending the whole category.

This is not opposed by the fact that Surah al Tahrim is Madinan, and that the apparent view is that it was sent down after al Baqarah, as was reported from Ibn Abbas, because it is possible for a verse to be Makkan in a Madinan surah, just as the reverse is possible.

He Is The One Who Created For You All That Is In The Earth, Then He Turned To The Heaven

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ

“He is the One who created for you all that is in the earth, then He turned to the heaven.” (al Baqarah 29)

This verse indicates that the creation of the earth was before the creation of the heaven, because of the word “then”, which indicates sequence and separation. Likewise, the verse of Fussilat also indicates the creation of the earth before the creation of the heaven, because He said in it:

قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ

“Say: Do you indeed disbelieve in the One who created the earth in 2 days?” (Fussilat 9)

Until He said:

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ

“Then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke.” (Fussilat 11)

At the same time, the verse of al Naziʿat indicates that spreading out the earth came after the creation of the heaven, because He said:

أَأَنْتُمْ أَشَدُّ خَلْقًا أَمِ السَّمَاءُ بَنَاهَا

“Are you harder to create, or the heaven? He built it.” (al Naziʿat 27)

Then He said:

وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا

“And after that, He spread out the earth.” (al Naziʿat 30)

Know first that Ibn Abbas was asked about reconciling the verse of Fussilat and the verse of al Naziʿat. He answered that Allah, Most High, first created the earth before the heaven, while it was not yet spread out. Then He turned to the heaven and completed them as 7 heavens in 2 days. Then He spread out the earth after that and placed in it firm mountains, rivers, and other things.

So the original creation of the earth was before the creation of the heaven, while its spreading, with its mountains, trees, and similar things, was after the creation of the heaven. What proves this is that He said, “And after that, He spread out the earth,” and He did not say, “He created it.” Then He explained His spreading of it through His saying:

أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَاءَهَا وَمَرْعَاهَا

“He brought out from it its water and its pasture.” (al Naziʿat 31)

This reconciliation by which Ibn Abbas combined these 2 verses is clear and has no problem in it. It is understood from the apparent wording of the great Qur’an. However, a problem comes upon it from this verse of al Baqarah. Its explanation is that Ibn Abbas reconciled the matter by saying that the creation of the earth was before the creation of the heaven, while its spreading out with what is in it was after the creation of the heaven.

But in this verse there is a clear statement that all that is in the earth was created before the creation of the heaven, because He said in it:

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ

“He is the One who created for you all that is in the earth, then He turned to the heaven.” (al Baqarah 29)

I remained for a long time thinking about solving this problem, until Allah guided me to it one day, and I understood it from the great Qur’an. Its explanation is that this problem is removed from 2 ways, each of which is indicated by a verse from the Qur’an.

The first way is that what is meant by creating all that is in the earth before creating the heaven is the linguistic meaning of creation, meaning determination and measuring, not actual bringing into being from nonexistence into existence. The Arabs call determination “creation”. From this is the saying of Zuhayr:

“You cut perfectly what you determined, while some people determine and then do not cut.”

The proof that what is meant by this creation is determination is that Allah, Most High, clearly mentioned that in Surah Fussilat, where He said:

وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا

“And He determined its provisions within it.” (Fussilat 10)

Then He said:

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ

“Then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke.” (Fussilat 11)

The second way is that when He created the earth while it was not yet spread out, and it was the root of everything in it, then everything in it was as though it had been actually created, because its root actually existed.

The proof from the Qur’an that the existence of the root permits the word “creation” to be used for the branch, even though the branch does not yet actually exist, is His saying, Most High:

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ صَوَّرْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ

“We created you, then formed you, then said to the angels.” (al Aʿraf 11)

His saying, “We created you, then formed you,” means: through Our creating and forming of your father Adam عليه السلام, who is your root.

Some ulama reconciled by saying that the meaning of His saying:

وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا

“And the earth after that, He spread it out.” (al Naziʿat 30)

Is: “along with that.” So the word “after” would mean “with”. A similar example is His saying, Most High:

عُتُلٍّ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ زَنِيمٍ

“Cruel, and besides that, illegitimate.” (al Qalam 13)

Upon this, there is no problem in the verse. Support for this view may be drawn from the irregular reading, and Mujahid (d. 104AH) read it as: “And the earth along with that He spread out.”

Some reconciled through weak ways, because they are built upon the heaven being created before the earth, and that is contrary to the verified view. Among them is that “then” means “and”. Among them is that it is for order in mention, like His saying, Most High:

ثُمَّ كَانَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا

“Then he was among those who believed.” (al Balad 17)

Then He Turned To The Heaven And Made Them 7 Heavens

Simplified Answer: “The heaven” is singular because it refers to the whole category of heaven.

“Made them seven heavens” explains that this category was made into seven heavens.

So the verse first mentions heaven as one category, then explains its number. This is normal Arabic usage.

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ

“Then He turned to the heaven and made them 7 heavens.” (al Baqarah 29)

Here Allah, Most High, used the singular word “heaven”, then returned the pronoun to it in the plural form in His saying, “He made them.” There are 2 ways to reconcile the plural pronoun with its singular explanation.

The first is that what is meant by the heaven is its category, which applies to 7 heavens. Upon this, the definite article is for the category.

The second is that there is no disagreement among the people of the Arabic tongue that a singular word may be used while intending the plural, whether the singular is definite, indefinite, or attached in possession. This is common in the great Qur’an and in the speech of the Arabs.

From its examples in the Qur’an when the wording is definite is His saying, Most High:

وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْكِتَابِ كُلِّهِ

“And you believe in all the Book.” (Aal Imran 119)

Meaning: all the Books, as proven by His saying, Most High:

كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ

“Each believed in Allah, His angels, and His Books.” (al Baqarah 285)

And His saying:

وَقُلْ آمَنْتُ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنْ كِتَابٍ

“Say: I believe in whatever Book Allah sent down.” (al Shura 15)

And His saying, Most High:

سَيُهْزَمُ الْجَمْعُ وَيُوَلُّونَ الدُّبُرَ

“The group will be defeated and they will turn their backs.” (al Qamar 45)

Meaning: their backs, as is apparent.

And His saying, Most High:

أُولَٰئِكَ يُجْزَوْنَ الْغُرْفَةَ

“Those will be rewarded with the chamber.” (al Furqan 75)

Meaning: chambers, as proven by His saying, Most High:

لَهُمْ غُرَفٌ مِنْ فَوْقِهَا غُرَفٌ مَبْنِيَّةٌ

“For them are chambers above which are built chambers.” (al Zumar 20)

And His saying, Most High:

وَهُمْ فِي الْغُرُفَاتِ آمِنُونَ

“And they will be secure in the chambers.” (Saba 37)

And His saying, Most High:

وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا

“Your Lord will come, and the angels, row after row.” (al Fajr 22)

Meaning: the angels, as proven by His saying, Most High:

هَلْ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ

“Are they waiting except for Allah to come to them in shades of clouds, and the angels.” (al Baqarah 210)

And His saying, Most High:

أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا

“Or children who have not become aware.” (al Nur 31)

Meaning: the children who have not become aware.

And His saying, Most High:

هُمُ الْعَدُوُّ فَاحْذَرْهُمْ

“They are the enemy, so beware of them.” (al Munafiqun 4)

Meaning: enemies.

From its examples when the wording is indefinite is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ الْمُتَّقِينَ فِي جَنَّاتٍ وَنَهَرٍ

“Indeed, the people of taqwa will be in gardens and river.” (al Qamar 54)

Meaning: rivers, as proven by His saying, Most High:

فِيهَا أَنْهَارٌ مِنْ مَاءٍ غَيْرِ آسِنٍ

“In it are rivers of water that does not change.” (Muhammad 15)

And His saying, Most High:

وَاجْعَلْنَا لِلْمُتَّقِينَ إِمَامًا

“And make us an imam for the people of taqwa.” (al Furqan 74)

Meaning: imams.

And His saying:

مُسْتَكْبِرِينَ بِهِ سَامِرًا تَهْجُرُونَ

“Being arrogant concerning it, speaking at night in false speech.” (al Mu’minun 67)

Meaning: night speakers.

And His saying:

ثُمَّ نُخْرِجُكُمْ طِفْلًا

“Then We bring you out as a child.” (al Hajj 5)

Meaning: children.

And His saying:

لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ

“We do not distinguish between any one of them.” (al Baqarah 136)

Meaning: between them.

And His saying, Most High:

وَحَسُنَ أُولَٰئِكَ رَفِيقًا

“And excellent are those as companions.” (al Nisa 69)

Meaning: companions.

And His saying:

وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا

“And if you are in a state requiring ritual washing, then purify yourselves.” (al Ma’idah 6)

Meaning: 2 people in that state or many people.

And His saying:

وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ

“And the angels after that are helpers.” (al Tahrim 4)

Meaning: helpers, because the context in all of them indicates the plural.

Sibawayh used as proof for this His saying:

فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا

“But if they willingly give up to you anything from it.” (al Nisa 4)

Meaning: their souls.

From its examples when the wording is attached in possession is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ ضَيْفِي

“Indeed, these are my guests.” (al Hijr 68)

Meaning: my guests.

And His saying:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ

“So let those who oppose his command beware.” (al Nur 63)

Meaning: his commands.

Sibawayh quoted as evidence for using the singular while intending the plural the saying of the poet Alqamah ibn Abdah al Tamimi:

“In it are the carcasses of the exhausted ones. As for their bones, they are white, and as for their skin, it is hard.”

Meaning: their skins are hard.

He also quoted the saying of another:

“Eat only part of your stomachs so that you may remain chaste, for your time is a time of hunger.”

Meaning: part of your stomachs.

Among its proofs is the saying of Aqil ibn Ullafah al Murri:

“Banu Fazarah were the worst uncle, and I was to them like the worst son of a brother.”

Meaning: the worst uncles.

And the saying of al Abbas ibn Mirdas al Sulami:

“We said: Submit, for we are your brother, and the chests have become safe from grudges.”

Meaning: we are your brothers.

And the saying of another:

“O my blamers, do not seek blame. Indeed, blamers are not my commander.”

Meaning: companions.

And His saying:

وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا

“And if you are in a state requiring ritual washing, then purify yourselves.” (al Ma’idah 6)

Meaning: 2 people in that state or many people.

And His saying:

وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ

“And the angels after that are helpers.” (al Tahrim 4)

Meaning: helpers, because the context in all of them indicates the plural.

Sibawayh used as proof for this His saying:

فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا

“But if they willingly give up to you anything from it.” (al Nisa 4)

Meaning: their souls.

From its examples when the wording is attached in possession is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ ضَيْفِي

“Indeed, these are my guests.” (al Hijr 68)

Meaning: my guests.

And His saying:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ

“So let those who oppose his command beware.” (al Nur 63)

Meaning: his commands.

Sibawayh quoted as evidence for using the singular while intending the plural the saying of the poet Alqamah ibn Abdah al Tamimi:

“In it are the carcasses of the exhausted ones. As for their bones, they are white, and as for their skin, it is hard.”

Meaning: their skins are hard.

He also quoted the saying of another:

“Eat only part of your stomachs so that you may remain chaste, for your time is a time of hunger.”

Meaning: part of your stomachs.

Among its proofs is the saying of Aqil ibn Ullafah al Murri:

“Banu Fazarah were the worst uncle, and I was to them like the worst son of a brother.”

Meaning: the worst uncles.

And the saying of al Abbas ibn Mirdas al Sulami:

“We said: Submit, for we are your brother, and the chests have become safe from grudges.”

Meaning: we are your brothers.

And the saying of another:

“O my blamers, do not seek blame. Indeed, blamers are not my commander.”

As has just passed.

Those Who Think They Will Meet Their Lord

الَّذِينَ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُو رَبِّهِمْ

“Those who are certain that they will meet their Lord.” (al Baqarah 46)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that supposition is enough in matters of the return to Allah. Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا

“Indeed, supposition does not avail anything against the truth.” (Yunus 36)

And His saying:

إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ

“They do nothing but suppose.” (al Baqarah 78)

The way to reconcile is that supposition here means certainty. The Arabs use the word for supposition to mean certainty and to mean doubt. Its use with the meaning of certainty is common in the Qur’an and in the speech of the Arabs.

From its examples in the Qur’an is this verse, and His saying, Most High:

قَالَ الَّذِينَ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُو اللَّهِ كَمْ مِنْ فِئَةٍ قَلِيلَةٍ

“Those who were certain that they would meet Allah said: how many a small group.” (al Baqarah 249)

And His saying, Most High:

وَرَأَى الْمُجْرِمُونَ النَّارَ فَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُمْ مُوَاقِعُوهَا

“The criminals saw the Fire and became certain that they would fall into it.” (al Kahf 53)

Meaning: they were certain.

And His saying, Most High:

إِنِّي ظَنَنْتُ أَنِّي مُلَاقٍ حِسَابِيَهْ

“Indeed, I was certain that I would meet my account.” (al Haqqah 20)

Meaning: I was certain.

A similar example from Arab speech is the saying of Umayrah ibn Tariq:

“Do not deceive my people while I sit among you, making certainty from me into unseen guessing.”

Meaning: I make certainty from me into the unseen.

And the saying of Durayd ibn al Simmah:

“I said to them: be certain of 2 thousand armoured warriors, their leaders in Persian chain mail.”

His saying, “be certain,” means: be sure.

To The Children Of Israel: I Preferred You Over The Other Nations

وَأَنِّي فَضَّلْتُكُمْ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ

“And I preferred you over the worlds.” (al Baqarah 47)

This does not oppose His saying, Most High, about the virtue of this ummah:

كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ

“You are the best ummah brought out for people.” (Aal Imran 110)

That is because what is meant by “the worlds” is the people of their time. This is proven by the verses and hadiths that clearly say this ummah is better than them, such as the hadith of Muʿawiyah ibn Haydah al Qushayri in the Musnads and Sunan. He said: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“You complete 70 nations. You are the best of them and the most honoured of them before Allah.”

Do you not see that Allah made the moderate one among them their highest level when He said:

مِنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ سَاءَ مَا يَعْمَلُونَ

“Among them is a moderate ummah, but many of them, evil is what they do.” (al Ma’idah 66)

And He placed in this ummah a level higher than the moderate one, which is the level of the one who races ahead in good deeds, as He, Most High, said:

وَمِنْهُمْ مُقْتَصِدٌ وَمِنْهُمْ سَابِقٌ بِالْخَيْرَاتِ

“Among them is one who is moderate, and among them is one who races ahead in good deeds.” (Fatir 32)

When We Saved You From The People Of Pharaoh

وَإِذْ نَجَّيْنَاكُمْ مِنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ يُذَبِّحُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ

“And when We saved you from the people of Pharaoh, who were making you suffer the worst punishment, slaughtering your sons and letting your women live.” (al Baqarah 49)

The apparent meaning of this noble verse indicates that leaving the women alive was part of the punishment that Pharaoh was making them suffer. Another verse has come indicating that females are a gift from the gifts of Allah to whomever He gives them to. It is His saying, Most High:

يَهَبُ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ إِنَاثًا وَيَهَبُ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ الذُّكُورَ

“He grants females to whom He wills, and He grants males to whom He wills.” (al Shura 49)

So the survival of some children, upon this, is better than all of them dying, as al Hudhayl said:

“I praised my God after Urwah, when Khirash survived, for some evil is lighter than some.”

The answer is that although females are a gift from Allah to whomever He gives them to, their remaining under the power of the enemy, who does with them what he wishes of indecency and disgrace, and uses them in hard labour, is a type of punishment. Their death would be rest from this punishment. The Arabs used to wish for the death of females out of fear of something like this.

Some Arab poets said about a daughter of his called Mawaddah:

“Mawaddah loves the long life of an old man who would be pleased if death came to her before night, if only she knew.

He fears for her the harshness of people after him, and no son in law is hoped for that is dearer than the grave.”

Another said:

“She loves my life, while I love her death out of pity, and death is the most honoured guest to women.”

Some of their rajaz poets said:

“Even if the dowry is brought to me: a slave, 2 thousand, and 10 camels, the dearest of my in laws to me is the grave.”

Some writers said:

“2 joys have no third: the life of sons and the death of daughters.”

In the Qur’an there is an indication that a person is hurt by the humiliation of his weak offspring after his death, in His saying, Most High:

وَلْيَخْشَ الَّذِينَ لَوْ تَرَكُوا مِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّةً ضِعَافًا خَافُوا عَلَيْهِمْ

“Let those fear who, if they left behind weak offspring, would fear for them.” (al Nisa 9)

We Sent Down Upon You Manna And Quails

وَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَىٰ كُلُوا مِنْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ

“And We sent down upon you manna and quails. Eat from the good things We have provided for you.” (al Baqarah 57)

This noble verse indicates that Allah honoured the Children of Israel with 2 types of food: manna and quails. Another verse has come indicating that they had only one food. It is His saying, Most High:

وَإِذْ قُلْتُمْ يَامُوسَىٰ لَنْ نَصْبِرَ عَلَىٰ طَعَامٍ وَاحِدٍ

“And when you said: O Musa, we will never be patient with one food.” (al Baqarah 61)

There are several ways to reconcile them.

The first is that manna, which according to most is a sweet substance, belongs to the category of drink, while the one food is quails, which according to most are quail birds or birds resembling them.

The second way is that what is placed on one dining spread is called by the Arabs “one food”, even if its types differ. From this is their saying, “We ate the food of so and so,” even if it was of different types. What appears is that this way is more correct than the first, because explaining manna specifically as that sweet substance is rejected by the agreed upon hadith:

“The truffle is from manna.”

The third is that they called it one food because it did not change and was not replaced each day. It was therefore one kind of eating, and this is apparent.

Whenever A Messenger Came To You With What Yourselves Did Not Desire

أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنْفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ

“Whenever a messenger came to you with what your selves did not desire, you became arrogant. A group you denied, and a group you killed.” (al Baqarah 87)

This verse indicates that they killed some messengers. Similar to it is His saying, Most High:

قُلْ قَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِنْ قَبْلِي بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَبِالَّذِي قُلْتُمْ فَلِمَ قَتَلْتُمُوهُمْ

“Say: Messengers before me already came to you with clear proofs and with what you said, so why did you kill them?” (Aal Imran 183)

And His saying:

كُلَّمَا جَاءَهُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنْفُسُهُمْ فَرِيقًا كَذَّبُوا وَفَرِيقًا يَقْتُلُونَ

“Whenever a messenger came to them with what their selves did not desire, a group they denied and a group they killed.” (al Ma’idah 70)

Other verses have come indicating that the messengers are victorious and aided, such as His saying:

كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي

“Allah has decreed: I and My messengers will surely prevail.” (al Mujadilah 21)

And His saying:

وَلَقَدْ سَبَقَتْ كَلِمَتُنَا لِعِبَادِنَا الْمُرْسَلِينَ ۝ إِنَّهُمْ لَهُمُ الْمَنْصُورُونَ ۝ وَإِنَّ جُنْدَنَا لَهُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ

“Our word already preceded for Our servants, the messengers: indeed, they will surely be aided, and indeed, Our soldiers will surely be the victorious ones.” (al Saffat 171–173)

And His saying, Most High:

فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْهِمْ رَبُّهُمْ لَنُهْلِكَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ ۝ وَلَنُسْكِنَنَّكُمُ الْأَرْضَ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ

“Their Lord revealed to them: We will surely destroy the wrongdoers, and We will surely make you dwell in the land after them.” (Ibrahim 13–14)

Allah, Most High, explained that this aid is also in the life of this world, as in this last verse and as in His saying:

إِنَّا لَنَنْصُرُ رُسُلَنَا وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا

“Indeed, We will surely aid Our messengers and those who believe in the life of this world.” (Ghafir 51)

What appears in answering this is that the messengers are 2 categories. One category was commanded to fight in the path of Allah. Another category was commanded to be patient and to hold back from people. Those commanded to fight are the ones to whom Allah promised aid and victory in the verses mentioned. Those commanded to hold back and be patient are the ones who were killed, so that Allah would raise their high ranks further by their being killed while wronged.

This reconciliation is understood from the verses, because aid and victory indicate by necessary meaning the presence of jihad and fighting.

This reconciliation is not opposed by His saying, Most High:

وَكَأَيِّنْ مِنْ نَبِيٍّ قَاتَلَ مَعَهُ رِبِّيُّونَ كَثِيرٌ

“How many a prophet fought, and with him were many devoted followers.” (Aal Imran 146)

As for the reading “fought”, in the past tense, the matter is clear. As for the reading “was killed” in the passive voice, the deputy subject is His saying, “devoted followers”, not the pronoun of “prophet”. When possibility enters, the use of it as proof falls away.

As for the view that the victory and aid of the messengers is through proof and evidence, then there is no problem in the verse. Allah knows best.

Who Is More Unjust Than One Who Prevented The Masjids Of Allah

Simplified Answer: Each verse speaks about a different type of great wrong. One verse speaks about stopping Allah’s name from being mentioned in the masjids. Another speaks about lying against Allah. Another speaks about rejecting His signs.

The meaning is not that only one of them is the worst in every way. Rather, each one has reached the highest level of injustice in its own type. They can all be equal in being among the most unjust people.

So the meaning is: no one is more unjust than these people, though more than one group can share that same level.

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ مَنَعَ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ

“Who is more unjust than one who prevented the masjids of Allah from having His Name mentioned in them?” (al Baqarah 114)

The question in this verse is a question of denial, and its meaning is negation. So the meaning is: no one is more unjust than the one who prevents the masjids of Allah.

Other verses have come from which the opposite may be understood, such as His saying, Most High:

فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا

“Who is more unjust than one who invented a lie against Allah?” (al Anʿam 144)

And His saying:

فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ كَذَبَ عَلَى اللَّهِ

“Who is more unjust than one who lied against Allah?” (al Zumar 32)

And His saying:

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ ذُكِّرَ بِآيَاتِ رَبِّهِ

“Who is more unjust than one who was reminded of the signs of his Lord?” (al Kahf 57)

And other verses.

There are several ways to reconcile these verses.

One of them is to make each place specific to the meaning of its relative clause. Meaning: no one among those who prevent is more unjust than one who prevents the masjids of Allah, and no one among those who invent lies is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allah. When they are made specific by their relative clauses, the problem disappears.

Another way is that the specification is in relation to being first. Meaning: because no one preceded them to the like of it, they were graded more unjust than whoever came after them following their path. The meaning of this returns to what came before, because what is meant is being first in preventing, inventing lies, and similar matters.

Another way, which Abu Hayyan (d. 745AH) claimed to be the correct answer, is that negating superiority does not require negating equality. So none of those described with this exceeds the other, because they are equal in the highest level of injustice.

The meaning therefore becomes: no one is more unjust than the one who prevents the masjids of Allah, the one who invents a lie against Allah, and the one who denies the signs of Allah.

There is no problem in these people being equal in the highest level of injustice, and it does not indicate that one of them is more unjust than the other, just as when you say, for example: no one is more knowledgeable in fiqh than so and so and so and so. The author of al Itqan, al Suyuti (d. 911AH), mentioned these 2 ways.

As for what some later scholars mentioned, that the question in His saying, “Who is more unjust,” is intended for magnifying and making the matter dreadful, without intending to affirm the highest injustice for the one mentioned in reality, nor to negate it from others, as the author of al Itqan quoted from him, its weakness is apparent, because it goes against the apparent meaning of the Qur’an.

To Allah Belong The East And The West

وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ

“To Allah belong the east and the west.” (al Baqarah 115)

In this verse, the east and west are mentioned in singular form. In Surah al Rahman they are mentioned in dual form in His saying:

رَبُّ الْمَشْرِقَيْنِ وَرَبُّ الْمَغْرِبَيْنِ

“Lord of the 2 easts and Lord of the 2 wests.” (al Rahman 17)

And they are mentioned in plural form in Surah Sa’ala Sa’il in His saying:

فَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِرَبِّ الْمَشَارِقِ وَالْمَغَارِبِ

“So I swear by the Lord of the easts and the wests.” (al Maʿarij 40)

And the easts are mentioned in plural form in Surah al Saffat in His saying:

رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا وَرَبُّ الْمَشَارِقِ

“Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and Lord of the easts.” (al Saffat 5)

The answer is that His saying here, “To Allah belong the east and the west,” means the category of east and west. So it applies to every east among the sun’s easts, which are 360, and every west among its wests, which are likewise, as was reported from Ibn Abbas and others.

Ibn Jarir said in his Tafsir of this verse:

“The meaning of that is: ‘To Allah belongs the east’ from which the sun rises every day, and ‘the west’ in which it sets every day. So its explanation, if that is its meaning, is: to Allah belongs what is between the 2 ends of the east and the 2 ends of the west, since the rising of the sun each day is from a place from which it will not rise again until the following year, and likewise its setting.”

His saying:

رَبُّ الْمَشْرِقَيْنِ وَرَبُّ الْمَغْرِبَيْنِ

“Lord of the 2 easts and Lord of the 2 wests.” (al Rahman 17)

Means the east of winter and the east of summer, and their 2 wests, according to the majority. It was also said: the east of the sun and the moon, and their west.

His saying:

بِرَبِّ الْمَشَارِقِ وَالْمَغَارِبِ

“By the Lord of the easts and the wests.” (al Maʿarij 40)

Means the easts of the sun and its wests, as has passed. It was also said: the easts of the sun, the moon, and the stars, and their wests. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

They Said Allah Has Taken A Son

وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ كُلٌّ لَهُ قَانِتُونَ

“They said: Allah has taken a son. Glory be to Him. Rather, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are obedient to Him.” (al Baqarah 116)

In this verse, He expressed the matter with the relative word that indicates non rational beings, then He expressed in His saying, “obedient,” with the masculine plural form that is specific to rational beings.

The way to reconcile is that among what is in the heavens and the earth of creation are rational beings and non rational beings. So the non rational was made dominant in the relative noun, while the rational was made dominant in the plural form.

The fine point in this is that He said:

بَلْ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

“Rather, to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth.”

All creation, in relation to Allah’s ownership of them, are the same: rational and non rational. The rational being, in his weakness and inability before Allah’s ownership, is like the non rational. But when obedience was mentioned, and obedience is more apparent among rational beings than others, He expressed it with what indicates rational beings, giving them dominance in wording.

We Have Made The Signs Clear For A People Who Have Certainty

قَدْ بَيَّنَّا الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ

“We have made the signs clear for a people who have certainty.” (al Baqarah 118)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that the clarification is specific to those who have certainty. Other verses have come indicating that the clarification is general for all people, such as His saying, Most High:

كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

“Thus Allah makes His signs clear for people, so that they may have taqwa.” (al Baqarah 187)

And His saying:

هَٰذَا بَيَانٌ لِلنَّاسِ

“This is a clarification for people.” (Aal Imran 138)

The way to reconcile is that the clarification is general for all creation. However, since benefiting from it is specific to the people of taqwa, it was made specific to them in this verse, because whatever has no benefit is like nothing.

Similar to this is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُنْذِرُ مَنْ يَخْشَاهَا

“You are only a warner for whoever fears it.” (al Naziʿat 45)

And His saying:

إِنَّمَا تُنْذِرُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الذِّكْرَ

“You only warn whoever follows the reminder.” (Ya Sin 11)

Even though he ﷺ is a warner to the black and the red (meaning to all people not just the Arabs). The warning was only made specific to the one who fears and the one who follows the reminder because he is the one who benefits from it.

We Did Not Make The Qiblah Upon Which You Were Except So That We May Know

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَنْ يَتَّبِعُ الرَّسُولَ مِمَّنْ يَنْقَلِبُ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ

“We did not make the qiblah upon which you were except so that We may know who follows the Messenger from the one who turns back on his heels.” (al Baqarah 143)

His saying in this verse, “except so that We may know,” may give the impression that He did not know who would follow the Messenger and who would turn back on his heels. But Allah, Most High, knows everything before it occurs. He knows what creation will do, as many verses indicate, such as His saying:

هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِكُمْ إِذْ أَنْشَأَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ وَإِذْ أَنْتُمْ أَجِنَّةٌ فِي بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ فَلَا تُزَكُّوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ

“He knows you best when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers, so do not claim purity for yourselves.” (al Najm 32)

And His saying, Most High:

وَلَهُمْ أَعْمَالٌ مِنْ دُونِ ذَٰلِكَ هُمْ لَهَا عَامِلُونَ

“And they have deeds below that which they will do.” (al Mu’minun 63)

The answer is that the meaning of His saying, Most High, “except so that We may know,” is: a knowledge upon which reward and punishment are arranged. This does not oppose His knowing it before it occurs.

Allah, Most High, pointed out that He does not gain new knowledge through testing, because He already knows what will be, when He said, Most High:

وَلِيَبْتَلِيَ اللَّهُ مَا فِي صُدُورِكُمْ وَلِيُمَحِّصَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ

“And so Allah may test what is in your chests and purify what is in your hearts. Allah knows what is within the chests.” (Aal Imran 154)

His saying, “Allah knows what is within the chests,” after His saying, “so He may test,” is proof that testing does not give Him knowledge that He did not know. Glory be to Him, and He is far above that. Rather, He, Most High, knows everything His creation will do, and He knows everything before it occurs, as there is no disagreement among the Muslims:

لَا يَعْزُبُ عَنْهُ مِثْقَالُ ذَرَّةٍ

“Not even the weight of a small particle escapes Him.” (Saba 3)

Do Not Say Of Those Killed In The Path Of Allah That They Are Dead

Simplified Answer: The martyrs die the normal worldly death. This is why their wealth is inherited, their wives may remarry, and the normal rulings of death apply to them.

But Allah also tells us that they are alive in another life, a barzakh life. This life is real, but people in this world do not perceive its reality.

The same applies, in a higher and more special way, to the Prophet ﷺ. He died the worldly death, as Abu Bakr said clearly after his passing, but he also has a special barzakh life. Through that life, he replies to the salam sent upon him, while his soul is in the highest company.

So the meaning is simple: they died in this world, but they are alive in barzakh. These are two different matters.

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَنْ يُقْتَلُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتٌ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ

“Do not say of those who are killed in the path of Allah that they are dead. Rather, they are alive.” (al Baqarah 154)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that the martyrs are alive and not dead. But Allah said in another verse to one who is better than all martyrs, ﷺ:

إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ

“Indeed, you will die, and indeed, they will die.” (al Zumar 30)

The answer is that the martyrs die the worldly death, so their wealth is inherited and their wives may be married, by the agreement of the Muslims. This death is the one Allah told His Prophet ﷺ that he would die.

It is established in the Sahih from his companion, al Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, that when he ﷺ passed away, he said: “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. By Allah, Allah will not join 2 deaths upon you. As for the death that Allah wrote for you, you have now died it.”

He also said: “Whoever used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad has died.” He used the Qur’an as proof for that, and all the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ returned to him.

As for the life that Allah affirmed for the martyrs in the Qur’an, and his life ﷺ that is established in the hadith, by which he replies to the salam of whoever sends salam upon him, both are a barzakh life, not understood by the people of this world.

As for what relates to the martyrs, Allah, Most High, clearly said that through His saying:

وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ

“But you do not perceive.” (al Baqarah 154)

The Prophet ﷺ explained it by saying that their souls are placed in the bodies of green birds that roam in Paradise and return to lamps hanging beneath the Throne, and they enjoy bliss through that.

As for what is established from him ﷺ that no one sends salam upon him except that Allah returns his soul to him until he replies to the salam, and that Allah appointed angels who convey to him the salam of his ummah, that life also cannot be known in its reality by the people of this world. That is because it is established for him ﷺ while his noble soul is in the highest Illiyyin with the highest company, above the souls of the martyrs. The connection of this pure soul, which is in the highest Illiyyin, with this noble body, which the earth does not consume, is known in its reality by Allah, and creation does not know it.

As He said regarding this kind of matter:

وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ

“But you do not perceive.” (al Baqarah 154)

If it were like the life known to the people of this world, al Siddiq would not have said that he ﷺ died, it would not have been permissible to bury him, no khalifah other than him would have been appointed, Uthman would not have been killed, his Companions would not have differed, what happened to Aʿishah would not have happened, and they would have asked him about the rulings over which they differed after him, such as proportional reduction in inheritance, the inheritance of the grandfather with siblings, and similar matters.

Since the Qur’an clearly says that the martyrs are alive in His saying:

بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ

“Rather, they are alive.” (al Baqarah 154)

And clearly says that the people of this world do not know the reality of this life through His saying:

وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ

“But you do not perceive.” (al Baqarah 154)

And since the Prophet ﷺ affirmed his life in the grave in such a way that he hears salam and replies to it, while his Companions who buried him ﷺ did not perceive that life with their senses, we know that it is a life which the people of this world do not understand either.

What brings this closer to the mind is the life of the sleeping person. He differs from the awake living person in all actions, even though he perceives dreams and understands meanings. Allah, Most High, knows best.

Al Allamah Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751AH), may Allah have mercy on him, said in Kitab al Ruh:

“It is necessarily known that his body ﷺ is in the earth, fresh and preserved. The Companions asked him: how will our salah be shown to you when you have decayed? He said: ‘Allah has forbidden the earth from consuming the bodies of the prophets.’ If his body were not in his grave, he would not have answered with this answer.

It is authentically reported from him that Allah appointed angels at his grave who convey to him the salam of his ummah.

It is authentically reported from him that he came out between Abu Bakr and Umar and said: ‘Like this we will be resurrected.’ This is while being certain that his noble soul is in the highest company, in the highest Illiyyin, with the souls of the prophets.

It is authentically reported from him that he saw Musa عليه السلام praying in his grave on the night of al Isra, and he saw him in the 6th or 7th heaven. So the soul was there, while it had a connection to the body in the grave, an overseeing of it, and an attachment to it, such that he prays in his grave and replies to the salam of whoever sends salam upon him, while it is in the highest company. There is no contradiction between the 2 matters, for the affair of souls is not like the affair of bodies.”

The intended part of Ibn al Qayyim’s speech has ended in his own wording. It indicates that the life mentioned is unknown in its reality to the people of this world. Allah, Most High, said:

بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَشْعُرُونَ

“Rather, they are alive, but you do not perceive.” (al Baqarah 154)

Knowledge is with Allah.

Even If Their Fathers Did Not Understand Anything And Were Not Guided

أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ

“Even if their fathers did not understand anything and were not guided?” (al Baqarah 170)

The apparent meaning of this noble verse indicates that the disbelievers have no intellect at all, because His saying, “anything,” is an indefinite word in the setting of negation, so it indicates generality.

Other verses have come indicating that the disbelievers have intellects by which they understand matters in worldly life, such as His saying, Most High:

وَزَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فَصَدَّهُمْ عَنِ السَّبِيلِ وَكَانُوا مُسْتَبْصِرِينَ

“Shaytan made their deeds seem fair to them, so he turned them away from the path, while they had insight.” (al Ankabut 38)

The answer is that they understand the matters of this world, not the matters of the Hereafter, as Allah, Most High, explained through His saying:

وَعْدَ اللَّهِ لَا يُخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ۝ يَعْلَمُونَ ظَاهِرًا مِنَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ عَنِ الْآخِرَةِ هُمْ غَافِلُونَ

“The promise of Allah. Allah does not break His promise, but most people do not know. They know what is apparent of the worldly life, while they are heedless of the Hereafter.” (al Rum 6–7)

He Has Only Forbidden You Dead Meat And Blood

إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ

“He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood.” (al Baqarah 173)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that every type of blood is forbidden. Similar to it is His saying, Most High, in Surah al Nahl:

إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ

“He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood.” (al Nahl 115)

And His saying in Surah al Ma’idah:

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ

“Forbidden to you are dead meat and blood.” (al Ma’idah 3)

In another verse, He mentioned what indicates that blood is only forbidden when it is flowing blood. It is His saying, Most High, in Surah al Anʿam:

إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا

“Except that it be dead meat or flowing blood.” (al Anʿam 145)

The answer is that this issue is from the issues of apparent contradiction between the unrestricted wording and the restricted wording. What runs according to the principles of Malik (d. 179AH), al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH), and Ahmad (d. 241AH) is carrying the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording, especially when the ruling and the cause are one, as is the case here. According to them, this applies whether the unrestricted wording came later than the restricted wording, as here, or came earlier.

The reason we said here that the unrestricted wording came later than the restricted wording is that the restriction is in Surah al Anʿam, and it came down before al Nahl, even though both are Makkan, except for known verses. The proof that al Anʿam came before al Nahl is His saying, Most High, in al Nahl:

وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا مَا قَصَصْنَا عَلَيْكَ

“And upon those who were Jews, We forbade what We related to you.” (al Nahl 118)

What is meant is what He related to him in al Anʿam through His saying:

وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍ

“And upon those who were Jews, We forbade every animal with claws.” (al Anʿam 146)

As for al Anʿam having come down before al Baqarah and al Ma’idah, this is clear, because al Anʿam is Makkan by agreement, except for some verses from it. Al Baqarah is Madinan by agreement, and al Ma’idah is among the last of what came down from the Qur’an, and nothing from it was abrogated because of its late revelation.

Accordingly, if the blood is not flowing blood, like the redness that appears in the pot from the effect of cutting meat, then it is not forbidden, because the unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording. Many ulama hold this. What we mentioned about there being no abrogation in al Ma’idah was said by a group, and it is correct upon the view that His saying, Most High:

فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ

“If they come to you, then judge between them.” (al Ma’idah 42)

And His saying:

أَوْ آخَرَانِ مِنْ غَيْرِكُمْ

“Or 2 others from outside you.” (al Ma’idah 106)

Are not abrogated. Upon the view that they are abrogated, it is not correct in unrestricted terms. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

Those Eat Nothing In Their Bellies Except Fire

Simplified Answer: The verse means that Allah will not speak to them with speech of honour, mercy, kindness, or acceptance.

As for Allah saying to them, “Remain despised in it, and do not speak to Me,” this is speech of rebuke and humiliation. It is part of their punishment, not speech of mercy.

So the meaning is simple: Allah will not speak to them in a way that honours them. He may speak to them in a way that punishes and humiliates them.

أُولَٰئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلَّا النَّارَ وَلَا يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ

“Those eat nothing in their bellies except Fire, and Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection.” (al Baqarah 174)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that Allah will not speak to the disbelievers on the Day of Resurrection, because His saying, Most High, “He will not speak to them,” is a verb in the setting of negation. It has been established in usul that a verb in the setting of negation is from the forms of general wording, whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, according to the verified view. This is contrary to al Ghazali (d. 505AH), who held that it is general in the transitive verb, but not the intransitive verb.

The disagreement of Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), may Allah have mercy on him, in this matter is a disagreement about wording, not reality, because he says that a verb in the setting of negation is not itself a form of general wording, but it indicates generality by necessary meaning. This is because it indicates the negation of the reality itself, and negating the reality necessarily negates all of its individual forms.

So the saying, “I did not eat,” for example, negates the reality of eating, and this necessarily negates every individual form of it. The clarification of the generality of a verb in the setting of negation is that a verb is analysed by the grammarians as containing a verbal noun and a time, and by some people of eloquence as containing a verbal noun, time, and relation. The verbal noun enters into its meaning by agreement. So when negation enters upon the verb, it negates the verbal noun hidden within the verb, and it therefore returns in meaning to an indefinite word in the setting of negation.

What is surprising is that Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, agrees with the majority that if the verb in the setting of negation is emphasised by a verbal noun, such as “I did not drink any drinking,” it gives generality, even though he does not agree that an indefinite word in the setting of negation gives generality.

Other verses have come indicating that Allah will speak to the disbelievers on the Day of Resurrection, such as His saying, Most High:

رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْهَا فَإِنْ عُدْنَا فَإِنَّا ظَالِمُونَ ۝ قَالَ اخْسَئُوا فِيهَا وَلَا تُكَلِّمُونِ

“Our Lord, take us out from it. If we return, then we are wrongdoers. He will say: Remain despised in it, and do not speak to Me.” (al Mu’minun 107–108)

The answer to this is through 2 matters.

The first, and it is the truth, is that the speech which Allah negated that He will speak to them with is speech containing good. As for rebuke, reprimand, and humiliation, Allah speaking to them with that is from the same kind as His punishment of them. That is not intended by the negation in His saying, “He will not speak to them.”

The second is that He will not speak to them at all. Rather, the angels will speak to them by His permission and command.

Retaliation Has Been Written For You Regarding Those Killed

كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ فِي الْقَتْلَى

“Retaliation has been written for you regarding those killed.” (al Baqarah 178)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that retaliation is a binding matter that must take place, because of His saying, Most High, “has been written for you,” since its meaning is: it has been obligated and made binding upon you. At the same time, Allah, Most High, also mentioned that retaliation is not definite in every case, because the guardian of blood has a choice, as in His saying, Most High:

فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ

“So whoever is pardoned anything by his brother.” (al Baqarah 178)

The answer is clear: the obligation of retaliation and its binding nature is when the guardians of blood, or some of them, do not pardon. This is indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ

“Whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given his guardian authority, so let him not exceed in killing.” (al Isra 33)

It Has Been Written For You When Death Comes To One Of You, If He Leaves Wealth, The Will

كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ إِنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا الْوَصِيَّةُ

“It has been written for you, when death comes to one of you, if he leaves wealth, the will.” (al Baqarah 180)

This verse contradicts with the inheritance verses when joined with the explanation of the Prophet ﷺ, because the intended outcome of that explanation is to cancel the will for heirs among them. This is his saying ﷺ:

“Indeed, Allah has given every person with a right his right, so there is no will for an heir.”

The answer is clear: this verse of the will is abrogated by the inheritance verses, and the hadith mentioned is an explanation of the abrogating ruling.

Some ulama held that it remains firm and is not abrogated. Ibn Hazm (d. 456AH) strongly defended this view. Upon the view that it remains firm, it is from the general wording that has been made specific. So the parents and close relatives who inherit have no will, due to the inheritance verses and the hadith. As for parents who have no inheritance, such as 2 slaves, and close relatives who do not inherit, then the will is obligatory for them upon this view. However, the madhhab of the majority is contrary to it.

Al Abbadi (d. 994AH) quoted ijmaʿ in al Ayat al Bayyinat that it is abrogated, even though a group of ulama said there is no abrogation.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: the verified view is that abrogation certainly occurred in part of it, because the ruling of making a will for inheriting parents and inheriting relatives was lifted after it had been established by ijmaʿ. That is partial abrogation, not specification, because specification is limiting the general wording to some of its individuals by proof. As for lifting a specific ruling after it had been established, that is abrogation, not specification, as is apparent.

It has been established in usul that specifying some of the action upon a general wording is abrogation. This is indicated by the saying of the author of Maraqi al Suʿud:

“If what specifies comes after action upon the general wording, it is abrogation, while what is other than that is clearly a specifier.”

Allah, Most High, knows best.

Upon Those Who Can Bear It Is A Fidyah, Feeding A Poor Person

وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ

“Upon those who can bear it is a fidyah: feeding a poor person.” (al Baqarah 184)

The apparent meaning of this noble verse indicates that one who is able to fast Ramadan has a choice between fasting and feeding. Another verse has come indicating that fasting is specifically obligatory. It is His saying, Most High:

فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ

“So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it.” (al Baqarah 185)

The answer to this is through 2 matters.

The first, and it is the truth, is that His saying, “Upon those who can bear it is a fidyah,” is abrogated by His saying:

فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ

“So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it.” (al Baqarah 185)

The second is that the meaning of “can bear it” is “cannot bear it”, by assuming the presence of the negating word. Upon this, the verse remains firm, and feeding becomes obligatory upon the one unable to fast, such as an elderly person and one with lasting inability.

This view was supported by the reading of some Companions, meaning: “they are made to bear it with great difficulty,” in the sense that they struggle to do it despite their inability. Upon this view, the elderly person and the like must pay fidyah. This is the choice of al Bukhari, using the action of Anas ibn Malik as proof.

Fight In The Path Of Allah Those Who Fight You

Simplified answer: The verse “Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you” does not mean fighting is only permitted after being attacked. It means the people being fought are hostile enemies whose way is to fight the Muslims.

So the command applies to combatants, not to those who do not fight, such as women, children, very old men, monks, and others like them. This is why the verse ends with “do not transgress.” The later verses about fighting speak about hostile forces generally. So the meanings fit together clearly.

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا

“Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress.” (al Baqarah 190)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that they were not commanded to fight the disbelievers except when they fought them. Other verses have come indicating the obligation of fighting the disbelievers unrestrictedly, whether they fought or did not fight, such as His saying, Most High:

وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ

“Fight them until there is no fitnah.” (al Baqarah 193)

And His saying:

فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ

“When the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.” (al Tawbah 5)

And His saying, Most High:

تُقَاتِلُونَهُمْ أَوْ يُسْلِمُونَ

“You will fight them, or they will submit.” (al Fath 16)

The answer to this is through several matters.

The first, and it is the best and closest of them, is that what is meant by His saying, “those who fight you,” is to stir the Muslims and urge them to fight the disbelievers. It is as though He is saying to them: those whom I have commanded you to fight are your opponents and enemies who fight you.

What indicates this meaning is His saying, Most High:

وَقَاتِلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَافَّةً كَمَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ كَافَّةً

“Fight the polytheists all together, just as they fight you all together.” (al Tawbah 36)

The best thing by which the Qur’an is explained is the Qur’an.

The second way is that it was abrogated by His saying, Most High:

فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ

“Kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” (al Tawbah 5)

From the viewpoint of reasoning, this is apparent and very good. The explanation is that from Allah’s perfect wisdom in legislation is that when He wants to legislate something heavy upon souls, He may legislate it gradually so that its difficulty becomes lighter step by step.

For example, alcohol, because leaving it was hard upon souls used to it, He first mentioned some of its harms through His saying:

قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ

“Say: in both of them is great sin.” (al Baqarah 219)

Then after that, He forbade it at one time and not another, as indicated by His saying, Most High:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْرَبُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَنْتُمْ سُكَارَىٰ

“O you who believe, do not approach salah while you are intoxicated.” (al Nisa 43)

Then, when souls became used to its prohibition in general, He forbade it completely through His saying:

رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

“It is filth from the work of Shaytan, so avoid it so that you may succeed.” (al Ma’idah 90)

Likewise fasting, when it was hard upon souls, He first legislated it as a choice between fasting and feeding. Then He encouraged fasting despite the choice through His saying:

وَأَنْ تَصُومُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ

“And that you fast is better for you.” (al Baqarah 184)

Then, when souls became used to it, He made it bindingly obligatory through His saying, Most High:

فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ

“So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it.” (al Baqarah 185)

Likewise fighting, upon this view, is hard upon souls. First, permission was given for it without obligation, through His saying:

أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا

“Permission has been given to those who are fought because they have been wronged.” (al Hajj 39)

Then He obligated them to fight those who fought them, not those who did not fight them, through His saying:

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ

“Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you.” (al Baqarah 190)

Then, when their souls became used to fighting, He made it generally obligatory upon them through His saying:

فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ

“Kill the polytheists wherever you find them, seize them, and besiege them.” (al Tawbah 5)

The third way, which is the choice of Ibn Jarir, and which appears to me to be correct, is that the verse remains firm and that its meaning is: fight those who fight you, meaning those whose way is to fight you.

As for the disbeliever whose way is not fighting, such as women, children, extremely old men, monks, people of hermitages, and whoever offers peace to you, do not transgress by fighting them, because they do not fight you.

What indicates this are the hadiths that clearly forbid killing a child, the people of hermitages, a woman, and a very old man, when his opinion is not being used in war.

As for the one whose opinion is used, he is killed, like Durayd ibn al Simmah. Umar ibn Abd al Aziz (d. 101AH), Ibn Abbas, and al Hasan al Basri (d. 110AH) explained this verse with this meaning.

Whoever Transgresses Against You, Then Respond Against Him With The Like Of What He Did

Simplified answer: Retaliation is permissible when someone has been wronged, but it must only be equal to the wrong done. Pardon is better when the matter is personal and forgiving does not lead to more harm. So the verses are speaking about two different cases. One set permits a fair response to oppression. The other set encourages forgiveness when forgiveness is better and more virtuous.

فَمَنِ اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ

“Whoever transgresses against you, then respond against him with the like of what he did against you.” (al Baqarah 194)

This verse indicates seeking retaliation. Allah has permitted retaliation in many verses, such as His saying, Most High:

وَلَمَنِ انْتَصَرَ بَعْدَ ظُلْمِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ ۝ إِنَّمَا السَّبِيلُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَظْلِمُونَ النَّاسَ

“Whoever defends himself after being wronged, then there is no way against such people. The way is only against those who wrong people.” (al Shura 41–42)

And His saying:

لَا يُحِبُّ اللَّهُ الْجَهْرَ بِالسُّوءِ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ إِلَّا مَنْ ظُلِمَ

“Allah does not love public mention of evil speech, except from one who has been wronged.” (al Nisa 148)

And His saying:

ذَٰلِكَ وَمَنْ عَاقَبَ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبَ بِهِ ثُمَّ بُغِيَ عَلَيْهِ لَيَنْصُرَنَّهُ اللَّهُ

“That is so. Whoever responds with the like of what he was made to suffer, then is wronged again, Allah will surely aid him.” (al Hajj 60)

And His saying:

وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَهُمُ الْبَغْيُ هُمْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ

“And those who, when oppression strikes them, defend themselves.” (al Shura 39)

And His saying:

وَجَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِثْلُهَا

“The recompense of an evil is an evil like it.” (al Shura 40)

Other verses have come indicating pardon and leaving retaliation, such as His saying:

فَاصْفَحِ الصَّفْحَ الْجَمِيلَ

“So pardon with a beautiful pardon.” (al Hijr 85)

And His saying:

وَالْكَاظِمِينَ الْغَيْظَ وَالْعَافِينَ عَنِ النَّاسِ

“Those who restrain anger and pardon people.” (Aal Imran 134)

And His saying:

ادْفَعْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ

“Repel with what is better.” (Fussilat 34)

And His saying:

وَلَمَنْ صَبَرَ وَغَفَرَ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ لَمِنْ عَزْمِ الْأُمُورِ

“Whoever is patient and forgives, indeed that is from matters requiring firm resolve.” (al Shura 43)

And His saying:

خُذِ الْعَفْوَ وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَ

“Take to pardon, command what is recognised, and turn away from the ignorant.” (al Aʿraf 199)

And His saying:

وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ الْجَاهِلُونَ قَالُوا سَلَامًا

“When the ignorant address them, they say words of peace.” (al Furqan 63)

The answer to this is through 2 matters.

The first is that Allah explained the lawfulness of retaliation, then guided to the greater virtue of pardon. This is indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ

“If you respond, then respond with the like of what you were made to suffer. But if you are patient, it is better for the patient.” (al Nahl 126)

And His saying:

لَا يُحِبُّ اللَّهُ الْجَهْرَ بِالسُّوءِ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ إِلَّا مَنْ ظُلِمَ

“Allah does not love public mention of evil speech, except from one who has been wronged.” (al Nisa 148)

So He permitted retaliation through His saying, “except from one who has been wronged.” Then He guided to pardon through His saying:

إِنْ تُبْدُوا خَيْرًا أَوْ تُخْفُوهُ أَوْ تَعْفُوا عَنْ سُوءٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا قَدِيرًا

“If you show good, hide it, or pardon an evil, then Allah is Pardoning, Powerful.” (al Nisa 149)

The second way is that retaliation has a place where it is good, and pardon has a place where it is also good. Its explanation is that among wrongs are those in which being patient over them would violate the sanctities of Allah. Do you not see that if a man’s slave woman was forcefully taken from him, for example, and the one who took her was committing fornication with her, then his silence and pardon over this wrong would be ugly, weak, and cowardly, and the sanctities of Allah would be violated by it. Retaliation in something like this is obligatory, and upon this the command in His saying, “then respond,” is carried.

This is like when the disbelievers begin fighting. Fighting them is obligatory. This is unlike when some of his Muslim brothers wrong him with ugly speech and similar matters, for then his pardon is better and more virtuous.

Abu al Tayyib al Mutanabbi said:

“When forbearance is mentioned, forbearance has its place, and the forbearance of a young man outside its place is ignorance.”

Whoever Among You Turns Back From His Religion And Dies While A Disbeliever

وَمَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُولَٰئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ

“Whoever among you turns back from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever, those are the ones whose deeds have become worthless.” (al Baqarah 217)

This noble verse indicates that riddah (apostasy) does not make deeds worthless except with the condition of dying upon disbelief, because of His saying, “and dies while he is a disbeliever.”

Other verses have come indicating that riddah makes deeds worthless unrestrictedly, even if the person returns to Islam, so everything he did before riddah is made worthless by riddah. Such as His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ

“Whoever disbelieves in faith, his deed has become worthless.” (al Ma’idah 5)

And His saying:

لَئِنْ أَشْرَكْتَ لَيَحْبَطَنَّ عَمَلُكَ

“If you associate partners, your deed will surely become worthless.” (al Zumar 65)

And His saying:

وَلَوْ أَشْرَكُوا لَحَبِطَ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

“If they had associated partners, what they used to do would have become worthless.” (al Anʿam 88)

The answer is that this is from the issues of apparent contradiction between the unrestricted wording and the restricted wording. So the unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording. The unrestricted verses are therefore restricted by dying upon disbelief.

According To The Requirement Of The Principles

This is according to what the principles require. It is the view of Imam al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH) and those who agreed with him. Malik (d. 179AH) differed in this issue and gave precedence to the unrestricted verses. The view of al Shafiʿi in this issue runs more closely with the principles. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

Do Not Marry Polytheist Women Until They Believe

وَلَا تَنْكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّىٰ يُؤْمِنَّ

“Do not marry polytheist women until they believe.” (al Baqarah: 221)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that marriage to every disbelieving woman is forbidden. This is also indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ

“Do not hold on to the marriage bonds of disbelieving women.” (al Mumtahanah: 10)

Another verse has come indicating that marriage to some disbelieving women is permissible, namely free women from the People of the Book. It is His saying, Most High:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ ۝ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you, and your food is permissible for them. And the chaste women from the believing women, and the chaste women from those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

The answer is that this noble verse makes His saying, “Do not marry polytheist women,” specific, meaning as long as they are not women from the People of the Book. The proof is His saying:

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“And the chaste women from those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Ibn Jarir (d. 310AH) quoted ijmaʿ on this.

As for what was reported from Umar, that he objected to Talhah marrying a Jewish woman and to Hudhayfah marrying a Christian woman, he only disliked marriage to women from the People of the Book so that people would not lose interest in Muslim women, or for some other meanings. Ibn Jarir said this.

Divorced Women Shall Wait By Themselves For 3 Menstrual Periods

وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنْفُسِهِنَّ ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُوءٍ

“Divorced women shall wait by themselves for 3 menstrual periods.” (al Baqarah: 228)

The apparent meaning of this noble verse indicates that every divorced woman observes her waiting period by menstrual periods. Other verses have come stating that some divorced women observe their waiting period through something other than menstrual periods, such as elderly women and young girls, who are clearly mentioned in His saying:

وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ ۝ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ

“Those women who have despaired of menstruation, and those who have not menstruated.” (al Talaq: 4)

And such as pregnant women, who are clearly mentioned in His saying:

وَأُولَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ

“As for pregnant women, their term is until they give birth.” (al Talaq: 4)

Another verse has also come stating that some divorced women have no waiting period at all, namely those divorced before consummation. It is His saying, Most High:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا

“O you who believe, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before touching them, then you have no waiting period upon them for you to count.” (al Ahzab: 49)

The answer to this is clear. The verse, “Divorced women,” is general, while these mentioned verses are more specific than it, so they specify it. Therefore, it is from general wording that has been made specific.

Those Among You Who Die And Leave Wives Behind

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنْفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا

“Those among you who die and leave wives behind, they shall wait by themselves for 4 months and 10 days.” (al Baqarah: 234)

This verse appears to contradict with His saying, Most High:

وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنْكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا وَصِيَّةً لِأَزْوَاجِهِمْ مَتَاعًا إِلَى الْحَوْلِ غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ

“Those among you who die and leave wives behind, a bequest for their wives of maintenance for 1 year without being removed.” (al Baqarah: 240)

The answer is clear: the first verse abrogates this one, even though it comes before it in the written order of the Qur’an, because it came down later in revelation. There is no verse in the Qur’an that comes earlier in the written order while abrogating a verse after it except in 2 places.

The first is this place.

The second is the verse:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِنَّا أَحْلَلْنَا لَكَ أَزْوَاجَكَ

“O Prophet, We have made permissible for you your wives.” (al Ahzab: 50)

It comes earlier in the written order, while it abrogates His saying:

لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ

“Women are not permissible for you after this.” (al Ahzab: 52)

That is because even though it comes earlier in the written order, it came later in revelation. This is according to the view of abrogation. The exact matter will come, if Allah wills, in Surah al Ahzab.

There Is No Compulsion In The Religion

Simplified answer: The verse means that the People of the Book are not forced to enter Islam if they accept the jizyah. So they are not compelled to become Muslim. The verses about fighting refer to those who fight, reject the treaty terms, or refuse what the Sharia requires from them. Another answer is that “There is no compulsion in the religion” came earlier, then the later verses of fighting clarified or replaced that earlier ruling.

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

“There is no compulsion in the religion. Right guidance has become clear from misguidance.” (al Baqarah: 256)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that no one is compelled to enter the religion. Similar to it is His saying, Most High:

أَفَأَنْتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّىٰ يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ

“Would you then compel people until they become believers?” (Yunus: 99)

And His saying, Most High:

فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظًا إِنْ عَلَيْكَ إِلَّا الْبَلَاغُ

“We did not send you over them as a guardian. Upon you is only conveyance.” (al Shura: 48)

Many verses have come indicating compulsion of the disbelievers to enter Islam by the sword, such as His saying, Most High:

تُقَاتِلُونَهُمْ أَوْ يُسْلِمُونَ

“You will fight them, or they will submit.” (al Fath: 16)

And His saying:

وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ

“Fight them until there is no fitnah.” (al Baqarah: 193)

Meaning: shirk.

What indicates this explanation is the authentic hadith:

“I was commanded to fight the people until they say: there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah.”

The answer to this is through 2 matters.

The first, and it is the most correct, is that this verse is specific to the People of the Book. The meaning is that before the command to fight them came down, they were not compelled into the religion at all. After the command to fight them came down, they are still not compelled into it if they give the jizyah by hand while humbled.

The proof that it is specific to them is what Abu Dawud (d. 275AH), Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327AH), al Nasa’i (d. 303AH), Ibn Hibban (d. 354AH), and Ibn Jarir narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father. He said:

“A woman would be one whose children did not live, so she would make a vow upon herself that if a child lived for her, she would make him a Jew. When Banu al Nadir were expelled, among them were some of the children of the Ansar. They said: ‘We will not leave our children.’ So Allah sent down:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

“There is no compulsion in religion.” (al Baqarah: 256)

The word used means a woman whose child does not live. In the proverb it is said: “Hotter than the tear of a woman whose child does not live.”

Ibn Jarir narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, that he said:

“The verse, ‘There is no compulsion in religion,’ came down concerning a man from the Ansar, from Banu Salim ibn Awf, called al Husayn. He had 2 Christian sons while he was a Muslim. He said to the Prophet ﷺ: ‘Should I not force them, for they have refused everything except Christianity?’ So Allah sent down the verse.”

Ibn Jarir narrated that Abu Bishr asked Saʿid ibn Jubayr (d. 95AH) about this verse. He said: “It came down concerning the Ansar.” He said: “Specifically?” He said: “Specifically.”

Ibn Jarir also narrated from Qatadah (d. 117AH) through 2 chains concerning His saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” He said:

“This living group among the Arabs was compelled into it, because they were an unlettered nation who had no Book they knew, so nothing was accepted from them except Islam. The People of the Book were not compelled into it if they agreed to the jizyah or land tax and were not put to trial away from their religion. Their way was left open.”

Ibn Jarir also narrated from al Dahhak (d. 105AH) concerning His saying, “There is no compulsion in religion,” or he said:

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was commanded to fight the Arabian Peninsula from the idol worshippers, and nothing was accepted from them except: ‘There is nothing worthy of worship except Allah,’ or the sword. Then he was commanded regarding those besides them to accept the jizyah from them. So He said:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

“There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become clear from misguidance.” (al Baqarah: 256)

Ibn Jarir also narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, concerning His saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” He said:

“That was when the people entered Islam and the People of the Book gave the jizyah.”

These reports indicate that it is specific to the People of the Book who give the jizyah, and those who have the same ruling as them.

It is not valid to object here by saying that consideration is given to the general wording, not to the specific reason, because the specification here was known through transmitted reports from the ulama of tafsir, not merely through the specific reason.

Among what indicates specification is what is established in the Sahih:

“Your Lord was amazed at people being led to Paradise in chains.”

The second matter is that it was abrogated by the verses of fighting, such as His saying:

فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“When the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists.” (al Tawbah: 5)

It is known that Surah al Baqarah was among the first of what came down in Madinah, while Surah Bara’ah was among the last of what came down there. The view of abrogation is reported from Ibn Masʿud and Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 136AH). In every case, the verses of the sword came down after the surah containing “There is no compulsion” had come down, and the later is given precedence over the earlier. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

Whether You Show What Is Within Yourselves Or Hide It, Allah Will Bring You To Account For It

إِنْ تُبْدُوا مَا فِي أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوْ تُخْفُوهُ يُحَاسِبْكُمْ بِهِ اللَّهُ

“Whether you show what is within yourselves or hide it, Allah will bring you to account for it.” (al Baqarah: 284)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that a person is taken to account for whisperings and thoughts of the hearts, even though he has no ability to repel them. Other verses have come indicating that a person is only held responsible for what he can bear, such as His saying, Most High:

لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا

“Allah does not burden any soul except with what it can bear.” (al Baqarah: 286)

And His saying:

فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ

“So fear Allah as much as you are able.” (al Taghabun: 16)

The answer is that the verse:

وَإِنْ تُبْدُوا مَا فِي أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوْ تُخْفُوهُ

“Whether you show what is within yourselves or hide it.” (al Baqarah: 284)

Was abrogated by His saying:

لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا

“Allah does not burden any soul except with what it can bear.” (al Baqarah: 286)

He Is The One Who Sent Down Upon You The Book

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ

“He is the One who sent down upon you the Book. From it are clear verses, they are the foundation of the Book, and others are unclear.” (Aal Imran: 7)

This noble verse indicates that some of the Qur’an is clear and some of it is unclear.

Another verse has come indicating that all of it is firm, and another verse has come indicating that all of it resembles itself. As for the one indicating that all of it is firm, it is His saying, Most High:

كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِنْ لَدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ

“A Book whose verses have been made firm, then explained in detail, from One Wise and All Aware.” (Hud: 1)

As for the one indicating that all of it resembles itself, it is His saying, Most High:

كِتَابًا مُتَشَابِهًا مَثَانِيَ

“A Book resembling itself, oft repeated.” (al Zumar: 23)

The way to reconcile these verses is that the meaning of all of it being firm is that it is at the highest level of precision, meaning perfection in its wording, meanings, and miraculous nature. Its reports are true and its rulings are just. No stain or flaw enters it, neither in wording nor in meaning.

The meaning of it resembling itself is that its verses resemble one another in beauty, truthfulness, miraculous nature, and safety from all defects.

The meaning of some of it being clear and some of it being unclear is that the clear part is that whose meaning is plain to all people, such as His saying:

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا

“Do not come near unlawful sexual intercourse.” (al Isra: 32)

And:

وَلَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ

“Do not make another god along with Allah.” (al Isra: 39)

The unclear part is that whose knowledge is hidden from those who are not firmly grounded in knowledge, based on the view that the conjunction in His saying:

وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ

“And those firmly grounded in knowledge.” (Aal Imran: 7)

Is connective.

Or it is that whose knowledge Allah kept to Himself, such as the meanings of the separated letters at the beginnings of surahs, based on the view that the conjunction in His saying, “and those firmly grounded in knowledge,” begins a new sentence and is not connective.

Let Not The Believers Take The Disbelievers As Allies Instead Of The Believers

لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers.” (Aal Imran: 28)

This noble verse may give the impression that taking the disbelievers as allies is not a problem if it is not done instead of the believers, due to His saying, “instead of the believers.”

Other verses have come indicating the prohibition of taking them as allies unrestrictedly, such as His saying, Most High:

وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا

“Do not take from them any ally or helper.” (al Nisa: 89)

And His saying:

لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاءَ

“Do not take as allies those who took your religion in mockery and play from those who were given the Book before you, nor the disbelievers.” (al Ma’idah: 57)

The answer is that His saying, “instead of the believers,” has no contrary implication.

It has been established in usul that the implied contrary meaning has barriers that prevent it from being considered. One of them is when the wording is specified in mention because it matches the actual case. This applies in this verse, because it came down concerning people who allied with the Jews instead of the believers. So it came down forbidding the actual case that occurred, without intending to make the ruling specific to that case. Rather, alliance with the disbelievers is forbidden unrestrictedly. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

Zakariyya Calling Upon His Lord There

Simplified answer: Zakariyya did not doubt Allah’s power. His question was about how the child would come. Would Allah give him a child from his elderly wife, return them to youth, or command another way? It can also be understood as amazement at Allah’s power, not denial of it. So his earlier dua shows certainty, and his later question asks about the manner, not the possibility.

هُنَالِكَ دَعَا زَكَرِيَّا رَبَّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ هَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ ذُرِّيَّةً طَيِّبَةً

“There Zakariyya called upon his Lord. He said: My Lord, grant me from Yourself good offspring.” (Aal Imran: 38)

This verse indicates that Zakariyya عليه السلام had no doubt about Allah’s ability to provide him a child, despite his old age. Another verse has come which may give the impression of the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

قَالَ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَقَدْ بَلَغَنِيَ الْكِبَرُ وَامْرَأَتِي عَاقِرٌ

“He said: My Lord, how will I have a boy when old age has reached me and my wife is barren?” (Aal Imran: 40)

The answer to this is through several matters.

The first is what Ibn Jarir narrated from Ikrimah (d. 105AH) and al Suddi (d. 127AH), that when the angels called Zakariyya while he was standing in prayer in the prayer chamber, saying, “Allah gives you glad news of Yahya,” Shaytan said to him, “This is not the call of the angels. It is only the call of Shaytan.” So doubt entered Zakariyya as to whether the call was from Shaytan. At that doubt, which arose from the whispering of Shaytan before he became certain that it was from Allah, he said:

أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ

“How will I have a boy?” (Aal Imran: 40)

That is why he asked Allah for a sign regarding that through His saying:

رَبِّ اجْعَلْ لِي آيَةً

“My Lord, make for me a sign.” (Aal Imran: 41)

The second is that his question was a question of seeking information and asking, because he did not know whether Allah would bring him the child from his elderly wife, or command him to marry a young woman, or return both of them to youth.

The third is that it was a question of amazement and wonder at the perfection of Allah’s power, Most High. Allah, Most High, knows best.

I Create For You From Clay Like The Form Of A Bird

أَنِّي أَخْلُقُ لَكُمْ مِنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ

“I create for you from clay like the form of a bird.” (Aal Imran: 49)

The apparent meaning of this verse may give the impression that some created beings may create other created beings. Similar to it is His saying, Most High:

وَتَخْلُقُونَ إِفْكًا

“And you invent falsehood.” (al Ankabut: 17)

Other verses have come indicating that Allah is the Creator of all things, such as His saying, Most High:

إِنَّا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَاهُ بِقَدَرٍ

“Indeed, We created everything by measure.” (al Qamar: 49)

And His saying:

اللَّهُ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَكِيلٌ

“Allah is the Creator of everything, and He is Guardian over everything.” (al Zumar: 62)

And other verses.

The answer is clear: the meaning of Isa عليه السلام creating something like a bird from clay is that he took something from clay and made it in the form, meaning the image, of a bird. What is meant is not true creation, because Allah alone is singled out with that, Majestic and Most High. His saying, “and you invent falsehood,” means: you lie. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the verses, as is apparent.

When Allah Said: O Isa, I Will Take You And Raise You To Myself

Simplified answer: The verse does not prove that Isa عليه السلام died before being raised. The words “I will take you” can mean that Allah took him fully and saved him from his enemies, or that Allah caused him to sleep and raised him during that sleep. It can also refer to a taking that will happen later, because the wording does not prove that death came before the raising. The clear Qur’an verses and mass transmitted hadiths show that Isa عليه السلام was not killed or crucified, but was raised by Allah and will die after his return.

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَىٰ إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ

“When Allah said: O Isa, I will take you and raise you to Myself.” (Aal Imran: 55)

The apparent meaning of this noble verse may be understood to mean the death of Isa عليه السلام.

Some verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying:

وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ

“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them.” (al Nisa: 157)

And His saying:

وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ

“There is none from the People of the Book except that he will surely believe in him before his death.” (al Nisa: 159)

According to the explanation given by Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, in one of the 2 reports from him, and Abu Malik, al Hasan (d. 110AH), Qatadah, Ibn … and Abu Hurayrah. The mutawatir hadiths indicate its truth. Ibn Jarir chose it, and Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH) firmly said that it is the truth, namely that His saying, “before his death,” means before the death of Isa عليه السلام.

The answer to this is from 3 ways.

The first is that His saying, Most High, “I will take you,” does not indicate the exact timing, nor does it indicate that it has already passed. Allah will certainly take him one day, but there is no proof that this day has already passed.

As for His connecting “and raise you” to His saying, “I will take you,” this contains no proof, because the majority of the people of the Arabic tongue agree that the conjunction does not require sequence or togetherness. It only requires simple joining.

Al Sirafi (d. 368AH) and al Suhayli (d. 581AH) claimed that the grammarians had ijmaʿ on that. Most attributed it to the verifying scholars, and it is the truth. This is contrary to what was said by Qutrub (d. 206AH), al Farra’ (d. 207AH), Thaʿlab (d. 291AH), Abu Umar al Zahid (d. 345AH), Hisham, and al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH), namely that it indicates sequence due to its frequent use for that.

Al Sirafi denied that this view was established from al Farra’, and said: “I did not find it in his book.”

Wali al Din said: “Our companions denied attributing this view to al Shafiʿi.” The author of al Diya’ al Lamiʿ quoted that from him.

His saying ﷺ, “Begin with what Allah began with,” meaning al Safa, is not proof that it requires sequence. The explanation of this is what al Fihri said, as the author of al Diya’ al Lamiʿ quoted from him: just as the conjunction does not require sequence or togetherness, it also does not prevent either of them. It may be used while intending special concern for the first mentioned, as in His saying:

إِنَّ الصَّفَا وَالْمَرْوَةَ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ اللَّهِ

“Indeed, al Safa and al Marwah are among the symbols of Allah.” (al Baqarah: 158)

The proof is the hadith already mentioned.

The thing joined by it may also be ordered in sequence, such as the saying of Hassan:

“You insulted Muhammad, and I answered on his behalf.”

This is according to the narration with the conjunction.

It may also be intended for togetherness, such as His saying:

فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَصْحَابَ السَّفِينَةِ

“So We saved him and the companions of the ship.” (al Ankabut: 15)

And His saying:

وَجُمِعَ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ

“And the sun and the moon are gathered.” (al Qiyamah: 9)

However, it is not carried upon sequence or togetherness except with a separate proof.

The second way is that the meaning of “I will take you” is: I will cause you to sleep, “and raise you to Myself,” meaning during that sleep.

The Qur’an uses the word for taking the soul to refer to sleep in His saying:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَتَوَفَّاكُمْ بِاللَّيْلِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا جَرَحْتُمْ بِالنَّهَارِ

“He is the One who takes you by night and knows what you do by day.” (al Anʿam: 60)

And His saying:

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا

“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that have not died during their sleep.” (al Zumar: 42)

Ibn Kathir attributed this view to the majority. He used the 2 mentioned verses as proof, as well as his saying ﷺ:

“All praise is for Allah who gave us life after He caused us to die.”

The third way is that “I will take you” is an active participle from the verb meaning to take fully and seize to oneself. From this is their saying: “So and so collected his debt,” when he took it to himself. So the meaning of “I will take you” upon this is: I will seize you from them to Myself while you are alive.

This view is the choice of Ibn Jarir.

As for reconciling by saying that He caused him to die for some hours or days, then brought him back to life, what appears is that this is from the Israelite reports. The Prophet ﷺ forbade both believing them and denying them.

Ibrahim Was Neither A Jew Nor A Christian

Simplified answer: Ibrahim was not worshipping the star, moon, or sun. He was arguing against his people and showing them that anything which rises, sets, changes, and disappears cannot be the Lord. His words mean either, “Is this my Lord?” or “This is my Lord according to your false claim.” The Qur’an clearly says Ibrahim was upright, submitting, and was never from the polytheists, so his speech was a debate against shirk, not belief in it.

مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَٰكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was upright, submitting, and he was not from the polytheists.” (Aal Imran: 67)

This noble verse and its likes in the Qur’an indicate that Ibrahim عليه السلام was never a polytheist at any time, because negating past being in His saying, “and he was not from the polytheists,” indicates complete negation across all past time, as is also indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ رُشْدَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ

“We had already given Ibrahim his right guidance before.” (al Anbiya: 51)

Another place has come which may give the impression of the opposite. It is His saying:

فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ رَأَىٰ كَوْكَبًا قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي ۝ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَا أُحِبُّ الْآفِلِينَ ۝ فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي ۝ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِنْ لَمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ ۝ فَلَمَّا رَأَى الشَّمْسَ بَازِغَةً قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي هَٰذَا أَكْبَرُ ۝ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَتْ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ

“When night covered him, he saw a star. He said: This is my Lord. Then when it set, he said: I do not love those that set. Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: This is my Lord. Then when it set, he said: If my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the misguided people. Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: This is my Lord. This is greater. Then when it set, he said: O my people, I am free from what you associate with Allah.” (al Anʿam: 76–78)

Whoever thinks that something besides Allah has lordship is a polytheist with Allah, as His saying, Most High, about the disbelievers indicates:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ ۝ إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ

“Those who call upon partners besides Allah follow nothing. They follow only assumption, and they do nothing but guess.” (Yunus: 66)

The answer to this is from 2 ways.

The first is that he was debating, not searching. His aim was argumentative concession, meaning: “This is my Lord according to your false claim.” A debater may concede a false premise for argument’s sake in order to defeat his opponent.

If Ibrahim had said to them at the beginning, “The star is created and cannot be a lord,” they would have said to him, “You have lied. Rather, the star is a lord.” What indicates that he was debating and not searching is His saying, Most High:

وَحَاجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ

“His people argued with him.” (al Anʿam: 80)

This way is the most apparent. As for what Ibn Jarir used as proof that he was not debating, namely His saying, Most High:

لَئِنْ لَمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ

“If my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the misguided people.” (al Anʿam: 77)

There is no proof in it upon verification, because the messengers say such things out of humility and to show their complete need of Allah, such as the saying of Ibrahim عليه السلام:

وَاجْنُبْنِي وَبَنِيَّ أَنْ نَعْبُدَ الْأَصْنَامَ

“Keep me and my children away from worshipping idols.” (Ibrahim: 35)

And his saying with Ismail عليهما السلام:

رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ

“Our Lord, make us both submitting to You.” (al Baqarah: 128)

The second way is that the speech has the question particle omitted, meaning: “Is this my Lord?” It has been established in grammar that omitting the question particle is permissible when the situation indicates it. According to al Akhfash (d. 215AH), it is regular with or without the word “or”, whether the answer is mentioned or not.

An example without “or” and without mention of the answer is the saying of al Kumayt (d. 126AH):

“I became moved, but not out of longing for fair women, nor out of play from me while one with grey hair plays.”

Meaning: “Does one with grey hair play?”

And the saying of Abu Khirash al Hudhali, whose name was Khuwaylid:

“They mended me and said: O Khuwaylid, do not fear. I said, while I did not recognise the faces: are they them?”

Meaning: “Are they them?” as is the correct view. Al Alusi (d. 1270AH) affirmed this in his tafsir, and Ibn Jarir mentioned it from a group. It is indicated by his saying, “while I did not recognise the faces.”

An example without “or” while mentioning the answer is the saying of Umar ibn Abi Rabiʿah al Makhzumi (d. 93AH):

“Then they said: Do you love her? I said: deeply, as many as the stars, pebbles, and dust.”

Meaning: “Do you love her?” according to the correct view.

It is very common with “or”. An example is the saying of al Aswad ibn Yaʿfur al Tamimi, which Sibawayh (d. 180AH) quoted as proof for this:

“By your life, I do not know, even though I am one who knows: is it Shuʿayth ibn Sahm or Shuʿayth ibn Minqar?”

Meaning: “Is it Shuʿayth ibn Sahm?”

And the saying of Ibn Abi Rabiʿah al Makhzumi:

“Part of her forearm appeared to me on the day she threw the pebbles, and a dyed palm made beautiful by fingers.

By Allah, I do not know, though I am counting, whether I threw the pebbles with 7 or with 8.”

Meaning: “With 7?”

And the saying of al Akhtal (d. 92AH):

“Did your eye lie to you, or did you see at Wasit, in the darkness of night, a vision of al Rabab?”

Meaning: “Did your eye lie to you?” as Sibawayh explicitly said regarding the permissibility of this in this verse of al Akhtal, although al Khalil (d. 170AH) differed, claiming that “your eye lied to you” is a report, and that “or” means “rather”. According to al Khalil’s view, there is a type of rhetorical meaning in the line called retraction among the people of eloquence.

And the saying of al Khansa’:

“Is there dust in your eyes, or is there sickness in the eye, or has the home become empty since its people left?”

Meaning: “Is there dust in your eyes?”

And the saying of Uhayhah ibn al Julah al Ansari:

“You do not know, even if you drive a young camel, whether the young camel will be for someone else or for you.”

Meaning: “For someone else?”

And the saying of Imru’ al Qays:

“Will you leave the tribe in the evening or start early, and what harm is there upon you if you wait?”

Meaning: “Will you leave in the evening?”

Upon this view, the clue for the omitted question is the high rank of Ibrahim عليه السلام above thinking that something besides Allah has lordship, and the testimony of the Qur’an that he was free from that.

Upon this view, the verse resembles the reading of Ibn Muhaysin:

سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْذَرْتَهُمْ

“It is the same for them whether you warn them.” (al Baqarah: 6)

Similar to it upon this view is His saying, Most High:

أَفَإِنْ مِتَّ فَهُمُ الْخَالِدُونَ

“If you die, will they live forever?” (al Anbiya: 34)

Meaning: “Will they then live forever?”

And His saying, Most High:

وَتِلْكَ نِعْمَةٌ تَمُنُّهَا

“And is that a favour you remind me of?” (al Shuʿara’: 22)

According to one of the 2 views.

And His saying:

فَلَا اقْتَحَمَ الْعَقَبَةَ

“Has he not attempted the steep path?” (al Balad: 11)

According to one of the 2 views.

What some ulama mentioned besides these 2 ways returns to them, such as the view that there is an implied statement, meaning: the disbelievers say, “This is my Lord,” because that returns to the first way.

As for what Ibn Ishaq (d. 151AH) mentioned, and Ibn Jarir al Tabari chose and transmitted from Ibn Abbas, that Ibrahim was searching and thought the star had lordship, this is clearly weak, because the Qur’an texts reject it, such as His saying:

وَلَٰكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“But he was upright, submitting, and he was not from the polytheists.” (Aal Imran: 67)

And His saying, Most High:

ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ أَنِ اتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“Then We revealed to you: follow the way of Ibrahim, upright, and he was not from the polytheists.” (al Nahl: 123)

And His saying:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ رُشْدَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ

“We had already given Ibrahim his right guidance before.” (al Anbiya: 51)

The verifying scholar Ibn Kathir explained in his tafsir the rejection of what Ibn Jarir mentioned through these Qur’an texts and their like, as well as the hadiths which indicate their required meaning, such as his saying ﷺ:

“Every child is born upon the natural faith.”

Indeed Those Who Disbelieved After Their Faith, Then Increased In Disbelief

Simplified answer: The verse is not saying that sincere repentance is rejected. It means their repentance is not accepted if they only repent when death arrives, or if they remain upon disbelief and only repent from some sins while not leaving disbelief. Other Qur’an verses make clear that if an apostate truly repents before death, Allah accepts his repentance. So the rejection is for false, late, or insincere repentance, not for sincere repentance made in time.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَنْ تُقْبَلَ تَوْبَتُهُمْ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الضَّالُّونَ

“Indeed, those who disbelieved after their faith, then increased in disbelief, their repentance will never be accepted, and those are the misguided.” (Aal Imran: 90)

This noble verse indicates that those who apostatised after their faith and then increased in disbelief, Allah will not accept their repentance if they repent, because He expressed it with a wording that negates the act in the future. Other verses have come indicating that Allah accepts the repentance of every repentant person before death arrives and before the sun rises from the west, such as His saying, Most High:

قُلْ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ يَنْتَهُوا يُغْفَرْ لَهُمْ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ

“Say to those who disbelieved: if they stop, what has already passed will be forgiven for them.” (al Anfal: 38)

And His saying:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَقْبَلُ التَّوْبَةَ عَنْ عِبَادِهِ

“He is the One who accepts repentance from His servants.” (al Shura: 25)

And His saying:

يَوْمَ يَأْتِي بَعْضُ آيَاتِ رَبِّكَ لَا يَنْفَعُ نَفْسًا إِيمَانُهَا لَمْ تَكُنْ آمَنَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ

“The day some signs of your Lord come, no soul will benefit from its faith if it had not believed before.” (al Anʿam: 158)

Its implied meaning indicates that repentance before some of the signs come is accepted from every repentant person.

Allah, Most High, clearly included apostates within the acceptance of repentance immediately before this verse, in His saying, Most High:

كَيْفَ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ قَوْمًا كَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ وَشَهِدُوا أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ حَقٌّ ۝ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

“How would Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their faith and testified that the Messenger is true, except those who repent after that and make amends, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Aal Imran: 86–89)

The exception in His saying, Most High, “except those who repent,” returns to the apostates after faith who deserve punishment and curse if they do not repent.

This is also indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ

“Whoever among you turns back from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever.” (al Baqarah: 217)

Because its implied meaning is that if he repents before death, his repentance is accepted unrestrictedly.

The answer is from 4 ways.

The first, which is the choice of Ibn Jarir, and which he transmitted from Rafiʿ Abu al ʿAliyah (d. 93AH), is that the meaning is: those among the Jews who disbelieved in Muhammad ﷺ after having believed in him before his mission, then increased in disbelief through the sins they committed while in their disbelief, their repentance from the sins they committed in their disbelief will not be accepted until they repent from their disbelief.

What indicates this way is His saying, Most High:

وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الضَّالُّونَ

“And those are the misguided.” (Aal Imran: 90)

Because it indicates that their repentance is while they remain upon committing misguidance. Its non acceptance at that point is apparent.

The second, which is the closest to me, is that His saying, Most High, “their repentance will never be accepted,” means when they repent at the arrival of death. This way is indicated by 2 matters.

The first is that Allah, Most High, explained in other places that the disbeliever whose repentance is not accepted is the one who persists upon disbelief until death comes to him, then he repents at that time, such as His saying, Most High:

وَلَيْسَتِ التَّوْبَةُ لِلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا حَضَرَ أَحَدَهُمُ الْمَوْتُ قَالَ إِنِّي تُبْتُ الْآنَ وَلَا الَّذِينَ يَمُوتُونَ وَهُمْ كُفَّارٌ

“Repentance is not for those who do evil deeds until, when death comes to one of them, he says: I have repented now, nor for those who die while they are disbelievers.” (al Nisa: 18)

So the one who repents at the arrival of death and the one who dies upon his disbelief were made the same.

And His saying, Most High:

فَلَمْ يَكُ يَنْفَعُهُمْ إِيمَانُهُمْ لَمَّا رَأَوْا بَأْسَنَا

“Their faith did not benefit them when they saw Our punishment.” (Ghafir: 85)

And His saying about Pharaoh:

آلْآنَ وَقَدْ عَصَيْتَ قَبْلُ وَكُنْتَ مِنَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ

“Now, while you had disobeyed before and were among the corrupters?” (Yunus: 91)

So the unrestricted wording in this verse is restricted by the condition of delaying repentance until the arrival of death, because it is obligatory to carry the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording, as is established in usul.

The second is that Allah, Most High, pointed to that through His saying, “then increased in disbelief,” because it indicates that they did not repent at the time when repentance benefits. Ibn Jarir transmitted this second way, namely restriction by the arrival of death, from al Hasan, Qatadah, Ata al Khurasani (d. 135AH), and al Suddi.

The third is that the meaning of “their repentance will never be accepted” is: their first faith, because it was invalidated by apostasy after it. Ibn Jarir transmitted this view from Ibn Jurayj (d. 150AH). The weakness of this view and its distance from the apparent meaning of the Qur’an is not hidden.

The fourth is that what is meant by His saying, “their repentance will never be accepted,” is that they were not given tawfiq for sincere repentance so that it could be accepted from them. What indicates this way is His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا

“Indeed, those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, Allah would not forgive them, nor guide them to a way.” (al Nisa: 137)

His saying, Most High, “nor guide them to a way,” indicates that His not forgiving them is due to their not being given tawfiq for repentance and guidance.

Like His saying:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَظَلَمُوا لَمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ طَرِيقًا ۝ إِلَّا طَرِيقَ جَهَنَّمَ

“Indeed, those who disbelieved and wronged, Allah would not forgive them, nor guide them to any path, except the path of Hell.” (al Nisa: 168–169)

And His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

“Indeed, those upon whom the word of your Lord has become binding will not believe.” (Yunus: 96)

Similar to the verse upon this view is His saying, Most High:

فَمَا تَنْفَعُهُمْ شَفَاعَةُ الشَّافِعِينَ

“So the intercession of intercessors will not benefit them.” (al Muddaththir: 48)

Meaning: they have no intercession at all so that it could benefit them.

And His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ

“Whoever calls upon another god along with Allah, for which he has no proof.” (al Mu’minun: 117)

Because another god cannot exist at all, so that proof could be established for it or not established for it.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: this last way is what is known among people of investigation through their saying: “A negative proposition does not require the existence of the subject.”

Its explanation is that a negative proposition, according to them, is true in 2 forms, because what is intended by it is that the subject is not described with the predicate. This non description occurs in 2 forms.

The first is that the subject exists, but the predicate is absent from it, such as saying: “A human is not a stone.” The human exists, while stoneness is absent from him.

The second is that the subject is nonexistent from its very root, because when it is nonexistent, it is confirmed that it is not described with an existent predicate, since nonexistence is not described with existence. An example is saying: “There is no equal of Allah who deserves worship.” The subject, which is the equal, is impossible from its very root. When its nonexistence is confirmed, the absence of its being described as deserving worship is necessarily confirmed.

This type is from the ways of the Arabic language. Among its proofs is the saying of Imru’ al Qays:

“Upon a wide road by whose sign none is guided, when the Nabati camel smells it, it rumbles.”

The meaning is that it is upon a wide road that has no sign at all by which anyone may be guided.

And the saying of another:

“Its terrors do not frighten the rabbit, nor do you see the lizard in it entering a hole.”

He is describing a desert in which there are no rabbits and no lizards, so that its terrors could frighten the rabbit or the lizard could enter a hole in it, meaning enter a hole or make one.

I clarified the issue that a negative proposition does not require the existence of the subject in my poem on logic, in the section on the change of quantifiers. I also clarified there, in the section on affirmation and privation, that among affirmative propositions are those that do not require the existence of the subject, such as: “A sea of mercury is possible,” and “The impossible is nonexistent.” These are 2 affirmative propositions, while the subject of each of them is nonexistent. We gave the detailed clarification there concerning what requires the existence of the subject and what does not.

What we have established, that the apostate’s repentance is accepted if he repents, even after apostasy is repeated 3 times or more, does not contradiction with what a group of ulama of the 4 madhhabs and others said, which is also reported from Ali and Ibn Abbas: that if apostasy is repeated by him, he is killed and his repentance is not accepted. Some of them used this verse as proof for that. This is because the disagreement is over confirming the application of the effective cause, not over the effective cause itself. The 2 debaters may differ over confirming the application of the effective cause while agreeing on the original effective cause.

Its explanation is that the effective cause is the place where the ruling is attached. From this is the saying of Hassan, may Allah be pleased with him:

“You are an attached outsider placed among the family of Hashim, just as a lone cup is tied behind the rider.”

What is meant by it is the place where the ruling is attached, which is the cause. So the effective cause and the cause are synonymous in technical usage, except that expression with the wording “effective cause” became common in the fifth way among the ways of identifying the cause, which is suitability and assignment. It is called deriving the effective cause. Likewise, in the ninth way, which is refining the effective cause.

Deriving the effective cause means extracting the cause through suitability and assignment.

Refining the effective cause means purifying and refining the cause so that nothing suitable for it is excluded, and nothing unsuitable for it is included, as is known in its proper place.

As for confirming the application of the effective cause, which is the aim here, it means that the effective cause of the ruling is agreed upon between the 2 opponents, except that one of them says it exists in this branch case, while the other says it does not.

An example is the disagreement over cutting the grave robber’s hand. Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), may Allah have mercy on him, agrees with the majority that theft is the effective cause of cutting, but he says the effective cause is not present in the grave robber, because he is not a thief. Rather, he is taking wealth that is exposed to being lost, like something picked up, from a place that is not protected.

Once this is understood, know that the meaning intended by those who say that his repentance is not accepted is that his actions indicate the corruption of his intention, the corruption of his belief, and that he is not truly repentant inwardly with sincere repentance. They agree that sincere repentance is the effective cause of acceptance, as we mentioned, but they say that the actions of this wicked person indicate that the effective cause is not confirmed.

From here, the ulama differed over the repentance of the heretic, meaning the one who hides disbelief. Some said his repentance is not accepted. Some said it is accepted. Some distinguished between his coming repentant before being discovered, and his hypocrisy being discovered before repentance, as is known in the branches of the madhhabs of the 4 imams.

That is because those who say he is killed and his repentance is not accepted hold that his hidden hypocrisy is proof that his repentance is only protective pretence, not reality. They used His saying, Most High, as proof:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا

“Except those who repent and make amends.” (al Baqarah: 160)

They said: making amends is a condition, and the heretic’s making amends cannot be known, because the corruption came only from what he hid. So when he is discovered and he openly shows that he has stopped, he may remain inwardly upon what he was upon.

What appears is that the proofs of those who say his repentance is accepted unrestrictedly are clearer and stronger, such as his saying ﷺ to Usamah, may Allah be pleased with him:

“Did you open his heart?”

And his saying to the one who secretly asked him about killing a man: “Does he not pray?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Those are the ones I have been forbidden to kill.”

And his saying to Khalid when he asked permission to kill the one who objected to the division: “I was not commanded to dig into the hearts of people.”

These hadiths are in the Sahih. What also indicates this is their ijmaʿ that worldly rulings are based upon what is apparent, and Allah takes charge of hidden matters.

Allah, Most High, clearly said that false oaths are a shield for the hypocrites in worldly rulings through His saying:

اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً

“They took their oaths as a shield.” (al Mujadilah: 16)

And His saying:

سَيَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ لَكُمْ إِذَا انْقَلَبْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ لِتُعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمْ فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمْ إِنَّهُمْ رِجْسٌ

“They will swear by Allah to you when you return to them so that you turn away from them. So turn away from them. Indeed, they are filth.” (al Tawbah: 95)

And His saying:

وَيَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُمْ لَمِنْكُمْ وَمَا هُمْ مِنْكُمْ

“They swear by Allah that they are surely from you, while they are not from you.” (al Tawbah: 56)

And other verses.

As for what some of them used as proof from Ibn Masʿud killing Ibn al Nawwahah, the companion of Musaylimah, it is answered by saying that he killed him because of the Prophet’s ﷺ saying when he came to him as a messenger for Musaylimah:

“If not for the fact that messengers are not killed, I would have killed you.”

So Ibn Masʿud killed him in fulfilment of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ. It has been reported that he killed him for that reason.

If it is said: this verse, which indicates that their repentance is not accepted, is more specific than other verses, because it contains the restriction of apostasy and increase in disbelief. The one whose apostasy is repeated is more specific than an apostate in an unrestricted sense, and proof for the more general is not proof for the more specific, because the existence of the more general does not require the existence of the more specific.

The answer is that the Qur’an indicates acceptance of the repentance of one whose disbelief is repeated, if he is sincere in turning back to Allah. The way the Qur’an indicates that is that Allah, Most High, said:

“Indeed, those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, Allah would not forgive them, nor guide them to a way.” (al Nisa: 137)

Then He explained that the hypocrites are included among them through His saying, Most High:

بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا

“Give the hypocrites news that they will have a painful punishment.” (al Nisa: 138)

Although indication by connection has been weakened by the scholars of usul, a group of verifying scholars graded it sound, especially when it is supported by contextual proofs, as here. His saying, Most High:

لَمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا ۝ بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا

“Allah would not forgive them, nor guide them to a way. Give the hypocrites news that they will have a painful punishment.” (al Nisa: 137–138)

Contains clear indication that they are included in what is meant by the verse. Rather, a group of ulama said it is specifically about them.

Once this is understood, know that Allah, Most High, clearly said that whoever sincerely repents from among the hypocrites, Allah turns to him in acceptance, through His saying:

إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِي الدَّرْكِ الْأَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُمْ نَصِيرًا ۝ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَاعْتَصَمُوا بِاللَّهِ وَأَخْلَصُوا دِينَهُمْ لِلَّهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۝ وَسَوْفَ يُؤْتِ اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا ۝ مَا يَفْعَلُ اللَّهُ بِعَذَابِكُمْ إِنْ شَكَرْتُمْ وَآمَنْتُمْ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ شَاكِرًا عَلِيمًا

“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest level of the Fire, and you will not find any helper for them, except those who repent, make amends, hold firmly to Allah, and make their religion sincere for Allah. Those will be with the believers, and Allah will give the believers a great reward. What would Allah do with punishing you if you are grateful and believe? Allah is Appreciative, Knowing.” (al Nisa: 145–147)

Makhshi ibn Himyar, may Allah be pleased with him, was among the hypocrites concerning whom Allah sent down His saying, Most High:

وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ ۝ قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ ۝ لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ

“If you ask them, they will surely say: We were only speaking idly and playing. Say: Was it Allah, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking? Do not make excuses. You have disbelieved after your faith.” (al Tawbah: 65–66)

He repented to Allah sincerely, so Allah accepted his repentance and sent down concerning him:

إِنْ نَعْفُ عَنْ طَائِفَةٍ مِنْكُمْ نُعَذِّبْ طَائِفَةً

“If We pardon a group of you, We will punish another group.” (al Tawbah: 66)

So the result is that those who say the repentance of one whose apostasy is repeated is not accepted mean worldly rulings. They do not differ that if he sincerely repents to Allah, Allah accepts it from him, because their disagreement is about confirming the application of the effective cause, as has passed. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

O You Who Believe, Fear Allah As He Should Be Feared

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ

“O you who believe, fear Allah as He should be feared.” (Aal Imran: 102)

This verse indicates a very strong command in fearing Allah, Most High. Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ

“So fear Allah as much as you are able.” (al Taghabun: 16)

The answer is through 2 matters.

The first is that the verse:

فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ

“So fear Allah as much as you are able.” (al Taghabun: 16)

Abrogates His saying:

اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ

“Fear Allah as He should be feared.” (Aal Imran: 102)

This view was held by Saʿid ibn Jubayr, Abu al ʿAliyah, al Rabiʿ ibn Anas (d. 139AH), Qatadah, Muqatil ibn Hayyan (d. 150AH), Zayd ibn Aslam, al Suddi, and others. Ibn Kathir said this.

The second is that it explains what is meant by it. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

You Were On The Edge Of A Pit Of Fire, Then He Saved You From It

وَكُنْتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِنَ النَّارِ فَأَنْقَذَكُمْ مِنْهَا

“You were on the edge of a pit of Fire, then He saved you from it.” (Aal Imran: 103)

This noble verse indicates that nothing stood between the Ansar and the Fire except that they should die, even though they were people of a period without a messenger. Allah, Most High, says:

وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا

“We would not punish until We send a messenger.” (al Isra: 15)

And He says:

رُسُلًا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنْذِرِينَ لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ

“Messengers as bringers of glad news and warners, so that people would have no argument against Allah after the messengers.” (al Nisa: 165)

Allah, Most High, explained this argument through His saying in Surah Taha:

وَلَوْ أَنَّا أَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لَوْلَا أَرْسَلْتَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولًا فَنَتَّبِعَ آيَاتِكَ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ نَذِلَّ وَنَخْزَىٰ

“If We had destroyed them with a punishment before it, they would have said: Our Lord, why did You not send to us a messenger so that we could follow Your signs before we were humiliated and disgraced?” (Taha: 134)

There are many verses like this.

What appears in the answer, and Allah, Most High, knows best, is that with the mission of Muhammad ﷺ, no excuse remained for anyone. So everyone who does not believe in him has nothing between him and the Fire except that he dies.

As Allah, Most High, explained through His saying:

وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِهِ مِنَ الْأَحْزَابِ فَالنَّارُ مَوْعِدُهُ

“Whoever disbelieves in it from among the groups, then the Fire is his promised place.” (Hud: 17)

As for the answer given by some, that there remained with them some warning from the previous messengers through which proof was established against them, it is an invalid answer, because the Qur’an texts clearly say that no warner had come to them, such as His saying, Most High:

لِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أُنْذِرَ آبَاؤُهُمْ

“So that you may warn a people whose fathers were not warned.” (Ya Sin: 6)

And His saying:

أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ ۝ بَلْ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكَ لِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أَتَاهُمْ مِنْ نَذِيرٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ

“Or do they say he invented it? Rather, it is the truth from your Lord, so that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you.” (al Sajdah: 3)

And His saying:

وَمَا كُنْتَ بِجَانِبِ الطُّورِ إِذْ نَادَيْنَا وَلَٰكِنْ رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ لِتُنْذِرَ قَوْمًا مَا أَتَاهُمْ مِنْ نَذِيرٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ

“You were not beside the Mount when We called, but it is a mercy from your Lord, so that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you.” (al Qasas: 46)

And His saying:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ عَلَىٰ فَتْرَةٍ مِنَ الرُّسُلِ أَنْ تَقُولُوا مَا جَاءَنَا مِنْ بَشِيرٍ وَلَا نَذِيرٍ

“O People of the Book, Our Messenger has come to you, making matters clear to you after a break in messengers, so that you do not say: no bringer of glad news or warner came to us.” (al Ma’idah: 19)

And His saying, Most High:

وَمَا آتَيْنَاهُمْ مِنْ كُتُبٍ يَدْرُسُونَهَا وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ قَبْلَكَ مِنْ نَذِيرٍ

“We did not give them books which they study, and We did not send to them any warner before you.” (Saba: 44)

Allah Already Aided You At Badr While You Were Weak

وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِبَدْرٍ وَأَنْتُمْ أَذِلَّةٌ

“Allah already aided you at Badr while you were weak.” (Aal Imran: 123)

Allah described the believers in this verse as being weak at the time He aided them at Badr. Another verse came in which Allah, Most High, described them as having honour. It is His saying, Most High:

وَلِلَّهِ الْعِزَّةُ وَلِرَسُولِهِ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“To Allah belongs honour, and to His Messenger, and to the believers.” (al Munafiqun: 8)

The opposition and contrast between honour and weakness is not hidden.

The answer is clear: the meaning of describing them with weakness is their small number and their small amount of equipment on the Day of Badr.

His saying, Most High:

وَلِلَّهِ الْعِزَّةُ وَلِرَسُولِهِ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“To Allah belongs honour, and to His Messenger, and to the believers.” (al Munafiqun: 8)

Came down concerning the campaign of al Muraysiʿ, which is the campaign of Banu al Mustaliq. That was after the strength of the Muslims had become powerful, and their number and equipment had increased.

It is also possible to reconcile honour and weakness through another consideration: weakness is with regard to the state of the Muslims in their small number and equipment, while honour is with regard to the aid and support of Allah. This is indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ أَنْتُمْ قَلِيلٌ مُسْتَضْعَفُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ تَخَافُونَ أَنْ يَتَخَطَّفَكُمُ النَّاسُ فَآوَاكُمْ وَأَيَّدَكُمْ بِنَصْرِهِ

“Remember when you were few, considered weak in the land, fearing that people would snatch you away, then He sheltered you and supported you with His aid.” (al Anfal: 26)

And His saying:

وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِبَدْرٍ وَأَنْتُمْ أَذِلَّةٌ

“Allah already aided you at Badr while you were weak.” (Aal Imran: 123)

The time of a circumstantial phrase is the time of the word governing it. So the time of aid was the time of their being weak. It therefore becomes clear that the description of weakness is from one consideration, while the description of aid and honour is from another consideration. The aspect has therefore separated. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

When You Said To The Believers, Will It Not Be Enough For You That Your Lord Supports You With 3000 Angels?

إِذْ تَقُولُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَلَنْ يَكْفِيَكُمْ أَنْ يُمِدَّكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ بِثَلَاثَةِ آلَافٍ مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ

“When you said to the believers: will it not be enough for you that your Lord supports you with 3 thousand angels?” (Aal Imran: 124)

This verse indicates that the support from the angels on the Day of Badr was from 3 thousand to 5 thousand. Allah, Most High, mentioned in Surah al Anfal that this support was 1 thousand, in His saying:

إِذْ تَسْتَغِيثُونَ رَبَّكُمْ فَاسْتَجَابَ لَكُمْ أَنِّي مُمِدُّكُمْ بِأَلْفٍ مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ

“When you sought help from your Lord, and He answered you: I am supporting you with 1 thousand angels.” (al Anfal: 9)

The answer to this is from 2 ways.

The first is that He promised them 1 thousand at first, then it became 3 thousand, then it became 5 thousand, as in this verse.

The second way is that the verse of al Anfal did not limit itself to 1 thousand. Rather, it pointed to the increase mentioned in Aal Imran, especially in the reading of Nafiʿ:

بِأَلْفٍ مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ مُرْدَفِينَ

“With 1 thousand angels, followed by others.” (al Anfal: 9)

With the letter opened in the passive form, because the meaning is “followed by others.” This is the truth.

As for the one who said that the support mentioned in Aal Imran was on the Day of Uhud, while what is mentioned in al Anfal was on the Day of Badr, there is no problem according to his view, except that no support from the angels came during the campaign of Uhud.

The answer is that the coming of support during it, according to this view, was conditional upon patience and taqwa in His saying:

بَلَىٰ إِنْ تَصْبِرُوا وَتَتَّقُوا وَيَأْتُوكُمْ مِنْ فَوْرِهِمْ هَٰذَا يُمْدِدْكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ

“Yes, if you are patient, have taqwa, and they come upon you at once, your Lord will support you.” (Aal Imran: 125)

When they did not remain patient and have taqwa, the support did not come. This is the view of Mujahid, Ikrimah, al Dahhak, al Zuhri (d. 124AH), Musa ibn Uqbah (d. 141AH), and others. Ibn Kathir said this.

So He Repaid You With Sorrow Upon Sorrow

فَأَثَابَكُمْ غَمًّا بِغَمٍّ لِكَيْلَا تَحْزَنُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَاتَكُمْ وَلَا مَا أَصَابَكُمْ

“So He repaid you with sorrow upon sorrow, so that you would not grieve over what missed you, nor over what struck you.” (Aal Imran: 153)

His saying, Most High:

فَأَثَابَكُمْ غَمًّا بِغَمٍّ

“So He repaid you with sorrow upon sorrow.” (Aal Imran: 153)

Means sorrow upon sorrow, meaning sadness upon sadness. Or it means: He repaid you with sorrow because of your causing sorrow to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by disobeying his command.

What would suit this sorrow, according to what first comes to mind, would be for Him to say: “so that you would grieve.” As for His saying, “so that you would not grieve,” it is difficult, because sorrow is a cause of grief, not of its absence.

The answer to this is from several ways.

The first is that His saying, “so that you would not grieve,” is connected to His saying, Most High:

وَلَقَدْ عَفَا عَنْكُمْ

“He had already pardoned you.” (Aal Imran: 152)

Upon this, the meaning is that Allah, Most High, pardoned you so that the sweetness of His pardon would remove from you what reached you of sorrow because of killing, wounds, missing the spoils and victory, and panic caused by the rumour that the polytheists had killed the Prophet ﷺ.

The second way is that the meaning of the verse is that Allah, Most High, made you experience this sorrow so that you would become trained in the hardships of time, and grief would not affect you in the future, because whoever becomes used to calamities is not affected by them.

The third way is that the negation is extra. The speech concerning its extra usage, with its Arabic proofs, will come, if Allah wills, when reconciling between His saying, Most High:

لَا أُقْسِمُ بِهَٰذَا الْبَلَدِ

“I swear by this city.” (al Balad: 1)

And His saying:

وَهَٰذَا الْبَلَدِ الْأَمِينِ

“And this secure city.” (al Tin: 3)

If You Fear That You Will Not Be Just, Then One

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً

“If you fear that you will not be just, then one.” (al Nisa: 3)

This noble verse indicates that justice between wives is possible. Another verse has come indicating that it is not possible. It is His saying, Most High:

وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ

“You will never be able to be just between women, even if you are eager.” (al Nisa: 129)

The answer to this is that the justice between them which Allah mentioned as possible is justice in fulfilling the rights established by Sharia. The justice which He mentioned as impossible is equality in love and natural inclination, because this is an inner response, not an action, and is therefore not within human ability.

What is meant is that whoever is naturally more inclined to one of the wives should fear Allah and be just in the rights established by Sharia, as is indicated by His saying:

فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ

“So do not incline completely.” (al Nisa: 129)

This reconciliation was narrated in meaning from Ibn Abbas, Ubaydah al Salmani (d. 72AH), Mujahid, al Hasan al Basri, and al Dahhak ibn Muzahim. Ibn Kathir transmitted it from them in his tafsir of His saying, “You will never be able to be just between women.”

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abi Mulaykah (d. 117AH) that the verse:

وَلَنْ تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَنْ تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ

“You will never be able to be just between women.” (al Nisa: 129)

Came down concerning Aʿishah, because the Prophet ﷺ was naturally more inclined to her than others.

Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH) and the authors of the Sunan narrated from Aʿishah that she said:

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to divide between his wives and be just. Then he would say: O Allah, this is my division in what I control, so do not blame me for what You control and I do not control.”

Meaning the heart. This is the end from Ibn Kathir.

Those Women Who Commit Immorality From Among Your Women

وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِنْكُمْ ۝ فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ

“Those women who commit immorality from among your women, seek 4 witnesses against them from among you. If they testify, then confine them in the houses.” (al Nisa: 15)

This verse indicates that the fornicating woman is not lashed, but confined until death, or until Allah makes a way for her.

Another verse has come indicating that she is not confined, but is lashed 100 times if she is unmarried. A verse whose recitation has been abrogated while its ruling remains has also come indicating that if she is married, she is stoned.

The answer is clear: confining fornicating women in houses was abrogated by lashing and stoning. Or it had a fixed limit at which it would end, namely Allah making a way for them. Allah then made the way through the legal punishment, as indicated by his saying ﷺ:

“Take from me. Allah has made a way for them.”

Combining Two Sisters In Marriage

Simplified answer: The verse forbidding the combining of two sisters is stronger because it comes in the place where Allah lists forbidden women. The verse mentioning “what your right hands possess” is general, but it was not revealed to list which women are permissible and forbidden. It is already restricted by other rulings, such as the prohibition of sisters through breastfeeding. So its general meaning is restricted by the clearer verse. Also, the exception “except what your right hands possess” does not clearly return to every previous sentence. Therefore, combining two sisters remains forbidden, whether through marriage or ownership.

وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ

“And that you combine 2 sisters.” (al Nisa: 23)

This verse, by its generality, indicates the prohibition of combining any 2 sisters, whether by marriage contract or by ownership. Another verse has come which, by its generality, indicates the permissibility of combining 2 sisters through ownership. It is His saying, Most High, in Surah Qad Aflaha and Surah Sa’ala Sa’il:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ ۝ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

“Those who guard their private parts, except with their wives or what their right hands possess, for they are not blameworthy.” (al Mu’minun: 5–6)

His saying, “and that you combine 2 sisters,” is a dual noun with the definite article, and a noun made definite by it is among the forms of general wording, as has been established and explained in usul. His saying, “or what their right hands possess,” is a relative noun, and it is also among the forms of general wording, as has also been established in usul.

So between these 2 verses there is generality and specificity from one aspect, and they apparently contradict in one case, namely combining 2 sisters through ownership. The general meaning of “and that you combine 2 sisters” indicates prohibition, while the general meaning of “or what their right hands possess” indicates permissibility, as Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “One verse made them permissible, and another verse made them forbidden.”

The summary of the answer concerning these 2 verses is that the general meaning of one of them must be specified by the general meaning of the other. This requires giving preference between the 2 general meanings. The stronger of the 2 is given precedence, and the general meaning of the other is specified by it, because it is obligatory by ijmaʿ to act upon the stronger proof.

Accordingly, the general meaning of “and that you combine 2 sisters” is stronger than the general meaning of “or what their right hands possess” from 5 ways.

The first is that the general meaning of “and that you combine 2 sisters” is a clear text in the exact place intended in itself, because the surah is Surah al Nisa, and it is the one in which Allah explained which women are permissible and which are forbidden. The verse, “or what their right hands possess,” was not mentioned for the purpose of forbidding women or making them permissible.

Rather, Allah mentioned the qualities of the people of taqwa, and among them He mentioned guarding the private part. He then mentioned, in passing, that guarding it is not required from the wife and the female slave. It has been established in usul that taking rulings from their proper places is more fitting than taking them from places that are not their proper places.

The second is that the verse, “or what their right hands possess,” does not remain upon its general meaning by ijmaʿ of the Muslims, because the sister through breastfeeding is not permissible by ownership, by ijmaʿ, due to the ijmaʿ that the general meaning of “or what their right hands possess” is specified by the general meaning of His saying:

وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ مِنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ

“And your sisters through breastfeeding.” (al Nisa: 23)

Also, the woman whom one’s father had intercourse with is not permissible by ownership, by ijmaʿ, due to the ijmaʿ that the general meaning of “or what their right hands possess” is specified by:

وَلَا تَنْكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ

“Do not marry those women whom your fathers married.” (al Nisa: 22)

The more correct view among the scholars of usul concerning the contradiction between a general wording that has been specified and a general wording that has not been specified is to give precedence to the one that has not been specified. The reason is apparent.

The third is that the general meaning of “and that you combine 2 sisters” does not come in the setting of praise or blame, while the general meaning of “or what their right hands possess” comes in the setting of praising the people of taqwa.

The ulama differed over whether the general wording that comes in the setting of praise or blame is considered general. Most ulama hold that its general meaning is considered, such as His saying:

إِنَّ الْأَبْرَارَ لَفِي نَعِيمٍ ۝ وَإِنَّ الْفُجَّارَ لَفِي جَحِيمٍ

“Indeed, the righteous will be in bliss, and indeed, the wicked will be in Hellfire.” (al Infitar: 13–14)

This includes every righteous person even though it is for praise, and every wicked person even though it is for blame.

Some ulama differed, among them Imam al Shafiʿi, may Allah have mercy on him. He said that general wording that comes in the setting of praise or blame has no general force, because what is intended from it is encouragement in praise and warning in blame.

For that reason, Imam al Shafiʿi did not take the general meaning of His saying, Most High:

وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ

“Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in the path of Allah.” (al Tawbah: 34)

As applying to permissible jewellery, because the verse was brought for blame, so it does not include permissible jewellery according to him.

Once this is understood, know that general wording which is not joined to anything preventing consideration of its general force is more deserving than wording joined to something which prevents consideration of its general force according to some ulama.

The fourth is that if we accepted a contradiction between the 2 verses, then the original ruling concerning private parts is prohibition, until a proof with no opposing proof indicates permissibility.

The fifth is that general wording that requires prohibition takes precedence over that which requires permissibility, because leaving a permissible matter is easier than committing a forbidden matter, as its verification will come, if Allah wills, in Surah al Ma’idah. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

These 5 ways which we have explained refute the use of this noble verse by Dawud al Zahiri (d. 270AH) as proof for combining 2 sisters in intercourse by ownership. However, he uses another verse as proof, namely His saying, Most High:

إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

“Except what your right hands possess.” (al Nisa: 24)

He says that the exception also returns to His saying, “and that you combine 2 sisters,” so the meaning according to him becomes: “and that you combine 2 sisters, except what your right hands possess.” Thus combining 2 sisters would not be forbidden in ownership.

The return of the exception to everything before it among connected statements, whether sentences or single words, is what runs according to the principles of Malik, al Shafiʿi, and Ahmad. This is indicated by the saying of the author of Maraqi al Suʿud:

“Everything in which there is conjunction before the exception, each one stops there, unless there is proof from reason or from revelation.”

This is contrary to Abu Hanifah, who said that the exception returns only to the last sentence. For this reason, he does not hold that the testimony of the slanderer is accepted even if he repents and makes amends, because His saying, Most High:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا

“Except those who repent.” (al Nur: 5)

According to him, returns only to His saying, Most High:

وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (al Nur: 4)

Meaning: except those who repent, their disobedience has been removed by repentance. He does not say that it returns to His saying, “and do not accept their testimony,” so that the meaning would be: except those who repent, so accept their testimony. Rather, he says: do not accept it from them unrestrictedly, because the exception is specific to the last sentence according to him.

Abu Hanifah did not contradict his principle in his view that the exception in His saying, Most High:

إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا

“Except the one who repents, believes, and does righteous deeds.” (al Furqan: 70)

Returns to all the sentences before it, meaning His saying:

وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا يَزْنُونَ

“Those who do not call upon another god with Allah, do not kill the soul Allah has forbidden except with right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse.” (al Furqan: 68)

That is because all these sentences have their meaning in the final sentence, which is His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ يَلْقَ أَثَامًا

“Whoever does that will meet a penalty.” (al Furqan: 68)

Because the indication in His saying, “that,” includes all of shirk, killing, and unlawful sexual intercourse. So by returning to the last sentence, it returned to all of them. It has therefore become clear that Abu Hanifah did not contradict his principle in it.

Because of this principle established in usul, if a man said: “This house is an endowment for the poor, the needy, Banu Zuhrah, and Banu Tamim, except the defiantly disobedient among them,” then the defiantly disobedient from all of them would be excluded according to the Malikis, Shafiʿis, and Hanbalis, contrary to the Hanafis, who say that only the defiantly disobedient from the last group is excluded.

Upon this, the argument of Dawud al Zahiri through this last verse runs according to the principles of the Malikis, Shafiʿis, and Hanbalis.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: the verified view in this issue is what some later scholars verified, such as Ibn al Hajib (d. 646AH) from the Malikis, al Ghazali (d. 505AH) from the Shafiʿis, and al Amidi (d. 631AH) from the Hanbalis: that the ruling concerning an exception coming after connected items is suspension, meaning no ruling is given that it returns to all, nor that it returns to the last. We only said this is the verified view because Allah, Most High, says:

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ

“If you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger.” (al Nisa: 59)

When we refer this dispute back to Allah, we find the Qur’an indicating the view of these scholars, which we mentioned to be the verified view, in many verses. Among them is His saying, Most High:

فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا

“Then freeing a believing slave and blood money delivered to his family, unless they give it as charity.” (al Nisa: 92)

The exception returns to the blood money, so it falls away if the one entitled to it gives it as charity. It does not return to freeing the slave, according to one unanimous view, because the one entitled to the blood money giving it as charity does not remove the expiation of accidental killing.

Among them is also His saying, Most High:

فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا

“Lash them with 80 lashes, do not accept from them testimony ever, and those are the defiantly disobedient, except those who repent.” (al Nur: 4–5)

The exception does not return to His saying, “lash them with 80 lashes,” because if the slanderer repents, his repentance does not remove the legal punishment for slander.

Among them is also His saying, Most High:

فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا ۝ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ

“If they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from them any ally or helper, except those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty.” (al Nisa: 89–90)

The exception in His saying, “except those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty,” does not return, according to one unanimous view, to the last sentence closest to it, meaning His saying, Most High, “and do not take from them any ally or helper.”

It is not permissible to take an ally or helper from the disbelievers, even if they join a people between whom and you there is a treaty. Rather, the exception returns to seizing and killing in His saying, “then seize them and kill them.”

The meaning is: seize them as prisoners and kill them, except those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty, so you may not seize them as prisoners or kill them, because the treaty belonging to those whom they join prevents you from capturing and killing them, as Hilal ibn Uwaymir al Aslami stipulated in his peace agreement with the Prophet ﷺ. This verse came down concerning him, Suraqah ibn Malik al Mudliji, and Banu Judhaymah ibn Amir.

Since the exception may not return to the closest sentences to it in the great Qur’an, which is at the highest level of miraculous eloquence, it becomes clear that it is not a clear text in returning to anything else.

Among them is also His saying, Most High:

وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

“If not for Allah’s favour upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Shaytan, except a few.” (al Nisa: 83)

The exception does not return to the sentence directly beside it, meaning, “if not for Allah’s favour upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Shaytan,” because if not for Allah’s favour upon you and His mercy, you would all have followed Shaytan, and neither a few nor many would have escaped from that so as to be excluded.

The ulama differed over what this exception returns to. It was said that it returns to His saying:

أَذَاعُوا بِهِ

“They spread it.” (al Nisa: 83)

And it was said that it returns to His saying:

لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنْبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ

“Those among them who derive it would have known it.” (al Nisa: 83)

If it does not return to the sentence directly beside it, then it is not a clear text in returning to anything else. It was also said that this exception returns to the sentence directly beside it.

Upon this, the meaning is: if not for Allah’s favour upon you and His mercy by sending Muhammad ﷺ, you would have followed Shaytan in the religion of your fathers, disbelief, and idol worship, except a few, such as those who were upon the way of Ibrahim, like Waraqah ibn Nawfal, Zayd ibn Nufayl, Quss ibn Saʿidah, and their likes.

Ibn Kathir mentioned that Abd al Razzaq (d. 211AH) narrated from Maʿmar (d. 153AH), from Qatadah, concerning His saying, “you would have followed Shaytan, except a few,” that its meaning is: you would all have followed Shaytan. He said: the Arabs use “few” while intending nonexistence.

The one who held this view used as proof the saying of al Tirimmah ibn Hakim (d. 125AH), praising Yazid ibn al Muhallab:

“Noble, generous, with many gatherings, few faults and blemishes.”

Meaning: there is no fault or blemish in him.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: using “few” while intending nonexistence is common in the speech of the Arabs. From it is the saying of the poet:

“It knelt and threw one land upon another, in which the voices are few except its camel groan.”

Meaning: there was no sound in that desert other than the groan of his riding animal.

And the saying of another:

“What harm would there be if she returned a greeting to us? Few among those who know the truth would fault her.”

Meaning: there is no fault in it among those who know the truth.

According to these last 2 views, there is no proof in the verse. Through this verification which we have carefully explained, the argument of Dawud al Zahiri through this last verse is also refuted. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

If They Commit Immorality, Then Upon Them Is Half Of What Is Upon Free Women Of Punishment

فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ

“If they commit immorality, then upon them is half of what is upon free women of punishment.” (al Nisa: 25)

This verse indicates that if slave women commit unlawful sexual intercourse, they are lashed 50 lashes. Another verse has come which, by its generality, indicates that every woman guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse is lashed 100 lashes. It is His saying, Most High:

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ

“The woman and the man guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, lash each one of them 100 lashes.” (al Nur: 2)

The answer is clear: this verse specifies the verse of al Nur, because there is no contradiction between a general wording and a specific wording.

Allah Wants To Make Clear To You And Guide You To The Ways Of Those Before You

Simplified answer: The verse means Allah guides this ummah to the good ways of earlier prophets when our Sharia confirms them. It does not mean every earlier ruling still applies without limit. The verse “For each of you We made a law and a clear way” means that some rulings differed between nations. Some earlier rulings were kept, some were changed, and some were abrogated. So there is no problem. What our Sharia confirms remains a ruling for us, and what our Sharia changes is no longer followed.

يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ سُنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ

“Allah wants to make clear to you and guide you to the ways of those before you.” (al Nisa: 26)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that the law of those before us is law for us. Similar to it is His saying, Most High:

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهِ

“Those are the ones Allah guided, so follow their guidance.” (al Anʿam: 90)

Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا

“For each of you We made a law and a clear way.” (al Ma’idah: 48)

The way to reconcile this differs clearly, based on the disagreement over the ruling of this issue.

The majority of ulama hold that the law of those before us, if it is established through our Sharia, is law for us as long as no proof from our Sharia indicates its abrogation. This is because it was only mentioned to us in our Sharia for reflection and action.

Upon this view, the way to reconcile the 2 verses is that the meaning of His saying, “For each of you We made a law and a clear way,” is that the laws of the messengers may have had a ruling in some of them abrogated which existed in others, or a ruling added in some of them which did not exist in others.

So a law may be through added rulings that were not legislated before, or through abrogating something that had been legislated before. Therefore, the verse contains no proof that what is established through our Sharia as being law for those before us, and has not been abrogated, is not part of our Sharia, because adding something not present before, or abrogating something that was present before, are both outside the point of dispute.

As for the view of al Shafiʿi and those who agreed with him, that the law of those before us is not law for us except with a text from our Sharia stating that it is legislated for us, then the way to reconcile is that what is meant by the ways of those before us, and by guidance in His saying, “Those are the ones Allah guided,” is the foundations of religion, which are tawhid, not the practical branches. The proof is His saying, Most High:

لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا

“For each of you We made a law and a clear way.” (al Ma’idah: 48)

However, this reconciliation which the Shafiʿis adopted is answered by what al Bukhari narrated in his Sahih, in the tafsir of Surah Sad, from Mujahid, that he asked Ibn Abbas: “From where did you take the prostration in Sad?” Ibn Abbas said:

وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ

“And from his offspring, Dawud.” (al Anʿam: 84)

Then:

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهِ

“Those are the ones Allah guided, so follow their guidance.” (al Anʿam: 90)

“So Dawud عليه السلام prostrated, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prostrated.”

It is known that the prostration of recitation is from the branches, not the foundations. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, explained that the Prophet ﷺ prostrated it by following Dawud عليه السلام. I explained this issue in a sufficient way in my travel notes, so I have kept it brief here.

Those With Whom Your Right Hands Have Made A Pledge, Give Them Their Share

وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ

“Those with whom your right hands have made a pledge, give them their share.” (al Nisa: 33)

This verse indicates that allies inherit from their allies. Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ

“Relatives are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.” (al Anfal: 75)

The answer is that this verse abrogates His saying, “Those with whom your right hands have made a pledge.” Its abrogation of it is the truth, contrary to Abu Hanifah and those who agreed with him in the view that allies still inherit today if there is no heir.

Some answered by saying that the meaning of “give them their share” is from alliance and support. Upon this, there is no contradiction between them. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

They Will Not Hide Any Speech From Allah

وَلَا يَكْتُمُونَ اللَّهَ حَدِيثًا

“They will not hide any speech from Allah.” (al Nisa: 42)

This verse indicates that the disbelievers will not hide any part of their report on the Day of Resurrection. Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying, Most High:

ثُمَّ لَمْ تَكُنْ فِتْنَتُهُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا وَاللَّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ

“Then their trial will be nothing except that they say: By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists.” (al Anʿam: 23)

And His saying, Most High:

فَأَلْقَوُا السَّلَمَ مَا كُنَّا نَعْمَلُ مِنْ سُوءٍ

“They will offer submission, saying: We did not use to do any evil.” (al Nahl: 28)

And His saying:

بَلْ لَمْ نَكُنْ نَدْعُو مِنْ قَبْلُ شَيْئًا

“Rather, we did not call upon anything before.” (Ghafir: 74)

The way to reconcile this is what Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, explained when he was asked about His saying, Most High:

وَاللَّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ

“By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists.” (al Anʿam: 23)

Together with His saying:

وَلَا يَكْتُمُونَ اللَّهَ حَدِيثًا

“They will not hide any speech from Allah.” (al Nisa: 42)

He said that their tongues will say:

وَاللَّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ

“By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists.” (al Anʿam: 23)

Then Allah will seal their mouths, and their hands and feet will testify to what they used to do.

So they hide the truth with regard to the tongue, and they do not hide it with regard to the hands and feet. This reconciliation is indicated by His saying, Most High:

الْيَوْمَ نَخْتِمُ عَلَىٰ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتُكَلِّمُنَا أَيْدِيهِمْ وَتَشْهَدُ أَرْجُلُهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ

“Today We will seal their mouths, their hands will speak to Us, and their feet will testify to what they used to earn.” (Ya Sin: 65)

Some ulama answered by saying that the places are different, so they hide at one time and do not hide at another time. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

If A Good Thing Reaches Them, They Say: This Is From Allah

وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَٰذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ

“If a good thing reaches them, they say: this is from Allah. If an evil thing reaches them, they say: this is from you. Say: all of it is from Allah.” (al Nisa: 78)

There is no contradiction between it and His saying, Most High:

مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ

“Whatever good reaches you is from Allah, and whatever evil reaches you is from yourself.” (al Nisa: 79)

The answer is clear. The meaning of His saying, “If a good thing reaches them,” is rain, fertility, provisions, and wellbeing. They say, “Allah honoured us with this.” And if an evil thing reaches them, meaning drought, famine, poverty, and illnesses, they say, “This is from you,” meaning because of your bad omen, O Muhammad, and the bad omen of what you brought. Say to them: all of that is from Allah.

It is known that Allah is the One who brings rain, provision, and wellbeing, just as He brings drought, famine, poverty, illnesses, and calamities. Similar to this verse is Allah’s saying about Pharaoh and his people with Musa عليه السلام:

وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَطَّيَّرُوا بِمُوسَىٰ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ

“If an evil thing reached them, they took Musa and those with him as a bad omen.” (al Aʿraf: 131)

And His saying, Most High, about the people of Salih عليه السلام with Salih عليه السلام:

قَالُوا اطَّيَّرْنَا بِكَ وَبِمَنْ مَعَكَ

“They said: we take you and those with you as a bad omen.” (al Naml: 47)

And the saying of the people of the town to the messengers sent to them:

قَالُوا إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْ لَئِنْ لَمْ تَنْتَهُوا لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ

“They said: we take you as a bad omen. If you do not stop, we will surely stone you.” (Ya Sin: 18)

As for His saying:

مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ

“Whatever good reaches you is from Allah.” (al Nisa: 79)

Meaning: because He is the One who grants every blessing.

And His saying:

وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ

“And whatever evil reaches you is from yourself.” (al Nisa: 79)

Meaning: from your side and from your own deed, because no evil reaches a person except because of what his hands earned, as Allah, Most High, said:

وَمَا أَصَابَكُمْ مِنْ مُصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَيَعْفُو عَنْ كَثِيرٍ

“Whatever calamity reaches you is because of what your hands earned, and He pardons much.” (al Shura: 30)

The exact matter concerning the actions of servants will come, if Allah wills, in a way that removes the problem, in Surah al Shams, in the speech about His saying, Most High:

فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا

“He inspired it with its wickedness and its taqwa.” (al Shams: 8)

Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Restricted Slave In The Expiation Of Accidental Killing

Simplified answer: The verse about accidental killing clearly says the freed slave must be a believer. Other expiation verses only say “freeing a slave” without mentioning faith. There is no real problem. When the ruling is the same, which is freeing a slave, the restricted wording can explain the unrestricted wording. So many ulama said the condition of faith is carried over to other expiations too, such as zihar and oaths. But when the ruling or cause is different, the wording is not always carried over. The main point is that unrestricted wording stays broad unless another stronger or closer text restricts it.

In this verse, the slave freed in the expiation of accidental killing is restricted with faith. The slave in the expiation of zihar and oaths is left unrestricted from the condition of faith, since He said in both of them:

فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ

“Then freeing a slave.” (al Mujadilah: 3; al Ma’idah: 89)

And He did not say, “believing.”

This issue is from the issues of apparent contradiction between unrestricted wording and restricted wording. The summary of the matter is that unrestricted wording and restricted wording have 4 cases.

The first is that their ruling and cause are both the same, such as the verse of blood whose explanation has already passed. The majority of ulama carry the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording in this case, where both the cause and the ruling are united. This is one of the ways of the Arabic language, because the Arabs mention something, then omit it elsewhere while relying on what was already mentioned. An example is the saying of the poet Qays ibn al Khatim:

“We are pleased with what we have, and you are pleased with what you have, while views differ.”

He omitted “pleased” in the first place because the later wording indicates it.

Similar to it is the saying of Dabi’ ibn al Harith al Burjumi:

“Whoever has his home in Madinah by evening, then I and Qayyar are strangers there.”

And the saying of Amr ibn Ahmar al Bahili:

“He accused me of a matter from which I and my father were free, and because of the well he accused me.”

Some ulama said that carrying the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording is by analogy. It was also said that it is by reason, and this is the weakest of the views. Allah, Most High, knows best.

The Second Case: The Ruling Is The Same, But The Cause Is Different

The second case is that the ruling is the same, while the cause is different, as in this verse. The ruling is the same, which is freeing a slave, while the cause differs, such as accidental killing and zihar, for example.

This type of unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording according to the Shafiʿis, the Hanbalis, and many of the Malikis. For this reason, they made faith required in the expiation of zihar, by carrying the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording, contrary to Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH).

What indicates carrying this unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording is the saying of the Prophet ﷺ in the story of Muʿawiyah ibn al Hakam al Sulami:

“Free her, for she is a believer.”

He did not ask him for detail about whether she was an expiation or not. Leaving a request for detail takes the place of general wording in statements.

The author of Maraqi al Suʿud said:

“Leaving the request for detail should certainly be given the position of general wording in statements.”

The Third Case: The Cause Is The Same, But The Ruling Is Different

The third case is the opposite of this. It is when the cause is the same, while the ruling is different.

It was said that the unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording in this case. It was also said that it is not, and this is the view of most ulama.

An example is the fasting and feeding in zihar. Their cause is one, namely zihar, while their rulings differ, because one is fasting and the other is feeding. One of them is restricted by continuity, namely fasting, while the second is unrestricted from the condition of continuity, namely feeding. So this unrestricted wording is not carried upon this restricted wording.

Those who said that unrestricted wording is carried upon restricted wording in this case gave the example of feeding in zihar. It was not restricted by being before the husband and wife touch one another, even though the freeing of a slave and the fasting were restricted by His saying:

مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يَتَمَاسَّا

“Before they touch one another.” (al Mujadilah: 3)

So this unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording, and the feeding must therefore be before physical relations.

Al Lakhmi (d. 478AH) gave the example of feeding in the expiation of an oath, since it was restricted by His saying:

مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ

“From the average of what you feed your families.” (al Ma’idah: 89)

But clothing was left unrestricted from that condition, since He said:

أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ

“Or clothing them.” (al Ma’idah: 89)

So the unrestricted wording is carried upon the restricted wording, and it is made a condition in clothing that it be from the average of what one clothes his family with.

The Fourth Case: Both The Ruling And The Cause Are Different

The fourth case is when both the ruling and the cause differ together. In this case, there is no carrying of unrestricted wording upon restricted wording by ijmaʿ. This is clear.

This applies when the restricted wording is one.

As for when 2 restricted wordings come with 2 different restrictions, it is not possible to carry the unrestricted wording upon both of them because their restrictions oppose one another.

However, the matter is examined. If one of them is closer to the unrestricted wording than the other, the unrestricted wording is carried upon the closer of the 2 according to a group of ulama, so it is restricted by its restriction. If neither of them is closer to it, then it is not restricted by either one of the 2 restrictions. Rather, it remains unrestricted, because giving preference without a reason for preference is impossible.

An example of one of them being closer to the unrestricted wording than the other is the fasting for the expiation of an oath. It is unrestricted from the condition of continuity and separation, even though fasting for zihar is restricted by continuity, and fasting for tamattuʿ is restricted by separation.

The oath is closer to zihar than to tamattuʿ, because both the oath and zihar involve expiation fasting, unlike the fasting of tamattuʿ. So the fasting for the expiation of an oath is restricted by continuity according to those who say this, and it is not restricted by the separation found in the fasting of tamattuʿ.

The reading of Ibn Masʿud, “then fasting 3 consecutive days,” is not established, due to the ijmaʿ of the Companions upon not writing “consecutive” in the mushaf.

An example of neither of the 2 being closer to the unrestricted wording than the other is making up the fast of Ramadan. Allah said concerning it:

فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ

“Then a number of other days.” (al Baqarah: 184)

He did not restrict it by continuity or separation, even though He restricted the fasting of zihar by continuity and the fasting of tamattuʿ by separation. Neither of those 2 is closer to making up Ramadan than the other. So it is not restricted by either one of the 2 restrictions. Rather, it remains upon choice. If he wishes, he fasts them continuously, and if he wishes, he separates them. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The One Who Intentionally Kills A Believer

Simplified answer: The verse about intentionally killing a believer is a severe warning. It means that Hell is the deserved punishment if Allah punishes him. It does not mean that repentance is impossible for every killer. Other Qur’an verses clearly say that Allah forgives all sins for the one who truly repents, and that He forgives anything below shirk for whom He wills. So the intentional killer is a major sinner, but if he repents sincerely, Allah may forgive him. If he killed while believing murder is permissible, then that is disbelief, and this is a separate case.

وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا

“Whoever intentionally kills a believer, his recompense is Hell, remaining therein. Allah is angry with him, has cursed him, and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (al Nisa: 93)

This verse indicates that the one who kills intentionally has no repentance, and that he will remain forever in the Fire.

Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ

“Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” (al Nisa: 116)

And His saying, Most High:

وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۝ إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا فَأُولَٰئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ

“Those who do not call upon another god along with Allah, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except with right, except whoever repents, believes, and does righteous deeds, then Allah will replace their evil deeds with good deeds.” (al Furqan: 68–70)

And His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا

“Indeed, Allah forgives all sins.” (al Zumar: 53)

And His saying:

وَإِنِّي لَغَفَّارٌ لِمَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ

“Indeed, I am surely Forgiving to whoever repents and believes.” (Taha: 82)

There are several ways to reconcile this.

One of them is that His saying, “his recompense is Hell, remaining therein,” means if he considered intentionally killing a believer to be permissible, because whoever considers that permissible is a disbeliever.

This was said by Ikrimah (d. 105AH) and others. What supports it is what Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327AH) narrated from Ibn Jubayr, and Ibn Jarir (d. 310AH) narrated from Ibn Jurayj (d. 150AH), that it came down concerning Miqyas ibn Subabah.

He and his brother Hisham accepted Islam and were in Madinah. Miqyas found his brother killed among Banu al Najjar and did not know his killer. So the Prophet ﷺ ordered that blood money be given to him, and the Ansar gave him 100 camels. The Prophet ﷺ had sent with him a man from Quraysh, from Banu Fihr. Miqyas then deliberately killed the Fihri messenger of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, apostatised from Islam, rode one camel from the blood money, drove the rest with him, and joined Makkah as an apostate. He said in his poetry:

“I killed Fihr because of him, and I placed his blood money upon the leaders of Banu al Najjar, the people of Fariʿ.

I reached my revenge and lay down upon a pillow, and I was the first to return to the idols.”

This Miqyas is the one concerning whom the Prophet ﷺ said:

“I do not grant him safety, neither in the lawful area nor in the sacred area.”

He was killed while clinging to the coverings of the Kaʿbah on the Day of the Conquest.

So the killer who is like Miqyas ibn Subabah, who considered killing permissible and apostatised from Islam, has no problem regarding his remaining forever in the Fire.

Upon this, the verse is specific to what resembles the reason for which it came down, due to the texts that clearly state that no believer will remain forever in the Fire.

The second way is that the meaning of “his recompense” is that this is his recompense if he is repaid, along with the possibility that he may not be repaid if he repents, or if he has a righteous deed that outweighs his evil deed. This is the view of Abu Hurayrah, Abu Mijlaz (d. 106AH), Abu Salih (d. 101AH), and a group of the Salaf.

The third way is that the verse is for severe warning. Al Khatib and al Alusi (d. 1270AH) mentioned this way in their tafsirs. Al Alusi attributed it to some verifying scholars. They used as proof His saying, Most High:

وَمَنْ كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ

“Whoever disbelieves, then indeed Allah is free of need from all creation.” (Aal Imran: 97)

This is upon the view that its meaning is: whoever does not perform Hajj.

They also used as proof the saying of the Prophet ﷺ, established in the 2 Sahihs, to al Miqdad when he asked him about killing someone from the disbelievers after that person accepted Islam, after having cut off his hand in battle:

“Do not kill him. If you kill him, then he will be in your position before you killed him, and you will be in his position before he said the word that he said.”

This way is from the type of disbelief below disbelief, and remaining forever below remaining forever. What appears is that the one who said this intended that the meaning of remaining forever is a long stay. The Arabs sometimes use the wording of remaining forever for staying. From this is the saying of Labid:

“I stopped asking them, but how can we ask deaf ones who remain, whose speech is not clear?”

However, the correct meaning of the verse is the second and first way.

Some ulama carried the speech of Ibn Abbas, that this verse abrogates everything besides it, upon severe warning. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: what appears is that the one who intentionally kills is a sinful believer who may repent, as is the view of the majority of the ulama of the Ummah. This is the clear meaning of His saying, Most High:

إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ

“Except whoever repents and believes.” (al Furqan: 70)

Claiming that this is specific to disbelievers has no proof.

This is also indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ

“He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” (al Nisa: 116)

And His saying, Most High:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا

“Indeed, Allah forgives all sins.” (al Zumar: 53)

The hadiths have come in abundance from the Prophet ﷺ that whoever has the weight of a speck of faith in his heart will come out of the Fire.

Allah, Most High, clearly described the killer as the brother of the killed person in His saying:

فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ

“Whoever is pardoned anything by his brother.” (al Baqarah: 178)

And the brother of a believer is only a believer. Allah, Most High, also said:

وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا

“If 2 groups of believers fight one another.” (al Hujurat: 9)

So He called them believers even though some of them fight others.

Among what indicates this is what is established in the 2 Sahihs concerning the story of the Israelite who killed 100 people, because this Ummah is more entitled to ease than Banu Isra’il, since Allah removed from it the burdens and restraints that were upon them.

The Apparent Contradiciton Over The Food Of The People Of The Book And Slaughtered Animals

Simplified answer: The slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible in the normal case, because Allah clearly made their food permissible. But if they openly dedicate the animal to other than Allah, such as to the cross or to Isa عليه السلام, then it is not permissible, because the verses forbidding what is dedicated to other than Allah apply to that case. If they simply say nothing at slaughter, then it remains under the general permission of “the food of those who were given the Book”, because silence is not the same as dedicating it to other than Allah.

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“Today the good things have been made permissible for you, and the food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

This noble verse, by its general wording, indicates the permissibility of the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book unrestrictedly, even if they mention over them other than Allah, or remain silent and do not mention Allah or anyone else, because all of that is included in their food.

Ibn Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid (d. 104AH), Saʿid ibn Jubayr (d. 95AH), Ikrimah, Ata’ (d. 114AH), al Hasan (d. 110AH), Makhul (d. 112AH), Ibrahim al Nakhaʿi (d. 96AH), al Suddi (d. 127AH), and Muqatil ibn Hayyan (d. 150AH) said that what is meant by their food is their slaughtered animals.

Ibn Kathir transmitted this from them, and al Bukhari (d. 256AH) transmitted it from Ibn Abbas. The inclusion of their slaughtered animals in their food is agreed upon by the Muslims, even though other verses have come indicating that whatever other than Allah’s name is mentioned over is not permissible to eat, and that whatever Allah’s name has not been mentioned over is also not permissible to eat.

As for what indicates the prohibition of eating what the name of other than Allah has been mentioned over, it includes His saying, Most High:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Baqarah: 173)

In Surah al Baqarah.

And His saying:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Ma’idah: 3; al Nahl: 115)

In al Ma’idah and al Nahl.

And His saying in al Anʿam:

أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“Or sinful disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Anʿam: 145)

What is meant by dedication here is raising the voice with the name of other than Allah at the time of slaughter.

As for what indicates the prohibition of eating what Allah’s name has not been mentioned over, it includes His saying:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

And His saying, Most High:

فَكُلُوا مِمَّا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ بِآيَاتِهِ مُؤْمِنِينَ ۝ وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“So eat from that over which Allah’s name has been mentioned, if you believe in His signs. And what is wrong with you that you do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has been mentioned?” (al Anʿam: 118–119)

It is understood from this that one should not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.

The answer to this kind of matter includes 2 studies.

The first study is the way to reconcile between the general wording of the verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

And the general wording of the verses that forbid whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah, when the person from the People of the Book mentions other than Allah over his slaughtered animal, by dedicating it to the cross, Isa عليه السلام, or something similar.

The second study is the way to reconcile between the verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

And His saying:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

When the person from the People of the Book does not mention Allah or anyone else over his slaughtered animal.

When The Person From The People Of The Book Mentions Other Than Allah Over The Slaughtered Animal

Simplified answer: The food of the People of the Book is generally permissible, including their slaughtered animals. But if they clearly slaughter an animal for other than Allah, such as for the cross or for Isa عليه السلام, then it is not permissible to eat. This is because the verses forbidding what is dedicated to other than Allah are stronger in this case. When there is doubt between permission and prohibition, the safer ruling is to avoid it.

The summary of the first study is that between His saying, Most High:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

And His saying:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

There is generality and specificity from one aspect.

The verse, “the food of those who were given the Book,” applies alone to bread and cheese from their food, for example.

The verse, “whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah,” applies alone to the idol worshipper slaughtering for his idol.

They both meet in the slaughtered animal of the person from the People of the Book when he dedicated it to other than Allah, such as the cross or Isa عليه السلام. The general wording of His saying, “whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah,” requires its prohibition, while the general wording of His saying, “the food of those who were given the Book,” requires its permissibility.

It has been established in usul that 2 general texts from one aspect contradict in the case where they meet. So preference must be given between them, and the stronger of the 2 is given precedence, while the general wording of the other is specified by it.

This is as we have already mentioned in Surah al Nisa when reconciling between His saying, Most High:

وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ

“And that you combine 2 sisters.” (al Nisa: 23)

And His saying, Most High:

أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ

“Or what their right hands possess.” (al Mu’minun: 6)

The author of Maraqi al Suʿud indicated this by saying:

“If generality from one aspect appears, then judgement by preference is certainly considered.”

Once this is understood, know that the ulama differed over which of these 2 general wordings is stronger. The majority give preference to the prohibiting verses. This is the madhhab of al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH), one report from Malik (d. 179AH), and Ismaʿil ibn Saʿid narrated it from Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH).

This is as the author of al Mughni mentioned. It is also the view of Ibn Umar and Rabiʿah (d. 136AH), as al Baghawi (d. 516AH) transmitted from them in his tafsir. Al Nawawi (d. 676AH) mentioned it in Sharh al Muhadhdhab from Ali and Aʿishah.

Some gave preference to the general wording of the verse permitting it, because Allah made their slaughtered animals permissible while He knows best what they say. This is how al Shaʿbi (d. 103AH) and Ata’ argued for the permissibility of what they dedicated to other than Allah.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: what appears, and Allah, Most High, knows best, is that the general wording of the prohibiting verses is stronger and more deserving of consideration from several ways.

Among them is the saying of the Prophet ﷺ:

“Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt.”

And his saying ﷺ:

“Sin is what wavers in the soul.”

And his saying ﷺ:

“Whoever avoids doubtful matters has protected his religion and his honour.”

Among them is that preventing harms is given precedence over bringing benefits, as is established in usul. Based on this, when prohibition contradicts with permissibility, as here, prohibition is more deserving of precedence and consideration, because leaving a permissible matter is easier than committing a forbidden matter.

Rather, large numbers of usul scholars clearly said that a text indicating permissibility is in the third rank after a text indicating prohibitive forbiddance. This is because prohibitive forbiddance is given precedence over a command indicating obligation due to what we mentioned, namely giving precedence to preventing harms over bringing benefits. The text indicating a command is given precedence over the text indicating permissibility, out of caution in being free from responsibility under the demand.

The author of Maraqi al Suʿud pointed to this in the study of preference by considering the meaning indicated, saying:

“A transferring proof, an affirming proof, and the commanding proof after the prohibitions, then this latter one over permissibility.”

The meaning of his saying, “the commanding proof after the prohibitions,” is that what indicates a command comes after what indicates prohibition, so the proof indicating prohibition is given precedence.

His saying, “then this latter one over permissibility,” means that the text indicating a command is given precedence over permissibility, as we mentioned. The result is that the first is prohibition, then command, then permissibility. Thus the precedence of the prohibition of whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah over the permissibility of the food of the People of the Book becomes clear.

Know that the ulama differed regarding what is forbidden to the People of the Book, such as the fat inside the bellies of cattle and sheep which was forbidden to the Jews: is it permissible for a Muslim from what a Jew slaughters?

The majority hold that it is permissible for the Muslim, because legal slaughter cannot be divided. Malik disliked it, and some of his companions, such as Ibn al Qasim (d. 191AH) and Ashhab (d. 204AH), prohibited it.

The majority argued against them with proofs that do not, as it appears, establish the argument against them. The explanation is that Malik’s companions argued with His saying, Most High:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

They said: what is forbidden to them is not part of their food, so it does not enter into what the verse made permissible.

The majority argued against them with what is established in Sahih al Bukhari: the Prophet ﷺ approved Abdullah ibn Mughaffal taking a bag of fat from the Jews on the Day of Khaybar.

They also used what Imam Ahmad narrated from Anas, that a Jew hosted the Prophet ﷺ with barley bread and aged fat, meaning fat whose smell had changed.

They also used the story of the poisoned sheep which the Jewish woman poisoned for him ﷺ. He took a bite from its foreleg, and Bishr ibn al Bara’ ibn Maʿrur died from it. It is a well known authentic story. They said: the Prophet ﷺ intended to eat from it, along with those who were with him, and he did not ask them whether they had removed from it the fat which they believed was forbidden to them or not.

It has been established in usul that leaving the request for detail takes the position of general wording in statements, as the author of Maraqi al Suʿud pointed to by saying:

“Leaving the request for detail should certainly be given the position of general wording in speech.”

What appears to its writer, may Allah pardon him, is that these proofs do not contain an argument against Malik’s companions.

As for the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mughaffal and the hadith of Anas, may Allah be pleased with them both, neither of them contains an explicit text specifying the fat that was forbidden to them. Unrestricted fat is not forbidden to them, due to His saying, Most High:

إِلَّا مَا حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُهُمَا أَوِ الْحَوَايَا أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ

“Except what their backs carried, or the entrails, or what was mixed with bone.” (al Anʿam: 146)

So what is in the 2 hadiths is more general than the point of dispute, and proof for the more general is not proof for the more specific, because the existence of the more general does not require the existence of the more specific by ijmaʿ of reasonable people.

The answer to this argument by what we mentioned is the objection to a proof known among the scholars of usul as conceding what the proof gives. The author of Maraqi al Suʿud pointed to it by saying:

“The objection of conceding what the proof gives is clear, and it is full acceptance of the proof, while preventing that the proof requires the exact case over which the dispute occurred.”

As for conceding what the proof gives among the scholars of eloquence, it is from the categories of meaningful rhetorical beauty. It has 2 known types in the science of eloquence. What we intend here is conceding what the proof gives in the technical usage of usul, not the technical usage of eloquence.

As for the Prophet ﷺ leaving the request for detail regarding the sheep of the Jewish woman, it is not hidden that there is no proof in it, because the Prophet ﷺ saw it with his own eyes. The fat of the belly, the fat of the entrails, and the fat mixed with bone would not be hidden from him, as is necessary. So there was no need to ask about something present and visible.

The view that runs closest to the principles in the case of the mentioned fat is light dislike, due to the absence of a decisive proof for permissibility or prohibition. This is because what a person believes is forbidden for him is not part of his food, while it does not appear that legal slaughter can be divided. So the ruling of the issue is doubtful, and whoever leaves doubtful matters has protected his religion and his honour.

When The Person From The People Of The Book Does Not Mention Allah Or Anyone Else

Simplified answer: If a person from the People of the Book slaughters an animal and does not mention Allah or anyone else, the majority say it is permissible to eat. This is because Allah specifically made their food permissible, and this includes their slaughtered animals. The prohibition applies clearly when the animal is slaughtered for other than Allah. If nothing is mentioned, it remains under the general permission. If it is known that the person does not slaughter properly and eats dead animals, then it should not be eaten.

As for the second study, which is reconciling between His saying:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

And His saying:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

When the person from the People of the Book does not mention Allah’s name or anyone else’s name over his slaughtered animal.

The summary is that His saying:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Has 2 ways of explanation.

One of them, which al Shafiʿi adopted, and Ibn Kathir said in his tafsir is strong, is that what is meant by what Allah’s name has not been mentioned over is what has been dedicated to other than Allah. Upon this explanation, the study of this verse is exactly the first study, and nothing else.

The second way is that it remains upon its apparent meaning. Upon this, between the 2 verses there is also generality and specificity from one aspect.

The verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Applies alone to what the person from the People of the Book slaughters while mentioning Allah’s name over it. This is permissible without dispute.

The verse:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Applies alone to what an idol worshipper slaughters, or what a Muslim slaughters without mentioning Allah’s name over it. What the idol worshipper slaughters is forbidden without dispute. The ruling on what the Muslim slaughters without mentioning Allah’s name will come, if Allah wills.

They meet in what a person from the People of the Book slaughters without mentioning Allah’s name over it. So the 2 verses contradict regarding it. The general wording of “the food of those who were given the Book” indicates permissibility, while the general wording of “do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned” indicates prohibition. So preference is sought, as we have already mentioned.

The ulama also differed over which of these 2 general wordings is stronger. The majority gave preference to the general wording of:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Some gave preference to the general wording of:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Al Nawawi said in Sharh al Muhadhdhab:

“The slaughtered animal of the People of the Book is lawful, whether they mention Allah’s name over it or not, due to the apparent meaning of the mighty Qur’an. This is our madhhab and the madhhab of the majority.

Ibn al Mundhir (d. 318AH) quoted it from Ali, al Lakhmi, Hammad ibn Sulayman (d. 120AH), Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, Ishaq (d. 238AH), and others. If they slaughter for an idol or other than it, it is not lawful.”

The intended part from his wording ends here.

Al Nawawi also quoted the other view from Ali, Abu Thawr (d. 240AH), Aʿishah, and Ibn Umar.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: what appears, and Allah, Most High, knows best, is that the general wording of each of the 2 verses has something that strengthens it, but what strengthens the verse of permissibility is stronger and more deserving of consideration.

As for the verse of permissibility, its general wording is strengthened by 2 matters.

The first is that it has less specification, while the verse of prohibition has more specification. This is because al Shafiʿi and those who agreed with him specified it to what was slaughtered for other than Allah. The majority specified it to the case where the mention of Allah’s name was left deliberately, saying that leaving it forgetfully has no effect.

The verse of permissibility has no specification outside the point of dispute except one specification, namely what we already mentioned: that it is specified by what has not had the name of other than Allah mentioned over it, according to the correct view.

It has been established in usul that what has less specification is given precedence over what has more specification, just as what has not been specified at all is given precedence over what has been specified. This is the view of the majority of usul scholars. Al Subki (d. 756AH) and Safi al Din al Hindi (d. 715AH) differed regarding it.

The author of Nashr al Bunud, in his explanation of Maraqi al Suʿud, in the study of preference by considering the state of what is narrated, while explaining his saying:

“Giving precedence to what has been specified over what has not been specified, and the reverse, each has a text supporting it.”

He explained that the one with less specification is given precedence over the one with more specification, and that what has not been specified is given precedence over what has been specified according to the great majority of usul scholars. He said no one differed in this except al Subki and Safi al Din al Hindi.

The second is what Ibn Jarir transmitted, and Ibn Kathir transmitted from him, from Ikrimah, al Hasan al Basri, and Makhul, that the verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Abrogates the verse:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir said that what they meant by abrogation was specification. However, we have already mentioned that specification after acting upon the general text is abrogation, because specification is clarification, and clarification may not be delayed beyond the time of action.

What indicates this is that the verse:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Is from Surah al Anʿam, which is Makkan by ijmaʿ, while the verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ

“The food of those who were given the Book.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Is from al Ma’idah, which is among the last parts of the Qur’an to come down in Madinah.

As for the verse of prohibition, its general wording is strengthened by what we already mentioned of the reasons that strengthen His saying, Most High:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

Because both of them indicate a prohibition that appears to contradict with permissibility.

The summary of this issue is that the slaughtered animal of a person from the People of the Book has 5 cases, and there is no sixth.

The first is that it is known that he mentioned Allah’s name over it. In this case, it is eaten without dispute. No consideration is given to the disagreement of the Shia in this, because they are not counted in ijmaʿ.

The second is that it is known that it was dedicated to other than Allah. There is disagreement regarding it. We have already mentioned that the verified view is that it is not eaten due to His saying, Most High:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

The third is that it is known that he combined Allah’s name with the name of other than Him. The apparent meaning of the texts is that it is also not eaten, because it enters under what has been dedicated to other than Allah.

The fourth is that it is known that he remained silent and did not mention Allah or anyone else. The majority hold permissibility, and this is the truth. Some hold prohibition, as already mentioned.

The fifth is that the matter is not known, because it was slaughtered when he was alone. It is eaten according to the view of the majority of the ulama, and this is the truth, if the person from the People of the Book is not known for eating dead animals, such as one who tears the neck of a chicken with his hand.

If he is known for eating dead animals, then what he was alone over is not eaten according to some ulama. This is the madhhab of Malik. According to others, it is permissible to eat it. Ibn al Arabi al Maliki (d. 543AH) even said: “If we saw him tearing the neck of a chicken with his hand, we would say that eating from it is permissible, because it is from his food, and Allah has made his food permissible for us.” Ibn Abd al Salam (d. 660AH) regarded this as far fetched.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: it is indeed deserving of being regarded as far fetched. Just as their women may be married, but it is not permissible to have relations with them during menstruation, likewise their food is permissible for us without making dead animals permissible. The end of the matter is that the legal slaughter of the person from the People of the Book makes the properly slaughtered animal lawful, like the legal slaughter of the Muslim.

The Ruling On What A Muslim Slaughters Without Mentioning Allah’s Name

As for what we promised to mention regarding the ruling of what a Muslim slaughters without mentioning Allah’s name over it, its summary is that there are 3 views.

The strongest of them, and it is the madhhab of the majority, is that if he left the mention of Allah’s name deliberately, it is not eaten, due to the general wording of His saying, Most High:

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

“Do not eat from that over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” (al Anʿam: 121)

But if he left it forgetfully, it is eaten, because if he had remembered, he would have mentioned Allah’s name.

Ibn Jarir said: whoever forbids the slaughtered animal of the one who forgot has left the view of the proof holders and opposed the established report from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Ibn Kathir said: Ibn Jarir means by that what al Bayhaqi (d. 458AH) narrated from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet ﷺ:

“The Muslim is sufficed by his name. If he forgets to mention Allah’s name when he slaughters, let him mention Allah’s name and eat it.”

Then Ibn Kathir said that raising the hadith to the Prophet ﷺ is a mistake made by Maʿqil ibn Ubaydillah al Jazari, and the correct position is that it stops at Ibn Abbas.

This is how Saʿid ibn Mansur (d. 227AH) and Abdullah ibn al Zubayr al Humaydi (d. 219AH) narrated it.

Among what some used as proof for eating the slaughtered animal of the one who forgot to mention Allah’s name is the indication of the Book, Sunnah, and ijmaʿ upon excuse due to forgetfulness.

Among what some used as proof for that is a hadith narrated by the hafiz Abu Ahmad ibn Adi (d. 365AH) from Abu Hurayrah. He said:

“A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: O Messenger of Allah, what do you say about a man among us who slaughters and forgets to mention Allah’s name? The Prophet ﷺ said: Allah’s name is upon every Muslim.”

Ibn Kathir mentioned this hadith and graded it weak because in its chain is Marwan ibn Salim Abu Abdullah al Shami, and he is weak.

The second view is that the slaughtered animal of the Muslim is eaten even if he deliberately leaves the mention of Allah’s name. This is the madhhab of al Shafiʿi, may Allah have mercy on him, as has already passed, because he holds that what Allah’s name has not been mentioned over means what has been dedicated to other than Allah and nothing else.

Some claimed that ijmaʿ was established before al Shafiʿi that whatever is deliberately left without mention of Allah’s name is not eaten. For that reason, Abu Yusuf (d. 182AH) and others said: if a judge gave judgement permitting its sale, it would not be carried out, due to opposing ijmaʿ.

Ibn Kathir found the claim of ijmaʿ over that strange, saying that disagreement on it before al Shafiʿi is known.

The third view is that if a Muslim does not mention Allah’s name over his slaughtered animal, it is not eaten unrestrictedly, whether he left it deliberately or forgetfully. This is the madhhab of Dawud al Zahiri (d. 270AH).

Ibn Kathir said: then Ibn Jarir and others transmitted from al Shaʿbi and Muhammad ibn Sirin (d. 110AH) that they disliked what was left without mention of Allah’s name forgetfully. The Salaf often used dislike to mean prohibition.

Then Ibn Kathir mentioned that Ibn Jarir does not consider the disagreement of one or 2 people against the majority, so he counts it as ijmaʿ even with the disagreement of one or 2 people. For this reason, he quoted ijmaʿ on eating what was left without mention of Allah’s name forgetfully, even though he transmitted disagreement from al Shaʿbi and Ibn Sirin.

Slaughtering For Churches, Prophets, Angels, Or Idols

Simplified answer: Slaughtering as an act of nearness is worship, so it must be for Allah alone. If an animal is slaughtered for a church, a prophet, an angel, an idol, or anything else besides Allah, it falls under “what has been dedicated to other than Allah.” The verse about “stone altars” only mentions one example. It does not limit the ruling to idols only. So the safer and stronger view is that there is no valid difference between slaughtering for an idol and slaughtering for a church, prophet, or angel.

Know that many ulama from the Malikis, Shafiʿis, and others differentiate between what the People of the Book slaughter for an idol, and what they slaughter for Isa عليه السلام, Jibril عليه السلام, or their churches. They say that the first is from what has been dedicated to other than Allah, unlike the second, which according to them is lightly disliked. They use as proof His saying, Most High:

وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ

“And what has been slaughtered upon stone altars.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

What appears to its writer, may Allah pardon him, is that this distinction is false by the testimony of the Qur’an. This is because slaughtering as an act of nearness is worship by ijmaʿ. Allah, Most High, said:

فَصَلِّ لِرَبِّكَ وَانْحَرْ

“So pray to your Lord and sacrifice.” (al Kawthar: 2)

And Allah, Most High, said:

قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ

“Say: indeed my prayer, my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah.” (al Anʿam: 162)

Whoever directs any of that to other than Allah has made that other being a partner with Allah in this worship, namely slaughtering, whether it is a prophet, an angel, a building, a tree, a stone, or something else. There is no difference in this between a righteous being and a corrupt being, as Allah, Most High, clearly said:

وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَنْ تَتَّخِذُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ أَرْبَابًا

“Nor would he command you to take the angels and the prophets as lords.” (Aal Imran: 80)

Then He explained that the doer of that is a disbeliever through His saying, Most High:

أَيَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ

“Would he command you to disbelief after you had submitted?” (Aal Imran: 80)

And Allah, Most High, said:

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِي مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ

“It is not for a human being to whom Allah gives the Book, judgement, and prophethood, then he says to the people: be servants to me besides Allah.” (Aal Imran: 79)

And Allah, Most High, said:

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ

“Say: O People of the Book, come to a word that is equal between us and you, that we worship none except Allah, do not associate anything with Him, and do not take one another as lords besides Allah.” (Aal Imran: 64)

If it is said that Abu al Darda’, Abu Umamah al Bahili, al Irbad ibn Sariyah, al Qasim ibn Mukhaymirah (d. 100AH), Hamzah ibn Habib (d. 156AH), Abu Salamah al Khawlani, Umar ibn al Aswad, Makhul, al Layth ibn Saʿd (d. 175AH), and others gave permission to eat what they slaughtered for their churches.

The answer is that this is the view of a group of ulama from the Companions and those after them, while others differed with them. Among those who differed with them were the Mother of the Believers Aʿishah, may Allah be pleased with her, and Imam al Shafiʿi, may Allah have mercy on him.

Allah, Most High, says:

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ

“If you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allah.” (al Nisa: 59)

So we refer this dispute back to Allah, and we find that He forbade whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.

His saying, “to other than Allah,” includes the angel and the prophet, just as it includes the idol, stone altar, and Shaytan. They agreed with us in prohibiting what they slaughter in the name of an idol. The proof has shown that there is no difference in that between a prophet and an angel, and between an idol and a stone altar. Therefore, they are bound to say that it is prohibited.

As for their use of His saying, “and what has been slaughtered upon stone altars,” there is no proof in it, because His saying, Most High:

وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ

“And what has been slaughtered upon stone altars.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

Does not specify His saying:

وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

“And whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.” (al Ma’idah: 3)

Because it mentioned some of what is indicated by the general wording of “whatever has been dedicated to other than Allah.”

It has been established in usul that mentioning some individuals of a general ruling with the same ruling as the general one does not specify the general wording, according to the correct view, and this is the madhhab of the majority. Abu Thawr differed, arguing that mentioning it has no benefit except specification.

The majority answered that the implication of a mere title is not proof, and that the benefit of mentioning some individuals is to remove the possibility of excluding them from the general wording.

Once this is understood, know that mentioning some individuals does not specify the general wording, whether they are mentioned in one text, such as His saying, Most High:

حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَى

“Guard the prayers, and the middle prayer.” (al Baqarah: 238)

Or each one is mentioned separately, such as the hadith of al Tirmidhi (d. 279AH) and others:

“Any hide that is tanned has become pure.”

And the hadith of Muslim (d. 261AH), that the Prophet ﷺ passed by a dead sheep and said:

“Why did you not take its hide?”

So the mention of the middle prayer in the first does not indicate that the other prayers should not be guarded. The mention of the sheep’s hide in the second does not indicate that benefit may not be taken from the hide of other than sheep, because mentioning some individuals does not specify the general wording.

Likewise, the return of a pronoun to some of the general wording also does not specify it according to the correct view, such as His saying, Most High:

وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ

“Their husbands have more right to take them back during that.” (al Baqarah: 228)

The pronoun returns to His saying:

وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ

“Divorced women shall wait.” (al Baqarah: 228)

It is specific to revocable divorced women, even though waiting for 3 menstrual periods is general for divorced women, including revocable women and fully separated women.

The author of Maraqi al Suʿud pointed to this, while also explaining that the reason for the event does not specify it, and that the madhhab of the narrator does not specify what he narrates, according to the correct view in both matters. He said:

“Leave the pronoun of some and the causes,

And the mention of what agrees with it from a single item,

And the madhhab of the narrator, according to the relied upon view.”

It was narrated from al Shafiʿi and most of the Hanafis that specification occurs through the pronoun returning to some. Upon this, the waiting of fully separated women for 3 menstrual periods is taken from another proof.

As for not specifying by mentioning some individuals, no one differed in that except Abu Thawr, and the reply to his madhhab has already passed.

Even if we were to accept that the verse is opposed by His saying, Most High:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

We find that the Prophet ﷺ commanded leaving something like this where the texts appear to contradict, through his saying:

“Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt.”

The Second Issue: The Slaughter Of Arab Christians

The ulama differed over the legal slaughter of Arab Christians, such as Banu Taghlib, Tanukh, Bahra’, Judham, Lakhm, Amilah, and their likes.

The majority hold that their slaughtered animals are not eaten. Ibn Kathir said this, and it is the madhhab of al Shafiʿi. Al Nawawi transmitted it in Sharh al Muhadhdhab from Ali, Ata’, and Saʿid ibn Jubayr.

Al Nawawi also transmitted the permissibility of their legal slaughter from Ibn Abbas, al Nakhaʿi, al Shaʿbi, Ata’ al Khurasani (d. 135AH), al Zuhri (d. 124AH), al Hakam (d. 115AH), Hammad, Abu Hanifah, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and Abu Thawr. Ibn Qudamah (d. 620AH) graded this view correct in al Mughni, using the general wording of His saying as proof:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

The proof of the first view is what was narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said:

“The Arab Christians are not People of the Book. Their slaughtered animals are not lawful for us.”

And what was narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him:

“The slaughtered animals of the Christians of Banu Taghlib are not lawful, because they entered Christianity after alteration. It is not known whether they entered the religion of those among them who altered, or the religion of those who did not alter. So they became like the Magians: when their matter regarding the Book was unclear, their slaughtered animals were not eaten.”

The author of al Muhadhdhab mentioned this, and al Nawawi remained silent on it in the commentary, saying that it is the proof of the Shafiʿis in preventing their slaughtered animals from being eaten.

It is understood from this that not every legal slaughter of Jews and Christians today is permissible due to their alteration, especially those of them who are known for eating dead animals, such as Christians.

The Third Issue: The Slaughtered Animals Of The Magians

Are the slaughtered animals of the Magians lawful for Muslims?

Al Nawawi said in Sharh al Muhadhdhab:

“They are forbidden according to us, and the majority of ulama said this. Ibn al Mundhir transmitted it from most ulama. He said: among those who said this are Saʿid ibn al Musayyib (d. 94AH), Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, Saʿid ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla (d. 83AH), al Nakhaʿi, Ubaydullah ibn Yazid, Murrah al Hamdani (d. 76AH), Malik, al Thawri (d. 161AH), Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and Ishaq.”

Ibn Kathir said in his tafsir of His saying:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

“As for the Magians, even though jizyah was taken from them as a following ruling and by attachment to the People of the Book, their slaughtered animals are not eaten and their women are not married, contrary to Abu Thawr Ibrahim ibn Khalid al Kalbi, one of the jurists among the companions of al Shafiʿi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. When he said that and it became known from him, the jurists objected against him, until Imam Ahmad said about him: ‘Abu Thawr is like his name,’ meaning in this issue.

It is as if he held on to the general wording of a hadith narrated in disconnected form from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: ‘Apply to them the practice of the People of the Book.’ However, this is not established with this wording.

What is in Sahih al Bukhari is from Abd al Rahman ibn Awf, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ took jizyah from the Magians of Hajar.

Even if the authenticity of this hadith were accepted, its general wording is specified by the implied meaning of this verse:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Its implied contrary meaning indicates that the food of those besides them from the people of religions is not lawful.”

The wording of Ibn Kathir ends here.

The Shaykh, Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 1354AH), objected to him in the marginal note with this wording:

“This is the implication of a mere title, and it is not a proof.”

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: the correct view is with the hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah, Most High, have mercy on him. The Shaykh’s objection against him is an oversight from him, because the implication of His saying, “those who were given the Book,” is the implication of a cause, not the implication of a mere title, as the Shaykh thought.

This is because the implication of a mere title in the technical usage of usul scholars is where the ruling is attached to a fixed noun, whether it is a generic noun, a proper noun, or a collective noun. Its rule is that it is mentioned only so that attribution to it becomes possible, not because it contains a description requiring that it be specified in mention over others.

As for attaching this ruling, namely the permissibility of their food, to the description of being given the Book, it is attaching the ruling to its cause, because the description of being given the Book is suitable to be the effective cause of the ruling that their food is lawful.

The third way among the ways of identifying the cause, known as indication and alerting, shows that the effective cause of the permissibility of their food is that they were given the Book. This is exactly the same effective cause for the permissibility of marrying their women, because arranging the ruling of the permissibility of their food and women upon their being given the Book, if it were not because that is its cause, would make specifying the giving of the Book useless.

It is known that arranging a ruling upon a description, if that description were not its cause, would be useless padding without benefit. It is understood from this, through the way of indication and alerting, that it is its cause.

He said in Maraqi al Suʿud, while listing the forms of indication:

“As when he hears a description, then gives a ruling,

And mentioning it in the ruling as a description has appeared.

If it were not its cause, it would not benefit,

And from preventing what removes benefit, take his arranging the ruling upon it, and it becomes clear.”

The place of proof from it is his saying, “take his arranging the ruling upon it,” and his saying, “and mentioning it in the ruling as a description, if it were not its cause, it would not benefit.”

What clarifies what we mentioned is that His saying, “those who were given the Book,” is a relative pronoun, and its relative clause is a verbal sentence. It has been established among the grammarians, according to the correct and well known madhhab, that an explicit adjective, such as the active participle and passive participle when they are the relative clause of the definite article, is in the position of the verb together with the relative pronoun. For this reason, the description connected to the relative definite article acts in the past, because it is in the position of the verb, as was pointed to in the Alfiyyah by saying:

“If it is the relative clause of the definite article, then its acting in the past and other than it has been accepted.”

Once this is understood, you know that “those who were given the Book” is in the position of saying “the ones who were given the Book,” using the passive participle. No one has said that the implication of the passive participle is the implication of a mere title, because it contains something, namely the verbal source, which can make the one described by it intended by the speaker rather than others, as they mentioned concerning the implication of an attribute.

So it becomes clear that being given the Book is a description specific to them and not to others, and it is the cause of the permissibility of their food and marrying their women. Therefore, claiming that it is the implication of a mere title is an obvious oversight.

It becomes clear from the verification that the implied meaning in His saying, “those who were given the Book,” is the implication of a cause. The implication of a cause is a category of the implication of an attribute. The attribute is broader than the cause.

Its explanation is as al Qarafi (d. 684AH) explained: an attribute may complete the cause without being the full cause, such as the obligation of zakah on grazing livestock. Its cause is not merely grazing. If that were so, zakah would be obligatory on wild animals because they graze. Rather, the cause is ownership of that through which wealth is gained, and that, together with grazing, is more complete than it is with fodder fed livestock. This is according to those who do not hold that zakah is due on fodder fed livestock.

It has become clear that what the hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah, Most High, have mercy on him, said is correct.

It has been established in usul that implied meaning, in both of its types, is among the things that specify general wording.

As for specifying the general wording through the implied meaning of agreement in both its categories, there is no disagreement regarding it. Among those who quoted ijmaʿ on it are al Amidi and al Subki in Sharh al Mukhtasar. The proof for its permissibility is that acting upon both proofs is better than cancelling one of them.

An example is specifying the hadith:

“The delay of payment by a rich person makes his honour and punishment lawful.”

Meaning: his honour becomes lawful by saying, “He has delayed payment to me,” and his punishment by imprisonment.

It is specified by the implied meaning of agreement, which is the higher meaning, in His saying:

فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ

“Do not say to them: uff.” (al Isra: 23)

Because its higher meaning is the prohibition of harming both parents. So a father is not imprisoned for the debt of his child.

As for specifying the general wording by the implied contrary meaning, there is disagreement over it. The stronger view is what the hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah cover him in His wide mercy, followed, namely that specification by it is valid.

The proof for it is what we have already mentioned, that acting upon both proofs is better than cancelling one of them.

It was also said that specification by it is not permissible, and al Baji transmitted this from most Malikis.

The proof of this view is that the indication of the general wording upon what the implied meaning indicates is by explicit wording, and explicit wording is given precedence over implied meaning.

The answer is that what is given precedence over implied meaning is a specific explicit wording, not something from the individual cases of a general wording. So the implied meaning is given precedence over it, because acting upon both proofs is better than cancelling one of them.

The author of Maraqi al Suʿud relied upon specification by it in his saying, in the study of the specific, while speaking about separate specifying proofs:

“Most people considered ijmaʿ,

And the 2 categories of implied meaning, like analogy.”

An example of specification by implied contrary meaning is specifying his saying ﷺ:

“For 40 sheep, 1 sheep is due.”

Its general wording includes grazing sheep and fodder fed sheep, by the implied meaning of his saying:

“On grazing sheep there is zakah.”

This is according to those who do not hold that zakah is due on fodder fed sheep, and they are the majority. This is because it is understood from it that non grazing sheep have no zakah. So the general wording of “for 40 sheep, 1 sheep is due” is specified by that. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Fourth Issue: What The Person From The People Of The Book Hunts With Hunting Animals Or Weapons

What a person from the People of the Book hunts with trained hunting animals and weapons is lawful for the Muslim, because wounding is the legal slaughter of hunted game.

The 3 imams held this view. It was also said by Ata’, al Layth, al Awzaʿi (d. 157AH), Ibn al Mundhir, Dawud, and the majority of ulama, as al Nawawi transmitted from them in Sharh al Muhadhdhab.

The proof of the majority is clear. It is His saying, Most High:

وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ

“The food of those who were given the Book is permissible for you.” (al Ma’idah: 5)

Malik and Ibn al Qasim differed, so they distinguished between the slaughter of the person from the People of the Book and his hunting. They used as proof His saying, Most High:

تَنَالُهُ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَرِمَاحُكُمْ

“Your hands and your spears reach it.” (al Ma’idah: 94)

Because He made hunting specific to the hands and spears of the Muslims, not others.

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: what appears to me, and Allah knows best, is that this argument does not stand against the majority, and that the correct view is with the majority.

Those among the Malikis who agreed with the majority include Ashhab, Ibn Harun, Ibn Yunus (d. 451AH), al Baji, and al Lakhmi. Malik, in al Muwazanah, held that it is disliked. Ibn Bashir (d. 536AH) said: the Mudawwanah may possibly be understood as referring to dislike.

The Fifth Issue: The Slaughtered Animals Of The People Of The Book In The Land Of War

The fifth issue is that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book in the land of war are like their slaughtered animals in the land of Islam.

Al Nawawi (d. 676AH) said: “There is no disagreement over this.”

Ibn al Mundhir (d. 318AH) transmitted ijmaʿ regarding it.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Judging Between The People Of The Book

فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ

“If they come to you, then judge between them, or turn away from them.” (al Ma’idah: 42)

This noble verse indicates that when the People of the Book come to the Prophet ﷺ for judgement, he has a choice between judging between them and turning away from them.

Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ

“And judge between them by what Allah has sent down.” (al Ma’idah: 49)

The answer is that His saying, Most High, “And judge between them,” abrogates His saying, “or turn away from them.” This is the view of Ibn Abbas, Mujahid (d. 104AH), Ikrimah (d. 105AH), al Hasan (d. 110AH), Qatadah (d. 117AH), al Suddi (d. 127AH), Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 136AH), Ata’ al Khurasani (d. 135AH), and more than one other. Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH) said this.

It was also said that the meaning of “And judge” is: if you judge between them, then judge by what Allah has sent down, not by following desire. Upon this view, the first verse remains firm and is not abrogated. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Accepting The Testimony Of Disbelievers During Travel

أَوْ آخَرَانِ مِنْ غَيْرِكُمْ

“Or two others from other than you.” (al Ma’idah: 106)

This verse indicates that the testimony of disbelievers is accepted concerning a will during travel.

Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying:

إِنَّمَا يَفْتَرِي الْكَذِبَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ

“Only those who do not believe in the signs of Allah invent lies, and those are the liars.” (al Nahl: 105)

And His saying:

وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“And never accept testimony from them. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (al Nur: 4)

Meaning: the disbelievers are even more deserving that their testimony be rejected.

And His saying:

وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ

“And bring two just witnesses from among you.” (al Talaq: 2)

And His saying:

وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ

“And call two witnesses from your men. If they are not two men, then a man and two women from those whom you are pleased with as witnesses.” (al Baqarah: 282)

The answer to this, according to those who do not accept the testimony of disbelievers regarding a will during travel, is that they say: His saying, “or two others from other than you,” is abrogated by the verses that require uprightness.

Those who say their testimony is accepted say: it is a firm verse that specifies the general wording of other verses.

This disagreement is well known, and the answer according to both views is clear.

As for the view of those who say that the meaning of His saying:

ذَوَا عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ

“Two just witnesses from among you.” (al Ma’idah: 95)

Is: from the tribe of the one making the will, and His saying, “or two others from other than you,” means: from outside the tribe of the one making the will, from the rest of the Muslims, then there is no problem in the verse.

However, the majority of the ulama hold that His saying, “from other than you,” means from other than the Muslims, and that His saying, “from among you,” means from the Muslims. Upon this, the answer is what has already passed. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Messengers Bearing Witness Against Their Nations

يَوْمَ يَجْمَعُ اللَّهُ الرُّسُلَ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أُجِبْتُمْ قَالُوا لَا عِلْمَ لَنَا إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ عَلَّامُ الْغُيُوبِ

“The Day Allah will gather the messengers and say: ‘What response were you given?’ They will say: ‘We have no knowledge. Indeed, You are the Knower of all unseen things.’” (al Ma’idah: 109)

It is understood from this verse that the messengers will not bear witness on the Day of Resurrection against their nations.

Other verses have come indicating that they will bear witness against their nations, such as His saying, Most High:

فَكَيْفَ إِذَا جِئْنَا مِنْ كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ بِشَهِيدٍ وَجِئْنَا بِكَ عَلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ شَهِيدًا

“So how will it be when We bring from every nation a witness, and We bring you as a witness against these?” (al Nisa: 41)

And His saying, Most High:

وَيَوْمَ نَبْعَثُ فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَجِئْنَا بِكَ شَهِيدًا عَلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ

“And the Day We raise in every nation a witness against them from themselves, and We bring you as a witness against these.” (al Nahl: 89)

The answer has three ways.

The first, and it is the choice of Ibn Jarir (d. 310AH), and Ibn Kathir said about it, “There is no doubt that it is good,” is that the meaning is: we have no knowledge except knowledge which You know better than us. So we have no knowledge when compared to Your knowledge that surrounds everything. Even if we knew who answered us, we only knew the apparent matters, and we have no knowledge of inner realities. You are the One who sees secrets and what hearts hide. So our knowledge, compared to Your knowledge, is like no knowledge.

The second is the view of Mujahid, al Suddi, and al Hasan al Basri, as Ibn Kathir and others transmitted from them. They said: “We have no knowledge,” because of the severe terror of the Day of Resurrection that overtook them. Then that passed from them, and they bore witness against their nations.

The third, and it is the weakest, is that the meaning of His saying, “What response were you given?” is: what did they do after you? What did they introduce after you? They said: “We have no knowledge.” Ibn Kathir and others mentioned this view, and its distance from the apparent meaning of the Qur’an is not hidden.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Severest Punishment For The People Of The Table

قَالَ اللَّهُ إِنِّي مُنَزِّلُهَا عَلَيْكُمْ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بَعْدُ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنِّي أُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا لَا أُعَذِّبُهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ

“Allah said: ‘Indeed, I will send it down to you. So whoever disbelieves afterward from among you, then I will punish him with a punishment with which I do not punish anyone among all creation.’” (al Ma’idah: 115)

This noble verse indicates that the people who will have the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection are those who disbelieved from the people of the table.

Some verses have come that may give the impression of the opposite, such as His saying:

إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِي الدَّرْكِ الْأَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ

“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth of the Fire.” (al Nisa: 145)

And His saying:

وَيَوْمَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ أَدْخِلُوا آلَ فِرْعَوْنَ أَشَدَّ الْعَذَابِ

“And on the Day the Hour stands, it will be said: ‘Enter the people of Pharaoh into the severest punishment.’” (Ghafir: 46)

The answer is that the verse, “Enter the people of Pharaoh,” and the verse, “Indeed, the hypocrites,” do not contradict with one another, because both the people of Pharaoh and the hypocrites are in the lowest depths of the Fire, in the severest punishment. There is nothing in the two verses indicating that some of them are punished more severely than others.

As for His saying, “then I will punish him,” the answer to it has two ways.

The first is what Ibn Kathir said: what is meant by “all creation” is the people of their time. Upon this, there is no problem. Its like is His saying, Most High:

وَأَنِّي فَضَّلْتُكُمْ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ

“And that I favoured you over all creation.” (al Baqarah: 47)

As has already passed.

The second is what some said, that what is meant by it is worldly punishment, namely their transformation into pigs. However, what indicates that it is punishment in the Hereafter is what Ibn Jarir narrated from Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he said:

“The people who will have the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection are three: the hypocrites, those who disbelieved from the people of the table, and the people of Pharaoh.”

This problem concerning the people of the table only arises upon the view that the table came down, and that some of them disbelieved after it came down. As for the view of al Hasan and Mujahid, that they feared the warning and said, “We have no need for it to come down,” so it did not come down, then there is no problem.

However, the apparent meaning of His saying, Most High:

إِنِّي مُنَزِّلُهَا

“Indeed, I will send it down.” (al Ma’idah: 115)

Opposes that. Upon the view that it came down, the problem only arises if the disbelief of some of them is established, as is not hidden.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Allah Being The Protector Of The Disbelievers

ثُمَّ رُدُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ مَوْلَاهُمُ الْحَقِّ

“Then they are returned to Allah, their true Master.” (al Anʿam: 62)

This noble verse indicates that Allah is the Master of the disbelievers. Its like is His saying, Most High:

هُنَالِكَ تَبْلُو كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَا أَسْلَفَتْ وَرُدُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ مَوْلَاهُمُ الْحَقِّ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ

“There, every soul will know what it sent before, and they will be returned to Allah, their true Master, and whatever they used to invent will be lost from them.” (Yunus: 30)

Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ مَوْلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَأَنَّ الْكَافِرِينَ لَا مَوْلَىٰ لَهُمْ

“That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the disbelievers have no protector.” (Muhammad: 11)

The answer to this is that the meaning of Allah being the Master of the disbelievers is that He owns them and disposes of them however He wills. The meaning of Him being the Protector of the believers apart from the disbelievers is the protection of love, guidance, and support. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

As for the view of those who say that the pronoun in His saying, “they are returned,” and His saying, “their Master,” refers to the angels, then there is no problem in the verse at all. However, the first view is more apparent.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Sitting With Those Who Mock The Signs Of Allah

وَمَا عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ مِنْ حِسَابِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ وَلَٰكِنْ ذِكْرَىٰ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

“There is nothing upon those who fear Allah from their account at all, but only a reminder, so perhaps they may fear Allah.” (al Anʿam: 69)

This noble verse may be understood to mean that there is no sin upon one who sits with those who speak about the signs of Allah with mockery and denial.

Another verse has come indicating that whoever sits with them is like them in sin. It is His saying, Most High:

وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِثْلُهُمْ

“He has already sent down to you in the Book that when you hear the signs of Allah being disbelieved in, then indeed you would be like them.” (al Nisa: 140)

Know first that regarding the meaning of His saying, “There is nothing upon those who fear Allah from their account at all,” the ulama have two ways.

The first is that the meaning is: there is nothing upon those who fear sitting with the disbelievers when they speak falsely about the signs of Allah from the account of the disbelievers. Upon this way, there is no problem in the verse at all.

The second way is that the meaning of the verse is: there is nothing upon those who fear Allah from what occurs from the disbelievers of speaking falsely about the signs of Allah while sitting with them.

Upon this view, this permission for the pious believers to sit with the disbelievers was at the beginning of Islam due to necessity. Then it was abrogated by His saying, Most High:

إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا مِثْلُهُمْ

“Indeed you would then be like them.” (al Nisa: 140)

Among those who held that it is abrogated are Mujahid, al Suddi, Ibn Jurayj (d. 150AH), and others, as Ibn Kathir transmitted from them. Thus it becomes clear that there is no problem upon either view.

The meaning of His saying, Most High:

وَلَٰكِنْ ذِكْرَىٰ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

“But only a reminder, so perhaps they may fear Allah.” (al Anʿam: 69)

Upon the first way is that if they avoid their gatherings, they are safe from sin. However, the command to avoid sitting with them when they speak falsely about the verses does not remove the obligation of reminding them, advising them, commanding them to what is right, and forbidding them from what is wrong, so that perhaps they may fear Allah because of that.

Upon the second way, the meaning is that permission to sit with them does not remove the duty of reminding them, so perhaps they may fear speaking falsely about the signs of Allah when they are reminded by you. As for making the pronoun refer to those who fear Allah, its distance is not hidden. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Prophet ﷺ Being Sent To Makkah And Its Surroundings

وَهَٰذَا كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ مُصَدِّقُ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِوَلِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا

“This is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming what came before it, so that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it.” (al Anʿam: 92)

An ignorant person may think from this that his warning ﷺ was specific to the Mother of Cities and those close to it, not the faraway regions, because of His saying, Most High, “and those around it.”

Its like is His saying, Most High, in Surah al Shura:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَتُنْذِرَ يَوْمَ الْجَمْعِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ

“And thus We revealed to you an Arabic Qur’an, so that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it, and warn of the Day of Gathering, about which there is no doubt.” (al Shura: 7)

Other verses have come clearly stating that his warning ﷺ is general for all people, such as His saying, Most High:

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْفُرْقَانَ عَلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِلْعَالَمِينَ نَذِيرًا

“Blessed is the One who sent down the Criterion upon His servant so that he may be a warner to all creation.” (al Furqan: 1)

And His saying, Most High:

وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنُ لِأُنْذِرَكُمْ بِهِ وَمَنْ بَلَغَ

“This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you by it and whoever it reaches.” (al Anʿam: 19)

And His saying:

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا

“Say: O people, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all.” (al Aʿraf: 158)

And His saying:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا كَافَّةً لِلنَّاسِ

“We have not sent you except to all people.” (Saba’: 28)

The answer has two ways.

The first is that what is meant by His saying, “and those around it,” includes all the earth, as Ibn Jarir and others narrated from Ibn Abbas.

The second way is that even if we accepted for argument that His saying, “and those around it,” only covers what is close to noble Makkah, may Allah preserve its sanctity, such as the Arabian Peninsula for example, then the other verses clearly state generality, such as His saying, “so that he may be a warner to all creation.”

Mentioning some individuals of a general wording with the ruling of that general wording does not specify it according to the general body of the ulama. No one differed over this except Abu Thawr (d. 240AH). We have already explained that clearly with its proofs in Surah al Ma’idah.

Upon this view, the verse is like His saying:

وَأَنْذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الْأَقْرَبِينَ

“And warn your closest relatives.” (al Shuʿara’: 214)

It does not indicate that others should not be warned, as is clear. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Olive And The Pomegranate Being Similar And Not Similar

وَالزَّيْتُونَ وَالرُّمَّانَ مُشْتَبِهًا وَغَيْرَ مُتَشَابِهٍ

“And the olive and the pomegranate, similar and not similar.” (al Anʿam: 99)

And His saying also:

وَالزَّيْتُونَ وَالرُّمَّانَ مُتَشَابِهًا وَغَيْرَ مُتَشَابِهٍ

“And the olive and the pomegranate, similar and not similar.” (al Anʿam: 141)

In these two verses, He affirmed similarity for the olive and pomegranate and also negated it from them.

The answer is what Qatadah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the meaning is that their leaves are similar, while their tastes are different. Allah, Most High, knows best.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Vision Of Allah

لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ

“Vision does not encompass Him.” (al Anʿam: 103)

This noble verse may give the impression that Allah, Most High, is not seen with the eyes.

Other verses have come indicating that He is seen with the eyes, such as His saying, Most High:

وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَاضِرَةٌ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ

“Faces on that Day will be bright, looking at their Lord.” (al Qiyamah: 22–23)

And His saying:

لِلَّذِينَ أَحْسَنُوا الْحُسْنَىٰ وَزِيَادَةٌ

“For those who do good is the best reward and more.” (Yunus: 26)

The best reward is Paradise, and the increase is looking at the noble Face of Allah.

Likewise His saying:

لَهُمْ مَا يَشَاءُونَ فِيهَا وَلَدَيْنَا مَزِيدٌ

“They will have whatever they wish therein, and with Us is more.” (Qaf: 35)

This is according to one of the two views.

And His saying, Most High, concerning the disbelievers:

كَلَّا إِنَّهُمْ عَنْ رَبِّهِمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ لَمَحْجُوبُونَ

“No indeed, they will be veiled from their Lord on that Day.” (al Mutaffifin: 15)

It is understood from its indication that the believers are not veiled from their Lord.

The answer has three ways.

The first is that the meaning of “Vision does not encompass Him” is: in this world. So it does not contradict seeing Him in the Hereafter.

The second is that it is general wording specified by the believers seeing Him in the Hereafter. This is close in meaning to the first.

The third, and it is the truth, is that what is negated in this verse is full grasping that suggests encompassing the reality. As for unrestricted seeing, the verse does not indicate its negation. Rather, it is established by these Qur’an verses, the authentic hadiths, and the agreement of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaʿah upon that.

The summary of this answer is that grasping is more specific than unrestricted seeing, because what is meant by grasping is encompassing. The Arabs say: “I saw the thing, but I did not grasp it.” So the meaning of “Vision does not encompass Him” is that it does not surround Him, just as creation knows Him, but they do not encompass Him in knowledge.

Reasonable people have agreed that negating the more specific does not require negating the more general. So the absence of grasping does not require the absence of unrestricted seeing, while no one from creation truly grasps the reality of Allah.

The proof for the correctness of this way is what the two Shaykhs narrated from the hadith of Abu Musa, raised to the Prophet ﷺ:

“His veil is light, or fire. If He were to uncover it, the splendours of His Face would burn whatever His sight reaches from His creation.”

The hadith is clear regarding no vision in this world, and it is understood from it that encompassing Him is impossible without restriction.

The summary is that seeing Him, Most High, with the eyes is rationally possible in this world and the Hereafter, because every existing thing can rationally be seen. What indicates its rational possibility is the saying of Musa عليه السلام:

رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ

“My Lord, show me, so that I may look at You.” (al Aʿraf: 143)

Because he would not be ignorant of what is rationally possible regarding Allah, Most High.

As for the Sharia, it is permissible and will occur in the Hereafter, while it is impossible in this world. Among the clearest proofs for that is what Muslim (d. 261AH) and Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311AH) narrated, raised to the Prophet ﷺ:

“Indeed, you will not see your Lord until you die.”

The hadiths about the believers seeing Him on the Day of Resurrection are mass transmitted. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

Turning Away From The Polytheists And The Verses Of Fighting

وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“And turn away from the polytheists.” (al Anʿam: 106)

This does not oppose the verses of fighting, because they abrogate it.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Eternal Punishment In The Fire

Simplified answer: The exception does not mean that the punishment of the disbelievers will end. It refers either to sinful believers who enter the Fire for a time and are later brought out by Allah’s mercy, or to the period before the people of the Fire are finally settled in it. The clear verses explain that the disbelievers will not die there, will not leave it, and their punishment will not be lightened. So the lasting punishment remains, while the exception applies to those whom Allah wills to remove from it.

قَالَ النَّارُ مَثْوَاكُمْ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ

“He will say: The Fire is your place of stay, remaining therein, except what Allah wills.” (al Anʿam: 128)

This noble verse may be understood to mean that the punishment of the people of the Fire is not remaining with no end forever.

Its like is His saying, Most High:

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ شَقُوا فَفِي النَّارِ لَهُمْ فِيهَا زَفِيرٌ وَشَهِيقٌ ۝ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا مَا دَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْأَرْضُ إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ رَبُّكَ

“As for those who were wretched, they will be in the Fire. For them therein will be exhaling and inhaling, remaining therein as long as the heavens and the earth remain, except what your Lord wills.” (Hud: 106–107)

And His saying, Most High:

لَابِثِينَ فِيهَا أَحْقَابًا

“Staying therein for ages.” (al Naba’: 23)

Verses have come indicating that their punishment has no end, such as His saying:

خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا

“Remaining therein forever.” (al Nisa: 57)

The answer to this has several ways.

One of them is that His saying, Most High, “except what Allah wills,” means: except those for whom Allah wills that they will not remain forever in it, among the major sinners from the people of tawhid.

It is established in authentic hadiths that some of the people of the Fire will come out of it, and they are the major sinners from the people of tawhid. Ibn Jarir transmitted this view from Qatadah, al Dahhak (d. 105AH), Abu Sinan, and Khalid ibn Maʿdan (d. 103AH), and Ibn Jarir chose it. The most that can be said about “what” in this view is that “what” is used while “whoever” is intended. Its like in the Qur’an is:

فَانْكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ

“Then marry whatever women are pleasing to you.” (al Nisa: 3)

The second is that the period which Allah made an exception is the period between their being raised from their graves and their settling in their final place. Ibn Jarir also said this.

The third way is that His saying, “except what Allah wills,” contains brevity, while verses and authentic hadiths have come clearly saying that they will remain therein forever. Their apparent meaning is that it is remaining with no end. Apparent meaning is one of the matters by which preference is given, so the apparent is given precedence over the brief wording, as has been established in usul.

Among the answers is that “except” in Surah Hud means: besides whatever Allah wills of increase beyond the length of the duration of the heavens and the earth.

Some ulama said that the exception is upon its apparent meaning, and that a time will come upon the Fire when no one will be in it.

Ibn Masʿud said: “A time will surely come upon Hell when its gates will flap, and no one will be in it, and that is after they remain for ages.”

From Ibn Abbas: “It will consume them by the command of Allah.”

The one who wrote this, may Allah pardon him, said: what appears to me, and Allah knows best, is that this Fire in which no one remains must be understood as the level in which the sinful Muslims were, as al Baghawi (d. 516AH) stated decisively in his tafsir, because by that the proofs are reconciled. Acting upon both proofs is better than cancelling one of them.

The ulama have agreed that reconciliation is obligatory when possible. As for what many ulama from the Companions and those after them said, that the Fire will end and punishment will cease from its people, the Qur’an verses require that this is not correct. Its explanation is that the matter, by sound division, cannot be outside one of five cases, and whatever is besides them returns to them.

The first is that it is said that the Fire will end, and that their relief from punishment is because it ends.

The second is that it is said that they died while it remains.

The third is that it is said that they were brought out of it while it remains.

The fourth is that it is said that they remain in it, but the punishment is lightened for them.

As for the punishment going away completely and changing into something else, we did not mention them as separate cases, because we will establish proof negating the lightening of punishment. Negating its lightening necessarily negates its going away and its changing into something else. So we were satisfied with it, because negating it indicates negating them both. The Qur’an indicates the falsehood of all these four cases.

As for the ending of the Fire, Allah, Most High, clearly stated its absence through His saying:

كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَاهُمْ سَعِيرًا

“Whenever it dies down, We increase them in blazing flame.” (al Isra’: 97)

Allah, Most High, said:

إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ رَبُّكَ

“Except what your Lord wills.” (Hud: 107)

Regarding the remaining of the people of Paradise and the remaining of the people of the Fire. He clarified that there is no end to the remaining of the people of Paradise through His saying:

عَطَاءً غَيْرَ مَجْذُوذٍ

“A gift that is not cut off.” (Hud: 108)

And through His saying:

إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَرِزْقُنَا مَا لَهُ مِنْ نَفَادٍ

“Indeed, this is Our provision. It will never end.” (Sad: 54)

And His saying:

مَا عِنْدَكُمْ يَنْفَدُ وَمَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ بَاقٍ

“What is with you comes to an end, and what is with Allah remains.” (al Nahl: 96)

He clarified that there is no end to the remaining of the people of the Fire through His saying:

كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَاهُمْ سَعِيرًا

“Whenever it dies down, We increase them in blazing flame.” (al Isra’: 97)

So whoever says that the Fire will have a dying down after which there is no increase in blazing flame is answered by this noble verse. It is known that “whenever” requires repetition with the repetition of the action after it. Its like is His saying, Most High:

كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا

“Whenever their skins are roasted through, We replace them with other skins.” (al Nisa: 56)

As for their death, Allah, Most High, clearly stated its absence through His saying:

لَا يُقْضَىٰ عَلَيْهِمْ فَيَمُوتُوا

“It will not be decreed for them that they should die.” (Fatir: 36)

And His saying:

لَا يَمُوتُ فِيهَا وَلَا يَحْيَىٰ

“He will neither die therein nor live.” (Taha: 74)

And His saying:

وَيَأْتِيهِ الْمَوْتُ مِنْ كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَمَا هُوَ بِمَيِّتٍ

“Death will come to him from every place, but he will not die.” (Ibrahim: 17)

The Prophet ﷺ explained in the authentic hadith that death will be brought on the Day of Resurrection in the form of a white ram, then it will be slaughtered. When death is slaughtered, certainty is reached that there is no death, as the Prophet ﷺ said:

“It will be said: O people of Paradise, remaining forever and no death. O people of the Fire, remaining forever and no death.”

As for their being brought out of it, Allah, Most High, clearly stated its absence through His saying:

وَمَا هُمْ بِخَارِجِينَ مِنَ النَّارِ

“They will not come out of the Fire.” (al Baqarah: 167)

And through His saying:

كُلَّمَا أَرَادُوا أَنْ يَخْرُجُوا مِنْهَا أُعِيدُوا فِيهَا

“Whenever they want to come out of it, they will be returned into it.” (al Sajdah: 20)

And His saying:

وَمَا هُمْ بِخَارِجِينَ مِنْهَا وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُقِيمٌ

“They will not come out of it, and for them is a lasting punishment.” (al Ma’idah: 37)

As for the lightening of punishment from them, Allah, Most High, clearly stated its absence through His saying:

وَلَا يُخَفَّفُ عَنْهُمْ مِنْ عَذَابِهَا كَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي كُلَّ كَفُورٍ

“Nothing of its punishment will be lightened for them. Thus We recompense every disbeliever.” (Fatir: 36)

And His saying:

فَلَنْ نَزِيدَكُمْ إِلَّا عَذَابًا

“We will never increase you except in punishment.” (al Naba’: 30)

And His saying:

لَا يُفَتَّرُ عَنْهُمْ وَهُمْ فِيهِ مُبْلِسُونَ

“It will not be reduced for them, and they will be in despair therein.” (al Zukhruf: 75)

And His saying:

إِنَّ عَذَابَهَا كَانَ غَرَامًا

“Indeed, its punishment is ever clinging.” (al Furqan: 65)

And His saying:

فَسَوْفَ يَكُونُ لِزَامًا

“It will surely be binding.” (al Furqan: 77)

And His saying, Most High:

فَلَا يُخَفَّفُ عَنْهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يُنْظَرُونَ

“It will not be lightened for them, nor will they be given delay.” (al Nahl: 85)

And His saying:

وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُقِيمٌ

“And for them is a lasting punishment.” (al Ma’idah: 37)

It is not hidden that His saying, “It will not be lightened for them,” and His saying, “It will not be reduced for them,” are both verbs in a context of negation. The negating particle negates the verbal noun hidden in the verb, so it has the meaning: there is no lightening of punishment for them and no reduction of it.

The view that the Fire ends necessarily implies the lightening of punishment and its reduction, both of which are negated in these verses. Rather, it necessarily implies that both of them go away completely. It also necessarily implies negating the binding nature of the punishment that is stated in His saying, “It will surely be binding,” and His saying, “Indeed, its punishment is ever clinging,” and its permanence stated in His saying, “And for them is a lasting punishment.”

The apparent meaning of these verses is that the Fire does not end, and that is clearly said in His saying, “Whenever it dies down, We increase them in blazing flame.”

As for the argument of some ulama that if it were supposed that Allah informed that it will not end, this would not prevent it from ending because it is a threat, and failing to carry out a threat is from good conduct, not from bad conduct, and that Allah, Most High, mentioned that He does not break His promise but did not mention that He does not break His threat, and that the poet said:

“Indeed, if I threaten him or promise him, I break my threat but fulfil my promise.”

What appears is that it is not correct for two reasons.

The first is that it would require the permissibility that no disbeliever enters the Fire, because the report of that is a threat, and failing to carry it out, according to this view, would not be a problem.

The second is that Allah, Most High, clearly stated that His threat became due against those who denied His messengers, where He said:

كُلٌّ كَذَّبَ الرُّسُلَ فَحَقَّ وَعِيدِ

“Each denied the messengers, so My threat became due.” (Qaf: 14)

It has been established in the textual way among the ways of identifying the cause that the letter “fa” is among the letters of causation, like their saying: “He forgot, so he prostrated,” meaning, he prostrated because of his forgetfulness. And: “He stole, so his hand was cut,” meaning, because of his theft.

So His saying, “Each denied the messengers, so My threat became due,” means: the threat became necessary upon them because of their denial of the messengers. Its like is His saying, Most High:

إِنْ كُلٌّ إِلَّا كَذَّبَ الرُّسُلَ فَحَقَّ عِقَابِ

“They all denied the messengers, so My punishment became due.” (Sad: 14)

Among the clear proofs for that is Allah, Most High, clearly saying that His word will not be changed concerning what He threatened the people of the Fire with, where He said:

لَا تَخْتَصِمُوا لَدَيَّ وَقَدْ قَدَّمْتُ إِلَيْكُمْ بِالْوَعِيدِ مَا يُبَدَّلُ الْقَوْلُ لَدَيَّ وَمَا أَنَا بِظَلَّامٍ لِلْعَبِيدِ

“Do not dispute before Me, for I had already sent the threat to you. The word is not changed with Me, and I am not unjust to the servants.” (Qaf: 28–29)

Support may also be taken for that from the apparent meaning of His saying:

كَذَٰلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ ذَاقُوا بَأْسَنَا قُلْ هَلْ عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَا إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلَّا تَخْرُصُونَ

“Those before them denied in the same way, until they tasted Our might. Say: Do you have any knowledge that you can bring out to us? You only follow assumption, and you only guess.” (al Anʿam: 148)

The exact same problem appears in Surah al Zukhruf in His saying, Most High:

وَقَالُوا لَوْ شَاءَ الرَّحْمَٰنُ مَا عَبَدْنَاهُمْ مَا لَهُمْ بِذَٰلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ

“They said: If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them. They have no knowledge of that. They only guess.” (al Zukhruf: 20)

The answer is that this speech which the disbelievers said is true speech by which falsehood was intended. Allah’s declaration that they lied falls upon the falsehood they intended through this true speech.

Its explanation is that they meant: since their disbelief and disobedience occurred by the will of Allah, and if He had willed He would have prevented them from that, then His not preventing them is proof that He is pleased with their action. So Allah declared them liars in that, making clear that He is not pleased with their disbelief, as He clearly said:

وَلَا يَرْضَىٰ لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ

“He is not pleased with disbelief for His servants.” (al Zumar: 7)

The disbelievers claimed that the universal will necessarily entails pleasure, and this is a false claim. Rather, Allah wills by His universal will what He is not pleased with, due to His saying:

خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ

“Allah has sealed their hearts.” (al Baqarah: 7)

Alongside His saying:

وَلَا يَرْضَىٰ لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ

“He is not pleased with disbelief for His servants.” (al Zumar: 7)

What truly entails pleasure is only the Sharia will. Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Difficulty In His Saying: Come, I Will Recite What Your Lord Has Forbidden

قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ

“Say: Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden upon you.” (al Anʿam: 151)

This verse indicates that what he recites to them has been forbidden upon them by their Lord. So it may give the impression that the meaning of His saying:

أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا

“That you do not associate anything with Him, and that you show goodness to parents.” (al Anʿam: 151)

Is that goodness to parents and not associating partners with Him are forbidden, while the reality is the opposite of that, as is necessary.

In this noble verse there is much speech from the ulama, along with many studies and answers, which this brief writing cannot fully contain. Among them is that it is extra wording, as will come. Among them is that it means: I will make it clear to you so that you do not associate partners.

Whoever obeys Shaytan while considering it lawful is a polytheist, due to His saying:

وَإِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ

“If you obey them, then indeed you are polytheists.” (al Anʿam: 121)

Among them is that the speech is complete at His saying, “your Lord has forbidden,” and that His saying, “upon you, that you do not associate partners,” is a verbal noun connected to what comes after it, with its object being what follows.

There are other views besides that. The closest of those views to us is what the Qur’an indicates, because the best thing by which the Qur’an is explained is the Qur’an itself. That is that His saying, Most High, “I will recite what your Lord has forbidden upon you,” carries the meaning of what your Lord has instructed you with, by way of leaving and doing.

We said that the Qur’an indicates this because Allah removed this difficulty and made His intended meaning clear through His saying:

ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُمْ بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

“That is what He has instructed you with, so that you may understand.” (al Anʿam: 151)

So the meaning is: He instructed you not to associate partners. Its like from the speech of the Arabs is the saying of the poet:

“He performed Hajj and instructed a servant concerning Sulayma, that she should not see or speak to anyone.”

Among the closest views after this are two ways.

The first is that the meaning is: He makes it clear to you so that you do not associate partners.

The second is that “that” in His saying, “that you do not associate partners,” explains the forbiddance. The objection raised against this, namely that His saying:

وَأَنَّ هَٰذَا صِرَاطِي مُسْتَقِيمًا

“And that this is My straight path.” (al Anʿam: 153)

Is joined to it, and joining it to it opposes explanation, is answered by saying that joining is not definite, because it may be that the preposition is omitted. The meaning would then be: and because this is My straight path, follow it, as some held.

However, the first view is the correct one, if Allah, Most High, wills. Upon it, there is no problem in the verse at all.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Questioning On The Day Of Resurrection

فَلَنَسْأَلَنَّ الَّذِينَ أُرْسِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَنَسْأَلَنَّ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

“We will surely question those to whom messengers were sent, and We will surely question the messengers.” (al Aʿraf: 6)

This noble verse indicates that Allah will question all people on the Day of Resurrection.

Its like is His saying, Most High:

فَوَرَبِّكَ لَنَسْأَلَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ ۝ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

“So by your Lord, We will surely question them all about what they used to do.” (al Hijr: 92–93)

And His saying:

وَقِفُوهُمْ إِنَّهُمْ مَسْئُولُونَ

“Stop them. Indeed, they will be questioned.” (al Saffat: 24)

And His saying:

وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أَجَبْتُمُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

“And the Day He will call them and say: What answer did you give the messengers?” (al Qasas: 65)

Other verses have come indicating the opposite, such as His saying:

فَيَوْمَئِذٍ لَا يُسْأَلُ عَنْ ذَنْبِهِ إِنْسٌ وَلَا جَانٌّ

“On that Day, neither human nor jinn will be asked about his sin.” (al Rahman: 39)

And His saying:

وَلَا يُسْأَلُ عَنْ ذُنُوبِهِمُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ

“The criminals will not be asked about their sins.” (al Qasas: 78)

The answer to this has three ways.

The first, and it is the strongest because the Qur’an indicates it, is that questioning is of two types.

There is questioning for blame and rebuke, and its tool is usually “why.” There is also questioning for seeking information and knowledge, and its tool is usually “whether.” What is affirmed is the questioning of blame and rebuke, and what is negated is the questioning of seeking information and knowledge.

The way the Qur’an indicates this is that His questioning of them, as stated in all of it, is blame and rebuke, such as His saying:

وَقِفُوهُمْ ۝ إِنَّهُمْ مَسْئُولُونَ ۝ مَا لَكُمْ لَا تَنَاصَرُونَ

“Stop them. Indeed, they will be questioned. What is the matter with you that you do not help one another?” (al Saffat: 24–25)

And His saying:

أَفَسِحْرٌ هَٰذَا أَمْ أَنْتُمْ لَا تُبْصِرُونَ

“Is this magic, or do you not see?” (al Tur: 15)

And:

أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِنْكُمْ

“Did messengers from among you not come to you?” (al Zumar: 71)

And His saying:

أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ

“Did no warner come to you?” (al Mulk: 8)

And other verses besides that.

Allah’s question to the messengers, “What response were you given?” (al Ma’idah: 109), is to rebuke those who denied them, just as the buried infant girl will be asked:

بِأَيِّ ذَنْبٍ قُتِلَتْ

“For what sin was she killed?” (al Takwir: 9)

This is to rebuke her killer.

The second way is that on the Day of Resurrection there are many standing places. In some of them they will be questioned, and in some of them they will not be questioned.

The third way is what al Halimi (d. 403AH) mentioned: that affirming questioning is understood as referring to the questioning about tawhid and believing the messengers, while the negation of questioning is understood as referring to what acknowledgment of prophethood entails of the laws and branches of religion. What indicates this is His saying, Most High:

فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أَجَبْتُمُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

“He will say: What answer did you give the messengers?” (al Qasas: 65)

Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Difficulty In The Command To Iblis To Prostrate

قَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَلَّا تَسْجُدَ إِذْ أَمَرْتُكَ

“He said: What prevented you from not prostrating when I commanded you?” (al Aʿraf: 12)

In this verse there is a difficulty between His saying, “prevented you,” together with the negative “not.” This is because what appears suitable with His saying, “prevented you,” according to what first comes to the mind of the listener, not according to the reality of the matter, is that “not” should be omitted, so it would be said: “What prevented you from prostrating,” not “from not prostrating.”

This has been answered in several ways. Among the closest is what Ibn Jarir chose in his tafsir: that there is an omission in the speech indicated by the setting.

Upon this, the meaning is: what prevented you from prostration, so that it made you need not to prostrate when I commanded you? This is what Ibn Jarir chose, and Ibn Kathir said: “It is good and strong.”

Among their answers is that “not” is extra wording. His saying, Most High, in Surah Sad indicates this:

مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ لِمَا خَلَقْتُ

“What prevented you from prostrating to what I created?” (Sad: 75)

We previously promised that, if Allah wills, we would explain the view of extra “not” with its Arabic proofs when reconciling between His saying:

لَا أُقْسِمُ بِهَٰذَا الْبَلَدِ

“No, I swear by this city.” (al Balad: 1)

And His saying:

وَهَٰذَا الْبَلَدِ الْأَمِينِ

“And by this secure city.” (al Tin: 3)

The Apparent Contradiction Over Allah Not Commanding Immorality

قُلْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاءِ

“Say: Indeed, Allah does not command immorality.” (al Aʿraf: 28)

This noble verse may give the impression of contradicting with the apparent meaning of another verse, which is His saying, Most High:

وَإِذَا أَرَدْنَا أَنْ نُهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُوا فِيهَا

“When We intend to destroy a town, We command its wealthy ones, then they defiantly disobey therein.” (al Isra’: 16)

The answer to this has three ways.

The first, and it is the clearest, is that the meaning of His saying, “We command its wealthy ones,” is: We commanded them to obey Allah and believe the messengers, then they defiantly disobeyed, meaning by denying the messengers and disobeying Allah, Most High. So there is no problem in the verse at all.

The second way is that the command in His saying, “We command its wealthy ones,” is a universal decreed command, not a Sharia command. Meaning: We decreed upon them defiant disobedience by Our will. The universal decreed command is like His saying, Most High:

كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ

“Be apes, despised.” (al Baqarah: 65)

And:

إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ

“His command, when He intends something, is only that He says to it: Be, and it is.” (Ya Sin: 82)

The command in His saying, “Say: Indeed, Allah does not command immorality,” is a Sharia religious command. So it becomes clear that the command being negated is other than the command being affirmed.

The third way is that the meaning of “We command its wealthy ones” is: We increased their number until they became ungrateful for the blessing and defiantly disobeyed. What indicates this meaning is the hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH), raised to the Prophet ﷺ, from the hadith of Suwayd ibn Hubayrah, may Allah be pleased with him:

“The best wealth of a man is a mare with abundant offspring, or a planted row.”

His saying, “with abundant offspring,” is the place of proof.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Allah Forgetting Them

فَالْيَوْمَ نَنْسَاهُمْ كَمَا نَسُوا لِقَاءَ يَوْمِهِمْ

“So today We forget them, just as they forgot the meeting of this Day of theirs.” (al Aʿraf: 51)

And its likes from the verses, such as His saying:

نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ

“They forgot Allah, so He forgot them.” (al Tawbah: 67)

And His saying:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ الْيَوْمَ تُنْسَىٰ

“And thus today you will be forgotten.” (Taha: 126)

And His saying:

وَقِيلَ الْيَوْمَ نَنْسَاكُمْ

“It will be said: Today We forget you.” (al Jathiyah: 34)

This does not oppose His saying, Most High:

لَا يَضِلُّ رَبِّي وَلَا يَنْسَى

“My Lord neither errs nor forgets.” (Taha: 52)

And His saying:

وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا

“Your Lord is never forgetful.” (Maryam: 64)

Because the meaning of “Today We forget them” and its like is: We leave them in punishment, deprived of every good. Allah, Most High, knows best.

The Apparent Contradiction Over The Staff Of Musa عليه السلام Being Like A Great Serpent And Like A Small Snake

فَأَلْقَىٰ عَصَاهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ ثُعْبَانٌ مُبِينٌ

“So he threw down his staff, and suddenly it was a clear great serpent.” (al Aʿraf: 107)

This verse indicates the staff’s resemblance to a great serpent, and that word is only used for a large snake.

Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying, Most High:

فَلَمَّا رَآهَا تَهْتَزُّ كَأَنَّهَا جَانٌّ

“When he saw it moving as if it were a small snake.” (al Naml: 10)

Because the word here refers to a small snake.

The answer is that it was compared to a great serpent in the greatness of its creation, and to a small snake in its movement, lightness, and speed. So it combined huge size with lightness of movement, contrary to what is usual.

The Apparent Contradiction Between Fear And Tranquillity In The Hearts Of The Believers

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ

“The believers are only those whose hearts tremble when Allah is mentioned.” (al Anfal: 2)

This verse indicates that the trembling of hearts when hearing the mention of Allah is among the signs of the believers.

Another verse has come indicating the opposite. It is His saying:

الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَتَطْمَئِنُّ قُلُوبُهُمْ بِذِكْرِ اللَّهِ أَلَا بِذِكْرِ اللَّهِ تَطْمَئِنُّ الْقُلُوبُ

“Those who believe and whose hearts find rest in the mention of Allah. Surely, in the mention of Allah do hearts find rest.” (al Raʿd: 28)

The apparent contradiction between tranquillity and trembling of hearts is clear.

The answer is that tranquillity occurs through the opening of the chest by knowing tawhid, while trembling occurs when fearing deviation and departure from guidance. This is indicated by His saying, Most High:

تَقْشَعِرُّ مِنْهُ جُلُودُ الَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ ثُمَّ تَلِينُ جُلُودُهُمْ وَقُلُوبُهُمْ إِلَىٰ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ

“The skins of those who fear their Lord shiver from it. Then their skins and hearts soften to the mention of Allah.” (al Zumar: 23)

And His saying, Most High:

رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا

“Our Lord, do not let our hearts deviate after You have guided us.” (Aal Imran: 8)

And His saying, Most High:

وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْتُونَ مَا آتَوْا وَقُلُوبُهُمْ وَجِلَةٌ أَنَّهُمْ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ رَاجِعُونَ

“Those who give what they give while their hearts tremble because they will return to their Lord.” (al Mu’minun: 60)

The Apparent Contradiction Over Obeying The Messenger ﷺ Only When He Calls To What Gives Life

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ

“O you who believe, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to what gives you life.” (al Anfal: 24)

The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that responding to the Messenger, which is obeying him, is not obligatory except when he calls us to what gives us life.

Its like is His saying, Most High:

وَلَا يَعْصِينَكَ فِي مَعْرُوفٍ

“And that they do not disobey you in what is right.” (al Mumtahanah: 12)

Other verses have come indicating the obligation of following him unrestrictedly, without any condition, such as His saying:

وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا

“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you from, refrain from it.” (al Hashr: 7)

And His saying:

قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ

“Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you.” (Aal Imran: 31)

And His saying:

مَنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ

“Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (al Nisa: 80)

What appears to be the way of reconciliation, and Allah, Most High, knows best, is that the unrestricted verses make clear that he ﷺ only calls us to what gives us life from the good of this world and the Hereafter. So the condition mentioned in His saying, “when he calls you,” is always found in the call of the Prophet ﷺ because of his protection from error, as is indicated by His saying, Most High:

وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ ۝ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ

“He does not speak from desire. It is only revelation revealed.” (al Najm: 3–4)

The summary is that the verse, “when he calls you to what gives you life,” makes clear that there is no obedience except to the one who calls to what pleases Allah, and the other verses make clear that the Prophet ﷺ never calls except to that, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Allah Not Punishing Them While The Prophet ﷺ Was Among Them And While They Sought Forgiveness

Simplified answer: Allah did not punish them while the Prophet ﷺ was still among them, and He did not punish them while believers in Makkah were seeking forgiveness. Once the Prophet ﷺ left, and once the believers were separated from them, the protections were gone. Then Allah punished the disbelievers through defeat, killing, and captivity at Badr, and later by giving the Prophet ﷺ victory over Makkah.

وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَأَنْتَ فِيهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ مُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَسْتَغْفِرُونَ

“Allah would not punish them while you are among them, and Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.” (al Anfal: 33)

This noble verse indicates that the disbelievers of Makkah had two protections by which Allah kept punishment away from them.

The first was his ﷺ presence among them, because Allah does not destroy a nation while their prophet is among them.

The second was their seeking forgiveness from Allah.

His saying, Most High:

وَمَا لَهُمْ أَلَّا يُعَذِّبَهُمُ اللَّهُ وَهُمْ يَصُدُّونَ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ

“What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them, while they prevent people from al Masjid al Haram?” (al Anfal: 34)

Indicates the opposite.

The answer has four ways.

The first, and it is the choice of Ibn Jarir, which he transmitted from Qatadah, al Suddi, and Ibn Zayd (d. 182AH), is that the two protections were absent. The Prophet ﷺ left from among them as an emigrant, and their seeking forgiveness did not exist because of their persistence upon disbelief.

So the circumstantial clause means that punishment does not descend upon them while they are seeking forgiveness, if they were to seek forgiveness, nor while their prophet is present among them. However, he left from among them, and they did not seek forgiveness because of their disbelief.

It is known that the circumstantial clause is a condition for its governing factor and a description of its subject. Seeking forgiveness, for example, is a condition in the negation of punishment, but they did not fulfil the condition. So the explanation of the meaning is: Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness, if they sought forgiveness. After both matters were absent, He punished them through killing and captivity on the Day of Badr, as His saying, Most High, indicates:

وَلَنُذِيقَنَّهُمْ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ الْأَدْنَىٰ دُونَ الْعَذَابِ الْأَكْبَرِ

“We will surely make them taste the nearer punishment before the greater punishment.” (al Sajdah: 21)

The second way is that what is meant by His saying, “they seek forgiveness,” is the seeking forgiveness of the weakened believers in Makkah. Upon this, the meaning is that after he ﷺ left, the seeking forgiveness of the believers was a cause for removing worldly punishment from the disbelievers who were hastening punishment by their saying:

فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَا حِجَارَةً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ

“Then rain down upon us stones from the sky.” (al Anfal: 32)

Upon this view, seeking forgiveness is attributed to the whole of the people of Makkah, while it is true of the believers among them specifically.

The like of the verse upon this is His saying, Most High:

فَعَقَرُوا النَّاقَةَ

“So they hamstrung the she camel.” (al Aʿraf: 77)

Even though the one who hamstrung it was one of them, due to His saying, Most High:

فَنَادَوْا صَاحِبَهُمْ فَتَعَاطَىٰ فَعَقَرَ

“So they called their companion, and he took hold and hamstrung it.” (al Qamar: 29)

And His saying, Most High:

أَلَمْ تَرَوْا كَيْفَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ طِبَاقًا وَجَعَلَ الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا

“Do you not see how Allah created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon in them as a light?” (Nuh: 15–16)

Meaning, He placed the moon in the whole of them, which is true of the particular heaven in which the moon is, because He did not place a moon in every heaven.

And His saying, Most High:

يَا مَعْشَرَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنْسِ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِنْكُمْ

“O company of jinn and mankind, did messengers from among you not come to you?” (al Anʿam: 130)

Meaning, from the whole of you, which is true specifically of mankind, according to the more correct view, since there are no messengers from the jinn.

As for many ulama giving as an example for using the whole while intending some of it His saying, Most High:

يَخْرُجُ مِنْهُمَا اللُّؤْلُؤُ وَالْمَرْجَانُ

“From both of them come out pearl and coral.” (al Rahman: 22)

Claiming that the meaning of “from both of them” is from their totality, true only of the salty sea, because pearls and coral do not come out of fresh water, this is a false statement by the explicit wording of the mighty Qur’an.

Allah, Most High, clearly stated that pearl and coral are extracted from both seas where He said:

وَمَا يَسْتَوِي الْبَحْرَانِ هَٰذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ سَائِغٌ شَرَابُهُ وَهَٰذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ وَمِنْ كُلٍّ تَأْكُلُونَ لَحْمًا طَرِيًّا وَتَسْتَخْرِجُونَ حِلْيَةً تَلْبَسُونَهَا

“The two seas are not equal. This one is fresh, sweet, pleasant to drink, and this one is salty and bitter. From each you eat tender meat and extract ornaments which you wear.” (Fatir: 12)

His saying, Most High, “from each,” is an explicit text meaning both fresh and salty together, and His saying, “ornaments which you wear,” means pearl and coral.

Upon this view, Allah keeps worldly punishment away from them because of the seeking forgiveness of the believers living among them.

His saying, Most High:

وَمَا لَهُمْ أَلَّا يُعَذِّبَهُمُ اللَّهُ

“What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them?” (al Anfal: 34)

Means after the believers whose seeking forgiveness was a cause for keeping worldly punishment away had left. After they left, Allah punished the people of Makkah in this world by giving His Messenger ﷺ power over them until he conquered Makkah.

What indicates that Allah, Most High, keeps worldly punishment away from the disbelievers because of the presence of Muslims among them is what occurred in the treaty of al Hudaybiyah, as Allah, Most High, explained in His saying:

وَلَوْلَا رِجَالٌ مُؤْمِنُونَ وَنِسَاءٌ مُؤْمِنَاتٌ لَمْ تَعْلَمُوهُمْ أَنْ تَطَئُوهُمْ فَتُصِيبَكُمْ مِنْهُمْ مَعَرَّةٌ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ لِيُدْخِلَ اللَّهُ فِي رَحْمَتِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ لَوْ تَزَيَّلُوا لَعَذَّبْنَا الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا

“If not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know, that you might trample them and so incur blame because of them without knowing, so that Allah may admit into His mercy whom He wills. If they had been separated, We would have punished those who disbelieved among them with a painful punishment.” (al Fath: 25)

His saying, “If they had been separated,” means: if the disbelievers had been separated from the Muslims, We would have punished the disbelievers by giving the Muslims power over them. But We removed this worldly punishment from the disbelievers because they were not distinct from the believers, as He explained by His saying, “If not for believing men and believing women,” to the end of the verse.

Ibn Jarir transmitted this view from Ibn Abbas, al Dahhak, Abu Malik, and Ibn Abza. The summary of this view is that when the disbelievers of Makkah said:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنْ كَانَ هَٰذَا هُوَ الْحَقَّ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَا حِجَارَةً

“O Allah, if this is the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones.” (al Anfal: 32)

Allah sent down His saying, “Allah would not punish them while you are among them.” Then, when the Prophet ﷺ migrated, a group of Muslims remained in Makkah seeking forgiveness from Allah and worshipping Him. So Allah sent down: “And Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.” Then when the rest of the Muslims left Makkah, Allah, Most High, sent down:

وَمَا لَهُمْ أَلَّا يُعَذِّبَهُمُ اللَّهُ

“What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them?” (al Anfal: 34)

Meaning: what thing remains for them by which Allah would keep punishment away from them, while the Prophet ﷺ and the believers had left from among them? Upon this, the verse is like His saying:

قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ

“Fight them. Allah will punish them by your hands.” (al Tawbah: 14)

The third way is that what is meant by His saying, “while they seek forgiveness,” is the disbelievers of Makkah. Upon this, the way of combining is that Allah, Most High, keeps worldly punishment away from them because of their seeking forgiveness.

As for the punishment of the Hereafter, it will certainly fall upon them. So His saying, “Allah would not punish them,” means in this world while they seek forgiveness, and His saying, “What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them?” means in the Hereafter, while they were disbelievers in this world. Ibn Jarir transmitted this view from Ibn Abbas.

Upon this view, the action of the disbeliever benefits him in this world, as a group explained His saying, Most High:

وَوَجَدَ اللَّهَ عِنْدَهُ فَوَفَّاهُ حِسَابَهُ

“He finds Allah with him, so He gives him his account in full.” (al Nur: 39)

Meaning, He repays him for his good action in this world.

This is the clear meaning of His saying, Most High:

مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتَهَا نُوَفِّ إِلَيْهِمْ أَعْمَالَهُمْ فِيهَا

“Whoever desires the life of this world and its adornment, We will repay them fully for their deeds therein.” (Hud: 15)

And His saying, Most High:

أُولَٰئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ

“Those are the ones whose deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter.” (al Tawbah: 69)

And His saying:

وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَىٰ مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاءً مَنْثُورًا

“We will turn to whatever deeds they did and make them scattered dust.” (al Furqan: 23)

And similar verses indicate that the action of the disbeliever is invalid from its root, as Allah, Most High, explained through His saying:

حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ

“Their deeds became worthless in this world and the Hereafter.” (al Baqarah: 217)

So He made both abodes places in which their deeds are invalid and vanish. The verification of this matter will come, if Allah wills, in Surah Hud.

The fourth way is that the meaning of His saying, “while they seek forgiveness,” is: while they become Muslims. Meaning: Allah would not punish them while it had already passed in His knowledge that some of them would become Muslim and seek Allah’s forgiveness from their disbelief. Upon this view, His saying, “What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them?” refers to those for whom wretchedness had already passed, such as Abu Jahl and his companions, who were punished by being killed on the Day of Badr.

Ibn Jarir transmitted the meaning of this view from Ikrimah and Mujahid. As for what Ibn Jarir narrated from Ikrimah and al Hasan al Basri, that His saying, “What reason do they have that Allah should not punish them?” abrogates His saying, “Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness,” its falsehood is apparent, because His saying, Most High, “Allah would not punish them,” to the end of the verse, is a report from Allah that He would not punish them while they seek forgiveness. A report cannot be abrogated in Sharia by ijmaʿ of the Muslims.

The clearest of these views are the first two.

The Apparent Contradiction Over One Muslim Facing Ten Disbelievers

إِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ

“If there are among you twenty who are patient, they will overcome two hundred.” (al Anfal: 65)

The apparent meaning of this verse is that each Muslim must remain firm against ten disbelievers.

Allah, Most High, mentioned what indicates the opposite through His saying:

فَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ مِائَةٌ صَابِرَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ

“So if there are among you one hundred who are patient, they will overcome two hundred.” (al Anfal: 66)

The answer to this is that the first is abrogated by the second, as is indicated by His saying, Most High:

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّهُ عَنْكُمْ

“Now Allah has lightened for you.” (al Anfal: 66)

Knowledge is with Allah, Most High.

The Apparent Contradiction Over Loyalty To Believers Who Did Not Migrate

Simplified answer: The two verses speak about different kinds of loyalty. The loyalty denied in al Anfal: 72 refers to inheritance, or a share in spoils, for those who had not migrated. The loyalty affirmed in al Tawbah: 71 refers to support, help, and brotherhood between believers. This is why al Anfal: 72 itself says that if those believers seek help in religion, then helping them is still required.

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرُوا مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ وَلَايَتِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ يُهَاجِرُوا

“Those who believed but did not migrate, you have nothing of their loyalty until they migrate.” (al Anfal: 72)

This noble verse indicates that whoever did not migrate has no loyalty between him and the believers until he migrates.

Another verse has come from which the opposite may be understood. It is His saying, Most High:

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ

“The believing men and believing women are allies of one another.” (al Tawbah: 71)

It indicates the establishment of loyalty among the believers, and its apparent meaning is general.

The answer has two ways.

The first is that the loyalty negated in His saying, “you have nothing of their loyalty,” is the loyalty of inheritance. Meaning: you have nothing of their inheritance until they migrate. This is because the Muhajirun and Ansar inherited from one another through the brotherhood that the Prophet ﷺ placed between them. So if one of the Muhajirun died, his Ansari brother inherited from him rather than his believing brother who had not migrated. This remained until it was abrogated by His saying, Most High:

وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ

“Those related by blood are more entitled to one another.” (al Anfal: 75)

This is narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Qatadah, as Abu Hayyan (d. 745AH) and Ibn Jarir transmitted from them.

The loyalty in His saying, “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another,” is the loyalty of support, aid, cooperation, and strengthening one another, because Muslims are like a building, parts of which strengthen other parts, and like one body: when one limb suffers, the rest of the body responds to it with sleeplessness and fever.

This loyalty was not intended by the negation in His saying, “you have nothing of their loyalty,” due to His clear statement of that in the verse immediately after it:

وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ

“If they seek your help in religion, then upon you is help.” (al Anfal: 72)

So He affirmed the loyalty of support between them after His saying, “you have nothing of their loyalty.” This indicates that the loyalty negated is not the loyalty of support. Thus it becomes clear that the loyalty negated is other than the loyalty affirmed, and the problem is removed.

The second is what Ibn Kathir limited himself to, using as proof a hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad and Muslim. The meaning of His saying, “you have nothing of their loyalty,” is that you have no share in the spoils or in their fifth except in what you were present for in battle. Upon this, there is no problem in the verse.

There is nothing preventing the verse from covering all of this, so what is meant by it is negating inheritance between them, and negating their share in the spoils and the fifth.

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu

First Half of The Book Translated

Alif Lam Mim. That Book

No Doubt In The Book

Guidance For The People Of Taqwa

Indeed Those Who Disbelieved

Allah Has Sealed Their Hearts And Their Hearing

Their Example Is Like The Example Of One Who Kindled A Fire

Deaf, Dumb, Blind

Fear The Fire Whose Fuel Is People And Stones

He Is The One Who Created For You All That Is In The Earth, Then He Turned To The Heaven

Then He Turned To The Heaven And Made Them 7 Heavens

Those Who Think They Will Meet Their Lord

To The Children Of Israel: I Preferred You Over The Other Nations

When We Saved You From The People Of Pharaoh

We Sent Down Upon You Manna And Quails

Whenever A Messenger Came To You With What Yourselves Did Not Desire

Who Is More Unjust Than One Who Prevented The Masjids Of Allah

To Allah Belong The East And The West

They Said Allah Has Taken A Son

We Have Made The Signs Clear For A People Who Have Certainty

We Did Not Make The Qiblah Upon Which You Were Except So That We May Know

Do Not Say Of Those Killed In The Path Of Allah That They Are Dead

Even If Their Fathers Did Not Understand Anything And Were Not Guided

He Has Only Forbidden You Dead Meat And Blood

Those Eat Nothing In Their Bellies Except Fire

Retaliation Has Been Written For You Regarding Those Killed

It Has Been Written For You When Death Comes To One Of You, If He Leaves Wealth, The Will

Upon Those Who Can Bear It Is A Fidyah, Feeding A Poor Person

Fight In The Path Of Allah Those Who Fight You

Whoever Transgresses Against You, Then Respond Against Him With The Like Of What He Did

Whoever Among You Turns Back From His Religion And Dies While A Disbeliever

According To The Requirement Of The Principles

Do Not Marry Polytheist Women Until They Believe

Divorced Women Shall Wait By Themselves For 3 Menstrual Periods

Those Among You Who Die And Leave Wives Behind

There Is No Compulsion In The Religion

Whether You Show What Is Within Yourselves Or Hide It, Allah Will Bring You To Account For It

He Is The One Who Sent Down Upon You The Book

Let Not The Believers Take The Disbelievers As Allies Instead Of The Believers

Zakariyya Calling Upon His Lord There

I Create For You From Clay Like The Form Of A Bird

When Allah Said: O Isa, I Will Take You And Raise You To Myself

Ibrahim Was Neither A Jew Nor A Christian

Indeed Those Who Disbelieved After Their Faith, Then Increased In Disbelief

O You Who Believe, Fear Allah As He Should Be Feared

You Were On The Edge Of A Pit Of Fire, Then He Saved You From It

Allah Already Aided You At Badr While You Were Weak

When You Said To The Believers, Will It Not Be Enough For You That Your Lord Supports You With 3000 Angels?

So He Repaid You With Sorrow Upon Sorrow

If You Fear That You Will Not Be Just, Then One

Those Women Who Commit Immorality From Among Your Women

Combining Two Sisters In Marriage

If They Commit Immorality, Then Upon Them Is Half Of What Is Upon Free Women Of Punishment

Allah Wants To Make Clear To You And Guide You To The Ways Of Those Before You

Those With Whom Your Right Hands Have Made A Pledge, Give Them Their Share

They Will Not Hide Any Speech From Allah

If A Good Thing Reaches Them, They Say: This Is From Allah