1. What is the Message the Prophet is asked to convey?


2. What is the reason for such an ultimatum?

3. Why is Allah promising protection for conveying the Message?


4. Who are the unbelieving people Allah is referring to?


The exegetes selected for this study are:

Ibn Kathir


Allamah Tabataba'I


Al-Qurtubi


Go To: Our Conclusions


________________________________________



IBN KATHIR:
(Actual Text from 'Abridged' English volume 3, pages 227-231)
Allah addresses His servant and Messenger Muhammad by the title `Messenger' and commands him to convey all that He has sent him, a command that the Prophet has fulfilled in the best manner. Al-Bukhari recorded that `A'ishah said, "Whoever says to you that Muhammad hid any part of what Allah revealed to him, then he is uttering a lie. Allah said, (O Messenger! Convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord.)'' Al-Bukhari collected the short form of this story here, but mentioned the full narration in another part of his book. Muslim in the Book of Iman, At-Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i in the Book of Tafseer of their Sunans also collected this Hadith. In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that `A'ishah said, "If Muhammad hid anything from the Qur'an, he would have hidden this Ayah, (But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people while Allah had a better right that you should fear Him.)'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Az-Zuhri said, "From Allah comes the Message, for the Messenger is its deliverance and for us is submission to it.'' The Ummah of Muhammad has testified that he has delivered the Message and fulfilled the trust, when he asked them during the biggest gathering in his speech during the Farewell Hajj. At that time, there were over forty thousand of his Companions. Muslim recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that the Messenger of Allah said in his speech on that day, (O people! You shall be asked about me, so what are you going to reply) They said, "We bear witness that you have conveyed (the Message), fulfilled (the trust) and offered sincere advice.'' The Prophet kept raising his finger towards the sky and then pointing at them, saying, (O Allah! Did I convey O Allah! Did I convey).
Allah's statement, (And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.) meaning: If you do not convey to the people what I sent to you, then you have not conveyed My Message. Meaning, the Prophet knows the consequences of this failure. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah, (And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.) "It means, if you hide only one Ayah that was revealed to you from your Lord, then you have not conveyed His Message.''
Allah's statement, (Allah will protect you from the people.) means, you convey My Message and I will protect, aid and support you over your enemies and will grant you victory over them. Therefore, do not have any fear or sadness, for none of them will be able to touch you with harm. Before this Ayah was revealed, the Prophet was being guarded, as Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said that the Prophet was vigilant one night when she was next to him; she asked him, "What is the matter, O Allah's Messenger'' He said, (Would that a pious man from my companions guard me tonight!) She said, "Suddenly we heard the clatter of arms. The Prophet said, (Who is that''.) He (the new comer) replied, "I am Sa`d bin Malik (Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas).'' The Prophet asked, (What brought you here) He said, "I have come to guard you, Allah's O Messenger.'' `A'ishah said, "So, the Prophet slept (that night) and I heard the noise of sleep coming from him.'' This Hadith is recorded in Two Sahihs. Another narration for this Hadith reads, "The Messenger of Allah was vigilant one night, after he came to Al-Madinah...'', meaning, after the Hijrah and after the Prophet consummated his marriage to `A'ishah in the second year of Hijrah. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `A'ishah said, "The Prophet was being guarded until this Ayah, (Allah will protect you from the people) was revealed.'' She added; "The Prophet raised his head from the room and said; (O people! Go away, for Allah will protect me.)''' At-Tirmidhi recorded it and said,"This Hadith is Gharib.'' It was also recorded by Ibn Jarir, and Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, where he said, "Its chain is Sahih, but they did not record it.''
Allah's statement, (Verily, Allah guides not those who disbelieve.) means, O Muhammad, you convey, and Allah guides whom He wills, and misguides whom He wills. In other Ayat, Allah said, (Not upon you is their guidance, but Allah guides whom He wills,) and, (Your duty is only to convey and on Us is the reckoning.)


________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I:



(Actual Text from al-Mizan, English volume 11, pages 48-61) The meaning of the verse itself is clear. It contains an order in the form of threat to the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) to convey the message, and promises to protect him from the people. If we ponder on the verse looking at the position it has been placed in, and look at the verses preceding and following it, you will see them exposing the condition of the People of the Book and admonishing and condemning them for their various transgressions, their crossing the limit and indulging in things prohibited by Allah and their rejection of divine communications. For example, the preceding verse says: And if they had kept up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet; ... ; and the following one says: Say: "0 People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; ". . . Then ponder on the verse itself and see how its clauses are inter linked together. Now, you will be astonished, [and realize that this verse is not connected with the preceding or following verses]. Had this verse been connected to the preceding and following verses which deal with the People of the Book, it would have meant that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was ordered in extremely harsh words to deliver what Allah had revealed regarding the People of the Book; and the context would show that: what has been revealed to you from your Lord refers to what he was told to convey in the immediately following verse: Say: "0 People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; ". . . But the context of the verse itself rejects this interpretation. The clause: and Allah will protect you from the people, shows that the revealed order which the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is urged to convey is a very important one; the delivery of which would put the life of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in peril or would cause the divine religion to fail in its aim. But the Jews or the Christians did not have such a power during the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as to put his life in danger to such an extent as to justify holding back or delaying its conveyance, until Allah gives him a promise to protect him from the people if he conveys the revealed order. Even in the early days of the Prophet's hijrah to Medina the People of the Book were not in a position to put his life in danger, although the Jews were fiercely opposed to him and their active opposition ultimately led to the battle of Khaybar, etc. Moreover, this verse does not contain any tough order or any vehement word. The Prophet had delivered before that the verses, which were harder, sharper and much bitter than it for the Jews. Also, before that he was told to convey to the unbelievers of the Quraysh and the polytheists of Arabia what was more distasteful than it, e.g. the message of Tawhid (Oneness of God) and the rebuttal of idol worship. Besides, those people were more ruthless, more violent and more given to bloodshed than the Jews and other People of the Book. Hence, Allah did not use any threatening word when ordering him to convey His message, nor did He find it necessary to give him assurance of His protection. Apart from that, the verses describing the condition of the People of the Book constitute the major part of the chapter, "The Table". Therefore, this verse was certainly revealed in it; and at the time this chapter was revealed, the Jews' power was already broken, their fire had died down, and they were engulfed by the divine curse and wrath. Whenever they kindled a fire for war, Allah put it out. In this background, there was no reason for the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) to fear them regarding the divine religion. They had already entered through peace treaties in the domain of Islam and they, as well as the Christians, had agreed to pay jizyah. How could Allah talk, in this environment, about the Messenger's fear and worry in delivering the divine message to them; while he had conveyed to them messages which were much harder, and stood before them in surroundings which were more frightful and more weird. Thus, there is no room for any doubt that this verse is totally separate in its context from that of the preceding and following verses; and has no connection with them. In short, it is a single verse, which was revealed alone. The verse speaks about an order which was sent to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) the entire religion or some parts of it and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of the people in delivering that message and kept postponing it waiting for a suitable time. If there were no fear and no delaying there was no reason why he should be addressed in such a threatening way: and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message. Compare it with the verses revealed in early period of the Call none of which has any shade of threat. For example: Read in the name of thy Lord Who created... (to the end of ch.96); 0 you who are enwrapped, arise and warn (74:1 2); ... therefore, follow the right way to Him and ask His forgiveness; and woe to the polytheists (41:6), apart from other such verses. No doubt, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of the people, but he was not afraid of sacrificing his life in the cause of Allah, because his whole life and character is a rebuttal of such thinking. Moreover, Allah Himself testifies about His Messengers that they did not fear the adversaries. For example: There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute. Those who deliver the message of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear any one hut Allah; and Allah is sufficient to take account (33:38 39). Also, Allah has said concerning such situations: ... so do not fear them, and fear Me if you are believers (3:175). And He has praised a group of believers that they were not afraid of the people although the people had tried to frighten them: Those to whom the people said "Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them "; but this (only) increased their faith, and they said "Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent Protector is (He). " So they returned with favor from Allah and (His) grace; no evil touched them and they followed the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace (3:173 4). Also, it is not possible to say that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid for his life because if he were killed the divine mission was bound to perish, and for this reason he was delaying its conveyance waiting for a suitable time. But this hypothesis is patently false, because Allah says: You have no concern in the affair ... (3:128); and if they had killed the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) Allah had power to revive His mission through any means He pleased and any cause He wished. Of course, it is possible to infer from the clause: and Allah will protect you from the people, that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of the people concerning the delivery that they would accuse him [of having selfish motive], which would irreparably damage the whole fabric of conveyance. He had permission from Allah to use his discretion in such matters, and it had no connection with any fear regarding his own self. The above description makes it clear that the verse was not revealed in the early days of prophethood, as some exegetes have thought; as in that case there would be no sense in the clause: and Allah will protect you from the people; because such an interpretation would imply that Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was delaying the delivery of the divine message because he was afraid that they would kill him and it would cost him his life, or would nullify the effects of tabligh. But such a hypothesis is not tenable. Again, let us see what is the connotation of the phrase: what has been revealed to you from your Lord. Does it mean the whole religion? If so, then the clauses: and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, would mean: 0 Messenger! Deliver the religion, and if you do not deliver the religion, then you did not deliver the religion! Someone has said: The verse means: If you do not deliver the message, then you will be liable to blame for dereliction of duty and negligence of what Allah had most emphatically commanded you to do and it is in the same vein as the well known Arab poet, Abu 'n-Najm, has said: I'm Abu 'n Najm, and my poem is my poem. But this explanation is wrong; such rhetorical expressions are used regarding the general and the particular, or the unrestricted and the restricted, and such expressions allude that the both are one and the same; as Abu 'n Najm says that my poem is my poem, i.e., no one should think that my talent has now dulled, or vicissitudes of time have adversely affected my genius and robbed me of the gift of poetry; because the poem which I compose today has the same brilliance which my poems had in the past. However, this explanation cannot be applied to the divine speech: and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message. Because if it is believed that the verse was revealed in early days of prophethood, then the message the religion in its totality or the basic religion was a single unit, not changeable or alterable. Then how can it be said that if you did not deliver this message then you did not deliver that message of the basic messages; admittedly in the beginning it was the basic message that was a collection of religious cognition. It is now clear that the verse could not have been revealed in the early period of prophethood, nor can the phrase: what has been revealed to you from your Lord, point to the basic religion or totality of religion either in the early days or at any later period; because all such interpretations would render the clause: and if you do it not then you have not delivered His message, devoid of meaning and irrelevant. We should reiterate here that: If message were to refer to the basic or total religion, then the words: 0 Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, could not have been revealed except in the early days of prophethood, as is clear; And the problem would remain as before, that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of the people in delivering the divine message. Apparently, the matter which was revealed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and this verse put emphasis on its delivery was not the religion in its totality, or basic religion whatever meaning is understood from it. Therefore, we have to admit that it was a part of religion. The meaning in this case will be as follows: 0 Messenger! Deliver the particular command revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do it not, then you have not delivered Allah's message at all. According to this interpretation, "His message" means all the things that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had brought as part of religion. Otherwise, the previous trouble that the speech would be devoid of meaning - would continue. Let us put it in this way: If "His message" means this particular order, it would means: 'Deliver this order, and if you did it not, you did not deliver this message!' It is clearly absurd.



The verse therefore means: '0 Messenger! Deliver this particular command, and if you do it not, then you have not delivered the basic message or the message in its totality.' This meaning is correct and understandable and then the speech will be in the style of the poem of Abu'n Najm: I'm Abu 'n Najm, and my poem is poem. Why was this order so important that if it was not conveyed then the message was not conveyed at all? It was because religion's knowledge and commands are inter linked, inter twined with one another on all sides; if one coil is unraveled, the whole material is destructed especially in the sphere of delivery because each item is connected with all others. This supposition has no defect in itself, yet the clauses coming after it: and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people, do not fit on it. These clauses clearly show that some unbelieving people had decided to oppose this revealed command, or, seeing their tendency, they were expected to oppose it to the extreme. They would use every strategy to nullify this divine mission and neutralize it, so that it could not bring about any effect or benefit. Therefore, Allah promised His Messenger that He would protect him from them, nullify their artifice and leave them wandering in their own viles. This meaning does not fit on any revealed order whatsoever; because the religious cognition and orders in Islam are not all of them of the same importance, some are the pillars of religion, others are like the invocation on sighting the crescent, there is prohibition of adultery and that of looking at a stranger woman. The fear that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had and for which Allah promised him His protection, cannot be related to every such order; obviously it had emanated from some especial commandment. The fact, that if this commandment was not conveyed, then no other order was conveyed, shows its utmost importance, and makes it crystal clear that this particular order occupies such a central position in the whole structure that if it was left unannounced, it would amount to leaving all other orders unannounced, because its relation to other items is like that of soul with body; if it is disconnected, there would remain only a dead body, devoid of feeling, movement [and perception, etc.]. The verse thus proves that Allah had sent to his Messenger (s.a.w.a.) an order which was to complete the religion, and by which the religion would firmly settle in its proper pedestal. As such there was a danger that the people would oppose it and strive hard to overturn it against the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) aiming at demolishing the structure of religion he had built and disintegrating all its parts. The Prophet (s.a. w.a.), having intuitive knowledge of the people's nature, understood their tendency and was afraid that they would contrive to neutralize all his endeavors. Accordingly, he kept postponing its delivery from time to time, waiting for a suitable circumstances and peaceful atmosphere, in order that his mission might be successful and his endeavors fruitful. But Allah ordered him to make haste in conveying that message, showing to him its importance, and promising to protect him from the people. In this way, He assured him that He would not let their plans succeed, nor would they be able to overturn his Mission's affairs. Overturning the Prophetic Mission and negating his efforts after the spread of Islam was not possible for the polytheists and idol worshippers of Arabia or outside. In other words, it is not possible to suppose that the verse was revealed in Mecca before hijrah, and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid that the people would slander and accuse him of lying in his affairs, as Allah quotes their calumnies in the Qur'an: "One taught (by others), a madman" (44:14); "A poet, we wait for him the evil accidents of time" (52:30); "A magician or a mad man " (51:52); "You follow only a man deprived of reason " (17:47); "This is not but enchantment, narrated" (74:24); "The stories of the ancients he has got them written so these are read out to him morning and evening" (25:5); "Only a mortal teaches him. . ", (16: 103); "Go and steadily adhere to your gods, this is most surely a thing sought after" (38:6); and other such things which they used to say about him (s.a.w.a.). However, such talks could not shake the foundation of religion. They only show if they show anything the confusion and perturbation in their ideas and their crookedness. Moreover, such slanders were not reserved for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), so that he would be disturbed because of them or afraid of their appearance; in fact all the messengers and prophets were equally made targets of such afflictions and misfortunes; they all had to face such unpalatable situations from their people, as Allah has described in the stories of Nuh and the succeeding prophets who are mentioned in the Qur'an. If there was something like that and there must have been it could be imagined after the hijrah when the religion was firmly established in the Islamic society. The Muslims were then a mixed lot: There were good believers, and there were the hypocrites who were powerful and could not be under rated. Lastly there were those whose hearts were diseased whom the Mighty Book calls "the listeners". These people dealt with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) although they believed in him really or apparently like the kings are dealt with; and the divine religion in their eyes was not different from man made national laws. All this may be seen in various sets of Qur'anic verses; and some of them have already been explained in previous volumes of this book. In this background, it could possibly happen that delivery of some orders which could apparently give some advantage to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), could generate a misconception in those people's minds that he is a king in the guise of prophethood, and his shariah is the worldly law disguised as religion; as we find its evidence in some people's talk on various occasions. If this or similar doubt had entered into their hearts, it would have generated such corruption and perversion in religion which no power on earth could rectify or anyone could remove. Obviously, this revealed order which the Prophet had to deliver was of such a nature that people could think of it to be especially benefiting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and that it was particularly reserved to him without any Muslim having any part in it, like the story of Zayd, and plurality of marriages and the one fifth of the war booty, etc. However, the especial rules, if not affecting general Muslims, were not expected to create doubts in minds. For examples, permission of marriage with a woman divorced by an adopted son was not particularly reserved to him. Likewise, if marrying more than four wives were based on his own desire without permission of Allah, there was nothing to prevent him from allowing it to all Muslims. His life long conduct of giving preference to Muslims over his own self in division of wealth, etc. which came into his hands leaves no room for any doubt in such affairs. All the above elaboration makes it clear that the verse speaks about a revealed order that could create a misunderstanding that it contains a sort of personal benefit and interest for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and gives him a privilege, which the others too would have desired; and its delivery and enforcement would deprive them of its enjoyment. That is why the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of its delivery. But Allah ordered him to convey it and put utmost emphasis on this delivery, and promised to protect him from the people, telling him that his adversaries will not succeed in their machination, even if they tried. This supports the traditions, narrated by both sects, that the verse was revealed about the guardianship of 'Ali (a.s.); that Allah had sent direction to convey this commandment, but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid that the people would accuse him regarding his cousin; that was why he kept postponing its delivery until this verse was sent down; and he delivered it at Ghadir Khumm, and announced: "He whose mawla (Guardian) am I, this 'Ali is his mawla." The essentiality of the Guardianship of the affairs of the ummah for religion is clear without any doubt. Islam is a religion so comprehensive and all encompassing that it has laid down for the whole the people in all regions and for all times all fundamental gnosis, ethical principles and practical rules which cover all human movement and stillness, separately and collectively, contrary to other general legal systems. How can it be imagined that such a comprehensive system does not need a guardian who should protect and preserve it properly. Or, can it be said that of all the human societies, only the Muslim ummah and Islamic society is so self sufficient that it does not need any ruler to manage its affairs and look after its interests. What excuse can be offered to a research scholar who looks at the social system established by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and finds that whenever he went out of Medina, he invariably always put a man in his place to manage the society. He had appointed 'Ali in his place in Medina at the time of going forth to Tabuk; 'Ali said: "0 Messenger of Allah! Are you leaving me among the women and children?" The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said: "Well, are you not pleased that you should be to me as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no prophet after me?" And the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to appoint governors in all towns, which were in the hands of the Muslims, e.g., Mecca, Taif and Yemen, etc. Likewise, he appointed people at the head of expeditions and battalions, which he used to send around. And what difference is there between his lifetime and after his death? Rather the essentiality of such appointment is more emphatic for the time after his departure from this world; and the need of such a ruler at that time is more and more pressing. Allah's saying: 0 Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord: The order is addressed to the Messenger, as it is the most appropriate attribute to the conveying the divine order, which was revealed. It is a sort of proof that the delivery mentioned in the verse is obligatory and compulsory; because the only function of a messenger is to convey the message he is entrusted with. In other words, the office of Messengership obligates him to deliver the message. The verse does not elaborate what was revealed to him from his Lord. It alludes to it just as a thing revealed to him. This vagueness points to the greatness of that message, and shows that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had no hand in it, nor did he have any authority in his own affairs. It would be another proof that he (s.a.w.a.) had no power or discretion to keep the order secret and postpone its conveyance from this time to that. It also provided him with an excuse that he had been obligated to deliver this order; and showed that he was perfectly justified in fearing the people in this respect; but at the same time indicated that this important order had to be announced by him, in his own words, through his own tongue. Allah's saying: and if you do it not, then you have not delivered his message: Some reciters have read, "his messages" in plural. In any case, it means the totality of the messages that was sent by Allah to His Messenger (s.a.w.a.). We have explained above that this clause shows the utmost importance of the order alluded to; and that it enjoyed such a dignity and position that if it was not conveyed then it would be as if no message was ever delivered by him.



The speech is constructed as a threat; and in reality it connotes the importance of the order if this one order was not conveyed to the people and its implications were not preserved, it would be as though no other part of religion was ever conveyed. It is a conditional sentence, to show the importance of the conditional clause; that its subordinate clause depends totally on the principle one for its existence. This conditional sentence is not like such sentences found in our speech. We use conditional sentences because we do not know whether the principle clause would lake place, bringing about with it the subordinate clause. But far be it from the position of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that the Qur'an should imply that it was not sure whether the Prophet would convey or not the revealed message. And Allah says: Allah best knows where He places His message (6:124). In short, this sentence apparently contains a threat, but in fact it makes it known to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and other people the utmost importance of the order and that the Messenger had no power to delay its delivery. Allah's saying: and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people: ar Raghib has said: "al 'Asm means to take hold; and al i'tisam is to adhere. al-'Isam is strap, that which is used for binding; the prophets enjoy 'ismah i.e. Allah protects them, first through the pure nature which is reserved for them; then through the physical and psychological virtues which He has bestowed upon them. Then through helping them and keeping their feet firm [on righteousness]; then by sending tranquility upon them and protecting their hearts, and finally through tawfiq (= divine help); Allah says: "and Allah will protect you from the people". And al 'ismah is like bracelet, and al-mi'sam is wrist, the part of hand where it is worn; the wrist's whiteness is called 'ismah, likening it to bracelet, as the whiteness of foot is called tahjil (wearing anklet); in the same vein they say, a'sam (white footed) crow [i.e. rare]." Allamah Tabataba'I says: The explanation given above of the prophets' 'ismah is good, there is no objection to it; but those meanings cannot be applied to the verse under discussion: and Allah will protect you from the people; if we were to apply it, it may be applied to the verse: ... and they shall not harm you in any way, and Allah has revealed to you the Book and the Wisdom, and He has taught you what you did not know, and Allah's grace on you is very great (4:113). As for the clause: and Allah will protect you from the people, the verb, ya'sim, in it apparently denotes protection and safety from the people's evil which they aimed at the noble person of the Prophet, or his religious objectives or at the success of his Call and the triumph of his endeavors in short, any connotation appropriate to his sacred office. However, looking at the usage of this word, we find that it actually means holding fast and clutching. Therefore, its use in the meaning of protection is based on allusion, because protection necessitates holding it fast. Protection from the people is unrestricted and general. It does not say from which type of machination of the people the Prophet shall be protected. Does it point to their transgression and endeavors to harm him in body, like murder, poisoning, or assassination? Or through speech, like abusing and slandering? Or through some other devices, like disrupting his affairs one way or another through treachery, deception and double dealing? In short this non identification of things protected against, implies a sort of generalization; yet the context confines it to their evil that could have disrupted and destroyed what he had built and raised of the structure of religion. "The people" refers to all human beings, without looking at any specialty, be it natural and in field of creation, like masculinity and femininity, or otherwise, like knowledge, virtues, and richness, etc. That is why it is seldom used for other than a group; and for this very reason, it often points to virtuous human beings if the virtue spoken of has some relation with humanity, as Allah says: And when it is said to them: "Believe as the people have believed" [2:13] i.e. those in whom meaning of humanity is found, and it is by which truth is perceived and distinguished from falsity. Also, sometimes it denotes a sort of vileness and downfall in circumstances. This happens when the subject of talk is a thing in which some such human virtues are contemplated which are extraneous to the basic theme of the species, as Allah says: ... but most people do not know (30:30). Or, as you may say: Don't put trust in the people's promises; or, don't seek help from their masses. In the above clauses, you want to express the idea that trust or appeal to help should be placed in virtuous people who have natural disposition to fulfill their undertakings and to remain firm on their stand; that you should not trust such people who are merely called humans, without any praise or blame being attached to them; [especially] when the main theme does not indicate any merit or demerit other than the basic meaning of humanity, as Allah says: 0 you people! Surely We have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may recognize each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious;… (49:13). Probably, the word: "the people", in the clause: "and Allah will protect you from the people", points to the multitude of people which encompasses believers and hypocrites and those whose hearts are diseased; all of them are mixed together without any distinction. Therefore, if there is a cause to fear them, all of them combined will be feared. Probably the clause: "surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people," points to it. This clause explains the reason of the preceding one: "and Allah will protect you from the people"; it has been described earlier that the verse was revealed after hijrah when the Islam had gained upper hand in Arabia, and most of the people had apparently entered into the fold of Islam, although there were among them the hypocrites and those whose hearts were diseased. Therefore, the phrase: "unbelieving people" denotes those who were mingled with the general public, who were not called "unbelievers" yet the characteristics of disbelief had taken root in their hearts. And through this clause, Allah has given assurance that He will nullify their machinations and protect His Messenger from their evil. Also, it seems clear that in this clause, disbelief, means disbelieving in one of the commandments of Allah, i.e. the order to which the phrase: what has been revealed to you from your Lord, points; it is the same style that has been used in the verse of Hajj: ... and whoever disbelieves, then surely Allah is Self sufficient (independent) of the worlds (3:97). In any case, the context of the verse does not allow taking "disbelief" in the meaning of rejection of the two testimonies. Such views can only be considered if we take: what has been revealed to you from your Lord, as referring to the sum total of all the revealed messages, but you have seen that this interpretation has no leg to stand upon. The statement that Allah will not guide the disbelievers, means that He will not guide them in their treachery and machinations, and will prevent usual causes to submit to them when they proceed to their objectives of evil and mischief. It is like the verses: ... surely Allah does not guide the transgressing people (63:6); ... and Allah does not guide aright the unjust people (2:258). Detailed discussion on this subject may be seen in volume two of this book.


It is certainly not correct to say that the non guidance here means not guiding them to correct faith, because it goes against the basic concept of Divine Call. How can Allah tell His Messenger: You call them to Allah, or, invite them to obey the divine command, but I will not guide them to it, except for the purpose of completing the proof against them! Moreover, we see with our own eyes that Allah guides a lot of unbelievers to faith, and continues to do so every day; and He Himself has said: ... and Allah guides whom He pleases to the straight path (2:213). Now, it is crystal clear that not guiding the unbelievers means that Allah does not let them achieve their goal of negating the word of truth and extinguishing the light of the revealed commandments. The unbelievers as well as the unjust people and the transgressors, under the influence of their sinister minds and erroneous views, want to change the custom of Allah, which encompasses the whole creation. They intend to divert the proceedings of true causes (which are free from stigma of disobeying the Lord of the universe) towards their own false goals and wicked destinations. But their formal powers can never debilitate Almighty Lord. Let them ponder on this question. Who has put these powers in their body? The only answer is: Allah. [How can these powers overpower their Creator?] They might occasionally succeed in their endeavors and obtain for a short time what they want, but soon all this is turned upside down and their trickery turns against themselves: ... and the evil plan does not beset any save the authors of it ... (35:43); ... thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it remains in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables (13:17) Accordingly, the clause: "surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people", elaborates the preceding one: "and Allah will protect you from the people", putting some limitation on its generality. The protection then means that Allah will protect him (s.a.w.a.) so that the people do not inflict any harm on him before he achieves his objectives of delivering this order and announcing it to the ummah. For example, He will not let them kill him before he conveys the message; they would not be able to rise against him or overturn his affairs, or accuse him of such matters which would make the believers go out of his religion, or affect such devices which would destroy and annihilate this shari'ah. Nay, Allah will certainly make the word of truth victorious, and establish the religion as He pleases, wherever He pleases and whenever He pleases. Allah says: If He pleases, He can make you pass away, 0 people! And bring others; and Allah has the power to do this (4:133). However, the verse: "and Allah will protect you from the people", cannot be taken to imply a general and all encompassing protection from all and every trouble and harm; because such a view is rebutted by the Qur'an, the hadi th and accepted history. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had to suffer from his people be they believers, unbelievers or hypocrites such misfortunes, tribulations and multifarious afflictions and grievances which nobody could ever bear except the noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.); and he has said in a famous hadith: "No prophet was ever harmed like I have been."

Summary: (al-Mizan, volume 11, pages 48-61)


Qur'an: O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord: The address: "O Messenger" is a proof that the delivery mentioned is obligatory - in other words the office of the Messengership obligates him (the Prophet) to deliver the Message. The verse alludes to just the thing revealed to him and thus the vagueness points to the greatness of the Message.


Qur'an: and if you do not, then you have not delivered His Message: "His Message" points to the totality of the Messages that was sent by Allah to His Messenger. The order mentioned before this sentence enjoyed a high position such that if it were not conveyed then it would be as if no Message was ever delivered by him. The sentence is conditional to show the importance of the order: that the totality of the Messages depends on the principle Message for its existence. The Qur'an however does not imply that it was not sure whether the Prophet would convey the Message or not. In short, the sentence makes it known to the Prophet and other people that the Messenger had no power to delay its delivery.


Qur'an: and Allah will protect you from the people; Surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people: As for the clause "and Allah will protect you from the people", the verb ya'sim denotes protection and safety from the people's evil which they aimed at the noble person of the Prophet. Looking at the usage of the word, it actually means holding fast and clutching. Protection from people is unrestricted and general - it does not say from which type of machination of the people the Prophet shall be protected. And the clause "The People" refers to all human beings without looking at any particular group of people. It probably also points to the multitude of people which encompasses believers and hypocrites and those whose hearts are diseased. The clause "Surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people" explains the reason of the preceding one "and Allah will protect you from the people". The phrase "unbelieving people" denotes those who were mingled with general public who were not called unbelievers yet the characteristics of disbelief had taken root in their hearts. The statement that Allah will not guide the unbelieving people means that He will not guide them in their treachery and machinations. However, the clause "and Allah will protect you from the people" does not imply a general and all encompassing protection from all and every trouble; because the Qur'an, the hadith and accepted history rebut such a view. In short, the verse speaks about a message (revealed order) that could create a misunderstanding that it contains a sort of personal benefit and interest for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and gives him a privilege, which the others too would have desired; and its delivery and enforcement would deprive them of its enjoyment. That is why the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid of its delivery. But Allah ordered him to convey it and put utmost emphasis on this delivery, and promised to protect him from the people, telling him that his adversaries will not succeed in their machination, even if they tried. This supports the traditions, narrated by both sects, that the verse was revealed about the guardianship of 'Ali (a.s.); that Allah had sent direction to convey this commandment, but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was afraid that the people would accuse him regarding his cousin; that was why he kept postponing its delivery until this verse was sent down; and he delivered it at Ghadir Khumm, and announced: "He whose mawla (Guardian) am I, this 'Ali is his mawla."


________________________________________


AL-QURTUBI:


(Translated from the Arabic)


Qur'an: O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord, for if thou do it not, thou wilt not have conveyed His Message: It has been said that its meaning is to reveal the propagation, because in the beginning of Islam he (the Prophet) used to hide it out of fear from the Mushrikeen (idolaters); then, Allah has ordered him to reveal it in this verse. And Allah made him to know that He will protect him from the people. Omar (RA) was the first who revealed his Islam and said: " we do not worship Allah in secret." And in that, the verse "O Prophet! Allah is Sufficient for thee and those who follow thee of the believers" [Al-Anfal : 64] was revealed. And the verse has answered those who said: " the Prophet has hidden some things from religion out of taqqiah (dissimulation), and the verse has disproved this claim, and those (who claimed as such) were the "Rafiddah". And, the verse proves that the Prophet (pbuh) did not tell in secret anything to anyone about matters relating to religion, because of the literal meaning (of the verse) "make known that, which has been revealed unto thee". And if it was not for that, then " if thou do it not, thou wilt not have conveyed his message" would not have any use. And it has also been said: "make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord" (was revealed) concerning Zainab bint Jahsh Al-Asadiah (RA). And different opinions have been said (about this). The correct (meaning) is "al qawl bil Omoom." Ibn Abbas has said: " the meaning is convey everything that has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you have kept some to yourself, then you have not conveyed his message." And this is a way of teaching the prophet, and teaching the carriers of knowledge from his Ummah so that they do not hold any knowledge of the shari'a to themselves. And Allah has knowledge that his Prophet would not hold anything from his revelation. And in Sahih Muslim, from the authority of Masrooq, that A'ishah said: " whoever tells you that Mohamed (pbuh) held something from revelation, then he is lying." And Allah says: "O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord, for if thou do it not, thou wilt not have conveyed his message." And may Allah damn the Rafiddahs who say that the prophet has kept something from what has been revealed to himself while people were in need of (the Message). The people of Madinah have read (the word) "Risalatih" as plural, and Abu Amr and the people of Kufa have read the word "Risalatih" as singular. Al Nahas said that both ways of reading are good, but the plural (reading) is more correct. That is because the revelation was revealed to the prophet some at a time, and then he would explain it to people and (therefore) singular could mean plural. It is like a root and the (word) root usually cannot be pluralized and cannot be used to mean two for example in verse Ibrahim: 34. Qur'an: And Allah will protect thee from the people And this is evidence of his (Muhammad's) prophethood because Allah told him that he is infallible, and whomever Allah has made infallible, then it will not be acceptable that he left (has not conveyed) some of what Allah has ordered him. The reason for the revelation of this verse is that the Prophet was (resting) under a tree and a beduin came and took his sword out and said to the Prophet: "who can stop me from getting you?" The Prophet said "Allah." The beduin's hand was frightened and the sword fell from his hand, and he hit a tree with his head until his brain smashed. This has been narrated by Al-Mahdawi; and Al Qathi 'Aiath in his book Al-Shifa said: "This story has been narrated in the Sahihs, and that Gawara bin Al-Harith is the one mentioned in the story, and that the Prophet has pardoned him. He went to his people and told them that he has came from the best of people; this has been previously talked about in this Surah in the verse "when a people had determined to stretch forth their hands towards…" (5:11). It is also mentioned in the chapter of Women when speaking on the prayer of fear. Also in Sahih Muslim, from Jabir bin Abdullah that he said: we have fought with the Prophet a Gazwa before Najd and the Prophet came to us in a valley full of harm and he (the prophet) went under a tree and hung his sword on a branch, while people had spread in the valley shaded with trees, and the prophet said: "a man came to me while I was asleep and took my sword, so I woke up and he was standing over my head, and with the sword in his hands said " who will stop me from getting you?" I said: "Allah." Then he said the second time. " Who will stop me from getting you?" I said: "Allah" so he released the sword and sat there. Then the prophet did not harm him. Ibn Abbas said, that the prophet said: "when Allah has sent me with His message it overwhelmed me and I knew that some people thought of me as a liar so Allah has revealed this verse." And Abu Talib used to send a man from Banu Hashim to the Prophet everyday to protect him until the verse "Allah will protect you from the people" was revealed. Then the prophet said: "O' uncle, Allah has protected me from Jinn and Humans so I do not need anyone to protect me." I (Al-Qurtubi) say: "this would imply that this occurance was in Mecca, and the verse is therefore Meccan." However, this is not correct as it was earlier mentioned that the verse is agreed by all to be revealed in Madinah. And what proves that this verse is Madaniah is what Muslim has narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Ai'shah that she said: "The Prophet stayed up late in Madinah one night and said: 'I wish a good man from my companions would protect me this night.' She said: and while we were at that, we heard a sound of a weapon; the prophet said 'who is it?' He said: 'Sa'ad bin Aby Waqqas.' The Prophet told him 'what has brought you?' He said: 'I was afraid that harm would touch the Prophet so I came to protect him', so the prophet prayed for him and went to sleep. And in other places (other than the Sahihs) she said: "while we were… we heard a sound of a weapon, He (the Prophet) said: 'who is it?' They said: 'Sa'ad and Huthafa", we came to protect you. So the prophet went to sleep and this verse was revealed. And then the prophet said 'leave people, Allah has protected me.' " Qur'an: Lo! Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk. It means (Allah) does not guide them, as it was previously mentioned. And it was said: "you propagate and leave guidance for us" like in verse "The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message)." [5:99] ________________________________________


OUR CONCLUSIONS:


Ibn Kathir in the beginning gives us the idea that the Prophet is asked to convey the complete Message of Islam that was sent to him but the verse itself is vague and does not say if the Message is a particular one or the complete Message. He also gives us the impression, by his comment: "…commands him to convey all that He (Allah) has sent to him" - that the Prophet had not conveyed a major portion of the entire Message at the time this verse was sent down. This is refutable because it is believed that this verse was revealed after the last Hajj and most of the message including Salah, Hajj, Fasting, Jihad, Khums and Zakat, etc had already been revealed and hence it is not possible that the Prophet had not conveyed a major portion of the entire Message. We also see no evidence in the Prophet being addressed 'O Messenger' to mean that the Message in this verse means all that Allah has sent to him. Ibn Kathir quotes the end part of the Prophet's address during his last pilgrimage to Mecca to show that the ummah has testified that the Prophet has fulfilled his duty. The Prophet actually addressed the returning pilgrims at a place called Ghadeer Khum during his journey back to Medina after the farewell pilgrimage. However, Ibn Kathir has not quoted the complete address of the Prophet (based on the abridged version) and we know that both the sects have accepted this tradition of the Prophet's address to be authentic. One cannot accept his explanation based on the last part of the address unless the whole address is presented for scrutiny. We don't know if this is intentional but one would think that perhaps the Prophet's address: "O Allah! Did I convey O Allah! Did I convey" has its import from the other part of the speech at Ghadeer. His explanation of the sentence, And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message is implying that Allah is simply stating the rule of delivering His Message but the verse is clearly an order! In addition, such a conditional sentence should have some significance of some sort of the actual Message that the Prophet is commanded to convey. The tradition of ibn 'Abbas that he quotes actually does give an indication that what the Prophet is commanded to convey is indeed an important revealed Message but Ibn Kathir failed to capitalize on that tradition. Also, his explanation of the clause, Allah will protect you from the people seems to imply that Allah had not protected him until this verse was revealed or, all this time the Prophet was not sure if Allah was protecting him! This is rejected because one cannot imagine that Allah would leave His honored Prophet unprotected at any time. In short, Ibn Kathir has relied heavily on traditions and what is apparent from the verse itself and has left the questions asked in the beginning unanswered! Allamah Tabataba'I has done a very systematic and comprehensive exegesis of this verse as one can witness that initially he refutes the understandings of some exegetes who have explained this verse not conforming to its context. This is important as it gives us the background of his final explanation. The fact that he does not use extraneous sources to explain this verse is truly in keeping with the principle of the Qur'an: "The Qur'an should be able to explain itself". The most profound part of his exegesis of this verse is when he clearly shows from its context that the Prophet had delayed the conveyance of a particular order because it contained a sort of personal benefit and interest for himself, a privilege that the others too would have desired. This understanding is also evident from the clause: "And Allah will protect you from the people". Another important point mentioned in his work is that the 'revealed message' occupies a central position in the entire fabric of Islam. The way he explains this relationship is truly incredible! He says, the relationship of this message to Islam is like the relationship of the soul to the body; without the soul, the body is regarded as dead. This point is self evident by the conditional statement contained in the verse: "And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message". Also, his explanation of the word "Risalatih" to mean the entire Message that forms the complete religion of Islam is very impressive. The most exciting part of his style of exegesis is when he demonstrates how a certain explanation is either approved or rejected by the context of the verse itself. In other words, he shows us how the Qur'an is able to explain itself! In the end, Tabataba'I quotes several traditions (not included here because of the length of the article) and shows how the tafseer supports some of them. The most important tradition is of course the event of Ghadeer, which has been narrated by both the sects. That the verse talks about the Guardianship of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, the cousin and son in-law of the Prophet, is certainly supported by its context and nature; and this is not based on any biased or personal opinions. In our honest opinion, Tabataba'i has not only answered all the questions asked in the beginning of this study but he has also revealed to us the importance and the art of understanding the Qur'anic verses by the style of his exegesis. Al-Qurtubi, in explaining the sentence "Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord" has depended too much on what others have said about it and it appears that the little that he has commented on this verse, has its import from all these extraneous sources; but we have said in the beginning that the Qur'an should be explained using the Qur'an. According to our opinion, Al-Qurtubi makes a blunder by saying that Omar was the first who revealed his Islam; because such a statement can imply that Omar was better than the Prophet! The most confusing part of the explanation of the above sentence is that in the beginning he seems to agree that the Prophet used to hide the 'propagation' out of fear from the Mushrikeen (idolaters) and in the later part he says that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not hold anything from the revelation, quoting several traditions. We find it hard to discern what is his actual argument! Or is he simply trying to tell us what others have said? There is nothing wrong in mentioning what others have said about any verse if it is done with the intent of showing whether the context of the verse approves or rejects such opinions. This particular task has not been undertaken by Al-Qurtubi as far as this verse is concerned; unless the word 'tafseer' to him meant explaining the verses of the Qur'an by quoting what others have said about it. Further, if the verse is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Madinah, then his explanation of the sentence "And Allah will protect thee from the people" and the circumstances of its revelation do not make sense at all. It is also very hard to accept, due to the emphatic nature of the verse, that this verse was revealed on account of the incident between the Prophet and the man (Gawara bin Al-Harith) who drew the sword. In our conclusions on the tafseer work of Ibn Kathir, we mentioned that it is not possible that Allah should not protect His honored Prophet at any time. Therefore the sentence "And Allah will protect thee from the people" should have a significant implication and so far we have seen that only Allamah Tabataba'I has addressed this particular issue in a clear and decisive manner! However we should mention here that al-Qurtubi's explanation of the word 'Risalatih' to mean "Messages" seems quite reasonable although it should not imply that the Prophet had withheld the conveyance of several Messages. The meaning explained by Allamah Tabataba'I i.e. it means "the religion in its totality" makes more sense with the context of the verse (see our conclusions). The explanation by al-Qurtubi does not completely justify the reason for such a conditional statement contained in the verse. Finally, a discerning reader will agree that the questions that arise from the verse 5:67 have not been addressed nor answered in any way in the tafseer work of al-Qurtubi. In short, It is reasonable to conclude that these two exegetes, Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi, living in the 13th century, had much in common in their respective tafseer work. IN THE NAME OF GOD THE ALL MERCIFUL, THE EVER MERCIFUL "Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood ,and flesh of swine , and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked , and the strangled (animal )and that beaten to death , and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn , and that which wild beasts have eaten , except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression .This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion , so fear them not, and fear me .This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion ; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfuilly to sin , then surely Allah is Forgiving , Merciful."


Questions:


1. Were these two sentences (This day have those who disbelieve...and This day have I perfected for you your religion...) revealed at the same time as the preceding and following speeches?


2. Which day does the clause "This day" refer to?


3. How did the disbelievers despair of the Muslims' religion?


4. What does 'perfection of religion' and 'completion of favor' point to?


The exegetes selected for this study are:

Ibn Kathir

Allamah Tabataba'I

Sayyid Maududi

Go To: Our Conclusions ________________________________________


IBN KATHIR: (Actual text 'Abridged' English volume 3, pages 92-95) Allah said, (This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means, "They gave up hope that Muslims would revert to their religion.'' This is similar to the saying of `Ata' bin Abi Rabah, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan. This meaning is supported by a Hadith recorded in the Sahih that states, "Verily, Shaytan has given up hope that those who pray in the Arabian Peninsula, will worship him. But he will still stir trouble among them.” It is also possible that the Ayah negates the possibility that the disbelievers and Shaytan will ever be like Muslims, since Muslims have various qualities that contradict Shirk and its people. This is why Allah commanded His believing servants to observe patience, to be steadfast in defying and contradicting the disbelievers, and to fear none but Allah. Allah said, (So fear them not, but fear Me) Meaning, `do not fear them when you contradict them. Rather, fear Me and I will give you victory over them, I will eradicate them, and make you prevail over them, I will please your hearts and raise you above them in this life and the Hereafter.' Allah said, (This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion) This, indeed, is the biggest favor from Allah to this Ummah, for He has completed their religion for them, and they, thus, do not need any other religion or any other Prophet except Muhammad. This is why Allah made Muhammad the Final Prophet and sent him to all humans and Jinn. Therefore, the permissible is what he allows, the impermissible is what he prohibits, the Law is what he legislates and everything that he conveys is true and authentic and does not contain lies or contradictions. Allah said: “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice” meaning, it is true in what it conveys and just in what it commands and forbids. When Allah completed the religion for Muslims, His favor became complete for them as well. Allah said, “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” meaning, accept Islam for yourselves, for it is the religion that Allah likes and which He chose for you, and it is that with which He sent the best of the honorable Messengers and the most glorious of His Books. Ibn Jarir recorded that Harun bin `Antarah said that his father said, "When the Ayah, “This day, I have perfected your religion for you...” was revealed, during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah, the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah) `Umar cried. The Prophet said, `What makes you cry' He said, `What made me cry is that our religion is being perfected for us. Now it is perfect, nothing is perfect, but it is bound to deteriorate.' The Prophet said, “You have said the truth.'' What supports the meaning of this Hadith is the authentic Hadith, "Islam was strange in its beginning and will return strange once more. Therefore, Tuba for the strangers.” Imam Ahmad recorded that Tariq bin Shihab said, "A Jewish man said to `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `O Leader of the Believers! There is a verse in your Book, which is read by all of you (Muslims), and had it been revealed to us, we would have taken that day (on which it was revealed) as a day of celebration.' `Umar bin Al-Khattab asked, `Which is that verse' The Jew replied, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you...” `Umar replied, `By Allah! I know when and where this verse was revealed to Allah's Messenger . It was the evening on the Day of `Arafah on a Friday.''' Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith through Al-Hasan bin As-Sabbah from Ja`far bin `Awn. Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. In the narration collected by Al-Bukhari in the book of Tafsir, through Tariq, he said, "The Jews said to `Umar, `By Allah! There is a verse that is read by all of you (Muslims), and had it been revealed to us, we would have taken that day (on which it was revealed) as a day of celebration.' `Umar said, `By Allah! I know when and where this verse was revealed and where the Messenger of Allah was at that time. It was the day of `Arafah, and I was at `Arafah, by Allah.'' Sufyan (one of the narrators) doubted if Friday was mentioned in this narration. Sufyan's confusion was either because he was unsure if his teacher included this statement in the Hadith or not. Otherwise, if it was because he doubted that the particular day during the Farewell Hajj was a Friday, it would be a mistake that could not and should not have come from someone like Sufyan Ath-Thawri. The fact that it was a Friday, is agreed by the scholars of Sirah and Fiqh. There are numerous Hadiths that support this fact that are definitely authentic and of the Mutawatir type. This Hadith was also reported from `Umar through various chains of narration.

________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I

(Actual text from al-Mizan, volume 9, pages 227-247)


Qur’an: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. The positioning of this speech in the midst of this verse, and then its connotation are truly amazing. If you ponder on the beginning of this verse, that is: ¬Forbidden to you is that which dies itself, and blood…that is a transgression, and then join to it the end part, but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful, you will see that it is a complete sentence and does not depend for completion of its meaning and explanation of its theme to this part of the verse at all. If you take out these sentences, then the remaining part will perfectly correspond with previously revealed verses in the chapters, “Cattle”, “The Bee” and “The Cow”, which give the list of the forbidden items. The verse in the chapter of “The Cow” says: He has forbidden to you what dies itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked; but whoever is forced (to it), not revolting, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (2:173). Similar wordings are found in the chapters of “Cattle” and “The Bee”. It is clear that the Divine words, “This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion…” is a parenthetical speech placed in the midst of this verse, yet the main verse does not depend on it for its exposition or explanation. We may say that this speech was actually revealed in the middle of this verse separating the preceding part from the following one; or that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself ordered the scribes to put this speech in this place even though it had no connotation with this verse, and was not even revealed at the same time; or that the compilers put it in this place at the time of compilation although both the parts were revealed at totally different times. None of these probabilities can affect the view we have just mentioned that it is a parenthetical speech. This view is strengthened by the fact that most, if not all the traditions describing the reason of its revelation – and there are a lot of such traditions – particularly talk about the words of Allah, “This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion…”, without hinting even once to the beginning of the verse, that is: Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself…This proves that the Divine words, “This day have those who disbelieve…”, were independently revealed and have no connection with the preceding or the following verses. Thus, the present positioning of this speech in the middle of the verse will have to be attributed either to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) or to the compilers of the Qur’an after him. A tradition in ad-Durru ‘l-manthur somewhat supports this view. It is narrated from ‘Abd ibn Hamid from ash-Sha’bi that he said, “This verse: This day I have perfected for you your religion…, was revealed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) while he was in ‘Arafat, and when any verses much pleased him, he used to put them in the beginning of the chapter.” He also said, “Jibril used to teach him how to do it.” The two sentences, that is: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion…, and: This day have I perfected for you your religion…, have identical themes and no one can have any doubt that the meaning of both are connected with each other. There is very close connection between the despairing of the disbelievers from the Muslims’ religion and the perfection of the Muslims’ religion; both connotations are joined together in a single theme, both sentences are interconnected and their sides are combined with one another. Add to it the singularity of context in these two sentences. Further support of this view can be found in the convention of the ancient and modern exegetes – right from the companions of the Prophet and their followers to our contemporaries in these days. All of them take the two sentences jointly as if one completes the other. This unanimous way of explanation shows that all of them believed that these two sentences were revealed together and both of them jointly describe one meaning. It appears from the above that this parenthetical verse: “This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion…”, and: chosen for you Islam as a religion, is a single speech and its parts are inter-connected and the whole speech leads to a single theme which is reflected in the two sentences jointly. It makes no difference whether we say that this speech is connected with the preceding and following sentences or not. The two sentences will remain as one speech; they can never be treated as two talks having two separate aims. Also, it is clear that the word “this day” repeated in both sentences refers to a single day when the believers were despaired and the religion was perfected.


To which day does the adverb, “this day”, refer in these two sentences?


1. Does it refer to the time when the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was commanded to call the people to Islam? Does it mean that Allah sent to you the Islam, perfected the religion for you, and completed His favors on you and made the disbelievers despaired of your religion?


COMMENT: It cannot be. The context shows that the Muslims already had a religion which the disbelievers were eager to change or destroy altogether, while the Muslims were afraid of them concerning their religion, but Allah deprived the disbelievers of their nefarious goal and made the Muslims secure and safe; that religion was imperfect and Allah made it perfect on that day and completed His favors on them. But the Muslims had no religion of their own before the advent of Islam, so, where was the question of the disbelievers having some hope of destroying that religion or of Allah perfecting it and completing His favors on them? Moreover, if that interpretation is taken seriously, then the sentence: This day I have perfected for you your religion… should have preceded the sentence: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion… Only in this way, could literary perfection be achieved.


2. Or does “this day” refer to the era after the conquest of Mecca? Because on that day, Allah had nullified the intrigues of the Qurayshite polytheists and destroyed their power; their religion was uprooted and their idols shattered; in this way they lost all hope of standing on their feet to prevent the spread of Islam and to fight against it.


COMMENT: This cannot be too. The verse announces that on the day under discussion, the religion was perfected and the Divine favors completed; but the religion was yet incomplete in the year 8 AH when Mecca was conquered; there were many obligatory laws Apart from that, “those who disbelieve” covers all the idolaters of Arabia and not all of them had despaired of the Muslims’ religion. There were many covenants still valid which obligated the Muslims and many disbelieving tribes not to stand against each other; they still performed the hajj of jahiliyyah according to the custom of the idolaters; their women still performed hajj completely naked. This had continued until the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) sent ‘Ali (a.s.) with the verses of the chapter of “Repentance” and thus the remnants of the customs of the Days of Ignorance were erased.


3. Or does “this day” refer to the period after the revelation of the chapter of “Repentance” (end of the year 9 AH)? Because Islam had spread to almost all areas of the Arabian Peninsula; the customs of the Days of Ignorance were wiped out and the signs of polytheism obliterated. Now, the Muslims did not encounter any polytheist during the hajj rituals and their life was free from the shadow of disbelief; Allah had given them peace and order (while before that they were scared and afraid), they worshipped Allah and ascribed none to Him.


COMMENT: This too cannot be. Although the idolaters of Arabia had despaired of the Muslims’ religion after the revelation of the chapter of “Repentance” when the customs of the jahiliyyah were wiped out and polytheism had gone out of the Peninsula, yet the religion was not completed at that time. A lot of rules and regulations were revealed after that, including the chapter of “The Table” which, all agree, was revealed during the last days of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and this chapter contains a lot of laws about lawful and unlawful things, penal code and retribution. It is now clear that the adverb “this day” cannot be taken to mean a long period, which might be apparently relevant to the connotation of this verse, for example, the era of the advent of Islam, or the time of the conquest of Mecca or after the revelation of the verses of “Repentance”. The only alternative is to say that “this day” refers to the particular day when this verse was revealed. Does it mean the day when Mecca was conquered or the day when the chapter of “Repentance” was revealed? The objections which we have raised against the second and the third possibilities above are enough to refute these suggestions altogether. Or does it mean the day of ninth Dhi’l-hijjah of the last pilgrimage (10 AH) as claimed by many exegetes and shown in some traditions? If so, then we will have to decide how the unbelievers had despaired of the Muslims’ religion on that day. Does it mean that the polytheists of Quraysh had lost all hope of overpowering the Muslims’ religion? But this had happened on the day Mecca was conquered in the year 8 AH and not on 9th Dhi’l-hijjah 10 AH. Or does it refer to the despairing of the polytheists of the whole of Arabia? But this had already happened at the time of the revelation of the chapter of “Repentance” in the year 9 AH. Or does it relate to the despairing of the disbelievers – the Jews, the Christians, the fire-worshippers and others? (And this all-inclusive meaning is more in keeping with the unrestricted phrase “those who disbelieve”.) But those people had not yet despaired of overcoming the Muslims because Islam had not acquired any foothold or power beyond the Arabian Peninsula on the day of ‘Arafah in the year 10 AH. Looking from another angle, we should again ponder on this day (9th Dhi’l-hijjah 10 AH): What importance it had which could be in keeping with the Divine words: This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you.


1. It may probably be said that it means perfecting the rituals of hajj in the presence of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself there, as he practically taught them the manasik of hajj and gave verbal explanations.


COMMENT: Merely teaching the manasik of hajj cannot be called perfection of religion by any stretch of imagination. First of all, he had ordered them to do hajju ‘t-tamattu’ and not many years had passed that it was discontinued. Secondly many important pillars of religion had been established long before that, like prayer, fast, hajj, zakat, jihad, etc. How can teaching an obligatory ritual of the religion be called perfection of that obligatory thing? And how can teaching one obligatory part of religion be called perfection of the whole religion? Moreover, this view cuts the connection between the first sentence (This day have those who disbelieve…) and the second one (This day have I perfected for you your religion…). And what is the relevance of despairing of the disbelievers to teaching the people hajju ‘t-tamattu’?


2. It may be said that the perfection of the religion points to the revelation of all pending lawful and unlawful things “this day” in the chapter of “The Table”; after that there came no new halal or haram. And with perfection of religion the disbelievers were overwhelmingly despaired and its signs appeared on their faces.


COMMENT: First we have to decide who were the disbelievers described by the phrase “those who disbelieve”. If it refers to the disbelievers of Arabia, then Islam had already engulfed them and there was nobody who did not publicly declare to be a Muslim. So, who were the despairing disbelievers? And if it is taken to refer to the non-Arab disbelievers who lived around Arabia, then we have described earlier that they had not despaired on that day of overpowering the Muslims. Then the claim that the door of legislation was closed on the day of ‘Arafah is nonsense. There are a lot of traditions, which mention revelations of rules and regulations after that day. See, for example, the verse of the ‘summer’ (the verse of al-kalaalah at the end of chapter “Women”) and the verses of ‘interest’. It has been narrated from ‘Umar that he said inter alia in a sermon: “Among the last verses of the Qur’an to be revealed is the verse of interest; the Messenger of Allah died without explaining it to us. Therefore leave whatever you feel doubtful about and go to that which you have no doubt.” Also, al-Bukhari has narrated in his Sahih from ibn ‘Abbas that he said, “The last verse revealed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was the verse of interest.” There are many similar traditions. Nobody should say that these traditions are weak; therefore the verse should have precedence over them; because the verse doesn’t explicitly say which day it talks about. The day of ‘Arafah is just a possibility and for the definite identification of the day, first all the possibilities have to be discarded; and these traditions offer at least opposing views.


3. Somebody may say that the perfection of the religion points to the fact that the Sacred House had exclusively come into their hands and the polytheists were banished from it, the Muslims performed their hajj and there was no polytheist to mingle with them. COMMENT: We have already said that this happened one year before the day of ‘Arafah. Then why should it be restricted with the adverb “this day” in the verse: This day have I perfected for you your religion… Even if we accept that this exclusive hold on the Ka’bah was the completion of the Divine favor, it cannot be said that it was the perfection of religion. Why should the exclusive possession of the Ka’bah be called perfecting the religion, when religion is nothing but a collection of beliefs and regulations? Religion could only be perfected if some parts or chapters were added to it. That the environment became conducive for the implementation of the rules of religion and the snags and hurdles were removed from practicing it is not called perfecting of the religion. Moreover, the difficulty concerning the despair of the disbelievers remains in its place.


4. A writer has tried to combine the above hypothesis, which we are giving here in short before commenting on it: <> COMMENT: This writer wanted to gather together several of the previously mentioned hypotheses in order to dispel the objections leveled against one possibility with the help of another possibility. But he became embroiled in all the perils together and in the process he corrupted the words and meaning of the verse completely. He failed to realize that if the disbelievers’ despair refer to that despair, which had resulted from the victory and power of Islam, then it happened on the day Mecca, was conquered or, let us say, when the verses of the chapter of “Repentance” were pronounced. Therefore, it would not be correct to announce on the day of ‘Arafah in the year 10 AH: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, because they had despaired of it one or two years before. Had it been the case, the verse should have said: Those who disbelieve have already despaired of your religion (as this writer had himself used the wording while giving his explanation). Or alternatively, it could be said: They are despaired. Also, he seems oblivious of the fact that if this supposed gradual prohibition of various food items (for which he has mentioned the analogy of prohibition of the intoxicant) means that some food items were prohibited after some others, then you have seen that this verse does not mention any other prohibited items than the previously revealed verses of prohibition had done, that is, the verses of the chapters of “The Cow”, “Cattle” and “The Bee”; keeping in view that strangled animals, etc, are merely the details of dead animals. And if he means that the previous descriptions were general and this verse gives the details, and it was done because there was a possibility of people refusing to follow the rules, then it is out of place; what was explicitly mentioned in the previous chapters, that is, “the dead animal, blood, flesh of swine and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked”, were more commonly used in the society, and people should have revolted against that rule more readily than against the rule about strangled animal and that beaten to death, etc., because these situations occur very rarely. If there was any danger of opposition, then the first mentioned four things should not have not have been prohibited so explicitly; and when they were prohibited without any fear, why should there be any hesitation in relatively unimportant examples. Moreover, even if we accept his interpretation, it could not be called perfection of religion. How can legislation of some rules be named ‘religion’? And how can its promulgation and explanation be called perfection of religion? Even if we accept it, it would be perfection of a small part of religion and completion of some of the favors, rather than the whole religion and all the favors; while Allah says: This day have I perfected your religion and completed My favor on you; here, the perfection and completion are all-encompassing without any restriction. Moreover, Allah had legislated a lot of rules and laws during all preceding years. What was the specialty of this rule on this day that its legislation or explanation should be called perfection of religion and completion of grace? Or does the perfection of religion mean that Allah perfected it by closing the door of legislation after revealing this verse, which gives the details of forbidden food items? Then what will be said about those rules, which were revealed after revelation of this chapter and before the death of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)? Rather, what will be said about all the rules, which were revealed in this very chapter of “The Table” after this verse? Think over it.



Until now, we have left the last clause untouched: and chosen for you Islam as a religion, which means: This day I have chosen for you Islam as a religion. If the speech ends at describing the favors of Allah on the Muslims by detailing the forbidden food on the day of ‘Arafah in the year 10 AH, then what will be the relevance of this clause? What special thing happened on that day that Allah chose Islam as their religion. There was nothing, most of the objections leveled against the preceding interpretations apply to this too; and there is no need to repeat them here. Or does “This day” point to any particular day between the day of ‘Arafah and the arrival of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) at Medina when the disbelievers were despaired and the religion was perfected. But again the objections described earlier against other interpretations would be leveled against this, with the same details. Up to here we have discussed this verse looking at what has been or could be said about it regarding its interpretation. Now we shall look at it in the way that is more consistent with the special style of this book. "This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me: Despair and disappointment is opposite of hope; and the religion was sent down gradually. In this backdrop, this sentence indicates that disbelievers in the early days of Islam had some hope regarding the Muslims' religion, expecting it to somehow die with the passage of time. This idea of theirs posed a great threat against Islam from time to time and such a situation necessitated for the believers to be always on guard and live in fear. In this background, the words, "so fear them not" reassure the believers that Allah would protect them from the danger which was facing them and which had caused them such a fear. Allah says: A party of the People of the Book desire that they should lead you astray (3:69); also He says: Many of the People of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy on their part, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them. But pardon and forgive (them) until Allah should bring about His command Surely Allah has power over all things (2:109). The disbelievers were not waiting for something to happen to the Muslims except because of their religion, and they were not angry with them and their hearts were not burning against them but for one reason: The religion of Islam posed a challenge to their supremacy and was ruining their dominance. It puts hindrance against their indulging in the pleasures they were inclined to, and to which they were accustomed all their lives; it was putting a stop to their unrestricted debauchery and wanton behavior. What they hated was the religion, not the followers of the religion. Of course, they disliked the Muslims, but it was because of their acceptance of the Divine religion. The reason why they wanted to annihilate the Muslims and destroy their society was their intention to put out the Light of Allah; they wanted to re-strengthen the pillars of polytheism, which had been shaking because of the impact of Islam. They hoped against hope that they would one day turn the believers into disbelievers, as has been described in the Divine words: that they could turn you back into unbelievers; and He has said: They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, so that He may make it triumph over the religions, though the polytheists may be averse (61:8 9); Therefore call upon Allah being sincere to Him in religion though averse be the unbelievers (40:14). In short, their only plan was to cut this blessed tree from its root and demolish this lofty structure from its foundation; they tried to ensnare the believers in various ways, spreading hypocrisy in their midst and creating doubts in their hearts in order to corrupting their religion. In the beginning, they tried to weaken the determination of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and enfeeble his resolve for religious da'wah (call) by offering him worldly riches and honor; as the Divine words point to it: And the chief persons of them break forth, saying: "Go and steadily adhere to your gods; this is most surely a thing sought after" (38:6). Alternatively, they tried flattery and friendly intercourse, as may be seen in the following verses: They wish that you should be pliant so they (too) would be pliant (52:9); And had it not been that We had already firmly established you, you would have been near to incline to them a little (17:74); Say: "0 unbelievers! I do not worship that which you worship. Nor do you worship Him Whom I worship. " (109:1 3), as is understood from the traditions giving the reasons of their revelation. The last thing, which they hoped would bring downfall to Islam, and toll the death bell of the da'wah was the idea that Islam would certainly die with the death of its Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as he did not have a male offspring. In their eyes, the Prophet wanted to establish a kingdom in the guise of Prophethood, and begin his reign in the name of Divine call and Messengership. When he died or was killed, his traces would be erased, his memory would die and his religion would be forgotten. After all, this is what generally and habitually happens with kings and despotic rulers; no matter how great a power they acquire, how much arrogance they show, their memory dies with their death, and their laws and codes which had kept the people in their bondage are buried with them in their graves. The chapter of "Abundance" refers to this ultimate hope of theirs when it says: Surely your enemy is the one who shall be without posterity (108:3), as is clear from the reason of its revelation. These and similar expectations had kept their hope alive, and they believed that one day they would extinguish the light of the religion. They were under erroneous impression that this pure Divine call was merely a fiction whose falsity will become obvious in the coming days; and the passage of time will erase its tracks and finish it. But gradually, the Islam overcame all its adversaries the false religions and their believers; the fame of Islam spread far and wide, and the religion acquired strength and power to defeat its enemies; these developments rooted out their hopes, they became despaired as they knew that they could not spoil the determination of the Prophet, nor could they diminish his zeal; and they had found earlier that he could not be bought by wealth or honor. Islam's strength and power engulfed them with despair and pessimism; all the endeavors for defeating the Prophet had proved futile; yet one hope was still alive: The hope that he did not have any male offspring who could succeed him in his mission, to keep the religious da'wah alive as he was doing; so they hoped that his religion would die with him. It was self evident that a religion, however perfect it may be in its shari'ah and ideology, could not protect itself in the absence of a protector. Clearly, any established tradition and any religion with all its followers could not maintain its purity and freshness by itself, no matter how much its fame had spread in the world and how many people had entered into its fold. It needed someone who could protect it from deterioration and pollution. Also, 'it was clear that a religion could not be obliterated or annihilated by force or coercion, threats or mischief; or torture and things like that. It could die only with the death of its protectors and those who were appointed to manage its affairs. All this shows that the total despair of unbelievers could take place only if Allah was to appoint someone who would stand in the place of the Prophet for protection of religion and management of its affairs, in order that he could properly lead the Muslim ummah on the right path. This was sure to bring in its wake the disappointment and despair of the disbelievers concerning the Muslims' religion. Then the enemies would realize that the religion has already developed and reached the stage where it is not dependent on the person of the Prophet alone; rather it is placed under the care of a group who are true successors of the Prophet. This would be the perfection of the religion as it would discard the transient nature and acquire continuity and eternity; and this would be the completion of the Divine favor. Let us look at the Divine words: Many of the People of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy on their part, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them. But pardon and forgive (them) until Allah should bring about His command. Surely Allah has power over all things (2:109). Very probably, the words: until Allah should bring about His command, point to this very theme.


This explanation supports what has been narrated in the traditions that the verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir Khumm, the 18th day of Dhi 'l hijjah the year 10 AH, regarding the successorship of 'Ali (a.s.). In this way, the two sentences will be very clearly connected with each other, and none of the objections mentioned earlier could be leveled against this explanation. Now, that you have understood the meaning of desperation in this verse, you will appreciate that "this day" in the Divine Speech, "This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion", is an adverb of time related to the verb "have despaired". The adverb has been placed at the beginning of the sentence in order to show this day's importance and grandeur; as it was on this day that the religion passed the stage of personal guardianship of the Prophet and entered into the stage of collective guardianship of the Imams; in this way, it rose from transience to permanence and eternity. On going ahead, we shall find a similar construction in the verse: This day (all) the good things are allowed to you ... (5:5). But the verse under discussion cannot be compared with this verse, because the contexts of the two verses are totally different. The verse: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, is a sort of expostulation against the unbelievers, while the verse: This day (all) the good things are allowed to you, begins a new subject. Also, the connotations are different. The former is a creative decree, which contains good news on one side and warning on the other, while the latter is a legislative decree and describes the Divine grace and favor to the Muslims. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, shows the grandeur of the day because it brought a very highly beneficial good to the Muslims, that is, desperation of the unbelievers regarding the Muslims' religion. "those who disbelieve" refers to all the disbelievers, be they idol worshippers, Jews, Christians or others, because the clause is unrestricted, as we had described earlier. The prohibition in the Divine words: so fear them not, and fear Me, is advisory, not obligatory. The connotation is that now that those who until now had posed as a danger to you have despaired, you have no reason to fear them; a man does not spend his energies for something when he has lost all hopes of attaining it; so now you are safe from their side and you should not fear them concerning your religion; therefore, "fear them not, and fear Me". The words, "fear Me" in this context show that the Muslims should now fear Allah in the matter concerning which they until then were afraid of the disbelievers, because now they cannot deprive you of your religion. It is clear that this is a sort of warning to the Muslims; and that is why we have not taken this verse as a statement of favor. This explanation gets strengthened if we remember that the fear of Allah is obligatory in any case. It is not that it is wajib (obligatory) in this state but not in that; or with this condition and not with that; therefore, there was no reason to add "and fear Me" after the clause, "fear them not" if it does not indicate a very special fear in a particular situation. These sentences should not be compared with the Divine words: ... so do not fear them, and fear Me if you are believers (3:175); because the order to fear Allah in this verse is made conditional to believing; the order is obligatory and the connotation is that the believers are forbidden to fear the disbelievers regarding their safety; rather, they are obliged to fear Allah alone. The verse, therefore, forbids them to do what was not proper for them, that is, their fearing the disbelievers concerning their own selves; it makes no difference here whether they are told to fear Allah or not. That is why the order to fear Allah has been made conditional to their being the believers, and this condition also expounds the reason of this order. But the Divine words in the verse under the discussion, "so fear them not and fear Me", are not like that. The believers' fear in this verse was the fear concerning their religion; and Allah did not dislike such a fear, because in reality it meant the pursuit of the Divine pleasure. When Allah forbids this fear, it is because the reason causing that fear was no more. They feared the disbelievers because the disbelievers had not despaired of their religion yet; but now that the situation has changed, they no more needed to fear them. Thus, the prohibition here is advisory; and consequently, the order to fear Allah also is in advisory capacity. The connotation, in short, is that it is necessary that you should be cautious and fearful in the matters of religion; but the cause of fear until now had come from disbelievers and you were afraid of them because till today they had hoped to divert you from your religion; but today they have despaired, and now the cause of fear emanates from Allah. Therefore, you should be afraid of Him alone. Ponder on it. The verse because of the words, "so fear them not, and fear Me", gives a hint of a warning and threat, because it orders the believers to have a special fear. It is not the general fear, which is obligatory for the believers in all, conditions and at all times. Let us think on the specialty of this fear and find out why it has been made obligatory. There is no doubt that the two sentences of this verse, that is: This day have those who disbelieve ... ; and, This day have I perfected for you your religion, are inter-related and express the same theme, as we have explained before. The religion which Allah had perfected this day and the bounty which He had completed this day (in reality both are the same thing) was the thing regarding which the disbelievers had entertained all those hopes and because of which the believers were afraid of them; now Allah made the disbelievers despaired of that religion, perfected it and completed it and then forbade the believers to fear the disbelievers in this respect. Now when He orders them to fear His Own self, it must refer to the same type of fear, that is, about the religion; they should remain on guard lest Allah takes away the religion from their hands and remove this gifted favor from them. Allah has made it clear that He does not take away any favor except when the recipient of that favor shows ingratitude; and He has threatened the ungrateful person very severely: This is because Allah does never change a bounty which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition, and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing (8:53); ... and whoever changes the favor of Allah after it has come to him, then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil) (2:211). And Allah has set a general parable for its bounties and how it changes when people become ungrateful. He says: And Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a town safe and secure to which its means of subsistence come in abundance from every quarter, but it became ungrateful to Allah's favor, therefore Allah made it to taste the utmost degree of hunger and fear because of what they wrought (16:112). The verse beginning from "This day have those who disbelieve", and ending at "Islam as a religion", announces that the religion of the Muslims is completely secured against the disbelievers and is safe from every danger which could come from that side; and no corruption or destruction can infiltrate into it except from the Muslims themselves. That would happen if the Muslims showed ingratitude towards this perfect Divine bounty and rejected this complete religion chosen by Him; then Allah would take away His favor from them and change it to retribution and affliction and would make them taste the utmost degree of hunger and fear. Unfortunately, the Muslims have done it and Allah has made them suffer the consequences. If anyone wants to understand how true is the prophecy of tribulation and trial (which is inferred from the Divine words: fear them not, and fear Me), he should ponder on the condition of the Islamic world today, then he should go back analyzing the historical events until he reaches at the roots of these misfortunes and afflictions. The verses of al-wilayah (guardianship, mastership) in the Qur'an are fully connected with the threat and warning contained in this verse. Allah has not cautioned His servants of Himself except when it concerns the wilayah; and has said in this respect, time and again: ... and Allah cautions you of Himself... (3:28 & 3:30). To go more deeply in this subject will take us out of the scope of this book.


QUR'AN: This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion: al-Ikmal (to perfect) and al-itmam (to complete) are near to each other in meaning. ar-Raghib has said: "A thing is called perfect when it serves the purpose which it is intended for; and it becomes complete when it reaches a stage where it doesn't need anything extra; a thing is called incomplete when it needs something more." You can differentiate the meaning of the two words in another way: Effects of the things are of two kinds; some effects spring from it when all its parts and ingredients are in place; if any of its ingredients or conditions is missing, the effect will not take place. We can take the example of the fast; if any of its conditions is violated even for a very small part of the day the fast will be void. Such things are described with the word "completion". Allah says: ... then complete the fast till night ... (2:187); And the word of your Lord has been completed truly and justly ... (6:115). On the other hand, there are the effects, which spring from a thing without waiting for completion of all its ingredients. When one part is found, its related effect will appear; if all ingredients are present the desired effect will appear in its entirety. This is described as perfection. Allah says: ... but he who cannot find (any offering) should fast for three days during the hajj and for seven days when you return; these (make) ten (days) perfect ... (2:196); ... and that you should perfect the number ... (2:185). The effect of some parts of this number is seen, as are the effects of the whole number. Arabs say: His affairs are complete and his understanding is perfect; but they do not say: His understanding is complete and his affairs are perfect. There is a difference between al-ikmal and at-takmil as there is between al-itmam and at-tatmim. It is the difference between the paradigms of al-if'al and at-taf'il. al-If'al basically shows instantaneousness of a work while at-taf'il shows graduality. However, in a wider sense or as a result of literary evolution, the meanings in both paradigms change; sometimes, they become very different from the meaning of the root word, e.g. al-ifrat (excess) and at-tafrit (negligence), etc. Actually, these meanings were attached to such words at some par¬ticular occasions and then regular usage made them inseparable and they became like actual meanings. It appears from the above discourse that the sentence, "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you", shows that something has been added to the religion, (which is a collection of beliefs, ideologies and laws) today making it perfect; and the Divine bounty and favor (which was something spiritual) was incomplete and without effect until today when it was completed and now the expected effect is going to result from it. The favor and bounty is the thing, which has affinity with nature of the recipient of that bounty. All the things are interconnected with each other because they are parts of the system of Divine management and in the long run all have affinity with one another; and most, rather all of them are Divine bounties when they are put parallel to each other, as Allah says: ... and if you count Allah's bounties you will not be able to number them ... (14:34); ... and made complete to you His favors outwardly and inwardly ... (31:20). However, Allah has described some of these favors naming them as evil, vile, game and play and using similar adjectives which are not praiseworthy as He says: And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is good their souls; We grant them respite only that they may increase in sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement (3:178); And this life of the world is nothing but a sport and a play; and as for the next abode, that most surely is the life ... (29:64); Let it not deceive you that those who disbelieve go to and fro in the cities (fearlessly). A brief enjoyment! then their abode is hell, and evil is the resting place (3:196 7). There are many other verses like these. All these verses show that the things, which are counted as bounties and Divine favors, would really be bounties when they conform with the Divine purpose for which they were given to man. They have been created to serve as the Divine help to man in order that the man could use them in the way of his real felicity; in other words, when they help the man to be nearer to Allah through worship and submission to His Mastership. Allah says: And I have not created the jinn and the human beings except that they should worship Me (51:56). All the things and faculties, which the man uses with the aim of attaining nearness to Allah and seeking Divine pleasure, are the bounties and favors. Otherwise, they will become an affliction and trial. It means that the things in themselves are neutral. They become favor and bounty because they have in themselves the spirit of servitude and with that praiseworthy usage they come under the Divine wilayah. This wilayah results in Divine management of the servants' affairs. It follows that the favor in reality is the Divine wilayah (mastership, guardianship); and a thing will become bounty when it contains something of that wilayah. Allah says: Allah is the guardian (master) of those who believe; He brings them out of the darkness into the light ... (2:257); That is because Allah is the Master of those who believe, and because the unbelievers have no master for them (47:11); and He says about His Messenger (s.a.w.a.): But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you a Judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with total submission (4:65). You may find other similar verses in the Qur'an. Islam is a religion because it is a collection of what was sent down from Allah for guidance of His servants, so that they may worship Him properly; and it is a Divine favor and bounty inasmuch as practically it contains in itself the wilayah of Allah, the wilayah of His Messenger and of those vested with authority (ulu 'l-amr) after him. The wilayah of Allah (i.e., His management of the servants' affairs through the religion) cannot be complete except through the wilayah of His Messenger; nor will the wilayah of His Messenger be complete without the wilayah of those vested with authority after him; and that wilayah means their management of the religious affairs of the ummah with Divine permission. Allah says: 0 you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you (4:59), we have fully explained this verse before. Again, Allah says: Only Allah is your guardian and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the zakat while they bow (5:55); and we shall explain the verse, God willing, in its place. Thus, the verse means as follows: Today, and it is the day when those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, I have perfected for you the whole religious perceptions (which I had revealed to you before) by making the wilayah obligatory for you; and I have completed My bounty on you, and it is the wilayah which means management of the religious affairs with Divine guidance. Until now, you were under the wilayah of Allah and His Messenger only; but it could work only up to the time the revelations would be coming down from Allah; it could not work later when the revelation would be cut off, when the Messenger would not remain among the people to safeguard the Divine religion and defend it. It was essential that somebody should be appointed to carry on this responsibility and be vested with the authority after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), to act as the overall authority in the affairs of the religion and the ummah. The wilayah is a single project; it was incomplete until it was completed with appointment of the one, who was vested with the authority after the Prophet, Now that the religion has became perfect in its legislation and the bounty of wilayah is completed, I have chosen for you the Islam as religion, which is the religion of monotheism, in which no one is worshipped except Allah and no one is obeyed (and obedience is a sort of worship) except Allah and those whose obedience He has made obligatory for you, that is, the Messenger and the waliyy. The verse makes it clear that the believers are today enjoying the security after they were afraid before, and that Allah has chosen for them that they should devotedly adhere to Islam, the religion of monotheism. It is compulsory for them that they should worship Allah without associating anything with Him; they have only to obey Allah or him whose obedience has been ordered by Allah. Now, ponder on the Divine words: Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them successors in the earth as He made successors those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange; they shall worship Me, not associating aught with Me; and whoever disbelieves after this, these it is who are the transgressors (24:55). Then place it parallel to the verses under discussion: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion. You will at once appreciate that this verse is the fulfillment of the promise given in the chapter of "Light"; the words: they shall worship Me, not associating aught with Me, describe the real purpose of this exercise as may be understood also from the end sentence: and whoever disbelieves after this, these it is who are the transgressors. The chapter 24, "Light", was revealed long before the chapter of "The Table" as it contains the story of slander, the verse of flogging, and that of hijab (veil) and other such commandments.


Summary: (al-Mizan, volume 9, pages 227-247)


Qur’an: This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This is a parenthetical speech placed in the midst of the verse 5:3 and yet the main verse does not depend on it for its exposition. Most of the traditions mention this speech without hinting even once to the beginning and the last part of the verse. The Divine words: “This day have those who disbelieved…” were independently revealed.


The two sentences, that is: “This day have those who disbelieve despaired…” and “This day have I perfected for you your religion…” have identical themes and close connection. The support of this view can also be found in the convention of the ancient and modern exegetes; they take the two sentences jointly as if one completes the other.


The clause “this day” cannot refer to the following possibilities:


1. The time when the Prophet was commanded to call the people to Islam because the context shows that the Muslims already had a religion, which the disbelievers were eager to change or destroy.


2. The era after the conquest of Mecca because the religion was yet incomplete in the year 8 AH when Mecca was conquered.


3. The period after the revelation of the chapter of “Repentance” (end of the year 9 AH) because the religion was not completed at that time; many laws were revealed after that.


The only alternative is to say that “this day” refers to a particular day when this verse was revealed. However, it cannot mean the day when Mecca was conquered nor the day when the chapter of “Repentance” was revealed because the same objections leveled above are enough to refute these suggestions. Many exegetes claim that “this day” means the day of ninth Dhi’l-hijjah of the last pilgrimage (10 AH). This cannot be so because there is the difficulty of deciding how the disbelievers had despaired of the Muslims’ religion on that day. Besides, merely teaching the manasik of hajj cannot be called perfection of religion. Even the exclusive possession of the Ka’bah, as suggested by some, cannot be called perfecting the religion because religion is a collection of beliefs and regulations. “This day” cannot point to any particular day between the day of ‘Arafah and the arrival of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in Medina because the same objections mentioned above can apply. Up to here, we have discussed the verse looking at what has been or could be said about it regarding its interpretation. Now we shall look at it in the way, which is more consistent with the special style of this exegesis. Despair and disappointment is opposite of hope; and the religion was sent down gradually. The disbelievers in the early days of Islam had some hope regarding the Muslims’ religion expecting it to somehow die with the passage of time. This idea of theirs created a situation whereby it was necessary for the believers to be always on guard and live in fear. The words “so fear them not” reassure the believers that Allah would protect them. (See verses 3:69 and 2:109) The disbelievers hated the religion of Islam but not its followers. Of course, they disliked the Muslims because of their acceptance of the religion. They wanted to put out the Light of Allah and hoped against hope that they would one day turn the believers into disbelievers. (See verses 61:8-9 and 40:14) The last thing that the disbelievers hoped would bring the downfall of Islam was the idea that Islam would certainly die with the death of its Prophet (s.a.w.a.), as he did not have a male offspring. It was self-evident that a religion, however perfect it may be in its shari’ah and ideology, could not protect itself in the absence of a protector. This shows that the total despair of the unbelievers could take place only if Allah was to appoint someone who would stand in the place of the Prophet for protection of religion and management of its affairs, in order that he could properly lead the Muslim ummah on the right path. This was sure to bring in its wake the despair of the disbelievers who would also realize that the religion is placed under the care of a group who are the true successors of the Prophet. Look verse 2:109 in which the words: until Allah should bring about His command points to this very same theme. This explanation supports what has been narrated in the traditions that the verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir Khum, the 18th day of Dhi’l-hijjah, the year 10 AH, regarding the successorship of ‘Ali (a.s.). In this way, the two sentences will be very clearly connected with each other, and none of the objections mentioned earlier could be leveled against this explanation.


QUR'AN: This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion:


ar-Raghib has said: “A thing is called perfect (al-Ikmal) when it serves the purpose which it is intended for; and it becomes complete (al-itmam) when it reaches a stage where it does not need anything extra; a thing is called incomplete when it needs something more.” Effects of the things are of two kinds: Some effects spring from it when all its parts and ingredients are in place. On the other hand, there are effects, which spring from a thing without waiting for completion of all its ingredients. When one part is found, its related effect will appear; if all ingredients are present, the desired effect will appear in its entirety. This is described as perfection. It appears from the above that the sentence, “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you” shows that something has been added to the religion today making it perfect; and the Divine bounty was incomplete and without effect until today when it was completed and now the expected effect is going to result from it. There are verses (14:34, 31:20, etc) that show that the favor and bounty is the thing, which has affinity with the nature of the recipient of that bounty. However, other verses (3:178, 29:64 and 3:196-7, etc) describe these favors naming them as evil, game and play. All these verses show that the things, which are counted as bounties and Divine favors, would really be bounties when they conform with the Divine purpose for which they are given to man. In other words, all the things which man uses with the aim of attaining nearness to Allah and seeking Divine pleasure are the bounties and favors. These things, which are considered as bounties and favors, come under the Divine wilayah. This wilayah results in Divine Management of the servants’ affairs. It follows that the favor in reality is the Divine wilayah (Mastership, Guardianship); and a thing will become a bounty when it contains something of that wilayah. (See verses 2:257, 47:11, 4:65, etc) Islam as a religion is a Divine favor and bounty because it contains in itself the wilayah of Allah, the wilayah of His Messenger and those vested with authority after him. The wilayah of Allah (His management of the servants’ affairs through the religion) cannot be complete except through the wilayah of His Messenger; nor will the wilayah of His Messenger be complete without the wilayah of those vested with authority after him; and that wilayah means their management of the religious affairs of the ummah with Divine permission. (See verses 4:59 and 5:55) Thus, the verse means as follows: Today, and it is the day when those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, I have perfected for you the whole religious perceptions (which I had revealed to you before) by making the wilayah obligatory for you; and I have completed My bounty on you, and it is the wilayah which means management of the religious affairs with Divine guidance. Until now, you were under the wilayah of Allah and His Messenger only; but it could work only up to the time the revelations would be coming down from Allah; it could not work later when the revelation would be cut off, when the Messenger would not remain among the people to safeguard the Divine religion and defend it. It was essential that somebody should be appointed to carry on this responsibility and be vested with the authority after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), to act as the overall authority in the affairs of the religion and the ummah.


________________________________________

SAYYID MAUDUDI:


(Actual text, English volume 2, pages 133-135)


Qur’an: This day the unbelievers have fully despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. ‘This day’, here, does not signify a particular day or specific date. It refers to that period of time when these verses were revealed. In our own usage, too, expressions like ‘today’ or ‘this day’ often have the sense of the ‘present time’. This day the unbelievers have fully despaired of your religion refers to the fact that the Muslims’ religion had developed into a full-fledged system of life, reinforced by the authority and governmental power, which it had acquired. The unbelievers who had hitherto resisted its establishment now despaired of destroying Islam and of forcing the believers back to their former state of Ignorance. The believers therefore no longer needed to fear men: they should fear God alone instead. Indeed, the Muslims were repeatedly asked to fear God, for they would not be treated lightly if they failed to carry out His commands, especially as there was no longer any justifiable excuse for such failure. If they still violated the law of God, there could be no basis for supposing that they did so under constrain: it must mean that they simply had no intention of obeying Him.


Qur'an: This day I have perfected for you your religion, and have bestowed upon you My bounty in full measure, and have been pleased to assign for you Islam as your religion. The ‘perfection of religion’ mentioned in this verse refers to making it self-sufficient system of belief and conduct, and an order of social life providing its own answers to the questions with which man is confronted. This system contains all necessary guidance for man, either by expounding fundamental principles from which detail directives can be deduced or by spelling out such directives explicitly so that in no circumstances would one need to look for guidance to any extraneous source. The bounty referred to in the statement: I have bestowed upon you My bounty in full measure, is the bounty of true guidance.


The statement: I have been pleased to assign for you Islam as your religion means that, since the Muslims had proved by their conduct and their striving that they were honest and sincere about the commitment they had made to God in embracing Islam – the commitment to serve and obey Him – He had accepted their sincerity and created conditions in which they were no longer yoked in bondage to anyone but Him. Thus the Muslims were not prevented from living in submission to God out of extraneous constraints just as there were no constraints preventing them from subscribing to true beliefs. Having recounted these favors, God does not point out what should be the proper response to those favors. But the implication is obvious: the only appropriate response on the part of the believers must be unstinting observance of the law of God out of gratitude to Him. According to authentic traditions this verse was revealed in 10 A.H. on the occasion of the Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage. The context however, seems to indicate that it was revealed soon after the conclusion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah (i.e. in 6 A.H.). All parts of the discourse in which this verse occurs are so tightly interwoven and so closely inter-connected that it hardly seems conceivable that it should have been inserted here several years later. My own estimate – and true knowledge of this lies with God alone – is that this verse was originally revealed in its present context (i.e. commenting upon the conditions prevailing at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah). It is conceivable that the true significance of the verse was not then fully appreciated. But later on, when Islam prevailed over the whole of Arabia and the power of Islam reached a high point, God once again revealed this sentence to His Messenger and ordered him to proclaim it.


________________________________________


OUR CONCLUSIONS:


Ibn Kathir, in his commentary of this verse, does not mention which day does the clause “This day” in the sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired on your religion…” refers to. The tradition he quotes of Ibn Abbas – “They (the disbelievers) gave up hope that Muslims would revert to their religion” is clearly rejected by the context of the verse. Actually, the disbelievers had the hope that the light of Islam would one day be extinguished and it is not the people they hated but the religion of the people - Islam. As Tabataba’I explains, the reason why the disbelievers wanted to annihilate the Muslims was their intention to put out the light of Allah. As a matter of fact and history proves it, the disbelievers had given up hope of reverting the Muslims to their religion long ago before this sentence was revealed as for example the day when Mecca was conquered or at the time of the revelation of the chapter “Repentence”. As to how the disbelievers hoped that the religion of the Muslims would eventually die is explained clearly in Tabataba’I’s tafseer and we will comment on that at the appropriate place. Ibn Kathir further says that the clause “So fear them not, but fear Me” means “do not fear them (the disbelievers) when you contradict them”. This meaning does not conform to the sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired on your religion…” Ibn Kathir then discusses the completion of religion as the biggest favor the Muslims received from Allah but he does not explain when and how the religion of Islam was completed, perfected and chosen for the people. He does mention though that Allah’s favor became complete for Muslims when he completed the religion for them. We honestly don’t know the exact connotation of this statement. There is no doubt from the verse that the despair of the disbelievers has to have connection with the completion of religion and its perfection. In our conclusion on Maududi’s commentary of this verse, we mentioned and Tabataba’I gave the reasons that the sentences “This day have the disbelievers despaired…” and “This day, I have perfected your religion…” are closely inter-connected and therefore they had to be revealed together. It is quite surprising that Ibn Kathir has not mentioned this relationship in his tafseer work. Any explanation of the sentence “This day, I have perfected your religion…” without any connection with the preceding sentence “This day have the disbelievers despaired…” would be an explanation of an incomplete speech and hence always short of conveying the true meaning. The traditions that Ibn Kathir quotes on the circumstances of the revelation of the sentence “This day, I have perfected your religion…” is not supported by the context of the verse as we have clearly explained in our conclusions on Maududi’s work. Allamah Tabataba'I's tafseer of this verse is undoubtedly exceptional! In the beginning he shows very clearly that these two sentences which lead to a single speech, is a parenthetical speech, placed in the midst of this verse and that the main verse does not depend on it for its explanation. The verse which he quotes from the chapter ‘The Cow” (which give a list of the forbidden items) to show the correspondence to the first and last sentences of the verse under study is commendable! This proves that the last sentence completes the first and that the two middle sentences were placed in the midst of this verse. Tabataba’I goes on to discuss several possibilities as to which day the clause “this day” refer in these two sentences. The objection he levels against all these possibilities such as the day of ‘Arafah, the day of the conquest of Mecca or the day when the chapter of “Repentance” was revealed, is unchallenging. His discussion leads us to the fact that the clause “this day” refers to a single day when the disbelievers were despaired and the religion was perfected. From Tabataba’I’s discussion, we are able to conclude that the clause “this day” cannot refer to any day or period before the farewell pilgrimage because there would still remain the problem of explaining the sentences ‘despaired of your religion’ and ‘perfected your religion’. One can refer to the full text of his exegesis for this argument. Tabataba’I then gives us the initial understanding of the sentence “This day those who disbelieve despaired of your religion” by focusing on the last clause “and chosen for you Islam as a religion”. Tabataba’I says that the religion which Allah perfected on this day and the bounty which He had completed this day was the thing regarding which the disbelievers had entertained all those hopes and because of which the believers were afraid of them; now Allah made the disbelievers despaired of that religion, perfected it and completed it and then forbade the believers to fear them in this respect. This understanding is not rejected by the context of these two closely inter-connected sentences. Further, Tabataba'I says that the sentence “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you” shows that something was added to the religion, (which is a collection of beliefs, ideologies and laws) on this particular day making it perfect; and the Divine bounty and favor (which is spiritual) was incomplete and without effect until this day when it was completed and now the expected effect is going to result from it. This part of his exegesis is truly remarkable! Tabataba’I then mentions, quoting some relevant Qur’anic verses, how the things, which are counted as bounties and Divine favors, would really be bounties when they conform with the Divine purpose for which they are given to man. In other words, bounties and favors are the things which man uses with the aim of attaining nearness to Allah. This is how Tabataba’I first leads us to understand the relationship of the Divine bounty to the Divine wilayah (mastership, guardianship). He says that a thing can be called a bounty when it contains something of that wilayah. He quotes the following verses: "Allah is the guardian (Master) of those who believe; He brings them out of the darkness into the light…" (2:257); "That is because Allah is the Master of those who believe, and the unbelievers have no master for them" (47:11). Under the study of verse 5:67, we mentioned during our conclusion of Tabataba’I’s exegesis of the verse, that the particular message the Prophet was commanded to convey occupied a unique central position in the entire fabric of Islam such that if not conveyed, it would be as if no message was conveyed. We also mentioned that the message was related to the wilayah of ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib. From Tabataba’I’s tafseer of the present verse, we now understand why the religion of Islam and the bounties of Allah are regarded as incomplete without the appointment of a waliyy (Guardian) after the Messenger of Allah. Tabataba’I says that the religion of Islam is a Divine favor and bounty because it contains in itself the wilayah of Allah, the wilayah of His Messenger and of those vested with authority after him. He further says that the said wilayah of Allah (i.e. His management of the affairs of His servants through the religion) cannot be complete except through the wilayah of His Messenger; nor will the wilayah of His Messenger be complete without the wilayah of those vested with authority after him; and that wilayah means their management of the religious affairs of the ummah with Divine permission. Tabataba’I skillfully supports his statements by quoting verses 4:59 and 5:55 from the Qur’an. We shall study these verses in its right place, God Willing. This explanation in Tabataba’I’s work sums up the real meaning of these two sentences in verse 5:3. Towards the end of his exegesis, Tabataba’I mentions another important point. He says: “The wilayah is a single project; it was incomplete until it was completed with the appointment of the one, who was vested with the authority after the Prophet”. In short, Allamah Tabataba’I, in his outstanding tafseer of this verse, has shown how the religion of Islam became perfect in its legislation, how the bounty of wilayah was completed and how Allah despaired the disbelievers on the day when the Prophet appointed a waliyy after him. The last thing that the disbelievers hoped would extinguish the light of Islam was the idea that the religion would die with the death of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as he did not have a male offspring. Allah on that day shattered their hopes by completing the bounty of wilayah. Sayyid Maududi, in his commentary of the sentence “This day the unbelievers have fully despaired….”, has not paid any attention to the next sentence “This day have I perfected your religion…” Maududi says, without presenting any proof, that the clause “This day” does not signify a particular day or specific date. He says that the sentence refers to the fact that Islam had developed into a full-fledged system reinforced by the authority it had acquired and this is how the disbelievers despaired. If the clause “This day” refers to a ‘period of time’, as he mentions, then he has to explain when and how the religion of Islam had reached that developed stage and also how it had acquired authority. As a caution, if ‘authority’ means the authority of the Prophet, then one can argue that the hopes of the disbelievers would naturally be revived after the death of the Prophet! Further, if this period refers to any period before the farewell pilgrimage, then the problem of explaining how the disbelievers despaired of the Muslims’ religion would still remain because history reveals that the disbelievers engaged the Messenger of Allah up to this time in order to extinguish the light of Allah. We also see that Maududi, unlike Tabataba’I, has failed to realize what the statement ‘perfected your religion’ points to. Maududi’s explanation of the term ‘perfection of religion’ is rejected by the context of these two sentences because there would be no reason for the disbelievers to despair of the Muslims’ religion by his definition of the term. According to the context, and as explained by Tabataba’I, the disbelievers were deprived on that ‘particular day’ of their aim to destroy the religion of the Muslims and thus Allah made the Muslims secure and safe. Therefore, the ‘perfection of religion’ points to something which was added to the religion and that made the disbelievers despair of the religion of the Muslims. As mentioned before, this day cannot refer to any day before the farewell pilgrimage. Maududi makes a statement that the ‘bounty’ referred to in the sentence: “and have bestowed upon you My bounty” is the bounty of true guidance. While this statement is acceptable, it is incomplete because he has not expounded on the meaning of ‘true guidance’ – Tabataba’I has explained the meaning of ‘Divine bounty’ very well in his tafseer of this same sentence. Maududi says that most likely these verses were revealed after the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaybiyah in 6 A.H. First, this is easily rejected by the objections that Tabataba’I levels against all such possibilities. Second, it is a clear contradiction of his own statement - that according to ‘authentic’ traditions this verse was revealed in 10 A.H. on the occasion of the Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage. Moreover, the context of the verse actually shows that the Muslims already had a religion, which the disbelievers were anxious to destroy. Therefore it is highly conceivable rather than ‘hardly conceivable’ that these two sentences were inserted in this verse towards the end of the Prophet’s mission. Referring to the Tafseer of Al-Mizan, Tabataba’I clearly shows in his exegesis that “This day” cannot refer to any event or period of time, as for example, the conquest of Mecca or the period after the revelation of the chapter of “Repentance”. Maududi also says that ‘all parts’ of the discourse in this verse are tightly interwoven and closely inter-connected. This statement makes us wonder as to why he did not use these two sentences (despairing of the disbelievers from the Muslims’ religion and the perfection of the Muslims’ religion) as a single speech in their explanation. While we agree that there is a close connection between the despairing of the disbelievers from the Muslims’ religion and the perfection of the Muslims’ religion, we have seen the proof from Tabataba’I’s tafseer that this part of the verse was revealed at a different time and that the main verse does not depend on it for its explanation; in other words, the last sentence completes the first, as testified by verse 2:173. At the end of Maududi’s commentary on this verse, he seems to tell us that the verse was revealed again to the Messenger when Islam prevailed over whole of Arabia and that’s when the true significance of the sentence was realized. This part of his commentary is without any proof or evidence and therefore not acceptable. In short, we have seen that Maududi makes many statements and attempts in the exposition of this verse but all these statements are without any proof or evidence from the Qur’an, they do not conform to the context of the verse and sometimes a reasonably correct statement would lack further explanation or elaboration. His explanation of these two sentences can be regarded more like a commentary rather than tafseer (exegesis).


Questions:


1. What is the real meaning of "waliyy" and "tawallah" used in these two verses?


2. Who are ‘those who believe' mentioned in these verses?

3. Does the clause "pay zakat while they bow" imply an act of charity?


4. How does the wilayah (mastership, guardianship) of the Messenger and the believers relate to that of Allah's?


The exegetes selected for this study are:

Ibn Kathir

Allamah Tabataba'I


Al-Qurtubi


Go To: Our Conclusions


________________________________________


IBN KATHIR: (Actual text from 'Abridged' English volume 3, pages 92-95) Allah said, (Verily, your Protector is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, those who perform the Salah, and give Zakah, and they bow down.) (Verily, your Protector is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers...) means, the Jews are not your friends. Rather, your allegiance is to Allah, His Messenger and the faithful believers. (those who perform the Salah, and give the Zakah...) referring to the believers who have these qualities and establish the prayer, which is one of the most important pillars of Islam, for it includes worshipping Allah alone without partners. They pay Zakah, which is the right of the creation and a type of help extended to the needy and the poor. As for Allah's statement, (and they bow down,) some people thought that they give the Zakah while bowing down. If this were the case, then paying the Zakah while bowing would be the best form of giving Zakah. No scholar from whom religious rulings are taken says this, as much as we know. Therefore, (and they bow down,) means, they attend the prayer in congregation in Allah's Masjids and spend by way of charity on the various needs of Muslims. Allah said; (And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who have believed, as protectors, then the party of Allah will be the victorious.) Similarly Allah said; (Allah has decreed: "Verily, it is I and My Messengers who shall be the victorious.'' Verily, Allah is All-Powerful, Almighty. You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a Ruh (proof) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allah. Verily, it is the party of Allah that will be the successful.) Therefore, those who accept the allegiance of Allah - His Messenger and the faithful believers - will gain success in this life and the Hereafter. Hence Allah's statement here, (And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who have believed, as protectors, then the party of Allah will be the victorious.) (Rough translation from the Arabic) {{Verily, your Protector is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, those who perform the Salah, and give Zakah, and they bow down.}} Allah said that the disbelievers are not your friends, but in fact you should be friends to Allah and His Rasul and the believers. The believers are those who have the following characteristics: those who establish prayers (pray five times a day regularly), which is the best and superior pillar of Islam and is only Allah's right; and those who pay charity (zakat), which is the right of Allah's poor, old and weak people. The last sentence caused a confusion among the people that "those who pay zakat" referred to the present condition meaning that they pay zakat while bowing down to Allah (in the state of genuflection). This is totally wrong. Even if we accept that then it will be obvious that paying zakat in the state of genuflection is preferred, and no scholar agrees to this. Some capricious people said about an incident that once ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (RA) was in genuflection (rukoo) and a beggar came, and ‘Ali gave his ring to the beggar. According to Uthba, (the clause) "and the believers" refers to the Muslims and ‘Ali (RA) and these verses were revealed on that incident. In an exalted (murfoo) tradition, there is the story of the ring, and some exegetes also explained in the same way (with reference to the ring) but neither one has the correct proof (sanad). None of the narrators are reliable and trustworthy and so this incident of ring is not proved, confirmed, valid, or verified and is wrong. These verses were revealed about Ubadah bin Saamit (RA) when he *openly* broke up with his Jewish friends and he was pleased with the friendship of Allah, the Messenger and the pious people. That's why at the end of these verses, Allah said {{whoever keeps friendship with Allah, His Rasul and His pious people he will enter in Allah's group and this group will overcome/dominate.}} Like Allah said, {{Allah has decreed: "Verily, it is I and My Messengers who shall be the victorious.'' Verily, Allah is All-Powerful, Almighty. You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a Ruh (proof) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allah. Verily, it is the party of Allah that will be the successful.}} Therefore, those who accept the allegiance of Allah - His Messenger and the faithful believers - will gain success in this life and the Hereafter. Hence Allah's statement here, {{And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who have believed, as protectors, then the party of Allah will be the victorious.}}

________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I


(Actual text from al-Mizan, English volume 11, pages 3-15)


GENERAL COMMENT:


The two verses, as you see, are placed between the verses, which prohibit taking the People of the Book and the unbelievers for a helper or guardian. That is why a group of Sunni exegetes has tried to join these two with the preceding and following verses in a single context; they have taken the whole group in one connotation, aiming to describe the believers' responsibility regarding people's wilayah (in the meaning of helping), and prohibition of taking the Jews, the Christians and the unbelievers as a helper. It confines the wilayah to Allah, His Messenger, and those believers who establish prayers and pay the zakat while they are bowing - they indeed are true believers. Thus it excludes the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease; leaving the true believers whose wilayah is incumbent. The verse gives the same import that is shown by a collection of such verses as: ... and Allah is the Guardian of the believers (3:68); The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves...(33:6); [and about the believers that] ... these are guardians of each other;. . . (8:72); And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other,. .. (9:71). [According to these exegetes] the verse under discussion makes Allah, His Messenger and the believers awliya' (here meaning helpers) of the believers. However, there remains the difficulty of the circumstantial clause, "while they bow", which is attached to the clause, and pay zakat. They have tried to remove this difficulty by taking the bowing in a metaphorical sense, i.e., they submit themselves to Allah; or they are financially in a low position, etc. The verse then would mean: The Jews, the Christians and the hypocrites are not your guardian; rather your Guardians are Allah, His Messenger and those believers who keep up prayers and pay zakat, and they in all this surrender themselves to Allah with total obedience or, they pay zakat while they themselves are poor and in straitened condition. This was the explanation given by them. But if you ponder on, and look minutely at the two verses and the ones surrounding them, and then at the general position of this chapter, you will reach at a conclusion different from what they have said. The first thing which goes out of window is their claim that all these verses were in a single context, and that their aim was to describe the wilayah of helping and to differentiate between genuine and false help. Yet, although it is accepted that the chapter was revealed during the last days of the Messenger of Allah' (s.a.w.a.) in the Last Pilgrimage; but it is also accepted that all its verses were not revealed together in one go; the chapter contains verses which were doubtlessly revealed before that time, and their meanings clearly show it; also their narrated reasons of revelation support their earlier revelation. If a verse is placed before or after a verse it does not give an indication that their context is one; nor does some affinity between one verse and another show that they were revealed together or in one context. Moreover, the preceding verses [0 you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends ... ] forbid the believers to befriend the Jews and the Christians, and put to shame the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease for hastening to them and looking after their interests, without addressing the Jews and the Christians or talking to them. And the following ones [0 you who believe! Do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; ... Say: "0 People of the Book! Do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah. . ., and that most of you are transgressors], prohibit taking them for guardians and expose their condition by ordering to talk to them and put them to shame for hypocrisy and transgression. Thus the aims in the two sets of verses are quite different from each other. So, how the context can be the same? Apart from that you have seen in the commentary of preceding verses [0 you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends ...] that the wilayah in the meaning of help is not suitable in that context, and the particularities of those verses and especially the words, they are friends of each other, and the words, and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them, are not appropriate for such interpretation. Establishing the wilayah of help and its undertaking between two nations does not make the two into one nation nor does it attach one to the other. Also such prohibition cannot be justified by saying that, they are friends of each other. Such expressions can only be used when the aim is to prohibit wilayah of love, because love creates psychological and spiritual blending of both parties, and permits each to affect psychological and spiritual management in the other's life affairs; it brings two groups near each other in character and activities in a way that obliterates national characteristics. Not only that. It is not correct to count the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as a waliyy (in the meaning of helper) of the believers, while its opposite is correct. This help which is given by Allah, and the Qur'an mentions it in many of its verses, is the help in religion. Accordingly, it is proper to say that the religion belongs to Allah in the meaning that He has established it and laid down its shari’ah. Thus the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) or the believers or both together are exhorted to help it, or some helpers are invited to help Allah regarding the laid down religion, as He says: ... The disciples said: "We are helper of Allah". . . (61:14); ... if you help Allah, He will help you ... (47:7); And when Allah made a covenant with the prophets: ". . . you must believe in him, and you must aid him. ". . . (3:8 1); apart from other many such verses. Also, it is proper to say that the religion belongs to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the meaning that it is he who has called to it and conveyed it to us, for example. Or that the religion belongs to Allah and His Messenger in the meaning of legislation and guidance, and so they call people to help it or praise the believers for helping it; as Allah says: ... so those who believe in him and honor him and help him, . . . (7:157); ... seeking grace of Allah and (His) pleasure, and assisting Allah and His Messenger ... (59:8); ... and those who gave shelter and helped... (8:72); and other such verses. Likewise, it is proper to say that the religion belongs to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the believers in the meaning that they are obligated to follow its laws and act on it, so it is said that Allah is their Guardian and Helper; as He says: ... and surely Allah will help him who helps Him. (22:40); Most surely We help Our messengers, and those who believe in this world's life and on the day when the witnesses shall stand up (40:5 1); ... and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us. (30:47), apart from other such verses. However, it is not correct to ascribe the religion to the believers alone, thus making them as principal and putting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) aside, and then to count the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as their helper in their affairs; because whatever religious dignity there is, the Prophet (s.a. w.a.) has the lion's share in it. That is why we do not find a single example in the Qur'an where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has been mentioned as the believer's helper. Far be it from the divine speech to neglect the noble divine decorum in any instance. This is one of the strongest proofs that wherever the Qur'an ascribes wilayah to the Prophet, it means the wilayah of Guardianship and authority or that of love and affection, as Allah says: The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves.... (33:6); Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe, . . . (5:55); note that the verse is addressed to the believers, and as you have been told earlier, there is no meaning in counting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) their waliyy in the meaning of helper. It is now clear that these two verses are different in the context from the preceding ones, even if we take the wilayah in the meaning of helping; do not be confused by the clause: the party of Allah are they that shall he triumphant, because triumph and prevailing points to the connotation of helping as much as it does to that of management and authority, and to that of love and affinity. Triumph of religion - the topmost desire of the people of religion takes place when the believers attach themselves to Allah and His Messenger with any possible means. Allah has clearly announced it to them in His words: Allah has written down: I will most certainly prevail, I and My Messengers;. . . (58:21); And certainly Our word has already gone forth in respect of Our servants, the messengers: most surely they shall be the assisted ones, and most surely Our host alone shall be the victorious ones (37:171-3). On top of all, there are a lot of traditions declaring that these two verses were revealed about 'Ali (a.s.) when he gave his ring in charity while he was praying. Thus these verses are reserved for him and are not general. God willing, many of those traditions will be quoted under "Traditions". If such numerous and so many accumulated traditions pointing to the reason of revelation can be ignored while explaining a verse, then obviously not a single verse could be explained with the help of the narrated reasons of revelation in the whole Qur'an. Therefore, there is no justification for generalizing the two verses and claiming that they point to the believers' friendship with one another. However, the exegetes have objected to these traditions - although they should not have done so in view of their overwhelming numbers as follows:

First: These traditions are against the context of the verses that apparently point to the wilayah of help, as mentioned above.


Second: They want us to use plural and mean singular; because according to them, the clauses: those who believe and those. . ., refer to 'Ali, but language does not support it.


Third: According to these traditions, zakat would mean giving the ring in charity, and it is not called zakat. Based on these objections, they say that the verses are general, and restrict the wilayah to the group mentioned therein. The hypocrites were hastening to the help of the People of the Book and emphasizing its importance; so Allah forbade it and said that their only helpers are Allah, His Messenger and the true believers, rather than the People of the Book and the hypocrites. There would remain only one difficulty: that this explanation did not agree with the apparent meaning of the conditional clause: while they bow. But, it could easily he removed if we took it in its metaphorical meaning, i.e. while they are humble before Allah; or even when they are themselves in need, in wretched condition. This was the gist of their objections. But if you meditate on this and other similar verses, you will see that none of these stands on its legs. As for the verse's position in the context of the ones denoting wilayah of help: You have seen that those verses do not give the meaning of help; and even if we suppose that the previous verses denote that meaning, this verse is not compatible with it. As for the problem of using plural and meaning singular: You have seen the detailed reply to it under the verse of Mubahalah (3:61) in volume three (volume 6 in English) of this book. Also, it was explained there that there were two ways of speaking:


1. To use a plural word and mean a singular, a single entity.


2. To describe a general proposition, using a plural word, in order that it may be applied to all suitable candidates, even if at present there be only one person or thing to which it could be applied.


The language rejects the first style; but the second one is very common in use. Would that I knew what would they say about the verse: 0 you who believe! Do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends; would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, . . . would you manifest love to them? ... (60: 1). It is undoubtedly known that the verse refers to one man, Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah, when he corresponded with the Quraysh.


Or about the verse: "They say: "If we return to Medina, the mighty will surely drive out the meaner there from,". .. (63:8). It is well known that the speaker one man, was 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul.


Or about the verse: "They ask you as to what they should spend ..." (2:215), and the questioner was one man.


Or about the verse: "(As for) those who spend their wealth by night and by day, secretly and openly, they shall have their reward ..." (2:274). It is narrated that the spender was 'Ali or Abu Bakr.


There are a lot of such verses in the Qur'an. A very strange phenomenon appears before our eyes when we look at the clause: (they say), "We fear lest a calamity should befall us;". . . (5:52). The speaker was 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy, according to the narrated reason of revelation, which the objectors themselves do accept; and it is in between the verses under discussion. [They find no difficulty in applying the plurals to one man in this clause!] It could be said that in the above-mentioned verses there were many people who agreed with that one person's views, or were pleased with their action; therefore Allah has used plurals in order that it may cover the doer together with those who agreed with him. However, it would show that using a plural for a single person was justified if there was a good reason for it. The verse under discussion too would come into this category; as it would prove that the religious nobilities including the said wilayah ? is not confined to one person to the exclusion of the others; rather it only depends on priority in sincerity and deeds. Moreover, all the narrators of these traditions were the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their disciples who were with them in that very era. All of them were pure Arabs whose language was not perverted and whose tongues were not mixed up. if such usage was not allowed in the speech and people were not familiar with such expressions, they would not have accepted these narrations, rather they would have been the first to put forward this objection; but none of them is on record to speak against it on this ground. As for the saying that charity of a ring is not called zakat: It should be kept in mind that the use of the word, zakat, specifically in its terminological meaning took place in the Muslim's expressions after the Qur’an laid it down as an obligatory act of religion; but in its literal sense it covers that terminological meaning and other spending altogether. When it is used without any restriction or joined with keeping up prayer, it indicates spending the property for the sake of Allah. See, for example, what Allah has mentioned regarding the previous prophets: He says about Ibrahim, lshaq, and Ya'qub: ... and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of zakat, . . . (21:73); and He says about Ismai’l: And he enjoined on his family prayer and zakat, and was one in whom his Lord was well pleased (19:5 5); and He quotes 'Isa (a.s.) saying in the cradle: ... and He has enjoined on me prayer and zakat so long as I live (19:3 1). And it is known that their shari'ah did not have the zakat of wealth as we understand it in Islam. Likewise, look at the following verses, which were revealed in Mecca in early days of prophethood when the zakat (as we know it) was not legislated yet: He indeed shall be successful who pays zakat, and remembers the name of his Lord and prays (87:14-15); [He] who gives away his wealth for zakat (92:18); Those who do not give zakat and they are unbelievers in the hereafter. (41:7); And who are givers of zakat (23:4). Would that I knew what did the Muslims understand from the word, zakat, in these verses! Even the verse of zakat itself: Take alms out of their wealth, you would cleanse them and purify them thereby, and pray for them; surely your prayer is a relief to them,. . . (9:103), shows that zakat is a sort of alms and charity, and it has been named zakat [lit: purification] only because charity cleanses and purifies in general; and then its was predominantly used for that particular alms. All of it clearly shows that there is no hindrance in calling general alms and spending in the way of Allah as zakat. Also it is evident that there is no reason for interpreting the word, bowing, in metaphorical sense. Similarly, there is no reason to look for far fetched justifications as to why Allah used in the beginning of the verse the word: your Guardian, in singular and brought in its predicate: those who believe, in plural. Think over it.


QUR’AN: Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe:


ar-Raghib has said in his Muftadatu 'l-Quran: "al-Wilayah” and “at-tawallah” denote that two or more things are so positioned as nothing extraneous comes between them. Metaphorically it is used to indicate proximity in place, or affinity, or friendship, and in help, or in belief al-wilayah is help, and/or management.of affairs. It has been said that al-walayah and al-wilayah both are one like al-dalalah and al-dilalah and it really means management of affairs; and al-waliyy add al-mawla denote this meaning, and both are used as nomen agentis, i.e. guardian/manager; and as nomen patientis, i.e. one whose affairs are managed. A believer is called waliyy of Allah, but nowhere is he referred to as mawla of Allah; while Allah is called waliyy of the believers, as well as their mawla. Further he says: "They say, tawalli when used without any preposition, gives the meaning of wilayah, indicating that it is related to the nearest objective; they say, 'I turned my ears/eyes/face to so and so. Allah says: ... so We shall surely turn thee to a qiblah which thou shalt be pleased with; turn then thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it,.. . . (2:144); but when it is followed by preposition min (from) clearly or implied, it means turning away and leaving the proximity." Apparently, man perceived the proximity (pointed to by wilayah first of all physically in bodies and their places and times; then it was borrowed for immaterial nearness, opposite to the abovementioned idea. We know that primitive man began his perceptive journey with the material things perceived through the five senses and was involved with them long before thinking about rational propositions and immaterial ideas and their related things. When wilayah - a special proximity - is affected in spiritual/ immaterial affairs, it follows that Analyst has a right and an authority over the mawla, which others do not have (except through him). All such managerial aspects that may be delegated to another will automatically be taken over by the waliyy e.g. the waliyy of a deceased person. The estate, which the deceased used to manage by right of ownership, his heir, has the right to manage it by wilayah of inheritance. Likewise, the guardian of a minor manages that minor's financial affairs by wilayah of guardianship; and the helper manages the affairs of the helped one strengthening him in his defense; and Allah is the Guardian (Waliyy) of His servants and manages their affairs in this world and the hereafter ? there is no guardian except Him. So Allah is the Guardian of the believers, inasmuch as He manages the affairs of their religion through guiding, calling, and helping them and so on. And the Prophet is the Guardian of the believers inasmuch as he has the authority to decide between them, for them and against them through legislation and judgement. Likewise, the hakim (ruler, judge) is the guardian of the people over whom he rules within his jurisdiction. The same is the case with other examples of wilayah, like that of emancipation, covenant, protection, neighborhood and divorce; similarly, the wilayah of a cousin, of love and of a designated successor, and so on. Also, His word: they shall turn (their) backs to you [33:15], i.e. they shall turn their backs towards the war and ignore its demands.



And His word: you turned back [5:92], i.e. you turned away from accepting it; you faced its opposite direction by turning away from it. In short, looking at wilayah in its different usages, we get the meaning of a sort of proximity that gives its subject some authority of management and possession of planning. Looking at the context of the verse under discussion: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe", we find that the meaning of wilayah (guardianship) for all the guardians is the same, because "Allah, His Messenger and the believers", have all been ascribed to one word: "your Guardian", and clearly guardianship of each has the same meaning. This is also supported by the clause at the end of the second verse: then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant, as it indicates or clearly shows that all the guardians are the party of Allah, because they are under His Guardianship; thus the guardianship of the Messenger and of those who believe sprout from the root of Allah's Guardianship.



Allah has ascribed to Himself the following aspects of wilayah: al-Wilayatu ‘t-Takwimiyyah (The Authority Over Creation): Through this authority He manages everything and disposes the creatures' affairs as He pleases and in whatever way He pleases. He says: Or have they taken guardians besides Him? But Allah is the Guardian.... (42:9); ... you have not besides Him any guardian or any intercessor; will you not then mind? (32:4); ... Thou art my guardian in this world and the hereafter; . . . (12: 10 1); ... he has no guardian after Him;_ . (42:44). The same is the implication of the verses: ... and We are nearer to Him than his life?vein. (50:16); ... and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, . . . (8:24). Possibly related to it is the wilayah of help, which Allah ascribes to Himself. That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them (47:11); ... then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian,. .. (66:4); and the same connotation is seen in the verse: ... and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us (30:47). al-Wilayatu 't-Tashri’iyyah (The Authority Over Legislation): Allah has ascribed to Himself this wilayah which concerns the believers' religious affairs: Legislation of the laws, guidance, advice, help and so on. He says: Allah is the Guardian of those who believe; He brings them out of the darkness into light,. . . (2:257); ... and Allah is the Guardian of the believers (3:68); and Allah is the Guardian of the pious ... (45:19) The same is the theme of the verse: And it is not for a believing man nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying (3 3:3 6). This is what Allah has described related to His wilayah, and it concerns the authority over creation and authority over legislation andYou may also call them the real wilayah and the wilayah from a subjective point of view. Then Allah has mentioned for His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) the wilayah which is reserved for him, and it is al-Wilayatut-Tashri’iyyah: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has the right and authority to legislate the laws, call people to it, train the ummah accordingly, rule over them and decide in their affairs. Allah says: The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves.... (33:6). The same is the connotation of the verses: Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you; ... (4:105); ... and most surely you guide to the right path (42:52); ... a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom.... (62:2); ... that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them .... (16:44); . . . obey Allah and obey the Messenger ... (4:59); And it is not for a believing man nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; ... (33:36); And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; ... (5:49). It has been mentioned that Allah has not ascribed to the Prophet the wilayah of help for the ummah. In short, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has the wilayah over the ummah, inasmuch as he leads them to Allah, rules over them, judges and decides in all their affairs. It is incumbent on them to obey him unconditionally. In this way, his wilayah springs from Allah's wilayah, in the meaning of the authority of legislation. In other words, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has precedence over them as they are bound to obey him, because his obedience is Allah's obedience. Thus, his wil4ah is the wilayah of Allah, as some previously quoted verses prove, for example: ... obey Allah and obey the Messenger ... (4:59); And it is not for a believing man, nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Alldh and His Messenger have decided a matter; ... (33:36), apart from other such verses. It is this meaning of wilayah as ascribed to Allah and His Messenger, which is bestowed on the believers in the verse under discussion, when it says: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe." You have seen that the context proves that it is only one wilayah, and it belongs to Allah directly and to the Messenger and to those who believe indirectly by permission of Allah. Had the wilayah ascribed to Allah in this verse, been different from that ascribed to those who believe, it was more appropriate, in order to avoid any confusion, to bring another word of wilayah before mentioning "those who believe", as Allah has done in similar situations. For example, He says: Say: "A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful. . . " (9:6 1). The word: "believes", has been repeated because its connotations in the two clauses are different. A similar style was used in the verse: ... obey Allah and obey the Messenger ... (4:59), as was explained in volume 8 (Eng.) of this book. Moreover, the word: "Your Guardian", is singular and is ascribed to, "those who believe", i.e. plural. According to the exegetes, it is because wilayah here has a single meaning, and it directly belongs to Allah and as for the Messenger and the believers, it is indirectly, through Allah. It is clear from above that the restriction in "Only" aims at confining the wilayah to those mentioned in the verse. It removes the possible misunderstanding that it might cover those who are mentioned and also the others. There is another possibility that this restriction negates the wilayah of all persons other than those mentioned therein.


QUR’AN: those who keep up prayers and pay the ZAKAT while they bow: It gives further particulars of "those who believe"; "while they bow" is the conditional clause attached to the subject hidden in the verb "pay". ar-ruku is a particular position of body which is found in human beings only. An old man with bent back is called ar-raki (one who bows down.) In the language of shar’ah it is the name of a special position in worship. Allah says: ... (those) who bow down, who prostrate ... (9:112). Symbolically it represents humility and submission [to Allah]; but in Islam it is not allowed except in prayer, contrary to prostration. And because it shows humility and submission, the word is sometimes used to allude to general humbleness, or to poverty and need, because a man in straitened circumstances usually shows humility before others.


QUR'AN: And whoever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe for guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant: at-Tawalli (to take as a friend); "those who believe" points to the preceding: those who believe, together with their attributes: those who keep up prayers and pay the zakat while they how,? the clause: "then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant", is put in the place of the complement for the preceding conditional clause, although it is not the complement. Rather, the speech has put the major premise in place of the conclusion, in order to show the reason of the proposition. In effect it says: Whoever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe for guardian, shall be triumphant, because he belongs to the party of Allah and the party of Allah are they that are triumphant. It is an allusion that they are the party of Allah. al-Hizb according to ar-Raghib, is a group having coarseness, ruthlessness, and harshness. Allah has described His party in another place in the Qur'an, with a nearly similar theme and has ascribed success to them. He says: You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers or their kinsfolk; these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a spirit from Him: and He will cause them to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein; Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him; they are Allah’s party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones (58:22). al-Faw means victory and acquisition of the object of desire, i.e., triumph. It is this triumph and success, which Allah has promised to bestow on the believers - this being His best promise to them. He says: Successful indeed are the believers (23:1). Many verses have this theme; and in all of them the promise is without any condition; obviously it denotes unrestricted victory and unconditional success. Gaining felicity, adhering to truth, vanquishing infelicity and refuting falsity in this world and the hereafter: In this world through good life which is found in virtuous society made up of the friends of Allah, in an earth cleansed from the friends of Satan ' based on piety; and in the hereafter, in neighborhood of the Lord of the worlds.


Summary: (English volume 11, pages 3-15)



GENERAL COMMENT: This chapter was revealed during the last days of the Messenger of Allah (during the Last Pilgrimage) but the meanings of the verses clearly show that the verses were not revealed in one go. The two verses are placed between the verses, which prohibit taking the People of the Book and unbelievers for a helper or guardian and the aim and context of these two sets of verses are different. Therefore, these two verses should not be explained using the preceding and following verses. The wilayah in the meaning of help, as explained by some Sunni exegetes, is not suitable in the context of these two verses. In addition, it is not correct to consider the Prophet as a ‘waliyy’ (in the meaning of a helper) of the believers because he has the lion share of the religion as far as its legislation is concerned. The help is actually given by Allah (mentioned in many places in the Qur’an) and it is the help in religion and the Messenger and the believers are exhorted to help it. We do not find a single example in the Qur’an where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has been mentioned as the believer’s helper. This proves that wherever the Qur’an ascribes wilayah to the Prophet, it means the wilayah of Guardianship and authority or that of love and affection, as Allah says: “The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves…(33:6). There are numerous traditions declaring that these two verses were revealed about ‘Ali (a.s.) when he gave his ring in charity while he was praying. Thus these verses are reserved for him and are not general. These traditions should not be ignored to explain the reasons for the revelation – otherwise the circumstances of the revelation of a single verse in the Qur’an cannot be explained. Some exegetes have objected to these traditions (which are overwhelming in numbers) by saying that they go against the context of the verses that point to the wilayah of help. They also object by saying that the clauses: “those who believe and those…” refer to ‘Ali, but language does not support it. Their other objection is that the traditions point to giving the ring as an act of charity and this cannot be termed as zakat. If one meditates upon their objections, you will find that they have no footings. We have already explained above that the wilayah in this case is not in the meaning of help. As for the problem of using plural and meaning singular, there are many verses in the Qur’an that use the plural for the action of one individual (63:8, 2:215, 2:274, 5:52, etc.). We wonder what do these people have to say about these verses. As for the saying that charity of a ring is not zakat, it should be noted that the use of this word took place in the Muslim expressions after the Qur’an laid it down as an obligatory act of religion and hence there is no hindrance in calling general alms and spending in the way of Allah as zakat. Qur’an: Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe: Ar-Raghib has said that “al-wilayah” and “at-tawallah” denote that two or more things are so positioned as nothing extraneous comes between them. al-wilayah actually means management of affairs; and al-waliyy and al-mawla denote this meaning, and both are used to mean guardian/manager or one whose affairs are managed. Further, he says: “They say, when tawalli is used without any preposition, it gives the meaning of wilayah, indicating that it is in close proximity, and, when it is followed by the preposition min (from) it means turning away and thus leaving the proximity”. When wilayah is affected in spiritual affairs, it follows that the Analyst has a right and authority over the mawla, which others do not have (except through him). So Allah is the Guardian of the believers inasmuch as He manages the affairs of their religion through guiding, calling and helping them, etc. And the Prophet is the Guardian of the believers inasmuch as he has the authority to decide between them, for them and against them through legislation and judgment. Looking at the context of the verse under discussion: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe", we find that the meaning of wilayah (guardianship) for all the guardians is the same, because "Allah, His Messenger and the believers", have all been ascribed to one word: "your Guardian", and clearly guardianship of each has the same meaning. This is also supported by the clause at the end of the second verse: then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant, as it indicates or clearly shows that all the guardians are the party of Allah, because they are under His Guardianship; thus the guardianship of the Messenger and of those who believe sprout from the root of Allah's Guardianship. Allah has ascribed to Himself the following aspects of wilayah: al-Wilayatu ‘t-Takwimiyyah (The Authority Over Creation): Through this authority He manages everything and disposes the creatures' affairs as He pleases and in whatever way He pleases. (42:9, 32:4, 42:44, 50:16, 8:24) al-Wilayatu 't-Tashri’iyyah (The Authority Over Legislation): Allah has ascribed to Himself this wilayah which concerns the believers' religious affairs: Legislation of the laws, guidance, advice, help and so on. (2:257, 3:68, 45:19, 33:36) Then Allah has mentioned for His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) the wilayah which is reserved for him, and it is al-Wilayatut-Tashri’iyyah. Allah says: The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves.... (33:6). In short, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has the wilayah over the ummah, inasmuch as he leads them to Allah, rules over them, judges and decides in all their affairs. It is incumbent on them to obey him unconditionally. In this way, his wilayah springs from Allah's wilayah, in the meaning of the authority of legislation. In other words, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has precedence over them as they are bound to obey him, because his obedience is Allah's obedience. Thus, his wilayah is the wilayah of Allah, as some previously quoted verses prove, for example: ... obey Allah and obey the Messenger ... (4:59); And it is not for a believing man, nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; ... (33:36), apart from other such verses. It is this meaning of wilayah as ascribed to Allah and His Messenger, which is bestowed on the believers in the verse under discussion, when it says: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe." You have seen that the context proves that it is only one wilayah, and it belongs to Allah directly and to the Messenger and to those who believe indirectly by permission of Allah. Moreover, the word: "Your Guardian", is singular and is ascribed to, "those who believe", i.e. plural. According to the exegetes, it is because wilayah here has a single meaning, and it directly belongs to Allah and as for the Messenger and the believers, it is indirectly, through Allah. It is clear from above that the restriction in "Only" aims at confining the wilayah to those mentioned in the verse. It removes the possible misunderstanding that it might cover those who are mentioned and also the others. There is another possibility that this restriction negates the wilayah of all persons other than those mentioned therein.


________________________________________


AL-QURTUBI

In the verse {{Only Allah is your waliyy and His Messenger,}} Jabir bin Abdullah said that Abdullah bin Salam said to the Prophet (pbuh): “Our people from Quraitha and Nathir have abandoned us and swore never to sit with us, and we cannot sit with your companions because of the far distance of our homes;” so this verse was revealed, then he (Abdullah bin Salam) said: “ we accepted Allah and his Messenger and the believers as waliyys.” {{And those}} is general for all the believers. Abu Jaffar, Mohammed bin Ali bin Al Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Tali (RA), was asked about the meaning of {{only Allah is your waliyy and His Messenger and those who believe}} is he ‘Ali bin Abi Talib? He said: “ Ali, who is from the believers, says that this is for all the believers.” Al Nahhas said: “ this is correct because {{those}} is for a group,” and Ibn Abbas said: “ it was revealed for Abu Baker (RA),” and in other narration said: “ it was revealed for Ali bin Abi Talib (RA),” Mojahid and Al Siddy have said the same thing, and he carried them on that. This is because someone begged (for charity) in the Prophet’s mosque, and no one gave him anything. ‘Ali was in the prayer in the position of rokoo’ (bowing), and in his right hand a ring. He signaled to the beggar with his hand until he (the beggar) took it (the ring.) Alkia Al Tabari said: “this proves that small actions do not void the prayer. Giving the ring as charity during rokoo’ is an action done during prayer and the prayer was not void. In the verse {{and pay the poor-rate while they bow}} proves that voluntary charity is (also) called zakah (poor-rate.) Ali paid charity with his ring during bowing and this is equivalent to the verse {{and whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah's pleasure…it is these (persons) that shall get manifold}} 30:39. The obligatory duties and the preferable duties became rightly arranged. Zakah became inclusive to both obligatory and preferable duties just like how Sadaqah (charity) and Salah (prayer) could mean the two duties.” I (Al-Qurtubi) said: the meaning of zakah here is giving the ring in charity, but to say that zakah is based on the giving the ring in charity – it has some distance (from truth.) This is because zakah does not appear unless with its exclusive literal meaning, which is, the obligatory zakah like previously mentioned in the beginning of chapter of “The Cow”. Also, before it came {{keep up prayers}} the meaning of “keep up prayers” is to perform it at its time with its full requirements, and the meaning is the obligatory prayer. Then he (Allah) said {{while they bow}} to mean the preferable. It was said: “exclude the rokoo’ to only include dhikr to honor it”. It was also said: “believers during the revelation of the verse were between completion of the prayer and bowing.” Ibn Khoaiz Mindad said in the verse: {{and pay the poor-rate while they bow}} included the permissibility of small actions during prayer, because this (in the verse) came out as a praise, and the minimum that goes for praise is permissibility, and it was narrated that ‘Ali gave the beggar something whilst he was in prayer, and it could be that this prayer was voluntary, because this is Makrooh (undesirable) in the obligatory. And it is probable that the praise is directed upon the availability of two conditions. It is like he described who believes in the obligation of Salah and Zakah, so he expressed prayer as bowing, and in the belief of the obligation by action, like when we say “ the Muslims are the ones who pray” and we do not mean, by this, that only during that act they are praying, and praise is not given during prayer, but this is what the one who does this act wants and believes. Allah said: {{And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for waliyy, lo! the party of Allah, they are the victorious}} 5:56.


________________________________________



OUR CONCLUSIONS:


Prelude: Ibn Kathir (and many other commentators) has explained the word ‘waliyy’ in the meaning of friendship; Allamah Tabataba’I has explained it in the meaning of mastership/guardianship and Al-Qurtubi has not explained it. Therefore, we decided to clarify the word ‘waliyy’ before presenting our conclusions and we arrived at the following: The word “waliyy” (plural form is awliyaa) is derived from the root letters w-l-y, and it means: protector, guardian, master, friend, helper, etc. Thus the appropriate meaning of “waliyy” will depend on the context in which the word is used. We see that its meaning as a ‘friend’ and ‘helper’ is rejected by the context of the verse because the believers are already friends and helpers of each other as per verses 8:72, 5:2 and 49:10. Yet the strongest rejection of this meaning is that there is not a single verse in the Qur’an saying that the Prophet is the ‘helper’ of the believers. The Arabic word “Innama” is used for restriction to limit the intention to one specific meaning or definite persons. Further, the particulars and characteristics of the ‘waliyy’ besides Allah and the Messenger is given in the circumstantial clause “while they bow”. The word “waliyy” in the meaning of “mastership” or “guardianship” in this verse makes more sense because the verse says Waliyyukum (your guardian) in a singular form, not 'awliyaa'ukum (your guardians) in plural form. This means that the essence of wilayah (Guardianship) of Allah, the Messenger, and “those who believe” is the same, and it is essentially one in nature as well as in effect. Hence the clause “and those who believe” cannot mean all the believers; otherwise their mastership would be one in nature and effect with that of Allah. This leads us to the fact that the ‘waliyy’ not only has to be appointed by Allah but he guides the people by the Command of Allah as well. Ibn Kathir, has explained the word “waliyy” in this verse in the meaning of “friendship” and says that the sentence “Verily your friend is Allah…” means that we should be friends of Allah, His Messenger and those who believe and not friends of the Jews and Christians. We have seen in Tabataba’I’s tafseer how this interpretation is rejected because the context and aim of these verses under study are different from the preceding and following verses. Kathir seems to have considered all these verses (5:54-57) in a single context. Further, his statement that the people who take the clause “those who pay zakat while bowing down” as an act of charity are confused and wrong, is not acceptable. Ibn Kathir tries to explain the circumstantial clause “while they bow” in a metaphorical sense - to remove the difficulty that remains when the word waliyy is explained in the meaning of help and friendship. In comparison, Tabatabai explains that everyone agrees this chapter and the verses (under study) were revealed in Medina during a time after the Qur’an had already laid down zakat as an obligatory act of religion. Therefore, the word zakat covers its terminological meaning and all other spending (for the sake of Allah). We see the clear proof here that giving charity while in the state of bowing down is also an act of zakat. Ibn Kathir also claims that the traditions mentioning the story of ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib and the ring are ‘exalted’ (marfoo) and that the narrators of these traditions are either unreliable or not trustworthy. The fact is that all the narrators of these traditions were the companions of the Prophet and their disciples, and, this tradition is also mentioned in the ‘musnad’ of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (a Sunni Jurist), volume 5, page 38. Allamah Tabatabai says the following: “If such numerous traditions pointing to the reason of revelation can be ignored while explaining a verse, then obviously not a single verse could be explained with the help of the narrated reasons of revelation in the whole Qur’an.” Ibn Kathir then tells us that these verses were revealed about Ubadah bin Saamit when he *openly* broke up with his Jewish friends and he was pleased with the friendship of Allah, the Messenger and the pious people. How can Ibn Kathir deny the numerous traditions (pointing to the circumstances of the revelation of these verses) that mention the story of ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib and the ring and accept this one story about Ubadah when it does not even conform to the context of these two verses? Even some of the other Sunni exegetes like al-Zamakhshari in his Tafsir al-Kashshaf, al-Tha’labi in his Tafseer al-Kabir and al-Suyuti in Durr al-Manthur, all agree that the clause “pay zakat while they bow” was revealed in honor of ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib. We can therefore reasonably conclude that Ibn Kathir has assumed the authority of rejecting those traditions that could possibly explain the circumstances of revelation of these verses, and, accepting the story that conforms to his thoughts rather than the context of the verses. If the Prophet was a waliyy of the believers in the sense of ‘helping’ or ‘friendship’ then one wonders who had the lion share of the religion of Islam (which was under the management of the Prophet) – the Prophet or the Believers? Allamah Tabataba’I first mentions that a group of Sunni exegetes have taken the four verses (5:54-57) in one connotation and thus they ended up describing the wilayah of Allah, the Messenger and “those who believe” in the meaning of helping. He rejects this description by showing how the aim and context of these two verses (5:55-56) is different from the preceding and following verses. Tabataba’I further says that there is not a single example in the Qur’an where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has been mentioned as the believers’ helper. He also says that it is not correct to make the people the principal of the religion and to count the Prophet as their helper, thus reducing the Prophet’s share in the religion when it is he who has called to it and conveyed it to us. The verse he quotes, 33:6 {“The Prophet has more right over the believers than they have over themselves..”}, to support his argument is very convincing. Therefore, it is very clear from the proofs Tabataba’I presents, that whenever the Qur’an mentions the wilayah of the Prophet, it is always in the meaning of “guardianship” and “authority” and not “friendship” or “help”. Tabataba’I tells us that there are numerous traditions declaring that these two verses were revealed about ‘Ali (a.s.) when he gave his ring in charity while he was praying. Tabataba’I goes on to deal with the objections some of the exegetes have leveled against these traditions. The one in particular is the claim by these exegetes that the clause “those who believe and those…” refer to ‘Ali (a.s.) but language does not support it. He argues and quotes many verses that show the usage of plural for the action of one individual (60:1, 63:8, 5:52, 2:215, 2:274, etc). Tabataba’I then leads us in stages to the actual meaning of verse 5:55 by first analyzing the words “al-wilayah”, “al-waliyy” and “al-mawla” and then explains that “al-wilayah” actually means management of affairs; the words “al-waliyy” and “al-mawla” both denote this same meaning and are used to imply guardian/manager and one whose affairs are managed. Thereafter he says, looking at the context of the verse, that the meaning of wilayah (guardianship) for all guardians is the same, because “Allah, His Messenger and the believers” have all been ascribed to one word: “your Guardian”, and guardianship of each has the same meaning. Tabataba’I shows how this explanation is supported by the clause at the end of the second verse, “then surely a party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant” – as it demonstrates that the guardians are the party of Allah, because they are under His Guardianship. This also shows that the Messenger and a believer can be called “waliyy” of Allah in the sense that they manage the affairs of the people under the Guardianship of Allah but never referred to as the “mawla” of Allah; while Allah is both the “waliyy” and “mawla” of the Messenger and the believers. Towards the end of his exegesis, Tabataba’I talks about the two aspects of “wilayah” that Allah has ascribed to Himself – “The Authority Over Creation” and “The Authority Over Legislation” and how the second aspect is also reserved for the Prophet by quoting verses like 33:6, 4:105, 42:52, etc. In short, the Prophet has the wilayah (which is also the wilayah of Allah) over the ummah because he leads them to Allah, rules over them, judges and decides in all their affairs. Verses 4:59, 33:6 and 33:36 prove that the Prophet has precedence over the ummah as they are bound to obey him, because his obedience is Allah’s obedience. We find this part of Tabataba’I’s tafseer to be remarkable, as we now gather that it is this meaning of wilayah (management of affairs of the ummah), which is also bestowed on the believers, by the permission of Allah, in the verse under study. From Tabataba’I’s tafseer we now understand that the guardianship of the Messenger and of those who believe, sprout from the root of Allah’s Guardianship. Based on this, we can conclude that “those who believe” cannot include ordinary believers and this is the reason why there is the presence of the circumstantial clause “pay zakat while they bow”. We have also seen how others have tried to explain this clause in a metaphorical way. The verse therefore reveals the attributes and particulars of “those believers” who, by the permission and under the Guardianship of Allah, are allowed to manage the affairs of the rest of the believers and hence they acquire the status of “waliyy of Allah”. Another important fact revealed in Tabataba’I’s tafseer is that the wilayah of the Messenger involves his right to legislate the laws of Allah, call people to it, train them and decide in their affairs. This would then mean that the waliyy (other than the Messenger) of Allah also assumes similar responsibilities because his wilayah also springs from Allah’s wilayah. We also saw under the study #2 pertaining to verse 5:3, that the wilayah of Allah and that of the Messenger is a Divine bounty bestowed on the ummah and that this bounty was completed when the waliyy of Allah (to succeed the Messenger) was appointed and the religion of Islam was thus perfected.

POSER: Does it make sense to say that the Messenger, who was also the waliyy of Allah, left us without appointing (by the Command of Allah) a waliyy who would assume similar responsibilities of his wilayah?


REPLY: It does not make sense at all because otherwise the wilayah of the Messenger can never become complete. Moreover, the Divine Guidance promised by Allah has to be continuous so long as there is a human being living in the earth. ANOTHER POSER: We have already seen (in Tabataba'I's tafseer) how Allah’s wilayah (Authority over Legislation) becomes complete through the wilayah of the Messenger. How does the wilayah of the Messenger become complete without the presence of another waliyy of Allah after the Prophet?

REPLY: The wilayah (in the meaning explained above) of the Messenger can never become complete without the presence of a waliyy appointed by Allah. The revelation ended and the laws of the 'shari'ah' were ordained with the last Messenger of Allah (Muhammad, s.a.w.a.) but the management of the affairs of the Muslim ummah will never end until the earth ceases to exist. Al-Qurtubi, in his tafseer, has not paid any attention to the actual value of the word “waliyy” used in the verse under study. The story of Abdullah bin Salam he mentions to explain the reasons for the revelation of the verse 5:55 does not even conform to its context. As we mentioned before, the word “waliyy” means helper, friend, master, guardian, etc but an exegete cannot simply overlook the intent of its usage in a particular verse; especially a word which has so many meanings that can change the entire connotation of a verse. In his explanation of the clause “and those”, Qurtubi says (quoting Abdullah bin Salam) that it is general for all the believers. He does not even show us how it can be considered general through exegesis. We have seen from Tabatabai’s tafseer that when the correct meaning of “waliyy” is applied and when the clause “and those” is connected with the clause “while they bow” the clause “and those” becomes more particular than general. The numerous traditions narrated about the circumstantial clause “while they bow” also points to this same understanding. The statement made by Abu Jaffer (quoted by Qurtubi) that ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib said that the clause “and those” is for all believers, if true, could therefore be taken to mean that the believers were in agreement with ‘Ali’s act of charity while in prayers. Thereafter, Qurtubi takes the trouble of discussing the traditions that mention the story of ‘Ali and the ring and he also discusses the usage of the word “zakat” in the verse in a rather comprehensive manner but one can see that he has not made any connection to lead to the actual meaning of the verse. However, Qurtubi, unlike Ibn Kathir, does accept that giving the ring while in prayers is an act of zakat, although he says that it is not an obligatory act of zakat. Tabataba’I has shown in his tafseer that the usage of the word “zakat” in this verse covers its terminological meaning as well as all other spending done for the sake of Allah. In short, Al-Qurtubi has paid too much attention to explain the circumstances of the revelation of verse 5:55 while we know that the verse contains many important clauses like “most surely”, “your waliyy” that require exposition and that can lead to the true meaning of the verse. Qurtubi, unlike Tabataba’I, has also not discussed the meaning of “wilayah” in this verse and therefore we do not expect to find in his tafseer the relationship of Allah’s “wilayah” with that of the Messenger and “those who pay zakat while they bow”.

Note: While translating Qurtubi’s Arabic rendition of this verse, we could not decide which appropriate English word to apply for the word “waliyy”. Therefore, the reader will notice that we have left alone the word ‘waliyy’ in the translation since Qurtubi has not explained its true meaning in his tafseer work.

Questions:


1. What is the relationship between the obedience of Allah, the obedience of the Messenger and that of ulu’l-amr?


2. Who are “those in authority” (ulu’l-amr)?


3. What is the connotation of the clause “from among you”?


4. Why are “those in authority” not mentioned in the last sentence: “then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah…”?

The exegetes selected for this study are:

Ibn Kathir


Allamah Tabataba'I


Sayyid Maududi


Go To: Our Conclusions


________________________________________


IBN KATHIR:

(Actual text from 'Abridged' English volume 3, pages 92-95)


Allah said: (O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.) Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah, (Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority)" was revealed about `Abdullah bin Hudhafah bin Qays bin `Adi, who the Messenger of Allah sent on a military expedition.'' This statement was collected by the Group, with the exception of Ibn Majah At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan, Gharib''. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali said, "The Messenger of Allah sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansar. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason and said to them, `Has not the Messenger of Allah commanded you to obey me' They said, `Yes.' He said, `Collect some wood,' and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, `I command you to enter the fire.' The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, ‘You only ran away from the Fire to Allah's Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allah's Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.’ When they went back to Allah's Messenger, they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said, (Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. Abu Dawud recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The Muslim is required to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes, unless he was commanded to sin. When he is commanded with sin, then there is no hearing or obeying.) This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. `Ubadah bin As-Samit said, "We gave our pledge to Allah's Messenger to hear and obey (our leaders), while active and otherwise, in times of ease and times of difficulty, even if we were deprived of our due shares, and to not dispute this matter (leadership) with its rightful people. The Prophet said, (Except when you witness clear Kufr about which you have clear proof from Allah.)'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs. Another Hadith narrated by Anas states that the Messenger of Allah said, (Hear and obey (your leaders), even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin, is made your chief.) Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Umm Al-Husayn said that she heard the Messenger of Allah giving a speech during the Farewell Hajj, in which he said; (Even if a slave was appointed over you, and he rules you with Allah's Book, then listen to him and obey him.) Muslim recorded this Hadith. In another narration with Muslim, the Prophet said, (Even if an Ethiopian slave, whose nose was mutilated...) In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my commander, obeys me, and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me.) This is why Allah said, (Obey Allah), adhere to His Book, (and obey the Messenger), adhere to his Sunnah, (And those of you who are in authority) in the obedience to Allah which they command you, not what constitutes disobedience of Allah, for there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah, as we mentioned in the authentic Hadith, (Obedience is only in righteousness.) Allah said, ((And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger). Mujahid and several others among the Salaf said that the Ayah means, "(Refer) to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.'' This is a command from Allah that whatever areas the people dispute about, whether major or minor areas of the religion, they are required to refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment concerning these disputes. In another Ayah, Allah said, (And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah). Therefore, whatever the Book and Sunnah decide and testify to the truth of, then it, is the plain truth. What is beyond truth, save falsehood This is why Allah said, (if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day.) meaning, refer the disputes and conflicts that arise between you to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment. Allah's statement, (if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. ) indicates that those who do not refer to the Book and Sunnah for judgment in their disputes, are not believers in Allah or the Last Day. Allah said, (That is better) meaning, referring to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes is better, (and more suitable for final determination.) meaning, "Has a better end and destination,'' as As-Suddi and several others have stated while Mujahid said, "Carries a better reward.''


________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I

(Actual text from al-Mizan, English volume 8, pages 276-296)


Qur’an: O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you: After calling the people to worship Allah alone, and do good to various groups of believers, and condemning those who cast aspersions on this idea or prevent others from Allah’s way (see preceding verses), the talk again turns to the basic theme from a different angle, from which grow up other branches. It leads to reinforcing the foundation of Islamic society, as it exhorts and urges the believers to preserve their unity and to remove every type of dispute or discord by referring it to Allah and His Messenger. Undoubtedly, the sentence, “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”, paves the way for the next order to refer all quarrels to Allah and His Messenger, although the sentence is in fact the basis of all divine laws and shari’ah. It is obvious from the order, then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, which emanates from this origin; then the speech repeatedly turns to the same theme, as it goes on saying, Have you not observed those who think that they believe in what has been revealed to you…; then again says: And We did not send any Messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission; Then says: But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them,… There should be no doubt whatsoever that when Allah tells us to obey Him, it means that we must obey Him in all the realities and laws, which He sent to us through His Messenger. As for His Messenger, his orders emanate from either of his two lawful authorities: First: His legislative authority based on divine revelation other than the Qur’an. By this authority, he teaches the people details of what is mentioned in general terms in the Qur’an, and explains all the related matters. Allah says: and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to them what has been revealed to them (16:44). Second: What he, in his wisdom, decides in administrative and judicial matters by the authority given to him by God. Allah says: …that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught (shown) you; (4:105). It is the opinion with which he used to judge between people according to the laid down judicial laws; and it is the decision he used to take in important affairs. Allah had told him to consult the people seeking their advice: and take counsel with them in the affair; but when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah (3:159). Thus the people would participate in consultation; but the decision would be of the Prophet alone. The above discourse shows that the Messenger’s obedience has a connotation distinct from Allah’s obedience, although the Messenger’s obedience is in reality the obedience of Allah Himself, because it is Allah who has obliged the people to obey the Messenger, as He said: And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission. People have to obey the Messenger in what he explains by divine revelation and in what he decides and orders by his divine wisdom. It is this variation of connotation, which has necessitated repetition of the order of obedience: “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”. (And Allah knows better) This repetition, however, is not for emphasis, as the exegetes have opined. Had the intention been on emphasis, it would have been more appropriate not to repeat; it would have been more to the point to say obey Allah and the Messenger, as it would have implied that obedience of the Messenger is one with the obedience of Allah; after all, not every repetition shows emphasis. However, the ulu ‘l-amr (those vested with authority) – whoever they might be – do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the prophet’s opinion and order. That is the reason why Allah has not mentioned them when He orders the believers to refer their disputes to Allah and the Messenger. He says: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. The people thus ordered are the believers, because the verse begins with the address, “O you who believe!” and the quarrel mentioned here must be an internal dispute among the believers. We cannot suppose that the believers would quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated to obey them. So this quarrel must be among the believers themselves, and it cannot be in matters of orders issued by those vested with authority; rather it has to be about identification of Allah's command in a particular affair, as may be inferred from the next verses which condemn those who resort to the judgment of taghut (infidels) preferring it to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger. A believer must resort in such matters to the religious laws laid down in the Qur’an and the sunnah; and both the Qur’an and the sunnah are final proofs in all affairs, for him who has the ability to understand the law from them. When the ulu 'I-amr say that this is what the Qur’an and the sunnah say on this matter, all argument has to stop. When they talk, theirs is the final word, because the verse makes their obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition; and finally every affair returns to the Book of Allah and the sunnah. It shows that the people with authority - whoever they might be - have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose to order people to refer their dispute to the Qur’an and the sunnah, to Allah and the Messenger, as may be inferred from the verse 33:36: And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law, giving an order or pronouncing a judgment. As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power, in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger. In short, as the ulu l-amr have no power of legislation, nor do they have any order other than that which Allah and His Messenger have given in the Qur’an and the sunnah, Allah did not mention them again in connection with referral of disputes, when He said: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. Thus Allah's obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested with authority, in another. That is why Allah has said: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you". Undoubtedly, the obedience, ordered by the words, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger", is general, without any condition or restriction. It proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to Allah's actual order or prohibition. Otherwise, making his obedience compulsory would be a contradiction in terms on the part of Allah; far be it from His sublime presence. It necessarily follows that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was ma'sum (infallible), sinless, free from error. The same argument applies in case of the persons vested with authority. But the presence of al-‘ismah (sinlessness) in the Messenger is independently established by proofs from the reason and the Qur’an and the sunnah, without depending on this verse. Apparently, it is not the case with the people vested with authority. Someone therefore could imagine that it was not necessary for these people of authority to be ma’sum, sinless, and that the verse could be explained even without believing in their 'ismah. The argument could be put forward as follows: "This verse ordains a law aimed at the well-being of the ummah, which would protect the Muslim society from internal discord and disunity. It aims at nothing more than what is found in other nations and societies. They give one of their leaders authority to manage their affairs; they pledge to obey him, and his orders are carried out. But they know that he may sometimes contravene the law or err in his judgment. So, when it is clearly known that he was going against the law, he is not obeyed; rather, his error is pointed out to him. But when there is only a possibility - without certainty that he might be wrong, his orders are obeyed and implemented although in fact he might have decided erroneously. Yet that mistake is tolerated for the sake of maintaining the society's unity, which is more important and would compensate for such mistakes and errors." "The case of ulu ‘l-amr (those vested with authority) mentioned in this verse is not different from other worldly leaders in their authority. Allah has ordered the believers to obey them. If they give an order contrary to the Qur’an or the sunnah, it would be invalid and would not be obeyed; the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w. a.) has said: 'No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator.’ This meaning has been narrated by the Shi'ahs and Sunnis both, and also the generality of the verse proves it. If the ulu 'I-amr commit a mistake, and it is definitely known to be a mistake, it would be changed to conform with the Qur’an and the sunnah; but if there is no certainty of mistake, the order would be carried out as if there was no mistake. It would not do any harm to obey such an order and implement it even if in reality it was wrong, because the preservation of the ummah's unity and continuance of its power and prestige would compensate for such contravention of the actual divine law. It would not be unlike the established dictum of the Principles of Jurisprudence that the decisions derived from apparent proofs of jurisprudence are binding on man even if they are not in accordance with the actual divine order, although the divine order would not be changed by that man-made decision; and the contrariness would be compensated by underlying good of society." "In short, it is compulsory to obey the ulu'l-amr, even if they are not sinless, and could commit mistakes and even debauchery. They shall not be obeyed if they indulge in debauchery; they shall be returned to the Qur’an and the sunnah when it is known that they had deviated from them, but in all other cases, their orders shall be obeyed and their decisions enforced. There is no harm in implementing an order which does not visibly go against actual divine law (even if in reality it does) for the sake of preserving Islamic unity and for the well-being of the Muslim nation."



COMMENT: If you ponder on what was written earlier, you will realize that this fallacy has no leg to stand on. It is possible to use this 'argument' for restricting the generality of the verse in case of debauchery, by putting forward the above-quoted Prophet's tradition, "No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator", or some Qur'anic verses of the same import, e.g., "Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency" (7:28); and other similar verses. Likewise, comparable cases may be quoted for religious obligatory-ness of obeying orders which are apparently binding, like obedience of the commanders of expeditions who were appointed by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), the governors he sent to various places like Mecca or Yemen, or who were left in charge of Medina when he himself went out. Another is the authoritative nature of mujtahids ruling for his followers, and so on. But all this cannot restrict the generality of the verses in any way. Correctness of a theory is one thing, and it being proved by apparent meaning of a Qur'anic verse is quite another. The verse proves obligatory-ness of these ulu l-amr's obedience, without putting any restriction or condition, without attaching any proviso. Nor is there any other Qur'anic verse to limit its generality. In short, there is nothing to show that the order "and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you", implies, 'obey those vested with authority from among you as long as they do not order you to commit a sin or until you are not sure that they are in wrong; but if they tell you to commit a sin, you are not obliged to obey them, and if you are sure of their mistake then correct them by directing their attention to the Qur'an and the sunnah. Certainly the Qur'an's wording does not support this meaning. Also we should not forget that when ordering people to obey their parents, Allah has said: "And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others) with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them . . ." (29:8). It should be noted that parents' obedience is much less important [and is restricted to their off-spring]; yet Allah has attached to it such a clear and unambiguous proviso. How is it that He did not attach any such condition in the verse of obedience which deals with a fundamental religious principles, and on which depends the felicity of mankind? Moreover, the verse has joined the Messenger and "those vested with authority" in this order; and mentions both under one obedience: "Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"; and the Messenger cannot order sin nor can he issue a wrong judgment. If it were possible for the ulu'l-amr to be wrong in an order or a judgment, it was highly essential to put suitable restriction on this order as far as the ulu'l-amr were concerned. Thus the only way out is to interpret this verse in its general sense without any condition or restriction. This in its turn proves that the ulu l-amr were ma'sum, sinless in the same way as the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was without any difference. al-Amr in the phrase, ulu’l-amr the religious or temporal affairs of the believers who have been addressed in this verse; as is supported by the verse, and take counsel with them in the affair (3:159), or as is said in praise of the pious, and their system is to take counsel among themselves (42:38). Although it may possibly be taken to mean order, which is opposite of prohibition, but it will be a far-fetched interpretation. This word is qualified with the phrase, from among you. Obviously it is an adverbial phrase of place. That is, the ulu’l-amr will be raised from among you. It is similar to the words of Allah, He it is who raised among the Meccans a Messenger from among themselves (62:2); or the prayer of lbrahim, Our Lord! and raise up in them a Messenger from among themselves (2:129); or the divine words, if there come to you messengers from among you, relating to you My communications ... (7:35). This explanation leaves no room for the mistaken thought (expressed by someone) that "from among you" indicates that those vested with authority would be normal people like us, as they would be one of us, i.e., mere believers without having the distinction of divine 'ismah (protection from sins and errors). Ulu’l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt, but obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time. Thus all of them taken together will be collectively entitled to the believers' obedience, as we say, 'Pray your compulsory prayers and obey your superiors and elders.' Strangely enough, ar-Razi has objected to this idea, saying "it would mean using a plural for singular and that is contrary to a word's apparent usage." It seems he had forgotten that such usage is very common in literature, and the Qur'an itself is full of such verses. For example, So do not yield to the rejecters (68:8); So do not follow the unbelievers (25:52); surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men (33:67); and do not obey the bidding of the extravagant ones (26:151); Maintain the prayers (2:238); and make yourself gentle to the believers (15:88) and various other verses containing positive and negative statements, and having declarative as well as exclamatory sense. It would be against the apparent meaning of a word if a plural were used for only a single individual; but it is not against apparent meaning if it is used for a group of individuals, in a way that it turns into a series of numerous orders. For example, we say, 'Honor the scholars of your town'; meaning: Honor this scholar, and honor that scholar, and so on. Another suggestion: Ulu’l-amr, who are entitled to unconditional obedience, may be a group - and may thus be referred to with plural sense. It may be an association of many persons each individual counted as a possessor of authority, inasmuch as he has influence over people and his words are obeyed. For example - army commanders, scholars, rulers and community elders. The author of al-Manar has suggested that this refers to ahlu Thalli wa l-'aqd (those who tie and untie; i.e., people having influence and authority), who are trusted by the ummah; including scholars, military commanders, leaders in fields of commerce, industry and agriculture, as well as trade-unionists, political leaders, and chief editors of influential newspapers. This is what we mean when we say that ulu’l-amr means people of influence and authority. It is a collective body of the leaders of the ummah.



COMMENT: The problem is that the complete verse cannot be explained in the light of this suggestion. As you have seen, the verse proves the sinlessness of the ulu’l-amr; and even those who support the above suggestion, have to admit that the verse confirms their sinlessness.



The question arises: Who among this body of influential persons is sinless? Is each of its members sinless, so that the collective body could be called sinless? Because a group is but the sum total of the individuals. But it is evident that there never was in this ummah, even for a single day, a group of influential people who had authority to jointly manage the Muslim's affairs and whose every member was sinless and free from error. Obviously, it is impossible for Allah to order us to obey a group, which had never existed in reality. Or does it mean that sinlessness, a real attribute, exists in that collective body as an adjective exists in its qualified noun? Although each individual member may commit sins, and in common with all other human beings can indulge in polytheism and disobedience, and although the opinion he forms may be erroneous or may lead to sin and straying, but when the said body collectively reaches at a decision it remains safe from mistakes and errors because the collective body is sinless. But this too is impossible. How can a real attribute, that is, sinlessness, exist in an abstract idea, i.e., the collective body? A real attribute cannot stand in a mentally posited idea. Or, does it mean that sinlessness of this body is attributable neither to its individual members nor to the collective body? That it only signifies that Allah protects this body in a way it does not order any sin, nor does it arrive at a mistaken decision. Its case is not different from a mutawatir information which is protected from falsity, although none of its narrators or informants is sinless, nor is this, freedom from falsity attributed to the chain of narrators when looked at as a composite group. All that it means is that a habit has been formed which prevents falsehood from seeping in that information. In other words, Allah protects a mutawdtir information from infiltration of falsehood. In the same way, opinion of ulu’l-amr is protected from mistakes and errors, although neither the collective body nor its individual members are free from sin and mistake. Nor do they have any special quality or attribute. It is nevertheless safe from falsehood and error, like a mutawatir tradition. This is what sinlessness of ulu’l-amr means. The verse only shows that their opinion is never confused; it is always right and in conformity with the Qur’an and the sunnah. It is a special divine providence for this ummah; and it has been narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said: "My ummah will not unite on error."



COMMENT: As for this tradition, it is totally irrelevant to this subject. Even if it is accepted as correct, it only says that the ummah will not unite on error. It does not say that people of influence and authority from among the ummah would not join hands on error. Ummah has its own meaning, and ahlu Thalli wa 'l-aqd has another; there is no evidence that the former means the latter. Moreover the tradition does not say that whatever they unanimously decided would be free from error; it rather says that they would not be united on error - and the two propositions are not the same. The tradition accordingly would mean as follows: Never will the entire ummah unite on error concerning any matter; there will always be among them those who would be on right guidance - either all or some of them, at least the sinless one. It will correspond with the verses and traditions showing that Islam - the religion of truth, would never disappear from the earth, would continue upto the Day of Resurrection. Allah says: ... therefore if these disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it (6:89); And He made it a word to continue in his posterity (43:28); Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9); Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One (41:42). There are many verses having the same connotation. Also this is not a specialty of the ummah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), because the correct traditions prove otherwise. Look at the traditions narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) through various chains of narrators which describe the division of the Jews into seventy-one sects, of the Christians into seventy-two and of the Muslims into seventy-three sects, all of which would go to hell except one. We have quoted it in the "Traditions" under the verse, And hold fast by the cord of Allah all together ... (3:103). In short, there is no need to further discuss this tradition, because, even if its chain of narrators be free from defects, it has no relevance to the subject under discussion. We should look at the meaning of sinlessness as applied to the influential people of authority from this ummah, if it is they who are referred to as "those vested with authority from among you". What is the genesis of 'ismah (sinlessness) of the influential people of authority among the Muslims? What makes their opinion free from error? This body of influential people, which manages the public affairs, is not something unique for the Muslim ummah. There are found in every big and small nation, and even in the tribes and clans, a number of people who have prestige and influence in their society; and who exercise power and have authority over public affairs. Look into the histories of the ancient people as well as the present nations; you will find countless instances where the people of influence and power unanimously agreed on a course of action about some very important matter and their plan was carried out. Later events sometimes showed the decision was correct; at other times it proved wrong. There is, of course, greater chance of mistake in individual decision than in a collective one; yet there is no guarantee that a decision jointly arrived at after thorough debate and discussion will never be wrong. History and our own experience provide ample proof for it. Now, if collective decisions of influential and powerful leaders of Muslim ummah are always free from mistakes and errors, we will have to find for it a cause other than the normal ones; it will have to be something supernatural and miraculous. If so, then it would be a manifest miracle reserved for this ummah, which would strengthen their power, defend their land and protect them from all types of mischief that could endanger their unity, In short, such a cause would be a divinely given miracle parallel to the Glorious Qur’an, and it would live as long as the Qur’an lives; it would have the same relation to the practical life of the ummah as the Qur’an has to its intellectual one. In that case, it was necessary for the Qur’an to describe its boundary and area; Allah would have mentioned it as one of His special graces for this ummah, as He has done with reference to the Qur’an and Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). Also, He should have explained to this group its collective responsibilities as He has done in connection with His Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Likewise, the Prophet should have given detailed instructions to his ummah concerning this extra-ordinary group, and more particularly to his companions; after all, they were the people who became ahlu Thalli wa 'l-aqd after him and took the control of the ummah in their hands. The Prophet should have explained about this band, which is supposed to be vested with authority, what was its reality? What was its boundary? How wide was the area of its jurisdiction? Would there be a single body to rule over the whole Muslim ummah in all public affairs? Or would there be separate bodies of ulu’l-amr in different Muslim societies to rule over their lives, honor and properties? Also, it was incumbent on the Muslims - and especially the companions - to pay more attention to it. They should have asked questions and gone into its details. They had asked about things which had no importance compared to this basic matter; they had asked about crescent, the things to be spent and war booty, as Allah has mentioned: They ask you about crescents [2:189]; They ask you as to what they should spend [2:215]; They ask you about spoils of war [8: 11] So why did they never ask about it? Or was it that they had asked but it was manipulated by people and hidden from us? But this meaning was not against the desire of the majority of the ummah (which follows the same system) so that we could think that they neglected and discarded it until it was completely forgotten! Also it should inevitably have been quoted during the disputes and strifes, which had repeatedly erupted after the Prophet's death. What happened to this 'reality' that it was never quoted or referred to in their argumentations and polemics, while the narrators have transmitted all their arguments word by word? Why is it not found in any speech or letter? Why did the early exegetes among the companions and their disciples not know it until it was 'discovered' by a handful of later writers like ar-Razi and some who came after him? Even ar-Razi has objected to this view after mentioning it. He says that it is against the composite consensus; the phrase, ulu’l-amr has been explained in not more than four ways: The rightly-guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions, religious scholars and sinless Imams. This fifth explanation goes against the above composite consensus. Then he has replied that this new explanation is in fact based on the third meaning [i.e., religious scholars]. In this way he has destroyed all that he himself had built. It is now clear that things were not like that at all; nobody ever thought it was a noble and unique divine gift to the clique of influential and powerful 'leaders' of the Muslims, which would constitute a great miracle of Islam. Or do they want to say that this freedom from error did not emanate from any supernatural cause? Rather, Islam had generally trained its followers so nicely, basing its teachings on such balanced principles, that it was bound to produce this result that the people of power and influence among this ummah, because of this training, make no mistake in their collectively arrived at decisions and do not err in the opinions they form.


First of all, this supposition is wrong because it goes against the common sense. Perception of a whole is the sum total of the perception of its components. When each of them is liable to be wrong, the whole group cannot be safe from error and mistake.


Secondly, if the opinion of the group of influential persons is always correct and free from error, and if this extra-ordinary feature is based upon such invincible cause, then it should never fail in producing the desired result. Then what else was the cause of all this falsehood, disturbance and mischief, which has overfilled the Muslim world? There were countless gatherings after the Prophet's death, in which influential and powerful leaders of the Muslims collectively decided whatever they thought correct, and followed what in their opinion was the right path; but all this led them to nowhere; they went on blundering into far-reaching errors; their attempts to bring happiness to the Muslims increased only the ummah's misfortune and unhappiness. The society, which was based on religion, turned soon after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) into an imperialism - oppressive and destructive. Let scholars make in-depth study of the disturbances and mischief that raised their head, since the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) departed from this world; and have a look at what followed. On every page of Islamic history they will find blood spilled, honors defiled, properties looted, religious laws ignored and divinely ordained punishments nullified. Let them look for its origin and discover its roots. Was there any effective cause other than the opinions formed and decisions taken by the powerful and influential leaders, which they had yoked the ummah with? So this is the position of the most important pillar on which they want to build the structure of Islam! This is the effect of the 'opinion' of influential and powerful leaders who, they tell us, are referred to by the words, ulu’l-amr (those vested with authority), and who, according to them, are free from error in their opinion! Those who believe that ulu’l-amr refers to the people of influence and power, have no escape from admitting that those people were not sinless, not free from mistakes and errors. That the ulu’l-amr, like all other people could be right in some cases and wrong in the others. But inasmuch as theirs was a distinguished group, experienced in public affairs, the ratio of their mistakes was much smaller. Allah has made their obedience compulsory. Although they could at times be wrong, but Allah has granted indulgence to such mistakes, keeping in view the overwhelming good emanating from their management of affairs. If they issue an order or give a ruling which contravenes the Qur’an and the sunnah, and that order or ruling happens to be congruous with the good of the ummah - even if it reinterprets a religious law contrary to what was hitherto done, or changes it to bring it into line with the demands of time or inclinations of the ummah of conditions of the modem world - this new verdict will be followed, and religion will recognize it as good. Why? Because religion only aims at society's happiness and advancement. This attitude is clearly seen in the way the Islamic governments behaved in the early days of Islam as well as later on. Whenever a law prevalent in the Prophet's days was changed or any system established by him discarded, the only reason given was that that law or system was in conflict with one or another right of the ummah; and that the good of the nation demanded that a new law should be enforced and a new system established which would satisfy people's aspirations for blessings of life. A scholar (Ahmad al-Amin in Fajru 'l-Islam) has openly written that a caliph has full authority to act contrary to explicit religious laws if he thinks it to be in the best interest of the ummah. Accordingly, the Muslim nation would not be any different from other civilized societies inasmuch as they all have an elected body which decides the laws of the society keeping in view the demands of the situation at a given time. This opinion, as you see, is held by those who think that religion is a social system presented in the garb of religion. It is governed by the same factors, which govern other human societies leading them on the path of evolution step by step. Islam was a high ideal, which was perfectly suitable for those who lived during and near the days of the Prophet. And Islam, according to them, is only a link in the chain of human civilization - and the time has left it behind. One should not study it except in the way the archaeologists look at the artifacts from the earth. We have nothing to discuss about the verse: obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, with the persons holding the above-mentioned view. That view is based on a theory which would adversely affect all fundamentals of religion and the whole system established by the Prophet's traditions, including the basic gnosis and belief, moral values and rules of jurisprudence. If we look in this light at all that was done by the companions in the days of the Prophet and during his last illness; at the disputes and the strife they caused; at the changes they made in some laws and systems established by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); at the happenings in the days of Mu'awiyah and the caliphs who followed him, the Umayyads, then the `Abbasids and then the later ones - and all things resemble one another - we shall arrive at a stunning conclusion. A most astonishing view has been expressed about this verse by a writer, who has opined, "The verse, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, does not imply any of the things said by the exegetes - divided as they are among themselves: "First, because the obligation of ulu'I-amr's obedience whoever they might be does not prove that they have any distinction or superiority over others. We are also obliged by religion to obey unjust oppressive rulers when there is no alternative, for the sake of warding off their evil, and those unjust rulers can never be superior to us in the sight of Allah.” "Second, because the order given in the verse is not unlike other religious commands which can be implemented only when its object is available. For example, it is obligatory to spend on poor, and forbidden to help oppressors; but it is not obligatory for us to create a poor or an oppressor in order that we could spend on him or resist from helping him, respectively."


COMMENT: The fallacy of these two 'reasons’ is transparent. Add to it his supposition that ulu’l-amr in the verse means rulers and kings, unsoundness of which has already been shown. As for his first reason, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Qur'an is full of verses forbidding obedience of the unjust, the oppressors and the unbelievers. It was impossible for Allah to order us to obey them, after all that prohibition; and then to go a step further and join their obedience with His and the Messenger's obedience. If that obedience were allowed for the sake of one's safety, Allah would have used words like 'permission', etc., as He has done in one place: except when you guard yourself against them for fear of them (3:28). Not that He should clearly make their obedience compulsory, which would lead to all types of horrible results. As for the second reason, it is based on the same assumption as the first one. However, if it is supposed that their obedience was made obligatory because they had a special status in religion, then they would be sinless, as explained earlier. And it is impossible for Allah to oblige us to obey someone who did not exist or who was rarely found - and this too in a verse which contained the most fundamental aspect of religious good, a factor without which the equilibrium of Islamic society could not be maintained. You have seen that the ummah needs ulu’l-amr for the same reason it needs the Messenger for, that is, for guarding and managing the affairs of the ummah. We had talked on it when discussing about the decisive and ambiguous verses. Now we return to our original topic. It is now clear that it would be meaningless to interpret the phrase: those vested with authority from among you, as 'the people having influence and power' (whatever meaning we give to this latter phrase). The only meaning now possible is: Those individuals from among the ummah who are sinless, free from error and mistake in their words and deeds, whose obedience has been made obligatory. The only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His own words or through His Prophet. This explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the lmams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they. As for the claim that ulu’l-amr refers to the rightly guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions or religious scholars whose opinions and words are followed, it is rebutted on two counts:


First: The verse proves their sinlessness, and undoubtedly, none of these three groups was or is sinless – except what a group of Muslims believes about the right of 'Ali (a.s.)’


Second: All these interpretations are just claims without any evidence.


Objections have been raised against the explanation that the phrase refers to the sinless lmams of Ahlu l-bayt (a.s.):


First Objection: In case this meaning were correct, it was necessary for Allah and the Messenger to clearly identify them [to the ummah]; and if it were done, no two persons would have disputed about them after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.).


Reply: It is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and the sunnah, like the verses of Guardianship, Purity and others; and the traditions like that of the Ark (The parable of my Ahlu l-bayt is like the parable of Noah's Ark; whoever boarded it was saved, and whoever stayed away from it was drowned); and that of the Two Precious Things (Surely I am leaving among you two precious [or weighty] things, the Book of Allah and my offspring who are my Ahlu l-bayt; as long as you would hold fast to both of them you would never go astray after me.). These have been quoted in the discourse on "Decisive and Ambiguous Verses" in the third [Arabic] volume [Eng. vol.5, pp.46-93]. There are also traditions about the ulu’l-amr, narrated through Shia and Sunni chains, some of which will be given under "Traditions".


Second Objection: Their obedience is conditional to their identification, because an order to obey them without recognizing them would be a command to do the impossible. As their obedience is conditional, this verse cannot apply to them because it is unconditional.


Reply: This objection bounces back to the objector. Every obedience [even of the people of influence and power] is conditional to their recognition. The only difference is that we may recognize the people of influence and power by ourselves without referring it to Allah and His Messenger, while a sinless Imam can be identified only through an introducer. However the condition of recognition is equally present in both cases; so both should be contrary to the verse. The fact is that although identification is counted as a condition, it is not like other conditions. It only means that when one is obliged to do something, he has to recognize the object of obligation and its other concomitants; but the obligation does not depend on it. If recognition were like other basic conditions which affect the obligation itself, like 'ability' for hajj or existence of water for wudu', then nobody would be obliged to do anything at all.


Third Objection: We are unable, these days, to reach a sinless Imam and learn knowledge and religion from him. Therefore, he cannot be the ulu’l-amr whose obedience is obligatory for the urnmah, because there is no way to have any contact with him.


Reply: This problem is created by the ummah itself, not by Allah or the Messenger. The ummah opted for wrong ways and was untrue to itself. Thus the responsibility and obligation to obedience stays unchanged. Suppose a nation killed its prophet. Can they claim that now they were unable to obey him because he was no more? Moreover, the objection may be directed to the objector himself, because nowadays there is not a single ummah in Islam in which the people of influence and power from among themselves could enforce what they would decide for it.


Fourth Objection: Allah says, then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. If ulu’l-amr means a sinless Imam, it was necessary to say, 'refer it to the lmam'.


Reply: Its reply has already been given in the Commentary; and it shows that it actually means referring to the Imam.


Fifth Objection: The believers in a sinless Imam say that his obedience rescues the ummah from darkness of strife and evil of disagreement. But evidently the verse ordains a law related to quarrel - in spite of the existence of Imam and obedience of the ummah It points to disagreement among the ulu’l-amr themselves in reaching at a decision about some event or occurrence. But according to those who believe so, it is not possible to quarrel or dispute in presence of a sinless Imam, because in their views he is like the Messenger (s.a.w.a.). Accordingly, this sentence would be without any purpose or benefit.


Reply: Its reply too is clear from the preceding Commentary. The quarrel mentioned in the verse refers to the believers' disagreement concerning rules of the Qur’an and the sunnah, not concerning executive orders issued by the lmam in various events and happenings. It was mentioned earlier that no one has any right to legislate a law other than Allah and His Messenger. If the quarreling parties are capable of inferring its law from the Qur'an and the sunnah, they have the right to do so, or they could ask the lmam about it, because he is free from error in his opinion. But if they are unable to infer it, then the only way is to ask the Imam. It is just like the days of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) when his contemporaries had the option of inferring the law from the Qur'an (if they could) or asking the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) about it; but in case they could not infer it, the only remedy was to ask him (s.a.w.a.). As the verse shows, the ulu’l-amr are just like the Messenger in the obligation of their obedience. As for the believers' quarrel, the verse describes the procedure to be adopted, and it makes no difference whether the Messenger be present (as the following verses show) or absent (as the unrestrictedness of the verse proves). The order to refer the matter to Allah and the Messenger is, therefore, confined to the dispute among the believers themselves, as is shown by the word "if you quarrel"; it should be noted that Allah has not said, if those vested with authority quarrel; nor has He said, if they quarrel. The matter will be referred, in the presence of the Messenger, by asking him the relevant law or inferring it from the Qur'an and the sunnah (for those who have the ability to do so); and in his absence, the question is to be asked of the Imam, or its reply inferred as described above. Obviously, the sentence, then if you quarrel about any thing . . . is not without purpose or benefit, as the objector had claimed. All this proves that the word, ulu’l-amr, in this verse refers to some men from among the ummah, each of whom is similar to the Messenger in two aspects: He too is free from sin and mistake, and his obedience too is obligatory and compulsory. However, we do not say that the phrase, ulu’l-amr, does not have a wider connotation according to language, or that it may not be used in a more general way if one wants to. But meaning of a word is one thing, and applying it to appropriate objects is another. For example, meaning of messenger is general, and it is used in the same meaning in this verse; yet the intended personality is of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).


QUR'AN: then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger. . . It branches out from the restriction understood from the context. The preceding sentence, obey Allah and obey the Messenger. . ., makes obedience of Allah and the Messenger compulsory. This obedience is in the sphere of religion, which ensures erasure of every possible dispute and guarantees fulfillment of every possible need. It leaves nothing uncared for, and no referral is required to any one other than Allah and His Messenger. The sentence, thus, implies: obey Allah and do not obey taghut. This is the implied restriction, which we have mentioned above. The speech is addressed to the believers. It shows that the 'quarrel' refers to their dispute among themselves, and not to any putative quarrel between them and the ulu’l-amr, or to any supposed dispute among the ulu’l-amr themselves. It is because the former, i.e., quarrel among the believers and the ulu’l-amr, goes against the obligation of their obedience, and the latter, i.e., dispute among the ulu’l-amr themselves, does not conform with the obligation of their obedience [which shows that they are always right] because in dispute one party is surely wrong. Moreover, this idea is not in accord with the verse, as it is addressed to the believers; Allah says: "then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it . . .". The word, 'thing', is general and could possibly include all decisions and orders given by Allah, His Messenger and ulu’l-amr; yet the next words, "refer it to Allah and the Messenger", show that the verse speaks about quarrel in something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu’l-amr. They have full authority and control over executive matters which come within the area of their wilayah (=guardianship; mastership), like their order to join an expedition, to fight or to make peace, and so on. The order to refer a matter to Allah and the Messenger does not cover such things, because people are obliged to obey the ulu’l-amr in these things. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. The verse somewhat explicitly shows that no one has any right to manipulate any religious law explained by Allah and His Messenger, and ulu’l-amr and others all are equal in this respect. The proviso, "if you believe in Allah and the last day", puts utmost emphasis to this order, and indicates that its contravention emanates from defect in belief. The order has a direct connection with faith, its contravention would show that although the person concerned pretended to believe in Allah and His Messenger, disbelief was hidden in his heart; and this is hypocrisy, as the following verses prove. This is better and very good in the end. The indicative, 'this', points either to referring the matter in dispute or to obeying Allah, His Messenger and those vested with authority. "at-Ta'wil” ( translated here as "in the end") refers to the underlying good on which the order is based and which is realized when the order is carried out, Its meaning has been explained in the third volume (Arabic, fifth English), under the verse, "seeking to give it (their own) interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah" (3:7).


Summary: (al-Mizan, English volume 8, pages 276-296)


Qur’an: "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you" The sentence “obey Allah and obey the Messenger”, is in fact the basis of all divine laws and the shari’ah. To obey Allah means to obey Him in all the realities and the laws He sent to us through His Messenger. To obey the Messenger means to obey his orders which emanate from his legislative authority based on divine revelation and what he, in his wisdom and what Allah has taught him, decides in administrative and judicial matters. There is a suggestion in the verse by the repetition of the word ‘obey’ that the Messenger’s obedience is distinct from Allah’s obedience, although his obedience is in reality the obedience of Allah Himself because it is Allah who has obliged us to obey the Messenger. The ulu’l-amr do not have the privilege of revelation; they decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their opinion and order must be obeyed just like the Prophet’s opinion and order. This shows that they have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established by the Qur’an or the sunnah and that is why they are not mentioned when the believers are ordered to refer their disputes to Allah and His Messenger. Allah decides by giving a law; His Messenger decides by elaborating a divine law; the ulu’l-amr simply bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger. The sentence “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you” shows that Allah’s obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested with authority, in another. The obedience ordered in this verse is general without any condition or restriction. This proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to Allah’s actual order or prohibition. It necessarily follows that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was ma'sum (infallible), sinless, free from error. Moreover, the verse has joined the Messenger and "those vested with authority" in this order; and mentions both under ‘one’ obedience: "Obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you"; and the Messenger cannot order sin nor can he issue a wrong judgment. If it were possible for the ulu'l-amr to be wrong in an order or a judgment, it was highly essential to put suitable restriction on this order as far as the ulu'l-amr were concerned. Thus the only way out is to interpret this verse in its general sense without any condition or restriction. This in its turn proves that the ulu l-amr were also sinless in the same way as the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was without any difference. This word “ulu’l-amr” is qualified with the phrase, “from among you”. Obviously it is an adverbial phrase of place. That is, the ulu’l-amr will be raised from among you. It is similar to the words of Allah in 62:2, 2:129 and 7:35. It would therefore be meaningless to interpret the phrase: those vested with authority from among you, as 'the people having influence and power' (whatever meaning we give to this latter phrase). The only meaning now possible is: Those individuals from among the ummah who are sinless, free from error and mistake in their words and deeds, whose obedience has been made obligatory. The only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His words or through His Prophet. This explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the Imams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they. As for the claim that ulu’l-amr refers to the rightly guided caliphs, commanders of expeditions or religious scholars whose opinions and words are followed, it is rebutted on two counts:


First: The verse proves their sinlessness, and undoubtedly, none of these three groups was or is sinless – except what a group of Muslims believes about the right of 'Ali (a.s.)’


Second: All these interpretations are just claims without any evidence. Ulu’l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt, but obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time.


Qur’an: "Then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…" The obedience mentioned in the preceding sentence is in the sphere of religion, which ensures erasure of every possible dispute and guarantees fulfillment of every possible need and no referral is required to any one other than Allah and His Messenger. The sentence, thus, implies: obey Allah and do not obey taghut. This is the implied restriction. The speech is addressed to the believers. It shows that the 'quarrel' refers to their dispute among themselves. The word, 'thing', is general and could possibly include all decisions and orders given by Allah, His Messenger and ulu’l-amr; yet the next words, "refer it to Allah and the Messenger", show that the verse speaks about quarrel in something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu’l-amr. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. The verse somewhat explicitly shows that no one has any right to manipulate any religious law explained by Allah and His Messenger, and ulu’l-amr and others all are equal in this respect. The proviso, "if you believe in Allah and the last day", puts utmost emphasis to this order which has a direct connection with faith and its contravention would indicate that disbelief was hidden in someone’s heart; and this is hypocrisy, as the following verses prove. “This is better and very good in the end”. The indicative, 'this', points either to referring the matter in dispute or to obeying Allah, His Messenger and those vested with authority. "at-Ta'wil” (translated here as "in the end") refers to the underlying good on which the order is based and which is realized when the order is carried out. ________________________________________


SAYYID MAUDUDI



(Actual text from English volume 2, pages 133-135)


This verse is the cornerstone of the entire religious, social and political structure of Islam, and the very first clause of the constitution of an Islamic state. It lays down the following principles as permanent guidelines:



1. In the Islamic order of life, God alone is the focus of loyalty and obedience. A Muslim is the servant of God before anything else, and obedience and loyalty to God constitute the center and axis of both the individual and collective life of a Muslim. Other claims to loyalty and obedience are acceptable only insofar as they remain secondary and subservient, and do not compete with those owed to God. All loyalties, which may tend to challenge the primacy of man’s loyalty to God, must be rejected. This has been expressed by the Prophet (peace be on him) in the following words: ‘There may be no obedience to any creature in disobedience to the Creator.’ (Muslim, ‘Iman’, 37; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 472 – Ed.)


2. Another basic principle of the Islamic order of life is obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him). No Prophet, of course, is entitled to obedience in his own right. Obedience to the Prophets, however, is the only practical way of obeying God. Since there are the only authentic means by which He communicates His injunctions and ordinances to men. Hence, we can obey God only if we obey a Prophet. Independent obedience to God is not acceptable, and to turn one’s back on the Prophets amounts to rebellion against God. The following tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) explains this: ‘Whoever obeyed me, indeed obeyed God; and whoever disobeyed me, disobeyed God.’ (Bukhari, ‘Jihad’ , 109; ‘I ‘tisam’, 2; Muslim, ‘Amarah’, 32, 33; Nasa’1, ‘Bay ‘ah’, 27; etc. – Ed.) We shall see this explained in more detail a little further on in the Qur’an.



3. In the Islamic order of life, Muslims are further required to obey fellow Muslims in authority. This obedience follows, and is subordinate to, obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be upon him). Those invested with authority (ulu al-amr) include all those entrusted with directing Muslims in matters of common concern. Hence persons 'invested with authority' include intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges of the courts, tribal chiefs and regional representatives. In all these capacities, those 'invested with authority' are entitled to obedience, and it is improper for Muslims to cause dislocation in their collective life by engaging in strife and conflict with them. This obedience id contingent, however, on two conditions: first, that these men should be believers; and second, that they should themselves be obedient to God and the Prophet (peace be upon him). These two conditions are not only clearly mentioned in this verse they have also been elucidated at length by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and can be found in the Hadith . Let us consider for example the following traditions: “A Muslim is obliged to heed and to obey an order whether he likes it or not, as long as he is not ordered to carry out an act of disobedience to God (ma’siyah). When ordered to carry out an act of disobedience to God, he need neither heed nor obey.” “There is no obedience in sin; obedience is only in what is good (ma’ruf).” “There will be rulers over you, some of whose actions you will consider good and others abominable. Whoever disapproves of their abominable acts will be acquitted of all blame, and whoever resents them he too will remain secure (from all blame); not so one who approves and follows them in their abominable acts.” They (i.e. the Companions) asked: ‘Should we not fight against them?’ The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, not as long as they continue to pray.” This means that their abandonment of Prayer will be a clear sign of their having forsaken obedience to God and the Prophet (peace be upon him). Thereafter it becomes proper to fight against them. In another tradition, the Prophet (pbuh) says: “Your worst leaders are those whom you hate and who hate you; whom you curse and who curse you.” We asked: ‘O Messenger of God! Should we not rise against them?’ The Prophet (pbuh) said: “No, not as long as they establish Prayer among you: not as long as they establish prayer among you.” In this tradition, the position is further clarified. The earlier tradition could have created the impression that it was not permissible to revolt against rulers as long as they observed their Prayers privately. But the latter tradition makes it clear that what is really meant by “praying” is the establishment of the system of congregational Prayers in the collective life of the Muslims. This means that it is by no means sufficient that the rulers continue observing their Prayers; it is also necessary that the system run by them should at least be concerned with the establishment of Prayer. The concern with prayer is a definite indication that the government is essentially an Islamic one. But if no concern for establishing prayer is noticed, it shows that the government has drifted far away from Islam making it permissible to overthrow it. The same principle is also enunciated by the Prophet (pbuh) in another tradition, in which the narrator says: “The Prophet (pbuh) also made a pledge not to rise against our rulers unless we see them involved in open disbelief, so that we have definite evidence against them to lay before God” (Bukhari and Muslim).


4. In an Islamic order, the injunctions of God and the way of the Prophet (pbuh) constitute the basic law and paramount authority in all matters. Whenever there is any dispute among Muslims or between the rulers and the ruled, the matter should be referred to the Qur’an and the Sunnah and all concerned should accept with sincerity whatever judgment results. In fact, willingness to take the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger as the common point of reference, and to treat the judgment of the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the last word on all matters, is a central characteristic, which distinguishes an Islamic system from un-Islamic ones. Some people question the principle that we should refer everything to the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). They wonder how we can possibly do so when there are numerous practical questions involved, for example, rules and regulations relating to municipal administration, the management of railways and postal services and so on which are not treated at all in these sources. This doubt arises, however, from a misapprehension about Islam. The basic difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that whereas the latter feels free to do as he wishes, the basic characteristic of a Muslim is that he always looks to God and to His Prophet for guidance, and where such guidance is available, a Muslim is bound by it. On the other hand, it is also quite important to remember that when no specific guidance is available, a Muslim feels free to exercise his discretion because the silence of the Law indicates that God Himself has deliberately granted man the freedom to make his decision. Since the Qur’an is not merely a legal code, but also seeks to instruct, educate, admonish and exhort, the earlier sentence, which enunciates a legal principle, is followed by another, which explains it underlying purpose and wisdom. Two things are laid down: First, that faithful adherence to the above four principles is a necessary requirement of faith. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim and yet disregards the principles of Islam involves himself in gross self-contradiction. Second, the well being of Muslims lies in basing their lives on those principles. This alone can keep them on the straight path in this life, and will lead to their salvation in the Next. It is significant that this admonition follows immediately after the section, which embodies comments about the moral and religious condition of the Jews. Thus the Muslims were subtly directed to draw a lesson from the depths to which the Jews had sunk, as a result of their deviation from the fundamental principles of true faith just mentioned. Any community that turns its back upon the Book of God and the guidance of His Prophets, that willingly follows rulers and leaders who are heedless of God and His Prophets, and that obeys its religious and political authorities blindly without seeking authority for their actions either in the Book of God or in the practice of the Prophets, will inevitably fall into the same evil and corruption as the Israelites. ________________________________________


OUR CONCLUSIONS: Ibn Kathir, first tries to explain the circumstances of the revelation of this verse by quoting a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas which does not even conform to the nature of the verse. We have seen that the obedience ordered by Allah in this verse is unconditional and is in the sphere of religion. Based on this argument, the tradition itself proves that `Abdullah bin Hudhafah bin Qays bin `Adi cannot be one of the ulu'l-amr. We are not trying to reject that tradition, nor are we saying that commanders sent by the Messenger on military expeditions should not be obeyed. All we are saying is that the verse is clearly referring to the unconditional obedience of the Messenger and those vested with authority in their opinions and decisions pertaining to religious affairs of the Muslims. Allamah Tabataba’I proves that the Messenger and those vested with authority have to be protected by Allah from errors and mistakes if their obedience is unconditional. We have also seen in Tabataba'I's tafseer that whenever Allah orders the obedience of those who are not free from errors and mistakes, a conditional clause is attached to that order. (See verse 29:8) Ibn Kathir then quotes some sayings of the Messenger in which ‘conditional’ obedience has been mentioned. These sayings, as one can deduce, have no connection with the verse under study. No one can dispute the fact that the Messenger would never order an unconditional obedience, in the sphere of religion, of those who are capable of committing errors and mistakes. The particular tradition he quotes of the Messenger, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my amir (leader, person in authority), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my amir, disobeys me” is an example of a case which may be quoted for 'religious obligation' of obeying orders like obedience of the commanders of expeditions who were appointed by the Messenger, the governors who were sent to various places, or of those who were left in charge in Medina when the Messenger himself went out. The verse under study and its wordings actually proves the obligation to obey the ulu'l-amr without any restriction or condition. In his explanation of the sentence, “and those of you who are in authority”, he says that the obedience here is to Allah in that which they (those in authority) command you and not in that which constitutes disobedience to Allah. But the Qur'anic wordings does not support this meaning because the obedience mentioned in the verse is without any restriction or condition. As a matter of fact, the famous tradition of the Prophet that Kathir mentions, “there is no obedience to anyone in disobedience to Allah” underscores Tabataba'I's argument that the obedience of the ulu’l-amr ordered by Allah cannot be the obedience of those who will ask you to do things in disobedience to Allah. This further proves that the ulu’l-amr have to be protected by Allah from erring in order to make their decisions and opinions in conformity with that of the Messenger and Allah. Ibn Kathir says that the sentence “if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger” means refer to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. But unlike Tabataba’I's tafseer work, we have not seen Ibn Kathir explain the true connotation of this sentence. Tabataba’I explains that the sentence "refer to Allah and the Messenger" actually shows that it is confined to religious laws only and does not cover those matters that the ulu'l-amr order like military expeditions, etc; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. Ibn Kathir also says that the sentence "if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day" indicates that those who do not refer to the Book and Sunnah for judgment in their disputes, are not believers in Allah or the last Day. This leaves us to wonder what happens in a sutuation where believers are not capable to extract the law from the Qur'an and the sunnah. Is it because they have defect in their belief? And what was the purpose of mentioning the obedience of the ulu'l-amr in the first sentence of the verse? As a matter of fact, the sentence "if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day" proves that contravention (infringement) of the order springs from disbelief and not that disbelief results from contravention of the order. Tabataba'I's statement that the disputes of the believers are actually referred to the ulu'l-amr in the absence of the Messenger and in such a case where believers are not able to refer to the Qur'an and the sunnah, definately makes more sense. Some exegetes are under the impression that the quarrel mentioned here is between the believers and those vested with authority or between the ulu'l-amr themselves and Tabataba'I shows that this is a clear misunderstanding. What we have seen from Ibn Kathir’s tafseer of verse 4:59 is that there has been too much dependence on extraneous sources as if the verse cannot explain itself. The connotation of some of the traditions he has quoted is hardly connected with the verse under study. Also, the significance and the nature of the obedience ordered by Allah has not been explained. In addition, Ibn Kathir has not brought to light the true personality and characteristics of the ulu’l-amr (those vested with authority) whose obedience has been made unconditional and joined with the obedience of the Messenger. Allamah Tabataba'I's exposition of verse 4:59 is unprecedented in comparison with the other exegetes. He initially discusses the two lawful authorities of the Messenger in the light of the Qur’an and shows how this probably necessitated the repetition of the word ‘obey’ in the verse under study. We agree that since it is Allah who has unconditionally commanded the people to obey the Messenger, therefore the Messenger’s obedience in reality is the same as Allah’s obedience. In addition, since the verse has joined the obedience of the Messenger with that of the ulu’l-amr, therefore the obedience of the ulu’l-amr is the same as that of the Messenger. Tabataba’I then proceeds to tackle the most frequently asked question arising from this verse - who are the ulu’l-amr? The verse actually reveals the attributes and characteristics of those vested with authority by the nature of the command to obey them. We have seen that Ibn Kathir and Sayyid Maududi are supposing that the ulu’l-amr could be ordinary Muslim rulers or leaders who have been elected or appointed to rule over the Muslims and manage their affairs. Tabataba’I argues that the ulu’l-amr have to be free from sins and errors because of the ‘unconditional’ obedience ordered by Allah. He gives a good example of a conditional obedience ordered by Allah in verse 29:8 where the possibility of misguidance exists: {And We have enjoined on man goodness (obedience) to his parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others) with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them . . .}; in other words, if the ulu’l-amr were ordinary believers, unprotected from errors and sins, (as suggested by these and other exegetes), then it would be necessary to follow the sentence “and those vested with authority” with a condition like in verse 29:8 quoted above. The use of the plural noun “Ulu’l-amr” which means a number of those, vested with authority, is also addressed by Tabataba’I who agrees with this meaning but he says that it is also possible for them to come one after another, and the believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at a given time. Tabataba’I further discusses the ‘ismah (sinlessness) of the Messenger and the ulu’l-amr. In short, he argues that the unconditional obedience ordered by Allah “obey the Messenger” proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary to that of Allah. Likewise, the unconditional obedience ordered by Allah “and (obey) those vested with authority” proves that the ulu’l-amr cannot bring to light the decisions of Allah and His Messenger contrary to the actual decisions of Allah and His Messenger. Based on these and other arguments made by Tabataba’I, it is very clear that the ulu’l-amr cannot be ordinary believers and that the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) and the ulu’l-amr are sinless and free from error. One cannot reject Tabataba’I’s statement that the only way to recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His words or through His Prophet and that this explanation corresponds with what has been narrated from the Imams of Ahlu l-bayt that it is they. Tabataba’I also deals with the objections raised against the explanation that the ulu’l-amr refers to the sinless Imams of Ahlu’l-bayt (a.s.). Towards the end of his tafseer work, he explains why the ulu’l-amr are not mentioned in the sentence “refer to Allah and His Messenger”. This sentence probably led Ibn Kathir and Sayyid Maududi to believe that the ul’l-amr could be ordinary leaders since they have not been mentioned. In the preceding explanation of the sentence “obey the Messenger and those in authority” Tabataba’I states that the ulu’l-amr , unlike the Messenger of Allah, do not have the authority to legislate new laws and their duty is to bring to light, based on their knowledge of the Qur'an and the sunnah, the decisions of Allah and the Messenger in all the affairs of the believers. From this understanding, the sentence "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger…" shows that the verse speaks about disputes in something outside the jurisdiction of the ulu’l-amr. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no one, other than Allah and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or abrogate a law. However, if the quarrelling parties are not capable of inferring the law from the Qur’an and the sunnah, and in the absence of the Messenger, then the only way is to ask the one who is vested with authority because he is free from error in his opinion. As a final conclusion, what we can draw from Tabataba’I’s tafseer of verse 4:59 is that the wilayah of the Messenger of Allah, which in essence is the wilayah of Allah Himself, as discussed in our previous studies of verses 5:3 and 5:55, becomes complete only through the wilayah (management of affairs) of the ulu’l-amr, those vested with authority. The management of the affairs of the ummah is an important facet of divine guidance and it is a requirement even in the absence of the Messenger. Therefore, such a wilayah cannot be carried out by ordinary believers who don’t have the attribute of divine ‘ismah i.e. protection from sins and errors. It follows that the ulu'l-amr have to be divinely appointed and that the verse 5:67 (discussed previously) points to the appointment of Ali Ibn Ab-Talib as the waliyy of Allah after the Messenger. Sayyid Maududi, makes a comment in the beginning that the verse under discussion forms the foundation of an Islamic State and he lists down four principles and discusses them based on his understanding of the verse. He later concludes that the well being of the Muslims lies in faithful adherence to these principles. There is no doubt, and as Tabataba’I also mentions, that the talk of the verse leads to reinforcing the foundation of Islamic society as it commands obedience to Allah, the Messenger and those vested with authority and urges the believers to remove any dispute by referring it to Allah and the Messenger. In his discussion of the four principles, Maududi quotes a number of traditions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). For example, in his discussion of the first principle, i.e. “obedience to the Allah”, he mentions this saying of the Prophet: “There may be no obedience to any creature in disobedience to the Creator.” What we construe from this saying is that Allah would not order the obedience of those who in turn will say or do things that would contradict the commands of Allah. This particular tradition actually rejects Maududi’s statement that the ulu’l-amr are not infallible. The other sayings of the Prophet talk about conditional obedience and hence not related to the verse. As far as obedience to Allah and the Messenger is concerned, we agree that whoever obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah. In reality, Allah is only obeyed when the Messenger and those vested with authority are obeyed as is evident from the verse. We can also add here (based on the study of verse 5:55) that therefore, Allah’s obedience, just like His wilayyah, becomes complete only through the Messenger and the Messenger’s obedience becomes complete through the obedience of the ulu’l-amr. Further, the verse shows that the Messenger’s obedience is joined with that of the ulu’l-amr but distinct from Allah’s obedience. Tabataba’I explains this relationship very well based on the two kinds of authorities that Allah has bestowed upon His honored Messenger. (Refer to Tabataba’I’s exegesis) Maududi then talks about the third principle, i.e. “obedience to those vested with authority”. He says that obedience to them is contingent on certain conditions (because they are not infallible). We don’t concur with him because no one has the authority to attach conditions when the order by Allah to obey them is ‘unconditional’. According to Maududi, those vested with authority include intellectual and political leaders of the community, as well as administrative officials, judges, etc and all such persons are not infallible. Maududi’s misunderstanding of who are the ulu’l-amr has led him to say: “when no specific guidance is available, a Muslim feels free to exercise his discretion because the silence of the Law indicates that God Himself has deliberately granted man the freedom to make his decision” This statement is not acceptable because first it clearly contradicts the wordings of the verse under study. Second, the uncondtional order to obey those vested with authority proves that guidance has been made available in all affairs of the Muslims as long as the believers refer to such authority. In short, we recognize the approach Sayyid Maududi has taken in his discourse of the conditions of a perfect Islamic Society but he has not addressed the various aspects of the verse. We have seen from Tabataba’I’s tafseer how Allah sets the stage for the next sentence from the first; in other words, the quarrels (in legislative matters) of the believers are actually referred to the ulu’l-amr in the absence of the Messenger and in the case where believers cannot refer their disputes to the Qur'an and the sunnah. Also, it would be against the decorum of the Qur’an to disregard the Messenger’s legislative responsibilities while he is still in duty. The other problem with Maududi’s discussion is that he has assumed certain conditions for the ulu’l-amr (according to his definition of the term) and it leaves us with the impression that Allah was oblivious of the actual characteristics of the ulu’l-amr. This obviously cannot be the case with Allah and therefore, his description of the nature of the ulu’l-amr is not acceptable.

Questions:


1. Which day does the clause "The Day" refers to?


2. What is the connotation of the sentence "summon all people"?


3. What is the meaning of the word "Imam" in this verse?


4. What was the purpose of mentioning "whosever is given the book in his right hand"?

The exegetes selected for this study are:
Ibn Kathir
Allamah Tabataba'I
Al-Qurtubi


Go To: Our Conclusions

________________________________________


IBN KATHIR:


(Actual text from 'Abridged' English volume 6, pages 53-56)

Allah says: "The day when We shall summon all men with their Imam" Allah tells us that on the Day of Resurrection, he will call each people to account by its Imam. The scholars differed as to the meaning of this (i.e. Imam). Mujahid and Qatadah said that it meant each nation would be called to account by its Prophet. Some of the Salafis said this is the greatest honor for the people of hadith, because their leader is the Prophet. Ibn Zayd said it means they would be called to account by their Book, which was revealed, to their Prophet with its laws. This was also the view favored by Ibn Jarir. Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said, "With their Books''. It may be that what is meant here is what Al-`Awfi narrated from Ibn `Abbas concerning this verse, “(And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imam”, which is that it refers to the Book (or record) of their deeds. This was also the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah, Al-Hasan and Ad-Dahhak. This view is the most correct, because Allah says: “…and all things We have recorded with numbers (as a record) in a Clear Book [Fi Imamin Mubin] (36:12) “And the Book (one's record) will be placed, and you will see the criminals, fearful of that which is (recorded) therein (18:49) “And you will see each nation humbled to their knees, each nation will be called to its record (of deeds). This Day you shall be recompensed for what you used to do. This Our record speaks about you with truth. Verily, We were recording what you used to do." (45:28-29) This does not contradict the fact that the Prophet will be brought forward when Allah judges between his Ummah, for he will inevitably be a witness against his Ummah over their deeds. But what is meant here by Imam is the Book of deeds. Allah says: “(And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imam. So whosoever is given his record in his right hand, such will read their records..” means, because of their happiness and joy at what is recorded therein of good deeds - they will read it and want to read it. As Allah says: “Then as for him who will be given his record in his right hand will say: "Here! read my record! until Allah says: “But as for him who will be given his record in his left hand, will say: "Ah! Would that my Record had not been given to me! (69:19-29) Allah says: "…and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least (Fatilan)" We have already mentioned that “fatil” is the long thread in the groove of a date-pit. Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Al-Bazzar recorded a Hadith from Abu Hurayrah according to which the Prophet said, concerning the Ayah, “(And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imam: “One of you will be called and will be given his Book in his right hand. He will be in a good physical state, with a white face, and there will be placed on his head a crown of shining pearls. He will go to his companions and they will see him from afar, and will say, "O Allah, let him come to us and bless us with this.'' Then he will come to them and will say to them, "Rejoice, for every man among you will be like this.'' As for the disbeliever, his face will be black and his body will be enlarged. His companions will see him from afar and will say, "We seek refuge in Allah from this, or from the evil of this, O Allah, do not let him come to us.'' "Then he will come to them and they will say, O Allah, humiliate him!'' He will say, "May Allah cast you away, every man among you will be like this”. Then Al-Bazzar said: "This was only reported through this chain." ________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I


(Translated from the Arabic volume 13)


Qur’an: “The day when We shall summon all (groups of) people with their Imam.”


The day here is Judgment day and the word “Imam” is that which is referred to as a guide. In the Qur’an, Allah has used the word Imam:


1) To refer to individuals, who guide people by His command as He says: “He said: Lo! I have appointed thee an Imam for mankind” (2:124), and, also, He says: “And We made them Imams who guide by Our command.” (21:73)


2) To call other individuals who are followed in leading astray as He says: “…then fight the Imams of disbelief.” (9:12)


3) To refer to the Torah as He says: “When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an Imam and a mercy.” (11:17) What we can learn from this verse is that the heavenly Books that contains the shariah like the book of Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, and Mohamed (peace be upon all of them) are also regarded as Imams.


4) To refer to the Guarded Tablet as He says: “...and all things We have kept in a clear Imam” (36:12).


From the literal appearance of the verse 17:71 we can understand that each group of people will have an Imam different from other groups. Since the Guarded Tablet is one, and not specialized to one group or the other, the word Imam in this verse cannot refer to the Guarded Tablet. The verse also indicates that the “summoning” is inclusive for all people from men of old to later generations. And it has been previously mentioned in the exegesis of the verse “Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture.” (2:213), that the first Heavenly Book that included a shariah was the book of Nuh (a.s.) and there was no other book before it. Therefore, the word “Imam” in verse 17:71 cannot refer to the Heavenly Books because whoever came before Nuh (a.s.) will not be included in the inclusive call of the verse. Thus, “the Imam of all men,” (in the sentence “summon all people with their Imam”) means the one who is followed for either guidance or misguidance. As previously mentioned, the Qur’an calls both of them “Imams”, or sometimes explicitly refers to the Rightful Imam. The Rightful Imam is chosen by Allah in every period to guide people by His command. He can either be a prophet, like Ibrahim (a.s.) and Mohammed (s.a.w.a.), or a non-prophet. A detailed explanation has been previously mentioned in the exegesis of verse 2:124. We can also learn from Allah’s saying about the Pharaoh, who was an “Imam” who led people astray: “He will go before his people on the Day of Resurrection and will lead them to the Fire for watering-place” (11:98). Allah also says: “That Allah may separate the wicked from the good, The wicked will He place piece upon piece, and heap them all together, and consign them unto hell” (8:37), and other verses, which are numerous - that people who were led astray (misguided) will not be separate from their respective leaders (Imams) on the Judgment day and therefore, they will follow them during the Resurrection and summoning. The word “imamihim” (their Imam) is general and it has not been specified to refer to the Imam of truth, whom Allah has chosen to guide by His command. We have seen that the one who leads people astray is also called an Imam (like the Pharaoh), so does the one (the Imam) who guides people to the right path. It can be inferred from the two verses quoted above, that the Imam, who people are summoned with, is also the one whom people take as a leader and follow in this life and not necessarily the one whom Allah has chosen to be an Imam to guide by His command, whether people follow him, or not.



It is now evident that the meaning of “Imam of all men” in the verse: “summon all men with their Imam” is the one who is followed, regardless whether he is the Imam of truth (guidance) or the Imam of error (misguidance). Also, the verse does not mean, as some people think and have said, that people will be called by the names of their Imams (leaders), like saying “O people of Ibrahim, and O people of Mohamed, and O people of Pharaoh, and O people of such and such Imam”. Such an interpretation is not suitable as a further branching from the clause “whoever is given his book in his right hand” and the verse “Whoever is blind here…” and therefore it is rejected. In other words, there is no relationship between the summoning by the name of the Imam and giving the book with the right hand, and blindness. The meaning of “da’wa” is summoning (with someone). This meaning is qualified from the clause “whoever is given the book in the right hand”. In other words, the people will be summoned with their respective Imam whom they followed in this life and then the person who had been guided by the Rightful Imam will take the book in his right hand, and those who were blind in not knowing the Rightful Imam of their time will also be blind in the hereafter. This is what a scrupulous look at the verse would reveal.


The exegetes have expressed different opinions in explaining the meaning of the word ‘Imam’ in the verse:


First Interpretation: An Imam is the Heavenly Book that is followed, like the Torah, Injil, and Qur’an; and that on the Judgment Day, the people of the Torah will be summoned, the people of the Injil will be summoned and the people of the Qur’an will be summoned.


Comment: We have already mentioned the reply to this claim above. Second Interpretation: For those on the path of truth, their Imam is a prophet, and for those on the path of misguidance, their Imam is shaytan. And it would be said on that Day: “bring forth the followers of Ibrahim, bring forth the followers of Musa, bring forth the followers of Mohamed, and, the truthful people who followed them would rise and would be given their book of deeds in their right hand. Then, it would be said: “bring forth the followers of shaytan, bring forth the followers of the leaders of disbelief.”


Comment: This interpretation was derived based on the commonly used meaning of the word “Imam” i.e. one amongst the wise and sane who is being followed. Such a meaning is not applicable because the Qur’an has used the word “Imam” specifically to mean one who guides by Allah’s command or one who leads people astray (inviting people to fire).


Third interpretation: The Imam is the Book of Deeds, and it would be said on that Day: O people of the book of good deeds, O people of the book of bad deeds. The reason they are called Imams is because people will follow the books’ judgment, either to heaven or hell.


Comment: There is no reason to call the Book of Deeds an Imam (guide), when actually the Book follows (records) the deeds of people, good or bad. In that case, it would be more appropriate to call it a “follower” rather than a “guide”. In addition, what was said that people will follow “the books’ judgment” is incorrect, because the book only shows the deeds (good or bad) of people and not the judgment. Allah will decide the judgment after bringing forth the recordings, questioning, weighting and witnessing. Therefore, it is apparent that neither the Guarded tablet nor the Book of Deeds, which Allah has also referred to in His words: “each nation (will be) summoned to its record” (45:28) can mean the Imam because this meaning is not qualified from the phrase “whoever is given his book in his right hand” which implies individuals and not a group. Fourth interpretation: The Imam means “mothers” and this meaning is derived by making the word Imam as plural of the word um (= mother), and every man will be called as the son of his mother’s name. A tradition has been narrated in this respect.


Comment: This explanation does not go with the wording of the verse because it says “We shall summon ALL men (in groups) with their Imam” and the verse does not say ‘We shall summon men with their Imams (mothers)’, or call ‘each man by his mother’s name’. If this interpretation were correct, then one of the two expressions would have been used. Moreover, this interpretation of the verse comes from an independent narration that was not mentioned in the exegesis. Further, the use of Imam (mothers) as the plural of um (mother) is rare in Arabic language and therefore it cannot be assumed to be Allah’s word. Al-Kashaf has included this interpretation as one of the innovations in tafseer (exegesis).


Fifth Interpretation: The Imam means the one who guides and the person who is being followed whether he is sane or insane, a person who is truthful or untruthful, a person like a prophet, a waliyy (guardian) who is in charge of the affairs of the people, shaytan, leaders of misguidance, truthful and false religions, heavenly books and corrupted books. And may be the summoning of people in this respect is an allegorical expression to mean that on Judgment Day each person will not be separate from the one whom the person followed for guidance. Comment: Going with the literal meaning is acceptable if the Qur’an had no explanation and understanding for the word “Imam”. However, an “Imam” in the Qur’anic language (and usage) is the one who guides by Allah’s command, or the one who is followed in leading astray. The connotation is probably in the prefix letter “be” in “beimamihim” The guidance of the Heavenly Book, traditions, religion, etc, actually falls on the shoulder of the Imam. So is the case with the Prophet – he guides because he is an Imam who guides by Allah’s command. And when he prophesies the unseen, or conveys the message and promulgates it, he acts as a prophet or a messenger, but not an Imam. The same is the misguidance of the false sects and scriptures, innovated traditions, etc which is really due to their founders and innovators.


Qur’an: “Whoever is given his book in his right hand, these will read their book and they shall not be dealt with a whit unjustly” “al-fatil” (= shred) is what you find in a torn seed. It is also said that “al-fatil” is what is in a seed (like a date seed) and “al-naqir” is what is in its back and “al-qatmir” is what is in its crack. The division into two groups is as a result of the kind of Imam they followed. The two groups are: “whoever is given his book in his right hand” and “whoever is blind and farther from the (right) way” Therefore, there are two kinds of Imams: an Imam of guidance and an Imam of misguidance. This understanding (branching from the two sentences) shows that the word “Imam” is not only limited to an Imam of guidance, but is more general. This is also proved by substituting the clause “giving the book in the left hand” or “giving it from behind the back” as mentioned in other places, with the clause “whoever is blind in this will be blind in the Hereafter, and yet farther from the way” in the verse 17:72. Therefore, the (correct) meaning is that the people will be divided into two groups. As for those who will be given the book of deeds in their right hand, they would read it expecting to receive God’s Mercy and such would not be wronged or dealt a whit unjustly and they will be given their reward in full (as promised by Allah). ________________________________________


AL-QURTUBI: (translated from the Arabic)


Qur’an: "The day when We shall summon all men with their Imam" Al-Tirmidhy has narrated from the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said about the verse On the day when We shall summon all men with their Imam: “One of them will be called and will be given his book (of deeds) in his right hand, and his body will extend 60 cubes, and his face will be whitened and a crown of shining pearls will be placed on his head. He would then run to his companions and they would see him from a far distance, and they would say: ‘O Allah, bring him to us, and make him a blessing for us’; until he would come to them and say: ‘Have glad tidings, each one of you will have the same as this’. As for the kafir (disbeliever), his face will be darkened and his body will extend by 60 cubes like the image of Adam, and a crown will be placed on his head. He would then run to his companions and they would see him from a far distance, and they would say: ‘We seek Allah’s refuge from him, O Allah don’t bring him to us, O Allah delay his arrival’ until he would come to them and say: ‘May Allah distant all of you, each one of you will have the same as this.’” Abu ‘Isa said that this (the above) is a strange but acceptable hadith. And the opposite of this is the verse: And thou wilt see each nation crouching, each nation summoned to its record. (And it will be said unto them): "This day ye are requited what ye used to do. And the book can be called Imam because they will refer to it in order to know their deeds". Ibn Abbas, Al-Hassan, Qatada, and Al-Thahhak said: “with their Imam” means their book, i.e. the book of all humans with their deeds. The proof of this meaning is the sentence whoso is given his book in his right hand. Ibn Zaid said: (Imam means) “by the book revealed to them” That is, each person will be called by the name of the book that he recited. So those who recited the Torah will be called as “people of the Torah” and those who recited the Qur’an will be called as “people of the Qur’an”. It will be said, “ O people of the Qur’an, how did you act? Did you follow the commands of Allah? Did you leave that which He forbade you? And so on.


Mujahid said: “with their Imam” means with their Prophet; and the Imam is the one who is followed. It will be said, “Bring forth the followers of Ibrahim, bring forth the followers of Musa, bring forth the followers of Shaytan, bring forth the followers of disbelief (idols). So the people of the truth would rise and take their books with their right hands, and the people of falsehood would rise and would take their books with their left hands.” Qatada has said the same thing.

Ali (RA) said: “their Imam” means “with the Imam of their time”. And he narrated from the Prophet about the verse: On the day we shall summon all men with their Imam, he said: “everyone will be called by the Imam of their time and the book of their Lord and the sunnah (tradition) of their prophet. It would be called out: “bring forth the followers of Ibrahim, bring forth the followers of Musa, bring forth the followers of ‘Isa, bring forth the followers of Muhammed (pbuh), so the people of the truth would rise and would take their book with their right hands, and it would also be called out: ‘bring forth the followers of Shaytan, bring forth the followers of disbelief (those who misguided), the Imam of guidance and the Imam of error.” Al Hassan abu Aliah said: “their Imam” means their deeds. Ibn Abbas said the same thing that it would be said: “where are the ones pleased with their destiny, where are the patient ones.” It was also said that it means: “by their sects” so they would be called by the ones they followed during their life: “O Hanafi, O Shafi’, O Muta’zili, O Qadari, and so on.” So they (the people) would accompany them in good or bad or on truth or error, and this is also the meaning of what Abu Obaida said.


Abu Hurayra said: “The people of charity will be called from the door of charity, and the people of jihad will be called from the door of jihad…” Abu Sahl said: “it would be said: where is the one who prayed and fasted and his opposite…” Mohamed bin Ka’ab said: “with their Imam” means with their mothers, and Imam is the plural of um (mother.) The wise said: “and in that there are 3 faces. The first is for ‘Isa, the second is to show the honor of Hassan and Hussain, and the third so that the children of adulterers would not be known.” I (Qurtuby) say: this view (of Mohamed bin Ka’ab) needs to be reviewed because in the authentic hadith narrated by Ibn Omar, the prophet said: “When Allah gathers those of old and those of later times on the day of Judgment, each mischief maker will have a flag, and it would be said: “this is the mischief of such a man son of this man.” This proves that people on judgment day would be called by their names and the names of their fathers. This negates whoever said that they would be called by the names of their mothers, because if so, it would create a veil on their fathers. And Allah knows better. Qur’an: "Whoso is given his book in his right hand, these will read their book and they shall not be dealt with a whit unjustly" This strengthens the argument of those who said “by their Imam” meaning by their book, and it is also strengthened by the verse “…and all things We have kept in a clear Book” (36:12). ________________________________________


OUR CONCLUSIONS: Ibn Kathir, begins his exegesis by citing the different interpretations of the word “Imam” used in the verse. He says that the view of Ibn Abbas (and a few others) that the word “Imam” in this verse means the Book of deeds is the most correct and he quotes verses 36:12, 18:49 and 45:28-29 to support his comment. In these verses, except verse 36:12, Allah has used the word “kitaab” for the book of deeds and the word “Imamin Mubin” (clear Book) in the exception. Although some exegetes have supported this same view by using the clause “whoever is given the book in his right hand”, we find no relationship between summoning someone with the Book of deeds and giving the Book of deeds in the right hand. Far be it for the Qur’an to imply such meanings without proper branching from the various clauses of a verse or group of verses. We will mention while commenting on Qurtubi’s tafseer that the word “Imam” in the verse under study cannot mean the book of deeds and we shall give the reasons for that. So the view of Ibn Abbas goes straight out of the window. After studying the tafseer work of Tabataba’I, we find that the failure to understand the clause “summon every people with their Imam” has led such exegetes to concur that the Imam in this verse means the book of deeds or one of the heavenly scriptures. Ibn Kathir has not quoted the verse or verses showing that Allah has also used the word Imam to refer to those individuals who were followed in misguidance. Allah says: “…then fight the Imams of disbelief” (9:12). Such a verse cannot be ignored in understanding the import of the word "Imam" in the verse under study. Ibn Kathir brings the issue of calling of witnesses on Judgment Day in his tafseer. There is no doubt, based on some Qur’anic verses, that the prophets will be called as witnesses against their people on the Day of Judgment. This witnessing is in relation to the deeds committed by people and the final Judgment so that people will have no excuses. But the verse is talking about the Day of Judgment when Allah will summon all groups of men with their respective Imams whom they followed in this life for guidance or misguidance before the calling of witnesses and Judgment. In conclusion, we find a slight variation in the style of Kathir's exegesis of this verse in comparison with the previous studies. Kathir makes an attempt to prove one of his comments by quoting some important verses. These verses, based on Tabataba'I's tafseer, actually explain a meaning that could be used to contradict Kathir's assertion. Finally, Ibn Kathir has not given us a comprehensive understanding of the verse and this is in sharp contrast with the understanding offered by Tabatabai in his systematic approach to the exegesis of this verse. Allamah Tabataba'I approaches the exegesis of this verse in a logical and orderly manner. He first gives us examples of verses from the Qur’an in which the word “Imam” has been used by Allah to refer to individuals, heavenly books or the book of deeds. He then quotes the different opinions of exegetes and some tafseer work about the meaning and usage of the word “Imam” in the verse under study and the most common view we find is that the word “Imam” refers to the book of deeds. The exegetes resort to verse 36:12 in which Allah says: “...and all things We have kept in a clear Imam (book of records)” and the clause "whoever is given the book in his right hand" to prove their claim. This claim is easily refuted by the arguments presented by Tabataba’I. We have also seen from Tabataba’I’s tafseer that the sentence “summon all (groups of) people with their Imam” has a connotation of bringing forth each group of people with their respective Imam to receive the book of deeds and not merely calling the people by the names of their Imams as some exegetes have opined. Tabataba’i’s explanation in this respect is in order and perfect relationship with the connotation of the clause “whoever is given the book in his right hand”. Based on the reasons and arguments presented by Tabataba’I, we have to agree that the word “Imam” in the verse under study has been used by the Qur’an to refer to individuals who guide people to truth by Allah’s command or those who invite people to fire by leading astray. This understanding is also derived from the fact that the clause “their Imam” in the sentence “summon all people with their Imam” is general and not particular. Moreover, Tabataba’I’s tafseer is unprecedented in the sense that he reveals a deeper understanding of the verse. What was the purpose of mentioning the clause “whoever is given the book (of deeds) in his right hand”? In short, this clause and the next verse “whoever is blind in this will be blind in the hereafter…” are the source and means to derive the following facts:


1) The people and their respective Imams will be inseparable on the Day of Reckoning.


2) The people of the right hand are those who followed an Imam appointed by Allah to guide by His command and hence they were guided to the truth and Allah will not deal with them a whit unjustly.


3) The people of the left hand are those who followed an Imam other than the one appointed by Allah and hence they were led astray and they shall come out blind on the Day of Reckoning. Another interesting point that Tabataba’I mentions is that the book of deeds will only reveal the good or bad deeds of the people and it will not contain the final Judgment as suggested in some tafseer work of other exegetes. This means that even after giving and receiving the book of deeds in the right hand or left hand, Judgment will still be pending. In other words, the verse, with all its concomitants and connotations, is talking about those people who would expect to receive and see Allah’s extra Mercy because of their good deeds resulting from obeying and following a rightful Imam and such people would not be dealt a whit unjustly. Finally, Tabataba’I’s tafseer has helped us understand a very important fact - that in this life, one has to recognize and follow a rightful Imam of his time in order to be included among the “people of the right hand” on the Day of Reckoning. And the rightful Imam is none other than the one who is appointed by Allah at all times to manage the affairs of the people; he is also the one who guides people by the command of Allah; his wilayah springs from the root of Allah’s wilayah. This is one of the intrinsic qualities of a rightful Imam as evident in the following Qur’anic verses: “And We made them Imams who guide by Our command.” (21:73) and "Most surely your waliyy is Allah and the Messenger, and those who believe…” (5:55)


Poser: Accepted that one has to follow a rightful Imam of his time. Who is the present Imam of our time and how do we know that he is the rightful Imam and receive his guidance?


Reply: The Qur’an will reveal that “Imamah” is a divinely appointed status and that the earth cannot remain without a rightful Imam so long as there is a man on it. Moreover, history and numerous traditions will reveal that the Imam of our time is the 12th Imam (peace be upon him) from the household of our last Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a). If one negates this particular aspect in the history of Islam or the traditions, then one has to negate the Qur’anic understandings about Imamah and this is not possible. The present Imam is in major occultation by the will of Allah and due to the conditions that prevailed during his time. This occultation of the Imam is as a result of the very actions of the people. Whenever Allah sent a guide to the people, they consistently belied every guide, they fought him and they sometimes even killed him and therefore the people were not able to benefit from him. Would we then say that Allah did not send a guide? Look at the talk of these very same people on the Day of Judgment: They shall say: Yea! Indeed there came to us a warner, but we rejected (him)… (67:9). The occultation of the Imam helps us to appreciate the true value of an Imam and puts us into a trial as to whether or not our actions reflect upon his guardianship. However, if one accepts and recognizes the 12th Imam as the present waliyy of Allah and seeks guidance to the truth, the Imam can still respond in inexplicable ways by the permission of Allah. Al-Qurtubi, gives us the various views of some exegetes and companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the sentence “summon all people with their Imam” but unlike Tabataba’I he does not show whether these interpretations are conforming to or rejected by the verse itself. The only exception is the attempt he makes in rejecting the view of Mohamed bin Ka’ab that the word “Imam” in the verse means, “mothers”. Qurtubi refers to a tradition of the Prophet (and not the Qur'an) narrated by Ibn Omar in refuting this claim by Ka’ab. It is evident that Qurtubi’s tafseer of this verse has a lot in common with the style and method used by Ibn Kathir. All the views mentioned in his tafseer about the word “Imam” in the verse under study, with the exception of one, are rejected by the context of the verse and clearly refuted by the arguments seen in the tafseer work of Allamah Tabataba’I. For example, the view of Mujahid that "their Imam" in the verse specifically means "their Prophet" is rejected because first, Allah has also used the word "Imam" in the Qur'an to refer to those who are followed in misguidance and second, if the clause "their Imam" specifically meant "their prophet", then it would imply that the people of the left hand would not be summoned with an Imam. Further, the view that the word "Imam" means the book of deeds is refutable because, first, the clause "kulla onasin" gives the meaning of "every group of men" and the verse does not say Kulla nas (all men) and second, the book of deeds is a single book and therefore, not the exclusive book of a particular group only. It is also not appropriate to say that a person will be summoned with his book and then given the same book in his hand. However, the view of ‘Ali (supposedly Ali Ibn Abi-Talib), as mentioned by Qurtubi, that the clause “their Imam” means the Imam of their time (either rightful or false) is more reasonable and appropriate because the clause "their Imam" in the verse is general and not specific. It also appears that Qurtubi was more concerned to prove that people on the Day of Judgment will be called by their fathers' name and not their mothers' name, as suggested by others, rather than showing through exegesis the intended meaning of the clause “summon all (groups of) people with their Imam”. As a matter of fact, the tradition he quotes of the Prophet, in which it is mentioned that Allah will gather men from the old and later generations, actually disproves a previously quoted view of Qatadah and others that the word “Imam” means one of the “heavenly scriptures”. Tabatabai explains this aspect in his tafseer. In short, Qurtubi has quoted the views of different scholars on the verse and by not commenting on almost all of them, he has not fulfilled the duties of an exegete. One finds it very hard to accept these views because they are inconsistent and they have not been examined in the light of the Qur'an. In comparison, Tabataba’I has presented unstinted views of other exegetes on the verse and has commented on each of these views with the guidance of the Qur'an and thereby arriving at the acceptable and reasonable understanding through the style of his exegesis.


Questions:


1. Why did Yunus (a.s.) leave his people?


2. What is the correct meaning of the sentence "and he thought We had no power over him"?


3. Was there a command from Allah asking him not to leave or to stay?


4. Why did Yunus (a.s.) say, "surely I have been a wrong-doer"?


5. Why were lots cast in the laden ship?


6. What is the implication of the clause, "for which he blamed himself"?


7. What was the reason for the Whale to swallow Yunus (a.s.)?


8. What was the reason for Yunus' salvation?


9. What is the significance of this story in the Qur'an?


10. Based on this episode in the Qur'an, can we say that Yunus (a.s.) commited a sin?
The exegetes selected for this study are:
Allamah Tabataba'I
Sayyid Maududi


Go To: Our Conclusions

________________________________________


ALLAMAH TABATABA'I


(Translated from the Arabic volumes 14 &17)


Qur’an: “ And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance). Al-Noon is the whale, and Dhun-Nun is prophet Yunus (a.s.) son of Mata the companion of the whale, who was sent to the people of Nainawa and called them (to Allah), but they did not believe. So he asked Allah to punish them. When the torment was near, they repented and became believers, so Allah lifted the torment and Yunus left them. Thus, Allah tried him with a whale, which swallowed him. Yunus called upon Allah while in the whale’s belly. Allah lifted it (his trial) from him and sent him back to his people. The verse And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him means, and remember Dhun-Nun when he left angry with his people when they did not believe him, and thought that We will not limit (from the verse faqadara alayhi rizqah) his sustenance. Also, the verse And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him may have come as a simile to mean that his (Yunus’) leaving and abandoning his people was like (the similitude of) the one who is angry at his master thinking that his master has no power over him and that he will lose him (the master) by going further away from him, so that he (the master) will have no power over him. However, to say that prophet Yunus (a.s.) got truly angry with his Lord, and his thinking that Allah has no power over him is something that is far away from the honorable prophets when they are infallible.


Qur’an: but he cried out in the darkness… The darkness, like it was said, is the darkness of the sea and the darkness of the whale’s stomach and the darkness of the night.


Qur’an: There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! It is a renouncement by Yunus for what he has represented by leaving and abandoning his people without being ordered. His leaving represented – even though he did not do it intentionally and on purpose - that there is another refuge that he can go to other than his Lord, so he renounced that by saying "there is no God save Thee. Be Though Glorified." And it (his leaving) represented the possibility of objecting to His (Allah’s) actions, and getting angry at those actions, and that its possible that Allah will let that go and that it (objecting to his actions, getting angry, and thinking that Allah will let it go) will be out of the circle of His power, so he renounced that by saying " be Though Glorified!"



Qur’an: Lo! I have been a wrong-doer It is a confession of wrong doing since what he came up with has represented a wrong act even though it was not a wrong act in itself. Nor did he mean or intend by it a sin or wrong act, but rather it was a disciplining from Allah of His prophet in order for him to come near (to Allah) in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act let alone actually doing wrong.


Qur’an: Then we heard his prayer and saved him from the distress. Thus we deliver the believers. It refers to Yunus (a.s.). Even though he did not explicitly plea or pray, he began with Tawheed and Tanzeeh (Allah is free from blemishes) and confession of doing wrong, and with that, he revealed himself and presented his stance with his Lord and in it a request of salvation and well being, so Allah answered him and saved him from the distress that he was in. The sentence Thus we deliver the believers is a promise to save any believer who suffers from distress and calls upon his Lord the way Yunus called (his Lord). His (Yunus’) story will also come in Chapter of Saffat Inshallah!


Qur’an: And Yunus was most surely of the messengers. When he left (withdrew from his people) to a laden ship: (The verses) Refer to a ship full of people, and "ibaq" is the fleeing of a slave from his master. Fleeing to the ship (abaqa ela al-fulk) means leaving his people and withdrawing from them. Even though leaving his people was not a disobedience to Allah’s orders, nor did Allah forbid him to leave; yet, his leaving, at that time, represented a slave leaving his master, so Allah took him as that. This has been previously explained in the verse "And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance)" (21:87)


Qur’an: And then drew lots and was of those rejected: "al-mosahama" means drawing lots and "al-edhath" means losing, i.e. he drew lots* with those on the ship and lost. A whale has objected (burdened) their ship, so they had to throw one of them into the sea for the whale to swallow, and leave the ship (alone). So they drew, and Jonah (a.s.) was picked.* (* Some traditions mention that they cast lots three times and Jonah was the loser all three times. Perhaps the clause "a laden ship" was mentioned to hint that the probability of drawing the same person’s name three times is very small considering the number of people present in the ship. So whatever was objecting the ship was meant for Yunus a.s.) (tr.)


Qur’an: So the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy: "al-iltiqam" means swallowing, and "mulim" means blameworthy. Qur’an: And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah), He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised: Allah has considered Jonah as one who glorifies Him, and there are those who continue to glorify (Allah) until it becomes an adjective (description) of them. This shows that he (Yunus) glorified Allah for a long period of time. The exegetes have expressed different opinions in explaining the meaning of the verse:


First Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) before the whale swallowed him.


Second Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) inside the whale.


Third Interpretation: He was one who glorified (Allah) before the whale swallowed him, and inside the whale. The verse that (also) mentioned about him glorifying (Allah) was in chapter of the Prophets: "but he cried out in the darkness, saying: There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer" (21:87). Therefore, he had to glorify (Allah) inside the whale in particular, or inside the whale and before entering it. The probability that the verse means he glorified before the whale swallowed him is small and should not be considered. His glorifying along with his confession of being a wrongdoer as in the verse "Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer," – as will later be explained - is glorifying Allah on what he felt** when he left his people. And the verse "And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah)" etc, indicates that this (glorifying Allah) was the reason for his salvation. And this necessitated that he was put in that trial to praise Allah, and be saved from the grief. (** he thought that Allah will not limit his sustenance as in the verse "And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance)" (21:87) (author) Therefore, it is apparent that (the verse means) he glorified (Allah) in the whale. So the best of the three interpretations is the second one. Evidently, the meaning of his glorifying (tasbihah) is calling in the darkness: {{There is no Allah save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrongdoer.}} He started with "tahlil" (there is no Allah save Thee) to indicate the reason of his glorification, as if he were to say: " there is no god of truth that we direct to except you. You are free from what my actions have represented: that I have left and withdrew from your worship, and headed towards others. I have oppressed myself with my action, so here I am coming to you, renouncing what my action has represented by leaving you to others." That is the meaning of his (Jonah’s) glorification, and if it were not for that, he would have never survived. The sole reason for his salvation was the glorification and the renouncing of any bad trait of Allah. With that, it is apparent that the intended meaning of He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised is an assurance that he would have stayed in the whale’s belly until he is restricted. Then, he would come out of it, like if it was a grave that buries people, and he would have stayed there until he is restricted and leaves it; Allah says: Thereof We created you, and thereunto We return you, and thence We bring you forth a second time. (20:55) There is no evidence in the verse whether he (Jonah) would have been alive or dead in the whale’s belly until resurrection day, with the whale’s belly as his grave. There is also no indication if both of their bodies would have stayed normal or in a different manner. Therefore, there is no base for their (some people’s) differences if he (Jonah) would remain alive in that respect or dead, and the belly is his grave. Nor did it mention if the intended meaning of the resurrection day was the first blowing of the horn that will kill all creatures, or the second blowing, or the postponement to Judgment day to mean a long period of stay.


Qur’an: But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, "nabth" is to cast or discard, and "al-‘ara" is a place that has no shelter of a roof, or tree to provide shade. The meaning as it appears in the context is he (Jonah) glorified Allah, so we let him out of the whale’s belly and cast him out of the water to a place that has no place where he could shelter, and he was ill.

________________________________________


SAYYID MAUDUDI


(Actual text from English volumes 7 & 11)


Qur’an: And We showed a favor to Dhun-nun. That is Jonah. Literally Dhun-nun means "the man of the fish". He was called so because he was devoured by a fish by the Command of Allah. (See also 37:142, 10:98).


Qur’an: Remember when he went away in anger… Prophet Jonah left his people before he received Allah’s Command for migration.


Qur’an: for he thought that We would not take him to task for this. He (Jonah) presumed that he should leave the place, which was going to be visited by the scourge of Allah. This was not by itself an offence but it was an offence for a Prophet to leave the place of his mission without the permission of Allah.


Qur’an: But afterwards he invoked Us from the depths of darkness The darkness in the belly of the fish and the darkness of the sea over and above it. The story of Prophet Jonah has been cited to show that even a great Prophet like him did not go unnoticed when he committed an error in regard to Allah’s message. But when he repented, Allah, by His grace delivered him alive from the belly of the fish. "The mention of Prophet Job has been made to show that even Prophets were put to hard trials and afflictions and even they had to beg Allah to restore them to health, not to speak of curing others of diseases." (Meaning of the Qur’an, vol VII, page… by Sayyid Maududi)


Qur’an: And indeed Jonah was also one of the Messengers This is the third place where the Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) has been mentioned in the Qur’an. Before this, he has already been mentioned in Surah Yunus:98 and Al-Anbiya:87-88.


Qur’an: Remember when he fled to the laden vessel The word abaqa in Arabic is used for the flight and escape of a slave from his master’s house.


Qur’an: then he took part in the casting of lots and lost. At last the fish swallowed him for he was blameworthy. This is what one understands from a study of these sentences:


1. The vessel which Prophet Jonah boarded was already overloaded


2. Lots were drawn in the vessel probably at a time when during the voyage it was felt that the lives of the passengers had been endangered due to the overloading; therefore, lots were cast to pick out a person to be thrown overboard.


3. The lot fell on the Prophet Jonah, and so he was thrown into the sea, and a fish swallowed him.


4. The Prophet Jonah was so afflicted because he had fled and abandoned the place of his mission without the permission of his Master (Allah Almighty). This meaning is confirmed by the word "abaqa" as has been explained above and also by the word muleem. Muleem is a blameworthy person who becomes worthy of blame by himself because of his sin and error, whether somebody else blames him for it or not. (Ibn Jarir)


Qur’an: Had he not been of those who glorify (Us) It has two meanings and both are implied: That the Prophet Jonah was not of the people, who are heedless of God, but was of those who glorify and adore Allah constantly and perpetually. That when he went inside the fish, he turned to Allah alone and glorified Him. In surah Anbiya it has been said: "He invoked Us from the depths of the darkness saying "There is no god but You; Glory be to you; I am indeed blameworthy’" (21:87)


Qur’an: he would have remained in the fish’s belly till the day of Resurrection This does not mean that the fish would have lived till Resurrection and the Prophet Jonah would have remained alive in its belly till then, but the fish’s belly would have become his grave till Resurrection. The famous commentator Qatadah has given this same meaning of this verse. (Ibn Jarir).


Qur’an: At last We cast him on a bare shore in a state of sickness, and caused a creeper to grow over him. That is, "When the prophet Jonah confessed his fault, and began to glorify Allah like a true and sincere believer, the fish spat him up on the beach by Allah’s Command. The beach was a bare plain, without any vegetation on it, or anything to provide him shade, or any means of food."



Sayyid Maududi also writes…. Some people have taken exception to what we have written concerning this story of the Prophet Jonah in our commentary of surah Yunus and surah Al-Anbiya. It would therefore be proper that we should reproduce here the explanations given by other commentators in this regard. The famous commentator Qatadah in his commentary of verse 98 of surah Yunus says: "There has been no habitation which disbelieved and might have believed after the arrival of the scourge and then might have been left unpunished. The only exception was the people of the Prophet Jonah. When they searched for their Prophet, and did not find him, and felt that the scourge had approached near at hand, Allah put repentance in their hearts." (Ibn Kathir, volume II, page 433). Commenting on the same verse, ‘Allama Alusi says: "The Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) had been sent to the people of Nineveh in the land of Mosul. They were polytheistic people. The Prophet Jonah invited them to believe in Allah, the One, and to give up idol-worship. They refused to believe and belied him. Jonah gave them the news that they would be visited by a scourge after three days and he left the place at midnight before the expiry if the three days. Then in the daytime when the scourge approached and the people realized that they would all perish they began to search for the Prophet but did not find him. At last they took their families and their cattle and came out in the desert and expressed belief and repentance…So Allah showed them mercy and accepted their prayer." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, vol. IX, page 170) Commenting on verse 87 of Surah Al-Anbiya, ‘Allamah Alusi writes: "The Prophet Jonah’s forsaking his people in anger was an act of migration, but he had not been commanded to do so." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XVII, page 77). Then he explains the meaning of the sentence, "Inni kun-tu min-adh-dhalimeen", of Jonah’s prayer, thus: "That is, I was blameworthy in that I hastened to migrate, against the way of the Prophets, before receiving the command for it." This was in fact, a confession of his sin and expression of repentance so that Allah might remove his affliction. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XVII, page 78) Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s note on this verse is: "He became angry with his people when they did not believe and forsook them, and did not return to them of his own accord when the scourge had been averted and did not await Our Command for the migration." (Bayan al-Qur’an). Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani writes in his note on this verse: "Vexed at the misconduct of his people he left the city in anger, did not await the Divine Command and threatened the people that they would be visited by a torment after three days….Inni Kun-tu min adh-dhalimeen: He confessed his error that he had made haste and left the habitation without awaiting Allah’s Command."


Explaining these verses of Surah Saffat, Imam Razi writes: "The Prophet Jonah’s fault was that when Allah threatened to destroy the people who had belied him, he thought that the scourge would inevitably befall them. Therefore, he did not show patience and abandoned his mission and left the place, whereas he ought to have continued the work of his mission, for there was a possibility that Allah might not destroy those people." (Tafsir Kabir, volume VII, page 158). Explaining the verse idh abaqa… ‘Allama Alusi writes: "Literally, abaqa means the escape of a slave from his master’s house. Since Jonah had run away from his people without Allah’s leave, the word has been rightly used about him." Then he writes: "When the third day came, the Prophet Jonah left the place without Allah’s permission. Thus when his people did not find him, they came out along with their young and old people and their cattle, and they implored Allah and begged for His forgiveness and Allah forgave them." (Ruh al-Ma’ani, volume XXII, page 13) Maulana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani has explained the words wa huwa muleem, thus: "The accusation against him was that he had left the city because of an error of judgment without awaiting the Divine Command, and even specified the day for the coming of the scourge." Then Maulana Shabbir Ahmad’s note on verse 48 of Surah Al-Qalam is: "Do not be perplexed and agitated with regard to the deniers like the Man of the Fish (i.e. the Prophet Jonah." And about the sentence: wa huwa makzum of the same verse, he writes: "That is, he was full of anger against his people, so he prayed for the torment, rather foretold it, in fretful haste." These explanations by the commentators clearly show that there were three offences on account of which Prophet Jonah was made to suffer Allah’s displeasure:


1.That he himself fixed the day of the torment, whereas Allah had not made any declaration in this regard;


2.That he emigrated from the city even before the day came; whereas a Prophet should not leave the place of his mission until Allah commands him to do so; and


3. That he did not return to his people after the torment had been averted from them.

________________________________________



OUR CONCLUSIONS:



Prelude: This study is intended to prove that Prophets and Messengers were sinless i.e. possessed the divine ‘ismah. 'Ismah which is generally translated as "sinlessness", literally means 'protection'. The 'protection' is of three kinds:


(1) Protection from error in receiving the revelation,


(2) Protection from error in communicating and imparting that revelation to the people, and


(3) Protection from sins. Sin here means any thing or action which goes against the obligatory command of Allah, and thus becomes a disgrace for the man. In other words, any word or action which is against the dictates of the servitude, homage and devoutness of man towards his Lord. These three kinds of protection are proven from the decisive verses of the Qur’an. In this study, we are concerned with the third kind which is protection from sins. There are many verses which prove the 'ismah of the prophets in all its aspects:- These are they whom Allah has guided; therefore, follow their guidance. (6:90) and whomsoever Allah lets go astray, there is no guide for him; and whom Allah guides, there is none that can lead him astray; is not Allah Mighty, the Lord of retribution? (39:36-37) whomsoever Allah guides, he is the rightly guided one. (18:17) According to these verses all the prophets were decidedly guided by Allah and those who are guided by Allah can never be led astray by any misleading agency. In other words, they are free from all misguidance; and every sin is a misguidance, as is shown by the words of Allah: Did I not enjoin on you, 0 children of Adam! that you should not worship the, Satan? Surely he is your open enemy, and that you should worship Me; this is the right way. And certainly he led astray a great multitude from among you. What! could not then understand? (36:60-62) In this verse, Allah counts every sin as going astray, a misguidance as a result of the agency of Satan; at the same time regarding it as the worship of Satan. Looking at all the above verses we find that Allah guided all the prophets by His guidance. Anyone guided by Allah's guidance can never be misled, can never go astray. Every sin is a misguidance; every sin is straying from the right path. And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed the favors of the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the righteous ones; and excellent are these as companions! (4:69) Keep us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors, not (the path) of those inflicted with Thy wrath, nor (of those) gone astray. (1:5-7) In these verses, the prophets are described as of those upon whom Allah has bestowed His favors; and those upon whom Allah's favors have been bestowed are other than those who have gone astray. It means that the prophets never went astray. If they had committed a sin, they would have gone astray (as explained above). Also, if they had committed any error or mistake in receiving or communicating the revelation, they would have gone astray. These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, of the prophets of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Nuh, and of the posterity of Ibrahim and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the signs of the Beneficent (God) were recited to them, they fell down prostrating (in obeisance) and weeping. But there followed after them an evil generation, who neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. (19:58-59) This verse attributes two virtues to the prophets: first, the bestowing of favors (upon whom He bestowed favors); second, guidance (whom We guided and chose). Then it goes on praising them for the highest degree of obedience, devoutness and humility before Allah. Afterwards, it condemns the unworthy following generation for their evil traits. Obviously, we see here two opposite groups: one, the praiseworthy ones deserving to be honored by Allah; the other, the condemned ones. This second group has been described as those who followed sensual desires and who will soon see the result of their sins. It clearly means that the first group, i.e. the prophets, did not follow their desires and will not be overtaken by sin. Such sincere servants of Allah could not commit any sin, even before their appointment as prophets. Had they committed any sin even before their receiving prophethood, they would have surely come under the condemnation, neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. But, as we explained, theirs is a group of diametrically opposite to the condemned ones. This Qur'anic proof is somewhat similar to the rational proof given for the 'ismah of the prophets, which is as follows:- The sending of the prophets and the showing of miracles in their hands is the confirmation of their words. It means that they cannot tell a lie. Also, it is an endorsement that they have the ability to communicate the message of Allah to their people. But a man who indulges in sins and such actions as would harm a project, cannot be said to be qualified to preach the usefulness of that project or to invite the people to participate in it. Therefore, when Allah showed miracles in the hands of the prophets it not only authenticated their claim of prophethood, but also confirmed that they could not commit error in receiving and delivering the divine revelation, and that they faithfully obeyed all the commands of Allah and desisted from all such things which were disliked by Allah. In other words, they were sinless in all its aspects.


References: Al-Mizan English Volume 3 by Allamah Tabataba'I Allamah Tabataba’I has expounded these verses that tell the story of Yunus (a.s.) and his episode with the whale, in a way that no part of his commentary contradicts the Qur’anic understanding from the decisive verses that Prophets and Messengers have to be protected by Allah through divine ‘Ismah from making mistakes and sinning. (Read the prelude to conclusions above.) However, the literal meanings of some of the allegorical verses describing the story of Yunus (a.s.) could give an impression that a Prophet like Yunus (a.s.) was not sinless or did not possess the divine ‘Ismah we mention above. In order to avoid a possible contradiction with the Qur’an regarding the character and quality of the Prophets appointed by Allah for a divine mission, these verses, as Tabataba’I correctly points out in one case, could have come down as similes and the only way to arrive at the correct meaning is to return such verses to the decisive part of the Qur’an so that their true connotation could be fixed. In the beginning, Tabataba’I tells the story of Yunus who left his people after they disbelieved and belied him. His explanation of the verse "idh abaqa ela ‘l-fulk" (37:140) conforms to the verse 21:87 - "And (Remember) Dhun-Nun (Yunus) when he left in anger…" which shows that Yunus withdrew from his people and not that he was running away from his mission. However, Yunus felt that his leaving ‘represented’ a slave fleeing from his master and thus the usage of the word "abaqa". Some scholars have said that "abaqa" could also mean a slave leaving his place after completing his duties. Such a meaning is also not rejected by the context of verse 21:87. It appears from Tabataba’I’s tafseer that Yunus (a.s.) left his people at the time when the punishment had already arrived and at the same time, Allah had lifted the punishment. According to his tafseer, and as evident from the Qur'an, there was no commandment as such from Allah instructing his Prophet not to leave or to stay with his people. Therefore, there was no offence or sin on the part of Yunus (a.s.). This explanation is not rejected because, according to the Qur’an, it seems that Allah can make His plan of work known to a Prophet or Messenger to the extent that it is beneficial for the trial of the people and when the Prophet or Messenger thinks that the plan has reached its end, a new development takes place with an unexpected result. This is evident from the following verse: "Allah effaces what He pleases and establishes (likewise). With Him is the basis of the Book" (13:39). The argument by other exegetes that Yunus (a.s.) committed an offence because he foretold the day of the punishment is baseless because of the following reasons:


1. Prophets or Messengers have to be informed of the plan of work by their Master (Allah). So if Yunus (a.s.) warned the people of the coming of the scourge including the exact day, it was based on his knowledge (given by Allah) of the divine plan.


2. There is evidence in the Qur’an that the people of Yunus brought belief when they saw the punishment coming. The explanation by Tabataba’I that the punishment had already arrived is evident from the following verse: And wherefore was there not a town which should believe so that their belief should have profited them but the people of Yunus? When they believed, We removed from them the chastisement of disgrace in this world's life and We gave them provision till a time (10:98). This verse inevitably proves that if Yunus had informed his people about the coming of the punishment, it was not a forecast or prediction but a reality. There is an important factor to consider in the story of Yunus (a.s.). In verse 21:87, Allah has revealed a sentence and its literal translation is as follows: "…and he (Yunus) thought that We had no power over him". This sentence has led some exegetes to explain that Yunus committed an offence by running away from his people and place of mission without Allah’s permission thinking that his Master would have no power over him. Far be it for a prophet appointed by Allah to think that way because he would be termed as a ‘disbeliever’. A good example is Firawn who claimed to be the Lord of the people because he did not believe in the Absolute power. Tabataba’I has been swift in pointing out that this part of the verse could have come down as a simile for us. In other words, the sentence was revealed that way to create a picture in our minds of a slave leaving his master thinking that he is out of the circle of his master’s power. The similitude in turn, helps us to understand the situation Yunus (a.s.) was in, although innocent. Tabataba’I also gives us the true meaning of the sentence by quoting the verse: "But when He tries him (differently), then straitens to him his means of subsistence, he says: My Lord has disgraced me" (89:16), where similar words were used (faqadara alayhi rizqah). The most interesting part of Tabataba’I’s tafseer is when he explains that the lots were cast because a whale was objecting the laden ship. The explanation by other exegetes that lots were cast because the ship was overloaded and one person had to be thrown overboard is totally illogical besides the fact that the clause "laden ship" has several meanings. Tabataba’I’s explanation that a whale was objecting the ship seems more plausible and conforming to the sentence: "so the Fish swallowed him…" In other words, the whale was already commanded by Allah to swallow Yunus (a.s.) and was thus meant for Yunus (a.s.). Probably the description "laden ship" is pointing to another miracle: Yunus’ name was picked in the casting of lots despite all the odds that he would not be picked in a ship filled with capacity! The explanation by some exegetes and scholars that when the ship had reached the middle of the sea, it was gripped in a violent storm is also rejected by the context of the verses 37:140-142. This part of Tabataba’I’s tafseer probably explains that Yunus (a.s.) has blamed himself because of the problem the ship was experiencing by the whale’s presence. Now we come to the part in which Yunus confesses his so called ‘wrongdoing’ while inside the belly of the whale. Based on his previous explanation that Yunus (a.s.) represented in his action, a slave leaving his master, Tabataba’I now explains that Yunus’ confession is related to that ‘representation’. This means that Yunus was not confessing an actual wrongdoing but he was in a state of distress (in darkness) because he felt that he represented an action, which could be deemed as undesirable. Allah tried him for that and Yunus glorified Allah while inside the belly of the whale, at the same time renouncing that representation and thus Allah delivered him. Tabatabai’I’s commentary that this was a disciplining from Allah of His prophet in order for him to come near (to Allah by glorifying Him) in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act let alone actually doing wrong is truly remarkable and explains the purpose of the similitude in verse 21:87 which we previously mentioned. As a final conclusion, Tabataba’I’s tafseer clearly proves that there was no wrong done by Prophet Yunus (a.s.) and that the trial that he was subjected to was to elevate his status, in a miraculous way, as a Prophet and Messenger of Allah. Yunus left his people based on the sufficient knowledge given to him by Allah for that mission. A similar example can be given in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) when he was commanded by Allah to sacrifice his son Ismael. Allah brought about a new development and ransomed him with a great sacrifice (of later generations). Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. He was not aware of the outcome of the trial. Allah tried him in order to elevate his status to an Imam of the people: "And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He" (2:124). The explanation by other exegetes that the swallowing by the whale was a punishment for the Prophet is totally rejected by the Qur’an. It is a shame for someone to say that Allah punished His Messenger when Allah Himself sends peace on His Messengers (37:181). Hence the belief that Prophet Yunus was sinless, protected by Allah, still stands. Sayyid Maududi, in his tafsir of the passage in surah al-Anbiya', explains that Yunus had done wrong by leaving his place of mission without Allah's consent. He further says that it was an offence for a prophet to leave his place, which was going to be visited by the punishment of Allah. Maududi also mentions that the story has been "cited to show that even a great Prophet like him did not go unnoticed when he committed an error in regard to Allah's message…" There are several arguments to consider with respect to this part of Maududi’s tafseer. First, one can equally argue that there was no command from Allah instructing the Prophet not to leave and therefore Yunus did nothing wrong to leave his people. Second, based on what we mentioned above, in the prelude to conclusions, to say that a prophet appointed by Allah did wrong is like attributing the wrong to Allah (God Forbid!) since He made the appointment! Third, to assert that a prophet should never leave his place without Allah’s permission is like saying that they were not allowed to exercise their free will and the Qur’an negates this one too. Needless to mention, Sayyid Maududi says in Vol. 7, Meaning of the Qur’an, in commenting on the passage about prophet Job, "the mention of Prophet Job has been made to show that even Prophets were put to trials and afflictions". It is rather surprising that Maududi considers Yunus’ encounter with the whale as his punishment for leaving his people and not a trial to elevate his status! The Qur’an has numerous verses, which mention that believers are subjected to trials and afflictions in order to prove and increase their level of submission and belief. In commenting on the passage in surah Saffat, Maududi explains the meaning of the word abaqa and says that it is used for the flight and escape of a slave from his master's house. He also explains that Yunus (a.s.) boarded a ship which was overloaded and lots were drawn in the vessel to pick out a person to be thrown overboard when it was felt that the lives of the passengers was in danger due to the overloading. We have mentioned before that the word abaqa was used to give us a similitude of a slave leaving his master and it does not imply that Yunus was running away from his responsibility. Further, it is unreasonable for an exegete, who is highly regarded by the ahlul-Sunnah, to say that throwing one person overboard would have reduced the danger the vessel was facing due to overloading. One can see that such explanations are easily rejected by the context of the verses under study. The clause "laden ship" could mean a ship, which is filled with people to its capacity or "burdened" by something. Tabataba’I’s explanation that a whale was objecting the ship seems to flow well with the whole story and supported by the verse "so the Fish swallowed him…" OR "at last the Fish swallowed him…" (translation, as it appears in Maududi’s tafseer). Maududi’s commentary on the aftermath of the events that took place in the vessel seems to suggest that a whale appeared in the sea (by the command of Allah) after Yunus was thrown overboard and then swallowed him. In other words, Maududi says that the whale swallowed Yunus because he had fled the place of his mission without the permission of Allah. He supports his statement by pointing out the word "Muleem" (a blameworthy person). His explanation therefore implies that Yunus became worthy of blame by himself because of his sin and error. He attributes this explanation to Ibn Jarir. In any case, this explanation is rejected by the Qur’an because the verse "so the Fish swallowed him while he did that for which he was blameworthy" seems to point to the burdening of the ship by the whale and the casting of lots to decide whom to give to the Fish in order to relieve the burdening. In short, Maududi deems the swallowing by the whale as a punishment from Allah for his so called sin and error while Tabataba’I considers it as a miracle and salvation for a Prophet who was in distress and Allah eventually delivered him from this affliction. As a matter of fact, if Allah really intended to punish Yunus (God forbid), He would have left him in the sea all by himself rather than commanding a whale to swallow him! Maududi also makes a statement while commenting on the verse, "Had he not been of those who glorify (Us)…" that Prophet Yunus was not of the heedless people but was one of those who glorify Allah constantly and perpetually. Tabataba’I makes a similar statement and says that Yunus (a.s.) was one who glorified Allah for a long period. Therefore, it is very hard to accept that Allah punished a servant of His who glorified Him constantly and perpetually. Maududi has actually contradicted himself in this respect. In addition, Maududi, through the explanations of various Sunni commentators, including Imam Razi, author of tafseer al-Kabeer, says that there were three offenses on account of which Prophet Yunus was made to suffer Allah’s displeasure: First, Yunus (a.s.) himself foretold or fixed the day of the punishment when "Allah had not made any declaration in this regard."


Reply: This is without any proof from the Qur’an. As a matter of fact, verse 10:98 proves that the punishment had already arrived before Allah lifted it and we have commented on this above.


Second, Yunus’ offense was that he left his people even before the day of punishment came, while a prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until given the order by Allah.


Reply: There is no evidence from the Qur’an that Yunus left his people before the punishment arrived. Also, where in the Qur’an does it say, with the exception of a specific command that a Prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until Allah orders him to do so? We have mentioned above that to assert that a prophet should never leave his place without Allah’s permission is like saying that they were not allowed to exercise their free will! After all, 'Ismah (protection) comes from Allah; He creates in the prophet a cause from which all his actions emanate - the actions which are done by his own free will and are always in obedience to Him.


Third: Yunus’ offense was that he did not return to his people after the punishment had been averted from them.


Reply: We don’t know the exact meaning of the third offence. Does he mean to say that Yunus never returned to his people? If so, it is negated by the following verse: And We sent him (Yunus) to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded. (37:147) However, if he means to say that Yunus should have stayed with his people, then it is a repetition of the second offence. According to Tabataba’I’s tafseer and verse 10:98, it appears that Yunus left his people after the punishment had arrived and the lifting of it by Allah and therefore the claim that he did not return to his people after the punishment was averted does not make sense at all. In short, we have witnessed that Maududi’s tafseer on the story of Prophet Yunus in the Qur’an began and ended on the wrong footing that Prophets appointed by Allah can make mistakes and commit sins. This is evident from the explanations Maududi presents by taking the literal meanings of some of the verses, which probably came down as similes. In addition, his commentary in the end that Prophet Yunus committed three offences is baseless, not even apparent from the verses under study and also without any proof from the Qur’an. To claim that Prophet Yunus was guilty of these offences or even to utter that Prophets and Messengers were capable of sinning is blasphemy and a blatant contradiction of the Qur’anic verses honoring the Prophets such as: These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, of the prophets of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Nuh, and of the posterity of Ibrahim and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the signs of the Beneficent (God) were recited to them, they fell down prostrating (in obeisance) and weeping. (19:58) And peace be on the messengers. (37:181)