In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This long passage makes it clear that the authority to legislate belongs only to God who alone determines what is permissible and what is forbidden. Once this basic rule is established, it becomes applicable in all matters, regardless of their degree of importance. Anyone who claims the authority to legislate, by word or deed, is actually claiming Godhead, which belongs only to God Himself. In other words, he does not simply transgress the bounds of what is permitted, he also assaults God’s authority. If any legislation is enacted on the basis of social traditions or people’s views, then, in practical terms, these are preferred to what God revealed to His Messenger. As such, it constitutes a departure from faith altogether.

This passage provides a long list of legislation in different areas. Every piece begins with an address to those who believe. It is a reminder to them of their essential quality, which implies unqualified `acknowledgement of God’s supremacy, sovereignty and authority to legislate. As such, it is an address which re-emphasises the basic quality of faith. This is coupled with a commandment to obey God and His Messenger and to beware of turning one’s back on God’s legislation. A warning against God’s punishment is added, only to be followed with the prospect of earning His forgiveness and mercy. The believers are then told that they have their own way to follow. They are to pay no heed to anyone who does not submit to God’s authority.

Then, a clear distinction is drawn between the believers who acknowledge that the authority to legislate belongs to God alone on the one hand and on the other those who follow a different line, claiming for themselves the right to legislate: “Believers, it is but for your own souls that you are accountable. Those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path. To God you all must return. He will then make you understand all that you were doing [in life].” (Verse 105)

This makes the believers a community on their own, with its independent course of action, code and legal source. When the Muslim community outlines its own course of action and declares its determination to follow it, it knows that other people’s disagreement and error will not cause it any harm. All will eventually return to God.

Such is the central theme of this long passage. We will look at its detailed points as we proceed with our commentary.

The first address in this passage to the believers reminds them that they may not exercise any of God’s attributes, since these belong totally to God. As such, they may not forbid themselves any of the wholesome and good things that God has made lawful to them. It is not open to them to make a demonstration of self-imposed prohibition, refusing to eat of such good food God has given them. They must remember that it is God who has provided them with such lawful and wholesome sustenance. It is only He who may designate things as permissible or forbidden:

“Believers, do not forbid yourselves the good things God has made lawful to you. Do not transgress; God does not love the transgressors. Eat of what God has provided for you of lawful and wholesome things, and have fear of God in whom you believe.” (Verses 87-8)

The whole question of legislation is closely linked to that of Godhead. It is God alone who has the sole authority to regulate for people’s lives. His authority is derived from the fact that it is He who has created human beings and provided them with food and sustenance. Hence, to Him alone belongs the right to make permissible to them whatever He pleases of His own provisions and to declare any part of such provisions forbidden to them. Human beings themselves acknowledge this logic. Whoever owns something enjoys the right to dispose of it in any way he pleases. Anyone who violates this basic principle is undoubtedly a transgressor. It is only to be expected that believers do not make an assault on God in whom they believe. It is inconceivable that a believer could ever assault God’s authority.

These two short verses state this principle in absolute clarity. No one may argue against this principle unless he is a transgressor, and God does not love transgressors. This is a general question which establishes a general principle relating to the significance of Godhead and what rights God has against His servants. It also relates to the effect of believing in God with regard to the behaviour and practices of believers. We have a number of reports which suggest that these two verses and the one which follows them (relating to oaths and the various atonements for breaking them) were revealed by way of comment on a particular incident that took place during the Prophet Muĥammad’s lifetime. While knowledge of the circumstances of revelation of a particular verse can throw light on its meaning and significance, we have to remember that in general, Qur’ānic statements have a universal application.

They do not relate to particular incidents only, unless there is a specific case with which they deal.

One report by Ibn Jarīr mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) one day sat to speak with his Companions, reminding them of their duties and the reckoning on the Day of Judgement. He did little more than to warn them of the punishment of the Hereafter and then left. Some of his Companions then said to each other: “We must do something of substance. The Christians forbid themselves certain things and we should do likewise.” Some of them declared that they would abstain from eating meat or eating any part of the leg of certain animals. While others declared that they would not eat during the day and some said they forbade themselves marriage.

When the Prophet was told of this, he spoke to them again and said: “How is it that some people have forbidden themselves marriage, or food or sleep? As for me, I sleep and worship at night, and I fast on some days and abstain from fasting on others, and I marry women. Whoever chooses a path other than mine does not belong to me.” It is in connection with this incident that this Qur’ānic verse was revealed: “Believers, do not forbid yourselves the good things God has made lawful to you.

Do not transgress; God does not love the transgressors. Eat of what God has provided for you of lawful and wholesome things, and have fear of God in whom you believe.” (Verses 87-8)

Another report confirming the one just quoted is given by Anas, one of the Prophet’s Companions, and is related by both al-Bukhārī and Muslim: “Three people came to the home of God’s Messenger (peace be upon him), enquiring of his wives about his worship. When they were told of it, they felt that it was less than expected.

Then one of them said: “How can we compare ourselves to God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) when God has already forgiven him any sin that he might have committed and any which he may commit in future.” Hence, one of them declared:

“I shall spend all night, every night, in prayer.” The second said: “As for me, I shall fast every day of my life.” The third one said: “I shall stay away from women and will never get married.” The Prophet went to them and said: “Are you the ones who said so and so. You should know that I am the one who fears God most among you.

Nevertheless, I fast on some days and abstain from fasting on others; I pray, but I also go to sleep; and I do get married. Whoever abandons my path does not belong to me.” Al-Tirmidhī relates on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās that a man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “If I eat meat, I want to be with women and I am motivated by desire. Therefore, I have forbidden myself eating meat.” God revealed the Qūr’ānic verse: “Believers, do not forbid yourselves the good things God has made lawful to you...” (Verse 87)

The verse that follows, which refers to oaths and their atonement, appears to have been revealed in order to deal with such cases when people make an oath in order to solemnise their abstention from something permissible, as was done by those Companions of the Prophet. The Qur’ān also makes it clear that it is not up to human beings to declare things forbidden or permissible. That authority belongs to God, in whom those Companions of the Prophet believed. This Qur’ānic verse also deals with all vows of abstention from doing something good or vows to undertake something evil. Whenever it is clear to a person who has made an oath that breaking it is better and more conducive to earning God’s pleasure, he should break it and atone for it in one of the methods defined by this Qur’ānic verse.

`Abdullāh ibn `Abbās says that it was revealed in connection with those people who forbade themselves wholesome types of food and clothes as well as appropriate marriages. They had vowed to abide by these restrictions. When the commandment, “Believers, do not forbid yourselves the good things God has made lawful to you,” was revealed, they asked: “What shall we do with our oaths?” This verse giving the necessary verdict was then revealed. It makes clear that God does not take people to task for oaths which they may utter without thought, or those which they may pronounce “off the cuff,” as it were, without consciously deciding to make an oath.

At the same time, Muslims are urged not to devalue their oaths by uttering too many of them without thought. An oath by God is a very serious statement. Hence, it must not be uttered without thought.

An oath made solemnly and deliberately requires an atonement if it is to be broken. The atonement is given in detail in this Qur’ānic verse: “The breaking of an oath must be atoned for by the feeding of ten needy persons with more or less the same food as you normally give to your own families, or by clothing them, or by the freeing of one slave. He who cannot afford any of these shall fast three days instead. This shall be the atonement for your oaths when you have sworn [and broken them]. But be mindful of your oaths.” (Verse 89) The Arabic term which is used to describe the type of food which should be offered to the ten needy persons means literally either “the average” or “the best” food a person gives to his own family. However, we can combine both aspects of the meaning because the average is normally preferred in Islam. It also applies to clothing the ten needy persons which means giving them some of the average type of clothes one gives to one’s family.

An alternative is to free a person from slavery, but it is not specified here whether that slave should be a believer. Hence, scholars have different views concerning this point, but we will not discuss the details of these views. “He who cannot afford any of these shall fast three days instead.” (Verse 89) It is only when a person is unable to meet the requirements of any of the above types of atonement that he may atone for his broken oath by fasting. Again, scholars have varying views with regard to whether these three days must be consecutive or not. Our own approach in this commentary is not to discuss such varying views or to evaluate them. Anyone who wishes to study them may do so by referring to books of fiqh which discuss them in detail. All views of scholars are in agreement on the essential purpose of the atonement, namely, attaching proper value to the breached contract and giving proper respect to oaths which are pledges or forms of contracts which God has ordered to be honoured. Hence, if anyone of us makes an oath and finds out subsequently that it is better, from the Islamic point of view, to do otherwise, he both breaks his oath and atones for it. The same applies if he makes an oath which he has no authority to make, such as an oath of prohibition or permissibility of a particular thing. In this case, he breaks the oath and atones for it.

Let us now talk about the subject matter of these verses. As for the particular circumstances, God makes it plain that what He has made lawful is wholesome and what He has forbidden is foul. Hence, it is not for people to choose something different from what God has chosen for them, for two basic reasons: firstly, the authority to forbid or make lawful belongs to God alone. Any violation of that is a transgression which displeases God and contradicts faith. Secondly, God makes lawful only what is good and wholesome. Therefore, people may not forbid themselves such wholesome things that are beneficial to them and to life in general.

A human being’s knowledge of life and of himself cannot be matched with God’s knowledge who combines perfect wisdom with absolute knowledge. Since God has made these things lawful, then they must be good and wholesome. God’s knowledge is perfect, based on absolute certainty. Hence we say: had God known that these matters were foul or evil, He would have spared His servants their consequences.

Had He known that abstention from them would be better, He would not have made them lawful.

This religion has been revealed so that it brings about goodness in human life and achieves perfect balance and complete harmony between all aspects of human life. It does not overlook any natural human need, nor does it suppress any constructive human activity within appropriate limits. Hence, Islam denounces monastic aestheticism because it amounts to a suppression of nature and an impediment to the development of life. Similarly, Islam speaks out against the forbidding of wholesome lawful things, because these help the development of life. It must be remembered that God has created this life so that it may flourish and develop in accordance with the constitution He has laid down for it. Monastic aestheticism and the forbidding of wholesome things come into direct conflict with God’s method for human life because they bring life to a stop at a certain point under the pretext of seeking something more sublime. It should be stated here that attaining the sublime is feasible within the system God has laid down and made easy through its compatibility with human nature.

The fact that this verse was revealed to deal with particular circumstances does not restrict its general applicability because it relates to the question of Godhead and legislation. This is not confined to the statement of which types of food, drink and marriage are lawful and which are forbidden. It applies to the authority to legislate in all matters of life.

We try to emphasise this message as much as we can, because the fact that Islam has not been allowed to regulate human life for a long while has enabled the tendency in people to give Qur’ānic statements a restricted applicability. Thus, many people think that terms like “permissible” and “forbidden” apply only to the slaughtering of animals, to the types of food, drink and clothing a Muslim may have, and to how marriages should be conducted. Many people tend to refer to Islam only within this area. Other general and more substantive matters are considered in light of theories, constitutions and laws which have nothing to do with Islam. A community’s social set-up, political system and international relations are only some examples of serious matters that are determined without reference to Islam.

Islam is a constitution which regulates all of human life. A person who accepts Islam in full and follows all its commandments is a believer, while a person who follows some other method, even though this may be in a single question or issue, is one who rejects faith and transgresses against God’s authority. As such, he is not a believer, although he may profess to respect faith and claims to be a Muslim. When he follows a law other than that of God, he falsifies all his claims and takes himself out of the realm of faith altogether.

It is to this central issue that these Qur’ānic verses refer. It puts the question of believing in God above all other considerations. As such, it gives it the seriousness which it should always enjoy.

It is within the context of legislation, permissibility and prohibition, as well as the moulding of the Muslim community in Madinah, purging it from all remaining traces of past tradition of the dark days, that a clear and decisive verdict is given on intoxicating drinks and gambling, coupled with practices of associating partners with God.

Believers, intoxicants, games of chance, idolatrous practices and divining arrows are abominations devised by Satan. Therefore, turn away from them so that you may be successful. Satan seeks only to stir up enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to turn you away from the remembrance of God and from prayer. Will you not, then, desist? (Verses 90-1)

Drinking, gambling, idols and divining arrows were important aspects of pre- Islamic Arabia. They were closely related in both practice and tradition. The Arabs used to drink to the point of extravagance. They considered that drinking afforded people distinction. They often mention drinking in their poetry as a practice to be proud of or to praise others with. In social gatherings, drinking was coupled with the slaughter of animals which were immediately cooked to provide food to those who took part in these drinking bouts, those who served wine and those who frequented such gatherings. The animals were slaughtered at the feet of idols which were sprayed with the blood of their sacrifice. In such social events, the act of divining arrows was practised in order to determine the sharing out of the sacrificial meat.

Everyone’s share was determined by his arrow, with the highest arrow giving the largest share, and the lowest giving no share whatsoever, even though it might have been the arrow of the person who provided the animal for slaughter. This gives us an idea of how traditions were intertwined with ignorant ideological concepts.

Islam did not address such traditions at the start, because they are based on mistaken beliefs. To try to reform them at the surface level before establishing the right foundation of faith was bound to be a wasted effort, and this a Divine system would not even consider. Islam begins its reform with the paramount question for every human being, namely, faith. It uproots the very basic ideological concepts of ignorance in order to put in place the Islamic concept, which is in complete harmony with human nature. It explains to people how grossly mistaken their concepts of God are and guides them to recognise their true Lord and Creator. Once they know Him, they begin to listen with great attention in order to find out what pleases and displeases their Lord. Prior to this they are not even ready to listen or obey an order or commandment. They are not prepared to abandon their ignorant practices no matter how often they are advised against them. The key to human nature is that of faith. Unless the right key is used, nothing of morality or social reform will take root in human nature. Thus, it remains closed, unenlightened, and unfathomable.

The Islamic method of reform did not start with correcting the deviations and abominations of the dark ages, or Jāhiliyyah. It addressed the question of faith, beginning with the declaration that there is no deity save God. It took around 13

years to establish this concept of God’s oneness, with all that it entails, in the hearts of the early Muslims. In this period, the only aim was its establishment, so that people could know their Lord and submit themselves to His authority. When faith was clearly established in their hearts and they recognised that they could have no choice other than what has been chosen for them by God, then the next phase of outlining their duties, including worship, began. This was combined with the process of eradicating the social, economic, moral and behavioural traces of ignorance. It began in effect at the moment when God’s order could be obeyed without hesitation because people realised that God could only order them to do what is good for them.

In other words, commandments were issued after submission had become clear, when every Muslim realised that he had no say other than the say of God. Shaikh Abu’l Ĥasan `Alī al-Nadwī describes this stage succinctly and clearly in his invaluable book Islam and the World, under the subtitle “Highest Pinnacle of Development”:

Once the Gordian knot of unbelief had been cut, it was easy to unfasten the other knots that bound them (meaning the early Muslims). Once the Prophet had opened their hearts to Islam, he did not have to struggle at each step to make them reject the Wrong and accept the Right. They had entered into the new faith heart and soul and submitted themselves without demur to what the Prophet decreed. They unhesitatingly confessed before the Prophet such crimes as were not known to anyone but themselves. If they committed any crime, they voluntarily submitted themselves for punishment. Many of them actually had wine cups in their hands when the Qur’ānic injunction against the use of intoxicants was revealed, but the Word of God came between them and the cups. They threw away the cups at once and broke their wine barrels so that the drains of Madinah literally overflowed with their detestable contents.6

Yet, the prohibition of intoxicants and games of chance did not come as a surprise.

Before this categorical prohibition, some steps were taken to loosen the hold of such social traditions which were closely intertwined with personal habits as well as with economic aspects. Indeed, this was the third or fourth step Islam took to solve the problem of intoxicant drinks.

The first step was no more than firing a shot in the right direction, when God (limitless is He in His Glory) says in Sūrah 16, The Bee, revealed in Makkah: “And from the fruit of date palms and vines you derive intoxicants as well as wholesome food.” (16:

67) This was the first indication to Muslims whereby intoxicants were placed in opposition to wholesome sustenance.

The second step addressed the Muslims’ religious conscience through legislative logic, with the verse revealed in Sūrah 2, The Cow: “They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both there is great evil although they have some benefits for people; but their evil far exceeds their benefit.” (2: 219) The import here is clear: since the evil of a particular practice is far greater than its benefit, then it is better to abandon it altogether. Hardly anything is totally devoid of benefit, but its permissibility or prohibition depends on how far its evil outweighs its benefit.

The third step broke the habit of drinking and put it on a collision course with attendance to obligatory prayer. Here we have the verse revealed in Sūrah 4, Women:

“Believers, do not attempt to pray when you are drunk, [but wait] until you know what you are saying.” (4: 43) Since Muslims offer five obligatory prayers every day, with a close time range between them, which is not sufficient to get drunk in and then regain sobriety, this instruction practically restricted the times available for drinking. This, in effect, abolished the habits of midmorning and mid-afternoon drinking, which were part of the traditions of pre-Islamic Arabia. Moreover, it militated against addiction, which is closely related to the amount of time available for drinking. In this way, it became practically impossible for a Muslim to attend to his prayers on time, and to drink at his usual times.

The fourth and final stage was this categorical prohibition which came after people had become fully ready to accept it. It needed only a clear order and the Muslims were sure to obey it without hesitation.

It seems that the first of these verses, i.e. the one in Sūrah 16, caused `Umar ibn al- Khaţţāb, who described himself prior to embracing Islam as a man of drink, some worry and he wished for a clear-cut ruling on drinking. That verse makes a distinction between what people use dates and grapes for, as it describes them as “intoxicants and wholesome food.” (16: 67)

`Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb [may God be pleased with him] reports that he said: “My Lord, give us a clear-cut ruling on drinking.” The verse in Sūrah 2 was then revealed, stating: “They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both there is great evil although they have some benefits for people; but their evil far exceeds their benefit.” (2: 219)

`Umar was called in and the verse was recited to him. He said: “My Lord, give us a clear-cut ruling on drinking.” The verse in Sūrah 4 was then revealed: “Believers, do not attempt to pray when you are drunk, [but wait] until you know what you are saying.” (4:

43) `Umar was called in and the verse was recited to him. He once again said: “My Lord, give us a clear-cut ruling on drinking.” The verse in this sūrah, The Repast, was then revealed, stating: “Satan seeks only to stir up enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to turn you away from the remembrance of God and from prayer. Will you not, then, desist?” (Verse 91) `Umar was called in once more and the verse was recited to him. He said: “We do desist, my Lord! We do desist.” (Related by al-Nasā’ī, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī, and Ibn Mājah.)

When these two verses which make intoxicants absolutely forbidden were revealed in the third year of the Islamic calendar, shortly after the Battle of Uĥud, the matter did not require more than sending someone around the places where people gathered in Madinah to announce: “All intoxicants are forbidden.” Everyone who had a glass of wine in his hand broke it and everyone who was in the actual process of drinking threw out what was in his mouth. Barrels and bottles of wine and other intoxicants were broken. The whole matter was over as if the people had never before drunk intoxicants.

Let us now look at the way the Qur’ānic statement is phrased, because it tells us much about the Qur’ānic method of cultivating people’s minds and reforming their behaviour. It begins with the address so familiar in this part of the sūrah: “Believers.” This address awakens the hearts of believers on the one hand and reminds them, on the other, of the basic requirement of faith, namely, obedience and submission.

This is followed by a decisive statement on the nature of those practices which admit no counter argument: “Intoxicants, games of chance, idolatrous practices and divining arrows are abominations devised by Satan.” (Verse 90) These are, then, foul practices and cannot be included among good and wholesome things which God has permitted. Moreover, they have been devised by Satan, man’s old enemy. It is sufficient for a believer to know that something is devised by Satan to make it totally repugnant to him.

At this point, the prohibition is issued, but is combined with the prospect of attaining success, which itself has its profound effect on the human mind: “Therefore, turn away from them so that you may be successful.” (Verse 90) The Qur’ānic verses go on to further expose Satan’s scheme behind the devising of these abominations:

“Satan seeks only to stir up enmity and hatred among you by meaner of intoxicants and games of chance, and to turn you away from the remembrance of God and from prayer.” (Verse 91) Satan’s aim and the purpose of his scheming are thus exposed before every Muslim. Satan seeks nothing except the stirring up of enmity and hatred among believers so as to turn them away from their worship. What a wicked scheme! Satan’s aims can easily be recognised in our practical life after we have accepted them as true, since God has stated them so. It does not take anyone with an open mind long to recognise how Satan actually stirs up enmity and hatred, utilising for this purpose intoxicants and gambling. Intoxicants weaken one’s consciousness and self-control, heighten tempers and stir up whims and impulses. Gambling and all games of chance leave people with a sense of loss and grudges. It is natural that a losing gambler nurses a strong grudge against the winner who takes away his money from under his nose and leaves him empty handed. It is only natural that such matters stir up enmity and hatred, regardless of the impression of happiness they initially give off.

The fact that intoxicants and gambling do turn people away from their remembrance of God and from prayer is too clear to require elaboration. Drinking makes people forget and gambling makes them oblivious to everything else. Indeed, games of chance keep gamblers in a state of intoxication which is not dissimilar to that produced by drink. The world of a gambler is akin to that of a drunk: tables, glasses and a strike of fortune or misfortune.

As this clear reference to Satan’s aim in devising these abominations produces its effect and awakens the hearts of those who believe, the question is then put which admits only the sort of answer `Umar gave when he heard it for the first time: “Will you not, then, desist?” His immediate response was: “We do desist, my Lord! We do desist.” The sūrah goes on to put the whole matter in its proper perspective: “Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and be ever on your guard. But if you turn away, then know that Our Messenger’s only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him].” (Verse 92)

This is the basic rule to which all matters are referred: obedience to God and His Messenger, i.e. submission which leaves no room except for absolute obedience and total compliance. There is also an implicit warning in this statement: “If you turn away, then know that Our Messenger’s only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him].” (Verse 92) He has certainly conveyed God’s message with absolute clarity.

Anyone who disobeys bears full responsibility for his disobedience. This warning, implicitly as it is expressed, is indeed very strong. The believers are made aware that should they slip into disobedience they only harm themselves. God’s Messenger has fulfilled his trust and conveyed his message. Hence, he is no longer responsible for them. Nor will he shield them from punishment, since they have disobeyed him.

Their faith is in the hands of God, who is able to punish those who disobey. Thus does the Qur’ānic method open up our hearts and penetrate our depths.

It is useful to explain here the nature of intoxicants which are meant in this prohibition. Abū Dāwūd relates this ĥadīth on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās:

“Everything that is brewed is wine, and every intoxicant is forbidden.” `Umar addressed the Muslims, standing on the Prophet’s pulpit, with a group of the Prophet’s Companions in attendance. He said: “When the Qur’ānic verse was revealed prohibiting drinks, intoxicants were derived from five types of produce:

grapes, palm dates, honey, wheat and barley. Wine refers to everything that blurs the mind.” These statements clearly indicate that intoxicants include every brewed drink which causes intoxication. It is not restricted to a particular type. Whatever intoxicates is forbidden.

The lack of consciousness, whichever intoxicant produces it, is diametrically opposed to the state of alertness which Islam requires of every Muslim so that he consciously feels his link with God at every moment, making sure that all his thoughts and actions are of the sort that please God. By being so alert and conscious, the Muslim plays a positive role in the proper development of life and in protecting it against weakness and corruption. He further protects himself, his property and honour and he helps to protect the Muslim community and its system and law against all types of aggression. A Muslim is not abandoned so that he cares only for himself or his enjoyments. On the contrary, at every moment he has duties to fulfil which require that he be always alert. These include duties towards his Lord, himself, his family and the Muslim community of which he is a member and towards humanity at large. Even when he enjoys the wholesome pleasures Islam permits, he must retain his full consciousness so that he is not enslaved by any type of pleasure or desire. He is in control of all his desires and he fulfils them as one who is totally in control. Drunkenness is the opposite state.

Moreover, seeking such unconsciousness is simply an attempt to escape from the reality of life at a particular moment in time and a preference for the sort of visions which accompany drunkenness. Islam disapproves of all this because it wants people to see the realities as they are, to look them in the face and to conduct their lives on the basis of reality, not imagination. It is through facing reality that man proves his will-power. To escape to the realm of imagination is to prove one’s weakness and lack of will. Islam wants its people to have a strong will, unfettered by habit or addiction. From the Islamic point of view, this is enough reason to forbid intoxicants and all drugs. All these are abominations devised by Satan and their effect is only the corruption of human life.

Scholars have different views with regard to whether intoxicants are impure in themselves like other physical impurities, or whether the prohibition applies only to drinking them. The majority of scholars are of the first view, while the second view is that of Rabī`ah, al-Layth ibn Sa`d, al-Muznī of the Shāfi`ī school and a number of later scholars of Baghdad. Perhaps this reference to scholarly views on this point is adequate for our purposes.

When these verses were revealed totally prohibiting all intoxicants, and describing them as an abomination devised by Satan, two groups of people raised a query in the same wording but for totally different reasons. A few of the Prophet’s Companions who were very scrupulous said: “What about our Companions who died when intoxicants were still lawful to drink?” Some of them said: “What about those killed in the Battle of Uĥud, with intoxicants in their bellies?” i.e. before they were forbidden to drink. Another group who were keen to seize every chance to sow the seeds of doubt among the Muslim community said similar things. Their aim was to try to weaken the Muslims’ trust in the reasoning behind Islamic legislation. They also wanted to convey the feeling that those who died before the prohibition of intoxicants were totally lost, since they died with this abomination in their bodies.

Hence, the purpose behind the following verse: “Those who believe and do righteous deeds shall have no blame attached to them for any food they may have eaten, so long as they fear God and truly believe and do righteous deeds, and continue to fear God and believe, and remain God-fearing and persevere in doing good. God loves those who do good” (Verse 93)

This verse states that what has not been forbidden is lawful and that prohibition begins with its statement, not at any moment prior to this. There can be no retrospective prohibition and punishment, whether in this life or in the life to come, cannot be inflicted without a clear statement of ruling. Those who died before the prohibition of intoxicants had nothing to fear, because they did not drink any forbidden thing and did not commit any act of disobedience. They feared God and did righteous deeds, knowing that He was totally aware of their intentions and actions. Such a person neither disobeyed nor drank something forbidden.

We have no intention of taking part in the controversy raised by the Mu`tazilah group concerning the ruling that intoxicants are abominations. What we will say, however, is that they raised the question about whether this is a result of its prohibition or because of the inherent quality of intoxicants. They also posed the question about whether what is forbidden is so ruled because of its inherent qualities, or because this quality is attached to it as a result of its prohibition. In my view all this controversy is futile and alien to the Islamic approach. When God forbids something, He knows why He forbids it, whether He states that reason or not. Whether the prohibition is based on the quality of what is prohibited, or on something that relates to the individual partaking of it personally, or to the interests of the whole community, it is God who knows the whole truth. Obeying His orders is an undeniable duty of every Muslim. Any subsequent controversy addresses no real need. Realism is an essential aspect of the Divine method. No one can say: “If prohibition is the result of an inherent quality in the thing prohibited, how can it be permitted in the period leading up to its prohibition?” God must have had a good reason for leaving it permissible for a while. After all, this is always determined by God alone. This is, indeed, an essential quality of Godhead. Whether man considers something to be good or bad is not the determining factor because man can consider something to be the determining reason for prohibition when in actual fact it is not.

The appropriate attitude is to accept God’s legislation and to carry it out whether we know the reasons behind them or not. God knows everything and we know little.

The implementation of God’s law must be based in the first instance on submission to Him. This is, indeed, the very meaning of Islam. When man has shown his obedience, he can use his mind to identify, as much as he is able to, God’s purpose behind His commandment or prohibition, whether this purpose is stated by God or not, understood by human intellect or not. It must be remembered, however, that God, not man, is the final arbiter on whether something should be included in His law. When God has issued His decree, all arguments must stop. His decree must be implemented. If a decision is left to human intellect, people become the final arbiter on God’s legislation. How then can this fit in with God’s position as the ultimate authority, or with man’s submission to Him?

Let us now consider the phraseology of this verse: “Those who believe and do righteous deeds shall have no blame attached to them for any food they may have eaten, so long as they fear God and truly believe and do righteous deeds, and continue to fear God and believe, and remain God-fearing and persevere in doing good. God loves those who do good.” (Verse 93)

I admit that I have not found anything stated by commentators on the Qur’ān to be totally satisfactory in explaining the way this Qur’ānic verse is phrased, and why fear of God is mentioned once in combination with both faith and righteous deeds, and repeated once more in combination with faith and on a third occasion combined with doing good. Nor do I consider now as satisfactory my own comments on this repetition which are included in the first edition of this book. The best that I have read, although it too remains somewhat unsatisfactory to me, is that written by al- Ţabarī: “The first reference to fearing God equates this fearing of God to total acceptance of His commandment, submission to it and an acting upon it. The second reference equates it with an unshakeable acceptance of faith while the third mention represents a God-fearing person as always being ready to do good work voluntarily.” I will quote here what I have written on this particular point in the first, shorter edition of this work: “This is a method of confirmation by way of following a general statement with a detailed one. The first reference is a general, comprehensive one which includes God-fearing, strong faith and righteous deeds. The aspect of God- fearing is then repeated once in combination with faith and another with doing good, righteous deeds, in order to emphasise this sense and to highlight the important rule that actions are judged by the inner feelings that accompany them. God-fearing is the best expression of a fine sensitivity towards God’s commandments and a constant relationship with Him that combines belief in Him with acceptance of His orders.

Righteous deeds are the practical translation of inner faith. It is interaction between deeds and beliefs that is the criterion for judgement. Appearances provide no such criterion. It is this basic rule which requires repetition and emphatic statements.” At this moment in time I do not find my own words satisfactory, but I cannot come up with anything better. I seek God’s help.

The sūrah continues to elaborate on further prohibitions, speaking about game when one is in the state of consecration, or iĥrām, and what compensates for its killing. It further speaks of the purpose of the sanctity of the House of Worship in Makkah, the sacred months, dedicated and garlanded cattle which must not be touched as the sūrah makes clear in its opening verses. This part concludes with the establishment of a clear standard of values for Muslim individuals and Muslim society. According to this standard, a small amount of good is far more valuable than evil, plentiful as it may be.

Believers, God will certainly try you by means of game which may come within the reach of your hands or your spears, so that God may mark out those who truly fear Him in their hearts. Whoever transgresses after all this will have grievous suffering.

Believers, kill no game while you are on pilgrimage. Whoever of you kills game by design shall make amends in cattle equivalent to what he has killed, adjudged by two persons of probity among you, to be brought as an offering to the Ka’ bah; or else he may atone for his sin by feeding needy persons, or by its equivalent in fasting, so that he may taste the evil consequences of his deeds. God has forgiven what is past; but whoever repeats his offence, God will inflict His retribution on him. God is Almighty, Lord of retribution. Lawful to you is all water game, and whatever food the sea brings forth, as a provision for you and for travellers. However, you are forbidden land game as long as you are in the state of consecration [or iĥrām]. Be conscious of God, to whom you shall all be gathered. God has made the Ka`bah, the Inviolable House of Worship, a symbol for all mankind; and so too the sacred month and the garlanded sacrificial offerings. This, so that you may know that God is aware of all that is in the heavens and the earth, and that God has full knowledge of everything. Know that God is severe in retribution and that God is Much- Forgiving, Merciful. The Messenger’s duty is but to deliver the message [entrusted to him]. God knows all that you reveal, and all that you conceal. (Verses 94-99)

At the beginning of this sūrah, God says: “Believers, do not offend against the symbols set up by God, or against the sacred month, or the offerings or the garlands, or against those who repair to the Sacred House, seeking God’s grace and pleasure. Only when you are released from the state of consecration may you hunt.” (Verse 2) However, this early prohibition of killing game during consecration, or the violation of God’s rites, the sacred months, garlanded sacrificial animals, or intercepting those who are on their way to the Sacred House did not specify any punishment to be inflicted on perpetrators in this life. They only incurred a sin. Now a punishment is outlined in the form of an atonement which is sufficient to make the offender taste the evil of what he has perpetrated. The verses declare that past offences have been forgiven, but anyone who commits fresh violations is threatened with God’s vengeance.

Like all the other sections of this long passage, this part opens with an address to the believers. They are then told that they are about to be set a test concerning game that has been prohibited to them while they are in the state of consecration, or iĥrām:

“Believers, God will certainly try you by means of game which may come within the reach of your hands or your spears, so that God may mark out those who truly fear Him in their hearts. Whoever transgresses after all this will have grievous suffering.” (Verse 94)

It is a very easy game that is brought within their vicinity. They could easily grab it with their hands, or with their spears. Some reports suggest that such game would come as close as the doors of their tents or homes. This, then, was a trial of temptation. Similar in nature to that which the Children of Israel were asked to endure in former times, but in which they failed. They had pleaded with their Prophet, Moses (peace be upon him), to appoint a day when they would not have to attend to any aspect of their daily affairs. Rather, they would rest and spend the whole day in worship. Thus, the Sabbath was established for them. They were then tempted with water game, whereby fish of all types came right to the sea shore on the day of the Sabbath. On other days, it went far into the water in the normal behaviour of fish. The Children of Israel, however, could not resist the temptation, could not keep their covenant with God. In the end, they resorted to playing tricks holding the fish in enclosures without actually taking them out of the water. They only captured the fish from those enclosures on the following morning, when the Sabbath was over. Indeed, God instructs the Prophet Muĥammad to question them about this, confronting them with their trickery: “Ask them about the town which stood facing the sea: how its people broke the Sabbath. Each Sabbath their fish appeared before them, breaking the water’s surface, but they would not come near them on other than Sabbath days.

Thus did We try them because of their disobedience.” (7: 163)

It is this same trial which the Muslim community came through successfully, while the Jews did not. This is the proof of God’s description of the Muslim community: “You are the best community that has ever been raised for mankind; you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid what is wrong, and you believe in God. Had the people of earlier revelations believed, it would have been for their own good. Few of them are believers, while most of them are evildoers.” (3: 110)

In fact the Muslim community has passed the test on numerous occasions whereas the Jews did not pass any similar tests. Hence, God deprived them of their leadership role and assigned it to the Muslim community, giving it more power to establish its entity on earth than He has given to any other community. The fact remains that the code of living laid down by God was never implemented in a practical system regulating the whole of human life until it was put into practice by the Muslim community. But that was when that community was truly Islamic, when it knew and accepted that Islam means that the Divine religion and its laws must be implemented in human life. It also realised that it was placed in a position of trust, undertaking the fulfilment of that great task and providing leadership for mankind in implementing the Divine law.

The trial of providing easy game at the time when it was prohibited to kill during the period of consecration, or iĥrām, was one of the numerous tests that the Muslim community successfully passed. The care God took of this Muslim community and its education is reflected in such tests. In this particular incident, God tells the believers of the purpose beyond His test: “So that God may mark out those who truly fear Him in their hearts.” (Verse 94) Being truly God-fearing, or fearing Him in one’s heart, is the solid basis on which faith is established in a person’s conscience. It mould’s one’s behaviour and it is the essence of putting man’s vicegerency on earth into practice.

Human beings do not see God, but they feel His presence in their hearts when they truly believe in Him. To them, He is beyond the reach of all their faculties of perception, but their hearts know and fear Him. The certainty of this great truth in a firm, unshakeable belief in God, and achieving, without seeing Him or feeling His presence with our senses, a strength of belief equal, if not superior, to that based on one’s senses is something great indeed. A believer declares that “there is no deity other than God” without having seen Him. To have such belief is indicative of a huge step forward towards a superior level of humanity that taps man’s natural faculties and makes the best use of all his natural abilities. This represents a great departure away from the realm of animal existence that cannot look up to anything beyond its immediate perception. On the other hand, when man bars his soul from looking up to what lies beyond the reach of his faculties of perception and confines his feelings to the material world surrounding him, he shuts down his superior faculties and lingers permanently in his material and sensual world.

Hence, God makes this quality of fearing Him in our hearts the crucial point of this test, making it clear to the believers so that they are able to use all their powers to achieve it. God certainly knows, initially, who fears Him in his heart, but He does not hold people to account on the basis of His initial knowledge. They are accountable only for what they actually do, which God also knows on the basis of its taking place.

“Whoever transgresses after all this will have grievous suffering.” (Verse 94) Man is thus told of the trial to which he is being put. He is informed of its purpose and warned against yielding to temptation. All means of success have been given to him.

Hence, should he transgress after all this, it is only fair that he should be made to endure grievous suffering. This is his own choice.

Details of the atonement for violation are then given. This starts with a firm prohibition and ends with a second warning: “Believers, kill no game while you are on pilgrimage. Whoever of you kills game by design shall make amends in cattle equivalent to what he has killed, adjudged by two persons of probity among you, to be brought as an offering to the Ka`bah; or else he may atone for his sin by feeding needy persons, or by its equivalent in fasting, so that he may taste the evil consequences of his deeds. God has forgiven what is past; but whoever repeats his offence, God will inflict His retribution on him. God is Almighty, Lord of retribution.” (Verse 95)

The prohibition applies to killing game deliberately when a person is in the state of consecration, or iĥrām. If a game animal is killed by accident, the person in consecration neither incurs a sin nor has to give any compensation. For deliberate killing, the compensation is an offering of cattle or other animals equivalent to the game he has killed. Thus, if a person in consecration kills a deer, the compensation may be an offering of a sheep or a goat; for a camel, a cow or an ox is appropriate; for an ostrich or a giraffe or a similarly large animal, a camel may be offered; for a rabbit or a cat the offering may be a rabbit. What has no equivalent among animals however, an offering of its cash value is acceptable in compensation.

The compensation is adjudged by two Muslim men of probity. Should they rule that a particular type of animal be slaughtered, that animal is set loose until it reaches the Ka (bah where it is slaughtered and given to the poor to eat. If such an animal is not available, the arbiters may rule that the compensation be given in the form of food given to the poor, provided that its quantity is equivalent to the value of either the animal to be slaughtered or the game animal killed. If the offender who has to make this compensation cannot afford this, he should fast a number of days to be decided as fair compensation. To do so, the value of the animal is first estimated, then the number of poor people that could be fed by this amount is determined. He fasts one day for every poor person. As for how much money is sufficient to feed one poor person, this is a matter on which scholars have differed. However, it cannot be a fixed sum, as it differs according to place, time and conditions.

The verse states the purpose of this compensation: “So that he may taste the evil consequences of his deeds.” (Verse 95) The requirement of compensation implies punishment. The offence is a breach of a strict prohibition. Hence, it cannot be left unpunished. However, God makes it clear that He has forgiven offences of the past, but He threatens those who do not desist from committing such violations with severe punishment: “God has forgiven what is past; but whoever repeats his offence, God will inflict His retribution on him. God is Almighty, Lord of retribution.” (Verse 95) Thus, if the killer of game wants to boast of his hunting ability by killing game animals which God wants to enjoy security in the vicinity where all are secure, he should know that it is God who is almighty and who exacts retribution.

All this applies to hunting on land. Fishing, on the other hand, is permissible in all situations: “Lawful to you is all water game, and whatever food the sea brings forth, as a provision for you and for travellers.” (Verse 96) This means that all types of water animals are permissible to catch and use for food whether a person is in the state of consecration or not. With this mention of the permissibility of water-game and food from the sea, the verse restates the prohibition of killing game on land during consecration: “However you are forbidden land-game as long as you are in the state of consecration [or iĥrām].” (Verse 96)

All scholars are unanimous that killing animal game is forbidden for any person in consecration. However, scholars have differing views as to the permissibility of eating game, should the animal be killed by another person who is not in consecration. Moreover, scholars disagree as to the referent of the term “game” as used in this verse: does it apply only to animals that are normally pursued as game; or does the prohibition apply to all animals, including those which are not normally considered game and are not referred to as game.

These rules of permissibility and prohibition are concluded with a statement that appeals to the believers’ sense of fearing God and reminds us of the Day of Judgement and the reckoning We will then have to face: “Be conscious of God, to whom you shall all be gathered.” (Verse 96)

It is perhaps pertinent to ask here about the purpose behind these prohibition rules. Well, God wishes to provide a security zone for mankind, where they seek refuge from life’s worries. This zone is represented by the Ka`bah, the Inviolable House of Worship, and the sacred months. They offer a haven of peace in the midst of the raging battle between those in combat through life, regardless of their race and ethnic origin. Their desires, ambitions and needs continue to fuel their struggle, but this security zone beckons to them so that it may substitute reassurance for their worries, love for conflict, brotherhood and security for hostility and fear. What is more is that such concepts are not confined to the realm of theories and ideals; people are given practical training in real life to grab such feelings and maintain them. Thus, they are seen as a reality, not mere words and visions that have no bearing on real life.

God has made the Ka`bah, the Inviolable House of Worship, a symbol for all mankind; and so too the sacred month and the garlanded sacrificial offerings. This, so that you may know that God is aware of all that is in the heavens and the earth, and that God has full knowledge of everything. Know that God is severe in retribution and that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful. The Messenger’s duty is but to deliver the message [entrusted to him]. God knows all that you reveal, and all that you conceal. (Verses 97-9)

God has made the sanctity of the Ka`bah applicable to man, animals, birds, insects and all creatures. They all feel secure there. In the period of consecration, the prohibitions apply even before someone reaches the Ka ‘bah. God has also prohibited all fighting and killing in the four sacred months of Dhu’l-Qa`dah, Dhu’l-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab. Even in pre-Islamic days, God made the Arabs highly respectful of the sanctity of those sacred months. Thus, they would not frighten anyone or seek any vengeance during those times. A man would meet the killer of his father, son, or brother and would not take any action against him. Thus, those four months became a season for travel and seeking one’s livelihood. God’s purpose has been that the Ka`bah should be a place of peace and security, where people are not troubled by fear and anxiety. Similarly, He made those four months a time- zone of security. He then extended the cover of peace and security beyond geographical and time zones so that it included sacrificial animals let loose during the pilgrimage and `umrah. None could intercept such animals until they reached the Ka`bah. The same security being extended to any person or animal wearing a garland taken from the trees of the Ĥaram area; this by way of declaring the protection granted by the Ka`bah.

These sanctities were put in place at the time when the Ka`bah was built by the Prophets Abraham and Ishmael. It was then that God made the Ka`bah a haven for people and a sanctuary. In fact, He reminds the idolatrous Arabs of His favour in placing them close to the House which provides security and sanctuary while people all around them live in fear. Yet still they do not give thanks or express real gratitude. They do not address their worship to God alone even in the House that was built as a symbol for God’s oneness. They further said to God’s Messenger who called on them to attribute all Godhead to God alone: “If we were to follow the guidance you bring us, we will be snatched away from our land.” God reports their claim and confronts them with the security and peace they enjoy in the vicinity of the Ka`bah, the Sacred Mosque God has sanctified: “They say: If we were to follow the message to which you invite us, we would be snatched away from our land.’ Why — have We not established for them a secure sanctuary, to which are brought the fruits of all good things, as provision from Ourself? But most of them are ignorant.” (28: 57)

An authentic ĥadīth related by both al-Bukhārī and Muslim quotes the Prophet as saying on the day Makkah fell to Islam: “This city is a forbidden city: its trees may not be cut, nor its plants sheared; its game may not be deliberately scared, and whatever is dropped by people may not be picked up except for identification.” Of all living things, only five may be killed in the vicinity of the Ka`bah or by a person in consecration. These are: a raven, kite, scorpion, mouse and a biting dog. Al- Bukhārī and Muslim relate, on the authority of `Ā’ishah, that “the Prophet ordered the killing of five harmful creatures in the Ĥaram and outside it: ravens, kites, scorpions, mice and biting dogs.” Snakes were also added in an authentic ĥadīth related by Muslim on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Umar.

Madinah was similarly declared a place of sanctity. ‘Alī quotes the Prophet as saying: “Madinah is a sanctuary between `Īr and Thawr.” A ĥadīth related by al- Bukhārī and Muslim on the authority of `Abbād ibn Tamīm states that the Prophet said: “Abraham has consecrated Makkah and prayed for it. I am consecrating Madinah just like Abraham consecrated Makkah.” Furthermore, it is not merely a time and place security zone for humans and animals alone. It is also a security zone for the human conscience, that vast arena of the human soul attendant with all its struggles and strains. It is like a volcano that sends its smoke, fire and lava to burn the land and mar the clarity of time, harming man and animal alike. The Ka`bah and its environs provides the perfect sanctuary in the midst of all this conflict. This sanctuary extends its peace and security so as to make a person in consecration unwilling to chase an animal or a bird, which would otherwise be lawful for them to slay. However, here they are in a sanctuary, in a place of security for animals and humans alike. The whole place is a stage for training the human soul so that it is purged of all its shady traces and so that it is able to attain a standard of clarity and sublimity that enables it to deal with the Supreme Society of Heaven.

Man, terrified, worried and engaged in endless strife as he is, is always in dire need of such a security zone which God has provided in the Islamic faith and outlined its boundaries in the Qur’ān.

“This, so that you may know that God is aware of all that is in the heavens and the earth, and that God has full knowledge of everything.” (Verse 97) This may sound a rather strange comment at this particular juncture, but it is perfectly understandable. God has laid down this faith and established this sanctuary so that people may know that He knows everything that is in the heavens and the earth and that He is fully aware of all things. Thus, they know that God is fully cognizant of human nature, as well as people’s aspirations, needs and spiritual longings. He enacts legislation in order to satisfy natures, meet needs, fulfil aspirations and answer longings. When people feel in their hearts how God’s compassion is evident in His law and appreciate the harmony between their nature and God’s law, they realise that God is fully aware of all that is in the heavens and the earth and that His perfect knowledge encompasses everything.

It is most remarkable how this religion of Islam meets all the needs and aspirations of human nature. It has been moulded in a way that perfectly fits human nature. When a person’s heart is responsive to the Islamic faith, it finds in it beauty, serenity, comfort and an ease of standards unknown except to those who have experienced them.

The discussion of the permissible and the prohibited, both in consecration and at other times, is brought to its conclusion with a clear warning against incurring punishment, while at the same time offering the prospect of forgiveness and mercy:

“Know that God is severe in retribution and that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 98) The warning is coupled with pointing out that responsibility lies clearly with the one who breaches sanctities and does not regret or repent: “The Messenger’s duty is but to deliver the message [entrusted to him]. God knows all that you reveal, and all that you conceal.” (Verse 99)

At the concluding part of this passage God provides us with a standard so that we may give correct judgement of all things. In these scales, only what is good and wholesome is weighty, while that which is foul and evil carries no weight. This prevents a Muslim from being deceived when he finds that the foul is plentiful and the evil too numerous. “Say: Evil and good are not equal, even though the abundance of evil may be pleasing to you. Have fear of God, you who are endowed with understanding, so that you may triumph.” (Verse 100)

Evil and good are mentioned here within the context of elaborating which food and game are permissible and which are forbidden. What is forbidden is evil, while everything that is permissible is good. Certainly the good and the evil cannot be equal, even though the evil may come in such plenty that it attracts and tempts people. That which is good provides enjoyment that is not followed by foul consequences, such as regret, waste, pain or disease. The pleasure gained out of evil things cannot be matched even by a modicum of the good things in life. What is more is that with the good things, man enjoys safety in this life and in the life to come. When the human mind is free of the shackles of desire as a result of its being God-fearing and when it has attained a keen watchfulness, it will inevitably prefer good to evil. This is bound to end in success and triumph, both in this world and in the Hereafter: “Have fear of God, you who are endowed with understanding, so that you may triumph.” (Verse 100)

This verse especially suits the present occasion, but it has a much wider implication. It looks to a broad horizon, encompassing life in its totality.

God, who has raised this community as the best model for mankind, wants it to undertake the great trust of establishing His system and constitution on earth, so that it maintains it in practical life as no previous community ever did. Hence, this community has been in need of long and sustained training that purges it from all traces of past ignorance and takes it by the hand from the low ebb of material life along the incline of an Islamic life. The training then continues to purify the concepts, habits, practices and feelings of the Muslim community, strengthening its will and determination to advocate only the truth. What is more is that it takes place amidst all the adversity it has to face and the responsibility it has to shoulder in so doing.

The final stage is that the Muslim community has to shape and mould its whole life in accordance with Islamic values. This places the Muslim community truly on God’s side. It gives it the fairest form of humanity, upholding a standard that will never equate evil with good, even though the evil is plentiful and replete with temptation.

The ability to distinguish evil from good and to give each its proper value as shown in God’s system makes evil very light in God’s scale and good very much heavier, even though it may be much smaller in quantity. When the Muslim community attains such a standard, it becomes worthy of shouldering God’s trust, providing leadership for humanity, weighing things up according to God’s scales, choosing what is good for mankind, and refusing to be tempted by an abundance of evil.

Another situation in which this standard is found to be most suitable is that when falsehood puts on airs and graces so that people think it mighty, plentiful and powerful. But a believer looks at such rising falsehood with a firm gaze, remains unaffected by its apparent might, and chooses, in preference to it, the truth which displays no apparent strength and commands no ready forces. He prefers it only because it is the truth, plain and simple, carrying no weight or authority other than its being true in God’s measure.

God subjected the first Muslim community to the Qur’ānic system of education, under the supervision of His Messenger (peace be upon him), until it attained the standard which He had determined to be necessary for its role as trustee of the Divine faith. This standard does not merely apply to conscience and inner belief, but also to practices and life affairs. It looks at all desires, attractions, aspirations, and conflicting interests with which human life abounds, whether these belong to individuals or the community as a whole and then evaluates them by God’s standard. This makes it worthy of shouldering the heavy responsibility of trusteeship over human life as a whole.

In His education of the Muslim community, God used all sorts of directives, influences, tests, trials and legislation, placing them all in one bunch to fulfil a single role, namely, the preparation of this community for its role as guardian of God’s faith on earth. This preparation required equipping it with the right concepts, formulating the right reactions and responses, adopting the proper morality, legal code and system, and following the right practices, etc. When that preparation was completed, God achieved with that community whatever He willed. God certainly is able to accomplish His purpose at all times. Thus, the earth witnessed a sublime model of the Divine faith in practice. Humanity can always emulate that model, provided it realises that it has to struggle hard for that purpose. When it is determined to go ahead with such a struggle, God will give it His help and support.

The sūrah moves on to draw the attention of the early Muslims to the standard of politeness they must adopt with the Prophet. They are told not to ask him about matters on which he remains silent, particularly such matters which, should they be tackled, may cause hardship or embarrassment to the person raising the question, or may impose on him heavy tasks or restrictions that God, out of His mercy, has chosen not to impose on the Muslims.

Believers, do not ask about matters which, if made known to you, may cause you hardship. If you should ask about them while the Qur’ān is being revealed, they shall be made plain to you. God will forgive you these; for God is Much-Forgiving, Forbearing. People before your time inquired about them, and on that account they came to deny the truth. (Verses 101-102)

Some people used to put numerous questions to the Prophet (peace be upon him)

asking him about matters on which no order or prohibition had been given. Some were always asking about the details of matters that the Qur’ān gave in general terms, to make them easier for people. Some asked about matters which need not be exposed, because exposure would cause a problem either to the person putting the question or to others. It is reported, for example, that when the verse establishing the duty of pilgrimage was revealed, a man asked the Prophet whether pilgrimage was a duty every year. The Prophet disliked the question because the Qur’ānic verse left the matter Unspecified: “Pilgrimage to this House is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it.” (3: 97) To offer the pilgrimage once is sufficient for this duty to be fulfilled. To ask whether it is a duty required every year is to give the text a much harder interpretation and one which God has not imposed.

A ĥadīth attributed to `Alī, without quoting the Prophet, says: “When the verse stating that ‘pilgrimage is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it,’ was revealed, some people asked the Prophet: `Is it every year?’ He did not answer. They repeated the question and he said: ‘No.’ Had I said, ‘yes,’ it would have become an obligation.” Then God revealed the verse stating: “Believers, do not ask about matters which, if made known to you, may cause you hardship.” (Verse 101)

(Related by al-Tirmidhī and al-Dāraquţnī)

Al-Dāraquţnī relates a similar ĥadīth on the authority of Abū Hurayrah who says:

“The Prophet said: ‘Mankind, Pilgrimage has been made a duty of yours.’ A man stood up and asked, ‘Is it every year, Messenger of God?’ The Prophet did not answer him, so the man repeated the question. The Prophet asked who the man was putting the question. When he was told his name, he said: ‘By Him who holds my soul in His hand, had I said, “Yes”, it would have become binding. Had it been made binding, you would not be able to fulfil it, and if you were not able to fulfil it, you would be guilty of disbelief.” Then God revealed the verse stating: “Believers, do not ask about matters which, if made known to you, may cause you hardship.” (Verse 101)

According to al-Ţabarī, on one occasion people asked the Prophet a great many questions. In reference to that occasion Muslim relates in his Sahīh on the authority of Anas that “the Prophet said: ‘By God I will answer any question you put to me, as long as I am in this position.’ A man stood up and asked: ‘Which will be my place of entry?’ The Prophet said, ‘The Fire.’ `Abdullāh ibn Ĥudhāfah asked: ‘Who is my father, Messenger of God?’ The Prophet said to him, `Your father is Ĥudhāfah.’ His mother said to him: ‘I have never heard of a more undutiful son. How could you be sure that your mother might not have done something which women prior to Islam did? You would have, then, exposed her in front of all people.’ He said: ‘Had he said that I belonged to a black slave, I would have affiliated myself to him.”‘ It should be added here that the second man mentioned in this ĥadīth, `Abdullāh ibn Ĥudhāfah, was among the early Muslims in Makkah. He went to Abyssinia with the second group of emigrants and took part in the Battle of Badr. He was known for his sense of humour.

Another report by al-Ţabarī on the authority of Abū Hurayrah states: “The Prophet came out angry, with his face red, and sat on the pulpit. A man rose and asked him: ‘Where will I be?’ He said, `In the Fire.’ Another man asked him: `Who is my father?’ The Prophet said: `Your father is Ĥudhāfah.’ `Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb stood up and said: ‘We acknowledge God as our Lord, Islam as our faith, and Muĥammad (peace be upon him) as God’s Prophet, and the Qur’ān as our constitution.

Messenger of God, we only recently abandoned idolatry, and God knows best who were our fathers.’ The Prophet’s anger cooled down. “Then the verse was revealed stating: “Believers, do not ask about matters which, if made known to you, may cause you hardship.” (Verse 101)

Mujāhid quotes Ibn `Abbās as saying that this verse was revealed in answer to people who asked about certain superstitious practices involving animals. He quotes another scholar, Sa`īd ibn Jubayr, as citing in support the verse that follows, stating:

“It was not God who instituted [superstitions like those of] a slit-ear she camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion- camels freed from work.” (Verse 103)

All these reports and similar ones give us a clear picture of the type of questions which believers have been ordered not to ask.

The Qur’ān was revealed from on high not merely to establish a faith or outline a legal code, but also to educate a community and establish a society. It also aims to reform the attitudes of individuals and to set for them a logical and moral system of its own. Here the Qur’ān is teaching Muslims how and when to put their questions, demarcating the boundaries of investigation and the system through which to acquire knowledge.

Since God is the source of the Islamic code and the One who reveals what is unknown, it is only good manners that His servants should leave it to His wisdom whether to provide details of the legal provisions or to state them in general terms only, and whether to inform them of what is unknown to them or keep it hidden away from them. It behoves them well to stop at the limits determined by God whose knowledge encompasses all things. It is not in their interest to set for themselves stricter limits, through the pursuit of different possibilities. It is wrong that they should try to seek to know things that lie beyond the reach of their powers of perception when God has determined not to reveal these to them. Their attempts are bound to be fruitless, for God knows well the limits of human power and potential.

He gives them the law that suits them, revealing only that measure of knowledge with which they are able to cope.

God has kept certain matters unknown to man, or He might have expressed certain matters in general terms. It does not harm people to leave such matters in the form God has left them. To question these at the time of the Prophet might have provided them with distressing answers, or might have overburdened both them and future generations. Hence, God tells the believers not to ask about certain matters which if revealed might be harmful. He also warns them that should they ask about these during the Prophet’s lifetime, when the Qur’ān was being revealed, for then they would have their answers, but these would impose on them obligations that God did not originally make binding: “Believers, do not ask about matters which, if made known to you, may cause you hardship. If you should ask about them while the Qur’ān is being revealed, they shall be made plain to you. God will forgive you these; for God is Much-Forgiving, Forbearing.” (Verse 101) The verse carries a clear instruction not to inquire about matters which God has left out or stated without details in order to keep duties lighter, as in the case of pilgrimage.

God then gives the example of former communities that were given revelations.

Some of them made things harder for themselves by numerous questions about rulings and duties. When, as a result, God made new obligations binding on them, they failed to perform these, thus rejecting them. Had they left matters as God stated them originally, they would have been able to benefit by the easier tasks God wanted to assign to them. They would not have had to cope with their failure to fulfil their responsibilities.

We have seen how the Jews asked too many questions when they were ordered to slaughter a cow (Volume I, pp. 63-67). They were not given any conditions initially, and as such, slaughtering any cow would have been good enough. However, they asked for a description, and then details of that description. With every question, the choice before them was narrowed down and the task became harder. Had they refrained from putting these questions, the matter would have remained much easier. The same was the case when they asked for the Sabbath. When it was granted to them, at their request, they could not cope with its obligations. They followed the same pattern time and time again, until God forbade them many things either for educational purposes or as a punishment.

An authentic ĥadīth quotes the Prophet as saying: “Whatever I leave out, do not pursue it with me. Communities before you were ruined as a result of asking too many questions and disputing with their prophets.” In another authentic ĥadīth the Prophet states: “God has imposed certain obligations; so do not neglect them. He set certain boundaries; so do not transgress them. Furthermore, He has forbidden certain things; so do not violate these. And He has left out certain matters as an act of grace, forgetting none of them; so do not ask about these.” In his authentic collection of aĥādīth Muslim relates that the Prophet said: “Among all Muslims, the worst offender against the Muslim community is one who asks about something which has not been forbidden them, and as a result of his question, it has been made forbidden.”

Perhaps these aĥādīth we have quoted, together with statements in the Qur’ān, delineate the Islamic system of pursuing knowledge. The first point to make clear is that, from the Islamic point of view, knowledge is sought to face a real need and to satisfy that need. Human powers and faculties are too precious to expend in pursuing detailed matters of what Islam calls ghayb, a term which refers to what lies beyond the reach of human perception. That is because such knowledge is not sought to meet any real or practical need in human life. It is sufficient for the human mind to believe in that ghayb as described by the One who has described it. When the human mind goes beyond that belief in order to investigate its nature and details, it will not attain any true results, because it is simply not equipped with the necessary faculties to achieve that knowledge. God has given us all that we need to know about it. Any further pursuit is a waste of effort; it is no more than trying to walk in the desert without a guide. It is bound to end in total loss.

As for Islamic rulings, these are sought when needed, to face practical situations as and when these take place. This is the proper Islamic approach.

Throughout the Makkan period of Islamic revelations, not a single administrative ruling was outlined, although orders were given to do certain things and to refrain from others. Detailed rulings, such as mandatory and discretionary punishments, atonements and the like were only revealed after the establishment of the Islamic state in Madinah, because that state was able to carry out these details and put them into practice.

The first generation of Muslims was fully abreast of this approach. Hence, they would not give a judgement on any question unless it had taken place. Even then, they would only give a judgement within the context of the question, and without trying to apply texts to assumed events that had not taken place. They wanted to maintain seriousness in both questions and rulings. Al-Dārimī, a leading scholar of Hadīth, reports that `Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb used to rebuke anyone who asked about things that had not taken place. He also mentions that Zaid ibn Thābit, a learned scholar among the Prophet’s Companions, used to say when a question was put to him: “Has this taken place yet?” If he was told that it had, he would give an answer on the basis of his knowledge. If he was told that it had not taken place, he would say: “Leave it, then, until it takes place.” Another report by al-Dārimī mentions that `Ammār ibn Yāsir, a Companion of the Prophet, was asked about a particular matter. He said: “Has it taken place?” They answered, “No.” He said: “Do not trouble us with it, then. Should it take place, we will look into it for you.” Al-Dārimī also mentions a report by Ibn `Abbas, stating: “I have never seen a community better than the Prophet’s Companions. They asked him only about 13

matters, the answers for them all are given in the Qur’ān. Among these are, They ask you about fighting in the sacred month...’ (2: 217), and, They ask you about menstruation...’ (2: 222), and the like. They only asked about what would benefit them.” Imām Mālik says: “I have lived in this city, [meaning Madinah], and the only knowledge available to its people is the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. Should something unusual take place, the Governor would call in all scholars available. Whatever view they approved, he would implement. But you ask too many questions, a habit the Prophet disapproved of.” Al-Qurţubī, a commentator on the Qur’ān, says in his explanation of this verse [i.e.

Verse 101] that the Prophet says: “God has forbidden you to be undutiful to your mothers, burying your daughters alive, stinginess and greed. He also dislikes three qualities: idle speech, asking too many questions and wasting money.” Many scholars are of the view that “asking too many questions” refers to asking many hypothetical questions about Islamic rulings on theoretical and imaginary matters and trying to deduce unnecessary rulings for them. The early Muslims disliked this exercise, considering it to be a pursuit leading to nothing beneficial. They would say that should something take place, a scholar would be guided to its ruling.

This shows the Islamic system to be serious and practical. It provides practical rulings deduced from the principles of Divine law for practical problems in life. In its approach to these problems, it studies each one according to its circumstances and conditions in order to give for it a ruling that covers all its aspects and applies to it fully. To ask for rulings on hypothetical questions is neither useful nor necessary.

Since a matter has not taken place, it is impossible to measure it properly. To issue a ruling for it is not suitable, because it cannot cover its aspects which remain unknown. In fact, both question and answer in this case imply a loose attitude to Islamic law and are in breach of the proper Islamic approach.

The same applies to questions asking for Islamic rulings in countries which do not implement Islamic law, and to the answers given to such questions. Divine law is asked for rulings only when these are meant for implementation. Therefore, when both the one who asks the question and the one who answers it are aware that they live in a country where God’s authority over human life is denied, then what is the purpose of the whole process of seeking an Islamic ruling? Such a country does not recognise that Godhead means submission to God, His law and authority in this life.

So, in such a situation, the two parties to the process of deducing an Islamic ruling on a particular question are involved in degrading Islamic law, whether they are aware of the fact or not.

We may say the same concerning purely theoretical studies of details of Islamic law concerning aspects that remain unimplemented. Such studies are no more than an idle pursuit, aiming to give a false impression that Islamic law occupies a place in the land where it is studied in academic institutes, although it remains unimplemented in the courts. Anyone who is party to giving such a false impression may be guilty of sinful action.

This religion of Islam is serious indeed. It has been revealed so that it governs human life. Its aim is to help people so that they submit to God alone and to deprive those who usurp God’s authority of what they claim to be theirs so that all authority is given to God’s law. It must be remembered that Islamic law is devised to govern all aspects of human life. It issues its rulings to deal with practical questions and real needs. Hence, it gives a ruling only for questions that actually take place and only when they do take place. Its rulings take into account all the aspects and circumstances of every problem. This religion of Islam has not been revealed so that it becomes a mere slogan, or that its law becomes a subject for academic, theoretical study that has no bearing on practical life. It does not indulge in solving hypotheses and providing hypothetical answers to them.

That is the practical meaning of the seriousness of Islam. Any Islamic scholar who wishes to follow its system, with such seriousness, should work hard for the implementation of Islamic law in practical life. Otherwise, he should at least refrain from issuing theoretical rulings that have no place in reality.

We have already mentioned a report in which Mujāhid quotes Ibn `Abbās and Sa`īd ibn Jubayr’s comments on the immediate reason for revealing the verse instructing the believers not to put questions concerning certain matters which would cause them difficulty or distress should they be stated in detail. The same report mentions that their questions included things and practices known in pre- Islamic days.

We have not been able to determine which particular things and practices were referred to, but the fact that the sūrah mentions the dedication of certain types of cattle immediately after the instruction not to ask unnecessary questions of detail suggests that the two are somehow linked. This is all that we need to say before discussing the verse that refers to such idolatrous practices.

It was not God who instituted [superstitions like those of] a slit-ear she camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work. It is unbelievers who attribute their own lying inventions to God. Most of them never use their reason. When they are told, “Come to that which God has revealed and to the Messenger, “they reply, “Sufficient for us are the ways we found our fathers following.” Why, even though their fathers knew nothing and were devoid of all guidance? (Verses 103-104)

The human mind finds itself at a crossroads: it either maintains its proper nature with which God has equipped it or takes a different route. Should it take this way, it will recognise its one Lord, God, the Lord of the universe. It will submit to Him and accept His legislation, rejecting all other types of lordship. This means that it will reject any law other than God’s. In this case, the human mind will find contact with its Lord to be so easy and worshipping Him to be so simple and clear. Alternatively, the human mind could lose its way in the maze of ignorance, facing darkness in every way and a myth at every junction. Tyrannical deities demand all sorts of worship rituals and sacrifices, which, in time, increase and multiply. An idolater will then forget their origins, but continue to offer them by force of habit. He will writhe under the demands of worshipping a multitude of deities, which will deprive him of all dignity that God has bestowed on man.

Islam declares that the authority to which all people must submit is the One God.

In doing so, it liberates people from bondage to one another, restores man’s dignity and frees the human mind from the fetters of rituals offered to multiple deities.

Hence, Islam fights to eradicate idolatry in all its shapes and forms, pursuing it wherever it settles or manifests itself: deep in the human conscience, in worship rituals, in social practices, or in government and political systems.

At this point, the sūrah pays attention to one aspect of idolatry in pre-Islamic, pagan Arabia. It brings it into focus so as to refute all legends surrounding it. It states the basic principles of rational thinking, as well as the principles of law and faith at the same time: “It was not God who instituted [superstitions like those of] a slit-ear she- camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work. It is unbelievers who attribute their own lying inventions to God. Most of them never use their reason.” (Verse 103)

There were certain types of cattle people consecrated for their deities on conditions based in their inherited myths and which people accepted blindly. What were these? Who made the regulations concerning them? We have widely differing reports explaining each type of cattle. We will mention only a couple of these definitions to give an idea of such practices.

Al-Zuhrī quotes Sa`īd ibn al-Musayyib who says that the baĥīrah, or “a slit-ear she- camel” was one whose milk was dedicated for deities. [Needless to say, the milk was taken and used by the custodians of the temples.] The second type, sā‘ibah, was a she- camel dedicated to deities and let loose to graze wherever it wanted. The third type, waşīlah, was a she-camel that gave birth to two she-camels consecutively. This they would sacrifice for their deities. The fourth type, hāmī, was a male camel kept for breeding. When he had ensured conception for a set number of she-camels, they said that his back had warmed and he was freed and let loose.

Linguists have similar definitions. The first type, baĥīrah, is a she- camel whose ear has been widely slit. When a she-camel has given birth five times, producing in the fifth a male camel, the Arabs would slit its ear as a mark of consecration, prohibiting anyone from riding or slaughtering it for food. It would never be turned away from pasture or water. Even when a man suffering from fatigue saw it, he would not ride it. The second type, sā’ibah, was a she-camel let loose. When a person wanted to make an offering as a gesture of gratitude after his recovery from illness or return from a long journey or the like, he would say, “My she-camel is free.” It would, thus, be consecrated in the same fashion as the first type.

According to a number of linguists, the third type of cattle, waşīlah, referred to a female sheep being a twin of a male sheep. The female would, then, be spared slaughter. Others say that when a sheep gives birth to a female, they took it. Should it give birth to a male, they would slaughter it as an offering to their deities. Now if she gave birth to twins: a male and a female, they would say that the female had spared its brother and they would not slaughter the male as an offering. The fourth type, hāmī, was a male camel when it fathered no less than ten different pregnancies. They would say that his back had warmed. Thus, he would not be used to carry anything, and he would be let free to drink and graze wherever he wanted.

Other reports give similar or different definitions but they are all of the same nature based in the same superstitious beliefs. It is clear that these are no more than idolatrous myths. When myth and personal desire are the ultimate arbiter, there can be no logic or proper limits. Rituals will soon diverge, with omissions and additions made at will. This took place in pre-Islamic Arabia and it can happen anywhere, at any time, once human conscience deviates from absolute, straight and clear monotheism. Appearances may differ, but the essence of ignorance remains, allowing guidance to be derived from any source other than God Almighty.

When we speak of the state of ignorance we are not referring to a certain period of time. We mean a state that may take different shapes at any time. There can only be belief in one God, with total submission to Him, acknowledging His total authority, addressing all actions, emotions, thoughts and intentions to Him and deriving all values, standards, concepts and laws from Him and setting all systems and situations on His guidance. Or else, there will be a state of ignorance, in cane form or another, characterised by submission to other people or different creatures, without limits or controls. The point here is that the human mind cannot, on its own, be the source of proper control, unless it is controlled by true faith. We see at all times that the human mind is easily influenced by desires. It loses its power of resistance when it is subjected to different pressures, unless it refers to a well-defined standard of control.

Today, 14 centuries after the revelation of the Qur’ān, we observe that whenever the bond that links the human mind to the One God becomes loose, the human mind finds itself lost in an endless labyrinth. It then submits to different deities and loses its freedom, dignity and strength. I personally have seen in the Egyptian countryside numerous forms of myth, in which certain types of animals are consecrated for alleged saints and shrines, in the same way as they were consecrated for false deities in olden times.

At the core of such rituals in any state of ignorance we find the basic question that sets the starting point: Who is the ultimate judge in human life? Is it God alone, as He has stated? Or are there other judges, as people may decide for themselves, setting their own values, standards, systems, laws and rituals? In other words: To whom does Godhead belong? To God alone, or to some of His creatures, whoever they may be?

As the Qur’ān deals with these aspects, it states first of all that God has not initiated those practices of consecrating cattle. Who, then, has set those practices for the unbelievers? “It was not God who instituted [superstitions like those of] a slit-ear she- camel, or a she-camel let loose for free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from work.” (Verse 103) Those who follow any code or doctrine other than the one God has laid down are unbelievers, making false claims against God. They may enact their own laws and claim that these are God’s law. Or they may claim for themselves the right to promulgate their own laws, allowing no room for God’s law in their system, but at the same time, they claim that they do not disobey God. All this is no more than fabricating lies against God. “It is unbelievers who attribute their own lying inventions to God. Most of them never use their reason.” (Verse 103)

The pagan Arabs used to believe that they were following the faith of Abraham, as revealed to him by God. They did not deny God altogether. Indeed they acknowledged Him, His power and control over the universe. Nevertheless, they enacted their own laws and legislation, claiming that these were all part of God’s law. As such they were unbelievers. The same description applies to all people in any state of ignorance, when they make their own laws, whether they claim them to be part of God’s law or not.

God’s law is that which He has stated in His book, and which was outlined by His Messenger. It is neither vague nor ambiguous. It does not admit, as ignorant people claim everywhere, that anyone may invent something and claim it to be part of God’s law. Hence, God brands those who make such claims as unbelievers, and then describes them as devoid of reason. Had they used their reason, they would not have fabricated lies and attributed them to God. Had they had any logic, they would not have imagined that their lies could be accepted.

The irony of what they say and do is made even clearer: “When they are told, ‘Come to that which God has revealed and to the Messenger,’ they reply, Sufficient for us are the ways we found our fathers following.’ Why, even though their fathers knew nothing and were devoid of all guidance?” (Verse 104)

Divine law is well-defined in God’s revelations, and clarified by the Sunnah. This is the point at which Islam takes its course, which is totally different from that of unbelief. When people are called to implement what God has revealed and His Messenger has explained, they either respond positively and in this case they are Muslims, or they reject the call, and in this case they are unbelievers. There is no other choice. Some Arabs, however, used to respond to such a call by saying that they were satisfied with what they had inherited from their fathers. Thus, they followed laws enacted by human beings in preference to those enacted by the Lord of all human beings. They turned a deaf ear to the appeal to free themselves from submission to other people. By choice, they made their reason and conscience subservient to their forefathers.

In response to such an attitude the Qur’ān makes this reproachful comment: “Why, even though their fathers knew nothing and were devoid of all guidance?” (Verse 104) This denunciation of their following their forefathers, even though they were devoid of all knowledge, does not mean that had their forefathers had a wealth of knowledge, they would be right to follow them in abandoning what God has revealed. The verse merely makes a statement of fact, describing their situation and that of their predecessors. Yet surely no one would take up his own laws or those of his father, when he has access to God’s law and the Sunnah of God’s Messenger unless he is totally devoid of all knowledge and all guidance. Let such a person claim what he may about his knowledge and enlightenment. God’s statement expresses the truth, which is further confirmed by reality. Only an ignorant, deviant unbeliever prefers human law to God’s law.

When the situation of the unbelievers was explained, the sūrah makes a statement showing the believers as a separate group, distinguished by the duties and obligations they have to fulfil. It defines for them what attitude they should take to other people. It tells them that they may look forward to no reward other than that of God. They should aspire to no reward in this life. “Believers, it is but for your own souls that you are accountable. Those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path. To God you all must return. He will then make you understand all that you were doing [in life].” (Verse 105)

It is a case of a complete break between them and those who are hostile to their cause. Moreover, they should have a relationship of mutual support among themselves, since they form one community: “Believers, it is but for your own souls that you are accountable. Those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path.” (Verse 105)

What this verse says to the believers is that they should take care of themselves, purifying their souls and committing themselves wholly to their community, paying no attention to what others may say or do, even though they may go far astray. As believers, they are a separate unit, independent of all others. In this unit, they take care of one another, in complete mutual solidarity. Other than this, they have no need for any bonds or ties of loyalty with anyone.

This single verse establishes some highly important principles with regard to the Muslim community and its relations with other communities. The Muslim community constitutes God’s party, while those who are opposed to it belong to Satan’s party. Hence, no ties of loyalty or solidarity may exist between the two, as they do not have any ideology in common, nor do they share in any goal, responsibility, means of action or result and reward.

The Muslim community must demonstrate total solidarity within its ranks, where all its members exchange good and sincere counsel, following Divine guidance. This makes them a community apart. When this becomes a reality, the Muslim community need not worry if everyone else goes astray, since it is committed to following God’s guidance.

This, however, does not mean that the Muslim community should abandon its task of calling on all people to follow Divine guidance, represented in its own faith, law and system. Once the Muslim community has established its system in its land, its continuing duty is to call on all mankind, urging them to follow the guidance God has provided for their happiness. It should also discharge its trust, ensuring justice among all people, and steering them away from error.

The fact that the Muslim community is accountable only for itself and that it suffers no harm as the result of anyone going astray as long as it follows God’s guidance does not mean that it is not accountable if it fails to enjoin what is good and forbids what is wrong. This is certainly a task that it must fulfil within its own ranks first, and then throughout the whole earth. The first thing in “what is right” is submission to God, or Islam, and implementing His law, while the first thing in “what is wrong” is to sink into a state of ignorance and usurp God’s authority, abandoning His law. Any judgement of ignorance is a judgement of tyranny, which is defined as an authority at variance with God’s authority. The Muslim community is in a position of trust over its own affairs in the first instance, then over the affairs of all humanity.

The purpose in defining the limits of responsibility in this verse is not to say, as some people of old understood and some today understand, that a believer is not required individually, to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong when he or she has ascertained that they follow the right guidance. Nor does it mean that, once the Muslim community has set itself on its course following Divine guidance while others remain astray, it is not required, collectively, to establish God’s law in the land. This verse of the Qur’ān does not absolve Muslim individuals or the Muslim community of their ongoing responsibility to combat evil and error and to resist tyranny. The worst form of tyranny is to usurp God’s authority and Godhead and to force people to be subservient to any law other than His own. In fact no following of guidance whether by individuals or the community is sufficient while such evil exists.

Al-Nasā’ī, al-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah all report that Abū Bakr once said after praising God and glorifying Him: “People often read this verse, `Believers, it is but for your own souls that you are accountable,” but they misunderstand it. I have heard God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) say: When people see evil and take no action to alter it, they render themselves exposed to God’s punishment that encompasses them all.” Thus, the first Caliph corrected what some of his contemporaries imagined the verse to mean. Today, we are in much greater need for this correction, because changing an evil situation has become much harder. Hence, it is all too easy for the weak to interpret the verse in a way that exempts them from putting up any struggle against evil.

For certain, this religion cannot establish its roots without effort and struggle. It needs followers who spare no effort to guide people to it in order to liberate them from subservience to other people so that they may submit to God alone. Such followers will do their utmost to establish the right concept of Godhead and to repel those who usurp God’s authority so that God’s law is seen to be implemented in human life. Such efforts are peaceful when the misguided ones are individuals in need of direction. However, force will be needed when there is a tyrannical power turning people away from God’s guidance, and standing in the way of establishing the Islamic faith and implementing God’s law. It is only then that the believers will have fulfilled their responsibility and those who persist in error are punished by God: “To God you all must return. He will then make you understand all that you were doing [in life].” (Verse 105)

The passage is concluded with an outline of the rulings applicable to witnesses to a will, when the testator is away from home and from his society. These are the final rulings given in this sūrah on certain transactions in Islamic society. They provide guarantees to ensure that people receive what is rightly theirs.

Believers, let there be witnesses to what you do when death approaches you and you are about to make bequests: two persons of probity from among your own people, or two others from outside, if the pangs of death come to you when you are travelling through the land. Detain them both after prayer, and if you have any doubt in mind, let them swear by God, “We shall not sell this [our word] for any price, even though it were for a near kinsman; and neither shall we conceal anything of what we have witnessed before God; for then we should be among the sinful.” But if afterwards it should come to light that the two [witnesses] have been guilty of [this very] sin, then two others should replace them from among those immediately concerned. Both shall swear by God, “Our testimony is indeed truer than that of these two. We have not transgressed the bounds of what is right; for then we should be among the evil-doers.

“Thus it will be more likely that people will offer testimony in accordance with the truth; or else they will fear that the oaths of others may be taken after their oaths. Have fear of God and hearken to Him. God does not guide those who are iniquitous. (Verses 106-108)

The process outlined in these three verses indicates that a person who feels the end to be near and wants to make bequests assigning any money he has to his relatives should call in two Muslim witnesses of probity and give them what property he has so that they may give it to his relatives who are not present. This applies when the person concerned is in his hometown. If he is travelling and does not find two Muslim witnesses to entrust his property to, then it is permissible to have two non-Muslim witnesses.

Should the Muslim community, or the family of the deceased, doubt the honesty of what the witnesses hand over, or they have reason to suspect that the witnesses have been unfaithful to their trust, then the following procedure applies. The witnesses are brought forward after having offered prayers, according to their faith, and they are asked to testify by God that they would not swear to make any gain for themselves or for anyone else, even a close relative, and that they would not conceal anything entrusted to them. Should they do so, they acknowledge that they would be guilty of committing a sin. Thus, their testimony is approved.

However, if it later appears that the witnesses have been guilty of a breach of trust, giving false testimony under oath, another procedure takes place. The two closest heirs of the deceased who have suffered as a result of the false testimony come forward and swear that their own testimony is truer than that of the two witnesses, and that by stating this fact, they are guilty of no iniquity. Should this take place, then the statement of the first two witnesses is considered null and void, while the statement of the second two witnesses is upheld.

The Qur’ānic verses state that these procedures ensure that witnesses remain true in their testimony, fearing that the first witnesses are rejected. Hence, they try hard to be true to their trust. “Thus it will be more likely that people will offer testimony in accordance with the truth; or else they will fear that the oaths of others may be taken after their oaths.” (Verse 108) These verses are concluded with a reminder to all people to remain God-fearing, and to watch God and obey His commandments. They are further reminded that God will not give His guidance to anyone who turns away from His path. “Have fear of God and hearken [to Him]. God does not guide those who are iniquitous.” (Verse 108)

Al-Qurţubī, a leading commentator on the Qur’ān, relates the occasion that led to the revelation of these three verses:

I do not know of any disagreement among scholars that these three verses were revealed in connection with Tamīm al-Dārī and `Adī ibn Baddā`. Al- Bukhārī, al-Dāraquţnī and others quote this report by Ibn `Abbās: Tamīm al- Dārī and `Adī ibn Baddā` used to go frequently to Makkah. Once a young man from the Sahm clan went with them and he died in a place where there was no Muslim. Just before his death, he put them in charge of his property, which they delivered to his family, but they retained a silver article with a gold covering. God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) asked them by God whether they had withheld or concealed anything. Later on, that silver article was found in Makkah. People there said that they bought it from `Adī and Tamīm. Two men who were heirs of the man from Sahm stated under oath that the article belonged to their relative and that their testimony was truer than that of the two witnesses. They also confirmed that they had not transgressed. [The Prophet] then took the silver article [to give to the deceased man’s relatives]. It was in relation to those people that these verses were revealed... [The text quoted here is the one related by al-Dāraquţnī.] It is clear that the nature of the society in which these rulings were laid down has a bearing on the procedures outlined. The calling of witnesses and entrusting things to their care, the taking of an oath in public after offering prayers to enhance one’s religious consciousness, the fear of being found out, should one be tempted to lie or to act dishonestly, are all measures which suggest their effectiveness in a particular type of society. Modern societies may have different methods and measures of proof, such as documentation, registration, and bank deposits, etc.

The question then which can be posed here is: has this text lost its operational validity in today’s society? The fact is that we may often be misguided by the circumstances that prevail in a particular society. We may think that some recommended measures may have lost their validity or effectiveness, or that they have become unnecessary, or that they were more suited to past communities. Such thoughts may be the result of developments that have taken place in society.

When we are so misguided, we simply forget that this religion of Islam is meant for all mankind, in all places and for all generations. We also forget that a huge number of people today still live in semi- primitive or underdeveloped conditions.

Such communities are in need of legal provisions and procedures to suit their needs in all their forms and stages of development. They find in this religion of Islam what suits their needs in all situations. When they move up along the ladder of development and progress, they will still find in it what satisfies their needs in the same way. They also find that its legal provisions satisfy their present needs and the needs of their development. This is one miracle of this religion and its law. It is a proof that it is laid down by God who knows all.

We may also be misguided when we forget that individuals today living in societies that have attained a high standard of development may find themselves in some emergency situation when they could rely on the simplicity and comprehensiveness of Islamic law. We must not forget that the tools employed by the Islamic faith have been devised so that they are effective in all environments, applicable to all cases, in bedouin and urban communities, in the desert and the jungle, as well as in the town and city. It is a faith for mankind in all ages and societies. Again, this is one of its great miracles.

We are even more grossly misguided when we think that we, human beings, know what suits us better than God, our Creator. But we are often reminded by the realities that we should be more humble in our approach. We should better remember before we face the shock of His reality. We should know what manners we should adopt when we refer to God. We should behave like the obedient servants of God, the Master of all.