In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This new passage begins with an emphatic reiteration of the central principle of Islamic faith, declaring God’s oneness. It goes on to formulate on this basis a number of provisions to organise relations between the Muslim community and other groupings. The passage includes a denunciation of the division of Muslims into two groups with different views with regard to the treatment of hypocrites. It seems that this relates to a particular group of hypocrites who did not live in Madinah. These provisions, as well as the denunciation, are based on the same central principle of Islam which is stated most clearly whenever a piece of legislation or a practical directive is mentioned in the Qur’ān. It should be stated that these provisions constitute only a part of the rules which Islam was the first to enunciate in human history for the regulation of international relations. For the first time ever, these relations have a basis other than brute force.

Despite its international law and all the international organisations that have come into existence on the basis of such law, Europe began moving in this direction only in the seventeenth century (the eleventh century of the Islamic calendar). Generally speaking, this law remains theoretical, and international organisations are, on the whole, devices to conceal the ambitions of the great powers. In no way can they be described as aiming to ensure that justice is done. They have come into existence as a result of disputes between forces of equal strength. 14 Whenever this balance is heavily tilted one way or the other, international laws become of little value and international organisations have no teeth.

Islam, the Divine code for human life, established the bases for international dealings in the seventh century (the first of the Islamic calendar), initiating them without pressure produced by any dispute. It formulated these bases for use by the Islamic society as it established its relations with other camps and forces. The Islamic aim being to raise the banner of justice high, even with hostile camps unable to commit themselves to the same principles. Indeed, Islam took the initiative to formulate these bases for the first time ever. We find them in different sūrahs of the Qur’ān, each of them explained within its proper context. Together, they constitute a complete code for international dealings. They provide an authoritative rule for every case which may take place between Islamic society and other camps, whatever attitude they may take towards Islam, be it one of open warfare, peaceful co- existence, alliance or neutrality. They also deal with other parties who may have some association with a camp that is hostile to, at peace with, in alliance with, or neutral to Islamic society. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss these principles and provisions in detail. They should be the subject of a full dissertation written by someone specialising in international law. Here, we will only look at what is contained in this passage of this sūrah. These speak of dealings with the following groups and cases:

1. The hypocrites who lived away from Madinah; 2. Those who were associated with a community that had a covenant with the Muslims; 3. Neutral people who had an aversion to warfare against the Muslims or against their own people, while they continued to follow their own religion; 4. Those who wished to play games with faith, pretending to be Muslims whenever they visited Madinah, but who declared their disbelief when they returned to Makkah; Cases of accidental and deliberate killing among the Muslims in different situations and those belonging to different groups.

Clear and express provisions are given for all these cases. As we have already said, these provisions constitute a part of the principles governing international relations.

To start with, this passage begins with the basic principle central to the foundation of Islamic society. “God, save whom there is no deity, will surely gather you all together on the Day of Resurrection, which is sure to come, no doubt. Whose word could be truer than God’s?” (Verse 87) In the cultivation of hearts and the education of people, as well as in establishing a Muslim community and giving it a distinctive shape and law, Islam begins with the basic principle of declaring the oneness of God and that He is the only deity in the universe. The same holds true whether the legislation to be enacted is an internal one for the Muslim community or whether it relates to international dealings. Hence, the passage which includes a host of provisions for external relations opens with the same central principle. It is from believing in the hereafter and the gathering by God of all His creatures, so that they may account for what they have done with the chances He has offered them in this life, that the Islamic system begins its work to cultivate hearts and educate people.

The aim is to provide Muslims with a keen sense of commitment to Islamic laws and directives and their operation in human life. Every little thing is part of the test set for every individual. Everyone will be held to account for all his deeds, large or small. This is the surest guarantee for the proper enforcement of all laws. It is a guarantee that is well rooted in the depths of the human soul. It gives it an ever sensitive conscience that remains alert when every external watch guard goes into deep slumber. This is God’s Word and His promise: “Whose word could be truer than God’s?” (Verse 87)

These words touch our hearts gently and are indicative of the method followed by the Qur’ān in educating the Muslim community. It also makes a clear statement of the central principle of the Islamic faith.

The next verse criticises the Muslim community’s hesitation to adopt a firm attitude towards the hypocrites. The Muslim community was apparently in two minds, leading to some controversy with regard to its relationship with a group of hypocrites from outside Madinah. The criticism makes it clear that Islam only accepts a firm attitude in such matters. It allows for no hesitation in the Muslim community’s approach to such a problem. Such hesitation means accepting the pretence they offer.

This can only be done if it is based on a clearly defined plan of action.

How could you be divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, when God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt? Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray? For him whom God lets go astray you can never find any way.

(Verse 88)

We have two reports to indicate which group of hypocrites is meant in this Qur’ānic verse. The first, related by Imām Aĥmad, quotes Zayd ibn Thābit, a Companion of the Prophet, who says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) went out to Uĥud [with an army]. Some of those who went with him, however, decided to go back. His Companions were divided on how to deal with these retractors. One group said that they must be killed. Another group objected, saying that they were believers. Then this Qur’ānic verse was revealed raising the question that the Muslims should adopt a unified attitude. The Prophet said: “This city is Ţaibah [another name for Madinah meaning that it is a good and virtuous city]. It throws away evil as a smelter throws away foreign elements in iron.” (Related by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.)

The other report quotes Ibn `Abbās as saying that this Qur’ānic verse speaks about certain people who indicated that they were Muslims while, at the same time, they supported the unbelievers. Once, when they went on a mission away from Makkah, they said that they were safe, should they encounter the Prophet’s Companions.

When the latter were told of their departure from Makkah, some of them suggested that they should “mount an expedition to meet those cowards and kill them, because they supported your enemies”. Another group of believers said: “How can you kill people who have made the same declaration of faith which you have made? Is it because they have not migrated to Madinah that their killing and the confiscation of their property can be sanctioned?” Both groups maintained their attitudes, and the Prophet expressed no disapproval of either. Hence, why this Qur’ānic verse was revealed.

Although the first report appears to be more authentic from the point of view of its chain of transmitters and its inclusion in the most authentic collections of aĥādīth, the events mentioned in the second report appear to be more correct, considering historical events. We know for certain that no directive to fight against the hypocrites in Madinah was given to the Muslims. The Prophet never fought against them and never ordered their killing. Instead, there was a totally different plan for dealing with them, one which tolerated them until they were naturally cast away. Their support was weakened with the expulsion of the Jews, who used to encourage them. The Jews were forced out of Madinah before they were eventually evacuated from the whole of Arabia.

It may be said that the directive to take them prisoner and to kill them is made conditional on their migration to Madinah which is provided for in the following verse. It is, then, a warning issued to them to desist from their practices. They might have heeded this warning and the Prophet, therefore, would have had no reason to carry out this order. The condition, however, that this threat applies until “they have migrated”, makes it absolutely clear that they were not of the people of Madinah.

Their migration to Madinah was, in fact, required, because this whole episode took place before the conquest of Makkah. During that period migration meant to move out of the land of unfaith into the land of faith, i.e. Madinah, to join the Muslim community and implement Islamic law. Otherwise, the identity of those who did not migrate while claiming to be Muslims was questionable. Later in the sūrah we have a strong denunciation of the attitude of those few Muslims who remained in Makkah despite their ability to migrate to Madinah, even though they were citizens of Makkah. All this serves to support the second report, describing those hypocrites as a group of the people of Makkah or its surrounding area who claimed to be Muslims while at the same time supporting the Muslims’ enemies.

This strong denunciation of the believers’ hesitant attitude towards those people is expressed in a rhetorical question: “How could you be divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, when God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt? Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray?” (Verse 88) This question emphasises that it is dangerous for the Muslim community to hesitate when faced with hypocrisy, because it points to a lack of clarity with respect to the true nature of this religion.

One group of believers could not imagine how the hypocrites could be killed when they had made verbal statements claiming to be Muslims. Yet those very people were aware that they did not belong to the Muslim community. This is clear in their statement: “We need fear nothing from Muĥammad’s companions.” This is also made clear by the other group of believers who stated that those hypocrites “support your enemies”. The fact is that regardless of any verbal claim to belong to Islam, their practical support of the Muslims’ enemies proves their hypocrisy beyond any doubt.

Hence, there is no room for tolerance or overlooking such an attitude. Tolerance here is a weakness threatening the Muslim community. Hence, it is strongly denounced in the Qur’ān.

The same is not the case with the hypocrites of Madinah. The believers there were clear about their hypocrisy. There was, however, a well-known plan to tolerate them and accept their claims for the time being. The difference in the two cases is that in the one referred to in this verse, some Muslims advocated tolerance towards people living away from Madinah simply because they claimed verbally to be Muslims while at the same time practically supported the enemies of Islam. Hence, God’s view of those people is stated clearly: “When God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt.” (Verse 88) When God adopts a certain attitude there is no way a Muslim can adopt a different one. God has cast them off because of their wickedness and bad intentions.

This is followed by another reproach: “Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray?” (Verse 88) This probably suggests that the group of Muslims who advocated tolerance might have suggested that if the Muslims were to give those people a chance they might eventually overcome their reluctance in accepting Islam. God tells the believers that since these people merited His punishment, theirs was a hopeless case.

God allows to go astray only those who choose to do so. This means that when people actually do go astray, God allows them to go further away from the right path. He lets them continue their erring ways, moving further and further away from Divine guidance. It is they who have chosen error in preference to Divine guidance and they have done this consciously after being fully aware of the course of action acceptable to God.

They would love to see you disbelieve as they themselves disbelieve, so that you may be all alike. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies, until they migrate for God’s cause. If they turn against you, then seize them and kill them wherever you my find them. Do not take any of them for your ally or supporter. (Verse 89)

This verse moves another step closer to exposing the attitude and intentions of the hypocrites. It is not only that they have chosen error in preference to Divine guidance and that their deeds and bad intentions have merited that God lets them go further astray, but they have deliberately tried to divert the believers off their right course into error: “They would love to see you disbelieve as they themselves disbelieve, so that you my be all alike.” Despite the fact that they repeat the same statements as the Muslims, and they have made the same declaration of believing in the oneness of God and in the messages of Muĥammad (peace be upon him), their practical support to the enemies of Islam belie their verbal statements. Nevertheless, they are not satisfied with that.

One who consciously rejects the true faith does not feel happy when faith continues to make its presence felt on earth and attracts believers. He feels that he must work hard, utilising all his devices, to turn the Muslims back to disbelief so that they are in the same position as he. This is an initial definition of the hypocrite’s real attitude. It leaves no room for a “wet” concept of faith. It makes absolutely clear that faith requires that action be consistent with verbal statements. Words have no significance if actions belie them.

The wording of the Qur’ānic verse sends a strong shudder into the believers’ hearts. It tells them that those hypocrites “would love to see you disbelieve as they themselves disbelieve, so that you may be all alike”. (Verse 89) They have only recently tasted the sweetness of faith after experiencing for long the bitter taste of unbelief.

The great transformation which took place in their feelings, concepts and their society as a whole, as they moved from ignorance into Islam, was very real to them.

It only required a light touch to arouse their hostility to anyone who wished them to revert to that low depth of ignorance from which Islam saved them and which elevated them to its sublime heights. Making use of this state of mind, the Qur’ān issues its order to them at the moment when they are most alert to the danger posed by those hypocrites: “Do not, therefore, take them for your allies, until they migrate for God’s cause. If they turn against you, then seize them and kill them wherever you my find them. Do not take any of them for your ally or supporter.” (Verse 89)

The clear prohibition against taking allies from among them suggests that old family and tribal ties, and probably economic interests, had left their mark in the minds of the Muslims in Madinah. The Qur’ān deals with these traces and states clearly to the Muslim community the basis of the ties it establishes with others and the principles upon which its concepts are founded. The Muslims are being taught that a united community or a nation is founded neither on family, blood relationship or tribal ties, nor on the basis of living together in one city or one geographical area, nor on the basis of commercial or economic interests. It is only founded on an ideology and the social system such an ideology produces.

In practical terms, this means that there could be no alliance forged between Muslims living in the land of Islam and other people living in the land of war. At that time, the land of war was Makkah, the place of origin of those early Muslims who migrated to Madinah. What this Qur’ānic verse tells us is that there may never have been any alliance with those who claimed to be Muslims until they migrated to Madinah to join the Muslim society there; that is, until they took the practical step bringing them into the Muslim community. Only in this way, was their migration manifestly genuine, motivated by their faith, undertaken in service of God’s cause, for the purpose of building the Muslim society which implements Islam. There could be no other purpose for their migration.

This is stated with a clarity and precision which leaves no room for any sort of ambiguity. If they comply with this requirement, moving into the land of Islam to live under the Islamic regime based on the Islamic faith and implementing Islamic law, leaving behind their families, interests and homes in the land of war, then they are part of the Muslim community and members of the Islamic society. Their refusal to migrate renders their verbal claims devoid of any substance: “If they turn against you, then seize them and kill them wherever you may find them. Do not take any of them for your ally or supporter” (Verse 89) It is this ruling which makes us more inclined to say that those hypocrites did not live in Madinah. A different policy was implemented with the hypocrites of Madinah themselves.

Islam is very tolerant with the followers of other faiths and ideologies. It does not force itself on anyone. Non-Muslims who live in a Muslim state under an Islamic regime may openly state their beliefs, which may be in conflict with the Islamic faith, provided that they do not try to win Muslims over to their faith and that they do not insult Islam. The Qur’ān denounces hurling abuse on Islam, as was done by the followers of earlier religions, in very clear terms. It leaves no doubt that Islam does not allow those who live under its regime to criticise its principles in abusive terms or to distort its facts. Some people in our modern times would like us to believe that they are allowed this. This is totally untrue. It is sufficient that Islam does not force itself on people and that it protects the lives and properties of those who belong to other religions and who live in an Islamic society. Islam further affords to them the same benefits of Islamic life, without any discrimination between them and Muslims, and allows them to implement the rules of their faith in all matters which have no bearing on the general system as it applies to all citizens.

Islam extends this attitude of tolerance to those who openly adopt a different faith, but it does not extend it to those who make a claim to be Muslims but whose actions belie that claim. Its tolerance cannot accommodate those who declare that they believe in God’s oneness, who testify that there is no deity except God, and who, at the same time, acknowledge to someone else any attribute which belongs solely to God, such as sovereignty and the authority to legislate. It describes as idolaters those of the people of earlier Scriptures who take their priests and rabbis as well as Jesus, son of Mary, as lords besides God. It is true that they did not worship those priests and rabbis, but they certainly followed their lead when they enacted for them legislation that makes certain things permissible and prohibits others.

Nor does Islam tolerate that some hypocrites should he described as believers, simply because they have made the verbal declaration that there is no deity other than God and that Muĥammad is His Messenger, but, at the same time, remained in the land of unfaith, giving their support to the Muslims’ enemies. Tolerance in these circumstances is, in fact, complacency. Islam is tolerant but not complacent. It is a serious concept working within a serious system. Seriousness admits tolerance but has no room for complacency.

These directives given to the first Muslim community are, indeed, indicative of the nature of Islam and reveal a great deal to all Muslim generations.

Having thus given a clear verdict against those who side with the unbelievers despite their claims to be Muslims, the sūrah states an exception in the case of those who seek refuge with people who have a covenant or a treaty with the Muslim community. The attitude determined for such a community now also applies to them: “Except in the case of those of them who have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant.” (Verse 90)

We see here that Islam prefers peace whenever there is room for peace which does not impede its work of freely conveying its message to people and allowing them free choice. Nothing and no one should be in a position to use force against the effort to convey Islam to people. The security of the Muslims should be guaranteed. They must not be exposed to any danger of sedition or to threats to the Islamic message which may cause its efforts to be hampered. For this reason, those who seek refuge and live with any group of people who are bound by a treaty or a covenant with the Muslims enjoy the same treatment as the people with whom they live. The same state of peace applies to them. This is clear evidence of the peaceful nature of Islam.

Exception from imprisonment and execution is also made in the case of those individuals or tribes or communities who take a neutral position, those who do not join the fighting which takes place between their people and the Muslims. Their hearts shrink from thoughts of either fighting with their people against the Muslims or fighting with the Muslims against their own kin. These people stand aside, unwilling to enter into any hostilities: “Or those who come to you because their hearts shrink from the thought of fighting you or fighting their own people.” (Verse 90)

Again this ruling is evidence of the Islamic desire to avoid fighting others whenever they refrain from fighting the Muslims, choosing neutrality between them and their enemies. Those who did not fight on either side were present in Arabia and, indeed, within the Quraysh itself. Islam did not pressurise them to take sides for or against it. It was sufficient that they did not oppose Islam. At the same time, there was hope that they would eventually take the side of Islam, once the circumstances which caused their reluctance were removed. This was what actually happened in many cases.

God makes this line towards those neutrals beneficial to the Muslims when He reminds them of the other possibility that could have occurred. Those people could have sided with the hostile unbelievers and fought against the Muslims. The fact that they did not was far more preferable. “Had God so willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God has given you no way against them.” (Verse 90)

We note here the fine touch delivered by the Qur’ān which restrains those Muslims who were full of enthusiasm and who may not have liked these peoples’ neutrality. It is a reminder of God’s grace. He has restrained these people from taking a hostile attitude that could have increased the Muslims’ burden. The Muslims are instructed to accept whatever goodness is offered them and to avoid all evil that God has caused to stay away from them. This is, then, to be the attitude of the Muslim community, as long as it does not involve any relaxation of Islamic principles or complacency in matters of faith or humiliation to the Muslims through a sell out to their enemies. A cheap peace is unacceptable. The aim is not to avoid fighting at any price. The aim is to achieve a peace that does not encroach on any right of the Muslims, whether these rights are due to people or to Islam as a message and philosophy.

It is only right and proper that all impediments should be removed from the way of conveying the message of Islam to mankind. The point is that everyone who receives this message should feel free to accept it without being exposed to any harm, and this should apply everywhere in the world. It is also needed so that Islam acquires sufficient strength to deter anyone from taking a hostile attitude or inflicting harm of any sort on those who believe in it. Beyond that, peace is preferable and jihād continues.

There is another group of people to whom Islam extends no tolerance, because it is an evil group of hypocrites with whom Islam has no covenant or treaty. Hence, it is free to take the appropriate stance against them: “You will find others who would like to be safe from you as well as to be safe from their own people. Whenever they are called back to sedition they plunge headlong into it. If they do not leave you alone, and do not offer you peace and do not stay their hands, seize them and kill them wherever you come upon them.

Over these We have given you a clear authority.” (Verse 91)

A report by Mujāhid suggests that this statement concerned a certain group of people from Makkah who came to the Prophet to declare that they were Muslims without actually being so. They then returned to Makkah where they reverted to idol worship. Their purpose was that they should feel safe and secure in both camps.

Hence, Islam ruled that they be killed unless they stopped their erring ways. The verdict in this case is stated clearly: “If they do not leave you alone, and do not offer you peace and do not stay their hands, seize them and kill them wherever you come upon them.

Over these we have given you a clear authority” (Verse 91)

We note here the clear balance in the Islamic attitude. It is serious and decisive but, at the same time, tolerant and forbearing. Each situation is faced with the most suitable of attitudes. When we consider both features, we realise that they provide every Muslim with a balanced attitude which becomes an essential feature of the Islamic system as a whole. When some people move towards extremism, adopting an uncompromising, violent attitude, then they do not represent Islam. On the other hand, Islam is not represented by those who take an apologetic attitude towards jihād, trying to defend Islam, which, in their view, stands indicted of violent extremism. They emphasise that Islam prefers peace in all situations and its permanent attitude is one of forbearance and forgiveness and that jihād is only allowed in the defence of Muslim land or the Muslim community. Thus, they narrow it down. Jihād is, indeed, a means of defending the Islamic message and its right to be conveyed freely to everyone, everywhere in the world. It is also the means to ensure that every individual, anywhere in the world is free to accept Islam. It guarantees the supremacy of a virtuous system, which extends security to all people, whether they accept Islam or not. As we have already said, neither the narrow extremist view, nor the complacent apologetic view is correct. Again, these provisions of Islamic international law convey a clear message to mankind.

All the foregoing applies to relations between the Muslim community and other camps. The sūrah now moves on to speak of internal relations among Muslims, no matter how distant their countries are. It is clear that there can be no fighting or killing among Muslims except by way of punishment for certain crimes. The point is that there can be no situation superseding the relationship of faith that exists between Muslims. Hence, no Muslim may ever kill another Muslim, knowing that this strong tie of faith exists between them. Such killing may only happen by mistake.

Since this is a possibility, it requires certain legal provisions. As for deliberate killing, it is a crime much too ghastly to be erased by any atonement. It is something that transgresses all boundaries of Islam.

Never should a believer kill another believer, unless it be by mistake. He who kills a believer by mistake must free a believing soul from bondage and pay an indemnity to his family, unless they forego it by way of charity. If the victim belonged to a people who are at war with you, while he himself was a believer, then let his killer free a believing soul from bondage. If he (the victim) belonged to a people with whom you are bound by a covenant, then the penalty is an indemnity to be paid to his family and the freeing of a believing soul ,from bondage. He who cannot afford the wherewithal must fast for two consecutive months. This is the atonement ordained by God. God is All- Knowing, Wise. (Verse 92)

The sūrah provides legal provisions for four cases of killing, three of which may happen by mistake among Muslims in the same community or in different communities. The fourth is that of deliberate murder which, the Qur’ān insists, should never happen in the first place. Nothing should bring the relationship between two Muslims so low for a murder of this sort to take place. The relationship between two Muslims is too strong, deeply rooted, precious and dearly cherished for such a serious breach to be contemplated. Hence, the sūrah begins by legislating for accidental killing.

“Never should a believer kill another believer, unless it be by mistake.” (Verse 92) This is the only possibility which is acceptable to the Islamic sense and which is possible in reality. For a Muslim to live side by side with another Muslim is a truly great blessing. It is inconceivable that a Muslim takes a deliberate step, after contemplation, to remove this great blessing from his life by committing such a horrendous crime. Muslims belong to a very dear race. The one who knows the value of a Muslim is only another Muslim. Hence, killing him makes no sense. This is something well known to the people immediately concerned with it. They recognise it within themselves and in their feelings. It is God who has given it to them through their faith and their ties with God’s Messenger. These ties are further elevated to bring them together, united by their bonds with God Himself who has established their remarkable unity.

When accidental killing takes place, there can be one of three cases for which legal provisions are made. The first is that when the victim belongs to a Muslim family living in the land of Islam. In this case, a slave who is a believer must be set free and an indemnity must be paid to the victim’s family. Setting a slave free is a compensation made to the Muslim community by the revival of another Muslim soul. This is, indeed, how freeing a slave is viewed in Islam. As for the indemnity, it is paid in order to pacify those immediately affected by the killing. It compensates them for a part of their loss. At the same time, the Qur’ān hints that the victim’s family may forego this indemnity, if they so desire, because such an attitude promotes feelings of forgiveness within the Muslim community: “He who kills a believer by mistake must free a believing soul from bondage and pay an indemnity to his family, unless they forego it by way of charity.” (Verse 92)

The second case is that whereby the victim is, himself, a believer while his own people are at war with the Muslim community. In this case, a slave who is a believer must be freed to compensate for the believer who has been killed. No indemnity is payable to his people who are at war with Islam, because that would strengthen them in their fight against the Muslims. Here, there is no attempt to pacify the family of the victim or to win favour or to establish friendly relations with them. They are hostile to Islam and they fight against the Muslims.

The third case is one whereby the victim belongs to a people who have a treaty or a covenant with the Muslims. The Qur’ānic statement does not specify that the victim must be a believer in this case. This has led some commentators on the Qur’ān and other scholars to consider the statement a general one, applying to all people who have a covenant or a treaty with the Muslims, even if they are not believers. The fact that they have such a covenant makes them entitled to the same protection as Muslims.

It appears to us, however, that the whole verse deals with the killing of believers.

The opening sentence in this Qur’ānic verse states: “Never should a believer kill another believer, unless it be by mistake.” This is followed by detailing the various cases in which the victim is a believer. The fact that in the second case there is a clear and specific reference to the victim being a believer, “If the victim belonged to a people who are at war with you, while he himself was a believer”, has special significance. It is made in order to dispel any confusion about his identity because his people are at war with the Muslims. The victim, himself, must be a believer, although his people are not.

This understanding of the third case being applicable to victims of accidental death who are Muslims is supported by the fact that the penalty includes the freeing of a believing slave. Again this is compensation for the loss of one believer by freeing another from bondage. Otherwise, the freeing of any slave, believer or not, would have been adequate.

A number of reports speak of the Prophet paying indemnity to the families of victims of accidental death who belonged to tribes bound by covenants or treaties with the Muslims. These reports do not speak of the freeing of the same number of slave believers. This suggests that in this case the only penalty is the indemnity. This ruling is based on what the Prophet did, not on this verse. All three cases identified in this verse share a common factor: the victim is a believer, although his family may not be believers living in the Muslim community or belong to a hostile camp at war with the Muslims, or to a people at peace with Islam having a covenant with the believers. This is what appears to us to be a more accurate understanding of this verse.

All the foregoing applies to accidental killing. A deliberate murder of a believer is a crime too horrendous to be committed by anyone who has any trace of faith in his heart. It cannot be compensated for by any indemnity or by setting slaves free. The punishment in this case is exacted by God Himself: “He who deliberately kills a believer, his punishment is hell, therein to abide permanently. God will be angry with him, and will reject him, and will prepare for him a dreadful suffering.” (Verse 93)

It is a crime of murder wherein the victim is not merely the human being who is killed without any justification whatsoever. It also kills the noble and dearly cherished tie established by God between one Muslim and another. It is a crime against the very idea of believing in God. For this reason, it is often associated with denying faith altogether. Some scholars of high standing including Ibn `Abbās, the Prophet’s cousin, are of the opinion that no repentance of such a crime is acceptable.

Other scholars who disagree, rely for their argument on the Qur’ānic verse which states: “God does not forgive that partners should be associated with Him, but He forgives any lesser sin to whomever he wills.” (Verse 116) These latter scholars say that a deliberate murderer of a Muslim may still hope for God’s Forgiveness. They explain the statement that such a killer shall abide permanently in hell as signifying that hell will be his abode for a very long time.

The Prophet’s Companions who graduated in the first Islamic school used to meet others who, prior to Islam, killed their fathers, sons or brothers and some of them experienced bitter feelings as a result, but they never contemplated revenge killings.

This is because they had all embraced Islam, and no thoughts of revenge were entertained by the relatives of the victims, even when their sorrow was most painful.

Indeed, they never thought of depriving them of any right given to them by Islam.

To guard against accidental killing, and to ensure the purity of those whose hearts fight for God’s cause so that they may be totally dedicated to the service of Islam, God instructs the Muslims not to fight with anyone or to kill them until they are sure of his identity. They must accept his statement if he claims to be a Muslim, since there can be no evidence to the contrary. “Believers, when you go on an expedition to serve the cause of God, use your discernment and do not — out of a desire for the fleeting gains of this worldly life — say to one who offers you the greeting of peace: ‘You are not a believer’: for with God are abundant gains. Thus have you been in days gone by. But God has bestowed on you His grace. Therefore, use your discernment. Indeed God is always aware of what you do.” (Verse 94)

There are a number of reports that speak of the circumstances in which this verse was revealed. They may be summed up in such a way that suggests that a Muslim expedition once came across a man with his sheep. He greeted them with the Islamic greeting, Assalāmu `alaikum, to indicate that he was a Muslim. Some of them considered that this was merely words he spoke to save his life. Therefore, they killed him. This Qur’ānic verse was then revealed to indicate that such an action is forbidden. Believers must not entertain any thoughts which betray that they are after making any worldly gains or which show that they make hasty judgements. Both are unacceptable to Islam. When Muslims go out on a campaign of jihād for God’s cause, then the gains that they may make must never come into their reckoning. Such gains are never a motive for jihād. Similarly, a hasty judgement may lead to the shedding of a Muslim’s blood with whom the most cherished tie should exist. God reminds the believers of their recent days of ignorance which were characterised by hasty judgements and the coveting of worldly gains. He reminds them of His grace when He purified their hearts, elevated their ideals and placed their objectives on a sublime level.

They no longer stage war for any material gain as they used to do in the past.

They are governed by His legislation, which provides a complete system for them to implement. Their judgements must not be based on rash decisions, characteristic of their days of ignorance.

The same statement may also be understood as implying a reference to the fact that they, themselves, used to conceal from their people the fact that they were Muslims. This is because they were too weak. They only revealed this when they felt secure in the company of other Muslims. The man who was thus killed might have concealed the truth of his being a Muslim from his own people. When he met the Muslims, he offered them the greeting of peace characteristic of Muslims, to indicate that he, himself, was a Muslim: “Thus have you been in days gone by. But God has bestowed on you His grace. Therefore, use your discernment. Indeed God is always aware of what you do.” (Verse 94)

We note how the Qur’ān touches the believers’ most sensitive feelings in order to remind them of God’s grace and to make them more conscious of their obligations. It is through this sensitivity and consciousness that Islam achieves full commitment by its followers to its legal system, after having explained its laws most clearly. It is this clarity and purity that characterises external relations between Islam and other communities, as explained in this passage.