In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This opening passage was revealed later than the rest of the sūrah. We have explained in earlier volumes that the final ordering of the verses in each sūrah followed instructions given by the Prophet himself. This means that such ordering is final and done on the basis of instructions received by the Prophet from on high.

This passage terminates treaties and agreements that were in force at the time between the Muslims and the unbelievers. A notice of four months is given to those who have treaties running indefinitely, or those who have violated their treaties.

Others who have treaties running for a specified term and have honoured their obligations under those treaties, without ever backing or aiding anyone against the Muslims, are promised to have their treaties honoured by the Muslims to the end of their specified terms. Thus, the final outcome is the termination of all treaties with unbelievers in the Arabian Peninsula, and an end to the very concept of having a treaty with idolaters. This takes the form of a disavowal of all obligations towards idolaters and questioning the very idea of idolaters having a treaty or covenant with God and His Messenger.

The passage also includes a ban on idolaters from doing the ţawāf, which is the ritual walk around the Ka`bah, or visiting it for worship in any way or form. This abrogates the earlier mutual pledges of security between the Prophet and the idolaters ensuring the safety of all people in the Ka`bah and during the sacred months.

When we review the events that took place during the Prophet’s lifetime so as to draw an outline of the historical progress and nature of the proactive approach of Islam, its progressive stages and ultimate goals, we see very clearly that this decisive step was taken at its most appropriate time. It was now possible to reorganize relations between the Islamic community and other camps, whether idolaters or people of earlier revelations.

Stage after stage and event after event, it was practically demonstrated that it was impossible to achieve coexistence between two diametrically opposed ways of life with such deep-rooted and fundamental differences that affect every detail of concepts, beliefs, moral values, social behaviour, as well as social, economic and political structures.

Such fundamental differences were bound to surface as a result of the differences in beliefs and concepts. We have one way of life based entirely on submission of all mankind to God alone who has no partners, and another that makes people submit to other human beings and false deities. The two are bound to be in conflict at every step and in every aspect of life.

It was not just a coincidence that the Quraysh should take such a permanently hostile attitude to the Islamic call which raised the banner that “there is no deity other than God, and Muĥammad is God’s Messenger.” Its hostility continued throughout the period when the Prophet was in Makkah and sought to crush it in open warfare after he migrated to Madinah. Nor was it by coincidence that the Jews in Madinah should stand up in opposition to the Islamic message or that they should join forces with the idolaters, in spite of the Scriptures in which they professed to believe. Both the Quraysh and the Jews tried to forge an alliance grouping all Arab tribes in an all-out effort to exterminate the whole Muslim community. They felt that the establishment of the Muslim state in Madinah on the basis of faith and its implementation of the divine way of life represented a danger that threatened them and which they felt they had to remove.

We will learn presently that the same can be said for the Christians’ attitude towards the Islamic message despite the fact they also had divine Scriptures. This was the case in Yemen, Syria and beyond both these areas, and at all times. It is all in the nature of things.

Those who adopt other creeds and philosophies know that it is in the nature of the Islamic approach to insist on the establishment of a state based on belief in God. It aims to liberate all mankind from submission to other creatures so that they may submit to God alone, and to remove all physical and material impediments that prevent human beings from exercising their right to freedom of choice. It is also natural that those who follow other creeds try to crush the divine way of life in which they see a real threat to their very existence, their systems and social set-ups.

Such a polarization is, then, inevitable.

Such hostility, inevitable as it certainly is, surfaced in a variety of forms, time after time, and served to emphasize the need for this final step announced in this sūrah.

The immediate causes mentioned in some reports were only episodes in a long chain of events that had been going on ever since the early days of the Islamic message.

When we adopt such a broad perspective and try to delve into the root causes dictating attitudes and actions, we can properly understand the need for this final step. We must not overlook the immediate causes because these, in turn, were only episodes in a long series of events.

In his commentary on the Qur’ān, Imām al-Baghawī quotes earlier commentators as saying: “When the Prophet set out on his expedition to Tabūk, the hypocrites started to spread rumours while the idolaters began to violate the treaties they had with the Muslims. God then revealed this verse which is applicable to the latter group. He gave them four months’ notice if their treaties were of shorter duration, and announced the termination of longer-lasting treaties after four months.” Reviewing the views of other commentators, Imām al-Ţabarī says:

As for the notice given by God permitting idolaters with a treaty to ‘go freely in the land for four months,’ perhaps the more accurate view is to say that this notice is given by God to those idolaters who, despite having peace treaties, collaborated with others against the Prophet and the Muslim community violating their treaties before they ran out. As for those who fulfilled their obligations under such treaties and refrained from collaborating with others, God — limitless is He in His glory — ordered His Messenger to honour his treaty with them until their term had been completed. This is clear in the Qur’ānic statement: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations [under the treaty] in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4)8

Al-Ţabarī also quotes Mujāhid as saying:

In the statement, ‘Disavowal by God and His Messenger [is hereby announced] to those of the idolaters with whom you have made a treaty,’ the reference here is made to the tribe of Mudlij and the Arabs bound by a treaty with the Muslims and all other peoples with similar treaties. It is reported that when the Prophet returned from Tabūk, he wanted to go on pilgrimage. He then thought, ‘the Ka`bah is visited by idolaters who do the ţawāf naked. I would rather delay my pilgrimage until such a practice is stopped.’ He sent Abū Bakr and `Alī who went to see people at Dhu’l-Majāz and other markets, as well as their encampments in pilgrimage. They gave notice to all people who had treaties with the Prophet that they would have four months of peace.

When those four consecutive months, beginning with the twenty days remaining of Dhu’l-Hijjah to the tenth day of Rabī` II, were over, the treaties would come to an end. All people in Arabia would then be in a state of war with the Muslims unless they believed in God and His Messenger. The whole Arab population of Arabia became Muslims and none continued with their old religion.9

A number of immediate causes were naturally a factor in taking this final and decisive step. Nevertheless they were only links in a long chain which arises from the basic conflict between the two ways of life which cannot coexist except for short periods and which are bound to come to an end sooner or later.

The late Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā’, a leading scholar of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, tries to identify these links in the chain right from the early days of the Islamic message. However, he does not try to outline the basic and permanent conflict which gives rise to the whole episode, leading eventually to the natural result outlined in this sūrah. In his commentary, al-Manār, he writes:

An indisputable fact known to all people is that God sent His Messenger, Muĥammad, the last of all prophets, with the message of Islam that provides a complete and final version of the divine faith. His greatest proof is the Qur’ān, which defies human beings with a multifaceted challenge that we have outlined in our commentary on verse 3 of Sūrah 2. The essence of advocacy of the divine message is based on irrefutable rational and scientific evidence.10 He has also established clearly that compulsion could in no way be adopted as a means of spreading the faith. This has been outlined in our commentary on verse 256 of Sūrah 2.

The idolaters took an attitude of resistance, subjecting the believers to a campaign of persecution and torture to force them to turn away from Islam.

They also tried to forcibly prevent the Prophet from conveying his message to people. No one who accepted the new faith and believed in the Prophet’s message felt safe or secure from death and torture unless he enjoyed the protection of an ally or a relative. Hence they had to migrate time after time.

Then they escalated their campaign against the Prophet. They considered arresting him permanently, and they also thought of banishing him, and they also considered killing him openly in their meeting place. They finally opted to murder him. God then ordered him to emigrate, as we have explained when commenting on verse 30 of Sūrah 8.11 The Prophet emigrated with those of his Companions who were able to do so. They settled in Madinah where they found support by the Anşār who were believers in God and His Messenger, showing their love of those who migrated to settle in their land, and extended to them fine hospitality and a most generous treatment.

The conditions that prevailed between them and the idolaters of Makkah and other areas in Arabia were naturally war conditions, as would have been expected at the time. The Prophet entered into a peace treaty with the Jews in Madinah and the surrounding area. But they violated their treaty and forged an alliance with the idolaters, supporting them in their campaigns against the Prophet and Islam. We have outlined all this in commenting on Sūrah 8.

At al-Ĥudaybiyah, the Prophet entered into a peace treaty with the idolaters which provided for peace and security for ten years. He accepted conditions which were most favourable to the idolaters, but this was an act of magnanimity, not weakness. He wanted peace to prevail so that he could ensure the propagation of his faith through clear argument and irrefutable evidence.12 The tribe of Khuzā`ah entered into a treaty with the Prophet, while the tribe of Bakr joined an alliance with the Quraysh. The latter launched an aggression against the former and they were helped in this by the Quraysh who supported them with arms, thus violating their treaty with the Prophet.

This was the cause for ending the peace and returning to a situation of war which resulted in the Prophet’s campaign that ended with Makkah falling peacefully to Islam. This was an event that considerably weakened and humiliated the idolaters. However, they continued to fight against the Prophet whenever they felt strong enough to do so. Experience had shown that they could never be relied upon to honour their pledges, whether their position was one of strength or weakness. We will presently see, in verse 7, the exclamation, “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger...” leading to the instruction in verse 12: “Fight these archetypes of faithlessness who have no [respect for a] binding pledge, so that they may desist.” This means that they will never honour their pledges or fulfil their obligations. What the sūrah emphasizes here is that Muslims cannot coexist with them under the provisions of their treaties, in order to ensure peace and security, while they remain idolaters, observing no well-defined law which would have committed them to fulfil the conditions of their treaty. Indeed, the people of earlier Scriptures, who should have demonstrated a greater degree of integrity and honour, were even quicker to violate their covenants and breach their treaties.13

This is the basis of the provisions outlined in this sūrah which abrogated their open-ended treaties, and allowed other treaties to run their course, provided they remained faithful to such treaties. The reason for this was to remove idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula so that it became wholly and purely for the Muslims. All this is done while observing at the same time and as far as possible the earlier rules, such as ‘Fight for the cause of God those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression,’ (2: 190), and ‘If they incline to peace, then incline you to it as well.’ (8: 61) Nevertheless, many scholars are of the view that this latter verse has been abrogated by the verse instructing the Muslims to abrogate treaties with the idolaters and to fight them.14

It is clear from this presentation and the subsequent comments, as well as what follows in Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā’s commentary that he properly defines the real cause of this long series of treacherous actions by the idolaters who were always on the look-out for an opportunity to suppress Islam and overpower its advocates. Nevertheless, he does not dig deep enough to see how outstretched the roots behind this attitude were. Nor does he visualize the fundamental quality in the nature of this religion and its method of action, or the nature of radical differences between the divine way of life and those devised by God’s creatures. Such differences make a meeting between the two practically impossible. Hence, there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence between a community implementing God’s law and other communities.

By contrast, in his book, al-Tafsīr al-Ĥadīth, Muĥammad `Izzat Darwazah goes far beyond the root causes on which the Islamic attitude to other communities is based.

Like other contemporary authors writing under oppressive pressures of the miserable conditions of today’s Muslims and the all-too-visible strength of contemporary idolaters, atheists and followers of other religions, he has a clear purpose in mind. Hence, he tries hard to prove that Islam is a religion of peace, aiming at nothing more than to live within its borders in peace. Wherever it is possible to make a peace treaty, Islam should be keen to put it in place, making it its clear objective.

Hence, Muĥammad `Izzat Darwazah finds no reason for these new and final provisions, included in this present sūrah, other than the violation by some idolaters of their treaties. As for those who honoured their treaties, whether these were of limited or indefinite duration, the sūrah gives instructions to the Muslims to honour them. Indeed, he claims that new treaties may be concluded with them after the expiry of their present ones. The same applies, in his view, to the violaters of their present treaties. He considers the verses giving provisional rulings to prevail over the principles given in the final verses.

In his discussion of the first passage of the sūrah he identifies the following verses:

“except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations [under the treaty] in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous. When these months of grace are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakāt, let them go their way. For God is Muchforgiving, Merciful.” (Verses 4-5) He then says:

In these two verses and the ones preceding them we have scenes of life towards the end of the Madinah period at the time of the Prophet. We note from these verses that there were peace agreements between Muslims and unbelievers which were in force after the fall of Makkah to Islam, and perhaps were signed before that event. We note that some idolaters honoured their agreements while others violated them, or contemplated such violations.

We stated earlier that commentators describe the second of these two verses as ‘the verse of the sword’, and treat it as abrogating every previous verse which gives instructions to adopt a reconciliatory attitude towards the idolaters and allowing them time to make their position clear, and to forbear and let matters take their course. They consider this verse to order fighting them as the proper attitude. Some commentators make an exception in the case of those who have a treaty allowing such treaties to run to the end of their terms. Others do not make such exceptions, saying that their only option after the revelation of this verse is that they must embrace Islam. We also made it clear that such an explanation is too extreme and contradicts a number of definitive rulings that prohibit fighting anyone other than enemies and orders fair and kindly treatment of those who adopt a peaceful attitude.

When discussing this verse, commentators repeatedly quote reports attributed to the earliest commentators on the Qur’ān. Ibn Kathīr, for example, quotes Ibn `Abbās’s view that the verse contains an order to the Prophet to take up arms against those with whom he had a treaty until they have embraced Islam. He is further ordered to terminate the conditions he approved when negotiating such treaties. The same commentator quotes a singular view attributed to Sulaymān ibn `Uyaynah which groups these verses together with other verses in this and other sūrahs that do not refer to fighting and calls these verses, the swords. He claims that the Prophet sent his cousin `Alī ibn Abī Ţālib to convey these verses to people on the day of the greater pilgrimage. These included this verse which he describes as a sword on the Arab idolaters. Another sword was against the hypocrites, and it is included in the later verse: “Fight against those who — despite having been given Scriptures — do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, and do not treat as forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, till they [agree to] pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled” (Verse 29) A third sword against the hypocrites is included in this verse: “Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and press on them. Their ultimate abode is hell, and how vile a journey’s end.” (Verse 73) A fourth sword is levelled against rebels, which is included in Sūrah 49: “If two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them.

But then, if one of the two goes on acting wrongfully towards the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God’s commandment.” (49: 9) What is most singular is that al-Ţabarī expresses the view that this present verse (i.e. Verse 5) applies equally to those who are bound by a treaty and those with no treaty. Yet he himself takes a different view when commenting on the following verse: “For such of the unbelievers as do not fight against you on account of your faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity. Surely God loves those who act equitably.” (60: 8) He says that this last verse is definitive, making clear that God does not forbid extending kindly and fair treatment to those who adopt an attitude of peaceful coexistence and neutrality, whatever their faith may be. These may not even be bound by a treaty.

All this when it is clear that the verse refers, in context and import, to fighting only the idolaters who violate their treaties. It is reasonable to say that considering it a sword pointed at all idolaters, regardless of their position and attitude, is to impose on it an interpretation it cannot admit. The same may be said about the claim that it abrogates several earlier statements given in a form of definitive principles, such as the prohibition of compulsion in matters of religion and faith, the advocacy of the divine message with wisdom, kindly admonition and fair argument, the order to extend kindly and fair treatment to those who do not fight against the Muslims and not to drive them out of their homeland. A few verses on, the sūrah also includes a clear order to all Muslims to remain faithful to their commitments towards people with whom they have concluded treaties in the vicinity of the Sacred Mosque, as long as the latter continue to honour their obligations. This last verse gives clear support to our view.

Two points may be raised concerning the rulings included in the two verses quoted above. The first refers to the exception made in the first verse in respect of the completion of the term of a treaty. The question asked here is whether the idolaters who have such a treaty will be included in the disavowal declared by God and His Messenger, and in this case must they be fought? Commentators generally seem to answer this question in the affirmative. We for our part have not seen any authentic report attributed to the Prophet on this particular point. Hence, what commentators say may be questioned if they treat it as universally applicable. The whole matter requires clarification. Those unbelievers who are party to a treaty with the Muslims could have been prior to the treaty either enemies who fought the Muslims in war and then negotiated a peace treaty with them, as was the case with the Quraysh when they signed the al- Ĥudaybiyah peace treaty, or else they might have wished to have such a peace treaty without ever having been at war against the Muslims. Consider this following verse: “Except in the case of those of them who have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or those who come to you because their hearts shrink from the thought of fighting you or fighting their own people. 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.” (4:

90) We believe that this verse speaks of a true situation.

In the Prophet’s history we have several examples, such as the report by Ibn Said to the effect that the Prophet made an agreement with the Şakhr clan of the Kinānah tribe that neither party would raid the other, and that they would never aid any party against the Prophet and his Companions. All this was put in a written agreement. There is nothing in this verse, or indeed in any other verse, to prevent the renewal of the treaty or extending its term, should the other party desire that, without having ever given any indication of violating their commitments. Muslims may not refuse such an extension because they are ordered to fight only those who wage war or launch an aggression against them. A later verse in the sūrah includes an express order to the Muslims to remain true to their treaties with idolaters as long as those idolaters continue to honour such treaties. This supports our view.

The second point concerns the last part of the second verse which makes releasing the idolaters and stopping the fight against them that resulted from their treaty violations conditional upon a fundamental change indicated by turning away from idolatry, attending regularly to prayer and paying the obligatory charity, i.e. zakāt.

What appears to me is that by violating their original treaties and fighting the Muslims, the idolaters actually forfeited their right to have a new treaty. It is right that the Muslims should now impose the condition that guarantees their safety and security, which is that they should accept Islam and fulfil its worship requirements, ritual and financial. This does not constitute any compulsion to force them to become Muslims. Suffice it to say that idolatry represents a very low ebb to which humanity may sink when it allows its reason to be subservient to ideas and forces that have no trace of truth or logic. Besides, idolatry is an ignorant system governed by oppressive tradition and bizarre habits. When they embrace Islam, they are certain to rid themselves of all that and rise to a position of respectability in thought, morality, faith, belief, worship and daily practices. Besides, we do not see any reason to prevent the renewal of treaties with those whom the Muslims have fought for violating their original treaties, should the interests of the Muslim community require such renewal.

These paragraphs and many similar ones in the author’s commentary make it clear that he does not even consider that Islam has an inalienable and absolute right to move forward to liberate mankind from the evil of submission to other human beings so that people may submit themselves to God alone. Islam does so whenever it is feasible, regardless of whether the Muslim community is under attack or not.

This concept, which is the basis of jihād in Islam, does not figure at all in this author’s thinking. Without it Islam is denied its right to remove physical obstacles impeding its progress, and it loses its serious, practical approach which requires facing obstacles with suitable and adequate means. It will have to confront physical powers with verbal advocacy. This is far from satisfactory.15

It is also clear that this author does not pay sufficient attention to the method of action Islam adopts, which requires that any situation should be faced with adequate means. He attaches final rulings to provisional texts and rulings which were given earlier. In so doing, he does not take into consideration the fact that the earlier rulings dealt with practical situations different from the ones that prevailed at the time of the revelation of the final verses. It is true that the earlier rulings are not abrogated in the sense that makes them inapplicable to any situation. They remain in force but only to face new situations that are largely similar to the ones they originally addressed. However, these earlier rulings do not restrict the Muslims should they face situations similar to the ones that prevailed at the time when the final rulings were revealed. The whole question requires broader knowledge, and a good understanding of the nature of Islam and its method of action.

At the beginning of our commentary we said: “When we review the events that took place during the Prophet’s lifetime so as to draw an outline of the historical progress and nature of the proactive approach of Islam, its progressive stages and ultimate goals, we see very clearly that this decisive step was taken at its most appropriate time. It was now possible to reorganize relations between the Islamic community and other camps, whether idolaters or people of earlier revelations.” One experience after another had revealed the nature of the law that governs relations between Islamic society which attributes Godhead, Lordship, sovereignty and the authority to legislate to God alone, and ignorant or, to use the Islamic term, jāhiliyyah societies which assign all this to some beings other than God, or claim that God has partners sharing with Him all these attributes. This law is essentially one of conflict, which is expressed in God’s statements in the Qur’ān: “Were it not that God repels some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques — in all of which God’s name is abundantly extolled — would have been destroyed.” (22: 40) “Had it not been for the fact that God repels one group of people by another, the earth would have been utterly corrupted’’ (2: 251)

The practical results of this essential law were manifested in two practical phenomena. The first was that Islam moved from one step, expedition and stage to the next following the divine approach and conveying God’s message to one area and tribe after another. This was a necessary step towards conveying the message to all mankind and removing all material obstacles that prevented the divine message from reaching all people. This continued to be the case until Makkah fell to Islam and the Quraysh tribe, the major obstacle in the face of the Islamic march, was vanquished. The large tribes of Hawāzin and Thaqīf, which were akin to the Quraysh in strength, also surrendered to the Muslim state. Islam had then enough power to strike fear in the hearts of its enemies. It was thus able to take the final and decisive step in the Arabian Peninsula, in preparation for taking the same step across the rest of the world, as and when circumstances allowed. The ultimate aim being that there should be no strife on earth and all submission be made to God alone.

The other phenomenon was the violation of treaties and covenants which were made with the Muslims in different circumstances, whenever a chance presented itself to violate such treaties with impunity. At the first suggestion that the Muslims were going through some difficulty which made the idolaters, and even the people of earlier revelations, feel they could safely violate their treaties, such violations were certain to come. The treaties were not made in the first place as a result of any keen desire to live in peace with the Muslims. The enemies of Islam were compelled, by force of circumstance, to go into such treaties to serve their own interests. Jāhiliyyah, which is the name Islam gives to any society that rejects God’s law, does not like to see Islam establishing its solid presence when it contradicts the very basis of its existence and every detail of the programmes of such societies. Jāhiliyyah knows that by virtue of the active nature of Islam, and its instinctive desire to stamp out tyranny from human life, it will work hard to bring people back to the worship of God alone.

It is to emphasize this last phenomenon that God says with reference to the unbelievers: “They shall not cease to fight you until they force you to renounce your faith, if they can.” (2: 217) He also says about the people of earlier revelations: “Many among the people of earlier revelations would love to lead you back to unbelief now that you have embraced the faith. This they do out of deep-seated envy, after the truth has become manifest to them.” (2: 109) Concerning them He also says: “Never will the Jews nor yet the Christians be pleased with you unless you follow their faith.” (2:120) In all these categorical statements God makes it clear that all those in the camp of jāhiliyyah have the same objectives when it comes to dealing with Islam and Muslims. They pursue their goals with clear persistence that never fades with the passage of time, nor does it change as a result of changing circumstances.

Unless we understand this essential law that is inherent in the nature of the relationship between the Muslim community and the camp of jāhiliyyah, we cannot understand the nature of Islamic jihād, or the motives for that long struggle between the two. Nor can we, without such understanding of this law, comprehend the motives of the early Muslims, or the secrets of Islamic conquests, or the war that has been waged against Islam by hostile forces over the 14 centuries of Islamic history. It continues to be waged against the children of Muslim communities, despite the fact that these have sadly abandoned true Islam, with its holistic approach to life, and are content to keep it in name only. The war continues to be waged against those latterday Muslim communities, even those living in the midst of hostile creeds such as communism and idolatry of all forms, whether in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Albania, India, Kashmir, Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Cyprus, Kenya, South Africa or the United States. All this comes on top of the brutal attempts to exterminate the advocates of Islamic revival in the Muslim World, or more accurately, the world which used to be Muslim. Communism, idolatry, and other world powers collaborate with, and give active support to, the regimes that undertake such extermination efforts against the advocates of Islamic revival. They pour their aid on these governments to the extent that they practically give them every type of help to ensure that they stay in power. Their support often takes the form of tacit or silent approval of what they are doing to those noble believers who seek to persuade people to believe in God and implement His law.

Such understanding of all these aspects can only be achieved when we understand the essential law we have talked about and the phenomena it brings into our life.

This law demonstrated itself in the period leading to the conquest of Makkah, in the two phenomena we have outlined. At that time, it appeared clearly that a decisive step must be taken in the Arabian Peninsula, against the idolaters, which we will discuss presently, and against the people of earlier revelations which we will discuss in Chapters 2 and 3.

The need for such a decisive step might have been very clear for the Islamic leadership at the time, but that did not necessarily mean that it was similarly clear to all groups in the Muslim community, particularly the newcomers to Islam and those who were only on friendly terms with the Muslims.

Some people in the Muslim community, perhaps among the noblest and most dedicated Muslims, might have felt uneasy about the termination of all treaties with the unbelievers on the terms outlined in the sūrah: after four months for those who violated their treaties, and those with treaties that did not specify a term, and those whose treaties ended in less than four months and those who had no treaties and were not at war with the Muslims. Those who had treaties with specified terms and continued to honour their obligations would have their treaties respected and observed for the remainder of their terms. Such conscientious Muslims might have understood that the treaties with the violators and those from whom violation was expected should be terminated, as was clear in the provisional instructions given to the Prophet in the previous sūrah: “if you fear treachery from any folk, cast [your treaty with them] back to them in a fair manner. God does not love the treacherous.” (8: 58)

However, the termination of treaties after four months or after their term was over might have appeared to those people contrary to the familiar practice of maintaining peaceful relations with those who did not adopt any hostile attitude. God, on the other hand, had a far greater objective than maintaining what was familiar practice.

Other people in the Muslim community, perhaps also among the noblest and most dedicated Muslims, might have felt that there was no longer any need to fight the idolaters generally after Islam had attained supremacy in Arabia, leaving only scattered pockets of resistance which represented no threat whatsoever. On the contrary, they were expected to change their attitude to Islam gradually after peace would have been maintained for sometime in Arabia. Such Muslims might have felt particularly uneasy about fighting against relatives and friends as well as people with whom they might have had social and economic relations. After all there was still hope that such people would still see the light of Islam without resorting to such a drastic measure. But God wanted faith to be the basic bond that united people in a cohesive community. He also wanted the Arabian Peninsula to be a secure base for Islam, as He was aware of the plots the Byzantines were preparing against the Muslim state. This will be explained later.

Yet others in the Muslim community, some of whom might have been among the noblest and most dedicated Muslims, might have feared economic depression ensuing from the disruption to business transactions in Arabia as a result of declaring war against all Arabian idolaters. That was bound to affect the pilgrimage season, particularly after it had been announced that no idolater would be allowed to go on pilgrimage after that year, and that idolaters would not be allowed to enter into mosques and places of worship. Such people’s fears were made even greater by the fact that such a step was not particularly necessary. Its outcome could have been reached in a slower but more peaceful way. But, as we have said, God wanted the basic bond to unite people in the Muslim community to be the bond of faith, so that faith should be felt to have far greater weight than blood relationships, friendships and economic interests. He also wanted the Muslims to realize that He alone gave them all the provisions they had and was their only provider. The means they might have had to earn their living were not the only ones He could have granted them.

There were others in the Muslim community who lacked strength of faith, or were hesitant, or who were hypocrites, or who might have been among the large numbers who embraced Islam but had not yet fully absorbed its truth. Most of these feared the possibility of open warfare with the idolaters, the economic depression that might result from war, the lack of security for trade and travel, the disruption of contacts and transport and worried about the likely costs of mounting a jihād campaign. Such people might have not reckoned with such a prospect of full-scale war. They might have been encouraged to embrace Islam by the fact that it appeared victorious, and that it would have enjoyed security and stability. To them, embracing Islam might have seemed the best alternative that allowed them to gain much for a little outlay.

Newcomers to Islam as they were, they felt ill at ease with what was required of them. God, on the other hand, wanted to test people’s intentions and their commitment and determination. He says to the believers: “Do you think that you will be left alone, unless God takes cognizance of those of you who strive hard for His cause and establish close association with none other than God, His Messenger and the believers? God is well aware of what you do.” (Verse 16)

All these aspects made it necessary to give a detailed account which employs various modes of expression and produces varied effects which are calculated to remove the traces of weakness in people’s hearts and remove whatever doubts they might be entertaining. Hence the sūrah opens with a general announcement of disavowal by God and His Messenger of all dealings with the idolaters. The same disavowal is repeated another time, with similar forcefulness and clarity after only one verse in the sūrah so that no believer will entertain any thought of maintaining relations with such people when God and His Messenger are acquitting themselves of any dealings with them. “Disavowal by God and His Messenger (is hereby announced)

to those of the idolaters with whom you have made a treaty.” (Verse 1) And a proclamation from God and His Messenger is hereby made to all mankind on this day of the greater pilgrimage: God is free from obligation to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger.” (Verse 3)

The believers are also reassured while the unbelievers are threatened with misery and humiliation. Those who turn away are warned that they cannot escape God’s judgement: “You may go freely in the land for four months, but you must realize that you can never escape God’s judgement, and that God shall bring disgrace upon the unbelievers.” (Verse 2) “If you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never escape Gods judgement. Give the unbelievers the news of grievous suffering.” (Verse 3)

The very idea that idolaters may have a treaty with God and His Messenger is questioned, except for those who had shown true commitment in observing their treaty with honesty. With these the existing treaties were to be honoured for the rest of their terms, as long as the unbelievers remained faithful to them. The believers are warned, however, that the idolaters would try to do them harm whenever they could as also feeling that they would escape punishment. “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters, unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing. How [else could it be] when, should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you? They try to please you with what they say, while at heart they remain adamantly hostile. Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do. They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer. Those indeed are the aggressors.” (Verses 7-10)

The believers are further reminded of their own bitter experiences with them, and their feelings of happiness at the crushing of their enemy by God’s might. “Will you not fight against people who have broken their solemn pledges and set out to drive out the Messenger, and who were the first to attack you? Do you fear them? It is God alone whom you should fear, if you are true believers. Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, and will bring disgrace upon them; and will grant you victory over them and will grant heart felt satisfaction to those who are believers, removing all angry feelings from their hearts. God will turn in His mercy to whom He wills. God is All-knowing and Wise.” (Verses 13-15)

They are told that they must cut themselves off, as far as family relations with the unbelievers were concerned. They are required to weaken the effects of their family ties with the unbelievers. They are told to choose between those ties of blood and friendship on the one hand and God and His Messenger on the other. “Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers for allies if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Those of you who take them for allies are indeed wrongdoers. Say: ‘If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, your clan, and the property you have acquired, and the business in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you take pleasure, are dearer to you than God and His Messenger and the struggle in His cause, then wait until God shall make manifest His will. God does not provide guidance to the evildoers.’’’ (Verses 23-24)

They are also reminded of the numerous victories they achieved with God’s help, the most recent of which was the Battle of Ĥunayn. They were able to achieve victory only when God provided them with His help and gave reassurance to His Messenger who remained steadfast: “God has granted you His support on many a battlefield, and also in the Battle of Ĥunayn, when you took pride in your numerical strength, but it availed you nothing. For all its vastness, the earth seemed too narrow for you, and you turned back in flight. God then bestowed from on high an air of inner peace on His Messenger and on the believers, and He sent down forces whom you could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward for the unbelievers.” (Verses 25-26)

They are also reassured about their provisions, and that they should not fear any loss of trade or lack of business. What they get is subject to God’s will, not to the apparent causes people associate with profitable business: “Believers, know that the idolaters are certainly impure. So, let them not come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. If you fear poverty, then in time God will enrich you with His own bounty, if He so wills. Truly, God is All-knowing, Wise.” (Verse 28)

All these concerns which required reassurance and clear judgement are indicative of the situation that prevailed in the Muslim state in Madinah. Had it not been for the fact that the Muslim community in Madinah was firm in its belief, stable and enlightened, these conditions might have represented a serious threat to it, and to the very existence of Islam itself.

Having given this detailed preview, we now begin to discuss the verses of this passage in more detail.

Disavowal by God and His Messenger [is hereby announced] to those of the idolaters with whom you have made a treaty. (Announce to them:) You may go freely in the land for four months, but you must realize that you can never escape God’s judgement, and that God shall bring disgrace upon the unbelievers. And a proclamation from God and His Messenger is hereby made to all mankind on this day of the greater pilgrimage: God is free from obligation to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. If you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never escape God’s judgement. Give the unbelievers the news of grievous suffering, except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations [under the treaty] in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous. When these months of grace are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakāt, let them go their way. For God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful. If any of the idolaters seeks asylum with you, grant him protection, so that he may hear the word of God, and then convey him to his place of safety. That is because the idolaters are people who lack knowledge. (Verses 1-6) These verses and the following ones, up to verse 28, provide a framework demarcating relations between the Muslim community, now well established in Madinah and the Arabian Peninsula generally, and the unbelievers in Arabia who chose not to accept Islam. Relations were thus regulated with those Arabs who had violated their treaties with the Prophet when they felt that the Muslims were about to meet their match from the Byzantines at Tabūk. Relations were also put on a proper footing with those Arabs without a treaty but who maintained good relations with the Muslims, and those who had a treaty which they continued to observe, entertaining no thoughts of treachery.

The style employed in these verses takes the form of a general declaration coupled with high resonance to ensure perfect harmony between the subject matter, the general atmosphere surrounding the whole issue and the mode of expression.

Several reports speak of the general conditions prevailing at the time when this declaration was made, as well as the method and the person chosen for its announcement. Perhaps the most accurate and more fitting with the prevailing situation of the Muslim community and the nature of the Islamic approach is the one chosen by Ibn Jarīr al-Ţabarī, an early commentator on the Qur’ān. We will quote here some of his comments on the various reports which support our view of the event and how it took place. The following report he attributes to Mujāhid:

In the statement, ‘Disavowal by God and His Messenger [is hereby announced] to those of the idolaters with whom you have made a treaty,’ the reference is made to the tribe of Mudlij and the Arabs bound by a treaty with the Muslims and all other peoples with similar treaties. It is reported that when the Prophet returned from Tabūk, he wanted to go on pilgrimage. He then thought, `the Ka`bah is visited by idolaters who do the ţawāf naked. I would rather delay my pilgrimage until such a practice is stopped.’ He sent Abū Bakr and `Alī who went to see people at Dhu’l-Majāz and other markets, as well as their encampments in pilgrimage. They gave notice to all peoples who had treaties with the Prophet that they would have four months of peace. When those four consecutive months, beginning with the twenty days remaining of Dhu’l-Hijjah to the tenth day of Rabī` II, were over, the treaties would come to an end. All people in Arabia would then be in a state of war with the Muslims unless they believed in God and His Messenger. All the population of Arabia became Muslims and none continued with their old religion.16

Examining the views of other commentators, Imām al-Ţabarī says:

As for the notice given by God permitting idolaters with a treaty to ‘go freely in the land for four months,’ perhaps the more accurate view is to say that this notice is given by God to those idolaters who, despite having peace treaties, collaborated with others against the Prophet and the Muslim community violating their treaties before they ran out. As for those who fulfilled their obligations under such treaties and refrained from collaborating with others, God — limitless is He in His glory — ordered His Messenger to honour his treaty with them until their term had been completed. This is clear in the Qur’ānic statement: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations [under that treaty] in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4)

Some people may feel differently, taking the order to mean that once the truce was over, the Muslims were meant to kill all unbelievers. They may quote in support of their view the next verse which states: ‘When these months of grace are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’ (Verse 5) But this view is wrong. Verse 7 confirms our view and shows the opposite as wrong: ‘How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters, unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing.’ Those people to whom this verse refers are idolaters, and God commands the Prophet and the believers to remain faithful to their treaty with them as long as they kept their part and fulfilled their obligations.

Numerous are the reports which confirm that when the Prophet sent `Alī to declare the disavowal of treaties to people, he also commanded him to make it clear that “whoever had a treaty with the Prophet, that treaty continued until its specified expiration date.” This provides the clearest support of our view. God did not order the Prophet to terminate a treaty with any group of people who remained faithful to it. He only put on four-month notice those who had violated their treaties and those whose treaties had no specified term. The treaties which ran for a specific term and were observed properly by the other side were to remain in force until their term was over. The Prophet sent his Companions to announce this during the pilgrimage, for this would ensure the announcement was well publicized.17

In another comment on the various reports concerning treaties, al- Ţabarī says:

The four-month notice was made to those whom we have mentioned. As for those whose treaties specified a term of expiry, God did not allow the Prophet and the believers to terminate such treaty in any way. Hence, the Prophet fulfilled God’s order and honoured his commitments under these treaties to their final dates. This is clearly stated in God’s revelations, and confirmed by many reports attributed to the Prophet.18

If we discard the reports which are doubtful and overlook those which might have been coloured by the political differences between the Shiah and the Sunnis, we may say with confidence that the Prophet sent Abū Bakr as the leader of pilgrimage that year. The reason for that was that the Prophet did not like to perform the pilgrimage when the idolaters continued with their abominable practice of doing the ţawāf, or the ritual walk around the Ka`bah in the nude. After Abū Bakr had left for pilgrimage, the opening passage of this sūrah, Repentance, was revealed. The Prophet despatched `Alī to join Abū Bakr and make the declaration. He did this outlining all its final provisions at the gathering which ensured that all people in Arabia would be aware of them. Among these provisions was the one which made it clear that no idolater would be allowed in Makkah to do the ţawāf or the pilgrimage.

Al-Tirmidhī relates a report which quotes `Alī as saying: “God’s Messenger sent me after the revelation of the sūrah Repentance to announce four points: no one may do the ţawāf naked, and no idolater may come near the Sacred Mosque after that year, and whoever had a treaty with God’s Messenger, their treaty would be observed until it had expired, and that no one may enter heaven except one who submits totally to God.” This report is the most authentic in this connection.

“Disavowal by God and His Messenger [is hereby announced] to those of the idolaters with whom you have made a treaty.” (Verse 1) This is a general declaration, carrying a sharp rhythm, which outlines the basic principles that governed relations between the Muslims and the idolaters at the time, throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The treaties to which it refers were those that the Prophet had concluded with the idolaters in Arabia. The disavowal of these treaties by God and His Messenger defines the attitude of every Muslim. It generates a very strong impression on Muslim minds to leave no room whatsoever for hesitation or second thought.

This general statement is followed by qualifications and explanations: “[Announce to them:] You may go freely in the land for four months, but you must realize that you can never escape God’s judgement, and that God shall bring disgrace upon the unbelievers.” (Verse 2) This statement clarifies the terms now given to the unbelievers: they are given a period of four months during which they can move about freely to carry out business transactions, fulfil their commitments and modify their situations in peace. Those were four months when they would be sure that their treaties would be scrupulously honoured. That included even those idolaters who were quick to violate their treaties, when they felt that the Prophet and his followers would never return from their expedition to Tabūk, but would instead be taken captive by the Byzantines. That was also the eventuality expected by the hypocrites in Madinah.

It is pertinent to ask here: when was this notice outlining this period of truce and security given? It followed a long period of treaty violations by the unbelievers, whenever they felt that they could get away with it and remain immune from punishment. It came after a long series of events which showed clearly that the idolaters would continue to fight the Muslims until they had turned them away from their faith, if they could. At what period in history was it announced? It was at a time when humanity was governed by the law of the jungle. What dictated relations between communities was merely the ability to invade others: no notice was given, no hint was dropped, no commitment was considered binding. Once the opportunity was there, it was taken mercilessly.

Islam maintains the same position it adopted at the outset, when it was first revealed. Its constitution is outlined by God and its principles and foundations are not meant to be influenced or modified by the passage of time. Time allows human beings to develop and improve their conditions within the framework of Islamic principles. Islam deals with changing human conditions using appropriate methods.

With this four-month notice period, the idolaters are reminded of God’s will which in turn sends fear into their hearts. They are meant to open their eyes to the fact that they can never escape God’s judgement. They cannot seek refuge against what God has determined for them, which was certain disgrace and humiliation:

“You must realize that you can never escape God’s judgement, and that God shall bring disgrace upon the unbelievers.” (Verse 2) How could they escape God’s judgement and what refuge could they seek when they, and the whole world, were in His grasp? He has predetermined to inflict misery and disgrace on the unbelievers. No power can ever stop God’s will.

This is followed by specifying the time when this disavowal was to be announced to the unbelievers, so that they would be fully aware of the time limits it included:

“And a proclamation from God and His Messenger is hereby made to all mankind on this day of the greater pilgrimage: God is free from obligation to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger.

If you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never escape God’s judgement. Give the unbelievers the news of grievous suffering.” (Verse 3)

Reports vary on which is the day of the greater pilgrimage: the day of `Arafāt or the day of sacrifice? It is perhaps more accurate to say that it is the day of sacrifice. The Arabic term used in this passage for `proclamation’ signifies an assurance that those to whom the proclamation is made have received it. This properly took place during the pilgrimage, when the disavowal by God and His Messenger of all treaties with all idolaters was made. An exception was then added in the next verse which allowed certain treaties to run their term. This is most appropriate. First the general principle is outlined because it is the one which constitutes the permanent situation.

Then the exception is made because it applied to specific cases that would end once the term specified had been reached.

With the termination of all treaties and the proclamation of absolute disavowal, the unbelievers are encouraged once again to seek and follow divine guidance and warned against the consequences of remaining in error: “If you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never escape God’s judgement.

Give the unbelievers the news of grievous suffering.” (Verse 3)

This warning and encouragement to the unbelievers to mend their ways, coming as they do in this particular context of disavowal of treaties, are indicative of the Islamic approach. It is first and foremost an approach seeking to give guidance to people. The idolaters are given this four-month grace period not only because Islam does not like to take them by surprise but also because it does not want to inflict on them unnecessary humiliation. These have always been the essence of power relations, except under Islam. The truce also gives the idolaters a chance to reflect and reconsider their options. Hence they are encouraged to choose divine guidance and turn back to God in submission. They are warned against turning away and shown that it will inevitably lead them to a position of grievous suffering in the hereafter, which compounds their humiliation in this life.

At the same time it provides reassurance to the Muslims which removes any lingering worries or fears of what may happen. The whole matter has been determined by God Himself. The eventual outcome has been sealed.

The exception is then made in the case of treaties specifying a term of validity.

These were allowed to remain in force for the rest of their term: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations [under the treaty] in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4)

Perhaps the most accurate report concerning the identity of those people who benefited by this exception is that they were a clan of Bakr, named the Khuzaymah ibn `Āmir clan of the Bakr ibn Kinānah tribe. They were party to the Treaty of al Ĥudaybiyah which the Prophet had concluded with the Quraysh and their allies.

This clan did not take part in the attack made by the Bakr against the Khuzā`ah tribe.

That aggression, in which the Bakr were aided by the Quraysh, violated the alĤudaybiyah peace treaty. Thus, that treaty which was to last for ten years, was treacherously breached after only two years. This Khuzaymah clan continued to observe the terms of their agreement while other unbelievers did not. The Prophet is here instructed to honour his obligations under the treaty to those people for the rest of the term agreed.

This report which we endorse is related by Muĥammad ibn `Abbād ibn Ja`far, who quotes al-Suddī as saying: “These were two clans of Kinānah known as Đamrah and Mudlij.” Mujāhid, an authoritative early scholar says: “The tribes of Mudlij and Khuzā`ah had entered into treaties and these were the ones meant in the instruction:

“To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4) It should be noted, however, that the Khuzā`ah tribe embraced Islam after the conquest of Makkah, but this statement of exception applied to the idolaters who did not accept Islam.

Our view is confirmed by a statement that follows: “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters, unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing.” (Verse 7) These two clans from Kinānah were among those who were party to the peace treaty at al-Ĥudaybiyah. They did not violate their treaty and were true to their obligations under it, aiding no party against the Muslims. It is to these, then, that the exception applies, as confirmed by early scholars and commentators on the Qur’ān, and by Shaikh Muĥammad Rashīd Riđā.

Muĥammad `Izzat Darwazah, however, expresses his opinion that the phrase, “with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque,” refers to a group of people other than those mentioned in the first exception. This is in line with his view which permits the negotiating and concluding of permanent treaties with idolaters. Relying on the instruction, “so long as they are true to you, be true to them,” he concludes that Islam does not object to the negotiation of treaties with unbelievers. This view seems extremely odd and does not fit with the nature of the Islamic method of operation and general attitudes.

Islam has honoured its obligations to those who were true to theirs. It did not give them notice of termination, as it did with all others. It allowed their treaties to run their term in recognition of their faithful observance of their obligations. This was the Islamic attitude, although Islam was in urgent need of eradicating all idolatry from the whole of Arabia, so that the Peninsula could become its safe base. The enemies of Islam in neighbouring countries were alerted to the danger to themselves that Islam represented. They began to make preparations for an eventual encounter with the Muslims, as we will explain in our discussion of the Tabūk Expedition. Indeed, the earlier Battle of Mu`tah served as a warning of the preparations the Byzantines had started for a battle with Islam. Moreover, they were in alliance with the Persians in Yemen, in southern Arabia.

Subsequent events, as mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim, witnessed that all those in whose favour the exception was made and with whom treaties were to be observed embraced Islam before their treaties expired. Indeed the others who were keen to violate their treaties as well as the rest of those put on four-month notice also opted for acceptance of Islam. No one remained an idolater for the rest of the four-month notice.

As He determined the path of the Islamic message and the various steps it would take in practical matters, God was aware that it was time for this decisive step which represented a final attack at the roots of idolatry. Suitable preparations were made for such a decisive step, which took place in accordance with God’s design for the progress of His message.

It is important to reflect on the comment which concludes the verse that requires the Muslims to remain true to their obligations: “To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4) It relates the fulfilment of obligations to righteousness and to God’s love of the righteous.

Thus, God makes the fulfilment of obligations to people an act of worship addressed to Him and an aspect of the righteousness He loves. This is the basis of Islamic ethics.

Islam does not act on the basis of gain and interest, or on the basis of constantly changing traditions. All Islamic ethics are based on worshipping God and fearing Him, which is the essence of righteousness. A Muslim brings his behaviour in line with that which he knows to please God. His aim is to win God’s pleasure and to ensure that He is not displeased with him. This is the essence of the strong hold Islamic ethics have on Muslims. These ethics also serve people’s interests and work for their benefit. They establish a society in which friction and contradiction are reduced as much as possible. They also help human beings in their continuous march to a higher standard of humanity.

Thus the opening verses of the sūrah make it clear that God and His Messenger would have no dealings whatsoever with the idolaters, whether or not they had a treaty with the Prophet. They were given a four-month period of grace in which they were safe. When this period was over, treaties would continue to be observed to the end of their terms, but only with those who were true to their obligations under those treaties, and did not collaborate with any enemy of the Muslims. Now the sūrah mentions what the Muslims were to do when the four-month grace period was over.

The Qur’ānic instruction is very clear. A state of all-out war was then to be declared: “When these months of grace are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakāt, let them go their way. For God is Much forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 5)

The word which is used here to describe those four months in the Qur’ānic text is ‘ĥurum’, which is the one that describes the four months when fighting is not allowed except to repel aggression. These form two periods every year when people can go freely, secure from any danger of war. Because of the same usage scholars have disagreed in their interpretations of this statement here, on whether the four months meant the same ones observed annually, i.e. Dhu’l-Qa`dah, Dhu’l-Ĥijjah, Muĥarram and Rajab. In that case, the remaining period of grace given after the declaration of the termination of treaties would only be the rest of Dhu’l-Hijjah and Muĥarram, i.e.

50 days. Or were these four months, when fighting was forbidden, to start on the day of sacrifice and to end on 10 Rabī` II? A third point of view suggests that the first interpretation applies in the case of those who had violated their treaties and the second applies to those who did not have any treaty and those who had treaties with an unspecified duration.

The correct interpretation, in our view, is that the four months meant here are different from the four sacred months observed annually. The same description is given to both because fighting during them is forbidden. This new period of grace also applied to all, except in the case of those who had treaties lasting for a specified length of time, in which case such treaties were to be honoured in full. Since God has said to them: “You may go freely in the land for four months,” then the four months must start from the day when the announcement was made to them. This fits with the nature of this announcement.

God’s instructions to the Muslims were clear: when the four months were over, they were to kill any idolater wherever he was found, or they were to take him captive, or besiege him if he was in a fortified place, or lie in wait for him so that he could not escape without punishment, except for those to whom obligations were to be observed for as long as their treaties remained in force. Indeed the idolaters were given enough notice, which meant that they were not taken by surprise. Nor did they fall victim to any treachery. Their treaties were terminated publicly and they were made fully aware of what was to be done with them.

Moreover, this was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam. “If they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakāt, let them go their way. For God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 5) For 22 years they had been listening to the message of Islam put to them in the clearest possible way. For 22 years they were, nevertheless, trying to suppress the message of Islam by persecution, open warfare and forging alliances to destroy the Islamic state. This was a long history that contrasted with the never failing tolerance of Islam, as demonstrated by God’s Messenger and his Companions.

Nevertheless, Islam was now opening its arms to them. Instructions are here issued to the Prophet and the Muslims, the very victims of persecution who were driven out of their homeland and suffered a war of aggression, to extend a hand of welcome to those idolaters should they turn to God in repentance. Such repentance should be genuine, confirmed by their observance of the main duties of Islam. That is because God never rejects anyone who turns to Him in sincere repentance, no matter how great his sins are: “For God is Much forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 5)

We do not here want to go into any of the arguments which are frequently found in books of commentary on the Qur’ān or Islamic jurisprudence, i.e. fiqh, concerning the proviso mentioned in this verse: “If they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakāt, let them go their way.” (Verse 5) These arguments discuss whether these are the essential conditions of being a Muslim, in the sense that a person who does not observe them is considered an unbeliever. They also discuss whether these are sufficient for the acceptance of anyone who declares repentance without going into the other basic duties of Islam. We do not feel this verse is concerned with any such argument. Rather, it simply tackles a real situation involving the idolaters in Arabia at the time. None of these would have declared their repentance, prayed regularly and paid the zakāt without the full intention of submitting themselves to God and being Muslims in the full sense of the word. Hence the Qur’ānic verse specifies the declaration of repentance, regular prayers and zakāt payment as a mark of the acceptance of Islam in full with all its conditions and significance. The first of these is naturally the submission to God by declaring one’s belief that there is no deity other than God and belief in the Prophet Muĥammad’s message by declaring that Muĥammad is God’s Messenger. This verse is not, then, about making any rulings on legal matters, but it outlines practical steps to deal with a particular situation where certain circumstances applied.

Yet despite the declaration of war against all the idolaters after the four months are over, Islam continues to demonstrate its grace as well as its serious and realistic approach. It does not seek to exterminate all idolaters. On the contrary, it also declares a campaign of guidance whenever that is possible. Individual idolaters who are not part of a hostile and belligerent community are guaranteed safety in the land of Islam. God instructs His Messenger to give them asylum so that they may listen to God’s word and become aware of the nature of the Islamic message before they are given safe conduct to their own domiciles. All this, even though they are still idolaters: “If any of the idolaters seeks asylum with you, grant him protection, so that he may hear the word of God, and then convey him to his place of safety. That is because the idolaters are people who lack knowledge.” (Verse 6)

This shows how Islam was keen to reach out to every heart with its guidance. No single case was to be taken lightly. Whoever appeals for protection shall be granted it. Anyone who seeks such asylum cannot at the same time try to join a hostile force seeking to undermine the Muslim community. Hence granting protection to such a person provides him with the opportunity to listen to the Qur’ān and to get to know the true nature of the Islamic faith. When God’s word is heard in such an atmosphere, hearts may well respond positively. Even if they do not, the Muslims are still required to ensure the safety of anyone who appeals for their help until he is returned to a place where he feels secure.

This is one of the sublime heights to which Islam raises its community. Protection is provided for an idolater, an enemy who might have participated in persecution of the Muslims themselves. Now they are required to give him safe conduct until he has reached a place where he feels secure outside the Muslim state. This is a mark of the Islamic method of action. It is a method of guidance, and guidance remains its ultimate goal even when its efforts are concentrated on the protection of the land of Islam.

Yet some people claim that the purpose of Islamic jihād was to compel people to accept Islam. There are others who try to defend Islam against such a charge by claiming that jihād was merely a war of self defence within national borders. Both need to look at this great instruction given to the Prophet and the Muslim community: “If any of the idolaters seeks asylum with you, grant him protection, so that he may hear the word of God, and then convey him to his place of safety. That is because the idolaters are people who lack knowledge.” (Verse 6)

This religion seeks to provide knowledge to those who lack such knowledge, and to give protection to whoever appeals for protection, even though they may belong to the enemy camp and who might have fought to suppress the Islamic message. It resorts to the use of force only to destroy physical forces that prevent people from listening to God’s word and stop them from knowing what He has revealed. Such forces deprive them of the chance to follow God’s guidance and force them into submission to beings other than God. When such physical forces have been destroyed and impediments have been removed, individuals are given protection, despite choosing to remain unbelievers. Islam only informs them of God’s word without subjecting them to fear or pressure, and grants them protection and security, the fact that they continue to reject God’s message notwithstanding. There are countless regimes extant today where the dissenter has no sense of security for his life, property, honour or human rights. Yet people who see this taking place in front of their own eyes try to defend Islam against this false charge by distorting the image of the divine message. They try to portray Islam as nothing more than a passive message that confronts swords and guns with nothing more than words, whether in our own time or at any other time.

This is, then, an outline of the final rulings that determine the relations between the Muslim community and the remaining idolaters in Arabia. They mean an end to the state based on peace agreements with all idolaters, after four months in some cases and at the end of their specified terms in others. The eventual outcome of these rulings is that there will only be one of two situations: either repentance, mending of ways, attending to prayers and payment of zakāt, which in essence means the acceptance of Islam, or fighting idolaters, taking them captive and chasing them out of their hiding places.

This termination of the state of peace based on treaties and agreements is followed by a rhetorical question stating that it is just not possible that idolaters should have such covenants with God and His Messenger. The very principle of having such agreements is rejected outright: “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7)

This outright denunciation, coming as it does in the verses that follow the opening ones, may be understood to abrogate the first rulings which allowed the continued observance of treaties with those who fulfilled their obligations under those rulings and did not provide any assistance to any group hostile to the Muslim community.

In order to dispel any such misunderstanding, the ruling is restated once more:

“Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing.” (Verse 7)

This restatement adds a new provision. The first instruction required the Muslims to honour their obligations to those who had shown their true commitment to their peace agreements and fulfilled their own obligations under such agreements. Now the instruction to keep faith with them is qualified, making it clear that the Muslims were to honour their obligations to them for as long as they themselves continued to observe their treaties in full, as they did in the past. Here we note the careful phraseology of texts relating to dealings, transactions and relations with others.

Implicit understanding is not sufficient. It is followed by a clear statement.

Considering the different aspects that prevailed in the Muslim community at the time and the way this decisive step was likely to be received by the Muslim community, the sūrah reminds the Muslims of the true nature of the idolaters, their feelings, intentions and attitudes towards the Muslims. We are told by God Himself that the idolaters will never respect an agreement or honour an obligation or observe a moral value or a tradition once they are sure they can get away with such treachery. Hence, they cannot be trusted to honour their obligations. The only way is for them to accept Islam and show their commitment to it.

“How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7) The idolaters do not submit themselves truly to God, nor do they acknowledge His Messenger or the message he conveys to them. How could they, then, have a treaty with God and His Messenger? They do not simply deny a creature like themselves, or a constitution devised by human beings. Rather, they deny the One who has created them and continues to provide them with sustenance to preserve their lives.

By so doing they place themselves in opposition to God and His Messenger. How is it conceivable, then, that they should have a treaty with them? The rhetorical question posed by the sūrah addresses the very principle of having such a treaty. It is not concerned with any particular application of the principle.

It may be said here that some of the idolaters had such treaties and God ordered that some of these treaties must be honoured. There were also treaties concluded after the establishment of the Muslim state in Madinah, some of which were with the idolaters and some with the Jews. Moreover, the peace agreement of al-Ĥudaybiyah was signed in the sixth year of the Islamic calendar. Earlier sūrahs included verses that clearly permitted such treaties, although they also permitted the termination of such treaties in case of surmised or actual treachery. So if it is the very principle of having agreements that is condemned here, how was it possible that such treaties were permitted and concluded?

Such an argument does not stand when we understand the nature of the Islamic method of operation, which we discussed in the introductions to this sūrah and the preceding one, The Spoils of War. These treaties dealt with existing situations with adequate means. The final ruling, however, is that the idolaters should not have any treaty with God and His Messenger. These treaties were made under provisional rulings. Otherwise, the ultimate goal of the movement which aims to establish Islam is that there should not be any idolatry on the face of the earth. All submission must be to God alone. Islam has declared this ultimate goal from the very first day, deceiving no one. The prevailing circumstances in a certain period made it necessary to conclude a peace agreement with those who wanted peace so that it could deal with those hostile forces trying to suppress its message. Islam does not lose sight of its ultimate goal. It does not overlook the fact that the idolaters themselves looked at those agreements as only temporary. They were bound to launch new aggressions against the Muslim community. They would not leave the Muslims alone when they were aware of the aim of Islam. They would not remain at peace with the Muslim community for long when they had completed their preparations for a new confrontation. God said to the believers right at the beginning: “They shall not cease to fight you until they force you to renounce your faith, if they can.” (2: 217) This continues to be their attitude at all times. The verse describes a permanent situation, not one that applies in certain circumstances.

Although the principle itself is denounced, God has permitted the honouring of treaties with those who continued to honour their obligations. He only made the proviso that this should be reciprocated, which means that treaties were to be honoured by the Muslims as long as the idolaters continued to honour them: “Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God- fearing.” (Verse 7)

Unlike what some contemporary commentators have understood, those people who had a treaty signed at the Sacred Mosque were the same group as they to whom reference was made earlier in the sūrah: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations (under the treaty) in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4) The two verses refer to the same group. However, the first reference makes an exception in their case as opposed to all those whose treaties are terminated. They are mentioned again in verse 7, in connection with the denunciation of the principle of making peace agreements with idolaters. Their second mention is necessary to make it clear that there is no abrogation of the first ruling in their favour. The righteous and the Godfearing are mentioned on both occasions, using the same Arabic word for both, and highlighting the fact that God loves those who are righteous and God-fearing, to indicate that the subject matter is the same. The second statement completes the conditions stated earlier. In the first, their past attitude of honouring their obligations is mentioned, and in the second the condition of their continued observance of these obligations is made clear. The careful phraseology requires that both statements are taken together to grasp the meaning in full.

The principle of making peace with the idolaters is then denounced on historical and practical grounds, after it had been denounced on grounds of faith. Both sets of reasons are grouped together in the verses that follow: “How (else could it be) when, should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you? They try to please you with what they say, while at heart they remain adamantly hostile. Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do.They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer. Those indeed are the aggressors.” (Verses 8-10)

How is it conceivable that the idolaters should have a covenant with God and His Messenger when they do not make any agreement with you unless they are unable to overcome you? Should they prevail over you, they would subject you to their wrath, observing no agreement, honouring no commitment and heeding no moral or ethical value. They would respect no pledge and allow no limit in the punishment they would inflict on you if only they could prevail against you in war. They would not even respect the values of their own society, risking any criticism they might incur for not abiding by these limits. No matter what agreements they may have with you, their blind hatred of you causes them to trespass all limits and violate all commitments, if only they can prevail over you. What prevents them from doing that now is not the sort of agreements they have with you. They are only prevented by the fact that they cannot achieve victory over you in battle. Now that you are too strong for them, they try to please you with what they say and by showing that they are true to their commitments. But in truth, their hearts are full of grudges against you. With such heart-burning animosity, they will always wish you ill. They have no desire to be in a relation of friendship with you and they harbour no good intention towards you.

“Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do.” (Verses 8-9) There is a basic reason for their treacherous attitude: that they are transgressors who have deviated widely from God’s guidance. They have bartered away God’s revelations for a paltry price in the shape of fleeting pleasures and temporary comforts. They fear that adopting Islam will deny them some or all of these interests or that it may involve some financial cost. Hence they do not merely refuse to accept Islam, but they also try to debar others from its path. This is, then, the result of the deal they made when they exchanged God’s message for a paltry price. Hence, they turn away from God’s path and debar others from following it. What they do is evil indeed, as God Himself states: “Evil indeed is what they do.” (Verse 9)

The grudge they harbour is not directed against you personally, nor are their evil actions levelled at you as individuals or a particular group. Their grudge is against every believer, and their evil deeds shall always be levelled against every Muslim. It is an animosity directed at the very Duality of faith, or indeed against faith itself.

This has always been the case with the enemies of faith, in all periods of history.

Thus said the sorcerers to Pharaoh when he threatened them with torture, vengeance and a woeful doom: “You want to take vengeance on us only because we have believed in the signs of our Lord when they were shown to us.” (7: 126) The same was said by the Prophet, on God’s instructions, to the people of earlier revelations who opposed him:

“Say: ‘People of earlier revelations! Do you find fault with us for any reason other than we believe in God alone?’” (5: 59) In reference to the People of the Pit who in former times burned the believers with their women and children, God says: “They took vengeance on them for no reason other than that they believed in God, the Almighty, the Praised One.” (85: 8)

Faith is then the cause of all their hatred for the believers. Hence their ill-will and atrocities are directed against every believer: “They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer. Those indeed are the aggressors.” (Verse 10)

It is in their nature that they are aggressors. Their aggression begins with their hatred of the divine faith and their rejection of its message. It is their aggression that leads them to stand in opposition to faith and adopt a hostile attitude to the believers, respecting no treaty or obligation of honour. Hence, should they prevail and feel that they can get away with what they want, they will resort to any atrocity without limit.

God then gives His instructions on how the believers should react to this state of affairs: “Yet, if they repent, take to prayers and pay the zakāt, they are your brethren in faith.

Clear do We make Our revelations to people of knowledge. But if they break their pledges after having concluded a treaty with you, and revile your religion, then fight these archetypes of faithlessness who have no [respect for a] binding pledge; so that they may desist.” (Verses 11- 12)

In view of such a long history as well as the nature of the inevitable battle between God’s message, which seeks to free mankind from subjugation by other creatures in order that they submit to God alone, and jāhiliyyah systems which seek to make some people tyrannize over others, God gives a very clear and decisive directive to the Muslims: “Yet, if they repent, take to prayers and pay the zakāt, they are your brethren in faith. Clear do We make Our revelations to people of knowledge. But if they break their pledges after having concluded a treaty with you, and revile your religion, then fight these archetypes of faithlessness who have no respect for a binding pledge, so that they may desist.” (Verses 11-12)

The choice before them, then, is clear. They may accept what the Muslims have accepted and repent of whatever aggression and transgression they have committed.

In this case, the Muslims will forgive them for whatever they might have committed against them in the past. A new relationship will then be established which makes these new Muslims brothers of the older Muslims and the past is forgiven and forgotten altogether: “Clear do We make Our revelations to people of knowledge.” (Verse 11) These rulings are best appreciated and acted upon by the people of knowledge who are the believers.

Having made pledges and concluded a treaty with the believers, the other choice they had was to violate their pledges and speak ill of the Islamic faith. In such a situation they would assume the leadership of disbelief and faithlessness. No treaty would be valid in their favour and no obligation to them need be respected. The Muslims are required then to fight them, for they may, perchance, reflect on their situation and see the truth for what it is. As we have already said, the strength of the Islamic camp and its success in jihād may influence people to recognize its truth.

They would thus see that the truth is triumphant because of its being the truth and because it relies on God’s power and support. They would recognize that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was only saying the truth when he told them that God, and His Messenger, are overpowering. That should lead them to repentance for their past misdeeds and a resolve to follow divine guidance, not by force and compulsion, but through conviction that often comes as a result of seeing the truth triumphant.

It is now pertinent to ask: to what stages of history and to what communities do these statements apply? What sort of historical and social dimensions apply to them?

Are they valid only in the case of Arabia at the time of revelation? Or do they extend to other times and places? These verses reflect a situation that prevailed at the time in Arabia between the Muslims and the camp of idolatry. There is no doubt that the rulings they outline deal with that situation; the idolaters they mention are those in Arabia at that particular time. All this is true; but how far are they applicable and in which situations? In order to answer these questions, we need to review the attitudes idolaters have adopted towards the believers throughout history.

As for the Arabian stage, the events that took place during the lifetime of the Prophet are sufficient to give us a clear answer. In our commentary on this sūrah alone we have enough information to describe the attitude of the idolaters towards this religion and its followers ever since its early days in Makkah up to the time of the revelation of these verses. It is true that the later and much longer-lasting conflict was between Islam on the one hand and the Jews and Christians on the other, rather than between Islam and idolatry. Nevertheless, the idolaters have always adopted the same attitude towards Muslims as described in these verses: “How [else could it be] when, should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you? They try to please you with what they say, while at heart they remain adamantly hostile. Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do.

They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer. Those indeed are the aggressors.” (Verses 8-10) As for the people of earlier revelations, i.e. the Jews and Christians, and their attitude towards the Muslims, this will be discussed at length in Chapter 2 of this volume. We need to reflect now on the history of the idolaters with the Muslims.

If we consider that Islam, which is the faith based on the principle of submission to God alone, concluded, rather than started, with the message of the Prophet Muĥammad, we are bound to recognize that the attitude of idolaters towards every one of God’s Messengers and to divine messages reflects the attitude of idolatry towards faith. This should place matters in the right perspective. We see this attitude for what it is in reality, as truthfully described in these Qur’ānic verses. It is an attitude that we recognize in all periods of history.

What did the idolaters do to those noble prophets and messengers: Noah, Hūd, Şāliĥ, Abraham, Shu`ayb, Moses, Jesus, (peace be upon them all), each in his own time? And what did they do to the Prophet Muĥammad and his followers? They certainly respected no agreement or obligation of honour, until they had been overcome. Again, what did the idolaters do to the Muslims in the second great campaign mounted against Islam, when the banner of idolatry was this time hoisted by the Tartars? Even today, fourteen centuries after the revelation of these verses, what is being done to the Muslims by the idolaters and the atheists everywhere?

They simply do what the Qur’ān states: “They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer” (Verse 10)

When the Tartars won victory over the Muslims in Baghdad, an unprecedented massacre took place. We will mention here only a brief account of what is recorded by the historian Ibn Kathīr in his book, al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah, as he describes the events of the year 656 H. (1258 CE):

When the Tartars descended on the city of Baghdad, they killed whomever they met of men, women and children, young and old. Many people tried to hide in wells, rubbish dumps and sewers, where they stayed for several days.

Some people locked themselves in inns and guesthouses, but the Tartars broke into every such house, and chased the people they found there to the roofs where they killed them. Gutters and alleys were overflowing with blood, and so were mosques and other places of worship. The only survivors were the Jews and the Christians in the city and those who sought refuge with them, and those who were given shelter in the house of Ibn al-`Alqamī, the Shi`ite minister. A group of businessmen were also spared and given safety after they had paid large sums of money for the purpose. Baghdad, which used to be the most friendly and peaceful of cities, was totally in ruin, inhabited only by a small portion of its original population, and even these were living in fear, hunger and humiliation.

Reports on the number of the Muslims killed in Baghdad in this battle vary, with some estimating the dead to be eight hundred thousands, while other reports suggest the dead numbered a million, and still others putting the estimate at two million people. We can only say what Muslims are recommended to say at the time of a calamity: “To God we belong and to Him do we return... All power belongs to God, the Most High, the Almighty.” The Tartars entered Baghdad towards the end of the month of Muĥarram, and continued the killing of its population for forty days. The Caliph, Al- Musta`şim Billāh, was killed on Wednesday, 14 Şafar and his grave was erased. On the day of his death he was 46 years of age and 4 months. His reign lasted for 15 years, 8 months and a few days. His eldest son, Aĥmad Abū al-`Abbās, was killed at the same time at the age of 25, while his middle son, `Abd al-Raĥmān, who was 23, was killed a short while later. His youngest son, Mubārak, and his three sisters, Fāţimah, Khadījah and Maryam, were taken prisoner.

The most prominent scholar in Baghdad, Shaikh Yūsuf ibn Shaikh Abū al- Faraj ibn al-Jawzī, who was hostile to the Minister, was killed together with his three sons, `Abdullāh, `Abd al-Raĥmān and `Abd al-Karīm. All the nobility in the city were killed one by one. Prominent among these were Mujāhid al-Dīn Aybak, and Shihāb al-Dīn Sulaymān Shāh and many others.

Anyone who belonged to the `Abbās ruling family might be called out, and he would have to go with his women and children to al-Khallāl graveyard, where he would be slaughtered like a sheep. The Tartars might choose some of his daughters or other women in his household to keep as prisoners. The most prominent and eldest scholar in Baghdad, `Alī ibn al-Nayyār, who had educated the Caliph when he was young, was also killed as well as most imāms and scholars in the city. Mosques were abandoned and no congregational or Friday prayer was held in any mosque for several months in Baghdad.

After forty days, when the massacre was over, Baghdad was in total ruin, with only the odd person walking about. Dead bodies were placed in heaps in the streets. Rain had changed their colour and their bodies had begun to rot. The smell in the city was most awful and there were outbreaks of several diseases which moved far and wide, reaching as far as Syria. People were then facing scarcity of necessary commodities, an unabating massacre, as well as epidemics. Those were indeed hard times.

When safety was announced for the survivors, those who were hiding in holes and graveyards came out. They looked so pale as though they were brought back from the dead. They were practically unrecognizable, to the extent that a father might not recognize his son, and brothers might not recognize each other. They were vulnerable to any disease and many of them soon died....19

Such were the facts of history when the idolaters overpowered the Muslims. They respected no provision of any treaty, nor any obligation of honour. The question to be asked here is whether this was an isolated episode of ancient history, typical only of the Tartars at that particular period of time?

The answer is certainly a negative one. In modern history we find examples of similarly ghastly atrocities. What the Indian idolaters did at the time of the partition of India is by no means less hideous or appalling than what the Tartars of old did.

Eight million Muslims decided to migrate to Pakistan when they were in fear of their lives as a result of the barbaric attacks launched against those Muslims who decided to stay in India. Only three million of them managed to reach the Pakistani borders.

The other five million were killed on the way. They were attacked by well organized Hindu militia. These were well known to the Indian government, and indeed were controlled by some highly placed officials in the Indian government itself. Those five million Muslims were slaughtered like sheep. Their bodies were left along the roads after many of them were disfigured in a way which was no less horrendous than what the Tartars of old did in Baghdad.

The most horrible single incident was that involving the train which carried no less than 50,000 Muslim employees from different parts of India on their way to Pakistan. It was agreed at the time when the partition agreement was made that any government official who wanted to migrate to Pakistan would be allowed to do so.

The train carried all those thousands of employees. It had to travel through a tunnel at the Khaybar Pass close to the borders, but when the train came out of the tunnel, it carried no living soul. Its cargo was nothing other than the dead bodies of all its passengers, having been torn to pieces. What happened was that those same Hindu militia stopped the train inside the tunnel and killed all its passengers. The train was allowed to proceed only when this most ghastly massacre was over. God certainly tells the truth as He says: “Should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you?” (Verse 8) Such massacres continue to be committed in a variety of ways.

We then ask what have Communist Russia and China done to their Muslim populations? Within a quarter of a century they exterminated 26 million of them, with an average of one million a year. The policy of exterminating the Muslims is still going on. This is not to say anything about the horrible methods of torture that have become common practice in those countries. Only this year,20 the Chinese sector of Muslim Turkmanistan witnessed events that outbid all the Tartars’ atrocities. A leading figure of the Muslim community was placed in a hole specially dug for him in the middle of the road. Members of his community were forced to bring their stools, which were normally used by the state in the manufacture of fertilizers, and throw them on their leader standing in his hole. This continued for three days until the man slowly suffocated and died.

Communist Yugoslavia has also been guilty of similar atrocities against its Muslim population. One million Muslim people have been killed there since the Communist takeover in that country at the end of the Second World War. Muslim men and women were thrown into meat mincers to come out as a minced whole. This is only an example of the continuing massacres and torture being committed there.

The same sort of evil tactics are employed by all Communist and pagan countries, even today in the twentieth century. True indeed is God’s statement: “Should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you.” (Verse 8) “They respect neither agreement nor obligation of honour with regard to any believer. Those indeed are the aggressors.” (Verse 10)

God’s description of the unbelievers’ attitude towards the Muslims is not limited to a special situation that prevailed in Arabia at a particular period of history. Nor was what happened in Baghdad at the hands of the Tartars an isolated case. Indeed that statement describes a typical attitude that we meet everywhere, whenever a community of believers who submit themselves to God alone are confronted by idolaters or atheists who submit to beings other than God.

Hence, although these statements were meant to deal with a particular situation in the Arabian Peninsula, and outlined a framework for dealing with the idolaters in Arabia, they have far greater significance. They, in fact, address any similar situation, wherever it takes place. They are to be acted upon whenever their implementation is possible as was the case in Arabia. It is the Muslims’ ability to put them into effect that counts, not the particular circumstances that led to their revelation.

Will you not fight against people who have broken their solemn pledges and set out to drive out the Messenger, and who were the first to attack you? Do you fear them? It is God alone whom you should fear, if you are true believers. Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, and will bring disgrace upon them; and will grant you victory over them and will grant heart felt satisfaction to those who are believers, removing all angry feelings from their hearts. God will turn in His mercy to whom He wills. God is All-knowing and Wise. Do you think that you will be left alone, unless God takes cognizance of those of you who strive hard for His cause and establish close association with none other than God, His Messenger and the believers? God is well aware of what you do. (Verses 13-16)

These verses come immediately after questions have been raised over the very principle of a treaty or a covenant being granted to the idolaters by God and His Messenger. In the same verses the idolaters were given the choice either to accept the faith based on submission to God alone or open warfare, except for the person who may seek refuge with the Muslims. Such a person is given shelter and made to listen to God’s revelations before he is given safe conduct to his place of security. The reason for questioning the principle itself is that the idolaters will never respect any agreement or obligation of honour with regard to any believer when they prevail over the Muslims.

These verses are given here to answer any doubts felt within the Muslim community, at all levels, and the reluctance of some of the believers to take such drastic action by terminating existing treaties. It also responds to the desire felt on the part of some believers that the remaining idolaters in Arabia would eventually come round to recognize the truth of the Islamic message and accept it without the need to fight them, with all that a war involves of risk to life and property.

The Qur’ān answers all these feelings and fears by reminding the Muslims of their own experiences of the idolaters’ attitude to their treaties with the believers. It reminds them of the time when the idolaters tried to expel God’s Messenger from Makkah before he left to settle in Madinah. It also reminds them that it was the idolaters who were the aggressors when they first attacked the Muslims in Madinah.

It then arouses their sense of shame if they fear confronting the idolaters on the battlefield. If they are true believers, then they should fear God alone. It encourages them to fight the unbelievers, so that God may inflict punishment on them at their hands. This means that the believers would be the means to accomplish God’s will when He determines to punish His enemies and bring about their humiliation, giving at the same time satisfaction to the believers who have suffered at their hands.

These verses also answer the excuses that are made to justify a reluctance to fight those idolaters, including the hope that those unbelievers might eventually accept Islam without the need to fight them. The Muslims are told that true hope should be pinned on the victory of the Muslims in the war against them. When the idolaters are defeated by God’s will, some of them may turn to God in repentance and accept Islam. Finally, these verses draw the attentions of the believers to the fact that it is only God’s will that He tests believers with such duties so that they may prove themselves. Such laws which God has set in operation will continue to apply as long as human life on earth remains.

“Will you not fight against people who have broken their solemn pledges and set out to drive out the Messenger, and who were the first to attack you? Do you fear them? It is God alone whom you should fear, if you are true believers.” (Verse 13) The whole history of the idolaters with the believers is one of violating solemn pledges and breaching agreements. The most recent example was the violation of the peace treaty concluded at al-Ĥudaybiyah. Acting on instructions from his Lord, the Prophet accepted in that agreement their conditions which were felt by some of his best Companions to be totally unfair to the Muslims. He fulfilled his obligations under that agreement as meticulously as possible. For their part, the idolaters did not respect their agreement, nor did they fulfil their obligations. Within two years, and at the first opportunity, they committed a flagrant breach of their obligations, extending active support to their allies who launched a treacherous attack against the Prophet’s allies.

Moreover, it was the idolaters who tried to expel the Prophet from Makkah, and who were determined finally to kill him. This was before he migrated to Madinah. It was in the Sacred Mosque, the Inviolable House of Worship, where even a murderer was sure to be unharmed. Anyone might meet there someone who had killed his father or brother and he would not lift a finger against him. In the case of Muĥammad, God’s Messenger who advocated submission to God alone and the following of His guidance, they did not respect even that obligation of honour. They did not even respect their traditions which they observed even with vengeance killers. They went as far as plotting to kill him in the Sacred Mosque itself.

It was also the idolaters who tried to fight the Muslims in Madinah. Under Abū Jahl’s leadership, they insisted on fighting the Muslims after their trade caravan had been able to escape. They went on the offensive in the Battles of Uĥud and the Moat, and they mobilized other tribes against the believers in the Battle of Ĥunayn. All these encounters and events were still fresh in the memories of the believers. They all confirm the persistent attitude of the idolaters which is described by God in the Qur’ān: “They shall not cease to fight you until they force you to renounce your faith, if they can.” (2: 217) This is clear in the nature of the relationship between the camp which worships all sorts of deities and the one which worships God alone.

After this reminder, God asks them: “Do you fear them?” (Verse 13) They should not refrain from fighting the idolaters, after this long history of treachery, unless they were afraid of them. But this question is followed by a statement which stirs new feelings of determination and courage: ‘It is God alone whom you should fear, if you are true believers.” (Verse 13) A true believer fears no creature whatsoever, because he only fears God. So they should examine their true feelings, because if they are true believers they will fear no one other than God.

The feelings of those early Muslims were heightened when they were reminded of those events: how the idolaters plotted to assassinate the Prophet, and how they repeatedly violated their agreements with the Muslims and launched a treacherous attack against them, taking them by surprise whenever a chance presented itself.

They also remembered how the idolaters, in their despotic insolence, were the first to attack them. With their feelings so heightened, they are encouraged to fight the idolaters and are promised victory over them: “Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, and will bring disgrace upon them; and will grant you victory over them and will grant heart felt satisfaction to those who are believers, removing all angry feelings from their hearts.” (Verses 14-15)

When you fight them, God will make you the means of the execution of His will, and He will bring about their punishment by your hands, causing them to be defeated and humiliated after they have arrogantly been demonstrating their power.

With the victory He will grant you, God will make the believers who had been at the receiving end of the idolaters’ repression and persecution happy. This happiness will come about as a result of the complete victory of the truth and the defeat of falsehood and its advocates.

But this is not all. There is more good news and more reward for certain people:

“God will turn in His mercy to whom He wills.” (Verse 15) When the Muslims achieve victory some of the idolaters may open their hearts to the truth. They may be able to recognize that this victory was achieved with the help of a power that is totally superior to all that human beings can muster. They may appreciate the effects faith brings about in the outlook and behaviour of the believers and feel that faith makes its followers better people. All this takes place in reality. Hence the believers receive the reward for their jihād and struggle against disbelief, and they are rewarded for enabling unbelievers to see the truth of faith. Islam will gain in strength as a result of those who join its ranks after the victory of the believers: “God is All-knowing and Wise.” (Verse 15) He knows the outcome of events before they even take place, and in His wisdom, He is aware of the results and effects of forthcoming actions and moves.

The emergence of the power of Islam and its establishment as a force to be reckoned with will inevitably attract the hearts and minds of people who may prefer to turn away from Islam when it is weak or when its power and influence are not clearly demonstrated. The advocates of Islam will have a much easier task in trying to make the truth of Islam clear to people when they have the sort of power which causes their community to be held in awe by others. It must be remembered, however, that when God educated the small, persecuted Muslim community in Makkah, implanting the Qur’ānic principles in their hearts, He promised them only one thing, which was heaven, and He made only one requirement of them, which was perseverance. When they demonstrated their perseverance and sought the prize of admittance into heaven and nothing else, God granted them victory and encouraged them to achieve it so that it would soothe their hearts and bring them full satisfaction. In such circumstances, victory is not granted to the Muslim community as individuals or as a community; it is granted to God’s message. The Muslims are only the means for the execution of His will.

It was also necessary that the Muslims should launch their struggle against all the idolaters as one camp, and that all treaties with all the idolaters should be terminated at the same time, and that the Muslims would form a solid, united camp against all idolaters. Thus, those who had harboured different intentions and sought excuses of business, blood relations or other interests to justify their continued dealings with the idolaters should make their true position clear, free of all ambiguity. All such excuses had to be tested so that those who make of them a means to maintain close relations with the idolaters, in preference to their association with God, His Messenger and the believers should be known. If such excuses could be made in the past when relations between different camps had not crystallized, there was no room for any ambiguity now: “Do you think that you will be left alone, unless God takes cognizance of those of you who strive hard for His cause and establish close association with none other than God, His Messenger and the believers? God is well aware of what you do.” (Verse 16)

As happens in all communities, there was a group among the Muslims that was skilled in manoeuvres, climbing over fences and making plausible excuses. Making use of the fluid situation when relations between the different camps had not crystallized, such people continued to make contacts with the enemy behind the backs of the Muslim community, seeking to serve only their own interests. Now that the situation was finally outlined, with each camp making its standpoint very clear, all such loopholes and back doors were finally and firmly closed.

It is certainly in the interest of the Muslim community and the interest of the Islamic faith to make the situation clear and to lay all intentions bare, so that those who strive hard for no reason other than earning God’s pleasure are distinguished by their sincerity. Similarly those who have different intentions, and those who try to circumvent Islamic rules in order to pursue their own interests with the unbelievers are also known.

God has known such people all the time. Nothing is added to God’s knowledge as a result of any event or action. “God is well aware of what you do.” (Verse 16) He, however, holds people to account only for what appears of their reality through their own actions. It is His method to test people so that their true feelings and what they harbour in their innermost hearts are made to appear. The best way to do this is to test them with hardship.

It is not for the idolaters to visit or tend God’s houses of worship; for they are selfconfessed unbelievers. Vain shall be their actions and they shall abide in the fire. God’s houses of worship may be tended only by those who believe in God and the Last Day, are constant in prayers, pay zakāt (i.e. the obligatory charity) and fear none other than God. It is those who are likely to be rightly guided. Do you, perchance, consider that the provision of drinking water to pilgrims and tending the Sacred Mosque are equal to believing in God and the Last Day and striving for God’s cause? These are not equal in God’s sight. God does not provide guidance for people who are wrongdoers.

Those who believe, and leave their homes and strive hard for God’s cause with their property and their lives stand higher in rank with God. It is they who shall triumph.

Their Lord gives them the happy news of bestowing on them His grace, and acceptance, and of the gardens of eternal bliss where they shall reside for ever. God’s reward is great indeed. (Verses 17-22)

With the declaration and disavowal made at the beginning of the sūrah concerning the termination of the treaties with the unbelievers, there can be no excuse for anyone who refuses to fight the idolaters. Moreover, there might have been some hesitation to forbid them entry to the Sacred Mosque in Makkah, which they used to enjoy in pre-Islamic days. The sūrah questions the claims of the idolaters to visit the Sacred Mosque, for that is an exclusive right of the believers who attend to their duties of worshipping God alone. That the idolaters used to visit the Mosque and provide drinking water to the pilgrims did not alter the situation in any way. These verses address those troubled Muslims who might not as yet have fully understood this basic Islamic principle.

“It is not for the idolaters to visit or tend God’s houses of worship, for they are selfconfessed unbelievers.” (Verse 17) It is totally wrong that this should ever happen because it is contrary to the nature of things. God’s houses of worship belong to Him alone, and only His name should be glorified in them. No other name should be invoked beside His name. How could it be acceptable then that those who associate partners with Him should ever tend these houses of worship when they are selfconfessed unbelievers. “Vain shall be their actions.” (Verse 17) Whatever they do is without value, including their tending of the Ka`bah, the Inviolable House of Worship. That is because none of their actions is based on the fundamental principle of God’s oneness. As a result of their open and clear rejection of the truth of faith, “they shall abide in the fire.” (Verse 17)

Worship is simply an expression of faith. If the faith is wrongly based, then the worship offered on its basis is wrong as well. Hence any act of worship, including the visiting and tending of the houses of worship, is of little benefit unless hearts are full of faith which translates itself into action that is totally dedicated to God alone.

“God’s houses of worship may be tended only by those who believe in God and the Last Day, are constant in prayers, pay zakāt (i.e. the obligatory charity) and fear none other than God.” (Verse 18) We note that the two conditions relating to belief and action are coupled with a third stipulating that those believers who do good deeds must fear none other than God. This is not an idle condition. It is important that a believer should be totally dedicated to God alone and should rid himself of all traces of idolatry in his feelings, beliefs and behaviour. To fear anyone beside God is a subtle aspect of polytheism. Hence the sūrah warns against it specifically so that believers may make sure that their faith is pure and that their actions are intended to earn God’s pleasure.

When they do that they deserve to tend houses of worship and to be graced with God’s guidance: “It is those who are likely to be rightly guided.” (Verse 18)

First, concepts are formulated and beliefs are held, then action is undertaken on the basis of faith. God will then reward people with His guidance and with success and prosperity.

This is a criterion which God states clearly to the believers and unbelievers alike, because it determines who may tend God’s houses and provides a basis for the evaluation of actions of worship and rituals. Those who tended the Ka`bah and provided drinking water for pilgrims in pre-Islamic days when their faith was not based on submission to God alone cannot be placed in the same position as those who have accepted the divine faith and striven hard for God’s cause to help make His word supreme: “Do you, perchance, consider that the provision of drinking water to pilgrims and tending the Sacred Mosque are equal to believing in God and the Last Day and striving for God’s cause? These are not equal in God’s sight.” (Verse 19) It is God’s scale and His measure that are the important ones. Nothing else is of any value.

“God does not provide guidance for people who are wrongdoers.” (Verse 18) The wrongdoers meant here are the idolaters who reject the true faith, even though they may tend and maintain the Ka`bah, the Sacred Mosque, and provide drinking water for pilgrims. The point here is concluded with a statement which speaks of the high position of those believers who strive hard to make God’s word triumph. We are also told of the eternal bliss and great reward that await them: “Those who believe, and leave their homes and strive for God’s cause with their property and their lives stand higher in rank with God. It is they who shall triumph. Their Lord gives them the happy news of bestowing on them His grace, and acceptance, and of the gardens of eternal bliss where they shall reside for ever. God’s reward is great indeed.” (Verses 20-22)

It should be pointed out here that the comparative stated in this verse, “stand higher in rank with God,” does not imply two positions on the same scale, or that the others have a lesser rank with God. It indicates an absolute preference. We have already been told about the others, i.e. the idolaters, and that “vain shall be their actions and they shall abide for ever in the fire.” (Verse 17) Hence the two situations cannot be compared.

The sūrah continues to stress the need to purge feelings and relations within the Muslim community of any influence other than that of faith. It calls on the believers to give no importance to ties of kinship or to other interests. It groups together all worldly pleasures as well as family and social ties in order to weigh them against loving God and His Messenger and striving for His cause. The choice is then left to Muslims to make: “Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers for allies if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Those of you who take them for allies are indeed wrongdoers.

Say: ‘If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, your clan, and the property you have acquired, and the business in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you take pleasure, are dearer to you than God and His Messenger and the struggle in His cause, then wait until God shall make manifest His will. God does not provide guidance to the evildoers.’” (Verses 23-24)

The Islamic faith cannot accept any partners in its followers’ hearts and minds.

A person can be either totally dedicated to it or can leave it altogether. There is no requirement here to cut off all ties with one’s children, family, clan or neighbourhood, nor to reject wealth or different types of pleasure and enjoyment.

That is not the point meant here. What is required is total dedication and wholehearted love. This means in practical terms that the faith becomes the prime mover and the paramount motivation. When this is the case, people may have their pleasures and enjoyment because they will be able to sacrifice all these whenever such sacrifice is required by their faith.

The determining factor is whether faith has the overall control over man’s attitudes and actions or not. Would the final decision in any situation be based on considerations of faith or on some other interests or worldly matters? When a Muslim is certain that he has given all his heart to his faith then he may enjoy his family life and have all the happiness of having a wife and children. He may maintain and strengthen his social ties as he wishes and he may have his business and fine dwelling. He may enjoy all the pleasures of this world, without being too extravagant or adopting an arrogant attitude. Indeed to enjoy these pleasures is encouraged as a means of showing gratitude to God for His bounty.

“Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers for allies if they choose unbelief in preference to faith.” (Verse 23) All ties of blood and family relations are severed if the tie of belief does not take its place in people’s hearts. Family loyalty is nullified when loyalty based on faith is nonexistent. The first bond is that which exists between man and God. It is the bond which unites all humanity. When this is severed, no relationships, ties or bonds may exist. “Those of you who take them for allies are indeed wrongdoers.” (Verse 23) The term `wrongdoers’ here means the idolaters, because to maintain ties of loyalty and alliance with family and community when they prefer unbelief to faith is a form of idolatry which believers may not entertain.

The sūrah does not merely state the principle. It goes on to list all types of ties, ambitions and pleasures, grouping them all together and putting them in the scale against faith and its requirements. Thus we have in the first group fathers, children, brothers, spouses and clan (i.e. ties of blood and family), property and business (i.e.

the natural desire to have money), and comfortable houses and dwellings (i.e. the pleasures of affluence). Against all this is placed love of God and His Messenger and striving for God’s cause. It is important to realize that striving here implies a great deal of hardship and sacrifice. It may mean suffering oppression, going to war and sacrificing one’s life altogether. Moreover, all this striving must be purged of any desire to be known or to be publicly appreciated or recognized. Once this striving aims at such recognition, it earns no reward from God.

“Say: ‘If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, your clan, and the property you have acquired, and the business in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you take pleasure, are dearer to you than God and His Messenger and the struggle in His cause, then wait until God shall make manifest His will.’” (Verse 24) What is required here is certainly hard, and it is certainly of great importance. But thus are God’s requirements. Otherwise, “wait until God shall make manifest His will.’’ (Verse 24) The only alternative is to have the same fate as those who perpetrate evil: “God does not provide guidance to the evildoers.” (Verse 24) This requirement is not obligatory merely on individuals. The whole Muslim community, and indeed the Muslim state, are also required to make the same choice. There is no consideration or bond which may have priority over those of faith and the struggle for God’s cause.

God does not impose this obligation on the Muslim community unless He knows that its nature can cope with it. It is indeed an aspect of God’s grace that He has given human nature this strong ability to cope with great demands when motivated by dedication to a noble ideal. Indeed He has given it the ability to feel a more sublime pleasure which is far superior to all the pleasures of this world. This is the pleasure or the ecstasy of having a tie with God Himself and the hope of winning His pleasure. It is also the pleasure of rising above human weaknesses, family and social pressures while looking forward to a bright horizon. If human weakness sometimes pulls us down, the bright horizon that looms large will give us a renewed desire to break loose of all worldly pressures to give faith its due importance.

The sūrah follows this with a quick reminder of some of the events that the first Muslim generation experienced. The Muslims are reminded of the many battles when they were weak and poorly equipped but where God granted them victory.

They are also reminded of the Battle of Ĥunayn when they were defeated despite their numerical strength, but then God granted them His support. On that day, the army which achieved the conquest of Makkah was joined by 2,000 of its people who were pardoned by the Prophet. On that day, there was a time when, for a few seconds, the Muslims overlooked their reliance on God to admire their strength and large following. The events of that day taught the Muslims the lesson that complete dedication to God’s cause and strengthening their ties with Him are the best equipment for victory. These will never fail them, while wealth, friends and even closest relatives may do so.

God has granted you His support on many a battlefield, and also in the Battle of Ĥunayn, when you took pride in your numerical strength, but it availed you nothing.

For all its vastness, the earth seemed too narrow for you, and you turned back in flight. God then bestowed from on high an air of inner peace on His Messenger and on the believers, and He sent down forces whom you could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward for the unbelievers. God will then turn in His mercy to whom He wills, for God is Much forgiving, Merciful. (Verses 25-27)

The victories they achieved in many battles were still fresh in their memories, requiring only a brief reference to bring them back in all clarity. The Battle of Ĥunayn took place shortly after the conquest of Makkah, in the eighth year of the Islamic calendar.

When the Prophet settled matters after Makkah had fallen to him, and its people accepted Islam and were pardoned by the Prophet, he was informed that the tribe of Hawāzin were mobilizing forces to fight him, under the leadership of Mālik ibn `Awf al-Nađrī. They were joined by the whole Thaqīf tribe as well as the tribes of Jusham and Sa ‘d ibn Bakr. Also allied with them were some forces of the clans of Hilāl, `Amr ibn `Āmir and `Awf ibn `Āmir.

They marched bringing with them their women and children as well as their cattle and property to make it a battle to the bitter end.

The Prophet marched at the head of the army which conquered Makkah, estimated at the time to be around 10,000 strong, composed mostly of the Muhājirīn and the Anşār. He was joined by 2,000 of the pardoned people of Makkah. The two hosts met at a valley known as Ĥunayn. The battle started before the break of day, as the Muslim army was going down into the valley.

The Hawāzin forces had been lying in ambush. They took the Muslims by surprise and showered them with arrows and put up a determined fight. In no time, the Muslim soldiers were on the retreat, as God says here.

The Prophet remained steadfast, mounting his she-camel, with his uncle, al- `Abbās, holding its rein on the right and his cousin, Abū Sufyān ibn al-Ĥārith holding it on the left, trying to slow her. He was calling out to his followers to come back to him, mentioning his name and saying: “You, God’s servants, rally to me, for I am God’s Messenger.” He also said out loud: “I am the Prophet, no doubt. I am the son of `Abd al-Muţţalib.” A number of his Companions who might have been no more than 80 or 100, according to various reports, stood firm by him. Among these were Abū Bakr, `Umar, al- `Abbās and his son, al-Fađl, `Alī, Abū Sufyān ibn al-Ĥārith, Ayman and Usāmah ibn Zayd. The Prophet then asked his uncle, al-`Abbās, who had a loud voice, to shout to the Muslims reminding them of the pledge they had given under the tree, which was a pledge to fight with him until death, and for which they earned God’s pleasure. He did so, adding some variations to remind the Muslims of their position. As they heard him, they would respond verbally and rally to the Prophet in his position. If any of them found his camel unwilling to turn round in the confusion, he would take his armament and dismount to join the Prophet.

When a core group of them had rallied, the Prophet told them to fight with total dedication. Soon the idolaters were in flight, and the Muslims were chasing them, killing some of them and taking others prisoner. By the time the rest of the Muslim army had regrouped and rallied, the prisoners were in chains in front of God’s Messenger.21

Such was the battle in which the Muslims had for the first time an army which was 12,000 strong. They felt confident when they looked at their numbers. They overlooked the most essential cause of victory. So God allowed defeat to befall them at first so that they might remember. He then granted them victory at the hands of the small group which remained steadfast with the Prophet and defended him with all the bravery they could muster. The sūrah portrays some scenes of the battle in order to recall the feelings experienced by those who were on the battlefield: “When you took pride in your numerical strength, but it availed you nothing. For all its vastness, the earth seemed too narrow for you, and you turned back in flight.” (Verse 25)

This describes how the excessive confidence felt by a large force led to spiritual defeat causing the Muslims to feel such a heavy burden that made the vast earth seem too narrow. This then led to a physical defeat and those large forces were on the retreat. But what happened next?

“God then bestowed from on high an air of inner peace on His Messenger and on the believers.” (Verse 26) This `inner peace’ seems as if it were a garment which people wore to pacify their feelings and give them tranquillity. ‘And He sent down forces whom you could not see.” (Verse 26) We do not know the nature of these forces and whom they really were. No one other than God Himself knows what forces He may bring in. “And He punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward for the unbelievers.” (Verse 26) The killing of some of their soldiers and taking others captive, and the defeat that befell them all were part of the punishment they received in this life, which is only a fitting reward for their denial of God and rejection of the faith.

However, the door to repentance is always open to receive those who wish to mend their ways. “God will then turn in His mercy to whom He wills, for God is Much forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 27)

The sūrah refers to the Battle of Ĥunayn in order to portray the consequences of turning away from God and relying on any power other than His. The events of the battle, however, highlight the real forces on which every faith should rely. Numerical strength is of little importance. Power lies with the hard core who are totally dedicated to their faith and cannot be shaken. Sometimes the multitude may cause defeat, because some people may join in without really knowing the truth of the faith they profess. At times of hardship, courage deserts them and this may lead to confusion within the ranks of believers. Besides, large numbers may lead to a feeling of complacency which causes people to overlook the need to strengthen their ties with their Lord. The triumph of faith has always come about through the efforts of the hard core of firm believers who are ready to sacrifice all for their faith.

At this point the sūrah concludes its statement on the unbelievers who associate partners with God and gives its final verdict concerning them. This verdict remains valid for the rest of time: “Believers, know that the idolaters are certainly impure. So, let them not come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. If you fear poverty, then in time God will enrich you with His own bounty, if He so wills. Truly, God is All-knowing, Wise.” (Verse 28)

The sūrah emphasizes the abstract impurity of the idolaters to make it their essential quality. This shows them to be totally and completely impure. This statement gives the feeling that we should seek to purify ourselves when we have anything to do with them, although their impurity is abstract. Their bodies are not really impure. In its unique style, the Qur’ān often resorts to magnification, giving abstract matters a physical shape and entity. “The idolaters are certainly impure. So, let them not come near to the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended.” (Verse 28) Here we have the strictest injunction prohibiting their presence in the Haram area. The order implies that they must not even come near it, because they are impure while the Haram is a source of purity.

The whole commercial season which the people of Makkah await every year, and their business which provides livelihood for most people and the two business trips in summer and winter which are so essential for the continued prosperity of the people of Makkah will all be jeopardized as a result of banning the idolaters from pilgrimage and declaring jihād against them all. This may be true, but when it comes to faith, God wants people’s hearts to be totally dedicated to their faith. When they do this, they will not worry about their livelihood, because God ensures that everyone gets his or her share in the normal way and through recognized means: “If you fear poverty, then in time God will enrich you with His own bounty, if He so wills.” (Verse 28) When God wills, He may replace certain causes with others, and He may close certain doors in order to open others. “Truly, God is All- knowing, Wise.” (Verse 28) He manages all matters and conducts all affairs in accordance with His knowledge and wisdom.

In this sūrah the Qur’ān is addressing the Muslim community as it was composed immediately after the conquest of Makkah, when standards of faith were not at the same level. We can see from reading the sūrah carefully that there were gaps in that community, and we can also see how the Qur’ān has set about filling these gaps and the great effort made to educate the Muslim community.

The method of the Qur’ān was to guide the footsteps of the Muslim community to bring it up to the high summit of total dedication to God and to the divine faith. Faith becomes the standard by which any relationship or source of pleasure in life is accepted or rejected. All this was accomplished through educating people in the real difference between God’s method which makes all people serve God alone and the methods of jāhiliyyah which enable some people to enslave others. The two are essentially different and they cannot be reconciled.

Without this proper understanding of the nature of this religion and its method, and also the nature of jāhiliyyah, or the state of ignorance that Islam always comes up against, we cannot recognize the true value of Islamic rules and regulations that govern dealings and transactions between the Muslim community and other communities.