Topic: Allah’s Support

22:41.

Commentary:

Talut or Gideon was able to defeat Jalut or the Midianites and curb their rising spirits, but their crushing defeat to which the verse refers as the killing of Jalut came in the time of David about two hundred years afterwards. This is why, whereas the defeat of Jalut by Talut has been spoken of by the Quran as ھزم i.e. routing, the complete crushing of their power has been referred to by the world قتل i.e. killing. The Bible speaks of the man defeated by David as Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4), which is similar to Jalut. Probably the attributive name given by the Quran to the people was also borne by their leader in the time of David.

The last clause of the verse, i.e. and had it not been for Allah’s repelling men, some of them by the others, the earth would have become filled with disorder, gives, in a nutshell, the whole philosophy of all wars of truth and justice. War should be resorted to only as a means of checking disorder and restoring peace, and not for creating disorder and breaking peace. The clause also serves as a criterion between Muslims and their adversaries and beautifully points to the party destined for final victory in the struggle.

8:42, 43.

8:27.

Important Words:

عبرة (lesson) is the noun-infinitive from عبر. They say عبرہ i.e. he crossed it, or he passed over it from one side to the other. اعتبر means, he took warning; he took what he saw as an indication of what was concealed. عبرة therefore means: (1) an admonition or exhortation; (2) an admonition or exhortation by which one takes warning; (3) a thing by the state or condition of which one is admonished, reminded, directed or guided (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

This verse refers to the Battle of Badr in which 313 ill-equipped and ill-armed Muslims inflicted a crushing defeat on a well-equipped and well-armed Meccan force, 1,000 strong. This fulfilled two prophecies—one contained in an earlier revelation of the Quran and the other in the Bible. The Quranic revelation said: Do they say, ‘We are a victorious host?’Nay, the hosts will be routed and will show their backs… The day when they will be dragged into the Fire on their faces (and it will be said to them), ‘taste ye the touch of burning’ (54:45-49). And the Biblical prophecy said: "In the forest of Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail; and the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it" (Isa. 21:13-17).

In accordance with this prophecy, about a year after the flight of the Holy Prophet from Mecca, the power of Kedar (the progenitor of the Meccan tribes) was broken at Badr and their glory departed. The Quranic prophecy was also literally fulfilled; for, after the Meccan host was routed at Badr, the ringleaders of the Quraish who fell in the battle were actually dragged along the ground and cast into a well for burial. It was on this occasion that, addressing their dead bodies the Holy Prophet said, "God has made true the promise He had made to us. Have you also found to be true that which was promised to you?" (Bukhari). The Quran describes the Day of Badr as the day of "Discrimination" (8:42), because on that day a great prophecy, accompanied by great results, was fulfilled in extremely unfavourable circumstances. The defeat of the infidels was as unexpected and complete as was the victory of the Muslims. Truly has the Battle of Badr been reckoned among the greatest battles in history. It virtually decided the fate of the Meccans and of the whole of Arabia. The power of the Quraish was broken forever and the new Faith rose high and powerful in the land; and all this came about exactly as it had been prophesied.

The clause, whom they saw to be twice as many as themselves, points out that the Meccan army appeared to the Muslims to be less than their actual strength, i.e. only twice instead of thrice the number of the Muslims, as was actually the case. This was quite in harmony with Divine will which designed that the encounter should take place and the few weak and ill-equipped Muslims, seeing the full strength of the enemy, should not become discouraged (8:45). What happened was that one-third of the Meccan army was behind a rising piece of land and the Muslims could see only two-thirds of them, i.e. 600 or twice as many as their own number. The Muslims were thus naturally heartened by seeing the Meccan army only twice their own number because they knew that in fulfilment of His promise (8:67-68) God would surely vouchsafe to them victory over an enemy double their number.

The words, actually with their eyes, have been added to point out that it was not in a vision or a dream that the Muslims saw the disbelievers to be less than their actual number but in a state of actual wakefulness, which naturally proved more heartening than would have been the case if they had seen them so only in a dream or vision, which very often has an interpretation other than what actually appears.

8:66.

Commentary:

The words, Fight therefore in the cause of Allah, do not mean that the command to fight is related to the Holy Prophet alone. If that had been the case, the second clause in the verse would have read as لا تکلف الا نفسك (illa nafsuka), i.e. none is made responsible except thyself, and not as لاتکلف الانفسك (illa nafsaka), i.e. Thou art not made responsible except for thyself, as in the verse. What the verse means is that every Muslim, not excluding the Prophet, was individually answerable to God. But the duty of the Holy Prophet was twofold: (1) to fight, and (2) to urge his followers to fight. He was, however, not answerable for them. He was only to communicate to them the divine behests, and if they disobeyed, they themselves were answerable for it. The commandment making jihad obligatory on Muslims had already been revealed (4:78).

The clause, It may be that Allah will restrain the might of those that disbelieve, means that God will bring into existence such circumstances as will make war cease of itself, or that the enemy will fail to exert his power to the full and will finally collapse. Thus we see that at the Battle of the Ditch and at the Fall of Mecca providential circumstances helped the Muslims.

Important Words:

یشف (relieve) is derived from شفا. They say شفاہ من مرضه i.e. he cured him (of disease) and restored him to convalescence. شفیتهmeans, I relieved him from doubt. شفاہ عن المسألةmeans, he relieved him from doubt respecting the question. یشفیك ان قالmeans, he will please thee if he speaks, i.e. his speech will please thee (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse shows that the enemies of Islam had made themselves deserving of Divine punishment by their treacherous and wrongful conduct; and fighting was only a form of Divine punishment that had been prescribed for them, and it was inflicted on them after they had themselves started hostilities. It was most certainly not resorted to in order to compel them to embrace Islam.

2:191.

Important Words:

جزیة (tax) is derived from جزی meaning, he or it paid or gave satisfaction. They say, جزیت فلانا حقه i.e. I paid such a one his right or due. جزاہ کذا means, he repaid, requited, or recompensed him for such a thing. جزیة means, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim State in lieu of the protection it ensures them (Lane & Aqrab).

ید (hand) also means favour. See 5:65.

صاغرون (acknowledge their subjection) is the plural of صاغرwhich is derived from صغرwhich means, he was or became small or little in body or in years or in estimation or in rank or dignity (Lane). صاغر which is the active participle from صغرsignifies, one who agrees, and is satisfied, to occupy or remain in a subordinate position (Mufradat).

Commentary:

War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and had tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizyah, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of the Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizyah, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and centre of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizyah which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakah which is a heavier tax than Jizyah, and Muslims, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days and from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.

The expression عن ید (with their own hand) is used here in a figurative sense, signifying (1) that Jizyah should not be forcibly taken from the People of the Book but that they should pay it with their own hand, i.e. they should agree to pay it willingly and should acknowledge the superior power of the Muslims; or (2) that they should pay it out of hand, i.e. in ready money and not in the form of deferred payment; or (3) that they should pay it considering it as a favour from Muslims, the word, ید (hand) also meaning a favour.

The word صاغرون (acknowledge their subjection) is used here to express the subordinate political status of non-Muslims, i.e. they were to occupy the position of subjects in relation to Muslims. As regards the social relations of Muslims with the dhimmis, as non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim State were called, these may be judged from the fact that the Holy Prophet himself used to stand up in reverence when the bier of a non-Muslim happened to pass by him (Dawud, ch. on Jana’iz), and ‘Ali, the Fourth Caliph, bore on his own shoulders the bier of a Christian who happened to die in the time of his Caliphate.

Commentary:

With this verse is introduced the subject of jihad. The theme of sacrifice has formed a befitting prelude to this all-important subject. Having explained the importance and significance of sacrifice, the Quran proceeds to tell Muslims that the time has arrived that they should be prepared to undergo all manner of sacrifice in the defence of their faith which the enemy is out to destroy. Before the permission to fight in self-defence was given to Muslims, they were apprised of the importance of sacrifice. The words, "Surely, Allah defends those who believe," throw a flood of light on the Islamic conception of jihad. Jihad, as these words show, is fighting in defence of truth. But whereas Islam allows no aggressive war, it regards the waging of it in self-defence as an act of the highest virtue. Because much misconception prevails regarding the Islamic teaching about jihad and because Islam has been much maligned and subjected to much wilful and deliberate mis-representation on this account a somewhat detailed note is called for on this subject.

Man is God’s noblest handiwork. He is the acme of His creation, its aim and end. He is God’s vicegerent on earth and the king of His whole creation (2:30). To him even angels in heaven make obeisance and for him all animate and inanimate things—the earth, the heaven, the sun, moon, stars, mountains, oceans, rivers, animals, and birds, have been created and to him they have been made subservient (14:33, 34; 35:14). This is the Islamic conception of man’s high place in the universe. It is therefore only natural that that religion which has raised man to such a high pedestal should have attached very great importance and sanctity to his life. Of all things man’s life, according to the Quran, is most sacred and inviolable. It is a sacrilege to take it except under very rare circumstances which the Quran has specifically mentioned. According to the Quran the killing of a person without a just cause is tantamount to the killing of the whole of mankind (17:34; 5:33); so sacred and sanctified is man’s life.

No less important, according to Islam, is freedom of conscience. It is man’s most precious heritage—perhaps more precious than life itself. The Quran, which has attached the greatest sanctity to man’s life, could not have failed to acknowledge and declare the sacredness and inviolability of this, his most precious possession. "Let there be no compulsion in religion," says the Quran (2:256). It abounds in verses of like import which shows that not only Islam does not encourage the use of force for the spread of its teaching but positively and in most emphatic terms forbids and condemns it and gives man unrestricted choice in the matter of his faith and belief. Here are some of them:

Say, 'O ye men, now has the truth come to you from your Lord. So whosoever follows the guidance, follows it only for the good of his own soul, and whosoever errs, errs only against it. And I am not a keeper over you (10:109).

And say, It is the truth from your Lord; therefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve (18:30).

We know best what they say; and thou hast not been appointed to compel them in any way. So admonish by means of the Quran him who fears My warning (50:46).

So remind. Thou art only one to remind. Thou art not a warden over them (88:22-23).

These verses, as it were, make an unequivocal declaration about the freedom of human conscience or the Magna Carta of the liberty of man’s beliefs and convictions. The injunctions embodied in these verses have not remained a dead letter. The Holy Prophet and his Companions lived up to them and strictly obeyed them even if acting upon them meant loss of prestige as it happened at the time of signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya, or when the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir, on their banishment from Medina, were allowed to take with them the scions of the Muslim families of Aus and Khazraj, much against the remonstrances of their Muslim relatives, because they (the scions) had chosen to go with the Jews (Abu Dawud Kitabul-Jihad, & Manthur). It is also on record that ‘Umar, the second Caliph, presented Islam on several occasions to a Christian slave of his, Asbaq by name, but every time he refused to accept it (Manthur). Instances of such tolerant behaviour on the part of the leaders of Islam during the ages can easily be multiplied. In the face of such magnanimous display of religious tolerance it seems unbelievable that Islam should have been accused of fanaticism and bigotry or of having been spread by force, but it is a sad fact of history that it has been so maligned and accused by its hostile critics.