9. Surah At-Tawba

Commentary A proclamation of withdrawal was made against Mushriks and disbelievers at the beginning of Surah At-Taubah. The verse appearing above describes injunctions related to this proclamation. In substance, it stipulated that treaties with disbelievers should be terminated or fulfilled within a year and after the passage of one year from this proc-lamation, no Mushrik should remain within the sacred precincts of the Haram. This has been stated in the present verse in a particular manner that accomplishes two objectives simultaneously. It points out to the wisdom behind this injunction and it also alleviates the apprehensions of some Muslims about its implementation. Here, the word: نَجَس (najas) has been used with fathah on the letter jeem ج which carries the sense of filth and filth denotes every impurity which one averts naturally. Imam Raghib al-Isfahani has said: It also includes impurity that is perceived through the senses, such as the eye, the nose or the hand as well as that which one is able to know about through knowledge and reason. Therefore, the word: ` najas' is inclusive of filth or impurity of three types. The first one is real. Everyone perceives it as such. Then, there is the second type. This is known as legal because it makes wudu وُضُو (ablution) or ghusl غُسُل (bath) legally necessary. Examples are the state of Janabah (intercourse, ejaculation or wet-dream etc.), as well as, the post-menstruation and post-childbed states known as haidh حیض and nifas نفاس . And then, there is the spiritual impurity that relates to the human heart, for example, false beliefs and evil morals. The word ` najas' covers all of these. The word, اِنَّمَا (innama) introduced in this verse has been used for hasr or restriction. Therefore, the sentence comes to mean that Mushriks (those who ascribe partners to Allah) are impure indeed (in the sense of ` are but filth' ). The truth of the matter is that all three types of impurities are found in Mushriks because they just do not take a lot of impure things as really impure. The outcome is that they do not make any effort to stay away from smearing themselves with obvious impurities - such as, liquor and things made with it. As for the modalities of purification against acquired impurities provided by religious codes - such as, the prescribed bath after having fallen into the state of Janabah - they simply do not believe in them! Similarly, spiritual impurities like false beliefs and evil morals do not make much sense to them. Therefore, by declaring Mushriks to be impure in this verse, the injunction given was: فَلَا يَقْرَ‌بُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَ‌امَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـٰذَا (so let them not come near Al-masjid-al-Haram after this year of theirs). The word: اَلمَسجِد اَلحَرَام Al-masjid-al-Haram is generally used to denote the place that is surrounded by a walled structure around the Baytullah. But, in the Qur'an and Hadith, this word, at times, has been used for the sacred precincts of the entire Haram of Makkah as well - which is an area of several square miles and is hemmed in by limits originally ap-pointed by Sayyidna Ibrahim (علیہ السلام) . It is in this very sense that words of the text of the Qur'an referring to the event of Mi` raj: مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَ‌امِ (from Al-masjid-al-haram - 17:1) have been taken. This interpretation has the backing of a consensus because the event of Mi` raj did not originate from inside what is commonly known as Al-masjid-al-Haram, instead of which, it started from the home of Sayyidah Umm Hani' ؓ .Similarly, in the noble verse: إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَ‌امِ (Except those with whom you made a treaty near Al-masjid-al-Haram - 9:7), Al-masjid-al-Haram means the whole of Haram - because, the event of making a peace treaty mentioned there took place at Hudaibiyah, which is located outside the limits of the Haram close by. (A1-Jassas) Therefore, the verse comes to mean that the entry of the Mushriks into the sacred precincts of the Haram shall be banned after ` this' year. Which year is ` this' year? Some commentators say that it means the Hijrah year 10. But, according to the majority of commentators, the preferred year is Hijrah 9 - because, the Holy Prophet ﷺ had made the ` proclamation of withdrawal' through Sayyidna Abu Bakr and Sayyidna Ali ؓ during the Hajj season of this very Hijrah year 9. Therefore, the period between Hijrah 9 and Hijrah 10 is the year of respite. It was only after Hijrah 10 that this law came into force. Does the rule stop Mushriks from entering the Sacred Mosque only, or does it apply to all mosques? About the injunction appearing in the cited verse: that no Mushrik should be allowed to come near Al-masjid-al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque) after Hijrah 10, three things need consideration. Firstly, we have to determine if this injunction is particular to the Sacred Mosque, or other mosques of the world also fall under its jurisdiction. Secondly, if this is particular to the Sacred Mosque, then, is the entry of a Mushrik in the Sacred Mosque banned in an absolute sense? Or the ban of such entry applies only in the case of Hajj and ` Umrah - not otherwise. Thirdly, this injunction appearing in the verse relates to Mushriks. In that case, are the disbelievers (kuffar) among the People of the Book included here, or are they not? Since the words of the Qur'an are silent about these details, therefore, the Mujtahid Imams have, by turning to the hints of the Qur'an and the reports of Hadith, given a description of injunctions in accordance with their respective Ijtihad. The first investigation in this connection is about the terms of reference in which the Holy Qur'an has declared Mushriks as ` najas' (filth). If this means physical filth or some major legal impurity (janabah etc.), then, as evident, allowing the entry of filth in any masjid is not permissible. Similarly, allowing any person in the state of major impurity or a woman in the state of menstruation or childbed in any masjid is not permissible. And if ` najasah' in this verse means the spiritual filthiness of kufr and shirk, then, it is possible that the injunction which covers it may be different from the injunction which covers outward filth. According to Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Imam Malik and other jurists of Madinah, may Allah have mercy on them, said: Mushriks are filthy on all counts. They generally do not abstain from obvious filth, are not very particular about taking a bath after having fallen into the state of major impurity and, as for the spiritual impurity of kufr and shirk, they already suffer from it. Therefore, this injunction is equally applicable to all Mushriks and mosques. To prove this, they have cited an executive order given by Sayyidna ` Umar ibn ` Abd al-` Aziz (رح) in which he had instructed the administrators of cities that they should not allow disbelievers to enter mosques. He had quoted this very verse as part of his executive order. In addition to that, there is a Hadith of the Holy Prophet ﷺ in which he said: لَا اُحِلُّ المَسجِدَ لحَیٔضِ وَ لَا جُنُبِ (I do not make entry into the masjid lawful for any woman in menstruation or for any person in the state of major impurity) - and since the Mushriks and disbelievers do not generally take a bath when in a state of janabah, their entry into the masjid has been prohibited. Imam Shafi` i (رح) has said that this injunction is applicable to all Mushriks and disbelievers among the People of the Book - but, is restricted to the Sacred Mosque. Their entry into other mosques is not prohibited. (Qurtubi) In proof, he has cited the event relating to Thumamah ibn Athal, according to which Thumamah was arrested. The Holy Prophet ﷺ had him tied to a pillar of his Mosque before he embraced Islam. According to Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) ، not letting Mushriks come near the Sacred Mosque as commanded in the verse means that they will not be allowed to perform Hajj and ` Umrah in their peculiar polytheistic manner from the next year. Its proof lies in the proclamation of withdrawal which was made through Sayyidna ` Ali al-Murtada ؓ at the time of the Hajj season. This proclamation made was for nothing but: لَا یَحُجَّنَّ بعد العام مُشرِک which made it very clear that no Mushrik will be able to perform Hajj after that year. Therefore, the meaning of the statement: فَلَا يَقْرَ‌بُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَ‌امَ ( (so let them not come near Al-masjid-al-Haram) in this verse is - in accordance with this proclamation - nothing but that they have been prohibited to perform Hajj and ` Umrah, with the exception of entering there on the basis of a particular need which would be subject to the permission of the Muslim 'Amir. This is proved by what happened in the case of the deputation from the tribe of Thaqif. When, after the Conquest of Makkah, their deputation came to the Holy Prophet ﷺ he let them stay in the masjid, although they were kafirs at that time. Thereupon, the Companions ؓ submitted: ` Ya Rasulallah, these are filthy people!' He said: ` The floor of the masjid is not affected by their impurity.' (Jassas) This report from Hadith also makes it very clear that the Holy Qur'an, when it calls Mushriks ` najas' (filth), it refers to the filth of their kufr and shirk - as interpreted by the great Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) . Similarly, according to a narration of the Companion, Sayyidna Jabir ibn ` Abdullah رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہ the Holy Prophet ﷺ said that no Mushrik should go near the Masjid except that the person be a bondman or bondwoman of a Muslim - then, he could be admitted if needed. (Qurtubi) This Hadith too confirms that the Mushriks were not prevented from entering into the Sacred Mosque on the basis of their outward impurity as the cause - otherwise, there was nothing particular about a bondman or bondwoman. In fact, the real basis is the danger of kufr and shirk lest these come to dominate. In the case of a bondman or bondwoman, this danger does not exist. So, they were allowed. In addition to that, as far as outward impurity is concerned, even Muslims stand included under this restriction for they too, if in a state of full impurity (janabah or haidh or nifas), are not allowed to enter the Sacred Mosque. Besides, when according to the explanation given by the majority of commentators, Al-masjid-al-Haram at this place means the entire Haram, then, that too lends support to the view that this prohibition is not based on outward impurity, instead, it is based on the impurity of kufr and shirk. It is for this reason that their entry was banned not simply in the Sacred Mosque, in fact, it was banned in the entire area known as the Haram. This was done because the Haram is the sanctuary and fortress of Islam and having some non-Muslim inside it cannot be tolerated. To sum up the investigative approach of the great Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) ، it can be said that the concern for maintaining masajid in a state of perfect purity, free from all sorts of outward and inward pollution, is an issue of major importance having its proof from the Qur'an and Hadith. But, this verse is not connected with this problem. It is, in fact, connected with the particular political order of Islam that was announced at the beginning of Surah Al-Bara'ah and wherein the purpose was to have the sacred Haram vacated by all Mushriks present in Makkah. But, such was the dictate of justice and mercy that all of them were not ordered to vacate immediately and en-block soon after the Conquest of Makkah. Instead of that, the plan was to be implemented within the time-span of one year by allowing people who had a treaty for a specified period to complete that period subject to its solemn fulfillment and by giving others available periods of respite. This is what was stated in the verse under study - that the entry of Mushriks will stand prohibited within the sacred precincts of the Haram after that year and they would no more be able to perform Hajj and ` Umrah in their polytheistic style. After it was clearly stated in the 'ayat of Surah At-Taubah that no Mushrik would be able to enter the sacred precincts of the Haram after Hijrah 9, the Holy Prophet ﷺ had increased this injunction to cover the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. Hadith reports confirm it but its implementation could not take effect during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . Then, Sayyidna Abu Bakr ؓ remained unable to attend to it because of other emergent problems on hand. It was Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ who, during his period, put this legal order in force. As for the problem of the impurity of disbelievers and the problem of keeping masjid secured from impurities of all kinds, that has its own place. These problems and their solutions have been taken up in books of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence). Details can be seen there. In brief, no Muslim can enter any masjid in the state of najasah or janabah. As for disbelievers and Mushriks or the People of the Book, they too are not generally free and duly purified from these impurities, therefore, their entry too is not permissible in any masjid, unless needed acutely. When, according to this verse, the entry of Kafirs and Mushriks into the Haram was banned, Muslims had to face an economic problem. Makkah had no produce of its own. Visitors from far and near brought the needed supplies with them. Thus, during the Hajj season, the people of Makkah found what they needed available locally. Now that their entry was banned, the Makkans worried, how things would work for them. In response, they were told in the Qur'an: وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّـهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ (And if you apprehend poverty, then, Allah shall, if He wills, make you self-sufficient with His grace). In other words, the sense is: if you foresee any economic hardships, then, you must realize that the economic support of the entire creation rests with Allah Almighty. If He wills, He shall make you self-sufficient, free from any dependence on all those kafirs. Incidentally, the restriction of ` if He wills' placed here does not mean that there is any doubt or hesitation in carrying out the Divine will. On the contrary, this is to point out that those who have their sights trained on nothing but material causes find it very difficult to understand and accept a situation like this. Here, the ground reality was that these non-Muslims were the apparent source of all economic support. Putting a ban on the entry of disbelievers amounted to nothing but a termination of the means of livelihood for believers. So, this restriction was placed to remove any such doubts and apprehensions. The strong message given to them was that Allah Ta` ala does not depend on material causes as such. When He intends to do something, all related causes start falling in line with His will. So, His will is what matters - the rest follows. Hence, اِن شآَء (in sha' ) at the end of the sentence serves as a wise indicator of this truth.

Commentary Verse 28 appearing earlier referred to Jihad against the Mushirks of Makkah. The present verses talk about Jihad against the People of the Book. In a sense, this is a prelude to the battle of Tabuk that was fought against the People of the Book. In Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, it has been reported from the Qur'an commentator, Mujahid that these verses have been revealed about the battle of Tabuk. Then, there is the reference to ` those who were given the Book.' In Islamic religious terminology, they are referred to as ` ahl al-Kitab' or People of the Book. In its literal sense, it covers every disbelieving group of people who be-lieve in a Scripture but, in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an, this term is used for Jews and Christians only - because, anly these two groups from the People of the Book were well-known in and around Arabia. Therefore, addressing the Mushriks of Arabia, the Holy Qur'an has said: أَن تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أُنزِلَ الْكِتَابُ عَلَىٰ طَائِفَتَيْنِ مِن قَبْلِنَا وَإِن كُنَّا عَن دِرَ‌اسَتِهِمْ لَغَافِلِينَ ﴿156﴾ lest you should say, "The Book was sent down only upon two groups before us, and we were ignorant of what they studied." - 6:156 As for the injunction of Jihad against the People of the Book given in verse 29, it is really not particular to the People of the Book. The fact is that this very injunction applies to all disbelieving groups - because, the reasons for the injunction to fight mentioned next are common to all disbelievers. If so, the injunction has to be common too. But, the People of the Book were mentioned here particularly to serve a purpose. Since, it was possible that Muslims may hesitate to fight against them on the ground that they too are believers in a certain degree, believers in Torah and Injil, and in Sayyidna Musa and ` Isa (علیہما السلام) may peace be upon them both. So, it was possible that their connection with past prophets and their Books may become a factor in dissuading them from Jihad. Therefore, fighting with them was mentioned particularly. There is yet another element of coherence at this place. This particularization of the People of the Book in the verse is also releasing a hint that, in a certain way, these people are deserving of greater punishment. The reasons were simple. They were people with knowledge. They had the knowledge of Torah and Injil. These Scriptures referred to the Last among prophets, Sayyidna Muhammad al-Mustafa ﷺ giving his blessed identity in details. They knew all this, yet elected to reject the truth and went on to mount conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. When they did what they did, their crime became much more serious. That explains why fighting against them was mentioned particularly. The injunction to fight spells out four reasons in this verse: 1. لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ : They do not believe in Allah. 2. وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌: They do not believe in the Hereafter. 3. لَا يُحَرِّ‌مُونَ مَا حَرَّ‌مَ اللَّـهُ : They do not take as prohibited what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited. 4. لَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ : They do not submit to the Faith of Truth. This raises a doubt. Is it not that the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians, obviously believe in Allah - and in Hereafter and a Last Day too? Why, then, their faith ('Iman) in these things has been negated? The reason is that mere words of faith are hardly sufficient to prove one's actual belief in it. Not having the kind of faith desirable in the sight of Allah would amount to having no faith at all. Of course, the Jews and Christians did not openly reject the belief in Tauhid, that is, oneness of Allah or pure monotheism. But, as says the next verse, the Jews took Sayyidna ` Uzayr (علیہ السلام) and the Christians took Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) to be the sons of God and thereby assigned to them partnership in His divinity. Therefore, their confession of pure monotheism became ineffectual and any claim to faith, false. Similarly, the kind of faith desirable in the Hereafter was something not to be found with the People of the Book. Many of them went by the belief that, on the Last Day (the Qiyamah) there will be no return to life in body forms they had in the mortal world. Instead, it will be a kind of spiritual life. As for Paradise and Hell, they did not consider them to be any particular places. Spirit when happy was Paradise and spirit when gloomy was Hell. Since all this is patently contrary to what Allah says, therefore, even their faith in the Last Day too turns out to be no faith in real terms. The third thing - that these people do not take, what Allah has declared to be unlawful, as unlawful - means that they do not believe in the unlawfulness of many things prohibited by Torah or Injil - for example, riba رِبَاء (interest). Similarly, there were many edibles prohibited in Torah and Injil. They just did not consider these unlawful and indulged in them freely. This tells us about a religious rule of conduct. According to this rule, taking anything declared unlawful by Allah Ta` ala as lawful is not simply the commitment of a sin, in fact, it is kufr, a flat rejection of the faith itself. Similarly, taking something lawful to be unlawful is also kufr. However, should someone inadvertently fall short in practice while still taking the unlawful as unlawful, then, that would be sin, not kufr. Since all wars must end, a limit and end of the action of fighting against those people has also been set forth in this verse where it has been said: حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are humbled). Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari’ ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing. The reason is that kufr and shirk are rebellion against Allah and Rasul. Killing is the real punishment for it. But, Allah Ta` ala has, in His perfect mercy, reduced their punishment by giving them an option. The option is that, should they agree to live as subjects of the Islamic state under the general Islamic legal framework, they may be allowed to remain there against the payment of a nominal amount of jizyah. Since, they would be living there as citizens of a Muslim state, the protection of their life, property and honor will be the responsibility of the Islamic government and no hindrance will be placed in the observance of their religious duties. The amount thus taken is called jizyah. Should jizyah be fixed by mutual conciliation and agreement, there is no prescribed limit imposed by the Shari’ ah. It accepts the amount and thing for which a mutual peace treaty is arrived at - as was done by the Holy Prophet ﷺ with the people of Najran. A peace pact was concluded between him and the whole group of these people. They agreed to give him two thousand hullahs annually. A hullah is a pair of clothes. It could be a waist wrap for the lower part of the body with a top sheet wrap, or a long, loose shirt or cloak. Even the estimated monetary worth of every hullah was pre-determined. The value of each hullah was supposed to be one 'Uqiyah اُوقِیَہ of silver. An 'Uqiyah is equal to approximately 122.472 grams of silver, according to our weights. . Awzam-i-Shar’ iyah, Hadrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi A similar agreement was reached between Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ and the Christians of Bani Taghlib which stipulated that the jizyah on them be levied at the rate of Islamic Zakah - but, twice the Zakah. Furthermore, in the event Muslims conquered a certain land through war, then allowed the properties of its residents to remain under their ownership and possession, and they too agreed to continue living there as law-abiding citizens, a jizyah was levied on them. The rate of jizyah fixed and implemented by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ during the period of his Khilafat was four dirhams from the rich, two dirhams from the middle class and only one dirham from the active poor who earned by working on wages, or by making or vending things. This monthly payment of one dirham was equal to about 3.618 grams of silver or its equivalent amount. According to rules, nothing was to be taken from the very poor, disabled or handicapped. Similarly, nothing was to be taken from women, children, aged people and religious leaders living in seclusion. These were small amounts, yet there were instructions from the Holy Prophet ﷺ that no one should be made to pay more than he could afford. If anyone oppressed a non-Muslim, the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself will support that non-Muslim against his oppressor on the day of Qiyamah (Mazhari) Reports such as these have led some Muslim jurists to hold the position that there is no particular rate of jizyah payment as fixed by the Shari’ ah. Instead, this has been left for the ruler of the time to deter-mine the appropriate action in terms of existing conditions. The comments appearing above also make it clear that jizyah is a compensation for removing the punishment of killing from disbelievers - not a substitute for Islam. Therefore, there is no justification for doubting as to why were they given the permission to keep staying on their policy of aversion from and denial of Islam for a paltry price. The proof is that permission is given to many other people also who live in an Islamic country with the freedom to keep observing the percepts of their religion. Jizyah is not taken from them - for example, women, children, the aged, religious leaders, the disabled and the handicapped. Had jizyah been taken in lieu of Islam, it should have been taken from these as well. It should be noted that the paying of jizyah in this verse has been qualified with the words: عَن يَدٍ :'with their own hands.' Here, the first word: عن (` an: with) denotes cause, and ید (yad: hands) signifies power and subjugation. It means that the payment of this jizyah should not be in the spirit of some voluntary contribution or charity. Instead of that, it has to be in the spirit of recognition and acceptance of Islamic victory and of the willingness to live under it. (As in Ruh al-Ma` ani) As for the later part of the sentence: وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (while they are humbled), it means, according to the explanation given by Imam Shafi` i (رح) that they should subscribe to the common law of Islam and take the responsibility of remaining obedient to it. (Ruh al-Ma` ani and Mazhari) Regarding the instruction given in this verse that once these people have agreed to pay jizyah, fighting should be stopped; a little explanation may be useful. According to the majority of Muslim jurists, it includes all disbelievers - whether from the People of the Book or from those other than them. However, the Mushriks of Arabia stand excluded from it for jizyah was not accepted from them.

In the second verse (30), the subject taken up briefly in verse 29 (where it was said that these people do not believe in Allah) has been enlarged. In the second verse, it has been said that the Jews take Sayyidna ` Uzayr (علیہ السلام) to be the Son of God.l So do the Christians. They say that Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) is the Son of God. Therefore, their claim that Allah is One and that they have faith turns out to be false. 1. This is not the belief of all the Jews; it was the belief of some Jews of the Arabia. Now, the Dead Sea Scrolls have also proved the fact that some Jewish sects believed Ezra to be the son of God. It is learnt from some scholars who have studied the Scrolls. وَاللہُ اعلم ، (Muhammad Taqi Usmani) After that, it was said: ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ. (That is their saying [ invented ] by their mouths). This could also mean that these people profess it openly and clearly through their own tongues. There is nothing secret about it. Then, it could also mean that this blasphemy they utter re-mains the work of their tongues. They can give no reason or justification for it. Finally, it was said: یضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا مِن قَبْلُ ۚ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّـهُ ۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ (They (They resemble the earlier disbelievers in their saying. Be they killed by Allah, how far turned away they are! ). It means that the Jews and Christians, by calling prophets sons of Allah, became the same as disbelievers and Mushriks of past ages, for they used to say that the angels, and their idols, Lat and Manat, were daughters of God.

Commentary The four verses cited above mention how astray the learned and the devoted and the abstaining among the Jews and Christians had gone and what blasphemies of word and deed they had come up with. The word: اَحبَار (ahbar) is the plural form of حبر (hibr) and رھبان (ruhban) is the plural of راھب (rahib). Hibr refers to a religious scholar among the Jews and Christians while a rahib denotes someone who devotes to worship and abstains from a worldly role in life. In the first verse (31), it has been said that these people have taken their rabbis and monks as gods beside Allah and they have done the same with Sayyidna ` Isa ibn Maryam (علیہما السلام) whom they have given the status of their Lord. This is, of course, obvious in the case of Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) whom they took to be the son of God and did not demur from saying so. As for the charge against them that they had taken their rabbis and monks as gods, it has its reason. They used to call them as their Lord in clear terms, but even if it is presumed that they did not believe their religious leaders to be their gods, they had virtually transferred to them the right to be obeyed which is the right of Allah Jalla Thana'uh, absolutely and exclusively. They would, so to say, follow the dictates of these leaders under all circumstance - even if their dictates happen to be against Allah and His Messenger. With that attitude, one is bound to land in a valley of no return. How can one go about obeying someone even if that person says things contrary to the dictates of Allah and His Messenger? And how can one who has reached this ultimate limit still not refuse to obey that person? This is like taking someone as god - an act of flagrant blasphemy, an open kufr. This tells us that the present verse is not related in any way to the popular religious issue of following a particular juristic school (taqlid) which has two main aspects. Firstly, common people who are not aware of religious precepts and their details trust ` Ulama' and follow their fatawa. Secondly, Mujtahid Imams are followed in juristic issues requiring Ijtihad. So, this verse has no bearing on that count because such following is, in real terms, nothing but the following of the dictates of Allah and His Rasul Those whom Allah has blessed with knowledge and insight have a direct access to the original resources of Shari'ah whereby they know what Allah and His Rasul have said. They see it and act accordingly. The unaware masses act in accordance with the same injunctions by asking those who have knowledge. Then, there are those who have knowledge but are not competent enough to occupy the station of Ijtihad, they too follow the Mujtahid Imams in matters requiring ijtihad. This following is in accordance with the injunction of the Holy Qur'an and is nothing but obedience to Allah Ta` ala - as says the Qur'an: فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ‌ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ. It means: ` If you yourself are not aware of the injunctions of Allah and the Messenger, act by asking the people of knowledge 1- 16:43.' 1. The basic point of difference is that the one who follows an imam does not believe him to be an independent point of obedience. lie simply consults him as an interpreter of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. That is why he will not follow him if there is a clear clash between his view and a clear-cut ruling given by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. The case of Jews and Christians is totally different. They believe their religious leaders (rabbis and popes) as law-givers. They believe them to be infallible who cannot commit mistakes and their rulings are to be obeyed in any case, even though they contradict the ruling given by the scriptures. For more details on the subject, see my book on 'Taqlid' or on 'Uloom al-Qur'an.' (Muhammad Taqi Usmani) In sum, the masses of people among the Jews and Christians had ignored Scriptures, Divine commandments and the teachings of apostles totally and, in its place, they had taken the word and deed of self-serving scholars and ignorant pseudo-devotees as the core of their religion. This is what has been condemned in the verse.

Then, it was said that these people chose to take the way of error although they were asked by Allah to worship only one God who is free and pure from what they associated with Him. This verse limits itself to saying that they followed the false and obeyed people other than Allah, something they were not permitted to do. In the verse that follows (32), mentioned there is another error they make. It is said that they do not stop at the error they have already made. They, rather, like to compound their errors when they try to subvert Divine guidance and black out the Faith of Truth. The statement has been dressed in a si-militude - ` they want to blow out the Light of Allah with their mouths' - although, this is something they cannot do. Allah Ta` ala has already decided that He shall see to it that His Light, that is, the Religion of Islam, reaches its perfection, no matter how displeasing this may turn out to be for those who disbelieve.

After that, the same subject has been further stressed in the third verse (33) by saying that Allah Ta` ala has sent His Messenger with guidance, that is, the Qur'an, and with the Faith of Truth, that is, Islam, in order to have it prevail over all other faiths. Appearing in almost the same words, there are several other verses of the Holy Qur'an promising that the religion of Islam shall be made to prevail over all other faiths of the world. This glad tiding regarding the ascendancy of Islam is, as in Tafsir Mazhari, for most times and circumstances. In a Hadith from Sayydina Miqdad ؓ ، the Holy Prophet ﷺ said: No mud or mortar home shall remain on the face of the earth where the word of Islam has not entered with the honor of the honored and the disgrace of the disgraced. Whoever Allah blesses with honor shall embrace Islam and whoever is to face disgrace shall not, though, accept Islam but shall become a subject of the Islamic government. This promise of Allah Ta` ala was fulfilled. For about a thousand years, the primacy of Islam remained operative throughout the world. How this Light of Allah reached its perfection during the blessed period of the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the most righteous and worthy elders of the Muslim Community is a spectacle the world has already witnessed. Then, in future too, in terms of its legitimacy and truth for all times to come, the religion of Islam is a perfect religion no sensible person would elect to criticize. For this reason, this Faith of Truth, in terms of its arguments and proofs, has always been powerful. And, should Muslims follow this religion fully and faithfully, out-ward ascendancy, power and governance also turn out to be its inevitable results. As proved by the annals of the history of Islam, whenever Muslims acted whole-heartedly in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah, no impediment in their way could defeat their determination and their presence was felt all over the world as a dominant force. And whenever and wherever they have reached the limits of being subjugated or oppressed, it was but the evil consequence of heedlessness to and contravention of the injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah which came before them. As for the Religion of Truth, it stood its grounds as always, august and protected.

In the fourth verse (34), the address is to Muslims but the subject taken up concerns the conduct of rabbis and monks among the Jews and Christians, a conduct which led common people astray. Perhaps, the address to Muslims indicates a purpose behind the description of the conduct of Jewish rabbis and Christian monks. The purpose is to warn them as well in order that they too remain alert against such conditions prevailing among Muslims. The verse states that many rabbis and monks among the Jews and Christians eat up the wealth of the people by false means and prevent (them) from the way of Allah. Most rabbis and monks among the Jews and Christians were involved in this practice - and under such conditions, people generally tend to make a sweeping statement and call everyone bad. But, at this place, the Holy Qur'an, by adding the word: کَثیِرا (kathira: many), has prompted Muslims to mind their words even when dealing with enemies. It was clearly demonstrated here by not attributing the practice to all of them. Instead, what was said here was that many of them do so. Then, it was said that they were not doing the right thing when they eat up the wealth of people by false means. ` False means' refers to their practice of giving fatwa (religious edict or ruling) counter to the injunction of Torah, for money. In doing so, on occasions, they would misinterpret Divine injunctions through concealment and falsification. Further on from here, yet another error of their conduct was pointed out by saying that they were unfortunate people who, not only that they themselves had gone astray but were also ready to prevent others from seeking the way of Allah in the hope of finding right guidance. The reason is that people, when they see their leaders doing things like that, the inherent love for truth in them dies out. In addition to that, when they start basing their conduct on such false rulings, they end up taking that error and waywardness to be as good as correct. Since this disease among the rabbis and monks of the Jews and Christians - that they give false rulings for money - showed up because of worldly greed and love for money, the verse takes up the subject in its own way. It says that excess in love for money and property produces bad results, even punishment if not spent in the way of Allah, and suggests how to get rid of this disease. The exact words of the text are: وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ فَبَشِّرْ‌هُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ As for those who accumulate gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give them the ` good' news of a painful punishment. The words: وَلَا يُنفِقُونَهَا (and do not spend it) indicate that people who spend in the way of Allah as necessary, for them the rest of their accumulated wealth brings no harm. In Hadith too, the Holy Prophet ﷺ has said: Wealth for which Zakah has been paid is not included under: کَنَزتُم (kanaztum: you have accumulated). (Abu Dawud, Ahmad and others) This tells us that keeping wealth which remains after taking out Zakah is no sin. The majority of Muslim jurists and Imams have taken this approach. It should be noted that the pronoun in وَلَا یُنفِقُونَھَا (and do not spend it) reverts to فِضَّۃ (fiddah) which means silver. Two things, gold and silver, were mentioned immediately earlier but the pronoun was made to revert to silver only. Tafsir Mazhari takes it to be a clear indicator of the rule that should a person have a little of both gold and silver, his threshold (nisab) will be determined in terms of silver. His Zakah will be paid by calculating the price of gold in terms of the price of silver.

Explained in the fifth verse (35) is the detail of the ` painful punishment' referred to at the end of verse 34. There, it has been said: يَوْمَ يُحْمَىٰ عَلَيْهَا فِي نَارِ‌ جَهَنَّمَ فَتُكْوَىٰ بِهَا جِبَاهُهُمْ وَجُنُوبُهُمْ وَظُهُورُ‌هُمْ ۖ هَـٰذَا مَا كَنَزْتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا مَا كُنتُمْ تَكْنِزُونَ ﴿35﴾(on the day it will be heated up in the fire of Jahannam, then their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded with it: "This is what you had accumulated for yourselves. So, taste what you have been accumulating". It means that this ` painful punishment' will be for those who do not pay Zakah. It will come on a day when the gold and silver accumulated by them will be heated up in the Fire of Jahannam. Then, their foreheads, sides and backs shall be branded with it, and they shall be told, as a sort of verbal punishment, that it was what they had accumulated for themselves, and in consequence, they better have a taste of what they had accumulated. The return of a deed is the deed itself. That which was accumulated illegally or that which was accumulated legally but without having paid its Zakah ultimately became, by itself, the punishment of these people. In this verse, mention has been made of branding foreheads, sides and backs. Either it means the whole body or these three parts have been particularized for the reason that a miser who does not like to spend his wealth in the way of Allah would usually greet a needy visitor looking for charity or Zakah with a forehead all wrinkled with distaste. After that, when to avoid him, he tries to turn away to the right or the left side. And if the needy person still persists, he would turn his back on him. Perhaps, the forehead, the sides and the back were thus particularized for this punishment.