59. Surah Al-Hashr

1 For explanation, see E.N.'s 1, 2 of Surah AI-Hadid. The object of this introductory sentence before making an appraisal of the banishment of the Ban; an-Nadir is to prepare the mind to understand the truth that the fate this powerful tribe met was not the result of the power of the Muslims but a manifestation of the power of Allah.

2 Here, the reader should understand one thing at the outset so as to avoid any confusion about the banishment of the Bani an-Nadir. The Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) had concluded a formal written treaty with the Bani an-Nadir. They had not broken this agreement as such that it should have become void But the reason why they were attacked was that after making different kinds of minor violations of it, they at last committed such an offence which amounted to the breach of trust. That'is, they plotted to kill the leader of the other party to the treaty, i. e. the Islamic State of Madinah. The plot became exposed, and when the were accused of breaking the agreement they could not deny it Thereupon, the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) told them either to leave Madinah or to be ready for a war. This notice was in accordance with this injunction of the Qur'an: "If you ever fear treachery from any people, throw their treaty openly before them. " (AI-Anfal: 58) That is why Allah is describing their exile as His own action, for it was precisely in accordance with Divine Law. In other words, they were not expelled by the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) and the Muslims but by Allah Himself. The other reason why Allah has described their exile as His own action, has been stated in the following verses. 3 The word hashr in the Text means to gather the scattered individuals to gether or to take out scattered individuals after mustering them together. Thus, the words li-awwal-il-hashr mean: with the first hashr or on the occasion of the first hashr. As for the question, what is implied by the first hashr here, the commentators have disputed it. According to one group it implies the banishment of the Bani an-Nadir from Madinah, and this has been described as their first hashr in the sense that their second hashr took place in the time of Hadrat `Umar, when the Jews and the Christians were expelled from the Arabian peninsula, and the final hashr will take place on the Day of Resurrection. According to the second group it implies the gathering of the Muslim army together to fight the Bani an-Nadir; and li-awwal-il-hashr means that as soon as the Muslims had gathered together to fight them, and no blood yet had been shed, they, by the manifestation of Allah's power, offered to be banished from Madinah of their own accord. In other words, these words have been used here in the meaning of "at the very first assault". Shah Waliullah has translated it "at the first gathering of the army". Shah 'Abdul Qadir has translated it "at the first mustering." In our opinion this translation very nearly gives the meaning of these words. 4 To understand this one should keep in mind the fact that the Bani anNadir had been well established here for centuries. They lived in compact populations outside Madinah without any lien element. Their settlement was well fortified, which had fortified houses as are generally built in feud-ridden tribal areas. Then heir numerical strength also equalled that of the Muslims, and inside Madinah itself many of the hypocrites were their supporters..Therefore, the. Muslims could never expect that they would, even without fighting, be so unnerved by the siege as to leave their homes willingly. likewise, the Bani an-Nadir also could not have imagined that some power would compel them to leave their homes within six days, Although the Bani Qainuqa' had been expelled before them, and their false pride of valour had proved to be of no avail, they lived in a locality inside Madinah and did not have any separate fortified settlement; therefore, the Bani an-Nadir thought that their inability to withstand the Muslims was not exceptionable, Contrary to this, in view of their own fortified settlement and strongholds they could not imagine that some power could turn them out so easily. That is why when the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) served a notice on them to leave Madinah within ten days, they boldly retorted, saying: We are not going to quit: you may do whatever you please." Here, the question arises: On what basis has AIIah said: 'They were thinking that their fortresses would save them from Allah'. Did the Bani an-Nadir really know that they were not facing Muhammad bin `Abdullah (upon whom be Allah's peace) but AIIah? And did they, in spite of knowing this, think that their fortresses would save them from Allah? .This is a question which would confound every such person who dces not know the psychology of the Jewish people and their centuries-old traditions. As regards the common men, no one can imagine that despite their knowing consciously that they were facing Allaf, they would Entertain the false hope that their forts and weapons would save them from Allah. Therefore, an ignorant person would interpret the Divine Word, saying that the Bani an-Nadir in view of the strength of their forts were apparently involved in the misunderstanding that they would remain safe from the Holy Prophet's attack, but in reality they were fighting Allah and from Him their forts could not save them. But the fact is that the Jews in this world are a strange people, who have been knowingly fighting Allah: they killed the Prophets of Allah knowing them to be His Prophets, and they declared boastfully and arrogantly that they had killed the Prophets of AIIah. Their traditions say that their great Patriarch, the prophet Jacob, wrestled with Allah throughout the night and Allah could not throw him even till daybreak. .Then, when at daybreak Allah asked Jacob to let Him go, Jacob replied that he would not let Him go until He blessed him. Allah asked him his name, and he answer `Jacob Allah said that his name would no longer be Jacob, but Israel, "because you strove with God and with men, and prevailed." (See Gen. 32: 25-29 in the latest Jewish translation; The Scriptures Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society of America 1954). In the Christian translation of the Bible too this subject has been rendered likewise. In the footnote of the Jewish translation, "Israel" has been explained as: He who striveth with God. " In the Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature the meaning given of Israel" by the Christian scholars is: "Wrestler with God." Then in Hosea (O.T.) the Prophet Jacob has been praised thus: "By his strength he had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed. " (Ch. 12: 3-4). Now, obviously, the people of Israel are the children of the same Prophet Israel who, according to their faith, had striven with God and wrestled with Him. For them it is not at all difficult that they should stand firm and fight even God. On this very basis, they, even according to their own profession, killed the Prophets of God, and under the same false pride they put the Prophet Jesus on the cross and bragged: "We have killed Jesus Christ, son of Mary, Messenger of Allah. " Therefore, it was not against their traditions that they fought Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace) despite their knowledge that he was Allah's Messenger. If not their common people, their rabbis and learned men knew full well that he was the Messenger of AIlah. The Qur'an itself contains several evidences to this effect. (For instance, see E:N.'s 79, 95 of Al-Baqarah, E.N.'s 190, 191 of An-Nisa, E.N.'s 70, 73 of As-Saaffat). 5 Allah's coming down upon them does not mean that Allah was staying in another place whence He attacked them. But this i9 a metaphoric expression. The object is to give the idea that while facing Allah they were thinking that AIIah could chastise them only by bringing an army against them from the front and they were confident that they would resist that force by their fortifications, But Allah attacked them from whence they had not thought it possible; and this was that He made than weak and broke their power of resistance from within after which neither their weapons nor their strongholds could help them.

6 That is, ”The destruction occurred in two ways: from outside the Muslims besieged them and started demolishing their fortifications, and from within, first they raised obstacles of stone and wood to stop the Muslims from advancing, and for this purpose broke their own houses for the material; then, when they became certain that they would have to vacate the place, they started pulling down their houses, which they had so fondly built and decorated, with their own hands, so as to render them useless for the Muslims Later, when they settled peace with the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) on the condition that they would be spared their lives but would havc the permission to carry away whatever they could, except the weapons and armour, they started removing the frames of the doors and windows, even pegs; so much so that some people removed the beams and wooden ceilings, which they put upon the back of their camels and left." 7 There arc many lessons which one can learn from this event, which have been alluded to in this brief but eloquent sentence These Jews were none other but the followers of the former Prophets: they believed in God, in the Book, in the former Prophets and the Hereafter. Accordingly, they were the former Muslims. But when they turned their back on religion and morality and adopted open hostility to the truth only for the sake of their selfish desires and worldly motives and interests, and showed scant regard for their treaties and agreements, Allah's grace was turned away from them, otherwise Allah had no personal enmity with than. Therefore, first of all, the Muslims themselves havc been admonished to heed their fate and Learn a lesson from it, lest they too should start behaving as if they were the beloved children of God, as the Jews did, and should be involved in the misunderstanding that their being included among the followers of the Last Prophet of God would by itself guarantee for them Allah's bounty and His support, apart from which they were not bound to adhere to any demand of religion and morality. Besides, those people of the world also havc been asked to learn a lesson from this event, who oppose the truth consciously, and then place reliance upon their wealth and power, their means and resources, thinking that these would save them from the Divine punishment. The Jews of Madinah were not unaware that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings) had not risen for the supremacy of a people or tribe, but he was presenting an ideological invitation the addressees of which were all men, and every man, no matter what race or country he belonged to, could join his Ummah by accepting the invitation, without discrimination or distinction. They were themselves witnessing that Bilal of Habash, Suhaib of Rome, and Salman of Persia enjoyed the same position and status in the Muslim community as was enjoyed by the people of the Holy Prophet's own house. Therefore, they were not feeling any danger that the Quraish and the Aus and the Khazrij would gain an upper hand over them. Nor were they unaware that the ideological invitation that he was presenting was precisely the same as their own Prophets had been presenting. The Holy Prophet never put forward the claim that he had come with a new religion, unknown to the people, and that the people should give up their former religion and accept his religion ' instead. But what he claimed was that the religion being presented by him was the same that the Prophets of God had been preaching and presenting since the beginning of creation. And from their Torah they could themselves confirm that it was actually the same religion, the principles of which were not any different from the principles of the religion of the Prophets. On the same basis they were told in the Qur'an: Affirm faith in the teaching sent down by Me, which confirms the teaching that you already possess, and you should not be its first deniers." They were also witnessing what character and morals the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) possessed, and what revolution had taken place in the lives of those who had accepted his message. For a long time the Ansar of Madinah had been their closest neighbours. They knew what kind of people they had been before embracing Islam and what they became after their conversion to Islam. Thus, they were well aware of the invitation, of the inviter and of the results of accepting the invitation. But in spite of witnessing and knowing all this, only on account of their racial prejudice and worldly interests, they expended aII their energy against the message of truth about which there was no room for doubt at least in their minds. After such an obvious and open hostility to the trnth they expected that their strongholds would save them from Allah, whereas the whole human history bears evidence that the one who is resisted by the power of God, cannot save and protect himself by any weapon, means or device.

8 "Would have chastised them in the world": world have caused them to be annihilatcd. That is, had they fought instead of surrendering to save their lives, they would have been completely wiped out. Their men would have perished in the war and their womenfolk and children would have been taken prisoners and there would be no one to have them ransomed.

9 The reference is to the fact that the Muslims cut down or burnt many of the palm-trees that stood in the oases around the settlement of the Bani an Nadir in order to facilitate the siege, However, they left those trees standing which did not obstruct the military operations. At this the hypocrites of Madinah and the Bani Quraizah, and the Bani an-Nadir themselves, raised a clamour, saying that, on the one hand, Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings) prohibited spreading disorder in the world, but, on the other, fruit trees were being cut down by his command, which amounted to spreading disorder in the world. At this AI-Hashr AIIah ,sent down the Command: 'Whatever trees you cut down, or whatever you left standing, your neither act was unlawful, but it had Allah's permission." The legal injunction that is derived from this verse is that the destruction caused for the sake of military operations does not come under "spreading disorder in the world. " But spreading disorder in the world is that an army under the fit of war hysteria .should intrude into the enemy territory and start destroying the crops, cattle. gardens, houses and everything in its way without any reason. In this matter. the general instruction is the same which Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddiq gave while despatching the Muslim army to Syria: "Do not cut down friut trees; do not destroy crops; do not ravage the settlements." This was precisely in accordance with the Qur'anic teaching, which condemns those who spread chaos; 'When they get power they direct aII their efforts towards spreading corruption in the land, destroying harvests and killing people." (AI-Baqarah: 205). But the specific command in respect of the war exigencies is that if destruction is necessary for military operations against the enemy, it is lawful. Thus, Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud has given this explanation in the commentary of this verse: 'The Muslims had cut down only those trees of the Bani an-Nadir that stood on the battlefield. " (Tafsir Nisaburi). Some of the Muslim jurists have overlooked this aspect of the matter and expressed the opinion that the permissibility of cutting the trees of the Bani an-Nadir was confined only to that particular event. It does not make it generally permissible that whenever war necessitates trees of the enemy be cut down and burnt. Imam Auza'i, Laith and Abu Thaur hold this same opinion. But the majority of the jurists hold the view that for the sake of important military operations it is permissible. However, this is not permissible for the purpose of mere destruction and pillage. One may ask: This verse of the Qur'an could satisfy the Muslims, but how could those who did not accept the Qur'an as Divine Word be satisfied at this reply to their objection that both acts were permissible as they had Allah's permission for it? The answer is: This verse of the Qur'an was sent down to satisfy only the Muslims; it was not sent down to satisfy the disbelievers. Since due to the objection of the Jews and the hypocrites, or due to their own thinking, they had been involved in the misgiving whether they were guilty of spreading disorder in the earth, AIIah gave them the satisfaction that both the acts, cutting down some trees to facilitate the siege and leaving some other trees standing which did not obstruct the siege, were in accordance with Divine Law. The traditionists in their traditions have disputed the point whether the order to cut and burn the trees had been given by the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace himself, or whether the Muslims had done it of their own accord, and then later asked the Holy Prophet about its legal aspect. Hadrat Abdullah bin 'Umar has reported that the Holy Prophet himself had ordered it. (Bukhari, Muslim , Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Jarir). The same also has been reported by Yazid bin. Ruman (Ibn Jarir). On the contrary, Mujahid and Qatadah say that the Muslims had on their own cut down the trees; then a dispute arose among them whether what they had done was permissible or not. Some said it was permissible and some said it was not. At last Allah sent down this verse and approved the act of both. (Ibn Jarir). The same thing is supported by a tradition of Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: 'The Muslims were confused because Some of them had cut the trees and others had not; therefore, they wanted to ask the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) as to who would be rewarded for the act and who would be punished.' (Nasa i). Those of the jurists who have preferred the first tradition give the argument that this was the Holy Prophet's personal judgement, which was later ratified by revelation from AIlah, and this a proof of the fact that in matters where no Divine Command existed, the Holy Prophet used to follow his personal judgement. On the other hand, those jurists who have preferred the second tradition, argue that the two groups of the Muslims had adopted two different views on the basis of their own personal judgements and AIIah ratified both. Therefore, if the learned men arrive at different conclusions by judicious exercise of their personal judgement, then although their opinions might differ, they would all be correct in the Divine Shari ah. 10 That is, "Allah willed that they should be disgraced if you cut down the trees and also if you left them standing." In the first case, they were disgraced when they saw that the trees of the gardens which they had planted with their own hands and which they had owned since ages, were being cut down before their very eyes and they were watching it helplessly. Even an ordinary peasant and gardener cannot tolerate another's misappropriation or intrusion into his field or garden. He would protect his field or garden at the risk of his life if somebody tried to destroy it in his presence. For if he cannot prevent destruction-n of his property, it would be a sign of his extreme humiliation and weakness. But here a whole tribe, which had been living at this place fearlessly and boldly for centuries, was watching helplessly that its neighbours had invaded its gardens and were destroying the trees while it could do nothing. After this even if they stayed on in Madinah they would have lived in disgrace and humility. In the second case, they were disgraced when on leaving Madinah they saw that the lush green gardens which had been in their possession till the previous day were now passing into the possession of the Muslims. Had they the power they would have laid waste the entire gardens by their own hands SO that not a single whole.tree passed into the hands of the Muslims. But in their helplessness they left the city, despaired and grief-stricken, leaving everything intact behind.

11 From here to the end of verse 10, Allah explains how the lands and properties that were restored bto the Islamic State after the exile of the Ban; an- Nadir, are to be managed and administered. As it was the first occasion that a land was conquered and included in the Islamic territory, and many more lands were destined to be conquered in the future, the law governing the conquered lands was enunciated at the outset. Here, a note-worthy point is that AIIah at this place has used the words: Ma af'-Allahu ala Rasuli-hi min-hum "whatever AIIah restored to His Messenger from them." These words clearly imply that the rebels of AIIah Almighty arc not entitled to own the earth and things existing on it. If they have become their owners and are appropriating them, their ownership and appropriation of these things is, in fact, in the nature of usurpation of a master's property by a dishonest servant. The real right of these properties is that these should be spent and used in the service and obedience of their real Master, AIIah, Lord of the worlds, according to His will, and their this use is possible only through the agency of the righteous believers. Therefore, the true position of the properties which pass from the ownership of the disbelievers into the hands of the Muslims as the result of a lawful war, is that their real Owner has withdrawn them from His disobedient and disloyal servants, and restored them to His obedient and loyal servants. That is why, in the terminology of the Islamic Law such properties have been described as Fai (restored properties). 12 That is, "The restoration of these properties to the Muslims is not the result of the effort of the actual fighting army so that the army on that basis may have the right that the properties may be distributed among the soldiers, but its real nature is that Allah by His bounty has given dominance to His Messengers and the system that they represent over them. In other words, the passing of these properties into the Muslims' hands is not the direct result of the effort and struggle of the fighting army, but the result of the total strength that AIIah has bestowed on His Messenger and his community and the system established by him Therefore, these properties are quite different in nature from the spoils of war and so cannot be distributed among the soldiers as such. Thus, the Shari ah has made a distinction between ghanimah (spoils of war) and fai (restored properties). The injunction :n respect of the ghanimah has been given in surah AI-Anfal: 41, and it is this "It should be divided in five parts, four parts of which be distributed among the fighting army and the fifth deposited in the Public Treasury (Bait al-Mal), and expended on the items mentioned in the verse." As for the fai, the injunction is that it should not be distributed among the army, but it should be reserved for the items of expenditure being stated in the following verse. The distinction between the two has been made plain by the words: "You have not rushed your horses and camels on them," which imply the military operations. Thus, the properties which are taken as a direct result of such operations are the ghnimah and those which arc not the result of these operations are the fai. The distinction between ghanimah and tai that has been brterty mentioned in this verse, has been explained in greater detail by the juristis of Islam. Ghanimah are only those transferable properties which are taken from the enemy durIng military action; other things than these, e.g. lands, houses and other transferable and nontransferable properties of the enemy, are excluded from the definition of ghanimah and are fai. The source of this explanation is the letter that Hadrat 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had written to Hadrat Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas after the conquest of 'Iraq. In that letter he wrote: "Distribute the properties and goods which the soldiers of the army collected and brought to your camp among the Muslims who participated in the war, and leave the lands and the canals with those who work on them so that the proceeds thereof are used for the salaries of the Muslims." (Abu Yusuf. Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 24; Abu 'Ubaid, Kitab al-Amwal, p. 59; Yahya bin Adam, Kitab al-Kharaj, pp. 27-28, 48). On this very basis, Hadrat Hasan Basri says: "Whatever is taken from the enemy camp, is the right of those who won victory over it? and the lands are for the Mttslirns." Yahya bin Adam, p. 27). And Imam Abu Yusuf says: °Whatever the Muslims take from the enemy troops, and whatever goods and arms and cattle they collect and bring to their camp, is ghanimah; from this one-fifth will be deducted and the rest distributed among the soldiers." (Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 18). The same is the opinion of Yahya bin Adam, which he has expressed in his Kitab al-Kharaj (p. 27). Even more than this, what makes the distinction between ghanimah and fai clearer is that after the Battle of Nahawand when the ghanimah had been distributed and the conquered lands had been included in the Islamic State. a tnan named Sa'ib bin Aqra' found two bags of jewels outside the fort. He was confused whether it was the ghanimah which should be distributed in the army, or the fai which should be deposited in the Bait al-Mil Consequently, he came to Madinah and put the matter before Hadrat 'Umar, who decided that it should be sold and the price deposited in the Bait-al-Mil. From this it becomes clear that ghanimah are only those transferable properties which are taken by the soldiers during the war. After the war is over, the transferable properties also, like the nontransferable properties, become fai. Imam Abu 'Ubaid relates this event and says: "The properties that arc seized from the enemy by the use of force, when the war is still in progress, are ghanimah and what is taken after the war is over, when the territory has become Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam), is fai, which should be reserved for the common people of the dar al-Islam; the law of the one-fifth (khums) will not be applicable to it. " (Kitab al-Amwal p. 2S4). After defining ghanimah thus, the rest of the properties, wealth and lands, which pass from the disbelievers' ownership to the Muslims may be divided into two main kinds first those which are taken as a result of actual fighting f anwatan in Fiqh terminology); second, those which are taken by the Muslims as a result of the peace terms whether peace is concluded because of the pressure of the military power of the Muslims, or their dread and awe, and in this are also included aII those properties which pass into the Muslims' ownership in every other way than as a result of actual fighting The differences that have arisen among the jurists of Islam have been only concerning the first kind of the properties in order to determine their correct legal position, for they do not come under 'those upon which you have not rushed your horses and camels." As regards the second kind of the properties, aII agree that they arc fai, for the Qur'an has explicitly laid down the injunction about them. Below we shall discuss in dctail the legal position of the first kind of the properties.

13 In the preceding verse what was pointed out was why these properties should not be distributed among the fighting army like the spoils, and why the legal injunction concerning them is different from that concerning the spoils Now in this verse it is being stated as to who are entitled to have a sha. re in these properties. The first share in these is of AIIah and His Messenger. The dctail of how the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) acted on this injunction has been related by Malik bin Aus bin al-Hadathan on the authority of Hadrat 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), thus: The Holy Prophet used to take from it necessary expenses for himself and his family and the rest he used to spend on arranging arms and conveyances for Jihad. (Bukhari Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, .96u Da 'ud, Tirmadhi Nasa i and others). After the passing away of the Holy Prophet this share was transferred to the Public Treasury of the Muslims so that it is spent in the service of the mission which Allah had entrusted to His Messenger. Imam Shafa' i is reported to have expressed the opinion that the share which was specifically meant for the Holy Prophet's person (upon whom be Allah's peace), is for his caliph after him, for the Holy Prophet was entitled to it on the basis of his office of leadership and not on the basis of the office of Apostleship. But the view of the. majority of the Shafe'i jurists in this matter is the same as of the other jurists, viz. that this share now is reserved for the religious and collective welfare of the Muslims, and not for any particular. person. The second share is of the kinsfolk, and this implies the kinsfolk of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace), i.e. the Bani Hashim and the Bani al-Muttalib. This share was set aside so that, besides meeting his own and his family's requirements, the Holy Prophet could also finlfil his obligations towards those of his relatives who stood in need of his help, or whom he felt like helping. ,After the death of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) this ceased to be a separate and independent source, because like the right; of the orphans and the wayfarers and the indigent among the Muslims, looking after the rights of the needy among the Bani Hashim and the Bani al-Muttalib also became the responsibility of the Public Treasury. However, they were treated as superior to others in so far as they had no share in the zakat. Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas has related that in the time of Hadrat Abu Bakr and 'Umar and 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them), the first two shares were dropped and only the remaining three shares (i.e. those for the orphans and the indigent and the wayfarers) were kept as of those entitled to fai Then Hadrat `AIi (may AIIah be pleased with him) also acted on the same in his time, Muhammad bin Ishaq has related on the authority of Imam Muhammad Baqir that although Hadrat 'Ali's personal opinion was the same as of the people of his house (that this share should be given to the relatives of the Holy Prophet), he did not think that he should act against the practice of Abu Bakr and `Umar. Hasan bin Muhammad bin Hanafiyah says that after the Holy Prophet a difference of opinion arose about these two shares (i.e. the sharc of the Holy Prophet and the share of his relatives). Some people said that the first share should go to the Holy Prophet's caliph, some said that the second share should go to the relatives of the Holy Prophet, and still others said that the second sharc should be given to the relatives of the caliph. At last, a consensus was reached that both the shares be spent on the requirements of Jihad 'Ata' bin Sa'ib says that Hadrat 'Umar bin 'Abdul `Aziz in his time had started sending the share of the Holy Prophet and the share of the relatives to the Bani Hashim. The opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah and of most of the Hanafi jurists is that in this matter the same practice is cornet as was., being followed in the time of the righteous Caliphs. (Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj pp. 19-21). Imam Share'i's opinion is that both the rich and the needy from among the people whose being descended from the Bani Hashim and the Bani al-Muttalib is confirmed, or is well known, can be given shares from fai. (Mughni al-Muhtaj). The Hanafis say that only their needy people can be helped from this; however, their right to this is greater than that of others. (Ruh al-Ma'ani). According to Imam Malik, there is no restriction on the government in this matter. It can spend on any head that it deems fit and proper, but the better course is that it should give preference to the people of the Holy Prophet's house. (Hashiyah ad-Dusuqi ala-sh-Sharh-al-Kabir). About the remaining three shares there is no dispute among the jurists. However, the difference between Imam Shafe'i and the other Imams is that according to Imam Shafe'i the total properties of fai are to be divided into five equal parts one part of which is to be spent on the above-mentioned heads in such a way that one-fifth of it is spent on the common benefits of the Muslims, one-fifth on the Bani Hashim and the Bani al-Muttalib, one-fifth on the orphans, one-fifth on the indigent and one-fifth on the wayfarers. However, Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad do not concur with this division. Their opinion is that the whole of fai is for the welfare and common benefit of the Muslims. (Mughni al-Muhtaj). 14 This is one of the most important verses of the Qur'an, which lays down the basic principle of the economic policy of the Islamic community and government. Wealth should circulate among the whole community and not only among the rich lest the rich should go on becoming richer day by day and the poor poorer. This policy has not merely been enunciated in the Qur'an, but for the same objective the Qur'an has forbidden interest, made the zakat obligatory, enjoined that khums (one-fifth) be deducted from the booty, exhorted the Muslims to practise voluntary charity, has proposed such forms of different kinds of atonements that the flow of wealth is turned towards the poor classes of society, and has made such a law of inheritance that the wealth left by every deceased person spreads among the largest circle of the people. Apart from this, stinginess has been condemned and generosity commended as a noble moral quality, the well-to-do people have been told that in their wealth there is a definite share of the beggar and the indigent, which they must discharge not as charity but as the right of the concerned people, and the law enjoined in respect of a major source of revenue of the Islamic government (i.e. far) is that its one portion must necessarily be spent on supporting the poor classes of society. In this connection, it should also be borne in mind that there are two main sources of the revenue of the Islamic government: zakat and fai. The zakat is charged from the Muslims on their total extra capital, cattle, wealth, trade goods and agricultural produce, which is over and above the minimum exemption limit (nisab), and most of it is reserved for the poor. And fai comprises all the revenues including jizyah and taxes which are received from the non-Muslims; a major part of these also is set aside for the poor, This gives a clear hint to the effect that an Islamic government should manage its revenues and expenditure and the financial and economic affairs of the country on the whole in such a manner that the wealthy and influential people are not allowed to have their monopoly over the means and resources of wealth, and the flow of wealth is neither turned from the poor to the rich nor it should remain circulating only among the rich. 15 In view of the context the verse means: "Accept without question whatever decision the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) gives about the management of the properties of the Bani an-Nadir, and likewise about the distribution of fai properties and goods afterwards. One should take whatever the Prophet gives him, and the one whom l le dces not give anything, should neither protest nor demand it But since the words of the Command arc general, its application is not restricted to the distribution of the Jai properties and goods only, but its intention is that in all matters the Muslims should obey the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace). This intention of the Command becomes all the more clear when we consider that as against "whatever the Messenger gives you" the words used are "whatever he forbids you" and not "what. ever he does not give you. " If the object of the Command were restricted to call obedience to the distribution offal properties and goods .only, then as against "whatever he gives you" the words should have been "whatever he does not give you. " The use of the forbidding or restraining words in this context by itself shows that the object of the Command is to enjoin obedience to the Holy Prophet in whatever he commands and forbids. The same thing has been stated by the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) himself. According to Hadrat Abu Hurairah he said: "When I command you to do a thing, do it as far as you can; and when 1 forbid you to do a thing, restrain from it." (Bukhari, Muslim). About Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas'ud it has been related that once during a speech he said: "Allah has cursed the woman who practices such and such a fashion." Thereupon a woman approached him and asked, "Wherefrom have you derived this thing? For I have not seen such a thing anywhere in the Book of Allah." Hadrat `Abdullah replied, "Had you studied the Book of Allah, you would certainly have found it therein. Have you not read the verse: Ma ata-kum ar-Rasulu fa-khudu hu wa ma naha-kum `anhu fantahu: "Take whatever the Messenger gives you, and refrain from whatever he forbids you. " When she said that she had read this verse, Hadrat `Abdullah said: "So the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) has forbidden this act, and has given the news that Allah has cursed the women who practice it. " The woman agreed that she had understood the Command. (Bukhari Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Musnad Ibn abi Hatim,).

16 This implies those people who at `that time had been expelled from Makkah and other parts of Arabia only because they had embraced Islam. Before the conquest of the territory of the Ban; an-Nadir these emigrants had no permanent means of sustenance. Therefore. it was commanded that in the properties which were then taken, and in the fai properties which are taken in future there is also a share of these people along with the common poor people and the orphans and the wayfarers. With these properties all such people should be helped, who are forced to emigrate for the cause of AIlah and His Messenger to the abode of Islam. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) distributed a part of the properties taken from the Bani an-Nadir among the Emigrants and the oases which the Ansar had set aside for the support and maintenance of their emigrant brothers were returned to them. But it is not correct to think that the Emigrants had this share in the fai only at that time. In fact, the intention of the verse is to point out that till Resurrection it is the duty of the Islamic government of the country to settle the people who are exiled and compelled to take refuge in it because of being Muslims and to enable them to stand on their feet economically; and it should spend on this head also from the fai properties besides the zakat funds.