Introduction, Arabic verses, Urdu, English translation, explanatory notes index and detailed explanations

Compiled from Tafheemul Quran

Surah Al-Mumtahanah

Name:

Verse 10 of this surah commands that women who emigrate and claim to be Muslim should be tested/examined. It is from this that the surah takes its name Al-Mumtahanah. It is pronounced both as Mumtahinah and Mumtahanah. Under the first pronunciation, it means “the woman who is examined,” and under the second, it means “the surah that examines.”

Period of Revelation:

The surah addresses two matters whose timing is historically established. The first concerns Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah, who, shortly before the conquest of Makkah, sent a secret letter informing the Quraysh chiefs of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) intention to march against them. The second concerns the Muslim women who, after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, began emigrating from Makkah to Madinah, raising the question of whether, under the treaty’s terms, these women — like Muslim men — should be handed back to the disbelievers. These two references establish with certainty that this surah was revealed in the period between the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the conquest of Makkah. There is also a third matter, mentioned toward the end of the surah: what pledges the Prophet (peace be upon him) should take from women who came to give their oath of allegiance after embracing faith. This portion, too, is presumed to have been revealed shortly before the conquest of Makkah, since after the conquest large numbers of Quraysh women — like the men — were entering Islam simultaneously, and it was at that point that the need arose to take a collective pledge from them.

Subject Matter and Discussion:

The surah has three sections:

The first section runs from the beginning of the surah to verse 9, and verse 13 at the end of the surah also belongs to this same theme. It sternly rebukes Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah for attempting — solely to protect his own family — to alert the enemy to a highly sensitive military secret of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Had this not been thwarted in time, it would have caused great bloodshed at the conquest of Makkah: many precious Muslim lives would have been lost, many Quraysh who later went on to render great services to Islam would have been killed, and all the benefits of a peaceful conquest of Makkah would have been forfeited — all because one man among the Muslims wanted to protect his family from the dangers of war. Warning against this grave error, Allah instructs all believers that a believer must never, under any circumstance or for any purpose, maintain love or friendly ties with the enemies of Islam, nor do anything that would benefit the disbelievers in the struggle between disbelief and Islam. However, there is no harm in showing kindness toward those disbelievers who are not actively hostile toward Islam and Muslims and do not cause them harm.

comprises verses 10–11. It resolves an important social issue that was causing serious complications at the time. In Makkah there were many Muslim women whose husbands were disbelievers, and who, by one means or another, managed to emigrate to Madinah. Likewise, in Madinah there were many Muslim men whose wives were disbelievers and had remained behind in Makkah. The question arose as to whether the marriage bond between such couples still held. Allah settled this matter once and for all: a disbelieving husband is not lawful for a Muslim woman, nor is it permissible for a Muslim man to keep a polytheist wife in his marriage. This ruling carries significant legal implications, which will be detailed in the footnotes that follow.

The third section comprises verse 12, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) is instructed that when women embrace Islam, he should take from them a pledge to abstain from the major vices that were widespread among women in the society of pre-Islamic ignorance (Jahiliyyah), and to obtain their commitment that henceforth they would follow all the good practices commanded to them by the Messenger of Allah.

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَتَّخِذُوۡا عَدُوِّیۡ وَ عَدُوَّکُمۡ اَوۡلِیَآءَ تُلۡقُوۡنَ اِلَیۡہِمۡ بِالۡمَوَدَّۃِ وَ قَدۡ کَفَرُوۡا بِمَا جَآءَکُمۡ مِّنَ الۡحَقِّ ۚ یُخۡرِجُوۡنَ الرَّسُوۡلَ وَ اِیَّاکُمۡ اَنۡ تُؤۡمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ رَبِّکُمۡ ؕ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ خَرَجۡتُمۡ جِہَادًا فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِیۡ وَ ابۡتِغَآءَ مَرۡضَاتِیۡ ٭ۖ تُسِرُّوۡنَ اِلَیۡہِمۡ بِالۡمَوَدَّۃِ ٭ۖ وَ اَنَا اَعۡلَمُ بِمَاۤ اَخۡفَیۡتُمۡ وَ مَاۤ اَعۡلَنۡتُمۡ ؕ وَ مَنۡ یَّفۡعَلۡہُ مِنۡکُمۡ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ سَوَآءَ السَّبِیۡلِ ﴿۱﴾ اِنۡ یَّثۡقَفُوۡکُمۡ یَکُوۡنُوۡا لَکُمۡ اَعۡدَآءً وَّ یَبۡسُطُوۡۤا اِلَیۡکُمۡ اَیۡدِیَہُمۡ وَ اَلۡسِنَتَہُمۡ بِالسُّوۡٓءِ وَ وَدُّوۡا لَوۡ تَکۡفُرُوۡنَ ؕ﴿۲﴾ لَنۡ تَنۡفَعَکُمۡ اَرۡحَامُکُمۡ وَ لَاۤ اَوۡلَادُکُمۡ ۚۛ یَوۡمَ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ۚۛ یَفۡصِلُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ بَصِیۡرٌ ﴿۳﴾ قَدۡ کَانَتۡ لَکُمۡ اُسۡوَۃٌ حَسَنَۃٌ فِیۡۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ مَعَہٗ ۚ اِذۡ قَالُوۡا لِقَوۡمِہِمۡ اِنَّا بُرَءٰٓؤُا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ مِمَّا تَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ ۫ کَفَرۡنَا بِکُمۡ وَ بَدَا بَیۡنَنَا وَ بَیۡنَکُمُ الۡعَدَاوَۃُ وَ الۡبَغۡضَآءُ اَبَدًا حَتّٰی تُؤۡمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰہِ وَحۡدَہٗۤ اِلَّا قَوۡلَ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ لِاَبِیۡہِ لَاَسۡتَغۡفِرَنَّ لَکَ وَ مَاۤ اَمۡلِکُ لَکَ مِنَ اللّٰہِ مِنۡ شَیۡءٍ ؕ رَبَّنَا عَلَیۡکَ تَوَکَّلۡنَا وَ اِلَیۡکَ اَنَبۡنَا وَ اِلَیۡکَ الۡمَصِیۡرُ ﴿۴﴾ رَبَّنَا لَا تَجۡعَلۡنَا فِتۡنَۃً لِّلَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ اغۡفِرۡ لَنَا رَبَّنَا ۚ اِنَّکَ اَنۡتَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۵﴾ لَقَدۡ کَانَ لَکُمۡ فِیۡہِمۡ اُسۡوَۃٌ حَسَنَۃٌ لِّمَنۡ کَانَ یَرۡجُوا اللّٰہَ وَ الۡیَوۡمَ الۡاٰخِرَ ؕ وَ مَنۡ یَّتَوَلَّ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ ہُوَ الۡغَنِیُّ الۡحَمِیۡدُ ٪﴿۶﴾

عَسَی اللّٰہُ اَنۡ یَّجۡعَلَ بَیۡنَکُمۡ وَ بَیۡنَ الَّذِیۡنَ عَادَیۡتُمۡ مِّنۡہُمۡ مَّوَدَّۃً ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ قَدِیۡرٌ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ ﴿۷﴾ لَا یَنۡہٰىکُمُ اللّٰہُ عَنِ الَّذِیۡنَ لَمۡ یُقَاتِلُوۡکُمۡ فِی الدِّیۡنِ وَ لَمۡ یُخۡرِجُوۡکُمۡ مِّنۡ دِیَارِکُمۡ اَنۡ تَبَرُّوۡہُمۡ وَ تُقۡسِطُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہِمۡ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یُحِبُّ الۡمُقۡسِطِیۡنَ ﴿۸﴾ اِنَّمَا یَنۡہٰىکُمُ اللّٰہُ عَنِ الَّذِیۡنَ قٰتَلُوۡکُمۡ فِی الدِّیۡنِ وَ اَخۡرَجُوۡکُمۡ مِّنۡ دِیَارِکُمۡ وَ ظٰہَرُوۡا عَلٰۤی اِخۡرَاجِکُمۡ اَنۡ تَوَلَّوۡہُمۡ ۚ وَ مَنۡ یَّتَوَلَّہُمۡ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الظّٰلِمُوۡنَ ﴿۹﴾ یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِذَا جَآءَکُمُ الۡمُؤۡمِنٰتُ مُہٰجِرٰتٍ فَامۡتَحِنُوۡہُنَّ ؕ اَللّٰہُ اَعۡلَمُ بِاِیۡمَانِہِنَّ ۚ فَاِنۡ عَلِمۡتُمُوۡہُنَّ مُؤۡمِنٰتٍ فَلَا تَرۡجِعُوۡہُنَّ اِلَی الۡکُفَّارِ ؕ لَا ہُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّہُمۡ وَ لَا ہُمۡ یَحِلُّوۡنَ لَہُنَّ ؕ وَ اٰتُوۡہُمۡ مَّاۤ اَنۡفَقُوۡا ؕ وَ لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ اَنۡ تَنۡکِحُوۡہُنَّ اِذَاۤ اٰتَیۡتُمُوۡہُنَّ اُجُوۡرَہُنَّ ؕ وَ لَا تُمۡسِکُوۡا بِعِصَمِ الۡکَوَافِرِ وَ سۡـَٔلُوۡا مَاۤ اَنۡفَقۡتُمۡ وَ لۡیَسۡـَٔلُوۡا مَاۤ اَنۡفَقُوۡا ؕ ذٰلِکُمۡ حُکۡمُ اللّٰہِ ؕ یَحۡکُمُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌ حَکِیۡمٌ ﴿۱۰﴾ وَ اِنۡ فَاتَکُمۡ شَیۡءٌ مِّنۡ اَزۡوَاجِکُمۡ اِلَی الۡکُفَّارِ فَعَاقَبۡتُمۡ فَاٰتُوا الَّذِیۡنَ ذَہَبَتۡ اَزۡوَاجُہُمۡ مِّثۡلَ مَاۤ اَنۡفَقُوۡا ؕ وَ اتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ الَّذِیۡۤ اَنۡتُمۡ بِہٖ مُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ ﴿۱۱﴾ یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّبِیُّ اِذَا جَآءَکَ الۡمُؤۡمِنٰتُ یُبَایِعۡنَکَ عَلٰۤی اَنۡ لَّا یُشۡرِکۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ شَیۡئًا وَّ لَا یَسۡرِقۡنَ وَ لَا یَزۡنِیۡنَ وَ لَا یَقۡتُلۡنَ اَوۡلَادَہُنَّ وَ لَا یَاۡتِیۡنَ بِبُہۡتَانٍ یَّفۡتَرِیۡنَہٗ بَیۡنَ اَیۡدِیۡہِنَّ وَ اَرۡجُلِہِنَّ وَ لَا یَعۡصِیۡنَکَ فِیۡ مَعۡرُوۡفٍ فَبَایِعۡہُنَّ وَ اسۡتَغۡفِرۡ لَہُنَّ اللّٰہَ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ ﴿۱۲﴾ یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَتَوَلَّوۡا قَوۡمًا غَضِبَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ قَدۡ یَئِسُوۡا مِنَ الۡاٰخِرَۃِ کَمَا یَئِسَ الۡکُفَّارُ مِنۡ اَصۡحٰبِ الۡقُبُوۡرِ ﴿٪۱۳﴾

اللہ کے نام سے جو رحمان و رحیم ہے۔

¹ اے لوگو جو ایمان لاۓ ہو، تم اگر میری راہ جہاد کرنے کے لئے اور میری رضا جوئی کی خاطر ( وطن جھوڑ کر گھروں سے ) نکلے ہو تو میرے اور اپنے دشمنوں کو دوست نہ بناؤ۔ تم ان کے ساتھ دوستی کی طرح ڈالتے ہو، حالانکہ جو حق تمہارے پاس آیا ہے اس کو ماننے سے وہ انکار کر چکے ہیں اور ان کی روش یہ ہے کہ رسول کو اور خود تم کو صرف اس قصور پر جلا وطن کرتے ہیں کہ مت اپنے رب، اللہ پر ایمان لاۓ ہو۔ تم چپھا کر ان کو دوستانہ پیغام بھجتے ہو، حالانکہ جو کچھ تم چھپا کر کرتے اور جو علانیہ کرتے ہو، ہر چیز کو میں خوب جانتا ہوں۔ جو شخص بھی تم میں سے ایسا کرے وہ یقیناً راہ راست سے بھٹک گیا۔ ان کا رویہ تو یہ ہے کہ اگر تم پر قابو پا جائیں تو تمہارے ساتھ دشمنی کریں اور ہاتھ اور زبان سے تمھیں آزار دیں۔ وہ تو چاہتے ہیں کہ تم کسی طرح کافر ہو جاؤ²۔ قیامت کے دن نہ تمہاری رشتہ داریاں کسی کام آئیں گی نہ تمہاری اولاد ³۔ اس روز اللہ تمہارے درمیان جدائی ڈال ⁴ دے گا، اور و ہی تمہارے اعمال کا دیکھنے والا ہے ⁵۔

بعید نہیں کہ اللہ کبھی تمہارے اور ان لوگوں کے درمیان محبت ڈال دے جن سے آج تم نے دشمنی مول لی ہے ¹¹۔ اللہ بڑی قدرت رکھتا ہے اور وہ غفور رحیم ہے۔
اللہ تمھیں اس بات سے نہیں روکتا کہ تم ان لوگوں کے ساتھ نیکی اور انصاف کا بر تاؤ کرو جنہوں نے دین کے معاملہ میں تم سے جنگ نہیں کی ہے اور تمھیں تمہارے گھروں سے نہیں نکالا ہے۔ اللہ انصاف کرنے والوں کو پسند کرتا ہے ¹²۔ وہ تمھیں جس بات سے روکتا ہے وہ تو یہ ہے کہ تم ان لوگوں سے دوستی کرو جنہوں نے تم سے دین کے معاملہ میں جنگ کی ہے اور تمھیں تمہارے گھروں سے نکالا ہے اور تمھارے اخراج میں ایک دوسرے کی مدد کی ہے۔ ان سے جو لوگ دوستی کریں وہی ظالم ہیں ¹³۔ 
اے لوگوں جو ایمان لاۓ ہو، جب مومن عورتیں ہجرت کر کے تمہارے پاس آئیں تو (ان کے مومن ہونے کی ) جانچ پڑ تال کر لو، اور ان کے ایمان کی حقیقت اللہ ہی بہتر جانتا ہے۔ پھر تمھیں معلوم ہو جائے کہ مومن ہیں تو انہیں کفار کی طرف واپس نہ کرو ¹⁴۔ نہ وہ کفار کے لیۓ حلال ہیں اور نہ کفار ان کے لیۓ حلال۔ ان کے کا فر شوہروں نے جو مہر ان کو دے تھے وہ انہیں پھر دو۔ اور ان سے نکاح کر لینے میں تم پر کوئی گناہ نہیں جبکہ تم ان کے مہر ان کو ادا کر دو ¹⁵۔اور تم خود بھی کافر عورتوں کو اپنے نکاح میں نہ رو کے رہو۔ جو مہر تم نے اپنی کافر بیویوں کو دیۓ تھے وہ تم واپس مانگ لو اور جو مہر کافروں نے اپنی مسلمان بیویوں کو دیۓ تھے انہیں وہ واپس مانگ لیں ¹⁶۔ یہ اللہ کا حکم ہے، ہو تمہارے درمیان فیصلہ کر تا ہے اور اللہ علیم و حکیم ہے۔ اور اگر تمہاری کا فر بیویوں کے مہروں میں سے کچھ تمھیں کفار سے واپس نہ ملے اور پھر تمہاری نوبت آۓ تو جن لوگوں کی بیویاں ادھر رہ گئی ہیں ان کو اتنی رقم ادا کر دو جو ان کے دیۓ ہوۓ مہروں کے برابر ہو ¹⁷ ہو۔ اور اس خدا سے ڈر تے رہو جس پر تم ایمان لاۓ ہو۔
اے نبی ﷺ جب تمہارے پاس مومن عورتیں بیعت کرنے کے لیۓ آئیں ¹⁸ اور اس بات کا عہد کریں کہ وہ اللہ کے ساتھ کسی چیز کو شریک نہ کریں گی، چوری نہ کریں ¹⁹ گی، زنا نہ کریں گی ، اپنی اولاد کو قتل نہ کریں گی²⁰ اپنے ہاتھ پاؤں کے آگے کوئی بہتان گھڑ کر نہ لائیں گی ²¹، اور کسی امر معرف میں تمہاری نافرمانی نہ کریں ²² گی، تو ان سے بیعت لے ²³لو اور ان کے حق میں اللہ سے دعا ۓ مغفرت کرو، یقیناً اللہ در گز فرمانے والا اور رحم کرنے والا ہے۔ اے لوگو جو ایمان لاۓ ہو، ان لوگوں کو دوست نہ بناؤ جن پر اللہ نے غضب فرمایا ے، ج و آخرت سے اسی طرح مایوس ہیں جس طرح قبروں میں پڑے ہوۓ کافر مایوس ہیں۔ ²⁴۔ ع 

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

1. O you who have believed, if you have gone forth to strive in My way and to seek My good pleasure, do not take My enemies and your enemies as friends. You show them affection, while they have rejected the truth that has come to you, and their way is to expel the Messenger — and you yourselves — for no reason other than that you believe in Allah, your Lord. You send them secret messages of friendship, while I know full well everything you do, whether hidden or open. Whoever among you does this has indeed strayed from the right path. Their attitude is such that if they were to gain power over you, they would treat you as enemies and hurt you with their hands and their tongues. They desire that you should somehow become disbelievers again²। On the Day of Judgment, neither your blood relations nor your children will be of any avail to you³. On that day Allah will separate you from one another⁴, and He is the One who watches over your deeds⁵.

It may well be that Allah will one day bring about love between you and those with whom you have taken up enmity today¹¹. Allah has great power, and He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you on account of your faith and have not driven you out of your homes. Allah loves those who act justly¹². What He forbids you is that you should befriend those who have fought against you on account of your faith, and driven you out of your homes, and helped one another in driving you out. Those who befriend such people are indeed the wrongdoers¹³.

O you who have believed, when believing women come to you having emigrated, examine them (to ascertain their faith); Allah knows best the truth of their faith. Then, if you find them to be believers, do not send them back to the disbelievers¹⁴. Neither are they lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them. Give back to their disbelieving husbands whatever bridal-gift (mahr) they had given them. And there is no sin upon you in marrying them, provided you pay them their bridal-gift¹⁵. And do not yourselves hold on to your marriages with disbelieving women. Ask back whatever bridal-gift you gave to your disbelieving wives, and let the disbelievers likewise ask back whatever bridal-gift they gave to their Muslim wives¹⁶. This is Allah’s command; He judges between you, and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. And if any part of the bridal-gift due to you from your disbelieving wives is not returned to you by the disbelievers, and then your turn comes (to pay), then pay to those whose wives have remained behind an amount equal to the bridal-gift they had given¹⁷. And fear that Allah in whom you believe.

O Prophet (peace be upon him), when believing women come to you to pledge allegiance¹⁸ — pledging that they will not associate anything with Allah, will not steal¹⁹, will not commit adultery, will not kill their children²⁰, will not bring forth any falsehood they have fabricated with their hands and feet²¹, and will not disobey you in anything right²² — then accept their pledge²³ and seek Allah’s forgiveness for them. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

O you who have believed, do not take as friends a people upon whom Allah has poured His wrath, who have despaired of the Hereafter just as the disbelievers lying in their graves have despaired²⁴.

FOOTNOTES/SUMMARY/TAFSEER

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnotes

Topic Index (Tafheem al-Qur’an, Footnotes 1–24)

Historical Background & Seerah

• Footnote 1: The Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah incident — the intercepted letter to Quraysh, the interrogation, his defense, and the Prophet’s ruling

• Footnote 18: How the pledge (bay’ah) was taken from women after the conquest of Makkah and in Madinah

Legal Principles Derived from the Hatib Case

• Footnote 2: The general lesson — no act benefiting disbelief over Islam is permissible, regardless of motive

• Footnote 5: Eight legal/procedural conclusions — due process, fallibility of the Companions, distinguishing sincere error from hypocrisy, the “people of Badr” statement explained, spying as a crime (not automatic apostasy), prohibition on espionage for the enemy, juristic disagreement on punishment for a Muslim spy (Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki positions), and permissibility of searching a suspect

Theology and Accountability

• Footnote 3: No one bears another’s sins on the Day of Judgment (with Qur’anic parallels from Al-Ma’arij and Abasa)

• Footnote 4: Individual accountability — worldly ties dissolved before Allah

• Footnote 6: Disbelief in taghut as a prerequisite of true faith in Allah

• Footnote 9: Meaning of hoping to meet Allah and seeking His favor

Ibrahim (AS) as an Example — Scope and Limits

• Footnote 7: Why Ibrahim’s prayer for his disbelieving father is not to be emulated, though his disavowal of his people is; the Qur’anic narrative arc of his eventual disassociation

Guidance on Relations with Disbelievers

• Footnote 8: Ways believers could become a fitnah for disbelievers

• Footnote 10: Allah’s self-sufficiency from nominal believers who still ally with His enemies

• Footnote 11: The promise (and fulfillment) that hostility with relatives would turn to love — fulfilled at the conquest of Makkah

• Footnote 12: The specific meaning of “justice” here — distinguishing hostile from non-hostile disbelievers

• Footnote 13: Kind treatment of non-hostile disbelieving relatives — illustrated via Asma bint Abi Bakr and her mother; permissibility of charity to dhimmis

Marriage Law Between Muslims and Disbelievers

• Footnote 14: Background on returning emigrant women under the Hudaybiyyah treaty; the treaty’s actual wording (limited to men); the evidentiary principles derived (reliance on sworn testimony, self-report of belief)

• Footnote 15: The mahr paid to a woman’s former disbelieving husband doesn’t carry over — a new mahr is required for remarriage

• Footnote 16: The four major rulings on mixed marriages, and detailed comparative fiqh (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali) across four scenarios — same-abode conversion, both-in-dar-al-kufr conversion, differing-abode (hijrah) cases, and apostasy

• Footnote 17: Mechanics of settling mahr reimbursements between Muslims and treaty/non-treaty disbelievers, including use of ghanimah

Content of the Women’s Pledge (Bay’ah)

• Footnote 19: Hind bint Utbah’s question on taking money from a stingy husband, and the “within reason” ruling

• Footnote 20: Prohibition of killing children, including abortion

• Footnote 21: The two meanings of “fabricating falsehood” — slander and false paternity claims

• Footnote 22: The constitutional principle of “obedience only in what is right,” and the Prophet’s independent legislative authority (with a long list of hadith-based rulings given at the pledge: no wailing, no jahili adornment, restrictions on speaking with non-mahram men, no cheating a husband financially, etc.)

• Footnote 23: The manner of taking the pledge from women — no handshake, verbal pledge only

• Footnote 24: The two interpretations of “despaired of the Hereafter” (denial of resurrection vs. certainty of punishment)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 1

1. It seems appropriate to first lay out the details of the incident regarding which these verses were revealed, so that the discussion that follows may be more easily understood. The commentators are unanimous on this point, and the concurring reports from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah, Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, and others confirm that these verses were revealed at the time when a letter from Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah, addressed to the polytheists of Makkah, was intercepted.

The story is as follows: when the people of Quraysh broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) began preparations to march on Makkah, but told no one — apart from a few select Companions — which expedition he intended to undertake. As it happened, around this time a woman arrived from Makkah who had previously been a slave of Banu Abd al-Muttalib and, after being freed, made her living as a singer. She came to the Prophet complaining of her poverty and asked for financial help. He appealed to Banu Abd al-Muttalib and Banu al-Muttalib on her behalf and had her need fulfilled. When she was about to set off back for Makkah, Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah met her and secretly gave her a letter addressed to certain chiefs of Makkah, along with some money, so that she would keep the matter secret and deliver the letter to them covertly. She had barely left Madinah when Allah informed the Prophet (peace be upon him) of this. He immediately sent Ali, Zubayr, and al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad after her, instructing them: “Go quickly — at the location of Rawdat Khakh (twelve miles from Madinah toward Makkah) you will find a woman carrying a letter from Hatib addressed to the polytheists. Obtain that letter from her by whatever means necessary. If she hands it over, let her go; if she refuses, kill her.” When these Companions reached the spot, the woman was indeed there. They asked her for the letter. She said she had no letter. They searched her but found nothing. Finally they told her: hand over the letter, or we will strip and search you. Seeing no way out, she took the letter out from her braided hair and gave it to them, and they brought it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). When it was opened and read, it was found to inform the Quraysh that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was preparing to march against them. (Different reports give slightly different wording for the letter, but the substance is the same in all of them.) The Prophet asked Hatib, “What is this you have done?” He replied, “Do not judge my case in haste. What I did was not because I have become a disbeliever or an apostate, or because, after embracing Islam, I now prefer disbelief. The truth is that my relatives are living in Makkah. I do not belong to the tribe of Quraysh myself, but settled there under the patronage of certain Quraysh. The other Emigrants whose families remain in Makkah have their own tribes to protect them, but I have no tribe there to protect mine. So I sent this letter hoping to place the Quraysh under an obligation to me, so that out of regard for it they would not harm my children.” (A report from Hatib’s son Abd al-Rahman states that at that time Hatib’s children and brother were in Makkah, and from another report of Hatib’s own it appears his mother was there too.) Upon hearing this explanation, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to those present: “Hatib has told you the truth” — meaning that this was indeed his true motive, and that abandonment of Islam or sympathy for disbelief had no part in it. Umar stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, let me strike off the neck of this hypocrite — he has betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and the Muslims.” The Prophet replied, “This man took part in the Battle of Badr. What do you know — perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said: do whatever you wish, for I have forgiven you.” (The exact wording of this last statement varies across different reports — in some it is “I have already forgiven you,” in others “I am one who forgives you,” and in others still “I shall forgive you.”) On hearing this, Umar wept and said, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” This is a summary of the numerous reports transmitted through multiple reliable chains by Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Hibban, and Ibn Abi Hatim. Among these, the most authentic report is the one heard directly from Ali himself by his scribe (secretary) Ubaydullah ibn Abi Rafi’, which was then transmitted through Ali’s grandson Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah to later narrators. None of these reports explicitly states that Hatib’s excuse was accepted and that he was pardoned and released.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 2

2. What has been said up to this point, and what follows in this same passage, was occasioned by the incident of Hatib, but Allah did not address this simply as a ruling confined to his particular case; rather, He has given all believers, for all time, this lasting lesson: wherever there is a confrontation between disbelief and Islam, and wherever some people are showing hostility to believers on account of their being Muslim, it is a betrayal of faith for anyone — whatever his purpose or however compelling his reason — to do anything that would harm the interests of Islam or serve the interests of disbelief and the disbelievers. Even if a person is entirely free of any ill will toward Islam, and does such a thing not out of malice but purely because of some intensely pressing personal need, it is still not an act befitting a believer, and whoever does it has strayed from the right path.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 3

3. This is a reference to Hatib, who did what he did in order to protect his mother, brother, and children from harm at the hands of the enemy at the time of battle. In response, he is being told that those for whose sake he committed such a grave offense will not come to his rescue on the Day of Judgment. No one will have the audacity to step forward in Allah’s court and say, “Our father,” or “our son,” or “our brother” committed this sin for our sake, so let the punishment for it fall upon us instead. On that day, everyone will be consumed with concern for himself alone; escaping the consequences of his own deeds will itself be a matter of life and death for every single person, let alone anyone being willing to take on someone else’s burden as well. This same point is stated more explicitly in several other places in the Qur’an. In one place it is said: “On that day the guilty one will wish he could ransom himself from the punishment by sacrificing his children, his wife, his brother, the kinsfolk who sheltered him, and everyone on earth, if only it would save him” (Al-Ma’arij, 11–14). In another place it is said: “On that day a man will flee from his brother, his mother, his father, his wife, and his children — every one of them, on that day, will be so preoccupied with his own plight that he will have no thought for anyone else” (Abasa, 34–37).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 4

4. That is, all worldly ties, relationships, and connections will be severed there. People will not be held to account as groups, parties, or families; rather, each individual will be brought forward in his own personal capacity, and each will have to render his own account. Therefore, no one in this world should commit any wrongdoing for the sake of kinship, friendship, or group loyalty, since he alone will have to bear the punishment for what he has done — no one else will share in that personal responsibility.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 5

5. From Hatib’s case, detailed above, and from the verses revealed concerning this incident, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(1) Regardless of the perpetrator’s intention, this act was in itself unmistakably an act of espionage — and espionage of a highly dangerous kind at a most sensitive moment, since it warned an unsuspecting enemy just before an attack. Nor was this a matter of mere suspicion: a letter in the accused’s own handwriting had been seized, after which no further proof was needed. The circumstances, too, were not those of peacetime but of war. Yet despite all this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not place Hatib under confinement without giving him a chance to explain himself — and that chance was given not behind closed doors but openly, in a public hearing. This makes it clear that Islam allows no scope for laws or regulations under which authorities would have the right, in any circumstance, to imprison a person merely on the basis of their own knowledge or suspicion. Nor does Islam permit secret trials conducted behind closed doors.

(2) Hatib was not only one of the Emigrants but also one of the veterans of Badr, who held a distinguished status even among the Companions. Yet despite this, he committed so grave an offense, and Allah rebuked it in the Qur’an with the severity seen in the verses above. The hadith literature, too, records his story in full detail, and there is hardly a commentator who has not mentioned it. This is one among many pieces of evidence proving that the Companions were not infallible; like all human beings, they too were capable of error, and indeed did err. The reverence that Allah and His Messenger have taught us to show them by no means requires that any wrongdoing on their part go unmentioned — for if that were the requirement, then Allah would not have mentioned it in His Book, nor would the Companions, the Successors, and the scholars of hadith and tafsir have recorded such details in their transmitted reports.

(3) In Hatib’s case, Umar’s view was based on the outward form of the act. His reasoning was that the act was plainly a betrayal of Allah, His Messenger, and the Muslims, and that Hatib was therefore a hypocrite deserving death. But the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) rejected this view and demonstrated the actual principle of Islamic law: that judgment should not be based solely on the outward form of an act, but must also take into account what a person’s past life and overall character indicate, and what the surrounding circumstances point to. The outward form of the act was undoubtedly espionage. But did Hatib’s conduct toward Islam and the Muslims up to that point suggest he was capable of such betrayal against Allah, His Messenger, and the Muslims? He was among those who had emigrated for the sake of their faith — could he have made so great a sacrifice without sincerity? Could it reasonably be believed that his heart harbored even the slightest inclination toward the disbelieving Quraysh? He himself gave a clear reason for his act: that in Makkah his children lacked the protection of family and tribe that other Emigrants enjoyed, and so he had done this to protect them from harm at the enemy’s hands during the war. The facts supported his account — he genuinely had no tribe in Makkah, and it was known that his children were indeed there. There was therefore no reason to consider his statement false, or to conclude that his true motive was one of betrayal. Certainly, even for a sincere Muslim, it is not permissible to inform the enemy of the Muslims’ military plans merely for personal benefit — but there is a vast difference between the error of a sincere believer and the treachery of a hypocrite. The two cannot receive the same punishment merely because the outward act is similar. This was the Messenger of Allah’s judgment in this case, and Allah confirmed it in these verses of Surah Al-Mumtahanah. A careful reading of the three verses above shows that while Hatib is certainly rebuked in them, the rebuke is of the kind directed at a believer, not the kind directed at a hypocrite. Moreover, no financial or physical punishment was prescribed for him; he was openly and sternly reprimanded and then let go — meaning that, within Muslim society, the damage done to an erring believer’s honor and the loss of trust in him is itself a significant punishment.

(4) As for the Prophet’s statement regarding the merit of the veterans of Badr — “What do you know? Perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said: do whatever you wish, for I have forgiven you” — this did not mean that the Badr veterans were absolved of any and every sin, free to commit whatever wrongs they pleased in this world with a guaranteed advance pardon. This was never the Prophet’s intent, nor did the Companions ever understand it this way, nor did any veteran of Badr, upon hearing these glad tidings, consider himself free to sin at will, nor was any rule established in Islamic law on this basis that a crime committed by a Badr veteran should go unpunished. In fact, if one considers the context in which this statement was made, and the very words the Prophet used, its clear meaning becomes apparent: the people of Badr had rendered such an immense service of sincerity, self-sacrifice, and readiness to lay down their lives for Allah and His religion that it would not be at all improbable, in light of that service and Allah’s grace, for Allah to have forgiven all their past and future sins. Hence: do not suspect a veteran of Badr of treachery and hypocrisy, and accept the explanation he himself gives for his conduct.

(5) It is also made clear by the Qur’an and by the Prophet’s statement that a Muslim spying for the disbelievers is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to conclude that he has apostatized, or left the fold of faith, or become a hypocrite. If other corroborating evidence exists to support such a judgment, that is a separate matter; but in itself, this act is merely a crime, not disbelief.

(6) These verses of the Qur’an also make clear that it is never permissible for a Muslim to spy for the disbelievers, no matter how great a danger threatens his own life and property or that of his closest relatives.

(7) When Umar sought permission to kill Hatib for the crime of espionage, the Prophet did not respond by saying that this crime did not warrant death; rather, he declined permission on the grounds that Hatib’s status as a veteran of Badr was clear proof of his sincerity, and that his own account — that he had done this not out of goodwill toward the enemy but to protect his children from mortal danger — was true. From this, a group of jurists have argued that the general ruling for a Muslim spy is execution, unless sufficiently weighty reasons exist for a lesser punishment or mere reprimand. However, jurists differ on this issue. Imam Shafi’i and some other jurists hold that a Muslim spy should receive a discretionary punishment (ta’zir), but that execution is not permissible. Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam al-Awza’i say he should receive corporal punishment and lengthy imprisonment. Imam Malik says he should be executed — though the views of the Maliki jurists differ on this point. Ashhab says the ruler has wide discretion in this matter and may, based on his own judgment, impose whatever punishment fits the crime and the offender’s circumstances, considering this a form of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad); one report from Imam Malik and Ibn al-Qasim agrees with this. Ibn al-Majishun and Abd al-Malik ibn Habib say that if the offender has made a habit of spying, he should be executed. Ibn Wahb says the punishment for a spy is execution, but if he repents of the act, he may be pardoned. Sahnun says that since there is no way to know whether such repentance is genuine or merely a ruse, he should be executed regardless; one report from Ibn al-Qasim supports this too. And Asbagh says that an enemy combatant spy is to be executed, but a Muslim or a non-Muslim subject (dhimmi) spy should receive punishment rather than execution, unless he is openly aiding the enemy against the Muslims. (Ahkam al-Qur’an by Ibn al-Arabi; Umdat al-Qari; Fath al-Bari.)

(8) This hadith also establishes the permissibility, when necessary for investigating a crime, of removing the clothing of a female suspect, not only a male one, in a search. Although Ali, Zubayr, and al-Miqdad did not actually strip the woman, they did threaten that if she did not hand over the letter, they would strip and search her. Clearly, if such an act were not permissible, these three eminent Companions could not have made such a threat. And it stands to reason that they must certainly have reported the full account of their mission to the Prophet (peace be upon him) upon returning. Had he expressed any disapproval of this, it would surely have been recorded. It is on this basis that jurists have issued rulings permitting it (Umdat al-Qari).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 6

6. That is: “We disbelieve in you; we do not accept you, nor your religion, as being upon truth.” Faith in Allah necessarily requires disbelief in taghut (false objects of worship/authority). As the Qur’an states: “So whoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, which will never break” (Al-Baqarah, 256).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 7

7. In other words, this means: for you, Ibrahim’s declaration of clear disavowal and severance of ties with his disbelieving, polytheist people is an example to be followed, but his promise to seek forgiveness for his polytheist father, and his actually doing so, is not an example to be followed — because believers should not maintain even this degree of affection and sympathy toward disbelievers. In Surah At-Tawbah (verse 113), Allah states plainly: “It is not for the Prophet, nor for those who have believed, to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they be close relatives.” No Muslim, therefore, is entitled to seek forgiveness for his disbelieving relatives on the grounds that Ibrahim did so.

As for how Ibrahim himself came to do this, and whether he continued in it — the Qur’an gives us the full account. When his father drove him out of the house, as he departed he said, “Peace be upon you; I shall ask my Lord to forgive you” (Maryam, 47). It was on the strength of this promise that he prayed for his father twice. One such prayer is mentioned in Surah Ibrahim (verse 41): “Our Lord, forgive me and my parents and the believers on the Day when the reckoning is established.” The second is in Surah Ash-Shu’ara (verse 86): “And forgive my father, for indeed he is among those astray, and do not disgrace me on the Day when they are resurrected.” But later, when it became clear to him that the father for whom he was praying was in fact an enemy of Allah, he disavowed him and severed even this bond of sympathy and affection:

“And the request of forgiveness by Ibrahim for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed, Ibrahim was compassionate and forbearing.” (At-Tawbah, 114)

Reflecting on these verses makes clear a principled truth: only those actions of the prophets which they maintained until the very end are to be taken as examples. Those actions which they themselves later abandoned, or which Allah did not allow them to continue in, or which have since been explicitly prohibited in Allah’s law, are not to be followed — and no one can justify following such an action merely by citing that “such-and-such a prophet did this.”

A further question arises here that may trouble the mind. In the verse under discussion, Allah excludes Ibrahim’s statement from being a model to follow, and this statement has two parts: one, that he told his father, “I will pray for your forgiveness,” and two, that “it is not within my power to secure Allah’s pardon for you.” The first part’s exclusion is understandable, but what is wrong with the second part, that it too should be excluded from being a model — when, in itself, it is simply a true statement? The answer is that Ibrahim’s statement falls under this exception because when a person, after promising someone something, adds “beyond this, it is not in my power to do more for you,” it automatically implies that had it been within his power to do more, he would have done so for that person’s sake. This actually expresses an even stronger sense of sympathetic attachment to that person. For this reason, this second statement of Ibrahim’s also merited being included in the exception, even though its actual content — that securing someone’s forgiveness from Allah lies outside a prophet’s power — was true in itself. Allamah Alusi gives this same answer to this question in Ruh al-Ma’ani.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 8

8. There can be several ways in which believers might become a source of fitnah (trial/temptation to sin) for the disbelievers, and every believer should seek Allah’s protection from all of them. For example, one such scenario would be if the disbelievers gain dominance over the believers and take that dominance as proof that they themselves are upon truth while the believers are upon falsehood — arguing that it could not be that these people enjoyed Allah’s pleasure and yet we still prevailed over them. A second scenario would be if the disbelievers’ oppression and persecution of the believers exceeds what they can bear, so that they eventually give in and are driven to compromise their religion and morals. This would become a source of ridicule for believers throughout the world, and would give the disbelievers an opportunity to demean the faith and its followers. A third scenario would be if, despite occupying the exalted position of representing the true religion, the believers themselves fail to display the moral excellence befitting that position, and the world sees in their character and conduct the very same vices that are commonly found in a society of ignorance (jahiliyyah). This would give the disbelievers grounds to say: what merit, after all, does this religion possess that should give it superiority over our disbelief? (For further detail, see Tafheem al-Qur’an, Volume 2, Surah Yunus, Footnote 83.)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 9

9. That is, whoever expects that one day he must appear before Allah, and who hopes that Allah will favor him with His grace and grant him success on the Last Day.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 10

10. That is, Allah has no need of such believers who claim to accept His religion while still maintaining friendship with His enemies. He is free of all need. His godhood does not depend on these people accepting Him as God, and He is, in Himself, worthy of praise — His being worthy of praise does not depend on their praising Him. If they believe, it is not for Allah’s benefit but for their own; and they can gain no benefit from their faith unless, like Ibrahim and his companions, they sever their bonds of love and friendship with the enemies of Allah.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 11

11. In the verses above, believers had been instructed to sever ties with their disbelieving relatives, and true believers were carrying this out with great patience. But Allah knew how difficult a thing it is to break ties with one’s own parents, siblings, and closest relatives, and what this was doing to the hearts of the believers. So Allah reassured them that the time was not far off when these very relatives would themselves become Muslims, and today’s enmity would turn back into love tomorrow. When this was said, no one could have imagined how such an outcome would come about. Yet only a few weeks after these verses were revealed, Makkah was conquered, the people of Quraysh began entering Islam in droves, and the Muslims saw with their own eyes how the promise they had been given came true.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 12

12. A doubt may arise here in someone’s mind: kind treatment toward disbelievers who show no hostility is understandable, but is justice too reserved only for them? And should injustice be practiced toward hostile disbelievers? The answer is that in this context, “justice” is being used in a specific sense. It means that toward someone who shows you no enmity, justice requires that you likewise show him no enmity. Treating friend and foe alike, and dealing with both in the same manner, is not justice. You have the right to adopt a harsh attitude toward those who wronged you because of your faith and forced you out of your homeland, and who did not leave you alone even after driving you out. But toward those who took no part in that wrongdoing, justice requires that you treat them well and do not fall short in fulfilling whatever rights are due to them on account of kinship and community ties.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 13

13. Regarding the severance of ties with the disbelievers commanded in the earlier verses, people might mistakenly assume this was on account of their disbelief itself. These verses therefore clarify that the real reason was not their disbelief, but their hostility and oppressive conduct toward Islam and the Muslims. Muslims must therefore distinguish between hostile disbelievers and non-hostile disbelievers, and should treat kindly those disbelievers who have never done them any wrong.

The best illustration of this is the incident between Asma bint Abi Bakr and her disbelieving mother. One of Abu Bakr’s wives, Qutaylah bint Abd al-Uzza, was a disbeliever and had remained in Makkah after the emigration. Asma was her daughter. After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, when travel between Madinah and Makkah opened up, she came to Madinah to visit her daughter, bringing some gifts with her. According to Asma’s own account, she went to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked, “May I meet my mother, and may I maintain ties of kinship with her?” The Prophet replied, “Yes, maintain ties of kinship with her” (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim). Her son Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr adds further detail: that Asma had initially refused to meet her mother, and only met her once permission had been granted by Allah and His Messenger (Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim). From this it naturally follows that it is permissible for a Muslim to serve his disbelieving parents and help his disbelieving siblings and relatives, so long as they are not enemies of Islam. Likewise, charity may also be given to poor non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) (Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas; Ruh al-Ma’ani).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 14

14. The background to this ruling is as follows: after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, initially it was Muslim men who kept fleeing from Makkah to Madinah, and they were being sent back in accordance with the terms of the treaty. Then Muslim women began to come as well, and the first to emigrate and reach Madinah was Umm Kulthum bint Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt. The disbelievers, citing the treaty, demanded her return as well, and her two brothers, al-Walid ibn Uqbah and Ammarah ibn Uqbah, arrived in Madinah to take her back. At this point the question arose: if these women were believers, and it could be confirmed that they had truly emigrated for the sake of faith and not for any other reason, should they still be returned?

At this point, a considerable complication has arisen from the paraphrased (bi’l-ma’na) transmission of hadith reports, which needs to be resolved. The reports concerning the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah that we find in the hadith literature are, for the most part, paraphrased transmissions. Regarding the clause under discussion, one report gives the wording: “Whoever among you comes to us, we will not return him to you; and whoever among us goes to you, you will return him to us.” Another gives: “Whoever comes to the Messenger of Allah from among his followers without his guardian’s permission, he will return him to them.” And another gives: “Whoever from Quraysh goes to Muhammad without his guardian’s permission, he will return him to Quraysh.” The very manner in which these reports are worded shows that they do not preserve the exact wording of the original treaty clause, but rather that the narrators expressed its meaning in their own words. However, since numerous reports are of this same general nature, commentators and hadith scholars have generally understood from this that the clause was general, covering both men and women alike, and that women too should have been returned under it. Then, when they came across Allah’s command that believing women should not be sent back, they interpreted this as Allah unilaterally deciding, in this verse, to break the treaty as far as believing women were concerned. But this is not a trivial matter to accept so readily. If the treaty was in fact general and applied to men and women without distinction, how could it possibly be permissible for one party to unilaterally amend it or alter any part of it on its own authority? And even supposing this had been done, how strange it is that the Quraysh raised no objection to it at all. The Quraysh were sitting in wait, eager to seize upon anything they could hold against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Muslims. Had they gotten hold of clear evidence that he had openly violated the terms of the treaty, they would have raised the sky and earth in protest. Yet we do not find in any report even the slightest hint that they objected in the least to this Qur’anic ruling. This was a matter that, if properly examined, called for investigating the original wording of the treaty to resolve the complication — but many scholars gave it no attention, and some who did (such as Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi) did not hesitate to explain the Quraysh’s silence by claiming that Allah had, as a miracle, sealed the tongues of Quraysh in this matter. It is remarkable how such scholars found this explanation satisfying.

The actual truth of the matter is that this clause of the peace treaty did not originate from the Muslims but from the disbelieving Quraysh, and the wording their representative Suhayl ibn Amr had dictated for the treaty on their behalf was: “…and that no man of ours shall come to you, even if he is upon your religion, without your returning him to us.” This wording of the treaty is transmitted with a strong chain of narration in Bukhari, Kitab al-Shurut, Bab al-Shurut fi’l-Jihad wa’l-Musalahah. It is possible that Suhayl used the word “man” (rajul) to mean “person” in general, but that would have been his own intended meaning. What was actually written in the treaty was the word rajul, which in Arabic specifically denotes a male. It is on this basis that when Umm Kulthum bint Uqbah’s brothers came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) demanding her return, he (according to Imam al-Zuhri’s report) refused to return her, saying: “The condition applied to men, not to women” (Ahkam al-Qur’an by Ibn al-Arabi; Tafsir al-Kabir by Imam al-Razi). Up until that point, the Quraysh themselves had also been under the misapprehension that the treaty applied to all emigrants, whether men or women. But when the Prophet drew their attention to this exact wording of the treaty, they were left speechless and were forced to accept this ruling.

Under the actual terms of the treaty, the Muslims would have had every right to refuse to hand back any woman who left Makkah for Madinah, whatever her reason for coming. But Islam’s concern was only to protect believing women — it was not the intent to turn Madinah into a refuge for women fleeing for any and every reason. Allah therefore commanded that when women emigrated and declared their faith, inquiries should be made to confirm that they had genuinely come as believers, and once that was established, they should not be returned. Accordingly, the procedure established for implementing this divine command was that women who emigrated were asked whether they believed in the oneness of Allah and in the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and whether they had left solely for the sake of Allah and His Messenger — or whether, perhaps, they had simply quarreled with their husbands and fled; or had come out of love for some man among the Muslims; or had been driven by some other worldly motive. Only those women who gave satisfactory answers to these questions were kept back; all others were returned (Ibn Jarir, citing Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, Mujahid, Ikrimah, and Ibn Zayd).

This verse also lays down a foundational principle of the law of evidence, further clarified by the procedure the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) established for its implementation. The verse makes three points: first, that emigrating women who present themselves as believers should have their faith examined; second, that only Allah truly knows the reality of their faith — you have no means of knowing with certainty that they have genuinely believed; and third, that once your examination establishes that they are believers, you should not return them. In accordance with this command, the method the Prophet established for examining these women’s faith was to rely on their sworn statements, and, after appropriate questioning, to be satisfied that their motive for emigrating was nothing other than faith. From this, several principles emerge. First, it establishes that a court, in deciding cases, does not need certain knowledge of the actual truth — knowledge derived from testimony/evidence is sufficient. Second, it establishes that we rely on a person’s sworn statement unless clear evidence points to its falsity. Third, it establishes that when a person reports his own beliefs and faith, we accept it, and do not investigate whether he actually holds the belief he claims to hold, unless clear evidence to the contrary presents itself. Fourth, it establishes that regarding a person’s private circumstances, which no one else can know, we rely on that person’s own statement — for example, in matters of divorce and waiting period (‘iddah), a woman’s own statement about her menstruation and purity is authoritative, whether she is telling the truth or lying. By these same principles, in the science of hadith too, reports are accepted from narrators whose apparent character testifies to their trustworthiness, unless other indications exist that would prevent accepting a particular report.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 15

15. The meaning is that whatever bridal-gift (mahr) is returned to their disbelieving husbands will not count as the mahr for these women’s next marriage. Rather, if any Muslim wishes to marry one of these women, he must pay her a (fresh) mahr and marry her.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 16

16. These verses state four highly important rulings pertaining to Islamic family law and to international law:

First, that a woman who becomes Muslim is no longer lawful for her disbelieving husband, nor is the disbelieving husband lawful for her.

Second, that if a married woman becomes Muslim and emigrates from the abode of disbelief (dar al-kufr) to the abode of Islam (dar al-Islam), her marriage is automatically dissolved, and any Muslim who wishes may marry her by paying her a (fresh) mahr.

Third, that it is not permissible for a man who becomes Muslim to keep his wife within his marriage if she remains a disbeliever.

Fourth, that if peaceful relations exist between the abode of disbelief and the abode of Islam, the Islamic state should attempt to settle with the disbelieving state that the mahr of married women who become Muslim and emigrate to the abode of Islam be returned by the Muslims to their former husbands, and that the mahr of Muslim men’s wives who remain disbelievers in the abode of disbelief be returned to the Muslims by the disbelievers.

Historical Background

At the outset of Islam, there were many men who accepted Islam while their wives did not, and many women who became Muslim while their husbands did not. Even the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own daughter Zaynab was married to Abu al-’As, who remained a non-Muslim for several years. In this early period, no ruling had yet been given that a disbelieving husband is unlawful for a Muslim woman, or a polytheist wife unlawful for a Muslim man; so their marital bonds remained intact. Even after the Hijrah, this situation continued for several years: many women became Muslim and emigrated while their disbelieving husbands remained in the abode of disbelief, and many Muslim men emigrated while their disbelieving wives remained behind — yet the marriage bond between them continued. This created considerable complications, especially for women, since men could take additional wives, but women could not marry anyone else until their marriage to their former husband was dissolved. When these verses were revealed after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, they dissolved all prior marital ties between Muslims and disbelievers/polytheists and established a clear, definitive law for the future.

Islamic jurists have organized this law under four broad categories:

1. The case where both spouses are in the abode of Islam, and one of them becomes Muslim while the other remains a disbeliever.
2. The case where both spouses are in the abode of disbelief, and one of them becomes Muslim while the other remains a disbeliever.
3. The case where one spouse becomes Muslim and emigrates to the abode of Islam while the other remains a disbeliever in the abode of disbelief.
4. The case where one of a Muslim couple apostatizes.

Below we set out the jurists’ positions on each of these four cases separately:

Case One: If the husband accepts Islam and his wife is Christian or Jewish and remains in her religion, the marriage continues, since a People-of-the-Book wife is lawful for a Muslim man — all jurists agree on this. If the wife of the man who accepts Islam is not from the People of the Book and remains in her religion, the Hanafis hold that Islam should be presented to her; if she accepts, the marriage continues, and if she refuses, separation is enforced. In this case, if consummation has occurred, the woman is entitled to her mahr; if not, she has no right to the mahr, since the separation resulted from her own refusal (al-Mabsut, al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir). Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad hold that if no consummation has occurred, the marriage is annulled as soon as the husband accepts Islam; if consummation has occurred, the woman remains married to him for three menstrual cycles, during which if she accepts Islam of her own accord the marriage continues, otherwise it is automatically dissolved upon completion of her third cycle. Imam Shafi’i also holds that, based on the guarantee we have given non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) of non-interference in their religion, it is not proper to present Islam to the wife — but this is in fact a weak position, since interference in a dhimmi woman’s religion would only occur if she were compelled to accept Islam; merely telling her that accepting Islam would allow her to remain with her husband, otherwise she would be separated from him, is not improper interference. A precedent for this occurred in the time of Ali: a Magian landowner in Iraq accepted Islam while his wife remained a disbeliever. Ali presented Islam to her, and when she refused, he separated them (al-Mabsut). Imam Malik holds that if consummation has not occurred, the disbelieving wife is separated from the husband immediately upon his accepting Islam; if consummation has occurred, Islam is presented to her, and separation occurs if she refuses (al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah).

If the wife accepts Islam while the husband remains a disbeliever — whether from the People of the Book or otherwise — the Hanafis hold that, whether or not consummation has occurred, Islam should be presented to the husband in every case; if he accepts, the wife remains married to him, and if he refuses, the judge separates them. During this period, so long as the husband does not explicitly refuse Islam, the woman remains his wife but he has no right to conjugal relations. If he refuses, the separation is treated as an irrevocable divorce (talaq ba’in). If consummation had not occurred, the woman is entitled to half the mahr; if it had occurred, she is entitled to the full mahr as well as maintenance during her waiting period (‘iddah) (al-Mabsut, al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir). Imam Shafi’i holds that if no consummation has occurred, the marriage is dissolved as soon as the woman accepts Islam; if consummation has occurred, she remains married to him until her waiting period ends — if he accepts Islam within that time the marriage continues, otherwise separation occurs once the waiting period ends. However, in the husband’s case too, Imam Shafi’i holds the same view stated above regarding the wife — that it is not permissible to present Islam to him — and this position is quite weak. Numerous cases arose in Umar’s time where a woman accepted Islam, the husband was asked to accept Islam, and upon his refusal the two were separated. For example, the case of a Christian man of Banu Taghlib’s wife was brought before Umar; he told the husband, “Either accept Islam, or I will separate the two of you.” The husband refused, and Umar ordered the separation. The case of a newly Muslim landowning woman married to a man of Bahra’ was likewise brought before him; he ordered that Islam be presented to her husband — if he accepted, well and good, otherwise the two should be separated. These incidents occurred in the presence of the Companions, and no disagreement from anyone is recorded (Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas; al-Mabsut; Fath al-Qadir). Imam Malik’s view is that if the woman becomes Muslim before consummation, Islam should be presented to the husband — if he accepts, well and good, otherwise separation should occur immediately. If consummation has already occurred and she then accepts Islam, they should wait until the end of her waiting period; if the husband accepts Islam within that time the marriage continues, otherwise separation occurs once the waiting period ends. One report from Imam Ahmad supports Imam Shafi’i’s view, while another holds that a difference of religion between spouses in any case necessitates immediate separation, whether or not consummation has occurred (al-Mughni).

(2) If, in the abode of disbelief, the wife becomes Muslim while the husband remains a disbeliever, or the husband becomes Muslim while his wife (who is neither Christian nor Jewish but of some other non-scriptural religion) remains in her religion, the Hanafis hold that, whether or not consummation has occurred, no separation occurs until the woman has had three menstrual cycles, or, if she does not menstruate, until three months have passed. If the other party accepts Islam during this period, the marriage continues; otherwise separation occurs once this period ends. Imam Shafi’i, in this case too, distinguishes between consummation and non-consummation: his view is that if no consummation has occurred, separation occurs immediately upon the difference in religion arising between the spouses; if the difference in religion arose after consummation, the marriage continues until the end of the waiting period, and if the other party does not accept Islam during this time, the marriage ends along with the waiting period (al-Mabsut, Fath al-Qadir, Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas).

(3) As for the case where, along with a difference in religion, a difference of abode (dar) also arises between the spouses — that is, one of them remains a disbeliever in the abode of disbelief while the other emigrates to the abode of Islam — the Hanafis hold that the marriage bond between them is automatically dissolved. If it is the wife who emigrates, she has the immediate right to remarry, with no waiting period required of her; however, for the purpose of consummation, her (new) husband must wait until she has had one menstrual cycle, to confirm she is not pregnant (istibra’ al-rahm); and if she is pregnant, the marriage may still take place, but consummation must wait until she delivers. Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad differ from Imam Abu Hanifah on this point only in that, in their view, the woman is required to observe a waiting period, and if she is pregnant, she cannot remarry before delivery (al-Mabsut, al-Hidayah, Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas). Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad, and Imam Malik hold that a difference of abode plays no role in this matter — the deciding factor is solely difference of religion. If this difference occurs between spouses, the same rulings apply as when this difference occurs between spouses both residing in the abode of Islam (al-Mughni). Imam Shafi’i, alongside the view stated above, also holds that in the case of a Muslim woman who emigrates, if she came with the intent of quarreling with her disbelieving husband in order to nullify his marital rights, then separation occurs immediately — not on account of the difference of abode, but on account of her intent (al-Mabsut and al-Hidayah).

However, careful reflection on the Qur’anic verse under discussion makes it clear that the most correct view in this matter is the one expressed by Imam Abu Hanifah. Allah revealed this verse specifically concerning believing women who emigrated, stating in their regard that they are no longer lawful for the disbelieving husbands they left behind in the abode of disbelief, and permitting the Muslims of the abode of Islam to marry them upon paying their mahr. On the other hand, addressing the Emigrant Muslims, He commands them not to hold on to their disbelieving wives who remained in the abode of disbelief, and to reclaim from the disbelievers the mahr they had given those women. Clearly, these are not simply rulings based on difference of religion alone — what gives these rulings their specific character is the difference of abode. If the marriages of Muslim women had not been dissolved with their disbelieving husbands on account of emigration, how could Muslims have been permitted to marry them — and permitted in such a way that there is not even a mention of any waiting period? Likewise, if the disbelieving wives of Muslim Emigrants had remained validly married to them even after the command “Do not hold on to the ties of your disbelieving wives” was revealed, then a further command would have been given telling them to divorce them — but there is no hint of this here either. It is certainly true that after this verse was revealed, Umar, Talhah, and some other Emigrants divorced their (disbelieving) wives — but this is not proof that doing so was necessary for them, nor that their marital bond with these wives depended on their issuing a divorce, such that had they not divorced them, those wives would have remained validly married to them.

In response, three incidents from the Prophet’s era are cited as evidence that, even after these verses were revealed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) maintained marital ties between believing and disbelieving spouses despite a difference of abode. The first incident: shortly before the conquest of Makkah, Abu Sufyan came to the Muslim army at Marr al-Zahran (present-day Wadi Fatimah) and accepted Islam there, while his wife Hind remained a disbeliever in Makkah. After the conquest of Makkah, Hind accepted Islam, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) maintained their prior marriage without a fresh contract. The second incident: after the conquest of Makkah, Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl and Hakim ibn Hizam fled Makkah, and their wives, left behind, accepted Islam. These wives then obtained safe conduct for their husbands from the Prophet and brought them back; both men came and accepted Islam, and the Prophet maintained their prior marriages as well. The third incident concerns the Prophet’s own daughter Zaynab, who emigrated to Madinah while her husband Abu al-’As remained in Makkah as a disbeliever. Regarding this, a report from Ibn Abbas recorded in Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah states that Abu al-’As came to Madinah and accepted Islam in 8 AH, and the Prophet allowed his daughter to remain married to him without a fresh marriage contract.

However, the first two of these incidents do not, in fact, fall under the definition of “difference of abode” at all, since difference of abode does not simply mean that a person temporarily traveled or fled from one abode to another; this difference only arises when a person permanently relocates from one abode and settles in another, such that, in modern terms, a difference of “nationality” arises between him and his wife. As for the case of Zaynab, there are two reports about it. One is the report from Ibn Abbas cited above, and the other is a report from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As, recorded by Imam Ahmad, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah, which states that the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave his daughter to Abu al-‘As again with a fresh marriage contract and a fresh mahr. Given this conflict between the two reports, this precedent is not, in the first place, conclusive proof for those who deny the legal effect of difference of abode. Second, even if they insist on the authenticity of Ibn Abbas’s report, it actually works against their own position — because according to their own school, when a difference of religion arises between a couple who have already consummated their marriage, the marriage remains valid only until the woman has had three menstrual cycles; if the other party accepts Islam during that time, the marriage continues, otherwise it is automatically dissolved upon her third cycle. But in the case of Zaynab that they cite as evidence, several years had passed since the difference in religion arose between the couple — Abu al-‘As accepted faith six years after Zaynab’s emigration, and the Qur’anic ruling making Muslim women unlawful for polytheists had been revealed at least two years before his acceptance of faith.

(4) The fourth issue is apostasy. This has two forms: one, where both spouses apostatize together, and the other, where one of them apostatizes while the other remains Muslim.

If both spouses apostatize together, the Shafi’is and Hanbalis hold that if this occurs before consummation, the marriage (which had taken place in the state of Islam) ends immediately; if after consummation, it ends once the waiting period is complete. The Hanafis, by contrast, hold that although analogy (qiyas) would suggest the marriage should be annulled, during the apostasy crisis (riddah) in Abu Bakr’s time, thousands of people apostatized and then returned to Islam, and the Companions did not order any of them to renew their marriage contracts — so, following the Companions’ unanimous practice, we accept, contrary to analogy, that the marriage of a couple who apostatize together is not dissolved (al-Mabsut, al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah).

If the husband apostatizes while the wife remains Muslim, the Hanafis and Malikis hold that the marriage is dissolved immediately, whether or not consummation has occurred. The Shafi’is and Hanbalis, however, distinguish between before and after consummation: if it occurs before consummation, the marriage ends immediately; if after consummation, it remains until the end of the waiting period — if he returns to Islam during this time, the marriage continues, otherwise, once the waiting period ends, the marriage is considered to have been dissolved from the moment of his apostasy (meaning the woman need not observe a fresh waiting period). All four schools agree that if this occurs before consummation, the woman is entitled to half the mahr, and if after consummation, to the full mahr.

If the wife apostatizes, the Hanafis’ earlier ruling was that the marriage is likewise dissolved immediately; but later scholars of Balkh and Samarqand ruled that a wife’s apostasy does not cause immediate separation, their purpose being to prevent women from using apostasy as a device to escape their husbands. The Malikis hold a similar view: if circumstances indicate that the woman adopted apostasy merely as a ruse to separate from her husband, no separation occurs. The Shafi’is and Hanbalis hold that the same law applies to a wife’s apostasy as to a husband’s — if it occurs before consummation, the marriage is dissolved immediately; if after consummation, the marriage continues until the end of the waiting period, during which, if she returns to Islam, the marital bond continues, otherwise the marriage is considered dissolved from the time of apostasy once the waiting period ends. Regarding the mahr, all agree that if the wife apostatizes before consummation she receives no mahr, and if after consummation, she receives the full mahr (al-Mabsut, al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, al-Mughni, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 17

17. This matter had two scenarios, and this verse applies to both. The first scenario was that with those disbelievers with whom the Muslims had treaty relations, the Muslims sought to settle the matter as follows: we will return the mahr of the women who have emigrated to us, and you return the mahr of our men’s wives who remained with you as disbelievers. But they refused to accept this. Imam al-Zuhri relates that, following Allah’s command, the Muslims agreed to return the mahr of the women who had remained with the polytheists in Makkah, but the polytheists refused to return the mahr of the women who had emigrated to the Muslims. Allah then commanded that, instead of sending the mahr owed for the emigrant women to the polytheists, it should be collected and kept in Madinah, and that each person owed a mahr refund by the polytheists be given the amount he was owed from this collected sum.

The second scenario was that from among disbelievers with whom the Muslims had no treaty relations, several men had likewise accepted Islam and come to the abode of Islam, leaving their disbelieving wives behind; and likewise, some women had become Muslim and emigrated, leaving their disbelieving husbands behind. Regarding these, it was decided that the exchange should simply be settled within the abode of Islam itself. Since no mahr was going to be recovered from the disbelievers in these cases, none would be returned to them either; instead, the mahr owed in exchange for the woman who had come over would be paid to the man whose wife had remained behind.

But if the accounts could not be balanced this way — that is, if the mahr owed to Muslim men whose wives had remained behind exceeded the mahr of the emigrant Muslim women — it was ordered that the remaining amounts be paid out of the spoils of war (mal ghanimah) that fell into Muslim hands through battle with the disbelievers. Ibn Abbas relates that whenever a person’s due mahr remained unpaid, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would order that his loss be made up from the war spoils (Ibn Jarir). This same position was adopted by Ata, Mujahid, al-Zuhri, Masruq, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, Qatadah, Muqatil, and al-Dahhak. All of them hold that those whose mahr remained with the disbelievers should be compensated from the total war spoils obtained from the disbelievers — that is, before the spoils are distributed, their outstanding mahr should first be paid to them, and only then should the remaining spoils be divided, in which they too would receive an equal share along with all the other warriors. Some jurists also hold that such losses may be compensated not only from war spoils (ghanimah) but also from fay’ revenues. However, a large group of scholars has not accepted this position.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 18

18. As we mentioned earlier, this verse was revealed shortly before the conquest of Makkah. Afterward, when Makkah was conquered, the people of Quraysh began coming in droves to pledge allegiance to the Prophet (peace be upon him). He personally took the pledge from the men at Mount Safa, and appointed Umar to take the pledge from the women and obtain from them the commitments described in this verse (Ibn Jarir, citing Ibn Abbas; Ibn Abi Hatim, citing Qatadah). Then, upon returning to Madinah, he ordered the women of the Ansar to be gathered in a house and sent Umar to take their pledge as well (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bazzar, Ibn Hibban, citing Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah). On the day of Eid too, after delivering the sermon to the men, he went over to the gathering of women, and there, during his address, he recited this verse and took from them the pledges mentioned in it (Bukhari, citing Ibn Abbas). Besides these occasions, women also came to him individually and in groups at various other times to give their pledge, as recorded in numerous hadith reports.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 19

19. When women were being given the pledge of allegiance in Makkah, Abu Sufyan’s wife Hind bint Utbah asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to clarify this command, saying: “O Messenger of Allah, Abu Sufyan is a rather miserly man — is it a sin for me to take some of his wealth, without asking him, for my needs and my children’s needs?” He replied, “No, but only within reasonable limits” — that is, take only as much wealth as is genuinely sufficient for legitimate needs (Ahkam al-Qur’an by Ibn al-Arabi).

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 20

20. This also includes abortion, whether of a legitimate pregnancy or an illegitimate one.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 21

21. This refers to two kinds of fabrication. One is when a woman accuses other women of illicit relations with men and spreads such stories among people, since women in particular are especially prone to gossiping about such matters. The other is when a woman bears a child from someone other than her husband and convinces him it is his. Abu Dawud records a report from Abu Hurairah that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: “Any woman who introduces into a family a child who does not belong to it has no connection with Allah, and Allah will never admit her into Paradise.”

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 22

22. This brief phrase contains two highly significant legal points:

The first point is that even obedience to the Prophet (peace be upon him) is qualified by the condition “in what is right” — even though there was not the slightest possibility that the Prophet could ever command something wrong. This makes it self-evidently clear that no created being’s obedience can extend beyond the bounds of divine law, for if even obedience to the Messenger of Allah is conditional on it being right, then how much less can anyone else claim an unconditional right to obedience, or have their commands, laws, regulations, or customs followed when these conflict with divine law. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) stated this principle in these words: “There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah; obedience is only in what is right” (Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i). Major scholars have drawn this same conclusion from this verse. Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam states: Allah did not say “let them not disobey you” but rather “let them not disobey you in what is right” — so if Allah made even obedience to the Prophet conditional on this, how could it be proper for anyone else to be obeyed in anything beyond what is right? (Ibn Jarir). Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas writes: Allah knew that His Prophet would never command anything but what is right, yet even so, in forbidding disobedience to His Prophet, He attached the condition of “what is right,” so that no one could ever claim grounds for obeying rulers even when their command runs contrary to obedience to Allah. The Prophet said: “Whoever obeys a created being in disobedience to the Creator, Allah subjects him to that very created being” (Ahkam al-Qur’an). Allamah Alusi states: this statement refutes the view of those ignorant people who believe that obedience to those in authority is absolute and unconditional. Allah made even obedience to the Messenger conditional on what is right, even though the Messenger never commands anything but what is right — the purpose being to warn people that obedience to anyone in disobedience to the Creator is impermissible (Ruh al-Ma’ani).

In truth, then, this statement is a cornerstone of the rule of law in Islam. The fundamental principle is that any act contrary to Islamic law is a crime, and no one has the right to order anyone to commit such an act. Whoever gives an unlawful order is himself a criminal, and whoever carries it out is likewise a criminal. No subordinate can escape punishment on the excuse that his superior ordered him to do something that constitutes a crime under the law.

The second point, of great constitutional significance, is this: after stating five prohibitions in this verse, only one positive command is given — that the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) commands are to be obeyed in all good matters. As for the wrongs, specific major vices prevalent among the women of the pre-Islamic era were enumerated, and a pledge was taken to abstain from them. But as for good deeds, no specific list was given for which a pledge was taken saying “you will perform such-and-such acts.” Had only what Allah commanded in the Qur’an been intended, the pledge would have been phrased as “you will not disobey Allah” or “you will not disobey the commands of the Qur’an.” But since the pledge was instead phrased as “you will not disobey the Messenger of Allah in any good matter he commands,” it naturally follows that the Prophet was granted the widest possible authority for reforming society, and that all his commands are binding, whether or not they are found in the Qur’an.

It was on the basis of this very constitutional authority that the Prophet (peace be upon him), while taking the pledge, obtained commitments to abandon many vices then prevalent among Arab women, and issued numerous commands not mentioned in the Qur’an. Consider the following hadith reports in this regard:

Reports from Ibn Abbas, Umm Salamah, and Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah, among others, state that when taking the pledge from women, the Prophet obtained a commitment that they would not wail over the dead. These reports are recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i, and Ibn Jarir.

One report from Ibn Abbas details that the Prophet appointed Umar to take the pledge from the women and instructed him to forbid them from wailing, since in the pre-Islamic era women would tear their clothes, scratch their faces, cut their hair, and wail loudly over the dead (Ibn Jarir).

Zayd ibn Aslam relates that while taking the pledge, the Prophet forbade women from scratching their faces, tearing their collars, wailing, and reciting mournful verses over the dead (Ibn Jarir). A similarly worded report is recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir from a woman who was among those who took the pledge.

Qatadah and al-Hasan al-Basri state that among the commitments the Prophet obtained from women while taking the pledge was that they would not speak with unrelated men (men they were not permitted to marry, i.e., non-mahram). Ibn Abbas’s report clarifies this further, specifying that they would not speak privately with unrelated men. Qatadah adds further detail: upon hearing this, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf asked, “O Messenger of Allah, sometimes we are not home and a visitor comes to see us.” The Prophet replied, “That is not what I meant” — meaning it is not forbidden for a woman to simply tell a visitor that the man of the house is not present (these reports are recorded by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim).

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As relates, from Fatimah’s aunt Umaymah bint Ruqayqah, that the Prophet obtained from her a pledge not to wail, and not to display herself with the adornments of the pre-Islamic era (Musnad Ahmad, Ibn Jarir).

One of the Prophet’s own aunts, Salma bint Qays, relates: I came with a group of Ansari women to give the pledge, and he took from us the commitment stated in this Qur’anic verse, then added, “wala taghshushna azwajakunna” — “do not deceive your husbands.” When we were about to leave, one of the women asked me to go back and ask the Prophet what this meant. I went and asked, and he said, “That she should take his wealth and spend it lavishly on others” (Musnad Ahmad).

Umm Atiyyah states that after taking the pledge, the Prophet instructed us to attend the congregational prayers of the two Eids, though the Friday prayer was not obligatory upon us, and he forbade us from accompanying funeral processions (Ibn Jarir).

Those who attribute this constitutional authority of the Prophet to his capacity as a ruler rather than as a messenger, claiming that the commands he gave in that capacity were binding only during his own time, are speaking out of sheer ignorance. Consider the commands cited above: had the guidance he gave for the reform of women been merely in his capacity as the ruler of the time, how could these reforms have become permanently established among the women of Muslim societies throughout the entire world for all time? What ruler in the world has ever held such a position that a single command from his lips would take permanent effect, for all time, across the entire Muslim society wherever Muslims have settled on earth? (For further explanation, see Tafheem al-Qur’an, Volume 5, commentary on Surah Al-Hashr, footnote 15.)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 23

23. Numerous authentic hadith reports show that the manner of taking the pledge from women during the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) time differed from the pledge taken from men. The method for men was that those pledging would place their hand in his and make their commitment. But when taking the pledge from women, he never took a woman’s hand in his own; instead, he adopted various other methods. We record below the reports transmitted on this matter:

Aisha states: “By Allah, the Prophet’s hand never touched the hand of any woman during the pledge. While taking a woman’s pledge, he would simply say, with his blessed tongue, ‘I have taken your pledge’” (Bukhari, Ibn Jarir).

Umaymah bint Ruqayqah relates: I and a group of women came to the Prophet to give the pledge, and he took from us the commitment described in this Qur’anic verse. When we said, “We will not disobey you in what is right,” he said, “Fima istata’tunna” — “as far as is within your ability and possible for you.” We said, “Allah and His Messenger are more merciful to us than we are to ourselves.” Then we said, “O Messenger of Allah, extend your hand so that we may pledge allegiance to you.” He said, “I do not shake hands with women; I will simply take your pledge (verbally).” He then took the pledge accordingly. In another report she states that he did not shake hands with any of the women (Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim).

Abu Dawud, in al-Marasil, records a report from al-Sha’bi that when taking the pledge from women, a cloth was extended toward the Prophet; he took hold of it in his hand and said, “I do not shake hands with women.” This same account is recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim from al-Sha’bi, by Abd al-Razzaq from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, and by Sa’id ibn Mansur from Qays ibn Abi Hazim.

Ibn Ishaq, in al-Maghazi, records a report from Aban ibn Salih that the Prophet would dip his hand into a vessel of water, and then the woman would likewise dip her hand into the same vessel.

Bukhari records a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas that after delivering the Eid sermon, the Prophet made his way through the rows of men to where the women were seated. There, in his address, he recited this Qur’anic verse and then asked the women, “Do you pledge to this?” A woman from among the gathering replied, “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.”

In one report recorded by Ibn Hibban, Ibn Jarir, al-Bazzar, and others, Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah states: “The Prophet extended his hand from outside [the house], and we extended our hands from inside.” But this does not necessarily mean that the women actually shook hands with him, since Umm Atiyyah does not explicitly state that a handshake occurred. It was most likely the case that, while taking the pledge, he extended his hand from outside, and the women inside extended their hands toward his, without any of their hands actually touching his.

Surah Al-Mumtahanah — Footnote No. 24

24. The original words are: “qad ya’isu min al-akhirati kama ya’isa al-kuffaru min ashabi al-qubur.” This can have two meanings. One is that they have despaired of the good and reward of the Hereafter just as those who deny life after death have despaired of ever seeing their departed relatives, now in their graves, brought back to life again. This meaning is given by Abdullah ibn Abbas, al-Hasan al-Basri, Qatadah, and al-Dahhak (may Allah have mercy on them). The second possible meaning is that they have despaired of the mercy and forgiveness of the Hereafter just as the disbelievers lying in their graves have despaired of any good, since they have become certain of their punishment. This meaning is reported from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Mujahid, Ikrimah, Ibn Zayd, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Mansur (may Allah have mercy on them).