Surah Al-Hadid (57:27)

Arabic Text

ثُمَّ قَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰٓ أَثَارِهِم بِرُسُلِنَا وَقَفَّيْنَا بِعِيسَىٰ ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَءَاتَيْنَٰهُ ٱلْإِنجِيلَ ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا فِى قُلُوبِ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً ۚ وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ٱبْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَٰهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ٱبْتِغَآءَ رِضْوَانِ ٱللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا ۖ فَـَٔاتَيْنَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ ۚ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَـٰسِقُونَ

English Translation (by Maulana Maududi)

In their wake, We sent a succession of Our Messengers, and raised Jesus, son of Mary, after all of them, and bestowed upon him the Evangel, and We set tenderness and mercy in the hearts of those that followed him. As for monasticism, it is they who invented it; We did not prescribe it for them. They themselves invented it in pursuit of Allah’s good pleasure, and then they did not observe it as it ought to have been observed. So We gave their reward to those of them that believed. But many of them are wicked. 5

Tafseer (Commentary from Tafheem-ul-Quran)

The verse highlights the chain of prophets following Noah and Abraham, emphasizing prophethood and scripture in their lineages. Specifically, it mentions Jesus, son of Mary, who was given the Gospel (Injeel). Allah instilled tenderness (ra’fat, meaning compassion or pity) and mercy (rahmat) in the hearts of his true followers, reflecting Jesus’s own merciful teachings and leading them to treat others with kindness and aid those in need.

The concept of monasticism (ruhbaniyyat), derived from “rahb” (fear), involves renouncing worldly life—such as marriage, family, and material possessions—out of fear of worldly temptations, tyranny, or personal weaknesses, often leading to a hermit-like existence. This practice was not ordained by Allah; rather, the followers of Jesus innovated it themselves in an attempt to seek Allah’s pleasure. However, they committed a twofold error: first, by imposing restrictions not required by divine law, and second, by failing to uphold even these self-imposed rules properly, which brought them divine displeasure instead of reward.

Those among them who truly believed and adhered faithfully received their due rewards from Allah, but the majority proved to be disobedient (fasiquun), straying from the path.

Historically, monasticism developed centuries after Jesus, influenced by ascetic traditions reacting to the sensuality of earlier societies (e.g., Greek and Roman). It originated in Egypt around the 3rd-4th century CE, with figures like St. Anthony often credited as its founder, and spread through individuals like St. Athanasius and St. Basil. Over time, it incorporated elements from non-Abrahamic traditions, such as Buddhist and Hindu asceticism, including extreme self-denial like prolonged fasting, carrying heavy weights, rejecting hygiene, and celibacy. Monks severed family ties, sometimes abandoning parents or children, and engaged in sectarian conflicts. Paradoxically, despite vows of poverty, many monasteries accumulated wealth, and reports of moral lapses, such as immorality within cloisters, were common.

From an Islamic perspective, monasticism is rejected as an innovation (bid’ah). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stated, as narrated in Musnad Ahmed, that there is no monasticism in Islam; instead, the “monasticism” of the Muslim ummah is jihad (striving) in the way of Allah. Islam promotes a balanced life, as exemplified by the Prophet’s own practices of prayer, fasting, marriage, and family involvement, without extremes of self-torture or world-renunciation. 5

Ibn katheer vs mm

Surah Al-Hadid (57:27) – Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir

Arabic Text

ثُمَّ قَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِرُسُلِنَا وَقَفَّيْنَا بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا ۖ فَآتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ

English Translation (by Ibn Kathir)

Then, We sent after them Our Messengers, and We sent ‘Isa the son of Maryam, and gave him the Injil. And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them, but (they sought it) only to please Allah therewith, but that they did not observe it with the right observance. So, We gave those among them who believed, their (due) reward; but many of them are rebellious. 10

Tafsir (Commentary from Ibn Kathir)

Allah the Exalted states that since He sent Nuh (Noah), peace be upon him, all the Prophets and Messengers He sent after that were from his offspring. All the revealed Divine Books and all the Messengers that received revelation after Ibrahim (Abraham), Allah’s Khalil (close friend), peace be upon him, were from Ibrahim’s offspring. The last among the Prophets of the Children of Israel was ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), who prophesied the good news of the coming of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them both.

The verse refers to the Injil (Gospel) that Allah revealed to him. He ordained in the hearts of those who followed him—i.e., the disciples—compassion (ra’fah) and tenderness, and mercy toward the creatures.

Regarding monasticism (rahbaniyyah), which they invented for themselves, it refers to the monasticism that the Christian nation invented. Allah did not prescribe it for them; they chose it on their own. There are two opinions about the meaning of “only to please Allah therewith”:

• The first is that they wanted to please Allah by inventing monasticism (as stated by Sa’id bin Jubayr and Qatadah).
• The second is that Allah did not ordain monasticism for them but rather ordained only to seek what pleases Him.

However, they did not observe it with the right observance, meaning they did not abide by what they ordered themselves to do. This ayah criticizes them in two ways: first, they invented things in their religion that Allah did not legislate for them; second, they did not fulfill the requirements of what they themselves invented, which they claimed was a means of drawing near to Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.

So, Allah gave those among them who believed their due reward, but many of them are rebellious (fasiqun). 10

Comparison with Tafheem-ul-Quran (by Maulana Maududi)

Both tafsirs provide a similar core interpretation of the verse, emphasizing the succession of prophets, the mission of Jesus with the Gospel, the instillation of compassion and mercy in his true followers, the innovation of monasticism (not divinely ordained), the failure to observe it properly, and the reward for the believers among them while noting that many were disobedient or rebellious. The translations are nearly identical in meaning, with minor phrasing differences (e.g., Ibn Kathir uses “compassion and mercy,” while Maududi uses “tenderness and mercy”). Both highlight monasticism as a human invention aimed at seeking Allah’s pleasure but criticize it as an unauthorized addition to religion that was not upheld correctly.

Key similarities:

• Prophetic chain and Jesus’s role: Both connect the verse to the lineage of prophets from Noah and Abraham, with Jesus as the last to the Children of Israel, given the Injil, and inspiring mercy in followers.
• Monasticism as innovation: It is described as invented by Christians/followers, not prescribed by Allah, pursued for divine pleasure, but not observed rightly—leading to criticism.
• Reward and disobedience: Faithful believers receive rewards, but the majority are labeled as wicked (Maududi) or rebellious (Ibn Kathir).
• Thematic focus: Emphasis on divine guidance versus human alterations, with a warning against straying from prescribed paths.

Key differences:

• Depth and style: Ibn Kathir’s tafsir is more classical and exegetical, drawing on scholarly opinions (e.g., from Sa’id bin Jubayr and Qatadah) for interpretive nuances, such as the two views on “seeking Allah’s pleasure.” It ties the verse closely to broader prophetic history and Quranic criticism of religious innovation. Maududi’s Tafheem-ul-Quran is more modern and expansive, providing detailed historical context (e.g., monasticism’s origins in 3rd-4th century Egypt, influences from Greek/Roman, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions, and examples of extremes like self-torture, wealth accumulation, and moral failings in monasteries).
• Islamic perspective: Maududi explicitly contrasts with Islam, citing a hadith that there is no monasticism in Islam (replaced by jihad and balanced life, as per the Prophet’s example). Ibn Kathir implies rejection through Quranic critique but focuses less on historical or comparative details.
• Scope: Ibn Kathir remains concise and scripture-focused, while Maududi elaborates on practical implications, such as the “twofold error” (imposing unrequired restrictions and failing to uphold them) and societal/historical developments.

Overall, Ibn Kathir offers a traditional, scholar-based analysis rooted in early Islamic exegesis, while Maududi provides a contemporary, contextual explanation with historical insights and direct application to Islamic teachings. 10