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).

Name

The name is derived from the phrase in verse 9, “idhā nūdiya liṣ-ṣalāti min yawmi’l-jumu’ah” (“when the call is made for prayer on the day of Jumu’ah”). Although this surah also states the rulings concerning the Friday prayer, “Jumu’ah” is not, as a whole, the title of its subject matter — rather, like the names of other surahs, this name too serves merely as a label.

Period of Revelation

The first section (ruku’) dates from 7 AH, and was probably revealed at the time of the conquest of Khaybar, or shortly thereafter. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, and Ibn Jarir have all transmitted the report of Abu Hurairah that these verses were revealed while the Companions were sitting with the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is established from history that Abu Hurairah accepted faith after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and before the conquest of Khaybar. And the conquest of Khaybar took place, according to Ibn Hisham, in Muharram, and according to Ibn Sa’d, in Jumada al-Ula, 7 AH. It therefore seems most likely that after conquering this last stronghold of the Jews, Allah addressed them and revealed these verses — or that they were revealed when, after witnessing the fate of Khaybar, all the Jewish settlements of northern Hijaz submitted to the authority of the Islamic state.

The second section was revealed shortly after the Hijrah, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) had established the Friday prayer just five days after reaching Madinah, and the incident alluded to in the final verse of this section makes clear that it must have occurred sometime after the practice of the Friday congregation had begun — at a time when people had not yet been fully trained in the etiquette of religious gatherings.

Subject Matter and Themes

As noted above, the two sections of this surah were revealed at two separate times. Their subjects therefore differ, as do those being addressed. Although there is a kind of connection between them, on account of which they were combined into a single surah, we should first understand the two subjects separately before turning to that connection.

The first section was revealed after all the efforts the Jews had made over the preceding six years to block the path of Islam’s message had failed. At first, their three powerful tribes in Madinah exerted every effort to humiliate the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him); the result was that one tribe was completely destroyed and two were forced into exile. They then conspired to bring many Arab tribes against Madinah, but all of them were defeated at the Battle of the Trench (Ahzab). After this, their greatest remaining stronghold was Khaybar, where a large number of Jews expelled from Madinah had also gathered. At the time these verses were revealed, Khaybar too was conquered without any extraordinary difficulty, and the Jews themselves requested to remain there as tenant farmers under the Muslims. After this final defeat, Jewish power in Arabia came to an end altogether. Wadi al-Qura, Fadak, Tayma, and Tabuk surrendered one after another, until all the Jews of Arabia became subjects of the very Islam whose existence — let alone whose name — they had been unwilling to tolerate. It was at this point that Allah addressed them once more in this surah — probably the last address made to them in the Qur’an. In it, three things are said to them:

1. You refused to accept this Messenger because he was raised among a people you contemptuously called “unlettered” (ummiyyin). Your false assumption was that a messenger must necessarily belong to your own people. You had decided that anyone outside your nation who claimed prophethood must be a liar, since this office had become your race’s exclusive preserve, and that no messenger could ever arise among the “unlettered.” Yet Allah has raised a Messenger from among precisely these unlettered people, who recites His Book before your very eyes, purifies souls, and guides those whose state of misguidance you yourselves know well. This is Allah’s favour, which He grants to whom He wills. You have no monopoly over His favour, that He should give it only to whom you wish and withhold it only from whom you wish to see deprived.
2. You were made bearers of the Torah, but you neither understood nor fulfilled that responsibility. Your condition is like that of a donkey laden with books, having no idea what burden it carries. In fact, your state is worse than the donkey’s — for it, at least, lacks understanding, whereas you possess understanding, and yet not only do you flee the responsibility of bearing the Book of Allah, you do not even refrain from knowingly denying His signs. And on top of this, you consider yourselves marked out by name for divine favour — as though your view were that whether or not you fulfil your duty toward Allah’s message, Allah is nonetheless obligated to entrust His message to none but you!
3. If you were truly Allah’s favourites, and if you were truly certain that a position of great honour and esteem awaited you with Him, you would not fear death to such a degree that you would accept a life of disgrace but never accept death under any circumstance. It is precisely this fear of death that has caused you to suffer defeat after defeat these past several years. Your own conscience knows well that if you die in this state, you will be even more disgraced before Allah than you are in this world.

This is the subject of the first section. The second section, revealed several years earlier, was included in this surah because Allah wished the Muslims not to treat Jumu’ah the way the Jews had treated their Sabbath. This section was revealed at a time when, one day in Madinah, right during the Friday prayer, a trade caravan arrived, and on hearing the sound of its drums, all those present in the Prophet’s Mosque rushed out toward the caravan except twelve men — even though the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was at that moment delivering the sermon. It was in response to this that the command was given: after the call to Jumu’ah prayer has been made, all buying, selling, and every other occupation become unlawful. The believers’ duty at that time is to set aside every other task and hasten to the remembrance of Allah. Once the prayer has ended, however, they are free to disperse throughout the land to pursue their livelihoods. This section on the rulings of Jumu’ah could have been made an independent surah, or included in some other surah. Instead, it was deliberately placed alongside these verses warning the Jews about the causes of their evil end. The wisdom behind this, in our view, is exactly what has been explained above.

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

یُسَبِّحُ لِلّٰہِ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ مَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ الۡمَلِکِ الۡقُدُّوۡسِ الۡعَزِیۡزِ الۡحَکِیۡمِ ﴿۱﴾ ہُوَ الَّذِیۡ بَعَثَ فِی الۡاُمِّیّٖنَ رَسُوۡلًا مِّنۡہُمۡ یَتۡلُوۡا عَلَیۡہِمۡ اٰیٰتِہٖ وَ یُزَکِّیۡہِمۡ وَ یُعَلِّمُہُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ وَ الۡحِکۡمَۃَ ٭ وَ اِنۡ کَانُوۡا مِنۡ قَبۡلُ لَفِیۡ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ۙ﴿۲﴾ وَّ اٰخَرِیۡنَ مِنۡہُمۡ لَمَّا یَلۡحَقُوۡا بِہِمۡ ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۳﴾ ذٰلِکَ فَضۡلُ اللّٰہِ یُؤۡتِیۡہِ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ ذُو الۡفَضۡلِ الۡعَظِیۡمِ ﴿۴﴾ مَثَلُ الَّذِیۡنَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوۡرٰىۃَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ یَحۡمِلُوۡہَا کَمَثَلِ الۡحِمَارِ یَحۡمِلُ اَسۡفَارًا ؕ بِئۡسَ مَثَلُ الۡقَوۡمِ الَّذِیۡنَ کَذَّبُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ لَا یَہۡدِی الۡقَوۡمَ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ ﴿۵﴾ قُلۡ یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡۤا اِنۡ زَعَمۡتُمۡ اَنَّکُمۡ اَوۡلِیَآءُ لِلّٰہِ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ النَّاسِ فَتَمَنَّوُا الۡمَوۡتَ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ صٰدِقِیۡنَ ﴿۶﴾ وَ لَا یَتَمَنَّوۡنَہٗۤ اَبَدًۢا بِمَا قَدَّمَتۡ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌۢ بِالظّٰلِمِیۡنَ ﴿۷﴾ قُلۡ اِنَّ الۡمَوۡتَ الَّذِیۡ تَفِرُّوۡنَ مِنۡہُ فَاِنَّہٗ مُلٰقِیۡکُمۡ ثُمَّ تُرَدُّوۡنَ اِلٰی عٰلِمِ الۡغَیۡبِ وَ الشَّہَادَۃِ فَیُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ ٪﴿۸﴾

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِذَا نُوۡدِیَ لِلصَّلٰوۃِ مِنۡ یَّوۡمِ الۡجُمُعَۃِ فَاسۡعَوۡا اِلٰی ذِکۡرِ اللّٰہِ وَ ذَرُوا الۡبَیۡعَ ؕ ذٰلِکُمۡ خَیۡرٌ لَّکُمۡ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ﴿۹﴾ فَاِذَا قُضِیَتِ الصَّلٰوۃُ فَانۡتَشِرُوۡا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ وَ ابۡتَغُوۡا مِنۡ فَضۡلِ اللّٰہِ وَ اذۡکُرُوا اللّٰہَ کَثِیۡرًا لَّعَلَّکُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰﴾ وَ اِذَا رَاَوۡا تِجَارَۃً اَوۡ لَہۡوَۨا انۡفَضُّوۡۤا اِلَیۡہَا وَ تَرَکُوۡکَ قَآئِمًا ؕ قُلۡ مَا عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ خَیۡرٌ مِّنَ اللَّہۡوِ وَ مِنَ التِّجَارَۃِ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ خَیۡرُ الرّٰزِقِیۡنَ ﴿٪۱۱﴾

That’s the complete Arabic-to-English verse translation for Surah Al-Jumu’ah (verses 1–8, with footnote markers 1–21), matching all the footnotes we’ve worked through. Here’s how it reads with the footnotes now filled in:

Surah Al-Jumu’ah (62)

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

(1) Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth extols the glory of Allah — the Sovereign, the Holy, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

(2) He it is Who raised among the Ummiyyin a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses, purifies their lives, and teaches them the Book and Wisdom — although before this they were in manifest error — (3) and [raised him also] for those others who have not yet joined them. He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. This is His favor; He grants it to whom He wills, and He is the Lord of great favor.

(5) Those who were charged with bearing the Torah but did not carry it are like a donkey laden with books. Even worse is the likeness of those who have denied the signs of Allah — such wrongdoers Allah does not guide.

(6) Say to them: “O you who have become Jews — if you imagine that of all people, you alone are Allah’s beloved ones, then wish for death, if you are truthful in this claim.” But they will never wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent ahead — and Allah knows well these wrongdoers. (8) Say to them: “The death you flee from will surely meet you. Then you will be brought before the Knower of the unseen and the seen, who will inform you of all you used to do.”

(9) O you who believe, when the call is given for prayer on the day of Jumu’ah, hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading — that is better for you, if you but knew. (10) Then when the prayer is finished, disperse in the land and seek Allah’s bounty, and remember Allah much, so that you may succeed.

(11) But when they saw some trade or amusement, they rushed off to it and left you standing. Say to them: “What is with Allah is better than amusement and trade, and Allah is the best of providers.”

---

All 21 footnotes are now translated alongside this. Want me to assemble the whole thing — verses plus footnotes — into a formatted bilingual document (English alongside the original Urdu) that you can save or drop into your ForOneCreator workflow?

اللہ کے نام سے جو رحمان و رحیم ہے۔

اللہ کی تسبیح کر ہی ہے ہر وہ چیز جو آسمانوں میں ہے اور ہر وہ چیز جو زمین میں ہے۔۔۔۔۔۔۔بادشاہ ہے ، قدوس ہے ، زبر دست اور حکیم ہے ¹۔ 
وہی ہے جس نے امیوں ²کے اندر ایک رسول خود انہی میں سے اٹھایا، جو انہیں اس کی آیات سنا تا ہے ان کی زندگی سنوار تا ہے ، اور ان کی کتاب اور حکمت کی تعلیم دیتا ہے ³۔ حالانکہ اس سے پہلے وہ کھلی گمراہی میں پڑے ہوۓ تھے ⁴۔ اور (اس رسول کی بعثت ) ان دوسرے لوگوں کے لیۓ بھی جو ابھی ان سے نہیں ملے ہیں ⁵۔ اللہ زبردست اور حکیم ہے ⁶۔ یہ اس کا فضل ہے ، جسے چاہتا ہے دیتا ہے ، اور وہ بڑا فضل فرمانے والا ہے۔ 
جن لوگوں کو توراۃ کا حامل بنایا گیا تھا مگر انہوں نے اس کا بار نہ اٹھا یا ⁷، ان کی مثال اس گدھے ⁸ کی سی ہے جس پر کتابیں لدی ہوئی ہوں۔ اس سے بھی زیادہ بری مثال ہے ان لوگوں کی جنہوں نے اللہ کی آیات جھٹلا دیا ہے ⁹۔ایسے ظالموں کو اللہ ہدایت نہیں دیا کرتا۔
ان سے کہو،” اے لوگوں جو یہودی ن گۓ ہو، ¹⁰ اگر تمھیں یہ گھمنڈ ہے کہ باقی سب لوگوں کو چھوڑ کر بس تم ہی اللہ کے چیتے ہو ¹¹ تو موت کو تمنا کرو اگر تم اپنے اس زعم میں سچے ہو ¹² “۔ لیکن یہ ہر گز اس کی تمنا نہ کریں گے اپنے کر تو توں کی وجہ سے کو یہ کر چکے ہیں، ¹³ اور اللہ ان ظلاموں کو خوب جانتا ہے۔ ان سے کہو،” جس موت سے تم بھاگتے ہو وہ تو تمھیں آ کر رہے گی۔ پھر تم اس کے سامنے پیش کیے جاؤ گے جو پوشیدہ و ظاہر کا جاننے والا ہے ، اور تمھیں بتا دے گا کہ تم کیا کچھ کرتے رہے ہو۔ ع

اے لوگو جو ایمان لاۓ ہو، جب پکار جاۓ نماز کے لیۓ جمعہ کے دن ¹⁴ تو اللہ کے ذکر کی طرف دوڑو اور خرید و فروخت چھوڑ دو ¹⁵، یہ تمہارے لیۓ زیادہ بہتر ہے اگر تم جانو۔ پھر جب نماز پوری ہو جاۓ تو زمین میں پھیل جاؤ اور اللہ کا فضل تلاش کرو ¹⁶۔ اور اللہ کو کثرت سے یاد کرتے رہو ¹⁷۔ شاید کہ تمھیں فلاح نصیب ¹⁸ ہو جاۓ۔
اور جب انہوں نے تجارت اور کھیل تماشا ہوتے دیکھا تو اس کی طرف لپک گۓ اور تمھیں کھڑا دیا ¹⁹۔ ان سے کہو، جو کچھ اللہ کے پاس ہے وہ کھیل تماشے اور تجارت سے بہتر ہے ²⁰ اور اللہ سب سے بہتر رزق دینے والا ہے ²¹۔ ع

FOOT NOTES FOR EXPLANATIONS (TAFSEER)

1 . O- you who believe, when the call is made for prayer on the day of Jumu’ah,¹⁴ hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading.¹⁵ This is better for you, if you but knew. Then when the prayer is finished, disperse through the land and seek Allah’s bounty,¹⁶ and remember Allah much,¹⁷ so that you may attain success.¹⁸

And when they saw some trade or amusement, they rushed off to it and left you standing.¹⁹ Say: What is with Allah is better than amusement and trade,²⁰ and Allah is the best of providers.²¹

Since this is a translation with numbered footnote markers (14–21), let me know if you’d like me to translate the accompanying footnotes as well — they’re likely essential for the full sense of the passage (especially the ones explaining the caravan incident and the ruling on trade during the khutbah).

2.

This is Mawdudi’s footnote 2 on Surah Al-Jumu’ah, on the word “Ummi.” Here’s an English rendering for your content:

---

Footnote 2 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

Here the word “Ummi” is used as a Jewish technical term, carrying a subtle irony. It means: among those whom the Jews contemptuously called “Ummi” and considered beneath themselves, Allah — Mighty and Wise — raised up a Messenger. He did not rise on his own; rather, the One who raised him is the King of the universe, Mighty and Wise, against whose power these people can only harm themselves, never Him.

It should be noted that the word “Ummi” appears in several places in the Qur’an, and does not carry the same meaning everywhere — it is used differently depending on context:

1. Sometimes it is used, in contrast to “Ahl al-Kitab” (People of the Book), for those who possess no revealed scripture to follow — e.g., “Say to those who were given the Book, and to the Ummiyyin: have you submitted?” (Aal-e-Imran 3:20). Here Ummiyyin refers to the pagan Arabs, set apart as a distinct group from the Jews and Christians.
2. Sometimes it refers to the illiterate among the People of the Book themselves — those unfamiliar with their own scripture — e.g., “And among them are Ummiyyun who do not know the Book, only wishful thinking” (Al-Baqarah 2:78).
3. Sometimes it is used as a purely Jewish technical term meaning all non-Jews in the world — e.g., “That is because they say: we are not accountable regarding the Ummiyyin” (Aal-e-Imran 3:75), meaning their dishonesty stems from believing they bear no guilt in wrongfully consuming the wealth of non-Jews. This third meaning is the one intended in the verse under discussion.

This term corresponds to the Hebrew word goyim, translated in English Bibles as “Gentiles” — meaning all non-Jewish or non-Israelite peoples.

However, the deeper significance of this Jewish term isn’t fully captured by definition alone. Originally, goyim simply meant “nations” — but over time the Jews reserved it for peoples other than themselves, and eventually loaded it with the sense that all non-Jewish nations are uncivilized, irreligious, impure, and contemptible — surpassing even the Greek term “Barbarian” (used for all non-Greeks) in its scorn. In rabbinic literature, the goyim are held in such contempt that they cannot be regarded as human brethren, cannot be traveled with, and — if one is drowning — no attempt need be made to save him. It was believed that the coming Messiah would annihilate and incinerate all the goyim. (For further discussion, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 1, Aal-e-Imran, footnote 64.)

---

Footnote 3 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

These attributes of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are mentioned in the Qur’an in four places, each with a different purpose:

1. Al-Baqarah 2:129 — Mentioned to tell the Arabs that his mission, which they regarded as a burden or misfortune, was in fact a great blessing — one that Ibrahim and Isma’il (peace be upon them) had prayed for on behalf of their descendants.
2. Al-Baqarah 2:151 — Mentioned so that the Muslims would recognize his worth and draw full benefit from the blessing Allah bestowed on them through his mission.
3. Aal-e-Imran 3:164 — Repeated to make the hypocrites and the weak in faith realize what an immense favor Allah did them by sending His Messenger among them, and how foolish they were not to value it.
4. Now, for the fourth time, it is repeated in this surah — here the purpose is to tell the Jews that what Muhammad ﷺ is doing before their very eyes is unmistakably the work of a Messenger. He recites the verses of Allah — whose language, content, and style all testify that they are truly the words of Allah. He is reforming people’s lives, purifying their character, habits, and dealings from every kind of corruption, and adorning them with the highest moral virtues. This is the very work every prophet before him carried out.

Nor does he stop at merely reciting the verses — through his word, deed, and the example of his own life, he continually makes the intent of the divine Book understood, teaching a wisdom that no one but the prophets has ever taught. This character, conduct, and mission are themselves the defining mark by which prophets are recognized.

What stubbornness, then, that though his truthfulness as a Messenger is openly proven by his works, you refused to accept him — for no reason other than that Allah raised him not from your own people, but from the people you call “Ummi.”

---

4.

Footnote 4 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This is another proof of his ﷺ Messengership, presented to open the eyes of the Jews. They had lived in the land of Arabia for centuries, and no corner of the religious, moral, social, and cultural life of the Arabs was hidden from them. Pointing to their former condition, the verse says: within a few years, under the leadership and guidance of Muhammad ﷺ, you have been eyewitnesses to how completely this people’s fortunes were transformed.

Before you stands the condition these people were in before accepting Islam. Before you stands the condition they came to be in after embracing Islam. And before you, too, stands the condition of those among this very people who have not yet accepted Islam. Is this stark contrast — one even a blind man could see — not enough to convince you that this could be the achievement of none but a prophet? Indeed, before it, even the achievements of earlier prophets pale in comparison.

---

That’s all four footnotes (2–5) done. Want them assembled into your bilingual English/Urdu document alongside the verses of Al-Jumu’ah they belong to?

Footnote 5 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, the Messengership of Muhammad ﷺ is not confined to the Arab nation alone — it extends to all other peoples and races across the world who have not yet joined the ranks of the believers, but will go on doing so until the Day of Judgment.

The original words are: “wa akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim” — “and others among them who have not yet joined them.” The phrase “among them” (minhum) admits of two possible meanings:

1. These “others” will be from among the Ummiyyin — i.e., the non-Israelite peoples of the world.
2. They will be followers of Muhammad ﷺ who have not yet joined the ranks of the believers, but will do so later.

Either way, this verse is among those that clearly establish that the mission of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is directed toward the whole of mankind, and is meant to endure until the end of time. Other places in the Qur’an that make this explicit are: Al-An’am 6:19, Al-A’raf 7:158, Al-Anbiya 21:107, Al-Furqan 25:1, and Saba 34:28. (For further discussion, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 4, commentary on Surah Saba, footnote 47.)

---

Footnote 6 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, it is a marvel of His power and wisdom that He raised, from so unrefined an Ummi people, so great a prophet — whose teaching and guidance were revolutionary to such a degree, and carried universal, eternal principles capable of uniting the whole of mankind into a single Ummah, drawing guidance from them for all time.

No fabricated man, however hard he tried, could ever have attained this rank. Set aside a backward people like the Arabs — not even the most brilliant individual from any of the world’s greatest nations could completely transform a people in this way, and then give the world such comprehensive principles that all mankind could become a single community, running a universal, all-encompassing system of one faith and one civilization until the end of time.

This is a miracle brought about by Allah’s power, and Allah alone — by His wisdom — chose whichever person, land, and people He willed for it. If this troubles the heart of some fool, let it trouble him.

---

Footnote 7 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This phrase carries two meanings — one general, one specific.

The general meaning: those upon whom the knowledge of the Torah, and the responsibility of guiding the world according to it, had been placed — but who neither grasped this responsibility nor fulfilled its due.

The specific meaning: as the community entrusted with the Torah, it was their task to be the first to step forward and support the Messenger whose coming the Torah had clearly foretold. Instead, they opposed him more than anyone else, and failed to live up to what the teaching of the Torah demanded of them.

Footnote 8 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, just as a donkey has books loaded on its back yet has no idea what it is carrying, so too have they loaded the Torah upon themselves without knowing why this Book came, or what it demands of them.

Footnote 9 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, their state is worse than a donkey’s. The donkey lacks understanding, so its ignorance is excusable. But these people do have understanding — they read and teach the Torah, and are not unaware of its meaning. Yet they knowingly turn away from its guidance, and deliberately refuse to accept this Prophet, who is entirely in the right according to the Torah itself. Their fault is not ignorance — they are guilty of consciously and deliberately denying the signs of Allah.

Footnote 10 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This point deserves attention: the verse does not say “O Jews,” but rather “O you who have become Jews” or “O you who have adopted Judaism.” The reason is this: the original religion brought by Musa (peace be upon him), and by the prophets before and after him, was none other than Islam itself. None of these prophets was a Jew, nor had Judaism as such come into being in their time. This religion, under this name, is a much later development.

It takes its name from the tribe descended from Yahuda (Judah), the fourth son of Ya’qub (peace be upon him). After the reign of Sulayman (peace be upon him), when the kingdom split into two, this tribe came to rule the state that became known as Judea, while the other tribes of Bani Isra’il established their own separate state, known as Samaria. Later, when Assyria [conquered the northern kingdom], only the lineage of Yahuda — along with that of Benjamin — survived, and because of the dominance of the tribe of Yahuda, the term “Yahud” (Jews) came to be applied to them.

Within this lineage, over the course of many centuries, priests, rabbis, and religious scholars built up a framework of beliefs, rituals, and religious regulations according to their own ideas, theories, and inclinations — and this framework is what is called Judaism. It began taking shape from the fourth century BCE and continued developing until the fifth century CE. Only a very small element of the divine guidance brought by Allah’s messengers survives within it, and even that has become considerably distorted.

This is why the Qur’an, in most places, addresses them as alladhina hadu — “O you who have become Jews” — rather than by ethnic descent. Not all of them were Israelites either; there were also non-Israelites among them who had adopted Judaism. Wherever the Qur’an addresses the Children of Israel by lineage, it uses the words “O Children of Israel”; wherever it addresses the followers of the Jewish religion, it uses the words alladhina hadu.

Footnote 11 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

The details of this claim of theirs are given in several places in the Qur’an. For example, they say that no one but the Jews will enter Paradise (Al-Baqarah 2:111); that the Fire will never touch them, and even if they are punished, it will only be for a few days (Al-Baqarah 2:80, Aal-e-Imran 3:24); and that they are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones (Al-Ma’idah 5:18). Similar claims are also found in the Jews’ own scriptures. At the very least, the whole world knows that they call themselves God’s Chosen People, and hold the conviction that God has a special relationship with them that He has with no other group of mankind.

Footnote 12 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This is the second time in the Qur’an that this point has been addressed directly to the Jews. Earlier, in Surah Al-Baqarah, it was said: “Tell them: if the abode of the Hereafter is reserved for you alone with Allah, to the exclusion of all other people, then wish for death — if you are truthful in this claim of yours. But they will never wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent ahead, and Allah knows well the wrongdoers. Indeed, you will find them the most eager of all people for life — even more than the polytheists. Each of them wishes he could live a thousand years, though even a long life would never save him from the punishment. Allah sees well all that they do.” (verses 94–96). The same point is now repeated here.

But this is not mere repetition. In Surah Al-Baqarah, this was said at a time when no war had yet taken place between the Muslims and the Jews. Here, in this surah, it is repeated after several confrontations, once their power in Arabia had been decisively and finally broken. Those confrontations, and their outcome, proved through experience and observation what had earlier been stated as a claim in Surah Al-Baqarah.

In Madinah and Khaybar, Jewish strength was in no way inferior to that of the Muslims in numbers, and far exceeded them in resources. The pagans of Arabia and the hypocrites of Madinah also stood behind them. Yet what overcame the Jews was this: far from fearing death in Allah’s cause, the Muslims desired it from the depths of their hearts, and went into battle with their lives in their hands — for they were certain they were fighting in Allah’s cause, and equally certain that Paradise awaited whoever was martyred in it. The Jews, by contrast, were unwilling to lay down their lives for any cause at all — not for the sake of God, not for their own people, not even to defend their own lives, wealth, and honor. All they wanted was life, whatever kind of life it might be. It was this very trait that made them cowards.

Footnote 13 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

In other words, this fleeing from death on their part is not without reason. However grand and sweeping their claims may be in words, their own consciences know well what their actual dealings with Allah and His religion amount to, and what outcome can be expected in the Hereafter for the deeds they are committing in this world. This is precisely why their souls shrink from facing the judgment of Allah.

---

Footnote 14 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

Three points in this phrase deserve particular attention. First, it mentions the calling out (munadi) for prayer. Second, it refers to a call for a specific prayer that is to be offered only on the day of Jumu’ah. Third, these two things are not stated in the form “call people to prayer, and offer a special prayer on Fridays” — rather, the phrasing and context make clear that people were being lax about hurrying to the prayer upon hearing the call, and remained absorbed in buying and selling instead. This verse was revealed precisely to make people feel the importance of that call and that particular prayer, and to hasten to it as an obligation.

Reflecting on these three points establishes, decisively, a foundational truth: Allah also gave the Messenger ﷺ certain commands that were not revealed as part of the Qur’an, and those commands were just as binding as the commands revealed in the Qur’an. The call to prayer mentioned here is the very Adhan that is given today in every mosque across the world, five times a day — yet nowhere in the Qur’an are its words stated, nor is any command given to call people to prayer in this manner. This was instituted by the Messenger ﷺ himself; the Qur’an only confirms it in two places — here, and in Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 58. Likewise, this specific Friday prayer, which Muslims the world over perform today, is neither commanded in the Qur’an nor is its time or manner of performance described there. This too was instituted by the Messenger ﷺ, and this verse of the Qur’an was revealed only to underscore its importance and its binding obligation. Despite this clear proof, anyone who claims that Shari’ah rulings consist only of what is stated in the Qur’an is, in effect, denying not the Sunnah, but the Qur’an itself.

Before proceeding further, a few more matters about Jumu’ah should be understood:

On the name “Jumu’ah”: Jumu’ah is in fact an Islamic term. In the pre-Islamic era, the Arabs called this day Yawm al-’Arubah. When Islam designated it as the day of the Muslims’ communal gathering, it was named Jumu’ah. Though historians note that Ka’b ibn Lu’ayy, or Qusayy ibn Kilab, had also used this name for the day — since he used to gather the people of Quraysh on it (Fath al-Bari) — this did not change the older name; the Arabs generally still called it ’Arubah. The real change of name came only when Islam gave it this new designation.

On why Friday was chosen over Saturday or Sunday: Before Islam, the People of the Book already had the practice of setting aside a particular day of the week for worship and making it a communal marker. The Jews designated the Sabbath (Saturday) for this purpose, since it was on that day Allah delivered the Children of Israel from Pharaoh’s bondage. The Christians, to distinguish themselves from the Jews, adopted Sunday as their communal marker — though neither Christ commanded this, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Gospel; rather, Christians believe that Christ rose from the tomb toward heaven on this very day after being crucified. Later Christians accordingly made it their day of worship, and in 321 CE the Roman Empire decreed it a general holiday. Islam, to distinguish its own community from both of these communities, set aside both of these days and chose Friday for congregational worship instead.

On when it was made obligatory: Reports from Abdullah ibn Abbas and Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari indicate that the command making Jumu’ah obligatory was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ in Makkah itself, some time before the Hijrah — though he could not act on it then, since no communal worship was possible in Makkah. He therefore wrote to those who had already emigrated to Madinah ahead of him, instructing them to establish Jumu’ah there. Accordingly, Mus’ab ibn Umayr, leader of the early emigrants, led the first Jumu’ah prayer in Madinah with twelve men (Tabarani, Daraqutni). Ka’b ibn Malik and Ibn Sirin report that even before this — before the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction reached them — the Ansar of Madinah had decided among themselves to gather once a week for communal worship, choosing Friday over the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday for this purpose; the first such Friday prayer was led by As’ad ibn Zurarah in the area of Banu Bayadah, attended by forty men (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Abd ibn Humayd, Abd al-Razzaq, Bayhaqi). This shows that the Islamic instinct itself was already calling for a day on which the greatest number of Muslims could gather for communal worship — and it was likewise this same instinct that called for that day to be distinct from Saturday and Sunday, so that the Muslims’ communal marker would remain distinct from those of the Jews and Christians. It is a remarkable feature of the Companions’ Islamic sensibility that, on occasion, their instinct grasped what the spirit of Islam demanded even before any explicit command had come.

On its establishment after the Hijrah: Establishing Jumu’ah was among the very first things the Messenger ﷺ did after the Hijrah. Having emigrated from Makkah, he arrived at Quba on a Monday and stayed there four days; on the fifth day, a Friday, he set out from there toward Madinah. While on the way, at the settlement of Banu Salim ibn Awf, the time for Jumu’ah prayer arrived, and it was there that he ﷺ offered the very first Jumu’ah prayer (Ibn Hisham).

On its timing: The Messenger ﷺ set the time for this prayer as after the sun’s decline — the same time as Zuhr. In the written instruction he sent to Mus’ab ibn Umayr before the Hijrah, he had said: “When the day has passed its midpoint on Friday, draw near to Allah through two rak’ahs” (Daraqutni). This instruction he both gave verbally after the Hijrah and also followed in practice, leading the Jumu’ah prayer at that time. Reports to this effect — that he ﷺ performed Jumu’ah after the sun’s decline — have been transmitted from Anas, Salamah ibn al-Akwa’, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, Sahl ibn Sa’d, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ammar ibn Yasir, and Bilal (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi).

On its form: It is also established from his practice that on this day he offered Jumu’ah in place of Zuhr; this prayer consisted of only two rak’ahs, preceded by a sermon (khutbah) — this being the difference between the Friday prayer and the ordinary Zuhr prayer on other days. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “By the word of your Prophet ﷺ, the traveler’s prayer is two rak’ahs, the Fajr prayer is two rak’ahs, and the Jumu’ah prayer is two rak’ahs — these are complete prayers, not shortened ones. Jumu’ah was only made brief on account of the sermon” (Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas).

On the Adhan referred to in this verse: The call mentioned here refers to the Adhan given immediately before the sermon — not the Adhan given well in advance to announce that the time for Jumu’ah has begun. It is reported from Sa’ib ibn Yazid that in the time of the Messenger ﷺ there was only a single Adhan, given after the Imam had taken his seat on the pulpit — and this remained the practice in the times of Abu Bakr and Umar as well. Later, in the time of Uthman, when the population had grown, he introduced an additional, earlier Adhan, given at his house, Zawra’, in the marketplace of Madinah (Bukhari, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Tabarani).

Footnote 15 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

In this command, “dhikr” (remembrance) refers to the sermon (khutbah), because the first thing the Prophet ﷺ did after the Adhan was not the prayer but the khutbah — he always performed the prayer only after the sermon. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “On Friday, the angels record the name of each person who arrives, in the order of their arrival. Then, when the Imam comes out [to deliver the sermon], they fold up their scrolls and turn to listening to the dhikr (i.e., the sermon)” (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i). This hadith too confirms that dhikr here means the sermon. The Qur’an’s own wording points to the same thing: it first says, “hasten to the remembrance of Allah,” and then later says, “and when the prayer is concluded, disperse in the land.” This shows that the order of proceedings on Friday is: first the dhikr (sermon), then the prayer. The commentators agree that dhikr here means either the sermon alone, or both the sermon and the prayer together.

The very use of the phrase “remembrance of Allah” for the sermon carries a meaning of its own: the sermon’s content should be things fitting for the remembrance of Allah — praise of Allah, blessings upon His Messenger, instruction and exhortation to act according to His commands and His law, commendation of the God-fearing servants, and the like. On this basis, al-Zamakhshari writes in al-Kashshaf that praising unjust rulers in the sermon, naming them, or praying for them, bears no relation whatsoever to the remembrance of Allah — rather, it is the remembrance of Satan.

“Hasten to the remembrance of Allah” does not mean literally running there — it means making every effort to arrive as quickly as possible. In Urdu too, we use expressions like “rushing about” or “hurrying” to mean vigorous effort, not literal running; likewise in Arabic, sa’y does not mean running either. Elsewhere in the Qur’an, the word sa’y is used in the sense of effort and striving — for example: “Man shall have nothing but what he strives for,” “whoever desires the Hereafter and strives for it as it should be striven for,” “when he was old enough to strive [walk/work] with him,” and “when he turns away, he strives in the land to spread corruption.” The commentators unanimously take it here in the sense of diligence — that a person, upon hearing the Adhan, should immediately set about making his way to the mosque.

Nor is this the whole of it — there is also a clear hadith prohibiting literally running to the prayer. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “When the prayer is called, come to it walking with calm and dignity — do not come running. Join whatever part of the prayer you catch, and make up whatever you missed” (the six major hadith collections). Abu Qatadah al-Ansari relates that once, while they were praying behind the Prophet ﷺ, the sound of people running suddenly reached them. After finishing the prayer, the Prophet ﷺ asked what the noise had been. They said they had been running to join the prayer. He said: “Do not do that — whenever you come for prayer, come with complete calm. Join whatever part you catch with the Imam, and complete whatever you missed afterward” (Bukhari, Muslim).

“Leave off trading” does not mean abandoning buying and selling alone — it means setting aside every other engagement besides the concern and effort of going to the prayer. Trade is singled out specifically because commerce flourished especially on Fridays: people from surrounding settlements would gather together in one place, merchants would bring their goods there, and people would busy themselves buying what they needed. But the prohibition is not limited to trade alone — every other occupation falls under it as well. And since Allah has explicitly forbidden it, the jurists of Islam are agreed that after the call to Jumu’ah, trade and every kind of business dealing become unlawful.

This command decisively establishes that the Jumu’ah prayer is obligatory. First, the emphatic instruction to hasten upon hearing the Adhan is itself proof of this. Then, the fact that something otherwise lawful — trade — becomes forbidden for its sake shows that it is obligatory. Furthermore, the fact that the obligatory Zuhr prayer is dropped on Fridays and replaced by the Jumu’ah prayer is clear proof of its obligatory status, since one obligation is only dropped when the obligation replacing it is more important. This is further supported by numerous hadiths in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ emphasized Jumu’ah in the strongest terms and explicitly declared it obligatory.

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “I feel inclined to appoint someone else to lead the prayer in my place, and go and burn down the houses of those who do not come for the Jumu’ah prayer” (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari). Abu Hurairah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, and Abdullah ibn Umar report having heard the Prophet ﷺ say in the Jumu’ah sermon: “People must stop neglecting Jumu’ah, or Allah will seal their hearts, and they will be left heedless” (Musnad Ahmad, Muslim, Nasa’i). Reports from Abu al-Ja’d al-Damri, Jabir ibn Abdullah, and Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa indicate that the Prophet ﷺ said whoever misses three consecutive Fridays out of sheer negligence, without genuine necessity or valid excuse, Allah seals his heart — one version even states, “Allah turns his heart into the heart of a hypocrite” (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Darimi, al-Hakim, Ibn Hibban, al-Bazzar, al-Tabarani in al-Kabir). Jabir ibn Abdullah reports the Prophet ﷺ said: “Jumu’ah is obligatory upon you from today until the Day of Resurrection. Whoever abandons it, treating it lightly or denying its due, may Allah not set his affairs right nor bless him. Know well: his prayer is no prayer, his zakah is no zakah, his Hajj is no Hajj, his fasting is no fasting, none of his good deeds count as good deeds — until he repents. And Allah is ever ready to forgive” (Ibn Majah, al-Bazzar). Al-Tabarani relates a similar report from Ibn Umar in al-Awsat. Beyond these, there are numerous other reports in which the Prophet ﷺ explicitly declared Jumu’ah obligatory and a binding duty.

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Jumu’ah is obligatory upon everyone who hears its call” (Abu Dawud, Daraqutni). Jabir ibn Abdullah and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri report that he said in a sermon: “Know that Allah has made the Jumu’ah prayer obligatory upon you” (Bayhaqi) — though he exempted women, children, slaves, the sick, and travelers from this obligation. Hafsah reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Going out for Jumu’ah is obligatory upon every adult” (Nasa’i). In a report from Tariq ibn Shihab, his words are: “Jumu’ah in congregation is obligatory upon every Muslim, except the slave, the woman, the child, and the sick” (Abu Dawud, al-Hakim). In a report from Jabir ibn Abdullah, his words are: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, Jumu’ah is obligatory upon him — except the woman, the traveler, the slave, or the sick” (Daraqutni, Bayhaqi). It is on the strength of these clear statements from the Qur’an and Hadith that the entire Muslim Ummah is unanimous on the obligatory nature of Jumu’ah.

Footnote 16 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This does not mean that after the Jumu’ah prayer it becomes necessary to disperse in the land and rush about seeking one’s livelihood. Rather, this instruction carries the sense of permission. Since the command had been given to leave off all business upon hearing the call to Jumu’ah, it is now stated that once the prayer has ended, you are permitted to disperse and go about whatever business you wish. This is comparable to the verse that, after prohibiting hunting during the state of Ihram, says: “and when you have left Ihram, then you may hunt” (Al-Ma’idah 5:2) — this does not mean one must hunt after leaving Ihram, but rather that no restriction on hunting remains; one may hunt if one wishes. Similarly, in Surah An-Nisa, permission for marrying more than one wife is given in the words “then marry those that please you” — here too, though the form is imperative, no one has taken it to mean an obligation. From this arises a principle: the imperative form does not always denote obligation; sometimes it denotes permission, and sometimes mere recommendation. Context alone determines where it indicates a command, where mere permission, and where it simply indicates that Allah is pleased by an act without that act being obligatory. Immediately following this very phrase comes another: “and remember Allah much” — here too the imperative form is used, yet it plainly denotes recommendation, not obligation.

It is also worth noting here that although the Qur’an does not designate Friday as a general holiday in the way the Jewish Sabbath or Christian Sunday function, no one can deny that Friday is, for Muslims, exactly the kind of communal marker that Saturday and Sunday are for Jews and Christians respectively. And if setting aside one day a week as a general holiday is a civilizational necessity, then just as Jews naturally choose Saturday for this and Christians choose Sunday, so too will Muslims (provided some Islamic sensibility remains within their nature) inevitably choose Friday for this purpose. Indeed, Christians did not hesitate to impose their Sunday even upon countries where the Christian population was a mere fraction of the whole. When the Jews established their state of Israel in Palestine, the very first thing they did was designate Saturday, rather than Sunday, as the day off. Before Partition, the clearest distinction between British India and the Muslim states was that one part of the country observed Sunday as a holiday and the other observed Friday. Yet where Islamic sensibility is absent among Muslims, they cling to Sunday even after power has come into their own hands — as we see in Pakistan. Worse still, when heedlessness fully takes hold, the Friday holiday is abolished altogether in favor of Sunday, as Mustafa Kemal did in Turkey.

Footnote 17 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, do not forget Allah even while engaged in your business — rather, keep Him in mind in every circumstance and continue His remembrance. (For further explanation, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 4, commentary on Surah Al-Ahzab, footnote 63.)

Footnote 18 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

In several places in the Qur’an, after giving a directive, exhortation, or command, the words la’allakum tuflihun (“that you may succeed”) or la’allakum turhamun (“that you may be shown mercy”) are used. Using the word “perhaps” in such contexts does not mean — God forbid — that Allah is in any doubt; rather, it is a manner of royal speech. It is like a kind master telling his servant, “Carry out such-and-such a task — perhaps you will be promoted.” Hidden within it is a subtle promise, in the hope of which the servant carries out the task wholeheartedly and eagerly. If such a phrase were to come from a king’s own mouth regarding a servant, celebrations would break out in that servant’s household.

Since the rulings on Jumu’ah have now concluded, it seems fitting to summarize the rulings on Jumu’ah as compiled by the four schools of law from the Qur’an, Hadith, the practice of the Companions, and the general principles of Islam.

According to the Hanafis: The time for Jumu’ah is the same as the time for Zuhr — it cannot be performed either before or after this. The prohibition on trading begins with the first Adhan, not the second one given after the Imam takes his seat on the pulpit, since the Qur’an’s wording is unqualified. So once the time for Jumu’ah begins after the sun’s decline, whichever Adhan is given for it, people must stop buying and selling upon hearing it — though if someone does trade at that time, the sale is not invalidated, it is simply a sin. Jumu’ah can only be held in a misr jami’ (a major town), defined as one having markets, an established system of security, and a population large enough that even its largest mosque could not hold everyone obligated to attend. Those living outside the town must come in for Jumu’ah if the Adhan reaches them, or if they are within roughly six miles of the town. The prayer need not be held in a mosque — it can be in an open ground, even one outside the town but counted as part of it. Jumu’ah can only be held where general permission to attend is open to everyone; no matter how many people gather in an enclosed place not open to all, the Jumu’ah is not valid there. For validity, the congregation must include — besides the Imam — at least three people obligated to attend Jumu’ah (per Abu Hanifah), or at least two including the Imam (per Abu Yusuf and Muhammad). Jumu’ah is excused for: a traveler; someone too ill to walk there; someone disabled in both legs; a blind person (though Abu Yusuf and Muhammad hold this exemption applies only if he cannot find someone to guide him); someone facing threat to life, honor, or unbearable financial loss from an oppressor; severe rain and mud; or someone imprisoned. It is disliked for prisoners and the disabled to perform Zuhr in congregation on Fridays, and likewise disliked for those who missed Jumu’ah to perform Zuhr in congregation. The sermon is a condition for the validity of Jumu’ah, since the Prophet ﷺ never performed it without one; it must precede the prayer, and there must be two sermons. From when the Imam heads to the pulpit until the sermon ends, all conversation is forbidden, and prayer should not be performed then either — regardless of whether the Imam’s voice reaches where a given person is sitting (al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah, Umdat al-Qari).

According to the Shafi’is: The time for Jumu’ah is the same as Zuhr’s. The prohibition on trading and the obligation to hasten begin with the second Adhan (given after the Imam takes his seat on the pulpit). Still, a sale made at that time is not invalidated. Jumu’ah can be held in any settlement whose permanent residents include forty people obligated to attend. Those outside the settlement must attend if the Adhan can reach them. It must be held within the settlement’s boundaries, though not necessarily in a mosque; those living in tents in the desert are not obligated. Validity requires at least forty people obligated to attend, including the Imam. Exemptions include: being a traveler, or intending to stay somewhere four days or less (provided the travel is of a permissible nature); being so elderly or ill that one cannot attend even by riding; being blind with no one to guide one there; fear for life, wealth, or honor; or imprisonment, provided it is not due to one’s own wrongdoing. Two sermons must precede the prayer. Silence during the sermon is recommended (sunnah), though speaking is not forbidden; it is disliked to speak for someone seated close enough to hear the sermon, though he may return a greeting or recite blessings aloud upon hearing the Prophet’s ﷺ name mentioned (Mughni al-Muhtaj, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah).

According to the Malikis: The time for Jumu’ah begins at the sun’s decline and lasts until shortly before Maghrib — enough time for the sermon and prayer to be completed before sunset. The prohibition on trading and obligation to hasten begin with the second Adhan; any sale made after this is invalid and voidable. Jumu’ah can only be held in settlements whose residents have permanently settled houses there, do not relocate seasonally, meet their needs within the settlement, and are numerous enough to defend themselves. No matter how many people or how long they stay, Jumu’ah cannot be established in temporary encampments. Those living within three miles of the settlement where Jumu’ah is held must attend. It must be held in a mosque within or adjoining the settlement, whose structure is not inferior to the ordinary residents’ houses. Some Malikis add that the mosque must be roofed and used for the five daily prayers, though the predominant Maliki position is that neither being roofed nor being used for daily prayers is a condition — Jumu’ah may be held even in a mosque built solely for that purpose. Validity requires at least twelve people, besides the Imam, who are obligated to attend. Exemptions include: being a traveler, or intending to stay somewhere less than four days; being too ill to reach the mosque; having a sick parent, spouse, or child, or caring for a sick stranger with no one else to care for him, or having a close relative gravely ill or near death; facing unbearable financial loss, or threat to life or honor; hiding from fear of being beaten or imprisoned, provided one is being wronged in the matter; or heavy rain, mud, extreme heat, or cold preventing one from reaching the mosque. Two sermons are required before the prayer — if the sermon comes after the prayer, the prayer must be repeated — and these sermons must be given inside the mosque within hearing range of those present. If the preacher says something irrelevant to the sermon’s proper content, curses someone undeservingly, praises someone undeservingly, or reads something unrelated to the sermon, the congregation has the right to object. Praying for the ruler of the time during the sermon is disliked, unless the preacher fears for his own life. The preacher must be the same person who leads the prayer — if someone else leads the prayer instead, it is invalid (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ‘ala al-Sharh al-Kabir, Ahkam al-Qur’an by Ibn al-’Arabi, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah).

According to the Hanbalis: The time for Jumu’ah runs from when the sun has risen a spear’s length in the morning until the start of ‘Asr time, though before the sun’s decline it is merely permissible, while after decline it is obligatory and preferred. The prohibition on trading and the obligation to hasten begin with the second Adhan; any sale made after this does not take effect at all. Jumu’ah can only be held where forty people obligated to attend are permanently settled in houses (not tents) — that is, not relocating seasonally. It makes no difference whether the settlement’s houses and neighborhoods are contiguous or scattered; if they are collectively known by one name, they count as a single settlement, even if parts of it are miles apart. Those living within three miles of such a settlement must attend. The congregation must include forty people including the Imam. The prayer need not be in a mosque — an open ground suffices. Exemptions include: being a traveler intending to stay four days or less; being so ill that even riding to attend is difficult; being blind, unless able to find his own way there (it is not obligatory for a blind man to be led by someone else); severe cold, heat, rain, or mud preventing one from reaching the venue; hiding from an oppressor’s injustice; threat to life or honor, or unbearable financial loss. Two sermons must precede the prayer. It is forbidden to speak during the sermon for anyone close enough to the preacher to hear him — though someone farther away, out of earshot, may speak. Whether the preacher is just or unjust, people must remain silent during the sermon. If Eid falls on the same day as Jumu’ah, those who have already prayed Eid are exempted from the obligation of Jumu’ah — on this point the Hanbali position differs from that of the other three schools (Ghayat al-Muntaha, al-Fiqh ‘ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah).

All the jurists agree that if someone not obligated to attend Jumu’ah does attend and pray it, his prayer is valid, and Zuhr is no longer obligatory upon him.

Footnote 19 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This is the incident behind the rulings on Jumu’ah given in the verses above. The account — narrated in the hadith collections from Jabir ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abu Hurairah, Abu Malik, and also from al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Zayd, Qatadah, and Muqatil ibn Hayyan — is that a trade caravan arrived from Syria in Madinah right at the time of the Jumu’ah prayer, and began beating drums to announce its arrival to the townspeople. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was delivering the sermon at that moment. Hearing the drums, the people grew restless, and all but twelve of them rushed off toward al-Baqi’, where the caravan had stopped.

The most reliable narration of this incident is that of Jabir ibn Abdullah, transmitted through numerous chains by Imam Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu ‘Awanah, Abd ibn Humayd, Abu Ya’la, and others. The only inconsistency is that some narrations state the event occurred during the prayer itself, while others state it occurred while the Prophet ﷺ was delivering the sermon. Bringing together all the narrations from Jabir and other Companions and Successors, the correct understanding is that this happened during the sermon, and where Jabir says it occurred “during the Jumu’ah prayer,” he is in fact using “Jumu’ah prayer” to refer to the sermon and prayer together as a combined whole.

Abdullah ibn Abbas’s narration states that among the twelve men who remained, there was also one woman (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim). One narration from al-Daraqutni gives the number remaining as forty, one from Abd ibn Humayd gives seven, and al-Farra’ records eight — but these are all weak narrations, as is Qatadah’s report that such an incident occurred three separate times (Ibn Jarir). The reliable narration is that of Jabir ibn Abdullah, which puts the number remaining at twelve, and — apart from Qatadah’s one report — all the narrations from the Companions and Successors agree that this happened only once.

Piecing together the various reports about who remained, it appears that among them were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ammar ibn Yasir, Salim the freedman of Hudhayfah, and Jabir ibn Abdullah himself. In the narration Hafiz Abu Ya’la relates from Jabir ibn Abdullah, it is stated that when the people left in this way and only these twelve Companions remained, the Prophet ﷺ addressed them, saying: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, had you all followed them, until not one of you remained, this valley would have flowed with fire against you.”

A similar account has been narrated by Ibn Mardawayh from Abdullah ibn Abbas, and by Ibn Jarir from Qatadah.

Regarding the Shi’a use of this incident: Shi’a scholars have used this incident to cast aspersion on the Companions, arguing that such a large number of them abandoning the sermon and prayer to rush toward trade and spectacle proves they preferred the world over the Hereafter. But this is a harsh and unwarranted objection, one that can only be made by closing one’s eyes to the facts. This incident occurred in the period shortly after the Hijrah, when — on one hand — the collective training of the Companions was still in its early stages, and on the other, the disbelievers of Makkah, through their influence, had imposed a severe economic blockade on the people of Madinah, making necessities scarce there. Al-Hasan al-Basri states that people in Madinah were on the verge of starvation at that time, and prices had risen sharply (Ibn Jarir). In this condition, when a trade caravan arrived, people rushed toward it in anxious fear that its goods might be sold out by the time the prayer ended. This was a lapse and an error that arose in that moment due to the incompleteness of their training and the harshness of circumstances. But anyone who looks at the sacrifices these same Companions went on to make for Islam afterward, and sees how their lives — in both worship and worldly dealings — testify to tremendous piety, will never dare to accuse them of harboring any inclination to prefer this world over the Hereafter — unless there lurks in his own heart an affliction of malice toward the Companions.

That said, just as this incident does not support the critics of the Companions, neither does it support those who go to excess in their reverence for the Companions and claim that they never erred at all, or that if they did, it should not be mentioned — on the grounds that mentioning their error and calling it an error is an insult to them, that it strips them of the honor and esteem due to them in people’s hearts, and that mentioning it contradicts the verses and hadiths affirming that the Companions are forgiven and accepted in Allah’s sight. All of this is sheer exaggeration, for which there is no basis in the Qur’an or Hadith. Anyone can see here that Allah Himself mentioned this lapse committed by a large number of the Companions — in the very Book the entire Ummah is to recite until the Day of Judgment — and it is this same Book that affirms their being forgiven and accepted. Moreover, every book of hadith and tafsir, from the Companions themselves down to the later luminaries of Ahl al-Sunnah, has recorded the details of this lapse. Does this mean Allah mentioned it in order to strip the esteem from the very Companions whose esteem He Himself wishes to establish in people’s hearts? Does it mean the Companions, the Successors, the hadith scholars, and the commentators recorded all the details of this incident out of ignorance of the legal principle that these certain people now invoke? And has the esteem of the Companions actually vanished from the hearts of those who read Surah Al-Jumu’ah and study its commentary? If the answer to each of these questions is no — and it certainly is no — then all the excessive, exaggerated claims made in the name of “honoring the Companions” are simply mistaken.

The reality is that the noble Companions were not some heavenly creation, but human beings born on this very earth. Whatever they became, they became through the training of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ — training given to them gradually, over years. The method we see reflected in the Qur’an and Hadith is this: whenever a weakness appeared among them, Allah and His Messenger ﷺ addressed it promptly, and a program of instruction and training on that specific point began at once. In this very matter of the Jumu’ah prayer, we see that when the incident of the trade caravan occurred, Allah revealed this section of Surah Al-Jumu’ah to draw attention to it and to teach the etiquette of Jumu’ah. Alongside this, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, in his sermons, consistently impressed upon people the importance of Jumu’ah’s obligatory status — as mentioned in footnote 15 — and taught them its etiquette in detail. Accordingly, we find all these instructions set out very clearly in the hadith literature:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reports that the Prophet ﷺ said every Muslim should bathe on Friday, clean his teeth, wear whatever good clothes are available to him, and apply perfume if he has any (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i). Salman al-Farisi reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: whichever Muslim bathes on Friday and purifies himself as thoroughly as he can, applies oil to his hair or whatever perfume is available at home, then goes to the mosque without pushing between two people to force his way in, then prays whatever voluntary prayer Allah enables him to, then remains silent when the Imam speaks — his sins are forgiven between that Friday and the next (Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad). Similar reports have been transmitted from Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Abu Hurairah, and Nubayshah al-Hudhali (Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, al-Tabarani).

Abdullah ibn Abbas reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: whoever speaks while the Imam is delivering the sermon is like a donkey carrying books, and whoever tells him to be quiet has himself gained no Jumu’ah either (Musnad Ahmad). Abu Hurairah reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: if you say “be quiet” to someone talking during the Friday sermon, you too have committed an idle act (Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud). Similar reports have been transmitted by Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and al-Tabarani from Ali and Abu al-Darda’.

Alongside this, the Prophet ﷺ also instructed preachers not to burden people with lengthy sermons. He himself delivered a brief sermon on Fridays and did not prolong the prayer either. Jabir ibn Samurah reports that the Prophet’s ﷺ sermons were not long — just a few brief words (Abu Dawud). Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa reports that his sermon was shorter than the prayer, and the prayer was longer than the sermon (Nasa’i). Ammar ibn Yasir reports that the Prophet ﷺ said: a man’s prayer being long and his sermon being short is a sign that he understands the religion (Musnad Ahmad, Muslim). A similar report is transmitted by al-Bazzar from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.

From all of this, one can see how the Prophet ﷺ taught people the etiquette of Jumu’ah, until this prayer attained a stature unmatched by the communal worship of any other people in the world.

Footnote 20 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

This phrase itself shows the true nature of the error the Companions had committed. If — God forbid — its cause had been a deficiency of faith and a deliberate preference of this world over the Hereafter, then Allah’s expression of wrath, rebuke, and censure would have taken a very different form. But since no such corruption was present, and what happened was simply due to a lack of training, the etiquette of Jumu’ah was first explained in an instructive tone, and then, addressing this lapse, they were gently reminded in a nurturing manner: what you will receive from Allah for listening to the Jumu’ah sermon and performing the prayer is better than this world’s trade and amusements.

Footnote 21 — Surah Al-Jumu’ah

That is, whatever means of sustenance appear in this world are only figuratively so — the best true provider is Allah. Similar phrases occur in several places in the Qur’an: sometimes Allah is called the Best of Creators, sometimes the Best of Forgivers, sometimes the Best of Judges, sometimes the Best of the Merciful, sometimes the Best of Helpers. In all these instances, the attribution of provision, creation, forgiveness, mercy, and help to created beings is figurative, while its attribution to Allah is real. The meaning is: whoever appears to give you a salary, wages, or bread in this world, or whoever appears to fashion something through their craft or skill, or whoever appears to forgive others’ faults, show mercy, or come to others’ aid — Allah is better than all of them as Provider, Creator, Merciful, Forgiving, and Helper.

Surah Al-Jumu’ah (62)

Verses 1–11 with the Commentary (Footnotes 1–21) of Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi’s Tafheem-ul-Quran

Verses (Arabic/Urdu text with translation)

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

یُسَبِّحُ لِلّٰہِ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ مَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ الۡمَلِکِ الۡقُدُّوۡسِ الۡعَزِیۡزِ الۡحَکِیۡمِ ﴿۱﴾ ہُوَ الَّذِیۡ بَعَثَ فِی الۡاُمِّیّٖنَ رَسُوۡلًا مِّنۡہُمۡ یَتۡلُوۡا عَلَیۡہِمۡ اٰیٰتِہٖ وَ یُزَکِّیۡہِمۡ وَ یُعَلِّمُہُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ وَ الۡحِکۡمَۃَ ٭ وَ اِنۡ کَانُوۡا مِنۡ قَبۡلُ لَفِیۡ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ۙ﴿۲﴾ وَّ اٰخَرِیۡنَ مِنۡہُمۡ لَمَّا یَلۡحَقُوۡا بِہِمۡ ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۳﴾ ذٰلِکَ فَضۡلُ اللّٰہِ یُؤۡتِیۡہِ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ ذُو الۡفَضۡلِ الۡعَظِیۡمِ ﴿۴﴾ مَثَلُ الَّذِیۡنَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوۡرٰىۃَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ یَحۡمِلُوۡہَا کَمَثَلِ الۡحِمَارِ یَحۡمِلُ اَسۡفَارًا ؕ بِئۡسَ مَثَلُ الۡقَوۡمِ الَّذِیۡنَ کَذَّبُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ لَا یَہۡدِی الۡقَوۡمَ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ ﴿۵﴾ قُلۡ یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡۤا اِنۡ زَعَمۡتُمۡ اَنَّکُمۡ اَوۡلِیَآءُ لِلّٰہِ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ النَّاسِ فَتَمَنَّوُا الۡمَوۡتَ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ صٰدِقِیۡنَ ﴿۶﴾ وَ لَا یَتَمَنَّوۡنَہٗۤ اَبَدًۢا بِمَا قَدَّمَتۡ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌۢ بِالظّٰلِمِیۡنَ ﴿۷﴾ قُلۡ اِنَّ الۡمَوۡتَ الَّذِیۡ تَفِرُّوۡنَ مِنۡہُ فَاِنَّہٗ مُلٰقِیۡکُمۡ ثُمَّ تُرَدُّوۡنَ اِلٰی عٰلِمِ الۡغَیۡبِ وَ الشَّہَادَۃِ فَیُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ ٪﴿۸﴾

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِذَا نُوۡدِیَ لِلصَّلٰوۃِ مِنۡ یَّوۡمِ الۡجُمُعَۃِ فَاسۡعَوۡا اِلٰی ذِکۡرِ اللّٰہِ وَ ذَرُوا الۡبَیۡعَ ؕ ذٰلِکُمۡ خَیۡرٌ لَّکُمۡ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ﴿۹﴾ فَاِذَا قُضِیَتِ الصَّلٰوۃُ فَانۡتَشِرُوۡا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ وَ ابۡتَغُوۡا مِنۡ فَضۡلِ اللّٰہِ وَ اذۡکُرُوا اللّٰہَ کَثِیۡرًا لَّعَلَّکُمۡ تُفۡلِحُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰﴾ وَ اِذَا رَاَوۡا تِجَارَۃً اَوۡ لَہۡوَۨا انۡفَضُّوۡۤا اِلَیۡہَا وَ تَرَکُوۡکَ قَآئِمًا ؕ قُلۡ مَا عِنۡدَ اللّٰہِ خَیۡرٌ مِّنَ اللَّہۡوِ وَ مِنَ التِّجَارَۃِ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ خَیۡرُ الرّٰزِقِیۡنَ ﴿٪۱۱﴾

Urdu — original

اللہ کے نام سے جو رحمان و رحیم ہے۔

اللہ کی تسبیح کر رہی ہے ہر وہ چیز جو آسمانوں میں ہے اور ہر وہ چیز جو زمین میں ہے۔۔۔۔۔۔۔بادشاہ ہے، قدوس ہے، زبردست اور حکیم ہے۔ ۱

وہی ہے جس نے امیوں کے اندر ایک رسول خود انہی میں سے اٹھایا، جو انہیں اس کی آیات سناتا ہے، ان کی زندگی سنوارتا ہے، اور ان کو کتاب اور حکمت کی تعلیم دیتا ہے۔ ۲ ۳ حالانکہ اس سے پہلے وہ کھلی گمراہی میں پڑے ہوئے تھے۔ ۴ اور (اس رسول کی بعثت) ان دوسرے لوگوں کے لیے بھی ہے جو ابھی ان سے نہیں ملے ہیں۔ ۵ اللہ زبردست اور حکیم ہے۔ ۶ یہ اس کا فضل ہے، جسے چاہتا ہے دیتا ہے، اور وہ بڑا فضل فرمانے والا ہے۔

جن لوگوں کو توراۃ کا حامل بنایا گیا تھا مگر انہوں نے اس کا بار نہ اٹھایا، ۷ ان کی مثال اس گدھے ۸ کی سی ہے جس پر کتابیں لدی ہوئی ہوں۔ اس سے بھی بری مثال ہے ان لوگوں کی جنہوں نے اللہ کی آیات کو جھٹلا دیا ہے۔ ۹ ایسے ظالموں کو اللہ ہدایت نہیں دیا کرتا۔

ان سے کہو، ”اے لوگو جو یہودی بن گئے ہو، ۱۰ اگر تمہیں یہ گھمنڈ ہے کہ باقی سب لوگوں کو چھوڑ کر بس تم ہی اللہ کے چہیتے ہو، ۱۱ تو موت کی تمنا کرو اگر تم اپنے اس زعم میں سچے ہو“۔ ۱۲ لیکن یہ ہرگز اس کی تمنا نہ کریں گے اپنے ان کرتوتوں کی وجہ سے جو یہ کر چکے ہیں، ۱۳ اور اللہ ان ظالموں کو خوب جانتا ہے۔ ان سے کہو، ”جس موت سے تم بھاگتے ہو وہ تو تمہیں آ کر رہے گی۔ پھر تم اس کے سامنے پیش کیے جاؤ گے جو پوشیدہ و ظاہر کا جاننے والا ہے، اور تمہیں بتا دے گا کہ تم کیا کچھ کرتے رہے ہو۔“

اے لوگو جو ایمان لائے ہو، جب پکارا جائے نماز کے لیے جمعہ کے دن، ۱۴ تو اللہ کے ذکر کی طرف دوڑو اور خرید و فروخت چھوڑ دو۔ ۱۵ یہ تمہارے لیے زیادہ بہتر ہے اگر تم جانو۔ پھر جب نماز پوری ہو جائے تو زمین میں پھیل جاؤ اور اللہ کا فضل تلاش کرو، ۱۶ اور اللہ کو کثرت سے یاد کرتے رہو۔ ۱۷ شاید کہ تمہیں فلاح نصیب ہو جائے۔ ۱۸

اور جب انہوں نے تجارت یا کھیل تماشا ہوتے دیکھا تو اس کی طرف لپک گئے اور تمہیں کھڑا چھوڑ دیا۔ ۱۹ ۲۰ ان سے کہو، جو کچھ اللہ کے پاس ہے وہ کھیل تماشے اور تجارت سے بہتر ہے، اور اللہ سب سے بہتر رزق دینے والا ہے۔ ۲۱

English translation

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

(1) Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth extols the glory of Allah — the Sovereign, the Holy, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

(2) He it is Who raised among the Ummiyyin a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses, purifies their lives, and teaches them the Book and Wisdom — although before this they were in manifest error — (3) and [raised him also] for those others who have not yet joined them. He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. This is His favor; He grants it to whom He wills, and He is the Lord of great favor.

(5) Those who were charged with bearing the Torah but did not carry it are like a donkey laden with books. Even worse is the likeness of those who have denied the signs of Allah — such wrongdoers Allah does not guide.

(6) Say to them: “O you who have become Jews — if you imagine that of all people, you alone are Allah’s beloved ones, then wish for death, if you are truthful in this claim.” But they will never wish for it, because of what their own hands have sent ahead — and Allah knows well these wrongdoers. (8) Say to them: “The death you flee from will surely meet you. Then you will be brought before the Knower of the unseen and the seen, who will inform you of all you used to do.”

(9) O you who believe, when the call is given for prayer on the day of Jumu’ah, hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading — that is better for you, if you but knew. (10) Then when the prayer is finished, disperse in the land and seek Allah’s bounty, and remember Allah much, so that you may succeed.

(11) But when they saw some trade or amusement, they rushed off to it and left you standing. Say to them: “What is with Allah is better than amusement and trade, and Allah is the best of providers.”

Commentary (Tafheem-ul-Quran footnotes)

Footnote 1

Urdu — original

تشریح کے لیے ملاحظہ ہو تفہیم القرآن، جلد پنجم، تفسیر سورہ حدید، حواشی 1، 2، الحشر، حواشی 36، 37، 41۔ آگے کے مضمون سے یہ تمہید بڑی گہری مناسبت رکھتی ہے۔ عرب کے یہودی رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی ذات و صفات اور کارناموں میں رسالت کی صریح نشانیاں بہ چشم سر دیکھ لینے کے باوجود، اور اس کے باوجود کہ توراۃ میں حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام نے آپ کے آنے کی صریح بشارت دی تھی جو آپ کے سوا کسی اور پر چسپاں نہیں ہوتی تھی، صرف اس بنا پر آپ کا انکار کر رہے تھے کہ اپنی قوم اور نسل سے باہر کے کسی شخص کی رسالت مان لینا انہیں سخت ناگوار تھا۔ وہ صاف کہتے تھے کہ جو کچھ ہمارے ہاں آیا ہے ہم صرف اسی کو مانیں گے۔ دوسرے کسی تعلیم کو، جو کسی غیر اسرائیلی نبی کے ذریعہ سے آئے، خواہ وہ خدا ہی کی طرف سے ہو، تسلیم کرنے کے لیے وہ قطعی تیار نہ تھے۔ آگے کی آیتوں میں اسی رویہ پر انہیں ملامت کی جا رہی ہے، اس لیے کلام کا آغاز اس تمہیدی فقرے سے کیا گیا ہے۔

اس میں پہلی بات یہ فرمائی گئی ہے کہ کائنات کی ہر چیز اللہ کی تسبیح کر رہی ہے۔ یعنی یہ پوری کائنات اس بات پر شاہد ہے کہ اللہ ان تمام نقائص اور کمزوریوں سے پاک ہے جن کی بنا پر یہودیوں نے اپنی نسلی برتری کا تصور قائم کر رکھا ہے۔ وہ کسی کا رشتہ دار نہیں ہے۔ جانب داری کا اس کے ہاں کوئی کام نہیں۔ اپنی ساری مخلوق کے ساتھ اس کا معاملہ یکساں عدل اور رحمت اور ربوبیت کا ہے۔ کوئی خاص نسل اور قوم اس کی چہیتی نہیں ہے کہ وہ خواہ کچھ کرے، بہر حال اس کی نوازشیں اسی کے لیے مخصوص رہیں، اور کسی دوسری نسل یا قوم سے اس کو عداوت نہیں ہے کہ وہ اپنے اندر خوبیاں بھی رکھتی ہو تو وہ اس کی عنایات سے محروم رہے۔

پھر فرمایا گیا کہ وہ بادشاہ ہے، یعنی دنیا کی کوئی طاقت اس کے اختیارات کو محدود کرنے والی نہیں ہے۔ تم بندے اور رعیت ہو۔ تمہارا یہ منصب کب سے ہو گیا کہ تم یہ طے کرو کہ وہ تمہاری ہدایت کے لیے اپنا پیغمبر کسے بناۓ اور کسے نہ بناۓ۔ اس کے بعد ارشاد ہوا کہ وہ قدوس ہے، یعنی اس سے بدرجہا منزہ اور پاک ہے کہ اس کے فیصلے میں کسی خطا اور غلطی کا امکان ہو۔ غلطی تمہاری سمجھ بوجھ میں ہو سکتی ہے، اس کے فیصلے میں نہیں ہو سکتی۔

آخر میں اللہ تعالیٰ کی دو مزید صفتیں بیان فرمائی گئیں۔ ایک یہ کہ وہ زبردست ہے، یعنی اس سے لڑ کر کوئی جیت نہیں سکتا۔ دوسری یہ کہ وہ حکیم ہے، یعنی جو کچھ کرتا ہے وہ عین مقتضاۓ دانش ہوتا ہے، اور اس کی تدبیریں ایسی محکم ہوتی ہیں کہ دنیا میں کوئی ان کا توڑ نہیں کر سکتا۔

English translation

For an explanation, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 5, commentary on Surah Al-Hadid, footnotes 1–2, and Surah Al-Hashr, footnotes 36, 37, and 41. This introductory statement bears a deep relevance to the theme that follows. The Jews of Arabia, despite having witnessed with their own eyes the clear signs of Messengership in the person, attributes, and achievements of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and despite the fact that Musa (peace be upon him) had given, in the Torah, a clear glad tiding of his coming — one that applied to no one but him — nevertheless denied him, solely because accepting the Messengership of someone from outside their own people and lineage was deeply repugnant to them. They stated plainly that they would accept only what had come to them, and were altogether unwilling to accept any teaching brought by a non-Israelite prophet, even if it came from God Himself. The verses that follow rebuke them for precisely this attitude, which is why the passage opens with this introductory statement.

The first thing stated here is that everything in the universe glorifies Allah — that is, the entire universe testifies that Allah is free of all the defects and weaknesses on which the Jews had built their notion of racial superiority. He is no one’s relative; favoritism plays no part in His dealings. His conduct toward all His creation is one of equal justice, mercy, and sustaining care. No particular race or nation is His favorite, such that His blessings remain reserved for it no matter what it does; nor does He bear enmity toward any other race or nation, such that it would be deprived of His favor even if it possessed good qualities.

It is then stated that He is the Sovereign — meaning no power in the world can limit His authority. You are servants and subjects; since when has it become your place to decide whom He may or may not appoint as His Messenger for your guidance? Next it is stated that He is the Holy — that is, far too exalted and pure for any possibility of error or mistake in His decision. Error may lie in your own understanding; it cannot lie in His decision.

Finally, two further attributes of Allah are mentioned. First, that He is the All-Mighty — meaning no one can fight Him and win. Second, that He is the All-Wise — meaning whatever He does is exactly what wisdom demands, and His plans are so firmly established that no one in the world can undo them.

Footnote 2

Urdu — original

یہاں امی کا لفظ یہودی اصطلاح کے طور پر آیا ہے، اور اس میں ایک لطیف طنز پوشیدہ ہے۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ جن کو یہودی حقارت کے ساتھ امی کہتے اور اپنے مقابلہ میں ذلیل سمجھتے ہیں، انہیں میں اللہ غالب و دانا نے ایک رسول اٹھایا ہے۔ وہ خود نہیں اٹھ کھڑا ہوا ہے بلکہ اس کا اٹھانے والا وہ ہے جو کائنات کا بادشاہ ہے، زبردست اور حکیم ہے، جس کی قوت سے لڑ کر یہ لوگ اپنا ہی کچھ بگاڑیں گے، اس کا کچھ نہیں بگاڑ سکتے۔

معلوم ہونا چاہیے کہ قرآن مجید میں ”اُمی” کا لفظ متعدد مقامات پر آیا ہے اور سب جگہ اس کے معنی ایک ہی نہیں ہیں بلکہ مختلف مواقع پر وہ مختلف معنوں میں استعمال ہوا ہے۔ کہیں وہ اہل کتاب کے مقابلہ میں ان لوگوں کے لیے استعمال کیا گیا ہے جن کے پاس کوئی آسمانی کتاب نہیں ہے۔ کہیں یہ لفظ خود اہل کتاب کے اَن پڑھ اور کتاب اللہ سے نا واقف لوگوں کے لیے استعمال ہوا ہے۔ اور کہیں یہ لفظ خالص یہودی اصطلاح کے طور پر استعمال ہوا ہے جس سے مراد دنیا کے تمام غیر یہودی ہیں۔ یہی تیسرے معنی ہیں جو آیت زیر بحث میں مراد لیے گئے ہیں۔ یہ لفظ عبرانی زبان کے لفظ گوئیم کا ہم معنی ہے، جس کا ترجمہ انگریزی بائیبل میں Gentiles کیا گیا ہے۔

عبرانی زبان کا لفظ گوئیم ابتداءً محض اقوام کے معنی میں بولا جاتا تھا، لیکن رفتہ رفتہ یہودیوں نے اسے پہلے تو اپنے سوا دوسری قوموں کے لیے مخصوص کر دیا، پھر اس کے اندر یہ معنی پیدا کر دیے کہ یہودیوں کے سوا باقی تمام اقوام ناشائستہ، بد مذہب، ناپاک اور ذلیل ہیں۔ ربیوں کے لٹریچر میں گوئیم اس قدر قابل نفرت لوگ ہیں کہ ان کو انسانی بھائی نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا۔

English translation

Here the word ummi is used as a Jewish technical term, carrying a subtle irony. It means: among those whom the Jews contemptuously called “ummi” and considered beneath themselves, Allah — Mighty and Wise — raised up a Messenger. He did not rise on his own; rather, the One who raised him is the King of the universe, Mighty and Wise, against whose power these people can only harm themselves, never Him.

It should be noted that the word “ummi” appears in several places in the Qur’an, and does not carry the same meaning everywhere — it is used differently depending on context. Sometimes it is used, in contrast to “Ahl al-Kitab” (People of the Book), for those who possess no revealed scripture. Sometimes it refers to the illiterate among the People of the Book themselves, unfamiliar with their own scripture. And sometimes it is used as a purely Jewish technical term meaning all non-Jews in the world — this third meaning is the one intended in the verse under discussion. This term corresponds to the Hebrew word goyim, translated in English Bibles as “Gentiles.”

The Hebrew word goyim originally simply meant “nations,” but over time the Jews reserved it for peoples other than themselves, and eventually loaded it with the sense that all non-Jewish nations are uncivilized, irreligious, impure, and contemptible. In rabbinic literature, the goyim are held in such contempt that they cannot be regarded as human brethren.

Footnote 3

Urdu — original

قرآن مجید میں رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی یہ صفات چار مقامات پر بیان کی گئی ہیں، اور ہر جگہ ان کے بیان کی غرض مختلف ہے۔ البقرہ آیت 129 میں ان کا ذکر اہل عرب کو یہ بتانے کے لیے کیا گیا ہے کہ آنحضورؐ کی بعثت، جسے وہ اپنے لیے زحمت و مصیبت سمجھ رہے تھے، در حقیقت ایک بڑی نعمت ہے جس کے لیے حضرت ابراہیم اور حضرت اسماعیل علیہما السلام اپنی اولاد کے لیے اللہ تعالیٰ سے دعائیں مانگا کرتے تھے۔ البقرہ آیت 151 میں انہیں اس لیے بیان کیا گیا ہے کہ مسلمان حضورؐ کی قدر پہچانیں۔ آل عمران آیت 164 میں منافقین اور ضعیف الایمان لوگوں کو یہ احساس دلانے کے لیے ان کا اعادہ کیا گیا ہے۔ اب چوتھی مرتبہ انہیں اس سورہ میں دہرایا گیا ہے جس سے مقصود یہودیوں کو یہ بتانا ہے کہ محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم تمہاری آنکھوں کے سامنے جو کام کر رہے ہیں وہ صریحاً ایک رسول کا کام ہے۔

وہ لوگوں کی زندگیاں سنوار رہے ہیں، ان کے اخلاق اور عادات اور معاملات کو ہر طرح کی گندگیوں سے پاک کر رہے ہیں۔ یہ وہی کام ہے جو اس سے پہلے تمام انبیاء کرتے رہے ہیں۔ پھر یہ کیسی ہٹ دھرمی ہے کہ جس کا رسول برحق ہونا اس کے کارناموں سے علانیہ ثابت ہو رہا ہے اس کو ماننے سے تم نے صرف اس لیے انکار کر دیا کہ اللہ نے اسے تمہاری قوم کے بجائے اس قوم میں سے اٹھایا جسے تم امی کہتے ہو۔

English translation

These attributes of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are mentioned in the Qur’an in four places, each with a different purpose. In Al-Baqarah 2:129, mentioned to tell the Arabs that his mission, which they regarded as a burden, was in fact a great blessing that Ibrahim and Isma’il (peace be upon them) had prayed for on behalf of their descendants. In Al-Baqarah 2:151, mentioned so the Muslims would recognize his worth. In Aal-e-Imran 3:164, repeated to make the hypocrites and the weak in faith realize the immense favor Allah did them. Now, for the fourth time, it is repeated in this surah — here the purpose is to tell the Jews that what Muhammad ﷺ is doing before their very eyes is unmistakably the work of a Messenger.

He is reforming people’s lives, purifying their character, habits, and dealings from every kind of corruption. This is the very work every prophet before him carried out. What stubbornness, then, that though his truthfulness as a Messenger is openly proven by his works, you refused to accept him — for no reason other than that Allah raised him not from your own people, but from the people you call “ummi.”

Footnote 4

Urdu — original

یہ حضورؐ کی رسالت کا ایک اور ثبوت ہے جو یہودیوں کی آنکھیں کھولنے کے لیے پیش کیا گیا ہے۔ یہ لوگ صدیوں سے عرب کی سر زمین میں آباد تھے اور اہل عرب کی مذہبی، اخلاقی، معاشرتی، اور تمدنی زندگی کا کوئی گوشہ ان سے چھپا ہوا نہ تھا۔ چند سال کے اندر محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی قیادت و رہنمائی میں اس قوم کی جیسی کایا پلٹ گئی ہے اس کے تم عینی شاہد ہو۔ تمہارے سامنے وہ حالت بھی ہے جس میں یہ لوگ اسلام قبول کرنے سے پہلے مبتلا تھے، وہ حالت بھی ہے جو اسلام لانے کے بعد ان کی ہو گئی، اور اسی قوم کے ان لوگوں کی حالت بھی تم دیکھ رہے ہو جنہوں نے ابھی اسلام قبول نہیں کیا ہے۔ کیا یہ کھلا کھلا فرق تمہیں یہ یقین دلانے کے لیے کافی نہیں ہے کہ یہ ایک نبی کے سوا کسی کا کارنامہ نہیں ہو سکتا؟ بلکہ اس کے سامنے تو پچھلے انبیاء تک کے کارنامے ماند پڑ گئے ہیں۔

English translation

This is another proof of his ﷺ Messengership, presented to open the eyes of the Jews. They had lived in the land of Arabia for centuries, and no corner of the religious, moral, social, and cultural life of the Arabs was hidden from them. Within a few years, under the leadership of Muhammad ﷺ, you have been eyewitnesses to how completely this people’s fortunes were transformed. Before you stands the condition they were in before accepting Islam, the condition they came to be in after embracing it, and the condition of those among this very people who have not yet accepted Islam. Is this stark contrast not enough to convince you that this could be the achievement of none but a prophet? Indeed, before it, even the achievements of earlier prophets pale in comparison.

Footnote 5

Urdu — original

یعنی محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی رسالت صرف عرب قوم تک محدود نہیں ہے بلکہ دنیا بھر کی ان دوسری قوموں اور نسلوں کے لیے بھی ہے جو ابھی آ کر اہل ایمان میں شامل نہیں ہوئی ہیں مگر آگے قیامت تک آنے والی ہیں۔ اصل الفاظ ہیں وَاٰخَرِیْنَ مِنْہُمْ لَمَّا یَلْحَقُوْا بِہِمْ۔ اس میں لفظ منہم کے دو مطلب ہو سکتے ہیں: ایک یہ کہ وہ دوسرے لوگ امیوں میں سے ہوں گے، دوسرے یہ کہ محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کو ماننے والے ہوں گے جو ابھی اہل ایمان میں شامل نہیں ہوئے ہیں مگر بعد میں شامل ہو جائیں گے۔ اس طرح یہ آیت ان آیات میں سے ہے جن میں تصریح کی گئی ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی بعثت تمام نوع انسانی کی طرف ہے اور ابد تک کے لیے ہے۔ دوسرے مقامات: الانعام 19، الاعراف 158، الانبیاء 107، الفرقان 1، سبا 28۔

English translation

That is, the Messengership of Muhammad ﷺ is not confined to the Arab nation alone — it extends to all other peoples and races across the world who have not yet joined the ranks of the believers, but will go on doing so until the Day of Judgment. The original words are “wa akharina minhum lamma yalhaqu bihim” — “and others among them who have not yet joined them.” The phrase “among them” admits of two possible meanings: these “others” will be from among the Ummiyyin (the non-Israelite peoples of the world), or they will be followers of Muhammad ﷺ who have not yet joined the ranks of the believers but will do so later. Either way, this verse is among those that clearly establish that the mission of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is directed toward the whole of mankind and is meant to endure until the end of time. Other places: Al-An’am 6:19, Al-A’raf 7:158, Al-Anbiya 21:107, Al-Furqan 25:1, Saba 34:28.

Footnote 6

Urdu — original

یعنی یہ اسی کی قدرت و حکمت کا کرشمہ ہے کہ ایسی ناتراشیدہ امی قوم میں اس نے ایسا عظیم نبی پیدا کیا جس کی تعلیم و ہدایت اس درجہ انقلاب انگیز ہے، اور پھر ایسے عالمگیر ابدی اصولوں کی حامل ہے جن پر تمام نوع انسانی مل کر ایک امت بن سکتی ہے۔ کوئی بناوٹی انسان خواہ کتنی ہی کوشش کر لیتا، یہ مقام و مرتبہ کبھی حاصل نہیں کر سکتا تھا۔ عرب جیسی پسماندہ قوم تو درکنار، دنیا کی کسی بڑی سے بڑی قوم کا کوئی ذہین سے ذہین آدمی بھی اس پر قادر نہیں ہو سکتا۔ یہ ایک معجزہ ہے جو اللہ کی قدرت سے رونما ہوا ہے، اور اللہ ہی نے اپنی حکمت کی بنا پر جس شخص، جس ملک، اور جس قوم کو چاہا ہے اس کے لیے انتخاب کیا ہے۔ اس پر اگر کسی بے وقوف کا دل دکھتا ہے تو دکھتا رہے۔

English translation

That is, it is a marvel of His power and wisdom that He raised, from so unrefined an ummi people, so great a prophet — whose teaching and guidance were revolutionary to such a degree, and carried universal, eternal principles capable of uniting the whole of mankind into a single Ummah. No fabricated man, however hard he tried, could ever have attained this rank. Set aside a backward people like the Arabs — not even the most brilliant individual from any of the world’s greatest nations could achieve this. This is a miracle brought about by Allah’s power, and Allah alone — by His wisdom — chose whichever person, land, and people He willed for it. If this troubles the heart of some fool, let it trouble him.

Footnote 7

Urdu — original

اس فقرے کے دو معنی ہیں۔ ایک عام اور دوسرا خاص۔ عام معنی یہ ہیں کہ جن لوگوں پر توراۃ کے علم و عمل، اور اس کے مطابق دنیا کی ہدایت کا بار رکھا گیا تھا، مگر نہ انہوں نے اپنی اس ذمہ داری کو سمجھا اور نہ اس کا حق ادا کیا۔ خاص معنی یہ ہیں کہ حامل توراۃ گروہ ہونے کی حیثیت سے جن کا کام یہ تھا کہ سب سے پہلے آگے بڑھ کر اس رسول کا ساتھ دیتے جس کے آنے کی صاف صاف بشارت توراۃ میں دی گئی تھی، مگر انہوں نے سب سے بڑھ کر اس کی مخالفت کی اور توراۃ کی تعلیم کے تقاضے کو پورا نہ کیا۔

English translation

This phrase carries two meanings — one general, one specific. The general meaning: those upon whom the knowledge of the Torah, and the responsibility of guiding the world according to it, had been placed — but who neither grasped this responsibility nor fulfilled its due. The specific meaning: as the community entrusted with the Torah, it was their task to be the first to step forward and support the Messenger whose coming the Torah had clearly foretold. Instead, they opposed him more than anyone else, and failed to live up to what the teaching of the Torah demanded of them.

Footnote 8

Urdu — original

یعنی جس طرح گدھے پر کتابیں لدی ہوں اور وہ نہیں جانتا کہ اس کی پیٹھ پر کیا ہے، اسی طرح یہ توراۃ کو اپنے اوپر لادے ہوئے ہیں اور نہیں جانتے کہ یہ کتاب کس لیے آئی ہے اور ان سے کیا چاہتی ہے۔

English translation

That is, just as a donkey has books loaded on its back yet has no idea what it is carrying, so too have they loaded the Torah upon themselves without knowing why this Book came, or what it demands of them.

Footnote 9

Urdu — original

یعنی ان کا حال گدھے سے بھی بد تر ہے۔ وہ تو سمجھ بوجھ نہیں رکھتا اس لیے معذور ہے۔ مگر یہ سمجھ بوجھ رکھتے ہیں۔ توراۃ کو پڑھتے پڑھاتے ہیں، اس کے معنی سے ناواقف نہیں ہیں۔ پھر بھی یہ اس کی ہدایات سے دانستہ انحراف کر رہے ہیں، اور اس نبی کو ماننے سے قصداً انکار کر رہے ہیں جو توراۃ کی رو سے سراسر حق پر ہے۔ یہ نافہمی کے قصور وار نہیں ہیں بلکہ جان بوجھ کر اللہ کی آیات کو جھٹلانے کے مجرم ہیں۔

English translation

That is, their state is worse than a donkey’s. The donkey lacks understanding, so its ignorance is excusable. But these people do have understanding — they read and teach the Torah, and are not unaware of its meaning. Yet they knowingly turn away from its guidance, and deliberately refuse to accept this Prophet, who is entirely in the right according to the Torah itself. Their fault is not ignorance — they are guilty of consciously and deliberately denying the signs of Allah.

Footnote 10

Urdu — original

یہ نکتہ قابل توجہ ہے۔ ”اَے یہودیو” نہیں کہا ہے بلکہ ”اَے وہ لوگو جو یہودی بن گئے ہو” فرمایا ہے۔ اس کی وجہ یہ ہے کہ اصل دین جو موسیٰ علیہ السلام اور ان سے پہلے اور بعد کے انبیاء لائے تھے وہ تو اسلام ہی تھا۔ یہ مذہب اس نام کے ساتھ بہت بعد کی پیداوار ہے۔ یہ اس خاندان کی طرف منسوب ہے جو حضرت یعقوب علیہ السلام کے چوتھے بیٹے یہوداہ کی نسل سے تھا۔ حضرت سلیمان علیہ السلام کے بعد جب سلطنت دو ٹکڑوں میں تقسیم ہو گئی تو یہ خاندان اس ریاست کا مالک ہوا جو یہوداہ کے نام سے موسوم ہوئی۔

اس نسل کے اندر کاہنوں اور ربیوں اور احبار نے اپنے اپنے خیالات و نظریات کے مطابق عقائد اور رسوم اور مذہبی ضوابط کا جو ڈھانچہ صدہا برس میں تیار کیا اس کا نام یہودیت ہے۔ یہ ڈھانچا چوتھی صدی قبل مسیح سے بننا شروع ہوا اور پانچویں صدی عیسوی تک بنتا رہا۔ اللہ کے رسولوں کی لائی ہوئی ربانی ہدایت کا بہت تھوڑا ہی عنصر اس میں شامل ہے۔ اسی بنا پر قرآن مجید میں اکثر مقامات پر ان کو الَّذِیْنَ ھَادُوْا کہہ کر خطاب کیا گیا ہے، یعنی ”اے وہ لوگو جو یہودی بن کر رہ گئے ہو”۔

English translation

This point deserves attention: the verse does not say “O Jews,” but rather “O you who have become Jews.” The reason is this: the original religion brought by Musa (peace be upon him), and by the prophets before and after him, was none other than Islam itself. This religion, under this name, is a much later development. It takes its name from the tribe descended from Yahuda (Judah), the fourth son of Ya’qub (peace be upon him). After the reign of Sulayman (peace be upon him), when the kingdom split into two, this tribe came to rule the state that became known as Judea.

Within this lineage, over the course of many centuries, priests, rabbis, and religious scholars built up a framework of beliefs, rituals, and religious regulations according to their own ideas — and this framework is what is called Judaism. It began taking shape from the fourth century BCE and continued developing until the fifth century CE. Only a very small element of the divine guidance brought by Allah’s messengers survives within it. This is why the Qur’an, in most places, addresses them as alladhina hadu — “O you who have become Jews.”

Footnote 11

Urdu — original

قرآن مجید میں متعدد مقامات پر ان کے اس دعوے کی تفصیلات دی گئی ہیں۔ مثلاً وہ کہتے ہیں کہ یہودیوں کے سوا کوئی جنت میں داخل نہ ہو گا (البقرہ 111)۔ ہمیں دوزخ کی آگ ہرگز نہ چھوئے گی، اگر ہم کو سزا ملے گی بھی تو بس چند روز (البقرہ 80، آل عمران 24)۔ ہم اللہ کے بیٹے اور اس کے چہیتے ہیں (المائدہ 18)۔ ایسے ہی کچھ دعوے خود یہودیوں کی اپنی کتابوں میں بھی ملتے ہیں۔ کم از کم یہ بات تو ساری دنیا جانتی ہے کہ وہ اپنے آپ کو خدا کی برگزیدہ مخلوق کہتے ہیں اور اس زعم میں مبتلا ہیں کہ خدا کا ان کے ساتھ ایک خاص رشتہ ہے۔

English translation

The details of this claim of theirs are given in several places in the Qur’an. For example, they say that no one but the Jews will enter Paradise (Al-Baqarah 2:111); that the Fire will never touch them, and even if they are punished, it will only be for a few days (Al-Baqarah 2:80, Aal-e-Imran 3:24); and that they are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones (Al-Ma’idah 5:18). Similar claims are also found in the Jews’ own scriptures. At the very least, the whole world knows that they call themselves God’s Chosen People, and hold the conviction that God has a special relationship with them.

Footnote 12

Urdu — original

یہ بات قرآن مجید میں دوسری مرتبہ یہودیوں کو خطاب کر کے کہی گئی ہے۔ پہلے سورہ بقرہ میں فرمایا گیا تھا (آیات 94-96)۔ اب اسی بات کو پھر یہاں دہرایا گیا ہے۔ لیکن یہ محض تکرار نہیں ہے۔ سورہ بقرہ والی آیات میں یہ بات اس وقت کہی گئی تھی جب یہودیوں سے مسلمانوں کی کوئی جنگ نہ ہوئی تھی، اور اس سورۃ میں اس کا اعادہ اس وقت کیا گیا ہے جب ان کے ساتھ متعدد معرکے پیش آنے کے بعد عرب میں آخری اور قطعی طور پر ان کا زور توڑ دیا گیا۔

مدینے اور خیبر میں یہودی طاقت بلحاظ تعداد مسلمانوں سے کسی طرح کم نہ تھی، اور بلحاظ وسائل ان سے بہت زیادہ تھی۔ مگر جس چیز نے یہودیوں کو مغلوب کیا وہ یہ تھی کہ مسلمان راہ خدا میں مرنے سے خائف تو درکنار، تہ دل سے اس کے مشتاق تھے۔ اس کے برعکس یہودیوں کا حال یہ تھا کہ وہ کسی راہ میں بھی جان دینے کے لیے تیار نہ تھے۔ انہیں صرف زندگی درکار تھی، خواہ وہ کیسی ہی زندگی ہو۔ اسی چیز نے ان کو بزدل بنا دیا تھا۔

English translation

This is the second time in the Qur’an that this point has been addressed directly to the Jews. It was said earlier in Surah Al-Baqarah (verses 94–96), and is now repeated here. But this is not mere repetition. In Surah Al-Baqarah, this was said before any war had taken place between the Muslims and the Jews. Here it is repeated after several confrontations, once their power in Arabia had been decisively and finally broken.

In Madinah and Khaybar, Jewish strength was in no way inferior to that of the Muslims in numbers, and far exceeded them in resources. Yet what overcame the Jews was this: far from fearing death in Allah’s cause, the Muslims desired it from the depths of their hearts. The Jews, by contrast, were unwilling to lay down their lives for any cause at all. All they wanted was life, whatever kind of life it might be. It was this very trait that made them cowards.

Footnote 13

Urdu — original

بالفاظ دیگر ان کا موت سے یہ فرار بے سبب نہیں ہے۔ وہ زبان سے خواہ کیسے ہی لمبے چوڑے دعوے کریں، مگر ان کے ضمیر خوب جانتے ہیں کہ خدا اور اس کے دین کے ساتھ ان کا معاملہ کیا ہے، اور آخرت میں ان حرکتوں کے کیا نتائج نکلنے کی توقع کی جا سکتی ہے جو وہ دنیا میں کر رہے ہیں۔ اسی لیے ان کا نفس خدا کی عدالت کا سامنا کرنے سے جی چراتا ہے۔

English translation

In other words, this fleeing from death on their part is not without reason. However grand and sweeping their claims may be in words, their own consciences know well what their actual dealings with Allah and His religion amount to, and what outcome can be expected in the Hereafter for the deeds they are committing in this world. This is precisely why their souls shrink from facing the judgment of Allah.

Footnote 14

Urdu — original

اس فقرے میں تین باتیں خاص طور پر توجہ طلب ہیں۔ ایک یہ کہ اس میں نماز کے لیے منادی کرنے کا ذکر ہے۔ دوسرے یہ کہ کسی ایسی نماز کی منادی کا ذکر ہے جو خاص طور پر صرف جمعہ کے دن ہی پڑھی جانی چاہیے۔ تیسرے یہ کہ ان دونوں چیزوں کا ذکر اس طرح نہیں کیا گیا ہے کہ تم نماز کے لیے منادی کرو، بلکہ انداز بیان اور سیاق و سباق صاف بتا رہا ہے کہ نماز کی منادی سن کر نماز کے لیے دوڑنے میں تساہل برتتے تھے۔

ان تینوں باتوں پر اگر غور کیا جائے تو ان سے یہ اصولی حقیقت قطعی طور پر ثابت ہو جاتی ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کو کچھ ایسے احکام بھی دیتا تھا جو قرآن میں نازل نہیں ہوئے، اور وہ احکام بھی اسی طرح واجب الاطاعت تھے جس طرح قرآن میں نازل ہونے والے احکام۔ نماز کی منادی وہی اذان ہے جو آج ساری دنیا میں ہر روز پانچ وقت ہر مسجد میں دی جا رہی ہے، مگر قرآن میں کسی جگہ نہ اس کے الفاظ بیان کیے گئے ہیں، نہ کہیں یہ حکم دیا گیا ہے۔ یہ چیز رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کی مقرر کردہ ہے۔

جمعہ دراصل ایک اسلامی اصطلاح ہے، زمانہ جاہلیت میں اہل عرب اسے یوم عَرُوْبَہ کہا کرتے تھے۔ اسلام سے پہلے ہفتہ کا دن یہودیوں کے لیے، اور اتوار عیسائیوں کے لیے عبادت کا دن مقرر تھا۔ اسلام نے ان دونوں ملتوں سے اپنی ملت کو ممیز کرنے کے لیے یہ دونوں دن چھوڑ کر جمعہ کو اجتماعی عبادت کے لیے اختیار کیا۔

رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم نے ہجرت کے بعد جو اولین کام کیے ان میں سے ایک جمعہ کی اقامت بھی تھی۔ راستے میں بنی سالم بن عوف کے مقام پر نماز جمعہ کا وقت آ گیا، اور آپؐ نے وہیں پہلا جمعہ ادا فرمایا۔ اس نماز کے لیے آپؐ نے زوال کے بعد کا وقت مقرر فرمایا تھا، یعنی وہی وقت جو ظہر کی نماز کا وقت ہے۔ اس نماز کی صرف دو رکعتیں ہوتی تھیں، اور اس سے پہلے آپؐ خطبہ ارشاد فرماتے تھے۔

English translation

Three points in this phrase deserve particular attention. First, it mentions the calling out for prayer. Second, it refers to a call for a specific prayer to be offered only on Jumu’ah. Third, the phrasing and context make clear that people were being lax about hurrying to the prayer upon hearing the call.

Reflecting on these three points establishes a foundational truth: Allah also gave the Messenger ﷺ certain commands that were not revealed as part of the Qur’an, and those commands were just as binding. The call to prayer mentioned here is the very Adhan given today in every mosque across the world, five times a day — yet nowhere in the Qur’an are its words stated, nor is any command given for it. This was instituted by the Messenger ﷺ himself.

Jumu’ah is in fact an Islamic term; in the pre-Islamic era, the Arabs called this day Yawm al-‘Arubah. Before Islam, Saturday was the day of worship for the Jews, and Sunday for the Christians. To distinguish the Muslim community from both, Islam set aside these two days and chose Friday for congregational worship instead.

Establishing Jumu’ah was among the very first things the Messenger ﷺ did after the Hijrah. While on the way, at the settlement of Banu Salim ibn Awf, the time for Jumu’ah arrived, and it was there that he ﷺ offered the very first Jumu’ah prayer. He set its time as after the sun’s decline — the same time as Zuhr. This prayer consisted of only two rak’ahs, preceded by a sermon.

Footnote 15

Urdu — original

اس حکم میں ذکر سے مراد خطبہ ہے، کیونکہ اذان کے بعد پہلا عمل جو نبی صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم کرتے تھے وہ نماز نہیں بلکہ خطبہ تھا۔ حضرت ابوہریرہؓ کی روایت ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم نے فرمایا جمعہ کے روز ملائکہ ہر آنے والے کا نام لکھتے جاتے ہیں، پھر جب امام خطبہ دینے کے لیے نکلتا ہے تو وہ نام لکھنے بند کر دیتے ہیں اور ذکر سننے میں لگ جاتے ہیں۔

”اللہ کے ذکر کی طرف دوڑو” کا مطلب یہ نہیں ہے کہ بھاگتے ہوئے آؤ، بلکہ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ جلدی سے جلدی وہاں پہنچنے کی کوشش کرو۔ حدیث میں بھاگ کر نماز کے لیے آنے کی صاف ممانعت وارد ہوئی ہے۔ حضرت ابوہریرہؓ کی روایت ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم نے فرمایا: ”جب نماز کھڑی ہو تو اس کی طرف سکون و وقار کے ساتھ چل کر آؤ، بھاگتے ہوئے نہ آؤ”۔

”خرید و فروخت چھوڑ دو” کا مطلب صرف خرید و فروخت ہی چھوڑنا نہیں ہے، بلکہ نماز کے لیے جانے کی فکر کے سوا ہر دوسری مصروفیت چھوڑ دینا ہے۔ یہ حکم قطعی طور پر نماز جمعہ کے فرض ہونے پر دلالت کرتا ہے۔ حضرت عبداللہ بن مسعود کی روایت ہے کہ حضورؐ نے فرمایا: ”میرا جی چاہتا ہے کہ کسی اور شخص کو اپنی جگہ نماز پڑھانے کے لیے کھڑا کر دوں اور جا کر ان لوگوں کے گھر جلا دوں جو جمعہ کی نماز پڑھنے کے لیے نہیں آتے”۔ قرآن و حدیث کی ان ہی تصریحات کی وجہ سے جمعہ کی فرضیت پر پوری امت کا اجماع ہے۔

English translation

In this command, “dhikr” (remembrance) refers to the sermon (khutbah), because the first thing the Prophet ﷺ did after the Adhan was not the prayer but the khutbah. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “On Friday, the angels record the name of each person who arrives; then, when the Imam comes out to deliver the sermon, they fold up their scrolls and turn to listening to the dhikr.”

“Hasten to the remembrance of Allah” does not mean literally running there — it means making every effort to arrive as quickly as possible. There is also a clear hadith prohibiting literally running to the prayer. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “When the prayer is called, come to it walking with calm and dignity — do not come running.”

“Leave off trading” does not mean abandoning buying and selling alone — it means setting aside every other engagement besides the concern of going to the prayer. This command decisively establishes that the Jumu’ah prayer is obligatory. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “I feel inclined to appoint someone else to lead the prayer in my place, and go and burn down the houses of those who do not come for the Jumu’ah prayer.” It is on the strength of these clear statements from the Qur’an and Hadith that the entire Muslim Ummah is unanimous on the obligatory nature of Jumu’ah.

[Note: this footnote also contains a detailed summary of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali fiqh rulings on the time, conditions, and exemptions for Jumu’ah — translated in full separately.]

Footnote 16

Urdu — original

اس کا مطلب یہ نہیں ہے کہ جمعہ کی نماز کے بعد زمین میں پھیل جانا اور تلاش رزق کی دوڑ دھوپ میں لگ جانا ضروری ہے، بلکہ یہ ارشاد اجازت کے معنی میں ہے۔ چونکہ جمعہ کی اذان سن کر سب کاروبار چھوڑ دینے کا حکم دیا گیا تھا اس لیے فرمایا گیا کہ نماز ختم ہو جانے کے بعد تمہیں اجازت ہے کہ منتشر ہو جاؤ۔ یہ ایسا ہی ہے جیسے حالتِ احرام میں شکار کی ممانعت کرنے کے بعد فرمایا: ”جب احرام کھول چکو تو شکار کرو”۔ اس سے یہ اصولی مسئلہ نکلتا ہے کہ صیغۂ امر ہمیشہ وجوب ہی کے معنی میں نہیں ہوتا۔

اگرچہ قرآن میں جمعہ کو عام تعطیل کا دن قرار نہیں دیا گیا، لیکن جمعہ ٹھیک اسی طرح مسلمانوں کا شعار ملت ہے جس طرح ہفتہ اور اتوار یہودیوں اور عیسائیوں کے شعار ملت ہیں۔ جہاں مسلمانوں کے اندر اسلامی حس موجود نہیں ہوتی وہاں وہ اپنے ہاتھ میں اقتدار آنے کے بعد بھی اتوار ہی کو سینے سے لگائے رہتے ہیں، جیسا کہ ہم پاکستان میں دیکھ رہے ہیں۔

English translation

This does not mean that after the Jumu’ah prayer it becomes necessary to disperse and rush about seeking one’s livelihood — rather, this instruction carries the sense of permission. Since the command had been given to leave off all business upon hearing the call to Jumu’ah, it is now stated that once the prayer has ended, you are permitted to disperse. This is comparable to the verse that, after prohibiting hunting during Ihram, says: “and when you have left Ihram, then you may hunt.” From this arises a principle: the imperative form does not always denote obligation.

Although the Qur’an does not designate Friday as a general holiday, Friday is, for Muslims, exactly the kind of communal marker that Saturday and Sunday are for Jews and Christians. Where Islamic sensibility is absent among Muslims, they cling to Sunday even after power has come into their own hands — as we see in Pakistan.

Footnote 17

Urdu — original

یعنی اپنے کاروبار میں لگ کر بھی اللہ کو بھولو نہیں، بلکہ ہر حال میں اس کو یاد رکھو اور اس کا ذکر کرتے رہو (تشریح کے لیے ملاحظہ ہو تفہیم القرآن، جلد چہارم، تفسیر سورہ احزاب، حاشیہ 63)۔

English translation

That is, do not forget Allah even while engaged in your business — rather, keep Him in mind in every circumstance and continue His remembrance. (For further explanation, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 4, commentary on Surah Al-Ahzab, footnote 63.)

Footnote 18

Urdu — original

قرآن مجید میں متعدد مقامات پر ایک ہدایت دینے کے بعد لَعَلَّکُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ (شاید کہ تم فلاح پا جاؤ) کے الفاظ ارشاد فرمائے گئے ہیں۔ اس طرح کے مواقع پر ”شاید” کا لفظ استعمال کرنے کا مطلب یہ نہیں ہوتا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کو کوئی شک لاحق ہے، بلکہ یہ دراصل شاہانہ انداز بیان ہے۔ یہ ایسا ہی ہے جیسے کوئی مہربان آقا اپنے ملازم سے کہے کہ تم فلاں خدمت انجام دو، شاید کہ تمہیں ترقی مل جائے۔ اس میں ایک لطیف وعدہ پوشیدہ ہوتا ہے۔

English translation

In several places in the Qur’an, after giving a directive, the words la’allakum tuflihun (“that you may succeed”) are used. Using the word “perhaps” in such contexts does not mean Allah is in any doubt; rather, it is a manner of royal speech. It is like a kind master telling his servant, “Carry out such-and-such a task — perhaps you will be promoted.” Hidden within it is a subtle promise.

Footnote 19

Urdu — original

یہ ہے وہ واقعہ جس کی وجہ سے اوپر کی آیات میں جمعہ کے احکام ارشاد فرمائے گئے ہیں۔ اس کا قصہ یہ ہے کہ مدینہ طیبہ میں شام سے ایک تجارتی قافلہ عین نماز جمعہ کے وقت آیا اور اس نے ڈھول تاشے بجانے شروع کیے۔ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم اس وقت خطبہ ارشاد فرما رہے تھے۔ ڈھول تاشوں کی آوازیں سن کر لوگ بے چین ہو گئے اور 12 آدمیوں کے سوا باقی سب بقیع کی طرف دوڑ گئے جہاں قافلہ اترا ہوا تھا۔

شیعہ حضرات نے اس واقعہ کو صحابہؓ پر طعن کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا ہے، لیکن یہ ایک سخت بے جا اعتراض ہے۔ یہ واقعہ ہجرت کے بعد قریبی زمانے میں پیش آیا تھا جب صحابہ کی اجتماعی تربیت ابتدائی مراحل میں تھی، اور کفار مکہ نے مدینہ کے باشندوں کی سخت معاشی ناکہ بندی کر رکھی تھی جس کی وجہ سے مدینے میں اشیائے ضرورت کمیاب ہو گئی تھیں۔ یہ ایک ایسی کمزوری تھی جو تربیت کی کمی اور حالات کی سختی کے باعث رونما ہوئی۔

حقیقت یہ ہے کہ صحابہ کرام کوئی آسمانی مخلوق نہ تھے۔ اسی نماز جمعہ کے معاملہ میں ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ جب قافلہ تجارت والا واقعہ پیش آیا تو اللہ تعالیٰ نے سورہ جمعہ کا یہ رکوع نازل فرما کر اس پر تنبیہ کی اور جمعہ کے آداب بتائے۔ حضرت ابوسعیدؓ خدری کا بیان ہے کہ حضورؐ نے فرمایا ہر مسلمان کو جمعہ کے روز غسل کرنا چاہیے، دانت صاف کرنے چاہییں، اور اگر خوشبو میسر ہو تو لگانی چاہیے۔ آپؐ نے خطیبوں کو بھی ہدایت فرمائی کہ لمبے لمبے خطبے دے کر لوگوں کو تنگ نہ کریں۔

English translation

This is the incident behind the rulings on Jumu’ah given in the verses above. A trade caravan arrived from Syria in Madinah right at the time of the Jumu’ah prayer, and began beating drums to announce its arrival. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was delivering the sermon at that moment. Hearing the drums, the people grew restless, and all but twelve of them rushed off toward al-Baqi’, where the caravan had stopped.

Shi’a scholars have used this incident to cast aspersion on the Companions, but this is a harsh and unwarranted objection. This incident occurred shortly after the Hijrah, when the collective training of the Companions was still in its early stages, and the disbelievers of Makkah had imposed a severe economic blockade on Madinah, making necessities scarce. This was a lapse that arose due to incomplete training and harsh circumstances.

The reality is that the noble Companions were not some heavenly creation. In this very matter of the Jumu’ah prayer, we see that when the caravan incident occurred, Allah revealed this section of Surah Al-Jumu’ah to draw attention to it and teach the etiquette of Jumu’ah. Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reports that the Prophet ﷺ said every Muslim should bathe on Friday, clean his teeth, and apply perfume if available. He also instructed preachers not to burden people with lengthy sermons.

Footnote 20

Urdu — original

یہ فقرہ خود بتا رہا ہے کہ صحابہ سے جو غلطی ہوئی تھی اس کی نوعیت کیا تھی۔ اگر معاذ اللہ اس کی وجہ ایمان کی کمی اور آخرت پر دنیا کی دانستہ ترجیح ہوتی تو اللہ تعالیٰ کے غضب اور زجر و توبیخ کا انداز کچھ اور ہوتا۔ لیکن چونکہ ایسی کوئی خرابی وہاں نہ تھی، بلکہ جو کچھ ہوا تھا تربیت کی کمی کے باعث ہوا تھا، اس لیے پہلے معلمانہ انداز میں جمعہ کے آداب بتائے گئے، پھر اس غلطی پر مربیانہ انداز میں سمجھایا گیا کہ جمعہ کا خطبہ سننے اور اس کی نماز ادا کرنے پر جو کچھ تمہیں خدا کے ہاں ملے گا وہ اس دنیا کی تجارت اور کھیل تماشوں سے بہتر ہے۔

English translation

This phrase itself shows the true nature of the error the Companions had committed. If — God forbid — its cause had been a deficiency of faith and a deliberate preference of this world over the Hereafter, Allah’s expression of wrath and rebuke would have taken a very different form. But since no such corruption was present, and what happened was simply due to a lack of training, the etiquette of Jumu’ah was first explained in an instructive tone, and then, addressing this lapse, they were gently reminded: what you will receive from Allah for listening to the Jumu’ah sermon and performing the prayer is better than this world’s trade and amusements.

Footnote 21

Urdu — original

یعنی اس دنیا میں مجازاً جو بھی رزق رسانی کا ذریعہ بنتے ہیں ان سب سے بہتر رازق اللہ تعالیٰ ہے۔ اس طرح کے فقرے قرآن مجید میں متعدد مقامات پر آئے ہیں۔ کہیں اللہ تعالیٰ کو احسن الخالقین کہا گیا ہے، کہیں خیرالغافرین، کہیں خیرالراحمین۔ ان سب مقامات پر مخلوق کی طرف رزق، تخلیق، مغفرت، اور رحم کی نسبت مجازی ہے اور اللہ تعالیٰ کی طرف حقیقی۔ مطلب یہ ہے کہ جو لوگ بھی دنیا میں تم کو تنخواہ، اجرت یا روٹی دیتے نظر آتے ہیں، اللہ ان سب سے بہتر رازق ہے۔

English translation

That is, whatever means of sustenance appear in this world are only figuratively so — the best true provider is Allah. Similar phrases occur in several places in the Qur’an: sometimes Allah is called the Best of Creators, sometimes the Best of Forgivers, sometimes the Best of the Merciful. In all these instances, the attribution of provision, creation, forgiveness, and mercy to created beings is figurative, while its attribution to Allah is real. The meaning is: whoever appears to give you a salary, wages, or bread in this world — Allah is better than all of them as Provider.

٭ ٭ ٭

When Nations Fall: The Qur’anic Pattern of Downfall, Tested Against Verified History

From Aad and Thamud to Rome and the Congo Free State — a study in evidence, honesty, and the shape of moral collapse

❖ ❖ ❖

Why This Comparison, and Why It Must Be Handled Carefully

The Qur’an repeatedly narrates the fall of earlier nations — Aad, Thamud, the people of Lut, Madyan, Pharaoh — as a warning with permanent, universal force. Surah Al-‘Ankabut states this explicitly: “Have they not travelled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them?” (29:20). The invitation is empirical: go and see.

But an honest reader must also acknowledge a real evidentiary gap. For most of these ancient nations, independent — that is, non-scriptural — documentation of their specific wrongdoing simply does not survive. This is not a weakness unique to the Qur’an; it is true of the Torah’s parallel accounts as well, and it follows directly from what pre-literate and early-literate societies were able to leave behind. The absence of outside corroboration does not disprove the Qur’anic account, but presenting it as archaeologically “proven” — a habit found in some popular apologetic material — invites entirely fair criticism and does the material no favours.

Recent history offers something the ancient record cannot: multiple independent witnesses, contemporaneous documents, court records, and often the perpetrators’ own paperwork. This piece uses two thoroughly documented modern cases — the decline of Rome and the atrocities of the Congo Free State — not as “proof” of the ancient Qur’anic narratives, but as a fully verifiable instance of the same moral mechanism the Qur’an describes: unchecked power, exploitation of the vulnerable, and warnings ignored, followed by downfall. The pattern is what carries across; the evidentiary standard for each part of the claim is kept separate and explicit throughout.

Method: Three Tiers, Never Blurred

Every case below is built the same way, so that revelation, history, and interpretation are never allowed to collapse into one undifferentiated claim:

Evidence Tier

What It Means Here

1. The Pattern (Revealed)

The Qur’anic principle itself — stated with certainty as revelation.

2. The Event (Historical)

What independent, non-scriptural documentation shows actually happened — graded by how strong that documentation is.

3. The Interpretation (Ours)

Where we connect 1 and 2 — clearly marked as our reading, not as proof.

 

Part I — The Qur’anic Pattern Itself

Before turning to history, the pattern as the Qur’an states it, in its own words.

The Recurring Cycle

Across the narratives of Nuh, Hud (to Aad), Salih (to Thamud), Lut, and Shu’ayb (to Madyan), the Qur’an presents a consistent structure: a messenger warns; the nation’s elite reject the warning out of arrogance, comfort, or vested economic interest; injustice toward the vulnerable continues or worsens; the warning is repeated; and only after the case is fully established does destruction follow.

وَمَا كُنَّا مُهْلِكِي الْقُرَىٰ إِلَّا وَأَهْلُهَا ظَالِمُونَ

Surah Al-Qasas 28:59

“And never would We destroy the towns until We had sent to their mother-city a messenger reciting to them Our verses. And never would We destroy the cities except while their people were wrongdoers.”

The condition is explicit and repeated: destruction follows wrongdoing (zulm) after warning, not arbitrarily. This is a moral mechanism, not a natural disaster read backward into meaning.

وَتِلْكَ الْقُرَىٰ أَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ لَمَّا ظَلَمُوا وَجَعَلْنَا لِمَهْلِكِهِم مَّوْعِدًا

Surah Al-Kahf 18:59

“And these cities — We destroyed them when they wronged, and We made for their destruction an appointed time.”

What Counts as the Wrongdoing

The Qur’an is specific, and the specifics matter for the comparison to come — this is rarely limited to private immorality. It names economic exploitation, corruption of trade, arrogance of the powerful, and abuse of the vulnerable as central charges:

● Madyan — fraud in weights and measures, economic corruption (Surah Al-A’raf 7:85; Surah Ash-Shu’ara 26:181-183).

● Aad — arrogance and oppression by a materially powerful people (“who had not been created the like of in the land,” 89:8) who used their strength to dominate rather than serve.

● Pharaoh — enslavement, infanticide, and oppression of a vulnerable population, and self-exaltation: “I am your most exalted lord” (79:24).

● Thamud — killing a sign given for the community’s shared benefit, out of impatience with restraint on their exploitation of resources.

This economic and power-based dimension — not only ritual or sexual sin — is the thread that connects most directly to the historical cases that follow.

Part II — Case Study: The Decline of Rome

Tier 2 — The Event: What Is Independently Documented

Rome’s own writers recorded its elite’s conduct while it was happening, not in hindsight, which gives this case an unusually strong documentary base:

● Cicero’s prosecution of the governor Verres (70 BCE) survives as full courtroom speeches cataloguing extortion, bribery, and theft of public funds in the provinces — primary-source legal testimony, not later reconstruction.

● Tacitus, Sallust, and Juvenal, writing contemporaneously, diagnosed luxuria (excess) and avaritia (greed) among the elite as active civic problems, not distant memory.

● Late-imperial tax farming is documented as extracting far more than legally owed from provincial populations, with the difference pocketed by collectors — a directly attested pattern of exploiting the powerless for private gain.

Tier 2 — The Necessary Caveat

Modern historians do not treat moral decline as Rome’s primary or sole cause of collapse. Current scholarship weighs it alongside — and often ranks it below — military overextension, administrative fragmentation, economic strain, epidemic disease, and increasingly the climate catastrophe of 536 CE, a volcanic-winter event now linked to famine and plague across the empire. Historian Bryan Ward-Perkins and others explicitly caution against the older, simpler “moral decay destroyed Rome” narrative. An intellectually honest use of this case states plainly: elite corruption and injustice are documented and consequential, but not proven to be the exclusive or even primary cause. Overstating this case is the single most common way this argument gets discredited.

Corruption and moral decay among elites paralleled institutional corruption, creating self-reinforcing cycles of decline; barbarian invasions succeeded partly because corruption had already hollowed out Rome’s defensive and administrative capability.

— summarized from modern historical analysis of late Roman corruption

Tier 3 — Reading It Alongside the Qur’anic Pattern

What is striking, held at the level of pattern rather than proof, is the structural resemblance: warnings from within the tradition itself (Cicero, the Stoics) were voiced and ignored; exploitation of the governed by the governing continued and normalized; and the collapse that followed was gradual, contested, multi-causal — exactly as one would expect a real historical decline to look, rather than a single dramatic event. This is offered as a resonance worth reflecting on, not as confirmation of the ancient narratives.

Part III — Case Study: The Congo Free State

Tier 2 — The Event: What Is Independently Documented

This is among the most thoroughly and independently documented atrocities of the colonial era, and unlike Rome’s case, the documentation comes substantially from outside witnesses and from the perpetrating administration’s own records, not only from the ruling power’s critics after the fact.

● Between 1885 and 1908, King Leopold II of Belgium ran the Congo Free State as his personal property, extracting rubber through a forced-labour quota system.

● Village quotas were enforced through mutilation — severed hands — as punishment for unmet targets, corroborated by missionary testimony, photographic evidence, and the Casement Report, a formal British consular investigation.

● Historians’ estimates of the death toll from forced labour, disease, and violence during this period range into the millions.

● International exposure — missionary reports, journalism, and the Casement Report specifically — directly produced the outcome: international pressure forced Leopold to relinquish personal control of the territory to the Belgian state in 1908.

Tier 2 — Why This Case Is Evidentially Different

Unlike Rome, and starkly unlike Aad or Thamud, this case has a documented warning-exposure-consequence chain with named individuals, dated reports, and a clear institutional outcome. Roger Casement’s official investigation is a government’s own inquiry recording the wrongdoing of an allied power. This is about as close as modern secular history comes to a fully corroborated cycle of exploitation, warning, and downfall within a single human lifetime.

Tier 3 — Reading It Alongside the Qur’anic Pattern

The structural elements are unusually close to the Qur’anic charge sheet against Madyan and Aad specifically: economic exploitation of a subject population by a materially powerful ruler, enforced through violence against the vulnerable, continued despite mounting outside warning, ending only when the wrongdoing became undeniable and consequence followed. Again — this is a pattern-level resonance for reflection, not a claim that one event theologically explains or validates the other.

Part IV — Holding the Cases Side by Side

Case

Wrongdoing Named

Independent Documentation

Outcome

Thamud / Aad / Madyan

Fraud, arrogance, rejection of sent warning

Qur’anic/scriptural only; peoples partly attested (esp. Thamud), destruction narrative not independently corroborated

Sudden destruction (revealed account)

Rome (elite conduct)

Extortion, greed, tax exploitation

Strong — contemporaneous court records and named authors; one factor among many, per modern scholarship

Gradual multi-causal decline

Congo Free State

Forced labour, mutilation, mass death for private profit

Very strong — official government inquiry (Casement Report), missionary testimony, photographic record

Leopold forced to relinquish personal rule, 1908

 

Closing Reflection

The value of this comparison is not that Rome or the Congo Free State “proves” the Qur’anic accounts of Aad, Thamud, or Madyan — they cannot, and claiming otherwise weakens rather than strengthens the argument. Their value is that they show the same moral mechanism the Qur’an describes — unchecked power, exploitation of the vulnerable, warnings voiced and ignored, and eventual reckoning — operating in full view of history, fully documented, within the reach of ordinary historical method.

For an Ummah asked in Surah Muhammad (47:38) to reflect on whether it, too, could be replaced for turning away, and reminded in Surah Al-Isra (17:16) that corruption among a nation’s elite precedes its ruin — “And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its affluent but they defiantly disobey therein; so the word comes into effect upon it, and We destroy it with [complete] destruction” — recent history is not a distraction from that reflection. It is, if read with the same honesty applied throughout this piece, some of the clearest confirming evidence available that the underlying moral law the Qur’an describes is still visibly at work.

❖ ❖ ❖

“اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ یَخۡشَوۡنَ رَبَّہُمۡ بِالۡغَیۡبِ لَہُمۡ مَّغۡفِرَۃٌ وَّ اَجۡرٌ کَبِیۡرٌ ﴿۱۲﴾”

“Indeed, those who fear their Lord unseen — for them is forgiveness and a great reward.”
(This is verse 12 of Surah Al-Mulk.)

The core argument broken into everyday examples.
The claim: People avoid “bad” behavior for different reasons, and most of those reasons are shaky. Only one reason gives morality a solid foundation.

1. “It’s bad because I personally think so”
   Someone might think cheating on taxes is fine because “everyone does it” or because their own reasoning talks them into it. Personal opinion shifts — someone can convince themselves a wrong is actually okay depending on their mood, self-interest, or ideology. Example: a person might genuinely believe lying is fine “if it protects someone’s feelings,” while someone else sees the same act as dishonest regardless.
2. “It’s bad because society says so”
   Social norms change constantly and differ across cultures. Something scandalous a century ago (like women working outside the home) is now unremarkable; something once accepted (like public smoking indoors) is now frowned upon. If your only compass is “what society approves of,” you have no fixed direction — you just drift with the crowd.
3. “I avoid it because it might harm me”
   A person doesn’t steal — but only because they’re afraid of getting caught or losing their reputation. Now imagine the exact same person finds a wallet on an empty street with no cameras, no witnesses, and total certainty no one will ever know. If their only reason for honesty was fear of consequences, nothing stops them here.
4. “I avoid it because the law might catch me”
   Think of speeding: many people slow down only near a speed camera and floor it right after. The law’s “grip” only holds where it’s watching. Laws also have loopholes, and enforcement is imperfect — a purely law-based ethic collapses wherever enforcement is weak or the law itself is unjust.
5. The proposed alternative: fear of an all-seeing God
   This model says: avoid evil not because a boss, camera, or neighbor might see, but because you believe you’re always seen, everywhere, with no loopholes and no gaps in coverage. Example: a shopkeeper gives correct change to a blind customer not because anyone would ever know if he cheated them, but because he believes he’s accountable regardless. That, the passage argues, is the only version of “good behavior” that holds up in every circumstance — including the ones where nobody’s watching but God.
   The closing point: If you’re honest only because of fear of people, fines, or your own shifting opinions, that “goodness” isn’t durable — it’s a building on sand. It’ll hold up right until the exact situation it wasn’t built for.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Original source of information from tafheemul Quran

“

Here’s the English translation:
Surah Al-Mulk, Note 18
18. This is the very root of morality in religion. For someone to avoid evil because it is bad in his own personal opinion, or because the world considers it bad, or because he fears some worldly harm will result from committing it, or because he fears the grip of some worldly power — this is a very unstable foundation for morality. A person’s personal opinion can also be wrong; because of some philosophy of his own, he may consider a good thing bad and a bad thing good. The world’s standards of good and evil are, first of all, not uniform, and moreover they keep changing from time to time. No universal, eternal, and everlasting standard is found in the world’s moral philosophies today, nor has one ever been found. Fear of worldly harm also does not provide any permanent foundation for morality. A person who avoids evil only because he fears some harm befalling him in this world cannot refrain from committing it in a situation where there is no fear of any harm resulting from it. Likewise, fear of the grip of some worldly power is also not something that can make a person a person of noble character. Everyone knows that no worldly power is aware of the unseen and the witnessed alike. Many crimes can be committed while escaping its notice, and countless strategies are possible for escaping the grip of any worldly power. Moreover, the laws of any worldly power are themselves more repugnant than many of the evils they punish. For this reason, the true religion has built the entire edifice of morality upon this foundation: that one should abstain from evil out of fear of that unseen God who is watching man in every condition, from whose grip man cannot escape by going anywhere, and who has given man a comprehensive, universal, and permanent standard of good and evil. Abandoning evil and adopting good out of fear of Him alone — that is the true goodness which is worthy of merit in the sight of religion. If a person refrains from evil for any other reason, or adopts, in outward form, actions that are counted as good deeds, then in the Hereafter these moral acts of his will not deserve any value or weight, because they are like a building constructed on sand.”

REASONS BEHIND THE PREVAILING DIFFERENCES AS WE NOTICE

“from the voltage in a wire, to the flow of a river, to the rotation of night and day, to the moral test of human difference in 5:48. One design principle, running through all of creation.”

“If He Had Willed, He Would Have Made You One Nation” — The Divine Wisdom Behind Human Difference
The Verses
The Quran returns to this theme at several points, always with the same structure: an acknowledgment that Allah could have erased all difference, followed by the reason He didn’t.
Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:48:
“To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life (shir’atan wa minhaja). If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you regarding your differences.”
Surah Hud 11:118-119:
“And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ — except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them.”
Surah An-Nahl 16:93:
“And if Allah had willed, He could have made you one nation, but He causes to stray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And you will surely be questioned about what you used to do.”
Three different surahs, three different contexts, the same underlying claim: difference is not a divine oversight. It’s a deliberate design.
What the Mufassireen Say
Mawdudi (Tafheem ul-Quran) reads 5:48 as tied directly to the concept of ibtila — testing. Every ummah was given its own shir’ah (a specific law) and minhaj (a way/method of implementing it), and the differences between these laws across the prophets were never a flaw to be corrected by force. Mawdudi’s point is that the proper response to seeing other communities with different laws or practices is not to fight over whose shir’ah is superior, but to race towards khayrat (good works). He explicitly says the disputes over “differences in legal prescriptions” cannot be settled on the “debating hall or the battlefield” — only Allah’s final judgment settles it. The test, in other words, is not who is right in an earthly argument. The test is what you do with what you were given.
Ibn Kathir, commenting on the same verse, emphasizes the sheer power dimension: Allah’s statement “if He willed” is “a general proclamation… informing them of Allah’s mighty ability” — meaning the diversity we see is not because Allah lacks the power to unify everyone under one law. It is a conscious choice, and Ibn Kathir links it to the historical pattern of each prophet receiving a law suited to his time, later abrogated or refined by the next.
Muhammad Asad, writing from a more rationalist, modern angle, frames the whole Quranic corpus — and this verse specifically — around the idea of engaging one’s own reasoning faculties (ijtihad) rather than passively inheriting belief. Read alongside 5:48, his broader interpretive lens suggests that the “test” language isn’t just about ritual law — it’s about whether human beings will use reason and free will to actively seek the truth, rather than assuming uniformity would have made truth-seeking unnecessary.
Between these three: Ibn Kathir anchors it in divine power, Mawdudi anchors it in ethical striving, Asad anchors it in intellectual responsibility. Together they paint one picture — difference is what makes the human test real.
Why Uniformity Would Defeat the Purpose
If Allah wanted, He could have created every person with identical belief, identical intellect, identical circumstances. But then:
∙ There would be no real choice — only one option ever presented.
∙ There would be no real virtue — you can’t be “patient,” “just,” or “generous” toward someone exactly like you in every way.
∙ There would be no real test — a test with only one possible answer isn’t a test.
Difference is the raw material free will needs to operate on.

Everyday Analogies

A classroom: Imagine a class where every student has identical intelligence, identical background, identical pace of learning. There’s technically nothing left to teach — no patience required from the teacher, no humility required from the fast learner helping the slow one, no resilience required from the student who’s behind. The differences in ability are exactly what make teaching, mentorship, and character formation possible.
The human body :(a classical analogy Muslim scholars have long used for society). The eye doesn’t compete with the hand. The heart doesn’t resent the lungs. Each organ does what the others structurally cannot, and the whole only functions because of the difference. Surah Al-Hujurat 49:13 makes this explicit at the level of nations and tribes: “We made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another (li ta’arafu).” Not to erase one another — to know one another, which is only possible if there’s something distinct to know.
A marketplace: If every seller offered the exact same product at the exact same quality, there’d be no reason to strive for excellence. Competition — the very thing 5:48 commands (“race to good”) — only makes sense in a field of real difference. A race with one runner isn’t a race.
A garden. A garden of a single flower species, planted in perfect rows, is orderly but forgettable. A garden with variety — different colors, heights, seasons of bloom — is what people actually call beautiful. Difference isn’t the corruption of order; in this framing it is a form of order, just a richer one.
Marriage and family. Even within a single household, no two children are raised with identical outcomes despite identical parents, resources, and upbringing. Islam doesn’t treat this as a defect to be engineered away — it treats each soul’s differing response as morally significant precisely because it wasn’t forced.
Difference as a Law of Physics, Not Just of Society
The examples above are social ones. But the principle runs deeper than human affairs — it’s baked into the physical universe itself. This is arguably the stronger argument: difference isn’t merely socially useful, it is the mechanism by which energy, life, and motion exist at all. A universe of pure uniformity wouldn’t just be less interesting — it would be inert.
Water flows because of a difference in level — and that flow is what keeps it alive. Water only moves from a higher elevation to a lower one; equalize the levels and the flow stops. But the consequences of that flow go far beyond transport:
∙ Oxygenation. Fast-moving, turbulent water mixes continuously with air at its surface, so it carries far more dissolved oxygen than still water. That oxygen is what sustains fish and aquatic life.
∙ Stagnant water, by contrast, becomes a problem rather than a resource. Standing water loses oxygen, allows sediment and organic waste to settle and decay, and becomes exactly the environment associated with disease — stagnant pools are the classic breeding ground for malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitoes, and are considered dangerous to drink precisely because the lack of movement lets bacteria and parasites thrive.
∙ Even animals instinctively sense this. It’s documented that pets and wildlife alike prefer to drink from moving water over still water in the same container — running water tends to carry more oxygen and taste better, and this preference in animals is linked to better hydration and kidney health.
∙ Hydroelectric power is the most direct example of your energy point: the potential difference between a dam’s reservoir and the river below is converted directly into electricity as the water falls and flows.
So the difference in level doesn’t just move water from A to B — it’s what keeps water alive, oxygenated, and useful, versus stagnant, foul, and disease-breeding. A “flat” world where water never had anywhere to flow would be a world of stagnant swamps, not rivers.
Electricity needs potential difference by definition. Current only flows when there’s a voltage difference between two points — remove the difference and the circuit is dead. Every appliance, every motor, every charge in your phone is only possible because two points were deliberately not made equal. Electrical engineers spend their careers manufacturing and controlling differences (voltage, resistance, potential) precisely because sameness produces zero current, zero work, zero output.
Day and night. A world locked permanently into daylight would deny the body rest, the eyes darkness, the mind the recovery cycle it needs — biologically, humans (and nearly all life) are built around circadian rhythm, which by definition requires alternation, not constancy. A world locked permanently into night would deny warmth, plant growth via photosynthesis, and orientation. Neither extreme sustains life; it’s the difference and rotation between the two that does. The Quran itself points to this in Surah Al-Qasas 28:71-73 — asking rhetorically what state people would be in if Allah made either night or day perpetual, and answering that it is His mercy that gives them alternation, so they may rest and seek His bounty.
The seasons. A single unchanging season year-round would mean no dormancy and renewal cycle for crops, no cold to kill off pests and reset ecosystems, no rains, no harvest rhythm. Agriculture, migration patterns, water cycles — all of it depends on seasonal difference, not seasonal sameness.
Temperature and pressure gradients generally. Wind exists because of pressure differences. Ocean currents exist because of temperature and salinity differences. Weather itself — every cloud, every storm, every monsoon your patients and crops depend on — is the atmosphere’s attempt to equalize differences that are constantly being regenerated by the sun’s uneven heating of the Earth. Stop the differences, and you stop the weather.
The pattern across every one of these examples is identical: a system reaches its lowest energy, most inert state precisely when all differences within it disappear. Physicists even have a name adjacent to this idea — entropy, disorder, “heat death” — a state where everything is at the same temperature and nothing can ever happen again, because nothing can flow toward anything anymore. Difference is not a design defect the universe tolerates. Difference is what allows anything to happen at all — physically, biologically, and — the Quran is telling us — morally and spiritually too.
This is what makes your observation so powerful theologically: it’s not just an analogy pulled from social life to illustrate a Quranic point. It’s the same law operating at every scale Allah created — from the voltage in a wire, to the flow of a river, to the rotation of night and day, to the moral test of human difference in 5:48. One design principle, running through all of creation.
The Deeper Point: Difference ≠ Divine Endorsement of Falsehood
It’s worth being precise here, since this verse is sometimes misread as religious relativism (“all paths are equally valid, so it doesn’t matter what you believe”). That is not what Mawdudi, Ibn Kathir, or the verse itself is saying. The Quran elsewhere is unambiguous about truth and falsehood, guidance and misguidance. What 5:48 and 11:118-119 are addressing is a different question: why does Allah permit people the real possibility of getting it wrong, instead of forcing everyone into uniform correctness?
The answer the mufassireen converge on: because forced correctness isn’t virtue. A world where no one could disbelieve wouldn’t be a world of believers — it would be a world of automatons. Allah wanted mu’mineen (believers who chose belief), not creatures incapable of anything else. That is the weight carried by “liyabluwakum” — “that He may test you.”

SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION WITH AI

Q: So I take it like this… all beings evolved and we don’t know yet the exact initial form of beings they evolved from to begin with?

A :

Yes, that’s a fair summary with some important nuances.

All known life on Earth evolved through common descent with modification. The scientific evidence—from genetics, fossils, comparative anatomy, embryology, and more—shows that every species (bacteria, plants, animals, fungi, etc.) traces back through branching lineages to earlier ancestors. This process has been happening for billions of years and continues today. Humans are part of that same tree, sharing ancestors with other primates, mammals, vertebrates, and ultimately all cellular life.

What we know with high confidence

• A single origin for all life on Earth (or at least all cellular life we’ve studied). Genetic evidence points to a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)—a simple, single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5–4 billion years ago. It already had DNA/RNA-based genetics, proteins, and basic metabolism. All bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes (including us) descend from lineages that branched from populations related to LUCA.
• The tree of life is well-mapped at broad scales. Early life was microbial and mostly anaerobic. Complex life (animals, plants) appeared much later after key innovations like photosynthesis, oxygen buildup, and eukaryotic cells with nuclei.
• Evolution explains the diversification of life extremely well. We have detailed evidence for how new species arise, how traits change over time, and how major groups (e.g., fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds/mammals) emerged.

What we don’t know with exact certainty

The very first step—how non-living chemistry on the early Earth transitioned into the first self-replicating, evolving “beings” (simple molecular systems capable of heredity and metabolism)—is not fully known in precise detail. This is the field of abiogenesis (origin of life), which is separate from Darwinian evolution.

• Evolution assumes life already exists and explains how it changes and branches afterward.
• Abiogenesis research has strong hypotheses (e.g., RNA world where RNA acted as both genetic material and catalyst; metabolism-first scenarios in hydrothermal vents; protocells with lipid membranes), supported by lab experiments showing plausible steps. Early Earth conditions (warm oceans, volcanic activity, organic molecules from space or chemistry) make natural origins likely.
• However, we don’t have a complete, consensus “exact initial form” or the precise sequence of chemical events that produced the first replicator. There are gaps in the record because these events happened ~4 billion years ago, and pre-cellular chemistry doesn’t fossilize easily. Multiple pathways may have been possible; we may never know the single “exact” one with 100% certainty.

In short:

• All beings evolved from earlier forms → strongly supported.
• The exact initial form of the very first life-like systems → not known in full detail yet; active research area with promising leads but remaining uncertainties.

Science is comfortable saying “we have strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors, and good working models for how life could have begun naturally, but we don’t have the complete step-by-step movie of the very first replicators.” New discoveries (better ancient rocks, lab simulations, genomic reconstructions of LUCA) continue to narrow the gaps.

This doesn’t require or rule out non-scientific explanations for anyone’s personal beliefs—it’s simply what the current evidence shows and doesn’t show. If you want specifics on LUCA, early fossil evidence, or particular abiogenesis hypotheses, I can go deeper.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Q: Do we have foolproof evidence for or against Darwin’s claims?

A:

No scientific theory offers “foolproof” (absolute, irrefutable) proof in the mathematical or philosophical sense. Science deals in evidence, testable predictions, falsifiability, and consilience (multiple independent lines of data converging on the same conclusion). Theories can be strongly supported, refined, or potentially overturned by new evidence, but they are never “proven” once and for all like a geometric theorem.5

Charles Darwin’s core claims in On the Origin of Species (1859) were that:

• Species are not fixed but change over time through descent with modification.
• Natural selection (differential survival and reproduction based on heritable variation) is a primary mechanism driving adaptation and the origin of new species.
• This process occurs gradually and explains the diversity of life via common ancestry.

These ideas form the foundation of modern evolutionary biology (later integrated with genetics in the Modern Synthesis). They have withstood over 165 years of intense scrutiny, with vast supporting evidence and no viable competing scientific explanation for the observed patterns.6

Strong Supporting Evidence

The evidence comes from many independent fields and is overwhelming in its quantity, quality, and consistency. Here are key lines:

1. Fossil record and transitional forms
Fossils document a chronological progression of life forms, with many transitional (“intermediate”) species predicted by the theory and later discovered. Examples include Tiktaalik (a fish-tetrapod intermediate with limbs and gills, ~375 million years old).7

g84D5″LARGE”

2. Comparative anatomy (homology)
Structures in different species share the same basic plan due to common ancestry, even when serving different functions today (e.g., vertebrate forelimbs: human arm, cat leg, whale flipper, bat wing).

VcnbP”LARGE”

3. Biogeography and direct observation
Species distributions match evolutionary history (e.g., unique species on isolated islands). Darwin’s own Galápagos finches show ongoing natural selection: beak shapes vary by food source and have been observed changing in real time with environmental shifts (documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant).24

eA3mo”LARGE”

4. Molecular and genetic evidence
DNA sequences, genes, and proteins produce consistent phylogenetic trees across independent datasets, strongly supporting a single tree of life with common descent. Universal genetic code, shared genes, endogenous retroviruses, and pseudogenes further confirm this. Observed evolution in labs and nature (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, viral evolution) demonstrates natural selection acting today.8

HGiJt”LARGE”

Additional lines include embryology (similar early developmental stages), biogeographic patterns explained by plate tectonics and evolution, and experimental evolution (e.g., long-term bacterial studies).

Evidence Against Darwin’s Core Claims?

There is no substantial scientific evidence against the core framework. Claims of “gaps in the fossil record” have been addressed by thousands of new transitional fossils. “Irreducible complexity” arguments have not held up under scrutiny and are not supported by research programs in biology.32

A tiny minority of scientists (often not in relevant fields like evolutionary biology or paleontology) have expressed skepticism in statements like “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” but this represents a minuscule fraction of the scientific community (estimated acceptance of evolution among scientists is ~99.9%). No alternative scientific mechanism explains the data as comprehensively.4

Darwin was incorrect on some details (e.g., the mechanism of inheritance—he favored a blending model before Mendel’s work was integrated; his estimates of Earth’s age were too young given the science of his time). These errors were corrected by later discoveries (genetics, radiometric dating), which actually strengthened the overall theory rather than undermining it. Specific predictions, such as the role of subspecies in speciation or evolutionary rates during events like the Cambrian, have been confirmed or refined by modern studies.3

Bottom Line

While science never claims absolute “foolproof” certainty, Darwin’s central claims—evolution by descent with modification via natural selection and common ancestry—are among the most robustly supported ideas in all of science. They explain vast datasets across biology with predictive power (e.g., where transitional fossils should be found, genetic similarities expected). Ongoing research refines details and mechanisms (including additional factors like genetic drift or evo-devo), but the core remains intact and central to biology.

Rejection of the theory typically stems from non-scientific sources rather than empirical counter-evidence. As one major scientific body notes, evolution is both a fact (organisms have changed) and a well-tested theory explaining how.5

If you have a specific aspect of Darwin’s claims in mind (e.g., a particular prediction or mechanism), I can dive deeper.

Q: As a common person, questions come to mind… still the dna of monkey and human beings is different so far. Has science found the evolutionary changes in dna towards becoming different species yet ?
Have we found any scientific evidence with certainty about the claims of creations of human beings as mentioned in theology books?

A:

Yes, science has found extensive, detailed evidence of DNA changes associated with the evolutionary divergence that led to humans as a distinct species from our closest primate relatives.

Humans did not evolve from modern monkeys or chimpanzees—we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos that lived roughly 5.5–6.5 million years ago (confirmed by recent telomere-to-telomere genome sequencing of great apes). Monkeys (Old World monkeys like baboons or rhesus) diverged much earlier, around 25 million years ago.56

DNA Differences and Evolutionary Changes

Human and chimpanzee DNA is very similar but not identical:

• In alignable (directly comparable) regions, they share about 98–99% similarity (roughly 1–1.5% difference in single DNA letters).
• When including insertions, deletions, and harder-to-align regions (structural differences), the overall difference is larger—estimates range from several percent up to around 10–15% depending on the exact comparison method. This level of difference is exactly what scientists expect after ~6 million years of separate evolution.52

nzR8R”LARGE”

Science has identified specific DNA changes that accumulated over time and contributed to speciation (the process by which populations become distinct species):

• Structural changes: Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two separate ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in chimpanzees and other great apes. Clear evidence includes inverted telomere sequences (normally only at chromosome ends) right in the middle of human chromosome 2, plus a remnant inactive centromere. This fusion likely occurred early in the human lineage (~5–7 million years ago) and is a visible marker of evolutionary rearrangement.76
• Regulatory and gene expression changes: Much of the difference lies in non-coding (“regulatory”) DNA, which controls when and where genes turn on/off. These changes are especially notable in brain development, leading to more complex wiring and gene activity in humans compared to chimps. Examples include the FOXP2 gene, which influences speech and language capabilities and shows functional differences between humans and chimps.48
• Other genetic innovations: Human-specific segmental duplications, “human accelerated regions” (HARs) in the genome, and differences in thousands of genes or their regulation. Ancient DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans shows interbreeding with early humans, adding further layers of genetic mixing and change.

These changes did not happen all at once. They accumulated gradually through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and occasional gene flow. Over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, they produced reproductive isolation, distinct physical traits (bipedalism, larger brains, tool use, language), and eventually the species Homo sapiens. Direct observations in other primates (e.g., ongoing hybridization and gene flow in baboons) show similar processes at work today.58

In short: Yes, we have mapped these DNA-level evolutionary changes in detail through comparative genomics, ancient DNA sequencing, and functional studies. The evidence is robust and continues to grow with better genome assemblies.

Scientific Evidence for Theological Creation Claims

No, science has not found empirical evidence with certainty supporting the literal claims of human creation as described in many theology books (such as the Genesis account of Adam formed from dust and Eve from his rib as a special, separate act of creation distinct from other life forms, often placed in a young-Earth timeline of a few thousand years).

The overwhelming scientific consensus—from genetics, the fossil record of hominins (showing gradual transitions from earlier ape-like ancestors), comparative anatomy, embryology, and biogeography—supports that humans evolved naturally from earlier primate populations over millions of years through the same processes that produced other species.56

Literal special creation (instantaneous or separate from evolutionary processes) is a matter of religious faith and interpretation, not something testable or supported by empirical scientific data. Science studies natural mechanisms and finds no evidence requiring or confirming supernatural intervention in the specific manner described in those texts. Claims of a recent special creation conflict with genetic diversity patterns (which indicate a much larger ancestral population than two individuals) and the deep fossil timeline.

Many people of faith reconcile the two by viewing evolution as the method God used for creation (theistic evolution), while others maintain a more literal reading as a faith position. Science itself remains silent on the supernatural and focuses on what the evidence shows about natural history.

These are thoughtful questions that many people ask. The scientific picture is one of deep connection and gradual change through DNA-level processes we can observe and document. If you’d like more details on any specific part (e.g., chromosome 2, particular genes, or how different faith traditions approach this), just let me know!

Q:So we don’t have any foolproof tests or evidence to negate the creation of Adam from dust. In the absence of any evidence against this claim , one can say “ I don’t know yet” and one cannot deny it happened with any amount of certainty. Evolution theory is still a theory of which itself is evolving and never mentioned with certainty the beginning of life of a cell or a full human beings ?

A:

Science cannot provide “foolproof” tests or absolute disproof of a supernatural claim like the special creation of Adam from dust, because such claims lie outside the realm of empirical, natural-world testing. Science investigates repeatable, observable natural processes and mechanisms. A one-time miraculous intervention (by definition supernatural and non-repeatable) cannot be directly falsified or negated by scientific methods in the way a natural hypothesis can. In that narrow philosophical sense, you are correct: the absence of direct contradictory evidence for a miracle does not allow science to “prove it didn’t happen.”

However, this does not make the claim scientifically equivalent to the evolutionary account or place it on equal footing with it. Here’s why, based on the evidence:

• Overwhelming positive scientific evidence supports natural evolutionary origins for humans, not special creation from dust as a distinct event. Genetics shows humans share ~98–99% (alignable) DNA with chimpanzees, with specific, documented changes (e.g., chromosome 2 fusion, regulatory gene differences like FOXP2, human accelerated regions) accumulating over ~5.5–6.5 million years from a common ancestor. Fossils document gradual transitions through hominin species (Australopithecus → early Homo → Homo sapiens). Ancient DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans confirms admixture and population-level evolution. These are not “gaps” filled by assumption—they are positive, consilient data from multiple independent fields predicting and matching what evolution expects. Literal special creation from dust has no supporting empirical evidence and conflicts with this data (e.g., genetic diversity patterns indicate a founding population far larger than two individuals; timelines don’t match a recent special creation).
• “I don’t know yet” is a valid stance for personal belief or unresolved details, but science allows high-confidence conclusions where evidence is strong. We cannot have absolute 100% philosophical certainty about anything empirical (science is provisional and open to new data), but we can have extremely high confidence—comparable to other well-established facts like the Earth orbiting the Sun or atoms existing. Denying the evolutionary history of humans “with certainty” on scientific grounds would require ignoring or dismissing vast, consistent evidence without a better natural explanation. Many people hold creation beliefs alongside or instead of this on faith grounds, which is a separate domain from science.
• Evolution is indeed “a theory” in the scientific sense (a comprehensive, well-tested explanatory framework, not a casual guess or hunch), and like all good science, it continues to be refined with new data (e.g., epigenetics, evo-devo, ancient genomes). It explains the diversification and history of life after it began—descent with modification via mechanisms like natural selection, mutation, drift, etc. It does not claim certainty about the absolute origin of the first living cell (abiogenesis: how non-living chemistry became self-replicating life). That is a distinct, active research area with promising hypotheses (e.g., RNA world, hydrothermal vents, metabolism-first models) but significant remaining gaps and no complete, consensus “how it happened with certainty.” Darwin himself said little about life’s origin. Modern evolutionary biology assumes life exists and traces what happened afterward, including the gradual emergence of humans from earlier populations. We have strong evidence for the latter; the former remains more open.

In summary: Science cannot “foolproof negate” a supernatural creation event because it doesn’t test the supernatural. But it does provide robust, testable evidence that natural evolutionary processes fully account for the observed history of life and human origins—without needing or finding support for a literal dust-to-Adam special creation. One can reasonably say “I don’t know” or hold a faith-based view, but on empirical grounds, the evolutionary explanation has high confidence and predictive power where the special creation claim does not. Science and personal theology often address different questions (how vs. why/meaning). If you’d like sources on specific evidence (chromosome fusion, genetic clocks, fossil transitions) or how different traditions reconcile this, I’m happy to expand.

Summary as mentioned at the start

Q: So I take it like this… all beings evolved and we don’t know yet the exact initial form of beings they evolved from to begin with?

A:

Yes, that’s a fair summary with some important nuances.

All known life on Earth evolved through common descent with modification. The scientific evidence—from genetics, fossils, comparative anatomy, embryology, and more—shows that every species (bacteria, plants, animals, fungi, etc.) traces back through branching lineages to earlier ancestors. This process has been happening for billions of years and continues today. Humans are part of that same tree, sharing ancestors with other primates, mammals, vertebrates, and ultimately all cellular life.

What we know with high confidence

• A single origin for all life on Earth (or at least all cellular life we’ve studied). Genetic evidence points to a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)—a simple, single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5–4 billion years ago. It already had DNA/RNA-based genetics, proteins, and basic metabolism. All bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes (including us) descend from lineages that branched from populations related to LUCA.
• The tree of life is well-mapped at broad scales. Early life was microbial and mostly anaerobic. Complex life (animals, plants) appeared much later after key innovations like photosynthesis, oxygen buildup, and eukaryotic cells with nuclei.
• Evolution explains the diversification of life extremely well. We have detailed evidence for how new species arise, how traits change over time, and how major groups (e.g., fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds/mammals) emerged.

What we don’t know with exact certainty

The very first step—how non-living chemistry on the early Earth transitioned into the first self-replicating, evolving “beings” (simple molecular systems capable of heredity and metabolism)—is not fully known in precise detail. This is the field of abiogenesis (origin of life), which is separate from Darwinian evolution.

• Evolution assumes life already exists and explains how it changes and branches afterward.
• Abiogenesis research has strong hypotheses (e.g., RNA world where RNA acted as both genetic material and catalyst; metabolism-first scenarios in hydrothermal vents; protocells with lipid membranes), supported by lab experiments showing plausible steps. Early Earth conditions (warm oceans, volcanic activity, organic molecules from space or chemistry) make natural origins likely.
• However, we don’t have a complete, consensus “exact initial form” or the precise sequence of chemical events that produced the first replicator. There are gaps in the record because these events happened ~4 billion years ago, and pre-cellular chemistry doesn’t fossilize easily. Multiple pathways may have been possible; we may never know the single “exact” one with 100% certainty.

In short:

• All beings evolved from earlier forms → strongly supported.
• The exact initial form of the very first life-like systems → not known in full detail yet; active research area with promising leads but remaining uncertainties.

Science is comfortable saying “we have strong evidence for evolution from common ancestors, and good working models for how life could have begun naturally, but we don’t have the complete step-by-step movie of the very first replicators.” New discoveries (better ancient rocks, lab simulations, genomic reconstructions of LUCA) continue to narrow the gaps.

This doesn’t require or rule out non-scientific explanations for anyone’s personal beliefs—it’s simply what the current evidence shows and doesn’t show. If you want specifics on LUCA, early fossil evidence, or particular abiogenesis hypotheses, I can go deeper.

Q: Last minute thought .. can theory be called as undeniable fact?

A:

No, a scientific theory cannot be called an “undeniable fact” in the absolute, philosophical sense — and science doesn’t claim that about anything.

Here’s the clear distinction:

Scientific “fact” vs. “theory”

• Fact: In science, this usually means an observation or a piece of data that has been repeatedly confirmed and is not seriously disputed (e.g., “fossils exist in rock layers of different ages” or “humans and chimpanzees share very similar DNA”).
• Theory: This is a well-substantiated explanation that ties together many facts, makes testable predictions, and has withstood rigorous testing and attempts at falsification. It is not a guess or a hunch (that’s the everyday use of the word “theory”).

A good scientific theory can be extremely robust — supported by mountains of evidence from multiple independent lines — but it remains provisional. New evidence could, in principle, refine or even overturn parts of it. Science doesn’t deal in absolute, eternal “undeniable” truths.

Evolution specifically

This is why scientists often say evolution is both a fact and a theory:

• Fact: Organisms have changed over time, new species have arisen, and all life on Earth shares common ancestry. The evidence for this (fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, observed evolution in real time, etc.) is overwhelming and consistent. In this sense, it is treated as an established reality.
• Theory: Natural selection (along with mutation, genetic drift, etc.) is the main mechanism that explains how those changes occur and produce the diversity of life. This explanatory framework is also extremely well-supported.

The occurrence of evolution (common descent with modification) is as close to “undeniable” as science gets for historical questions — the consilience of evidence from many fields makes alternative explanations (like special creation of each species) scientifically untenable. However, even here, scientists don’t usually say “undeniable fact” because the door is always technically open to new data, and the precise details of mechanisms continue to be refined.

Bottom line for your question

• A scientific theory can be so strongly supported that denying it would be unreasonable given the current evidence (evolution falls into this category).
• It cannot be called an absolute, undeniable fact in the way mathematics or pure logic has undeniable truths, because science is empirical and self-correcting.

This is actually one of science’s strengths — it doesn’t pretend to have final, unchangeable answers. It gives us the best current explanations based on evidence, with built-in humility.

Does this help clarify the last piece of the puzzle for you?

ForOneCreator

Surah An-Nur (24:37–43)

English Translation with Commentary from Tafheem ul-Quran (Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi)

Verse 37

رِجَالٌ لَّا تُلْهِيهِمْ تِجَارَةٌ وَلَا بَيْعٌ عَن ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَإِقَامِ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِيتَاءِ الزَّكَاةِ يَخَافُونَ يَوْمًا تَتَقَلَّبُ فِيهِ الْقُلُوبُ وَالْأَبْصَارُ

Men whom neither commerce nor sale distracts from the remembrance of Allah, the establishment of prayer, and the giving of zakah. They fear a Day in which the hearts and eyes will be overturned.

Mawdudi notes that these are people found in the houses which Allah has permitted to be raised and in which His name is remembered — whether understood as mosques, or as the homes of believers whose domestic life is oriented toward worship. Their trade never eclipses their devotion; commerce runs alongside remembrance rather than replacing it. They live with an abiding awareness of the Day when hearts will be wrenched with terror and eyes will be transfixed in dread, and this awareness disciplines their daily conduct.

Verse 38

لِيَجْزِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنَ مَا عَمِلُوا وَيَزِيدَهُم مِّن فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَرْزُقُ مَن يَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ

That Allah may reward them according to the best of what they did and increase them from His bounty. And Allah gives provision to whom He wills without account.

This explains the purpose behind their devotion: Allah rewards them not merely in proportion to their deeds, but according to the very best of what they did, and then adds further from His own bounty — a grace that exceeds strict recompense. Mawdudi highlights that this open-handed, uncounted provision is a mark of divine generosity reserved for whoever Allah wills.

Verse 39

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ بِقِيعَةٍ يَحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْآنُ مَاءً حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَهُ لَمْ يَجِدْهُ شَيْئًا وَوَجَدَ اللَّهَ عِندَهُ فَوَفَّاهُ حِسَابَهُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

But those who disbelieved — their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it is nothing, but finds Allah before him, and He will pay him his due in full; and Allah is swift in account.

Mawdudi draws out the desert imagery directly: a thirsty traveler, deceived by shimmering sand that looks like a spring, races toward it only to find nothing there at all. In the same way, those who deliberately reject the truth — despite whatever apparently good deeds they performed — will discover in the Hereafter that none of it avails them. Instead of the reward they expected, they will find Allah there to settle their account in full for their disbelief, hypocrisy, and misdeeds, however outwardly virtuous those deeds may have seemed.

Verse 40

أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُّجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ۚ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذَا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا ۗ وَمَن لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِن نُّورٍ

Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like layers of darkness in a vast, deep sea, overwhelmed by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds — darkness upon darkness. When he puts out his hand, he can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not grant light — for him there is no light.

This second parable describes a deeper and more total form of loss than the first. Mawdudi explains it as the condition of those wholly submerged in ignorance, layer upon layer — deep water, then wave, then wave again, then cloud blotting out the sky above — such that even one’s own outstretched hand becomes invisible. The final statement anchors the whole discourse: since every form of light in existence ultimately derives from Allah’s own Light, whoever is cut off from it has, quite simply, no light of any kind, in this life or the next.

Verse 41

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَالطَّيْرُ صَافَّاتٍ ۖ كُلٌّ قَدْ عَلِمَ صَلَاتَهُ وَتَسْبِيحَهُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

Do you not see that Allah is glorified by whoever is in the heavens and the earth, and the birds with wings outspread? Each has known its own prayer and glorification, and Allah is Knowing of what they do.

Mawdudi reads this as a turn from the parables of light and darkness toward the visible signs of tawhid scattered throughout creation. Everything in the heavens and earth — including birds spreading their wings in flight — glorifies Allah, each after its own mode of prayer and praise, a mode it instinctively knows even without human language to express it. Allah is fully aware of this worship, whatever form it takes.

Verse 42

وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ

And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and to Allah is the final destination.

A brief but decisive statement: sovereignty over all creation belongs to Allah alone, and every creature’s ultimate return is to Him — the same Allah who is glorified, consciously or instinctively, by everything that exists.

Verse 43

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يُزْجِي سَحَابًا ثُمَّ يُؤَلِّفُ بَيْنَهُ ثُمَّ يَجْعَلُهُ رُكَامًا فَتَرَى الْوَدْقَ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ خِلَالِهِ وَيُنَزِّلُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مِن جِبَالٍ فِيهَا مِن بَرَدٍ فَيُصِيبُ بِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَصْرِفُهُ عَن مَّن يَشَاءُ ۖ يَكَادُ سَنَا بَرْقِهِ يَذْهَبُ بِالْأَبْصَارِ

Do you not see that Allah drives the clouds, then joins them together, then makes them into a mass, and you see the rain emerge from within it? And He sends down from the sky, mountains [of clouds] within which is hail, and He strikes with it whom He wills and averts it from whom He wills. The flash of its lightning almost takes away the eyesight.

Mawdudi treats this as a further sign drawn from meteorology: Allah gently gathers scattered clouds, joins them, and piles them into a dense mass from which rain finally emerges. The ‘mountains’ of cloud mentioned may refer either to towering, snow-laden cloud formations pictured as mountains in the sky, or to actual mountains whose height chills the air enough to produce hail. Allah directs where this hail falls and where it is withheld, entirely by His will — and even the lightning accompanying such storms is so intense that it nearly blinds the eyes that behold it. The passage closes the discourse on light and darkness by grounding both in observable, everyday phenomena of the natural world, all governed by the same Divine will introduced at the start of the surah.

Translation: Sahih International (adapted). Commentary: condensed and paraphrased from Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi, Tafheem ul-Quran / Towards Understanding the Qur’an (Islamic Foundation UK), for ForOneCreator’s Comparative Tafsir Series.

ForOneCreator  |  Comparative Tafsir Series

Surah Al-Furqan

سُورَةُ الْفُرْقَان

Verses 21–32  |  English Translation with Tafheem ul-Qur’an Commentary

 

Verse 21

Translation: And those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, “Why were not angels sent down to us, or [why] do we not see our Lord?” They have certainly become arrogant within themselves and gone far astray in insolence.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

This objection assumed that if Allah truly intended to convey His message, He would not have sent revelation through a single chosen prophet, but would instead have addressed every individual directly through an angel, or sent a whole company of angels to make the appeal before the people in person. The same demand recurs elsewhere in the Qur’an — the disbelievers insisting they would not believe unless given what was given to the messengers themselves. Allah alone knows best whom to entrust with His mission and how it is to be carried out.

The disbelievers’ claim to “want to see God” or “want angels sent to them” is not a sincere epistemic demand — it is a demand designed to be impossible to satisfy, which the Qur’an exposes as arrogance (istikbar) rather than honest inquiry.

Verse 22

Translation: The Day they see the angels — no good tidings will there be that Day for the criminals, and they will say, “Numbered and forbidden!”

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

The very thing the disbelievers demanded to see — the angels — will indeed appear to them, but not as a proof granted in mercy; rather at the moment of death and on the Day of Judgment, when it will bring them nothing but terror. On that day, when the wrongdoers cry out for protection, they will be told that all refuge and good news is barred to them — the root meaning of hijran mahjura being an absolute, sealed prohibition, drawn from the same root as hijr (restraint, that which is forbidden or fenced off).

Verse 23

Translation: And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as scattered dust.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

Every action the disbelievers relied upon for salvation — charitable works, apparent piety, worldly achievements — will be brought forward on that Day and found to be worthless, because it lacked the two conditions any deed needs to be accepted: sincerity of intention, and conformity with the guidance Allah sent. Deeds built on neither foundation dissolve like dust scattered by the wind or motes floating in a shaft of light — visible, yet impossible to grasp or hold onto.

Verse 24

Translation: The companions of Paradise, that Day, are best in settlement and best in resting place.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

In direct contrast to the disbelievers, the people of Paradise will have already been judged and settled into rest by the time the Hereafter’s reckoning is underway — their abode secure, their place of repose the finest possible, precisely because their deeds, unlike those of the disbelievers, were built on sincerity and true guidance.

Verse 25

Translation: And [mention] the Day when the heaven will split open with clouds, and the angels will be sent down in successive descent.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

On that Day the sky shall be rent asunder by a cloud, and a whole cavalcade of angels will be made to descend — a scene of overwhelming grandeur marking the arrival of divine judgment, echoing the imagery elsewhere in the Qur’an of Allah’s coming in the shadows of clouds with the angels.

Verse 26

Translation: True sovereignty, that Day, is for the Most Merciful. And it will be a Day difficult for the disbelievers.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

On that Day every claim of worldly kingship, power, or authority will be stripped away, and it will be plain to all that sovereignty belongs, and has always belonged, to Allah alone. For the disbelievers this will be an exceptionally hard day — a day of true reckoning and decisive judgment — while for the believers, this same terror will hold no grief, only relief and glad tidings.

Verse 27

Translation: And the Day the wrongdoer will bite his hands [in regret] he will say, “Oh, I wish I had taken with the Messenger a way.”

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

This describes the extremity of regret felt by the one who rejected the Messenger’s path in favor of some other way, only to realize on the Day of Resurrection that his choice was catastrophic and irreversible. Though the occasion for revelation is linked to specific individuals among the Prophet’s Makkan opponents, the warning applies to every wrongdoer who turns away from guidance once it has reached him.

Verse 28

Translation: “Oh, woe to me! I wish I had not taken that one as a friend.”

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

The wrongdoer’s regret turns specifically toward the companion who led him astray — whether a particular disbeliever named in the traditional reports or, more broadly, anyone whose companionship diverted a person from the truth. The verse stands as a permanent warning about the weight of choosing one’s closest companions and the influence such friendships carry over a person’s ultimate fate.

Verse 29

Translation: “He led me away from the remembrance after it had come to me. And Satan is ever, to man, a deserter.”

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

“The remembrance” (adh-dhikr) refers to the Qur’an itself, which had already reached this person before he was turned away from it by his companion’s influence. The verse closes with a sobering principle: Satan actively invites a person toward falsehood, but abandons him the moment he is in real need — offering no support at the very moment his victim faces the consequences of following him.

Verse 30

Translation: And the Messenger has said, “O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur’an as [a thing] abandoned.”

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

The word mahjur (abandoned) carries several possible senses here: that the Prophet’s own people considered the Qur’an unworthy of serious attention, neither accepting nor acting upon it; or that they dismissed it as meaningless talk; or that they made it an object of mockery and ridicule. Each of these constitutes a form of “forsaking” the Qur’an — refusing to hear it, refusing to believe it, refusing to reflect on its meaning, or refusing to act upon its commands are all, in their own way, ways of abandoning it.

Verse 31

Translation: And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the criminals. But sufficient is your Lord as a guide and a helper.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

This is offered as a consolation to the Prophet: the hostility he faced from his own people was not a unique misfortune, but the same pattern Allah has established for every prophet sent before him — each was opposed by enemies drawn from among the wrongdoers of his own community. The verse closes by affirming that Allah Himself suffices as guide and helper for whoever follows His Messenger and holds fast to His Book, regardless of how fierce that opposition becomes.

Verse 32

Translation: And those who disbelieve say, “Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” Thus [it is] that We may strengthen your heart thereby, and We have spaced it distinctly.

Tafsir — Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)

The disbelievers of Makkah pressed this objection repeatedly, implying that if the Qur’an were truly the word of Allah, it would have been sent down complete and entire like earlier scriptures — and that its gradual, piecemeal delivery was itself evidence that the Prophet was composing it himself rather than receiving revelation. The Qur’an’s answer is that the gradual revelation served several deliberate purposes: enabling the Prophet, addressing a largely non-literate people, to memorize and transmit it accurately; allowing its teachings to be absorbed and internalized gradually rather than overwhelming its audience all at once; enabling its guidance to be followed with full conviction, responsive to the real circumstances the community faced; and — perhaps most significantly — providing ongoing reassurance and courage to the Prophet and his followers at each critical juncture of their struggle, showing that Allah was directly engaged with their situation rather than having left them to face it alone.

This verse is frequently cited in the Comparative Tafsir Series’ discussions of revelation methodology (tadarruj) — the same principle of gradual, situationally responsive guidance that also underlies the staged legislation on matters such as riba and intoxicants.

Source: Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Tafheem ul-Qur’an (Towards Understanding the Qur’an), Surah Al-Furqan. English translation by Zafar Ishaq Ansari.

Page

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

اِذَا السَّمَآءُ انۡشَقَّتۡ ۙ﴿۱﴾ وَ اَذِنَتۡ لِرَبِّہَا وَ حُقَّتۡ ۙ﴿۲﴾ وَ اِذَا الۡاَرۡضُ مُدَّتۡ ۙ﴿۳﴾ وَ اَلۡقَتۡ مَا فِیۡہَا وَ تَخَلَّتۡ ۙ﴿۴﴾ وَ اَذِنَتۡ لِرَبِّہَا وَ حُقَّتۡ ؕ﴿۵﴾ یٰۤاَیُّہَا الۡاِنۡسَانُ اِنَّکَ کَادِحٌ اِلٰی رَبِّکَ کَدۡحًا فَمُلٰقِیۡہِ ۚ﴿۶﴾ فَاَمَّا مَنۡ اُوۡتِیَ کِتٰبَہٗ بِیَمِیۡنِہٖ ۙ﴿۷﴾ فَسَوۡفَ یُحَاسَبُ حِسَابًا یَّسِیۡرًا ۙ﴿۸﴾ وَّ یَنۡقَلِبُ اِلٰۤی اَہۡلِہٖ مَسۡرُوۡرًا ؕ﴿۹﴾ وَ اَمَّا مَنۡ اُوۡتِیَ کِتٰبَہٗ وَرَآءَ ظَہۡرِہٖ ﴿ۙ۱۰﴾ فَسَوۡفَ یَدۡعُوۡا ثُبُوۡرًا ﴿ۙ۱۱﴾ وَّ یَصۡلٰی سَعِیۡرًا ﴿ؕ۱۲﴾ اِنَّہٗ کَانَ فِیۡۤ اَہۡلِہٖ مَسۡرُوۡرًا ﴿ؕ۱۳﴾ اِنَّہٗ ظَنَّ اَنۡ لَّنۡ یَّحُوۡرَ ﴿ۚۛ۱۴﴾ بَلٰۤی ۚۛ اِنَّ رَبَّہٗ کَانَ بِہٖ بَصِیۡرًا ﴿ؕ۱۵﴾ فَلَاۤ اُقۡسِمُ بِالشَّفَقِ ﴿ۙ۱۶﴾ وَ الَّیۡلِ وَ مَا وَسَقَ ﴿ۙ۱۷﴾ وَ الۡقَمَرِ اِذَا اتَّسَقَ ﴿ۙ۱۸﴾ لَتَرۡکَبُنَّ طَبَقًا عَنۡ طَبَقٍ ﴿ؕ۱۹﴾ فَمَا لَہُمۡ لَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ ﴿ۙ۲۰﴾ وَ اِذَا قُرِئَ عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡقُرۡاٰنُ لَا یَسۡجُدُوۡنَ ﴿ؕٛ۲۱﴾ بَلِ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا یُکَذِّبُوۡنَ ﴿۫ۖ۲۲﴾ وَ اللّٰہُ اَعۡلَمُ بِمَا یُوۡعُوۡنَ ﴿۫ۖ۲۳﴾ فَبَشِّرۡہُمۡ بِعَذَابٍ اَلِیۡمٍ ﴿ۙ۲۴﴾ اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَہُمۡ اَجۡرٌ غَیۡرُ مَمۡنُوۡنٍ ﴿٪۲۵﴾

اللہ کے نام سے جو رحمان و رحیم ہے۔

جب آسمان پھٹ جائے گا اور اپنے ربّ کے فرمان کی تعمیل کرے¹ گا اور اُس کے لیے حق یہی ہے ﴿کہ اپنے ربّ کا حکم مانے﴾ ۔ اور جب زمین پھیلا دی جائے² گی اور جو کچھ اس کے اندر ہے اُسے باہر پھینک کر خالی ہو جائے³ گی اور اپنے ربّ کے حکم کی تعمیل کرے گی اور اُس کے لیے حق یہی ہے ﴿ کہ اس کی تعمیل کرے⁴﴾۔ اے انسان، تُو کشاں کشاں اپنے ربّ کی طرف چلا جا⁵ رہا ہے اور اُس سے ملنے والا ہے۔ پھر جس کا نامہٴ اعمال اُس کے سیدھے ہاتھ میں دیا گیا، اُس سے ہلکا حساب لیا جائے گا⁶ اور وہ اپنے لوگو ں کو طرف خوش خوش پلٹے گا⁷۔ رہا وہ شخص جس کا نامہٴ اعمال اُس کی پیٹھ کے پیچھے دیا جائے گا⁸ تو وہ موت کو پکارے گا اور بھڑکتی ہوئی آگ میں جا پڑے گا۔ وہ اپنے گھر والوں میں مگن تھا⁹۔ اُس نے سمجھا تھا کہ اسے کبھی پلٹنا نہیں ہے ۔ پلٹناکیسے نہ تھا، اُس کا ربّ اُس کے کرتُوت دیکھ رہا تھا¹⁰۔
پس نہیں، میں قسم کھاتا ہوں شفق کی ، اور رات کی اور جو کچھ وہ سمیٹ لیتی ہے ، اور چاند کی جب کہ وہ ماہِ کامل ہو جاتا ہے، تم کو ضرور درجہ بدرجہ ایک حالت سے دوسری حالت کی طرف گزرتے چلے جانا ہے¹¹۔ پھر اِن لوگوں کو کیا ہو گیا ہے کہ یہ ایمان نہیں لاتے اور جب قرآن اِن کے سامنے پڑ ھا جاتا ہے تو سجدہ نہیں کرتے¹²؟ السجدة
بلکہ یہ منکرین تو اُلٹا جھُٹلاتے ہیں، حالانکہ جو کچھ یہ ﴿ اپنے نامہٴ اعمال میں﴾ جمع کر رہے ہیں اللہ اُسے خوب جانتا ہے¹³۔ لہٰذا اِن کو دردناک عذاب کی بشارت دے دو۔ البتہ جو لوگ ایمان لے آئے ہیں اور جنہوں نے نیک عمل کیے ہیں ان کے لیے کبھی ختم نہ ہونے والا اجرہے۔ ؏

Link for explanatory notes: https://voiceofquran5.com/2026/07/04/chapter-al-inshiqaq-explanatory-footnotes/

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

When the sky splits open and obeys its Lord’s command — and it is bound to do so. And when the earth is spread out, and casts out all that is within it and becomes empty, and obeys its Lord’s command — and it is bound to do so. O man, you are labouring towards your Lord, and you are bound to meet Him.
Then he who is given his record in his right hand will have his account taken lightly, and will return to his people rejoicing. But as for him who is given his record behind his back, he will call for death, and will be plunged into a blazing fire. He used to live joyfully among his people, thinking he would never return. But no — his Lord was watching over him all along.
So no — I swear by the twilight glow, and by the night and what it gathers in, and by the moon when it becomes full: you shall surely pass on, stage after stage, from one state to another. So what is the matter with them that they do not believe, and when the Qur’an is recited to them, they do not prostrate? Rather, these disbelievers deny it — even though Allah knows well all that they gather (in their record of deeds). So give them the news of a painful punishment. But for those who believe and do righteous deeds, there is a never-ending reward.

Surah Al-Inshiqaq
Name:
It is derived from the word inshaqqat in the very first verse. Inshiqaq is a verbal noun meaning “to split apart,” and the name signifies that this is the surah in which the splitting of the sky is mentioned.
Period of Revelation:
This too is among the surahs revealed in the early Makkan period. Internal evidence in its content indicates that the era of persecution had not yet begun, though the message of the Qur’an was being openly rejected in Makkah, and people were refusing to believe that Resurrection would ever occur and that they would have to appear before their God to answer for their deeds.
Subject and Theme:
Its subject is Resurrection and the Hereafter.
The first five verses not only describe the state of the Resurrection but also provide proof of its certainty. Its state is described thus: on that day the sky will split open, the earth will be spread out into a level plain, and it will cast out and throw away everything within its belly (i.e., the remains of the dead and the record of their deeds) until nothing is left within it. The proof given is that this will be the command of their Lord for the heaven and the earth, and since both are His creation, they cannot defy His command — it is only right that they obey their Lord’s command.
Then, from verse 6 to 19, it is explained that whether man realizes it or not, he is nonetheless being driven inevitably toward that destination where he must appear before his Lord. Then all people will be divided into two groups. One: those who will be given their record of deeds in their right hand — they will be forgiven without any harsh reckoning. The other: those who will be given their record behind their back — they will wish for death to come to them somehow, but instead of dying, they will be thrown into Hell. This outcome will befall them because in the world they remained absorbed in the false notion that they would never have to appear before God to answer for themselves — even though He was watching all their deeds, and there was no reason they should escape being called to account for them. Their gradual progression from worldly life to the reward and punishment of the Hereafter is as certain as the appearance of twilight after sunset, the coming of night after day (and within it, the return of humans and animals to their respective resting places), and the waxing of the crescent moon into the full moon.
Finally, a painful punishment is announced for those disbelievers who, upon hearing the Qur’an, instead of submitting before God, persist in denial — and glad tidings of unending reward are given to those who believe and do righteous deeds.

سُوْرَةُ الْاِنْشِقَاق

نام :

پہلی ہی آیت کے لفظ انشقت سے ماخوذ ہے۔ انشقاق مصدر ہے جس کے معنی پھٹ جانے کے ہیں اور اس نام کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ یہ وہ سورت ہے جس میں آسمان کے پھٹنے کا ذکر آیا ہے۔
زمانۂ نزول :

یہ بھی مکۂ معظمہ کے ابتدائی دور کی نازل شدہ سورتوں میں سے ہے۔ اس کے مضمون کی داخلی شہادت یہ بتا رہی ہے کہ ابھی ظلم و ستم کا دور شروع نہیں ہوا تھا، البتہ قرآن کی دعوت کو مکہ میں برملا جھٹلایا جا رہا تھا اور لوگ یہ ماننے سے انکار کر رہے تھے کہ کبھی قیامت برپا ہوگی اور انہیں اپنے خدا کے سامنے جواب دہی کے لیے حاضر ہونا پڑے گا۔
موضوع اور مضمون :

اس کا موضوع قیامت اور آخرت ہے۔
پہلی پانچ آیتوں میں نہ صرف قیامت کی کیفیت بیان کی گئی ہے بلکہ اس کے برحق ہونے کی دلیل بھی دے دی گئی ہے۔ اس کی کیفیت یہ بتائی گئی ہے کہ اس روز پھٹ جائے گا، زمین پھیلا کر ہموار میدان بنا دی جائے گی، جو کچھ زمین کے پیٹ میں ہے (یعنی مردہ انسانوں کے اجزائے بدن اور ان کے اعمال کی شہادتیں) سب کو نکال کر وہ باہر پھینک دے گی، حتیٰ کہ اس کے اندر کچھ باقی نہ رہے گا اور اس کی دلیل یہ دی گئی ہے کہ آسمان و زمین کے لیے ان کے رب کا حکم یہی ہوگا اور چونکہ دونوں اس کی مخلوق ہیں اس لیے وہ اس کے حکم سے سرتابی نہیں کر سکتے، ان کے لیے حق یہی ہے کہ وہ اپنے رب کے حکم کی تعمیل کریں۔
اس کے بعد آیت 6 سے 19 تک بتایا گیا ہے کہ انسان کو خواہ اس کا شعور ہو یا نہ ہو، بہرحال وہ اس منزل کی طرف چاروناچار چلا جا رہا ہے جہاں اسے اپنے رب کے آگے پیش ہونا ہے۔ پھر سب انسان دو حصوں میں بٹ جائیں گے۔ ایک، وہ جن کا نامۂ اعمال سیدھے ہاتھ میں دیا جائے گا۔ وہ کسی سخت حساب فہمی کے بغیر معاف کر دیے جائیں گے۔ دوسرے وہ جن کا نامۂ اعمال پیٹھ کے پیچھے دیا جائے گا۔ وہ چاہیں گے کہ کسی طرح انہیں موت آ جائے، مگر مرنے کے بجائے وہ جہنم میں جھونک دیے جائیں گے۔ ان کا یہ انجام اس لیے ہوگا کہ وہ دنیا میں اس غلط فہمی پر مگن رہے کہ کبھی خدا کے سامنے جواب دہی کے لیے حاضر ہونا نہیں ہے۔ حالانکہ ان کا ان کے سارے اعمال کو دیکھ رہا تھا اور کوئی وجہ نہ تھی کہ وہ ان اعمال کی بازپرس سے چھوٹ جائیں۔ ان کا دنیا کی زندگی سے آخرت کی جزا و سزا تک درجہ بدرجہ پہنچنا اتنا ہی یقینی ہے جتنا سورج ڈوبنے کے بعد شفق کا نمودار ہونا، دن کے بعد رات کا آنا اور اس میں انسان اور حیوانات کا اپنے اپنے بسیروں کی طرف پلٹنا، اور چاند کا ہلال سے بڑھ کر ماہِ کامل بننا یقینی ہے۔
آخر میں ان کفار کو دردناک سزا کی خبر دے دی گئی ہے جو قرآن کو سن کر خدا کے آگے جھکنے کے بجائے الٹی تکذیب کرتے ہیں، اور ان لوگوں کو بے حساب اجر کا مژدہ سنا دیا گیا ہے جو ایمان لا کر نیک عمل کرتے ہیں۔