136. For someone wishing to know the mind, spirit, approach and priorities of the ancients, in contrast to that of their followers, then, perhaps the commentary on this verse is one of the best to compare. The gradual slide from “the other-worldliness” to “this worldliness”, as the centuries pass by, can be easily noticed (Au.).

`Adl and Ihsan

Ibn ‘Abbas has interpreted the textual word “‘adl” as the testimony (that there is no God, save Allah), and “ihsan” as “the Islamic commandments” (Ibn Jarir). Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah said that “‘adl” of the original refers to lack of contradiction between one’s public and private behavior and “ihsan” to the condition that one’s secret (acts) be better than his public (behavior). In contrast, “fahsha’” and “munkar” mean that one’s avoidance (of evil) in private should be more intensive than his avoidance of them in public (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). Literally, adds Shawkani, “‘adl” is the middle path, i.e., a path in Islam that avoids the two extremes, while “ihsan” is to do better than simply following a rule. In a well-known hadith the Prophet (saws) said that “ihsan” is “to worship Allah, as if you can see Him, for, if you cannot see Him, He sees you.” Zamakhshari adds: Since it is impossible that a man maintain perfect “‘adl” in all his affairs, he should seek to achieve “ihsan” in a few other things in order to balance off as a whole.

Imam Razi has a long comment, with many examples, to demonstrate that “‘adl”, the middle or the mean path, is a hallmark of Islam. He writes that it is applicable both to matters of belief, as well as practice. For example, to deny God, or to suggest associates are two extremes: to believe in one God is “‘adl.” Hence Ibn ‘Abbas’ explanation that “‘adl” is the testimony “there is no deity save Allah.” Again, between two extreme views: that He does not exist, and, on the other hand, that he has a body, parts or limbs, and is confined in a place, lies “‘adl” to believe that He exists without a body, parts and is not confined to a place. Or, to believe that God exists without attributes, or, that He acquires traits and undergoes changes are two extremes between which “‘adl” is to believe that He exists with permanent attributes that do not undergo changes. Similarly, to believe that one is free to do what he wants, or, alternatively, is completely bound, are two extremes. Between the two is the “‘adl” which is to believe that a man is free to do what he does but is dependent on the desire created in him by Allah. In the like manner, what applies to beliefs, also applies to acts and deeds, where the mean path is the best path. In fact, the physical world too seems to be following the path of “‘adl”. For example, the earth is situated at a certain distance from the sun. If this distance were to be increased by a margin, the earth would get too cold, and if decreased, too hot for life. Similarly, Razi continues, the various elements of the solar family seem to be at a precisely determined distances from each other and revolving at specific speeds. If any of the figures were altered, the system would collapse.

[Once again, one wonders at Imam Razi’s sources that enabled him to make the above statement in the 11th century. For, the discovery of the gravitational force, and the laws of motion which keep the planets together revolving endlessly around the sun, came to be discovered only in the 16th century. Also, that changing the distance of the earth from the sun, even marginally, would mean destruction of all life on it, is a recent discovery (Au.)].

Qurtubi expands on the meaning of “‘adl” as “justice.” He quotes Ibn al-‘Arabi: “Justice between a man and his Lord consists in that he should give his Lord preference over his own self, and prefer His approval over that of his base self. Allah said (79: 40),

وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى [النازعات : 40]

‘And restrained his self from base desires.’ It also means giving preference to the acts of obedience over fulfillment of the inner cravings, and to never give up being contented. On the other hand, justice between one’s self and other creations of Allah consists in being sincere towards them, not being dishonest to any extent, and to give them back everything due to them, not allowing oneself the liberty to do them evil to the slightest degree, neither in open nor in secret, and to bear with patience their ill-will, the humblest order of which consists in being just, and denying oneself any right of injury to them or others.”

“Ihsan” on the other hand, continues Qurtubi, carries two connotations. One, to do everything that one does, well; and two, to be good to others. Both are meant in this verse. The famous hadith of Jibril (viz., “worship Him as if He sees you, for, if you do not see Him, then, He sees you”) is in the first sense and not the second. Again, “giving the kin” should be in material terms, especially if they are poor.

Finally, here is an incident that will tell us how kings and the ruling classes of the past understood the Islamic concepts which the educated class of modern times does not seem to understand. It is said that a group of citizens went to Abu Ja`far al-Mansur, the Abbasid caliph (2nd. Islamic century) complaining against one of his governors. But they could not muster sufficient proof, so the governor was able to defeat them in their arguments and refute their charges. At that a young man stood up and said, “Leader of the faithful. Allah commands `adl’ and ‘ihsan.’ The Governor might have done ‘justice’ but he did not achieve ihsan.’” A surprised Mansur accepted the argument and removed the governor from his post.

Alusi tries another angle of distinction between “‘adl” and “ihsan”: “‘Adl” is to do justice to others and seek justice from them, while “ihsan” is to do justice to others but not to seek justice from them.

Mawdudi’s is more down to earth in his expansion on the concepts of “‘adl” and “ihsan.” He writes: “The directive which has been so succinctly expressed enjoins on people three principles which provide the basis for the sound ordering of human society. The first and foremost principle is ‘justice’ which comprises two independent truths. One, that there be balance and right proportion among human beings in respect of their rights. Two, that every person be granted his rights without distinction.

“What justice really demands is balance and right proportion rather than absolute equality. True, in certain respects, equality among members of society, such as in respect of the rights of citizenship, is a requirement of justice. However, equality in certain other matters is diametrically opposed to the requirements of justice. For instance, it would be sheer injustice if we were to grant children equal rights with parents, or to equally compensate those who work hard and well and those who do not. Hence, what God has commanded is not equality in rights. He has rather commanded balance and right proportion. This requires that the moral, social, economic, legal, political and cultural rights to which a person is entitled should be granted to him with sincerity.

“The second principle is benevolence (to be literal, ‘doing good’) which broadly embraces all such good acts as politeness, generosity, sympathy, tolerance, courtesy, forbearance, mutual accommodation, mutual consideration, giving to others what is more than what is their due, and being content for oneself with a little less than what one is entitled to. This principle goes a step further than justice, and is hence, in some respects, even more for man’s social life than justice. If justice is the foundation on which the structure of a society should rest, then benevolence represents the beauty and perfection of that structure. Justice wards off the bitterness of discord and disharmony from human life. Benevolence adds to it the elements of pleasure and sweetness. No society can be sustained merely on the principle that every member of it should be jealously watchful of, and insistent upon, receiving every bit of his right and be willing to grant others exactly what is their due, but absolutely no more. Perhaps such a cold and stark society might - thanks to the application of justice as above - be able to avoid internal conflicts. However, such a society will be utterly devoid of such life-giving and life-sustaining values as love and compassion, gratitude and magnanimity, and sacrifice and goodwill for others.

“The third principle enunciated in the verse is liberality to kith and kin. This is a corollary of the former principle - ‘benevolence’ - when it is applied to one’s relatives. This consists not only of sharing one’s joys and sorrows with one’s kin, and in helping and supporting the fulfillment of their legitimate desires within permissible limits, but also that one should recognize that one’s wealth ought not to be spent exclusively on oneself and one’s immediate family. Other members of the family also have a share in it.”

137. While “fahsha’” is everything that Islam frowns upon, “munkar” is a stronger term embracing those acts that Islam disapproves. Zamakhshari defined it as something that “a man’s good sense rejects or disowns” (ma tunkiruhu al-‘uqul); by which, of course, Zamakhshari meant the “‘uqul” of the believers. In Asad’s words, “all that runs counter to reason and good sense.”

Qurtubi writes that every evil is “fahsha’” while munkar is anything that the Shari`ah frowns upon.

138. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, by “baghyu” the allusion is to rebellion against Allah which manifests in disobedience (Ibn Jarir). But others have said that the allusion is to the oppression of the people. A hadith (of Ibn Majah: H. Ibrahim) says,

مَا مِنْ ذَنْبٍ أَجْدَرُ أَنْ يُعَجِّلَ اللَّهُ لِصَاحِبِهِ الْعُقُوبَةَ فِى الدُّنْيَا مَعَ مَا يَدَّخِرُ لَهُ فِى الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْبَغْىِ وَقَطِيعَةِ الرَّحِمِ

“There is no sin better deserving of Allah’s retribution hastened in this world, in addition to it being punished for in the Hereafter, than oppression and severing off relations with the kin” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

The hadith in Hakim’s Mustadrak, apart from other collections. Dhahabi evaluated it as trustworthy.

Shawkani adds that “fahsha’” is any unsavory addition to ones words or deeds, “munkar” anything that Allah and His Messenger have prohibited and “baghyu” is to commit excesses (which ultimately gives rise to pride, oppression, envy, etc.).

Qurtubi also maintains that primarily “baghyu” (rebellion) is to cross the bounds, or, to do injustice to others. Reportedly, one of the previous revelation said that “if a mountain oppressed another, Allah would reduce the oppressor of the two to dust.” It is also used in the sense of causing agitation, or stirring trouble. Imam Bukhari, while explaining this verse, has recorded the hadith which speaks of magic spell cast on the Prophet. When he was cured, ‘A’isha suggested that he should punish Labid b. A`sam, the sorcerer. But the Prophet only said, “Well, Allah has cured me. Personally, I do not like to stir evil among the people.” In other words, “baghyu” would include any evil brought to a people.

139. The verse is so rich in meaning that according to commentators, had Allah revealed only this one, in place of the whole Qur’an, it would have been sufficient for the mindful. Perhaps Yusuf Ali has the most comprehensive explanation, short but accurate. He writes: “Justice is a comprehensive term, and may include all the virtues of cold philosophy. But religion asks for something warmer and much more human, the doing good deeds even where perhaps they are not strictly demanded by justice, such as returning good for ill, or obliging those who in worldly language ‘have no claim’ on you; and of course a fortiori the fulfilling of the claims of those whose claims are recognized in social life. Similarly the opposites are to be avoided; everything that is recognized as shameful, and everything that is really unjust, and any inward rebellion against Allah’s Law or our own conscience in its most sensitive form.”

According to a report in the Musnad of Ahmad, treated as trustworthy, (although narrated by Shahr b. Hawshab), the Prophet once moved his eyes up and down (as if following someone descending and ascending) and said, “Jibril came to me just now and told me to place this verse, in this Surah, at this point” (Ibn Kathir).

Ibn Mas`ud is reported of the opinion that this is the most comprehensive verse of the Qur’an (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

‘Ali in fact was of the opinion that the famous “muru’ah” of the Arabs (a package of good qualities), has now been superseded by this all-comprehensive verse (Alusi and others).

Accordingly, when ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ordered removal of the pronouncement of curse on ‘Ali that the Banu Umayyah had introduced in Friday sermons, he instructed that this verse be recited in place (Alusi).

Qurtubi adds that it was this verse that the Prophet had recited before Walid b. al-Mughirah and which had prompted him to say those famous words, “Surely, it (i.e., the Qur’an) is steeped in sweetness and carries grace. Surely, its root has the branching ability, while its upper portion is fruit-bearing. Surely, it is no man’s words.” But, according to some other reports it was ‘Uthman b. Maz`un who had recited the verse to Walid.

And Hafiz Abu Ya`la has a report which says that when Ukthum b. Sayfi received the news of the Prophet’s advent, he decided to go and see him. But his people told him not to humble himself, rather, send someone else. So two men were dispatched. They met the Prophet, told him that they were messengers of Ukthum b. Sayfi, and asked him who he was and what he was. He said, “As for who I am, well, I’m Muhammad, the son of ‘Abdullah. As for what I am, well, I am a Messenger of Allah.” Then he recited this verse, “Verily, Allah enjoins justice, good-doing, and giving to kin. And He forbids the indecent, evil and rebellion. He admonishes you that perhaps you will remember.” He made the two men commit it to memory. (Since the verse says, “perhaps you will remember: Au.). When they went back to Ukthum they reported, “Well, he was not very particular about saying who he was, but he did say what he had brought.” Then they recited this verse. Ukthum remarked, “He commands you the best of moral principles, so be the heads and not the tail-enders in accepting it” (Ibn Kathir).

140. The addition of the words, “after their confirmation” is to exclude commonly blurted words of oath such as, “by Allah,” “I swear”, etc. These are not oaths proper (Au.).

141. There is no contradiction between this verse and the report in Muslim which says,

لا حِلْف في الإسلام، وأيما حلف كان في الجاهلية لم يزده الإسلام إلا شدة

“There is no oath of alliance in Islam, and there is no oath made during the pre-Islamic times but Islam reinforces it.” What is meant is that there is no need for the people to enter into oaths (and promise that they will remain good), as they did in pre-Islamic times. Now, with the declaration of faith in Islam, (one is in any case required to lead a virtuous life), and Islam reinforces everything that was good in pre-Islamic times. Ahmad reports that when the people began to abandon Yezid b. Mu`awiyyah, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his family members in his house and told them, “We have entered into allegiance with this man in the name of Allah and His Messenger. And I have heard the Prophet say that,

إِنَّ الْغَادِرَ يُنْصَبُ لَهُ لِوَاءٌ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَيُقَالُ هَذِهِ غَدْرَةُ فُلاَنٍ وَإِنَّ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ الْغَدْرِ بَعْدَ الإِشْرَاكِ بِاللَّهِ أَنْ يُبَايِعَ رَجُلٌ رَجُلاً عَلَى بَيْعِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ يَنْكُثُ بَيْعَتَهُ

“The betrayer of his allegiances and oaths will have a flag hoisted next to him and said, ‘This is the betrayal of so and so.’ And the worst of betrayal of oaths would be - after association with Allah - that one should back off after having taken oath on Allah and His Messenger.”

Therefore, continued Ibn `Umar, “Let none of you do it now, or let him have nothing to do with me” (Ibn Kathir).

142. It is said that there was a foolish woman in Makkah who used to spin yarn (during the morning), and then, when it thickened (expressed in the term “quwwah” of the text), undo it to shreds (by the evening) - Ibn Jarir.

Majid adds: “In Greek mythology there is a lady known as Penelope who is credited with a similar feat.”

Ibn Jarir further writes: This is the example of someone who entered into a covenant with Allah, and then broke it.

143. Of the several interpretations, one is that the verse is warning the early Muslims not to break their allegiance to the Prophet because they should find the Quraysh a party larger, stronger, and a more likely winner in the struggle against the Prophet (Zamakhshari, Shawkani).

144. This verse acquires special significance if we consider the fact that the Madinan Muslims were about to enter into a compact with the Prophet at ‘Aqabah, promising to protect him as they would their women and children, and the Prophet himself soon to migrate to Madinah and enter into several pacts with the adjoining tribes (Au.).

145. Explaining the words, “Allah leads astray whom He will”: Alusi writes: by creating in him misguidance (dilal), following the man’s own choices, itself being influenced by his inner potentials.

146. Explaining the words, “He guides whom He will”: Alusi writes: by creating guidance (hidayah) in him, following the person’s own choices, which themselves are influenced by his inner potentials, that in turn he trains on the right course of action.

He also writes: The Mu`tazila deny that error, or misguidance is by Allah’s will. They maintain that Allah (swt) wished that everyone should enter into faith, but what resulted (from the choice given to the people) is that they chose something that Allah did not wish. Accordingly, Zamakhshari wrote, had Allah willed to force people to become one nation, then, surely, He had the power to do it. But, His wisdom demanded that He guide to error (or, in simpler words, lead them to error) those He knew would choose to remain in error and insist on it, and guide to righteousness those He knew would choose to be guided to it. In short, the issue has choice as the principal deciding factor, and the outcome depends on who deserves what. Allah has told us nothing about forcing a man do what he - the man - does not deserve. If men had no choice in the affair, forced either to error or to guidance, Allah would not say as He did in the words that follow, “And you shall certainly be questioned for what you were doing.”

`Askari has a similar point to make. However, Alusi continues, the truth is, as written by one of the late scholars Kawrani (who wrote several treatises on this topic) that a man has effective, influencing power by the leave of Allah and not what is imagined, viz., he has no power at all to choose as the Jabriyyah say, nor a power to compare, but, for all practical purposes, ineffective, as the Ash`ariyyah have maintained, nor that he has effective and influencing power, above that of Allah’s will, as the Mu`tazilah say. Rather, he has the power (to choose and act) that itself he earns, following the demands of his potentials and inclinations that are in Allah’s knowledge. In other words, a man is both free as well as bound and is questionable for his choices in areas he was free to choose and act.

147. Zamakhshari raises the question, why did Allah say “foot” in singular, and then answers that it is to emphasize that not a single foot should slip in error.

148. Asad has a useful comment on the words “taste the evil”: “... the breaking of pledges unavoidably leads to a gradual disappearance of all mutual trust and, thus, to the decomposition of the social fabric.”

It is this “evil” that men immediately taste, here, in consequence of their dishonoring the trusts, before the other, final evil, that they will face in the Hereafter (Au.).

149. What is the connection between breaking oaths and preventing people from the path of Allah? Alusi explains that when someone breaks oaths made in the name of Allah, then he sets a bad example to others of not heeding Allah’s calls. That example spreads and people get used to ignoring the truth, justice, and what is right. Thus the first man becomes the cause of preventing the people from the path of Allah.

150. That was what the Quraysh offered - a paltry price - to those who would abandon the Prophet (Zamakhshari).

151. Mawdudi comments on ‘the patient and persevering’: “Those ... who adhere to truth and honesty in utter disregard of all temptations, desires, and lusts. They are the ones who endure all losses which accrue to them as a result of strictly confining themselves to fair and honest means and spurning all advantages which ensue from adopting unfair methods. Such persons are prepared to wait till the very end of their worldly life after which they will be able to observe the good consequences of their deeds.”

152. Although the article “mun” (whoever) is inclusive of male and female, e.g., “if you say whoever is in the house” then, women will be included in the term “whoever,” yet, the addition of the words “male and female” here in this verse, is for emphasis, and to remove any doubt that the Qur’anic injunctions, although expressed in masculine, are for both men as well as women (Alusi).

153. Opinions have varied over what constitutes “hayatun tayyibah” (a goodly life), although, the various opinions can all be reconciled. Ibn ‘Abbas said it means lawful provision. (Whoever enjoys it, enjoys a goodly life). Hasan al-Busri thought it is contentment (qana`ah) that is meant. In a second opinion he said that “a goodly life” is something that will be obtained in Paradise alone. Yet others said that the allusion is to the life in Paradise. Ibn Jarir thinks contentment is the best answer, since, whoever is given this quality, is given all. “Indeed,” adds Ibn Jarir, “our experience is that those who devote themselves to living a righteous life, are rarely well-off in this world. Without contentment such a life could not be characterized as a goodly life.”

In fact, we have a hadith in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Ahmad, which reports that the Prophet said,

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَرُزِقَ كَفَافًا وَقَنَّعَهُ اللَّهُ بِمَا آتَاهُ

“Succeeded he who became a Muslim, was provided just enough (of the means of sustenance), and then Allah gave him contentment over what He gave him” (Shawkani).

Zamakhshari writes: “A goodly life” is what a believer always enjoys, whether he is materially well-off or not. If he is well-off, then of course the case is clear. But if he is badly-off, then, he perseveres with patience and is content with what Allah has provided him. Thus, he is blissful and tranquil in every situation. In contrast, the life of a “fasiq” is miserable in every situation. When he is badly off, then the case is clear. But if he is well-off, then too, greed does not allow him to sit in peace. The desire for more and more keeps him restless so that he never truly enjoys the fruits of his labor.

Ibn Kathir adds: Imam Ahmad and Muslim have a narration which says,

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَظْلِمُ مُؤْمِنًا حَسَنَةً يُعْطَى بِهَا فِى الدُّنْيَا وَيُجْزَى بِهَا فِى الآخِرَةِ وَأَمَّا الْكَافِرُ فَيُطْعَمُ بِحَسَنَاتِ مَا عَمِلَ بِهَا لِلَّهِ فِى الدُّنْيَا حَتَّى إِذَا أَفْضَى إِلَى الآخِرَةِ لَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ حَسَنَةٌ يُجْزَى بِهَا

“Allah does not wrong a believer. He is rewarded both in this world as well as the next. In contrast, an unbeliever is rewarded in this world itself because of his good deeds, but when he lands in the Hereafter, he will have no good deed left in his account to be rewarded for.”

Alusi, however, after discussing various opinions at length expresses his readiness to accept Hasan al-Busri’s opinion that “a goodly life” will obtain, in the truest sense, in the Hereafter alone.

154. That will happen in the Hereafter. The translations adopted for this and verse 96 above follow the understanding of Ibn ‘Abbas, as in Ibn Jarir. Nevertheless, some scholars have thought that the meaning of this part of the verse is, “according to the best of what they were doing.”

155. ‘Ata’, as in Shawkani, and Thawri as in Alusi, were in the minority to maintain that recitation of the ta`awwudh or isti`adhah is obligatory. That is, to say,

أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

Otherwise, to the great majority, the seeking of Allah’s refuge with the help of this formula, before any recitation, is not obligatory. It is only recommended (Ibn Jarir). This is in view of the Prophet’s own practice, who sometimes recited the formula and sometimes did not. Even within the Prayers (Salah) it is at best mustahab to recite it (Shafi`).

In any case, write Razi and Ibn Kathir, such seeking of refuge is meant to drive away Satanic whispering of the wrong meaning into the mind during the Qur’anic recitation (and after the recitation is over). Hence, some of the scholars, including Abu Hurayrah, Muhammad b. Sirin and Ibrahim Nakha`i, as noted by Nawawi, have said that the “isti`adha” should be done ‘after’ the recitation of the Qur’an (rather than before). The great majority however, believe that it must be said before the recitation.

In any case, Shafi` introduces the rejoinder, it must be remembered that the refuge-formula is spelled out only prior to Qur’anic recitation and not before any other act. For all other acts, it is enough to recite the “basmalah” (i.e., “Bismillahir Rahman al-Rahim)

Alusi comments: The standard words of “isti`adha” are as in this verse. The Prophet (saws) however used other words also. Bayhaqi has a hadith which says that when the Prophet brought ‘A’isha the good news of her acquittal in the famous case of slander, he preceded the recitation of the revelation with the “isti`adha” of words as follows:

أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ السَّمِيعِ الْعَلِيمِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

“I seek the refuge of Allah, the Hearer, the Knower, from Satan the accursed.”

Another hadith in the Sahihayn reports that “when the Prophet stood up for Prayers in the pre-dawn session, he began it by saying the ‘isti`adha’ in the above words. These reports prove that it is allowed to use this second version of “isti`adha.”

156. People befriend Satan by following his advice and prompting (Qurtubi).

A doubt arises: We often notice that such people as those who do not befriend Satan fall into his trap. How is this to be explained? Alusi deals with this question in some detail. But we prefer to reproduce here Shabbir’s shorter note who writes that Satan’s power over the virtuous works only for a short while. He is never able to overpower them completely, which is the purpose of the verse here. If a righteous man slips, it is not too late that he pulls himself up. Another Qur’anic verse can be presented to substantiate this. It says (7: 201),

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّقَوْا إِذَا مَسَّهُمْ طَائِفٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تَذَكَّرُوا فَإِذَا هُمْ مُبْصِرُونَ [الأعراف : 201]

“Indeed, those who fear Allah - when an impulse touches them from Satan, they remember (Him) and at once they have insight.”

157. The translation follows the preferred understanding of Mujahid (and Dahhak: Qurtubi). That is, the pronoun in “bihi” is for Allah although there have been other explanations (Ibn Jarir).