245. Ordinarily, the word "ashya'a" should have been in the genitive. Imam Razi cites reasons on the authority of grammarians such as Khalil, Akhfash, Farra', Kisa'i and Sibawayh to explain, why it is accusative.

246. The Prophet has said in a hadith of Bukhari,

إِنَّ أَعْظَمَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فِى الْمُسْلِمِينَ جُرْمًا مَنْ سَأَلَ عَنْ أَمْرٍ لَمْ يُحَرَّمْ فَحُرِّمَ مِنْ أَجْلِ مَسْأَلَتِهِ

"The most sinful of Muslims is he who asked about a thing that was not declared unlawful but whose unlawfulness was brought to light because of a question he asked."

Another sahih hadith says:

ذروني ما تركتم فإنما هلك الذين قبلكم بكثرة سؤالهم واختلافهم على أنبيائهم

"Let me alone so long as you are left alone. Those before you were destroyed because of their myriad questioning and (subsequent) disagreement with their Prophets." Another sahih hadith says,

إن الله فرض فرائض فلا تُضيِّعُوها، وحَدَّ حدودًا فلا تعتدوها، وحَرَّم أشياء فلا تنتهكوها، وسكت عن أشياء رحمة بكم غَيْرَ نِسْيان فلا تسألوا عنها

"Allah has obligated some acts, so do not ignore them. He has set some bounds, so do not cross them. He has declared certain things unlawful, so do not violate them and has remained silent over certain things, out of His mercy, not out of forgetfulness, therefore, do not ask about them" (Ibn Kathir).

Ibn `Abdul Barr has pointed out however, that the above prohibition was for the time when revelation was coming down. In subsequent times, there is no harm in someone seeking details, or making enquiries in order to improve upon one's knowledge, for the cure of ignorance is in asking (Qurtubi).

The Qur'an has said (16: 43):

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

"Ask the men of admonition if you do not know" (Au.).

Some modernist scholars have leveled criticism against the jurists (fuqaha') of Islam who have worked out details of the law, that their exercises have lent complications to the issues and made violation more likely. It is also said that the believers should not try to deduce additional laws from the injunctions clearly laid down by the Qur'an or the Sunnah, since this might cause the people hardship. These critics forget that greater the knowledge, the more polished one's deeds, and, coarser the knowledge, coarser the deeds. After all, every religion has provided a rough idea of things: "do not lie, do not drink, be good to your neighbors," and so on. The beauty of Islam is in its details. What is it but detailed knowledge of things that lends a man refinement? As for violation, those who violate will do so, whether they possess a nominal knowledge of things or a detailed knowledge of them. In contrast, great spiritual pleasure is derived from the knowledge and the feeling, that one attempted perfection and came very close to achieving it. Should the refined abandon their spiritual joy for the sake of the coarse minds to whom it does not matter either way? Further, evolved circumstances demand changes in the law. And, since, the core is inalterable. It is the surrounding details that will undergo changes in changed circumstances. Left to their bare bones, Islamic Law would have soon met with a summary rejection - as unfit for modern life and its complications, as the Hamurabi or the Jewish Law. If the Ummah remains following only the Shari`ah as brought to light during the Prophet's time, what will the community do in the face of drugs, insurances of various kinds, gambling, leas business of dubious nature, interest-lending in surreptitious ways, surrogate motherhood, cloning, and multitude of new problems? Again, the Qur'an is not saying: "Do not seek the details of religion." It prohibited that its first converts ask about things that the Qur'an had remained silent during its revelation. There is a sea of a difference between the two. Finally, what the people inquire is “details” of what has been already revealed. They do not seek new laws from their Lord.

It has also been said, ‘Many of our jurists have, by their subjective deductions, unduly widened the range of man's religious obligations (taklif), thus giving rise to difficulties and complications which the clear wordings [of the Qur'an] had put an end to; and this has led to the abandoning, by many individual Muslims as well as by their governments, of Islamic Law in its entirety." In the words of another commentator, "Now there are some people who make unnecessary inquiries, cause elaborately prescribed, inflexibly determined and restrictive regulations to be added to the Law. Some others, in cases where such details are in no way deducible from the text, resort to analogical reasoning, thereby turning a broad general rule into an elaborate law, full or restrictive details, and an unspecified into a specified rule. Both sort of people put Muslims in general danger. For, in the area of belief, the more detailed the doctrine to which people are required to subscribe, the more problematic it becomes to do so. Likewise, in legal matters, greater the restrictions, greater the likelihood of violations."

Although, what has been stated in the lines above touch an aspect of the truth, in the overall, these are irresponsible statements. What has to be primarily understood is that it was not the difficulties and complications of the Laws of Islam that led to their abandoning. Rather, in the new age, the ruling class, the elite, and those educated on Western lines, abandoned Islamic Law and way of life wholesale in favor of Western Laws and way of life in the hope of achieving the same personal material progress as the West had achieved in the course of past few centuries. In the words of an Arab thinker: "If we wish to achieve progress, of the kind they (the Westerners) have achieved, we will have to eat like they eat and drink like they drink ..." To give a specific example, it was not the details of the Islamic Law pertaining to the unlawfulness of intoxicants that led to their violation, and acceptance of its sale in Muslim countries. On the contrary, it was because the ruling elite was brought up in a culture of which intoxicants are a necessary ingredient, and because it was quite willing to abandon a religious Law for the sake of fattening state exchequer through taxation on liquor.

Further, it is one thing for a thinker to work out in his mind what could have led to this or that particular historical situation. But it is another thing to sit in the jurists benches and decided on complicated issues day in and day out. If the jurist insists on simply following the "clear injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah," probably he will not be able to pass a judgment on a single case of the dozens of extremely complicated ones filed in the courts every day.

It is perfectly alright to say to an ordinary Muslim that he ought to adhere to the basic teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah. But to say that to the Jurist is something incredible. It is like telling the secular judges to stick to the constitution alone of the country and disregard the precedence. How many cases can they settle every day?

Finally, if what is understood by the prohibition in the verse, as discouragement from seeking further details of the Law, how can one explain the Companions asking the Prophet several questions on several occasions, such as, for example, during Hajj, when they were free to perform it following the simplest of rules of the Shari`ah?

The fact is, the thinkers of Islam have to reconcile themselves to the fact that it is not the complications of the Shari`ah Law, worked out to its finer details by the jurists and others, that has led to the Muslim downfall. It is the refusal to accept Islam as a way of life.

Finally, in this particular case, it is not the details of the Shari`ah that the Companions had asked; but rather, their question was opening a door to further obligations, such as, for instance, should Hajj be performed every year? See the next note also (Au.).

Yusuf Ali has another, but very pertinent aspect to point out. He says: "Many secrets are wisely hidden from us. If the future were known to us, wee need not necessarily be happy. In many cases we should be miserable. If the inner meaning of some of the things we see before our eyes were disclosed to us, it might cause a lot of mischief. Allah's Message, in so far as it is necessary for shaping our conduct, is plain and open to us. But there are many things too deep for us to understand, either individually or collectively. It should be foolish to pry into them ..."

247. Ibn Jarir writes: Anas has reported (as in Bukhari: Au.) that:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ سَأَلُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَتَّى أَحْفَوْهُ الْمَسْأَلَةَ فَغَضِبَ فَصَعِدَ الْمِنْبَرَ فَقَالَ لَا تَسْأَلُونِي الْيَوْمَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا بَيَّنْتُهُ لَكُمْ فَجَعَلْتُ أَنْظُرُ يَمِينًا وَشِمَالًا فَإِذَا كُلُّ رَجُلٍ لَافٌّ رَأْسَهُ فِي ثَوْبِهِ يَبْكِي فَإِذَا رَجُلٌ كَانَ إِذَا لَاحَى الرِّجَالَ يُدْعَى لِغَيْرِ أَبِيهِ فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَنْ أَبِي قَالَ حُذَافَةُ ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ عُمَرُ فَقَالَ رَضِينَا بِاللَّهِ رَبًّا وَبِالْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا وَبِمُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَسُولًا نَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ الْفِتَنِ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا رَأَيْتُ فِي الْخَيْرِ وَالشَّرِّ كَالْيَوْمِ قَطُّ إِنَّهُ صُوِّرَتْ لِي الْجَنَّةُ وَالنَّارُ حَتَّى رَأَيْتُهُمَا وَرَاءَ الْحَائِطِ

Once the people asked the Prophet (saws) several questions. A bit furious, he went up the pulpit and said, "You will not ask me a question now, but I will lay bare its truth to you." (According to another version: "So long as I am standing here": Qurtubi). Anas says, "I looked around, and there was none who had not hidden his face in his cloth and crying." At that moment a man who used to be attributed to other than his father, rose up and asked, "Messenger of Allah? Who is my father?" The Prophet replied, "Your father is Hudhafah (and not the one alleged)." At that `Umar stood up (according to one version went on his knees) and said, "We are satisfied with Allah as our Lord, Islam as our religion, Muhammad as a Messenger and I seek Allah's protection from the evil of trials." The Prophet said, "I have never seen of the good and evil as I did today. Paradise and Hell-fire were both depicted to me as if I saw them beyond this wall." Then Allah revealed this verse. According to some other versions, another man asked him on that occasion about his father, as to where he is, the Prophet replied, "In Hell-fire."

It is said that `Abdullah b. Hudhafa's mother chided him saying, "You are a headless man. Did you not think that were your mother to have committed what women in pre-Islamic days committed, would not you have put her to shame?" `Abdullah replied, "Had the Prophet named a black slave, I would have accepted him": Qurtubi). Nevertheless, Abu Hurayrah and Abu Umamah al-Bahiliyy, as also Ibn `Abbas, have said that once the Prophet told his followers that Hajj had been prescribed unto them. Someone asked him whether it was a yearly obligation. The Prophet did not reply. The man repeated his question twice or thrice. The Prophet was angry with him. He said, "Had I said yes, it would have become a yearly obligation and you would not have been able to perform it. And, were you to neglect it, you would become unbelievers." And this verse was revealed. (This hadith is in Ibn Hibban and is sahih: S. Ibrahim). It is apparent, Ibn Jarir adds, that there were several incidents in which useless questions were asked which led to the revelation of this verse.

The report of the Prophet's speech is in Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa'i, Tirmidhi and others, with the addition of the words by Anas that he never heard such a moving and fearful speech from him earlier, in which he also said, "Were you to know what I know, surely you would have laughed less and cried much." That sent the Companions to crying. Bukhari has another report which says that some of them used to ask him senseless questions such as, "Who is my father," or "Where is my camel," etc. As for the reported question about Hajj quoted by Tabari, it is in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, as well as in some other compilations, but some of them appear to suffer some weaknesses (Ibn Kathir).

248. Another interpretation of the words "`afa Allahu `anha" is that what Allah has not mentioned in His revelation (as forbidden), has been (deliberately) overlooked (Ibn Kathir).

249. There has been a considerable difference in opinion over what exactly Bahirah, Sa'ibah and others constituted. We shall give here the definitions as given by Sa`id b. Jubayr in Bukhari. Bahirah was a she-camel whose milk was dedicated to the deities and no man was allowed to milk it, or use it in any other way. Sa'ibah was that male animal that was let free in the name of a deity. Wasilah was a camel that gave birth to several she camels without a male in between. Such a camel was also consecrated to a deity and let loose. And Ham was that stallion camel which had copulated with several females. It was also dedicated to a deity and freed of all services (Ma`arif). But there seem to be a few other classes of freed animals, involving other cattle, that were known by these names (Ibn Kathir). The practice is still common among the pagans of the world (Au.).

250. Abu Hurayrah has reported the Prophet as having said,

عرضت علي النار فرأيت فيها عمرو بن لحي بن قمعة بن خندف أبو عمرو و هو يجر قصبه في النار و هو أول من سيب السوائب و غير عهد إبراهيم عليه السلام و أشبه من رأيت به أكثم بن أبي الجون قال : فقال أكثم : يا رسول الله يضرني شبهه ؟ قال : لا إنك مسلم و إنه كافر

"I was shown the Fire. I saw therein `Amr b. Luhayy (otherwise named as `Aamir al-Khuza`i: Ibn Kathir) dragging his intestine in the Fire. He was the first to introduce the concept of Sa'ibah and to corrupt the religion of Ibrahim. The most similar to him I find Aktham b. abi al-Jawn." (This much is in Bukhari: Ibn Kathir). Thereupon, Aktham asked, "Messenger of Allah, will his similarity to me do me any harm?" The Prophet told him, "No. For you are a believer and he was an unbeliever."

In another report transmitted by Zayd b. Aslam, the Prophet said:

قد عرفت أول الناس بحر البحائر رجل من بني مدلج كانت له ناقتان فجدع آذانهما وحرم ألبانها وظهورهما ، ولقد رأيته وإياهما في النار : تخبطانه بأخفافهما وتقضمانه بأفواههما

"I know who the first to institute the practice of Bahirah was. It was a man from Mudlij tribe who slit the ears of two she-camels, and declared their milk as unlawful. Subsequently he made their milk lawful unto himself. I saw him in the Fire. The two (she-camels) were pounding upon him, and biting him" (Ibn Jarir, Razi, Qurtubi).

251. Imam Razi points out that man has been created for the worship of Allah. When he rebels, he loses his freedom to others. In contrast, animals have been enslaved to him for his various benefits. In freeing them from that slavery is his own loss as well as that of the cattle, which become no one's responsibility and are left to suffer a life worse than what they would suffer if they remain in the slavery of man and be tended by him.

252. In this is the refutation of the ignorant Sufis who argue about the ways of their Masha'ikh when confronted with the Shari`ah (Thanwi).

253. To most of the polytheistic peoples, like the Arab pagans, religion is not a matter of sound reason and Divine Revelation, but a mere usage - a set of rites and dogmas handed down from the fathers to the sons (Majid).

254. Ibn Mas`ud was asked about this verse. He said, "It is not applicable to our times. Rather, a time will come when you will enjoin good but people will respond with violence. It is in those times that a man might look after his own soul."

Similar reports have come from Ibn `Umar. In fact, Abu Tha`labh has reported that he enquired the Prophet himself about the exact implication of this verse. He replied:

بَلْ أَنْتُمُ ائْتَمِرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنَاهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ حتَّى إِذَا رَأَيْتَ شُحًّا مُطَاعًا وَهَوًى مُتَّبَعًا وَدُنْيَا مُؤْثَرَةً وَإِعْجَابَ كُلِّ ذِى رَأْىٍ بِرَأْيِهِ وَرَأَيْتَ أَمْرًا لاَ يَدَانِ لَكَ بِهِ فَعَلَيْكَ نَفْسَكَ وَدَعْ عَنْكَ أَمْرَ الْعَوَامِّ فَإِنَّ مَنْ وَرَائِكَ أَيَّامَ الصَّبْرِ الصَّبْرُ فِيهِنَّ مِثْلُ قَبْضٍ عَلَى الْجَمْرِ لِلْعَامِلِ فِيهِنَّ كَأَجْرِ خَمْسِينَ رَجُلاً يَعْمَلُونَ مِثْلَ عَمَلِهِ ». لَفْظُ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ شُعَيْبٍ زَادَ ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ فِى رِوَايَتِهِ قَالَ وَزَادَنِى غَيْرُهُ قَالُوا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَجْرُ خَمْسِينَ مِنْهُمْ. قَالَ :« أَجْرُ خَمْسِينَ مِنْكُمْ

"Rather, keep enjoining right and forbidding wrong. But, when you find the people preferring this world over the next, greed followed, and every man boastful of his opinion, and you see affairs in which you have no say at all, then it is that you have to look after your own souls and avoid affairs of the common people. I can see after you days demanding a lot of patience when observing patience will be like holding burning coal in the hand. So, he who holds fast unto the truth that day will have the reward of fifty men doing the same thing as he." They asked, "Messenger of Allah, (his reward will be equal to the rewards of fifty of them?" He replied, "No. (His reward will be equal to the reward of) fifty of you."

(The hadith is in Tirmidhi, who classified it as sahih, as also in Abu Da'ud: Ibn Kathir, and in Ibn Majah and Hakim, with the latter declaring it sahih: Shawkani). Nevertheless, many of the Salaf, such as Abu Bakr, Hudhayfah, Sa`id ibn Musayyib, Suddi and others have said that in those times too the obligation of enjoining right and forbidding evil will remain in force (Ibn Jarir).

It is reported that Abu Bakr once climbed the pulpit and said:

أيها الناس، إنكم تقرؤون هذه الآية: { يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَنْفُسَكُمْ لا يَضُرُّكُمْ مَنْ ضَلَّ إِذَا اهْتَدَيْتُمْ } إلى آخر الآية، وإنكم تضعونها على غير موضعها، وإني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: "إن الناس إذا رأوا المنكر ولا يغيرونه أوشك الله، عز وجل، أن يَعُمَّهُمْ بعِقَابه"

"People! You read this verse but misinterpret it; and misplace it in (meaning). I have heard the Prophet that if a people see wrongs committed but do nothing to stop them, it is feared that a punishment touching all will descend upon them" (Ibn Kathir).

Rashid Rida adds: Ibn abi Hatim has recorded Ka`b's statement that when the church of the Dimashq mosque is pulled down and made a mosque and when `Asab appears amongst the people then will be the time for the application of the verse: "Look after your own souls. Whoso is misguided can do you no harm if you are (rightly) guided."

And the background story of the Dimashq mosque/church is as follows. It is said that one half of the city of Dimashq fell to the Muslim army advancing upon it from one side, while from the other side another contingent entered into the city under a peace treaty. The two forces of the Companions met at the Church of Mary. They decided that one of half of the building would be converted to a mosque since it was taken by force, while the other half would be left as a Church following the treaty clause that the places of worship of the Christians would be left to themselves. It is said that the Muslims offered hefty price for the place but the Christians were adamant. At the time of the Umayyads, they were coerced into giving their part to the Muslims. But `Umar ibn `Abdul `Aziz restored it to them during his reign. What Ka`b meant is that when the collective dishonesty of the Muslims would reach such a level that they occupy the Church by force and convert it into a mosque, then it will be time for each soul to look after itself, as the admonition of the admonishers will do them no good. As for `Asab, it is a kind of expensive cloak that came from Yemen.

255. `Abdullah ibn Mubarak has pointed out that far from absolving the Muslims of their responsibility of enjoining good and forbidding evil, the words in this verse actually confirm it. The verse says, "`alaykum anfusakum," meaning, "Upon you is the responsibility of the souls of the Muslims." It is in the same vein as the Israelites were told: "Kill yourselves," meaning, "Kill each other," and not meaning "Commit suicide." Similarly, here the words "`alaykum anfusakum" would mean, "Look after each other (and work to improve each other's commitment to Islam)" - Razi, Qurtubi.

256. The Qur'anic text, and the incident that became a cause of revelation of these verses, tell us that the non-Muslims can be allowed to testify against Muslims, not excluding in disputes of inheritance. This is the opinion of Abu Musa al-Ash`ari, Ibn `Abbas and others (Shawkani).

Thanwi remarks: The verse tells us by implication that one ought to organize his affairs, to the inclusion of worldly affairs, and be mindful to safeguard the rights of others. Disorganization results in some people losing their rights, which will bring sin upon the disorganized person.

257. The word "tahbisunahuma" imply that if the ruler or the judge should remand the accused to custody, for some reason or the other, then that is permissible (Qurtubi).

258. Since "al-Salah" of the original is definitive, it has been subjected to enquiry as to which Salah is meant. Sa`id b. Jubayr, Ibrahim and Qatadah have said that it is the `Asr Prayer, since the Prophet, in a similar case, had conducted the testimonial proceedings after `Asr Prayer (Ibn Jarir). This is also in view of the fact that the Arabs used to conduct their governmental affairs after Zuhr and `Asr (Zamakhshari, Razi and others). Also, `Asr congregation in the mosques used to be, in those times, larger than at other times and the presence of a large number of people would have - in addition to the holiness of the place - discouraged the testifiers from lying (Thanwi and others).

259. Qurtubi mentions that Ibn Zubayr, Mutarrif, Ibn Mazin and Qatadah also accepted oaths by the Qur'an. Ahmad and Ishaq also did not see anything wrong in that. In fact, following them, Imam Shafe`i has allowed swearing by the Qur'an, although Ibn al-`Arabi has declared it a bid`ah.

260. Ibn `Abbas has reported that a man from Banu Sahm (called Budayl, a Muslim: Shafi`), went out for trade in the company of Tamim al-Daari and `Adi b. Bada' (both Christians then). The Sahmi died on the way. When they returned his people found a gold-plated silver cup missing from his baggage. The two companions said on oath that they knew nothing about it. But, later, it was found in the Makkan market. Upon enquiry the new owners said they had purchased it from Tamim al-Dari and `Adi b. Bada'. Then two of the kinsfolk of the Sahmi stood up and testified that the cup belonged to the Sahmi and Allah revealed this verse (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Razi).

261. The commentators consider these last two verses as the most difficult verses of the Qur'an in meaning, implication, and grammatical construction (Razi, Qurtubi).