136. The guidance therein included instructions pertaining to the enquiry that the Jews had made, i.e., adultery (Razi). That is, We had sent down earlier, O Prophet, a revelation to the Israelites which contained commandments pertaining to the crime of adultery about which the Jews had sought your judgment (Ibn Jarir).

137. One of the interpretations (Qurtubi) is that the "lam" of "lilladhina hadu" is in the sense of "`ala". Further, the use of the words "alladhina hadu" instead of "al-yahud" is perhaps to point out that the prophets who followed Musa were Muslims and did not refer to themselves as Jews (Au.).

138. Explaining the word rabbaniyyun of the original, Asad writes under surah 3 in note 62: "According to Sibawayh (as quoted by Razi), a rabbani is "one who devotes himself exclusively to the endeavor to know the Sustainer (ar-rabb) and to obey Him." Also see note 133 of Surah Aal-`Imran of this work.

Shafi` writes: The revelation of Allah has two aspects: (i) knowledge and, (ii) its application (i.e., ‘ilm wa ‘amal). Now, although it is expected of every knowledgeable (`alim) that he should also be good in application, as it is expected of everyone who applies, to be good in knowledge, the fact remains that while there are some who treat application as more serious than knowledge, there are others who dedicate themselves more to knowledge. Now those who are meticulous about application aspect of the revelation are known as rabbaniyyun while those who concentrate more on knowledge are known as Ahbar. Thus, the sufiya and the ‘ulama are only two faces of the same coin.

Rashid Rida has something similar to state: "It seems to me that the rabbaniyyun with the Jews were similar to our awliya' and ‘arifin, while ahbar as our common scholars. It is said that Ibn `Abbas was the Habr of the ummah, while `Ali the Rabbaniyy.

139. It should be obvious that in this verse the address by implication is to the Ummah of the Prophet through him (Au.).

140. Basing their opinion on these words, the Khawarij have argued that someone who commits a major sin (in other words, every fasiq) is an unbeliever. The answer that has been given by the Ahl al-Sunnah is that although the verse is general in meaning, it is specifically applicable to the act of the heart, so that whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed out of disbelief in it, then, he is an unbeliever (Alusi).

Not Judging by Allah’s Command:

Qurtubi points out that the report of Bara’ b. `Aazib, as in Muslim, (concerning the Prophet’s judgment of stoning to death the pair of Jews that had committed adultery) demonstrates that the following three verses, have unbelievers as their subject: 1. ‘And whoso judges not by what Allah has revealed, such, they are the unbelievers;' 2. ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such, they are the transgressors;' and, 3. ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such, they are the corrupt.'

Abu Salih, `Ikrimah, Dahhak, Qatadah and Abu Mijlaz were of the same opinion. (So were Ibn Mas`ud and Hasan, who have said that whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, believing another set of laws as better, is an unbeliever: Qurtubi).

In fact, it is reported of Abu Mijlaz that once some people of Banu `Amr came to him and asked him about these three verses whether they were making a true statement or not. He said, "Yes, they are." They said: "Let these then (the rulers of their time) also judge by what Allah has revealed." He replied: "It is their religion in which they believe. They claim they live by it (i.e., Islam). And to it they are invited. But if they do not live by a portion of it, then, they are aware that they have sinned." They said: "No, by Allah. Rather, you know for sure (rather, you fear them)." He replied: "That's not true. You might look at it that way. But I do not. These verses were revealed censuring the Jews and Christians."

Nevertheless, it is reported of Hudhayfah (b. al-Yaman: Au., whose report is in Hakim who declared it sahih: Alusi) that when he was asked whether these verses were not revealed to censure the Jews and Christians, he replied: "The Jews are a comfortable set of brothers unto you. So that, all that is bitter is for them while all that is sweet is for you. Rather, you will follow them in their footsteps in even the most insignificant affairs."

`Amir and Sha`bi have said that the first verse is talking of Muslims, the second of the Jews and the third of the Christians. Ta'us has however said that the "disbelief" in the verse is not the kind that will dislodge a person out of the millah altogether. When Ibn `Abbas was asked he replied: "When he does that (i.e., does not judge by what Allah has revealed) he is a disbeliever in it, but not a disbeliever in Him, His Prophets, in the Angels and so on." According to other reports (which is in ibn al-Mundhir and declared sahih by Hakim: Alusi) he said: "Yes, disbelief, true; but of a lower order. Not a disbelief of the kind your minds imagine, and not the kind that will exclude a person from the millah"

Ibn `Abbas also said: "Whoever argued against what Allah has revealed, is a kafir, while he who admits that it is the commandment of Allah, yet does not judge by it, such a one is a zalim and a fasiq."

Ibn Zayd clarified the issue in another manner. He said: "Whoever judged by a book that he wrote with his hands, rejecting the Book of Allah, and believed that what he has in his hands is the word of God, such a man is a kafir" (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

After stating that none of the fuqaha' has ever said that a man becomes a kafir simply by failing to judge by what Allah has revealed, Rashid Rida discusses the situation in which Muslim rulers choose to ignore the Shari`ah and enforce non-Shari`ah laws. What should the Muslims of such a state do? Should they simply avoid getting involved in the state machinery? Then he answers that if, despite their efforts to change the situation, they fail, their land is "Dar al-Harb." It is no different from the land of the unbelievers where Muslims are in minority. (But Rashid Rida does not offer an evidence for why the land in which Allah’s laws are not enforced is Dar al-Harb. After all, even a Dar al-Kufr is not necessarily a Dar al-Harb; it being a land which has openly declared war against a Muslim country: Au.).

Nonetheless, so far as the Muslim minority lands are concerned, Rashid Rida thinks that the avoidance of involvement in state machinery is not the best course for Muslims in those places. For, of the religious commandments there are two kinds: first, those that pertain to the personal life of an individual and second, those that are concerned with the functioning of the state. Now, there is no way in which a Muslim can rule against the Shari`ah in matters of "personal law." Muslims should avoid involvement in a machinery that fiddles with this area of the Islamic laws. As for the state laws, which are truly quite few, such as, for instance, capital punishments, it has been clearly stated by the fuqaha' that capital punishments cannot be enforced in Dar al-Kufr. This is the opinion of persons such as `Umar, Abu Darda', Hudhayfah and Imam Abu Hanifah. Ibn Qayyim has stated in "A`lam al-Mawqi`in" that such is also the opinion of Imam Ahmad, Ishaq b. Rahwayh, Awza`i and others. As for Ta`zirat punishments, we know that they have been left to the discretion of the ruling authorities. Therefore, there should be no harm in accepting judicial posts, so long as one does not enforce a law which is harmful to the Muslims of the state. Otherwise, he might. Though of course, in all situations, a Muslim should endeavor to enforce the laws of Islam and work for the establishment of a true Islamic state (Abridged).

141. Ibn `Abbas has said that blood wit in place of life or an organ was not allowed for the Israelites. It was granted to this Ummah as a mercy from Allah (Ibn Jarir).

142. Basing their judgment on this verse, the great majority of scholars are of the opinion that the Law of the previous nations (who received revelations), is our Law, unless the Qur'an abrogated it (Qurtubi).

We have a hadith in the Sahihayn which says that once a woman called Rabi` slapped a slave-girl and broke her tooth. The Prophet ordered the offender's tooth broken. Her brother Anas b. Nadr remonstrated: "Will her tooth be broken, O Apostle of Allah?" The Prophet said: "Anas. Allah's Book demands retaliation." Anas replied: "No by the God who sent you with truth, her tooth will not be broken." It so happened that the victim's kinsfolk agreed to monetary compensation and withdrew their claim of retaliation. The Prophet remarked: "There are people who, if they swear by Allah a thing, He does it that way." However, this retaliatory law is applicable only if the injury is caused intentionally. If it is accidental, monetary compensation alone will be resorted to (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

The hadith in Muslim reports the mother of Rabi` as having said, "No by God who sent you with truth ..." (and not Anas). But it is possible that both Umm Anas as well as Anas b. Nadr had sworn by Allah (Qurtubi).

Fiqh Points

1. There is no retaliation for broken bones, intentional or intentional. Only monetary compensation will have to be accepted (Razi). It is only teeth about which there is no differences in opinion that a just retaliation (qisas) may follow (Ibn Kathir).

2. The judgment about monetary compensation will be withheld until the wounds have healed. However, if a man demands and accepts monetary compensation before his wounds have healed, he can make no further claims, if, after healing, he suffers from a permanent disability (Ibn Kathir).

3. What happens if the offender dies as a result of retaliation for a wound? Imam Shafe`i has said that there is nothing upon the victim who had demanded the retaliation. But, according to Abu Hanifah, blood-wit is due upon the man who had demanded retaliation (Ibn Kathir).

4. The monetary compensation for two eyes is equal to a man's blood wit (so that, of one eye, it is one half of the blood wit); of the nose one blood wit; of the two ears one blood wit, (so that of one ear it is one half of the blood wit); and of each tooth it is five camels, which is also the blood wit for every finger and toe (Qurtubi).

5. There is no Qisas for killing one's own progeny (Thanwi).

6. If one of the claimants forgives his share, (such as one of the several children in case of a murder: Au.) then Qisas will stand annulled. Others can only receive monetary compensation.

143. That is, if the victim forgave, equal amount of his sins was forgiven in appreciation of his charitable act. And the rule holds good for this Ummah also. It happened during Mu`awiyyah's rule that a Qurayshi pushed an Ansari who fell and broke his tooth. He complained to Mu`awiyyah and the Qurayshi tried to win some concession. But Mu`awiyyah told him that he will have to settle the issue with the Ansari alone. Abu Darda' happened to be present. He interjected: "I have heard the Prophet say,

ما من مسلم يُصَاب بشيء من جسده فيَهبُه، إلا رفعه الله به درجةً وحطّ عنه به خطيئة. فقال له الأنصاري: أنت سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ قال: سمعته أذناي ووَعاه قلبي! فخلَّى سبيلَ القرشيّ

‘No hurt Muslim will forgive for a hurt but Allah will raise his status in Paradise and forgive his sins.'" The Ansari turned to him and asked: "Did you hear that from the Prophet yourself?" When he said yes, the Ansari forgave the Qurayshi and Mu`awiyyah ordered that the Ansari be gifted some money. (The report is in Ahmad and Tirmidhi: Ibn Kathir; but Tirmidhi declared it weak). Another opinion, that of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Ibrahim, is that if the victim forgives, the atonement is for the aggressor (in the sense that he has no sin upon him after that) while the victim will be rewarded by Allah (Ibn Jarir).

144. That is, Allah sent ‘Isa, son of Maryam, with the message that what was revealed to Musa was the truth, and unless abrogated, stood in force, despite his own appointment as a Messenger (Ibn Jarir).

145. That is, it showed the way to guidance, and, in addition, gave light in which was cure for doubts and skepticism (Ibn Kathir).

146. Muhaymin of the original has been interpreted by Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, Mujahid and many others as a guardian and a witness (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Asad writes: "The participle muhaymin is derived from the quadrilateral verb haymana, "he watched [over a thing]" or "controlled [it]", and is used here to describe the Qur'an as the determinant factor in deciding what is genuine and what is false in earlier Scriptures."

Yusuf Ali comments: "The Arabic word muhaimin is very comprehensive in meaning. It means one who safeguards, watches over, stands witness, preserves, and upholds. The Qur'an safeguards "the Book", for it has preserved within it the teachings of all the former Books. It watches over these Books in the sense that it will not let their true teaching to be lost. It supports and upholds these Books in the sense that it corroborates the Word of Allah which has remained intact in them. It stands a witness because it bears testimony to the Word of Allah contained in these Books and helps to sort it out from the interpretation and commentaries of the people which were mixed with it: what is confirmed by the Qur'an is the Word of Allah and what is against it is that of the people."

147. Since the Prophet was not expected to follow his caprice, it is his followers that have been addressed through him (Razi, Qurtubi).

148. Qatadah has said that although all the previous nations followed one religion - that of faith in Oneness of Allah - they all had different Shari`ah. Ibn `Abbas, Hasan, Mujahid, Suddi, Dahhak and others have said that the term shir`ah here is equivalent of Sunnah (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Abu al-`Abbas Muhammad b. Yezid, has, however, given the linguistic meaning of shir`ah as the beginning of a path, and of minhaj as its continuation (Qurtubi).

Originally shir`ah or shari`ah were used for a path that led to water. Raghib and others have said that the word has probably been employed because living and practicing the Shari`ah (of Islam) re-invigorates spiritual life as water re-invigorates material life (Alusi).

What the verse is saying is that although the religion of all the Prophets was one, in the sense of basic beliefs and faiths, the Laws differed from nation to nation. The Prophet (saws) said, in a hadith of Bukhari:

الأَنْبِيَاءُ إِخْوَةٌ مِنْ عَلاَّتٍ وَأُمَّهَاتُهُمْ شَتَّى وَدِينُهُمْ وَاحِدٌ

"Prophets are brothers, sons of the same father but different mothers. Theirs was one religion" (Ibn Kathir).

Asad writes: "The expression ‘every one of you' denotes the various communities of which mankind is composed. The term shir`ah (or shari`ah) signifies, literally, "the way to a watering place" (from which men and animals derive the element indispensable to their life), and is used in the Qur'an to denote a system of law necessary for a community's social and spiritual welfare. The term minhaj, on the other hand, denotes an "open road", usually in an abstract sense: that is, "a way of life". The terms shir`ah and minhaj are more restricted in their meanings than the term din, which comprises not merely the laws relating to a particular religion but also the basic, unchanging spiritual truths which, according to the Qur'an, have been preached by every one of God's apostles, while the particular body of laws (shir`ah or shari`ah) promulgated through them, and the way of life (minhaj) recommended by them, varied in accordance with the exigencies of the time and of each community's cultural development. This "unity in diversity" is frequently stressed in the Qur'an..."

Shawkani adds the pointer that the statement "For every one of you We have prescribed a Law and a Way" is to be understood as a truth of the past. That is, it used to be so. Now, after the Final revelation, there is no Law and no Way, but one. All others stand abrogated.

149. That is, Allah could have given them all the same set of Laws, but He did not for reasons of trying out different people by different means (Ibn Kathir).

150. Ibn `Abbas has said that once the Jewish rabbis wanted to test the Prophet. So three of them, Ka`b b. Usad, Ibn Suriyyah and Shas b. Qays went to him and said: "You know our position with the Jews. If we declare our belief in you the common people will follow suit. Now there are a few cases pending between us and them. If you will promise to judge in our favor, we will now at this moment declare our faith in you. The Prophet refused and Allah revealed this verse (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtubi).

Ibn abi Hatim has also reported this (Ibn Kathir).

151. Ibn Kathir writes: "As do the Tartars. Chengis Khan has handed them down a set of laws, compiled by a man called Al-Yasiq, who used Judaism, Christianity and Islam as his sources - apart from others. They give this set of laws precedence over the Laws of Islam. Now, whoever did that is an unbeliever. War should be waged against him - whether such transcendence is of the minor type or major - until he submits to the Shari`ah of Islam. Bukhari has recorded the Prophet's statement through Ibn `Abbas:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنِ النَّبِىِّ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قَالَ :« أَبْغَضُ النَّاسِ إِلَى اللَّهِ مُلْحِدٌ فِى الْحَرَمِ وَمُبْتَغٍ فِى الإِسْلاَمِ سَنَّةَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ وَمُطَّلِبُ دَمِ امْرِئٍ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ لِيُهَرِيقَ دَمَهُ

"The most despicable in the sight of Allah is he who spreads corruption in the Makkan Sanctuary, someone who sought Jahiliyy ways in Islam, and he who demanded life of a person in an unproven case of retaliation, in order that he might shed innocent blood."

Mawdudi comments: "The word Jahiliyyah (gross ignorance) is used as an antonym to Islam. Islam is the way of ‘ilm (true knowledge), since it is God Himself Who has shown this way, and His knowledge embraces everything. In contrast is the way that diverges from Islam - the path of Ignorance (Jahiliyyah). The pre-Islamic period in Arabia is designated as Jahiliyyah, because this was the era when human beings derived their norms from either superstitious beliefs, conjectures and imaginations or from their desires. Whenever such an attitude is adopted, it is bound to be designated as Ignorance. The appellation ‘Jahiliyyah' will apply to every aspect of life which is developed in disregard of the knowledge made available by God..."

152. Sayyid writes: "The text of the Qur'an defines Jahiliyyah at this point. Jahiliyyah is man's legislation for man. That is tantamount to the worship of man by man, a denial to worship Allah and refusal to acknowledge His Lordship substituting it with the Lordship of humans and submission to them.

"In this light Jahiliyyah is not a phase in human history, rather a phenomenon that has existed all along. It existed yesterday, exists today, and will exist tomorrow. Its character and quality are diagonally opposed to Islam and are totally contradictory to it.

"As for the people - at any time and in any part of the world - they are either governed by the Law of Allah, without any exemption of any kind whatsoever, and they accept that wholeheartedly - in which case they are within the folds of the din of Allah - or they are not governed by the Law of Allah. If they are ruled by the laws of man's making, in whatever form and fashion, and they are satisfied with it, then, in that case they live in Jahiliyyah. They are the followers of the religion of those who legislate for them. They are not, in any sense, in the din of Allah. Further, whosoever does not desire to be judged by the Law of Allah, actually desires to be judged by the Jahiliyyah. Whoever denies to accept the Shari`ah of Allah, but rather desires to live by the Jahiliyy Shari`ah ... lives in a state of Jahiliyyah.

"This then is the dividing line ... the parting of ways ... and the people have to make a choice.

"Therefore they are asked, ‘Who is better than Allah in judgment unto a people of firm faith?'

"Of course, who is better than Allah in judgment?

"Who can claim to legislate for the people and judge between them in a way better than what Allah can legislate and judge? If someone does that, what proof he has for such a claim?

"Is it possible for him to say that he understands the people's nature better than their Creator? Can he claim to be kinder towards the people than their Lord? Can he say that he knows in what lies the welfare of the people better than the Sustainer of the people? Can he say that Allah - who legislated for the people for the last time, who sent the Final Messenger, with no Prophet to follow, who declared the Law He sent through him as the everlasting Law - was ignorant of the circumstances that were to follow, of needs that were to arise, the phenomena that were yet to appear, and therefore, could not take them into account, since they were hidden from Him, and which came to light only much later?

"What is it that he would say who divorces Allah's Law from everyday life, replacing it with the rule of the Days of Ignorance, placing his own fanciful thoughts, or those of some other people, or those of the people of a particular generation, over Allah's Judgment and His Laws?

"What is it that he will say ... especially if he claims to be a Muslim?

"Will he point to the circumstances? Situations? People's disinclination? Fear of enemies? Were all these things not in Allah's knowledge, while He was ordering the Muslims to establish the religion of Allah, and put it to practice in their everyday life, not to be beguiled of some of what He has revealed?

"Or, will he say that the Shari`ah did not take into account the contingent situations that arose subsequently, or of circumstances that presented themselves newly, or of predicaments that showed up latterly? But, were not these things in the knowledge of Allah, while He was emphasizing on the application of His laws so forcefully, and warning in such severe terms?

"A non-Muslim is free to say what he will ... But a Muslim? Or those who claim to be Muslims? ... About that which is stated above, what will he choose to say and still remain within the fold of Islam, or will there remain in his soul anything of Islam?

"The truth is that this is the parting of ways. There is no escape from a choice. There need be no contention, nor arguments: it is either Islam or Jahiliyyah; either belief or disbelief; either Allah's judgment, or that of the Days of Ignorance.

"Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed ... they are the unbelievers, the transgressors, the ungodly. And those of the ruled who do not accept to be ruled by Allah's commandments ... they are unbelievers.

"This is an issue that should be very clear to the Muslim conscience. He should not hesitate from applying this reality to the people of his time and to accept the consequences of such an application on his friends and foes.

"So long as this issue is not clear to the Muslim, he will not be able to set straight his scales. The methods and procedures would not be clear to him. His conscience will not be able to distinguish between the truth and falsehood. He will not be able to take a single step in the right direction. Even if it happens that this issue remains unclear to the great majority of the people, it cannot remain unclear to those who are ‘Muslims,’ and who wish to deserve this majestic appellation."