153. Although the verse addresses the common believers and is general in its application, it seems to be specially speaking of the hypocrites. And the prohibition is for Muslims from entering into alliance with the Jews and Christians in opposition of Islam and Muslims. It was originally revealed in connection with ‘Ubadah ibn Samit and `Abdullah ibn Ubayy. After Badr, ‘Ubadah went to the Prophet and told him that he had several hundred Jewish allies whom he was intending to disown in favor of the friendship with Allah and his Messenger. But ‘Ubayy insisted on their friendship and this verse was revealed. That is the opinion of ‘Atiyyah b. Sa`id, Zuhri and Ibn Is-haq. However, Suddi has said that after the defeat of Uhud, some Muslims suggested that they befriend the Jews against the pagans. Allah revealed this verse (Ibn Jarir).

Ibn Ishaq provides the background when he says that the statements of ‘Ubadah ibn Samit and `Abdullah ibn Ubayy were made at the time the Muslims laid siege to the forts of the Jewish tribe Banu Qaynuqa, who had broken their treaty with the Prophet. `Abdullah ibn Ubayy thrust his hand in the pocket of the mail coat the Prophet had on him, and held him until he had obtained pardon for the Jews locked in their forts. It was then that the two made their statements and Allah revealed this verse. Further, it is reported in Ahmad and Abu Da'ud that on another occasion, when the Prophet visited `Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who had fallen sick, he reminded him that he had told him not to befriend the Jews. Ibn Ubayy replied: "As`ad b. Zurarah had angered them and (as a consequence) he died" (Ibn Kathir).

(`Umar did not even approve of their employment in key positions: Au.). It is reported that when Abu Musa al-Ash`ari presented the accounts of his governorate prepared by his secretary, `Umar was much impressed by the presentation and asked him if his secretary could read out in the mosque a letter that `Umar had received from Syria. Abu Musa said he could not because he can not enter the mosque. "Why not?" asked `Umar. "Is he in a state of impurity?" Abu Musa told him: "That's not the reason. Rather, the man is a Christian." `Umar recited this verse and told him to remove him from the post (Ibn Kathir).

154. Most commentators have said that the meaning is: "Jews are friends to Jews, and Christians are friends to Christians," since the two communities are pitted against each other in hatred and distrust. However, some have pointed out the possibility of the two communities allying with each other in opposition of the Muslims (Au.).

Majid comments: "The Jews and Christians have much in common, and can, and do, readily form a combination against Islam. As the most recent instance of their animosity against Islam, witness the Christian Britain’s zealous sponsoring of ‘Zionism' and ‘Jewish home in Palestine.'"

Asad writes: "However ... this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term waliyy has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a combination of two terms - is always dependent on the context."

For a fuller understanding refer to Thanwi's explanation as in 3: 48 of this work.

155. In sum, Allah forbid the believers from taking the Jews and Christians as their allies against the believers and has declared that those who take them as allies against the believers in Islam are one of them.

Hence we see that although Banu Taqhlib were not Christians in the true sense, but since they were the allies of, and friendly to the (Roman) Christians, inclining toward them in many religious matters, Ibn `Abbas had ruled that they were to be treated as Christians and their slaughtered animal was lawful to the Muslims, although Hasan and Ibn Sirin (also `Ali: Au.) did not think their slaughtered animal was lawful to the Muslims (Ibn Jarir).

156. ‘Asa is literally "may be" or "perhaps" but "when used in reference to an act of God it signifies surety of the happening" (Majid).

157. Suddi has said that by "victory" the allusion is to the fall of Makkah, and by "command" it is jizyah (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

158. That's exactly what happened. The Jews of Madinah were either killed or expelled and those of the pagans who befriended them gained nothing from their alliance (Qurtubi); and, throughout history, Muslims never gained anything from the alliance of the unbelievers, nor will they ever (Au.).

Wilayah and Friendship

Despite their personal experiences in every day dealings with the Muslims, both at the individual as well as state level, the non-Muslims level the charge against them that their religion is intolerant and unaccommodating. It is against peaceful co-existence. One of the Qur'anic verses cited as an example is the one under discussion. But, since Arabic words frequently occurring in the translation can be irksome to many, we have resorted to an easier rendering. Otherwise, a proper rendering should be as follows: "O ye who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for awliya'. They are friends to each other. And whosoever amongst you takes them for awliya', he is indeed of them. Surely Allah guides not the unjust people." That is, the verse in question is speaking of wilayah (of which "friendship" is an inadequate equivalent). Wilayah is to take someone close to what is in one's bosom, sharing the secrets therein keeping back nothing, and trusting him to the fullest degree, as one would trust his own self. It is in this sense that the Muslims have been ordered not to take the Jews and Christians their awliya' (sing. waliyy). The verse does not disapprove of friendship in the ordinary sense: in the sense, in which Jews and Christians themselves understand the word, and the sense in which Jews and Christians, or any other people, are friends unto each other. Islam does not bar the Muslims from that kind of friendship at the individual or state level.

The term the Qur'an has used, wilayah, is, quite alien to non-Muslims. They have no concept of it at all. It exists among Muslims alone, and manifests itself by way of complete faith, trust and love for the sake of Allah, between two Muslims otherwise totally strangers to each other. It can exist between two Muslims that do not even speak each other's language and have run across each other only a moment earlier. They might not be friends to each other, yet, they can be awliya' to each other.

In contrast friendship requires sharing of certain opinions (not necessarily faith), language, culture, long companionship, and proving true under trying circumstances. Yet, friendship can break off. Two Christians, for instance, can be good friends for a long spell but break off for ever. That cannot happen between two awliya'.

Now, since non-Muslims are totally ignorant of this concept of wilayah, they can never be awliya' to one another, far from being so to a Muslim. Muslims therefore, have been told not to attempt wilayah with them. If they do, it will be a one sided affair: an affair in which the Muslim will try to be a waliyy, whereas the non-Muslim will only try to be a good friend. Surely that would be an odd arrangement, in which the non-Muslim will draw full advantage, whereas the Muslim will be a loser.

As for friendship with non-Muslims, Islam encourages it. Islam encourages its adherents to be friendly with everyone around. Indeed, it expects them to be not merely friendly with the people, rather, one step ahead, it expects them to be good toward them. If they happen to be within the gamut of interactions, then Islam expects the Muslims to treat them well and look after their interests. If they happen to be neighbors, Islam disapproves that Muslims sleep well fed, while they go hungry. The Prophet himself, when there was famine, sent across food to the Makkans although they were at war with him and were attempting to get him assassinated.

Again, as for relations between one state and another, Islam does not approve of the state of a perpetual belligerency. The Qur'an says (8: 61):

{وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ } [الأنفال: 61]

"If they are inclined toward peace, make peace with them, and place trust in Allah."

When the Muslims made peace at Hudaybiyyah in 6 A.H., the Qur'an called it a "victory" despite the disadvantageous terms of the treaty. Yes, it allows - rather orders - the Muslims to retaliate if attacked, and fight to the end. In fact, in case of declared state of war, it recommends that the Muslims launch preemptory attack to weaken the enemy. But in the normal course of things its dictum is (28: 77): "Do not look for corruption in the land. Verily, Allah does not approve of the corrupt." For ordinary, peaceful circumstances, it tells the Muslims (5: 2):

{وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ} [المائدة: 2]

"Co-operate with each other in matters of virtue and piety but do not co-operate in matters of sins and transgression."

It also tells them to co-operate with people and go with them, hand in hand, to the extent they can go. The Qur'an said (3: 64):

{يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ} [آل عمران: 64]

"O people of the Book! Come to an equitable term between us and you: that we worship none but Allah and associate not aught with Him, and that some of us do not declare others as lords besides Allah."

This short note should help remove some misconceptions about Islam, particularly the idea, originally spread by the Orientalists, that Muslims are required by Islam to be perpetually at war with the outside world. Yes, there are lots of things over which the two, Islam and non-Islam, differ with each other. But, they are not sufficient causes for a permanent state of war between them. So long as both are just, equitable, do not interfere in each other's affairs, and are ready to resolve their issues peacefully, they can co-exist and meet on many platforms for mutual benefit.

Finally, it should also be noted that the term for friendship in Arabic is sadaqah or khullah. But, they are rarely used in Arabic. Therefore, the Qur'an employs this one term for two meanings: depending on the context. When it is employed for Muslims, it is in the meaning of awliya'. But when it employs for non-Muslims, such as, "some of them are awliya' to others," it uses the term in the sense of "friendship." And so, a proper rendering would be, "they are friends to each other" (Au.).

159.In this verse a prediction was hidden that soon there would be apostasy (Shafi`). And the apostasy referred to here started to appear even before the Prophet's death when Musaylimah the Liar, Aswad al-`Ansi and Tulayha b. Khuwaylid, claimed prophethood and gained some of their own following among the Muslims. Of these, Wahshi killed Musaylimah, and used to say, "Before Islam I killed the best of Muslims and after Islam I killed the worst of the (unbelievers)." Khuwaylid was defeated in a battle, ran away to Syria, but subsequently became a good Muslim. Aswad al-`Ansi was killed just one day before the Prophet's death. Nonetheless, the truly serious apostasy took place immediately after the death of the Prophet, as a result of which there was a time when Prayers were being offered in no more than three places: Makkah, Madinah and in the Ju`aathi mosque of the `Abdul Qays tribe in Bahrayn (area above Oman in the south, and south of Kuwait in the north of the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula). The apostates were of two kinds: 1) those who had repudiated the religion of Islam itself, and 2) those who had refused to pay the zakah, although they believed in the rest of the religion of Islam. They said, "We shall pray and fast, but shall not pay the zakah." It was Abu Bakr who fought against them and subdued both the classes (Zamakhshari, Qurtubi).

Initially, none of the other Companions seconded his opinion to fight them until Abu Bakr addressed them in words: "It is my obligation that I fight those who, after their Islam during the time of the Prophet, should refuse now to live by its commandments. If they were to assemble together against me, all the forces of the Jinns, the trees and the rocks, and I am alone against them, even then I shall conduct Jihad against them." With those words he climbed his horse and was taking off when other Companions went after him, brought him back to his seat, and then it was that plans were laid down for military action against various apostate groups (Shafi`).

160. Ibn Jarir writes that according to the earliest interpretation, the allusion by those "who will turn away from their religion" is to the renegades immediately after the death of the Prophet, and by the words "those whom He loves, and who love Him," the allusion is to Abu Bakr and others (the Muhajirun and Ansar) who fought against the renegades. It is also widely reported that when the verse about those "whom He loves and who love Him," was revealed, the Prophet pointed to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari and said: "It is this man and his people who have been alluded to." (The report is in many hadith collections including Hakim who has assessed it as sahih: Shawkani). But Mujahid, Shahr b. Hawshab and Muhammad ibn Ka`b have said that it is whole of the Yemeni people that have been alluded to (and not merely the Ash`ari of them: Au.) Ibn Jarir himself prefers the second interpretation and says that those who were alluded to (of the people of Yemen), appeared only at the time of `Umar, since, the earlier generations were of the renegades.

Imam Razi however disagrees that the verse under discussion is applicable to Salman al-Farsi or the second-generation Yemenis. (Although it might be applicable in the general sense: Au.). Rather, the context says that it is applicable to Abu Bakr and those who swore allegiance to him and who fought against: (i) false prophets (ii) apostates after the Prophet, and (iii) those who refused to pay zakah. It was they who gave Islam the upper hand that lasts to this day.

Mahabbah

Love of Allah by His bondsmen draws a good deal of commentary from Alusi. Herewith the sum and substance: Apparently, there is nothing wrong in the answer which is normally given out when scholars are asked about the exact nature and essence of a believer's love of Allah. The usual answer is: it is nothing but His obedience. That is to say, obedience is a demand as well as a proof of one's love of Allah. In other words obedience is equated with love and love with obedience, each treated as a synonym of the other. (But love itself is not defined). Therefore, this answer needs some modification because, firstly, it is disallowed that the text of the Qur'an be given an allegorical meaning unless the apparent and literal meaning is completely out of question. (In this context, love cannot be replaced with obedience). We might, rather, look at the literal meaning of the term mahabbah to find out if can be understood in its original sense and meaning. Now, the lexical meaning of the term mahabbah is one's inclination toward someone or something with a feeling of delight. Now, this feeling of delight is of two kinds: sensual, such as what one derives when he looks at a beautiful face, or when he eats a delicious food, etc.; the other kind is known as the rational kind (`aqliyy), such as the delight one derives out of status, power, knowledge and the like. Further, the intensity of the feelings also differs. For instance, the pleasure one derives out of ruling over a large nation is not the same as what he derives out of ruling over a village. Consequently, the pleasure derived from knowledge will depend upon the kind and nature of knowledge. If it is high quality knowledge then the pleasure would also be of a high degree, and vice versa. Now, man's knowledge tells him that there is nothing that is better or more perfect than our Lord. Consequently, the pleasure derived from the knowledge of His Person and Attributes can be the most delightful thing, and therefore, the love arising out of it can only be the most soothing (to the soul). It is when one has gained this mahabbah that he is inspired to obedience and concordance (al-ta`at wa al-muwafiqat). Thus, it is demonstrated that a believer's love of Allah is not only possible, rather, a reality, and, in fact, a necessary condition of faith. And, thus, in the light of the above discussion, it is possible to interpret the word mahabbah in this context in its literal sense, without having to look for alternative interpretations. It should also be clear that Allah's obedience is an outgrowth, demand, or effect of the mahabbah (and not its cause, even if its value toward that effect cannot be underestimated: Au.). Consider for instance, the report of the bedouin who asked about the Hour of the Doom. The Prophet asked him: "What have you prepared for it?" The man answered: "Not much by way of acts and deeds. But I love Allah and His Messenger." The Prophet replied: "A man will be with those he loved." It is evident from this that acts of obedience and good deeds are not a necessary ingredient of love, nor they are love themselves. The bedouin in fact denied their absence but claimed the existence of love. And the Prophet did not deny him rather acknowledged his claim.

Again, continues Alusi, the feelings of love differ in intensity. ‘Ishq is the higher and more intensive form of love. But those who have not experienced it deny it, just as a child does not believe that older people draw great pleasure from sexual intercourse. For him, to be playing with the toys, is the supreme end of pleasure. In the like manner, one who is immersed in sensual or sexual pleasures cannot imagine that there is any other pleasure beyond what he experiences, such as, for example, that of power, or popularity. Thus, every group makes fun of the one that is above it and believes that the others are wasting their time.

Alusi also adds a little below: Al-Sulami has said that it is by the grace of Allah's love of His slaves that they love Him. Otherwise, how can they ever find His love? What comparison is there, after all, between dust and the Lord of all lords? He also said that a sure sign of love is drunkenness. Otherwise, it is not the real thing. A bedouin woman said about love that it is "too secret to be shown and too revealing to be successfully hidden." It is hidden like fire in the stones. If you strike you might see a spark. But, if you leave it alone, you will suspect nothing. Another point that might be considered is that if this is the description of the love of the incorporeal, then what do you imagine of the love of the corporeal - that of Allah toward His slaves?!

Sayyid Qutb adds: "When, as we know, love is beyond description, being a feeling that defies the power of words and expression, little of it, therefore, do we come across in human writings. The following lines of Rabi`a ‘Adawiyyah have always had a special effect on me:

Were it not for Your Being sweetening this bitter life,

Were it not for Your approval, while the people are irate,

Were it not for the making between me and You,

Between me and the worlds is all but destruction.

Your Love assured, all else is endurable

For, all that is above the dust is dust."

The lines however, belong to Abu Firas, famously known by his kunniyyah as Farazdaq who died in 110 AH (Au.).

161. Being soft implies that if there is, for instance, a dispute between two believers over rights, both are yielding to each other (Shafi`).

162. Imam Razi points out that this verse is a definite repudiation of the Shi`ah's faith which holds that Abu Bakr and those who swore allegiance to him turned apostates when they denied `Ali the right of caliphate. Had that been the case, surely Allah would have kept His promise and brought forth a people who would have fought those renegades. But, as a matter of fact, it is exactly the opposite that happened. It was Abu Bakr and those who had declared allegiance to him that fought against the renegades and subdued them to the rule of Islam.

163. Musnad Ahmad has recorded a narration of Abu Dharr in which he says,

عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ قَالَ أَمَرَنِي خَلِيلِي صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعٍ أَمَرَنِي بِحُبِّ الْمَسَاكِينِ وَالدُّنُوِّ مِنْهُمْ وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَنْظُرَ إِلَى مَنْ هُوَ دُونِي وَلَا أَنْظُرَ إِلَى مَنْ هُوَ فَوْقِي وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَصِلَ الرَّحِمَ وَإِنْ أَدْبَرَتْ وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ لَا أَسْأَلَ أَحَدًا شَيْئًا وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقُولَ بِالْحَقِّ وَإِنْ كَانَ مُرًّا وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ لَا أَخَافَ فِي اللَّهِ لَوْمَةَ لَائِمٍ وَأَمَرَنِي أَنْ أُكْثِرَ مِنْ قَوْلِ لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ فَإِنَّهُنَّ مِنْ كَنْزٍ تَحْتَ الْعَرْشِ: مسند أحمد

"My friend enjoined me seven things: that I should love the poor and seek their company, that I should look at one below me and not at one above me, that I should join the kin even if they abandon me, that I should not ask anyone anything, that I should speak out the truth, even if it were to be bitter, that I should not fear in Allah's affairs the criticism of a critic, and, that I should often say the words (tr.: ‘There is no power nor strength but with Allah’); because they are from the treasures below the ‘Arsh."

Ahmad has another tradition narrated by Abu Sa`id al-Khudri which reports the Prophet as saying:

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَلَا لَا يَمْنَعَنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ رَهْبَةُ النَّاسِ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِحَقٍّ إِذَا رَآهُ أَوْ شَهِدَهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُقَرِّبُ مِنْ أَجَلٍ وَلَا يُبَاعِدُ مِنْ رِزْقٍ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِحَقٍّ أَوْ يُذَكِّرَ بِعَظِيمٍ

"Lo! Let not someone's fear prevent you from speaking out the truth that he has observed. For, it will neither distance him away nor bring him closer to his sustenance if he should speak out the truth or make a statement of import."

Another report of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, also in Ahmad as well in Ibn Majah, quotes the Prophet (saws) as having said:

لاَ يَحْقِرَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ نَفْسَهُ أَنْ يَرَى أَمْرًا لِلَّهِ عَلَيْهِ فِيهِ مَقَالٌ لاَ يَقُومُ بِهِ فَيَلْقَى اللَّهَ فَيَقُولَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَقُولَ يَوْمَ كَذَا وَكَذَا قَالَ يَا رَبِّ إِنِّى خَشِيتُ النَّاسَ قَالَ قَالَ إِيَّاىَ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشَى

"Let not one of you belittle himself to say in an affair pertaining to Allah whatever that ought to be said, to be asked on the Day of Judgment as to what prevented him from speaking out in connection with such and such an affair. He will reply, ‘I feared the people.' He will be told, ‘I was more deserving that you feared Me.'" (Nevertheless, the above ahadith have to be balanced with) the sahih one in Ibn Majah which reports that the Prophet once said:

"ما ينبغي لمؤمن أن يذل نفسه"، قالوا: وكيف يذلّ نفسه يا رسول الله؟ قال: "يتحمل من البلاء ما لا يطيق"

"Let not one of you belittle himself." He was asked: "How can a believer do that?" He replied: "By bringing upon himself a tribulation that he cannot bear" (Ibn Kathir).

164. Shabbir writes: Allah's act of strengthening Islam goes on and on. In every age we observe that whenever a set of foolish Muslims intend to give up their religion, Allah raises another set of people who embrace Islam and who prove to be more knowledgeable and more capable than the old Muslims.

165. The word in the original is "raki`un." It draws the following comment from Rashid Rida: "In pre-Islamic times, when a man abandoned the duties devoting himself to one God alone, he was referred to as "Raki`". He also quotes a couple of poetical pieces to prove the point.

Suddi, Mujahid and others have said that the verse was especially referring to `Ali ibn abi Talib who gave a ring to a beggar while he was in the act of ruku` in a Prayer (Ibn Jarir). But Ibn Kathir traces several reports concerning `Ali and this particular act of charity and proves the untrustworthiness of all of them. Further, he adds that linguistically also it would be erroneous to translate the verse as: "... those who spend in charity while they are bowing down."