92. `Amir, Mujahid, Hasan and others have said that there were some people in Makkah who were inclined toward Islam but were held back by some doubts. They had come out along with the pagans. But when they saw a few Muslims ready to take on the formidable Quraysh, they remarked, "These have been deluded by their religion." Mujahid named them as Qays b. al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Harith b. Zam`ah b. al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, `Ali b. Umayyah and `Aas b. Munabbih b. al-Hajjaj (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

93. Rashid Rida, known in his own time as a "rationalist" writes: There are examples of individuals of this Ummah who gave up all material means, placing their trust in Allah, and, so Allah placed His bounties at their disposal. Such things happened to them for which no other explanation could be offered save that Allah treated them in accordance with their trust in Him. We have the example of people such as Ibrahim b. Ad-hum. He was formerly a prince. He abandoned his kingdom and devoted himself to Allah's worship without bothering about the means of sustenance; or others, such as Ibrahim al-Khawas, or Shaqiq al-Balkhi. In fact, in our own times we encountered an example of the ancients. It was `Abdul Baqi, an Afghani scholar who, after the completion of his studies went to India to master philosophy and dialectics. But he dreamed that a very handsome person was telling him that he was playing with human secretion. He interpreted the dream as pointing to his occupation with the Greek philosophy. So he gave it up and dedicated his time to devotions. He migrated to the Arab world. He performed Hajj on foot every year and returned to Syria, dividing his time there with us in Qalmun, Tripoli (now in Lebanon) and Hims. Then he would start off for Hijaz for the next Hajj. That was his routine every year without ever carrying with him any money. All that he would carry was a book which, after he had finished reading, would give away to someone. In free time he gave lessons in Tawhid and Principles of Religion (Usul al-Din). My own friend `Abdul Hamid Zahrawi told me that "if we had not seen this man with our own eyes, and tried him in several ways for years together, we would not have believed that this Ummah would have created characters such as Ibrahim b. Ad-hum or Khawas al-Balkhi."

Rashid Rida follows up with the story of his own mentor (Sheikh Muhammad `Abduh) who was living in exile in Beirut. He was approached by a close associate who told him that his father had died and he needed some money immediately. The Sheikh says, "I had no money with me but the month's salary that I had received from the Madrasah in which I taught. And the money was meant to pay off the store from which we bought our provisions of the month. I put my trust in Allah and gave the money to the man. And what a surprise? The same day I received by telex transfer a larger sum from a man who owed it to me for a long time. The interesting part is that I had been urging the man in the past to pay back, since I was hard up, but to no avail. What other explanation was there, except that Allah had induced him to pay, and, on that particular day?"

94. Although, the immediate reference is to the pagans of Badr, but since this verse has been repeated in other chapters, it helps us understand that the application is general. Every unbeliever faces this at the time of his death (Ibn Kathir).

95. "This marks out the Just God of Islam from the capricious gods of polytheism and also from the ‘jealous' God of the Bible. Cf. the OT: ‘I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the inequity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.' (Ex. 20: 5)" - Majid.

96. The immediate reference was, according to Suddi, to the Quraysh whom Allah blessed with a Prophet, but they were not grateful about it, so He turned him over to the Ansar (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Shawkani).

Zamakhshari has another point. He asks the question as to what blessing did Fir`awn and his folk or the Quraysh possessed that was replaced with an evil? It was not after all an approved situation, that they should have been led into a disapproved one. And then answers that just as an approved situation can be altered to a disapproved one, so also, a disapproved situation can be altered to something worse than that. These people were pagans, worshiping idols: an evil situation. But, after Prophets were sent to them, but they had rejected them, their situation was turned into a worse one, calling for a punishment.

Rashid Rida adds: The wrong notion into which people keep falling, such as the Jews and Christians, or the Muslims after them, is the assumption that once Allah has placed a blessing on a people, He would not withdraw it, no matter how they respond to it. They overlook the fact that leadership of the world falls in the hands of the morally superior.

Thanwi brings out a point from Alusi's "Bab-al-Isharah": One implication of the verse is that when one gives up a voluntary good deed he used to practice, he suffers spiritual loss.

Shabbir has brought out another point from Shah `Abdul Qadir: "The textual words "ma bi-anfusihim" imply that primarily, blessings are not withdrawn without a change of heart, i.e., an alteration in beliefs and intentions. (Perhaps what he meant is that inner conditions play a greater role than the outer ones: Au.).

97. The textual word is "dawabb" (sing. daabbah), which is employed in common parlance for beasts. Its use here for those who make little use of their power of intellect is to say in other words that they are little better than beasts (Manar and others).

98. Mujahid has said that the allusion was to Banu Qurayzah who were used to making and breaking pacts with the turn of the wind (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Zamakhshari writes: (The order in the above verse may be noted). The worst of men are the unbelievers. Then among the unbelievers the worst are those who persist in their disbelief. And the worst of those who persist are those who break their pacts after every renewal.

Shabbir adds: Those who have decided on disbelief and rebellion, and are unmindful of their ultimate end, such indeed are the worst of animals. Pharaohs were people of the same order. The Qur'an said about them: "Whenever a wrath fell upon them they cried out: ‘O Musa. Supplicate to your Lord by the promise you have. If you will relieve us (O Musa) from this wrath, we shall believe in you and shall let go with you the Children of Israel.' But when We relieved them of the wrath until a term they were to come to, behold, they went back (on their word)." This is how the Jews behaved with the Prophet. Every time they made a treaty with him to the effect that they will not aid the pagans, they broke it. When reminded, they'd say, "Oh, we had forgotten about it."

Mawdudi comments: "After arriving in Madina, the Prophet (peace upon him) concluded a treaty of mutual co-operation and good neighborliness with them (the Jews)... But somehow the Jewish rabbis and scholars were irked by the Prophet's preaching of pure monotheism and moral uprightness, let alone his scathing criticism of the deviations which appeared in Jewish belief and conduct. They were constantly engaged, therefore, in efforts to sabotage the new religious movement. In this respect, they left no stone unturned. They collaborated with the hypocrites who were apparently an integral part of the Muslim body-politic. To serve the same end they fanned flames to rejuvenate the old animosities between the Aws and Khazraj tribes which had brought about bloodshed and fratricide in pre-Islamic times. They attempted to hatch conspiracies against Islam in collaboration with the Quraysh and other tribes. What was all the more deplorable was that they indulged in these nefarious activities despite their treaty of friendship and co-operation with the Prophet (peace be on him.).

"... Apprehending that the victory in the battle of Badr would help the Muslims consolidate their position, they carried out their hostile activities against Islam even more vigorously. Ka`b b. Ahsraf, a Jewish chief, went to Makka personally and recited stirring elegies for their dead warriors with a view to provoking the Quraysh into hostile action against the Muslims. It was the same Ka`b b. Ashraf who considered the Muslim victory in the battle of Badr such a catastrophe that he regarded death to be better than life. In his own words: ‘The earth’s belly has become preferable to us than its back.' Banu Qaynuqa', a Jewish tribe, in brazen violation of their agreement of friendship and alliance with the Muslims, took to indecent molestation and teasing the Muslim women who passed through their quarters. Whey the Prophet (peace be on him) reproached them for this shameful conduct, they threatened the Prophet (peace on him), saying: ‘Do not be deluded by your encounter with a people who had no knowledge of warfare, and so you had good luck with them. By God, if we were to wage war against you, you will know that we are the men.'"

Majid writes: "Of the three Jewish classes here referred to, two were sent into exile and the third exterminated. (Then he quotes): ‘They were a turbulent sect, always setting the people of Medina by the ears .. Both tribes had violated the original treaty, and had endeavored in every way to bring Mohammad and his religion to ridicule and destruction. The only question is whether their punishment was not too light. Of the third class a fearful example was made, not by Mohammad, but by an arbiter appointed by themselves' (LSK)."

99. That is, they do not fear anything: neither the disgrace (of this world) nor the Fire (of the next) - Kashshaf.

100. The textual word "sharrid" literally stands for dispersal. But, some of the earliest commentators have said that it means, "hand down an exemplary punishment" (Razi).

Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Hasan al-Busri and others have said that the Prophet was commanded to punish those he overpowered of his opponents - who broke their pledges every now and then - in an exemplary manner so as to discourage others who were watching the events and waiting for their own chance to strike at the Muslims (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Razi comments: There are many verses that direct the Prophet to be kind and forbearing. For instance (21: 107):

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ [الأنبياء : 107]

"We have not sent you but as mercy for the worlds."

And, (3: 159):

فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ لِنْتَ لَهُمْ [آل عمران : 159]

"But, by Allah’s grace, you are soft with them."

But here, he was ordered to be harsh on the unbelievers because they were a people who had stayed firm on disbelief through and through (despite clear signs) and (in addition), had broken their pledges.

101. Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi and others point out that although "khawf" is the textual word used here, meaning. ‘if you fear,' or, ‘if you are apprehensive,' it has actually been used in the sense of "yaqin" and therefore the meaning is, "if you have definite proof of their on-coming treachery."

102. That is, even if definite signs of treachery are noticed, the Prophet was not to strike at them immediately, rather, he was to announce that he was quit of the treaty so that they could prepare themselves for a war (that is the meaning of the words "on equal terms"), in which event he could not be said to have dishonored a treaty. This is what happened with Banu Qurayzah, who secretly lobbied with Abu Sufyan for revenge (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Razi points out that the rule enunciated in the verse applies to the situation where there is a strong sign of the on-coming treachery. But, when a treaty is actually broken, then, no respite need be given. For example, when the Makkans broke the treaty by attacking Banu Khuzaa`ah, there was no need to send them the information that the treaty was null and void.

Rashid Rida writes: Islam lays great stress on honoring the treaties; why not, when Allah says (8: 58):

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْخَائِنِينَ [الأنفال : 58]

"Allah does not love the treacherous?"

A hadith preserved in Bayhaqi's Shu`ab al-Iman reports Maymun b. Mahran as narrating: "In three things believers and unbelievers are ruled alike: When you have given your word, keep it, whether the other person is a Muslim or non-Muslim. If there is blood-relationship between you and another person, be true to the relationship, whether the other person is a Muslim or a non-Muslim. And, whoever entrusted you with a trust (amanah), honor it, whether the person is a Muslim or a non-Muslim."

Mawdudi notes: "To annul a treaty unilaterally and to launch an armed attack without any warning was a common practice in the time of ancient jahiliyyah (Ignorance). That practice remains in vogue in the ‘civilized' jahiliyyah of the present day as well. Recent instances in point are the Russian invasion of Germany and the Russian and British military action against Iran during the Second World War. Such actions are usually justified on the ground that a pervious warning would have put the enemy on the alert and would have enabled him to put up even stiffer resistance. It is also justified by saying that a military initiative has the effect of pre-emptying a similar military initiative by the enemy. If such pleading can absolve people of their moral obligations, then every offence is justifiable..."

Two decades after Mawdudi, pure jungle law prevails on the globe. The single super-power, the United State of America, goes about bombing, in peace time, any country at will, on such false pretexts as unjustifiable to its own public (Au.).

Mawdudi also writes: "It should also be pointed out that an unannounced attack, according to Islamic law, is lawful in one situation: when the ally (perhaps he means the treaty signee: Au.) has clearly violated the treaty and has blatantly indulged in hostile action. In deriving this rule Muslim jurists have drawn on the Prophet's own conduct in regard to the Quraysh who had breached the Hudaybiyyah Treaty in dealing with Banu Khuza`ah. In this instance, the Prophet did not notify them that the treaty had been annulled. On the contrary he invaded Makkah without a warning."

103. "All this implies disapproval of counter-treachery even in self-defense as justified and approved by some other religions" (Majid). Therefore, Shafi` writes, no preparations for war should be made before an official announcement of annulment of the treaty is made, so that the enemy too has the same time at its disposal for preparations, as Muslims have.

Other commentators write: The earliest Muslims were very conscious of any act of treachery. Once at the time of Mu`awiyyah they had made a time-bound peace-treaty with the Romans. He wished to use the time he had until the end of the term to get his forces nearer to the enemy lines (for ease of attack as soon as the date expired). An old rider protested. He said: "Allah is Great. Allah is Great. Be true to your word and do not be treacherous. The Prophet has said,

من كان بينه وبين قوم عهد فلا يشد عقدة ، ولا يحلها حتى يمضي أمدها ، وينبذ إليهم على سواء

‘Whenever there is a treaty between a people, let them not fortify it, nor be treacherous until it expires. And then throw it back to them, on equal footing.'" These words reached Mu`awiyyah and he gave up the idea. The Sheikh was `Amr b. `Anbasah and the narration is in Abu Da'ud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, and Ibn Hibban. Tirmidhi graded it Hasan Sahih.

Tirmidhi has also reported that once when Salman al-Farsi arrived at the foot of the (enemy) forts he told his forces: "Let me alone, until I have invited them to Islam in the manner the Prophet used to." Then he (advanced close to the walls and) called out: "I was one of you. Then Allah guided me to Islam. If you embrace Islam, you shall enjoy the same privileges as we enjoy with the same kind of responsibilities. But if you refuse, then alternatively, agree to pay jizyah in humiliation. But if you refuse to do that also, then we will fight out. And Allah does not approve of the treacherous." He did that for three days. Then, on the fourth day they attacked them and by Allah's grace they were victorious. Tirmidhi graded this report Hasan Sahih (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Qurtubi also writes: The Prophet has said in a hadith of Muslim:

لِكُلِّ غَادِرٍ لِوَاءٌ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرْفَعُ لَهُ بِقَدْرِ غَدْرِهِ أَلاَ وَلاَ غَادِرَ أَعْظَمُ غَدْرًا مِنْ أَمِيرِ عَامَّةٍ

"Every treacherous person shall have a flag with him on the Day of Judgment that will go up in height in proportion to the seriousness of his treachery. Lo! There is not a treachery worse than that committed by the leader of a people."

Sayyid Qutb offers his remarks: "We might also recall at this point that these commandments were being revealed at a time when the humans did not know of any other law in affairs of war but the law of the jungle; in other words the law of force, which cannot be challenged but by force. It might also be pointed out that it was the law of the jungle which remained prevalent even after these revelations in the rest of the non-Islamic world - until the eighteenth century. Until this time, Europe had no law of its own to follow while dealing with nations and of which we can only get some details out of what transpired between it and the Islamic world. And, even when formulated, and developed, it is still far away from the lofty ideals embodied in the Islamic law. Those who are over-impressed by the Western laws would do well to compare the two."

Without provoking any controversy, one might point out that once again in the 21st century, the Western world demonstrated that it has returned to the jungle law. The “Iran-Contra Affair” reveals that those in charge of subversion of foreign countries in USA, openly admitted that they believed in no law when the security of their country was, presumably, involved. The Jews in Palestine regularly rape boys, the Americans raped them in Iraq, and the allied Western forces in Afghanistan cut out body parts of the fallen Afghans as trophies. They are too soon back to the jungle-law, after a brief pretense of civilization.

Here are excerpts from a single article on atrocities in Iraq:

“Casual killing started early in the invasion. Corporal Russ Aston, who later died in an assault on a police station in Al Majar, wrote, in March 2003 : " I've shot 4-5 Iraqis and one of them was quite young, about 14-15 ... I felt bad at the time, but I'm OK now." In a call to his mother he reportedly said: "It's just killing for killing's sake out here ... I don't know how I am going to cope with what I've seen."

Perhaps the most detailed account of the treatment of Iraqis by the British forces can be found in the legal Inquiry in to the death of Baha Mousa (26) a receptionist at Basra's Haitham Hotel. The father of two, whose 22 year old wife had recently died of cancer, was arrested with nine others, on 14th September 2003, by personnel of the 1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Two days later he was dead, with "at least" ninety three injuries to his body, including fractured ribs and a broken nose

Deaths at the hands of the army, disputed by the Ministry of Defence, include twenty Iraqis, which witnesses claimed were taken to the British base at Amara, on 14th May 2004. Undisputed is that the next day twenty bodies were returned to their families. Injuries alleged included evidence of torture, mutilation, removal of eyes, and stab wounds, according to lawyers. (See source below).

The above account is not the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of pages will be required for a fuller account of the jungle law.

"... killed wantonly, tortured ... the people of that unhappy land have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ...

“More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile ... The air, soil, water, blood and genes drenched with depleted uranium ... the most awful birth defects ... unexploded cluster bombs lie in wait for children to pick them up ... a river of blood runs alongside the Euphrates and Tigris ... through a country that may never be put back together again." (Source: British Military in Iraq: A Shocking Legacy, By Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research.ca/, USA Trends, etc.)

What happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and happens in Palestine on daily basis, is so horrendous, that it has led many intellectuals to lose hope in humanity, and consider the situation in the West as irredeemable (Au.).